SB^^^bS^^ 
 
 Fr^" 
 
 ^ 
 
 PRINCETON,  N.  J.  -' 
 
 §^e//. 
 
 % 
 
 BS440  .S547  1871  v. 4 
 
 Smith,  William,  Sir,  1813-18! 
 
 3. 
 
 Dictionary  of  the  Bible  . . . 
 
 Number. 
 
 ^'?^ 
 
 :>>^ 
 
i^^.;« 
 
 J^'h   . 
 
 ,j:;^v:e 
 
 *^^ft^"^ 
 
 M^,.^% 
 
 T^ 
 
 •:4: 
 
 'W    '     % 
 
DR.   WILLIAM  SMITHS 
 
 DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE; 
 
 COMPRISING    ITS 
 
 ANTIQUITIES,    BIOGRAPHY,    GEOGUAPHY, 
 AND    NATURAL    HISTORY. 
 
 REVISED    AND    EDITED    BY 
 
 PROFESSOR   H.    B.   HACKETT,   D.  D. 
 
 WITH   THE   COOPERATION   OF 
 
 EZRA  ABBOT,  LL.  D. 
 
 ASSISTANT   LIBRARIAN   OP   HARVARD   COLLEGE. 
 
 VOLUME   IV. 
 REGEM-MELECH  to   ZUZIMS. 
 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 NEW  YORK: 
 
 PUBLISHED   BY   HURD   AND   HOUGHTON. 
 
 Cambribge:  liitjcrsibe  |)r£ss. 
 
 187L 
 
Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1870,  by 
 
 HuKi)  AND  Houghton, 
 in  ilic  Office  of  ttie  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 
 
 RIVERSIDE,    CAMKRIDGE: 
 
 S  T  K  R  E  t>  T  Y  P  E  D    AND    PRINTED    B  K 
 
 H.   O.    HOUGHTON   AND    COMPANY. 
 
WRITERS   IN  THE    ENGLISH   EDITION. 
 
 INITIALS.  NAMES. 
 
 H.  A.  Very  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  D.  D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
 
 H.  B.  Rev.  Henry  Bailey,  B.  D.,  Warden  of  St.  Augustine's  College,  Can- 
 
 terbury ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 H.  B.  Rev.  HoRAxius  Bonar,  D.  D.,  Kelso,  N.  B. ;  Author  of  "  The  Land 
 
 of  Promise." 
 
 [The  geographical  articles,  signed  H.  B.,  are  written  by  Dr.  Bonar :  those  on  other  subjects, 
 signed  H.  B.,  are  written  by  Mr.  Bailey.] 
 
 A.  B.  Rev.   Alfred  Barry,  B.  D.,  Principal  of  Cheltenham  College  ;  late 
 
 Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 W.  L.  B.  Rev.  William  Latham  Bevan,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Hay,  Brecknock- 
 shire. 
 
 J.  W.  B.  Rev.  Joseph  Williams  Blakesley,  B.  D.,  Canon  of  Canterbury ;  late 
 Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 T.  E.  B.  Rev.  Thomas  Edward  Brown,  M.  A.,  Vice-Principal  of  King  Wil- 
 liam's College,  Isle  of  Man  ;  late  Fellow  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford. 
 
 R.  W.  B.  Ven.  Robert  AVilliam  Browne,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Bath,  and 
 Canon  of  Wells. 
 
 E.  H.  B.        Right  Rev.  Edward  Harold  Browne,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely. 
 W.  T.  B.       Rev.  William  Thomas  Bullock,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
 
 Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 
 S.  C.  Rev.   Samuel  Clark,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of    Bredwardine   with   Brobury, 
 
 Herefordshire. 
 
 F.  C.  C.         Rev.  Frederic  Charles  Cook,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the 
 
 Queen. 
 
 G.  E.  L.  C.  Right  Rev.  George  Edward  Lynch  Cotton,  D.  D.,  late  Lord  Bishop 
 
 of  Calcutta  and  Metropolitan  of  India. 
 J.  LI.  D.        Rev.  John    Llewelyn    Davies,    M.    A.,    Rector  of  Christ   Church, 
 
 Marylebone  ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 G.  E.  D.        Prof.  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
 E.  D.  Emanuel  Deutsch,  M.  R.  A.  S ,  British  Museum. 
 
 W.  D.  Rev.  William  Drake,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 
 
 E.  p.  E.         Rev.  Edward  Paroissien  Eddrup,  M.  A.,  Principal  of  the  Theolog- 
 
 ical College,  Salisbury. 
 C.  J.  E.  Right  Rev.  Charles  John  Ellicott,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Glouces- 
 
 ter and  Bristol. 
 
 F.  W.  F.       Rev.  Frederick  William  Farrar,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Har- 
 
 row School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 J.  F.  James   Fergusson,   F.  R.  S.,   F.  R.  A.  S.,  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Insti- 
 
 tute of  British  Architects. 
 
 E.  S.  Ff.  Edward  SALtrsBURY  Ffoulkes,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Jesus  College. 
 Oxford. 
 
 W.  F,  Right  Rev.  William  Fitzgerald,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Killaloc. 
 
 (iii) 
 
LIST   OF    WRITERS. 
 
 INITIALS. 
 
 F.  G. 
 F.  W.  G. 
 
 G. 
 
 H.  B.  H. 
 
 E.  H— s. 
 
 H.  H. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 J.  A.  H. 
 
 J.  D.  H. 
 
 J.  J.  H. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 J.  S.  H. 
 
 E.  H. 
 W.  B.  J. 
 
 A.  H.  L. 
 
 S.  L. 
 
 J.  B.  L. 
 
 D. 
 
 W 
 
 .  M. 
 
 F. 
 
 M. 
 
 Oppert. 
 
 E. 
 
 R. 
 
 0. 
 
 T. 
 
 J. 
 
 0. 
 
 J. 
 
 J. 
 
 S.  P. 
 
 T. 
 
 T. 
 
 P. 
 
 H, 
 
 .W 
 
 '.  P. 
 
 E. 
 
 H. 
 
 P. 
 
 E. 
 
 S. 
 
 P. 
 
 R. 
 
 s. 
 
 P. 
 
 J. 
 
 L. 
 
 P. 
 
 Rev.  Francis   Gardex,   M.  A.,    Subdean   of   Her  Majesty's   Chapels 
 Royal. 
 
 Rev.  F.  William  Gotch,  I^L.  D.,  President  of  the   Baptist  College, 
 Bristol ;  late  Hebrew  Examiner  in  the  University  of  London. 
 
 George  Grove,  Crystal  Palace,  Sydenham. 
 
 Prof  Horatio  Balcii  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 
 tion, Newton,  Mass. 
 
 Rev.  Ernest  Hawkins,  B.  D.,  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
 gation of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 
 
 Rev.  Henry  Hayman,  B.  D.,  Head  Master  of  the  Grammar  School, 
 Cheltenham  ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 
 
 Ven.  Lord  Arthur  Charles  Hervey,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Sud- 
 bury, and  Rector  of  Ickworth. 
 
 Rev.  James  Augustus  Hessey,  D.  C.  L.,  Head  Master  of  Merchant 
 Taylors'  School. 
 
 Joseph  Dalton  Hooker,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,   Royal  Botanic  Gardens, 
 Kew. 
 
 Rev.  James  John  Hornby,  M.  A.,  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Ox- 
 ford ;  Principal  of  Bishop  Cosin's  Hall. 
 
 Rev.  William  Houghton,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Rector  of  Preston  on  the 
 Weald  Moors,  Salop. 
 
 Rev.  John  Saul  Howson,  D.  D.,  Principal  of  the  Collegiate  Institu- 
 tion, Liverpool. 
 
 Rev.  Edgar  Huxtable,  M.  A.,  Subdean  of  Wells. 
 
 Rev.  William  Basil  Jones,  M.  A.,  Prebendary  of  York  and   of  St. 
 David's  ;  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  University  College,  Oxford. 
 
 Austen  Henry  Layard,  D.  C.  L.,  M.  P. 
 
 Rev.    Stanley  Leathes,  M.  A.,   M.  R.  S.  L.,  Hebrew  Lecturer  b 
 King's  College,  London. 
 
 Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Lightfoot,  D.  D.,  Hulsean  P^rofessor  of  Divinity, 
 and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 Rev.  D.  W.  Marks,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  University  College,  London. 
 
 Rev.  Frederick  Meyrick,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity 
 College,  Oxford. 
 
 Prof  Jules  Oppert,  of  Paris. 
 
 Rev.   Edward   Redman   Orger,  M.  A.,  Fellow  and    Tutor    of   St. 
 Augustine's  College,  Canterbury. 
 
 Ven.  Thomas  Johnson  Ormerod,   M.  A.,   Archdeacon   of  Suffolk ; 
 late  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 
 
 Rev.  John  James  Stewart  Perowne,  B.  D.,  Vice-Principal  of  St. 
 David's  College,  Lampeter. 
 
 Rev.    Thomas   Thomason   Perowne,   B.  D.,    Fellow  and    Tutor  of 
 Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 Rev.  Henry  Wright  Phillott,  M.  A.,  Rector  of  Staunton-on-Wye, 
 Herefordshire  ;  late  Student  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
 
 Rev.  Edward   Hayes   Plumptre.   M.    A.,   Professor   of  Divinity  in 
 King's  College,  London. 
 
 Edward  Stanley  Poole,  M.  R.  A.  S.,  South  Kensington  Museum. 
 
 Reginald  Stuart  Poole,  British  Museum. 
 
 Rev.  J.  Leslie  Porter,  M.  A.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Assem- 
 
LIST   OF   WRITERS.  y 
 
 nOTlAI^-  NAMES. 
 
 hly's  College,  Belfast ;  Author  of  "  Handbook  of  Syria  and  Palestine/' 
 and  "  Five  Years  in  Damascus." 
 
 C.  P.  Rev.    Charles  Pritchard,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  Hon.    Secretary  of  the 
 
 Royal  Astronomical  Society ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 a.  R.  Rev.  George  Rawlinson,  M.  A.,  Camden  Professor  of  Ancient  His- 
 
 tory, Oxford. 
 
 H.  J.  R.  Rev.  Hexry  John  Rose,  B.  D.,  Rural  Dean,  and  Rector  of  Houghton 
 Conquest,  Bedfordshire. 
 
 W.  S.  Rev.  William  Selwyn,  D.  D.,   Chaplain   in   Ordinary  to  the  Queen ; 
 
 Lady  Margaret's  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge  ;   Canon  of  Ely. 
 
 A.  P.  S.         Rev.  Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley,  D.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesias- 
 
 tical History,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford  ;  Chaplain  to  His 
 Royal  Highness  the  Prince  of  Wales. 
 
 C.  E.  S.         Prof   Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 
 
 J.  P.  T.         Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 
 
 W.  T.  Most  Rev.  William  Thomson,  D.  D.,  Lord  Archbishop  of  York. 
 
 S.  P.  T.  Samuel  Prid-eaux  Tregelles,  LL.  D.,  Author  of  "  An  Introduction 
 to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,"  &c. 
 
 H.  B.  T.  Rev.  Henry  Baker  Tristram,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Master  of  Greathani 
 Hospital. 
 
 J.  F.  T.  Rev.  Joseph  Francis  Thrupp,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Barrington ;  late  Fel- 
 low of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 E.  T.  Hon.  Edward  T.  B.  Twisleton,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Balliol  College, 
 
 Oxford. 
 
 E.  V.  Rev.  Edmund  Venables,  M.  A.,  Bonchurch,  Isle  of  Wight. 
 
 B.  F.  W.        Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,   M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Harrow 
 
 School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
 
 C.  W.  Rev.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.  D.,  Canon  of  Westminster. 
 
 W.  A.  W.  William  Aldis  "Weight,  M.  A.,  Librarian  of  Trinity  College,  Cam- 
 lirldge. 
 
 WRITERS   IN  THE   AMERICAN  EDITION. 
 
 A.  Ezra    Abbot,    LL.  D.,    Assistant    Librarian    of    Harvard    College, 
 
 Cambridge,  Mass. 
 
 S.  C.  B.         Prof  Samuel  Colcord  Bartlett,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Sem.,  Chicago,  111. 
 
 T.  J.  C.         Rev.  Thomas  Jefferson  Conant,  D.  D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
 
 O.  E.  D.         Prof.  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn, 
 
 G.  P.  F.      ■   Prof  George  Park  Fisher,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
 
 F.  G.  Prof  Frederic  Gardiner,  D,  D.,  Middletown,  Conn. 
 
 D.  R.  G.  Rev.  Daniel  Raynes  Goodwin,  D.  D.,  Provost  of  the  University  of 
 Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 
 
 II.  Prof  Horatio  Balch  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 
 
 tion, Newton,  Mass. 
 
 J.  H.  Prof  James  Hadley,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
 
 F.  W.  H.       Rev.  Frederick  Whitmore  Holland,  F.  R.  G.  S.,  London. 
 
 A.  H.  Prof  Alva5i  Hovey,  D.  D.,  Theological  Institution,  Newton,  Mass. 
 
vi  LIST    OF    WRITERS. 
 
 INITIALS.  NAMES. 
 
 A.  C.  K.         Prof.  AsAHEL  Ci.ARK  Keni>kick,  D.  D.,  University  of  Rochester,  2\.  Y. 
 C.  M.  M.        Prof.  Charles  Marsh  Mead,  Ph.  D.,  Theol.  Sem.,  Andover,  Mass. 
 E.  A.  P.         Prof.  Edwards  Amasa  Park,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 
 W.  E.  P.        Rev.  William  Edwards  Park,  Lawrence,  Mass. 
 A.  P'.  P.  Prof  Andrew  Prestox  Peabody,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Harvard  College, 
 
 Cambridge,  Mass. 
 (t.  E.  p.         Rev.  George  E.  Post,  M.  D.,  Tripoli,  Syiia. 
 
 R.  D.  C.  R.  Prof  Rensselaer  David   Chancefohd  Robbins,  Middlebury  Col- 
 lege, Vt. 
 
 Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.  D.,  New  York. 
 
 Prof  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  D.  D.,  LL.  U.,  Union    Theological 
 Seminary,  New  York. 
 
 Rev.  Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 
 
 Prof  Daniel  Smith  Talcott,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Bangor,  Me. 
 
 Prof  Joseph  Henry  Thayer,  M.  A.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 
 
 Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 
 C.  V.  A.  V.  Rev.  Cornelius  V.  A.  Van  Dyck,  D.  D.,  Beirut,  Syria. 
 W.  H.  W.     Rev.  William  Hayes  Ward,  M.  A.,  New  York. 
 W.  F.  W.     Prof  William  Fairfield  Warrex,  D.  D.,  Boston  Theological  Sem- 
 inary, Boston,  Mass. 
 S.  W.  Rev.  Samuel  Wolcott,  D.  D.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 
 
 T.  D.  W.       President  Theodore  Dwight  Woolsey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College,, 
 
 New  Haven,  Conn. 
 t 
 
 %*  The  new  portions  in  the  present  edition  are  indicated  by  a  star  (*),  the  edi- 
 torial additions  being  distinguished  by  the  initials  H.  and  A.  Whatever  is  enclosed 
 in  brackets  is  also,  with  unimportant  exceptions,  editorial.  This  remark,  however, 
 does  not  apply  to  the  cross-references  in  brackets,  most  of  which  belong  to  the  origi- 
 nal work,  though  a  large  number  have  been  added  to  this  edition. 
 
 P. 
 
 S. 
 
 H. 
 
 ,  B. 
 
 ,  S. 
 
 C. 
 
 E. 
 
 S. 
 
 D. 
 
 S. 
 
 T. 
 
 J. 
 
 H. 
 
 T. 
 
 J. 
 
 P. 
 
 T. 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 Aid.       The  Aldine  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1518. 
 •AUx.      The  Codex  Alexandrinus  (5th  cent.),,. edited  by  Baber,  1816-28. 
 A.  '\'.      Tlie  authorized  (common)  Eni;li.«h  version  of  the  Bible. 
 C'omp.    The  Septuagint  as  printed  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  1514-17,  publishe<f 
 1522. 
 
 FA.        The   Codex  Friderico-Augustanus   (4th  cent.),  published  by  Tischendorf  irv 
 
 1S46. 
 
 Koni.  The  Roman  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1587.  The  readings  of  the  Septuagint 
 for  which  no  authority  is  specified  are  also  from  this  source. 
 
 Sin.  The  Codex  Sinalticus  (4th  cent.),  published  by  Tischendorf  in  1862.  This 
 and  FA.  are  parts  of  the  same  manuscript. 
 
 Vat.  The  Codex  Vaticanus  1209  (4th  cent.),  according  to  Mai's  edition,  published 
 by  Vercellone  in  1857.  "  Vat.  H."  denotes  readings  of  the  MS.  (differing 
 from  Mai),  given  in  Holmes  and  Parsons's  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1798- 
 1827.  "  Vat.^  "  distinguishes  the  primary  reading  of  the  MS.  from  "  Vat.^* 
 or  "  2.  m.,"  the  alteration  of  a  later  reviser. 
 
BIBLICAL 
 
 ANTI 
 AND 
 
 NATUEAL    IIISXOBY. 
 
 GEOGRAPHY, 
 
 REGEM-MELECH 
 
 RE'GEM-ME'LECH  CT]!^'^  ^T?.  [friend 
 of  the  Icing']:  'ApySetreep  b  ^aaiAevs;  Alex.  Ap- 
 ^ecrecrep  o  j3. :  Roymnnielech).  The  names  of 
 Sherezer  and  Regem-melech  occur  in  an  obscure 
 passage  of  Zechariah  (vii.  2).  They  were  sent  on 
 behalf  of  some  of  the  Captivity  to  make  inquiries 
 at  the  Temple  concerning  fasting.  In  the  A.  V. 
 the  subject  of  the  verse  appears  to  be  the  captive 
 .lews  in  Babylon,  and  Bethel,  or  "  the  house  of 
 God,"  is  regarded  as  the  accusative  after  the  verb 
 of  motion.  The  LXX.  take  "the  king"  as  the 
 nominative  to  the  verb  "sent,"  considering  the 
 last  part  of  the  name  Regem-melech  as  an  appel- 
 lative and  not  as  a  proper  name.  Again,  in  the 
 Vulgate,  Sherezer,  Regem-melech,  and  their  men, 
 are  the  persons  who  sent  to  the .  liouse  of  God. 
 The  Peshito-Syriac  has  a  curious  version  of  the 
 passage:  "  And  he  sent  to  Bethel,  to  Sharezer  and 
 Rabmag;  and  the  king  sent  and  his  men  to  pray 
 for  him  before  the  Lord:  "  Sharezer  and  Rabmag 
 being  associated  in  Jer.  xxxi.K.  3,  13.  On  refer- 
 ring to  Zech.  vii.  5,  the  expression  "  the  people  of 
 the  land  "  seems  to  indicate  that  those  who  sent 
 to  the  Temple  were  not  the  captive  Jews  in  Baliy- 
 lon,  but  those  who  had  returned  to  their  own 
 country;  and  this  being  the  case  it  is  probable 
 that  in  ver.  2  "  Bethel "  is  to  be  taken  as  the  sub- 
 ject, "  and  Bethel,  i.  e.  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel, 
 sent." 
 
 The  Hexaplar-Syriac,  following  the  Peshito,  has 
 "Rabmag."  What  reading  the  LXX.  had  before 
 them  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture.  From  its  con^ 
 nection  with  Sherezer,  the  name  Regem-melech 
 (lit.  "king's  friend,"  comp.  1  Chr.  xxvii.  33),  was 
 probably  an  Assyrian  title  of  office.    W.  A.  W. 
 
 REGION-HOUND  ABOUT,  THE  (^  Tre- 
 pi'x't'pos).  This  term  had  perhaps  originally  a 
 more  precise  and  independent  meaning  than  it  ap- 
 pears to  a  reader  of  the  Authorized  Version  to 
 possess. 
 
 In  the  Old  Test,  it  is  used  by  the  LXX.  as 
 the  equivalent  of  the  singular  Hebrew  word  hac- 
 
 Ciccar  ("13371,  literally  "the  round"),  a  word 
 the  topographical  application  of  which  is  not  clear, 
 but  which  seems  in  its  earliest  occurrences  to  de- 
 note the  circle  or  oasis  of  cultivation  in  which 
 stood  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  the  rest  of  the 
 five  "cities  of  the  Ciccnr"  (Gen.  xiii.  10,  11,  12, 
 170 
 
 REHOB 
 
 xix.  17,  2.5,28,29;  Deut.  xxxiv.  3).  Elsewhere 
 it  has  a  wider  meaning,  though  still  attached  to 
 the  .Jordan  (2  Sam.  xviii.  23 ;  1  K.  vii.  46 ;  2  Chr. 
 iv.  17;  Neh.  iii.  22,  xii.  28).  It  is  in  this  less 
 restricted  sense  that  irepixf^pos  occurs  in  the  New 
 Test.  In  Matt.  iii.  5  and  Luke  iii.  3  it  denotes 
 the  populous  and  flourishuig  region  which  con- 
 tained the  towns  of  .Jericho  and  its  dependencies, 
 in  the  .Jordan  Valley,  inclosed  in  the  amphitheatre 
 of  the  hills  of  Qunrnntuna  (see  Map,  vol.  ii.  p. 
 664),  a  densely  populated  region,  and  important 
 enough  to  be  reckoned  as  a  distinct  section  of  Pal- 
 estine — "  Jerusalem,  Judfea,  and  all  the  avron- 
 (lissemeni"  of  Jordan  "  (Matt.  iii.  5,  also  Luke  vii. 
 17).  [JuD.iiA,  Wilderness  of,  Amer.  ed.]  It 
 is  also  applied  to  the  district  of  Gennesaret,  a  re- 
 gion which  presents  certain  similarities  to  that  of 
 .Jericho,  being  inclosed  in  the  amphitheatre  of  the 
 hills  of  Hattin  and  bounded  in  front  by  the  water 
 of  the  lake,  as  the  other  was  by  the  Jordan,  and 
 also  resembling  it  in  being  very  thickly  populated 
 (Matt.  xiv.  35;  Mark  vi.  55;  Luke  vi.  17,  vii.  17). 
 
 REHABFAH  (H^^nn  in   1   Chr.   xxiii.; 
 
 elsewhere  ^n^nriT  [whom  Jehovah  enlarges]': 
 'PaPid,  [Vat.]  Alex.  Paa0ia,  in  1  Chr.  xxiii.; 
 'Paa^ias,  1  Chr.  xxiv.;  "Pa^ias,  Alex.  Vaa^ias, 
 1  Chr.  xxvi. :  Rohohia,  Rahahia  m  1  Chr.  xxvi.). 
 The  only  son  of  Eliezer,  the  son  of  Moses,  and 
 the  father  of  Isshiah,  or  Jeshaiah  (1  Chr.  xxiii. 
 17,  xxiv.  21,  xxvi.  25).  His  descendants  were 
 numerous. 
 
 RE'HOB  (S'ini  [and  IlHl,  street,  market- 
 pliice]:  'Vad^,  ['Pocij/S:]  Rohob)'.  1.  The  fiither 
 of  Hadadezer  king  of  Zobah,  whom  David  smote 
 at  the  Euphrates  (2  Sam.  viii.  3,  12).  .Josephus 
 {Ant.  vii.  5,  §  1)  calls  him  'Apaos,  and  the  Old 
 Latin  Version  Arachus,  and  Blayney  (on  Zech.  ix. 
 1)  thinks  this  was  his  real  name,  and  that  he  was 
 called  Rehob,  or  "charioteer,"  from  the  number  of 
 chariots  in  his  possession.  The  name  appears  to 
 be  peculiarly  Syrian,  for  we  find  a  district  of  Syria 
 called  Rehob,  or  Beth-Rehob  (2  Sam.  x.  6,  8). 
 
 a  Thus  Jerome  — "  regiones   in  circuitu  per   quad 
 medius  Jordanes  fluit." 
 
2698 
 
 EEHOB 
 
 2.  ('PooSyS.)  A  Levite,  or  family  of  Levites,  who 
 sealed  the  covenant  witli  Nehemiah  (Xeh.  x.  11). 
 
 w.  A.  ^y. 
 
 RE'HOB  (nh")  [as  above]).  The  name  of 
 more  than  one  place  in  the  extreme  north  of  the 
 Holy  Land. 
 
 1.  ([Eom.  'Po(f3;  Vat.]  Paa;8  ;  Alex.  PocoyS: 
 Rohob.)a  The  northern  limit  of  the  exploration 
 of  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.  21).  It  is  specified  as 
 being  "as  men  come  inito  Haniath,"  or,  as  the 
 phrase  is  elsewhere  rendered,  "  at  the  entrance  of 
 Hamath,"  i.  e.  at  the  commencement  of  the  terri- 
 tory of  that  name,  by  which  in  the  early  books  of 
 the  I^ible  the  great  valley  of  Lebanon,  the  Bikn'ah 
 of  the  Prophets,  and  the  BuktCa  of  the  modern 
 Arabs,  seems  to  be  roughly  designated.  This,  and 
 the  consideration  of  the  improbability  that  the 
 spies  went  farther  than  the  upper  end  of  the  Jor- 
 dan Valley  (Rob.  BlU.  lies.  iii.  371),  seems  to  fix 
 the  position  of  Rehob  as  not  far  from  Tell  el-Kculy 
 and  Banias.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  statement 
 of  Judg.  xviii.  28,  that  Laish  or  Dan  (  Tell  el-Kculy) 
 was  "in  the  valley  that  is  by  Beth-rehob."  No 
 trace  of  the  name  of  Rehob  or  Beth-rehob  has  yet 
 been  met  with  in  this  direction.  Dr.  Robinson 
 proposes  to  identify  it  with  /{I'in'in,  an  ancient 
 fortress  in  the  mountains  N.  W.  of  the  plain  of 
 Huleh,  the  upper  district  of  the  Jordan  Valley. 
 But  this,  though  plausible,  has  no  certain  basis. 
 
 To  those  who  are  anxious  to  extend  the  bound- 
 aries of  the  Holy  Land  on  the  north  and  east  it 
 may  be  satisfactory  to  know  that  a  place  called 
 Rulunbeh  exists  in  the  plain  of  Jvriid,  about  2-5 
 miles  N.  E.  of  Damascus,  and  12  N.  of  the  north- 
 ernmost of  the  three  lakes  (see  the  Maps  of  Van 
 de  Velde  and  Porter). 
 
 There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  Rehob  or 
 Beth-rehob  was  identical  with  the  place  mentioned 
 under  both  names  in  2  Sam.  x.  6,  8,''  in  connection 
 with  IMaacah,  which  was  also  in  the  upper  district 
 of  the  Hukh. 
 
 Inasmuch,  however,  as  Beth-rehob  is  distinctly 
 stated  to  have  been  "far  from  Zidon"  (Judg.  xviii. 
 28),  it  must  be  a  distinct  place  from 
 
 2.  ('Paa;3:  Alex.  Poai/3:  Rohob),  one  of  the 
 towns  allotted  to  Asher  (.losh.  xix.  28),  and  which 
 from  the  list  appears  to  have  been  in  close  prox- 
 imity to  Zidon.  It  is  named  between  Kliron,  or 
 Abdon,  and  Hanmion.  The  towns  of  Asher  lay 
 in  a  region  which  has  been  but  imperfectly  exam- 
 ined, and  no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  discovering 
 the  position  of  either  of  these  three. 
 
 3.  CPaaP,  ['Paa^S,  'Epeco,  "Podi^i]  Alex.  Paco/S, 
 [Po&);8 :]  Riiliob,  Roc/iob. )  Asher  contained  another 
 Rehob  (.losh.  xix.  30);  but  the  situation  of  this, 
 like  the  former,  remains  at  present  unknown.  One 
 of  the  two,  it  is  difficult  to  say  which,  was  allotted 
 to  the  Gershonite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  31 ;  1  Chr. 
 vi.  75),  and  one  of  its  Canaanite  inhabitants  re- 
 tained possession  (Judg.  i.  31).  The  mention  of 
 Aphik  in  this  latter  passage  may  imply  that  the 
 Rehob  referred  to  was  that  of  Josh.  xix.  30.  This, 
 F.usebius  and  Jerome  (  Onmnasticon,  "  Roob  ")  con- 
 fuse with  the  Rehob  of  the  spies,  and  place  four 
 Roman  miles  from  Scythopolis.  The  place  they 
 refer  to  still  survives  as  Rehab,  3^  miles  S.  of 
 Beisan,  but  their  identification  of  a  town  in  that 
 
 "  Targum  Pseudojon.  iHVtSvQ,  t-  e.  TrAaTeioi, 
 streets ;  and  Samaritan  Vers.  ''SnD, 
 
 REHOBOAM 
 
 position  with  one  in  the  territory  of  Asher  is  ob- 
 viously inaccurate.  G. 
 
 KEHOBO'AM  {DV-nn'l,  enlarger  of  the 
 people  —  see  Ex.  xxxiv.  20,  and  compare  the  name 
 EupvSrifj.os'-  "Po^od/j.'-  Roburim),  son  of  Solomon, 
 by  the  Annnonite  princess  Kaamah  (1  K.  xiv.  21, 
 31),  and  his  successor  (1  K.  xi.  43).  From  the 
 earliest  period  of  Jewish  history  we  perceive  sj  mp- 
 tonis  that  the  confederation  of  the  tribes  was  but 
 imperfectly  cemented.  The  powerful  Ephraim  could 
 never  brook  a  position  of  inferiority.  Throughout 
 the  Book  of  Judges  (viii.  1,  xii.  1)  the  Ephrainiites 
 show  a  spirit  of  resentful  jealousy  when  any  enter- 
 prise is  undertaken  without  their  concurrence  and 
 active  participation.  From  them  had  sprung 
 Joshua,  and  afterwards  (by  his  place  of  birth) 
 Samuel  might  be  considered  theirs,  and  though  the 
 tribe  of  Benjamin  gave  to  Israel  its  first  king,  yet 
 it  was  allied  by  hereditary  ties  to  the  house  of 
 Joseph,  and  by  geographical  position  to  the  terri- 
 tory of  Flphraim,  so  that  up  to  David's  accession 
 the  leadership  was  practically  in  the  hands  of  the 
 latter  tribe.  But  Judah  always  threatened  to  be  a 
 formidable  rival.  During  the  earlier  history,  partly 
 from  the  physical  structure  and  situation  of  its 
 territory  (Stanley,  S.  <f-  P.  p.  162),  which  secluded 
 it  from  Palestine  just  as  Palestine  by  its  geograph- 
 ical character  was  secluded  from  the  world,  it  had 
 stood  very  much  aloof  from  the  nation  [.Iudah]. 
 and  even  after  Saul's  death,  apparently  without 
 waiting  to  consult  their  brethren,  "  the  men  of 
 Judah  came  and  anointed  David  king  over  the  house 
 of  Judah  "  (2  Sam.  ii.  4),  while  the  other  tribes 
 adhered  to  Saul's  family,  thereby  anticipating  the 
 final  disruption  which  was  afterwards  to  rend  the 
 nation  permanently  into  two  kingtloms.  But  after 
 seven  years  of  disaster  a  reconciliation  was  forced 
 upon  the  contending  parties;  David  was  acknowl- 
 edged as  king  of  Israel,  and  soon  after,  by  fixing 
 his  court  at  Jerusalem  and  bringing  the  Tabernacle 
 there,  he  transferred  from  Ephraim  the  greatness 
 which  had  attached  to  Shechem  as  the  ancient 
 capital,  and  to  Shiloh  as  the  seat  of  the^national 
 worship.  In  spite  of  this  he  seems  to  have  enjoyed 
 reat  personal  popularity  among  the  Ephrainiites, 
 and  to  have  tre<ated  many  of  them  with  special 
 favor  (1  Chr.  xii.  30,  xxvii.  10,  14),  yet  this  roused 
 the  jealousy  of  .Judah,  and  probably  led  to  the  revolt 
 of  Absalom.  [AnsALOiNi.]  Even  after  that  peril- 
 ous crisis  was  past,  the  old  livalry  broke  out  afresh, 
 and  almost  led  to  another  insurrection  (2  Sam.  xx. 
 1,  &c.).  Compare  Ps.  Ixxviii.  GO,  67,  &c.  in  illus- 
 tration of  these  remarks.  Solomon's  reign,  from 
 its  severe  taxes  and  other  oppressions,  aggravated 
 the  discontent,  and  latterly,  from  its  irreligious 
 character,  alienated  the  prophets  and  provoked  the 
 displeasure  of  God.  When  Solomon's  strong  hand 
 was  withdrawn  the  crisis  came.  Rehoboam  se- 
 lected Shechem  as  the  place  of  his  coronation, 
 probably  as  an  act  of  concession  to  the  Ephraimites, 
 and  perhaps  in  deference  to  the  su<rgestions  of  those 
 old  and  wise  counsellors  of  his  father,  whose  advice 
 he  afterwards  unhappily  rejected.  From  the  present 
 Hebrew  text  of  1  K.  xii.  the  exact  details  of  the 
 transactions  at  Shechem  are  involved  in  a  little 
 uncertainty.  The  general  facts  indeed  are  clear. 
 The  people  demanded  a  remission  of  the  severe 
 
 b  Here  the  name  is  written  in  the  fuller  form  of 
 
REHOBOAM 
 
 burdens  imposed  by  Solomon,  and  Eehoboam  prom- 
 ised them  an  answer  in  three  da}?,  during  wliich 
 time  he  consulted  first  his  father's  counsellors,  and 
 then  the  young  men  "  that  were  grown  up  with 
 him,  and  which  stood  before  him,"  whose  answer 
 shows  how  greatly  during  Solomon's  later  years 
 the  character  of  the  Jewish  court  had  degenerated. 
 Rejecting  the  advice  of  the  elders  to  conciliate  the 
 people  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  and  so  make 
 them  "his  servants  forever,"  he  returned  as  his 
 reply,  in  the  true  spirit  of  an  eastern  despot,  the 
 frantic  bravado  of  his  contemporaries:  "  My  little 
 finger  shall  be  thicker  than  my  father's  loins.  .  . 
 .  .  .  I  will  add  to  your  yoke;  my  father  hath 
 chastised  you  with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you 
 with  scorpions "  (t.  e.  scourges  furnished  with 
 sharp  points").  Thereupon  arose  the  formidalile 
 song  of  insurrection,  heard  once  before  when  the 
 tribes  quarreled  after  David's  return  from  the  war 
 with  Absalom :  — 
 
 What  portion  have  we  in  David? 
 What  inheritance  in  Jesse's  son  ? 
 
 To  your  tents,  0  Israel ! 
 
 Now  see  to  thy  own  house,  0  David ! 
 
 Eehoboani  sent  Adoram  or  Adoniram,  who  had 
 been  chief  receiver  of  the  tribute  during  the  reigns 
 of  his  fother  and  his  grandfather  (1  K.  iv.  G;  2 
 Sam.  XX.  24),  to  reduce  the  rebels  to  reason,  but 
 he  was  stoned  to  death  by  them;  whereupon  the 
 king  and  his  attendants  fled  in  hot  haste  to  .Jerusa- 
 lem. So  far  all  is  plain,  but  there  is  a  doubt  as  to 
 the  part  which  Jeroboam  took  in  these  transactions. 
 According  to  1  K.  xii.  3  he  was  sunnnoned  by  the 
 Ephraimites  from  Egypt  (to  which  country  he  had 
 fled  from  the  anger  of  Solomon)  to  be  their  spokes- 
 man at  Rehoboam's  coronation,  and  actually  made 
 the  speech  in  which  a  remission  of  burdens  was 
 requested.  But,  in  apparent  contradiction  to  this, 
 we  read  in  ver.  20  of  the  same  chapter  that  after 
 the  success  of  the  insurrection  and  Rehoboam's 
 flight,  "  when  all  Israel  heard  that  Jeroboam  was 
 come  again,  they  sent  and  called  him  unto  the  con- 
 gregation and  made  him  king."  But  there  is  rea- 
 son to  think  that  ver.  3  has  been  interpolated.  It 
 is  not  found  in  the  LXX.,  which  makes  no  mention 
 of  Jeroboam  in  this  chapter  till  ver.  20,  substi- 
 tuting in  ver.  3  for  "Jeroboam  and  all  the  congre- 
 gation of  Israel  came  and  spoke  unto  Rehoboam  " 
 the  words,  koI  i\d\7iffev  6  \ahs  irphs  rhv  ^acn\4a 
 'PoySoctjU.  So  too  Jeroboam's  name  is  omitted  by 
 the  LXX.  in  ver.  12.  Moreover  we  find  in  the 
 LXX.  a  long  supplement  to  this  12th  chapter,  evi- 
 dently ancient,  and  at  least  in  parts  authentic,  con- 
 taining fuller  details  of  Jeroboam's  biography  than 
 the  Hebrew.  [Jeroboaji.]  In  this  we  read  that 
 after  Solomon's  death  he  returned  to  his  native 
 place,  Sarira  in  Ephraim,  which  he  fortified,  and 
 lived  there  quietly,  watching  the  turn  of  events, 
 till  the  long-expected  rebellion  broke  out,  when  the 
 ICphraimites  heard  (doubtless  through  his  own 
 agency)  that  he  had  returned,  and  invited  him  to 
 Shechem  to  assume  the  crown.  From  the  same 
 supplementary  narrative  of  the  LXX.  it  would 
 appear  that  more  than  a  year  must  have  elapsed 
 between  Solomon's  death  and  Rehoboam's  visit  to 
 Shechem,  for,  on  receiving  the  news  of  the  former 
 event,  Jeroboam  requested  from  the  king  of  Egypt 
 
 REHOBOAM 
 
 2d99 
 
 a  So  in  Latin,  scorpio,  according  to  Isidore  (Origg. 
 v  27),  is  "  virga  nodosa  et  aeuleata,  quia  arcuate  vul- 
 uere  in  corpus  infligitur"  {Faceiolati,  a.  v.). 
 
 leave'  to  return  to  his  native  country.  This  the 
 king  tried  to  prevent  by  giving  him  his  sister-in- 
 law  in  marriage:  but  on  the  birth  of  his  child 
 Abijah,  Jeroboam  renewed  his  request,  which  vpas 
 then  granted.  It  is  probable  that  during  this  year 
 the  discontent  of  the  N.  tribes  was  making  itself 
 more  and  more  manifest,  and  that  this  led  to  Reho- 
 boam's ^'isit  and  intended  inauguration. 
 
 On  Rehoboam's  return  to  Jerusalem  he  assem- 
 bled an  army  of  180,000  men  from  the  two  faithful 
 tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  (the  latter  trans- 
 ferred from  the  side  of  Joseph  to  that  of  Judah  in 
 consequence  of  the  position  of  David's  capital 
 within  its  borders),  in  the  hope  of  reconquering 
 Israel.  The  expedition,  however,  was  forbidden  by 
 the  prophet  Sheniaiah,  who  assured  them  that  the 
 separation  of  the  kingdoms  was  in  accordance  with 
 God's  will  (1  K.  xii.  24):  still  during  Rehoboam's 
 life- time  peaceful  relations  between  Israel  and  Judah 
 were  never  restored  (2  Chr.  xii.  15;  IK.  xiv.  30). 
 Rehoboam  now  occupied  himself  in  strengthening 
 the  territories  which  remained  to  him,  by  building 
 a  number  of  fortresses  of  which  the  names  are 
 given  in  2  Chr.  xi.  G-10,  forming  a  girdle  of 
 "fenced  cities"  round  Jerusalem.  The  pure  wor- 
 ship of  God  was  maintained  in  Judah,  and  the 
 Levites  and  many  pious  Israelites  from  the  North, 
 vexed  at  the  calf-idolatry  introduced  liy  Jerolioam 
 at  Dan  and  Bethel,  in  imitation  of  the  Egyptian 
 worship  of  Jlnevis,  came  and  settled  in  the  soutliern 
 kingdom  and  added  to  its  power.  But  Rehoboam 
 did  not  check  the  introduction  of  heathen  abomina- 
 tions into  his  capital:  the  lascivious  worship  of 
 Ashtoreth  was  allowed  to  exist  by  the  side  of  the 
 true  religion  (an  inheritance  of  evil  doubtless  left 
 by  Solomon),  "images"  (of  Baal  and  hi?  fellow 
 divinities)  were  set  up,  and  the  worst  immoralities 
 were  tolerated  (1  K.  xiv.  22-24).  These  evils  were 
 punished  and  put  down  by  the  terrible  calamity  of 
 an  Egyptian  invasion.  Shortly  before  this  time  a 
 change  in  the  ruling  house  had  occurred  in  Egypt. 
 The  XXIst  dynasty,  of  Tanites,  whose  last  king. 
 Pisham  or  Psusennes,  had  been  a  close  ally  of  Solo- 
 mon (1  K.  iii.  1,  vii.  8,  ix.  16,  x.  28,  29),  was  suc- 
 ceeded by  the  XXIId,  of  Bubastites,  whose  first  sov- 
 ereign, Shishak  (Sheshonk,  Sesonchis,  Zova-aKiin), 
 connected  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Jeroboam. 
 That  he  was  incited  by  him  to  attack  Judah  is 
 very  probable:  at  all  events  in  the  5th  year  of 
 Rehoboam's  reign  the  counti-y  was  invaded  by  a 
 host  of  Egyptians  and  other  African  nations,  num- 
 bering 1,200  chariots,  60,000  cavalry,  and  a  vast 
 miscellaneous  multitude  of  infantry.  The  line  of 
 fortresses  which  protected  Jerusalem  to  the  W.  and 
 S.  was  forced,  Jerusalem  itself  was  taken,  and 
 Rehoboam  had  to  purchase  an  ignominious  peace 
 by  delivering  up  all  the  treasures  with  which  Solo- 
 mon had  adorned  the  temple  and  palace,  including 
 his  golden  shields,  200  of  the  larger,  and  300  of  the 
 smaller  size  (1  K.  x.  16,  17),  which  were  carried 
 before  him  when  he  visited  the  Temple  in  state. 
 We  are  told  that  after  the  Egyptians  had  retired, 
 his  vain  and  foolish  successor  comforted  himself  by 
 substituting  shields  of  brass,  which  were  solemnly 
 borne  before  him  in  procession  l)y  the  body-guard, 
 as  if  nothing  had  been  changed  since  his  father's 
 time  (Ewald,  Geschichte  des  V.  I.  iii.  348,  464). 
 Shishak's  success  is  commemorated  by  sculptures 
 discovered  by  Champollion  on  tlie  outside  of  the 
 great  Temple  at  Karnak,  where  among  a  long  list 
 of  captured  towns  and  provinces  occurs  the  name 
 Melchi  Judah   (kingdom   of  Judah).     It  is   said 
 
2700  REHOBOTH 
 
 that  the  features  of  the  captives  in  these  sculptures 
 are  unmistakably  Jewish  (Rawlinson,  Herodotus^ 
 ii.  376,  and  BainpUm  Lectures,  p.  12G;  Bunsen, 
 Egypt,  iii.  242).  After  this  great  humiliation  the 
 moral  condition  of  Judali  seems  to  have  improved 
 (2  Chr.  xii.  12),  and  the  rest  of  Rehoboam's  life  to 
 have  been  unmarked  by  any  events  of  importance. 
 He  died  b.  c.  958,  after  a  reijfn  of  17  years,  having 
 ascended  the  tliroue  b.  c.  J75  at  the  age  of  41 
 (1  K.  xiv.  21;  2  Chr.  xii.  13).  In  the  addition  to 
 the  LXX.  already  mentioned  (inserted  after  1  K. 
 xii.  24)  we  read  that  he  was  16  years  old  at  his 
 accession,  a  misstatement  probably  founded  on  a 
 wrong  interpretation  of  2  Chr.  xiii.  7,  where  he  is 
 called  "  young  "  (i.  e.  new  to  his  luork,  inexpe- 
 rienced) and  "tender-hearted"  (!337"T|"^,  ivnnt- 
 ing  in  resolution  and  spirit).  He  had  18  wives, 
 60  concubines,  28  sons,  and  60  daughters.  The 
 wisest  thing  recorded  of  him  in  Scripture  is  that 
 he  refused  to  waste  away  his  sons'  energies  in  tlie 
 wretched  existence  of  an  Eastern  zenana,  in  which 
 we  may  infer,  from  his  helplessness  at  the  age  of 
 41,  that  he  had  himself  been  educated,  but  dis- 
 persed them  in  command  of  the  new  fortresses 
 which  he  had  built  about  the  country.  Of  his 
 wives,  ^lalialath,  Abrhail,  and  Maachah  were  all 
 of  the  royal  house  of  Jesse :  JNIaachah  he  loved  best 
 of  all,  and  to  her  son  Abijah  he  bequeathed  his 
 kingdom.  The  text  of  the  LXX.  followed  in  this 
 article  is  Tischeudorfs  edition  of  the  A^'aticau  MS. 
 [not  of  the  Yat.  JIS.,  but  reprint  of  the  Roman 
 edition  of  1587],  Leipsic,  1850.         G.  E.  L.  C. 
 
 REHO'BOTH     (ni^hn      [streets,      wide 
 
 2)laces];  Samar.  imiTl~l :  evpvx<^pia'  Veneto- 
 Gk.  al  nXareTat :  Latitudo).  The  third  of  the  series 
 of  wells  dug  by  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  22).  He  celebrates 
 his  triumph  and  bestows  its  name  on  the  well  in  a 
 fragment  of  poetry  of  the  same  nature  as  those  in 
 which  Jacob's  wives  give  names  to  his  successive 
 children :  "  He  called  the  name  of  it  Rehoboth 
 ('room,')  and  said,  — 
 
 I  Because  noTT  Jehovah  hath-made-room  for  us 
 And  we  shall  increase  in  the  land.' " 
 Isaac  had  left  the  valley  of  Gerar  and  its  turbulent 
 inhabitants  before  he  dug  the  well  which  he  thus 
 commemorated  (ver.  22).  From  it  he,  in  time, 
 "went  up"  to  Beer-sheba  (ver.  23),  an  expression 
 which  is  always  used  of  motion  towards  the  Land 
 of  promise.  The  position  of  Gerar  has  not  been 
 definitely  ascertained,  but  it  seems  to  have  lain  a 
 few  miles  to  the  S.  of  Gaza  and  nearly  due  E.  of 
 Beer-sheba.  In  this  direction,  therefore,  if  any- 
 where, the  wells  Sitnah,  Esek,  and  Rehoboth, 
 should  be  searched  for.  A  Wady  Jiuhaibek,  con- 
 taining the  ruins  of  a  town  of  the  same  name, 
 with  a  large  well,"  is  crossed  by  the  road  from 
 Khan  en-Nukhl  to  Hebron,  by  which  Palestine  is 
 entered  on  the  south.  It  lies  about  20  miles  S.  W. 
 of  Bir  es-Seba,  and  more  than  that  distance  S. 
 of  the  most  probable  situation  of  Gerar.  It  there- 
 fore seems  inisafe,  without  further  proof,  to  identify 
 it  with  Rehoboth,  as  Rowlands  (in  Williams'  /7o/v/ 
 City,  i.  465),  Stewart  ( Tent  and  Khan,  p.  202),  and 
 
 a  Dr.  Robinson  could  not  find  the  well.  Dr.  Stewart 
 found  it  '■  regularly  built,  12  feet  in  circumference," 
 but '■  completely  filled  up."  Mr.  Rowlands  describes 
 it  as  "an  ancient  well  of  living  and  good  water." 
 Who  .shall  decide  on  testimony  so  curiously  contra- 
 lictory  ? 
 
 REHOBOTH,  THE  CITY 
 
 Van  de  Velde''  (Memoir,  p.  343)  have  done.  At 
 the  same  time,  as  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Robinson, 
 the  existence  of  so  large  a  jilace  here,  without  any 
 apparent  mention,  is  mysterious.  All  that  can  be 
 said  in  favor  of  the  identity  of  Ruhnibeh  with  Reho- 
 both is  said  by  Dr.  Bonar  (Desert  of  Sinai,  p.  316), 
 and  not  without  considerable  force. 
 
 The  ancient  Jewish  tradition  confined  the  events 
 of  this  part  of  Isaac's  life  to  a  much  nanower 
 circle.  The  wells  of  the  patriarchs  were  shown 
 near  Ashkelon  in  the  time  of  Origen,  Antoninus 
 Martyr,  and  Eusebius  (Reland,  Pi'd.  p.  589):  the 
 Samaritan  Version  identifies  Gerar  with  Ashkelon; 
 Josephus  (A7tt.  i.  12,  §  1)  calls  it  "  Gerar  of  Pales- 
 tine," i.  e.  of  Philisiia.  G. 
 
 REHO'BOTH,  THE  CITY  ("T'V  nhm, 
 i.  e.  RechOboth  'Ir   [streets  of  the  city] ;   Samar. 
 
 i"Tl2n~l;  Sam.  vers.c  IDiaD:  'PooolSaie  ir6Msi 
 Alex.  Po£j/3a)s;  Jjlntece  civitatis).  One  of  the  four 
 cities  built  by  Asshur,  or  by  Nimrod  in  Asshur, 
 according  as  this  difficult  passage  is  translated. 
 The  four  were  Nineveh;  Rehoboth-Ir;  Calah; 
 and  Resen,  between  Nineveh  and  Calah  (Gen.  x. 
 11).  Nothing  certain  is  known  of  its  position. 
 The  name  of  Ruliaheh  is  still  attached  to  two 
 places  in  the  region  of  the  ancient  Mesopotamia. 
 They  lie,  the  one  on  the  western,  and  the  other  on  the 
 eastern  bank  of  the  Eupiirates,  a  few  miles  below  the 
 confluence  of  the  Khubur.  Both  are  said  to  con- 
 tain extensive  ancient  remains.  That  on  the  east- 
 ern bank  l^ears  the  affix  of  malik  or  royal,  and  this 
 Bunsen  (Bibelwerh)  and  Kalisch  (Genesis,  p.  261) 
 propose  as  the  representative  of  Rehoboth.  Its 
 distance  from  Kahdi-Sherghat  and  Nimrud  (nearly 
 200  miles)  is  perhaps  an  obstacle  to  this  identifica- 
 tion. Sir  H.  Rawlinson  (Alhenceum,  April  15, 
 1854)  suggests  Sdemiyah  hi  the  immediate  neigh- 
 borhood of  Kalah,  "  where  there  are  still  extensive 
 ruins  of  the  Assyrian  period,"  but  no  subsequent 
 discoveries  appear  to  have  confirmed  this  sugges- 
 tion. The  Samaritan  Version  (see  above)  reads 
 Sulcan  for  Rehoboth ;  atid  it  is  remarkable  that 
 the  name  Sutcan  should  be  found  in  connection 
 with  Calah  in  an  inscription  on  the  breast  of  a 
 statue  of  the  god  Nebo  which  Sir  H.  Rawlinson 
 disinterred  at  Nimrud  (Atlieneeum,  as  above). 
 The  Sutcan  of  the  Samaritan  Version  is  com- 
 monly supposed  to  denote  the  Sittacene  of  the 
 Greek  geographers  (Winer,  Reahvb.  '•  Rechoboth 
 Ir").  But  Sittacene  was  a  district,  and  not  a 
 city  as  Rehoboth-Ir  necessarily  was,  and,  further, 
 being  in  southern  Assyria,  would  seem  to  be  too 
 distant  from  the  other  cities  of  Nimrod. 
 
 St.  Jerome,  both  in  the  Vulgate  and  in  his 
 Qtuesfiones  ad  Geneslm  (probably  from  Jewish 
 sources),  considers  Rehoboth-Ir  as  referring  to 
 Nineveh,  and  as  meaning  the  "streets  of  the 
 city."  The  readins  of  the  Targums  of  Jonathan, 
 Jerusalem,  and  Rabbi  Joseph,  on  Gen.  and  1  Chron., 
 viz.,  Platiah,  Plitiutha,  aie  probably  only  tran- 
 scriptions of  the  Greek  word  TrAareiai,  which,  as 
 found  in  the  well-known  ancient  city  Platiea,  is 
 the  exact  equivalent  of  Rehoboth.  Kaplan,  the 
 Jewish   geographer     (Erets    Kedumim),  identifies 
 
 b  In  his  Travels  Van  de  Velde  inclines  to  place  it, 
 or  at  any  rate  one  of  Isaac's  wells,  at  B'lr  Isek,  about 
 six  miles  S.  \T.  of  Beit  Jibrin  (Si/r.  and  Pal.  ii.  146). 
 
 <:  The  Arabic  translation  of  this  version  (Kuehnen  | 
 adheres  to  the  Hebrew  text,  having  Ralmbeh  el-Hle- 
 dinek. 
 
REHOBOTH  BY  THE  RIVER 
 
 R.ihnheh-malik  with  Eehoboth-by-the-river,  in 
 wlilcli  lie  is  possibly  correct,  but  considers  it  as 
 distinct  from  Kehoboth-Ir,  which  he  believes  to 
 have  disappeared.  G. 
 
 REHOBOTH  BY  THE  RIVER  (ninh"! 
 
 "inSn  :  "Pow^iiiQ  —  in  Chr.  'Pa-jSoiS  —  t]  napa 
 TTOTa.ij.iv  \  Alex.  PocafSaid  in  each  :  de  Jluvio 
 Rolwbotli  ;  Rohoboth  qwe  juxta  airmem  sl/n 
 tsl).  The  'city  of  a  certain  Saul  or  Shaul, 
 one  of  the  early  kings  of  the  Edomites  (Gen. 
 xxxvi.  37;  1  Chr.  i.  48).  The  affix  "the 
 river,"  fixes  the  situation  of  Eehoboth  as  on  the 
 Kuphrates,  emphatically  "<Ae  river"  to  the  inhabi- 
 tants of  Western  Asia.  [River.]  The  name 
 still  remains  attached  to  two  spots  on  the  Euphra- 
 tes; the  one  simply /J»/(«ie/;,  on  the  right  bank, 
 eight  miles  below  the  junction  of  the  Khabui-, 
 and  about  three  miles  west  of  the  river  (Chesney, 
 Euplir.,  i.  119,  ii.  GIO,  and  map  iv.),  the  other 
 four  or  five  miles  further  down  on  the  left  bank. 
 The  latter  is  said  to  be  called  Rnhabeh-midik,  i.  c. 
 "  royal  "  (Kalisch,  Kaplan),"  and  is  on  this  ground 
 identified  by  the  .Jewish  commentators  with  the 
 city  of  Saul;  but  whether  this  is  accurate,  and 
 whether  that  city,  or  either  of  the  two  sites  just 
 named,  is  also  identical  with  Eehoboth-Ir,  the  city 
 of  Nimrod,  is  not  yet  known. 
 
 There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  limits  of 
 F.doui  ever  extended  to  the  Euphrates,  and  there- 
 fore the  occurrence  of  the  name  in  the  lists  of 
 kings  of  Edom  would  seem  to  be  a  trace  of 
 an  Assyrian  incursion  of  the  same  nature  as  that 
 of  Chedorlaomer  and  Amraphel.  G. 
 
 *  RE'HU,  1  Chron.  i.  25  (A.  V.  ed.  IGll). 
 [Reu.] 
 
 RE'HUM  (Q^m  [compassionate]:  Peou^; 
 [Vat.  omits;]  Alex.  Igpeouju:  Rehum).  1.  One 
 of  the  "children  of  the  pi-ovince"  who  went  up 
 from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  2).  In 
 Neh.  vii.  7  he  is  called  Nkiium,  and  in  1  Esdr.  v. 
 8  RoiMus. 
 
 2.  ([Vat.  VaovX,  Paov/j.'-]  Renin.)  "Rehum 
 the  chancellor,"  with  Shimshai  the  scribe,  and 
 others,  wrote  to  Artaxerxes  to  prevail  upon  him 
 to  stop  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  and  temple 
 of  .lerusalem  (Ezr.  iv.  8,  9,  17,  22).  He  was  per- 
 haps a  kind  of  lieutenant-governor  of  the  province 
 under  the  king  of  Persia,  holding  apparently  the 
 same  office  as  Tatnai,  who  is  described  in  Ezr.  v. 
 6  as  taking  part  in  a  similar  transaction,  and 
 is  there  called   "  the  governor  on    this    side  the 
 
 river."  The  Chaldee  title,  D17tp"75?!2,  be'el-le'em, 
 lit.  "lord  of  decree,"  is  left  untranslated  in  the 
 LXX.  Ba\Ta^,  and  the  Vulgate  Beelteem;  and 
 the  rendering  "chancellor"  in  the  A.  V.  appears 
 to  have  been  derived  from  Kimchi  aud  others,  who 
 explain  it,  in  consequence  of  its  connection  with 
 "scribe,"  by  the  Hebrew  word  which  is  usually 
 rendered  "  recorder."  This  appears  to  have  been 
 the  view  taken  by  the  author  of  1  Esdr.  ii.  2.5,  6 
 yf)a<po>u  TO.  TTpoaifinrovra,  and  by  .losephus  {AnI. 
 ti.  2,  §  1),  (5  iravTa  to,  irpaTTOfxeva  ypaipwv-  The 
 tormer  of  these  seems  to  be  a  gloss,  for  the  Chaldee 
 litle  is  also  represented  l)y  B€eA.Te0/ior. 
 
 3.  ("Paoi;|U;     [Vat.    Bao-oiye;   FA.   Bao<rou0:] 
 
 <t  The  existence  of  the  second  rests  but  on  slender 
 foundation.  It  i.^  shown  in  the  map  in  Layard's  Nineveh 
 ami  Babylon,  and  is  mentioned  by  the  two  Jewish  au- 
 
 REKEM  2701 
 
 Rehum.)  A  Levite  of  the  family  of  Bani,  who  as- 
 sisted in  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  (Neh. 
 iii.  17). 
 
 4.  ('Peou/i.;  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  (joined  with 
 part  of  the  next  word)  Paov^u-])  One  of  the 
 chief  of  the  people,  who  signed  the  covenant  with 
 Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  25). 
 
 5.  (Om.  in  Vat.  MS.;  [also  om.  by  Rom.  Alex.' 
 FA.i;  FA.3  Peou/x:]  Rheum.)  A  prie.stly  family 
 or  the  head  of  a  priestly  house,  who  went  up  with 
 Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  3).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 RE'I  (^V*^  [/'■'fi''f%)  social]:  [Rom. 'PTjo-t'; 
 Vat.  Alex.]  PTjcrei:''  Rei).  A  person  mentioned 
 (in  1  K.  i.  8  oidy)  as  having,  in  company  with 
 Zadok,  Benaiah,  Nathan,  Shimei,  and  the  men  of 
 David's  guard,  remained  firm  to  David's  cause 
 when  Adonijah  rebelled.  He  is  not  mentioned 
 again,  nor  do  we  obtain  any  clew  to  his  identity. 
 Various  conjectures  have  been  made.  .lerome 
 (  Qiuest.  Hebr.  ad  loc.)  states  that  he  is  the  same 
 with  "  Hiram  the  Zairite,"  i.  e.  Ira  the  .Jairite,  a 
 l>riest  or  prince  about  the  person  of  David.  Ewald 
 {Gesch.  iii.  2GG  note),  dwelling  on  the  occurrence 
 of  Shimei  in  the  same  list  with  Rei,  suggests  that 
 the  two  are  David's  only  surviving  brothers,  Rei 
 being  identical  with  Raddai.  This  is  ingenious, 
 but  there  is  nothing  to  support  it,  while  there  is 
 the  great  objection  to  it  that  the  names  are  in  the 
 original  extremely  dissimilar,  Rei  containing  the 
 Ain,  a  letter  which  is  rarely  exchanged  for  any  other, 
 but  apparently  never  for  Daleth  (Gesen.  Thes.  pp. 
 976, 977).  G. 
 
 REINS,  i.  e.  kidneys,  from  the  Latin  renes. 
 1.   The   word    is  used    to    translate   the    Hebrew 
 
 m'^^lS,  except  in  the  Pentateuch  and  in  Is.  xxxiv. 
 6,  where  "kidneys"  is  employed.  In  the  ancient 
 system  of  physiology  the  kidneys  were  believed  to 
 he  the  seat  of  desire  and  longing,  which  accounts 
 for  their  often  being  coupled  with  the  heart  (Ps. 
 vii.  9,  xxvi.  2;  Jer.  xi.  20,  xvii.  10,  etc.). 
 
 2.  It  is  once  u.sed  (Is.  xi.  5)  as  the  equivalent  of 
 Q^^7n,  elsewhere  translated  "loins."  G. 
 
 RE'KEM  (Ci7."1  [variegated  (garden]:  'PoKov 
 [Vat.  PoKoix],  'PoJ36k;  Alex.  PoKOfj.:  Recem). 
 i.  One  of  the  five  kings  or  chieftains  of  Midiaii 
 slain  by  the  Israelites  (Num.  xxxi.  8;  Josh.  xiii. 
 21)  at  the  time  that  Balaam  fell. 
 
 2.  ('Pe/cd^;  Alex.  Poko/j.-)  One  of  the  four 
 sons  of  Hebron,  and  father  of  Shammai  (1  Chr.  ii. 
 43,  44).  In  the  last  verse  the  LXX.  have  "  Jor- 
 koam  "  for  "  Rekem."  In  this  genealogy  it  is  ex- 
 tremely difficult  to  separate  the  names  of  persons 
 from  those  of  places  —  Ziph,  Mareshah,  Tap]Hiah, 
 Hebron,  are  all  names  of  places,  as  well  as  IMacn 
 and  Beth-zur..  In  Josh,  xviii.  27  Rekem  appears 
 as  a  town  of  Benjamin,  and  perhaps  this  genealogy 
 may  be  intended  to  indicate  that  it  was  founded  by 
 a  colony  from  Hebron. 
 
 RE'KEM  (Qi7."^  [as  above] :  perhaps  Ka(pav 
 KoiNaKciv;  Alex. PeKSfi'-  Recem).  C)ne  of  the  towns 
 of  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (.losh.  xviii.  27).  It 
 occurs  between  Mozah  {ham-Motsa)  and  Ikpeel. 
 No  one,  not  even  Schwarz,  has  attempted  to  iden- 
 
 thorities  named  above  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  in  th« 
 work  of  Col.  Chesney. 
 
 6  Reading  2  for  V. 
 
2702 
 
 REMALIAH 
 
 tify  it  with  any  existing  site.  But  may  tliere  not 
 be  a  trace  of  tlie  name  in  Ain  Kariin,  the  well- 
 known  spriiii,'  west  of  Jerusalem  ?  It  is  within  a 
 very  short  distance  of  Motsah,  provided  Kulonkh 
 be  Motsah,  as  the  writer  has  already  suggested. 
 
 G. 
 
 REMALI'AH  (^H^bni  [whom  Jehovah 
 adorns,  Ges.]  'PofieXias  in  Kings  and  Isaiah, 
 'Pofj.e\ia  in  Chr.;  [Vat.  PofieMa  (gen.)  in  Is. 
 vii.  1:]  Eomeli(i).  The  father  of  Pekah,  captain 
 of  Pekahiah  king  of  Israel,  who  slew  his  mas- 
 ter and  usurped  his  throne  (2  K.  xv.  25-37,  xvi. 
 1,  5;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  6;  Is.  vii.  1-9,  viii.  6). 
 
 RE'METH  (n^T  [helc/hi?]: 'Pff^p.ds;  Alex. 
 Pa/x/naO-  R(tmeth).  One  of  the  towns  of  Issachar 
 (Josh.  xix.  21),  occurring  in  the  list  next  to  En- 
 gannim,  the  modern  Jeiiin.  It  is  probably  (though 
 not  certainly)  a  distinct  place  from  the  Rajiotii 
 of  1  Chr.  vi.  73.  A  place  beai'ing  the  name  of 
 Rameh  is  found  on  the  west  of  the  track  from 
 Samaria  to  Jenin,  about  6  miles  N.  of  the  former 
 and  9  S.  W.  of  the  latter  (Porter,  Handb.  p.  3i8  a ; 
 Van  de  Velde,  Map).  Its  situation,  on  an  isolated 
 I'ocky  Idl  in  the  middle  of  a  green  plain  buried  in 
 the  hills,  is  quite  in  accordance  with  its  name, 
 which  is  probably  a  mere  varialion  of  Ramah, 
 "  height."  But  it  appears  to  be  too  far  south  to 
 be  within  the  territory  of  Issachar,  which,  as  far  as 
 the  scanty  indications  of  the  record  can  be  made 
 out,  can  hardly  have  extended  below  the  southern 
 border  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon. 
 
 For  Schwarz's  conjecture  that  Rameh  is  Ra- 
 MATHAIM-ZOPHIM,  scB  that  article  (iii.  2672). 
 
 G. 
 
 REM'MON  ("?"IS"1,  i.  e.  Rimmon  [pome- 
 granate]: 'Epe/x/xciv-"  Ahx.Pefx.fj.oo9'-  Remmon). 
 A  town  in  the  allotment  of  Simeon,  one  of  a  group 
 of  four  (.Tosh.  xix.  7).  It  is  the  same  place  which 
 is  elsewliere  accurately  given  in  the  \.  V.  as  Rim- 
 JiON;  the  inaccuracy  both  in  this  case  and  that  of 
 Remjion-methoar  havhig  no  doubt  arisen  from 
 our  translators  inadvertently  following  the  Vulgate, 
 which  again  followed  the  I..XX.  G. 
 
 REM'MON-METH'OAROWh^n  ]ian, 
 i.  e.  Riunnon  ham-methoar  [pomec/ranate] :  'Pefx- 
 fxaivad  MaBapao^d  ;  Alex.  Pefxfxoovafi  fxaQapifx  '■ 
 Remmon,  Amthar).  A  place  which  formed  one  of 
 the  landmarks  of  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  ter- 
 ritory of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  13  only).  It  occurs 
 between  Eth-Katsin  and  Neah.  Methoar  does  not 
 really  form  a  part  of  the  name ;  but  is  the  Pual  of 
 
 "IWn,  to  stretch,  and  should  be  translated  accord- 
 ingly (as  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V. )  —  "  R.  which 
 reaches  to  Neah."  This  is  the  judgment  of  Ges- 
 enius,  Thes.  p.  1202  a,  Rijdiger,  ib.  1491  a;  Fiirst, 
 Handwb.  ii.  512  n,  and  Bunsen,  as  well  as  of  the 
 ancient  Jewish  commentator  Rashi,  who  quotes  as 
 his  authority  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  the  text  of 
 which  has  however  been  subsequently  altered,  since 
 in  its  present  state  it  agrees  with  the  A.  V.  in  not 
 translating  the  word.  The  latter  course  is  taken 
 by  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  as  above,  and  by  the 
 Peshito,  Junius  and  Tremellius,  and  Luther.  The 
 A.  V.  has  here  further  erroneously  followed  the 
 
 «  Tlie  LXX.  hei-e  combine  the  Ain  and  Rimmon  of 
 the  A.  V.  into  one  name,  and  make  up  the  four  cities 
 of  this  group  by  inserting  a  QaXxi,  of  which  there  is 
 
 REMPHAN 
 
 Vulgate  in  giving  the  first  part  of  the  name  ag 
 Remmon  instead  of  Rimmon. 
 
 This  Rimmon  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
 known  to  Eusebius  and  .lerome,  but  it  is  mentioned 
 by  the  early  traveller  Parchi,  who  says  that  it  is 
 called  Rumaneh,  and  stands  an  hour  south  of  Sep- 
 phoris  (Zunz's  Benjamin,  ii.  433).  If  for  south 
 we  read  north,  this  is  in  close  agreement  with  the 
 statements  of  Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  iii.  110),  and 
 Mr.  Van  de  Velde  {Map;  jyewwV,  "p.  344),  who 
 place  Rummdneh  on  the  S.  border  of  the  Plain  of 
 Buttauf,  3  miles  N.  N.  E.  of  Seffuiiek.  It  is 
 difhcult,  however,  to  see  how  this  can  have  been  on 
 the  eastern  boundary  of  Zebulun. 
 
 Rimmon  is  not  improbably  identical  with  the 
 Levitical  city,  which  in  Josh.  xxi.  35  appears  in  the 
 form  of  Dinmah,  and  again,  in  the  parallel  lists  of 
 Chronicles    (1   Chr.   vi.  77)   as  Rimmono   (A.  V. 
 
 RiMMOJJ).  G. 
 
 REM'PHAN  ('Pe^<^ctj',[Lachm.  Tisch.  Treg.] 
 'Picpdv.  Rempham,  Acts  vii.  43):  and  OHIUK 
 
 C^^^S  :  'Paifpdv,  'PofKpa,  Compl.  Am.  v.  20)  have 
 been  sujiposed  to  be  names  of  an  idol  worshipped 
 by  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  but  seem  to  be 
 the  names  of  two  idols.  The  second  occurs  in 
 Amos,  in  the  Heb. ;  the  first,  in  a  quotation  of  that 
 passage  in  St.  Stephen's  address,  in  the  Acts :  the 
 LXX.  of  Amos  has,  however,  the  same  name  as  in 
 the  Acts,  though  not  written  in  exactly  the  same 
 manner.  Much  difficulty  has  been  occasioned  by 
 this  corresponding  occurrence  of  two  names  so 
 wholly  different  in  sound.  The  most  reasonable 
 opinion  seemed  to  be  that  Chiun  was  a  Hebrew  or 
 Semitic  name,  and  Remphan  an  Egyptian  equiv- 
 alent substituted  by  the  LXX.  The  former,  ren- 
 dered Saturn  in  the  Syr.,  was  compared  with  the 
 
 —  0     ^ 
 
 Arab,  and  Pers.  ..t'^ 
 
 ,  "  the  planet  Saturn," 
 
 and,  according  to  Kircher,  the  latter  was  found  in 
 Coptic  with  the  same  signification ;  but  perhaps  he 
 had  no  authority  for  this  excepting  the  supposed 
 meaning  of  the  Hebrew  Chiun.  Egyptology  has, 
 however,  shown  that  this  is  not  the  true  explana- 
 tion. Among  the  foreign  divinities  worshipped  in 
 Egypt,  two,  the  god  RENPU,  perhaps  pronounced 
 Rl'^MPU,  and  the  goddess  KEN,  occur  together. 
 Before  endeavoring  to  explain  the  passages  in  which 
 Chiun  and  Itemphan  are  mentioned,  it  will  be 
 desirable  to  speak,  on  the  evidence  of  the  monu- 
 ments, of  the  foreign  gods  worshipped  in  Egypt, 
 particularly  RENPU  and  KEN,  and  of  the  idolatry 
 of  the  Israelites  while  in  that  country. 
 
 Besides  those  divinities  represented  on  the  mon- 
 uments of  Egypt  which  have  Egyptian  forms  or 
 names,  or  both,  others  have  foreign  forms  or  names, 
 or  both.  Of  the  latter,  some  appear  to  have  been 
 introduced  at  a  very  remote  age.  This  is  certainly 
 the  case  with  the  principal  divinity  of  Memphis, 
 Ptah,  the  Egyptian  HephaL-stus.  The  name  Ptah 
 is  from  a  Semitic  root,  for  it  signifies  "open,"  and 
 
 in  Heb.  we  find  the  root  HHS,  and  its  cognates, 
 "  he  or  it  opened,"  whereas  there  is  no  word  related 
 to  it  in  Coptic.  The  figure  of  this  divinity  is  that 
 of  a  deformed  pigmy,  or  perhaps  unborn  child,  and 
 is  unlike  the  usual  representations  of  divinities  on 
 
 no   trace  in  the   Hebrew,  but  which  is   possibly  the 
 Tochen  of  1  Chr.  iv.  32 —  in  the  LXX.  of  that  passage, 
 
 ©OKKOL. 
 
REMPHAN 
 
 the  monuments.  In  thia  case  there  can  be  no 
 aoubt  that  the  introduction  took  place  at  an  ex- 
 tremely early  date,  as  the  name  of  Ptah  occurs  in 
 very  old  tombs  in  the  necropolis  of  Memphis,  and 
 is  found  throughout  the  religious  records.  It  is 
 also  to  be  noticed  that  this  name  is  not  traceable 
 in  the  mythology  of  neighboring  nations,  unless 
 indeed  it  corresponds  to  that  of  the  UdraiKoi  or 
 TiaratKoi,  whose  images,  according  to  Herodotus, 
 were  the  figure-heads  of  Phoenician  ships  (iii.  37). 
 The  foreign  divinities  that  seem  to  be  of  later  in- 
 troduction are  not  found  tliroughout  the  religious 
 records,  but  only  in  single  tablets,  on  are  otherwise 
 very  rarely  mentioned,  and  two  out  of  their  four 
 names  are  immediately  recognized  to  be  non-Egyp- 
 tian, lliey  are  RENPU,  and  the  goddesses  KEN, 
 ANTA,  and  ASTARTA.  The  first  and  second 
 of  these  have  foreign  forms;  the  third  and  fourth 
 have  Egyptian  forms:  there  would  therefore  seem 
 to  be  an  especially'  foreign  character  about  the 
 former  two. 
 
 RENPU,  pronounced  REMPU(?),«  is  repre- 
 sented as  an  Asiatic,  with  the  full  beard  and  ap- 
 parently the  general  type  of  face  given  on  the  mon- 
 uments to  most  nations  east  of  Egypt,  and  to  the 
 REBU  or  Liliyans.  This  type  is  evidently  that 
 of  the  Shemites.  His  hair  is  bound  with  a  fillet, 
 which  is  ornamented  in  front  with  the  head  of  an 
 antelope. 
 
 KEN"  is  represented  perfectly  naked,  holding  in 
 both  hands  corn,  and  standing  upon  a  lion.  In  the 
 last  particular  the  figure  of  a  goddess  at  Maltheiy- 
 yeh  in  Assyria  may  be  compared  (Layai'd,  Nineveh, 
 ii.  212).  From  this  occurrence  of  a  similar  repre- 
 sentation, from  her  being  naked  and  carrying  corn, 
 and  from  her  being  worshipped  with  KHE.M,  we 
 may  suppose  that  KEN  corresponded  to  the  Syrian 
 goddess,  at  least  when  the  latter  had  the  character 
 of  Venus.  She  is  also  called  KETESH,  which  is 
 the  name  in  hieroglyphics  of  the  great  Hittite  town 
 on  the  Orontes.  This  in  the  present  case  is  prob- 
 ably a  title,  nt273p_ :  it  can  scarcelj'  be  the  name 
 of  a  town  where  she  was  worshipped,  applied  to  her 
 as  persoiufying  it. 
 
 ANATA  appears  to  be  Anaitis,  and  her  foreign 
 character  seems  almost  certain  from  her  being 
 jointly  worshipped  with  RENPU  and  KEN. 
 
 ASTARTA  is  of  course  the  Ashtoreth  of 
 Canaan. 
 
 On  a  tablet  in  the  British  Museum  the  principal 
 subject  is  a  group  representing  KEN,  having 
 KHEM  on  one  side  and  RENPU  on  the  other: 
 beneath  is  an  adoration  of  ANATA.  On  the  half 
 of  another  tablet  KEN  and  KHEM  occur,  and  a 
 dedication  to  RENPU  and  KETESH. 
 
 We  have  no  clew  to  the  exact  time  of  the  intro- 
 duction of  these  divinities  into  Egypt,  nor  except  in 
 one  case,  to  any  particular  places  of  their  worship. 
 Their  names  occur  as  early  as  the  period  of  the 
 XYIIIth  and  XlXth  dynasties,  and  it  is  therefore 
 not  improbable  that  they  were  introduced  by  the 
 Shepherds.  ASTARTA  is  mentioned  in  a  tablet 
 of  Ameiioph  II.,  opposite  Memphis,  which  leads  to 
 -the  conjectm-e  that  she  was  the  foreign  Venus  there 
 worshipped,  in  the  quarter  of  the  Phoenicians  of 
 
 REMPHAN 
 
 2T03 
 
 «  lu  illustration  of  this  probable  pronunciation,  we 
 may  cite  the  occurrence  in  hieroglyphics  of  RENPA 
 3r  RAXP,  "youth,  young,  to  renew  ;  "  and,  in  Coptic,. 
 
 of  the  supposed  cognate 
 
 p^juinS;  poiini, 
 
 Tyre,  according  to  Herodotus  (ii.  112).  It  is  ob- 
 servable that  the  Shepherds  worshipped  SUTEKH, 
 corresponding  to  SETH,  and  also  called  B.AR,  that 
 is,  Baal,  and  that,  under  king  APEPEE,  he  was 
 the  sole  god  of  the  foreigners.  SUTEKH  was 
 probably  a  foreign  god,  and  was  certainly  identified 
 with  Baal.  The  idea  that  the  Shepherds  intro- 
 duced the  foreign  gods  is  therefore  partly  confirmed. 
 As  to  RENPU  and  KEN  we  can  only  offer  a  con- 
 jecture. They  occur  together,  and  KEN  is  a  form 
 of  the  Syrian  goddess,  and  also  bears  some  relation 
 to  the  Egyptian  god  of  productiveness,  KHEM. 
 Their  similarity  to  Baal  and  Ashtoreth  seems 
 strong,  and  perhaps  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  sup- 
 pose that  they  were  the  divinities  of  some  tribe 
 from  the  east,  not  of  Phoenicians  or  Canaanites, 
 settled  in  Egypt  during  the  Shepherd-period.  The 
 naked  goddess  KEN  would  suggest  such  worship  as 
 that  of  the  Babylonian  I\Iylitta,  but  the  thoroughly 
 Shemite  appearance  of  RENPU  is  rather  in  favor 
 of  an  Arab  source.  Although  we  have  not  dis- 
 covered a  Semitic  origin  of  either  naiiie,  the  absence 
 of  the  names  in  the  mythologies  of  Canaan  and  the 
 neighboring  countries,  as  far  as  they  are  known  to 
 us,  inclines  us  to  look  to  Arabia,  of  which  the  early 
 mythology  is  extremely  obscure. 
 
 The  Israelites  in  Egypt,  after  .Joseph's  rule,  ap- 
 pear to  have  fallen  into  a  general,  but  doubtless  not 
 universal,  practice  of  idolatry.  This  is  only  twice 
 distinctly  stated  and  once  alluded  to  (.Josh.  xxiv. 
 14;  Ez:  xx.  7,  8,  xxiii.  3),  but  the  indications  are 
 perfectly  clear.  The  mention  of  CHIUN  or  REM- 
 PHAN as  worshipped  in  the  desert  shows  that  this 
 idolatry  was,  in  part  at  least,  that  of  foreigners,  and 
 no  doubt  of  those  settled  in  Lower  Egypt.  The 
 golden  calf,  at  first  sight,  would  appear  to  be  an 
 image  of  Apis  of  Jlemphis,  or  Mnevis  of  Heliopolis, 
 or  some  other  sacred  bull  of  Egypt ;  but  it  must  be 
 remembered  that  we  read  in  the  Apocrypha  of  "  the 
 heifer  Baal"  (Tob.  i.  5),  so  that  it  was  possibly  a 
 Phtenician  or  Canaaiiite  idol.  The  best  parallel  to 
 this  idolatry  is  that  of  the  Phoenician  colonies  in 
 Europe,  as  seen  in  the  idols  discovered  in  tombs  at 
 Camirus  in  Rhodes  by  M.  Salzmann,  and  those 
 found  in  tombs  ui  the  island  of  Sardinia  (of  both  of 
 which  there  are  specimens  in  the  British  INIuseum), 
 and  those  represented  on  the  coins  of  Melita  and 
 the  island  of  Ebusus. 
 
 We  can  now  endeavor  to  explain  the  passages  in 
 which  Chiun  and  Remplian  occur.  The  Masoretic 
 text  of  Amos  v.  26  reads  thus :  "  But  ye  bare  the 
 tent  [or  '  tabernacle  ']  of  your  king  and  Chiun  your 
 images,  the  star  of  your  gods  [or  'your  god'], 
 which  ye  made  for  yourselves."  In  the  LXX.  we 
 find  remarkable  differences:  it  reads:  Ka\  ave\d- 
 
 ^eT€  T7)V  ffK7]V1)V  TOV  Mo\6x,    KOl  TC)   CLffTpOV  TOV 
 
 6eov  v/j.ooi'  'Pai<l>du,  tovs  rvwovs  auTSiv  ou?  iiroiT]- 
 ffare  fauTo7s.  The  Vulg.  agrees  with  the  Masoretic 
 text  in  the  order  of  the  clauses,  though  omitting 
 Chiun  or  Remphan.  "  Y,t  portastis  tabernaculum 
 Moloch  vestro,  et  imaginem  idolorum  vestrorum, 
 sidus  dei  vestri,  quae  fecistis  vobis."  The  passage 
 is  cited  in  the  Acts  almost  in  the  words  of  the 
 LXX. :  "  Yea,  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch, 
 and  the  star  of  your  god  Remphan,  figures  which 
 ye  made  to  worship  them  "  (Kal  aveXd^ere  tt]v 
 
 S.  pjUine,     "a  year;'-  so  MENNUFR,  Memphis, 
 
 ULejuiSe,  JtiejULqj,     also ,  iiejtSe, 
 
 <^is,  and  UN-NUfK,   On(J)ts. 
 
2704 
 
 REMPHAlSr 
 
 yKi]VT}v  Tov  MoA.($X)  foi  rh  &(TTpov  rov  8eov 
 v/xSiv  'T?efj.(l>av,  rohs  tvttovs  o'vs  eiroir^craTe  irpo(r- 
 Kvviiv  avTois)-  A  slit;lit  chaiirje  in  the  Hebrew 
 would  enaljle  us  to  read  -Moloch  (Malcam  or  Milcoin) 
 instead  of  "jour  king."  Beyond  this  it  is  ex- 
 tremely difficult  to  explain  the  differences.  The 
 substitution  of  Remphan  for  Chiun  cannot  be  ac- 
 counted for  by  verbal  criticism.  The  Hel^rew  does 
 not  seem  as  distinct  in  meaning  as  the  LXX.,  and 
 if  we  may  conjecturally  emend  it  from  the  latter, 
 the  last  clause  would  be,  "  your  images  which  ye 
 made  for  yourselves:  "  and  if  we  further  transpose 
 Chiuu   to  the  place  of  "  your  god  Remphan,"  in 
 
 the  LXX.,  DD7X2  m3D  HS  would  correspond 
 
 to  "|VD  ED^nbS  nSID  nW,  but  how  can  we 
 account  for  such  a  transposition  as  would  thus  be 
 supposed,  which,  be  it  reniemliered,  is  less  likely  in 
 the  Hebrew  than  in  a  translation  of  a  difficult  pas- 
 sage? If  we  compare  the  Masoretic  text  and  the 
 supposed  original,  we  perceive  that  in  the  former 
 
 DD^Q7!J  "I"l'^3  corresponds  in  position  to  3313 
 D3T!7S,  and  it  does  not  seem  an  unwarrantable 
 conjecture  that  ^V3  having  been  by  mistake  writ- 
 ten   in    the   place   of    33T3    by   some   copyist, 
 
 DD'^D/^  was  also  transposed.  It  appears  to  be 
 more  reasonable  to  read  "images  which  ye  made," 
 than  "gods  which  ye  made,"  as  the  former  word 
 occurs.  Supposing  these  emendations  to  be  prob- 
 able, we  may  now  examine  the  meaning  of  the 
 passage. 
 
 The  tent  or  tabernacle  of  Moloch  is  supposed  by 
 Gesenius  to  have  been  an  actual  tent,  and  he  com- 
 pares the  (TK7\vr)  hpd  of  the  Carthaginians  (Diod. 
 
 Sic.  XX.  65;  Lex.  s.  v.  H^SD).  But  there  is 
 some  difficulty  in  the  idea  that  the  Israelites  car- 
 ried about  so  large  an  object  for  the  purpose  of 
 idolatry,  and  it  seems  more  likely  tliat  it  was  a 
 small  model  of  a  larger  tent  or  shrine.  The  read- 
 ing IMoloch  appears  preferable  to  "your  king;" 
 but  the  mention  of  the  idol  of  the  Ammonites  as 
 worshipped  in  the  desert  stands  quite  alone.  It  is 
 perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  there  is  reason  for 
 supposing  that  iNIoloch  was  a  name  of  the  planet 
 Saturn,  and  that  this  planet  was  evidently  sup- 
 posed by  the  ancient  translators  to  be  intended  by 
 Chiun  and  Remphan.  The  correspondence  of  Rem- 
 phan or  Raiphan  to  Chiun  is  extremely  remarkable, 
 and  can,  we  think,  only  be  accounted  for  by  the 
 supposition  that  the  LXX.  translator  or  translators 
 of  the  prophet  had  Egyjjtian  knowledge,  and  being 
 thus  acquainted  witli  the  ancient  joint  worship  of 
 Ken  and  Renpu,  substituted  the  latter  for  the 
 former,  as  they  may  have  been  unwilling  to  repeat 
 the  name  of  a  foreign  V^enus.  The  star  of  Rem- 
 phan, if  indeed  the  passage  is  to  be  read  so  as  to 
 connect  these  words,  would  be  especially  appro- 
 priate if  Remphan  were  a  planetary  god ;  but  the 
 evidence  for  this,  especially  as  partly  founded  upon 
 an  Arab,  or  Pers.  word  like  Chiun,  is  not  suffi- 
 ciently strong  to  enable  us  to  lay  any  stress  upon 
 the  agreement.  In  hieroglyphics  the  sign  for  a 
 star  is  one  of  the  two  composing  the  word  SEB, 
 "  to  adore,"  and  is  undoubtedly  there  used  in  a 
 symbolical  as  well  as  a  phonetic  sense,  indicating 
 that  the  ancient  Egyptian  religion  was  partly  de- 
 rived from  a  system  of  star-worship;  and  there  are 
 representations   on    the    monuments    of   mythical 
 
 REPETITIONS  IN  PRAYER 
 
 creatures  or  men  adoring  stars  (Ancient  Egyptians, 
 pi.  30  A.).  We  have,  however,  no  positive  indica- 
 tion of  any  figure  of  a  star  being  used  as  an 
 idolatrous  object  of  worship.  From  the  manner 
 in  which  it  is  mentioned  we  mjty  conjecture  that 
 the  star  of  Remphan  was  of  the  same  character 
 as  the  taberna<'le  of  JMoloch,  an  object  connected 
 with  false  worship  I'ather  than  an  image  of  a  false 
 god.  According  to  the  LXX.  reading  of  the  last 
 clause  it  might  be  thought  that  these  objects  were 
 actually  images  of  Moloch  and  Remphan ;  but  it 
 must  be  remembered  that  we  cannot  suppose  an 
 image  to  have  had  the  form  of  a  tent,  and  that  the 
 version  of  the  passage  in  the  Acts,  as  well  as  the 
 ]\Iasoretic  text,  if  in  the  latter  case  we  may  change 
 the  order  of  the  words,  give  a  clear  sense.  As  to 
 the  meaning  of  the  last  clause,  it  need  only  be 
 remarked  that  it  does  not  oblige  us  to  infer  that 
 the  Israelites  made  the  images  of  the  false  gods, 
 though  they  may  have  done  so,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
 golden  calf:  it  may  mean  no  more  than  that  they 
 adopted  these  gods. 
 
 It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  whole  passage  does 
 not  indicate  that  distinct  Egyptian  idolatry  was 
 practiced  by  the  Israelites.  It  is  very  remarkable 
 that  the  only  false  gods  mentioned  as  worshipped 
 by  them  in  the  desert  should  be  probably  Moloch, 
 and  Chiun,  and  Remphan,  of  which  the  latter  two 
 were  foreign  divinities  worshipped  in  Egypt.  From 
 this  we  may  reasonably  infer,  that  while  the  Israel- 
 ites sojourned  in  Egypt  there  was  also  a  great 
 stranger-population  in  the  Lower  Country,  and 
 therefore  that  it  is  probable  that  then  the  shep- 
 herds still  occupied  the  land.  R.  S.  F. 
 
 *  Jablonski  {Pantheon  JEfjyptiorum,  Prolego- 
 mena, L. )  makes  Remphah  the  equivalent  of  reyina 
 Cwli,  that  is  Luna,  whose  worship  was  maintained 
 in  Egypt  at  an  early  day.  His  attempt,  however, 
 to  pro\e  that  this  was  an  Egyptian  divinity,  in  his 
 learned  treatise  Beniphah  illuslralus,  is  not  borne 
 out  by  the  evidence  of  the  monuments,  the  Asiatic 
 type  of  countenance  being  strongly  marked  in  the 
 delineations  of  this  god.  He  is  represented  brand- 
 ishing a  club.  A  good  specimen  is  to  be  seen  in 
 the  Museum  of  the  Louvre  at  Paris  (Salle  des 
 ^lonuments  Religieux,  Armoire  K),  where  is  col- 
 lected in  one  view  a  complete  Eiryptian  Pantheon. 
 
 Alovers  (Die  Melii/ion  der  Plwnizier)  finds  no 
 trace  of  Remphan  among  the  gods  of  Phoenicia. 
 He  makes  ^Moloch  the  I-'ire-god  of  the  Ammonites, 
 whose  worship  was  extended  through  Assyria  and 
 Chaldfea  —  the  personification  of  fire  as  the  holy 
 and  purifying  element. 
 
 Count  Rouge  considers  Atesh  or  Ketesh  and 
 Anta  or  An.vt.v  to  be  different  forms  or  char- 
 acters of  the  same  divinity,  an  Asiatic  Venus,  for 
 though  she  wears  the  same  head-dress  and  diadem 
 as  the  Egyptian  goddess  Hathoi:,  the  Egyptians 
 never  represented  their  own  goddesses  by  an  en- 
 tirely nude  figure.  Both  forms  of  this  divinity 
 may  be  seen  in  the  Louvre,  as  above.  As  A^"TA 
 she  appears  as  the  goddess  of  war,  wielding  a 
 battle-axe,  and  holding  a  shield  and  lance.  Such 
 was  also  the  character  of  Anaitis,  the  war-god- 
 dess of  the  Persians  and  old  Assyrians.  Accord- 
 ing to  iMovers,  .Vstaute  was  a  divinity  of  a  uni- 
 versal character,  whose  worship,  under  various 
 names,  was  world-wide.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 *  REPETITIONS  IN  PRAYER.     It  is 
 
 a  characteristic  of   all   superstitious   devotion    to 
 repeat  endlessly  certain  words,  especially  the  names 
 
KEPHAEL 
 
 of  the  deities  invoked,  a  practice  which  our  Lord 
 '.Icsif^nates  as  ^arroXoyia  and  iroKvKoyia,  and 
 severely  condeuins  (Matt.  vi.  7). 
 
 Wlieu  the  priests  of  Caal  besought  their  God 
 for  fire  to  kindle  their  sacrifice,  they  cried  inces- 
 santly for  several  hours,  in  endless  repetition,  0 
 Baal  hear  ns,  0  Baal  hem-  us,  0  Baal  hear  us, 
 etc.  (1  K.  xviii.  2G).  When  the  Ephesian  mob 
 was  excited  to  madness  for  the  honor  of  their  god- 
 dess, for  two  hours  and  more  they  did  nothing  but 
 screech  with  utmost  tension  of  voice,  Great  the 
 Diana  of  the  Ephesiam,  Great  the  Diana  of  the 
 Bphesians,  Great  the  Diana  of  the  Epkesians, 
 etc.,  with  the  same  endless  repetition  (Acts  xix.  28, 
 39).  In  the  same  way,  in  the  devotions  of  Pagan 
 Eome,  the  people  would  cry  out  more  than  five 
 hundred  times  without  ceasing,  Aiidl,  Ccesar, 
 Audi,  Caesar,  Audi,  Ca:s  ir,  etc.  Among  the 
 Hindoos  the  sacred  syllable  Oin,  Om,  Om,  is  re- 
 peated as  a  prayer  thousands  of  times  uninterrupt- 
 edly. So  the  Koman  Catholics  repeat  their  Pater 
 Nostei'S  and  their  Ace  Marias.  These  single 
 words,  with  notliing  else,  are  pronounced  over  and 
 over  and  over  again;  and  thf  object  of  the  rosary 
 is  to  keep  count  of  the  number  of  repetitions. 
 For  each  utterance  a  bead  is  dropped,  and  when 
 all  the  beads  are  exhausted,  there  have  been  so 
 many  prayers. 
 
 This  is  the  practice  which  our  Saviour  con- 
 demns. He  condenms  all  needless  words,  whether 
 repetitions  or  not.  It  is  folly  to  employ  a  suc- 
 cession of  synonymous  terms,  adding  to  the  length 
 of  a  prayer  without  increasing  its  liervor.  Such  a 
 style  of  prajer  rather  shows  a  want  of  fervor;  it 
 is  often  tlie  result  of  thoughtless  affectation,  some- 
 times of  downright  hypocrisy. 
 
 Repetitions  which  really  arise  from  earnestness 
 and  agony  of  spirit  are  by  no  means  forbidden. 
 We  have  examples  of  such  kind  of  repetition  in 
 our  Saviour's  devotions  in  Gethsemane,  and  in  the 
 wonderful  prayer  of  Daniel  (ch.  ix.,  especially  ver. 
 19).  C.  E.  S. 
 
 REPH'AEL  (bSl51  [whom  God  heals]: 
 'Pa(paii\  '■  Raphael).  Son  of  Shemaiah,  the  first- 
 born of  Obed-edom,  and  one  of  the  gate-keepers 
 of  the  Taljernacle,  "  able  men  for  strength  for  the 
 service"  (1  C'hr.  xxvi.  7). 
 
 RE'PHAH  (npn  [riches]:  'Pa<J.V):  Eapha). 
 A  son  of  Ephraim,  and  ancestor  of  Joshua  the  son 
 of  Nun  (1  Chr.  vii.  25). 
 
 REPHA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (H^ST  [healed  of 
 Jehovah]:  "PacpaKl  Alex.  Pacpaia:  Raphaia).  1. 
 The  sons  of  Ilephaiah  appear  among  the  descend- 
 ants of  Zerubbabel  in  1  Chr.  iii.  21.  In  the 
 Peshito-Syriac  he  is  made  the  son  of  Jesaiah. 
 
 2.  ('Pa(f)ata. )  One  of  the  chieftains  of  the  tribe 
 of  Simeon  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  headed 
 the  expedition  of  five  hundred  men  against  the 
 Amalekites  of  Mount  Seir,  and  drove  them  out  (1 
 Chr.  iv.  42). 
 
 3.  [Vat.  Pac^apa.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Tola, 
 the  son  of  Issachar,  "heads  of  their  father's  house" 
 (1  Chr.  vii.  2). 
 
 REPHAIM,  THE  VALLEY  OF     2705 
 
 4,  [Sin.  Pacpaiau.]  Son  of  Binea,  and  de- 
 scendant of  Saul  and  Jonathan  (1  Chr.  ix.  43). 
 In  1  Chr.  viii.  37  he  is  called  Rapiia. 
 
 5.  The  son  of  Hur,  and  ruler  of  a  portion  of 
 Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  9).  He  assisted  in  rebuilding 
 the  city  wall  under  Nehemiah. 
 
 REPH'AIM.     [Giants,  vol.  ii.  p.  912.] 
 
 REPH'AIM,  THE  VALLEY  OF  (PP?? 
 
 D'^WQ") :  7]  KoiXas  rS>v  Tnivoiv  [Vat.  Tei-],  and 
 [1  Chr.]  Toou  TLjdvraiv;  k.  "Pa<pa(v  [Vat.  -ei^, 
 Alex,  -eiv]  ;  in  Isaiah  (pdpay^  aTeped),  2  Sam.  v. 
 18,  22,  xxiii.  13;  1  Chr.  xi.  15,  xiv.  9;  Is.  xvii.  5. 
 Also  in  Josh.  xv.  8,  and  xviii.  16,  where  it  is  trans- 
 luted  in  the  A.  V.  "  the  valley  of  the  giants  "  {yrj 
 'Va<pab  and  'E/xe'c  'Pa(pa'i:v  [Vat.  -eiv,  Alex,  -ei/j.]  )■ 
 A  spot  which  was  the  scene  of  some  of  David's 
 most  remarkable  adventures.  He  twice  encoun- 
 tered the  Philistines  there,  and  inflicted  a  destruc- 
 tion on  them  and  on  their  idols  so  signal  that  it 
 gave  the  place  a  new  name,  and  impressed  itself  on 
 the  popular  mind  of  Israel  with  such  distinctness 
 that  the  Prophet  Isaiah  could  em])loy  it,  centuries 
 alter,  as  a  symbol  of  a  tremendous  impending  judg- 
 ment of  God  —  nothing  less  than  the  desolation  and 
 destruction  of  the  whole  earth  (Is.  xxviii.  21,  22). 
 
 [PliKAZIM,  IMOUNT.] 
 
 It  was  probably  during  the  former  of  tliese  two 
 contests  that  the  incident  of  the  water  of  Beth- 
 lehem (2  Sam.  xxiii.  13,  &c.)  occurred.  The 
 "  hold  "  «  (ver.  14)  in  which  David  found  himself, 
 seems  (though  it  is  not  clear)  to  liave  been  the 
 cave  of  xVduliam,  the  scene  of  the  commencement 
 of  his  freebooting  life;  but,  wherever  situated,  we 
 need  not  doubt  that  it  was  the  same  fastness  as 
 that  mentioned   in   2  Sam.  v.  17,  since,  in  both 
 
 cases,  the  same  word  (rf-I^JSH,  with  the  def. 
 article),  and  that  not  a  usual  one,  is  employed. 
 The  story  shows  very  clearly  the  predatory  nature 
 of  the.se  incursions  of  the  Philistines.  It  was  hi 
 "harvest  time"  (ver.  13).  They  had  come  to 
 carry  oflT  the  ripe  crops,  for  which  the  valley  wat 
 proverbial  (Is.  xvii.  5),  just  as  at  Pas-dammim 
 (1  C'hr.  xi.  13)  we  find  them  in  the  parcel  of 
 ground  full  of  barley,  at  Lehi  in  the  field' of  len- 
 tiles  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  11),  or  at  Keilah  in  the  thresh- 
 ing-floors (1  Sam.  xxiii.  1).  Their  animals'*  vvere 
 scattered  among  the  ripe  corn  receiving  their  load 
 of  plunder.  The  "garrison,"  or  the  officer <^  in 
 charge  of  tlie  expedition,  was  on  the  watch  in  the 
 village  of  Bethlehem. 
 
 This  narrative  seems  to  imply  that  the  valley  of 
 Rephaim  was  near  Bethlehem;  Init  unfortunately 
 neither  this  nor  the  notice  in  Jo.sh.  xv.  8  and  xviii. 
 16,  in  connection  with  the  boundary  line  between 
 Judah  and  Benjamin,  gives  any  clew  to  its  .situa- 
 tion, still  less  does  its  connection  with  the  groves 
 of  mulberry  trees  or  Baca  (2  Sam.  v.  23),  itself 
 unknown.  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4)  mentions 
 it  as  "the  valley  which  extends  (from  Jerusalem) 
 to  the  city  of  Bethlehem." 
 
 Since  the  latter  part  of  the  16th  cent.''  the 
 name  has  been  attached  to  the  upland  plain  which 
 stretches  south  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  crossed  by  the 
 
 «  There  is  no  warrant  for  "down  to  the  hold  "  in 
 A.  V.  Had  it  been  /2),  '■  down  "  might  have  been 
 added  with  safety. 
 
 b  This  is  tlie  rendering  in   the  ancient  and   trust- 
 
 worthy Syriac  version  of  the  rare  word  Tl^ri  (2  Sam. 
 xxiii.  13),  rendered  in  our  version  "  troop." 
 
 c  Netsih.  The  meaning  is  uncertain  (see  vol.  ii. 
 353,  note). 
 
 ('  According  to  Toblev  {Toposrnphie,  etc.,  ii.  404\ 
 Cotowycus  is  the  first  who  records  this  identificatiou. 
 
2706  REPHIDIM 
 
 road  to  Betlilehem  —  the  eUBuk'ah  of  the  modern 
 Arabs  (Tobler,  Jerusalem,  etc.,  ii.  401).  But  this, 
 though  appropriate  enough  as  regards  its  prox- 
 imity to  Betlileliem,  does  not  answer  at  all  to  the 
 meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  Emck,  wliich  appears 
 always  to  designate  an  inclosed  valley,  never  an 
 open  upland  plain  like  that  in  question,"  the  level 
 of  whicli  is  as  high,  or  nearly  as  high,  as  that  of 
 Mount  Zion  itself.  [Valley.]  Eusebius,  (  Ono- 
 masticon,  'Pacpa^iu  and  'E/iieKparpaflfj.)  calls  it  the 
 valley  of  tlie  Philistines  (koiAus  ahhocpvXaiv),  and 
 places  it  '•  on  the  north  of  Jerusalem,"  in  the  tribe 
 of  Benjamin. 
 
 A  position  N.  W.  of  the  city  is  adopted  by 
 Fiirst  (f/nmhrb.  ii.  38-3  b),  apparently  on  the 
 ground  of  the  terms  of  Josh.  xv.  8  and  xviii.  16, 
 which  certainly  do  leave  it  doubtful  whether  the 
 valley  is  on  the  north  of  the  boundary  or  the 
 boiujdary  on  the  north  of  the  valley;  and  Tobler, 
 in  his  last  investigations  {Site  Wanderunr/,  p.  202), 
 conclusively  adopts  the  Wady  der  Jashi  ( W. 
 Mfiklifiui;  in  Van  de  Velde's  map),  one  of  the  side 
 valleys  of  the  great  Wady  Beit  Hnniiifi,  as  the 
 valley  of  Rephaim.  This  position  is  open  to  the 
 obvious  olijection  of  too  great  distance  from  both 
 Bethlehem  and  the  cave  of  Adullam  (according  to 
 any  position  assignable  to  the  latter)  to  meet  the 
 requirements  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  13. 
 
 The  valley  ajjpears  to  derive  its  name  from  the 
 ancient  nation  of  the  Eephaim.  It  may  be  a  trace 
 of  an  early  settlement  of  theirs,  possibly  after  tbey 
 were  driven  from  tlieir  original  seats  east  of  tlie 
 Jordan  by  C^hedorlaomer  (Gen.  xiv.  5),  and  before 
 they  again  misrrated  northward  to  the  more  secure 
 wooded  districts  in  which  we  find  them  at  the  date 
 of  the  partition  of  the  country  among  the  tribes 
 (Josh.  xvii.  15;  A.  V.  "giants").  In  this  case  it 
 is  a  parallel  to  the  "  mount  of  the  Amalekites  "  in 
 the  centre  of  Palestine,  and  to  the  towns  bearing 
 the  name  of  the  Zemaraim,  the  Avim,  the  Ophnites, 
 etc.,  which  occur  so  frequently  in  Benjamin  (vol.  i. 
 p.  277,  note  b).  G. 
 
 REPHTDIM  (D''"T5"1 :  "PacpiSelv  :  [Bnph- 
 idhn] ).  lix.  xvii.  1,  8 ;  xix.  2.  The  name  means 
 "rests'.'  or  "stays;''  the  place  lies  in  the  march 
 of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt  to  Sinai.  The  "  wil- 
 derness of  Sin"  was  succeeded  by  Rephidim  accord- 
 ing to  these  passages,  but  in  Num.  xxxiii.  12,  13, 
 Dophkah  and  Alush  are  mentioned  as  occurring 
 between  the  people's  exit  from  that  wilderness  and 
 their  entry  into  the  latter  locality.  Tliere  is  noth- 
 ing known  of  these  two  places  which  will  enable  us 
 to  fix  the  site  of  Rephidim.  [Alush  ;  Dophkah.] 
 Lepsins'  view  is  that  iMount  Serbal  is  the  true 
 Hoi-eb,  and  that  Rephidim  is  Wady  Feiran,  the 
 well  known  valley,  richer  in  water  and  vegetation 
 than  any  other  in  the  peninsula  (Lepsius'  Tow 
 from  Thebes  to  Sinai,  1815,  pp.  21,  37).  This 
 would  account  for  the  expectation  of  finding  water 
 here,  which,  however,  from  some  unexplained  cause 
 failed.  In  Ex.  xvii.  6,  "the  rock  in  Horeb "  is 
 nan/ed  as  the  source  of  the  water  miraculously  sup- 
 plied.    On  the  other  hand,  the  language  used  Ex. 
 
 REPHIDIM 
 
 xix.  1,  2,  seems  precise,  as  regards  the  point  that 
 the  journey  from  Rephidim  to  Siiifii  was  a  dis- 
 tinct stage.  Tlie  time  from  the  wilderness  of  Sin, 
 reached  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month 
 of  the  Exodus  (Ex.  xvi.  1),  to  the  wilderne.ss  of 
 Sinai,  reached  on  the  first  day  of  the  third  month 
 (xix.  1),  is  from  fourteen  to  sixteen  days.  This, 
 if  we  follow  Num.  xxxiii.  12-15,  has  to  be  dis- 
 tributed between  the  four  march-stations  Sin, 
 JJophkah,  Alush,  and  Rephidim,  and  their  corre- 
 sponding stages  of  journey,  which  would  allow  two 
 days'  repose  to  every  day's  march,  as  there  are  four 
 marches,  and  4  X  2  -}-  4  ^  12,  leaving  two  days 
 over  from  the  fourteen.  The  first  grand  object 
 being  the  arrival  at  Sinai,  the  intervening  distance 
 may  probably  have  been  despatched  with  all  possi- 
 ble speed,  considering  the  weakness  of  the  host  by 
 reason  of  women,  etc.  The  name  Horeb  is  by 
 Robinson  taken  to  mean  an  extended  range  or 
 region,  some  iiart  of  which  was  near  to  liepliidim, 
 which  he  places  at  Wady  esh-Sheik/i,''  running 
 from  N.  E.  to  S.  W.,  on  the  W.  side  of  Gebel 
 Fureia,  opposite  the  northern  face  of  the  modern 
 Horeb.  [Sinai.]  It  joins  the  Wudy  Feiran. 
 The  exact  spot  of  Robinson's  Rephidim  is  a  defile 
 in  the  esh-SheiUi  visited  and  described  by  Burck- 
 hardt  (Syria,  etc.,  p.  488)  as  at  about  five  hours' 
 distance  from  where  it  issues  from  the  plain  Fr- 
 Ralieh,  narrowing  between  abrupt  cliffs  of  black- 
 ened granite  to  about  40  feet  in  width.  Here  isr 
 also  the  traditional  "Seat  of  Moses"  (Robinson, 
 i.  121).  The  opinion  of  Stanley  {S.  (f  P.  ]ip.  40- 
 42),  on  the  contrary,  with  Ritter  (xiv.  740,  741), 
 places  Rephidim  in  Wady  Feiran,  where  the  traces 
 of  building  and  cultivation  still  attest  the  impor- 
 tance of  this  valley  to  all  occupants  of  the  desert. 
 It  narrows  in  one  spot  to  100  yards,  showing  high 
 mountains  and  thick  woods,  with  gardens  and  date- 
 groves.  Here  stood  a  Christian  church,  city  and 
 episcopal  residence,  under  the  name  of  Paran,  be- 
 fore the  foundation  of  the  convent  of  Mount  St. 
 Catherine  by  Justinian.  It  is  the  finest  valley  in 
 the  whole  peninsula  (Bnrckhardt,  Ar(di.  p.  G02; 
 see  also  Robinson,  i.  117,  118).  Its  fertility  and 
 richness  account,  as  Stanley  thinks,  for  the  Amal- 
 ekites' struggle  to  retain  possession  against  those 
 whom  they  viewed  as  intrusive  aggressors.  This  • 
 view  seems  to  meet  the  largest  amount  of  possil>le 
 conditions  for  a  site  of  Sinai.  Lepsius,  too  (see 
 above)  dwells  on  the  fact  that  it  was  of  no  use  for 
 Moses  to  occupy  any  otlier  part  of  the  wilderness, 
 if  he  could  not  deprive  the  Amalekites  of  the  only 
 spot  (Feiran)  which  was  inhabited.  Stanley  (41) 
 thinks  the  word  describing  the  ground,  rendered 
 the  "  hill "  in  Ex.  xvii.  9,  10,  and  said  adequately 
 to  describe  that  on  which  the  churcli  of  Paran 
 stood,  atfords  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  Feiran 
 identity.  H-  H. 
 
 *  Upon  the  other  hand,  however,  it  may  be 
 urged  with  much  force,  that  since  Wady  Feiran 
 is  full  twelve  hours'  march  from  Jebel  Mtisa,  Rephi- 
 dim could  not  have  been  in  that  valley  if  the  iden- 
 tity of  Sinai  with   this  mountain    is  maintained; 
 
 a  On  the  other  hand  it  is  somewhat  singular  that 
 the  modern  name  for  this  upland  plain,  Buha'ah, 
 ehould  be  the  same  with  that  of  the  great  inclosed 
 valley  of  Lebanon,  which  differs  from  it  as  widely  as 
 it  can  differ  from  the  signification  of  Emek.  There  is 
 no  connection  between  B~ik^n/i  and  Baca ;  they  are 
 essentially  disthiot. 
 
 b  Vn   this  Lepsius   remarks   that   Kobinson   would 
 
 have  certainly  recognized  the  true  position  of  Rephi- 
 dim ((■.  e.  at  Wocly  Feiran),  had  he  not  passed  by 
 WaOy  Feiran  with  its  brook,  garden,  and  ruins  —  the 
 most  interesting  spot  in  the  peninsula  — in  order  to 
 see  Snrbm  el-Cliactem  (ibifl.  p.  22).  And  Stanley  ad- 
 mits the  objection  of  bringing  the  Israelites  through 
 the  most  striking  scenery  in  the  desert,  tliat  of  Feiran, 
 without  any  event  of  importance  to  mark  it. 
 
REPROBATE 
 
 for  Rephidim  was  distant  from  Sinai  but  one  day's 
 mai'ch  (Ex.  xix.  2;  Num.  xxxiii.  15),  and  the  dis- 
 tance from  Wcidy  Feiran  to  Jebcl  Miisa  could  not 
 have  been  accomplished  by  so  great  a  multitude  on 
 foot,  in  a  single  march.  Moreover,  the  want  of  water 
 spoken  of  in  Ex.  xxii.  1,  2,  seems  to  preclude  the 
 Wady  Feiran  as  the  location  of  Rephidim ;  for  the 
 Wady  has  an  almost  perennial  supply  of  water, 
 whereas  the  deficiency  referred  to  in  the  narrative 
 seems  to  have  been  natural  to  the  sterile  and  rocky 
 region  into  which  the  people  had  now  come,  and  it 
 was  necessary  to  supply  them  from  a  supernatural 
 source. 
 
 The  location  of  Rephidim  must  be  determined 
 by  that  of  Sinai;  and  the  author  of  the  above  article, 
 in  his  article  on  Sinai,  seems  to  answer  his  own 
 arguments  for  placing  Rephidim  in  the  Wai/y 
 Feiran  with  Serbdl  as  the  Sinai,  and  to  accept 
 in  the  main  Dr.  Robinson's  identification  of  Sinai 
 and  lioreb,  which  requires  that  Rephidim  be  trans- 
 ferred to  Wa.dij  es-Sheykh.  The  weight  of  topo- 
 graphical evidence  and  of  learned  authority  now 
 favors  this  view.  J.  V.  T. 
 
 *  REPROBATE  (DWp3  :  h.UKiiJios),  incapa- 
 ble of  enduring  trial,  or  lolien  tested,  found  un- 
 worthy (witli  special  refei'ence,  primarily,  to  the 
 assay  of  metals,  see  Jer.  vi.  30),  hence,  in  general, 
 corrupt,  wort/tliiss. 
 
 The  word  is  employed  by  St.  Paul,  apparently 
 for  the  sake  of  the  antithetic  parallelism,  2  Coi-. 
 xiii.  6,  7,  in  the  merely  negative  sense  of  "  un- 
 proved," "  unattested,"  with  reference  to  himself 
 as  being  left,  supposably,  without  that  proof  of  his 
 apostleship  which  might  be  furnished  by  disciplinary 
 chastisements,  inflicted  upon  offenders  through  his 
 instrumentality.  The  same  word,  which  is  ordi- 
 narily in  the  A.  V.  translated  "  reprobate,"  is  ren- 
 dered 1  Cor.  ix.  27,  "  a  castaway,"  and  Heb.  vi.  8, 
 "  rejected."  D.  S.  T. 
 
 RE'SEN  ("JpT:  Aaai\;  [Alex.]  Aao-e/i:  lie- 
 sen)  is  mentioned  only  in  Gen.  x.  12,  where  it  is 
 said  to  have  been  one  of  the  cities  built  by  Asshur, 
 after  he  went  out  of  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  to 
 have  lain  "  between  Nineveh  and  Calah."  Jlany 
 writers  have  been  inclined  to  identify  it  with  the 
 Rhesina  or  Rhessena  of  the  Byzantine  authors 
 (Amm.  Marc,  xxiii.  5;  Procop.  Bell.  Pers.  ii.  It); 
 Steph.  Byz.  sub  voce  'PeVifa),  and  of  Ptolemy 
 (Geograph.  v.  18),  which  was  near  the  true  source 
 of  the  western  Khabour,  and  which  is  most  prob- 
 ably the  modern  Ras-el-nin.  (See  Winer's  Real- 
 worterhuch,  sub  voce  "Resen.")  There  are  no 
 grounds,  however,  for  this  identification,  except  the 
 similarity  of  name  (which  similarity  is  perhaps  fal- 
 lacious, since   the  LXX.  evidently  read  ^DT   for 
 
 'jD")),  while  it  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  theory 
 that  Resasna  or  Resina  was  not  in  Assyria  at  all, 
 but  in  ^yestern  Mesopotamia,  200  miles  to  the  west 
 of  both  the  cities  between  which  it  is  said  to  have 
 lain.  A  far  more  probable  conjecture  was  that  of 
 Bochart  (Geograph.  Sacr.  iv.  23),  who  found 
 Resen  in  the  Larissa  of  Xenophon  (Anab.  iii.  4, 
 §  7),  which  is  most  certainly  the  modern  Nimrud. 
 Resen,  or  Dasen  —  whichever  may  be  the  true 
 form  of  the  word  —  must  assuredly  have  been  in 
 this  neighborhood.  As,  however,  the  Nimrud 
 ruins  seem  really  to  represent  Calah,  while  those 
 opposite  Mosul  are  the  remains  of  Nineveh,  we 
 must  look  for  Rjsen  in  the  tract  lying  between  these 
 
 RESURRECTION  2707 
 
 two  sites.  Assyrian  remains  of  some  considerable 
 extent  are  found  in  this  situation,  near  the  modern 
 village  of  Selamiyeh,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  most 
 probable  conjecture  that  these  represent  tlie  Resen 
 of  Genesis.  No  doubt  it  may  be  said  that  a  "  great 
 city,"  such  as  Resen  is  declared  to  have  been  ((jen. 
 X.  12),  could  scarcely  have  intervened  between  two 
 other  large  cities  which  are  not  twenty  miles  apart; 
 and  the  ruins  at  Selaudyeh,  it  must  be  admitted, 
 are  not  very  extensive.  But  perhaps  we  ought  to 
 understand  the  phrase  "  a  great  city"  relatively 
 —  i.  e.  great,  as  cities  went  in  early  times,  or  great, 
 considering  its  proximity  to  two  other  larger  towns. 
 
 If  this  explanation  seem  unsatisfactory,  we  might 
 perhaps  conjecture  that  originally  Asshur  (Kileh- 
 Sherghai)  was  called  Calah,  and  Nimrud  Resen; 
 but  that,  when  the  seat  of  empire  was  removed 
 northwards  from  the  former  place  to  the  latter,  the 
 name  Calah  was  transferred  to  the  new  capital.  In- 
 stances of  such  transfers  of  name  are  not  unfre- 
 quent. 
 
 The  later  .Jews  appear  to  have  identified  Resen 
 with  the  Kileh-Sherghat  ruins.  At  least  the  Tar- 
 gums  of  Jonathan  and  of  Jerusalem  explain  Resen 
 
 by  Tel-Assar  ("lObn  or  "IDSbjl),  "  the  mound 
 of  Asshur."  G.  R. 
 
 *  RESH,  which  means  "  head,"  is  the  name 
 
 of  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters  ("1).  It  designates  a 
 division  of  Ps.  cxix.  and  commences  each  verse  of 
 that  division.  It  occurs  in  some  of  the  other  al- 
 phabetic   compositions.       [Poetky,    Heukkw  ; 
 
 WlUTING.]  H. 
 
 RE'SHEPH  eitt?"! :  2apc^*;  Alex.  Va<re<p: 
 Reseph).  A  son  of  Ephraim  and  brother  of  Rephah 
 (1  Chr.  vii.  2.5). 
 
 *  RESURRECTION.  The  Scripture  doc- 
 trines of  the  )-esurrection  and  of  the  future  lifie  are 
 closely  connected ;  or,  rather,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
 sequel,  are  practically  identical. 
 
 It  will  be  proper,  therefore,  to  begin  with  the 
 notices  and  intiujations  of  both,  which  are  contained 
 in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 I.  Resuekection  IX  THE  Old  Testajient. 
 
 1.  The  passage  which  presents  itself  first  for  con- 
 sideration is  Ex.  iii.  G,  the  address  of  God  to  Mo- 
 ses at  the  liurning  bush,  saying,  "  I  am  the  God  of 
 thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac, 
 and  the  God  of  Jacob."  This  text  takes  ])rece- 
 dence  of  all  others,  inasmuch  as  it  is  expressly  ap- 
 pealed to  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xxii.  31,  32;  Mark 
 xii.  26;  Luke  xx.  37)  in  proof  of  a  resurrection, 
 and  in  confutation  of  the  Sadducees,  who  denied  it. 
 Now,  our  Lord  argues  that  since  God  is  not  a  (iod 
 of  the  dead  but  of  the  living,  it  is  implied  tli.at 
 Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  still  living.  That 
 they  were  still  living  is  undoubtedly  a  truth  of  fact, 
 and  expresses,  therefore,  the  truth  of  the  relation  of 
 the  Divine  consciousness  (so  to  speak)  to  Abraham, 
 Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  indicated  in  those  words. 
 Moreover,  this  argument  from  those  words  was  in 
 accordance  with  the  received  modes  of  .Jewish 
 thought.  It  silenced  the  Sadducees.  It  probably 
 has  a  foundation  and  a  force  in  the  structure  of 
 the  Heljrew  language  which  we  cannot  easily  or 
 fuUy  appreciate.  To  us  it  would  seem  inconclu- 
 sive as  a  piece  of  mere  reasoning,  especially  when 
 we  consider  that  the  verb  of  existence  ("am  ")  i.s 
 not  expressed  in  the  Hebrew.    But  it  is  not  a  piece 
 
2708  RESURRECTION 
 
 of  mere  reasoning.  The  recognition  in  the  Divine 
 mind  of  the  then  present  relation  to  Abraham, 
 Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  living,  is  declared  on  Christ's 
 authoritj';  and  the  evidence  of  it  contained  in  the 
 Hebrew  text  was  sufficient  for  the  minds  to  wliich 
 that  evidence  was  addressed.  A  deeper  insight 
 into  the  meaning  of  this  text,  and  into  the  charac- 
 ter of  .Jehovah  as  the  e\er-Iiving  God  and  loving 
 Father,  would  probably  make  clear  to  our  own 
 minds  more  of  the  inherent  force  of  this  ari;ument 
 of  our  Blessed  Lord  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead. 
 
 2.  The  story  of  the  translation  of  Enoch,  Gen. 
 V.  22,  24,  manifestly  implies  the  recognition  of  a 
 future,  supramundane  life,  as  familiar  to  Moses  and 
 the  patriarchs;  for,  otherwise,  how  should  we  find 
 here,  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews  argues,  any 
 illustration  of  the  second  great  article  of  faith  in 
 God,  namely,  that  "  He  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that 
 dihgently  seek  Him  "  ? 
 
 3.  The  rapture  of  Elijah,  as  related  in  2  Kings  ii., 
 implies  as  certainly  a  recognition  of  the  same  truth. 
 
 4.  The  raising  of  the  child  by  Elijah,  1  K.  xvii. 
 21-24,  implies  the  fact,  and  the  then  existing  be- 
 lief in  the  fact,  of  the  continued  existence  of  the 
 soul  after  death,  i.  e.  after  its  separation  from  the 
 body.     "  0  Lord,  my  God,"  says  the  prophet,  "  1 
 
 pray  Thee,  let  this  child's  soul  (ti''??3,  mphcsh) 
 come  into  him  again." 
 
 5.  The  same  truth  is  implied  in  the  account  of 
 the  raising  of  the  child  by  Elisha,  2  K.  iv.  20, 
 32-36. 
 
 6.  Also,  in  the  case  of  the  dead  man  resusci- 
 tated by  the  contact  of  P^lisha's  bones,  2  K.  xiii. 
 21.  —  And  these  three  last  are  illustrations  also  of 
 the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
 
 1.  The  popular  belief  among  the  Hel:lre^VB  in  the 
 existence  and  activity  of  the  souls  or  spirits  of  the 
 departed  is  manifest  from  the  strong  tendency 
 which  existed  among  them  to  resort  to  the  practice 
 of  necromancy.  See  the  familiar  story  of  the  witch 
 of  Endor,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  See  also  the  solemn  pro- 
 hibition of  this  practice,  Deut.  xviii.  9-11;  where 
 
 we  have  expressly  D^jH^n" /S  ff'Tl"^?  cloresh 
 el-hammcllnm,  a  seeker  of  a  miraculous  response 
 from  ilie  deacl^  —  a  necrvniancer.  See  also  I^ev. 
 xix.  31  and  xx.  6 ;  where  the  Israelites  are  forbid- 
 den to  have  recourse  to  the  imilS,  Cbdth,  "such 
 as  have  familiar  spirits,"  according  to  the  received 
 translation,  but  according  to  Gesenius,  "  sooth- 
 sayers who  evoke  the  manes  of  the  dead,  by  the 
 power  of  incantations  and  magical  songs,  in  order 
 to  give  answers  as  to  future  and  doubtful  things." 
 Such  was  the  witch  of  Endor  herself,  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
 7.  These  necromancers  are,  under  this  name,  very 
 frequently  referred  to  in  the  0.  T. :  see  Isa.  xix.  3 
 and  xxix.  4;  Deut.  xviii.  11:  2  K.  xxi.  f. ;  2  Chr. 
 xxxiii.  G,  &c.  In  Isa.  viii.  19,  this  word  is  used  in 
 a  very  significant  coiniection :  "  And  when  they 
 shall  say  unto  you.  Seek  unto  ihem  that  luivefa- 
 
 mtliiir  spirits,  the  m!2S,  and  unto  wizards  that 
 peep  and  that  m\itter;  should  not  a  people  seek 
 unto   their    God?    for    the    living    to    the    dead 
 
 (D^'nan-bW)?  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
 mony." 
 
 Now,  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  our  present  pur- 
 pose whether  these  necromancers  really  had  inter- 
 course with  departed  spirits  or  not,  —  whether  the 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 witch  of  Endor  really  called  up  the  spirit  of  Sani^ 
 uel  or  not ;  they  may  all  have  been  mere  impostors, 
 jugglers,  mountebanks;  — it  is  all  the  same  to  ns; 
 the  practice  of  consulting  them  and  confiding  in 
 them  pro\es  incontestably  the  popular  belief  in  the 
 existence  of  the  spirits  they  were  supposed  to  evoke. 
 
 8.  The  same  belief  is  shown  in  the  use  of  the 
 word  Rephdim  (CSD"1),  sometimes  translated 
 "giants,"  and  sometimes  "the  dead,"  but  more 
 properly  meaning  Munes,  or,  perhaps,  "  the  dead 
 of  long  ago:"  see  Isa.  xiv.  9;  l*s.  Ixxxviii.  10; 
 I'rov.  ii.  18,  ix.  18,  xxi.  16;  and  Isa.  xxvi.  14,  19. 
 [Giants,  vol.  ii.  p.  912. J 
 
 9.  This  belief  is  shown  also,  and  yet  more  dis- 
 tinctly, in  the  popular  conceptions  attached  to  Sheol, 
 
 (i'Mi.W,  or  bSttJ),  i.  e.  Hades,  the  abode  of  the 
 departed.  Our  word  yvave,  used  in  a  broad  and 
 somewhat  metaphorical  sense,  as  equivalent  to  the 
 a1)ode  of  the  dead  in  general,  may  often  be  a  proper 
 translation  of  67/e(5i;  but  it  is  to  be  carefully  ob- 
 served that  Sheol  is  never  used  for  an  individual 
 grave  or  sepulchre;  —  a  particular  man's  grave  is 
 never  called  his  sheol.  Abraham's  burying-place 
 at  Mamre,  or  .Jacob's  at  Shechein,  was  never  con- 
 founded with  Sheol.  However  Shed  may  be  asso- 
 ciated—  and  that 'naturally  enough  —  with  the 
 place  in  which  the  body  is  deposited  and  decays, 
 the  Hel)rews  evidently  regarded  it  as  a  place  where 
 the  dead  continued  in  a  state  of  conscious  existence. 
 No  matter  though  they  regarded  the  place  as  one 
 of  darkness  and  gloom ;  and  no  matter  thoujjh  they 
 regarded  its  inhabitants  as  shades  ;  —  still  they  be- 
 lieved that  there  was  such  a  place,  and  that  the 
 souls  of  the  departed  still  existed  there:  see  Isa. 
 xiv.  9,  10:  "Hell  (Sheol)  from  beneath  is  moved 
 for  thee  at  thy  coming;  it  stirreth  up  the  dead  for 
 thee,  even  all  the  chief  ones  of  the  earth;  it  hath 
 raised  up  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings  of  the 
 nations.  All  they  speak  and  say  unto  thee,  Art 
 thou  also  become  weak  as  we?  Art  thou  become 
 like  unto  us  ?  "  This  may  be  said  to  be  the  lan- 
 guage of  poetic  imagery  and  personification ;  hut 
 it  unquestionably  expresses  pre\ailing  popular  ideas. 
 ■Jacob  goes  down  to  Sheol  to  his  s«n  mourning, 
 Gen.  xxxvii.  3.5.  Abraham  ;joes  to  his  fathers  in 
 pence,  (ien.  xv.  15.  And  so  in  general,  the  famil- 
 iar phrase,  "being  gathered  to  his  fathers,"  means 
 more  than  dyinrj  as  they  had  died,  or  being  placed 
 in  the  family  tonil);  it  means,  joined  to  their  com- 
 pany and  society  in  Sheol:  see  .Joli  iii.  11-19,  and 
 xiv.  13;  Ps.  xvi.  10,  and  xlix.  14,  15.  For  the  fur- 
 ther development  of  the  idea,  connected  with  the 
 later  conception  of  "  the  bosom  of  Abraham,"  see 
 Luke  xvi.  22.     [Hell:  Aur,\ham'.s  Bosom.] 
 
 10.  There  are  many  indications,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, of  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  proper,  of  a 
 reunion  of  soul  and  body,  and  a  transition  to  a 
 higher  life  than  either  that  of  earth  or  of  Sheol. 
 
 The  vision  of  the  valley  of  the  dry  bones  in 
 Ezek.  xxxvii.,  thou<;h  it  may  be  intended  merely 
 to  symljolize  the  restoration  of  the  -lewish  state, 
 yet  shows  that  the  notion  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
 liody,  even  after  its  decay  and  conuption,  had 
 distinctly  occurred  to  men's  minds  in  the  time  of 
 the  prophet,  and  was  regarded  neither  as  absurd, 
 nor  as  beyond  the  limits  of  Almighty  power.  It  is 
 even  employed  for  the  purpose  of  illuslrittinf/  an- 
 other grand  idea,  another  wonderful  fact. 
 
 In  Isa.  xxvi.  19,  the  prophet  says:  "Thy  dead 
 men  (Heb.  mi;thim)  shall  live,  together  with  my 
 
RESURRECTION 
 
 dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sinw,  ye 
 that  ilwx'll  in  the  dust:  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew 
 of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead  " 
 
 (a^'Spn).  Ps.  xvi.  8-11:  "My  flesh  also  shall 
 rest  in  hope;  for  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul 
 C^a7D3)  in  hell  (VlS^b);  neither  wilt  thou 
 suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."  Ps.  xvii. 
 15 :  "I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake  in  thy 
 likeness."  Ps.  xxiii.  4:  "  Thoifgh  I  walk  through 
 the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death  I  will  fear 
 no  evil."  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24-20:  "Thou  siialt  guide 
 me  by  thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me  lo 
 glory.  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  theeV  and 
 there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  besides  thee. 
 Jly  flesh  and  my  heart  faileth,  but  God  is  the 
 strength  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion  forever." 
 Job  xiv.  13-15 :  "  Oh  that  thou  wouldest  hide  me 
 me  in  the  grave  (S/ieol),  that  thou  wouldest  keep 
 me  secret  until  thy  wrath  be  past,  that  tliou  would- 
 est appoint  me  a  set  time  and  remember  me !  If 
 a  man  die  shall  he  live  again  ?  All  the  days  of  my 
 appointed  time  will  I  wait,  till  my  change  come. 
 Thou  shall,  call,  and  I  will  (insicer  thee;  thou  shnlt 
 have  n  dedre  to  the  work  of  thy  hands."  Job  xix. 
 23-27 :  "  Oh  that  my  words  were  now  written ! 
 Oh  that  they  were  printed  in  a  book !  that  they 
 were  graven  with  an  iron  pen  and  lead  in  tiie  rock 
 
 forever!  For  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  (vS3, 
 Goel,  —  who,  Gesenius  says,  is  here  God  himself) 
 liveth,  and  tliat  he  shall  stand  in  the  latter  day 
 upon  the  earth;  and  after  my  skin  let  them  de- 
 stroy this  body,  yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God." 
 It  is  true  many  attempts  have  been  made,  by  vary- 
 ing translations  and  special  interpretations,  to  as- 
 sign to  this  passage  some  other  reference  than  to 
 the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But  if  this  last  is 
 the  natural  sense  of  the  words,  —  and  of  this  every 
 candid  reader  must  judge  for  himself,  —  it  is  just 
 as  credible  as  any  other,  for  it  is  only  begging  the 
 question  to  allege  that  the  idea  of  a  resurrection 
 had  not  occurred  at  that  time.  Dan.  xii.  2,  3 : 
 "  And  many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
 shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
 shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  Here  it  can 
 hardly  witii  any  reason  1)6  doulited  that  a  proper 
 resurrection  of  the  body  is  meant. 
 
 11.  This  idea  and  hope  of  a  future  resurrection 
 was  yet  more  distinctly  developed  during  the  period 
 between  the  close  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment and  the  Christian  era.  See  2  Mace.  vii. 
 9,  14,  36 ;  Wisdom,  ii.  1,  23,  and  iii.  1-9. 
 
 12.  If  we  compare  the  definition  of  faith  in  the 
 eleventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
 the  statement  of  the  palpable  truth  that  he  who 
 conieth  to  God  "  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that 
 he  is  a  rewnrder  of  them  that  dUUjently  seek  him,^^ 
 with  the  illustrations  given  in  the  rest  of  the  chap- 
 ter, drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall  see 
 that  it  nmst  be  implied  in  the  case  of  all  of  them, 
 as  well  as  of  Enoch,  that  they  looked  for  a  future 
 resurrection  and  everlasting  life.  See  particularly 
 vv.  10,  13-16,  19,  26,  35. 
 
 13.  Keniarkable  are  the  predictions  in  Ez.  xxxiv. 
 23,  24,  x.xxvii.  24,  25;  Jer.  xxx.  7;  and  Hos.  iii. 
 5 ;  —  where,  in  connection  with  a  restoration  of  the 
 Jews,  we  are  told  of  "my  servant  David  who  shall 
 be  their  prince,"  "  David  their  king,  whom  I  will 
 raise  up,"  etc.  Also,  the  prediction  in  Mai.  iv.  5: 
 "  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet,"  etc.,  with 
 which  compare  Luke  ix.  7,  8,  19.     It  seems  that 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 2709 
 
 Herod,  —  with  most  other  Jews,  probably, — ex- 
 pected this  last  prediction  to  be  fulfilled  by  a  literal 
 resurrection.  The  question  is.  Shall  we  find  in 
 such  .prophecies  a  resurrection,  metewpsychi'sis,  oi 
 metaphor?  Probably  the  last;  see  Matt.  xi.  14: 
 Mark  viii.  13;  Luke  i.  17;  .lohn  i.  21.  Thus  John 
 the  Baptist  was  Elias,  and  he  was  not  Elias :  that 
 is  to  say,  he  was  not  Elias  literally,  but,  as  the 
 angel  said,  he  came  "in  the  siiirit  and  power  of 
 Elias;"  and  in  him  the  prophecy  was  properly 
 fulfilled,  —  he  was  the  "  Elias  which  was  for  to 
 come." 
 
 14.  There  are  in  the  Classical  as  well  as  in  the 
 Hebrew  writers,  indications  of  the  recognition  not 
 only  of  the  continued  existence  of  the  souls  of  the 
 departed,  but  of  the  idea  of  a  proper  resurrection ; 
 —  showing  that  the  thought  does  not  strike  the 
 unsophisticated  human  mind  as  manifestly  absurd. 
 See  Hom.  //.  xxi.  54,  and  .xxiv.  756  {avacrri} 
 aovTai)-  See  also  yEschylus,  who  uses  the  same 
 word. 
 
 15.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  with  all 
 the  distinct  indications  that  the  writers  and  saints 
 of  the  Old  Testament  looked  for  a  future  life  and 
 a  final  resurrection,  they  very  often  indulge  in  ex- 
 pressions of  gloomy  despondency,  or  of  doubt  and 
 micertainty  in  regard  to  it;  so  that  it  is  strictly 
 true,  for  Jews  as  well  as  for  Gentiles,  that  life  and 
 immortality  are  brought  to  Ughl  through  the  Gospel. 
 For  some  of  those  gloomy  utterances  see  Isa. 
 xxxviii.  18,  19;  Job  xiv.  10-13;  xvii.  14-16;  x. 
 18-22;  vii.  6-9;  Ps.  xxx.  9;  xxxix.  12,  13;  xlix. 
 19,  20;  Ixxxviii.  4-12;  cii.  11,  12,  23-28;  ciii. 
 15-17;  civ.  29-31;  cxliv.  3-5;  cxlvi.  4-6;  Eccles. 
 iii.  18-22;  ix.  4-6,  10.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
 see  I'xeles.  xii.  7,  13,  14:  "Then  shall  the  dust 
 return  to  the  earth  as  it  was;  and  the  spirit  shall 
 return  unto  God  that  gave  it."  "  For  God  shall 
 bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret 
 thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil." 
 So  then  the  sotd,  or  spirit,  neither  perishes  with 
 the  body,  nor  is  absorbed  into  the  1  )eity.  It  con- 
 tinues in  conscious  existence,  a  suly'ect  of  reward 
 or  punishment. 
 
 II.    Resurkkction  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 1.  There  are  five  cases  of  the  raising  of  dead 
 persons  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 (a.)  The  daughter  of  Jairus,  Luke  viii.  49-55; 
 (6.)  The  widow's  son  at  Nain,  Luke  vii.  11-15; 
 (c.)  Lazarus  of  Bethany,  John  xi.  1-44; 
 {d. )  Dorcas,  or  Tabitha,  Acts  xi.  36-42 ; 
 (e.)  Eutychus,  Acts  xx.  9-12. 
 
 2.  Several  other  references  are  made,  in  a  more 
 or  less  general  way,  to  the  power  and  the  fact  of 
 miraculously  raising  dead  persons:  Matt.  x.  8 
 (text  disputed);  xi.  5;  Luke  vii.  22;  John  xii. 
 1,  9,  17;   Heb.  xi.  19,  35. 
 
 It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  these  cases  recorded  or 
 alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  like  the  cases  of 
 miracidous  resurrections  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 were  resurrections  to  a  natural,  mortal  life;  yet 
 they  imply,  no  less,  continued  existence  after  death ; 
 they  prefigure,  or  rather,  they  presuppose  a  final 
 resurrection. 
 
 3.  The  doctrine  of  a  final  general  resurrection 
 was  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  Jews  (the  Phar- 
 isees) at  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  See 
 Matt.  xxii. ;  Mark  xii.;  Luke  xx.  3-3-39;  John  xi. 
 23,  24;  Acts  xxiii.  6-8;  xxiv.  14,  15,  21;  and 
 xxvi.  4-8.  If,  then,  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
 plainly  and  solemnly  assert  the  same  doctrine,  we 
 
2710 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 are  not  at  liberty  to  give  their  words  a  strained  or 
 nietajiliorical  interpretation.  We  must  sujipose 
 them  to  mean  \\hat  they  knew  they  would  be 
 understood  to  mean.  This  is  especially  clear  in 
 the  case  of  St.  Paul,  who  had  himself  been  edu- 
 cated a  Pharisee. 
 
 The  Jews  seem  to  have  also  believed  in  reivrn- 
 ing  ^irits:  Acts  xii.  13-15;  Matt.  xiv.  20;  Mark 
 vi.  49;  Luke  xxiv.  37-39;  but  neither  Christ  nor 
 his  Apostles  seem  anywhere  to  have  admitted  or 
 sanctioned  this  opinion. 
 
 4.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  grand  pivot 
 of  the  (,'liristian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead.  Special  characters  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
 tion are:  (1.)  His  body  rose,  which  had  not  seen 
 corruption.  (2.)  His  body  rose  to  immortal  life  — 
 "to  die  no  more,"'  Kom.  vi.  9,  10.  (3.)  His  body 
 rose  a  spiritual  body  —  the  same,  and  yet  not  the 
 same,  which  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb,  John  xx. 
 
 19,  20;  Luke  xxiv.  13-32;  Mark  xvi.  12;  1  Cor. 
 XV.;  Phil.  iii.  21;  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  22.  (4.)  It  is 
 more  consonant  with  the  Scripture  statements  to 
 hold  that  his  body  rose  a  spiritual  body,  than  that, 
 rising  a  natural,  corruptible,  mortal  body,  it  was 
 either  gradually  or  suddenly  ch(in;ied  before  or  at 
 his  ascension.  (5.)  He  was  the  first  thus  raised  to 
 a  spiritual,  immortal  life  in  the  body,  1  Cor.  xv. 
 
 20,  23 ;  for  it  is  to  be  obsened  that,  while  the  rocks 
 were  rent  and  thus  the  graves  were  opened  (d  his 
 crucifxion,  yet  the  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
 slept  did  not  arise  and  come  out  of  their  graves 
 until  iifttr  Ids  resur7-eciion.  They,  too,  seem  to 
 have  risen,  not  with  natural  bodies  like  Lazarus 
 and  others,  but  with  spiritual  bodies;  for  they  are 
 said  to  have  "appeared  unto  many,"  but  they  do 
 not  seem  to  have  lived  again  a  natural  life  among 
 men  and  to  have  died  a  second  time.  Neither  were 
 their  "appearances"  the  apparitions  of  retuiuiiuj 
 spirits;  their  bodies  rose  and  came  out  of  their 
 (/raves  —  not  out  of  "the  grave,"  out  of  "  Hades," 
 or  "  Sheot,"  but  out  of  "  their  graves."  And,  like 
 their  risen  Lord,  they  soon  disappeared  from  the 
 scenes  of  earth. 
 
 5.  There  are  several  uses  and  apjjlications,  in 
 the  New  Testament,  of  the  words  aydcrraais  and 
 €-y€p(ris,  which  seem  to  be  substantially  synony- 
 mous, differing  only  in  the  figurative  form  of  the 
 common  thought,  and  which  are  alike  translated 
 "resurrection."  The  same  is  true  of  the  verbs 
 from  which  they  are  derived:  (1.)  They  seem  to 
 import  immortal  life,  in  general,  in  a  future  world. 
 Matt.  xxii.  31,  and  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark 
 and  Luke;  1  Cor.  xv.  18,  19.  (2.)  They  signify 
 distinctly  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  John  v.  28, 
 29;  xi.  "23,  24;  1  Cor.  xv.  35-54;  and  all  the 
 cases  where  Christ's  resurrection  is  spoken  of,  as 
 John  XX.  26-29;  Luke  xxiv.  3-7;  Matt,  xxvii.  52; 
 xxviii.  13,  &c.,  (fee;  also  1  Cor.  xv.  1-23;  and  see 
 ]>uke  xvi.  31.  (3.)  They  refer  to  a  spii-itual  and 
 moral  resurrection.  Eph.  i.  20,  comp.  ii.  G;  Phil, 
 iii.  11  (?);  Col.  iii.  1;  Eom.  vi.  4-14;  &c. 
 
 But  here  is  to  be  noted,  that,  according  to  the 
 ideas  of  the  New  Testament,  as  will  be  particu- 
 larly seen  in  St.  Paul's  argument  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
 the  second  signification  is  always  implied  in  and 
 with  the  first,  as  a  condition  or  a  consequence ;  and 
 that  the  third  is  merely  metaphorical. 
 
 6.  The  heathen  or  philosophic  doctrine  of  im- 
 mortality is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the 
 Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  TJie  ab- 
 stract immortality  of  the  human  soul,  its  immor- 
 'oality  independent  of  any  reunion  with  the  body. 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 was  indeed  a  favorite  and  lofty  speculation  of  the 
 ancient  heathen  philosophers.  But  they  could 
 never  demonstrate  its  necessary  truth  by  reason- 
 ing, nor  establish  its  practical  reality  by  positive 
 evidence.  It  remained,  and,  for  all  human  philos- 
 ophy could  ever  do,  must  have  contiimed,  merely 
 a  beautiful  vision,  a  noble  aspiration,  or,  at  best,  a 
 probable  presentiment. 
 
 The  popular  view  of  the  Greek  mind  was  devel- 
 oped in  the  ideas  of  Hades,  Elysium,  and  Tarta- 
 rus; and  to  this  view  may  correspond  also  the  pop- 
 ular Hebrew  conception  of  Shevl;  from  which  the 
 veil  of  darkness  —  even  for  the  minds  of  i)ispired 
 poets  and  proj)hets  —  was  not  entirely  removed, 
 until  the  glorious  light  of  the  (iospel  sinned  in 
 upon  it.  The  nearest  approximation  of  heathen 
 theories  to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
 tion,—  a  kind  of  instinctive  groping  towards  it, 
 —  is  found  in  the  wide-spread  philosophical  and 
 popular  notion  of  7netei}ipsychosis.  The  immor- 
 tality which  the  heathen  imagined  and  to  which 
 they  aspired,  even  in  Elysium,  was,  for  the  most 
 part,  a  sad  and  sony  inmiortality,  —  an  immor- 
 tality to  which  they  would  mihesitatingly  have  pre- 
 ferred this  present  life  in  the  Hesh,  if  it  could  have 
 been  made  permanent  and  raised  above  accident 
 and  pain.  But  their  notions  of  metempsychosis 
 could  have  afforded  them  at  this  point  but  meagre 
 consoliition.  Instead  of  Paradise  it  was  only  an 
 indefinite  Purgatory. 
 
 But  how  has  the  Gospel  brought  life  and  im- 
 mortality to  light?  By  estabhshing  as  an  indubi- 
 table practical  fact  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
 Thus  the  natural  repugnance  to  annihilation,  the 
 indefinite  longings  and  aspirations  of  the  human 
 mind,  its  fond  anticipations  of  a  life  to  come,  are 
 fully  confirmed  and  satisfied.  Innnortality  is  no 
 longer  a  dream  or  a  theory,  but  a  ])ractical,  tangi- 
 ble fact,  a  fact  both  proved  and  illustrated,  and 
 therefore  capable  of  being  botli  confidently  believed 
 and  distinctly  realized. 
 
 In  the  view  of  the  New  Testament,  the  immor- 
 tality of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
 always  involve  or  imply  each  other.  If  the  soul 
 is  immortal,  the  body  will  be  raised;  if  the  body 
 will  be  raised,  the  soul  is  immortal.  The  first  is 
 implied  in  our  Lord's  refutation  of  the  Sadducees; 
 the  second  is  a  matter  of  course.  The  Christian 
 doctrine  of  immortality  and  resurrection  is  a  con- 
 vertible enthymeme. 
 
 And  is  not  this  plain,  common-sense  view  of  the 
 Scriptures,  after  all,  nearer  the  most  philosophic 
 truth,  than  the  counter  analytical  abstractions? 
 All  we  need  care  about,  it  is  sometimes  thought 
 and  said,  is  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Let  that 
 be  established,  and  we  have  l)efore  us  all  the  future 
 life  that  we  can  desire.  Why  should  we  wish  for 
 the  resurrection  of  this  material  incumbrance? 
 But,  though  it  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  hu- 
 man soul  is  somewhat  distinct  from  the  body  —  an 
 immaterial,  thinking  substance;  and  though  we 
 can  easily  conceive  that  it  is  capable  of  conscious- 
 ness and  of  internal  activities,  and  of  spiritual 
 inter-communion,  in  a  state  of  separation  from  the 
 body;  yet,  inasnuich  as  all  we  have  ever  experi- 
 enced, and  all  we  thus  positively  know  of  its  action 
 and  development,  has  been  in  connection  with  and 
 by  means  of  a  bodily  organization,  —  by  what  sort 
 of  philosophy  are  we  to  conclude  that  of  course 
 and  of  a  certainty  it  will  have  no  need  of  its  bod- 
 ily organization,  either  for  its  continued  existence 
 or  even  for  its  full  action,  progress,  and  enjoyment 
 
RESURRECTION 
 
 in  a  future  state?  How  do  we  know  that  the  hu- 
 man soul  is  not,  in  its  very  nature,  so  constituted 
 as  to  need  a  bodily  organization  for  the  complete 
 play  and  exercise  of  its  powers  in  every  stage  of 
 its  existence?  So  that  it  would,  perhaps,  be  in- 
 consistent with  tbe  wisdom  of  its  Creator  to  pre- 
 serve it  in  an  imperfect  and  mutilated  state,  a 
 mere  wreck  and  relic  of  itself  and  its  noble  func- 
 tions, to  all  eternity?  And  so  that,  if  the  soul  is 
 to  be  coutinued  in  immortal  life,  it  certainly  is  to 
 be  ultimately  reunited  to  the  body?  Indeed,  it 
 wonld  be  quite  as  philosophical  to  conclude  that 
 the  soul  could  not  exist  at  all,  or,  at  least,  could 
 not  act,  could  not  even  exercise  its  consciousness, 
 without  the  body;  as  to  conclude  that,  without 
 the  body,  it  could  continue  in  the  full  exercise  of 
 its  powers. 
 
 Both  these  conclusions  are  contradicted  by  the 
 Scripture  doctrine  of  a  future  life.  On  the  one 
 hand,  the  soul  is  not  unconscious  while  separated 
 from  the  body,  but  is  capable  of  enjoying  the 
 blissful  spiritual  presence  and  communion  of  Christ; 
 for  to  be  absent  from  the  body  is  to  be  present 
 with  the  Lord,  and  to  be  thus  absent,  and  present 
 with  Christ,  is  "far  better"  than  to  be  here  at 
 home  in  the  body;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
 the  full  fruition,  the  highest  expansion,  the  freest 
 activity,  and  the  complete  glorification  of  the  soul, 
 are  not  attained  until  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
 is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  evangelical  and 
 apostolical  instruction,  and  especially  from  the  fict 
 that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  —  the  redemp- 
 tion of  the  body  —  is  constantly  set  forth  as  the 
 highest  and  ultimate  goal  of  Christian  hope.  As 
 Christians,  therefore,  we  should  not  prefer  the  al)- 
 stract  immortality  of  heathen  philosophy,  which, 
 sad  and  shadowy  as  it  was,  could  never  be  proved, 
 to  the  resurrection-immortality  of  the  Scriptures, 
 which  is  re\ealed  to  us  on  Divine  authority,  and 
 established  by  incontrovertible  evidence.  Nor  should 
 we  seek  to  complete  the  heathen  idea  by  engrafting 
 upon  it  what  we  arbitrarily  choose  of  the  Scripture 
 doctrine.  If  any  portion  of  this  doctrine  is  to  be 
 received,  the  whole  is  to  be  received ;  there  is  the 
 same  evidence  for  the  whole  that  there  is  for  a 
 part;  for,  if  any  part  is  denied,  the  authority  on 
 which  the  remainder  rests  is  annulled.  At  all 
 events,  our  business  here  is  to  state,  not  so  much 
 what  the  true  doctrine  is,  as  what  the  Biblical  doc- 
 trine is. 
 
 In  saying,  therefore,  that  if  the  body  be  not 
 raised,  there  is  no  Scripture  hope  of  a  future  life 
 for  the  soul,  we  do  not  exalt  the  flesh  above  the 
 spirit,  or  the  resurrection  of  the  body  above  the 
 immortality  of  the  soul.  We  only  designate  the 
 condition  on  which  alone  the  Scriptures  assure  us 
 of  spiritual  immortality,  the  evidence  by  which 
 alone  it  is  proved.  "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
 so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  Christ 
 brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  not  by  au- 
 thoritatively asserting  the  dogma  of  the  immortal- 
 ity of  the  soul,  but  by  Ins  own  resurrection  from 
 the  (had. 
 
 That  the  resurrection  on  which  St.  Paul  so 
 earnestly  insists  (1  Cor.  xv.)  is  conceived  of  by 
 him  as  involving  the  whole  question  of  a  future 
 life  must  be  evident  beyond  dispute.  See  particu- 
 larly vv.  12-19,  20-.3-2. 
 
 8.  The  Xew  Testament  doctrine  of  immm-tality 
 I's,  then,  its  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  And  its 
 doctrine  of  the  resurrection  we  are  now  prepared 
 to  show  involves  the  following  points:  — 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 2711 
 
 (1)  The  resurrection  of  the  body; 
 
 (2)  The  resurrection  of  this  s'ime  body; 
 
 (3)  The  resurrection  in  a  different  body; 
 
 (4)  That,  a  resurrection  yet  future;  and 
 
 (5)  A  resurrection  of  all  men  at  the  last  day. 
 
 (1.)  The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
 rection is  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
 That  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the 
 Corinthians,  St.  Paul  teaches  the  Christian  doctrine 
 of  immortality,  we  have  shown  above.  His  doc- 
 trine is  supposed  by  some  to  be  too  refined,  as  they 
 say,  to  be  consistent  with  a  proper  resurrection  of 
 the  body;  and  so  they  would  contradistinguish  St. 
 Paul's  view  from  other  and  grosser  views,  whetlier 
 in  the  New  Testament  or  elsewhere.  But  on  the 
 other  hand  the  truth  seems  to  be  that  St.  Paul 
 does  not  give  us  any  special  or  peculiarly  Pauline 
 view  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
 but  only  a  fuller  exposition  and  defense  of  it  than 
 tlie  New  Testament  elsewhere  contains.  i'he 
 Pauline  doctrine  we  accept  as  the  Christian  doc- 
 trine. And  that  the  resurrection  of  which  he  speaks 
 not  only  implies  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  is, 
 or  necessarily  and  primarily  implies,  a  resurrection 
 of  tne  body,  is  abimdantly  evident.  That  the 
 resurrection  of  Christ,  on  which  his  whole  argu- 
 ment is  based,  was  a  resurrection  of  the  body, 
 would  seem  beyond  dispute.  Otherwise,  if  Christ's 
 resurrection  is  to  signify  only  the  immortality 
 of  his  soul,  what  means  his  rising  on  the  third 
 day  '1  Did  his  soul  become  immortal  on  the 
 third  day?  Was  his  soul  shut  up  in  .Joseph's 
 sepulchre  that  it  should  come  forth  thence?  Did 
 his  soul  have  the  print  of  the  nails  in  its  hands 
 and  feet?  Did  his  soul  have  flesh  and  bones,  as 
 he  was  seen  to  have?  Besides,  if  there  is  to  be 
 any  proper  sense  in  the  term  resurrection,  that 
 which  has  fallen  must  be  that  which  is  raised. 
 The  resurrection,  therefore,  must  be  a  resurrection 
 of  the  body.  "  He  shall  change  our  vile  body  that 
 it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body, 
 according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even 
 to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself."  The  doc- 
 trine of  the  resurrection,  as  taught  by  St.  Paul, 
 exposed  him  to  the  mockery  of  the  Epicureans 
 and  Stoics;  it  must  therefore  ha\'e  been  a  resurrec- 
 tion of  the  body,  for  the  inmiortality  of  the  soul 
 would  have  been  no  theme  of  mockery  to  any 
 school  of  Greek  philosophers.  The  immortality  of 
 the  soul,  though,  for  want  of  sufficient  evidence,  it 
 might  not  be  believed,  was  never  rejected  as  in- 
 credible ;  but  St.  Paul's  appeal  is,  "  why  should 
 it  seem  a  thing  incredible  with  you  that  God 
 should  raise  the  dead  ?  " 
 
 (2. )  Moreover  it  is  the  resurrection  of  this  iden- 
 tical body,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  The  res- 
 urrection of  Christ,  which  is  the  type  and  first 
 fruits  of  ours,  was  manifestly  the  resurrection  of 
 his  own  body,  of  that  very  body  which  had  been 
 placed  in  Joseph's  sepulchre.  Otherwise,  if  it 
 were  merely  the  assumption  of  «  body,  of  some 
 body  as  a  fit  covering  and  organ  of  the  soul,  why 
 is  it  said  of  his  body  that  it  saw  no  corruption  ? 
 And  what  signifies  his  exhibiting  to  Thomas  his 
 hands  and  his  side  as  means  of  his  identification  ? 
 When  his  disciples  went  to  the  sepulchre  they 
 found  not  the  body  of  the  Lord  .Jesus.  What  had 
 become  of  it  ?  That  was  the  question.  They  felt 
 that  question  pi-operly  and  sufficiently  answered 
 when  they  found  that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead. 
 
 '•It  is  sown  in  corruption,"  says  the  Apostle; 
 "it   is  raised   in   incorruption."      What  is  raised 
 
2712 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 if  it  be  not  what  is  sown  ?  and  what  is  sown  if  it 
 be  not  the  body  ?  "  This  corruptible,"  the  Apos- 
 tle plainly  adds,  "  this  corruptible  must  put  on 
 incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  im- 
 mortality." So  tlien,  it  is  not  tlie  Incorruptible 
 Boul  that  shall  put  on  an  incorruptible  body,  nor 
 the  immortal  soul  that  shall  put  on  an  immortal 
 body ;  but  it  is  this  corruptible  and  mortal  body 
 which  is  to  put  on  —  i.  e.,  to  assume,  what  it  has 
 not  yet  aiid  in  its  own  nature,  an  incorruptible 
 and  innnortal  constitution  and  organization,  and 
 so  be  reunited  to  the  incorruptible  and  immortal 
 soul. 
 
 It  was  suggested  by  Locke,  and  is  often  repeated 
 by  others,  that  "the  resurrection  of  the  body," 
 though  confessed  in  the  creed,  is  novvhere  spoken 
 of  in  the  Scriptures,  but  only  "  the  resurrection 
 of  the  dead  " :  —  a  statement  which  furnishes  a  re- 
 markable illustration  of  the  fact  that  a  proposition 
 may  be  verbally  true  and  yet  practically  false. 
 And,  indeed,  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  even  rcr- 
 bally  true;  for,  besides  the  resurrection  of  our 
 Saviour's  body,  we  read  in  the  Scriptures  that 
 "  many  bodies  of  saints  which  slept  arose  and  came 
 out  of  their  gra\es  after  his  resurrection  ";  and,  in 
 general,  that  "  our  vile  boJi/  shall  be  changed  and 
 fashioned  like  to  his  glorious  body." 
 
 If  the  resurrection  imports  merely  the  assump- 
 tion of  a  body,  of  some  body,  and  not  of  the  body, 
 of  this  identical  body,  then  why  are  the  dead  rep- 
 resented as  coming  forth,  coming  forth  from  their 
 graves,  coming  forth  from  the  body  sown  as  the 
 plant  grows  up  out  of  the  earth  from  the  seed  that 
 has  been  deposited  in  itV  What  have  they  more 
 to  do  with  their  graves,  or  with  the  mass  of  cor- 
 ruption which  has  been  Iniried  in  the  earth?  The 
 souls  of  the  fiiitliful  departed  are  now  with  Christ; 
 and  to  what  end  should  they  be  made  to  come 
 forth  again  from  their  graves  at  their  resurrection 
 upon  his  final  appearing,  —  if  they  are  then  merely 
 to  assume  a  body,  some  body,  which  shall  ha\e 
 nothing  to  do  with  the  body  which  was  laid  in 
 the  tomb?  "  \Ve  shall  all  be  changed,"  .says  the 
 Apostle.  He  certainly  does  not  mean  that  we  shall 
 be  clumyelhujs.  He  does  not  say  that  our  bodies 
 shall  be  exchanged  for  others,  but  "  we  shall  be 
 changed,"  i.  e.,  our  bodies  shall  undergo  a  change, 
 a  transformation  whereby  from  natural  they  shall 
 become  spiritual  bodies,  so  that  this  very  corrupt- 
 ible itself  shall  put  on  incorruption. 
 
 Thus,  though  it  is  this  very  mortal  body,  this 
 identical  body,  that  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead, 
 it  yet  remains  true  that  "flesh  and  blood,"  as  such 
 and  unchanged,  "  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption." 
 "  It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spir- 
 itual body." 
 
 (3.)  And  this  brings  us  to  the  third  point, 
 that  the  resurrection  of  this  same  body  is  at 
 once  a  resurrection  in  a  different  body. 
 
 But  some  will  say,  what  sort  of  body  is  a 
 spiritual  body?  Is  not  the  expression  a  contra- 
 diction in  terms?  The  answer  is,  that  a  spirit- 
 ual body  is  a  body  fitted  by  its  constitution  to 
 be  the  eternal  habitation  of  the  pure  and  immor- 
 tal spirit.  How  a  body  must  be  constituted  in 
 order  to  be  fitted  for  such  a  purpose,  we  do  not 
 know  and  cannot  tell.  But  that  for  anything  we 
 do  know  or  can  urge  to  the  contrary,  there  may  be 
 such  a  body  —  proper  material  body  —  without 
 any  contradiction  or  absurdity,  St.  Paul  labors  to 
 demonstrate  by  a  multitude  of  illustrations  show- 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 ing  the  vast  diversity  that  exists  among  the 
 bodies  with  which  we  are  actually  acquainted 
 (1  Cor.  XV.  39-i4).  Among  all  this  variety  of 
 bodies,  therefore,  which  Almighty  power  is  able  t( 
 constitute,  there  certainly  may  be,  and  the  Apostle 
 asserts  that  there  certainly  is,  a  spiritual  body. 
 
 Some,  supposing  that  the  term  spiritual  was  in- 
 tended to  describe  the  internal  or  essential  consti- 
 tution, rather  than  to  indicate  the  use  and  purpose, 
 of  this  resurrection  body,  have  surmised  that  it 
 would  consist  of  some  most  refined  and  spiritualized 
 kind  of  matter:  and  have  suggested  that  it  might 
 be  of  an  aerial,  ethereal,  or  gaseous  nature.  But  all 
 such  speculations  transcend  the  bounds  of  our 
 knowledge,  and  of  our  necessity;  and  are  apt  to 
 end  in  something  gross  and  grovelling,  or  subli- 
 mated and  meaningless.  The  terra  sjuriiual,  as 
 already  said,  is  here  used  by  the  Apostle  to  indi- 
 cate, not  how  the  resurrection  body  is  constituted, 
 but  that  it  is  so  constituted  as  to  be  a  fit  abode  for 
 the  spirit  in  an  eternal  and  spiritual  world. 
 
 In  the  contrasted  expression  "  natural  body,"  the 
 term  nnlural  ^ivx'-k6s)  means,  in  the  original,  an- 
 imal or  animated,  psychical,  ensouled,  —  if  the  word 
 may  be  allowed ;  which  surely  does  not  imply  that 
 this  body  is  composed  of  soul  or  of  soul-like  sub- 
 stance, but  that  it  is  fitted  to  be  the  abode  and  or- 
 gan of  the  animal  or  animating  part  of  man,  of  the 
 sensitive  soul.  And  thus  we  can  understand  the 
 pertinence  of  the  Apostle's  allusion  to  Genesis,  which 
 otherwise  must  seem  —  as  it  probably  does  to  ordi- 
 nary readers  —  quite  irrelevant  and  unmeaning. 
 Having  laid  down  the  assertion,  "  there  is  a  natu- 
 ral body,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body,"  he  adds: 
 "  And  so  it  is  written,  The  first  man  Adam  was 
 made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quick- 
 ening spirit."  Now  the  word  which  is  translated 
 natural  is  directly  derived  from  that  translated 
 sold,  and  thus  the  connection  and  the  argument  be- 
 come plain  and  obvious;  as  if  the  Apostle  had  said. 
 
 There  is  a  soul-body,  and  there  is  a  spirit  body; 
 and  so  it  is  written.  The  first  man  Adam  was  made 
 a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quickening 
 spirit." 
 
 For  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Scriptures  often 
 make  a  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit,  as  well 
 as  between  soul  and  body.  Man,  according  to  this 
 Scripture  i^hilosophy,  is  viewed,  not  as  bipartite 
 but  as  tripartite,  not  as  consisting  of  soul  and  body, 
 but  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  So  viewed,  the  body 
 is  the  material  organization,  the  soul  is  the  animal 
 and  sensitive  part,  the  spirit  is  the  rational  and  im- 
 mortal, the  divine  and  heavenly  part.  It  is  true 
 we  are  now,  for  the  most  part,  accustomed  to  use 
 soul  as  synonymous  with  spirit,  —  and  so  the  Scrip- 
 tures more  frequently  do,  but  they  recognize  also 
 the  distinction  just  pointed  out.  In  Scripture 
 phrase,  the  spirit  is  the  highest  part  of  man,  the 
 organ  of  the  Divinity  within  him,  that  part  which 
 alone  apprehends  divine  things  and  is  susceptible 
 of  divine  influences.  Hence  the  Apostle  says,  "  The 
 natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  neither 
 can  he  know  them  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
 cerned "  — where  the  term  naturrd  is,  in  the  orig- 
 inal, again  ^vxix6s, psychic,  i.  e.  animal,  pertaining 
 to  the  soul.  There  are  but  two  other  cases  in  which 
 the  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  both 
 it  is  translated  sensual:  James  iii.  15,  "  earthly, 
 sensual,  devilish";  and  Jude  19,  '^sensual,  having 
 not  the  Spirit."  Thus,  therefore,  as  the  natural, 
 or   sensual,  or  animal,  or  psychical  body,  or  the 
 
RESURRECTION 
 
 soul-body,  is  a  body,  not  constituted  of  soul-sub- 
 stance, but  fitted  for  the  use  and  habitation  of 
 the  sensitive  soul;  so  we  conclude  that  the  spirit- 
 ual hoAy  is  a  body,  not  constituted  or  composed  of 
 spiritual  substance  —  which  would  be  a  contradic- 
 tion,—  but  a  true  and  proper  body,  a  material 
 body,  fittod  for  the  use  and  eternal  habitation  of 
 the  iuiuKirtal  spirit. 
 
 The  tliought  is  sometimes  suggested,  in  one  form 
 or  anotlier,  that  these  bodies  of  ours  are  vile  and 
 worthless,  and  do  not  deser\e  to  he  raised ;  and, 
 therefore,  that  the  spiritual  body  will  have  nothing 
 to  do  with  them.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
 that  C'hristiaiiity  does  not  teacli  us  to  despise,  to 
 abuse,  or  to  hate  the  body,  vile  and  corruptilile  as 
 it  is.  That  is  a  JManichean  and  heatlien  no- 
 tion. It  is  true,  our  presetit  body  may  be  viewed 
 both  as  an  organ  and  as  an  incumbrance  of  the 
 soul.  So  far  as  it  is  an  organ  it  is  to  be  re- 
 stored ;  so  far  as  it  is  an  incumbrance  it  is  to  be 
 changed.  This  mortal  is  to  put  on  immortality. 
 That  which  is  sown  in  corruption  is  to  be  raised  in 
 incorruption.  Christ  at  his  appearing  shall  "  change 
 our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fasliioned  like  unto 
 "his  glorious  body."  That  the  spiritual  body  is  to 
 be  a  modification  of  the  natural  body,  lieing  as- 
 sumed or  clothed  upon  it  as  a  new  and  glorious 
 form ;  that  the  one  is  to  have  a  real,  proper,  and 
 organic  connection  with  tlie  other,  growing  out  of 
 it  as  it  were;  so  that  each  person  will  have,  at  the 
 resurrection,  not  only  a?i  appropriate  body,  but  his 
 own  body,  seems  sufficiently  evident  from  the  Apos- 
 tle's whole  argument  (1  Cor.  xv. ),  and  particularly 
 from  his  illustration  of  the  various  plants  whicli 
 grow  up  from  the  seed  cast  into  the  ground.  Each 
 plant  has  an  organic  connection  with  its  seed,  and 
 tjiod  giveth  "  to  every  seed  his  own  body."  It  is 
 the  seed  itself  which  is  transformed  into  the  plant 
 which  rises  from  it. 
 
 (4.)  Tlie  resurrection  of  the  body,  of  this  same 
 body,  of  tliis  same  body  transformed  into  a  new  and 
 spiritual  body,  is  an  event  yet  J'uliire. 
 
 "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 
 be  made  alive.  But,"  adds  the  Apostle,  "  every 
 man  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the  first  fruits,  after- 
 wards they  that  are  Christ's  (it  his  comiiir/."  Many 
 men  had  died  before  Christ,  men  with  immortal 
 souls,  yet  none  had  been  raised  from  the  dead  to 
 immortal  life  before  Him ;  He  is  the  first  fruits,  the 
 first-born,  the  first-begotten  from  the  dead.  Nor 
 is  it  said  that  any  shall  be  raised  after  Him  until 
 his  coming.  Then  the  last  trumpet  shall  sound,  and 
 tlie  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  who 
 are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  changed.  If  the  Chris- 
 tian doctrine  of  the  resurrection  were  only  this,  that 
 at  the  moment  of  death  each  soul  receives  a  spiritual 
 body  fitted  to  its  eternal  state,  why  was  not  Christ 
 raised  till  the  third  day  ?  And  why  does  the  Apostle 
 represent  the  resurrection  of  which  he  treats  as 
 both  future  and  simultaneous  for  "  them  that  are 
 Clirist's  at  his  cominy"  f  Nor  can  we  suppose  the 
 Apostle  here  to  teach  a  merely  spiritual  resurrec- 
 tion, a  resurrection  from  sin  to  holiness ;  for  if  so, 
 why  does  he  say  that  it  shall  take  place  at  the 
 sound  of  the  last  trump':'  And  what  would  become 
 of  the  distinction  made  l^etween  the  dead  who  are 
 to  be  raised,  and  the  living  who  .are  to  be  changed  ? 
 (5.)  This  future  resurrection  of  the  body  is  to 
 be  a  resurrection  of  all  men  at  the  last  day. 
 
 This  has  partly  appeared  already  under  the  pre- 
 ceding heads.      We  have  seen  that  this  is  true  of 
 all  thai  are  Christ's ;  i)ut  whether,  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
 171 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 2713 
 
 the  Apostle  teaches  the  final  resurrection  of  all 
 mankind  may  be  a  question.  He  does  indeed  say, 
 "  in  Christ  (dl  shall  be  made  alive,"  but  whether 
 tins  means  absolutely  all,  or  only  all  who  are  in 
 Clirist,  may  fairly  be  doubted.  Perliaps  the  Apos- 
 tle's meaning  here  miglit  be  thus  paraphrased: 
 "  For  as,  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with  Adam, 
 who,  by  sin,  incurred  the  sentence  of  deatli,  all  men 
 who  are  in  him  by  n.ature,  being  sinners  and  actu- 
 ally sinning,  die:  even  so,  by  virtue  of  their  con- 
 nection witli  Christ,  who,  by  his  righteousness,  is 
 the  restorer  of  life,  shall  all  men  who  are  vitally 
 united  to  Him  by  faith,  be  made  alive,  being  raised 
 from  tlie  dead  in  his  glorious  image."  But  what- 
 ever may  be  the  meaning  of  those  particular  words, 
 it  is,  no  doubt,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  tliat  all, 
 absolutely  all  the  dead  will  be  raised.  St.  Paul 
 himself  elsewhere  unequivocally  declares  his  lielief 
 —  and  declares  it,  too,  as  tlie  common  belief  not 
 only  of  the  Christians,  but  of  tlie  Jews  (the  Phari- 
 sees) of  his  time,  —  that  "  there  shall  be  a  resurrec- 
 tion of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust "  (Acts 
 xxiv.  15). 
 
 But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  will  rise  in 
 the  same  glorious  bodies,  or  be  admitted  to  the 
 same  immortal  blessedness.  On  the  contrary,  it 
 was  expressly  predicted  of  old  that  "  some  shall 
 .aw.ake  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and 
 everl.asting  contempt;  "  — not  to  annihilation  as  an 
 everlasting  death  opposed  to  the  everlasting  life, 
 but  to  shame  and  ererlastiny  contempt,  which  must 
 iuiply  continued  conscious  existence.  And  our 
 Lord  Himself,  having  made  the  declaration :  ''  the 
 hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
 hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that 
 hear  shall  live;  "  —  which  may  refer,  and  probably 
 does  cliiefly  refer,  to  a  moral  and  spiritual  resurrec- 
 tion ;  —  expressly  and  solemnly  adds :  "  JMarvel  not 
 at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  coming  (he  does  not  add, 
 and  now  is),  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  tlie  graves 
 sliall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that 
 have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and 
 they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
 damniition  "  (.John  v.  2.5,  28,  29). 
 
 The  future  bodies  of  the  wicked  may,  for  aught 
 we  know,  be  as  ignominious,  hideous,  and  loath- 
 some, as  perfectly  fitted  to  be  instruments  and  in- 
 lets of  unending  and  most  exquisite  pain  and  tor- 
 ment, as  the  bodies  of  the  saints  shall  be  glorious 
 and  happy.  The  Scripture  doctrine  contains  noth- 
 ing positive  on  this  point.  St.  I'aul  having  brieliy 
 stated  that  "  in  Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive,"  even 
 if  in  this  he  meant  to  include  the  wicked,  gives  no 
 further  account  of  their  resurrection ;  but  goes  on 
 immediately  to  speak  of  those  who  are  Christ's  at 
 his  coming;  and  thenceforth  confines  his  attention 
 exclusively  to  them.  This  was  natural  for  the  Apos 
 tie,  who  nevertheless  certainly  l)elieved  in  a  resurrec- 
 tion of  the  unjust  as  well  as  of  the  just;  as  it  is  still 
 for  Christians,  who  believe  the  same.  The  special 
 Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  a  doctrine 
 of  hope  and  joy ;  but  as  such  it  is  a  doctrine  in 
 which  those  who  are  not  Christ's  —  who  have  not 
 the  Spirit  of  Christ,  —  have  no  sh.are. 
 
 This  resun-ection  is  to  be  one  gener.al  resurrec- 
 tion at  the  last  day. 
 
 That  such  was  the  received  doctrine  in  the  time 
 of  our  Lord  is  evident  from  John  xi.  23,  21:  "  Je- 
 sus saith  unto  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again. 
 Martha  saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise 
 again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day."  Our 
 Lord  himself  seems  to  recognize  the  doctrine  in 
 
2714 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 his  frequent  use  of  the  plirase,  "  I  will  raise  him  up 
 at  the  last  day,"  John  vi.  39,  40,  44,  54.  The 
 same  doctrine  is  distinctly  taught  by  St.  Paul  (1 
 Thess.  iv.  14-18).  As  to  the  date  of  the  coming 
 of  the  Lord,  of  which  he  speaks,  and  that  it  will 
 have  a  reference  to  the  wicked  as  well  as  to  the 
 *ust,  see  the  first  ten  verses  of  the  next  chapter. 
 See  also  the  second  epistle;  particularly  2  Thess. 
 i.  7-10.  And  for  the  date,  see  again  2  Thess.  ii. 
 1-5.  It  is  evident  that  the  day  of  the  coming  of 
 the  Lord  was,  in  St.  Paul's  view,  in  the  uncertain 
 future.  It  one  sense  it  was  always  at  liiind,  in  an- 
 other sense  it  was  not  at  hand,  2  Thess.  ii.  2.  That 
 he  did  not  presume  tiiat  he  himself  should  be  alive 
 and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  is  plain 
 from  his  solemn  protestation  (1  Cor.  xv.  31)  of  his 
 standing  in  such  hourly  jeopardy  that  he  lived  in 
 the  immediate  prospect  of  deatli  every  day;  while, 
 in  the  very  same  connection  and  chapter  (1  Cor. 
 XV.  52)  he  associates  himself  with  those  who  shall 
 be  alive  at  the  sounding  of  the  last  trump,  as  he 
 had  also  done  at  1  Thess.  iv.  15-17.  But  it  is  not 
 to  be  forgotten  that  elsewhere  he  expressly  associ- 
 ates himself  with  those  who  will  have  departed  be- 
 fore the  coming  of  the  Lord ;  —  2  Cor.  iv.  14 : 
 "  Knowing  that  He  which  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus 
 shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  present  us 
 with  you  ; ''''  note  also  the  whole  context  in  this 
 and  in  the  following  chapter.  Now  this  second 
 epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  almost 
 immediately  after  the  first.  Nor  does  he  after- 
 wards betray  the  slightest  symptom  of  disappoint- 
 ment in  the  prospect  of  his  approaching  martyr- 
 dom (2  Tim.  iv.  6-8).  If  the  Apostle  had  telt 
 that  he  had  been  grossly  deluded  and  deceived  in 
 regard  to  "  that  day,"  and  "  his  appearing,"  and 
 been  left,  '•  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  to  lead  others 
 into  the  same  delusion  and  error,  would  he  have 
 retained  this  triumphant  confidence  at  the  last,  and 
 expressed  it  without  one  word  of  explanation  or 
 retractation  of  his  (alleged)  former  delusive  hopes? 
 There  is  one  passage  in  the  Apocalypse  which 
 seems  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  one  general 
 resurrection  at  the  last  day  (Rev.  xx.).  Ilere  we 
 have  a  "first  resurrection,"  either  of  all  the  saints 
 or  of  the  martyrs  only;  and,  after  a  long  interval, 
 a  general  resurrection  and  judgment.  How  this 
 representation  is  to  be  interpreted  is  a  subject  of 
 doubt  and  dispute.  It  may  be  difficult  to  reconcile 
 it  with  the  other  statements  of  Scripture  on  the 
 same  subject.  But,  at  farthest,  it  would  separate 
 into  only  two  great  portions  or  acts,  that  which  is 
 elsewhere  regarded  in  one  point  of  view. 
 
 III.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Resur- 
 rection NOT  impossible   OR  INCREDIBLE. 
 
 Before  proceeding  to  defend  this  doctrine  against 
 objections,  it  may  be  proper  to  state  distinctly  what 
 the  doctrine  is,  and  what  it  is  not.  It  is,  (1)  that 
 there  will  be  a  general  resurrection  at  the  last  day 
 of  ike  bodies  of  all  mankind. 
 
 (2.)  That  the  body  in  which  each  man  will  be 
 raised  will  be  the  same  as  that  in  which  he  had 
 lived ;  but  changed,  transformed  at  the  resurrec- 
 tion, so  as,  from  a  natural  body,  to  become  a 
 spiritual  body ;  it  will  be  at  once  the  same  and 
 different. 
 
 Such  is  the  doctrine ;  but  hoio  far  and  in  what 
 respects  tbo  spiritual  bodies  will  be  the  same  as  the 
 natural  bodies  —  besides  that  they  will  have  an 
 organic  connection  with  them ;  how  Jar  they  will 
 be  like  them  in  size,  in  form,  in  organization,  in 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 limbs,  in  functions ;  whether,  e.  ff.,  they  will  have 
 the  hair,  beard,  nails,  etc. ;  hoiv  far  they  may  be 
 subject  to  the  physical  laws  of  material  things  with 
 which  we  are  conversant;  whether  they  will  have 
 the  same  senses  as  the  natural  bodies,  or  more  or 
 less;  whether  they  will  have  fixed  forms,  or  the 
 power  of  assuming  various  forms;  what  will  be 
 their  essential  constitution,  or  horn  they  may  exer- 
 cise their  functions  in  relation  either  to  the  spiritual 
 or  the  material  world — except  that  they  will  be 
 real  bodies  ("flesh  and  bones  "),  though  not  cor- 
 ruptible bodies  ("flesh  and  blood");  the  doctrine 
 neither  affirms  nor  denies.  These  are  all  matters 
 of  mere  speculation.  To  the  question,  "  How  are 
 the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  with  what  bodies  do  they 
 come?"  the  Scriptures  vouchsafe  no  further  an- 
 swer than  "spiritual  bodies,"  "Hke  Christ's  glori- 
 ous body."  His  body  retained  the  print  of  the 
 nails,  and  the  rent  in  the  side  after  his  resurrec- 
 tion, but  it  appeared  also  in  various  forms;  he  ate 
 and  drank  with  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection, 
 but  so  did  the  angels  eat  with  Abraham;  that 
 body  at  length  rose  above  the  clouds,  disappeared 
 from  the  gaze  of  his  disciples,  and  ascended  to  the 
 right  hand  of  God ;  it  was  seen  afterwards  by  St. 
 Stephen  in  hea\enly  glory,  and  by  St.  Paul  in  a 
 manifestation  of  overwhelming  splendor.  But  after 
 all  no  decision  is  furnished  in  regard  to  those 
 speculative  questions;  and  the  positive  doctrine  of 
 Scripture  is  left  within  the  limits  already  stated. 
 
 And  now  it  remains  to  show,  that  there  is  noth- 
 ing impossible  or  incredible  involved  in  this  doc- 
 trine. 
 
 (I.)  It  is  olijected  that  a  material  organization 
 cannot  possibly  be  made  incorruptible  and  immor- 
 tal, and  fitted  to  a  spiritual  state  and  spiritual 
 purposes.     But  how  does  the  objector  know  this  ? 
 
 (2.)  It  is  said  to  be  impossible  that  the  identical 
 body  should  be  raised,  because  that  body  will  have 
 gone  elitirely  out  of  existence,  and  in  order  for  a 
 resurrection  or  a  restoration  to  take  place,  the  thing 
 so  restored  or  raised  must  necessarily  be  in  ex- 
 istence. 
 
 This  must  mean  one  of  two  things;  either,  that, 
 as  a  definite  body,  in  respect  to  its  form  and 
 constitution,  it  has  ceased  to  exist;  or  that,  in 
 respect  to  its  verj'  substance  and  the  material 
 which  composed  it,  it  has  been  annihilated. 
 
 Tiie  latter  sense  cannot  be  intended  by  an  ob- 
 jector who  recognizes  the  law  of  nature,  that  no 
 particle  of  matter  is  ever  lost.  And  according  to 
 the  former  sense,  the  objector  would  make  the 
 restoration,  reconstruction,  reorganization  of  any 
 body,  under  any  circumstances,  and  on  any  hy- 
 pothesis, a  sheer  absurdity;  for,  in  order  that  a 
 body  may  be  restored,  reconstructed,  reorganized, 
 he  expressly  makes  it  necessary  that  it  should 
 already  exist,  actually  constructed  and  organized. 
 Is  this  self-evident  ?  or,  perhaps  the  position  of  the 
 objector  comes  to  this :  if  a  house,  e.  g.,  has  fallen 
 to  ruin,  and  you  restore  it  as  it  was  before,  it  is  not 
 the  same  house;  but  if  you  restore  it  when  it  is 
 not  dilapidated,  or  reconstruct  it  without  taking  it 
 to  pieces  —  however  great  the  changes  j'ou  may 
 make  —  it  will  be  the  same  house.  But  does  re- 
 storing mean  merely  repairing?  And  do  recon- 
 structing and  reorganizing  mean  merely  changiiiy 
 the  existing  structure  and  organization  ?  If  so, 
 these  words,  as  well  as  the  word  "resurrection,"  are 
 commonly  used  in  an  abusive  sense,  or  rather  with 
 no  sense  at  all. 
 
 (3.)  But  it  is  thought  that,  even   though   the 
 
RESURRECTION 
 
 body  might  be  restored  if  it  were  simply  resolved 
 into  dust,  yet,  inasmuch  as  it  is  resolved  into 
 elementary  principles,  into  oxygen  and  other  gases, 
 which  become  mixed  and  confounded  with  the  mass 
 of  gases  of  the  same  kind,  or  combined  variously 
 with  gases  of  different  kinds,  it  is  impossiijle  that 
 the  same  portions  of  these  gases  should  be  segre- 
 gated and  brought  together  into  the  same  body 
 again. 
 
 This  will  require  careful  consideration.  We  take 
 for  granted  that  the  "elementary  principles  "  into 
 which  the  body  is  said  to  be  resolved  are  matter, 
 true  and  proper  matter.  This  they  certainly  are 
 unless  our  metaphysical  analysis  is  prosecuted  be- 
 yond all  our  chemical  tests.  At  all  events,  they 
 are  either  matter  or  not  matter.  If  they  are  not 
 matter,  then  masses  of  matter  have  been  anni- 
 hilated. If  they  are  true  and  proper  matter,  then, 
 like  all  matter,  they  are,  or  consist  of,  material 
 particles.  And  the  definite,  identical,  material 
 particles  of  a  cubic  inch  of  ox3'gen  are  no  more 
 annihilated  or  absolutely  lost  or  confounded  by 
 being  mixed  with  anotlier  cubic  inch,  or  with  ten 
 thousand  cubic  feet,  of  oxygen  gas,  tlian  are  the 
 definite  identical  particles  of  a  cubic  inch  of  dust 
 by  being  mixed  with  any  quantity  of  homogeneous 
 dust.  It  is  certainly  assuming  more  than  is  self- 
 evident  to  say  that  omniscience  cannot  identify 
 them  and  trace  them  through  their  new  combina- 
 tions, and  that  omnipotence  cannot  segregate  them 
 and  restore  them  to  their  former  coimections.  It 
 is  not  here  contended  that  this  could  be  done  by 
 any  human  power  or  merely  natural  process,  but  it 
 is  insisted  that  the  thing  involves  no  contradiction, 
 and  therefore  is  not  alisolutely  impossible.  The 
 case  just  stated  involves  precisely  the  pinching 
 point  of  the  objection,  if  it  pinches  anywhere.  For, 
 as  to  saying  that  one  simple  substance  loses  its 
 identity  by  entering  into  composition  with  another 
 simple  substance,  that  is  plainly  false  even  on  nat- 
 ural principles.     Let  us  try  a  few  instances. 
 
 If  a  certain  number  of  grains  of  pure  copper  be 
 combined  with  their  definite  proportion  of  oxygen, 
 and  this  oxyde  of  copper  be  dissolved  in  nitric  acid, 
 we  shall  have  the  nitrate  of  copper,  which  may 
 exist  in  a  perfectly  liquid  form.  But  by  decom- 
 posing this  nitrate  of  copper  the  pure  copper  may 
 be  reproduced  — the  very  same  copper  and  no  other 
 —  the  identical  copper  with  which  the  process  was 
 begun.  Now  copper  is  as  truly  an  "elementary 
 principle"  as  oxygen  gas. 
 
 But  gases  themselves  may  be  recovered  from  their 
 combinations  as  well  as  metals.  Let  a  quantity 
 of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  be  combined  in  due  pro- 
 portion for  forming  water.  Let  the  water  be  de- 
 composed by  means  of  a  quantity  of  potassium, 
 and  the  hydrogen  will  be  liberated,  the  very  same 
 hydrogen  as  at  first;  and  the  potash  being  after- 
 wards decomposed,  the  original,  identical  oxygen 
 may  also  be  recovered.  If,  in  these  processes,  some 
 portion  of  the  original,  simple  substances  should 
 escape  from  us,  it  would  only  show  the  imperfec- 
 tion of  our  manipulations,  but  would  not  in  the 
 slightest  degree  affect  the  applicability  and  force  of 
 the  argument  for  the  present  purposes.  Tiiat  is  a 
 mere  business  of  degrees.  No  ^;)'iwc«p/e  is  in- 
 volved in  the  recovery  of  the  whole,  which  is  not 
 involved  in  the  recovery  of  a  part.  If,  then,  with 
 our  limited,  practical  powers,  we  can  recover  a  part, 
 surely  it  cannot  be  said  to  transcend  the  powers  of 
 omnipotence  to  recover  the  whole. 
 
 So  much  for  the  cases  of  inorganic  combina- 
 
 RESURREOTION 
 
 2715 
 
 tions.     Now  take  cases  which  involve  the  organit, 
 hifluence  of  the  principle  of  life. 
 
 Let  a  quantity  of  calcium  and  a  quantity  of 
 phosphorus  be  respectively  combined  with  a  due 
 proportion  of  oxygen;  let  the  lime  be  combined 
 with  the  phosphoric  acid;  and  let  this  phosphate 
 be  mixed  with  a  soil  (or,  certain  ingredients  of  a 
 soil)  which  did  not  before  contain  a  particle  ol 
 calcium  or  phosphorus.  Let  some  grains  of  wheat 
 be  planted  in  that  soil;  and,  by  an  analysis  of  the 
 product,  we  may  obtain,  in  its  original  simple  form, 
 a  portion  at  least  of  the  identical  calcium  and 
 phosphorus  with  which  we  began,  mingled,  per- 
 haps, in  this  case,  with  a  small  proportion  of  each 
 of  those  substances  derived  from  the  seed. 
 
 One  case  more:  A  takes  certain  crystals  of 
 arsenic,  and,  having  pulverized  them  and  combined 
 the  metal  with  the  proper  proportion  of  oxygen, 
 mingles  the  poison  with  B's  food,  who  swallows  it 
 and  dies.  Some  time  alter,  by  an  analysis  of  the 
 contents  and  coatings  of  B's  stomach,  the  arsenic 
 is  recovered  and  recrystallized.  It  either  is  or  is 
 not  the  identical  arsenic  which  A  gave.  If  it  can 
 be  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  a  jury  that  it  is  not 
 the  same,  then  the  evidence  that  A  is  guilty  of  the 
 alleged  act  of  poisoning  B,  is  not  at  all  increased 
 by  the  detection  of  this  arsenic  in  B's  stomach,  for 
 it  is  not  the  arsenic  which  A  is  alleged  to  have 
 administered,  but  some  other. 
 
 If  it  be  said  that  the  arsenic  as  a  mass  is  indeed 
 the  same,  but  that  the  individual  crystals  are  not 
 "identical"  with  those  originally  pulverized,  the 
 answer  is,  that  thus  the  specific  point  now  in  ques- 
 tion is  yielded,  namely,  that  the  alleged  impossi- 
 bility of  the  resurrection  of  the  "identical"  body 
 cannot  arise  in  any  degree  from  the  fact  that  the 
 simple  elements,  into  which  it  lias  been  resolved, 
 enter  into  new  combinations.  The  whole  difficulty 
 is  carried  back  to  the  point  to  which  we  have 
 already  referred  it,  namely,  the  lact  that  these 
 simple  elements  Ijecome  mingled  with  other  quan- 
 tities of  homogeneous  elements.  We  admit,  in 
 the  case  supposed,  a  very  high  degree  of  improba- 
 bility that  the  reproduced  crystals  of  arsenic  are, 
 each  of  them,  identical,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  with 
 some  one  of  the  original  crystals.  But  can  any 
 one  pro\e  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  certainly 
 are  not  identical;  still  more,  can  he  prove  that  it 
 is  absolutely  impossible  and  self  contradictory  that 
 they  should  be  ?  As  to  the  supposition  of  mechan- 
 ical marks  or  defects,  they  could  not  indeed  be  re- 
 produced by  crystallization ;  but  the  identity  being 
 in  other  respects  restored,  they  could  easily  be 
 reproduced,  or  very  nearly  approximated,  by  me- 
 chanical means. 
 
 We  plant  ourselves  at  one  of  those  original 
 crystals.  It  consists  of  certain  individual  and 
 identical,  though  homogeneous,  particles,  arranged 
 according  to  a  certain  law  in  certain  definite  rela- 
 tive positions.  It  is  dissolved;  and  its  particles 
 are  mingled  with  other  homogeneous  particles. 
 Now  the  question  is,  can  it  be  rationally  conceived 
 that  those  original  particles  should  be  segregated 
 from  their  present  mixture,  and  restored,  each  and 
 all,  to  their  original  relative  positions,  and  the 
 whole  to  its  original  form  ?  We  freely  admit  that 
 such  a  result  cannot  be  secured  by  any  skill  of 
 man ;  but  we  fearlessly  assert  tliat  the  accomplish- 
 ment of  such  a  result  cannot  be  proved  to  tran- 
 scend the  power  and  wisdom  of  Almighty  God, 
 who  can  identify  every  particle  of  matter  which  he 
 has  created,  and  control  its  movements  from  begin- 
 
2716 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 nint;  to  end  according  to  the  counsels  of  liis  own 
 will.  We  not  only  assert  that  such  a  result  can 
 be  conceived  to  be  accomplished  by  the  exercise  of 
 miraculous  power,  but  we  assei-t  that  its  actual 
 accomplishment  would  not  violate  any  known  pos- 
 itive laws  of  nature,  but  would  be  in  pei'fect  ac- 
 cordance with  them  all;  and,  indeed,  is  one  of  the 
 possil)le  contingencies  luider  those  laws.  liut  the 
 most  scientific  men  will  confess  that  there  may  be 
 exceptions  to  the  recognized  laws  of  nature,  or 
 perhaps  we  should  rather  say,  higher  laws  harmo- 
 nizing both  the  rule  and  the  exception  ;  laws  which 
 may  transcend  the  scope  of  their  loftiest  general- 
 izations. 
 
 If,  finally,  it  be  insisted  that,  after  all,  the  crys- 
 tal so  rejiroduced,  i.  e.  with  all  its  original  parti- 
 cles in  all  their  original  relations,  is  not  "  identical "' 
 with  the  original  crystal;  then  the  word  "identi- 
 cal "  must  be  used  in  a  sort  of  hyper-metajihysical 
 sense  in  which  it  is  not  applicable  to  material,  vis- 
 ible things  at  all.  For,  according  to  such  a  ^'iew, 
 supposing  an  ultimate  particle  of  water  to  consist 
 of  a  particle  of  oxygen  united  to  a  particle  of  hy- 
 drogen (and  the  contrary  cannot  be  proved),  it 
 would  follow  that,  if  this  particle  of  water  be 
 decomposed  into  the  two  gaseous  particles,  the  re- 
 union of  these  same  gaseous  particles  would  not 
 reproduce  the  "  identical,"  original  particle  of 
 water,  but  a  different  one.  And  a  J'ortiori  it 
 would  follow  that  an  ounce  of  water  being  decom- 
 posed and  the  same  elements  reunited,  or  being 
 converted  into  steam,  and  that  steam  condensed, 
 or  even  being  poured  out  of  one  ves.sel  into  another, 
 or  merely  shaken  in  the  same  vessel,  the  water 
 which  would  result  and  remain  would  not  be 
 "identical"  with  the  original  water,  but  somewhat 
 different.  Hence  it  would  follow  that,  as  all  visi- 
 ble material  things  are  in  a  constant  flux,  the  idea 
 of  identity  would  be  ab.solutely  inapplicable  to  any- 
 thing in  the  physical  universe,  except,  perliaps,  to 
 the  elementary  and  unchtiiigeable  constituent  par- 
 ticles. Nay  more,  it  would  follow  that  all  such 
 words  as  reproduction,  reorganization,  restoration, 
 and  even  reminiscence  itself,  not  to  speak  of  "  res- 
 urrection," involve  a  logical  absurdity;  and  not 
 only  so,  but  the  very  terms  "identical  with"  are 
 nonsensical;  for,  inasmuch  as,  in  every  proposition 
 which  conveys  any  meaning,  the  predicate  must  be 
 conceived,  in  some  respect,  diverse  from  the  sub- 
 ject, to  assert  that  the  one  is  "identical  with  "  the 
 other  is  a  downright  and  palpable  self-contradiction. 
 
 (4.)  The  general  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of 
 all  mankind  is' sometimes  said  to  be  impossible,  for 
 want  of  material  wherewith  to  reconstruct  them. 
 It  has  been  gravely  asserted  that  after  a  few  gen- 
 erations more  shall  have  passed  away,  there  will 
 not  be  matter  enough  in  the  whole  globe  of  the 
 earth  to  reconstruct  all  the  bodies  of  the  dead. 
 
 To  this  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  even  if  such 
 a  reconstruction  as  the  objector  presumes  were  ne- 
 cessary—  which  it  is  not  —  there  is  more  than 
 weight  and  mass  enough  of  matter  in  the  atmoa 
 Inhere  which  presses  upon  the  surface  of  the  Brit- 
 ish Islands,  or  of  the  States  of  New  England,  New 
 York,  and  New  Jersey  (as  will  be  found  upon  a 
 rigid  mathematical  computation,  allowing  the  pres- 
 sure upon  each  square  foot  to  be  2,000  lbs.,  and 
 the  average  weight  of  the  bodies  to  be  7.5  lbs.  each), 
 than  woidd  be  necessary  to  reconstruct  all  the  bod- 
 ies of  mankind  which  should  have  existed  upon 
 the  earth  more  than  2,000,000  of  years  from  this 
 time  i  —  and  that,  supposing  three  generations  in 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 a  century  all  the  way  from  Adam  onwards,  and  a 
 contiiuious  population  of  1,400,000,000  of  inhab- 
 itants. 
 
 (5.)  It  is  olijected  that  the  same  particles  may 
 have  constituted  a  part  of  several  successi\e  human 
 bodies  at  the  moment  of  their  dissolution;  and 
 therefore  it  is  impossible  that  each  cf  these  bodies 
 should  be  raised  identical  with  that  which  was  dis- 
 solved. This  brings  the  idea  of  the  resurrection 
 of  the  identical  body  nearer  to  an  apparent  cmitra- 
 diction  than  any  other  form  of  objection  that  we 
 know  of. 
 
 There  are  at  least  two  ways  of  answering  this 
 objection.  («.)  However  likely  the  alleged  fact 
 may  be,  unless  its  absolute  certainty  can  be  de- 
 monstrated, there  is  room  left  for  the  po.ssibility 
 of  the  contrary.  How  can  we  know  but  that  God 
 so  watches  over  the  dust  of  e^■ery  human  body, 
 and  so  guides  it  in  all  its  transmigrations  that  it 
 shall  never  be  found  to  constitute  a  part  of  any 
 other  liuman  body  iclien  that  body  dies  °i  Thus 
 the  objection  is  answered  by  demanding  proof  of 
 the  alleged  fact  on  which  it  is  based,  (i.)  As  our 
 liodies  are  constantly  undergoing  change  while  we 
 live  without  being  thereby  destroyed  or  losing  their 
 identity,  so  the  "identical"  body  being  raised,  it 
 may  undergo  an  instantaneous  change  to  an  indefi- 
 nite extent.  It  may,  therefore,  be  instantly  di- 
 vested of  any  paiticles  which  may  be  required  for 
 the  reconstruction  of  another  body;  and  this  last 
 being  reconstructed,  any  needed  particles  may  be 
 transferred  to  a  third ;  and  so  on,  to  any  extent. 
 ^^'e  have  only  to  stippose,  therefore,  that  the  bod- 
 ies of  mankind  shall  be  raised  successively,  in  the 
 order  of  their  dissolution  (at  intervals  howe\er 
 small,  infinitely  small  if  you  please,  so  that  there 
 shall  be  a  practical  simultaneousness);  and  though 
 a  certain  particle  should  have  been  common  to 
 every  one,  having  passed  through  the  whole  series 
 in  six  or  eight  thousand,  or  million,  of  years,  yet 
 it  may  be  caused  to  circulate  through  the  whole 
 number  again,  as  they  may  be  successively  raised, 
 in  less  than  the  millionth  jjart  of  the  least  assign- 
 able instant  of  time;  for  no  limit  can  be  set  to 
 the  possible  rapidity  of  motion.  Thus  the  objec- 
 tion is  answered,  admitting  the  allegation  on  which 
 it  is  ba.sed. 
 
 It  may  be  said  that  these  are  violent  supposi- 
 tions. We  may  admit  it;  but  at  the  same  tinie 
 we  have  four  things  to  say  with  that  admission. 
 {('.)  Neither  of  those  suppositions  is,  like  the  cre- 
 ation of  matter  from  nothing,  absolutely  incon- 
 ceivable to  our  minds.  (6.)  If  the  olijection  alleged 
 merely  a  high  degree  of  apparent  improbability 
 instead  of  an  absolute  impossibility,  we  should  not 
 urge  such  suppositious  in  reply  to  it.  (c.)  Those 
 suppositions  are  made  in  answer  to  the  objection 
 taken  on  its  own  principles,  and  entirely  irrespec- 
 tive of  iclint  may  be  the  actual  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
 ture on  this  question,  {d.)  However  violent  the 
 suppositions  suggested  may  be,  they  will  answer 
 their  present  purpose  of  refutation,  and  it  will  be 
 seen  in  the  sequel  that  ive  shall  have  no  need  of 
 them. 
 
 (6.)  The  objector  has  all  along  proceeded  upon 
 the  assumption,  that  the  resuiTection  of  this  iden- 
 tical body  necessarily  involves,  (1)  that  the  body 
 raised  must  be  identical  with  the  body  as  it  existed 
 and  was  constituted  at  the  moment  of  death  ;  and 
 (2)  that,  in  order  to  be  thus  identical,  it  must  con- 
 sist of  the  very  s^me  particles  inclusively  and  ex- 
 clusively, arranged  in  the  very  sn.me  positions,  coin- 
 
RESURRECTION 
 
 hiiiations,  and  relationships.  We  have  above 
 undertaken  to  refute  the  ohjections,  eveii  on  the 
 admission  of  both  those  assumptions;  but  now  we 
 deny  them  both.  And  we  assert  tliat  in  order  to 
 a  resurrection  of  the  body — of  this  iilentical  body, 
 in  a  true,  proper,  scriptural,  and  "human"  sense, — 
 it  is  neither  necessary,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
 body  raised  should  be  identical  with  the  precise 
 body  which  expired  the  last  breath  ;  nor,  in  the 
 second  place,  that  it  should  be  identical  irilh  any 
 body  wliatever,  in  so  strict  a  sense  as  that  de- 
 manded. 
 
 The  first  point  can  be  settled  at  once.  Here  is 
 a  man  at  the  aire  of  thirty  years,  in  perfect  health 
 and  soundness  of  body  and  mind.  Itefore  he  dies, 
 he  may  lose  his  arms  or  his  legs;  he  may  become 
 blind  and  deaf,  or  a  maniac;  he  may  die  in  utter 
 decrepitude.  Now,  if,  at  the  last  day,  the  body 
 given  him  should  be  identical  with  his  present 
 body  instead  of  being  identical  with  that  mutilated 
 or  decrepit  frame  with  which  he  will  have  died, 
 would  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body,  no 
 resurrection  of  his  own  proper  body '?  Would  it  be 
 a  "  new  creation  "  instead  of  a  resurrection,  sim- 
 ply becaitse  the  raised  body  would  not  be  identi- 
 cal with  the  body  [)recisely  as  it  existed  and  was 
 constituted  at  the  moment  of  death  ?  Does  a 
 man's  body  never  become  his  ami  until  he  dies  — 
 until  he  loses  possession  of  it?  What  becomes, 
 then,  of  all  the  horror  so  often  expressed  at  the 
 imagined  reappearance  of  the  lame,  the  blind,  the 
 halt,  the  withered,  the  crippled,  the  maniac,  the 
 savage?  Why  not  insist  also  tipon  the  resuscitation 
 of  the  fevers  and  ague  fits,  the  cancers  and  lepro- 
 sies, the  gouts  and  rheumatisois,  and  all  the  mortal 
 diseases  and  ills  the  flesh  was  heir  to  at  the  moment 
 of  death  ?  In  short,  why  not  maintain  that,  if 
 the  body  is  raised  at  all,  it  must  be,  when  raised,  {« 
 the  very  actofdyiinj  ar/nin  ?  for  the  internal  states 
 are  as  essential  to  identity  as  the  external  featui-es ! 
 We  turn  now  to  the  second  point,  namely,  that, 
 in  order  to  a  proper  resurrection  of  the  body,  it  is 
 not  necessary  that  the  body  raised  should  be  iden- 
 tical with  any  former  body  whatever,  in  such  a 
 sense  as  that  it  must  consist  jf  precisely  the  same 
 elementary  particles,  neither  more  or  less,  arranged 
 in  precisely  the  same  positions,  combinations,  and 
 relationsliips. 
 
 Now  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  that  not  only  does 
 a  great  change  take  place  in  our  bodies  between  the 
 periods  of  infancy  and  old  age,  but,  while  we  live, 
 they  are  constantly  in  a  process  of  change,  so  that 
 the  body  which  we  have  at  one  moment  is  not 
 perfectly  "identical"  with  that  which  we  had  at 
 any  preceding  moment;  and  some  physiologists 
 have  estimated  that  every  particle  of  our  material 
 frame  is  changed  in  the  course  of  about  seven  years. 
 From  this  fact  it  follows  that  no  person  ever  wakes 
 with  that  identical  body  with  which  ^e  went  to 
 sleep,  yet  the  waking  man  does  not  fail  to  recog- 
 nize himself.  But  according  to  this  strict  notion 
 of  identity,  as  often  as  the  body  slee]is,  it  sleeps  an 
 eternal  sleep,  and  the  body  with  which  a  man  wakes 
 is  always  a  "  new  creation,"  for  the  body  which 
 wakes  is  never  "identical"  with  that  which  was 
 lulled  to  slumber!  Surely  such  absurdities  will 
 not  lie  maintained.  We  will  suppose,  therefore,  the 
 body  which  rises  to  differ  from  the  body  which 
 lived  before  only  to  the  same  extent  as  the  body 
 which  wakes  differs  from  the  body  which  fell  asleep; 
 would  there  then  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in 
 any  proper  sense?     If  so  then  our  proposition  is 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 271'i 
 
 established  and  the  opposite  assumption  is  over- 
 tln-own.  And,  besides,  a  principle  is  thus  gained 
 which  reaches  much  farther  than  is  barely  neces 
 sary  to  overthrow  that  assumption ;  for,  if  a  slight 
 ditterence  is  consistent  with  such  a  j^-actical  and 
 substantial  identity  as  is  required  for  a  proper  res- 
 urrection of  the  body,  will  any  one  tell  us  pre- 
 cisely the  limit  of  this  difference ;  except  that  there 
 must  be  some  organic  or  real  historical  connection, 
 something  continuously  in  common,  between  the 
 body  which  is  raised  and  that  which  lived  before? 
 And  so  much  we  shall  certainly  maintain. 
 
 Let  us  here  amuse  ourselves  a  moment  in  con- 
 structing an  hypothesis. 
 
 A  distinguished  physiologist,  Johannes  Miiller, 
 has  given  a  well-known  theory  of  the  "  vital  prin- 
 ciple." "  Life  is  a  principle,'"  says  he,  "  or  impon- 
 derable matter,  which  is  in  action,  in  the  substance 
 of  the  germ,  enters  into  the  composition  of  the 
 matter  of  this  germ,  and  imparts  to  organic  com- 
 Iiinations  properties  which  cease  at  death."  Now 
 the  principle  of  animal  life  in  man  is  presumed  to 
 be  distinct  from  the  intelligent  and  immortal  spirit 
 On  these  premises,  let  us  suppose  that,  in  the 
 economy  of  human  nature  it  is  so  ordered  that, 
 when  the  spirit  leaves  the  body,  the  vital  principle 
 is  neither  lost  and  annihilated  on  the  one  hand, 
 nor  on  the  other  able  to  keep  up  the  functions  of 
 the  animal  system,  but  lies  dormant  in  con- 
 nection with  so  much  of  the  present,  natural 
 body  as  constituted  the  seminal  principle  or  es- 
 sential germ  of  that  body,  and  is  to  serve  as  a 
 germ  for  the  future,  spiritual  body;  and  this  por- 
 tion may  be  truly  iiody,  material  substance,  and 
 yet  elude  all  possible  chemical  tests  and  sensible 
 observation,  all  actual,  physical  dissolution,  and  all 
 appi'opriation  to  any  other  human  body.  On  the 
 reunion  of  the  spirit  at  the  appointed  hour  with 
 this  dormant  vital  principle  and  its  bodily  germ,  we 
 may  suppose  an  instantaneous  development  of  the 
 spiritual  I)ody  in  whatever  glorious  form  shall  seem 
 good  to  infinite  wisdom.  Such  a  body,  so  produced, 
 would  involve  a  proper  resurrection  of  the  present 
 body.  The  new  body  would  be  a  continuation  of 
 the  old,  a  proper  development  from  it.  The  germi- 
 nal essence  is  the  same,  the  vital  or  animal  prin- 
 ciple is  the  same,  the  conscious  spirit  is  the  same. 
 The  organic  connection  between  the  two  is  as  real 
 as  that  between  any  man's  present  body  and  the 
 seminal  principle  from  which  it  was  first  developed 
 in  the  womb ;  as  that  between  the  blade  of  wheat 
 and  the  bare  grain  from  which  it  grew. 
 
 We  throw  out  the  above  not  as  a  doctrine,  not . 
 as  a  theory  of  the  resurrection,  but  as  a  mere  casual 
 hypothesis  —  one  among  many  possilile  hypotheses. 
 The  part  assigned  in  it  to  the  "  vital  principle" 
 may  be  omitted,  if  any  so  prefer.  And  if  the  hy- 
 pothesis as  a  whole  is  found  not  to  be  consistent 
 with  a  proper  resurrection  oj'  the  body,  it  is  by  all 
 means  to  be  rejected. 
 
 (7.)  It  is  thought  quite  improbable  that  the 
 same  bodies  will  rise  with  all  their  present  parts, 
 meml  lers,  organs,  and  appurtenances,  not  to  say  theil 
 peculiar  abnormal  developments  and  defects. 
 
 We  have  already  said,  the  Christian  dogma  of 
 the  resurrection  contains  nothing  definite  on  these 
 points.  We  have  shown  that  such  a  resurrection, 
 in  all  its  details,  is  not  absolutely  impossible;  but 
 we  have  shown  that  such  a  resmrection  is  not 
 necessary  to  the  projier  idea  of  the  resurrection  of 
 the  body.  We  have  shown  that  the  body  raised 
 would  be  the  same  as  the  present  body,  if  it  pos- 
 
2718 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 scssed  the  same  matter  and  form  as  the  present  body 
 possesses  of  any  period  ivliatcvtr  of  its  (ifje.  We 
 now  add  that  tlie  resurrection  of  the  same  body 
 tioes  not  require  that  the  l)ody  raised  should  have 
 all  the  matter  or  the  precise  form  of  the  present 
 body  as  it  actually  existed  here  at  any  period  of  life. 
 It  would  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  of  the 
 same  body,  if  all  the  bodies  of  the  dead  should  be 
 raised  in  the  vigor  and  l)eauty  of  youth  or  early 
 manhood ;  the  infant  being  instantaneouslj"  de- 
 veloped to  such  a  stature,  the  aged  restored  to  it, 
 and  all  deformities  and  defects  forthwith  removed. 
 And  as  to  organs  and  members ;  doubtless  whatever 
 characteristics  of  our  present  bodies  will  contribute 
 to  the  glory  and  beauty  and  purposes  of  the  future 
 body  of  the  Christian  will  be  retained  in  it;  and 
 whatever  characteristics  would  mar  that  glory  or 
 beauty  or  fruition,  or  interfere  with  those  purposes, 
 will  be  changed.  It  may  be  that  the  prints  of  the 
 wounds  in  our  Saviour's  hands  and  feet,  or  .some- 
 thing significantly  corresponding  to  them,  may  re- 
 main forever  in  his  glorified  body,  as  visible  me- 
 mentoes of  his  dying  love,  as  marks  of  honor  and 
 grace  to  excite  all  the  redeemed  and  the  holy  to  still 
 higher  strains  of  love  and  adoration  and  praise. 
 Since  we  are  to  be  comforted  for  our  departed 
 friends  by  the  assurance  that  "  them  that  sleep  in 
 Jesus  God  will  bring  with  Him,"  it  may  well  be 
 believed  that  we  shall  recognize  in  the  future  life 
 those  whom  we  have  loved  in  this;  but  to  this  end 
 it  is  not  necessary  that  the  spiritual  body  should 
 retain  all  or  any  of  the  lineaments  of  the  present 
 body.  The  beautiful  plant  that  rises  from  the 
 grain  that  has  been  sown  and  has  died,  difters 
 widely  in  all  its  external  form  and  aspect  from  the 
 seed,  yet  by  it  we  can  as  certainly  distinguish  its 
 kind  as  by  the  seed  itself.  And  this  system  of  cor- 
 respondences may  reach  nmch  further  than  we  have 
 yet  traced  it.  The  spiritual  liody  may  have  an 
 intensity  and  transparency  of  expression  for  the 
 character  and  individuality  of  the  soul,  such  as  the 
 brightest  mortal  face  we  ever  beheld,  the  clearest 
 and  most  soul-expressive  eye  of  mortal  mould  into 
 whose  depths  we  ever  gazed,  could  not  enable  lis 
 to  conceive.  Tlien,  there  may  be  means  of  com- 
 municating thought  and  feeling  in  the  future 
 world,  as  far  transcending  all  the  power  of  the 
 most  perfect  human  speech  as  that  transcends  the 
 inarticulate  language  of  brutes.  Thus  there  may 
 be  abundant  means  of  recognition  independent  of 
 any  outward  identity  of  form. 
 
 (8.)  Finally,  the  resuiTection  of  the  body  is 
 thought  improliable,  because  science,  in  her  deepest 
 researches,  finds  no  symptoms  or  intimations  of 
 such  an  event. 
 
 It  is  alleged  that,  as  far  as  has  been  ascertained 
 by  chemical  or  any  other  physical  tests,  the  hun)an 
 body  is  suliject  to  the  same  laws  of  development, 
 growth,  and  decay,  while  it  lives;  and  of  dissolu- 
 tion, decomposition,  and  dispersion,  when  it  dies, 
 as  those  to  which  the  bodies  of  the  ox  and  the 
 horse  are  subject.  Uut  what  does  this  prove?  Does 
 it  prove  that  tiierefore  God  will  not  reconstruct  and 
 reanimate  the  human  body  ?  Is  it  therefore  to  be 
 thought  a  thing  incredible  that  God  should  raise 
 the  dead  ?  We  can  see  no  such  force  of  proof  in 
 those  facts.  We  are  not  aware  that  anyljody  has 
 undertaken  to  bring  positive  evidence  of  a  resur- 
 rection of  the  body  from  chemistry  or  natural  phil- 
 osophy; and  we  cannot  conceive  what  disproof  there 
 •s  in  the  absence  of  proof  derivable  from  those 
 quarters. 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 But  (it  is  insisted)  after  the  minutest  chemical 
 analysis,  after  the  most  patient  and  thorough  test- 
 ing by  all  known  acents  and  re -agents,  after  the 
 most  careful  examination,  and  after  ages  of  ex- 
 perience, we  have  never  found  any  more  signs  of  a 
 tendency  to  a  resuri-ection  in  the  body  of  a  dead 
 man  than  in  that  of  a  dead  dog.  And  what  then  ? 
 Therefore  there  is  and  can  be  no  resurrection  of  the 
 human  body '?  J\Iost  lame  and  impotent  conclusion  ! 
 As  though  we  already  knew  everything  pertaining 
 to  the  powers,  properties,  and  jx)ssibilities  even  of 
 material  things;  as  though  we  were  not  prying 
 deeper  and  deeper  into  the  secrets  of  nature  every 
 day:  as  though  there  were  not  evidently  dynamics 
 and  laws  at  work  in  the  material  world  which  elude 
 all  our  chemical  tests  and  physical  re-agents;  and 
 (IS  thmyh  ice  could  see  distinctly  nround  nnd  nbore 
 llie  poicer  of  Almighty  God,  which,  with  its  higher, 
 and  perchance  forever  inscrutable  laws,  presides  over 
 and  controls  all  the  laws  and  functions  of  nature. 
 All  positive  evidence  ibr  a  resurrection  of  the  liody 
 must  be  sought  for  in  the  teaching  of  Revelation ; 
 and  that  evidence,  be  it  more  or  less,  is  not  in  the 
 slightest  degree  affected  by  this  chemico-physical 
 argument:  it  is  left  just  as  it  was  and  where  it 
 was,  entire  and  intact. 
 
 IV.  History  of  the  Doctrine. 
 
 It  remains  to  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  history 
 of  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection,  as  it  has  been 
 held  in  the  Christian  Church. 
 
 The  Chiliarchs  and  Gnostics,  from  the  first,  held 
 extreme  views,  the  former  tending  to  an  unscrip- 
 tural  grossness  of  detail,  and  the  latter  to  an  equally 
 miscriptural  refining  away  of  the  substantial  fact. 
 Justin  ^Martyr,  Irenreus  and  Tertullian,  inclining  to 
 the  Chiliarchs,  taught  a  double  resurrection.  These 
 and  Clemens  Romanus,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus, 
 and  Jlinutius  Felix,  all  believed  in  a  proper  re.sur- 
 rection  of  the  body.  Origen  spiritualized  it.  (See 
 Teller,  i^«/es  dofjm.  de  Rtsur.  Carnis,  per  ^  prim-a 
 Secuhi.)  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
 and  Basil  the  Great,  adopted  in  part  the  views  of 
 Origen.  Jerome  went  to  an  extreme  against  them. 
 Augustine  ultimately  opposed  them,  but  more  mod- 
 erately. Cbrysostom  believed  in  the  identity  of 
 the  body  raised  and  the  present  body,  but  followed 
 St.  Paul's  exposition.  Epiphanius  and  Theo])hilus 
 of  Alexandria  agreed  with  Jerome;  but  Theoi)hilus 
 ordained  Synesius,  who  could  not  assent  to  "  the 
 jirevailhig  notions."  [Showing  two  things:  (1) 
 tliat  certain  views,  namely,  those  of  Jerome,  were 
 then  the  prevailing  views,  and  (2)  that  to  accept 
 them  was  not  considered  (by  Theophilus)  essential.] 
 Ruffinus  confessed  the  I'esurrection  Inijvs  carnis, 
 and  John  of  Jerusalem  distinguished  between  _//e.</t 
 and  hody,  Ijut  with  neither  of  them  was  Jerome 
 satisfied.  Jerome's  l)ecanie  the  prevailing  doctrine 
 of  the  Chufch  of  Rome,  and  has  so  continued  sub- 
 stantially to  the  present  day.  The  reformers  gen- 
 erally adopted  the  same  doctrine,  adliering,  however, 
 more  decidedly  to  the  Augustinian  and  Paulino 
 representations. 
 
 The  Socinians,  and,  after  them,  the  Unitarians, 
 have  been  inclined  to  deny  the  proper  resurrection 
 of  the  body.  The  Swedenborgians  also  do  the  same, 
 holding  that  each  soul,  immediately  upon  death,  is 
 clothed  with  its  spiritual  body.  Many  persons  in 
 all  the  Protestant  connnunions  have,  in  later  years, 
 felt  compelled  by  the  presumed  philosophical  diffi- 
 culties of  the  case,  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  a 
 
REU 
 
 proper  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  have  either 
 remained  silent,  without  any  avowed  or  definite 
 belief  upon  the  subject,  or  have  openly  sided  with 
 the  Socinians  or  the  Swedenborgians. 
 
 The  creeds  and  the  symbols  and  confessions  of 
 the  Keformed  Churches,  however,  have  remained 
 unchanged.  See,  e.  g.  Article  IV.  of  the  Church 
 of  En<'land,  "  On  the  Resurrection  of  Christ," 
 which,  speaking  of  Christ's  ascension  "with  flesh, 
 bones,  and  all  things  appertaining  to  the  perfection 
 of  man's  nature,"  covers  nearly  the  whole  ground 
 of  hesitation  and  difficulty.  See  also  all  the  three 
 creeds,  especially  the  Athanasian.  That  of  the 
 Apostles  still  confesses  the  Resurvectio  carnis. 
 
 D.  R.  G. 
 
 *  For  the  literature  of  this  subject,  one  may 
 consult  the  bibliographical  appendix  to  W.  K. 
 Alger's  Criticdl  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a 
 Future  Life,  Nos.  2920-3132,  and  on  the  Resur- 
 rection of  Christ,  Nos.  3133-3181.  A. 
 
 RE'lJ  (^^"1  [fiend]:  'Pa-yaD  in  Gen.;  [Rom.] 
 'Vaydv  [l>ut  Vat.  Alex.  Vayav]  in  Chr. :  lieu,  [Ra- 
 gau] ).  Son  of  Peleg,  in  the  line  of  Abraham's  ances- 
 tors (Gen.  xi.  18, 19,  20,  21 ;  1  Chr.  i.  2.5).  lie  lived 
 two  hundred  and  thirty-nine  years  according  to  the 
 genealogy  in  Genesis.  Bunsen  {Bibdwerk)  says 
 Reu  is  Rohn,  the  Arabic  name  for  Edessa,  an  as- 
 sertion which,  borrowed  from  Knobel,  is  utterly 
 destitute  of  foundation,  as  will  be  seen  at  once  on 
 comparing  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  words.  A 
 closer  resemblance  might  be  found  between  Reu 
 and  R/i'if/(e,  a  large  town  of  Media,  especially  if 
 the  Greek  equivalents  of  the  two  names  be  taken 
 
 REUBEN 
 
 2719 
 
 able  view  of  his  disposition.  To  him,  and  him 
 alone,  the  preservation  of  Joseph's  life  appears  to 
 have  been  due.  His  anguish  at  the  disappearance 
 of  his  brother,  and  the  frustration  of  his  kindly 
 artifice  for  delivering  him  (Gen.  xxxvii.  22),  his 
 recollection  of  the  minute  details  of  the  painful 
 scene  many  years  afterwards  (xlii.  22),  his  oti'er  to 
 take  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  safety  of  the  • 
 brother  who  had  succeeded  to  Joseph's  place  in  the 
 family  (xHi.  37),  all  testify  to  a  warm  and  (for  tho.se 
 rough  times)  a  kindly  nature.  Of  the  repulsive 
 crime  which  mars  his  history,  and  which  turned 
 the  blessing  of  his  dying  father  into  a  curse  —  his 
 adulterous  connection  with  liilhah,  —  we  know  from 
 the  Scriptures  only  the  fact  (Gen.  xxxv.  22).  In 
 the  post-biblical  traditions  it  is  treated  either  as 
 not  having  actually  occurred  (as  in  the  Tar  yum 
 Psewlojonathan),  or  else  as  the  result  of  a  sudden 
 temptation  acting  on  a  hot  and  vigorous  nature  (as 
 in  the  Testniiients  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs)  —  a 
 parallel,  in  some  of  its  circumstances,  to  the  in- 
 trigue of  David  with  Bathsheba.  Some  severe 
 temptation  there  must  surely  have  been  to  impel 
 Reuben  to  an  act  which,  regarded  in  its  social  rather 
 than  in  its  moral  aspect,  would  be  peculiarly  abhor- 
 rent to  a  patriarchal  society,  and  which  is  specially 
 and  repeatedly  reprobated  in  the  Law  of  Moses. 
 The  Rabbinical  version  of  the  occurrence  (as  given 
 in  Targ.  Psewlojon.)  is  very  characteristic,  and 
 well  illustrates  the  difference  between  the  spirit  of 
 early  and  of  late  Jewish  history.  "  Reuben  went 
 and  disordered  the  couch  of  Bilhah,  his  father's 
 concubine,  which  was  placed  right  opposite  the 
 couch  of  Leah,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  as  if 
 *"ln  'i  Clir.  r25  the  L   N.  eciriGlT,  fuilow-    he  had  lain  with  her.     And  when   Isniel  heard  it 
 
 ing  the   Bishops'  Bible  and  the  (Genevan  Version, 
 
 some  other  cases.  A. 
 
 REU'BEN  (p^H"1  [see  below]:  '-?ov^i]v 
 and  "Pov&-i\v\  Joseph.  'Pouj3rjA.o$:  l^esh.  Syr. 
 Rubxl,  and  so  also  in  Arab.  vers,  of  Joshua:  Ru- 
 ben), Jacob's  first-born  child  (Gen.  xxix.  32),  the 
 son  of  Leah,  apparently  not  born  till  an  unusual 
 interval  had  elapsed  after  the  marriage  (31;  Joseph. 
 Ant.  i.  19,  §  8).  This  is  perhaps  denoted  by  the 
 name  itself,  whether  we  adopt  the  obvious  signifi- 
 cation of  its  present  form — reu  ben,  i.e.  "be- 
 hold ye,  a  son !  "  (Gesen.  Tiies.  p.  1247  b)  —  or  (2) 
 the  explanation  given  in  the  text,  which  seems  to 
 
 imply  that  the  original  form  was  "^^3575  "^^M^, 
 rail  bSonyi,  "Jehovah  hath  seen  my  affliction,'''  or 
 (3)  that  of  Josephus,  who  uniformly  presents  it 
 as  Roubel,  and  explains  it  {Ant.  i.  19,  §  8)  as  the 
 "pity   of    God"  —  e\eov   rov  ®eov,  as  if    from 
 
 bWa  •'^W'J  (Fiirst,  ffandwb.  ii.  Uia).^  The  no- 
 tices of  the  patriarch  Reuben  in  the  book  of  Gen- 
 esis and  the  early  Jewish  traditional  literature  are 
 unusually  frequent,  and  on  the  whole  give  a  favor- 
 
 ifc  displeased  him,  and  he  said,   '  Lo!  an  unworthy 
 
 reads    Rehu,  representing  the  Ain  by    H,  as  in.  person  shall  proceed  from  me,  as  Ishmael  did  from 
 
 «  Redslob  {Die  Atttestamentt.  Nanien,  86)  maintains 
 that  Reubel  is  the  original  form  of  the  name,  which 
 was  corrupfed  into  Reuben,  as  Bethel  into  Bfitin,  and 
 Jezreel  into  Serin.  He  tre:its  it  as  signifying  the 
 "  flocli  of  Bel,"  a  deity  whose  worship  greatly  flour- 
 ished in  the  neighboring  country  of  Moab,  and  who 
 under  the  name  of  Nebo  had  a  famous  sanctuary  in 
 the  very  ten-itory  of  Reuben.  In  tliis  case  it  would 
 be  a  pimllel  to  the  title,  "  people  of  (Jhemosh,"  which 
 ia  bestowed  on  Moab.     The  alteration  of  the  obnoxious 
 
 Abraham  and  Esau  from  my  father.'  And  the 
 Holy  Spirit  answered  him  and  said,  '  All  are  right- 
 eous, and  there  is  not  one  unworthy  among  them.'  " 
 Reuben's  anxiety  to  save  Joseph  is  represented  as 
 arising  from  a  desire  to  conciliate  Jacob,  and  his 
 absence  while  Joseph  was  sold  from  his  sitting 
 alone  on  the  mountains  in  penitent  fasting. 
 
 These  traits,  slight  as  they  are,  are  those  of  an 
 ardent,  impetuous,  unbalanced,  but  not  ungenerous 
 nature ;  not  crafty  and  cruel,  as  were  Simeon  and 
 Levi,  but  rather,  to  use  the  metaphor  of  the  dying 
 patriarch,  boiling  *>  up  like  a  vessel  of  water  over  the 
 rapid  wood-fire  of  the  nomad  tent,  and  as  quickly 
 subsiding  into  apathy  when  the  fuel  was  with- 
 drawn. 
 
 At  the  time  of  the  migration  into  Egypt  <^  Eeu- 
 ben's  sons  were  four  (Gen.  xlvi.  9;  1  Chr.  v.  3).' 
 From  them  sprang  the  chief  families  of  the  tribe 
 (Num.  xxvi.  5-11).  One  of  these  families  ^  that 
 of  Pallu  —  became  notorious  as  producing  Eliab, 
 whose  sons  or  descendants,  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
 perished  with  their  kinsman  On  in  the  divine  ret- 
 ribution for  their  conspiracy  against  Moses  (Num. 
 
 syllable  in  Reuif/  would,  on  this  theory,  find  a  paral- 
 lel in  the  Merib6aai  and  Ji^hhaal  of  Saul's  family,  who 
 became  ile^hibosheth  and  iBhboshet/i. 
 
 h  Such  appears  to  be  a  more  accurate  rendering  of 
 the  word  which  in  the  A.  V.  is  rendered  "  unstable  '• 
 (Gesen.  Pent.  Sam.  p.  33). 
 
 c  According  to  the  ancient  tradition  preserved  by 
 Demetrius  (in  Euseb.  Pro'p  Ev.  ix.  21),  Reuben  was 
 45  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  migration. 
 
2720  REUBEN 
 
 xvi.  1,  xxvi.  8-11).  The  census  at  Mount  Sinai 
 (Num.  i.  20,  21,  ii.  11)  shows  that  at  the  Exodus 
 the  numbers  of  the  tribe  were  40,500  men  abo\e 
 twenty  years  of  as^e,  and  fit  for  active  warhlte  ser- 
 vice. In  point  of  numerical  strength,  Keuben  was 
 then  sixth  on  the  list,  Gad,  with  45,650  men,  being 
 next  below.  On  the  Ijorders  of  Canaan,  after  tlie 
 plague  which  punished  the  idolatry  of  Baal-l'eor,  tlie 
 numbers  had  fallen  slightly,  and  were  43,730;  Gad 
 was  40,500;  and  the  position  of  the  two  in  the  list 
 is  lower  than  before,  l"]phraim  and  Simeon  being  the 
 only  two  smaller  tribes  (Num.  xxvi.  7,  &c.). 
 
 During  the  journey  through  the  wilderness  the 
 position  of  Keuben  was  on  the  south  side  of  the 
 'i'al>3niacle.  The  "  camp  "  which  went  under  his 
 name  was  formed  of  his  own  tribe,  that  of  Simeon  " 
 (Leah's  second  son),  and  Gad  (son  of  Zilpali,  Leah's 
 slave).  The  standard  of  the  camp  was  a  deer'' 
 with  the  inscription,  "Hear,  oh  Israel!  the  Lord 
 thy  God  is  one  Lord!  "  and  its  place  in  the  march 
 was  second  {Tarytwi  Pseud«joi).  Num.  ii.  10-lG). 
 
 The  Keubenites,  like  their  relatives  and  neigh- 
 bors on  tlie  journey,  the  Gadites,  had  maintained 
 through  the  march  to  Canaan  the  ancient  calling 
 of  their  forefathers.  The  patriarchs  were  "  feeding 
 their  flocks  "  at  Shechem  when  Joseph  was  sold 
 into  Kgypt.  It  was  as  men  whose  "  trade  had 
 been  about  cattle  from  their  youth  "  that  they 
 were  presented  to  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xlvi.  32,  34),  and 
 in  the  land  of  Goshen  they  settled  "  with  their 
 flocks  and  herds  and  all  that  tiiey  had  "  (xlvi.  32, 
 xlvii.  1).  Their  cattle  accompanied  them  in  their 
 fliglit  from  Egyi)t  (Ex.  xii.  38),  not  a  hoof  was 
 left  behind ;  and  there  are  frequent  allusions  to  them 
 on  the  journey  (Ex.  xxxiv.  3;  Num.  xi.  22;  Dent. 
 viii.  13,  &c.).  But  it  would  appear  that  the  triljes 
 who  were  destined  to  settle  in  the  confined  territory 
 between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Jordan  had, 
 during  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  for- 
 tunately relinquished  that  taste  for  the  possession 
 of  cattle  which  they  could  not  have  maintained 
 after  their  settlement  at  a  distance  from  tl>e  wide 
 pastures  of  the  wilderness.  Thus  the  cattle  had 
 come  into  the  hands  of  Keulien,  Gad,  and  the  half 
 of  Manasseh  (Num.  xxxii.  1),  and  it  followed  nat- 
 urally that  when  the  nation  arrived  on  the  open 
 downs  east  of  the  Jordan,  the  three  tribes  just 
 named  should  prefer  a  request  to  their  leader  to  be 
 allowed  to  remain  in  a  place  so  perfectly  suited  to 
 their  requirements.  The  part  selected  by  Keuben 
 had  at  that  date  the  special  name  of  "the  Mishor," 
 with  reference  possibly  to  its  evenness  (Stanley, 
 S.  (f  P.  App.  §  6).  Under  its  modern  Tiame  of 
 the  Belkn  it  is  still  esteemed  beyond  all  others  by 
 the  Arab  sheep-masters.  It  is  well  watered,  covered 
 with  smooth  short  turf,  and  losing  itself  gradually 
 in  those  illimitable  wastes  which  have  always  been 
 and  always  will  be  the  favorite  resort  of  pastoral 
 nomad  tribes.  The  country  east  of  Jordan  does 
 not  appear  to  have  been  included  in  the  original 
 land  promised  to  Aliraham.  That  which  the  spies 
 examined  was   comprised,  on   the   east  and    west, 
 
 n  Reulien  and  Simeon  are  named  together  by  Jacob 
 in  Gen.  xlviii.  5  ;  and  there  is  perhaps  a  trace  of  the 
 connection  in  the  interchange  of  the  names  in  Jud. 
 viii.  1  (Vulg.)  andix.2. 
 
 b  It  is  said  that  this  was  originally  an  ox,  but 
 changed  by  Moses,  lest  it  should  recall  the  sin  of  the 
 golden  palf. 
 
 <•■  A  few  versions  have  been  bold  enough  to  render 
 
 REUBEN 
 
 between  the  "coast  of  Jordan  "  and  "the  sea." 
 But  for  the  pusillanimity  of  tlie  greater  number  of 
 the  tribes  it  would  have  been  entered  from  the  south 
 (Num.  xiii.  30),  and  in  that  case  the  east  of  Jor 
 dan  might  never  have  been  peopled  by  Israel  at 
 all. 
 
 Accordhigly,  when  the  Keubenites  and  their  fel- 
 lows approach  Moses  with  their  request,  bis  main 
 objection  is  that  by  what  they  propose  they  will 
 discourage  the  hearts  of  the  children  of  Israel 
 from  going  over  Jordan  into  the  land  which  Jeho- 
 vah had  given  them  (Num.  xxxii.  7).  It  is  only  on 
 their  undertaking  to  fulfill  their  part  in  the  conquest 
 of  the  western  country,  the  land  of  Canaan  proper, 
 and  thus  satisfying  him  that  their  proposal  was 
 grounded  in  no  selfish  desire  to  escape  a  full  share 
 of  the  difficulties  of  the  conquest,  that  Moses  will 
 consent  to  their  proposal. 
 
 The  "blessing"  of  Keuben  by  the  departing 
 Lawgiver  [Deut.  xxxiii.  0]  is  a  passage  which  has 
 severely  exercised  translators  and  connnentators. 
 Strictly  translated  as  they  stand  in  the  received 
 Hebrew  text,  the  words  are  as  follows :  <^  — 
 
 "  Let  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
 And  let  his  men  be  a  number  "  (i.  e.  few). 
 
 As  to  the  first  line  there  appears  to  lie  no  doubt, 
 but  the  second  line  has  been  interpreted  in  two 
 exactly  opposite  ways.     1.  By  the  LXX. :  — 
 
 "  And  let  his  men ''  be  many  in  number." 
 
 This  has  the  disadvantage  that  "IQDD  is  never 
 employed  elsewhere  for  a  large  number,  but  always 
 for  a  small  one  (e.  (/.  1  Chr.  xvi.  19;  Job  xvi.  22; 
 Is.  X.  19;  Ez.  xii.  16). 
 
 2.  That  of  our  own  Auth.  Version :  — 
 
 "  And  let  tint  his  men  be  few." 
 
 Here  the  negative  of  the  first  line  is  presumed  to 
 convey  its  force  to  the  second,  though  not  there 
 expressed.  This  is  countenanced  by  the  ancient 
 Syriac  Version  (Peshito)  and  the  translations  of 
 Junius  and  Tremellius,  and  Schott  and  Winzer. 
 It  also  has  the  important  support  of  Gesenius 
 {Thes.  p.  968  «,  and  Pent.  Sam.  p.  44). 
 
 3.  A  third  and  ver}'  ingenious  interpretation  is 
 that  adopted  by  the  Veneto-Greek  Version,  and  also 
 by  Michaelis  {Bibd  fiir  Utif/elehrlen,  Text),  which 
 
 assumes  that  the  vowel-points  of  the  word   ViHtt, 
 
 "  his  men,"  are  altered  to  VHSi,  "  his  dead  "  — 
 
 "  And  let  his  dead  be  few  "  — 
 
 as  if  in  allusion  to  some  recent  mortality  in  the 
 tribe,  such  as  that  in  Simeon  after  the  plague  of 
 Baal-Peor. 
 
 These  interpretations,  unless  the  last  should 
 prove  to  be  the  original  reading,  originate  in  the 
 fact  that  the  words  in  their  naked  sense  convey  a 
 curse  and  not  a  blessing.  Fortunately,  though 
 differing  widely  in    detail,  they  agree  in   general 
 
 the  Hebrew  as  it  stands.     Thus  the  Vulgate,  Luther, 
 De  Wette,  and  Bunsen. 
 
 (I  The  Alex.  LXX.  adds  the  name  of  Simeon  ("and 
 let  Synieon  be  many  in  number  ") :  but  thi.s,  though 
 approved  of  by  Michaelis  (in  the  notes  to  the  passage 
 in  his  Bibel  far  Uiiicclehrten),  on  the  ground  that  there 
 is  no  reason  for  omitting  Simeon,  is  not  supported  by 
 any  Codex  or  any  other  Version. 
 
REUBEN 
 
 meaning."  The  benediction  of  the  great  leader 
 goes  out  over  the  trilie  which  was  about  to  separate 
 itself  from  its  brethren,  in  a  fervent  aspiration  for 
 its  welfare  through  all  the  risks  of  that  remote  and 
 trying  situation. 
 
 Hoth  in  tliis  and  the  earlier  blessing  of  Jacob, 
 Heulien  retains  his  place  at  the  head  of  the  family, 
 and  it  nuist  not  be  overlooked  that  the  trilie,  to- 
 gether with  the  two  who  associated  thennelves 
 with  it,  actually  received  its  inheritance  l«fore 
 either  Judah  or  Ephraim,  to  whom  the  birthright 
 which  Reuben  had  forfeited  was  transferred  (1  Chr. 
 V.  1). 
 
 b'rom  tliis  time  it  seems  as  if  a  bar,  not  only  the 
 material  one  of  distance,  and  of  the  interveaiing 
 river  and  mountain-wall,  but  also  of  difference  in 
 feeling  and  habits,  gradually  grew  up  more  Rub- 
 stantially  l)etween  the  eastern  and  western  tribes. 
 The  first  act  of  the  former  after  tlie  completion  of 
 the  conquest,  and  after  they  had  taken  jjart  in 
 the  solenni  ceremonial  in  the  valley  between  Eljal 
 and  Gerizim,  shows  how  wide  a  gap  already  ex- 
 isted between  their  ideas  and  those  of  the  western 
 tribes. 
 
 Tlie  pile  of  stones  which  they  erected  on  the 
 western  bank  of  the  Jordan  to  mark  their  boun- 
 dary—  to  testify  to  after  ages  that  tliough  sep- 
 arated by  the  rushing  river  from  their  brethren  and 
 the  country  in  which  Jehovah  had  fixed  the  place 
 where  He  would  be  worshipped,  they  had  still  a 
 right  to  return  to  it  for  his  worship  —  was  erected 
 in  accordance  with  the  unalterable  habits  of  lie- 
 douin  tribes  lioth  before  and  since.  It  was  an  act 
 identical  with  that  in  which  Laban  and  Jacob 
 engaged  at  parting,  with  that  which  is  constantly 
 performed  by  the  Bedouins  of  the  present  day. 
 But  by  tlie  Israelites  west  of  Jordan,  who  were  fast 
 relinquishing  their  nomad  habits  and  ieelings  for 
 those  of  more  settled  permanent  life,  this  act  was 
 completely  misunderstood,  and  was  construed  into 
 an  attempt  to  set  up  a  rival  altar  to  that  of  the 
 Sacred  Tent.  The  incompatibility  of  the  idea  to 
 the  mind  of  the  Western  Israelites  is  shown  by  the 
 fact,  that  notwithstanding  the  disclaimer  of  the 
 2J  tribes,  and  notwithstanding  that  disclaimer  hav- 
 ing proved  satisfactory  even  to  Fhinehas,  the  author 
 of  Joshua  xxii.  retains  the  name  mizb&tch  for  the 
 pile,  a  word  which  involves  the  idea  of  sacrifice  — 
 i.  e.  of  sliiuf/liter  (see  Gesenius,  T/ies.  p.  402)  — in- 
 stead of  applying  to  it  the  term  (/nl^  as  is  done  in  the 
 case  (Gen.  xxxi.  40)  of  the  precisely  similar  "heap 
 of  witness."  ''  Another  Keubenite  erection,  which 
 for  long  kept  up  the  memory  of  the  presence  of  the 
 tribe  on  the  west  of  Jordan,  was  the  stone  of  Bohan 
 ben-Reuben  which  formed  a  landmark  on  the  boun- 
 dary between  Judah  and  Benjamin.  (Josh.  xv. 
 6.)  This  was  a  single  stoiie  (A'ien),  not  a  pile, 
 and  it  appears  to  have  stood  somewhere  on  the  road 
 from  Bethany  to  Jericho,  not  for  from  the  ruined 
 khan  so  well  known  to  travellers. 
 
 No  judge,  no  prophet,  no  hero  of  the  tribe  of 
 Reuben  is  handed  down  to  us.     In  the  dire  ex- 
 
 n  lu  the  Revised  Translnlinii  of  the  Holi/  Scriptures 
 b.v  the  Rev.  C.  Wellbeloved  and  others  (Loudon,  1857) 
 the  passage  is  rendered  — 
 
 "  Miiy  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
 Tlioui^h  liifi  men  be  few." 
 
 An  excellent  evasion  of  the  difficulty,  provided  it  be 
 ddinl-isible  as  a  translation. 
 
 b  Tlie  "altar  "  is  actually  called  Ed,  or  "  witness  " 
 
 REUEL  2721 
 
 tremity  of  their  brethren  in  the  north  undei 
 Deliorah  and  Barak,  they  contented  themselves 
 with  debating  the  news  amongst  the  streams''  of 
 the  Mishor:  the  distant  distress  of  his  brethren 
 could  not  move  Reuljen,  he  lingered  among  his 
 sheepfolds  and  preferred  the  shepherd's  pipe ''  and 
 the  bleating  of  the  flocks,  to  the  clamor  of  the 
 trumpet  and  the  turmoil  of  battle.  His  individ- 
 uality fades  more  rapidly  than  Gad's.  The  eleven 
 valiant  Gadites  who  swam  the  Jordan  at  its  highest 
 to  join  the  son  of  .lesse  in  his  trouble  (1  Chr.  xii. 
 8-15),  Barzillai,  Elijah  the  Gileadite,  the  siege  of 
 Ramoth-Gilead  with  its  picturesque  incidents,  all 
 give  a  substantial  reality  to  the  tribe  and  country 
 of  Gad.  But  no  person,  no  incident,  is  recorded, 
 to  place  Reuben  before  us  in  any  distincter  form 
 than  as  a  member  of  the  community  (if  com- 
 munity it  can  be  called)  of  "the  Reubenites,  the  Ga- 
 dites, ajid  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  "  (1  Clir.  xii. 
 •37).  The  very  towns  of  his  inheritance  —  Hesh 
 bon,  Aroer,  Kiijathaim,  Uibon,  Baal-meon,  Sibmah 
 Jazer,  —  are  familiar  to  us  as  JNIoabite,  and  not  as 
 Israelite  towns.  The  city-life  so  characteristic  of 
 Moabite  civilization  had  no  hold  on  the  Reubenites. 
 They  are  most  in  their  element  when  engaged  in 
 continual  broils  with  the  children  of  the  desert, 
 the  Bedouin  tribes  of  Hagar,  Jetur,  Nephish, 
 Nodal);  driving  oft'  their  myriads  of  cattle,  asses, 
 camels;  dwelling  in  their  tents,  as  if  to  the  manor 
 born  (1  Chr.  v.  10),  gradually  spreading  over  the 
 vast  wilderness  which  extends  from  Jordan  to  the 
 Euphrates  (ver.  9),  and  every  day  receding  further 
 and  further  from  any  conmiunity  of  feeling  or  of 
 interest  with  the  western  triUes. 
 
 Thus  remote  from  the  central  seat  of  the  na- 
 tional government  and  of  the  national  religion,  it 
 is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Reuben  relinquished 
 the  faith  of  Jehovah.  "They  went  a  whoring 
 after  the  gods  of  the  people  of  the  land  whom  God 
 destroyed  before  them,"  and  the  last  historical 
 notice  wliich  we  possess  of  them,  while  it  records 
 this  fact,  records  also  as  its  natural  consequence 
 that  the  Reubenites  and  Gadites,  and  the  half-tribe 
 of  Manasseh,  were  carried  off  by  Ful  and  Tiglath- 
 Pileser,  and  placed  in  the  districts  on  and  about 
 the  river  KiiabUr  in  the  upper  part  of  Mesopo- 
 tamia—  "in  Halah,  and  Habor,  and  llara,  and 
 the  river  Gozan  "  (1  Chr.  v.  20).  G. 
 
 *  RBU'BENITES  033^S~! :  commonly 
 'Pov^rjv,  but  Josh.  xxii.  ],  ol  viol  'Pov^rjf,  Alex. 
 01  Povpr^virai;  1  Chr.  xxvi.  .32,  'Povlirjui  [Vat. 
 ~vfi]  '■  linben,  Rmenitits),  and  once  sing.,  REU'- 
 BENITE  (1  Chr.  xi.  42;  LXX.  omit;  Vulg. 
 Jiuhenites).  Descendants  of  Reuben  (Num.  xxvi. 
 7 ;  Dent.  iii.  12,  10,  iv.  43,  xxix.  8 ;  Josh.  i.  12, 
 xii.  6,  xiii.  8,  xxii.  1;  2  K.  x.  33;  1  Chr.  v.  6,  20, 
 xi.  42,  xii.  37,  xxvi.  32,  xxvii.  10).  A. 
 
 RBU'EL  (bW^27"1  [friend  of  God]  :  'Pa- 
 yovfiX'  Riilniel,  Jiar/itel).  The  name  of  several 
 persons  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
 
 1.  One  of  the  sons  of  Esau,  by  his  wife  Bashe- 
 
 (Josh.  xxii.  34)  by  the  Bedouin  Reubenites,  just  as  the 
 pile  of  Jacob  and  Laban  was  called  Gal-ed,  the  heap 
 of  witness. 
 
 c  The  word  used  here,  pel  eg,  seems  to  refer  to  az-i.- 
 ficial  streams  or  ditches  for  irrif^atiou.     [River.] 
 
 (i  This  is  Ewald's  rendering  (D('c/i/«?r  rJtg  A.  B.  i.  130). 
 adopted  by  Buuseu,  of  the  passage  rendered  in  the 
 A.  V.  "  bleating  of  the  flocks." 
 
2722 
 
 REUMAH 
 
 math  sister  of  Islimael.  His  sons  were  four  — 
 Nahath,  Zerali,  Shamniah,  and  Mizzah,  "dukes" 
 of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi.  4,  10,  13.  17;  1  Chr.  i.  35, 
 37). 
 
 2.  One  of  the  names  of  jMoses'  father-in-law 
 (Ex.  ii.  18);  the  same  which,  throuirh  adherence 
 to  the  LXX.  form,  is  given  in  another  passage  of 
 the  A.  V.  ItAGUEL.  Moses'  father-in-hiw  was  a 
 Midianite,  liut  the  Midianites  are  in  a  well-ivnown 
 passage  (Gen.  xxxvii.  28)  called  also  Ishmaelites, 
 and  if  this  may  be  taken  strictly,  it  is  not  im- 
 lK)ssil)le  that  the  name  of  Kenel  may  he  a  token 
 of  his  connection  witli  the  Ishniaelite  tribe  of  that 
 name.  There  is,  however,  nothing  to  confirm  this 
 su^i^estion. 
 
 3.  Father  of  Eliasaph,  the  leader  of  the  tribe  of 
 Gad,  at  the  time  of  the  census  at  Sinai  (Num.  ii. 
 14).  In  the  parallel  passages  the  name  is  given 
 Deuel,  wliich  is  retained  in  this  instance  also  by 
 the  Vulgate  {Duel). 
 
 4.  A  Benjamite  whose  name  occurs  in  the  gene- 
 alogy of  a  certain  Elah,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
 tribe  at  tlie  date  of  the  settlement  of  Jerusalem 
 (1  Chr.  ix.  8).  G. 
 
 REU'MAH  (na^NT  [vrnsff/,  l.ifjhyveliia.; 
 Alex.  Peijpa:  Roma).  The  concubine  of  Nahor, 
 Abraham's  brother  (Gen.  xxii.  21). 
 
 REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN  ('ATro/ca- 
 Aiiv|/is  '\wavvov:  Apucnli/psis  Beati  .Jonniiis  Apoi- 
 toli).  The  following  subjects  in  connection  with 
 this  book  seem  to  have  the  chief  claiui  for  a  place 
 in  this  article :  — 
 
 A.  Canonical  Authority  and  Author- 
 ship. 
 
 B.  Time  and  Place  of  Writing. 
 
 C.  Language. 
 
 D.  Contents  and  Structure. 
 
 E.  History  of  Interpretation. 
 
 A.  Canonical  Authority  and  Author- 
 ship.—  The  question  as  to  the  canonical  authority 
 of  the  lievehition  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of 
 authorship.  If  it  can  be  proved  that  a  liook,  claim- 
 ing so  distinctly  as  this  does  the  authority  of  divine 
 inspiration,  was  actually  wTitten  by  St.  John,  then 
 no  doubt  will  be  entertained  as  to  its  title  to  a 
 place  in  the  (Janon  of  Scripture. 
 
 Was,  then,  St.  John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist 
 the  writer  of  the  Revelation "?  This  question  was 
 first  mooted  liy  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (Eusebius, 
 //.  A",  vii.  2-5).  The  doubt  which  he  modestly 
 suggested  has  been  confidently  proclaimed  in  mod- 
 ern times  by  Luther  (  Vurrede  auf  die  Offenbarwuj, 
 1522  and  1534),  and  widely  diffused  through  his 
 influence.  Liicke  (EinleUuiiff,  p.  802),  the  most 
 learned  and  diligent  of  modern  critics  of  the  Keve- 
 lation,  agi'ees  with  a  majority  of  the  eminent 
 scholars  of  Germany  in  denying  that  St.  John  was 
 the  author. 
 
 But  the  general  belief  of  the  mass  of  Christians 
 in  all  ages  has  been  in  favor  of  St.  John's  author- 
 ship. The  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  that 
 belief  consists  of  (1)  the  assertions  of  the  author, 
 and  (2)  historical  tradition. 
 
 (1.)  The  author's  description  of  himself  in  the 
 1st  and  22d  chapters  is  certainly  equivalent  to  an 
 assertion  that  he  is  the  Apostle.  («.)  He  names 
 himself  simply  John,  without  prefix  or  addition  — 
 a  name  which  at  that  period,  and  in  Asia,  must 
 have  been  fciken  by  every  Christian  as  the  designa- 
 t'oii  in  the  first  instance  of  tlie  great  Apostle  who 
 
 REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN 
 
 dwelt  at  Ephesus.  Doubtless  there  were  other 
 Johns  among  the  Christians  at  that  time,  but  only 
 arrogance  or  an  intention  to  deceive  could  account 
 for  the  assumption  of  this  simple  style  by  any  other 
 writer.  He  is  also  described  as  (6)  a  servant  of 
 Christ,  (c)  one  who  had  borne  testimony  as  an 
 eye-witness  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  the  testi- 
 mony of  Christ  —  terms  which  were  surely  designed 
 to  identify  him  with  the  writer  of  the  verses  John 
 xix.  35,  i.  14,  and  1  John  i.  2.  He  is  ((/)  in  Pat- 
 mos  for  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of 
 Jesus  Christ:  it  may  be  easy  to  suppose  that  other 
 Christians  of  the  same  name  were  banished  thitlier, 
 but  the  Apostle  is  the  only  John  who  is  distinctly 
 named  in  early  history  as  an  exile  at  Patnios.  He 
 is  also  (e)  a  fellow-sufferer  with  those  whom  he 
 addresses,  and  (/')  the  authorized  channel  of  tlie 
 most  direct  and  important  communication  that 
 was  ever  made  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  of 
 which  churches  John  the  Apostle  was  at  that  time 
 the  spiritual  governor  and  teacher.  Lastly  (//)  the 
 writer  was  a  fellow-servant  of  angels  and  a  brother 
 of  prophets  —  titles  which  are  far  more  suitable  to 
 one  of  tlie  chief  Apostles,  and  far  more  likely  to 
 have  been  assigned  to  him  than  to  any  other  man 
 of  less  distinction.  All  these  marks  are  found 
 united  together  in  the  Apostle  John,  and  in  him 
 alone  of  all  historical  persons.  We  must  go  out 
 of  the  region  of  fact  into  the  region  of  conjecture 
 to  find  such  another  person.  A  candid  reader  of 
 the  Kevelation,  if  previously  acquainted  with  St. 
 John's  other  writings  and  life,  must  inevitably  con- 
 clude that  the  writer  intended  to  be  identified  with 
 St.  John.  It  is  strange  to  see  so  able  a  critic  as 
 Liicke  {EinleiUmg,  p.  514)  meeting  this  conclusion 
 with  the  conjecture  that  some  Asiatic  disciple  and 
 namesake  of  the  Apostle  may  have  written  the 
 book  in  the  course  of  some  missionary  laljors  or 
 some  time  of  sacred  retirement  in  Patinos.  Equally 
 unavailing  against  this  conclusion  is  the  objection 
 lirought  by  Ewald,  Credner,  and  others,  from  the 
 fact  that  a  promise  of  the  future  lilessedness  of  the 
 Apostles  is  implied  in  xviii.  20  and  xxi.  14;  as  if 
 it  were  inconsistent  with  the  true  modesty  and 
 humility  of  an  Apostle  to  record  —  as  Daniel  of 
 old  did  in  much  plainer  terms  (Dan.  xii.  13)  — a 
 divine  promise  of  salvation  to  himself  personally. 
 Rather  those  passages  may  be  taken  as  instances  of 
 the  writer  quietly  accepting  as  his  just  due  such 
 honorable  mention  as  Ijelongs  to  all  the  Apostolic 
 company.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  gi\  e  up  the 
 veracity  and  divine  origin  of  the  whole  book,  and 
 to  treat  the  writer's  account  of  himself  as  a  mere 
 fiction  of  a  poet  trying  to  cover  his  own  insignifi- 
 cance with  an  honored  name,  we  must  accept  that 
 description  as  a  plain  statement  of  fact,  equally 
 credible  with  the  rest  of  the  book,  and  in  har- 
 mony with  the  simple,  honest,  truthful  character 
 which  is  stamped  on  the  face  of  the  whole  narra- 
 tive. 
 
 Besides  this  direct  assertion  of  St.  John's  author- 
 ship, there  is  also  an  implication  of  it  running 
 through  the  book.  Generally,  the  instinct  of  single- 
 minded,  patient,  faithful  students  has  led  them  to 
 discern  a  connection  between  the  Revelation  and 
 St.  John,  and  to  recognize  not  merely  the  same 
 Spirit  as  the  source  of  this  and  other  books  of  Holy 
 Scripture,  Init  also  the  same  peculiarly -formed 
 human  instrument  employed  both  in  producing 
 this  book  and  the  fourth  (iosjiel,  and  in  speaking 
 the  characteristic  words  and  performing  the  char- 
 acteristic actions  recorded  of  St.  John.     This  evi- 
 
KEVBLATION    OF   ST.   JOHN 
 
 flence  is  set  forth  at  great  length,  and  with  much 
 force  and  eloquence,  by  J.  T.  Lange,  in  his  Essay 
 on  the  Connection  between  the  Individuality  of  the 
 Apostle  John  and  that  of  tlie  Apocalypse,  18J8 
 {Venaischte  Sc/triJ'teit,  ii.  173-231).  After  in- 
 vestigating the  peculiar  features  of  the  Apostle's 
 character  and  position,  and  (in  reply  to  Llicke)  the 
 personal  traits  shown  by  the  writer  of  the  Revela- 
 tion, he  concludes  that  the  book  is  a  mysterious 
 but  genuine  ettlision  of  prophecy  under  the  New 
 Testament,  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
 the  product  of  a  spiritual  gift  so  peculiar,  so  great 
 and  noble  that  it  can  be  ascribed  to  the  Apostle 
 John  alone.  Tlie  Revelation  requires  for  its  writer 
 St.  John,  just  as  his  peculiar  genius  requires  for 
 its  utterance  a  revelation. 
 
 (2.)  To  come  to  the  historical  testimonies  in 
 favor  of  St.  John's  authorship:  these  are  singularly 
 distinct  and  numerous,  and  there  is  very  little  to 
 weigh  against  them,  (a.)  Justin  Martyr,  cir.  150 
 A.  D.,  says:  "A  man  among  us  whose  name  was 
 John,  one  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  iu  a  revelation 
 which  was  made  to  him,  prophesied  that  the  be- 
 lievers in  our  Christ  shall  live  a  thousand  years  in 
 Jerusalem"  {Tryph.  §  81,  p.  179,  ed.  Ben.).  (Jj.) 
 The  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  cir.  170 
 A.  D.,  speaks  of  St.  John  as  the  writer  of  the 
 Apocalypse,  and  describes  him  as  a  predecessor  of 
 St.  Paul,  i.  e.  as  Credner  and  Liicke  candidly  in- 
 terpret it,  his  predecessor  in  the  office  of  Apostle, 
 (c.)  Melito  of  Sardes,  cir.  170  A.  d.,  wrote  a  treatise 
 on  the  Revelation  of  John.  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iv. 
 26 )  mentions  this  among  the  books  of  ilelito  which 
 had  come  to  his  knowledge;  and,  as  he  carefully 
 records  objections  against  the  Apostle's  authorship, 
 it  may  be  fairly  presumed,  notwithstanding  the 
 doubts  of  Kleuker  and  Liicke  (p.  514),  that  Euse- 
 bius found  no  doubt  as  to  St.  John's  authorship  in 
 the  book  of  this  ancient  Asiatic  bishop,  (d.)  The- 
 ophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  cir.  180,  in  a  controversy 
 with  Hermogenes,  quotes  passages  out  of  the  Rev- 
 elation of  John  (Euseb.  //.  A',  iv.  2-1).  (e.)  IreuiBus, 
 cir.  195,  apparently  never  having  heard  a  suggestion 
 of  any  other  author  than  the  Apostle,  often  quotes 
 the  Revelation  as  the  work  of  John.  In  iv.  20,  § 
 11,  he  describes  John  the  writer  of  the  Re\'elation 
 as  the  same  who  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  at 
 supper,  and  asked  Him  who  should  betray  Him. 
 The  testimony  of  Irenwus  as  to  the  authorship  of 
 Revelation  is  perhaps  more  important  than  that 
 of  any  other  writer :  it  mounts  up  into  the  preced- 
 ing generation,  and  is  virtually  that  of  a  contem- 
 porary of  the  Apostle.  For  in  v.  30,  §  1,  where  he 
 vindicates  the  true  reading  (666)  of  the  number 
 of  tlie  lieast,  he  cites  in  support  of  it  not  only  the 
 old  correct  copies  of  the  book,  but  also  the  oral 
 testimony  of  tlie  very  persons  who  themselves  had 
 seen  St.  John  face  to  face.  It  is  obvious  that 
 Irenteus's  reference  for  information  on  such  a  point 
 to  those  contemporaries  of  St.  John  implies  his 
 undoubting  belief  that  they,  in  connnon  with  him- 
 self, viewed  St.  John  as  the  writer  of  the  book. 
 Liicke  (p.  574)  suggests  that  this  view  was  possibly 
 groundless,  because  it  was  entertained  before  the 
 learned  fathers  of  Alexandria  had  set  the  e.Kample 
 of  historical  criticism ;  but  his  suggestion  scarcely 
 weakens  the  force  of  the  fact  that  such  was  the 
 belief  of  Asia,  and  it  appears  a  strange  suggestion 
 when  we  remember  that  the  critical  discernment 
 of  the  Alexandrians,  to  whom  he  refers,  led  them 
 to  coincide  with  Irenajus  in  his  view.  (/'.)  Apol- 
 lonius  (cir.  200)  of  Ephesus  (  ?),  in  controversy  with 
 
 2T23 
 
 the  Moiitanists  of  Phrygia,  quoted  passages  out  of 
 the  Revelation  of  John,  and  narrated  a  miracU 
 wrought  by  John  at  Ephesus  (Euseb.  //.  L\  v.  18). 
 {(/.)  Clement  of  Alexandria  (cir.  200)  quotes  the 
 book  as  the  Revelation  of  John  (Slroiiiuta,  vi.  13, 
 p.  667),  and  as  the  work  of  an  Apostle  (Peed.  ii. 
 12,  p.  207).  (h.)  TertuUian  (a.  d.  207),  in  at 
 least  one  place,  quotes  by  name  "  the  Apostle  John 
 in  the  Apocalypse  "  {Ado.  Marcioii.  iii.  14).  («.) 
 Ilippolytus  (cir.  230)  is  said,  in  the  inscription  on 
 his  statue  at  Rome,  to  have  composed  an  apology 
 for  the  Ai)ocalypse  and  Gospel  of  St.  John  the 
 Apostle.  He  quotes  it  as  the  work  of  St.  John 
 (De  AntkhrUto,  §  36,  col.  750,  ed.  Migne).  {j.) 
 Origen  (cir.  233),  in  his  Commentary  on  St.  John, 
 quoted  by  Eusebius  (//.  E.  vi.  25),  says  of  the 
 Apostle,  "he  wrote  also  the  Revelation."  The  tes- 
 timonies of  later  writers,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
 centuries,  in  favor  of  St.  John's  authorship  of  the 
 Revelation,  are  equally  distinct  and  far  more  numer- 
 ous. They  may  be  seen  quoted  at  length  in  Liicke, 
 pp.  628-638,  or  in  Dean  Alford's  Prolcgoiaumi 
 (iV.  T.,  vol.  iv.  pt.  ii.).  It  may  suffice  here  to  say 
 that  they  include  the  names  of  Victorinus,  Meth- 
 odius, Ephrem  Syrus,  Kpiphanius,  Basil,  Hilary, 
 Athanasius,  Gregory  [of  Nyssa],  Didymus,  Am- 
 brose, Augustine,  and  Jerome. 
 
 All  the  foregoing  writers,  testifying  that  the  book 
 came  from  an  Apostle,  believed  that  it  was  a  part 
 of  Holy  Scripture.  But  many  whose  extant  works 
 cannot  be  quoted  for  testimony  to  the  authorship 
 of  the  book  refer  to  it  as  possessing  canonical  au- 
 thority. Thus  (rt.)  Papias,  who  is  descrilied  by 
 Irenaius  as  a  hearer  of  St.  John  and  friend  of  Poly- 
 carp,  is  cited,  together  with  other  writers,  by  An- 
 dreas of  Cappadocia,  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
 Revelation,  as  a  guarantee  to  later  ages  of  the 
 divine  inspiration  of  the  book  (Routh,  lidlq.  Sacr. 
 i.  15;  Cramer's  Cuteim,  Oxford,  1840,  p.  170).  The 
 value  of  this  testimony  has  not  been  impaired  by 
 the  controversy  to  which  it  has  given  rise,  in  which 
 Liicke,  Bleek,  Hengstenberg,  and  Rettig  have  taken 
 ditterent  parts.  (/j.)  In  the  Epistle  from  the 
 Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne,  A.  D.  177,  inserted 
 in  Eusebius,  H.  E.  v.  1-3,  several  passages  (c.  (j.  i. 
 5,  xiv.  4,  xxii.  11)  are  quoted  or  referred  to  in  the 
 same  way  as  passages  of  books  whose  canonical 
 authority  is  unquestioned,  (c.)  Cyprian  {Epp.  10, 
 12,  14,  19,  ed.  Fell)  repeatedly  quotes  it  as  a  part 
 of  canonical  Scripture.  Chrysostom  makes  no  dis- 
 tinct allusion  to  it  in  any  extant  writing ;  but  we 
 are  informed  by  Suidas  that  he  received  it  as  canon- 
 ical. Although  omitted  (perhaps  as  not  adapted 
 for  public  reading  in  church)  from  the  list  of 
 canonical  books  in  the  Council  of  Laodlcea,  it  was 
 admitted  into  the  list  of  the  Third  Council  of 
 Carthage,  A.  d.  397. 
 
 Such  is  the  evidence  in  favor  of  St.  John's 
 authorship  and  of  the  canonical  authority  of  this 
 book.  The  following  facts  must  be  weighed  on  the 
 other  side. 
 
 Marcion,  who  regarded  aU  the  Apostles  except 
 St.  Paul  as  corrupters  of  the  truth,  rejected  the 
 Apocalypse  and  all  other  books  of  the  N.  T.  which 
 were  not  written  by  St.  Paul.  The  Alogi,  an 
 obscure  sect,  circa  180  A.  D.,  in  their  zeal  against 
 Montanism,  denied  the  existence  of  spiritual  gifts 
 in  the  church,  and  rejected  the  Revelation,  saying 
 it  was  the  work,  not  of  John,  but  of  Cerinthus 
 (Epij)hanius,  Adv.  Iker.  Ii.).  The  Roman  presby- 
 ter Caius  (circa  196  A.  d.),  who  also  wrote  against 
 Montanism,  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  {H.  E.  iii.  28) 
 
272-4 
 
 REVELATION    OF   ST.    JOHN 
 
 as  ascribing  certain  Revelations  to  Cerinthus :  Imt  it 
 is  doultted  (see  Koutli,  Rel.  Sucr.  ii.  138)  wlietlier 
 the  Kevelation  of  St.  John  is  the  book  to  wliicli 
 Caius  refers.  But  the  testimony  which  is  consid- 
 ered the  most  important  of  all  in  ancient  times 
 against  the  Kevelation  is  contained  in  a  fragment 
 of  Dion}  sins  of  Ale.xandria,  circa  240  a.  d.,  the 
 most  inlluential  and  perhaps  the  ablest  bishop  in 
 that  age.  The  passage,  taken  from  a  book  On  the 
 Prumises,  written  in  reply  to  Nepos,  a  learned 
 Judaizing  Chiliast,  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  (//.  A', 
 vii.  25).  The  principal  points  in  it  are  these: 
 Dionysius  testifies  that  some  writers  before  him 
 altogetlier  reitudiated  the  liexeLation  as  a  forgery 
 of  Cerinthus;  maTiy  lirethren,  however,  prized  it 
 very  highly,  and  Dionysius  would  not  venture  to 
 reject  it,  but  received  it  in  iaith  as  containing 
 things  too  deep  and  too  sublime  for  his  understand- 
 ing. [In  his  Kpistle  to  Hermammon  (Euseb.  H.  E. 
 vii.  10)  he  quotes  it  as  he  would  quote  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture ]  He  accepts  as  true  what  is  stated  in  the 
 book  itself,  that  it  was  written  by  John,  but  he 
 argues  that  the  way  in  which  that  name  is  men- 
 tioned, and  the  general  character  of  the  language, 
 are  unlike  what  we  should  expect  from  John  the 
 Evangelist  and  Apostle;  that  there  were  many 
 Johns  in  that  age.  He  would  not  say  that  John 
 JIark  was  the  writer,  since  it  is  not  known  that  he 
 was  in  Asia.  He  supposes  it  must  be  the  work  of 
 some  John  who  lived  in  Asia;  and  he  observes 
 there  are  said  to  be  two  tombs  in  Ephesus,  each  of 
 which  bears  the  name  of  John.  He  then  points 
 out  at  length  the  siqieriority  of  the  style  of  the 
 Gospel  and  the.  First  Epistle  of  John  to  the  style 
 of  the  Apocalypse,  and  says,  hi  conclusion,  that, 
 whatever  he  may  think  of  the  language,  he  does 
 not  deny  that  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  actually 
 saw  what  he  describes,  and  was  endowed  with  the 
 divine  gifts  of  knowledge  and  prophecy.  To  this 
 extent,  and  no  farther,  Dionysius  is  a  witness 
 against  St.  .John's  authorship.  It  is  obvious  that 
 he  felt  keenly  the  ditficulty  arising  from  the  use 
 made  of  the  contents  of  this  book  by  certain  un- 
 sound Christians  under  his  jurisdiction ;  that  he 
 was  acquainted  with  the  doubt  as  to  its  canonical 
 authority  which  some  of  his  predecessors  entertained 
 as  an  inference  from  the  nature  of  its  contents; 
 that  he  delilierately  rejected  their  doubt  and  ac- 
 cepted the  contents  of  the  book  as  given  by  the 
 inspiration  of  God ;  that,  altliough  he  did  not  un- 
 derstand how  St.  John  could  wiite  in  tlie  style  in 
 which  the  Kevelation  is  written,  he  yet  knew  of  no 
 authority  Ibr  attributing  it,  as  he  desired  to  at- 
 tribute it,  to  some  other  of  the  mmierous  persons 
 who  bore  the  name  of  John.  A  weightier  difficulty 
 arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Ke\elation  is  one  of 
 the  books  which  are  aV)sent  from  the  ancient  Peshito 
 version ;  and  the  only  trustworthy  evidence  in  fa\or 
 of  its  reception  by  the  ancient  Syrian  Church  is  a 
 simple  quotation  which  is  adduced  from  tlie  Syriac 
 works  (ii.  'S-i'2  c)  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  Eusebius  is 
 remarkalily  sparing  in  his  quotations  from  the 
 "  Kevelation  of  John."  and  the  uncertainty  of  his 
 opinion  about  it  is  Iiest  shown  by  his  statement  in 
 //.  A',  iii.  •Jl),  that  "  it  is  likely  that  the  Kevelation 
 was  seen  by  the  second  John  (the  Ephesian  pres- 
 byter), if  any  one  is  unwilling  to  believe  that  it 
 was  seen  by  the  Apostle."  Jerome  states  {Ep.  ad 
 Dardanum,  etc.)  tliat  the  Greek  churches  felt,  with 
 
 respect  to  the  Kevelation,  a  similar  doubt  to  tlut 
 of  the  Latins  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
 Neither  he  nor  his  equally  influential  contemporary 
 Augustine  shared  such  doubts.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
 Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Theodoret 
 al)stained  from  making  use  of  the  book,  sharing,  it 
 is  possible,  the  doubts  to  whicli  Jerome  refers.  But 
 they  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to  express  a  distinct 
 opinion  against  it."  The  silence  of  these  writers  is 
 tlie  latest  evidence  of  any  inqjortance  that  has  been 
 adduced  against  the  overwhelming  weight  of  the 
 testimony  in  favor  of  the  canonical  authority  and 
 authorship  of  this  book. 
 
 B.  'I'l.Mic  AM)  Place  of  Writing.  —  The  date 
 of  the  Kevelation  is  given  by  the  great  majority  of 
 critics  as  A.  d.  95-'J7.  The  weighty  testimony  of 
 Irenseus  is  almost  sufficient  to  prevent  any  other 
 conclusion.  He  says  {Adv.  Iher.  v.  30,  §  3):  "  It 
 (*'.  e.  the  Revelation)  was  seen  no  very  long  time 
 ago,  but  almost  in  our  own  generation,  at  the  close 
 of  Domitian's  reign."  Eusebius  also  records  as  a 
 tradition  which  he  does  not  question,  that  in  the 
 persecution  under  Domitian,  John  the  Apostle  and 
 Evangelist,  being  jet  alive,  was  banished  to  the 
 island  Patmos  for  his  testimony  of  the  di\ine  word. 
 Allusions  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  (Jrigen 
 point  in  the  same  direction.  There  is  no  mention 
 in  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries  of  any 
 other  time  or  place.  Epiphanius  (Ii.  12),  obviously 
 by  mistake,  says  that  John  prophesied  in  the  reign 
 of  Claudius.  Two  or  tin-ee  oljscure  and  later  au- 
 thorities saj'  that  John  was  banished  mider  Nero. 
 
 Unsupported  by  any  historical  evidence,  some 
 commentators  have  put  forth  the  conjecture  that 
 tlie  Kevelation  was  written  as  early  as  the  time  of 
 Nero.  This  is  simply  their  inference  from  the  style 
 and  contents  of  the  book.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see 
 why  St.  .lohn's  old  age  rendered  it,  as  they  allege, 
 impossible  for  him  to  write  his  inspired  message 
 with  force  and  vigor,  or  why  his  residence  in 
 h^phesus  nmst  have  removed  the  Hebraistic  pecu- 
 liarities of  his  (jreek.  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  the 
 passages  i.  7,  ii.  9,  iii.  9,  vi.  12,  10,  xi.  1,  anything 
 which  would  lead  necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  that 
 Jerusalem  was  in  a  prosperous  condition,  and  tliat 
 the  predictions  of  its  fall  had  not  been  fulfilled 
 when  those  verses  were  written.  A  more  weiglity 
 argument  in  favor  of  an  early  date  might  be  urged 
 from  a  modern  interpretation  of  xvii.  10,  if  that 
 interpretation  could  l)e  established.  Galba  is  al- 
 leged to  be  the  sixth  king,  the  one  that  "  is.'"  In 
 Nero  these  interpreters  see  the  Beast  that  was 
 wounded  (xiii.  3),  the  Beast  that  was  and  is  not, 
 the  eighth  king  (xvii.  11).  For  some  time  after 
 Nero's  death  the  Roman  populace  believed  that  he 
 was  not  dead,  but  had  fled  into  the  I'^ast,  whence 
 he  would  return  and  regain  his  throne:  and  these 
 interpreters  venture  to  suggest  that  the  writer  of 
 the  Kevelation  shared  and  meant  to  express  the 
 absurd  popular  delusion.  \\\en  the  able  and  learned 
 Keuss  {Thiol.  Chret.  i.  443),  l)y  way  of  supporting 
 this  interpretation,  advances  his  untenable  claim 
 to  the  first  discovery  of  the  name  of  Nero  Caesar 
 in  the  number  of  the  |]east,  6GG.  I'he  inconsistency 
 of  this  interpretation  with  prophetic  analogy,  with 
 tlie  context  of  Revelation,  and  with  tlie  fact  that 
 the  book  is  of  divine  origin,  is  pointed  out  by 
 Hengstenberg  at  the  end  of  his  Commentary  on 
 eh.  xiii.,  and  by  Elliott,  Horve  Apoc.  iv.  547. 
 
 «  *  This  cannot  properly  be  said  of  Cyril  of  Jeru-    canonical  ( Cateck.  iv.  33,  al  22).     See  Westcott,  Canon 
 saleiu  (fi.  A.  1).  350),  wlio  clearly  repudiates  it  as   uot    of  the  N.  T.  pp.  398,  491  f.  A. 
 
REVELATION    OF   ST.   JOHN 
 
 2726 
 
 It  has  been  inferred  from  i.  2,  9,  10,  that  the 
 Revelation  was  written  in  Ephesus,  innnediately 
 after  the  Apostle's  return  from  I'atmos.  But  tlie 
 text  is  scarcely  sufficient  to  support  this  conckision. 
 The  style  in  which  tlie  messages  to  tlie  Seven 
 Churches  are  delivered  rather  suggests  the  notion 
 that  the  booli  was  written  in  Patmos. 
 
 C.  Languagk.  —  'I'lie  doubt  first  suggested  by 
 Harenberg,  whether  the  Revelation  was  written  in 
 Aramaic,  has  met  with  little  or  no  reception.  The 
 silence  of  all  ancient  writers  as  to  any  Aramaic 
 original  is  alone  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  sugges- 
 tion. Liicke  {/unleit.  4-41)  has  also  collected  hi- 
 ternal  evidence  to  show  that  the  original  is  the 
 Greek  of  a  Jewish  Christian. 
 
 I^iicke  has  also  (pp.  448-404)  examined  in 
 minute  detail,  after  the  preceding  labors  of  Donker- 
 Curtius,  Vogel,  Winer,  Ewald,  KoltbofF,  and  Hit- 
 zig,  the  peculiarities  of  language  which  obviously 
 distinguish  the  Revelation  from  every  other  book  of 
 the  New  Testament.  And  in  subsequent  sections 
 (pp.  G80-747)  he  urges  with  great  force,  the  differ- 
 ence between  the  Revelation  on  one  side  and  the 
 fourth  Gospel  and  First  Epistle  on  the  other,  in 
 respect  of  tlieir  style  and  composition  and  the 
 iiental  character  and  attainments  of  the  writer  of 
 each.  Hengstenberg,  in  a  dissertation  appended  to 
 his  Conanentary,  maintains  that  they  are  by  one 
 writer.  That  the  anomalies  and  peculiarities  of 
 the  Revelation  have  been  greatly  exaiigerated  by 
 some  critics,  is  sufficiently  shown  by  Ilitzig's 
 plausible  and  ingenious,  though  unsuccessful,  at- 
 tempt to  prove  the  identity  of  style  and  diction  in 
 the  Revelation  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  JMark.  It  may 
 be  admitted  that  the  Revelation  has  many  surpris- 
 ing grammatical  peculiarities.  But  much  of  this 
 is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  was  probably 
 written  down,  as  it  was  seen,  "  in  the  Spirit," 
 whilst  the  ideas,  in  all  their  novelty  and  vastness, 
 filled  the  Apostle's  mind,  and  rendered  him  less 
 capalile  of  attending  to  forms  of  speech.  His 
 Gospel  and  Epistles,  on  the  other  hand,  were  com- 
 posed equally  under  divine  influence,  but  an  influ- 
 ence of  a  gentler,  more  ordinary  kind,  with  much 
 care,  after  long  deliberation,  after  frequent  recol- 
 lection and  recital  of  the  facts,  and  deep  ponder- 
 ing of  the  doctrinal  truths  which  they  involve. 
 
 U.  Contents.  —  The  first  three  verses  contain 
 the  title  of  the  book,  the  description  of  the  writer, 
 and  the  blessing  pronounced  on  the  readers,  which 
 possibly,  like  the  last  two  verses  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
 pel, may  be  an  addition  by  the  hand  of  inspired 
 survivors  of  the  writer.  John  liegins  (i.  4)  with  a 
 salutation  of  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia.  This, 
 coming  before  the  announcement  that  he  was  in 
 the  Spirit,  looks  like  a  dedication  not  merely  of 
 the  first  vision,  but  of  all  the  book,  to  those 
 churches.  In  the  next  five  verses  (i.  5-9)  he 
 touches  the  key-note  of  the  whole  following  book, 
 the  great  fundamental  ideas  on  which  all  our  notions 
 of  the  government  of  the  world  and  the  Church 
 are  built;  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  redemption 
 wrought  by  Him,  his  second  coming  to  judge  man- 
 khid,  the  painful  hopeful  discipline  of  Christians 
 in  the  midst  of  this  present  world:  thoughts  which 
 may  well  be  supposed  to  have  been  ujjpermost  in 
 the  mind  of  the  persecuted  and  exiled  Apostle  even 
 before  the  Divine  Inspiration  came  on  him. 
 
 a.  The  first  vision  (i.  7-iii.  22)  shows  the  Son 
 of  IMan  with  his  injunction,  or  Epistles  to  the 
 Seven  Churches.  While  the  Apostle  is  pondering 
 those  great  truths  and  the  critical  condition  of  his 
 
 Church  which  he  had  left,  a  Divine  Person  resem- 
 bling those  seen  by  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  and  iden- 
 tified by  name  and  by  description  as  Jesus,  appears 
 to  .lohn,  and  with  the  discriminating  authority  of  a 
 Lord  and  Judge  reviews  the  state  of  those  churches, 
 pronounces  his  decision  upon  their  several  charac- 
 ters, and  takes  occasion  from  them  to  speak  to  all 
 Christians  who  may  deserxe  similar  encourage- 
 ment or  similar  condemnation.  Each  of  these 
 sentences,  spoken  by  the  Son  of  Man,  is  described 
 as  said  by  the  Spirit.  Hitherto  the  Apostle  has 
 been  speaking  primarily,  though  not  exclusively, 
 to  some  of  his  own  contemporaries  concerning 
 the  present  events  and  circumstances.  Hence- 
 tbrth  he  ceases  to  address  them  particularly.  His 
 words  are  for  the  ear  of  the  universal  Church  in 
 all  ages,  and  show  the  significance  of  things  which 
 are  present  in  hope  or  fear,  in  sorrow  or  in  joy,  to 
 Christians  everywhere. 
 
 b.  (iv.  1-viii.  1).  In  the  next  vision,  Patmos 
 and  the  Divine  Person  whom  he  saw  are  gone. 
 Only  the  trumpet  voice  is  heard  again  calling  him 
 to  a  change  of  place.  He  is  in  the  highest  court 
 of  heaven,  and  sees  God  sitting  on  his  throne. 
 Tlie  seven-sealed  book  or  roll  is  produced,  and  the 
 slain  Lamb,  the  Redeemer,  receives  it  amid  the 
 sound  of  unixersal  adoration.  As  the  seals  are 
 opened  in  order,  the  Apostle  sees  (1)  a  conqueror 
 on  a  white  horse,  (2)  a  red  horse  betokening  war, 
 (3)  the  black  horse  of  famine,  (4)  tlie  pale  horse 
 of  death,  (5)  the  eager  souls  of  martyrs  under  the 
 altar,  (G)  an  earthquake  with  universal  commotion 
 and  terror.  After  this  there  is  a  pause,  the  course 
 of  avenging  angels  is  checked  while  144,000,  the 
 children  of  Israel,  servants  of  God,  are  sealed,  and 
 an  innumerable  multitude  of  the  redeemed  of  all 
 nations  are  seen  worshipping  God.  Next  (7)  the 
 seventh  seal  is  opened,  and  half  an  hour's  silence 
 in  heaven  ensues. 
 
 c.  Then  (viii.  2-xi.  19)  seven  angels  appear  with 
 trumpets,  the  prayers  of  saints  are  offered  up,  the 
 earth  is  struck  with  fire  from  the  altar,  and  the 
 seven  trumpets  are  sounded.  (1)  The  earth  and 
 (2)  the  sea  and  (-3)  the  springs  of  water  and  (4) 
 the  heavenly  bodies  are  successively  smitten,  (.5)  a 
 plague  of  locusts  aftlicts  the  men  who  are  not 
 sealed  (the  first  woe),  ((5)  the  third  part  of  men 
 are  slain  (the  second  woe),  but  the  rest  are  im- 
 penitent. Then  there  is  a  pause :  a  mighty  angel 
 with  a  book  appears  and  cries  out,  seven  thunders 
 sound,  but  their  words  are  not  recorded,  the  ap- 
 proaching completion  of  the  mystery  of  God  is 
 announced,  the  angel  bids  the  Apostle  eat  the 
 book,  and  measure  the  Temple  with  its  worshippers 
 and  the  outer  court  given  up  to  the  Gentiles ;  the 
 two  witnesses  of  God,  their  martyrdom,  resur- 
 rection, ascension,  are  foretold.  The  approach  of 
 the  third  woe  is  announced  and  (7)  the  seventh 
 trumpet  is  sounded,  the  reign  of  Christ  is  pro- 
 claimed, God  has  taken  his  great  power,  the  time 
 has  come  for  judgment  and  for  the  destruction  of 
 the  destroyers  of  the  earth. 
 
 The  three  preceding  visions  are  distinct  from  one 
 another.  Each  of  tlie  last  two,  like  the  longer 
 one  which  follows,  has  the  appearance  of  a  distinct 
 prophecy,  reaching  from  the  prophet's  time  to  the 
 end  of  the  world.  The  second  half  of  the  Revela- 
 tion (xii.-xxii.)  comprises  a  series  of  visions  which 
 are  connected  by  various  links.  It  may  be  de- 
 scribed generally  as  a  prophecy  of  the  assaults  of 
 the  devil  and  his  agents  (=  the  dragon,  the  ten- 
 horned  beast,  the  two-horned  beast  or  false  prophet 
 
2726 
 
 REVELATION   OF  ST.   JOHN 
 
 and  the  harlot)  upon  the  Church,  and  their  final 
 destruction.  It  appears  to  begin  with  a  reference 
 to  events  anterior,  not  only  to  those  which  are  pre- 
 dicted in  the  preceding  chapter,  but  also  to  the 
 time  in  which  it  was  written.  It  seems  hard  to 
 interpret  the  birth  of  the  child  as  a  prediction,  and 
 not  as  a  retrospective  allusion. 
 
 (/.  A  woman  (xii.)  clothed  with  the  sun  is  seen 
 in  heaven,  and  a  great  red  dragon  with  seven 
 crowned  heads  stands  waiting  to  devour  her  off- 
 spring; her  child  is  caught  up  unto  God,  and  the 
 mother  flees  into  the  wilderness  ibr  1200  days. 
 The  persecution  of  the  woman  and  her  seed  on 
 earth  by  the  dragon,  is  described  as  the  conse- 
 quence of  a  war  in  heaven  in  which  the  dragon 
 was  overcome  and  cast  out  upon  the  earth. 
 
 St.  John  (xiii.)  standing  on  the  sea-shore  sees  a 
 beast  with  seven  heads,  one  wounded,  with  ten 
 crowned  horns,  rising  from  the  water,  the  repre- 
 sentative of  the  dragon.  All  the  world  wonder  at 
 and  worship  him,  and  he  attacks  the  saints  and 
 prevails.  He  is  followed  by  another  two-horned 
 beast  rising  out  of  the  earth,  who  compels  men  to 
 wear  the  mark  of  the  beast,  whose  number  is 
 660. 
 
 St.  John  (xiv.)  sees  the  Lamb  with  144,000 
 standing  on  Mount  Zion  learning  the  song  of  praise 
 of  the  heavenly  host.  Three  angels  fly  foith  call- 
 ing men  to  worship  God,  proclaiming  the  fall  of 
 Babylon,  denouncing  the  worshippers  of  the  beast. 
 A  blessing  is  pronounced  on  the  faithful  dead,  and 
 the  judgment  of  the  world  is  described  under  the 
 image  of  a  harvest  reaped  by  angels. 
 
 St.  John  (xv.,  xvi.)  sees  in  heaven  the  saints 
 who  had  overcome  the  beast,  singing  the  song  of 
 Moses  and  the  Lamb.  Then  seven  angels  come  out 
 of  the  heavenly  temple  having  seven  vials  of  wrath 
 which  they  pour  out  upon  the  earth,  sea,  rivers, 
 sun,  the  seat  of  the  beast,  Euphrates,  and  the  air, 
 after  which  there  is  a  great  earthquake  and  a  hail- 
 storm. 
 
 One  (xvii.,  xviii.)  of  the  last  seven  angels  carries 
 St.  John  into  the  wilderness  and  shows  him  a  har- 
 lot, Baliylon,  sitting  on  a  scarlet  beast  with  seven 
 heads  and  ten  horns.  She  is  explained  to  be  that 
 great  city,  sitting  upon  seven  mountains,  reigning 
 over  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Afterwards  St.  John 
 sees  a  vision  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon,  por- 
 trayed as  the  burning  of  a  great  city  amid  the 
 lamentations  of  worldly  men  and  the  rejoicing  of 
 saints. 
 
 Afterwards  (xix.)  the  worshippers  in  heaven  are 
 heard  celebrating  Babylon's  fall  and  the  approach- 
 ing marriage-supper  of  the  Lamb.  The  Word  of 
 God  is  seen  going  forth  to  war  at  the  head  of  the 
 heavenly  armies :  the  beast  and  his  false  prophet 
 are  taken  and  cast  into  the  burning  lake,  and 
 their  worshippers  are  slain. 
 
 An  angel  (xx.-xxii.  5)  binds  the  dragon,  i.  e.  the 
 devil,  for  1000  years,  whilst  the  martyred  saints 
 who  had  not  worshipped  the  beast  reign  with  Christ. 
 Then  the  devil  is  unloosed,  gathers  a  host  against 
 the  camp  of  the  saints,  but  is  overcome  by  fire 
 from  heaven,  and  is  cast  into  the  burning  lake  with 
 the  beast  and  false  prophet.  St.  John  then  wit- 
 nesses the  process  of  the  final  judgment,  and  sees 
 and  describes  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth, 
 and  the  new  Jerusalem,  with  its  people  and  their 
 way  of  life. 
 
 In  the  last  sixteen  verses  (xxii.  6-21 )  the  angel 
 golenmly  asseverates  the  truthfulness  and  impor- 
 tance of  the  foregoing  sayings,  pronounces  a  bless- 
 
 ing on  those  who  keep  them  exactly,  gives  warn- 
 ing of  his  speedy  coming  to  judgment,  and  of  the 
 nearness  of  the  time  when  these  prophecies  shall 
 be  fulfilled. 
 
 E.  Inteupkktation.  —  A  short  account  of  the 
 difterent  directions  in  which  attempts  have  been 
 made  to  interpret  the  Kevelation.  is  all  that  can  be 
 given  in  this  place.  The  special  blessing  promised 
 to  the  reader  of  this  book  (i.  3),  the  assistance  to 
 common  Christian  experience  afforded  by  its  pre- 
 cepts and  by  some  of  its  visions,  the  striking  im- 
 agery of  others,  the  tempting  field  which  it  supplies 
 for  intellectual  exercise,  will  always  attract  students 
 to  this  book  and  secure  for  it  the  labors  of  many 
 commentators.  Ebrard  reckons  that  not  less  than 
 eighty  systematic  commentaries  are  worthy  of  note 
 and  states  that  the  less  valuable  writings  on  this 
 inexhaustible  subject  are  unnumbei'ed,  if  not  innu- 
 merable. Fanaticism,  theological  hatred,  and  vain 
 curiosity,  may  have  largely  influenced  their  com- 
 position; but  anyone  who  will  compare  the  nece.s- 
 sarily  inadequate,  and  sometimes  erroneous,  exposi- 
 tion of  early  times  with  a  good  modern  conmien- 
 tary  will  see  that  the  pious  ingenuity  of  so  many 
 centuries  has  not  been  exerted  quite  in  vain. 
 
 The  intetval  between  the  Apostolic  age  and  that 
 of  Constantine  has  been  called  the  Chiliastic  period 
 of  Apocalyptic  interpretation.  The  visions  of  St. 
 John  were  chiefly  regarded  as  representations  of 
 general  Christian  truths,  scarcely  yet  embodied  in 
 actual  facts,  for  the  most  part  to  be  exemplified  or 
 fulfilled  in  the  reign  of  Antichrist,  the  coming  of 
 Christ,  the  millennium,  and  the  day  of  judgment. 
 The  fresh  hopes  of  the  early  Christians,  and  the 
 severe  persecution  they  endured,  taught  them  to 
 live  in  those  future  events  with  intense  satisfaction 
 and  comfort.  They  did  not  entertain  the  thought 
 of  building  up  a  definite  consecutive  chronological 
 scheme  even  of  those  symbols  which  some  moderns 
 regard  as  then  already  fulfilled ;  although  from  the 
 beginning  a  connection  between  Kome  and  Anti- 
 christ was  universally  allowed,  and  parts  of  the 
 Kevelation  were  regarded  as  the  filling-up  of  the 
 great  outline  sketched  by  Daniel  and  St.  Paul. 
 
 The  only  extant  systematic  interpretations  in 
 this  period  are  the  interpolated  Conmientary  on 
 the  Revelation  by  the  martyr  Victorinus,  circ.  270 
 A.  D.  (Bi/jliotlu'Ci  Patrum  Maxima,  iii.  414,  and 
 iNIigne's  Patvologia  Lalina,  v.  318 ;  the  two  edi- 
 tions should  be  compared),  and  the  disputed  Trea- 
 tise on  Antichrist  by  Hippolytus  (Migne's  Pairo- 
 lof/ia  Grceca.x.  726).  But  the  prevalent  views  of 
 that  age  are  to  be  gathered  also  from  a  passage  in 
 Justin  Martyr  {Tryplio,  80,  81),  from  the  later 
 books,  especially  the  fifth,  of  Irenanis,  and  from 
 various  scattered  passages  in  TeituUian,  Origeu, 
 and  Methodius.  The  general  anticipation  of  the 
 last  days  of  the  world  in  Lactantius,  vii.  14-25, 
 has  little  direct  reference  to  the  Kevelation. 
 
 Immediately  after  the  triumph  of  Constantine, 
 the  Christians,  emancipated  from  oppression  and 
 persecution,  and  dominant  and  prosperous  in  their 
 turn,  began  to  lose  their  vivid  expectation  of  our 
 Lord's  speedy  Advent,  and  their  spiritual  concep- 
 tion of  his  kingdom,  and  to  look  upon  the  tem- 
 poral supremacy  of  Christianity  as  a  fulfillment  of 
 the  promised  reign  of  Christ  on  earth.  The  Ro- 
 man empire  become  Christian  was  regarded  no 
 longer  as  the  object  of  prophetic  denunciation,  but 
 as  the  scene  of  a  luillennial  development.  This  view, 
 however,  was  soon  met  by  the  figurative  interpre- 
 tation of  the  millennium  as  the  reign  of  Christ  ii: 
 
REVELATION   OF   ST.   JOHN 
 
 2721 
 
 the  hearts  of  all  true  believers.  As  the  barbarous 
 and  heretical  invaders  of  the  falling  empire  ap- 
 peared, they  were  regarded  by  the  suffering  Chris- 
 tians as  fiilHlliiig  tlie  woes  denounced  in  the  Reve- 
 lation. The  begiiniing  of  a  regular  chronological 
 interpretation  is  seen  in  Berengaud  (assigned  by 
 some  critics  to  the  9tli  century),  who  treated  the 
 Revelation  as  a  history  of  the  Church  from  tlie 
 beginning  of  the  world  to  its  end.  And  the  origi- 
 nal Commentary  of  the  Abbot  Joachim  is  remark- 
 able, not  only  for  a  further  development  of  that 
 method  of  interpretation,  but  for  the  scarcely  dis- 
 guised identification  of  Babylon  with  Papal  Rome, 
 and  of  the  second  Beast  or  Antichrist  with  some 
 Universal  Pontiff. 
 
 The  chief  commentaries  belonging  to  this  period 
 are  that  which  is  ascribed  to  Tichonius,  circ.  390 
 A.  D.,  printed  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine;  Pri- 
 masius,  of  Adrunietum  in  Africa,  A.  d.  550,  in 
 Migne's  Patrologia  Latina,  Ixviii.  1406 ;  Andreas 
 of  Crete,  circ.  (i50  A.  d.,  Arethas  of  Cappadocia 
 and  CEcumenius  of  Thessaly  in  the  10th  century, 
 whose  commentaries  were  pulilislied  together  in 
 Cramer's  (Jdieim,  Oxon.,  1840;  the  lixplfmalio 
 Apoc.  in  the  works  of  Bede,  A.  D.  735;  the  Expo- 
 sitio  of  Berengaud,  printed  in  the  woi'ks  of  Am- 
 brose; the  Commentarj'  of  Haymo,  A.  d.  853,  first 
 published  at  Cologne  in  1531;  a  short  Treatise  on 
 the  Seals  by  Anselm,  bishop  of  Havilberg,  A.  D. 
 1145,  printed  in  D'Ach^ry's  S2ncilef/ium,  i.  161; 
 the  Expod'io  of  Alibot  .loachim  of  Calabria,  A.  D. 
 1200,  printed  at  Venice  in  1527. 
 
 In  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  the  views  to 
 which  the  reputation  of  Abbot  .Joachim  gave  cur- 
 rency, were  taken  up  by  the  harljingers  of  the  im- 
 pending change,  as  by  Wickliffe  and  others;  and 
 they  became  the  foundation  of  that  great  historical 
 school  of  interpretation,  which  up  to  this  time 
 seems  the  most  popular  of  all.  It  is  impossible  to 
 construct  an  exact  classification  of  modern  inter- 
 preters of  the  Revelation.  They  are  generally 
 placed  in  three  great  divisions. 
 
 n.  The  Historical  or  Continuous  expositors,  in 
 whose  opinion  the  Revelation  is  a  progressive  his- 
 tory of  the  fortunes  of  the  Church  from  the  first 
 century  to  the  end  of  time.  The  chief  supjwrters 
 of  this  most  interesting  interpretation  are  JNIede, 
 Sir  I.  Newton,  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Woodhouse,  Fa- 
 ber,  E.  B.  Elliott,  Wordsworth,  Hengstenberg, 
 Ebrard,  and  others.  The  recent  commentary  of 
 Dean  Alford  belongs  mainly  to  this  school. 
 
 b.  The  Prseterist  expositors,  who  are  of  opinion 
 that  the  Revelation  has  been  almost,  or  altogether, 
 fulfilled  in  the  time  which  has  passed  since  it  was 
 written ;  that  it  refers  principally  to  the  triumph 
 of  Christianity  over  Judaism  and  Paganism,  sig- 
 nalized in  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Rome. 
 The  most  eminent  expounders  of  this  view  are 
 Alcasar,  Grotius,  Hammond,  Bossuet,  Calmet,  Wet- 
 stein,  Eichhorn,  Hug,  Herder,  Ewald,  Liicke,  De 
 Wette,  Diisterdieck,  Stuart,  Lee,  and  Maurice. 
 This  is  the  fiivorite  interpretation  with  the  critics 
 of  (iermany,  one  of  whom  goes  so  far  as  to  state 
 that  the  writer  of  the  Revelation  promised  the 
 fulfillment  of  his  visions  within  the  space  of 
 three  years  and  a  half  from  the  time  in  which  he 
 wrote. 
 
 c.  The  Futurist  expositors,  whose  views  show  a 
 strong  reaction  against  some  extravagancies  of  the 
 two  preceding  schools.  They  believe  that  the  whole 
 Iwok,  excepting  perhaps  the  first  three  chapters, 
 refers  principally,  if  not  exclusively,  to  events  which 
 
 are  yet  to  come.  This  view,  which  is  asserted  to 
 be  merely  a  revival  of  the  primitive  interpretation, 
 has  been  advocated  in  recent  times  by  Dr.  J.  H. 
 Todd,  Dr.  S.  R.  JNIaitland,  B.  Newton,  C.  Maitland, 
 I.  ^^'illianls,  De  Burgh,  and  others. 
 
 Each  of  these  three  schemes  is  open  to  objec- 
 tion. Against  the  Futurist  it  is  argued,  that  it  is 
 not  consistent  with  the  repeated  declarations  of  a 
 speedy  fulfillment  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
 book  itself  (see  ch.  i.  3,  xxii.  6,  7,  12,  20).  Chris- 
 tians, to  whom  it  was  originally  addressed,  would 
 have  derived  no  sjieeial  comfort  from  it,  had  its 
 fulfillment  been  altogether  deferred  for  so  many 
 centuries.  The  rigidly  literal  interpretation  of 
 Babylon,  the  Jewish  tribes,  and  other  symbols 
 which  generally  forms  a  part  of  Futurist  schemes, 
 presents  peculiar  difljculties. 
 
 Against  the  Praterist  expositors  it  is  urged,  that 
 prophecies  fulfilled  ought  to  be  rendered  so  per- 
 spicuous to  the  general  sense  of  the  Church  as  to 
 supply  an  argument  against  infidelity;  that  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem,  having  occurred  twenty- 
 five  years  previously,  could  not  occupy  a  large 
 space  in  a  pro]ihecy ;  tliat  the  supposed  predictions 
 of  the  downfalls  of  .Terusalem  and  of  Nero  appear 
 from  the  context  to  refer  to  one  event,  but  are  by 
 this  scheme  separated,  and,  moreover,  placed  in  a 
 wrong  order;  that  the  measuring  of  the  temple 
 and  the  altar,  and  the  death  of  the  two  witnesses 
 (ch.  xi.),  cannot  be  explained  consistently  with  the 
 context. 
 
 Against  the  Historical  scheme  it  is  urged,  that 
 its  advocates  differ  very  widely  among  themselves; 
 that  they  assume  without  any  authority  that  the 
 1200  days  are  so  many  years ;  that  several  of  its 
 applications  —  e.  <j.  of  the  symliol  of  the  ten-horned 
 beast  to  the  Popes,  and  the  sixth  seal  to  the  con- 
 version of  Constantine  —  are  inconsistent  with  the 
 context;  that  attempts  by  some  of  this  school  to 
 predict  future  events  by  the  help  of  Revelation  have 
 ended  in  repeated  failures. 
 
 In  conclusion,  it  may  be  stated  that  two  methods 
 have  been  proposed  by  which  the  student  of  the 
 Revelation  may  escape  the  incongruities  and  fiiUa- 
 cies  of  the  different  interpretations,  whilst  he  may 
 derive  edification  from  whatever  truth  they  contain. 
 It  has  been  suggested  that  the  liook  may  be  re- 
 garded as  a  prophetic  poem,  dealing  in  general  and 
 inexact  descriptions,  much  of  which  may  be  set 
 down  as  poetic  imagery,  mere  embellishment.  But 
 such  a  view  would  be  difKcult  to  reconcile  with  the 
 belief  that  the  book  is  an  inspired  prophecy.  A 
 better  suggestion  is  made,  or  rather  is  revived,  by 
 Dr.  Arnold  in  his  Sermons  On  the  Interpretation 
 of  Prophecy:  that  we  should  bear  in  mind  that 
 predictions  have  a  lower  historical  sense,  as  well  as 
 a  higher  spiritual  sense;  that  there  may  be  one  or 
 more  than  one  typical,  imperfect,  historical  fulfill- 
 ment of  a  prophecy,  in  each  of  which  the  higher 
 spiritual  fulfillment  is  shadowed  forth  more  or  less 
 distinctly.  Mr.  Elliott,  in  his  Horm  Apocali/jjtkcB, 
 iv.  622,  argues  against  this  principle;  but  perhaps 
 not  successfully.  The  recognition  of  it  would  pave 
 the  way  for  the  acceptance  in  a  modified  sense  of 
 many  of  the  interpretations  of  the  Historical  school, 
 and  would  not  exclude  the  most  valuat)le  portions 
 of  j^he  other  schemes.  W.  T.  B. 
 
 *  Literature.  The  most  valuable  Introduction 
 to  the  Apocalypse  is  Liicke's  Versuch  einer  vollstdn- 
 digen  Einl.  in  die  Ufftiib.  d.  Johannes  (1832), 
 2d  ed..  greatly  enlarged,  2  Abth.,  Bonn,  1852. 
 Besides  the  Commentaries  (a  few  of  which  will  be 
 
2728    REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN 
 
 mentioued  below),  and  the  general  Introductions  to 
 the  N.  T.,  as  those  of  Hug,  Scliott,  De  Wette, 
 Credner,  Guericke,  Reuss  (see  also  his  art.  Johan. 
 Apoli.  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Al/i/cin.  Encykiop. 
 Sect.  II.  13d.  xxii.  (1842)  p.  79  ff.),'Bleek,  and  Da- 
 vidson, the  following  are  some  of  the  more  notice- 
 >ble  essays  on  the  authorship,  date,  and  plan  of  the 
 book:  A  Discourse,  Historical  and  Crilical,  on  tlie. 
 Rtvelations  ascribed  to  Si.  John  (by  F.  Abauzit), 
 Lond.  1730 ;  also,  in  a  different  trans.,  in  his  Mis- 
 cellanies (Lond.  1774).  This  was  reviewed  by  L. 
 Twells,  in  his  Crit.  Examination  of  the  Eate  Neio 
 Test,  and  rei'sion  of  the  N.  T.,  in  Greek  and 
 English  [Mace's],  Lond.  1732,  trans,  in  part  by 
 Wolf  in  his  Curoi  Philol.  et  Cril.  v.  387  ff.  (Basil. 
 1741).  (G.  L.  Oeder,)  Freie  Unters.  iib.  diesorjen. 
 Offenh.  Joh.,  mil  Anm.  von  Sender,  llalle,  17G9. 
 Sender,  Neue  Unters.  ub.  d.  Ajwk.,  Halle,  177G. 
 (F.  G.  Hartwig,)  ApoL  d.  Apok.  wider  falsclien 
 Tudel  u.  falsches  Eub,  4  Thle.,  Chenin.  1780-83. 
 G.  C.  Storr,  Meiie  Apol.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Tiib.  1782. 
 Donker-Curtius,  De  Apoc.  ab  Indole,  Doct.  et 
 scribendi  Genere  Joannis  Apost.  non  abhorrente, 
 Ultraj.  1799.  Bleek,  Bdtrdcje  zur  Krit.  u.  Deit- 
 tuny  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  in  the  Theol.  Zeiischr.  of 
 Schlciermacher,  De  Wette  and  Liicke,  Heft  2  (Berl. 
 1820);  conip.  his  Beitrcii/e  zur  Evungelien-K ritik 
 (1840),  p.  182  ff.,  267  ff".,  and  his  review  of  Liicke  in 
 the  Tlieol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  Heft  4,  and  1855, 
 Heft  1.  Kolthoff,  Ajioc.  Joanni  Apost.  vindicata, 
 Hafn.  1834.  Danneniann,  Wer  ist  der  Verfusser 
 d.  Offenb.  Johannis  f  Hannov.  1841.  Hitzig, 
 Ueher  Johannes  Marcus  u.  seine  Scltriften,  oder 
 welcher  Johannes  hat  die  Offenb.  verftsst  'i  Ziir. 
 1843.  Neander,  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
 Christian  Church,  p.  365  fF.,  Robinson's  trans., 
 N.  Y.  1865.  W.  F.  Rinck,  Apobdi/pt.  For- 
 schungen,  Ziir.  1853.  E.  Boehnier,  Verfasser  u. 
 Abfassungszeit  d.  Joh.  Apoc,  Halle,  185G.  G.  R. 
 Noyes,  The  Apocalypse  analyzed  and  explained, 
 in  the  Christ.  Exavdner  for  May  1860,  reprinted 
 in  the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.  for  Oct.  1860.  The 
 Apocalypse,  in  the  Westm.  Rev.  for  Oct.  1861. 
 (S.  Davidson,)  Tlie  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  in  the 
 National  Rev.  for  April  1804;  substantially  the 
 same  as  his  art.  Revelation  in  the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's 
 Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.  R.  D.  C.  Robbins,  The 
 Author  of  tlie  Apocalypse,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
 April  and  July,  18G4.  Alb.  Rt!ville,  En  lit.  apoc- 
 alyptique  chez  lesjuifs  et  les  Chretiens,  in  the  Rev. 
 des  Deux  Mondes  for  Oct.  1,  18G6.  B.  Weiss, 
 Apohdyptische  Studien,  in  Theol.'  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
 1869,  pp.  1-59,  cf.  p.  758  ff". 
 
 Of  the  multitudinous  Commentaries  on  this  tor- 
 tured book  only  a  few  of  the  more  remarkable  can 
 be  named  here.  The  history  of  the  interpretation 
 is  given  in  detail  by  Liicke  (p.  951  W.)  and  after 
 him  by  Stuart  (i.  450  fi^.);  comp.  the  outline  in 
 De  Wette  (Exeg.  Ilandb.).  Jos.  Mede,  Claris 
 Apocalyptica  and  Comm.  in  Apoc.  (1627,  1632),  in 
 his  Works,  vol.  ii.  Grotius,  Annot.  in  N.  T.,  Par. 
 1644,  often  reprinted.  Bossuet,  L' Apoc.  avec  uue 
 explication.  Par.  1690.  Vitringa,  Aj'a/cpicns^iwc'. 
 (1705),  ed.  alt.,  Amst.  1719,  4to.  Daubuz,  Per- 
 petual Comm.  on  the  Rev.  of  St.  John,  Lond.  1720, 
 fol.  Sir  Is.  Newton,  Obs.  upon  the  Proph.  of 
 Daniel  and  the  Apoc.  of  St.  John,  Lond.  1733,  4to. 
 Lowman,  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Rev.,  Lond. 
 1737,  4to,  often  reprinted.     Bengel,  Erklarte  Of- 
 
 BEZEPH 
 
 fenh.  Johannis,  Stuttg.  1740,  3e  Aufl.  1758; 
 comp.  his  Gnomon.  Herder,  MAPAN  A0A.  J>as 
 Buck  von  d.  Zukunft  des  Herrn,  Riga,  1779. 
 Eichhorn,  Comm.  in  Apoc,  2  torn.  Gott.  1791; 
 comp.  Christian  Disciple  (Bost.)  for  April,  1822 
 and  Christ.  Examiner,  May,  1830.  J.  C.  Wood- 
 house,  The  Apoc.  translated,  with  Notes,  Lond. 
 1805;  also  Annotations  on.  the  Apoc.  (a  sequel  to 
 Elsley  and  Slade).  Lond.  1828.  Heinrichs,  Comm. 
 in  Apoc  2  pt.  Gott.  1818-21  (vol.  x.  of  the  Test. 
 Nov.  Edit.  Kojjp.).  Ewald,  Comm.  in  Apoc.  exe- 
 geiicus  et  criticus,  Gott.  1828 ;  Die  Johanneischen 
 Schrlften  iibers.  u.  erklart,  Bd.  ii.  Gott.  1802. 
 (Important.)  Ziillig,  Die  Offenb.  Joh.  vollstundig 
 erklart,  2  Thle.,  Stuttg.  1834-40.  Tinius,  Die 
 Offenb.  Joh.  durch  Einl.,  Uebers.  u.  Erkl.  Allen 
 verstundlich  gemacht,  Leipz.  1839.  E.  B.  EUiott, 
 Ilorce  Apocalyptical  (1843),  5th  ed.,  4  vols.  Lond. 
 1802.  Moses  Stuart,  Comm.  on  the  Apocalypse,  2 
 vols.  Andover,  1845,  also  reprinted  in  England ; 
 perhaps  liis  most  elaborate  work.  De  Wette,  Kurze 
 Erkl.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Leipz.  1848  (Hd.  iii.  Th.  2 
 of  his  Exeg.  Hundb.),  3e  Aufl.,  bearb.  von  W. 
 Moeller,  1862.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Offenb.  d.  heil. 
 Joh.,  2  Bde.  Berl.  1849,  2e  Ausg.  1861-62,  trans, 
 by  P.  Fairbairn,  Edin.  1851.  Ebrai'd,  Die  Offenb. 
 Joh.  erklart,  KiJnigsb.  1853  (Bd.  vii.  of  Olshau- 
 sen's  Bibl.  Comm.).  Auberlen,  Der  Proph.  Dan- 
 iel u.  die  Offenb.  Joh.,  Bas.  1854,  2«  Aufl.  1857, 
 Eng.  trans.  Edin.  1856.  Diisterdieck,  Krit.  exeg. 
 Ilandb.  iib.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Gott.  1859,  2e  Aufl. 
 1865  (Abth.  xvi.  of  Meyer's  Kommentar).  F.  D. 
 ^Maurice,  Lectures  on  the  Apoc,  Cambr.  1861. 
 Bleek,  Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Apok.,  Berl.  1862. 
 Yolkmar,  Comm.  zum  Offenb.  Joh.,  Ziir.  1862. 
 Desprez,  The  Ajwc.  fulfilled,  new  ed.,  Lond.  1865. 
 We  may  also  name  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Test. 
 by  Blooinfield,  Webster  and  Wilkinson,  Alford,  and 
 Wordsworth,  who  has  also  published  a  sei)arate  ex- 
 position of  the  book.  See  further  the  literature 
 under  Antichkist. 
 
 Critical  editions  of  the  Greek  text,  with  a  new 
 English  version  and  various  readings,  have  been 
 published  by  Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles  (Lond.  1844) 
 and  William  Kelly  (Lond.  18G0),  followed  by  his 
 Lectures  on  the  Apoc.  (Lond.  1801).  The  Second 
 Epistle  <f  Peter,  the  Episths  ofjolin  and  Judas, 
 and  the  Revelation:  trans,  from  the  Greek,  ivith 
 Notes,  New  York  (Amer.  Bible  Union),  1854, 
 4to,  was  prepared  by  the  late  Rev.  John  Lillie, 
 D.  D. 
 
 On  the  theology  of  the  Apocalypse,  one  may 
 consult  the  works  on  Biblical  Theology  by  Lutter- 
 beck,  Reuss,  Messner,  Lechler,  Schmid,  13aur,  and 
 Beyschlag,  referred  to  under  Jonx,  Gospel  of, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  1439  a,  and  the  recent  work  of  B.  Weiss, 
 Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T,  Berl.  1868,  p.  600  ff. 
 
 A. 
 
 RE'ZEPH  i^T?.  [stronghold,  Fiirst] :  ^ 
 \!'Pa<f)is,  Vat.]  'Pat^eis,  and  'Vapid; «  [Comp. 
 'Paffecp,  'Pafff/x  ;  Sin.  in  Is.  Vaj)es'-]  Resepli). 
 One  of  the  places  which  Sennacherib  mentions,  in 
 his  taunting  message  to  Hezekiah,  as  having  been 
 destroyed  by  his  predecessor  (2  K.  xix.  12;  Is. 
 xxxvii.  12).  He  couples  it  with  Haran  and  other 
 well-known  Mesopotamian  spots.  The  name  is 
 still  a  common  one,  Yakut's  Lexicon  quoting  nine 
 towns  so  called.     Interpreters,  liowever,  are  at  va- 
 
 a  The  Alex.  MS.  exhibits  the  same  forms  of  the 
 name  as  the  Vat. ;  but  by  a  curious  coiucideuce  in- 
 
 terchanged,  namely,    Pa(^ee  in    2   Kings,    Pa(^«is   in 
 Isaiah. 
 
Ki^ZIA 
 
 riaiice  between  the  principal  two  of  these.  The 
 one  is  a  clay's  march  west  of  the  Euphrates,  on 
 the  road  from  Rnccn  to  Hums  (Gesenius,  Kail, 
 Thenius,  Michaelis,  Bv,ppl.)\  the  other,  again,  is 
 east  of  the  Euphrates,  near  Bagdad  (Hitzig).  The 
 former  is  mentioned  by  Ptolemy  (v.  15)  under  the 
 name  of  'Pr^adfpa,  and  appears,  in  the  present  im- 
 perfect state  of  our  jMesoputaniian  knowledge,  to 
 be  the  more  feasible  of  the  two.  G. 
 
 RE'ZIA  (W!^?l  [Might]:  'Paacd;  [Vat. 
 Parreia:]  Resin).  An  Asherite,  of  the  sons  of 
 UUa  (1  Chr.  vii.  39). 
 
 RE'ZIN"  Cj'^^l  [perh.  stable,  firm,  or  prince, 
 Ges.] :  "PaaaGwu,"Pa<j'iV,  ['Paai^, 'Pao-ffiV;  Vat. 
 in  Is.  Vaffiiv,  Paa-eifx,  Paa(Toou\  Sin.  in  Is.  Paaa- 
 (Tuiv\  Alex.  PaaffcToiu,  exc.  Is.  vii.  8,  Paa^iv'-] 
 liasin).  1.  A  king  of  Damascus,  contemporary 
 with  Pekah  in  Israel,  and  with  Jotham  and  Ahaz 
 in  Judasa.  The  policy  of  Kezin  seems  to  have  been 
 to  ally  himself  closely  with  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
 and,  thus  strengthened,  to  carry  on  constant  war 
 against  the  kings  of  Judah.  He  attacked  Jotham 
 during  the  latter  part  of  his  reign  (2  K.  xv.  -37); 
 but  his  chief  war  was  with  Ahaz,  whose  territories 
 he  invaded,  in  company  with  Pekah,  soon  after 
 Ahaz  had  mounted  the  throne  (about  n.  C.  741). 
 The  combined  army  laid  siege  to  .Jerusalem,  where 
 Ahaz  was,  but  "could  not  prevail  against  it"  (Is. 
 vii.  1;  2  K.  xvi.  5).  llezin,  however,  "recovered 
 Elath  to  Syria"  (2  K.  xvi.  6);  that  is,  he  con- 
 quered and  held  possession  of  the  celebrated  town 
 of  that  name  at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaliah, 
 which  commanded  one  of  the  most  important  lines 
 of  trade  in  the  East.  Soon  after  this  he  was 
 attacked  by  Tiglath-Pileser  II.,  king  of  Assyria,  to 
 whom  Ahaz  in  his  distress  had  made  application ; 
 his  armies  were  defeated  by  the  Assyrian  hosts;  his 
 city  besieged  and  taken;  his  people  carried  away 
 captive  into  Susiana  (?KiR);  and  he  himself  slain 
 (2  K.  xvi.  9;  compare  Tiglath-Pileser's  own  in- 
 scriptions, where  the  defeat  of  Kezin  and  the  de- 
 struction of  Damascus  are  distinctly  mentioned). 
 This  treatment  was  probably  owing  to  his  being  re- 
 garded as  a  rebel;  since  Damascus  had  been  taken 
 and  laid  under  tribute  by  the  Assyrians  some 
 time  previously  (Rawlinson's  Ilerodulus,  i.  4G7). 
 
 G.  K. 
 
 2.  \^Pa<T(iv  ;  in  Neh.,  Rom.  'Paacrdv,  EA. 
 Poetroij'.]  One  of  the  families  of  the  Nethinim 
 (Ezr.  ii.  48;  Neh.  vii.  50).  It  furnishes  another 
 example  of  the  occurrence  of  non-Israelite  names 
 amongst  them,  which  is  already  noticed  under  jMe- 
 IIUNIM  [iii.  1875,  note  a;  and  see  Siseka].  In  1 
 I'^sdr.  the  name  appears  as  Daisan,  in  which  the 
 change  from  R  to  D  seems  to  imply  that  1  Esdras 
 at  one  time  existed  in  Syriac  or  some  other  Semitic 
 language.  G. 
 
 RE'ZOlSr  (V"in  [p'vnce]:  [Rom.  om.;  Vat.] 
 Ecpco^:  Alex.  Pafoji/:  Rnzon).  The  son  of  Eli- 
 adah,  a  Syrian,  who,  when  David  defeated  Hadad- 
 ezer  king  of  Zobah,  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a 
 band  of  freebooters  and  set  up  a  petty  kingdom  at 
 Damascus  (1  K.  xi.  23).  Whether  he  was  an 
 officer  of  Hadadezer,  who,  foreseeing  the  destruc- 
 tion which  David  would  inflict,  prudently  escaped 
 with  some  followers;  or  whether  he  gathered  his 
 band  of  the  remnant  of  those  who  survived  the 
 slaughter,  does  not  appear.  The  latter  is  more 
 probable.  The  settlement  of  Rezon  at  Damascus 
 could  not  have  been  till  some  time  after  the  dis- 
 172 
 
 RHEGIUM  2729 
 
 astrons  battle  in  which  the  power  of  Hadadezer 
 was  broken,  for  we  are  told  that  David  at  the  same 
 time  defeated  the  army  of  Damascene  Syrians  who 
 came  to  the  relief  of  Hadadezer,  and  put  garrisons 
 in  Damascus.  From  his  position  at  Damascus  he 
 harassed  the  kingdom  of  Solomon  during  his  whole 
 reign.  With  regard  to  the  statement  of  Nicolaus 
 in  the  4th  book  of  his  History,  quoted  by  Josephus 
 (Ant.  vii.  5,  §  2),  there  is  less  difficulty,  as  there 
 seems  to  be  no  reason  for  attributing  to  it  any 
 historical  authority.  He  says  that  the  name  of 
 the  king  of  Damascus,  whom  David  defeated,  was 
 Hadad,  and  that  his  descendants  and  succes.sors 
 took  the  same  name  for  ten  generations.  If  this 
 be  true,  Rezon  was  a  usurper,  but  the  origin  of  the 
 story  is  ])robal)ly  tlie  confused  account  of  the  LXX. 
 In  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  LXX.  the  account  of 
 Rezon  is  inserted  in  ver.  14  in  close  connection 
 with  Hadad,  and  on  this  .Josephus  appears  to  have 
 founded  his  story  that  Hadad,  on  leaving  Egypt, 
 endeavored  without  success  to  excite  Idumea  to 
 revolt,  and  tlien  went  to  Syria,  where  he  joined 
 himself  with  Rezon,  called  by  Josephus  Raazarus, 
 who  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  robbers  was  plunder- 
 ing the  country  {Ant.  viii.  7,  §  6).  It  was  Hadad 
 and  not  Rezon,  according  to  the  account  in  Jose- 
 phus, who  estalilished  himself  king  of  that  part 
 of  Syria,  and  made  im-oads  upon  the  Israelites. 
 In  1  K.  XV.  18,  Benhadad,  king  of  Damascus  in 
 the  reign  of  Asa,  is  described  as  the  grandson  of 
 Hezion,  and  from  the  resemblance  between  the 
 names  Rezon  and  Hezion,  when  written  in  Hebrevir 
 characters,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  latter  is 
 a  corrupt  reading  for  the  former.  Eor  this  sug- 
 gestion, however,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  suffi- 
 cient ground,  though  it  was  adopted  both  by  Sir 
 John  Marsham  {Citron.  Can.  p.  346)  and  Sir  Isaac 
 Newton  {Cliroiwl.  p.  221).  Bunsen  {Bibelwerk,  i. 
 cclxxi.)  makes  Hezion  contemporary  with  Reho- 
 boam,  and  probably  a  grandson  of  Rezon.  The 
 name  is  Aramaic,  and  Ewald  compares  it  with 
 Rezin.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 RHE'GIUM  {'P-hyiov.  Rherjimn).  The  men- 
 tion of  this  Italian  town  (which  was  situated  on 
 the  Bruttian  coast,  just  at  the  southern  entrance 
 of  the  straits  of  iMessina)  occurs  quite  incidentally 
 (Acts  xxviii.  13)  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's 
 voyage  from  Syracuse  to  Puteoli,  after  the  ship- 
 wreck at  Malta.  But,  for  two  reasons,  it  is  worthy 
 of  careful  attention.  By  a  curious  coincidence  the 
 figures  on  its  coins  are  the  very  "  twin-brothers  " 
 which  gave  the  name  to  St.  Paul's  ship.  See 
 (attached  to  the  article  Castor  and  Pollux)  the 
 coin  of  Bruttii,  which  doubtless  represents  the 
 forms  that  were  painted  or  sculptured  on  the  vessel. 
 And,  again,  the  notice  of  the  intermediate  position 
 of  Rhegium,  the  waiting  there  for  a  southerly  wind 
 to  carry  the  ship  through  the  straits,  the  run  to 
 Puteoli  with  such  a  wind  within  the  twenty-four 
 hours,  are  all  points  of  geographical  accuracy  which 
 help  us  to  realize  the  n.arrative.  As  to  the  history 
 of  the  place,  it  was  originally  a  Greek  colony:  it 
 was  miserably  destroyed  by  Dionysius  of  Syracuse: 
 from  Augustus  it  received  advantages  which  com- 
 bined with  its  geographical  position  in  making  it 
 important  throughout  the  duration  of  the  Roman 
 empire:  it  was  prominently  associated,  in  the 
 Middle  Ages,  with  the  varied  fortunes  of  the  Greek 
 emperors,  the  Saracens,  and  the  Romans:  and 
 still  the  modern  Re(j(jio  is  a  town  of  10,000  in- 
 habitants. Its  distance  across  the  straits  from 
 Messina  is  only  about  six  miles,  and  it  is  well  seen 
 
2730 
 
 RHESA 
 
 from  the  telegraph  station  above  that  Sicilian 
 to«'"-"  J.  S.  H. 
 
 RHE'SA  ('Prjcra:  Resa),  son  of  Zorobabel  in 
 the  genealogy  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  27).  Lord  A. 
 Hervey  has  ingeniously  conjectured  that  Khesa  is 
 no  person,  but  merely  the  title  Jiosli,  i.  e.  '•  Prince," 
 originally  attached  to  the  name  of  Zerubbabel,  and 
 gradually  introduced  as  an  independent  name  into 
 the  genealogy.  He  thus  removes  an  important  ol)- 
 stacle  to  the  reconciliation  of  tlie  pedigrees  in  Mat- 
 thew and  Luke  (Hervey's  Genealocjies,  etc.  pp.  Ill, 
 114,  356-300).  [Genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 i.  886  a;  Zeuubbabel.]  G. 
 
 RHO'DA  ('Pd57?  [rose-bush]:  Rhode),  lit. 
 Rose,  the  name  of  a  maid  who  ainiounced  Peter's 
 arrival  at  the  door  of  Mary's  house  after  his  mirac- 
 ulous release  from  prison  (Acts  xii.  13).  [Por- 
 ter.] 
 
 RHODES  ('P(^Sos  [rose] :  Rliodus).  The  his- 
 tory of  this  island  is  so  illustrious,  that  it  is  inter- 
 esting to  see  it  connected,  even  in  a  small  degree, 
 with  the  life  of  St.  Paul.  He  touched  there  on  his 
 return-voyage  to  Syria  from  the  third  niisssionary 
 journey  (Acts  xxi.  1).  It  does  not  appear  that  he 
 landed  from  the  ship.  The  day  before  he  had  been 
 at  Cos,  an  island  to  the  N.  W. ;  and  from  Khodes 
 he  proceeded  eastwards  to  Patara  in  Lycia.  It 
 seems,  from  all  tlie  circumstances  of  the  narrative, 
 that  the  wind  was  blowing  from  the  N.  W.,  as  it 
 very  often  does  in  that  part  of  the  Levant.  Khodes 
 is  immediately  opposite  tlie  high  Carian  and  Lycian 
 headlands  at  the  S.  W.  extremity  of  the  peninsula 
 of  Asia  JMinor.  Its  position  has  had  much  to  do 
 with  its  history.-  The  outline  of  tliat  history  is  as 
 follows.  Its  real  eminence  began  (about  400  b.  c.  ) 
 with  the  founding  of  that  city  at  the  N.  E.  extrem- 
 ity of  the  island,  which  still  continues  to  be  the 
 capital.  Though  the  Dorian  race  was  originally 
 and  firmly  established  here,  yet  Khodes  was  very 
 frequently  dependent  on  others,  between  the  Pelo- 
 ponnesian  war  and  the  time  of  Alexander's  cam- 
 paign. Alter  Alexander's  death  it  entered  on  a 
 glorious  period,  its  material  prosperity  being  largely 
 developed,  and  its  institutions  deserving  and  ol)tain- 
 ing  general  esteem.  As  we  approach  the  time  of 
 the  consolidation  of  the  Roman  power  in  tlie  Le- 
 vant, we  have  a  notice  of  .Jewish  residents  in  Khodes 
 (1  Mace.  XV.  23).  The  Romans,  after  the  defeat  of 
 Antiochus,  assigned,  during  some  time,  to  Rhodes 
 certain  districts  on  the  mainland  [Caria;  Lycia]; 
 and  when  these  were  withdrawn,  upon  more  mature 
 provincial  arrangements  being  made,  the  island  still 
 enjoyed  (from  Augustus  to  Vespasian)  a  consider- 
 able amount  of  independence.''  It  is  in  this  inter- 
 val that  St.  Paul  was  there.  Its  Byzantine  history 
 is  again  eminent.  Under  Constantine  it  was  the 
 metropolis  of  the  "Province  of  tlie  Islands."  It 
 was  the  last  place  where  the  Christians  of  the  East 
 held  out  against  the  advancing  Saracens ;  and  sub- 
 sequently it  was  once  more  famous  as  the  home  and 
 
 a  *  Reg^io  is  in  full  view  from  the  harbor  of  Mes- 
 sina. The  Apostle  passed  there  in  winter,  probably  in 
 February  (as  Luke's  notations  of  time  indicate),  and 
 at  that  season  he  must  have  seen  the  mountains,  both 
 of  Sicily  and  of  the  mainland,  covered  with  snow. 
 The  name  is  from  pij-yi^v^i,  to  break  or  burst  througk, 
 as  if  the  sea  had  there  torn  off  Sicily  from  the  con- 
 tinent. See  Pape's  WUrterb.  der  GrUch.  Eigennamen, 
 s  V.  H. 
 
 b  Two  incidents  in  the  life  of  Herod  the  Great  con- 
 nected with  Rhodes,  are  well  worthy  of  mention  here. 
 
 RIBLAH 
 
 fortress  of  the  Knights  of  St.  .John.  The  most  prom- 
 inent remains  of  the  city  and  barber  are  nieniorialj 
 of  those  knights.  The  best  account  of  Rhodes  will 
 be  found  in  Ross,  Reisen  mif  <len  Griech.  Jnseln 
 iii.  70-113,  and  Reisen  nach  Kos,  Balikarnasfos, 
 Rhodos,  etc.,  pp.  53-80.  There  is  a  good  view,  as 
 well  as  an  accurate  delineation  of  the  coast,  in  the 
 English  Admiralty  Chart  No.  1639.  Perhaps  the 
 best  illustration  we  can  adduce  here  is  one  of  the 
 early  coins  of  Rhodes,  with  the  conventional  rose- 
 flower,  which  bore  the  name  of  the  island  on  one 
 side,  and  the  head  of  Apollo,  radiated  like  the  sun, 
 on  the  other.  It  was  a  proverb  that  the  sun  shone 
 every  day  in  Rhodes.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 Coin  of  Rhodes. 
 
 RHOD'OCUS  ('P(^5o/fos:  Rhodocus).  A  Jew 
 who  betrayed  the  plans  of  his  countrymen  to  Anti- 
 ochus Eupator.  His  treason  was  discovered,  and 
 he  was  placed  in  confinement  (2  Mace.  xiii.  21). 
 
 B.  F.  AV. 
 
 RHO'DUS  CPc^Sos:  Rhodus),  1  Mace.  xv.  23. 
 [Rhodes.] 
 
 RI'BAI  [2  syl.]  ("'3"^~1  [ichom  Jehovah  de- 
 fends] :  'Vi^a  [Vat.  PeijSa]  in  Sam.,  PejSie;  Alex. 
 Vti&ai  [FA.  Pa/86iai]  in  Chr. :  Ribai).  The  father 
 of  Ittai  the  Benjamite  of  Gibeah,  who  was  one  of 
 David's  mighty  men  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  29 ;  1  Chr.  xi. 
 31). 
 
 *  RIBBAND.     [Lace.] 
 
 RIB'LAH,  1.  (nb^nn,  with  the  definite 
 article  [fertility]:  BijAci '^  in  both  MSS. :  Rebla). 
 One  of  the  landmarks  on  the  eastern  boundary  of 
 the  land  of  Israel,  as  specified  by  Moses  (Num. 
 xxxiv.  11),  Its  position  is  noted  in  this  passage 
 with  much  precision.  It  was  immediately  between 
 Shepham  and  the  sea  of  Cinnereth,  and  on  the 
 "  east  side  of  the  spring."  Unfortunately  Shepham 
 has  not  yet  been  identified,  and  which  of  the  great 
 fountains  of  northern  Palestine  is  intended  by  "  the 
 spring  "  is  uncertain.  It  seems  hardly  possible, 
 without  entirely  disarranging  the  specification  of 
 tlie  boundary,  that  the  Riblah  in  question  can  be 
 the  same  with  the  "  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Haniath  " 
 which  is  mentioned  at  a  much  later  period  of  the 
 history.  For,  according  to  this  passage,  a  great 
 distance  must  necessarily  have  intervened  between 
 Riblah  and  Hamath.  This  will  be  evident  from  a 
 mere  enumeration  of  the  landmarks. 
 
 1.  The   north    boundary:   The   Mediterranean. 
 
 When  he  went  to  Italy,  about  the  close  of  the  last  Re- 
 publican struggle,  he  found  that  the  city  had  suffered 
 much  from  Cassius,  and  gave  liberal  sums  to  restore  it 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  14,  §  3).  Here,  also,  after  the  bat- 
 tle of  Actiuui,  he  met  Augustus  and  secured  his  favor 
 {ibid.  XV.  6,  §  6). 
 
 c  Originally  it  appears  to  have  stood  'ApPrjKd  ;  but 
 the  'Ap  has  now  attached  itself  to  the  preceding  nanm 
 — SeTTc^afi  a  p.  Can  this  be  the  Arbela  of  1  Mace, 
 ix.  2? 
 
RIBLAH 
 
 M<.unt  Hor,  the  entrance  of  Hamath,  Zedad,  Ziph- 
 ruii,  Hazar-enan. 
 
 2.  The  eastern  boundary  commenced  from  Ha- 
 zar-enan, turning  south :  Shepham,  Riblah,  passing 
 east  of  the  spring,  to  east  side  of  .Sea  of  GaUlee. 
 
 Now  it  seems  impossible  that  Riblah  can  be  in  the 
 land  of  Hamath,"  seeing  that  four  landmarks  occur 
 between  them.  Add  to  this  its  apparent  proximity 
 to  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
 
 The  early  Jewish  interpreters  have  felt  the  force 
 of  this.  (Jonfused  as  is  the  catalogue  of  the  boun- 
 dary in  the  Targum  Pseudojonathan  of  Num.  xxxiv., 
 it  is  plain  that  the  author  of  that  version  considers 
 "the  spring  "  as  the  spring  of  Jordan  at  Binuns, 
 and  Riblah,  therefore,  as  a  place  near  it.  With 
 this  agrees  Parchi,  the  Jewish  traveller  in  the  ISth 
 and  14th  centuries,  who  expressly  discriminates  lie- 
 tween  the  two  (see  the  extracts  in  Zunz's  Bmjd- 
 min.  ii.  418),  and  in  our  own  day  J.  D.  Michaelis 
 (Bibel  fill'  Unrjelehrten  ;  Suppl.  ad  Lexica,  No. 
 2313),  and  Bonfrerius,  the  learned  editor  of  Euse- 
 bius's  Onomasticon. 
 
 No  place  bearing  the  name  of  Riblah  has  been 
 yet  discovered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Banias. 
 
 2,  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath  (H  731,  once 
 
 nnb3~l,  i.   e.   Riblathah:    '' AeflAofla  in    both 
 
 T  T  :  • 
 MSS. ;  [Rom.  in  2  k.  xxui.  33,  'Pal3\aafj.,  xxv. 
 6,  21,  22.  "Pf^AaOd-]  Rehlatha).  A  place  on  the 
 great  road  between  Palestine  and  Babylonia,  at 
 which  the  kings  of  Babylonia  were  accustomed  to 
 remain  while  directing  the  operations  of  their  ar- 
 mies in  Palestine  and  Phoenicia.  Here  Nebuchad- 
 nezaar  waited  while  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem  and  of 
 Tyre  were  being  conducted  by  his  lieutenants; 
 hither  were  brought  to  him  the  wretched  king  of 
 Judsea  and  his  sons,  and  after  a  tune  a  selection 
 
 RIDDLE 
 
 2731 
 
 pears  to  have  been  first  alluded  to  by  Buckingham 
 in  1816. 
 
 Riblah  is  probably  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  (vi. 
 14),  though  in  the  present  Hebrew  text  and  A.  V. 
 it  appears  as  Diblah  or  Uiblath.  The  change  from 
 R  to  D  is  in  Hebrew  a  very  easy  one.  Riblah 
 suits  the  sense  of  the  passage  very  well,  while  on 
 the  other  hand  Diblah  is  not  known.--"    [Diblath.] 
 
 G. 
 
 *  RICHES,  Rev.  xviii.  17,  not  plural  but  sin- 
 gular: "In  one  hour  so  great  riches  is  come  to 
 nought"  (so  also  Wisd.  v.  8).  The  original  plu- 
 ral was  ricliessis  {Fr.  richesse),  ^s  in  Wickliffe's 
 version,  and  was  generally  obsolete  at  the  time  of 
 the  translation  of  the  A.  V.  It  stood  at  first  also 
 in  Jer.  xlviii.  36,  but  as  Trench  mentions  {Author- 
 ized Version,  p.  60)  was  tacitly  corrected,  by 
 changing  "is  "  to  "  are."  H. 
 
 RIDDLE  (n'l'^n:  atviyfj.a,  Trp6^\Tifxa-  pro- 
 blema,  proposit'w).  The  Hebrew  word  is  derived 
 from  an  Arabic  root  meaning  "to  bend  off,"  "to 
 twist,"  and  is  used  for  artifice  (Dan.  viii.  23),  a 
 proverb  (Prov.  i.  6),  a  .song  (I's.  xlix.  4,  Ixxviii.  2), 
 an  oracle  (Num.  xii.  8),  a  parable  (Ezr.  xvii.  2), 
 and  in  general  any  wise  or  intricate  sentence  (Ps. 
 xciv.  4;  Hab.  ii.  6,  &c.),  as  well  as  a  riddle  in  our 
 sense  of  the  word  (Judg.  xiv.  12-19).  In  these 
 senses  we  may  compare  the  phrases  crTfjocpri  \6yav, 
 (TTpo(j}al  irapa^oAwu  (Wisd.  viii.  8;  Ecclus.  xxxix. 
 2),  and  nffiiirAoKri  \6yaiv  (Eur.  PImn.  497;  Ge- 
 sen.  s.  v.),  and  the  Latin  scij-pvs,  which  appears  to 
 have  been  similarly  used  (Aul.  Gell.  Noct.  Ait.  xii. 
 6).  Augustine  defines,  an  enigma  to  be  any  "  ob- 
 scura  allegoria"  {De  Trin.  xv.  9),  and  points  out, 
 as  an  instance,  the  passage  about  the  daughter  of 
 the  horse-leech  in  Prov.  xxx.  15,  which  has  been 
 elaborately  explained  by  Bellermann  in   a  niono- 
 
 from  all  ranks  and  conditions  of  the  conquered  city,    graph  on  the  subject  {u^nifpiwia  JJcbraica,  Ei{. 
 
 who  were  put  to  death,  doubtless  by  the  horrible 
 death  of  impaling,  which  the  Assyrians  practiced, 
 and  the  long  lines  of  the  victims  to  which  are  still 
 to  be  seen  on  their  moimments  (Jer.  xxxix.  5,  6, 
 lii.  9,  10,  26,  27;  2  K.  xxv.  6,  20,  21).  In  like 
 manner  Phanioh-Necho,  after  his  successful  victory 
 over  the  Babylonians  at  Carchemish,  returned  to 
 Riblah  and  summoned  Jehoahaz  from  Jerusalem 
 before  him  (2  K.  xxiii.  33). 
 
 This  Riblah  h:vs  no  doubt  been  discovered,  still 
 retaining  its  ancient  name,  on  the  right  (east) 
 bank  of  the  el-Asy  (Orontes),  upon  the  great  road 
 which  connects  Bunlbek  and  Hums,  about  35  miles 
 N.  E.  of  the  former  and  20  miles  S.  W.  of  the  latter 
 place.  The  advantages  of  its  position  for  the  en- 
 campment of  vast  hosts,  such  as  those  of  Egypt  and 
 Baljylon,  are  enumerated  by  Dr.  Robinson,  who  vis- 
 ited it  in  1852  {BibL  Res.  ill.  545).  He  describes 
 it  as  "  lying  on  the  hanks  of  a  mountain  stream  in 
 the  midst  of  a  vast  and  fertile  plain  yielding  the 
 most  abundant  supplies  of  forage.  From  this  point 
 the  roads  were  open  by  Aleppo  and  the  Euphrates 
 to  Nineveii,  or  by  Palmyra  to  Babylon  ....  by 
 the  end  of  Lebanon  and  the  coast  to  Palestine  and 
 Egypt,  or  through  the  Bukaa  and  the  Jordan 
 Valley  to  the  centre  of  the  Holy  Land."     It  ap- 
 
 a  If  Mr.  Porter's  identifications  of  Zedad  and  Hat- 
 sarenan  are  adopted,  the  difficulty  is  increased  tenfold. 
 t>   The  two  great  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  —  Vatican  (Mai) 
 ft&d  Alex.  —  present  the  name  as  follows  :  — 
 2  K.  xxiii.  33,  'A/SAai  ;   Ae^Kaa. 
 2  K.  xxv.  6,      'lepSe^Kaedv  ;   Ae^Aafla. 
 
 1798).  Jlany  passages,  although  not  definitely 
 propounded,  as  riddles,  may  be  regarded  as  such, 
 e.  (/.  Prov.  xxvi.  10,  a  verse  in  the  rendering  of 
 which  every  version  differs  from  all  others.  The 
 riddles  which  the  queen  of  Sheba  came  to  ask  of 
 Solomon  (1  K.  x.  1,  ■^A0e  iretpdcrai  avrhv  eV  ai- 
 vlyixacri;  2  Chr.  ix.  1)  were  rather  "hard  ques- 
 tions" referring  to  profound  inquiries.  Solomon 
 is  said,  however,  to  have  been  very  fond  of  the 
 riddle  proper,  for  Josephus  quotes  two  profane  his- 
 torians (Menander  of  liphesus,  and  Dius)  to  authen- 
 ticate a  story  that  Solomon  proposed  numerous 
 riddles  to  Hiram,  for  the  non-solution  of  which  Hi- 
 ram was  obliged  to  pay  a  large  fine,  until  he  sum- 
 moned to  his  assistance  a  Tyrian  named  Abdemon, 
 who  not  only  solved  the  riddles,  but  propounded 
 others  which  Solomon  himself  was  unable  to  an- 
 swer, and  consequently  in  his  turn  incurred  the 
 penalty.  The  word  aiviyfj.a  occurs  only  once  in 
 the  N.  T.  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12,  "  darkly."  ev  alviyfJ-ari, 
 comp.  Num.  xii.  8;  Wetstein,  N.  T.  ii.  158); 
 but,  in  the  wider  meaning  of  the  word,  many  in- 
 stances of  it  occur  in  our  Lord's  discourses.  Thus 
 Erasmus  applies  the  term  to  Matt.  xii.  43-45. 
 The  oliject  of  such  implicated  meanings  is  obvi- 
 ous,   and  is   well    explained   by    St.    Augustine: 
 
 2  K.  xxv.  20,  Ae/SAaSa  ;   AejSAafla. 
 2  K.  xxv.  21,  'Pe^Aa^a  ;    Ae^AaSa, 
 Jer.  lii.  9,  10,  28,  27,  Ae^AaSa,  in  both. 
 c  *  For  interesting  notices  of  this  Riblah,   see  Dr 
 Thomson's  diary  of  a  "  Journey  from   Aleppo  to  Leb 
 anon,"  Bibl.  Sacra,  v.  693  f.  U- 
 
2732  RIDDLE 
 
 '*  manifestis  pascimur,  obscuris  exercemui''"  {De 
 Doci.  CIrrist.  ii.  6). 
 
 We  know  that  all  ancient  nations,  and  especially 
 Orientals,  have  been  fond  of  riddles  (Kosenmiiller, 
 Morgtiil.  iii.  G8).  We  find  traces  of  the  custom 
 among  the  Arabs  (Koran,  xxv.  35),  and  indeed 
 several  Arabic  books  of  riddles  exist  —  as  Ketdb  (d 
 Altjdz  in  140'J,  and  a  book  of  riddles  solved,  called 
 AM  al  themin.  But  these  are  rather  emblems  and 
 devices  than  what  we  call  riddles,  although  they 
 are  very  ingenious.  The  Persians  call  them  AUjdz 
 and  Maamma  (D'Herbelot,  s.  v.  Algaz).  They 
 were  also  known  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  (Jablon- 
 ski.  Pantheon  yEgypt.  48).  They  were  especially 
 used  in  banquets  both  by  Greeks  and  Romans  (Jliil- 
 ler,  Dor.  ii.  392;  Athen.  x.  457;  Pollux,  vi.  107; 
 A.  Gell.  xviii.  2;  Diet,  of  Ant.  p.  22),  and  the  kind 
 of  witticisms  adopted  may  be  seen  in  the  literary 
 dinners  described  by  Plato,  Xenophon,  Athenseus, 
 Plutarch,  and  JNIacroljius.  Some  have  groundlessly 
 supposed  that  the  proverbs  of  Solomon,  Lemuel, 
 and  Agnr,  were  propounded  at  feasts,  like  the  par- 
 ables spoken  by  our  Lord  on  similar  occasions  (Luke 
 xiv.  7.,  etc.). 
 
 Kiddles  were  generally  proposed  in  verse,  like 
 the  celebrated  riddle  of  Samson,  which,  however, 
 was  properly  (as  Voss  points  out,  Instt.  Oratt.  iv. 
 11)  no  riddle  at  all,  because  the  Philistines  did  not 
 possess  tiie  only  clew  on  which  the  solution  could 
 depend.  For  this  I'eason  Samson  had  carefully  con- 
 cealed the  fact  even  from  his  parents  (Judg.  xiv. 
 14,  etc. ).  Other  ancient  riddles  in  verse  are  that 
 of  the  Sphinx,  and  that  which  is  said  to  have 
 caused  the  death  of  Homer  by  bis  mortification  at 
 being  unable  to  solve  it  (Plutarch.   Vit.  Horn.). 
 
 Franc.  Junius  distinguishes  between  the  greater 
 enigma,  where  the  allegory  or  obscure  intimation 
 is  continuous  throughout  the  passage  (as  in  Ez. 
 xvii.  2,  and  in  such  poems  as  the  Syrinx  attributed 
 to  Theocritus);  and  the  lesser  enigma  or  tiTroi- 
 viyjJia,  where  the  difficulty  is  concentrated  in  the 
 peculiar  use  of  some  one  word.  It  may  be  useful 
 to  refer  to  one  or  two  instatices  of  the  latter,  since 
 they  are  very  frequently  to  be  found  in  the  Bible, 
 and  especially  in  the  Prophets.     Such  is  the  play 
 
 on  the  word  05^'  ("^  portion,"  and  "  Shecheni," 
 
 the  town  of  Ephraim)  in  Gen.  xlviii.  22;  on  Tl^tt 
 
 {mdtzor,  "a  fortified  city,"   and  □^'H^D,  Miz- 
 
 raim,  Egypt)  in  Mic.  vii.  12;  on  1\]W  {Sliaked, 
 
 «'an    almond-tree"),    and    ^|2tt7    (shdkad,    "to 
 
 hasten '"),  in  Jer.  i.  11;  on  HQ'^"^  (Duindli,  mean- 
 ing "  Edom  "   and  "the  land  of  death"),  in  Is. 
 
 xxi.  11;  on  Tjtt^ti?,  Slieshach  (meaning  "Baby- 
 lon," and  perhaps  "arrogance"),  in  Jer.  xxv.  2G, 
 Ii.  41. 
 
 It  only  remains  to  notice  the  single  instance  of 
 a  riddle  occurring  in  the  X.  T.,  namely,  the  numher 
 of  the  beast.  This  belongs  to  a  class  of  riddles 
 very  common  among  Egyptian  mystics,  the  Gnos- 
 tics, some  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  Jewish  Cabbalists. 
 The  latter  called  it  Gematrin  (i.  e.  ■yfoi^erpia)  of 
 which  instances  may  be  found  in  Carpzov  {App. 
 Crit.  p.  542),  Reland  {Ant.  Hebr.  i.  25),  and  some 
 
 RIMMON 
 
 of  the  commentators  on  Rev.  xiii.  16-18.  Tiix 
 ^'H^  (ndchdsh),  "serpent,"  is  made  by  the  Jews 
 one  of  the  names  of  the  Messiah,  because  its 
 numerical  value  is  equivalent  to  H'^tTD ;  and  the 
 names  Shusban  and  Esther  are  connected  together 
 because  the  numerical  value  of  the  letters  com- 
 posing them  is  661.  Thus  the  JIarcosians  regarded 
 the  lunnber  24  as  sacred  from  its  being  the  sum 
 of  numerical  values  in  the- names  of  two  quaternions 
 of  their  .lEons,  and  tlie  Gnostics  used  the  name 
 Abraxis  as  an  amulet,  because  its  letters  amount 
 numerically  to  305.  Such  idle  fancies  are  not 
 unfrequent  in  some  of  the  Fathers.  We  have 
 already  mentioned  (see  Cross)  the  mystic  exjjlana- 
 tion  by  Clem.  Alexandrinus  of  the  number  318  in 
 Gen.  xiv.  14,  and  l)y  Tertullian  of  the  number  300 
 (represented  by  the  letter  T  or  a  cross)  in  Judg. 
 vii.  6,  and  similar  instances  are  supplied  by  the 
 Testimonia  of  the  Pseudo-Cyprian.  The  most 
 exact  analogies,  however,  to  the  enigma  on  the 
 name  of  the  beast,  are  to  be  found  in  the  so-called 
 Sibylline  verses.  We  quote  one  which  is  exactly 
 similar  to  it,  the  answer  being  found  in  the  name 
 'iriaovs  =  888,  thus:  I  =  10  -f-  ,,  =  8  -f  o"  =  200 
 -f-  o  =  70  4-  u  =  400  -4-  s  =  200  :=  888.  It  is 
 as  follows,  and  is  extremely  curious : 
 
 'H^ei  <TapKOij>6poq  flnjxois  buoiovnevoi  iv  yfj 
 Te'crcrepa  <|)ioi'TJei'Ta  <|).e'pfi,  to  6'  a<f>u>va  Sv   avTio 
 Ai'trtrioi'  otTTpayaAtov  (?),  apifi^bi/  6'  '6\ov  ejoi'O/iA^i'W 
 Okto}  yap  ju-OvctSa?,  oa"cra5  ficKafias  eTrt  Tourois, 
 H6'  eKaroi'Tdfia?  oktw  aTrta-Torepot?  avfiptojrots 
 Ovvofxa  SrjAojtrei. 
 
 With  examples  like  this  before  us,  it  would  be 
 absurd  to  doubt  that  St.  John  (not  greatly  re- 
 moved in  time  from  the  Christian  forgers  of  the 
 Sibylline  verses)  intended  some  name  as  an  answer 
 to  the  number  (JOG.  The  true  answer  must  be 
 settled  by  the  Apocalyptic  commentators.  Most 
 of  the  Fathers  supposed,  even  as  far  back  as  Ire- 
 naeus,  the  name  Adreivos  to  be  indicated.  A  list 
 of  the  other  very  numerous  solutions,  proposed  in 
 difterent  ages,  may  be  found  in  Elliott's  Horw 
 Apocalyplicm,  from  which  we  have  quoted  several 
 of  these  instances  {Hor.  Aj'oc.  iii.  222-234). 
 
 F.  W.  F. 
 
 *  RIE  for  RYE,  Ex.  ix.  32  and  Is.  xxviii.  25 
 (marg.  .''JK'U),  in  the  oldest  editions  of  the  A.  V. 
 
 H. 
 
 RIM'MON  (7'l(2"1  [pomegranate]:  "P(fxfit!>v: 
 Remrnon).  Rimmon,  a  Benjamite  of  Beeroth,  was 
 the  father  of  Rechab  and  Baanah,  the  murderers 
 of  Ishbosheth  (2  Sam.  iv.  2,  5,  9). 
 
 RIM'MON  (]'1?£"!  [pomegranate']:  'Vfixfidv'- 
 Remmon).  A  deity,  worshipped  by  the  Syrians 
 of  Damascus,  where  there  was  a  temple  or  house 
 of  Rimmon  (2  K.  v.  18).  Traces  of  the  name  of 
 this  god  appear  also  in  the  proper  names  Hadad- 
 rimmon  and  'J'alirimmon,  but  its  siiinification  is 
 doubtful.  Serarius,  quoted  by  Selden  {Dc  d'ls 
 Si/ris,  ii.  10),  refers  it  to  the  Heb.  rimmon,  a 
 pomegranate,  a  fruit  sacred  to  Venus,  who  is  thus 
 the  deity  worshipped  under  this  title  (compare 
 Pomona,  from  pomum).  Ursinus  {Arboretum  Bihl. 
 cap.  32,  7)  explains  Rimmon  as  the  pomegranate. 
 
 «  In  this  passage  it  is  generally  thought  that  She- 
 Shach  is  put  for  Babel,  by  the  principle  of  alphabeti- 
 c~il  inversion  known  as  the  athhash.  It  will  be  seen 
 that  the  passages  above  quoted  are  chiefly  instances 
 
 of  paronomasia.  On  the  profound  use  of  this  figure 
 by  the  prophets  and  other  writers,  see  Ewald,  Dif 
 Prnp/ielen  d.  Alt.  Bund.  i.  48 ;  Steinthal,  Urspr.  >/ 
 Sprache,  p.  23. 
 
EIMMON 
 
 tne  emblem  of  the  fertilizing  principle  of  nature, 
 the  personified  nntura  natimins,  a  symbol  of  fre- 
 quent occurrence  in  the  old  religions  (Biilir,  Si/m- 
 boli/c,  ii.  122).  If  this  lie  the  true  origin  of  the 
 name,  it  presents  us  with  a  relic  of  the  ancient 
 tree-worship  of  the  East,  which  we  know  to  have 
 prevailed  in  Palestine.  But  Selden  rejects  this 
 derivation,  and  proposes  instead  that  Kinmion  is 
 
 from  the  root  ffll,  rum,  "  to  be  high,"  and  sig- 
 nifies "most  high;"  like  the  Phoenician  £lioun, 
 
 and  Heb.  p"'/?-  Hesvchius  gives  'Pa/xcis,  o 
 v\ptaTos  6i6s.  '  Clericus,  Vitringa,  RosenmiiUer, 
 and  Gesenius  were  of  the  same  opinion. 
 
 Movers  {Plion.  i.  196,  &c.)  regards  Rimnion  as 
 the  abbreviated  form  of  Hadad-Ilimmon  (as  Peor 
 for  Baal-Peor),  Hadad  being  the  sun-god  of  the 
 Syrians.  Combining  this  with  the  pomegranate, 
 which  was  his  symbol,  lladad-Rimmon  would  then 
 be  the  sun-god  of  the  late  sunnner,  who  ripens  the 
 pomegranate  and  other  fruits,  and,  after  infusing 
 into  them  his  productive  power,  dies,  and  is 
 mourned  with  the  "  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon 
 in  the  valley  of  Megiddon  "  (Zech.  xii.  11). 
 
 Between  these  different  opinions  there  is  no  pos- 
 sibility of  deciding.  The  name  occurs  but  once, 
 and  tliere  is  no  evidence  on  the  point.  But  the 
 conjecture  of  Selden,  which  is  approved  by  Gese- 
 nius,  has  the  greater  show  of  probability. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 RIM'MON  ("Oian,  i.  e.  Rimmono  [pome- 
 (/raii'Uel:  rj  'Vefxixdiu-  Remmono).  A  city  of 
 Zebulun  belonging  to  the  JNIerarite  Levites  (1  Chr. 
 vi.  77).  There  is  great  discrepancy  between  the 
 list  in  which  it  occurs  and  the  parallel  catalogue 
 of  Josh.  xxi.  The  former  contains  two  names  in 
 place  of  the  four  of  the  latter,  and  neither  of  them 
 the  same.  But  it  is  not  impossible  that  Dimnah 
 (Josh.  xxi.  35)  may  have  been  originally  Rimmon, 
 as  the  D  and  R  in  Hebrew  are  notoriously  easy  to 
 confound.  At  any  rate  there  is  no  reason  for  sup- 
 posing that  Rimmono  is  not  identical  with  Rinmion 
 of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  13),  in  the  A.  V.  Rejimon- 
 METiioAR.  The  redundant  letter  was  probably 
 transferred,  in  copying,  from  the  succeeding  word 
 —  at  an  eai-ly  date,  since  all  the  MSS.  appear  to 
 exhibit  it,  as  does  also  the  Targum  of  Joseph. 
 [Dr.  Robinson  inquires  whether  this  Rimmon 
 may  not  be  the  present  Rummdneh,  a  little  north 
 of  Nazareth.    See  Bibl.  Res.  ii.  340  (2d  ed. ).  —  H.] 
 
 G. 
 
 ■RIM'MON  C}""'^1  \_pome(jranate\  :  'Epai/xcie, 
 P€fj.fx'J>i>;  Alex.  Ve/j-fxcou;  [in  1  Chr.,  Rom.  'Pe^- 
 v^if,  Vat.  'Pe/j.fx'jiu'-]  Rummin).  A  town  in  tlie 
 southern  portion  of  Judah  (.Josh.  xv.  32),  allotted 
 to  Simeon  (.Josh.  xix.  7;  1  Chr.  iv.  32:  in  the 
 former  of  these  two  passages  it  is  inaccurately  given 
 in  tiie  .1.  V.  as  Remmon).  In  eacli  of  the  above 
 lists  the  name  succeeds  that  of  Ain,  also  one  of  the 
 cities  of  Judah  and  Simeon.  In  the  catalogue  of 
 the  places  reoccupied  by  the  Jews  after  the  return 
 from   Babylon   (Neh.  xi.  29)   the   two   are  joined 
 
 (P31  T*??  •  LXX.  omits:  et  in  Remmon),  and 
 ajipear  in  the  A.  V.  as  En-Rimmon.  There  is 
 nothing  to  support  this  single  departure  of  the 
 Hel)rew  text  from  its  practice  in  the  other  lists 
 except  tlie  fact  that  the  Vatican  LXX.  (if  the 
 edition  of  Mai  may  be  trusted)  has  joined  the 
 names  in  each  of  the  lists  of  Joshua,  from  which 
 't  may  be  inferred  that  at  the  time  of  the  LXX. 
 
 RIMMON,  THE  ROCK       2733 
 
 translation  the  Hebrew  text  there  also  showed 
 them  joined.  On  the  other  hand  there  does  no* 
 appear  to  be  any  sign  of  such  a  thing  in  the 
 present  Hebrew  MSS. 
 
 No  trace  of  Rimmon  has  been  yet  discovered  in 
 the  south  of  Palestine.  True,  it  is  mentioned  in 
 the  Onomnsticon  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome;  but 
 they  locate  it  at  1.5  miles  nortli  of  Jerusalem,  ob- 
 viously confounding  it  with  the  Rock  Rimnion. 
 That  it  was  in  the  south  would  be  plain,  even 
 though  the  lists  above  cited  were  not  extant,  from 
 Zech.  xiv.  10,  where  it  is  stated  to  be  "  south  of 
 .lerusalem,"  and  where  it  and  Geba  (the  northern 
 frontier  of  the  southern  kingdom)  are  named  as 
 the  limits  of  the  change  which  is  to  take  place  in 
 tlie  aspect  and  formation  of  the  country.  In  this 
 case  Jerome,  botli  in  the  Vulgate  and  in  his  Com- 
 mentary {in  Zech.  xiv.  9  ff.),  joins  the  two  names, 
 and  understands  them  to  denote  a  hill  north  of 
 Jerusalem,  apparently  well  known  (doubtless  the 
 ancient  Gibkah),  marked  by  a  pomegranate  tree 
 —  "  collis  Rimmon  (hoc  enim  Gabaa  sonat,  ubi 
 arbor  malagranati  est)  usque  ad  australem  jilagam 
 Jerusalem."  G. 
 
 RIM'MON  PA'REZ  (VT?^  V'^l  [pome- 
 i/rannle  of  the  breach  or  rent]:  'Pe^^aJi/ tape's). 
 The  name  of  a  march-station  in  the  wilderness 
 (Num.  xxxiii.  19,  20).  Rimmon  is  a  common 
 name  of  locality.  The  latter  word  is  the  same  as 
 that  found  in  the  plural  form  in  Baal-Perazim, 
 "  Baal  of  the  lireaches."  Perhaps  some  local  con- 
 figuration, such  as  a  "  cleft,"  might  account  for  its 
 being  added.  It  stands  lietween  Rithniah  and 
 Libnah.  No  place  now  known  has  been  identified 
 with  it.  H.  H. 
 
 RIM'MON,  THE  ROCK  (I'^IS'^rT''  V^'Q: 
 7]  Trerpa  rod  'Vefj.fj.dl)v;  Joseph,  irerpa  'Pod:  petra 
 ciijus  vocubulum  est  Remmon;  petra  Remmon). 
 A  cliff  (such  seems  rather  the  force  of  the  Hebrew 
 word  sel(t)  or  inaccessible  natural  fastness,  in  which 
 the  six  hundred  Benjamites  who  escaped  the  slaugh- 
 ter of  Gibeah  took  refuge,  and  maintained  them- 
 selves for  four  months  until  released  by  the  act  of 
 the  general  body  of  the  tribes  (Judg.  xx.  45,  47, 
 xxi.  13). 
 
 It  is  described  as  in  the  "wilderness"  (midbar), 
 that  is,  the  wild  uncultivated  (though  not  unpro- 
 ductive) country  which  lies  on  the  east  of  the 
 central  highlands  of  Benjamin,  on  which  Gibeah 
 was  situated  —  between  them  and  the  Jordan  Val- 
 ley. Here  the  name  is  still  found  attached  to  a 
 village  perched  on  the  summit  of  a  conical  chalky 
 hill,  visible  in  all  directions,  and  commanding  the 
 whole  country  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  i.  440). 
 
 The  hill  is  steep  and  naked,  the  white  limestone 
 everywhere  protruding,  and  the  houses  clinging  to 
 its  sides  and  forming  as  it  were  huge  steps.  On 
 the  south  side  it  rises  to  a  height  of  several  hun- 
 dred feet  from  the  great  ravine  of  the  Wadji  Mut- 
 yi'ili ;  while  on  the  west  side  it  is  almost  equally 
 isolated  by  a  cross  valley  of  great  depth  (Porter, 
 FInndbk.  p.  217;  Mr.  Finn,  in  Van  de  Velde, 
 Memoir,  p.  345).  In  position  it  is  (as  the  crow 
 flies)  3  miles  east  of  Bethel,  and  7  N.  E.  of  Gibeah 
 (  Tuleil  el-Fid).  Thus  in  every  particular  of  name, 
 character,  and  situation  it  agrees  with  the  require- 
 
 «  In  two  out  of  its  four  occurrences,  the  article  is 
 omitted  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  LXX. 
 
2734 
 
 RING 
 
 nients  of  the  Eock  Eimmon.  It  was  known  in 
 tlie  days  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  mention  it 
 ( Onomaslicun,  ••  fJemnion  " )  —  though  confounding 
 it  with  Rinimon  in  Simeon  —  as  15  Roman  miles 
 northwards  from  Jerusalem.  G. 
 
 RING  (nV?^:  SaicTvAios:  annulus).  The 
 ring  was  regarded  as  an  indispensable  article  of  a 
 Hebrew's  attire,  inasmuch  as  it  contained  his  sig- 
 net, and  even  owed  its  name  to  this  circumstance, 
 the  term  Uihbaath  being  derived  fi-om  a  root  sig- 
 nifying "  to  impress  a  seal."  It  was  hence  the 
 symbol  of  authority,  and  as  such  was  presented  by 
 I'haraoh  to  Joseph  (Gen.  xli.  42),  by  Ahasuerus  to 
 Haman  (Esth.  iii.  10),  by  Antiochus  to  Philip  (1 
 Mace.  vi.  1.5),  and  l)y  tlie  father  to  the  prodigal 
 son  in  the  parable  (Luke  xv.  22).  It  was  treasured 
 accordingly,  and  became  a  proverbial  expression  for 
 a  most  valued  object  (Jer.  xxii.  24;  Hag.  ii.  23: 
 Ecclus.  xlix.  11).  Such  rings  were  worn  not  only 
 by  men,  but  by  women  (Is.  iii.  21 ;  Mishn.  Shabb. 
 p.  (J,  §  3),  and  are  enumerated  among  the  articles 
 presented  by  men  and  women  for  the  service  of  the 
 Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxv.  22).  The  signet-ring  was 
 worn  on  the  right  hand  (Jer.  /.  c).  We  may  con- 
 clude, from  Ex.  xxviii.  11,  that  the  rings  contained 
 a  stone  engraven  with  a  device,  or  with  the  owner's 
 name.  Numerous  specimens  of  Egyptian  rings  have 
 been  discovered,  most  of  them  made  of  gold,  very 
 massive,  .and  containing  either  a  scarabseus  or  an 
 engraved  stone  (Wilkinson,  ii.  337).     The  number 
 
 Egyptian  Rings. 
 
 of  rings  worn  by  the  Egyptians  was  truly  remark- 
 able. The  same  profusion  was  exhibited  also  by 
 the  Greeks  and  Komans,  particularly  by  men  {Diet, 
 of  Ant.  "  Kings'').  It  appears  also  to  have  pre- 
 vailed among  the  Jews  of  the  Apostolic  age ;  for  in 
 Jam.  ii.  2,  a  rich  man  is  described  as  -x^pvaoBaKrv- 
 Aios,  meaning  not  simply  "with  a  gold  ring,''  as 
 in  the  A.  V.,  but  "golden-ringed"  (like  the 
 Xpveox^ip,  "golden-handed"  of  Lucian,  Timon, 
 c.  20),  implying  equally  well  the  presence  of  several 
 gold  rings.  For  the  term  yalll,  rendered  "ring" 
 in  Cant.  v.  14,  see  Oknamemts.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  RINGLEADER  (Acts  xxiv.  5),  applied  to 
 Paul  by  I'ertullus  in  liis  speech  before  Felix,  where 
 it  stands  for  TrpcoTotTTaTrjs.  It  implies,  of  itself, 
 nothing  opprobrious,  being  properly  a  military  title, 
 namely,  of  one  who  stands  in  front  of  the  ranks 
 as  leader.  It  marks  a  bad  preeminence  here, 
 especially  from  being  associated  with  Aoi/xos, 
 "plague,  pest"  (A.  Y.  pestilent  ftllciv).  Ring- 
 leader had  a  good  or  neutral  sense  as  well  as  bad 
 in  the  older  English  writers.  H. 
 
 RIN'NAH  (n3T  [a  cry  of  joy,  or  loailinff]: 
 'Am;  Alex.  Pavvwv'-  liinna).  One  of  the  sons 
 of  Sliimon  in  an  obscure  and  fragmentary  gene- 
 alogy of  tlie  descendants  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 
 In  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  he  is  made  "  the  son  of 
 Hanan,"  Ben-hanan  being  thus  translated. 
 
 "  jH^^"^.   This   reading   is   preferred  by  Bochart 
 (Phaleg,  iii.  10),  and  is  connected   by  him  with  the 
 
 RITHMAH 
 
 RI'PHATH  (nQ"'"1  [a  breaking  in  piecet, 
 terror,  Sin.]:  'Vi<pa.9\  Alex.  Vitpae  in  Chr.:  Ri- 
 plidtJi),  the  second  son  of  Gomer,  and  the  brother  of 
 Ashkenaz  and  Togarmah  (Gen.  x.  3).  The  He- 
 brew text  in  1  Chr.  i.  6  gives  the  form  I)iphath,« 
 but  this  arises  out  of  a  clerical  error  similar  to  that 
 which  gives  the  forms  Rodanim  and  Hadad  for 
 Dodanini  and  Hadar  (1  Chr.  i.  7,  50;  Gen.  xx.Kvi. 
 39).  The  name  Riphath  occurs  only  in  the  gen- 
 ealogical table,  and  hence  there  is  little  to  guide  us 
 to  the  locality  which  it  indicates.  The  name  itself 
 has  been  variously  identified  with  that  of  the  Khi- 
 ptean  mountains  (Knobel),  the  river  Rhebas  in  Bi- 
 thynia  (Bochart),  the  Rhibii,  a  people  living  eastward 
 of  the  Caspian  Sea  (Schulthess),  and  the  Ripheans 
 [Riphathteans  ?],  the  ancient  name  of  the  Paphlago- 
 nians  (Joseph.  Ani.  i.  6,  §  1).  This  last  view  is  cer- 
 tainly favored  by  the  contiguity  of  Ashkenaz  and 
 Togarmah.  The  weight  of  opinion  is,  however,  in 
 favor  of  the  Rhipa?an  mountains,  which  Knobel 
 {]'dlk-ert.  p.  44)  identifies  etymologically  and  geo- 
 graphically with  the  Carpathian  range  in  the  N.  E. 
 of  Dacia.  The  attempt  of  that  writer  to  identify 
 Riphath  with  the  Celts  or  Gauls,  is  evidently  based 
 on  the  assumption  that  so  important  a  race  ought 
 to  be  mentioned  in  the  table,  and  that  there  is  no 
 other  name  to  apply  to  them ;  but  we  have  no  evi- 
 dence that  the  Gauls  were  for  any  lengthened  period 
 settled  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Carpathian  i-ange. 
 The  Rhip»an  mountains  themselves  existed  more 
 in  the  imagination  of  the  Greeks  than  in  reality,  and 
 if  the  received  etymology  of  that  name  (from  piTrai, 
 "blasts")  be  correct,  the  coincidence  in  sound 
 with  Riphath  is  merely  accidental,  and  no  connec- 
 tion can  be  held  to  exist  between  the  names.  The 
 later  geographers,  I'tolemy  (iii.  5,  §  15,  19)  and 
 others,  placed  the  Rhiptean  range  where  no  range 
 really  exists,  namely,  about  the  elevated  ground 
 that  separates  the  basins  of  the  Euxine  and  Baltic 
 seas.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 RIS'SAH  (n&~]  [a  ruin]:  [Rom.  Peairdy, 
 Vat.  Aecrca;  Alex.]  Peaaa'  Jie^sa).  The  name, 
 identical  with  the  word  which  signifies  "a  worm,'" 
 is  that  of  a  march-station  in  the  wilderness  (Num. 
 xxxiii.  21,  22).  It  lies,  as  there  given,  between 
 Libnah  and  Kekelathah,  and  has  been  considered 
 (Winer,  s.  i\)  identical  with  Rasa  in  the  Petilinc/. 
 /liner.,  32  Roman  miles  from  Ailah  (Elah),  and 
 203  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  distinct,  however, 
 from  the  "Prjcrcra  of  Josephus  (Avt.  xiv.  15,  § 
 2).     No  site  has  been  identified  with  Rissah. 
 
 H.  H. 
 
 RITH'MAH  (n»n-l  [see  below]  :'Pa0a^5: 
 Retlima).  The  name  of  a  march-stiition  in  the 
 wilderness  (Num.  xxxiii.  18,  19).  It  stands  there 
 next  to  Ilazeroth  [Hazekoth],  and  probably  lay 
 hi  a  N.  E.  direction  from  that  spot,  but  no  place 
 now  known  has  been  identified  with  it.     The  name 
 
 is   probably   connected    with  CH'^,  Arab.    *jy 
 
 commonly  rendered  "juniper,"  but  more  correctly 
 "  broom."  It  carries  the  affirmative  H,  common 
 in  names  of  locality,  and  found  especially  among 
 many  in  the  catalogue  of  Num.  xxxiii.       H.  H. 
 
 names  of  the  town  Tobata  and  the  mountain  Tibiuni 
 in  the  N.  of  Asia  Minor. 
 
mVER 
 
 KIVER.  In  the  sense  in  which  we  employ  the 
 word,  namely,  for  a  perennial  stream  of  considerable 
 size,  a  river  is  a  much  rarer  object  in  the  East  than 
 in  the  West.  The  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of 
 Palestine  at  the  present  day  have  probably  never 
 seen  one.  With  the  exception  of  the  Jordan  and 
 the  Litany,  the  streams  of  the  Holy  Land  are  either 
 entirely  dried  up  in  the  summer  months,  and  con- 
 verted into  hot  lanes  of  glaring  stones,  or  else  re- 
 duced to  very  small  streamlets  deeply  sunk  in  a 
 narrow  bed,  and  concealed  from  view  by  a  dense 
 growth  of  shrubs. 
 
 The  cause  of  this  is  twofold :  on  the  one  hand 
 the  hilly  nature  of  the  country — a  central  mass 
 of  highland  descending  on  each  side  to  a  lower 
 level,  and  on  the  other  the  extreme  heat  of  the 
 climate  during  the  sunmier.  There  is  little  doubt 
 that  in  ancient  times  the  country  was  more  wooded 
 than  it  now  is,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  evap- 
 oration was  less,  and  the  streams  more  frequent: 
 yet  this  cannot  have  made  any  very  material  dif- 
 ference in  the  permanence  of  the  water  iu  the 
 thousands  of  valleys  which  divide  the  hills  of  Pal- 
 estine. 
 
 For  the  various  aspects  of  the  streams  of  the 
 country  which  such  conditions  inevitably  produced, 
 the  ancient  Hebrews  had  very  exact  terms,  which 
 they  employed  habitually  with  much  precision. 
 
 1.  For  the  perennial  river,  Ndhdr  (im).  Pos- 
 sibly used  of  the  Jordan  in  Ps.  Ixvi.  6,  Ixxiv.  15; 
 of  the  great  INIesojKtamian  and  Egyptian  rivers 
 generally  in  Gen.  ii.  10 ,  Ex.  vii.  19 ;  2  K.  xvii.  6 ; 
 Ez.  iii.  15,  &c.  But  with  the  definite  article,  han- 
 Nafinr,  '■'■the  river,"  it  signifies  invariably  the 
 Euphrates  (Gen.  xxxi.  21;  Ex.  xxiii.  31;  Num. 
 xxiv.  6;  2  Sam.  x.  16,  &c.,  &a.).  With  a  few  ex- 
 ceptions (Josh.  i.  4,  xxiv.  2,  14, 15;  Is.  lix.  19;  Ez. 
 xxxi.  15),  ndhdr  is  uniformly  rendered  "river"  in 
 our  version,  and  accurately,  since  it  is  never  applied 
 to  the  fleeting  fugitive  torrents  of  Palestine. 
 
 2.  The  term  for  these  is  nachal  ( /HD),  for 
 which  our  translators  have  used  promiscuously,  and 
 sometimes  almost  alternately,  "  valley,"  "  brook," 
 and  "river."  Thus  the  "brook"  and  the  "val- 
 ley" of  Eshcol  (Num.  xiii.  2-3  and  xxxii.  9);  the 
 "  valley,"  the  "brook,"  and  the  "river"  Zered 
 (Num.  xxi.  12;  Deut.  ii.  13;  Am.  vi.  U);  the 
 "  brook  "  and  the  "  river  "  of  Jabbok  (Gen.  xxxii. 
 23;  Deut.  ii.  37),  of  Arnon  (Num.  xxi.  14;  Deut.  ii. 
 24),  of  Kishon  (Judg.  iv.  7;  1  K.  xviii. 40).  Com- 
 pare also  Deut.  iii.  16,  &c.« 
 
 Neither  of  these  words  expresses  the  thing  in 
 tended;  but  the  term  "brook"  is  peculiarly  un- 
 happy, since  the  pastoral  idea  which  it  conveys  is 
 quite  at  variance  with  the  general  character  of  the 
 wadies  of  Palestine.  Many  of  these  are  deep  ab- 
 rupt chasms  or  rents  in  the  solid  rock  of  the  hills, 
 and  have  a  savage,  gloomy  aspect,  far  removed 
 from  that  of  an  English  brook.  For  example,  the 
 Arnon  forces  its  way  through  a  ravine  several  hun- 
 dred feet  deep  and  about  two  miles  wide  across  the 
 top.  The  Wiuli/  Zerka,  probably  the  Jabbok, 
 which  Jacob  was  so  anxious  to  interpose  between 
 his  family  and  Esau,  is  equally  unlike  the  quiet 
 "meadowy   brook"  with  which  we   are  familiar. 
 
 RIVER   OF   EGYPT 
 
 2735 
 
 a  Jerome,  in  hia  Qiieestiones  in  Genesim,  xxvi.  19, 
 draws  the  following  curious  distinction  between  a  val- 
 tey  au  J  a  torrent :  "  Et   hie  pro  valte  torrens  scriptus 
 
 And  those  which  are  not  so  abrupt  and  savage  are 
 in  their  width,  their  irregularity,  their  forlorn  arid 
 look  when  the  torrent  has  subsided,  utterly  unlike 
 "brooks."  Unfortunately  our  language  does  not 
 contain  any  single  word  which  has  both  the  mean- 
 ings of  the  Hebrew  nuchal  and  its  Arabic  equiva- 
 lent ivady,  which  can  be  used  at  once  for  a  dry  val- 
 ley and  for  the  stream  which  occasionally  flows 
 through  it.  Ainsworth,  in  his  Anrwtaliuns  (on 
 Num.  xiii.  23),  says  that  "bourne"  has  both 
 meanings;  but  "  bourne  "  is  now  obsolete  in  luig- 
 lish,  though  still  in  use  in  Scotland,  where,  owing 
 to  the  mountainous  nature  of  the  country,  the 
 "burns"  partake  of  the  nature  of  the  wadies  of 
 Palestine  in  the  irregularity  of  their  flow.  Mr. 
 Burton  {Geog.  Jouni.  xxiv.  209)  adopts  the  Italian 
 fiiimara.  Others  have  proposed  the  Indian  term 
 nullah.  The  double  application  of  the  Hebrew 
 nachal  is  evident  in  1  K.  xvii.  3,  where  Elijah  is 
 commanded  to  hide  himself  in  (not  by)  the  nachal 
 Cherith  and  the  brink  of  the  nachal. 
 
 3.  Year  ("I^S")),  a  word  of  Egyptian  origin 
 (see  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  558),  applied  to  the  Nile  only, 
 and,  in  the  plural,  to  the  canals  by  which  the  Nile 
 water  was  distributed  throughout  Egypt,  or  to 
 streams  having  a  connection  with  that  country.  It 
 is  the  word  employed  for  the  Nile  in  Genesis  and 
 Exodus,  and  is  rendered  by  our  translators  "  the 
 river,"  except  in  the  following  passages,  Jer.  xlvi. 
 7,  8;  Am.  viii.  8,  ix.  5,  where  they  substitute  "a 
 flood  "  —  much  to  the  detriment  of  the  prophet's 
 metaphor.      [See  Nile,  vol.  iii.  p.  2140  b.] 
 
 4.  Tubal  C^'Dr\'^),  from  a  root  signifying  tumult 
 or  fullness,  occurs  only  six  times,  in  four  of  which 
 it  is  rendered  "river,"  namely,  Jer.  xvii.  8;  Dan. 
 viii.  2,  3,  6. 
 
 5.  Ptleff  (HvQ),  from  an  uncertain  root,  prob- 
 ably connected  with  the  idea  of  the  division  of 
 the  land  for  irrigation,  is  translated  "river  "  iu  Ps. 
 i.  3,  Ixv.  9;  Is.  xxx.  25;  Job  xx.  17.  Elsewhere  it 
 is  rendered  "  stream  '"  (Ps.  xlvi.  4),  and  in  Judg.  v. 
 15,  16,  "divisions,"  where  the  allusion  is  probably 
 to  the  artificial  streams  with  which  the  pastoral 
 and  agricultural  country  of  Keuben  was  irrigated 
 (Ewald,  nichter,  i.  129 ;  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1103  b). 
 
 6.  Aphik  (p"*CS).  This  appears  to  be  used 
 without  any  clearly  distinctive  meaning.  It  is 
 probably  from  a  root  signifying  strength  or  force, 
 and  may  signify  any  rush  or  body  of  water.  It  is 
 translated  "river"  in  a  few  passages:  Cant.  v. 
 12;  Ez.  vi.  3,  xx,\i.  12,  xxxii.  6,  xxxiv.  13,  xxxv.  8, 
 xxxvi.  4,  6;  Joel  i.  20,  iii.  18.  In  Ps.  cxxvi.  4 
 the  allusion  is  to  temporary  streams  in  the  dry  re- 
 gions of  the  "south."  ^  G. 
 
 RIVER  OF  EGYPT.  Two  Hebrew  terms 
 are  thus  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
 
 1.  D1"li?72  ~)n3  :  TTora/xhs  AiyviTTov:  fluvius 
 yEgypti  (Gen.  xv.  18),  "  the  river  of  Egypt,"  that 
 is,  the  Nile,  and  here  —  as  the  western  border  of 
 the  Promised  Land,  of  which  the  eastern  border 
 was  Euphrates  —  the  Pelusiac  or  easternmost 
 branch. 
 
 est,  nunquam   enitn  in  valle  invenitur  puteus   nr/ua 
 
 VtA.-CB.'" 
 
 6  *  It  Should  be  "  river  "'  (Trora/iios)  in  both  instan- 
 ces, Rev.  xii.  15,  16,  and  not  "  flood"  (A.  V.).       U. 
 
2736 
 
 RIVER   OF  EGYPT 
 
 2.  U ,  jVn  '^Us  •  xei/Uappous  Aiyvirrov, 
 (jidpay^  Alyinrrov,  iroTa/xhs  Atyvirrov,  'VivokS- 
 oovpa,  pi-:  iorrens  yEyyptl,  rims  jEijijjili  (Num. 
 xxxiv.  5;  Josh.  xv.  4,  47;  1  K.  viii.  05;  2  K.  xxiv. 
 7;  Is.  xxvii.  12,  in  the  last  passage  translated  "  the 
 stream  of  Egypt").  It  is  the  common  opinion 
 that  this  second  term  designates  a  d&sert  stream 
 on  the  border  of  Egypt,  still  occasionally  flowing  in 
 the  valley  called  Wddi-l-''  Areesli.  The  centre  of 
 the  valley  is  occupied  by  the  bed  of  this  torrent, 
 which  only  flows  after  rains,  as  is  usual  in  the  des- 
 ert valleys.  The  correctness  of  this  opinion  can 
 only  be  decided  by  an  examination  of  the  passages 
 in  which  the  term  occurs,  for  the  ancient  transla- 
 tions do  not  aid  us.  When  they  were  made  there 
 must  liave  been  great  uncertainty  on  the  subject. 
 In  the  LXX.  the  term  is  translated  by  two  literal 
 meanings,    or  perhaps    three,    but   it   is   doubtful 
 
 whether  7n3  can  be  rendered  "river,"  and  is  once 
 represented  by  Ehinocolura  (or  Rhinocorura),  the 
 name  of  a  town  on  the  coast,  near  the  Wddi- 
 l-'Areesh,  to  which  the  modern  El-  Areesh  has  suc- 
 ceeded. 
 
 Tins  stream  is  first  mentioned  as  the  point  where 
 the  southern  border  of  the  Promised  Land  touched 
 the  Jlediterranean,  which  formed  its  western  bor- 
 der (Num.  xxxiv.  3-0).  Next  it  is  spoken  of  as  in 
 the  same  position  with  reference  to  the  prescribed 
 borders  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  4),  and 
 as  beyond  Gaza  and  its  territory,  the  westernmost 
 of  the  Philistine  cities  (47).  In  the  later  history 
 we  find  Solomon's  kingdom  extending  "  from  the 
 entering  in  of  Hamath  unto  the  river  of  Egypt  " 
 (1  K.  viii.  05),  and  Egypt  limited  in  the  same  man- 
 ner where  the  loss  of  the  eastern  provinces  is  men- 
 tioned :  "  And  the  king  of  Egypt  came  not  again 
 any  more  out  of  his  land :  for  the  king  of  Babylon 
 had  taken  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  river 
 Euphrates  all  that  pertained  to  the  king  of  Egypt  " 
 (2  K.  xxiv.  7).  In  Isaiah  it  .seems  to  be  spoken  of 
 as  forming  one  boundary  of  the  Israelite  territory, 
 Euphrates  being  the  other,  "from  the  chamiel  of 
 the  river  unto  the  stream  of  Egypt"  (xxvii.  12), 
 appearing  to  correspond  to  the  limits  promised  to 
 Abraham. 
 
 In  certain  parallel  passages  the  Nile  is  distinctly 
 specified  instead  of  "the  Nachal  of  Egypt."  In 
 the  promise  to  Abraham,  the  Nile,  "  the  river  of 
 Egypt,"  is  mentioned  with  Euphrates  as  bounding 
 the  land  in  which  he  then  was,  and  which  was 
 promised  to  his  posterity  (Gen.  xv.  18).  Still 
 more  unmistakably  is  Shihor,  which  is  always  the 
 Nile,  spoken  of  as  a  border  of  the  land,  in  Joshua's 
 description  of  the  territory  yet  to  be  conquered : 
 "  This  [is]  the  land  that  yet  remaineth :  all  the 
 regions  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri,  from 
 the  Sihor,  which  [is]  before  Egypt,  even  unto  the 
 borders  of  Ekron  northward,  [which]  is  counted 
 to  the  Canaanite  "  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  3). 
 
 «  Herodotus,  whose  account  is  rather  obscure,  says 
 that  from  Phoenicia  to  the  borders  of  the  city  Cadytis 
 (probably  Gaza)  the  country  belonged  to  the  Palaestine 
 Syrians  ;  from  Cadytis  to  Jenysus  to  the  Arabian  king  ; 
 then  to  the  Syrians  again,  as  far  as  Lake  Serbonis,  near 
 Moxint  Casius.  At  Lake  Serbonis,  Egypt  began.  The 
 eastern  extremity  of  Lake  Serbonis  is  somewhat  to  the 
 westvTard  of  Rhinocolura,  and  Mount  Casius  is  more 
 than  halfway  from  the  latter  to  Pelusium.  Herodotus 
 afterwards  states,  more  precisely,  that  from  Jenysus  to 
 "  Lake  Serbonis  and  Mount  Casius  "  was  three  days- 
 journey  through  a  desert  without  waftr.    He  evidently 
 
 RIVER  OF  EGYPT 
 
 It  must  be  observed  that  the  distinctive  charac 
 ter  of  the  name,  "  Nachal  of  luiypt,''''  as  has  been 
 well  suggested  to  us,  almost  f()rl)ids  our  supposing 
 an  insignificant  stream  to  be  intended,  although 
 such  a  stream  might  be  of  importance  from  posi- 
 tion as  forming  the  boundary. 
 
 If  we  infer  that  the  Nachal  of  Earypt  is  the 
 Nile,  we  have  to  consider  the  geographical  conse- 
 quences, and  to  compare  the  name  with  known 
 names  of  the  Nile.  Of  the  branches  of  the  Nile, 
 the  easternmost,  or  Pelusiac,  would  necessarily  be 
 the  one  intended.  On  looking  at  the  map  it  seems 
 incredible  that  the  Philistine  territory  should  ever 
 have  extended  so  far;  the  Wikli-l-' Areesh  is  dis- 
 tant from  Gaza,  the  most  western  of  the  Philistine 
 towns;  but  Pelusium,  at  the  mouth  and  most  east- 
 ern part  of  the  Pelusiac  branch,  is  very  remote. 
 It  must,  howevei-,  be  remembered,  that  the  tract 
 from  Gaza  to  Pelusium  is  a  desert  that  could  never 
 have  been  cultivated,  or  indeed  inhabited  by  a  set- 
 tled population,  and  was  probably  only  held  in  the 
 period  to  which  we  refer  by  marauding  Arab  tribes, 
 which  may  weU  have  been  tributary  to  the  Philis- 
 tines, for  they  must  have  been  tributary  to  them  or  to 
 the  Egyptians,  on  account  of  their  isolated  position 
 and  the  sterility  of  the  country,  though  no  doubt 
 maintaining  a  half-independence."  All  doubt  on 
 this  point  .seems  to  be  set  at  rest  by  a  passage,  in 
 a  hieroglyphic  inscription  of  Sethee  I.,  head  of  the 
 XlXth  dynasty,  b.  c.  cir.  1-340,  on  the  north  wall 
 of  the  great  temple  of  El-Karnak,  which  mentions 
 "  the  foreigners  of  the  SHASU  from  the  fort  of 
 TARU  to  the  land  of  KANANA "  (SHASU 
 SHA'A  EM  SHTEM  EN  TARU  ER  PA-KAN'- 
 ANA,  Brugsch,  Geoyr.  Insrhr.  i.  p.  201,  No. 
 1205,  pi.  xlvii.).  The  identification  of  "the  fort 
 of  TARU"  with  any  place  mentioned  by  the 
 Greek  and  Latin  geographers  has  not  yet  been  sat- 
 isfactorily accomplished.  It  appears,  from  the  bas- 
 relief,  representing  the  return  of  Sethee  I.  to  Egypt 
 from  an  eastern  expedition,  near  the  inscription 
 just  mentioned,  to  have  been  between  a  Leontop- 
 olis  and  a  liranch  of  the  Nile,  or  perhaps  canal,  on 
 the  west  side  of  which  it  was  situate,  commanding 
 a  bridge  {Ibid.  No.  1200,  pi.  xlviii.).  The  Leontop- 
 ohs  is  eitlier  tlie  capital  of  the  Leontopolite  Nome, 
 or  a  town  in  the  Heliopolite  Nome  mentioned  by 
 Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  3,  §  1).  In  the  former  case 
 the  stream  would  probalily  be  the  Tanitic  branch, 
 or  perhaps  the  Pelusiac;  in  the  latter,  perhaps  the 
 Canal  of  the  Red  Sea.  We  prefer  the  first  I.eon- 
 topolis,  but  no  identification  is  necessary  to  prove 
 that  the  SHASU  at  this  time  extended  from 
 Canaan  to  the  east  of  the  Delta  (see  on  the  whole 
 subject  Geo(]r.  Jnsclir.  i.  pp.  200-200,  iii.  pp.  20,  21 ). 
 
 Egypt,  therefore,  in  its  most  flourishing  period, 
 evidently  extended  no  further  than  the  east  of  the 
 Delta,  its  eastern  boundary  being  probably  the 
 Pelusiac  branch,  the  territory  of  the  SHASU,  an 
 Arab   nation   or  tribe,  lying  between  Egypt  and 
 
 makes  Mount  Casius  mark  the  western  boundary  of  the 
 Syrians ;  for  although  the  position  of  Jenysus  is  uncer- 
 tain, the  whole  distance  from  Gaza  (and  if  Cadytis  be  not 
 Gaza,  we  cannot  extend  the  Arabian  territory  further 
 east)  does  not  greatly  exceed  three  days'  journey  (iii- 
 5.  See  Rawlinson's  edit.  398-400).  If  we  adopt  Capt. 
 Spratt's  identifications  of  Pelusium  and  Mount  Casius, 
 we  must  place  them  much  nearer  together,  and  the 
 latter  far  to  the  west  of  the  usual  supposed  place  (Sin, 
 town).  But  in  this  case  Herodotus  would  intend  the 
 western  extremity  of  Lake  Serbonis,  which  seems  un- 
 likely. 
 
RIVER  OF  EGYPT 
 
 Canaan.  It  mirjlit  lie  supposed  that  at  this  time 
 the  SHASU  had  made  an  inroad  into  Egypt,  but 
 it  must  he  remembered  that  in  the  latter  period  of 
 the  liings  of  Judali,  and  during  the  classical  period, 
 Pelusium  was  the  key  of  l*>gypt  on  this  side.  The 
 Philistines,  In  the  time  of  tlieir  greatest  power, 
 which  appears  to  have  Lean  contemporary  with  the 
 period  of  the  Judges,  may  well  be  supposed  to 
 have  reduced  the  Arabs  of  this  neutral  territory  to 
 the  condition  of  tributaries,  as  doubtless  was  also 
 done  liy  the  Pharaohs. 
 
 It  must  be  remembered  that  the  specification  of 
 a  certain  boundary  does  not  necessarily  prove  that 
 the  actual  lands  of  a  state  extended  so  far;  the 
 Hmit  of  its  sway  is  sometimes  rather  to  be  under- 
 stood. Solomon  ruled  as  tributaries  all  the  king- 
 doms between  the  Euphrates  and  the  land  of  the 
 Philistines  and  the  border  of  Egypt,  when  the 
 Land  of  Promise  a[)pears  to  have  been  fully  occu- 
 pied (1  K.  iv.  21,  comp.  24).  When,  therefore, 
 it  is  specified  that  the  Philistine  territory  as  f;ir  as 
 the  Nachal-Jlizraim  remained  to  be  taken,  it  need 
 scarcely  be  inferred  that  the  territory  to  be  inliali- 
 ited  by  the  Israelites  was  to  extend  so  fiir,  and  this 
 Stream's  being  an  actual  boundary  of  a  tribe  may 
 be  explained  on  the  same  principle. 
 
 If,  with  the  generality  of  critics,  we  think  that 
 the  Nachal-Mizraim  is  the  Wddl-l-  Areesh,  we 
 must  conclude  that  the  name  Shihor  is  also  applied 
 to  the  latter,  although  elsewhere  designating  the 
 Nile,"  for  we  have  seen  that  Nachal-Mizraim  and 
 Shihor  are  used  interchangeably  to  designate  a 
 stream  on  the  border  of  the  Promised  Land.  This 
 ditticulty  seems  to  o\'erthrow  the  common  opinion. 
 It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  in  Joshua 
 xiii.  3,  Shihor  has  the  article,  as  though  actually 
 or  originally  an  appellative,  the  former  seeming  to 
 be  the  more  obvious  inference  from  the  context. 
 [SniHoii  OF  Egypt;  Sihor.] 
 
 The  word  Nachal  may  be  cited  on  either  side. 
 Certainly  in  Hebrew  it  is  rather  used  for  a  toiTent 
 or  stream  than  for  a  river;  but  the  name  Nachal- 
 Mizraim  may  come  from  a  lost  dialect,  and  the 
 
 parallel  Arabic  word  wddee,  itf  t^  I  •  though  ordi- 
 narily used  for  valleys  and  their  winter-torrents, 
 as  in  the  case  of  the  Wddi-l-  Areesh  itself,  has 
 been  employed  by  the  Arabs  in  Spain  lor  true 
 rivers,  the  Guadalquivir,  etc.  It  may,  however,  be 
 suggested,  that  in  Nachal-^Mizraim  we  have  the 
 ancient  form  of  the  Neel-.\Jisr  of  the  Arabs,  and 
 that  Nachal  was  adopted  from  its  similarity  of 
 sound  to  the  original  of  NerAos.  It  may,  indeed, 
 be  objected  that  NelAos  is  held  to  be  of  Iranian 
 origin.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  we  find  Javan, 
 we  will  not  say  the  lonians,  called  by  the  very 
 name,  MANEN,  used  in  the  Ptosetta  Stone  for 
 •'Greek"  (SHAEE  EN  HANEN,  TOI2  TE 
 EAAHNIKOI2  rPAMMASIN),  in  the  lists  of 
 countries  and  nations,  or  tribes,  conquered  by,  or 
 
 a  There  is  a  Shihor-libnath  in  the  north  of  Pales- 
 tine, nieutioned' in  .Joshua  (xix.  26),  and  supposed  to 
 correspond  to  the  lielus,  if  its  name  signify  "  the  river 
 of  glass."  But  we  have  no  ground  for  giving  Shihor 
 the  signification  "  river ;  "  and  when  the  connection 
 of  the  Egyptians,  and  doubtless  of  the  Phoenician  and 
 other  colonists  of  northeastern  Egypt,  with  the  manu- 
 facture of  glass  is  remembered,  it  seems  more  likely 
 that  Shihor-libnath  was  named  from  the  Nile. 
 
 6  We  agree  with  Lepsius  in  this  identification  ( Ueber 
 
 RizPAH  2737 
 
 subject  to,  the  Pharaohs,  as  earlj'  as  the  reign  of 
 Amenoph  III.,  b.  c.  cir.  1400.''  An  Iranian  and 
 even  a  Greek  connection  with  Egypt  as  early  ai 
 the  time  of  the  I'-xodus,  is  therefore  not  to  be 
 treated  as  an  impossibility.  It  is,  however,  re- 
 markable, that  the  word  NeTAos  does  not  occur  in 
 the  Homeric  poems,  as  though  it  were  not  of 
 Sanskrit  origin,  but  derived  Irom  the  Egyptians  or 
 Phoenicians. 
 
 Hrugsch  compares  the  Egyptian  jNIUAW  EN 
 KEM  "  Water  of  Egypt,"'  mentioned  in  the  phrase 
 "  From  the  water  of  Egypt  as  far  as  NEHEREEN 
 [Mesopotamia]  inclusive,"  but  there  is  no  internal 
 evidence  in  favor  of  his  conjectural  identification 
 with  the  stream  of  Wddi-l- Areesh  {Gevg.  Inschr. 
 i.  54,  55,  pi.  vii.  no.  30.3).  K.  S.  P. 
 
 *  Dr.  J.  L.  Porter  (Handbook^  and  Art.  in 
 Kitto's  Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.)  proposes  to  solve  the 
 difficulty  created  by  the  terms  JV^((/((u-Mizraim  and 
 jV((c/i('^-Mizraim  by  making  "  the  proper  distinc- 
 tion between  the  country  given  in  covenant  promise 
 to  Abraham,  and  that  actually  allotted  to  the 
 Israelites."  The  Nile  may  have  been  in  contem- 
 plation in  the  original  promise,  and  the  term 
 jV((/(rt;'-jSIizraim  may  have  been  "  the  designation 
 of  the  Nile  in  Alnaham's  time,  before  the  Egyp- 
 tian word  yeor  became  known." 
 
 Nachal  is  conuuonly  used  hi  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
 tures in  its  primary  meaning  of  a  "  torrent"  or  an 
 intermittent  brook  —  as  Job  vi.  15,  the  brook  that 
 dries  away.  Is.  xv.  7,  and  Amos.  vi.  14,  the  brook 
 of  the  desert,  the  wady  lying  between  Kerek  and 
 Gebal  —  and  it  is  highly  improbable  that  this 
 term  would  have  been  chosen  to  designate  the  vast 
 and  ceaseless  volume  of  the  Nile.  Robinson  (Phys. 
 Geoff.  of  the  Holy  Land,  p.  123)  gives  his  mature 
 opinion  in  favor  of  the  rendering  "  torrent  of 
 Egypt,  which  of  old  was  the  boundary  between 
 Palestine  and  Egypt.  At  the  present  day  it  is 
 called  Wady  el-  Ar'ish  ;  and  comes  from  the  passes 
 of  Jebel  el-  Till  towards  Sinai,  draining  the  great 
 central  longitudinal  basin  of  the  desert.  It  reaches 
 the  sea  without  a  permanent  stream;  and  is  still 
 the  boundary  between  the  two  countries.  Near  its 
 mouth  is  a  small  village,  el-'Arish,  on  the  site  of 
 the  ancient  Rhinocolura,  as  is  shown  by  columns 
 and  other  Roman  remains." 
 
 Upon  the  whole  the  probabilities  are  in  favor  of 
 this  identification,  and  the  weight  of  authority  is 
 upon  its  side.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 *  RIVERS  OF  WATER.  [Foot,  Water- 
 ing WITH  THE.] 
 
 RIZ'PAH  (n5^n_ :  'Ve(T<p<i.;  [Alex,  in  2  Sam. 
 xxi.  8,  Vi(p<pad(\  Joseph.  "Pui(T(pa.  Resphn),  con- 
 cubine to  king  Saul,  and  mother  of  his  two  sons 
 Armoni  and  Mephibosheth.  Like  many  others  of 
 the  prominent  female  characters  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment—  Ruth,  Rahab,  Jezebel,  etc.  — Rizpah  would 
 seem  to  have  been  a  foreigner,  a  Hivite,  descended 
 from  one  of  the  ancient  worthies  of  that  nation, 
 Ajah  or  Aiah,<^  son  of  Zibeon,  whose  name  and 
 
 der  Namen  der  Iniiier  aiif  den  JE^.  Denktndlern, 
 Kiinigl.  Akad.  Berlin).  His  views  have,  however,  been 
 combated  by  Bunsen  {Egi/pfs  Place,  iii.  603-606), 
 Brugsch  (Geogr.  Inschr.  ii.  19,  pi.  xiii.  no.  2),  and  De 
 Rouge  ( Tombeau  d''Alime$,  p.  43). 
 
 c  The  Syriac-Peshito  and  Arabic  Versions,  jn  2  Sam. 
 iii.,  read  Ana  for  Aiah  — ■  the  name  of  another  ancient 
 Hivite,  the  bx'other  of  Ajah,  and  equally  the  son  of 
 Zibeon.  But  it  is  not  fair  to  lay  much  stress  on  this, 
 as  it  may  be  only  the  eiror  —  easily  made  —  of  a  care 
 
2738  RizPAH 
 
 fame  are  preserved  in  the  Ishmaelite  record  of  Gen. 
 xxxvi.  If  this  le  the  case,  Saul  was  commencing 
 a  practice,  which  seems  with  subsequent  kings  to 
 have  grown  almost  into  a  rule,  of  choosing  non- 
 Israelite  women  for  their  inferior  wives.  David's 
 intrigue  with  15athsheba,  or  Bath-shua,  the  wife  of 
 a  Hittite,  and  possibly  lierself  a  (^anaanitess,"  is  per- 
 haps not  a  case  in  point;  but  Solomon,  Ilehoboam, 
 and  their  successors,  seem  to  have  had  their  harems 
 filled  with  foreign  women. 
 
 After  tlie  death  of  Saul  and  occupation  of  the 
 country  west  of  the  Jordan  by  the  I'hilistines, 
 Rizpali  accompanied  the  other  iinnates  of  the  royal 
 family  to  their  new  residence  at  Mahanaim ;  and  it 
 is  here  that  her  name  is  first  introduced  to  us  as 
 the  subject  of  an  accusation  leveled  at  Abner  by 
 Ishbosheth  (2  Sam.  iii.  7),  a  piece  of  spite  which 
 led  first  to  Abner's  death  through  Joab's  treachery, 
 and  ultimately  to  the  murder  of  Ishbosheth  him- 
 self. The  accusation,  whether  true  or  false  —  and 
 from  Abner's  \ehement  denial  we  should  naturally 
 conclude  that  it  was  false  —  involved  more  than 
 meets  the  ear  of  a  modern  and  English  reader. 
 For  amongst  the  Israelites  it  was  considered  "  as  a 
 step  to  the  throne  to  have  connection  with  the 
 widow  or  the  mistress  of  the  deceased  king."  (See 
 Michaelis,  Laws  of  Moses,  art.  54.)  It  therefore 
 amounted  to  an  insinuation  that  Abner  was  about 
 to  make  an  attempt  on  the  tlirone. 
 
 We  hear  nothing  more  of  Kizpah  till  the  tragic 
 story  which  has  made  her  one  of  the  most  familiar 
 objects  to  young  and  old  in  the  whole  Bible  (2  Sam. 
 xxi.  8-11).  Every  one  can  appreciate  the  love 
 and  endurance  witli  whicli  the  mother  watched  over 
 the  bodies  of  her  two  sons  and  her  five  relatives,  to 
 save  them  ii'om  an  indignity  peculiarly  painful  to 
 the  whole  of  the  ancient  world  (see  Ts.  Ixxix.  2; 
 Horn.  JL  i.  4,  5,  &c.,  &c.).  But  it  is  questionable 
 whether  the  ordinary  conception  of  tlie  scene  is 
 accurate.  The  seven  victims  were  not,  as  the  A. 
 V.  implies,  "hung;"  they  were  crucified.  The 
 seven  crosses  were  planted  in  the  rock  on  tlie  top 
 of  the  sacred  hill  of  Gibeah ;  the  hill  which,  though 
 not  Saul's  native  place,''  was  througli  his  long  resi- 
 dence there  so  identified  with  him  as  to  retain  bis 
 name  to  the  latest  existence  of  the  Jewish  nation 
 
 ROBBERY 
 
 (1  Sam.  xi.  4,  &c.,  and  see  Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  2,  5 
 1).  The  whole  or  part  of  this  hill  seems  at  the 
 time  of  this  occurrence  to  have  been  in  some  special 
 manner  c  dedicated  to  Jehovah,  possibly  the  spot 
 on  which  .\hiah  the  priest  had  deposited  the  Ark 
 when  he  took  refuge  in  Gibeah  during  the  Philis- 
 tine war  (1  Sam.  xiv.  18).  The  victims  were  sacri- 
 ficed at  the  beginning  of  barley-harvest — the  sacred 
 and  festal  time  of  the  Passover  —  and  in  the  full 
 blaze  of  the  summer  sun  they  hung  till  tiie  fall  of 
 the  periodical  rain  in  October.  During  the  whole 
 of  tliat  time  IJizpah  remained  at  tlie  foot  of  the 
 crosses  on  which  tlie  bodies  of  her  sons  were  ex- 
 posed: the  Mdter  dolorosn,  if  the  expression  may 
 be  allowed,  of  the  ancient  di.spensation.  She  had 
 no  tent  to  shelter  her  from  the  sporching  sun  wliich 
 beats  on  that  o\>en  spot  all  day,  or  from  tlie  drench- 
 ing dews  at  night,  but  she  spread  on  the  rocky 
 floor  the  thick  mourning  garment  of  black  sack- 
 cloth f'  which  as  a  widow  she  wore,  and  crouching 
 there  she  watched  tliat  neither  vulture  nor  jackal 
 should  molest  tlie  bodies.  We  may  surely  be  justi- 
 fied in  ajiplying  to  Rizpah  the  words  with  which 
 another  act  of  womanly  kindness  was  commended, 
 and  may  say,  that  "  wlaeresoever  the  Bible  shall  go, 
 there  shall  also  this,  that  this  woman  hath  done,  be 
 told  for  a  memorial  of  her."  G. 
 
 ROAD.  This  word  occurs  but  once  in  the 
 Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible,  namely,  in  1 
 Sara,  xxvii.  10,  where  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of 
 
 "raid"  or  "inroad."  the  Hebrew  word  (lCtt?2) 
 being  elsewhere  (e.  ff.  ver.  8,  xxiii.  27,  xxx.  1,  14, 
 &c.)  rendered  "invade"  and  "invasion." 
 
 A  road  in  the  sense  which  we  now  attach  to 
 the  term  is  expressed  in  the  A.  V.  by  "  way  "  and 
 "path."     [Way.]  G. 
 
 *  ROBBERS.  [Churches,  Robbers  of; 
 Thieves.] 
 
 ROBBERY. «  Whether  in  the  larger  sense 
 of  plunder,  or  the  more  limited  sense  of  theft,  sys- 
 tematically organized,  robbery  has  ever  been  one  of 
 the  principal  employments  of  the  nomad  tribes  of 
 the  East.  From  the  time  of  Ishmael  to  the  present 
 day,  the  Bedouin  has  been  a  "  wild  man,"  and  a 
 robber  by  trade,  and  to  carry  out  his  objects  sue- 
 
 less  transcriber ;  or  of  one  so  familiar  with  the  an- 
 cient names  as  to  have  confounded  one  with  the 
 other. 
 
 a  Comp.  Gen.  xxxviii.,  where  the  "  daughter  of 
 Shua,'-  tlie  Canaanitess,  should  really  be  Bath-shua. 
 
 b  Saul  was  probably  born  at  Zelah,  where  Kish's 
 Bep,ulchre,  and  therefore  his  home,  was  situated. 
 [Zel.ih.] 
 
 c  T'na,  2  Sam.  xxi.  6. 
 
 d   p'Wn,   hm-Sak. 
 
 e  1.    7^3:    apirayri,  apTT6.y\xa.Ta.:  rapirUB. 
 
 2.  '\T^i^.,   from   pis,   "  break :  "  aSiKi'a  :    dila- 
 ceratio. 
 
 3.  IID,  from  Tlli7,  "  waste :  "  oAeflpos  :  rapincB. 
 
 4.  77K7  :   TrpovoixTJ  •■  prcBda:    "prey,"    "spoil." 
 
 \li00TT.] 
 
 (2.)  Robber:  — 
 
 1.  TT'^3,  part,  from  TT2,  "rob:"  ■n-povoij.eiioiv : 
 tastans. 
 
 2.  ^^"13,  part,  of  V"32,  "  break  : '"  Aoi;u.ds  :  tatro  : 
 Mic.  ii.  IB,  "  breaker." 
 
 3.  D'^S^i,  Job  xviii.  9  :  Sn/zwi/res  :  sitis.  Targum, 
 with  A.  v.,  has  "  robbers ; "  but  it  is  most  commonly 
 rendered  as  LXX.,  Job  y.  5,  sitientes. 
 
 4.  'T^ty  :  \rj<TTrji :  latro :  from  Tltt-',  "  waste." 
 
 5.  npti7  :  ex^pos:  deripiens:  A.  V.  "  spoiler." 
 
 6.  232  :   KAeVr>)5:  fur:  A.  V.  "thief." 
 (3.)  Rob:  — 
 
 1.  TT2  :   SiapTrd^o) :   depopidor. 
 
 2.  V73  :   a.<j>aLi.pea> :   violenler  aufero. 
 
 3.  "7^127,  "return,"  "repeat;"  hence  in  Pi.  sur- 
 round, circumvent  (Ps.  cxix.  CI) :  TripnrKaKr\vat :  cir- 
 cunipUcti;  usually  affirm,  reiterate  assertions  (Ges.  p 
 997). 
 
 4.  ^5p,  "  cover,"  "  hide :  "  wrepi'i^a) :  affigo  (Get 
 p.  1190).'  ^ 
 
 5.  nDC?  :   Siapndioj :   diripio. 
 
 T    T 
 
 6.  DDI£'  (same  as  last) :  npovofj-evu) :  deprcedor. 
 
 7.  1232  :   KKi-mu  :  furor  .  A.  V.   '  steal." 
 
ROBBERY 
 
 cessfully,  so  far  from  being  esteemed  disgraceful,  is 
 regarded  as  in  the  highest  degree  creditable  (Gen. 
 xvi  12;  Burckhardt,  Nules  on  Bed.  i.  137,  157). 
 An  instance  of  an  enterprise  of  a  truly  Bedouin 
 character,  but  distinguished  by  the  exceptional 
 features  belonging  to  its  principal  actor,  is  see)i  in 
 the  night-fon\y  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  C-12),  with 
 which  also  we  may  foirly  compare  Horn.  //.  K. 
 204,  (fee.  Predatory  inroads  on  a  large  scale  are 
 seen  in  the  incursions  of  the  Sabseans  and  Chal- 
 dseans  on  the  property  of  Job  (.Job  i.  15,  17);  the 
 revenge  coupled  with  plunder  of  Simeon  and  Levi 
 (Gen.  xxxiv.  28,  29);  the  reprisals  of  the  Hebrews 
 upon  the  Midianites  (Num.  xxxi.  32-5-1),  and  the 
 frequent  and  often  prolonged  invasions  of  "spoil- 
 ers" upon  the  Israelites,  together  with  their  re- 
 prisals, during  the  period  of  the  Judges  and  Kings 
 (Judg.  ii.  14,  vi.  3,  4;  1  Sam.  xi.,  xv. ;  2  Sam. 
 viii.,  X.;  2  K.  v.  2;  1  Chr.  v.  10,  18-22).  Indi- 
 vidual instances,  indicating  an  unsettled  state  of 
 the  country  during  the  same  period,  are  seen  in 
 the  "  liers-in-wait  "  of  the  men  of  Shechem  (Judg. 
 ix^  25),  and  the  mountain  retreats  of  Uavid  in  the 
 cave  of  Adullam,  the  hill  of  Hachilah,  and  the 
 wilderness  of  JMaon,  and  his  abode  in.  Ziklag,  in- 
 vaded and  plundered  in  like  manner  by  the  Amalek- 
 ites  (1  Sam.  xxii.  1,  2,  xxiii.  19-25,  xxvi.  J,  xxvii. 
 6-10,  xxx.  1). 
 
 Similar  disorder  in  the  country,  complained  of 
 more  than  once  by  the  prophets  (Hos.  iv.  ,2,  vi.  9; 
 Mic.  ii.  8),  continued  more  or  les.s  through  Mac- 
 cabtiean  down  to  Roman  times,  favored  by  the  cor- 
 rupt administration  of  some  of  the  Roman  gover- 
 nors, in  accepting  money  in  redemption  of  punish- 
 ment, produced  those  formidable  bands  of  robbers, 
 so  easily  collected  and  with  so  much  difficulty  sub- 
 dued, who  found  shelter  in  the  caves  of  Palestine 
 and  Syria,  and  who  infested  the  country  e\en  in 
 the  time  of  our  Lord,  almost  to  the  very  gates  of 
 Jerusalem  (Luke  x.  30;  Acts  v.  36,  37,  xxi.  38). 
 [Judas  Of  Galilee;  Caves.]  In  the  later  his- 
 tory also  of  the  country  the  robbers,  or  sicarii,  to- 
 gether witli  their  leader,  John  of  Gischala,  played 
 a  conspicuous  part  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.'2,  §  1;  3,  §  4; 
 7,  §  2). 
 
 The  Mosaic  law  on  the  subject  of  theft  is  con- 
 tained in  Ex.  xxii.,  and  consists  of  the  following 
 enactments :  — 
 
 1.  He  who  stole  and  killed  an  ox  or  a  sheep,  was 
 to  restore  five  oxen  for  the  ox,  and  four  sheep  for 
 the  sheep. 
 
 2.  If  the  stolen  animal  was  found  alive  the 
 thief  was  to  restore  double. 
 
 3.  If  a  man  was  found  stealing  in  a  dwelling- 
 house  at  night,  and  was  killed  in  the  act,  the  homi- 
 cide Wits  not  held  guilty  of  nnu'der. 
 
 4.  If  the  act  was  committed  during  daylight,  the 
 thief  might  not  be  killed,  but  was  bound  to  make 
 full  restitution  or  be  sold  into  slavery. 
 
 5.  If  money  or  goods  deposited  in  a  man's  house 
 were  stolen  therefrom,  the  thief,  when  detected,  was 
 to  pay  douljle :  but 
 
 6.  If  the  thief  could  not  be  found,  the  master  of 
 the  house  was  to  t)e  examined  before  the  judges. 
 
 7.  If  an  animal  given  in  charge  to  a  man  to 
 keep  were  stolen  from  him,  i.  e.  through  his  negli- 
 gence, he  was  to  make  restitution  to  the  owner. 
 [Oath.] 
 
 There  seems  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  law 
 underwent  any  alteration  in  Solomon's  time,  as 
 Michaelis  supposes;  the  expression  in  Prov.  vi.  30, 
 ]1,  is,  that  a  thief  detected  in  stealing  should  restore 
 
 ROGELIM 
 
 2739 
 
 sevenfold,  {.  e.  to  the  full  amount,  and  for  this  pur- 
 pose, even  give  all  the  substance  of  his  house,  and 
 thus  in  case  of  failure  be  liable  to  servitude  (Mi- 
 chaelis, Laws  (>/'  Moses,  §  284).  On  the  otlier  hand, 
 see  Bertheau  on  Prov.  vi. ;  and  Keil,  Arch.  Hebr 
 §  154.  Man-stealing  was  puinshable  with  death 
 (Ex.  xxi.  16;  Deut.  xxiv.  7).  Invasion  of  right 
 in  land  was  strictly  forbidden  (Deut.  xxvii.  17 ;  Is. 
 v.  8;  Mic.  ii.  2). 
 
 The  question  of  sacrilege  does  not  properly  come 
 within  tlie  scope  of  the  present  article.    H.  W.  P. 
 
 *  ROBE.     [MaxNtle.] 
 
 ROB'OAM  ('Po^oa/x:  Roboam),  Ecclus.  xlvii. 
 23;  Matt.  i.  7.      [Rehouoam.] 
 
 ROE,  ROEBUCK  C^n^,  tzebi  (m. ) ;  n'*?^*, 
 Izebnjydh  (f.):  SopKas,  SopKoov,  SopKaSiov-  cnjjren, 
 damula).  There  seems  to  be  little  or  no  doubt 
 that  the  Hebrew  word,  which  occurs  frequently  in 
 the  0.  T.,  denotes  some  species  of  antelope,  prob- 
 ably the  Gnzelld  dorciis,  a  native  of  Egypt  and 
 North  Africa,  or  the  G.  Arabica  of  Syria  and 
 Arabia,  which  appears  to  be  a  variety  only  of  the 
 (lurcas.  The  gazelle  was  allowed  as  food  (Deut. 
 xii.  15,  22,  etc.);  it  is  mentioned  as  very  fleet  of 
 foot  (2  Sam.  ii.  18;  1  Chr.  xii.  8);  it  was  hunted 
 (Is.  xiii.  14;  Prov.  vi.  5);  it  was  celebrated  for  its 
 loveliness  (Cant.  ii.  9,  17,  viii.  14).  The  gazelle 
 is  found  in  Egypt,  Barbary,  and  Syria.  Stanley, 
 (S.  ((■•  P.  p.  207)  says  that  the  signification  of  the 
 word  Ajalon,  the  valley  "  of  stags,"  is  still  justified 
 l)y  "  the  gazelles  which  the  peasants  hunt  on  its 
 mountain  slopes."  Thomson  (The  Land  and  the 
 Bi»i/,\  p.  172)  says  that  the  mountains  of  Naphtali 
 ■•  abound  in  gazelles  to  this  day." 
 
 Gazella  Arabica. 
 
 The  ariel  gazelle  {G.  Arabica),  which,  if  noi  a 
 different  specits,  is  at  least  a  well-marked  variety 
 of  the  dorcas,  is  common  in  .Syria,  and  is  hunted 
 by  the  Arabs  with  a  falcon  and  a  greyhound ;  the 
 repeated  attacks  of  the  bird  upon  the  head  of  the 
 animal  so  bewilder  it  that  it  falls  an  easy  prey  to 
 the  greyhound,  which  is  trained  to  watch  the  Hight 
 of  the  falcon.  Many  of  tliese  antelopes  are  also 
 taken  in  pitfalls  into  which  they  are  driven  by  the 
 shouts  of  the  hunters.  The  lar;re,  full,  soft  eye  of 
 the  gazelle  has  long  been  the  theme  of  oriental 
 praises.  W.  H. 
 
 ROG'ELIM  (D'^b5"~l  [fuller's  place,  Ges.] : 
 [Rom.  'PcoyeAAi'^;  Vat]  Pai7eAA.ei;U,  and  so  Alex., 
 tliough  once  Pco7eAe(^:  Rvyeliin).  The  residen-e 
 of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite  (2  Sam.  xvii.  27,  xix.  31) 
 in  the  highlands  east  of  the  Jordan.     It  is  men- 
 
2740 
 
 ROHGAH 
 
 tioned  on  tins  occasion  only.  Nothing  is  said  to 
 guide  us  to  its  situation,  and  no  name  at  all  resem- 
 bling it  appears  to  have  been  hitherto  discovered  on 
 the  spot. 
 
 If  interpreted  as  Hebrew  the  name  is  deri\able 
 from  rcf/t/,  the  loot,  and  signifies  the  "  fullers  "  or 
 "washers,"  who  were  in  the  habit  (as  they  still 
 are  in  the  East)  of  using  their  feet  to  tread  the 
 cloth  which  they  are  cleansing.  But  this  is  ex- 
 tremely uncertain.  The  same  word  occurs  in  the 
 name  En-kogel.  G. 
 
 ROH'GAH  (^a^l^"^,  cetidh,  T^^'rr^,  Km 
 
 \outcrtef]:  "Pooya;  Alex.  Ovpaoya- Jiooga)-  -■^" 
 Asherite,  of  the  sons  of  Shamer  (1  Chr.  vii.  3-i). 
 
 RO'IMUS  i'PoifJLOi).  Ekhum  1  (1  Esdr.  v.  8). 
 The  name  is  not  traceable  in  the  Vulgate. 
 
 ROLL  {Tl-^yD:  Kf(pa\is)-  A  book  in  ancient 
 times  consisted  of  a  single  long  strip  of  paper  or 
 parchment,  which  was  usually  kept  rolled  up  on  a 
 stick,  and  was  unrolled  when  a  person  mshed  to 
 read  it.  Hence  arose  the  term  meijillah,  from 
 ^d/a^,«  "  to  roll,"  strictly  answering  to  the  Latin 
 volumen,  whence  conies  our  volume ;  hence  also  the 
 expressions,  "to  spread"  and  "  roU  together," 'i  in- 
 stead of  "to  open"  and  "to  shut"  a  book.  The 
 full  expression  for  a  book  w'as  "a  roll  of  writing," 
 or  "a  roll  of  a  book"  (Jer.  xxxvi.  2;  I's.  xl.  7; 
 Vjz.  ii.  9),  but  occasionally  "roll"  stands  by  itself 
 (Zech.  V.  1,  2;  J<:zr.  vi.  2).  The  KicpaAis  of  the 
 LXX.  originally  referred  to  the  ornamental  knolj 
 (the  umbilicus  of  the  Latins)  at  the  top  of  the  stick 
 or  cylinder  round  which  the  roll  was  wound.  The 
 use  of  the  term  me</ill(ih  implies,  of  course,  the  ex- 
 istence of  a  soft  and  pliant  material:  what  this  ma- 
 terial was  in  the  Old  Testament  period,  we  are  not 
 informed ;  but  as  a  knife  was  required  for  its  de- 
 struction (.Jer.  xxxvi.  2-3),  we  infer  that  it  was 
 parchment.  Tiie  roll  was  usually  written  on  one 
 side  only  (Mishn.  »m6.  10,  §  3),  and  hence  the 
 particular  notice  of  one  that  was  "  written  within 
 and  without"  (Ez.  ii.  10).  The  writing  was  ar- 
 ranged in  columns,  resembling  a  door  in  shape, 
 and  hence  deriving  their  Hebrew  name,<^  just  as 
 "column,"  from  its  resemblance  to  a  cofaHi«((  or 
 pillar.  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  term  meyillah 
 does  not  occur  before  the  7th  cent.  v..  c,  being 
 first  used  l)y  .Jeremiah  (Hitzig,  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  2); 
 and  the  conclusion  has  lieen  drawn  that  the  use  of 
 such  materials  as  parchment  was  not  known  until 
 that  period  (Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  71,  note. ;  Gesen. 
 Tiies.  p.  289).  This  is  to  assume,  pei-haps  too  con- 
 fidently, a  late  date  for  the  composition  of  I's.  xl., 
 and  to  ignore  the  collateral  evidence  arising  out  of 
 the  expression  "  roll  together  "  used  by  Is.  xxxiv. 
 4.  and  also  out  of  the  probable  reference  to  the 
 Pentateuch  in  Ps.  xl.  7,  "the  roll  of  the  book,"  a 
 copy  of  which  was  deposited  by  the  side  of  the 
 Ark  (Deut.  xxxi.  20).  We  may  here  add  that  the 
 term  in  Is.  viii.  1,  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "roll," 
 more  correctly  means  tablet.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  "  Flying  roll  "  (Zech.  v.  1,  2)  means  a  book  or 
 parchment  rolle<l  up,  represented  in  the  prophet's 
 vision  as  seen  borne  through  the  air.  It  was  an 
 expressive  symbol  of  .Jehovah's  judgments  written 
 
 ROMAN   EMPIRE 
 
 out  as  it  were,  and  decreed,  which  at  his  bidding 
 would  descend  and  sweep  away  the  ungodly.  See 
 Keil,  Die  Kleinen  Froplieten,  p.  560  f.  (1866).    H 
 
 *  ROLLER  (Virin,  from  a  verb  = "  to 
 ^'rtf/ ")==  bandage,  so  caUed  from  its  form  as  a 
 roll,  Ezek.  xxx.  21.  The  prophet  declares  that  the 
 arm  of  Pharaoh  should  be  broken  and  no  art  or 
 appliance  of  surgery  could  enable  it  to  wield  again 
 the  sword  of  the  oppressor.  H. 
 
 ROMAM'TI-E'ZER  OW.  "'^^'?"^"' : 
 'PccfxeTBi-f^ep;  [Vat.  Poj^ei,  Po/xeAxf^^-J  '^'ex. 
 PcofXffi6i-t(fp  in  1  Chr.  xxv.  4,  but  Pcofxtd-fxie^ff 
 in  1  Chr.  xxv.  31:  Romeiiilhiezer\.  One  of  the 
 fourteen  sons  -  of  Heman,  and  chief  of  tlie  24tli 
 division  of  tiie  singers  in  the  reign  of  David  (1 
 Chr.  xxv.  4,  31).      [Hothir,  Amer.  ed.J 
 
 *  RO'MAN,  RO'MANS  ('PccyuoTos:  Homa- 
 nus),  1  Mace.  viii.  1,  23-29,  xii.  10,  xiv.  40,  xv.  16; 
 2  ilacc.  viii.  10,  36,  xi.  34;  John  xi.  48;  Acts  xvi. 
 21,  37,  38,  xxii.  25-29,  xxiii.  27,  xxv.  16,  xxviii.  17. 
 [liOMAN'  Empihe,  Home.]  A. 
 
 *  ROMAN  CITIZENSHIP.  [Citizen- 
 ship.] 
 
 ROMAN  EMPIRE.  The  history  of  the  Ro- 
 man Ijiipire,  properly  so  called,  extends  over  a  pe- 
 riod of  rather  more  than  five  hundred  years,  namely, 
 from  the  battle  of  Actium,  b.  c.  31,  when  Augustus 
 Ijecame  sole  ruler  of  the  Komau  world,  to  the  abdi- 
 cation of  Augustulus,  A,  D.  476.  The  Empire,  how- 
 ever, in  the  sense  of  the  dominion  of  liome  over  a 
 large  number  of  conquered  nations,  was  in  full 
 force  and  had  reached  wide  limits  some  time  be- 
 fore the  monarchy  of  Augustus  was  established. 
 The  notices  of  Roman  history  which  occur  in  the 
 Bible  are  confined  to  the  last  century  and  a  half  of 
 the  commonwealth  and  the  first  century  of  the  im- 
 perial monarchy. 
 
 The  first  historic  mention  of  Rome  in  the  Bible 
 is  in  1  iMacc.  i.  10.  Though  the  date  of  the  founda- 
 tion of  Rome  coincides  nearly  with  the  begiiniing 
 of  the  reign  of  Pekah  in  Israel,  it  was  not  till  the 
 beginning  of  {he  2d  century  b.  c.  that  the  Romans 
 had  leisure  to  interfere  in  the  aflairs  of  the  East. 
 When,  however,  the  power  of  Carthage  had  been 
 effectually  broken  at  Zama,  b.  c.  202,  Roman  arms 
 and  intrigues  soon  made  themselves  felt  through- 
 out Macedonia,  Greece,  and  Asia  JMinor.  About 
 the  year  161  B.  c.  Judas  Maccabseus  heard  of  the 
 Romans  as  the  conquerors  of  Philip,  Perseus,  and 
 Antiochus  (1  Mace.  viii.  5,  6).  "It  was  told  him 
 also  how  they  destroyed  and  brought  under  their 
 dominion  all  other  kingdoms  and  isles  that  at  any 
 time  resisted  them,  but  with  their  friends  and 
 such  as  relied  upon  them  they  kept  amity""  (viii. 
 11,  12).  In  order  to  strengthen  himself  against 
 Demetrius  king  of  Syria  he  sent  ambassadors  to 
 liome  (viii.  17),  and  concluded  a  defensive  alliance 
 with  the  senate  (viii.  22-32).  This  was  renewed  by 
 Jonathan  (xii.  1)  and  by  Simon  (xv.  17;  Joseph. 
 Ant.  xiL  10,  §  6,  xiii.  5,"§  8;  7,  §  3).  Notices  of 
 the  embassy  sent  by  Judas,  of  a  triVmte  paid  to 
 Rome  by  the  Syrian  king,  and  of  further  inter- 
 course between  the  Romans  and  the  Jews,  occur 
 in  2  Mace.  iv.  11,  viii.  10,  36,  xi.  34.     In    the 
 
 b  lu  the  Hebrew,  W~}'^  (2  K.  xix.  14)  and  b  j3 
 vis.  xxxiv.  4) :  in  the  Greek,  a.i'aTTTv<rcrftv  and  invcraiiv 
 'Lake  iv.  17,  20). 
 
 e  nin  "jT  (A.  V.  "leaves,"  Jer.  xxxvi.  23).  Hit- 
 zig maintains  that  the  word  means  "leaves,"  and 
 that  the  mtgiUak  in  this  case  was  a  book  like  our  own, 
 consisting  of  numerous  pages. 
 
ROMAN    EMPIRE 
 
 course  of  the  narrative  mention  is  made  of  the 
 Honiaii  senate  {rh  fiovKeurripiov,  1  JMacc.  xii.  3), 
 of  the  consul  Lucius  (6  i/iraroj,  1  Mace.  xv.  15, 
 26),  and  tlie  Roman  constitution  is  described  in  a 
 somewhat  distorted  form  (1  Mace.  viii.  14-lG). 
 
 'I'he  history  of  tlie  MaccabKan  and  Iduniiean 
 dynasties  forms  no  part  of  our  present  subject. 
 [Maccabees;  Hekod.]  Here  a  brief  summary 
 of  the  progress  of  lionian  dominion  in  Judwa  will 
 suffice. 
 
 In  the  year  65  b.  c.,  when  Syria  was  made  a 
 lioman  province  by  Pompey,  the  Jews  were  still 
 f;overned  by  one  of  the  Asmonjean  princes.  Aristo- 
 bulus  had  lately  driven  his  brother  Hyrcanus  from 
 the  chief  priesthood,  and  was  now  in  his  turn  at- 
 tacked by  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia  Petrtea,  tlie  ally 
 of  Hyrcanus.  Pompey's  lieutenant,  M.  /Emilius 
 Scaurus,  interfered  in  the  contest  b.  c.  04,  and  the 
 next  year  Pompey  himself  marched  an  army  into 
 Judaea  and  took  Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Ani.  xiv.  2, 
 3,  4;  B.  J.  i.  6,  7).  From  this  time  the  Jews 
 were  practically  under  the  government  of  Rome. 
 Hyrcanus  retained  the  high-priesthood  and  a  titu- 
 lar sovereignty,  subject  to  the  watchful  control  of 
 his  minister  Antijiater,  an  active  partisan  of  the 
 Roman  interests.  Finally,  Antipater's  son,  Herod 
 the  Great,  was  made  king  by  Antony's  interest, 
 B.  c.  40,  and  confirmed  in  the  kingdom  by  Augus- 
 tus, B.  0.  30  (Joseph.  Ani.  xiv.  14,  xv.  6).  The 
 Jews,  however,  were  all  this  time  tributaries  of 
 Rome,  and  their  princes  in  reality  were  mere  Ro- 
 man procurators.  Julius  Caesar  is  said  to  have  ex- 
 acted from  them  a  fourth  part  of  their  agricul- 
 tural produce  in  addition  to  the  tithe  paid  to 
 Hyrcanus  (Ant.  xiv.  10,  §  6).  Roman  soldiers 
 were  quartered  at  Jerusalem  in  Herod's  time  to 
 support  him  in  his  authority  (Ant.  xv.  3,  §  7). 
 Tribute  was  paid  to  Rome,  and  an  oath  of  allegiance 
 to  the  emperor  as  well  as  to  Herod  appears  to 
 have  been  taken  by  the  people  (Ant.  xvii.  "2,  §  2). 
 On  the  banishment  of  Archelaus,  A.  d.  6,  Judrea 
 became  a  mere  appendage  of  the  province  of 
 Syria,  and  was  governed  by  a  Roman  procurator, 
 who  resided' at  Caesarea.  Galilee  and  the  adjoining 
 districts  were  .still  left  under  the  government  of 
 Herod's  sons  and  other  petty  princes,  whose  do- 
 minions and  titles  were  changed  from  time  to 
 time  by  successive  emperors:  for  details  see  Herod. 
 
 Such  were  the  relations  of  the  Jewi.sh  people  to 
 the  Roman  government  at  the  time  when  the  N.  T. 
 history  begins.  An  ingenious  illustration  of  this 
 state  of  things  has  been  drawn  from  the  condition 
 of  Rritish  India.  The  Governor  General  at  Cal- 
 cutta, the  subordinate  governors  at  Madras  and 
 Bombay,  and  the  native  princes,  whose  dominions 
 have  been  at  one  time  enlarged,  at  another  incorpo- 
 rated with  the  British  presidencies,  find  their  re- 
 spective counterparts  in  the  governor  of  Syria  at 
 Antioch,  the  procurators  of  Judfea  at  Caesarea,  and 
 the  meml)ers  of  Herod's  family,  who.se  dominions 
 were  alternately  enlarged  and  sujjpressed  by  the 
 Roman  emperors  (('onybeare  and  Howson,  Life  of 
 St.  Pnnl,  i.  27).  These  and  other  characteristics  of 
 Roman  rule  come  before  us  constantly  in  the  N.  T. 
 Thus  we  hear  of  Caesar  the  sole  king  (John  xix.  15) 
 
 —  of  Cyrenius,  "governor  of  Syria"   (Luke  ii.  2) 
 
 —  of  Pontius  Pilate,  Felix,  and  Festus,  the  "  gov- 
 ernors," i.  e.  procurators,  of  Judaea  —  of  the  "te- 
 u-archs  "  Herod,  Philip,  and  Lysanias  (Luke  iii. 
 1 )  —  of  "  king  Agrippa  "  (Acts  xxv.  13)  —  of  Ro- 
 man soldiers,  legions,  centurions,  publicans  —  of  the 
 tribute-money    (Matt.    xxii.   19)  —  the   taxing   of 
 
 ROMAN    EMPIRE 
 
 2741 
 
 "  the  whole  world  "  (Luke  ii.  1)  —  Italian  and  Au- 
 gustan cohorts  (Acts  x.  1,  xxvii.  1)  —  the  appeal 
 to  Caesar  (Acts  xxv.  11).  Three  of  the  Roman  em- 
 perors are  mentioned  in  the  N.  T.  —  Augustus 
 (Luke  ii.  1),  Tiberius  (Luke  iii.  1),  and  Claudius 
 (.\cts  xi.  28,  xviii.  2).  Nero  is  alluded  to  undt-r 
 various  titles,  as  Augustus  (Se/Sao-Tc^j)  and  Ca'sar 
 (Acts  xxv.  10,  11,  21,  25;  Phil.  iv.  22),  as  6  ku- 
 pius,  "my  lord'"  (Acts  xxv.  26),  and  apparently 
 in  other  passages  (1  Pet.  ii.  17;  Rom.  xiii.  1). 
 Several  notices  of  the  provincial  administration  of 
 tlie  Romans  and  the  condition  of  provincial  cities 
 occur  in  the  narrative  of  St.  Paul's  journeys  (Acts 
 xiii.  7,  xvi.  12.  35,  38,  xviii.  12,  xix.  38). 
 
 In  illustration  of  tlie  sacred  narrative  it  may  lie 
 well  to  give  a  general  account,  though  necessarily 
 a  short  and  imperfect  one,  of  tiie  position  of  the 
 emperor,  the  extent  of  the  empire,  and  the  admin- 
 istration of  the  provinces  in  the  time  of  our  Lord 
 and  his  Apostles.  Fuller  information  will  be  found 
 under  special  articles. 
 
 I.  When  Augustus  became  sole  ruler  of  the  Ro- 
 man world  he  was  in  theory  simply  the  first  citizen 
 of  the  republic,  entrusted  witli  temporary  powers 
 to  settle  the  disorders  of  the  State.  Tacitus  says 
 that  he  was  neither  king  nor  dictator,  but  "prince" 
 (Tac.  Ann.  i.  U ),  a  title  implying  no  civil  authority, 
 but  simply  the  position  of  chief  n)em|)er  of  the  sen- 
 ate (princeps  senatus).  The  old  magistracies  were 
 retained,  but  the  various  powers  and  prerogatives 
 of  each  were  conferred  upon  Augustus,  so  that  while 
 others  commonly  bore  the  chief  official  titles,  Au- 
 gustus had  the  supreme  control  of  every  department 
 of  the  state.  Above  all  he  was  tlie  lunperor  (Im- 
 perator).  This  word,  used  originally  to  designate 
 any  one  entrusted  with  the  iraperium,  or  full  mili- 
 tary authority  over  a  Roman  army,  acquired  a  new 
 significance  when  adopted  as  a  permanent  title  by 
 Julius  Caesar.  By  his  use  of  it  as  a  constant  pre- 
 fix to  his  name  in  the  city  and  in  the  camp  he 
 openly  asserted  a  paramount  military  authority  over 
 the  state.  Augustus,  l)y  resuming  it,  plainly  indi- 
 cated,in  spite  of  much  artful  concealment,  the  real 
 basis  on  wliich  his  power  rested,  namely,  the  sup- 
 port of  the  array  (Merivale,  Rmnan  Jviiipire,  vol. 
 iii.).  In  the  N.  T.  the  emperor  is  commonly  des- 
 ignated by  the  family  name  "  Caesar,"  or  the  dig- 
 nified and  almost  .sacred  title  "  Augustus  "  (for  its 
 meaning,  comp.  Ovid,  Fasti,  i.  009).  Tiberius  is 
 called  by  implication  riyefxwv  in  Luke  iii.  1,  a  title 
 applied  in  the  N.  T.  to  Cyrenius,  Pilate,  and 
 others.  Notwithstanding  the  despotic  character  of 
 the  government,  the  h'omans  seem  to  have  shrunk 
 from  speaking  of  their  ruler  under  his  military  title 
 (see  Merivale,  Hum.  Umpire,  iii.  452,  and  note)  or 
 any  other  avowedly  despotic  appellation.  The  use 
 of  the  word  6  Kvpios,  dominus,  "my  lord,"  in  Acts 
 xxv.  20,  marks  the  jirogress  of  Roman  servility  be- 
 tween the  time  of  Augustus  and  Nero.  Augustus 
 and  Tiberius  refused  this  title.  Caligula  first  bore 
 it  (.see  Alford's  note  in  I.  c:  Ovid,  Fast.  ii.  142). 
 The  term  fiacnAevs,  "  king,"  in  John  xix.  15,  1 
 Pet.  ii.  17,  cannot  be  closely  pressed. 
 
 The  Empire  was  nominally  elective  (Tac.  Ann. 
 xiii.  4);  but  practically  it  pas.sed  by  adoption  (see 
 Galba's  speech  in  Tac.  Hist.  i.  lb),  and  till  Nero's 
 time  a  sort  of  hereditary  right  seemed  to  be  recog- 
 nized. The  dangers  inherent  in  a  military  govern- 
 ment were,  on  the  whole,  successfully  averted  till 
 the  death  of  Pertinax,  A.  n.  193  ((iibbon,  eh.  iii. 
 p.  80).  but  outbreaks  of  military  violence  were  not 
 wanting  iu  this  earlier  period  (comp.  Wenck's  note 
 
2742 
 
 ROMAN   EMPIRE 
 
 on  Gilibon,  I.  c).  The  army  was  systematically 
 bribed  by  donatives  at  the  commencement  of  each 
 reign,  and  the  mob  of  the  capital  continually  fed 
 and  amused  at  the  expense  of  the  provinces.  We 
 are  reminded  of  the  insolence  and  avarice  of  the 
 soldiers  in  Luke  iii.  14.  Tlie  reigns  of  Caligula, 
 Nero,  and  Domitian  show  that  an  emperor  might 
 shed  the  noblest  blood  with  impunity,  so  long  as 
 he  abstained  from  offending  the  soldiery  and  the 
 populace.  •  -. 
 
 II.  Extent  of  the  Empire. — Cicero's  description 
 of  the  Greek  states  and  colonies  as  a  "fringe  on  the 
 skirts  of  barbarism  "  (Cic.  De  Hep.  ii.  4)  has  been 
 well  applied  to  the  Roman  dominions  before  the 
 conquests  of  Ponipey  and  Csesar  (Merivale,  Bom. 
 Empire,  iv.  409).  The  Roman  Empire  was  still 
 confined  to  a  narrow  strip  encircling  tlie  Mediter- 
 ranean Sea.  Pompey  added  Asia  Alinor  and  Syria. 
 Ca?sar  added  Gaul.  The  generals  of  Augustus  over- 
 ran the  N.  W.  portion  of  Spain  and  the  country 
 between  the  Alps  and  the  Danube.  The  bounda- 
 ries of  the  empire  were  now  the  Atlantic  on  the 
 W.,  the  Euphrates  on  the  E.,  the  deserts  of  Africa, 
 the  cataracts  of  the  Nile,  and  the  Arabian  deserts 
 on  the  S.,  the  British  Channel,  the  Rhine,  the 
 Danube,  and  the  Black  Sea  on  the  N.  The  only 
 subsequent  conquests  of  importance  were  those 
 of  Britain  by  Claudius,  and  of  Dacia  by  Trajan. 
 The  only  independent  powers  of  importance  were 
 the  Parthians  on  the  E.  and  the  Germans  on  the  N. 
 
 The  population  of  the  empire  in  the  time  of 
 Augustus  has  been  calculated  at  85,000,000  (Meri- 
 vale, Rom.  Empire,  iv.  442-450).  Gibbon,  speaking 
 of  the  time  of  Claudius,  puts  the  population  at 
 120,000,000  (Decline  and  Fall,  ch.  ii.).  Count 
 Franz  de  Champagny  adopts  the  same  number  for 
 the  reign  of  Nero  (Les  Cesars,  ii.  428).  All  these 
 estimates  are  confessedly  somewhat  uncertain  and 
 conjectural. "^ 
 
 This  large  population  was  controlled  in  the  time 
 of  Tiberius  by  an  army  of  25  legions,  exclusive  of 
 the  proetorian  guards  and  other  cohorts  in  the 
 capital.  The  soldiers  who  composed  the  legions 
 may  be  reckoned  in  round  numbers  at  170,000 
 men.  If  we  add  to  these  an  equal  numlier  of  aux- 
 iliaries (Tac.  Ann.  iv.  5)  we  have  a  total  force  of 
 340,000  men.  The  prsetorian  guards  may  be  reck- 
 oned at  10,000  (Dion  Cass.  Iv.  24).  The  other  co- 
 horts would  swell  the  garrison  at  Rome  to  15,000 
 or  16,000  men.  For  the  number  and  stations  of 
 the  legions  in  the  time  of  Tiberius,  comp.  Tac. 
 Ann.  iv.  5. 
 
 The  navy  may  have  contained  aliout  21,000  men 
 (Les  Ce.fdrs,  ii.  429;  comp.  Merivale,  iii.  534). 
 The  legion,  as  appears  from  what  has  been  said, 
 must  have  been  "  more  like  a  brigade  than  a  regi- 
 ment," consisting  as  it  did  of  more  than  6,000  in- 
 fantry with  cavalry  attached  ((^'onybeare  and  How- 
 son,  ii.  285).  For  the  "  Itahan  and  Augustan 
 bands"  (Acts  x.  1,  xxvii.  1)  see  Army,  vol.  i.  p. 
 164  [and  Italian  Band,  Amer.  ed.]. 
 
 III.  T/ie  Provinces.  —  The  usual  fate  of  a  coun- 
 try conquered  by  Rome  was  to  become  a  subject 
 province,  governed  directly  from  Rome  by  officers 
 sent  out  for  that  purpose.  Sometimes,  however 
 as  we  have  seen,  petty  sovereigns  were  left  in  pos- 
 session of  a  nominal  independence  on  the  borders, 
 or  within  the  natural  limits,  of  the  province.    Such 
 
 «  *  On  this  subject  one  may  consult  C.  G.  Zunipt's 
 Ueber  den  Stand  der  Bevolkeruns  u.  die  Volksvcrme/i- 
 mng  im  AlUrthum,  fol.  pp.  1-92  (Berl.  1841).        H. 
 
 ROMAN    EMPIRE 
 
 a  system  was  useful  for  rewarding  an  ally,  for  em- 
 ploying a  busy  ruler,  for  gradually  accustoming  a 
 stubborn  people  to  the' yoke  of  dependence.  There 
 were  difi'erenoes  too  in  the  political  condition  of 
 cities  within  the  provinces.     Some  were  free  cities, 
 
 e.,  were  governed  by  their  own  magistrates,  and 
 were  exempted  from  occupation  by  a  Roman  garri- 
 son. Such  were  Tarsus,  Antioch  in  Syria,  Ath- 
 ens, Ephesus,  Tbessalonica.  See  the  notices  oi 
 the  "  Politarchs  "  and  "  Demos  "  at  Tbessalonica, 
 Acts  xvii.  5-8,  the  "  town -clerk  "  and  the  as- 
 sembly at  Ephesus,  Acts  xix.  35,  39  (C.  and  H 
 Life  of  !<t.  Paul,  i.  357,  ii.  79).  Occasionally 
 but  rarely,  free  cities  were  exempted  from  taxa 
 tion.  Other  cities  were  "  Colonies,"  i.  e.  conunu 
 nities  of  Roman  citizens  transplanted,  like  garri 
 sons  of  the  imperial  city,  into  a  foreign  land 
 Such  was  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  12).  Such,  too, 
 were  Corinth,  Troas,  the  Pisidian  Antioch.  The 
 inhalntants  were  for  the  most  part  Romans  (Acts 
 xvi.  21),  and  their  magistrates  delighted  in  the  Ro- 
 man title  of  Praetor  (aTpaT7)'y6s)i  and  in  the  at- 
 tendance of  lictors  (pa^Sovxol),  'Acts  xvi.  35.  (C. 
 and  H.  i.  315.) 
 
 Augustus  divided  the  provinces  into  two  classes, 
 (1)  Imperial,  (2)  Senatorial;  retaining  in  his  own 
 hands,  for  obvious  reasons,  those  provinces  where 
 the  presence  of  a  large  military  force  was  neces- 
 sary, and  committing  the  peaceful  and  unarmed 
 provinces  to  the  Senate.  The  Imperial  provinces 
 at  first  were  —  Gaul,  Lusitania,  Syria,  Phoenicia, 
 Cilicia,  ( 'j  prus,  and  .(Egypt.  The  Senatorial  prov- 
 inces were  Africa,  Numidia,  Asia,  Achisa  and 
 Epirus,  Dalmatia,  Macedonia,  Sicily,  Crete  and 
 Cyrene,  Bithynia  and  Pontus,  Sardinia,  Bwtica 
 (Dion  C.  liii.  12).  Cyprus  and  Gallia  Narboneh- 
 sis  were  subsequently  given  up  by  Augustus,  who 
 in  turn  received  Dalmatia  from  the  Senate.  Many 
 other  changes  were  made  afterwards.  The  N.  T. 
 writers  invariably  designate  the  governors  of  Sen- 
 atorial provinces  Ijy  the  correct  title  of  avBvira- 
 TOi,  proconsuls  (Acts  xiii.  7,  xviii.  12,  xix.  38). 
 [Cypkus.]  For  the  governor  of  an  Imperial  prov- 
 ince, properly  styled  "  Legatus  Ceesaris  "  {irpea- 
 ^ei/TTjs),  the  word  rjyefMciv  (Governor)  is  used  in 
 the  N.  T. 
 
 The  provinces  were  heavily  taxed  for  the  benefit 
 of  Rome  and  her  citizens.  "  It  was  as  if  England 
 were  to  defray  the  expenses  of  her  own  administra- 
 tion by  the  proceeds  of  a  tax  levied  on  her  Indian 
 empire"  (Liddell,  ffist.  of  Pome,  i.  448).  In  old 
 times  the  Roman  revenues  were  raised  mainly  from 
 three  sources:  (1.)  The  domain  lands;  (2.)  A  di- 
 rect tax  (tributuni)  levied  upon  every  citizen;  (3.) 
 From  customs,  tolls,  harbor  duties,  etc.  The  agra- 
 rian law  of  Julius  CfEsar  is  said  to  have  extin- 
 guished the  first  source  of  revenue  (Cic.  ad  Att.  ii. 
 xvi.;  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  ii.  430).  Roman  citi- 
 zens had  ceased  to  pay  direct  taxes  since  the  con- 
 quest of  Macedonia,  b.  c.  167  (Cic.  de  Off.  ii.  22; 
 Plut.  ^mil.  Paid.  38),  except  in  extraordinary 
 emergencies.  The  main  part  of  the  Roman  revenue 
 was  now  drawn  from  the  provinces  by  a  direct  tax 
 (Krtvffos,  (popos.  Matt.  xxii.  17,  Luke  xx.  22), 
 amounting  probal)ly  to  from  5  to  7  per  cent,  on  the 
 estimated  produce  of  the  soil  (Dureau  de  la  ISIalle, 
 ii.  418).  The  indirect  taxes  too  (re'/^Tj,  recliijnlia, 
 Matt.  xvii.  25;  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  ii.  449)  appear 
 to  have  been  very  heavy  (I/nd.  ii.  433,  448).  Au- 
 gustus on  coming  to  the  empire  found  the  regular 
 sources  of  revenue  impaired,  while  his  expenses 
 must  have  been  very  great.     To  say  nothing  of  the 
 
ROMAN    EMPIRE 
 
 pay  of  the  army,  he  is  said  to  have  supported  no 
 less  than  200,000  citizens  in  idleness  by  the  miser- 
 able system  of  public  u;ratuities.  Hence  the  neces- 
 sity of  a  careful  valuation  of  the  property  of  the 
 whole  empire,  which  appears  to  have  been  made 
 more  than  once  in  his  reign.  [Census.]  For  the 
 historical  difficulty  about  the  taxing  in  Luke  ii.  1, 
 see  Cyrknius.  Auj^ustus  appears  to  have  raised 
 both  the  direct  and  indirect  taxes  (Dureau  de  la 
 Malle,  ii.  433,  448). 
 
 The  provinces  are  said  to  have  been  better  gov- 
 erned under  the  Empire  than  under  the  Common- 
 wealth, and  those  of  the  emperor  better  than  those 
 of  the  Senate  (Tac.  An?i.  i.  70,  iv.  6;  Dion,  liii. 
 14).  Two  important  changes  were  introduced  un- 
 der the  Empire.  The  governors  received  a  fixed 
 pay,  and  the  term  of  their  command  was  prolonged 
 (.Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  5).  But  the  old  mode  of 
 levying  the  taxes  seems  to  have  been  continued. 
 The  companies  who  farmed  the  taxes,  consisting 
 generally  of  knights,  paid  a  certain  sum  into  the 
 Koman  treasury,  and  proceeded  to  wring  what  they 
 could  from  the  provincials,  often  with  the  conniv- 
 ance and  support  of  the  provincial  governor.  The 
 work  was  done  chiefly  by  underlings  of  the  lowest 
 class  (portitores).  These  are  the  publicans  of  the 
 N.  T. 
 
 On  the  whole  it  seems  doubtful  whether  the 
 wrongs  of  the  provinces  can  have  been  materially 
 alleviated  under  the  imperial  goverinnent.  It  is 
 not  likely  that  such  rulers  as  Caligula  and  Nero 
 would  be  scrupulous  about  the  means  used  for  re- 
 plenishing their  treasury.  The  stories  related  even 
 of  the  reign  of  Augustus  show  how  slight  were 
 the  checks  on  the  t3ranny  of  provincial  governors. 
 See  the  story  of  Licinus  in  Gaul  {Diet,  of  Gr.  and 
 Rom.  Biog.  sub  voce),  and  that  of  the  Dalmatian 
 chief  (Dion,  Iv.).  The  sufferings  of  St.  Paul,  pro- 
 tected as  he  was  to  a  certain  extent  by  his  Roman 
 citizenship,  show  plainly  liow  little  a  provincial  had 
 to  hope  from  the  justice  of  a  Roman  governor. 
 
 It  is  impossible  here  to  discuss  the  difficult  ques- 
 tion relating  to  Roman  provincial  government 
 raised  on  John  xviii.  31.  It  may  be  sufficient  here 
 to  state,  that  according  to  strict  Roman  law  the 
 Jews  would  lose  the  power  of  life  and  death  when 
 their  comitry  became  a  province,  and  there  seems 
 no  sufficient  reason  to  depart  from  the  literal  in- 
 terpretation of  the  verse  just  cited.  See  Alford, 
 in  I.  c.  On  the  other  side  see  Biscoe,  On  the  Acts, 
 p.  113. 
 
 The  condition  of  the  Roman  Empire  at  the  time 
 when  Christianity  appeared  has  often  been  dwelt 
 upon,  as  affording  obvious  illustrations  of  St.  Paul's 
 expression  that  the  "  fullness  of  time  had  come  " 
 (Gal.  iv.  4).  The  general  peace  within  the  limits 
 of  the  Empire,  the  formation  of  military  roads,  the 
 suppression  of  piracy,  the  march  of  the  legions,  the 
 voyages  of  the  corn  fleets,  the  general  increase  of 
 traflic,  the  spread  of  the  Latin  language  in  the 
 West  as  Greek  had  already  spread  in  the  East,  the 
 external  unity  of  the  Empire,  offered  facilities  hith- 
 erto unknown  for  the  spread  of  a  world-wide  relig- 
 ion. The  tendency,  too,  of  a  desiwtism  like  that 
 of  the  Roman  Empire  to  reduce  all  its  subjects  to 
 *  dead  level,  was  a  powerful  instrument  in  breaking 
 down  the  pride  of  privileged  races  and  national 
 religions,  and  familiarizing  men  with  the  truth  that 
 '•  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  on  the 
 face  of  the  earth"  (Acts  xvii.  24,  26).  But  still 
 more  striking  than  this  outward  preparation  for  the 
 diffusion  of  the  Gospel  was  the  appearance  of  a  deep 
 
 ROMAN   EMPIRE 
 
 2743 
 
 and  wide-spread  corruption  which  seemed  to  defy 
 any  human  remedy.  It  would  be  easy  to  accumu- 
 late proofs  of  the  moral  and  political  degradation 
 of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire.  It  is  needless 
 to  do  more  than  allude  to  the  corruption,  the 
 cruelty,  the  sensuality,  the  monstrous  and  unnat- 
 ural wickedness  of  the  period  as  revealed  in  the 
 heathen  historians  and  satirists.  "  Viewed  as  a 
 national  or  political  history,"  says  the  great  his- 
 torian of  Rome,  "  the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire 
 is  sad  and  discouraging  in  the  last  degree.  We 
 see  that  things  had  come  to  a  point  at  which  no 
 earthly  power  could  afford  any  help;  we  now  have 
 the  development  of  dead  powers  instead  of  that  of 
 a  vital  energy"  (Niebuhr,  Lect.  v.  194).  Not- 
 withstanding the  outward  appearance  of  peace, 
 unity,  and  reviving  prosperity,  the  general  condi- 
 tion of  the  people  must  have  been  one  of  great 
 misery.  To  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  probably 
 one-half  of  tlie  population  consisted  of  slaves,  the 
 great  inequality  of  wealth  at  a  time  when  a  whole 
 province  could  be  owned  by  six  landowners,  the 
 absence  of  any  middle  class,  the  utter  want  of  any 
 institutions  for  alleviating  distress  such  as  are  found 
 in  all  Christian  countries,  the  inhuman  tone  of 
 feeling  and  practice  generally  prevailing,  forbid  us 
 to  think  favorably  of  the  happiness  of  the  world 
 in  the  famous  Augustan  age.  We  must  remember 
 that  "  there  were  no  public  hospitals,  no  institu- 
 tions for  the  relief  of  the  infirm  and  poor,  no 
 societies  for  the  improvement  of  tlie  condition  of 
 mankind  from  motives  of  charity.  Nothing  was 
 done  to  promote  the  instruction  of  the  lower  classes, 
 nothing  to  mitigate  the  miseries  of  domestic  slavery. 
 (Jharity  and  general  philanthropy  were  so  little  re- 
 garded as  duties,  that  it  requires  a  very  extensive 
 acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  the  times  to 
 find  any  allusion  to  them  "  (Arnold's  Lattfv  Roman 
 CommunwealtJi,  ii.  398).  If  we  add  to  this  that 
 there  was  probably  not  a  single  religion,  except  the 
 Jewish,  winch  was  felt  by  the  more  enlightened 
 part  of  its  professors  to  be  real,  we  may  form  some 
 notion  of  the  world  which  Christianity  had  to 
 reform  and  purify.  We  venture  to  quote  an  elo- 
 quent description  of  its  "  slow,  imperceptible,  con- 
 tinuous aggression  on  the  heathenism  of  the  Roman 
 Empire." 
 
 "  Christianity  was  gradually  withdrawing  some 
 of  all  Qrders,  even  slaves,  out  of  the  vices,  the 
 ignorance,  the  misery  of  that  corrupted  social  sys- 
 tem. It  was  ever  instilling  feelings  of  humanity, 
 yet  unknown  or  coldly  commended  by  an  impotent 
 philosophy,  among  men  and  women  whose  infant 
 ears  had  been  habituated  to  the  shrieks  of  dying 
 gladiators;  it  was  giving  dignity  to  minds  pros- 
 trated by  years,  almost  centuries,  of  degrading 
 despotism;  it  was  nurturing  purity  and  modesty 
 of  manners  in  an  unspeakable  state  of  depravation ; 
 it  was  enshrining  the  marriage-bed  in  a  sanctity 
 long  almost  entirely  lost,  and  rekindling  to  a  steady 
 warmth  the  domestic  affections;  it  was  substituting 
 a  simple,  calm,  and  rational  faith  for  the  worn-out 
 superstitions  of  heathenism ;  gently  establishing  in 
 the  soul  of  man  the  sense  of  immortality,  till  it 
 became  a  natural  and  inextinguishable  part  of 
 his  moral  being "  (Milman's  Latin  Christianity, 
 i.  24). 
 
 The  chief  prophetic  notices  of  the  Roman  Empire 
 are  found  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  especially  Li  ch. 
 xi.  30-40,  and  in  ii.  40,  vii.  7,  17-19,  according  to 
 the  common  interpretation  of  the  "  fourth  king- 
 dom; "  comp.  2  Esdr.  xi.  1,  but  see  Daniel.     Ac- 
 
274-i     ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 ^  cording  to  some  interpreters  the  Romans  are  in- 
 tended in  Deut.  xxviii.  49-57.  For  the  mystical 
 notices  of  Rome  in  the  Revelation  comp.  Rome. 
 
 J.  J.  H. 
 *  On  the  general  subject  of  the  preceding  article, 
 see  ]\Ieri\ale'3  History  of  the  Roman  JJinjnre,  espe- 
 cially vol.  vi.  H. 
 
 ROMANS,  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 
 1.  The  diite  of  this  epistle  is  fixed  with  more  al)- 
 solute  certainty  and  within  narrower  limits,  than 
 that  of  any  other  of  St.  Paul's  epistles.  The  fol- 
 lowing considerations  determine  the  time  of  writing. 
 First.  Certain  names  in  the  sahitations  point  to 
 Corinth,  as  the  place  from  which  the  letter  was 
 sent.  (1.)  Phcebe,  a  deaconess  of  Cenchrese,  one 
 of  the  port  towns  of  Corinth,  is  commended  to  the 
 Romans  (xvi.  1,  2).  (2.)  Gains,  in  whose  house 
 St.  Paul  was  lodged  at  the  time  (xvi.  2.3),  is  prob- 
 al)ly  tlie  person  mentioned  as  one  of  the  chief 
 members  of  the  Corinthian  Church  in  1  Cor.  i.  14, 
 though  the  name  was  very  common.  Qi.)  Erastus, 
 here  designated  "  the  treasurer  of  the  city  "  (oi/co- 
 vSfxos,  xvi.  23,  E.  V.  "chamberlain  ")  is  elsewhere 
 mentioned  in  connection  with  Corinth  (2  Tim.  iv. 
 20;  see  also  Acts  xix.  22).  Secondly.  Having  thus 
 determined  the  place  of  writing  to  be  Corinth,  we 
 have  no  hesitation  in  fixing  upon  the  visit  recorded 
 in  Acts  XX.  3,  during  the  winter  and  spring  fol- 
 lowing the  Apostle's  long  residence  at  Ephesus,  as 
 the  occasion  on  which  the  epistle  was  written. 
 For  St.  Paul,  when  he  wrote  the  letter,  was  on  the 
 point  of  carrying  the  contributions  of  JIacedonia 
 and  Achaia  to  Jerusalem  (xv.  25-27),  and  a  com- 
 parison with  Acts  XX.  22,  xxiv.  17,  and  also  1  Cor. 
 xvi.  4;  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  2,  ix.  1  ff.,  shows  that  he  was 
 so  engaged  at  this  period  of  his  life.  (See  Paley's 
 Horce  Pmdince,  ch.  ii.  §  1.)  Moreover,  in  this 
 epistle  he  declares  his  intention  of  visiting  the 
 Romans  after  he  has  been  at  .lerusalem  (xv.  23- 
 25).  and  that  such  was  his  design  at  this  par- 
 ticular time  appears  from  a  casual  notice  in  Acts 
 xix.  21. 
 
 The  epistle  then  was  written  from  Corinth  during 
 St.  Paul's  third  missionary  journey,  on  the  occa- 
 sion of  the  second  of  the  two  visits  recorded  in  the 
 Acts.  On  this  occasion  he  remained  three  months 
 in  Greece  (Acts  xx.  3).  When  he  left,  the  sea 
 was  already  navigable,  for  he  was  on  the  point  of 
 sailing  for  Jerusalem  when  he  was  obliged  to  change 
 his  plans.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  have  been 
 late  in  the  spririf;,  because  after  passing  through 
 Macedonia  and  visiting  several  places  on  the  coast 
 of  Asia  Minor,  he  still  hoped  to  reach  Jerusalem 
 by  Pentecost  (xx.  16).  It  was  therefore  in  the 
 winter  or  early  spring  of  the  year  that  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Romans  was  written.  According  to  the 
 most  probable  system  of  chronology,  adopted  by 
 Anger  and  VVieseler,  this  would  be  the  year  b.  c. 
 58. 
 
 2.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  thus  placed  in 
 chnmolo'iicnl  connection  with  the  epistles  to  the 
 Galatians  and  Corinthians,  which  appear  to  have 
 been  written  within  the  twelve  months  preceding. 
 The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written 
 before  St.  Paul  left  Ephesus,  the  Second  from 
 Macedonia  when  he  was  on  his  way  to  Corinth,  and 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  most  probably  either 
 in  Macedonia  or  after  his  arrival  at  Corinth,  i.  e. 
 ifter  the  epistles  to  the  C'orinthians,  though  the 
 ('ate  of  the  Galatian  Epistle  is  not  absolutely  cer- 
 tain. [Galatians,  Episti.e  TO  THE.]  We  shall 
 hKve  to  notice  the  relations  existing  between  these 
 
 ROMANS,  EFISTLE   TO   THE 
 
 contemporaneous  epistles  hereafter.  At  present  it 
 will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  they  present  a  remark- 
 able resemblance  to  each  other  in  style  and  matter 
 —  a  much  greater  resemblance  than  can  be  traced 
 to  any  other  of  St.  I'aul's  epistles.  They  are  at 
 once  the  most  intense  and  most  varied  in  feeling 
 and  expression  —  if  we  may  so  say,  the  most  Pau- 
 line of  all  St.  Paul's  epistles.  When  Baur  excepts 
 these  four  epistles  alone  from  his  sweeping  con- 
 demnation of  the  genuineness  of  all  the  letters 
 bearing  St.  Paul's  name  {Pmdtis,  der  Apvstel)  this 
 is  a  mere  caricature  of  sober  criticism;  but  under- 
 lying this  erroneous  exaggeration  is  the  fact,  that 
 the  epistles  of  this  period  —  St.  Paul's  third  mis- 
 sionary journey —  have  a  character  and  an  intensity 
 peculiarly  their  own,  coiresponding  to  the  circum- 
 stances of  the  Apostle's  outward  and  inwnrd  life  at 
 the  time  when  they  were  written.  For  the  special 
 characteristics  of  this  group  of  epistles,  see  a  paper 
 on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  the  Journal  of 
 Class,  and  Sacr.  Phil.,  iii.  p.  289. 
 
 3.  The  occasion  which  prompted  this  epistle, 
 and  the  circumst.nnces  attending  its  writing,  were 
 as  follows.  St.  Paul  had  long  purposed  visiting 
 Rome,  and  still  retained  this  purpose,  wishing  also 
 to  extend  his  journey  to  Spain  (i.  9-13,  xv.  22-29); 
 for  the  time,  however,  he  was  prevented  from  car- 
 rying out  his  design,  as  he  was  Ijound  for  Jeru- 
 salem with  the  alms  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  and 
 meanwhile  he  addressed  this  letter  to  the  Romans, 
 to  supply  the  lack  of  his  personal  teaching.  Phoebe, 
 a  deaconess  of  the  neighboring  church  of  Cenchrete, 
 was  on  the  point  of  starting  for  Rome  (xvi.  1,  2), 
 and  probably  con^•eyed  the  letter.  The  body  of  the 
 epistle  was  written  at  the  Apostle's  dictation  by 
 Tertius  (xvi.  22):  but  j^erhaps  we  may  infer  from 
 the  abruptness  of  the  final  doxology,  that  it  was 
 added  by  the  Apostle  himself,  njore  especially  as  we 
 gather  from  other  epistles  that  it  was  his  practice 
 to  conclude  with  a  few  striking  words  in  his  own 
 handwriting,  to  vouch  for  the  authorship  of  the 
 letter,  and  frequently  also  to  impress  some  important 
 truth  more  strongly  on  his  readers. 
 
 4.  The  orif/in  (f  the  Roman  Church  is  involved 
 in  ol)scurity.  If  it  had  been  founded  by  St.  Peter, 
 according  to  a  later  tradition,  the  absence  of  any 
 allusion  to  him  both  in  this  epistle  and  in  the 
 letters  written  by  St.  Paul  from  Rome  would  admit 
 of  no  explanation.  It  is  equally  clear  that  no 
 other  Apostle  was  the  foimder.  In  this  very  epis- 
 tle, and  in  close  connection  with  the  mention  of 
 his  proposed  visit  to  Rome,  the  Apostle  declares 
 that  it  was  his  riUe  not  to  build  on  another  man's 
 foundation  (xv.  20),  and  we  cannot  sui)pose  that 
 he  violated  it  in  this  instance.  Again,  he  speaks 
 of  the  Romans  as  especially  Ailling  to  his  share  as 
 the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  (i.  13),  with  an  evident 
 reference  to  the  partition  of  the  field  of  labor  be- 
 tween himself  and  St.  Peter,  mentioned  in  Gal.  ii. 
 7-9.  IMoreover,  when  he  declares  his  wish  to  im- 
 part some  spiritual  gift  (xa.pi(T/j.a)  to  them,  "  that 
 they  might  be  established"  (i.  11),  this  implies 
 that  they  had  not  yet  been  visited  by  an  Apostle, 
 and  that  St.  Paul  contemplated  supplying  the 
 defect,  as  was  done  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  iu 
 the  analogous  case  of  the  churches  founded  by 
 Philip  in  Samaria  (Acts  viii.  14-17). 
 
 The  statement  in  the  Clementines  (Horn.  i.  §  6) 
 that  the  first  tidings  of  the  (josj)el  reached  Rome 
 during  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord,  is  evidently  a 
 fiction  for  the  purposes  of  the  romance.  On  the 
 other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  the  foundation  of  this 
 
KOmANS,  ElirfTLE  TO  THE 
 
 church  dates  very  far  back.  St.  Paul  in  this 
 epistle  salutes  certain  believers  resident  in  Eoiue  — 
 Andronicus  and  Junia  (or  Junianus?)  —  adding 
 that  they  were  distinguished  among  the  Apostles, 
 and  that  they  were  converted  to  Christ  before  him- 
 self (xvi.  7),  for  such  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of 
 the  passage,  rendered  somewhat  ambiguous  by  the 
 position  of  the  relative  pronouns.  It  may  be  that 
 some  of  those  Honu\ns,  '-both  Jews  and  proselytes," 
 present  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (ol  iniSTJixovvTes 
 'Pccfxaioi,  'lovSaioi  re  koI  iTpo(rr]KvToi,  Acts  ii. 
 10),  carried  back  the  earliest  tidings  of  the  new 
 doctrine,  or  the  Gospel  may  have  first  reached  the 
 imperial  city  through  those  who  were  scattered 
 abroad  to  escape  the  persecution  which  followed  on 
 the  death  of  Stephen  (Acts  viii.  4,  xi.  19).  At 
 all  events,  a  close  and  constant  communication  was 
 kept  up  between  the  Jewish  residents  in  Rome  and 
 their  fellow-countrymen  in  Palestine  by  the  exigen- 
 cies of  commerce,  in  which  they  became  more  and 
 more  engrossed,  as  their  national  hopes  declined, 
 and  by  the  custom  of  repairing  regularly  to  their 
 sacred  festivals  at  Jerusalem.  Again,  the  impe- 
 rial edicts  alternately  banishing  and  recalling  the 
 Jews  (compare  e.  y.  in  the  case  of  Claudius, 
 Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  5,  §  3,  with  Suet.  Claud,  c.  2.5) 
 must  have  kept  up  a  constant  ebb  and  flow  of 
 migration  between  Rome  and  the  East,  and  the 
 case  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (Acts  xviii.  2;  see 
 Paley,  Ilor.  Paul.  c.  ii.  §  2)  probably  represents  a 
 numerous  class  through  whose  means  the  opinions 
 and  doctrines  promulgated  in  Pale.stine  might  reach 
 the  metropolis.  At  first  we  may  suppose  that  the 
 Gospel  was  preached  there  in  a  confused  and  im- 
 perfect form,  scarcely  more  than  a  phase  of  Juda- 
 ism, as  in  the  case  of  Apollos  at  Corinth  (Acts 
 xviii.  25),  or  the  disciples  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix. 
 1-.3).  As  time  advanced  and  better  instructed 
 teachers  arrived,  the  clouds  would  gradually  clear 
 away,  till  at  length  the  presence  of  the  great  Apos- 
 tle himself  at  Rome  disjiersed  the  mists  of  Judaism 
 which  still  hung  about  the  Roman  Church.  Long 
 after  Christianity  had  taken  up  a  position  of  direct 
 antagonism  to  Judaism  in  Rome,  heathen  states- 
 men and  writers  still  persisted  in  confounding  the 
 one  with  the  other.  (See  Merivale,  Hist,  of  Rome, 
 vi.  278,  &c.) 
 
 5.  A  question  next  arises  as  to  the  composition 
 of  the  Roman  Church,  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul 
 \vrote.  Did  the  Apostle  address  a  Jewish  or  a 
 Gentile  community,  or,  if  the  two  elements  were 
 combined,  was  one  or  other  predominant  so  as  to 
 give  a  character  to  the  whole  Church?  Either 
 extreme  has  been  vigorously  maintained,  Baur  for 
 instance  asserting  that  St.  Paul  was  writing  to 
 Jewish  Christians,  Olshausen  arguing  that  the  Ro- 
 man Church  consisted  almost  solely  of  Gentiles. 
 AVe  are  naturally  led  to  seek  the  truth  in  some  in- 
 t«rnieiiiate  position.  Jowett  finds  a  solution  of  the 
 difficulty  in  the  supposition  that  the  members  of 
 the  Roman  Church,  though  Gentiles,  had  passed 
 through  a  phase  of  Jewish  proselytism.  This  will 
 explain  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  epistle,  but 
 not  all.  It  is  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  ad- 
 dressed a  mixed  church  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the 
 latter  perhaps  being  the  more  numerous. 
 
 There  are  certain  passages  which  imply  the 
 presence  of  a  large  number  of  Jewish  converts  to 
 Christianity.  The  use  of  the  second  person  in  ad- 
 dressing the  Jews  (cc.  ii.  and  iii.)  is  clearly  not 
 assumed  merely  for  argumentative  purposes,  but 
 applies  to  a  portion  at  least  of  those  into  whose 
 173 
 
 ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE     2745 
 
 hands  the  letter  would  fall.  The  constant  app  (als 
 to  the  authority  of  "  the  Law  "  may  in  many  cases 
 be  accounted  for  by  the  Jewish  education  of  the 
 Gentile  believers  (so  Jowett,  vol.  ii.  p.  22),  but 
 sometimes  they  seem  too  direct  and  positive  to  ad- 
 mit of  tills  explanation  (iii.  19,  vii.  1).  In  the 
 7th  chapter  St.  Paul  appears  to  be  addressing  .lews, 
 as  those  who  like  himself  had  once  been  under  the 
 dominion  of  the  Law,  but  had  been  delivered  from 
 it  in  Christ  (see  especially  verses  4  and  G).  And 
 when  in  xi.  13,  he  says  "  I  am  speaking  to  you  ^ 
 the  Gentiles,"  this  very  limiting  expression,  "the 
 Gentiles,"  implies  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to 
 not  a  few  to  whom  the  term  would  not  apply. 
 
 Again,  if  we  analyze  the  list  of  names  in  the 
 16th  chapter,  and  assume  that  this  list  approxi- 
 mately represents  the  proportion  of  Jew  and  (jen- 
 tile  in  the  Roman  Church  (an  assumption  at  least 
 not  improliable),  we  arrive  at  the  same  result.  It 
 is  true  that  JMary,  or  rather  Mariam  (xvi.  6)  is 
 the  only  strictly  Jewish  name.  Rut  this  fact  is 
 not  worth  the  stress  apparently  laid  on  it  by  Mr. 
 Jowett  (ii.  p.  27).  For  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (ver. 
 3)  were  Jews  (Acts  xviii.  2,  20),  and  the  church 
 which  met  in  their  house  was  probably  of  the 
 same  nation.  Andronicus  and  Junia  (or  Junias? 
 ver.  7)  are  called  St.  Paul's  kinsmen.  The  same 
 term  is  applied  to  Herodion  (ver.  11).  These  per- 
 sons then  must  have  been  Jews,  whether  "  kins- 
 men "  is  taken  in  the  wider  or  the  more  restricted 
 sense.  The  name  Apelles  (ver.  10),  though  a 
 heathen  name  also,  was  most  commonly  liorne  by 
 .Tews,  as  appears  from  Horace,  Snt.  I.  v.  100.  If 
 the  Aristobulus  of  ver.  10  was  one  of  the  princes 
 of  the  Ilerodian  house,  as  seems  probable,  we  have 
 also  in  "  the  household  of  Aristobulus  "  several 
 Jewish  converts.  Altogether  it  appears  that  a  very 
 large  fraction  of  the  Christian  believers  mentioned 
 in  these  salutations  were  Jews,  even  supposing  that 
 the  others,  bearing  Greek  and  Latin  names,  of 
 whom  we  know  nothing,  were  heathens. 
 
 Nor  does  the  existence  of  a  large  Jewish  ele- 
 ment in  the  Roman  Church  present  any  difficulty. 
 The  captives  carried  to  Rome  by  Pompeius  formed 
 the  nucleus  of  the  Jewish  population  in  the  metropo- 
 lis [Rome].  Since  that  time  they  had  largely  in- 
 creased. During  the  reign  of  Augustus  we  liear 
 of  above  8,000  resident  Jews  attaching  tliemsehes 
 to  a  .Jewish  embassy  which  appealed  to  this  emperor 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  11,  §  1).  The  same  emperor 
 gave  them  a  quarter  beyond  the  Tiber,  and  allowed 
 them  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion  (Philo,  Leg. 
 ad  Caiuin,  p.  508  M.).  About  the  time  when  St. 
 Paul  wrote,  Seneca,  speaking  of  the  influence  of 
 .Judaism,  echoes  the  famous  expression  of  Horace 
 (/y;.  ii.  1, 156)  respecting  the  Greeks  —  "  victi  vic- 
 toribus  leges  dederunt "  (Seneca,  in  Augustin,  de. 
 Civ.  Dn,  vi.  11).  And  the  bitter  satire  of  Juvenal 
 and  indignant  complaints  of  Tacitus  of  the  spread 
 of  the  infection  through  Roman  society,  are  well 
 known. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  situated  in  the  metropolis  of 
 the  great  empire  of  heathendom,  the  Roman  Church 
 must  necessarily  have  been  in  great  measure  a  (ien- 
 tile  Church ;  and  the  language  of  the  epistie  liears 
 out  this  supposition.  It  is  professedly  as  the  Apos- 
 tle of  the  Gentiles  that  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Ro- 
 mans (i.  5).  He  hopes  to  have  some  fruit  among 
 them,  as  he  had  among  the  other  Gentiles  (i.  13). 
 Later  on  in  the  epistle  he  speaks  of  the  Jews  in  the 
 third  person,  as  if  addressing  Gentiles,  '•  1  could 
 wish  that  myself  were  accursed  for   my  brethren, 
 
274G    ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 my  kinsmen  after  the  flesh,  who  are  Israelites,  etc." 
 (ix.  3,  4).  And  again,  "my  heart's  desire  and 
 prayer  to  God  for  them  is  that  they  might  he 
 saved  "  (x.  1,  the  right  reading  is  u-irlp  ainSiv, 
 not  vTTfp  rov  'lo-par/A  as  in  the  Received  Text) 
 Compare  also  xi.  23,  25,  and  especially  xi.  30, 
 "  For  as  ye  in  times  past  did  not  helieve  God,  . 
 so  did  these  also  (L  e.  the  Jews)  now  not 
 believe,"  etc.  In  all  these  passages  St.  Paul  clearly 
 addresses  himself  to  Gentile  readers. 
 
 These  Gentile  converts,  however,  were  not  for 
 the  most  part  native  Romans.  Strange  as  tlie 
 paradox  appears,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that 
 the  Church  of  Rome  was  at  this  time  a  Greek  and 
 not  a  Latin  Church.  It  is  clearly  established  that 
 the  early  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Testament  were 
 made  not  for  the  use  of  Rome,  but  of  the  provinces, 
 especially  Africa  (Westcott,  Canon,  p.  209).  AU 
 the  literature  of  the  early  Roman  Church  was 
 written  in  the  Greek  tongue.  The  names  of  the 
 bishops  of  Rome  during  the  first  two  centuries  are 
 with  but  few  exceptions  Greek.  (See  Milraan, 
 Latin  Christ,  i.  27.)  And  in  accordance  with 
 these  facts  we  find  that  a  very  large  proportion  of 
 the  names  in  the  salutations  of  this  epistle  are 
 Greek  names;  while  of  the  exceptions,  Priscilla, 
 Aquila,  and  Junia  (or  Junias),  were  certainly  Jews; 
 and  the  same  is  true  of  Rnfus,  if,  as  is  not  improb- 
 able, he  is  the  same  mentioned  Mark  xv.  2L  Julia 
 was  probably  a  dependent  of  the  imperial  house- 
 hold, and  derived  her  name  accordingly.  The  only 
 Roman  names  remaining  are  Amplias  (i.  e.  Ampli- 
 atus)  and  Urbanus,  of  whom  nothing  is  known, 
 but  their  names  are  of  late  growth,  and  certainly 
 do  not  point  to  an  old  Roman  stock.  It  was  there- 
 fore from  the  Greek  population  of  Rome,  pure  or 
 mixed,  that  the  Gentile  portion  of  the  Church  was 
 almost  entirely  drawn.  And  this  might  be  ex- 
 pected. The  Greeks  formed  a  very  considerable 
 fraction  of  the  whole  people  of  Rome.  They  were 
 the  most  busy  and  adventurous,  and  also  the  most 
 intelligent  of  the  middle  and  lower  classes  of  society. 
 The  influence  which  they  were  acquiring  by  their 
 numbers  and  versatility  is  a  constant  theme  of  re- 
 proach in  the  Roman  philosopher  and  satirist  (Juv. 
 iii.  60-80,  vi.  184;  Tac.  de  Orat.  29).  They  com- 
 plain that  the  national  character  is  undermined, 
 that  the  whole  city  has  become  Greek.  Speaking 
 the  language  of  international  intercourse,  and 
 brought  by  their  restless  habits  into  contact  with 
 foreign  reli<;ions,  the  (ireeks  had  larger  opportuni- 
 ties tlian  others  of  acquainting  themselves  with  the 
 truths  of  the  Gospel :  while  at  the  same  time  hold- 
 ing more  loosely  to  traditional  beliefs,  and  with 
 minds  naturally  more  inquiring,  they  would  be 
 more  ready  to  welcome  these  truths  when  they 
 came  in  their  way.  At  all  events,  for  whatever 
 reason,  the  Gentile  converts  at  Rome  were  Greeks, 
 not  Romans:  and  it  was  an  unfortunate  conjecture 
 on  the  part  of  the  transcriber  of  the  Syriac  Reshito, 
 that  this  letter  was  written  "  in  the  Latin  tongue," 
 
 (iT'SQTn).     Every  line  in  the  epistle    bespeaks 
 an  original. 
 
 When  we  inquire  into  the  probable  rank,  and 
 station  of  the  Roman  believers,  an  analysis  of  the 
 names  in  the  list  of  salutations  again  gives  an  ap- 
 proximate answer.  These  names  belong  for  the 
 most  part  to  the  middle  and  lower  grades  of  society. 
 Many  of  them  are  found  in  the  columbaria  of  the 
 frcedmen  and  slaves  of  the  early  Roman  emperors. 
 I'Sce  Journal  of  Class,  and  ISacr.  Phil.  iv.  p.  57.) 
 
 ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 It  would  be  too  much  to  assume  that  they  were 
 the  same  persons,  but  at  all  events  the  identity  of 
 names  points  to  the  same  social  rank.  Among  the 
 less  wealthy  merchants  and  tradesmen,  among  the 
 petty  officers  of  the  army,  among  the  slaves  and 
 treedmen  of  the  imperial  palace  —  whether  Jews  or 
 Greeks  —  the  Gospel  would  first  find  a  firm  footing. 
 To  this  last  class  allusion  is  made  in  Phil.  iv.  22, 
 "  they  that  are  of  Cfesar's  household."  From  these 
 it  would  gradually  work  upwards  and  downwards; 
 but  we  may  be  sure  that  in  respect  of  rank  the 
 Church  of  Rome  was  no  exception  to  the  general 
 rule,  that  '•  not  many  wise,  not  many  mighty,  not 
 many  noble"  were  called  (1  Cor.  i.  26). 
 
 It  seems  probable  from  what  has  been  said  above, 
 that  the  Roman  Church  at  this  time  was  composed 
 of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  nearly  equal  portions. 
 This  fact  finds  expression  in  the  account,  whether 
 true  or  false,  which  represents  St.  Peter  and  St. 
 Paul  as  presiding  at  the  same  time  over  the  Church 
 at  Rome  (Dionys.  Cor.  ajj.  Euseb.  H.  K.  ii.  25; 
 Iren.  iii.  3).  Possibly  also  the  discrepancies  in  the 
 lists  of  the  early  bishops  of  Rome  may  find  a  solu- 
 tion (Pearson,  Minor  TheuL  Works,  ii.  449;  Bun- 
 sen,  Hipjxili/liis,  i.  p.  44)  in  the  joint  Episcopate  of 
 Linus  and  Cletus,  the  one  ruling  over  the  Jewish, 
 the  other  over  the  Gentile  congregation  of  the  me- 
 tropolis. If  this  conjecture  be  accepted,  it  is  an 
 important  testimony  to  the  view  here  maintained, 
 though  we  cannot  suppose  that  in  St.  Paul's  time 
 the  two  elements  of  the  Roman  Church  had  dis- 
 tinct organizations. 
 
 6.  The  heterogeneous  composition  of  this  church 
 explains  the  general  character  oj'  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Romans.  In  an  assemblage  so  \arious,  we  should 
 expect  to  find  not  the  exclusive  predominance  of  a 
 single  form  of  error,  but  the  coincidence  of  dif- 
 ferent and  opposing  forms.  The  Gospel  had  here 
 to  contend  not  specially  with  Judaism  nor  specially 
 with  heathenism,  but  with  both  together.  It  was 
 therefore  the  business  of  the  Christian  Teacher  to 
 reconcile  the  opposing  difficulties  and  to  hold  out 
 a  meeting  point  in  the  Gospel.  This  is  exactly 
 what  St.  Paul  does  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
 and  what  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case  he  was 
 well  enabled  to  do.  He  was  addressing  a  large 
 and  varied  community  which  had  not  been  founded 
 by  himself,  and  with  which  he  had  had  no  direct  in- 
 tercourse. Again,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  letter 
 was  specially  written  to  answer  any  doubts  or  set- 
 tle any  controversies  then  rife  in  the  Roman  Church. 
 There  were  therefore  no  disturbing  influences,  such 
 as  arise  out  of  personal  relations,  or  peculiar  cir- 
 cumstances, to  derange  a  general  and  systematic 
 exposition  of  the  nature  and  working  of  the  Gos- 
 pel. At  the  same  time  the  vast  importance  of  the 
 metropolitan  Church,  which  could  not  have  been 
 overlooked  even  by  an  uninspired  teacher,  naturally 
 pointed  it  out  to  the  Apostle,  as  the  fittest  body  to 
 whom  to  address  such  an  exposition.  Thus  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  more  of  a  treatise  than  of 
 a  letter.  If  we  remove  the  personal  allusions  in 
 the  opening  verses,  and  the  salutations  at  the  close, 
 it  seems  not  more  particularly  addressed  to  the 
 Church  of  Rome,  than  to  any  other  church  of 
 Christendom.  In  this  respect  it  diflfers  widely 
 from  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians, 
 with  which  as  being  written  about  the  same  time 
 it  may  most  fairly  be  compared,  and  which  are  full 
 of  personal  and  direct  allusions.  In  one  instance 
 alone  we  seem  to  trace  a  special  reference  to  the 
 church   of  the   metropohs.      The   injunction   of 
 
ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 nlie'lience  to  temporal  rulers  (xiii.  1)  would  most 
 fitly  be  addressed  to  a  congregation  brought  face 
 to  face  with  the  imperial  government,  and  the 
 more  so,  as  Rome  had  recently  been  the  scene  of 
 frequent  disturbances,  on  the  part  of  either  Jews  or 
 Christians,  arising  out  of  a  feverish  and  restless  an- 
 ticipation of  Messiah's  coming  (Suet.  Cl<md.  25). 
 Other  apparent  exceptions  admit  of  a  different  ex- 
 planation. 
 
 7.  This  explanation  is  in  fact  to  be  sought  in  its 
 relition  to  the  conlenipuraneoiis  epistles.  The 
 letter  to  the  Romans  closes  the  group  of  epistles 
 written  during  the  second  missionary  journey.  This 
 group  contains  besides,  as  already  mentioned,  the 
 letters  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  written 
 probably  within  the  few  montlis  preceding.  At 
 Corinth,  the  capital  of  Achaia,  and  the  stronghold 
 of  heatliendoni,  the  Gospel  would  encounter  its  se- 
 verest struggle  with  Gentile  vices  and  prejudices. 
 In  Galatia,  which  either  from  natural  sympathy  or 
 from  close  contact  seems  to  have  been  more  ex- 
 posed to  Jewish  influence  than  any  other  church 
 within  St.  Paul's  sphere  of  labor,  it  had  a  sharp 
 contest  with  Judaism.  In  the  epistles  to  these 
 two  churches  we  study  the  attitude  of  the  Gospel 
 towards  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  world  respectively. 
 These  letters  are  direct  and  special.  They  are 
 evoked  by  present  emergencies,  are  directed  against 
 actual  evils,  are  full  of  personal  applications.  The 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  sunmiary  of  what  he 
 had  written  before,  the  result  of  his  dealing  with 
 the  two  antagonistic  forms  of  error,  the  gatheiing 
 together  of  the  fragmentary  teaching  in  the  Co- 
 rinthian and  Galatian  letters.  What  is  there  im- 
 mediate, in-egular,  and  of  partial  application,  is 
 here  arranged  and  completed,  and  thrown  into  a 
 general  form.  Thus  on  the  one  hand  his  treat- 
 ment of  the  Mosaic  law  points  to  the  difficulties  he 
 encountered  in  dealing  with  the  Galatian  Church, 
 while  on  the  other  his  cautions  against  antinomian 
 excesses  (Rom.  vi.  15,  &c.),  and  his  precepts  against 
 giving  offense  in  the  matter  of  meats  and  the  ob- 
 servance of  days  (Rom.  xiv.),  remind  us  of  the 
 errors  which  he  had  to  correct  in  his  Corinthian 
 converts.  (Compare  1  Cor.  vi.  12  ff.,  and  1  Cor. 
 viii.  1  ff.)  Those  injunctions  then  which  seem  at 
 first  sight  special,  appear  not  to  be  directed  against 
 any  actual  known  failings  in  the  Roman  Church, 
 but  to  be  suggested  by  the  possibility  of  those  ir- 
 regularities occurring  in  Rome  which  he  had  al- 
 ready encountered  elsewhere. 
 
 8.  Viewing  this  epistle  then  rather  in  the  light 
 of  a  treatise  than  of  a  letter,  we  are  enabled  to 
 explain  certain  phenomenn  in  the  text.  In  the 
 received  text  a  doxology  stands  at  the  close  of  the 
 epistle  (xvi.  25-27).  The  preponderance  of  evi- 
 dence is  in  favor  of  this  position,  but  there  is 
 respectable  authority  for  placing  it  at  the  end  of 
 eh.  xiv.  In  some  texts  again  it  is  found  in  both 
 places,  while  others  omit  it  entirely.  How  can  we 
 account  for  this?  It  has  been  thought  by  some  to 
 discredit  the  genuineness  of  the  doxology  itself: 
 but  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  this  view.  The 
 arguments  against  its  genuineness  on  the  ground 
 of  style,  advanced  by  Reiche,  are  met  and  refuted 
 by  Fritzsche  {Kvm.  vol.  i.  p.  xxxv.).  Baur  goes 
 still  further,  and  rejects  the  two  last  chapters ;  but 
 «uch  an  inference  falls  without  the  range  of  sober 
 triticism.  The  phenomena  of  the  MSS.  seem  best 
 explained  by  supposing  that  the  letter  was  circu- 
 lated at  an  early  date  (whether  during  the  Apostle's 
 iifetime  or  not  it  is  idle  to  inquire)  in  two  forms, 
 
 ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE     2747 
 
 both  with  and  without  the  two  last  chapters.  In 
 the  shorter  form  it  was  divested  as  far  as  possible 
 of  its  epistolary  character  by  abstracting  the  per- 
 sonal matter  addressed  especially  to  the  Romans, 
 the  doxology  being  retained  at  the  close.  A  still 
 further  attempt  to  strip  this  epistle  of  any  special 
 references  is  found  in  MS.  G,  which  omits  eV  'Pct';U?f 
 (i.  7),  and  rols  eV  'Pcoyujy  (i-  15),  for  it  is  to  be 
 observed  at  the  same  time  that  this  MS.  omits  the 
 doxology  entirely,  and  leaves  a  space  after  eh.  xiv. 
 This  view  is  somewhat  confirmed  by  the  parallel 
 case  of  the  opening  of  the  Epliesian  Epistle,  in 
 which  there  is  very  high  authority  for  omitting 
 the  words  iv  'E<(>€acf>.  and  which  bears  strong 
 marks  of  having  been  intended  for  a  circular 
 letter. 
 
 9.  In  describing  the  purport  of  this  epistle  we 
 may  start  from  St.  Paul's  own  words,  whicli,  stand- 
 ing at  the  beginning  of  the  doctruial  portion,  may 
 be  taken  as  giving  a  summary  of  the  contents: 
 "  The  Gospel  is  the  power  of  (iod  unto  salvation 
 to  every  one  that  believetli,  to  the  Jew  first  and 
 also  to  the  Greek:  for  therein  is  the  righteousness 
 of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  fiiitli  "  (i.  16,  17). 
 Accordingly  the  epistle  has  been  described  as  com- 
 prising "  the  reXgious  philosophy  of  the  world's 
 history."  The  world  in  its  religious  aspect  is 
 divided  into  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  different  posi- 
 tion of  the  two  as  regards  their  past  and  present 
 relations  to  God,  and  their  future  prospects,  are  ex- 
 plained. The  atonement  of  Christ  is  the  centre  of 
 religious  history.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by 
 taith  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  hidden  mysteries 
 of  the  divine  dispensation. 
 
 The  epistle,  from  its  general  character,  lends 
 itself  more  readily  to  an  analysis  than  is  often  the 
 case  with  St.  Paul's  epistles.  The  body  of  the 
 letter  consists  of  four  portions,  of  which  the  first 
 and  last  relate  to  personal  matters,  the  second  is 
 argumentative  and  doctrinal,  and  the  third  practi- 
 cal and  hortatory.  The  following  is  a  table  of  its 
 contents:  — 
 
 Salutation  (i.  1-7).  The  Apostle  at  the  outset 
 strikes  the  keynote  of  the  epistles  in  the  expres- 
 sions ^^  called  as  an  apostle,"  ^^  called  as  saints." 
 Divine  grace  is  everything,  human  merit  nothing. 
 
 I.  Personal   explanations.       Purposed    visit    to 
 Rome  (i.  8-15). 
 
 II.  Doctrinal  (i.  16-xi.  36). 
 
 The  (jeneral  proposition.  The  Gospel  is  the 
 salvation  of  Jew  and  Gentile  alike.  This 
 salvation  conies  by  faith  (i.  16,  17). 
 
 The  rest  of  this  section  is  taken  up  in  estab- 
 lishing this  thesis,  and  drawing  deductions 
 from  it,  or  correcting  misapprehensions. 
 
 (o.)  All  alike  were  under  condemnation  before 
 the  Gospel: 
 
 The  heathen  (i.  18-32). 
 The  Jew  (ii.  1-29). 
 Objections  to  this  statement  answered  (iii. 
 
 1-8). 
 And    the   position    itself  estabhshed  from 
 Scripture  (iii.  9-20). 
 
 {h.)  A  righteousness  (justification)  is  revealed 
 under  the  gospel,  which  being  of  faith,  not 
 of  law,  is  also  universal  (iii.  21-26). 
 
 And  boasting  is  thereby  excluded  (iii.  27-31). 
 
 Of  this  justification  by  faith  Abraham  is  an 
 example  (iv.  1-25). 
 
 Thus  then  we  are  justified  in  Christ,  in  whom 
 alone  we  glory  (v.  1-11). 
 
 And  this   acceptance   in   Christ   is   as    uni 
 
2T48    flOMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 versal  as  was  the  coiiflemnation  in  Adam 
 (v.  12-19). 
 (c.)  The  moral  consequences  of  our  deliver- 
 ance. 
 The  Law  was  given  to  multiply  sin   (v.  20, 
 21).    When  we  died  to  the  I^aw  we  died  to 
 sin  (vi.  1-14).     The  abolition  of  the  Law, 
 however,  is  not  a  signal  for  moral  license 
 (vi.  1.5-2y).     On  the  contrary,  as  the  Law 
 has  passed  away,  so  must  sin,  for  sin   and 
 the  Law  are  correlative ;  at  the  same  time 
 this  is  no  disparagement  of  the  Law,  but 
 rather   a   proof  of   human  weakness    (vii. 
 1-25).    So  henceforth  in  Christ  we  are  free 
 from  sin,  we  have  the  Spirit  and    look  for- 
 ward in  hope,  triumphing  over  our  present 
 alBictions  (viii.  1-.39). 
 (d.)  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  a  matter  of 
 deep  sorrow  (ix.  1-5). 
 Yet  we  must  remember  — 
 (i.)  That  the  promise  was  not  to  the  whole 
 people,  but  only  to  a  select  seed  (ix.  6-13). 
 And  the  absolute  purpose  of  God  in   so 
 ordaining    is   not   to   be    canvassed    by 
 man  (ix.  14-19). 
 (ii.)  That  the  Jews  did  not  seek  justification 
 aright,  and  so  missed  it.     This  justifica- 
 tion   was    promised    by  fuith,    and    is 
 offered  to  all  alike,  the  preaching  to  the 
 Gentiles    being   imphed    therein.      The 
 character  and  results  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
 pensation are  foreshadowed  in  Scripture 
 (X.  1-21). 
 (iii.)  That  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not 
 final.     This  rejection  has  been  the  means 
 of  gathering  in  the  Gentiles,  and  through 
 the   Gentiles  they  themselves   will  ulti- 
 mately be   brought  to  Christ  (xi.  1-36). 
 in.  Practical  exhortations  (xii.  1-xv.  13). 
 (a.)  To  holiness  of  life  and  to  charity  in  gen- 
 eral, the  duty  of  obedience  to  rulers  being 
 inculcated  by  the  way  (xii.  1-xiii.  14). 
 ib.)  And    more    particularly    against    giving 
 offense  to  weaker  brethren  (xiv.  1-xv.  13). 
 rV.  Personal  matters. 
 
 (rt.)  The    Apostle's    motive   in    writing    the 
 letter,  and    his    intention    of  visiting   the 
 Romans  (xv.  14-33). 
 (6.)  Greetings  (xvi.  1-23). 
 The  letter  ends  with  a  benediction  and  doxology 
 
 (xvi.  24-27). 
 While  this  epistle  contains  the  fullest  and  most 
 systematic  exposition  of  the  Apostle's  leachinfj,  it 
 is  at  the  same  time  a  very  striking  expression  of 
 his  character.  Nowhere  do  his  earnest  and  affec- 
 tionate nature,  and  his  tact  and  delicacy  in  hand- 
 ling unwelcome  topics  aij^jear  more  strongly  than 
 when  he  is  dealing  with  the  rejection  of  his  fellow- 
 countrymen  the  Jews. 
 
 The  reader  may  be  referred  especially  to  the 
 introductions  of  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  and  Jowett, 
 for  suggestive  remarks  relating  to  the  scope  and 
 purport  of  the  Eijistle  to  the  Romans. 
 
 10.  Internal  evidence  is  so  strongly  in  favor  of 
 the  yenuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that 
 it  has  never  been  seriously  questioned.  Even  the 
 sweeping  criticism  of  Baur  did  not  go  beyond 
 condemning  the  two  last  chapters  as  spurious. 
 But  \\hile  the  epistle  bears  in  itself  the  strongest 
 oroofs  of  its  Pauline  authorship,  the  external  testi- 
 mony in  its  favor  is  not  inconsiderable. 
 
 The  reference  to  Rom.  ii.  4  in  2  Pet.  iii.  15  is 
 
 ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 indeed  more  than  doubtful.  In  the  Epistle  of  St 
 James  again  (ii.  14),  there  is  an  allusion  to  per- 
 versions of  iSt.  Paul's  language  and  doctrine  which 
 has  several  points  of  contact  with  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Romans,  but  this  may  perhaps  be  explained 
 by  the  oral  rather  than  the  written  teaching  of 
 the  Apostle,  as  the  dates  seem  to  require.  It  is 
 not  the  practice  of  the  Apostolic  fathers  to  cite  the 
 N.  T.  writers  by  name,  Ijut  marked  passages  from 
 the  Romans  are  found  embedded  in  the  epistles  of 
 Clement  and  Polycarp  (Rom.  i.  29-32  in  Clem. 
 Cor.  c.  XXXV.,  and  L'om.  xiv.  ]0,  12,  in  Polyc. 
 Pliil.  c.  vi.).  It  seems  also  to  have  been  directly 
 cited  by  the  elder  quoted  in  Irenseus  (iv.  27,  2, 
 "  ideo  I'aulum  dixisse:"  cf.  Rom.  xi.  21,  17),  and 
 is  alluded  to  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  Diog- 
 netus  (c.  ix.,  cf.  Rom.  iii.  21  foil.,  v.  20),  and  by 
 Justin  Martyr  {Dial.  c.  23,  cf.  Rom.  iv.  10,  11, 
 and  in  other  passages).  The  title  of  Melito's  trea- 
 tise, Un  the  Henriwj  of  Faith,  seems  to  be  an  allu- 
 .sion  to  this  epistle  (see  however  Gal.  iii.  2,  3).  It 
 has  a  place  moreover  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  and 
 in  the  Sjriac  and  Old  Latin  Versions.  Nor  have 
 we  the  testimony  of  orthodox  writers  alone.  The 
 epistle  was  commonly  quoted  as  an  authority  by 
 the  heretics  of  the  sub-apostolic  age,  by  the  Ophites 
 (Hippol.  ndv.  Hair.  p.  99,  cf.  Rom.  i.  20-20),  by 
 Basilides  {ib.  p.  238,  cf.  Rom.  viii.  19,  22,  and  v. 
 13,  14),  by  Yalentinus  (ib.  p.  195,  cf.  Rom.  viii. 
 11),  by  the  Valentinians  Heracleon  and  Ptolemseua 
 CW'estcott,  On  the  Canon,  pp.  335,  340),  and  per- 
 haps also  by  Tatian  ( Orat.  c.  iv.,  cf.  Rom.  i.  20), 
 besides  being  included  in  Marcion's  Canon.  In 
 the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  the  evidence 
 in  its  favor  is  still  fuller.  It  is  obviously  alluded 
 to  in  the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and 
 Lyons  (Euseb.  JI.  E.  v.  1,  cf.  Rom.  viii.  18),  and 
 by  Athenagoras  (p.  13,  cf.  Rom.  xii.  1;  p.  37,  cf. 
 Rom.  i.  24)  and  Theoiiiiihis  of  Antioch  {Ad  Avtol. 
 p.  79,  cf.  Rom.  ii.  0  foil.;  p.  120,  cf.  Rom.  xiii.  7, 
 8);  and  is  quoted  frequently  and  by  name  by 
 Irenffius,  Tertullian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (see 
 Kirchhofer,  Quellen,  p.  198,  and  esp.  ^^'estcott, 
 On  the  Canon,  passim). 
 
 11.  The  Commentaries  on  this  epistle  are  very 
 numerous,  as  might  be  expected  from  its  impor- 
 tance. Of  the  many  patristic  expositions  only  a  few 
 are  now  extant.  The  work  of  Origen  is  preserved 
 entire  only  in  a  loose  Latin  translation  of  Rufiiuis 
 {Ori(/.  ed.  de  la  Rue,  iv.  458),  but  some  fragments 
 of  the  original  are  found  in  the  Phihcalia,  and 
 more  in  Cramer's  Catena.  The  commentary  on 
 St.  Paul's  epistles  printed  among  the  works  of  St. 
 Ambrose  (ed.  Ben.  ii.  Appx.  p.  21),  and  hence 
 bearing  the  name  Ambrosiaster,  is  probably  to  be 
 attributed  to  Hilary  the  deacon.  Besides  these 
 are  the  expositions  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  by  Chry- 
 sostom  (ed.  Montf.  ix.  p.  425,  edited  separately  by 
 Field),  by  Pelagius  (printed  among  Jerome's 
 works,  ed.  Vallarsi,  xi.  Pt.  3,  p.  L35),  by  Prima- 
 sius  {Marjn.  Bibl.  Vet.  Pair.  vi.  Pt.  2,  p.  30),  and 
 by  Theodoret  (ed.  Schulze,  iii.  p.  1).  Augustine 
 conmienced  a  work,  but  broke  off  at  i.  4:  it 
 l)ears  the  name  Inchoatu  F.xjiositio  Fpistola  ad 
 Earn.  (ed.  Ben.  iii.  p.  925).  Later  he  wrote  £x- 
 positio  qiun-undam  Propositionwn  Kpistoke  ad 
 Rom.,  also  extant  (ed.  Ben.  iii.  p.  903).  To  these 
 should  be  added  the  later  Catena  of  Qicumenius 
 (10th  cent.)  and  the  notes  of  Theophylact  (11th 
 cent.),  the  former  containing  valuable  extracts 
 from  Photius.  Portions  of  a  commentary  of  Cyril 
 of  Alexandria  were  published  by  Mai  (Nov.  Patr 
 
ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 Di'd.  iii.  p.  1).  The  Catena  edited  by  Cramer 
 (1844)  comprises  two  collections  of  Variorum  notes, 
 the  one  extending  from  i.  1  to  ix.  1,  the  other  from 
 vii.  7,  to  the  end.  Besides  passages  from  extant 
 I'ommentaries,  they  contain  important  extracts  from 
 Apollinarius,  Theodoriis  of  Mopsuestia  [ed.  Fritz- 
 Bche,  1847;  Miyne,  Patrol.  Gr.  Ixvi.],  Severianus, 
 (iennadius,  Photius,  and  others.  There  are  also  the 
 Greek  Scholin,  edited  by  JIatthiii,  in  his  large  Greek 
 Test.  (Kiga,  1782),  from  ^Moscow  MS8.  The  com- 
 mentary of  Euthymius  Zigabenus  (Tholuck,  ICinl. 
 §  6)  exists  in  MS.,  but  has  never  been  printed. 
 
 Of  the  later  commentaries  we  can  only  mention 
 a  few  of  tlie  most  important.  The  dogmatic  value 
 of  this  epistle  naturally  attracted  the  early  re- 
 formers. JMelancthon  wrote  se\'eral  expositions  of  it 
 (Walch,  Bihl.  Thtol.  iv.  679).  The  Commentary 
 of  Calvin  on  the  Romans  is  considered  the  ablest 
 part  of  his  able  work.  Among  Roman  Catholic 
 writers,  the  older  works  of  I'^stius  and  Corn,  a 
 Lapide  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  Of  foreign  an- 
 notators  of  a  more  recent  date,  liesides  the  general 
 commentaries  of  Bengel,  Olshausen,  L)e  Wette,  and 
 Meyer  (3d  ed.  1859  [4th  ed.  18!i5] ),  which  are  highly 
 valualile  aids  to  the  study  of  this  epistle,  we  may 
 single  out  the  special  works  of  Kiickert  (2d  ed.  1839), 
 Reiche  (1834),  Fritzsche  (183G-43),  and  Tholuck 
 (.jtii  ed.  1856).  .A.n  elal)ornte  commentary  has 
 also  been  pul)lished  lately  by  Van  Heiigel.  Among 
 English  writers,  besides  the  editions  of  the  whole 
 of  the  New  Testament  by  Altbrd  (4th  ed.  1861) 
 and  Wordswortii  (new  ed.  1861),  the  most  impor- 
 tant annotations  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  are 
 those  of  Stuart  (6th  ed.  1857),  .Jowett  (2d  ed. 
 1859),  and  Vaughan  (2d  ed.  1861).  Further  in- 
 formation on  the  sulject  of  the  literature  of  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans  may  be  found  in  the  intro- 
 ductions of  Reiche  and  Tholuck.  J.  B.  L. 
 
 *  Recent  Lileralure.  —  On  the  composition  of 
 the  Roman  C'hurch  and  the  aim  of  the  epistle 
 valuable  essays  have  lieen  lately  pulilished  by  W. 
 Mangold,  Dcr  Roinerbrief  u.  die  Anjaiige  d.  rom. 
 (•emeinde,  Marb.  1866,  and  W.  Reyschlag,  Das 
 (jesdiichlUche  ProO/em  des  Ronerbviefs,  in  the 
 Theal.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1867,  pp.  627-665;  comp. 
 nilgenfeld,  Die  Pauhis-Briefe  u.  ihre  neuesten 
 BenbeitwKjen,  An  his  Zeitschr.  f.  iciss.  TlieoL 
 1866,  ix.  293-316.  337-367.  Renan  {Saint  Paul, 
 Paris,  1869,  pp.  Ixiii.-lxxv. )  supposes  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Romans  to  have  been  a  circular  letter,  of 
 which  there  were  four  copies  with  distinct  endings 
 (sent  to  the  churches  at  Rome,  Ephesus,  Thessa- 
 luniea,  and  some  unknown  church),  the  body  of  the 
 letter  remaining  the  same.  The  details  of  his 
 theory  and  the  arguments  for  it  cannot  be  given 
 here.  It  is  fully  discussed  by  Prof.  Lightfoot  (the 
 author  of  the  preceding  article)  in  the  Journal  of 
 Pliilnlo,/y,  1869,  vol.  ii.  pp.  264-295.  His  own 
 hypothesis  is,  that  the  epistle  as  originally  written 
 was  without  the  benediction  xvi.  24  (omitted  by 
 I>achm.,  Tisch.,  and  Tregelles  as  wanting  in  the  best 
 MSS.)  and  the  doxology  (xvi.  25-27).  "  At  some 
 later  period  of  his  life  ....  it  occurred  to 
 the  Apostle  to  give  to  this  letter  a  wider  circula- 
 tion. To  this  end  he  made  two  changes  in  it:  he 
 obliterated  all  mention  of  Rome  in  the  opening 
 paragraphs  by  slight  alterations  [substituting  eV 
 a7o;r7?  Oeov  for  eV  PdfJ-y  in  '•  5,  and  omitting  eV 
 'Pd/LLTj  in  i.  17  —  for  the  traces  of  this  in  MSS., 
 stc,  see  Tisch.]  ;  and  he  cut  ott"  the  two  last  chap- 
 ters containing  personal  matters,  adding  at  the 
 same  time  a  doxology  [xvi.  25-27]  as  a  termina- 
 
 ROME 
 
 2749 
 
 tion  to  the  whole."  This  it  will  be  perceived  is  a 
 modification  of  the  view  presented  in  §  8  of  the 
 article  abo\e. 
 
 Among  the  more  recent  Commentaries,  we  may 
 notice  Umbreit,  Der  Brief  an  die  Romer,  nuf  d. 
 Gruiide  des  A.  T.  ausyeleijt,  Gotha,  1856 ;  Ewald, 
 Die  Sendschreiben  des  Ap.  Paulus  iibers.  u.  er- 
 klcirt,  Gcitt.  1857;  John  Brown  ("  Prof,  of  Exeget. 
 Tlieol.  to  the  United  Presl)yterian  Church  ";,  Anor- 
 lijiical  Exposition  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  Edin., 
 also  N.  Y.,  1857;  John  Forties,  Awdijt.  Comm.  on 
 the  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  tracing  the  train  of  Thought 
 by  the  aid  of  Parallelism,  Edin.  1868;  J.  P.  Lange, 
 Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  2e  Aufl.  1868 
 (Theil  vi.  of  his  Bibehcerk),  greatly  enlarged  and 
 enriched  by  Dr.  Schatf  and  the  liev.  jNI.  B.  Riddle, 
 in  the  Amer.  translation,  X.  Y.  1869  (vol.  v.  of 
 Lange's  Comm.);  and  J.  C.  K.  von  Hofmaim,  Der 
 Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Nurdlingen,  1868 
 (Theil  iii.  of  his  Die  heil.  Schrifl  d.  N.  T.  zusamr- 
 vienhdngend  untersucht).  Of  the  commentaries 
 mentioned  by  Lightfoot,  that  of  Fritzsche  is  par- 
 ticularly distinguished  for  its  philological  thorough- 
 ness. 
 
 Of  American  commentaries,  we  may  further 
 name  those  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  (Old  School 
 Presbyterian),  Philad.  1835,  new  ed.,  revised  and 
 greatly  enlarged,  1864;  S.  H.  Turner  (Episco- 
 palian), N.  Y.  1853;  and  the  more  popular  Notes 
 of  Albert  Barnes  (New  School  Presb.),  H.  J.  Rip- 
 ley (Baptist),  A.  A.  Livermore  (Unitarian),  and  L. 
 R.  Paige  (Universahst). 
 
 On  the  theology  of  this  epistle  and  the  doctrine 
 of  Paul  in  general,  in  addition  to  the  works  re- 
 ferred to  under  the  art.  P.VUL,  vol.  iii.  p.  2397,  one 
 may  consult  the  recent  volume  of  Weiss,  Lehrb. 
 d.  Bibl.  Theol.  d.  N.  T.,  Berl.  1868,  pp.  216-507. 
 Rom.  V.  12-19  is  discussed  by  Prof.  Timothy  Dwight 
 in  the  JVetv  Englander  for  July,  1868,  with  partic- 
 ular reference  to  the  Commentary  of  Dr.  Hodge. 
 
 For  a  fuller  view  of  the  •\'ery  extensive  literature 
 relating  to  the  epistle,  see  the  .American  translation 
 of  Lange's  Commentary  as  above  referred  to,  p. 
 48  ff. ;  comp.  p.  27  ff.,  37,  and  for  special  mono- 
 graphs, the  body  of  the  Commentary  on  the  more 
 important  passages.  The  older  literature  is  de- 
 tailed in  the  well-known  bibliographical  works  of 
 Walch,  Winer,  Danz,  and  Darling.  A. 
 
 ROME  ('Pwiari,  Ethn.  and  Adj.  'Pwfia7os,  'Pco-' 
 (/.aiKos  in  the  phrase  ypd/oLfxaTa  'Pw/xaXKci,  Luke 
 xxiii.  38),  the  fixmous  capital  of  the  ancient  world, 
 is  situated  on  the  Tiber  at  a  distance  of  about  15 
 miles  from  its  mouth.  The  "  seven  hills"  (Rev.  xvii. 
 9)  which  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  ancient  city 
 stand  on  the  left  bank.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the 
 river  rises  the  far  higher  ridge  of  the  Janiculum. 
 Here  from  very  early  times  was  a  fortress  uitii  a 
 suburb  lieneath  it  extending  to  the  river.  JNLxlern 
 Rome  Ues  to  the  N.  of  the  ancient  city,  covering 
 with  its  principal  portion  the  plain  to  the  N.  of  the 
 seven  hills,  once  known  as  the  Campus  JNIartius, 
 and  on  the  opposite  bank  e,xtendiiig  over  the  low 
 ground  beneath  the  Vatican  to  the  N.  of  the 
 ancient  Janiculum.  A  full  account  of  the  history 
 and  topography  of  the  city  is  given  elsewhere 
 (Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Geogr.  ii.  719).  Here  it 
 will  be  considered  only  in  its  relation  to  Bible  his- 
 tory. 
 
 Rome  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible  except  in 
 the  liooks  of  Maccabees  and  in  three  books  of  the 
 N.  T.,  namely,  the  Acts,  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
 mans, and  the  2d  Epistle  to  Timothy.     For  the 
 
2750  ROME 
 
 notices  of  Eouie  iu  the  books  of  Maccabees  see  Ro- 
 man Empike. 
 
 The  conquests  of  Pompey  seem  to  have  given 
 rise  to  the  first  settlement  of  Jews  at  Rome.  The 
 Jewish  king  Arlstobuhis  and  his  son  formed  part 
 of  Pompey's  triumph,  and  many  Jewish  captives 
 and  emigrants  were  brought  to  Rome  at  that  time. 
 A  special  district  was  assigned  to  them,  not  on  the 
 site  of  the  modern  "  Ghetto,"  between  the  Capitol 
 and  the  island  of  the  Tiber,  but  across  the  Tiber 
 (Philo,  Ley.  ad  C'aiuin,  ii.  5G8,  ed.  Mangey). 
 Many  of  these  Jews  were  made  freedmen  (Philo, 
 l.  c).  Julius  C;esar  showed  them  some  kindness 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  10,  §  8;  Suet.  Ccesar,  84). 
 They  were  favored  also  by  Augustus,  and  by  Tibe- 
 rius during  the  latter  part  of  his  reign  (Philo,  I. 
 c).  At  an  earlier  period  apparently  he  banished 
 a  great  number  of  them  to  Sardinia  (Joseph.  Ant. 
 xviii.  3,  §  5;  Suet.  Tib.  36).  Claudius  "com- 
 manded all  Jews  to  depart  from  Rome "  (Acts 
 xviii.  2),  on  account  of  tumults  connected,  jjos- 
 sibly,  with  the  preaching  of  Christianity  at  Rome 
 (Suet.  Claud.  25,  "Judseos  impulsore  Chresto 
 assidue  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit  ").  This  ban- 
 ishment cannot  have  been  of  long  duration,  for 
 we  find  Jews  residing  at  Rome  apparently  in  con- 
 siderable numbers  at  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  visit 
 (Acts  xxviii.  17).  It  is  chiefly  in  connection  with 
 St.  Paul's  history  that  Rome  comes  before  us  in 
 the  Bible. 
 
 In  illustration  of  that  history  it  may  be  useful 
 to  give  some  account  of  Rome  in  the  time  of  Nero, 
 the  "Caesar"  to  whom  St.  Paul  appealed,  and  in 
 whose  reign  he  suft'ered  martyrdom  (Eus.  //.  E. 
 ii.  25). 
 
 1.  The  city  at  that  time  must  be  imagined  as  a 
 large  and  irregular  mass  of  buildings  unprotected 
 by  an  outer  wall.  It  had  long  outgrown  the  old 
 Servian  wall  (Dionys.  Hal.  Ant.  Uoin.  iv.  13 ;  ap. 
 Merivale,  Rom.  Hist.  iv.  497);  but  the  limits  of 
 the  suburbs  cannot  be  exactly  defined.  Neither 
 the  nature  of  the  buildings  nor  the  configuration 
 of  the  ground  were  such  as  to  give  a  striking  ap- 
 pearance to  the  city  viewed  from  without.  "  An- 
 cient Rome  had  neither  cupola  nor  campanile  " 
 (Conylieare  and  Howson,  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  371; 
 Merivale,  Rom.  Emp.  iv.  512),  and  the  hills,  never 
 lofty  or  imposing,  would  present,  when  covered  with 
 the  buildings  and  streets  of  a  huge  city,  a  confused 
 appearance  like  the  hills  of  modern  London,  to 
 which  they  have  sometimes  been  compared.  The 
 visit  of  St.  Paul  lies  between  two  famous  epochs  in 
 the  history  of  the  city,  namely,  its  restoration  by 
 Augustus  and  its  restoration  by  Nero  (C.  and  H. 
 1.  13).  The  boast  of  Augustus  is  well  known, 
 "  that  he  had  found  the  city  of  brick  and  left  it  of 
 marble  "  (Suet.  Aug.  28).  For  the  improvements 
 effected  by  him,  see  Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Geogr. 
 ii.  740,  and  Niebuhr's  Lectures  on  Rom.  Hist.  ii. 
 177.  Some  parts  of  the  city,  especially  the  Forum 
 and  Campus  INIartius,  must  now  have  presented  a 
 magnificent  appearance,  but  many  of  the  principal 
 buildings  which  attract  the  attention  of  modern 
 travellers  in  ancient  Rome  were  not  yet  built.  The 
 streets  were  generally  narrow  and  winding,  flanked 
 by  densely  crowded  lodging-houses  (insula)  of  enor- 
 mous height.  Augustus  found  it  necessary  to 
 limit  their  height  to  70  feet  (Strab.  v.  235).  St. 
 Paul's  first  visit  to  Rome  took  place  before  the 
 Neronian  conflagration,  but  even  after  the  restora- 
 tion of  the  city,  which  followed  upon  that  event, 
 many  of  the  old  evils  continued  (Tac.  Hist.  iii.  71; 
 
 ROME 
 
 Juv.  Sat.  iii.  193,  269).  The  population  of  the 
 city  has  been  variously  estimated :  at  half  a  mil- 
 lion (by  Bureau  de  la  Jlalle,  i.  403,  and  Merivale, 
 Rom.  Empire,  iv.  525),  at  two  millions  and  up- 
 wards (Hoeck,  Romische  Gesc/iichte,  i.  ii.  131;  C. 
 and  H.  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  376;  Diet,  of  Geogr. 
 ii.  746),  even  at  eight  millions  (Lipsius,  De  Mag- 
 nitudine  Rom.,  quoted  in  Diet,  of  Geogr.).  Prob- 
 ably Gibbon's  estimate  of  one  million  two  hundred 
 thousand  is  nearest  to  the  truth  (Mihnan's  note  on 
 Gibbon,  ch.  xx.\i.  vol.  iii.  p.  120).  One  half  of 
 the  population  consisted,  in  all  probability,  of 
 slaves.  The  larger  part  of  the  remainder  consisted 
 of  pauper  citizens  supported  in  idleness  by  the  mis- 
 eraljle  system  of  public  gratuities.  There  appears 
 to  have  been  no  middle  class  and  no  free  industrial 
 population.  Side  by  side  with  the  wretched  classes 
 just  mentioned  was  the  comparatively  small  body 
 of  the  wealthy  nobility,  of  whose  luxury  and  profli- 
 gacy w-e  hear  so  much  in  the  heathen  writers  of  the 
 time.  (See  for  calculations  and  proofs  the  works 
 cited.) 
 
 Such  was  the  popidation  which  St.  Paul  would 
 find  at  Rome  at  the  time  of  his  visit.  We  learn 
 from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  he  was  detained 
 at  Rome  for  "two  whole  years,"  "dwelling  in  his 
 own  hired  house  with  a  soldier  that  kept  him  " 
 (Acts  xxviii.  16,  30),  to  whom  apparently,  accord- 
 ing to  Roman  custom  (Senec.  Ep.  v.;  Acts  xii.  6, 
 quoted  by  Brotier,  ad  Tac.  Ann.  iii.  22),  he  was 
 bound  with  a  chain  (Acts  xxviii.  20;  Eph.  vi.  20; 
 Phil.  i.  13).  Here  he  preached  to  all  that  came  to 
 him,  no  man  forbidding  him  (Acts  xxviii.  30,  31). 
 It  is  generally  believed  that  on  his  "  appeal  to  Caj- 
 sar  "  he  was  acquitted,  and,  after  some  time  spent 
 in  freedom,  was  a  second  time  imprisoned  at  Rome 
 (for  proofs,  see  C.  and  H.  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ch. 
 xxvii.,  and  Alford,  Gr.  Test.  iii.  ch.  7).  Five  of 
 his  epistles,  namely,  those  to  the  Colossians,  Ephe- 
 sians,  Philippians,  tliat  to  Philemon,  and  the  2d 
 Epistle  to  Timothy,  were,  in  all  probability,  written 
 from  Rome,  the  latter  shortly  before  his  death  (2 
 Tim.  iv.  6),  the  others  during  his  first  imprison- 
 ment. It  is  universally  believed  that  be  sutiered 
 martyrdom  at  Rome. 
 
 2.  The  localities  in  and  about  Rome  especially 
 connected  with  the  life  of  St.  Paul  are —  (1.)  The 
 Appian  Way,  by  which  he  approached  Rome  (Acts 
 xxviii.  15).  (See  Appii  FoRUi\r,  and  Diet,  of 
 Geogr.  "Via  Appia.'')  (2.)  "The  palace,"  or 
 "Caesar's  court"  {rh  irpatrdpiov,  Phil.  i.  13). 
 This  may  mean  either  the  great  camp  of  the  Prw- 
 torian  guards  which  Tiberius  estaljlished  outside 
 the  walls  on  the  N.  1'..  of  the  city  (Tac.  Ann.  iv.  2; 
 Suet.  Tib.  37),  or,  as  seems  more  probable,  a  bar- 
 rack attached  to  the  Imperial  residence  on  the  Pal- 
 atine (Wieseler,  as  quoted  by  C.  and  H.,  Life  of 
 St.  Paul,  ii.  423).  There  is  no  .sufficient  proof 
 that  the  word  "  Praetorium  "  was  ever  used  to  des- 
 ignate the  emperor's  palace,  though  it  is  used  for 
 the  official  residence  of  a  Roman  governor  (John 
 xviii.  28;  Acts  xxiii.  35).  The  mention  of  "Cae- 
 sar's household"  (Phil.  iv.  22),  confirms  the 
 notion  that  St.  Paul's  residence  was  in  the  im- 
 mediate neighborhood  of  the  emperor's  house 
 on  the  Palatine.     [Judgment-Hall  ;    Pe.eto- 
 
 KIUM.] 
 
 3.  The  connection  of  other  localities  at  Rome 
 with  St.  Paul's  name  rests  only  on  traditions  of 
 more  or  less  probability.  We  may  mention  espe- 
 cially—  (1.)  The  Mamertine  pri-son  or  Tullianum, 
 built  by  Ancus  Martius  near  the  forum  (Liv.  i.  33), 
 
ROME 
 
 described  by  Sallust  {Cat.  55).  It  still  exists  be- 
 neath the  church  of  5.  Giusejjpe  cki  Falei/nnmi. 
 Here  it  is  said  that  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were 
 fellow-prisoners  for  nine  months.  This  is  not  the 
 place  to  discuss  the  question  whether  St.  Peter  was 
 ever  at  Rome.  It  may  he  sufKcient  to  state,  that 
 though  there  is  no  e^■idence  of  such  a  visit  in  the 
 N.  T.,  unless  Babylon  in  1  Pet.  v.  1-3  is  a  niysti-cal 
 name  for  Rome,  yet  early  testimony  (Dionysius,  fip. 
 Euseb.  ii.  25),  and  the  universal  belief  of  the  early 
 Church  seem  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact  of  his 
 having  suffered  mart}  rdom  there.  [Pktkr,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  2454.]  The  story,  however,  of  the  imprison- 
 ment in  the  Mamertine  prison  seems  inconsistent 
 with  2  Tim.,  especially  iv.  11.  (2.)  The  chapel  on 
 the  Ostian  road  which  marks  the  spot  where  the 
 two  Apostles  are  said  to  have  separated  on  their 
 way  to  martyrdom.  (.3.)  The  supposed  scene  of 
 St.  Paul's  martyrdom,  namelj',  the  church  of  St. 
 Paulo  (die  ire  fontane  on  the  Ostian  road.  (See 
 the  notice  of  the  Ostian  road  in  Cains,  np.  Ens.  //. 
 E.  ii.  25.)  To  these  may  be  added  (4.)  The  sup- 
 posed scene  of  St.  Peter's  martyrdom,  namely,  the 
 church  of  St.  PUtro  in  jNIontorio,  on  the  Janicu- 
 lum.  (5.)  The  chapel  "Domine  quo  Vadis,"  on 
 the  Appian  road,  the  scene  of  the  beautiful  legend 
 of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  St.  Peter  as  he  was 
 escaping  from  martyrdom  (Ambrose,  Ep.  33).  (G.) 
 The  places  where  the  bodies  of  the  two  Apostles, 
 after  having  been  deposited  first  in  the  catacoml)s 
 (.KotfXTjT-fjpia)  (lius.  //.  E.  ii.  25),  are  supposed  to 
 have  been  finally  buried  —  that  of  St.  Paul  by  the 
 Ostian  road ;  that  of  St.  Peter  beneath  the  dome 
 of  the  famous  Basilica  which  bears  his  name  (see 
 Caius,  (ip.  Kus.  //.  A',  ii.  25).  All  these  and  many 
 other  traditions  will  be  found  in  the  Annals  of 
 Baronius,  uiifler  the  last  year  of  Nero.  "  Value- 
 less as  may  be  the  historical  testimony  of  each  of 
 these  traditions  singly,  yet  collectively  they  are  of 
 some  importance  as  expressing  the  consciousness 
 of  tlie  third  and  fourth  centuries,  that  there  had 
 been  an  early  contest,  or  at  least  contrast,  be- 
 tween the  two  Apostles,  which  in  the  end  was 
 completely  reconciled;  and  it  is  this  feeling 
 which  gives  a  real  interest  to  the  outward  forms 
 in  which  it  is  brought  liefore  us,  more  or  less 
 indeed  in  all  tiie  soutli  of  Europe,  but  especially 
 in  Rome  itself"  (Stanley's  Sermons  and  Essays, 
 p.  101). 
 
 4.  We  must  add,  as  sites  unquestionably  con- 
 nected with  the  Roman  Christians  of  the  Apostolic 
 age  —  (1.)  The  gardens  of  Nero  in  the  Vatican,  not 
 far  from  the  spot  where  St.  Peter's  now  stands. 
 Here  Christians  wrapped  in  the  skins  of  beasts 
 were  torn  to  pieces  l)y  dogs,  or,  clothed  in  inflam- 
 mable robes,  were  burnt  to  serve  as  torches  during 
 the  midnight  games.  Others  were  crucified  ( Tac. 
 Ann.  XV.  44).  (2.)  The  Catacombs.  These  sub- 
 terranean galleries,  commonly  from  8  to  10  feet  in 
 height,  and  from  4  to  6  in  width,  and  extending 
 for  miles,  especially  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  old 
 Appian  and  Nonientan  ways,  were  unquestionably 
 used  as  places  of  refuge,  of  worshij),  and  of  burial 
 by  the  early  (Jhristians.  It  is  impossible  here  to 
 enter  upon  the  difficult  question  of  their  origin. 
 
 a  1.  "AvTi  (Malt.  ii.  22). 
 
 2.  Xiopelv  (Mark  ii.  2). 
 
 3.  Trin-os  (Luke  ii.  7,  xiv.  22  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  16). 
 
 4.  noC  (Luke  xii.  17,  where  the  word  room  should 
 
 be  printed  in  italics). 
 6.  AiaSoj(05  (i.  e.  a  successor,  Acts  xxiv.  27). 
 
 ROOM  2751 
 
 and  their  possible  connection  with  the  deep  sand- 
 pits and  subterranean  works  at  Rome  mentioned 
 by  classical  writers.  See  the  story  of  the  murder 
 of  Asinius  (Cic.  pro  Cluent.  13),  and  the  account 
 of  the  concealment  offered  to  Nero  before  his 
 death  (Suet.  Nero,  48).  A  more  complete  ac- 
 count of  the  catacombs  than  any  yet  given,  may 
 be  expected  in  the  forthconung  work  of  the  Cav- 
 aliere  G.  B.  de  Rossi.  Some  very  interesting  no- 
 tices of  this  work,  and  descriptions  of  the  Roman 
 catacombs  are  given  in  Burgon's  Letters  from 
 Rome,  pp.  120-258.  "  De  Rossi  finds  his  earliest 
 dated  inscription  A.  d.  71.  From  that  date  to  a.  d. 
 300  there  are  not  known  to  exist  so  many  as  thirty 
 Christian  inscriptions  bearing  dates.  Of  undated 
 inscriptions,  however,  about  4,000  are  referable  to 
 the  period  antecedent  to  the  emperor  Constan tine" 
 (Hurgon,  p.  148).  [See  De  Rossi's  Inscriptiones 
 Clirid.  Urbis  Pumice,  Vol.  I.  Rom.  18G1,  fo!.] 
 
 Nothing  is  known  of  the  first  founder  of  the 
 C'hristian  Church  at  Rome.  Christianity  may, 
 perhaps,  have  been  introduced  into  the  city  not 
 long  after  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
 the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  the  "  strangers  of  Rome," 
 who  were  then  at  .Jerusalem  (Acts  ii.  10).  It  is 
 clear  that  there  were  many  Christians  at  Rome  be- 
 fore St.  Paul  visited  the  city  (Rom.  i.  8,  13,  15, 
 XV.  20).  The  names  of  twenty-four  Christians  at 
 Rome  are  given  in  the  salutations  at  the  end  of  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans.  For  the  difficult  question 
 whether  the  Roman  Church  consisted  mainly  of 
 -lews  or  Gentiles,  see  C.  and  H.,  LiJ'e  of  St..  Paul, 
 ii.  157 ;  Alford's  Prole;/. ;  and  especially  I'rof. 
 .Jowett's  Epistks  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Ga- 
 latians,  and  T/icssahmians,  ii.  7-26.  The  view 
 there  adopted,  that  they  were  a  Gentile  Church  but 
 .Jewish  converts,  seems  most  in  harmony  with  such 
 passiges  as  ch.  i.  5,  13,  xi.  13,  and  with  the  gen- 
 eral tone  of  the  epistle. 
 
 Linus  (who  is  mentioned,  2  Tim.  iv.  21),  and 
 Clement  (Phil.  iv.  3),  are  supposed  to  have  suc- 
 ceeded St.  Peter  as  bishops  of  Rome. 
 
 Rome  seems  to  be  descril)ed  under  the  name  of 
 Babylon  in  Rev.  xiv.  8,  xvi.  19,  xvii.  5,  xviii.  2,  21; 
 and  again,  as  the  city  of  the  seven  hills  (Rev.  xvii. 
 9,  cf.  xii.  3,  xiii.  1).  See  too,  for  the  interpreta- 
 tion of  the  mystical  number  666  in  Rev.  xiii.  18, 
 Alford's  note,  1.  c. 
 
 For  a  good  account  of  Rome  at  the  time  of  St. 
 Paul's  visit,  see  Conybeare  and  Howson's  Life  of 
 St.  Paid,  ch.  xxiv.,  of  which  free  use  has  been 
 made  for  the  sketch  of  the  city  given  in  this  ar- 
 ticle. J.  J.  H. 
 
 ROOF.  [Dabeeath,  Amer.  ed. ;  House.] 
 ■  ROOM.  This  word  is  employed  in  the  A.  V. 
 of  the  New  Testament  as  the  equivalent  of  no  less 
 than  eight  distinct  Greek  «  terms.  The  only  one 
 of  these,  however,  which  need  be  noticed  here  is 
 TrpcoTo/f Aitn'o  (Matt,  xxiii.  6 ;  Mark  xii.  39 ;  Luke 
 xiv.  7,  8,  XX.  46),  which  signifies,  not  a  "room  "  in 
 the  sense  we  commonly  attach  to  it  of  a  chamber, 
 liut  the  highest  place  on  the  highest  coucli  round 
 the  dinner  or  supper-table  —  the  "uppermost  seat," 
 as  it  is  more  accurately  rendered  in  Luke  xi.  43. 
 [Meals.]    The  word  "seat"  is,  however,  generally 
 
 6.  UpcoTOKXio-i'a  (chief,  highest,  uppermost  room. 
 
 See  above). 
 
 7.  'Avayai.ov  (an  upper  room,  Mark  xiv.  15 ;  Luke 
 
 xxii.  12). 
 
 8.  To  vTrepwoi/     (the  upper  room.  Acts  1.  13). 
 
■li.rl 
 
 ROSE 
 
 appropriated  by  our  translators  to  Ka6eSpa,  which 
 seems  to  mean  some  kind  of  official  chair.  In  Luke 
 xiv.'  9,  10,  they  have  rendered  T6iros  by  both 
 "  place"  and  "  room." 
 
 The  Upfer  Room  of  the  Last  Supper  is  noticed 
 under  its  own  head.     [See  House,  vol.  ii.  p.  1105.] 
 
 G. 
 
 ROSE  (rib^5D»  chabatstseleth :  Kpivov, 
 &vdos\  Aq.  KaKv^-  fios,  lilium)  occurs  twice  only, 
 namely,  in  Cant.  ii.  1,  "  I  am  the  Rose  of  Sharon," 
 and  in  Is.  xxxv.  1,  "the  desert  shall  rejoice  and 
 blossom  as  the  rose."  There  is  much  difference 
 of  opinion  as  to  what  particular  flower  is  here 
 denoted.  Tremellius  and  Diodati,  with  some  of 
 the  Kabbins,  believe  the  rose  is  intended,  but  there 
 seems  to  be  no  foundation  for  such  a  translation. 
 Celsius  (flieroh.  i.  488)  has  argued  in  favor  of  the 
 Narcissus  (Polyanthus  narcissus).  This  rendering 
 is  supported  by  the  Targum  on  Cant.  ii.  1,  where 
 
 Chabatstseleth  is  explained  by  narkns  (Dlp'^3). 
 This  word,  says  Royle  (Kitto's  Cyc.  art.  "  Cha- 
 bazzeleth"),  is  "the  same  as  the  Persian  nar(/us, 
 
 the  Arabic 
 
 .  u*^«j)  which  throughout  the  East 
 
 indicates  N'arclssus  Tazetta,  or  the  polyanthus 
 narcissus."  Gesenius  (Thes.  s.  v.)  has  no  doubt 
 that  the  plant  denoted  is  the  "  autumn  crocus  " 
 {Colchicum  uutumnale).  It  is  well  worthy  of  re- 
 mark that  the  Syriac  translator  of  Is.  xxxv.  1 
 explains  chabatstseleth  by  chaiiitsnlyotho,"  which  is 
 evidently  the  same  word,  m  and  b  being  inter- 
 changed. This  Syriac  word,  according  to  jNIichaelis 
 (Suppl.  p.  6.59),  Gesenius,  and  Kosenmiiller  (Bib. 
 Bot.  p.  142),  denotes  the  Colchicum  autumnale. 
 The  Hebrew  word  points  etymologically  to  some 
 bulbous  plant ;  it  appears  to  us  more  probable  that 
 the  narcissus  is  intended  than  the  crocus,  the 
 former  plant  being  long  celebrated  for  its  fragrance, 
 while  the  other  has  no  odorous  qualities  to  recom- 
 mend it.  Again,  as  the  chabatstseleth  is  associated 
 with  the  lily  in  Cant.  I.  c,  it  seems  proV)able  that 
 Solomon  is  speaking  of  two  plants  which  blossomed 
 about  the  same  time.  The  narcissus  and  the  lily 
 {Lilium  candidum)  would  be  in  blossom  together 
 in  the  early  spring,  while  the  Colchicum  is  an 
 autumn  plant.  Thomson  (Land  and  Book,  pp. 
 112,  513)  suggests  the  possibility  of  the  Hebrew 
 name  being  identical  with  the  Arabic  Khubbaizy 
 
 (sy/Mii 
 
 <\La-^),    "  the  mallow,"  which 
 
 ^; 
 
 plant  he  saw  growing  abundantly  on  Sharon ;  but 
 this  view  can  hardly  be  maintained :  the  Hebrew 
 term  is  probably  a  quadriliteral  noun,  with  the 
 harsh  aspirate  prefixed,  and  the  prominent  notion 
 implied  in  it  is  betsel,  "a  bull),"  and  has  therefore 
 no  connection  with  the  above-named  Arabic  word. 
 Chateaubriand  (Jtineraire,  ii.  130)  mentions  the 
 narcissus  as  growing  in  the  plain  of  Sharon ;  and 
 Strand  (Floi:  Pakest.  No.  177)  names  it  as  a  plant 
 of  Palestine,  on  the  authority  of  Rauwolf  and 
 Hasselquist;  see  also  Kitto's  Phys.  Hist,  of  Palest. 
 p.  216.  Hiller  {Hierophyt.  ii.  30)  thinks  the  cha- 
 batstseleth denotes  some  species  of  asphodel  (Aspho- 
 
 .'  ■>  T 
 
 6  *  "  From  the  locality  of  Jericho,''  says  Mr.  Tris- 
 ^m,  "  and  the  situation  by  the  waters,  this  rose  is 
 most  probably  the  Oleander,  the  R/iododenr/ron,  or 
 tree-rose  of  the  Greeks,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  aud 
 
 ROSH 
 
 delus):  but  the  finger-like  roots  of  this'  genus  of 
 plants  do  not  well  accord  with  the  "  bulb  "  root 
 implied  in  the  original  word. 
 
 Though  the  rose  is  apparently  not  mentioned  in 
 the  Hebrew  Bible,  it  is  referred  to  in  Kcclus.  xxiv. 
 14,  where  it  is  said  of  Wisdom  that  she  is  exalted 
 "as  a  rose-plant  (iis  (pvra  p6Sov)  in  .lericho " 
 (conip.  also  ch.  1.  8;  xxxix.  13;  Wisd.  ii.  8).* 
 Roses  are  greatly  prized  in  the  East,  more  espe- 
 cially for  the  sake  of  the  rose-water,  which  is  in 
 much  request  (see  Hasselquist,  Trav.  p.  248).  Dr. 
 Hooker  observed  the  following  wild  roses  in  Syria: 
 Posa  efjlanteria  (L. ),  Ii.  sempervirens  (L.),  R. 
 Henkeliana,  R.  Phanicia  (Boiss),  R.  seriaceci,  R. 
 atiffust  if  cilia,  and  R.  Libnnoticn.  Some  of  these 
 are  doubtful  species.  R.  centifolin  and  damnsrenn 
 are  cultivated  everywhere.  The  so-called  "  Rose 
 of  Jericho  "  is  no  rose  at  all,  but  the  Annstaticn 
 Hierochunliwi,  a  cruciferous  plant,  not  uncommon 
 on  sandy  soil  in  Palestine  and  Egypt.        W.  H. 
 
 ROSH  (li^SI  \_hewiy.  'Pcij:  Ros).  In  the 
 genealogy  of  Gen.  xlvi.  21,  Rosh  is  reckoned  among 
 the  sons  of  Benjamin,  but  the  name  does  not  occur 
 elsewhere,  and  it  is  extremely  probable  that  '•  Ehi 
 and  Rosh"  is  a  corrujition  of  "  Ahiram  "  (comp. 
 Num.  xxvi.  38).  See  Burrhigton's  Geiiealur/ies,  i. 
 281. 
 
 ROSH  (trS"l  :  'Pcis,  Ez.  xxxviii.  2,  3,  xxxix. 
 1 :  translated  by  the  Vulg.  capitis,  and  by  the  A. 
 
 V.  "chief,"  as  if  ITS"!,  "head").  The  whole 
 sentence  thus  rendered  by  the  A.  V.  "  Magog  the 
 chief  prince  of  Jleshech  and  Tubal,"  ought  to  run 
 "  Magog  the  prince  of  Rosh,  Mesech,  and  Tubal;  " 
 
 the  word  translated  "  prince  "  being  S'^ti?"!,  the 
 terra  usually  employed  for  the  head  of  a  nomad 
 tribe,  as  of  Abraham  (in  Gen.  xxiii.  G),  of  the 
 Arabians  (Gen.  xvii.  20),  and  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
 several  Israelite  tribes  (Num.  vii.  11,  xxxiv.  18),  or 
 in  a  general  sense  (1  K.  xi.  34;  Ez.  xii.  10,  xlv.  7, 
 xlvi.  2).  The  meaning  is  that  Majjog  is  the  head 
 of  the  three  great  Scythian  tribes,  of  which  "  Rosh  " 
 is  thus  the  first.  Gesenius  considers  it  beyond 
 doubt  that  by  Rosh,  or  'Pdos,  is  intended  the  tribe 
 on  the  north  of  the  Taurus,  so  called  from  their 
 neighborhood  to  the  Rha,  or  Volga,  and  that  in 
 this  name  and  triije  we  have  the  first  trace  of  the 
 Russ  or  Ru.ssiAN  nation.  Von  Hanmier  identifies 
 this  name  with  R'iss  in  the  Koran  (xxv.  40;  1.  12), 
 "  the  peoples  Aad,  Thamud,  and  the  Asshabir  (or 
 inhabitants)  of  Rass  or  Ross."  He  considers  that 
 Mohammed  had  actually  the  passage  of  Ezekiel  in 
 view,  and  that  "Asshabir"  corresponds  to  Nasi, 
 the  "  prince  "  of  the  A.  V.,  and  &pxovTa  of  the 
 LXX.  {Sur  les  Uriyines  Pusses,  Petersburg,  1825, 
 pp.  24-29).  The  first  certain  mention  of  the  Rus- 
 sians under  this  name  is  in  a  Latin  Chronicle  under 
 the  year  A.  D.  839,  quoted  by  Bayer  ( Oriyines 
 Russicce,  Comment.  Acad.  Petropol.'l72r},  p.  409). 
 From  the  junction  of  Tiras  with  Meshech  and 
 '['ubal  in  Gen.  x.  2,  Von  Hammer  conjectures  the 
 identity  of  Tiras  and  Rosh  (p.  26). 
 
 The  name  probably  occurs  again  under  the 
 altered  form  of  Passes,  in  Judith  ii.  23  —  this  time ' 
 
 attractive  plants  of  Palestine,  which  abounds  in  all 
 the  warmer  parts  of  the  country  by  the  side  of  pools 
 and  streams,  and  flourishes  especially  at  Jericho,  where 
 I  have  not  seen  our  rose "  (Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible 
 p.  477).  H. 
 
ROSIN 
 
 in  the  ancient  Latin,  and  possibly  also  in  the 
 Syriac  versions,  in  connection  with  Thiras  or  Thars. 
 But  the  passage  is  too  corrupt  to  admit  of  any 
 certain  deduction  from  it.      [Kasses.] 
 
 This  early  Biblical  notice  of  so  great  an  empire 
 is  doubly  interesting  from  its  being  a  solitary 
 instance.  No  otlier  name  of  any  modern  nation 
 occurs  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  obliteration  of  it 
 by  the  A.  V.  is  one  of  the  many  remarkable  varia- 
 tions of  our  version  from  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
 text  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  all  further  in- 
 formation see  the  above-quoted  treatises  of  Von 
 Hammer  and  Bayer.  A.  P.  S. 
 
 ROSIN.  Properly  "naphtha,"  as  it  is  both 
 in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  {i/d(p9a,  naphtha),  as  well 
 as  the  Peshito-Syriac.  In  the  Song  of  the  Three 
 Children  (23),  the  servants  of  the  king  of  Babylon 
 are  said  to  have  "  ceased  not  to  make  the  oven  hot 
 with  rosin,  pitch,  tow,  and  small  wood."  Pliny 
 (ii.  101)  mentions  naphtha  as  a  product  of  Baby- 
 lonia, similar  in  appearance  to  liquid  bitumen,  and 
 having  a  remarkable  affinity  to  fire.  To  this 
 natural  product  (known  also  as  Persian  naphtha, 
 petroleum,  rock  oil,  Kangoon  tar,  Burmese  naph- 
 tha, etc.)  reference  is  made  in  the  passage  in  ques- 
 tion. Sir  R.  K.  Porter  thus  describes  the  naphtha 
 springs  at  Kirkook  in  Lower  Courdistan.  mentioned 
 by  Strabo  (xvii.  738). •  "  They  are  ten  in  number. 
 For  a  considerable  distance  from  them  we  felt  tlie 
 air  sulphurous ;  but  in  drawing  near  it  became  I 
 worse,  and  we  were  all  instantly  struck  with  ex- 
 cruciating headaches.  The  springs  consist  of  sev- 
 eral pits  or  wells,  seven  or  eight  feet  in  diameter, 
 and  ten  or  twelve  deep.  The  whole  number  are 
 within  the  compass  of  five  hundred  yards.  A 
 flight  of  steps  has  been  cut  into  each  pit  for  the 
 purpose  of  approaching  the  fluid,  which  rises  and 
 falls  according  to  the  dryness  or  moisture  of  the 
 weather.  Tlie  natives  lave  it  out  with  ladles  into 
 bags  made  of  skins,  which  are  carried  on  tlie  backs 
 of  asses  to  Kirkook,  or  to  any  other  mart  for  its 
 sale The  Kirkook  naphtha  is  prin- 
 cipally consumed  by  the  markets  in  the  southwest 
 of  Courdistan,  while  the  pits  not  far  from  Kufri 
 supply  Bagdad  and  its  environs.  The  Bagdad 
 naphtha  is  black  "  ( Trav.  ii.  440).  It  is  described 
 by  Dioscorides  (i.  101)  as  the  dregs  of  the  Baby- 
 lonian asphalt,  and  white  in  color.  According  to 
 Plutarch  {Alex.  p.  35)  Alexander  first  saw  it  in  the 
 city  of  Ecbatana,  where  the  inhabitants  exhil)ited 
 its  marvelous  effects  by  strewing  it  along  the  street 
 which  led  to  his  headquarters  and  setting  it  on 
 fire.  He  then  tried  an  experiment  on  a  page  who 
 attended  him^  putting  him  into  a  bath  of  naphtha 
 and  setting  light  to  it  (Strabo,  xvii.  743),  which 
 nearly  resulted  in  the  boy's  death.  Plutarch  sug- 
 gests that  it  was  naphtha  in  which  Medea  steeped 
 the  crown  and  robe  which  she  gave  to  the  daughter 
 of  Creon;  and  Suidas  says  that  the  (ireeks  called 
 it  "  Medea's  oil,"  but  the  Medes  "  naphtha."     The 
 
 Persian  name  is     \r\o'y    {naft).     Posidonius  (in 
 
 Strabo)  relates  that  in  Babylonia  there  were  springs 
 of  black  and  white  naphtha.  The  former,  says 
 Strabo  (xvii.  743),  were  of  liquid  bitumen,  which 
 
 RUE  2753 
 
 they  burnt  in  lamps  instead  of  oil.  The  latter 
 were  of  liquid  sulphur.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  ROWERS.     [Ship  (G.)] 
 
 *  ROWS,  Cant.  i.  10.  [Ornaments,  Per- 
 sonal, note  s.] 
 
 RUBIES  (0^*33,  pMijyim;  W'Ty2,  peni- 
 nim:  AiOoi,  \-  TroAureA-f ?? :  cuncta;  opes,  cuncta 
 preliosissiiivr,  (jeniiiue,  ch  ullhnis  Jinibus,  ebor  an- 
 tiqiLuiii),  the  invariable  rendering  of  the  above- 
 named  Hebrew  words,  concerning  the  meaning  of 
 which  there  is  much  difference  of  opinion  and  great 
 uncertainty.  "  The  price  of  wisdom  is  above  />ewi- 
 wirti  "  (Job  xxviii.  18;  see  also  Prov.  iii.  15,  viii. 
 11,  xxxi.  10).  In  Lam.  iv.  7  it  is  said,  "the 
 Nazarites  were  purer  than  snow,  they  were  whiter 
 than  milk,  they  were  more  ruddy  in  body  than 
 penhiiiii.'"  A.  Boote  {Aiiimml.  Sac.  iv.  3),  on 
 account  of  the  ruddiness  mentioned  in  the  last 
 passage,  supposed  "coral"  to  be  intended,  for 
 which,  however,  there  appears  to  be  another  Hebrew 
 word.  [CoKAL.]  J.  U.  Michaelis  (Suppl.  p.  2023) 
 is  of  the  same  opinion,  and  compares  the  Hebrew 
 
 o  ^^ 
 71333  with  the  Arab.  j^V^i,  "a  branch."     Gese- 
 
 nius  {Tlies.  s.  v.)  defends  this  argument.  Bochart 
 (f/ieroz.  iii.  GOl)  contends  that  the  Hebrew  term 
 denotes  pearls,  and  explains  the  "  ruddiness "  al- 
 luded to  at)ove,  by  supposing  that  the  original  word 
 
 (^  "T*'')  signifies  merely  "bright  in  color,"  or 
 "color  of  a  reddish  tinge."  This  opinion  is  sup- 
 ported by  Kosenmiiller  (SckoL  in  Tliren.),  and 
 others,  but  opposed  by  Maurer  (Coininent.)  and 
 Gesenius.  Certainly  it  would  be  no  compliment 
 to  the  great  people  of  the  land  to  say  that  their 
 bodies  were  as  red  as  coral  or  rubies,  unless  we 
 adopt  Manrer's  explanation,  who  refers  the  "rud- 
 diness "  to  the  blood  which  flowed  in  their  veins. 
 On  the  whole,  considering  that  the  Hebrew  word 
 is  always  used  in  the  plural,  we  are  inclined  to 
 adopt  Bochart's  explanation,  and  understand  pearls 
 to  be  intended."     [Pearls.]  W.  H. 
 
 *  RUDDER-BANDS,  Acts  xxvii.  40. 
 [Ship  (2.)] 
 
 RUE  (■n-nyavov-  ruta)  occurs  only  in  Luke  xi. 
 42:  "  Woe  unto  you,  Pharisees!  for  ye  tithe  mint 
 and  rue  and  all  manner  of  herbs."  The  rue  here 
 spoken  of  is  doubtless  the  common  Ruta  grave- 
 olens,  a  shrubby  plant  about  2  feet  high,  of  strong 
 medicinal  virtues.  It  is  a  native  of  the  Mediter- 
 ranean coasts,  and  has  been  found  by  Hasselquist 
 on  Mount  Tabor.  Dioscorides  (iii.  45)  describes 
 two  kinds  of  -rrriyavov,  namely,  tt.  opeivSu  and  ir. 
 KVT'evTov,  which  denote  the  Ruta  montana  and 
 R.  graveolens  respectively.  Rue  was  in  great 
 repute  amongst  the  ancients,  both  as  a  condiment 
 and  as  a  medicine  (Pliny,  N.  H.  xix.  8;  Columell. 
 R.  Rus.  xii.  7,  §  5;  Dioscorides,  /.  c).  The  Tal- 
 mud enumerates  rue  amongst  kitchen-herbs  (She- 
 biith,  ch.  ix.  §  1),  and  regards  it  as  free  of  tithe, 
 as  tieing  a  plant  not  cultivated  in  gardens.  In  our 
 fiord's  time,  however,  rue  was  doubtless  a  garden- 
 plant,  and  therefore  tithable,  as  is  evident  from 
 our  Lord's  words,  "  these  things  ought  ye  to  have 
 
 a  The  Chald.  T\  (Estli.   i.  6),   which  the  A.  V. 
 tenders  "  white,"  and  which  seems  to  be  identical  vrith 
 
 fhe  Arab.    \i^,  durr,  "pearls: 
 
 JJ»l^j   diirrah, 
 
 pearl,"  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  "  mother  of 
 pearl,"  or  the  kind  of  alabaster  called  in  German 
 Perlenmutterstein.  The  LXX.  has  n-tVf  icos  Ai'Sos.  See 
 Gesenius,  and  Winer  {BM.  Realm,  i.  71). 
 
2754 
 
 RUFUS 
 
 done."     The  rue  is  too  well  known  to  need  de- 
 Bcriptioii."  W.  H. 
 
 RU'FUS  {'Pov(pos  [reel,  i-eddisJi]  :  Rufus)  is 
 mentioned  in  Mark  xv.  21,  alont;  with  Alexander, 
 as  a  son  of  Simon  tlie  Cyrenoean,  whom  tlie  Jews 
 compelled  to  liear  the  cross  of  Jesus  on  the  way  to 
 Golgotha  (Luke  xxiii.  26).  As  the  Kvanij;e]ist 
 informs  his  readers  who  Simon  was  liy  namini;  the 
 sons,  it  is  evident  that  the  latter  were  better 
 known  than  the  father  in  the  circle  of  Christians 
 where  iMark  lived.  Again,  in  Kom.  xvi.  1.3,  the 
 Apostle  I'aul  salutes  a  Hufus  whom  he  designates 
 as  "elect  in  the  Lord  "  (iKXeKrhv  iv  Kupiu),  and 
 whose  mother  he  gracefully  recognizes  as  having 
 earned  a  mother's  claim  upon  himself  by  acts  of 
 kindness  shown  to  him.  It  is  generally  supposed 
 that  this  llufus  was  identical  with  the  one  to  whom 
 Mark  relers;  and  in  that  case,  as  Mark  wrote  his 
 gospel  in  all  probability  at  Rome,  it  was  natural 
 that  he  should  describe  to  his  readers  the  father 
 (who,  since  the  mother  was  at  Konie  while  the 
 father  apparently  was  not  there,  may  have  died,  or 
 have  conic  Liter  to  that  city )  from  his  relationship 
 to  two  well-known  members  of  the  same  com- 
 munity. It  is  some  proof  at  least  of  the  early 
 existence  of  this  view  that,  in  the  Aclis  Aiidi-cie  el 
 Pttri,  both  Kufus  and  Alexander  appear  as  com- 
 panions of  Peter  in  Home.  Assuming,  then,  that 
 the  same  person  is  meant  in  the  two  passages,  we 
 have  before  us  an  interesting  group  of  believers  — 
 a  father  (for  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  Simon 
 became  a  Christian,  if  he  was  not  already  such,  at 
 the  time  of  the  crucifixion),  a  mother,  and  two 
 brothers,  all  in  the  same  family.  Yet  we  are  to 
 bear  in  mind  that  Rufus  was  not  an  uncommon 
 name  (Wetstein,  Nov.  Test.,  vol.  i.  p.  G34);  and 
 possiljly,  therefore,  Mark  and  Paul  may  have  had 
 in  view  different  individuals.  11.  B.  H. 
 
 RUHA'MAH  (nttnn  [commiserated'] : 
 7\Kii]ixevr)  ■  misericordinm  consecuta).  The  mar- 
 gin of  our  version  renders  it  "  having  obtained 
 mercy  "  (Hos.  ii.  1).  The  name,  if  name  it  be,  is 
 like  Lo-ruhamah,  symbolical,  and  as  that  was  given 
 to  the  daughter  of  the  prophet  Hosea,  to  denote 
 that  God's  mercy  was  turned  away  from  Israel,  so 
 the  name  Ruhamah  is  addressed  to  the  daughters 
 of  the  people  to  denote  that  they  were  still  the  ob- 
 jects of  his  love  and  tender  compassion. 
 
 RU'MAH  (n^^n  [hir/h,  exalted]:  'Pou/no; 
 Joseph.  'AjSoiVo-  Ruma).  Mentioned,  once  only 
 (2  K.  xxiii.  36),  as  the  native  place  of  a  certain 
 Pedaiah,  the  father  of  Zebudah,  a  member  of  the 
 harem  of  king  Josiah,  and  mother  of  Eliakim  or 
 Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah. 
 
 It  has  been  conjectured  to  be  the  same  place  as 
 Arumah  (Judg.  ix.  41),  which  was  apparently  near 
 Shechem.  It  is  more  prol)able  that  it  is  identical 
 with  Dumah,  one  of  the  towns  in  the' mountains  of 
 Judah,  near  Hebron  (Josh.  xv.  52),  not  far  distant 
 from  Libnah,  the  native  town  of  another  of  Josiah's 
 wives.  The  Hebrew  D  and  R  are  so  similar  as 
 often  to  be  confounded  together,  and  Dumah  must 
 have  at  any  rate  been  written  JIumah  in  the  He- 
 brew text  from  which  the  LXX.  translated,  since 
 they  give  it  as  Renma  and  Rouma. 
 
 Josephus  mentions  a  Rumah  in  Galilee  {B.  J. 
 Ui.  7,  §  21).  G. 
 
 a  *  "We  collected,"  says  Tristram,  "four  species 
 wild  ill  Palestine.  Ruta  ^raveolens  is  cultivated  '"  (Xat. 
 Hist,  oftke  Bible,  p.  478).  H. 
 
 RUTH 
 
 RUSH.     [Reed.] 
 
 RUST  (BpHxTts,  los  ■  cenigo)  occurs  as  the  trans- 
 lation of  two  different  Greek  words  in  Matt.  vi.  19, 
 20,  and  in  Jam.  v.  3.  In  the  former  passage  the 
 word  Ppucrts-  which  is  joined  with  crrjj,  "moth," 
 has  by  some  been  understood  to  denote  the  larva  of 
 some  moth  injurious  to  corn,  as  the  Tinea  f/ranella 
 (see  Staintou,  Iiisecta  Brilan.  iii.  30).  The  He- 
 brew WV  (Is.  I.  9)  is  rendered  fipHcris  by  Aquila; 
 comp.  also  Epist.  Jerem.  v.  12,  arrh  lov  Kal  fipw- 
 fxai-div,  "  from  rust  and  moths  "  (A.  "\'.  Bar.  vi.  12). 
 Scultctus  {Exerc.  Evang.  ii.  3.5,  Cril.  Sac.  vi.) 
 believes  that  the  words  ai]s  koI  fipSiffis  are  an  hen- 
 diadys  for  arjs  ^pdoffKoiv-  The  word  can  scarcely 
 be  taken  to  signify  "  rust,"  for  which  tliere  is 
 another  term.  Ids,  which  is  used  by  St.  James  to 
 express  rather  the  "tarnish"  which  overspreads 
 silver  than  "  rust,"  l)y  which  name  we  now  under- 
 stand "  oxide  of  iron."  Bpclxris  is  no  doubt  in- 
 tended to  liave  reference  in  a  general  sense  to  any 
 corrupting  and  destroying  substance  that  may  at- 
 tack treasures  of  any  kind  which  have  long  been 
 suffered  to  remain  undisturbed.  The  allusion  of 
 St.  James  is  to  the  corroding  nature  of  io$on  met- 
 als. Scultctus  correctly  observes,  "  oerugine  de- 
 formantur  quidem,  sed  non  corrumpuntur  lumimi ;  " 
 but  though  this  is  strictly  speaking  true,  the  an- 
 cients, just  as  ourselves  in  connnon  parlance,  spoke 
 of  the  corroding  nature  of  "  rust  "  (comp.  Ham- 
 mond, Annotat.  in  Matt.  vi.  19).  W.  H. 
 
 RUTH  (n^~l:  'Pou0:  probably  for  H^V^," 
 "  a  friend,"  the  feminine  of  Reu).  A  Moabitish 
 woman,  the  wife,  first,  of  JIahlon,  secondly  of  Boaz, 
 and  by  him  mother  of  Obed,  the  ancestress  of  Da- 
 vid and  of  Christ,  and  one  of  the  four  women 
 (Thamar,  Rahab,  and  Uriah's  wife  being  the  other 
 three)  who  are  named  by  St.  Matthew  in  the  gen- 
 ealogy of  Christ.  [Rahau.]  The  incidents  in 
 Rutli's  life,  as  detailed  in  the  beautiful  book  that 
 bears  her  name,  may  be  epitomized  as  follows.  A 
 severe  famine  in  the  land  of  Judah,  caused  perhaps 
 l)y  the  occupation  of  the  land  by  the  Moabites  un- 
 der Eglon  (as  Ussher  thinks  possible),^  induced 
 Elimelech,  a  native  of  Bethlehem  Ephratali,  to  emi- 
 grate into  the  land  of  Moab,  with  his  wife  Naomi, 
 and  his  two  sons,  Mahlon  and  Chilion.  At  the 
 end  of  ten  years  Naomi,  now  left  a  widow  and 
 childless,  having  heard  that  there  was  plenty  again 
 in  Judah,  resolved  to  return  to  Bethlehem,  and 
 her  daughter-in-law,  Ruth,  returned  with  her. 
 "  Whither  thou  goest,  I  will  go,  and  where  thou 
 lodgest,  I  will  lodge ;  thy  people  shall  be  my  people, 
 and  thy  God  my  God:  where  thou  diest  I  will  die, 
 and  there  will  I  be  buried :  the  Loid  do  so  to  me,  and 
 more  also,  if  aught  but  death  part  thee  and  me;" 
 was  the  expression  of  the  unalterable  attachment 
 of  the  young  Moabitish  widow  to  the  mother,  to 
 the  land,  and  to  the  religion  of  her  lost  husband. 
 They  arrived  at  Bethlehem  just  at  the  beginning 
 of  iKirley  harvest,  and  Ruth,  going  out  to  glean 
 for  the  support  of  her  mother-in-law  and  herself, 
 clianced  to  go  into  the  field  of  Boaz,  a  wealthy  man, 
 the  near  kinsman  of  her  father-in-law  Elimelech. 
 The  story  of  her  virtues  and  her  kindness  and 
 fidelity  to  her  mother-in-law,  and  her  preference 
 for  the  land  of  her  husband's  birth,  had  gone  before 
 
 b  Some  think  it  is  for  iH^S"^,  "beauty.'' 
 fi  Patrick  suggests  the  famine  in  the  days  of  Gideon 
 (Judg.  vi.  3,  4). 
 
RUTH,  BOOK   OF 
 
 her ;  and  immediately  upon  learning  who  the  strange 
 young  woman  was,  Boaz  treated  her  with  the  ut- 
 most kindness  and  respect,  and  sent  her  home 
 laden  with  corn  which  she  had  gleaned.  Encour- 
 aged by  this  incident,  Naomi  instructed  Kuth  to 
 claim  at  the  hand  of  Boaz  that  he  should  perform 
 the  part  of  her  husband's  near  kinsman,  by  pur- 
 chasing the  inheritance  of  Elimelech,  and  taking 
 her  to  be  his  wife.  But  there  was  a  nearer  kins- 
 man than  Boaz,  and  it  was  necessary  that  he 
 should  have  the  option  of  redeeming  the  inheritance 
 for  liimself.  He,  however,  declined,  fearing  to  mar 
 his  own  inheritance.  Upon  which,  with  all  due 
 solemnity,  Boaz  took  Ruth  to  be  his  wife,  amidst 
 the  blessings  and  congratulations  of  their  neighbors. 
 As  a  singular  example  of  virtue  and  piety  in  a  rude 
 age  and  among  an  idolatrous  people ;  as  one  of  the 
 first-fruits  of  the  Gentile  harvest  gathered  into  the 
 Church;  as  the  heroine  of  a  story  of  exquisite 
 beauty  and  simplicity;  as  illustrating  in  her  history 
 the  workings  of  Divine  Providence,  and  the  truth 
 of  the  saying,  that  "  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  over 
 the  righteous;  "  and  for  the  many  interesting  rev- 
 elations of  ancient  domestic  and  social  customs 
 which  are  associated  with  her  story,  Ituth  has  al- 
 ways held  a  foremost  place  among  the  Scripture 
 characters.  St.  Augustine  has  a  curious  specula- 
 tion on  the  relative  blessedness  of  Huth,  twice  mar- 
 ried, and  by  her  second  marriage  becoming  the  an- 
 cestress of  Christ,  and  Amia  remaining  constant  in 
 her  widowhood  {De  buno  Vlduit.).  Jerome  ob- 
 serves that  we  can  measure  the  greatjiess  of  Ruth's 
 virtue  by  the  greatness  of  her  reward  —  "  Ex  igus 
 semine  Christus  oritur  "  {Episi.  xxii.  nd  Paulain). 
 As  the  great-grandmother  of  King  David,  Ruth 
 must  have  flourished  in  the  latter  part  of  Eli's 
 i  udgeship,  or  the  beginning  of  that  of  Samuel.  But 
 there  seem  to  be  no  particular  notes  of  time  in  the 
 book,  liy  which  her  age  can  be  more  exactly  defined. 
 The  story  was  put  into  its  present  shape,  avowedly, 
 long  after  her  lifetime:  see  Ruth  i.  1,  iv.  7,  17. 
 (Bertheau  on  Ruth,  in  the  Exey.  Ilandb.;  Rosen- 
 miill.  Procem.  in  Lib.  Jiulh ;  Parker's  De  Wette; 
 Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  205,  iii.  760  ff.)  A.  C.  H. 
 
 *  RUTH,  BOOK  OF.  The  plan  of  the  Dic- 
 tiomiry  requires  that  some  account  should  be  given 
 of  the  book  of  which  Ruth  is  the  heroine.  The 
 topics  which  claim  remark  are  —  its  place  in  the 
 canon,  its  age,  authorship,  object,  sources  of  the  his- 
 tory, its  archaeology  and  the  additional  literature. 
 
 The  position  of  this  book  in  the  English  Bible 
 accords  with  that  of  the  Septuagint,  it  being  very 
 properly  inserted  between  Judges  and  ]  Samuel  as 
 essentially  a  supplement  to  the  former  and  an  in- 
 troduction to  the  latter,  for  though  Eli  and  Samuel 
 as  the  immediate  precursors  of  the  kings  occupy  a 
 place  in  1  Samuel,  the  book  of  Ruth  forms  a 
 connecting  link  between  the  period  of  the  judges 
 and  tiiat  of  the  monarchy.  If  Obed  the  son  of 
 Boaz  was  the  father  of  Jesse  (iv.  17)  the  events 
 which  the  book  of  Ruth  relates  must  have  taken 
 place  in  the  last  century  of  the  age  of  the  judges. 
 The  arrangement  in  our  ordinary  Hebrew  Bibles  at 
 present  places  this  history,  without  any  regard  to 
 the  chronology,  among  the  hngiotjrapha  or  sacred 
 writings  (Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Solomon's  Song, 
 Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel, 
 Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles),  so  classified  with 
 reference  to  their  ethical  or  practical  contents. 
 [Canon.]  Yet  some  critics  maintain  that  the 
 Bfiginal  Hebrew  order  was  that  of  the  Septuagint 
 
 RUTH,  BOOK  OF 
 
 2755 
 
 and  the  other  a  later  transposition.  (See  against 
 that  view  Cassel,  Das  Buck  Jiulh,  p.  201  f.) 
 
 The  date  of  the  composition  it  is  impossible  to 
 ascertain  with  much  precision.  It  must  have  been 
 written  after  the  liirth  of  David  (iv.  17)  and  prob- 
 ably after  his  reign ;  for  the  genealogy  at  the  close 
 presupposes  that  he  had  acquired  at  the  time  a 
 lustorical  and  theocratic  importance  which  belonged 
 to  him  oidy  after  he  had  finished  his  career  as  war- 
 rior, king,  and  prophet.  It  is  no  certain  proof  of 
 a  much  later  authorship  than  this  that  the  custom 
 of  "plucking  oft" the  shoe"  as  a  legal  form  had  be- 
 come obsolete  when  the  book  was  written  (iv.  7,  8), 
 for  many  clianges  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrews  must 
 have  taken  place  rapidly  after  the  estalilishment  of 
 the  monarchy,  and  in  addition  to  this,  if  Boaz  was 
 the  immediate  ancestor  of  Obed,  and  Obed  was  the 
 father  of  Jesse  (iv.  17)  an  hiterval  of  three  genera- 
 tions at  least  lay  between  Boaz  and  the  close  of 
 David's  reign.  Some  critics  point  out  certain  words 
 and  grammatical  forms  in  the  book  which  they  allege 
 to  be  proof  of  a  later  composition,  and  would  even 
 bring  it  down  to  the  Chaldee  period  of  Jewish  his- 
 tory. Examples  of  this  are ''"]^:2l7.ri,  ]"'i7|l^ri 
 (iu  8,  21),  l^^^i?^  (ii.  9),  "'ip^ii?  ^^ll^ 
 (iii.  3),   "'ri??^'  (iii-  -i),  ^■J'?  histeadof  H'TfZ 
 
 (i.  20),  ^nb  instead  of  "|D^,  and  others,  but  as 
 these  and  some  other  expressions,  partly  peculiar 
 and  jxartly  infrequent  only,  either  do  not  occur  at 
 all  in  the  later  books,  or  occur  at  the  same  time  in 
 some  of  the  earlier  books,  they  surely  cannot  be 
 alleged  witli  any  confidence  as  marks  of  a  Chaldee 
 stvie  (see  Keil's  Einl.  m  das  A.  Test.  p.  415  f.,  and 
 Wright's  Book  of  Ruth,  p.  xli.  ff.).  The  few  un- 
 common words  or  phrases  are  found  in  fact  in  the 
 passages  of  our  book  where  the  persons  introduced 
 appear  as  the  speakers,  and  not  in  the  language  of 
 the  historian,  and  may  be  considered  as  relics  of 
 the  conversational  phraseology  of  the  age  of  the 
 judges,  which  happen  to  be  not  elsewhere  pre- 
 served. Bleek  decides  in  like  manner  that  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  book  settles  nothinif  with  regard  to 
 the  time  when  the  book  was  written.  The  earlier 
 origin  of  the  book  of  Ruth,  as  De  Wette  admits 
 (Einl.  in  das  A.  Test.  §  194),  is  manifest  from  the 
 entire  absence  of  any  repugnance  to  intermarriage 
 between  the  Hebrews  and  foreigners.  The  extrac- 
 tion of  Ruth  is  not  regarded  as  offensive  or  requir- 
 ing so  much  as  a  single  word  of  apoloiiy.  It  is 
 impossible  on  this  account  tiiat  it  should  belong  to 
 the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  so  different 
 a  feeling  prevailed  in  regai-d  to  such  alliances  (see 
 Ezr.  ix.  and  x.  and  Neh.  xiii.  2-3  ff.).  The  au- 
 thor is  unknown.  One  of  the  Jewish  traditions 
 names  Samuel  as  the  writer ;  but,  as  has  been  sug- 
 gested already,  David  was  comparati^■ely  unknown 
 till  after  the  death  of  Samuel. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  sources  of  the  history  we  can 
 only  say  with  Bleek  {Einl.  in  das  A.  Test.  p.  355) 
 that  we  cannot  decide  whether  the  writer  found 
 and  used  an  extant  written  document  or  merely 
 followed  some  tradition  preserved  in  the  family  of 
 David  which  came  to  his  knowledge.  Nothing  in 
 the  significance  of  the  personal  Hebrew  names  casts 
 any  doubt  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  narrative. 
 Oiit  of  all  the  names  occurring  there  oidy  two, 
 Mahlon  and  Chilion,  give  the  least  semblance  of 
 truth  to  that  allegation.  The  correspondence  be- 
 tween  the  meaning  of  these  (as  usually  defined) 
 
2756 
 
 RUTH,  BOOK   OF 
 
 and  the  early  death  of  the  persons  who  bear  them, 
 may  be  accidental,  or  the  original  names  maj'  have 
 been  changed  after  their  death.  On  this  point  see 
 Chilion  and  Names  (Amer.  ed.). 
 
 The  object  of  the  book  has  been  variously 
 stated.  That  the  author  merely  intended  to  up- 
 hold the  authority  of  the  levirate  law  requir- 
 ing a  brother-in-law  to  marry  the  widow  of  a 
 deceased  brother  (Gen.  xxxviii.  8 ;  Deut.  xxv.  5  ff  > 
 is  entirely  improbable;  for  the  assumption  of  that 
 relationsliip  appears  here  only  as  an  incident  of  the 
 hist(ji'y,  and  in  reality  Boaz  was  not  the  brother 
 of  >Mahlon,  the  husband  of  Kuth  (iv.  10),  but  onlv 
 a  remote  kinsman  of  the  family,  and  his  action 
 in  tiie  case  was  voluntary  and  not  required  by  any 
 i\Iosaic  statute.  To  regard  also  the  object  as 
 merely  that  of  tracing  the  genealogy  of  David's 
 family  is  certainly  too  limited  a  view.  We  must  find 
 the  explanation  of  the  purpose  in  the  facts  tliem- 
 selves  which  the  history  relates,  and  the  narrator's 
 manifest  interest  in  precisely  these  facts  as  shown 
 in  the  tone  and  coloring  which  he  has  given  to  the 
 history.  It  is  the  pious,  genuinely  theocratic  spirit 
 exhibited  by  the  actors  in  the  little  book,  which  con- 
 fers upon  it  its  higher  importance  and  characteristic 
 unity.  This  aim  and  tendency  appear  most  con- 
 spicuously in  ii.  11,  12.  Kuth  has  left  her  heathen 
 i)ati\  e  land ;  the  God  of  her  mother-in-law  is  her 
 God  (i.  16).  She  has  gone  to  an  unknown  people, 
 has  taken  refuge  under  the  wings  of  the  God  of 
 Israel,  has  looked  to  Him  for  help,  and  has  found 
 more  than  she  could  expect  or  conceive  of  in  being 
 permitted  to  become  the  mother  of  the  royal  house 
 of  David.  (.See  Hiivernick's  Einl.  in  das  A.  Ttsl. 
 ii.  113.)  The  fact  that  Matthew  (i.  3-0),  who  adds 
 however  the  names  of  Thamar  and  Kahab,  and 
 Luke  (iii.  31-33)  insert  the  genealogy  of  David 
 as  given  at  the  end  of  the  book  in  the  tables 
 of  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  not  only  shows  that  the 
 book  of  Kuth  formed  a  recognized  part  of  the  He- 
 brew Scriptures,  but  that  God's  arrangements  in 
 providing  a  Sa\iour  for  all  the  races  of  mankind 
 held  forth  a  significant  foretoken  of  this  uni- 
 versality in  the  character  of  the  Saviour's  lineage 
 as  derived  from  Gentile  ancestors  as  well  as  Jewish. 
 David's  descent  from  Kuth  is  known  to  us  only  from 
 this  book.  The  books  of  Samuel  are  silent  on  this 
 point,  and  Chronicles,  though  they  mention  Boaz 
 as  one  of  his  ancestors,  say  nothing  of  Kuth 
 (1  Chr.  ii.  n,  12). 
 
 'J'he  illustrations  of  oriental  life  furnished  by 
 modern  travellers  impart  to  this  book  a  character 
 of  vividness  and  reality  which  deserves  attention. 
 Naomi  and  Kuth  arrived  at  IJeth-leheui  from 
 the  land  of  Moab  "  in  the  beginning  of  barley 
 harvest '"  (i.  22).  It  was  about  the  first  of  April, 
 therefore,  for  the  cereal  crops  are  generally  ripe  in 
 the  south  of  Palestine  at  that  tin)e.  lieth-lehem, 
 which  signifies  "house  of  bread  "  with  retierence  to 
 its  fertility,  is  still  famous  for  its  fields  of  grain, 
 whicli  occur  especially  on  the  plains  eastward  as 
 one  appi'oaches  h'om  the  valley  of  the  Jordan. 
 Such  fields  now,  as  was  true  anciently,  are  not  en- 
 closed by  walls  or  hedges,  but  separated  by  single 
 stones  set  up  here  and  there,  or  by  a  footpath  only; 
 and  hence  it  is  said  that  it  w'as  "  the  hap  "  or  lot 
 of  Kuth  to  light  upon  the  part  of  the  field  which 
 belonged  to  Boaz  (ii.  3).  Notice  the  local  pre- 
 cision of  the  narrator.     To  reach  the  grain-fields 
 
 RUTH,  BOOK  OF 
 
 region,  and  especially  on  the  south  and  east  sid* 
 is  almost  precipitously  cut  off  from  its  euvhons. 
 The  gleaning  after  the  reapers  (ii.  3,  7,  16)  was 
 allowed  to  the  poor  among  the  Hebrews  (a  right 
 guaranteed  by  an  express  Mosaic  statute),  and  is 
 still  practiced  in  the  I'^ast.  Dr.  Thomson  being 
 in  the  vicinity  of  Beth-lehem  at  the  time  of 
 barley-harvest  states  that  he  saw  women  and  chil- 
 dren gleaning  after  every  company  of  reapers 
 {Lund  and  Z>'oo^-,  ii.  509).  The  "parched  corn" 
 which  Boaz  gave  her  at  their  rustic  repast  was  not 
 such  in  our  sense  of  the  expression,  but  consisted 
 of  roasted  heads  of  grain.  The  mode  of  prepar- 
 ing the  food  we  learn  from  the  methods  still  em- 
 ployed. Sir.  'i'ristram  describes  one  of  them  which 
 he  saw  in  Galilee  near  Lake  JJuleli.  "  A  few 
 sheaves  of  wheat  were  tossed  on  the  fire,  and  as 
 soon  as  the  straw  was  consumed  the  charred  heads 
 were  dexterously  swept  from  the  embers  on  to  a 
 cloak  spread  on  the  ground.  The  women  of  the 
 party  then  beat  the  ears  and  tossed  them  into  the 
 air  until  they  were  thoroughly  winnowed,  when  the 
 wheat  was  eaten  without  further  preparation. 
 .  .  .  The  green  ears  had  become  half  charred  by  the 
 roasting,  and  there  was  a  pleasant  mingling  of 
 milky  wheat  and  a  fresh  crust  fliavor  as  we  chewed 
 the  parched  corn  "  {Land  of  Isrutl,  p.  590).  Ac- 
 cording to  another  method  some  of  the  best  ears, 
 with  the  stalks  attached,  are  tied  into  small  par- 
 cels, and  the  corn-heads  are  held  over  the  fire 
 until  the  chaff  is  mostly  burned  off;  and,  after 
 being  thus  roasted,  they  are  rubbed  out  in  the 
 hand  and  the  kernels  eaten  (Thomson,  ii.  510). 
 The    Hebrew    terms    for   corn   thus   roasted   are 
 
 ''bp   and   S''bp    (Lev.    xxiii.  14;    Ruth  ii.  14; 
 
 •  't  •  't     "■  '  ' 
 
 1   Sam.  xvii.  17,  xxv.  18;  and  2  Sam.  xvii.  18). 
 
 The  chaniets  or  vinegar  in  which  the  eaters 
 dipped  their  morsel  (ii.  14)  was  sour  wine  mingled 
 with  oil,  still  a  favorite  beverage  among  the  people 
 of  the  East  (see  Keil's  Bibl.  Archaoloyit,  ii.  16).  At 
 the  close  of  the  day  Kuth  beat  out  the  grain  of  the 
 ears  which  she  had  gathered  (ii.  17).  "  It  is  a  com- 
 mon sight  now,"  says  Thomson,  "to  see  a  poor 
 woman  or  maiden  sitting  by  the  way-side  and  beat- 
 ing out  with  a  stick  or  stone  the  grain-stocks  which 
 she  has  gleaned  "  {Land  and  Book;  ii.  509 ).  As  lato 
 as  May  21,  not  far  from  Gaza,  says  Kobinson,  '.'we 
 found  the  lazy  inhabitants  still  engaged  in  treading 
 out  the  barley  harvest,  which  their  neighbors  had 
 completed  long  before.  Several  women  were  beat- 
 ing out  with  a  stick  handfuls  of  the  grain  which 
 they  seemed  to  have  gleaned  "  (BiOL  lies.  ii.  385). 
 In  another  field  the  next  day  he  saw  "  200  reapers 
 and  gleaners  at  work ;  a  few  were  taking  refresh- 
 ments and  offered  us  some  of  their  parched 
 corn  "  (BM.  Jits.  iii.  394).  The  whmowing  took 
 place  by  night  in  accordance  with  the  agricultural 
 habits  of  the  land  at  present;  for  the  heat  being 
 oppressive  by  day  the  farmers  avoid  its  power  as 
 much  as  possible,  and  the  wind  also  is  apt  to  be 
 stronger  by  night  than  during  the  day.  The 
 Hebrew  term  (r/oren)  describes  the  threshing-floor 
 as  simply  a  plot  of  ground  in  the  open  air,  smoothed 
 off  and  beaten  hard,  such  as  the  traveller  now  sees 
 everywhere  as  he  jiasses  through  the  country.  It 
 might  seem  strange  that  a  rich  proprietor,  like 
 Boaz,  should  be  said  to  have  slept  at  night  in  such 
 a  place;    but  that  is   the  custom   still,  rendered 
 
 or  threshing-floor  from  her  home  in  Bethlehem  necessary  by  the  danger  of  pillage  and  the  untrust- 
 Ruth  "  went  down  "  from  the  city  (iii.  3,  G);  for  worthiness  of  the  hired  laborers.  Kobinson,  speak- 
 Beth-lehem  is  on  higher  ground  than  the  adjacent  I  ing  of  a  night  spent  in  the  mountains  of  Hebron, 
 
RYE 
 
 jays :  "  Here  are  needed  no  guards  around  the 
 tent;  the  owners  of  the  crops  came  every  night 
 and  slept  upon  their  threshing-floors.  AVe  were 
 here  in  the  midst  of  scenes  precisely  like  those 
 of  the  book  of  Euth  (iii.  2-14);  where  Boaz  win- 
 nowed barley  and  laid  himself  down  at  night  to 
 2uard  the  heap  of  corn  "  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  44G).  "  It 
 is  not  unusual  for  the  husband,  wife,  and  all  the 
 family  to  encamp  at  the  baiders  or  threshing-floors, 
 until  the  harvest  is  over"  (Thomson,  ii.  511). 
 The  "vail"  in  which  Ruth  carried  home  the  "six 
 measures  of  barley  "  given  to  her  by  Boaz,  was  a 
 mantle  as  well  as  veil,  "  a  square  piece  of  cotton 
 cloth"  such  as  eastern  women  stiU  wear;  "and  I 
 have  often  seen  it  used,"  says  Thomson,  "  for  just 
 such  service  as  that  to  which  Ruth  applied  hers  " 
 (ii.  509).  Barley  is  rarely  used  for  purposes  of 
 food  in  Syria  except  by  the  poor ;  and  that  Ruth 
 and  Naomi  are  represented  as  glad  to  avail  them- 
 selves of  such  means  of  subsistence  comports  with 
 the  condition  of  poverty  which  the  narrative  as- 
 cribes to  them.  [Barley.]  The  scene  in  the 
 square  at  the  gate  (iv.  1-12)  is  thoroughly  orien- 
 tal. It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  gate  in 
 eastern  cities  is  now  and  has  been  from  time  iuime- 
 morial  the  place  of  concourse  where  the  people 
 come  together  to  hear  the  news,  to  discuss  public 
 affairs,  to  traftic,  dispense  justice,  or  do  anything 
 else  that  pertains  to  the  common  welfare  (Gen. 
 xix.  1,  xxxiv.  20;  Deut.  xvi.  18;  xxi.  19). 
 
 Some  of  the  writers  on  this  book  are  mentioned 
 in  the  firticle  on  Ruth.  The  following  may  be 
 added :  Umbreit,  Ueber  Geist  u.  Zweck  des 
 Bucks  Ruth,  in  the  Studies  u.  Kriiiken,  1834, 
 pp.  305-308.  F.  Benarj',  De  Hebroeorum  Ltvi- 
 ratu,  pp.  1-70  (1835).  C.  L.  F.  Metzger,  Lib.  Ruth 
 ex  Htbr.in  Lat.  vers,  perpetuaque  interpr.  illustr. 
 (Tub.  1856).  Keil,  Bibl.  Commentnr,  iii.  357- 
 382,  and  transl.  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theol.  Library, 
 viii.  pp.  465-494.  Paulus  Cassel,  Bus  Buck  der 
 Richter  u.  Ruth,  in  Lange's  Bibelwerk,  pp.  198- 
 242  (1865).  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Book  of  Ruth  in 
 Hebnio  and  Chcddee  (pp.  vii.-xlviii.  and  1-76, 1-49), 
 containing  a  critically  revised  text  to  the  Chaldee 
 Targuni  of  Ruth  and  valuable  notes,  explanatory 
 and  philological  (1865).  Christopher  Wordsworth, 
 Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  in  his  /Jol.y  Bible,  with 
 Introductions  and  Notes,  ii.  pt.  i.  pp.  158-170 
 (1865).  Bishop  Hall,  two  sermons  on  Naomi  and 
 Ruth  and  Bvuz  and  Ruth,  in  his  Conte7nplatio7is, 
 bk.  xi.  Stanley's  Lectures  an  the  Jewish  Church, 
 i.  336-38.  H. 
 
 RYE  (n^B3,  cussemeth:  ^eoi,  oAvpa:  fnr, 
 vicia)  occurs  in  Ex.  ix.  32;  Is.  xxviii.  25;  in  the 
 latter  the  margin  reads  "  spelt."  In  Ez.  iv.  9  the 
 text  has  "fitches"  and  the  margin  "rie."  There 
 are  many  opinions  as  to  the  signification  of  cus- 
 semeth  ;  some  authorities  maintaining  that  fitches 
 are  denoted,  others  oats,  and  others  rye.  Celsius 
 has  shown  that  in  all  probabiHty  "spelt"  is 
 intended  {Hierob.  ii.  98),  and  this  opinion  is  sup- 
 ported by  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulg.  in  Ex.  ix.  32, 
 and  by  the  Syriac  versions.  Rye  is  for  the  most 
 jmrt  a  northern  plant,  and  was  probably  not  culti- 
 vated in  Egypt  or  Palestine  in  early  times,  whereas 
 spelt  has  been  long  cultivated  in  the  East,  where  it 
 
 "  Cau  It  tie  this  phrase  which  determined  the  use 
 jf  tlie  Te  Deum  as  a  thanksgiving  for  victories  ? 
 
 6  For  the  passages  which  follow,  the  writer  is  in- 
 debted to  the  kindness  of  a  friend. 
 
 SABAOTH,  THE  LORD  OF       2757 
 
 is  held  in  high  estimation.  Herodotus  (ii.  36) 
 says  the  Egyptians  "make  bread  from  spelt  (anh 
 hXv^iicav),  which  some  call  zea."  See  also  Pliny 
 (//.  N.  xviii.  8),  and  Dioscorides  (ii.  Ill),  who 
 speaks  of  two  kinds.  The  cussemeth  was  culti- 
 vated ill  Egypt;  it  was  not  injured  by  the  hail- 
 storm of  the  seventh  plague  (Ex.  /.  c),  as  it  was 
 not  grown  up.  This  cereal  was  also  sown  in  Pal- 
 estine (Is.  I.  c),  on   the  margins  or  "headlands" 
 
 of  the  fields  (1^732);  it  was  used  for  mixing 
 with  wheat,  barley,  etc.,  for  making  bread  (Ez. 
 I.  c).  The  Arabic,  Chirsamd,  "spelt,"  is  regarded 
 by  Gesenius  as  identical  with  the  Hebrew  word, 
 in  and  n  being  interchanged  and  r  inserted. 
 "  Spelt"  (Triticum  spelta)  is  grown  in  some  parts 
 of  the  south  of  Germany;  it  differs  but  slightly 
 from  our  common  wheat  {T.  vulgare).  There  are 
 three  kinds  of  spelt,  namely,  T.  spelta,  T.  dicoc- 
 cum  (rice  wheat),  and  T.  monocuccum.  [Rie, 
 Amer.  ed.]  W.  H. 
 
 S. 
 
 SAB'AOTH,  THE  LORD  OP  (Kip.os  cra- 
 ^aciO:  Dominus  Snbaoth).  The  name  is  found  in 
 the  English  Bible  only  twice  (Rom.  ix.  29;  James 
 V.  4).  It  is  probably  more  fiimiliar  through  its 
 occurrence  in  the  Sanctus  of  the  Te  I  )eum  "  -' 
 "  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God  of  Sabaoth."  It  is 
 too  often  considered  to  be  a  synonym  of,  or  to  have 
 some  connection  with  Sabbath,  and  to  express  the 
 idea  of  rest.  And  this  not  only  popularly,  but  in 
 some  of  our  most  classical  ^vi-iters.*  Thus  Spenser, 
 Faery   Queen,  canto  viii.  2:  — 
 
 "  But  thenceforth  all  shall  rest  eternallj' 
 With  Him  that  is  the  God  of  Sabaoth  hight : 
 0  that  great  Sabaoth  God,  grant  me  that  Sabaoth 's 
 sight." 
 
 And  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning,  ii.  24:  — 
 "...  sacred  and  inspired  Divinity,  the  Sabaoth 
 and  port  of  all  men's  labors  and  peregrinations." 
 And  Johnson,  in  the  1st  edition  of  whose  Diction- 
 ary (1755)  Sabaoth  and  Salibath  are  treated  as  the 
 same  word.  And  Walter  Scott,  Ivanhoe,  i.  ch.  11 
 (Isted.):  —  "a  week,  aye  the  space  between  two 
 Sabaoths."  But  this  connection  is  quite  fictitious. 
 The  two  words  are  not  only  entirely  different,  but 
 have  nothing  in  common. 
 
 Sabaoth  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  word 
 tsebaoth,  "armies,"  and  occurs  in  the  oft-repeated 
 formula  which  is  translated  in  the  Authorizetl  \ev- 
 sion  of  the  Old  Test,  by  "  Lord  of  hosts,"  "  Lord 
 God  oi  hosts."  We  are  apt  to  take  "  Ao.sfs  "  (prob- 
 ably in  connection  with  the  modern  expression  the 
 "heavenly  host")  as  implying  the  angels  —  but 
 this  is  surely  inaccurate.  Tsebaoth  is  in  constant 
 use  in  the  0.  T.  for  the  national  army  or  force  of 
 fighting-men,'^  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in 
 the  mouth  and  the  mind  of  an  ancient  Hebrew,  Je- 
 hovah-tsebdoth  was  the  leader  and  commander  of 
 the  armies  of  the  nation,  who  "  went  forth  with 
 them"  (Ps.  xliv.  9),  and  led  them  to  certain  vic- 
 tory over  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  Chemosh,  Mo- 
 lech,  Ashtaroth,  and  other  false  gods.  In  later 
 times  it  lost  this  peculiar  significance,  and  became 
 little  if  anything  more  than  an  alternative  title  for 
 God.     The  name  is  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch, 
 
 c  n'W2!?.    See  1  Sam.  xii.  9,  1  K.  i.  19,  and  pas 
 sim  in  Burgh's  Concordance,  p.  1058. 
 
2758 
 
 SABAT 
 
 or  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  or  Ruth.  It  is 
 frequent  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  rarer  in  Kings, 
 is  found  twice  only  in  the  Chronicles,  and  not  at 
 all  in  Ezekiel;  but  in  the  Psalms,  in  Isaiah,  Jere- 
 miah, and  the  minor  Prophets  it  is  of  constant  oc- 
 currence, and  in  fact  is  used  almost  to  the  exclusion 
 of  every  other  title.     [Tsevaoth,  Am.  ed.]     G. 
 
 SA'BAT  Ua(pdy;  Alex,  ^acpar;  [Aid.  2a- 
 jSarO  Pliasphnt).  1.  The  sons  of  Sabat  are 
 enumerated  among  the  sons  of  Solomon's  servants 
 who  returned  with  Zorobabel  (1  Esdr.  v.  34). 
 There  is  no  corresponding  name  in  the  lists  of 
 Ezra  and  Neheniiah. 
 
 2.  (2a/3aT:  Habath.)  The  month  Sebat  (1 
 Mace.  xvi.  14). 
 
 SABATE'AS  [A.V.ed.  1611,SABATE'US] 
 (CZa^aTOiOs;  Alex.  Sa/S/Sotraias:  [.A,ld.  2a/3aT- 
 Taiaj:]  Sdbhntheus).  Siiaubethai  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
 48;  conip.  Neh.  viii.  7). 
 
 SAB'ATUS  (2a3a0os;  [Aid.  2a/3aTos :]  Zab- 
 dis).     Zabad  (1  Esdr.  ix.  28;  conip.  Ezr.  x.  27). 
 
 SAB'BAN  (2a;3ai/j/os:  Banni).  Binnui  1 
 (1  Esdr.  viii.  03;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  33). 
 
 SABBATH  (ri3tt7,   "  a  day  of  rest,"  from 
 
 n^tt^)  "to  cease  to  do,"  "to  rest").  This  is  the 
 obvious  and  undoubted  etymology.  The  resem- 
 blance of  the  word  to  573tt7,  "  seven,"  misled  Lac- 
 tantius  {hut.  iii.  14)  and  others;  but  it  does  not 
 seem   more  than  accidental.     Bahr  {Syrnbolilc,  ii. 
 
 533-34)  does  not  reject  the  derivation  from  HStl?, 
 
 but  traces  that  to  31ti7,  somewhat  needlessly  and 
 fancifully,  as  it  appears  to  us.  Plutarch's  associa- 
 tion of  the  word  with  the  Bacchanalian  cry  (ra^ol 
 may  of  course  be  dismissed  at  once.    We  have  also 
 
 (Ex.  xvi.  23,  and  Lev.  xxiii.  24)  'JirCltt'',  of  more 
 
 intense   signification    than    n2ti7:    also    iH^ti? 
 
 ^lilDti?,  "  a  Sabbath  of  Sabbaths  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  15, 
 and  elsewhere).  The  name  Sabbath  is  thus  ap- 
 plied to  divers  great  festivals,  but  principally  and 
 usually  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  the  strict 
 observance  of  which  is  enforced  not  merely  in  the 
 general  Mosaic  code,  but  in  the  Decalogue  itself. 
 
 The  first  Scriptural  notice  of  the  weekly  Sab- 
 bath, though  it  is  not  mentioned  by  name,  is  to  be 
 found  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  at  the  close  of  the  record  of  the 
 six  days'  creation.  And  hence  it  is  frequently  ar- 
 gued that  the  institution  is  as  old  as  mankind,  and 
 is  consequently  of  universal  concern  and  obligation. 
 We  camiot,  however,  approach  this  question  till  we 
 have  examined  the  account  of  its  enforcement  upon 
 the  Israelites.  It  is  in  Ex.  xvi.  23-29  that  we  find 
 the  first  incontrovertible  institution  of  the  day,  as 
 one  given  to,  and  to  be  kept  by,  the  children  of  Is- 
 rael. Shortly  afterwards  it  was  reenacted  in  the 
 Fourth  Commandment,  which  gave  it  a  rank  above 
 that  of  an  ordinary  law,  making  it  one  of  the  signs 
 of  the  Covenant.  As  such  it  remained  together 
 with  the  Passover,  the  two  forming  the  most  sol- 
 emn and  distinctive  features  of  Hebrew  religious 
 life.  Its  neglect  or  profanation  ranked  foremost 
 among  national  sins ;  the  renewed  observance  of  it 
 was  sure  to  accompany  national  reformation. 
 
 Before,  then,  dealing  with  the  question  whether 
 
 a  Vide  Patrick  in  loc,  and  Selden,  Ue  Jure  Nat. 
 Qent.  iii.  9. 
 b  Tide  Grotius  in  loc,  who  refers  to  Aben-Ezra. 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 its  original  institution  comprised  mankind  at  large, 
 or  merely  stamped  on  Israel  a  very  marked  badge 
 of  nationality,  it  will  be  well  to  trace  somewhat  of 
 its  position  and  history  among  the  chosen  people. 
 
 Many  of  the  Itabbis  date  its  first  institution  from 
 the  incident "  recorded  in  Ex.  xv.  2.5 ;  and  believe 
 that  the  "statute  and  ordinance"  there  mentioned 
 as  being  given  by  God  to  the  children  of  Israel  was 
 that  of  the  Sabbath,  together  with  the  command- 
 ment to  honor  father  and  mother,  their  previous 
 law  having  consisted  only  of  what  are  called  the 
 "seven  precepts  of  Noah."  This,  however,  seems 
 to  want  foundation  of  any  sort,  and  the  statute  and 
 ordinance  in  question  are,  we  think,  sufficiently  ex- 
 plained by  the  words  of  ver.  20,  "  If  thou  wilt  dili- 
 gently hearken,"  etc.  We  are  not  on  sure  ground 
 till  we  come  to  the  unmistakable  institution  in  ch. 
 xvi.  in  connection  with  the  gathering  of  manna. 
 The  words  in  this  latter  are  not  in  themselves 
 enough  to  indicate  whether  such  institution  was  al- 
 together a  novelty,  or  whether  it  referred  to  a  day 
 the  sanctity  of  which  was  already  known  to  those 
 to  whom  it  was  given.  There  is  plausibility  cer- 
 tainly in  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  that  the  day  was 
 already  known,  and  in  some  measure  observed  as 
 holy,  but  that  the  rule  of  abstinence  from  work  was 
 first  given  then,  and  shortly  afterwards  more  ex- 
 plicitly imposed  in  the  Fourth  Commandment. 
 There  it  is  distinctly  set  forth,  and  extended  to  the 
 whole  of  an  Israelite's  household,  his  son  and  his 
 daughter,  his  slaves,  male  and  female,  his  ox  and 
 his  ass,  and  the  stranger  within  his  gates.  It 
 would  seem  that  by  this  last  was  understood  the 
 stranger  who  while  still  uncircumcised  yet  wor- 
 shipped the  true''  God;  for  the  mere  heathen 
 stranger  was  not  considered  to  l>e  under  the  law  of 
 the  Sabbath.  In  the  Fourth  Commandment,  too, 
 the  institution  is  grounded  on  the  revealed  truth 
 of  the  six  days'  creation  and  the  Divine  rest  on 
 the  seventh;  but  in  the  version  of  it  which  we 
 find  in  Deuteronomy  a  further  reason  is  added : 
 "  And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  stranger  in  the 
 land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought 
 thee  forth  with  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched- 
 out  arm ;  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded 
 thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day  "  (Deut.  v.  15). 
 
 Penalties  and  provisions  in  other  parts  of  the 
 Law  construed  the  abstinence  from  labor  prescribed 
 in  the  coramanument.  It  was  forbidden  to  light  a 
 fire,  a  man  was  stoned  for  gathering  sticks,  on  the 
 Sabbath.  At  a  later  period  we  find  the  Prophet 
 Isaiah  uttering  solemn  warnings  against  profaning, 
 and  promising  large  blessings  on  the  due  observ- 
 ance of  the  day  (Is.  Iviii.  13,  14).  In  Jeremiah's 
 time  there  seems  to  have  been  an  habitual  violation 
 of  it,  amounting  to  transacting  on  it  such  an  ex- 
 tent of  business  as  involved  the  carrying  burdens 
 about  (Jer.  xvii.  21-27).  His  denunciations  of 
 this  seem  to  have  led  the  Pharisees  in  their  bond- 
 age to  the  letter  to  condemn  the  impotent  man  for 
 carrying  his  bed  on  the  Sabbath  in  obedience  to 
 Christ  who  had  healed  him  (John  v.  10).  We 
 must  not  suppose  that  our  Lord  prescribed  a  real 
 violation  of  the  Law;  and  it  requires  little  thought 
 to  distinguish  between  such  a  natural  and  almost 
 necessary  act  as  that  which  He  commanded,  and 
 the  carrying  of  burdens  in  connection  with  busi- 
 ness which  is  denounced  by  Jeremiah.  By  Ezekiel 
 (xx.  12-24),  a  passage  to  which  we  must  shortly 
 return,  the  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  is  made  fore- 
 most among  the  national  sins  of  the  Jews.  From 
 Nehemiah  x.  31,  we  learn  that  the  people  entered 
 
SABBATH 
 
 into  a  covenant  to  renew  the  observance  of  the  Law, 
 in  which  they  pledged  themselves  neither  to  buy 
 nor  sell  victuals  on  the  Sal)I)ath.  'J'he  practice  was 
 then  not  infrequent,  and  Nehemiah  tells  us  (xiii. 
 15-22)  of  the  successful  steps  which  he  took  for  its 
 stoppage. 
 
 Henceforward  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  Sabbath 
 being  neglected  by  the  Jews,  except  such  as  (1 
 Mace.  i.  11-15,  39-45)  went  into  open  apostasy. 
 The  faithful  renniant  were  so  scrupulous  concerning 
 it,  as  to  forbear  fighting  in  self-defense  on  that  day 
 (1  Mace.  ii.  3G),  and  it  was  only  the  terrible  conse- 
 quences that  ensued  which  led  Mattathias  and  his 
 friends  to  decree  the  lawfulness  of  self-defense  on 
 the  Sabbath  (1  Mace.  ii.  41). 
 
 When  we  come  to  the  N.  T.  we  find  the  most 
 marked  stress  laid  on  the  Sabbath.  In  whatever 
 ways  the  Jew  might  err  respecting  it,  he  had  al- 
 together ceased  to  neglect  it.  On  the  contrary, 
 wherever  he  went  its  observance  became  the  most 
 visible  badge  of  his  nationality.  The  passages  of 
 Latin  literature,  such  as  Ovid,  Art.  AmaL,  i.  415; 
 Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  96-100,  which  indicate  this,  are 
 too  well  known  to  reijuire  citation.  Our  Lord's 
 mode  of  observing  the  Sabbath  was  one  of  the  main 
 features  of  his  life,  which  his  Pharisaic  adversaries 
 most  eagerly  watched  and  criticised.  They  had 
 by  that  time  invented  many  of  those  fantastic  pro- 
 hibitions whereby  the  letter  of  the  commandment 
 seemed  to  be  honored  at  the  expense  of  its  whole 
 spirit,  dignity,  and  value;  and  our  Lord,  coming 
 to  vindicate  and  fulfill  the  Law  in  its  real  scope 
 and  intention,  must  needs  come  into  collision  with 
 these. 
 
 Before  proceeding  to  any  of  the  more  curious 
 questions  connected  with  the  Sabbath,  such  as  that 
 of  its  alleged  pre-Mosaic  origin  and  observance,  it 
 will  be  well  to  consider  and  determine  what  were 
 its  true  idea  and  purpose  in  that  Law  of  which 
 beyond  doubt  it  formed  a  leading  feature,  and 
 among  that  people  for  whom,  if  for  none  else,  we 
 know  that  it  was  designed.  And  we  shall  do  this 
 with  most  advantage,  as  it  seems  to  us,  by  pursu- 
 ing the  inquiry  in  the  following  order:  — 
 
 L  By  considering,  with  a  view  to  their  elimina- 
 tion, the  Pharisaic  and  Rabbinical  prohibitions. 
 These  we  have  the  highest  authority  for  rejecting, 
 as  inconsistent  with  the  true  scope  of  the  Law. 
 
 IL  By  taking  a  survey  of  the  general  Sabbatical 
 periods  of  Hebrew  time.  The  weekly  Sabbath  stood 
 in  the  relation  of  key-note  to  a  scale  of  Sabbatical 
 observance,  mounting  to  the  Sabbatical  year  and 
 the  year  of  Jubilee."  It  is  but  reasonable  to  sus- 
 pect that  these  can  in  some  degree  interpret  each 
 other. 
 
 III.  By  examining  the  actual  enactments  of 
 Scripture  respecting  the  seventh  day,  and  the  mode 
 in  which  such  observance  was  maintained  by  the 
 best  Israehtes. 
 
 I.  Nearly  every  one  is  aware  that  the  Pharisaic 
 and  Itabbinical  schools  invented  many  prohiliitions 
 respecting  the  Sabbath  of  which  we  find  nothing  in 
 the  original  institution.  Of  these  some  may  have 
 been  legitimate  enforcements  in  detail  of  that  insti- 
 tution, such  as  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  "  sitting 
 in  Moses'  seat  "  (Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3)  had  a  right  to 
 mpose.  How  a  general  law  is  to  be  carried  out  in 
 particular   cases,    must   often    be   determined   for 
 
 o  It  is  obvious  from  the  whole  scope  of  the  chapter 
 chat  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  sabbaths,"  in  Lev. 
 xzri.  2,  related  to  all  these.    In  the  ensuing  threat  of 
 
 SABBATH  2759 
 
 others  by  such  as  have  authority  to  do  so.  To 
 this  class  may  belong  the  limitation  of  a  Sabbath- 
 day's  journey,  a  limitation  not  absolutely  at  vari- 
 ance with  the  fundamental  canon  that  tlie  Sabbath 
 was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabliath,  al- 
 though it  may  ha\e  proceeded  from  mistaking  a 
 temporary  enactment  for  a  permanent  one.  Jlany, 
 however,  of  these  prohibitions  were  fantastic  and 
 arbitrary,  in  the  numlier  of  those  "  heavy  burdens 
 and  grievous  to  be  borne"  which  the  later  ex- 
 pounders of  the  Law  "  laid  on  men's  shoulders." 
 We  have  seen  that  the  impotent  man's  carrying  his 
 bed  was  considered  a  violation  of  the  Sabl)ath  —  a 
 notion  probably  derived  from  Jeremiah's  warnings 
 against  the  commercial  trafhc  carried  on  at  the 
 gates  of  Jerusalem  in  his  day.  The  harmless  act 
 of  the  disciples  in  the  corn-field,  and  the  beneficent 
 healing  of  the  man  in  the  synagogue  with  the 
 withered  hand  (Matt.  xii.  1-13),  were  alike  re- 
 garded as  breaches  of  the  Law.  Our  Lord's  reply 
 in  the  former  case  will  come  before  us  under  our 
 third  head ;  in  the  latter  He  appeals  to  the  prac- 
 tice of  the  objectors,  who  would  any  one  of  them 
 raise  his  own  sheep  out  of  the  pit  into  which  the 
 animal  had  follen  on  the  Sabbath-day.  From  this 
 appeal,  we  are  forced  to  infer  that  such  practice 
 would  have  lieen  held  lawlul  at  the  time  and  place 
 in  which  He  spoke.  It  is  remarkai)le,  however, 
 that  we  find  it  prohibited  in  other  traditions,  the 
 law  laid  down  being,  that  in  this  case  a  man  might 
 throw  some  needful  nourishment  to  the  animal,  but 
 must  not  pull  him  out  till  the  next  day.  (See 
 UeyViu,  IJisl.  (f  S(M(i(/i,  i.  8,  quoting  Buxtorf.) 
 This  rule  possibly  came  into  existence  in  conse- 
 quence of  our  Lord's  appeal,  and  with  a  view  to 
 warding  ofi"  the  necessary  inference  from  it.  Still 
 more  fantastic  prohibitions  were  issued.  It  was 
 unlawful  to  catch  a  flea  on  the  Sabbath,  except 
 the  insect  were  actually  hurting  his  assailant,  or  to 
 mount  into  a  tree,  lest  a  branch  or  twig  should 
 be  broken  in  the  process.  The  Samaritans  were 
 especially  rigid  in  matters  like  these;  and  Dosi- 
 theus,  who  founded  a  sect  amongst  them,  went  so 
 far  as  to  maintain  the  obligation  of  a  man's  re- 
 maining throughout  the  Sabbath  in  the  posture 
 wherein  he  chanced  to  be  at  its  commencement  — 
 a  rule  which  most  people  would  find  quite  destruc- 
 tive of  its  character  as  a  day  of  rest.  When  minds 
 were  occupied  with  such  microlngy,  as  this  has  been 
 well  called,  there  was  obviously  no  limit  to  the 
 number  of  prohibitions  which  they  might  devise, 
 confusing,  as  they  obviously  did,  abstinence  from 
 action  of  every  sort  with  rest  from  business  and 
 labor. 
 
 That  this  perversion  of  the  Sabbath  had  become 
 very  general  in  our  Saviour's  time  is  apparent  both 
 from  the  recorded  objections  to  acts  of  his  on  that 
 day,  and  from  his  marked  conduct  on  occasions  to 
 which  those  ol  jections  were  sure  to  be  urged.  There 
 is  no  reason,  however,  for  thinking  that  the  Phar- 
 isees had  arrived  at  a  sentence  against  pleasure  of 
 every  sort  on  the  sacred  day.  The  duty  of  hospi- 
 tality was  remembered.  It  was  usual  for  the  rich 
 to  give  a  feast  on  that  day;  and  our  Lord's  attend- 
 ance at  such  a  feast,  and  making  it  the  occasion  of 
 putting  forth  his  rules  for  the  demeanor  of  guests, 
 and  for  the  right  exercise  of  hospitality,  show  that 
 the  gathering  of  friends  and  social  enjoyment  were 
 
 judgment  in  case  of  neglect  or  violation  of  the  Law, 
 the  Sabbatical  year  would  seem  to  be  mainly  referred 
 to  (vv.  34,  35). 
 
2760 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 not  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  true  scope  and 
 spirit  of  the  Sabbath.  It  was  thou^lit  right  tliat 
 tlie  meats,  though  cold,  should  be  of  the  best  and 
 choicest,  nor  might  the  Sabbath  be  chosen  for  a 
 fast. 
 
 Such  are  the  inferences  to  which  we  are  brought 
 by  our  Lord's  words  concerning,  and  works  on,  the 
 sacred  day.  We  have  already  protested  against 
 the  notion  which  has  been  entertained  that  they 
 were  breaches  of  the  Sabbath  intended  as  harbin- 
 gers of  its  abolition.  Granthig  for  argument's  sake 
 that  such  abolition  was  in  prospect,  still  our  Lord, 
 "  made  under  the  Law,"  would  have  violated  no 
 part  of  it  so  long  as  it  was  Law.  Xor  can  any- 
 thing be  inferred  on  the  other  side  from  the  Evan- 
 gelist's language  (John  v.  18).  The  phrase  "  He 
 had  broken  the  Sabbath,"  obviously  denotes  not 
 the  character  of  our  Saviour's  act,  but  the  Jewish 
 estimate  of  it.  He  had  broken  the  Pharisaic  rules 
 respecting  the  Sabbath.  Similarly  his  own  phrase, 
 "  the  priests  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are  blame- 
 les3,"  can  only  be  understood  to  assert  the  lawful- 
 ness of  certain  acts  done  for  certain  reasons  on  that 
 day,  which,  taken  in  themselves  and  without  those 
 reasons,  would  be  profanations  of  it.  There  re- 
 mains only  his  appeal  to  the  eating  of  the  shew- 
 bread  by  David  and  his  companions,  which  was  no 
 doubt  in  its  matter  a  breach  of  the  Law.  It 
 does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  act  in  justifi- 
 cation of  which  it  is  appealed  to  was  such  a 
 breach.  It  is  rather,  we  think,  an  argument  n 
 fortiori,  to  the  etiect,  that  if  even  a  positive  law 
 might  give  place  on  occasion,  much  more  might  an 
 arbitrary  rule  like  that  of  the  Rabbis  in  the  case  in 
 question. 
 
 Finally,  the  declaration  that  "  the  Son  of  ]\Ian 
 is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath,"  must  not  be  viewed 
 as  though  our  Lord  held  Himself  free  from  the 
 Law  respecting  it.  It  is  to  be  taken  iti  connection 
 with  the  preceding  words,  "  the  Sabbath  was  made 
 for  man,"  etc.,  from  which  it  is  an  inference,  as  is 
 shown  by  the  adverb  therefore  ;  and  the  Son  of 
 Man  is  plainly  speaking  of  Himself  as  ilit  Man,  the 
 Representative  and  Exemplar  of  all  mankind,  and 
 teaching  us  that  the  human  race  is  lord  of  the 
 Sabbath,  the  day  being  made  for  man,  not  man  for 
 the  day. 
 
 If,  then,  our  Lord,  coming  to  fulfill  and  rightly 
 interpret  the  Law,  did  thus  protest  against  the 
 Pharisaical  and  Rabbinical  rules  respecting  the  Sab- 
 bath, we  are  supplied  by  this  protest  with  a  large 
 negative  view  of  that  ordinance.  The  acts  con- 
 demned by  the  Pharisees  ivere  not  violations  of  it. 
 Mere  action,  as  such,  was  not  a  violation  of  it,  and 
 far  less  was  a  work  of  healing  and  beneficence.  To 
 this  we  shall  have  occasion  by  and  by  to  return. 
 Meanwhile  we  must  try  to  gain  a  positive  view  of 
 the  institution,  and  proceed  in  furtherance  of  this 
 to  our  second  head. 
 
 II.  The  Sabbath,  as  we  have  said,  was  the  key- 
 note to  a  scale  of  Sabbatical  observance — consist- 
 ing of  itself,  the  seventh  month,  the  se^■enth  year, 
 and  the  year  of  Jubilee.  As  each  seventh  day 
 was  sacred,  so  was  each  seventh  month,  and  each 
 seventh  year.  Of  the  observances  of  the  seventh 
 month,  little  needs  be  said.  That  month  opened 
 with  the  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  contained  the  Day 
 of  Atonement  and  Feast  of  Tabernacles  —  the  last 
 named  being  the  most  joyful  of  Hebrew  festivals. 
 It  is  not  apparent,  nor  likely,  that  the  whole  of 
 the  month  was  to  be  characterized  by  cessation 
 from    labor;    but  it  certainly  has  a  place  in  the 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 Sabbatical  scale.  Its  great  centre  was  the  Feast 
 of  Tabernacles  or  Ingathering,  the  year  and  the 
 )-ear's  labor  having  then  done  their  work  and 
 yielded  their  issues.  In  this  last  respect  its  anal- 
 ogy to  the  weekly  Sabbath  is  obvious.  Only  at 
 this  part  of  the  Sabbatical  cycle  do  we  find  any 
 notice  of  humiliation.  On  the  Day  of  Atonement 
 the  people  were  to  afflict  their  souls  (Lev.  xxiii. 
 27-29). 
 
 The  rules  for  the  Sabbatical  year  are  very  pre- 
 cise. As  labor  was  prohibited  on  the  seventh  day, 
 so  the  land  was  to  rest  every  seventh  year.  And 
 as  each  forty-ninth  year  wound  up  seven  of  such 
 weeks  of  years,  so  it  either  was  itself,  or  it  ushered 
 in,  what  was  called  "  the  year  of  Jubilee." 
 
 In  E.xodus  xxiii.  10,  11,  we  find  the  Sabbatical 
 year  placed  in  close  connection  with  the  Sabbath- 
 day,  and  the  words  in  which  the  former  is  pre- 
 scribed are  analogous  to  those  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
 mandment: "Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land 
 and  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof;  but  the  seventh 
 year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  still;  that  the 
 poor  of  thy  people  may  eat;  and  what  they  leave 
 the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  eat."  This  is  imme- 
 diately followed  by  a  renewed  proclamation  of  the 
 law  of  the  Sabl)ath,  "  Six  days  thou  shalt  do  thy 
 work,  and  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest:  that 
 thine  ox  and  thine  ass  may  rest,  and  the  son  of  thy 
 handmaid,  and  the  stranger  may  be  refreshed."  It 
 is  impossilile  to  avoid  perceiving  that  in  these  pas- 
 sages the  two  institutions  are  put  on  the  same 
 ground,  and  are  represented  as  quite  homogeneous. 
 Their  aim,  as  here  exhibited,  is  eminently  a  benefi- 
 cent one.  To  give  rights  to  classes  that  would 
 otherwise  have  lieen  without  such,  to  the  bond- 
 man and  bondmaid,  nay,  to  the  beast  of  the  field, 
 is  viewed  here  as  their  main  end.  "  The  stranger," 
 too,  is  comprehended  in  the  benefit.  Jlany,  we 
 suspect,  while  reading  the  Fourth  f'ommaiidnient, 
 merely  regard  him  as  subjected,  together  with  his 
 host  and  family,  to  a  jirohibition.  But  if  we  con- 
 sider how  continually  the  slrnnger  is  referred  to 
 in  the  enactments  of  the  Law,  and  that  with  a 
 view  to  his  protection,  the  instances  being  one-and- 
 twenty  in  number,  we  shall  be  led  to  regard  his 
 inclusion  in  the  Fourth  Commandment  rather  as  a 
 benefit  conferred  than  a  prohibition  imposed  on 
 him. 
 
 The  same  beneficent  aim  is  still  more  apparent 
 in  the  fuller  legislation  respecting  the  Sabbatical 
 year  which  we  find  in  Lev.  xxv.  2-7,  "  When  ye 
 come  into  the  land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall 
 the  land  keep  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord.  Six  years 
 thou  shalt  sow  thy  field,  and  six  years  thou  shglt 
 prune  thy  vineyard,  and  gather  in  the  fruit  thereof; 
 but  in  the  seveuth  year  shall  be  a  sabbath  of  rest 
 unto  the  land,  a  sabliath  unto  the  Lord ;  thou 
 shalt  neither  sow  thy  field  nor  prune  thy  vineyard. 
 That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord  of  thy  har- 
 vest thou  shalt  not  reap,  neither  gather  the  grapes 
 of  thy  vine  undressed :  for  it  is  a  year  of  rest 
 unto  the  land.  And  the  sabbath  of  the  land  shall 
 be  meat  for  j'ou;  for  thee,  and  for  thy  slave,  and 
 for  thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  servant,  and  for  thy 
 stranger  that  sojourneth  with  thee,  and  for  thy 
 cattle  and  for  the  beasts  that  are  in  thy  land, 
 shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  meat."  One  great 
 aim  of  both  institutions,  the  Sabbath-day  and  the 
 Sabbatical  year,  clearly  was  to  debar  the  Hebrew 
 from  the  thought  of  absolute  ownership  of  any- 
 thing. His  time  was  not  his  own,  as  was  shown  him 
 by  each  seventh  day  being  the  Sabbath  of  the  I>ord 
 
SABBATH 
 
 his  God;  his  iand  was  not  his  own  but  God's  (Lev. 
 XXV.  23),  as  was  shown  by  the  Sabbath  of  eacli 
 seventh  year,  during  which  it  was  to  have  rest, 
 and  all  individual  right  over  it  was  to  be  sus- 
 pended. It  was  also  to  be  the  year  of  release  from 
 debt  (Deut.  xv.).  We  do  not  read  much  of  the 
 way  in  which,  or  the  extent  to  which,  the  Hebrews 
 observed  the  Saljbatical  yatir.  The  reference  to  it 
 (2  Chr.  xxxvi.  21)  leads  us  to  conclude  that  it  had 
 been  much  neglected  previous  to  the  Captivity,  but 
 it  was  certainly  not  lost  sight  of  afterwards,  since 
 Alexander  the  Great  absolved  the  .Jews  from  pay- 
 ing tribute  on  it,  their  religion  debarring  them 
 from  acquiring  the  means  of  doing  so.  [Sabbat- 
 ical Ykak.] 
 
 The  year  of  Jubilee  must  be  regarded  as  com- 
 pleting this  Sabbatical  scale,  whether  we  consider 
 it  as  really  the  forty-ninth  year,  the  seventh  of  a 
 week  of  Sabbatical  years,  or  the  fiftieth,  a  question 
 on  which  opinions  are  divided,  [.jubilee,  Yeak 
 OF.]  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  deciding  for 
 the  latter,  that  the  land  could  hardly  bear  enough 
 spontaneously  to  suffice  for  two  ye.ars,  seems  dis- 
 posed of  by  reference  to  Isaiah  xxxvii.  30.  Adopt- 
 ing, therefore,  that  opinion  as  the  most  probable, 
 we  must  consider  eacli  week  of  Sabbatical  years  to 
 have  ended  in  a  double  Salibatical  period,  to  which, 
 moreover,  increased  emphasis  was  given  by  the  pe- 
 culiar enactments  respecting  the  second  half  of 
 such  period,  the  year  of  .Jul^ilee. 
 
 Those  enactments  have  been  already  considered 
 in  the  article  just  refei'red  to,  and  throw  further  light 
 on  the  beneficent  character  of  the  Sabbatical  Law. 
 
 III.  We  must  consider  the  actual  enactments  of 
 Scripture  respecting  the  seventh  day.  However 
 homogeneous  the  different  Sabbatical  periods  may 
 be.  the  weekly  Sabbath  is,  as  we  h.ave  said,  the 
 tonic  or  key-note.  It  alone  is  prescribed  in  the 
 Decalogue,  and  it  alone  has  in  any  shape  survived 
 the  earthly  commonwealth  of  Israel.  We  must 
 still  postpone  the  question  of  its  oliservance  by  the 
 patriarchs,  and  commence  our  inquiry  with  the 
 institution  of  it  in  the  wilderness,  in  connection 
 with  the  gathering  of  maima  (Ex.  xvi.  23).  The 
 prohibition  to  gather  the  manna  on  the  Sabbath 
 is  accompanied  by  one  to  bake  or  to  seethe  on  that 
 day.  The  Fourth  Commandment  gives  us  but 
 the  generality,  "all  manner  of  work,"  and,  seeing 
 that  action  of  one  kind  or  another  is  a  necessary 
 accompaniment  of  waking  life,  and  cannot  there- 
 fore in  itself  be  intended,  as  the  later  Jews  im- 
 agined, by  the  prohibition,  we  are  left  to  seek 
 elsewhere  for  the  particular  application  of  the 
 general  principle.  That  general  principle  in  itself, 
 however,  obviously  embraces  an  abstinence  from 
 worldly  labor  or  occupation,  and  from  the  en- 
 forcing such  on  servants  or-  dependents,  or  on  the 
 stranger.  By  him,  as  we  have  said,  is  most  prob- 
 ably meant  the  partial  proselyte,  who  would  not 
 have  received  nuich  consideration  from  the  Hebrews 
 had  they  been  left  to  themselves,  as  we  must  infer 
 from  the  numerous  laws  enacted  for  his  protection. 
 Had  man  been  then  regarded  by  him  as  made  for 
 the  Sabbath,  not  the  Sabbath  for  man,  that  is,  had 
 the  prohibitions  of  the  commandment  been  viewed 
 as  the  putting  on  of  a  yoke,  not  the  conferring  of  a 
 privilege,  one  of  the  dominant  race  would  probably 
 have  felt  no  reluctance  to  placing  such  a  stranger 
 under  that  yoke.  The  naming  him  therefore  in 
 the  commandment  helps  to  interpret  its  whole 
 principle,  and  testifies  to  its  having  been  a  benefi- 
 cent privilege  for  all  who  came  within  it.  It  gave 
 174 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 2TC1 
 
 rights  to  the  slave,  to  the  despised  stranger,  even 
 to  the  ox  and  the  ass. 
 
 This  beneficent  character  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
 mandment is  very  aiipareut  in  the  version  of  it 
 which  we  find  in  Deuteronomy:  "  Keep  the  Sab- 
 bath-day to  sanctify  it,  as  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
 conmianded  thee.  Six  days  thou  shalt  labor  and 
 do  all  thy  work,  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sab- 
 bath of  the  Lord  thy  God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do 
 any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter, 
 nor  thy  bondman,  nor  thy  bondwoman,  nor  thine 
 ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  within 
 thy  gates:  that  thy  bondman  and  tliy  bond- 
 woman njay  rest  as  well  as  thou.  And  reniembfer 
 that  thou  wast  a  slave  in  the  land  of  I'.gypt,  and 
 that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence 
 through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched-out 
 arm:  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded 
 thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath-day"  (Deut.  v.  12-15). 
 But  although  this  be  so,  and  though  it  be  plain 
 that  to  come  within  the  scope  of  the  connnand- 
 ment  was  to  possess  a  franchise,  to  share  in  a  i)rivi- 
 lege,  yet  does  the  original  proclamation  of  it  in 
 Exodus  place  it  on  a  ground  which,  closely  con- 
 nected no  doubt  with  these  others,  is  yet  higher  and 
 more  comprehensive.  The  divine  method  of  work- 
 ing and  rest  is  there  proposed  to  man  as  the  model 
 after  which  he  is  to  work  and  to  rest.  Time  then 
 presents  a  perfect  whole,  is  then  well  rounded  and 
 entire,  when  it  is  shaped  into  a  week,  modeled  on 
 the  six  days  of  creation  and  their  following  Sab- 
 bath. Six  days'  work  and  the  seventh  day's  rest 
 conform  the  life  of  man  to  the  method  of  his  Cre- 
 ator. In  distributing  his  life  thus,  man  may  look 
 up  to  God  as  his  Archetype.  We  need  not  sup- 
 pose that  the  Hebrew,  even  in  that  early  stage  of 
 spiritual  education,  was  limited  by  so  gross  a  con- 
 ception as  that  of  God  working  and  then  resting, 
 as  if  needing  rest.  The  idea  awakened  by  the 
 record  of  creation  and  by  the  Fourth  Commandment 
 is  that  of  work  that  has  a  consummation,  perfect 
 in  itself  and  coming  to  a  perfect  end;  and  man's 
 work  is  to  be  like  this,  not  aimless,  indefinite,  and 
 incessant,  but  having  an  issue  on  which  he  can 
 repose,  and  see  and  rejoice  in  its  fi-uits.  God's 
 rest  consists  in  his  seeing  that  all  which  He  has 
 made  is  very  good;  and  man's  works  are  in  their 
 measure  and  degree  very  good  when  a  six  days' 
 faithful  labor  has  its  issue  in  a  seventh  of  rest 
 after  God's  pattern.  It  is  most  important  to  re- 
 member that  the  Fourth  Commandment  is  not 
 limited  to  a  mere  enactment  i-especting  one  day, 
 but  prescribes  tlie  due  distribution  of  a  week, 
 and  enforces  the  six  days'  work  as  much  as  the 
 seventh  day's  rest. 
 
 This  higher  ground  of  observance  was  felt  to 
 invest  the  Sabbath  with  a  theological  character, 
 and  rendered  it  the  great  witness  for  faith  in  a 
 personal  and  creating  God.  Hence  its  supremacy 
 over  all  the  Law,  being  sometimes  taken  as  the 
 representative  of  it  all  (Neh.  ix.  14).  The  Tal- 
 mud says  that  "the  Sabbath  is  in  importance 
 equal  to  the  whole  Law;"  that  "he  who  dese- 
 crates the  Sabbath  openly  is  like  him  who  trans- 
 gresses the  whole  Law;  "  while  Maimonides  winds 
 up  his  discussion  of  the  subject  thus:  "He  who 
 bi'eaks  the  Sabbath  openly  is  like  the  worshipper 
 of  the  stars,  and  both  are  like  heathens  in  every 
 respect." 
 
 In  all  this,  however,  we  have  l)ut  an  assertion 
 of  the  general  principle  of  resting  on  the  Sabbath, 
 and  must  seek  elsewhere  for  information  as  to  th« 
 
2762  SABBATH 
 
 details  wherewith  that  principle  was  to  be  brought 
 out.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  work  forbidden 
 is  not  to  be  confounded  with  action  of  every  sort. 
 To  make  this  confusion  was  the  error  of  the  later 
 Jews,  and  their  prohiljitions  would  go  far  to  render 
 the  Sabbath  incompatible  with  waking  life.  The 
 terms  in  the  commandment  show  plainly  enough 
 the  sort  of  work  which  is  contemplated.     They  are 
 
 ^D17i^  and  nDS  V^,  the  former  denoting  servile 
 woi'k,  and  the  latter  business  (see  Gesenius  sttb 
 voc.  ;  Michaelis,  Laws  of'  Moses,  iv.  195).  The 
 Pentateuch  presents  us  with  but  three  applications 
 of  tiie  general  principle.  The  lighting  a  fire 
 in  any  house  on  the  Sabbath  was  strictly  forbid- 
 den (Ex.  XXXV.  3),  and  a  man  was  stoned  for  gath- 
 ering sticks  on  that  day  (Num.  xv.  32-3G).  The 
 former  prohibition  is  thought  by  the  Jews  to  be 
 of  perjjetual  ibrce ;  but  some  at  least  of  the  Rabbis 
 have  held  that  it  applies  only  to  lighting  a  fire  for 
 culinary  purposes,  not  to  doing  so  in  cold  weather 
 for  the  sake  of  warmth.  The  latter  case,  that  of 
 the  man  gathering  sticks,  was  perhaps  one  of  more 
 labor  and  business  than  we  are  apt  to  imagine. 
 The  third  application  of  the  general  principle 
 which  we  find  in  the  l^entateuch  was  the  prohibi- 
 tion to  go  out  of  the  camp,  the  conmiand  to  every 
 one  to  abide  in  his  place  (Ex.  xvi.  2\))  on  the  Sab- 
 bath-day. This  is  so  obviously  connected  with  the 
 gathering  the  manna,  that  it  seems  most  natural 
 t(3  regard  it  as  a  mere  temporary  enactment  for  the 
 circumstances  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness.  It 
 was,  however,  afterwards  considered  by  the  He- 
 brews a  permanent  law,  and  appUed,  in  the  ab- 
 sence of  the  camp,  to  the  city  in  which  a  n)an 
 might  reside.  To  this  was  appended  the  dictum 
 that  a  space  of  two  thousand  ells  on  every  side  of 
 a  city  belonged  to  it,  and  to  go  that  distance 
 beyond  the  walls  was  permitted  as  "a  Sabbath- 
 day's  journey." 
 
 The  reference  of  Isaiah  to  the  Sabbath  gives  us 
 no  details.  Those  in  Jeremiah  and  Nehemiah  show 
 that  carrying  goods  for  sale,  and  buying  such,  were 
 equally  profanations  of  the  day. 
 
 There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  to  engage 
 the  enemy  on  the  Sabbath  was  considered  unlaw- 
 ful before  the  Captivity.  On  the  contrary,  there  is, 
 much  force  in  the  argument  of  Michaelis  (Laws  of 
 Moses,  iv.  196)  to  show  that  it  was  not.  His 
 reasons  are  as  follows :  — 
 
 1.  The  prohibited  ]T337,  sejTice,  does  not  even 
 suggest  the  thought  of  war. 
 
 2.  The  enemies  of  the  chosen  people  would  have 
 continually  selected  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  attack, 
 had  the  latter  been  forbidden  to  defend  themselves 
 then. 
 
 3.  We  read  of  long-protracted  sieges,  that  of 
 Rabbah  (2  Sam.  xi.,  xii.),and  that  of  Jerusalem  in 
 the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  which  latter  lasted  a  year 
 and  a  half,  during  which  the  enemy  would  cer- 
 tainly have  taken  advantage  of  any  such  abstinence 
 from  warfare  on  the  part  of  the  chosen  people. 
 
 At  a  subsequent  period  we  know  (1  Mace.  ii. 
 34-38)  that  the  scruple  existed  and  was  acted  on 
 with  most  calamitous  effects.  Those  effects  led 
 (1  Mace.  ii.  41)  to  determining  that  action  in  self- 
 defense  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath,  initiatory  at- 
 tack not.     The  reservation  was,  it  must  be  thought. 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 nearly  as  great  a  misconception  of  the  institution 
 as  the  overruled  scruple.  Certainly  warfare  has 
 nothing  to  do  with  the  servile  labor  or  the  worldly 
 business  contemplated  in  the  Fourth  Command- 
 ment, and  is,  as  regards  religious  observance,  a  law 
 to  itself.  Yet  the  scruple,  like  many  other  scruples, 
 proved  a  convenience,  ami  under  the  Roman  Km- 
 pire  the  Jews  procuretK  exemption  from  military 
 service  by  means  of  it.  It  was  not,  however,  with- 
 out its  evils.  In  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Roni- 
 pey  (Joseph.  A»t.  xiv.  4),  as  well  as  in  the  final  one 
 by  Titus,  the  Romans  took  advantage  of  it,  and, 
 abstaining  from  attack,  prosecuted  on  the  Sabbath, 
 without  molestation  fi'om  the  enemy,  such  works  as 
 eiialjled  them  to  renew  the  assault  with  increased 
 resources. 
 
 So  far  therefore  as  we  have  yet  gone,  so  far  as 
 the  negative  side  of  Sabbatical  observance  is  con- 
 cerned, it  would  seem  that  servile  labor,  whether 
 that  of  slaves  or  of  hired  servants,  and  all  worldly 
 business  on  the  part  of  masters,  was  suspended  on 
 the  Sabbath,  and  the  day  was  a  common  right  to 
 rest  and  be  refreshed,  possessed  by  all  classes  in 
 the  Hebrew  community.  It  was  thus,  as  we  have 
 urged,  a  beneficent  institution."  As  a  sign  between 
 God  and  his  chosen  people,  it  was  also  a  monitor 
 of  faith,  keeping  up  a  constant  witness,  on  the 
 ground  taken  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  and  in  the  Fourth  Com- 
 mandment, for  the  one  living  and  personal  God 
 whom  they  worshipped,  and  for  the  truth,  in  op- 
 position to  all  the  cosmogonies  of  the  heathen,  that 
 everything  was  created  by  Him. 
 
 We  must  now  quit  the  negative  for  the  positive 
 side  of  the  institution. 
 
 In  the  first  place,  we  learn  from  the  Pentateuch 
 that  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  were  both 
 douliled  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  that  the  fresh 
 shew-liread  was  then  liaked,  and  substituted  on  the 
 Table  for  that  of  the  previous  week.  And  this  at 
 once  leads  tc  the  obser\ation  that  the  negative 
 rules,  proscribing  work,  lighting  of  fires,  etc.,  did 
 not  apply  to  the  rites  of  religion.  It  became  a 
 dictum  that  there  ivas  no  Sabbath  in  holy  thinr/s. 
 To  this  our  Saviour  appeals  when  He  says  that  the 
 priests  in  the  Temple  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are 
 blameless. 
 
 Next,  it  is  clear  that  individual  offerings  were 
 not  breaches  of  the  Sabbath;  and  from  this  doubt- 
 less came  the  feasts  of  the  rich  on  that  day,  which 
 were  sanctioned,  as  we  have  seen,  by  our  Saviour's 
 attendance  on  one  such.  It  was,  we  may  be  pretty- 
 sure,  a  feast  on  a  sacrifice,  and  therefore  a  religious 
 act.  All  around  the  giver,  the  poor  as  well  as 
 others,  were  admitted  to  it.  Yet  further,  in  "  cases 
 of  illness,  and  in  any,  even  the  remotest  danger," 
 the  prohibitions  of  work  were  not  held  to  apply. 
 The  general  principle  was  that  "  the  Sabbath  is  de- 
 livered into  your  hand,  not  you  into  the  hand  of 
 the  Sabbath"  (comp.  Mark  ii.  27,  28). 
 
 We  have  no  ground  for  supposing  that  anything 
 like  the  didactic  institutions  of  the  synagogue 
 formed  part  of  the  original  observance  of  the  Sab- 
 bath. Such  institutions  do  not  come  into  being 
 while  the  matter  to  which  they  relate  is  itself  only 
 in  process  of  formation.  Expounding  the  Law 
 presumes  the  completed  existence  of  the  Law,  and 
 the  removal  of  the  living  lawgiver.  The  assertion 
 of  the  Talmud  that  "  Moses  ordained  to  the  Israel- 
 
 a  In  this  light  the  Sabbath  has  found  a  champion 
 In  one  who  would  not,  we  suppose,  have  paid  it  much 
 respect  in  its  theological  character ;  we  mean  no  less 
 
 a  person  than  M.  Proudhon  (De  la   Celebration  du 
 Dimanche). 
 
SABBATH 
 
 ites  that  tliey  should  read  the  Law  on  the  Sahbath- 
 ilays,  the  feasts,  and  the  new  moons,"  in  itself  ini- 
 jirobable,  is  utterly  unsupported  by  the  Penta- 
 teuch. The  rise  of  such  custom  in  after  times  is 
 explicable  enough.  [Synagogue.]  But  from  an 
 eai'ly  period,  if  not,  as  is  most  proliable,  from  the 
 very  institution,  occupation  with  holy  themes  was 
 regarded  as  an  essential  part  of  the  observance  of 
 the  Sabbath.  It  would  seem  to  have  been  an 
 habitual  practice  to  repair  to  a  prophet  on  that 
 day,  in  order,  it  nnist  be  presumed,  to  listen  to  his 
 teaching  (2  K.  iv.  23).  Certain  Psalms  too,  e.  (j. 
 the  92d,  were  composed  for  the  Sabbath,  and 
 probably  used  in  private  as  well  as  in  the  Taber- 
 nacle. At  a  later  period  we  come  upon  precepts 
 that  on  the  Sabbath  the  mind  should  be  uplifted 
 to  hif^h  and  holy  themes  —  to  God,  his  character, 
 his  revelations  of  Himself,  his  mighty  works. 
 Still  the  thoughts  with  which  the  day  was  in- 
 vested were  ever  thoughts,  not  of  restriction,  but 
 of  freedom  and  of  joy.  Such  indeed  would  seem, 
 from  Neh.  viii.  9-12,  to  have  been  essential  to  the 
 notion  of  a  holtj  day.  We  have  more  than  once 
 pointed  out  that  pleasure,  as  such,  was  never  con- 
 sidered by  the  Jews  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath ;  and 
 their  practice  in  this  respect  is  often  animadverted 
 on  by  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  who  taunt  them 
 with  abstaining  on  that  day  only  from  what  is 
 good  and  useful,  but  indulging  in  dancing  and 
 luxury.  Some  of  the  heathen,  indeed,  such  as 
 Tacitus,  imagined  that  the  Sabbath  was  kept  by 
 them  as  a  fast,  a  mistake  which  might  have  arisen 
 from  their  abstinence  from  cookery  on  that  day, 
 and  perhaps,  as  Heylin  conjectures,  from  their 
 postponement  of  their  meals  till  the  more  solemn 
 services  of  religion  had  been  performed.  But 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  kept  as  a  feast, 
 and  the  phrase  Itixiis  SaObatnrius,  which  we  find 
 in  Sidonius  ApoUinaris  (i.  2),  and  which  has  been 
 thought  a  proverbial  one,  illustrates  the  mode  in 
 which  they  celebrated  it  in  the  early  centuries 
 of  our  era.  The  following  is  Augustine's  descrip- 
 tion of  their  practice:  "  Ecce  hodiernus  dies  Sab- 
 bati  est:  hunc  in  praesenti  tempore  otio  quodam 
 corporaliter  languido  et  fluxo  et  luxurioso  celebrant 
 Judjei.  Vacant  enim  ad  nugas,  et  cum  Deus  proe- 
 ceperit  Sabbatum,  illi  in  his  qute  Deus  prohibet 
 exercent  Sabbatum.  Vacatio  ^lostra  a  malis  operi- 
 bus,  vacatio  illorum  a  l)Onis  operibus  est.  Melius 
 est  enim  arare  quam  saltare.  Bli  ab  opere  bono 
 vacant,  ab  opere  nugatorio  non  vacant"  (Aug. 
 Enarr.  in  Psalmos.  Ps.  xci. :  see,  too,  Aug.  De 
 decern  Chordis,  iii.  3;  Chrysost.  HoiniL  I.,  De 
 Lnzaro ;  and  other  references  gi\en  by  Bingham, 
 £ccl.  Ant.  lib.  xx.  cap.  ii.)-  And  if  we  take  what 
 alone  is  in  the  Law,  we  shall  find  nothing  to  be 
 counted  absolutely  obligatory  but  rest,  cessation 
 from  labor.  Now,  as  we  have  more  than  once 
 had  occasion  to  observe,  rest,  cessation  from  labor, 
 cannot  in  the  waking  moments  mean  avoidance  of 
 all  action.  This,  therefore,  would  be  the  question 
 respecting  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Sabbath 
 which  would  always  demand  to  be  devoutly  con- 
 sidered and  intelligently  answered  —  what  is  truly 
 rest,  what  is  that  cessation  from  labor  which  is 
 really  Sabbatical?  And  it  is  plain  that,  in  ap- 
 plication and  in  detail,  the  answer  to  this  must 
 almost  indefinitely  vary  with  men's  varying  cir- 
 tumstances,  habits,  education,  and  familiar  asso- 
 ciations. 
 
 We  have  seen  then,  that,  for  whomsoever  else  the 
 urovision   was  intended,  the  chosen  race  were  in 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 2763 
 
 possession  of  an  ordinance,  whereby  neither  a  man's 
 time  nor  his  property  could  be  considered  abso- 
 lutely his  own,  the  seventh  of  each  week  being 
 holy  to  (jod,  and  dedicated  to  rest  after  the  pattera 
 of  God's  rest,  and  giving  equal  rights  to  all.  We 
 have  also  seen  that  this  provision  was  the  tonic  to 
 a  chord  of  Sabbatical  observance,  through  which 
 the  same  great  principles  of  God's  claim  and  so- 
 ciety's, on  every  man's  time  and  every  man's  prop- 
 erty, were  extended  and  developed.  Of  the  Sab- 
 batical year,  indeed,  and  of  the  year  of  Juliilee, 
 it  may  be  questioned  whether  they  were  ever 
 persistently  observed,  the  only  indications  that  we 
 possess  of  Hebrew  practice  respecting  them  being 
 the  exemption  from  tribute  during  the  former  ac- 
 corded to  the  Jews  by  Alexander,  to  which  we  have 
 already  referred,  and  one  or  two  others,  all,  how- 
 ever, after  the  Captivity.  [Sabbatical  Ykae; 
 Year  of  Jubilee.] 
 
 But  no  doubt  exists  that  the  weekly  Sal)bath 
 was  always  partially,  and  in  the  Pharisaic  and  sub- 
 sequent times  very  strictly,  however  mistakenlj', 
 observed. 
 
 We  have  hitherto  viewed  the  Sabbath  merely  as 
 a  Mosaic  ordinance.  It  rem.ains  to  ask  whether, 
 first,  there  be  indications  of  its  having  been  pre- 
 viously known  and  observed ;  and,  secondly,  whether 
 it  have  an  universal  scope  and  authority  over  all 
 men. 
 
 The  former  of  these  questions  is  usually  ap- 
 proached with  a  feeling  of  its  being  connected  with 
 the  latter,  and  perhaps  tlierefore  with  a  bias  in 
 favor  of  the  view  which  the  questioner  thinks  will 
 support  his  opinion  on  the  latter.  It  seems,  how- 
 ever, to  us,  that  we  may  dismiss  any  anxiety  as  to 
 the  results  M'e  may  arrive  at  concerning  it.  No 
 doubt,  if  we  see  strong  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
 Sal)bath  had  a  pre-Mosaic  existence,  we  see  some- 
 thing in  it  that  has  more  than  a  Mosaic  character 
 and  scope.  But  it  might  have  had  such  without 
 having  an  universal  authority,  unless  we  are  pre- 
 pared to  ascribe  that  to  the  prohibition  of  eating 
 lilood  or  things  strangled.  And  again,  it  might 
 have  originated  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  yet 
 possess  an  universally  human  scope,  and  an  au- 
 thority over  all  men  and  through  all  time.  Which- 
 ever way,  therefore,  the  second  of  our  questions 
 is  to  be  determined,  we  may  easily  approach  the 
 first  without  anxiety. 
 
 The  first  and  chief  argument  of  those  who 
 maintain  that  the  Sabbath  was  known  before 
 Moses,  is  the  reference  to  it  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  This 
 is  considered  to  represent  it  as  coeval  with  man, 
 being  instituted  at  the  Creation,  or  at  least,  as 
 Lightfoot  views  the  matter,  immediately  upon  the 
 Fall.  This  latter  opinion  is  so  entirely  without 
 rational  ground  of  any  kind  that  we  may  dismiss 
 it  at  once.  But  the  whole  argument  is  very  pre- 
 carious. We  have  no  materials  for  ascertaining  or 
 even  conjecturing,  which  was  put  forth  first,  the 
 record  of  the  Creation,  or  the  Fourth  Command- 
 ment. If  the  latter,  then  the  reference  to  the 
 Sabbath  in  the  former  is  abundantly  natural.  Had, 
 indeed,  the  Hebrew  tongue  the  variety  of  preterite 
 tenses  of  the  Greek,  the  words  in  Genesis  might 
 require  careful  consideration  in  that  regard ;  but  as 
 the  case  is,  no  light  can  be  h.ad  from  grammar; 
 and  on  the  supposition  of  these  being  written  after 
 the  Fourth  Commandment,  their  absence,  or  that 
 of  any  equivalent  to  them,  would  be  really  mar- 
 velous. 
 
 The  next  indication  of  a  pre-Mosaic  Sabbath  has 
 
2764 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 bteii  found  in  Gen.  iv.  3,  where  we  read  that  "  in 
 process  of  time  it  cauie  to  pass  that  Cain  brought 
 of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto  tlie 
 Lord."  'J'he  words  rendered  in  process  of  time 
 mean  hterallj  "  at  the  end  of  days,"  and  it  is  con- 
 tended that  they  designate  a  fixed  period  of  days, 
 probably  the  end  of  a  week,  the  seventh  or  Sab- 
 bath-day. Again,  the  division  of  time  into  weeks 
 seems  recognized  in  Jacob's  courtsliip  of  Rachel 
 (Gen.  xxix.  27,  28).  Indeed  the  large  recognition 
 of  that  division  from  the  earliest  time  is  considered 
 a  proof  that  it  must  have  had  an  origin  above 
 and  independent  of  local  and  accidental  circum- 
 stances, and  been  imposed  on  man  at  the  beginning 
 from  above.  Its  arbitrary  and  factitious  cliaracter 
 is  appealed  to  in  further  confirmation  of  this.  The 
 sacredness  of  the  seventh  day  among  the  Egyptians, 
 as  recorded  by  Herodotus,  and  the  well-known 
 words  of  Hesiod  respecting  it,  have  long  been  cited 
 among  those  who  adopt  this  view,  though  neither 
 of  them  in  reality  gives  it  the  slightest  support. 
 La.stly,  the  opening  of  the  Fourth  Commandment, 
 the  injunction  to  remember  the  Sabbath-day,  is 
 appealed  to  as  proof  that  that  day  was  already 
 known. 
 
 It  is  easy  to  see  that  nil  this  is  but  a  precarious 
 foundation  on  which  to  build.  It  is  not  clear  that 
 the  words  in  Gen.  iv.  3  denote  a  fixed  division  of 
 time  of  any  sort.  Those  in  Gen.  xxix.  obviously  do, 
 but  carry  us  no  further  than  proving  that  the  week 
 was  known  and  recognized  by  Jacob  and  Laban; 
 though  it  must  be  admitted  that,  in  the  case  of  time 
 so  divided,  sacred  rites  would  probably  be  celebrated 
 on  a  fixed  and  statedly  recurring  day.  The  argu- 
 ment from  the  prevalence  of  the  weekly  division  of 
 time  would  require  a  greater  approach  to  miiver- 
 sality  in  such  practice  than  the  facts  exhibit,  to 
 make  it  a  cogent  one.  That  division  was  unknown 
 to  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  being  adopted 
 by  the  latter  people  from  the  Egyptians,  as  must 
 be  inferred  from  the  well-known  passage  of  Dion 
 Cassius  (xxxvii.  18,  19),  at  a  period  in  his  own 
 time  comparatively  recent;  while  of  the  Egyptians 
 themselves  it  is  thought  improliable  that  they  were 
 acquainted  with  such  division  in  early  times.  The 
 sacredness  of  the  seventh  day  mentioned  l)y  Hesiod, 
 is  obviously  that  of  the  seventh  day,  not  of  the 
 week,  but  of  the  month.  And  even  after  the 
 weekly  division  was  established,  no  trace  can  be 
 found  of  anything  resembling  the  Hebrew  Sab- 
 bath. 
 
 While  the  injunction  in  the  Fourth  Command- 
 ment to  remember  the  Sabbath-day  may  refer  only 
 to  its  previous  institution  in  connection  with  the 
 gathering  of  manna,  or  may  be  but  the  natural 
 precept  to  keep  in  mind  the  rule  about  to  be  de- 
 livered —  a  phrase  natural  and  continually  recur- 
 ring in  the  intercourse  of  life,  as,  for  example,  be- 
 tween parent  and  child  —  on  the  other  hand,  the 
 perplexity  of  the  Israelites  respecting  the  double 
 supply  of  manna  on  the  sixth  day  (Ex.  xvi.  22) 
 leads  us  to  infer  that  the  Sabbath  for  which  such 
 extra  supply  was  designed  was  not  tlien  known  to 
 them.  Moreover  the  language  of  Ezekiel  (xx.) 
 seems  to  designate  it  as  an  ordinance  distinctively 
 Hebrew  and  Mosaic. 
 
 We  cannot  then,  from  the  uncertain  notices 
 which  we  possess,  infer  more  than  that  the  weekly 
 division  of  time  was  known  to  the  Israelites  and 
 others  before  the  Law  of  IMoses.  [Wicek.]  There 
 is  probability,  though  not  more,  in  the  opinion  of 
 jirotius,  that  the  seventh  day  was  deemed  sacred 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 to  religious  observance;  but  that  the  Sabbatical 
 observance  of  it.  the  cessation  from  labor,  was 
 superinduced  on  it  in  the  wilderness. 
 
 But  to  come  to  our  second  question,  it  by  no 
 means  follows,  that  even  if  the  Sabbath  were  no 
 older  than  IMoses,  its  scope  and  obligation  are  lim- 
 ited to  Lsrael,  and  that  itself  belongs  only  to  the 
 obsolete  enactments  of  the  Levitical  Law  That 
 law  contains  two  elements,  the  code  of  a  particular 
 nation,  and  commandments  of  human  and  uni- 
 versal character.  For  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
 that  the  Hebrew  was  called  out  from  the  world, 
 not  to  live  on  a  narrower  but  a  far  wider  footing 
 than  the  children  of  earth ;  that  he  was  called  out 
 to  be  the  true  man,  bearing  witness  for  the  destiny, 
 exhibiting  the  aspect,  and  realizing  the  blessedness, 
 of  true  manhood.  Hence,  we  can  always  see,  if 
 we  have  a  mind,  the  difference  between  such  feat- 
 ures of  his  Law  as  are  Imt  local  and  temporary, 
 and  such  as  are  human  and  universal.  To  which 
 class  belongs  the  Sabbath,  viewed  simply  in  itself, 
 is  a  question  which  will  soon  come  before  us,  and 
 one  which  does  not  appear  hard  to  settle.  INIean- 
 while,  we  must  inquire  into  the  case  as  exhibited 
 by  Scripture. 
 
 And  here  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  the 
 fact  that  the  command  to  keep  the  Sabliath  forms 
 part  of  the  Decalogue.  And  that  the  Decalogue 
 had  a  rank  and  authority  above  the  other  enact- 
 ments of  the  Law,  is  plain  to  the  most  cursory- 
 readers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  indicated  by 
 its  being  written  on  the  two  Tables  of  the  Cove- 
 nant. And  though  even  the  Decalogue  is  affected 
 by  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  so  in  the  way 
 of  repeal  or  obliteration.  It  is  raised,  trans- 
 figured, glorified  there,  but  itself  remains  in  its 
 authority  and  supremacy.  Not  to  refer  just  now 
 to  our  Saviour's  teaching  (Matt.  xix.  17-19),  of 
 which  it  might  be  alleged  that  it  was  delivered 
 when,  and  to  the  persons  over  whom,  the  Old  Law 
 was  in  force  —  such  passages  as  Rom.  xiii.  8,  9, 
 and  Eph.  vi.  2,  3,  seem  decisive  of  this.  In  some 
 way,  therefore,  the  Fourth  Commandment  has  an 
 authority  over,  and  is  to  be  obeyed  by.  Christians, 
 though  whether  in  the  letter,  or  in  some  large 
 spiritual  sense  and  scope,  is  a  question  which  still 
 remains. 
 
 The  phenomena  respecting  the  Sabbath  pre- 
 sented by  the  New  Testament  are,  1st,  the  frequent 
 reference  to  it  in  the  four  gospels;  and  2dly,  the 
 silence  of  the  epistles,  with  the  exception  of  one 
 place  (Col.  ii.  16,  17),  where  its  repeal  would 
 seem  to  be  asserted,  and  perhaps  one  other  (Heb. 
 iv.  9). 
 
 1st.  The  references  to  it  in  the  four  gospels  are, 
 it  needs  not  be  said,  numerous  enough.  We  have 
 already  seen  the  high  position  which  it  took  iti  the 
 minds  of  the  Rabbis,  and  the  strange  code  of  pro- 
 hibitions which  they  ])ut  forth  in  connection  with 
 it.  The  consequence  of  this  was,  that  no  part  of 
 our  Saviour's  teaching  and  practice  would  seem  to 
 have  been  so  eagerly  and  narrowly  watched  as  that 
 which  related  to  the  Sabbath.  He  seems  even  to 
 have  directed  attention  to  this,  therel>y  intimating 
 surely  that  on  the  one  hand  the  misapprehension, 
 and  on  the  other  the  true  fulfillment  of  the  Sab- 
 bath were  matters  of  deepest  concern.  We  have 
 already  seen  the  kind  of  prohibitions  against  which 
 both  his  teaching  and  practice  were  directed ;  and 
 his  two  pregnant  declarations,  "  The  Sabbath  was 
 made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,"  and 
 "My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work,''  surely 
 
SABBATH 
 
 exhibit  to  us  the  Law  of  the  Sabbath  as  human 
 and  universal.  The  former  sets  it  forth  as  a  priv- 
 ilei;;e  and  a  blessing,  and  were  we  therefore  to  sup- 
 pose it  absent  from  the  provisions  of  the  covenant 
 of  grace,  we  must  suppose  that  covenant  to  liave 
 stinted  man  of  something  that  was  made  for  him, 
 something  that  conduces  to  his  well-being.  The 
 latter  wonderfidly  exalts  the  Sabbath  by  referring 
 it,  even  as  do  the  record  of  creation  and  the 
 Fourth  Commandment,  to  God  as  its  archetype; 
 and  in  showing  us  that  the  repose  of  God  does 
 not  exclude  work  —  inasmuch  as  God  opens  his 
 hand  daily  and  filletb  all  things  living  with  plen- 
 teousness  —  shows  us  that  tlie  rest  of  the  Saljbath 
 does  not  exclude  action,  which  would  be  but  a 
 death,  but  only  that  week-day  action  which  requires 
 to  be  wound  up  in  a  rest  that  shall  be  after  tlie 
 pattern  of  his,  who,  though  He  has  rested  from 
 all  tlie  work  that  He  hath  made,  yet  "  worketh 
 hitherto." 
 
 2dly.  The  epistles,  it  must  be  admitted,  with 
 the  e.Kception  of  one  place,  and  perhaps  aTiotber  to 
 which  we  have  already  referred,  are  silent  on  the 
 suljject  of  the  Sabbath.  No  rules  for  its  observ- 
 ance are  ever  given  by  the  Apostles —  its  violation 
 is  never  denounced  by  them.  Sabbath- breakers 
 are  never  included-  in  any  list  of  offenders.  Col. 
 ii.  16,  17,  seems  a  far  stronger  argument  for  the 
 abolition  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  Christian  dispensa- 
 tion than  is  furnished  by  Heb.  iv.  9  for  its  con- 
 tiimance;  and  while  the  first  day  of  the  week  is 
 more  than  once  referred  to  as  one  of  religious 
 oliservance,  it  is  never  identified  with  the  Salibatli, 
 nor  are  any  prohihilio/is  issued  in  connection  with 
 the  former,  while  the  omission  of  the  Salibath  from 
 the  list  of  "necessary  things"  to  be  observed  hj 
 the  Gentiles  (Acts  xv.  29)  shows  that  they  were 
 regarded  by  the  Apostles  as  free  from  obligation  in 
 this  matter. 
 
 When  we  turn  to  the  monuments  which  we 
 possess  of  the  early  Church,  we  find  ourselves  on 
 the  whole  carried  in  the  same  direction.  The 
 seventh  day  of  the  week  continued,  indeed,  to  be 
 oliserved,  being  kept  as  a  feast  by  the  greater  part 
 of  the  Church,  and  as  a  fast  from  an  early  period 
 by  that  of  Rome,  and  one  or  two  other  churches 
 of  the  West;  but  not  as  obligatory  on  Christians 
 in  tlie  same  way  as  on  Jews.  The  Council  of 
 Laodicea  prohibited  all  scruple  about  working  on 
 it;  and  there  was  a  very  general  admission  among 
 tlie  early  Fathers  that  Christians  did  not  Sabbn- 
 iize  in  the  letter. 
 
 Again,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  as  a 
 Sabbath  would  have  been  well-nigh  impossible  to 
 the  majority  of  Christians  in  the  first  ages.  The 
 slave  of  the  heathen  master,  and  the  child  of  the 
 heathen  father,  could  neither  of  them  have  the 
 control  of  his  own  conduct  in  such  a  matter;  while 
 the  Christian  in  general  would  have  been  at  once 
 betr.iyed  and  dragged  into  notice  if  he  was  found 
 abstaining  from  labor  of  every  kind,  not  on  the 
 seventh  but  the  first  day  of  the  week.  And  yet 
 it  is  clear  that  many  were  enabled  without  blame 
 to  keep  their  Christianity  long  a  secret;  nor  does 
 there  seem  to  have  been  any  obligation  to  divulge 
 it,  until  heathen  interrogation  or  the  order  to 
 sacrifice  dragged  it  into  daylight. 
 
 When  the  early  Feathers  speak  of  the  Lord's 
 Pay  they  sometimes,  perhaps,  by  comparing,  con- 
 nect it  with  the  Sabbath :  but  we  have  never  found 
 a  passage,  previous  to  the  conversion  of  Constan- 
 tiiie,  prohibitory  of  any  work  or  occupation  on  the 
 
 SABBATH  27G5 
 
 former,  and  any  such,  did  it  exist,  would  have 
 been  in  a  great  measure  nugator)-,  for  the  reasons 
 just  alleged.  [Loku's  D.vy.]  After  Constantine 
 things  Ijecome  diflferent  at  once.  His  celebrated 
 edict  prohibitory  of  judicial  proceedings  on  the 
 Lord's  Day  was  probably  dictated  by  a  wish  to 
 give  the  great  Christian  festival  as  much  honor  as 
 was  eiijoj'ed  by  those  of  the  heathen,  rather  than 
 l)y  any  reference  to  the  Sabbath  or  the  Fourth 
 ( 'ommandment ;  but  it  was  followed  by  several 
 which  extended  the  prohibition  to  many  other  oc- 
 cupations, and  to  many  forms  of  pleasure  held 
 innocent  on  ordinary  days.  When  this  became  the 
 case,  the  Christian  Church,  which  ever  believed  the 
 Decalogue,  in  some  sense,  to  be  of  universal  obliga- 
 tion, could  not  but  i'eel  that  she  was  enabled  to 
 keep  the  Fourth  Commandment  in  its  letter  as  well 
 as  its  spirit;  that  she  had  not  lost  the  type  even 
 in  possessing  the  antitype;  that  the  great  law  of 
 week-day  work  and  seventh-day  rest,  a  law  so 
 generous  and  so  ennobling  to  humanity  at  large, 
 was  still  in  operation.  True,  the  name  Sabbath 
 was  always  used  to  denote  the  seventh,  as  that 
 of  the  Lord's  Day  to  denote  the  first,  day  of  the 
 week,  which  latter  is  nowhere  habitually  called  the 
 Sabbath,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  except  in  Scotland 
 and  by  the  luiglish  Puritans.  But  it  was  surely 
 impossible  to  obser\e  both  the  Lord's  Day,  a.s  was 
 done  by  Christians  after  Constantine,  and  to  read 
 tlie  Fourth  Commandment,  without  connecting  the 
 two;  and,  seeing  that  such  was  to  be  the  practice 
 of  the  developed  Church,  we  can  understand  how 
 the  silence  of  the  N.  T.  epistles,  and  even  the 
 strong  words  of  St.  Paul  (Col.  ii.  16,  17),  do  not 
 impair  the  human  and  universal  .scope  of  the 
 Fourth  Commandment,  exhiliited  so  stronglv  in  the 
 very  nature  of  the  Law,  and  in  the  teaching  re- 
 specting it  of  Him  who  came  not  to  destroy  the 
 Law,  but  to  fulfill. 
 
 Ill  the  East,  indeed,  where  the  seventh  day  of 
 the  week  was  long  kept  as  a  festival,  that  would 
 present  itself  to  men's  minds  as  the  Sabliath,  and 
 the  first  day  of  the  week  would  appear  rather  in 
 its  distinctively  Christian  character,  and  as  of 
 apostolical  and  ecclesia-stical  origin,  than  in  con- 
 nection with  the  old  Law.  But  in  the  West  the 
 seventh  day  was  kept  for  the  most  part  as  a  fast, 
 and  that  for  a  reason  merely  Christian,  namely,  in 
 commemoration  of  our  Lord's  lying  in  the  sepul- 
 chre throughout  that  day.  Its  observance  therefore 
 would  not  oliscure  the  aspect  of  the  Lord's  Day  as 
 that  of  hebdomadal  rest  and  refreshment,  and  as 
 consequently  the  prolongation  of  the  Sabbath  in 
 the  essential  character  of  that  lienignant  ordinance; 
 and,  with  some  variation,  therefore,  of  verbal  state- 
 ment, a  connection  between  the  Fourth  Command- 
 ment and  the  first  day  of  the  week  (together,  as 
 should  be  remembered,  with  the  other  festivals 
 of  the  Church),  came  to  be  perceived  and  pro- 
 claimed. 
 
 Attention  has  recently  been  called,  in  connection 
 with  our  subject,  to  a  circumstance  which  is  im- 
 portant, the  adoption  by  the  Roman  world  of  the 
 Egyptian  week  almost  contemporaneously  with  the 
 founding  of  the  Christian  ('hureh.  Dion  Cassiu3 
 speaks  of  that  adoption  as  recent^  and  we  are 
 therefore  warranted  in  conjecturing  the  time  of 
 Hadrian  as  about  that  wherein  it  nnist  have  estali- 
 lished  itself.  Here,  then,  would  .seem  a  signal 
 Providential  preparation  for  providing  the  people 
 of  God  with  a  literal  Sabbatismus ;  for  prolonging 
 ill   the  Christian  kingdom   that   great  institutioE 
 
2766 
 
 SABBATH 
 
 which,  whether  or  not  historically  older  than  the 
 Mosaic  Law,  is  yet  in  its  essential  character  adapted 
 to  all  mankind,  a  witness  for  a  personal  Creator 
 and  Sustainer  of  the  vuiiverse,  and  for  his  call  to 
 men  to  model  their  work,  their  time,  and  their 
 lives,  on  his  pattern. 
 
 Were  we  prepared  to  embrace  an  exposition 
 which  has  been  given  of  a  remarkable  passage 
 already  referred  to  (Heb.  iv.  8-10),  we  should  find 
 it  singularly  illustrative  of  the  view  just  suggested. 
 The  argument  of  the  passage  is  to  this  ett'ect,  that 
 the  rest  on  which  Joshua  entered,  and  into  which 
 he  made  Israel  to  enter,  cannot  be  the  true  and 
 final  rest,  inasmuch  as  the  Psalmist  long  after 
 wards  speaks  of  the  entering  into  that  rest  as  still 
 future  and  contingent.  In  ver.  9  we  have  the 
 words  "there  remainetli,  therefore,  a  rest  for  tlie 
 people  of  God."  Now  it  is  important  that  through- 
 out the  passage  the  word  fur  rest  is  Kardwavais, 
 and  that  in  the  words  just  quoted  it  is  changed 
 into  (raP^aTi<r/j.6s,  which  certainly  means  the 
 keeping  of  rest,  the  act  of  sabbatizing  rather  than 
 the  objective  rest  itself.  It  has  accordingly  been 
 suggested  that  those  words  are  not  the  author's 
 conclusion  —  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  form  of 
 thesis  in  the  declaration  "  we  which  have  believed 
 do  enter  into  rest  "  —  Init  a  parenthesis  to  tlie 
 effect  that  "to  the  people  of  God,"  the  Christian 
 community,  there  remaineth,  there  is  left,  a  sab- 
 batizing, the  great  change  that  has  passed  upon 
 them  and  the  mighty  elevation  to  wliich  they  have 
 been  brought  as  on  other  matters,  so  as  regards  the 
 rest  of  God  revealed  to  them,  still  leaving  scope 
 for  and  justifying  the  practice."  This  exposition 
 is  in  keeping  with  the  general  scope  of  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Hebrews;  and  the  passage  thus  viewed  will 
 seem  to  some  minds  analogous  to  xiii.  10.  It  is 
 given  by  Owen,  and  is  elaborated  with  great  in- 
 genuity by  Dr.  Wardlaw  in  his  Discourses  on  the 
 Sabbath.  It  will  not  be  felt  fatal  to  it  that  more 
 than  300  years  should  have  passed  before  tiie 
 Church  at  large  was  in  a  situation  to  discover  tlie 
 heritage  that  had  been  preserved  to  her,  or  to 
 enter  on  its  enjoyment,  when  we  consider  how  de- 
 velopment, in  all  matters  of  ritual  and  ordinance, 
 must  needs  be  the  law  of  any  living  body,  and 
 much  more  of  one  which  had  to  struggle  from 
 its  birth  with  the  impeding  forces  of  a  heathen 
 empire,  frequent  persecution,  and  an  unreclaimed 
 society.  In  such  case  was  the  early  Church,  and 
 therefore  she  might  well  have  to  wait  for  a  Con- 
 stantine  before  she  could  fully  open  her  eyes  to 
 the  fact  that  sabbatizing  was  still  left  to  her; 
 and  her  members  might  well  be  permitted  not  to 
 see  the  truth  in  any  steady  or  consistent  way  even 
 then. 
 
 The  objections,  however,  to  this  exposition  are 
 many  and  great,  one  being,  Ihat  it  has  occurred 
 to  so  few  among  the  great  commentators  who  have 
 labored  on  the  I'^jjistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Chrysostom 
 (m  loc.)  denies  that  there  is  any  reference  to  heb- 
 domadal sabbatizing.  Nor  have  we  found  any 
 commentators,  besides  the  two  just  named,  who 
 admit  that  there  is  such,  with  the  single  exception 
 of  Kbrard.  Dean  Alford  notices  the  interpretation 
 only  to  condemn  it,  while  Dr.  Hessey  gives  another, 
 and  that  the  usual  explanation  of  the  verse,  sug- 
 gesting a  sufficient  reason  for  the  change  of  word 
 
 a  According  to  this  exposition  the  words  of  ver. 
 10,  "  for  he  that  hath  entered,"  etc.  are  referred  to 
 Christ 
 
 SABBATH-DAY'S  JOTJ  BNEY 
 
 from  KarAiravcns  to  (Ta^&ari(Tfj.6s.  It  would  not 
 have  been  right,  however,  to  have  passed  it  over 
 in  this  article  without  notice,  as  it  relates  to  a 
 passage  of  Scripture  in  which  Sabbath  and  Sab- 
 batical ideas  are  markedly  brought  forward. 
 
 It  would  be  going  beyond  tlie  scope  of  this  arti- 
 cle to  trace  tlie  history  of  opinion  on  the  Sabbath 
 in  the  Christian  Church.  Dr.  Hessey,  in  his  Bamp- 
 ton  Lectures,  has  sketclied  and  distinguished  every 
 variety  of  doctrine  which  has  been  or  still  is  main- 
 tained on  the  subject. 
 
 The  sentiments  and  practice  of  the  .Jews  subse- 
 quent to  our  Saviour's  time  have  been  already  re- 
 ferred to.  A  curious  account  —  taken  from  Bux^ 
 torf,  De  Synaij.  —  of  their  superstitions,  scruples, 
 and  proliibitioiis,  will  be  found  at  the  close  of  the 
 first  part  of  Heylin's  Hist,  of  the  Sabbath.  Cal- 
 met  (art.  "  Sabbath")  gives  an  interesting  sketch 
 of  their  family  practices  at  the  beginning  and  end 
 of  the  day.  And  the  estimate  of  the  Sal)l)ath,  its 
 uses,  and  its  blessings,  which  is  formed  by  the  more 
 spiritually  minded  Jews  of  the  present  day  may  be 
 inferred  from  some  striking  remarks  of  Dr.  Kalisch 
 {Coiniii.  an  Kxodus),  p.  273,  who  winds  up  with 
 quoting  a  beautiful  passage  from  the  late  Mrs. 
 Horatio  Montefiore's  work,  A  Few  Words  to  the 
 Jews. 
 
 Finally,  M.  Proudhon's  striking  pamphlet,  De 
 la  Celebration  du  Dlinanche  consideree  sous  les 
 rapports  de  I'  Hygiene  publigue,  de  la  Morale,  des 
 relations  de  Fanulle  ei  de  Cite,  Paris,  1850,  may 
 be  studied  with  great  advantage.  His  remarks 
 (p.  67)  on  the  advantaiies  of  the  precise  propor- 
 tion established,  six  days  of  work  to  one  of  rest, 
 and  the  inconvenience  of  any  otiier  tliat  could  be 
 arranged,  are  well  worth  attention. 
 
 The  word  Sabbath  seems  sometimes  to  denote  ft 
 week  in  the  N.  T.  Hence,  by  the  Hebrew  usage 
 of  reckoning  time  by  cardinal  numbers,  iy  rrj  fjn% 
 rS>u  aa^^aT&u,  means  on  tlie  first  day  of  the 
 week.  The  Kabbis  have  the  same  phraseology, 
 keeping,  however,  the  word  Sabbath  in  the  sin- 
 gular. 
 
 On  the  phrase  of  St.  Luke,  vi.  1,  eV  t&j  cra^^drcji 
 SevTepoTrf)ciTW,  see  S.\bb.\tioal  Yk,\r. 
 
 This  article  should  be  read  in  connection  with 
 that  on  the  Lokd's  D.\y. 
 
 Literature.  —  Crilici  Sacri,  on  Exod. ;  Heylin's 
 Bist.  of  the  Sab'jath  ;  Selden,  De  Jure  Natur.  et 
 Gent.  ;  Buxtorf,  De  Synag. ;  Barrow,  Kxpos.  of 
 the  Decalogue;  Paley,  Moral  and  Political  Philos- 
 ophy, v.  7;  James,  On  the  Sacraments  and  Sab- 
 bath ;  Whately's  Thoughts  on  the  Sabbath ;  Ward- 
 law,  On  the  Sabbath ;  Maurice,  On  the  Sabbath ; 
 Michaelis,  Laws  of  Moses,  arts,  cxci^'.-vi.,  clxviii. ; 
 Oehler,  in  Herzog's  Real-Kncykl.  "  Sabbath " ; 
 Winer,  Realmortevbuch ,  "Sabbath'';  Biihr,  Syni- 
 bolik  des  Mos.  Cult.  vol.  ii.  bk.  iv.  ch.  11,  §  2;  Ka- 
 lisch, Historical  and  Critical  Commentary  on  0. 
 T.,  in  Exod.  XX. ;  Proud  lion,  De  la  Celebration 
 du  Dimanche ;  and  especially  Dr.  Hessey's  Sun- 
 day ;  the  Bampton  Lecture  fm-  1860.         F.  G. 
 
 *  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
 by  Rev.  L.  Coleman,  Bibl.  Sacra,  i.  526-552,  and 
 Change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  Seventh  to  the 
 First  Day  of  the  Week,  by  John  S.  Stone,  D.  D., 
 Theol.  Eclectic,  iv.  512-570,  are  valuable  articles 
 on  this  subject.  The  literature  is  given  with  great 
 fullness  in  R.  Cox's  Literature  of  the  Sabbath 
 Question,  2  vols.,  Edinb.  1865.  H. 
 
 SABBATH-DAY'S    JOURNEY    {2a$- 
 
SABBATH-DAY'S  JOURNEY 
 
 0a.Tov  dS6s,  Acts  i.  12).  On  occasion  of  a  viola- 
 tion of  the  counnandraent  by  certain  of  the  people 
 who  went  to  look  for  manna  on  the  seventh  day, 
 Moses  enjoined  every  man  to  "abide  in  his  place," 
 and  forljade  any  man  to  "go  out  of  his  place"  on 
 that  day  (Ex.  xvi.  2:1)-  It  seems  natural  to  look 
 on  this  as  a  mere  enactment  pro  re  naid,  and  hav- 
 ing no  bearing  on  any  state  of  affairs  subsequent  to 
 the  journey  through  the  wilderness  and  the  daily 
 gathering  of  manna.  Whether  the  earlier  Hebrews 
 did  or  did  not  regard  it  thus,  it  is  not  easy  to  say. 
 Nevertheless,  the  natural  inference  from  2  K.  iv.  23 
 is  against  the  supposition  of  such  a  prohibition  be- 
 ing known  to  tlie  spokesman,  Elisha  almost  cer- 
 tainly living  —  as  may  be  seen  from  the  whole  nar- 
 rative —  much  more  than  a  Sabbath-day's  journey 
 from  Shunem.  Heylin  infers  from  the  incidents  of 
 David's  flight  from  Saul,  and  Elijah's  from  Jezebel, 
 that  neither  felt  Ijound  by  such  a  limitation.  Their 
 situation,  however,  being  one  of  extremity,  cannot 
 be  safely  argued  from.  In  after  times  the  precept 
 in  Ex.  xvi.  was  undoubtedly  viewed  as  a  permanent 
 law.  But  as  some  departure  from  a  man's  own 
 pLace  was  unavoidable,  it  was  thought  necessary  to 
 determine  the  allowable  amount,  which  was  fixed 
 at  2,000  paces,  or  about  six  furlongs,  from  the  wall 
 of  the  city. 
 
 Though  such  an  enactment  may  have  proceeded 
 from  an  erroneous  view  of  I'^x.  xvi.  29,  it  is  by  no 
 means  so  superstitious  and  unworthy  on  the  face  of 
 it  as  are  most  of  the  Rabbinical  rules  and  prohibi- 
 tions respecting  the  Sabbath-day.  In  the  case  of  a 
 general  law,  like  that  of  the  Sabbath,  some  author- 
 ity must  settle  the  application  in  details,  and  such 
 an  authority  "  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sitting  in 
 Moses'  seat"  were  entitled  to  exercise.  It  is  plain 
 that  the  Umits  of  the  Sabbath-day's  journey  must 
 have  been  a  great  check  on  the  profanation  of  the 
 day  in  a  country  where  business  was  entirely  agri- 
 cultural or  pastoral,  and  must  have  secured  to  "  the 
 ox  and  the  ass  "  the  rest  to  which  by  the  Law  they 
 were  entitled. 
 
 Our  Saviour  seems  to  refer  to  this  law  in  warn- 
 ing the  disciples  to  pray  that  their  flight  from  Je- 
 rusalem in  the  time  of  its  judgment  should  not 
 be  "on  the  Sabbath-day"  (Matt.  xxiv.  20).  The 
 Christians  of  .lerusalem  would  not,  as  in  the  case 
 of  Gentiles,  feel  free  from  the  restrictions  on  jour- 
 neying on  that  day;  nor  would  their  situation  en- 
 able them  to  comjily  with  the  forms  where!  )y  such 
 journsying  when  necessary  was  sanctified;  nor 
 would  assistance  from  those  around  be  procurable. 
 
 The  permitted  distance  seems  to  have  been 
 grounded  on  the  space  to  be  kept  between  the  Ark 
 and  the  people  (.Josh.  iii.  4)  in  the  wilderness,  which 
 tradition  said  was  that  between  the  Ark  and  the 
 tents.  To  repair  to  the  Ark  being,  of  course,  a 
 duty  on  the  Sabbath,  the  walking  to  it  was  no  vio- 
 lation of  the  day ;  and  it  thus  was  taken  as  the  meas- 
 ure of  a  lawful  Sabl)ath-day's  journey.  We  find  the 
 same  distance  given  as  the  circumference  outside  the 
 walls  of  the  Levitical  cities  to  be  counted  as  their 
 suburbs  (Num.  xxxv.  5).  The  ierminm  a  quo  was 
 tlnis  not  a  man's  own  house,  but  the  wall  of  the 
 city  where  he  dwelt,  and  thus  the  amount  of  lawful 
 Sabbath-day's  journeying  must  therefore  have  va- 
 ried greatly;  the  movements  of  a  Jew  in  one  of  the 
 small  cities  of  his  own  land  being  restricted  indeed 
 when  compared  with  those  of  a  Jew  in  Alexandria, 
 Antioch,  or  Rome. 
 
 Wlieri  a  man  was  obliged  to  go  farther  than  a 
 Sabbath-day's  journey,  on   some  good  and  allow- 
 
 SABBATICAL  YEAR         2767 
 
 able  ground,  it  was  incumljent  on  him  on  the  even- 
 ing before  to  furnish  himself  with  food  enough  for 
 two  meals.  He  was  to  sit  down  and  eat  at  the  ap- 
 pointed distance,  to  bury  what  he  had  left,  and  ut- 
 ter a  thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  appointed  bound- 
 ary. Next  morning  he  was  at  liberty  to  make 
 this  point  his  ti:nniiius  a  quo. 
 
 The  Jewish  scruple  to  go  more  than  2,000  paces 
 from  his  city  on  the  Sabbath  is  referred  to  by 
 Origen,  mp\  apx'^",  i^-  ~'i  by  Jerome,  ad  Ahja- 
 sitiM,  quseat.  10;  and  by  Qicumenius  —  with 
 some  apparent  difference  between  them  as  to  the 
 measurement.  Jerome  gives  Akiba,  Simeon,  and 
 Hillel,  as  the  authorities  for  the  lawful  distance. 
 
 V.  G. 
 
 SABBATHE'US  {'S.a^^a.TaLOS-Snbbathieus). 
 Shabbethai  the  Levite  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14;  comp. 
 Ezr.  x.  15). 
 
 SABBATICAL  YEAR.  As  each  seventh 
 day  and  each  seventh  month  were  holy,  so  was  each 
 seventh  year,  by  the  Mosaic  code..  We  first  en- 
 counter this  law  in  Ex.  xxiii.  10,  11,  given  in 
 words  corresponding  to  those  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
 mandment, and  followed  (ver.  12)  by  the  reiin- 
 forcement  of  that  commandment.  It  is  impossible 
 to  read  the  passage  and  not  feel  that  the  Sabbath 
 Day  and  the  Sabbatical  Year  are  parts  of  one  gen- 
 eral law. 
 
 The  commandment  is,  to  sow  and  reap  for  six 
 years,  and  to  let  the  land  rest  on  the  seventh,  "th.at 
 the  poor  of  thy  people  may  eat;  and  what  they 
 leave  the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  eat."  It  is  added, 
 "  In  like  manner  shalt  thou  deal  with  thy  vineyard 
 and  thy  oliveyard." 
 
 We  meet  next  with  the  enactment  in  Lev.  xxv. 
 2-7,  and  finally  in  Deut.  xv.,  in  which  last  place 
 the  new  feature  presents  itself  of  the  seventh  year 
 being  one  of  release  to  debtors. 
 
 When  we  combine  these  several  notices,  we  find 
 that  every  seventh  year  the  land  was  to  have 
 rest  to  enjoy  her  Sabbaths.  Neither  tillage  nor 
 cultivation  of  any  sort  was  to  be  practiced.  Tlie 
 spontaneous  growth  of  the  soil  was  not  to  be 
 reaped  by  the  owner,  whose  rights  of  property 
 were  in  abeyance.  All  were  to  have  their  share  in 
 the  gleanings :  the  poor,  the  stranger,  and  even  the 
 cattle. 
 
 This  singular  institution  has  the  aspect,  at  first 
 sight,  of  total  impracticability.  This,  however, 
 wears  off"  when  we  consider  that  in  no  year  was 
 the  owner  allowed  to  reap  the  whole  harvest  (Lev. 
 xix.  9,  xxiii.  22).  Unless,  therefore,  the  remainder 
 was  gleaned  very  carefully,  there  may  easily  have 
 been  enough  left  to  ensure  such  spontaneous  de- 
 posit of  seed  as  in  the  fertile  soil  of  Syria  would 
 produce  some  amount  of  crop  in  the  succeeding 
 year,  while  the  vines  and  olives  would  of  course 
 yield  their  fruit  of  themselves.  Aloreover,  it  is 
 clear  that  the  owners  of  land  were  to  lay  by  corn 
 in  previous  years  for  their  own  and  their  families' 
 wants.  This  is  the  unavoidable  inference  from 
 Lev.  xxv.  20-22.  And  though  the  right  of 
 property  was  in  abeyance  during  the  Sabbatical 
 year,  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  oidy  applied 
 to  the  fields,  and  not  to  the  gardens  attached  to 
 houses. 
 
 The  claiming  of  debts  was  unlawful  during  this 
 year,  as  we  learn  from  Deut.  xv.  The  exceptions 
 laid  down  are  in  the  case  of  a  foreigner,  and  that 
 of  there  being  no  poor  in  the  land.  This  latter, 
 however,  it  is  straightway  said,  is  what  will  never 
 
2768 
 
 SABBATICAL  YEAR 
 
 happen.  But  though  debts  might  not  be  claimed, 
 it  is  not  said  that  thej  might  not  be  voluntarily 
 paid ;  and  it  has  been  questioned  whether  the  re- 
 lease of  the  seventh  year  was  final  or  merely  lasted 
 through  the  year.  This  law  was  virtually  abro- 
 gated in  later  times  by  the  well-known  j>rog/jol'^  of 
 the  great  Ilillel,  a  permission  to  the  judges  to  al- 
 low a  creditor  to  enforce  his  claim  whenever  he  re- 
 quired to  do  so.  The  formula  is  given  in  the 
 Mishna  {Sheviilli,  10,  4). 
 
 The  release  of  debtors  during  the  Sabbatical 
 year  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  release  of 
 slaves  on  the  seventh  year  of  their  service.  The 
 two  are  obviously  distinct  —  the  one  occurring 
 at  one  fixed  time  for  all,  while  the  other  nmst 
 have  varied  with  various  families,  and  witli  various 
 slaves. 
 
 The  spirit  of  this  law  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
 weekly  Sabbath.  Both  have  a  beneficent  tendency, 
 limiting  the  rights  and  checking  the  sense  of  prop- 
 erty; the  one  puts  in  God's  claims  on  time,  the 
 other  on  the  land.  The  land  shall  "  keep  a  Sab- 
 bath unto  the  Lord."     "  The  land  is  mine." 
 
 There  may  also  have  been,  as  Kalisch  conjec- 
 tures, an  eye  to  the  benefit  wliich  would  accrue  to 
 the  land  from  lying  fallow  every  seventh  year,  in  a 
 time  when  the  rotation  of  crops  was  unknown. 
 
 The  Sabbatical  year  opened  in  the  Sabbatical 
 month,  and  the  whole  Law  was  to  be  read  every 
 such  year,  during  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  to  the 
 assembled  people.  It  was  thus,  like  the  weekly 
 Sabbath,  no  mere  negative  rest,  but  was  to  be 
 marked  by  high  and  holy  occupation,  and  con- 
 nected with  sacred  reflection  and  sentiment. 
 
 At  the  completion  of  a  week  of  Sabb'atical  years, 
 the  Sabbatical  scale  received  its  completion  in  the 
 year  of  Jubilee.  For  the  question  whether  that 
 was  identica:!  with, the  seventh  Sabbatical  year,  or 
 was  that  which  succeeded  it,  i.  e.  whether  the  year 
 of  Jubilee  fell  every  forty-ninth  or  every  fiftieth 
 year,  see  Jubilee,  Year  of. 
 
 The  ne.xt  question  that  presents  itself  regarding 
 the  Sabbatical  year  relates  to  the  time  when  its  ob- 
 servance became  obligatory.  It  has  been  inferred 
 from  Leviticus  xxv.  2,  "  \Vhen  ye  come  into  the 
 land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall  the  land  keep  a 
 Sabbath  unto  the  Lord,"  that  it  was  to  be  held  by 
 the  people  on  tlie  first  year  of  their  occupation  of 
 Canaan ;  but  this  mere  literalism  gives  a  result  in 
 contradiction  to  tJie  words  which  immediately  fol- 
 low: "  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  field,  and  six 
 years  thou  shalt  prune  thy  vinej'ard,  and  gather  in 
 the  fruit  thereof;  but  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be 
 a  Sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land."  It  is  more  rea- 
 sonable to  suppose,  with  the  best  Jewish  authorities, 
 that  the  law  became  obligatory  fourteen  years  after 
 the  fii-st  entrance  into  the  Promised  Land,  the  con- 
 quest of  whicli  took  seven  years  and  the  distribu- 
 tion seven  more. 
 
 A  further  question  arises.  At  whatever  period 
 the  obedience  to  this  law  ought  to  have  com- 
 menced, was  it  in  point  of  fact  obeyed  ?  This  is 
 an  inquiry  which  reaches  to  more  of  the  Mosaic 
 statutes  than  the  one  now  before  us.  It  is,  we  ap- 
 prehend, rare  to  see  the  whole  of  a  code  in  full  op- 
 eration; and  the  phenomena  of  Jewish  history  pre- 
 vious to  the  Captivity  present  us  w-ith   no  such 
 
 «  b^^D^"1D  =  probably  Trpo/SovA))  or  Trpoo-jSoA.^. 
 For  this  and  other  curious  speculations  on  the  ety- 
 mology of  the  word,  see  Buxtorf,  hx.  Talmud.  1807. 
 
 SABTAH 
 
 spectacle.  In  the  threatenings  contained  in  Lev 
 xxvi.,  judgments  on  the  violation  of  the  Sabbatical 
 year  are  particularly  contemplated  (vv.  33,  34;, 
 and  that  it  was  greatly  if  not  quite  neglected  ap- 
 pears from  2  Clir.  xxxvi.  20,  21:  "  Them  that  es- 
 caped from  tl)e  sword  carried  he  away  to  Babylon ; 
 wliere  they  were  servants  to  him  and  his  sons  until 
 the  reign  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia:  to  fulfill  the 
 word  of  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  .Jeremiah,  until 
 the  land  had  enjoyed  her  Sabliaths;  for  as  long  as 
 she  lay  desolate  she  kept  Sabbath,  to  fulfill  three- 
 .score  and  ten  jears."  Some  of  tlie  Jewish  com- 
 mentators have  inferred  from  this  that  their  fore- 
 fathers had  neglected  exactly  seventy  Sabbatical 
 years.  If  such  neglect  was  continuous,  the  law 
 must  have  been  disobeyed  throughout  a  period  ol 
 41J0  years,  I.  e.  through  nearly  the  whole  duration 
 of  the  monarcliy;  and  as  there  is  nothing  in  the 
 previous  history  leading  to  the  inference  that  tlie 
 lieo[ile  were  nioi-e  scrupulous  then,  we  must  look  to 
 the  return  from  Captivity  for  indications  of  the  Sab- 
 batical year  being  actually  oliserved.  Then  we  know 
 the  former  neglect  was  replaced  by  a  punctilious  at- 
 tention to  the  Law;  and  as  its  leading  feature,  the 
 Sabbath,  began  to  be  scrujjulously  reverenced,  so 
 we  now  find  traces  of  a  like  observance  of  the  Sab- 
 batical year.  We  read  (1  Mace.  vi.  40)  that ''they 
 came  out  of  the  city,  because  they  had  no  victuals 
 there  to  endure  the  siege,  it  being  a  year  of  rest  to 
 the  land."  Alexander  the  (ireat  is  said  to  have 
 exempted  the  Jews  from  tribute  during  it,  since  it 
 was  unlawful  for  them  to  sow  seed  or  reap  harvest 
 then;  so,  too,  did  Julius  Ciesar  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv. 
 10,  §  6).  Tacitus  {Hist.  lib.  v.  2,  §  4),  having 
 mentioned  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  the 
 .Jews,  adds:  "  Dein  blandienti  inertia  septimuni 
 quoque  annum  ignaviae  datum."  And  St.  Paul,  in 
 reproaching  the  Galatians  with  their  Jewish  tend- 
 encies, taxes  them  with  observing  years  as  well  as 
 days  and  months  and  times  ((ial  iv.  10),  from 
 which  we  must  infer  that  the  teachers  who  com- 
 municated to  them  those  tendencies  did  more  or 
 less  the  lilve  themselves.  Another  allusion  in  the 
 N.  T.  to  the  Sabbatical  year  is  perhaps  to  be  found 
 in  the  phrase,  eV  aa^Pdroi  SfVTfpoirpwTco  (Luke 
 vi.  1).  Various  explanations  have  been  given  of 
 the  term,  but  one  of  the  most  probable  is  tliat  it 
 denotes  tlie  first  Sabbath  of  the  second  year  in  the 
 cycle  (Wieseler,  quoted  by  Alford,  vol.  i.). 
 
 F.  G. 
 SABBE'US  ([Vat.]  2a/3;8a[as;   [Rom.  Aid.] 
 Alex.  '2,a^0a7os-   ^^amtos),  1  lisdr.  Lx.  32.      [SiiE- 
 
 MAIAH,  14. J 
 
 SABE'ANS.     [Seba;  Sheba.] 
 
 SA'BI  ([Vat.  Sa^eirj,  joined  with  preceding 
 word;  no/]  Sa/SeiV  [see  errata  in  Slai;  Kom. 
 Aid.]  Alex.  Sa/SiT):  Sahathen).  "  The  children  of 
 Pochereth  of  Zebaim "  appear  in  1  Esdr.  v.  34 
 as  "  the  sons  of  Phacareth,  the  sons  of  Sabi." 
 [Sabie.] 
 
 *  SA'BIE  (3  syl.),  the  reading  of  the  A.  V 
 ed.  IGll  and  other  early  editions  in  1  Esdr.  v.  34, 
 representing  the  Greek  'Xa^i-fi,  has  been  improperly 
 changed  in  later  editions  to  Sabi.  A. 
 
 SAB'TAH  (nn^P,  in  21  MSS.     «nnt27, 
 
 Gen.  X.  7;  SrillD,  1  Chr.  i.  9  [see  below],  A.  V. 
 S.\BTA:  Sa/Saeix  ;  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.,  SajSara:] 
 Sfibnthn).  The  third  in  order  of  tlie  sons  of  Cush. 
 In  accordance  with  the  identifications  of  the  settle- 
 
SABTECHA 
 
 ments  of  the  Cusliites  in  the  article  Arabia  and 
 elsewhere,  Sabtah  should  be  looked  for  along  the 
 southern  coast  of  Arabia.  The  writer  has  found 
 no  traces  in  Arab  writers;  but  the  statements  of 
 Pliny  (vi.  32,  §  155,  xii.  32),  Ptolemy  (vi.  7,  p.  411), 
 aud  A'imi.  Ptrijd.  (27),  respecting  Sabbatha,  Sa- 
 bota,  or  Sobotale,  metropolis  of  the  Atramitae 
 (probalily  the  Chatramotit;v),  seem  to  point  to  a 
 trace  of  the  tribe  which  descended  from  Sabtah, 
 always  supposing  that  this  city  Sabbatha  was  not  a 
 corruption  or  dialectic  variation  of  Saba,  Seba,  or 
 Sheba.  This  point  will  be  discussed  under  Sukba. 
 It  is  only  necessary  to  remark  here  that  the  indi- 
 cations afforded  by  the  Greek  and  lioman  writers 
 of  Arabian  geography  require  very  cautious  hand- 
 ling, presenting,  as  they  do,  a  mass  of  contradic- 
 tions and  transparent  ti'avellers'  tales  respecting 
 the  unknown  regions  of  Arabia  the  Happy,  Arabia 
 Thurifera,  etc.  Ptolemy  places  Sabbatha  in  77° 
 long.  16°  30'  lat.  It  was  an  important  city,  con- 
 taining no  less  than  sixty  temples  (Pliny,  N.  H. 
 vi,  c.  xxiii.  §  32);  it  was  also  situate  in  the  terri- 
 tory of  king  Elisarus,  or  l^lleazus  (comp.  Anon. 
 Peripl.  ap.  Miiller,  Gear/.  Mia.  pp.278,  279),  sup- 
 posed by  Fresnel  to  he  identical  with  "  Ascharides," 
 or  "  Alaseharissoun,"  in  Arabic  (Jnuni.  Asiat. 
 Nouv.  St'rie,  x.  I'Jl).  Winer  thinks  the  identifi- 
 cation of  Sabtah  with  Sabbatha,  etc.,  to  be  prob- 
 able; and  it  is  accepted  by  Bunsen  (Bibtlwerk^  Gen. 
 X.  and  Adas).  It  certainly  occupies  a  position  in 
 which  we  should  expect  to  find  traces  of  Sabtah, 
 where  are  traces  of  Cushite  tribes  in  very  early 
 times,  on  their  way,  as  we  hold,  from  their  earlier 
 colonies  in  Ethiopia  to  the  Euphrates. 
 
 Gesenius,  who  sees  in  Cush  only  Ethiopia,  "  has 
 no  doubt  that  Sabtah  should  be  compared  with  2a- 
 )8(£t,  2a/3a,  2a/3ai'  (see  Strab.  xvi.  p.  770,  ('asaub. ; 
 Ptol.  iv.  10),  on  the  shore  of  the  Arabian  Gulf, 
 situated  just  where  Arkiko  is  now,  in  the  neigh- 
 borhood of  which  the  Ptolemies  hunted  elephants. 
 Amongst  the  ancient  translators,  Pseudojonathan 
 
 saw  the  true  meaning,  rendering  it  '*M^X2D,  for 
 
 which  read  "^S~I^D,  «.  e.  the  Sembritae,  whom 
 Strabo  (Ivc.  cit.  p.  780)  places  in  the  same  region. 
 ,  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  fi,  §  1)  understands  it  to  be  the 
 inhabitants  of  Astabora  "  (Gesenius,  ed.  Tregelles, 
 s.  v.).  Here  the  etymology  of  Sabtah  is  compared 
 plausibly  with  Sa^ar;  but  when  probability  is 
 against  his  being  found  in  Ethiopia,  etymology  is 
 of  small  value,  especially  when  it  is  remembered 
 that  Sabat  and  its  variations  (Sabax,  Sabai)  may 
 be  related  to  Sebn,  which  certainly  was  in  Ethi- 
 opia. On  the  Rabbinical  authorities  which  he 
 quotes  we  place  no  value.  It  only  remains  to  add 
 that  Michaelis  {Suppl.  p.  1712)  removes  Sabtah  to 
 Ceuta  opposite  Gibraltar,  called  in  Arabic  Sebtah, 
 
 o  ^ 
 XJCaaw  (comp.  Manisid,  s.  v.);  and  that  Bochart 
 (Pli'ale;/,  i.  114,  115,  252  ff.),  while  he  mentions 
 Sabbatha,  prefers  to  place  Sabtah  near  the  western 
 shore  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  with  the  Saphtha  of 
 Ptolemy,  the  name  also  of  ati  island  in  that  gulf. 
 
 E.  S.  P. 
 SABTECHA,    and    SAB'TECHAH 
 
 (SDri?P  [see  above]:  'Za^aOaKo.,  SgySefiaxa; 
 [Alex',  i'n  Gen.,  :S,a0aKaea;  Vat.  in  1  (Jhr.,  2e;8e- 
 Kada-]  Sabatncha,  Sabtithachn,  Gen.  x.  7,  1  (Jhr. 
 i.  9).  The  fifth  in  order  of  the  sons  of  Cu.sh, 
 whose  settlements  would  probably  he  near  the  Per- 
 sian Gulf,  where  are  those  of  Raaniah,  the  next 
 
 SACKBUT 
 
 2769 
 
 before  him  in  the  order  of  the  Cushites.  [Raa 
 MAir,  Dedan,  Sheba.]  He  has  not  been  identi- 
 fied with  any  Arabic  plitce  or  district,  nor  satis- 
 factorily with  any  name  given  by  classical  writers. 
 Bochart  (who  is  followed  by  Bunsen,  Bibeliv.,  Gen. 
 X.  and  Alius)  argues  that  he  should  be  placed  in 
 Carmania,  on  the  Persian  shore  of  the  gulf,  com- 
 paring Sabtechah  with  the  city  of  Samydace  of 
 Steph.  Byz.  (2a;ui5a«rr)  or  'S.afxvKa.di)  of  Ptol.  vi. 
 8,  7).  This  etymology  appears  to  be  very  far- 
 fetched. Gesenius  mei'ely  says  that  Sabtechah  is 
 the  proper  name  of  a  district  of  Ethiopia,  and  adds 
 
 the  reading  of  the  Targ.  Pseudojonathan   CS^^T, 
 Ziiujitmii).  E.  S.  P. 
 
 SA'OAR  i'^'y^  [hire,  reward]:  Axdp:  Alex. 
 2axap:  S^fcZ/rtr).  1.  A  Hararite,  father  of  Ahiam, 
 one  of  David's  mighty  men  (1  Chr.  xi.  35).  In 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.  33  he  is  called  Shakar,  but  Ken- 
 nicott  regards  Sacar  as  the  correct  reading. 
 
 2.  (2axap  ;  [Vat.  2£ox«P  '  ^^^'^-  Sax^ctp-]) 
 The  fourth  son  of  Obed-edom  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  4). 
 
 SACKBUT  (SD3P,  Dan.  iii.  5;  SriaCT', 
 Dan.  iii.  7,  10,  15:  aafifivKr):  S'lmbuai).  The 
 rendering  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  Clialdee  subbeca. 
 If  this  musical  instrument  be  the  same  as  the 
 Greek  aafx^vKr]  and  Latin  scmbuat,"  the  English 
 translation  is  entirely  wrong.  The  sackbut  was  a 
 wind-instrument;  the  sambucn  was  plajed  with 
 strings.  Mr.  Chappell  says  {Pop.  Mas.  i.  35), 
 "  The  sackbut  was  a  bass  trumpet  with  a  slide,  like 
 the  modern  trombone."  It  had  a  deep  note  ac- 
 cording to  Drayton  {Polyolbion,  iv.  305 ) :  — 
 
 "The  hoboy,  sa^but  deep,  recorder,  and  the  flute." 
 The  sambucn  was  a  triangular  instrument  with 
 four  or  more  strings  played  witii  the  fingers. 
 According  to  Athenteus  (xiv.  633),  Masurius  de- 
 scrilied  it  as  having  a  shrill  tone;  and  Euphorion, 
 in  his  book  on  the  Isthmian  Games,  said  that  it 
 was  used  by  the  Parthians  and  Troglodytes,  and 
 had  four  struigs.  Its  invention  is  attributed  to 
 one  Sambyx,  and  to  Sibylla  its  first  use  (Athen. 
 xiv.  037).  Juba,  in  the  4th  book  of  his  Tfieairicai 
 nhtiiry,  says  it  was  discovered  in  Syria,  but  Nean- 
 tlies  of  Cyzicum,  in  the  first  Ijook  of  the  fhmrs, 
 assigns  it  to  the  poet  Ibycus  of  Rliegium  (Athen. 
 iv.  77).  This  last  tradition  is  followed  by  Suidas, 
 who  describes  the  snmbuca  as  a  kind  of  triangular 
 harp.  That  it  was  a  foreign  instrument  is  clear 
 from  the  statement  of  Stralio  (x.  471),  who  says 
 its  name  is  liarbarous.  Isidore  of  Seville  ( Orig. 
 iii.  20)  appears  to  regard  it  as  a  wind  instrument, 
 for  he  connects  it  with  the  sniiibucus,  or  elder,  a 
 kind  of  light  wood  of  which  ])ipes  were  made. 
 
 The  sambucn  was  early  known  at  Rome,  for 
 Plautus  {Siich.  ii.  2,  57)  mentions  the  women  who 
 played  it  {sambiicce,  or  snnibucisirice,  as  they  are 
 called  in  Livy,  xxxix.  6).  It  was  a  favorite  among 
 the  Greeks  (Polyb.  v.  37),  and  the  Rhodian  women 
 appear  to  have  been  celebrated  for  their  skill  on 
 this  instrument  (Athen.  iv.  129). 
 
 There  was  an  engine  called  sambucn  used  in 
 siege  operations,  which  derived  its  name  from  the 
 musical  instrument,  because,  according  to  Athe- 
 noeus  (xiv.  634),  when  raised  it  had  the  form  of 
 a  ship  and  a  ladder  combined  in  one. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 «  Compare  ambubaia,  from  Syr.  S3^3W,  abbfibct 
 a  flute,  where  the  m  occupies  the  place  of  the  da2«sh 
 
2770 
 
 SACKCLOTH 
 
 SACKCLOTH  (pi?:  (tAkkos:  saccvs).  A 
 coarse  texture,  of  a  dark  color,  made  of  goats' 
 hair  (Is.  1.  3;  Rev.  vi.  12),  and  resembling  tlie 
 cilicium  of  the  Romans.  It  was  used  (1)  fcM- 
 making  sacks,  the  same  word  descriliing  both  the 
 material  and  the  article  (Gen.  xlii.  2.5;  Lev.  xi. 
 32;  Josh.  ix.  4);  and  (2)  for  making  the  rough 
 garments  used  by  mourners,  which  were  in  extreme 
 cases  worn  next  the  skin  (1  K.  xxi.  27;  2  K.  vi. 
 30;  Job  xvi.  15;  Is.  xxxii.  11),  and  this  even  by 
 females  (Joel  i.  8;  2  jMacc.  iii.  19),  but  at  other 
 times  were  worn  over  the  coat  or  cethoneih  (Jon. 
 lii.  6)  in  lieu  of  the  outer  garment.  The  robe 
 probably  resembled  a  s.ick  in  shape,  and  fitted  close 
 to  the  person,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  application 
 of  the  term  cluu/nr"  to  the  process  of  putting  it 
 on  (2  Sam.  iii.  31;  Ez.  vii.  18,  i&c).  It  was  con- 
 fined by  a  girdle  of  similar  material  (Is.  iii.  2-4). 
 Sometimes  it  was  worn  throughout  the  night  (1  K. 
 xxi.  27).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SACRIFICE.  The  peculiar  features  of  each 
 kind  of  sacrifice  are  referred  to  under  their  re- 
 spective heads ;  the  object  of  this  article  will  be :  — 
 
 I.  To  examine  the  meaning  and  derivation  of 
 the  various  words  used  to  denote  sacrifice  in  Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 II.  To  examine  the  historical  development  of 
 sacrifice  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 III.  To  sketch  briefly  the  theory  of  sacrifice, 
 as  it  is  set  forth  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
 ments, with  especial  reference  to  the  Atonement 
 of  Christ. 
 
 I.  Of  all  the  words  used  in  reference  to  sacrifice, 
 the  most  general  appear  to  be  — 
 
 (a.)  Tir^'212,  minchah,  from  the  obsolete  root 
 
 n3H,  "to  give;"  used  in  Gen.  xxxii.  13,  20,  21, 
 of  a  gift  from  Jacob  to  Esau  (LXX.  ^wpov);  in  2 
 Sam.  viii.  2,  6  (|eVia),  in  1  K.  iv.  21  {oo>pa),  in  2 
 K.  xvii.  4  (jxavad),  of  a  tribute  from  a  vassal 
 king;  in  Gen.  iv.  3,  5,  of  a  sacrifice  generally 
 {'Sa>pov  and  Bvcria,  indifferently);  and  in  Lev.  ii. 
 1,  4,  5,  6,  joined  with  the  word  korban,  of  an 
 unbloody  sacrifice,  or  "meat-offering"  (generally 
 Satpjv  dvaia)-  Its  derivation  and  usage  point  to 
 that  idea  of  sacrifice,  which  represents  it  as  an 
 eucharistio  gift  to  God  our  King. 
 
 (b.)  ('J2~1p,  iwir;??,  derived  from  the  root  3'j[^, 
 "to  approach,"  or  (in  Hiphil)  to  "make  to  ap- 
 proach;" used  with  minchnh  in  Lev.  ii.  1,  4,  .5,  G, 
 (LXX.  S&pou  dvaia),  generally  rendered  Swpov 
 (see  Mark  vii.  11,  Kop^av,  '6  eVri  SUpov)  or  npoa- 
 <\)6pa.  'I'he  idea  of  a  gift  hardly  seems  inherent 
 in  the  root;  which  rather  points  to  sacrifice,  as  a 
 symbol  of  communion  or  covenant  between  God 
 and  man.    . 
 
 (c.)  (nri.Ti  zehach,  derived  from  the  root  HS^, 
 to  "  .slaughter  animals,"  especially  to  "slay  in  sacri- 
 fice," refers  emphatically  to  a  bloody  sacrifice,  one 
 
 a  -inn. 
 
 ■  6  Soe,  for  example  (as  in  Faber's  Origin  of  Sacrifice), 
 the  elaborate  reasoning  on  the  translation  of  DS^H 
 in  Gen.  iv.  7.  Even  supposing  the  version,  a  "  sin- 
 offering  coucheth  at  the  door,"  to  be  correct,  on  the 
 ground  of  general  usage  of  the  word,  of  the  curious 
 version  of  the  LXX.,  and  of  the  remarkable  gram- 
 matical ponstruction  of  the  mM8<uliiie  piirtioiplc,  with 
 the  feminine  noun  (as  referring  to  the  fact  that  the 
 
 SACRIFICE 
 
 in  which  the  shedding  of  blood  is  the  asset  tial 
 idea.  Thus  it  is  opposed  to  minchnh,  in  Ps.  xl.  6 
 (Ouaiav  Kal  npoaipopdv),  and  to  cdah  (the  whole 
 burnt-oftering)  in  Ex.  x.  25,  xviii.  12,  &c.  With 
 it  the  expiatory  idea  of  sacrifice  is  naturally  con- 
 nected. 
 
 Distinct  from  these  general  terms,  and  often 
 ajjpended  to  them,  are  the  words  denoting  special 
 kinds  of  sacrifice :  — 
 
 (6?.)  n|^137,  olah  (generally  6AoKavTUfj.a),  the 
 "  whole  burnt-offering." 
 
 (e.)  D^tt',  shtleiii  {dvaia  awrripiov},  used  fre- 
 quently with  n3T,  and  sometimes  called  "jS"}!^, 
 the  "peace-  "  or  "  thank-offering." 
 
 (/.)  nWlSn,  chaUCith  (generally  wepi  afxap- 
 Tios),  the  "sin-offering." 
 
 ig.)  n^'Wi  (isham  (generally  7rAij;u/ieA.eia),the 
 "trespass-offering." 
 
 For  the  examination  of  the  derivation  and  mean- 
 ing of  these,  see  each  under  its  own  head. 
 
 II.  (A.)  Origin  of  Sacrifice. 
 
 In  tracing  the  history  of  sacrifice,  from  its  first 
 beginning  to  its  perfect  development  in  the  Mosaic 
 ritual,  we  are  at  once  met  by  the  long-disputed 
 question,  as  to  the  oriyin  of'  sncrifice ;  whether  it 
 arose  from  a  natural  instinct  of  man,  sanctioned 
 and  guided  by  God.  or  whether  it  was  the  subject 
 of  some  distinct  primeval  revelation. 
 
 It  is  a  question,  the  importance  of  which  has 
 probably  been  exaggerated.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
 that  sacrifice  was  sanctioned  by  God's  Law,  with  a 
 special  typical  reference  to  the  Atonement  of  Christ; 
 its  universal  prevalence,  independent  of,  and  often 
 opposed  to,  man's  natural  reasonings  on  his  relation 
 to  God,  shows  it  to  have  been  primeval,  and  deeply 
 rooted  in  the  instincts  of  humanity.  Whether  it 
 was  first  enjoined  by  an  external  command,  or 
 whether  it  was  based  on  that  sense  of  sin  and  lost 
 communion  with  God,  which  is  stamped  by  his 
 hand  on  the  heart  of  man  —  is  a  historical  ques- 
 tion, perhaps  insoluble,  probably  one  which  cannot 
 be  treated  at  all,  except  in  connection  with  some 
 general  theory  of  the  method  of  primeval  revela- 
 tion, but  certainly  one  which  does  not  afl'ect  the 
 authority  and  tlie  meaning  of  the  rite  itself. 
 
 The  great  difficulty  in  the  theory  which  refers 
 it  to  a  distinct  command  of  God,  is  the  total  silence 
 of  Holy  Scripture  —  a  silence  the  more  remark- 
 able, when  contrasted  with  the  distinct  reference 
 made  in  Gen.  ii.  to  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath. 
 Sacrifice  when  first  mentioned,  in  the  case  of  Cain 
 and  Abel,  is  referred  to  as  a  thing  of  course;  it  is 
 said  to  have  been  brought  by  men ;  there  is  no 
 hint  of  any  command  given  by  God.  This  con- 
 sideration, the  strength  of  which  no  ingenuity  * 
 has  been  able  to  impair,  although  it  does  not  actu- 
 ally disprove  the  formal  revelation  of  sacrifice,  yet 
 
 sin-offering  was  actually  a  male),  still  it  does  not  settle 
 the  matter.  The  Lord  even  then  speaks  of  sacrifice 
 as  existing,  and  as  known  to  exist :  lie  does  not  insti- 
 tute it.  The  supposition  that  the  "  skins  of  beasts  ■' 
 in  Gen.  iii.  21  were  skins  of  animals  .sacrificed  by  God's 
 command,  is  a  pure  assmnption.  The  argument  on 
 Heb.  xi.  4,  that  faith  can  rest  only  on  a  distinct  Divine 
 command  as  to  the  special  ocoasioa  of  its  exercise, 
 is  contradicted  by  the  general  definition  of  it  given  in 
 T.  1. 
 
SACRIFICE 
 
 at  least  forbids  the  assertion  of  it,  as  of  a  positive 
 and  important  doctrine. 
 
 Nur  is  tlie  fact  of  the  mysterious  and  super- 
 natunil  cliaracter  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement, 
 witli  vvhicli  the  sacrifices  of  tlie  O.  T.  are  expressly 
 connected,  any  conclusive  argument  on  this  side 
 of  the  question.  All  allow  that  the  eucharistic 
 and  deprecatory  ideas  of  sacrifice  are  perfectly 
 natural  to  man.  The  higher  view  of  its  expiatory 
 character,  dependent,  as  it  is,  entirely  on  its  typical 
 nature,  appears  but  gradually  in  Scripture.  It  is 
 veiled  under  other  ideas  in  the  case  of  the  patri- 
 archal sacrifices.  It  is  first  distinctly  mentioned 
 in  tlie  Law  (Lev.  xvii.  11,  &c.);  but  even  then  the 
 theory  of  the  sin  offering,  and  of  the  classes  of 
 sins  to  which  it  referred,  is  allowed  to  be  obscure 
 and  difficult;  it  is  only  in  the  N.  T.  (especially  in 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  that  its  nature  is 
 clearly  unfolded.  It  is  as  likely  that  it  pleased 
 God  gradually  to  superadd  the  higher  idea  to  an 
 institution,  derived  by  man  from  the  lower  ideas 
 (which  must  eventually  find  their  justification  in 
 the  higher),  as  that  He  originally  comniandeil  the 
 institution  when  the  time  for  the  revelation  of  its 
 full  meaning  was  not  yet  come.  The  rainbow  was 
 just  as  truly  the  symbol  of  God's  new  promise  in 
 Gen.  ix.  13-17,  whether  it  had  or  had  not  existed, 
 as  a  natural  phenomenon  before  the  Flood.  What 
 God  sets  his  seal  to,  He  makes  a  part  of  his  revela 
 tion,  whatever  its  origin  may  be.  It  is  to  be 
 noticed  (see  Warlinrtou's  Div.  Leg.  ix.  c.  2)  that, 
 except  in  Gen.  xv.  9,  the  method  of  patriarchal 
 sacrifice  is  left  free,  without  any  direction  on  the 
 part  of  God,  while  in  all  the  Mosaic  ritual  the 
 limitation  and  regulation  of  sacrifice,  as  to  time, 
 place,  and  material,  is  a  most  prominent  feature, 
 on  which  much  of  its  distinction  from  heathen 
 sacrifice  dejjended.  The  inference  is  at  least  prob- 
 able, that  when  God  sanctioned  formally  a  natural 
 rite,  then,  and  not  till  then,  did  He  define  its 
 method. 
 
 The  question,  therefore,  of  the  origin  of  sacrifice 
 is  best  left  in  the  silence  with  which  Scripture 
 surrounds  it. 
 
 (B.)  .\nte-Mosaic  History  of  Sacrifice. 
 
 In  examining  the  various  sacrifices,  recorded  in 
 Scripture  before  the  establishment  of  the  Law,  we 
 find   that   the  words  specially  denoting  expiatory 
 
 sacrifice  (HSISn  and  DCi''S)  are  not  applied  to 
 them.  Thi^  fact  does  not  at  all  show,  that  they 
 were  not  actually  expiatory,  nor  even  that  the 
 offerers  had  not  that  idea  of  expiation,  which  must 
 have  been  vaguely  felt  in  all  sacrifices;  but  it  justi- 
 fies the  inference,  that  this  idea  was  not  then  the 
 prominent  one  in  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice. 
 
 The  sacrifice  of  Cain  and  Abel  is  called  minchah, 
 although  in  the  case  of  the  latter  it  was  a  liloody 
 sacrifice.  (So  in  Heb.  xi.  4  the  word  Qvcrla  is 
 explained  by  the  roir  ^clipois  below.)  In  the  case 
 of  both  it  would  appear  to  have  been  eucharistic, 
 and  the  distinction  between  the  offerers  to  have 
 lain  in  their  "faith"  (Heb.  xi.  4).  Whether  that 
 faith  of  Abel  referred  to  the  promise  of  the  Re- 
 deemer, and  was  connected  with  any  idea  of  the 
 typical  meaning  of  sacrifice,  or  whether  it  was  a 
 simple  and  humble  faith  in  the  unseen  God,  as  the 
 giver  and  promiser  of  all  good,  we  are  not  author- 
 ized Ijy  Scripture  to  decide. 
 
 The  sacrifice  of  Noah  after  the  Flood  (Gen.  viii. 
 20)  is  called  burnt-offering  {oliih).  This  sacrifice 
 'g  expressly  connected  with  the  institution  of  the 
 
 SACRIFICE  2771 
 
 Covenant  which  follows  in  ix.  8-17.  The  same 
 ratification  of  a  covenant  is  seen  in  the  burnt- 
 offering  of  Abraham,  especially  enjoined  and  de- 
 fined by  God  in  Gen.  xv.  9 ;  and  is  probal)ly  to  be 
 traced  in  the  "building  of  altars  "  by  Abraham 
 on  entering  Canaan  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xii.  7,  8)  and 
 Mamre  (xiii.  18),  by  Isaac  at  Beer-shelia  (xxvi.  25), 
 and  by  Jacob  at  Shechem  (xxxiii.  20),  and  in 
 Jacob's  setting  up  and  anointing  of  the  pillar  at 
 Bethel  (xxviii.  18.  xxxv.  14).  The  sacrifice  {zebach) 
 of  .Tacob  at  ^Vlizpah  also  marks  a  covenant  with 
 Laban,  to  which  God  is  called  to  be  a  witness 
 and  a  party.  In  all  these,  therefore,  the  prom- 
 inent idea  seems  to  have  been  what  is  called  the 
 fi'derative,  the  recognition  of  a  bond  between  the 
 sacrificer  and  God,  and  the  dedication  of  himself, 
 as  represented  by  the  victim,  to  the  service  of  the 
 Lord, 
 
 The  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  1-13)  stands 
 by  itself,  as  the  sole  instance  in  which  the  idea  of 
 human  sacrifice  was  even  for  a  moment,  and  as  a 
 trial,  countenanced  by  God.  Yet  in  its  principle 
 it  appears  to  have  been  of  the  same  nature  as 
 before :  the  voluntary  surrender  of  an  oidy  son  on 
 Abraham's  pnrf,  and  the  willing  dedication  of  him- 
 self on  Isaac's,  are  in  the  foreground :  the  expiatory 
 idea,  if  recognized  at  all,  holds  certainly  a  second- 
 ary position. 
 
 In  the  burnt-offerinc:s  of  Job  for  his  children 
 (Job  i.  5)  and  for  his  three  friends  (xlii.  8),  we 
 for  the  first  time  find  the  expression  of  the  desire 
 of  expiation  fur  sin  accompanied  by  repentance  and 
 prayer,  and  brought  prominently  forward.  The 
 same  is  the  case  in  the  words  of  Moses  to  Pharaoh, 
 as  to  the  necessity  of  sacrifice  in  the  wilderness 
 (Ex.  X.  25),  where  sacrifice  (zebuch)  is  distinguished 
 from  liurnt-offering.  Here  the  main  idea  is  at  least 
 deprecatory;  the  object  is  to  appease  the  wrath, 
 and  avert  the  vengeance  of  God. 
 
 (C.)  The  Sacrifices  of  the  Mosaic  Period. 
 
 These  are  inaugurated  by  the  oft'ering  of  the 
 Passover  and  the  sacrifice  of  Ex.  xxiv.  The 
 Passover  indeed  is  unique  in  its  character,  and 
 seems  to  emiirace  the  peculiarities  of  all  the  various 
 divisions  of  sacrifice  soon  to  be  established.  Its 
 ceremonial,  however,  most  nearly  resembles  that  of 
 the  sin-offering  in  the  emphatic  use  of  the  blood, 
 which  (after  the  first  celebration)  was  poured  at 
 the  bottom  of  the  altar  (see  Lev.  iv.  7),  and  in  the 
 care  taken  that  none  of  the  flesh  should  remain 
 till  the  morning  (see  Ex.  xii.  10,  xxxiv.  25).  It 
 was  unlike  it  in  that  the  flesh  was  to  be  eaten  by 
 all  (not  burnt,  or  eaten  by  the  priests  alone),  in 
 token  of  their  entering  into  covenant  with  God, 
 and  eating  "at  his  table,"  as  in  the  case  of  a 
 peace-offering.  Its  peculiar  position  as  a  historical 
 memorial,  and  its  special  reference  to  the  future, 
 naturally  mark  it  out  as  incajiable  of  being  referred 
 to  any  formal  class  of  sacrifice;  but  it  is  clear  that 
 the  idea  of  salvation  from  death  by  means  of  sacri- 
 fice is  brought  out  in  it  with  a  distinctness  before 
 unknown. 
 
 The  sacrifice  of  Ex.  xxiv.,  offered  as  a  .solenm 
 inauguration  of  the  Covenant  of  Sinai,  has  a  sim- 
 ilarly comprehensive  character.  It  is  called  a 
 "  burnt-oftering "  and  "peace-offering"  in  v.  5; 
 but  the  solemn  use  of  the  blood  (comp.  Heb.  ix. 
 18-22)  distinctly  marks  the  idea  that  expiatory 
 sacrifice  was  needed  for  entering  into  covenant 
 with  God,  the  idea  of  which  the  sin-  and  trespaas- 
 offerhigs  were  afterwards  the  symbols. 
 
2772 
 
 SACKIFICE 
 
 The  Law  of  Leviticus  now  unfolds  distinctly  the 
 various  forms  of  sacrifice :  — 
 
 (a.)  The  burnt-offerintj.     SELP'-DKDicATOiiv. 
 {b.)  The  meat-offering  (tinblooJy)  )  Euchaius- 
 
 T/ie  pciice-ifftriny  (bloody)     j         tic. 
 (c.)   The  sln-offerliifj  }  „ 
 
 Ti      I  a-     ■         \  EXPIATOHY. 
 
 Ihe  tresjjuss-ojjertng  ) 
 
 To  these  may  be  added,  — 
 
 ('/.)  The  incense  ottered  after  sacrifice  in  the 
 Holy  Place,  and  (on  the  Day  of  Atonement)  in  the 
 Holy  of  Holies,  the  symbol  of  the  intercession  of 
 the  priest  (as  a  type  of  the  Great  Hi^'h  Priest), 
 acconipanjing  and  making  efficacious  the  prayer 
 of  the  people. 
 
 In  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  (Lev. 
 viii.)  we  find  these  ofl^ered,  in  what  became  ever 
 afterwards  the  appointed  order  :  first  came  the 
 sin-offeriiin;,  to  prepare  access  to  God;  next  the 
 bnrnt-ofterino;,  to  mark  their  dedication  to  his 
 service;  and  thirdly  the  meat-oftering  of  thanks- 
 giving. The  same  sacrifices,  in  the  same  order, 
 with  the  addition  of  a  peace-ofl'ering  (eaten  no 
 doubt  by  all  the  people),  were  ottered  a  week  after 
 for  all  the  cono;regatioii,  and  accepted  visibly  by 
 the  descent  of  fire  upon  the  burnt-ottering.  Hence- 
 forth the  sacrificial  system  was  fixed  in  all  its  parts, 
 until  He  should  come  whom  it  typified. 
 
 It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Law  of  Leviticus 
 takes  the  rite  of  sacrifice  for  granted  (see  Lev.  i.  2, 
 ii.  1,  (fee,  "If  a  man  bring  an  offijring,  ye  shall," 
 etc.),  and  is  directed  chiefly  to  guide  and  limit  its 
 exercise.  In  every  case  but  that  of  the  peace- 
 offering,  the  nature  of  the  victim  was  carefully 
 prescribed,  so  as  to  preserve  the  ideas  symbolized, 
 but  so  as  to  avoid  the  notion  (so  inherent  in 
 heathen  systems,  and  finding  its  logical  result  in 
 human  sacrifice)  that  the  more  costly  the  offering, 
 the  more  surely  must  it  meet  with  acceptance. 
 At  the  same  time,  probably  in  order  to  impress 
 this  truth  on  their  minds,  and  also  to  guard  against 
 corruption  by  heathenish  ceremonial,  and  against 
 the  notion  that  sacrifice  in  itself,  without  obedi- 
 ence, could  avail  (see  1  Sam.  xv.  22,  2:)),  the  place 
 of  ottering  was  expressly  limited,  first  to  the  Taber- 
 nacle," afterwards  to  the  Temple.  This  ordinance 
 also  necessitated  their  periodical  gathering  as  one 
 nation  before  God,  and  so  kept  clearly  before  their 
 minds  their  relation  to  Him  as  their  national  King. 
 Both  limitations  brought  out  the  great  truth,  that 
 God  Himself  provided  the  way  by  which  man 
 shoukl  approach  Him,  and  that  the  method  of 
 reconciliation  was  initiated  by  Him,  and  not  by 
 them. 
 
 In  consequence  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  Law,  it 
 has  been  argued  (as  by  Outram,  Warburton,  etc.) 
 that  the  whole  system  of  sacrifice  was  only  a  con- 
 descension to  the  weakness  of  the  people,  borrowed, 
 more  or  less,  from  the  heathen  nations,  especially 
 from  Egypt,  in  order  to  guard  against  worse  super- 
 stition and  positive  idolatry.  The  argument  is 
 mainly  based  (see  Warb.  Die.  Leg.  iv.,  sect.  vi.  2) 
 on  Ez.  XX.  25,  and  similar  references  in  the  0.  and 
 N.  T.  to  the  indlity  of  all  mere  ceremonial.  Taken 
 as  an  explanation  of  the  theory  of  sacrifice,  it  is 
 weak  and  superficial;  it  labors  under  two  fatal 
 difficulties,  the  historical  fiict  of  the  primeval  exist- 
 ence of  sacrifice,  and   its  typical  reference  to  tlie 
 
 «  For  instances  of  infringement  of  this  rule  unccn- 
 sured,  see  Judg.  ii.  5,  vi.  26,  xiii.  19 ;  1  Sam.  xi.  15, 
 xvi.  5  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  13 ;  1  K.  iii.  2,  3.     Jlost  of  these 
 
 SACRIFICE 
 
 one  Atonement  of  Christ,  which  was  foreordained 
 from  the  very  beginning,  and  had  been  already 
 typified,  as,  for  example,  in  the  sacrifice  of  Isa:ic. 
 But  as  giving  a  reason  for  the  minuteness  and 
 elaboration  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial,  so  remark- 
 ably contrasted  with  the  freedom  of  jiatriarchal 
 sacrifice,  and  as  furnishing  an  explanation  of  cer- 
 tain special  rites,  it  may  probably  have  some  value. 
 It  certainly  contains  this  truth,  that  the  craving 
 for  visible  tokens  of  God's  presence,  and  visible 
 rites  of  worship,  from  which  idolatry  proceeds,  was 
 provided  tor  and  turned  into  a  safe  channel,  by  the 
 whole  ritual  and  typical  system,  of  which  sacrifice 
 was  the  centre.  Tlie  contact  with  the  gigantic 
 system  of  idolatry,  which  prevailed  in  Egypt,  and 
 which  had  so  deeply  tainted  the  spirit  of  the  Israel- 
 ites, would  doiibtless  render  such  provision  then 
 especially  necessary.  It  was  one  part  of  the  pro- 
 phetic oflBce  to  guard  against  its  degradation  into 
 formalism,  and  to  bring  out  its  spiritual  meaning 
 with  an  ever-increasing  clearness. 
 
 (D.)  Post-Mosaic  Sachifices. 
 
 It  will  not  be  necessary  to  pursue,  in  detail,  the 
 history  of  Post-Mosaic  Sacrifice,  for  its  main  prin- 
 ciples were  now  fixed  forever.  The  most  remark- 
 aljle  instances  of  sacrifice  on  a  large  scale  are  by 
 Solomon  at  the  consecration  of  the  Temple  (1  K. 
 viii.  G3),  by  .lehoiada  after  the  death  of  Athaliah 
 (2  Chr.  xxiii.  18),  and  by  Hezekiah  at  his  great 
 Passover  and  restoration  of  the  Temple-worship 
 (2  Chr.  XXX.  21-2i).  In  each  case,  the  lavish  use 
 of  victims  was  chiefly  in  the  peace-ofTerings,  which 
 were  a  sacred  national  feast  to  the  people  at  the 
 Talile  of  their  Great  King. 
 
 The  regular  sacrifices  in  the  Temple  service 
 were :  — 
 
 (rt. )  Burnt-Offerings. 
 
 1.  The  daily  burnt-oflerings  (Ex.  xxix.  38-42). 
 
 2.  The  double  burnt-ofterings  on  the  Sabbath 
 (Num.  xxviii.  9,  10). 
 
 3.  The  l)Urnt-otterings  at  the  great  festivals 
 (Num.  xxviii.  ll-xxix.  39). 
 
 ib.)  Meat-Offkrings. 
 
 1.  The  daily  meat-oflferings  accompanying  the 
 daily  burnt-otterings  (flour,  oil,  and  wine)  (Ex. 
 xxix.  40,  41). 
 
 2.  The  shew-liread  (twelve  loaves  with  frankin- 
 cense), renewed  every  Salibath  (Lev.  xxiv.  5-9). 
 
 3.  The  special  meat-ofterings  at  the  Sabbath 
 and  the  great  festivals  (Num.  xxviii.,  xxix.). 
 
 4.  The  first-fruits  at  the  Passover  (Lev.  xxiii. 
 10-14),  at  Pentecost  (xxiii.  17-20),  both  "  wave- 
 offerings;  "  the  first-fruits  of  the  dough  and  thresh- 
 ing-floor at  the  harvest-time  (Num.  xv.  20,  21; 
 Ueut.  xxvi.  1-11),  called  "heave-offerings." 
 
 (c. )  Sin-Offerings. 
 
 1.  Sin-offering  (a  kid)  each  new  moon  (Num. 
 xxviii.  15). 
 
 2.  Sin-offerings  at  the  Passover,  Pentecost,  Feast 
 of  Trumpets,  and  Tabernacles  (Num.  xxviii.  22,  30, 
 xxix.  5,  16,  19,  22,  25,  28,  31,  34,  38). 
 
 3.  The  ottering  of  the  two  goats  (the  goat 
 sacrificed  and  the  scape-goat)  for  the  people,  and 
 of  the  bullock  for  the  priest  himself,  on  the  Great 
 Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.). 
 
 ((/.)  Incense. 
 
 1.  The  morning  and  evening  incense  (Ex.  xxx. 
 7-8). 
 
 cases  are  special,  some  authorized  by  special  com 
 mand ;  but  the  Law  probably  did  not  attain  to  its  tul] 
 strictness  till  the  foundation  of  the  Temnle. 
 
SACRIFICE 
 
 2.  The  incense  on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement 
 ^(Lev.  xvi.  12). 
 
 IJesides  these  pubhc  sacrifices,  there  were  offer- 
 ings of  the  people  for  themselves  individually ;  at 
 the  purkioation  of  vs'omen  (i>ev.  xii.),  the  presenta- 
 tion of  the  first-born,  and  circumcision  of  all  male 
 children,  the  cleansing  of  the  leprosy  (Lev.  xiv.)  or 
 any  uncleanness  (Lev.  xv.),  at  the  fulfillment  of 
 Nazaritic  and  other  vows  (Num.  vi.  1-21),  on  oc- 
 casions of  marriage  and  of  burial,  etc.,  etc.,  besides 
 the  frequent  offiiring  of  private  sin-ofierings.  These 
 must  have  kept  up  a  constant  succession  of  sacri- 
 fices every  day;  and  brought  the  rite  home  to 
 every  man's  thought,  and  to  every  occasion  of 
 human  life. 
 
 (in.)  In  examining  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  it 
 is  necessary  to  remember,  that,  in  its  development, 
 the  order  of  idea  is  not  necessarily  the  same  as  the 
 order  of  time.  By  the  order  of  sacrifice  in  its  per- 
 fect form  (as  in  Lev.  viii.)  it  is  clear  that  the  sin- 
 offering  occupies  the  most  important  place,  the 
 burnt-ofltering  comes  next,  and  the  meat-ofiering  or 
 peace-ofFering  last  of  all.  The  second  could  oidy 
 be  offered  after  the  first  had  been  accepted;  the 
 third  was  only  a  subsidiary  part  of  the  second. 
 Yet,  in  actual  order  of  time,  it  has  been  seen,  that 
 the  patriarchal  sacrifices  partook  much  more  of 
 the  nay.u'e  of  the  peace-ofFering  and  burnt-offering; 
 and  that,  under  the  Law,  by  which  was  •'  the 
 knowledge  of  sin  "  (Rom.  iii.  20),  the  sin-ofiering 
 was  for  the  first  time  explicitly  set  forth.  .  This  is 
 but  natural,  that  the  deepest  ideas  should  be  the 
 last  in  order  of  development. 
 
 It  is  also  obvious,  that  those  who  believe  in  the 
 unity  of  the  0.  and  N.  T.,  and  the  typical  nature 
 of  the  Mosaic  Covenant,  must  view  the  type  in 
 constant  reference  to  the  antitype,  and  be  prepared 
 therefore  to  find  in  the  former  vague  and  recon- 
 dite meanings,  which  are  fixed  and  manifested  by 
 the  latter.  The  sacrifices  must  be  considered,  not 
 merely  as  they  stand  in  the  Law,  or  even  as  they 
 might  have  appeared  to  a  pious  Israelite;  but  as 
 they  were  illustrated  by  the  Prophets,  and  per- 
 fectly interpreted  in  the  N.  T.  (e.  g.  in  the  Epis- 
 tle to  the  Hebrews).  It  follows  from  this,  th.at, 
 as  belonging  to  a  system  which  was  to  embrace  all 
 mankind  in  its  influence,  they  should  be  also  com- 
 pared and  contrasted  wit|i  the  sacrifices  and  wor- 
 ship of  God  in  other  nations,  and  the  ideas  which 
 in  them  were  dimly  and  confusedly  expressed. 
 
 It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  universality  of 
 heathen  sacrifices,"  and  difficult  to  reduce  to  any 
 single  theory  the  various  ideas  involved  therein. 
 It  is  clear,  that  the  sacrifice  was  often  looked  upon 
 as  a  gift  or  tribute  to  the  gods :  an  idea  which  (for 
 example)  runs  through  all  Greek  literature,  from 
 the  simple  conception  in  Homer  to  the  caricatures 
 of  Aristopharies  or  Lucian,  against  the  perversion 
 of  which  St.  Paul  protested  at  Athens,  when  he 
 declared  that  God  needed  nothing  at  human  hands 
 (Acts  xvii.  25).  It  is  also  clear  that  sacrifices 
 were  used  as  prayers,  to  obtain  benefits,  or  to  avert 
 vn-ath ;  and  that  this  idea  was  corrupted  into  the 
 superstition,  denounced  by  heathen  satirists  as  well 
 as  by  Hebrew  prophets,  that  by  them  the  gods' 
 {avor  could  be  purchased  for  the  wicked,  or  their 
 "envy  "  be  averted  from  the  prosperous.  On  the 
 other  hand,  that  they  were  regarded  as  thank-offer- 
 ings, and  the  feasting  on  their  flesh  as  a  partaking 
 
 «  See  Magce'3  Diss,  on  Sacr.,  vol.  1.  diss,  v.,  and 
 Bnast  von  Lasaulx's   Treatise  on  Greek  and  lloman 
 
 SACKIFICE  2773 
 
 of  the  "table  of  the  gods"  (comp,  1  Cor.  x.  20 
 21),  is  equally  certain.  Nor  was  the  higher  idea 
 of  sacrifice,  as  a  representation  of  the  self-devotion 
 of  the  offerer,  body  and  soul,  to  the  god,  wholly 
 lost,  although  generally  obscured  by  the  grosser 
 and  more  obvious  conceptions  of  the  rite.  But, 
 besides  all  these,  there  seems  always  to  have  been 
 latent  the  idea  of  propitiation,  that  is,  the  l>elief  in 
 a  communion  with  the  gods,  natural  to  man,  broken 
 oft'  in  some  way,  and  by  sacrifice  to  be  restored. 
 The  emphatic  "  shedding  of  the  blood,"  as  the  es- 
 sential part  of  the  sacrifice,  while  the  flesh  was 
 often  eaten  by  the  priests  or  the  sacrificer,  is  not 
 capable  of  any  full  explanation  by  any  of  the  ideas 
 above  referred  to.  Whether  it  represented  the 
 death  of  the  sacrificer,  or  (as  in  cases  of  national 
 offering  of  human  victims,  and  of  those  self-de- 
 voted for  their  country)  an  atoning  death  for  him; 
 still,  in  either  case  it  contained  the  idea  that 
 "without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission,"  and 
 so  had  a  vague  and  distorted  glimpse  of  the  great 
 central  truth  of  Eevelation.  Such  an  idea  may  be 
 (as  has  been  argued)  "unnatural,"  in  that  it  could 
 not  be  explained  by  natural  reason ;  but  it  cer- 
 tainly was  not  unnatural,  if  frequency  of  existence, 
 and  accordance  with  a  deep  natural  instinct,  be- 
 allowed  to  preclude  that  epithet. 
 
 Now  the  essential  ditterence  between  these 
 heathen  views  of  sacrifice  and  the  Scriptural  doc- 
 trine of  the  0.  T.  is  not  to  be  found  in  its  denial 
 of  any  of  these  ideas.  .  The  very  names  used  in  it 
 for  sacrifice  (as  is  seen  above)  involve  the  concep- 
 tion of  the  rite  as  a  gift,  a  form  of  worship,  a 
 thankoftering,  a  self-devotion,  and  an  atonement. 
 In  fact,  it  brings  out,  clearly  and  distinctly,  the 
 ideas  which  in  heathenism  were  uncertain,  vague, 
 and  perverted. 
 
 But  the  essential  points  of  distinction  are  two. 
 First,  that  whereas  the  heathen  conceived  of  their 
 gods  as  alienated  in  jealousy  or  anger,  to  be  sought 
 after,  and  to  be  appeased  by  the  unaided  action  of 
 man,  Scripture  i-epresents  God  himself  as  ap- 
 proaching man,  as  pointing  out  and  sanctioning 
 the  way  by  which  the  broken  covenant  should 
 be  restored.  This  was  impressed  on  the  Israelites 
 at  every  step  by  the  minute  directions  of  the  Law, 
 as  to  time,  place,  victim,  and  ceremonial,  by  its 
 utterly  discountenancing  the  "  will-worship,"  which 
 in  heatheiiism  found  full  scope,  and  rioted  in  the 
 invention  of  costly  or  monstrous  sacrifices.  And 
 it  is  especially  to  be  noted,  that  this  particularity 
 is  increased  as  we  approach  nearer  to  the  deep 
 propitiatory  idea ;  for  that,  whereas  the  patriarchal 
 sacrifices  generally  seem  to  have  been  undefined 
 by  God,  and  even  under  the  Law,  the  nature  of 
 the  peace-offerings,  and  (to  some  extent)  the  burnt- 
 oflTerings,  was  determined  by  the  sacrificer  only,  the 
 solemn  sacrifice  of  Abraham  in  the  inauguration 
 of  his  covenant  was  prescribed  to  him,  and  the 
 sin-offerings  under  the  Law  were  most  accurately 
 and  minutely  determined.  (See,  for  example,  the 
 whole  ceremonial  of  Lev.  xvi.)  It  is  needless 
 to  remark,  how  this  essential  diflference  purifies 
 all  the  ideas  above  noticed  from  the  corruptions, 
 which  made  them  odious  or  contempti1)le,  and  sets 
 on  its  true  basis  the  relation  betv\een  God  and 
 fallen  man. 
 
 The  second  mark  of  distinction  is  closely  con- 
 nected with  this,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  sacrifice  to 
 
 Sacrifice,  quoted  in  notes  23,  26,  to  Thomson's  Bamp- 
 ton  Lectures,  1853. 
 
2774  SACRIFICE 
 
 be  a  scheme  proceedincr  from  God,  and,  in  his 
 foreknowledge,  connected  with  the  one  central  fact 
 of  all  human  history.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the 
 tjpical  character  of  all  Jewish  sacrifices,  on  which, 
 as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  argues,  all  their 
 efficacy  depended.  It  must  be  remembered  that, 
 like  other  ordinances  of  the  Law,  they  had  a  two- 
 fold effect,  dependhig  on  the  special  position  of 
 an  Israelite,  as  a  member  of  the  natural  Theocracy, 
 and  on  his  general  position,  as  a  man  in  relation 
 with  God.  On  the  one  hand,  for  example,  the 
 sin-oifering  was  an  atonement  to  the  national  law 
 for  moral  offenses  of  negligence,  which  in  "  pre- 
 sumptuous," i.  e.  deliberate  and  willful  crime,  was 
 rejected  (see  Num.  xv.  27-31 ;  and  comp.  Heb.  x. 
 26,  27).  On  the  other  hand  it  had,  as  the  pro- 
 phetic writings  show  us,  a  distinct  spiritual  sig- 
 nificance, as  a  means  of  expressing  repentance  and 
 receiving  forgiveness,  which  could  have  belonged  to 
 it  only  as  a  type  of  the  Great  Atonement.  How 
 far  that  typical  meaning  was  recognized  at  differ- 
 ent periods  and  by  different  jjersons,  it  is  useless 
 to  speculate ;  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  doubt, 
 even  if  we  had  no  testimony  on  the  subject,  that, 
 in  the  face  of  the  high  spiritual  teaching  of  the 
 Law  and  the  Prophets,  a  pious  Israelite  must  have 
 felt  the  nullity  of  material  sacrifice  in  itself,  and  so 
 believed  it  to  be  availing  only  as  an  ordinance 
 of  God,  shadowing  out  some  great  spiritual  truth, 
 or  action  of  his.  Nor  is  it  unlikely  that,  with 
 more  or  less  distinctness,  he  connected  the  evolu- 
 tion of  this,  as  of  other  truths,  with  the  coming 
 of  the  promised  Messiah.  But,  however  this 
 be,  we  know  that,  in  God's  purpose,  the  whole 
 system  was  typical,  that  all  its  spiritual  efficacy 
 depended  on  the  true  sacrifice  which  it  represented, 
 and  could  be  received  only  on  condition  of  Faith, 
 and  that,  therefore,  it  passed  away  when  the  Anti- 
 type was  come. 
 
 The  nature  and  meaning  of  the  various  kinds 
 of  sacrifice  is  partly  gathered  from  the  form  of 
 their  institution  and  ceremonial,  partly  from  the 
 teaching  of  the  Prophets,  and  partly  from  the 
 N.  T.,  especially  the  Epistle  to  the  Hel)rews.  All 
 had  relation,  under  different  aspects,  to  a  Covenant 
 between  God  and  man. 
 
 The  Sin-offering  represented  that  Covenant 
 as  broken  by  man,  and  as  knit  together  again,  by 
 God's  appointment,  through  the  "  shedding  of 
 blood."  Its  characteristic  ceremony  was  the 
 sprinkling  of  the  blood  before  the  veil  of  the 
 Sanctuary,  the  putting  some  of  it  on  the  horns  of 
 the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  pom-ing  out  of  all  the 
 rest  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  The 
 flesh  was  in  no  case  touched  by  the  oflferer;  either 
 it  was  consumed  by  fire  without  the  camp,  or  it 
 was  eaten  by  the   priest  alone  in  the  holy  place, 
 
 and  everything  that  touched  it  was  holy  (tyjp). 
 This  latter  iwint  marked  the  distinction  from  the 
 peace-offering,  and  showed  that  the  sacrificer  had 
 been  rendered  unworthy  of  communion  w'ith  God. 
 The  shedding  of  the  blood,  the  symbol  of  life,  sig- 
 nified that  the  death  of  the  offender  was  deserved 
 for  sin,  but  that  the  death  of  the  victim  was  ac- 
 cepted  for  his  death  by  the  ordinance  of  God's 
 
 a  Some  render  this  (like  Sacer)  "  accursed  ;  "  but 
 the  primitive  meaning  "clean,"  and  the  usage  of  the 
 word,  seem  decisive  against  this.  LXX.  ayi'a  (vid. 
 Oeseu.  s.  v.). 
 
 6  In  Lev.  1.  4,  it  is  said  to  "atone"  ("123,  t.  e.  to 
 
 SACRIFICE 
 
 mercy.  This  is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  cere- 
 monial of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  when,  after  the» 
 sacrifice  of  the  one  goat,  the  high-priest's  hand  was 
 laid  on  the  head  of  the  scape-goat  —  which  was 
 the  other  part  of  the  sin-off'ering  —  with  confession 
 of  the  sins  of  the  people,  that  it  might  visibly  bear 
 them  away,  and  so  bring  out  explicitly,  what  in 
 other  sin-off'erings  was  but  implied.  Accordingly 
 we  find  (see  quotation  from  the  Mishna  in  (Jutr. 
 Be  Sacr.  i.  c.  xv.,  §  10)  that,  in  all  cases,  it  was 
 the  custom  for  the  ofl^erer  to  lay  his  hand  on  the 
 head  of  the  sin-offering,  to  confess  generally  or 
 specially  his  sins,  and  to  say,  "  Let  this  be  my  ex- 
 piation." Beyond  all  doubt,  the  sin-offering  dis- 
 tinctly witnessed,  that  sin  existed  in  man,  that  the 
 "wages  of  that  sin  was  death,"  and  that  God  had 
 provided  an  Atonement  by  the  vicarious  suffering 
 of  an  appointed  victim.  The  reference  of  the 
 Baptist  to  a  "  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the 
 sins  of  the  world,"  was  one  understood  and  hailed 
 at  once  by  a  "  true  Israelite." 
 
 The  ceremonial  and  meaning  of  the  Buent- 
 OFFERiNG  were  very  different.  The  idea  of  ex- 
 piation seems  not  to  have  been  absent  from  it 
 (for  the  blood  was  sprinkled  round  about  the  altar 
 of  sacrifice);*  and,  before  the  Levitical  ordinance 
 of  the  sin-offering  to  precede  it,  this  idea  may 
 have  been  even  prominent.  But  in  the  system  of 
 Leviticus  it  is  evidently  only  secondary.  The 
 main  idea  is  the  offering  of  the  whole  victim  to 
 God,  representing  (as  the  laying  of  the  hand  on 
 its  head  shows)  the  devotion  of  the  sacrificer,  body 
 and  soul,  to  Him.  The  death  of  the  victim  was 
 (so  to  speak)  an  incidental  feature,  to  signify  the 
 comi)leteness  of  the  devotion;  and  it  is  to  be  no- 
 ticed that,  in  all  solenni  sacrifices,  no  burnt-oftering 
 could  be  made  until  a  previous  sin-offering  had 
 brought  the  sacrificer  again  into  covenant  with 
 God.  The  main  idea  of  this  sacrifice  must  have 
 been  representati\e,  not  vicarious,  and  the  best 
 comment  upon  it  is  the  exhortation  in  Rom.  xii.  1, 
 "  to  present  our  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy  and 
 acceptable  to  God." 
 
 The  Meat-offerings,  the  peace  or  thank- 
 offering,  the  first-fruits,  etc.,  were  simply  offerings 
 to  God  of  his  own  best  gifts,  as  a  sign  of  thankful 
 homage,  and  as  a  means  of  maintaining  his  service 
 and  his  servants.  Whether  they  were  regular  or 
 voluntary,  individual  or  national,  independent  or 
 subsidiary  to  other  oflferings,  this  was  still  the  lead- 
 ing idea.  The  meat-ottering,  of  flour,  oil,  and 
 wine,  seasoned  with  salt,  and  hallowed  by  frankin- 
 cense, was  usually  an  appendage  to  the  devotion 
 implied  in  the  burnt-offering;  and  the  peace-offer- 
 ings for  the  people  held  the  same  place  in  Aaron's 
 first  sacrifice  (Lev.  ix.  22),  and  in  all  others  of 
 special  solemnity.  The  characteristic  ceremony  in 
 the  peace-offering  was  the  eating  of  the  flesh  by 
 the  sacrificer  (after  the  fat  had  been  burnt  before 
 the  Lord,  and  the  breast  and  shoulder  given  to  the 
 priests).  It  betokened  the  enjoyment  of  com- 
 munion with  God  at  "  the  table  of  the  Lord,"  in 
 the  gifts  which  his  mercy  had  bestowed,  of  which 
 a  choice  portion  was  oftiired  to  Him,  to  his  ser\'ants, 
 and  to  his  poor  (see  Dent.  xiv.  28,  29).     To  this 
 
 "  cover,"  and  so  to  "  do  away  ;  "  LXX.  tJiAacj-ao-flai). 
 The  same  word  is  used  below  of  the  sin-offering ;  and 
 the  later  Jews  distinguish  the  burnt-offering  as  aton- 
 ing for  thoughts  and  designs,  the  sin-offering  for  acts 
 of  transgression.  (See  Jnnath.  Paraphr.  on  Lev.  vi. 
 17,  etc.,  quoted  by  Outram.) 
 
SACRIFICE 
 
 view  of  sacrifice  allusiou  is  made  by  St.  Paul  in 
 mii:.  iv.  18;  Heb.  xiii.  15,  16.  It  follows  natu- 
 rally from  the  other  two. 
 
 It  is  clear  from  this,  that  the  idea  of  sacrifice 
 is  a  comple.x  idea,  involving  the  propitiatory,  the 
 dedicatory,  and  the  eucharistic  elements.  Any  one 
 of  these,  taken  by  itself,  would  lead  to  error  and 
 superstition.  The  propitiatory  alone  would  tend 
 to  the  idea  of  atonement  by  sacrifice  for  sin,  as 
 being  effectual  without  any  condition  of  repent- 
 ance and  faith;  the  self-dedicatory,  taken  alone, 
 ignores  the  barrier  of  sin  between  man  and  God, 
 and  undermines  the  whole  idea  of  atonement;  the 
 eucharistic  alone  leads  to  the  notion  that  mere  gifts 
 can  satisfy  God's  service,  and  is  easily  perverted 
 into  the  heathenish  attempt  to  "bribe"  God  by 
 vows  and  offerings.  All  three  probably  were  more 
 or  less  implied  in  each  sacrifice,  each  element  pre- 
 dominating in  its  turn:  all  must  be  kept  in  mind 
 in  considering  the  historical  influence,  the  spiritual 
 meaning,  and  the  typical  value  of  sacrifice. 
 
 Now  the  Israelites,  while  they  seem  always  to 
 have  retained  the  ideas  of  propitiation  and  of 
 eucharistic  offering,  even  when  they  perverted  these 
 by  half-heathenish  superstition,  constantly  ignored 
 the  self- dedication  which  is  tiie  link  between  the 
 two,  and  which  the  regular  burnt-offering  should 
 have  impressed  upon  them  as  their  daily  thought 
 and  duty.  It  is  therefore  to  this  point  that  the 
 teaching  of  the  Prophets  is  mainly  directed ;  its 
 key-note  is  contained  in  the  words  of  Samuel:  "Be- 
 hold, to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken 
 than  the  fat  of  rams  "  (1  Sam.  xv.  22).  So  Isaiah 
 declares  (as  in  i.  10-20)  that  "the  Lord  delights 
 not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  lambs,  or  goats;  " 
 that  to  those  who  "  cease  to  do  evil  and  learn  to 
 do  well,  ....  though  their  sins  be  as 
 scarlet,  they  shall  be  white  as  snow."  Jeremiah 
 reminds  them  (vii.  22,  23)  that  the  Lord  did  not 
 "command  bvu'nt-offerings  or  sacrifices"  under 
 Moses,  but  said,  "  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be 
 your  God."  Ezekiel  is  full  of  indignant  protests 
 (see  XX.  39— 14)  against  the  pollution  of  God's 
 name  by  offerings  of  those  whose  hearts  were  with 
 their  idols.  Hosea  sets  forth  God's  requirements 
 (vi.  6)  in  words  which  our  Lord  himself  sanc- 
 tioned :  "  I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  and 
 the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt-offerings." 
 Amos  (v.  21-27)  puts  it  even  more  strongly,  that 
 God  "hates"  their  sacrifices,  unless  "judgment 
 run  down  like  water,  and  righteousness  like  a 
 mighty  stream."'  And  Micah  (vi.  6-8)  answers 
 the  question  which  lies  at  the  root  of  sacrifice, 
 "Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  the  LordV"  by 
 the  words,  "  What  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee, 
 but  to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly 
 with  thy  God'?"  All  these  passages,  and  many 
 others,  are  directed  to  one  object  —  not  to  dis- 
 courage sacrifice,  but  to  purify  and  spiritualize  the 
 feelings  of  the  offerers. 
 
 The  same  truth,  here  enunciated  from  without, 
 is  recognized  from  within  by  the  Psalmist.  Thus 
 he  says,  in  Ps.  xl.  0-11,  "  Sacrifice  and  meat- 
 offering, burnt-offering  and  sin-offering.  Thou  hast 
 not  required;"  and  contrasts  with  them  the  hom- 
 age of  the  heart  —  "mine  ears  hast  Thou  bored," 
 and  the  active  service  of  life  —  "  T^o !  I  come  to  do 
 Thy  will,  0  God."  In  Ps.  1.  13,  14,  sacrifice  is 
 contrasted  with  prayer  and  adoration  (comp.  Ps. 
 cxU.  2):  "Thinkest  thou  that  I  will  eat  bulls'  flesh, 
 and  drink  the  blood  of  goats'?  Offer  unto  God 
 thanksgiving,  pay  thy  vows  to  the  Most  Highest, 
 
 SACRIFICE  2775 
 
 and  call  upon  me  in  time  of  trouble."  In  Ps.  li. 
 16,  17,  it  is  similarly  contrasted  with  true  repent- 
 ance of  the  heart :  "  The  sacrifice  of  God  is  a 
 troubled  spirit,  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart." 
 Vet  here  also  the  next  verse  shows  that  sacrifice 
 was  not  superseded,  but  purified:  "  Tlii^n  shalt 
 thou  be  pleased  with  burnt-offerings  and  olilations; 
 then  shall  tliey  offer  young  bullocks  upon  thine 
 altar."  These  passages  are  correlati\e  to  the  others, 
 expressing  the  feelings,  which  those  others  in  God's 
 name  require.  It  is  not  to  be  argued  from  them, 
 that  this  idea  of  self-dedication  is  the  main  one  of 
 sacrifice.  The  idea  of  propitiation  lies  below  it, 
 taken  for  granted  by  the  Pro])hets  as  by  the  whole 
 people,  but  still  enveloped  in  mystery  until  the 
 Antitype  should  come  to  make  all  clear.  For  the 
 evolution  of  this  doctrine  we  must  look  to  the  N. 
 T. ;  the  preparation  for  it  by  the  Prophets  was  (so 
 to  speak)  negative,  the  pointing  out  the  nullity 
 of  all  other  propitiations  in  themselves,  and  then 
 leaving  the  warnings  of  the  conscience  and  the 
 cravings  of  the  heart  to  fix  men's  hearts  on  the 
 better  Atonement  to  come. 
 
 Without  entering  directly  on  the  great  subject 
 of  the  Atonement  (which  would  be  foreign  to  the 
 scope  of  this  article),  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer 
 to  the  comiection,  established  in  the  N.  T.,  between 
 it  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  Mosaic  system.  To  do 
 this,  we  need  do  little  more  than  analyze  the  Epis- 
 tle to  the  Hebrews,  which  contains  the  key  of  the 
 whole  sacrificial  doctrine. 
 
 In  the  first  place,  it  follows  the  prophetic  hooks 
 by  stating,  in  the  most  emphatic  terms,  the  in- 
 trinsic nullity  of  all  mere  material  sacrifices.  The 
 "  gifts  and  sacrifices  "  of  the  first  Tabernacle  could 
 "  never  make  the  sacrificers  perfect  in  conscience  " 
 (/cara  crvviiB7)(riv)\  they  were  but  "carnal  ordi- 
 nances, imposed  on  them  till  the  time  of  reformat 
 tion "  (5iop0aJ(Tecos)  (Heb.  ix.  9,  10).  The  very 
 fact  of  their  constant  repetition  is  said  to  prove 
 this  imperfection,  which  depends  on  the  funda- 
 mental principle,  "  that  it  is  inipossihle  that  the 
 blood  of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sin " 
 (x.  4).  But  it  does  not  lead  us  to  infer,  that  they 
 actually  had  no  spiritual  efficacy,  if  offered  in  re- 
 pentance and  faith.  On  the  contrary,  the  object 
 of  the  whole  epistle  is  to  show  their  typical  and 
 probationary  character,  and  to  assert  that  in  virtue 
 of  it  alone  they  had  a  spiritual  meaning.  Our 
 Lord  is  declared  (see  1  Pet.  i.  20)  "to  have  been 
 foreordained  "  as  a  sacrifice  "  before  the  foundation 
 of  the  world;''  or  (as  it  is  more  strikingly  ex- 
 pressed in  Rev.  xiii.  8)  "slain  from  the  foundation 
 of  the  world."  The  material  sacrifices  represented 
 this  Great  Atonement,  as  already  made  and  ac- 
 cepted in  God's  foreknowledge;  and  to  those  who 
 grasped  the  ideas  of  sin,  pardon,  and  self-detlica- 
 tion,  symbolized  in  them,  they  were  means  of  enter- 
 ing into  the  blessings  which  the  One  True  Sacrifice 
 alone  procured.  Otherwise  the  whole  sacrificial 
 system  could  have  been  only  a  superstition  and  a 
 snare.  The  sins  provided  for  by  the  sin-offering 
 were  certainly  in  some  cases  moral.  [See  Sin- 
 Offeiung.]  The  whole  of  the  Mosaic  description 
 of  sacrifices  clearly  implies  some  real  spiritual  bene- 
 fit to  be  derived  from  them,  besides  the  temporal 
 privileges  belonging  to  tlie  national  theocracy. 
 Just  as  St.  Paul  argues  (Gal.  iii.  15-29)  that  the 
 Promise  and  Covenant  to  Abraham  were  of  pri- 
 mary, the  Law  only  of  secondary,  importance,  so 
 that  men  had  under  the  Law  more  than  they  had 
 by  the  Law;  so  it  must  be  said  of  the  Levitical 
 
2776 
 
 SACRIFICE 
 
 sacrifices.  They  could  convey  nothing  in  them- 
 selves; yet,  as  types,  they  might,  if  accepted  by  a 
 true,  though  necessarily  imperfect,  faith,  be  means 
 of  conveying  in  some  degree  the  blessings  of  the 
 Antitype. 
 
 This  tjpical  character  of  all  sacrifice  being  thus 
 set  forth,  tlie  next  point  dwelt  upon  is  the  union 
 in  our  Lord's  person  of  the  priest,  the  offerer,  and 
 the  sacrifice.  [Pkiest.]  The  imperfection  of  all 
 sacrifices,  which  made  them,  in  tliemselves,  liable 
 to  superstition,  and  even  inexplicable,  lies  in  this, 
 that,  on  the  one  hand,  the  victim  seems  arbitrarily 
 chosen  to  be  the  substitute  for,  or  the  representa- 
 tive of,  the  sacrificer;"  and  that,  on  the  other,  if 
 there  be  a  barrier  of  sin  between  man  and  God, 
 he  lias  no  right  of  approach,  or  security  that  his 
 sacrifice  will  be  accepted ;  that  there  needs,  there- 
 fore, to  be  a  Mediator,  i.  e.  (according  to  the  defi- 
 nition of  Heb.  v.  1-4),  a  true  Priest,  who  shall, 
 as  being  One  with  man,  offer  the  sacrifice,  and 
 accept  it,  as  being  One  with  God.  It  is  shown 
 that  this  imperfection,  which  necessarily  existed  in 
 all  types,  without  wliich  indeed  they  would  have 
 been  sul)stitutes,  not  preparations  for  the  Antitype, 
 was  altogether  done  away  in  Him;  that  in  the 
 first  place  He,  as  the  representative  of  the  whole 
 human  race,  offered  no  arbitrarily- chosen  victim, 
 but  the  willing  sacrifice  of  his  own  blood ;  that,  in 
 the  second.  He  was  ordained  by  God,  by  a  solemn 
 oath,  to  be  a  iiigh-priest  forever,  "  after  tlie  order 
 of  Melchizedek,"  one  "  in  all  points  tempted  like 
 as  we  are,  yet  without  sin,"  united  to  our  human 
 nature,  susceptible  to  its  infirmities  and  trials, 
 yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  True  Son  of  God,  ex- 
 alted far  above  all  created  things,  and  ever  living 
 to  make  intercession  in  heaven,  now  that  his  sacri- 
 fice is  over ;  and  that,  in  tlie  last  place,  the  barrier 
 Ijetween  man  and  God  is  liy  his  mediation  done 
 away  forever,  and  the  Most  Holy  Place  once  for 
 all  opened  to  man.  All  the  points,  in  the  doctrine 
 of  sacrifice,  which  had  before  been  unintelligible, 
 were  thus  made  clear. 
 
 This  being  the  case,  it  next  follows  that  all  the 
 various  kinds  of  sacrifices  were,  each  in  its  meas- 
 ure, representatives  and  types  of  the  various  aspects 
 of  the  Atonement.  It  is  clear  that  the  Atonement, 
 in  this  epistle,  as  in  the  N.  T.  generally,  is  viewed 
 in  a  twofold  light. 
 
 On  the  one  hand,  it  is  set  forth  distinctly  as  a 
 vicarious  sacrifice,  which  was  rendered  necessary  by 
 the  sin  of  man,  and  in  which  the  Lord  "  bare  the 
 sins  of  many."  It  is  its  essential  characteristic, 
 that  in  it  He  stands  absolutely  alone,  offering  his 
 sacrifice  without  any  reference  to  the  faith  or  the 
 conversion  of  men  —  ofTering  it  indeed  for  those 
 who  "were  still  sinners"  and  at  enmity  with  God. 
 IMoreover  it  is  called  a  "propitiation"  (i\a(Tfj.6s  or 
 t\acrr7)piov,  Eom.  iii.  2.5;  1  John  ii.  2);  a  "ran- 
 som" {aiToXvTpiafns,  Rom.  iii.  24;  1  Cor.  i.  .30, 
 (fee);  which,  if  words  mean  anything,  must  imply 
 that  it  makes  a  change  in  the  relation  between 
 God  and  man,  from  separation  to  union,  from 
 wrath  to  love,  and  a  change  in  man's  state  from 
 bondage  to  freedom.  In  it,  then,  He  stands  out 
 alone  as  tlie  Mediator  between  God  and  man;  and 
 his  sacrifice  is  offered  once  for  all,  never  to  be  imi- 
 tated or  repeated. 
 
 Now  this  view  of  the  Atonement  is  set  forth  in 
 
 a  It  may  be  remembered  that  devices,  sometimes 
 ludicrous,  sometimes  horrible,  were  adopted  to  make 
 the  Tiotim  appear  willing  ;  and  that  voluntary  sacri- 
 
 SACRIFICE 
 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  typified  by  the  sin- 
 offering;  especially  by  that  particular  sin-offerinc 
 with  which  the  high-priest  entered  the  Most  Holy 
 Place  on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  (ix.  7-12); 
 and  by  that  which  hallowed  the  inauguration  of 
 the  Mosaic  covenant,  and  cleansed  the  vessels  of  its 
 ministration  (ix.  13-23).  In  the  same  way,  Christ 
 is  called  "our  Passover,  sacrificed  for  us"  (1  Cor. 
 V.  7);  and  is  said,  in  even  more  startling  language, 
 to  have  been  "made  sin  for  us,"  though  He  "knew 
 no  sin"  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  This  typical  relation  is 
 pursued  even  into  details,  and  our  Lord's  suffering 
 without  the  city  is  compared  to  the  burning  of  the 
 pulilic  or  priestly  sm-ofterings  without  the  camp 
 (Heb.  xiii.  10-1.3).  The  altar  of  sacrifice  {evai- 
 acTT'fjpiop)  is  said  to  have  its  antitype  in  his  Pas- 
 sion (xiii.  10).  All  the  expiatory  and  propitiatory 
 sacrifices  of  the  Law  are  now  for  the  first  time 
 brought  into  full  light.  And  though  the  prin- 
 ciple of  vicarious  sacrifice  still  remains,  and  must 
 remain,  a  mystery,  yet  the  fact  of  its  existence  in 
 Him  is  illustrated  by  a  thousand  types.  As  the 
 sin-ofTering,  though  not  the  earliest,  is  the  most 
 fundamental  of  all  sacrifices,  so  the  aspect  of  the 
 Atonement,  which  it  symbolizes,  is  the  one  on  which 
 all  others  rest. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  set 
 forth  to  us  as  the  completion  of  that  perfect 
 obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  which  is  the 
 natural  duty  of  sinless  man,  in  which  He  is  the 
 representative  of  all  men,  and  in  which  He  calls 
 upon  us,  when  reconciled  to  God,  to  "  take  up  the 
 t'ross  and  follow  Him."  "  In  the  days  of  his  flesh 
 He  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications  .  .  . 
 and  was  heard,  in  that  He  feared ;  though  He  were 
 a  Son,  yet  learned  He  obedience  by  the  things 
 which  he  suflered:  and  being  made  perfect"  (by 
 that  suffering;  see  ii.  10),  "  He  became  the  author 
 of  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  Him"  (v.  7,  8, 
 !)).  In  this  view  his  death  is  not  the  principal 
 oliject;  we  dwell  rather  on  his  lowly  incarnation, 
 and  his  life  of  humility,  temptation,  and  suffering, 
 to  which  that  deatli  was  but  a  fitting  close.  In 
 the  passage  above  referred  to  the  allusion  is  not  to 
 the  Cross  of  Calvary,  but  to  the  agony  in  Gethsein- 
 ane,  which  bowed  his  human  will  to  the  will  of 
 his  b'ather.  The  main  idea  of  this  view  of  the 
 Atonement  is  representative,  rather  than  vicaj'ious. 
 In  the  first  view  the  "second  Adam"  undid  by 
 his  atoning  blood  the  work  of  evil  which  the  first 
 Adam  did ;  in  the  second  He,  by  Jiis  perfect  obe- 
 dience, did  that  which  the  first  Adam  left  undone, 
 and,  by  his  grace  making  us  like  Himself,  calls 
 upon  us  to  follow  Him  in  the  same  path.  This 
 latter  view  is  typified  by  the  Ijurnt-offering :  in 
 respect  of  wliich  the  N.  T.  merely  quotes  and  en- 
 forces the  language  already  cited  from  the  0.  T., 
 and  especially  (see  Heb.  x.  G-'J)  the  words  of  Ps. 
 xl.  6,  &c.,  which  contrast  with  material  sacrifice  the 
 "doing  tha  will  of  God."  It  is  one,  which  cannot 
 be  dwelt  upon  at  all  without  a  previous  implication 
 of  the  otlier;  as  both  were  embraced  in  one  act,  so 
 are  they  inseparably  connected  in  idea.  Thus  it  is 
 put  forth  in  Eom.  xii.  1,  where  the  "  mercies  of 
 God "  (t.  e.  the  free  salvation,  tlirough  the  sin- 
 offering  of  Christ's  blood,  dwelt  upon  in  all  the 
 preceding  part  of  the  epistle)  are  made  the  ground 
 for  calling  on  us  "  to  present  our  bodies,  a  living 
 
 fice,  such  as  that  of  the  Decii,  was  held  to  be  the 
 noblest  of  all. 
 
SACRIFICE 
 
 sacrifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to  God,"  inasmuch 
 as  we  are  all  (see  v.  5)  one  with  Christ,  and  mem- 
 bers of  his  body.  In  this  sense  it  is  that  we  are 
 said  to  be  "crucified  with  Christ"  (Gal.  ii.  20; 
 Rom.  vi.  G);  to  have  "the  suflferings  of  Christ 
 abound  in  us"  (2  Cor.  i.  5);  even  to  "  fill  up  that 
 which  is  behind"  (to  ua-Teprj/xora)  thereof  (Col.  i. 
 24);  and  to  "be  offered"  (crirefSea-eat)  "upon  the 
 sacrifice  of  the  faith  "  of  others  (I'hil.  ii.  17 ;  comp. 
 2  Tim.  iv.  6;  1  John  iii.  16).  As  without  the 
 sin-offering  of  the  Cross,  this,  our  burnt-offering, 
 would  be  inipossilile,  so  also  witiiout  the  burnt- 
 offering  the  sin-offering  will  to  us  be  unavailing. 
 
 With  these  views  of  our  Lord's  sacrifice  on  earth, 
 as  typified  in  the  Levitical  sacrifices  on  the  outer 
 altar,  is  also  to  be  connected  the  offering;  of  his  in- 
 tercession for  us  in  heaven,  whivh  was  represented 
 by  the  incense.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 this  part  of  his  priestly  office  is  dwelt  upon,  with 
 particular  reference  to  the  offerint;  of  incense  in 
 the  Most  Holy  Place  by  the  hitrh-priest  on  the 
 Great  Day  of  Atonement  (Heb.  ix.  24-28;  comp. 
 iv.  14-16,  vi.  19,  20,  vii.  25).  It  implies  that  tlie 
 sin-offering  has  been  maiJe  once  for  all,  to  rend 
 asunder  the  veil  (of  sin )  between  man  and  God : 
 and  that  the  continual  burnt-offering  is  now  ac- 
 cepted by  Him  for  the  sake  of  the  Gre:it  Interced- 
 ino'  High -priest.  That  intercession  is  the  strength 
 of  our  prayers,  and  "  with  tlie  smoke  of  its  in- 
 cense "  they  rise  up  to  heaven  (Ifev.  viii.  4). 
 [Pkayek.] 
 
 The  typical  sense  of  the  meat-offering,  or  peace- 
 offering,  is  less  connected  with  the  sacrifice  of 
 Christ  himself,  than  with  tliose  sacrifices  of  praise, 
 thanksgiving,  charity,  and  devotion,  which  we,  as 
 Christians,  offer  to  God,  and  "  with  which  he  is 
 well  pleased  "  (Heb.  xiii.  15,  16)  as  with  "an  odor 
 of  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable  to  God"  (Phil, 
 iv.  18).  They  betoken  that,  through  the  peace  won 
 by  the  sin-offering,  we  have  already  been  enabled 
 to  dedicate  ourselves  to  God,  and  they  are,  as  it 
 were,  the  ornaments  and  accessories  of  that  self- 
 dedication. 
 
 Such  is  a  brief  sketch  of  the  doctrine  of  Sacri- 
 fice. It  is  seen  to  have  been  deeply  rooted  in 
 men's  hearts;  and  to  have  been,  from  the  begin- 
 ning, accepted  and  sanctioned  by  God,  and  made 
 by  Him  one  channel  of  his  Revelation.  In  virtue 
 of  that  sanction  it  had  a  value,  partly  symbolical, 
 partly  actual,  but  in  all  respects  derived  from  the 
 one  True  Sacrifice,  of  which  it  was  the  type.  It 
 involved  the  expiatory,  the  self-dedicatory,  and 
 the  eucharistic  ideas,  each  gradually  developed  and 
 explained,  but  all  capable  of  full  explanation  only 
 by  the  light  reflected  back  from  the  Antitype. 
 
 On  the  antiquarian  part  of  the  subject  valuable 
 information  may  be  found  in  Spencer,  Be  Legibus 
 Hebrceorum,  and  Outram,  Be  SacriJlcUs.  The 
 question  of  the  origin  of  sacrifice  is  treated  clearly 
 on  either  side  by  Faber,  On  the  {Divine)  Ofi(p.nof 
 Sacrifice,  and  by  Davidson,  Inquiry  into  the  Orifjin 
 of  Sacrifice  ;  and  Warburton,  Biv.  Leg.  (b.  ix. 
 c.  2).  On  the  general  subject,  see  Magee's  Bisser- 
 tation  on  Atonement ;  the  Appendix  to  Tholuck's 
 Treatise  on  the  Hebrews ;  Kurtz,  Der  Altlesla- 
 mentUche  OpferculliLS,  Mitau,  1862  [Eng.  transla- 
 tion by  James  Martin,  Edinb.  186-3,  in  Clark's 
 Foreign  Theol.  Libr.;  comp.  Bibl.  Sacra,  ix.  27- 
 51] ;  and  the  catalogue  of  authorities  in  Winer's 
 Realworterb.,  "  Opfer."  But  it  needs  for  its  con- 
 sideration little  but  the  careful  stiuly  of  Scripture 
 itself.  A^  B. 
 
 175 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 2777 
 
 *  For  other  works  on  this  subject  see  the  refer- 
 ences under  Leviticus  (Amer.  ed.),  vol.  ii.  p. 
 1653  b,  and  the  list  prefixed  to  the  work  of  Kurtz, 
 just  referred  to.  See  also  an  article  by  Dr.  G.  R. 
 Noyes,  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  in 
 the  Christian  Kxaininer  (Boston)  for  Sept.  1855, 
 and  the  learned  and  elaborate  discussion  of  the 
 sulject  in  Kalisch's  Levilicvs,  parti.  (Lond.  1867), 
 pp.  1-416.  A. 
 
 SADAMI'AS  (Sndanins).  The  name  of 
 Shalluji,  one  of  tlie  ancestors  of  Ezra,  is  so  writ- 
 ten in  2  Esdr.  i.  1. 
 
 SA'DAS  {'Apyal;  Alex.  AuToa;  [Aid.  SaSasO 
 Arcltad).  Azcad  (1  Esdr.  v.  13;  comp.  Ezr.  ii. 
 12).  'i'lie  form  Sadas  is  retained  from  the  Geneva 
 version.  [This  form,  it  will  be  observed,  is  tlie 
 reading  of  the  Aldiiie  edition.  —  A.] 
 
 SADDE'US  (Ao55aros;  [Vat.  AoSaios;]  Alex. 
 AoASaios;  [Ald.AaS5a?os:]  Loddeus).  "IuDO,the 
 chief  at  the  place  Casiphia,"  is  called  in  1  Esdr.  viii. 
 45,  "  Saddeus  the  captain,  who  was  in  the  place  of 
 the  treasury."  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  46  the  name  is 
 written  "  Daddeus  "  in  the  A.  V.,  as  in  the  Ge- 
 neva Version  of  both  passages. 
 
 *  SADDLE.  [Camel;  Furniture;  Horse; 
 Mule.] 
 
 SAD'DUC  i'S.aS'SovKO^;  [Vat.  2a55ouA.ou/fos, 
 Mai,  Errata:]  Sadoc).  Zadok  the  high-priest, 
 ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  2). 
 
 SAD'DUCEES  (2a55owaroi:  Sadduccei: 
 Matt.  iii.  7,  xvi.  1,  6,  11,  12,  xxii.  23,  34;  Mark 
 xii.  18;  Luke  xx.  27;  Acts  iv.  1,  v.  17,  xxiii.  6,  7, 
 8).  A  religious  party  or  school  among  the  .Tews 
 at  the  time  of  Christ,  who  denied  that  the  oral  law 
 was  a  revelation  of  God  to  the  Israelites,  and  who 
 deemed  the  written  law  alone  to  be  obligatory  on 
 the  nation,  as  of  Divine  authority.  Although  fre- 
 quently mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  in  con- 
 junction with  the  Pharisees,  they  do  not  throw 
 such  vivid  light  as  their  great  antagonists  on  the 
 real  significance  of  Christianity.  Except  on  one 
 occasion,  when  they  united  with  the  Pharisees  in 
 insidiously  asking  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (Matt. 
 xvi.  1,  4,  6),  Christ  never  assailed  the  Sadducees 
 with  the  same  bitter  denunciations  which  he  ut- 
 ters against  the  Pharisees;  and  they  do  not,  like 
 the  Pharisees,  seem  to  have  taken  active  measures 
 for  causing  him  to  be  put  to  death.  In  this  re- 
 spect, and  in  many  others,  they  have  not  been  so 
 influential  as  the  Pharisees  in  the  world's  history; 
 but  still  they  deserve  attention,  as  representing 
 .Jewish  ideas  before  the  Pharisees  became  tri- 
 umphant, and  as  illustrating  one  phase  of  Jewish 
 thought  at  the  time  when  the  new  religion  of 
 Christianity,  destined  to  produce  such  a  moment- 
 ous revolution  in  the  opinions  of  mankind,  issued 
 from  Judfea. 
 
 Authorities.  —  The  sources  of  information  re- 
 specting the  Sadducees  are  much  the  same  as  for 
 the  Pharisees.  [Pharisees,  vol.  iii.  p.  2472.] 
 There  are,  however,  some  exceptions  negatively. 
 Thus,  the  Sadducees  are  not  spoken  of  at  all  in  the 
 fourth  Gospel,  where  the  Pharisees  are  frequently 
 mentioned,  John  vii.  32,  45,  xi.  47,  57,  xviii.  3, 
 viii.  3,  13-19,  ix.  13 ;  an  omission  which,  as  Geiger 
 suggests,  is  not  unimportant  in  reference  to  the 
 criticisn^  of  the  Gospels  (  Urschrift  und  Ueberset- 
 zungen  der  Bibel,  p.  107).  Moreover,  while  St. 
 Paul  had  been  a  Pharisee  and  was  the  son  of  a 
 Pharisee ;  while  Josephus  was  a  Pharisee,  and  the 
 Mishna  was    a    Pharisaical  digest   of  Pharisaical 
 
2778  SADDUCEES 
 
 opinions  and  practices,  not  a  single  undoubted 
 writing  of  an  acknowledged  Sadducee  has  come 
 down  to  us,  so  that  for  an  acquaintance  with  their 
 opinions  we  are  mainly  dependent  on  their  antago- 
 nists. This  point  should  be  always  borne  in  niind 
 in  judging  their  opinions,  and  forming  an  estimate 
 of  their  character,  and  its  full  hearing  will  lie  duly 
 appreciated  l)y  those  who  reflect  that  even  at  the 
 present  day,  with  all  the  checks  against  misrepre- 
 sentation arising  from  publicity  and  the  invention 
 of  printing,  probably  no  religious  or  political  party 
 in  England  would  be  content  to  accept  the  state- 
 ments of  an  opponent  as  giving  a  correct  view  of 
 its  opinions. 
 
 Oiujin  of  the  name.  —  Like  etymologies  of 
 words,  the  origin  of  the  name  of  a  sect  is,  in  some 
 cases,  almost  wholly  immaterial,  while  in  other 
 cases  it  is  of  extreme  importance  towards  under- 
 standing opinions  which  it  is  proposed  to  investi- 
 gate. The  origin  of  the  name  Sadducees  is  of  the 
 latter  description ;  and  a  reasonable  certainty  on 
 this  point  would  go  iar  towards  ensuring  coirect 
 ideas  respecting  the  position  of  the  Sadducees  in  the 
 Jewish  state.  The  sulject,  however,  is  involved  in 
 great  diflicidties.  The  Hebrew  word  hy  which  they 
 are  called  in  the  JSIishna  is  Tseduk'iin.  the  plural  of 
 Tsadoh\  which  undoubtedly  means  "just,"  or 
 "  righteous,"  but  which  is  never  used  in  the  Bible 
 except  as  a  proper  name,  and  in  the  Anglican  Ver- 
 sion is  always  translated  "  Zadok  "  (2  K.  xv.  83; 
 2  Sam.  viii.  17 ;  1  Chr.  vi.  8,  12,  &c. ;  Neh.  iii.  4, 
 29,  xi.  11).  The  most  obvious  translation  of  the 
 word,  therefore,  is  to  call  them  Zadoks  or  Zadok- 
 ites;  and  a  question  would  then  arise  as  to  why 
 they  were  so  called.  The  ordinary  Jewish  state- 
 ment is  that  they  are  named  from  a  certain  Zadok, 
 a  disciple  of  the  Antigonus  of  Socho,  who  is  men- 
 tioned in  the  Mishna  (Avolh  i.)  as  having  received 
 the  oral  law  from  Simon  the  Just,  the  last  of  the 
 men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  It  is  recorded  of 
 this  Antigonus  that  he  used  to  say:  "  Be  not  like 
 servants  who  scr\e  their  master  for  the  sake  of  re- 
 ceiving a  reward,  hut  be  like  servants  who  serve 
 their  master  without  a  view  of  receiving  a  re^vard;  " 
 and  the  current  statement  has  been  that  Zadok, 
 who  gave  his  name  to  the  Zadokites  or  Sadducees, 
 misinterpreted  this  saying  so  far,  as  not  only  to 
 maintain  the  great  truth  that  virtue  should  be  the 
 rule  of  conduct  without  reference  to  the  rewards  of 
 the  individual  agent,  but  likewi.se  to  proclaim  the 
 doctrine  that  there  was  no  future  state  of  rewards 
 
 and   punishments.       (See   Buxtorf,   s.   v.   pn^ ! 
 
 «  Aruc/i,  or  Mrftc  C^THl^n),  means  "arranged," 
 or  "  set  in  order.''  The  author  of  this  work  \rse  an- 
 other R'lbbi  Nathan  Ben  Jechit-r,  president  of  the  Jew- 
 ish Academy  at  Rome,  who  died  in  HOG.  A.  D.  (See 
 Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rabb.  iv.  261.)  The  reference  to 
 Kahbi  Nathan,  author  of  the  treatise  on  the  AvOt/i,  is 
 
 made  in  the  Ariic/i  under  the  word  VDliT*^,  The 
 treatise  itself  was  published  in  a  Latin  translation  by 
 i;.  Tayler,  at  London,  ItioT.  The  original  passage  re- 
 specting Zadok's  di.^eiples  is  printed  by  Geiger  in  He- 
 brew, and  translated  by  him,   Urschri/t,  etc.,  p.  105. 
 
 *  Dr.  Ginsburg,  in  his  valuable  article  Sadrlucees, 
 in  the  3d  edition  of  Kitto's  Cijdnp.  of  Bibl.  Lit.  iii.  731, 
 note,  corrects  Mr.  Twistleton's  statements  respecting 
 "  the. earliest  mention"  of  llabbi  Nathan,  and  the 
 time  when  he  lived.  He  says:  "This  Rabhi  Nathan 
 or  Nathan  lia-Babli,  as  he  is  called  in  the  Talmud, 
 because  he  was  a  native  of  Meshan  in  Babylon  {Baba 
 Bathra,  73  d),  wasone  of  the  most  distinguished  Mish- 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 Lightfoot's  /force  Hehrnicm  on  Maith.  iii.  8;  and 
 the  Note  of  Maimonides  in  Surenhusius's  Mishna. 
 iv.  411.)  If,  however,  the  statement  is  traced  up 
 to  its  original  source,  it  is  found  that  there  is  no 
 mention  of  it  either  in  the  Mishna,  or  in  any  other 
 part  of  the  Talmud  (Geiger's  UrschrlJ'l,  etc.,  p. 
 lO.j),  and  that  the  first  mention  of  something  of 
 the  kind  is  in  a  small  work  l)y  a  certain  Eabbi 
 Nathan,  which  he  wrote  on  the  Treatise  of  the 
 Mishna  called  the  Aruth,  or  "  Fathers."  But  the 
 age  in  which  this  Itabbi  Nathan  lived  is  uncertain 
 (Bartolocci,  Bidlindieca  Maijna  Jiiibhinicn.,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  770),  and  the  earliest  mention  of  him  is  in  a 
 well-known  Rabbinical  dictionary  called  the  Aruch,'^ 
 which  was  completed  about  the  year  1105,  A.  T>. 
 The  following  arc  the  words  of  the  above-mentioned 
 Eabbi  Nathan  of  the  Arolli.  Adverting  to  the 
 passage  iti  the  Mishna,  already  quoted,  respecting 
 Antigonus's  saying,  he  obssrves:  "Antigonus  of 
 Socho  had  two  disciiiles  who  taught  the  saying  to 
 their  disciples,  and  these  disciples  again  taught  it 
 to  their  disciples.  At  last  these  began  to  scruti- 
 nize it  narrowly,  and  said,  '  A^'hat  did  our  Fathers 
 mean  in  teaching  this  saying?  Is  it  possible  that 
 a  laborer  is  to  perform  his  woi-k  all  the  day,  and 
 not  receive  his  wages  in  the  evening '?  'I'ruly,  if 
 our  Fathers  had  known  that  there  is  another  world 
 and  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  they  would  not  have 
 spoken  thus.'  They  then  began  to  separate  them- 
 selves fioni  the  Law;  and  so  there  arose  two  sects, 
 the  Zadokites  and  Baithusians,  the  former  i'roni 
 Zadok,  and  the  latter  from  Baithos."  Now  it  is 
 to  be  observed  on  this  passage  that  it  does  not  jus- 
 tii'y  the  once  current  belief  that  Zadok  himself  mis- 
 interpreted Antigonus's  saving;  and  it  suggests  no 
 reason  why  the  Ibllowers  of  the  su]>posed  new  doc- 
 trines should  have  taken  their  name  from  Zadok 
 rather  than  Antigonus.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  in 
 connection  with  several  other  jioints  of  the  same 
 nature,  such  as,  for  example,  the  total  silence  re- 
 specting any  such  stoi\y  in  the  works  of  Josephus 
 or  in  the  Talnuid :  the  absence  of  any  other  special 
 information  respecting  even  the  existence  of  the 
 supposed  Zadok;  the  improbable  and  childishly-  il- 
 logical reasons  a.ssigned  for  the  departure  of  Zadok's 
 disciples  from  the  Law;  the  circumstances  that 
 Rabbi  Nathan  held  the  tenets  of  the  Pharisees, 
 that  the  statements  of  a  Pharisee  respecting  the 
 Sadducees  must  always  be  received  with  a  certain 
 reserve,  that  Rabl)i  Nathan  of  the  Avolh,  for  aught 
 that  has  ever  been  proved  to  the  contrary,  may 
 have  lived  as  long  as  1000  years  after  the  first  ap- 
 
 naic  doctors.  In  consequence  of  Iiis  high  birth,  as 
 his  father  was  Prince  of  the  Captivity  in  Babylon, 
 and  his  marvellous  knowledge  of  the  law,  both  divine 
 and  human,  .  .  he  was  created  vicar  of  the  patri- 
 arch Simon  II.  b.  Gamaliel  II.,  A.  r>.  140-163,  or  presi- 
 dent of  the  tribunal  ("J'''!  H"*!}  2S).  He  is  fre- 
 quently quoted  in  the  Talmud  as  a  profound  scholar 
 of  the  law  {Hornjolk,  13  b  ;  Babn  Kama,  23  a;  Baba 
 Mezia,  117  b),  and  has  materially  contributed  to  the 
 compilation  of  the  Bli.ihnn,  as  he  himself  compiled  a 
 Mislwa,  which  is  quoted  by  the  name  of  MIs/inath  de 
 Rabbi  Natlian,  and  which  Rabbi  Jchudah  the  holy 
 used  for  the  redaction  of  the  present  Mislmn.''  But 
 after  all,  Dr.  Ginsburg  is  disposed  to  regard  the  pas- 
 sage about  the  Sadducees  in  the  AvOth  nf  Rabbi  Na- 
 tlian as  by  a  later  hand,  "  like  many  other  pieces  in 
 the  same  work,"  and  thinks  that  its  author  most 
 probably  flourished  towards  the  end  of  the  7th  cen- 
 tury (p.  733).  He  himself  adopts  the  view  of  Geiger 
 respecting  tlie  origin  of  the  Sadducees.  A. 
 
SADDUCEES 
 
 pearaiice  of  the  Sadducees  as  a  party  in  Jewish  his- 
 tory, and  that  he  quotes  no  autliority  of  any  Ivind 
 tor  his  account  of  tlieir  origin,  it  seems  reasonable 
 to  reject  this  Rahbi  Nathan's  narration  as  unwor- 
 thy of  credit.  Anotlier  ancient  suggestion  concern- 
 ing the  origin  of  the  name  "  Sadducees  "  is  in  Kpi- 
 phaiiius  (Adversiis  f/cereses,  xiv. ),  vvho  states  tliat 
 the  Sadducees  called  themselves  by  that  name  from 
 "  righteousness,"  the  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew 
 word  Zedek;  "and  that  there  was  likewise  an- 
 ciently a  Zadok  among  the  priests,  but  that  they 
 did  not  continue  in  the  doctrines  of  their  chief." 
 But  this  statement  is  unsatisfactory  in  two  re- 
 spects: 1st.  It  does  not  explain  why,  if  the  sug- 
 gested etymology  was  correct,  the  name  of  the  Sad- 
 ducees was  not  Tsaddikim  or  Zaddikites,  which 
 would  have  been  the  regular  Hebrew  adjective  for 
 the  "Just,"  or  "  Iiighteous  " ;  and  2dl3'.  While  it 
 evidently  implies  that  they  once  held  the  doctrines 
 of  an  ancient  priest,  Zadok,  who  is  even  called  their 
 chief  or  master  (eVicTTOTrjy),  it  does  not  directly 
 assert  that  there  was  any  connection  between  his 
 name  and  theirs;  nor  yet  does  it  say  tliat  the  co- 
 incidence between  the  two  names  was  accidental. 
 Moreover,  it  does  not  give  information  as  to  when 
 Zadok  lived,  nor  what  were  those  doctrines  of  his 
 which  the  Sadducees  once  held,  but  subsequently 
 departed  from.  The  unsatisfactoriness  of  Mpipha- 
 nius's  statement  is  increased  by  its  being  coupled 
 with  an  assertion  that  the  Sadducees  were  a  branch 
 liroken  off  from  Dositheus:  or  in  other  words  Schis- 
 matics from  Dositheus  {airSffnaiTixa  ivres  awh  Ao- 
 (Ttdeov) ;  for  Dositheus  was  a  heretic  who  lived  about 
 the  time  of  Christ  (Origeii,  amtra  Cc-lsiim^  lib.  i.  c. 
 17 ;  Clemens,  Rt:cognU.  ii.  8 ;  I'hotius,  BibUuih.  c. 
 XXX.),  and  thus,  if  Epiphanius  was  correct,  the 
 opinions  characteristic  of  the  Sadducees  were  pro- 
 ductions of  the  Christian  era;  a  supposition  con- 
 trary to  the  express  declaration  of  the  Pharisee 
 Josephus,  and  to  a  notorious  fact  of  history,  the 
 connection  of  Hyrcanus  with  the  Sadducees  more 
 than  100  years  befoi;e  Christ.  (See  Josephus,  Ant. 
 xiii.  9,  §  0,  and  xviii.  1,  §  2,  where  observe  the 
 phrase  e;c  tov  Trdvv  apxaiov  .  .  .)  Hence  Epipha- 
 nius's  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  word  Saddu- 
 cees must  be  rejected  with  that  of  Rabbi  Nathan 
 of  the  Aruth.  In  these  circumstances,  if  recourse 
 is  had  to  conjecture,  the  first  point  to  be  consid- 
 ered is  whether  the  word  is  likely  to  have  arisen 
 from  the  meaning  of  "righteousness,"  or  from  the 
 name  of  an  individual.  This  must  be  decided  in 
 f;ivor  of  the  latter  alternative,  inasmuch  as  the  word 
 Zadok  never  occurs  in  the  Biljle,  except  as  a  proper 
 name;  and  then  we  are  led  to  inquire  as  to  who 
 the  Zadok  of  the  Sadducees  is  likely  to  have  been. 
 Now,  according  to  the  existing  records  of  Jewish 
 history,  there  was  one  Zadok  of  transcendent  im- 
 portance, and  only  one;  namely,  the  priest  who 
 acted  such  a  prominent  part  at  the  time  of  David, 
 and  who  declared  in  favor  of  Solomon,  when  Abia- 
 thar  took  the  part  of  Adonijah  as  successor  to  the 
 throne  (1  K.  i.  .')2-4.5).  This  Zadok  was  tenth  in 
 descent,  according  to  the  genealogies,  from  the 
 high- priest  Aaron;  and  whatever  may  be  the  cor- 
 rect explanation  of  the  statement  in  the  1st  Book 
 of  Kings,  ii.  3.5,  that  Solomon  put  him  in  the  room 
 :)if  Abiathar,  although   on    previous  occasiorjs  he 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 2779 
 
 «  According  to  the  Mishna,  Sanheil.  iv.  2,  no  one 
 was  "  clean,"  in  the  Levitical  sense,  to  act  as  a  judge 
 tn  capital  trials,  except  priests,  Levites,  and  Israelites 
 whose   daughters   might  marry  priests.     This  agaiu 
 
 had,  when  named  with  him,  been  always  mentioned 
 first  (2  Sam.  xv.  35,  xix.  11;  cf.  viii.  17),  his  line 
 of  priests  appears  to  have  had  decided  preijminence 
 in  subsequent  history.  Tlius,  when  in  2  Chr. 
 xx,xi.  10,  Hezekiah  is  represented  as  putting  a  ques- 
 tion to  the  priests  and  Levites  generally,  the  an- 
 swer is  attributed  to  Azariah,'"  the  chief  priest  of 
 the  house  of  Zadok:"  and  in  Ezekiel's  prophetic 
 vision  of  the  future  Temple,  "  the  sons  of  Zadok  " 
 and  "  the  priests  the  Levites  of  the  seed  of  Zadok  " 
 are  spoken  of  with  peculiar  honor,  as  those  who 
 kept  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  when 
 the  children  of  Israel  went  astray  (Ezek.  xl.  46, 
 xliii.  19,  xliv.  15,  xlviii.  11).  Now,  as  the  transi- 
 tion from  the ■  expression  "sons  of  Zadok"  and 
 "  priests  of  the  seed  of  Zadok  "  to  Zadokites  is  easy 
 and  obvious,  and  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  v. 
 17,  it  is  said,  "  Then  the  hiijh-jyriest  rose,  and  all 
 they  that  were  vutli  him,  lohich  is  the  sect  of  the 
 Sa<hhicees,  and  were  filled  with  indignation,"  it  has 
 been  conjectured  by  Geiger  that  the  Sadducees 
 or  Zadokites  were  originally  identical  with  the  sons 
 of  Zadok,  and  constituted  what  may  be  termed  a 
 kind  of  sacerdotal  aristocracy  ( Urschrift,  etc.,  p. 
 101).  To  these  were  afterwards  attached  all  who 
 for  any  reason  reckoned  themselves  as  belonging  to 
 the  aristocracy;  such,  for  example,  as  the  families 
 of  the  high-priest;  who  had  obtained  consideration 
 under  the  dyiiast\'  of  Herod.  These  were  for  the 
 most  jwrt  judges,"  and  individuals  of  the  official 
 and  governing  class.  Now,  although  this  view  of 
 the  Sadducees  is  only  inferential,  and  mainly  con- 
 jectural, it  certainly  explains  the  name  better  than 
 any  other,  and  elucidates  at  once  in  the  Acts  of  the 
 Apostles  the  otherwise  obscure  statement  that  the 
 high-priest,  and  those  who  were  with  him,  were  the 
 sect  of  the  .Sadducees.  Accepting,  therefore,  this 
 view  till  a  more  probable  conjecture  is  suggested, 
 some  of  the  principal  peculiarities  or  supposed  pe- 
 culiarities of  the  Sadducees  will  now  be  noticed  in 
 detail,  although  in  such  notice  some  points  must 
 be  toucheil  upon,  which  have  been  already  partly 
 discussed  in  speaking  of  the  Pharisees. 
 
 I.  The  leading  tenet  of  the  Sadducees  was  the 
 negation  of  the  leading  tenet  of  their  opponents. 
 As  the  Pharisees  asserted,  so  the  Sadducees  denied, 
 that  the  Israelites  were  in  possession  of  an  Oral 
 Law  transmitted  to  them  by  Moses.  The  manner 
 in  which  the  Pharisees  may  have  gained  acceptance 
 for  their  own  view  is  noticed  elsewhere  in  this  work 
 [vol.  iii.  p.  2474] ;  but,  for  an  equitable  estimate 
 of  the  Sadducees,  it  is  proper  to  bear  in  min<l 
 emphatically  how  destitute  of  historical  e\idence 
 the  doctrine  was  which  they  denied.  That  doctrine 
 is  at  the  present  day  rejected,  probably  by  almost 
 all,  if  not  by  all.  Christians;  and  it  is  Indeed  so 
 foreign  to  their  ideas,  that  the  greater  numl)er  of 
 Christians  have  never  even  heard  of  it,  though  it 
 is  older  than  Christianity,  and  has  been  the  sup- 
 port and  consolation  of  the  .lews  under  a  series  of 
 the  most  cruel  and  wicked  persecutions  to  which 
 any  nation  has  ever  been  exposed  during  an  equal 
 number  of  centuries.  It  is  likewise  now  main- 
 tained, all  over  the  world,  by  those  who  are  called 
 the  orthodox  Jews.  It  is  therefore  desiraljle,  to 
 know  the  kind  of  arguments  by  which  at  the 
 present  day,  in  an  historical  and  critical  age,  the 
 
 tallies  with  the  explanation  olfered  iu  the  text,  of  the 
 Sadducees,  as  a  sacerdotal  aristocracy,  being  "  with 
 the  high-priest." 
 
2(80 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 doctrine  is  defended.  For  this  an  opportunity  has 
 been  given  during  the  last  three  years  by  a  learned 
 French  Jew,  Grand-Rabbi  of  the  circumscription 
 of  Colmar  (Klein,  Le  Judaisine,  ou  la  Veritti  sur 
 le  Tnlinwl,  Mulhouse,  1859),  who  still  asserts  as  a 
 fact,  the  existence  of  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law.  To  do 
 full  justice  to  his  views,  the  original  work  should 
 be  perused.  But  it  is  doing  no  injustice  to  his 
 leaniing  and  ability,  to  point  out  that  not  one 
 of  his  arguments  has  a  positive  historical  value. 
 Thus  he  relies  maiidy  on  the  inconceivability  (as 
 will  be  again  noticed  in  this  article)  that  a  Divine 
 revelation  should  not  ha\e  explicitly  proclaimed  the 
 doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
 ments, or  that  it  should  have  promulgated  laws, 
 left  in  such  an  incomplete  form,  and  requiring  so 
 much  explanation,  and  so  many  additions,  as  the 
 laws  in  the  Pentateuch.  Now,  arguments  of  this 
 kind  may  be  sound  or  unsound;  based  on  reason, 
 or  illogical;  and  for  many  they  may  have  a  philo- 
 sophical or  theological  value;  but  they  have  no 
 pretense  to  be  regarded  as  historical,  inasmuch  as 
 the  assumed  premises,  which  involve  a  knowledge 
 of  the  attributes  of  the  Supieme  Being,  and  the 
 manner  in  which  He  would  he  likely  to  deal  with 
 man,  are  far  beyond  the  limits  of  historical  verifi- 
 cation. The  nearest  approach  to  an  historical 
 argument  is  the  following  (p.  10):  "In  the  first 
 place,  nothing  proves  better  the  fact  of  the  exist- 
 ence of  the  tradition  than  the  belief  itself  in  the 
 tradition.  An  entire  nation  does  not  suddenly 
 forget  its  religious  code,  its  principles,  its  laws,  the 
 daily  ceremonies  of  its  worship,  to  such  a  point, 
 that  it  could  easily  be  persuaded  that  a  new  doc- 
 trine presented  by  some  impostors  is  the  true  and 
 only  explanation  of  its  law,  and  has  always  de- 
 termined and  ruled  its  application.  Holy  Writ 
 often  represents  the  Israelites  as  a  stiff-necked 
 people,  im[)atient  of  the  religious  yoke,  and  would 
 it  not  be  attributing  to  them  rather  an  excess  of 
 docility,  a  too  great  condescension,  a  blind  ol)e- 
 dience,  to  suppose  that  they  suddenly  consented  to 
 troublesome  and  rigorous  innovations  which  some 
 persons  might  have  wished  to  impose  on  them 
 some  fine  morning?  Such  a  supposition  destroys 
 itself,  and  we  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  tlie 
 tradition  is  not  a  new  invention,  but  that  its  birth 
 goes  back  to  the  origin  of  the  religion ;  and  that 
 transmitted  from  father  to  son  as  the  word  of  (iod, 
 it  lived  in  the  heart  of  the  people,  identified  itself 
 with  the  blood,  and  was  filways  considered  as  an 
 Inviolable  authority."  But  if  this  passage  is  care- 
 fully examined,  it  will  be  .seen  that  it  does  not 
 supply  a  single  fact  worthy  of  being  regarded  as  a 
 proof  of  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law.  Independent  testi- 
 mony of  persons  contemporary  with  Moses  that  he 
 had  transmitted  such  a  law  to  the  Israelites  would 
 be  historical  evidence;  the  testimony  of  persons  in 
 the  next  generation  as  to  the  existence  of  sucli  an 
 Oral  Law  which  theii-  fathers  told  them  came  from 
 Moses,  would  have  been  secondary  histoiical  evi- 
 dence; but  the  belief  of  the  Israelites  on  tiie  point 
 1,200  years  after  Moses,  cannot,  hi  the  absence  of 
 any  intermediate  testimony,  be  deemed  evidence  of 
 an  historical  fact.     Moreover,  it   is  a  mistake  to 
 
 «  See  p.  32  of  Essay  on  the  Revenues  of  the  Chiircli 
 of  England,  by  the  Rev.  Morgan  Cove,  Prebendarv  of 
 Hereford,  and  Rector  of  Eaton  Bishop.  678  pp.  Lon- 
 don, Rivington,  1816.  Third  edition.  "  Thus  do  we 
 return  again  to  the  original  difficulty  [the  oi'igin  of 
 tithesj,  to  the  solution  of  which  the  strength  of  human 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 assume,  that  they  who  deny  a  Mosaic  Oral  Lmt, 
 imagine  that  this  Oral  Law  was  at  some  one  time, 
 as  one  great  system,  introduced  suddenly  amongst 
 the  Israelites.'  The  real  mode  of  conceiving  what 
 occurred  is  far  different.  After  the  return  from 
 the  Captivity,  there  existed  probably  amonest  the 
 Jews  a  large  body  of  customs  and  decisions  not 
 contained  in  the  Pentateuch ;  and  these  had  prac- 
 tical authority  over  the  people  long  before  they 
 were  attributed  to  Moses.  The  only  phenomenon 
 of  iitiportance  requiring  explanation  is  not  the  ex- 
 istence of  the  customs  sanctioned  by  the  Oral  Law, 
 but  the  belief  accepted  by  a  certain  portion  of  the 
 Jews  that  Moses  had  divinely  revealed  those  cus- 
 toms as  laws  to  the  Israelites.  To  explain  this 
 historically  from  written  records  is  impossible,  from 
 the  silence  on  the  subject  of  the  very  scanty  his- 
 toi-ical  Jewish  writings  purporting  to  be  written 
 between  the  return  from  the  Captivity  in  538  before 
 Christ  and  that  uncertain  period  when  the  canon 
 was  closed,  which  at  the  earliest  could  not  have 
 been  long  before  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
 B.  c.  164.  For  all  this  space  of  time,  a  period  of 
 about  374  years,  a  period  as  long  as  from  the  acces- 
 sion of  Henry  VII.  to  the  present  year  (1862)  we 
 have  no  Helirew  account,  nor  in  fact  any  con- 
 temporary account,  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  in 
 Palestine,  except  what  may  be  contained  in  the 
 short  works  entitled  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  And 
 the  last  named  of  these  works  does  not  carry 
 the  history  much  later  than  one  hundred  years 
 after  the  return  from  the  Captivity:  so  that  there 
 is  a  long  and  extremely  important  period  of  more 
 than  two  centuries  and  a  half  before  the  heroic 
 rising  of  the  Macealiees,  during  which  there  is  a 
 total  absence  of  contemporary  Jewish  history.  In 
 this  dearth  of  historical  materials,  it  is  idle  to 
 attempt  a  positive  narration  of  the  circumstances 
 under  which  the  Oral  Law  became  assigned  to 
 Moses  as  its  author.  It  is  amply  sufficient  if  a 
 satisfactory  suggestion  is  made  as  to  how  it  might 
 have  been  attriliuted  to  Moses,  and  in  this  there  is 
 not  much  difficulty  for  any  one  who  bears  in  mind 
 how  notoriously  in  ancient  times  laws  of  a  much 
 later  date  were  attriliuted  to  Minos,  Lycurgus, 
 Solon,  and  Numa.  The  unreasonableness  of  sup- 
 posing that  the  belief  in  the  oral  traditions  being 
 from  Moses  must  have  coincided  in  point  of  time 
 with  the  acceptance  of  the  oral  tradition,  may  be 
 illustrated  by  what  occurred  in  England  during 
 the  present  century.  During  a  period  when  the 
 fitness  of  maintaining  the  clergy  by  tithes  was 
 contested,  the  theory  was  put  forth  that  the  origin 
 of  tithes  was  to  be  assigned  to  "an  unrecorded 
 revelation  made  to  Adam."  «  Now,  let  us  suppose 
 that  England  was  a  country  as  small  as  Judsea; 
 that  the  English  were  as  few  in  number  as  the 
 •lews  of  Judiva  must  have  lieen  in  the  time  of 
 Nehemiah,  tiiat  a  temple  in  London  was  the  centre 
 of  the  English  religion,  and  that  the  population 
 of  London  hardly  ever  reached  50,000.  [Jkmu- 
 SALEM,  ii.  1320.]  Let  us  further  suppose  that 
 printing  was  not  invented,  that  manuscripts  were 
 dear,  and  that  few  of  the  population  could  read. 
 Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  impossible  that 
 
 reason  is  unequal.  Nor  does  there  rem.ain  any  other 
 method  of  solving  it,  but  by  assigning  the  origin  of 
 the  custom,  and  the  peculiar  observance  of  it,  to  some 
 unrucoriled  revelation  made  to  Adam,  and  by  him  and 
 his  descendants  delivered  down  to  posterity." 
 
SADDUCEES 
 
 the  assertion  of  an  unrecorded  revelation  made  to 
 Adam,  might  have  been  gradually  accepted  by  a 
 large  religious  party  in  England  as  a  divine  author- 
 ity for  tithes.  If  this  belief  had  continued  in  the 
 eanie  party  during  a  period  of  more  than  2,000 
 years,  if  that  party  had  become  dominant  in  the 
 English  Church,  if  for  the  first  2.30  years  every 
 contemporary  record  of  English  history  became  lost 
 to  mankind,  and  if  all  previous  ICnglish  writings 
 merely  condemned  the  belief  by  their  silence,  so 
 that  the  precise  date  of  the  origin  of  the  belief 
 could  not  be  ascertained,  we  should  have  a  parallel 
 to  the  way  in  which  a  belief  in  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law 
 may  possiljly  have  arisen.  Yet  it  would  have  been 
 very  illogical  for  an  English  reasoner  in  the  year 
 4000  \.  D.  to  have  argued  from  the  burden  and 
 annoyance  of  paying  tithes  to  the  correctness  of 
 the  theory  that  the  institution  of  tithes  was  owing 
 to  this  unrecorded  revelation  to  Adam.  It  is  not 
 meant  by  this  illustration  to  suggest  that  reasons 
 as  specious  could  be  advanced  for  such  a  divine 
 origin  of  tithes  as  even  for  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law. 
 The  main  oliject  of  the  ilhistratio  i  ii  to  show  that 
 the  existence  of  a  practice,  and  tlie  belief  as  to  the 
 origin  of  a  practice,  are  two  wholly  distinct  points; 
 and  that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  in  time 
 between  the  introduction  of  a  practice,  and  the  in- 
 troduction of  the  prevalent  lielief  in  its  origin. 
 
 Under  this  head  we  may  add  that  it  must  not  be 
 assumed  that  the  Sadducees,  because  they  rejected 
 a  Mosaic  Oral  Law,  rejected  likewise  all  traditions 
 and  all  decisions  in  explanation  of  passages  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  Although  tliey  protested  against  the 
 assertion  that  such  points  had  been  divinely  settled 
 by  Moses,  they  probably,  in  numerous  instances, 
 followed  practically  the  same  traditions  as  the 
 Phirisees.  This  will  explain  why  in  the  Mishna 
 specific  points  of  difference  between  the  Pharisees 
 and  Sadducees  are  mentioned,  which  are  so  unim- 
 portant; such,  e.  g.  as  whether  toiiciiiiig  the  Holy 
 Scriptures  made  the  hands  technically  ''unclean," 
 in  the  Levitical  sense,  and  whether  the  stream 
 which  Hows  when  water  is  poured  from  a  clean 
 vessel  into  an  unclean  one  is  itself  technically 
 "clean"  or  "unclean"  (Yadaiiii,  iv.  6,  7).  If 
 the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  had  differed  on  all 
 matters  not  directly  contained  in  the  Pentateuch, 
 it  would  scarcely  have  been  necessary  to  partic- 
 ularize points  of  difference  such  as  these,  which 
 to  Christians  imbued  with  the  genuine  spirit  of 
 Christ's  teaching  (Matt.  xv.  11;  Lui<e  xi.  37-40), 
 must  appear  so  trifling,  as  almost  to  resemble  tlie 
 products  of  a  diseased  imagination.^ 
 
 II.  The  second  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the 
 Sadducees,  the  denial  of  man's  resurrection  after 
 death,  followed  in  their  conceptions  as  a  logical 
 conclusion  from  their  denial  that  Moses  had  re- 
 vealed to  the  Israelites  the  Oral  Law.  For  on  a 
 point  so  momentous  as  a  second  lifie  beyond  the 
 grave,  no  religious  party  among  the  Jews  would 
 have  deemed  themselves  bound  to  accept  any  doc- 
 trine as  an  article  of  faith,  unless  it  had  been 
 proclaimed  by  Moses,  their  great  legislator ;  and  it 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 2781 
 
 o  Many  other  points  of  difference,  ritual  and  jurid- 
 ical, are  mentioned  in  the  Gemaras.  See  Graetz 
 ;iii.  514-518).  But  it  seems  unsafe  to  admit  the 
 Oemaras  as  an  authority  for  statements  respecting 
 the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  See,  as  to  the  date  of 
 those  works,  the  article  Pharisees. 
 
 *  See  De  Seneclute,  xxiii.  This  treatise  was  com- 
 posed  wittiin   two  years  before  Cicero's  death,  and 
 
 is  certain  that  in  the  written  Law  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch there  is  a  total  absence  of  any  assertion  by 
 Moses  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  ab- 
 sence of  this  doctrine,  so  far  as  it  involves  a  future 
 state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  is  emphatically 
 manifest  from  the  numerous  occasions  for  its  in- 
 troduction in  the  Pentateuch,  among  the  promises 
 and  threats,  the  blessings  and  curses,  with  which  a 
 portion  of  that  great  work  abounds.  In  the  Law 
 .Moses  is  represented  as  promising  to  those  who  are 
 obedient  to  the  commands  of  .Jehovah  the  most 
 alluring  temporal  rewards,  such  as  success  in  busi- 
 ness, the  acquisition  of  wealth,  fruitful  seasons, 
 victory  over  their  enemies,  long  life,  and  freedom 
 from  sickness  (Deut.  vii.  12-15,  xxviii.  1-12;  Ex. 
 XX.  12,  xxiii.  25,  26);  and  he  likewise  menaces  the 
 disol^edient  with  the  most  dreadful  evils  which  can 
 afflict  humanity,  with  poverty,  fell  diseases,  dis- 
 astrous and  disgraceful  defeats,  subjugation,  dis- 
 persion, oppression,  and  overpowering  anguish  of 
 heart  (Deut.  xxviii.  15-G8):  but  in  not  a  single 
 instance  does  he  call  to  his  aid  the  consolations 
 and  terrors  of  rewards  and  punishments  hereafcer. 
 Moreover,  even  in  a  more  restricted  indefinite  sense, 
 such  as  might  be  involved  in  the  transmigration 
 of  souls,  or  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  as 
 believed  in  by  Plato,  and  apparently  by  Cicero,'' 
 there  is  a  similar  absence  of  any  assertion  by  Moses 
 of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  This  fact  is  pre- 
 sented to  Christians  in  a  striking  manner  by  the 
 well-known  words  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are 
 quoted  liy  Christ  in  argument  with  the  Sadducees 
 on  this  subject  (Ex.  iii.  G,  IG;  Mark  xii.  2G,  27; 
 Matt.  xxii.  31,  32;  Luke  xx.  37).  It  cannot  be 
 doubted  that  in  such  a  case  Christ  would  quote  to 
 his  powerful  adversaries  the  most  cogent  text  in 
 the  Law;  and  yet  the  text  actually  quoted  does  not 
 do  more  than  suggest  an  inference  on  this  srreat 
 doctrine.  Indeed  it  must  be  deemed  proliable  that 
 the  Sadducees,  as  they  did  not  acknowledge  the 
 divine  authority  of  Christ,  denied  even  the  logical 
 validity  of  the  inference,  and  argued  that  the  ex- 
 pression that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Abraham, 
 the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  did  not 
 necessarily  mean  more  than  that  Jehovah  had  been 
 the  God  of  those  patriarchs  while  they  lived  on 
 earth,  without  conveying  a  suggestion,  one  way  or 
 another,  as  to  whether  they  were  or  were  not  still 
 living  elsewhere.  It  is  true  that  in  other  parts  of 
 the  Old  Testament  there  are  individual  passages 
 which  express  a  belief  in  a  resurrection,  such  as  in 
 Is.  xxvi.  19;  Dan.  xii.  2;  Job  six.  2G,  and  in  some 
 of  the  Psalms;  and  it  may  at  first  sight  be  a  sub- 
 ject of  surprise  that  the  Sadducees  were  not  con- 
 vinced by  the  authority  of  those  passages.  But 
 although  the  Sadducees  regarded  the  books  which 
 contained  these  passages  as  sacred,  it  is  more  than 
 doubtful  whether  any  of  the  Jews  regarded  them 
 as  sacred  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as  the  written 
 Law.  There  is  a  danger  here  of  confounding  the 
 ideas  which  are  now  common  amongst  Christians, 
 who  regard  the  whole  ceremonial  law  as  abrogated, 
 with  the  ideas  of  Jews   after  the  time  of  Ezra, 
 
 although  a  dialogue,  may  perhaps  be  accepted  as  ex- 
 pressing his  philosophical  opinions  respecting  the  im- 
 mortality of  the  soul.  He  had  held,  however,  very 
 different  language  in  his  oration  pro  Ctuenlio.  cap. 
 Ixi.,  in  a  passage  which  is  a  striking  proof  of  the 
 popular  belief  at  Rome  in  his  time.  See  also  Sallust, 
 Catitin.  li. ;  Juvenal,  ii.  149 ;  s-nd  Pliny  the  Elder, 
 vii.  56. 
 
2782 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 while  the  Temple  was  still  standing,  or  even  with 
 the  ideas  of  orthodox  modern  Jews.  To  the  Jews 
 Moses  was  and  is  a  colossal  Form,  preeminent  in 
 autliority  above  all  subsequent  [jropliets.  Not  oidy 
 did  his  series  of  si^ns  and  wonders  in  Egypt  and 
 at  the  Red  Sea  transcend  in  magnitude  and  brill- 
 iancy those  of  any  other  holy  men  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  not  only  was  he  the  centre  in  Mount 
 Sinai  of  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Israelites,  but 
 even  the  mode  by  which  divine  communications 
 were  made  to  him  from  Jehovah  was  peculiar  to 
 him  alone.  While  others  were  addressed  in  visions 
 or  in  dreams,  the  Supreme  Being  communicated 
 with  him  alone  montli  to  mouth  and  face  to  face 
 (Num.  xii.  G,  7,  8;  Kx.  xxxiii.  11;  Deut.  v.  4, 
 xxxiv.  10-12).  Hence  scarcely  any  Jew  would 
 have  deemed  himself  bound  to  believe  in  man's 
 resurrection,  unless  the  doctrine  had  been  pro- 
 claimed by  Moses;  and  as  the  Sadducees  disbe- 
 lieved the  transuiission  of  any  oral  law  by  Moses, 
 the  striking  absence  of  that  doctrine  from  the 
 written  Law  freed  them  from  the  necessity  of  ac- 
 cepting the  doctrine  as  divine.  It  is  not  meant  by 
 this  to  deny  that  Jewish  believers  in  the  resmrec- 
 tion  had  their  faith  strengthened  and  confirmed  by 
 allusions  to  a  resurrection  in  scattered  passages  of 
 the  other  sacred  writings;  but  then  these  passages 
 were  read  and  interpreted  by  means  of  tiie  central 
 light  which  streamed  from  the  Oral  Law.  Tlie 
 Sadducees,  however,  not  making  use  of  that  light, 
 would  have  deemed  all  such  passages  inconclusive, 
 as  lieing,  indeed,  the  utterances  of  holy  men,  yet 
 opposed  to  other  texts  which  had  equal  claims  to 
 be  pi'onounced  sacred,  Init  which  could  scarcely  be 
 supposed  to  have  been  written  by  men  who  believed 
 in  a  resurrection  (Is.  xxxviii.  18,  19;  Ps.  vi.  5, 
 XXX.  9,  Ixxxviii.  10,  11,  12;  Eccl.  ix.  4-10),  The 
 real  truth  seems  to  be  that,  as  in  Christianity  the 
 doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  man  rests  on  belief 
 in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  with  subsidiary  argu- 
 ments drawn  from  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
 from  man's  instincts,  aspirations,  and  moral  nature; 
 so,  admitting  fully  the  same  subsidiary  arguments, 
 the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  Pharisees, 
 and  the  successive  generations  of  orthodox  Jews, 
 and  the  orthodox  Jews  now  li^■ing,  has  rested,  and 
 rests,  on  a  belief  in  the  supposed  Oral  Law  of 
 Moses.  On  this  point  the  statement  of  the  learned 
 Grand-Eabbi  to  whom  allusion  has  been  already 
 made  deserves  particular  attention.  "  What  causes 
 most  surprise  in  perusing  the  Pentateuch  is  the 
 silence  which  it  seems  to  keep  respecting  the  most 
 fundamental  and  the  most  consoling  truths.  The 
 doctrines  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  of 
 retribution  beyond  the  tomb,  are  able  powerfully  to 
 fortify  man  against  the  violence  of  the  passions  and 
 the  seductive  attractions  of  vice,  and  to  strengthen 
 his  steps  in  the  rugged  patii  of  virtue:  of  them- 
 selves they  smooth  all  the  difficulties  which  are 
 raised,  all  the  oljections  which  are  made,  against 
 the  govermnent  of  a  Divine  Providence,  and  account 
 for  the  good  fortune  of  the  wicked  and  the  liad 
 fortune  of  the  just.  But  man  searches  in  vain  for 
 these  truths,  which  he  desires  so  ardently;  he  in 
 vain  devours  with  avidity  each  page  of  Holy  Writ; 
 lie  does  not  find  either  them,  or  the  simple  doc- 
 trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  explicitly 
 announced.  Nevertheless  truths  so  consoling  and 
 of  such  an  elevated  order  cannot  have  been  passe<l 
 over  in  silence,  and  certainly  God  has  not  relied 
 3n  the  mere  sagacity  of  the  human  mind  in  order 
 to  announce  them  only  implicitly.     Ih  hus  trans- 
 
 SADDUCEE3 
 
 milted  them  verbally,  with  the  means  of  finainff 
 them  in  the  text.  A  supplementary  tradition  waa 
 nicessary,  indispensable  :  this  trailition  exists. 
 .Uiises  received  the  Law  from  Sinai,  transmitted 
 it  to  ./oshiiii,  Joshua  to  the  elders,  the.  elders  trans- 
 mitted it  t(i  the  prophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the 
 men  of  the  (jreat  synar/of/ue  "  (Klein,  Le  Judaisme 
 on  III.   Verite  sur  le  'J\dnind,  p.  1.5). 
 
 In  connection  with  the  disbelief  of  a  resurrection 
 by  the  .Sadducees,  it  is  proper  to  "notice  the  state- 
 ment (.\cts  xxiii.  8)  tliat  they  likewise  denied  thero 
 was  "angel  or  spirit."  A  perplexity  arises  as  to 
 the  precise  sense  in  which  this  denial  is  to  be  un- 
 derstood. Angels  are  so  distinctly  mentioned  in 
 the  Pentateuch  and  other  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, that  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  those  who 
 acknowledged  the  Old  Testament  to  have  divine 
 authority  could  deny  the  existence  of  angels  (see 
 Gen.  xvi.  7,  xix.  1,  xxii.  11,  xxviii.  12;  Kx.  xxiii. 
 20;  Num.  xxii.  23;  Judg.  xiii.  18:  2  Sam.  x.xiv. 
 16,  and  other  passages).  The  difficulty  is  increased 
 by  the  fact  that  no  such  denial  of  angels  is  recorded 
 of  the  Sadducees  either  by  Josephus,  or  in  the 
 Mishna,  or,  it  is  said,  in  any  part  of  the  Talmudical 
 writings.  The  two  principal  explanations  which 
 hfive  lieen  suirgested  are,  either  that  the  Sadducees 
 regarded  the  angels  of  the  Old  Testament  as  tran- 
 sitory unsubstantial  I'epresentations  of  Jehovah,  or 
 that  they  disbelieved,  not  the  angels  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  but  merely  the  angelical  system  which 
 had  become  developed  in  the  popular  lielief  of  the 
 •lews  after  their  retuin  from  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
 tivity (Herzfeld,  Gesrhiclite  des  Vulkes  J  Israel,  iii. 
 ■3G4).  Either  of  these  explanations  may  possibly 
 be  correct ;  and  the  first,  although  there  are  numer- 
 ous texts  to  which  it  did  not  apply,  would  have 
 received  some  countenance  from  passages  wherein 
 the  same  divine  appearance  which  at  one  time  is 
 called  the  "angel  of  Jehovah  ''  is  afterwards  called 
 simply  "Jehovah"  (see  the  instances  pointed  out 
 
 by  Gesenius,  s.  v.  "T]Sy^,  Gen.  xvi.  7,  13,  xxii. 
 11,  12,  xxxi.  11,  16;  Ex.  iii.  2,  4;  Judg.  vi.  14, 
 22.  xiii.  18,  22).  Perhaps,  however,  another  sug- 
 gestion is  admissible.  It  appears  from  .Acts  xxiii. 
 9,  that  some  of  the  scribes  on  the  side  of  the 
 Pharisees  suggested  the  possibility  of  a  spirit  or 
 an  angel  having  spoken  to  St.  Paul,  on  the  very 
 occasion  when  it  is  asserted  that  the  Sadducees 
 denied  the  existence  of  angel  or  spirit.  Now  the 
 Sadducees  may  have  disbelieved  in  the  occurrence 
 of  any  such  phenomena  in  their  own  time,  although 
 they  accepted  all  the  statements  respecting  angels 
 in  the  Old  Testament;  and  thus  the  key  to  the 
 assertion  in  the  8th  verse  that  the  Sadducees  denied 
 "  angel  or  spirit "  would  be  found  exclusively  in 
 the  9th  verse.  This  view  of  the  Sadducees  may  be 
 illustrated  by  the  present  state  of  opinion  among 
 (Christians,  the  great  majority  of  whom  do  not  in 
 any  way  deny  the  existence  of  angels  as  recorded 
 in  the  Bible,  and  yet  they  certainly  disbelieve  that 
 angels  speak,  at  tlie  present  day,  even  to  the  most 
 virtuous  and  pious  of  mankind. 
 
 III.  The  opinions  of  the  Sadducees  resjiecting 
 the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  way  in  which 
 those  opinions  are  treated  by  Josephus  [Ant.  xiii. 
 5,  §  9),  have  been  noticed  elsewliere  [Phakisees, 
 iii.  2478],  and  an  explanation  has  been  there  sug- 
 gested of  the  prominence  given  to  a  difference  in 
 this  respect  between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Phari- 
 sees. It  may  be  here  added  that  possibly  the  great 
 stress  laid  by  the  Sadducees  on  the  freedom  of  the 
 
SADDUCEES 
 
 will  may  have  had  some  connection  with  their 
 forming  such  a  large  portion  of  that  class  from 
 which  criminal  judges  were  selected.  Jewish  phi- 
 losophers in  their  study,  although  they  knew  that 
 punislinients  as  an  instrument  of  good  were  un- 
 avoiilable,  might  indulge  in  reflections  that  man 
 seemed  to  be  the  creature  of  cii'cumstances,  and 
 micjht  regard  with  compassion  the  punishments 
 hiflicted  on  individuals  whom  a  wiser  moral  train- 
 ing and  a  more  liappily  balanced  nature  might  have 
 made  useful  members  of  society.  Those  Jews  wlio 
 were  almost  exclusively  religious  teachers  would 
 naturally  insist  on  the  inability  of  man  to  do  any- 
 thing good  if  God's  Holy  Spirit  were  taken  away 
 from  him  (Ps.  li.  11,  12),  and  would  enlarge  on 
 the  perils  which  surrounded  man  from  the  tempta- 
 tions of  Satan  and  evil  angels  or  spirits  (1  Chr. 
 xxi.  1;  Toll.  iii.  17).  But  it  is  likely  that  the 
 tendencies  of  the  judicial  class  would  be  more  prac- 
 tical and  direct,  and  more  strictly  in  accordance 
 witli  the  ideas  of  the  Levitical  prophet  Kzekiel 
 (xxxiii.  11-19)  in  a  well-kno\vn  passage  in  which  he 
 gives  the  responsibility  of  bad  actions,  and  seems 
 to  attribute  the  power  of  performing  good  actions, 
 exclusively  to  the  individual  agent.  Hence  the 
 sentiment  of  the  lines  — 
 
 "  Our  acts  our  Angels  are,  or  good  or  ill. 
 Our  fatal  shadows  that  walk  by  us  still," 
 
 would  express  that  portion  of  truth  on  whicli  the 
 Sadducees,  in  inflicting  punishments,  would  dwell 
 with  most  emphasis:  and  as,  in  some  sense,  tliey 
 disbelieved  in  angels,  these  lines  have  a  peculiar 
 claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  correct  exponent  of  Sad- 
 ducean  thouL'ht."  And  yet  perhaps,  if  writings 
 were  extant  in  which  the  Sadducees  explained  their 
 own  ideas,  we  might  find  that  they  reconciled  these 
 principles,  as  we  may  be  certain  that  Ezekiel  did, 
 with  other  passages  apparently  of  a  different  im])ort 
 in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  the  line  of  demar- 
 cation between  them  and  the  Pharisees  was  not, 
 in  theory,  so  very  sliarply  marked  as  the  account 
 of  Josephus  would  lead  us  to  suppose. 
 
 IV.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  such 
 as  [Hippol.  Philoscphuin.  ix.  29,  and  the  spu- 
 rious addition  to  Tertull.  De  Prcescr.  Ilceret.  c. 
 1  (or  45),]  Epiphanius  {llieres.  xiv.),  Origen 
 and  Jerome  (in  their  respective  Commentaries  on 
 Matt.  xxii.  31,  32,  33)  attribute  to  the  Sadducees 
 the  rejection  of  all  the  Sacred  Scriptui-es  except  the 
 Pentateuch.  Such  rejection,  if  true,  would  un- 
 doubtedly constitute  a  most  important  additional 
 difference  between  the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees. 
 The  statement  of  these  Christian  writers  is,  how- 
 ever, now  generally  admitted  to  have  been  founded 
 on  a  misconception  of  the  truth,  and  probably  to 
 have  arisen  from  a  confusion  of  the  Sadducees 
 with  the  Samaritans.  See  Lightfoot's  Horoe  Ile- 
 bniiccB  on  Matt.  iii.  7;  Herzfeld's  Gescliiehte  rhs 
 Vollces  Jisrael,  ii.  363.  Josephus  is  wholly  silent 
 as  to  an  antai;onism  on  this  point  between  the 
 Sadducees  and  Pharisees;  and  it  is  absolutely  in- 
 conceivable that  on  the  three  several  occasions  when 
 he  introduces  an  account  of  the  opinions  of  the 
 two  sects,  he  should  have  been  silent  respect- 
 ing such  an  antagonism  if  it  had  really  ex- 
 isted {Ant.  xiii.  5,  §  9,  xviii.  1,  §  3;  B.  J.  ii.  8, 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 2783 
 
 a  The  preceding  Hues  would  be  equally  applicable. 
 If,  as  is  not  improbable,  the  Sadducees  likewise  re- 
 iected  the  Chaldasan  belief  in  astrology,  so  common 
 imong  the  Jews  and  Christians  of  the  Middle  Ages  :  — 
 
 §  14).  Again,  the  existence  of  such  a  momentoua 
 antagonism  would  be  incompatible  witli  the  man- 
 ner in  which  Josephus  speaks  of  John  Hyixanus, 
 who  was  high-priest  and  king  of  Judiea  thirty-one 
 jears,  and  who  nevertheless,  having  been  previously 
 a  Pharisee,  became  a  Sadducee  towards  tlie  close 
 of  his  life.  This  Hyrcanus,  who  died  about  106 
 13.  c,  had  been  so  inveterately  hostile  to  the  Sa- 
 maritans, that  when  about  three  years  liefore  his 
 deatli  he  took  tlieir  city  Samaria,  he  razed  it  to 
 the  ground;  and  he  is  represented  to  have  dug 
 caverns  in  various  parts  of  the  soil  in  order  to  sink 
 the  surface  to  a  level  or  slope,  and  then  to  have 
 diverted  streams  of  water  oser  it,  in  order  to  efface 
 marks  of  such  a  city  having  ever  existed.  If  the 
 Sadducees  had  come  so  near  to  the  Samaritans 
 as  to  reject  the  divine  authority  of  all  the  books 
 of  the  Old  Testament  except  the  Pentateuch,  it  is 
 very  unlikely  that  Josephus,  after  mentioning  the 
 deatli  of  Hyrcanus,  should  have  spoken  of  him 
 as  he  does  in  the  following  manner:  "He  was 
 esteemed  by  God  worthy  of  tliree  of  the  greatest 
 privileges,  the  goveriniient  of  the  nation,  the  dig- 
 nity of  the  high-priesthood,  and  prophecy.  For 
 God  was  with  him  and  enaliled  him  to  know  fu- 
 ture events."  Indeed,  it  may  be  inferred  from 
 this  passage  that  Josephus  did  not  even  deem  it 
 a  matter  of  vital  importance  whether  a  high-priest 
 was  a  Sadducee  or  a  Pharisee  —  a  latitude  of  tolera- 
 tion which  we  may  be  confident  he  would  not  have 
 indulged  in,  if  the  divine  authority  of  all  the  books 
 of  the  Ohl  Testament  except  the  Pentateuch,  had 
 been  at  stake.  What  probably  had  more  influence 
 than  anything  else  in  occasioning  this  misconcep- 
 tion respecting  the  Sadducees,  was  the  circumstance 
 that  in  arguing  with  them  on  the  doctrine  of  a 
 future  life,  Christ  quoted  from. the  Pentateuch  only, 
 although  thei'e  are  stronger  texts  in  favor  of  the 
 doctrine  in  some  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 But  probable  reasons  have  been  already  assigned 
 why  Christ,  in  arguing  on  this  subject  witli  the 
 Sadducees,  referred  only  to  the  supposed  opinions 
 of  Moses  rather  than  to  isolated  passages  extracted 
 from  the  productions  of  any  other  sacred  writer. 
 
 V.  In  conclusion,  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  a 
 fact,  which,  while  it  accounts  for  misconceptions  of 
 early  Christian  writers  respecting  the  Sadducees,  is 
 on  other  grounds  well  worthy  to  arrest  the  atten- 
 tion. This  fact  is  the  rapid  disappearance  of  the 
 Sadducees  from  history  after  the  lirst  century,  and 
 the  subsequent  predominance  among  the  Jews  of 
 the  opinions  of  the  Pharisees.  Two  circumstances, 
 indirectly,  but  powerfully,  contributed  to  produce 
 tills  result:  1st.  The  state  of  the  Jews  after  the 
 capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus;  and  2dly.  The 
 growth  of  the  Christian  religion.  As  to  the  first 
 point  it  is  difficult  to  over-estimate  the  consterna- 
 tion and  dismay  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 occasioned  in  the  minds  of  sincerely  religious  Jews. 
 Their  holy  city  was  in  ruins;  their  holy  and  beau- 
 tiful Temple,  the  centre  of  their  worship  and  their 
 love,  had  been  ruthlessly  burnt  to  the  ground,  and 
 not  one  stone  of  it  was  left  upon  another:  their 
 magnificent  hopes  either  of  an  ideal  king  who  was 
 to  restore  the  empire  of  Uavid,  or  of  a  Son  of  Man 
 who  was  to  appear  to  them  in  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
 
 "  Man  is  his  own  Star  ;  and  the  soul  that  can 
 Reniler  an  honest  and  a  perfoct  man, 
 Commands  all  light,  all  influence,  all  fate  : 
 Nothing  to  him  falls  early,  or  too  late." 
 Fletchee's  Lines  "  Upon  an  lAnest  Man's  Fortate." 
 
2784 
 
 SADDUCEES 
 
 geenied  to  them  for  a  while  Hke  empty  dreams;  and 
 the  whole  visible  world  was,  to  their  imagination, 
 black  with  desolation  and  despair.  In  this  their  hour 
 of  darkness  and  anguish,  they  naturally  turned  to 
 the  consolations  and  hopes  of  a  future  state,  and  the 
 doctrine  of  tlie  Sadducces  that  there  was  nothing 
 beyond  the  present  life  would  have  appeared  to 
 them  cold,  lieartless,  and  hateful.  Again,  while 
 they  were  sunk  in  the  lowest  depths  of  depression, 
 a  new  religion  which  they  des[)ised  as  a  heresy  and 
 a  superstition,  of  which  one  of  their  own  nation 
 was  the  object,  and  another  the  unrivaled  mission- 
 ary to  the  heathen,  was  gradually  making  its  way 
 among  the  subjects  of  their  detested  conquerors, 
 the  Romans.  One  of  the  causes  of  its  success  was 
 undoubtedly  the  vivid  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
 Jesus,  and  a  consequent  resurrection  of  all  man- 
 kind, which  was  accepted  by  its  heathen  converts 
 with  a  passionate  earnestness,  of  which  those  who 
 at  the  present  day  are  familiar  from  infancy  with 
 the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  can 
 form  only  a  faint  idea.  To  attempt  to  check  the 
 progress  of  this  new  i-eligion  among  the  Jews  by  an 
 appeal  to  the  temporary  rewards  and  punishments 
 of  the  Pentateucli,  woidd  have  been  as  idle  as  an 
 endeavor  to  check  an  explosive  power  by  ordinary 
 mechanical  restraints.  Consciously,  therefore,  or 
 unconsciously,  many  circumstances  combined  to 
 induce  the  Jews,  who  were  not  Pharisees,  but  who 
 resisted  the  new  heresy,  to  rally  round  the  stand- 
 ard of  the  Oral  Law,  and  to  assert  that  their  holy 
 legislator,  Rloses,  had  transmitted  to  his  faithful 
 people  by  word  of  mouth,  although  not  in  writing, 
 the  revelation  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
 punishments.  A  great  belief  was  thus  built  up  on 
 a  great  fiction ;  early  teaching  and  custom  supplied 
 the  place  of  evidence;  faith  in  an  imaginary  fact 
 pioduced  results  as  striking  as  could  have  flowed 
 from  the  fiict  itself;  and  the  doctrine  of  a  Mosaic 
 Oral  Law,  enshrining  convictions  and  hopes  deeply 
 rooted  in  the  human  heart,  has  triumphed  for 
 nearly  1800  years  in  the  ideas  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
 ple. This  doctrine,  the  pledge  of  eternal  life  to 
 them,  as  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  Christians,  is 
 still  maintained  by  the  majority  of  our  Jewish  con- 
 temporaries; and  it  will  probably  continue  to  be 
 the  ci-eed  of  millions  long  after  the  present  genera- 
 tion of  mankind  has  passed  away  from  the  earth." 
 
 E.  T. 
 *  Literature. — It  should  be  noted,  perhaps, 
 that  the  Jewish  sects  are  treated  of  in  the  lately 
 discovered  Plnhsopliumenti  or  liefutatio  omnium 
 //ceresium,  now  generally  ascribed  to  Hippolytus, 
 lib.  ix.  cc.  18-30.  The  Sadducees  are  not  named 
 by  Philo,  but  Grossmann,  De  Pliilos.  SacMuccBoriim, 
 4  partt.  Lips.  18.36-38,  4to,  has  collected  from  this 
 Author  a  large  number  of  passages  which  he  sup- 
 poses to  relate  to  them.  His  conjectures,  howe\er, 
 have  not  been   generally  adopted   by  schohirs  (see 
 
 SAINTS 
 
 Winer,  Bibl.  Rvalworterb.  and  Reuss  in  Herzcg's 
 Eeiil-J'M'ijkl,  art.  Sadducder).  The  more  recei;t 
 writers  respecting  the  Saddufcees  are  mentioned 
 under  the  art.  Pharisees,  vol.  iii.  p.  2479. 
 Among  these,  Keim,  Derenbourg  and  Hausrath 
 may  be  specially  referred  to  for  a  view  of  the  latest 
 researches  and  opinions.  See  also  Fiirst's  Ge- 
 scliiclite  des  Karuerthums,  2  vols.  Leipz.  1862-65, 
 and  J.  R.  llanne.  Die  Pharisder  u.  Sadducder 
 ais  poUt.  Parteien,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss. 
 TheoL,  1867,  x.  131-179,  239-263.  A. 
 
 SA'DOC  (Sadocli).  1.  Zadok  the  ancestor 
 of  Ezra  (2  Esdr.  i.  1;  comp.  Ezr.  vii.  2). 
 
 2.  (2aSaJ/c:  Sadvc.)  A  descendant  of  Zerub- 
 babel  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ  (Matt.  i.  14). 
 
 SAFFRON  (03^3,  carcom:  Kp6Kos- crocus) 
 is  mentioned  only  in  Cant.  iv.  14  with  other  odorous 
 substances,  such  as  spikenard,  calamus,  cinnamon, 
 etc. ;  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  "  saf- 
 fron "  is  the  cori'ect  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word  ; 
 the  Arabic  Kurkum  is  similar  to  the  Hebrew,  and 
 denotes  the  Crocus  sntivus,  or  "saffron  crocus." 
 SafTron  has  from  the  earliest  times  been  in  high 
 esteem  as  a  perfume:  ''it  is  used,"  says  Rosen- 
 miiller  (Bib.  Bot.  p.  138),  "for  the  same  purposes 
 as  the  modern  pot-pourri."  Saffron  was  also  used 
 in  seasoning  dishes  (Apicius,  p.  270);  it  entered 
 into  the  composition  of  many  spirituous  extracts 
 which  retained  the  scent  (see  Beckmann's  Hist,  of 
 Jncent.  i.  175,  where  the  whole  subject  is  very  fully 
 discussed).  The  part  of  the  plant  which  was  used 
 was  the  stigma,  which  was  pulled  out  of  the  flower 
 and  then  dried.  Dr.  Royle  says,  that  "  sometimes 
 the  stiguias  are  prepared  by  being  submitted  to 
 pressuie,  and  thus  made  into  cake  saffron,  a  Ibrm 
 in  which  it  is  still  imported  from  Persia  into  In- 
 dia." llasselquist  (Trav.  p.  36)  states  that  in 
 certain  places,  as  around  Magnesia,  large  quanti- 
 ties of  safli'on  are  gathered  and  exported  to  diflerent 
 places  in  Asia  and  Europe.  Kitto  (P/iys.  I/ist.  of 
 Palest,  p.  321)  says  that  the  safllower  {Carthamus 
 tinctorius),  a  very  different  plant  from  the  crocus, 
 is  cultivateil  in  Syria  for  the  sake  of  the  flowers 
 which  are  used  in  dyeing,  but  the  Karkom  no  doubt 
 denotes  the  Crocus  sntivvs.  The  word  saffron  is 
 derived  from  the  Arabic  Zafi-an,  "  yellow."  This 
 plant  gives  its  name  to  Saffron- Walden,  in  Essex, 
 where  it  is  largely  cultivated.  It  belongs  to  the 
 Natural  Order  Jridacece.  W.  H. 
 
 *  SAINTS  (derived,  through  the  French,  from 
 the  Latin   sanctus}  occurs   in    the  O.   T.  sixteen 
 
 times  as  the  translation  of  tmp  or  its  cognates, 
 
 and  nineteen  times  as  the  translation  of  "T^DH, 
 which  Hebrew  words  are  with  a  few  exceptions  rep- 
 resented in  the  LXX.  by  07105  and  offios  respect- 
 ively.''    In    some  instances  when    applied  to  men 
 
 ti  In  Germany  and  elsewhere,  some  of  the  most 
 learned  Jews  disbelieve  in  a  Mosair,  Oral  Law  ;  and 
 Judaism  seems  ripe  to  enter  on  a  new  phase.  Based 
 on  the  Old  Testament,  but  avoiding  the  mistakes  of 
 the  Karait«s,  it  miglit  still  have  a  givat  future  ;  but 
 whether  it  could  last  another  1800  years  with  the  be- 
 lief in  a  future  life,  as  a  revealed  doctrine,  depending 
 not  on  a  supposed  revelation  by  Mo.^cs,  but  solely  on 
 "Battered  texts,  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  is  an  in- 
 teresting subject  for  speculation. 
 
 b  The  primary  meaning  of  tClIp,  according  to 
 aeeemus  and  Dietrich,  is  "  pure  ;  "  according  to  I'lirst 
 
 "  pure,'-  "  fresh  ;  "  according  to  Meier  (Hebr.  Wur- 
 zelw.,    p.    395)    "  separated."     Hupfeld    ascribes    to 
 
 T'Dn  (Comm.  on  Ps.  iv.  4)  a  passive  force,  "fa- 
 vored." 'Ayiot  (from  a^u),  a^o/iioi,  vdif.rate,  akin  to 
 ayafiat.  Buttmann's  Lexilogvs,  i.  236  ;  F.  trans,  p  47) 
 seems  by  derivation  to  signify  "  very  pure,"  then 
 "  holy."  The  derivation  of  o<7-tos,  "  hallowed,"  is  less 
 certain  (see  Benfey,  Grifch.  Wurzellex.  i.  434  f). 
 'Otrio!,  common  in  the  classics,  in  Biblical  Greek  re- 
 cedes from  use.  As  a  personal  epithet  it  is  applied  tc 
 Christians  but  once  in  the  N.  T.,  and  then  in  describ- 
 ing the  official  character  of  a  bishop  (Tit.  i  8).    'Ayiot, 
 
SAINTS 
 
 ,  describes  their  inherent  personal  character  (Ps. 
 XXX.  4,  xxxi.  23,  xxxiv.  9,  xxxvii.  28,  etc.).  But 
 in  the  majority  of  cases  it  seems  to  be  used  in  a 
 theocratic  rather  than  a  moral  sense:  so  that,  while 
 having  often  a  secondaiy  reference,  more  or  less 
 marked,  to  holiness  as  the  prescribed  and  appropri- 
 ate character  of  those  who  bear  it,  it  is  applied  in- 
 discriminately (especially  in  the  later  books)  to  the 
 Israelites,  as  a  nation  consecrated  to  God  (I's.  1.  5, 
 cxxxii.  9;  Dan.  vii.  18,  21,  22,  25,  27;  cf.  viii.  24, 
 xii.  7;  Exod.  xix.  6;  Num.  xvi.  3;  1  Ksdr.  viii. 
 70). 
 
 In  the  N.  T.,  where  it  is  found  01  times,  it  uni- 
 formly corresponds  to  the  Greek  ayLOi,  and  in  its 
 application  to  Christians  it  is  not  used  to  designate 
 them  distinctively  as  respects  either  their  nation- 
 ality or  their  locality,  nor  does  it  denote  outward 
 separation,  nor  does  it  refer  —  at  least  primarily  — 
 to  their  moral  characteristics,  whether  they  be 
 viewed  as  pardoned  sinners,  or  as  the  possessors  of 
 an  imputed  holiness,  or  of  some  degree  of  actual 
 holiness,  or  as  predestined  to  perfect  holiness,  or  as 
 constituting  a  community  the  greater  or  more  im- 
 portant number  of  whom  are  holy;  but  it  is  an 
 appellation  of  all  Christians  as  Christians.  On  be- 
 coming Christians  they  become  also  "  saints  "  (cf. 
 the  use  of  the  singular  in  Phil.  iv.  21).  Yet  as 
 in  the  0.  T.  the  inherent  sense  of  the  word  often 
 gleams  through  the  theocratic,  so  in  the  N.  T., 
 agreeably  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Christian 
 dispensation,  the  theocratic  sense  is  regarded  as  "  ful- 
 filled'' in  the  spiritual,  the  consecration  is  viewed 
 more  as  internal  and  personal,  the  ayioi  are  also 
 truly  riyiaa-fj-fuoi  (cf.  1  Cor.  i.  2;  Eph.  i.  1,  4;  1 
 Pet.  ii.  9.)  (Note  the  fluctuation  in  the  meaning 
 of  ajid^ca  in  John  xvii.  17,  19;  and  see  Heb.  ii. 
 11.)  This  sense,  however,  is  one  which  does  not  so 
 much  lie  in  the  word  itself,  as  result  from  the  na- 
 ture of  the  "  people  of  God,"  which  "  the  saints  " 
 constitute;  accordingly  it  comes  to  view  with  dif- 
 ferent degrees  of  distinctness  in  different  passages. 
 The  value  of  the  term  for  moral  uses  is  greatly 
 augmented  by  this  very  flexibility  and  possible  com- 
 prehensiveness of  signification. 
 
 The  term  is  alsJ  applied  in  the  0.  T.  several 
 times  (Uciit.  xxxiii.  2;  Joli  v.  1,  xv.  15;  Ps. 
 Ixxxix.  5,  7;  Zech.  xiv.  5)  to  the  iuigels  as  preemi- 
 nently "  holy  "  ;  and  in  one  obscure  pnssnge,  Hos. 
 xi.  12  (xii.  1,  LXX.  yahs  oiyios),  to  God  himself 
 iplur.  iiiiijest.  cf.  .losh.  xxiv.  I'J:  I'rov.  ix.  10,  xxx. 
 3.)  In  the  N.  T.,  also,  it  is  thought  by  many 
 expositors  to  be  used  of  holy  uni/iU  in  1  Thess.  iii. 
 13  (so  .hide,  ver.  14);  in  liev.  xv.  3  the  reading 
 "saints"  is  unsustained  by  the  MSS. 
 
 Although  the  term  is  used  in  some  passages 
 which  refer  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  to  the  con- 
 sunmiation  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  in  the  world 
 to  come  (Eph.  i.  18;  Col.  i.  12;  cf.  Acts  xx.  32, 
 
 on  the  other  hand,  though  found  as  early  as  Herod., 
 is  rare  in  profane  Greek,  but  very  conuiion  in  the 
 Bible  —  selected  by  the  sacred  writers  apparently  be- 
 cause  it  presents   holiness  under   the  aspect  of  awe 
 
 towards  a  person.  Its  correlate  (tt7^p)  first  occurs 
 on  occasion  of  the  appearance  of  God  to  Moses  (Ex. 
 iii.  5).  See  G.  v.  Zfzschwitz,  Prnfaiigr achat,  etc.,  p. 
 16  f. ;  Tittmann,  de  Si/n.  in  Nov.  Test.  i.  22  f. :  Cre- 
 mer.  BiU.-tlieol.  Worterh.  rirr  N.  T.  Gracilat,  pp.  27  f., 
 119  f  ;  Trc-nch,  Syti.  of  N.  T.,  §  Ixxxviii.  p.  312  ff., 
 (>t.  ii.  p.  182  ff.  (Amer  ed.). 
 
 "  The  unrestricted  application  of  the  term  seems  to 
 
 SAINTS  2785 
 
 xxvi.  18),  yet  it  is  nowhere  used  to  designate  the 
 people  of  God  in  heaven,  as  distinguished  from 
 those  on  earth.  Nor  is  it  ever  restricted  to  the 
 emhienthj  pious  in  distinction  from  the  mass  of 
 believers." 
 
 In  the  saints  Christ  will  be  glorified  at  his  com- 
 ing (2  Thess.  i.  10),  and  they  will  be  in  some  sense 
 participants  in  the  judgment  (1  Cor.  vi.  2,  3 ;  cf. 
 Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  30).  Nowhere  in  the 
 Scriptures  are  they  represented  as  objects  of  wor- 
 ship, nor  is  their  agency  invoked. 
 
 The  resurrection  of  saints,  mentioned  Matt, 
 xxvii.  52,  53,  has  raised  many  questions,  very  few 
 of  which  can  be  answered  confidently.  That  the 
 saints  spoken  of  were  brought  to  life  from  the  dead, 
 and  that  they  went  into  Jerusalem  alter  Christ's 
 resui-rection  and  were  seen  by  many,  the  language 
 leaves  no  doubt.  That  their  tombs  were  in  the 
 vicinity  .of  Calvary  and  were  opened  contempora- 
 neously with  the  earthquake,  appears  to  be  implied 
 (cf.  vftr.  54 1.  That  they  were  not,  or  at  least  were  not 
 solely,  departed  disciples  of  Christ  seems  probable; 
 for  as  yet  "many"  of  thtm  could  hardly  have 
 dieil.  further,  the  term  "saints"  applied  tiius  in 
 »  Christian  document  to  deceased  Jews  who  at  the 
 ■same  time  are  spoken  of  as  KeKOi/j.rifj.evoiiv,''  still 
 mora  the  congruities  of  the  case,  make  it  probable 
 that  the  word  has  here  a  distinctive  force  and  de- 
 notes Jewish  looithits  (cf.  1  Pet.  iii.  5).  The 
 arrangement  of  the  words  favors  the  interpretation 
 that  "  they  came  forth  from  their  sepulchres  after 
 the  Lord's  resurrection;"  accordingly  T;7e'/39r7o-aj' 
 has  been  regirded  by  some  expositors  as  antici- 
 patory, by  others  more  naturally  as  signifying 
 merely  "raised  to  Ufi"  and  so  distinguishing  the 
 vivification  from  the  quitting  the  tombs.  The 
 majority,  however,  have  considered  the  reanimation 
 and  the  resurrection  as  sinniltaneous:  some  hold- 
 ing that  both  took  place  at  Christ's  death,  and 
 that  the  risen  saints  first  "  came  into  the  holy  city 
 after  his  resurrection;"  while  others,  and  by  far 
 the  greater  number,  have  preferred  to  make  the 
 assumption  that  both  were  postponed  initil  after 
 Christ  had  risen.  Possibly  we  may  find  in  o-difxaTo, 
 support  for  the  supposition  that  they  had  died 
 recently  (and  so  were  recognized  by  those  to  whom 
 they  appeared).  Certainly  tiiere  is  nothing  either 
 in  the  use  of  this  word  or  of  eve^aviaQrjaav,''  nor 
 in  tiie  context  of  historic  realities  in  which  thp 
 incident  lies  imbedded,  to  favor  the  theory  that 
 their  appearance  was  by  dream  or  vision,  and  con- 
 fined to  the  mind  of  the  "  njany  "  who  saw  them. 
 These  last  we  may,  in  accordance  with  Acts  x.  41, 
 plausibly  infer  to  have  been  followers  of  Jesus  or  in 
 sympathy  with  him.  Whether  the  risen  saints 
 were  clothed  with  immortal  bodies  and  ascended 
 with  their  Lord  (as  the  commentators  have  been 
 commonly  pleased  to  assume),  or  rose  to  die  again: 
 
 have  continued  down  to  the  times  of  Irena;us  and 
 Tertullian  (Herzog,  Real-Encijk.  v.  670)  The  clause 
 in  the  Apostles'  Creed  relative  to  "the  communion  of 
 saints  "  is  not  found  in  the  more  ancient  forms  of  that. 
 Confession. 
 
 ft  This  word,  while  it  does  not  seem  to  warrant  any 
 doctrinal  inferences  respecting  tlie  nature  of  the  inter- 
 mediate state,  does  appear  to  be  used  in  the  New  Test. 
 specifically  of  the  righteous  dead. 
 
 c  "Eii.(i>a.vi^iji  would  be  appropriately  used,  indeed, 
 of  a  spectral  appearance  fcf  Wisd.  of  Sol.  xvii.  4), 
 bur  may  designate  no  less  appropriately  an  appearance 
 in  the  body.     See  John  xiv  22. 
 
2786  SALA 
 
 whether  they  were  the  only  ones  among  the  de- 
 parted whose  condition  was  affected  immediately 
 by  the  deatii  of  Christ,  or  were  but  specimens  of 
 an  effect  experienced  by  all  the  righteous,  or  the 
 ante-Christian,  dead"  —  we  have  no  means  of 
 knowing. 
 
 But  however  perplexing  our  ignorance  may  be 
 respecting  'letails,  the  substantial  facts  stated  above 
 must  be  accepted  by  all  who  accept  the  inspired 
 record.  To  discard  that  record  as  an  interpolation, 
 as  a  few  critics  h.ave  done,  is  a  procedure  in  direct 
 violation  of  all  diplomatic  evidence  in  the  case,  cor- 
 roborated as  that  evidence  is  by  one  or  two  jnteiiial 
 characteristics  (particularly  t?)V  ayiav  noAiu,  cf. 
 iv.  5).  Nor  is  there  any  pretext  for  regarding  it  as 
 a  mythical  amplification  of  the  fact  thatgi'aves  were 
 opened  'by  the  earthquake.  i\Iatthew,  to  be  sure, 
 is  the  only  evangelist  who  mentions  the  incident; 
 but  Mark  and  Luke  concur  with  him  in  stating 
 that  the  vail  of  the  Temple  was  rent.  Why,  then, 
 should  we  not  here  as  in  other  cases  consider  par- 
 ticulars not  manifestly  false,  rather  as  confirmed  by 
 the  concurrence  of  the  other  testimonies  in  refer- 
 ence to  ap((rt  of  the  story,  than  as  discredited  by 
 their  silence  respecting  the  remaindei-  ?  And  why 
 should  the  existence  of  apocryphal  a])pendages  * 
 bring  suspicion  upon  this  any  more  than  upon 
 other  poitions  of  the  sacred  narrative  upon  which 
 such  excrescences  were  formed  V  Nor  can  the  hy- 
 pothesis of  Strauss  lay  claim  to  plausibility.  He 
 conceives  that  .the  story  was  fabricated  to  answer  a 
 twofold  Messianic  expectation  of  the  times  which 
 had  not  been  fulfilled  by  .Tesus  during  his  ministry, 
 namely,  that  the  Messiah  would  ettisct  a  i/eueriil 
 resurrection  of  the  pious  dead,  and  that,  too,  a  res- 
 urrection to  inunurliil  life.  Yet  the  narrative  is 
 made  to  meet  the  first  requirement  only  l)y  exag- 
 gerating improbably  the  numerical  force  of  ttoAAo; 
 and  concerning  a  resurrection  to  inimortnl  life  it 
 gives,  as  has  been,  already  intim.ited,  no  hint.  Ob- 
 viously the  incident  ought  not  to  be  contemplated 
 as  an  isolated  fact,  but  as  one  of  the  accompani- 
 ments of  the  crowning  event  in  the  history  of  a 
 being  whose  entire  earthly  career  was  attended  by 
 miracles.  Viewed  thus,  its  blended  strangeness 
 and  a[)propriatenesSi  its  "  proliability  of  improba- 
 bility," affords  a  presumption  of  its  truth. 
 
 For  a  list  of  the  treatises  which  the  passage  has 
 called  forth,  the  reader  may  see  Hase's  Leben  Jesu, 
 1865,  §  11!)  (.5th  ed.).  An  idea  of  the  speculations 
 iy  which  writers  h.ave  indulged  here  may  be  gatii- 
 ered  from  Calmefs  dissertation,  translated  in  the 
 JourmU  of  Sacred  Lit.  for  Jan.  1848,  pp.  112-125. 
 
 J.  H.  T. 
 
 SA'LA  {la\d-  Sale).  Salah,  or  Shelaii, 
 the  father  of  Eber  (Luke  iii.  3b). 
 
 SA'LAH  (n  jt?7  [a  missile,  weapon ;  also 
 fpnnit]:  2aAa;  Sale).     The  son  of  Arphaxad  and 
 
 a  There  is  no  propriety  in  associating,  as  many 
 commentators  do,  this  incident  in  Matt,  with  the  state- 
 ment relative  to  "  the  spirits  in  prison  "  (1  Pot.  iii.  19). 
 Although  Peter's  language  is  generally  rendered  in  the 
 versions  and  commentaries,  "  who  were  soniotiine  dis- 
 obedient," and  so  Christ's  preaching  repre.'^enti-d  as 
 having  t.iUen  place  after  his  death,  yet  such  a  trans- 
 lation is  given  in  disreg.ard  of  the  fact  that  anetOria-aa-i., 
 igrecing  as  it  does  with  a  noun  which  lias  the  article 
 yet  itself  wanting  it,  is  properly  a  predicative,  not  an 
 attrilnitivo,  participle.     Says  Donaldson  ( Grce^  Gram. 
 
 SALAMIS 
 
 father  of  Eber  (Gen.  x.  24,  xi.  12  14 ;  Luke  iii.  3.5^ 
 The  name  is  significant  of  extension^  the  cognaie 
 verb  being  applied  to  the  spreading  out  of  the 
 roots  and  branches  of  trees  (.Jer.  xvii.  8;  Ez.  xvii. 
 G).  It  thus  seems  to  imply  the  historical  fact  of 
 the  gradual  extension  of  a  branch  of  the  Semitic 
 race  from  its  original  seat  in  Northern  Assyria 
 towards  the  river  Euphrates.  A  place  with  a 
 similar  name  Iti  Northern  Mesopotamia  is  noticed 
 by  Syrian  writers  (Knobel,  in  Gen.  xi.);  but  we 
 can  hardly  assume  its  identity  with  the  Salah  of 
 the  Bible.  ICwald  {Gesch.  i.  354)  and  Von  Bohlen 
 {Introd.  to  Gen.  ii.  205)  regard  the  name  as  purely 
 fictitious,  the  former  explaining  it  as  a  son  or  off- 
 spring, the  latter  as  the  father  of  a  race.  That 
 the  name  is  significant  does  not  prove  it  fictitious, 
 and  the  conclusions  drawn  by  these  writers  are 
 uuwarrcuiicd.  [The  proper  form  of  this  name  is 
 SnELAir,  which  see.  —  A.]  W.  L.  H. 
 
 SAL'AMIS  (2a\a/xis  [prob.  fr.  a\s,  sea,  as 
 being  near  the  shore]  :  Salainis),  a  city  at  the 
 east  end  of  the  island  of  Cyi)rus,  and  the  first  place 
 visited  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  on  the  first  mission- 
 ary journey,  after  leaving  the  mainland  at  Seleucia. 
 Two  reasons  why  they  toolc  this  course  obviously 
 suggest  themsehes,  namely,  the  fact  that  Cyprus 
 (and  probably  Salamis)  was  the  native  place  of 
 Barnabas,  and  the  geographical  proximity  of  this 
 end  of  the  island  to  Autioch.  But  a  further  reason 
 is  indicated  by  a  circumstance  in  the  narrative 
 (Acts  xiii.  5).  Here  alone,  among  all  the  Creek 
 cities  visited  by  St.  Paul,  we  read  expressly  of  •■  syn- 
 agogues "  in  tlie  plural.  Hence  we  conclude  that 
 there  were  many  Jews  in  Cyprus.  And  this  is  in 
 harmony  with  what  we  read  elsewhere.  To  say 
 nothing  of  possible  mercantile  relations  in  very 
 early  times  [Ciiitxim;  Cyi»i:us],  Jewish  residents 
 in  the  island  are  mentioned  during  the  period 
 when  the  Seleucidas  reigned  at  Antioch  (1  Mace. 
 XV.  2.3).  In  the  reign  of  Augustus  the  Cyprian 
 copper-mines  were  farmed  to  Herod  the  Great 
 (.loseph.  Ant.  xvi.  4,  §  5),  and  this  would  proba- 
 ably  attract  many  Hebrew  families:  to  which  we 
 may  add  evidence  to  the  same  effect  from  Philo 
 {Leyat.  ad  Caium)  at  the  very  time  of  St.  Paul's 
 journey.  And  again  at  a  later  period,  in  the 
 reigns  of  Trajan  and  Hadrian,  we  are  informed  of 
 dreadful  tumults  here,  caused  by  a  vast  multitude 
 of  Jews,  in  the  course  of  which  "  the  whole  popu- 
 lous city  of  Salamis  became  a  desert"  (Milman's 
 Hist,  (f  the  Jetvs,  iii.  Ill,  112).  We  may  well 
 believe  that  from  the  Jews  of  Salamis  came  some 
 of  those  early  Cypriote  Christians,  who  are  so 
 prominently  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  first 
 spreading  of  the  Gospel  beyond  Palestine  (Acts 
 xi.  19,  20),  even  before  the  first  mi.ssionary  expe- 
 dition. Mnason  (xxi.  16)  might  be  one  of  them. 
 Nor  ought  Mark  to  1)6  forgotten  here.  He  was  at 
 Salamis  with  Paul,  and  his  own  kinsman  Barnabas; 
 and  again  he  was  there  with  the  same  kinsman  after 
 
 3d  ed.,  p.  532) :  "  The  participle  wit/wut  the  article 
 can  never  be  rightly  rendered  by  the  relative  sentence 
 with  a  definite  antecedent,  which  is  equivalent  to  the 
 participle  ii'ith  an  article  "  (cf.  The  Neiv  Cralylus,  § 
 304  f.).  Green  in  his  N.  T.  Grammar  (p.  54,  ed.  1862) 
 renders  the  passage,  "  He  went  and  preached  to  the 
 impri.soncd  sfiirits  on  their  being  once  on  a  time  dis- 
 obedient, when,"  etc. 
 
 b  On  this  point  see  Emn^.  Niroii.  (,2d  Part)  c.  17  f. ; 
 Thilo,  Coil.  Apnrr.  N.  T  ,  pp.  780  f.,  810  f.  j  I'i.sch. 
 Evang  Apocr.  p.  301  f. 
 
SALASADAI 
 
 .he  tnisanderstanding  with  St.  Paul  and  the  separa- 
 tion (xv.  39). 
 
 Salamis  was  not  far  from  the  modern  Famn- 
 fjotisla.  It  was  situated  near  .a  river  called  the 
 I'editeus,  on  low  ground,  which  is  in  fact  a  contin- 
 uation of  the  plahi  running  up  into  the  interior 
 toward  the  place  where  Nicosln,  the  present  capi- 
 tal of  Cyprus,  stands.  We  must  notice  in  regarel 
 to  Salamis  that  its  harbor  is  spoken  of  by  Greek 
 writers  as  very  good;  and  that  one  of  the  ancient 
 tables  lays  down  a  road  between  this  city  and 
 Papiios,  the  next  place  which  Paul  and  13arnabas 
 visited  on  their  journey.  Salamis  again  has  rather 
 an  eminent  position  in  subsequent  Christian  his- 
 tory. Constantine  or  his  successor  rebuilt  it,  and 
 called  it  Constantia  (•'  Salamis,  quaj  nunc  Con- 
 stantia  dicitur,"  Hieronym.  /"/((Ve/w.),  and,  while  it 
 had  this  name,  Epiphanius  was  one  of  its  bishops. 
 
 Of  the  travellers  who  have  visited  and  descriljed 
 Salamis,  we  must  particularly  mention  I'ococke 
 (DiSc.  of  the  East,  ii.  214)  and  Ross  {Jieisen  nnck 
 Kos,  Halikarwtssos,  Jilwdas,  uiul  Cypei-n,  pp.  Ii8- 
 12.5).  These  travellers  notice,  in  the  neighborhood 
 of  Salamis,  a  vill.age  named  St.  Svrijius,  which  is 
 doubtless  a  reminiscence  of  Sergius  Paulus,  and  a 
 large  Byzantine  church  bearing  the  name  of  St. 
 Banuibits,  and  associated  with  a  legend  concerning 
 the  discovery  of  his  relics.  The  legend  will  be 
 found  in  Cedrenus  (i.  018,  ed.  Bonn).  [Batna- 
 B.vs;  Sehgius  Paulus.]  J.  S.  H. 
 
 SALAS'ADAI  [4  syl.]  ([Alex.]  laXaaaUr. 
 [Vat.  Kom.]  2apao-a5ai';  [Sin.  SapiffaSoi,  MS. 
 19]  2oypifraSe'),a  variation  for  Sui-isudd  {'^ovpia- 
 aSai,  Num.  i.  6)  in  Jud.  viii.  1.   [Zukisiiaddai.] 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 SALA'THiEL  (bs-'nbstt',  [bs\nb;t':] 
 
 2a\a6iri\.  Snlatliitl:  "  I  have  asked  God  "  «),  son 
 of  .leclionias  king  of  .ludah,  aiid  fatber  of  Zoroba- 
 Ijel,  according  to  Matt.  i.  12;  but  son  of  Neri,  and 
 fatber  of  Zorobabel,  according  to  Luke  iii.  27 ; 
 while  the  genealogy  in  1  Chr.  iii.  17-19,  leaves  it 
 doubtful  vttliether  he  is  the  son  of  Assir  or  Jecho- 
 nias,  and  makes  Zorobabel  his  nephew.  (Zehub- 
 UAHEL.]  Upon  the  incontrovertible  principle  that 
 no  genealogy  would  assign  to  the  true  son  and  heir 
 of  a  king  any  inferior  and  private  parentage,  whereas, 
 on  the  contrary,  the  son  of  a  private  person  wotdd 
 naturally  be  placed  in  the  royal  pedigree  on  his  lie- 
 coming  the  rightful  heir  to  tbe  throne;  we  may 
 assert,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  that  St.  Lnke 
 gives  us  the  true  state  of  the  case,  when  he  informs 
 us  that  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Neri,  and  a  de- 
 scendant of  Nathan  the  son  of  David.*  And  from 
 his  insertion  in  the  royal  jjedigree,  both  in  1  Chr. 
 and  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  after  the  childless  Jecho- 
 
 n  Possibly  with  an  allusion  to  1  Sam.  i.  20,  27,  28. 
 See  Broughton's  Our  Lord's  Family. 
 
 f>  It  is  worth  noting  that  Jospphus  speaks  of  Zqro- 
 babel  as  "  the  son  of  Salathiel,  of  the  po.-iterity  of  Da- 
 vid, and  of  the  tribe  of  .Judah  "'  {A.  J.  xi.  3,  §  10). 
 Had  he  believed  liim  to  be  the  son  of  Jeconiah,  of 
 whom  he  had  spoken  (x.  11,  §  2),  he  could  hardly 
 have  failed  to  say  so.     Comp.  x.  7,  ^  1. 
 
 c  ■'  Of  .leclionias  God  sware  that  he  should  die  leav- 
 ing no  child  behind  liim  ;  wherefore  it  were  flat  athe- 
 ism to  prate  that  he  naturally  became  lather  to  Sala- 
 thiel. Though  St.  Luko  h;id  never  left  us  Salathiel's 
 family  up  to  Nathan,  whole  brother  to  Solomon,  to 
 jhow  that  Salathiel  was  of  another  family,  6od"s  oath 
 hould  make  us  believe  that,  without  any  further  rec- 
 ord" (Broughton,  ul  supra). 
 
 SALCAH  2787 
 
 nias,'"  we  infer,  witlf  no  less  confidi'nce,  that,  on  the 
 failure  of  Solomon's  line,  he  was  the  next  heir  to 
 the  throne  of  David.  The  appearance  of  Salathiel 
 in  the  two  pedigrees,  though  one  deduces  the 
 descent  from  Solomon  and  the  other  from  Nathan, 
 is  thus  perfectly  simple,  and,  indeed,  necessary; 
 whereas  the  notion  of  Salathiel  being  called  Neri's 
 son,  as  Yardley  and  others  have  thought,  because 
 he  married  Neri's  daughter,  is  palpably  absurd  on 
 the  supposition  of  his  being  the  son  of  Jechonias. 
 On  this  last  principle,  you  niiijht  have  not  two 
 but  about  a  million  different  pedigi-ees  between  Je- 
 chonias and  Christ;  f'  and  yet  you  have  no  ra- 
 tional account,  why  there  should  actually  be  niore 
 tiian  one.  It  may  therefore  be  considered  as  cer- 
 tain, that  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Neri,  and  the 
 heir  of  Jechoniah.  The  question  whetiier  he  was 
 tbe  father  of  Zerubbabel  will  be  considered  under 
 that  article.^  Besides  tbe  passages  already  cited, 
 Salathiel  occurs  in  1  Esdr.  v.  5,  48,  56,  vi.  2;  2 
 Esdr.  V.  16. 
 
 As  regards  the  orthography  of  the  name,  it  has, 
 as  noted  above,  two  forms  in  Hebrew.  The  con- 
 tracted form  [.Shaltiel]  is  peculiar  to  Haggai,  who 
 uses  it  three  times  out  of  five;  while  in  the  first 
 and  last  verse  of  his  prophecy  he  uses  the  full  form, 
 which  is  also  found  in  Ezr.  iii.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1. 
 The  LXX.  everywhere  have  SaAaSiTjA,  while  the 
 .A..  V.  has  (probably  with  an  eye  to  correspondence 
 with  Matt,  and  Luke)  Salathiel  in  1  Chr.  iii.  17, 
 but  everywhere  else  in  the  O.  T.  Siiealtiel. 
 [Genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ;  Jehoiachin.] 
 
 A.  C.  II. 
 
 SAL'CAH-''  (nSyp  [ivandering,     vii<jra1iiin, 
 
 Furst]  :  26«X"')  'Ax";  2eAa  [Vat.  EAx"] ;  Alex. 
 Ao-eAxct',  EAxa,  SeAxa:  Sitkchn,  tsuldia).  A 
 city  named  in  the  early  records  of  Israel  as  the  ex- 
 treme limit  of  Bashan  (Deut.  iii.  10;  Josh.  xiii. 
 11)  and  of  the  tribe  of  Gad  (1  Chr.  v.  11).  On 
 another  occasion  the  name  seems  to  denote  a  dis- 
 trict rather  than  a  town  (Josh.  xii.  5).  By  Ym- 
 sebius  and  Jerome  it  is  merely  mentioned,  appar- 
 ently without  their  having  had  any  real  knowledge 
 of  it. 
 
 It  is  doubtless  identical  with  the  town  of  Sul- 
 khnd,  which  stands  at  the  southern  extremity  of 
 the  Jebel  Hauran,  twenty  miles  S.  of  Kunawi't 
 (the  ancient  Kenath),  which  was  the  southern  out- 
 post of  the  Lejci,  the  Argob  of  the  Bible.  Sulkluid 
 is  named  by  both  the  (Jhristian  and  Mohammedan 
 historians  of  the  middle  ages  (Will,  of  Tyre,  xvi. 
 8,  "Selcath;"  Abulfeda,  in  Schultens'  Index 
 (jeorjr.  "Sarchad").  It  was  visited  by  Burckhardt 
 {Syyia,  Nov.  22,  1810),  Seetzeu  and  others,  and 
 more  recently  by  Porter,  who  describes  it  at  some 
 
 (I  See  a  curious  calculation  in  Blackstone's  Com- 
 ment, ii.  203,  that  in  the  20th  degree  of  ancestry  every 
 man  has  above  a  million  of  ance.<tors,  and  in  the  40th 
 upwards  of  a  million  millions. 
 
 e  The  theory  of  two  Salathiels,  of  whom  each  had 
 a  son  called  Zerubbabel,  though  adopted  by  Hottinger 
 and  J.  G.  Vossius,  is  scarcely  worth  mentioning,  ex- 
 cept as  a  curiosity. 
 
 /  One  of  the  few  instances  of  our  translators  hav- 
 ing represented  the  Hebrew  Caph  by  c.  Their  com- 
 mon practice  is  to  use  cli  for  it  —  as  indeed  they  have 
 done  on  one  occurrence  of  this  very  name.  [Salch.\h  ; 
 and  compare  0.u,eb  ;  C.\phtor  ;  Carmel  ;  CozBi ; 
 KusH,  etc.] 
 
2788 
 
 SALCHAH 
 
 length  (Five  Yenrs,  ii.  17fi-116).  Its  identifica- 
 tion with  Salcah  appears  to  be  due  to  Gesenius 
 (Burckhardt's  Jieistn,  p.  507). 
 
 Ini mediately  below  Stdkhad  commences  the  plain 
 of  the  great  luiphrates  desert,  which  appears  to 
 stretch  witii  hardly  an  undulation  from  here  to 
 Biisni  on  the  IVrsiai^  Gulf.  The  town  is  of  consid- 
 erable size,  two  tx3  three  miles  in  circumference, 
 surrounding  a  castle  on  a  lofty  isolated  hill,  which 
 rises  300  or  400  feet  above  the  rest  of  the  place 
 (Porter,  pp.  178,  J7'J).  One  of  the  gateways  of  the 
 castle  bears  an  inscription  containing  the  date  of 
 A.  I).  24(j  (180).  A  still  earlier  date,  namely,  A.  D. 
 19G  (Septiniius  Severus),  is  found  oti  a  grave-stone 
 (185).  Other  scanty  particulars  of  its  later  history 
 will  be  found  in  Porter.  The  hill  on  which  the 
 castle  stands  was  jjrobably  at  one  time  a  crater,  and 
 its  sides  are  still  covered  with  volcanic  cinder  and 
 blocks  of  lava.  G. 
 
 *  Mr.  Porter  de-scribes  the  present  condition  of 
 this  city  in  his  Giant  Cides  of  Ba slum,  p.  76  f. 
 Though  long  deserted,  "five  hundred  of  its  houses 
 are  still  standing,  and  from  ."JOO  to  400  families 
 might  settle  in  it  at  any  moment  without  laying  a 
 stone,  or  expending  an  hour's  labor  on  repairs. 
 The  circumference  of  the  town  and  castle  together 
 is  about  three  miles.  The  open  doors,  the  empty 
 houses,  the  rank  grass  and  weeds,  the  long,  strag- 
 gling brambles  in  the  doorways  and  windows, 
 formed  a  strange,  impressive  picture  which  can 
 never  leave  my  memory.  Street  after  street  we 
 tra\  ersed,  the  tread  of  our  horses  awakening  mourn- 
 ful echoes  and  startling  the  foxes  from  their  dens 
 in  the  palaces  of  Salcah.  The  castle  rises  to  the 
 height  of  300  feet,  the  southern  point  of  the  moun- 
 tain range  of  Bashan.  The  view  from  the  top  em- 
 braces the  plain  of  Bashan  stretching  out  on  the 
 west  to  Mermon ;  the  plain  of  Moab  on  the  south, 
 to  the  horizon ;  and  the  plain  of  Arabia  on  the 
 east  beyond  the  range  of  vision.  .  .  .  From  this 
 one  spot  I  saw  upwards  of  30  towns,  all  of  them, 
 so  far  as  I  could  see  with  my  telescope,  habitable 
 like  Salcah,  but  entirely  deserted."  See  the 
 prophet's  reniarkaljle  prediction  of  this  desolation, 
 Jer.  xlviii.  15-29.  H. 
 
 SAL'CHAH  (HD^D:  'EAx5:  Selcha).  The 
 form  in  which  the  name,  elsewhere  more  accu- 
 rately  given    Salcah,  appears  in    Deut.   iii.    10 
 
 only.  The  Tarf/um  Pseiuhjon.  gives  it  S'^pIT  .•D, 
 i.  e.  Selucia;  though  which  Seleucia  they  can  have 
 supposed  was  here  intended  it  is  difficult  to  im- 
 agine. G. 
 
 SA'LEM  {^V^,  i.  e.  Shalem  [whole, perfect] : 
 'S.a.Kript.'  Sidem).  1.  The  place  of  which  Mel- 
 chizedek  was  king  (Gen.  xiv.  18;  Heb.  vii.  1,  2). 
 No  satisfactory  identification  of  it  is  perhaps  possi- 
 ble. The  indications  of  the  narrative  are  not  suffi- 
 cient to  give  any  clew  to  its  position.  It  is  not 
 safe  even  to  infer,  as  some  have  done,"  that  it  lay 
 between  Damascus  and  Sodom ;  for  though  it  is 
 said  that  the  king  of  Sodom  —  who  had  probably* 
 regained  his  own  city  after  the  retreat  of  the  As- 
 syrians—  went  out  to  meet  (nS~ii77)''  A-bram, 
 yet  it  is  also  distinctly  stated  that  this  was  (fter 
 Abram  hcid  returned  (l^^tT  "^"IDS)  from  the 
 slaughter  of  the  kings.     Indeed,  it  is  not  certain 
 
 SALEM 
 
 that  there  is  any  connection  of  time  or  place  bo- 
 tween  Abram's  encounter  with  the  king  of  Sodom 
 and  the  appearance  of  Melchizedek.  Nor,  sup- 
 posing this  last  doubt  to  be  dispelled,  is  any  clew 
 atibrded  by  the  mention  of  the  Valley  of  Sha\eh, 
 since  the  situation  even  of  that  is  mor«  than  un- 
 certain. 
 
 Dr.  WolflT —  no  mean  authority  on  oriental 
 questions  —  in  a  striking  passage  in  his  last  work, 
 implies  that  Salem  was  —  what  the  author  of  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  understood  it  to  be  —  a 
 title,  not  the  name  of  a  ])lace.  "  Melchizedek  of 
 old  .  .  .  had  a  royal  title;  he  was  'King  of 
 Righteousness,'  in  Hebrew  Melchi-zedck.  And  he 
 was  also  '  King  of  Peace,'  At elek- Salem.  And 
 when  Abraham  came  to  his  tent  he  came  forth 
 with  bread  and  wine,  and  was  called  '  the  Priest  of 
 the  Highest,'  and  Abraham  gave  him  a  portion  of 
 his  sjicil.  And  just  so  Wolff's  friend  in  the  desert 
 of  iVleru  in  the  kingdom  of  Khiva  .  .  .  whose 
 name  is  Abd-er-Eahman,  which  means  '  Slave  of 
 the  merciful  God  '  .  .  .  has  also  a  ro3al  title.  He 
 is  called  Shahe-Adaalat,  '  King  of  Kigbteousness  ' 
 —  the  same  as  Meiciiizedek  in  Hebrew.  And  when 
 he  makes  peace  between  kings  he  bears  the  title, 
 Shahe  Soolkh,  '  King  of  Peace  '  — in  Hebrew  -l/e- 
 lek-SidemJ''' 
 
 To  revert,  however,  to  the  topographical  ques- 
 tion; two  main  opinions  have  been  current  Irom 
 tlie  earliest  ages  of  interpretation.  1.  That  of  the 
 .Jewish  commentators,  who  —  from  Onkelos  {Tar- 
 </uin)  and  Josephus  (Z>.  J.  vi.  10;  Ant.  i.  10,  §  2, 
 vii.  3,  §  2)  to  Kalisch  (Coiism.  on  Gen.  p.  360)  — 
 with  one  voice  affirm  tliat  Salem  is  Jerusalem,  on 
 the  ground  that  Jerusalem  is  so  called  in  Ps.  Ixxvi. 
 2,  the  Psalmist,  after  the  manner  of  poets,  or  from 
 some  exigency  of  his  poem,  making  use  of  the  ar- 
 chaic name  in  preference  to  that  in  common  use. 
 This  is  quite  feasible;  but  it  is  no  argument  for 
 the  identity  of  Jerusalem  with  the  Salem  of  Mel- 
 chizedek. See  this  well  put  by  lieland  (Pal.  p. 
 833).  The  ( 'hristians  of  the  4th  century  held  the 
 same  belief  with  the  Jews,  as  is  evident  from  an  ex- 
 pression of  Jerome  ("  nostri  omnes,"  £p.  ad  Evan- 
 (jelum,  §  7). 
 
 2.  Jerome  himself,  however,  is  not  of  the  same 
 opinion.  He  states  (Pp.  ad  Evany.  §  7)  without 
 hesitation,  though  apparently  (as  just  observed) 
 alone  in  his  belief,  that  the  Salem  of  Melchizedek 
 was  not  Jerusalem,  but  a  town  near  Scythopolis, 
 which  in  his  day  was  still  called  Salem,  and  where 
 the  vast  ruins  of  the  palace  of  Melchizedek  were 
 still  to  lie  seen.  Elsewhere  (Onom.  "  Salem  ")  he 
 locates  it  more  precisely  at  eight  Koman  miles  from 
 Scythopolis,  and  gives  its  then  name  as  Salumias. 
 Further,  he  identifies  this  Salem  with  the  Salim 
 (SaXei'ju)  of  St.  John  the  Baptist.  That  a  Salem 
 existed  where  St.  .lerome  thus  places  it  there  need 
 be  no  doubt.  Indeed,  the  name  has  been  recovered 
 at  the  identical  distance  lielow  Beisdn  by  Mr.  Van 
 de  Velde,  at  a  spot  otherwise  suitable  for  ^Enon. 
 But  that  this  Salem,  Salim,  or  Salumias  was  the 
 Salem  of  Melchizedek,  is  as  uncertain  as  that  Jeru- 
 salem was  so.  The  ruins  were  probably  as  much 
 the  ruins  of  Melchizedek's  palace  as  the  remains  at 
 Ramet  el-Kliiitil,  three  miles  north  of  Hebron,  are 
 those  of  "  Abraham's  house."  Nor  is  the  decision 
 assisted  by  a  consideration  of  Abram's  lomeward 
 route.     He  probably  brought  back  his  party   by 
 
 a  For  instance,  Bochart,  Phaleg,  ii.  4  ;  Ewald,  Gesc/i. 
 I,  410. 
 
 b  The  force  of  this  word  is  occurrere  in  obviam.  (Ge- 
 senius, Tkes.  p.  1233  h). 
 
SALEM 
 
 .he  road  along  the  Glior  as  far  as  Jericho,  and  then 
 turning  to  tlie  right  ascended  to  the  upper  level  of 
 the  country  in  the  direction  of  Manne;  but  whether 
 he  crossed  the  Jordan  at  the  Jisr  Bennt  Yakub 
 above  the  Lalie  of  Gennesaret,  or  at  the  Jisr  Me- 
 jamia  below  it,  he  would  equally  pass  by  both  Scy- 
 thopolis  and  Jerusalem.  At  the  same  time  it  must 
 be  confessed  that  the  distance  of  Salem  (at  least 
 eighty  miles  from  the  probable  position  of  Sodom) 
 maives  it  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  king  of  Sodom 
 can  have  advanced  so  far  to  meet  Abram,  adds  its 
 weight  to  the  statement  that  the  meeting  took 
 place  after  Abram  had  returned,  —  not  during  bis 
 return,  —  and  is  thus  so  far  in  favor  of  Salem  being 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 3.  Professor  Ewald  {Gcschichle,  i.  410,  note) 
 pronounces  that  Salem  is  a  town  on  the  further 
 side  of  Jordan,  on  tlie  road  from  Damascus  to 
 Sodom,  quoting  at  the  same  time  John  iii.  23,  but 
 the  writer  has  in  vain  endea\ored  to  discover  any 
 authority  for  this,  or  any  notice  of  the  existence  of 
 the  name  in  that  direction  eitlier  in  former  or  re- 
 cent times. 
 
 4.  A  tradition  given  by  Eupolemus,  a  writer 
 known  only  through  fragments  preserved  in  the 
 Prceparatio  Kvanf/tUca  of  Kuselnus  (ix.  17),  dif- 
 fers in  some  Important  points  from  the  Biblical 
 account.  According  to  this  the  meeting  took 
 place  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  city  Argarizin,  which 
 is  interpreted  by  Eupolemus  to  mean  '•  the  Moun- 
 tain of  the  Most  "  High."  Argarizin  *  is  of 
 course  har  Gerizzi.m,  Mount  Gerizim.  'I'he 
 source  of  the  tradition  is,  therefore,  probably  Sa- 
 maritan, since  the  encounter  of  Abram  and  Mel- 
 cliizedek  is  one  of  the  events  to  which  the  Samari- 
 tans lay  claim  for  Mount  Gerizim.  But  it  may 
 also  proceed  I'rom  the  identification  of  Salem  with 
 Shechem,  which  lying  at  tlie  foot  of  Gerizim  would 
 easily  be  confounded  with  the  mountain  itself. 
 [See  Shaleji.] 
 
 5.  A  Salem  is  mentioned  in  Judith  iv.  4,  among 
 the  places  which  were  seized  and  fortified  by  the 
 Jews  on  the  approach  of  Holofernes.  "  The  valley 
 of  Salem,"  as  it  appears  in  the  A.  V.  (Thv  av\a>va 
 2aA77;u.),  is  possibly,  as  Keland  has  ingeniously 
 suggested  {Pal.  •'  Salem."  p.  977),  a  corruption  of 
 eis  avXuva  els  SaAiii^  —  "  into  the  lilain  to  Sa- 
 lem." If  Av\d)v  is  Iiere,  according  to  frequent 
 usage,  the  Jordan  '^  Valley,  then  the  Salem  referretl 
 to  must  surely  be  that  mentioned  by  Jerome,  and 
 already  noticed  But  in  this  passage  it  may  be 
 with  equal  probability  the  broad  plain  of  the 
 Mukliiia  which  stretches  from  Ebal  and  Gerizim 
 on  the  one  hand,  to  the  hills  on  which  Snlim  stands 
 on  the  other,  wliicli  is  said  to  be  still  called  the 
 "plain  of  Salini"<^  (I'orter,  [[andhuok,  p.  340  n), 
 and  through  which  runs  the  central  north  road  of 
 ^he  country.     Or,  as  is  perhaiis  still  more  likely,  it 
 
 SALEM 
 
 2789 
 
 a  Professor  Stanley  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to 
 call  attention  to  this  (6'.  !f  P.  p.  249).  See  Eapolemi 
 Fragmenta,  auctore  O.  A.  Kuhlmey  (Berlin,  1840)  ; 
 one  of  those  excellent  monographs  which  we  owe  to 
 the  German  academical  custom  of  demanding  a  trea- 
 tise at  each  step  in  honors. 
 
 b  Pliny  uses  nearly  tlie  same  form  —  Argaris  ( H. 
 y.  V.  14). 
 
 e  Xv\(uv  is  commonly  employed  in  Palestine  topog- 
 raphy for  the  great  valley  of  the  Jordan  (see  Eusebius 
 md  Jerome,  Oiioinaftico?),  "  Anion  ").  But  in  the 
 Book  of  Judith  it  is  used  with  much  less  precision  in 
 the  general  sense  of  a  valley  or  plain. 
 
 (I  The  wi'iter  could  not  succeed  (in  1861)  in  eliciting 
 
 refers  to  another  Sidim  near  Zerin  (Jezreel),  and  to 
 the  plain  which  runs  up  between  those  two  places, 
 as  far  as  Jeirin,  and  which  lay  directly  in  the  route 
 of  the  Assyrian  army.  There  is  nothing  to  show 
 that  the  invaders  reached  as  far  into  the  interior  of 
 the  country  as  the  plain  of  the  Mukhna.  And  the 
 other  places  enumerated  in  the  verse  seem,  as  far  as 
 they  can  be  recognized,  to  be  points  which  guarded 
 the  main  approaches  to  the  interior  (one  of  the 
 chief  of  which  was  by  Jezreel  and  En-gannim),  not 
 towns  in  the  interior  itself,  like  Shechem  or  the 
 Salem  near  it. 
 
 2.  (D.;-tt7  :  gV  dpifvri-  in  pace*^),  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2. 
 It  seems  to  be  agreed  on  all  hands  that  Salem  is 
 here  employed  for  Jerusalem,  but  whetlier  as  a 
 mere  abbreviation  to  suit  some  exigency  of  the 
 poetry,  and  point  the  allusion  to  the  peace  (snkm) 
 which  the  city  enjoyed  through  the  pi'otection  of 
 God,  or  whether,  after  a  well-known  habit  of  poets/" 
 it  is  an  antique  name  preferred  to  the  more  modern 
 and  familiar  one,  is  a  question  not  yet  decided. 
 The  latter  is  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  commen- 
 tators, Imt  it  is  grounded  on  their  belief  that  the 
 Salem  of  Melchizedek  was  the  city  which  after- 
 wards became  Jerusalem.  This  is  to  iieg  the 
 question.  See  a  remarkable  passage  in  Geiger's 
 UrscliriJ't,  etc.,  pp.  74-76. 
 
 The  antithesis  in  verse  1  between  "Judah"  and 
 "  Israel  "  would  seem  to  imply  that  some  sacred 
 place  in  the  northern  kingdom  is  being  contrasted 
 with  Zion,  the  sanctuary  of  the  south.  And  if 
 there  were  in  the  Bible  any  sanction  to  the  identifi- 
 cation of  Salem  with  IShechem  (noticed  above),  the 
 passage  might  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  con- 
 tinued relation  of  (iod  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
 But  there  are  no  materials  even  for  a  conjecture 
 on  the  point.  Zion  the  sanctuary,  however,  being 
 named  in  the  one  member  of  the  verse,  it  is  toler- 
 ably certain  that  Salem,  if  Jerusalem,. must  denote 
 the  secular  part  of  the  city  —  a  distinction  which 
 has  lieen  already  noticed  [vol.  ii.  p.  1321]  as  fre- 
 quently occumng  and  implied  in  the  Psalms  and 
 Prophecies.  G. 
 
 *  In  the  passage  quoted  above,  "  In  Judah  is 
 God  known,  his  name  is  great  in  Israel,"  we  recog- 
 nize not  "  antithesis  "  but  the  synonymous  parallel- 
 isni  of  Hebrew  poetry  —  each  term  being  generic 
 and  designating  the  whole  nation,  as  in  Ps.  cxiv. 
 2  — "  Judah  was  his  sanctuary,  and  Israel  his 
 dominion  "  —  where  the  words  will  bear  no  other 
 construction.  In  the  next  verse —  "In  Salem  also 
 is  his  tabernacle,  and  his  dwelling-place  in  Zion  "  — 
 we  understand  the  names  as  also  cognate,  not  "  con- 
 trasted," each  indicating  the  Holy  City  as  the 
 special  seat  of  divine  worship.  We  are  not  able 
 to  trace  in  the  sacred  writings,  referred  to  above, 
 any  clear  distinction  between  the  secular  Jerusalem 
 
 this  name  for  any  part  of  the  plain.  The  name,  given 
 in  answer  to  repeated  questions,  for  the  eastern  branch 
 or  leg  of  the  Mukhna  was  always  Waft)/  Srijiia. 
 
 «  The  above  is  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate  and  of 
 the  "  Gallican  Psalter."  But  in  the  Liber  Psalmnrum 
 juxta  Hebraicam  verilatefii ,  in  the  Divina  Bihliolheca 
 included  in  tlie  Benedictine  edition  of  Jerome's  works, 
 tlie  reading  is  Salem. 
 
 f  The  Arab  poets  are  said  to  use  the  same  abbre 
 viation  (Geseuius,  The^.  p  1422  b).  The  preference 
 of  an  archaic .  to  a  modern  name  will  surprise  no 
 student  of  poetry.  Few  things  are  of  more  constant 
 occurrence. 
 
2790  SALIM       . 
 
 and  the  sacred  Zioii,  but  find  the  phrases  used  in- 
 terchangeably, each  sometimes  witli  a  secular  refer- 
 ence, and  each  sometimes  in  a  spiritual  relation. 
 
 S.  \V. 
 
 SA'LIM  (2aA€i;u;  Alex.  SaAAei/i:  S<ilim). 
 A  place  named  (.lohn  iii.  23)  to  denote  the  situa- 
 tion of  ^Enon,  the  scene  of  St.  John's  last  bap- 
 tisms —  Salim  beiiiij  the  well-known  town  or  spot, 
 and  yEnon  a  place  of  fountains,  or  other  water, 
 near  it.  There  is  no  statement  in  the  narrative 
 itself  fixing  the  situation  of  Salim,  and  the  only 
 direct  testimony  we  possess  is  that  of  Eusebius  and 
 Jerome,  who  both  afiirm  unhesitatingly  ( Onoiii. 
 "yEnon'')  that  it  existed  in  their  day  near  the 
 Jordan,  eight  Eonian  miles  south  of  Scythopolis. 
 Jerome  adds  (under  "Salem"')  that  its  name  was 
 then  Salumias.  Elsewhere  {Kp-  nd  Evanc/elum, 
 §§  7,  8)  he  states  that  it  was  identical  with  the 
 Salem  of  JMelchizedek. 
 
 Various  attempts  have  been  more  recently  made 
 to  determine  the  locality  of  this  interesting  spot. 
 
 1.  Some  (as  Alford,  Greek  Test,  ad  loc.)  pro- 
 pose SiiiLiiiM  and  AiN,  in  the  arid  country  far 
 in  the  south  of  Judaea,  entirely  out  of  the  circle 
 of  associations  of  St.  John  or  our  Lord.  Others 
 identify  it  with  the  Siialim  of  1  Sam.  ix.  4,  but 
 this  latter  place  is  itself  unknown,  and  the  name 
 
 in  Hebrew  contains  "3,  to  correspond  with  which 
 the  name  in   St.   John    should    be   ^cyaKeifj.  or 
 
 2.  Dr.  JRobinson  suggests  the  modern  village  of 
 S'llim,  three  miles  E.  of  N/iblus  {Bihl.  lias.  iii. 
 3-').'i),  but  this  is  no  less  out  of  the  circle  of  St. 
 John's  miiiistrations,  and  is  too  near  the  Samari- 
 tans; and  altliough  there  is  some  reason  to  believe 
 that  the  village  contains  "  two  sources  of  living 
 water"  {ibhh  208),  yet  this  is  hardly  sufficient  for 
 the  abundani'e  of  deep  water  implied  in  the  narra- 
 tive. A  writer  in  the  Colonial  Clt.  Cliron.,  No. 
 cxxvi.  4G-i,  who  concurs  in  this  opinion  of  Dr. 
 Kobinson,  was  told  of  a  village  an  hour  east  (?)  of 
 Salim  '-named  Ain-un,  with  a  copious  stream  of 
 water."  The  district  east  of  Salim  is  a  blank 
 in  the  maps.  Yanun  lies  about  li  hour  S.  E. 
 of  Salim,  but  this  can  hardly  be  the  place  in- 
 tended ;  and  in  the  descri[)tion  of  Van  de  Velde, 
 who  \isited  it  (ii.  303),  no  stream  or  spring  is 
 mentioned. 
 
 3.  Dr.  Barclay  {City,  etc.,  p.  5G4)  is  filled  with 
 an  "assured  conviction  "  that  Salim  is  to  be  found 
 in  Wddij  Selciin,  and  yEnon  in  the  copious  springs 
 of  Ain  Ftiriih  (ibid.  p.  559),  among  the  deep  and 
 intricate  ravines  some  five  miles  N.  E.  of  Jerusalem. 
 This  certainly  has  the  name  in  its  favor,  and,  if 
 the  glowing  description  and  pictorial  wood-cut  of 
 Dr.  Barclay  may  be  trusted  —  has  water  enough, 
 and  of  sufficient  deptli  for  the  purpose. 
 
 4.  The  name  of  Salirn  has  been  lately  discov- 
 ered by  jMr.  Van  de  Velde  (Si/r.  ip  Pal.  ii.  34.'), 
 34G)  in  a  position  exactly  in  accordance  with  the 
 notice  of  Eusebius,  namely,  six  luiglish  miles  south 
 of  Beimn,  and  two  miles  west  of  the  Jordan.  On 
 the  northern  base  of  Tell  Redf/hah  is  a  site  of 
 ruins,  and  near  it  a  Mussulman  tomb,  which  is  called 
 l)y  the  Arabs  SheylJi  Sidiiu  (see  also  .]feimiir,  p. 
 345).  Dr.  Kobinson  (iii.  3;;3)  complains  that  the 
 name  is  attached  only  to  a  ^Mussulman  sanctuary, 
 and  also  that  no  ruins  of  any  extent  are  to  be 
 found  on  the  spot;  but  with  regard  to  the  first 
 objection,  even  Dr.  Robinson  does  not  dispute  that 
 the  name  is  there,  and  that  the  locality  is  in  tlie 
 
 SALMA 
 
 closest  agreement  vi'ith  the  notice  of  Eusebius. 
 As  to  the  second  it  is  only  necessarj-  to  pohit  to 
 Kefr-Sdba,  where  a  town  (Antipatris),  which  so 
 late  as  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 was  of  great  size  and  extensively  fortified,  has 
 absolutely  disajjjteared.  The  career  of  St.  John 
 has  been  examined  in  a  former  part  of  this  work, 
 and  it  has  been  shown  with  great  prob^ibility  that 
 his  progress  was  from  south  to  north,  and  that  the 
 scene  of  his  last  baptisms  was  not  far  distant  from 
 the  spot  indicated  by  Eusebius,  and  now  recovered 
 by  Mr.  Van  de  Velde.  [Jordan,  vol.  ii.  p.  1457.] 
 tiidim  fulfills  also  the  conditions  implied  in  the 
 name  of  vEnon  (springs),  and  the  direct  statement 
 of  the  text,  that  the  place  contained  abundance 
 of  water.  "  The  brook  of  Wady  Cliusneli  runs 
 close  to  it,  a  splendid  fountain  gushes  out  beside 
 the  Wely,  and  rivulets  wind  about  in  all  directions. 
 .  .  .  .  Of  few  places  in  Palestine  could  it 
 so  truly  be  said,  '  Here  is  much  water'  "  {Syr.  cf 
 Pal.  ii.  346).      [JiNON,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 A  tradition  is  mentioned  by  Keland  {Palcestina, 
 p.  978)  that  Salim  was  the  native  place  of  Simon 
 Zelotes.  This  in  itself  seems  to  imply  that  its  posi- 
 tion was,  at  the  date  of  the  tradition,  believed  to 
 be  nearer  to  (ialilee  than  to  Juda;a.  G. 
 
 SAL'LAI  [2  syl.]  C^vD,  in  pause  '^;  p  [i»rh. 
 basket-maker,  Ges.] :  SrjAi';  [Vat  FA.,  though 
 not  properly  separated  from  preceding  word,]  Alex. 
 2??A€t:  Sellai).  1.  A  Benjamite,  who  with  928 
 of  his  tribe  settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity 
 (Neh.  xi.  8). 
 
 2.  (SaAoj:  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit;  FA.3  2aA- 
 Aai'.] )  The  head  of  one  of  the  courses  of  priests 
 who  went  up  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh. 
 xii.  20).     In  Neh.  xii.  7  he  is  called  Sai.uj. 
 
 SAL'LU  (V^P  [weighed]:  ^a\d!iu,  2j?Ac6; 
 Alex.  SaAo)  in  1  Chr. :  Sido,  Selhim).  1.  The 
 son  of  JlesluiUam,  a  Benjamite  wlio  returned  and 
 settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity  (1  Chr.  ix. 
 7;  Neh.  xi.  7). 
 
 2.  (Oni.  in  Vat.  MS.;  [also  in  Rom.,  Alex., 
 FA.i;  F.\.»]  2a\ovai;  [Comp.  SaAov:]  Sellum.) 
 The  head  of  one  of  the  courses  of  priests  who  re- 
 turned with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  7).  Called  also 
 Sallai. 
 
 SALLU'MUS  (SaAoS/xos;  [Vat.  Aid.]  Alex. 
 taKKovixos'  Saluimis).  Shallum  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
 25;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  24). 
 
 or  pX^/tt?  [clothed,  a  r/nrmenf,  Ges.]:  [in  Ruth] 
 "ZaKfitlov  [Vat.  'S.a.Xfj.av'];  [in  1  Chr.  ii.  11,]  Alex. 
 'S.aKfj.av,  but  'S.aXoifx.wv  both  JISS.  in  L'uth  iv. 
 [rather  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54:  in  N.  T.,  2aA^cij/] : 
 Salmon  [in  Ruth  and  N.  T.,  Salmn  in  1  Chr.]). 
 Son  of  Nahshon,  the  i)rince  of  the  children  of 
 Judah,  and  father  of  Boaz,  the  husband  of  Ruth. 
 Salmon's  age  is  distinctly  marked  by  that  of  his 
 father  Nahshon,  and  witii  this  agrees  the  statement 
 in  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54,  that  he  was  of  the  sons  of 
 Caleb,  and  the  fotber,  or  head  man  of  Bethlehem- 
 Ephratah,  a  town  which  seems  to  have  been  within 
 the  territory  of  Caleb  (1  Chr.  ii.  50,  51).  [Eph- 
 ratah;  BetiilkhkjM.]  On  the  entrance  of  the 
 Israelites  into  Canaan,  Salmon  took  Rahab  of  Jeri- 
 cho to  be  his  wife,  and  from  this  union  sprang  the 
 Christ.  [Rahab  ]  From  the  circumstance  of  Sal- 
 mon having  lived  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  o*" 
 Canaan,  as  well  as  from  his  being  the  first  pro- 
 
SALMANASAR 
 
 prietor  of  Bethlehem,  where  his  family  continued  so 
 many  centuries,  perhaps  till  the  reign  of  Domitian 
 (Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.  ii.  20),  he  may  be  called  the 
 founder  of  the  house  of  David.  Besides  Beth- 
 lehem, the  Netophathites,  the  house  of  .loab,  the 
 Zorites,  and  several  other  families,  looked  to  Sal- 
 mon as  their  head  (1  Chr.  ii.  54,  .55). 
 
 Two  circumstances  connecteil  with  Salmon  have 
 caused  some  ])erplexity:  one,  the  \ariation  in  the 
 orthography  of  his  name,  the  other,  an  apparent 
 variation  in  his  genealogy. 
 
 As  regards  the  first,  the  variation  in  proper 
 names  (whether  caused  by  the  fluctuations  of  copy- 
 ists, or  whether  they  existed  in  practice,  and  were 
 favored  liy  the  significance  of  the  names),  is  so 
 extremely  coranion,  that  such  slight  differences  as 
 those  in  the  three  forms  of  this  name  are  scarcely 
 worth  noticing.  Compare  e.  g.  the  different  forms 
 of  the  name  Shiiiinii,  the  son  of  Jesse,  in  1  Sam. 
 xvi.  9 :  2  Sam.  xiii.  .3 ;  1  Chr.  ii.  1-3 :  or  of  Simon 
 Peter,  in  Luke  v.  4,  &c. ;  Acts  xv.  14.  See  other 
 examples  in  Hervey's  Genml.  of  our  Lord,  cc.  vi. 
 and  X.  Moreover,  in  this  case,  the  variation  from 
 Salnui  to  Salmon  takes  place  in  two  consecuti\e 
 verses,  namely,  KuJ,h  iv.  20,  21,  where  the  notion 
 of  two  different  persons  being  meant,  though  in 
 some  degree  sanctioned  l)y  the  authority  of  Dr. 
 Kennicott  {Dissert,  i.  184,  543),  is  not  worth  re- 
 futing." As  regards  the  Salma  of  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54, 
 his  connection  with  Bethlehem  identifies  him  with 
 the  son  of  Nahshon,  and  the  change  of  the  final 
 
 n  into  M  belongs  doubtless  to  the  late  date  of  the 
 book  of  Chronicles.  The  name  is  so  written  also 
 in  1  Chr.  ii.  11.  But  the  truth  is  that  the  sole 
 reason  for  endeavoring  to  make  two  persons  cut  of 
 Salma  and  Salmon,  is  the  wish  to  lengthen  the 
 line  between  Salma  and  David,  in  order  to  meet  the 
 false  chronology  of  those  times. 
 
 The  variation  in  Salma's  genealogy,  which  has 
 induced  some  to  think  that  the  Salma  of  1  Chr.  ii. 
 51,  54  is  a  different  person  from  the  Salma  of  1 
 Chr.  ii.  11,  is  more  apparent  than  real.  It  arises 
 from  the  circumstance  that  Bethlehem  Ephratab, 
 wiiich  was  Salmon's  inheritance,  was  part  of  the 
 territory  of  Caleb,  the  grandson  of  I'^phratah;  and 
 this  caused  him  to  be  reckoned  among  the  sons  of 
 Caleb.  But  it  is  a  complete  misunderstanding  of 
 the  language  of  such  topographical  genealogies  to 
 suppose  that  it  is  meant  to  be  asserted  that  Salma 
 was  the  literal  son  of  Caleb.  Mention  is  made  of 
 Salma  only  in  Ruth  iv.  20,  21;  1  Chr.  ii.  11,  51, 
 54;  Matt.  i.  4,  5;  Luke  iii.  32.  'J'he  questions 
 of  his  age  and  identity  are  discussed  in  the  Genetd. 
 of  our  Lord,  cc.  iv.  and  ix. ;  Jackson,  Citron. 
 Antiq.  i.  171;  Hales,  Analysis,  iii.  44;  Burring- 
 ton,  Generd.  i.  180;  Dr.  .Mill,  Vindic.  of  our  Lord's 
 Geneid.  p.  123,  &c.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SALMANA'SAR (.s>/wfinr(5c»-).  Shalman- 
 KSKi!,  king  of  Assyria  (2  Esdr.  xiii.  40). 
 
 SAL'MON  (]'l'2b:g  \_shady,  Ges.;  perh.  ter- 
 
 "  Eusebius  (Chroii.  Canon,  lib.  i.  22)  hag  no  mis- 
 giving as  to  the  identity  of  Salma. 
 
 //  See  a  work  by  Reuss,  Der  acht  unti  sechzigste  Psalin, 
 ein  Denlnnal  exegelisriier  Nnfh  unil  Kunst.  zu  Ehren 
 miser  ganzen  Ziinfl.  Jena,  1851.  Independently  of  its 
 oiany  obscure  allusions,  the  C8th  Psalm  contains  thir- 
 teen airaf  Aeyofteca,  including  J  ^Ul'I^.  It  may  be 
 observed  that  this  word  is  scarcely,  as  Gesenius  sug- 
 feeta,  aualo°-ous  to  ]'*37n,   C^IKH,   Hiphils   of 
 
 SALMON  2791 
 
 race-like,  Fiirst] :  2,e\fj.aji/;  [Vat.  Alex.  £p^a;j/:] 
 Salmon,  Judg.  ix.  48).  The  name  of  a  hill  near 
 Shechem,  on  which  Abimelech  and  his  followers 
 cut  down  the  boughs  with  which  they  set  the 
 tower  of  Shechem  on  fire.  Its  exact  position  is 
 not  known. 
 
 It  is  usually  supposed  that  this  hill  is  mentioned 
 in  a  verse  of  perhaps  the  most  difficult  of  all  the 
 Psalms''  (Ps.  Ixviii.  14);  and  this  isi  probable, 
 though  the  passage  is  peculiarly  difficult,  and  the 
 precise  allusion  intended  by  the  poet  seems  hope- 
 lessly lost.  Commentators  differ  from  each  other; 
 and  Fiirst,  within  170  pages  of  his  llandworter- 
 
 buch,  diflfers  from  himself  (see  37K7  and  'J1D /^). 
 Indeed,  of  six  distinguished  modern  commentators 
 —  De  Wette,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Hengstenlierg,  De- 
 litzsch,  and  Hupfeld  —  no  two  give  distinctly  the 
 same  meaning;  and  Mr.  Keble,  in  his  admirable 
 Version  of  the  Psalms,  gives  a  translation  which, 
 though  poetical,  as  was  to  be  expected,  differs  from 
 any  one  of  those  suggested  by  tiiese  six  scholars. 
 This  is  not  the  place  for  an  exhaustive  examina- 
 tion of  the  passage.  It  may  be  mentioned,  how- 
 e\er,    that    the    literal    translation    of   the   words 
 
 I'lnb^a  2/tt.''ri  is  "  Thou  makest  it  snow,"  or 
 "  It  snows,"  with  liberty  to  use  the  word  either  in 
 the  past  or  in  the  future  tense.  As  notwithstand- 
 ing ingenious  attempts,  this  supplies  no  satisfactory 
 meaning,  recourse  is  had  to  a  translation  of  doubt- 
 ful validity,  "  I'hou  makest  it  white  as  snow,"  or 
 "  It  is  white  as  snow"  —  words  to  which  various 
 metaphorical  meanings  have  lieeu  attriljuted.  The 
 allusion  which,  through  the  I.,exicon  of  Gesenius,  is 
 most  generally  received,  is  th;it  the  words  refer  to 
 the  ground  being  snow-white  with  bones  after  a 
 defeat  of  the  Canaanite  kings;  and  this  may  be 
 accepted  by  those  who  will  admit  the  scarcely  per- 
 missible meaning,  "white  as  snow,"  and  who  can- 
 not rest  satisfied  without  attaching  some  definite 
 signification  to  the  passage.  At  the  same  time  it 
 is  to.be  remembered  that  the  figure  is  a  very  harsh 
 one;  and  that  it  is  not  really  justified  liy  passages 
 quoted  in  illustration  of  it  from  Latin  classical 
 writers,  such  as,  "  campique  ingentcs  ossibus  al- 
 bent "  (Virg.  ^i"«.  xii.  3t)),  and  "  humanis  ossibus 
 albet  humus"  (Ovid,  Fast.  i.  558),  for  in  these 
 cases  the  word  "bones"  is  actually  used  in  the 
 text,  and  is  not  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  imagina- 
 tion. Granted,  however,  that  an  allusion  is  made 
 to  bones  of  the  slain,  there  is  a  divergence  of 
 opinion  as  to  whether  Salmon  was  mentioned  sim- 
 ply because  it  had  been  the  battle-ground  in  some 
 great  defeat  of  the  Canaanitish  kings,  or  whether 
 it  is  only  introduced  as  an  linage  of  snowy  white- 
 ness. And  of  these  two  explanations,  tiie  first 
 would  be  on  the  whole  most  probable;  for  Salmon 
 cannot  have  been  a  very  high  mountain,  as  the 
 highest  mountains  near  Shechem  are  Ebal  and 
 Gerizim,  and  of  these  Ebal,  the  highest  of  the 
 two,  is  only  1,028  feet  higher  than  the  city  (see 
 
 color  ;  for  these  words  have  a  signification  of  color  in 
 Kal.  The  really  analogous  word  is  "l^tppi^,  "  he 
 makes  it  rain,"   which   bears    the    same    relation  to 
 
 n!3^,  "rain,"   which     3'^brr'n     bears   to     2^^% 
 T    T '  •    :      •  V   V  ' 
 
 "  snow."  Owing,  probably,  to  Hebrew  religious  con- 
 ceptions of  natural  phenomena,  no  instance  occurs  of 
 
 "l^t^^n  used  as  a  neuter  in  the  sense  of  "  it  rains  |  " 
 though  this  would  be  granniuitically  admissible. 
 
2792  SALMON 
 
 Ebal,  vol.  i.  p.  640;  and  Robinson's  Gesenius,  p. 
 895  a).  If  the  jwet  had  desired  to  use  the  image 
 of  a  snowy  mountain,  it  would  have  lieen  more 
 natural  to  select  Hermon,  which  is  visible  from  the 
 eastern  brow  of  Gerizim,  is  aljout  10,000  feet  hi£;h, 
 and  is  covered  with  peqietual  snow.  Still  it  is  not 
 meant  tliat  this  circumstance  by  itself  would  be 
 conclusive;  lor  tliere  may  have  been  particular  asso- 
 ciations in  the  mind  of  the  poet,  unknown  to  us, 
 which  led  him  to  prefer  Salmon. 
 
 In  despair  of  understanding  the  allusion  to  Sal- 
 mon, some  suppose  that  Salmon,  i.  e.  Tsalmon,  is 
 not  a  proper  name  in  this  passage,  but  merely  sig- 
 nifies "darkness;"  and  this  interpretation,  sup- 
 ported by  the  Targuni,  though  opposed  to  the 
 Septuagint,  lias  been  adopted  by  Ewald,  and  in 
 the  first  statement  in  his  Lexicon  is  admitted  by 
 Fiirst.  Since  tsetein  signifies  "  shade,"  this  is  a 
 bare  etymological  possibility.  But  no  such  word 
 as  tsalmon  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
 guage; while  tliere  are  sevei'al  other  words  for 
 darkness,  in  dlHerent  degrees  of  meaning,  such  as 
 the  ordinary  word  c/iosliek,  opiiel,  (iphelah,  and 
 'arapliel. 
 
 Unless  the  passage  is  given  up  as  corrupt,  it 
 Beenis  more  in  accordance  with  reason  to  admit 
 that  there  was  some  allusion  present  to  the  poefs 
 mind,  the  key  to  wliich  is  now  lost;  and  tliis  ought 
 not  to  surprise  any  scholar  who  reflects  how  many 
 allusions  there  are  in  Greek  poets  —  in  Pindar,  for 
 example,  and  in  Aristophanes  —  which  would  be 
 wholly  unintelligible  to  us  now,  were  it  not  for  the 
 notes  of  Greek  scholiasts.  To  these  notes  there  is 
 nothing  exactly  analogous  in  Hebrew  literature; 
 and  in  the  absence  of  some  such  assistance,  it  is 
 unavoidable  that  there  should  be  se^eral  passages 
 in  the  0.  T.  respecting  the  meaning  of  which  we 
 must  be  content  to  remain  ignorant.  E.  T. 
 
 SAL'MON  the  fother  of  Boaz  (Ruth  iv.  20, 
 21;  Matt.  i.  4,  5;  Luke  iii.  32).      [Saljia.] 
 
 SALMO'NB  CS.a.KiJ.divr]-  Snlmovt).  The 
 East  point  of  the  island  of  Chete.  In  the  ac- 
 count of  St.  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  this  promon- 
 tory is  mentioned  in  such  a  way  (Acts  xxvii.  7)  as 
 to  aflwrd  a  curious  illustration  both  of  the  naviga- 
 tion of  the  ancients  and  of  the  minute  accuracy  of 
 St.  Luke's  narrative.  We  gather  from  other  cir- 
 cumstances of  the  voyage  that  the  wind  was  blow- 
 ing from  the  N.  W.  (eVavrious,  ver.  4;  /8pa5u- 
 7rAooCi/T6s,  ver.  7).  [See  JIyra.]  We  are  then 
 told  that  the  shi]),  on  making  Cnidl's,  could  not, 
 by  reason  of  the  wind,  hold  on  her  course,  which 
 was  past  the  south  point  of  Greece,  W.  by  S. 
 She  did,  however,  just  fetch  Cape  Salnione,  which 
 bears  S.  W.  by  S.  from  (nidus.  Now  we  may 
 take  it  for  granted  that  she  could  have  made  good 
 a  course  of  less  than  seven  points  from  the  wind 
 [Ship]  :  and,  starting  from  this  assumption,  we 
 are  at  once  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the  wind 
 must  have  been  between  N.  N.  W.  and  A\".  N.  \\ . 
 Thus  what  Paley  would  have  called  an  "unde- 
 signed coincidence  "  is  elicited  by  a  cross-examina- 
 tion of  the  narrative.  This  ingenious  argument  is 
 due  to  Mr.'  Smith  of  Jordanhill  {Voy.  and  Sliip- 
 vn-eclc  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  73,  74,  2d  ed.),  and  from 
 him  it  is  quoted  by  C'onybeare  and  Howson  (A//e 
 and  Epp.  of  Si.  Paul,  ii.  393,  2d  ed.).  To  these 
 books  we  must  refer  for  fuller  details.     We  may 
 
 a  According  to  one  account  she  was  the  daughter 
 of   Joseph   by   a   former   marriage   (Epiphan.    Har. 
 
 SALOME 
 
 just  add  that  the  ship  had  had  the  advantages  of 
 a  weather  shore,  smooth  water,  and  a  favoring  cur- 
 rent, before  reaching  Cnidus,  and  that  by  running 
 down  to  Cape  Salnione  the  sailors  obtained  similar 
 advantages  under  the  lee  of  Crete,  as  far  as  Faik 
 Havens,  near  Las.ea.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 *  The  northeast  point  of  ('rete  is  the  present 
 Cape  Sidero,  and  has  generally  leen  supposed  (as 
 above)  to  be  Luke's  Salnione.  Captain  Spratt, 
 R.  N.,  dissents  from  this  opinion  {Travels  and  Re- 
 searches in  Crete,  Loud.  18G5).  He  admits  that 
 the  ancient  writers,  generally  at  least,  applied  the 
 name  to  that  Cape,  but  thinks  tliat  Lnke  refers  to 
 the  promontory — jutting  out  toward  the  east 
 some  miles  to  the  south  of  Cape  Sidero,  and  called 
 Plaka.  His  reasons  for  this  conclusion  in  the 
 case  of  Luke  are,  frst,  '•  that  Cape  Sidero  is,  in 
 truth,  not  the  headland  or  point  his  ship  would 
 keep  nearest  to  in  coming  from  Cnidus;  and,  sec- 
 ondly,  that  this  promontory  south  of  Grandes  Bay, 
 called  Plaka  by  the  natives,  is  indeed  now  by  some 
 Levantine  navigators  called  Cape  Salnione,  to  dis- 
 tinguish it  from  Cape  Sidero."  Purdy  {Neio 
 Sailing  Directions,  etc.,  p.  69,  Lond.  1834)  writes 
 the  name  Salomon,  but  must  refer,  of  course,  to 
 the  same  jilace.  H. 
 
 SA'LOM  (2aA&;^:  Salom).  The  Greek  form 
 1.  of  Shallum,  the  father  of  Ililkiah  (Bar.  i.  7). 
 [SiiALLUJi.]  2.  (Sidvmu.-i)  of  Salu  the  father  of 
 Zimri  (1  Mace.  ii.  20).      [Salu.J 
 
 SALO'ME  (SaAci^r;  [Heb.  peaceful]:  Sa- 
 lome). 1.  The  wife  of  Zebedee,  as  appears  from 
 comparing  Matt,  xxvii.  56  with  Mark  xv.  40.  It  is 
 further  the  opinion  of  many  modern  critics  that  she 
 was  the  sister  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  to  whom 
 reference  is  made  in  John  xix.  25.  The  words  ad- 
 mit, however,  of  another  and  hitherto  generally 
 received  explanation,  according  to  which  they  refer 
 to  the  "Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas  "  immediately 
 afterwards  mentioned.  In  behalf  of  the  former 
 view,  it  may  be  urged  that  it  gets  rid  of  the  diffi- 
 culty arising  out  of  two  sisters  having  the  same 
 name  — that  it  harmonizes  John's  narrati\e  with 
 those  of  Matthew  and  Mark  —  that  this  circuitous 
 manner  of  describing  his  own  mother  is  in  char- 
 acter with  St.  John's  manner  of  describing  him- 
 self—  that  the  absence  of  any  connecting  link 
 between  the  second  and  third  designations  may  be 
 accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  the  four  are 
 arranged  in  two  distinct  couplets  —  and,  lastly, 
 that  the  Peshito,  the  Persian,  and  the  iEthiopic 
 versions  mark  the  distinction  between  the  second 
 and  third  by  interpolating  a  conjunction.  On  the 
 other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  the  difficulty 
 arising  out  of  the  name  may  be  disposed  of  by 
 assuming  a  double  marriage  on  the  part  of  the 
 father  —  that  there  is  no  necessity  to  harmonize 
 John  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  for  that  the  time 
 and  the  place  in  which  the  groups  are  noticed  dif- 
 fer materially  —  that  the  language  addressed  to 
 John,  "Behold  thy  mother!  "  favors  the  idea  of 
 tlie  absence  rather  than  of  the  presence  of  his  nat- 
 ural mother  —  and  that  the  varying  traditions " 
 current  in  the  early  Church  as  to  Salome's  parents, 
 worthless  as  they  are  in  themselves,  yet  bear  a 
 negative  testimony  against  the  idea  of  her  being 
 related  to  the  mother  of  Jesus.  Altogether  we 
 can  hardly  regard  the  point  as  settled,  though  the 
 
 Ixxviii.  8) :  according  to  another,  the  wife  of  .loseph 
 (Niceph.  H.  E.  ii.  3). 
 
SALT 
 
 weight  of  modern  criticism  is  decidedly  in  favor  of 
 tlie  former  view  (see  Wieseler,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1840, 
 p.  648).  Tlie  only  events  recorded  of  Salome  are 
 that  she  preferred  a  request  on  hehalf  of  her  two 
 sons  for  seats  of  honor  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
 (Matt.  XX.  20),  that  she  attended  at  the  crucifixion 
 of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  40),  and  that  she  visited  his 
 sepulchre  (Mark  xvi.  1).  She  is  mentioned  by 
 name  only  on  the  two  latter  occasions. 
 
 2.  The  daughter  of  Herodias  by  her  first  hus- 
 l\and,  Herod  Philip  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  4). 
 She  is  the  "  daughter  of  Herodias"  noticed  in  Matt. 
 xiv.  6  as  dancing  befoi-e  Herod  Antipas,  and  as 
 procuring  at  her  mother's  instigation  the  death  of 
 John  the  Baptist.  She  married  in  the  first  place 
 Philip  the  tetrarch  of  Trachonitis,  her  paternal 
 uncle,  and  secondly  Aristobulus,  the  king  of  Chal- 
 cis.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SALT   (Hv^:   aXs'   sal).     Indispensable    as 
 
 salt  is  to  ourselves,  it  was  even  more  so  to  the 
 Hebrews,  being  to  them  not  only  an  appetizing 
 condiment  in  the  food  both  of  man  (Job  vi.  6)  and 
 beast  (Is.  xxx.  24,  see  margin),  and  a  most  valua- 
 ble antidote  to  the  effects  of  the  heat  of  the  cli- 
 mate on  animal  food,  but  also  entering  largely  into 
 their  religious  services  as  an  accompaniment  to  the 
 various  offerings  presented  on  the  altar  (Lev.  ii. 
 13).  They  possessed  an  inexhaustible  and  ready 
 supply  of  it  on  the  southern  shores  of  the  Dead 
 Sea.  Here  may  have  been  situated  the  Valley  of 
 Salt  (2  Sam.  viii.  13),  in  proximity  to  the  moun- 
 tain of  fossil  salt  which  Robinson  {Rt^senrches,  ii. 
 108)  describes  as  five  miles  in  length,  and  as  the 
 chief  source  of  the  salt  in  the  sea  itself.  Here 
 were  the  saltpits  (Zepli.  ii.  9),  probably  formed  in 
 the  marshes  at  the  southern  end  of  the  lake,  which 
 are  completely  coated  with  salt,  deposited  period- 
 ically by  the  rising  of  the  waters;  and  here  also 
 were  the  successive  pillars  of  salt  which  tradition 
 has  from  time  to  time  identified  with  Lot's  wife 
 (Wisd.  X.  7;  Joseph.  ^1??;!.  i.  11,  §  4).  [Sea,  the 
 Salt.]  Salt  might  also  be  procured  from  the 
 Mediterranean  Sea,  and  from  this  source  the  Phoe- 
 nicians would  naturally  obtain  the  supply  neces- 
 sary for  salting  fish  (N"eh.  xiii.  16)  and  for  other 
 purposes.  The  Jews  appear  to  have  distinguished 
 between  rock-salt  and  that  which  was  gained  by 
 e\aporation,  as  the  Talmudisfs  particularize  one 
 species  (probably  the  latter)  as  the  "  salt  of 
 Sodom  "  (Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  718).  The  notion 
 that  this  expression  means  bitumen  rests  on  no 
 foundation.  The  saltpits  formed  an  important 
 source  of  revenue  to  the  rulers  of  the  coimtry 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  9),  and  Antiochus  conferred 
 a  valuable  boon  on  Jerusalem  by  presenting  the 
 city  with  375  bushels  of  salt  for  the  Temple  ser- 
 vice (Ant.  xii.  3,  §  3).  In  addition  to  the  uses  of 
 salt  already  specified,  the  inferior  sorts  were  ap- 
 plied as  a  manure  to  the  soil,  or  to  hasten  the 
 decomposition  of  dung  (Matt.  v.  13;  Luke  xiv. 
 35).  Too  large  an  admixture,  however,  was  held 
 to  produce  stei'ility,  as  exeni])lified  on  the  shores 
 of  the  Dead  Sea  (Deut.  xxix.  23;  Zeph.  ii.  9): 
 hence  a  "salt"  land  was  synonymous  with  barren- 
 ness (Job  xxxix.  6,  see  margin;  .ler.  xvii.  6;  comp. 
 Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  2,  aXfivpwSrjs  Ka\  txyovos); 
 and  hence  also  arose  the  custom  of  sowing  with 
 salt  the  foundations  of  a  destroyed  city  (Judg.  ix. 
 45),  as  a  token  of  its  irretrievable  ruin.  It  was 
 the  belief  of  the  Jews  that  salt  would,  by  exposure 
 to  the  air,  lose  its  virtue  (fiuipavdrj,  Matt.  v.  13) 
 176 
 
 SALT,  CITY  OF 
 
 2793 
 
 and  become  saltless  {&vaKov,  Mark  ix.  oO).  The 
 same  fact  is  implied  in  the  expressions  of  Pliny, 
 sill  iners  (xxxi.  39),  snl  tubescere.  (xxxi.  44);  and 
 Maundrell  {t'arly  Travels,  p.  512,  Bohn)  asserts 
 that  he  found  the  surface  of  a  salt  rock  in  this 
 condition.  The  associations  connected  with  salt 
 in  eastern  countries  are  important.  As  one  of 
 the  most  essential  articles  of  diet,  it  symbolized 
 hospitality;  as  an  antiseptic,  durability,  fidelity, 
 and  purity.  Hence  the  expression,  •'  covenant  of 
 salt"  (Lev.  ii.  13;  Num.  xviii.  19;  2  Chr.  xiii. 
 5),  as  betokening  an  indissoluble  alliance  between 
 friends ;  and  again  the  expression,  "  salted  with 
 the  salt  of  the  palace"  (Ezr.  iv.  14),  not  neces- 
 sarily meaning  that  they  had  "  maintenance  from 
 the  palace,"  as  the  A.  V.  has  it,  but  that  they 
 were  bound  by  sacred  obligations  of  fidelity  to  the 
 king.  So  in  the  present  day,  "  to  eat  bread  and 
 salt  together "  is  an  exjjression  for  a  league  of 
 mutual  amity  (Russell,  Aleppo,  i.  232);  and,  on 
 the  other  hand,  the  Persian  term  for  traitor  is 
 nemekJiaram,  "faithless  to  salt"  (Gesen.  T/ies. 
 p.  790).  It  was  probaljly  with  a  view  to  keep  this 
 idea  prominently  before  the  minds  of  the  Jews 
 that  the  use  of  salt  was  enjoined  on  the  Israelites 
 in  their  offerings  to  God ;  for  in  the  first  instance 
 it  was  specifically  ordered  for  the  meat-offering 
 (Lev.  ii.  13),  which  consisted  mainly  of  flour,  and 
 therefore  was  not  liable  to  corruption.  The  ex- 
 tension of  its  use  to  burnt  sacrifices  was  a  later 
 addition  (Ez.  xliii.  24;  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  9,  §  1), 
 in  the  spirit  of  the  general  injunction  at  the  close 
 of  Lev.  ii.  13.  Similarly  the  heathens  accom- 
 panied their  sacrifices  with  salted  barley-meal,  the 
 Greeks  with  their  ovkoxvTai  (Hom.  Jl.  i.  449), 
 the  Romans  with  their  nwlu  salsit  (Hor.  Sat.  ii.  3, 
 200)  or  their  saUce  friiges  (Virg.  yEn.  ii.  133). 
 It  may  of  course  be  assumed  that  in  all  of  these 
 cases  salt  was  added  as  a  condiment;  but  the 
 strictness  with  which  the  rule  was  adhered  to  — 
 no  sacrifice  being  offered  without  salt  (Plin.  xxxi. 
 41),  and  still  more  the  probable,  though  perhaps 
 doubtfid,  admixture  of  it  in  incense  (Ex.  xxx.  35, 
 where  the  word  rendered  "tempered  together"  is 
 by  some  understood  as  "salted")  —  leads  to  the 
 conclusion  that  there  was  a  symbolical  force  at- 
 tached to  its  use.  Our  Lord  refers  to  the  sacrifi- 
 cial use  of  salt  in  Mark  ix.  49,  50,  though  some 
 of  the  other  associations  may  also  be  implied. 
 The  purifying  property  of  salt,  as  opposed  to  cor- 
 ruption, led  to  its  selection  as  the  outward  sign  in 
 Elisha's  miracle  (2  K.  ii.  20,  21),  and  is  also 
 developed  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt.  v.  13;  Col.  iv.  6). 
 The  custom  of  rubbing  infants  with  salt  (Ez.  xvi. 
 4)  originated  in  sanitary  considerations,  but  re- 
 ceived also  a  symbolical  meaning.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SALT,  CITY  OF  (nb^n~1^17 :  al  it6\iii 
 
 'Za^wv;  Alex,  at  iroKis  aK9^^~\jvllas  sails).  The 
 fifth  of  the  six  cities  of  Judan  which  lay  in  the 
 "wilderness"  (Josh.  xv.  62).  Its  proximity  to 
 En-gedi,  and  the  name  itself  seem  to  point  to  its 
 being  situated  close  to  or  at  any  rate  in  the  neigh- 
 I)orhood  of  the  Salt  Sea.  Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl.  Res. 
 ii.  109)  expresses  his  belief  that  it  lay  somewhere 
 near  the  plain  at  the  south  end  of  that  lake,  which 
 he  would  identify  with  the  Valley  of  Salt.  This, 
 though  possibly  supported  by  the  reading  of  the 
 Vatican  LXX.,  "  the  cities  of  Sodom,"  is  at  present 
 a  mere  conjecture,  since  no  trace  of  the  name  or  the 
 city  has  yet  been  discovered  in  that  position.  On 
 the  other  hand,  Mr.  Van  de  Velde  (Sp:  f  Pal.  ii. 
 
2794 
 
 SALT  SEA 
 
 99;  Memoir,  p.  Ill,  and  M<ip)  mentions  a  Ndhr 
 Maleli  which  lie  passed  in  his  route  from  Wndy 
 er-Rinail  to  StbOtli,  the  name  of  which  (though  the 
 ortliography  is  not  certain)  may  be  found  to  con- 
 tain a  trace  of  tlie  Hebrew.  It  is  one  of  four 
 ravines  which  unite  to  form  the  Wadij  tl-Bedun. 
 Anotlier  of  tlie  four,  W.  \-imreh  {Syr.  <j-  P.  ii.  99; 
 Memoir,  p.  Ill,  M^cp),  recalls  the  name  of  Gomor- 
 rah, to  the  Hebrew  of  which  it  is  very  similar.  G. 
 *  SALT  SEA.  [Ska,  thk  Salt.] 
 SALT,  VALLEY    OF   (Pb^   N"^3,  but 
 
 twice  with  the  article,  n73rT  2 :  Te^eXf/j., 
 Fe^fAe'S,  KotXds,  and  (pdpay^,  tUv  clAwv;  Alex. 
 TTj/uaAa,  Tai^eAa:  Vallig  Saliiuirum).  A  certain 
 valley,  or  perha|)S  more  accurately  a  "ravine,"  —  the 
 Hebrew  word  Ge  appearing  to  bear  that  significa- 
 tion,—  in  which  occurred  two  memorable  victories 
 of  the  Israelite  arms. 
 
 1.  That  of  David  over  the  Edomites  (2  Sam. 
 viii.  13;  1  Chr.  xviii.  12).  It  appears  to  have  im- 
 mediately followed  his  Syrian  campaign,  and  was 
 itself  one  of  the  incidents  of  the  great  Edomite  war 
 of  extermination."  The  jjattle  in  the  Valley  of 
 Salt  appears  to  have  been  conducted  by  Abishai 
 (1  Chr.  xviii.  12),  but  David  and  Joab  were  both 
 present  in  person  at  the  battle  and  in  the  pursuit 
 and  campaign  which  followed ;  and  .Toab  was  left 
 behind  for  six  months  to  consummate  the  doom 
 of  the  conquered  country  (1  K.  xi.  15,  IG;  Ps.  Ix. 
 title).  The  number  of  Edomites  slain  in  the  bat- 
 tle is  uncertain:  the  narratives  of  Samuel  and 
 Chronicles  both  give  it  at  18,000,  but  this  tigure  is 
 lowered  in  the  title  of  I's.  Ix.  to  12,000. 
 
 2.  That  of  Amaziah  (2  K.  xiv.  7;  2  Chr.  xxv. 
 11),  who  is  related  to  have  slain  ten  thousand 
 Edomites  in  this  valle5-,  and  then  to  ha\e  pro- 
 ceeded, with  10,000  prisoners,  to  the  stronghold  of 
 the  nation  at  has-Sela,  the  Cliff,  i.  e.  Petra,  and, 
 after  taking  it,  to  have  massacred  them  by  hurling 
 them  down  the  precipice  which  gave  its  ancient 
 name  to  the  city. 
 
 Neither  of  these  notices  affords  any  clew  to  the 
 situation  of  the  Valley  of  Salt,  nor  does  the  cursory 
 mention  of  the  name  ("Gemela"  and  "Mela") 
 in  the  Oiioiiiasticon.  By  Josephus  it  is  not  named 
 on  either  occasion.  Seetzen  {litisen,  ii.  3.56)  was 
 probatily  the  first  to  suggest  that  it  was  the  broad 
 open  plain  which  lies  at  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead 
 Sea,  and  intervenes  between  the  lake  it.self  and  the 
 range  of  heights  which  crosses  the  valley  at  six  or 
 eight  miles  to  the  south.  The  same  view  is  taken 
 (more decisively)  by  Dr.  llobinson  {BiOl.  lies.  ii.  109). 
 The  plain  is  in  fact  the  termination  of  the  Ghor  or 
 valley  through  which  the  .Jordan  flows  from  the 
 Lake  of  Tiberias  to  the  Dead  Sea.  Its  N.  W.  cor- 
 ner is  occupied  by  the  Khaslim  Usdum,  a  mountain 
 of  rock  salt,  between  which  and  the  lake  is  an  ex- 
 tensive salt  marsh,  while  salt  streams  and  brackish 
 
 a.  The  Received  Text  of  2  Sam.  viii.  13  omits  the 
 mention  of  Edomites ;  but  from  a  comparison  of  tlie 
 parallel  passages  in  1  Chr.  and  in  the  title  of  Ps.  Ix. 
 there  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  the  verse  origi- 
 nally stood  thus  :  "  And  David  made  himself  a  name 
 [when  he  returned  from  smiting  the  Ariimites]  [and 
 when  he  returned  he  smote  the  Edomites]  in  the  Val- 
 ley of  Salt  —  eighteen  thous.and  ;  "  the  two  clauses 
 within  brackets  having  been  omitted  by  the  Greek  and 
 Hebrew  scribes  respectively,  owing  to  the  very  close 
 resemblance    of  the   words   with   which  each  clause 
 
 finishes  — D"^^"1S  and   D"^tt^S.     This  is  the  con- 
 
 SALUM 
 
 springs  pervade,  more  or  less,  the  entire  western 
 half  of  the  plain.  Without  presuming  to  contra- 
 dict this  suggestion,  which  yet  can  hardly  be 
 affirmed  with  safety  in  the  very  imperfect  condition 
 of  our  knowledge  of  the  inaccessible  regions  S.  and 
 S.  E.  of  the  Dead  Sea,  it  may  be  well  to  call  atten- 
 tion to  some  considerations  which  seem  to  .stand  in 
 the  way  of  the  implicit  reception  which  most  writ- 
 ers have  given  it  since  the  puljlication  of  Dr.  ft.'s 
 Riisearclies. 
 
 {a.)  The  word  6'e  (S^ri),  employed  for  the  place 
 in  question,  is  not,  to  the  writer's  knowledge,  else- 
 where apjilied  to  a  broad  valley  or  sunk  plain  of 
 the  nature  of  the  lower  (llwr.  Such  tracts  are 
 denoted  in  the  Scripture  by  the  words  Kmcic  or 
 Bikn'ith,  while  Ge  appears  to  be  reserved  for  clefts 
 or  ravines  of  a  deeper  and  narrower  character. 
 [Valley.] 
 
 (6.)  A  j)rio7'i,  one  would  expect  the  tract  in 
 question  to  be  called  in  Scripture  by  the  peculiar 
 name  uniformly  applied  to  the  more  northern  parts 
 of  the  same  valley  —  ha-Ardbalt  —  in  the  same 
 manner  that  the  Arabs  now  call  it  el-G/ior  —  Ghor 
 being  their  equivalent  for  the  Hebrew  Ardbah. 
 
 (c.)  The  name  "Salt,"  though  at  first  sight 
 conclusive,  becomes  less  so  on  reflection.  It  does 
 not  follow,  because  the  Hebrew  word  mdncli  signi- 
 fies salt,  that  therefore  the  valley  ivus  salt.  A  case 
 exactly  parallel  exists  at  d-Milli,  the  representative 
 of  the  ancient  Moladah,  some  sixteen  miles  south 
 of  Hebron.  Like  melacli,  milli  signifies  salt;  but 
 there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  any  salt 
 present  there,  and  Dr.  Kobinson  {Bibl.  lies.  ii.  201, 
 note)  himself  justly  adduces  it  as  "  an  instance  of 
 the  usual  tendency  of  popular  pronunciation  to  re- 
 duce foreign  proper  names  to  a  significant  form." 
 .Just  as  el-Milli  is  the  Arabic  representative  of  the 
 Hebrew  Moladah,  so  possibly  was  yt-melach  the 
 Hebrew  representative  of  some  archaic  Edomite 
 name. 
 
 {d.)  What  little  can  be  inferred  from  the  narra- 
 tive as  to  the  situation  of  the  Ge-Melach  is  in 
 favor  of  its  being  nearer  to  Petra.  Assuming 
 Selah  to  be  Petra  (the  chain  of  evidence  for  which 
 is  tolerably  connected),  it  seems  difficult  to  believe 
 that  a  large  body  of  prisoners  should  have  been 
 dragged  for  upwards  of  fifty  miles  through  the 
 heart  of  a  hostile  and  most  difficult  country, 
 merely  for  massacre.  G. 
 
 SA'LU  (S^7D  [u'eit)lmT\:  'ZaX^idoV,  Alex. 
 [Comp.  Aid.]  SaAo):  Salii).  The  father  of  Zimri 
 the  prince  of  the  Simeonites,  who  was  slain  by 
 Phinehas  (Num.  xxv.  14).     Called  also  Salom. 
 
 SA'LU M  (SaAou^;  [Vat.  corrupt:]  Esmen- 
 mis).  1.  Shalluim,  the  head  of  a  family  of  gate- 
 keepers (A.  V.  "  porters  ")  of  the  Temple  (1  £sdr. 
 v.  28;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  42). 
 
 2.   (SaA^yuos;      [Aid.    2aAoi5/xos:]     Solome.'] 
 
 jecture  of  Thenius  (Exeg.  Handbiick),  and  is  adopted 
 by  Bunsen  {Bibelwerk,  note  to  the  passage).  Ewald 
 has  shown  (Ge«c/i.  iii.  201,  202)  that  the  whole  passage 
 
 is  very  much  disordered.  CW  WV*")  should  prob- 
 ably be  rendered  "and  set  up  a  monument,"  instead 
 of  "  and  gat  a  name  "  Gesen.  (  Thes.  p.  1431  b) ;  Michaelis 
 (Suppl.  No.  2501,  and  note  to  Bibd  fiir  Ungel.);  De 
 Wette  (Bibel);  LXX.  Coisl.,  koX  i9r)Kiv  ea"rq\oifji€vriv  ; 
 Jerome  {QitcEst.  Hebr.],  erexit  fornicem  triumphalem. 
 Raslii  interprets  it  "  reputation,"  and  m.akes  the 
 reputation  to  have  arisen  from  David's  good  act  in 
 burying  the  dead  even  of  his  enemies. 
 
SALUTATION 
 
 Shallum,  the  father  of  Hilkiah  and  ancestor  of 
 Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  1;  Comp.  Ezr.  vii.  2).  Called 
 also  Sadajiias  and  Sadom. 
 
 SALUTATION.  Salutations  may  be  classed 
 under  the  two  heads  of  conversational  and  epistolary. 
 The  salutation  at  meeting  consisted  in  early  times 
 of  various  expressions  of  blessing,  such  as  "  Uod  be 
 gracious  unto  thee"  (Gen.  xliii.  29);  "Blessed  be 
 thou  of  the  Ix)rd"  (Ruth  iii.  10;  1  Sam.  xv.  13); 
 "The  Lord  l>e  with  you,"  "The  Lord  bless  thee" 
 (Kuth  ii.  4) ;  "  The  blessing  of  the  Lord  be  upon 
 you;  we  bless  you  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps. 
 cxxix.  8).  Hence  the  term  "  bless  "  received  the 
 secondary  sense  of  "salute,"  and  is  occasionally  so 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  (1  Sam.  xiii.  10,  xxv.  14; 
 2  K.  iv.  29,  X.  15),  though  not  so  frequently  as  it 
 might  have  been  (e.  y.  Gen.  xxvii.  23,  xlvii.  7,  10; 
 1  K.  viii.  06).  The  blessing  was  sometimes  ac- 
 companied with  inquiries  as  to  the  health  either  of 
 the  person  addressed  or  his  relations.  The  Hebrew 
 term  used  in  these  instances  {slicUuin")  has  no 
 special  reference  to  "peace,"  as  stated  in  the  mar- 
 ginal translation,  but  to  general  well-being,  and 
 strictly  answers  to  our  "welfare,"  as  given  in  the 
 text  (Gen.  xliii.  27;  Ex.  xviii.  7).  It  is  used  not 
 only  in  the  case  of  salutation  (in  which  sense  it  is 
 frequently  rendered  "to  salute,"  e.  g.  Judg.  xviii. 
 15;  1  Sam.  X.  4;  2  K.  x.  13);  but  also  in  other 
 cases  where  it  is  designed  to  soothe  or  to  encourage 
 a  person  (Gen.  xUii.  23;  Judg.  vi.  23,  xix.  20; 
 1  Chr.  xii.  18;  Dan.  x.  19;  compare  1  Sam.  xx. 
 21,  where  it  is  opposed  to  "hurt;"  2  Sam.  xviii. 
 28,  "all  is  well;"  and  2  Sam.  xi.  7,  where  it  is 
 applied  to  the  progress  of  the  war).  The  saluta- 
 tion at  parting  consisted  originally  of  a  simple  bless- 
 ing (Gen.  xxiv.  60,  xxviii.  1,  xlvii.  10;  Josh.  xxii. 
 6),  but  in  later  times  the  term  slidlom  was  intro- 
 duced here  also  in  the  form  "  Go  in  peace,"  or 
 rather  "  Farewell"  (1  Sam.  i.  17,  xx.  42;  2  Sam. 
 XV.  9).  Thisf*  was  current  at  the  time  of  our 
 Saviour's  ministry  (Mark  v.  34 ;  Luke  vii.  50 ; 
 Acts  xvi.  36 ),  and  is  adopted  by  Him  in  his  parting 
 address  to  his  disciples  (John  xiv.  27).  It  had 
 even  passed  into  a  salutation  on  meeting,  in  such 
 forms  as  "Peace  be  to  this  house"  (Luke  x.  5), 
 "Peace  be  unto  you"  (Luke  xxiv.  36;  John  xx. 
 19).  The  more  common  salutation,  however,  at 
 this  period  was  borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  their 
 word  -^aipetv  being  used  both  at  meeting  (Matt. 
 xxvi.  49,  xxviii.  9;  Luke  i.  28),  and  probably  also 
 at  departure.  In  modern  times  the  ordinary  mode 
 of  address  current  in  the  East  resembles  the  He- 
 brew: Es-seldm  aleykum,  "Peace  be  on  you" 
 (Lane's  Mod.  Eg.  ii.  7),  and  the  term  "  salam  " 
 has  been  introduced  into  our  own  language  to  de- 
 scribe the  Oriental  salutation. 
 
 The  forms  of  greeting  that  we  have  noticed 
 were  freely  exchanged  among  persons  of  diflerent 
 ranks  on  the  occasion  of  a  casual  meeting,  and  this 
 even  when  they  were  strangers.  Thus  Boaz  ex- 
 changed greeting  with  his  reapers  (Ruth  ii.  4),  the 
 tra\eller  on  the  road  saluted  the  worker  in  the 
 field  (Ps.  cxxix.  8),  and  members  of  the  same  fam- 
 ily interchanged  greetings  on  rising  in  the  morn- 
 ing (Prov.  xxvii.  14).  The  only  restriction  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  in  regard  to  religion,  the  Jew 
 of  old,  as  the  Mohammedan  of  the  present  day. 
 
 SAMAEL 
 
 2795 
 
 T 
 
 6  The  Greek  expression  is  evidently  borrowed  from 
 the    Hebrew,    tlie    preposition    eis    not    betokening 
 
 paying  the  compliment  only  to  those  whom  he  con- 
 sidered "brethren,"  i.  e.  members  of  the  same  re- 
 ligious community  (Matt.  v.  47;  Lane,  ii.  8;  Nie- 
 buhr,  BcscrijJt.  p.  43).  Even  the  Apostle  St 
 John  forbids  an  interchange  of  greeting  where  it 
 implied  a  wish  for  the  success  of  a  bad  cause 
 (2  John  11).  In  modern  times  the  Orientals  are 
 fnmed  for  the  elaljorate  formality  of  their  greetings, 
 which  occupy  a  very  consideraljle  time;  the  in- 
 stances given  in  the  Biljle  do  not  bear  such  a  char- 
 acter, and  therefore  the  prohibition  addressed  to 
 persons  engaged  in  urgent  business,  "  Salute  no 
 man  by  the  way  "  (2  K.  iv.  29;  Luke  x.  4),  may 
 liest  be  referred  to  the  delay  likely  to  ensue  from 
 subsequent  conversation.  Among  the  Persians  the 
 monarch  was  never  approached  without  the  salu- 
 tation "  0  king!  live  tor  ever"  (Uan.  ii.  4,  Ac). 
 There  is  no  evidence  that  this  ever  became  cur- 
 rent among  the  Jews:  the  expression  in  1  K.  i.  31 
 was  elicited  by  the  previous  allusion  on  the  part  of 
 David  to  his  own  decease.  In  lieu  of  it  we  meet 
 with  the  Greek  x"'p€)  "hail!  "  (Matt,  xxvii.  29). 
 The  act  of  salutation  was  accompanied  with  a  va- 
 rietj'  of  gestures  expressive  of  ditferent  degrees  of 
 humiliation,  and  sometimes  with  a  kiss.  [Adora- 
 tion; Kis.s.]  These  acts  involved  the  necessity 
 of  dismounting  in  case  a  person  were  riding  or 
 driving  (Gen.  xxiv.  64;  1  Sam.  xxv.  23;  2  K.  v. 
 21).  The  same  custom  still  prevails  in  the  East 
 (Niebuhr's  Descripl.  p.  39). 
 
 The  epistolary  salutations  in  the  period  subse- 
 quent to  the  0.  T.  were  framed  on  the  model  of 
 the  Latin  style:  the  addition  of  the  term  "  peace  " 
 may,  however,  be  regarded  as  a  vestige  of  the  old 
 Hebrew  form  (2  Mace.  i.  1).  The  writer  placed 
 his  own  name  first,  and  then  that  of  the  person 
 whom  he  saluted ;  it  was  only  in  special  cases  that 
 this  order  was  reversed  (2  JIacc.  i.  1,  ix.  19 : 
 1  Esdr.  vi.  7).  A  combination  of  the  first  and 
 third  persons  in  the  terms  of  the  salutation  was  not 
 unfrequent  (Gal.  i.  1,  2;  Philem.  1;  2  Pet.  i.  1). 
 The  term  used  (either  expressed  or  understood)  in 
 the  introductory  salut.ation  was  the  Greek  ;;^aipei;' 
 in  an  elliptical  construction  (1  Mace.  x.  18;  2  Mace, 
 ix.  19 ;  1  Esdr.  viii.  9 ;  Acts  xxiii.  26 ) ;  this,  however, 
 was  more  frequently  omitted,  and  the  only  Apos- 
 tolic passages  in  which  it  occurs  are  Acts  xv.  23 
 and  James  i.  1,  a  coincidence  which  renders  it 
 probable  that  St.  James  composed  the  letter  in 
 the  former  passage.  A  form  of  prayer  for  spiritual 
 mercies  was  also  used,  consisting  generally  of  the 
 terms  "grace  and  peace,"  but  in  the  three  Pastoral 
 Epistles  and  in  2  John  "grace,  mercy,  and  peace," 
 and  in  Jude  "  mercy,  peace,  and  love."  The  con- 
 cluding salutation  consisted  occasionally  of  a  trans- 
 lation of  the  Latin  valtte  (Acts  xv.  29,  xxiii.  30), 
 but  more  generally  of  the  term  atrTra^Oyttai,  "  1 
 salute,"  or  the  cognate  substantive,  accompanied  by 
 a  prayer  for  peace  or  grace.  St.  Paul,  who  availed 
 himself  of  an  amanuensis  (Rom.  xvi.  22),  added 
 the  salutation  with  his  own  hand  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
 21;  Col.  iv.  18;  2  Thes.  iii.  17).  The  omis- 
 sion of  the  introductory  salutation  in  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Hebrews  is  very  noticeable. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 SAM'AEL  (2a\a,unijA. ;  [Sin.  Sa^a^uiTjA ;  Aid. 
 2a;uar/A:]    Salal/iiel),   a   variation    for   (margin) 
 
 the  state  into  which,  but  answering  to  the  Hebrew 
 /,  in  which  the  person  departs. 
 
2796 
 
 SAMAIAS 
 
 Salamiel  [Shelumikl]  in  Jud.  viii.  1  (comp.  Num. 
 i.  6).     The  form  in  A.  V.  is  given  by  Aldus. 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 SAMAI'AS  [3syl.]  (Sa^a.'ay:  S.mcias).  1. 
 Shemaiah  the  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (1 
 Esdr.  i.  9 ;  conip.  2  (Jhr.  xxxv.  9 ). 
 
 2.  SiiEMAiAii  of  the  sons  of  Adonikam  (1  Ksdr. 
 viii.  39;  comp.  I''.zr.  viii.  13). 
 
 3.  (26/te<;  [Vat.  Ss^eas;  Sin.  Se^eAiax;  Aid. 
 2aixaias-,\  Alex.  2€jU6ms:  om.  in  Vult;.)  The 
 "■  sreat  Samaias,"  fatlier  of  Ananias  and  .Jonathas 
 (fob.  V.  13). 
 
 SAMA'RIA  (]'l~ipCi7,  i.  e.   Shomeron    [see 
 
 below] ;  Chald.  ^^^Jptt?  :  ^afj.dpfia,  ^enTjptiu, 
 ^ojj.Spwi';"  [Alex,  very  often  'S.a/j.apia,  and  so  Sin. 
 or  F.V.  in  Is.,  .Jer.,  Obad.;  Sin.  -peta  in  Jud.  i.  9, 
 iv.  4;  I  .loseph.  ^a/idpeia,  but  Ant.  viii.  12,  §  5, 
 2ejj.aptwV-   Samaria).    1.  A  city  of  Palestine, 
 
 The  word  >S/(o/Ht'rort  means,  etyniologically,  "per- 
 taining to  a  watch,"  or  "a  watch-mountain;  "  and 
 we  should  almost  be  inclined  to  think  that  the 
 peculiarity  of  the  situation  of  Samaria  gave  occa- 
 sion to  its  name.  In  the  territory  originally  be- 
 longing to  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  about  six  miles  to 
 the  northwest  of  Shechem,  tliere  is  a  wide  basin- 
 shaped  valley,  encircled  with  high  hills,  almost  on 
 the  edge  of  the  great  plain  M'hich  borders  upon  the 
 Mediterranean.  In  the  centre  of  this  basin,  which 
 is  on  a  lower  level  than  the  valley  of  Shechem, 
 rises  a  less  elevated  oblong  hill,  with  steep  yet 
 accessible  sides,  and  a  long  flat  top.  This  hill  was 
 chosen  by  Omri,  as  the  site  of  the  capit.al  of  the 
 kingdom  of  Israel.  The  first  capital  after  the  seces- 
 sion of  the  ten  tribes  had  been  Shechem  itself, 
 whither  all  Israel  had  come  to  make  Rehoboam 
 king.  On  the  separation  lieing  fully  accomplished, 
 Jeroboam  rebuilt  that  city  (1  K.  xii.  2.5),  which 
 had  been  razed  to  the  ground  by  Abimelech  (Judg. 
 ix.  -ih).  But  he  soon  moved  to  Tirzah,  a  place,  as 
 Dr.  Stanley  observes,  of  great  and  proverbial  beauty 
 (Cant.  vi.  4);  which  continued  to  be  the  royal  resi- 
 dence until  Zimri  burnt  the  palace  and  perished 
 in  its  ruins  (1  K.  xiv.  17,  xv.  21,  33,  xvi.  6-18). 
 Oinri,  who  prevailed  in  the  contest  for  the  kingdom 
 that   ensued,   after    "reigning   six   years"    there, 
 
 "bought  the  hill  of  Samaria  ('j'l'l^iC'  "^nrT:  rb 
 
 6pos  rh  'SffJ.'npdoi')  of  Shenier  ("ll^h?^:  Se^iip, 
 Joseph.  %4fj.apoi)  for  two  talents  of  silver,  and  built 
 on  the  hill,  and  called  the  name  of  the  city  which 
 he  built,  after  the  name  of  the  owner  of  the  hill, 
 Samaria"  (1  K.  xvi.  23,  24).  [Omki,  Amer.  ed.] 
 This  statement  of  course  dispenses  with  the  ety- 
 mology above  alluded  to ;  but  the  central  position 
 of  the  hill,  as  Herod  sagaciously  observed  long 
 afterwards,  made  it  admirably  adapted  for  a  place 
 of  observation,  and  a  fortress  to  awe  the  neighbor- 
 ing country.  And  the  singular  Ijeauty  of  the  sjjot, 
 upon  which,  to  this  hour,  travellers  dwell  with 
 admiration,  may  have  struck  Omri,  as  it  afterwards 
 struck  the  tasteful  Idumean  {B.  J.  i.  21,  §  2 ;  Ant. 
 XV.  8,  §  5). 
 
 From  the  date  of  Omri's  purchase,  b.  c.  92.5, 
 Samaria  retained  its  dignity  as  the  capital  of  the 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 ten  tribes.  Ahab  built  a  temple  to  Baal  there 
 (1  K.  xvi.  32,  33);  and  from  this  circumstance  a 
 portion  of  the  city,  possibly  fortified  by  a  separate 
 wall,  was  called  "the  city  of  the  house  of  Baal" 
 (2  K.  X.  25).  Samaria  must  have  been  a  place 
 of  great  strength.  It  was  twice  besieged  by  the 
 Syrians,  in  b.  c.  901  (1  K.  xx.  1),  and  in  n.  c.  892 
 (2  K.  vi.  24-vii.  20);  but  on  both  occasions  thf 
 siege  was  ineffectual.  On  the  latter,  indeed,  it 
 was  relieved  miraculously,  but  not  until  the  inhab- 
 itants had  suffered  almost  incredible  horrors  from 
 famine  during  their  protracted  resistance.  The 
 possessor  of  Samaria  was  considered  to  be  c/e  facto 
 king  of  Israel  (2  K.  xv.  13,  14);  and  woes  de- 
 nounced against  the  nation  were  directed  against 
 it  by  name  (Is.  vii.  9,  &c.).  In  B.  c.  721,  Sama- 
 ria was  taken,  after  a  siege  of  three  years,  by  Shal- 
 maneser,  king  of  Assyria  (2  K.  xviii.  9,  10),  and 
 the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  put  an  end  to. 
 [See  below.  No.  3.]  Some  years  afterwards  the 
 district  of  which  Samaria  was  the  centre  was  re- 
 peopled  by  Esarhaddon ;  but  we  do  not  hear  espe- 
 cially of  the  city  until  the  days  of  Alexander  the 
 Great.  That  conqueror  took  the  city,  which  seems 
 to  have  somewhat  recovered  itself  (Euseb.  Chron. 
 ad  ann.  Abr.  1684),  killed  a  large  portion  of  the 
 inhabitants,  and  suffered  the  remainder  to  settle 
 at  Shechem.  [Shechem;  Sychar.]  He  replaced 
 them  by  a  colony  of  S.>ro-ilacedonians,  and  gave 
 the  adjacent  territory  ('2.afxapuris  x<^P")  ^'^  ''^^ 
 Jews  to  inhabit  (Joseph,  c.  Ap.  ii.  4).  These 
 Syro-Macedonians  occupied  the  city  until  the  time 
 of  John  Hyrcanus.  It  was  then  a  place  of  con- 
 siderable importance,  for  Josephus  describes  it  {Ant. 
 xiii.  10,  §  2)  as  a  very  strong  city  (tto'Ais  oxvpec- 
 Tarrj)-  John  Hyrcanus  took  it  alter  a  year's  siege, 
 and  did  his  best  to  demolish  it  entirely.  He  inter- 
 sected the  hill  on  which  it  lay  with  trenches:  into 
 these  he  conducted  the  natural  brooks,  and  thus 
 undermined  its  foundations.  "  In  fact,"  says  the 
 Jewish  historian,  "  he  took  away  all  evidence  of 
 the  very  existence  of  the  city."  This  story  at  first 
 sight  seems  rather  exaggerated,  and  inconsistent 
 with  the  hilly  site  of  Samaria.  It  may  have 
 referred  only  to  the  suburbs  lying  at  its  foot. 
 "But,"  says  Prideaux  {Conn.  B.  c.  109,  note), 
 "  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who  was  in  the  place,  tells 
 us  in  his  Itinerary ''  that  there  were  upon  the  top 
 of  this  hill  many  fountains  of  water,  and  from 
 these  water  enough  may  have  been  derived  to  fill 
 these  trenches."  It  should  also  be  recollected  that 
 the  hill  of  Samaria  was  lower  than  the  hills  in  its 
 neighborhood.  This  may  account  for  the  existence 
 of  these  springs.  Josephus  describes  the  extrem- 
 ities to  which  the  inhabitants  were  reduced  during 
 this  siege,  much  in  the  same  way  that  the  author 
 of  the  Book  of  Kings  does  during  that  of  Ben- 
 hadad  (comp.  Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  2,  with  2  K.  vi.  25). 
 John  Hyrcanus'  reasons  for  attacking  Samaria  were 
 the  injuries  which  its  inhabitants  had  done  to  the 
 people  of  Clarissa,  colonists  and  allies  of  the  Jews 
 This  confirms  what  was  said  above,  of  the  cession 
 of  the  Samaritan  neighborhood  to  the  Jews  by 
 Alexander  the  Great. 
 
 After  this  disaster  (which  occurred  in  b.  c.  109), 
 the  Jews  inhabited  what  remained  of  the  city;  al 
 
 a  The  prevailing  LXX.  form  in  the  O.  T.  is  Sani- 
 peia,  with  the  following  remarkable  exceptious :  1  K. 
 Hvi.  24,  'ZefJ.epuiv  ,  .  .  ZefiT)piov  (Mai,  'Xafjuqpuiv) ; 
 I  Alex.  E|ucp(0i'     .      .    .     'S.ojj.ripiav  ;]  Ezr.  iv.  10,  2ojn6- 
 
 poiv  (Mai,  ^oifxiapiav) ;   Neh.   iv.  2;  Is.   vii.  9,   2o/oio- 
 pov. 
 
 b  No  such  passage,  however,  now  exists  in  Benj.a 
 min  of  Tudela.  See  the  editions  of  Asher  and  of 
 Bohn. 
 
SAMARIA 
 
 least  we  find  it  in  their  possession  in  the  time  of 
 Alexander  Jannams  (Ant.  xiii.  15,  §  i),  and  until 
 Pompey  gave  it  back  to  the  descendants  of  its 
 original  inhaliitants  (rois  oiK-firopcrti/)-  These 
 oiKrjTope^  may  possibly  have  been  the  Sjro-Mace- 
 donians,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  they  were 
 Samaritans  proper,  whose  ancestors  had  been  dis- 
 possessed by  the  colonists  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
 By  directions  of  Gabinius,  Saniaria  and  other  de- 
 molished cities  were  rebuilt  (Ant.  xiv.  5,  §  3).  But 
 its  more  effectual  rebuilding  was  undertaken  by 
 Herod  the  Great,  to  whom  it  had  been  granted  by 
 Augustus,  on  the  death  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra 
 (Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  3,  xv.  8,  §  5;  B.  J.  i.  20,  §  3). 
 He  called  it  SelMisfe,  'Ze^aari)  =  Aufjusta,  after 
 the  name  of  his  patron  (Ant.  xv.  7,  §  7).  Josephus 
 gives  an  elaborate  description  of  Herod's  improve- 
 ments. The  wall  surrounding  it  was  20  stadia  in 
 length.  In  the  middle  of  it  was  a  close,  of  a 
 stadium   and   a  half   square,   containing   a   mag- 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 2797 
 
 nificent  temple,  dedicated  to  the  Ctesar.  It  was 
 colonized  by  G,000  veterans  and  others,  for  whose 
 support  a  most  beautiful  and  rich  district  surround- 
 ing the  city  was  appropriated.  Herod's  motives 
 in  these  arrangements  were  probably,  first;  the 
 occupation  of  a  commanding  position,  and  theii 
 the  desire  of  distinguishing  himself  for  taste  by 
 the  embellishment  of  a  spot  already  so  adorned 
 by  nature  (Ant.  xv.  8,  §  5;  B.  J.  i.  20,  §  3;  21, 
 §2). 
 
 How  long  Samaria  maintained  its  splendor  after 
 Herod's  improvements  we  are  not  informed.  In 
 the  N.  T.  the  city  itself  does  not  appear  to  be 
 mentioned,  but  rather  a  portion  of  the  district  to 
 which,  even  in  older  times,  it  had  extended  its 
 name.  Our  Version,  indeed,  of  Acts  viii.  5  says 
 that  Philip  the  deacon  "  went  down  to  the  city  of 
 Samaria;  "  but  the  Greek  of  the  passage  is  simply 
 els  it6Kiv  ti)s  'S.ajxapeias.  And  we  may  fairly 
 argue,  both  from  the  absence  of  the  definite  article. 
 
 .>%^7i^1f 
 
 Sebufttyeh,  the  ancient  S.-IM.4RIA,  from  the  E.  N.  E. 
 
 Behind  the  city  are  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  verging  on  the  Plain  of  Sharon.  The  Jlediterranean  Sea  is 
 in  the  furthest  distance."  The  original  sketch  fi-oni  which  this  view  is  taken  was  made  by  William  Tipping, 
 Esq.,  in  1842,  and  is  engraved  by  his  kind  permission. 
 
 and  from  the  probatiility  that,  had  the  city  Samaria 
 been  intended,  the  term  employed  would  have  been 
 Sebaste,  that  some  one  city  of  the  district,  the 
 name  of  which  is  not  specified,  was  in  the  mind 
 of  the  writer.  In  verse  9  of  the  same  chapter 
 "the  people  of  Samaria"  represents  rh  e6vos  rrjs 
 !2a;uapfias;  and  the  phrase  in  verse  2.5,  "many 
 villages  of  the  Samaritans,"  shows  that  the  opera- 
 tions of  evangelizing  were  not  confined  to  the  city 
 of  Saniaria  itself,  if  they  were  ever  carried  on 
 there.  Conip.  Matt.  x.  5,  "  Into  any  city  of  the 
 Samaritans  enter  ye  not;"  and  John  iv.  4,  5, 
 where,  after  it  has  been  said,  "And  He  must  needs 
 go  through  Samaria,"  oliviously  the  district,  it  is 
 subjoined,  "  Then  conieth  He  to  <i  city  of  Samaria 
 called  Sychar."  Henceforth  its  history  is  very  un- 
 comiected.  Septimius  Severus  planted  a  Eonian 
 colony  there  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century 
 
 a  *  The  sea  is  visible  with  the  naked  eye  from  the 
 top  of  the  hill.  H. 
 
 (Ulpian,  Leg.  J.  de  Censibus,  quoted  by  Dr.  Rob- 
 inson). Various  specimens  of  coins  struck  on  the 
 spot  have  been  preserved,  extending  from  Nero  to 
 Geta,  the  brother  of  Car.acalla  (Vaillant,  in  Nu- 
 misni.  Imper.,  and  Noris,  quoted  by  Reland).  But, 
 though  the  seat  of  a  Roman  colony,  it  could  not 
 have  been  a  place  of  much  political  importance. 
 We  find  in  the  Codex  of  Theodosius,  that  by  A.  D. 
 40!)  the  Holy  Land  had  been  divided  into  Pahpstina 
 Prima,  Secunda,  and  Tertia.  Fala'stina  Prima 
 included  the  country  of  the  Philistines,  Samaria 
 (the  district),  and  the  northern  part  of  .ludsea; 
 but  its  capital  was  not  Sebaste,  but  Coesarea.  In 
 an  ecclesiastical  point  of  view  it  stood  rather  higher. 
 It  was  an  episcopal  see  proliably  as  early  as  the 
 third  century.  At  any  rate  its  bishop  was  present 
 amongst  those  of  Palestine  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
 A.  D.  325,  and  sul)scrilied  its  acts  as  "  Maximus 
 (al.  Marinus)  Sebastenus."  The  names  of  some 
 of  his  successors  have  been  preserved  —  the  latest 
 of  them  mentioned  is  Pelagius,  who  attended  the 
 
2798 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 Synod  at  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  536.  The  title  of  the 
 gee  occurs  in  the  earlier  (Jreek  Notitia:,  and  in 
 the  later  Latin  ones  (Keland,  Pal.  pp.  214-229). 
 Sebaste  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  IMohammedans 
 during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  In  the  course  of 
 tlie  Crusades  a  Latin  bishopric  was  established 
 there,  the  title  of  which  was  recognized  by  the 
 Roman  Church  until  the  fourteenth  century.  At 
 this  day  the  city  of  C^mri  and  of  Herod  is  rep- 
 resented b}'  a  small  village  retaining  few  vestiges 
 of  the  past  exce|)t  its  name,  Sebustieh,  an  Arabic 
 corruption  of  Seliaste.  Some  architectural  remains 
 it  has,  partly  of  Christian  construction  or  adapta- 
 tion, as  the  ruined  church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
 partly,  perhaps,  traces  of  Idnmsean  magnificence. 
 "  A  long  avenue  of  tiroken  pillars  (says  I'r.  Stan- 
 ley), apparently  the  main  street  of  Herod's  city, 
 here,  as  at  Palmyra  and  Damascus,  adorned  by  a 
 colonnade  on  each  side,  still  lines  the  topmost  ter- 
 race of  the  hill."  l>ut  the  fragmentary  aspect  of 
 the  whole  place  exhibits  a  present  fulfillment  of  the 
 prophecy  of  Micah  (i.  6),  though  it  may  have  been 
 fulfilled  more  than  once  previously  by  the  ravages 
 of  Shalmaneser  or  of  John  Hyrcanus.  "  I  will 
 make  Samaria  as  an  heap  of  the  field,  and  as 
 plantings  of  a  vineyard :  and  I  will  pour  down  the 
 stones  thereof  into  the  valley,  and  I  will  discover 
 the  foundations  thereof"  (Mic.  i.  6;  comp.  Hos. 
 xiii.  16). 
 
 St.  Jerome,  whose  acquaintance  with  Palestine 
 imparts  a  sort  of  proliability  to  the  tradition  which 
 prevailed  so  stronglj'  in  later  days,  asserts  that 
 Seliaste,  which  he  invariably  identifies  with  Samaria, 
 was  the  place  in  which  St.  John  the  Baptist  was 
 imprisoned  and  suffered  death.  He  also  makes  it 
 the  burial-place  of  the  prophets  Elisha  and  Obadiah 
 (see  various  passages  cited  by  Reland,  pp.  980,  981). 
 Epiphanius  is  at  great  pains,  in  his  work  A<h\ 
 Hcereses  (lib.  i.),  in  which  he  treats  of  the  heresies 
 of  the  Samaritans  with  singular  minuteness,  to 
 account  for  the  origin  of  their  name.  He  inter- 
 prets it  as  D'^~]ptt7,  (jjvXaKes,  or  "keepers."  The 
 hill  on  which  the  city  was  built  was,  he  says, 
 designated  Somer  or  Someron  {'2co/xrip,  'ZoL'/J-6pa>v), 
 from  a  certain  Somoron  the  son  of  Somer,  whom 
 he  considers  to  have  been  of  the  stock  of  the  an- 
 cient Perizzites  or  Girgashites,  themselves  descend- 
 ants of  Canaan  and  Ham.  Pnit  he  adds,  the 
 inhaliitants  may  have  been  called  Samaritans  from 
 their  guarding  the  land,  or  (coming  down  much 
 later  in  their  history)  from  their  guarding  the  Law, 
 as  distinguished  from  the  later  writings  of  the 
 Jewish  Canon,  which  they  refused  to  allow.  [See 
 Samahitais's.] 
 
 For  modern  descrijitions  of  the  condition  of  Sa- 
 maria and  its  neighborhood,  see  Dr.  Robinson's 
 Biblical  Effse(n-clies,  ii.  127-1-33;  Reland's  Palxs- 
 tina,  pp.  344,  979-982;  Raumer's  Palaslina,  pp. 
 144-148,  notes;  Van  de  Velde's  Syria  and  Pales- 
 tine, i.  363-388,  and  ii.  295,  296,  Map,  and  Me- 
 moir ;  Dr.  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp. 
 242-246;  and  a  short  article -by  Mr.  G.  Williams 
 in  the  Diet,  of  (kofj.  Dr.  Kitto,  in  his  Physiad 
 History  of  Palestine,  pp.  cxvii.,  cxviii.,  has  an  in- 
 teresting reference  to  and  extract  from  Sandys, 
 illustrative  of  its  topography  and  general  aspect  at 
 the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
 
 2.  The  Samaria  named  in  the  present  text  of 
 1  Mace.  V.  60  (t?V  ^a/xdpftau;  [Sin.  Alex.  -ptaV-] 
 Samariaw)  is  evidently  an  error.  At  any  rate 
 the  well-known  Samaria  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 taments  cannot  be  intended,  for  it  is  obvious  that 
 Judas,  in  passing  from  Hebron  to  the  land  of  the 
 Philistines  (Azotus),  could  not  make  so  innnense  a 
 (Utirur.  The  true  correction  is  doubtless  supplied 
 by  Josephus  {Ant.  xii.  8,  §  6),  who  has  iMarissa 
 (i.  e.  Makesha),  a  place  which  lay  in  the  road 
 from  Hebron  to  the  Philistine  Plain.  One  of  the 
 ancient  Latin  Versions  exhibits  the  same  reading; 
 which  is  accepted  by  Ewald  {O'escli.  iv.  301)  and  a 
 host  of  conuiientators  (see  Grimm,  Kurzij.  Exey. 
 liandb.,  on  the  passage).  Drusius  proposetl  Sha- 
 araim;  but  this  is  hardly  so  feasible  as  Maresha, 
 and  has  no  external  support. 
 
 3.  Sajia'eia  ([2a/xa/)e(a;  Alex,  very  often  2a- 
 /xapia,  and  so  Sin.  in  1  Mace,  and  N.  T.,  followed 
 by  Tisch.  in  his  8th  ed.  of  the  N.  T. ;  —  "  the 
 country  of  Samaria,"  1  Mace.  x.  30,  xi.  28,  34,  ^ 
 ^afj.ape7Ti^,  Alex,  -pins,  and  so  Sin.  except  1 
 Mace.  xi.  28;  —  (woman)  "of  Samaria,"  John  iv. 
 9,  'S,a/j.ape7Tts,  but  'i'isch.  in  his  8th  ed.  of  the  N. 
 T.,  'Xafj.apiTis; — ]  Joseph.  x^P'^  ^a/xapewv;  PtoL 
 ^afxapls,  'Za.jxdpiLa.   Samaria). 
 
 Samap/itans  {D"'3~ipti7  :  2a^ap67To<;  [Alex. 
 'Zap.apnai,  and  so  Sin.  and  Tisch.  (8th  ed.)  in 
 theN.  T. ;]   Joseph.  2aM"P*'S-   \_Samarit(e\). 
 
 There  are  few  questions  in  Biblical  philology 
 upon  which,  in  recent  times,  scholars  have  come  to 
 such  opposite  conclusions  as  the  extent  of  the  terri- 
 tory to  which  the  former  of  these  words  is  applica- 
 ble, and  the  origin  of  the  people  to  which  the  latter 
 is  applied  in  the  N.  T.  But  ajirobable  solution  of 
 them  may  be  gained  by  careful  attention  to  the 
 historical  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  Jo- 
 sephus, and  by  a  consideration  of  the  geographical 
 features  of  Palestine. 
 
 In  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  a  Samaritan 
 would  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  Samaria. 
 But  it  is  not  found  at  all  in  this  sense,  exclusively 
 at  any  rate,  in  the  O.  T.  In  fact,  it  only  occurs 
 there  once,  and  then  in  a  wider  signification,  in 
 2  K.  xvii.  29.  There  it  is  employed  to  designate 
 those  whom  the  king  of  Assyria  had  "  placed  in 
 (what  are  called)  the  cities  of  Samaria  (whatever 
 these  may  be)  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel." 
 
 Were  the  word  Samaritan  found  elsewhere  in  the 
 0.  T.,  it  would  have  designated  those  who  be- 
 longed to  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  in 
 a  large  sense  was  called  Samaria.  And  as  the  ex- 
 tent of  that  kingdom  varied,  which  it  did  very 
 much,  graduaU)'  diminishing  to  tlie  time  of  Shal- 
 maneser, so  the  extent  of  the  word  Samaritan  would 
 have  varied. 
 
 Samaiua  at  first  included  all  the  tribes  over 
 which  Jeroboam  made  himself  king,  whether  east 
 or  west  of  the  river  .lordaii.  Hence,  even  before 
 the  city  of  Samaria  existed,  we  find  the  "  old 
 prophet  who  dwelt  at  Bethel  "  describing  the  pre- 
 dictions of  "  the  man  of  God  who  came  from 
 Judah,"  in  reference  to  the  altar  at  Bethel,  as 
 directed  not  merely  against  that  altar,  but 
 "  against  all  the  houses  of  the  high-places  which 
 are  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  "  (1  K.  xiii.  32),  i.  e. 
 of  course,  the  cities  of  which  Samaria  was,  or  was 
 to  be,  the  head  or  capital.  In  other  places  in  the 
 historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  (with  the  exception 
 of  2  K.  xvii.  24,  26,  28,  29)  Samaria  seems  to 
 denote  the  city  exclusively.  But  the  prophets  use 
 the  word,  much  as  did  the  old  prophet  of  Bethel, 
 in  a  greatly  extended  sense.  Thus  the  "  calf  of 
 Bethel"  is  called  by  Hosea  (viii.  5,  0)  the  "calf 
 of  Samaria  "  ;  in  Amos  (iii.  9)  the  "  mountains  of 
 
SAMARIA 
 
 Samaria"  are  spoken  of;  and  the  "  captivity  of 
 Samaria  and  her  daughters  "  is  a  phrase  found  in 
 Ezekiel  (xvi.  53).  Hence  the  word  Samaritan 
 must  have  denoted  every  one  subject  to  the  king  of 
 the  northern  capital. 
 
 But,  whatever  extent  the  word  might  have  ac- 
 quired, it  necessarily  became  contracted  as  tlie 
 limits  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  became  contracted. 
 In  all  probaliility  the  territor}'  of  Simeon  and  that 
 of  Dan  were  very  early  absorbed  in  the  kingdom  of 
 Judah.  This  would  be  one  limitation.  Next,  in 
 B.  c.  771  and  740  respectively,  "  Pul,  king  of  As- 
 syria, and  'lilgath-Pilneser,  king  of  Assyria,  carrietl 
 away  the  Reubenites  and  the  Gadites,  and  the  half- 
 tribe  of  Alanasseh,  and  brought  them  unto  Halah, 
 and  Habor,  and  Hara,  and  to  the  river  Gozan  " 
 (1  Chr.  V.  26).  This  would  be  a  second  limitation. 
 But  the  latter  of  these  kings  went  further:  "  He 
 took  Ijon,  and  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  .Janoah,  and 
 Kedesh,  and  Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  all 
 the  land  of  Naphtali.  and  carried  them  captive  to 
 Assyria"  (2  K.  xv.  29).  This  would  be  a  third 
 limitation.  Nearly  a  century  before,  b.  c.  800, 
 "the  Lord  had  begun  to  cut  Israel  short;"  for 
 "  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  smote  them  in  all  the 
 coasts  of  Israel;  from  Jordan  eastward,  all  the  land 
 of  Gilead,  the  Gadites,  and  the  lleubenites,  and  the 
 Manassites,  from  Aroer,  which  is  by  the  river  Ar- 
 non,  even  Gilead  and  Bashan  "  (2  K.  x.  32,  33). 
 This,  however,  as  we  may  conjecture  from  the  di- 
 versity of  expression,  had  been  merely  a  passing 
 inroad,  and  had  involved  no  permanent  subjection 
 of  the  country  or  deportation  of  its  inhabitants. 
 The  invasions  of  Pul  and  of  Tilgath-pilneser  were 
 litter  clearances  of  the  population.  The  territory 
 thus  desolated  by  them  was  probably  occupied  by 
 degrees  by  the  pushing  forward  of  the  neighboring 
 heathen,  or  by  straggling  families  of  the  Israelites 
 theuiselves.  In  reference  to  the  northern  part  of 
 Galilee  we  know  that  a  heathen  population  pre- 
 vailed. Hence  the  phrase  '■  Galilee  of  the  Na- 
 tions," or  "Gentiles"  (Is.  ix.  1;  1  Mace.  v.  1.5). 
 And  no  doubt  this  Avas  the  case  also  beyond  Jor- 
 dan. 
 
 But  we  have  yet  to  arrive  at  a  fourth  limitation 
 of  the  kingdom  of  Samaria,  and  by  consequence,  of 
 the  word  Samaritan.  It  is  evident  from  an  occur- 
 rence in  llezekiah's  reign,  that  just  before  the  dep- 
 osition and  death  of  Iloshea,  the  last  king  of  Is- 
 rael, the  authority  of  the  king  of  Judah,  or,  at 
 least,  his  influence,  was  recognized  by  portions  of 
 Asher,  Lssachar,  and  Zebulun,  and  even  of  Ephraim 
 and  Manasseh  (2  Chr.  xxx.  1-26).  Men  came 
 from  all  those  tribes  to  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem. 
 This  was  about  b.  c.  726.  In  fact,  to  such  miser- 
 able limits  had  the  kingdom  of  Samaria  been  re- 
 duced, that  when,  two  or  three  years  afterwards, 
 we  are  told  that  "  Shalmaneser  came  up  through- 
 out the  land,"  and  after  a  siege  of  three  years 
 "  took  Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into  As- 
 syria, and  placed  them  in  Halah,  and  in  Habor  by 
 the  river  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes  " 
 (2  K.  xvii.  5,  6),  and  when  again  we  are  told  that 
 "  Israel  was  carried  away  out  of  their  own  land 
 into  Assyria"  (2  K.  xvii.  23),  we  must  suppose  a 
 very  small  field  of  operations.  Samaria  (the  city), 
 and  a  few  adjacent  cities  or  villages  only,  repre- 
 sented that  dominion  which  had  once  extended 
 tVoni  Bethel  to  Uan  northwards,  and  from  the 
 Mediterranean  to  the  borders  of  Syria  and  Am- 
 moii  eastwards.  This  is  further  confirmed  by 
 what  ue  read  of  Josiah's  progress,   in  b.  c.  641, 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 2799 
 
 through  "the  cities  of  Manasseh,  and  Ephraim, 
 and  Simeon,  even  unto  Naphtali  "  (2  Chr.  xxxiv. 
 6).  Such  a  progress  would  have  been  impractica- 
 ble had  the  number  of  cities  and  villages  occupied 
 by  the  persons  then  called  Samaritans  been  at  all 
 large. 
 
 This,  however,  brings  us  more  closely  to  the 
 second  point  of  our  discussion,  the  origin  of  those 
 who  are  in  2  K.  xvii.  29,  and  in  the  N.  T.,  called 
 Samaritans.  Shalmaneser,  as  we  have  seen  (2  K. 
 xvii.  5,  6,  26),  carried  Israel,  i.  e.  the  remnant  of 
 the  ten  tribes  which  still  acknowledged  Hoshea's 
 authority,  into  Assyria.  This  remnant  consisted, 
 as  has  been  shown,  of  Samaria  (the  city)  and  a 
 few  adjacent  cities  and  villages.  Now.  1.  Did  he 
 carry  away  all  their  inhabitants  or  noV  2. 
 Whether  they  were  wholly  or  only  partially  des- 
 olated, who  replaced  the  deported  population  ? 
 On  the  answer  to  these  inquiries  will  depend  our 
 determination  of  the  questions,  were  the  Samari- 
 tans a  mixed  race,  composed  partly  of  Jews,  partly 
 of  new  settlers,  or  were  they  purely  of  foreign  ex- 
 traction y 
 
 In  reference  to  the  former  of  these  inquiries,  it 
 may  be  observed  that  the  language  of  Scripture 
 admits  of  scarcely  a  doubt.  "  Israel  was  carried 
 away  "  (2  K.  xvii.  6,  23),  and  other  nations  were 
 placed  "  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  mstedd  of  the 
 children  of  Israel"  (2  K.  xvii.  24).  There  is  no 
 mention  whatever,  as  in  the  case  of  the  somewhat 
 parallel  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  of 
 "  the  poor  of  the  land  being  left  to  be  vine-dressers 
 and  husbandmen  "  (2  K.  xxv.  12).  AVe  add,  that, 
 had  any  been  left,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
 for  the  new  inhabitants  to  have  been  so  utterly 
 unable  to  acquaint  themselves  with  "  the  manner 
 of  the  God  of  the  land,"  as  to  require  to  be  taught 
 by  some  priest  of  the  Captivity  sent  from  the  king 
 of  Assyria.  Besides,  it  was  not  an  unusual  thing 
 with  oriental  conquerors  actually  to  exhaust  a  land 
 of  its  inhabitants.  Conqj.  Herod,  iii.  149,  "  The 
 Persians  dragged  (aayrjvivcravTes)  Samos,  and 
 delivered  it  up  to  Syloson  stript  of  all  its  men;  " 
 and,  again,  Herod,  vi.  31,  for  the  application  of 
 the  same  treatment  to  other  islands,  where  the 
 process  called  a-ayrjveveti'  is  described,  and  is  com- 
 pared to  a  hunting  out  of  the  population  {(Kd-qpev- 
 eiv)-  Such  a  capture  is  presently  contrasted  with 
 the  capture  of  other  territories  to  which  a-ayrii'eii- 
 eii/  was  not  applied.  Josephus's  phrase  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  cities  of  Samaria  is  that  Shalmaneser 
 "transplanted  all  the  people"  (Ant.  ix.  14,  §  1). 
 A  threat  against  Jerusalem,  which  was  indeed  only 
 partially  carried  out,  shows  how  complete  and  sum- 
 mary the  desolation  of  the  last  relics  of  the  sister 
 kingdom  nmst  have  been :  "  I  will  stretch  over 
 .Jerusalem  the  line  of  Samaria,  and  the  phnnmet 
 of  the  house  of  Ahab:  and  I  will  wipe  Jerusalem 
 as  a  man  wipeth  a  dish :  he  wipeth  and  turneth  it 
 upon  the  face  thereof"  (2  K.  xsi.  13).  This  was 
 uttered  within  forty  years  after  b.  c.  721,  during 
 the  reign  of  Manasseh.  It  must  have  derived 
 much  strength  from  the  recentness  and  proximity 
 of  the  calamity. 
 
 We  may  then  conclude  that  the  cities  of  Sama- 
 ria were  not  merely  partially,  I)ut  wholly  evacuated 
 of  their  inhabitants  in  b.  c.  721,  and  that  they  re- 
 mained in  this  desolated  state  until,  in  the  words 
 of  2  K.  xvii.  24,  "  the  king  of  Assyria  brought 
 men  from  Babylon,  and  from  Cuthah,  and  from 
 Ava  (Ivah,  2  K.  xviii.  34),  and  from  Hanrnth.  and 
 from  Sepharvaim,  and  placed  them  in  the  cities  of 
 
2800 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 Samaria  instead  of  the  cliildren  of  Israel:  and  they 
 possessed  Samaria,  and  dwelt  in  the  cities  thereof." 
 Thus  the  new  Samaritans  —  for  such  we  must  now 
 call  them  —  were  Assyrians  by  birth  or  sulijuga- 
 tion,  were  utterly  strangers  in  the  cities  of  Sama- 
 ria, and  were  exclusively  the  inhabitants  of  those 
 cities.  An  incidental  question,  however,  arises, 
 "Who  was  the  king  of  Assyria  that  effected  this 
 colonization  ?  At  first  sight,  one  would  suppose 
 Shalnianeser;  for  the  narrative  is  scarcely  broken, 
 and  the  repeopling  seems  to  be  a  natural  sequence 
 of  the  depopulation.  Such  would  appear  to  have 
 been  Josephus'  view,  for  he  says  of  Shalmaneser, 
 "  When  he  had  removed  the  people  out  of  their 
 land,  he  brought  other  nations  out  of  Cuthali,  a 
 place  so  called  (for  there  is  still  in  Persia  a  river 
 of  that  name),  into  Samaria  and  the  country  of 
 the  Israelites"  {Ant.  ix.  14,  §§  ],  3;  x.  9,  §  7); 
 but  he  must  have  been  led  to  this  interpretation 
 simply  by  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  transactions 
 in  the  Hebrew  text.  The  Samaritans  themselves, 
 in  lizr.  iv.  2,  10,  attributed  their  colonization  not 
 to  Shalmaneser,  but  to  "  Esar-haddon,  king  of  As- 
 sur,"  or  to  "  the  great  and  noble  Asnapper,"  either 
 the  king  himself  or  one  of  bis  generals.  It  was 
 probably  on  his  invasion  of  Judah,  in  the  reign  of 
 Manasseh,  about  B.  C.  077,  that  Esarhaddon  dis- 
 covered the  impolicy  of  leaving  a  tract  upon  the 
 very  frontiers  of  that  kingdom  thus  desolate,  and 
 determined  to  garrison  it  with  foreigners.  The 
 fact,  too,  that  some  of  these  foreigners  came  from 
 Babylon  would  seem  to  direct  us  to  Esarhaddon, 
 rather  than  to  his  grandfather,  Shalmaneser.  It 
 was  only  recently  that  Babylon  had  come  into  the 
 hands  of  the  Assyrian  king.  And  there  is  an- 
 other reason  why  this  date  should  be  preferred.  It 
 coincides  with  the  termination  of  the  sixty-five  years 
 of  Isaiah's  prophecy,  delivered  b.  C.  742,  within 
 which  •'  Ephraini  should  be  broken  that  it  should 
 not  be  a  people"  (Is.  vii.  8).  This  was  not  effect- 
 ually accomplished  until  the  very  land  itself  was 
 occupied  by  strangers.  So  long  as  this  had  not 
 taken  jjlace,  there  might  be  hope  of  return :  after  it 
 bad  taken  place,  no  hope.  Josephus  (A7d.  x.  9,  §  7) 
 expressly  notices  this  difference  in  the  cases  of  the 
 ten  and  of  the  two  tribes.  The  land  of  the  former 
 became  the  possession  of  foreigners,  the  land  of  the 
 latter,  not  so. 
 
 These  strangers,  whom  we  will  now  assume  to 
 have  been  placed  in  "the  cities  of  Samaria"  by 
 Esarhaddon,  were  of  course  idolaters,  and  wor- 
 shipped a  strange  medley  of  divinities.  Each  of 
 the  five  nations,  says  Josephus,  who  is  confirmed 
 by  the  words  of  Scripture,  had  its  own  god.  No 
 place  was  found  for  the  worship  of  Him  who  had 
 once  called  the  land  his  own,  and  whose  it  was 
 still.  God's  displeasure  was  kindled,  and  they  were 
 infested  by  beasts  of  prey,  which  had  probably 
 increased  to  a  great  extent  before  their  entrance 
 upon  it.  "The  Lord  sent  lions  among  them,  which 
 slew  some  of  them."  On  their  explaining  tlieir 
 miserable  condition  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  he  de- 
 spatched one  of  the  captive  priests  to  teach  them 
 "how  they  should  fear  the  Lord."  The  priest 
 came  accordingly,  and  henceforth,  in  the  language 
 of  the  sacred  historian,  they  "  feared  the  Lord,  and 
 served  their  graven  images,  both  their  children  and 
 their  children's  children:  as  did  their  fathers,  so 
 do  they  unto  this  day  "  (2  K.  xvii.  41).  This  last 
 sentence  was  proljably  inserted  by  Ezra.  It  serves 
 two  purixises :  1st,  to  qualify  the  pretensions  of  the 
 Samaritans  of  Ezra's  time  to  be  pure  worshippers 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 of  God  —  they  were  no  more  exclusively  his  ser- 
 vants, than  was  the  Roman  emperor  who  desired 
 to  place  a  statue  of  Christ  in  the  Pantheon  enti- 
 tled to  be  called  a  Christian ;  and,  2dly,  to  show 
 how  entirely  the  Samaritans  of  later  <lays  ditiered 
 from  their  ancestors  in  respect  to  idolatry.  Jose- 
 phus's  account  of  the  distress  of  the  Samaritans, 
 and  of  the  remedy  for  it,  is  very  similar,  with  the 
 exception  that  with  bini  they  are  afHicled  with 
 pestilence. 
 
 Such  was  the  origin  of  the  post-captivity  or  new 
 Samaritans  —  men  not  of  Jewish  extractior),  but 
 from  the  further  East:  "the  Cuthwans  had  for- 
 merly belonged  to  the  imier  parts  of  Persia  and 
 Media,  but  were  then  called  '  Samaritans,'  taking 
 the  name  of  the  country  to  which  tliey  were  re- 
 moved," says  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  !),  §  7).  And 
 again  he  says  (Ant.  ix.  14,  §  3)  they  are  called  "in 
 Hebrew  '  Cuthreans,"  but  in  Greek  '  Samaritans.'  " 
 Our  Lord  expressly  terms  them  aWoyevels  (Luke 
 xvii.  18);  and  Josephus'  whole  account  of  them 
 shows  that  he  believed  them  to  have  lieen  ixeroiKoi 
 aWoe&veis,  though,  as  he  tells  us  in  two  ))laces 
 (Ant.  ix.  14.  §  3,  and  xi.  8,  §  G),  they  sometimes 
 gave  a  different  account  of  their  origin.  But  of 
 this  by-and-by.  A  gap  occurs  in  their  history 
 until  Judah  has  returned  from  captivity.  The}' 
 tlien  desire  to  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the  re- 
 building of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  curi- 
 ous, and  perhaps  indicative  of  the  treacherous 
 character  of  their  designs,  to  find  them  even  then 
 called,  by  anticipation,  "  the  adversaries  of  Judah 
 and  Benjamin"  (Yjlt.  iv.  1),  a  title  which  they 
 afterwards  fully  justified.  But,  so  far  as  profes- 
 sions go,  they  are  not  enemies;  they  are  most 
 anxious  to  be  friends.  Their  religion,  they  assert, 
 is  the  same  as  that  of  the  two  triljes,  therefore 
 they  have  a  right  to  share  in  that  great  religious 
 undertaking.  But  they  do  not  call  it  a  national 
 undertaking.  They  advance  no  pretensions  to  Jew- 
 ish blood.  They  confess  their  Assyrian  descent, 
 and  e\en  put  it  forward  ostentatiously,  perhaps  to 
 enhance  the  merit  of  their  partial  conversion  to 
 God.  That  it  was  but  partial  they  give  no  hint. 
 It  may  have  become  purer  already,  but  we  have  no 
 information  that  it  had.  Be  this,  however,  as  it 
 may,  the  .Tews  do  not  listen  favorably  to  their  over- 
 tures. Ezra,  no  doubt,  from  whose  pen  we  have  a 
 record  of  the  transaction,  saw  them  through  and 
 through.  On  this  the  Samaritans  throw  off  the 
 mask,  and  become  open  enemies,  frustrate  the 
 operations  of  the  .lews  through  the  reigns  of  two 
 Persian  kings,  and  are  only  effectually  silenced  in 
 the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  15.  c.  519. 
 
 The  feud,  thus  unhappily  begun,  grew  year  by 
 year  more  inveterate.  It  is  probable,  too,  that  the 
 more  the  Samaritans  detached  themselves  from 
 idols,  and  became  devoted  exclusively  to  a  sort  of 
 worship  of  Jehovah,  the  more  they  resented  the 
 contempt  with  which  the  Jews  treated  their  offers 
 of  fraternization.  Matters  at  lengtli  came  to  a 
 climax.  About  n.  C.  409,  a  certain  Manasseh,  a 
 man  of  priestly  lineage,  on  being  expelled  from 
 Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah  for  an  unlawful  marriage, 
 obtained  permission  from  the  Persian  king  of  his 
 day,  Darius  Nothus,  to  build  a  temple  on  Mount 
 Gerizini,  for  the  Samaritans,  with  whom  he  had 
 found  refuge.  The  only  thing  wanted  to  crystal- 
 lize the  opposition  between  the  two  races,  namely, 
 a  rallying  point  for  schismatical  worship,  being 
 now  obtained,  their  animosity  became  more  intense 
 than  ever.     The  Samaritans  are  said  to  have  done 
 
SAMARIA 
 
 iverything  in  their  power  to  annoy  the  Jews. 
 They  would  refuse  hospitality  to  pilgrims  on  their 
 road  to  Jerusalem,  as  in  our  Lord's  case.  They 
 would  even  waylay  them  in  their  journey  (.Toseph. 
 Ant.  XX.  t),  §  1);  and  many  were  compelled  through 
 fear  to  take  the  longer  route  by  the  east  of  Jordan. 
 Certain  Samaritans  were  said  to  have  once  pene- 
 trated into  the  lemple  of  .lerusalem,  and  to  ha\e 
 defiled  it  by  scattering  dead  men's  bones  on  the 
 sacred  pavement  {Ant.  xviii.  2,  §  2).  We  are  told 
 too  of  a  strange  piece  of  mockery  which  must  have 
 been  especially  resented.  It  was  the  custom  of  the 
 Jews  to  communicate  to  their  brethren  still  in 
 Babylon  the  exact  day  and  hour  of  the  rising  of 
 the  paschal  moon,  by  beacon-fires  commencing  from 
 Mount  Olivet,  and  flashing  forward  from  liill  to 
 hill  until  they  were  mirrored  in  the  Euphrates. 
 So  the  Greek  poet  represents  Agamemnon  as  con- 
 veying the  news  of  Troy's  capture  to  the  anxious 
 watchers  at  iMycenee.  Those  who  "  sat  by  the 
 waters  of  Baljylon  "  looked  for  this  signal  with 
 much  interest.  It  enabled  them  to  share  in  the 
 devotions  of  those  who  were  in  their  father-land, 
 and  it  proved  to  theui  that  they  were  not  forgotten. 
 The  Samaritans  thought  scorn  of  these  feelings, 
 and  would  not  unfrequently  deceive  and  disappoint 
 them,  by  kindling  a  rival  flame  and  per|)lexing  the 
 watchers  on  the  mountains."  Their  own  temple 
 on  Gerizim  they  considered  to  be  much  superior  to 
 that  at  .lerusalem.  There  they  sacrificed  a  pass- 
 over.  Towards  the  mountain,  even  after  the  tem- 
 ple on  it  had  fallen,  wherever  they  were,  they 
 directed  their  worship.  'I'o  their  copy  of  the  Law 
 they  arrogated  an  antiquity  and  authority  greater 
 than  attached  to  any  copy  in  the  possession  of  the 
 Jews.  The  I^aw  (i.  e.  the  five  books  of  Moses) 
 was  their  sole  code;  for  they  rejected  every  other 
 book  in  the  Jewish  canon.  And  they  professed  to 
 observe  it  better  than  did  the  Jews  themselves, 
 employing  the  expression  not  unfrequently,  "  'I'he 
 Jews  indeed  do  so  and  so;  but  we,  observing  the 
 letter  of  the  Law,  do  otherwise." 
 
 The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  were  not  more 
 conciliatory  in  their  treatment  of  the  Samaritans. 
 Tlie  copy  of  the  Law  possessed  by  that  people  they 
 declared  to  be  the  legacy  of  an  apostate  (Manasseh), 
 and  cast  grave  suspicions  upon  its  genuineness. 
 Certain  other  Jewish  renegades  had  from  time  to 
 time  taken  refuge  with  the  Samaritans.  Hence, 
 by  degrees,  the  Samaritans  claimed  to  partake  of 
 Jewish  blood,  es[)ecially  if  doing  so  happened  to 
 suit  their  interest  (.Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  8,  §  6;  ix.  14, 
 §  3).  A  remarkable  instance  of  this  is  exhibited 
 in  a  request  which  they  made  to  Alexander  the 
 Great,  about  b.  c.  3.32.  They  desired  to  be  excused 
 p.iyment  of  tribute  in  the  sabbatical  year,  on  the 
 plea  that  as  true  Israelites,  descendants  of  I'^phraim 
 and  Manasseh,  sons  of  Joseph,  they  refrained  from 
 cultivating  their  land  in  that  year.  Alexa]ider,  on 
 cross-questioning  them,  discovered  the  hoUowness 
 3f  their  pretensions.  (They  were  greatly  discon- 
 certed   at    their   failure,   and    their  dissatisfaction 
 
 a  •'  This  fact,"  says  Dr.  Trench,  "  is  mentioned  by 
 Makrizi  (see  De  Sacy's  C/irest.  Arahe,  ii.  159),  who 
 altirms  that  it  was  tliis  which  put  the  Jews  on  maliing 
 accurate  calculations  to  determine  the  moment  of  the 
 new  mooa's  appearance  (comp.  Schoettgen's  Hor.  Heb. 
 5.  S44).'' 
 
 b  This  prejudice  had,  of  course,  sometimes  to  give 
 way  to  necessity,  for  the  disciples  had  gone  to  Sychar 
 10   buy  food,  wliile   our   Lord   was   talking   witlx  the 
 
 SAMARIA  2801 
 
 probably  led  to  the  conduct  which  induced  Alex- 
 ander to  besiege  and  destroy  the  city  of  Samaria. 
 Shechem  was  indeed  their  metropolis,  but  the  de 
 struction  of  Samaria  seems  to  have  satisfied  Alex- 
 ander.) Another  instance  of  claim  to  .lewish 
 descent  appears  in  the  words  of  the  woman  of 
 Samaria  to  our  Lord  (John  iv.  12),  "Art  Thou 
 greater  than  our  father  Jacob,  who  gave  us  the 
 weir?  "  A  question  which  she  puts  without  recol- 
 lecting that  she  had  just  before  strongly  contrasted 
 the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans.  Very  far  were  the 
 Jews  from  admitting  this  claim  to  consanguinity 
 on  the  part  of  these  people.  They  were  ever  remind- 
 ing them  that  they  were  after  all  mere  Cuthaeans, 
 mere  strangers  from  Assyria.  They  accused  them 
 of  worshipping  the  idol-gods  buried  long  ago  under 
 the  oak  of  Shechem  (Gen.  xsxv.  4).  They  would 
 have  no  dealings  with  them  that  they  could  possi- 
 bly avoid.''  "  Thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a 
 devil,"  was  the  mode  in  which  they  expressed 
 themselves  when  at  a  loss  for  a  bitter  reproach. 
 Everything  that  a  Samaritan  had  touched  was  as 
 swine's  flesh  to  them.  The  Samaritan  was  pub- 
 licly cursed  in  their  synagogues  —  could  not  be 
 adduced  as  a  witness  in  the  .(ewish  courts  —  could 
 not  be  admitted  to  any  sort  of  proselytism  —  and 
 was  thus,  so  far  as  the  Jew  could  affect  his  posi- 
 tion, excluded  from  hope  of  eternal  life.  The  tra- 
 ditional hatred  in  which  the  Jew  held  him  is 
 expressed  in  Ecclus.  1.  2.5,  26,  "  There  be  two  man- 
 ner of  nations  which  my  heart  abhorreth,  and  the 
 third  is  no  nation :  they  that  sit  on  the  mountain 
 of  Samaria ;  and  they  that  dwell  among  the  I'hilis- 
 tines;  and  that  foolish  people  that  dwell  in  Sichem." 
 And  so  long  was  it  before  such  a  temper  could  be 
 banished  from  the  Jewish  mind,  that  we  find  even 
 the  Apostles  believing  that  an  inhospitable  slight 
 shown  by  a  Samaritan  village  to  Christ  would  be 
 not  undidy  avenged  by  calling  down  fire  from 
 heaven. 
 
 "  Ye  know  not  what  spirit  ye  are  of,"  said  the 
 large-hearted  Son  of  Man,  and  we  find  Him  on  no 
 one  occasion  uttering  anything  to  the  disparage- 
 ment of  the  Samaritans.  His  words,  however,  and 
 the  records  of  his  ministrations  confirm  most 
 thoroughly  the  view  which  has  been  taken  abo\'e, 
 that  the  Samaritans  were  not  Jews.  At  the  first 
 sending  forth  of  the  Twelve  (Matt.  x.  5,  6)  He 
 charges  them,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gen- 
 tiles, and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye 
 not,  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
 of  Israel."  So  again,  in  his  final  address  to  them 
 on  Mount  Olivet,  "  Ye  shall  be  witnesses  to  Me  in 
 Jerusalem  and  in  all  .ludsea,  and  in  Samaria,  and 
 unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  "  (Acts  i.  8). 
 So  the  nine  unthankful  lepers,  Jews,  were  con- 
 trasted by  Him  with  the  tenth  leper,  the  thankful 
 stranger  {aWoy^vris),  who  was  a  Samaritan.  So, 
 in  his  well-known  parable,  a  merciful  Samaritan  is 
 contrasted  with  the  minierciful  priest  and  Levite. 
 And  the  very  worsliip  of  the  two  races  is  described 
 by  Him  as  diflferent  in  character.     "  Ye  worship  ye 
 
 woman  of  Samaria  by  the  well  in  its  suburb  (John  iv. 
 8).  And  from  Luke  ix.  52,  we  learu  that  the  disciples 
 went  before  our  Lord  at  his  command  into  a  certain 
 village  of  the  Samaritans  "  to  make  ready  "  for  Him. 
 Unless,  indeed  (though,  .as  we  see  on  both  occasions, 
 our  Lord's  influence  over  them  was  not  yet  complete), 
 we  are  to  attribute  this  partial  abandonment  of  their 
 ordinary  scruples  to  the  change  which  his  example 
 had  already  wrought  in  them. 
 
2802 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 know  not  what,"  this  is  said  of  the  Samaritans: 
 "  We  know  what  we  worship,  for  salvation  is  of 
 the  Jews"  (John  iv.  22). 
 
 Such  were  tlie  Samaritans  of  our  Lord's  Day:  a 
 people  distinct  from  the  Jews,  though  lying  in 
 the  \ery  midst  of  the  Jews;  a  people  preserving 
 their  identity,  though  seven  centuries  had  rolled 
 away  since  they  had  been  brought  from  Assyria 
 by  Esarliaddon,  and  though  they  had  abandoned 
 their  polytheism  for  a  sort  of  ultra  Jlosaicism ;  a 
 people,  who  —  though  their  limits  had  been  grad- 
 ually contracted,  and  the  rallying  place  of  their 
 religion  on  Mount  Gerizim  had  been  destroyed  one 
 hundred  and  sixty  years  before  by  John  Hyrcanus 
 (b.  c.  130),  and  though  Samaria  (the  city)  had 
 been  again  and  again  destroyed,  and  though  their 
 territory  had  been  the  battle-field  of  Syria  and 
 Egypt  —  still  preserved  their  nationality,  still  wor- 
 shipped from  Shechem  and  their  other  impoverished 
 settlements  towards  their  sacred  hill;  still  retained 
 their  nationality,  and  could  not  coalesce  with  the 
 Jews :  — 
 
 *0^o?  t'  aA.et^a  r'  ey\ea.^  TavTw  Kuret, 
 At;^o<7TaToOi'T*  ai'  ov   (/>tA.a>s  TrpouGuveiroi^. 
 
 Not  indeed  that  we  must  suppose  that  the  whole 
 of  the  country  called  in  our  Lord's  time  Samaria 
 was  in  the  possession  of  the  Cuthaan  Samaritans, 
 or  that  it  had  ever  been  so.  "  Samaria,"  says 
 Joseplnis  (B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  4),  "lies  between  Juda;a 
 and  Galilee.  It  connnences  from  a  village  called 
 Ginsea  (Jcnin),  on  the  great  plain  (that  of  Esdra- 
 elon),  and  extends  to  the  toparchy  of  Acrabatta," 
 in  the  lower  part  of  the  territory  of  l^phraim. 
 These  points,  indicating  the  extreme  northern  and 
 the  extreme  southern  parallels  of  latitude  between 
 which  Samaria  was  situated,  enable  us  to  fix  its 
 boundaries  with  tolerably  certainty.  It  was  bounded 
 northward  by  the  range  of  hills  which  commences 
 at  Mount  Carmel  on  the  west,  and,  after  making  a 
 bend  to  the  southwest,  runs  almost  due  east  to  the 
 valley  of  the  .lordan,  forming  the  southern  border 
 of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  It  touched  towards  the 
 south,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  northern  limits  of 
 Benjamin.  Thus  it  comprehended  the  ancient  ter- 
 ritory of  Ephraim,  and  of  those  iSIanassites  who 
 were  west  of  Jordan.  "  Its  character,"  .Josephus 
 continues,  "  is  in  no  respect  different  from  that  of 
 Judaea.  Both  abound  in  mountains  and  plains, 
 and  are  suited  for  agriculture,  and  productive, 
 wooded,  and  full  of  fruits  both  wild  and  cultivated. 
 They  are  not  aliundantly  watered ;  but  nnich  rain 
 falls  there.  The  springs  are  of  an  exceedingly 
 sweet  taste;  and,  on  account  of  the  quantity  of 
 good  grass,  the  cattle  there  produce  more  milk 
 than  elsewhere.  But  the  best  proof  of  their  rich 
 ness  and  fertility  is  that  both  are  thickly  pop- 
 ulated." The  accounts  of  modern  travellers  con- 
 firm this  description  liy  the  Jewish  historian  of 
 the  "good  land"  which  was  allotted  to  that  pow- 
 erful portion  of  the  house  of  Joseph  which  crossed 
 the  Jordan,  on  the  first  division  of  the  territory. 
 The  Cuthsean  Samaritans,  however,  possessed  only 
 a  few  towns  and  villages  of  this  large  area,  and 
 these  lay  almost  together  in  the  centre  of  the  dis- 
 trict. Shechem  or  Sychar  (as  it  was  contempt- 
 uously designated)  was  their  chief  settlement,  even 
 before  Alexander  the  Great  destroyed  Samaria, 
 probably  because  it  lay  almost  close  to  Mount 
 Gerizim.  Afterwards  it  Ijecame  more  prominently 
 go,  and  there,  on  the  destruction  of  the  temple  on 
 Gerizim,  by  John  Hyrcanus  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  9, 
 
 SAMARIA 
 
 §  1),  they  built  themselves  a  temple.  The  modern 
 representative  of  Shechem  is  Nablus,  a  corruption 
 of  Neapolis,  or  the  "New  Town,"  'ouilt  by  Ves- 
 pasian a  little  to  the  west  of  the  older  town  which 
 was  then  ruined.  At  Nablus  the  Samaritans  have 
 still  a  settlement,  consisting  of  about  200  persons. 
 Yet  they  observe  the  Law,  and  celebrate  the  I'ass- 
 over  on  a  sacred  spot  on  Mount  Gerizim,  with  an 
 exactness  of  minute  ceremonial  which  the  Jews 
 themselves  have  long  intermitted : 
 
 "  Quanquam  dirutii,  servat 
 Ignem  Trojanuni,  et  Vestam  colit  Alba  minorem." 
 
 The  Samaritans  were  very  troublesome  both  to 
 their  Jewish  neighbors  and  to  their  Koman  mas- 
 ters, in  the  first  century,  A.  D.  Pilate  chastised 
 them  with  a  severity  which  led  to  his  own  down- 
 fall (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  1),  and  a  slaughter  of 
 10,000  of  them  took  place  under  Vespasian  {B.  J. 
 iii.  7,  §  32).  In  spite  of  these  reverses  they  in- 
 creased greatly  in  numbers  towards  its  termination, 
 and  appear  to  have  grown  into  iniportance  under 
 Dositheus,  who  was  probably  an  apostate  Jew. 
 Epiphanius  {adv.  Iliereses,  lib.  i.),  in  the  fourth 
 century,  considers  them  to  be  the  chief  and  most 
 dangerous  adversaries  of  Christianity,  and  he  enu- 
 merates the  several  sects  into  which  they  had  by 
 that  time  divided  themselves.  They  were  popu- 
 larly, and  even  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  confounded 
 with  the  Jews,  insomuch  that  a  legal  interpretation 
 of  the  Gospel  was  described  as  a  tenilency  to 
 'Zafxapemafxds  or  'lov5aiff/iL6s.  This  confusion, 
 however,  did  not  extend  to  an  identification  of  the 
 two  races.  It  was  simply  an  assertion  that  their 
 extreme  opinions  were  identical.  And  previou.sly 
 to  an  outrage  which  they  connnitted  on  the  Chris- 
 tians at  Neapolis  in  the  reign  of  Zeno,  towards 
 the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  the  distinction  between 
 them  and  the  Jews  was  sutficiently  known,  and 
 even  recognized  in  the  Theodosian  Code.  This 
 was  so  severely  punished,  that  they  sank  into  an 
 obscurity,  which,  though  they  are  just  noticed  by 
 travellers  of  the  twelfth  and  fourteenth  centuries, 
 was  scarcely  broken  until  the  sixteenth  century. 
 In  the  latter  half  of  that  century  a  correspondence 
 with  them  was  commenced  by  Joseph  Scaliger. 
 (De  Sacy  has  edited  two  of  their  letters  to  that 
 eminent  scholar.)  Job  Ludolf  received  a  letter 
 from  them,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  next  century 
 These  three  letters  are  to  be  foimd  in  Eichliorn's 
 Repevtorium  filr  Biblische  vnd  Mori/enlihidische 
 Litteratur,  vol.  xiii.  They  are  of  great  archa'o- 
 logical  interest,  and  enter  very  minutely  into  the 
 observances  of  the  Samaritan  ritual.  Among  other 
 jioints  worthy  of  notice  in  them  is  tlie  inconsistency 
 displayed  by  the  writers  in  valuing  theniselves  on 
 not  being  Jews,  and  yet  claiming  to  be  descendants 
 of  Joseph.  See  also  De  Sacy's  Cvn'esjJom/'incR 
 des  SamnrUnins,  etc.,  in  Notices  et  Extr.  des  .M SS. 
 de  la  B'Mioth.  du  Hoi,  etc.,  vol.  xii.  And,  for 
 more  modern  accounts  of  the  people  themsehes, 
 Robinson's  Biblical  Researches,  ii.  280-311,  iii. 
 12U-30;  Wilson's  Lands  of  the  Bible,  ii.  40-78; 
 Van  de  Velde's  Sytin  and  Palestine,  ii.  21)0  seq.; 
 Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  240;  Rogers's 
 Notices  of  the  Modern  Samaritans,  p.  25;  Grove's 
 account  of  their  Day  of  Atonement  in  Vacntion 
 Tourists  for  1861;  and  Dr.  Stanley's,  of  their 
 Passover,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Chtirch, 
 App.  iii.  [Passover,  vol.  iii.  p.  2357  f.,  Amer. 
 ed.] 
 
 The  view  maintained  in  the  above  remarks,  aa 
 
SAMARITAN 
 
 to  the  purely  Assyrian  origin  of  tlie  New  Samari- 
 tans, is  that  of  Suicer,  lieland,  Hammond,  Drusius 
 in  the  Crilici  Sficri,  Maldonatus,  Ilengsteiiberg, 
 Hiiverniclc,  Kobinson,  and  Dean  Trencli.  Tlie 
 reader  is  referred  to  tlie  very  clear  but  too  brief 
 discussion  of  the  subject  by  the  last-mentioned 
 learned  writer,  in  his  Parables,  pp.  310,  311,  and 
 to  the  authorities,  especially  De  Sacy,  which  are 
 there  quoted.  There  is  no  doubt  in  the  world 
 that  it  was  the  ancient  view.  We  have  seen  what 
 Josephus  said,  and  Origen,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius, 
 Chrysostom,  and  Theodoret,  say  the  same  thing. 
 Socrates,  it  must  be  admitted,  calls  the  Samaritans 
 OTrJtrx'O'M'^  'lovSaiaiv,  but  he  stands  almost  alone 
 among  the  ancients  in  making  this  assertion.  Ori- 
 gen and  Cyril  indeed  both  mention  their  claim  to 
 descent  from  Joseph,  as  evidenced  in  the  statement 
 of  the  woman  at  the  well,  but  mention  it  only  to 
 declare  it  unfounded.  Others,  as  Winer,  Diillin- 
 ger,  and  Dr.  Davidson,  have  held  a  different  view, 
 which  may  be  expressed  thus  in  Diillinger's  own 
 words:  "In  the  northern  part  of  the  Promised 
 Land  (as  opposed  to  Judcea  proper)  there  grew  up 
 a  mingled  race  which  drew  its  origin  from  the 
 remnant  of  the  Israelites  who  were  left  behind  in 
 the  country  on  the  removal  of  the  Ten  Trilies,  and 
 also  from  the  heathen  colonists  who  were  trans- 
 planted into  the  cities  of  Israel.  Their  religion 
 was  as  hybrid  as  their  extraction;  they  worshipped 
 Jehovah,  but,  in  addition  to  Him,  also  the  heathen 
 idols  of  Phoenician  origin  which  they  had  brought 
 from  their  native  land  "  (Jltk/eidhum  und  Jiuhn- 
 thiim,.  p.  739,  §  7).  If  the  words  of  Scripture  are 
 to  be  taken  alone,  it  does  not  appear  how  this  view 
 is  to  be  maintained.  At  any  rate,  as  Drusius  ob- 
 serves, the  only  mixture  was  that  of  Jewish  apos- 
 tate fugitives,  long  after  Esarhaddon's  colonization, 
 not  at  the  time  of  the  colonization.  But  modern 
 as  this  view  is,  it  has  for  some  years  been  the  pop- 
 ular one,  and  even  Dr.  Stanley  seems,  though 
 quite  incidentally,  to  have  admitted  it  (S.  cf  P. 
 p.  2-10).  He  does  not,  however,  enter  upon  its  de- 
 fense. ]Mr.  Grove  is  also  in  favor  of  it.  See  his 
 notice  already  mentioned. 
 
 The  authority  due  to  the  copy  of  the  Law  pos- 
 sessed by  the  Samaritans,  and  the  determination 
 whether  the  Samaritan  reading  of  Dent,  xxvii.  4, 
 Geiizim,  or  that  of  the  Hebrew,  El>al,  is  to  be 
 preferred,  are  discussed  in  the  next  article.  [See 
 Samaiutan  Pentateuch;  Ebal;  Gekizim; 
 Shechem;  Sichem;  Sychar.]  J.  A.  H. 
 
 *  On  Samaria  and  the  Samaritans  see  the  elab- 
 orate article  of  J.  H.  Petermann  in  Herzog's  Bea/- 
 Encykl.  xiii.  359-391  (comp.  his  R^lsen  ini  Orient, 
 Leipz.  1860-61,  i.  269-292).  See  also  John  :\Iills's 
 Three  Months'  Residence  in  Nablus,  Lond.  1804, 
 and  a  series  of  learned  articles  by  Dr.  Geiger  in 
 the  Zeitschr.  d.  deutschen  monjenl.  CesellschaJ't 
 from  18G2  to  1808.  A. 
 
 *  SAMARITAN.     [Samahia,  3.] 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH,  a  Recen- 
 sion of  the  commonly  received  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
 Mosaic  Law,  in  use  with  the  Samaritans,  and  writ- 
 jen    in    the   ancient    Hebrew    {Ibri),   or   so-called 
 
 tinguished  from  S~lT37,  iT^Tlti'S  ^HD.  Comp. 
 Synh.  21  b,  Jer.  Meg.  5,  2;  Tosifa  Synh.i;  SyjiUrUr. 
 22  a,  Meg.  Jer.  1,  9,  Sota  Jer.  7,  2,  sq. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2808 
 
 Samaritan  character."  This  recension  is  found 
 vaguely  quoted  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers  of  tla 
 Church,  under  the  name  of  "  UaAaidraTov  'EjSpa'i' 
 Khv  Th  Trapa  2a|tapeiTa?s,"  in  contradistinction  to 
 the  " 'E/Spai'K-bc  rh  wapa  'lov5aiois\  "  further,  a* 
 "  Samaritanorum  Volumina,"  etc.  Thus  Origen  on 
 Num.  xiii.  1,  .  ..."  &  /col  avra  e/c  rovTicv  2a- 
 /xapfiToiv  'E^paiKov  ix^re^a.Kofj.fV,^''  and  on  Num. 
 xxi.  13,  .  .  .  '■^  a,  iv  fxSvois  Twv'S.afxapinwv  ivpo- 
 jU6i',"  etc.  Jerome,  Prol.  to  Kings:  "  Saniaritani 
 etiam  Pentateuchum  Moysis  totidem  ("?  22,  like 
 the  "  Hebrews,  Syrians  and  Chaldwans"')  litteris 
 habent,  figuris  tantum  et  apicibus  discrepantes." 
 Also  on  Gal.  iii.  10,  "  quam  ob  causam '"  —  (viz. 
 'Eiri/caTapaTos  Tzashs  ovk  i/x/j.ei'ei  iv  iraci  rols 
 ytypafxixivois,  being  quoted  there  from  Deut.  xxvii. 
 
 26,  where  the  Masoretic  text  has  only  ~'t£'S  ~I1"1W 
 
 nwTH  n-nnn  n^i  ns  nv  w^—  "cursed 
 
 be  he  that  confirmeth  not''  tlie  words  of  this  Law 
 to  do  them ;  "  while  the  LXX.  reads  it  as  avBpwTros 
 .  .  waa-i  rois  \6yois)  —  "quam  ob  causam  Sa- 
 maritanorum   Ilebruea   volumina   relegens    inveni 
 
 VD  scriptum  esse;  "  and  he  forthwith  charges  the 
 
 Jews  with  having  deliberately  taken  out  the  73, 
 because  they  did  not  wish  to  be  bound  individually 
 to  all  the  ordinances:  forgetting  at  the  same  time 
 
 that  this  same  V3  occurs  in  the  very  next  chap- 
 ter of  the  Masoretic  text  (Deut.  xxviii.  15)  —  '■^Ali 
 his  commandments  and  his  statutes."  Eusebius 
 of  Cffisarea  observes  that  the  LXX.  and  the  Sam. 
 Pent,  agree  against  the  lieceived  Text  in  the  num- 
 ber of  years  from  the  Deluge  to  Abraham.  Cyril 
 of  Alexandria  speaks  of  certain  words  (Gen.  iv.  8), 
 wanting  in  the  Hebrew,  but  found  in  the  Samari- 
 tan. The  same  remark  is  made  by  Procopius  of 
 Gaza  with  respect  to  Deut.  i.  6 ;  Num.  x.  10,  x. 
 9,  &c.  Other  passages  are  noticed  by  Diodorus, 
 the  Greek  Scholiast,  etc.  The  Talmud,  on  the 
 other  hand,  mentions  the  Sam.  Pent,  distinctly 
 and  contemptuously  as  a  clumsily  forged  record: 
 "  You  have  falsified <^  your  Petitaleuch,"  said  R. 
 Eliezer  b.  Shimon  to  the  Samaritan  scribes,  with 
 reference  to  a  passage  in  Deut.  xi.  30,  where  the 
 v^■ell-unde^stood  word  Shechem  was  gratuitously 
 inserted  after  "  the  plains  of  Moreh,"  —  "  and  you 
 have  not  profited  aught  by  it"  (comp.  Jer.  Sutah 
 21  b,  cf.  17;  Bdhll  33  b).  On  another  occasion 
 they  ai'e  ridiculed  on  account  of  their  ignorance  of 
 one  of  the  simplest  rules  of  Hebrew  Grammar,  dis- 
 played in  their  Pentateuch ;  namely,  the  use  of  the  ri 
 luc'de  (unknown,  however,  according  to  Jer.  Meg. 
 0,  2,  also  to  the  people  of  Jerusalem ).  "  Who  has 
 caused  you  to  blunder 'i"  said  K.  Shimon  b.  Elie- 
 zer to  them;  refemng  to  their  abolition  of  the 
 Mosaic  ordinance  of  marrying  the  deceased  broth  • 
 er's  wife  (Deut.  xxv.  5  if.),  —  through  a  misinter- 
 pretation of  the  passage  in  question,  which  enjoins 
 that  the  wife  of  the  dead  man  shall  not  be  "  with-  . 
 out "  to  a  stranger,  but  that  the   brother  should 
 
 marry  her:  they,  however,  taking  n2inn 
 (="-Vinb)  to  be  an  epithet  of  Htt^N,  "wife," 
 
 6  The  A.  v.,  following  the  LXX..  and  perhaps  Lu- 
 ther, has  inserted  the  word  all. 
 
2804  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 translated   "the  outer  ?('//<',"  i.  e.   the  l/etivt/icd 
 only  {./€i:  Ji'ham.  3,  2,  Bcr.  E.,  etc.)- 
 
 Down  to  within  the  hist  two  hundred  and  filty 
 jrears,  however,  no  copy  of  this  divergent  Code  of 
 Laws  had  reached  Europe,  and  it  began  to  be  pro- 
 nounced a  fiction,  and  the  plain  words  of  the 
 Church  Fathers  —  the  better  known  authorities  — 
 who  quoted  it,  were  subjected  to  subtle  interjire- 
 tations.  Suddenly,  in  1010,  I'ietro  della  Valle, 
 one  of  the  first  discoverers  also  of  the  Cuneiform 
 inscriptions,  acquired  a  complete  Codex  from  the 
 Samaritans  in  Damascus.  In  102-3  it  was  jire- 
 sented  by  Achille  llarley  de  Sancy  to  the  Library 
 of  the  Oratory  in  I'aris,  and  in  1028  there  ap- 
 peared a  brief  description  of  it  liy  J.  JMorinus  in 
 his  preface  to  the  Ilonian  te.\t  of  the  LXX.  Three 
 years  later,  shortly  before  it  was  published  in  the 
 I'aris  I'olyglott,  —  whence  it  was  copied,  with  few 
 emendations  from  other  codices,  by  Walton,  — 
 Morinus,  tlie  first  editor,  wrote  his  ExercUidumes 
 Ecrhsiaslicie  in  utrumque  Saiiicirllanoniiii  Ptntn- 
 teiiclium,  in  which  he  pronounced  the  newly  found 
 Codex,  with  all  its  innumerable  Variants  from  the 
 ISIasoretic  te.\t,  to  be  infinitely  superior  to  the  lat- 
 ter: in  fact,  the  unconditional  and  speedy  emenda- 
 tion of  the  deceived  Text  thereby  was  urged  most 
 authoritatively.  And  now  the  impulse  was  given 
 to  one  of  the  fiercest  and  most  iiarren  literary  and 
 theological  controversies:  of  which  more  anon. 
 Between  1620  and  1G30  six  additional  copies,  partly 
 complete,  partly  incomplete,  were  acquired  liy 
 U.ssher:  five  of  which  he  deposited  in  English 
 libraries,  while  one  was  sent  to  De  Dieu,  and  has 
 disappeared  mysteriously.  Another  Codex,  now  in 
 the  .Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan,  was  brought  to 
 Italy  in  1G21.  I'eiresc  procured  two  more,  one  of 
 which  was  placed  in  the  Royal  Library  of  Paris, 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 and  one  in  the  Barberini  at  Rome.  Thus  the  num- 
 lier  of  MSS.  in  Europe  gradually  grew  to  sixteen 
 During  the  present  century  another,  but  ver)'  frag- 
 mentary copy,  was  acquired  by  the  Gotha  Library. 
 A  copy  of  the  entire  ( V )  Pentateuch,  with  Targum 
 (?  Sam.  Version),  in  parallel  columns,  4to,  on 
 parchment,  was  brought  from  Nublus  by  Mr.  Grove 
 in  1801  for  the  Count  of  Paris,  in  whose  library  it 
 is.  Single  portions  of  the  Sam.  Pent.,  in  a  more 
 or  less  defective  state,  are  now  of  no  rare  occur- 
 rence in  Euro])e. 
 
 Respecting  the  external  condition  of  these  MSS., 
 it  may  be  observed  that  their  sizes  vary  from  12mo 
 to  folio,  and  that  no  scroll,  such  as  the  -Jews  and 
 the  Samaritans  use  in  their  synagogues,  is  to  be 
 found  among  them.  The  letters,  which  are  of  a 
 size  corresponding  to  that  of  the  book,  exhibit 
 none  of  those  varieties  of  shape  so  frequent  in  the 
 Masor.  Text;  such  as  majuscules,  minuscules,  sus- 
 pended, inverted  letters,  etc.  Their  material  is 
 vellum  or  cotton-paper:  the  ink  used  is  black  iu 
 all  cases  save  the  scroll  used  by  the  Samaritans  at 
 NCililus,  the  letters  of  which  are  in  gold.  There 
 are  neither  vowels,  accents,  nor  diacritical  points. 
 The  individual  words  are  separated  from  each  other 
 by  a  dot.  Greater  or  smaller  divisions  of  the  text 
 are  marked  by  two  dots  placed  one  above  the  other, 
 and  by  an  asterisk.  A  small  line  above  a  conso- 
 nant indicates  a  peculiar  meaning  of  the  word,  an 
 unusual  form,  a  passive,  and  the  like :  it  is,  in  fact, 
 a  contrivance  to  bespeak  attention."  The  whole 
 Pentateuch  is  divided  into  nine  hundred  and  sixty- 
 four  paragraphs,  or  Kazzhi,  the  termination  of 
 which  is  indicated  by  these  figures,  =; ,  .•.,  or  ■<. 
 At  the  end  of  each  book  the  number  of  its  divis- 
 ions is  stated  thus :  — 
 
 (250)  DT  D\nsrj  'J'^!i'p 
 
 (200)  D\"ISa       " 
 
 (i30)n'^t27ib::7'insx2    " 
 (218)  n'^1  •  -)     " 
 
 (ICO)  1D1  •  p       " 
 
 ;  'JIttJSin  "liTD  ntn  [Masoret.  Cod.  12  Sldras  (ParshiotU),  50  chapters]. 
 
 "^3ti7n    " 
 
 "    [     " 
 
 11 
 
 tt;^bLZ7n    " 
 
 "    [     " 
 
 10 
 
 •^r^ann    " 
 
 ))        r          I! 
 
 10 
 
 jf'^ttnn    " 
 
 "        [          " 
 
 11 
 
 The  Sam.  Pentateuch  is  halved  in  Lev.  \ii.  15  '  son  of  Pinehas,  son  of  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron  the 
 (viii.  8,  in  I  lebrew  Text),  where  the  words  "  Middle  !  Priest,  —  upon  them  be  the  (irace  of  Jehovah  !  To 
 of  the  Thoraii "  ''  are  found.  At  the  end  of  each  ;  his  honor  have  I  written  this  Holy  Law  at  tlie  en- 
 MS.  the  year  of  the  copying,  the  name  of  the  scribe,  \  trance  of  the  Tabernacle  of  Testimony  on  the 
 and  also  that  of  the  proprietor,  are  usually  stated,  j  Mount  Gerizim,  Beth  ICl,  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
 
 Yet  their  dates  are  not  always  trustworthy  when 
 given,  and  very  difficult  to  be  conjectured  when  en- 
 tirely omitted,  since  the  Samaritan  letters  afibrd  no 
 internal  evidence  of  the  period  in  which  they  were 
 written.  To  none  of  the  MSS.,  however,  which 
 have  as  yet  reached  I^n-ope,  can  lie  assigned  a 
 higher  date  than  the  lOtli  Christian  century.  The 
 scroll  used  in  Niiblas  bears  —  so  the  Samaritans 
 pretend  —  the  following  inscription :  ''  I,  Abisha, 
 
 a  'nyr\    and    r[^T\,   IV  and   I'S,   "I^T  and 
 
 nn-T,  bs  and  bs,  bps^  and  b^s*^  snp"' 
 
 and  M"^p"),  W  and  W,  the  suffixes  at  the  end  of  a 
 ivord,  the  71  without  a  dagesh,  etc.,  are  thus  pointed 
 ^ut  to  the  reader. 
 
 ^  smnnsT  wabD. 
 
 c  It  would  appear,  however  (see  Archdeacon  Tat- 
 taa's  notice  in  the   Parthenon,  No.  4,  May  24,  1862), 
 
 the  taking  possession  of  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and 
 all  its  boundaries  around  it,  by  the  Children  of  Is- 
 rael. I  praise  Jehovah."  (Letter  of  Meshalmah 
 b.  Ab  Sechuah,  Cod.  19,791,  Add.  MSS.  Brit.  Mus. 
 Conip.  Kpht.  Sain.  Sichemhtiriim  ad  Jubiim  Lii- 
 ddlplium,  Cizse,  1688;  Antiq.  Eccl.  Oritnt.  p.  123; 
 Iluntingtoni  Jtpist.  pp.  49,  56:  Eichhorn's  Rvper- 
 ioriumf.  Mid.  und  morr/.  Lit.,  toni.  ix.,  etc.)  But 
 no  European  <"  has  ever  succeeded  in  finding  it  in 
 
 that  Mr.  Levysohn,  a  person  lately  attached  to  the 
 Russian  staff  in  Jerusalem,  has  fomid  the  inscription 
 in  question  "  going  through  the  middle  of  the  body  of 
 the  Text  of  the  Decalogue,  and  extending  through 
 three  columns."  Considering  that  the  Samaritans 
 themselves  told  Huntington,  "  that  this  inscription 
 had  been  in  their  scroll  once,  but  must  have  been 
 erased  by  some  wicked  hand,"  this  startling  piece  of 
 information  must  be  received  with  extreme  caution  : 
 no  less  so  than  the  other  more  or  less  vague  state- 
 ments with  respect  to  the  labors  and  pretended  discov- 
 eries of  Mr.  Levysohn.     See  note,  p.  2810. 
 
SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 this  scroll,  however  great  the  pains  bestowed  upon 
 the  search  (conip.  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  ii,  132);  and 
 even  if  it  had  been  found,  it  would  not  have  de- 
 served the  slightest  credence. 
 
 \Ve  have  briefly  i-tated  above  that  the  Ejccrcitn- 
 tiones  of  JForinus,  which  placed  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
 tateiicli  far  above  the  Received  Text  in  point  of 
 genuineness,  —  partly  on  account  of  its  agreeing  in 
 many  places  with  the  LXX.,  and  partly  on  ac- 
 count of  its  superior  "  lucidity  and  harmony,"  — 
 excited  and  kept  up  for  nearly  two  hundred  years 
 one  of  the  most  extraordinary  controversies  on  rec- 
 ord. Characteristically  enough,  however,  this  was 
 set  at  rest  once  for  all  by  the  very  first  systematic 
 investigation  of  the  point  at  issue.  It  would  now 
 appear  as  if  the  unquestioning  rapture  with  which 
 every  new  literary  discovery  was  formerly  hailed, 
 the  innate  animosity  against  the  Masoretic  (.lewish) 
 Text,  the  general  preference  for  the  LXX.,  the  de- 
 fective state  of  Semitic  studies,  —  as  if,  we  say, 
 all  these  put  together  were  not  sufficient  to  account 
 for  the  phenomenon  that  men  of  any  critical  acu- 
 men could  lor  one  moment  not  only  place  the  Sam. 
 Pent,  on  a  par  with  the  Masoretic  Text,  but  even 
 raise  it,  unconditionally,  far  abo^e  it.  There  was 
 indeed  another  cause  at  work,  especially  in  the  first 
 period  of  the  dispute :  it  was  a  controversial  spirit 
 which  prompted  Morinus  and  his  followers,  Cap- 
 pellus  and  others,  to  prove  to  the  Keformers  what 
 kind  of  value  was  to  be  attached  to  their  authority: 
 the  receixed  form  of  the  Bible,  upon  which  and 
 which  alone  they  professed  to  take  their  stand  ;  — 
 it  was  now  evident  that  nothing  short  of  the  Di- 
 vine Spirit,  under  the  influence  and  inspiration  of 
 which  the  Scriptures  were  interpreted  and  ex- 
 pounded by  the  Roman  Church,  could  be  relied 
 upon.  On  the  other  hand,  most  of  the  "  Antimo- 
 rinians''''  —  De  Muys,  Hottinger,  St.  Morinus, 
 Buxtorf,  Fuller,  Leusden,  Pfeitter,  etc.  —  instead 
 of  patiently  and  critically  examining  the  subject 
 and  refuting  their  adversaries  by  arguments  which 
 were  within  their  reach,  as  they  are  within  ours, 
 directed  their  attacks  against  the  persons  of  the 
 Morinians,  and  thus  their  misguided  zeal  left  the 
 question  of  the  superiority  of  the  new  document 
 over  the  old  where  they  found  it.  Of  higher  value 
 were,  it  is  true,  the  labors  of  Simon,  Le  Clerc, 
 Walton,  etc.,  at  a  later  period,  who  proceeded  ec- 
 lectically,  rejecting  many  readings,  and  adopting 
 others  which  seemed  preferable  to  those  of  the  old 
 text.  Houbigaut,  however,  with  unexampled  igno- 
 rance and  obstinacy,  returned  to  Morinus's  first 
 notion  —  already  generally  abandoned  —  of  the  un- 
 questionable and  thorough  superiority.  He,  again, 
 was  followed  more  or  less  closely  by  Kennicott,  Al. 
 a  St.  Aquilino,  Lobstein,  Geddes,  and  others.  The 
 discussion  was  taken  up  once  more  on  the  other 
 side,  chiefly  by  Ravins,  who  succeeded  in  finally 
 disposing  of  this  point  of  the  superiority  {ExercUt. 
 Pliil.  in  Houbif/.  Prol.  Lugd.  Bat.  1755).  It  was 
 from  his  day  forward  allowed,  almost  on  all  hands. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     2805 
 
 that  the  Masoretic  Text  was  the  genuine  one,  but 
 that  in  doubtful  cases,  when  the  Samaritan  had  an 
 "unquestionably  clearer"  reading,  this  was  to  be 
 adopted,  since  a  certain  amount  of  value,  however 
 limited,  did  attach  to  it.  INIichaelis,  Eichhorn, 
 Bertholdt,  Jahn,  and  the  majority  of  modern  crit- 
 ics, adhered  to  this  opinion.  Here  the  matter 
 rested  until  1815,  when  Gesenius  [De  Pent.  Sam. 
 Oiif/ine,  Indole,  et  Auctoritnte)  abolished  the  rem- 
 nant of  the  authority  of  the  Sam.  Pent.  So  mas- 
 terly, lucid,  and  clear  are  his  arguments  and  his 
 proofs,  that  there  has  been  and  will  be  no  further 
 question  as  to  the  absence  of  all  value  in  this  Re- 
 cension, and  in  its  pretended  emendations.  In 
 fact,  a  glance  at  the  systematic  arrangement  of  the 
 variants,  of  which  he  first  of  all  bethoui;ht  himself, 
 is  quite  sufficient  to  convince  the  reader  at  once 
 that  they  are  for  the  most  part  mere  blunders, 
 arising  from  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  first 
 elements  of  grammar  and  exegesis.  That  others 
 owe  their  existence  to  a  studied  design  of  conform- 
 ing certain  passages  to  the  Samaritan  mode  of 
 thought,  speech,  and  faith  —  more  especially  to 
 show  that  the  Moinit  Gerizim,  upon  which  their 
 temple  stood,  was  the  spot  chosen  and  indicated  by 
 God  to  Moses  as  the  one  upon  which  He  desired  to 
 be  worshipped."  Einally,  that  others  are  due  to  a 
 tendency  towards  removing,  as  well  as  linguistic 
 shortcomings  would  allow,  all  that  seemed  obscure 
 or  in  any  way  doubtful,  and  towards  filling  up  all 
 apparent  imperfections :  either  by  repetitions  or  by 
 means  of  newly-invented  and  badly-fitting  words 
 and  phrases.  It  must,  however,  be  premised  that, 
 except  two  alterations  (Ex.  xiii.  7,  where  the  Sam. 
 reads  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread," 
 instead  of  the  received   "  Seven  days,"   and  the 
 
 change  of  the  word  H^nn,  "  There  shall  not  6e,'' 
 
 into  n"^nn,  ••  /»■?,"  Deut.  xxiii.  18),  the  Mosaic 
 laws  and  ordinances  themselves  are  nowhere  tam- 
 pered with. 
 
 We  will  now  proceed  to  lay  specimens  of  these 
 once  so  highly  prized  variants  before  the  reader,  in 
 order  that  he  may  judge  for  himself.  Vie  shall 
 follow  in  this  the  commonly  received  arrangement 
 of  Gesenius,  who  divides  all  these  readings  into 
 eight  classes;  to  which,  as  we  shall  afterwards 
 show,  Frankel  has  suggested  the  addition  of  two  or 
 three  others,  while  Kirchheim  (in  his  Hebrew  work 
 
 ]l~1^21li7  "^X2~1D)  enumerates  thirteen,''  which  we 
 will  name  hereafter. 
 
 1.  The  Jirst  class,  then,  consists  of  readings  by 
 which  emendations  of  a  grammatical  nature  have 
 been  attempted. 
 
 (a.)  The  quiescent  letters,  or  so-caUed  matres 
 lectionis,  are  supplied.'^ 
 
 (b.)  'Die  more  poetical  forms  of  the  pronouns, 
 probably  less  known  to  the  Sam.  are  altered  into 
 the  more  common  ones."^' 
 
 ■*  For  "in^'^,  "He  wilt  elect  "  (the spot),  the  Sam. 
 
 always  puts  "inS,  "  He  lias  elected  "  (namely,  Geri- 
 :im).     See  below. 
 fi 
 b  C^I^Jki?     2"^   must  be  a  misprint. 
 
 c  Thus  D^  is  found  in  the  Samar.  for  Q"  of  the 
 
 Masoretic  T. ;   HI  for  H*" ;    1^  for  1" ;     DrT'bK 
 
 for  an^S ;  m~nSa  for  nVSX3  etc.  :  some- 
 times a  T  is  put  even  where  the  Heb.  T.  has,  in  ac- 
 cordance with  the  gi-ammatical  rules,  only  a  short 
 vowel    or   a   sheva  :    V^DIH  is  found  for   I^DpH ; 
 
 m"'3is  for  nv^a 
 
 t: 
 
 ''  I3n3,  Qn,  bsn,  become  i2n2S,  nriji, 
 nbsn. 
 
2806     SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 (c.)  The  same  propensity  for  completing  appar- 
 «!iitly  incomplete  forms  is  noticeable  in  the  flexion 
 of  the  verlis.  The  apocopated  or  short  future  is 
 altered  into  the  res;ular  future." 
 
 (  d.)  On  the  other  hand  the  paragogical  letters  1 
 
 and  '^  at  the  end  of  nouns,  are  almost  universally 
 struck  out  by  the  Sam.  corrector;''  and,  in  the  igno- 
 rance of  the  existence  of  nouns  of  a  common  gender, 
 he  has  given  them  genders  according  to  his  fancy .'^ 
 
 {e.)  The  infin.  absol.  is,  in  the  quaintest  manner 
 possible,  reduced  to  the  form  of  the  finite  verb.'' 
 
 For  obsolete  or  rare  forms,  the  modern  and  more 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 conmion   ones  have   been  substituted    in    a  great 
 nuuiber  of  places* 
 
 2.  The  second  class  of  variants  consists  of  glosses 
 and  interpretations  received  into  the  text:  glosses, 
 moreover,  in  which  the  Sam.  not  unfrequently 
 coincides  with  the  LXX.,  and  which  are  in  many 
 cases  evidently  derived  by  both  from  some  ancient 
 Targum./ 
 
 3.  The  third  class  exhibits  conjectural  emenda- 
 tions —  sometimes  far  from  happy  —  of  real  or  im- 
 aginary difficulties  in  the  Jlasoretic  'VeyX.'J 
 
 4.  The  foui-lh  class  exhibits  readings  in  which 
 apparent  deficiencies  have  been  corrected  or  sup- 
 
 a  "TSm  becomes  "T''3ni  I  Htl'^')  is  emendated 
 into  m^'^T;  Wl^"*  (verb  n"b)  into  nW^"' i  the 
 final  1"  of  the  3d  pers.  fem_.  plur.  fut.  into  PI'. 
 
 !>  "^S^lti?  is  shortened  into  ]31ki7,  liT^n  into 
 
 rrn. 
 
 c  Masculine  are  made  the  words  CHV  (Gen.  xli.x. 
 20),  1'3U}  (Deut.  XV.  7,  etc.),  n3n!2  (Gen.  xxxii. 
 9) ;  feminine  the  words  l^~)H  (Gen.  xiii.  6),  '7"^"' 
 (Deut.  xxviii.  25),  ti7C3  (Gen.  xlvi.  25,  etc.) ;  where- 
 ever  the  word  IV^  occurs  in  the  sense  of  "  girl,-'  a 
 n  is  added  at  the  end  (Gen.  xxiv.  14,  etc.). 
 
 d  '2']W'\  Tlbn  113lty'*1,  "  the  waters  returned 
 continualhj,^^  is  transformed  into  TD^H  IHIli^'^T 
 13{i71j  "  they  returned,  they  went  and  they  re- 
 turned "  (Gen.  viii.  3).  Where  the  infin.  is  used  as 
 an  adverb,  e.  g.  pmn  (Gen.  xxi.  16),  "  far  off,"  it 
 is  altered  into  npTIIH,  ''  she  went  far  away,' 
 which  renders  the  passage  almost  unintelligible. 
 
 c  D"l~l^  for  im^V  (Gen.  iii.  10,  11) ;  ib'^  for 
 "lb"!  (xi.  80) ;  D'^IID^i  for  the  collective  ~)1D!J 
 (XV.  10) ;  m^W,  "  teniale  servants,"  for  mni2H 
 (XX.  17) ;  nmiD  "^3  nm3a  S"l"i1  for  the  ad- 
 verbial nits  (xlix.  15) ;  '^n"^"13  for  D'^n'^'Q 
 (Ex.  xxvi.  26,  making  it  depend  from  '^'^'3)  ;  Dti?tt, 
 in  the  unusual  sense  of  "  from  it  "  (comp.  1  K.  xvii. 
 13;,   is   altered   into    nSlSTS     (Lev.    u.    2);    TT^n 
 
 is  wrongly  put  for  T^  (3d  p.  s.  m.  of  ''"^H  = 
 
 ts^ 
 
 "IV,  the  obsolete  form,  is  replaced  by  the  more  recent 
 "T^3?  (Num.  xxi.  15) ;  the  unusual  fem.  termination 
 '^-  (comp.  vtS'^SW)  7'*D''3S,  is  elongated  into 
 j^^"" ;  iriti?  is  the  emendation  for  Vti?  (Deut. 
 xxii.  1) ;   '''nn  for  "^"^"^71  (Deut.  xxxiii.  15),  etc. 
 
 /  nti7S"1  li7'^M,  "  man  and  woman,"  used  by 
 Hen.  vii.  2  of  animals,  is  changed  into  HSpST  *^3f , 
 '  male  and  female ;  "  VS3tt?  (Gen.  xxiv.  60),  "  his 
 caters,"  becomes  T'^^'IS,  "bis  enemies  ;  "  for  7112 
 
 (indefin.)  is  substituted  HXilSXS  !  S"!"*,  "he  will 
 see,  choose,"  is  amplified  by  a  T^,  "for  himself;" 
 ~l2n  "lan  is  transformed  into  -"i;;^  "llT'S  ~l!in 
 (Lev.  xvii.  10) ;  UVb^  bS  H^S  "li^"^.l  (Num. 
 xxiii.  4),  "  And  God  met  Lileani,"  becomes  with  the 
 Sam.  'n  n«  'bW  "ySbn  Wl'^a'^l,  "and  an 
 Angei  of  the  Lord  found  Bileam  ;  "  ntL''Sn  V37 
 (Gen.  XX.  3),  "  for  the  woman,"  is  amplified  into 
 niC'Sn  mis  b^?,  "  for  the  sal^e  of  the  woman  ;  " 
 for  ^"l3Db"1,  from  "T33  (obsol.,  comp.  Jk.Jo),  is  put 
 '^"T^SV,  "those  that  are  before  me,"  in  contradis- 
 tinction to  "  those  who  will  come  after  me  ;  "  "13?ri1, 
 "  and  she  emptied  "  (her  pitcher  into  the  trough,  Gen. 
 xxiv.  20),  has  made  room  for  "T^Tlnl,  "  and  she 
 took  down  :  "  T\12W  '^^\'X2^'2, "  I  will  meet  there" 
 (A.  v.,  Ex.  xxix,  43),  is  made  UW  "^nil'~l"T3,  "  I 
 shall  be  [searched]  found  there  ;  "  Num.  xxxi.  15, 
 before  the  words  HSpS  bS  □iT^^nn,  "Have 
 you  spared  the  life  of  every  female?"  a  nSv, 
 "Why,"  is  inserted  (LXX.);  for  mn"'  Dti7  ''D 
 S"lpS  (Deut.  xxxii.  3),  "  If  I  call  the  name  of  Jeho- 
 vah," the  Sam.  has  DJi7D,  "  In  the  name,"  etc. 
 
 a  The  elliptic  use  of  1/^,  frequent  both  in  He- 
 brew and  Arabic,   being  evidently  unknown   to   the 
 
 emendator,  he  alters  the  "ib^^  T\1'W  HS^  ]3bn 
 (Gen.  xvii.  17),  "  shall  a  child  be  born  unto  him  that 
 is  a  hundred  years  old  ?  "  into  T'blW,  "  shall  I  be- 
 get ?  "  Gen.  xxiv.  62,  S"12tt  SD,  "  he  came  from 
 going  "  (A.  V.  "  from  the  way  ")  to  the  well  of  Lahai- 
 roi,  the  Sam.  alters  into  ^^^3  SD,  "in  or 
 through  the  desert  "  (LXX.,  Sia  tt^s  tpijfxov).  In  Gen. 
 XXX.  34,  "f^nm^  ''n"^  lb  in,  "BehoUl,  may 
 it  be  according  to  thy  word,"  the  *lv  (Arab.  J)  is 
 transformed  into  Sb,  "  and  if  not  —  let  it  be  like 
 
 thy  word."  Gen.  xli.  32,  Dibnn  HIDtS^n  b57"1, 
 "  And  for  that  the  dream  was  doubled,"  becomw 
 n  n"^3tt7  nbl?"!,  "  The  dream  rose  a  second 
 time,"  which  is  both  un-Hebrew,  and  diametrically 
 opposed  to  the  sense  and  construction  of  the  passage 
 Better    is    the    emendation    Gen     xlix.    10,    I'^SlD 
 
SAMAMTAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 plied  from  parallel  passages  in  the  common  text. 
 Gen.  xviii.  29,  30,  for  '•  I  shall  not  do  it,"  «  "  I 
 shall  not  destroy,"  b  is  substituted  from  Gen.  xviii. 
 
 28,  31,  32.    Gen.  xxxvii.  4,  VPIN,  "his  brethren," 
 
 is  replaced  by  V33,  "his  sons,"  from  the  former 
 verse.  One  of  the  most  curious  specimens  of  the 
 endeavors  of  the  Samaritiin  Codex  to  render  the 
 readings  as  smooth  and  consistent  as  possible,  is 
 
 its  uniform  spelling  of  proper  nouns  like  1~in^, 
 
 Jethro,  occasionally  spelt '^n''  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
 Jloses'  father-in  law  —  a  man  who,  according  to 
 the  Midrash  {SijH),  had  no  less  than  sewji  names; 
 
 3?Ji7in"'  (Jehoshua),  into  which  form  it  corrects 
 
 the  shorter  27tt7in  (Hoshea)  when  it  occurs  in 
 the  Masoretic  Codex.  More  frequent  still  are  the 
 additions  of  single  words  and  short  phrases  in- 
 serted from  parallel  passages  where  the  Hebrew 
 text  appeared  too  concise:"^  —  unnecessary,  often 
 excessively  absurd  interpolations. 
 
 5.  Hhejiftli  class  is  an  extension  of  the  one  im- 
 mediately preceding,  and  comprises  larger  phrases, 
 additions,  and  repetitions  from  parallel  passages. 
 Whenever  anything  is  mentioned  as  having  been 
 done  or  said  previously  by  Moses,  or  where  a  com- 
 mand of  God  is  related  as  being  executed,  the 
 whole  speech  bearing  upon  it  is  repeated  again  at 
 full  length.  These  tedious  and  alwajs  superfluous 
 repetitions  are  most  frequent  in  Exodus,  both  in 
 the  record  of  the  plagues  and  in  the  many  interpo- 
 lations from  Deuteronomy. 
 
 6.  To  the  sixth  class  belong  those  "emendations" 
 
 V73n,  "from  between  his  feet,"  into  "from 
 among  his  banners,"  VvIlT  1"'2X3.  Ex.  xv. 
 18,  all  but  five  of  the  Sam.  Codd.  read  Dvl^^b 
 T1371,  "  for  ever  and  longer,''''  instead  of  "TS^I,  the 
 common  form,  "evermore."  Ex.  xxxiv.  7,  np^T 
 nr^S"*   ^ '5  "that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  sin," 
 
 becomes  np_3"^  1 7  nppl'  "and  the  innocent  to 
 him  shall  be  innocent,"  against  both  the  parallel  pas- 
 sages and  the  obvious  sense.  The  somewhat  difficult 
 ^50''   M/l.   "and  they  did  not  cease  "  (A.  v.,  Num. 
 
 T  T  ' 
 
 xi.  25),  reappears  as  a  still  more  obscure  conjectural 
 •IDDS^  ,  which  we  would  venture  to  translate,  "  they 
 were  not  gathered  in,"  in  the  sense  of  "  killed  "  :  in- 
 stead of  either  the  ItCD^S,  "  congregated,"  of  the 
 Sam.  Vers.,  or  Castell's  "  continuerunt,"  orHoubigant's 
 
 and  Dathe's  "  convenerant."     Num.  xxi.  28,  the  127. 
 
 t' 
 
 "  Ar  "  (Moab),  is  emendated  into  "T37,   "  as  far  as," 
 
 a  perfectly  meaningless  reading  ;  only  that  the  "157, 
 "  city,"  as  we  saw  above,  was  a  word  unknown  to  the 
 Sam.     The  somewhat  uncommon  words  (Num.  xi.  32), 
 
 m^tt?  nnb  intDtC"^1,  "and  they  (the  people) 
 spread  them  all  abroad,"  are  transposed  into 
 nt:iintt7  nnb  ItantZ?''"!,  "and  they  slaugh 
 tered  for  themselves  a  slaughter."  Deut.  xxviii.  37, 
 tlie  word  H^C^y,  "  ^n  astonishment  "  (A.  V.),  very 
 rarely  used  in  this  sense  (Jei.  xix.  8,  xxv.  9),  becomes 
 £2li7  7,  "  to  a  name,"  i.  e.  a  bad  name.    Deut.  xxxiii.  6, 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     2807 
 
 of  passages  and  words  of  the  Hebrew  text  which 
 contain  something  objectionable  in  the  eyes  of  th« 
 Samaritans,  on  account  either  of  historical  improb- 
 ability or  apparent  want  of  dignity  in  the  terms 
 applied  to  the  Creator.  Thus  in  the  Sam.  Pent, 
 no  one  in  the  antediluvian  times  begets  his  first 
 son  after  he  has  lived  150  years:  but  one  hundred 
 years  are,  where  necessary,  subtracted  before,  and 
 added  after  the  birth  of  the.  first  son.  Thus  Jared, 
 according  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  begat  at  1G2  years, 
 lived  afterwards  800  years,  and  "  all  his  years  were 
 962  yeai's;  "  according  to  the  Sam.  lie  begot  when 
 only  62  years  old,  lived  afterwards  785  years,  "  and 
 all  his  years  were  847."  After  the  Deluge  the 
 opposite  method  is  followed.  A  hundred  or  fifty 
 years  are  added  before  and  subtracted  after  the  be- 
 getting: e.  [/.  Arphaxad,  who  in  the  Common  Text 
 is  35  years  old  when  he  begets  Shelah,  and  lived 
 afterwards  403  years :  in  all  438  —  is  by  the  Sam. 
 made  135  years  old  when  he  begets  Shelah,  and 
 lives  only  303  years  afterwards  =  438.  (The  LXX. 
 has,  according  to  its  own  peculiar  psychological  and 
 chronological  notions,  altered  the  Text  in  the  op- 
 posite manner.  [See  Septuagint.])  An  exceed- 
 ingly important  and  often  discussed  emendation  of 
 this  class  is  the  passage  in  Ex.  xii.  40,  which  in  our 
 text  reads,  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
 Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and 
 thirty  years."  The  Samaritan  (supported  by  LXX. 
 Cod.  Al.)  has  "the  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
 Israel  [(tnd  their  Jhiliers  who  dwell  in  the  land  of 
 Canaan  and  in  the  land  of  Egypt  —  eV  yfj  Alyvirrca 
 Kal  eV  yfj  Kavadv]  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
 years:"  an  interpolation  of  very  late  date  indeed. 
 
 "IDDtt  "1"'^*^^  "^rr^l,  "May  his  7nen  be  a  multi- 
 tude," the  Sam.,  with  its  characteristic  aversion  to,  or 
 rather  ignorance  of,  the  use  of  poetical  diction,  reads 
 
 "IDD^  I'i'^^.^  '^n'^1,  "'Mny  there  he  from  kirn  a, 
 multitude,"  thereby  trying  perhaps  to  encounter  also 
 the  apparent  difficulty  of  the  word  IDDtt,  standing 
 for  "  a  great  number."  Anything  more  absurd  than 
 the  inSQ  in  this  place  could  hardly  be  imagined. 
 A  few  verses  further  on,  the   uncommon  use  of  '172 
 
 in  the  phrase  "J^Q^p^  ^72  (Deut.  xxxiii.  11),  as 
 "  lest,"  "  not,"  caused  the  no  less  unfortunate  altera- 
 tion !l3p'^p^  "'Q,  so  that  the  latter  part  of  the  pas- 
 sage, "  smite  through  the  loins  of  them  that  rise 
 against  him,  and  of  them  that  hate  him,  that  they  rise 
 not  again."  becomes  "who  will  raise  them?"  —  barren 
 alike  of  meaning  and  of  poetry.    For  the  unusual  and 
 
 poetical     tJSI}"^    (Deut.    xxxiii.    25 ;    A.  V.   "  thy 
 
 strength  "),  "7"^^*^  ^*  suggested  ;  a  word  about  the 
 significance  of  which  the  commentators  are  at  a 
 greater  loss  even  than  about  that  of  the  original. 
 
 "  n^73?s  sb.  *  rvnwi!^  sb. 
 
 c  Thus  in  Gen.  i.  15,  the  words  73?  "T^Snb 
 ^"ISn,  "  to  give  light  upon  the  earth,"  are  inserted 
 from  ver.  17;  Gen.  xi.  8,  the  word  7'^3Z2!),  "and  a 
 tower,"  is  added  from  ver.  4 ;  Gen.  xxiv.  22,  73? 
 nDS,  "  on  her  face  "  (nose),  is  added  from  ver.  47,  so 
 that  the  former  verse  reads  "And  the  man  took 
 (np"*!  for  Ci27'^1)  a  golden  ring  'upon  her  face.'" 
 
2808    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 Again,  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  "And  God  [?  had]  finished 
 (VD"^1,  ?  pluperf.)  on  the  seventh  day,"  »(^>22;n 
 is  altered  into  "'ttJCTI,  <'  the  sixth;'  lest  God's 
 rest  on  the  Sabbath-day  might  seem  incomplete 
 (LXX.)-  In  Gen.  xxix.  3,  8,  "We  camiot,  until 
 all  the  flocks  be  gathered  together,  and  till  they 
 roll    the   stone   from    the   mouth    of    the   well," 
 
 n''"n37,  "flocks,"  is  replaced  by  D'^27"l~l,  "shep- 
 herds," since  the  flocks  could  not  roil  the  stone 
 from  the  well :  the  corrector  not  being  apparently 
 aware  that  in  common  parlance  in  Hebrew,  as  in 
 other  languages,  "they"  occasionally  refers  to  cer- 
 tain not  particularly  specified  persons.  Well  may 
 Gesenius  ask  wliat  this  corrector  would  have  made 
 of  Is.  xxxvii.  [not  xxxvi.]  30 :  "And  when  they  arose 
 in  tlie  morning,  behold  thty  were  all  dead  corpses." 
 The  surpassing  reverence  of  the  Samaritan  is 
 shown  in  passages  like  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  "  and  they 
 beheld  God,"'-*  which  is  transmuted  into  "and 
 they  held  l)y,  clung  to,  God"''  — a  reading  cer- 
 tainly less  in  harmony  with  the  following  —  "  and 
 they  ate  and  drank." 
 
 7.  The  seventh  class  comprises  what  we  might 
 
 c  The  gutturals  and  ^Aefi-letters  are  frequently 
 changed:  — I2"l~!n  becomes  lD~l~lS  (Gen.  viii.  4) ; 
 ■^^3  is  altered  into  "^VJ.  (xxili.  18);  71D.W  into 
 'S'2W  (xxvii.  19) ;  "'bnT  stands  for  "'briT  (Deut.  xxxii. 
 24) ;  the  n  is  changed  into  H  in  words  like  ^HD 
 D'TIDn,  which  become  3n3,  Q"^rD;i ;  H  is  altered 
 into  2;  —  112in  becomes  ~IZ2^.  The  "^  is  frequently 
 doubled  (?  as  a  mater  lectionis) :  !2''tD*'''^n  is  substi- 
 tuted for  n^I^^n ;  Sn'^'^W  for  ST^S  ;  '»'>D  for  '^?. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 briefly  call  Samaritanisms,  i.  e.  certain  Hel;rev» 
 forms  translated  into  the  idiomatic  Samaritan , 
 and  here  the  Sam.  Codices  vary  considerably 
 among  themselves,  —  as  far  as  the  very  imperfect 
 collation  of  them  has  hitherto  shown  —  some  hav- 
 ing retained  the  Hebrew  in  many  places  where  the 
 others  have  adopted  the  new  equivalents.*^ 
 
 8.  The  eifjhth  and  last  class  contains  alterations 
 made  in  fa\or  or  on  behalf  of  Samaritan  theology, 
 hermeneutics  and  domestic  worship.  Tims  the 
 word  Klvhim,  four  times  construed  with  the  plural 
 verb  in  the  Heljrew  Pentateuch,  is  in  the  Sam- 
 arit.an  Pent,  joined  to  the  singular  verb  (Gen.  xx. 
 13,  xxxi.  53,  XXXV.  7;  Ex.  xxii.  9);  and  further, 
 both  anthropomorphisms  as  well  as  anthropopath- 
 isms  are  carefully  expunged  —  a  practice  very  com- 
 mon in  later  times.''  The  last  and  perliaps  the 
 most  momentous  of  all  intentional  alterations  is 
 
 the  constant  change  of  all  the  "IH^"',  "  God  will 
 choose  a  spot,"  into  ^HD,  "  He  has  chosen," 
 namely,  Gerizim,  and  the  well  known  substitution 
 of  Gerizim  for  Ebal  in  Deut.  xxvii.  4:  "  It  shall 
 be  when  ye  be  gone  over  Jordan,  that  ye  shall  set 
 
 nn"!:H  iD;  c^n,  "wise,"  reads  msrii 
 ii>,  "spoil,"  n^;  n"ia%  "days,"  nnV. 
 
 <^  n^n  VX2  ti?"^S,  "  man  of  war,"  an  expression 
 
 used  of  God  (Ex.  xv.  3),  becomes  12  "1132,  "hero  of 
 war,"'  the  former  apparently  of  irreverent  import  to 
 the  Samaritan  ear  ;  for  H  ?|S  'Jtt?^^  (Deut.  xxix. 
 19,  A.  V.  20),  lit.  "And  the  wrath  (nose)  of  the  Lord 
 shall  smoke,"   H  PjS  "TT^,   "  the  wrath  of  the  Lord 
 
 will  be  kindled,"  is  substituted  ;   "jbbin^  "11!? 
 (Deut.  xxxii.  18),  "  the  rock  (God)  which  begat  thee," 
 is  changed  into   *^  V7n^  "1*1!?,  "  the  rock  which 
 Many  words  are  joined  together  :  —  "im")^  stands    gionfigg  tjjge  ;  "  Gen.  xix.  12,  D"'tZ73Sn,  "  the  men," 
 
 for  ~n-n  "in  (ex.  xxx.  23);  "jsann  for  is  "jnD 
 
 (Gen.  xli.  45) ;  D^'^ID  ")(!  is  always  Qn"'~l3")n. 
 The  pronouns  riS  and  IFiS,  2d  p.  fem.  sing,  and 
 plur.,  are  changed  into  "^nW,  ^"^HS  (the  obso- 
 lete He.b.  forms)  respectively ;  the  suff.  ^  into  "]H  ; 
 "T~  into  1.'^  ;  the  termination  of  the  2d  p.  s.  fem. 
 praet.  ri"",  becomes  ^ri,  like  the  first  p. ;  the  verbal 
 form  Aphel  is  used  for  the  Hiphil;  Tl~l3TW  for 
 >j-l-)3^n  ;  the  medial  letter  of  the  verb  T  ^  is 
 sometimes  retained  as  S  or  '^^  instead  of  being  dropped 
 as  in  the  Heb.      Again,  verbs  of  the  form  H    /  bave 
 
 used  of  "  the  angels,"  has  been  replaced  by 
 Q'^3S772n,  "the  angels."  Extreme  reverence 
 for    the    p.atriarchs    changed    "ITIW,   "Cursed    bo 
 
 their  (Simeon  and  Levi's)  anger,"  into  ~1^"7M, 
 "  brilliant  is  their  anger'"  (Gen.  xlix.  7).  A  flagrant 
 falsification  is    the  alteration,  in  an   opposite  sense, 
 
 which  they  ventured  in  the  passage  ^^tC'   71  "T^T^ 
 
 ntO^b,  "The  beloved  of  God  [Benjamin,  the 
 founder  of  the  Juda30-Davidian  empire,  liateful  to 
 the  Samaritans]  shall  dwell  securely,"  transformed 
 by  them  into  the  almost  senseless  H  T^  T^ 
 niiHb  'j3ti7'',  "  The  hand,  the   hand  of  God  will 
 
 rest  [if  Hiph.  :   TSt?^, '  will  cause  to  rest ']  securely  " 
 
 toe  ''frequently  at  the  end  of  the  infln.  fut.  and  part.,!  (Deut.   xxxiii.  12).    "Reverence   for  the  Law  and  the 
 
 .  ,,  ,  'U»^-,    Sacred   Records  gives  rise  to  more  emendations  :  — 
 
 Nouns    of   the    schema    VlOp 
 
 ■■  "^     1"""^2Tr  HI  (Deut.  xxv.  12,  A.  V.  11),  "  by  his  secrets," 
 
 becomes     "nU?:::!,    "by    his    flesh;"     ^3ba:I?^ 
 
 "  coibit  cum  ea  ;  "   (Deut.  xxviii.  30),  H^l?  ^DtC'', 
 
 "  coucumbet  cum  ea  ;  "  ^13"'btt7n  111737,  "  to  the 
 dog  shall  ye  throw  it"  (Ex.  xxii.  30)  (A.  V.  31), 
 'btCTI  "jbti^n,  "ye  shall  indeed  throw  it 
 [away]." 
 
 instead   of   the   H 
 
 ,'^3^,  etc.)  are  often  spelt    7^l2p,  into  which  the 
 
 form    7'^t2n   is    likewise    occasionally    transformed. 
 ..  It 
 
 Of  distinctly   Samaritan   words   may  be  mentioned: 
 "fn  (Gen.  xxxiv.  31)  =  "[""S,  "T^n  (Ohald.)  "  like  ; " 
 
 L:\in,  for  iieb.  nnin,  "seal;"  nrnb3, 
 
 "as  though  it  budded,"  becomes  HniDSD  =  Targ. 
 
SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 up  these  stones  which  I  command  you  this  day  on 
 Mount  Ebal  (Sam.  Gerizim),  and  there  shalt  thou 
 build  an  altar  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,"  etc.  This 
 passage  gains  a  certain  interest  from  Whiston  and 
 Kennicott  having  charged  the  Jeivs  with  corrupt- 
 ing it  from  Gerizim  into  Ebal.  This  supposition, 
 however,  was  met  by  Rutherford,  Parry,  Tychsen, 
 Lobstein,  Verschuir,  and  others,  and  we  need  only 
 add  that  it  is  completely  given  up  by  modern  Bib- 
 lical scholars,  although  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
 there  is  some  jjriiiid  facie  ground  for  a  doubt 
 upon  the  subject.  To  this  class  also  belong  more 
 especially  interpolations  of  really  existing  pas- 
 sages, dragged  out  of  their  context  for  a  special 
 purpose.  In  Exodus  as  well  as  in  Deuteronomy 
 the  Sam.  has,  immediately  after  the  Ten  Com- 
 mandments, the  following  insertions  from  Deut. 
 xxvii.  2-7  and  xi.  30:  "And  it  shall  be  on  the 
 day  when  ye  shall  pass  over  Jordan  .  .  .  ye  shall 
 set  up  these  stones  ...  on  Mount  Gerizim  .  .  . 
 and  there  shalt  thou  build  an  altar  .  .  .  ^Tluit 
 inounlain '  on  the  other  side  Jordan  by  the  way 
 where  the  sun  goeth  down  ...  in  the  champaign 
 over  against  Gilgal,  beside  the  plains  of  Moreh, 
 '  over  against  Shechem ; '  "  —  this  last  superiiuous 
 addition,  which  is  also  found  in  Deut.  xi.  30  of  the 
 Sam.  Pent.,  being  ridiculed  in  the  Talmud,  as  we 
 have  seen  above. 
 
 From  the  immense  number  of  these  worse  than 
 worthless  variants  Gesenius  has  singled  out  four, 
 which  he  thinks  preferable  on  the  whole  to  those 
 of  the  Masoretic  Text.  We  will  confine  ourselves 
 to  mentioning  them,  and  refer  the  reader  to  the 
 recent  commentaries  upon  them:  he  will  find  that 
 they  too  have  since  been,  all  but  unanimously, 
 rejected."     (1.)  After  the  words,  "And  Cain  spoke 
 
 ("IDS^'I)  to  his  brother  Abel"  (Gen.  iv.  8),  the 
 Sam.  adds,  "  let  us  go  into  the  field,"  *  in  ignorance 
 of  the  absolute  use  of  '^ZSW,  "to  say,  speak" 
 (comp.  Ex.  xix.  25;  2  Chr.  ii.  10  (A.  V.  11)),  and 
 the  absol.   in**"!  (Gen.   ix.   22).     (2.)   For   "HIS 
 
 (Gen.  xxii.  13)  the  Sam.  reads  ^^W,  i.  e.  instead 
 of  "behind  him  a  ram,"  "  o?ie  ram."     (3.)  For 
 
 D~I2  "n!2n  (Gen.  xlix.  14),  "  an  ass  of  bone," 
 i.  c.  a  strong  ass,  the  Sam.  has  C^^H  "I^XSn 
 (Targ.  a"na,  Syr.  P^-C^-  And  (4.)  for  pT^I 
 (Gen.  xiv.  14),  "he  led  forth  his  trained  ser- 
 vants," the  Sam.  reads  pT'T,  "he  numbered." 
 We  must  briefly  state,  in  concluding  this  por- 
 
 a  Keil,  in  the  latest  edition  of  his  Introrl.,  p.  590, 
 note  7,  says,  "Even  the  few  variants,  which  Gesenius 
 tries  to  prove  genuine,  fall  to  the  ground  on  closer 
 examination." 
 
 c  E.  g.  n~lpn  for    nip'^    (Ex.  xii.  48) ;    Hn*' 
 
 T^W2^  (Ex.  xxxv.  10). 
 
 ''   E.  g.    "nr);    for   -I13T   (Ex.  xiii.  13) ;     la3"1 
 
 for  D"12~l  (Num   xt.  35). 
 
 e   E.  g.   F]-|m  for   VpTV\  (Gen.  viii.  22);   yiH 
 
 for  Y"13?   (Gen.  xxxvi.  28);   ?)SIi7n   for   ?]ntt?n 
 (Lev.  xi.  16),  &c. 
 
 177 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2809 
 
 tion  of  the  subject,  that  we  did  not  choose  this 
 classification  of  Gesenius  because  it  appeared  to  us 
 to  be  either  systematic  (Ge.senius  says  himself: 
 "  Ceterum  facile  perspicitur  complures  in  his  esse 
 lectiones  quarum  singulas  alius  ad  aUud  genus 
 referre  forsitan  malit  ....  in  una  vel  altera 
 lectione  ad  aliam  classera  referenda  hand  difficiles 
 erimus  .  .  .  .  ")  or  exhaustive,  or  even  be- 
 cause the  illustrations  themselves  are  unassailable 
 in  point  of  the  reason  he  assigns  for  them ;  but 
 because,  deficient  as  it  is,  it  has  at  once  and  for- 
 ever silenced  the  utterly  unfounded  though  time- 
 hallowed  claims  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  It 
 was  only  necessary,  as  we  said  before,  to  collect  a 
 great  number  of  variations  (or  to  take  them  from 
 Walton),  to  compare  them  with  the  old  text  and 
 with  each  other,  to  place  them  in  some  kind  of 
 order  before  the  reader  and  let  them  tell  their  own 
 tale.  That  this  was  not  done  during  the  two 
 hundred  years  of  the  contest  by  a  single  one  of  the 
 combatants  is  certaiidy  rather  strange:  albeit  not 
 the  only  instance  of  the  kind. 
 
 Importarit  additions  to  this  list  have,  as  we 
 hinted  before,  been  made  by  Frankel,  such  as  the 
 Samaritans'  preference  of  the  imperat.  for  the  3d 
 pers. ;  <^  ignorance  of  the  use  of  the  abl.  absol. ;  <' 
 Galileani.sms, —  to  which  also  belongs  the  permu- 
 tation of  the  letters  Ahevi''  (comp.  Eruh.  p.  53, 
 
 "inn,  "1X3S,  "im?),  in  the  Samaritan  Cod. ;  the 
 
 occasional  softening  down  of  the  D  into  2,/  of  3 
 
 into  3,  IJ  into  T,  etc.,  and  chiefly  the  presence 
 of  words  and  phrases  in  the  Sam.  which  are  not 
 interpolated  from  parallel  passages,  but  are  entirely 
 wanting  in  our  text.c  Frankel  derives  from  these 
 passages  chiefly  the  conclusion  that  the  Sam. 
 Pent,  was,  partly  at  least,  emendated  from  the 
 LXX.,  Onkelos,  and  other  very  late  sources.  (See 
 below. ) 
 
 We  now  subjoin,  for  the  sake  of  completeness, 
 the  beforementioned  thirteen  classes  of  Kirchheim, 
 in  the  original,  to  which  we  have  added  the  trans- 
 lation :  — 
 
 1.  Dnn3  -in  nbi^ab  n'^'^12^71  mcDin. 
 
 [Additions  and  alterations  in  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
 tateuch in  favor  of  Mount  Gerizim.] 
 
 2.  n'iSbnb  mCDin.  [Additions  for  the 
 purpose  of  completion.] 
 
 3.  "TlH3.      [Commentary,  glosses.] 
 
 4.  n-^a^.nm  D^b^sn  n^bn.    [Change 
 
 of  verbs  and  moods.] 
 
 f  wy^^^  for  rcsn"^")  (Gen.xxxi.35);  mwi 
 
 for  n^ti'D  (Ex.  XV.  10). 
 
 0  Gen.  xxiii.  2,  after  ^^ISn  n'^"lp3  the 
 words  pnV  bS  are  added  ;  xxvii.  27,  after  mtt^n 
 the  word  Sbtt  is  found  (LXX.);  xliii.  28,  the  phrase 
 n'^nbwb  Sinn  ti^'^Sn  TI-Q  is  inserted  after 
 the  Ethnach;    xlvii.  21,  ClD^^b    T*327n,  and 
 
 Ex.  xxxii.  32,  StC  Dn  St:2n  Str'n  QW  is  read. 
 An  exceedingly  difficult  and  un-llobrew  passage  is 
 found  in  Ex.   xxiii.   19,   reading    HST    nti727    "'D 
 
 3PU"'  "^nbsb  sin  n-i:an  n'^w  nntD. 
 
2810    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 6.  miStt^n   Fllbn.      [change  of  nouns.] 
 6.   nW'ti^n.      [Emendation  of  seeming  irreg- 
 ularities by  assimilating  forms,  ttc] 
 
 [Permutation    of 
 
 7.  nvniwn  n-nnn. 
 
 letters.] 
 
 8.  D"^^13D.      [Pronouns.] 
 
 9.  1*^72.      [Gender.] 
 
 10.  niDDIDn    nVmS.      [Letters  added.] 
 
 11.  Dn'^n   nVniM.      [Addition  of  preposi- 
 tions, conjunctions,  articles,  etc.] 
 
 12.  IT^SI  V"''^P*       [Junction   of  separated, 
 and  separation  of  joined  words.] 
 
 1.3.  Obll?  niD"''  [Chronological  alterations.] 
 It  may,  perhaps,  not  be  quite  superfluous  to  ob- 
 serve, before  we  proceed  any  further,  that,  since 
 up  to  this  moment  no  critical  edition  of  the  Sam. 
 Pent.,  or  even  an  examination  of  the  Codices  since 
 Kennicott  —  who  can  only  be  said  to  have  begun 
 the  work  —  has  been  thought  of,  the  treatment  of 
 the  whole  subject  remains  a  most  precarious  taslc, 
 and  beset  witli  unexampled  difficulties  at  every 
 step;  and  also  that,  under  these  circumstances,  a 
 more  or  less  scientific  arrangement  of  isolated  or 
 common  Samaritan  mistakes  and  falsifications  ap- 
 pears to  us  to  be  a  subject  of  very  small  conse- 
 quence indeed. 
 
 It  is,  however,  this  same  rudimentary  state  of 
 investigation  —  after  two  centuries  and  a  half  of  I 
 fierce  discussion  —  which  has  left  the  other  and 
 much  more  important  question  of  the  Age  and 
 Origin  of  the  Sam.  Pent,  as  unsettled  to-day  as  it 
 was  when  it  first  came  under  the  notice  of  Eu- 
 ropean scholars.  For  our  own  part  we  cannot  but 
 think  that  as  long  as  (1)  the  history  of  the 
 Samaritans  remains  involved  in  the  obscurities  of 
 which  a  former  article  will  have  given  an  account ; 
 (2)  we  are  restricted  to  a  small  number  of  com- 
 paratively recent  Codices;  (3)  neither  these  Codices 
 themselves  have,  as  has  just  been  observed,  been 
 thoroughly  collated  and  recollated,  nor  (4)  more 
 than  a  feeble  beginning  has  been  made  with  any- 
 thing like  a  collation  between  the  various  readings 
 of  the  Sam.  Pent,  and  the  LXX.  (Walton  omitted 
 the  greatest  number,  "cum  nuUam  sensus  varie- 
 tatem  constituant " ) ;  so  long  must  we  have  a 
 variety  of  the  most  divergent  opinions,  all  based 
 on  "probabilities,"  which  are  designated  on  the 
 other  side  as  "false  reasonings"  and  "individual 
 crotchets,"  and  which,  moreover,  not  unfrequently 
 start  from  flagrantly  lalse  premises. 
 
 We   shall,   under   these   circumstances,   confine 
 ourselves  to  a  simple  enumeration  of  the  leading 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 opinions,  and  the  chief  reasons  and  arguments  al- 
 leged for  and  against  them  :  — 
 
 (1.)  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  came  into  the 
 hands  of  the  Samaritans  as  an  inheritance  from 
 the  ten  tribes  whom  they  succeeded  —  so  the  pop- 
 ular notion  runs.  Of  this  opinion  are  .1.  Morinus, 
 Walton,  Cappellus,  Kennicott,  Michaelis,  Eichhorn, 
 Bauer,  Jahn,  Bertholdt,  Steudel,  Mazade,  Stuart, 
 Davidson,  and  others.  Their  reasons  for  it  may  be 
 thus  briefly  summed  up:  — 
 
 {a.)  It  seems  improliable  that  the  Samaritans 
 should  have  accepted  their  code  at  the  hands  of  the 
 Jews  after  the  exile,  as  supposed  by  son/e  critics, 
 since  there  existed  an  intense  hatred  between  the 
 two  nationalities. 
 
 {b.)  The  Samaritan  Canon  has  only  the  Penta- 
 teuch in  common  with  the  Hebrew  Canon :  had 
 that  book  been  received  at  a  period  when  the  Ha- 
 giographa  and  the  Prophets  were  in  the  Jews' 
 hands,  it  would  be  surprising  if  they  had  not  also 
 received  those. 
 
 (c.)  The  Sam.  letters,  avowedly  the  more  an- 
 cient, are  found  in  the  Sam.  Cod. :  therefore  it  was 
 written  before  the  alteration  of  the  character  into 
 the  square  Hebrew  —  which  dates  from  the  end  of 
 the  Exile  —  took  place. 
 
 [We  cannot  omit  briefly  to  draw  attention  here 
 to  a  most  keen-eyed  suggestion  of  S.  D.  Luzzatto, 
 contained  in  a  letter  to  R.  Kirchheim  {Carme 
 Sliomron,  p.  106,  &c.).  by  the  adoption  of  which 
 many  readings  in  the  Heb.  Codex,  now  almost  un- 
 intelligible, appear  perfectly  clear.  He  assumes 
 that  the  copyist  who  at  some  time  or  other  after 
 Ezra  transcribed  the  Bible  into  the  modern  square 
 Hebrew  character,  from  the  ancient  copies  written 
 ill  so-called  Samaritan,  occasionally  mistook  Samar- 
 itan letters  of  similar  form."  And  since  our  Sam. 
 Pent,  has  those  difiicult  readings  in  common  with 
 the  Mas.  Text,  that  other  moot  point,  whether  it 
 was  copied  from  a  Hebrew  or  Samaritan  Codex, 
 would    thus    appear   to    be    solved.     Its   constant 
 
 changes  of  "1  and  T,  '^  and  1,  H  and  H  —  let- 
 ters which  are  similar  in  Hebrew,  but  not  in  Sa- 
 maritan —  have  been  long  used  as  a  powerful  argu  • 
 ment  for  the  Samaritans  having  received  the  Pent. 
 at  a  very  late  period  inaeed.] 
 
 Since  the  above  opinion  —  that  the  Pent,  came 
 into  the  hands  of  the  Samaritans  from  the  Ten 
 Tribes  —  is  the  most  popular  one,  we  will  now 
 adduce  some  of  the  chief  reasons  brought  against 
 it,  and  the  reader  will  see  by  the  somewhat  fee- 
 ble nature  of  the  arguments  on  either  side,  that 
 the  last  word  has  not  yet  been  spoken  in  the  mat- 
 ter. 
 
 (a.)  There  existed  no  religious  animosity  what- 
 soever between  Judah  and  Israel  when  they  sep- 
 arated.    The  ten  tribes  could  not  therefore  have 
 
 a  E.  g.  I3.  xi.  15,  n^VD.  instead  of  D*i37Il 
 (adopted  by  Gesenius  in  Tkes.  p.  1017  a,  without  a 
 mention  of  its  source,  whicli  he,  however,  distinctly 
 
 avowed  to  Rosenmiiller  —  comp.  W  D,  p.  107,  not« 
 S) ;  Jer.  iii.  8,  S~lM1  instead  of  S~im  ;  1  Sam. 
 xxlT.  11,  Dnm    for    Dnm ;  Ezr.  vi.  4,    niH 
 
 for  Win ;  Ez.  xxii.  20,  "^nnam  for  Tincm ; 
 
 Judg.  XV.  20,  D"^"m73?  —  Samson's  reign  during  the 
 time  of  the  Philistines  being  given  as  twenty  years 
 
 instead  of  forty  (comp.  Jer.  Sola,  1),  accounted  for 
 by  the  T2  (munerical  letter  for  forty)  in  the  original 
 
 being  mistaken  for  3  (twenty).     Again,  2  Chr.  xxii. 
 "2,,  forty  is  put  instead  of  twenty  (comp.  2  K.  viii.  26) ; 
 
 2  K.  xxii.  4,  Drr^i  for  '^TV^ ;  Ez.  iii.  12,  "fnn 
 
 for     D^'^i3,    etc. ;  all  these  letters  —  (Jj  and  "^j 
 
 Pi  and   i\%  J  and  J,  "^  and  ^  —  resembling 
 each  othev  very  closely. 
 
SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 bequeathed  such  an  animosity  to  those  who  suc- 
 ceeded them,  and  wlio,  we  may  add,  probably  cared 
 as  little  originally  for  the  disputes  between  Judah 
 and  Israel,  as  colonists  from  far-off  countries,  be- 
 longing; to  utterly  different  races,  are  likely  to  care 
 for  the  quarrels  of  the  aborigines  who  formerly  in- 
 habited the  country.  On  the  contrary,  the  contest 
 between  the  slowly  judaized  Samaritans  and  the 
 Jews  only  dates  from  the  moment  when  the  latter 
 refused  to  recognize  the  claims  of  the  former,  of 
 belonging  to  the  people  of  God,  and  rejected  their 
 aid  in  building  the  Temple:  why  then,  it  is  said, 
 should  they  not  first  have  received  the  one  book 
 which  would  bring  them  into  still  closer  conformity 
 with  the  returned  exiles,  at  their  hands  ?  That  the 
 Jews  should  yet  ha\'e  refused  to  receive  them  as 
 equals  is  no  more  surprising  than  that  the  Samari- 
 tans from  that  time  forward  took  their  stand  upon 
 this  very  Law  —  altered  according  to  their  circum- 
 stances; a!id  proved  from  it  that  they  and  they 
 alone  were  the  Jews  Kar   i^ox'h^- 
 
 (b.)  Their  not  possessing  any  other  book  of  the 
 Hebrew  Canon  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
 circumstance  that  there  was  no  other  book  in  exist- 
 ence at  the  time  of  the  schism,  because  many 
 psalms  of  David,  writings  of  Solomon,  etc.,  must 
 have  been  circulating  among  the  people.  But  the 
 jealousy  with  which  the  Samaritans  regarded  Jeru- 
 salem, and  the  intense  hatred  which  they  naturally 
 conceived  against  the  post-Mosaic  writers  of  na- 
 tional Jewish  history,  would  sufficiently  account  for 
 their  rejecting  the  other  books,  in  all  of  which,  save 
 Joshua,  Judges,  and  Job,  either  Jerusalem,  as  the 
 centre  of  worship,  or  David  and  his  House,  are 
 extolled.  If,  however,  Loewe  has  really  found  with 
 them,  as  he  reports  in  the  Allyem.  Zeilun(j  d. 
 Jticlenlh.  April  18th,  1839,  our  Book  of  Kings  and 
 Solomon's  Song  of  Songs,  —  which  they  certainly 
 would  not  have  received  subsequently,  —  all  these 
 arguments  are  perfectly  gratuitous. 
 
 (c.)  The  present  Hebrew  character  was  not  in- 
 troduced by  Ezra  after  the  return  from  the  Exile, 
 but  came  into  use  at  a  much  later  period.  The 
 Samaritans  might  therefore  have  received  the  Pen- 
 tateuch at  the  hands  of  the  returned  exiles,  who, 
 according  to  the  Talmud,  nfterwarch  changed  their 
 writing,  and  in  the  Pentateuch  only,  so  as  to  dis- 
 tinguish it  from  the  Samaritan.  "  Originally," 
 says  Mar  Sutra  (Sanhedr.  xxi.  b),  "  the  Pentateuch 
 was  given  to  Israel  in  Ibri  writing  and  the  Holy 
 (Hebrew)  language:  it  was  again  given  to  them 
 in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Ashurith  writing  and 
 Aramaic  language.  Isi-ael  then  selected  the  Ash- 
 urith writing  and  the  Holy  language,  and  left  to 
 the  Hediotes  ('iSi&JTa;)  the  Ibri  writing  and  the 
 Aramaic  language.  Who  are  the  Hediotes  V  The 
 Cuthim  (Samaritans).  What  is  Ibri  writing? 
 The  Libonaah  (Samaritan)."  It  is  well  known 
 also  that  the  Maccabean  coins  bear  Samaritan  in- 
 scriptions: so  that  "  Hediotes"  would  point  to  the 
 common  use  of  the  Samaritan  character  for  ordi- 
 nary purposes,  down  to  a  very  late  period. 
 
 (2.)  The  second  leading  opinion  on  the  age  and 
 origin  of  the  Sam.  Pent,  is  that  it  was  introduced 
 by  Manasseh  (conip.  Josephus,  Ant.  xi.  8,  §§  2,  4) 
 at  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  Samaritan 
 Sanctuary  on  Mount  Gerizim  (Ant.  van  Dale,  R. 
 Simon,  Prideaux,  Fulda,  Hasse,  De  Wette,  Gese- 
 nius,  Hupfeld,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  etc.).  In  sup- 
 port of  this  opinion  are  alleged,  the  idolatry  of  the 
 Samaritans  before  they  recei\ed  a  Jewish  priest 
 through  Esarhaddon  (2  K.  xvii.  24-33),  and  the 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2811 
 
 immense  number  of  readings  common  to  the  LXX. 
 and  this  Code,  against  the  Masoretic  Text. 
 
 (3.)  Other,  but  very  isolated  notions,  are  those 
 of  Morin,  Le  Clerc,  Poncet,  etc.,  that  the  Israelit- 
 ish  priest  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to  instruct 
 the  new  inhabitants  in  the  religion  of  the  country 
 brought  the  Pentateuch  with  him.  Further,  tnat 
 the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  the  production  of 
 
 an  impostor,  Dositheus  (^SICDTT  in  Talmud),  who 
 lived  during  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  who  fal- 
 sified the  sacred  records  in  order  to  prove  that  he 
 was  the  Messiah  (Ussher).  Agauist  which  there 
 is  only  tiiis  to  be  observed,  that  there  is  not  the 
 slightest  alteration  of  such  a  nature  to  be  found. 
 Finally,  that  it  is  a  very  late  and  faulty  recension, 
 with  additions  and  corruptions  of  the  Masoretic 
 Text  (6th  century  after  Christ),  into  which  glosses 
 from  the  LXX.  had  been  received  (Frankel).  Many 
 other  suggestions  have  been  made,  but  we  cannot 
 here  dwell  upon  them :  suffice  it  to  have  mentioned 
 those  to  which  a  certain  popularity  and  authority 
 attaches. 
 
 Another  question  has  been  raised:  Have  all 
 the  variants  which  we  find  in  our  copies  been  in- 
 troduced at  once,  or  are  they  the  work  of  many 
 generations  ?  From  the  number  of  vague  opinions 
 on  that  point,  we  have  only  room  here  to  adduce 
 that  of  Azariah  de  Rossi,  who  traces  many  of  the 
 glosses  (Class  2)  both  in  the  Sam.  and  in  the  LXX. 
 to  an  ancient  Targum  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
 at  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  refers  to  the  Talmudical 
 passage  of  Nedar.  37:  "  And  he  read  in  the  Book 
 of  the  Law  of  God  —  this  is  Mikra,  the  Pentateuch; 
 
 iymS^,  explanatory,  this  is  Targum.'"  [Ver- 
 sions (Targum).]  Considering  that  no  Masorah 
 fixed  the  letters  and  signs  of  the  Samar.  Codex, 
 and  that,  as  we  have  noticed,  the  principal  object 
 was  to  make  it  read  as  smoothly  as  possible,  it  is 
 not  easily  seen  why  each  succeeding  century  should 
 not  have  added  its  own  emendations.  But  here, 
 too,  investigation  still  wanders  about  in  the  luazea 
 of  speculation. 
 
 The  chief  opinions  with  respect  to  the  agreement 
 of  the  numerous  and  as  yet  uninvestigated  —  even 
 uncounted  —  readings  of  the  LXX.  (of  which  like- 
 wise no  critical  edition  exists  as  yet),  and  the  Sam. 
 Pent,  are :  — 
 
 1.  That  the  LXX.  have  translated  from  the 
 Sam.  (De  Dieu,  Selden,  Hottinger,  Hassencamp, 
 Eichhorn,  etc.). 
 
 2.  That  mutual  interpolations  have  taken  place 
 (Grotius,  Ussher,  Ravius,  etc.). 
 
 3.  That  both  Versions  were  formed  from  Hebrew 
 Codices,  which  differed  among  themselves  as  well 
 as  from  the  one  which  afterwards  obtained  public 
 authority  in  Palestine;  that  however  very  many 
 willful  corruptions  and  interpolations  have  crept  in 
 in  later  times  (Gesenius). 
 
 4.  That  the  Samar.  has,  in  the  main,  been  al- 
 tered from  the  LXX.  (Frankel). 
 
 It  must,  on  the  other  hand,  be  stated  also,  that 
 the  Sam.  and  LXX.  quite  as  often  disagree  with 
 each  other,  and  follow  each  the  Masor.  Text.  Also, 
 that  the  quotations  in  the  N.  T.  from  the  LXX., 
 where  they  coincide  with  the  Sam.  against  the 
 Hebr.  Text,  are  so  small  in  number  and  of  so  un- 
 important a  nature  that  they  cannot  be  adduced  aa 
 any  argument  whatsoever. 
 
 The  following  is  a  list  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Sam, 
 Pent,  now  in  European  libraries  [Keunicott] :  — 
 
2812    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 No.  1.  Oxford  (Ussher)  Bodl.,  fol.,  No.  3127. 
 Perfect,  except  the  first  twenty  and  last  nine  verses. 
 
 No.  2.  Oxford  (Ussher)  Bodl.,  4to,  No.  3128, 
 with  an  Arabic  version  in  Sam.  characters.  Imper- 
 fect. Wanting  the  whole  of  Leviticus  and  many 
 portions  of  the  other  books. 
 
 No.  3.  Oxford  (Ussher)  Bodl.,  4to,  No.  3129. 
 Wanting  many  portions  in  each  book. 
 
 No.  4.  Oxford  (Ussher,  Laud)  Bodl.,  4to,  No. 
 024.     Defective  in  parts  of  Deut. 
 
 No.  5.  Oxford  (Marsh)  Bodl.,  12mo,  No.  15. 
 Wanting  some  verses  in  the  beginning;  21  chapters 
 obliterated. 
 
 No.  6.  Oxford  (Pocock)  Bodl.,24mo,  No.  5328. 
 Parts  of  leaves  lost ;  otherwise  perfect. 
 
 No.  7.  London  (Ussher)  Br.  Mus.  Claud.  B.  8. 
 Vellum.     Complete.     254  leaves. 
 
 No.  8.  Paris  (Peiresc)  Imp.  Libr.,  Sam.  No.  1. 
 Recent  MS.,  containing  the  Hebr.  and  Sam.  Texts, 
 with  an  Arab.  Vers,  in  the  Sam.  character.  Want- 
 ing the  first  34  cc,  and  very  defective  in  many 
 places. 
 
 No.  9.  Paris  (Peiresc)  Imp.  Libr.,  Sam.  No.  2. 
 Ancient  MS.,  wanting  first  17  chapters  of  Gen.; 
 and  all  Ueut.  from  the  7th  ch.  Houbigant,  how- 
 ever, quotes  from  Gen.  x.  11  of  this  Codex,  a  rather 
 puzzling  circumstance. 
 
 No.  10.  Paris  (Harl.  de  Sancy)  Oratory,  No.  1. 
 The  famous  MS.  of  P.  della  Valle. 
 
 No.  11.  Paris  (Dom.  Nolin)  Oratory,  No.  2. 
 Made-up  copy. 
 
 No.  12.  Paris  (Libr.  St.  Gentjv.).  Of  little 
 value. 
 
 No.  13.  Rome  (Peir.  and  Barber.)  Vatican,  No. 
 106.  Hebr.  and  Sam.  texts,  with  Arab.  Vers,  in 
 Sam.  character.  Very  defective  and  recent.  Dated 
 the  7th  century  (?). 
 
 No.  14.  Rome  (Card.  Cobellutius),  Vatican. 
 Also  supposed  to  be  of  the  7th  century,  but  very 
 doubtful. 
 
 No.  15.  Milan  (Ambrosian  Libr.).  Said  to  lie 
 very  ancient;  not  collated. 
 
 No.  16.  Leyden  (Golius  MS.),  fol.,  No.  1.  Said 
 to  be  complete. 
 
 No.  17.  Gotha  (Ducal  Libr.).    A  fragment  only. 
 
 No.  18.  London,  Count  of  Paris' Library.  With 
 Version. 
 
 Printed  editions  are  contained  in  the  Paris  and 
 Walton  Polyglots;  and  a  separate  reprint  from  the 
 latter  was  made  by  Blayney,  Oxford,  1790.  A 
 Facsimile  of  the  20th  ch.  of  Exodus,  from  one  of 
 the  Nabliis  MSS.,  has  been  edited,  with  portions 
 of  the  corresponding  Masoretic  text,  and  a  Russian 
 Translation  and  Introduction,  by  Levysohn,  Jeru- 
 .salem,  I860." 
 
 II.  Versions. 
 1.  Samaritan.  —  The  origin,  author,  and  age  of 
 the  Samaritan  Version  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses, 
 has  hitherto  —  so  Fichhorn  quaintly  observes  — 
 "  always  been  a  golden  apple  to  the  investigators, 
 and  will  very  probably  remain  so,  until  people  leave 
 off  venturing  decisive  judgments  upon  historical 
 subjects  which  no  one  has  recorded  in  antiquity." 
 And,  indeed,  modern  investigators,  keen  as  they 
 have  been,  have  done  little  towards  the  elucidation 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 of  the  subject.  According  to  the  Samaritans  them 
 selves  (De  Sacy,  Mem.  3;  Paulus;  Winer),  theii 
 high-priest  Nathaniel,  who  died  about  20  b.  c,  is 
 its  author.  Gesenius  puts  its  date  a  few  years  after 
 Christ.  .Tuyuboll  thinks  that  it  had  long  been  in 
 use  in  the  second  post-Christian  century.  Frankel 
 places  it  in  the  post-Mohammedan  time.  Other  in- 
 vestigators date  it  from  the  time  of  Fsarhaddon's 
 priest  (Schwarz),  or  either  shortly  before  or  after 
 the  foundation  of  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim. 
 It  seems  certain,  however,  that  it  was  composed 
 before  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple;  and 
 being  intended,  like  the  Targums,  for  the  use  of  the 
 people  exclusively,  it  was  written  in  the  popular 
 Samaritan  idiom,  a  mixture  of  Hebrew,  Aramaic, 
 and  Syriac. 
 
 In  this  version  the  original  has  been  followed, 
 with  a  very  few  exceptions,  in  a  slavish  and  some- 
 times perfectly  childish  manner,  the  sense  evidently 
 being  of  minor  consideration.  As  a  very  striking 
 instance  of  this  may  be  adduced  the  translation  of 
 
 Deut.  iii.  9 :  "  The  Zidonians  call  Hermon  ^"''^ti? 
 
 (Shirion),  and  the  Amorites  call  it"1^3ti^  (Shenir)." 
 
 The  translator  deriving  ]'"~lti7  from  "^W  "prince, 
 
 master,"  renders  it  ]3~1  "  masters;  "  and  finding 
 the  letters  reversed  in  the  appellation  of  the  Amor- 
 ites as  T'ili?,  reverses  also  the  sense  in  his  ver- 
 sion, and  translates  it  by  "slaves"  ]'n31?ti?fi! 
 In  other  cases,  where  no  Samaritan  equivalent 
 could  be  found  for  a  Hebrew  word,  the  translator, 
 instead  of  paraphrasing  it,  simply  transposes  its 
 letters,  so  as  to  make  it  look  Samaritan.  Occa- 
 sionally he  is  misled   by  the  orthography  of  thb 
 
 original:   t  ST^S  ']'2   CS,  "  If  so,  where  .  .  .V 
 
 he   renders   HT^IS  "|3  CS,  "If  so,  I  shall  be 
 
 wrath:"  mistaking  S1!:H  for  ICS,  from  ^IM 
 "anger."  On  the  whole  it  maybe  considered  a 
 very  valuable  aid  towards  the  study  of  the  Samar. 
 Text,  on  account  of  its  very  close  verbal  adherence. 
 A  few  cases,  however,  may  lie  lirought  forward, 
 where  the  Version  has  departed  from  the  Text, 
 either  under  the  influence  of  popular  religious  no- 
 tions, or  for  the  sake  of  explanation.  "  We  pray  " 
 —  so  they  write  to  Scaliger  —  "  every  day  in  the 
 morning  and  in  the  evening,  as  it  is  said,  the  one 
 lamb  shalt  thou  jtrepare  in  tiie  morning  and  the 
 second  in  the  evening;  we  bow  to  the  ground  and 
 worship  (lod."  Accordingly,  we  find  the  translator 
 rendering  the  passage,  "  And  Isaac  went  to  '  walk  ' 
 
 (mtjyv)  in  the  field,"  by  —  "and  Isaac  went  to 
 
 pray  (nS/!'ttb)  in  the  field."    "And  Abraham 
 
 rose  in  the  morning  (~lp1!3I}),"  is  rendered  '' v!l3, 
 "  in  the  prayer,"  etc.  Anthropomorphisms  are 
 avoided.      "  The   image  (nSl^jl)  of    God "    is 
 
 rendered  H'Ci^'S^,  "the  glory."  TlMl'^  ''D, 
 "  The  mouth  of  Jehovah,' '  is  transformed  into 
 mn""  112^121,  "the   word    of  Jehovah."      For 
 
 «  The  original  intention  of  the  Russian  Government 
 to  publish  the  whole  Codex  in  the  same  mannor  seems 
 to  h.ive  been  given  up  for  the  present.  We  can  only 
 hope  that,  if  the  work  is  ever  taken  up  again,  it  will 
 fall  into  more  competent  hands.     Mr.  Levysohn 's  In- 
 
 troduction, brief  as  it  is,  shows  him  to  be  utterly 
 wanting  both  in  scholarship  and  in  critical  acumen, 
 and  to  be,  moreover,  entirely  unacquainted  with  the 
 fact  that  his  new  di.scoveries  have  been  disposed  ol 
 some  hundred  and  fifty  years  since. 
 
SAMARITAJN   fENTATEUCH 
 
 n^2^\i2, 
 
 Ansel,"    is  fre- 
 
 C'nbs, « God,' 
 
 quently  found,  etc.    A  great  difficulty  is  offered  l)V 
 
 the  proper  names  which  this  version  often  substi-  1  for  instance 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2813 
 
 tutes,  they  being,  in  many  cases,  less  intelligible 
 than  the  original  ones."  The  similarity  it  has  witl: 
 Onkelos  occasionally  amounts  to  complete  identity, 
 
 Onkelos  in  Folyglott.  Num. 
 
 t2ip  -itnb  N-in^  -113  -nab  L^-^-iD"*  "^-is 
 ^n  -IT''  p^ni7T  mn  -ian» :  nin'^ 
 \'-itt7"^  sb  p\nr  nam  bm  mn  -1x2m 
 
 .biD^'^  sb  ^•^a;^2'^i  ]*':2''i^-i 
 
 But  no  safe  conchision  as  to  the  respective  rela- 
 tion of  the  two  versions  can  be  drawn  from  this. 
 
 This  Version  has  likewise,  in  passing  through 
 the  hands  of  copyists  and  commentators,  suffered 
 many  interpolations  and  corruptions.  The  first 
 copy  of  it  was  brought  to  Europe  by  De  la  Valle, 
 together  witli  the  Sam.  Text,  in  l()i6.  Joh.  Ne- 
 drinus  first  published  it  together  with  a  faulty  Latin 
 translation  in  the  Paris  Polyglott,  whence  it  was, 
 with  a  few  emendations,  reprinted  in  Walton,  with 
 some  notes  by  Castellus.  Single  portions  of  it 
 appeared  in  Halle,  ed.  by  Cellarius.  170.5,  and  by 
 Uhlemann,  Leipz.,  18.37.  Compare  Gesenius,  De 
 Pent.  Sam.  Oiiyine,  etc.,  and  Winer's  monograph, 
 De  Versionis  Pent.  Sam.  Indole,  etc.,  Leipzig, 
 1817. 
 
 2.  Th  la/xapeiTiKSi/.  The  hatred  between  the 
 Samaritans  and  the  Jews  is  supposed  to  have  caused 
 the  former  to  prepare  a  Greek  translation  of  their 
 Pent,  in  opposition  to  the  LXX.  of  the  Jews.  In 
 this  way  at  least  the  existence  of  certain  fragments 
 of  a  Greek  Version  of  the  Sam.  Pent.,  preserved  in 
 some  J\ISS.  of  the  LXX.,  together  with  portions  of 
 Aquila,  Symmachus,  Theodotion,  etc.,  is  accounted 
 
 a  A  list  of  the  more   remarkable  of  these,  in  the 
 case  of  geographical  names,  is  subjoined  :  — 
 
 Geu.  viii.  4,  for  Ararat,  Sarendib,  ^'^-f^'HD. 
 
 X.  10,  <i    Shinar,  Tsofah,  nD"1!i  (?  Zobah). 
 11,  u    Asshur,  Astuu,  ^^057. 
 
 —  (4    Rehoboth,   Satcan,   ^Dt^D  (?    Sit- 
 
 tacene). 
 
 —  "    Calah,  Laksah,  riDpb. 
 ^          12,  u    Kesen,    Asfah,    nDD^. 
 
 30,  "    Mesha,  Mesba.l,   730X3. 
 
 xi.  9,  1'    Babel,  Lilak,  pb"^b. 
 
 xiii.  3,  "    Ai,   Cefrah,    mC^    (?    Cephirah, 
 
 Josh.  ix.  17). 
 xiv.  5,  "    AshterothKarnaim,  AfinlthKarniah, 
 
 —  <i    Ham,  Lishah,  nti7*'b. 
 
 —  6,  "    El    Paran,    Pelishah,  etc.,    DnD 
 
 aibsb  nii^bD. 
 
 — 14,  "    Dan,  Banias,   DW32. 
 
 —  15,  "    Hobah,  Fogah,  TOID. 
 
 —  17,  »    Shaveh,  Mifneh,  nDDtt. 
 
 71.  1,  2.         Sam.  Vers,  in  Barberini  Trtglott. 
 
 Dv  bbo  :  iT^^i^b  nwM2  cv  mni  bbm 
 nns  IS  n23  ^"inb  na\m  hitnw>  >33 
 niTanr^b  -i"^T3  -113  -iTDb  w-\^>  -rr 
 -lom  "^nn  -in"'  lan-n  -inn  ]r> :  nin-^b 
 niw  -Tin  b3"i  i?snii?''  sb  ron-n  '^nm 
 ^^t:?^^^-!  I'^^'^iD-i  ]^3327i  nnw'  sb  ^33^ 
 
 .bs^^  sb 
 
 for.  These  fragments  are  supposed  to  be  alluded  to 
 by  the  Greek  Fathers  under  the  name  'Xafxapn- 
 TiKop.  It  is  doul)tful,  however,  whether  it  ever  ex- 
 isted (as  Gesenius,  Wirier,  Juynboll,  suppose)  in 
 the  shape  of  a  complete  translation,  or  only  desig- 
 nated (as  Castellus,  Voss,  Herbst,  hold)  a  certain 
 number  of  scholia  translated  from  the  Sam.  Version. 
 Other  critics  again  (Hiivernick,  Hengstenberg,  etc.) 
 see  in  it  only  a  corrected  edition  of  certain  passages 
 of  the  LXX. 
 
 .3.  In  1070  an  ^?-«6tc  Version  of  the  Sam.  Pent, 
 was  made  by  Abu  Said  in  Egypt,  on  the  basis  of 
 the  Arabic  translation  of  Saadjah  haggaon.  Like 
 the  original  Samaritan  it  avoids  anthropomorpli- 
 isms  and  anthropopatiiisms,  replacing  the  latter 
 by  euphemisms,  besides  occasionally  making  some 
 slight  alterations,  more  especially  in  proper  nouns. 
 It  is  extant  in  several  MS.  copies  in  European 
 libraries,  and  is  now  in  course  of  being  edited  by 
 Kuenen,  Leyden,  18.50-54,  &c.  It  appears  to  have 
 been  drawn  up  from  the  Sam.  Text,  not  from  the 
 Sam.  Version ;  the  Hebrew  words  occasionally 
 remaining  unaltered  in  the  translation.''  Often 
 also    it    renders  the  original  differently  from  the 
 
 Gen.  XV.  18,  for  Euphrates,  Shalmah,  nSD  Vt27. 
 
 —  20,  >i  Rephaim,  Chasah,  HSDn. 
 XX.  1,  II  Gerar,  Askelun,  "jl7pD17. 
 
 xxvi.  2,  ii  Mitsraim,  Nefik,  p''D3   (?  Exodus). 
 
 xxxvi.8,9,&c.u  Seir,  Gablah,   nb33  (Jebal). 
 
 37,  "  Rehoboth,  Fathi,  "^nS. 
 
 Num.  xxi.33,  "  Bashan,  Bathnin, 'J^'Sn^CBatanaea). 
 
 xxxiv.  10,  "    Shepham, 'Abamiah,  n*'n327  (Apa- 
 ma3a). 
 11,  "    Shepham,  'Afamiah,  n''S3DI'. 
 Deut.  ii.  9,  u    Ar  ("137),  Arshah,  Hti^-lS. 
 
 iii.  4,  "    Argob,  Rigobaah,   nS3"13''-l   (Pa- 
 ■yapa). 
 
 —  17,  "    Chinnereth,  Genesar,  -1D33. 
 
 iv.48,  u    Sion,  Tur  Telga,  S3bn   "lltD  (Je- 
 bel  et  Telj). 
 b  E.  g.   Ex.  xiii.  12,  UW^  -|TOD  bS  (Sam.  Ver. 
 Dm  "*mn5  bS)  remains  ^isLi    Jo  :   xxi.  3, 
 
 "nWii.  b273  (Sam.  Ver.  HHS   '\n012)  is  given 
 
2814    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 Samar.  Version."  Principally  noticeable  is  its 
 excessive  dread  of  assigning  to  God  anything 
 like    liuman   attributes,  physical  or  mental.     For 
 
 DTJ/S  mn*',  "God,"   we  find   (as  in  Saadiah 
 
 sometimes)  aJul   ^J<jC,  "the  Angel  of  God;  " 
 
 for  "the  eyes  of  God"  we  have  (Deut.  xi.  12) 
 
 auUI    sJb.s>'3^,    "the   Beholding   of  God." 
 
 For   "Bread   of  God,"     (•\j),  "the    necessary," 
 
 etc.  Again,  it  occasionally  adds  honorable  epithets 
 where  the  Scripture  seems  to  have  omitted  them, 
 etc.  Its  language  is  far  from  elegant  or  even  cor- 
 rect; and  its  use  must  likewise  be  confined  to  the 
 critical  study  of  the  Sam.  Text. 
 
 4.  To  this  Arabic  version  Abu  Barachat,  a 
 Syrian,  wrote  in  1208  a  somewhat  paraphrastic 
 commentary,  which  has  by  degrees  come  to  be 
 looked  upon  as  a  new  Version  —  the  Syrian,  in 
 contradistinction  to  the  Arabic,  and  which  is 
 often  confounded  with  it  in  the  MSS.  On  both 
 Recensions  see  Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  JuynboU,  etc. 
 
 III.  Samaiutan  Literatuke. 
 
 It  may  perhaps  not  be  superfluous  to  add  here 
 a  concise  account  of  the  Samaritan  literature  in 
 general,  since  to  a  certain  degree  it  bears  upon  our 
 subject. 
 
 1.  Chronicon  Samaritanum.  —  Of  the  Penta- 
 teuch and  its  Versions  we  have  spoken.  AVe  have 
 also  mentioned  that  the  Samaritans  have  no  other 
 book  of  our  Eecei\ed  Canon.  "  There  is  no 
 Prophet  but  Moses  "  is  one  of  their  chief  dogmas, 
 and  fierce  are  the  invectives  in  which  they  indulge 
 against  men  like  Samuel,  "a  Magician  and  an  In- 
 fidel," wAj  ''  {Chron.Sam.);  Eli;  Solomon,  "Shi- 
 
 loh  "  (Gen.  xHx.  10),  " «.  e.  the  man  who  shall 
 spoil  the  Law  and  whom  many  nations  will  follow 
 because  of  their  own  licentiousness"  (De  Sacy, 
 Mem.  4);  Ezra  "cursed  for  ever"  (Lett,  to  Uun- 
 iinyton,  etc.).  Joshua  alone,  partly  on  account  of 
 his  being  an  Ephraimite,  partly  because  Shechem 
 was  selected  by  him  as  the  scene  of  his  solemn 
 valedictory  address,  seems  to  have  found  favor  in 
 their  eyes;  but  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  they 
 perhaps  possessed  in  its  original  form,  gradually 
 came  to  form  only  the  groundwork  of  a  fictitious 
 national  Samaritan  history,  overgrown  with  the 
 most  fantastic  and  anachronistic  legends.  This 
 is  the  so-called  "  Samaritan  Joshua,"  or  Chroni- 
 con Samarilonum  (iJ^J    ijVJ   ^«*uu5.J    Y"^*") 
 
 sent  to  Scaliger  by  the  Samaritans  of  Cairo  in  1584. 
 It  was  edited  by  Juynboll  (Leyden,  1848),  and  his 
 acute  investigations  have  shown  that  it  was  redacted 
 into  its  present  form  about  A.  d.  1300,  out  of  four 
 special  documents,  three  of  which  were  Arabic  and 
 one  Hebrew  (/.  e.  Samaritan).  The  Leyden  MS. 
 in  2  pts.,  which  Gesenius,  De  Sam.  Tlmol.  p.  8,  n. 
 18,  thinks  unique,  is  dated  A.  H.  764-919  (a.  d. 
 1362-1513);  — the    Cod.    in    the    Brit.   Museuni, 
 
 a  Thus  n'T'r,  Gen.  xlix.  11  (Sam.  Ver.  nmp, 
 "  his  city  "),  the  Arab,  renders  5yA£  •  Gen.  xli.  43, 
 "J"i;2S  (Sam.  Ver.  T1"1D  =  xijpvf ),  the  Arab,  trans- 
 lates ^--.AAJt   (^!^|  =1"!  2H. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 lately  acquired,  dates  A.  h.  908  (a.  d.  1502).  The 
 chronicle  embraces  the  time  from  Joshua  to  about 
 a.  d.  350,  and  was  originally  written  in, or  subse- 
 quently translated  into,  Arabic.  After  eight  chap- 
 ters of  introductory  matter  begins  the  early  history 
 of  "Israel"  under  "A'in^  Joshua,"  who,  aniong 
 other  deeds  of  arms,  wages  war,  with  300,000 
 mounted  men  —  "half  Israel"  — against  two  kings 
 of  Persia.  The  last  of  his  five  '•  royal "  successors 
 is  Shimshon  (Samson),  the  handsomest  and  most 
 powerful  of  them  all.  These  reiened  for  the  space 
 of  250  years,  and  were  followed  by  five  high-priests, 
 the  last  of  whom  was  LTsi  ( ?  ^  Uzzi,  Ez.  vii.  4). 
 With  the  history  of  Eli,  "the  seducer,"  which 
 then  follows,  and  Samuel  "  a  sorcerer,"  the  ac- 
 count, by  a  sudden  transition,  runs  off  to  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar (ch.  45),  Alexander  (ch.  46),  and  Ha- 
 drian (47),  and  closes  suddenly  at  the  time  of 
 Julian  the  Apostate. 
 
 We  shall  only  adduce  here  a  single  specimen 
 out  of  the  45th  ch.  of  the  book,  which  treats  of 
 the  subject  of  the  Pentateuch :  — 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar  was  king  of  Persia  (Mossul), 
 and  conquered  the  whole  world,  also  the  kings  of 
 Syria.  In  the  thirteenth  year  of  their  subjuga- 
 tion they  rebelled,  together  with  the  kings  of  Jeru- 
 salem (Kodsh).  Whereupon  the  Samaritans,  to 
 escape  from  the  vengeance  of  their  pursuer,  fled, 
 and  Persian  colonists  took  their  place.  A  curse, 
 however,  rested  upon  the  land,  and  the  new  immi- 
 grants died  from  eating  of  its  fruits  (Joseph.  Ant. 
 ix.  14,  §  3).  The  chiefs  of  Israel  [i.  e.  Samari- 
 tans), being  asked  the  reason  of  this  by  the  king, 
 explained  it  by  the  abolition  of  the  worship  of 
 God.  The  king  upon  this  permitted  them  to  return 
 and  to  erect  a  temple,  in  which  work  he  promised 
 to  aid  them,  and  he  gave  them  a  letter  to  all  their 
 dispersed  brethren.  'Ihe  whole  Dispersion  now 
 assembled,  and  the  Jews  said,  "  We  will  now  go 
 up  into  the  Holy  City  (Jerusalem)  and  live  there 
 in  unity."  But  the  sons  of  Harun  (Aaron)  and 
 of  Joseph  (i.  e.  the  priests  and  the  Samaritans) 
 insisted  upon  going  to  the  "Mount  of  Blessing," 
 Gerizim.  The  dispute  was  referred  to  the  king,  and 
 while  the  Samaritans  proved  their  case  from  the 
 books  of  Moses,  the  Jews  grounded  their  preference 
 for  Jerusalem  on  the  post-Mosaic  books.  The  supe- 
 rior force  of  the  Samaritan  argument  was  fully  recog- 
 nized by  the  king.  But  as  each  side  - —  by  the  mouth 
 of  their  spokesmen,  Sanballat  and  Zerubabel  respec- 
 tively, —  charged  the  other  with  basing  its  claims 
 on  a  forged  document,  the  sacred  books  of  each 
 party  were  subjected  to  the  ordeal  of  fire.  The 
 Jewish  Kecord  was  immediately  consumed,  while 
 the  Samaritan  leaped  three  times  from  the  flames 
 into  the  king's  lap:  the  third  time,  however,  a  por- 
 tion of  the  scroll,  upon  which  the  king  had  spat, 
 was  found  to  ha\e  been  consumed.  Thirty-six 
 Jews  were  immediately  beheaded,  and  the  Samari- 
 tans, to  the  number  of  300,000  wept,  and  all  Israel 
 worshipped  henceforth  upon  Mount  Gerizim  — 
 "  and  so  we  will  ask  our  help  from  the  grace  of 
 God,  who  has  in  his  mercy  granted  all  these  things, 
 and  in  Him  we  will  confide." 
 
 2.  From  this  work  chiefly  has  been  compiled  an- 
 other Chronicle,  written  in  the  14th  century  (1355), 
 
 b  A   word,   it    may    be    ob-served     by    the   way, 
 taken    by   the   Mohammedans    from   the   Rabbinical 
 
SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 by  Abu'l  Fatah."  This  comprises  the  history  of 
 the  .lews  and  Samaritans  Crom  Adam  to  A.  ii.  756 
 and  798  (a.  d.  1355  and  1397)  respectively  (the 
 forty-two  jears  must  have  been  added  by  a  later 
 historiographer).  It  is  of  equally  low  historical 
 value;  its  only  remarkable  feature  being  its  adop- 
 tion of  certain  Talmudical  legends,  which  it  took 
 at  second  hand  from  Josippon  ben  Gorion.  Accord- 
 ing to  this  chronicle,  the  deluge  did  not  cover 
 Gerizim,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Midrash  {Ber. 
 Rab.)  exempts  the  whole  of  Palestine  from  it.  A 
 specimen,  hkewise  on  the  subject  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch, may  not  be  out  of  place:  — 
 
 In  the  year  of  the  world  4150,  and  in  the  10th 
 year  of  Philadelphus,  this  king  wished  to  learn  the 
 diflference  between  the  Law  of  the  Samaritans,  and 
 that  of  the  Jews.  He  therefore  bade  both  send 
 him  some  of  their  elders.  The  Samaritans  dele- 
 gated Ahron,  Sumla,  and  Hudmaka,  the  Jews 
 Eleazar  only.  The  king  assigned  houses  to  them, 
 and  gave  them  each  an  adept  of  the  Greek  language, 
 in  order  that  he  might  assist  them  in  their  transla- 
 tion. The  Samaritans  rendered  only  their  Penta- 
 teuch into  the  language  of  the  land,  while  Kleazar 
 produced  a  translation  of  the  whole  Canon.  The 
 king,  perceiving  variations  in  the  respective  Peutu- 
 teuchs,  asked  the  Samaritans  the  reason  of  it. 
 Whereupon  they  replied  that  these  differences  chiefly 
 turned  upon  two  points.  (1.)  God  limi  chosen  the 
 Mount  of  Gerizim:  and  if  the  Jews  were  right, 
 why  was  there  no  mention  of  it  in  their  Thora  V 
 (2.)    The    Samaritans     read,    Deut.    xxxii.    35, 
 
 Dp3  D V  y,  "  to  the  day  of  vengeance  and  re- 
 ward," the  Jews  Dp3  "^7,  '■'■Mine  is  vengeance 
 and  reward"  —  which  left  it  uncertain  whether 
 that  reward  was  to  be  given  here  or  in  the  world 
 to  come.  The  king  then  asked  what  was  their 
 opinion  about  the  Jewish  prophets  and  their  writ- 
 ings, and  they  replied,  "  Either  they  must  have  said 
 and  contained  what  stood  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
 then  their  saying  it  again  was  superfluous ;  or  more ; 
 or  less: ''  either  of  which  was  again  distinctly  pro- 
 hibited in  the  Thora;  or  finally  they  must  have 
 changed  the  laws,  and  these  were  unchangeable." 
 A  Greek  who  stood  near,  observed  that  laws  must 
 be  adapted  to  different  times,  and  altered  accord- 
 ingly; whereupon  the  Samaritans  proved  that  this 
 was  only  the  case  with  human,  not  with  divine 
 laws:  moreover,  the  seventy  Elders  had  left  them 
 the  explicit  command  not  to  accept  a  word  beside 
 the  Thora.  The  king  now  fully  approved  of  their 
 translation,  and  gave  them  rich  presents.  But  to 
 the  Jews  he  strictly  enjoined  not  even  to  approach 
 Mount  Gerizim.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there 
 is  a  certain  historical  fact,  however  contorted,  at 
 the  bottom  of  this  (comp.  the  Talmudical  and  other 
 accounts  of  the  LXX.),  but  we  cannot  now  further 
 pursue  the  subject.  A  lengthened  extract  from 
 this  chronicle  —  the  original  text  with  a  German 
 translation  —  is  given  by  Schnurrer  in  Paulus' 
 Neues  Repertorium,  1790,  117-159. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     281c 
 
 3.  Another  "historical"  work  is  the  ;,_jLo 
 
 yAJa^uJ'I   on  the  history  and  genealogy  of  the 
 
 patriarchs,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  attributed  to 
 Moses  himself;  perhaps  the  same  which  Petermann 
 saw  at  Ndblus,  and  which  consisted  of  sixteen 
 vellum  leaves  (supposed,  however,  to  contain  the  ' 
 history  of  the  world  down  to  the  end).  An  anony- 
 mous recent  commentary  on  it,  A.  H,  1200,  a.  d. 
 1784,  is  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  (No.  1140,  Add.). 
 
 4.  Of  other  Samaritan  works,  chiefly  in  Arabic  — 
 their  Samaritan  and  Hebrew  literature  having 
 mostly  been  destroyed  by  the  Emperor  Commo- 
 dus  —  may  be  briefly  mentioned  Commentaries  upon 
 the  whole  or  parts  of  their  Pentateuch,  by  Zadaka  b. 
 Manga  b.  Zadaka;  <^  further,  by  Maddib  Eddin 
 Jussuf  b.  Abi  Said  b.  Khalef;  by  Ghazel  Ibn  Abu- 
 1-Surur  Al-Safawi  Al-Ghazzi  '^  (a.  h.  1167-68,  a.  d. 
 1753-54,  Brit.  Mus. ),  &c.  Theological  works  chiefly 
 in  Arabic,  mixed  with  Samaritanisms,  by  Abul 
 Hassan  of  Tjre,  On  the  rcliyious  Manners  and 
 Customs  of  the  Samaritans,  and  the  World  to 
 come ;  by  MowafFek  Eddin  Zadaka  el  Israili,  A 
 Compendium  of  Reliyion,  on  the  Nature  of  the 
 Divine  Beinf],  on  Man,  on  the  Worship  of  God; 
 by  Amin  Eddin  Alju'l  Baracat,  On  the  Ten  Coin- 
 mandmenls ;  by  Abu'l  Hassan  Ibn  El  Markum 
 Gonajem  ben  Abulfaraj'  ibn  Chatar,  On  Penance; 
 by  Muhaddib  Eddin  Jussuf  Ibn  Salmaah  Ibn 
 Jussuf  Al  Askari,  An  Exposition  of  the  Mosaic 
 Laws,  etc.,  etc.  Some  grammatical  works  may 
 be  further  mentioned,  by  Abu  Ishak  Ibrahim, 
 On   (he   Hebrtw  Language ;    by  Abu    Said,    On 
 
 reading  the  HeWev)  Text  \\<Ji^\    ^^AJl«.i'j. 
 
 This  grammar  begins  in  the  following  character- 
 istic manner:  — 
 
 "  Thus  said  the  Sheikh,  rich  in  good  works  and 
 knowledge,  the  model,  the  abstemious,  the  well- 
 guided  Abu  Said,  to  whom  God  be  merciful  and 
 compassionate. 
 
 "  Praise  be  unto  God  for  his  help,  and  I  ask  for 
 his  guidance  towards  a  clear  exposition.  I  have 
 resolved  to  lay  down  a  few  rules  for  the  proper 
 manner  of  reading  the  Holy  Writ,  on  account  of 
 the  difference  which  I  found,  with  respect  to  it, 
 among  our  co-religionists  —  whom  may  God  make 
 numerous  and  inspire  to  obedience  unto  Him !  — 
 and  in  such  a  manner  that  I  shall  bring  proofs  for 
 my  assertions,  from  which  the  wise  could  in  no 
 way  differ.     But  God  knows  best ! 
 
 "  Rule  1 :  With  all  their  discrepancies  about 
 dogmas  or  religious  views,  yet  all  the  confessors  of 
 
 the  Hebrew  religion  agree  in  this,  that  the  j"!  of 
 the  first  pers.  (sing,  perf.)  is  always  pronounced 
 with  Kasra,  and  that  a  "^  follows  it,  provided  it  has 
 no  suffix.  It  is  the  same,  when  the  sufl3x  of  tht 
 plural,  D,  is  added  to  it,  according  to  the  unani- 
 mous testimony  of  the  MSS.,  etc." 
 
 .^1 
 
 jUiiS 
 
 (j^="'    t5^'^j-?'    f-^^    r? 
 
 ^y*My^\    ^AJjJ   i^y/oL^vwJf   (Bodl. ;  Imp. 
 
 Library,  Paris)      Two   copies   in  Berlin   Library  (Pe- 
 termann, Kosen)  recently  acquired. 
 
 *  This   work    has  since    been   published,  with   the 
 title :  "  Abulfathi  Annales  Samaritaui.     Quos  Arabice 
 
 edidit,  cum  ProU.  Latine  vertit   et  Commentario  illus- 
 travit  Dr.  Ed.  Vilmar."     Gotha,  1865,  8vo.  A. 
 
 b  Compare  the  well-kDOWn  dictum  of  Omar  on  the 
 Ak'xandrian  Library  (Gibbon,  ch.  51). 
 
 '  ^}y^\    wAaaJI         w^  (13th  century,  BodL) 
 d  Under  the  title     ^^  v^aJ^LoJI  i—ft-wwO 
 
2816    SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH 
 
 The  treatise  concludes,  at  the  end  of  the  12th 
 Canon  or  Kule :  — 
 
 "  Often  also  the  perfect  is  used  in  the  form  of 
 the  imperative.  Thus  it  is  reported  of  a  man 
 of  the  best  reputation,  that  he  had  used  the 
 form  of  the  imperative  in  the  passage  (Ex.  ill.  13), 
 
 "IDtt;  na  ''b  TIQWT—  '  And  they  shall  say  to 
 me.  What  is  his  name?'  He  who  reported  this 
 to  me  is  a  man  of  very  high  standing,  against 
 whose  truthfulness  nothing  can  be  brought  forward. 
 But  God  knows  best!    ' 
 
 "  There  are  now  a  (ew  more  words  to  be  treated, 
 of  which,  however,  we  will  treat  viva  voce.  And 
 blessed  be  His  name  fore^■ermore.'' 
 
 5.  Their  Liturgical  literature  is  more  extensive, 
 and  not  without  a  certain  poetical  value.  It  con- 
 sists chiefly  of  hymns  (Defter,  Durrau)  and  prayers 
 for  Sabliath  and  Feast-days,  and  of  occasional 
 prayers  at  nuptials,  circumcisions,  burials,  and  the 
 like.  We  subjoin  a  few  specimens  from  MSS.  in 
 the  British  Museum,  transcribed  into  Hebrew  char- 
 acters. 
 
 The  following  is  part  of  a  Litany  for  the  dead :  — 
 
 Lord  Jehovah,  Elohim,  for  Thy  mercy,  and  for  Thine 
 Own  sake,  and  for  Thy  uauie,  and  for  Thy  glory,  and 
 for  the  sake  of  our  Lords  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
 Jacob,  and  our  Lords  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  Eleazar, 
 and  Ithamar,  and  Pinehas,  and  Joshua,  and  Caleb, 
 and  the  Holy  Angels,  and  the  seventy  Elders,  and  the 
 holy  mountain  of  Gerizim,  Beth  El.     If  Thou  accept- 
 
 est  [Q'^ti^H]  this  prayer  [S"~ipD  =  reading],  may 
 there  go  forth  from  before  Thy  holy  countenance  a 
 gift  sent  to  protect  the  spirit  of  Thy  servant,  ...  JVi 
 
 .«^i      .ot   P^-  *^®  ^°'^  '^^  ^-^i  °^  ''^^  ^°°*  °^ 
 
 [ ],  daughter  [ ]  from  the  sons  of  [ ].     O 
 
 Lord  Jehovah,  in  Thy  mercy  have  compassion  on  him 
 
 (  f  [or]  have  compassion  on  her),  and  rest  his  (her) 
 soul  in  the  garden  of  Eden;    and  forgive  him   (»| 
 
 [or]  her),  and  all  the  congregation  of  Israel  who  flock 
 to  Mount  Gerizim,  Beth  El.  Amen.  Through  Moses 
 the  trusty.     Amen,  Amen,  Amen. 
 
 The  next  is  part  of  a  hymn  (see  Kirchheim's 
 Carme  Slwinron,  emendations  on  Gesenius,  Cavin. 
 Ham.  iii.):  — 
 
 ins  SbW  nbS  rr^b  There  is  no  God  but  one, 
 
 7\}l'^^'p  D'^nbS  The  everlasting  God, 
 
 Db3?b  TS  n''2?pT  Who  liveth  forever  j 
 
 ^"^7'^n  VD  bl?  nbW  God  above  all  powers, 
 
 D727b  "jS  "'DDT  And  who  thus  remaineth 
 
 ymn3  nm  "jbTI^    in  Thy  grear  power  shall 
 we  trust, 
 
 yyd  in  riKI    For  Thou  art  our  Lord  ; 
 
 rT'iriWl  "fmnbWn    in    Thy    Godhead  ;     for 
 Thou  hast  conducted 
 
 T\W^'^  ]D  nDb37    The   world    from   begin- 
 ning. 
 
 SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
 
 3. 
 
 n^DD  ni"Tm33    Thy  power  was  hidden, 
 
 "T"ttn~l1  "f"int3T    And  Thy  glory  and  mercy 
 
 nriKDDI  nnH'^ba  yhl  Revealed  are  both  th< 
 things  that  are  rt> 
 vealed,  and  thott 
 that  are  unrevealed 
 
 "iDI  "7mnbS  "jlsbtt^a  Before  the  reign  of 
 Thy  Godhead,  etc. 
 
 IV.  We  shall  only  briefly  touch  here,  in  con- 
 clusion, upon  the  strangely  contradictory  rabbinical 
 laws  framed  for  the  regulation  of  the  intercourse 
 between  the  two  rival  nationalities  of  Jews  and 
 Samaritans  in  religious  and  ritual  matters;  dis- 
 crepancies due  partly  to  the  ever-shifting  phases  of 
 their  mutual  relations,  partly  to  the  modifications 
 brought  about  in  the  Samaritan  creed,  and  partly 
 to  the  now  less  uow  greater  acquiescence  of  the 
 Jews  in  the  religious  state  of  the  Samaritajis. 
 Thus  we  find  the  older  Talmudical  authorities  dis- 
 puting whether  the  Cuthim  (Samaritans)  are  to 
 
 be  considered  as  " Eeal  Converts"   nZ2S  "^"T^^, 
 or  only  converts  through  fear  —  "  Lion  Converts" 
 
 n V"1S  ^1^3  —  in  allusion  to  the  incident  related 
 in  2  K.  xvii.  25  {Baba  K.  38;  Kidush.  75,  &c.) 
 
 One  Rabbi  holds  "'IJD  "^niD,  "  A  Samaritan  is 
 to  be  considered  as  a  heathen;"  while  E.  Simon 
 b.  Gamaliel  —  the  same  whose  opinion  on  the  Sam. 
 Pent,  we  had  occasion  to  quote  before  —  pro- 
 nounces that  they  are  "to  be  treated  in  every 
 respect  like  Israelites"  {Bern.  Jcr.  ix.  2;  Ketub. 
 11,  Ac).  It  would  appear  that  notwithstanding 
 their  rejection  of  all  but  the  Pentateuch,  they  had 
 adopted  many  traditional  religious  practice.s  from 
 the  Jews  —  principally  such  as  were  derived  direct 
 from  tlie  books  of  Moses.  It  was  acknowledged 
 that  they  kept  these  ordinances  with  even  greater 
 rigor  than  those  from  whom  they  adopted  them. 
 The  utmost  confidence  was  therefore  placed  in  them 
 for  their  ritually  slaughtering  animals,  even  fowls 
 (CliuL  4  (i);  their  wells  are  pronounced  to  be 
 conformed  to  all  the  conditions  prescribed  by  the 
 Mishnah  [Toseph.  Mikw.  6;  comp.  J\likw.  8, 
 1).  See,  however,  Ahodiih  Zarah  (Jer.  v.  4). 
 Their  unleavened  bread  for  the  Passover  is  com- 
 mended {Cit.  10;  Cliid.  4);  their  cheese  (Mas. 
 i'utli.  2);  and  even  their  whole  food  is  allowed 
 to  the  Jews  {Ab.  Zar.  Jer.  v.  4).  Compare  John 
 iv.  8,  where  the  disciples  are  reported  to  have  gone 
 into  the  city  of  Samaria  to  buy  food.  Their  testi- 
 mony was  valued  in  that  most  stringent  matter  of 
 the  letter  of  divorce  {Mas.  i'uih.  ii.).  They  were 
 admitted  to  the  office  of  circumcising  Jewish  boys 
 (J/iis.  Cuth.  I.)  —  against  R.  Jehudah,  who  asserts 
 that  they  circumcise  "  in  the  name  of  Mount 
 (ierizim "  (Abodali  Zurah,  43).  The  criminal 
 law  makes  no  difference  whatever  between  them  and 
 the  Jews  {3Ias.  Cuth.  2;  Makk.  8);  and  a  Sa- 
 maritan wiio  strictly  adheres  to  his  own  special 
 creed  is  honored  with  the  title  of  a  Cuthi-Chaber 
 {ailtin,  10  b:  Middali,  33  6).  By  degrees,  how- 
 ever, inhibitions  began  to  be  laid  upon  the  use 
 of  their  wine,  vinegar,  bread  (Mas.  Cuth.  2; 
 Toseph.  77,  5),  &c.  This  intermediate  stage  of 
 uncertain  and  inconsistent  treatment,  which  must 
 have  lasted  for  nearly  two  centuries,  is  best  char- 
 acterized by  the  small  rabbinical  treatise  quoted 
 above — Massechelh    Cuthim  (2d  cent.  A    D.)  — 
 
SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH 
 
 first  edited  by  Kircbheim  (niDtDp   'DO   V^W 
 
 'bbtI71"l'')  Francf.  1851  —  tbe  beginning  of  wbich 
 reads:  '-The  ways  (treatment)  of  the  Cuthim  (Sa- 
 maritans), soiiietimes  like  Goyim  (heathens)  some- 
 times like  Israel."  No  less  striking  is  its  conclu- 
 sion :  — 
 
 "  And  why  are  the  Cuthim  not  permitted  to  come 
 into  the  midst  of  the  Jews  ?  Because  they  have 
 mixed  with  the  priests  of  the  heights"  (idolaters). 
 E.  Ismael  says :  "  They  were  at  Jirst  pious  con- 
 verts (p"T^  '^I'^n  =  real  Israelites),  and  why  is 
 the  intercourse  with  them  prohibited  ?  Because  of 
 their  illegally  begotten  children,"  and  because  they 
 
 do  not  fulfill  the  duties  of  Dn**  (marrying  the 
 deceased  brother's  wife):  "  a  law  which  they  under- 
 stand, as  we  saw  above,  to  apply  to  the  betrothed 
 only. 
 
 "  At  what  period  are  they  to  be  received  (into 
 the  Community)  ?  "  "  When  they  abjure  the  Mount 
 Gerizim,  recognize  Jerusalem  (namely,  its  superior 
 claims),  and  believe  in  the  Resurrection."* 
 
 We  hear  of  their  exclusion  by  R.  Meir  (Chul. 
 6),  in  the  third  generation  of  the  Tanaim,  and 
 later  again  under  R.  Abbulia,  the  Aniora,  at  the 
 time  of  Diocletian ;  this  time  the  exclusion  was 
 unconditional  and  final  (Jei'.  Abodah  Zarah,  5, 
 &c. ).  Partaking  of  their  bread  «  was  considered  a 
 transgression,  to  be  punished  like  eating  the  flesh 
 of  swine  (Zeb.  8,  6).  The  intensity  of  their 
 mutual  hatred,  at  a  later  period,  is  best  shown  by 
 dicta  like  that  in  iMerj.  28,  6.  "  May  it  never 
 happen  to  me  that  I  behold  a  Cuthi."  "  Whoever 
 receives  a  Samaritan  hospitably  in  his  house,  de- 
 serves that  his  children  go  into  exile "  {Synh. 
 lO-l,  1).  In  Matt.  X.  5  Samaritans  and  Gentiles 
 are  already  mentioned  together;  and  in  Luke  xvii. 
 18  the  Samaritan  is  called  "  a  stranger "  {aWo- 
 yeviis)-  The  reason  for  this  exclusion  is  variously 
 given.  They  are  said  by  some  to  have  used  and 
 sold  the  wine  of  heathens  for  sacrificial  piu-poses 
 {Jer.  ibid.);  by  others  they  were  charged  with 
 worshipping  the  dove  sacred  to  Venus ;  an  imputa- 
 tion over  the  correctness  of  which  hangs,  up  to  this 
 moment,  a  certain  mysterious  doubt.  It  has,  at 
 all  events,  never  been  brought  home  to  them,  that 
 they  really  worshipped  this  image,  although  it  was 
 certainly  seen  with  them,  even  by  recent  travellers. 
 
 Authorities.  —  1.  Original  texts.  Pentateuch  in 
 the  Polyglotts  of  Paris,  and  Walton ;  also  (in  Hebr. 
 letters)  by  Blayney,  8vo,  Ox.  1790.  Sam.  Version 
 in  the  Polyglotts  of  Walton  and  Paris.  Arab. 
 Vers,  of  Abu  Said,  Libri  Gen.  Ex.  et  Lev.  by 
 Kuenen,  8vo,  Lugd.  1851-54;  also  Van  Vloten, 
 Specimen,  etc.,  4to,  Lugd.  1803.  Literce  ad  Scal- 
 iger,  etc.  (by  De  Sacy),  and  Epistola  ad  Ludolph. 
 (Bruns),  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  xiii.  Also, 
 ■with  Letters  to  De  Sacy  himself,  in  Notices  et  Ex- 
 traits  des  3fSS.  [vol.  xii.]  Par.  1831.  Chronicxm 
 Samaritanum,  by  JuynboU,  4to,  Leyden,  1848. 
 Specimen  of  Saraar.  Commentary  on  Gen.  xlix.  by 
 Schnurrer,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  xvi.  Carm.  Sa- 
 vvir.  [ed.]  Gesenius,  4to,  Lips.  1824. 
 
 a  The  briefest  rendering  of  Q"'~1TJ2Z3  which  we 
 can  give  —  a  full  explanation  of  the  term  would  ex- 
 ceed our  limits. 
 
 b  On  this  subject  the  Pent,  contains  nothing  ex- 
 plicit. They  at  first  rejected  that  dogma,  but  adopted 
 it  at  a  later  period,  perhaps  since  Dositheus ;  comp. 
 
 SAMGAR-NEBO  2817 
 
 2.  Dissertations,  etc.,  J.  Morinus,  Exercitationet 
 etc.,  Par.  1631 ;  O^mscula  Hebr.  Samaritica,  Par 
 1657 ;  A7itiquitat.es  Eccl.  Orient,  Lond.  1682.  J 
 H.  Hottinger,  Exercil.  Anti-morinianoB,  etc.,  Tigur. 
 1044.  Walton,  De  Pent.  Sam.  in  Proleyom;  an 
 Puiyylott.  Castell,  Animadversiones,  in  Polyglott, 
 vi.  Cellarius,  Ilorce  Samaritance,  Ciz.  1G82;  also 
 Collectanea,  in  Ugolini,  xxii.  Leusden,  Philvlogw 
 Hebr.  Utraj.  1686.  St.  Morinus,  Exerc.it.  de  Ling 
 primcBvd,  Utr.  1694.  Schwarz,  Exercilutiones 
 etc.  Houbigant,  Prolegomena,  etc.,  Par.  174( 
 Kennicott,  State  of  the  Heb.  Text,  etc.,  ii.  1759. 
 J.  G.  Carpzov,  Crit.  Sacra  V.  T.  Pt.  1,  Lips. 
 1728.  Hassencamp,  Entdeckter  Ursprung,  etc. 
 0.  G.  Tychsen,  Disputaiio,  etc.,  Biitz.  1765.  Bauer, 
 Crit.  Sacr.  Gesenius,  Be  Pent.  Sam.  Origine, 
 etc.,  Hal.  1815  ;  Samar.  Theologin,  etc.,  Hal. 
 1822;  Anecdota  Exon.,  Lips.  1824.  Hengstenberg, 
 Auth.  des  Pent.  Mazade,  Siir  P  Origine,  etc., 
 Gen.  1830.  M.  Stuart,  N.  Amer.  Rev.  [vol.  xxii.] 
 Frankel,  Vorstudien,  Leipz.  1841,  [and  Einfluss 
 d.   palestin.    Exegese,    etc.,    1851.]      Kircbheim, 
 
 inZiltt?  "^mS,  Frankfort,  1851.  The  Eitileit- 
 ungen  of  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Vater,  De  Wette, 
 Hiivernick,  Keil,  [Bleek,]  etc.  The  Geschicliten 
 of  Jost,  Herzfeld,  etc. 
 
 3.  Versions.  Winer,  De  Vers.  Pent.  Sam. 
 De  Sacy,  Mem.  sur  la  Vers.  Arabe  des  Livres  de 
 Mo'ise,  in  A  fern,  de  Litterature,  xlix..  Par.  1808; 
 also  EEtnt  (ictuel  des  Samaritains,  Par.  1812; 
 De  Versione  Samaritano-Arabica,  etc.,  in  Eich- 
 horn's Allg.  BibUothvlc,  x.  1-176.  E.  D. 
 
 *  On  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  there  are  articles 
 by  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  Bibl.  Repos.  for  Oct.  1832, 
 and  by  T.  Walker  in  the  Christ.  Examiner  for 
 May  and  Sept.  1840.  See  also  Davidson's  art.  in 
 Kitto's  CycL  of  Bibl.  Lit,  3d  ed.,  iii.  746  ff.; 
 Rosen  in  the  Zeilschr.  d.  deutschen  morgenl.  Ge- 
 sellsch.,  xviii.  582  if. ;  S.  Kohn,  De  Pentaieucho 
 Samaritano,  Vratisl.  1865,  and  id.  Samarita- 
 nische  Studien,  Breslau,  1867.  A. 
 
 SAM'ATUS  (2a/iaT(<s:  Semedius).  One  of 
 the  sons  of  Ozora  in  the  list  of  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
 The  whole  verse  is  very  corrupt. 
 
 *  SAMECH,  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters  em- 
 ployed in  the  alphabetic  compositions.      [Poetry; 
 
 WitlTING.]  H. 
 
 SAME'IUS  [3  syl.]  {^.a/xalos  [Vat.  Qufiaios; 
 Aid.  ^aixews]  )■  Shejiaiah  of  the  sons  of  Harim 
 (1  Esdr.  ix.  21;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  21). 
 
 SAM'GAR-NE'BO  (5l3?""ll??P  [see  be- 
 low] :  Semegarnabu).  One  of  the  princes  or  gen- 
 erals of  the  king  of  Babylon  who  commanded  the 
 victorious  arhiy  of  the  Chaldseans  at  the  capture 
 of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxxix.  3).  I'he  text  of  the 
 LXX.  is  corrupt.  The  two  names  "  Sanigar- 
 nebo,  Sarsechim,"  are  there  written  'S.aixaywQ 
 [Alex.  Eio-tra^ayae]  koI  J<a^ovffdxap.  ^''^^  iVc'6o 
 is  the  Chaldsean  Mercury;  about  the  Samgar,  opin- 
 ions are  divided.  Von  JBohlen  suggested  that  from 
 the  Sanskrit  sangara,  "war,"  might  be  formed 
 sdngara,  "warrior,"  and  that  this  was  the  original 
 of  Samgar. 
 
 the  sayings  of  Jehudda-hadassi  and  Massudi,  that  one 
 of  the  two  Samaritan  sects  believes  in  the  llosurrec- 
 tion  ;  Epiphanius,  Leontius,  Gregory  the  Great,  testify 
 unanimously  to  their  former  unbelief  in  this  article 
 of  their  present  faith. 
 
 c   nr,   Lightfoot  "bucella"(?) 
 
2818  SAMi 
 
 SA'MI  (Ta)j3/s;  [Vat.  Ta))8e«f;  Aid.  Sa/ii';] 
 Alex.  2a/3ei:  Tobi).  Shobai  (1  Esdr.  v.  28; 
 conip.  Ezr.  ii.  42). 
 
 SA'MIS  (Sojueis;  [Vat.  So/xeezs;  Alex.  2o- 
 jueis;  Aid.  Salt's:]  om.  in  Vulg.).  Sihmei  13 
 (1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  conip.  Ezr.  x.  38). 
 
 SAM'LAH  (nbp££7  {yarmenq  :  •S.aixaU; 
 Alex.  SaAa^a;  [in  1  Chr.,  Rom.  iSe/SAa;  Vat. 
 Alex.  'S.aij.aa']  Semla),  Gen.  xxxvi.  36,  37;  1  Chr. 
 i.  47,  48.  One  of  the  kings  of  Edom,  successor  to 
 Hadau  or  Hadak.  Samlah,  whose  name  signi- 
 fies "a  garment."  was  of  Masrekah;  that  being 
 probably  the  chief  city  during  his  reign.  This 
 mention  of  a  separate  city  as  belonging  to  each 
 (almost  without  exception)  of  the  "kings"  of 
 Edom,  suggests  that  the  Edomite  kingdom  con- 
 sisted of  a  confederacy  of  tribes,  and  that  the  chief 
 city  of  the  reigning  tribe  was  the  metropolis  of  the 
 whole.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 SAM'MUS  (2a/x^ous;  [Vat.  :S,aixtxov:]  Sa- 
 mus).  Shkma  (1  Esdr.  ix.  43;  comp.  Neh.  viii. 
 4). 
 
 SA'MOS  (Sa^os  [heifjht:  Smnus]).  A  very 
 illustrious  Greek  island  off  that  part  of  Asia  Minor 
 where  Iomia  touches  Cakia.  For  its  history,  from 
 the  time  when  it  was  a  powerful  member  of  the  Ionic 
 confederacy  to  its  recent  struggles  against  Turkey 
 during  the  war  of  independence,  and  since,  we  must 
 refer  to  the  Bid.  of  Greek  and  Bum.  6'(-oy."  Sa- 
 mos  is  a  very  lofty  and  commanding  island ;  the 
 word,  in  fact,  denotes  a  height,  especially  by  the  sea- 
 shore: hence,  also,  the  name  of  Samothkacia,  or 
 "  the  Thracian  Samos."  The  Ionian  Samos  comes 
 before  our  notice  in  the  detailed  account  of  St. 
 Paul's  return  from  his  third  missionary  journey 
 (Acts  XX.  15).  He  had  been  at  Chios,  and  was 
 about  to  proceed  to  Miletus,  having  passed  by 
 Ephesus  without  touching  there.  The  topograph- 
 ical notices  given  incidentally  by  St.  Luke  are 
 most  exact.  The  night  was  spent  at  the  anchor- 
 age of  Teogyllium,  in  the  narrow  strait  between 
 Samos  and  the  extremity  of  the  mainland-ridge  of 
 Myeale.  This  spot  is  famous  both  for  the  great 
 battle  of  the  old  Greeks  against  the  Persians  in  b. 
 C.  479,  and  also  for  a  gallant  action  of  the  modern 
 Greeks  against  the  Turks  in  1824.  Here,  however, 
 it  is  more  natural  (especially  as  we  know,  from  1 
 Mace.  XV.  23,  that  Jews  resided  here)  to  allude  to 
 the  meeting  of  Herod  the  Great  with  Marcus 
 Agrippa  in  Samos,  whence  resulted  many  privi- 
 leges to  the  Jews  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  2,  §§  2,  4). 
 At  this  time  and  when  St.  Paul  was  there,  it  was 
 politically  a  "free  city"  in  the  province  of  Asia. 
 Various  travellers  (Tournefort,  Pococke,  Dallaway, 
 Ross)  have  described  this  island.  We  may  refer 
 particularly  to  a  very  recent  work  on  the  subject, 
 Descripliun  del'ile  de  Paimos  et  de  I'ile  de  Samos 
 (Paris,  1856),  by  V.  Guerin,  who  spent  two 
 months  in  the  island.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 «  A  curious  illustration  of  the  renown  of  the  Sa- 
 mian  earthenware  is  furnished  by  the  Vulgate  render- 
 ing of  Is   xlv.  9  :  "Testa  de  Samiis  terrse." 
 
 b  *  Saniothrace  lies  in  the  track  of  the  steamers 
 from  Constantinople  to  Neapolis  {Kavalla)  andThessa- 
 lonica.  The  work  of  A.  Conze,  Reise  aiif  den  Inseln 
 des  Tkrakischen  Meeres,  contains  the  results  of  a  visit 
 in  1858  to  Thasos,  Samothrace,  Imbros,  and  Limnos, 
 Jiaialy  for  the  purpose  of  copying  monumental  sculp- 
 tures and  inscriptions.  Some  of  those  in  Samothrace 
 are  specially  interesting  on  account  of  their  great  an- 
 
 SAMSON 
 
 SAMOTHRA'CIA  (2a/io0pa'«rj  [prob.  height 
 of  Thrace']:  Sumoikracia).  The  mention  of  thia 
 island  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  first  voyage  to 
 Europe  (Acts  xvi.  11)  is  for  two  reasons  worthy  of 
 careful  notice.  In  the  first  place,  being  a  very 
 lofty  and  conspicuous  island,  it  is  an  excellent  land- 
 mark for  sailors,  and  must  have  been  full  in  view 
 if  tlie  weather  was  clear,  throughout  that  voyage 
 from  Troas  to  Neapolis.  From  the  shore  at  Iroas 
 Samothrace  is  seen  towering  over  Imbros  (Horn. 
 Jl.  xiii.  12,  13;  Kinglake's  Jio/hen,  p.  64),  and  it  is 
 similarly  a  marked  object  in  the  view  from  the  hills 
 between  Neapolis  and  Philippi  (Clarke's  Travek, 
 ch.  xiii.).  These  allusions  tend  to  give  vividness 
 to  one  of  the  most  important  voyages  that  ever 
 took  place.  Secondly,  this  voyage  was  made  with 
 a  fair  wind.  Not  only  are  we  told  that  it  occupied 
 only  parts  of  two  days,  whereas  on  a  subsequent 
 return-voyage  (Acts  xx.  6)  the  time  spent  at  sea 
 was  five:  but  the  technical  word  here  used  (evdvSpo- 
 ^i\aafxfv)  implies  that  they  ran  l)efore  the  wind. 
 Now  the  position  of  Samothrace  is  exactly  such  as 
 to  correspond  with  these  notices,  and  thus  incident  ■ 
 ally  to  confirm  the  accuracy  of  a  most  artless  nar- 
 rative. St.  Paul  and  his  companions  anchored  for 
 the  night  off  Samothrace.  The  ancient  city,  and 
 therefoi'e  probably  the  usual  anchorage,  was  on  the 
 N.  side,  which  would  be  sufficiently  sheltered  from 
 a  S.  E.  wind.  It  may  be  added,  as  a  further  prac- 
 tical consideration  not  to  be  overlooked,  that  such 
 a  wind  would  be  favorable  for  overcoming  the 
 opposing  current,  which  sets  southerly  after  leaving 
 the  Dardanelles,  and  easterly  between  Samothrace 
 and  the  mainland.  Fuller  details  are  given  in 
 Life  and  Kpp.  of  St.  Paul,  2d.  ed.  i.  335-338. 
 The  chief  classical  associations  of  this  island  are 
 mythological  and  connected  with  the  mysterious 
 divinities  called  Cabeiri.  Perseus  took  reiuge  here 
 after  his  defeat  by  the  Romans  at  Pydna.  In  St. 
 Paul's  time  Samothrace  had,  according  to  Pliny, 
 the  pri\'ileges  of  a  small  free  state,  though  it  was 
 doubtless  considered  a  dependency  of  the  province 
 of  Macedonia.''  J.  S.  H. 
 
 SAMP'SAMES  ([Rom.  Sin.]  -Xaix^afxTis, 
 [Alex.]  'Zafi\paK7)s-  Lampsactis,  Sampsames),  a 
 name  which  occurs  in  the  list  of  those  to  whom  the 
 Romans  are  said  to  have  sent  letters  in  favor  of  the 
 Jews  (1  Mace.  xv.  23).  The  name  is  probalily  not 
 that  of  a  soveieign  (as  it  appears  to  be  taken  in 
 A.  v.),  but  of  a  place,  which  Grimm  identifies  with 
 Sainstin  on  the  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  between 
 Sinoije  and  Trebizond.  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SAM'SON  ("j'ltrT^rt',  *.  e.  Shimshon :  2a^- 
 \hciy:  [Samson,]  "little  sun,"  or  "sunlike;"  but 
 according  to  Joseph.  Ant.  v.  8,  §  4  "  strong:  "  if 
 the  root  shemesh  has  the  signification  of  "awe" 
 which  Gesenius  ascribes  to  it,  the  name  Samson 
 would  seem  naturally  to  allude  to  the  "  aw-e  "  and 
 "  astonishment  "  with  which  the  father  and  mother 
 
 tiquity  and  their  symbolic  import  as  connected  with 
 the  remarkable  religious  rites  of  which  that  island 
 was  the  seat.  Fr.  W.  J.  Schelling  maintains  the  She- 
 mitic  origin  of  these  rites  and  of  some  of  the  associated 
 teachings  in  his  noted  lecture,  Ueber  die  Gnttkeilen 
 von  Samothrake.  See  also  Creuzer's  Symbolik,  ii. 
 302  ff.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  the  old  form  of 
 the  (jreek  future  which  has  generally  disappeared 
 from  the  modern  Greek  is  found  to  be  common  in 
 these  rarely  visited  retreats  of  the  old  Hellenic  race. 
 
 U. 
 
SAMSON 
 
 fooked  upon  the  angel  who  announced  Samson's 
 birth  —  see  Judg.  xiii.  6,  18-20,  and  Joseph.  /.  c. ), 
 son  of  Manoah,  a  man  of  the  town  of  Zorah,  in  the 
 tribe  of  Dan,  on  the  border  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
 33,  xix.  41).  The  miraculous  circumstances  of  his 
 birth  are  recorded  in  Judg.  xiii. ;  and  the  three  fol- 
 lowing chapters  are  devoted  to  the  history  of  his 
 life  and  exploits.  Samson  takes  his  place  in  Scrip- 
 ture, (1)  as  a  judge  —  an  office  which  he  filled  for 
 twenty  years  (.Judg.  xv.  20,  xvi.  31);  (2)  as  a  Naz- 
 arite  (Judg.  xiii.  5,  xvi.  17);  and  (3)  as  one  en- 
 dowed with  supernatural  power  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
 Lord  (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xiv.  G,  19,  xv.  14). 
 
 (1.)  As  a  judge  his  authority  seems  to  have  been 
 limited  to  the  district  bordering  upon  the  country 
 of  the  Philistines,  and  his  action  as  a  deliverer  does 
 not  seem  to  have  extended  beyond  desultory  attacks 
 upon  the  dominant  Philistines,  by  which  their  hold 
 upon  Israel  was  weakened,  and  the  way  prepared 
 for  the  future  emancipation  of  the  Israelites  from 
 their  joke.  It  is  evident  from  Judg.  xiii.  1,  5,  xv. 
 9-11,  20,  and  the  whole  history,  that  the  Israelites, 
 or  at  least  Judah  and  Dan,  which  are  the  only 
 tribes  mentioned,  were  sulyect  to  the  Philistines 
 through  the  whole  of  Samson's  judgeship;  so  that, 
 of  course,  Samson's  twenty  years  of  office  would  be 
 included  in  the  fortj'  years  of  the  Philistine  domin- 
 ion. From  the  angel's  speech  to  Samson's  mother 
 (Judg.  xiii.  5),  it  appears  further  that  the  Israelites 
 were  already  subject  to  the  Philistines  at  his  birth ; 
 and  as  Samson  cannot  have  begun  to  be  judge  be- 
 fore he  was  twenty  years  of  age,  it  follows  that  his 
 judgeship  must  about  have  coincided  with  the  last 
 twenty  years  of  Philistine  dominion.  But  when 
 we  turn  to  the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  and  especially 
 to  vii.  1-14,  we  find  that  the  Philistine  dominion 
 ceased  under  the  judgeship  of  Sanjuel.  Hence  it  is 
 obvious  to  conclude  that  the  early  part  of  Samuel's 
 judgeship  coincided  with  the  latter  part  of  Sam- 
 son's: and  that  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Phi- 
 listines in  the  time  of  Eli  occurred  during  Samson's 
 lifetime.  There  are  besides  several  points  in  the 
 respective  narratives  of  the  times  of  Samson  and 
 Samuel  which  indicate  great  proximity.  First, 
 there  is  the  general  prominence  of  the  Philistines 
 in  their  relation  to  Israel.  Secondly,  there  is  the 
 remarkable  coincidence  of  both  Samson  and  Sam- 
 uel being  Nazarites  (Judg.  xiii.  5,  xvi.  17,  com- 
 pared with  1  Sam.  i.  11 ).  It  looks  as  if  the  great 
 exploits  of  the  young  Danite  Nazarite  had  suggested 
 to  Hannah  the  consecration  of  her  son  in  like  man- 
 ner, or,  at  all  events,  as  if  for  some  reason  the 
 Nazarite  vow  was  at  that  time  prevalent.  No 
 other  mention  of  Nazarites  occurs  in  the  Scripture 
 history  till  Amosii.  11,  12;  and  even  there  the  al- 
 lusion seems  to  be  to  Samuel  and  Samson.  Thirdly, 
 there  is  a  similar  notice  of  the  house  of  Dagon  in 
 Judg.  xvi.  23,  and  1  Sam.  v.  2.  Fourthly,  the 
 lords  of  the  Philistines  are  mentioned  in  a  similar 
 way  in  Judg.  xvi.  8,  18,  27,  and  in  1  Sam.  vii.  7. 
 All   of  which,    taken    together,   indicates  a   close 
 
 SAMSON 
 
 2819 
 
 a  "  Hercules  once  went  to  Egypt,  and  there  the  inhab- 
 itants took  him,  and,  putting  a  chaplet  on  his  Iiead, 
 led  him  out  in  solemn  procession,  intending  to  offer 
 him  in  sacrifice  to  .Jupiter.  For  awhile  he  submitted 
 quietly  ;  but  when  they  led  him  up  to  the  altar,  and 
 began  the  ceremonies,  he  put  forth  his  strength  and 
 slew  them  all  "  (Rawlins,  Herod,  book  ii.  45). 
 
 The  passage  from  Lycophron,  with  the  scholion, 
 quoted  by  Bochart  (Hieroz.  pars  ii.  lib.  v.  cap.  xii), 
 where  Hercules  is  said  to  have  been  three  nights  in 
 the  belly  of  ths  sea-monster,  and  to  have  come  out 
 
 proximity  between  the  times  of  Samson  and  Sam- 
 uel. There  does  not  seem,  however,  to  be  any 
 means  of  fixing  the  time  of  Samson's  judgeship 
 more  precisely.  The  effect  of  his  prowess  must 
 have  been  more  of  a  preparatory  kind,  by  arous- 
 ing the  cowed  spirit  of  his  people,  and  shaking  the 
 insolent  security  of  the  Philistines,  than  in  tlie  way 
 of  decisive  victory  or  deliverance.  There  is  no 
 allusion  whatever  to  other  parts  of  Israel  during 
 Samson's  judgeship,  except  the  single  fact  of  the 
 men  of  the  border  tribe  of  Judah,  3,000  in  number, 
 fetching  him  from  the  rock  Etam  to  deliver  him 
 up  to  the  Philistines  (Judg.  xv.  9-13).  The  whole 
 narrative  is  entirely  local,  and,  like  the  following 
 story  concerning  Micah  (Judg.  xvii.,  xviii.),  seems 
 to  be  taken  from  the  annals  of  the  tribe  of  Dan. 
 
 (2.)  As  a  Nazarite,  Samson  exhibits  the  law  in 
 Num.  vi.  in  full  practice.  [Nazakite.]  The 
 eminence  of  such  Nazarites  as  Samson  and  Samuel 
 would  tend  to  give  that  dignity  to  the  profession 
 which  is  alluded  to  in  Lam.  iv.  7,  8. 
 
 (3.)  Samson  is  one  of  those  who  are  distinctly 
 spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  endowed  with  supernat- 
 ural power  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  "  The 
 Spirit  of  the  Lord  began  to  move  him  at  times  in 
 Mahaneh-Dan."  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
 mightily  upon  him,  and  the  cords  that  were  upon 
 his  arms  became  as  flax  burnt  with  fire."  "The 
 Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  and  he  vpent 
 down  to  Ashkelon,  and  slew  thirty  men  of  them." 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  after  his  locks  were  cut, 
 and  his  strength  was  gone  from  him,  it  is  said 
 "  He  wist  not  that  the  Lord  was  departed  from 
 him  "  (Judg.  xiii.  2.3,  xiv.  6,  19,  xv.  14,  xvi.  20). 
 The  phrase,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon 
 him,"  is  common  to  him  with  Othniel  and  Gideon 
 (Judg.  iii.  10,  vi.  34) ;  but  the  connection  of  super- 
 natural power  with  the  integrity  of  the  Nazaritic 
 vow,  and  the  particular  gift  of  great  strength  of 
 body,  as  seen  in  tearing  in  pieces  a  lion,  breaking 
 his  bonds  asunder,  carrying  the  gates  of  the  city 
 upon  his  back,  and  throwing  down  the  pillars  which 
 supported  the  house  of  Dagon,  are  quite  peculiar 
 to  Samson.  Indeed,  his  whole  character  and  his- 
 tory have  no  exact  parallel  in  Scripture.  It  is 
 easy,  however,  to  see  how  forcibly  the  Israelites 
 would  be  taught,  by  such  an  example,  that  their 
 national  strength  lay  in  their  complete  separation 
 from  idolatry,  and  consecration  to  the  true  God; 
 and  that  He  could  give  them  power  to  subdue  their 
 mightiest  enemies,  if  only  they  were  true  to  his 
 service  (comp.  1  Sam.  ii.  10). 
 
 It  is  an  interesting  question  whether  any  of  the 
 legends  which  have  attached  themselves  to  the 
 name  of  Hercules  may  have  been  derived  from 
 Phoenician  traditions  of  the  strength  of  Samson. 
 The  combination  of  great  strength  with  submis- 
 sion to  the  power  of  women;  the  slaying  of  the 
 Nemeaean  lion;  the  coming  l)y  his  death  at  the 
 hands  of  his  wife ;  and  especially  the  .story  told  by 
 Herodotus  of  the  captivity  of  Hercules  in  Egypt," 
 
 with  the  loss  of  all  his  hair,  is  also  curious,  and  seems 
 to  be  a  compound  of  the  stories  of  Samson  and  .lonah. 
 To  this  may  be  added  the  connection  between  Samson, 
 considered  as  derived  from  Shemesh,  "the  sun,"  and 
 the  designation  of  Moui,  the  Egyptian  Hercules,  as 
 "  Son  of  the  Sun,"  worshipped  also  under  the  name 
 Snn,  which  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  compares  with  Samson. 
 The  Tyrian  Hercules  (whose  temple  at  Tyre  ia  de- 
 scribed by  Herodot.  ii.  44),  he  also  tells  us,  "  was 
 originally  the  Sun,  and  the  same  as  Baal "  (Rawl. 
 Herod,  ii.  44,  note  7).     The  connection  between  the 
 
2820  SAMSON 
 
 are  eerfainly  remarkable  coincidences.  Phcenician 
 traders  n)i<rlit  easily  have  carried  stories  concernino; 
 the  Hebrew  liero  to  the  different  countries  where 
 they  traded,  especially  Greece  and  Ital^';  and  such 
 stories  would  have  been  moulded  according  to  the 
 taste  or  imagination  of  those  who  heard  them. 
 The  following  description  of  Hercules  given  iiy  C. 
 O.  MiiUer  (Dorians,  b.  ii.  c.  12)  might  almost 
 have  been  written  for  Samson :  "  The  highest  de- 
 gree of  human  suffering  and  courage  is  attributed 
 to  Hercules:  his  character  is  as  noble  as  could  be 
 conceived  in  those  rude  and  early  times:  but  he  is 
 by  no  means  represented  as  free  from  the  blemishes 
 ofhuman  nature;  on  the  contrary,  he  is  frequently 
 suliject  to  wild,  ungovernable  passions,  when  the 
 noble  indignation  and  anger  of  the  suffering  hero 
 degenerate  into  frenzy.  Every  crime,  however,  is 
 atoned  for  by  some  new  suffering;  but  nothing 
 breaks  his  invincible  courage,  until,  purified  from 
 earthly  corruption,  he  ascends  Mount  Olympus." 
 And  again :  "  Hercules  was  a  jovial  guest,  and  not 
 backward  in  enjoying  himself.  ....  It  was 
 Hercules,  above  all  other  heroes,  whom  mythology 
 placed  in  ludicrous  situations,  and  sometimes  made 
 the  butt  of  the  buffoonery  of  others.  The  Cercopes 
 are  represented  as  alternately  amusing  and  annoy- 
 ing the  hero.  In  works  of  art  they  are  often  rep- 
 resented as  satyrs  who  rob  the  hero  of  his  quiver, 
 bow,  and  club.  Hercules,  annoyed  at  their  insults, 
 binds  two  of  them  to  a  pole,  and  marches  off  with 
 
 his  prize It  also  seems  that  mirth 
 
 and  buffoonery  were  often  combined  with  the  festi- 
 vals of  Hercules:  thus  at  Athens  there  was  a 
 society  of  sixty  men,  who  on  the  festival  of  the 
 Diomean  Hercules  attacked  and  amused  themselves 
 and  others  with  sallies  of  wit."  Whatever  is 
 thouglit,  however,  of  such  coincidences,  it  is  certain 
 that  the  history  of  Samson  is  an  historical,  and 
 not  an  allegorical  narrative.  It  has  also  a  dis- 
 tinctly supernatural  element  which  catmot  be  ex- 
 plained away.  The  history,  as  we  now  have  it, 
 must  have  been  written  several  centuries  after  Sam- 
 son's death  (Judg.  xv.  19,  20,  xviii.  1,  30,  xix.  1), 
 though  probably  taken  from  the  annals  of  the  tribe 
 of  Dan.  Josephus  has  given  it  pretty  fully,  but 
 with  alterations  and  eml)elhshments  of  his  own, 
 after  his  manner.  For  example,  he  does  not  make 
 Samson  eat  any  of  the  honey  which  he  took  out 
 of  the  hive,  doubtless  as  unclean,  and  unfit  for  a 
 Nazarite,  but  makes  him  give  it  to  his  wife.  The 
 only  mention  of  Samson  in  the  N.  T.  is  that  in 
 Heb.  xi.  32,  where  he  is  coupled  with  Gideon, 
 Barak,  and  .Jephthah,  and  spoken  of  as  one  of 
 those  who  "  through  faith  waxed  valiant  in  fight. 
 
 Phoenician  Baal  (called  Baal  Shemen,  Baal  Shemesh, 
 and   Baal    Hamman),  and    Hercules  is    well    known. 
 
 Gesenius  (Thes.  s.  v.  7272)  tells  us  that,  in  certain 
 Phoenician  inscriptions,  which  are  accompanied  by  a 
 Greek  translation,  Bnal  is  rendered  Herakles,  and  that 
 "  the  Tyrian  Hercules  "  is  the  constant  Greek  designa- 
 tion of  the  Baal  of  Tyre.  He  also  gives  many  Car- 
 thaginian inscriptions  to  Baal  Hamman,  which  he 
 renders  Baal  Solaris  ;  and  also  a  sculpture  in  which 
 Baal  Hamman"s  head  is  surrounded  with  rays,  and 
 which  has  an  image  of  the  sun  on  the  upper  part  of 
 the  monument  (Mon.  PItain.  i.  171  ;  ii.  tab  21). 
 Another  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  Phoenician 
 Baal  and  Hercules  may  be  found  in  BaiiH,  near  BaijB, 
 ft  place  sacred  to  Hercules  ("locus  Herculis,"  Serv.), 
 but  evidently  s>o  called  from  Baal.  Thirlwall  (Hist,  of 
 Greece)  ascribes  to  the  numerous  temples  built  by  the 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 and  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens.' 
 See,  besides  the  places  quoted  in  the  course  of  this 
 article,  a  full  article  in  Winer,  Realwb. ;  Ewald 
 (Jesc/tichte,  ii.  516,  &c.;  Bertheau,  On  Judyts , 
 Bayle's  Diet.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SAM'UEL  (bs^n^,  i.  e.  Shemuel:  :s,afx- 
 ovfi\-  [!Si(muel:]  Arabic,  Samivil,  or  Aschmouyl, 
 see  D'Herbelot,  under  this  last  name).     Different 
 
 derivations  have  been  given.  (1.)  /SDti7,  "name 
 of  God:"   so   apparently  Origen  (Eus.  B.  E.  vi. 
 
 25),   ©eoKArjTo'j-.       (2.)     7W  Dltt?,    "placed   by 
 
 God."  (3.)  bw  biStC,  "asked  of  God"  (1 
 Sam.  i.  20).  Josephus  ingeniously  makes  it  cor- 
 respond to  the  well-known  Greek  name  Theoetetus. 
 
 (4.)  bs  '2^r:iW,  "heard  of  God."     This,  which 
 
 may  have  the  same  meaning  as  the  previous  deriva- 
 tion, is  the  most  obvious.  The  last  Judge,  the  first 
 of  the  regular  succession  of  Prophets,  and  the 
 founder  of  the  monarchy.  So  important  a  position 
 did  he  hold  in  Jewish  history  as  to  have  given  his 
 name  to  the  sacred  l)Ook,  now  divided  into  two, 
 which  covers  the  whole  period  of  the  first  establish- 
 ment of  the  kiiigdou),  corresponding  to  the  man- 
 ner in  which  the  name  of  !Moses  has  been  assigned 
 to  the  sacred  book,  now  divided  into  five,  which 
 covers  the  period  of  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish 
 Church  itself.  In  fact  no  character  of  equal  mag- 
 nitude had  arisen  since  the  death  of  the  great 
 Lawgiver. 
 
 He  was  the  son  of  Elkanah,  an  Ephrathite  or 
 Ephraimite,  and  Hannah  or  Anna.  His  father  is 
 one  of  the  few  private  citizens  in  whose  household 
 we  find  polygamy.  It  may  possibly  have  arisen 
 from  the  irregularity  of  the  period. 
 
 The  descent  of  Elkanah  is  involved  in  great  ob- 
 scurity. In  1  Sam.  i.  1  he  is  described  as  an 
 Ephraimite.  In  1  Chr.  vi.  22,  23  he  is  made  a 
 descendant  of  Korah  the  Levite.  Hetigstenberg 
 (on  Ps.  Ixxviii.  1)  and  Ewald  (ii.  433)  explain  this 
 by  supiK)sing  that  the  Levites  were  occasionally  in- 
 corporated into  the  tribes  amongst  whom  they 
 dwelt.  The  question,  howexer,  is  of  no  practical 
 importance,  because,  even  if  Samuel  were  a  Levite, 
 he  certainly  was  not  a  Priest  by  descent. 
 
 His  birthplace  is  one  of  the  vexed  questions  of 
 sacred  geography,  as  his  descent  is  of  sacred  gene- 
 alogy. [See  Ramati,  and  F.ajiathaim-Zopiiim.] 
 All  that  appears  with  certainty  from  the  accounts 
 is  that  it  was  in  the  hills  of  Ephraim,  and  (as  may 
 be  inferred  from  its  name)  a  double  height,  used 
 for  the  purpose  of  beacons  or  outlookers  (1  Sam.  i. 
 
 Phoenicians  in  honor  of  Baal  in  their  different  settle- 
 ments the  Greek  fables  of  the  labors  and  journeys  of 
 Hercules.  Bochart  thinks  the  custom  described  by 
 Ovid  (Fast.  hv.)of  tying  a  lighted  torch  between  two 
 foxes  in  the  circus,  in  memory  of  the  damage  once 
 done  to  the  harvest  by  a  fox  witli  burning  hay  and 
 straw  tied  to  it,  was  derived  from  the  Phoenicians,  and 
 is  clearly  to  be  traced  to  the  hi.story  of  Samson  (Hieroz. 
 pars.  i.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiii.).  From  all  which  arises  a 
 considerable  probability  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  con- 
 ception of  Hercules  in  regard  to  his  strength  was  de- 
 rived from  Phoenician  stories  and  reminiscences  of  the 
 great  Hebrew  hero  Samson.  Some  learned  men  con- 
 nect the  name  Hercules  with  Samson  etymologically. 
 (See  Sir  G.  Wilkinson's  note  in  Rawliuson's  Heroil.  ii. 
 43  ;  Patrick,  On  Jtids;.  xvi.  30  ;  Cornel,  a  Lapide,  etc.) 
 But  none  of  these  etymologies  are  very  convincing. 
 
SAMUEL 
 
 1).  At  the  foot  of  the  hill  was  a  well  (1  Sam.  xix. 
 22).  On  the  brow  of  its  two  summits  was  the 
 city.  It  never  lost  its  hold  on  Samuel,  who  in  later 
 life  made  it  his  fixed  abode. 
 
 The  combined  femily  must  have  been  large. 
 Peninnah  had  several  childreTi,  and  Hannah  had, 
 besides  Sanuiel,  three  sons  and  two  daughters. 
 But  of  these  nothing  is  known,  unless  the  names 
 of  the  sons  are  those  enumerated  in  1  Chr.  vi. 
 26,  27. 
 
 It  is  on  the  mother  of  Samuel  that  our  chief 
 attention  is  fixed  in  the  account  of  his  birth.  She 
 is  described  as  a  woman  of  a  high  religious  mis- 
 sion. Almost  a  Nazarite  by  practice  (1  Sam.  i. 
 15),  and  a  prophetess  in  her  gifts  (1  Sam.  ii.  1), 
 she  sought  from  God  the  gift  of  the  cliild  for  which 
 she  longed  with  a  passionate  devotion  of  silent 
 prayer,  of  which  there  is  no  other  example  in  the 
 0.  T.,  and  when  the  son  was  granted,  the  name 
 which  he  bore,  and  thus  first  introduced  into  the 
 world,  expressed  her  sense  of  the  urgency  of  her 
 entreaty  —  Samuel,  "  the  Asked  or  Heard  of  God." 
 
 Living  in  the  great  age  of  vows,  she  had  before 
 his  birth  dedicated  him  to  the  office  of  a  Nazarite. 
 As  soon  as  he  was  weaned,  she  herself  with  her 
 husband  brought  liim  to  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh, 
 where  she  had  received  the  first  intimation  of  his 
 birth,  and  there  solennily  consecrated  him.  The 
 form  of  consecration  was  similar  to  that  with  which 
 the  irregular  priesthood  of  .Jeroboam  was  set  apart 
 in  later  times  (2  Chr.  xiii.  9)  — a  bullock  of  three 
 years  old  (LXX.),  loaves  (LXX.),  an  ephah  of 
 flour,  and  a  skin  of  wine  (1  Sam.  i.  24).  First 
 took  place  the  usual  sacrifices  (LXX.)  by  Elkanah 
 himself —  then,  after  the  introduction  of  the  child, 
 the  special  sacrifice  of  the  bullock.  Then  his 
 mother  made  him  over  to  Eli  (i.  25,  28),  and  (ac- 
 cordin^r  to  the  Hebrew  text,  but  not  the  LXX.) 
 the  child  himself  performed  an  act  of  worship. 
 
 The  hymn  which  followed  on  this  consecration 
 is  the  first  of  the  kind  in  the  sacred  volume.  It  is 
 possible  that,  like  many  of  the  Psalms,  it  may  have 
 been  enlarged  in  later  times  to  suit  great  occasions 
 of  victory  and  the  like.  But  verse  5  specially  ap- 
 plies to  this  event,  and  verses  7,  8  may  well  express 
 the  sense  entertained  by  the  prophetess  of  the  com- 
 ing revolution  in  the  fortunes  of  her  son  and  of  her 
 country.     [Hannah.] 
 
 From  this  time  the  child  is  shut  up  in  the 
 Tabernacle.  The  priests  furnished  him  with  a 
 sacred  garment,  an  ephod,  made,  like  their  own, 
 of  white  linen,  though  of  inferior  quality,  and  his 
 mother  every  year,  apparently  at  the  only  time  of 
 their  meeting,  gave  him  a  little  mantle  reacting 
 down  to  his  feet,  such  as  was  worn  only  by  high 
 personages,  or  women,  over  the  other  dress,  and 
 such  as  he  retained,  as  his  badge,  till  the  latest 
 times  of  his  life  [Mantle,  vol.  ii.  p.  1782  b.] 
 He  seems  to  have  slept  within  the  Holiest  Place 
 (LXX.,  1  Sam.  iii.  3),  and  his  special  duty  was  to 
 put  out,  as  it  would  seem,  the  sacred  candlestick, 
 and  to  open  the  doors  at  sunrise.    ^ 
 
 In  this  way  his  childhood  was  passed.  It  was 
 whilst  thus  sleeping  in  the  Tabernacle  that  he  re- 
 ceived his  first  prophetic  call.  The  stillness  of  the 
 nigiit  —  the  sudden  voice  —  the  childlike  misconcep- 
 tion —  the  venerable  Eli  —  the  contrast  between  the 
 terrible  doom  and  the  gentle  creature  who  has  to 
 
 SAMUEL  2821 
 
 announce  it  —  give  to  this  portion  of  the  narrative 
 a  universal  interest.  It  is  this  side  of  Samuel's 
 career  that  has  been  so  well  caught  in  the  well- 
 known  picture  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds. 
 
 From  this  moment  the  proplietic  character  of 
 Samuel  was  established.  His  words  were  treasured 
 up,  and  Shiloh  became  the  resort  of  those  wh: 
 came  to  hear  him  (iii.  19-21). 
 
 In  the  overthrow  of  the  sanctuary,  which  fo 
 lowed  shortly  on  this  vision,  we  hear  not  wha 
 became  of  Samuel."  He  next  appears,  probabl} 
 twenty  years  afterwards,  suddenly  amongst  the 
 people,  warning  them  against  their  idolatrous  prac- 
 tices. He  convened  an  assembly  at  Mizpeh  — 
 probably  the  place  of  that  name  in  the  tribe  of 
 Benjamin  —  and  there  with  a  .symbolical  rite,  ex- 
 pressive partly  of  deep  humiliation,  partly  of  the 
 libations  of  a  treaty,  they  poured  water  on  the 
 ground,  they  fasted,  and  they  entreated  Samuel  tc 
 raise  the  piercing  cry,  for  which  he  was  known,  iu 
 supplication  to  God  for  them.  It  was  at  the 
 monjent  that  he  was  offering  up  a  sacrifice,  and 
 sustaining  this  loud  cry  (compare  the  situation  of 
 Pausanias  before  the  battle  of  Platwa,  Herod,  ix. 
 61),  that  the  Philistine  host  suddenly  burst  upon 
 them.  A  violent  thunderstorm,  and  (according  to 
 .Josephus,  Aiil.  vi.  2,  §  2)  an  earthquake,  came  to 
 the  timely  assistance  of  Israel.  The  Philistines 
 tied,  and,  exactly  at  the  spot  where  twenty  years 
 before  they  had  obtained  their  great  victory,  they 
 were  totally  routed.  A  stone  was  set  up,  which 
 long  remained  as  a  memorial  of  Samuel's  triumph, 
 and  gave  to  the  place  its  name  of  Eben-ezer,  "  the 
 Stone  of  Help,"  which  has  thence  passed  into 
 Christian  phraseology,  and  become  a  common  name 
 of  Nonconformist  chapels  (1  Sam.  vii.  12).  The 
 old  Canaanites,  whom  the  Philistines  had  dispos- 
 sessed in  the  outskirts  of  the  Judaean  hills,  seem  to 
 have  helped  in  the  battle,  and  a  large  portion  of 
 territory  was  recovered  (1  Sam.  vi.  14).  This  was 
 Samuel's  first  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  his  oidy 
 military  achievement.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
 earlier  chiefs  who  bore  that  name,  it  was  appar- 
 ently this  which  raised  him  to  the  office  of  "Judge'' 
 (comp.  1  Sam.  xii.  11,  where  he  is  thus  reckoned 
 with  Jerubbaal,  Bedan,  and  Jephthah;  and  Ecclus. 
 xlvi.  15-18).  He  visited,  in  discharge  of  his  duties 
 as  ruler,  the  three  chief  sanctuaries  (eV  Tracrt  roiy 
 T}yM(T/j.^vots  TovTOLs)  ou  the  west  of  the  Jordan  — 
 Bethel,  Gilgal,  and  Mizpeh  (1  Sam.  vii.  10).  His 
 own  residence  was  still  his  native  city,  Kaniah  or 
 Ramathaim,  which  he  further  consecrated  by  an 
 altar  (vii.  17).  Here  he  married,  and  two  son-s 
 grew  up  to  repeat  under  his  eyes  the  same  per- 
 version of  high  office  that  he  had  himself  witnessed 
 in  his  childhood  in  the  case  of  the  two  sons  of  Eli. 
 One  was  Abiah,  the  other  Joel,  sometimes  called 
 simply  "the  second"  {vaslini,  1  Chr.  vi.  28).  In 
 his  old  age,  according  to  the  quasi-hereditary  prin- 
 ciple, already  adopted  by  previous  judges,  he  shared 
 his  power  with  them,  and  they  exercised  their  func- 
 tions at  the  southern  frontier  in  Beer-sheba  (1  Sam. 
 viii.  1-4). 
 
 2.  Down  to  this  point  in  Samuel's  hfe  there  is 
 but  little  to  distinguish  his  career  from  that  of  his 
 predecessors.  Like  many  characters  in  later  days, 
 had  he  died  in  youth  his  fame  would  hardly  have 
 Iteen  greater  than  that  of  Gideon  or  Samson.     He 
 
 a  According  to  the  Mussulman  tradition,  Samuel's 
 birth  is  granted  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  tlie  nation 
 r  n  the  overthrow  of  the  sanctuary  and  loss  of  the  ark 
 
 (DHerbelot,  Aschmouyl).     This,  though  false  In  the 
 letter,  is  true  to  the  spirit  of  Samuel's  life. 
 
2822 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 was  a  judge,  a  Nazarite,  a  warrior,  and  (to  a  cer- 
 tain point)  a  prophet. 
 
 But  his  peculiar  position  in  the  sacred  narrative 
 turns  on  the  events  which  follow.  He  is  the  in- 
 auijurator  of  the  transition  from  what  is  commonly 
 called  the  theocracy  to  the  monarchy.  The  mis- 
 demeanor of  his  own  sons,  in  receiving  bribes,  and 
 in  extorting  exorbitant  interest  on  loans  (1  Sam. 
 viii.  3,  4),  precipitated  the  catastrophe  which  had 
 been  long  preparing.  The  people  demanded  a  king. 
 Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  3,  §  3)  describes  the  shock  to 
 Samuel's  mind,  "  because  of  his  inborn  sense  of 
 justice,  because  of  his  hatred  of  kings,  as  so  far 
 uiferior  to  the  aristocratic  form  of  government, 
 jvhich  conferred  a  godlike  character  on  those  who 
 lived  under  it."  For  the  whole  night  he  lay  fast- 
 ing and  sleepless,  in  the  perplexity  of  doubt  and 
 difficulty.  In  the  vision  of  that  night,  as  recorded 
 by  the  sacred  historian,  is  given  the  dark  side  of 
 the  new  institution,  on  which  Samuel  dwells  on  the 
 following  day  (1  Sam.  viii.  9-18). 
 
 This  presents  his  reluctance  to  receive  the  new 
 order  of  things.  The  whole  narrative  of  the  recep- 
 tion and  consecration  of  Saul  gives  his  acquiescence 
 in  it.      [Saul.] 
 
 The  final  conflict  of  feeling  and  surrender  of  his 
 office  is  given  in  the  last  assembly  over  which  he 
 presided,  and  in  his  subsequent  relations  with  Saul. 
 The  assembly  was  held  at  Gilgal,  immediately  after 
 the  victory  over  the  Ammonites.  The  monarchy 
 was  a  second  time  solenmly  inaugurated,  and  (ac- 
 cording to  the  LXX.)  "Samuel"  (in  the  Hebrew 
 text  "Saul")  "and  all  the  men  of  Israel  rejoiced 
 greatly."  Then  takes  place  his  farewell  address. 
 By  this  time  the  long  flowing  locks  on  which  no 
 razor  had  ever  passed  were  white  with  age  (xii.  2). 
 He  appeals  to  their  knowledge  of  his  integrity. 
 Whatever  might  be  the  lawless  habits  of  the  chiefs 
 of  those  times  —  Hophni,  Phinehas,  or  his  own 
 sons  —  he  had  kept  aloof  from  all.  No  ox  or  ass 
 had  he  taken  from  their  stalls  — no  bribe  to  obtain 
 his  judgment  (LXX.,  i^lxaa/xa)  —  not  even  a 
 sandal  {Oir657ifxa,  LXX.,  and  Ecclus.  xlvi.  19).  It 
 is  this  appeal,  and  the  response  of  the  people,  that 
 has  made  Grotius  call  him  the  .Jewish  Aristides. 
 He  then  sums  up  the  new  situation  in  which  they 
 have  placed  themselves;  and,  although  "the  wick- 
 edness of  asking  a  king"  is  still  strongly  insisted 
 on,  and  the  unusual  portent"  of  a  thunderstorm 
 in  May  or  June,  in  answer  to  Samuel's  prayer,  is 
 urged  as  a  sign  of  Divine  displeasure  (xii.  16-19), 
 the  general  tone  of  the  condemnation  is  much 
 softened  from  that  which  was  pronounced  on  the 
 first  intimation  of  the  change.  The  first  king  is 
 repeatedly  acknowledged  as  "  the  Messiah  "  or 
 anointed  of  the  Lord  (xii.  3,  5),  the  future  pros- 
 perity of  the  nation  is  declared  to  depend  on  theii- 
 use  or  misuse  of  the  new  constitution,  and  Samuel 
 retires  with  expressions  of  goodwill  and  hope:  "  I 
 will  teach  you  the  good  and  the  right  way  . 
 .  .  only  fear  the  Lord  .  .  .  .  "  (1  Sam.  xii. 
 23,  24). 
 
 It  is  the  most  signal  example  afforded  in  the 
 O.  T.  of  a  great  character  reconciling  himself  to  a 
 changed  order  of  things,  and  of  the  Divine  sanction 
 resting  on  his  acquiescence.  For  this  reason  it  is 
 that  Athanasius  is  by  Basil  called  the  Samuel  of 
 the  Church  (Basil,  £/).  82). 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 3.  His  subsequent  relations  with  Saul  are  of  the 
 same  mixed  kind.  The  two  institutions  which  they 
 respectively  represented  ran  on  side  by  side.  Sam- 
 uel was  still  Judge.  He  judged  Israel  "  all  the 
 days  <if  his  life'"  (vii.  15),  and  from  time  to  time 
 came  across  the  king's  path.  But  these  interven- 
 tions are  chiefly  in  another  capacity,  which  this  is 
 the  place  to  unfold. 
 
 Samuel  is  called  emphatically  "  the  Prophet " 
 (Acts  ill.  24,  xiii.  20).  To  a  certain  extent  this 
 was  in  consequence  of  the  gift  which  he  shared  in 
 common  with  others  of  his  time.  He  was  espe- 
 cially known  in  his  own  age  as  "  Samuel  the  Seer  " 
 (1  Chr.  ix.  22,  xxvi.  28,  xxix.  29).  "I  am  the 
 seer,"  was  his  answer  to  those  who  asked  "  Where 
 is  the  seer?"  "Where  is  the  seer's  house?"  (1 
 Sam.  ix.  II  18.  19).  "Seer,"  the  ancient  name, 
 was  not  yet  superseded  by  "Prophet  "  (1  Sam.  ix.). 
 By  this  name,  Samuel  Videns  and  Samuel  6  jSAe- 
 TTOip,  he  is  called  in  the  Acta  Sancturum.  Of  the 
 three  modes  by  which  Divine  communications  were 
 then  made,  "  by  dreams,  Urim  and  Thummim,  and 
 prophets,"  the  first  was  that  by  which  the  Divine 
 will  was  made  known  to  Samuel  (1  Sam.  iii.  1,  2; 
 Jos.  Aiit.  V.  10,  §  4).  "  'I'he  Lord  uncovered  his 
 ear  "  to  whisper  into  it  in  the  stillness  of  the  night 
 the  messages  that  were  to  be  delivered.  It  is  the 
 first  distinct  intimation  of  the  idea  of  "  Ittvela- 
 lioii  '■   to  a  human   being   (see   Gesenius,  in  voc. 
 
 n^3).  He  was  consulted  far  and  near  on  the 
 small  affairs  of  life;  loaves  of  "bread,"  or  "the 
 fourth  part  of  a  shekel  of  silver,"  were  paid  for  the 
 answers  (1  Sam.  ix.  7,  8). 
 
 From  this  faculty,  combined  with  his  office  of 
 ruler,  an  awful  reverence  grew  up  round  him.  No 
 sacrificial  feast  was  thought  complete  without  his 
 blessing  (1  Sam.  ix.  13).  When  he  appeared  sud- 
 denly elsewhere  for  the  same  purpose,  the  villagers 
 'trembled"  at  his  approach  (1  Sam.  xvi.  4,  5).  A 
 peculiar  virtue  was  believed  to  reside  in  his  interces- 
 sion. He  was  conspicuous  in  later  times  amongst 
 those  that  "  crdi  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps. 
 xcix.  6;  1  Sam.  xii.  18),  and  was  placed  with 
 Moses  as  "  standing  "  for  prayer,  in  a  special  sense, 
 "before  the  Lord"  (Jer.  xv.  1).  It  was  the  last 
 consolation  he  left  in  his  parting  address  that  he 
 would  "  pray  to  the  Lord  "  for  the  people  (1  Sam. 
 xii.  19,  23).  There  was  something  peculiar  in  the 
 long  sustained  cry  or  shout  of  supplication,  which 
 seemed  to  draw  down  as  by  force  the  Divine  an- 
 swer (1  Sam.  vii.  8,  9).  All  night  long,  in  agi- 
 tated moments,  "  he  aied  unto  the  Lord  "  (1  Sara. 
 XV.  U). 
 
 But  there  are  two  other  points  which  more  espe- 
 cially placed  him  at  the  head  of  the  prophetic  order 
 as  it  afterwards  appeared.  The  first  is  brought 
 out  in  his  relation  with  Saul,  the  second  in  his 
 relation  with  David. 
 
 (a.)  He  represents  the  independence  of  the  moral 
 law,  of  the  Divine  Will,  as  distinct  from  regal  or 
 sacerdotal  enactments,  which  is  so  remarkable  a 
 characteristic  of  all  the  later  prophets.  As  we 
 have  seen,  he  was,  if  a  Levite,  yet  certainly  not  a 
 Priest;  and  all  the  attempts  to  identify  his  opposi- 
 tion to  Saul  with  a  hierarchical  interest  are  founded 
 on  a  complete  misconception  of  the  facts  of  the 
 case.     From  the  time  of  the  overthrow  of  Shiloh, 
 
 «  According  to  the  Mussulman  traditions,  his  anger  the  king  was  the  liquefaction  of  the  sacred  oil  in  his 
 was  occasioned  by  the  people  rejecting  Saul  as  not  presence  and  the  recovery  of  the  Tabernacle  (D'Her- 
 Deing  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.     The  sign  that  Saul  was  |  belot,  Aschmouyt). 
 
SAMUEL 
 
 he  never  appears  in  the  remotest  connection  with 
 the  priestly  order.  Amongst  all  the  places  in- 
 cluded in  his  personal  or  administrative  visits, 
 neither  Shiloh,  nor  Nob,  nor  Gibeon,  the  seats  of 
 the  sacerdotal  caste,  are  ever  mentioned.  When 
 he  counsels  Saul,  it  is  not  as  the  priest,  but  as  the 
 prophet;  when  he  sacrifices  or  blesses  the  sacrifice, 
 it  is  not  as  the  priest,  but  either  as  an  individual 
 Israelite  of  eminence,  or  as  a  ruler,  lilve  Saul  him- 
 self. Saul's  sin  in  both  cases  where  he  came  into 
 collision  with  Samuel,  was  not  of  intruding  into 
 sacerdotal  functions,  but  of  disobedience  to  the 
 prophetic  voice.  The  first  was  that  of  not  waiting 
 for  Samuel's  arrival,  according  to  the  sign  given 
 by  Samuel  at  his  original  meeting  at  Ramah  (1 
 Sam.  X.  8,  xiii.  8);  the  second  was  that  of  not  car- 
 rying out  the  stern  prophetic  injunction  for  the 
 destruction  of  the  Amalekites.  When,  on  that 
 occasion,  the  aged  Prophet  called  the  captive  "  prince 
 before  him,  and  with  his  own  hands  hacked  him 
 limb  from  limb,''  in  retribution  for  the  desolation 
 he  had  brought  into  the  homes  of  Israel,  and  thus 
 offered  up  his  mangled  remains  ahnost  as  a  human 
 sacrifice  ("before  the  Lord  in  Gilgal"),  we  see  the 
 representative  of  the  older  part  of  the  Jewish  his- 
 tory. But  it  is  the  true  prophetic  utterance,  such 
 as  breathes  through  the  psalmists  and  prophets,  when 
 he  says  to  Saul  in  words  which,  from  their  poetical 
 form,  must  have  become  fixed  in  the  national  mem- 
 ory, "  To  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 
 hearken  than  the  fiit  of  rams." 
 
 The  parting  was  not  one  of  rivals,  but  of  dear 
 though  divided  friends.  The  King  throws  himself 
 on  the  Prophet  with  all  his  force;  not  without  a 
 vehement  effort  (Jos.  Ant.  vi.  7,  §  5)  the  prophet 
 tears  himself  away.  Tlie  long  mantle  by  which 
 he  was  always  known  is  rent  in  the  struggle;  and, 
 like  Ahijah  after  him,  Samuel  was  in  this  the 
 omen  of  the  coming  rent  in  the  monarchy.  They 
 parted  eacli  to  his  house  to  meet  no  more.  But 
 a  long  shadow  of  grief  fell  over  the  prophet. 
 "  Samuel  mourned  for  Saul."  "  It  grieved  Samuel 
 for  Saul."  "  How  long  wilt  thou  mourn  for  Saul?  " 
 (1  Sam.  XV.  11,  35,  xvi.  1). 
 
 (b. )  He  is  tlie  first  of  the  regular  succession  of 
 prophets.  "  All  the  propliets  from  Samuel  and 
 those  that  follow  after  "  (Acts  iii.  24).  "  Ex  quo 
 sanctus  Samuel  propheta  ccepit  et  deinceps  donee 
 populus  Israel  in  Babyloniam  captivus  veheretur, 
 
 totum  est   tempus  prophetarum "  (Aug. 
 
 Civ.  Dei,  xvii.  1).  Moses,  Miriam,  and  Deborah, 
 perhaps  Ehud,  had  been  prophets.  But  it  was  only 
 from  Samuel  that  the  continuous  succession  was 
 unbroken.  This  may  have  been  merely  from  the 
 coincidence  of  his  appearance  witli  the  beginning 
 of  the  new  order  of  things,  of  which  the  prophet- 
 ical office  was  the  chief  expression.  Some  predis- 
 posing causes  there  may  have  been  in  his  own 
 family  and  birthplace.  His  mother,  as  we  have 
 seen,  though  not  expressly  so  called,  was  in  fact  a 
 prophetess;  the  word  Zophiin,  as  the  affix  of  Ra- 
 mathaim,  has  been  explained,  not  unreasonably,  to 
 nieim  "seers;"  and  Elkanah,  his  father,  is  by  the 
 Chaldee  paraphrast  on  1  Sam.  i.  1,  said  to  be  "  a 
 disciple  of  the  prophets."     But  the  connection  of 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 2823 
 
 o  Agag  is  described  by  Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  7,  ^  2)  as 
 a  chief  of  magnificent  appearance  ;  aiud  hence  rescued 
 from  destruction.     This  is  perhaps  an  inference  from 
 
 the  word   J"^3^5?fi,   which    the   Vulgate    translates 
 pinguisfimus. 
 
 the  continuity  of  the  office  with  Samuel  appears  to 
 be  still  more  direct.  It  is  in  his  lifetime,  long  after 
 he  had  been  " estalilished  as  a  prophet"  (1  Sam. 
 iii.  20),  that  we  hear  of  the  companies  of  disciples, 
 called  in  the  O.  T.  "the  sons  of  the  prophets,"  by 
 modern  writers  "the  schools  of  the  prophets."  All 
 the  peculiarities  of  their  education  are  implied  or 
 expressed  —  the  sacred  dance,  the  sacred  music,  the 
 solemn  procession  (1  Sam.  x.  5,  10;  1  Chr.  xxv.  1, 
 6).  At  the  head  of  this  congregation,  or  "church 
 as  it  were  within  a  church  "  (LXX.  ttjc  e/c(cA.7j- 
 crioj/,  1  Sam.  x  5,  10),  Samuel  is  expressly  de- 
 scribed as  "standing  appointed  over  them  "  (1  Sam. 
 xix.  20).  Their  chief  residence  at  this  time 
 (though  afterwards,  as  the  institution  spread,  it 
 struck  root  in  other  places)  was  at  Samuel's  own 
 abode,  Ramah,  where  they  lived  in  habitations 
 (Naioth,  1  Sam.  xix.  19,  ifec.)  apparently  of  a  rustic 
 kind,  like  the  leafy  huts  which  Elisha's  disciples 
 afterwards  occupied  by  the  Jordan  {Naiuth  = 
 "habitations,"  but  more  specifically  used  for  "pas- 
 tures ''). 
 
 In  those  schools,  and  learning  to  cultivate  the 
 prophetic  gifts,  were  some  whom  we  know  for  cer- 
 tain, others  whom  we  may  almost  certainly  conjec- 
 ture, to  have  been  so  trained  or  influenced.  One 
 was  Saul.  Twice  at  least  he  is  described  as  hav- 
 ing been  in  the  company  of  Samuel's  disciples,  and 
 as  having  caught  from  them  the  prophetic  fervor 
 to  such  a  degree  as  to  have  "  prophesied  among 
 them  "  (1  Sam.  x.  10,  11),  and  on  one  occasion  to 
 have  thrown  off  his  clothes,  and  to  have  passed  the 
 night  in  a  state  of  prophetic  trance  (1  Sam.  xix. 
 2'1):  and  even  in  his  palace,  the  prophesying  min- 
 gled with  his  madness  on  ordinary  occasions 
 (1  Sam.  xviii.  9).  Another  was  David.  The 
 first  acquaintance  of  Samuel  with  David,  was  when 
 he  privately  anointed  him  at  the  house  of  Jesse 
 [see  David].  But  the  connection  thus  begun 
 with  the  shepherd  boy  must  have  been  continued 
 afterwards.  David,  at  first,  fied  to  "Naioth  in 
 Ramah,"  as  to  his  second  home  (1  Sam.  xix.  19), 
 and  the  gifts  of  music,  of  song,  and  of  prophecy, 
 here  developed  on  so  large  a  scale,  were  exactly 
 such  as  we  find  in  the  notices  of  those  who  looked 
 up  to  Samuel  as  their  father.  It  is,  further, 
 hardly  possible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  David 
 there  first  met  his  fiist  friends  and  companions 
 in  after  life,  prophets  like  himself — Gad  and 
 Nathan. 
 
 It  is  needless  to  enlarge  on  the  importance  with 
 which  these  incidents  in\est  the  appearance  of 
 Ssmuel.  He  there  becomes  the  spiritual  father  of 
 the  Psalmist  king.  He  is  also  the  Founder  of  the 
 firet  regular  institutions  of  religious  instruction, 
 and  communities  for  the  purposes  of  education. 
 The  schools  of  Greece  were  not  yet  in  existence. 
 From  these  Jewish  institutions  were  developed,  by 
 a  natural  order,  the  universities  of  Christendom. 
 And  it  may  be  further  added,  that  with  this  view 
 the  whole  life  of  Samuel  is  in  accordance.  He  is 
 the  prophet  —  the  only  prophet  till  the  time  of 
 Isaiah  —  of  whom  we  know  that  he  was  so  from 
 his  earliest  years.  It  is  this  continuity  of  his  own 
 life  and  character,  that  makes  him  so  fit  an  instru- 
 ment for  conducting  his  nation  through  so  great 
 a  change. 
 
 The  death  of  Samuel  is  described  as  taking  place 
 
 6  1  Sam.  XV.  The  LXX.  softens  this  into  etr^Mtie; 
 but  the  Vulg.  translation,  in  frusta  roncidit,  "cut  up 
 into  small  pieces,"  seems  to  be  the  true  meaning. 
 
2824 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 ill  the  year  of  the  close  of  David's  wanderings.  It 
 is  said  with  peculiar  emphasis,  as  if  to  njaik  the 
 loss,  that  '■'■all  the  Israelites"  —  all,  with  a  uni- 
 versality never  specified  before  —  "were  gathered 
 together"  from  all  parts  of  this  hitherto  divided 
 country,  and  "lamented  him,"  and  "buried  him," 
 not  ill  any  consecrated  place,  nor  outside  the  walls 
 of  his  city,  but  within  his  own  house,  thus  in  a 
 manner  consecrated  by  being  turned  into  bis  tomb 
 (1  Sam.  x.xv.  1).  His  relics  were  translated  "from 
 Judtea  "  (the  place  is  not  specified)  A.  d.  406,  to 
 Constantinople,  and  received  there  with  much  pomp 
 by  the  Emperor  Areadius.  They  were  landed  at 
 the  pier  of  Chalcedon,  and  thence  conveyed  to  a 
 church,  near  the  palace  of  Hebdonion  (see  Acta 
 Scniclaruni,  .Aug.  20). 
 
 The  situation  of  Kamathaini,  as  has  been  observed, 
 is  uncertain.  But  the  place  long  pointed  out  as  his 
 tomb  is  the  height,  most  conspicuous  of  all  in  the 
 neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  immediately  above  the 
 town  of  Gibeon,  known  to  the  Crusaders  as  "  JNIont- 
 joye,"  as  the  spot  from  whence  they  first  saw 
 Jerusalem,  now  called  Neby  Samwil,  "  the  Prophet 
 Samuel."  The  tradition  can  be  traced  back  as 
 far  as  the  7th  century,  when  it  is  spoken  of  as  the 
 monastery  of  St.  Samuel  (Kobinson,  Bibl.  Jies.  ii. 
 142),  and  if  once  we  discard  the  connection  of 
 Eaniathaini  with  the  nameless  city  where  Samuel 
 met  Saul  (as  is  set  forth  at  length  in  the  articles 
 Ramah;  Kamathaim-Zopiiim),  there  is  no  reason 
 why  the  tradition  should  be  rejected.  A  cave  is 
 still  shown  underneath  the  floor  of  the  mosque. 
 "  He  built  the  tomb  in  his  lifetime,"  is  the  account 
 of  the  Mussulman  guardian  of  the  mosque,  "  but 
 was  not  buried  here  till  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
 Greeks."  It  is  the  only  spot  in  Palestine  which 
 claims  any  direct  connection  with  the  first  great 
 prophet  who  was  born  within  its  limits;  and  its 
 commanding  situation  well  agrees  with  the  impor- 
 tance assigned  to  him  in  the  sacred  history. 
 
 His  descendants  were  here  till  the  time  of  David. 
 Hemaii,  his  grandson,  was  one  of  the  cliief  sing- 
 ers in  the  Levitical  choir  (I  Chr.  vi.  33,  xv.  17, 
 XXV.  5). 
 
 The  apparition  of  Samuel  at  Endor  (1  Sam. 
 xxviii.  14 ;  Ecclus.  xlvi.  20)  belongs  to  the  history 
 of  Saul. 
 
 It  has  been  supposed  that  Samuel  wrote  a  Life 
 of  David  (of  course  of  his  earlier  years),  which  was 
 still  accessible  to  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Book  of 
 Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29);  but  this  appears 
 doubtful.  [See  p.  2826  b.]  Various  other  books 
 of  the  0.  T.  have  been  ascribed  to  him  by  the 
 Jewish  tradition:  the  Judges,  Ruth,  the  two  Books 
 of  Samuel,  the  latter,  it  is  alleged,  being  written 
 in  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  He  is  regarded  by  the 
 Samaritans  as  a  magician  and  an  infidel  (Hottin- 
 ger,  /Jist.  Orient,  p.  52). 
 
 The  Persian  traditions  fix  his  life  in  the  time 
 of  Kai-i-Kobad,  2d  king  of  Persia,  with  whom  he 
 is  said  to  have  conversed  (D'Herbelot,  Kai  Kobad). 
 
 A.  P.  S. 
 
 *  The  prophet  Samuel  lived  at  a  great  transi- 
 tional period  of  Jewish  history.  The  Israelites  had 
 been  intended  for  a  great  nation,  living  under  the 
 immediate  Divine  government,  and  closely  knit  to- 
 gether by  religious  ties.  Through  their  unfaith- 
 fulness to  God,  they  had  become  little  more  than  a 
 collection  of  independent  tribes,  continually  en- 
 gaged in  harassing  wars  with  their  neighbors,  and 
 often  falling  for  long  periods  together  under  their 
 power.     It  was  therefore  a  natural  desire  that  they 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 should  have  a  king  to  reunite  them  in  one  nation- 
 ality, and  enable  them  to  make  head  against  their 
 foes.  To  this  Samuel  was  earnestly  opposed,  nor 
 did  he  acquiesce  in  their  wish  until  expressly  di- 
 rected to  do  so  from  on  high.  God  saw  that  the 
 peojile  were  too  sinful  for  the  great  destiny  offered 
 them,  and  therefore  it  was  fitting  that  in  this 
 matter  of  government  they  should  be  reduced  to 
 the  level  of  other  nations.  It  was  by  no  means  an 
 "  example  of  the  Divine  sanction  resting  on  [Sam- 
 uel's] acquiescence;"  but  rather  of  a  Divine  com- 
 mand to  him  to  let  a  stifi-neeked  people  have  their 
 way. 
 
 In  the  Tabernacle  Samuel  probably  slept  in  one 
 of  the  chambers  over,  or  at  the  side  of,  the  Taber- 
 nacle [Tkimple].  The  extreme  improbability  that 
 he  should  have  slept  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  is  en- 
 hanced by  the  fact  that  he  was  evidently  in  a 
 difierent  apartment  from  Eli  (1  Sam.  iii.  4-10), 
 and  if  the  latter  was  not  within  the  vail,  much  less 
 the  former.  There  is  nothing  in  1  Sam.  iii.  3  to 
 suggest  such  a  supposition.  The  "  Temple  "  is  thei'e 
 particularized  as  the  place  "  wliere  the  ark  of  God 
 was"  and  the  time  is  fixed  as  "before  the  lamp  of 
 God"  —  which  was  outside  the  vail  —  "went  out 
 in  the  Temple  of  the  Lord."  No  hint  is  given  of 
 the  place  of  Samuel's  chamber.  At  a  later  date, 
 when  the  Ark  was  taken  into  the  battle  with  the 
 Philistines,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Tabernacle 
 was  otherwise  disturbed,  or  that  Samuel  then  gave 
 up  his  residence  there.  It  is  not  likely  that  Sam- 
 uel himself  ever  actually  engaged  in  military  opera- 
 tions. In  the  successful  battle  with  the  Philistines 
 (1  Sam.  vii.)  he  assisted  by  his  prayers,  but  could 
 have  taken  no  part  in  the  battle  itself,  as  he  was 
 engaged  at  the  time  in  offering  sacrifice  (ver  10). 
 The  name  "  warrior "  must  therefore  be  omitted 
 from  the  list  of  his  titles. 
 
 The  narrative  in  1  Sam.  ix.  7,  8,  affords  no 
 ground  for  the  supposition  that  either  he  or  other 
 inspired  prophets  received  compensation  for  their 
 utterances  ms  a  qvid  pro  quo  after  the  fashion  of 
 lieathen  soothsayers  or  modern  necromancers. 
 Saul,  a  young  man  not  of  distinguished  birth,  and 
 an  entire  stranger  to  Samuel,  did  not  think  it 
 fitting,  according  to  oriental  etiquette,  to  approach 
 the  great  judge  of  Israel  and  divinely  appointed 
 prophet  without  a  present.  This  appears  in  the 
 narrative  much  more  as  a  tribute  to  the  raidc  and 
 station  of  Samuel  than  as  a  proposed  jjayment  for 
 his  counsel  —  a  thing  abhorrent  to  the  « hole  idea 
 of  the  proplietic  office. 
 
 In  1  Sam.  xiii.  the  narrative  distinctly  makes  the 
 sin  of  Saul  "  his  intruding  into  sacerdotal  func- 
 tions." Saul  says  (ver.  12),."  Therefore,  said  I,  the 
 Philistines  will  come  down  now  upon  me  to  Gilgal, 
 and  I  have  not  made  supplication  unto  the  Lohd  ; 
 I  forced  myself  therefore,  and  offered  a  burnt  offer- 
 ing." Samuel  replies  —  making  no  allusion  to 
 the  not  waiting  for  his  coming,  —  "  Thou  hast  done 
 foolishly :  thou  hast  not  kept  the  connnandmeut  of 
 the  Lord  thy  God." 
 
 It  is  impossible  that  Saul,  and  improbable  that 
 David  had  any  training  in  the  schools  of  the 
 projihets  under  Samuel.  The  first  passage  adduced 
 in  the  article  above  in  evidence  of  such  training 
 (1  Sam.  X.  10)  reads  that  "a  company  of  the 
 prophets  met "  Saul  as  he  went  home  after  his 
 anointing  (wlieu  he  spent  one  night  with  Samuel 
 whom  he  had  not  before  known)  and  "the  spirit 
 of  God  came  upon  him,  and  he  prophesied  among 
 them."     The   only  other  passage  given  (1   Sam. 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 xix.  24)  is  quite  late  in  the  reign  of  vSaul  when  he 
 came  to  Naioth  in  inirsuit  of  David,  and  there 
 spent  a  day  and  a  night,  wliile  the  spirit  of  proph- 
 ecy was  upon  him.  In  both  cases  the  astonish- 
 ment of  the  Ijeholders  is  expressed  by  the  exchinia- 
 tion,  "  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?  "  —  which 
 of  course  contradicts  the  supposition  that  he  had 
 been  trained  among  them.  In  regard  to  David, 
 it  is  inaccurately  said  that  he  fled  to  "  '  Naioth  in 
 Ramah '  as  to  his  second  home  (1  Sam.  xix.  19)." 
 What  is  said  is  that  "  he  came  to  Samuel  to  Ra- 
 mah and  told  him  all  that  Saul  had  done  to  him. 
 And  he  and  Samuel  went  and  dwelt  in  Naioth." 
 David's  purpose  was  to  seek  refuge  with  Samuel, 
 the  aged  judge  whom  Saul  still  feared  and  re- 
 spected. He  went  to  his  residence  at  Ramah. 
 For  reasons  not  mentioned,  but  probaljly  from  pru- 
 dential considerations,  they  left  then  together  and 
 "went  and  dwelt  at  Naioth." 
 
 Some  other  slight  inadvertencies  in  the  above 
 article  the  reader  will  readily  correct  for  himself. 
 
 F.  G. 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF  (b«^a^ : 
 BacriKeiaiv  TlpuTTi,  Aevrepa  ■  Liber  Reyum 
 Primus,  Secundus).  Two  historical  books  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  which  are  not  separated  from  each 
 other  in  the  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  which,  from  a 
 critical  point  of  view,  must  be  regarded  as  one 
 book.  The  present  division  was  first  made  in  the 
 Septuagint  translation,  and  was  adopted  in  the  Vul- 
 gate irom  the  Septuagint.  But  Origen,  as  quoted 
 by  Eusebius  {fJistor.  Kecks,  vi.  25),  expressly  states 
 that  they  formed  only  one  book  among  the  He- 
 brews. Jerome  {Prcef.  in  Libros  Stunuel  et  Miil- 
 achiin)  implies  the  same  statement;  and  in  the 
 Talmud  (Baba  Buthra,  fol.  14,  c.  2),  wherein  the 
 authorship  is  attributed  to  Samuel,  they  are  desig- 
 nated by  the  name  of  his  book,  in   the  singular 
 
 number  (IIDD  2n2  bWltt^?).  After  the  in- 
 vention of  printing  they  were  pulilished  as  one 
 book  in  the  first  edition  of  the  whule  Bible  printed 
 at  Soncino  in  1488  a.  d.,  and  likewise  in  the  Com- 
 plutensian  Polyglot  printed  at  Alcala,  1502-1517 
 A.  D. ;  and  it  was  not  till  the  year  1518  that  the 
 division  of  the  Septuagint  was  adopted  in  Hebrew, 
 in  the  edition  of  the  Bible  printed  by  the  Bom- 
 bergs  at  Venice.  The  book  was  called  by  the  He- 
 brews "  Samuel,"  probably  because  the  birth  and 
 life  of  Samuel  w^ere  the  sulijects  treated  of  in  the 
 beginning  of  the  work  — just  as  a  treatise  on  fes- 
 tivals in  the  Mishna  bears  the  name  of  Beitsali,  an 
 egg,  because  a  question  connected  with  the  eating  of 
 an  egg  is  the  first  subject  discussed  in  it.  [Phaki- 
 SEES,  vol.  iii.  p.  2475  a.]  It  has  been  suggested 
 indeed  by  Abarbanel,  as  quoted  by  Carpzov  (211), 
 that  the  book  was  called  by  Samuel's  name  be- 
 cause all  things  that  occur  in  each  book  may,  in  a 
 certain  sense,  be  rel'erred  to  Samuel,  including  the 
 acts  of  Saul  and  David,  inasmuch  as  each  of  them 
 was  anointed  by  him,  and  was,  as  it  were,  the 
 work  of  his  hands.  This,  however,  seems  to  be  a 
 refinement  of  explanation  for  a  fact  which  is  to  be 
 accounted  for  in  a  less  artificial  manner.  And, 
 generally,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  logical  titles 
 of  books  adopted  in  modern  times  must  not  be 
 looked  for  in  Eastern  works,  nor  indeed  in  early 
 works  of  modern  Europe.  Thus  David's  Lamen- 
 tation over  Saul  and  Jonathan  was  called  "  The 
 Bow,"  for  some  reason  connected  with  the  occur- 
 rence of  that  word  in  his  poem  (2  Sam.  i.  18-22); 
 and  Snorro  Storleson's  Chronicle  of  the  Kings  of 
 178 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2825 
 
 Norway  obtained  the  name  of  "  Heimskringla," 
 the  ^^■orld's  Circle,  because  Heimskringla  was  the 
 first  prominent  word  of  the  MS.  that  caught  the 
 eye  (Laing's  Ihimskrinyln,  i.  1). 
 
 Authorship  and  Date  of  the  Book.  —  The  most 
 interesting  points  in  regard  to  every  important  his- 
 torical work  are  the  name,  intelligence,  and  charac- 
 ter of  the  historian,  and  his  means  of  obtaining 
 correct  information.  If  tliese  points  should  not  be 
 known,  next  in  order  of  interest  is  the  precise  pe- 
 riod of  time  when  the  work  was  composed.  On  all 
 these  points,  however,  in  reference  to  the  book  of 
 Samuel,  more  questions  can  be  asked  than  can  be 
 answered,  and  the  results  of  a  dispassionate  inquiry 
 are  mainly  negative. 
 
 1st,  as  to  the  authorship.  In  common  with  all 
 the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  except 
 the  beginning  of  Nehemiah,  the  book  of  Samuel 
 contains  no  mention  in  the  text  of  the  name  of  its 
 author.  The  earliest  Greek  historical  work  extant, 
 written  by  one  who  has  frequently  been  called  the 
 Fatlier  of  History,  commences  with  the  words, 
 "  This  is  a  publication  of  the  researches  of  Herod- 
 otus of  Hahcarnassus ;  "  and  the  motives  which 
 induced  Herodotus  to  write  the  work  are  then  set 
 forth.  Thucydides,  the  writer  of  the  Greek  his- 
 torical work  next  in  order  of  time,  who  likewise 
 specifies  his  reasons  for  writing  it,  commences  by 
 stating,  "Thucydides  the  Athenian  wrote  the  his- 
 tory of  the  war  between  the  Peluponnesians  and 
 Athenians,"  and  frequently  uses  the  fonnula  that 
 such  or  such  a  year  ended  —  the  second,  or  third, 
 or  fourth,  as  the  case  might  be  —  ■'  of  this  war  of 
 which  Thucydides  wrote  the  history  "  (ii.  70,  103; 
 iii.  25,  88,  116).  Again,  when  he  speaks  in  one 
 passage  of  events  in  which  it  is  necessary  that  he 
 should  mention  his  own  name,  he  refers  to  himself 
 as  "  Thucydides  son  of  Olorus,  who  composed  this 
 work"  (iv.  104).  Now,  with  the  one  exception 
 of  this  kind  already  mentioned,  no  similar  informa- 
 tion is  contained  in  any  historical  book  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  although  there  are  passages  not  only  in 
 Nehemiah,  but  likewise  in  Ezra,  written  in  the  first 
 person.  Still,  without  any  statement  of  the  author- 
 ship embodied  in  the  text,  it  is  possible  that  his- 
 torical books  might  come  down  to  us  with  a  title 
 containing  the  name  of  the  autlior.  This  is  the 
 case,  for  example,  with  Livy's  Roman  History,  and 
 Ca?sar's  Commeviiirits  oj' the  Gallic  War.  In  the 
 latter  case,  indeed,  although  Csesar  mentions  a  long 
 series  of  his  own  actions,  without  intimating  that 
 he  was  the  author  of  the  work,  and  thus  there  is  an 
 antecedent  improbability  that  he  wrote  it,  yet  the 
 traditional  title  of  the  work  outweighs  this  improb- 
 ability, confirmed  as  the  title  is,  by  an  unbroken 
 chain  of  testimony,  connnencing  with  contempo- 
 raries (Cicero,  Bi'ui.  75;  Ctesar,  I)e  Bell.  Gall. 
 viii.  1;  Suetonius,  i/w/.  Cces.bd;  Quinctilian,  x.  1; 
 Tacitus,  Germ.  28).  Here,  again,  there  is  noth- 
 ing precisely  similar  in  Hebrew  history.  The  five 
 books  of  the  Pentateuch  have  in  Hebrew  no  title 
 except  the  first  Hebrew  words  of  each  part;  and 
 the  titles  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
 and  Deuteronomy,  which  are  derived  from  the  Sep- 
 tuagint, convey  no  information  as  to  their  author. 
 In  like  manner,  the  book  of  Judges,  the  books  of 
 the  Kings  and  the  Chronicles,  are  not  referred  to 
 any  particular  historian;  and  although  six  works 
 bear  respectively  the  names  of  Joshua,  Ruth,  Sam- 
 uel, Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  there  is  nothing 
 in  the  works  themselves  to  preclude  the  idea  that 
 in  each  case  the  subject  only  of  the  work  may  be 
 
2826       SAMUEL,  BOOKS   OF 
 
 indicated,  and  not  its  authorship ;  as  is  shown  con- 
 clusively by  the  titles  Ruth  and  Esther,  which  no 
 one  has  yet  construed  into  the  assertion  that  those 
 celebrated  women  wrote  the  works  concerning  them- 
 selves. And  it  is  indisputable  that  the  title  "  Sam- 
 uel "  does  not  imply  that  the  prophet  was  the  au- 
 thor of  the  book  of  Samuel  as  a  whole;  for  the 
 death  of  Samuel  is  recorded  in  the  beginning  of 
 the  25th  cliaiiter;  so  that,  under  any  circum- 
 stances, a  different  author  would  be  required  for 
 the  remaining  chapters,  constituting  considerably 
 more  than  one  half  of  the  entire  work.  Again,  in 
 reference  to  the  book  of  Samuel,  the  absence  of 
 the  historian's  name  from  both  the  te.xt  and  the 
 title  is  not  supplied  by  any  statement  of  any  other 
 writer,  made  within  a  reasonalile  period  from  the 
 time  when  the  book  may  be  supposed  to  ha\e  been 
 written.  No  mention  of  the  author's  name  is 
 made  in  the  book  of  Kings,  nor,  as  will  be  here- 
 after shown,  in  the  Chronicles,  nor  in  any  other 
 of  the  sacred  writings.  In  like  manner,  it  is  not 
 mentioned  either  in  the  Apocrypha  or  in  Josephus. 
 The  silence  of  Josephus  is  particularly  significant. 
 He  published  his  Antiquities  about  1100  years 
 after  the  death  of  David,  and  in  them  he  makes 
 constant  use  of  the  book  of  Samuel  for  one 
 portion  of  his  history.  Indeed,  it  is  his  exclusive 
 authority  for  his  account  of  Samuel  and  Saul,  and 
 his  main  authority,  in  conjunction  with  the  Chron- 
 icles, for  the  history  of  David.  Yet  he  nowhere 
 attempts  to  name  the  author  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
 uel, or  of  any  part  of  it.  There  is  a  similar  silence 
 in  the  Mishna,  where,  however,  the  inference  from 
 such  silence  is  far  less  cogent.  And  it  is  not  until 
 we  come  to  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  which  is  sup- 
 posed to  have  been  completed  in  its  present  form 
 somewhere  about  500  a.  d.,  that  any  Jewish  state- 
 ment respecting  the  authorship  can  be  pointed  out, 
 and  then  it  is  for  the  first  time  asserted  {Babn 
 Buthra,  fol.  14,  c.  2),  in  a  passage  already  referred 
 to,  that  "  Samuel  wrote  his  book,"  i.  e.  as  the  words 
 imply,  the  book  which  bears  his  name.  But  this 
 statement  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  made 
 earlier  than  1550  years  after  the  death  of  Samuel  — 
 a  longer  period  than  has  elapsed  since  the  death  of 
 the  Emperor  Constantine;  and  unsupported  as  the 
 statement  is  by  reference  to  any  authority  of  any 
 kind,  it  would  be  unworthy  of  credit  even  if  it 
 were  not  opposed  to  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
 book  itself.  At  the  revival  of  learning,  an  opinion 
 was  propounded  by  Abarbanel,  a  learned  .lew, 
 t  A.  U.  1508,  that  the  book  of  Samuel  wiis  written 
 by  the  prophet  Jeremiah"  (Lat.  by  Aug.  Pfeifler, 
 Leipzig,  168G),  and  this  opinion  was  adopted  by 
 Hugo  Grotius  {Pre/'.  <id  Lihrum  ptiorem  Sam- 
 uelis),  with  a  general  statement  that  there  was  no 
 discrepancy  in  the  language,  and  witli  only  one 
 special  reference.  Notwithstanding  the  eminence, 
 however,  of  these  writers,  this  opinion  must  be  re- 
 jected as  highly  improbable.  Under  any  circum- 
 stances it  could  not  be  regarded  as  more  than  a 
 mere  guess;  and  it  is  in  reality  a  guess  uncoun- 
 teuancetl  by  peculiar  similarity  of  language,  or  of 
 style,  between  the  history  of  Samuel  and  the  writ- 
 ings of  Jeremiah.     In  our   own    time    the  most 
 
 «  Professor  Hitzig,  in  like  manner,  attributes  some 
 »f  the  Psalms  to  Jeremiah.  In  support  of  this  view, 
 he  points  out,  1st,  several  special  instances  of  striking 
 similarity  of  language  between  those  Psalms  and  the 
 writings  of  Jeremiah,  and,  2dly,  agreement  between 
 historical  fiicts  in  the  life  of  Jeremiah  and  the  eitua- 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 prevalent  idea  in  the  Anglican  Church  seems  to 
 have  been  that  the  first  twenty-four  chapters  of 
 the  book  of  Samuel  were  written  by  the  prophet 
 himself,  and  the  rest  of  tiie  chapters  by  the  prophets 
 Nathan  and  Gad.  This  is  the  view  favored  by 
 Mr.  Home  (Jnlrodurtion  to  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
 ed.  1816,  p.  45),  in  a  work  which  has  had  very  ex- 
 tensive circulation,  and  which  amongst  many  read- 
 ers has  been  the  only  work  of  the  kind  consulted 
 in  England.  If,  however,  the  authority  adduced 
 by  him  is  examined,  it  is  found  to  be  ultimately 
 the  opinion  "  of  the  Talmudists,  which  was  adopted 
 by  the  most  learned  Fathers  of  the  Christian 
 Church,  who  unquestionably  had  better  means  of 
 ascertaining  this  point  than  we  have."  Now  the 
 absence  of  any  evidence  for  this  opinion  in  the 
 Talmud  has  been  already  indicated,  and  it  is  diffi- 
 cult to  understand  how  the  opinion  could  have  been 
 stamped  with  real  value  through  its  adoption  by 
 learned  Jews  called  Talmudists,  or  by  learned 
 Christians  called  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
 who  lived  subsequently  to  the  pul)lication  of  the 
 Talmud.  For  there  is  not  the  sligiitest  reason  for 
 supposing  that  in  the  year  500  A.  D  either  Jews  or 
 Christians  had  access  to  trustworthy  documents  on 
 this  subject  which  have  not  been  transmitted  to 
 modern  times,  and  without  such  documents  it  can- 
 not be  shown  that  they  had  any  better  means  of 
 ascertaining  this  point  than  we  have.  Two  cir- 
 cumstances have  probably  contributed  to  the  adop- 
 tion of  this  opinion  at  the  present  day :  1st,  the 
 growth  of  stricter  ideas  as  to  the  importance  of 
 knowing  who  was  the  author  of  any  historical  work 
 which  advances  claims  to  be  trustworthy;  and 
 2dly,  the  mistranslation  of  an  ambiguous  passage 
 in  the  First  Book  of  Chronicles  (xxix.  29),  respect- 
 ing the  authorities  for  the  life  of  David.  The  first 
 point  requires  no  counnent.  On  the  second  point 
 it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  following  appears  to 
 be  the  correct  translation  of  the  passage  in  ques- 
 tion :  "  Now  the  history  of  David  first  and  last, 
 behold  it  is  written  in  the  history  of  Samuel  tbe 
 seer,  and  in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet, 
 and  in  the  history  of  Gad  the  seer" — in  which 
 the  Hebrew  word  dibrei,  here  translated  "his- 
 tory," has  the  same  meaning  given  to  it  each  of 
 the  four  times  that  it  is  used.  This  agrees  with 
 the  translation  in  the  Septuagint,  which  is  particu- 
 larly worthy  of  attention  in  reference  to  the  (Chron- 
 icles, as  the  Chronicles  are  the  very  last  work  in  the 
 Heljrew  Bible;  and  whether  this  arose  from  their 
 having  been  the  last  admitted  into  the  Canon,  or 
 the  last  composed,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  any 
 translation  in  the  Septuagint,  with  one  great  ex- 
 ception, was  made  so  soon  after  the  composition  of 
 the  original.  The  rendering  of  the  Septuagint  is 
 by  the  word  \6yoii  in  the  sense,  so  well  known 
 in  Herodotus,  of  "history"  (i.  184,  ii.  161,  vi. 
 137),  and  in  the  like  sense  in  the  Apocrypha, 
 wherein  it  is  used  to  describe  the  history  of  Tobit, 
 l3i^\os  K6-yuiv  Too^ir.  The  word  "history" 
 {Geschichte)  is  likewise  the  word  four  times  used 
 in  the  translation  of  this  passage  of  the  Chronicles 
 in  Luther's  Bible,  and  in  the  modern  version  of 
 the  German  Jews  made  under  the  superintendence 
 
 tion  in  which  the  writer  of  those  Psalms  depicts  him- 
 self as  having  been  placed  (Hitzig,  Die  Psahnen,  pp. 
 48-85).  Whether  the  conclusion  is  correct  or  incor- 
 rect, this  is  a  legitimate  mode  of  reasoning,  and  there 
 is  a  sound  basis  for  a  critical  superstructure.  See 
 Psalms  xxxi.,  xxxv.,  xl. 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 jf  the  learned  Dr.  Zunz  (Berlin,  1858).  In  the 
 English  Version,  however,  the  word  dibrei  is  trans- 
 .ated  in  the  first  instance  "acts"  as  applied  to 
 David,  and  then  "book"  as  applied  to  Samuel, 
 Nathan,  and  Gad;  and  thus,  through  the  anthi- 
 guity  of  the  word  "  Ijook  "  the  possibility  is  sug- 
 gested that  each  of  these  three  prophets  wrote  a 
 book  respecting  his  own  life  and  times.  This 
 double  rendering  of  the  same  word  in  one  passage 
 seems  wholly  inadmissible;  as  is  also,  though  in  a 
 less  degree,  the  translation  of  dibrei  as  "book," 
 for  which  there  is  a  distinct  Hebrew  word  — - 
 sep/ier.  And  it  may  be  deemed  morally  certain 
 that  this  passage  of  the  Chronicles  is  no  authority 
 for  the  supposition  that,  when  it  was  written,  any 
 work  was  in  existence  of  which  either  Gad,  Na- 
 than, or  Samuel  was  the  author." 
 
 2.  Although  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
 uel cannot  be  ascertained,  there  are  some  indica- 
 tions as  to  the  date  of  the  work.  And  yet  even  on 
 this  point  no  precision  is  attainable,  and  we  must 
 be  satisfied  with  a  conjecture  as  to  the  range,  not 
 of  years  or  decades,  but  of  centuries,  within  which 
 the  history  was  probably  composed.  Evidence  on 
 this  head  is  either  external  or  internal.  The  earli- 
 est undeniable  external  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
 the  book  would  seem  to  be  the  Greek  translation 
 of  it  in  the  Septuagint.  The  exact  date,  however, 
 of  the  translation  itself  is  uncertain,  though  it  must 
 have  been  made  at  some  time  between  the  transla- 
 tion of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
 I'hiladelphus,  who  died  u.  c.  247,  and  the  century 
 before  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  next  best  external 
 testimony  is  that  of  a  passage  in  the  Second  Book 
 of  Maccabees  (ii.  13),  in  which  it  is  said  of  Nehe- 
 miah,  that  "he,  founding  a  library,  gathered  to- 
 gether the  acts  of  the  kings,  and  the  prophets, 
 and  of  David,  and  the  epistles  of  the  kings  con- 
 cerning the  holy  gifts."  Now,  although  this  pas- 
 sage cannot  be  relied  on  for  proving  that  Nehe- 
 niiah  himself  did  in  fact  ever  found  such  a  library,* 
 yet  it  is  good  evidence  to  prove  that  the  Acts  of 
 the  Kings,  ra  irepl  rSiv  0aai\eajv,  were  in  exist- 
 ence when  the  passage  was  written ;  and  it  can- 
 not reasonably  be  doubted  that  this  phrase  was  in- 
 tended to  include  the  book  of  Samuel,  which  is 
 equivalent  to  the  two  first  books  of  Kings  in  the 
 Septuagint.  Hence  there  is  external  evidence  that 
 the  book  of  Samuel  was  written  before  the  Second 
 Book  of  jNIaccabees.  And  lastly,  the  passage  in 
 the  Chronicles  already  quoted  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29) 
 seems  likewise  to  prove  externally  that  the  book 
 of  Samuel  was  written  before  the  Cliroincles.  This 
 is  not  absolutely  certain,  but  it  seems  to  be  the 
 most  natural  inference  from  the  words  that  the  his- 
 tory of  David,  first  and  last,  is  contained  in  the 
 history  of  Samuel,  the  history  of  Nathan,  and  the 
 history  of  Gad.  For  as  a  work  has  come  down  to 
 us,  entitled  Samuel,  which  contains  an  account  of 
 the  life  of  David  till  within  a  short  period  before 
 
 1  In  the  Swedish  Bible  the  word  (/ibrfi  in  each  of 
 the  four  instances  is  translated  "  acts  "  ( Gtrningar), 
 being  precisely  the  same  word  which  is  used  to  desig- 
 uate  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament. 
 This  translation  is  self-consistent  and  admissible. 
 But  the  German  translations,  supported  as  they  are 
 by  the  Septuagint,  seem  preferable. 
 
 b  Professors  Ewald  and  Bleek  have  accepted  the 
 statement  that  Nehemiah  founded  such  a  library,  and 
 Ihey  make  inferences  Iroin  the  account  of  the  library 
 xs  to  the  time  when  certain  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 oieut  were  admitted  into  the  Canon.    There  are,  how- 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2827 
 
 his  death,  it  appears  most  reasonable  to  conclude 
 (although  this  point  is  open  to  dispute)  that  the 
 writer  of  the  Chronicles  referred  to  this  work  by 
 the  title  History  of  Samuel.  In  this  case,  admit- 
 ting the  date  assigned,  on  internal  grounds,  to  the 
 Chronicles  by  a  modern  Jewish  writer  of  undoubted 
 learning  and  critical  powers,  there  would  be  exter- 
 nal evidence  for  the  e.xistence  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
 uel earlier  than  247  b.  c,  thousrh  not  earlier  than 
 ol2  B.  c,  the  era  of  the  Seleucidse  (Zunz,  i>ie 
 Gvttesdienstlichen  Vuftrcige  der  Juden.  p.  32). 
 Supposing  that  the  Chronicles  were  written  earlier, 
 this  evidence  would  go,  in  precise  proportion, 
 further  back,  but  there  would  be  still  a  total  ab- 
 sence of  earlier  external  evidence  on  the  suliject 
 than  is  contained  in  the  Chronicles.  If,  however, 
 instead  of  looking  solely  to  the  external  evidence, 
 the  internal  evidence  respecting  the  book  of 
 Samuel  is  examined,  there  are  indications  of  its 
 having  been  written  some  centuries  earlier.  On 
 this  head  the  following  [loints  are  worthy  of  no- 
 tice :  — 
 
 1.  The  book  of  Samuel  seems  to  have  been  writ- 
 ten at  a  time  when  the  Pentateuch,  whether  it  was 
 or  was  not  in  existence  in  its  present  form,  was  at 
 any  rate  not  acted  on  as  the  rule  of  religious  ob- 
 servances. According  to  the  Mosaic  Law  as  finally 
 established,  sacrifices  to  Jehovah  were  not  lawful 
 anywhere  but  before  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  of 
 the  congregation,  whether  this  was  a  permanent 
 temple,  as  at  Jerusalem,  or  otherwise  (Deut.  xii. 
 13,  14;  Lev.  xvii.  3,  4;  but  see  Ex.  xx.  24).  But 
 in  the  book  of  Samuel,  the  otii-ring  of  sacrifices,  or 
 the  erection  of  altars,  which  implies  sacrifices,  is 
 mentioned  at  several  places,  such  as  Mizpeh,  Ra- 
 mah.  Bethel,  the  threshing-place  of  Araunah  the 
 Jebusite,  and  elsewhere,  not  only  without  any  dis- 
 approbation, apology,  or  explanation,  but  in  a  way 
 which  produces  the  impression  that  such  sacrifices 
 were  pleasing  to  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  vii.  9,  10,  17, 
 ix.  13,  X.  3,  xiv.  35;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  18-25).  This 
 circumstance  points  to  the  date  of  the  book  of 
 Samuel  as  earlier  than  the  reformation  of  Josiah, 
 when  Hilkiah  the  high-priest  told  Shaphan  the 
 scribe  that  he  had  found  the  Book  of  the  Law  in 
 the  house  of  Jehovah,  when  the  Passover  was  kept 
 as  was  enjoined  in  that  book,  in  a  way  that  no 
 Passover  had  been  holden  since  the  days  of  the 
 Judges,  and  when  the  worship  upon  high-places 
 was  abolished  by  the  king's  orders  (2  K.  xxii.  8, 
 xxiii.  8,  13,  15,  19,  21,  22).  The  probabifity  that 
 a  sacred  historian,  writing  after  that  reformation, 
 would  have  expressed  disapprobation  of,  or  would 
 have  accounted  for,  any  seeming  departure  from  the 
 laws  of  the  Pentateuch  by  David,  Saul,  or  Samuel, 
 is  not  in  itself  conclusive,  but  joined  to  other  con- 
 siderations it  is  entitled  to  peculiar  weight.  The 
 natural  mode  of  dealing  with  such  a  religious  scan- 
 dal, when  it  siiocks  the  ideas  of  a  later  generation, 
 is  followed  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings,  who 
 
 ever,  the  following  reasons  for  rejecting  the  state- 
 ment :  1st.  It  occurs  in  a  letter  generally  deemed 
 spurious.  2dly.  In  the  same  letter  a  fabulous  story 
 is  recorded  not  only  of  Jeremiah  (ii.  1-7),  but  likewise 
 of  Nehemiah  himself.  3dly.  An  erroneous  historical 
 statement  is  likewise  made  in  the  same  letter,  that 
 Nehemiah  built  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  (i.  18).  No 
 witness  in  a  court  of  justice,  whose  credit  had  been 
 shaken  to  a  similar  extent,  would,  unless  corroborated 
 by  other  evidence,  be  relied  on  as  an  authority  for  any 
 important  fact. 
 
2828     SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 undoubtedly  lived  later  than  the  reformation  of  Jo- 
 siah,  or  than  the  beginning,  at  least,  of  the  captiv- 
 ity of  Judah  (2  K.  xxv.  21,  27).  Tliis  writer  men- 
 tions the  toleration  of  worship  on  high-places  with 
 disapprobation,  not  only  in  connection  with  bad 
 kings,  such  as  Jlanasseh  and  Ahaz,  but  likewise  as 
 a  drawback  in  the  excellence  of  other  kings,  such  as 
 Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Jehoash,  Aniaziah,  Azariah,  and 
 Jotham,  who  are  praised  for  having  done  what  was 
 right  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  xv.  14,  xxii.  43; 
 2  K.  xii.  3,  xiv.  4,  xv.  4,  35,  xvi.  4,  xxi.  3);  and 
 something  of  the  same  kind  might  have  been  ex- 
 pected in  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Samuel,  if  he 
 had  lived  at  a  time  when  the  worship  on  high- 
 places  had  been  abolished. 
 
 2.  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  early  date  of  the 
 book  of  Samuel  that .  allusions  in  it  even  to  the 
 existence  of  Moses  are  so  few.  After  the  return 
 from  the  Captivity,  and  more  espeeiall}-  after  the 
 changes  introduced  by  Ezra,  Moses  became  that 
 great  central  figure  in  the  thoughts  and  language 
 of  devout  Jews  which  he  could  not  fail  to  be  when 
 all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were  observed,  and 
 they  were  all  referred  to  him  as  the  divine  prophet 
 who  conmiunicated  them  directly  from  Jehovah. 
 This  transcendent  importance  of  Moses  must  al- 
 ready have  commenced  at  the  finding  of  the  Book 
 of  the  Law  at  the  reformation  of  Josiah.  Now  it 
 is  remarkable  that  the  book  of  Samuel  is  the  his- 
 torical work  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the 
 name  of  Moses  occurs  most  rarely.  In  Joshua  it 
 occurs  56  times;  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
 miah,  31  times;  in  the  book  of  Kings  ten  times; 
 in  Judges  three  times;  but  in  Samuel  only  twice 
 (Zunz,  Vortriiye,  35).  And  it  is  worthy  of  note 
 that  in  each  case  Moses  is  merely  mentioned  with 
 Aaron  as  having  brought  the  Israelites  out  of  the 
 land  of  Egypt,  but  nothing  whatever  is  said  of  the 
 Law  of  Moses  (1  Sam.  xii.  6,  8).  It  may  be 
 thought  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this 
 omission  of  the  name  of  Moses,  because,  inasmuch 
 as  the  Law  of  Moses,  as  a  whole,  was  evidently  not 
 acted  on  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  David,  and  Solo- 
 mon, there  was  no  occasion  ibr  a  writer,  however 
 late  he  lived,  to  introduce  the  name  of  Moses  at  all 
 in  connection  with  tlieir  life  and  actions.  But  it  is 
 very  rare  indeed  fur  later  writers  to  refrain  in  this 
 way  from  importing  the  ideas  of  their  own  time 
 into  the  account  of  earlier  transactions.  Thus, 
 very  early  in  the  book  of  Kings  there  is  an  allusion 
 to  what  is  "written  in  the  Law  of  IMoses'"  (1  K. 
 ii.  3).  Thus  the  author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles 
 makes,  for  the  reign  of  David,  a  calculation  of  money 
 in  diirics,  a  Persian  coin,  not  likely  to  have  been 
 in  conunon  use  among  the  Jews  until  the  Persian 
 domination  had  been  fully  established.  Thus, 
 more  than  once,  .losephus,  in  his  Aniiquitits  of 
 tJte  Jews,  attributes  expressions  to  personages  in 
 the  Old  Testament  which  are  to  be  accounted  for 
 by  what  was  familiar  to  his  own  mind,  although 
 they  are  not  justified  by  his  authorities.  For  ex- 
 ample, e\idently  copying  the  history  of  a  transac- 
 tion from  the  book  of  Samuel,  he  represents  the 
 pi-ophet  Samuel  as  exhorting  the  people  to  bear  in 
 mind  "  the  code  of  laws  which  Moses  had  given 
 them  "  (rrjv  Mcoi)(r€a)s  i/o/xoOea'ias,  Ant.  vi.  5,  §  3), 
 though  there  is  no  mention  of  Moses,  or  of  his  leg- 
 islation, in  the  correspondmg  passage  of  Samuel  (1 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 Sam.  xii.  20-25).  Again,  in  giving  an  account  of 
 the  punishments  with  which  the  Israelites  were 
 tin-eatened  for  disobedience  of  the  Law  by  Moses  in 
 the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  Josephus  attiibute.s  to 
 Moses  the  threat  that  their  temple  should  be  burned 
 (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  40).  I)Ut  no  passage  can  be  pointed 
 out  in  the  whole  Pentateuch  in  which  such  a  threat 
 occurs;  and  in  fact,  according  to  the  received  chro- 
 nology (1  K.  vi.  1),  or  according  to  any  chronol- 
 ogy, the  first  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  not  built  till 
 some  centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses.  Yet  thia 
 allusion  to  the  burning  of  an  unbuilt  temple  ought 
 not  to  be  regarded  as  an  intentional  misrepresenta- 
 tion. It  is  rather  an  instance  of  the  tendency  in 
 an  historian  who  describes  past  events  to  give  un- 
 consciously indications  of  his  living  himself  at  a 
 later  epoch.  Similar  remarks  apply  to  a  passage 
 of  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  4,  §  4),  in  which,  giving  an 
 account  of  David's  project  to  build  a  temple  at  Je- 
 rusalem, he  says  that  Da\id  wished  to  prepare  a 
 temple  for  God,  "as  Moses  commanded,"  though 
 no  such  command  or  injunction  is  found  to  be  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  To  a  religious  Jew,  when  the  laws  of 
 the  Pentateuch  were  observed,  Moses  could  not  fail 
 to  be  the  predominant  idea  in  his  mind;  but  Moses 
 would  not  necessarily  be  of  equal  importance  to  a 
 Hebrew  historian  who  lived  before  the  reformation 
 of  Josiah. 
 
 3.  It  tallies  with  an  early  date  for  the  compo . 
 sition  of  the  book  of  Samuel  that  it  is  one  of  the 
 best  specimens  of  Hebrew  prose  in  the  golden  age 
 of  Ilelirew'  literature.  In  prose  it  holds  the  same 
 place  which  Joel  and  the  undisputed  prophecies  of 
 Isaiah  hold  in  poetical  or  prophetical  language.  It 
 is  free  from  the  peculiarities  of  the  book  of  Judges, 
 which  it  is  proposed  to  account  for  by  supposing 
 that  they  belonged  to  the  popular  dialect  of  Northern 
 Palestine;  and  likewise  from  the  slight  peculiarities 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  which  it  is  proposed  to  regard  as 
 archaisms"  (Gesenius,  Hebrew  Grammar,  §  2,  5). 
 It  is  a  striking  contrast  to  the  language  of  the  book 
 of  Chronicles,  which  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the 
 silver  age  of  Hebrew  prose,  and  it  does  not  contain 
 as  many  alleged  Chakiaisms  as  the  few  in  the  book 
 of  Kings.  Indeed  the  number  of  Chakiaisms  in  the 
 book  of  Samuel  which  the  most  rigid  scrutiny  has 
 suggested  do  not  amount  to  more  than  aiiout  six 
 instances,  some  of  them  doubtful  ones,  in  90  pages 
 of  our  modern  Hebrew  Bible.  And,  considering  the 
 general  purity  of  the  language,  it  is  not  only  possi- 
 ble, but  prolial)le,  tliat  the  trifling  residuum  of  Clial- 
 daisms  may  be  owing  to  the  inadvertence  of  Chal- 
 dee  copyists,  when  Hebrew  had  ceased  to  be  a  living 
 language.  At  the  same  time  this  argument  from 
 language  must  not  be  pushed  so  far  as  to  imply 
 that,  standing  alone,  it  would  be  conclusive;  foi 
 some  writings,  the  date  of  which  is  about  the  time 
 of  the  Captivity,  are  in  pure  Hebrew,  such  as  the 
 prophecies  of  Habakkuk,  the  Psalms  cxx.,  cxxxvii., 
 cxxxix.,  pointed  out  liy  Gesenius,  and  by  far  the 
 largest  portion  of  the  latter  part  of  the  prophecies 
 attributed  to  "  Isaiah  "  (xl.-lxvi.).  And  we  have 
 not  sutticient  knowledge  of  the  condition  of  the  Jews 
 at  the  time  of  the  Captivity,  or  for  a  few  centuries 
 after,  to  entitle  any  one  to  assert  that  there  were  no 
 individuals  among  them  who  wrote  the  purest  He- 
 brew. Still  the  balance  of  probability  inclines  to  the 
 contrary  direction,  and,  as  a  subsidiary  argument. 
 
 a  As  compared  with  Samuel,  the  peculiarities  of  parallel  which  has  been  suggested  by  Gesenius.  Vir- 
 the  Pentateuch  are  not  quile  as  striking  as  the  differ-  gil  seems  to  have  been  about  14  >ears  of  age  when 
 enoes  in  language  between  Lucretius  and  Virgil :  the  |  Lucretius'  great  poem  was  published. 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 the  purity  of  language  of  the  book  of  Samuel  is 
 entitled  to  some  weight. 
 
 Assuming,  then,  that  the  work  was  composed  at 
 a  period  not  later  than  the  reformation  of  Josiah, — 
 say,  B.  c.  622,  —  the  question  arises  as  to  the  very 
 earliest  point  of  time  at  whicli  it  could  have  existed 
 in  its  present  form.  And  the  answer  seems  to  be, 
 that  the  earliest  period  was  subsequent  to  the  seces- 
 sion of  tlie  Ten  Tribes.  This  results  from  the  pas- 
 sage in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6,  wherein  it  is  said  of  Da- 
 vid, "Then  Achish  gave  him  Ziklag  that  day: 
 wherefore  Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  -hi- 
 dah  unto  this  day:  "  for  neither  Saul,  David,  nor 
 Solomon  is  in  a  single  instance  called  king  of  .lu- 
 dah  simply.  It  is  true  tliat  David  is  said,  iu  one 
 narrative  respecting  him,  to  have  reigned  iu  Hebron 
 seven  years  and  six  months  over  Judah  (2  Sam.  v. 
 5)  before  he  reigtjed  in  Jerusalem  thirty-three 
 years  over  all  Israel  and  Judah ;  but  he  is,  notwith- 
 standing, never  designated  by  the  title  King  of 
 Judah.  Before  the  secession,  the  designation  of 
 the  kings  was  that  they  were  kings  of  Israel  (1 
 Sam.  xiii.  1,  xv.  1,  xvi.  1;  2  Sam.  v.  17,  viii.  15; 
 
 1  K.  ii.  11,  iv.  1,  vi.  1,  xi.  42).  It  may  safely, 
 therefore,  be  assumed  that  the  book  of  Sanmel 
 could  not  have  existed  in  its  present  form  at  an 
 earlier  period  than  the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  who  as- 
 cended the  throne  b.  c.  975.  If  we  go  beyond 
 this,  and  endeavor  to  assert  the  precise  time  lie- 
 tween  975  b.  c.  and  022  b.  c,  when  it  was  com- 
 posed, all  certain  indications  fail  us.  The  expres- 
 sion "  unto  this  day,''  used  several  times  in  the 
 book  (1  Sam.  v.  5,  vi.  18,  xxx.  25;  2  Sam.  iv.  3, 
 vi.  8),  in  addition  to  the  use  of  it  iu  the  passage 
 already  quoted,  is  too  indefinite  to  prove  anything, 
 except  that  the  writer  who  employed  it  lived  subse- 
 quently to  the  events  he  described.  It  is  inade- 
 quate to  prove  whether  he  lived  three  centuries,  or 
 only  half  a  century,  after  those  events.  The  same 
 remark  applies  to  the  phrase,  "  Therelbre  it  became 
 a  proverb,  'Is  Saul  among  the  Prophets?'"  (1 
 Sam.  X.  12),  and  to  the  verse,  "  Beforetime  in  Is- 
 rael, when  a  man  went  to  enquire  of  God,  thus  he 
 spake,  Come,  and  let  us  go  to  the  seer :  for  he  that 
 is  now  called  a  Prophet  was  lieforetime  called  a 
 Seer"  (1  Sam.  ix.  9).  In  both  cases  it  is  not  cer- 
 tain tliat  the  wnter  lived  more  than  eighty  years 
 after  the  incidents  to  which  he  alludes.  In  like  man- 
 ner, the  various  traditions  respecting  the  maimer 
 in  which  Saul  first  became  acquainted  with  David 
 (1  Sam.  xvi.  14-23,  xvii.  55-58)  —  respecting  the 
 manner  of  Saul's  death  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2-0,  8-13; 
 
 2  Sam.  i.  2-12)  —  do  not  necessarily  show  that  a 
 very  long  time  (say  even  a  century)  elapsed  between 
 the  actual  events  and  the  record  of  the  traditions. 
 In  an  age  anterior  to  the  existence  of  newspapers 
 or  the  invention  of  printing,  and  when  probably 
 few  could  read,  thirty  or  forty  years,  or  even  less, 
 have  been  sufficient  for  the  growth  of  different  tra- 
 ditions respecting  the  same  historical  fact.  Lastly, 
 internal  evidence  of  language  lends  no  assistance 
 for  discrimination  in  the  period  of  353  years  within 
 which  the  book  may  have  been  written;  for  the 
 undisputed  Hebrew  writings  belonging  to  that  pe- 
 riod are  comparatively  few,  and  not  one  of  them  is 
 a  history,  which  would  present  the  best  points  of 
 comparison.  They  embrace  scarcely  more  than 
 the  writings  of  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Nahum, 
 and  a  certain  portion  of  the  writings  under  the  title 
 "  Isaiah."  The  whole  of  these  writings  together 
 tau  scarcely  be  estimated  as  occupying  more  than 
 sixty  pages  of  our   Hebrew  Bibles,  and  whatever 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF       2829 
 
 may  be  their  peculiarities  of  language  or  style,  they 
 do  not  afford  materials  for  a  safe  inference  as  to 
 which  of  their  authors  was  likely  to  have  been  con- 
 temporary with  the  author  of  the  book  of  Samuel. 
 All  that  can  be  asserted  as  undeniable  is,  that  the 
 book,  as  a  whole,  can  scarcely  have  been  composed 
 later  than  the  reformation  of  Josiah,  and  that  it 
 coidd  not  have  existed  in  its  present  form  earlier 
 than  the  reign  of  Kehoboam. 
 
 It  is  to  be  added  that  no  great  weight,  in  oppo- 
 sition to  this  conclusion,  is  due  to  the  fact  tliat  the 
 death  of  David,  although  in  one  passage  evidently 
 implied  (2  Sam.  v.  5),  is  not  directly  recorded  in  the 
 book  of  Samuel.  From  this  fact  Hiivernick  {Ein- 
 leitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  part  ii.,  p.  145) 
 deems  it  a  cert;iin  inference  that  the  author  lived 
 not  long  after  the  death  of  David.  But  this  is  a 
 very  slight  foundation  for  such  an  inference,  since 
 we  know  nothing  of  the  author's  name,  or  of  the 
 circumstances  under  which  he  wrote,  or  of  his  pre- 
 cise ideas  respecting  what  is  required  of  an  histo- 
 rian. We  cannot,  therefore,  assert,  from  the  knowl- 
 edge of  the  character  of  his  mind,  that  his  deeming 
 it  logically  requisite  to  make  a  formal  statement 
 of  David's  death  would  have  depended  on  his  living 
 a  short  time  or  a  long  time  after  that  event.  Be- 
 sides, it  is  very  possible  that  he  did  formally  record 
 it,  and  that  the  mention  of  it  was  subsequently 
 omitted  on  account  of  the  more  minute  details  by 
 which  the  account  of  David's  death  is  preceded 
 in  the  First  Book  of  Kings.  There  would  have 
 been  nothing  wrong  in  such  an  omission,  nor  in- 
 deed, in  any  addition  to  the  book  of  Samuel;  fo--, 
 as  those  who  finally  inserted  "it  in  the  Canon  did 
 not  transmit  it  to  posterity  with  the  name  of  any 
 particular  author,  their  honesty  was  involved,  not 
 in  the  mere  circumstance  of  their  omitting  or 
 adding  anything,  but  solely  in  the  fact  of  their 
 adding  nothing  which  they  believed  to  be  false, 
 and  of  omitting  nothing  of  importance  which  they 
 believed  to  he  true. 
 
 In 'this  absolute  ignorance  of  the  author's  name, 
 and  vague  knowledge  of  the  date  of  the  work, 
 there  has  been  a  controversy  whether  the  book  of 
 Samuel  is  or  is  not  a  compilation  from  preexist- 
 ing documents;  and  if  this  is  decided  in  the  af- 
 firmative, to  wliat  extent  the  work  is  a  compilation. 
 It  is  not  intended  to  enter  fully  here  into  this  con- 
 troversy, respecting  which  the  reader  is  referred  to 
 Dr.  Davidson's  Jntroductiun  to  (he  Critiad  Study 
 <md  Knuivledge  of'  the  Holy  Scrijytttres,  London, 
 Longman,  1856,  in  which  this  subject  is  dispas- 
 sionately and  fairly  treated.  One  observation,  how- 
 ever, of  some  practical  importance,  is  to  be  borne 
 in  mind.  It  does  not  admit  of  much  reasonable 
 doubt  that  in  the  book  of  Samuel  there  are  two 
 different  accounts  (already  alluded  to)  respecting 
 Saul's  first  acquaintance  with  David,  and  the  cir- 
 cumstances of  Saul's  death  —  and  that  yet  the 
 editor  or  author  of  the  book  did  not  let  his  mind 
 work  upon  these  two  diflPerent  accounts  so  far  as  tc 
 make  him  interpose  his  own  opinion  as  to  which 
 of  the  conflicting  accounts  was  correct,  or  even  to 
 point  out  to  the  reader  that  the  two  accounts  were 
 apparently  contradictory.  Hence,  in  a  certain 
 sense,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  the  author  must  be 
 regarded  as  a  compiler,  and  not  an  original  his- 
 torian. And  in  reference  to  the  two  accounts  of 
 Saul's  death,  this  is  not  the  less  true,  even  if  the 
 second  account  be  deemed  reconcilable  with  the  first 
 by  the  supposition  that  the  Amalekite  had  fabri- 
 cated the  story  of  his  having  killed  Saul  (2  Sam. 
 
2830       SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 i.  6-10).  Althoucrh  possibly  true,  this  is  an  un- 
 likely supposition,  because,  as  tlie  Amalekite's  ob- 
 ject in  a  lie  would  have  been  to  curry  favor  with 
 David,  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  have 
 forged  some  story  which  would  have  redounded 
 more  to  his  own  credit  than  the  clumsy  and  im- 
 proliable  statement  that  he,  a  mere  casual  spectator, 
 had  killed  Saul  at  Saul's  own  request.  But  whether 
 the  Amalekite  said  what  was  true  or  what  was 
 false,  an  historian,  as  distins^uished  from  a  compiler, 
 could  scarcely  have  failed  to  convey  his  own  o|jinion 
 on  the  point,  affectiiig,  as  on  one  alternative  it  did 
 materially,  the  truth  of  the  narrative  which  he  had 
 just  before  recorded  respecting  the  circumstances 
 under  which  Saul's  death  occurred.  And  if  com- 
 pilation is  admitted  in  regard  to  the  two  events 
 just  mentioned,  or  to  one  of  them,  there  is  no 
 antecedent  improbability  that  the  same  may  have 
 been  the  case  in  other  instances;  such,  for  exam- 
 ple, as  the  two  explanations  of  the  proverb,  "  Is 
 Saul  also  among  the  Prophets?  "  (1  Sam.  x.  9-12, 
 xix.  22-2-t),  or  the  two  accounts  of  David's  having 
 forborne  to  take  Saul's  life,  at  the  very  time  when 
 he  was  a  fugitive  from  Saul,  and  his  own  life  was 
 in  danger  from  Saul's  enmity  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  3-1.5, 
 xxvi.  7-12).  The  same  remark  applies  to  what 
 seem  to  be  summaries  or  endings  of  narratives  by 
 different  writers,  such  as  1  Sam.  vii.  15-17,  1  Sam. 
 xiv.  47-52,  compared  with  chapter  xv. ;  2  Sam. 
 viii.  1.5-18.  In  these  cases,  if  each  passage  were 
 absolutely  isolated,  and  occurred  in  a  work  which 
 contained  no  other  instance  of  compilation,  the 
 inference  to  be  drawn  might  be  uncertain.  But 
 when  even  one  iiisteince  of  compilation  has  been 
 clearly  established  in  a  work,  all  other  seeniinLj 
 instances  must  be  viewed  in  its  light,  and  it  would 
 be  unreasonable  to  contest  each  of  them  singly,  on 
 principles  which  imply  that  compilation  is  as  un- 
 likely as  it  would  be  in  a  work  of  modern  history. 
 It  is  to  be  added,  that  .as  the  author  and  the 
 precise  date  of  the  book  of  Samuel  are  unknown, 
 its  historical  value  is  not  impaired  by  its  being 
 deemed  to  a  certain  extent  a  compilation.  Indeed, 
 from  one  point  of  view,  its  v.alue  is  in  this  way 
 somewhat  enhanced;  as  the  probability  is  increased 
 of  its  containing  documents  of  an  early  date,  some 
 of  which  may  have  been  written  by  persons  con- 
 temporaneous, or  nearly  so,  with  the  events  de- 
 scrilied. 
 
 i^otirces  of  the  Book  of  Samud.  —  Assuming  that 
 the  book  is  a  compilation,  it  is  a  subject  of  rational 
 inquiry  to  ascertain  the  materials  from  which  it 
 was  composed.  But  our  information  on  this  head 
 is  scanty.  The  only  work  actually  quoted  in  this 
 book  is  the  book  of  Jasher;  i.  e.  the  book  of 
 the  Upright.  Notwithstanding  the  great  learning 
 which  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  this  title  liy 
 immerous  commentators  [vol.  ii.  p.  1215],  the 
 meaning  of  the  title  must  be  regarded  as  alisolutely 
 unknown,  and  the  character  of  the  book  itself  as 
 uncertain.  The  best  conjecture  hitlierto  offered  as 
 an  induction  from  facts  is,  that  it  was  a  book  of 
 Poems;  but  the  facts  are  too  few  to  establish  this 
 
 o  Any  Hebrew  scholar  who  will  write  out  the  orift- 
 inal  four  lines  commencing  with  "Sun,  stand  thou 
 Btill  upon  Gibeon  I  "  may  satisfy  himself  that  they 
 belong  to  a  poem.  The  last  line,  "  Until  the  people 
 had  .ivenged  themselves  upon  their  enemies.''  which 
 in  the  A.  V.  is  somewhat  heavy,  is  almost  uumistak- 
 »bly  a  line  of  poetry  in  the  original.  In  a  narrative 
 .^specting  the  Israelites  in  prose  they  would  not  have 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 as  a  positive  general  conclusion.  It  is  only  quoted 
 twice  in  the  whole  Bible,  once  as  a  work  containing 
 David's  Lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  (2 
 Sam.  i.  18),  and  secondly,  as  an  authority  for  the 
 statement  that  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  at  the 
 command  of  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  1-3).  There  can  be 
 no  doubt  that  the  Lamentation  of  David  is  a  poem; 
 and  it  is  most  prol)able  that  the  other  passage 
 referred  to  as  written  in  the  book  of  Jasher  in- 
 cludes four  lines  of  Hebrew  poetry ,«  though  the 
 poetical  diction  and  rhythm  of  the  original  are 
 somewhat  impaired  in  a  translation.  But  the  only 
 sound  deduction  from  these  facts  is,  that  the  book 
 of  Jasher  contained  some  poems.  "What  else  it 
 may  have  contained  we  cannot  say,  e\en  nega- 
 tively. Without  reference,  however,  to  the  book  of 
 Jasher,  the  book  of  Samuel  contains  several  poetical 
 compositions,  on  each  of  which  a  few  observations 
 may  be  offered ;  connnencing  with  the  poetry  of 
 David. 
 
 (1.)  David's  Lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jona- 
 th.an,  called  "The  Bow."  This  extremely  beautiful 
 composition,  which  seems  to  have  been  preserved 
 through  David's  having  caused  it  to  be  taught  to 
 the  children  of  Judah  (2  Sam.  i.  18),  is  universally 
 admitted  to  be  the  gemiine  production  of  David. 
 In  this  respect,  it  has  an  advantage  over  the 
 Psalms;  as,  owing  to  the  unfortunate  inaccuracy 
 of  some  of  the  inscriptions,  no  one  of  the  psalms 
 attriliuted  to  David  has  wholly  escaped  challenge 
 One  point  in  the  Lamentation  especially  merits 
 attention,  that,  contrary  to  what  a  later  poet  would 
 have  ventured  to  represent,  David,  in  the  generosity 
 .and  tenderness  of  his  nature,  sounds  the  praises  of 
 .Saul. 
 
 (2.)  David's  Lamentation  on  the  death  of  Abner 
 (2  Sam.  iii.  .33,  .34).  Tiiere  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
 the  genuineness  of  this  short  poetical  ejaculation. 
 
 (•3.)  2  Sam.  xxii.  A  Song  of  David,  which  is 
 introduced  with  the  inscrijition  that  David  spoke 
 tlie  words  of  the  song  to  .Jehovah,  in  the  day  that 
 Jehovah  had  delivered  him  out  of  the  hand  of  all 
 his  enemies  and  out  of  the  hand  of  Saul.  This 
 song,  with  a  few  unimportant  verbal  differences,  is 
 merely  the  xviiith  Psalm,  which  bears  substantially 
 the  same  inscription.  For  poetical  beauty,  the 
 song  is  well  worthy  to  lie  the  production  of  David. 
 The  following  difficulties,  however,  are  connected 
 with  it. 
 
 {a. )  The  date  of  the  composition  is  assigned  to 
 the  day  when  David  had  lieen  delivered  not  only 
 out  of  the  hand  of  all  his  enemies,  but  likewise 
 "out  of  the  hand  of  Saul."  Now  David  reigned 
 forty  years  after  Saul's  death  (2  Sam.  v.  4,  5),  and 
 it  was  as  king  that  he  achieved  the  successive  con- 
 quests to  which  allusion  is  made  in  the  psalm. 
 Moreover,  the  psalm  is  evidently  introduced  as 
 composed  at  a  late  period  of  his  life;  and  it  imme- 
 diately jjrecedes  the  twenty-third  chapter,  which 
 commences  with  tlie  passage,  "Now  these  be  the 
 last  words  of  David."  It  sounds  strange,  there- 
 fore, that  the  name  of  Saul  should  be  introduced, 
 whose  hostility,  so  far  distant  in  time,  had  been 
 
 been  described  as  ''IS  (§"31))  without  even  an  article. 
 Moreover,  there  is  no  other  instance  in  which  the  sim- 
 ple accusative  of  the   person  on  whom  vengeance  is 
 
 taken  is  used  after  Qp3  {iiaham).     In  simple  prose 
 
 "j^  (min)  intervenes,  and,  like  the  article,  it  may 
 have  been  here  omitted  for  conciseness. 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 condoned,  as  it  were,  by  David  in  his  noble  Lamen- 
 tation 
 
 {h.)  In  the  closing  verse  (2  Sam.  xxii.  51),  Je- 
 hovah is  spoken  of  as  showing  "  mercy  to  his 
 anointed,  unto  David  and  his  seed  for  evermore." 
 These  words  would  be  more  naturally  written  of 
 David  than  try  David.  They  may,  however,  he  a 
 later  addition;  as  it  may  be  observed  that  at  the 
 present  day,  notwithstanding  the  safeguard  of  print- 
 ing, the  poetic;il  writings  of  living  authors  are  occa- 
 sionally altered,  and  it  must  be  added  disfigured, 
 in  printed  hymn-books.  Still,  as  far  as  they  go, 
 the  words  tend  to  raise  a  doul)t  whether  the  psalm 
 was  written  by  David,  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
 they  are  an  addition. 
 
 (c.)  In  some  passages  of  the  psalm,  the  strong- 
 est assertions  are  made  of  the  poet's  uprightness 
 and  purity.  He  says  of  himself,  "  According  to 
 the  cleanness  of  my  hands  hath  He  recompensed 
 me.  For  I  have  kept  the  ways  of  Jehovah,  and 
 have  not  wickedly  departed  from  my  God.  For  all 
 his  judgments  were  before  me:  and  as  for  his 
 statutes,  I  did  not  depart  from  them.  I  was  also 
 upi'ight  before  Him,  and  have  kept  myself  from 
 mine  iniquity  "  (xxii.  21-2i).  Now  it  is  a  subject 
 of  reasonable  surprise  that,  at  any  period  after  the 
 painful  incidents  of  his  liie  in  tlie  matter  of  Uriah, 
 David  should  have  used  this  language  concerning 
 himself.  Admitting  fully  that,  in  consequence  of 
 his  sincere  and  bitter  contrition,  "  the  princely 
 heart  of  imiocence  "  may  have  been  freely  bestowed 
 upon  him,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  this 
 should  have  influenced  him  so  far  in  his  assertions 
 resjjecting  his  own  uprightness  in  past  times,  as  to 
 make  him  forget  that  he  had  once  been  betrayed 
 by  his  passions  into  adultery  and  murder.  These 
 assertions,  if  m.ade  by  David  himself,  would  form 
 a  striking  contrast  to  the  tender  humility  and  self- 
 mistrust  in  connection  with  the  same  sniiject  by 
 a  great  living  genius  of  spotless  character.  (See 
 "Christian  Year,"  Qth  Sunday  ofter  Trinity — ad 
 fintin. ) 
 
 (4.)  A  song,  called  "last  words  of  David"  (2 
 Sam.  xxiii.  2-7).  According  to  the  Inscription,  it 
 was  composed  by  •'  Da\i(1  the  son  of  Jesse,  the  man 
 who  was  rai.sed  up  on  high,  the  anointed  of  the 
 God  of  Jacob,  and  the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel." 
 It  is  suggested  by  Bleek,  and  is  in  itself  very  prob- 
 able, that  both  the  psalm  and  the  inscription  were 
 taken  from  some  collection  of  songs  or  psalms. 
 'J'here  is  not  sufficient  reason  to  deny  that  this  song 
 is  correctly  ascribed  to  David. 
 
 (5.)  One  other  song  remains,  which  is  perhaps 
 the  most  perplexing  in  the  book  of  Samuel.  This 
 is  the  Song  of  Hannah,  a  wije  of  Elkanah  (1  Sam. 
 ii.  1-10).  One  difficulty  arises  from  an  allusion 
 in  verse  10  to  the  existence  of  a  king  under  Jeho- 
 vah, many  years  before  the  kingly  power  was 
 established  among  the  Israelites.  Another  equally 
 great  difficulty  arises  from  the  internal  character 
 of  the  song.  It  purports  to  be  written  by  one  of 
 two  wives  as  a  song  of  thanksgiving  for  having 
 borne  a  child,  after  a  long  period  of  barremiess, 
 which  had  caused  her  to  be  looked  down  upon  by 
 the  other  wife  of  her  husband.  But,  deducting  a 
 general  allusion,  in  verse  5,  to  the  barren  having 
 borne  seven,  there  is  nothing  in  the  song  peculiarly 
 pplicable  to  the  supposed  circumstances,  and  by 
 far  the  greater  portion  of  it  seems  to  be  a  song  of 
 mumph  for  deliverance  from  powerful  enemies  in 
 battle  (vv.  1,  4,  10).  Indeed,  Thenius  does  not 
 hesitate  to  conjecture  that  it  was  written  by  David 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2881 
 
 after  he  had  slain  Goliath,  and  the  Philistines  had 
 been  defeated  in  a  great  battle  {Exege/isclies  Hand- 
 buc/i,  p.  8).  There  is  no  historical  warrant  for 
 this  supposition;  but  the  song  is  certainly  more 
 appropriate  to  the  victory  of  David  over  Goliath, 
 than  to  Hannah's  having  given  birth  to  a  child 
 under  the  circumstances  detailed  in  the  first  chap- 
 ter of  Samuel.  It  would,  however,  be  equally 
 appropriate  to  some  other  great  battles  of  the 
 Israelites. 
 
 In  advancing  a  single  step  beyond  the  songs  of 
 the  book  of  Samuel,  we  enter  into  the  region  of 
 coTijecture  as  to  the  materials  which  were  at  the 
 command  of  the  author;  and  in  points  which  arise 
 for  consideration,  we  must  be  satisfied  with  a  sus- 
 pense of  judgment,  or  a  slight  balance  of  proba- 
 bilities. For  example,  it  being  plain  that  in  some 
 instances  there  are  two  accounts  of  the  same  trans- 
 action, it  is  desirable  to  form  an  opinion  whether 
 these  were  founded  on  distinct  written  documents, 
 or  on  distinct  oral  traditions.  Tins  point  is  open 
 to  dispute;  but  the  theory  of  written  documents 
 seems  preferable;  as  in  the  alternative  of  mere 
 oral  traditions  it  would  have  been  suiiereminentiy 
 unnatural  even  for  a  compiler  to  record  them  with- 
 out stating  in  his  own  person  tliat  there  were  differ- 
 ent traditions  respecting  the  same  event.  Again, 
 the  truthful  simplicity  and  extraordinary  vividness 
 of  some  portions  of  the  book  of  Sanuiel  naturally 
 suggest  the  idea  that  they  were  founded  on  con- 
 temporary documents  or  a  peculiarly  trustworthy 
 tradition.  This  applies  specially  to  the  account 
 of  the  combat  between  David  and  Goliath,  which 
 has  been  the  delight  of  successive  generations, 
 which  charnjs  equally  in  different  ways  the  old  and 
 the  young,  the  learned  and  the  illiterate,  and  which 
 tempts  us  to  deem  it  certain  that  the  account  must 
 have  proceeded  from  an  eye-witness.  On  the  other 
 hand,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  vividness  of 
 description  often  depends  niore  on  the  discerning 
 faculties  of  the  narrator  than  on  mere  bodily 
 presence.  "It  is  the  mind  tliat  sees,"  so  that  200 
 years  after  the  meeting  of  the  Long  Parliament  a 
 powerful  imaginative  writer  shall  portray  Cromwell 
 more  vividly  than  Ludlow,  a  contemporary  who 
 knew  liim'  and  conversed  with  him.  Jloreover, 
 Livy  has  described  events  of  early  Poman  history 
 which  educated  men  regard  in  their  details  as 
 imaginary;  and  Defoe,  Swift,  and  the  authors  of 
 T/ie  Arabim  Nights  have  described  events  which 
 all  men  admit  to  lie  imaginary,  with  such  seem- 
 ingly authentic  details,  with  such  a  charm  of 
 reality,  movement,  and  spirit,  that  it  is  sometimes 
 only  by  a  strong  eflfbrt  of  reason  that  we  escape 
 from  the  illusion  that  the  narratives  are  true.  In 
 the  absence,  therefore,  of  any  external  evidence  on 
 this  point,  it  is  safer  to  suspend  our  judgment  as 
 to  whether  any  portion  of  the  book  of  Samuel  is 
 founded  on  the  writing  of  a  contemporary,  or  on  a 
 tradition  entitled  to  any  peculiar  credit.  Perhaps 
 the  two  conjectures  respecting  the  composition  of 
 the  book  of  Sanniel  which  are  most  entitled  tf> 
 consideration  are — 1st.  That  the  list  which  it 
 contains  of  officers  or  public  functionaries  under 
 David  is  the  result  of  contemporary  registration; 
 and  2dly.  That  the  book  of  Sanniel  was  the  com- 
 pilation of  some  one  connected  with  the  schools  of 
 the  prophets,  or  penetrated  by  their  spirit.  On 
 the  first  point,  the  reader  is  referred  to  such  pas- 
 sages as  2  Sam.  viii.  16-18,  and  xx.  23-26,  in 
 regard  to  which  one  fact  may  be  mentioned.  It 
 has  already  been  stated  [King,  vol.  ii.  p.  1540  6] 
 
2832 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 that  under  the  kings  there  existed  an  officer 
 called  Recorder,  Remembrancer,  or  Chronicler;  in 
 Hebrew,  miizkir.  Now  it  can  scarcely  be  a  mere 
 accidental  coincidence  that  such  an  officer  is  men- 
 tioned for  the  first  time  in  David's  reign,  and  that 
 it  is  precisely  for  David's  reign  that  a  list  of  public 
 functionaries  is  for  the  first  time  transmitted  to 
 us.  On  the  second  point,  it  cannot  but  be  ob- 
 served what  prominence  is  given  to  prophets  in 
 the  history,  as  compared  with  priests  and  Levites. 
 This  prominence  is  so  decided,  that  it  undoubtedly 
 contributed  towards  the  formation  of  the  uncritical 
 opinion  that  the  book  of  Samuel  was  the  produc- 
 tion of  the  prophets  Samuel,  Nathan,  and  Gad. 
 This  opinion  is  unsupported  by  external  e\idence, 
 and  is  contrary  to  internal  evidence:  but  it  is  by 
 no  means  improbable  that  some  writers  among  the 
 sons  of  the  prophets  recorded  the  actions  of  those 
 prophets.  This  would  be  peculiarly  probable  in 
 reference  to  Nathan's  rebuke  of  David  after  the 
 murder  of  Uriah.  Nathan  here  presents  the  image 
 of  a  prophet  in  its  noblest  and  most  attractive  form. 
 Boldness,  tenderness,  inventiveness,  and  tact,  were 
 combined  in  such  admirable  proportions,  that  a 
 prophet's  functions,  if  always  discharged  in  a  sim- 
 ilar manner  with  equal  discretion,  would  have  been 
 acknowledged  by  all  to  be  purely  beneficent.  In 
 his  interposition  there  is  a  kind  of  ideal  moral 
 beauty.  In  the  schools  of  the  prophets  he  doulit- 
 less  held  the  place  which  St.  Ambrose  afterwards 
 held  in  the  minds  of  priests  for  tlie  exclusion  of  the 
 Emperor  Theodosius  from  the  church  at  Milan  after 
 the  massacre  at  Thessalonica.  It  may  be  added, 
 that  the  following  circunjstances  are  in  accordance 
 with  the  supposition  that  the  compiler  of  the  book 
 of  Samuel  was  connected  with  the  schools  of  the 
 prophets.  The  designation  of  Jehovah  as  the 
 "  Lord  of  Hosts,"  or  God  of  Hosts,  does  not  occur 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  or  in  Joshua,  or  in  Judges;  but 
 it  occurs  in  the  book  of  Samuel  thirteen  times.  In 
 the  book  of  Kings  it  occurs  only  seven  times;  and 
 in  the  book  of  Chronicles,  as  far  as  this  is  an 
 original  or  independent  work,  it  cannot  be  said  to 
 occur  at  all,  for  although  it  is  found  in  three  pas- 
 sages, all  of  these  are  evidently  copied  from  the 
 book  of  Samuel.  (See  1  Chr.  xi.  9  —  in  the  orig- 
 inal, precisely  the  same  words  as  in  2  Sam.  v.  10; 
 and  see  1  Chr.  xvii.  7,  24,  copied  from  2  Sam.  vii.  8, 
 26.)  Now  this  phrase,  though  occurring  so  rarely 
 elsewhere  in  prose,  that  it  occurs  nearly  twice  as 
 often  in  the  book  of  Samuel  as  in  all  the  other 
 historical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  put  to- 
 gether, is  a  very  favorite  phrase  in  some  of  the 
 great  prophetical  writings.  In  Isaiah  it  occurs 
 sixty-two  times  (six  times  only  in  the  chapters  xl.- 
 Ixvi.),  and  in  Jeremiah  sixty-five  times  at  least. 
 Again,  the  predominance  of  the  idea  of  the  pro- 
 phetical office  in  Samuel  is  shown  by  the  very  sub- 
 ordinate place  assigned  in  it  to  the  Levites.  The 
 difference  between  the  Chronicles  and  the  book  of 
 
 «  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  prophet  Ezekiel  never 
 uses  the  expression  "Lord  of  Hosts."  On  the  other 
 hand,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Levites  in  the  undis- 
 puted writings  of  Isaiah. 
 
 b  Tacitus  records  it  as  a  distinguishing  custom  of 
 the  Jews,  "corpora  condere  quain  cremare,  ex  more 
 ^gyptio  "  (Hist.  v.  5).  And  it  is  certain  that,  in  later 
 times,  they  buried  dead  bodies,  and  did  not  burn 
 thom  ;  though,  notwithstanding  the  instance  in  Gen. 
 .  2,  they  did  not,  strictly  speaking,  embalm  them, 
 ike  the  Kgyptians.     And  though  it  may  be  suspected, 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 Samuel  in  this  respect  is  even  more  striking  than 
 their  difference  in  the  use  of  the  expression  "  Ix<rd 
 of  Hosts;  "«  though  in  a  reverse  proportion,  in 
 the  whole  book  of  Samuel  the  Levites  are  men- 
 tioned only  twice  (1  Sam.  vi.  15;  2  Sam.  xv.  24), 
 while  in  Chronicles  they  are  mentioned  about  thirty 
 times  in  the  first  book  alone,  which  contains  the 
 history  of  David's  reign. 
 
 In  conclusion,  it  may  be  observed  that  it  is  very 
 instructive  to  direct  the  attention  to  the  passages 
 in  Samuel  and  the  Chronicles  which  treat  of  the 
 same  events,  and,  generally,  to  the  manner  in  which 
 the  life  of  David  is  treated  in  the  two  histories.  A 
 comparison  of  the  two  works  tends  to  throw  light 
 on  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  mind  at  the  time  when 
 the  book  of  Sanuiel  was  written,  compared  with 
 the  ideas  prevalent  among  the  Jews  .some  hundred 
 years  later,  at  the  time  of  the  compilation  of  the 
 Chronicles.  Some  passages  correspond  almost  pre- 
 cisely word  for  word;  others  agree,  with  slight  but 
 significant  alterations.  In  some  cases  there  are 
 striking  omissions;  in  others  there  are  no  less  re- 
 markable additions.  Without  attempting  to  ex- 
 haust the  subject,  some  of  the  differences  between 
 the  two  histories  will  be  now  briefly  pointed  out; 
 though  at  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind 
 that,  in  drawing  inferences  from  them,  it  would  be 
 useful  to  review  likewise  all  the  differences  between 
 the  Chronicles  and  the  book  of  Kings. 
 
 1.  In  1  Sam.  xxxi.  12,  it  is  stated  that  the  men 
 of  Jabesh  Gilead  took  the  body  of  Saul  and  the 
 bodies  of  his  sons  from  the  wall  of  Ueth-shan,  and 
 came  to  Jabesh  and  burnt  them  there.  The  com- 
 piler of  the  Chronicles  omits  mention  of  the  burn- 
 ing of  their  bodies,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  de- 
 signedly; for  he  says  that  the  valiant  men  of 
 Jabesh  Gilead  buried  the  bones  of  Saul  and  his 
 sons  under  the  oak  in  Jabesh;  whereas  if  there 
 had  been  no  burning,  the  natural  expression  would 
 iiave  been  to  have  spoken  of  burying  their  bodies, 
 instead  of  their  bones.  Perhaps  the  chronicler 
 objected  so  strongly  to  the  burning  of  bodies  that 
 he  purposely  refrained  from  recording  such  a  fact 
 respecting  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons,  even 
 under  the  peculiar  circumstances  connected  with 
 that  incident.'' 
 
 2.  In  the  Chronicles  it  is  assigned  as  one  of  the 
 causes  of  Saul's  defeat  that  he  had  asked  counsel 
 of  one  that  had  a  familiar  spirit,  and  "had  not 
 inquired  of  Jehovah"  (1  Chr.  x.  1.3,  14);  whereas 
 in  Samuel  it  is  expressly  stated  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  6) 
 that  Saul  had  inquired  of  Jehovah  before  he  con- 
 sulted the  witch  of  Kiidor,  but  that  Jehovah  had 
 not  answered  him  either  by  dreams,  or  by  Urim, 
 or  by  prophets. 
 
 3.  The  Chronicles  make  no  mention  of  the  civil 
 war  between  David  and  Ishbosheth  the  son  of  Saul, 
 nor  of  Abner's  changing  sides,  nor  his  assassina- 
 tion by  Joab,  nor  of  the  assassination  of  Ish- 
 bosheth by  Rechab  and  Baanah  (2  Sam.  ii.  8-32, 
 
 it  cannot  be  proved,  that  they  ever  burned  their  dead 
 in  early  times.  The  passage  in  Am.  vi.  10  is  ambig- 
 uous. It  may  merely  refer  to  the  burning  of  bodies, 
 as  a  sanitary  precaution  in  a  plague  ;  but  it  is  not 
 undoubted  that  burning  is-alluded  to      SeeFiirst  «.  v. 
 
 J^^D.  The  burning  for  Asa  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14)  is  dif- 
 ferent from  the  burning  of  his  body.  Compare  Jer. 
 xxxiv.  5 ;  2  Chr.  xxi.  19,  20 ;  Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  3,  §  4; 
 De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33,  §  9. 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 4.  David's  adultery  with  Bath-sheba,  tlie  ex- 
 posure of  Uriah  to  certain  death  by  David's  orders, 
 the  soleiiiii  rebuke  of  Nathan,  and  the  penitence  of 
 David,  are  all  passed  over  in  absolute  silence  in  the 
 (Chronicles  (2  Saui.  xi.,  xii.  1-25). 
 
 5.  In  the  account  given  in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  vi. 
 2-11)  of  David's  removing  the  Ark  from  Kirjath- 
 jearim,  no  special  mention  is  made  of  the  priests 
 or  Levites.  David's  companions  are  said,  genenihv, 
 to  have  been  "all  the  people  that  were  with  him," 
 and  ''  all  the  house  of  Israel  "  are  said  to  have 
 played  before  Jehovah  on  the  occasion  with  all 
 manner  of  musical  instruments.  In  the  corre- 
 sponding passage  of.  the  Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xiii. 
 1-14)  David  is  represented  as  having  publicly  pro- 
 posed to  send  an  invitation  to  the  priests  and 
 Levites  in  their  cities  and  "suburbs,"  and  this  is 
 said  to  have  been  assented  to  by  all  the  congrega- 
 tion. Again,  in  the  preparations  which  are  made 
 for  the  reception  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  at 
 Jerusalem,  nothing  is  said  of  the  Levites  in  Sam- 
 uel; whereas  in  the  Chronicles  David  is  introduced 
 as  saying  that  none  ought  to  carry  the  Ark  of 
 God  but  the  Levites ;  the  special  numbers  of  the 
 Levites  and  of  the  children  of  Aaron  are  there 
 given;  and  names  of  Levites  are  specified  as  hav- 
 ing been  appointed  singers  and  players  on  musical 
 instruments  in  connection  with  the  Ark  (1  Chr. 
 XV.,  xvi.  1-6). 
 
 6.  The  incident  of  David's  dancing  in  public 
 with  all  his  might  before  Jehovah,  when  the  Ark 
 was  brought  into  Jerusalem,  the  censorious  remai'ks 
 of  his  wife  Michal  on  David's  conduct,  David's 
 answer,  and  Michal's  punishment,  are  fully  set 
 forth  in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  vi.  14-23);  but  the  whole 
 subject  is  noticed  in  one  verse  only  in  Chronicles 
 (1  Chr.  XV.  29).  On  the  other  hand,  no  mention 
 is  made  in  Samuel  of  David's  having  composed  a 
 psalm  on  this  great  event;  whereas  in  Chronicles  a 
 psalm  is  set  forth  which  David  is  represented  as 
 having  delivered  into  the  hand  of  Asaph  and  his 
 brethren  on  that  day  (1  Chr.  xvi.  7-30).  Of  this 
 psalm  the  first  fifteen  verses  are  almost  precisely 
 the  same  as  in  Ps.  cv.  1-15.  The  next  eleven 
 verses  are  the  same  as  in  Ps.  xcvi.  1-11;  and  the 
 next  three  concluding  verses  are  in  Ps.  cvi.  1,  47, 
 48.  The  last  verse  but  one  of  this  psalm  (1  Chr. 
 xvi.  35)  appears  to  have  been  written  at  the  time 
 of  the  Captivity. 
 
 7.  It  is  stated  in  Samuel  that  David  in  his  con- 
 quest of  Moab  put  to  death  two  thirds  either  of 
 the  inhabitants  or  of  the  Moabitish  army  (2  Sam. 
 viii.  2).  This  fact  is  omitted  in  Chronicles  (1  Chr. 
 xviii.  2),  though  the  words  used  therein  in  men- 
 tioning the  conquest  are  so  nearly  identical  with 
 the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  passage  in  Sam- 
 uel, that  in  the  A.  V.  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
 translation  of  the  two  texts,  "  And  he  smote  Moab ; 
 and  the  Moabites  became  David's  servants,  and 
 brought  gifts." 
 
 8.  In  2  Sam.  xxi.  19,  it  is  stated  that  "  there 
 was  a  battle  in  Gob  with  the  Philistines,  where 
 
 «  *  Th.  Parker  (De  Wette,  IiUrod.  to  the  O.  T.  ji. 
 263)  speaks  of  "  aa  amusing  mistake  "  in  2  Sam. 
 xxiii.  21,  as  compared  with  1  Chr.  xi.  23.  But  there 
 is  no  foundation  for  this,  unless  it  be  his  own  singular 
 rendering,  "a  respectable  man,"  where  the  Hebrew  is 
 
 •Imply   nW"}^  ti7''W,  "  a  man   of  appearance  "  (= 
 
 mirahitis  visit),  in  the  A.  V.  "a  goodly  man,"  becau.^e 
 
 irecisely  as  defined  in  1  Chr.  xi.  23,  he  was  very  tall, 
 
 a  man  of  stature,  five  cubits  high,"  etc.  H. 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF       2833 
 
 Elhanan  the  son  of  Jaare-oregim,  a  Bethlehemite 
 (in  the  original  Beit  hnl-lac/imi),  slew  Goliath  the 
 Gittite,  the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's 
 beam."  In  the  parallel  passage  in  the  Chronicles 
 (1  Chr.  XX.  5)  it  is  stated  that  "Elhanan  the  son 
 of  Jair  slew  l.achmi  the  brother  of  Goliath  the 
 Gittite."  Thus  Lachmi,  which  in  the  former  case 
 is  merely  part  of  an  adjective  describing  Elhanan's 
 place  of  nativity,  seems  in  the  Chronicles  to  be 
 the  sulisfcintive  name  of  the  man  whom  Elhanan 
 slew,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  LXX.  [Elha- 
 nan, i.  696  f.;   Lahmi,  ii.  1581.] 
 
 9.  In  Sanuiel  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  1)  it  is  stated  that, 
 the  anger  of  Jehovah  having  been  kindled  against 
 Israel,  He  moved  David  against  them  to  give  orders 
 for  t.aking  a  census  of  the  population.  In  the 
 Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xxi.  1)  it  is  mentioned  that 
 David  was  provoked  to  take  a  census  of  the  popu- 
 lation by  Satan.  This  last  is  the  first  and  the 
 only  instance  in  which  the  name  of  Savan  is  intro- 
 duced into  any  historical  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment. In  the  Pentateuch  Jehovah  himself  is 
 represented  as  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart  (Ex.  vii. 
 13),  as  in  this  passage  of  Samuel  He  is  said  to  hav" 
 incited  David  to  give  orders  for  a  census." 
 
 10.  In  the  incidents  connected  with  the  three 
 days'  pestilence  upon  Israel  on  account  of  the  cen- 
 sus, some  facts  of  a  very  remarkable  character  are 
 narrated  in  the  Chronicles,  which  are  not  men- 
 tioned in  the  earlier  history.  Thus  in  Chronicles 
 it  is  stated  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  that  he  stood 
 between  the  earth  and  the  heaven,  having  a  drawn 
 sword  in  his  hand  stretched  over  Jerusalem ;  that 
 afterwards  .lehovah  commanded  the  ano-el,  and 
 that  the  angel  put  up  again  his  sword  into  its 
 sheath*  (1  Chr.  xxi.  15-27).  It  is  further  stated 
 (ver.  20)  that  Oman  and  his  four  sons  hid  them- 
 selves when  they  saw  the  angel:  and  that  when 
 David  (ver.  26)  had  built  an  altar  to  Jehovah,  and 
 oflTered  burnt-offerings  to  Him,  Jehovah  answered 
 him  from  heaven  by  fire  upon  the  altar  of  burnt- 
 offering,  liegarding  all  these  circumstances  there 
 is  absolute  silence  in  the  corresponding  chapter  of 
 Samuel. 
 
 11.  The  Chronicles  make  no  mention  of  the  hor- 
 rible fact  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Samuel  (2  Sam. 
 xxi.  3-9)  that  David  permitted  the  Giljeonites  to 
 sacrifice  seven  sons  of  Saul  to  Jehovah,  as  an  atone- 
 ment for  the  hyuries  which  the  Gibeonites  had  for- 
 merly received  from  Saul.  This  barbarous  act  of 
 superstition,  which  is  not  said  to  have  been  com- 
 manded by  Jehovah  (ver.  1 ),  is  one  of  the  most 
 painful  incidents  in  the  life  of  David,  and  can 
 scarcely  be  explained  otherwise  than  by  the  suppo- 
 sition either  that  David  seized  this  opportunity  to 
 rid  himself  of  seven  possible  rival  claimants  to  the 
 throne,  or  that  he  was,  for  a  while  at  least,  infected 
 by  the  baneful  example  of  the  Phoenicians,  who 
 endeavored  to  avert  the  supposed  wrath  of  tiieir 
 gods  by  human  sacrifices  [Ph<ji;nicia].  It  w.as, 
 perhaps,  wholly  foreign  to  tlie  ideas  of  the  Jews 
 at  the  time  when  the  book  of  Chronicles  was  com- 
 piled. 
 
 b  The  statue  of  the  archangel  Micliael  on  the  top 
 of  the  mausoleum  of  Hadrian  at  Rome  is  in  accordance 
 with  the  same  idea.  In  a  procession  to  St.  Peter's, 
 during  a  pestilence,  Gregory  the  Great  saw  the  arch- 
 angel in  a  vi.sion,  as  he  is  suppo.sed  to  be  represented 
 in  the  statue.  It  is  owing  to  this  tliat  the  fortress 
 subsequently  had  the  name  of  the  Castle  of  St.  Au- 
 gelo.  See  Murray's  Handbook  for  Rome  p.  67,  6th 
 ed.  1862. 
 
2834       SAMUEL,  BOOKS  01 
 
 It  only  remains  to  add,  that  in  the  numerous 
 instances  wherein  there  is  a  close  verbal  agreement 
 between  passages  in  Samuel  and  in  the  Chronicles, 
 the  sound  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  Chroni- 
 cles were  copied  from  Samuel,  and  not  that  both 
 were  copied  from  a  common  original.  In  a  matter 
 of  this  kind,  we  must  proceed  upon  recognized 
 principles  of  criticism.  If  a  writer  of  the  3d  or 
 4th  century  narrated  events  of  h'oman  history  al- 
 most precisely  in  the  words  of  Livy,  no  critic  would 
 hesitate  to  say  that  all  sucli  narratives  were  copied 
 from  l>ivy.  It  would  be  regarded  as  a  very  im- 
 probable hypothesis  that  they  were  copied  from 
 documents  to  which  Livy  and  tiie  later  historian 
 had  equal  access,  especially  when  no  proof  what- 
 ever was  adduced  that  any  such  original  documents 
 were  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  later  historian. 
 The  same  principle  applies  to  the  relation  in  which 
 the  Chronicles  stand  to  the  book  of  Samuel.  There 
 is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the  original  docu- 
 ments, or  any  one  of  them,  on  which  the  book  of 
 Samuel  was  founded,  were  in  existence  at  the  time 
 when  the  Chronicles  were  compiled ;  and  in  the  ab- 
 sence of  such  proof,  it  must  be  taken  for  granted 
 that,  where  there  is  a  close  verbal  correspondence 
 between  the  two  works,  the  compiler  of  the  Chron- 
 icles copied  passages,  more  or  less  closely,  from  the 
 book  of  Sanmel.  At  the  same  time  it  would  lie 
 unreasonable  to  deny,  and  it  would  be  impossilile 
 to  disprove,  that  the  compiler,  in  addition  to  the 
 book  of  Samuel,  made  use  of  other  historical  docu- 
 ments which  are  no  longer  in  existence. 
 
 Lileraiare.  —  The  following  list  of  Commen- 
 taries is  given  by  I)e  Wette:  Serrarii,  Seb. 
 Schmidii,  Jo.  Clerici,  Maur.  Commentt. ;  Jo.  Dru- 
 sii,  Annoliitt.  in  Locos  c/ij/ic.  Jos.,  JucL,  et  Sam.; 
 Victorini  Strigelii,  Coiim.  in  Libr.  Sam.,  Reg., 
 et  Paralipp.,  Lips.  1591,  fol. ;  Casp.  Sanctii, 
 Comm.  m  /  V.  Lib.  Rey.  et  Parnlipj}.,  1624,  fol.; 
 Hensler,  lirltiiiterungen  des  L  B.  Sam.  u.  d.  Sn- 
 lom.  iJeiikspriiclie,  Hamburg,  1795.  The  best 
 modern  Conmientary  seems  to  be  that  of  Thenius, 
 Exeyelisches  llandhuch,  Leipzig,  1842.  In  this 
 work  there  is  an  excellent  Introduction,  and  an 
 interesting  detailed  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  text 
 in  the  Bible  with  the  Transl.ation  of  the  LXX. 
 There  are  no  Commentaries  on  Samuel  in  Eosen- 
 miiller's  great  work,  or  in  the  Compendium  of  his 
 ScliuUn. 
 
 The  date  of  the  composition  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
 uel and  its  authorship  is  discussed  in  all  the  ordi- 
 nary Introductions  to  tlie  Old  Testament  —  such 
 as  those  of  Home,  Hiivernick,  Keil,  De  Wette, 
 which  have  been  frequently  cited  in  this  work.  To 
 these  may  be  added  the  following  works,  which 
 have  appeared  since  the  first  volume  of  this  Dic- 
 tionary was  printed:  Bleek's  Einlntuntj  in  diis 
 Alte  Testament,  Berlin,  1800,  pp.  355-3U8;  Stii- 
 helin's  Specielle  Kinleitung  in  die  Kanonisclien 
 Backer  des  Allen  Testaments,  Elberfeld,  ]S02,  pp. 
 83-105;  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, London  and  Edmburgh,  1802,  pp.  491-536. 
 
 E.  T. 
 
 *  The  alleged  "  mistranslation  "  (see  the  article 
 above)  of  1  Chr.  xxix.  29,  is  of  a  technical  rather 
 than  a  practical  character.  The  same  Hebrew  word 
 is  indeed  rendered  by  different  terms  in  English, 
 but  only  in  order  to  express  more  clearly  the  dif- 
 ferent senses  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  must  nec- 
 essarily be  understood.  "  The  history  of  David  " 
 which  is  written  somewhere,  must  of  course  take 
 history  in  the  sense  of  biography ;  while  "  the  his- 
 
 SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 tory  of  Samuel,"  in  which  it  is  written,  must  be 
 the  written  record.  The  passage  certainly  asserta 
 that  the  prophets  mentioned  did  write  an  account 
 of  I  )avid  and  his  reign  which  was  still  extant  in 
 the  time  of  the  writer  of  the  hook  of  Chronicles. 
 The  question  whether  that  account  was  the  .same 
 with  our  present  books  of  Samuel  tunis  upon  the 
 probability  or  improbability  of  still  another  history 
 (beside  Samuel  and  Chronicles)  having  been  writ- 
 ten of  the  same  events  when  one  from  such  author- 
 ity was  already  in  existence.  Possilily  the  original 
 work  may  have  been  more  full,  and  the  present 
 books  have  been  more  or  less  abridged;  but  in  this 
 case  they  still  remain  substantially,  contempora- 
 neous history. 
 
 The  arguments  given  above  in  favor  of  an  early 
 date  of  these  books  are  entitled  to  more  weiirht 
 than  is  there  allowed  to  them;  especially  tlie  argu- 
 ment from  the  language  does  not  require  to  be  sc 
 much  qualified.  The  instances  of  pure  Hebrew  cited 
 as  belonging  to'the  time  of  the  Captivity,  with  the 
 single  exception  of  Ps.  cxxxvii.  (which  is  too  brief  to 
 .support  the  inference  from  its  language)  all  belong 
 to  a  much  earlier  date.  At  least,  if  the  opinion  ol 
 Gesenius  and  some  other  scholars  be  considered  an 
 offset  to  the  solid  arguments  for  their  earlier  date, 
 the  question  must  be  considered  an  open  one;  and 
 these  books  cannot  therefore  be  legitimately  re^ 
 ferred  to  as  evidence  of  compositions  in  pure  He- 
 brew as  late  as  the  time  of  the  Captivity. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  arguments  in  favor  of  a 
 comparatively  late  date  require  important  qualifica- 
 tion. The  expression  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6,  "  where- 
 fore Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  Judah 
 to  this  day,"  relied  on  to  prove  that  the  book  coula 
 not  have  been  composed  before  the  accession  of 
 Kehoboam  (u.  c.  975),  will  not  sustain  the  infer- 
 ence. Such  a  clause  might  be  a  marginal  note, 
 crept  into  the  text;  but  this  supposition  is  unnec- 
 essary. As  Judah  was  the  leading  tribe,  it  is  not 
 unlikely  that  kings  of  Judah  was  sometimes  used 
 instead  of  kings  of  Israel  to  designate  the  mon- 
 archs,  e\'en  before  the  secession.  The  contrary  is 
 asserted  above:  "  Before  the  secession,  the  designa- 
 tion of  the  kings  was  that  they  were  kings  of  Is- 
 rael." But  not  one  of  the  nine  references  given 
 happens  to  contain  the  exact  expression.  They  are 
 all  "  king  over  Israel,"  or  "  king  over  all  Is- 
 rael," and  this  is  quite  another  matter  when  the 
 question  is  one  of  a  precise  title.  'J'here  are  indeed 
 three  passages  (none  of  which  are  given  above)  in 
 which  the  construction  is  the  same  as  in  the  pres- 
 ent instance,  the  exact  title  "  king  of  Israel  "  being 
 used,  with  the  word  king  in  Hebrew  in  construc- 
 tion with  Israel  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  14,  xxvi.  20,  2  Sam. 
 vi.  20).  But  tliose  instances  of  this  title  along  with 
 one  of  "kings  of  Judah  "  do  not  form  a  sufhcient 
 basis  for  an  induction.  There  is,  too,  a  special 
 reason  why  "  kings  of  Judah  "  should  be  here  used. 
 Ziklag  was  one  of  the  cities  originally  assigngfl  to 
 Judah  (Josh.  xv.  31),  and  subsequently  allotted 
 out  of  his  territory  to  Simeon  (xix.  5).  When  it 
 came  back  from  the  Philistines  as  the  private  prop- 
 erty of  David  and  his  descendants,  it  did  not  be- 
 long to  the  kings  of  Israel  as  such,  but  oidy  to 
 those  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  particularly,  it  did 
 not  pass  to  the  inheritance  of  Simeon.  The  first 
 king  was  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin ;  then  for  two 
 years  his  son,  of  course  a  Benjamite,  reigned  over 
 "  all  Israel "  (1  Sam.  ii.  9),  while  David  reigned 
 only  over  Judah ;  during  five  more  years  David 
 continued  to  reign  over  Judah  only,  while  the  rec- 
 
SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 
 
 ord  is  silent  as  to  the  sovereignty  over  the  other 
 tribes ;  and  then  at  hist  David  became  liing  over  all. 
 Certauily  it  was  natural  in  his  reign  to  speak  of 
 Ziklag  as  pertaining  "  unto  the  kings  of  Judah." 
 
 It  is  truly  said  that  from  certain  expressions  in 
 the  book  "  it  is  not  certain  that  the  writer  lived 
 more  than  eighty  years  after  the  incidents  to  which 
 he  alludes."  It  should  have  been  added  that  these 
 expressions  furnish  no  probable  inference  that  the 
 writer  lived  more  than  twenty  years  after  the 
 events. 
 
 The  "  various  traditions  respecting  the  manner 
 in  which  Saul  first  became  acquainted  with  David 
 (1  Sam.  xvi.  14-23,  xvii.  55-58),  respecting  the 
 manner  of  Saul's  death  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2-0,  8-1-3, 
 2  Sam.  i.  2-12),"  are  easily  shown  to  be  quite  har- 
 monious. It  is  evident  that  the  passaije  in  1  Sam. 
 xvi.  18-2-3  is  chronologically  later  than  that  in 
 xvii.  55-58  (or  rather,  xvii.  55-xviii.  9);  for  in  the 
 latter  David  is  represented  as  an  unknown  stripling, 
 while  in  the  former  (ver.  18)  he  is  "  a  mighty  val- 
 iant man,  and  a  man  of  war,  and  prudent  in  mat- 
 ters," and  accordingly  in  some  chronological  ar- 
 rangements, as  in  that  of  Towiisend,  the  passage  is 
 actually  transposed,  and  there  is  then  seen  to  be  no 
 inconsistency  wlwtever  in  the  story.  In  the  nar- 
 rative itself,  however,  the  former  passage  is  a  nar- 
 ration by  anticipation  in  order  to  complete  without 
 interruption  the  narrative  begun  in  ver.  14. 
 
 The  other  supposed  inconsistency  depends  en- 
 tirely upon  the  assumed  truthfulness  of  an  Amalek- 
 ite  who,  according  to  his  own  story,  had  just  com- 
 mitted a  great  crime.  His  flibrication  may  have 
 been  "  clumsy  and  improbable,"  as  lies  are  apt  to 
 be;  or  it  may  have  been,  under  the  circumstances, 
 clever.  His  obje^'t  was  to  curry  fa\or  with  David 
 (cf.  2  Sam.  iv.  10),  and  nothing  seemed  to  him 
 more  to  the  purpose  than  to  say  that  in  Saul's  ex- 
 tremity he  had  himself  actually  dispatched  him. 
 This  he  had  to  reconcile  with  facts  as  best  he 
 could. 
 
 The  theory  of  '•  a  compilation  "  has  surely  but 
 slight  support  in  the  mention  of  Saul's  having  been 
 filled  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy  at  the  only  times 
 when  he  was  brought  into  close  contact  with  the 
 company  of  the  prophets,  and  of  his  having  twice 
 fallen  into  the  power  of  David.  There  is  nothing 
 surprising  in  the  fact  that  both  these  events  shoidd 
 have  occurred  twice  in  the  life  of  Saul;  and  even 
 were  the  accounts  of  them  given  in  separate  books, 
 they  are  yet  so  clearly  distinguished  in  time  and  in 
 difFeritig  circumstances,  that  we  should  still  be 
 compelled  to  regard  them  as  separate  events. 
 
 There  is  nothing  then  to  forbid,  but  much  to  fa- 
 vor, the  supposition  that  the  earlier  part  of  the 
 books  of  Samuel  was  written  by  the  prophet  of 
 that  name,  and  the  later  parts  by  his  successors  in 
 the  prophetic  office,  Nathan'  and  Gad ;  or  at  le.ist 
 that  they  wrote  the  original  history,  of  which  the 
 present  books,  if  an  aliridgment  at  all,  must  have 
 been  an  authorized  abridgment,  since  none  other 
 would  have  been  likely  to  supplant  the  original. 
 
 In  comparing  the  narrative  of  Samuel  with  that 
 of  Chronicles,  eleven  points  of  diflference  are  men- 
 tioned, two  or  three  of  which  are  worthy  of  further 
 attention.  The  first  instance  may  well  be  classed 
 among  tho.se  "undesigned  coincidences"  which  so 
 beautifully  illustrate  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
 Scripture  narratives.  In  Chronicles  no  mention  is 
 nadt  of  the  burning  of  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his 
 Vns  recorded  by  Samuel;  yet  the  fact  is  recog- 
 nized in  saying  that  the  men  of  Jabesh   Gilead 
 
 SANBALLAT  2835 
 
 buried  —  not  their  bodies,  but  only  —  their  hones. 
 In  the  second  instance  both  accounts  agree  in  the 
 fact,  although  there  is  a  superficial  vei'bal  opposi- 
 tion in  the  manner  of  stating  it.  Both  assert  that 
 Saul  did  not  obtain  counsel  of  the  Lord,  Samuel 
 only  mentioning  that  he  vainly  attempted  to  do  so. 
 The  fact  is  thus  expressed  by  Samuel:  he  inquired, 
 but  obtained  no  answer  because  of  his  wicked  he.art, 
 which  led  him  into  the  further  sin  of  inquiring  of 
 the  witch  of  Endor;  the  same  fact  is  more  briefly 
 expressed  in  Chronicles  by  saying  that  he  sinned  in 
 not  inquiring  of  the  Lord  («.  e.  in  acting  without 
 his  coun.sel),  but  seeking  counsel  of  the  witch. 
 Most  of  the  other  instances  are  merely  the  fuller 
 relation  of  events  by  one  or  other  of  the  writers, 
 showing  that  the  author  of  (Chronicles  had  access 
 to  other  sources  of  information  in  addition  to  our 
 present  books  of  Samuel,  and  that  he  did  not  think 
 it  necessary  to  transcribe  everything  he  found  in 
 that  book. 
 
 We  dissent  from  the  representation,  under  the 
 11th  head,  of  the  event  narrated  in  2  Sam.  xxi. 
 3-9.  as  a  human  sacrifice  to  .lehovah.  It  was  such 
 in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  destruction  of  the 
 Canaanites,  or  any  other  guilty  people,  was  a  sac- 
 rifice. Saul  had  broken  the  ancient  treaty  with 
 the  Gibeonites,  and  for  this  sin  God  afllicted  the 
 land.  To  remove  the  famine  David  oft'ered  the 
 Gibeonites  any  .satisfaction  they  might  demand, 
 and  they  chose  to  have  seven  of  Saul's  descendants 
 given  up  to  them.  These  they  hung  "  up  unto  the 
 Lord  in  Gibeah,"  not  with  the  remotest  idea  of  a 
 sacrifice  to  Him;  but  as  a  public  token  that  they 
 were  themselves  appea.sed.  If  this  punishment  of 
 Saul's  sins  upon  his  descendants  incidentally  re- 
 moved a  danger  from  David's  throne,  it  was  an  ad- 
 vantage not  of  his  own  devising,  but  brought  about 
 by  the  sin  and  cruelty  of  Saul  rankling  in  the 
 minds  of  the  Gibeonites.  F.  G. 
 
 *  Recent  Literature.  —  On  the  books  of  Samuel, 
 we  may  also  refer  to  Palfrey's  Lect.  on  tlie  Jewish 
 Scnplures,n.  23e>-300,  iii.  1-43  (Boston,  184t)-52); 
 Niigelsbach,  art.  Samuelis,  Biiclier,  in  Ilerzog's  Reid- 
 Kncykl.  xiii.  400-412  (Gotha,  1860);  and  Kuenen, 
 Hist.  crit.  des  livres  de  V  Ancien  Test.,  i.  374-399, 
 567-580  (Paris,  1866);  —  Ewald,  Gesch.des  Volkes 
 Israel,  3^  Ausg.,  Bde.  ii.,  iii.;  and  Stanley,  IJiit.  oj 
 the  Jewish  Church,  \oh.\.,  n.  The  latest  fomme?J- 
 taries  are  by  Keil,  Die  Biicher  Samztels,  Leipz. 
 1864  (Theil  ii.  Bd.  ii.  of  the  Bibl.  Comm.  by  Keil 
 and  Delitzsch),  Eng.  trans.  Edinb.  1866  (Clark's 
 Fur.  Theol.  Libr.),  and  ^\^ordsworth,  Holy  Bible, 
 vilh  Notes  and  Introductions,  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  (Lond. 
 1866).  A  new  edition  of  Thenius's  conmientary 
 (K'urzgef.  exeg.  Handb.  iv.)  was  published  in  1864. 
 Other  works  illustrating  these  books  are  referred  to 
 under  Chronicles  and  Kings.  A. 
 
 SANABAS'SAR  {-Zatiavdaaapos;  A\e\.  2a- 
 va^dcrcrapos:  Salmanasarus).  Shesiib.^zzar 
 (1  Esdr.  ii.  12,  15;  comp.  Ezr.  i.  8,  11). 
 
 SANABAS'SARUS  (■2.a^avd(r(Tapos;  Alex. 
 'Zaua^d(r(Tapos-  Salmrmasarus).  Shkshbazzar 
 (1  Esdr.  vi.  18,  20;  comp.  Ezr.  v.  14,  16). 
 
 SAN'ASIB  iS.avaai^;  [Vat.  Soj/aySeiy;  Aid. 
 Saj/ao-eijS;]  Alex.  Avaaeifi-  Eliosib).  The  sons 
 of  .leddu,  the  son  of  Jesus,  are  reckoned  "  among 
 the  sons  of  Sanasib,"  as  priests  who  returned  with 
 Zorobabel  (1  Esdr.  v.  24). 
 
 SANBAL'LAT  (lob^^D  :  'S.ava&a.wdT; 
 [FA.  :S,ava^a\aT,  etc. :]  SanabnUnt).  Of  U'lcer- 
 tain  etymology ;  according  to  Gesenius  after  "Voa 
 
2836 
 
 SANBALLAT 
 
 Bohlen,  meaning  in  Sanskrit  "  giving  strength  to 
 the  army,"  hut  according  to  Fiirst  "  a  chestnut 
 tree."  A  Moabite  of  Horonaim,  as  appears  by  his 
 designation  "  Sanballat  the  Horonite  "  (Nell.  ii. 
 10,  19,  xiii.  28).  All  that  we  know  of  him  from 
 Scripture  is  that  he  had  apparently  some  civil  or 
 mMitary  command  in  Samaria,  in  the  service  of 
 Artaxerxes  (Neh.  iv.  2),  and  that,  from  the  mo- 
 ment of  Nehemiah's  arrival  in  Judrea,  he  set  him- 
 self to  oppose  every  measure  for  the  welfare  of  Je- 
 rusalem, and  was  a  constant  adversary  to  the 
 Tirshatha.  His  companions  in  this  hostility  were 
 Tobiah  the  Ammonite,  and  Geshem  the  Arabian 
 (Neh.  ii.  19,  iv.  7).  For  the  details  of  their  oppo- 
 sition the  reader  is  referred  to  the  articles  Nehe- 
 wiAH  and  Nehejiiah,  Book  of,  and  to  Neh.  vi., 
 where  the  enmity  between  Sanballat  and  the  Jews 
 is  brought  out  in  the  strongest  colors.  The  only 
 other  incident  in  his  life  is  his  alliance  with  the 
 high-priest's  family,  by  the  marriage  of  his  daugh- 
 ter with  one  of  the  grandsons  of  Eliashib,  which, 
 from  the  similar  connection  formed  by  Tobiah  the 
 Ammonite  (Neh.  xiii.  4),  appears  to  have  l)een  part 
 of  a  settled  policy  concerted  between  Eliashil)  and 
 the  Samaritan  faction.  The  expulsion  from  the 
 priesthood  of  the  guilty  son  of  Joiada  by  Nehemiah 
 must  have  still  further  widened  the  breach  between 
 him  and  Sanballat,  and  between  the  two  parties 
 in  the  .lewish  state.  Here,  however,  the  Scrijitural 
 narrative  ends  —  owing,  probably,  to  Nehemiah's 
 return  to  Persia  —  and  with  it  likewise  our  knowl- 
 edge of  Sanballat. 
 
 But  on  turning  to  the  pages  of  Josephus  a 
 wholly  new  set  of  actions,  in  a  totally  different 
 time,  is  brought  before  us  in  coimection  with  San- 
 ballat, while  his  name  is  entirely  omitted  in  the  ac- 
 count there  given  of  the  government  of  Nehemiah, 
 which  is  placed  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes.  Josephus, 
 after  interposing  the  whole  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus  between  the  death  of  Nehemiah  and 
 the  transactions  in  which  Sanballat  took  part,  and 
 utterly  ignoring  the  very  existence  of  Darius  Nothus, 
 Artaxerxes  iMnemoii,  Ochus,  etc.,  jumps  at  once  to 
 the  reign  of  "  Darius  the  last  king,"  and  tells  us 
 (Ani.  xi.  7,  §  2)  that  Sanballat  was  his  officer  in 
 Samaria,  that  he  was  a  Cuthean,  /.  e.  a  Samaritan, 
 by  birth,  and  that  he  gave  his  daughter  Nicaso  in 
 marriage  to  JNIanasseh,  the  brother  of  the  high- 
 priest  Jaddua,  and  consequently  the  fourth  in  de- 
 scent from  Eliashib,  who  was  high-priest  in  the 
 time  of  Nehemiah.  He  then  relates  that  on  the 
 threat  of  his  brother  Jaddua  and  the  other  Jews  to 
 expel  him  from  the  priesthood  unless  he  divorced 
 his  wife,  Manasseh  stated  the  case  to  Sanballat,  who 
 thereupon  promised  to  use  his  influence  with  king 
 Uarius,  not  only  to  give  him  Sanballat's  govern- 
 ment, but  to  sanction  the  building  of  a  rival  temple 
 on  Mount  Gerizim,  of  which  JManasseh  should  be 
 the  high-priest.  Manasseh  on  this  agreed  to  retain 
 his  wife  and  join  Sanballat's  faction,  which  was  fur- 
 ther strengthened  by  the  accession  of  all  those 
 priests  and  Levites  (and  they  were  many)  who  had 
 taken  strange  wives.  But  just  at  this  time  hap- 
 pened the  invasion  of  Alexander  the  Great;  and 
 
 SANDAL 
 
 Sanballat,  with  7,000  men,  joined  him,  and  re- 
 nounced his  allegiance  to  Darius  (Ant.  xi.  8,  §  4). 
 Being  favorably  received  by  the  conqueror,  he  took 
 the  opportunity  of  speaking  to  him  in  behalf  of 
 Manasseh.  He  represented  to  him  how  much  it  was 
 for  his  interest  to  divide  the  strength  of  the  Jew- 
 ish nation,  and  how  many  there  were  who  wished 
 for  a  temple  in  Samaria;  and  so  obtained  Alexan- 
 der's permission  to  build  the  temple  on  Mount 
 Gerizim,  and  make  Manasseh  the  hereditary  high- 
 priest.  Shortly  after  this,  Sanballat  died  ;  but  the 
 temple  on  IMount  Cierizim  remained,  and  the  She- 
 chemites,  as  they  were  called,  continued  atso  as  a 
 permanent  schism,  which  was  continually  fed  by  all 
 the  lawless  and  disaffected  Jews.  Such  is  Josephus' 
 account.  If  there  is  any  truth  in  it,  of  course  the 
 Sanballat  of  whom  he  speaks  is  a  different  person 
 from  the  Sanballat  of  Nehemiah,  who  flourished 
 fully  one  hundred  years  earlier;  but  when  we  put 
 together  Josephus'  silence  concerning  a  Sanballat 
 in  Nehemiah's  time,  and  the  many  coincidences  in 
 the  lives  of  the  Sanballat  of  Nehemiah  and  that  of 
 Josephus,  together  with  the  inconsistencies  in  Jose- 
 phus' narrative  (pointed  out  by  Prideaux,  Connect. 
 i.  466,  288,  290),  and  its  disagreement  with  what 
 Eusebius  tells  of  the  relations  of  Alexander  with 
 Samaria"  {Chrun.  Ooi.  lil).  post.  p.  346),  and  re- 
 member how  apt  Josephus  is  to  follow  any  narra- 
 tive, no  matter  how  anachronistic  and  inconsistent 
 with  Scripture,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  con- 
 cluding that  his  account  of  Sanballat  is  not  histor- 
 ical. It  is  doubtless  taken  from  some  apocryphal 
 romance,  now  lost,  in  which  the  writer,  living  under 
 the  empire  of  the  Greeks,  and  at  a  time  when  the 
 enmity  of  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  was  at  its 
 height,''  chose  the  downfall  of  the  Persian  empire 
 for  the  epoch,  and  Sanballat  for  the  ideal  instru- 
 ment, of  the  consolidation  of  the  Samaritan  Church 
 and  the  erection  of  the  temple  on  Gerizim.  To  bor- 
 row events  from  some  Scripture  narrative  and  intro- 
 duce some  Scriptural  personage,  without  any  regard 
 to  chronology  or  other  propriety,  was  the  regular 
 method  of  such  apocryphal  books.  See  1  Esdras, 
 apocryphal  Esther,  apocryphal  additions  to  the 
 book  of  Daniel,  and  the  articles  on  them,  and  the 
 story  inserted  by  the  LXX.  after  2  K.  xii  24,  &c., 
 with  the  observations  on  it  in  the  art.  Kings,  vol.  ii. 
 p.  1550.  To  receive  as  historical  Josephus'  narra- 
 tive of  the  building  of  the  Samaritan  temple  by 
 Sanballat,  circumstantial  as  it  is  in  its  account  of 
 Manasseh's  relationship  to  Jaddua,  and  Sanballat's 
 intercourse  with  both  Darius  Codomanus  and  Alex- 
 ander the  Great,  and  yet  to  transplant  it,  as  Pri- 
 deaux does,  to  the  time  of  Darius  Nothus  (b.  c. 
 409),  seems  scarcely  compatible  with  sound  criti- 
 cism. For  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  see 
 the  article  Nehemiah,  Book  of,  iii.  2096;  Pri- 
 deaux, Connect,  i.  395-396 ;  Geneal.  of  our  Lord, 
 p.  323,  &c. ;  Mill's  ViiuHc.  of  our  Lord's  Geneal. 
 p.  165;  Hales'  Analys.  ii.  534.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 *   SANCTUARY.     [Tabeenacle  ;   Tem- 
 ple.] 
 
 SANDAL  (bl'?  :  i,w6Svixa,  (rctvSJi\iov).  The 
 
 a  He  says  that  Alexander  appointed  AnJromachus 
 governor  of  Judaea  and  the  neighboring  districts  ;  that 
 the  Samaritans  murdered  him  ;  and  that  Alexander  on 
 his  return  took  Samaria  in  revenge,  and  settled  a  col- 
 my  of  Macedonians  in  it,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sa- 
 maria retired  to  Sichem. 
 
 b  Such  a  time,  e.  g.,  as  when  the  book  of  Ecclesias- 
 
 ticus  was  written,  in  which  we  read  (ch.  1.  25,  26), 
 "  There  be  two  manner  of  nations  which  mine  lieart 
 abhorreth,  and  the  third  is  no  nation  :  they  that  sit 
 upon  the  mountain  of  Samaria,  and  they  that  dwell 
 among  the  Philistines,  and  that  foolish  people  that 
 dwell  in  Sichem." 
 
SANDAL 
 
 sandal  appears  to  have  been  the  article  ordinarily 
 used  by  the  Hebrews  for  protecting  tlie  feet.  It 
 consisted  simply  of  a  sole  attached  to  the  foot  by 
 thongs.  The  Hebrew  term  na'al "  implies  such  an 
 article,  its  proper  sense  being  that  of  confining  or 
 shutting  in  the  foot  with  thongs:  we   have  also 
 
 express  notice  of  the  thong  *  (TfTItt^:  iixds-  A.V. 
 "shoe-latchet")  in  several  passages  (Gen.  xiv.  '2.'^; 
 Is.  V.  27;  Mark  i.  7).  The  Greek  term  vTr6Sr)fxa 
 properly  applies  to  the  sandal  exclusively,  as  it 
 means  what  is  bound  unchr  the  foot;  but  no  stress 
 can  be  laid  on  the  use  of  the  term  by  the  Alexan- 
 drine writers,  as  it  was  applied  to  any  covering  of 
 the  foot,  even  to  the  military  calitjn  of  the  Rouians 
 (.Joseph.  B.  J.  vi.  1,  §  8).  A  similar  observation 
 applies  to  craySaKiou,  which  is  used  in  a  general, 
 and  not  in  its  strictly  classical  sense,  and  was 
 adopted  in  a  Hebraized  form  by  the  Talmudists. 
 We  have  no  description  of  the  sandal  in  the  Bible 
 itself,  but  the  deficiency  can  be  supplied  from  col- 
 lateral soiM'ces.  Tlius  we  learn  from  the  Talmud- 
 ists that  the  materials  employed  in  the  construction 
 of  the  sole  were  either  leather,  felt,  cloth,  or  wood 
 (Mishn.  Jebani.  12,  §§  1,  2),  and  that  it  was  occa- 
 
 Egyptian  Sandals. 
 
 sionally  shod  with  iron  (Sabb.  6,  §  2).  In  Egypt 
 various  fibrous  substances,  such  as  palm  leaves  and 
 papyrus  stalks,  were  used  in  addition  to  leather 
 (Herod,  ii.  37;  "Wilkinson,  ii.  3o2,  33-3),  while  in 
 Assyria,  wood  or  leather  was  employed  (Layard, 
 Nln.  ii.  323,  324).  In  Egypt  the  sandals  were 
 usually  turned  up  at  the  toe  like  our  skates,  though 
 other  forms,  rounded  and  pointed,  are  also  exhib- 
 ited. In  Assyria  the  heel  and  the  side  of  the  foot 
 were  encased,  and  sometimes  the  sandal  consisted 
 of  little  else  than  this.  This  does  not  appear  to 
 have  been  the  case  in  Palestine,  for  a  heel-strap  was 
 essential  to  a  proper  sandal  (Jebnm.  12,  §  1). 
 Great  attention  was  paid  by  the  ladies  to  their  san- 
 dals; they  were  made  of  the  skin  of  an  animal 
 named  tuchnsh  (Ez.  xvi.  10),  whether  a  hyena  or 
 a  seal  (A.  V.  "  badger  ")  is  doubtful:  the  skins  of 
 a  fish  (a  species  of  HaUcore)  are  used  for  this  pur- 
 
 «  In  the  A.  V.  this  term  is  invariably  rendered 
 "  shoes.'"  There  is,  however,  little  reason  to  think 
 that  the  Jews  really  wore  shoes,  and  the  expressions 
 which  Carpzov  {Apparat.  pp.  781,  782)  quotes  to  prove 
 that  they  did  —  (namely,  "  put  the  blood  of  war  in 
 his  shoes,"  1  K.  ii.  5  ;  "  make  men  go  over  in  shoes," 
 Is.  xi.  15),  are  equally  adapted  to  the  sandal  —  the 
 first  signifying  that  the  blood  was  spriukled  on  the 
 thong  of  the  sandal,  the  second  that  men  should  cross 
 the  river  on  foot  instead  of  in  boats.  The  shoes  found 
 in  Egypt  probatly  belonged  to  Greeks  (Wilkinson,  ii. 
 383). 
 
 SANDAL  2837 
 
 pose  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Hes. 
 i.  116).  The  thongs  were  handsomely  embroidered 
 (Cant.  vii.  1;  Jud.  x.  4,  xvi.  9),  as  were  those  of 
 the  Greek  ladies  (Did.  of  Ant.  s.  v.  "  Sanda- 
 lium  '").  Sandals  were  worn  by  all  classes  of  soci- 
 ety in  Palestine,  even  by  the  very  poor  (.-Vm.  viii. 
 6),  and  both  the  sandal  and  the  thong  or  shoe- 
 latchet  were  so  cheap  and  common,  that  they  passed 
 into  a  proverb  for  the  most  insignificant  thing  (Gen. 
 
 Assyrian  Sandals.     (From  Layard,  ii.  234.) 
 
 xiv.  23;  Ecclus.  xlvi.  19).  They  were  not,  how- 
 ever, worn  at  all  periods;  they  were  dispensed  with 
 in-doors,  and  were  only  put  on  by  persons  about  to 
 undertake  some  business  away  from  their  homes; 
 such  as  a  military  expedition  (Is.  v.  27 ;  Eph.  vi. 
 15),  or  a  journey  (Ex.  xii.  11;  Josh.  ix.  5,  13; 
 Acts  xii.  8):  on  such  occasions  persons  carried  an 
 extra  pair,  a  practice  which  our  Lord  objected  to  as 
 far  as  the  Apostles  were  concerned  (Matt.  x.  10; 
 comp.  IMark  vi.  9,  and  the  expression  in  Luke  x.  4, 
 "  do  not  carry,"  which  harmonizes  the  passages). 
 An  extra  pair  might  in  certain  cases  be  needed,  as 
 the  soles  were  liable  to  be  soon  worn  out  (.Josh.  ix. 
 .5),  or  the  thongs  to  be  broken  (Is.  v.  27).  During 
 meal-times  the  feet  were  undoubtedly  uncovered,  as 
 implied  in  Luke  vii.  38 ;  John  xiii.  5,  6,  and  in  the 
 exception  speci.iUy  made  in  reference  to  the  Paschal  • 
 feast  (ICx.  xii.  11):  the  same  custom  must  have 
 prevailed  wherever  reclining  at  meals  was  practiced 
 (comp.  Plato,  Si/inj)(is.  p.  213).  It  was  a  mark  of 
 reverence  to  cast  off  the  shoes  in  approaching  a 
 place  or  person  of  eminent  sanctity:  <^  hence  the 
 conmiand  to  Moses  at  the  bush  (Ex.  iii.  5)  and  to 
 Joshua  in  the  presence  of  the  angel  (Josh.  v.  15). 
 In  deference  to  these  injunctions  the  priests  are 
 said  to  have  conducted  their  ministrations  in  the 
 Temple  barefoot  (Theodoret,  ad  Ex.  iii.  qucest.  7), 
 and  the  Talmudists  even  forbade  any  person  to  pass 
 through  the  Temple  with  shoes  on  (Mishn.  Burach. 
 9,  §  5).  This  reverential  act  was  not  peculiar  to 
 the  Jews:  in  ancient  times  we  have  instances  of  it 
 in  the  worship  of  Cybele  at  Rome  (Prudent.  Pen's. 
 154),  in  the  worship  of  Isis  as  represented  in  a  pic- 
 ture at  Herculaneuni  (Ant.  li Jircol.  ii.  320),  and 
 in  the  practice  of  the  Egyptian  priests,  according 
 
 *  The  terms  applied  to  the  removal  of  the  shoe 
 (ybn,  Dent.  XXV.  10  ;  Is.  xx.  2  ;  and  T^W,  Ruth 
 iv.  7)  imply  that  the  thongs  were  either  so  numerous 
 or  so  broad  as  almost  to  cover  the  top  of  the  foot. 
 
 c  It  is  worthy  of  observation  that  the  term  used 
 for  "  putting  off"  the  shoes  on  these  occasions  is  pe- 
 culiar (vli^S),  and  conveys  the  notion  of  violenc* 
 and  haste. 
 
2838  SANHEDRIM 
 
 to  Sil.  Ital.  iii.  28.  In  modern  times  we  may  com- 
 pare the  similar  practice  of  the  Moliammedans  of 
 Palestine  before  entering  a  mosque  (Robinson's 
 Researches,  ii.  36),  and  particularly  before  entering 
 the  Kaaba  at  Mecca  (Burckhardfs  Arabvi,  i-  270), 
 of  the  Yezidis  of  Mesopotamia  before  entering  the 
 tomb  of  their  patron  saint  (Layard's  Nin.  i.  282), 
 and  of  the  Samaritans  as  they  tread  the  summit  of 
 Mount  Gerizim  (Robinson,  ii.  278).  The  practice 
 of  the  modern  Egyptians,  who  take  off  their  shoes 
 before  stepping  on  to  the  carpeted  leetcdn,  appears 
 to  be  dictated  by  a  feeling  of  reverence  rather  than 
 cleanliness,  that  spot  being  devoted  to  prayer  (Lane, 
 i.  35).  It  was  also  an  indication  of  violent  emo- 
 tion, or  of  mourning,  if  a  person  appeared  barefoot 
 in  public  (2  Sam.  xv.  30;  Is.  xs.  2:  Ez.  xxiv.  17, 
 23).  This  again  was  held  in  common  witl^  other 
 nations,  as  instanced  at  the  funeral  of  Augustus 
 (Suet.  An(/.  100),  and  on  the  occasion  of  the  sol- 
 emn processions  which  derived  their  name  of  Nudi- 
 pedalta  from  this  featiu-e  (Tertull.  Ajiol.  40).  To 
 carry  or  to  unloose  a  person's  sandal  was  a  menial 
 office  betokening  great  inferiority  on  the  part  of  the 
 person  performing  it;  it  was  hence  selected  by 
 John  the  Baptist  to  express  his  relation  to  the 
 Messiah  (Matt.  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  7;  John  i.  27; 
 Acts  xiii.  25).  The  expression  in  Ps.  Ix.  8,  cviii. 
 9,  "  over  Edom  will  I  cast  out  my  shoe,"  evidently 
 signifies  the  subjection  of  that  country,  but  the 
 exact  point  of  the  comparison  is  obscure;  for  it  may 
 refer  either  to  the  custom  of  handing  a  sandal  to  a 
 slave,  or  to  that  of  claiming  possession  of  a  property 
 by  planting  the  foot  on  it,  or  of  acquiring  it  by  the 
 symbolic  action  of  casting  the  shoe,  or  again,  Edom 
 may  be  regarded  in  the  still  more  subordinate  posi- 
 tion of  a  shelf  on  which  the  sandals  were  rested 
 while  their  owner  bathed  his  feet.  The  use  of  the 
 shoe  in  the  transfer  of  property  is  noticed  in  Ruth 
 iv.  7,  8,  and  a  similar  significancy  was  attached  to 
 the  act  in  connection  with  the  repudiation  of  a  Le- 
 virate  marriage  (Deut.  xxv.  9).  Shoe-making,  or 
 rather  strap-making  (*.  e.  making  the  straps  for  the 
 sandals),  was  a  recognized  trade  among  the  Jews 
 (aiishn.  Pesach.  4,  §  6).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SAN'HEDRIM    (accurately  Sanhedrin, 
 
 "J''"1"Tn3P,  formed  from  a-vufSfjioV-  the  attempts 
 of  the  Rabbins  to  find  a  Hebrew  etymology  are 
 idle;  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Chnld.  s.  v.),  called  also  in  the 
 Talmud  ike  (jrecit  Sanhedrin,  the  supreme  council 
 of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 
 
 earlier.     In  the  Mishna  it  is  also  styled  ^"""^  i"^^?, 
 
 Beth  Din,  "  house  of  judgment." 
 
 1.  The  ori(/in  of  this  assembly  is  traced  in  the 
 Mishna  (Sanhedr.  i.  G)  to  the  seventy  elders 
 whom  Moses  was  directed  (Num.  xi.  16,  17)  to 
 associate  with  him  in  the  government  of  the  Israel- 
 ites, 'lliis  body  continued  to  exist,  according  to 
 the  Rabbinical  accounts,  down  to  the  close  of  the 
 Jewish  commonwealth.  Among  Christian  writers 
 Schickhard,  Isaac  Casaubon,  Salmasius,  Selden, 
 and  Grotius  have  held  the  same  view.  Since  the 
 time  of  Vorstius,  who  took  the  ground  {De  Syn- 
 hed>-iis,  §§  25-40)  that  the  alleged  identity  between 
 he  assembly  of  seventy  elders  mentioned  in  Num. 
 ;i.  16,  17,  and  the  Sanhedrim  which  existed  in 
 the  later  period  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  was 
 simply  a  conjecture  of  the  Rabbins,  and  that  there 
 ire  no  traces  of  such  a  tribunal  in  Deut.  xvii.  8, 
 10,  nor  in  the  age  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges,  nor 
 during  the  reign  of  the  kings,  it  has  been  gener- 
 
 SANHEDRIM 
 
 ally  admitted  that  the  tribunal  established  by 
 Moses  was  probaljly  temporary,  and  did  not  con- 
 tinue to  exist  after  the  Israelites  had  entered  Pal- 
 estine (Winer,  Realworlerb.  art.  "  Synedrium  "). 
 
 In  the  lack  of  definite  historical  information  as 
 to  the  establishment  of  the  Sanhedrim,  it  can  only 
 be  said  in  general  that  the  Greek  etymology  of  the 
 name  seems  to  point  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
 Macedonian  supremacy  in  Palestine.  Livy  ex- 
 pressly states  (xiv.  32),  "  pronuntiatum  quod  atl 
 statum  Macedonife  pertinebat,  senatores,quos  fijne- 
 dros  vocant,  legendos  esse,  quorum  eonsilio  respub- 
 lica  administraretur."  The  fact  that  Herod,  when 
 procurator  of  Galilee,  was  summoned  beftti-e  the 
 Sanhedrim  (b.  c.  47)  on  the  ground  that  in  put- 
 ting men  to  death  he  had  usurped  the  authority 
 of  the  body  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  9,  §  4)  shows  that 
 it  then  possessed  much  power  and  was  not  of  very 
 recent  origin.  If  the  yipovaia  rwv  'lovSaiaiv, 
 in  2  Mace.  i.  10,  iv.  44,  xi.  27,  designates  the  San- 
 hedrim —  as  it  probably  does  —  this  is  the  earliest 
 historical  trace  of  its  existence.  On  these  grounds 
 the  opinion  of  Vorstius,  Witsius,  Winer,  Keil, 
 and  others,  may  be  regarded  as  probable,  that  the 
 Sanhedrim  described  in  the  Talmud  arose  after 
 the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  and  in  the 
 time  of  the  Seleucida;  or  of  the  Hasmonean 
 princes. 
 
 In  the  silence  of  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  Mishna, 
 respecting  the  constitution  of  the  Sanhedrim,  we 
 are  obliged  to  depend  upon  the  few  incidental  no- 
 tices in  the  New  Testament.  From  these  we  gather 
 that  it  consisted  of  apx^epels,  chief  priests,  or  the 
 heads  of  the  twenty-ibur  classes  into  which  the 
 priests  were  di\ided  (including  probably  those  who 
 had  been  high-priests),  irpea-^vrepoi,  elders,  men  of 
 age  and  experience,  and  ypa^ijxaTiLs,  scribes,  law- 
 yers, or  those  learned  in  the  Jewish  law  (Matt, 
 xxvi.  57,  59;  Mark  xv.  1;  Luke  xxii.  66;  Acts 
 v.  21). 
 
 2.  The  number  of  members  is  usually  given  as 
 seventy-one,  but  this  is  a  point  on  which  there  is 
 not  a  perfect  agreement  among  the  learned.  The 
 nearly  UTianimous  opinion  of  the  Jews  is  given  in 
 the  Mishna  {Sanhedr.  i.  6):  "the  great  Sanhe- 
 drim consisted  of  seveiity-one  judges.  How  is  this 
 proved  V  From  Num.  xi.  16,  where  it  is  said, 
 '  gather  unto  me  seventy  men  of  the  elders  of 
 Israel.'  To  these  add  Jloses,  and  we  have  seventy- 
 one.  Nevertheless  R.  Judah  says  there  were 
 seventy."  The  same  diflerence  made  by  the  addi- 
 tion or  exclusion  of  Moses,  appears  in  the  works 
 of  Christian  writers,  which  accounts  for  the  varia- 
 tions in  the  books  between  seventy  and  seventy- 
 one.  Baronius,  however  (Ad.  Ann.  31,  §  10),  and 
 many  other  Roman  Catholic  writers,  together  with 
 not  a  few  Protestants,  as  Drusius,  Grotius,  Pri- 
 deaux,  Jahn,  Bretschneider,  etc.,  hold  that  the 
 true  number  was  se\enty-two,  on  the  ground  that 
 Eldad  and  Medad,  on  whom  it  is  expressly  said  the 
 Spirit  rested  (Num.  xi.  26),  remained  in  the  camp 
 and  should  be  added  to  the  seventy  (see  Hartmann, 
 Verbinduni)  des  A.  T.  p.  182;  Selden,  De  Synedr. 
 lib.  ii  cap.  4).  Between  these  three  numbers, 
 that  given  by  the  prevalent  Jewish  tradition  is  cer- 
 tainly to  be  preferred;  but  if,  as  we  have  seen, 
 there  is  really  no  evidence  for  the  identity  of  the 
 seventy  elders  summoned  by  Moses,  and  the 
 Sanhedrim  existing  after  the  Babylonish  Capti\'ity, 
 the  argument  from  Num.  xi.  16  in  respect  to  the 
 lumiber  of  members  of  which  the  latter  body  con- 
 sisted, has  no  force,  and  we  are  left,  as  Keil  main- 
 
SANHEDRIM 
 
 ■jains  (Archdologie,  ii.  §  259),  without  any  certain 
 jiformation  on  the  point. 
 
 The  president  of  this  body  was  styled  W'^Ji73, 
 Nasi,  and,  according  to  Maimonides  and  Lightfoot, 
 was  chosen  on  account  of  his  eminence  in  worth 
 wid  wisdom.  Often,  if  not  generally,  this  pre- 
 aniinenoe  was  accorded  to  the  high-priest.  That 
 the  high-priest  presided  at  the  condemnation  of 
 Jesus  (Matt.  xxvi.  62)  is  plain  irom  the  narra- 
 tive.    The   vice-president,  called    in    the    Talmud 
 
 I'^l  n""!!.  3M,  "father  of  the  house  of  judg- 
 ment," sat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  president. 
 Some  ^Titers  speak  of  a  second  vice-president,  styled 
 
 DSn,  "wise,"  but  this  is  not  sufficiently  con- 
 firmed  (see  Selden,  De  Synedr.  p.  15G  ff.).  The 
 Babylonian  Gemara  states  that  there  were  two 
 scribes,  one  of  whom  registered  the  votes  for  ac- 
 quittal, the  other  those  for  condemnation.  In  Matt. 
 xxvi.  58;  Mark  xiv.  54,  &c.,  the  lictors  or  attend- 
 ants of  the  Sanhedrim  are  referred  to  under  the 
 name  of  virr)ptTat-  While  in  session  the  Sanhe- 
 drim sat  in  the  form  of  a  half-circle  {Gem.  Hieros. 
 Const,  vii.  ad  Sanhedr.  i.),  with  all  which  agrees 
 the  statement  of  Maimonides  (quoted  by  Vor- 
 stius):  "  him  who  excels  all  others  in  wisdom  they 
 appoint  head  over  them  and  head  of  the  assembly. 
 And  he  it  is  whom  the  wise  everywhere  call  Nasi, 
 and  he  is  in  the  place  of  our  master  Moses.  Like- 
 wise him  who  is  the  oldest  among  the  seventy,  they 
 place  on  the  right  hatid,  and  him  they  call  'father 
 of  the  house  of  judsnient.'  The  rest  of  the 
 seventy  sit  before  these  two,  according  to  their 
 dignity,  in  the  form  of  a  semicircle,  so  that  the 
 president  and  vice-president  may  have  them  all  in 
 sight." 
 
 3.  The  place  in  which  the  sessions  of  the  San- 
 hedrim were  ordinarily  held  was,  according  to  the 
 
 Talmud,  a  hall  called  i'T'-TS,  Gazzilh  (Sanhedr.  x.), 
 supposed  by  Lightfoot  (  Works,  i.  2005)  to  have 
 been  situated  in  the  southeast  corner  of  one  of  the 
 courts  near  the  Temple  building.  In  special  exi- 
 gencies, however,  it  seems  to  have  met  in  the  resi- 
 dence of  the  high-priest  (Matt.  xxvi.  'S).  Forty 
 years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  con- 
 sequently while  the  Saviour  was  teaching  in  Pales- 
 tine, the  sessions  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  removed 
 from  the  hall  Gazzith  to  a  .somewhat  greater  dis- 
 tance from  the  Temple  building,  although  still  on 
 Mt.  Moriah  (Abod.  Zara,  i.  Gem.  Babyl.  ad  San- 
 hedr. v.).  After  several  other  changes,  its  seat  was 
 finally  established  at  Tiberias  (Lightfoot,  IForks, 
 ii.  365). 
 
 As  a  judicial  body  the  Sanhedrim  constituted  a 
 supreme  court,  to  which  belonged  in  the  first 
 instance  the  trial  of  a  tribe  fallen  into  idolatry, 
 false  prophets,  and  the  high-priest  (Mishna,  San- 
 hedr. [.);  also  the  other  priests  {Mhldoth,  v.). 
 As  an  administrative  council  it  determined  other 
 important  matters.  Jesus  was  arraigned  before 
 this  body  as  a  false  prophet  (John  xi.  47),  and 
 Peter,  John,  Stephen,  and  Paul  as  teachers  of 
 error  and  deceivers  of  the  people.  From  Acts  ix. 
 2  it  ajipears  that  the  Sanhedrim  exercised  a  degree 
 of  authority  beyond  the  limits  of  Palestine.  Ac- 
 cf>rding  to  the  Jerusalem  Gemara  (quoted  by 
 Selden,  lib.  ii.  c.  15,  11),  the  power  of  inflicting 
 capital  puiiishment  was  taken  away  from  this  tri- 
 bunal forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jenisa- 
 ,em.  AVith  this  agrees  the  answer  of  the  .lews  to 
 Pilate  (John  xviii.  31),  "It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 
 
 SANSANNAH  2839 
 
 put  any  man  to  death."  Beyond  the  arrest,  trial, 
 and  condemnation  of  one  convicted  of  violating  the 
 ecclesiastical  law,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Sanhedrim 
 at  the  time  could  not  be  extended ;  the  confirma- 
 tion and  execution  of  the  sentence  in  capital  cases 
 belonged  to  the  Roman  procurator.  The  stoning 
 of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  56,  &c.)  is  only  an  apparent 
 exception,  for  it  was  either  a  timiultuous  proceed- 
 ure,  or,  if  done  by  order  of  the  Sanhedrim,  was 
 an  illegal  assumption  of  power,  as  Josephus  {Ant. 
 XX.  9,  §  1)  expressly  declares  the  execution  of  the 
 Apostle  James  during  the  absence  of  the  procura- 
 tor to  have  been  (Winer,  Healwb.  art.  "  Syne- 
 drium  "). 
 
 The  Talmud  also  mentions  a  lesser  Sanhedrim 
 of  twenty-three  members  in  every  city  in  Palestine 
 in  which  were  not  less  than  120  householders;  but 
 respecting  these  judicial  bodies  Josephus  is  entirely 
 silent. 
 
 The  leading  work  on  the  sulyect  is  Selden,  De 
 Synedriis  et  Pnefecturis  Juridicis  veterum  Ebrce- 
 orum,  Lond.  1650,  Amst.  1679,  4to.  It  exhibits 
 immense  learning,  but  introduces  much  irrelevant 
 matter,  and  is  writteti  in  a  heavy  and  unattractive 
 style.  The  monographs  of  Vorstius  and  Witsius, 
 contained  in  Ugolini's  Thesaurus,  vol.  xxv.,  are 
 able  and  judicious.  The  same  volume  of  Ugolini 
 contains  also  the  Jerusalem  and  Babylonian  Ge- 
 maras,  along  with  the  Mishna  on  the  Sanhedrim, 
 with  which  may  be  compared  Duo  Tiiuli  Talinudici 
 Sanhedrin  et  Maccoth,  ed.  Jo.  Coch,  Amst.  1629, 
 4to,  and  Maimonides,  De  Sanhedriis  et  Pxnis, 
 ed.  Houting.  Amst.  1695,  4to.  Hartmann,  Die 
 Verhlndun;/  des  Allen  Teslainents  mit  dan  Neuen, 
 Hamb.  1831,  8vo,  is  worthy  of  consultation,  and 
 for  a  compressed  exhibition  of  the  subject,  Winer, 
 Healwb.,  and  Keil,  Archceolor/ie.  G.  E.  D. 
 
 SANSAN'NAH  (n2D?p  [ palm-branch,  Gea., 
 Fiirst]:  S.^OfuvaK;  Alex.  ^av(ravva:  Sensenna). 
 One  of  the  towns  in  the  south  district  of  Judah, 
 named  in  Josh.  xv.  31  only.  The  towns  of  this 
 district  are  not  distributed  into  small  groups,  like 
 those  of  the  highlands  or  the  Shefelah  ;  and  as 
 only  very  few  of  them  have  been  yet  identified,  we 
 have  nothing  to  guide  us  to  the  position  of  San- 
 sannah.  It  can  hardly  have  had  any  connection 
 with  Kikjath-Sannah  (Kiijath-Sepher,  or  De- 
 bir),  which  was  probably  near  Hebron,  many  miles 
 to  the  north  of  the  most  northern  position  possible 
 for  Sansannah.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  men- 
 tioned by  any  explorer,  ancient  or  modern.  Ge- 
 senius  (Thes.  p.  962)  explains  the  name  to  mean 
 "  palm-branch;  "  but  this  is  contradicted  by  Fiirst 
 {Hwb.  ii.  88),  who  derives  it  from  a  root  which 
 signifies  "  writing."  The  two  propositions  are 
 proljalily  equally  wide  of  the  mark.  The  conjec- 
 ture of  Schwarz  that  it  was  at  Simsim,  on  the  val- 
 ley of  the  same  name,  is  less  feasible  than  usual. 
 
 The  termination  of  the  name  is  singular  (comp. 
 Madmannah). 
 
 By  comparing  the  list  of  Josh.  xv.  26-32  with 
 those  in  xix.  2-7  and  1  Chr.  iv.  28-33,  it  will  be 
 seen  that  Beth-marcaboth  and  Hazar-susim,  or 
 -susah,  occupy  in  the  two  last  the  place  of  Mad- 
 mannah  and  Sansannah  respectively  in  the  first. 
 In  like  manner  Shilhim  is  exchanged  for  Sharuhen 
 and  Shaaraim.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  these 
 changes  can  have  arisen  from  the  mistakes  of 
 copyists  solely,  but  equally  difficult  to  assign  any 
 other  satisfactory  reason.  Prof.  Stanley  has  sug- 
 gested that  Beth-marcaboth  and  llazar-susim  are 
 
2840  SAPH 
 
 tokens  of  the  trade  in  chariots  and  horses  which 
 arose  in  Solomon's  time;  but,  if  so,  how  conies  it 
 that  the  new  names  bear  so  close  a  resemblance  in 
 form  to  the  old  ones  ?  G. 
 
 SAPH  C^P  [threshold,  dish,  Ges.] :  2e<p; 
 Alex.  2e</)€:  fS<iph).  One  of  the  sons  of  the  giant 
 ('Pallet,  Araph(i)  slain  by  Sibbechai  the  Husha- 
 thite  in  the  battle  against  the  Philistines  at  Gob 
 or  Gaza  (2  Sam.  xxi.  18).  In  1  Chr.  xx.  4  he  is 
 called  SiPPAi.  The  title  of  Ps.  cxliii.  in  the 
 Feshito  Syriac  is,  "Of  David:  when  he  slew 
 Asaph  (Saph)  the  brother  of  Gulyad  (Goliath), 
 and  thanksgiving  for  that  he  had  conquered." 
 
 SA'PHAT(2a<^({T:  om.  in  the  Vulg.).  Siie- 
 piiATiAii  -2  (1  Ksdr.  V.  9;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  4). 
 
 SAPHATFAS  (2a<^aTi'as;  [Vat.  2o<^OTtaj:] 
 Saphdtias).  Shepiiatiah  2  (1  Esdr.  viii.  34; 
 comp.  Ezr.  viii.  8). 
 
 SA'PHETH  (2a<^ui;  [Vat.  ^a<l>vii:.  AM. 
 2c(^e0:]  Alex.  S.atpveL-  Sephe(/i).  Shephatiah 
 (1  Esdr.  V.  33;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  57). 
 
 SA'PHIE,  ('^'^StL\  [i.  e.  Shaphir, /aiV,  beau- 
 tiful]:  Ka\cis-  pnlchrii,  but  in  Jerome's  Com- 
 vienl.  Saphir).  One  of  the  villages  addressed  by 
 the  prophet  Micah  (i.  11),  but  not  elsewhere  men- 
 tioned. By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Oiwrnast. 
 "Saphir")  it  is  described  as  "in  the  mountain 
 district  between  Eleutheropohs  and  Ascalon."  In 
 this  direction  a  village  called  es-Sawafir  still  exists 
 (or  rather  three  with  that  name,  two  with  affixes), 
 possibly  the  representative  of  the  ancient  Saphir 
 (Rob.  Bibl.  Rks.  ii.  34  note ;  Van  de  Velde,  Hyr. 
 <^-  Pal.  p.  159).  Jis-S((wafir  lies  .seven  or  eight  miles 
 to  the  N.  E.  of  Ascalon,  and  about  12  W.  of  Beit- 
 Jibrin,  to  the  right  of  the  coast  road  from  Gaza. 
 Tobler  prefers  a  village  called  Saber,  close  to  Sa- 
 wafir,  containing  a  copious  and  apparently  very  an- 
 cient well  (3«e  Wanderung,  p.  47).  In  one  impor- 
 tant respect,  however,  the  position  of  neither  of 
 these  agrees  with  the  notice  of  the  Onomasiicon, 
 since  it  is  not  near  the  mountains,  but  on  the  open 
 plain  of  the  Shefelnh.  But  as  Beit-Jihrin,  the 
 ancient  Eleutheropohs,  stands  on  the  western  slopes 
 of  the  mountains  of  Judah,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
 stand how  any  place  could  be  westward  of  it  {i.  e. 
 between  it  and  Ascalon),  and  yet  be  itself  in  the 
 mountain  district,  unless  that  expression  may  refer 
 to  places,  which,  though  situated  in  the  plain,  were 
 for  some  reason  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
 towns  of  the  mountains.  We  have  already  seen 
 reason  to  suspect  that  the  reverse  was  the  case  with 
 some  others.      [Keilaii;  Nezib,  etc.] 
 
 Schwarz,  though  aware  of  the  existence  of  Sn- 
 wafir  (p.  116),  suggests  as  the  most  feasible  iden 
 tification  the  village  of  Snjiriyeh,  a  couple  of  miles 
 N.  W.  of  Lydda  (p.  136).'  The  drawback  to  this  is, 
 that  the  places  mentioned  by  Micah  appear,  as  far 
 as  we  can  trace  them,  to  be  mostly  near  Bi-it-Jibrin, 
 and  in  addition,  that  Snjhiyeh  is  in  clear  contra- 
 diction to  the  notice  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 
 
 G. 
 
 SAPPHI'RA  (2a7r<^eiprj  =  either  sapphire, 
 from  ffdiTcl)€tpos,  or  beautiful,  from  the  Syriac 
 ST^Stt?).  The  wife  of  Ananias,  and  the  partici- 
 pator both  in  his  guilt  and  in  his  punishment 
 (Acts  v.  1-10).  The  interval  of  three  hours  that 
 elapsed  between  the  two  deaths,  Sapphira's  igno- 
 rance of  wliat  had  happened  to  her  husband,  and 
 the  predictive  language  of  St.  Peter  towards  her, 
 
 SARAH 
 
 are  decisive  evidences  as  to  the  supernatural  char- 
 acter of  the  whole  transaction.  The  history  of 
 Sapphira's  death  thus  supplements  that  of  Ananias, 
 which  might  otherwise  have  been  attributed  to 
 natural  causes.  \V.  L.  B. 
 
 SAPPHIRE  ("I'^QD,  sapplr:  ffi.ir<pupos : 
 s'ipphirus).  A  precious  stone,  apparently  of  a 
 bright  blue  color,  see  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  where  the  God 
 of  Israel  is  represented  as  being  seen  in  vision  by 
 Moses  and  the  h'Jders  with  "a  paved  work  of  a 
 Sfippir  stone,  and  as  it  were  the  body  of  heaven  in 
 its  clearness"  (comp.  Ez.  i.  26).  The  sappir  was 
 the  second  stone  in  the  second  row  of  the  high- 
 priesfs  breastplate  (Ex.  xxviii.  18);  it  was  ex- 
 tremely precious  (Job  xxviii.  16);  it  was  one  of 
 the  precious  stones  that  ornamented  the  king  of 
 Tyre  (Ez.  xxviii.  13).  Notwithstanding  the  iden- 
 tity of  name  between  our  sapphire  and  the  adwcpei- 
 pos  and  sapphirus  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  it  is 
 generally  agreed  that  the  sapphirus  of  the  ancients 
 was  not  our  gem  of  that  name,  namely,  the  azure 
 or  indigo-blue,  crystalline  variety  of  Corundum,  but 
 our  lapis-liizuh  (ultra-marine);  this  point  may 
 be  regarded  as  established,  for  Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii. 
 9)  thus  speaks  of  the  sapphirus:  "  It  is  refulgent 
 with  spots  of  gold,  of  an  azure  color  sometimes, 
 but  not  often  purple;  the  best  kind  comes  from 
 Media;  it  is  never  transparent,  and  is  not  well 
 suited  for  engraving  upon  when  intersected  with 
 hard  crystalline  particles."  This  description  an- 
 swers exactly  to  the  character  of  the  lapis-lazuli; 
 the  "crystalline  particles"  of  Pliny  are  crystals  of 
 iron  pyrites,  which  often  occur  with  this  mineral. 
 It  is,  however,  not  so  certain  that  the  sapplr  of 
 the  Hebrew  Bi'ule  is  identical  with  the  lapis-lazuli; 
 for  the  Scriptural  requirements  demand  transpar- 
 ency, great  value,  and  good  material  for  the  en- 
 graver's art,  all  of  which  combined  characters  the 
 lapis-lazuli  does  not  possess  in  any  great  degree. 
 Mr.  King  {Antique  Gems,  p.  44)  says  that  intagli 
 and  camei  of  Roman  times  are  frequent  in  the 
 material,  but  rarely  any  works  of  much  merit. 
 Again,  the  sappir  was  certainly  pellucid,  "sane 
 apud  Judseos,"  says  Braun  {De  Vest.  Sac.  p.  680,  ed. 
 1680),  "  saphiros  jjellucidas  notas  fuisse  manifestis- 
 simum  est,  adeo  etiam  ut  pellucidum  illorum  phi- 
 
 losophis  dicatur  T^DD,  saphir."  Beckmann 
 (Hist,  of  Invent,  i.  472)  is  of  opinion  that  the 
 sappir  of  the  Hebrews  is  the  same  as  the  lapis- 
 lazuli;  Rosenmiiller  and  Braun  agree  in  favor  of 
 its  being  our  sapphire  or  precious  Corundum.  We 
 are  inclined  to  adopt  this  latter  opinion,  but  are 
 unable  to  come  to  any  satisfactory  conclusion. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SA'RA  {'S.dppa:  Sara).  1.  Saeaii,  the  wife 
 of  Abraham  (Heb.  xi.  11;  1  Pet.  iii.  6). 
 
 2.  The  daughter  of  Raguel,  in  the  apocryphal 
 history  of  Tobit.  As  the  story  goes,  she  had  been 
 married  to  seven  husbands,  who  were  all  slain  on 
 the  wedding  night  by  Asniodeus,  the  evil  spirit, 
 who  loved  her  (Tob.  iii.  7).  The  breaking  of 
 the  spell  and  the  chasing  away  of  the  evil  spirit  by 
 the  "fishy  fume,"  when  Sara  was  married  to 
 Tobias,  are  told  in  chap.  viii. 
 
 SARABI'AS  (2af)ai3ias:  Sarebias).  Shere- 
 BiAH  (1  Esdr.  ix.  48;  comp.  Neh.  viii.  7). 
 
 SA'RAH  {^"7'?'  I»-incess:  •S.dp^a.:  Sara: 
 originally  "^"W :  'S.dpa-  Sarai).  1.  The  wife  of 
 Abraham  and  mother  of  Isaac. 
 
SARAH 
 
 Of  her  birth  ami  parentage  we  have  no  certain 
 account  in  Scripture.  Her  name  is  first  introfluced 
 in  Gen.  xi.  20.  as  follows:  "  Abram  and  Nahor 
 toolv  them  wives:  the  name  of  Abram's  wife  was 
 Sarai;  and  tlie  name  of  Nahor's  wife  was  Milcah, 
 tlie  daughter  of  Haran,  the  father  of  Milcah  and 
 the  father  of  Iscah."  In  Gen.  xx.  12,  Abraham 
 speaks  of  her  as  "  his  sister,  the  daughter  of  the 
 same  father,  but  not  the  daughter  of  the  same 
 mother."  The  conmioii  Jewish  tradition,  taken 
 for  granted  by  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  c.  6,  §  C)  and  by 
 St.  .Jerome  (  Qucest.  J/ebr.  ad  Genesin,  vol.  iii.  p.  32-3, 
 ed.  lien.  1735),  is  that  Sarai  is  the  same  as  Iscah, 
 the  daughter  of  Haran,  and  the  sister  of  Lot,  who 
 is  called  Abraham's  "  brother  "  in  Gen.  xiv.  14,  16. 
 Judging  from  the  fact  that  Eebekah,  the  grand- 
 daugiiter  of  Nahor,  was  the  wife  of  Isaac  the  son 
 of  Abraham,  there  is  reason  to  conjecture  that 
 Abraham  was  tlie  youngest  brother,  so  that  his 
 wife  might  not  improbably  be  younger  than  the 
 wife  of  Nahor.  It  is  certainly  strange,  if  the  tra- 
 dition be  true,  that  no  direct  mention  of  it  is  found 
 in  Gen.  xi.  2d.  But  it  is  not  improbable  in  itself; 
 it  supplies  the  account  of  the  descent  of  the  mother 
 of  the  chosen  race,  the  omission  of  which  in  such  a 
 passage  is  most  unlikely;  and  there  is  no  other  to 
 set  against  it. 
 
 The  change  of  her  name  from  "  Sarai  "  to  "  Sa- 
 rah "  was  made  at  the  same  time  that  Abram's 
 name  was  changed  to  Abraham,  on  the  establish- 
 ment of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  between  him 
 and  God.  That  the  name  "  Sarah  "  signifies  "  prin- 
 cess "  is  universally  acknowledged.  But  the  mean- 
 ing of  "  Sarai "  is  still  a  subject  of  controversy. 
 The  older  interpreters  (as,  for  example,  St.  Jerome 
 in  Qiuest.  Hebj\,  and  those  who  follow  him)  sup- 
 pose it  t.0  mean  "my  princess;"  and  explain  the 
 change  from  Sarai  to  Sarah,  as  signifying  that  she 
 was  no  longer  the  queen  of  one  family,  but  the 
 royal  ancestress  of  "  all  families  of  the  earth."   1'hey 
 
 also  suppose  that  the  addition  of  the  letter  H,  as 
 taken  from  the  sacred  Tetragrammatqn  Jehovah,  to 
 the  names  of  Abram  and  Sarai,  m3'stically  signified 
 their  being  received  into  covenant  with  the  Lord. 
 Among  modern  Hebraists  there  is  great  diversity  of 
 interpretation.  One  opinion,  keeping  to  the  same 
 general  derivation  as  that  referred  to  above,  explains 
 "Sarai"  as  "noble,"  "nobility,"  etc.,  an  explana- 
 tion which,  even  more  than  the  other,  labors  under 
 the  objection  of  giving  little  force  to  the  change. 
 Another  opinion  supposes  Sarai  to  be  a  contracted 
 
 form  of  rT'ntt?  (Serdydh),  and  to  signify  "Jeho- 
 vah is  ruler."  But  this  gives  no  force  whatever  to 
 the  change,  and  besides  introduces  the  same  name 
 Jcih  into  a  proper  name  too  early  in  the  history. 
 
 A  third  (following  Ewald)  derives  it  from  iTJ^) 
 a  root  which  is  found  in  Gen.  xxxii.  28,  Hos.  xii. 
 4,  in  the  sense  of  "  to  fight,"  and  explains  it  as 
 "contentious"  {streiUiichtig).  This  last  seems  to 
 be  etymologically  the  most  probable,  and  differs 
 from  the  others  in  giving  great  force  and  dignity 
 to  the  change  of  name.  (See  Ges.  TItes.  vol.  iii. 
 p.  1338  6.) 
 
 Her  history  is,  of  course,  that  of  Abraham. 
 She  came  with  him  from  Ur  to  Haran,  from  Haran 
 
 a  Note  the  significant  remark  on  Isaac's  marriage 
 (Gen.  xxiv.  67),  "Isaac  was  comforted  after  his  moth- 
 er's death."     There  is  a  Jewish  tradition,  based  ap- 
 parently on  the  mention  of  Sarah's  death  almost  im- 
 179 
 
 SARAI  2841 
 
 to  Canaan,  and  accompanied  him  in  all  the  wander- 
 ings of  his  life.  Her  only  independent  action  is 
 the  demand  that  Hagar  and  Ishmael  should  be  cast 
 out,  far  from  all  rivalry  with  her  and  Isaac;  a 
 demand,  symbolically  applied  in  Gal.  iv.  22-31  to 
 the  displacement  of  the  Old  Covenant  by  the  New. 
 The  times  in  which  she  plays  the  most  important 
 part  in  the  history,  are  the  times  when  Abraham 
 was  sojourning,  first  in  Egypt,  then  in  Gerar,  and 
 where  Sarah  shared  his  deceit,  towards  Pharaoh 
 and  towards  Abimelech.  On  the  first  occasion, 
 about  the  middle  of  her  life,  her  personal  beauty  is 
 dwelt  upon  as  its  cause  (Gen.  xii.  11-15);  on  the 
 second,  just  before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  at  a  time 
 when  she  was  old  (thirty  seven  years  before  her 
 death),  but  when  her  vigor  had  lieen  miraculously 
 restored,  the  same  cause  is  alluded  to,  as  supposed 
 by  Aljraham,  but  not  actually  stated  (xx.  9-11). 
 In  both  cases,  especially  the  last,  the  tnithfulness 
 of  tile  history  is  seen  in  the  unfavorable  contrast 
 in  which  the  conduct  both  of  Aliraham  and  Sarah 
 stands  to  that  of  Pharaoh  and  Aliimelech.  She 
 died  at  Hebron  at  the  age  of  127  years,  28  years 
 before  her  husliand,  and  was  i)uried  l)y  him  in  the 
 cave  of  Machpelah.  Her  liurial  place,  purchased 
 of  I'phron  the  Hittite,  was  the  only  possession  of 
 Abraham  in  the  land  of  promise;  it  has  remained, 
 hallowed  in  the  eyes  of  Jews,  Christians,  and  Mo- 
 hammedans alike,  to  the  present  day ;  and  in  it  the 
 "shrine  of  Sarah  "  is  pointed  out  opposite  to  that 
 of  Abraham,  with  those  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah  on 
 the  one  side,  and  those  of  Jacob  and  Leah  on  the 
 other  (see  iSfnnky's  Led.  on  Jewish  Church,  app. 
 ii.  pp.  484-509). 
 
 Her  character,  like  that  of  Abraham,  is  no  ideal 
 type  of  excellence,  but  one  thoroughly  natunal,  in- 
 ferior to  that  of  her  husband,  and  truly  feminine, 
 both  in  its  excellences  and  its  defects.  She  is  the 
 mother,  even  more  than  tlie  wife.  Her  natural 
 motherly  affection  is  seen  in  her  touching  desire 
 for  children,  even  from  her  bondmaid,  and  in  her 
 unforgiving  jealousy  of  tiiat  bondmaid,  when  she 
 became  a  mother;  in  her  rejoicing  over  her  son 
 Isaac,  and  in  the  jealousy  which  resented  the 
 slightest  insult  to  him,  and  forbade  Ishmael  to 
 share  his  sonship.  It  makes  her  cruel  to  others  as 
 well  as  tender  to  her  own,*^  and  is  remarkably  con- 
 trasted with  the  sacrifice  of  natural  feeling  on  the 
 part  of  Abraham  to  God's  command  in  the  last 
 case  (Gen.  xxi.  12).  To  the  same  character  lielong 
 her  ironical  laughter  at  the  promise  of  a  child,  long 
 desired,  but  now  beyond  all  hope;  her  trembling 
 denial  of  that  laughter,  and  her  change  of  it  to  the 
 laughter  of  thankful  joy,  which  she  commemorated 
 in  the  name  of  Isaac.  It  is  a  character  deeply 
 and  truly  affectionate,  but  impulsive,  jealous,  and 
 imperious  in  its  affection.  It  is  referred  to  in  the 
 N.  T.  as  a  type  of  conjugal  obedience  in  1  Pet.  iii. 
 6,  and  as  one  of  the  types  of  faith  in  Heb.  xi.  11 
 
 A.  B. 
 
 2.  {nni^:  2apa;  [Vat.^  M.  Kapa'-]  Saro.) 
 Seiiah  the  daughter  of  Asher  (Num.  xxvi.  46). 
 
 SA'RAI  [2  .syl]  Ol^  [see  below]:  2dpa: 
 Sai'ai).  The  original  name  of  Sarah,  the  wife  of 
 Abraham.     It  is  always  used  in  the  history  from 
 
 mediately  after  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  that  the  shook 
 of  it  killed  her,  and  that  Abraham  found  her  dead  on 
 his  return  from  Moriah. 
 
2842 
 
 SARAIAS 
 
 Gen.  xi.  29  to  xvii.  15,  when  it  was  changed  to 
 Sarah  at  the  same  time  tliat  her  husliand's  name 
 from  Abram  became  Abraham,  and  the  birth  of 
 Isaac  was  more  distinctly  foretold.  The  meaning 
 of  the  name  appears  to  be,  as  Ewald  has  sug- 
 gested, "  contentious."     [Sarah.] 
 
 SARA'IAS  [3  syl.]  {^apaias:  om.  in  Vulg.). 
 1.  Serai.\h  the  high-priest  (1  Esdr.  v.  5). 
 
 2.  CACapaias;  Alex.  [Aid.]  :S,apaias-  Azarias, 
 Azaretts.)  Sekaiah  the  father  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr. 
 viii.  1;  2  Esdr.  i.  1). 
 
 SAR'AMEL  ([Rom.]  Alex.  Sopa^fA;  [Sin. 
 and]  other  ISISS-  Aaapa/xeA  :  Asnramel).  The 
 name  of  the  place  in  which  the  assembly  of  the 
 Jews  was  held  at  which  the  high-)jriesthood  was 
 conferred  upon  Simon  Maccabseus  (1  INIacc.  xiv. 
 28).  The  fact  that  the  name  is  found  only  in  this 
 passage  has  led  to  the  conjecture  tliat  it  is  an  im- 
 perfect version  of  a  word  in  the  original  Hebrew  or 
 Syriac,  from  which  the  present  Greek  text  of  the 
 Maccabees  is  a  translation.  Some  (as  Castellio) 
 have  treated  it  as  a  corruption  of  Jerusalem :  but 
 this  is  inadmissible,  since  it  is  inconceivable  that 
 so  well-known  a  name  .should  be  corrupted.  The 
 other  conjectures  are  enumerated  by  Grimm  in  the 
 KurziU'f.  exer/eiisches  Handh.  on  the  passage.  A 
 few  only  need  be  named  here,  but  none  seem  per- 
 fectly satisfactory.  All  appear  to  adopt  the  read- 
 ing Asaramel.  1.  Hahatsar  }fiUo,  "  the  court 
 of  INIillo,"  Millo  being  not  improbably  the  citadel 
 of  Jerusalem  [vol.  iii.  p.  1937].  This  is  the  con- 
 jecture of  Grotius,  and  has  at  least  the  merit  of 
 ingenuity."  2.  llahats'ir  Am  El,  "  the  court  of 
 the  people  of  God,  that  is,  the  great  court  of  the 
 Temple."  This  is  due  to  Ewald  [Ge»ch.  iv.  387), 
 who  compares  with  it  the  well-known  Sarbef/i 
 Sabanni  El,  given  by  Eusebius  as  the  title  of  the 
 Maccaba;an  history.  [See  Maccabee.s,  vol.  ii.  p. 
 1718.]  3.  Ilasshrinr  Am  El,  "the  gate  of  the 
 people  of  God,"  adopted  by  Winer  (Bcnbrb.).  4. 
 Hassar  Am  El,  "  prince  of  the  people  of  God,"  as 
 if  not  the  name  of  a  place,  but  the  title  of  Simon, 
 the  "  in  "  having  been  inserted  by  puzzled  copyists. 
 This  is  adopted  by  Grimm  himself.  It  has  in  its 
 favor  the  fact  that  without  it  Simon  is  here  styled 
 high-priest  only,  and  his  second  title,  "captain  and 
 governor  of  the  Jews  and  priests"  (ver.  47),  is 
 then  omitted  in  the  solenni  official  record  —  the 
 very  place  where  it  ought  to  be  found.  It  also 
 seems  to  be  countenanced  by  the  Peshito-Syriac 
 version,  which  certainly  omits  the  title  of  "high- 
 priest,"  but  inserts  Rahba  de  Israel,  "leader  of 
 Israel."  None  of  these  explanations,  however,  can 
 be  regarded  as  entirely  satisfactory.  G. 
 
 SA'RAPH  (^"^tt7  [burning,  fiery,  poison- 
 ous]: 2apa<J);  [^'at.  2aia:]  Jncendens).  Men- 
 tioned in  1  Chr.  iv.  22  an)ong  the  descendants  of 
 Shelah  the  son  of  Judah.  Burrington  (Genenl.  i. 
 179)  makes  Seraph  a  descendant  of  Jokini,  whom 
 he  regards  as  the  third  son  of  Shelah.  In  the 
 Targum  of  R.  Joseph,  Joash  and  Saraph  are 
 identified  with  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  "who  mar- 
 ried (•ib^'S)  in  Moab." 
 
 SARCinED'ONUS  ([Rom.  Vat.]  Saxep- 
 SovSs,  [Alex.]  SaxfpSav,  [Aid.  XapxeS6yos  :] 
 Archedonass^ar,  Achenossar,  Sarcedonassdr),  a  col- 
 lateral form  of  the  name  I^ar-haddon  [Esar-had- 
 
 «  Junius  and  Tremellius  render  it  by  in  atrio  muni- 
 iiotus. 
 
 SARDIS 
 
 don],  occurring  Tob.  i.  21.  The  form  in  A.  V.  for 
 Sacherdunus  appears  to  be  an  oversight.  [It  conies 
 from  the  Aldine  edition.  —  A.]  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SARDE'US  (ZepaAioy;  Alex.  XapSatos  [so 
 Tisch.,  but  ZapSaias,  Babers  ed. ;  Aid.  "kapSaios'-] 
 Tebedias).  AzizA  (1  Esdr.  ix.  28;  comp.  Ezr. 
 x.  27). 
 
 SARDINE,  SARDIUS  (O^H  Mem:  ^dp- 
 Siov:  scnxlius)  is,  acconling  to  the  LXX.  and 
 Jo.sephus  (Bell.  Jud.  v.  5,  §  7),  the  correct  render- 
 ing of  the  Hebrew  term,  which  occurs  in  Ex.  xxviii. 
 17,  xxxix.  10,  as  the  name  of  the  stone  which 
 occupied  the  first  place  in  the  first  row  of  the  high- 
 priest's  breastplate;  it  should,  however,  be  noticed 
 that  Josephus  is  not  strictly  consistent  with  him- 
 self, for  in  the  Antiq.  iii.  7,  §  5,  he  .says  that  the 
 sardonyx  was  the  first  stone  in  the  breastplate; 
 still  as  this  latter  named  mineral  is  merely  another 
 variety  of  agate,  to  which  also  the  sard  or  sardius 
 belongs,  there  is  no  very  great  discrepancy  in  the 
 statements  of  the  Jewish  historian.  The  odetn  is 
 mentioned  by  Ezekiel  (xxviii.  13)  as  one  of  the  orna- 
 ments of  the  king  of  Tyre.  In  Rev.  iv.  3,  St.  John 
 declares  that  he  whom  he  saw  sitting  on  the 
 heavenly  throne  "  was  to  look  upon  like  a  jasper 
 and  a  sai-dine  stone."  The  sixth  foundation  of 
 the  wall  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  was  a  sardivs 
 (Rev.  xxi.  20).  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt 
 that  either  the  sard  or  the  sardonyx  is  the  stone 
 denoted  by  odem.  The  authority  of  Josephus  in 
 all  that  relates  to  the  high-priest's  breastplate  is  of 
 the  greatest  value,  for  as  Braun  (De  Vest.  Sac. 
 Heh.  p.  G35)  has  remarked,  Josephus  was  not  only 
 a  .Tew  but  a  priest,  who  miKht  have  seen  the  breast- 
 plate with  the  whole  sacerdotal  vestments  a  hun- 
 dred times,  since  in  his  time  the  Temple  was  stand- 
 ing; the  Vulgate  agrees  with  his  nomenclature;  in 
 Jerome's  time  the  breastplate  was  still  to  be  in- 
 spected in  the  Temple  of  Concord ;  hence  it  will 
 readily  be  acknowledged  that  this  agreement  of  the 
 two  is  of  great  weight. 
 
 The  sard,  which  is  a  superior  variety  of  agate, 
 has  long  been  a  favorite  stone  for  the  engraver's 
 art;  "on  this  stone,"  says  Mr.  King  (Antique 
 Gems,  p.  5),  "all  the  finest  works  of  the  most 
 celebrated  artists  are  to  be  found ;  and  this  not 
 without  good  cause,  such  is  its  toughness,  facility 
 of  working,  beauty  of  color,  and  the  high  polish 
 of  which  it  is  susceptible,  and  which  Pliny  states 
 that  it  retains  longer  than  any  other  gem."  Sards 
 (lifter  in  color;  there  is  a  bright  red  variety  which, 
 in  Pliny's  time,  was  the  most  esteemed,  and,  per- 
 haps, the  Heb.  odem,  from  a  root  which  means  "  to 
 be  red,"  points  to  this  kind;  there  is  also  a  paler 
 or  honey-colored  variety;  but  in  all  sards  there  is 
 always  a  shade  of  yellow  mingling  with  the  red 
 (see  King's  Ant.  Gems,  p.  6).  The  sardius,  ac- 
 cording to  Pliny  (fl.  N.  xxxvii.  7),  derived  its 
 name  from  Sardis  in  Lydia,  where  it  was  first 
 found;  Babylonian  specimens,  however,  were  the 
 most  esteemed.  The  Hebrews,  in  the  time  of 
 Moses,  could  easily  have  obtained  their  sard  stones 
 i'rom  Arabia,  in  which  country  they  were  at  the 
 time  the  breastplate  was  made ;  other  precious  stones 
 not  acquirable  during  their  wanderings,  may  have 
 been  brought  with  them  from  the  land  of  their 
 bondage  when  "they  spoiled  the  Egyptians."' 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SAR'DIS  [or  SAR'DES]  {l,dpSeis).  A  city 
 situated  about  two  miles  to  the  south  of  the  river 
 Hermus,  just  below   the  range  of   Tmolus   {Bo$ 
 
SARDIS 
 
 Diiyh),  ou  a  spur  of  which  its  acropolis  was  built. 
 It  was  the  ancient  residence  of  the  lyings  of  Lydia. 
 After  its  conquest  by  Cyrus,  the  Persians  always 
 kept  a  garrison  in  the  citadel,  on  account  of  its 
 natural  strength,  which  induced  Alexander  the 
 Great,  when  it  was  surrendered  to  iiim  in  the 
 ecviuel  of  the  battle  of  the  Granicus,  similarly  to 
 occupy  it.  Sardis  was  in  very  early  times,  both 
 from  the  extremely  fertile  character  of  tlie  neigh- 
 boring region,  and  from  its  convenient  position,  a 
 conniiercial  mart  of  importance.  Chestnuts  were 
 first  produced  in  the  neighborhood,  which  procured 
 them  the  name  of  ^iXavoi  ^apBiavoi.  The  art 
 of  dyeing  wool  is  said  by  Pliny  to  have  been 
 invented  there;  and  at  any  rate,  Sardis  was  the 
 entrepot  of  the  d3ed  woolen  manufactures,  of  which 
 Phrygia  with  its  vast  flocks  (TroAurrpo/SaTcoraTT;, 
 Herod,  v.  49)  furnished  the  raw  material.  Hence 
 we  hear  of  the  (potviKtSes  2ap5iavcti,  and  Sappho 
 speaks  of  the  iroiKi?.os  /xdadArjs  A.vSiov  KaXhu 
 ipyov,  which  was  perhaps  something  like  the  niod- 
 
 SARDIS 
 
 284S 
 
 em  Turkish  carpets.  Some  of  the  woolen  manu- 
 factures, of  a  peculiarly  fine  texture,  were  called 
 v|/i\OTaTrtS€s.  The  hall  through  which  the  king 
 of  Persia  passed  from  his  state  apartnjents  to  the 
 gate  where  he  moutited  on  his  horse,  was  laid  with . 
 these,  and  no  foot  but  that  of  the  monarch  was 
 allowed  to  tread  on  them.  In  the  description 
 given  of  the  habits  of  a  young  Cyprian  exquisit* 
 of  great  vvealth,  he  is  represented  as  reposing  upon 
 a  bed  of  which  the  feet  were  silver,  and  upon  which 
 these  ;f/iA.0Tairi5es  laphiavai  were  laid  as  a  niat.- 
 tress.  Sardis,  too,  was  the  place  where  the  metal 
 electrum  was  procured  (Soph.  Antic/.  10-37);  and 
 it  was  thither  that  the  Spartans  sent  in  the  sixth 
 century  b.  c.  to  purchase  gold  for  the  purpose  of 
 gilding  the  face  of  the  Apollo  at  Amycloe.  U'liia 
 was  probably  furnished  by  the  auriferous  sand  of 
 the  Pactolus,  a  brook  which  came  from  Tmolus, 
 and  ran  through  the  nijora  of  Sardis  by  the  side 
 of  the  great  temple  of  Cybebe.  But  though  its 
 gold-washings  may  have  been  celebrated  in  early 
 
 Riiin-s  of  Sardis- 
 
 times,  the  greatness  of  Sardis  in  its  best  days  was 
 much  more  due  to  its  general  commercial  impor- 
 tance and  its  convenience  as  an  entrepot.  This 
 seems  to  follow  from  the  statement,  that  not  only 
 silver  and  gold  coins  were  there  first  minted,  but 
 there  also  the  class  of  KawrjAoi  (stationary  traders 
 as  contradistinguished  from  the  efxizopoi,  or  travel- 
 ling merchants)  first  arose.  It  was  also,  at  any 
 rate  between  the  fall  of  the  Lydian  and  that  of  the 
 Persian  dynasty,  a  slave-mart. 
 
 Sardis  recovered  the  privilege  of  nuniicipal  gov- 
 ernment (and,  as  was  alleged  several  centuries 
 afterwards,  the  right  of  a  sanctuary)  upon  its  sur- 
 render to  Alexander  the  Great,  but  its  fortunes  for 
 the  next  three  hundred  years  are  very  oliscure.  It 
 changed  hands  more  than  once  in  the  contests  i 
 \ietween  the  dynasties  which  arose  after  the  death 
 of  Alexander.  In  the  year  214  b.  c,  it  was  taken 
 and  sacked  by  the  army  of  Antiochus  the  Great, 
 who  besieged  his  cousin  Achseus  in  it  for  two  years 
 before  succeeding,  as  he  at  last  did  through  treach- 
 
 ery, in  obtaining  possession  of  t'le  person  of  the 
 latter.  After  the  ruin  of  Antiociius's  fortunes,  it 
 passed,  with  the  rest  of  Asia  on  that  side  of  Tau- 
 rus, under  the  dominion  of  the  kings  of  Pergamns, 
 whose  interests  led  them  to  divert  the  course  of 
 traffic  between  Asia  and  Europe  away  from  Sai-dis. 
 Its  productive  soil  must  always  have  continued  a 
 source  of  vvealth ;  but  its  importance  as  a  central 
 mart  appears  to  have  diminished  from  the  time  of 
 the  invasion  of  .\sia  by  Alexander.  Of  tlie  few 
 inscriptions  which  have  been  discovered,  all,  or 
 nearly  all,  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Koinan  empire. 
 Yet  there  still  exist  considerable  remains  of  the 
 earlier  days.  The  massive  temple  of  r'yi'ebe  still 
 Ijears  witness  in  its  fra!>;mentary  remains  to  the 
 wealth  and  architectural  skill  of  tlie  people  that 
 raised  it.  Mr.  Cockerell,  who  visited  it  in  1812, 
 found  two  columns  standing  with  their  arehitnive, 
 the  stone  of  which  stretched  in  a  single  block  from 
 the  centre  of  one  to  that  of  the  other.  This  stone, 
 although  it  was  not  the  largest  of  the  architrave. 
 
2844 
 
 SARDIS 
 
 he  calculates  must  have  weighed  25  tons.  The 
 diameters  of  the  columns  supporting  it  are  G  feet 
 4J  inches  at  about  35  feet  below  the  capital.  The 
 present  soil  (apparently  formed  liy  the  crumbling 
 away  of  the  hill  which  backs  the  temple  on  its 
 eastern  side)  is  more  than  25  feet  aliove  the  pave- 
 ment. Such  proportions  are  not  inferior  to  those 
 of  the  columns  in  the  Hera;uni  at  Samos,  which 
 divides,  in  the  estimation  of  Herodotus,  with  the 
 Artemisium  at  ICphesus,  the  palm  of  preiiminence 
 among  all  the  works  of  Greek  art.  And  as  regards 
 the  details,  "  the  capitals  appeared,"  to  iSlr.  Cock- 
 erel!, "  to  surpass  any  specimen  of  the  Ionic  he  had 
 seen  in  perfection  of  design  and  execution."  On 
 the  north  side  of  the  acropolis,  overlooking  the 
 valley  of  the  Ilermus,  is  a  theatre  near  400  feet  in 
 diameter,  attached  to  a  stadium  of  about  1,000. 
 This  probably  was  erected  after  the  restoration  of 
 Sardis  by  Alexander.  In  the  attack  of  Sardis  by 
 Antiochus,  described  by  Poly  bins  (vii.  15-18),  it 
 constituted  one  of  the  chief  points  on  which,  after 
 entering  the  city,  the  assaulting  force  was  directed. 
 The  temple  belongs  to  the  era  of  the  Lydian 
 dynasty,  and  is  nearly  contemporaneous  with  the 
 temple  of  Zeus  Panhellenius  in  yEgina,  and  that 
 of  Heri^  in  Samos.  To  the  same  date  may  be  as- 
 signed the  "  Valley  of  Sweets  "  {y\vKvs  ayKuv), 
 a  pleasure  ground,  the  fame  of  which  Folycrates 
 endeavored  to  rival  by  the  so-called  Laura  at 
 Samos. 
 
 The  modern  name  of  the  ruins  at  Sardis  is  Bert- 
 Kok.fsL  Travellers  describe  the  appearance  of  the 
 locality  on  approaching  it  from  the  N.  W.  as  that 
 of  complete  solitude.  The  I'actolus  is  a  mere  thread 
 of  water,  all  but  evanescent  in  summer  time.  The 
 Wadis-tcJiai  (Hermus),  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
 town,  is  between  50  and  CO  yards  wide,  and  nearly 
 •'3  feet  deep,  but  its  waters  are  turbid  and  disagree- 
 able, and  are  not  only  avoided  as  unfit  for  drink- 
 ing, but  have  the  local  reputation  of  generating 
 the  fever  which  is  the  scourge  of  the  neighboring 
 plains. 
 
 In  the  time  of  the  emperor  Tiberius,  Sardis  was 
 desolated  by  an  earthquake,  together  with  eleven, 
 or  as  Eusebius  says  twelve,  other  important  cities 
 of  Asia.  The  whole  face  of  the  coimtry  is  said  to 
 have  been  changed  by  this  convulsion.  In  the 
 case  of  Sardis  the  calamity  was  increased  by  a  pes- 
 tilential fe\er  which  followed ;  and  so  much  com- 
 passion was  in  consequence  excited  for  the  city  at 
 Kome,  that  its  tribute  was  remitted  for  five  years, 
 and  it  received  a  benefaction  from  the  privy  purse 
 of  the  emperor.  This  was  in  the  year  17  A.  D. 
 Nine  years  afterwards  the  Sardians  are  foimd 
 among  the  competitors  for  the  honor  of  erecting, 
 as  representatives  of  the  Asiatic  cities,  a  tem))le  to 
 their  benefactor.  [Smyrna.]  On  this  occasion 
 they  plead,  not  only  their  ancient  services  to  Kome 
 in  the  time  of  the  Macedonian  war,  but  their  well- 
 watered  countr}',  their  climate,  and  the  richness  of 
 the  neighijoring  soil;  there  is  no  allusion,  however, 
 to  the  important  manufactures  and  the  conmierce 
 of  the  early  times.  In  the  time  of  Pliny  it  was 
 included  in  the  same  convenius  jurhKcus  with  Phil- 
 adelphia, with  the  Cadueni,  a  jNIacedonian  colony 
 in  the  neighborhood,  with  some  settlements  of  the 
 old  Mseonian  population,  and  a  few  other  towns  of 
 less  note.  These  Mseonians  still  continued  to  call 
 Sardis  by  its  ancient  name  Hyd^,  which  it  bore  in 
 the  time  of  Omphale. 
 
 The  only  passage  in  which  Sardis  is  mentioned 
 »  the  Bible,  is  Rev.  iii.  1-6.     There  is  nothing  in 
 
 SARGON 
 
 it  which  appears  to  have  any  special  reference  to 
 the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  city,  or  to  any- 
 thing else  than  the  moral  and  spiritual  condition 
 of  the  Christian  community  existing  there.  This 
 latter  was  probably,  in  its  secular  relations,  pretty 
 nearly  identical  with  that  at  Philadelphia. 
 
 (Athenaius  ii.  48,  vi.  2.31,  xii.  514,  540;  Ar- 
 rian,  i.  17;  Pliny,  U.  N.  v.  29,  xv.  23;  Stepha- 
 nus  Byz.  v.  "TSri ;  Pausanias,  iii.  9,  5;  Diodo- 
 rus  Sic.  XX.  107;  Scholiast,  Aristoph.  Pac.  1174; 
 Boeckh,  Inscriptiones  Grcecce,  Nos.  3451-3472; 
 Herodotus,  i.  6'J,  94,  iii.  48,  viii.  105 ;  Strabo,  xiiL 
 §  5;  Tacitus,  Aniial.  ii.  47,  iii.  63,  iv.  55;  Cocker- 
 ell,  in  Leake's  Asia  Minoi;  p.  343;  Arundell,  Dis- 
 caveries  in  Asia  Minor,  i.  pp.  26-28 ;  Tchihatcheff, 
 Asie  Mineure,  pp.  232-242.)  J.  W.  B. 
 
 SAR'DITES  THE  ("'"T^E'n  [patr.] :  6  Sap- 
 eSi  [Vat.  -5e(] :  Sareditm).  The  descendants  of 
 Seked  the  son  of  Zebulon  (Num.  xxvi.  26). 
 
 SARDONYX  (crapd6vvi,'-  sardonyx)  is  men- 
 tioned in  the  N  T.  once  only,  namely,  in  Kev. 
 xxi.  20,  as  the  stoae  which  garnished  the  fifth  foun- 
 dation of  the  wall  of  the  heaveidy  Jerusalem.  "  By 
 sardonyx,"  says  Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii.  6),  who  de- 
 scribes several  varieties,  "was  ibrmerly  understood,  as 
 its  name  implies,  a  sard  with  a  white  ground  beneath 
 it,  like  the  flesh  under  the  finger-nail."  The  sar- 
 donyx consists  of  "  a  white  opaque  layer,  superim- 
 posed upon  a  red  transparent  stratum  of  the  true 
 red  sard"  {Antique  6V»?s,  p.  9);  it  is,  like  the 
 sard,  merely  a  variety  of  agate,  and  is  frequently 
 employed  by  engra\ers  for  the  purpose  of  a  signet- 
 ring.  "VV.  H. 
 
 SA'REA  {Sarea).  One  of  the  five  scribes 
 "ready  to  write  swiftly"  whom  Esdras  was  com- 
 manded to  take  (2  Esdr.  xiv.  24). 
 
 SAREP'TA  (SapeTTTa:  Sarepta:  Syriac, 
 Tsnrpiilh).  The  Greek  form  of  the  name  which  in 
 the  Hebrew  text  of  the  O.  T.  appears  as  Zai!e- 
 PHATH.  The  place  is  designated  by  the  same  for- 
 mula on  its  single  occurrence  in  the  N.  T.  (Luke 
 iv.  26)  that  it  is  when  first  mentioned  in  the  LXX. 
 version  of  1  K.  xvii.  9,  "  Sarepta  of  Sidonia." 
 
 G. 
 
 SAR'GON  {y\TyD  [perh.  Pers.,  prince  of 
 the  sun,  Ges.] :  'Kpua'-  Snrgon)  was  one  of  the 
 greatest  of  the  Assyrian  kings.  His  name  is  read 
 in  the  native  inscriptions  as  Sargina,  while  a  town 
 which  he  built  and  called  after  him&elf  (now  Khor- 
 sabad)  was  known  as  Sarcjhun  to  the  Arabian 
 geographers.  He  is  mentioned  by  name  only  once 
 in  Scripture  (Is.  xx.  1),  and  then  not  in  an  hiskor- 
 ical  book,  which  formerly  led  historians  and  critics 
 to  suspect  that  he  was  not  really  a  king  distinct 
 from  those  mentioned  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  but 
 rather  one  of  tho.se  kings  under  another  name.  Vi- 
 tringa,  Oft'erhaus,  Eichhorn,  and  Hupfeld  identified 
 him  with  Shalmaneser;  Grotius,  Lowth,  and  Keil 
 with  Sennacherib;  Perizonius,  Kalinsky,  and  Mi- 
 chaelis  with  Esarhaddon.  All  these  conjectures 
 are  now  shown  to  be  wrong  by  the  Assyrian  in- 
 scriptions, which  prove  Sargon  to  have  been  dis- 
 tinct and  different  from  the  several  monarchs  named, 
 and  fix  his  place  in  the  list  —  where  it  had  been 
 already  assigned  by  Kosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  Ewald, 
 and  Winer  —  between  Shalmaneser  and  Sennach- 
 erib. He  was  certainly  Seiniacherili's  father,  and 
 there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  was  his  im- 
 mediate predecessor.  He  ascended  the  throne  of 
 Assyria,  as  we  gather  from  his  annals,  in  the  same 
 
SARGON 
 
 year  that  Merodach-Baladan  ascended  the  throne 
 3f  Babylon,  which,  according  to  Ptolemy's  Canon, 
 was  B.  c.  721.  He  seems  to  have  been  an  usurper, 
 and  not  of  royal  birth,  for  in  his  inscriptions  he 
 carefully  avoids  all  mention  of  iiis  father.  It  has 
 been  conjectured  that  he  took  advantage  of  Shal- 
 nianesers  absence  at  the  protracted  siege  of  Sama- 
 ria (2  K.  xvii.  5)  to  effect  a  revolution  at  the  seat 
 of  government,  by  which  that  king  was  deposed, 
 and  he  himself  substituted  in  his  room.  [Shal- 
 MANESER.]  It  is  remarkable  that  Sargon  claims 
 the  conquest  of  Samaria,  which  the  narrative  in 
 Kings  appears  to  assign  to  his  predecessor.  He 
 places  the  event  in  his  first  year,  before  any  of  his 
 other  expeditions.  Perhaps,  therefore,  he  is  the 
 "  king  of  Assyria  "  intended  in  2  K.  xvii.  C  and 
 xviii.  11,  who  is  not  said  to  be  Slialmaneser,  though 
 we  might  naturally  suppose  so  from  no  other  name 
 being  mentioned."  Or  perhaps  he  claimed  the 
 conquest  as  his  own,  though  Shahnaneser  really 
 accomplished  it,  because  the  capture  of  the  city  oc- 
 curred after  he  had  been  acknowledged  king  in  the 
 Assyrian  capital.  At  any  rate,  to  him  lielongs  the 
 settlement  of  the  Samaritans  (27,280  families,  ac- 
 cording to  his  own  statement)  in  Halah,  and  on 
 the  Habor  {Khahour),  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  (at 
 a  later  period  probably)  in  the  cities  of  the  JMedes. 
 Sargon  was  imdoubtedly  a  great  and  successful 
 warrior.  In  his  annals,  which  cover  a  space  of 
 fifteen  years  (from  b.  c.  721  to  b.  c.  70G),  he  gives 
 an  account  of  his  warlike  expeditions  against  Baby- 
 Ionia  and  Susiana  on  the  south.  Media  on  the  east, 
 Armenia  and  Cappadocia  towards  the  north,  Syria, 
 Palestine,  Arabia,  and  Egypt  towards  the  west  and 
 the  southwest.  In  Baliylonia  he  deposed  Mero- 
 dach-Baladan, and  established  a  viceroy ;  in  Media 
 he  built  a  number  of  cities,  which  he  peopled  witli 
 captives  from  other  quarters ;  in  Armenia  and  the 
 neighboring  countries  he  gained  many  victories; 
 while  in  the  far  west  he  reduced  Philistia,  pene- 
 trated deep  into  the  Arabian  peninsula,  and  forced 
 Egypt  to  submit  to  his  arms  and  consent  to  the 
 payment  of  a  tribute.  In  this  last  direction  he 
 seems  to  have  waged  three  wars  —  one  in  his  sec- 
 ond year  (b.  c.  720),  for  the  possession  of  Gaza: 
 another  in  his  sixth  year  (b.  c.  71.5),  when  Egypt 
 itself  was  the  object  of  attack ;  and  a  third  in  his 
 ninth  (b.  c.  712),  when  the  special  subject  of  con- 
 tention was  Ashdod,  which  Sargon  took  by  one  of 
 his  generals.  This  is  the  event  which  causes  the 
 mention  of  Sargon's  name  in  Scripture.  Isaiah 
 was  instructed  at  the  time  of  this  expedition  to 
 "  put  off  his  shoe,  and  go  naked  and  barefoot,"  for 
 a  sign  that  "  the  king  of  Assyria  should  lead  away 
 the  Egyptians  prisoners,  and  the  Ethiopians  cap- 
 tives, yoimg  and  old,  naked  and  barefoot,  to  the 
 shame  of  Egypt"  (Is.  xx.  2-4).  VVe  may  gather 
 from  this,  either  that  Ethiopians  and  Egyptians 
 formed  part  of  the  garrison  of  Ashdod  and  were 
 captured  with  the  city,  or  that  the  attack  on  the 
 Phihstine  town  was  accompanied  by  an  invasion  of 
 Egypt  itself,  which  was  disastrous  to  the  Egyptians. 
 The  year  of  the  attack,  being  n.  c.  712,  would  fall 
 into  the  reign  of  the  first  PLthiopian  king,  Sabaco 
 
 SARO]!f 
 
 2845 
 
 I.,  who  probably  conquered  Eg3pt  in  B.  c.  714 
 (Rawhnson's  Herodotus,  i.  38G,  note  7,  2d  ed.), 
 and  it  is  in  agreement  with  this  [that]  Sargon 
 speaks  of  Egypt  as  being  at  this  time  subject  (o 
 Meroe.  Besides  these  expeditions  of  Sargon.  his 
 monuments  mention  that  he  took  Tyre,  and  re- 
 ceived tribute  from  the  Greeits  of  Cyprus,  against 
 whom  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  he  con- 
 durted  an  attack  in  person.'' 
 
 It  is  not  as  a  warrior  only  that  Sargon  deserves 
 special  mention  among  the  Assyrian  kings.  He 
 was  also  the  builder  of  useful  works  and  of  one  of 
 the  most  magnificent  of  the  Assyrian  palaces.  He 
 relates  that  he  thoroughly  repaired  the  walls  of 
 Nineveh,  which  he  seems  to  have  elevated  from  a 
 provincial  city  of  some  importance  to  the  first  posi- 
 tion in  the  empire;  and  adds  further,  that  in  its 
 neighborhood  he  constructed  the  palace  and  town 
 which  he  made  his  principal  residence.  This  was 
 the  city  now  known  as  "  the  French  Nineveh,"  or 
 "  Khorsabad,"  from  which  the  valuable  series  of 
 Assyrian  monuments  at  present  in  the  Louvre  is 
 derived  almost  entirely.  Traces  of  Sargon's  build- 
 ings have  been  found  also  at  Nimrnd  and  Koyun- 
 jik;  and  his  time  is  marked  by  a  considerable  ad- 
 vance in  the  useful  and  ornamental  arts,  which 
 seem  to  have  profited  by  the  connection  which  he 
 established  between  .Assyria  and  I'^gypt.  He  probably 
 reigned  nineteen  years,  from  b.  c.  721  to  b.  c.  702, 
 when  he  left  the  throne  to  his  son,  the  celebrated 
 Sennacherib.  G.  R. 
 
 SA'RID  {'V~\W  [one  left,  a  survivor]  :  'E<re- 
 SiKyaiXa,'^  :S,iSSovK;  Alex.  SapSiS,  2api3:  Sarid). 
 A  chief  landmark  of  the  territory  of  Zebulun,  ap- 
 parently the  pivot  of  the  western  and  southern 
 boundaries  (.Josh.  xix.  10,  12).  All  that  can  be 
 gatliered  of  its  position  is  that  it  lay  to  the  west  of 
 Chisloth-Tabor.  It  was  unknown  to  Eusebius  and 
 .Jerome,  and  no  trace  of  it  seems  to  have  been 
 found  by  any  traveller  since  their  day  ( Oiiom. 
 "Sarith"). 
 
 The  ancient  Syriac  version,  in  each  case,  reads 
 Asdod.  This  may  be  only  from  the  interchange, 
 so  frequent  in  this  version,  of  R  and  D.  At  any 
 rate,  the  Ashdod  of  the  Philistines  cannot  be  in- 
 tended. G. 
 
 SA'RON  {rhv  'S.apSiva;  in  some  MSS.  atraa- 
 pwva,  i-  e.  ^TltS^H  [the  2ilai7i]  :  Sarona).  The 
 district  in  which  Lydda  stood  (Acts  ix.  35  only); 
 the  Shauon  of  the  0.  T.  The  absence  of  the  ar- 
 ticle from  Lydda,  and  its  presence  before  Saron,  is 
 noticeable,  and  shows  that  the  name  denotes  a  dis- 
 trict—  as  in  "The  Shefelah,"  and  in  our  own 
 "  The  Weald,"  "  The  Downs."  G. 
 
 *  The  Plain  extended  along  the  sea-coast  from 
 Joppa  to  Csesarea,  about  30  miles.  Though  con- 
 nected by  Kai  to  Lydda,  in  Acts  ix.  35,  Saron  in- 
 cluded that  city.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  there 
 was  a  village  of  this  name,  but  no  trace  of  it  has 
 been  discovered.  Luke's  meaning  is  that  not  only 
 tlie  inhabitants  of  Lydda  but  of  the  Plain  gener- 
 ally, heard  of  the  miracle  and  believed.  H. 
 
 a  There  is  a  peculiarity  of  phraseology  in  2  K.  xviii. 
 t>,  10,  which  perhaps  indicates  a  knowledge  on  the  part 
 of  the  writer  that  Shalmaueser  was  not  the  actual 
 captor.  "  In  the  fourth  year  of  Hezekiah,"  he  pays, 
 ■■'  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria  came  up  against  Sama- 
 ria and  besieged  it :  and  at  the  end  of  three  years, 
 ailET  took  it," 
 
 b  The  statue  of  Sargon,  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum, 
 was  found  at  Idalium  in  Cyprus.  It  is  not  very  likely 
 that  the  king's  statue  woulit  have  been  set  up  unless 
 he  had  made  the  expedition  in  person. 
 
 c  This  barbarous  word  is  obtained  by  joining  to  S»- 
 
 rid  the  first  word  of  tlie  following  verse,  n71?1. 
 
2846  SAROTHIE 
 
 SARO'THIE  [4syl.]  {:Sapo,ei  [Vat.  -Bei]; 
 Alex.  [AW.]  2apco0ie:  CaronHIt).  "The  sons  of 
 Saiothie  "  fire  .among  tlie  sons  of  the  servants  of 
 Solomon  vho  returned  witli  Zorobabel,  according 
 to  the  hst  in  1  Esdr.  v.  34.  There  is  nothing  cor- 
 responding to  it  in  the  Hebrew. 
 
 SAR'SECHIM    (a''pP"lC27  [j^iince   of  the 
 
 iumichs]:  SarKnc/rim).  (Jne  of  the  generals  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar's  army  at  tlie  taking  of  .Jerusalem 
 (Jer.  xxxix.  3).  He  appears  to  have  held  tlie  office 
 of  chief  eunuch,  for  Rah- saris  is  probably  a  title 
 and  not  a  (iroper  name.  In  Jer.  xxxix.  IM,  Nelm- 
 shasban  is  called  Rab-saris,  "chief  eunuch,"  and 
 the  question  arises  vyhether  Nebnshasban  and  Sar- 
 sechini  may  not  be  names  of  the  same  person  In 
 the  LXX.,  verses  3  and  13  are  mixed  up  to!:ether, 
 and  so  hopelessly  corrujit  that  it  is  impossible  to 
 infer  anything  from  their  reading  of  T^a^ovadxa-p 
 [but  Comp.  Na/Souo-apo-axi/u]  ^"^  Sarsecliim.  In 
 Gesenius'  Tln-^ii/,riis  it  is  conjectured  that  Sarse- 
 cliim and  Rab-saris  may  be  identical,  and  both 
 titles  of  the  same  office. 
 
 SA'RUCH  i'Xapovx'  Sai-uff).  Sekug  the 
 son  of  Jteu  (Luke  iii.  35). 
 
 SA'TAN.     The  word  itself,  the  Hebrew  "JT^Ji7, 
 
 '  '    T   T     ' 
 
 is  simply  an  "adversary,''  and  is  soused  in  1  Sam. 
 xxix.  4;  2  Sam.  xix.  22;  1  K.  v.  4  (LXX.  eVi'- 
 ^ov\os);  in  1  K.  xi.  25  (LXX.  avTiKel/xepos):  in 
 Num.  xxii.  22,  and  I's.  cix.  G  (LXX.  Sia/8oAos  and 
 cognate  words);  in  1  K.  xi.  14,  23  (LXX.  craTay). 
 This  original  sense  is  still  found  in  our  Lord's  ap- 
 plication of  the  name  to  St.  I'eter  in  Matt.  xvi.  23. 
 It  is  used  as  a  proper  name  or  title  only  four  times 
 in  the  0.  T.,  namely,  (with  the  article)  in  Job  i.  G, 
 12,  ii.  1;  Zech.  iii.  1,  and  (without  the  article)  in 
 1  Chr.  xxi.  1.  In  each  case  the  LXX.  has  Sia/3o- 
 Aos,  and  the  Vul<:jate  Satan.  In  the  N.  T.  the 
 word  is  aaTuvas,  followed  by  the  Vulgate  Satanas, 
 except  in  2  (.'or.  xii.  7,  where  aarav  is  used.  It  is 
 found  in  twenty-fiye  places  (exclusive  of  parallel  pas- 
 sages), and  the  corresponding  word  6  SidPoXos  in 
 about  the  same  number.  The  title  6  dpx'^"  ■''"C 
 Kua-fj-ov  TovTov  is  used  three  times;  6  ■Kov7}p6s  is 
 used  certainly  six  times,  probably  more  frequently, 
 and  o  -Kfipd^wv  twice. 
 
 It  is  with  the  Scriptural  revelation  on  the  sub- 
 ject that  we  are  here  concerned,  and  it  is  clear, 
 from  this  simple  enumeration  of  passages,  that  it  is 
 to  be  sought  in  the  New,  rather  than  in  the  Old 
 Testament. 
 
 It  divides  itself  naturally  into  the  consideration 
 of  his  existence,  his  nature,  and  his  power  and 
 action. 
 
 (A.)  His  E.XTSTENCE.  —  It  would  be  a  waste  of 
 time  to  prove,  that,  in  various  degrees  of  clearness, 
 the  personal  existence  of  a  Spirit  of  Evil  is  reveiiled 
 again  and  again  in  Scripture.  Every  quality,  e\ery 
 action,  which  can  indicate  personality,  is  attributed 
 to  him  in  language  which  cannot  be  explained  away, 
 k  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  it  shoulil  be  thus  re- 
 vealed. It  is  olivious  that  the  foct  of  his  existence 
 is  of  spiritual  importance,  and  it  is  also  clear,  from 
 the  nature  of  the  case,  that  it  could  not  be  discov- 
 ered, although  it  might  lie  suspected,  by  human 
 reason.  It  is  in  the  jiower  of  that  reason  to  test 
 any  supposed  manifestations  of  supernatural  power, 
 and  any  a.sserted  principles  of  Divine  action,  which 
 fall  within  its  sphere  of  experience  ("  tlie  cni  tbly 
 things  "  of  John  iii.  12);  it  may  by  such  exaii  ina- 
 tion  satisfy  itself  of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  a  Per- 
 
 SATAN 
 
 son  or  a  book ;  hut,  having  done  this,  it  must  then 
 accept  and  understand,  without  being  able  to  test 
 or  to  explain,  the  disclosures  of  this  Divine  author- 
 ity upon  subjects  beyond  this  world  (the  "  heavenly 
 thintrs,"  of  which  it  is  said  that  none  can  see  or 
 disclose  them,  save  the  "  Sou  of  Man  who  is  in 
 heaven  "). 
 
 It  is  true,  that  human  thouizht  can  assert  an 
 a  priori  jirobability  or  improbability  in  such  state- 
 ments made,  based  on  the  perception  of  a  greater  cr 
 less  degree  of  accordance  in  principle  between  the 
 things  seen  and  the  things  unseen,  1  etween  the 
 effects,  which  are  visible,  and  the  causes,  which  are 
 re\ealed  from  the  regions  of  mystery.  I'ut  even 
 this  power  of  weighing  jiroljaiiility  is  applicable 
 rather  to  the  fact  and  tendency,  than  to  the  method, 
 of  supernatural  action.  This  is  true  even  of  natu- 
 ral action  beyond  the  sphere  of  human  oiiservation. 
 In  the  discussion  of  the  Plurality  of  A\'orlds,  for 
 example,  it  may  be  asserted  without  doubt,  that 
 in  all  the  orbs  of  the  universe  the  Divine  power, 
 wisdom,  and  goodness  must  be  exercised ;  but  tiie 
 inference  that  the  method  of  their  exercise  is  found 
 there,  as  here,  in  the  creation  of  sentient  and  rational 
 beings,  is  one  at  best  of  but  moderate  probaliility. 
 Still  more  is  this  the  case  in  the  spiritual  world. 
 Whatever  supernatural  orders  of  beings  may  exist, 
 we  can  conclude  that  in  their  case,  as  in  ours,  the 
 Divine  government  must  be  carried  on  by  the  union 
 of  individual  freedom  of  action  with  the  overruling 
 power  of  God,  and  must  tend  finally  to  that  gond 
 which  is  his  central  attribute.  But  beyond  fl,is 
 we  can  assert  nothing  to  be  certain,  and  can  scarcely 
 even  say  of  any  part  of  the  method  of  this  govern- 
 ment, whether  it  is  antecedently  probable  or  im- 
 probable. 
 
 Thus,  on  our  present  subject,  man  can  ascertain 
 by  observation  the  existence  of  evil,  that  is,  of  fads 
 and  thoughts  contrary  to  the  standard  which  con- 
 science asserts  to  be  the  true  one,  bringing  with 
 them  suflering  and  misery  as  their  inevitable  re- 
 sults If  he  attempts  to  trace  them  to  their  causes, 
 he  finds  them  to  arise,  for  each  individual,  partly 
 from  the  power  of  certain  internal  impulses  which 
 act  upon  the  will,  partly  from  the  influence  of  ex- 
 ternal circumstances.  These  circumstances  them- 
 selves arise,  eitiier  from  the  laws  of  nature  and  so- 
 ciety, or  by  the  deliberate  action  of  other  men. 
 He  can  conclude  with  certainty,  that  both  sen3s  of 
 causes  must  exist  by  the  permission  of  (Jod,  and 
 muSt  finally  be  overruled  to  his  will.  But  whether 
 there  exists  any  superhuman  but  subordinate  cause 
 of  the  circumstances,  and  whether  there  be  any 
 similar  inliueiice  acting  in  the  origin.ation  of  the 
 impulses  which  move  the  will,  this  is  a  question 
 which  he  cannot  answer  with  certainty.  Analogy 
 from  the  observation  of  the  only  ultimate  cause 
 which  he  can  discover  in  the  visible  world,  namely, 
 the  I'ree  action  of  a  personal  will,  may  lead  him, 
 and  generally  has  led  him,  to  conjecture  in  the  af- 
 firmative, but  still  the  inquiry  remains  unanswered 
 by  authority. 
 
 The  tendency  of  the  mind  in  its  inquiry  is  gen- 
 erally towards  one  or  other  of  two  extremes.  The 
 first  is  to  consider  evil  as  a  negative  imperfection, 
 arising,  in  some  unknown  and  inexplicable  way, 
 from  the  nature  of  matter,  or  from  some  disturbing 
 influences  which  limit  the  action  of  goodness  on 
 earth ;  in  fact,  to  ignore  as  nuieh  of  evil  as  possible, 
 and  to  decline  to  refer  the  residuum  to  any  positive 
 cause  at  all.  The  other  is  the  old  Persian  or  Jlan- 
 iclisean  hypothesis,  which  traces   the  existence  of 
 
SATAN 
 
 evil  to  a  rival  Creator,  not  subordinate  to  the  Cre- 
 ator of  Good,  thougii  perhaps  inferior  to  Him  in 
 power,  and  destined  to  be  overcome  by  Him  at  last. 
 IJetween  these  two  extremes  the  mind  varied, 
 through  many  gradations  of  thought  and  countless 
 forms  of  superstition.  Each  hypothesis  had  its  ar- 
 guments of  probability  against  tlie  other.  The  first 
 labored  under  tlie  difficulty  of  being  insufficient  as 
 an  account  of  the  anomalous  facts,  and  indetermi- 
 nate in  its  account  of  the  disturliing  causes;  the 
 second  sinned  against  that  belief  in  the  Unity  of 
 God  and  the  natural  supremacy  of  goodness,  which 
 is  supported  by  the  deepest  instincts  ot  the  heart. 
 But  both  were  laid  in  a  sphere  beyond  human  cog- 
 nizance; neither  could  be  proved  or  disproved  with 
 certainty. 
 
 The  Revelation  of  Scripture,  speaking  witli  au- 
 thority, meets  the  trutli,  and  removes  the  error  in- 
 herent in  both  these  hypotlieses.  It  asserts  in  the 
 strongest  terms  the  perfect  supremacy  of  God,  so 
 that  under  his  permission  alone,  and  for  his  inscru- 
 table purposes,  evil  is  allowed  to  exist  (see  for 
 example,  Prov.  xvi.  4;  Is.  xlv.  7;  Am.  iii.  6; 
 comp.  Kom.  ix.  22,  2.3).  It  regards  this  evil  as  an 
 anomaly  and  corruption,  to  be  taken  away  by  a 
 new  manifestation  of  Divine  Love  in  the  Incarna- 
 tion and  Atonement.  The  conquest  of  it  began 
 virtually  in  God's  ordinance  after  the  Fall  ilstlf, 
 was  effected  actually  on  the  Cross,  and  sh.all  be 
 perfected  in  its  results  at  the  Judgment  Day. 
 Still  Scripture  recognizes  the  existence  of  evil  in 
 the  world,  not  oidy  as  felt  in  outward  circum- 
 stances ("  the  world  "),  and  as  inborn  in  the  .soul 
 of  man  {"  the  flesh  "),  but  also  as  proceeding 
 from  the  influence  of  an  Evil  Spirit,  exercising 
 that  mysterious  power  of  free  will,  which  God's 
 rational  creatures  possess,  to  rebel  against  Him, 
 and  to  draw  others  into  the  same  rebellion  ("  the 
 devil "). 
 
 In  accordance  with  the  "economy"  and  pro- 
 gressiveness  of  God's  revelation,  the  existence  of 
 Satan  is  but  gradually  revealed.  In  the  first  en- 
 trance of  evil  into  the  world,  the  temptation  is 
 referred  only  to  the  sei-pent.  It  is  true  that  the 
 whole  narrative,  and  especially  the  spiritual  nature 
 of  the  temptation  ("to  be  as  gods"),  which  was 
 united  to  the  sensual  motive,  would  force  on  any 
 thoughtful  reader «  the  conclusion  that  something 
 more  than  a  mere  animal  agency  was  at  work ; 
 but  the  time  was  not  then  come  to  reveal,  what 
 afterwards  was  revealed,  that  "  he  who  siiineth 
 is  of  the  devil"  (1  John  iii.  8),  that  "the  old 
 serpent"  of  Genesis  was  "called  the  devil  and 
 Satan,  who  deceiveth  the  whole  world  "  (Rev.  xii. 
 9,  XX.  3). 
 
 Throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  patriarchal 
 and  Jewish  dispensation,  this  vague  and  imperfect 
 revelation  of  the  Source  of  Evil  alone  was  given. 
 The  Source  of  all  Good  is  set  forth  in  all  his  su- 
 preme and  unapproachable  Majesty;  evil  is  known 
 negatively  as  the  falling  away  from  Him ;  and  the 
 "vanity"  of  idols,  rather  than  any  positive  e\il 
 influence,  is  represented  as  the  opposite  to  his 
 reality  and  goodness.  The  Law  gives  "the  knowl- 
 edge of  sin  "  in  the  soul,  without  referring  to  any 
 external  influence  of  evil  to  foster  it;  it  denounces 
 
 SATAN 
 
 2847 
 
 idolatry,  without  even  hinting,  what  the  N.  T. 
 declares  plainly,  that  such  evil  implied  a  "  power 
 of  Satan."'' 
 
 The  book  of  Job  stands,  in  any  case,  alone 
 (whether  we  refer  it  to  an  early  or  a  later  period) 
 on  the  basis  of  "  natural  religion,''  apart  from  the 
 gradual  and  orderly  evolutions  of  the  Mosaic  reve- 
 lation. In  it,  for  the  first  time,  we  find  a  distinct 
 mention  of  "  Satan,"  "  the  adversary  "  of  Job. 
 But  it  is  important  to  remark  the  emphatic  stress 
 laid  on  his  subordinate  position,  on  tiie  alisence  of 
 all  but  delegated  power,  of  all  terror,  and  all  grand- 
 eur in  his  character.  He  comes  among  the  "  sons 
 of  God"  to  present  himself  before  the  Lord;  his 
 malice  and  envy  are  peru)itted  to  liave  scope,  in 
 accusation  or  in  action,  only  for  (jod's  own  pur- 
 poses; and  it  is  especially  remarkable  that  no  power 
 of  spiritual  influence,  but  only  a  power  over  out- 
 ward circumstances,  is  attributed  to  him.  All  this 
 is  widely  difterent  from  the  clear  and  terrible  reve- 
 lations of  the  N.  T. 
 
 The  Captivity  brought  the  Israelites  face  to  face 
 with  the  great  dualism  of  the  Persian  mythology, 
 the  conflict  of  Ormuzd  with  Ahriman,  the  co- 
 ordinate S|jirit  of  Evil.  In  the  books  written  after 
 the  Captivity  we  have  ag.ain  the  name  of  "  Satan  " 
 twice  mentioned;  but  it  is  confessed  by  all  that 
 the  Satan  of  Scripture  bears  no  resemblance  to  the 
 Persian  Ahriman.  His  sutiordination  and  inferi- 
 ority are  as  strongly  marked  as  ever.  In  1  Chr. 
 xxi.  1,  where  the  name  occurs  without  the  article 
 ("  an  adversary,"  not  "  tlie  adversary  "),  the  com- 
 parison with  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1  shows  distinctly  that, 
 in  the  temptation  of  David,  Satan's  malice  was 
 overruled  to  work  out  the  "anger  of  the  Lord" 
 against  Israel.  In  Zech.  iii.  1,  2,  "  Satan"  is 
 o  avTi^i-Kos  (as  in  1  Pet.  v.  8),  the  accuser  of 
 Joshua  before  the  throne  of  God,  rebuked  and  put 
 to  silence  by  Him  (comp.  Ps.  cix.  G).  In  tlie  case, 
 as  of  the  good  angels,  so  also  of  the  Evil  One,  the 
 presence  of  fable  and  idolatry  ga\e  cause  to  the 
 manifestation  of  the  truth.  [Angkls,  i.  97  6.] 
 It  would  have  lieen  impossible  to  guard  the  Israel- 
 ites more  distinctly  from  the  fascination  of  the 
 great  dualistic  theory  of  tlieir  conquerors. 
 
 It  is  perhaps  not  difficult  to  conjecture,  that  the 
 reason  of  this  reserve  as  to  the  disclosure  of  the 
 existence  and  nature  of  Satan  is  to  be  found  in 
 tlie  inveterate  tendency  of  the  Israelites  to  idolatry, 
 an  idolatry  based  as  usual,  in  great  degree,  on  the 
 supposed  power  of  their  false  gods  to  inflict  evil. 
 The  existence  of  evil  spirits  is  suggested  to  them 
 in  the  stern  prohibition  and  punishment  of  witch- 
 craft (Ex.  xxii.  18;  Deut.  xviii.  10),  and  in  the 
 narrative  of  the  possession  of  men  by  an  "evil''  oi 
 "lying  spirit  from  the  Lord"  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14 
 1  K.  xxii.  22);  the  tendency  to  seek  their  aid  i& 
 shown  by  the  rebukes  of  the  prophets  (Is.  viii 
 19,  &c.).  But  this  tendency  would  have  been  in- 
 creased tenfold  by  the  revelation  of  the  existence  of 
 the  great  enemy,  concentrating  round  himself  all 
 the  powers  of  evil  and  enmity  against  God.  There- 
 fore, it  would  seem,  the  revelation  of  the  "  strong 
 man  armed"  was  witiiheld  until  "the  stronger 
 than  he"  should  be  made  manifest. 
 
 For  in  the  New  Test,  this  reserve  suddenly  van- 
 
 a  See  Wisd.  ii.  24,  <i>e6v<a  be  5ta/3oA.ou  eai/aros  el<rr\\- 
 
 *«!/  €IS  TOl/  K6tXtt,0V, 
 
 b  For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  seems  impossi- 
 ble to  accept  the  interpretation  of  "  Azazel,"  given  by 
 Spencer,  Hengstenberg,  and  others,  in  Lev.  xvi.  8,  as 
 
 a  reference  to  the  Spirit  of  Evil.  Such  a  reference 
 would  not  only  stand  alone,  but  would  be  entirely  in- 
 consistent witb  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Mosaic  revela- 
 tion.    See  Day  of  Atonement. 
 
2848  SATAN 
 
 iglies.  In  the  interval  between  the  Old  and  New 
 Test,  the  Jewish  mind  had  pondered  on  the  scanty 
 revelations  already  gi\en  of  evil  spiritual  influence. 
 But  the  Apocryphal  Books  (as,  for  example,  Tobit 
 and  Judith),  wliile  dwelling  on  "demons"  (Soi/xo- 
 via),  have  no  notice  of  Satan.  The  same  may  be 
 observed  of  Joseplius.  The  only  instance  to  the 
 contrary  is  the  reference  already  made  to  Wisd.  ii. 
 24.  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  the  Targums  often 
 introduce  the  name  of  Satan  into  the  descriptions 
 of  sin  and  temptation  found  in  the  0.  T. ;  as  for 
 example  in  Ex.  xxxii.  19,  in  connection  with  the 
 worship  of  the  golden  calf  (conip.  the  tradition  as 
 to  the  body  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  6 ;  Jude  9, 
 Michael).  But,  while  a  mass  of  fable  and  super- 
 stition grew  up  on  the  general  subject  of  evil 
 spiritual  influence,  still  the  existence  and  nature  of 
 Satan  remained  in  the  background,  felt,  but  not 
 understood. 
 
 The  N.  T.  first  brings  it  plainly  forward.  From 
 the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  when  he  appears  as 
 the  personal  tempter  of  our  Lord,  through  all  the 
 Gospels,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  it  is  asserted  or 
 implied,  again  and  again,  as  a  familiar  and  im- 
 portant truth.  To  refer  this  to  mere  •'  accommo- 
 dation "  of  the  language  of  the  Lord  and  his 
 Apostles  to  the  ordinary  Jewish  belief,  is  to  contra- 
 dict facts,  and  evade  the  meaning  of  words.  The 
 subject  is  not  one  on  which  error  could  be  tolerated 
 as  unimportant;  but  one  important,  practical,  and 
 even  awful.  'J"he  language  used  respecting  it  is 
 either  truth  or  falsehood ;  and  unless  we  impute 
 error  or  deceit  to  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.,  we  must 
 receive  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  Satan  as  a 
 certain  doctrine  of  Revelation.  Without  dwelling 
 on  otiier  passages,  the  plain,  solemn,  and  unnieta- 
 phorical  words  of  John  viii.  44,  must  be  sufficient: 
 "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil.  .  .  .  ■  .  He 
 was  a  murderer  from   the  beginning,  and  abides 
 
 (effTtj/cej/)  not  in  the  truth When 
 
 he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  for  he  is 
 a  liar  and  the  lather  of  it."  On  this  subject,  see 
 Demoniacs,  vol.  i.  p.  585. 
 
 (B.)  His  Nature.  —  Of  the  nature  and  original 
 state  of  Satan,  little  is  revealed  in  Scripture.  Most 
 of  the  common  notions  on  the  subject  are  drawn 
 from  mere  tradition,  popularized  in  England  by 
 Milton,  but  without  even  a  vestige  of  Scriptural 
 authority.  He  is  spoken  of  as  a  "spirit"  in  Eph. 
 ii.  2,  as  the  prince  or  ruler  of  the  "demons" 
 {Saifj.6i'ia)  in  Matt.  xii.  24-20,  and  as  having 
 "angels"  subject  to  him  in  Matt.  xxv.  41:  Rev. 
 xii.  7,  9.  The  whole  description  of  his  power  im- 
 plies spiritual  nature  and  spiritual  influence.  We 
 conclude  tlierefore  that  he  was  of  angelic  nature 
 [Angels],  a  rational  and  spiritual  creature,  super- 
 human in  ]jower,  wisdom,  and  energy ;  and  not 
 only  so,  but  an  archangel,  one  of  the  "  princes  "  of 
 heaven.  We  cannot,  of  course,  conceive  that  any- 
 thing essentially  and  originallj'  evil  was  created  by 
 God.  We  find  by  exjjerience,  that  the  will  of  a 
 free  and  rational  creature  can,  by  his  permission, 
 oppose  his  will;  that  the  very  conception  of  free- 
 dom implies  capacity  of  temptation ;  and  that 
 every  sin,  unless  arrested  by  God's  fresh  gift  of 
 grace,  strengthens  the  hold  of  evil  on  the  spirit, 
 till  it  may  fall  into  the  hopeless  state  of  repro- 
 bation. We  can  only  conjecture,  therefore,  that 
 Satan  is  a  fallen  angel,  who  once  had  a  time  of 
 
 SATAN 
 
 probation,  but  whose   condemnation  is  now  irre- 
 vocably fixed. 
 
 But  of  the  time,  cause,  and  manner  of  his  fall. 
 Scripture  tells  us  scarcely  anything.  It  limits  its 
 disclosures,  as  always,  to  that  which  we  need  to 
 know.  The  passage  on  which  all  the  fabric  of 
 tradition  and  poetry  has  been  raised  is  Rev.  xii.  7, 
 9,  which  speaks  of  "Michael  and  his  angels"  as 
 fighting  against  the  dragon  and  his  angels,"  till 
 the  "great  dragon,  called  the  devil  and  Satan," 
 was  "cast  out  into  the  earth,  and  his  angels  cast 
 out  with  him."  Whatever  be  the  meaning  of  this 
 passage,  it  is  certain  that  it  cannot  refer  to  the 
 original  fall  of  Satan.  The  only  other  passage 
 which  refers  to  the  faU  of  the  angels  is  2  Pet.  ii.  4, 
 "  Gcd  spared  not  the  angels,  when  they  had  sinned, 
 but  having  cast  them  into  hell,  delivered  them  to 
 chains  of  darkness  (aeipals  (ocpov  raprapdiaas 
 ■KapeSooney),  reserved  unto  judgment,"  with  the 
 parallel  passage  in  Jude  6,  "  Angels,  who  kept  not 
 their  first  estate  (ttjc  eavTwv  apxri"),  but  left 
 their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlast- 
 ing chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of 
 the  Great  Day."  Here  again  the  passage  is  mys- 
 terious;" but  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  consider 
 Satan  as  one  of  these  ;  for  they  are  in  chains 
 and  guarded  (reT-nprnxeyovs)  till  the  Great  Day; 
 he  is  permitted  still  to  go  about  as  the  Tempter 
 and  the  Adversary,  until  his  appointed  time  be 
 come. 
 
 Setting  these  passages  aside,  we  have  still  to  con- 
 sider the  declaration  of  our  Lord  in  Luke  x.  18, 
 "  I  beheld  {iBedpow)  Satan,  as  lightning,  fall 
 from  Iieaven."  I'his  may  refer  to  the  iact  of  his 
 original  fall  (although  the  use  of  the  imperfect 
 tense,  and  the  force  of  the  context,  rather  refer  it 
 figuratively  to  the  triumph  of  tlie  disciples  over  the 
 evil  spirits);  but,  in  any  case,  it  tells  nothing  of  its 
 cause  or  method.  There  is  also  the  passage  already 
 quoted  (John  viii.  44)  in  which  our  Lord  declares 
 of  him,  that  "  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
 ginning," that  "he  stands  not  (etrTrj/ce)  in  the 
 truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him,"  "  that  he 
 is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it."  But  here  it  seems 
 likely  the  words  air'  apxvs  refer  to  the  beginning 
 of  his  action  upon  man;  perhaps,  the  allusion  is 
 to  his  temptation  of  Cain  to  be  the  first  nuirderer, 
 an  allusion  explicitly  made  in  a  simil.ir  passage  in 
 1  John  iii.  9-12.  The  word  eo-TTjKe  (wrongly 
 rendered  "abode"  in  A.  V.),  and  the  rest  of  the 
 verse,  refer  to  present  time.  The  passage  therefore 
 throws  little  or  no  light  on  the  cause  and  method 
 of  his  fall. 
 
 Perhaps  the  only  one,  which  has  any  value,  is 
 1  Tim.  iii.  6,  "  lest  being  lifted  up  by  pride  he  fall 
 into  tlie  condemnation  (Kpifia)  of  the  devil."  It 
 is  concluded  from  this,  that  pride  was  the  cause 
 of  the  devil's  condemnation.  The  inference  is  a 
 probable  one;  it  is  strengthened  by  the  only  anal- 
 ogy within  our  reach,  that  of  the  fall  of  man,  in 
 which  the  spiritual  temptation  of  pride,  the  de- 
 sire "to  be  as  gods,"  was  the  subtlest  and  most 
 deadly  temptation.  Still  it  is  but  an  inference; 
 it  camiot  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  certain  Reve- 
 lation. 
 
 But,  while  these  points  are  passed  by  almost  in 
 silence  (a  silence  which  rebukes  the  irreverent 
 exercise  of  imagination  on  the  sulyect).  Scripture 
 describes  to  us  distinctly  the  moral  nature  of  the 
 
 «  It  is  referred  by  some  to  Gen.  vi.  2,  where  many 
 MSS.  of  the  LXX.  have  ayyeKoi  ©eov  for  "  sons  of 
 
 God  ;  "  especially  because  2  Pet.  iii.  5,  relating  to  th« 
 Flood,  seems  closely  connected  with  that  passage. 
 
SATAN 
 
 Evil  One.  This  is  no  matter  of  barren  speculation 
 lo  those  who  bj'  yielding  to  evil  may  become  the 
 "children  of  Satan,"  instead  of  "children  of  God." 
 The  ideal  of  goodness  is  made  up  of  the  three  great 
 moral  attributes  of  God,  Love,  Truth,  and  Purity 
 or  Holiness;  combined  with  that  spirit,  which  is 
 the  natural  temper  of  a  finite  atid  dependent  crea- 
 ture, the  spirit  of  Faith.  We  find,  accordingly, 
 that  the  opposites  to  these  qualities  are  dwelt  upon 
 as  the  characteristics  of  the  devil.  In  John  viii. 
 44,  compared  with  1  John  iii.  10-15,  we  have 
 hatred  and  falsehood ;  in  the  constant  mention  of 
 the  "unclean"  spirits,  of  which  he  is  the  chief, 
 we  find  impurity;  from  1  Tim.  iii.  6,  and  the  nar- 
 rative of  the  Temptation,  we  trace  the  spirit  of 
 pride.  These  are  especially  the  "  sins  of  the  devil ; " 
 in  them  we  trace  the  essence  of  moral  evil,  and  the 
 features  of  the  reprobate  mind.  Add  to  this  a 
 spirit  of  restless  activity,  a  power  of  craft,  and  an 
 intense  desire  to  spread  corruption,  and  with  it 
 eternal  death,  and  we  have  the  portraiture  of  the 
 Spirit  of  Evil  as  Scripture  has  drawn  it  plainly 
 before  our  eyes. 
 
 (C.)  His  Power  and  Action.  —  Both  these 
 points,  being  intimately  connected  with  our  own 
 life  and  salvation,  are  treated  with  a  distinctness 
 and  fullness  remarkably  contrasted  with  the  ob- 
 scurity of  the  previous  subject. 
 
 The  power  of  Satan  over  the  soul  is  represented 
 as  exercised,  either  directly,  or  by  his  instruments. 
 His  direct  influence  over  the  soul  is  simply  that  of 
 a  powerful  and  evil  nature  on  those  in  whom  lurks 
 the  germ  of  the  same  evil,  differing  from  the  in- 
 fluence exercised  by  a  wicked  man  in  degree  rather 
 than  in  kind ;  but  it  has  the  power  of  acting  by 
 suggestion  of  thoughts,  without  the  medium  of 
 actions  or  words  —  a  power  whicli  is  only  in  very 
 slight  degree  exercised  by  men  upon  each  other. 
 This  influence  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  in  the 
 strongest  terms,  as  a  real  external  influence,  cor- 
 relative to,  but  not  to  be  confounded  with,  the 
 existence  of  evil  within.  In  the  parable  of  the 
 sower  (Matt.  xiii.  19 ),  it  is  represented  as  a  nega- 
 tive influence,  taking  away  the  action  of  the  \\''ord 
 of  God  for  good;  in  that  of  the  wheat  and  the 
 tares  (Matt.  xiii.  39),  as  a  positive  influence  for 
 evil,  introducing  wickedness  into  the  world.  St. 
 Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  represent  it  as  a  power, 
 permitted  to  dispute  the  world  with  the  power  of 
 God ;  for  he  declares  to  Agrippa  that  his  mission 
 was  "  to  turn  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
 from  the  power  (i^oucrias)  of  Satan  unto  God," 
 and  represents  the  exconnnunication,  which  cuts 
 men  ott"  from  the  grace  of  Christ  in  his  Church,  as 
 a  "  dehverance  of  them  unto  Satan  "  (1  Cor.  v.  5; 
 1  Tim.  i.  20).  The  same  truth  is  conveyed,  though 
 in  a  bolder  and  more  startling  form,  in  the  Epistles 
 to  the  Churches  of  tlie  Apocalypse,  where  the  body 
 of  the  unbelieving  .Jews  is  called  a  "  synagogue  of 
 Satan  "  (Kev.  ii.  9,  iii.  9),  where  the  secrets  of  false 
 doctrine  are  called  "the  depths  of  Satan  "  (ii.  24), 
 and  the  "throne"  and  "habitation"  of  Satan  are 
 said  to  be  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  Church  of 
 Christ.  Another  and  even  more  remarkable  ex- 
 pression of  the  same  idea  is  found  in  the  Epistle 
 10  the  Hebrews,  where  the  death  of  (Jhrist  is  spoken 
 of  as  intended  to  baffle  (Karapyelv)  "  him  that 
 hath  the  power  (rh  icparos)  of  death,  that  is,  the 
 devil;"  for  death  is  evidently  regarded  as  the 
 "wages  of  sin,"  and  the  power  of  death  as  in- 
 separable from  the  power  of  corruption.  Nor  is 
 yiis   truth   only  expressed  directly  and  formally; 
 
 SATAN 
 
 2849 
 
 it  meets  us  again  and  again  in  passagw  simply 
 practical,  taken  for  granted,  as  already  familiar 
 (see  Rom.  xvi.  20;  2  Cor.  ii.  11;  1  Thess.  ii.  18; 
 2  Thess.  ii.  9;  1  Tim.  v.  15).  The  Bible  does 
 not  shrink  from  putting  the  fact  of  Satanic  influ- 
 ence over  the  soul  before  us,  in  plain  and  terrible 
 certainty. 
 
 Yet  at  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
 its  language  is  very  far  from  countenancing,  even 
 for  a  moment,  the  horrors  of  the  Manichsean  the- 
 ory. The  influence  of  Satan  is  always  spoken  of 
 as  temporary  and  limited,  subordinated  to  the 
 Divine  counsel,  and  iiroken  by  the  Incarnate  Son 
 of  God.  It  is  brought  out  visibly,  in  the  form  of 
 possession,  in  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord,  only  in 
 order  that  it  may  give  the  opportunity  of  his 
 triumph.  As  for  Himself,  so  for  his  redeemed 
 ones,  it  is  true,  that  "God  shall  bruise  Satan  under 
 their  feet  shortly"  (Kom.  xvi.  20;  comp.  Gen.  iii. 
 15).  Nor  is  this  all,  for  the  history  of  the  book 
 of  Job  shows  plainly,  what  is  elsewhere  constantly 
 implied,  that  Satanic  influence  is  permitted,  in 
 order  to  be  overruled  to  good,  to  teach  humility, 
 and  therefore  faith.  The  mystery  of  tiie  existence 
 of  evil  is  lelt  unexplained ;  but  its  present  subordi- 
 nation and  future  extinction  are  familiar  trutlis.  So 
 accordingly,  on  the  otlier  hand,  his  power  is  spoken 
 of  as  capable  of  being  resisted  Ijy  the  will  of  man, 
 when  aided  by  the  grace  of  God.  "Resist  the 
 devil,  and  he  will  flee  from  you,"  is  the  constant 
 language  of  Scripture  (Jam.  iv.  7).  It  is  indeed 
 a  power,  to  which  "place"  or  opportunity  "is 
 given  "  (inly  by  the  consent  of  man's  will  (Eph.  iv. 
 27).  It  is  probably  to  be  traced  most  distinctly  in 
 the  power  of  evil  liabit,  a  power  real,  but  not  irre- 
 sistible, created  by  previous  sin,  and  by  every  suc- 
 cessive act  of  sin  riveted  more  closely  upon  the 
 soul.  It  is  a  power  which  cannot  act  directly  and 
 openly,  but  needs  craft  and  dissimulation,  in  order 
 to  get  advantage  over  man  by  entangling  the  will. 
 Tlie  "wiles"  (Eph.  vi.  11),  the  "devices"  (2  Cor. 
 ii.  11),  the  "snare"  (1  Tim.  iii.  7,  vi.  9;  2  Tim. 
 ii.  26)  "of  the  devil,"  are  expressions  which  indi- 
 cate the  indirect  and  unnatural  character  of  the 
 power  of  evil.  It  is  therefore  urged  as  a  reason 
 for  "soberness  and  vigilance"  (1  Pet.  v.  8),  for 
 the  careful  use  of  the  "  whole  armor  of  God " 
 (Eph.  vi.  10-17);  but  it  is  never  allowed  to  obscure 
 the  supremacy  of  God's  grace,  or  to  disturb  the 
 inner  peace  of  the  Christian.  "  He  that  is  born 
 of  God,  keei^eth  himself,  and  the  wicked  one  touch- 
 eth  him  not"  (1  John  v.  18). 
 
 Beside.5  his  own  direct  influence,  the  Scripture 
 discloses  to  us  the  fact  that  Satan  is  the  leader  of 
 a  host  of  evil  spirits  or  angels  who  share  his  evil 
 work,  and  for  whom  the  "  everlasting  fire  is  pre- 
 pared''  (Matt.  XXV.  41).  Of  their  origin  and  fall 
 we  know  no  more  than  of  his,  for  they  cannot  be 
 the  same  as  the  fallen  and  imprisoned  angels  of 
 2  Pet.  ii.  4,  and  Jude  6 ;  but  one  passage  (Matt, 
 xii.  24-26)  identifies  them  distinctly  with  the 
 Sa.ifj.6via  (A.  V.  "devils"")  who  had  power  to 
 possess  the  souls  of  men.  The  Jews  there  speak 
 of  a  Beelzebub  (BeeXCe^ovX),  "a  prince  of  the 
 demons,"  whom  they  identify  with,  or  symbolize 
 by,  the  idol  of  Ekron,  the  "god  of  flies"  [see 
 Beelzebub],  and  liy  whose  power  they  accuse  our 
 Lord  of  casting  out  demons.    His  answer  is,  "  How 
 
 a  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  A.  V.  should  use  the 
 word  "devil,"  not  only  for  its  proper  equivalent 
 StojSoAos,  but  also  for  Sai^ocioi'. 
 
2850 
 
 SATAN 
 
 can  Satan  cast  out  Satan  ?  "  Tlie  inference  is  clear 
 that  Satan  is  Beelzelmb,  and  therefore  the  demons 
 are  "  the  angels  of  tlie  devil;  "  and  this  inference  is 
 strengthened  by  Acts  x.  38,  in  which  St.  I'eter 
 describes  the  possessed  as  KaTaSwao-Tevofj-evov^ 
 vrrh  Tov  Sia^6\ov,  and  by  Luke  x.  18,  in  which 
 the  mastery  over  the  demons  is  connected  by  our 
 Lord  with  the  "fall  of  Satan  from  heaven,"  and 
 their  power  included  by  Him  in  the  "  power  of  the 
 enemy  "  (rod  exSpov);  comp.  Matt.  xiii.  39).  For 
 their  nature,  see  Demons.  Tliey  are  mostly  spoken 
 of  in  Scripture  in  reference  to  possession ;  but  in 
 Epli.  vi.  1'2  they  are  described  in  various  lights, 
 as  "  jDrincipalities  "  (apxa'O,  "powers"  (i^ovcriai), 
 "rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,"  and 
 "  spiritual  powers  of  wickedness  in  heavenly  places  " 
 (or  "things")  (ra  iri/eufj.aTLKO.  ttjs  wovriplas  if 
 Tols  iiTovpav'iois)''  and  in  all  as  "wrestling" 
 against  the  soul  of  man.  The  same  reference  is 
 made  less  explicitly  in  Rom.  viii  38,  and  Col.  ii. 
 15.  In  liev.  xii.  7-9  they  are  spoken  of  as  fight- 
 ing with  "  the  dragon,  the  old  serpent  called  the 
 devil  and  Satan,"  against  "  Michael  and  his  angels," 
 and  as  cast  out  of  heaven  with  their  chief.  Taking 
 all  these  passages  together,  we  find  them  sharing 
 the  enmity  to  God  and  man  implied  in  the  name 
 and  nature  of  Satan ;  but  their  power  and  action 
 are  but  little  dwelt  upon  in  comparison  with  his. 
 That  tliere  is  against  us  a  power  of  spiritual  wick- 
 edness is  a  truth  which  we  need  to  know,  and  a 
 mystery  which  only  Revelation  can  disclose;  but 
 whetiier  it  is  exercised  by  few  or  by  many  is  a 
 matter  of  comparative  indifference. 
 
 But  the  Evil  One  is  not  only  the  "  prince  of  the 
 demons,"  but  also  he  is  called  the  "prince  of  this 
 world  "  (o  apx'^v  tov  koct^iov  tovtou)  in  John  xii. 
 31,  xiv.  .^0,  xvi.  11,  and  even  the  "god  of  this 
 world  "  (6  6ihs  tov  alwvos  tovtou)  in  2  Cor.  iv. 
 4;  the  two  expressions  being  united  in  the  words 
 Tons  KocfjLOKpaTopas  TOV  o'kotovs  tov  aidvos 
 TOVTov,  used  in  Eph.  vi.  12.«  This  power  he 
 claimed  for  himself,  as  a  ddegnted  authority,  in 
 the  temptation  of  our  Lord  (Luke  iv.  0);  and  the 
 temptation  would  have  been  unreal,  had  he  spoken 
 altogether  falsely.  It  implies  another  kind  of  in- 
 du-ect  infiuence  exercised  through  earthly  instru- 
 ments. There  are  some  indications  in  Scripture  of 
 the  exercise  of  this  power  tlirough  inanimate  in- 
 struments, of  an  influence  over  the  powers  of  na- 
 ture, and  what  men  call  the  "chances"  of  life. 
 Such  a  power  is  distinctly  asserted  in  the  case  of 
 Job,  and  probably  implied  in  the  case  of  the  woman 
 with  a  spirit  of  infirmity  (in  Luke  xiii.  16),  and  of 
 St.  Paul's  "  thorn  in  the  flesh"  (2  Cor.  xii.  7). 
 It  is  only  consistent  with  the  attribution  of  such 
 action  to  the  angels  of  God  (as  in  Ex.  xii.  23;  2 
 Sam.  xxiv.  16;  2  K.  xix.  3.5;  Acts  xii.  23);  and, 
 in  our  ignorance  of  the  method  of  connection  of  the 
 second  causes  of  nature  with  the  Supren)e  Will  of 
 God,  we  caniiot  even  say  whether  it  has  in  it  any 
 antecedent  improbability;  but  it  is  little  dwelt 
 upon  in  Scripture,  in  comparison  with  the  otlier 
 exercise  of  tliis  power  through  the  hands  of  wicked 
 men,  who  become  "children  of  the  devil,"  and 
 accordingly  "  do  the  lusts  of  their  father."  (See 
 John   viii.   44;   Acts   xiii.  10;    1  John  iii.  8-10; 
 
 «  The  word  ko(7-/u.os,  properly  referring  to  the  system 
 of  the  universe,  and  so  used  in  John  i.  10,  is  generally 
 applied  in  Scripture  to  human  society  as  alienated 
 from  God,  with  a  reference  to  the  "  pomp  and  vanity  " 
 jThich  makes  it  an  idol  (see,  e.  g-.,  1  John  ii.  15) ;  aXi^v 
 
 SATAN 
 
 and  comp.  John  vi.  70.)  In  this  sense  the  Scrip- 
 ture regards  all  sins  as  the  "works  of  the  devil," 
 and  traces  to  him,  through  his  ministers,  all 
 spiritual  evil  and  error  (2  Cor.  xi.  14,  15),  and  all 
 the  persecution  and  hindrances  which  oppose  the 
 Gospel  (Rev.  ii.  10;  1  Thess.  ii.  18).  Most  of  all 
 is  this  indirect  action  of  Satan  manifested  in  those 
 who  delil)erately  mislead  and  tempt  men,  and  wlio 
 at  last,  independent  of  any  interest  of  their  own, 
 come  to  take  an  unnatural  pleasure  in  the  sight  of 
 evil-doing  in  others  (Rom.  i.  32). 
 
 The  metliod  of  his  action  is  best  discerned  by 
 an  examination  of  the  title  by  which  he  is  desig- 
 nated in  Scripture.  He  is  called  emphatically 
 6  5ia/8oAos,  "  the  devil."  The  derivation  of  the 
 word  in  itself  implies  only  the  endeavor  to  break  the 
 bonds  between  others,  and  "set  them  at  variance" 
 (see,  e.  <j.,  I'lat.  t>yi)ip.  p.  222  c;  hia^ahXav  efih 
 Kcd  'Ay dOcova);  but  conniion  usage  adds  to  this 
 general  sense  the  special  idea  of  "  setting  at  vari- 
 ance liy  slaixlei'.''  In  the  N.  T.  the  word  Std^oKoi 
 is  used  three  times  as  an  epithet  (1  Tim.  iii.  11 ; 
 2  Tim.  iii.  3;  Tit.  ii.  3);  and  in  each  case  with 
 something  like  the  special  meaning.  In  the  appli- 
 cation of  the  title  to  Satan,  both  the  general  and 
 special  senses  should  be  kept  in  view.  His  general 
 ot  ject  is  to  break  the  bonds  of  communion  between 
 God  and  man,  and  the  bonds  of  truth  and  love 
 which  bind  men  to  each  other,  to  "set"  each  soul 
 "at  variance"  both  with  men  and  God,  and  so 
 reduce  it  to  that  state  of  self-will  and  selfishness 
 which  is  the  seed-jilot  of  sin.  One  special  means 
 by  which  he  seeks  to  do  this,  is  slander  of  God  to 
 man,  and  of  man  to  God. 
 
 The  slander  of  God  to  man  is  seen  best  in  the 
 words  of  Gen.  iii.  4,  5:  "Ye  shall  not  surely  die: 
 for  God  doth  know,  that  in  the  day  that  ye  eat 
 thereof  your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be 
 as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil."  These  words 
 contain  the  germ  of  the  false  notions,  which  keep 
 men  from  God,  or  reduce  tlieir  service  to  Him  to  a 
 hard  and  compulsory  slavery,  and  which  the  hea- 
 then so  often  adopted  in  all  their  hideousness,  when 
 they  represented  their  gods  as  either  careless  of 
 huujan  weal  and  woe,  or  "envious"  of  human  ex- 
 cellence and  happiness.  They  attribute  selfislniess 
 and  jealousy  to  the  Giver  of  all  good.  This  is 
 enough  (even  without  the  imputation  of  falseliood 
 which  is  added)  to  pervert  man's  natural  love  of 
 Ireedom.  till  it  rebels  against  that  which  is  made 
 to  appear  as  a  hard  and  arbitrary  tyranny,  and 
 seeks  to  set  up,  as  it  thinks,  a  freer  and  nobler 
 standard  of  its  own.  Such  is  the  slander  of  God 
 to  man,  by  which  Satan  and  his  agents  still  strive 
 against  his  reuniting  grace. 
 
 The  slander  of  man  to  God  is  illustrated  by  the 
 book  of  Job  (Job  i.  9-11,  ii.  4,  6).  In  reference 
 to  it,  Satan  is  called  the  "adversary"  (avTiSiKos) 
 of  man  in  1  Pet.  v.  8,  and  represented  in  that 
 character  in  Zech.  iii.  1,  2;  and  more  plainly  still 
 designated  in  Rev.  xii.  10,  as  "  the  accuser  of  our 
 brethren,  who  accused  them  before  our  God  day 
 and  night  "  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  understand 
 what  can  be  the  need  of  accusation  or  the  power  of 
 slander,  under  the  all-searching  eye  of  (iod.  The 
 mention  of  it  is  clearly  an  "  accommodation  "  of 
 
 refers  to  its  transitory  character,  and  is  evidently 
 used  above  to  qualify  the  startling  application  of 
 the  word  e€09,a"god  of  an  age""  being  of  coursa 
 no  true  God  at  all.  It  is  used  with  koct/i/os  in  Eph 
 ii.  2. 
 
SATAN 
 
 jod'a  judgment  to  the  analogy  of  oiiv  human  espe- 
 rience;  but  we  understand  by  it  a  practical  and 
 awful  truth,  that  every  sin  of  life,  and  even  the 
 admixture  of  lower  and  evil  motives  which  taints 
 the  best  actions  of  man,  will  rise  up  against  us  at 
 the  judgment,  to  claim  the  soul  as  their  own,  and 
 fix  forever  that  separation  from  God,  to  which, 
 through  them,  we  have  yielded  ourselves.  In  that 
 accusation  Satan  shall  in  some  way  bear  a  leading 
 part,  pleading  against  man  with  that  worst  of 
 slander  which  is  based  on  perverted  or  isolated 
 facts;  and  shall  be  overcome,  not  l>y  any  counter- 
 claim of  human  merit,  but  "  by  the  blood  of  the 
 Lamb"  received  in  true  and  steadlast  faith. 
 
 But  these  points,  important  as  they  are,  are  of 
 less  moment  than  the  disclosure  of  the  method  of 
 Satanic  action  upon  the  heart  itself.  It  may  be 
 summed  up  in  two  words  —  Temptation  and  Pos- 
 session. 
 
 The  sutject  of  temptation  is  illusti-ated,  not  only 
 by  abstract  statements,  but  also  by  the  record  of 
 the  temptations  of  Adam  and  of  our  Lord.  It  is 
 expressly  laid  down  (as  in  James  i.  2-4)  that 
 •'temptation,"  properly  so  called,  i.  e.  "trial" 
 (Trfipa(7/j,6s),  is  essential  to  man,  and  is  accord- 
 ingly ordained  for  him  and  sent  to  him  by  God 
 (as  in  Gen.  xxii.  1).  Man's  nature  is  jjrogressive ; 
 his  Aiculties,  which  exist  at  first  only  in  capacity 
 (Swdfjiei)  must  be  brought  out  to  exist  in  actual 
 eflBciency  (eVepyeia)  by  free  exercise."  His  appe- 
 tites and  passions  tend  to  their  objects,  simply  and 
 unreservedly,  without  respect  to  the  rightness  or 
 wrongness  of  their  obtaining  them ;  they  need  to 
 be  checked  by  the  reason  and  conscience,  and  this 
 need  constitutes  a  trial,  in  which,  if  the  conscience 
 prevail,  the  spirit  receives  strength  and  growth ;  if 
 it  be  overcome,  the  lower  nature  tends  to  predomi- 
 nate, and  the  man  has  fallen  away.  Besides  this, 
 the  will  itself  delights  in  independence  of  action. 
 Such  independence  of  physical  compulsion  is  its 
 high  privilege;  but  there  is  over  it  the  Moral  Power 
 of  God's  Law,  which,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  truth 
 and  goodness,  acknowledged  as  they  are  by  the 
 reason  and  the  conscience,  should  regulate  the  hu- 
 man will.  The  need  of  giving  up  the  individual 
 will,  freely  and  by  con\iction,  so  as  to  be  in  har- 
 mony with  the  will  of  God,  is  a  still  severer  trial, 
 with  the  reward  of  still  greater  spiritual  progress, 
 if  we  sustain  it,  with  the  punishment  of  a  sulitier 
 and  more  dangerous  fall  if  we  succumb.  In  its 
 struggle  the  spirit  of  man  can  only  gain  and  sus- 
 tain its  authority  by  that  constant  grace  of  God, 
 given  through  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 which  is  the  breath  of  spiritual  life. 
 
 It  is  this  tentability  of  man,  even  in  his  original 
 nature,  which  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  giving 
 scope  to  the  evil  action  of  Satan.  lie  is  called  the 
 "tempter"  (as  in  Matt.  iv.  .3;  1  Thess.  iii.  5). 
 He  has  power  (as  the  record  of  (ien.  iii.  shows 
 clearly),  first,  to  present  to  the  appetites  or  passions 
 their  objects  in  vivid  and  captivating  forms,  so  as 
 to  induce  man  to  seek  these  objects  against  the 
 Law  of  God  "  written  in  the  heart;  "  and  next,  to 
 act  upon  the  false  desire  of  the  will  for  indepen- 
 dence, the  desire  "to  be  as  gods,  knowing"  (that 
 is,  practically,  judging  and  determining)  "good 
 and  evil."  It  is  a  power  which  can  be  resisted, 
 because  it  is  under  the  control  and  overruling  power 
 of  God,  as  is  emphatically  laid  down  in  1  Cor.  x. 
 
 SATAN 
 
 2851 
 
 l-T;  .lam.  iv  7,  &c.;  but  it  can  be  so  resisted  only 
 by  yielding  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  by  a  .struggle 
 (sometimes  an  "agony")  in  reliance  on  its 
 strength. 
 
 It  is  exercised  both  negatively  and  positively. 
 Its  negative  exercise  is  referred  to  in  the  parable  of 
 tlie  sower,  as  taking  away  the  word,  the  "engrafted 
 word  "  (James  i.  21)  of  grace,  i.  e.  as  interposing 
 itself,  by  consent  of  man,  between  him  and  the 
 channels  of  God's  grace.  Its  positive  exercise  is  set 
 forth  in  the  parable  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares, 
 represented  as  sowing  actual  seed  of  evil  in  the  in- 
 dividual heart  or  the  world  generally;  and  it  is  to 
 be  noticed,  tliat  the  consideration  of  the  true  na- 
 ture of  the  tares  (^i^dvta)  leads  to  the  conclusion, 
 which  is  declared  plainly  in  2  Cor.  xi.  14,  namely, 
 that  evil  is  introduced  into  the  heart  mostly  as 
 the  counterfeit  of  good. 
 
 This  exercise  of  the  Tempter's  power  is  possible, 
 even  against  a  sinless  nature.  We  see  this  in  the 
 Temptation  of  our  Lord.  The  temptations  pre- 
 sented to  Him  appeal,  first  to  the  natural  desire 
 and  need  of  food,  next  to  the  desire  of  power,  to 
 be  used  for  good,  which  is  inherent  in  the  noblest 
 minds;  and  lastly,  to  the  desire  of  testing  and 
 realizing  (Jod's  special  protection,  which  is  the  in- 
 evitable tendency  of  human  weakness  under  a  real 
 but  imperfect  faith.  The  objects  contemplated  in- 
 volved in  no  case  positive  sinfulness;  the  teniptatiou 
 was  to  seek  them  by  presumptuous  or  by  unholy 
 means;  the  answer  to  them  (given  by  the  Lord  as 
 the  Son  of  Man,  and  therefore  as  one  like  ourselves 
 in  all  the  weakness  and  finiteness  of  our  nature) 
 lay  in  simple  Faith,  resting  upon  God,  and  on  hi.s 
 Word,  keeping  to  his  way,  and  refusing  to  con- 
 template the  issues  of  action,  which  belong  to  Him 
 alone.  Such  faith  is  a  renunciation  of  all  self- 
 confidence,  and  a  simple  dependence  on  the  will  and 
 on  the  grace  of  God. 
 
 But  in  the  temptation  of  a  fallen  nature  Satan 
 has  a  greater  power.  P^very  sin  conunitted  makes 
 a  man  the  "  servant  of  sin  "  for  the  future  (John 
 viii.  34;  Rom.  vi.  Ifj);  it  therefore  creates  in  the 
 spirit  of  man  a  positive  tendency  to  evil,  which 
 sympathizes  with,  and  aids,  the  temptation  of  the 
 Evil  One.  This  is  a  fact  recognized  by  experience; 
 the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  inscrutably  mysterious, 
 but  unmistakably  declared,  is  that,  since  the  Fall, 
 this  evil  tendency  is  born  in  man  in  capacity,  prior 
 to  all  actual  sins,  and  capable  of  being  brought  out 
 into  active  existence  by  such  actual  sins  conunitted. 
 It  is  this  which  St.  Paul  calls  "a  law,"  i.  e.  (ac- 
 cording to  his  universal  use  of  the  word)  an  exter- 
 nal power  "  of  sin  "  over  man,  bringing  the  inner 
 man  (the  vovs)  into  captivity  (Rom.  vii.  14-24). 
 Its  power  is  broken  by  the  Atonement  and  the  gift 
 of  the  Spirit,  but  yet  not  completely  cast  out;  it 
 still  "  lusts  against  the  spirit  "  so  that  men  "  can- 
 not do  the  things  which  they  would  "  (Gal.  v.  17). 
 Id  is  to  this  spiritual  power  of  evil,  the  tendency  to 
 folsehood,  cruelty,  pride,  and  unbelief,  independently 
 of  any  benefits  to  be  derived  from  them,  that  Stitan 
 is  said  to  appeal  in  tem]iting  us.  If  his  tempta- 
 tions be  yielded  to  without  repentance,  it  becomes 
 the  reprobate  (aSo'/ci^os)  mind,  which  delights  in 
 evil  for  its  own  sake  (L'om.  i.  28,  32)  and  makes 
 men  emphatically  "children  of  the  devil"  (John 
 viii.  44;  Acts  xiii.  10;  1  John  iii.  8,  10),  and  "ac- 
 cursed" (Matt.  XXV.   41),   fit   for  "the  fire   pre- 
 
 <»  See  the  connection   between   faith   and   love  by 
 irbich  it  is   made   perfect  (ei/epyou/aen))  in  Gal.  v.  6, 
 
 and  between  faith  and  the  works  by  which  it  is  per 
 fected  (TcAcioOrai)  in  Jam.  ii.  22. 
 
2852 
 
 SATHRABUZANES 
 
 pared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  If  they  be 
 resisted,  as  by  God's  grace  they  may  be  resisted, 
 then  tlie  evil  power  (the  "  flesh  "  or  the  "  old 
 man")  is  gradually  "  crucified  "  or  "mortified," 
 until  tiie  soul  is  prepared  for  that  heaven,  where 
 no  evil  can  enter. 
 
 This  twolbkl  power  of  temptation  is  frequently 
 referred  to  in  Scripture,  as  exercised,  chiefly  by  tlie 
 suggestion  of  evil  thoughts,  but  occasionally  by  the 
 delegated  power  of  Satan  over  outward  circum- 
 stances. To  this  latter  power  is  to  be  traced 
 (as  has  been  said)  the  trial  of  .lob  by  temporal  loss 
 and  bodily  sutt'ering  (Job  i.,  ii.),  the  remarkable 
 expression,  used  by  our  Lord,  as  to  tlie  woman 
 with  a  "spirit  of  infirmity"  (Luke  xiii.  10),  the 
 "thorn  in  the  flesh,"  wiiicli  St.  Paul  calls  the 
 <'  messenger  of  Satan  "  to  buffet  him  (2  Cor.  xii.  7). 
 Its  language  is  plain,  incapable  of  being  explained 
 as  metaphor,  or  poetical  personification  of  an  ab- 
 stract principle.  Its  general  statements  are  illus- 
 trated by  examples  of  temptation.  (See,  besides 
 those  already  mentioned,  Luke  xxii.  3;  John  xiii. 
 27  (Judas);  Luke  xxii.  31  (Peter);  Acts  v.  3  (An- 
 anias and  Sapphira);  1  Cor.  vii.  5;  2  Cor.  ii.  11; 
 1  Thess.  iii.  5.)  The  sulject  itself  is  the  most 
 startling  ibrm  of  the  mystery  of  evil;  it  is  one  on 
 which,  from  our  ignorance  of  the  connection  of  the 
 First  Cause  with  Second  Causes  in  Nature,  and 
 of  the  process  of  origination  of  human  thouglit, 
 experience  can  hardly  lie  held  to  be  competent 
 either  to  confirm  or  to  oppose  the  testimony  of 
 Scripture. 
 
 On  the  subject  of  Possession  see  Demoniacs. 
 It  is  sufficient  here  to  remark,  that  although  widely 
 different  in  form,  yet  it  is  of  the  same  intrinsic 
 character  as  the  other  power  of  Satan,  including 
 both  that  external  and  internal  influence  to  which 
 reference  has  been  made  above.  It  is  disclosed 
 to  us  only  in  connection  with  tlie  revelation  of  that 
 redemption  from  sin,  wliicli  destroys  it,  —  a  reve- 
 lation begun  in  the  first  promise  in  Eden,  and 
 manifested,  in  itself  at  the  Atonement,  in  its  eflects 
 at  the  Great  Day.  Its  end  is  seen  in  the  Apoca- 
 lypse, where  Satan  is  first  "bound  for  a  thousand 
 years,"  then  set  free  for  a  time  for  the  last  conflict, 
 and  finally  "  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brim- 
 stone .  .  .  for  ever  and  ever"  (xx.  2,  7-10). 
 
 A.  B. 
 *  The  literature  of  this  subject  is  extensive. 
 Some  of  the  works  relating  to  it  are  referred  to 
 under  the  articles  A>itiELs,  Demons,  and  Demo- 
 niacs. Among  the  more  recent  books  it  may  be 
 suflBcient  to  name  here  G.  Poskoft^'s  Geschkiiie  des 
 Teufels,  2  vols.  Leipz.  ISfiO,  8vo.  A. 
 
 SATHRABUZA'NES  CSaepa^ovCdi^-ns  ; 
 [Vat.  once  -^ovpCawris-]  S(itr<iljuziincs).  Shetii- 
 AKBOZNAI  (1  Ksdr.  vi.  3,  7,  27  [vii.  1]  ;  comp. 
 Ezr.  v.  3,  G,  vi.  U,  13). 
 
 SATYRS  iD'^''^VP,seinm:  dat/^6via:  pUosi), 
 the  rendeiing  in  the  A.  V^.  of  the  above-named 
 plural  noun,  which,  having  the  meaning  of  "  hairy  " 
 or '•  rough,"  is  frequently  applied  to  "  he- goats  " 
 (comp.  the  Latin  hircus,  from  liirius,  li'trstdus);  the 
 Seirim,  however,  of  Is.  xiii.  21,  and  xxxiv.  14, 
 where  the  propliet  predicts  the  desolation  of  Baby- 
 lon, have,  probably,  no  allusion  to  any  species  of 
 coat  whether  wild  or  tame.  According  to  the  old 
 versions,  and  nearly  all  the  connnentators,  our  own 
 translation  is  correct,  and  Satyrs,  that  is,  demons 
 of  woods  and  desert  places,  half  men  and  half 
 goats,  are  intended.     Comp.  Jerome  {Comment,  ad 
 
 SAUL 
 
 Is.  xiii.),  "  Seirim  vel  incubones  vel  satyros  vel 
 sylvestres  quosdam  homines  quos  nonnuUi  fatuos 
 ficarios  vocant,  aut  diemonum  genera  intelligunt." 
 This  explanation  receives  confirmation  from  a  pas- 
 sage in  Lev.  xvii.  7,  "  they  shall  no  more  offer 
 their  sacrifices  unto  (S'ejczm,"  and  from  a  similar 
 one  in  2  Chr.  xi.  15.  The  Israelites,  it  is  prob- 
 able, had  become  acquainted  with  a  form  of  goat- 
 worship  from  the  Egyptians  (see  Bochart,  [luroz, 
 iii.  825;  Jablonski,  Pant.  ^;iypt.  i.  273  ff.). 
 The  opinion  held  liy  Michaelis  {Siipp.  p.  2342)  and 
 Lichtenstein  {Ci'iuiinntal.  tie  Simiarum,  etc.,  §  4, 
 
 Cynocephalus.    (Egyptian  Monuments.) 
 
 50,  sqq.),  that  the  Seirim  probably  denote  some 
 species  of  ape,  has  been  sanctioned  by  Hamilton 
 Sniitli  in  Kitto.'s  Cyc.  art.  "Ape."  From  a  few  pas- 
 sages in  Pliny  {/J.  N.  v.  8;  vii.  2;  viii.  54)  it  is 
 clear  that  by  Satyrs  are  sometimes  to  be  understood 
 some  kind  of  ape  or  monkey;  Col.  H.  Smith  has 
 figured  tlie  Mucucns  Arabicus  as  iieing  the  prob- 
 able satyr  of  Babylon.  That  some  species  of  Cyno- 
 cep/ia/tis  (do<;-faced  baboon)  was  an  animal  that 
 entered  into  the  theology  of  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
 is  evident  from  the  monuments  and  from  what 
 Horapollo  (i.  14-16)  has  tohl  us.  The  other  ex- 
 planation, however,  has  the  sanction  of  Gesenius, 
 Bochart,  KosenmuUer,  Parkliurst,  Maurer,  Fiirst, 
 and  others.  As  to  the  "  dancing  "  satyrs,  comp. 
 Virg.  A'ci.  V.  73,  — 
 
 "Saltantes  satyros  imitabitur  Alphesiboeus." 
 
 W.  II. 
 SAUL  (b^lKtt^,  i.  e.  Shafil  [nsked  for,  b^ 
 sou(/Iit.]:  SaoyA;  Joseph.  'XdovAos'-  Saul),  more 
 accurately  Shaul,  in  which  form  it  is  given  on 
 several  occasions  in  the  Authorized  Version.  The 
 name  of  \arious  persons  in  the  Sacred  History. 
 
 1.  Saul  of  Pehoboth  by  the  Kiver  was  one  of 
 the  early  kings  of  Edom,  and  successor  of  Samlah 
 (Gen.  xxxvi.  37,  38).  In  1  Chr.  i.  48  he  is  called 
 Shaul.  G. 
 
 2.  The  first  king  of  Israel.  The  name  here 
 first  appears  in  the  history  of  Israel,  though  found 
 before  in  the  Edomite  prince  already  inenf ioned ; 
 and  in  a  son  of  Simeon  (Gen.  xlvi.  10;  A.  V. 
 Shaul).  It  also  occurs  among  the  Kohathites  in 
 the  genealogy  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi.  24),  and  in 
 Saul,  like  the  king,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  better 
 known  as  the  Apostle  Paul  (see  below,  p.  2857). 
 Josephus  (B.  J.  ii.  18,  §  4)  mentions  a  Saul,  father 
 of  one  Simon  who  distinguished  himself  at  Scythop- 
 olis  in  the  early  part  of  the  Jewish  war. 
 
 In  the  following   genealogy  may  be  observed  -  - 
 
SAUL 
 
 SAUL 
 
 2853 
 
 1.  The  repetition  in  two  generations  of  the  names  (b.)  MalcM-shua.=-  Je-shua,.    (c.)  Esh-ian/^  Ish- 
 
 Df  Kish  and  Ner,  of  Nadab  and  Abi-nadab,  and  of  ,  bosheth.      ((/.)   Mephi-  (or  Meri-)  6((a;  =  Mepiii- 
 
 Mephibosheth.      2.  The  occurrence  of  the  name  of  boahdli.     4.   The  long  continuance  of   the  family 
 
 Baal  in   three  successive  generations:  possibly  in  down  to  the  times  of  Ezra.     5.  Is  it  possible  that 
 
 four,  as  there   were  two  Mephiboslieths.     3.  The  Zimri  (1  Chr.  ix.  42)  can  be  the  usurper  of  1  K. 
 
 3onstant  shiftings  of  the  names  of  God  as  incor-  xvi.  —  if  so,  the  last  attempt  of  the  house  of  Saul 
 
 porated  in  the  proper  names:  (a.)  J6-iel  = /e-hiel.  to  regain  its  ascendency?     The  time  would  agree. 
 
 Aphiah.    (1  Sam.  ix.  1.) 
 
 Becliorath. 
 
 Zeror.    (LXX.  Jaord.) 
 
 Abiel,  or  Jehiel  =  Maachah. 
 (1  Sam.  ix.  1.)  ,  (1  Chr.  ix.) 
 (1  Chr.  viii.  ■£>.) 
 
 Baal.  Ner.  Nadab. 
 
 (1  Chr.  ix.  3G.) 
 
 Gedor.        Ahio. 
 
 Zeehariah.  Mikloth. 
 
 (Zacher,         (1  Chr.  ix.  Z7.) 
 1  Chr.  vUi.)  1 
 
 Shimeah. 
 
 Ahinoam  =  SAUL  =  Rizpah. 
 (1  Chr.  ix.  39.) 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  II 
 
 Jonathan.  Ishui.  Malchi-shua.  Abinadab.     Esh-baal.   Merab.   David=Michal  =  PhaUiel.    Armoni.  Mephibosheth. 
 (1  Sam.  Ishboshetli.  | 
 
 xiv.  49  ;  Jeshua  ['leaoCsJ,  Jos.  Ant.  vi.  6,  §  6.)  5  sons. 
 
 Merib-baal. 
 Mephibosheth.    (1  Chr.  ix.  40.) 
 
 Micah. 
 
 I 
 
 Ahaz. 
 
 Jehoadah.    (Jarah,  1  Chr.  ix.  42.) 
 
 Zimri. 
 Moza. 
 Binea. 
 
 Kephar.    (Raphaiah,  1  Chr.  ix.  43.) 
 Eleasah. 
 
 Eshek. 
 I 
 
 Azrikam.     Pocheru.    Ishmael.     Sheariah.      Obadiah.      Hanan. 
 
 There  is  a  contradiction  between  the  pedigree  in 
 1  Sam.  ix.  1,  xiv.  51,  which  represents  Saul  and 
 Abner  as  the  grandsons  of  Abiel,  and  1  Chr.  viii. 
 33,  ix.  39,  which  represents  them  as  his  great- 
 grandsons.  If  we  adopt  the  more  elaborate  pedi- 
 gree in  the  Chronicles,  we  must  suppose  either  that 
 a  link  has  been  dropped  between  Abiel  and  Kish, 
 in  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  or  that  the  elder  Kish,  the  son  of 
 Abiel  (1  Chr.  ix.  30),  has  been  confounded  with 
 the  younger  Kish,  the  son  of  Ner  (1  Chr.  ix.  39). 
 The  pedigree  in  1  Chr.  viii.  is  not  free  from  con- 
 fusion, as  it  omits,  amongst  the  sons  of  Abiel, 
 Ner,  who  in  1  (Jhr.  ix.  36  is  the  fifth  son,  and  who 
 in  both  is  made  the  father  of  Kish. 
 
 His  character  is  in  part  illustrated  by  the  fierce, 
 wayward,  fitful  nature  of  the  tribe  [Benjamin], 
 and  in  part  accounted  for  by  the  struggle  between 
 the  old  and  new  systems  in  which  he  found  him- 
 self involved.  To  this  we  must  add  a  taint  of 
 madness,  which  broke  out  in  violent  frenzy  at 
 times,  leaving  him  with  long  lucid  intervals.  His 
 affections  were  strong,  as  appears  in  his  love  both 
 for  David  and  his  son  Jonathan,  but  they  were 
 unequal  to  the   wild  accesses  of  religious  zeal  or 
 
 «  2  Sam.  i.  19,  the  word  translated  "  beauty,"  but 
 the  same  term  C'^^)  in  2  Sam.  ii.  18  and  elsewhere 
 (B  translated  "roe."     The  LXX.  have  confounded  it 
 
 Ulam.        Jehush.       Eliphelet. 
 1.50  descendants. 
 
 insanity  which  ultimately  led  to  his  ruin.  He  was, 
 like  the  earlier  Judges,  of  whom  in  one  sense  he 
 may  be  counted  as  the  successor,  remarkable  for  his 
 strength  and  activity  (2  Sam.  i.  23),  and  he  was, 
 like  the  Homeric  heroes,  of  gigantic  stature,  taller 
 by  head  and  shoulders  than  the  rest  of  the  people^ 
 and  of  that  kind  of  beauty  denoted  by  the  Hebrew 
 word  "good"  (1  Sara.  ix.  2),  and  which  caused 
 him  to  be  compared  to  the  gazelle,  "  the  gazelle 
 of  Israel."  «  It  was  probably  these  external  quali- 
 ties which  led  to  the  epithet  which  is  frequently 
 attached  to  his  name,  "  chosen  "  —  "  whom  the 
 Lord  did  choose  "  — "  See  ye  {i.  e.  Look  at)  him 
 whom  the  Lord  hath  chosen!"  (1  Sam.  ix.  17, 
 X.  24;  2  Sam.  xxi.  6). 
 
 The  birthplace  of  Saul  is  not  expressly  men- 
 tioned ;  but  as  Zelah  was  the  place  of  Kish's  sep- 
 ulchre (2  Sam.  xxi.),  it  was  probably  his  native 
 village.  There  is  no  warrant  for  saying  that  it 
 was  Gibeah,*  though,  from  its  subsequent  connec- 
 tion with  him,  it  is  called  often  "  Gibeah  of  Saul  " 
 [Gibeah].  His  father,  Kish,  was  a  powerful  and 
 wealthy  chief,  though  the  family  to  which  he  be- 
 longed was  of  little  importance  (1  Sam.  ix.  1,  21). 
 
 with  a  very  similar  word,  and  render  it   SttjAioctov, 
 "set  up  a  pillar." 
 
 6  When  Abiel,  or  Jehiel  (1  Chr.  viii.  29,  ix.  35),  is 
 called   the    father   of   "Gibeon,"   it    probably   mean* 
 I  founder  of  (SibeaJi. 
 
2854 
 
 SAUL 
 
 A  portion  of  his  property  consisted  of  a  drove  of 
 asses.  In  search  of  these  asses,  gone  astray  on 
 the  mountains,  he  sent  his  son  Saul,  accompanied 
 by  a  servant,"  who  acted  also  as  a  guide  and 
 guardian  of  the  young  man  (ix.  3-10).  After  a 
 three  days'  journey  (ix.  20),  which  it  has  hitherto 
 proved  impossil)le  to  track,  tlirough  Epliraim  and 
 Benjamin  [Shalisha  ;  Siiali.m;  Zuph],  they 
 arrived  at  the  foot  of  a  hill  surrounded  by  a  town, 
 when  Saul  proposed  to  return  home,  but  was  de- 
 terred by  the  advice  of  the  servant,  who  suggested 
 that  before  doing  so  they  should  consult  "  a  man 
 of  God,"  "a  seer,"  as  to  the  fate  of  the  asses  — 
 securing  his  oracle  by  a  present  {backshish)  of  a 
 quarter  of  a  silver  shekel.  They  were  instructed 
 by  the  maidens  at  the  well  outside  the  city  to  catch 
 the  seer  as  he  came  out  of  the  city  to  ascend  to  a 
 sacred  eminence,  where  a  sacrificial  feast  was  wait- 
 ing for  his  benediction  (1  Sam.  ix.  11-1 3).  At 
 the  gate  they  met  tlie  seer  for  the  first  time  —  it 
 was  Samuel.  A  divine  intimation  had  indicated 
 to  him  the  approach  and  the  future  destiny  of  the 
 youthful  Benjamite.  Surprised  at  his  language, 
 but  still  obeying  his  call,  they  ascended  to  the  high 
 place,  and  in  the  irm  or  caravanserai  at  the  top 
 {rh  KaraAvfia,  LXX.,  ix.  27)  found  thirty  or 
 (LXX.,  and  Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  4,  §  1)  seventy  guests 
 assembled,  amongst  whom  they  took  the  chief  |)lace. 
 In  anticipation  of  some  distinguished  stranger, 
 Samuel  had  bade  the  cook  reserve  a  i)oiled  shoulder, 
 from  which  Saul,  as  the  chief  guest,  was  bidden  to 
 tear  off  the  first  morsel  (LXX.,  ix.  22-24).  They 
 tiien  descended  to  the  city,  and  a  bed  was  prepared 
 for  Saul  on  the  housetop.  At  daybreak  Samuel 
 roused  him.  They  descended  again  to  the  skirts 
 of  the  town,  and  there  (the  servant  having  left 
 them)  Samuel  poured  over  Saul's  head  the  con.se- 
 crated  oil,  and  with  a  kiss  of  salutation  announced 
 to  him  that  he  was  to  be  the  ruler  and  (LXX.) 
 deliverer  of  tiie  nation  (ix.  25 -x.  1).  From  that 
 moment,  as  he  turned  on  Samuel  the  huge  shoulder 
 which  towered  above  all  the  rest  (x.  9,  LXX.).  a 
 new  life  dawned  upon  him.  He  returned  by  a 
 route  which,  like  that  of  his  search,  it  is  impos- 
 sible to  make  out  distinctly;  and  at  every  step 
 homeward  it  was  confirmed  by  the  incidents  which 
 according  to  Samuel's  prediction,  awaited  him  (x. 
 9,  10).  At  Itachel's  sepulchre  he  met  two  men,'' 
 who  announced  to  him  the  recovery  of  the  asses  — 
 his  lower  cares  were  to  cease.  At  the  oak*^  of 
 Tabor  [Plain;  Tabor,  Plain  obj  he  met  three 
 men  carrying  gifts  of  kids  and  bread,  and  a  skin 
 of  wine,  as  an  offering  to  Beth-el.  Two  of  the 
 loaves  were  ofl[ered  to  him  as  if  to  indicate  his  new 
 dignity.  At  "the  hill  of  ''God"  (whatever  may 
 be  meant  thereby,  possibly  his  own  city,  Gibeah), 
 he  met  a  band  of  prophets  descending  with  musi- 
 cal instruments,  and  he  caught  the  inspiration  from 
 them,  as  a  sign  of  his  new  life.'^ 
 
 a  The  word  is  ^273,  "servant,"  not  "1357 
 "  slave." 
 
 b  At  Zelzah,  or  (LXX.)  "  le.aping  for  joy." 
 
 c  Mistranslated  in  A.  V.  "plain." 
 
 'J  In  X.  5,  Gibtalk  ha-E'okim ;  in  x.  10,  hag-gibeali 
 only.  Joseph.  (Ant.  vi.  4,  §  2)  gives  the  name  Ga- 
 batha,  by  which  he  elsewhere  designates  Gibeah,  Saul's 
 tity. 
 
 e  See  for  this  Ewald  (iii.  28-30). 
 
 /  vTin,  "  the  strength,"  the  host,  x.  26  ;  comp. 
 I  Sam.  xxiv.  2.     The  word  "  baud  "'  is  usually  em- 
 
 SAUL 
 
 This  is  what  may  be  called  the  private,  inner 
 view  of  his  call.  The  outer  call,  which  is  relatetl 
 independently  of  the  other,  was  as  follows.  An 
 assembly  was  convened  by  Samuel  at  Mizpeh,  and 
 lots  (so  often  practiced  at  that  time)  were  cast  to 
 find  the  tribe  and  the  family  which  was  to  produce 
 the  king.  Saul  was  named  —  and,  by  a  Divine  in- 
 tiu)ation,  found  hid  in  the  circle  of  baggage  which 
 surrounded  the  encampment  (x.  17-24).  His 
 stature  at  once  conciliated  the  pulilic  feeling,  and 
 for  the  first  time  the  shout  was  raised,  afterwards 
 so  oiten  repeated  in  modern  times,  "  Ix)ng  live  thp 
 king"  (x.  23,  34),  and  he  returned  to  his  native 
 Giijeah,  accompanied  by  the  fighting  part/  of  the 
 people,  of  whom  he  was  now  to  be  the  especial 
 head.  The  nunmurs  of  the  worthless  pait  of  the 
 community  who  refused  to  salute  him  with  the 
 accustomed  presents  were  soon  dispelled  <J  by  an 
 occasion  arising  to  justify  the  selection  of  Saul. 
 He  was  (having  apparently  returned  to  his  private 
 life)  on  his  way  houje,  driving  his  herd  of  oxen, 
 when  he  heard  one  of  those  wild  lamentations  in 
 the  city  of  (iibeah,  such  as  mark  in  eastern  towns 
 the  arrival  of  a  great  calamity.  It  was  the  tidings 
 of  the  threat  issued  by  Nahash  king  of  Ammon 
 against  .labesh  Gilead  (see  Amjion).  The  inhab- 
 itants of  Jabesh  were  connected  with  Benjamin, 
 by  the  old  adventure  recorded  in  Judg.  xxi.  It 
 was  as  if  this  one  spark  was  needed  to  awaken  tjie 
 dormant  spirit  of  tiie  king.  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
 Lord  came  upon  him,"  as  on  the  ancient  judges. 
 The  shy,  retiring  nature  which  we  have  observed, 
 vanished  never  to  return.  He  had  recourse  to  the 
 expedient  of  the  earlier  days,  and  summoned  the 
 people  by  the  bones  of  two  of  the  oxen  from  the 
 herd  which  he  was  driving:  three  (or  six,  LXX.) 
 hundred  thousand  followed  from  Israel,  and  (per- 
 haps not  in  due  proportion)  thirty  (or  seventy, 
 LXX.)  thousand  from  Judah:  and  Jabesh  was 
 rescued.  The  effect  was  instantaneous  on  the  peo- 
 ple ;  the  punishment  of  the  murmurers  was  de- 
 manded —  but  refused  by  Saul,  and  the  monarchy 
 was  inaugurated  anew  at  Giigal  (xi.  1-15).  It 
 should  be,  however,  observed  that,  according  to  1 
 Sam.  xii.  12,  the  affair  of  Nahash  preceded  and 
 occasioned  the  election  of  Saul.  He  becomes  king 
 of  Israel.  But  he  still  so  far  resembles  the  earlier 
 judges,  as  to  l)e  virtually  king  only  of  his  own 
 trilie,  Benjamin,  or  of  the  immediate  neighborhood. 
 Almost  all  his  exploits  are  confined  to  this  circle 
 of  territory  or  associations. 
 
 Samuel,  who  had  up  to  this  time  been  still 
 named  as  ruler  with  Saul  (xi.  7,  12,  14),  now  with- 
 drew, and  Saul  became  the  acknowledged  chief.'' 
 In  the  2d  year '  of  his  reign,  he  began  to  organize 
 an  attempt  to  shake  off  the  Philistine  yoke  which 
 pressed  on  his  country ;  not  least  on  his  own  tribe, 
 where  a  Philistine  officer  had  long  been  stationed 
 even  in  his  own  field  (x.  5,  xiii.  3).     An  army  of 
 
 ployed  in  the  A.  V.  for   ^^3,  a  very  different  term, 
 with  a  strict  meaning  of  its  own.     [Troop.] 
 
 0  The  words  which  clo.se  1  Sam.  x.  27  are  in  the 
 Hebrew  text  "he  wjis  as  though  he  were  deaf;  "in 
 .loseph.  Ant.  vi.  5,  §  1,  and  the  LXX.  (followed  by 
 Ewald).  "  and  it  came  to  pass  after  a  month  that." 
 ''  Also  2  Sam.  x.  15,  LXX.,  for  "Lord." 
 i  The  expression,  xiii.  1,  "Saul  was  one  year  old" 
 (the  son  of  a  year)  in  his  reigning,  may  be  either, 
 (1).  he  reigned  one  year  ;  or  (2),  the  word  30  may  have 
 dropped  out  thence  to  xiii.  5,  and  it  may  have  been 
 '■  he  was  31  when  he  began  to  reign.'' 
 
SAUL 
 
 3,000  was  formed,  which  he  soon  afterwards  gath- 
 sred  together  round  liim;  and  Jonathan,  apparently 
 with  his  sanction,  rose  against  the  officer"  and 
 slew  him  (xiii.  2— i).  This  roused  the  whole  force 
 of  the  Philistine  nation  against  him.  The  spirit 
 of  Israel  was  completely  broken.  Many  concealed 
 themselves  in  the  caverns;  many  crossed  the  Jor- 
 dan ;  all  were  disarmed,  except  Saul  and  his  son, 
 with  their  innnediate  retainers.  In  this  crisis, 
 Saul,  now  on  the  very  confines  of  his  kingdom  at 
 Gilgal,  found  himself  in  the  position  long  before 
 descrilied  by  Samuel;  longing  to  exercise  his  royal 
 right  of  sacrifice,  yet  deterred  by  his  sense  of  obe- 
 dience to  the  prophet.*  At  last,  on  the  7th  day, 
 he  could  wait  no  longer,  but  just  after  the  sacrifice 
 was  completed  Samuel  arrived,  and  pronounced  the 
 first  curse,  on  his  impetuous  zeal  (xiii.  5-14). 
 Meanwhile  the  adventurous  exploit  of  Jonathan  at 
 Michmash  brought  on  the  crisis  which  ultimately 
 drove  the  Philistines  back  to  their  own  territory 
 [Jonathan].  It  was  signalized  by  two  remark- 
 able incidents  in  the  life  of  Saul.  One  was  the 
 first  ajipearance  of  his  madness  in  the  rash  vow 
 which  all  but  cost  the  life  of  his  so!i  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
 24,  44).  The  other  was  the  erection  of  his  first 
 altar,  built  either  to  celebrate  the  victory,  or  to 
 expiate  the  savage  feast  of  the  famished  people 
 (xiv.  ys). 
 
 The  expulsion  of  the  Philistines  (although  not 
 entirely  completed,  xiv.  52)  at  once  placed  Saul  in 
 a  position  higher  than  that  of  any  previous  ruler 
 of  Israel.  Probably  from  this  time  was  formed 
 the  organization  of  royal  state,  which  contained 
 in  germ  some  of  the  future  institutions  of  the 
 monarchy.  The  host  of  3,000  has  been  already 
 mentioned  (1  Sam.  xiii.,  xxiv.  2,  xxvi.  2;  conip. 
 1  Chr.  xii.  29).  Of  this  Abner  became  captain 
 (1  Sam.  xiv.  50).  A  body  guard  was  also  formed 
 of  runners  and  messengers  (see  1  Sam.  xvi.  15,  17, 
 xxii.  14,  17,  xxvi.  22).=  Of  this  David  was  after- 
 wards made  the  chief.  These  two  were  the  prin- 
 cipal officers  of  the  court,  and  sate  witii  Jonatlian 
 at  the  king's  table  (1  Sam  xx.  25).  Another 
 officer  is  incidentally  mentioned  —  the  kee;  er  of 
 the  royal  mules  —  the  amies  sla'nii.  the  "  consta- 
 ble "  of  the  king,  such  as  appears  in  tlie  later 
 monarchy  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  SO).  He  is  the  first 
 instance  of  a  foreigner  employed  aliout  the  court 
 
 —  being  an  ICdomite  or  (LXX.)  S}rian,  of  the 
 name  of  Doeg  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7,  xxii.  9).  According 
 to  Jewish  tradition  (Jer.  Qu.  Htb.  ad  loc.)  he  was 
 the  servant  who  accompanied  Saul  in  his  pursuit 
 of  his  father's  asses,  who  counseled  him  to  send 
 for  I'avid  (ix.,  xvi.),  and  whose  son  ultimately 
 killed  him  (2  Sam.  i.  10).  The  high  priest  of  the 
 house  of  Ithamar  (Ahimelech  or  Ahijah)  was  in 
 attendance  upon  him  with  the  ephod,  when  he 
 desired  it  (xiv.  3),  and  felt  himself  bound  to  assist 
 his  secret  commissioners  (xxi.  1-9,  xxii.  14). 
 
 The  king  himself  was  distinguished  by  a  state 
 not  before  marked  in  the  nilers.  He  had  a  tall 
 spear,  of  the  same  kind  as  that  described  in  the 
 hand  of  Goliath.      [.\rms.]     This  never  left  him 
 
 —  in  repose  (1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  xix.  9);  at  his  meals 
 (xx.  33);  at  rest  (xxvi.  11),  in  battle  (2  Sam.  i.  6). 
 
 SAUL 
 
 2855 
 
 n  The  word  may  be  rendered  either  "garrison  "  or 
 '  officer  ;  "  its  meaning  is  uncertain. 
 
 6  The  command  of  Samuel  (x.  8)  had  apparently  a 
 perpetual  obligJition  (xiii.  13).  It  had  been  given  two 
 years  before  and  in  the  interval  they  had  both  been  at 
 
 In  battle  he  wore  a  diadem  on  his  head  and  a 
 bracelet  on  his  arm  (2  Sam.  i.  10).  He  sate  at 
 meals  on  a  seat  of  his  own  facing  his  son  (1  Sam. 
 XX.  25;  I.XX.).  He  was  received  on  his  return 
 from  battle  by  the  songs  of  the  Israelite  f'  women 
 (1  Sam.  xviii.  G),  amongst  whom  he  was  on  such 
 occasions  specially  known  as  bringing  back  from 
 the  enemy  scarlet  robes,  and  golden  ornaments  for 
 their  apparel  (2  Sam.  i.  24). 
 
 Tlie  warlilvc  character  of  his  reign  naturally  still 
 predominated,  and  he  was  now  able  (not  merely, 
 like  his  temporary  predecessors,  to  act  on  the 
 defensive,  but)  to  attack  the  neighboring  tribes  of 
 Moab,  Amnion,  Kdom,  Zobah,  and  finally  Amalek 
 (xiv.  47).  The  war  with  Amalek  is  twice  related, 
 first  brietiy  (xiv.  48),  and  then  at  length  (xv.  1-9). 
 Its  chief  connection  with  Saul's  history  lies  in  the 
 disobedience  to  the  prophetical  command  of  Sam- 
 uel; shown  in  the  sparing  of  the  king,  and  the 
 retention  of  the  spoil. 
 
 The  extermination  of  Amalek  and  the  subsequent 
 execution  of  Agag  belong  to  the  general  question 
 of  the  moral  code  of  the  O.  T.  There  is  no  reason 
 to  suppose  that  Saul  spared  the  king  for  any  otlier 
 reason  than  that  fur  which  he  retained  the  spoil  — 
 namely,  to  make  a  more  splendid  show  at  the 
 sacrificial  thanksgiving  (xv.  21).  Such  was  the 
 Jewish  tradition  preserved  by  Josephus  (.1/?/.  vi.  7, 
 §2),  who  expressly  says  that  Agag  was  spared  for 
 his  stature  and  beauty,  and  such  is  the  general 
 impression  left  by  the  description  of  the  celebration 
 of  the  victory.  Saul  rides  to  the  southern  Carniel 
 in  a  chariot  (LXX.),  never  mentioned  elsewhere, 
 and  sets  up  a  monument  there  (Heb.  "a  hand,"' 
 2  Sam.  xviii.  18),  which  in  tlie  Jewish  traditions 
 (Jerome,  Qu.  Hub.  ad  loc.)  was  a  triumphal  arch 
 of  olives,  myrtles,  and  palms.  And  in  allusion  to 
 his  crowning  triumph,  Samuel  applies  to  God  the 
 phrase,  "The  Victory  (Vulg.  triuii/phnlur)  of  Israel 
 will  neither  lie  nor  repent"  (xv.  2.0;  and  comp. 
 1  Chr.  xxix.  11).  This  second  act  of  disoijedience 
 called  down  the  second  curse,  and  the  first  distinct 
 intimation  of  the  transference  of  the  kingdom  to  a 
 rival.  The  strugifle  between  Samuel  and  Saul  in 
 their  final  parting  is  indicated  by  the  rent  of 
 Samuel's  robe  of  state,  as  he.  tears  himself  away 
 Irom  Sinl's  fn-asp  (for  the  gesture,  see  Joseph.  An/. 
 vi.  7,  §  5),  and  by  the  long  mourning  of  Samuel 
 for  the  separation  —  "Samuel  mourned  for  Saul." 
 "  How  long  wilt  thou  mourn  for  Saul':'"  (xv.  35, 
 xvi.  1). 
 
 The  rest  of  Saul's  life  is  one  long  tragedy.  The 
 frenzy,  which  had  given  indications  of  itself  before, 
 now  at  times  took  almost  entire  posse.ssion  of  him. 
 It  is  described  in  mixed  phrases  as  "  an  evil  spirit 
 of  God  "  (much  as  we  might  speak  of  "  religious 
 madness"),  which,  when  it  came  upon  him,  almost 
 choked  or  strangled  him  from  its  violence  (xvi.  14, 
 LXX.;  Joseph.  Ai<t.  vi.  8,  §  2). 
 
 In  this  crisis  David  was  recommended  to  him  liy 
 one  of  the  young  men  of  his  guard  (in  the  Jewish 
 tradition  groundlessly  supposed  to  be  Doeg.  .le- 
 rome,  Qu.  Ihb.  ad  loc. ).  I'rom  this  time  forward 
 their  lives  are  blended  together.  [David.]  In 
 Saul's  better  moments  he  never  lost  the  strong  af- 
 
 Gilgal  (xi.  15).  N.  B.  —The  words  "had  appointed  " 
 (xiii.  8)  are  inserted  in  A.  V. 
 
 '^  They  were  Benj:imites  (1  Sam.  xxii.  7  ;  Joseph.  Ant. 
 vii.  14),  young,  tall,  and  handsome  {Ibitl.  vi.  6,  §  6). 
 
 (I  Joseph.  (Ant.  vi.  10,  §  1)  ni.ikes  the  women  sing 
 the  praises  of  Saul,  the  maidens,  of  David. 
 
2856  SAUL 
 
 fection  which  he  had  contracted  for  David.  "  He 
 loved  him  greatly"  (xvi.  21).  "Saul  would  let 
 him  go  no  more  home  to  his  father's  house  "  (xviii. 
 2).  "  Wherefore  cometh  not  the  son  of  Jesse  to 
 nieatV  "  (xx.  27).  "  Is  this  thy  voice,  my  son  Da- 
 vid. .  .  .  Return,  my  son  David ;  blessed  be  thou, 
 my  son  David"  (xxiv.  16,  xxvi.  17,  25).  Occa- 
 sionally too  his  prophetical  gift  returned,  blended 
 with  his  madness.  He  "  pro])liesied  "  or  "raved  " 
 in  the  midst  of  his  house  —  "  he  prophesied  and  lay 
 down  naked  all  day  and  all  night"  at  Ramah  (xix. 
 24).  But  his  acts  of  fierce,  wild  zeal  increased. 
 The  massacre  of  the  priests,  with  all  their  families" 
 (xxii.)  —  the  massacre,  perhaps  at  the  same  time, 
 of  the  Gibeonite.s  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1),  and  the  violent 
 extirpation  of  the  necromancers  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  3, 
 I),  are  all  of  the  same  kind.  At  last  the  monarchy 
 itself,  which  he  had  raised  up,  broke  down  under 
 the  weakness  of  its  head.  The  Philistines  reen- 
 tered the  country,  and  with  their  chariots  and 
 horses  occupied  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon.  'J'heir 
 camp  was  pitched  on  the  southern  slope  of  the 
 range  now  called  Little  Hernion,  by  Shunem.  On 
 the  opposite  side,  on  Mount  Gilboa,  was  the  Israel- 
 ite army,  clinging  as  usual  to  the  heights  which 
 were  tlieir  safety.  It  was  near  the  spring  of  Gid- 
 eon's encampment,  hence  called  the  spring  of  Harod 
 or  "trembling"  — and  now  tlie  name  assumed  an 
 evil  omen,  and  the  heart  of  the  king  as  he  pitched 
 his  camp  tliere  "trembled  exceedingly"  (1  Sam. 
 xxviii.  5).  In  the  loss  of  all  the  usual  means  of 
 consulting  the  Divine  will,  he  determined,  with 
 that  wayward  mixture  of  superstition  and  religion 
 which  marked  his  whole  career,  to  apply  *  to  one  of 
 the  necromancers  who  had  escaped  his  persecution. 
 She  was  a  woman  living  at  Endor,  on  the  other 
 side  of  Little  Hermon ;  she  is  called  a  woman  of 
 "  Ob,''  i.  e.  of  the  skin  or  bladder,  and  this  the 
 LXX.  has  rendered  by  iyyaffTf)lfj.vdos  or  ventrilo- 
 quist, and  the  Vulgate  by  Pytlioness.  According 
 to  the  Hebrew  tradition  mentioned  by  Jerome,  she 
 was  the  mother  of  Abner,  and  hence  her  escape 
 from  the  general  massacre  of  the  necromancers  (see 
 Leo  Allatius,  De  Anr/aslriinythti,  cap.  6,  in  Crilici 
 Sacri,  ii.).  Volumes  have  been  written  on  tlie 
 question,  whether  in  the  scene  that  follows  we  are 
 to  understand  an  imposture  or  a  real  apparition  of 
 Sanuiel.  Eustathius  and  most  of  the  Fathers  take 
 the  former  ^iew  (representing  it,  however,  as  a  fig- 
 ment of  the  devil);  Origen,  the  latter  view.  Au- 
 gustine wavers.  (See  Leo  Allatius,  lit  supra,  pp. 
 1062-1114.)  The  LXX.  of  1  Sam.  xxvii.  7  (by 
 the  above  translation)  and  the  A.  V.  (by  its  omis- 
 sion of  "himself"  in  xxviii.  14,  and  insertion  of 
 "when"  in  xxviii.  12)  lean  to  the  former.  Jose- 
 phus  (who  pronounces  a  glowing  eulogy  on  the 
 woman,  Ant.  vi.  14,  §§  2.  3),  and  the  LXX.  of 
 1  Chr.  X.  13,  to  the  latter.  At  this  distance  of 
 time  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  relative 
 amount  of  fraud  or  of  reality,  though  the  obvious 
 meaning  of  the  narrative  itself  tends  to  the  hypoth- 
 esis of  some  kind  of  apparition.  She  recognizes  the 
 disguised  king  first  Ijy  the  appearance  of  Sanuiel, 
 seemingly  from  his  threatening  aspect  or  tone  as 
 towards  his  enemy.'^    Saul  apparently  saw  nothing, 
 
 a  This  is  placed  by  Josephus  as  the  climax  of  his 
 guilt,  brought  on  by  the  intoxication  of  power  (Ant. 
 Vi.  12,  §  7)' 
 
 ''  His  companions  were  Abner  and  Amasa  (Seder 
 Olam,  Meyer,  p.  492). 
 
 c  When  we  last  heard  ot  Samuel  he  was  mourning 
 
 SAUL 
 
 but  listened  to  her  description  of  a  god-like  figure 
 of  an  aged  man,  wrapped  round  with  the  royal  or 
 sacred  robe.'' 
 
 On  hearing  the  denunciation  which  the  appa- 
 rition conveyed,  Saul  fell  the  whole  length  of  his 
 giijantic  stature  (see  xxviii.  20,  margin)  on  the 
 ground,  and  remained  motionless  till  the  woman 
 and  his  servants  forced  him  to  eat. 
 
 The  next  day  the  battle  came  on,  and  according 
 to  Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  14,  §  7),  perhaps  according 
 to  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  narrative,  his  courage 
 and  self-devotion  returned.  The  Israelites  were 
 driven  up  the  side  of  Gilboa.  The  three  sons  of 
 Saul  were  slain  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2).  Saul  himself 
 with  his  armor-bearer  was  pursued  by  the  archers 
 and  the  charioteers  of  the  enemy  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  3; 
 2  Sam.  i.  6).  He  was  wounded  in  the  stomach 
 (LXX.,  1  Sam.  xxxi.  3).  His  shield  was  cast  away 
 (2  Sam.  i.  21).  According  to  one  account,  he  feU 
 upon  his  own  sword  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  4).  According 
 to  another  account  (which  may  be  reconciled  with 
 the  former  by  supposing  that  it  describes  a  later 
 incident),  an  Amalekite*^  came  up  at  the  moment 
 of  his  death-wound  (whether  from  himself  or  the 
 enemy),  and  found  him  "  fallen,"  but  leaning  on 
 his  spear  (2  Sam.  i.  6,  10).  The  dizziness  of  death 
 was  gathered  over  him  (LXX.,  2  Sam.  i.  9),  but 
 he  was  still  alive;  and  he  was,  at  his  own  request, 
 put  out  of  his  pain  l)y  the  Araalekite,  who  took  off 
 his  royal  diadem  and  bracelet,  and  carried  the  news 
 to  David  (2  Sam.  i.  7-10).  Not  till  then,  accord- 
 ing to  Josephus  {A7it.  vi.  14,  §  7),  did  the  fiithful 
 armor-bearer  fall  on  his  sword  and  die  with  him 
 (1  Sam.  xxxi.  5).  The  body  on  being  found  by 
 the  Philistines  was  stripped,  and  decapitated.  The 
 armor  was  sent  into  the  Philistine  cities,  as  if  in 
 retribution  for  the  spoliation  of  Goliath,  and  finally 
 deposited  in  the  temple  of  Astarte,  apparently  in 
 the  neighborin£c  Canaanitish  city  of  Beth-shan ;  and 
 over  the  walls  of  the  same  city  was  hung  the  naked, 
 headless  corpse,  with  those  of  his  three  sons  (vv.  9, 
 10).  The  head  was  deposited  (probably  at  Ash- 
 dod)  in  the  temple  of  L)agon  (1  Chr.  x.  10).  The 
 corpse  was  removed  from  Beth-shan  by  the  gratitude 
 of  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh-gilead,  who  came  over 
 the  .lordau  by  night,  carried  off  the  bodies,  burnt 
 them,  and  buried  them  under  the  tamarisk  at  Ja- 
 besh  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  13).  Thence,  after  the  lapse  of 
 several  years,  his  ashes  and  those  of  Jonathan  were 
 removed  by  David  to  their  ancestral  sepulchre  at 
 Zelah  in  Benjauiin  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14).  [Mephi- 
 BosHKTU,  vol.  iii.  p.  188!)  b.]  A.  P.  S. 
 
 *  On  the  history  and  character  of  Saul  may  be 
 mentioned  I'^wald,  Oesc/iichte  des  Vvl/ces  Israel, 
 3e  Ausg.  (ISufJ).  iii.  22-76;  Nagelsbach,  art.  Saul, 
 in  Herzog's  lUal-Encijk.  xiii.  432-437;  Wunder- 
 lich,  in  Zeller's  Bibl.  Worterb.  ii.  407-9;  Bishop 
 Hall,  Coniemphiiions  an  the  0.  and  N.  Testaments, 
 bks.  xiii.-sv;  Mihnan,  History  of  the  Jews,  i.  31.5- 
 331  (N.  Y.  18G5);  Stanley,  writer  of  the  {^receding 
 sketch,  "  Hou.se  of  Saul,"  in  his  Lectures  mi  the 
 ./ewish  Church,  ii.  1-44;  and  Archbishop  Trench, 
 ShipuTecks  of  Faith:  Three  Sermons  preached 
 before  the  University  of  Cambridge  in  May,  1867. 
 This  last  writer  has  drawn  a  sad  picture  of  the  con- 
 
 for,  not  hating,  Saul.  Had  the  massacre  of  the  priests 
 and  the  persecution  of  David  (xix.  18)  alienated  him  ? 
 
 ''  'lepaTiKrjr  St-rrXotSa  (Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  14,  §  2). 
 
 e  According  to  the  Jewish  tradition  (Jerome,  Cpt 
 Heb.  ad  loc),  he  was  the  son  of  Doeg. 
 
SAVARAN 
 
 trast  between  the  beginning  and  the  close  of  Saul's 
 career.  All  the  finer  and  nobler  elements  of  his 
 character  displayed  themselves  at  the  outset  of  his 
 eventful  life ;  while  at  the  end  we  have  before  us 
 the  mournful  spectacle  of  "  the  gradual  breaking 
 down  under  the  wear  and  the  tear  of  the  world, 
 under  the  influence  of  unresisted  temptations,  of  a 
 lofty  soul:  the  unworthy  close  of  a  life  worthily 
 begun."  H- 
 
 3.  The  Jewish  name  of  St.  Paul.  This  was 
 the  most  distinguished  name  in  the  genealogies  of 
 the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  to  which  the  Apostle  felt 
 some  pride  in  belonging  (Koui.  xi.  1;  Phil.  iii.  5). 
 He  himself  leads  us  to  associate  his  name  with  that 
 of  the  Jewish  king,  by  the  marked  way  in  which  he 
 mentions  Saul  in  his  address  at  the  Pisidian  Anti- 
 och :  "  God  gave  unto  them  Saul  the  son  of  Cis,  a 
 man  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin"  (Acts  xiii.  21). 
 These  indications  are  in  harmony  with  the  intensely 
 Jewish  spirit  of  which  the  life  of  the  Apostle  ex- 
 hibits so  many  signs.  [Paul.]  The  early  ecclesi- 
 astical writers  did  not  fail  to  notice  the  prominence 
 thus  given  by  St.  Paul  to  his  tribe.  TertuUian 
 {adv.  Mavc.  v.  1)  applies  to  him  the  dying  words 
 of  Jacob  on  Benjamin.  And  Jerome,  in  his  Jipi- 
 tuplduiii  Pauke  (§  S),  alluding  to  the  preservation 
 of  the  six  hundred  men  of  Benjamin  after  the  af- 
 fair of  Gibeah  (Judg.  xx.  49),  speaks  of  them  as 
 "  trecentos  (sic)  viros  jiropter  Apostulum  reserva- 
 tos."  Compare  the  article  on  Benjamin  (vol.  i. 
 p.  279  a). 
 
 Nothing  certain  is  known  about  the  change  of 
 the  Apostle's  name  from  Saul  to  Paul  (Acts  xiii. 
 9),  to  which  reference  has  been  already  made. 
 [Paul,  vol.  iii.  p.  2369  a.]  Two  chief  conject- 
 ures «  prevail  concerning  the  change.  (1.)  That 
 of  Jerome  and  Augustine,  that  the  name  was  de- 
 rived from  Sekgius  Paulus,  the  first  of  his  Gen- 
 tile converts.  (2.)  That  which  appears  due  to 
 Lightfoot,  that  Paulus  was  the  Apostle's  Roman 
 name  as  a  citizen  of  Tarsus,  naturally  adopted  into 
 cominon  use  by  his  biographer  when  his  labors 
 among  the  heathen  commenced.  The  former  of 
 these  is  adopted  by  Olshausen  and  ]Meyer.  It  is 
 also  the  view  of  Ewald  (Gesch.  vi.  419,  420),  who 
 seems  to  consider  it  self-evident,  and  looks  on  the 
 absence  of  any  explanation  of  the  change  as  a  proof 
 that  it  was  so  understood  by  all  the  readers  of  the 
 Acts.  [See  vol.  iii.  p.  2309  a,  and  note,  Amer. 
 ed.]  However  this  may  be,  after  Saul  has  taken 
 his  place  definitively  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentile 
 world,  his  Jewish  name  is  entirely  dropped.  Two 
 divisions  of  his  life  are  well  marked  by  the  use  of 
 the  two  names.  J.  LI.  D. 
 
 SAV'ARAN  (6  ^avapdv,  [Sin.  o  Avpav, 
 Comp.  with  4  MSS.  Avapav'-]  Jilius  Saura,  Ava- 
 rum  f),  an  erroneous  form  of  the  title  Avaran, 
 borne  by  Eleazar  the  son  of  Mattathias,  which  is 
 found  in  the  common  texts  in  1  Mace.  vi.  43. 
 [Eleazak  8,  vol.  i.  p.  695  a.]  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SAVI'AS  (om.  in  Vat.;  Alex.  Saouia;  om.  in 
 Vulg. ).  Uzzi  the  ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii. 
 2;  comp.  Ezr.  vii.  4). 
 
 SAVIOUR.  The  following  article,  together 
 with  the  one  on  the  Son  of  Goo,  forms  the  com- 
 plement to  the  life  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
 [See  vol.  ii.  p.  1437.]     An   explanation   is   first 
 
 SAVIOUR  2857 
 
 given  of  the  word  "  Saviour,"  and  then  of  his  xvork 
 of  salvation,  as  unfolded  and  taught  in  the  New 
 Testament.      [See  also  ^Messiah.] 
 
 I.  The  Wokd  Saviour.  —  The  term  "  Sav- 
 iour," as  applied  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repre- 
 sents the  Greek  si'iUr  {(roiT-lip),  which  in  turn  rep- 
 resents certain  derivatives  from  the  Hebrew  root 
 
 ydsh'a  (VW'^):  particularly  the   participle   of  the 
 
 Hiphil  form  moslii'a  (V*^W'V2i):  which  is  usually 
 rendered  "  Saviour  "  in  the  A.  V.  (e.  g.  Is.  xlv. 
 15,  xlix.  26).  In  considering  the  true  import  of 
 "  Saviour,"  it  is  essential  for  us  to  examine  the 
 original  terms  answering  to  it,  including  in  our 
 view  the  use  of  sotet-  in  the  LXX.,  whence  it  was 
 more  immediately  derived  by  the  writers  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and  further  noticing  the  cognate 
 terms  "to  save"  and  "salvation,"  which  express 
 respectively  the  action  and  the  results  of  the  Sav- 
 iour's office.  (1.)  The  first  point  to  be  observed  is 
 that  the  term  soter  is  of  more  frequent  occurrence 
 in  the  LXX.  than  the  term  "  Saviour  "  in  the 
 A.  V.  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  represents  not 
 only  the  word  moslii'a  above  mentioned,  but  also 
 
 very  frequently  the  nouns  ?/es/t'a  (3?lt\j  xadijeshffdh 
 
 iyVS'^W^y.  which,  though  properly  expressive  of 
 the  abstract  notion  "  salvation,"  are  yet  sometimes 
 used  in  a  concrete  sense  for  "  Saviour."  We  may 
 cite  as  an  example.  Is.  Ixii.  11,  "Behold,  thy  salva- 
 tion Cometh,  his  reward  is  with  him,"  where  evi- 
 dently "  salvation  "  =  Saviour.  So  again  in  pas- 
 sages where  these  terms  are  connected  immediately 
 with  the  person  of  the  Godhead,  as  in  Ps.  Ixviii. 
 20,  "  the  God  our  Saviour  "  (A.  V.  "  God  of  our 
 salvation").  Not  only  in  such  cases  as  these,  but 
 in  many  others  where  the  sense  does  not  require  it, 
 the  LXX.  has  sular  where  the  A.  V.  has  "  salva- 
 tion;" and  thus  the  word  "  Saviour  "  was  more 
 familiar  to  the  ear  of  the  reader  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment in  our  Lord's  age  than  it  is  to  us.  (2.)  The 
 same  observation  holds  good  with  regard  to  the 
 verb  ffcc^fiv,  and  the  substantive  aaiTripia,  as  used 
 in  the  LXX.  An  examination  of  the  passages  in 
 which  they  occur  shows  that  they  stand  as  equiva- 
 lents for  words  conveying  the  notions  of  well-being, 
 succor,  peace,  and  the  like.  We  have  further  to 
 notice  awT-npia  in  the  sense  of  recovery  of  the  bod- 
 ily health  (2  Mace.  iii.  32),  together  with  the  ety- 
 mological connection  supposed  to  exist  between  the 
 terms  craiTr]p  and  ffwfxu,  to  which  St.  Paul  evi- 
 dently aUudes  in  Eph.  v.  23 ;  Phil.  iii.  20,  21.  (3.) 
 If  we  turn  to  the  Hebrew  terms,  we  cannot  fail  to 
 be  struck  with  their  comprehensi\eness.  Our  verb 
 "  to  save  "  implies,  in  its  ordinary  sense,  the  res- 
 cue of  a  person  from  actual  or  impending  danger. 
 This  is  undoubtedly  included  in  the  Hebrew  root 
 ydah'n,  and  may  be  said  to  be  its  ordinary  sense,  as 
 testified   by  the  frequent  accompaniment  of   the 
 
 preposition  min  {']T2 ;  compare  the  (xcSkt^i  airS 
 which  the  angel  gives  in  explanation  of  the  name 
 Jesus,  Matt.  i.  21).  But  ijdsh'a,  beyond  this,  ex- 
 presses assistance  and  ])rutection  of  every  kind  -  ■ 
 assistance  in  aggressive  measures,  protection  against 
 attack;  and,  in  a  secondary  sense,  the  results  of 
 such  assistance  —  victory,  safety,  prosperity,  and 
 happiness.     We  may  cite  as  an  instance  of  the  ag- 
 
 a  There  are  many  other  theories,  one  of  which  may 
 
 be  mentioned  ;  that  of  Nicephorus  {Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  37), 
 
 who  treats  Paulus  as  a  contraction  of  Pusillus,  and 
 
 180 
 
 supposes  it  to  have  been  a  nickname  given   to   the 
 Apostle  on  account  of  his  insignificant  stature  .' 
 
2858 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 gressive  sense,  Deut.  xx.  4,  "  to  fight  for  you 
 against  your  enemies,  to  save  you;  "  of  pi-oteclion 
 against  attack,  Is.  xxvi.  1,  "  salvation  will  God  ap- 
 point for  walls  and  bulwarks;  "  of  victory,  2  Sam. 
 viii.  G,  "  The  Lord  preserved  David,"  i.  e.  gave 
 him  victory;  of  y/ros/ieriV;/  and  happiness,  Is.  Ix. 
 18,  "  Thou  sh.alt  call  thy  walls  Salvation;  "  Is.  Ixi. 
 10,  "  He  hath  clothed  me  with  the  garments  of 
 salvation."  No  better  instance  of  this  last  sense 
 can  be  adduced  than  the  exclamation  "  Hosanna," 
 meaning,  "  Save,  I  beseech  thee,"  which  was  uttered 
 as  a  prayer  for  God's  Ijlessing  on  any  jojous  occa- 
 sion (Ps.  cxviii.  2.5),  as  at  our  Lord's  entry  into 
 Jerusalem,  when  the  etymological  connection  of  the 
 terms  Hosanna  and  Jesus  could  not  have  been  lost 
 on  the  ear  of  the  Hebrew  (Matt.  xxi.  9,  15).  It 
 thus  appears  that  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  terms  had 
 their  positive  as  well  as  their  negative  side,  in  other 
 words  that  they  expressed  the  presence  of  blessing 
 as  well  as  the  absence  of  danger,  actual  security  as 
 well  as  the  removal  of  insecurity."  (4.)  The  histor- 
 ical personages  to  whom  the  terms  are  applied  fur- 
 ther illustrate  this  view.  The  judges  are  styled 
 "saviours,"  as  having  rescued  their  country  from  a 
 state  of  bondage  (Judg.  iii.  9,  15,  A.  V.  "deliv- 
 erer;" Neh.  ix.  27);  a  "saviour"  was  subse- 
 quently raised  up  in  the  person  of  Jeroboam  II.  to 
 deliver  Israel  from  the  Syrians  (2  K.  xiii.  5);  and 
 in  the  same  sense  Josephus  styles  the  deliverance 
 from  Egypt  a  "salvation"  (AnL  iii.  1,  §  1). 
 Joshua  on  the  other  hand  verified  the  promise  con- 
 tained in  his  name  by  his  conquests  over  the  Ca- 
 naanites :  the  Lord  was  his  helper  in  an  aggressive 
 sense.  Similarly  the  office  of  the  "  saviours  "  prom- 
 ised in  Obad.  21  was  to  execute  vengeance  on  Edom. 
 The  names  Isaiah,  Jeshua,  Ishi,  Hosea,  Hoshea, 
 and  lastly,  Jesus,  are  all  expressive  of  the  general 
 idea  of  assistance  from  the  Lord.  The  Greek  soter 
 was  in  a  sinular  manner  applied  in  the  double  sense 
 of  a  deliverer  from  foreign  foes  as  in  the  case  of 
 Ptolemy  Soter,  and  a  general  protector,  as  in  the 
 numerous  instances  where  it  was  appended  as  the 
 title  of  heathen  deities.  (5.)  There  are  numerous 
 indications  in  the  0.  T.  that  the  idea  of  a  spiritual 
 salvation,  to  be  effected  by  God  alone,  was  by  no 
 means  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  pious  Hebrew. 
 In  the  Psalms  there  are  numerous  petitions  to  God 
 to  save  from  the  efTects  of  sin  (e.  g.  xxxix.  8,  Ixxix. 
 9).  Isaiah  in  particular  appropriates  the  term 
 "saviour"  to  Jehovah  (xliii.  11),  and  connects  it 
 with  the  notions  of  justice  and  righteousness  (xlv. 
 21,  Ix.  16,  17):  he  adduces  it  as  the  special  manner 
 in  which  Jehovah  reveals  Himself  to  man  (xlv.  15): 
 he  hints  at  the  means  to  be  adopted  for  effecting 
 salvation  in  passages  where  he  connects  the  term 
 "saviour"  with  "redeemer"  (f/oel),  as  in  xli.  14, 
 xlix.  20,  Ix.  IG,  and  again  with  "ransom,"  as  in 
 xliii.  3.  Similar  notices  are  scattered  over  the  pro- 
 phetical books  (e.  (/.  Zech.  ix.  9;  Hos.  i.  7),  and 
 though  in  many  instances  these  notices  admitted 
 of  a  reference  to  proximate  events  of  a  temporal 
 nature,  they  evidently  looked  to  higher  things,  and 
 thus  fostered  in  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  the  idea 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 of  a  "Saviour"  who  should  far  surpass  in  his 
 achievements  the  "  saviours  "  that  had  as  yet  ap- 
 peared. The  mere  sound  of  the  word  would  conjure 
 up  before  his  imagination  visions  of  deliverance,  se- 
 curity, peace,  and  prosperity. 
 
 II.  The  Wokk  ok  the  Saviour.  —  1.  The 
 three  first  Evangelists,  as  we  know,  agree  in  show- 
 ing that  Jesus  unfolded  his  message  to  the  disci- 
 ples by  degrees.  He  wrought  the  miracles  that 
 were  to  be  the  credentials  of  the  Messiah;  He  laid 
 down  the  great  principles  of  the  Gospel  morality, 
 until  He  had  established  in  the  minds  of  the 
 Twelve  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Christ  of 
 God.  Then  as  the  clouds  of  doom  grew  darker, 
 and  the  malice  of  the  Jews  became  more  intense. 
 He  turned  a  new  page  in  his  teaching.  Drawing 
 from  his  disciples  the  confession  of  their  faith  in 
 Him  as  Christ,  He  then  passed  abruptly,  so  to 
 speak,  to  the  truth  that  remained  to  be  learned  in 
 the  last  few  months  of  his  ministry,  that  his  work 
 included  suffering  as  well  as  teaching  (Matt.  xvi. 
 20,  21).  He  was  instant  in  pressing  this  unpal- 
 atable doctrine  home  to  his  disciples,  from  thi.s 
 time  to  the  end.  Four  occasions  when  He  proph- 
 esied his  bitter  death  are  on  record,  and  they 
 are  probably  only  examples  out  of  many  more 
 (Matt.  xvi.  21).  We  grant  that  in  none  of  these 
 places  does  the  word  "  sacrifice  "  occur;  and  that 
 the  mode  of  speaking  is  somewhat  obscure,  as  ad- 
 dressed to  minds  unprepared,  even  then,  to  bear  the 
 full  weight  of  a  doctrine  so  repugnant  to  their 
 hopes.  But  that  He  must  (Se?)  go  and  meet  death ; 
 that  the  powers  of  sin  and  of  this  world  are  let 
 loose  against  Him  for  a  time,  so  that  He  shall  be 
 betrayed  to  the  Jews,  rejected,  delivered  by  them  to 
 the  Gentiles,  and  by  them  be  mocked  and  scourfjed, 
 crucified,  and  slain ;  and  that  all  this  shall  be  done 
 to  achieve  a  foreseen  work,  and  accomplish  all  things 
 written  of  Him  by  the  prophets  —  these  we  do  cer- 
 tainly find.  They  invest  the  death  of  Jesus  with  a 
 peculiar  significance;  they  set  the  mind  inquiring 
 what  the  meaning  can  be  of  this  hard  necessity  that 
 is  laid  on  Him.  For  the  answer  we  look  to  other 
 places;  but  at  least  there  is  here  no  contradiction 
 to  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  though  the  Lord  does 
 not  yet  say,  "  I  bear  the  wrath  of  God  against  your 
 sins  in  your  stead  ;  I  become  a  curse  for  you."  Of 
 the  two  sides  of  this  mysterious  doctrine,  —  that 
 Jesus  dies  for  us  willingly,  and  that  He  dies  to  bear 
 a  doom  laid  on  Him  as  of  necessity,  because  some 
 one  must  bear  it,  —  it  is  the  latter  side  that  is  made 
 prominent.  In  all  the  passages  it  pleases  Jesus  to 
 speak,  not  of  his  desire  to  die,  but  of  the  burden 
 laid  on  Him,  and  the  power  given  to  others  against 
 Him. 
 
 2.  Had  the  doctrine  been  explained  no  further, 
 there  would  have  been  much  to  wait  for.  But  the 
 series  of  announcements  in  these  passages  leads  up 
 to  one  more  definite  and  complete.  It  cannot  be 
 denied  that  the  words  of  the  institution  of  Ihe 
 Lord's  Supper  speak  most  distinctly  of  a  sacrifice. 
 "  Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
 new  covenant,"  or,  to  follow  St.  Luke,  "  the  new 
 
 a  The  Latin  language  possessed  in  the  classical  pe- 
 riod no  proper  equivalent  for  the  Greek  crtoTTjp.  This 
 appears  from  the  introduction  of  the  Greek  word  itself 
 in  a  Latinized  form,  and  from  Cicero's  remark  (/«  Verr. 
 Act.  2,  ii.  63)  that  there  was  no  one  word  which  ex- 
 pressed the  notion  qui  salutem  dedit.  Tacitus  {Ann. 
 XV.  71)  uses  conservator,  and  Pliny  (xxii.  5)  servator. 
 The  term  salvator  appears  appended  as  a  title  of  Jupi- 
 
 ter in  an  inscription  of  the  age  of  Trajan  (Gruter,  p. 
 19,  No.  5).  This  was  adopted  by  Chri.stlan  writers  as 
 the  most  adequate  equivalent  for  crior^p,  though  ob- 
 jections were  evidently  raised  against  it  (Augustin, 
 Serm.  299,  §  6).  Another  term,  saliitificator,  was 
 occasionally  used  by  TertuUian  (De  Resiirr.  (^m. 
 c.  47 ;   De  Cam.  Clir.  c.  14). 
 
SAVIOUR 
 
 sovenant  in  my  blood."  We  are  carried  back  by 
 these  words  to  the  first  covenant,  to  the  altar  with 
 twelve  pillars,  and  the  burnt  offerings  and  peace- 
 offerings  of  oxen,  and  the  blood  of  the  victims 
 sprinkled  on  t!ie  altar  and  on  the  people,  and  the 
 words  of  jNIoseS' as  he  sprinkled  it:  "Behold  the 
 blood  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
 with  you  concerning  all  these  words"  (Ex.  xxiv.). 
 No  interpreter  has  ever  failed  to  draw  from  these 
 passages  the  true  meaning:  "  When  my  sacrifice  is 
 accomplished,  my  blood  shall  be  the  sanction  of  the 
 new  covenant."  The  word  "sacrifice"  is  wanting; 
 but  sacrifice  and  nothing  else  is  described.  And 
 the  words  are  no  mere  figure  used  for  illustration, 
 and  laid  aside  when  they  have  served  that  turn, 
 "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  JNIe."  They  are  the 
 words  in  which  the  Church  is  to  interpret  the  act 
 of  Jesus  to  the  end  of  time.'  They  are  reproduced 
 exactly  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xi.  25).  Then,  as 
 now.  Christians  met  together,  and  by  a  solemn 
 act  declared  that  they  counted  the  blood  of  .Jesus 
 as  a  sacrifice  wherein  a  new  covenant  was  sealed; 
 and  of  the  blood  of  that  sacrifice  they  partook  by 
 faith,  professing  themselves  thereby  willing  to  enter 
 the  covenant  and  be  sprinkled  with  the  (jlood. 
 
 3.  So  far  we  have  examined  the  three  "  synop- 
 tic "  Gospels.  They  follow  a  historical  order.  In 
 the  early  chapters  of  all  three  the  doctrine  of  our 
 Lord's  sacrifice  is  not  found,  because  He  will  first 
 answer  the  question  about  Himself,  "  Who  is 
 this?"  before  He  shows  them  "What  is  his 
 work?"  But  at  length  the  announcement  is 
 made,  enforced,  repeated ;  until,  when  the  feet  of 
 the  betrayer  are  ready  for  their  wicked  errand,  a 
 command  is  given  which  secures  that  the  death  of 
 Jesus  shall  be  described  forever  as  a  sacrifice  and 
 nothing  else,  sealing  a  new  covenant,  and  carry- 
 ing good  to  many.  Lest  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
 ment should  seem  to  be  an  afterthought,  as  indeed 
 De  Wette  has  tried  to  i-epresent  it,  St.  John  pre- 
 serves the  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  which  took 
 place  early  in  the  ministry;  and  there,  under  the 
 figure  of  the  brazen  serpent  lifted  up,  the  atoning 
 virtue  of  the  Lord's  death  is  fully  set  forth.  "  As 
 Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even 
 so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up :  that  whoso- 
 ever believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
 eternal  life  "  (John  iii.  14,  15).  As  in  this  inter- 
 cessory act,  the  image  of  the  deadly,  hateful,  and 
 accursed  (Gen.  iii.  14,  15)  reptile  became  by  God's 
 decree  the  means  of  health  to  all  who  looked  on  it 
 earnestly,  so  does  Jesus  in  the  form  of  sinful  man, 
 of  a  deceiver  of  the  people  (Matt,  xxvii.  63),  of  An- 
 tichrist (Matt.  xii.  24;  John  xviii.  33),  of  one  ac- 
 cursed (Gal.  iii.  13),  become  the  means  of  our  sal- 
 vation ;  so  that  whoever  fastens  the  earnest  gaze  of 
 faith  on  Him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life. 
 There  is  even  a  significance  in  the  word  "  lifted 
 
 up; "  the  Lord  used  probably  the  word  ^pT, 
 which  in  older  Hebrew  meant  to  lift  up  in  the 
 widest  sense,  but  began  in  the  Aramaic  to  have  the 
 restricted  meaning  of  lifting  up  for  punishment." 
 With  Christ  the  lifting  up  was  a  seeming  disgrace, 
 a  true  triumph  and  elevation.  But  the  context  in 
 which  these  verses  occur  is  as  important  as  the 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 2859 
 
 verses  themselves.  Nicodenuis  comes  as  an  in- 
 quirer; he  is  told  that  a  man  must  he  born  again, 
 and  then  he  is  directed  to  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the 
 means  of  that  regeneration.  The  earnest  gaze  of 
 the  wounded  soul  is  to  be  the  condition  of  its  cure; 
 and  that  gaze  is  to  be  turned,  not  to  Jesus  on  the 
 mountain,  or  in  the  Temple,  but  on  the  Cross. 
 This,  then,  is  no  passing  allusion,  but  it  is  the  sub- 
 stance of  -the  Christian  teaching  addressed  to  an 
 earnest  seeker  after  truth. 
 
 Another  passage  claims  a  reverent  attention  — 
 "  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for 
 ever,  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh, 
 which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world"  (John 
 vi.  51).  He  is  the  bread;  and  He  will  give  the 
 bread.*  If  his  presence  on  earth  were  the  e.\:pected 
 food,  it  was  given  already ;  but  would  He  speak  of 
 "drinking  his  blood"  (ver.  53),  which  can  only 
 refer  to  the  dead  ?  It  is  on  the  cross  that  He  will 
 afford  this  food  to  his  disciples.  We  grant  that 
 this  whole  passage  has  occasioned  as  much  dis- 
 puting among  Christian  commentators  as  it  did 
 among  the  Jews  who  heard  it;  and  for  the  same 
 reason,  —  for  the  hardness  of  the  saying.  But 
 there  stands  the  saying;  and  no  candid  person  can 
 refuse  to  see  a  reference  in  it  to  the  death  of  Him 
 that  speaks. 
 
 In  that  discourse,  which  has  well  been  called  the 
 Prayer  of  Consecration  ofl:ered  by  our  High  Priest, 
 there  is  another  passage  which  cannot  be  alleged  as 
 evidence  to  one  who  thinks  that  any  word  applied 
 by  Jesus  to  his  disciples  and  Himself  must  bear  in 
 both  cases  precisely  the  same  sense,  but  which  is 
 really  pertinent  to  this  inquiry:  "  Sanctify  them 
 through  thy  truth :  thy  word  is  truth.  As  Thou 
 hast  sent  Me  into  the  world,  even  so  have  I  also 
 sent  them  into  the  world.  And  for  their  sakes  I 
 sanctify  Myself,  that  they  also  might  be  sanctified 
 through  the  truth  "  (John  xvii.  17-19).  The  word 
 ayid^etv,  "sanctify,"'  "consecrate,"  is  used  in  the 
 LXX.  for  the  ofttjring  of  sacrifice  (Lev.  xxii.  2), 
 and  for  the  dedication  of  a  man  to  the  Divine  ser- 
 vice (Num.  iii.  15).  Here  the  present  tense  "I 
 consecrate,"  used  in  a  discourse  in  which  our  Lord 
 says  He  is  "  no  more  in  the  world,"  is  conclusive 
 against  the  interpretation  "  I  dedicate  my  life  to 
 Thee;  "  for  life  is  over.  No  self-dedication,  except 
 that  by  deatli,  can  now  be  spoken  of  as  present. 
 "  I  dedicate  Myself  to  Thee,  in  my  death,  that 
 these  may  be  a  people  consecrated  to  Thee;  "  such 
 is  the  great  thought  in  this  sublime  passage,  which 
 suits  well  with  his  other  declaration,  that  the  blood 
 of  his  sacrifice  sprinkles  them  for  a  new  covenant 
 with  God.  To  the  great  majority  of  expositors 
 from  Chrysostom  and  Cyril,  the  doctrine  of  recon- 
 ciliation through  the  death  of  Jesus  is  asserted  in 
 these  verses. 
 
 The  Redeemer  has  already  described  Himself  as 
 the  Good  Shepherd  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the 
 sheep  (.John  x.  11,  17,  18),  taking  care  to  distin- 
 guish his  death  from  that  of  one  who  dies  against 
 his  will  in  striving  to  compass  some  other  aim: 
 "  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  Me,  because  I  lay 
 down  my  life  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man 
 taketh  it  from  Me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  Myself. 
 I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to 
 take  it  again." 
 
 a  So  Tholuck.  and  Knapp  {Opuscula,  i.  217).  The 
 treatise  of  Knapp  on  this  discourse  is  valuable 
 throughout. 
 
 b  Some,  omitting  fiv  eyio  Suxrui,  would  read,  "And 
 my  flesh  is  the  bread  that  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the 
 
 world."  So  Tertullian  seems  to  have  read  "  Panis 
 quern  ego  dedero  pro  salute  mundi  caro  mea  est." 
 The  sense  is  the  same  with  the  omission  ;  but  the  re- 
 ceived reading  may  be  successfully  defended. 
 
2860  SAViouE 
 
 other  passages  that  relate  to  his  deatli  will  occur 
 to  the  memory  of  any  Bible  reader.  The  corn  of 
 wheat  that  dies  in  the  ground  to  bear  much  fruit 
 (John  xii.  24)  is  explained  by  his  own  words  else- 
 where, where  He  says  that  He  came  "  to  minister, 
 and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Matt. 
 xx.  28). 
 
 4.  Thus,  then,  speaks  Jesus  of  Himself.  What 
 say  his  witnesses  of  Him  ?  "  Behold  the  Lamb 
 of  God,"  says  the  Baptist,  "  which  taketh  away 
 the  sin  of  the  world  "  (John  i.  29).  Commentators 
 differ  about  the  allusion  implied  in  that  name.  But 
 take  any  one  of  their  opinions,  and  a  sacrifice  is 
 implied.  Is  it  the  Paschal  lamb  that  is  referred 
 to  V  Is  it  the  lamb  of  the  daily  sacrifice  ?  lather 
 way  tlie  death  of  the  victim  is  brought  l)efore  us. 
 But  the  allusion  in  all  probability  is  to  the  well- 
 known    prophecy   of   Isaiah    (liii.)    to    the    Lamb 
 
 .b-rought  to  the  slaughter,  who  bore  our  griefs  and 
 carried  our  sorrows.'* 
 
 5.  The  Apostles  after  the  Resurrection  preach  no 
 moral  system,  but  a  belief  in  and  love  of  ('hrist, 
 the  crucified  and  risen  Lord,  through  whom,  if 
 they  repent,  men  shall  obtain  salvation.  This  was 
 Peter's  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts 
 ii.);  and  he  appealed  boldly  to  the  prophets  on  the 
 ground  of  an  expectation  of  a  suffering  Jlessiah 
 (Acts  iii.  18).  Philip  traced  out  for  the  Eunuch, 
 in  that  picture  of  suffering  holiness  in  the  well- 
 known  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  lineaments  of  Jesus 
 of  Nazareth  (Acts  viii. ;  Is.  liii.).  The  first  .ser- 
 mon to  a  Gentile  household  proclaimed  Christ  slain 
 and  risen,  and  added  "  that  through  his  name 
 whosoever  believeth  in  Him  shall  receive  remission 
 of  sins"  (Acts  x. ).  Paul  at  Antioch  preaches  "a 
 Saviour  Jesus"  (Acts  xiii.  23);  "through  this 
 Man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
 and  by  Him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all 
 things  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the 
 Law  of  Moses"  (Acts  xiii.  .38,  39).  At  Tliessa- 
 lonica  all  that  we  learn  of  this  Apostle's  preaching 
 is  "  that  Christ  must  needs  have  suffered  and  risen 
 again  from  the  dead ;  and  that  this  Jesus,  whom  I 
 preach  unto  you,  is  Christ"  (Acts  xvii.  3).  Before 
 Agrippa  he  declared  that  he  had  preached  always 
 "  that  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  He  should  be 
 the  first  that  should  rise  from  the  dead  "  (Acts 
 xxvi.  23);  and  it  was  this  declaration  that  con- 
 vmces  his  royal  hearer  that  he  was  a  crazed  fimatic. 
 The  account  of  the  first  founding  of  the  Cliurch 
 in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  concise  and  frag- 
 mentary ;  and  sometimes  we  have  hardly  any  means 
 of  judging  what  place  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  held 
 in  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles;  but  when  we  read 
 that  they  "  preached  Jesus,"  or  the  like,  it  is  only 
 fair  to  infer  from  other  passages  that  the  Cross 
 of  Christ  was  never  concealed,  whether  Jews,  or 
 Greeks,  or  barbarians  were  the  listeners.  And  this 
 very  pertinacity  shows  how  much  weight  they  at^ 
 tached  to  the  facts  of  the  life  of  our  Lord.  They 
 did  not  merely  repeat  in  each  new  place  the  pure 
 morality  of  Jesus  as  He  uttered  it  in  the  Sermon 
 on  the  Mount :  of  such  lessons  we  have  no  record. 
 They  took  in  their  hands,  as  the  strongest  weapon, 
 the  fact  th.at  a  certain  Jew  crucified  afar  off  in 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 Jerusalem  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  died  to 
 save  men  from  their  sins ;  and  they  offered  to  all 
 alike  an  interest,  through  faith,  in  the  resurrection 
 from  the  dead  of  tliis  outcast  of  his  own  people. 
 No  wonder  that  Jews  and  Greeks,  judging  in  their 
 worldly  way,  thought  this  strain  of  preaching  came 
 of  folly  or  madness,  and  turned  from  what  they 
 thought  unmeaning  jargon. 
 
 6.  We  are  able  to  complete  from  the  epistles  our 
 account  of  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  on  the  doc- 
 trine of  Atonement.  "The  Man  Christ  Jesus"  is 
 the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  for  in  Him  the 
 human  nature,  in  its  sinless  purity,  is  lifted  up  to 
 the  Divine,  so  that  He,  exempt  from  guilt,  cau 
 plead  for  the  guilty  (1  Tim.  ii.  5;  1  Joim  ii.  1,  2; 
 Heb.  vii.  25).  Thus  He  is  the  second  Adam  that 
 shall  redeem  the  sin  of  the  first ;  the  interests  of 
 men  are  bound  up  in  Him,  since  He  has  power  to 
 t.ike  them  all  into  Himself  (Eph.  v.  29,  30;  Rom. 
 xii.  5;  1  Cor.  xv.  22;  Rom.  v.  12,  17).  This  sal- 
 vation was  provided  by  the  Eather,  to  "  reconcile 
 us  to  Himself"  (2  Cor.  v.  18),  to  whom  the  name 
 of  '•  Saviour"  thus  belongs  (Luke  i.  47);  and  our 
 redemption  is  a  signal  proof  of  the  love  of  God  to 
 us  (1  .lohn  iv.  10).  Not  less  is  it  a  proof  of  the 
 love  of  Jesus,  since  He  freely  lays  down  his  life  for 
 us  —  offers  it  as  a  precious  gift,  capable  of  pur- 
 chasing all  the  lost  (1  Tim.  ii.  G;  Tit.  ii.  14;  Kph. 
 i.  7.  Comp.  Matt.  xx.  28).  But  there  is  another 
 side  of  the  truth  more  painful  to  our  natiual  rea- 
 son. How  came  this  exhibition  of  Divine  U>vt  to 
 be  needed  ?  Because  wrath  had  already  gone  out 
 against  man.  The  clouds  of  God's  anger  gatiiered 
 thick  over  the  whole  human  race;  they  discharged 
 themselves  on  Jesus  only.  God  has  made  Him  to 
 be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin  (2  Cor.  v.  21);  He 
 is  made  "a  curse"  (a  thing  accursed)  for  us,  that 
 the  curse  that  hangs  over  us  may  lie  removed  (Gal. 
 iii.  13);  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
 tree  (1  Pet.  ii.  24).  There  are  those  who  would 
 see  on  the  page  of  the  Bible  oidy  the  sunshine  of 
 the  Divine  love;  but  the  muttering  thunders  of 
 Divine  wrath  against  sin  are  heard  there  also :  and 
 He  who  alone  was  no  child  of  wrath,  meets  the 
 shock  of  the  thunderstorm,  becomes  a  curse  for  us, 
 and  a  vessel  of  wrath ;  and  the  rays  of  love  break 
 out  of  that  thunder-gloom,  and  shine  on  the  bowed 
 head  of  Him  who  hangs  on  the  Cross,  dead  for  our 
 sins. 
 
 We  have  spoken,  and  advisedly,  as  if  the  New 
 Testament  were,  as  to  this  doctrine,  one  book  in 
 harmony  with  itself.  That  there  are  in  the  New 
 Testament  different  types  of  the  one  true  doctrine, 
 may  be  admitted  without  peril  to  the  doctrine. 
 The  principal  types  are  four  in  number. 
 
 7.  In  the  Epistle  of  James  there  is  a  remarkable 
 absence  of  all  explanations  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Atonement;  but  this  admission  does  not  amount  to 
 so  much  as  may  at  first  appear.  True,  the  key- 
 note of  the  epistle  is  that  the  Gospel  is  the  Law 
 made  perfect,  and  that  it  is  a  practical  moral  sys- 
 tem, in  which  man  finds  himself  free  to  keep  the 
 Divine  Law.  But  with  him  Christ  is  no  mere 
 Lawgiver  appointed  to  impart  the  Jewish  system. 
 He  knows  that  Ehas  is  a  man  like  himself,  but  of 
 
 o  See  this  passage  discussed  fully  in  the  notes  of 
 Meyer,  Lange  {Bibfliverk),  and  Alford.  The  reference 
 to  the  Paschal  Iamb  finds  favor  with  Gvotius  and 
 others  ;  the  reference  to  Isaiah  is  approved  by  Chry- 
 fa«tom  and  many  others.  The  taking  away  of  sin 
 ;alpcii/)  of  the  Baptist,  and   the  bearing  it  (ifiepeiv, 
 
 IiXX.)  of  Isaiah,  have  one  meaning,  and  answer  to  the 
 Hebrew  word  Sti73.      To  take  the  sins  on  Himself  is 
 
 T  T 
 
 to  remove  them  from  the  sinners  ;  and  how  can  this 
 be  through  his  death  except  in  the  way  of  expiation 
 by  that  death  itself? 
 
SAVIOUR 
 
 the  Persoi  of  Christ  he  speaks  in  a  different  spirit. 
 He  calls  l.hnself  "  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  who  is  "the  Lord  of  Glory." 
 He  speaks  of  the  NVord  of  Truth,  of  which  Jesus 
 has  heen  the  utterer.  He  knows  that  ftiitli  in  the 
 Lord  of  Glory  is  inconsistent  with  time-serving 
 and  "respect  of  persons"  (James  i.  1,  ii.  1,  i.  18). 
 "There  is  one  Lawgiver,"  he  says,  "who  is  able 
 to  save  and  to  destroy  "  (James  i v.  12);  and  this 
 refers  no  doubt  to  Jesus,  whose  second  coming  he 
 holds  up  as  a  motive  to  obedience  (James  v.  7-9). 
 These  and  like  expressions  remove  this  epistle  far 
 out  of  the  sphere  of  Ehionitish  teaching.  The 
 inspired  writer  sees  the  Saviour,  in  the  lather's 
 glory,  preparing  to  return  to  judge  the  quick  and 
 dead.  He  puts  forth  Christ  as  Prophet  and  King, 
 for  he  makes  Him  Teacher  and  Judge  of  the 
 world ;  but  the  office  of  the  Priest  he  does  not 
 dwell  on.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  say  that  he  knows 
 it  not.  Something  must  have  taken  place  before 
 he  could  treat  his  hearers  with  confidence,  as  free 
 creatures,  able  to  resist  temptations,  and  even  to 
 meet  temptations  with  joy.  He  treats  "  your 
 faith"  as  something  founded  already,  not  to  be 
 prepared  by  this  epistle  (.James  i.  2,  -3,  21).  His 
 purpose  is  a  purely  practical  one.  There  is  no 
 intention  to  unfold  a  Christology,  such  as  that 
 which  makes  the  lipistle  to  the  Romans  so  valu- 
 able. Assuming  that  Jesus  has  manifested  Him- 
 self, and  begotten  anew  the  human  race,  he  seeks 
 to  make  them  pray  with  undivided  hearts,  and 
 be  considerate  to  the  poor,  and  strive  with  lusts, 
 for  which  they  and  not  God  are  responsible;  and 
 bridle  their  tongues,  and  show  their  fruits  by  their 
 works." 
 
 8.  In  the  teaching  of  St.  Peter  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Person  of  our  Lord  is  connected  strictly  with 
 that  of  his  work  as  Saviour  and  iMessiah.  The 
 frequent  mention  of  his  sufferings  shows  the  prom- 
 inent i)lace  he  would  give  them;  and  he  puts  for- 
 ward as  the  ground  of  his  own  right  to  teach,  that 
 he  was  "a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ" 
 (1  Pet.  V.  1).  The  atoning  virtue  of  those  suf- 
 ferhigs  he  dwells  on  with  peculiar  emphasis;  and 
 not  less  so  on  the  purifying  influence  of  the  Atone- 
 ment on  the  hearts  of  believers.  He  repeats  again 
 and  again  that  Christ  died  for  us  (1  Pet.  ii.  21, 
 iii.  18,  iv.  1);  that  He  bare  our  sins  in  his  own 
 body  on  the  tree**  (1  Pet.  ii.  24).  He  bare  them; 
 and  what  does  this  phrase  suggest,  but  the  goat 
 that  "shall  bear"  the  iniquities  of  the  peofile  off" 
 into  the  land  that  was  not  inhabited  ?  (Lev.  xvi. 
 22)  or  else  ilie  fcdiiig  the  consequtncts  of  sin,  as 
 the  word  is  used  elsewhere  (Lev.  xx.  17,  19)?  We 
 have  to  choose  between  the  cognate  ideas  of  sacri- 
 fice and  substitution.  Closely  allied  with  these 
 statements  are  those  which  connect  moral  reforma- 
 tion with  the  death  of  Jesus.  He  bare  our  sins 
 that  we  might  live  unto  righteousness.  His  death 
 is  our  life.  We  are  not  to  be  content  with  a  self- 
 satisfied  contemplation  of  our  redeemed  state,  but 
 to  live  a  life  worthy  of  it  (1  Pet.  ii.  21-2.5,  iii. 
 15-18).  In  these  passages  the  whole  Gospel  is 
 contained ;  we  are  justified  by  the  death  of  ,lesus, 
 who  bore  our  sins  that  we  might  be  sanctified  and 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 2861 
 
 a  See  Neander,  Pflanziins:,  b.  vi.  c.  3  [Robinson's 
 transl.  p.  498  £f.] :  Schmid,  Theologie  des  N.  T.,  part 
 ii. ;  and  Doruev,  Ciristologie,  i   95- 
 
 b  If  there  were  any  doubt  that  "for  us"  (in-ep 
 9/u.oii')  means  "ia  our  stead"  (see  ver.  21),  this  24tli 
 verse,  which  explains  the  former,  would  set  it  at  rest. 
 
 renewed  to  a  life  of  godliness.  And  from  this 
 Apostle  we  hear  again  the  name  of  "the  Lamb  ' 
 as  well  as  from  John  the  Baptist;  and  the  passiM^e 
 of  Isaiah  comes  back  upon  us  with  uiunistakable 
 clearness.  We  are  redeemed  "  with  the  precious 
 blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
 without  spot"  (1  Pet.  i.  18,  19,  with  Is.  liii.  7). 
 Every  word  carries  us  back  to, the  Old  Testament 
 and  its  sacrificial  system :  the  spotless  victim,  the 
 release  from  sin  by  its  blood  (elsewhere,  i.  2,  by 
 the  sprinlclin(i  of  its  blood),  are  here;  not  the  type 
 and  shadow,  but  the  truth  of  them;  not  a  cere- 
 monial purgation,  but  an  effectual  reconcilement  of 
 man  and  God. 
 
 9.  In  the,  inspired  writings  of  John  we  are  struck 
 at  once  with  the  emphatic  statements  as  to  the 
 Divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ.  A  right 
 belief  in  the  incarnation  is  the  test  of  a  Christian 
 man  (1  John  iv.  2;  John  i.  14;  2  John  7);  we 
 nuist  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh, 
 and  that  He  is  manifested  to  destroy  the  works  of 
 the  devil  (1  John  iii.  8).  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
 He  who  has  come  in  the  flesh  is  the  One  who  alone 
 has  been  in  the  bosom  of  the  Fatiier,  seen  the 
 things  that  human  eyes  have  never  seen,  and  has 
 come  to  declare  them  unto  us  (1  John  i.  2,  iv.  14; 
 John  i.  14-18).  This  Person,  at  once  Divine  and 
 human,  is  "the  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  our 
 "  Advocate  with  the  Father,"  sent  into  the  world 
 "that  we  might  live  through  Him;"  and  the 
 means  was  his  laying  down  his  life  for  us,  which 
 should  make  us  ready  to  lay  down  our  lives  for 
 the  brethren  (1  John  ii.  1,  2,  iv.  9,  10,  v.  11-13, 
 iii.  IG,  V.  6,  i.  7;  John  xi.  51).  And  the  moral 
 efteot  of  his  redemption  is,  that  "  the  blood  of 
 Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin"  (1  .John 
 i.  7).  The  intimate  connection  between  his  work 
 and  our  holiness  is  the  main  subject  of  his  first 
 epistle:  "Whosoever  is  born  of  God  dotli  not 
 commit  sin"  (1  John  iii.  9).  As  with  St.  Peter, 
 so  with  St.  John ;  every  point  of  the  doctrine  of 
 the  .\tonement  conies  out  with  abundant  clearness: 
 the  substitution  of  another  who  can  bear  our  sins, 
 for  us  who  cannot;  the  sufferings  and  death  as  the 
 means  of  our  redemption,  our  justification  thereby, 
 and  our  progress  in  holiness  as  the  result  of  our 
 justification. 
 
 10.  To  follow  out  as  fully,  in  the  more  volumi- 
 nous writings  of  St.  Paul,  the  passages  that  speak 
 of  our  salvation,  would  fiir  transgress  the  limits  of 
 our  pa)ier.  Jlan,  according  to  this  Apostle,  is  a 
 tr.ansgressor  of  the  Law.  His  conscience  tells  him 
 that  he  camiot  act  up  to  that  Law  which,  the  same 
 conscience  admits,  is  Divine,  and  binding  upon 
 him.  Through  the  old  dispensations  man  remained 
 in  this  condition.  Even  the  Law  of  Moses  could 
 not  justify  him:  it  only  by  its  strict  behests  held 
 up  a  mirror  to  conscience  that  its  frailness  might 
 be  seen.  Christ  came,  sent  by  the  mercy  of  our 
 lather  who  had  never  forgotten  us;  given  to,  not 
 deserved  by  us.  He  came  to  reconcile  men  and 
 God  by  dying  on  the  Cross  for  them,  and  bearing 
 their  punishment  in  their  stead '^  (2  Cor.  v.  14-21; 
 Rom.  v.  G-8).  He  is  "a  propitiation  through 
 faith  in  his  blood  "   (Rom.  iii.  25,  20.     Compare 
 
 [It  may  be  the  inferential,  but  not  direct  force  of  virep 
 (comp."  Philip,  i.  29).  See  VViner,  N.  T.  Or.,  7th  ed., 
 pp.  382,  383  (Thayer's  trans.  18(39).  —  H.] 
 
 c  The.se  two  passages  are  decisive  as  to  the  fact 
 of  substitution  :  they  might  be  fortified  with  many 
 others. 
 
2862  SAVIOUR 
 
 Lev.  xvi.  15.  'IXaar^pLov  means  "  victim  for 
 expiation"):  words  wliicli  most  people  will  find 
 unintelligible,  e.xcept  in  reference  to  tlie  r)Id  Testa- 
 ment and  its  sacrifices.  He  is  the  ransom,  or  price 
 paid,  for  the  redemption  of  man  from  all  iniquity  « 
 (Titus  ii.  14).  The  wrath  of  God  was  against 
 man,  but  it  did-  not  fall  on  man.  God  made  his 
 Son  "  to  be  sin  for  us  "  tliough  He  knew  no  sin, 
 and  Jesus  suflTered  though  men  had  sinned.  By 
 this  act  God  and  man  were  reconciled  (Rom.  v.  10; 
 2  Cor.  V.  18-20;  Eph.  ii.  16;  Col.  i.  21).  On 
 the  side  of  man,  trust  and  love  and  hope  take  the 
 place  of  fear  and  of  an  evil  conscience;  on  the  side 
 of  God,  that  terrible  wrath  of  his,  which  is  re- 
 vealed from  heaven  against  all  imgodliness  and 
 unrighteousness  of  men,  is  turned  away  (Rom.  i. 
 18,  V.  9;  1  Thess.  i.  10).  The  question  whether 
 we  are  reconciled  to  God  only,  or  God  is  also  rec- 
 onciled to  us,  might  be  discussed  on  deep  meta- 
 physical grounds;  but  we  purposely  leave  that  on 
 one  side,  content  to  show  that  at  all  events  the  in- 
 tention of  God  to  punish  man  is  averted  by  this 
 "  propitiation  "  and  "  reconcilement." 
 
 11.  Different  views  are  held  about  the  author- 
 ship of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by  modern 
 critics;  but  its  numerous  points  of  contact  with 
 the  other  epistles  of  St.  Paul  must  be  recognized. 
 In  both,  the  incompleteness  of  .Judaism  is  dwelt  on  ; 
 redemption  from  sin  and  guilt  is  what  religion  has 
 to  do  for  men,  and  this  the  Law  failed  to  secure. 
 In  both,  reconciliation  and  forgiveness  and  a  new 
 moral  power  in  the  believers  are  the  fruits  of  the 
 work  of  Jesus.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
 Paul  shows  that  the  Law  failed  to  justify,  and 
 that  faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  must  be  the  ground 
 of  justification.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the 
 same  result  follows  from  an  argument  rather  dif- 
 ferent :  all  that  the  Jewish  system  aimed  to  do  is 
 accomplished  in  Christ  in  a  far  more  pei'fcct  manner. 
 The  Gospel  has  a  better  Priest,  more  eftt^ctual  sacri- 
 fices, a  more  profound  peace.  In  the  one  epistle 
 the  Law  seems  set  aside  wholly  for  the  system  of 
 faith ;  in  the  other  the  Law  is  exalted  and  glorified 
 in  its  Gospel  shape;  but  the  aim  is  precisely  the 
 same  — to  show  the  weakness  of  the  Law  and  the 
 effectual  fruit  of  the  Gospel. 
 
 12.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  how  far  the 
 teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  effects  of  the 
 death  of  Jesus  is  continuous  and  consistent.  Ai'e 
 the  declarations  of  our  Lord  about  Himself  the 
 same  as  those  of  James  and  Peter,  John  and  Paul? 
 and  are  those  of  the  Apostles  consistent  with  each 
 other  V  The  several  points  of  this  mysterious  trans- 
 action may  be  thus  roughly  described :  — 
 
 (1.)  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  to  redeem 
 lost  and  ruined  man  from  sin  and  death,  and  the 
 Son  willingly  took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant 
 for  this  purpose;  and  thus  the  Father  and  the  Son 
 manifested  their  lo\'e  for  us. 
 
 (2.)  God  the  Father  laid  upon  his  Son  the  weight 
 of  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  so  that  He  bare  in 
 his  own  body  the  wrath  which  men  must  else  have 
 borne,  because  there  was  no  other  way  of  escape  for 
 them :  and  thus  the  Atonement  was  a  manifestation 
 of  Divine  justice! 
 
 (3.)  The  effect  of  the  Atonement  thus  wrought 
 is,  that  man  is  placed  in  a  new  position,  freed  from 
 the  dominion  of  sin,  and  able  to  follow  hohness; 
 
 «  Stiff  stronger  in  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  "ransom  instead 
 Tit"  (avTikuTpov).  Aiso  Eph.  i.  7  (aTroAvTpwo-is) ;  1  Cor. 
 ri;.  20,  vii.  23. 
 
 SAVIOUR 
 
 and  thus  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ought  to 
 work  in  all  the  hearers  a  sense  of  love,  of  obedience, 
 and  of  self-sacrifice. 
 
 In  shorter  words,  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of 
 Christ  is  a  proof  of  Divine  love,  and  of  Divine  Jtis- 
 iice,  and  is  for  us  a  document  of  obedience. 
 
 Of  the  four  great  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
 Peter,  Paul,  and  John  set  forth  e\ery  one  of  these 
 points.  Peter,  the  "  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
 Christ,"  tells  us  that  we  are  redeemed  with  the 
 blood  of  Jesus,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
 without  spot;  says  that  Christ  bare  our  sins  in  his 
 own  body  on  the  tree.  If  we  "  have  tasted  that 
 the  Lord  is  gracious"  (1  Pet.  ii.  .3),  we  must  not 
 rest  satisfied  with  a  contemplation  of  our  redeemed 
 state,  but  must  live  a  life  worthy  of  it.  No  one 
 can  well  doubt,  who  reads  the  two  epistles,  that 
 the  love  of  God  and  Christ,  and  the  justice  of  God, 
 and  the  duties  thereby  laid  on  us,  all  have  their 
 value  in  them ;  but  tlie  love  is  less  dwelt  on  than 
 the  justice,  whilst  the  most  prominent  idea  of  all  is 
 the  moral  and  practical  working  of  the  Cross  of 
 Christ  upon  the  lives  of  men. 
 
 With  St.  John,  again,  all  three  points  find  place. 
 That  Jesus  willingly  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  and 
 is  an  advocate  with  the  Father;  that  He  is  also  the 
 propitiation,  the  suffering  sacrifice,  for  our  sins; 
 and  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleaiiseth  us 
 from  all  sin,  for  that  whoever  is  horn  of  God  doth 
 not  commit  sin  —  all  are  put  forward.  The  death 
 of  Christ  is  both  justice  and  love,  l)oth  a  pro- 
 pitiation and  an  act  of  loving  self-surrender;  but 
 the  moral  effect  upon  us  is  more  prominent  even 
 than  these. 
 
 In  the  epistles  of  Paul  the  three  elements  are  all 
 present.  In  such  expressions  as  a  ransom,  a  pro- 
 pitiation, who  was  "  made  sin  for  us,"  the  wrath 
 of  God  against  sin,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
 turned  away,  are  presented  to  us.  Yet  not  wrath 
 alone.  "  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us;  be- 
 cause we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then 
 were  all  dead :  and  that  He  died  for  all,  that  they 
 which  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  them- 
 selves, but  unto  Him  which  died  for  them,  and 
 rose  again  "  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  15).  Love  in  Him  be- 
 gets love  in  us,  and  in  our  reconciled  state  the  holi- 
 ness which  we  could  not  practice  before  becomes 
 easy. 
 
 The  reasons  for  not  finding  from  St.  James  simi- 
 lar evidence,  we  have  spoken  of  already. 
 
 Now  in  which  of  these  points  is  there  the  sem- 
 l)lance  of  contradiction  between  the  Apostles  and 
 their  Master?  In  none  of  them.  In  tlie  Gospels, 
 as  in  the  Epistles,  Jesus  is  held  up  as  the  sacrifice 
 and  ^■ictim,  draining  a  cup  from  whicli  his  human 
 nature  shrank,  feeling  in  himself  a  sense  of  desola- 
 tion such  as  we  fail  utterly  to  comprehend  on  a 
 theory  of  human  motives.  Yet  no  one  takes  from 
 Him  his  precious  redeeming  life;  He  lays  it  down 
 of  Himself,  out  of  his  great  love  for  men.  But 
 men  are  to  deny  themselves  and  take  up  their  cross 
 and  tread  in  his  steps.  They  are  his  friends  only 
 if  they  keep  his  commands  and  follow  his  foot- 
 steps. 
 
 We  must  consider  it  proved  that  these  three 
 points  or  moments  are  the  doctrine  of  the  whole 
 New  Testament.  What  is  there  aliout  this  teaching 
 that  has  provoked  in  times  past  and  present  so 
 nmch  disputation  ?  Not  the  hardness  of  the  doc- 
 trine, —  for  none  of  the  theories  put  in  its  jilace 
 are  any  easier,  —  but  its  want  of  logical  complete- 
 ness.    Sketched  out  for  us  in  a  few  broad  lines,  it 
 
SAVOUR 
 
 tempts  the  fauoy  to  fill  it  in  and  lend  it  color;  and 
 we  do  not  always  remember  that  the  hands  that 
 attempt  this  are  trying  to  make  a  mystery  into  a 
 theory,  an  infinite  truth  into  a  finite  one,  and  to 
 reduce  the  great  things  of  God  into  the  narrow 
 limits  of  our  little  field  of  view.  To  whom  was  the 
 ransom  paid  ?  What  was  Satan's  share  of  the 
 transaction?  How  can  one  suffer  for  another? 
 How  could  the  Redeemer  be  miserable  when  He 
 was  conscious  that  his  work  was  one  which  could 
 bring  happiness  to  the  whole  human  race?  Yet 
 this  condition  of  indefiniteness  is  one  which  is  im- 
 posed on  us  in  the  reception  of  every  mystery: 
 jjrayer,  the  incarnation,  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
 are  all  subjects  that  pass  far  beyond  our  range  of 
 thought.  And  here  we  see  the  wisdom  of  God  in 
 connecting  so  closely  our  redemption  with  our 
 reformation.  If  the  object  were  to  give  us  a  com- 
 plete theory  of  salvation,  no  doubt  there  would  be 
 in  the  Bible  much  to  seek.  The  tlieory  is  gathered 
 by  fragments  out  of  many  an  exhortation  and  warn- 
 ing; nowhere  does  it  stand  out  entire,  and  without 
 logical  flaw.  But  if  we  assume  that  the  New  Tes- 
 tament is  written  for  the  guidance  of  sinful  hearts, 
 we  find  a  wonderful  aptness  for  that  particular  end. 
 Jesus  is  proclaimed  as  the  solace  of  our  fears,  as 
 the  founder  of  our  moral  life,  as  the  restorer  of  our 
 lost  relation  with  our  Father.  If  He  had  a  cross, 
 there  is  a  cross  for  us ;  if  He  pleased  not  himself, 
 let  us  deny  ourselves;  if  He  suttered  fur  sin,  let  us 
 hate  sui.  And  the  question  ought  not  to  be.  What 
 do  all  these  mysteries  mean  ?  but.  Are  these 
 thoughts  really  such  as  will  serve  to  guide  our  life 
 and  to  assuage  our  terrors  in  the  hour  of  death  ? 
 The  answer  is  twofold  —  one  from  history  and  one 
 from  experience.  The  preaching  of  the  Cross  of 
 the  Lord  even  in  this  simple  fashion  converted  the 
 world.  The  same  doctrine  is  now  the  ground  of 
 any  definite  hope  that  we  find  in  ourselves,  of  for- 
 giveness of  sins  and  of  everlasting  life. 
 
 It  would  be  out  of  place  in  a  Dictionary  of  the 
 Bible  to  examine  the  History  of  the  Doctrine  or  to 
 answer  the  modern  objections  urged  against  it.  For 
 these  suljjects  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  author's 
 essay  on  the  "  Death  of  Christ,"  in  Aids  to  Faith, 
 which  also  contains  the  substance  of  the  present 
 article.  [See  also  the  arts.  Jksu.s  Christ,  Mes- 
 siah, Son  of  God,  and  Son  of  Man,  in  this 
 Dictionary.]  W.  T. 
 
 *  SAVOUR  as  a  verb  occurs  in  the  A.  V. 
 only  in  Matt.  xvi.  23,  and  the  parallel  passage 
 Mark  viii.  33,  in  our  Lord's  rebuke  of  Peter:  "  Thou 
 siivotirest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those 
 that  be  of  men."  The  Greek,  oii  (ppovils  to.  tov 
 @fov,  etc  ,  may  be  well  rendered,  as  it  is  by  Mr. 
 Green  in  his  Twofold  New  Test.,  "  Thy  mind  is 
 not  on  the  things  of  God,  but  on  those  of  men." 
 Dr.  .Johnson  defines  the  word  suvuui-  here  "  to 
 exhibit  a  taste  for,"  and  probably  most  English 
 readers  so  understand  it.  But  it  may  have  been 
 used  by  our  translators  in  a  more  comprehensive 
 sense,  corresponding  to  the  translation  given  above. 
 Wyclifte  renders  Col.  iii.  2  (Vulg.  quce  sufsuiii 
 sunt,  sapite),  "sarer  ye  tho  thingis  that  ben 
 above,"  and  uses  the  same  word  in  his  translation 
 of  Kom.  viii.  5,  xii.  3,  16;  Phil.  iii.  ID,  etc.,  where 
 
 SCEPTRE 
 
 2863 
 
 a  1.   mitt :  irpLiav :    from   "1^2  :   only  used  in 
 part.  Pual,  1  K.  vii.  9. 
 
 2.  ~l"lli?p  :   npiiov:  serra. 
 
 the  A.  V.  has  "  mind  "  or  "  think  of."  The  term 
 is  derived,  ultimately,  through  the  French  noun 
 saveur,  O.  F.  savor,  verb  savorei',  from  the  Latin 
 sapere,  meaning  primarily  to  taste  or  smell,  then 
 to  discern,  possess  discernment  or  knowledge,  etc. 
 
 The  noun  savour  occurs  very  often  in  the  A.  V., 
 and  almost  always  in  the  sense  (now  becoming  ob- 
 solete) of  "  odor."  A. 
 
 SAW."  Egyptian  saws,  so  far  as  has  yet  been 
 discovered,  were  single-handed,  though  St.  Jerome 
 has  been  thought  to  allude  to  circular  saws.  As 
 is  the  case  in  modei'n  oriental  saws,  the  teeth 
 usually  incline  toward  the  handle,  instead  of  away 
 from  it  like  ours.  They  ha\e  in  most  cases,  bronze 
 blades,  apparently  attached  to  the  handles  by 
 leathern  thongs,  but  sortie  of  those  in  the  British 
 Museum  have  their  blades  let  into  them  like  our 
 knives.  A  double-handed  iron  saw  has  been  found 
 at  Ninn-ud ;  and  double  saws  strained  with  a  cord, 
 such  as  modern  carpenters  use,  were  in  use  among 
 the  Romans.  In  sawing  wood  the  Egyptians 
 placed  the  wood  perpendicularly  in  a  sort  of  frame, 
 and  cut  it  downwards.  No  evidence  exists  of  the 
 use  of  the  saw  applied  to  stone  in  Egypt,  nor  with- 
 out the  double-handed  saw  does  it  seem  likely  that 
 this  should  be  the  case;  but  we  read  of  sawn  stones 
 used  in  the  Temple.  (IK.  vii.  9;  Ges.  Thes.  p. 
 305;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyp-  ii.  114:,  119;  Brit. 
 Mus.  Egyp-  Room,  No.  6046;  Layard,  Nin.  and 
 Bab.  p.  195;  Jerome,  Comm.  in  Js.  xxviii.  27.) 
 The  saws  "  under  "  or  "  in  "  ^  which  David  is  said 
 to  have  placed  his  captives  were  of  iron.  The 
 expression  in  2  Sam.  xii.  31  does  not  necessarily 
 imply  torture,  but  the  word  "  cut "  in  1  Chr. 
 XX.  3  can  hardly  be  understood  otherwise.  (Ges. 
 Thcs.  p.  1326;  Thenius  on  2  Sam.  xii.  and 
 1  Chr.  XX. )  A  case  of  sawing  asunder,  by  placing 
 the  crinunal  between  boards,  and  then  beginning 
 at  the  head,  is  mentioned  by  Shaw,  Trav.  p.  254. 
 {See  Bid.  of  Aniiq.  "Serra.")  [Handickaft; 
 Punishments,  III.  b.  (3).]  H.  W.  P. 
 
 .SO APE-GOAT.     [Atonement,  Day  of.] 
 
 SCARLET.     [Colors.] 
 
 SCEPTRE  (tO^t;?).  The  Hebrew  term  she- 
 bet,  like  its  Greek  equivalent  cTKriwrpov,  and  our 
 derivative  scejitre,  originally  meant  a  rod  or  staff 
 It  was  thence  specifically  applied  to  the  shepherd's 
 crook  (Lev.  xxvii.  32;  Mic.  vii.  14),  and  to  the 
 wand  or  sceptre  of  a  ruler.  It  has  been  inferred 
 that  the  latter  of  these  secondary  senses  is  derived 
 from  the  former  (Winer,  liealwb.  "  Sceptre");  but 
 this  appears  doubtful  from  the  circumstance  thafc 
 the  sceptre  of  the  Egyptian  kings,  whence  the  idea 
 of  a  sceptre  was  probably  borrowed  by  the  early 
 Jews,  resembled  not  a  shepherd's  crook,  but  a 
 plough  (Diod.  Sic.  iii.  3).  The  use  of  the  staff  as 
 a  symbol  of  authority  was  not  confined  to  kings ; 
 it  might  be  used  by  any  leader,  as  instanced  in 
 Judg.  V.  14,  where  for  "pen  of  the  writer,"  as  in 
 the  A.  v.,  we  should  read  "sceptre  of  the  leader." 
 Indeed,  no  instance  of  the  sceptre  l)eing  actually 
 handled  by  a  Jewish  king  occurs  in  the  Bible:  the 
 allusions  to  it  are  all  of  a  metaphorical  character, 
 and  describe  it  simply  as  one  of  the  insignia  of  su- 
 preme power  (Gen.  xlix.  10 ;  Num.  xxiv.  17 ;  Ps. 
 xlv.  6;  Is.  xiv.  5;  Am.  i.  5;  Zech.  x.  11;  Wisd. 
 X.  14 ;  Bar.  vi.  14  [or  Epist.  of  Jer.  14] ).    We  are 
 
 &   rn;3Sl5  :   iv  tu  vpiovt.  (ee-qKe) :  serravit. 
 
2864 
 
 SCEVA 
 
 consequently  unable  to  describe  the  article  from 
 any  Biblical  notices ;  we  may  infer  from  the  term 
 shebet,  that  it  was  probably  made  of  wood;  but 
 we  are  not  warranted  in  quoting  Ez.  xix.  11,  in 
 support  of  this,  as  done  by  Winer,  for  the  term 
 rendered  "  rods  "  may  better  be  rendered  "  shoots," 
 or  "sprouts"  as  =  oJfsprm(j.  The  sceptre  of  the 
 Persian  monarchs  is  described  as  "golden,"  i.  e. 
 probably  of  massive  gold  (Ksth.  iv.  11;  Xen.  Cyrop. 
 viii.  7,  §  13);  the  inclination  of  it  towards  a  sub- 
 ject by  the  monarch  was  a  sign  of  favor,  and  kiss- 
 ing it  an  act  of  homage  (Esth.  iv.  11,  v.  2).  A 
 carved  ivory  staff  discovered  at  Nimrud  is  sup- 
 posed to  have  been  a  sceptre  (Layard,  Nin.  and 
 Bab.  p.  195).  The  sceptre  of  the  Egyptian 
 queens  is  represented  in  Wilkinson's  Anc.  E(j. 
 i.  27G.  The  term  shabtt  is  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
 "rod"  in  two  passages  where  sceptre  should  be 
 substituted,  namely,  in  Ps.  ii.  9,  where  "  sceptre  of 
 iron"  is  an  expression  for  strong  authority,  and  in 
 Ps.  cxxv.  3.  y\\  L.  B. 
 
 SCE'VA  (2/ceuas:  Sceva).  A  Jew  residing 
 at  Ephesus  at  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  second  visit 
 to  that  town  (Acts  xix.  14-16).  He  is  described 
 as  a  "  high-priest  "  (apxiepevs),  either  as  having 
 exercised  the  office  at  Jerusalem,  or  as  being  chief 
 of  one  of  the  twenty-four  classes.  His  seven  sons 
 attempted  to  exorcise  spirits  by  using  the  name  of 
 Jesus,  and  on  one  occasion  severe  injury  was  in- 
 flicted by  the  demoniac  on  two  of  them  (as  implied 
 in  the  term  afxtporepcvv,  the  true  reading  in  ver.  16 
 instead  of  aurdif)-  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SCHOOL.     Acts  xix.  9.     [Tyrannus.] 
 
 *  SCHOOLS    OF    THE    PROPHETS. 
 
 [Samuel,  3  (b);  Pkophet,  11.] 
 
 SCIENCE  {V'^'O:  yvSicns-  scientia).  In 
 the  A.  V.  this  word  occurs  only  in  Dan.  i.  4,  and 
 1  Tim.  vi.  20.  Elsewhere  the  renderitig  for  the 
 Hebrew  or  Greek  words  and  their  cognates  is 
 "knowledge,"  while  the  Vulg.  has  as  uniformly 
 scientia.  Its  use  in  Dan.  i.  4  is  probably  to  be 
 explained  by  the  number  of  synonymous  words  in 
 the  verse,  forcing  the  translators  to  look  out  for 
 diversified  equivalents  in  English.  Why  it  should 
 have  been  chosen  for  1  Tim.  vi.  20  is  not  so  ob- 
 vious. Its  effect  is  injurious,  as  leading  the  reader 
 to  suppose  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  something 
 else  than  the  "  knowledge "  of  which  both  the 
 Judaizing  and  the  mystic  sects  of  the  apostolic  age 
 continually  boasted,  against  which  he  so  urgently 
 warns  men  (1  Cor.  viii.  1,  7),  the  counterfeit  of 
 the  true  knowledge  which  he  prizes  so  highly 
 (1  Cor.  xii.  8,  xiii!  2;  Phil.  i.  9;  Col.  iii.  10).  A 
 natural  perversion  of  the  meaning  of  the  text  has 
 followed  from  this  translation.  Men  have  seen  in 
 it  a  warning,  not  against  a  spurious  theosophy  — 
 of  which  Swedenborgianism  is,  perhaps,  the  nearest 
 modern  analogue  —  but  against  that  which  did 
 not  come  within  St.  Paul's  horizon,  and  which,  if 
 it  had,  we  may  believe  he  would  have  welcomed  — 
 the  study  of  the  works  of  God,  the  recognition  of 
 
 SCORPION 
 
 his  Will  working  by  laws  in  nature.  It  has  been 
 burled  successively  at  the  heads  of  astronomers  and 
 geologists,  whenever  men  ha\'e  been  alarmed  at 
 what  they  have  deemed  the  antagonism  of  physical 
 "science"  to  religion.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
 asceitain  whether  this  were  at  all  the  ammus  of 
 the  translators  of  the  A.  V.  —  whether  they  were 
 beginning  to  look  with  alarm  at  the  union  of  skep- 
 ticism and  science,  of  which  the  connnon  proverb, 
 ubi  tres  medici  duo  athei,  was  a  witness.  As  it 
 is,  we  must  content  ourselves  with  noting  a  few 
 facts  in  the  Biblical  history  of  the  English  word. 
 
 (1.)  In  Wickliffe's  translation,  it  appears  less 
 frequently  than  might  have  been  expected  in  a  ver- 
 sion based  upon  the  Vulgate.  Eor  the  "  knowledge 
 of  salvation  "  of  the  A.  V.  in  Luke  i.  77,  we  have 
 the  "  science  of  health."  In  Christ  are  hid  "  the 
 treasures  of  wisdom  and  of  science  "  (Col.  ii.  3). 
 In  1  Tim.  vi.  20,  however,  Wickliffe  has  "kun- 
 nynge." 
 
 (2.)  Tindal,  rejecting  "science"  as  a  rendering 
 elsewhere,  introduces  it  here;  and  is  followed  by 
 Cranmer's  and  the  Geneva  Bibles,  and  by  the 
 A.  V.« 
 
 (3.)  The  Rhemish  translators,  in  this  instance 
 adhering  less, closely  to  the  Vulg.  than  the  Protest- 
 ant versions,  give  "  knowledge." 
 
 It  would  obviously  be  out  of  place  to  enter  here 
 into  the  wide  question  what  were  the  avTidfceis 
 TTJs  \l/evSa>vvfxov  yvuxTfcos  of  wliich  St.  Paul 
 speaks.  A  dissertation  on  the  Gnosticism  of  the 
 Apostolic  age  would  require  a  volume.  A\'hat  is 
 necessary  for  a  Dictionary  will  be  foinid  under 
 Timothy,  Epistles  to.  E.  H.  P. 
 
 SCORPION  (:2n|7V,  'c'krdb  :  ffKopirios : 
 Scorpio).  The  well-known  animal  of  that  name, 
 belonging  to  the  class  Arachnida  and  order  Pul- 
 monaria,  which  is  twice  mentioned  in  the  0.  T. 
 and  four  times  in  the  N.  T.  The  wilderness  of 
 Sinai  is  especially  alluded  to  as  being  inhabited  by 
 scorpions  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Deut.  viii.  15), 
 and  to  tliis  day  these  animals  are  conmion  in  the 
 same  district,  as  well  as  in  some  parts  of  Palestine. 
 Ehrenberg  (Syi/ib.  P/njs.)  enumerates  five  species 
 as  occurring  near  IMt.  Sinai,  some  of  which  are 
 found  also  in  the  Lebanon.  Ezekiel  (ii.  6)  is  told 
 to  be  in  no  fear  of  the  rebellious  Israelites,  here 
 compared  to  scorpions.  The  Apostles  were  endued 
 with  power  to  resist  the  stings  of  serpents  and 
 scorpions  (Luke  x.  19).  In  the  vision  of  St.  John 
 (Kev.  ix.  3,  10)  the  locusts  that  came  out  of  the 
 smoke  of  the  bottomless  pit  are  said  to  have  had 
 "  tails  like  unto  scorpions,"  while  the  pain  result- 
 ing from  this  creature's  sting  is  alluded  to  in  verse 
 5.  A  scorpion  for  an  egg  (Luke  xi.  12)  was  prob- 
 ably a  proverbial  expression.  According  to  Eras- 
 mus the  Greeks  had  a  similar  proverb  (avTl  irfp- 
 KTjs  ffKop-rriov).  Scoqjions  are  generally  found  in 
 dry  and  in  dark  places,  under  stones  and  in  ruins, 
 chiefly  in  warm  climates.  They  are  carnivorous  in 
 their  habits,  and  move  along  in  a  threatening  atti- 
 tude with  the  tail  elevated.     The  sting,  which  is 
 
 a  The  following  quotation  from  Tindal  is  decisive  as 
 to  the  sense  in  which  he  used  the  word.  It  shows 
 that  he  contemplated  no  form  of  science  (in  the  mod- 
 em sense  of  the  term),  mathematical  or  physical,  but 
 the  very  opposite  of  this,  —  the  attempt  to  bring  all 
 spiritual  or  divine  truths  under  the  formulae  of  the 
 logical  understanding.  He  speaks  of  the  disputes  of 
 Romish  theologians  as  the  "  contradictions  of  which 
 Paul  warned  Timothy,  calling  them  the  oppositions  of 
 
 a  false-named  science,  for  that  their  scholaslicnl  divinity 
 must  make  objections  against  any  truth,  be  it  never 
 so  plain,  with  pro  and  contra''''  {Supper  of  the  Lord, 
 iii.  284,  Parker  Soc.  Edition).  Tindal's  use  and  appli- 
 cation of  the  word  accounts,  it  may  be  remarked,  for 
 the  choice  of  a  diffei'ent  word  by  the  Rhemish  transla- 
 tors. Those  of  the  A.  V.  may  have  used  it  with  a 
 different  meaning. 
 
SCOURGING 
 
 situated  at  the  extremity  of  the  tail,  has  at  its 
 oase  a  gland  that  secretes  a  poisonous  fluid,  which 
 is  discharged  into  the  wound  by  two  minute  or- 
 ifices at  its  extremity.  In  hot  climates  the  sting 
 often  occasions  much  suffering,  and  sometimes 
 alarming  symptoms.  The  following  are  the  spe- 
 cies of  scorpions  mentioned  by  Ehrenberg :  Scurpio 
 wtcivcentrus,  S.  pnlniatus,  IS.  bicolor,  S.  leptochi:- 
 lis,  S.  Juntstus,  all  found  at  INIt.  Sinai ;  S.  rdi/ro- 
 ciiiclus,  S.  melanophysa,  S.  p'almatus,  Mt.  Lebanon." 
 Besides  these  Palestme  and  Sinai  kinds,  five  others 
 arc  recorded  as  occuniag  in  Egypt. 
 
 Scorpion. 
 
 The  "  scorpions  "  of  1  K.  xii.  11,  14,  2  Chr.  x. 
 11,  14,  have  clearly  no  allusion  whatever  to  the 
 animal,  but  to  some  instrument  of  scourging  — 
 unless,  indeed,  the  expression  is  a  mere  figure. 
 Celsius  {Hierob.  ii.  45)  thinks  the  "  scorpion  " 
 scourge  was  the  spiny  stem  of  what  the  Arabs  call 
 
 Hechk  f,  •Jk,^).  the  Solamim  melonr/ena,  var. 
 esculerduin,  egg-plant,  because,  according  to  Abdul 
 Fadli,  this  plant,  from  the  resemblance  of  its  spines 
 to  the  sting  of  a  scorpion,  was  sometimes  called  the 
 "scorpion  thorn;  "  but  in  all  probability  this  in- 
 strument of  punishment  was  in  the  form  of  a  whip 
 armed  with  iron  points  "  Virga  —  si  nodosa  vel  acu- 
 leata,  scorpio  rectissimo  nomine  vocatur,  qui  arcuato 
 vulnere  in  corpus  infigitur."  (Isidorus,  Oriff.  Lnl. 
 5,  27;  and  see  Jahn,  Bib.  Ant.  p.  287.)  In  the 
 Greek  of  1  Mace.  vi.  51,  some  kind  of  war  missile 
 is  mentioned  under  the  name  a-KopiriSiov ;  but  we 
 want  information  both  as  to  its  form  and  the  rea- 
 son of  its  name.  (See  Diet,  of  Antiquities,  art. 
 "  Tormeutura.")  W.  H. 
 
 SCOURGING.*  Tlie  punishment  of  scourg- 
 ing was  prescribed  by  the  Law  in  the  case  of  a  be- 
 trothed bondwoman  guilty  of  unchastity,  and  per- 
 haps in  the  case  of  both  the  guilty  persons  (Lev. 
 xix.  20).  Women  were  subject  to  scourging  in 
 Egyi)t,  as  they  still  are  by  the  law  of  the  Koran, 
 for  incontir.ence  (Sale,  Koran,  chap.  xxiv.  and 
 chap.  iv.  note  ;  Lane,  Mod.  Egyp.  i-  147 ;  Wilkin- 
 
 scRiBLs  2865 
 
 son,  Anc.  Egyp.  abridgm.  ii.  211).  The  instru- 
 ment of  punishment  in  ancient  Egypt,  as  it  is  alsu 
 in  modern  times  generally  in  the  East,  was  usually 
 the  stick,  applied  to  the  soles  of  the  feet  —  basti- 
 nado (Wilkinson,  I.  c;  Chardin,  vi.  114;  Lane, 
 Mod.  Egyp.  i.  146).  A  more  severe  scourge  is 
 possibly  implied  fai  the  term  "  scorpions,"  whips 
 armed  with  pointed  balls  of  lead,  the  "  horribile 
 flagellum  "  of  Horace,  though  it  is  more  probably 
 merely  a  vivid  figure.  LTnder  the  Roman  method 
 the  culprit  was  stripped,  stretched  with  cords  or 
 thongs  on  a  frame  \dicaricatio),  and  beaten  with 
 rods.  After  the  Porcian  law  (b.  C.  300),  Eoraaii 
 citizens  were  exempted  from  scourging,  but  slaves 
 and  foreigners  were  liable  to  be  beaten,  even  to 
 death  (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1062;  Isid.  Oiig.  v.  27, 
 ap.  Scheller,  Lex.  Litt.  Scorpio;  Hor.  1  Sat.  ii. 
 41,  iii.  119 ;  Prov.  xxvi.  3 ;  Acts  xvi.  22,  and  Gro- 
 tius,  ad  l,  xxii.  24,  25;  1  K.  xii.  11;  Cic.  Ve.r. 
 iii.  28,  29;  pro  Bab.  4;  Liv.  x.  9;  Sail.    Cat.  51) 
 
 [PUNISHMEXTS,  III.  C.   (4.)]  H.  W.  P 
 
 SCREECH-OWL.      [Owl.] 
 
 SCRIBES  (p'^nDlD:  ypannareh:  scriba). 
 The  prominent  position  occupied  by  the  Scribes  in 
 the  Gospel  history  would  of  itself  make  a  knowl- 
 edge of  their  life  and  teaching  essential  to  any 
 clear  conception  of  our  Lord's  work.  It  was  by 
 their  influence  that  the  later  form  of  .Judaism  had 
 been  determined.  Such  as  it  was  when  the  "  new 
 doctrine "  was  first  proclaimed,  it  had  become 
 through  them.  Far  more  than  priests  or  Levites 
 they  represented  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 
 On  the  one  hand  we  must  know  what  they  were 
 in  order  to  understand  the  innumeraljle  points  of 
 contrast  presented  by  our  Lord's  acts  and  words. 
 On  the  other,  we  must  not  forget  that  there  were 
 also,  inevitalily,  points  of  resemblance.  Opposed 
 as  his  teaching  was,  in  its  deepest  principles,  to 
 theirs.  He  was  yet,  in  the  eyes  of  men,  as  one  of 
 their  order,  a  Scribe  among  Scribes,  a  liabbi  among 
 Rabbis  (.John  i.  49,  iii.  2,  vi.  25,  &c. ;  Schoettgen, 
 Hvr.  Neb.  ii.  C/irislus  Rabbinorum  Suminus). 
 
 I.  Name.  —  (1. )  Three  meanings  are  connected 
 
 with  the  verb  saphar  (^SD)  the  root  of  Sopherim 
 —  (1)  to  wTite,  (2)  to  set  in  order,  (3)  to  count. 
 The  explanation  of  the  word  has  been  referred  to 
 each  of  these.  The  Sopherim  were  so  called  be- 
 cause they  wrote  out  the  Law,  or  because  they 
 classified  and  arranged  its  precepts,  or  because  they 
 counted  with  scrupulous  minuteness  every  clause 
 and  letter  it  contained.  The  traditions  of  the 
 Scribes,  glorying  in  their  own  achievements,'^  were 
 in  favor  of  the  last  of  these  etymologies  (Sekalim, 
 5;  Carpzov,  Ajjp.  Crit.  ii.  135).  The  second  fits 
 in  best  with  the  military  functions  connected  with 
 tlie  word  in  the  earlier  stages  of  its  history  (infra). 
 The  authority  of  most  Hebrew  scholars  is  with  the 
 first  (Gesenius,  s.  v.).  The  Greek  equivalent  an- 
 swers to  the  derived  rather  than  the  original  mean- 
 ing of  the  word.      The  ypafi/xaTevs  of  a  Greek 
 
 «  Modern  naturalists  restrict  the  genus  Scorpio  to 
 those  kinds  which  have  six  eyes,  Boathus  to  those 
 which  liave  eight,  and  Audroctonus  to  those  which 
 have  twelve. 
 
 B  1.  To  scourge,  T3^tt7 ;  the  scourge,  lO'ltW  :  fiao-- 
 nf  :  flagellum  ;  also  in  A.  V.  "  whip." 
 
 2.   T2tOtI7  ;  ^A.os .'    offendicidum ;   only   in   Josh. 
 
 xxiii.  13.  Either  a  subst.  or  the  inf.  in  Piel  (Ges.  p. 
 1379). 
 
 c  They  had  ascertained  that  the  central  letter  of  the 
 
 whole  Law  was  the  vau  of  ^IRS  in  Lev.  xi.  42,  and 
 wrote  it  accordingly  in  a  larger  character.  {Kiddush. 
 in  Lightfoot,  On  Luke  x.)  They  counted  up  in  like 
 manner  the  precepts  of  the  Law  that  answered  to  the 
 number  of  Abraham's  servants  or  Jacob's  descend- 
 ants. 
 
2866  SCRIBES 
 
 state  was  not  the  mere  writer,  but  the  keeper  ftnd 
 registrar  of  public  documents  (Thuc.  iv.  118,  vii. 
 10;  so  in  Acts  xix.  35).  The  Scribes  of  Jerusalem 
 were,  in  like  manner,  the  custodians  and  interpret- 
 ers of  the  ypdix/xara  upon  whicli  the  polity  of  the 
 nation  rested.  Otlier  words  applied  to  the  same 
 class  are  found  in  tlie  N.  T.  'No/j.ikoI  appears  in 
 Matt.  xxii.  35,  Luke  vii.  30,  x.  25,  xiv.  3;  vofioSi- 
 ddcTKaAoL  in  Luke  v.  17 ;  Acts  v.  34.  Attempts 
 have  been  made,  but  not  very  successfully,  to  re- 
 duce tlie  several  terms  to  a  classification."  All 
 that  can  be  said  is  tliat  ypa^^anvs  appears  the 
 most  generic  term ;  that  in  Luke  xi.  45  it  is  con- 
 trasted with  vofXiKSs;  tli.at  vojjio^ihdaKaKos,  as  in 
 Acts  V.  34,  seems  tlie  highest  of  the  three.  Jose- 
 phus  {Anl.  xvii.  6,  §  2)  paraphrases  the  technical 
 word  by  e'lTj^Tjral  vSfxoiv. 
 
 (2.)  Tlie  name  of  Kirjath-Sepheu  (iri^Ais 
 ypafxfxarwv,  LXX.,  Josh.  xv.  15;  Judsj.  i.  12) 
 may  possibly  connect  itself  with  some  early  use  of 
 the  title.  In  the  Song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  v.  14) 
 the  Vi'ord  appears  to  point  to  military  functions  of 
 some  kind.  The  "pen  of  the  writer"  of  the  A. 
 V.  (LXX.  iv  pa.l3So}  5Lriyf]<T€aii  •ypa/x^oTe'cos)  is 
 probably  the  rod  or  sceptre  of  the  commaiuler 
 numberiui;  or  marshalling  his  troops.''  The  title 
 appears  with  more  distinctness  in  the  early  history 
 of  the  monarchy.  Three  men  are  mentioned  as 
 successively  filling  the  office  of  Scribe  under  David 
 and  Solomon  (2  Sam.  viii.  17,  xx.  25;  1  K.  iv.  3, 
 in  this  instance  two  simultaneously).  Their  func- 
 tions are  not  specified,  but  the  high  place  assigned 
 to  them,  side  by  side  with  the  high-priest  and  the 
 captain  of  tlie  liost,  imjilies  power  and  honor.  Wc 
 may  think  of  them  as  the  king's  secretaries,  writing 
 his  letters,  drawing  up  his  decrees,  managing  his 
 finances  (comp.  the  work  of  the  Scribe  under  Jo- 
 ash,  2  K.  xii.  10).  At  a  later  period  the  word 
 again  connects  itself  with  the  act  of  numbering  the 
 military  forces  of  the  country  (Jer.  hi.  25,  and 
 probably  Is.  xxxiii.  18).  Other  associations,  how- 
 ever, began  to  gather  round  it  about  the  same  pe- 
 riod. The  zeal  of  Hezekiah  led  him  to  foster  the 
 growth  of  a  body  of  men  whose  work  it  was  to 
 transcribe  olil  records,  or  to  put  in  writing  what 
 had  been  handed  down  orally  (Prov.  xxv.  1).  To 
 this  period,  accordingly,  belongs  the  new  signifi- 
 cance of  tlie  title.  It  no  longer  designates  only  an 
 officer  of  the  king's  court,  but  a  class,  students  and 
 interpreters  of  the  Law  boasting  of  their  wisdom 
 (Jer.  viii.  8). 
 
 (3.)  The  se\enty  years  of  the  Captivity  ga\e  a 
 fresh  glory  to  the  name.  The  exiles  would  be 
 anxious  above  all  things  to  preserve  the  sacred 
 books,  the  laws,  the  hymns,  the  prophecies  of  the 
 past.  To  know  what  was  worth  preserving,  to 
 transcribe  the  older  Hebrew  documents  accurately, 
 when  the  spoken  language  of  the  people  was  pass- 
 ing into  Aramaic,  to  explain  what  was  hard   and 
 
 «  Lightfoot's  arrangement,  though  conjectural,  is 
 worth  giving  (Harm.  §  77).  The  "Scribes,"  as  such, 
 ■were  those  who  occupied  tliemselves  with  tlie  Mikra. 
 Next  above  them  were  the  "  Lawyers,"  students  of  the 
 Mishiia.  acting  as  asses.'iors,  thougli  not  voting  in  the 
 Sanhedrim.  The  "  Doctors  of  the  Law  "  were  ex- 
 pounders of  the  Geniara,  and  actual  members  of  the 
 Sanhedrim.  (Comp.  Oarpzov,  App.  C.rit.  i.  7  ;  Leus- 
 den,  Phil.  Hebr.  c.  23  ;  Leyrer,  in  Herzog's  Encylctop. 
 
 Schriftgelshrte.") 
 
 6  Ewald,  however  (Poe«.  Eiirh.  i.  126  [182,  2o  AuB.]), 
 
 oj-kes  ")pD  as  equivalent  to   tDQtC,  "a  judge." 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 obscure  —  this  was  what  the  necessities  of  the  time 
 demanded.  The  man  who  met  them  became  em- 
 phatically P^zra  the  Scrilie,  the  priestly  functions 
 falling  into  the  background,  as  the  priestly  order 
 itself  did  before  the  Scribes  as  a  class.  The  words 
 of  Ez.  vii.  10  describe  the  high  ide.al  of  the  new 
 
 office.  The  Scribe  is  "  to  seek  (li'T^T)  the  law  of 
 the  Lord  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  stat- 
 utes and  judgments."  This,  far  more  than  his 
 priesthood,  was  the  true  glory  of  Ezra.  In  tiie 
 eyes  even  of  the  Persian  king  he  was  "  a  Scribe  of 
 the  Law  of  tlie  God  of  Heaven"  (vii.  12).  He 
 was  assisted  in  his  work  by  others,  chiefly  Levites. 
 Publicly  tliey  read  and  expounded  the  Law,  per- 
 haps also  translated  it  from  the  already  obsolescent 
 Hebrew  into  the  Aramaic  of  the  people  ^  (Neh. 
 viii.  8-13). 
 
 (4.)  Of  the  time  that  followed  we  have  l)ut 
 scanty  records.  The  Scribes'  office  ajjparently  be- 
 came more  and  more  prominent.  Traces  are  found 
 in  the  later  canonical  books  of  their  work  and  in- 
 fluence. Already  they  are  recognized  as  "  masters 
 of  assemblies,"  acting  under  "one  sheplierd,"  hav- 
 ing, that  is,  something  of  a  corporate  fife  (Eccl.  xii. 
 11;  Jost,  Judenlh.  i.  42).  As  such  they  set  their 
 faces  steadily  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  Law 
 and  the  Prophets,  to  exclude  from  all  equality  with 
 them  the  "many  books"  of  which  "there  is  no 
 end"  (Eccl.  xii.  12).  They  appear  as  a  distinct 
 class,  "  the  fiiinilies  of  the  Scribes,"  with  a  local 
 habitation  (1  Chr.  ii.  55).  They  compile,  as  in  the 
 two  books  of  Chronicles,  excerpta  and  epitomes 
 of  larger  histories  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29;  2  Chr.  ix.  29). 
 The  occurrence  of  the  word  midrash  ("the  story 
 —  margin,  '  the  commentary  '  —  of  the  Prophet 
 Iddo"),  afterwards  so  memorable,  in  2  Chr.  xiii. 
 22,  shows  that  the  work  of  commenting  and  ex- 
 pounding had  begun  already. 
 
 II.  Bevdopment  of  Doctrine.  —  (1.)  It  is  char- 
 acteristic of  the  Scribes  of  this  period  that,  with 
 the  exception  of  Ezra  and  Zadok  (Neh.  xiii.  13), 
 we  have  no  record  of  their  names.  A  later  age 
 honored  them  collectively  as  the  men  of  the  Great 
 Synagogue,  the  true  successors  of  the  Prophets 
 {Pirke  Ahotit,  i.  1),  but  the  men  themselves  by 
 whose  agency  the  Scriptures  of  the  0.  T.  were 
 written  in  tlieir  jiresent  ch.aracters.f'  compiled  in 
 their  present  form,  limitefl  to  their  present  num- 
 ber, remain  unknown  to  us.  Never,  perhaps,  was 
 so  important  a  work  done  so  silently.  It  has  been 
 well  argued  (Jost,  Judent/ium,  i.  42)  that  it  was  so 
 of  set  purpose.  The  one  aim  of  those  early  Scribes 
 was  to  promote  reverence  for  the  Law,  to  make  it 
 the  groundwork  of  the  people's  life.  They  would 
 write  nothing  of  their  own,  lest  less  worthy  words 
 should  be  raised  to  a  level  with  those  of  the  oracles 
 of  God.  If  interpretation  were  needed,  tlieir  teacli- 
 ing  should  be  oral  only.  No  precepts  should  lie 
 perpetuated  as  resting  on  their  authority.^     In  the 
 
 c  If  this  were  so  (and  most  commentators  adopt' this 
 view),  we  sliould  have  in  this  history  the  startiug- 
 point  of  the  Targum.  It  has,  however,  been  ques- 
 tioned. (Comp.  Leyrer,  I.  c.) 
 
 (I  .lost  (Jitf/tnt/i.  i.  52)  draws  attention  to  the  singu- 
 lar, almost  unique  conibiuations  of  this  period.  The 
 Jewish  teachers  kept  to  the  old  Hebrew,  but  used 
 Aramaic  characters.  The  Samaritans  spoke  Aramaic, 
 but  retained  the  older  Hebrew  writing. 
 
 '-  The  principle  of  an  unwritten  teaching  was  main- 
 tained among  the  Rabbis  of  Palestine  up  to  the  do- 
 ■truction  of  the  Temple  (Jost,  i.  97,  367). 
 
SCRIBES 
 
 words  of  later  Judaism,  they  devoted  themselves  to 
 the  Mikra  (i.  e.  recitation,  reading,  as  in  Neh.  viii. 
 8),  the  careful  study  of  the  text,  and  laid  down 
 rules  for  transcribing  it  with  the  most  scrupulous 
 precision  (comp.  the  tract  Sqpherim  in  the  Jeru- 
 salem Geniara). 
 
 (2.)  A  saying  is  ascribed  to  Simon  the  Just 
 (b.  c.  300-290),  the  last  of  the  succession  of  the 
 men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  embodies  the 
 principle  on  which  they  had  acted,  and  enables  us 
 to  trace  the  next  stage  of  the  growth  of  their  sys- 
 tem. "  Our  fathers  have  taught  us,"  he  said, 
 "  three  things,  to  be  cautious  in  judging,  to  train 
 many  scholars,  and  to  set  a  fence  aliout  the  Law  " 
 (Pike  Abolh,  i.  1;  Jost,  i.  05).  They  wished  to 
 make  the  Law  of  Moses  tlie  rule  of  life  for  the 
 whole  nation  and  for  individual  men.  But  it  lies 
 in  the  nature  of  every  sucli  law,  of  every  informal, 
 half-systematic  code,  that  it  raises  questions  which 
 it  does  not  solve.  Circumstances  cliange,  while  the 
 Law  remains  the  same.  The  infinite  variety  of  life 
 presents  cases  wliich  it  has  not  contemplated.  A 
 Eonian  or  Greek  jurist  would  have  dealt  with  these 
 on  general  principles  of  equity  or  polity.  Tlie 
 Jewish  teacher  could  recognize  no  principles  beyond 
 the  precepts  of  the  Law.  To  him  they  all  stood 
 on  the  same  footing,  were  all  equally  divine.  All 
 possible  cases  must  be  brought  within  their  range, 
 decided  by  their  authority. 
 
 (-3.)  The  result  showed  that,  in  this  as  in  other 
 instances,  the  idolatry  of  the  letter  was  destructive 
 of  the  very  reverence  in  which  it  had  originated. 
 Step  by  step  the  Scribes  were  led  to  conclusions  at 
 which  we  may  believe  the  earlier  representatives  of 
 the  order  would  have  started  back  with  horror. 
 Decisions  on  fresh  questions  were  accumulated  into 
 a  complex  system  of  casuistry.  The  new  precepts, 
 still  transmitted  orally,  more  precisely  fitting  in  to 
 the  circumstances  of  men's  lives  than  the  old,  came 
 practically  to  take  their  place.     The  "  Words  of 
 
 the  Scribes  "  (D"'"15'"ID  '^'^'21,  now  used  as  a  tech- 
 nical phrase  for  these  decisions)  were  honored  above 
 the  Law  (Lightfoot,  Barm.  i.  §  77 ;  Jost,  Judenth. 
 i.  93).  It  was  a  greater  crime  to  oflfend  against 
 them  than  against  the  Law.  They  were  as  wine, 
 while  tlie  precepts  of  the  Law  were  as  water.  The 
 first  step  was  taken  towards  annulling  the  com- 
 mandments of  God  for  tiie  sake  of  tlieir  own  tra- 
 ditions. 'J'he  casuistry  became  at  once  subtle  and 
 prurient,"  evading  tlie  plainest  duties,  tampering 
 with  conscience  (Matt.  xv.  1-6,  xxiii.  16-2.'3).  The 
 right  relation  of  moral  and  ceremonial  laws  was 
 not  only  forgotten,  but  absolutely  in\erted.  This 
 was  the  result  of  the  profound  reverence  for  the 
 letter  which  gave  no  heed  to  the  "  word  abiding  in 
 them"  (John  v.  38). 
 
 (4.)  The  history  of  the  full  development  of  these 
 tendencies  belongs  to  a  history  of  the  Talmud.'' 
 Here  it  will  be  enough  to  notice  in  what  way  the 
 teaching   of  the  Scribes  in   our  Lord's  time  was 
 
 o  It  would  be  profitless  to  accumulate  proofs  of 
 this.  TUose  who  care  for  them  may  find  them  in 
 ^M^tovf,  Synagoga  JiifJaica  ;  M'Caul,  Old  Paths.  Re- 
 volting as  it  is,  we  must  remember  that  it  rose  out  of 
 the  principle  that  there  can  be  no  indifferent  action, 
 that  there  must  be  a  right  or  a  wrong  even  for  the 
 commonest  necessities,  the  merest  animal  functions  of 
 man's  life,  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  teacher  to  for- 
 mulate that  principle  into  rules.  [Compare  the  Ro- 
 (nan  Catholic  writers  on  "  Moral  Theology."  —  A.] 
 
 b  *  For  a  partial  view  of  the  literature  relating  to 
 
 SCRIBES  2867 
 
 making  to  that  result.  Their  first  work  was  to 
 report  the  decisions  of  previous  Rabbis.  These 
 were  the  Haladiotk  (that  which  yoes,  the  current 
 precepts  of  the  schools)  —  precepts  binding  on  the 
 conscience.  As  they  accumulated  they  had  to  be 
 compiled  and  classified.  A  new  code,  a  second 
 Corpus  Juris,  the  iMishna  (SevTfptiaeis),  grew  out 
 of  them,  to  become  in  its  turn  the  suliject  of  fresh 
 questions  and  commentaries.  Here  ultimately  the 
 spirit  of  the  commentators  took  a  wider  range. 
 The  anecdotes  of  the  schools  or  courts  of  law,  the 
 obiter  dicta  of  Rabbis,  the  wildest  fables  of  Jewish 
 superstition  (Tit.  i.  14),  were  brought  in,  with  or 
 without  any  relation  to  the  context,  and  the  Ge- 
 mara  (completeness)  filled  up  tlie  measui-e  of  the 
 Institutes  of  Rabbinic  Law.  The  Mishna  and  the 
 Geniara  together  were  known  as  the  Talmud  (in- 
 struction), the  "  necessary  doctrine  and  erudition  " 
 of  every  learned  Jew  (.lost,  Judenth.  ii.  202-222). 
 
 (.5.)  Side  by  side  with  this  was  a  development 
 in  another  direction.  The  sacred  boolcs  were  not 
 studied  as  a  code  of  laws  only.  To  search  into 
 their  meaning  had  from  the  first  belonged  to  the 
 ideal  office  of  the  Scribe.  He  who  so  searched  was 
 secure,  in  the  language  of  the  Scrilies  themselves, 
 of  everlasting  life  ("jolin  v.  39;  Pirke  Ahoth,  ii.  8) 
 But  here  also  the  book  suggested  thoughts  which 
 could  not  logically  be  deduced  from  it.  Men  came 
 to  it  with  new  beliefs,  new  in  form  if  not  in  essence, 
 and,  not  finding  any  ground  for  them  in  a  literal 
 interpretation,  were  compelled  to  have  recourse  to 
 an  interpretation  which  was  the  reverse  of  literal.'' 
 The  fruit  of  this  effort  to  find  what  was  not  there 
 appears  in  the  Midrashiin  (searchings,  investiga- 
 tions) on  the  several  books  of  the  0.  T.  The 
 process  by  which  the  meaning,  moral  or  mystical, 
 was  elicited,  was  known  as  Ilafjadn  (saying,  opin- 
 ion). \  There  was  obviously  no  assignable  limit  to 
 such  a  process.  It  became  a  proverb  that  no  one 
 ought  to  spend  a  day  in  the  Beth-ham-Midrash 
 ("the  house  of  the  interpreter")  without  lighting 
 on  something  new.  But  there  lay  a  stage  higher 
 even  than  the  Hagada.  The  mystical  sch(jol  of  in- 
 terpretation culminated  in  the  Knbbala  (reception, 
 the  received  doctrine).  Every  letter,  every  num- 
 ber, became  pregnant  with  mysteries.  ^Mth  the 
 str.angest  possible  distortion  of  its  original  mean- 
 ing, the  Greek  word  which  had  been  tiie  repre- 
 sentati\'e  of  the  most  exact  of  all  sciences  was 
 chosen  for  the  wildest  of  all  interpretations.  The 
 tiematria  (=  yewtx^rpia)  showed  to  what  depths 
 the  wrong  path  could  lead  men.  The  mind  of  tlie 
 interpreter,  obstinately  shutting  out  the  light  of 
 day,  moved  in  its  self-chosen  darkness  amid  a  world 
 of  fantastic  Eidola  (comp.  Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  i. 
 7;  Schoettgen,  Hor.  Iltb.  de  Mess.  i.  4;  Zunz, 
 Guttesdienstl.  Vurtruye,  pp.  42-61 ;  Jost,  Judenth. 
 iii.  65-81;  [Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah:  its  Doc- 
 trines, Development,  and  Literature,  Lond.  18G5; 
 also  his  arts.  Kabbalah  and  Midrash  in  Kitto's 
 Cyclop,  of  Ribl.  Lit,  3d  ed.]). 
 
 the  Talmud  the  reader  may  see  the  references  under 
 Pharisees  (vol.  iii.  p.  2472,  note  b),  to  which  may  be 
 added  the  interesting  and  instructive  article  on  The 
 Jewish  Reformation  and  the  Talmud  in  Blackwood's 
 Mag.  for  Nov.  1869,  reprinted  in  Littell's  Living  Age 
 for  Jan.  22,  1870,  No.  1338.  A. 
 
 c  Comp.  e.  g.  the  exposition  which  found  in  Laban 
 and  Balaam  "going  to  their  own  place  "  (Gen.  xxxi. 
 55  ;  Num.  xxiv.  25)  an  intimation  of  their  being  sen- 
 tenced to  Gehenna  (Gill,  Conim.  on  Acts,  i.  25). 
 
2868 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 III.  nistory.  —  {\.)  The  names  of  the  earlier 
 Scribes  passed  away,  as  has  been  said,  unrecorded. 
 Simon  the  .lust  (cir.  b.  c.  300-290)  appears  as 
 the  last  of  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  the 
 beginner  of  a  new  jieriod.  The  memorable  names 
 of  the  times  that  followed  —  Antigonus  of  Socbo, 
 Zadok,  Boethos  —  connect  themselves  with  the  rise 
 of  the  first  opposition  to  the  traditional  system 
 which  was  growing  up.  [Sadducees.]  The  tenet 
 of  the  Sadducees,  however,  never  commanded  the 
 adhesion  of  more  than  a  small  minority.  It  tended, 
 hy  maintaining  the  sufficiency  of  the  letter  of  the 
 Law,  to  destroy  the  very  occupation  of  a  Scribe," 
 and  the  class,  as  sucli,  belonged  to  the  party  of  its 
 opponents.  The  words  "  Scribes  "  and  "  Pharisees  " 
 were  bound  together  by  the  closest  possible  alliance 
 (]\ratt.  xxiii.  jxissim;  Luke  v.  30).  [Puaklsees.] 
 Within  that  party  there  were  shades  and  sub- 
 divisions, and  to  understand  their  relation  to  each 
 other  in  our  Lord's  time,  or  their  connection  with 
 his  life  and  teaching,  we  must  look  back  to  what  is 
 
 known  of  the  five  pairs  (mH^D)  of  teachers  who 
 represented  the  scribal  succession.  Why  two,  and 
 two  only,  are  named  in  each  case  we  can  only 
 conjecture,  but  the  Kabbinic  tradition  that  one  was 
 always  the  Nasi  or  President  of  the  Sanhedrim  as 
 a  council,  the  other  the  .\l)-beth-din  (Father  of 
 the  House  of  Judgment),  presiding  in  the  supreme 
 court,  or  in  the  Sanhedrim  when  it  sat  as  such,  is 
 not  improbable  (.lost,  Jwknf/i.  i.  160). 
 
 (2.)  The  two  names  that  stand  first  in  order  are 
 Joses  ben-Joezer,  a  priest,  and  Joses  ben-.Jochanan 
 (cir.  B.  C.  140-130).  The  precepts  ascribed  to 
 them  indicate  a  tendency  to  a  greater  elalioration 
 of  all  rules  connected  with  ceremonial  defilement. 
 Tlieir  desire  to  separate  themselves  and  their  dis- 
 ciples from  all  occasions  of  defilement  may  have 
 furnished  tlie  starting-point  for  the  name  of  Phari- 
 see. The  brave  struggle  with  the  Syrian  kings 
 had  turned  chiefly  on  questions  of  this  nature,  and 
 it  was  the  wish  of  the  two  teachers  to  prepare  the 
 people  for  any  future  conflict  by  founding  a  fra- 
 ternity (the  Chnbertin,  or  associates)  bound  to  the 
 strictest  observance  of  the  Law.  Every  member 
 of  the  order  on  his  admission  pledged  himself  to 
 this  in  the  presence  of  tliree  Chaberiin.  They 
 looked  on  each  other  as  brothers.  The  rest  of  the 
 nation  they  looked  on  as  "  the  people  of  the 
 earth."  The.  spirit  of  Scribedom  was  growing. 
 The  precept  associated  with  the  name  of  .loses  ben- 
 Joezer,  "  Let  thy  house  be  the  assembly-place  for 
 the  wise;  dust  thyself  with  the  dust  of  their  feet; 
 drink  eanjerlv  of  their  «'ords,"  pointed  to  a  further 
 growth  {Pirke  Mf-.i,  i.  1;  Jost,  i.  233).  It  was 
 hardly  checked  by  the  taunt  of  the  Sadducees  that 
 "these  Pharisees  would  pui'ify  the  sun  itself" 
 (Jost,  i.  217). 
 
 (3.)  Joshua  hen-Perachiah  and  Nithai  of  Ar- 
 bela  were  contemporary  with  .John  Hyrcanus  (cir. 
 B.  C.  135-108),  and  enjoyed  his  favor  till  towards 
 the  close  of  his  reign,  when  caprice  or  interest  led 
 him  to  pass  over  to  the  camp  of  the  Sadducees. 
 The  saying  ascribed  to  .Joshua,  '•  Take  to  tliyself  a 
 teacher  (Rah),  get  to  thyself  an  associate  (  Chaber), 
 judge  every  man  on  his  better  side "  {Pirke 
 Abutli,  i.  1),  while  its  last  clause  attracts  us  by  its 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 candor,  shows  how  easily  even  a  fair-minded  man 
 might  come  to  recognize  no  bonds  of  fellowship 
 outside  the  limits  of  his  sect  or  order  (Jost,  i. 
 227-233). 
 
 (4.)  The   secession  of   Hyrcanus   involved   the 
 Pharisees,  and  therefore  the  Scribes  as  a  class,  in 
 difficulties,   and  a    period   of   confusion    followed. 
 The  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  suspended  or 
 l)ecame  predominantly  Sadducean.    Under  his  suc- 
 cessor, Alexander  Jannai,  the  influence  of  Simon 
 ben-Shetach  over  the   queen-mother  Salome  rees- 
 tablished for  a  time  the  ascendency  of  the  Scribes. 
 The  Sanhedrim  once  again  assembled,  with  none 
 to  oppose  the  dominant  Pharisaic  party.     The  day 
 of  meeting  was  observed  afterwards  as   a  festival 
 only  less   solemn   than   those  of   Purim   and   the 
 Dedication.     The  return   of    Alexander    from   his 
 camiiaign  against  Gaza  again   turned   the  tables. 
 Eigiit  hundred  Pharisees  took  refuge  in  a  fortress, 
 were  besieged,  taken,  and  put  to  death.     Joshua 
 ben-Perachiah,   the  venerable  head  of  the  order, 
 was   driven    into  exile.     Simon   ben-Shetach,   his 
 successor,  had  to  earn  his  li\-elihood  by  spinning 
 flax.     The  Sadducees  failed,  howe\'er,  to  win  the 
 confidence  of  the  people.     Having  no  body  of  oral 
 traditions  to  fall  back  on,  they  began  to  compile  a 
 code.     They  were  accused  by  their  opponents  of 
 wishing  to  set  up  new  laws  on  a  level  with  those 
 of  Jloses,  and  had  to  abandon  the  attempt.     On 
 the  death   of  Jannai  the   influence  of  his   widow 
 Alexandra  was  altogether  on  the  side  of  the  Scribes, 
 and    Simon  ben-Shetach    and   Judah   ben-Tabbai 
 entered  on  their  work  as  joint  teachers.     Under 
 them  the  juristic    side  of    the   Scribe's   functions 
 became  prominent.     Their  rules   turn   chiefly  on 
 tlie  laws  of  evidence  (Pirke  Aboih,  i.  1).     In  two 
 menioralile  instances   they  showed  what  .sacrifices 
 they  were   prepai-ed   to   make  in  support  of  those 
 laws.      Judah   had,   on  one  occasion,  condemned 
 false  witnesses  to  death.    His  zeal  against  the  guilt 
 led  him  to  neglect  the  rule  which  only  permitted 
 that  i)enalty  wiien  it  would  have  been  the  conse- 
 quence of  the  original  accusation.     His  colleague 
 did  not  shrink  from  rebuking   him,  "  Thou  hast 
 shed  iimocent  blood."     From  that  day  Judah  re- 
 solved never  to  give  judgment  without  consulting 
 Simon,  and  every  day  threw  himself  on  the  grave 
 of  the  man  he  had  condemned,  imploring  pardon. 
 Simon,  in   his  turn,   showed   a  like   sense  of  the 
 supreme  authority  of  the  Law.     His  own  son  was 
 brought  before   him   as  an  otfender,  and.  he  sen- 
 tenced  him  to  death.     On  the  way  to  execution 
 the    witnesses    confessed    that    they    had    spoken 
 falsely;  but  the  .son,  more  anxious  that  they  should 
 sutler  than  that  he  himself  should  escape,  turned 
 round   and  entreated   his  father  not  to   stop  the 
 completion  of  the  sentence.     The  character  of  such 
 a   man  could  not  fail  to  impress  itself  upon  his 
 followers.     To  its  influence  may  proliably  be  traced 
 the  indomitable  courage  in  defense  of  tlie  Temple, 
 which  won   the   admiration   even   of   the   lioman 
 generals  (Jost,  i.  234-247). 
 
 (5.)  Tlie  two  that  followed,  Shemaiah  and  Ab- 
 talion  (the  names  also  appear  under  the  form  of 
 Sameas,  Joseph.  Aril.  xiv.  9,  §  4,  and  PoUio,  Jo- 
 se])h.  Anf.  xiv.  1,  §  1),  were  conspicuous  for  an- 
 other reason.     Now,  for  the  first  time,  the  teach- 
 
 "  A  striking  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  the  history 
 of  John  Hyrcanus.  A  Saddueee  came  to  him  with 
 proofs  of  the  disaffection  of  the  Pharisees.  The  king 
 asked,  "  What  then  am  I  to  do ''  "     "  Crusli  them," 
 
 was  the  answer.  "  But  what  then  will  become  of  the 
 teaching  of  the  Law?"  "The  Law  is  now  in  the 
 hands  of  every  man.  They,  and  they  ouly,  would 
 keep  it  iu  a  corner  "  (Jost,  Judenth.  i.  2-35). 
 
SCRIBES 
 
 2r8  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat  were  not  even  of  the 
 children  of  Abraham.  Proselytes  themselves,  or 
 the  sons  of  proselytes,  their  preeminence  in  the 
 knowledge  of  the  Law  raised  them  to  this  office. 
 The  jcixlousy  of  the  high-priest  was  excited.  As 
 the  people  flocked  round  their  fiivorite  liabbis  when 
 it  was  his  function  to  pronounce  the  blessing,  he 
 looked  round  and,  turning  his  benediction  into  a 
 sarcasm,  said,  with  a  marked  emphasis,  "  May  the 
 sons  of  the  idie.n  walk  in  peace!  "  The  answer  of 
 the  two  teachers  expressed  the  feeling  of  scorn  with 
 which  the  one  order  was  beginning  to  look  upon 
 the  other;  "  Yes,  the  sons  of  the  alien  shall  indeed 
 walk  in  peace,  for  they  do  the  work  of  peace.  Not 
 so  the  son  of  Aaron  who  follows  not  in  the  foot- 
 steps of  his  father."  Here  also  we  have  some  sig- 
 nificant sayings.  The  growing  love  of  titles  of 
 honor  was  checked  by  Shemaiah  by  the  counsel 
 that  "  men  should  love  the  work,  but  hate  the 
 Ttabbiship."  The  tendency  to  new  opinions  (the 
 fruits,  probably,  of  the  freer  exposition  of  the  Iln- 
 gadit)  was  rebuked  by  Abtalion  in  a  precept  which 
 enwraps  a  parable:  "  Take  good  heed  to  thy  words, 
 lest,  if  thou  wander,  thou  light  upon  a  place  where 
 the  wells  are  poisoned,  and  thy  scholars  who  come 
 after  thee  drink  deep  thereof  and  die "  {Pirkv 
 Aboth,  i.  1).  The  lot  of  these  two  also  was  cast 
 upon  evil  days.  They  had  courage  to  attempt  to 
 check  the  rising  power  of  Herod  in  his  bold  defi- 
 ance of  the  Sanhedrim  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  9,  §  3). 
 When  he  showed  himself  to  be  irresistible  they  had 
 the  wisdom  to  submit,  and  were  suffered  to  con- 
 tinue their  work  in  peace.  Its  glory  was,  however, 
 in  great  measure,  gone.  The  doors  of  their  school 
 were  no  longer  thrown  open  to  all  comers  so  that 
 crowds  might  listen  to  the  teacher.  A  fixed  fee  « 
 had  to  be  paid  on  entrance.  The  regulation  was 
 probably  intended 'to  discourage  the  attendance  of 
 the  young  men  of  Jerusalem  at  the  Scribes'  classes ; 
 and  apparently  it  had  that  effect  (Jost,  i.  248-253). 
 On  the  death  of  Shemaiah  and  Al)talion  there  were 
 no  qualified  successors  to  take  their  place.  Two 
 sons  of  Bethera,  otherwise  unknown,  for  a  time  oc- 
 cupied it,  but  they  were  themselves  conscious  of 
 their  incompetence.  A  question  was  brought  be- 
 fore them  which  neither  they  nor  any  of  the  other 
 Scribes  could  answer.  At  last  they  asked,  in  their 
 perplexity,  "  Was  there  none  present  who  had  been 
 a  disciple  of  the  two  who  had  been  so  honored?  " 
 The  question  was  answered  by  Hillel  the  Babylo- 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 2S69 
 
 nian,  known  also,  then  or  afterwards,  as  the  son 
 of  David.  He  solved  the  difficulty,  appealed  to 
 principles,  and,  when  they  demanded  authority 
 as  v\-ell  as  argument,  ended  by  saying,  "  So  have 
 I  heard  from  my  masters  Shemaiah  and  Abta- 
 lion." This  was  decisive.  The  sons  of  IMhera 
 withdrew.  Hillel  was  invited  by  acclamation  to  en- 
 ter on  his  high  office.  His  alleged  descent  from  the 
 house  of  David  may  have  added  to  his  popularity. 
 (6.)  The  name  of  Hillel  (born  circ.  b.  c.  112'') 
 has  hardly  received  the  notice  due  to  it  from  stu- 
 dents of  the  Gospel  history. <^  The  noblest  and 
 most  genial  representative  of  his  order,  we  may  see 
 in  him  the  best  fruit  which  the  system  of  the 
 Scribes  was  capable  of  producing.''  It  is  instruc- 
 tive to  mark  at  once  how  far  he  prepared  the  way 
 for  the  higher  teaching  which  was  to  follow,  how 
 far  he  inevitably  fell  short  of  it.  The  starting- 
 point  of  his  career  is  told  in  a  tale  which,  though 
 deformed  by  llabbinic  exaggerations,  is  yet  fresh 
 and  genial  enough.  The  young  student  had  come 
 from  Golah  in  Babylonia  to  study  under  Shemaiah 
 and  Abtalion.  He  was  poor  and  had  no  money. 
 The  new  rule  requiring  payment  was  in  force.  For 
 the  most  part  he  worked  for  his  livelihood,  kept 
 himself  with  half  his  earnings,  and  paid  the  rest  as 
 the  fee  to  the  college-porter.  On  one  day,  how- 
 ever, he  had  failed  to  find  employment.  The  door- 
 keeper refused  him  entrance;  but  his  zeal  for 
 knowledge  was  not  to  be  baffled.  He  stationed 
 himself  outside,  under  a  window,  to  catch  what  he 
 could  of  the  words  of  the  Scribes  within.  It  was 
 winter,  and  the  snow  began  to  fall,  but  he  re- 
 mained there  still.  It  fell  till  it  lay  upon  him  six 
 cubits  high  ( !  )  and  the  window  was  darkened  and 
 blocked  up.  At  last  the  two  teachers  noticed  it, 
 sent  out  to  see  what  caused  it,  and  when  they  found 
 out,  received  the  eager  scholar  without  payment. 
 "For  such  a  man,"  f*id  Shemaiah,  "one  might 
 even  break  the  Sabbath  "  (Geiger,  ut  supra  ;  Jost, 
 i.  254:).  In  the  earlier  days  of  his  activity  HiUel 
 had  as  his  colleague  Menahem,  probably  the  same 
 as  the  Essene  ]\Ianaen  of  Josephus  (Ant.  xv.  10, 
 §  5).  He,  however,  was  tempted  by  the  growing 
 power  of  Herod,  and,  with  a  large  number'  (eighty 
 in  the  Uabbinic  tradition)  of  his  followers,  entered 
 the  king's  service  and  abandoned  at  once  their  call- 
 ing as  Scribes  and  their  habits  of  devotion.  They 
 appeared  publicly  in  the  gorgeous  apparel,  glitter- 
 ing with  gold,  which  was  inconsistent  with  both' 
 
 a  The  amount  is  uncertain.  The  story  of  Hillel 
 (infra)  represents  it  as  half  a  stater,  but  it  is  doubtful 
 whether  the  stater  here  is  equal  to  twice  the  didrackma 
 or  to  half  (comp.  Geiger,  De  Hillele  et  Shartimai,  in 
 Ugolini,  Thes.  xxi.).  It  was,  at  any  rate,  half  the 
 day's  wages  of  a  skilled  laborer. 
 
 b  *  We  have  not  the  means  of  fixing  with  any  pre- 
 cision the  date  of  Uillers  birth.  The  question  is  fully 
 discussed  by  Ewald  in  his  Gesrh.  cl.  Vol/ces  Israel, 
 3e  Ausg,  (1867),  V.  12-26.  Assuming  that  Hillel  is  the 
 game  person  with  the  PoUio  of  Josephus  (so  Josippon, 
 V.  4,  etc.  cited  by  Ewald)  he  is  disposed  to  consider 
 him  as  flourishing  from  about  60  B.  c.  to  10  A.  D. 
 Derenbourg(E<isa(  sur  P/iist.  et  lagco^.  ile  la  Palestine. 
 i.  149  f.,  463  f.)  thinks  that  the  Sameas  and  PoUio  of 
 Josephus  represent,  through  a  confusion  on  the  part 
 of  this  writer,  sometimes  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion,  and 
 sometimes  Shammai  and  Hillel.  Ginsburg,  art.  Hillel 
 in  Kitto's  Cyclop,  of  Bihl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  says,  without 
 giving  any  authority,  that  he  \yas  born  about  75,  B.  c. 
 On  HiUel,  whose  merits,  really  great,  have  been 
 strangely  exaggerated  by  some  recent  .Jewish  writers, 
 i.  g.  Dr.  Geiger  (not  the  Geiger  so  often  referred  to  in 
 
 this  article),  one  may  see,  in  addition  to  the  works  al- 
 ready referred  to  in  the  body  of  the  article,  or  just  men- 
 tioned, Ewald's  Jahrb.  d.  Bihl.  tvissensdiaft,  x.  56-83 
 (substantially  reproduced  in  his  Geschichte,  as  above), 
 and  the  interesting  little  pamphlet  of  Delitzsch,  Jesus 
 und  Hillel,  init  Hikksicht  aiif  Renan  mid  Geiger  ver- 
 glicken,  2e  Aufl.,  Ei-langen,  1867.  A. 
 
 c  The  exhaustive  treatise  by  Geiger  in  Ugolini,  Thes. 
 xxi.  must  be  mentioned  as  an  exception. 
 
 d  The  reverence  of  later  Jews  for  Hillel  is  shown  in 
 some  curious  forms.  To  him  it  was  given  to  under- 
 stand the  speech  of  animals  as  well  as  of  men.  He 
 who  hearkened  not  to  the  words  of  Hillel  was  worthy 
 of  death.  (Geiger,  ut  supra.)  Of  him  too  it  was  said 
 that  the  Bivine  Shecbiuah  rested  on  him  :  if  the 
 heavens  were  parchment  and  all  the  trees  of  the  earth 
 pens,  and  all  the  sea  ink,  it  would  not  be  enough  to 
 write  down  his  wisdom  (comp.  John  xxi.  25).  (See 
 Heubner,  De  Academiis  Htbrmorum ,  in  Ugolini,  Thes. 
 xxi.) 
 
 e  ^Ve  may  perhaps  find  in  this  fact  an  explanation 
 which  gives  a  special  force  to  words  that  have  hitherto 
 been  interpreted  somewhat  vaguely.     When  our  Lord 
 
2S70 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 (Jost,  i.  259).  The  place  thus  vacant  was  soon 
 filled  by  Shammai.  The  two  were  held  in  nearly 
 equal  honor.  One,  in  Jewish  language,  wa.s  the 
 Nasi,  the  other  the  Ab-beth-din  of  the  Sanhedrim. 
 They  did  not  teach,  however,  as  their  predecessors 
 had  done,  in  entire  harmony  with  each  other. 
 Within  the  party  of  the  Pharisees,  within  the  or- 
 der of  the  Scribes,  there  came  for  the  first  time  to 
 be  two  schools  with  distinctly  opposed  tendencies, 
 one  vehemently,  rigidly  orthodox,  the  other  ortho- 
 dox also,  but  with  an  orthodoxy  which,  in  the  lan- 
 guage of  modern  politics,  might  be  classed  as  Lib- 
 eral Conservative.  The  points  ou  which  they  dif- 
 fered were  almost  innumerable  (comp.  Geiger,  ut 
 supra).  In  most  of  them,  questions  as  to  the 
 causes  and  degrees  of  uncleanness,  as  to  the  law  of 
 contracts  or  of  wills,  we  can  find  little  or  no  inter- 
 est. On  the  former  class  of  subjects  the  school  of 
 Shammai  represented  the  extremest  development  of 
 the  Pharisaic  spirit.  Everything  that  could  possi- 
 bly ha\e  been  touched  by  a  heathen  or  au  unclean 
 Israelite,  became  itself  unclean.  "  Defilement  " 
 was  as  a  contagious  disease  which  it  was  hardly 
 possible  to  avoid  even  with  the  careful  scrupulosity 
 described  in  Mark  vii.  1-4.  They  were,  in  like 
 manner,  rigidly  Sabbatarian.  It  was  unlawful  to 
 do  anything  before  the  Sabbath  which  would,  in  any 
 sense,  be  in  operation  during  it,  e.  g.  to  put  cloth 
 into  a  dye-vat,  or  nets  into  the  sea.  It  was  un- 
 lawful on  the  Sabbath  itself  to  gi\e  money  to  the 
 poor,  or  to  teach  children,  or  to  visit  the  sick. 
 They  maintained  the  marriage  law  in  its  strictness, 
 and  held  that  nothing  but  the  adultery  of  the  wife 
 could  justify  repudiation  (.lost,  i.  257-269).  We 
 must  not  think  of  them,  however,  as  rigid  and 
 austere  in  their  lives.  The  religious  world  of  Ju- 
 daism presented  the  inconsistencies  which  it  has 
 often  presented  since.  The  "  straitest  sect"  was 
 also  the  most  secular.  Shammai  himself  was  said 
 to  be  rich,  luxurious,  self-indulgent.  Hillel  re- 
 mained to  the  day  of  his  death  as  poor  as  in  his 
 youth  (Geiger,  I.  c). 
 
 (7.)  The  teaching  of  Hillel  showed  some  capac- 
 ity for  wider  thoughts.  His  personal  character  was 
 more  lovable  and  attractive.  While  on  the  one 
 side  he  taught  as  from  a  mind  well  stored  with  the 
 traditions  of  the  elders,  he  was,  on  the  other,  any- 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 thing  but  a  slavish  follower  of  those  traditions. 
 He  was  the  first  to  lay  down  principles  for  an 
 equitable  construction  of  the  Law  with  a  dialectic 
 precision  \^■hich  seems  almost  to  imply  a  Greek  cul- 
 ture (Jost,  i.  257).  ^^'hen  the  letter  of  a  law,  as 
 e.  y.  that  of  the  year  of  release,  was  no  longer 
 suited  to  the  times,  and  was  working,  so  far  as  it 
 was  kept  at  all,  only  for  evil,  he  suggested  an  in- 
 terpretation which  met  the  difficulty  or  practically 
 set  it  aside.  His  teaching  as  to  divorce  was  in  like 
 manner  an  adaptation  to  the  temper  of  the  age.  It 
 was  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  any 
 cause  of  disfavor,  even  for  so  slight  an  offense  as 
 that  of  spoiling  his  dinner  by  her  bad  cooking  <* 
 (Geiger,  I.  c).  The  genial  character  of  the  man 
 comes  out  in  some  of  his  sayings,  which  remind  ua 
 of  the  tone  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Siiach,  and  present 
 some  faint  approximations  to  a  higher  teaching : 
 "  Trust  not  thyself  to  the  day  of  thy  death." 
 "  Judge  not  thy  neighbor  till  thou  art  in  his  place." 
 "  Leave  nothing  dark  and  obscure,  saying  to  thy- 
 self, I  will  explain  it  when  I  have  time;  for  how 
 knowest  thou  whether  the  time  will  come?" 
 (comp.  James  iv.  13-15).  "  He  who  gains  a  good 
 name  gains  it  for  himself,  but  he  who  gains  a  knowl- 
 edge of  the  Law  gains  everlasting  life  "  (comp.  John 
 V.  39;  Pirke  Abut/i,  ii.  5-8).  In  one  memorable 
 rule  we  find  the  nearest  approach  that  had  as  yet 
 been  made  to  the  great  commandment  of  the  Gos- 
 pel: "  Do  nothing  to  thy  neighbor  that  thou  would- 
 est  not  that  he  should  do  to  thee."  '' 
 
 (8.)  The  contrast  showed  itself  in  the  conduct 
 of  the  followers  not  less  than  in  the  teachers.  The 
 disciples  of  Shammai  were  conspicuous  for  their 
 fierceness,  appealed  to  popular  passions,  used  the 
 sword  to  decide  their  controversies.  Out  of  that 
 school  grew  the  party  of  the  Zealots,  fierce,  fanat- 
 ical, vindictive,  the  Orangemen  of  Pharisaism  (Jost, 
 i.  267-2C9).  Those  of  Hillel  were,  like  their  mas- 
 ter (comp.  e.  (J.  the  advice  of  Gamaliel,  Acts  v.  34- 
 42),  cautious,  gentle,  tolerant,  unwilling  to  make 
 enemies,  content  to  let  things  take  their  course. 
 One  school  resisted,  the  other  was  disposed  to  fos- 
 ter the  study  of  Greek  literature.  One  sought  to 
 impose  upon  the  proselyte  from  heathenism  the  full 
 burden  of  the  Law,  the  other  that  he  should  be 
 treated    with    some    sympathy   and    indulgence. 
 
 contrasted  the  steadfastness  and  austerity  of  the  Bap- 
 tist with  the  lives  of  those  who  wore  soft  clothing, 
 were  gorgeously  appareled,  and  lived  delicately  in 
 kings'  houses  (Matt.  xi.  3  ;  Luke  vii.  24),  those  who 
 heard  Him  may  at  once  have  recognized  the  picture. 
 In  the  multitude  of  uncertain  guesses  as  to  the  He- 
 rodians  of  the  Gospels  (Matt.  xxii.  16)  we  may  be  per- 
 mitted to  hazard  the  conjecture  that  they  may  be 
 identified  with  the  party,  perhaps  rather  with  the 
 clique,  of  Menahem  and  his  followers  (Geiger,  ut  sup.  ; 
 Otho,  Hist.  Doctormn  Blisniconmi,  in  Ugolini.  Thes. 
 xxi.).  The  fact  that  the  stern,  sharp  words  of  a  di- 
 vine scorn  which  have  been  quoted  above,  meet  us 
 just  after  the  first  combination  of  Herodians  and 
 Pharisees,  gives  it  a  strong  confirmation  (comp.  Mark 
 iii.  6 ;  Luke  vi.  11,  vii.  19). 
 
 a  It  is  fair  to  add  that  a  great  Rabbinic  scholar 
 maintains  that  this  "  spoiling  the  dinner "  was  a 
 well-known  figurative  phrase  for  conduct  which 
 brought  shame  or  discredit  on  the  husband  (Jost,  i. 
 264). 
 
 b  The  history  connected  with  this  saying  is  too 
 charmingly  characteristic  to  be  passed  over.  A  pros- 
 elyte came  to  Shammai  and  begged  for  some  instruc- 
 tion in  the  Law  if  it  were  only  for  as  long  as  he,  the 
 learner,  could  stand  on  one  foot.     The  Scribe  was  an- 
 
 gry, and  drove  him  away  harshly.  He  went  to  Hillel 
 with  the  same  request.  He  received  the  inquirer  be- 
 niguantly,  and  gave  him  the  precept  above  quoted, 
 adding  —  "  Do  this,  and  thou  hast  fulfilled  the  Law 
 and  the  Prophets  "  (Geiger,  ut  supra).  [Comp.  Tobit, 
 iv.  15,  o  jaio-eis  ixrjSevl  7roi^(rr|5,  and  see  Wetstein's 
 note  on  Matt.  vii.  12.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
 same  precept  appears  repeatedly,  in  this  negative 
 form,  among  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Confucius.  See 
 the  Lun-Yu,  or  "  Confucian  Analects,"  as  Dr.  Legge 
 calls  the  work,  bk.  v.  c.  11  ;  xii.  2  ;  xv.  23.  In  the 
 Cliiing-Yicng,  xiii.  3,  4,  Confucius  delivers  the  same 
 rule  with  a  positive  application,  but  confesses  that  he 
 has  not  himself  been  able  to  practice  it  perfectly. 
 Comp.  the  Lun-  Yu.,  iv.  15,  where  the  whole  doctrine  of 
 Confucius  is  summed  up  in  two  words,  chutig  and  shu, 
 translated  by  Pauthier  {Coiifucius  et  Mencius,  Paris, 
 1858,  p.  122)  avoir  la  d^oiture  du  roeitr  and  aimer  soti 
 prnchain  comme  soi-rnhne.  S.  W.  Williams,  Tonic 
 Diet,  of  the  Chinese  Lang  in  the  Canton  Dialect.,  Can- 
 ton, 1856,  pp.  453,  454,  gives  among  the  meanings  of 
 sAm,  "  treating  others  as  one  wishes  to  be  treated," 
 and  similar  definitions  are  given  by  De  Guignes,  Mor- 
 rison, Medhurst,  and  Legge.  Confucius  does  not  ap- 
 pear to  have  accepted  the  doctrine  of  returning  good 
 for  evil  {Lun-  Yii,  xiv.  36).  —  A.j 
 
SCRIBES 
 
 [Proselyte.]  One  subject  of  debate  between 
 the  schools  exhiliits  the  contrast  as  goini^  deeper 
 than  these  questions,  touching  upon  the  great  prob- 
 lems of  the  universe.  "  Was  tlie  state  of  man  so 
 full  of  misery  that  it  would  have  been  better  for 
 him  never  to  have  been  V  Or  was  this  life,  with 
 all  its  suffering,  still  the  gift  of  God,  to  be  valued 
 and  used  as  a  training  for  something  higher  than 
 itselfy  "  The  scliool  of  Shamniai  took,  as  might 
 be  expected,  the  darker,  that  of  Hillel  the  brighter 
 and  the  wiser  view  (.Jost,  i.  264). 
 
 (9.)  Outwardly  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  must 
 have  appeared  to  men  dift'ereiit  in  many  ways  from 
 both.  While  tliey  repeated  the  traditions  of  the 
 elders.  He  "  spake  as  one  having  authority,"  "  not 
 as  the  Scribes''  (Matt.  vii.  29;  comp.  the  con- 
 stantly recurring  "  1  say  unto  you  ").  While  they 
 confined  their  teaching  to  the  class  of  scholars,  He 
 "  had  compassion  on  the  multitudes  "  (Matt.  ix.  30). 
 While  they  were  to  be  found  only  in  the  council  or 
 in  their  schools,  He  journeyed  through  the  cities 
 and  villages  (Matt.  iv.  23,  ix.  3.5,  &c.,&c.).  While 
 they  spoke  of  the  kingdom  of  Ood  vaguely,  as  a 
 thing  far  off.  He  proclaimed  that  it  had  already 
 come  nigh  to  men  (Matt.  iv.  17).  But  in  most  of 
 the  points  at  issue  between  the  two  parties.  He 
 must  have  appeared  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
 school  of  Shammai,  in  sympathy  with  tliat  of  Hil- 
 lel. In  the  questions  that  gathered  round  the  law 
 of  the  Sabl>ath  (Matt.  xii.  1-14,  and  John  v.  1-16, 
 (fee),  and  the  idea  of  purity  (Matt.  xv.  1-11,  and 
 its  parallels),  this  was  obviously  the  cise.  Even 
 in  the  controversy  about  divorce,  while  his  chief 
 work  was  to  assert  the  truth  which  the  disputants 
 on  both  sides  were  losing  sight  of.  He  recognized, 
 it  must  be  remembered,  the  rule  of  Hillel  as  being 
 a  true  interpretation  of  the  Law  (Matt.  xix.  8). 
 When  He  summed  up  the  great  commandment  in 
 which  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  fulfilled,  He 
 reproduced  and  ennobled  the  precept  which  had 
 been  given  by  that  teacher  to  his  disciples  (Matt. 
 vii.  12,  xxii.  31-40).  So  far,  on  the  other  hand, 
 as  the  temper  of  the  Hillel  school  was  one  of  mere 
 adaptation  to  the  feehng  of  the  people,  cleaving  to 
 tradition,  wanting  in  the  intuition  of  a  higher  life, 
 the  teaching  of  Christ  must  have  been  felt  as  un- 
 sparingly condemning  it. 
 
 (10.)  It  adds  to  the  interest  of  this  inquiry  to 
 remember  that  Hillel  himself  lived,  according  to  the 
 tradition  of  the  Rabbis,  to  the  great  age  of  120, 
 and  may  therefore  have  been  present  among  the 
 doctors  of  Luke  ii.  46,  and  that  Gamaliel,  his 
 grandson  and  successor,"  was  at  the  head  of  this 
 school  during  the  whole  of  the  ministry  of  Christ, 
 as  well  as  in  the  early  portion  of  the  history  of  the 
 Acts.  We  are  thus  able  to  explain  the  fact,  which 
 so  many  passages  in  the  Gospels  lead  us  to  infer, 
 the  existence  all  along  of  a  party  among  the 
 Scribes  themselves,  more  or  less  disposed  to  recog- 
 nize Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  teacher  (John  iii  1 ; 
 Mark  x.  17),  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God 
 (Mark  xii.  34),  advocates  of  a  policy  of  toleration 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 2871 
 
 a  Rabbi  Simeon,  the  son  of  Gamaliel,  came  between 
 them,  but  apparently  for  a  short  time  only.  The 
 question  whether  he  is  to  be  identitiecl  with  the  Simeon 
 of  Luke  ii.  25,  is  one  which  we  have  not  sufficient 
 data  to  determine.  Most  commentators  answer  it  in 
 the  negative.  There  seem,  however,  gome  probabilities 
 on  the  other  side.  One  trained  in  the  school  of  Hil- 
 lel might  not  unnaturally  be  looking  for  the  "conso- 
 lation of  Israel."  Himself  of  the  house  and  lineage 
 of  David,  he  would  readily  accept  the  inward  witness 
 
 (John  vii.  51),  but,  on  the  other  hand,  timid  and 
 time-serving,  unable  to  confess  even  their  half-belief 
 (John  xii.  42),  afraid  to  take  their  stand  against 
 the  strange  alliance  of  extremes  which  brought 
 together  the  Sadducean  section  of  the  priesthood 
 and  the  ultra-Pharisaic  followers  of  >Shammai. 
 When  the  last  great  crisis  came,  they  apparently 
 contented  themselves  with  a  policy  of  absence 
 (Luke  xxiii.  50,  51),  possibly  were  not  even  sum- 
 moned, and  thus  the  Council  which  condenmed  our 
 Lord  was  a  packed  meeting  of  the  confederate  par- 
 ties, not  a  formally  constituted  Sanhedrim.  All  its 
 proceedings,  the  hasty  investigation,  the  immediate 
 sentence,  were  vitiated  by  irregularity  (Jost,  i. 
 407-409).  Afterwards,  when  the  fear  of  violence  was 
 once  over,  and  popular  feeling  had  turned,  we  find 
 Gamaliel  summoning  courage  to  maintain  openly 
 the  policy  of  a  tolerant  expectation  (Acts  v.  34). 
 
 IV.  Education  and  Life.  —  (1.)  The  special 
 training  for  a  Scribe's  office  began,  probably,  about 
 the  age  of  thirteen.  According  to  the  Pirke 
 Aboth  (v.  24)  the  child  began  to  read  the  Mikra  at 
 five  and  the  JNlishna  at  ten.  Three  years  later  every 
 Israelite  became  a  child  of  the  Law  {Bar-Mitsoah), 
 and  was  bound  to  study  and  obey  it.  The  great 
 mass  of  men  rested  in  the  scanty  teaching  of  their 
 synagogues,  in  knowing  and  repeating  their  Te- 
 phillim,  the  texts  inscribed  on  their  phylacteries. 
 For  the  boy  who  was  destined  by  his  parents,  or 
 who  devoted  himself,  to  the  calling  of  a  Scribe, 
 something  more  was  required.  He  made  his  way 
 to  Jerusalem,  and  applied  for  admission  to  the 
 school  of  some  famous  Rabbi.  If  he  were  poor,  it 
 was  the  duty  of  the  s3'nagogue  of  his  town  or  vil- 
 lage to  provide  for  the  payment  of  his  fees,  and  in 
 part  also  for  his  maintenance.  His  power  to  learn 
 was  tested  by  an  examination  on  entrance.      If  he 
 
 passed  it  he  became  a  "chosen  one"  ("l^nS, 
 comp.  .John  xv.  16),  and  entered  on  his  work  as  a 
 disciple  (Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  i.  7).  The  master 
 and  his  scholars  met,  the  former  sitting  on  a  high 
 
 chair,  the  elder   pupils  (C"T"^J27n)  on  a  lower 
 
 bench,  the  younger  (D"'3I0p)  on  the  ground,  both 
 literally  "at  his  feet."  The  class-room  might  be 
 the  chamber  of  the  Temple  set  apart  for  this  pur- 
 pose, or  the  private  school  of  the  Rabbi.  In  ad- 
 dition to  the  Rabbi,  or  head  master,  there  were 
 assistant  teachers,  and  one  interpreter  or  crier, 
 whose  function  it  was  to  proclaim  aloud  to  the 
 whole  school  what  the  Rabbi  had  spoken  in  a  whis- 
 per (comp.  Matt.  x.  27).  The  education  was  chiefly 
 catechetical,  the  pupil  submitting  the  cases  and 
 asking  questions,  the  teacher  examining  the  pupil 
 (Luke  ii.).  The  questions  might  be  ethical,  "  What 
 was  the  great  commandment  of  all?  What  must 
 a  man  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?  "  or  casuistic, 
 "  What  might  a  man  do  or  leave  undone  on  the 
 Sabbath?  "  or  ceremonial,  "  What  did  or  did  not 
 render  him  unclean?"''  In  due  time  the  pupil 
 passed  on  to  the  laws  of  property,  of  contracts,  and 
 
 which  pointed  to  a  child  of  that  house  as  "  the  Lord's 
 Christ."  There  is  something  significant,  too,  in  the 
 silence  of  Rabbinic  literature.  In  tlie  Pirke  Aboth  he 
 is  not  even  named.  Comp.  Otho,  Hist.  Doct.  Misn.  in 
 Ugolini  xxi. 
 
 6  We  are  left  to  wonder  what  were  the  questions 
 and  answers  of  the  school-room  of  Luke  ii.  46,  but 
 those  proposed  to  our  Lord  by  his  own  disciples,  or  by 
 the  Scribes,  as  tests  of  his  proficiency,  may  fairly  be 
 taken  as  types  of  what  was  commonly  discussed.    The 
 
2872 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 of  evidence.  So  far  he  was  within  the  circle  of 
 tlie  Hakchah,  the  simple  exposition  of  tlie  tradi- 
 tional "  Words  of  the  Scribes."  He  might  re- 
 main content  with  this,  or  might  pass  on  to  the 
 higher  knowledge  of  the  Beth-hani-Midrash,  witli 
 its  inexhaustible  stores  of  mystical  interpretation. 
 In  botli  cases,  preeminently  in  the  latter,  parables 
 entered  largely  into  the  method  of  instruction. 
 The  teacher  uttered  the  similitude,  and  left  it  to 
 his  hearers  to  interpret  for  themselves.  [Paka- 
 BLES.J  That  the  relation  between  the  two  was 
 often  one  of  genial  and  kindly  feeling,  we  may 
 infer  from  the  saying  of  one  famous  Scribe,  "I 
 have  learnt  much  from  the  Rabbis  my  teachers, 
 I  have  learnt  more  from  the  Rabbis  my  colleagues, 
 I  have  learnt  most  of  all  from  my  disciples " 
 (Carpzov,  App.  CriL  i.  7). 
 
 (2. )  After  a  sufficient  period  of  training,  prob- 
 ably at  the  age  of  thirty, «  the  probationer  was  sol- 
 emnly admitted  to  his  office.  The  presiding 
 Rabbi  pronounced  the  formula,  "  I  admit  thee,  and 
 thou  art  admitted  to  the  Chair  of  the  Scrilie," 
 solemnly  ordained  him  by  the  imposition  of  hands 
 
 (the  nD^'JSD  —  xeipoeea-ia),''  and  gave  to  him, 
 as  the  symbol  of  his  work,  tablets  on  which  lie  was  to 
 note  down  the  sayings  of  the  wise,  and  the  "  key  of 
 knowledge  "  (comp.  Luke  xi.  52),  with  which  he  was 
 to  open  or  to  slmt  the  treasures  of  Divine  wisdom. 
 So  admitted,  be  took  his  place  as  a  Chnber,  or  mem- 
 ber of  the  fraternity,  was  no  longer  aypd/x/xaTOs 
 Kal  iSiwTTis  (Acts  iv.  13),  was  separated  entirely 
 from  the  multitude,  the  brute  herd  that  knew  not 
 the  Law,  the  "  cursed  ""  people  of  the  earth  " 
 (John  vii.  15,  49).« 
 
 (•3.)  There  still  remained  for  the  disciple  after 
 his  admission  the  choice  of  a  variety  of  functions, 
 the  chances  of  failure  and  success.  He  might  give 
 himself  to  any  one  of  the  branches  of  study,  or 
 combine  two  or  more  of  them.  He  might  rise  to 
 high  places,  Ijecome  a  doctor  of  the  Law,  an  arl)i- 
 trator  in  family  litigations  (Luke  xii.  14),  the  head 
 of  a  school,  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim.  He 
 might  have  to  content  himself  with  the  humbler 
 work  of  a  transcriber,  copying  the  Law  and  the 
 Prophets  for  the  use  of  synagogues,  or  TephUlim 
 for  that  of  the  devout  (Otho,  Lex.  Rnbb.  s.  v. 
 "  Phylacteria  " ),  or  a  notary  writing  out  contracts  of 
 sale,  covenants  of  espousals,  bills  of  repudiation. 
 The  position  of  the  more  fortunate  was  of  course 
 attractive  enough.  Theoretically,  indeed,  the  office 
 of  the  Scribe  was  not  to  be  a  source  of  wealth. 
 It  is  doubtful  how  far  the  fees  paid  by  the  pupils 
 were  appropriated  by  the  teacher  (Buxtorf,  l>yn<iy- 
 Judiiic.  cap.  4(3).  Tlie  great  Hillel  worked  as  a 
 day-laborer.  St.  Paul's  work  as  a  tent  maker,  our 
 Lorfl's  work  as  a  carpenter,  were  quite  compatiUe 
 with  the  popular  conception  of  the  most  honored 
 Rabbi.  The  indirect  payments  were,  however,  con- 
 siderable enough.     Scholars  brought  gifts.     Rich 
 
 SCRIBES 
 
 and  aevout  widows  maintained  a  Rabbi  as  an  act 
 of  piety,  often  to  the  injury  of  their  own  kindred 
 (Matt,  xxiii.  14).  Each  act  of  the  notary's  office, 
 or  the  arbitration  of  the  jurist,  would  be  attended 
 by  an  honorarium. 
 
 (4)  In  regard  to  social  position  there  was  a  like 
 contradiction  between  theory  and  practice.  The 
 older  Scribes  had  had  no  titles  [Raubi]  ;  Shemaiah, 
 as  we  have  seen,  warned  his  disciples  against  them. 
 In  our  Lord's  time  the  passion  for  distinction  was 
 insatiable.  The  ascending  scale  of  Ral),  Rabbi, 
 Rabban  (we  are  reminded  of  our  own  Reverend, 
 Very  Reverend,  Right  Reverend),  presented  so 
 many  steps  on  the  ladder  of  ambition  (Serupius, 
 de  til.  Biiljbi,  in  Ugolini  xxii.).  Other  forms  of 
 worldliness  were  not  far  off'.''  The  salutations  in 
 the  market-place  (Matt,  xxiii.  7),  the  reverential 
 kiss  offered  by  the  scholars  to  their  master,  or  by 
 Rabljis  to  each  other,  the  greeting  of  Abba,  father 
 (Matt,  xxiii.  9,  and  Lightfoot,  JJvr.  Ihb.  in  loc), 
 the  long  (TToXaU  as  contrasted  with  the  simple 
 xircov  and  ifxariov  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples, 
 with  the  broad  blue  Zizith  or  fringe  (the  Kpdcr- 
 ■widov  of  Matt.  xxui.  5),  the  TephiUim  of  ostenta- 
 tious size,  all  these  go  to  make  up  the  picture  of  a 
 Scribe's  life.  Drawing  to  themselves,  as  they  did, 
 nearly  all  the  energy  and  thought  of  Judaism,  the 
 close  hereditary  caste  of  the  priesthood  was  power- 
 less to  compete  with  them.  Unless  the  pi'iest  be- 
 came a  Scribe  also,  he  remained  in  obscurity.  The 
 order,  as  such,  became  contemptible  and  base.« 
 For  the  Scribes  there  were  the  best  places  at  feasts, 
 the  chief  seats  in  synagogues  (Matt.  xxiu.  6 ;  Luke 
 xiv.  7). 
 
 (5.)  The  character  of  the  order  was  marked  un- 
 der these  influences  by  a  deep,  incurable  hypocrisy, 
 all  the  more  perilous  because,  in  most  cases,  it  was 
 unconscious.  We  must  not  infer  from  this  that 
 all  were  alike  tainted,  or  that  the  work  which  they 
 had  done,  and  the  worth  of  their  office,  were  not 
 recognized  by  Him  who  rebuked  them  for  their 
 evil.  Some  there  were  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
 of  God,  taking  tlieir  place  side  by  side  with  proph- 
 ets and  wise  men,  among  the  instruments  by  which 
 the  wisdom  of  God  was  teaching  men  (Matt,  xxiii. 
 34).  The  name  was  still  honorable.  The  Apostles 
 themselves  were  to  be  Scribes  in  the  kingdom  of 
 God  (JIatt.  xiii.  52).  The  Lord  himself  did  not 
 refuse  the  salutations  which  hailed  Him  as  a  Rabbi. 
 In  "  Zenas  the  lawyer"  (^OyUi/ccis,  Tit.  iii.  13)  and 
 ApoUos  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  sent  appar- 
 ently for  the  special  purpo.se  of  dealing  with  the  ^uo- 
 yai  vojxiKai  which  prevailed  at  Crete  (Tit.  iii.  9), 
 we  may  recognize  the  work  which  members  of  the 
 order  were  capable  of  doing  for  the  edifying  of  the 
 Church  of  Christ  (comp.  Winer.  Jienlwb.,  and  Her- 
 zog's  Ency/dop.  "  Schriftgelehrte  ").       E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  Literature.  —  The  preceding  article  is  so  full 
 and  satisfactory  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  add 
 many    references.     We   may  name,  however,   the 
 
 Apocryphal  Gospels,  as  usual,  mock  our  curiosity  with 
 the  most  irritating  puerilities.  (Comp.  EvaHi;el.  In- 
 fant, c.  45,  in  Tischendorf,  Ecangetia  Apocrypha.) 
 
 a  This  is  inferred  by  Schoettgen  (Hor  Heb.  I.e.) 
 from  the  analogy  of  the  Levite's  office,  and  from  the 
 fact  that  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  both  entered  on 
 their  ministry  at  this  age. 
 
 b  It  was  said  of  Uillel  that  he  placed  a  limit  on  this 
 practice.  It  had  been  exercised  by  any  Scribe.  After 
 bis  time  it  was  reserved  for  the  Nasi  or  President  of 
 ;he  Sanhedrim  (Geiger,  ul  supra). 
 
 '  For  all  the  details  in  the  above  section,  and  many 
 
 others,  comp.  the  elaborate  treatises  by  Ursinus,  An- 
 tiqq.  Heb..^  and  Heubuer,  De  Academiis  Hebrmorum, 
 in  Ugolini,  Then.  xxi. 
 
 rf  The  later  Rabbinic  saying  that  "  the  disciples  of 
 the  wise  have  a  right  to  a  goodly  house,  a  fair  wife, 
 and  a  soft  couch,"  reflected  probably  the  luxury  of 
 an  earlier  time.  (Ursini  Antiqq.  Heb.  cap.  5,  iit  su- 
 pra.) 
 
 e  The  feeling  is  curiously  prominent  in  the  Rabbinic 
 scale  of  precedence.  The  Wise  Man,  i.  e.  the  Babbi, 
 is  higher  than  the  High  Priest  himself.  (Gem.  Hieros. 
 Horaiolh,  f.  84.) 
 
SCRIP 
 
 Histories  of  the  Jews  (in  German)  by  Herzfeld, 
 Gnietz,  and  Ewald;  Zunz,  Die  (/(itksdieiistliche 
 Vortriige  der  Juden,  Berl.  ISy'i;  Hirschleld, 
 JJalachische  Kxegese,  Berl.  18-10,  and  Haymlisc/ie 
 A'xeffi'ge,  1847 ;  Ginsburg's  art.  "  Scribes  "  in  Kitto's 
 Cyclop,  of  EM.  Lit.  3d  ed.,  vol.  iii. ;  and  Haus- 
 rath's  NiMtest.  Zcifgesckic/ifc,  i.  75-114.         A. 
 
 SCRIP  (t2P7!:  (TvWoyn,  TT-npd:  lyera). 
 The  Hebrew  word "  thus  translated  appears  in 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  40,  as  a  synonym  for  D^27~irT  *'73 
 (to  KoSiov  rh  TvoifXiviKov}-,  the  bag  in  which  the 
 sheplierds  of  Palestine  carried  their  food  or  other 
 necessaries.  In  Synunachus  and  the  Vulg.  ptru, 
 and   in  the  marginal  reading  of   A.  V.  "scrip," 
 
 appear  in  2  K.  iv.  42,  for  the  "jlvjl^j  which  in 
 the  text  of  the  A.  V.  is  translated  hnsk  (comp. 
 Gesen.  s.  v.).  The  Trripa  of  the  N.  T.  appears  in 
 our  Lord's  command  to  bis  disciples  as  distin- 
 guished from  the  ^dvr)  (Matt.  x.  10;  Mark  vi.  8) 
 and  the  ^aKKavriov  (Luke  x.  4,  xxii.  35,  36).  and 
 its  nature  and  use  are  sutticiently  defined  by  the 
 lexicographers.  The  scrip  of  the  Galilean  peasants 
 was  of  leather,  used  especially  to  carry  their 
 food  on  a  journey  (^  driKj)  twv  apTuiv,  Suid. ; 
 Sepfia  Ti  apTO(p6pou,  Amnion.),  and  slung  over 
 tlieir  shoulders,    in  the  Talmudic  writers  the  word 
 
 /''^"in  is  used  as  denoting  the  same  thing,  and 
 is  named  as  part  of  the  equipment  both  of  shepherds 
 in  their  common  life  and  of  proselytes  coming  on  a 
 pilgriuiage  to  Jerusalem  (Lightfoot,  IJor.  lltb.  on 
 Matt.  X.  10).  The  ^divrii  on  tlie  other  hand,  was 
 the  loose  girdle,  in  tlie  folds  of  which  money  was 
 often  kept  for  the  salie  of  safety  [Gikdle]  ;  the 
 ^aWavriov  (sacculus,  Vulg.),  the  smaller  bag 
 used  exclusively  for  money  (Luke  xii.  33).  The 
 command  given  to  the  Twelve  first,  and  afterwards 
 to  the  Seventy,  involved  therefore  an  absolute  de- 
 pendence upon  God  for  each  day's  wants.  They 
 were  to  appear  in  every  town  or  village,  as  men 
 inilike  all  other  travellers,  freely  doing  without  that 
 ■which  others  looked  on  as  essential.  The  fresh  rule 
 given  in  Luke  xxii.  35,  36,  perhaps  also  the  facts 
 that  Judas  was  the  bearer  of  the  bag  (•yAoxraoKo- 
 uou,  John  xii.  0),  and  that  when  the  disciples 
 were  without  bread  they  were  ashamed  of  their 
 forgetfulness  (Mark  viii.  14-16),  show  that  the 
 command  was  not  intended  to  be  permanent. 
 
 The  English  word  has  a  meaning  precisely 
 equivalent  to  that  of  the  Greek.  Connected  as  it 
 probably  is,  with  scrajje,  scrap,  the  scrip  was  used 
 for  articles  of  food.  It  belonged  especially  to 
 shepherds  (As  You  Like  It,  act  iii.  sc.  2).  It  was 
 made  of  leather  (Milton,  Comus,  626).  A  similar 
 article  is  still  used  by  the  Syrian  shepherds  (Por- 
 ter's Diunnscus,  ii.  109).  The  later  sense  of 
 icrip  as  a  written  certificate,  is,  it  need  hardly  be 
 said,  of  different  origin  or  meaning;  the  word,  on 
 its  first  use  in  English,  was  written  "script" 
 (Chaucer).  E.  H.  P. 
 
 SCRIPTURE  (^nS,  Dan.  x.  21:  ypacp-{,, 
 ypafj-lnaTa,  2  Tim.  iii.  16:  Scriptura).  The  chief 
 facts  relating  to  the  books  to  which,  individually 
 and  collectively,  this  title  has  been  applied,  will  be 
 found   under   IJible   and   Canon.      It   will   fall 
 
 SCRIPTURE 
 
 287H 
 
 a    Yalkiit,  the  scrip,  is  the  quaint  title  of  some  of 
 the  most  learned  of  the  Rabbinical  treatises :  for  in- 
 stance, the  YatkiU  Shimoiii,  a  miscellaueous  collection 
 of  fragmentary  comments  on  ttie  whole  of  the  0.  T. , 
 181 
 
 within  the  scope  of  this  article  to  trace  the  history 
 of  the  word,  and  to  determine  its  exact  meaning 
 in  the  language  of  the  O.  and  N.  T. 
 
 (1.)  It  is  not  till  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
 that  the  word  meets  us  with  any  distinctive  force. 
 In  the  eai-lier  books  we  read  of  the  Law,  the  Book 
 of  the  Law.  In  Ex.  xxxii.  16,  the  connnandments 
 written  on  the  tables  of  testimony  are  said  to  be 
 "the  writing  of  God  "  (ypacpr]  deov),  but  there  is 
 no  special  sense  in  the  word  taken  by  itself.  In 
 the  passage  from  Dan.  x.  21  (eV  ypacpij  aAij- 
 deias),  where  the  A.  V.  has  "  the  Scripture  of 
 truth,"  the  words  do  not  probably  mean  more 
 than  a  "  true  writing."  The  thought  of  the  Scrip- 
 ture as  a  whole  is  hardly  to  be  found   in    tliem. 
 
 This  first  appears  in  2  Chr.  xxx.  5,  18  (^-IHSS, 
 Kara  ri]v  ypa(pr]u,  LXX.,  "as  it  was  written," 
 A.  v.),  and  is  probably  connected  with  the  profound 
 reverence  for  the  Sacred  Books  which  led  the  earlier 
 Scribes  to  confine  their  own  teaching  to  oral  tradi- 
 tion, and  gave  therefore  to  "the  Writing"  a  dis- 
 tinctive preeminence.  [SciauEtj.]  Tlie  same  feel- 
 ing showed  itself  in  the  constant  formula  of  quota- 
 tion, "  It  is  written,"  often  without  the  addition  of 
 any  words  defining  the  passage  quoted  (Matt.  iv.  4, 
 6,  xxi.  13,  xxvi.  24).  The  Greek  word,  as  will  be 
 seen,  kept  its  ground  in  this  sense.  A  slight  change 
 passed  over  that  of  the  Hebrew,  and  led  to  the 
 
 substitution  of  another.  The  D^Ii^nS  {cethuh'un 
 =  writings),  in  the  Jewish  arrangement  of  the 
 0.  T.,  was  used  for  a  part  and  not  the  whole  of 
 the  0.  T.  (the  Ilagiographa;  comp.  Biijle),  while 
 another  form  of  the  same  root  {cetlnb)  came  to 
 have  a  technical  significance  as  applied  to  the  text, 
 which,  though  written  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew 
 Scriptures,  might,  or  might  not  be  recognized  as 
 Mri,  the  right  intelligible  reading  to  be  read  in  the 
 congregation.    Another  word  was  therefore  wanted, 
 
 and  it  was  found  in  the  Mikrii'  (W"1pD,  Neh. 
 viii.  8),  or  "reading,"  the  thing  read  or  recited, 
 recitation.*  This  accordingly  we  find  as  the  equiva- 
 lent for  the  collective  ypa<pai-  The  lioy  at  the 
 age  of  five  begins  the  study  of  the  Mikra,  at  ten 
 passes  on  to  the  Mislrna  (Pirke  Ahoth,  v.  24). 
 The  old  word  has  not,  however,  disappeared,  and 
 
 3^n3n,  "the  Writing,"  is  used  with  the  same 
 connotation  (;ibid.  iii.  10). 
 
 (2.)  With  this  meaning  the  word  ypaip-i]  passed 
 into  the  language  of  the  N .  T.  Used  in  the  singu- 
 lar it  is  applied  chiefly  to  this  or  that  passage 
 quoted  from  the  O.  T.  (Mark  xii.  10;  John  vii.  38, 
 xiii.  18,  xix.  37;  Luke  iv.  21;  liom.  ix.  17;  Gal. 
 iii.  8,  et  ul.).  In  Acts  viii.  32  (^  weptoxv  t^s 
 ypacpTJ^)  it  takes  a  somewhat  larger  extension,  as 
 denoting  the  loritin;;  of  Isaiah ;  but  in  ver.  35  the 
 more  limited  meaning  reappears.  In  two  passages 
 of  some  difficulty,  some  have  seen  the  wider,  some 
 the  narrower  sense.  (1.)  Tlaaa  ypacpy]  BiiTn/^ua- 
 ros  (2  Tim.  iii.  16)  has  been  translated  in  the 
 A.  V.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspiration 
 of  God,"  as  though  ypacprj,  though  witliout  the 
 article,  were  taken  as  equivalent  to  the  0.  T.  as  a 
 whole  (comp.  jraffa  oIkoSo/j.7),  Eph.  ii.  21;  naffa 
 'lepoa6\viJ.a,  Matt.  ii.  3),  and  Qe6iTViv(TTOs,  the 
 predicate  asserted  of  it.     Ketaining  the  narrower 
 
 consisting  of  extracts  from  more  than  fifty  older  Jew- 
 ish works  (Zunz,  Gnttesd.  Vortra^e,  cap.  18). 
 
 ft  The  same  root,  it  may  be  noticed,  is  found  in  the 
 title  of  the  sacred  book  of  Islam  (Koran  =  recitation). 
 
2874  SCRIPTURE 
 
 meaning,  however,  we  might  still  t;ike  de6Tvev<rros 
 as  the  predicate.  "  Every  Scripture  —  sc.  every 
 separate  portion  —  is  divinely  inspired."  It  has 
 been  urged,  however,  that  this  assertion  of  a  truth, 
 which  both  St.  Paul  and  Timothy  held  in  common, 
 would  be  less  suitable  to  the  context  than  the  as- 
 signing that  truth  as  a  ground  for  the  further  in- 
 ference drawn  from  it;  and  so  there  is  a  prepon- 
 derance of  authority  in  favor  of  the  rendering, 
 "Every  ynacp-fj,  being  inspired,  is  also  profitable, 
 ..."  (eomp.  Meyer,  Altbrd,  Wordsworth,  Ellicott, 
 Wiesinger,  //;  loc).  There  does  not  seeiu  any 
 ground  for  making  the  meaning  of  ypacp-f)  depend- 
 ent on  the  adjective  de6irvevaTos  (''every  inspired 
 writing"),  as  though  we  recognized  a  ypa<p-i]  not 
 inspired.  The  tisus  loquendi  of  the  N.  T.  is  uni- 
 form in  this  respect :  and  the  word  ypacpi)  is  never 
 used  of  any  common  or  secular  writing. 
 
 (2.)  The  meaning  of  the  genitive  in  naaa 
 ■irpo(l)riT(ia  ypacprjs  (2  Pet.  i.  20)  seems  at  first 
 sight,  anarthrous  though  it  be,  distinctively  collec- 
 tive. "  Every  prophecy  of,  i.  e.  contained  in,  the 
 0.  T.  Scripture."  A  closer  examination  of  the 
 passage  will  perhaps  lead  to  a  ditlerent  conclusion. 
 The  Apostle,  after  speaking  of  the  vision  on  the 
 holy  mount,  goes  on,  "  We  have  as  something  yet 
 firmer,  the  prophetic  word  "  (here,  probably  includ- 
 ing the  utterances  of  N.  T.  TTpo(pr]Tai,  as  well 
 as  the  writings  of  the  0.  T.")-  Men  did  well  to 
 give  heed  to  that  word.  They  needed  one  cau- 
 tion in  dealing  with  it.  They  were  to  remember 
 that  no  irpo(pr]Tela  ypacprjs,  no  such  prophetic 
 utterance  starting  from,  resting  on  a  ypa<pri,'' 
 came  from  the  iSia  eTriAvais,  the  individual  power 
 of  interpretation  of  the  speaker,  but  was,  like  the 
 ypa(pi\  itself,  inspired.  It  was  the  law  of  wpo(p7]T(ia, 
 of  the  later  as  well  as  the  earlier,  that  men  of  God 
 spake,  "  borne  along  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
 
 (3.)  In  the  plural,  as  might  be  expected,  the 
 collective  meaning  is  prominent.  Sometimes  we 
 have  simply  a!  ypa(pai  (Matt.  xxi.  42,  xxii.  29 ; 
 John  v.  39;  Acts  xvii.  11;  1  Cor.  xv.  3).  Some- 
 times Traaai  al  ypa(pai  (Luke  xxiv.  27).  The 
 epithets  Hyiai  (Kom.  i.  2),  ■Kpo(p7)TiKa'i.  (Rom. 
 xvi.  20),  are  sometimes  joined  with  it.  In  2  Pet. 
 iii.  16,  we  find  an  extension  of  the  term  to  the 
 epistles  of  St.  Paul;  but  it  remains  uticertain 
 whether  al  AonraJ  ypatpai  are  the  Scriptures  of 
 the  0.  T.  exclusively,  or  include  other  writings, 
 then  extant,  dealing  with  the  same  topics.  There 
 seems  little  doubt  that  such  writings  did  exist. 
 A  comparison  of  Pom.  xvi.  26  with  l'>ph.  iii.  5 
 might  even  suggest  the  conclusion,  that  in  both 
 there  is  the  same  assertion,  that  what  had  not  been 
 revealed  before  was  now  manifested  by  the  Spirit 
 to  the  apostles  and  projjhets  of  the  Church ;  and 
 80  that  the  -'prophetic  writings"  to  which  St. 
 Paul  refers,  are,  like  the  spoken  words  of  N.  T. 
 prophets,  those  that  reveal  things  not  made  known 
 before,  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  C'hrist. 
 
 It  is  noticeable,  that  in  the  [spurious]  2d  Epistle 
 of  Clement  of  Rome  (c.  xi.)  we  have  a  long  citation 
 of  this  nature,  not  from  the  0.  T.,  quoted  as  6 
 irpo<pr]TiKhs   \6yos  (comp.  2  Pet.  i.  19),  and  that 
 
 "■  'O  7rpo</)T)n(cbs  Aoyos  is  used  by  Philo  of  the  words 
 of  Moses  {Leg'  Alleg.  iii.  14,  vol.  i.  p.  95,  ed.  Mang.). 
 He,  of  course,  could  recognize  no  propliets  but  tln>se 
 of  the  0.  T.  Clement  of  Rome  [Pseurfo-Clement,  A.] 
 (ii.  11)  uses  it  of  a  prophecy  not  included  in  tlm 
 Can-^n. 
 
 b  So  in  the  only  other  instance  in  which  the  geni- 
 ive  is  found  (Bom.  xv.  4),  i^  7rapdK\r/<ns  tmv  ypai^uiv 
 
 SCYTHIAN 
 
 in  the  1st  Epistle  (c.  xxiii.)  the  same  is  quoted  as 
 7]  ypa<py\-  Looking  to  the  special  fullness  of  the 
 prophetic  gifts  ini  the  Church  of  Corinth  (1  Cor. 
 i.  5,  xiv.  1),  it  is  obviously  probable  that  some  of 
 the  spoken  prophecies  would  be  committed  to  writ- 
 ing; and  it  is  a  striking  coincidence,  that  both  the 
 apostolic  and  post-apostolic  references  are  connected, 
 first  with  that  church,  and  next  with  that  of  Rome, 
 which  was  so  largely  influenced  by  it. 
 
 (4.)  In  one  passage,  ra  Upa  ypd/xfiara  (2  Tim. 
 iii.  15)  answers  to  "The  Holy  Scriptures"  of  the 
 A.  V.  Taken  by  itself,  the  word  might,  as  in 
 John  vii.  15,  Acts  xxvi.  24,  have  a  wider  range,  in- 
 cluding the  whole  circle  of  Rabbinic  education. 
 As  determined,  however,  by  the  use  of  other  Hel- 
 lenistic writers,  Philo  (Leg.  ad  Cuium,  vol.  ii.  p. 
 574,  ed.  Mang.),  Josephus  {Ant.  procein.  3,  x.  10, 
 §4;  c.  Apiun.  i.  26),  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
 it  is  accurately  translated  with  this  special  mean- 
 ing. E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [Old  Testament,  vol.  iii.  p.  2228  fl'.] 
 
 *  SCURVY.     [Medicine.] 
 
 SCYTH'IAN  (2«t;e7js:  Snji/ia)  occurs  in 
 Col.  iii.  11,  as  a  generalized  term  for  rude,  igno- 
 rant, degraded.  In  the  Gospel,  says  Paul,  "  there 
 is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision  nor  uncir- 
 cumcision,  barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free;  but 
 Christ  is  all  and  in  all."  The  same  view  of  Scythian 
 barbarism  appears  in  2  Mace.  iv.  47,  and  3  Mace, 
 vii.  5.  For  the  geographical  and  ethnographical 
 relations  of  the  term,  see  Did.  of  Geog.  ii.  936- 
 945.  The  Scythians  dwelt  mostly  on  the  north  of 
 the  Black  Sea  and  the  Caspian,  stretching  thence 
 indefinitely  into  inner  Asia,  and  were  regarded  by 
 the  ancients  as  standing  extremely  low  in  point  of 
 intelligence  and  civiUzation.  Josephus  (c.  Ajnon. 
 ii.  37)  says,  ^KvOai  8e  (f^Svois  X"'V'"''''*5  avQpwiroiv 
 Kol  ^paxv  tSiv  drjplwv  oia<f  e'pocTes;  and  Par- 
 menio  {ap.  Athen.  v.  221),  avrip  yap  eKKwv 
 oluov,  CDS  vSwp  'liriros  'S.kvOio'tI  (pcavel,  oiiSe 
 Ka-Tcira  yiyvwaKwv-  For  other  similar  testimonies 
 see  Wetstein,  Nov.  Tts,t.  vol.  ii.  p.  292.  At  the 
 same  time,  by  the  force  of  numbers,  and  by  their 
 wildness  anil  savage  ferocity,  the  Scythians  were  a 
 dreaded  foe,  and  often  spread  slaughter  and  desola- 
 tion through  the  lands  which  they  invaded  (see 
 Rawlinson's  Ancient  Monarchies,  ii.  508-517).  It 
 is  generally  allowed  that  they  are  the  hordes  meant 
 under  the  name  of  BIagog  in  Ez.  xxxviii.  and 
 xxxix.,  and  are  also  the  warriors  whom  Jeremiah 
 describes  as  so  terrible  (iv.-vi.).  Perhaps  it  may 
 be  inferred  from  Col.  iii.  11  that  there  were  Scy- 
 thians also  among  the  early  converts  to  Christianity. 
 Many  of  this  people  lived  in  Greek  and  Roman 
 lands,  and  could  have  heard  the  Gospel  there,  even 
 if  some  of  the  first  preachers  had  not  penetrated 
 into  Scythia  itself.  According  to  one  of  the  early 
 Christian  traditions  it  was  the  mission  of  the 
 Apostle  Andrew  to  go  to  the  Scythians  and  preach 
 to  them  the  Gospel  (Euseb.  IJist.  Eccles.  iii.  1). 
 
 Herodotus  states  (i.  103-105)  that  the  Scythians 
 made  an  incursion  through  Palestine  into  Egypt, 
 
 is  the  counsel,  admonition,  drawn  from  the  Scriptures. 
 Aoyos  irapaKkria-eox;  appears  in  Acts  xiii.  15  as  the  re- 
 ceived term  for  such  an  address,  the  Sermon  of  the 
 Synagogue.  IlapdicATjcris  itself  was  so  closely  allied 
 with  7rpo<|)r)Teia  (comp.  Barnabas  =  vibs  7rpo<f>r)T6t'a5  = 
 vibs  7rapaKA7)0-ea)s),  that  the  expressions  of  the  twc 
 Apostles  may  be  regarded  as  substantially  identical. 
 
SCYTHOPOLIS 
 
 lader  Psammetichus,  the  contemporary  of  Josiali. 
 In  this  way  some  would  account  for  the  Greek 
 name  of  Beth-shean,  Scythojyolis.  H.  B.  H. 
 
 SCYTHOP'OLIS  {^KvdSiu  Trt^Aij:  Peshito- 
 Syriac,  Btisan:  civitas  Scytharuiii),  that  is,  "the 
 city  of  the  Scythians,"  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  of  Jud. 
 iii.  10  and  2  Mace.  xii.  29  only.  In  the  LXX. 
 of  Judg.  i.  27,  however,  it  is  inserted  (in  both  the 
 great  MSS.)  as  the  synonym  of  Beth-shean,  and 
 this  identification  is  confirmed  by  tlie  narrative  of 
 1  Mace.  V.  52,  a  parallel  account  to  that  of  2  Mace, 
 xii.  29,  as  well  as  by  the  repeated  statements  of 
 Josephus  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  22,  vi.  14,  §  8,  xii.  8,  §  5). 
 He  uniformly  gives  the  name  in  the  contracted 
 shape  i^KvdSvoKis)  in  which  it  is  also  given  by 
 Eusebius  {Onom.  passim),  Pliny  (//.  iV.  v.  18), 
 Strabo  (xvi.),  etc.,  etc.,  and  which  is  inaccurately 
 followed  in  the  A.  V.  Polybius  (v.  70,  §  4)  employs 
 the  fuller  form  of  the  LXX.  Beth-shean  has  now, 
 like  so  many  other  places  in  the  Holy  Land,  re- 
 gained its  ancient  name,  and  is  known  as  Beisan 
 only.  A  mound  close  to  it  on  the  west  is  called 
 Ttli  Sliuk,  in  which  it  is  perhaps  just  possible  that 
 a  trace  of  Scythopolis  may  linger. 
 
 But  although  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  of  the 
 identity  of  the  place,  there  is  considerable  difference 
 of  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  name."  The 
 LXX.  (as  is  evident  from  the  form  in  which  they 
 present  it)  and  Pliny  (//.  N.  v.  16  '')  attribute  it  to 
 the  Scythians,  who,  in  the  words  of  the  Byzantine 
 historian,  George  Syncellus,  '*  overi'an  Palestine, 
 and  took  possession  of  Baisan,  which  from  them  is 
 called  Scythopolis."  This  has  been  in  modern 
 times  generally  referred  to  the  invasion  recorded  by 
 Herodotus  (i.  104-6),  when  the  Scythians,  after 
 their  occupation  of  Media,  passed  through  Pales- 
 tine on  their  road  to  Egypt  (about  u.  c.  600  —  a 
 few  years  before  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar), a  statement  now  recognized  as  a  real 
 fact,  though  some  of  the  details  may  be  open  to 
 question  {Diet,  of  Geogr.  ii.  940  b ;  Rawlinson's 
 Herod,  i.  246).  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
 either  on  their  passage  through,  or  on  their  return 
 after  being  repulsed  by  Psammetichus  (Herod,  i. 
 105),  some  Scythians  may  have  settled  in  the  coun- 
 try (Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  (i&i,  note);  and  no  place 
 would  be  more  likely  to  attract  them  than  Beisan 
 —  fertile,  most  abundantly  watered,  and  in  an  ex- 
 cellent military  position.  In  the  then  state  of  the 
 Holy  Land  they  would  hardly  meet  with  much  re- 
 sistance. 
 
 Reland,  however  (apparently  incited  thereto  by 
 his  doubts  of  the  truth  of  Herodotus'  account),  dis- 
 carded this  explanation,  and  suggested  that  Scy- 
 thopolis was  a  corruption  of  Succothopolis  —  the 
 chief  town  of  the  district  of  Succoth.  In  this  he  is 
 supported  by  Gesenius  (Notes  to  Burckhardt,  p. 
 1058)  and  ijy  Grimm  {Exeg.  Handbuch  on  1  Mace. 
 
 SEA 
 
 2875 
 
 a  The  "  modern  Greeks  "  are  said  to  derive  it  from 
 (TKUTOs,  a  hide  (VV^illiams,  in  Diet,  of  Geogr.).  This  is, 
 doubtless,  another  appearance  of  the  legend  so  well 
 known  in  connection  with  the  foundation  of  Byrsa 
 (Carthage).  One  such  has  been  mentioned  in  refer- 
 ence to  Hebron  under  Machphelah  (vol.  ii.  p.  1729, 
 note  c). 
 
 b  The  singular  name  Nysa,  mentioned  in  this  pas- 
 sage as  a  former  appellation  of  Scythopolis,  is  identi- 
 fied by  Ewald  ( Gesrh.  iv.  453)  with  Neash,  an  inver- 
 sion of  (Beth-)  Shean,  actually  found  on  coins. 
 
 e  D'^,  Gh.    SS"*,  Dan.  vii.  2,  3  :  edkaa-cra  :  mare. 
 
 V.  52).  Since,  however,  the  objection  of  Reland  to 
 the  historical  truth  of  Herodotus  is  now  removed, 
 the  necessity  for  this  suggestion  (certainly  most  in- 
 genious) seems  not  to  exist.  The  distance  of  Suc- 
 coth from  Beisan,  if  we  identify  it  with  Sakiit,  is 
 10  miles,  while  if  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Beke  are 
 valid  it  would  be  nearly  double  as  far.  And  it  is 
 surely  gratuitous  to  suppose  that  so  large,  inde- 
 pendent, and  important  a  town  as  Beth-shean  was 
 in  the  earlier  history,  and  as  the  remains  show  it 
 to  have  been  in  the  Greek  period,  should  have  taken 
 its  name  from  a  comparatively  insignificant  place 
 at  a  long  distance  from  it.  Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl. 
 jRes.  iii.  -330)  remarks  with  justice,  that  had  the 
 Greeks  derived  the  name  from  Succoth  they  would 
 have  employed  that  name  in  its  translated  form  as 
 ^KTivai,  and  the  compound  would  have  been  Scen- 
 opolis.  Reland's  derivation  is  also  dismissed  with- 
 out hesitation  by  Ewald,  on  the  ground  that  the 
 two  names  Succoth  and  Skythes  have  nothing  in 
 common  {Gesch.  iii.  694,  note).  Dr.  Robinson 
 suggests  that,  after  all,  City  of  the  Scythians  may 
 be  right;  the  word  Scijthia  being  used  as  in  the 
 N.  T.  as  equivalent  to  a  barbarian  or  savage.  In 
 this  sense  he  thinks  it  may  have  been  applied  t>> 
 the  wild  Arabs,  who  then,  as  now,  inhabited  the 
 Ghor,  and  at  times  may  have  had  possession  of 
 Beth-shean. 
 
 The  Canaanites  were  never  expelled  from  Beth- 
 shean,  and  the  heathen  appear  to  ha\e  always  main- 
 tained a  footing  there.  It  is  named  in  the  Misiina 
 as  the  seat  of  idolatry  (Mishna,  Aboda  Zara,  i.  4), 
 and  as  containing  a  double  population  of  Jews  and 
 heathens.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Roman  war 
 (a.  d.  65)  the  heathen  rose  against  the  Jews  and 
 massacred  a  large  number,  according  to  Josephus 
 {B.  J.  ii.  18,  §  3)  no  less  than  13,000,  in  a  wood  or 
 grove  close  to  the  town.  Scythopolis  was  the 
 largest  city  of  the  Decapolis,  and  the  only  one  of 
 the  ten  which  lay  west  of  Jordan.  By  Eusebius 
 and  Jerome  ( (?»OOT.  "Bethsan")it  is  character- 
 ized as  TToAis  iwi^7]fios  and  iirbs  nobilis.  It  was 
 surrounded  by  a  district  of  its  own  of  the  most 
 abundant  fertility.  It  became  the  seat  of  a  Chris- 
 tian bishop,  and  its  name  is  found  in  the  lists  of 
 signatures  as  late  as  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
 A.  D.  536.  The  latest  mention  of  it  under  the 
 title  of  Scythopolis  is  probably  that  of  William 
 of  Tyre  (xxii.  16,  26).  He  mentions  it  as  if  it 
 was  then  actually  so-called,  carefully  explaining 
 that  it  was  formerly  Beth-shan.  G- 
 
 *  SCYTHOPOL'ITANS  {:S.KueoTro\7rai  : 
 Scythopolitce),  inhabitants  of  Scvthopolis  (2 
 Mace.  xii.  30).  H. 
 
 SEA.  The  Sea,  ydm,<^  is  used  in  Scripture  to 
 denote  —  (1.)  The  "  gathering  of  the  waters  "  {yd- 
 miin)  encompassing  the  land,  or  what  we  call  in  a 
 more  or  less  defiinte  sense  "  the  Ocean."    (2. )  Some 
 
 from  n^"^,  not  used,  i.  q.  Q^n.  or  n^H,  "roar," 
 T  t'  -  t  '  T  T  ' 
 
 n  and  '^  being  interchanged.     Connected  with  this  is 
 
 mnn.  :  a^va-a-o'; :  abyssus,  "  the  deep  "  (Gen.  i.  2  ; 
 Jon.  ii.  5  :  Ges.  p.  371).  It  also  means  the  west  (Ges. 
 pp.  360,  598).  When  used  for  the  sea,  it  very  often, 
 but  not  always,  takes  the  article. 
 
 Other  words  for  the  sea  (in  A.  V.  "deep")  are  :  (1.) 
 
 nb^!S7p,    nbh!jr5   (only   in   plurall,  or  Tlh^^  : 
 
 a/Sucrcros,  pdOo';:  nhyss'is,  profundum.  (2.)  7^2P  : 
 KaTaKKva-fiOi  ;  diluvium,  "water-flood"  (Ps.  xxix.  10) 
 
2876 
 
 SEA 
 
 portion  of  this,  as  tlie  Mediterranean  Sea.  (3.)  In- 
 land lakes,  wliether  of  salt  or  fresli  water.  (4. )  Any 
 great  collection  of  water,  as  the  rivers  Nile  or  Eu- 
 phrates, especially  in  a  state  of  overflow. 
 
 1.  In  the  first  sense  it  is  used  in  (jen.  i.  2,  10, 
 and  elsewhere,  as  lieut.  xxx.  13;  1  K.  x.  22:  Ps. 
 xsiv.  2;  Job  xxvi.  8,  12,  xxxviii.  8;  see  Horn.  II. 
 xiv.  301,  302,  and  lies.  Thtog.  107,  lOli;  and  2  Pet. 
 iii.  5. 
 
 2.  In  the  second,  it  is  used,  with  the  aiticle  (a) 
 of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  called  the  "  hinder,"  "  the 
 "western,"  and  the  "utmost"  sea  (Ueut.  xi.  21, 
 xxxiv.  2;  Joel  ii.  20);  "sea  of  the  Philistines  "  (Ex. 
 xxiii.  31);  "  the  great  sea  "  (Num.  xxxiv.  6,7;  Josh. 
 XV.  47 ) ;  "  the  sea  "  (Gen.  xlix.  13 ;  Ps.  Ixxx.  11,  cvii. 
 23 ;  1  K.  iv.  20,  &c.).  (6)  Also  frequently  of  the  Eed 
 Sea  (Ex.  XV.  4;  Josh.  xxiv.  6),  or  one  of  its  gulfs 
 (Num.  xi.  31;  Is.  xi.  15),  and  perhaps  (1  K.  x.  22) 
 the  sea  traversed  hy  Solomon's  fleet.    [Ked  Sea.] 
 
 3.  The  inland  lakes  termed  seas,  as  the  Salt  or 
 Dead  Sea.      (See  the  special  articles.) 
 
 4.  The  term  »/i'"i,  hke  the  Arabic  boh-,  is  also 
 applied  to  great  rivers,  as  the  Nile  (Is.  xix.  5 ;  Am. 
 viii.  8,  A.  V.  "  flood;  "  Nah.  iii.  8;  Ez.  xxxii.  2), 
 the  Euphrates  (Jer.  li.  36).  (See  Stanley,  S.  #  P. 
 App.  p.  533.) 
 
 The  qualities  or  characteristics  of  the  sea  and 
 sea-coast  mentioned  in  Scripture  are,  (1.)  The  sand,* 
 whose  abundance  on  the  coast  both  of  Palestine 
 and  Egypt  furnislies  so  many  illustrations  (Gen. 
 xxii.  17,  xli.  49;  Judg.  vii.  12;  1  Sam.  xiii.  5;  1 
 K.  iv.  20,  29;  Is.  x.  22;  Matt.  vii.  26;  Strabo, 
 lib.  xvi.  758,  759;  Kaumer,  Pal.  p.  45;  Eobinson, 
 ii.  34-38,  464;  Shaw,  Trav.  p.  280;  Hasselquist, 
 Trav.  p.  119;  Stanley,  S.  #  P.  pp.  255,  200,  264). 
 (2.)  The  .shore.'-  (3. )  Creeks  "^  or  inlets.  (4.)  Har- 
 bors.''    (5.)  Waves/ or  billows. 
 
 It  may  be  remarked  that  almost  all  the  figures 
 of  speech  taken  from  the  sea  in  Scripture  refer 
 either  to  its  power  or  its  danger,  and  among  the 
 woes  threatened  in  punishment  of  disobedience,  one 
 may  be  remarked  as  significant  of  the  dread  of  the 
 sea  entertained  by  a  non-seafaring  people,  the  being 
 brought  back  into  Egypt  "  in  ships  "  (Dent,  xxviii. 
 68).  The  national  feeling  on  this  subject  may  be 
 contrasted  with  that  of  the  Greeks  in  reference  to 
 the  sea.  [Co.^imekce.]  It  may  be  remarked,  that, 
 as  is  natural,  no  mention  of  the  tide  is  found  in 
 Scripture. 
 
 The  place  "  where  two  seas  met "  9  (Acts  xxvii. 
 41)  is  explained  by  Conybeare  and  Howson  as  a 
 place  where  the  island  Sahnonetta,  oft'  the  coast  of 
 Malta  in  St.  Paul's  Bay,  so  intercepts  the  passage 
 from  the  sea  without  to  the  bay  within  as  to  give 
 the  appearance  of  two  seas,  just  as  Strabo  repre- 
 sents the  appearance  of  the  entrance  from  the  I5os- 
 
 «  "jT^nS  :  {8d\aa-(ra  rj)  ecrxarr/ :  (piare)  novis- 
 simum. 
 
 b    vin  :   afi/aos :  anna. 
 
 c  F]in,  joined  with  D'^  :  irapaAi'a  yij  :  littus.  In 
 Gen.  xlix.  13,  "haven  ;  "  Acts  xxvii.  39,  alyia\6%. 
 
 d  '^"Iptt,  from  \^n^)  "  break,"  only  in  Judg. 
 V.  17,  in  plural :  ScaKowaC :  partus  :  A.  V.  "  breaches." 
 
 «  T^ntt,  a  place  of  retreat :  Xi^.tji'  :  partus :  A.  V. 
 '■  hayen." 
 
 /  (1.)  72,  lit.  a  heap,  in  plural,  waves  :  Kvixa : 
 t,urgiies,  marefluctuans.     (2.)   "^3"^,  or  n!D'^  :    ctti- 
 
 SEA,  MOLTEN 
 
 phorus  into  the  Euxine;  but  it  seems  quite  as  likely 
 that  by  the  "place  of  the  double  sea,"  is  meant 
 one  where  two  currents,  caused  by  the  intervention 
 of  the  island,  met  and  produced  an  eddy,  which 
 made  it  desirable  at  once  to  ground  the  ship  (Cony- 
 beare and  Howson,  ii.  423;  Strabo,  ii.  124). 
 
 Ti.  \y.  p. 
 
 *  SEA,  THE  GREAT.     [Se.\,  2.] 
 
 SEA,  MOLTEN.''  The  name  given  to  the 
 great  brazen  '  laver  of  the  JNIosaic  ritual.    [Layer.] 
 
 In  the  place  of  the  laver  of  the  Tabernacle,  Solo- 
 mon caused  a  laver  to  be  cast  for  a  similar  purpose, 
 which  from  its  size  was  called  a  sea.  It  was  made 
 partly  or  wholly  of  the  brass,  or  rather  copper, 
 which  had  been  captured  l)y  David  from  "  Tibhath 
 and  Chun,  cities  of  Hadarezer  king  of  Zobah " 
 (1  K.  vii.  23-26;  1  Chr.  xviii.  8).  Its  dimensions 
 were  as  follows:  Height,  5  cubits;  diameter,  10 
 cubits  ;  circumference,  30  cvibits  ;  thickness,  1 
 handbreadth;  and  it  is  said  to  have  been  capable 
 of  containing  2.000,  or,  according  to  2  Chr.  iv.  5, 
 3,000  baths.  Below  the  brin;.'  tliere  was  a  double 
 row  of  "kuops,"  ^  10  {i.  e.  5  4-  5)  in  each  cubit. 
 These  were  probably  a  running  border  or  double 
 fillet  of  tendrils,  and  fruits,  said  to  be  gourds,  of  an 
 oval  shape  (Celsius,  JJierob.  i.  397,  and  Jewish  au- 
 thorities quoted  by  him).  T'he  brim  itself,  or  lip, 
 was  wrought  "  Mke  the  brim  of  a  cup,  with  flowers ' 
 of  lilies,"  i.  e.  curved  outwards  like  a  lily  or  lotus 
 flower.  The  laver  stood  on  twelve  oxen,  three  to- 
 wards each  quarter  of  the  heavens,  and  all  looking 
 outwards.  It  was  mutilated  hy  Ahaz,  by  being 
 removed  from  its  basis  of  oxen  and  placed  on  a 
 stone  base,  and  was  finally  broken  up  by  the  Assyr- 
 ians (2  K.  xvi.  14,  17,  XXV.  13). 
 
 Josephus  says  that  the  i'orm  of  the  sea  was  hemi- 
 s])herical,  and  that  it  held  3,000  baths;  and  he  else- 
 where tells  us  that  the  bath  was  equal  to  72  Attic 
 ^iCTTtti,  or  1  fj.^TpriT'fts  =  8  gallons  5.12  pints 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  2,  §  9,  and  3,  §  5.  The  question 
 arises,  which  occurred  to  the  Jewish  writers  them- 
 selves, how  the  contents  of  the  laver,  as  they  are 
 given  in  the  sacred  text,  are  to  be  reconciled  with 
 its  dimensions.  At  the  rate  of  1  bath  =  8  gallons 
 5.12  pints,  2,000  baths  would  amount  to  about 
 17,250  gallons,  and  3,000  (the  more  precisely  stated 
 reading  of  2  Chr.  iv.  5)  would  amount  to  25,920 
 gallons.  Now,  supposing  the  vessel  to  be  hemi- 
 spherical, as  Josephus  says  it  was,  the  cubit  to  be 
 =  20|  inches  (20.0250),  and  the  palm  or  hand- 
 breadth  =  3  inches  (2.9464,  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt. 
 ii.  258),  we  find  the  following  proportions:  From 
 the  height  (5  cubits  =  102^  inches)  subtract  the 
 thickness   (3   inches),  the  axis  of  the  hemisphere 
 
 Tpii//6is  :  fluctus ;  only  in  Ps.  xciii.  3.     (3.)  n2tt''^  : 
 
 /u.€Tea)pio-(ji.os  :  gurges,  elatia :  "  a  breaker."    (4. )  Htt jl 
 (.Tob  ix.  8) :  fluctus  :  lit.  "  a  high  place  "  (Ez.  xx.  29). 
 9  Tojros  SifldAacrcro!  :  lacus  ditnalnssus. 
 
 f^  p!i^XZ)  :  X"^™?  ■  fi'S'iis- 
 
 i  nttTIp  :  xaAxeos  :  eeiieiis. 
 
 J   HQJi?  :   Xf'^05  :   tabrum. 
 
 T    T  "■ 
 
 ^  'D'^VpB  :  vnoa-TTipCyixaTa. :  sculptura  :  properly 
 "  gourds." 
 
 '  ICi^'llU?  rr^S  :  ^Xao-Tb?  KpCvuV./oUum  repancU 
 iilii.  The  passage  literally  is,  "and  its  lip  (was)  liks 
 work  (such  as)  a  cup's  lip,  a  lily-flower." 
 
SEA,  MOLTEN 
 
 would  be  99^  inches,  and  its  contents  in  gallons,  at 
 277^  cubic  inches  to  the  gallon,  would  be  about 
 7,500  gallons;  or  taking  the  cubit  at  22  inches,  the 
 contents  would  reach  10,045  gallons  —  an  amount 
 still  far  below  the  required  quantity.  On  the  other 
 hand,  a  hemispherical  vessel,  to  contain  17,250  gal- 
 lons, must  have  a  depth  of  11  feet  nearly,  or  rather 
 more  than  G  cubits,  at  the  highest  estimate  of  22 
 inches  to  the  cubit,  exclusive  of  the  thiclaiess  of 
 the  vessel.  To  meet  the  difficulty,  we  may  imag- 
 ine—  (l.)"An  erroneous  reading  of  the  numbers. 
 fl  ,  We  may  imai^iue  the  laver,  lil<e  its  prototype 
 in  the  Tabernacle,  to  have  had  a  "  foot,"  wliich  may 
 have  lieen  a  basin  which  received  the  water  as  it 
 was  drawn  out  by  taps  from  the  laver,  so  that  the 
 priests  might  be  said  to  wa-sh  "  at  "  ''  not  "  in  "  it 
 (Ex.  xxx.^18,  19;  2  Chr.  iv.  6).  (3.)  We  may 
 suppose  the  laver  to  have  had  another  shape  than 
 the  hemispliere  of  Josephus.  The  Jewish  writers 
 supposeil  that  it  had  a  square  hollow  base  for  3 
 cubits  of  its  height,  and  2  cubits  of  the  circular 
 form  above  (Lightfoot,  Descr.  Tempi,  vol.  i.  p. 
 6-17).  A  far  more  probable  suggestion  is  that  of 
 Thenius,  in  wliich  Keil  agrees,  that  it  was  of  a 
 bullying  form  below,  but  contracted  at  the  mouth 
 to  the  dimensions  named  in  1  K.  vii.  23.  (4.)  A 
 fuurtli  supposition  is  perhaps  tenable,  that  when 
 it  is  said  the  laver  contained  2,000  or  3,000  baths, 
 tlie  meaning  is  that  the  supply  of  water  required 
 for  its  use  amounted,  at  its  utmost,  to  that  quan- 
 tity. The  quantity  itself  of  water  is  not  surpris- 
 ing, when  we  renieuil)er  the  quantity  mentioned  as 
 the  snp|)ly  of  a  private  liouse  for  purification, 
 namely,  6  amphoraj  of  2  or  3  firkins  (fjurpYirai) 
 each,  i.  e.  from  16  to  24  gallons  each  (John   ii.  6). 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2877 
 
 Hypothetical  restoration  of  the  Laver.     From  Keil. 
 
 The  laver  is  said  to  have  been  supplied  in  earlier 
 days  by  the  Gibeonites,  Imt  afterwards  by  a  conduit 
 from  the  pools  of  Bethlehem.  Ben-Katin  made 
 twelve  cocks  (e[iistoniia)  for  drawing  ofF  the  water, 
 and  invented  a  contrivance  for  keeping  it  pure 
 during  the  night  {Jomri,  iii.  10;  Tamid,  iii.  8; 
 Muhloth,  iii.  6;  Lisihtfoot,  I.  c).  Jlr.  Layard 
 mentions  some  circular  vessels  found  at  Nineveh, 
 of  6  feet  in  diameter  and  2  feet  in  depth,  which 
 seemed  to  answer,  in  point  of  use,  to  the  Molten 
 Sea,  though  far  inferior  in  size;  and  on  the  bas- 
 reliefs  it  is  remarkalile  that  cauldrons  are  repre- 
 sented su]iported  l>y  oxen  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Bah. 
 p.  180;  see  Thenius  on  1  K.  vii.;  and  Keil,  Ai-ch. 
 Bill.  i.  127,  and  pi.  3,  fig.  i.).  H.  W.  P. 
 
 «  ^3^P  :   cf  auTov  :  A.  v.  "  thereat  "  (Ex.  xxx.  19). 
 
 "121  :   ec  auT)}  (2  Chr.  iv.  6). 
 
 i  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  also  in  iv.  49. 
 
 c  In  Zeehariah  and  Joel,  as  an  antithesis  to  "  the 
 hinder  sea."  /.  f.  the  Mediterranean  ;  whence  the  ob- 
 scure rendering  of  the  A.  V.,  ■'  former  sea." 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT  (nbT^n  QV  ^  6i.Ka.(T(Ta 
 tSiv  a.\S>v;  9.  7)  a\uK-fi,  and  ttjs  aAvKrjs;  9.  aAt^s: 
 in  Gen.  mnre  sitUs,  elsewhere  m.  scdsiasiiinim,  ex- 
 cept Josh.  iii.  qitod  nunc  vacatur  mortuum).  The 
 usual,  and  perhaps  tlie  most  ancient  name  for  the 
 remarkable  lake,  which  to  the  Western  world  is 
 now  generally  known  as  the  Dead  Sea. 
 
 I.  (1.)  It  is  found  only,  and  but  rarely,  in  the 
 Pentateuch  (Gen.  xiv.  3;  Num.  xxxiv.  3,  12;  Deut. 
 iii.  17^),  and  in  the  book  of  Joshua  (iii.  16,  xii.  3, 
 XV.  2,  5,  xviii.  19). 
 
 (2.)  Another,  and  possibly  a  later  name,  is  the 
 
 Sea  ov  the  Arabaii  (n3'^2?n  tt'^  :  9d\a(r(ra 
 "Apa/Sa;  T]  9d\.  ""Apa^a;  t)  6d\.  ttj?  ''ApalSa: 
 mure  soli/udinin,  or  dtserti ;  A.  V.  "Sea  of  the 
 plain  "),  which  is  found  in  Deut.  iv.  49,  and  2  K. 
 xiv.  25;  and  combined  with  the  former — "the  sea 
 of  the  Arabah,  the  salt  sea"  —  in  Deut.  iii.  17; 
 Josh.  iii.  10,  xii.  3. 
 
 (3.)  In  the  prophets  (Joel  ii.  20;  Ez.  xlvii.  18, 
 Zech.  xiv.  8)  it  is  mentioned  by  the  title  of  the 
 
 Eastc  Sea  C^31727|^rT  D^H  :  in  Ez.  r^u  9d\aa- 
 aav  TYjv  Tfphi  dvaroAas  ■I'oii'i/cii'os;''  in  .Joel  and 
 Zech.  ri]v  dd\.  rrjv  irpair-qu:  viare  urieiitale). 
 (4.)  In  Ez.  xlvii.  8,  it  is  styled,  without  previous 
 
 reference,  the  sea  (D*n),  and  distinguished  from 
 "the  great  sea"  —  the  Mediterranean  (ver.  10). 
 
 (5.)  Its  connection  with  Sodom  is  first  suggested 
 in  the  Bible  in  the  book  of  2  Esdras  (v.  7)  l)y  the 
 name  "  Sodomitish  sea"  (mare  Sodomiticum). 
 
 (6.)  In  the  Talmudical  books  it  is  called  both  the 
 
 "  Sea  of  Salt  "   (SnbDI  SQ"^),  and    "  Sea  of 
 
 Sodom  "  (miD  \>W  W^"*).  See  quotations  from 
 Talmud  and  Midrash  Tehillim,  by  Keland  [Pal.  p. 
 237). 
 
 (7.)  Josephus,  and  before  him  Diodorus  Siculus 
 (ii.  48,  xix.  98 ),  names  it  the  Asplialtic  Lake  — 
 ?;  'Acr<pa\T7Tis  Kiixvr)  {Ant.  i.  !j,  iv.  5,  §  1,  ix.  10, 
 §  1;  B.  J.i.  33,  §  5,  iii.  10,  §  7,  iv.  8,  §  2,  4), 
 and  once  A.  r?  da(pa\TO(p6pos  (Ant.  xvii.  6,  §  5) 
 Also  (Ant.  V.  1,  §  22)  ^  XoSo/j.'itis  Xifivi]- 
 
 (8.)  The  name  "  Dead  Sea"  appears  to  have  been 
 first  used  in  Greek  (OdXaaaa,  viKpd)  by  Pausanias 
 (v.  7)  and  Galen  (iv.  9),  and  in  Latin  {mnre  mor- 
 tuum) by  Justin  (xxxvi.  3,  §  6),  or  rather  Ijy  the 
 older  historian,  Trogus  Pompeiius  (cir.  h.  c.  10), 
 whose  work  he  epitomized.  It  is  employed  also  by 
 Eusebius  (Onom.  :x6Soixa)-  The  expressions  of 
 Pausanias  and  Galen  imply  that  the  name  was  in 
 use  in  the  country.  And  this  is  corroborated  by 
 the  expression  of  Jerome  (Comin.  on  Dan.  xi.  45), 
 "  mare  ....  quod  nunc  ajipellatur  mor- 
 tnum."  The  Jewish  writers  appear  never  to  have 
 used  it,  and  it  has  become  established  in  modern 
 literature,  from  the  belief  in  the  very  exaggerated 
 stories  of  its  deadly  character  and  gloomy  aspect, 
 which  themselves  probably  arose  out  of  the  name, 
 and  were  due  to  the  preconceived  notions  of  the 
 travellers  who  visited  its  shores,  or  to  the  implicit 
 
 d  The  version  of  the  LXX.  is  remarkable,  as  intro- 
 ducing the  name  of  Phoenicia  in  both  vv.  18  and  19. 
 This  may  be  either  an  equivalent  of  En-gedi,  originally 
 ILizazon-tamar,  the  "City  of  Palm-trees"  (4>0(.i'iK0iv) ; 
 or  may  arise  out  of  a  corruption  of  Kaiimoni  into 
 Kanaan,  which  in  this  version  is  occasionally  rendered 
 by  Phoenicia.  The  only  warrant  for  it  in  the  existing 
 Uebrew  text  is  the  name  Taniar(="a  palm,"  and 
 rendered  ®ai;aai'  /cat  •I'oii'iKwi'Os)  in  ver.  19. 
 
2878 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 faith  with  which  they  received  the  statements  of 
 their  guides.  Thus  Maiindeville  (ch.  ix.)  says 
 it  is  called  the  Dead  Sea  because  it  moveth  not, 
 but  is  ever  still  —  the  fact  being  that  it  is  fre- 
 quently agitated,  and  that  when  in  motion  its 
 waves  have  great  force.  Hence  also  the  fable  that 
 no  birds  could  fly  across  it  alive,  a  notion  which 
 the  experience  of  almost  every  modern  traveller  to 
 Palestine  would  contradict. 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 (9.)  The  Arabic  name  is  Bahr  Lid,  the  "  Sea  of 
 Lot."  The  name  of  Lot  is  also  specially  connected 
 with  a  small  piece  of  land,  sometimes  island  some- 
 times peninsula,  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake. 
 
 II.  (1.)  The  so-called  Dead  Sea  is  the  final  re- 
 ceptacle of  the  river  Jordan,  the  lowest  and  largest 
 of  the  three  lakes  which  interrupt  the  rush  of  its 
 downward  course.  It  is  the  deepest  portion  of  that 
 \ery  deep  natural  fissure  which  runs  like  a  furrow 
 
 Map,  and  Longitudinvl  Section  (from  north  to  south),  of  the  Dead  Sea,  from  the  Observations,  Surveys,  ancl 
 Soundings  of  Lynch,  Robinson,  De  Saulcy,  Van  de  Velde,  and  others,  drawn  under  the  superintendence  of 
 Mr.  Grove  by  Trelawney  Saunders,  and  engraved  by  J.  D.  Cooper. 
 
 References.  — \.  3ev\c\io.  2.  Ford  of  Jordan.  3  Wady  Goumran.  4.  Wady  Zurka  Ma'in.  5.  Ras  el-Fesh- 
 khah.  6.  Ain  Terabeh.  7.  Ras  Mersed.  8.  Wady  Mojib.  9.  Ain  Jidy.  10.  Birlcet  el  Khulil.  11.  Seb- 
 beli.  12.  Wady  Zuweirah.  12.  Urn  Zoghal.  14.  Khashm  Usdum.  15.  Wady  Fikreh.  16.  Wady  el-Jeib 
 17.  Wady  Tufileh.  18.  Ghor  es-Safieh.  19.  Plain  es-Sabkah.  20.  Wady  ed-Dra'ah.  21.  The  Peninsula. 
 22.  The  Lagoon.     23.  The  Frank  Mountain.     24.  Bethlehem.     25.  Hebron. 
 
 The  dotted  linee  crossing  and  recrossing  the  Lake  show  the  places  of  the  tranverse  sections  given  on  the  oppo- 
 site page. 
 
 from  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  to  the  range  of  Lelianon, 
 and  from  the  range  of  Lebanon,  to  the  extreme 
 north  of  Syria.  It  is  in  fact  a  pool  left  by  the 
 ocean,  in  its  retreat  from  what  there  is  reason 
 to  believe  was  at  a  very  remote  period  a  channel 
 connecting  the  Mediterranean  with  the  Red  Sea. 
 As  the  most  enduring  result  of  the  great  geological 
 operation  which  determined  the  present  form  of  the 
 
 country  it  may  be  called  without  exaggeration  the 
 key  to  the  physical  geography  of  the  Holy  Land. 
 It  is  therefore  in  every  way  an  object  of  extreme 
 interest.  The  probable  conditions  of  the  formation 
 of  the  lake  will  be  alluded  to  in  the  course  of  this 
 article:  we  shall  now  attempt  to  describe  its  dimen- 
 sions, appearance,  and  natural  features. 
 
 2.  Viewed  on  the  map,  the  lake  is  of  an  oblong 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 1.  From  Ain  Feshkhah  to  E.  shore,      j^.^^^ 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2879 
 
 2.  From  Ain  Feshkhah  to  Wady  Zurka  Ma'in. 
 
 form,  of  tolerably  regular  contour,  interrupted  only 
 liy  a  large  and  long  peninsula  which  projects  from 
 the  eastern  shore,  near  its  southern  end,  and  vir- 
 tuall}-  divides  the  expanse  of  the  water  into  two 
 portions,  connected  by  a  long,  narrow,  and  some- 
 what devious  passage.  Its  longest  axis  is  situated 
 nearly  north  and  south.  It  lies  between  31°  6' 
 20"  and  31°  46'  N.  lat.,  nearly;  and  thus  its  water 
 surface  is  from  N.  to  S.  as  nearly  as  possible  40 
 geographical,  or  46  English  miles  long.  On  the 
 other  hand,  it  lies  between  3.5°  24'  and  35°  37' 
 east  Iong.,«  nearly;  and  its  greatest  width  (some  3 
 miles  S.  of  Ain  Jii/y)  is  about  9  *  geographical  miles, 
 or  10]  English  miles.  The  ordinary  area  of  the  up- 
 per portion  is  about  174  square  geographical  miles  ; 
 of  the  channel  29 ;  and  of  the  lower  portion,  here- 
 after styled  "the  lagoon,"  4(i;  in  all  about  250 
 square  geographical  miles.  These  dimensions  are 
 not  very  dissimilar  to  those  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva. 
 They  are,  however,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  sub- 
 ject to  considerable  variation  according  to  the  time 
 of  the  year. 
 
 At  its  northern  end  the  lake  receives  the  stream 
 of  the  Jordan :  on  its  eastern  side  the  Zurka  Ma'in 
 (the  ancient  (.'allirrhoe,  and  possibly  the  more  an- 
 cient en-1'^glaim ),  the  Mojib  (the  Arnon  of  the 
 Bible),  and  the  Beni-TIemad.  On  the  south  the 
 Kuralty  or  tl-Ahsij ;  and  on  the  west  that  of  Ain 
 Jidy.  These  are  probably  all  perennial,  though 
 variable  streams;  but,  in  addition,  the  beds  of  the 
 torrents  which  lead  thi-ough  the  mou!itains  east 
 and  west,  and  over  the  fiat  shelving  plains  on  both 
 north  and  south  of  the  lake,  show  that  in  the 
 winter  a  very  large  quantity  of  water  must  be 
 poured  into  it.  There  are  also  all  along  the  west- 
 ern side  a  considerable  number  of  springs,  some 
 fresh,  some  warm,  some  salt  and  fetid  —  which 
 appear  to  run  continually,  and  all  find  their  way, 
 mure  or  less  absorbed  by  the  sand  and  shingle  of 
 the  beach,  into  its  waters.  Th§  lake  has  no  visible  " 
 outlet. 
 
 3.  Excepting  the  last  circumstance,  nothing  has 
 yet  been  stated  about  the  Dead  Sea  that  may  not 
 be  stated  of  numerous  other  inland  Lxkes.  The 
 depression  of  its  surface,  however,  and  the  depth 
 which  it  attains  below  that  surface,  combined  with 
 the  absence  of  any  outlet,  render  it  one  of  the  most 
 remarkable  spots  on  the  globe.  According  to  the 
 observations  of  Lieut.  Lynch,  the  surface  of  the  lake 
 in  May,  1848,  was  1,316.7  ^  feet  below  the  level  of 
 
 Transverse  Sections  (from  west  to  east)  of  the  Dead 
 Sea  ;  plotted  for  the  first  time,  from  the  Soundings 
 given  by  Lynch  on  the  Map  in  his  Narrative  of  the 
 U.  S.  Expedition,  etc.,  London,  1849.  The  spots  at 
 which  the  Sections  were  taken  are  indicated  on  tlie 
 Map  (opposite)  by  the  dotted  lines  The  depths  are 
 given  in  English  feet. 
 
 N.  B. — For  the  sake  of  clearness,  the  horizontal 
 and  vertical  scales  for  these  Sections  have  been  en- 
 larged from  those  adopted  for  the  Map  and  Longitudi- 
 Bsl  Section  on  the  opposite  page. 
 
 «  The  longitudes  and  latitudes  ai-e  given  with  care 
 by  Tan  de  Velde  {Mejn.  p.  65),  but  they  can  none  of 
 them  be  implicitly  trusted. 
 
 ft  Lynch  says  9  to  9J  ;  Dr.  Robinson  says  9  (i.  509). 
 The  ancient  writers,  as  is  but  natural,  estimated  its 
 dimensions  very  inaccurately.  Diodorus  states  the 
 l^ns th  as  500  stadia,  or  about  50  miles,  and  breadth 
 (31,  or  6  miles.  Josephus  extends  the  length  to  580 
 stadia,  and  the  breadth  to  150.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
 accuse  him,  on  this  account,  of  willful  exaggeration. 
 Nothing  is  more  difiBcult  to  estimate  accurately  than 
 the  extent  of  a  sheet  of  water,  especially  one  which 
 varies  so  much  in  appearance  as  the  Dead  Sea.  As 
 regards  the  length,  it  is  not  impossible  that  at  the 
 time  of  Josephus  the  water  extended  over  the  southern 
 plain,  which  would  make  the  entire  length  over  50 
 geographical  miles. 
 
 c  Nor  can  there  be  any  invisible  one :  the  distance 
 of  the  surface  below  that  of  the  ocean  alone  renders 
 it  impossible  ;  and  there  is  no  motive  for  supposing  it, 
 because  the  evaporation  (see  note  to  §  4)  is  amply 
 sufficient  to  carry  off  the  supply  from  without. 
 
 d  This  figure  was  obtained  by  running  levels  from 
 
2880 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 the  Mediterranean  at  Jaffa  {Repm-l  of  Secretary  of 
 N<ivy,  etc.,  8vo,  p.  23),  and  altliough  we  cannot 
 absolutely  rely  on  the  accuracy  of  that  dimension, 
 still  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  it  is  not  very 
 far  from  the  fact.  The  measurements  of  the  de[)th 
 of  the  lake  taken  by  the  same  party  are  probably 
 more  trustworthy.  The  expedition  consisted  of 
 sailors,  who  were  here  in  tlieir  element,  and  to 
 whom  taking  soundings  was  a  matter  of  every  day 
 occurrence.  In  the  upper  portion  of  the  lake, 
 north  of  the  peninsula,  seven  cross  sections  were 
 obtained,  six  of  which  are  exhiliited  on  the  pre- 
 ceding page."  They  show  this  portion  to  be  a 
 perfect  basin,  descending  rapidly  till  it  attains,  at 
 about  one-third  of  its  length  from  the  north  end, 
 a  depth  of  1,308  ''  feet.  Immediately  west  of  the 
 upper  extremity  of  the  peninsula,  however,  this 
 depth    decreases   suddenly    to    336    feet,  then    to 
 
 Ain  Teriibek  up  the  Wndy  Ras  el-  Ghmreir  and  Wady 
 en-Nar  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  by  Rarnleh  to  Jafla. 
 It  seems  to  have  been  usually  assumed  as  accurate, 
 and  as  settling  the  question.  The  elements  of  error 
 in  leveling:  across  such  a  country  are  vei-y  great,  and 
 even  practiced  surveyors  would  be  liable  to  mistake, 
 unless  by  the  adoption  of  a  series  of  checks  which  it 
 is  inconceivable  that  Lynch's  party  eau  have  adopted. 
 The  very  fact  that  no  datum  on  the  beach  is  men- 
 tioned, and  that  they  appear  to  have  leveled  from  the 
 then  surface  of  the  water,  shows  that  the  party  was 
 not  directed  by  a  practiced  leveler,  and  casts  suspicion 
 over  all  the  observiitions.  Lynch's  observations  with 
 the  barometer  (p.  12)  gave  1,234.589  feet  — 82  feet  less 
 depression  than  that  mentioned  above.  The  existence 
 of  the  depi-ession  was  for  a  long  time  unknown.  ,Even 
 Seetzen  (i.  425)  believed  that  it  lay  higher  than  the 
 ocean.  Marmont  {Voyage,  iii.  61)  calculates  the 
 Mount  of  Olives  at  747  metres  above  the  Mediterra- 
 nean, and  then  estimates  the  Dead  Sea  at  500  metres 
 below  the  Mount.  The  fact  was  first  ascertained  by 
 Moore  and  Beek  in  March,  1837,  by  boiling  water  ; 
 but  they  were  unable  to  arrive  at  a  figure.  It  may  be 
 well  here  to  give  a  list  of  the  various  observations  on 
 the  level  of  the  lake,  made  by  different  travellers  :  — 
 
 Eng.  ft. 
 
 Apr.  1837 
 
 Von  Schubert    . 
 
 Barom. 
 
 637. 
 
 1838 
 
 De  Bertou    .   .  . 
 
 Barom. 
 
 1,374.7 
 
 1838 
 
 Russegger     .   .  . 
 
 Barom. 
 
 1,429.2 
 
 1841 
 
 Symouds  .... 
 
 Trignom. 
 
 1,312.2 
 
 1845 
 
 Vou  Wildenbruch 
 
 Barom. 
 
 1,446.3 
 
 May,  1848 
 
 Lynch    
 
 Barom. 
 
 1,234.6 
 
 May,  1848 
 
 Lynch    
 
 Level 
 
 1,316.7 
 
 Nov.  1850 
 
 Rev.  G.W.  Bridges 
 
 Aneroid 
 
 1,367. 
 
 Oct.  27. 1855 
 
 Poole 
 
 Aneroid 
 
 1,313.5 
 
 Apr.  (?;  1857 
 
 Roth 
 
 Barom. 
 
 1,374.6 
 
 —  See  Petermann,  in  Geogr.  Journal,  xviii.  90  ;  for 
 Roth,  Petermann's  Mittkeilungen,  1858,  p.  3 ;  for 
 Poole,  Geogr.  Joiim.  xxvi.  58.  Mr.  Bridges  has 
 kindly  communicated  to  the  writer  the  results  of  his 
 observations.  Captain  Symonds'  operations  are 
 briefly  described  by  Mr.  Hamilton  in  his  addresses  to 
 the  Royal  Geogr.  Society  in  1842  and  1843.  He 
 carried  levels  across  from  Jaffa  to  Jerusalem  by  two 
 routes,  and  thence  to  the  Dead  Sea  by  one  route  : 
 the  ultimate  difference  between  the  two  observations 
 was  less  than  12  feet  {Geogr.  Journal,  xii.  p.  Ix.  ;  xiii. 
 p.  Ixxiv.).  One  of  the  sets,  ending  in  1,312-2  feet,  is 
 given  in  Van  de  Velde's  Memoir,  pp.  75-81. 
 
 Widelj'  as  tlie  results  in  the  table  differ,  there  is  yet 
 enough  agreement  among  them,  and  with  Lynch's 
 level-observation,  to  warrant  the  statement  in  the  text. 
 Those  of  Symonds,  Lynch,  and  Poole,  are  remarkably 
 tlose,  when  the  great  difficulties  of  the  case  are  con- 
 aidered  ;  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  those  of  De 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 114,  and  by  the  time  the  west  point  of  the  pe- 
 ninsula is  reached,  to  18  feet.  Below  this  the 
 southern  portion  is  a  mere  lagoon  of  almost  even 
 bottom,  varying  in  depth  from  12  i'eet  in  the 
 middle  to  3  at  the  edges.  It  will  be  convenient  to 
 use  the  term  "  lagoon  "  '^  in  speaking  of  the  south- 
 ern portion. 
 
 The  depi'ession  of  the  lake,  both  of  its  surface 
 and  its  bottom,  below  that  of  the  ocean  is  at  pres- 
 ent quite  without  parallel.  The  lake  Assal,  on  the 
 Somali  coast  of  Eastern  Africa  opposite  Aden,  fur- 
 nishes the  nearest  approach  to  it.  Its  surface  is 
 said  to  be  570  feet  below  that  of  the  ocean.'' 
 
 4.  Ihe  level  of  the  lake  is  liable  to  variation 
 according  to  the  season  of  the  year.  Since  it  has 
 no  outlet,  its  level  is  a  balance  struck  between  the 
 amount  of  water  poured  into  it,  and  the  amount 
 given  off  by  evaporation.^     If  more  water  is  sup- 
 
 Bertou,  Roth,  and  Bridges  are  equally  close.  The 
 time  of  year  must  not  be  overlooked.  Lynch's  level 
 was  taken  about  midway  between  the  winter  rains  and 
 tlie  autunmal  drought,  and  therefore  is  consistent  with 
 that  of  Poole,  taken  5  months  later,  at  the  ver'y  end  of 
 the  dry  season. 
 
 «  The  map  in  Lynch's  private  ISarrative  (London, 
 1849),  from  which  these  sections  have,  for  the  first 
 time,  been  plotted,  is  to  a  much  larger  scale,  contains 
 more  details,  and  is  a  more  valuable  document,  than 
 that  in  his  Official  Report,  4to  (Baltimore,  1852),  or 
 his  Report,  8vo  (Senate  Papers,  30th  Cougr.,  2d  Ses- 
 sion, No.  34). 
 
 6  Three  other  attempts  have  been  made  to  obtain 
 soundings,  but  in  neither  case  with  any  very  practical 
 result.  (1.)  By  Messrs.  Moore  and  Beek,  in  March,  1837. 
 They  record  a  maximum  depth  of  2,400  ft.  between  Ain 
 Terabeh  and  W.  Zurka,  and  a  little  north  of  the  same 
 2,220  ft.  (See  Palmer's  Map,  to  which  these  observa- 
 tions were  contributed  by  Mr.  Beek  himself:  also 
 Geogr.  Joiirn.  vii.  456.)  Lynch's  soundings  at  nearly 
 the  same  spots  give  1,170  and  1,309  ft.  respectively,  at 
 once  reversing  .and  greatly  diminishing  the  depths. 
 (2.)  Captain  Symonds,  R.  E.,  is  said  to  have  been 
 upon  the  lake  and  to  have  obtained  soundings,  the 
 deepest  of  which  was  2,100  ft.  But  for  this  the  writer 
 can  find  no  authority  beyond  the  statement  of  Ritter 
 {EriJkiint/e,  "Jordan,"  p.  704),  wlio  does  not  name  the 
 source  of  his  information.  (3.)  Lieut.  Molyneux,  R. 
 N.,  in  Sept.  1847,  took  three  soundings.  The  first  of 
 these  seems  to  have  been  about  opposite  Ain  Jidy,  a,ni 
 gave  1,350  ft.,  though  without  certainly  reaching  the 
 bottom.  The  other  two  were  further  north,  and  gave 
 1,068  and  1,098  ft.  {Geogr.  Journ.  xviii.  pp.  127,  128). 
 The  greatest  of  these  appears  to  be  about  coincident 
 with  Lynch's  1,104  feet ;  but  there  is  so  much  vague- 
 ness about  the  spots  at  which  they  were  taken,  that  no 
 use  can  be  made  of  the  results.  Lynch  and  Beek  agree 
 in  representing  the  west  side  as  more  gradual  in  slope 
 than  the  east,  which  has  a  depth  of  more  than  900  ft. 
 close  to  the  brink. 
 
 c  Irby  and  Mangles  always  term  this  part  "the 
 back-water,"  and  reserve  the  name  "  Dead  Sea "  for 
 the  northern  and  deeper  portion. 
 
 d  Murchison  in  Geogr.  Journal,  xiv.  p.  cxvi.  A 
 brief  description  of  this  lake  is  given  in  an  interesting 
 paper  by  Dr.  Buist  on  the  principal  depressions  of  the 
 globe,  reprinted  in  the  Edinb.  N.  Pliil.  Journal,  April, 
 1855. 
 
 e  This  subject  has  been  ably  and  carefully  investi- 
 gated by  the  late  Professor  Marchand,  the  eminent 
 chemist  of  Halle,  in  his  paper  on  the  Dead  Sea  in  the 
 Journal  fiir  prnkt.  Cliemie,  Leijizig,  1849,  pp.  371-374. 
 The  result  of  his  calculations,  founded  on  the  observa- 
 tions of  Shaw,  A.  von  Humboldt,  and  Balard,  is  that 
 while  the  average  quantity  supplied  cannot  exceed 
 20,000.000  cub.  ft.,  the  evaporation  may  be  taken  at 
 24,000,000  cub.  ft.  per  diem. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 plied  than  the  evaporation  can  carry  off',  the  lake 
 will  rise  until  the  evaporating  surface  is  so  nnich 
 increased  as  to  restore  the  balance.  On  the  other 
 hand,  should  the  evaporation  drive  off  a  larger 
 quantity  than  the  supply,  the  lake  will  descend 
 until  the  surlace  becomes  so  small  as  again  to  re- 
 store the  balance.  This  fluctuation  is  increased  l)y 
 the  fact  that  the  winter  is  at  once  the  time  wlien 
 the  clouds  and  streams  supply  most  water,  and 
 when  the  evaporation  is  least;  while  in  summer,  on 
 the  othei-  hand,  when  tiie  evaporation  goes  on  most 
 furiously,  the  supply  is  at  its  mininunn.  The 
 extreme  differences  in  level  resulting  from  these 
 causes,  have  not  yet  been  carefully  observed.  Ur. 
 Robinson,  in  Jlay,  1838,  from  the  lines  of  drift- 
 wood which  he  found  beyond  the  then  brink  of  the 
 water  in  the  southern  part  of  the  lake,  judged  that 
 the  level  must  be  sometimes  from  W  to  15  feet 
 higlier  than  it  then  was  (Hi/A.  lies.  i.  51.5,  ii.  115); 
 but  this  was  only  tlie  conunencement  of  the  sum- 
 mer, and  by  the  end  of  September  the  water 
 would  probably  have  fallen  much  lower.  The 
 writer,  in  the  beginning  of  -September,  1858,  after 
 a  very  hot  summer,  estimated  tlie  line  of  <lrift-\vood 
 along  the  steep  beach  of  the  north  end  at  from 
 10  to  12  feet  above  the  then  level  of  the  water. 
 Robinson  (i.  500)  mentions  a  bank  of  shingle  at 
 Ain  Jidy,  6  or  8  feet  above  the  then  (May  10)  level 
 of  the  water,  but  which  bore  marks  of  having  been 
 covered.  Lynch  (N'urr.  p.  289)  says  that  the 
 marks  on  the  shore  near  the  same  place  indicated 
 that  the  lake  had  already  (April  22)  fallen  7  feet 
 that  season. 
 
 Possibly  a  more  permanent  rise  has  lately  taken 
 place,  since  Mr.  Poole  (p.  CO)  saw  many  dead  trees 
 standing  in  the  lake  for  some  distance  from  the 
 shore  opposite  Khashm  Usduin.  This  too  was  at 
 the  end  of  October,  when  tlie  water  must  have  been 
 at  its  lowest  (for  that  year). 
 
 5.  Tlie  change  in  level  necessarily  causes  a 
 change  in  the  dimensions  of  the  lake.  This  will 
 chiefly  affect  the  southern  end.  The  shore  of  that 
 part  slopes  up  from  the  water  with  an  extremely 
 gradual  incline.  Over  so  flat  a  beach  a  very  slight 
 rise  ill  the  lake  would  send  the  water  a  considerable 
 distance.  This  was  found  to  be  actually  the  case. 
 The  line  of  drift-wood  mentioned  by  Dr.  Roliinson 
 (ii.  115)  was  about  3  miles  from  the  brink  of  the 
 lagoon.  Dr.  Anderson,  the  geologist  of  the  Amer- 
 ican expedition,  conjectured  that  the  water  occa- 
 sionally extended  as  much  as  8  or  10  miles  south 
 of  its  then  position  {Ojficud  R(.qwrt,  ■Ito,  p.  182). 
 On  the  peninsula,  the  acclivity  of  which  is  much 
 greater  than  that  of  the  southern  shores  of  tlie  la- 
 goon, and  ill  the  early  part  of  the  summer  (.June 
 2),  Irby  and  Mangles  found  the  "  high-water  mark 
 a  mile  distant  from  the  water's  edge."  At  the 
 northern  end,  the  shore  being  steeper,  the  water- 
 line  probably  remains  toleral)ly  constant.  The  va- 
 riation in  breadtli  will  not  be  so  much.  At  the 
 N.  W.  and  N.  K.  corners  there  are  some  flats  which 
 must  lie  often  overflowed.  Along  the  lower  part 
 of  the  western  shore,  where  the  beach  widens,  as  at 
 Birlcct  tl-Kkulil,  it  is  occasionally  covered  in  por- 
 tions, but  they  are  probably  not  enougli  to  make 
 any  great  variation  in  the  width  of  the  lake.  Of 
 the  eastern  side  hardly  anything  is  known,  but  the 
 beacli  there  appears  to  be  only  partial,  and  confined 
 to  the  northern  end. 
 
 G.  The  mountains  which  form  the  walls  of  the 
 great  fissure  in  whose  depths  the  lake  is  contained, 
 3i..utinue  a  nearly  parallel  course  throughout  its  en- 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2881 
 
 tire  length.  Viewed  from  the  beach  at  the  north- 
 ern end  of  the  lake  —  the  only  view  within  the 
 reach  of  most  travellers  —  there  is  little  perceptible 
 difference  between  the  two  ranges.  Each  is  equally 
 bare  and  stern  to  the  eye.  On  the  left  the  eastern 
 mountains  stretch  their  long,  hazy,  horizontal  line, 
 till  they  are  lost  in  the  dim  distance.  Tlie  west- 
 ern mountains,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  ofTer  the 
 same  appearance  of  continuity,  since  the  headland 
 of  Rns  el-Feshkhah  projects  so  far  in  front  of  the 
 general  line  as  to  conceal  the  southern  portion  of 
 the  range  when  viewed  from  most  points.  The 
 horizon  is  formed  by  the  water-line  of  the  lake 
 itself,  often  lost  in  a  thick  mist  which  dwells  on  the 
 surface,  the  result  of  the  rapid  evaporation  alwa3"s 
 going  on.  In  the  centre  of  the  horizon,  when  the 
 haze  permits  it,  may  be  discovered  the  mysterious 
 peninsula. 
 
 7.  Of  the  eastern  side  but  little  is  known.  One 
 traveller  in  modern  times  (Seetzeii)  has  succeeded 
 in  forcing  his  way  along  its  whole  length.  The 
 American  party  landed  at  the  IK.  Mojib  and  other 
 points.  A  few  others  have  rounded  tlie  southern 
 end  of  the  lake,  and  advanced  for  10  or  12  miles 
 along  its  eastern  shores.  Put  the  larger  portion 
 of  those  sliores  —  the  flanks  of  the  mountains  which 
 stretch  from  tlie  peninsula  to  the  north  end  of  the 
 lake  —  have  been  approached  by  travellers  from 
 the  west  only  on  very  rare  occasions  nearer  than 
 the  western  shore. 
 
 Both  Dr.  Robinson  from  Ain  Jidij  (i.  502),  and 
 Lieut.  Molyneux  (p.  127)  from  the  surfiice  of  the 
 lake,  record  their  impression  that  tlie  eastern  moun- 
 tains' are  much  more  lofty  than  tlie  western,  and 
 much  more  broken  by  clefts  and  ravines  than  those 
 on  the  west.  In  color  they  are  brown,  or  red  —  a 
 great  contrast  to  the  gray  and  white  stones  of  the 
 western  mountains.  Both  sides  of  the  lake,  how- 
 ever, are  alike  in  the  absence  of  vegetation  —  al- 
 most entirely  barren  and  scorched,  except  where 
 here  and  there  a  spring,  bursting  up  at  the  foot  of 
 the  mountains,  covers  the  beach  with  a  bright 
 green  jungle  of  reeds  and  thorn  bushes,  or  gives 
 life  to  a  clump  of  stunted  palms;  or  where,  as  at 
 Ain  Jidy  or  the  Wady  Mojib,  a  perennial  stream 
 betrays  its  presence,  and  breaks  the  long  monotony 
 of  the  precipice  by  filling  the  rift  with  acacias,  or 
 nourishing  a  little  oasis  of  verdure  at  its  embouch- 
 ure. 
 
 8.  Seetzen's  journey,  just  mentioned,  was  ac- 
 complished in  1807.  He  started  in  January  from 
 the  ford  of  the  Jordan  through  the  upper  countr}', 
 by  M/co.w,  Attarrus,  and  the  ravine  of  the  Wady 
 Mojib  to  the  peninsula;  returning  immediately 
 after  by  the  lower  level,  as  near  the  lake  as  it  was 
 possible  to  go.  He  was  on  foot  with  but  a  single 
 guide.  He  represents  the  general  structure  of  the 
 mountains  as  limestone,  capped  in  many  places  by 
 basalt,  and  having  at  its  foot  a  red  ferruginous 
 sandstone,  which  forms  the  immediate  margin  of 
 the  lake.«  The  ordinary  path  lies  high  up  on  the 
 face  of  the  mountains,  and  the  lower  track,  which 
 Seetzen  pursued,  is  extremely  rough,  and  often  aU 
 but  impassable.  The  rocks  lie  in  a  succession  of  enor- 
 mous terraces,  apparently  more  vertical  in  form  than 
 those  on  the  west.  On  the  lower  one  of  these,  but 
 still  far  above  the  water,  lies  the  path,  if  path  it  can 
 be  called,  where  the  traveller  has  to  scramble  through 
 and  over  a  chaos  of  enormous  blocks  of  limestone, 
 sandstone,  and   basalt,  or  basalt  conglomerate,  the 
 
 «  Termed  by  Anderson  (pp.  189,  190)  tlie  Uudercliflf 
 
2882 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 deb7-is  of  the  slopes  above,  or  is  brought  abruptly 
 to  a  stand  by  wild  clefts  in  the  solid  rock  of  the 
 precipice.  The  streams  of  the  Mvjib  and  Zurka 
 issue  from  portals  of  dark  red  sandstone  of  roman- 
 tic beauty,  the  overhanging  sides  of  vphich  no  ray 
 of  sun  ever  enters."  The  deltas  of  these  streams, 
 and  that  portion  of  the  shore  between  them,  \vhere 
 several  smaller  rivulets  ''  flow  into  the  lake,  abound 
 in  vegetation,  and  form  a  truly  grateful  relief  to  the 
 rugged  desolation  of  the  remainder.  Palms  in 
 particular  are  numerous  (Anderson,  p.  192;  Lynch, 
 Narr.  p.  ;JG9j,  and  in  Seetzen's  ophiion  be:ir  marks 
 of  being  the  relics  of  an  ancient  cultivation  ;  but 
 except  near  the  streams,  there  is  no  vegetation.  It 
 was,  says  he,  the  greatest  possible  rarity  to  see  a 
 plant.  The  northeast  corner  of  the  lake  is  occupied 
 by  a  plain  of  some  extent  left  by  the  retiring  moun- 
 tains, pruliably  often  overflowed  by  the  lake,  mostly 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 salt   and   unproductive,  and    called    the   Ghor  eU 
 Bdka. 
 
 9.  One  remarkable  feature  of  the  northern  por- 
 tion of  the  eastern  heights  is  a  plateau  which  divides 
 the  mountains  half-way  up,  apparently  forming  a 
 gigantic  landing-place  in  the  slope,  and  stretching 
 northwards  from  the  Wadu  Zurka  Mn'in.  It  is 
 very  plainly  to  be  seen  from  Jerusalem,  espe- 
 cially at  sunset,  when  many  of  the  points  of  these 
 fascinating  mountains  come  out  into  unexpected 
 relief.  This  plateau  appears  to  be  on  the  same 
 general  level  with  a  similar  pkteau  on  the  western 
 side  opposite  it  (Poole,  p.  G8),  with  the  top  of  the 
 rock  of  ISMeli,  and  perhaps  with  the  JMediterr.o- 
 nean. 
 
 10.  The  western  shores  of  the  lake  ha\e  been 
 more  investigated  than  the  eastern,  although  they 
 cannot   be  said  to  have  been  yet  more  than  very 
 
 The  DEjU)  Sea.  —  View  from  Ain  Jidy,  looking  south.    From  a  drawing   made  on   the  spot  in    1842,  by  W. 
 
 Tippiug,  Esq. 
 
 partially  explored.  Two  travellers  have  passed 
 over  their  entire  length  :  De  Saulcy  in  January 
 1851,  from  north  to  south,  Voyiuje  dans  In  Syrie, 
 ftc,  1853;  and  Narraiive  of  a  Journey,  etc., 
 London,  1854;  and  Poole  in  November  1855,  from 
 south  to  north  {G  to  (jr.  Journal,  xxvi.  55).  Others 
 have  passed  over  considerable  portions  of  it,  and 
 have  recorded  observations  both  with  pen  and  jien- 
 cil.  Dr.  Kobinson  on  his  first  journey  in  18-38 
 visited  Ain  Jidy,  and  proceeded  from  thence  to  the 
 Jordan  and  Jericho  :  Wolcott  and  Tipping,  in 
 1842,  scaled  the  rock  of  Masada  (probably  the  lirst 
 travellers  irom  the  western  world  to  do  so),  and 
 from  thence  journeyed  to  Ain  Jidy  along  the  shore. 
 The  views  which  illustrate  this  article  have  been, 
 through  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Tipping,  selected  from 
 
 a  A  rude  view  of  the  embouchure  of  the  former  of 
 these  is  given  by  Lynch  {Narrative,  p.  368). 
 
 those  which  he  took  during  this  journey.  Lieut. 
 Van  de  Velde,  in  1852,  also  visited  Masada,  and 
 then  went  .south  as  far  as  the  south  end  of  Jvbd 
 Usdum,  after  which  he  turned  up  to  the  right  into 
 the  western  mountains.  Lieut.  Lynch's  party,  in 
 1848,  landed  and  travelled  over  the  greater  part  of 
 the  shore  from  Ain  Ft-slikhah  to  Usdum.  Jlr. 
 llolman  Hunt,  in  1854,  with  the  Messrs.  15eaniont, 
 resided  at  Usdum  for  several  days,  and  afterwards 
 went  over  the  entire  length  from  Usdum  to  the 
 Jordan.  Of  this  journey  one  of  the  ultimate  fruits 
 was  Mr.  Hunt's  picture  of  the  Dead  Sea  at  sunset, 
 known  as  "  The  Scapegoat."  Miss  Emily  Beaufort 
 and  her  sister,  in  December  18G0,  accomplished  the 
 ascent  of  Masada,  and  the  journey  from  thence  to 
 Ain  Jidy ;  and  the  same  thing,  including  Usdum. 
 
 b  Conjectured  by  Seetzen  to  be  the  "  springs  of  Pis- 
 gah." 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 syas  done  in  April,  1863,  by  a  party  consisting  of 
 Mr.  G.  Clowes,  Jr.,  Mr.  Straton,  and  others. 
 
 11.  The  western  range  preserves  for  the  greater 
 part  of  its  length  a  course  hardly  less  regular  than 
 the  eastern.  Tiiat  it  does  not  appear  so  regular 
 when  viewed  from  the  northwestern  end  of  tlie 
 lake  is  owing  to  the  projection  of  a  mass  of  the 
 mountain  eastward  from  the  line  sufficiently  far  to 
 shut  out  from  view  the  range  to  the  south  of  it. 
 It  is  Dr.*  Robinson's  opinion  {Bibl.  lies.  1.  510,  511) 
 that  the  projection  consists  of  the  jRns  el-Ftshkhah 
 and  its  "  adjacent  cliffs  "  only,  and  that  from  that 
 headland  the  western  range  runs  in  a  tolerably  di- 
 rect course  as  far  as  Usdmn,  at  the  S.  AV.  corner 
 of  the  lake.  The  Hks  el-Feshhhah  stands  some 
 six  miles  l)elow  the  head  of  the  lake,  and  fonns  the 
 northern  side  of  the  gorge  by  which  the  W<idy  en- 
 Nnr  (the  Kidron)  debouches  into  the  lake.  Dr. 
 Eobinson  is  such  an  accurate  observer,  that  it  is 
 difficult  to  question  his  opinion,  but  it  seems  proli- 
 able  that  the  projection  really  commences  further 
 south,  at  the  Rns  Mersed,  north  of  Ain  Jidy.  At 
 any  rate  no  traveller"  appears  to  have  been  able  to 
 pass  along  the  beach  between  Ain  Jidy  and  Bks 
 Feshkhah,  and  the  great  Arab  road,  which  adheres 
 to  the  shore  from  tiie  south  as  far  as  Ain  Jidy, 
 leaves  it  at  that  point,  and  mounts  to  the  summit. 
 It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  Lynch's  party,  who 
 had  encampments  of  several  days'  duration  at  Ain 
 Feslikliiifi,  Ain  Terabeh,  and  Ain  Jidy,  did  not 
 make  such  observations  as  would  have  decided  the 
 configuration  of  the  shores. 
 
 12.  The  accompanying  wood-cut  represents  the 
 view  looking  soutlnvard  from  the  spring  of  Ain  Jidy, 
 a  point  about  700  feet  above  the  water  (Poole,  p.  G6). 
 It  is  taken  from  a  drawing  by  the  accurate  pencil 
 of  Mr.  Tipping,  and  gives  a  good  idea  of  the  course 
 of  that  portion  of  the  western  heights,  and  of  their 
 ordinary  character,  except  at  a  few  such  exceptional 
 spots  as  the  headlands  just  mentioned,  or  the  iso- 
 lated rock  of  Stbbeh,  the  ancient  Masada.  In  their 
 present  aspect  they  can  hanlly  be  termed  "  vertical ' ' 
 or  -'perpendicular,"  or  even  "cliffs"  '^  (the  fovorite 
 term  for  them),  though  from  a  distant  point  on  the 
 surface  of  the  lake  they  probably  look  vertical 
 enough  (Molyneux,  p.  127).  Their  structure  was 
 originally  in  huge  steps  or  ofisets,  but  the  horizon- 
 tal portion  of  each  offset  is  now  concealed  by  the 
 slopes  of  debris,  which  have  in  the  lapse  of  ages 
 rolled  down  from  the  vertical  cliff  above. ^ 
 
 13.  The  portion  actually  represented  in  this 
 view  is  descril)ed  by  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  175)  as 
 "varying  from  1,200  to  1,500  feet  in  height,  bold 
 and  .steep,  admitting  nowhere  of  the  ascent  or  de- 
 scent of  beasts  of  burden,  and  practicable  only  here 
 
 and  there  to  the  most  intrepid  climber 
 
 The  marked  divisions  of  the  great  escarpment, 
 reckoning  from  above,  are:  (1.)  Horizontal  layers 
 of  Hmestone  from  200  to  300  feet  in  depth.      (2.) 
 
 a  Poole  appears  to  have  tried  his  utmo.st  to  l^eep 
 the  shore,  and  to  have  accomplished  more  than  otlieis. 
 but  with  only  small  success.  De  Saulcy  wa.s  obliged 
 to  take  to  the  heights  at  Ahi  Tirdbeh,  and  keep  to 
 them  till  he  reached  Ain  Jidy. 
 
 b  It  is  a  pity  that  travellers  should  so  often  indulge 
 in  the  use  of  such  terms  as  "  vertical,"'  "  perpendicu- 
 lar," "overhanging,"  etc.,  to  descrihe  acclivities  whicli 
 prove  to  be  only  moderately  steep  slopes.  Even  Dr. 
 Robinson  —  usually  so  moderate  —  on  more  than  one 
 occasion  speaks  of  amountaiu-side  as  "  perpendicular," 
 and  immediately  afterwards  describes  the  ascent  or  de- 
 scent of  it  by  his  party  ! 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2883 
 
 A  series  of  tent-shaped  embankments  of  debrit, 
 brought  down  through  the  small  ravines  intersect- 
 ing the  upper  division,  and  lodged  on  theprojectino' 
 terrace  below.  (3.)  A  sharply  defined,  well-marked 
 formation,  less  perfectly  stratified  than  No.  1,  and 
 constituting  by  its  unbroken  continuity  a  zone  of 
 naked  rock,  probably  150  feet  in  depth,  running 
 like  a  vast  frieze  along  the  face  of  the  cliff,  and  so 
 precipitous  that  the  detritus  pushed  over  the  edo-e 
 of  this  shelf-like  ledge  finds  no  lodgment  anywhere 
 on  its  almi^st  vertical  face.  Above  this  zone  is  an 
 interrupted  bed  of  yellow  limestone  40  feet  thick. 
 (4-.)  A  broad  and  boldly  sloping  talus  of  limestone  — 
 partly  bare,  partly  covered  by  debris  from  above  — 
 descends  nearly  to  the  base  of  the  cliff.  (5.)  A 
 breastwork  of  fallen  fragments,  sometimes  swept 
 clean  away,  separates  the  upper  edge  of  the  beach 
 from  the  ground  line  of  the  escarpment.  (6.)  A 
 beach  of  variable  width  and  structure  —  sometimes 
 sandy,  sometimes  gravelly  or  shini,dy,  sometimes 
 made  up  of  loose  and  scattered  jiatclies  of  a  coarse 
 travertine  or  marl  —  falls  gradually  to  the  border 
 of  the  Dead  Sea." 
 
 14.  Further  south  the  mountain  sides  assume  a 
 more  abrupt  and  savaoe  aspect,  and  in  the  Wady 
 Zuwtira/i,  and  still  more  at  i>ebbeh — the  ancient 
 JMas;ida ''  —  leacli  a  pitch  of  rugged  and  repulsive, 
 though  at  the  same  time  impressive  desolation, 
 which  perhaps  cannot  be  exceeded  anywhere  on  the 
 face  of  the  earth.  Beyond  Usdum  the  mountains 
 continue  their  general  line,  but  the  district  at 
 their  feet  is  occupied  by  a  mass  of  lower  eminence.s, 
 which,  advancing  inwards,  gra(hially  encroach  on 
 the  plain  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake,  and  finally 
 shut  it  in  completely,  at  about  8  miles  below  Jcbel 
 Usdiim. 
 
 lb.  The  region  which  lies  on  the  top  of  the 
 western  heights  was  proliably  at  one  time  a  wide 
 table-land,  rising  gradually  towards  the  high  lands 
 which  form  the  central  line  of  the  country  —  He- 
 bron, Beni-naim,  etc.  It  is  now  cut  up  by  deep 
 and  difficult  ravines,  separated  by  steep  and  inac- 
 cessilile  summits;  but  portions  of  the  talde-lands 
 still  remain  in  many  places  to  testify  to  the  orig- 
 inal conformation.  The  material  is  a  soft  cre- 
 taceous limestone,  bright  white  in  color,  and  con- 
 taining a  good  deal  of  sulphur.  The  surface  is 
 entirely  desert,  with  no  sign  of  cultivation:  here 
 and  there  a  shrub  of  Retem,  or  some  other  desert- 
 plant,  but  only  enough  to  make  the  monotonous 
 desolation  of  the  scene  more  frightful.  "  11  existe 
 au  monde,"  says  one  of  the  most  intelligent  of 
 modern  travellers,  "  pen  de  regions  plus  d(?sol^es, 
 plus  abandonn^es  de  Dieu,  plus  ferni^es  a  la  vie, 
 que  la  pente  rocailleuse  qui  forme  le  bord  occi- 
 dental de  la  Mer  Morte "  (Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus, 
 ch.  vii.). 
 
 16.  Of  the  elevation  of  this  region  we  hitherto 
 possess  but  scanty  observations.    Between  Ain  Jidy 
 
 c  Lynch's  view  of  Ain  Jidy  (Narr.  p.  290),  though 
 rough,  is  probably  not  inaccurate  in  general  effect. 
 It  agrees  with  Mr.  Tipping's  as  to  the  structure  of  the 
 heights.  That  in  De  Saulcy  by  M.  Belly,  which  pur- 
 ports to  be  from  the  same  spot  as  the  latter,  is  very 
 poor. 
 
 d  This  was  the  fortress  in  which  the  last  remnant 
 of  the  Zealots,  or  fanatical  party  of  the  Jews,  defended 
 themselves  against  Silva,  the  Ronjan  general,  in  A.  D. 
 71,  and  at  last  put  themselves  to  death  to  escape  cap- 
 ture. The  spot  is  described  and  the  tragedy  related  in 
 a  verv  graphic  and  impressive  manner  by  Dean  Mit 
 man  '{Hist,  of  the  Jews,  3d  ed.,  U.  385-389). 
 
2884 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 and  Ain  Terdbeh  the  summit  is  a  table-land  740 
 feet  above  the  lake  (Poole,  p.  G7).<'  Further  north, 
 above  Ain  Ttrabeh,  the  summit  of  the  pass  is 
 1,305.75  feet  above  the  lake  (Lynch,  Off.  Rep.  p. 
 43),  witiiin  a  few  feet  the  heii^ht  of  the  plain  be- 
 tween the  Wad//  en~N(ir  aiid  Goumran,  which  is 
 given  by  Mr.  Poole  (p.  U8)  at  1,340  feet.  'I'his 
 appears  also  to  be  about  the  heifjht  of  the  rock  of 
 SeObe/i,  and  of  the  table-land,  already  mentioned, 
 on  the  eastern  motnitains  north  of  the  Wtidy 
 Zurka.  It  is  also  nearly  coincident  with  that  of 
 the  ocean.  In  ascendini;  from  the  lake  to  Nebi 
 Mus't,  Mr.  Poole  (p.  58)  passed  over  what  he 
 "thou^lit  niii,dit  be  the  orir^inal  level  of  the  old 
 plain,  5322^  feet  above  the  Dead  Sea."  That  these 
 are  the  remains  of  ancient  sea  margins,  chronicling 
 steps  in  the  history  of  the  lake  (Allen,  in  Gca/jr. 
 Jouin.  xxiii.  103),  may  reasonably  be  conjectured, 
 but  can  only  be  determined  by  the  observation  of  a 
 competent  geologist  on  the  spot. 
 
 17.  A  beach  of  \arying  width  skirts  the  foot 
 of  the  mountains  on  the  western  side.  Above 
 Ain  .Tidy  it  consists  mainly  of  the  deltas  of  the 
 torrents — fan-shaped  banks  of  debris^  of  all  sizes, 
 at  a  steep  slope,  spreading  from  the  outlet  of  the 
 torrent  like  tiiose  which  become  so  familiar  to 
 travellers,  in  Northern  Italy  for  example.  In  one 
 or  two  i)laces  —  as  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kidron  and 
 at  Alit  Ta-abch  —  the  beach  maybe  1,000  to  1,400 
 yards  wide,  but  usually-  it  is  much  narrower,  and 
 often  is  reduced  to  almost  nothing  by  the  advance 
 of  the  headlands.  For  its  major  part,  as  already 
 remarked,  it  is  impassable.  Below  Ain  Jidij,  how- 
 ever, a  marked  change  occurs  in  the  character  of 
 the  beach.  Alternating  with  the  shingle,  solid 
 deposits  of  a  new  material,  soft  friable  chalk,  marl, 
 and  gypsum,  with  salt,  begin  to  make  their  appear- 
 ance. These  are  gradually  developed  towards  the 
 south,  till  at  Stbbeh  and  below  it  they  form  a  ter- 
 race 80  feet  or  more  in  height  at  the  hack,  though 
 sloping  off  gradually  to  the  lake.  'J'his  new  mate- 
 rial is  a  greenish  white  in  color,  and  is  ploughed 
 up  by  the  cataracts  from  the  heights  behind  into 
 very  strange  forms:  here,  hundreds  of  small  niame- 
 lons,  covering  the  plain  like  an  eruption;  there, 
 long  rows  of  huge  cones,  looking  like  an  encamp- 
 ment of  enormous  tents;  or,  again,  rectangular 
 blocks  and  pillars,  exactly  re-senrbling  the  streets 
 of  a  town,  with  rows  of  houses  and  other  edifices, 
 all  as  if  constructed  of  white  marble.'^  These 
 appear  to  be  the  remains  of  .strata  of  late-  or  post- 
 tertiary  date,  deposited  at  a  time  when  the  water 
 of  the  lake  stood  much  higher,  and  covered  a  much 
 larger  area,  than  it  does  at  present.  The  fact  that 
 they  are  strongly  impregnated  with  the  salts  of  the 
 
 a  De  Saulcy  mentiou.s  this  as  a  small  rocky  table- 
 land, 250  metres  above  tlie  Dead  Sea.  But  this  was 
 evidently  not  the  actual  summit,  as  he  speaks  of  the 
 sheikh  occupying  a  post  a  few  hundred  yards  above 
 the  level  of  that  position,  and  further  west  {Narr.  i. 
 169). 
 
 I>  Lynch  remarks  that  at  Ain  el-Feshkhah  there  was 
 a  "  total  absence  of  round  pebbles ;  the  shore  was 
 covered  with  small  angular  fragments  of  flint"'  (Nnrr. 
 p.  274).     The  same  at  Avi  Jidij  (p.  290). 
 
 c  De  Saulcy,  AVirr.  ibid.  ;  Anderson,  p.  176.  See 
 also  a  striking  description  of  the  "resemblance  of  a 
 great  city  "  at  the  foot  of  Sebbek,  in  Beamout's  Diary, 
 etc.,  ii.  52. 
 
 ''  A  specimen  brought  by  Mr.  Clowes  from  the  foot 
 of  Srbbeh  has  been  examined  for  the  writer  by  Dr. 
 Price,  and  proves  to  contain  no  less  than  6-^8  per  cent. 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 lake  ''  is  itself  presumptive  evidence  of  this.  lu 
 many  places  they  have  completely  disap])eared, 
 doubtles.s  washed  into  the  lake  by  the  action  of 
 torrents  from  the  hills  behind,  similar  to,  though 
 more  violent  than  those  which  have  played  the 
 strange  freaks  just  described :  liut  they  still  linger 
 on  this  part  of  the  shore,  on  the  peninsula  oppo- 
 site,«  at  the  southern  and  western  outskirts  of  the 
 jjlain  south  of  the  lake,  and  probably  in  a  few 
 spots  at  the  northern  and  northwestern  *end,  to 
 testify  to  the  condition  which  once  existed  all  round 
 the  edge  of  the  deep  basin  of  the  lake.  The  width 
 of  the  beach  thus  formed  is  considerably  greater 
 than  that  above  Ain  Ji<ly.  From  the  Birkvi  eL- 
 Khulil  to  the  wady  south  of  Sebbeh,  a  distance  of 
 six  miles,  it  is  from  one  to  two  miles  wide,  and  is 
 passable  for  the  whole  distance.  'I'he  Birket  el- 
 Kliii/il  just  alluded  to  is  a  shallow  depression  on 
 the  shore,  which  is  filled  by  the  water  of  the  lake 
 when  at  its  greatest  height,  and  foinis  a  natural 
 salt  pan.  After  the  lake  retires  the  water  evap- 
 orates from  the  hollow,  and  the  salt  remains  for 
 the  use  of  the  Arabs.  They  also  collect  it  from 
 similar  rtioui;h  smaller  spots  further  south,./"  and 
 on  the  peninsula  (Irby,  .June  2).  (")ne  feature  of 
 the  beach  is  too  characteristic  to  escape  mention  — 
 the  line  of  driftwood  which  encircles  the  lake,  and 
 marks  the  highest,  or  the  ordinary  high  level  of 
 the  water.  It  consists  of  branches  of  brushwood, 
 and  of  the  limbs  of  trees,  some  of  considerable 
 size,  brought  down  by  the  .Jordan  and  other 
 streams,  and  in  course  of  time  cast  up  on  the 
 beach.  They  stand  up  out  of  the  sand  and  shingle 
 in  curiously  fantastic  shapes,  all  signs  of  life  gone 
 from  them,  and  with  a  charred  though  blanched 
 look  very  desolate  to  behold.  Amongst  them  are 
 saiil  to  be  great  numbers  of  palm  trunks  (Poole,  p. 
 09 ) ;  some  doubtless  floated  over  from  the  palm 
 groves  on  the  eastern  shore  already  spoken  of,  and 
 others  lirought  down  by  the  .Jordan  in  the  distant 
 d.ays  when  the  palm  flourished  along  its  banks. 
 The  driftwood  is  saturated  with  salt,  and  much  of 
 it  is  probably  of  a  very  great  age. 
 
 A  remarkable  feature  of  the  western  shore  has 
 been  mentioned  to  the  writer  by  the  members  of 
 Mr.  Clowes'  party.  This  is  a  set  of  3  parallel 
 lieaehes  one  above  the  other,  the  highest  about 
 50  feet  above  the  water;  which,  though  often  in- 
 terrupted by  ravines,  and  by  debris,  etc.,  can  be 
 traced  during  the  whole  distance  from  Wridy  Zu- 
 ircirnh  to  Ain  Jidy.  These  terraces  are  possibly 
 alluded  to  by  Anderson  when  speaking  of  the 
 ".several  descents"  necessary  to  reach  the  floor  of 
 Wiidy  Seynl  (p.  177). 
 
 18.  At  the  southwest  corner  of  the  lake,  below 
 
 of  salts  soluble  in  water,  namely,  chlor.  sodium,  4.559, 
 chlor.  calcium,  2.08,  chlor.  magnesium.  0-241.  Bromine 
 was  distinctly  found. 
 
 e  They  are  identified  by  Dr.  Anderson. 
 
 ./'  The  salt  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  anciently  much  in 
 request  for  use  in  the  Temple  service.  It  was  pre- 
 ferred before  all  other  kinds  for  its  reputed  effect  in 
 hastening  the  combustion  of  the  sacrifice,  while  it 
 diminished  the  unpleasant  .smell  of  the  burning  flesh. 
 Its  deliquescent  chai-acter  (due  to  the  chlorides  of  alka- 
 line earths  it  contains)  is  also  noticed  in  the  Talmud 
 {Mfnacotli,  xxi.  1;  Jcitkut).  It  was  called  "Sodom 
 salt,  '  but  also  went  by  the  name  of  the  "salt  that 
 
 does  not  rest"  (nDSIti'  pSl£7  Flbtt),  because 
 it  was  made  on  the  Sabbath  as  on  other  days,  like  the 
 '■  Sunday  salt  •'  of  the  Engli.sh  salt-woi-ks.  It  is  still 
 much  esteemed  in  Jerusalem. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 ffhere  tlie  wadies  Zuweircih  and  Mahauwat  break 
 down  through  the  inclosing  heights,  the  beach  is 
 sncroached  on  bj  the  salt  mountain  or  ridge  of 
 Khashm  Usilum.  This  remarkable  object  is  hith- 
 erto but  imperfectly  known.  It  is  said  to  be  quite 
 independent  of  the  western  mountains,  lying  in 
 front  of  and  separated  from  them  by  a  considerable 
 tract  tilled  up  with  conical  hills  and  short  ridges 
 of  the  soft,  chalky,  marly  deposit  just  described. 
 It  is  a  long,  level  ridge  or  dyke,  of  several  miles 
 long."  Its  northern  portion  runs  S.  S.  E. :  but 
 after  more  than  half  its  length  it  makes  a  sudden 
 and  decided  bend  to  the  right,  and  then  runs  S. 
 W.  It  is  from  300  to  400  feet  in  height,  of  in- 
 considerable width,*  consisting  of  a  body  of  crys- 
 tallized rock-salt,  more  or  less  solid,  covered  with 
 a  capping  of  chalky  limestone  and  gypsum.  The 
 lower  portion,  the  salt  rock,  rises  abruptly  from  the 
 glossy  plain  at  its  eastern  base,  sloping  back  at  an 
 angle  of  not  more  than  45°,  often  less.  It  has  a 
 strangely  dislocated,  shattered  look,  and  is  all  fur- 
 rowed and  worn  into  huge  angular  buttresses  and 
 ridges,  from  the  face  of  which  great  fragments  are 
 occasionally  detached  by  the  action  of  the  rains, 
 and  appear  as  "pillars  of  salt,"  advanced  in  front 
 of  the  general  njass.  At  the  foot  the  ground  is 
 strewed  with  lumps  and  masses  of  salt,  salt  streams 
 drain  continually  from  it  into  the  lake,  and  the 
 whole  of  the  beach  is  covered  with  salt  —  soft  and 
 sloppy,  and  of  a  pinkish  hue  in  winter  and  spring, 
 though  during  the  heat  of  sunnner  dried  up  into 
 a  shining,  brilliant  crust.  An  occasional  patch  of 
 the  Kali  plant  {SallcornicB,  etc.)  is  the  only  vegeta- 
 tion to  vary  the  monotony  of  this  most  monoto- 
 nous spot. 
 
 Between  the  north  end  of  K.  Usdtim  and  the 
 lake  is  a  mound  covered  with  stones  and  bearing 
 the  name  of  'um-Zo(jli<d.e  Jt  is  about  60  feet  in 
 diameter  and  10  or  I'l  high,  evidently  artificial, 
 and  not  improbably  the  remains  of  an  ancient 
 structure.  A  view  of  it,  engraved  from  a  photo- 
 graph by  Mr.  .Tames  Graham,  is  given  in  Isaac's 
 Dead  Sea  (p.  21 ).  This  heap  M.  I)e  Saulcy  main- 
 tained to  be  a  portion  of  the  remains  of  Sodom. 
 Its  name  is  more  suggestive  of  Zoar,  but  there  are 
 great  obstacles  to  either  identification.      [Sodom; 
 
 ZOAK.] 
 
 19.  It  follows  from  the  fact  that  the  lake  occu- 
 pies a  portion  of  a  longitudinal  depression,  that 
 its  northern  and  southern  ends  are  not  inclosed  by 
 highland,  as  its  east  and  west  sides  are.  The  floor 
 of  the  Ghor  or  .Jordan  Valley  has  been  already  de- 
 scribed. [Palestine,  iii.  2'2'J8.]  As  it  approaches 
 the  northern  shore  of  the  lake  it  breaks  down  by 
 two  ofl'sets  or  terraces,  tolerably  regular  in  figure 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2885 
 
 «  There  is  great  uncertainty  about  its  length.  Dr. 
 Robinson  states  it  at  5  miles  and  "a  considerable  dis- 
 tance further"  (ii.  107,  112).  Van  de  Velde  makes  it 
 10  miles  (ii.  113),  or  3,i  hours  (ii.  116).  But  when  these 
 dimensions  are  applied  to  the  map  they  are  much  too 
 large,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  it  can  be  more 
 than  5  miles  in  all. 
 
 b  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  181)  says  it  is  about  2i  miles 
 wide.  But  this  appears  to  contradict  Di-.  Robinson's 
 expressions  (ii.  107).  The  latter  are  corroborated  by 
 Mr.  Clowes'  party.  They  also  noticed  salt  in  large 
 quantities  among  the  rocks  in  regular  strata  some  con- 
 siderable distance  back  from  the  lake. 
 
 J    (Robinson,  ii.  107).     By  De  Saulcy 
 
 (9\e  name  is  given  Redjom  el-Mezorrahl  (the  gh  and  rr 
 are  both  attempts  to  represent  the  ghain).     The  "  Pil- 
 
 Jx. 
 
 and  level.  At  the  outside  edge  of  the  second  of 
 these  a  range  of  driftwood  marks  the  highest  level 
 of  the  waters  —  and  from  this  point  the  beach 
 slopes  more  rapidly  into  the  clear  light-green  watei 
 of  the  lake. 
 
 20.  A  small  piece  of  land  lies  off  the  shore  about 
 halfway  between  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  and 
 the  western  side  of  the  lake.  It  is  nearly  circular 
 in  form.  Its  sides  are  sloping,  and  therefore  its 
 size  varies  with  the  height  of  the  water.  ^Vhen 
 the  writer  went  to  it  in  September,  IS-jS,  it  was 
 about  100  yards  in  diameter,  10  or  12  feet  out  of 
 the  water,  and  connected  with  the  shore  by  a  nar- 
 row neck  or  isthmus  of  about  100  yards  in  length. 
 The  isthmus  is  concealed  when  the  water  is  at  its 
 full  height,  and  then  the  little  peninsula  becomes  an 
 island.  M.  IJe  Saulcy  attriljutes  to  it  the  name 
 Redji'im  Lut  —  the  cairn  of  Lot.''  It  is  covered 
 with  stones,  and  dead  wood  washed  up  by  the 
 waves.  The  stones  are  large,  and  though  much 
 weather-worn,  appear  to  have  been  originally 
 rectangular.  At  any  rate  they  are  very  differ- 
 ent from  any  natural  fragments  on  the  adjacent 
 shores. 
 
 21.  Beyond  the  island  the  northwestern  corner 
 of  the  lake  is  bordered  by  a  low  plain,  extending  up 
 to  the  foot  of  the  mountains  of  Nebjj  Miisa,  and 
 south  as  far  as  Jins  Feslikhah.  This  plain  must 
 be  considerably  lower  than  the  general  level  of  the 
 land  north  of  the  lake,  since  its  appearance  implies 
 that  it  is  often  covered  with  water.  It  is  described 
 as  sloping  gently  upwards  from  the  lake;  flat  and 
 barren,  except  rare  patches  of  weeds  round  a  spring. 
 It  is  soft  and  slimy  to  the  tread,  or  in  the  summer 
 covered  with  a  white  film  of  salt,  formed  by  the 
 evaporation  of  the  surface  water.  The  upper  sur- 
 face appears  to  be  only  a  crust,  covering  a  soft  and 
 deep  substratum,  and  often  not  strong  enough  to 
 bear  the  weight  of  the  traveller.«  In  all  these  par- 
 ticulars it  agrees  with  the  plain  at  the  south  of  the 
 lake,  which  is  undoubtedly  covered  when  the  waters 
 rise.  It  further  agrees  with  it  in  exhibiting  at  the 
 back  remains  of  the  late  tertiary  deposits  already 
 mentioned,  cut  out,  like  those  about  Sehbeli,  into 
 fantastic  shapes  by  the  rush  of  the  torrents  from 
 behind. 
 
 A  similar  plain  (the  Ghor  el-Bclka,  or  Ghor 
 Se-isiiban)  appears  to  exist  on  the  N.  E.  corner  of 
 the  lake  between  the  embouchure  of  the  Jordan  and 
 the  slopes  of  the  mountains  of  Moab.  Beyond, 
 however,  the  very  brief  notice  of  Seetzen  (ii.  373), 
 establishing  the,  fact  that  it  is  "salt  and  stony," 
 nothing  is  known  of  it./ 
 
 22.  The  southern  end  is,  like  the  northern,  a 
 wide  plain,  and  like  it  retains  among  the  Arabs  the 
 
 grim  "  in  Athenmum,  Apr.  2, 1854,  expressly  states  that 
 his  guide  called  it  Rniljehn  ez-Zogheir. 
 
 d  This  island  was  shown  to  Maundrell  (March  30, 
 1697)  as  containing,  or  having  near  it,  the  "  monument 
 of  Lot's  wife."  It  forms  a  prominent  feature  in  the 
 view  of  "  the  Dead  Sea  from  its  northern  shore,"  No. 
 429  of  Frith's  stereoscopic  views  in  the  Holy  Land. 
 
 «  This  was  especially  mentioned  to  the  writer  by 
 Mr.  David  Roberts,  R.  A.,  who  was  nearly  lost  in  such 
 a  hole  ou  his  way  from  the  Jordan  to  Mar  Saba. 
 
 f  The  statement  of  the  ancient  traveller  Thietmai 
 (A.  D.  1217),  who  crossed  the  Jordan  at  the  ordinary 
 ford,  and  at  a  mile  from  thence  was  shown  the  "  salt 
 pillar  "  of  Lot's  wife,  seems  to  imply  that  there  are 
 masses  of  rock-salt  at  this  spot,  of  the  same  nature 
 as  that  at  Usilum,  though  doubtless  less  extensive 
 (Thietmar,  Peregr.  xi.  47). 
 
2886 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 name  of  El  Ghdi:<^  It  has  been  visited  by  but  few  ' 
 travellers.  Seetzeu  crossed  it  from  E.  to  W.  in  j 
 April,  1806  (Beisen,  i.  42G-129),Irby  and  Mangles 
 in  May,  1818,  De  Saulcy  in  Jan.  1851,  and  Poole 
 in  Nov.  18.55,  all  crossed  it  in  the  opposite  direc- 
 tion at  a  moderate  distance  from  the  lake.  Dr. 
 Kobinson,  on  his  way  from  Hebron  to  Petra  in 
 May,  18-38,  descended  the  Wndi/  Zinveirah,  passed 
 between  K.  Usdnm  and  the  lake,  and  went  along 
 the  western  side  of  the  plain  to  the  Wudy  el-Jtib. 
 The  same  route  W'as  partially  followed  by  M.  Van 
 de  Velde.  The  plain  is  bounded  on  the  west  side, 
 below  the  Khas/iia  Usdum,  by  a  tract  thickly 
 studded  with  a  confused  mass  of  imimportant  emi- 
 nences, "low  cliffs  and  conical  hills,"  of  chalky 
 indurated  marl  (Kob.  ii.  IIG),  apparently  of  the 
 same  late  formation  as  that  already  mentioned  fur- 
 ther north.  These  eminences  inter\ene  between 
 the  lofty  mountains  of  Judah  and  the  plain,  and 
 thus  diminish  the  width  of  the  Ghor  from  what  it 
 is  at  Ain  Jidy.  Their  present  forms  are  due  to 
 the  fierce  rush  of  the  winter  torrents  from  the  ele- 
 vated tracts  behind  them.  In  height  they  vary 
 from  50  to  150  feet.  In  color  they  are  brilliant 
 white  (Poole,  p.  61).  All  along  their  base  are 
 springs,  generally  of  brackish,  though  occasionally 
 of  fresh  water,  the  overflow  from  which  forms  a 
 tract  of  marshland,  overgrown  with  canes,  tama- 
 risks, retem,  ghurkud,  thorn,  and  other  shrubs. 
 Here  and  there  a  stunted  palm  is  to  be  seen.  Sev- 
 eral principal  wadies,  such  as  the  Wady  Emm,  and 
 the  Wady  Fikreh,  descend  into  the  Glior  through 
 these  hills  from  the  higher  mountains  behind,  and 
 their  wide  beds,  strewed  with  great  stones  and 
 deeply  furrowed,  show  what  vast  bodies  of  water 
 they  must  discharge  in  the  rainy  season.  The  hills 
 themselves  bend  gradually  round  to  the  eastward, 
 and  at  last  close  the  valley  in  to  the  south.  In  plan 
 thej'  form  "an  irregular  curve,  sweeping  across 
 the  Glich'  in  something  like  the  segment  of  a  circle, 
 the  chord  of  which  would  be  6  or  7  geographical 
 miles  in  length,  extending  obliquely  from  N.  W. 
 to  S.  E."  (Kob.  ii.  120).  Their  apparent  height 
 remains  about  what  it  was  on  the  west,  but  though 
 still  insignificant  in  themselves,  they  occupy  here 
 an  important  position  as  the  boundary-line  between 
 the  districts  of  the  Ghor  and  the  Arahah  —  the 
 central  and  southern  compartments  of  the  great 
 longitudinal  valley  mentioned  in  the  outset  of  this 
 article.  The  ArabnJi  is  higher  in  level  than  the 
 Ghor.  The  valley  takes  at  this  point  a  sudden  rise 
 or  step  of  about  100  feet  in  height,  and  from  thence 
 continues  rising  gradually  to  a  point  about  35 
 miles  north  of  Akabth,  where  it  reaches  an  ele- 
 vation of  1800  feet  above  the  Dead  Sea,  or  very 
 neai'ly  500  feet  above  the  ocean.'' 
 
 23.  Thus  the  waters  of  two  thirds  of  the  Arnhah 
 drain  northwards  into  the  plain  at  the  south  of  the 
 lake,  and  thence  into  the  lake  itself.  The  Wady 
 el-Jeib  —  the  principal  channel  by  which  this  vast 
 drainage  is  discharged  on  to  the  plain  —  is  very 
 large,  "  a  huge  channel,"  "  not  far  from  half  a  mile 
 wide,"  "  bearing  traces  of  an  immense  volume  of 
 water,  rushing  along  with  violence,  and  covering 
 the  whole  breadth  of  the  valley."  The  body  of  de- 
 tritus discharged  by  such  a  river  must  be  enormous. 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 We  have  no  measure  of  the  elevation  of  the  plain 
 at  the  foot  of  the  southern  line  of  mounds,  but 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  rise  from  the  lake 
 upwards  is,  as  the  torrents  are  approached,  consid- 
 erable, and  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  avoid  the 
 conclusion  that  the  silting  up  of  the  lagoon  which 
 forms  the  southern  portion  of  the  lake  itself  is  due 
 to  the  materials  brought  down  by  this  great  tor- 
 rent, and  by  those  hardly  inferior  to  it,  which,  as 
 ah'eady  mentioned,  discharge  the  waters  of  the  ex- 
 tensive highlands  both  on  the  east  and  west. 
 
 2-4.  Of  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  plain,  we 
 possess  hardly  any  information.  We  know  that  it. 
 is  formed  by  the  mountains  of  !Moab,  and  we  can 
 just  discern  that,  adjacent  to  the  lake,  they  consist 
 of  sandstone,  red  and  yellow,  with  conglomerate 
 containing  porphyry  and  granite,  fragments  of 
 which  have  rolled  down  and  seem  to  occupy  the 
 position  which  on  the  western  side  is  occupied  by 
 the  tertiary  hills.  We  know  also  that  the  wadies 
 GhurundeL  and  Tiijikh,  which  drain  a  district  of 
 the  mountains  N.  of  Petra,  enter  at  the  S.  E.  cor- 
 ner of  the  plain  —  but  beyond  this  all  is  uncertain. 
 
 25.  Of  the  plain  itself  hardly  more  is  known 
 than  of  its  boundaries.  Its  greatest  width  from  W. 
 to  E.  is  estimated  at  from  5  to  6  miles,  while  its 
 length,  from  the  cave  in  the  salt  mountain  to  the 
 range  of  heights  on  the  south,  appears  to  be  about  8. 
 Thus  the  breadth  of  the  Ghor  seems  to  be  here  con- 
 siderably less  than  it  is  anywhere  north  of  the  lake, 
 or  across  the  lake  itself.  That  part  of  it  which 
 more  inmiediately  adjoins  the  lake  consists  of  two 
 very  distinct  sections,  divided  by  a  line  running 
 nearly  N.  and  S.  Of  these  the  western  is  a  region 
 of  salt  and  barrenness,  bounded  liy  the  salt  moun- 
 tain of  Khashin  Usdum,  and  fed  by  the  liquefied 
 salt  from  its  caverns  and  surface,  or  by  the  drain- 
 age from  the  salt  springs  bejond  it  —  and  over- 
 flowed periodically  by  the  brine  of  the  lake  itself. 
 Near  the  lake  it  bears  the  name  of  es-Sabhah,  i.  e. 
 the  plain  of  salt  mud  (De  Saulcy,  p.  262).  Its 
 width  from  W.  to  E.  —  from  the  foot  of  K.  Usdum 
 to  the  belt  of  reeds  which  separates  it  from  the 
 Ghur  es-Safieh  —  is  from  3  to  4  miles."^  Of  its 
 extent  to  the  south  nothing  is  known,  but  it  is 
 probable  that  the  muddy  district,  the  Sabkah 
 proper,  does  not  extend  more,  at  most,  than  3 
 miles  from  the  lake.  It  is  a  naked,  marshy  plain, 
 often  so  boggy  as  to  lie  impassable  for  camels  (Kob. 
 ii.  115),  destitute  of  every  species  of  vegetation, 
 scored  at  frequent  intervals''  by  the  channels  of 
 salt  streams  from  the  Jebel  Usdum,  or  the  salt 
 springs  along  the  base  of  the  hills  to  the  south 
 thereof.  As  the  southern  boundary  is  approached 
 the  plain  appears  to  rise,  and  its  surface  is  covered 
 with  a  "  countless  number  "  of  those  conical  mame- 
 lons  (Poole,  p.  61),  the  remains  of  late  aqu^us 
 deposits,  which  are  so  characteristic  of  the  whole  of 
 this  region.  At  a  distance  from  the  lake  a  partial 
 vegetation  is  found  (Kob.  ii.  103),  clumps  of  reeds 
 surrounding  and  choking  the  springs,  and  spread- 
 ing out  as  the  water  runs  oft'. 
 
 26.  To  this  curious  and  repulsive  picture  the 
 eastern  section  of  the  plain  is  an  entire  contrast.  A 
 dense  thicket  of  reeds,  almost  impenetrable,  divides 
 it  from  the  Sabkah.     This  past,  the  aspect  of  the 
 
 a  Rolir  in  the  spelling  adopted  by  De  Saulcy. 
 
 b  See  the  section  given  by  Petermann  in  Geogr. 
 ^ourn.  xviii.  89. 
 
 <^  Irby,  11  hour;  De  Haulcy,  1  hr.  18  min.-|-800 
 wetres  ;  Poole,  1  hr.  5  mln.     Seetzen,  3  hours  (i.  428). 
 
 d  Irby  and  Mangles  report  the  number  of  these 
 "  drains  "  between  Jebel  Usdum  and  the  edge  of  the 
 Ghur  (s-Safifh  at  six  ;  Poole  at  eleven  ;  De  Saulcy  at 
 three,  but  he  evidently  names  only  the  most  formidabie 
 ones. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 land  completely  chanr;es.  It  is  a  thick  copse  of 
 slirubs  similar  to  that  around  Jericho  (Rob.  ii.  113), 
 and,  like  that,  cleared  here  and  there  in  patches 
 where  the  Ghft/carmeli,<^  or  Arabs  of  the  Glior, 
 cultivate  their  wheat  and  durra,  and  set  up  their 
 wretched  villages.  The  variety  of  trees  appears  to 
 be  remarkable.  Irby  and  Mangles  (p.  108  h)  speak 
 of  "  an  infinity  of  plants  that  they  knew  not 
 how  to  name  or  describe."  De  Saulcy  expresses 
 himself  in  the  same  terms  —  "  une  riche  nioisson 
 botanique.''  The  plants  which  these  tra\ellers 
 name  are  dwarf  mimosa,  tamarisk,  dom,  osher, 
 Asclqyias  jyrocera,  nubk,  arek,  indigo.  Seetzen 
 (i.  427)  names  also  the  Thuja  n2)hyUa.  Here,  as 
 at  Jericho,  the  secret  of  this  vegetation  is  an 
 abundance  of  fresh  water  acting  on  a  soil  of  ex- 
 treme richness  (Seetzen,  ii.  355).  Besides  the 
 watercourse,''  in  which  the  belt  of  reeds  flourishes 
 (like  those  north  of  the  Lake  of   Huleh  in  the 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2887 
 
 marshes  which  bound  the  upper  Jordan "),  the 
 ]V((cly  Kuraby  (or  el-Alisy),  a  considerable  stream "' 
 from  the  eastern  mountains,  runs  through  it,  and 
 Mr.  Poole  mentions  having  passed  three  swift 
 brooks,  either  branches  of  the  same,''  or  independ- 
 ent streams.  But  this  would  hardly  be  sufficient 
 to  account  for  its  fertility,  unless  this  portion  of 
 the  plain  were  too  high  to  be  overflowed  by  the 
 lake;  and  although  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
 such  change  of  level,  it  is  probably  safe  to  assume 
 it.  Perhaps,  also,  something  is  due  to  the  nature 
 of  the  soil  brought  down  by  the  Wady  el-AIisty, 
 of  which  it  is  virtually  the  delta.  This  district,  so 
 well  wooded  and  watered,  is  called  the  (ihnr  es- 
 Sajieh.  f  Its  width  is  le.ssthan  that  of  the  Snbkah. 
 No  traveller  has  traversed  it  from  W.  to  E.,  for 
 the  only  road  through  it  is  apparently  that  to 
 Kerdk,  which  alone  takes  a  N.  E.  direction  imme- 
 diately after  passing  the  reeds.     De  Saulcy  made 
 
 ^A;-r'j/\ 
 
 The  Dead  Sea.  —  View  from  the  heights  behind  Hfbl/i/i  (Masnda),  showing  the  wide  beach  on  the  western   side 
 of  the  lalse,  and  the  tongue-shaped  peninsula.     Fi-oni  a  drawing  made  on  the  spot  by  \V.  Tipping,  Esq. 
 
 the  nearest  approach  to  such  a  traverse  on  his  re- 
 turn from  Kerak  {Narrative,  i.  492),  and  on  his 
 detailed  map  (feuille  6)  it  appears  about  2|  miles 
 in  width.  Its  length  is  still  Tnore  uncertain,  as  we 
 are  absolutely  without  record  of  any  exploration 
 of  its  southern  portion.  Seetzen  (ii.  355)  specifies 
 it  (at  second  hand)  as  extending  to  the  mouth  of 
 the  Wady  el-Bossa  (i.  e.  the  el-AJisy).  On  the 
 other  hand,  De  Saulcy,  when  crossing  the  Sabkali 
 
 «  The  Ghorneys  of  Irby  and  Mangles  ;  the  Rhaouar- 
 nas  of  De  Saulcy. 
 
 b  Probably  the  Wady  el-  Tufileh. 
 
 c  See  De  Saulcy,  Narr.  i.  493. 
 
 d  Larger  than  the  Wady  Mojib  (Seetzen,  i.  427). 
 
 e  Seetzen  (ii.  355)  states  that  the  stream,  which  he 
 calls  et-Hiissa,  is  conducted  in  artificial  channels 
 (Kandten)  through  the  fields  (also  i.  427).  Poole 
 names  them  Aiii  Ashkn. 
 
 f  Mr.  Tristram  found  even  at  the  foot  of  the  salt 
 mountain  of  Usdiim  that  about  2  feet  below  the  salt 
 surface  there  vras  a  splendid  alluvial  soil ;  and  he  has 
 
 for  the  first  time  from  W.  to  E.  [Narr.  i.  263), 
 remarked  that  there  was  no  intermission  in  the 
 wood  before  him,  between  the  Gltor  es-Safith  and 
 the  foot  of  the  hills  at  the  extreme  south  of  the 
 plain.  It  is  possible  that  both  are  right,  and 
 that  the  wood  extends  over  the  whole  east  of 
 the  GItdr,  though  it  bears  the  name  of  es-SaJieh 
 oidy  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  el~Ahsy. 
 
 27.  The  eastern  mountains,  which  form  the  back- 
 
 suggested  to  the  writer  that  there  is  an  analogy  be- 
 tween this  plain  and  certain  districts  in  North  Africa, 
 which,  though  fertile  and  cultivated  in  Roman  times, 
 are  now  barren  and  covered  with  efflorescence  of  na- 
 tron. The  cases  are  to  a  certain  degree  piuallel,  in- 
 asmuch as  the  African  plains  (also  called  Sebkha)  have 
 their  salt  mountains  (like  the  Kliashm  Usdiim,  "iso- 
 lated from  the  mountain  range  behind,"  and  flanked 
 by  small  mamelons  bearing  stunted  herbage),  the 
 streams  from  which  supply  them  with  salt  {The  Great 
 Sahara,  p.  71,  &c.).  They  are  also,  like  the  Sabkah  of 
 Syria,  overflowed  every  winter  by  the  adjoining  lake 
 
2888 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 ground  to  tliis  district  of  woodland,  are  no  less 
 naked  and  rugged  than  those  on  the  opposite  side 
 of  the  valley.  They  consist,  according  to  the  re- 
 ports of  Seetzen  (ii.  354),  Poole,  and  Lynch,  of  a 
 red  sandstone,  with  limestone  above  it  —  the  sand- 
 stone in  horizontal  strata  with  vertical  cleavage 
 (Lynch,  Nar?:  pp.  311,  313).  'I'o  judge  from  the 
 fragments  at  their  feet,  they  must  also  contain  very 
 fine  breccife  and  conglomerates  of  granite,  jasper, 
 greenstone,  and  felspar  of  varied  color.  Irb)  and 
 Mangles  mention  also  porphyry,  serpentine,  and 
 basalt ;  but  Seetzen  expressly  declares  that  of  basalt 
 he  there  found  no  trace. 
 
 Of  their  height  nothing  is  known,  Ijut  all  travel- 
 lers concur  in  estimating  them  as  higher  than  those 
 on  the  west,  and  as  preserving  a  more  horizontal 
 line  to  the  south. 
 
 After  passing  from  the  Glwr  es-Safieh  to  the 
 north,  a  salt  plain  is  encountered  resembling  the 
 Sah/crih,  and  like  it  overflowed  by  the  lake  when 
 high  (Seetzen,  ii.  355).  With  this  exception  the 
 mountains  come  down  abruptly  on  the  water  dur- 
 ing the  whole  length  of  the  eastern  side  of  the 
 lagoon.  In  two  places  only  is  there  a  projecting 
 beach,  apparently  due  to  the  deltas  caused  by  the 
 wadies  en-Nemeircih  and  U/ieiinii: 
 
 28.  We  ha\e  now  anived  at  the  peninsula 
 which  projects  from  the  eastern  shore  and  forms 
 the  north  inclosure  of  the  lagoon.  It  is  too  re- 
 markable an  object,  and  too  characteristic  of  the 
 southern  portion  of  the  lake,  to  be  passed  over  with- 
 out description. 
 
 It  has  been  visited  and  described  by  three  ex- 
 plorers—  Irby  and  Mangles  in  June,  1818;  Mr. 
 Foole  in  November,  1855;  and  the  American  expe- 
 dition in  April,  1848.  Among  the  Arabs  it  appears 
 to  bear  the  names  Ghor  ehMezva'ali  anA  G/wrel- 
 Lisan.     The   latter   name  —  "  the   Tongue  "  «  — 
 
 recalls  the  similar  Hebrew  word  Uishon,  'j'ltt^V, 
 which  is  employed  three  times  in  relation  to  the 
 lake  in  the  specification  of  the  boundaries  of  Judah 
 and  Benjamin,  contained  in  the  book  of  Joshua. 
 But  in  its  three  occurrences  the  word  is  applied  to 
 two  different  places  —  one  at  the  north  (Josh.  xv. 
 5,  xviii.  I'J),  and  one  at  the  south  (xv.  2);  and  it 
 is  probable  that  it  signifies  in  both  cases  a  tonrcue 
 of  water  —  a  bay — instead  of  a  tongue*  of  land. 
 
 29.  Its  entire  length  from  north  to  south  is  about 
 10  geographical  miles,  and  its  breadth  from  5  to 
 6  —  though  these  dimensions  are  subject  to  some 
 
 a  This  appt'llation  is  justified  by  the  view  on  the 
 precediQg  page. 
 
 h  From  the  expression  being  in  the  first  two  cases 
 "  tongue  of  the  sea,"  and  in  the  third  simply 
 "  tongue,"  M.  de  Saulcy  conjectures  that  in  the  last 
 case  a  tongue  of  Land  is  intended  :  but  there  is  noth- 
 ing to  warrant  this.  It  is  by  no  means  certain 
 whether  the  two  Arabic  names  just  mentioned  apply 
 to  different  parts  of  the  peninsula,  or  are  given  indis- 
 criminately to  the  whole.  Gkur  el-Mtzm'ali  is  the 
 only  name  which  Seetzen  mentions,  and  he  attaches 
 it  to  the  whole.  It  is  also  the  only  one  mentioned  by 
 Dr.  Anderson,  but  he  restricts  it  to  the  depression  on 
 the  east  side  of  the  peninsula,  which  runs  ^f.  and  S. 
 and  intervenes  between  the  main  body  and  the  foot  of 
 the  eastern  mountains  (And.  p.  184).  M.  de  Saulcy  is 
 apparently  the  earliest  traveller  to  mention  the  name 
 Lisdn.  He  (Jan.  15)  ascribes  it  to  the  whole  penin- 
 sula, though  he  appears  to  attach  it  more  particu- 
 larly to  its  southern  portion,  —  "  Le  Lifan  actuel  des 
 Arabes.  c'est-a-dire  la  pointe  sud  de  la  presqu'-ile,"  (  Voij- 
 ige,  i  290).     And  this  is  supported  by  the  practice  of 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 variation  according  to  the  time  of  year.  It  appears 
 to  be  formed  entirely  of  recent  aqueous  deposits, 
 late,  or  post-tertiary,  very  similar,  if  not  identical, 
 with  those  which  face  it  on  the  western  shore,  and 
 with  the  "mounds  "  which  skirt  the  plains  at  the 
 south  and  N.  W.  of  the  lake.  It  consists  of  a 
 friable  carbonate  of  lime  intermixed  with  sand  or 
 sandy  marls,  and  with  frequent  masses  of  sulphate 
 of  lime  (gypsum).  The  whole  is  impregnated 
 strongly  with  sulphur,  lumps  of  which  are  found, 
 as  on  the  plain  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake,  and 
 also  with  salt,  existing  in  the  form  of  lumps  or 
 packs  of  rock-salt  (And.  p.  187).  Nitre  is  reported 
 by  Irbj'  (p.  13U),  but  neither  Toole  nor  Anderson 
 succeeded  in  meeting  with  it.  The  stratification  is 
 almost  horizontal,  with  a  slight  dip  to  the  east 
 (Poole,  p.  03).  At  the  north  it  is  worn  into  a  sharp 
 ridge  or  mane,  with  very  steep  sides  and  serrated 
 top.  Towards  the  south  the  top  widens  into  a 
 table-land,  which  Poole  (t6(V/.)  reports  as  about  ° 
 230  ft.  aliove  the  level  of  the  lake  at  its  southern 
 end.  It  breaks  down  on  the  W.,  S.,  and  N.  K.  sides 
 by  steep  declivities  to  the  shore,  furrowed  by  the 
 rains  which  are  gradually  washing  it  into  the  lake, 
 into  cones  and  other  fjvntastic  forms,  like  those  al- 
 ready descril)ed  on  the  western  beach  near  Seljheh. 
 It  presents  a  brilliant  white  appearance  when  lit  up 
 by  the  blazing  sun,  and  contrasted  with  the  deep  blue 
 of  the  lake  (Beaufort,  p.  104).  A  scanty  growth  of 
 shrubs  (Poole,  p.  04)  —  so  scanty  as  to  be  almost 
 invisible  (Irby,  p.  139  b)  —  is  found  over  the  table- 
 land. On  the  east  the  highland  descends  to  a  de- 
 pression of  1^  or  2  miles  wide,  which  from  the 
 description  of  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  184)  appears  to  run 
 across  the  neck  from  S.  to  N.,  at  a  level  hardly 
 abo\'e  that  of  the  lake.  It  will  doubtless  be  ulti- 
 mately worn  down  quite  to  the  level  of  the  water, 
 and  then  the  peninsula  will  beconie  an  island  (An- 
 derson, pp.  184, 189).  Into  this  valley  lead  the  tor- 
 rents from  the  ravines  of  the  mountains  on  the 
 east.  The  principal  of  these  is  the  Wudy  c<!-Dra'a 
 or  IF.  Kerrik,  which  leads  up  to  the  city  of  that 
 name.  It  is  here  that  the  few  inhabitants  of  the 
 peninsula  reside,  in  a  wretched  village  called  Mez- 
 ra'afi.  The  soil  is  of  the  most  unbounded  fertility, 
 and  only  requires  water  to  burst  into  riotous  prodi- 
 gality of  vegetation  (Seetzen,  ii.  351,  352). 
 
 30.  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this 
 peninsula  is  the  remnant  of  a  bed  of  late  aqueous 
 strata,  which  were  deposited  at  a  period  when  the 
 
 Van  de  Velde.  who  on  his  map  marks  the  north  portion 
 of  the  peninsula  as  Glwr  el-Mezra'ah,  and  the  south 
 GhOr  el-Lisan.  M.  de  Saulcy  also  specifies  with  much 
 detail  the  position  of  the  former  of  these  two  as  at  the 
 opening  of  the  Wndy  ed-HrrCa  (Jan.  15).  The  point 
 is  well  worth  the  attention  of  future  travellers,  for  if 
 the  name  Lisan  is  actually  restricted  to  the  south  side, 
 a  curious  confirmation  of  the  accuracy  of  the  ancient 
 survey  recorded  in  Josh.  xv.  2  would  be  furnished, 
 as  well  as  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  tenacity  of  an  old 
 name. 
 
 c  This  dimension,  which  Mr.  Poole  took  with  his  ane- 
 roid, is  strangely  at  variance  with  the  estimate  of 
 Lynch's  party.  Lynch  himself,  on  approaching  it  at 
 the  north  point  {Nan.  p.  297),  states  it  at  from  40  to 
 CO  feet  high,  with  a  sharp  angular  central  ridge  some 
 20  feet  above  that.  This  last  feature  is  mentioned  also 
 by  Irby  (June  2).  Anderson  increases  the  dimension 
 of  his  chief  to  80  or  90  ft.  {O/f.  Rep.  p.  185) ;  but  even 
 this  falls  short  of  Poole.  The  peninsula  probably 
 slopes  off  considerably  towards  the  north  end,  at  which 
 Lynch  and  Anderson  made  their  estimate. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 water  of  the  lake  stood  very  much  higher  than  it 
 now  does,  but  which,  since  it  attained  its  present 
 level,  and  thus  exposed  them  to  the  action  of  the 
 winter  torrents,  are  e;radually  being  disintegrated 
 and  carried  down  into  the  depths  of  the  lake.  It 
 is  in  fact  an  intrusion  upon  the  form  of  the  lake,  as 
 originally  determined  by  the  rocky  walls  of  the 
 great  fissure  of  the  Ghor.  Its  presence  here,  so 
 long  after  the  great  bulk  of  the  same  formation  has 
 been  washed  away,  is  an  interesting  and  fortunate 
 circumstance,  since  it  furnishes  distinct  evidence  of 
 a  stage  in  the  existence  of  the  lake,  which  in  its 
 absence  might  have  been  inferred  from  analogy, 
 but  could  never  have  been  affirmed  as  certain.  It 
 may  have  been  deposited  either  by  the  general  ac- 
 tion of  the  lake,  or  by  the  special  action  of  a  river, 
 possibly  in  the  direction  of  Wttdy  Kenik,  which 
 in  that  case  formed  this  extensive  deposit  at  its 
 mouth,  just  as  the  Jordan  is  now  forming  a  similar 
 bank  at  its  embouchure.  If  a  change  were  to  take 
 place  which  either  lowered  the  water,  or  elevated 
 the  bottom  of  the  lake,  the  bank  at  the  mouth 
 of  the  Jordan  would  be  laid  bare,  as  the  Lisdn  now 
 is,  and  would  immediately  begin  to  undergo  the 
 process  of  disintegration  which  that  is  undergoing. 
 
 31.  The  extraordinary  difference  between  the 
 depth  of  the  two  portions  of  the  lake  —  north  and 
 south  of  the  peninsula- — has  been  already  alluded 
 to,  and  may  be  seen  at  a  glance  on  the  section 
 given  on  page  2878.  The  former  is  a  bowl,  which 
 at  one  place  attains  the  depth  of  more  than  l,-300 
 feet,  while  the  average  depth  along  its  axis  may  be 
 taken  at  not  far  short  of  1,000.  On  the  other  hand 
 the  southern  portion  is  a  flat  plain,  with  the  greater 
 part  of  its  area  nearly  level,  a  very  few  feet "  only 
 below  the  surfece,  shoaling  gradually  at  the  edges 
 till  the  brink  is  reached.  So  shallow  is  this  lagopn 
 that  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  ford  right  across 
 from  the  west  to  the  east  side  (Seetzen,  i.  428,''  ii. 
 358;  Kob.  i.  521;   Lynch,  Narr.  p.  30-i). 
 
 The  channel  connecting  the  two  portions,  on  the 
 western  side  of  the  peninsula,  is  very  gradual  in 
 its  slope  from  S.  to  N.,<'  increasing  in  depth  from 
 3  fathoms  to  13,  and  from  13  to  19,  32  and  50, 
 when  it  suddenly  drops  to  107  (642  feet),  and 
 joins  the  upper  portion. 
 
 32.  Thus  the  circular  portion  above  the  penin- 
 sula, and  a  part  of  the  channel,  form  a  mere  la- 
 goon, entirely  distinct  and  separate  from  the  basin 
 of  the  lake  proper.  This  portion  and  the  plain  at 
 the  south  as  far  as  the  rise  or  offset  at  which  the 
 Arabah  commences  —  a  district  in  all  of  .some  16 
 miles  bj'  8  —  would  appear  to  have  been  left  by 
 the  last  great  change  in  the  form  of  the  ground 
 at  a  level  not  far  below  its  present  one,  and 
 consequently  much  higher  than  the  bottom  of  the 
 lake  itself.  But  surrounded  as  it  is  on  three  sides 
 by  highlands,  the  waters  of  which  have  no  other 
 outlet,  it  has  become  the  delta  into  which  those 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2889 
 
 a  When  sounded   by  Lynch,  its    depth   over    the 
 greater  part  of  the  area  was  12  feet. 
 
 h  He  tixes  thu  ford  at  ^  an  hour  north  of  the  N. 
 endof  Jf6e/  Usf/inn. 
 
 c  Across  this,  too,  there  is  a  ford,  described  in  some 
 detail  by  Irby  and  Mangles  (.Tune  2).  The  water  must 
 have  been  unusually  low,  since  they  not  only  state 
 that  donkeys  were  able  to  cross,  but  also  that  the 
 width  did  not  exceed  a  mile,  a  matter  in  which  the 
 keen  eye  of  a  practical  sailor  is  not  likely  to  have 
 been  deceived.  Lynch  could  find  no  trace  of  either 
 ford,  and  his  map  shows  the  channel  as  fully  two 
 miles  wide  at  its  narrowest  spot. 
 182 
 
 waters  discharge  themsehes.  On  its  south  side  are 
 the  immense  torrents  of  the  Jeib,  the  Ghurundel, 
 and  the  Fi/creh.  On  the  east  the  somewhat  less 
 important  el-Ahsy,  Numcirnh,  Humeir,  and  ed- 
 DriCali.  On  the  west  the  Ztiweirah,  Miibiifjliglnk^^t 
 and  Seiiin.  These  streams  are  the  drains  of  a  dis- 
 trict not  less  than  6,000  square  miles  in  area,  very 
 une\en  in  form,  and  composed  of  materials  more  or 
 less  friable.  They  must  therefore  bring  down 
 enormous  quantities  of  silt  and  shingle.  There 
 can  be  little  douljt  that  they  have  already  filled  up 
 the  southern  part  of  the  estuary  as  far  as  the  pres- 
 ent Ijrink  of  the  water,  and  the  silting  up  of  the 
 rest  is  merely  a  work  of  time.  It  is  the  same  pro- 
 cess which  is  going  on,  on  a  larger  and  more  rapid 
 scale,  in  the  Sea  of  Azov,  the  upper  portion  of  which 
 is  fast  filling  up  with  the  detritus  of  the  river  Don. 
 Indeed  the  two  portions  of  the  Dead  Sea  present 
 several  points  of  analogy  to  the  Sea  of  Azov  and 
 the  Black  Sea. 
 
 It  is  difficult  to  speak  with  confidence  on  any  of 
 the  geological  features  of  the  lake,  in  the  absence 
 of  reports  by  competent  observers.  But  the  theory 
 that  the  lagoon  was  lowered  by  a  recent  change, 
 and  overflowed  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Jics.  ii.  189),  seems 
 directly  contrarj'  to  the  natural  initjrence  from  the 
 fact  that  such  large  torrents  discharge  themselves 
 into  that  spot.  There  is  nothing  in  the  appear- 
 ance of  the  ground  to  suggest  any  violent  change 
 in  recent  (/.  e.  historical)  times,  or  that  anything 
 has  taken  place  but  the  gradual  accumulation  of 
 the  deposits  of  the  torrents  all  over  the  delta. 
 
 33.  The  water  of  the  lake  is  not  less  remarkable 
 than  its  other  features.  Its  most  obvious  pecul- 
 iarity is  its  great  weight.<=  Its  specific  gravity 
 has  been  found  to  be  as  much  as  12.28;  that  is 
 to  say,  a  gallon  of  it  would  weigh  over  12^  lbs. 
 instead  of  10  lbs.,  the  weight  of  distilled  water. 
 Water  so  heavy  must  not  only  be  extremely 
 buoyant  but  must  possess  great  inertia.  Its 
 buoyancy  is  a  common  theme  of  remark  by  the 
 travellers  who  have  been  upon  it  or  in  it.  Jose- 
 phus  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  4)  relates  some  experiments 
 made  by  Vespasian  by  throwing  bound  criminals 
 into  it;  and  Lynch,  bathing  on  the  eastern  shore 
 near  the  mouth  of  the  Wudy  Ziirka,  says  (N<irr. 
 p.  371 ),  in  words  curiously  parallel  to  those  of  the 
 old  historian,  "  With  great  difficulty  I  kept  my 
 feet  down,  and  when  I  laid  upon  my  back,  and, 
 drawing  up  my  knees,  placed  my  hands  upon  them, 
 I  rolled  innnediately  over."  In  the  bay  on  the 
 north  side  of  the  peninsula,  "  a  horse  could  with 
 difficulty  keep  himself  upright.  Two  fresh  hens' 
 eggs  floated  up  one-third  of  their  length,"  i.  e. 
 with  one-third  exposed ;  "  they  would  have  sunk  in 
 the  water  of  the  Mediterranean  or  Atlantic" 
 (Narr.  p.  342).  "A  muscular  man  floated  nearly 
 breast  high  without  the  least  exertion"  (Md.  p.  325). 
 One  of  the  things  remembered  by  the  Maltese  ser- 
 
 i'  Pronounced  Muburrik ;  the  Embarreg  of  De 
 Saulcy. 
 
 e  Of  the  salt  lakes  in  Northern  Persia  ( Untmiyeli, 
 etc.)  nothing  is  yet  known.  Wagner's  account  is  very 
 vague.  Those  in  Southern  Russia  have  been  fully 
 investigated  by  Goebel  {Reisen.  etc.,  Dorpat,  1837). 
 The  heaviest  water  is  that  of  the  "Red  Sea,"  near 
 Perekop  in  the  Crimea  (solid  contents  37.22  per  cent,  j 
 sp.  gr.  13.31).  The  otliers,  including  the  leltonskoe 
 or  Elton,  contain  from  24  to  28  per  cent,  of  solid  mat- 
 ter in  solution,  and  range  in  sp.  gr.  from  12.07  to 
 12.68. 
 
2890 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 rant  of  Mr.  Costigan  —  who  lost  liis  life  from  ex- 
 posure 0)1  the  lake  —  was  that  the  boat  "  floated  a 
 palm  higher  than  before"  (Stephens,  Jncidetits, 
 ch.  xxxii.)-  Dr.  Robinson  "could  never  swim  be- 
 fore, either  in  fresh  or  salt  water,'"  yet  here  he 
 "  could  sit,  stand,  lie,  or  swim  without  difficulty  " 
 (BiU.  Jies.  i.  50G). 
 
 34.  So  much  for  its  buoyancy.  Of  its  weight 
 and  inertia  tlie  American  expedition  had  also  prac- 
 tical experience.  In  the  gale  in  which  the  ])arty 
 were  caught  on  their  first  day  on  the  lake,  between 
 the  mouth  of  the  Jordan  and  Aiii  Ftshkkali,  "  it 
 seemed  as  if  the  bows  of  the  boats  were  encounter- 
 ing the  sledge-hammers  of  the  Titans."  When, 
 however,  "the  wind  abated,  the  .sea  rapidly  fell; 
 the  water,  from  its  ponderous  quality,  settling  as 
 soon  as  the  agitating  cause  had  ceased  to  act  " 
 {Ncin-.  pp.  2G8,  26'J).  At  ordinary  times  there  is 
 nothing  remarkable  in  the  action  of  the  surface  of 
 the  lake.  Its  waves  rise  and  fall,  and  surf  beats 
 on  the  sliore,  just  like  the  ocean.  Nor  is  its  color 
 dissimilar  to  that  of  the  sea.  The  water  has  a 
 greasy  feel,  owing  possibly  to  the  saponification  of 
 the  lime  and  other  earthy  salts  with  the  perspira- 
 tion of  the  skin,  and  tliis  seems  to  have  led  some 
 observers  to  attribute  to  it  a  greasy  look.  But 
 such  a  look  exists  in  imagination  only.  It  is  quite 
 transparent,  of  an  opalescent  green  tint,  and  is 
 compared  by  Lynch  (Narr.  p.  3-37)  to  diluted 
 absinthe.  Lynch  (iVarr.  p.  296)  distinctly  contra- 
 dicts the  assertion  that  it  has  any  smell,  noxious  or 
 not.     So  do  the  chemists  "  who  have  analyzed  it. 
 
 35.  One  or  two  phenomena  of  the  surface  may 
 be  mentioned.  Many  of  the  old  tra\ellers,  and 
 some  modern  ones  (as  Osburn,  Pal.  Past  and 
 Present,  p.  443,  and  Churton,  Land  of  the  Murn- 
 inrj,  p.  149),  mention  that  the  turbid,  yellow 
 stream  of  the  .Jordan  is  distinguishable  for  a  long 
 distance  in  the  lake.  Molyneux  (p.  129)  speaks  of 
 a  "  curious  broad  strip  of  white  foam  which  ap- 
 peared to  lie  in  a  straight  line  nearly  N.  and  S. 
 throughout  the  whole  length  of  the  sea  ....  some 
 miles  W.  of  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan  "  (comp. 
 Lynch,  Narr.  pp.  279,  29.5).  "  It  seemed  to  lie 
 constantly  bubbling  and  in  motion,  like  a  stream 
 that  runs  rapidly  through  still  water ;  while  nearly 
 over  this  track  during  both  nights  we  observed  in 
 the  sky  a  white  streak  like  a  cloud  extending  also 
 N.  and  S.  and  as  fiir  as  the  eye  could  reach." 
 Lines  of  foam  on  the  surface  are  mentioned  by 
 others:  as  Robinson  (i.  503);  BorpT  {Juurney, 
 etc.,  p.  479);  Lynch  {Nai-r.  pp.  288,  289).  From 
 AIn  Jidy  a  current  was  observed  by  Mr.  Clowes' 
 party  running  steadily  to  the  N.  not  far  from  the 
 shore  (comp.  Lynch,  Narr.  p.  291).  It  is  pos- 
 sibly an  eddy  caused  by  the  influx  of  the  Jordan. 
 Both  De  Saulcy  {Narr.  January  8)  and  Roljiiison 
 (i.  504)  speak  of  spots  and  belts  of  water  remain- 
 ing smooth  and  calm  while  the  rest  of  the  surface 
 was  rippled,  and  presenting  a  strong  resemblance 
 to  islands  (comp.  Lynch,  p.  288;  Irby,  June  5). 
 The  haze  or  mist   which    perpetually  broods  over 
 
 a  With  the  single  exception  of  Moldenhauer,  who 
 when  he  first  opened  the  specimen  he  analyzed,  found 
 it  to  smell  strongly  of  sulphur. 
 
 h  This  Is  chosen  because  the  water  was  taken  from 
 a  considerable  depth  in  the  centre  of  the  lake,  and 
 therefore  probably  more  fairly  represents  the  average 
 composition  than  the  others. 
 
 c  Adopting  Marchand's  analysis,  it  appears  that  the 
 ruantity  of  this  salt  in  the  Dead  Sea  is  128  times  as 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 the  water  has  been  already  mentioned.  It  is  the  re- 
 sult of  the  prodigious  evaporation.  Lynch  continu- 
 ally mentions  it.  Irby  (June  1)  saw  it  in  broad, 
 transparent  columns,  like  water-spouts,  only  very 
 much  larger.  ICxtraordinary  effects  of  mirage  due 
 to  the  unequal  refraction  produced  by  the  heat  and 
 moisture  are  occasionally  seen  (Lynch,  Narr.  p.  320). 
 
 36.  The  remarkable  weight  of  this  water  is  due 
 to  the  very  large  quantity  of  mineral  salts  which  it 
 holds  in  solution.  The  details  of  the  various  anal- 
 yses are  given  on  p.  2891  in  a  tabular  form,  accompa- 
 nied by  that  of  sea-water  for  comparison.  From 
 that  of  the  U.  S.  expedition  ''  it  appears  that  eacl 
 gallon  of  the  water,  weighing  12ilbs.,  contains 
 nearly  3J  lbs.  (3.319)  of  matter  in  solution  —  an 
 immense  quantity  when  we  recollect  that  sea-water, 
 weighing  10|^  lbs.  per  gallon,  contains  less  than  |  a 
 lb.  Of  this  3|  lbs.  nearly  1  lb.  is  common  salt 
 (chloride  of  sodium);  about  2  lbs.  chloride  of  mag- 
 nesium, and  less  than  ^  a  lb.  chloride  of  calcium 
 (or  muriate  of  lime).  The  most  unusual  ingredi- 
 ent is  bromide  of  magnesium,  which  exists  in  truly 
 extraordinary  quantity.^  To  its  presence  is  due 
 the  therapeutic  reputation  enjoyed  by  the  lake 
 when  its  water  was  sent  to  Rome  for  wealthy  in- 
 valids (Galen,  in  Reland,  Pal.  p.  242),  or  lepers 
 flocked  to  its  shores  (Ant.  Mart.  §  x.).  Boussin- 
 gault  {Ann.  de  Cltimie,  1856,  xlviii.  168)  remarks 
 that  if  ever  bromine  should  become  an  article  of 
 commerce,  the  Dead  Sea  will  be  the  natural  source 
 for  it.  It  is  the  magnesian  compounds  which  im- 
 part so  nauseous  and  bitter  a  flavor  to  the  water. 
 The  quantity  of  common  salt  in  solution  is  very 
 large.  Lynch  found  {Narr.  p.  377)  that  while 
 distilled  water  would  dissolve  5-17ths  of  its  weight 
 of  salt,  and  the  water  of  the  Atlantic  l-6th,  the 
 water  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  so  nearly  saturated  as 
 only  to  be  able  to  take  up  1-1 1th. 
 
 37.  The  sources  of  the  components  of  the  water 
 may  be  named  generally  without  difficulty.  The 
 lime  and  magnesia  proceed  from  the  doloniitic  lime- 
 stone of  the  surrounding  mountains ;  from  the  gyp- 
 sum which  exists  on  the  shores,  nearly  pure,  in 
 large  quantities;  and  from  the  carbonate  of  lime 
 and  carbonate  of  magnesia  found  on  the  peninsula 
 and  elsewhere  (Anderson,  p.  185).  The  chloride  of 
 sodium  is  supplied  from  Kliashm  Usdum,  and  the 
 copious  brine  springs  on  both  shores.  Balls  of 
 nearly  pure  sulphur  (probably  the  deposit  of  some 
 sulphurous  stream)  are  found  in  the  neighborhood 
 of  the  lake,  on  the  peninsula  (Anderson,  p.  187), 
 on  the  western  beach  and  the  northwestern  heights 
 {ibid.  pp.  176,  180,  160),  and  on  the  plain  S.  of 
 Jericho  (Rev.  G.  W.  Bridges).  Nitre  may  exist, 
 but  the  specimens  mentioned  by  Irby  and  others 
 are  more  probably  pieces  of  rock  salt,  since  no  trace 
 of  nitric  acid  has  been  found  in  the  water  or  soil 
 (Marchand,  p.  370).''  Manganese,  iron,  and  alu- 
 mina have  Ijeeii  found  on  the  peninsula  (Anderson, 
 pp.  185,  187),  and  the  other  constituents  are  the 
 product  of  the  numerous  mineral  springs  which 
 surround  the  lake,''  and  the  washings  of  the  aque- 
 
 great  as  in  the  ocean  and  74  times  as  great  as  in  the 
 Kreuznach  water,  where  its  strength  is  considered  re- 
 markable. 
 
 d  On  the  subject  of  the  bitumen  of  the  lake,  the 
 writer  has  nothing  to  add  to  what  is  said  under  Pal- 
 estine, iii.  2307,  and  Slime. 
 
 e  The  bromine  has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  traced. 
 The  salt  of  Khashm  Usdum  has  been  analyzed  for  ita 
 discovery  (Rob.  ii.  108),  but  in  vain.     Marchand  es 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT  2891 
 
 COMPARATIVE   TABLE   OF    ANALYSES    OF    THE    WATER    OF    THE    DEAD    SEA. 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 6. 
 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 
 C.  G. 
 
 Gmelin, 
 
 1S24. 
 As  recal- 
 
 Booth, 
 
 Apjohn, 
 1«8. 
 
 Mar- 
 chand, 
 
 Hera- 
 path, 
 
 of  Phila- 
 delphia 
 
 (U.  S. 
 
 Exped.), 
 
 1840. 
 
 Boutron- 
 Chiiilard 
 
 and 
 Henry. 
 
 Prof.  W. 
 
 Gregory, 
 
 Molden- 
 huuer. 
 
 Water  o) 
 the 
 
 culated 
 by  Mar- 
 
 1847. 
 
 1840. 
 
 1854. 
 
 Nov.  1854. 
 
 Ocean. 
 
 c'hand. 
 
 Chloride  of  Mapnesium    . 
 
 iL'.KJIj 
 
 T.sro 
 
 10.5+3 
 
 7.822 
 
 14.,'>S9 
 
 I.(i!l6 
 
 13.951 
 
 6.831 
 
 ..36C 
 
 Sodium      .    . 
 
 rma 
 
 7.S39 
 
 6.,578 
 
 12.109 
 
 7.855 
 
 11.003 
 
 7..'«9 
 
 2.957 
 
 2.70C 
 
 "             Calcium      .    . 
 
 3..536 
 
 2.4;)8 
 
 2.804 
 
 2.455 
 
 •3.107 
 
 .680 
 
 2.796 
 
 1.471 
 
 _ 
 
 "            Potassium  .    . 
 
 1.086 
 
 .832 
 
 1.308 
 
 1.217 
 
 .658 
 
 .166 
 
 .571 
 
 2.391 
 
 .070 
 
 "            Manganese     . 
 
 .l«l 
 
 .005 
 
 - 
 
 .006 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 '*            Amnioniuni   . 
 
 .00" 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .000 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 «        "            Aluminium    . 
 
 .!« 
 
 - 
 
 .018 
 
 .O.iG 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Iron    .... 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .003 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 Sulphate  of  Potash    .    .    . 
 I^ime       .    .     . 
 
 .052 
 
 .075 
 
 .088 
 
 Toes 
 
 .070 
 
 - 
 
 7]  06 
 
 .062 
 
 7140 
 
 **             Magnesia    .    . 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .2.33 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .230 
 
 Bromide  of  Magnesium     . 
 
 .442 
 
 .201 
 
 .251 
 
 .251 
 
 .137 
 
 trace. 
 
 .069 
 
 .ia3 
 
 .002 
 
 "_           Sodium.    .    . 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Organic  matter       .... 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .062 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Silica 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .003 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 .200 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 Bituminous  matter    .    .    . 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 Carbonate  of  Lime    .    .    . 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 ~ 
 
 ■ 
 
 .953 
 
 ■ 
 
 " 
 
 .003 
 Loss    .025 
 
 Total  solid  contents  .    .    . 
 
 24.4:« 
 
 1S.7»I 
 
 24.055 
 
 20.416 
 
 14.927 
 
 24.832 
 
 13.895 
 
 3..5,30 
 
 Water 
 
 75.5Go 
 
 81.220 
 
 75.045 
 
 73.584 
 
 85.073 
 
 75.168 
 
 86.105 
 
 9(i.4r0 
 
 100.000 
 
 100.000 
 
 KW.OOO 
 
 100.000 
 
 100.000 
 
 100.000 
 
 im.ooo 
 
 100.000 
 
 100.000 
 
 Specific  gravity     .... 
 
 1.202 
 
 1.153 
 
 1.1841 
 at  66" F. 
 
 1.172 
 
 1.227 
 at  60°  F. 
 
 1.099 
 
 1.210 
 at  60' F. 
 
 1.116 
 
 1.0278 
 
 Boiling  point 
 
 - 
 
 221° 
 
 227.75 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Water  obtained     .... 
 
 _ 
 
 i  mile 
 
 in  1847, 
 
 in  March, 
 
 May  5,  '48 
 
 April  2, 
 
 from 
 
 in  June, 
 
 - 
 
 from 
 
 at  tlie 
 
 1840, 
 
 105  fath. 
 
 1.S.50, 
 
 Island  at 
 
 1854. 
 
 Jordan, 
 
 north 
 
 i  mile 
 
 deep, 
 
 "2  hours 
 
 N.  end. 
 
 late 
 
 end. 
 
 K.  W.of 
 
 oft- 
 
 from  tlie 
 
 March  11, 
 
 in  rainy 
 
 mouth  of 
 
 A.  Tera- 
 
 Jordan." 
 
 1854. 
 
 season. 
 
 Jordan. 
 
 beh. 
 
 No.  1.  The  figures  in  the  table  are  the  recalcula- 
 tions of  Marchand  (Journal,  etc.,  p.  359)  on  the  basis  of 
 the  improved  chemical  science  of  his  time.  The  orig- 
 inal analysis  is  in  Naturwiss.  AbhandL,  Tiibiugen,  i. 
 (1827)  333. 
 
 No.  2.  See  The  Athenmtm,  June  15,  1839. 
 
 No.  3.  Journal  fiir  prakt.  C/jewii'e,  etc.,  Leipzig,  xlvii. 
 (1849),  365. 
 
 No.  4.  Quarterly  Journal  of  Ckem.  Soc-  ii.  (1850) 
 336. 
 
 No.  5.    Off.  Report  of  U.  S.  Expeilition,  4to,  p.  204. 
 
 No.  6.  Journal  de  Pharmacie  et  de  Cliimie,  Mars, 
 1852. 
 
 No.  7.  Calculated  by  the  writer  from  the  propor- 
 tionate table  of  salts  given  in  Stewart's  Tent  and.  Khan, 
 p.  381. 
 
 No  8.  Liebig  and  WiJhler's  Annnlen  der  Chemie, 
 xlvii.  (1856)  357 ;  xlviii.  (1856)  129-170. 
 
 No.  9,  Kegnault's  Cotirs  Elem.  de  Oiimie,  ii.  190. 
 
 The  older  analyses  have  not  been  reprinted,  the 
 methods  employed  having  been  imperfect  and  the  re- 
 sults uncertain  as  compared  with  the  more  modern 
 ones  quoted.  They  are  as  follows  :  (1.)  Macqxier,  La- 
 voisier, and  Lesage  (Mem.  de  VAr.ail.  des  Sciencis, 
 1778)  ;  (2.)  Marcet(P/ji7.  Trans.,  1807,  p.  296,  &c.) ;  (3.) 
 Klaproth  {Mag;,  der  Gesells.  naturfor.  Freunde  zu 
 Berlin,  \\\.\2,%)]  (4.)  Gay  Lussac  (Ann.  de  Chimie, 
 xi.  (1819)  197) ;  (5.)  Hermbstadt  (Schweigger's  Journal, 
 xxxiv.  163). 
 
 Want  of  space  compels  the  omission  of  the  analysis 
 of  Boussingault  of  water  collected  in  spring,  1855  (Ann. 
 de  Chimie,  xlviii.  (1856)  129-170),  which  corresponds 
 very  closely  with  that  of  Gmelin  (namely,  sp.  gr. 
 1.194  ,  salts,  22.785  per  cent.),  as  well  as  that  of  Corn- 
 mines  (quoted  in  the  same  paper)  of  water  collected  in 
 June,  1853,  showing  sp.  gr.  1.196  and  salts  18.26  per 
 cent.  Another  analysis  by  Professor  W.  Gregory,  giv- 
 ing 19.25  per  cent,  of  salts,  is  quoted  by  Kitto  (Phys. 
 Geogr.  p.  374). 
 
 The  writer  has  been  favored  with  specimens  of 
 water  collected  13th  November,  1850,  by  the  Rev.  G. 
 W.  Bridges,  and  7th  April,  1863,  by  Mr.  R.  D.  Wilson. 
 Both   were  taken  from  the  north  end.     The  former. 
 
 which  had  been  carefully  sealed  up  until  examination, 
 exhibited  sp.  gr.  1.1812,  solid  contents,  21.585  per 
 cent. ;  the  latter,  sp.  gr.  1.184,  solid  contents,  22.188  ; 
 the  boiling  point  in  both  cases  226"^  4  Ifahr.  — a  singu- 
 lar agreement,  when  it  is  remembered  that  one  speci- 
 men was  obtained  at  the  end,  tlie  other  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  summer.  For  this  investigation,  and  much 
 more  valuable  assistance  in  this  part  of  his  article,  the 
 writer  is  indebted  to  his  friend,  Dr.  David  Simpson 
 Price,  F.  C.  S. 
 
 The  inferiority  in  the  quantity  of  the  salts  in  Nos. 
 2,  6,  and  8  is  very  remarkable,  and  must  be  due  to  the 
 fact  (acknowledged  in  the  two  first)  that  the  water  was 
 obtained  during  the  rainy  season,  or  from  near  the 
 entrance  of  the  Jordan  or  other  fresh  water.  Nos.  7 
 and  8  were  collected  within  two  months  of  each  other. 
 The  preceding  winter,  1853-54,  was  one  of  the  wettest 
 and  coldest  remembered  in  Syria,  and  yet  the  earlier 
 of  the  two  analyses  shows  a  largely  preponderating 
 quantity  of  salts.  The'"e  is  sufficient  discrepancy  in 
 the  whole  of  the  results  to  render  it  desirable  that 
 a  fresh  set  of  analyses  should  be  made,  of  water  ob- 
 tained from  various  defined  spots  and  depths,  at  dif- 
 ferent times  of  the  year,  and  investigated  by  the  same 
 analyst.  The  variable  density  of  the  water  was  ob- 
 served as  early  as  by  Galen  (see  quotations  in  Reland, 
 Pal.  p.  242). 
 
 The  best  papers  on  this  interesting  subject  are  those 
 of  Gmelin,  Marchand,  Herapath,  and  Boussingault  (see 
 the  references  given  above).  The  second  of  these  con- 
 tains an  excellent  review  of  former  analyses,  and  most 
 instructive  observations  on  matters  more  or  less  con- 
 nected with  the  subject. 
 
 The  absence  of  iodine  is  remarkable.  It  was  par- 
 ticularly searched  for  by  both  Herapath  and  Mar- 
 chand, but  without  effect.  In  September,  1858,  the 
 writer  obtained  a  large  quantity  of  water  from  the 
 island  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake,  which  he  reduced 
 by  boiling  on  the  spot.  The  concentrated  salts  were 
 afterwards  tested  by  Dr.  D.  S.  Price  by  his  nitrate  of 
 potash  test  (see  Cliem.  Soc.  Journal  for  1851),  with  the 
 express  view  of  detecting  iodine,  but  not  a  trace  could 
 be  discovered. 
 
 •  Dr.  Anderson  (Off.  Hep.  p.  205)  states  that  in  water  from  "  another  part "  of  the  lake  he  found  as  much  as  4.8  per  cent. 
 »f  chlor.  calcium. 
 
2892 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 ous  deposits  on  the  shores  (see  §  17),  which  are 
 gradually  restoring  to  the  lake  the  salts  they  re- 
 ceived from  it  ages  back,  when  covered  by  its 
 waters.  The  strength  of  these  ingredients  is 
 heightened  by  the  continual  evaporation,  which  (as 
 already  stated)  is  sufficient  to  carry  off  the  whole 
 amount  of  the  water  supplied,  leaving,  of  course, 
 the  salts  in  the  lake;  and  which  in  the  Dead  Sea. 
 as  in  every  other  lake  which  has  affluents  but  no 
 outlets,  is  gradually  concentrating  the  mineral  con- 
 stituents of  the  water,  as  in  the  alembic  of  the 
 chemist.  When  the  water  becomes  saturated  with 
 salt,  or  even  before,  deposition  will  take  place,  and 
 salt-beds  be  formed  on  the  bottom  of  the  lake." 
 If,  then,  at  a  future  epoch  a  convulsion  should  take 
 place  which  should  upheave  the  bottom  of  the  lake, 
 a  salt  mountain  would  be  formed  similar  to  the 
 Khashm  Usdinn  ;  and  this  is  not  improbably  the 
 manner  in  which  that  singular  mountain  was  formed. 
 It  appears  to  have  been  the  bed  of  an  ancient  salt 
 lake,  which,  dui-ing  the  convulsion  which  depressed 
 the  bed  of  the  present  lake,  or  some  other  remote 
 change,  was  forced  up  to  its  present  position.  Thus 
 this  spot  may  have  been  from  the  earliest  ages  //( 
 Iwme  of  Dead  Seas ;  and  the  present  lake  but  one 
 of  a  numerous  series. 
 
 38.  It  has  been  long  supposed  that  no  life  what- 
 ever existed  in  the  lake.  But  recent  facts  show 
 that  some  inferior  organizations  can  and  do  find  a 
 home  even  in  these  salt  and  acrid  waters.  The 
 Cabinet  d'llist.  Naturelle  at  Paris  contains  a  fine 
 specimen  of  a  coral  called  Stylophwa  pislilhUd, 
 which  is  stated  to  have  be«n  brought  from  the  lake 
 in  1837  by  the  Marq.  de  I'Escalopier,  and  has  every 
 appearance  of  having  been  a  resident  there,  and 
 not  an  ancient  or  foreign  specimen.*  Ehrenberg 
 discovered  11  species  of  Polygaster,  2  of  Polytha- 
 lamise,  and  5  of  Phytolitliarias,  in  mud  and  water 
 brought  home  by  Lepsius  {Monatsh.  d.  Kon.  Pr. 
 Ahid.  June,  1819).  The  mud  was  taken  from  the 
 north  end  of  the  lake,  1  hour  N.  W.  of  the  Jor- 
 dan, and  far  from  the  shore.  Some  of  the  speci- 
 mens of  Polygaster  exhibited  ovaries,  and  it  is 
 worthy  of  remark  that  all  the  species  were  found 
 in  the  water  of  the  Jordan  also.  The  copious 
 phosphorescence  mentioned  by  Lynch  {N(n-r.  p. 
 280)  is  also  a  token  of  the  existence  of  life  in  the 
 waters.  In  a  warm  salt  stream  which  rose  at  the 
 foot  of  the  Jebel  Usdum,  at  a  few  yards  only  from 
 the  lake,  Mr.  Poole  (Nov.  4)  caught  small  fish 
 ( Cyprinodon  hnmmonis)  1|  inch  long.  He  is  of 
 opinion,  though  he  did  not  ascertain  the  fact,  that 
 they  are  denizens  of  the  lake.  The  melanopsis 
 shells  found  by  Poole  (p.  67)  at  the  fresh  springs 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 (?  Ain  Terdbeh),  and  which  other  travellers  have 
 brought  from  the  shore  at  Ain  Jidy,  belong  to  the 
 spring  and  not  to  the  lake.  Fucus  and  ulva  are 
 spoken  of  by  some  of  the  travellers,  but  nothing 
 certain  is  known  of  them.  The  ducks  seen  diving 
 by  Poole  must  surely  have  been  in  search  of  some 
 form  of  life,  either  animal  or  vegetalile. 
 
 39.  The  statements  of  ancient  travellers  and 
 geographers  to  the  effect  that  no  living  creature 
 could  exist  on  the  shores  of  the  lake,  or  bird  fly 
 across  its  surface,  are  amply  disproved  by  later 
 travellers.  It  is  one  of  the  first  things  mentioned 
 by  Maundrell  (March  30);  and  in  our  own  days 
 almost  every  traveller  has  noticed  the  fable  to  con- 
 tradict it.  The  cane  brakes  of  Ain  FesJiL-lndi,  and 
 the  other  springs  on  the  margin  of  the  lake,  har- 
 bor snipe,  partridges,  ducks,  nightingales,  and  other 
 birds,  as  well  as  frogs;  hawks,  doves,  and  hares 
 are  found  along  the  shore  (Lynch,  pp.  274,  277, 
 279,  287,  294,'.371,  37(i):  and  the  thickets  of  Ain 
 .Jidy  contain  "innumerable  birds,"  among  which 
 were  the  lark,  quail,  and  partridge,  as  well  as  birds 
 of  prey  {Bibl.  JRes.  i.  524).  Lynch  mentions  the 
 curious  fact  that  "all  the  birds,  and  most  of  the 
 insects  and  animals  "  which  he  saw  on  the  western 
 side  were  of  a  stone  color,  so  as  to  he  almost  in- 
 visible on  the  rocks  of  the  shore  {Nnri-.  pp.  279, 
 291,  294 ).  Van  de  Velde  (»S.  (/•  P.  ii.  119 ),  Lynch 
 {Nan:  pp.  279,  287,  308),  and  Poole  (Nov.  2,  3, 
 and  7),  even  mention  having  seen  ducks  and  other 
 birds,  single  and  in  flocks,  swimming  and  diving  in 
 the  water. 
 
 40.  Of  the  temperature  of  the  water  more  ob- 
 servations are  necessary  before  any  inferences  can 
 be  drawn.  Lynch  (Peport,  May  5)  states  that  a 
 stratum  at  59°  Fahr.  is  almost  invariably  found  at 
 10  fathoms  below  the  surface.  Between  Wady 
 Zurlca  and  Ain  Teraheh  the  temp,  at  surface  was 
 70°,  gradually  decreasing  to  62°  at  1,044  ft.  deep, 
 with  the  exception  just  named  {Narr.  p.  374). 
 At  other  times,  and  in  the  lagoon,  the  temp, 
 ranged  from  82°  to  90°.  and  from  5°  to  10°  lielow 
 that  of  the  air  {ibid.  pp.  310-320.  Comp.  Poole, 
 Nov.  2).  Dr.  Stewart  (Tent  and  Khan,  p.  381), 
 on  nth  March,  1854,  found  the  Jordan  00°  Fahr., 
 and  the  Dead  Sea  (N.  end)  73°;  the  temperature 
 of  the  air  being  83°  in  the  former  case,  and  78°  in 
 the  latter. 
 
 41.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  anything  in- 
 imical to  life  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  lake  or  its 
 shores,  except  what  naturally  proceeds  from  the 
 great  heat  of  the  climate.  The  Ghaicdrineh  and 
 Rashaideh  Arabs,  who  inhabit  the  southern  and 
 
 amiued  a  specimen  of  soil  from  a  ''salt-plain  called 
 Zeph  "  i  an  hour  W.  of  the  lake,  and  found  it  to  con- 
 tain "  an  appreciable  quantity  of  bromine  "  (Journal 
 furprakl.  Chnnit,  xlvii.  369,  370). 
 
 In  addition  to  the  obvious  sources  named  in  the 
 text,  there  are  doubtless  others  less  visible.  The  re- 
 markable variation  In  the  proportions  of  the  constitu- 
 ents of  the  water  in  the  specimens  obtained  by  differ- 
 ent travellers  (see  the  analyses)  leads  to  the  inference 
 that  in  the  bed  of  the  lake  there  are  masses  of  min- 
 eral matter,  or  mineral  springs,  which  may  modify  the 
 constitution  of  the  water  in  their  immediate  neigh- 
 borhood. 
 
 a  This  is  already  occurring,  for  Lynch 's  sounding- 
 lead  several  times  brought  up  cubical  crystals  of  salt 
 sometimes  with  mud,  sometimes  alone  {Nan.  pp.  281 
 297  ;  comp.  Molyneux,  p.  127).  The  lake  of  Assal,  on 
 the  E.  coast  of  Africa,  which  has  neither  aflluent  nor 
 
 outlet,  is  said  to  be  concentrated  to  (or  nearly  to)  the 
 point  of  saturation  (Eilin.  N.  Phil.  Journ.  April,  1855, 
 p.  259). 
 
 6  This  interesting  fact  is  mentioned  by  Ilumholdt 
 (Vien-s  of  Nat.  p.  270);  but  the  writer  is  indebted  to 
 the  kind  courte.«y  of  M.  Valenciennes,  keeper  of  the 
 Cabinet,  for  confirmation  of  it.  Humboldt  gives  the 
 coral  the  name  of  Poritf.t  elonaaia,  but  the  writer  has 
 the  authority  of  Dr.  P.  Martin  Duncan  for  saying  that 
 its  true  designation  is  Stylophora  yist.  Unfortunately 
 nothing  whatever  is  known  of  the  place  or  manner  of 
 its  discovery  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  after  26  years 
 no  second  specimen  should  have  been  acquired.  It  is 
 quite  po.^sible  for  the  coral  in  question  to  grow  under 
 the  conditions  presented  by  the  Dead  Sea,  and  it  is 
 true  that  it  abounds  also  in  the  Red  Sea ;  but  it  will 
 not  be  safe  to  draw  any  deduction  from  these  fact:= 
 till  other  specimens  of  it  have  been  brought  from  the 
 lake. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 western  sides  and  the  peninsula,  are  described  as  a 
 poor  stunted  race;  but  this  is  easily  accounted  for 
 by  the  heat  and  relaxing  nature  of  tlie  climate,  and 
 by  their  meairre  way  of  life,  without  inferring  any- 
 thing specially  unwliolesome  in  the  exhalations  of 
 fh?  lake.  They  do  not  appear  to  be  more  stunted 
 V,.  meagre  than  the  natives  of  Jericho,  or,  if  more, 
 not  more  than  would  be  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
 inhabit  a  spot  500  to  GOO  feet  further  below  the 
 surface  of  the  ocean  and  more  eflectually  inclosed. 
 Considering  the  hard  work  which  the  American 
 party  accomplished  in  the  tremendous  heat  (the 
 thermometer  on  one  occasion  10G°,  after  sunset, 
 Narr.  p.  314),  and  that  the  sounding  and  working 
 the  boats  necessarily  brought  them  a  great  deal 
 into  actual  contact  with  the  water  of  the  lake,  their 
 general  good  health  is  a  proof  that  there  is  nothing 
 pernicious  in  the  proximity  of  the  lake  itseK  A 
 strong  smell  of  sulphur  pervades  some  parts  r  %e 
 western  shore,  proceeding  from  springs  or  streams 
 impregnated  with  sulphuretted  hydrogen  (De  Saul- 
 cy,  Nan:  i.  192;  Van  de  Velde,«  ii.  109;  Beaufort, 
 ii.  113).  It  accompanied  the  north  wind  which 
 blew  in  the  evenings  (Lynch,  pp.  292,  294:).  But 
 this  odor,  though  impleasant,  is  not  noxious,  and 
 in  fact  JI.  de  Saulcy  compares  it  to  the  baths  of 
 Bareges.  The  Sitljk((h  has  in  summer  a  "  strong 
 marshy  smell,"  from  the  partial  desiccation  of  the 
 ditches  which  convey  the  drainage  of  the  salt 
 springs  and  salt  rocks  into  the  lagoon;  but  this 
 smell  can  hardly  be  stronger  or  more  unhealthy 
 than  it  is  in  the  marshes  aljove  the  lake  el-Huhh, 
 or  in  many  other  places  where  marshy  ground 
 exists  under  a  sun  of  equal  power;  such,  for  exam- 
 ple, as  the  marshes  at  Iskanderun,  quoted  by  Mr. 
 Porter  (I/andbuok,  p.  201  a). 
 
 42.  Of  the  botany  of  the  Dead  Sea  little  ov 
 nothing  can  be  said.  Dr.  Hooker,  in  his  portion 
 of  the  article  Palestine,  has  spoken  (iii.  2312, 
 2313)  of  the  vegetation  of  the  Glior  in  general,  and 
 of  that  of  Ain  .lidy  and  the  N.  W.  shore  of  the 
 lake  in  particular,  lieyond  these,  the  only  parts 
 of  the  lake  which  he  exjilored,  nothing  accurate  is 
 known.  A  few  plants  are  named  by  Seetzen  as 
 inhabiting  the  Glwr  es-SnJieh  and  the  peninsula. 
 These,  such  as  they  are,  have  been  already  men- 
 tioned. In  addition,  the  following  are  enumerated 
 in  the  lists'*  which  accompany  the  Ojficitd  Jieport 
 (4to)  of  Lynch,  and  the  Voyiye  of  De  Saulcy 
 (Alias  des  Planches,  etc.).  At  Ain  Jidy,  Rt'seda 
 biten,  Malva  sylvestris,  Glinus  lotoides,  Seduin 
 reflezum,  Siderilis  syrincn^  Eupatoiium  syri'iciim, 
 and  WUhania  soninifira.  On  the  southeastern 
 and  eastern  shore  of  the  lake,  at  the  Gh.'ir  es- 
 tiajieli,  and  on  the  peninsula,  they  name  ZlWi 
 myiiffroides,  Zyyop/iylln.  coccinea,  Ruia  bracUosa, 
 Zizyphus  spina  C/iristi,  Indicjofcra,  Tamnrix, 
 Aizuon  cnnarieiise,  Salvndora  jyersica,  IJioya  fon- 
 t'lnesii,  Picriiliuiii  tinyilanum,  Solanum  viUosum, 
 Euplwrbia  pi })Jus,  Erythrostictus  punciatus,  Cnrex 
 stenop/iylld.,  and  Heliotropum  (dbidum.  At  Ain 
 Fesltichidi,  Ain  Ghuweir,  Ain  Terdbeh,  and  other 
 spots  on  the  western  shore,  they  name,  in  addition 
 to    those   given    by    Dr.    Hooker,    Sida    asiatica, 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 289b 
 
 a  M.  Van  de  Velde's  watch  turneil  black  with  the 
 sulphur  in  the  air  of  the  hills  and  valleys  south  of 
 Masada.  Miss  Beaufort  (at  Btrket  el-Kkulil)  says  it 
 was  "  very  strong,  iuimensely  more  nauseous  than  that 
 of  the  springs  of  Tadmor." 
 
 *  Lynch's  lists  were  drawn  up  by  Dr.  R.  Eglesfield 
 Griffith  ;  and  De  Saulcy 's  by  tlae  Abbt5  Mlchon,  who 
 also  himself  collected  the  bulk  of  the  specimens. 
 
 Knautia  arvensis,  Scabiosa  jxipposa,  Eckiuni  il/tl- 
 icum  and  creiicum,  Sirutice  sinuata,  Anastatici 
 iiitrochuntina,  Heiiolrapuia  ■roiundijoliuin,  and 
 Plirayinihs  communis.  At  other  places  not  speci- 
 fied along  the  shores,  Kukile  and  Crambe  niariti- 
 ma,  Arenaiia  niaiitima,  Chenopodium  maritimum, 
 Anabasis  aphylla,  Anemone  coronaria,  Ranunculus 
 asiaticus,  Fiiniuria  micraniha,  Sisymbrium  irio, 
 Cleone  irineroia,  Aunyyris  fielida,  Chrysanthemuni 
 coronaria,  Rlutgadiolus  slellntus,  Anayallis  arven- 
 sis. Convolvulus  siculus,  Onosina  syriaca,  Litiio- 
 spermum  tenuijlorum,  IJ yoscyamus  aureus,  Euplwr- 
 bia  helioscopa,  Iris  caucasica,  Morea  sisyrinchium, 
 Romulea  bulbocodium  and  (jrandijiora.  The  mouth 
 of  the  Wady  Zuweirah  contains  large  quantities 
 of  oleanders. 
 
 43.  Of  the  zotilogy  of  the  shores,  it  is  hardly 
 too  much  to  say  that  nothing  is  known.  The  birds 
 and  animals  mentioned  by  Lynch  and  Robinson 
 have  been  already  named,  but  their  accurate  identi- 
 fication must  await  the  visit  of  a  traveller  versed  in 
 natural  history.  On  the  question  of  the  existence 
 of  life  in  the  lake  itself,  the  writer  has  already  said 
 all  that  occurs  to  him. 
 
 44.  The  a])pearance  of  the  lake  does  not  fulfill 
 the  idea  conveyed  by  its  popular  name.  '■  The 
 Dead  Sea,"  says  a  recent  traveller ,<"  "did  not  strike 
 me  with  that  sense  of  desolation  and  dreariness 
 which  I  suppose  it  ought.  I  thought  it  a  pretty, 
 smiling  lake  —  a  nice  ripple  on  its  surface."  Lord 
 Nugent  (Lands,  etc.,  ii.  ch.  5)  e.xpresses  himself  in 
 similar  terms.  Schubert  came  to  it  from  the  Gulf 
 of  Akabeh,  and  he  contrasts  the  "desert  look"  of 
 that  with  the  remarkalile  beauties  of  this,  "the 
 most  glorious  spot  he  had  ever  seen  "  (Kitter,  p. 
 557).  This  was  the  view  from  its  nortiiern  end. 
 The  same  of  the  southern  portion.  "  I  expected  a 
 scene  of  unequaled  horror,"  says  Mr.  Van  de 
 Velde  (ii.  117),  "  instead  of  which  I  foiuid  a  lake 
 calm  and  glassy,  blue  and  transparent,  with  an  un- 
 clouded heaven,  a  smooth  beach,  and  surroujided 
 by  mountains  whose  blue  tints  were  of  rare  beauty. 
 
 It  bears  a  remarkable  resemblance  to 
 Loch  Awe."  "  It  reminded  me  of  the  beautiful 
 lake  of  Nice  "  (Paxton,  in  Kitto,  P/rys.  Geor/r.  p. 
 383).  "  Nothing  of  gloom  and  desolation,"  says 
 another  traveller,  "  .  .  .  .  even  the  shore  was 
 richly  studded  with  bright  <^  yellow  flowers  growing 
 to  the  edge  of  the  rippling  waters."  Of  the  view 
 from  Masada,  Miss  Beaufort  (ii.  110)  thus  speaks: 
 "  Some  one  says  there  is  no  beauty  in  it  .  .  .  . 
 Init  this  view  is  beyond  all  others  for  the  splendor 
 of  its  savage  and  yet  beautiful  wildness."  Seetzen, 
 in  a  lengthened  and  unusually  enthusiastic  passage 
 (ii.  364,  365)  extols  the  beauties  of  the  view  from 
 the  delta  at  the  mouth  of  the  Wady  Mojib,  and 
 the  advantages  of  that  situation  for  a  permanent 
 residence.  These  testimonies  might  be  multiplied 
 at  pleasure,  and  they  contrast  strangely  with  the 
 statements  of  some  of  the  medijEval  pilgrims  (on 
 wliose  accounts  the  ordinary  concei)tions  of  the 
 lake  are  based),  and  even  those  of  some  modern 
 travellers,"  of  the  perpetual  gloom  which  broods 
 over  the  lake,   and   the   thick  vapors   which  roll 
 
 c  Kev.  W.  Lea  (1847),  who  has  kindly  allowed  the 
 writer  the  use  of  his  MS.  journal.  See  very  nearly  the 
 same  remarks  by  Dr.  Stewart  ( Tent  and  Kiian). 
 
 d  Probably  Intda  crithmoiilex. 
 
 e  As,  for  instance,  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem, 
 quoted  by  Brocardus  (a.  d.  1290),  and  the  terrific  de- 
 scription given  by  Quaresmius  (ii.  759,  &c.),  as  if  from 
 Brocardus,  though  it  is  not  in  the  Received  Text  of  his 
 
2894 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 from  its  waters  like  the  smoke  of  some  infernal  fur- 
 nace, filling  the  whole  neighborhood  with  a  mias- 
 ma which  has  destrojed  all  life  within  its  reach. 
 
 45.  The  truth  lies,  as  usual,  somewhere  between 
 these  two  extremes.  On  the  one  hand  the  lake 
 certainly  is  not  a  gloomy,  deadly,  smoking  gulf. 
 In  this  respect  it  does  not  at  all  fulfill  the  promise 
 of  its  nanie."^  The  nauie  is  more  suggestive  of  the 
 dead  solitude  of  the  mountain  tarns  of  Wales  or 
 Scotland,  the  perpetual  twilight  and  undisturbed 
 lingering  decay  of  the  Great  Dismal  Swamp,  or  the 
 reeking  miasma  of  the  Putrid  Sea  of  the  Crimea. 
 Death  can  never  be  associated  with  the  wonderful 
 brightness  of  the  sun  of  Syria,  with  the  cheerful 
 reflection  of  the  calm  bosom  of  the  lake  at  some 
 periods  of  the  day,  or  with  the  regular  alternation 
 of  the  breezes  which  ruffle  its  surface  at  others.  At 
 sunrise  and  sunset  the  scene  must  be  astonishingly 
 beautiful.  Every  one  who  has  been  in  the  West 
 of  Scotland  knows  what  extraordinary  pictures  are 
 sometimes  seen  mirrored  in  the  sea-water  lochs 
 when  they  lie  unruffled  in  the  calm  of  early  morn- 
 ing or  of  sunset.  The  reflections  from  the  bosom 
 of  the  Dead  Sea  are  said  to  surpass  those,  as  far  as 
 the  hues  of  the  mountains  which  encircle  it,  when 
 lit  up  by  the  gorgeous  rising  and  setting  suns  of 
 Syria,  surpass  in  brilliancy  and  richness  those  of  the 
 hills  around  Loch  Fyne  and  Loch  Goyle.  (!)ne 
 such  aspect  may  be  seen  —  and  it  is  said  by  com- 
 petent judges  to  be  no  exaggerated  rejiresentation 
 —  in  "  The  Scapegoat  "  of  Mr.  Holman  Hunt,  which 
 is  a  view  of  the  Moab  mountains  at  sunset,  painted 
 from  the  foot  of  Jebel  Usduin,  looking  across  the 
 lower  part  of  the  lagoon.*  But  on  the  other  hand, 
 with  all  the  brilliancy  of  its  illumination,  its  i're- 
 quent  beauty  of  coloring,  the  flintastic  grandeur  of 
 its  inclosing  mountains,  and  the  tranquil  charm 
 afforded  by  the  reflection  of  that  uiiequaled  sl;y  on 
 the  no  less  unequaled  mirror  of  the  surfiice  —  with 
 all  these  there  is  something  in  the  prevalent  sterility 
 and  the  dry,  burnt  look  of  the  shores,  the  over- 
 powering heat,  the  occasional  smell  of  sulphur,  the 
 dreary  salt  marsh  at  the  southern  end,  and  the 
 fringe  of  dead  driftwood  round  the  margin,  which 
 must  go  far  to  excuse  the  title  which  so  many  ages 
 have  attached  to  the  lake,  and  which  we  may  be 
 sure  it  will  never  lose. 
 
 46.  It  does  not  appear  probable  that  the  condition 
 or  aspect  of  the  lake  in  Bililical  times  was  mate- 
 rially different  from  what  it  is  at  present.  Other 
 parts  of  Syria  may  have  deteriorated  in  climate  and 
 appearance  owing  to  the  destruction  of  the  wood 
 which  once  covered  them,  but  there  are  no  traces 
 either  of  the  ancient  existence  of  wood  in  the  neigh- 
 borhood of  the  lake,  or  of  anything  which  would 
 
 works  (Amst.  1711);  Sir  R.  Guylforde  (a.  d.  1506); 
 Schwarz  (a.  d.  1845).  It  is,  however,  surprising  how 
 free  the  best  of  the  old  travellors  are  from  such  fables. 
 The  descriptions  of  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  of  Arcul- 
 fus,  MaundeviUe,  Thietmar,  Doubdan,  Maundrell,  bar- 
 ring a  httle  exaggeration  of  the  buoyancy  of  the  water 
 and  of  its  repulsion  to  life,  are  sober,  and,  as  far  as 
 they  go,  accurate.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  pop- 
 ular conception  of  the  lake  was  not  founded  on  these 
 accounts,  instead  of  the  sensation-descriptions  of  others 
 at  second  hand. 
 
 a  "  It  is  not  gloom  but  desolation  that  is  its  prevail- 
 ing characteristic,"  is  the  remark  of  Prof.  Stanley,  in 
 his  excellent  chapter  on  the  lake  in  Sinai  and  Palestine 
 (ch.  vii.).  "So  mournful  a  landscape,  for  one  having 
 real  beauty,  I  have  never  seen  "  (Miss  Martineau,  East- 
 ern Li/i .  pt.  iii.  cb.  4). 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 account  for  its  destruction,  supposing  it  to  have 
 existed.  A  few  spots,  such  as  Ahi  ■lidij,  the  mouth 
 of  the  Wady  Ztiiveirali,  and  that  of  the  \V(uhj  ed- 
 Dra'n,  were  more  cultivated,  and  consequently  more 
 populous  than  they  are  under  the  discouraging  in- 
 fluences of  Mohammedanism.  But  sucli  attempts 
 must  always  have  been  partial,  confined  to  the  imme- 
 diate neighborhood  of  the  fresh  springs  and  to  a 
 certain  degree  of  elevation,  and  ceasing  directly  irri- 
 gation was  neglected.  In  fact  the  climate  of  the 
 shores  of  the  lake  is  too  sultry  and  trying  to  allow 
 of  any  considerable  amount  of  civilized  occupation 
 being  conducted  there.  Nothing  will  grow  without 
 irrigation,  and  artificial  irrigation  is  too  laborious 
 for  such  a  situation.  The  plain  of  .Jericho,  we  know, 
 was  cultivated  like  a  garden,  but  the  plain  of  .Jeri- 
 cho is  very  nearly  on  a  level  witli  tlie  spring  of 
 Ain  Jidij,  some  600  feet  above  the  Glior  et-Lisdn 
 the  Glwr  es-SdJinh,  or  other  cultivable  portions  of 
 the  beach  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Of  course,  as  far  as 
 the  capabilities  of  the  ground  are  concerned,  pro- 
 vided there  is  plenty  of  water,  the  hotter  the 
 climate  the  better,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
 that,  if  some  system  of  irrigation  could  l)e  carried  out 
 and  maintained,  the  plain  of , Jericho,  and,  still  more, 
 the  shores  of  the  lake  (such  as  the  peninsula  and 
 the  southern  plain),  might  be  the  most  productive 
 spots  in  the  world.  But  this  is  not  jiossible,  and  the 
 difficulty  of  communication  with  the  external  world 
 would  alone  be  (as  it  must  always  have  been)  a 
 serious  bar  to  any  great  agricultural  efforts  in  this 
 district. 
 
 When  Machserus  and  Callirrhoe  were  inhabited 
 (if  indeed  the  former  was  ever  more  than  a  fortress, 
 and  the  latter  a  bathing  establishment  occasionally 
 resorted  to),  and  when  the  plain  of  .Jericho  was 
 occupied  with  the  crowded  population  necessary 
 for  the  cultivation  of  its  balsam-gardens,  vineyards, 
 sugar-plantations,  and  palm-groves,  there  may  have 
 been  a  little  more  life  on  the  shores.  But  this  can 
 never  have  materially  affected  the  lake.  The  track 
 along  the  western  shore  and  over  Ain  Jiihj  was  then, 
 as  now,  used  for  secret  marauding  expeditions,  not  for 
 peaceable  or  commercial  traffic.  What  transport 
 there  may  have  been  between  Idumsa  and  .Jericho 
 came  by  some  other  channel.  A  doubtful  passage 
 in  Josephus,*^  and  a  reference  by  Edrisi  (ed.  Jau- 
 bert,  in  Ritter,  Jordan,  p.  700)  to  an  occasional  ven- 
 ture of  the  people  of  "  Zara  and  Dara  "  in  the  12th 
 century,  are  all  the  allusions  known  to  exist  to 
 the  navigation  of  the  lake,  until  Englishmen  and 
 Americans  '^  launched  their  boats  on  it  within  the 
 last  twenty  years  for  purposes  of  scientific  inves- 
 tigation. The  temptation  to  the  dwellers  in  the 
 environs  must  always  have  been  to  ascend  to  the 
 
 b  The  remarks  in  the  text  refer  to  the  mountains 
 which  form  the  background  to  this  remarkable  painting 
 The  title  of  the  picture  and  the  accidents  of  the  fore- 
 ground give  the  key  to  the  sentiment  which  it  conveys, 
 which  is  certainly  that  of  loneline.'S  and  death.  But  the 
 mountains  would  form  an  appropriate  background  to  a 
 scene  of  a  very  different  description. 
 
 c  Quoted  by  Reland  (Pai.  p.  252)  as  "  liber  v.  de  bell, 
 cap.  3."  But  this  —  if  it  can  be  verified,  which  the 
 writer  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  doing  —  only  shows 
 that  the  Romans  on  one  occasion,  sooner  than  let  their 
 fugitives  escape  them,  got  some  boats  over  and  put 
 them  on  the  lake.  It  does  not  indicate  any  continued 
 navigation. 
 
 d  Costigan  in  1835,  Moore  and  Beek  in  1837,  Symonds 
 in  1841,  Molyneux  in  1847,  Lynch  in  1848. 
 
SEA,  THE  BALI 
 
 fresher  air  of  the  heights,  rather  than  descend  to 
 the  sultry  climate  of  the  shores. 
 
 47.  The  connection  between  this  singular  lake 
 and  the  Biblical  history  is  very  slight.  In  the  topo- 
 graphical records  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book 
 of  Joshua  «  it  forms  one  among  the  landmarks  of  the 
 boundaries  of  the  whole  country,  as  well  as  of  the 
 inferior  divisions  of  Judah  and  Benjamin ;  and  atten- 
 tion has  been  already  drawn  to  the  minute  accuracy 
 with  which,  according  to  the  frequent  custom  of 
 these  remarkable  records,  one  of  the  salient  features 
 of  the  lake  is  singled  out  for  mention.  As  a  land- 
 mark it  is  once  named  in  what  appears  to  be  a 
 quotation  from  a  lost  work  of  the  pro[)het  Jonah 
 (2  K.  xiv.  2.5),  itself  apparently  a  reminiscence  of 
 the  old  Mosaic  statement  (Num.  xxxiv.  8,  12). 
 Besides  this  the  name  occurs  once  or  twice  in  the 
 imagery  of  the  Prophets.''  In  the  New  Testament 
 there  is  not  even  an  allusion  to  it.  There  is,  how- 
 ever, one  passage  in  which  the  "  Salt  Sea  "  is  men- 
 tioned in  a  different  manner  to  any  of  those  already 
 quoted,  namely,  as  having  been  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
 ham the  Vale  of  Siddim  (Gen.  xiv.  o ).  The  narrative 
 in  which  this  occurs  is  now  generally  acknowledged 
 to  be  one  of  the  most  ancient  of  those  venerable 
 documents  from  which  the  early  part  of  the  book  of 
 Genesis  was  compiled.  But  a  careful  examination 
 shows  that  it  contains  a  nunilier  of  explanatory 
 statements  which  cannot,  from  the  very  nature  of 
 the  case,  have  come  from  the  pen  of  its  original 
 author.  The  sentences,  "  Bela  which  is  Zoar  " '^ 
 (2  and  8);  "  En-Mishpat  which  is  Kadesh  "  (7); 
 "  The  Valley  of  Shaveh  which  is  the  King's  Valley  " 
 (17) ;  and  the  one  in  question,  "  the  Vale  of  Siddim 
 which  is  the  Salt  Sea"  (.3),  are  evidently  explana- 
 tions added  by  a  later  hand  at  a  time  when  the 
 ancient  names  had  become  obsolete.  These  remarks 
 (or,  as  they  maybe  termed,  "annotations")  stand 
 on  a  perfectly  different  footing  to  the  words  of  the 
 original  record  which  they  are  intended  to  elucidate, 
 and  whose  antiquity  they  enhance,  ll  bears  every 
 mark  of  being  contemporary  with  the  events  it  nar- 
 rates. They  merely  embody  the  opinion  of  a  later 
 person,  and  must  stand  or  fidl  by  their  own  merits. 
 
 48.  Now  the  evidence  of  the  spot  is  sufficient  to 
 show  that  no  material  change  has  taken  place  in  the 
 upper  and  deeper  portion  of  the  lake  for  a  period 
 very  long  anterior  to  the  time  of  Abraham.  In  the 
 lower  portion  — the  lagoon  and  the  plain  below  it  — 
 if  any  change  has  occurred,  it  appears  to  have  been 
 rather  one  of  reclamation  than  of  submersion  —  the 
 gradual  silting  up  of  the  district  by  the  torrents 
 which  discharge  their  contents  into  it  (see  §23). 
 W^e  have  seen  that,  owing  to  the  gentle  slope  of  the 
 plain,  temporary  fluctuations  in  the  level  of  the  lake 
 would  affect  this  portion  very  materially ;  and  it  is 
 quite  allowable  to  believe  that  a  few  wet  winters  fol- 
 lowed by  cold  summers,  would  raise  the  level  of  the 
 lake  sufficiently  to  lay  the  whole  of  the  district  south 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 2895 
 
 of  the  lagoon  under  water,  and  convert  it  for  the  time 
 into  a  part  of  the  "  Salt  Sea."  A  rise  of  20  feet  be- 
 yond the  ordinary  high-water  point  would  probably 
 do  this,  and  it  would  take  some  years  to  bring  things 
 back  to  their  former  condition.  Such  an  exceptional 
 state  of  things  the  writer  of  the  words  in  Gen.  xiv.  3 
 may  have  witnessed  and  placed  on  record. 
 
 49.  This  is  merely  stated  as  a  possible  explanation ; 
 and  it  assumes  the  Vale  of  Siddim  to  have  been  the 
 plain  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake,  for  which  there 
 is  no  evidence.  But  it  seems  to  the  writer  more 
 natural  to  believe  that  the  author  of  this  note  on 
 a  document  which  even  in  his  time  was  probably 
 of  great  antiquity,  believed  that  the  present  lake 
 covered  a  district  which  in  historic  times  had  been 
 permanently  habitable  dry  land.  Such  was  the  im- 
 plicit belief  of  the  whole  modern  world  —  with  the 
 exception  perhaps  of  Keland  ''  —  till  within  less  than 
 half  a  century.  Even  so  lately  as  1830  the  for- 
 mation of  the  Dead  Sea  was  described  by  a  divine 
 of  our  Church,  remarkaljle  alike  for  leannng  and 
 discernment,  in  the  following  terms :  — 
 
 "  The  Valley  of  the  Jordan,  in  which  the  cities 
 of  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Adma,  and  Tseboim,  were 
 situated,  was  rich  and  highly  cultivated.  It  is 
 most  probable  that  the  river  then  flowed  in  a  deep 
 and  iminterrupted  channel  down  a  regular  descent, 
 and  discharged  itself  into  the  eastern  gulf  of  the 
 Red  Sea.  The  cities  stood  on  a  soil  broken  and 
 undermined  with  veins  of  bitumen  and  sulphur. 
 These  inflammable  substances  set  on  tire  by  light- 
 ning caused  a  terrible  convulsion ;  the  water- 
 courses —  both  the  river  and  the  canals  by  which  the 
 land  was  extensively  irrigated  —  burst  their  banks; 
 the  cities,  the  walls  of  which  were  perhaps  built 
 from  the  combustible  materials  of  tlie  soil,  were 
 entirely  swallowed  up  by  the  fiery  inundation,  and 
 tlie  whole  valley,  which  had  been  compared  to  Par- 
 adise and  the  well-watered  corn-fields  of  the  Nile, 
 became  a  dead  and  fetid  lake"  (Milman,  Hist,  of 
 the  Jews,  2d  ed.,  i.  15). 
 
 In  similar  language  does  the  usually  cautious  Dr. 
 Robinson  express  himself,  writing  on  the  spot,  before 
 the  researches  of  his  countrymen  had  revealed  the 
 depth  and  nature  of  the  chasm,  and  the  consequent 
 remote  date  of  the  formation  of  the  lake:  "  Shat- 
 tered mountains  and  the  deep  chasms  of  the  rent 
 earth  are  here  tokens  of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  of 
 his  vengeance  upon  the  guilty  inhabitants  of  the 
 plain"  \Bibl.  Ris.  i.  525). « 
 
 Now  if  these  explanations  —  so  entirely  ground- 
 less, when  it  is  recollected  that  the  identity  of  the 
 Vale  of  Siddim  with  the  Plain  of  Jordan,  and  the 
 submersion  of  the  cities,  find  no  warrant  whatever 
 in  Scripture  —  are  promulgated  by  persons  of  learn- 
 ing and  experience  in  the  19th  century  after  Christ, 
 surely  it  need  occasion  no  surprise  to  find  a  similar 
 view  put  forward  at  the  time  when  the  contradic- 
 tions involved  in  the  statement  that  the  Salt  Sea 
 
 a  See  tlie  quotations  at  the  head  of  the  article. 
 
 b  One  of  these  (Ez.  xlvii.)  is  remarkable  for  the  man- 
 ner iu  whicli  the  characteristics  of  the  lake  and  its  en- 
 virons—  the  dry  ravines  of  the  western  mountains; 
 the  noxious  waters  ;  the  want  of  fish  ;  the  southern 
 lagoon— are  brought  out.  See  Prof.  Stanley's  notice 
 {S.^  P.p.  294). 
 
 c  Tyti'S^n  17^3  :  sucli  is  the  formula  adopted 
 in  eaeli  of  the  instances  quoted.  It  is  the  same  which 
 is  used  in  the  precisely  parallel  case,  "  IIiizazon-Tamar, 
 •which  is  En-gedi  "  (2  Chr.  xx.  2).  In  other  ca.ses,  where 
 the  remark  seems  to  have  proceeded  from  the  original 
 
 writer,  another  form  is  used —  "Itj?^  —  ^^  ^^  "'^^' 
 Paran,  which  is  by  the  Wilderness*"  (6),  "  Hobah, 
 which  is  on  the  left  hand  of  Damascus  "  (15). 
 
 d  See  his  chapter  De  lacu  Asplialtite  iu  Pat/zstina, 
 lib.  i.  cap.  xxxviii.  —  truly  admirable,  considering  the 
 scanty  materials  at  his  disposal.  He  seems  to  have 
 been  the  first  to  disprove  the  idea  that  the  cities  of 
 the  plain  were  submerged. 
 
 e  Even  Lieut.  Lynch  can  pause  between  the  casts  oi 
 the  lead  to  apostrophize  the  "  unhallowed  sea  ...  the 
 record  of  God's  wrath,"  or  to  notice  the  "  sepulchral 
 light  "  cast  around  by  the  phosphorence,  etc.,  etc 
 {Narr.  pp.  284,  288,  280). 
 
2896 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 had  once  been  the  Vale  of  Siddim  could  not  have 
 presented  tlieinselves  to  the  ancient  coiumentator 
 who  added  that  explanatory  note  to  the  original  rec- 
 ord of  Gen.  xiv.  At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be 
 overlooked  that  the  passai^e  in  question  is  the  only 
 one  in  the  whole  Bible  —  Old  Testament,  Apocrypha, 
 or  New  Testament  —  to  countenance  the  notion  that 
 the  cities  of  the  plain  were  sulmierged ;  a  notion  which 
 the  present  writer  has  endeavored  elsewhere  "  to 
 show  does  not  date  earlier  than  the  Christian  era. 
 
 50.  Tlie  writer  has  tliere  also  attempted  to  prove 
 that  the  belief  wliicli  prompted  the  statements  just 
 quoted  from  modern  writers,  namely,  that  the  Dead 
 Sea  was  formed  by  the  catastrophe  which  over- 
 threw the  "  Cities  of  the  Plain,"  is  a  mere  as- 
 sumption. It  is  not  only  unsupported  by  Scrip- 
 ture, but  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  evidence 
 of  the  ground  itself.  Of  the  situation  of  those 
 cities  we  only  know  that,  being  in  the  "  Plain  of 
 the  Jordan,"  they  must  have  been  to  the  north  of 
 the  lake.  Of  the  catastrophe  which  destroyed 
 them,  we  only  know  that  it  is  described  as  a  shower 
 of  ignited  sulphur  descending  from  the  skies.  Its 
 date  is  uncertain,  but  we  shall  be  safe  in  placing  it 
 within  the  limit  of  2,000  years  before  Christ. 
 Now,  how  the  chasm  in  which  the  -Jordan  and  its 
 lakes  were  contained  was  produced  out  of  the  lime- 
 stone block  which  forms  the  main  body  of  Syria, 
 we  are  not  at  present  sufticiently  informed  to  know. 
 It  may  have  been  the  effect  of  a  sudden  fissure 
 of  dislocation.'-'  or  of  gradual  erosion,'"  or  of  a  com- 
 bination of  both.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that, 
 however  the  operation  was  performed,  it  was  of  far 
 older  date  than  the  time  of  Abraham,  or  any  other 
 historic  event.''  And  not  only  this,  but  the  details 
 of  the  geology,  so  far  as  we  can  at  present  discern 
 them,  all  point  in  a  direction  opposite  to  the  popu- 
 lar hypothesis.  That  hypothesis  is  to  the  effect 
 that  the  valley  was  once  dry,  and  at  a  certain 
 historic  period  was  covered  with  w-ater  and  con- 
 verted into  a  lake.  The  evidence  of  the  spot  goes 
 to  show  that  the  very  reverse  was  the  case;  the 
 plateaus  and  terraces  traceable  round  its  sides,  the 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 aqueous  deposits  of  the  peninsula  and  the  western 
 and  southern  shores,  saturated  with  the  salts  of 
 their  ancient  inmiersion,  speak  of  a  de[ith  at  one 
 time  far  greater  than  it  is  at  present,  and  of  a 
 gradual  subsidence,  until  the  present  level  (the 
 balance,  as  already  explained,  between  supply  and 
 evaporation)  was  reached. 
 
 Beyond  these  and  similar  tokens  of  the  action  of 
 water,  there  are  no  marks  of  any  geological  action 
 nearly  so  recent  as  the  date  of  Abraham.  Inex- 
 perienced and  enthusiastic  travellers  have  reported 
 craters,  lava,  pumice,  scoriae,  as  marks  of  modern 
 volcanic  action,  at  every  step.  But  these  things 
 are  not  so  easily  recognized  by  inexperienced  ob- 
 servers, nor,  if  seen,  is  the  deduction  from  them  so 
 obvious.  The  very  few  competent  geologists  who 
 have  visited  the  spot  —  both  those  who  have  pub- 
 lished their  observations  (as  Dr.  Anderson,  geol- 
 ogist to  the  Anserican  expedition''),  and  those  who 
 have  not,  concur  in  stating  that  no  certain  indica- 
 tions exist  in  or  about  the  lake,  of  volcanic  action 
 within  the  historical  or  human  period,  no  volcanic 
 craters,  and  no  coulees  of  lava  traceable  to  any 
 vent.  The  igneous  rocks  descriijed  as  lava  are  more 
 probably  basalt  of  great  antiquity;  the  bitumen  of 
 the  lake  has  nothing  necessarily  to  do  with  volcanic 
 action.  The  scorched,  calcined  look  of  the  rocks 
 in  the  immediate  neighliorhood,  of  whicii  so  many 
 travellers  lune  spoken  /  as  an  evident  token  of  the 
 conflagration  of  the  cities,  is  due  to  natural  causes 
 —  to  the  gradual  action  of  the  atmosphere  on  the 
 constituents  of  the  stone. 
 
 The  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  may 
 have  been  by  volcanic  action,  but  it  may  lie  safely 
 asserted  that  no  traces  of  it  have  yet  been  discov- 
 ered, and  that,  whatever  it  was,  it  can  ha>e  had 
 no  connection  with  that  far  vaster  and  far  more 
 ancient  event  which  opened  the  great  valley  of  the 
 Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  and  at  some  subsequent 
 time  cut  it  off  from  communication  with  the  Ped 
 Sea  by  forcing  up  between  thopi  the  tract  of  the 
 WaJi/  Ar'ikih.a  (i. 
 
 *  The  theory  advanced  in  the  preceding  article. 
 
 a  Under  the  heads  of  SODOM,  SniDiM,  Zo.iR. 
 
 b  See  the  remarks  of  Sir  11.  Murchison  before  the 
 B.  Association  (iu  At/temxinn,  29  Sept.  1849). 
 
 c  This  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Anderson. 
 
 d  Dr  Anderson  is  compelled  to  infer  from  the  fea- 
 tures of  the  eastern  shore  that  the  G/ior  existed  "  be- 
 fore the  tertiary  age  "  (p.  189  ;  and  see  his  interesting 
 remarks  on  pp.  190,  192). 
 
 e  This  Report  is  tlie  only  document  which  purports 
 to  give  a  scientiiic  account  of  the  geology  of  the  Dead 
 Sea.  The  author  was  formerly  ProtWssor  at  Columbia 
 College,  U.  S.  It  forms  a  part  of  his  Geological  Re- 
 cmmaissance  of  those  portions  of  the  Holy  Laud  which 
 were  visited  by  the  American  expedition.  The  writer 
 is  not  qualified  to  pass  judgment  on  its  scientific  merits, 
 but  he  can  speak  to  its  fullness  and  clearness,  and  to 
 the  modesty  witli  which  the  author  submits  his  con- 
 clusions, and  which  contrasts  very  favorably  with  the 
 loose  bombast  in  which  the  chief  of  the  expedition  is 
 too  prone  to  indulge.  Its  usefulness  would  be  greatly 
 increased  by  the  addition  of  sections,  showing  the  order 
 of  succession  of  the  strat;i,  and  diagrams  of  some  of 
 the  more  remarkable  phenomena. 
 
 /  An  instance  of  the  loose  manner  in  which  these 
 expressions  are  used  is  found  in  Lynch's  Narrative  (p. 
 283),  where  he  characterizes  as  ''scathed  by  fire"  a 
 rock  near  the  mouth  of  the  Kidron,  which  in  the  same 
 eentence  he  states  was  in  rapid  progress  of  disintegra- 
 tion, witli  a  "sloping  hill  of  half  its  own  height"  at 
 its  base  formed  by  the  dust  of  its  daily  decay. 
 
 a  There  is  a  sliglit  correspondence,  though  probably 
 
 but  a  superficial  one,  between  the  Dead  Sea  at  the 
 apex  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabeh  and  the  Hitter  Lakes  at 
 the  apex  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Each  was  probably  at 
 one  time  a  portion  of  the  sea,  and  each  has  been  cut 
 off  by  some  change  in  the  elevation  of  the  land,  and 
 left  to  concentrate  its  waters  at  a  distjince  from  the 
 parent  branch  of  the  ocean.  The  change  in  the  latter 
 case  was  probably  far  more  recent  than  in  the  former, 
 and  may  even  have  occurred  since  the  Kxodus. 
 
 The  parallel  between  the  Euxine  and  the  Dead  Sea 
 has  been  alrejidy  spoken  of.  If  by  some  geological 
 change  the  strait  of  the  Bosphorus  should  ever  be 
 closed,  and  the  outlet  thus  stopped,  the  parallel  would 
 in  some  respects  be  very  close  —  the  Danube  and  the 
 Dnieper  would  correspond  to  the  Jordan  and  the 
 Zurka:  the  Sea  of  Azov  with  the  Sivash  would  answer 
 to  the  lagoon  and  the  Sabkah  —  the  river  Don  to  the 
 Wady  el-Jeib.  The  process  of  adjustment  between 
 supply  and  evaporation  would  at  once  commence,  and 
 from  the  day  the  straits  were  closed  the  saltness  of  the 
 water  would  begin  to  concentrate.  If,  fui-ther,  the 
 evaporation  should  Vie  greater  than  the  present  sup- 
 ply, the  water  would  sink  and  sink  until  the  great 
 Euxine  became  a  little  lake  in  a  deep  hollow  far  belo\» 
 the  level  of  the  Mediterranean  ;  and  the  parallel  would 
 then  be  complete. 
 
 The  likeness  between  the  Jordan  with  its  lakes  and 
 the  river  of  Utah  lias  been  so  often  alluded  to.  that  it 
 need  not  be  more  than  mentioned  here.  See  Dr.  Buist 
 in  Ellin.  N.  Phil.  Journal,  April,  1855;  Burton's  City 
 of  the  Saints,  p.  394. 
 
SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 that  the  cities  of  the  plain  "  must  have  been  to  the 
 north  of  the  hike."  the  reader  will  find  critically 
 examined  in  the  articles  Soi>oj[  and  Zoar  (Anier. 
 ed. ).  We  pi'opose  to  review  here  the  theory  advanced 
 in  the  preceding  article,  and  in  the  articles  Sodo.m 
 and  SiDDiJi,  TnK  Valk  of,  respecting  the  su//- 
 mergence  of  the  plain.  The  question  of  the  sub- 
 mergence of  the  site  of  the  cities  is  distinct  from 
 that  of  the  suljmergence  of  a  portion  of  the  valley. 
 It  is  only  on  the  latter  point  that  we  claim  any 
 clear  historical  data;  the  former  is  a  matter  of  in- 
 ference merely. 
 
 The  evidences  which  bear  on  the  question  of 
 submergence  are  mainly  of  two  classes,  the  his- 
 torical and  the  ixeological.  The  latter  we  pass  over, 
 concurring  with  Mr.  Grove  in  the  conviction  that 
 the  data  as  yet  ascertained  would  not  furnish  the 
 most  scientific  observer  with  the  basis  of  a  solid 
 and  adequate  theory.  It  is  sufficient  that  no  points 
 have  thus  liir  been  estal)lished  by  geological  ex- 
 ploration which  conflict  with  the  historical  testi- 
 mony as  we  understand  it. 
 
 The  earliest  historical  evidence  is  contained  in 
 the  oldest  record  extant:  "All  these  were  joined 
 together  in  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  which  is  the  Salt 
 Sea'"  (Gen.  xiv.  Z).  The  writer  here  asserts  that 
 what  was  the  Vale  of  Siddim  at  the  time  of  the 
 battle  described,  was  at  the  time  of  his  writing  the 
 Salt  Sea.  If  we  are  to  accept  the  unity  of  the 
 authorship  of  the  book,  it  was  so  when  the  original 
 record  was  made.  If  we  may  regard  the  book  as 
 a  compilation,  and  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  as 
 the  gloss  of  the  compiler,  it  was  so  when  the  com- 
 pilation was  made.  Both  theories  leave  us  the  an- 
 cient, indisputable.  Biblical  testimony  to  the  iden- 
 tity, in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  site  of  the  Vale 
 of  Siddim  and  of  that  of  the  Salt  Sea.  This  in- 
 terpretation is  sustained  by  Gesenius,  who  defines 
 the  Vale  of  Siddim  (valley  of  the  plains)  as  the 
 plain   "  now  occupied   by  the  Dead   Sea "    {Lex. 
 
 Mr.  (irove  adopts  the  second  of  the  theories  just 
 named,  but  he  places  on  this  passage  the  same  in- 
 terjiretation  that  we  do.  He  rejects  the  transla- 
 tion of  these  who  would  construe  the  latter  clause 
 of  the  verse,  "  which  is  near,  at,  or  by  the  Salt 
 Sea,"  and  insists  on  the  other  interpretation.  He 
 says :  "  The  original  of  the  passage  will  not  bear 
 even  this  slight  accommodation,  and  it  is  evident 
 that  in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  words,  no 
 less  than  of  the  learned  and  eloquent  divine  and 
 historian  of  our  own  time  already  alluded  to,  the 
 Salt  Sea  covers  the  actual  space  formerly  occupied 
 by  the  Vale  of  Siddim  "  (Siddiji,  the  Vale  of). 
 This  is  decisive:  and  thus  understanding  the  Scrip- 
 tural testimony,  which  pointedly  contradicts  his 
 theory,  how  does  he  dispose  of  it?  His  explana- 
 tion given  above  is  concisely  repeated  in  the  article 
 just  quoted,  as  follows:  "  The  words  which  more 
 especially  bear  on  the  subject  of  this  article  (v.  3) 
 do  not  form  part  of  the  original  document.  That 
 venerable  record  has  —  with  a  care  which  shows 
 how  greatly  it  was  valued  at  a  very  early  date  — 
 been  annotated  throughout  by  a  Later,  thous;h  still 
 vei-y  ancient  chronicler,  who  has  added  what  in  his 
 day  were  Vielieved  to  be  the  equivalents  for  names 
 of  places  that  had  become  obsolete.     Bela  is  ex- 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 289T 
 
 a  *  "  The  clause  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  MSS. 
 and  versions,  and  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos.  Its 
 genuineness  rests  on  the  very  sanie  Ijasis  as  the  other 
 jjortions  of  the  narrative.     We  have  the  same  evidence 
 
 plained  to  be  Zoar ;  En-Mishpat  to  be  Kadesh ;  thg 
 Emek-Shaveh  to  be  the  Valley  of  the  Kino-;  the 
 lunek  has-Siddim  to  be  the  Salt  Sea,  that  is,  in 
 modern  phraseology,  the  Dead  Sea.  And  when 
 we  remember  how  persistently  the  notion  has  been 
 entertained  lor  the  last  eighteen  centuries  that  the 
 Dead  Sea  covers  a  district  which  before  its  submer- 
 sion was  not  only  the  Valley  of  Siddim  but  also 
 the  Plain  of  the  Jordan,  and  what  an  elaborate 
 account  of  the  catastrophe  of  its  submersion  has 
 been  constructed  even  very  recently  by  one  of  the 
 most  able  scholars  of  our  day,  we  can  hardly  be 
 surprised  that  a  chronicler  in  an  age  far  less  able 
 to  interpret  natural  phenomena,  and  at  the  same 
 time  long  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  actual 
 event,  should  have  shared  in  the  belief."  [Siddim, 
 THE  Vale  of.] 
 
 This  reasoning  from  the  modern  to  the  ancient, 
 from  Dean  Miluian  to  Moses,  or  the  ancient  chron- 
 icler who  wrote  these  words,  is  very  unsatisfactory 
 to  those  who  believe  in  the  integrity  of  the  sacred 
 canon. «  Any  theory'  which  may  be  held  respecting 
 the  authorship  of  the  book  is  of  no  consequence  in 
 this  matter,  if  we  have  here  an  unblemished  copy 
 of  the  Divine  revelation.  Any  theory  wliich  gives 
 us  this,  leaves  this  testimony  of  equal  value  to  us. 
 If  the  authenticity  of  the  record  is  conceded  in 
 this  passage,  but  it  is  alleged  that  the  later,  yet 
 very  ancient  chronicler,  who  compiled  or  annotated 
 the  original  document,  and  gave  it  to  us  in  its 
 present  shape,  was  in  point  of  fact  mistaken,  we 
 consider  the  surmise  wholly  unwarranted  and  un- 
 warrantable, and  believe  the  writer  to  ha\'e  had  far 
 better  data  for  his  statement  than  any  modern 
 critic  can  possibly  have  for  correcting  him.  The 
 reason  assigned  for  the  supposed  error,  moreover,  is 
 irrelevant.  The  submergence  of  the  Vale  of  Sid- 
 dim, the  conversion  of  its  site  to  the  waters  of  the 
 Dead  Sea,  is  simply  a  question  of  historic  fact,  the 
 statement  of  which  does  not  require  a  chronicler 
 who  is  "able  to  interpret  natural  phenomena." 
 If,  in  the  above  extracts  and  in  the  remark  in  the 
 present  article  that  these  "  annotations  "  "  must 
 stand  or  fall  by  their  own  merits,"  the  writer  means 
 to  impeach  the  inspired  record,  or  fasten  the  sus- 
 picion of  corruption  upon  it,  it  is  an  uncalled-for 
 disparagement  of  the  Received  Text. 
 
 The  other  glosses  or  annotations,  as  Jlr.  Grove 
 claims  them  to  be,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  accept 
 as  valid  historic  testimony.  He  says  of  Zoar, 
 that  "its  original  name  was  Bela,"  of  Bethlehem, 
 that  "its  earliest  name  was  Ephrath,"  and  of 
 Hazezon-Tamar,  that  it  "  afterwards  became  En- 
 gedi,"  on  exactly  the  authority,  and  no  other,  which 
 he  rejects  as  inconclusive  here.  "  Bela,  which  is 
 Zoar;"  "  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  which  is  the  Salt 
 Sea;"  "En-Mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh;"  "the 
 valley  of  Shaveh,  which  is  the  king's  dale;" 
 "  Ephrath,  which  is  Bethlehem ;  "  "  Hazezon-Tamar, 
 which  is  En-gedi ; "  annotations  or  glosses  like  these, 
 if  they  are  such  (the  first  four  occurring  in  the  same 
 narrative),  are  equally  reliable  or  equally  worthless. 
 No  law  of  interpretation  will  permit  us  to  accept 
 one  and  reject  another  on  the  ground  that  the 
 writer  was  not  a  naturalist.  Such  a  claim,  if  it 
 were  conceded,  would  estaUish  the  fact  that  prior 
 to  the  composition  or  completion  of  our  book  of 
 
 of  its  Mosaic  authorship  as  we  have  of  auy  other  par 
 of  the  book"  (Porter,  Kitto's  BM.  Cyc.  iii.  801). 
 
 S.  W. 
 
2898 
 
 SEA,  THE  SALT 
 
 Genesis,  the  belief  was  current  that  the  chasm  now 
 filled  by  the  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea  had  been,  in 
 part  at  least,  a  valley  or  plain ;  and  then  the  ques- 
 tion would  remain :  Whence  could  such  a  belief 
 have  oritfiiiated  V  In  attempting  to  withdraw  from 
 the  view  whicli  he  opposes  the  support  of  the  an- 
 cient record,  tlie  writer  is  oljlit;ed  to  grant  it  the 
 weight  of  a  tradition  older  than  the  chronicler. 
 
 The  sacred  narrative  names  a  single  physical 
 feature  of  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  namely,  that  it 
 abounded  with  "slime-pits  "  ((jen.  xiv.  10).  These 
 pits  were  wells  of  asphaltum,  or  bitumen,  probalily 
 of  various  dimensions,  "sufficient,"  either  from 
 their  number,  or  size,  or  both,  "  materially  to  affect 
 the  issue  of  the  battle."  These  asphaltic  wells 
 have  disappeared ;  but  bitumen  is  still  found  around 
 the  southern  section  of  the  sea,  and  it  rises  to  the 
 surface  of  the  water  in  large  quantities,  in  that 
 portion  of  it,  when  dislodged  by  an  earthquake 
 {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  229);  and  the  supply  was  formerly 
 more  copious  than  now.  We  have  modern  testi- 
 mony to  this  effect,  and  we  have  that  of  three 
 eminent  ancient  historians  in  the  century  before 
 Christ,  and  the  following :  Diodorus  Siculus,  Jose- 
 phus,  and  Tacitus,  who  represent  the  asphaltum  as 
 rising  to  the  surface  of  tlie  water  in  black  and 
 bulky  masses.  The  theory  that  the  Vale  of  Sid- 
 dim is  covered  by  the  southern  part  of  the  sea 
 reconciles  the  ancient  record  and  the  late  phe- 
 nomena. It  sustains  the  statement  that  it  was  full 
 of  bituminous  wells;  it  accounts  for  their  disap- 
 pearance, and  it  explains  the  occasional  spectacle 
 since,  down  to  the  present  time,  of  large  quantities 
 of  asphaltum  on  the  surface  of  the  water.  Thus 
 far  we  have  a  consistent,  confirmed,  uncontradicted 
 testimony. 
 
 As  we  pass  from  the  simple  aflSrmation  of  the 
 sacred  writer,  with  the  confirmation,  in  subsequent 
 ages,  of  the  only  physical  featin-e  of  the  territory 
 which  he  names,  we  leave  behind  us,  of  course,  all 
 direct  testimony.  The  only  remaining  evidence, 
 exclusively  historical,  is  of  that  secondary  and  con- 
 firmatory kind  which  may  be  drawn  from  the  in- 
 vestigations aiid  impressions  of  later  writers  most 
 competent  to  form  a  judgment,  who  have  exam- 
 ined the  subject,  or  who,  as  historians,  have  re- 
 corded tlie  prevalent  tradition,  or  the  most  intelli- 
 gent opinion.  The  testimony  of  these  writers  the 
 reader  will  find  quoted  in  an  article  by  the  present 
 writer  on  "  The  Site  of  Sodom,"  Bibl.  Sacra 
 (1868),  XXV.  121-12G. 
 
 Whether  the  flame  which  kindled  on  Sodom  and 
 the  guilty  cities  and  consumed  them,  the  inflam- 
 mable bitumen  entering  largely  into  the  composi- 
 tion of  their  walls,  devoured  also  the  adjacent  Vale 
 of  Siddim,  whose  soil,  abounding  with  asphalt- 
 wells,  would  under  a  storm  of  fire  be  a  magazine 
 of  quenchless  fuel,  and  thus  burned  out  a  chasm, 
 which  in  whole  or  in  part,  now  forms  the  lagoon ; 
 or  whether  some  volcanic  convulsion,  an  agency  of 
 which  tliat  region  has  been  the  known  theatre,  up- 
 heaved the  combustible  strata,  exposing  them  to 
 the  action  of  fire,  and  thus  secured  the  result,  each 
 supposition  confirming  the  sacred  narrative  that  as 
 Abraham,  from  his  high  point  of  observation  sur- 
 veying the  terrible  destruction,  "  looked  toward 
 Sodom  and  (iomorrah,  and  toward  all  the  land  of 
 the  plahi,  and  behold,  and  lo,  the  smoke  of  the 
 country  went  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace;  "  or 
 whether,  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  the 
 cities  liy  fire,  some  earthquake- throe,  such  as  that 
 stuppiiduus  crevasse  has  more  than  once  felt,  suidc 
 
 SEAL 
 
 a  portion  of  the  soil  out  of  sight,  leaving  the  stai" 
 nant  waters  above  as  its  memorial,  cannot  now  In 
 known.  The  agency  which  destroyed  the  cities 
 was  plainly  igneous.  The  agency  which  converted 
 tlie  Vale  of  Siddim  into  a  sheet  of  water  is  not 
 stated.  Any  theory  is  admissible  which  consist- 
 ently explains  the  two  facts. 
 
 The  submergence  of  the  Vale  of  Siddim  and  the 
 submergence  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  or  of  their 
 site,  are  distinct  questions,  because  the  cities  were 
 not  in  this  valley.  On  this  point  we  concur  with 
 the  judicious  Keland:  — 
 
 "The  inspired  writer  does  not  say  that  the  five 
 cities,  Sodom  and  the  rest,  were  situated  in  the 
 Valley  of  Siddim;  on  the  contrary,  the  text  (Gen. 
 xiv.  3)  leads  to  an  opposite  conclusion:  since  the 
 kings  of  these  five  cities,  after  having  collected  their 
 armies,  joined  together  towards  the  Valley  of  Sid- 
 dim. Supposing  the  translation  to  be  in  the  valley, 
 the  meaning  is  still  the  same.  The  probability  is, 
 then,  that  the  Valley  of  Siddim  was  quite  distinct 
 from  the  country  in  wliich  the  five  cities  were  sit- 
 uated "  (Palcesiina,  i.  101). 
 
 We  see  not  how  any  other  opinion  than  this 
 could  have  obtained  currency  among  scholars.  The 
 vale  and  the  territory  of  the  cities,  though  distinct, 
 were  evidently  contiguous  and  may  have  shared, 
 and  to  some  extent  probably  did  share  a  common 
 catastrophe.  The  former  may  have  been  consumed 
 with  the  latter,  or  the  latter  may  have  been  de- 
 pressed with  the  former.  Neither  the  exact  loca- 
 tion nor  extent  of  the  \'a\e  of  Siddim  can  be  ascer- 
 tained. If  it  covered  the  whole  breadth  of  the 
 southern  part  of  the  sea,  the  plain  which  borders 
 on  the  south,  ten  miles  long  by  six  broad,  was 
 ample  enough  for  the  cities ;  but  in  all  probability  • 
 it  was  confined  to  a  part  of  its  width,  leaving  the 
 rest  for  fruitful  fields  and  walled  towns,  the  sites 
 of  which  are  entombed  by  the  sea.  The  vale  was 
 the  battle-field  between  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies, 
 and  the  confederate  kings  of  the  cities;  and  as  the 
 invaders  apparently  menaced  the  cities  from  the 
 present  point  of  Ain  Jidtj,  and  the  kings  went  forth 
 to  meet  them  in  this  vale,  it  must  have  lain  west 
 or  north  of  the  cities. 
 
 If  the  rich  vegetation  of  the  well-watered  plain 
 of  the  Jordan,  on  whose  tropical  luxuriance  Lot 
 looked  down  from  the  highlands  of  Judaea,  extended 
 southward  skirting  fresh  water  al(jn<;  the  site  of  a 
 part  of  the  present  basin  of  the  Salt  Sea,  and 
 embosoming  the  Vale  of  Siddim  with  the  cities 
 which  bordered  it,  the  allusions  in  the  Scripture 
 narrative  are  all  adjusted  and  expkiined.  This 
 theory  encounters  no  historic  dithculty,  nor  any 
 insuperable  scientific  difficulty,  so  far  as  is  known. 
 If  there  be  a  I'atal  objection  to  it,  it  lies  liuried  in 
 that  vast,  mysterious  fissure,  and  awaits  the  resur- 
 rection of  some  future  explorer.  Should  geology 
 ever  compel  tiie  substitution  of  a  different  theory, 
 we  may  expect  from  some  quarter  the  additional 
 light  which  will  enable  us  to  reconcile  it  with  the 
 inspired  record.  In  the  meantime  we  rest  on  this 
 hy[)othesis.      [Siddi.m,  the  Vale  ok,  Anier.  ed.] 
 
 S.  W. 
 
 SEAL."     The  importance  attached  to  seals  in 
 
 «  1-    nimn  (Arab.   ^jLik)  :   (n^jpa-yi's,  aj70<7-4ipa- 
 •yi(Tp,a:    annuhis    (Gen.    xxxviii.    25).        n^iHn/". ! 
 
 8aKTiiAios  :  aiinulus  :  from  DHn,  "  close  "  or  "  seal." 
 -   T  ' 
 
SEAL 
 
 the  East  is  so  great  that  without  one  no  document 
 is  regarded  as  authentic  (Layard,  Nin.  ^-  Bab.  p. 
 608;  Chardin,  Voy.  v.  454).  The  use  of  some 
 method  of  sealing  is  obviously,  therefore,  of  remote 
 antiquity.  Among  such  methods  used  in  Egypt 
 at  a  very  early  period  were  engraved  stones,  pierced 
 through  their  length  and  hung  by  a  string  or  chain 
 from  the  arm  or  neck,  or  set  in  rings  for  the  finger. 
 The  most  ancient  form  used  for  this  purpose  was 
 the  scarabasus,  formed  of  precious  or  common  stone, 
 or  even  of  blue  pottery  or  porcelain,  on  the  flat  side 
 of  which  the  inscription  or  device  was  engraved. 
 Cylinders  of  stone  or  pottery  bearing  devices  were 
 also  used  as  signets.  One  in  the  Alnwick  IMuseum 
 bears  the  date  of  Osirtasen  I.,  or  between  2000 
 and  3000  b.  c.  Besides  finger-rings,  the  Egyp- 
 tians, and  also  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians, 
 made  use  of  cylinders  of  precious  stone  or  terra- 
 cotta, which  were  probably  set  in  a  frame  and 
 rolled  over  the  document  which  was  to  be  sealed. 
 The  document,  especially  among  the  two  latter 
 nations,  was  itself  often  made  of  baked  clay,  sealed 
 while  it  was  wet  and  burnt  afterwards.  But  in 
 many  cases  the  seal  consisted  of  a  lump  of  clay, 
 impressed  with  the  seal  and  attached  to  the  docu- 
 ment, whether  of  papyrus  or  otlier  material,  by 
 strings.  These  clay  lumps  often  bear  the  impress 
 of  the  finger,  and  also  the  remains  of  the  strings 
 by  which  they  had  been  fastened.  One  such  found 
 at  Niinroud  was  the  seal  of  Sabaco  king  of  Egypt, 
 B.  c.  711,  and  another  is  believed  by  Mr.  Layard 
 to  have  been  the  seal  of  Sennacherib,  of  nearly 
 the  same  date  (Birch,  Hid.  of  Potttry,  i.  101,  118; 
 Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  n.  Ml,  304;  Layard,  iVm. 
 (f  B(th.  pp.  1-54-160).  In  a  somewhat  similar 
 manner  doors  of  tombs  or  other  places  intended  to 
 be  closed  were  sealed  with  lumps  of  clay.  The 
 custom  prevalent  among  the  Babylonians  of  carry- 
 ing seals  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  i.  19.5,  who 
 also  notices  the  seals  on  tombs,  ii.  121 ;  Wilkin- 
 son, i.  1.5,  ii.  364;  Matt,  xxvii.  66;  Dan.  vi.  17. 
 The  use  of  clay  in  sealing  is  noticed  in  the  book 
 of  Job  (xxxviii.  14),  and  the  signet-ring  as  an 
 ordinary  part  of  a  man's  equipment  in  the  case  of 
 Judah  (Gen.  xxxviii.  18),  who  probably,  like  many 
 modern  Arabs,  wore  it  suspended  by  a  string  «  from 
 his  neck  or  arm.  (See  Qant.  viii.  6 ;  Ges.  pp.  538, 
 1140;  Kobinson,  i.  36;  Niebuhr,  Descr.  de  lAr. 
 p.  90;  Chardin,  I.  c.  Olearius,  Trai\  p.  317;  Knobel 
 on  Gen.  xxxviii.  in  Exeg.  Hdb.)  The  ring  or 
 the  seal  as  an  emblem  of  authority  both  in  Egypt, 
 in  Persia,  and  elsewhere,  is  mentioned  in  the  cases 
 of  Pharaoh  with  Joseph,  Gen.  xli.  42;  of  AhaVi, 
 1  K.  xxi.  8;  of  Ahasuerus,  Esth.  iii.  10,  12,  viii. 
 2;  of  Darius,  Dan.  I.  c,  also  1  iSIacc.  vi.  15; 
 Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  2,  §  2;  Herod,  iii.  128;  Curtius,  iii. 
 6,  7,  X.  5,  4:  Sandys,  Trav.  p.  62;  Cliardin,  ii. 
 291,  V.  451,  462;  and  as  an  evidence  of  a  covenant 
 in  Jer.  xxxii.  10,  44;  Neh.  ix.  38,  x.  1;  Hag.  ii. 
 23.  Its  general  importance  is  denoted  by  the 
 metaphorical  use  of  the  word  (Rev.  v.  1,  ix.  4). 
 Rings  with  seals  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna 
 {Shabb.  vi.  3),  and  earth  or  clay*  as  used  for  seals 
 of  bags  (viii.  5).  Seals  of  four  sorts  used  in  the 
 Temple,  as  well  as  special  guardians  of  them,  are 
 mentioned  in  Shekal.  v.  1. 
 
 SEBA 
 
 2899 
 
 Ch.    Dinri  ;   <r0pa-)/tfo/j.ai :     sii;niim    i7)ipri)nere,   sig- 
 nare. 
 
 2.   Uing,  or  8igK?t-ring,  ^"573^. 
 
 Among  modern  ()rientals  the  size  and  place  of 
 the  seal  vary  according  to  the  importance  botb 
 of  the  sender  of  a  letter  and  of  the  person  to  whom 
 it  is  sent.  In  sealing,  the  seal  itself,  not  the  paper, 
 is  smeared  witii  the  sealing-substance.  Thus  illit- 
 erate persons  .sometimes  use  the  object  nearest  af' 
 hand  —  their  own  finger,  or  a  stick  notched  for  the 
 purpose — and,  daubing  it  with  ink,  smear  the 
 paper  therewith  (Chardin,  v.  454,  ix.  347;  Arvieux, 
 Trav.  p.  101;  KauwolfF,  Trav.  in  Ray,  ii.  61; 
 Niebuhr,  /.  c.  ;  Kobinson,  i.  36).  Engraved  sig- 
 nets were  in  use  among  the  Hebrews  in  early  times, 
 as  is  evident  in  the  description  of  the  high-priest's 
 breastplate  (Ex.  xxviii.  11,  30,  xxxix.  6),  and  the 
 work  of  the  engraver  as  a  distinct  occupation  is 
 mentioned  in  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  27.      [Clay,  i.  471.] 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 *  SEALED  FOUNTAIN.     [Fountain.] 
 
 *  SEALS'  SKINS.     [Badgeiss'  Skins.] 
 
 SE'BA  (Slip  [see  below]:  -Za^a.,  'S.oi]vr)\ 
 [Vat.    in    1    Chr.    'S.a.^aT.]     Saba:    gent.    n.    pi. 
 
 C'Wnp  :   [Is.  xlv.  14,]  'Za.&aiifx,  [FA.i  -Za^omv, 
 
 Alex.  2e;8co6ijU.:]  Sabaiin:  A.  V.  incorrectly  ren- 
 dered  S.VBEANS,   a  name  there  given  with  more 
 
 probability  to  the  CS^tt',  Joel  iii.  8  [Heb.  text, 
 iv.  8] ;  and  to  Sheba,  used  for  the  people,  Job  i. 
 15;  but  it  would  have  been  better  had  the  original 
 orthography  been  followed  in  both  cases  by  such 
 renderings  a.s  "people  of  Seba,"  "people  of  Sheba," 
 where  the  gent,  nouns  occur).  Seba  heads  the  list 
 of  the  sons  of  Cush.  If  Seba  be  of  Hebrew  or 
 cognate  orighi,  it  may  be  connected  with  the  root 
 
 S3D,  "he  or  it  drank,  drank  to  excess,"  which 
 would  not  be  inappropriate  to  a  nation  seated,  as 
 we  shall  see  was  that  of  Seba,  in  a  well-watered 
 country;  but  the  comparison  of  two  other  similar 
 
 names  of  Cushites,  Sabtah  (HTnillp)  and  Sab- 
 techah  (S3^2p),  does  not  favor  this  supposition, 
 as  they  were  probably  seated  in  Arabia,  like  the 
 Cushite  Sheba  (K^tZ7),  which  is  not  remote  from 
 
 Seba  (NZ2p),  the  two  letters  being  not  unfrequently 
 interchanged.  Gesenius  has  suggested  the  Ethiopic 
 fl'i\  tx  '•  sabeay,  "  a  man,"  as  the  origin  of  both 
 Seba  and  Sheba,  but  this  seems  unlikely.  The 
 ancient  Egyptian  names  of  nations  or  tribes,  possi- 
 bly  counti'ies,  of  Ethiopia,  probalilv  mainly,  if  not 
 wholly,  of  Nigritian  race,  SAHABA,  SABARA 
 (Brugsch,  Geogr.  Inschr.  ii.  9,  tav.  xii.  K.  1.),  are 
 more  to  the  point ;  and  it  is  needless  to  cite  later 
 geographical  names  of  cities,  though  that  of  one 
 of  the  upper  confluents  of  the  Nile,  Astasobas. 
 compared  with  Astaboras,  and  Astapus,  seems  wor- 
 thy of  notice,  as  perhaps  indicatin<;  the  name  of  a 
 nation.  The  proper  names  of  the  first  and  second 
 kings  of  the  Etliiopian  XXVth  dynasty  of  Egypt, 
 
 SHEBEK  (S'lD)  and  SHEBETEK,  may  also  be 
 compared.  Gesenius  was  led,  liy  an  error  of  the 
 Egyptologists,  to  connect  Sevechus,  a  Greek  tran- 
 scription of  SHEBETEK,  with  SABK  or  SBAK, 
 
 3.   Sptl7,  Ch.  :  SaKTu'Ato; :  annulKS. 
 't:  •  ' 
 
 a  \)^rV^  :   opfj.i.a-KO's :   armilla;  A.  V.  "  bracelet." 
 f>   nX31S  (see  Ges.  p.  27). 
 
2900 
 
 SEBA 
 
 the  crocodile-he;idcd  divinity  of  Ombos  {Lex.  s.  v. 
 
 The  list  of  the  sons  of  Cush  seems  to  indicate 
 the  position  of  tlie  Cushite  nation  or  country  Seba. 
 Ninirod,  who  is  mentioned  at  the  close  of  tlie  list, 
 ruled  at  first  in  Babylonia,  and  apparently  after- 
 wards in  Assyria:  of  the  )iames  enumerated  be- 
 tween Sella  and  Ninirod,  it  is  highly  probalile  that 
 some  belong  to  Arabia.  We  thus  may  conjecture 
 a  cuive  of  Cushite  settlements,  one  extremity  of 
 which  is  to  be  placed  in  Babylonia,  the  other,  if 
 prolonged  far  enough  in  accordance  with  the  men- 
 tion of  the  African  Cush.  in  Ethiopia.  The  more 
 exact  position  of  Selni  will  be  later  discussed. 
 
 Besides  the  mention  of  Seba  in  the  list  of  the 
 sons  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7;  1  Chr.  i.  9),  there  are 
 but  three,  or,  as  some  hold,  four  notices  of  the 
 nation.  In  Psalm  Ixxii.,  which  has  evidently  a 
 fiist  rtference  to  the  reign  of  Solomon,  Seba  is  tinis 
 spoken  of  among  the  distant  nations  whicii  should 
 do  lionor  to  the  king:  "The  kings  of  Tarshish 
 and  of  the  isles  shall  bring  presents :  the  kings  of 
 S!e'a  and  Seba  shall  offer  gifts"  (10).  This 
 mention  of  Sheba  and  Seba  together  is  to  be  com- 
 p  ired  with  the  occurrence  of  a  Sheba  among  the 
 descendants  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7),  and  its  fulfillment 
 is  fciund  in  the  queen  of  Shelia's  coining  to  Sol- 
 omon. There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Arabian 
 kingdom  of  Sheba  was  Cushite  as  well  as  Joktan- 
 ite;  and  this  occurrence  of  Sheba  and  Seba  to:;ether 
 certainly  lends  some  support  to  this  view.  On  tiie 
 other  hand,  the  connection  of  Seba  with  an  Asiatic 
 kingdom  is  important  in  reference  to  the  race  of 
 its  people,  whicli,  or  at  least  the  ruling  class  was, 
 no  doubt,  not  Xigritian.  In  Isaiah  xliii.,  Seha 
 is  spoken  of  with  Egypt,  and  more  particulaily 
 with  Cush,  apparently  with  some  reference  to  the 
 Exi.dus,  where  we  read:  "I  gave  Egypt  [for]  thy 
 ransom,  Cush  and  Seba  for  thee "  (3).  Here, 
 to  render  Cush  by  Ethiopia,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  is 
 perhaps  to  miss  the  sense  of  the  passage,  which 
 does  not  allow  us  to  infer,  though  it  is  by  no 
 means  impossilile,  that  Cush,  as  a  geographical 
 designation,  includes  Seba,  as  it  would  do  if  here 
 meaning  Ethiopia.  Later  in  the  book  there  is  a 
 passage  parallel  in  its  indications:  "  The  labor  of 
 Egypt,  and  merchandise  of  Cush,  and  of  the  people 
 of  Sella,  men  of  stature,  shall  come  over  unto  thee, 
 and  they  shall  be' thine"  (xlv.  H).  Here  there  is 
 the  same  mention  together  of  the  three  nations, 
 and  the  same  special  association  of  Cush  and  Seba. 
 The  great  stature  and  beauty  of  the  Ethiopians  is 
 mentioned  by  Herodotus,  who  speaks  of  them  as 
 by  report  the  tallest  and  handsomest  men  in  the 
 world  (iii.  20;  comp.  114);  and  in  the  present  day 
 some  of  the  tribes  of  the  dark  races  of  a  type  inter- 
 mediate between  the  Nigritians  and  the  Egyptians, 
 as  well  as  the  Caucasian  Abyssinians,  are  remark- 
 alile  for  tlieir  fine  form,  and  certain  of  the  former 
 for  their  height.  The  doubtful  notice  is  in  Eze- 
 kiel,  in  a  difficult  passage :  "  and  with  men  of  the 
 multitude   of    Adam    [were]    brought    drunkards 
 
 [CW^ip,  but  the  Keri  reads  C^S^D,  'people 
 of  Seba ']  from  the  wilderness,  which  put  bracelets 
 upon  their  hands,  and  beautiful  crowns  ujion  their 
 heads  "  "  (xxiii.  42).  The  first  clause  would  seem 
 to  favor  the  idea  that  a  nation  is  meant,  but   the 
 
 «  The  reading  of  the  A.  V.  in  the  text  is,  "with 
 the  iiieu  of  tlie  common  sort,"  ami  in  the  marijiu. 
 "  .vith  tile  men  of  the  multitude  of  men." 
 
 SEBA 
 
 reading  of  the  text  is  rather  supported  by  what  fol- 
 lows the  mention  of  the  "drunkards."  Nor  is  it 
 clear  why  people  of  Seba  should  come  from  the 
 wilderness.  The  passages  we  have  examined  thus 
 seem  to  show  (if  we  omit  the  last)  that  Seba  was  a 
 nation  of  Africa,  bordering  on  or  included  in  Cush, 
 and  in  Solomon's  tinie  independent  and  of  iiolitical 
 importance.  We  are  thus  able  to  conjecture  the 
 position  of  Seba.  No  ancient  Ethiopian  kingdom 
 of  importance  could  have  excluded  the  island  of 
 Meroii,  and  therefore  this  one  of  Solomon's  time 
 may  be  identified  with  that  which  must  have  arisen 
 in  the  period  of  weakness  and  division  of  Egypt 
 that  followed  the  Empire,  and  have  laid  the  basis 
 of  that  power  that  made  SIlEBl-LK,  or  Sabaco, 
 able  to  conquer  Egypt,  and  found  the  Ethiopian 
 dynasty  which  ruled  that  country  as  well  as  Ethi- 
 opia. 
 
 Josephus  says  that  Saba  (2a;8a)  was  the  ancient 
 name  of  the  Ethiopian  island  and  city  of  Meroe 
 {A.  J.  ii.  10,  §  2),  but  he  writes  Seba,  in  the  no- 
 tice of  the  Noachian  settlements,  Sabas  {ibid.  i.  6, 
 §2).  Certainly  the  kingdom  of  jNleroe  succeeded 
 that  of  Seba;  and  the  ancient  city  of  the  same 
 name  may  have  Ijeen  the  ca])ital,  or  one  of  the  cap- 
 itals, of  Seba,  though  we  do  not  find  any  of  its 
 monuments  to  be  even  as  early  as  the  XXVth  dy- 
 nasty. There  can  be  no  connection  between  the 
 two  names.  According  to  .losephus  and  others, 
 Jleroii  was  named  after  a  sister  of  Cambyses;  but 
 this  is  extremely  unlikely,  and  we  prefer  taking  it 
 from  the  ancient  Egyptian  MEHU,  an  island, 
 which  occurs  in  a  name  of  a  part  of  Ethiopia  that 
 can  only  be  this  or  a  similar  tract,  MEKU-l'ET, 
 "  the  islfind  of  PET  [Phut':']  the  bow,"  where  the 
 bow  may  have  a  geographical  reference  to  a  bend 
 of  the  river,  and  the  word  island  to  the  country 
 inclosed  Ijy  that  bend  and  a  tributary  [Phut]. 
 
 As  Meroti,  from  its  fertility,  must  have  been  the 
 most  important  portion  of  any  Ethiopian  kingdom 
 in  the  dominions  of  which  it  was  included,  it  may 
 be  well  here  to  mention  the  chief  facts  respecting 
 it  which  are  known.  It  may  be  remarked  that  it 
 seems  certain  that,  from  a  remote  time,  Ethiopia 
 below  Meroe  could  ne\er  have  formed  a  separate 
 powerful  kingdom,  and  was  probably  always  de- 
 pendent upon  eitiier  JNIeroij  or  Egyjit.  The  island 
 of  Meroti  lay  between  tlie  Astalioras,  the  Atbara, 
 the  most  northern  tributary  of  the  Nile,  and  the 
 Astapus,  the  Bahr  el-Azrak  or  "  l>lue  liiver,"  the 
 eastern  of  its  two  great  confluents;  it  is  also  de- 
 scribed as  bounded  by  the  .^staboras,  the  Astapus, 
 and  the  Astasobas,  the  latter  two  uniting  to  form 
 the  Blue  River  (Strab.  xvii.  821),  but  this  is  essen- 
 tially the  same  thing.  It  was  in  the  time  of  the 
 kingdom  rich  and  productive.  The  chief  city  was 
 IMerotJ,  where  was  an  oracle  of  Jupiter  Amnion. 
 JModern  research  confirms  these  particulars.  The 
 country  is  capable  of  being  rendered  very  wealthy, 
 though  its  neighliorhood  to  Abyssinia  has  checked 
 its  commerce  in  that  direction,  from  the  natural 
 dread  that  the  Aliyssinians  have  of  their  country 
 being  absorbed  like  KiudufVm,  Diirfoor,  and  Eay- 
 z6<;lu,  by  their  powerful  neighlior  Egypt.  The  re- 
 mains of  the  city  jNIeroe  have  not  been  identified 
 with  certainty,  but  between  N.  lat.  16°  and  17°, 
 temples,  one  of  them  dedicated  to  the  ram-headed 
 Num,  confounded  with  Amnion  by  the  (ireeks,  and 
 pyraniids,  indicate  that  there  must  have  lieen  a 
 great  population,  and  at  least  one  important  city. 
 When  ancient  writers  speak  of  sovereigns  of  Meroe, 
 they  may  either  mean  rulers  of  JleroL^  alone,  or,  iu 
 
SEBAT 
 
 addition,  of  Ethiopia  to  the  north  nearly  as  far,  or 
 as  far  as  f^gypt.  K.  S.  P. 
 
 SE'BAT.     [Month.] 
 
 SEC'ACAH  (HDDrp  [thicket,  Dietr.] :  Alo- 
 Xio^a.'-.  Alex.  2oxoX"'  ^''I'f'cha,  or  Sachaclin). 
 One  of  the  six  cities  of  Judah  which  were  situated 
 in  the  Mklhar  ("wilderness"),  that  is,  the  tract 
 bordering  on  the  Dead  .Sea  (Josh.  xv.  61).  It  oc- 
 curs in  the  list  between  Middin  and  han-Nibshan. 
 It  was  not  known  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  nor  has 
 the  name  been  yet  encountered  in  that  direction  in 
 more  modern  times.  Erom  Sinjil,  among  the 
 highlands  of  Ephraim,  near  Seiliin,  Dr.  Eoliinson 
 saw  a  place  called  Se/cdkeh  {B'M.  Res.  ii.  207, 
 note).  G. 
 
 SECHENI'AS  (-Z^x^vias  ;  [Vat.  omits:] 
 Scecilias).  1.  Sukchaniah  (1  Esdr.  viii.  20; 
 comp.  Ezr.  viii.  3). 
 
 2.  ([Vat.  Etexovias:]  Jechonias.)  Shecha- 
 UIAH  (1  Esdr.  viii.  32;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  5). 
 
 SE'OHU  (-IDb^n  with  the  article  [the  loatch- 
 towerl :  4v  rcS  2e(pi  [Vat.  'Seipfi] ;  Alex,  fv  2o/c- 
 XO).  Soclio).  A  place  mentioned  once  onlv  (1 
 Sam.  xix.  22),  apparently  as  lying  on  the  route  be- 
 tween Saul's  residence,  Gibeah,  and  Ramah  (Ra- 
 mathaim  Zophim),  that  of  Samuel.  It  was  noto- 
 rious for  "  the  great  well"  (or  rather  cistern,  Tl3) 
 which  it  contained.  The  name  is  derivable  from  a 
 root  signifying  elevation,  thus  perhaps  implying 
 that  the  place  was  situated  on  an  eminence. 
 
 Assuming  that  Saul  started  from  Gibeah  ( Tukil 
 el-Fiil),  and  that  Neby  Sainwil  is  Ramah,  then 
 Bir  Nebdlla  (the  well  of  Neballa),  alleged  by  a 
 modern  traveller  (Schwarz,  p.  127)  to  contain  a 
 large  pit,  would  be  in  a  suitable  position  for  the 
 great  well  of  Sechu.  Schwarz  would  identify  it 
 with  Askar,  on  the  S.  E.  end  of  Mount  Ebal,  and 
 the  well  with  Jacob's  Well  in  the  plain  below ;  and 
 Van  de  Velde  (S.  (/  P.  ii.  53,  54)  hesitatingly 
 places  it  at  Shuk,  in  the  mountains  of  Judah  N. 
 Yj.  of  Hebron;  but  this  they  are  forced  into  bj' 
 their  respective  theories  as  to  the  position  of  Rama- 
 thaim  Zophim. 
 
 The  Vat.  LXX.  alters  the  passage,  and  has  "  the 
 well  of  the  threshing-floor  that  is  in  Sephei,"  sub- 
 stituting, in  the  first  case,  ^"13  for  773,  or  aAoj 
 
 for  jxsyaXov,  and  in  the  latter  "^^W  for  1DIZ7. 
 The  .'\lex.  MS.,  as  usual,  adheres  more  closely  to 
 the  Hebrew.  G. 
 
 *  SECT.  This  word  is  used  five  times  in  the 
 Bible,  always  in  the  singular,  and  always  as  a  trans- 
 lation of  alpecTts-  of  the  Sadducees,  Acts  v.  17; 
 of  the  Pharisees,  xv.  5,  xxvi.  5;  and  of  the  Chris- 
 tians (by  Jews  or  heathen),  xxiv.  5,  xxviii.  22. 
 A'lpecrts  occurs  once  more  in  the  singular,  xxiv.  14 
 (A.  V.  "heresy"),  and  three  times  in  the  plural, 
 1  Cor.  xi.  19,  Gal.  v.  20,  2  Pet.  ii.  1  (A.  V. 
 "heresies,''  but  1  Cor.  xi.  19  "sects"  in  the  mar- 
 gin). The  word  seems  in  the  N.  T.  to  be  used  in 
 the  twofold  sense  which  it  had  before  in  classical, 
 and  afterwards  in  ecclesiastical  Greek  (cf.  Sopho- 
 cles: Glossary  of  Later  ami  Byzantine  Greek): 
 denoting  now  a  "  chosen  "  set  of  doctrines  or  mode 
 of  life  (e.  ff.  Acts  xxiv.  14,  tV  dSbv  V  Kfyovaiv 
 a'lpea-iv,  2  Pet.  \[.  1,  perhaps  also  Acts  xxviii.  22, 
 Gal.  V.  20),  now  a  jyarty  adhering  to  the  doctrines. 
 
 That  alpeffis  denotes  in  the  N.  T.  reliyiuus 
 pecuUarities    or    parties    is   evident   from  the   six 
 
 SEDITIOXS 
 
 2901 
 
 cases  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  singular.  The 
 presumption  therelbre  is  that  in  the  three  other 
 cases  the  alpeaeis  have  the  same  characteristic. 
 It  is  evident  also  that  the  word  has  (as  it  did  not 
 ha^■e  in  classical  Greek)  a  had  sense  The  reason 
 for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  N.  T.  conception  of 
 the  Church  as  a  unit,  a  body  united  to  Christ  the 
 Head  (1  Cor.  xii.  27;  Eph.  i.  22),  so  that  diver- 
 sities of  opinion  which  produce  a  schism  in  the 
 body  or  divide  any  part  of  it  from  the  Head  (cf. 
 1  Cor.  xii.  25;  Col.  ii.  19)  cannot  be  tolerated,  as 
 could  differences  on  merely  philosophical  or  indif- 
 ferent matters.  Especially  instructive  is  1  Cor.  xi. 
 18,  19.  While  Paul  has  spoken  of  eptS^s,  i-  11, 
 and  of  (rjAos  Kal  tpis,  iii-  3,  as  undoubtedly  ex- 
 isting among  the  Corinthians,  he  is  reluctant  to 
 give  to  the  report  that  there  are  (Tx'i<^ixara  among 
 them  more  than  qualified  credit  (xi.  18,  fxfpos  Tt 
 TTitrTeuai),  and  founds  even  this  qualified  belief  not 
 so  much  on  the  reports,  as  on  the  general  principle 
 (ver.  19)  that  there  is  a  providential  necessity  that 
 there  should  be  even  alpeaets  (Sft  yap  Kal  aip- 
 eli/ai),  that  the  dSnifMoi  niay  be  made  manifest 
 (cf.  1  John.  ii.  19).  The  a56Kifj.ot  are  those  who 
 do  not  have  Christ  in  them  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).  Alpeaeis 
 then  are  divisions  (distinguished  from  trxifTjuaTa, 
 as  the  cause  from  the  effect)  which  imply  or  lead 
 to  a  separation  of  false  from  true  Christians.  In 
 strict  accordance  with  this  is  the  use  of  alpeaets  in 
 Gal.  V.  20,  and  especially  in  2  Pet.  ii.  1 ;  as  also 
 Paul's  injunction  (Tit.  iii.  10),  to  reject  an  alperi- 
 
 Khv    txV&pWTTOV- 
 
 Tlie  term  a'ip^ffts,  as  far  as  parties  in  the  Church 
 are  concerned,  is  in  the  N.  T.  confined  to  general 
 or  hypothetical  statements,  and  is  not  applied  to 
 any  particular  heretical  body,  though  the  existence 
 of  heretical  tendencies  is  recognized,  liut  the 
 prominent  notion  in  the  N.  T.  conception  of 
 a'lpfffii  is  that  of  apostasy  from  Christ.  Mere 
 variations  in  belief  among  those  who  "  hold  the 
 Head  "  are  nowhere  branded  with  the  name  of 
 ai'peo-iy  (cf.  Rom.  xiv. ;  1  Cor.  viii.).       C.  M.  M. 
 
 SECUN'DUS  (SefcoDi/Sos:  Secundiis)  was 
 one  of  the  party  who  went  with  the  Apostle  Paul 
 from  Corinth  as  far  as  Asia  (axpt  ttjs  'Atrias), 
 probably  to  Troas  or  Miletus  (all  of  them  so  far, 
 some  further),  on  his  return  to  Jerusalem  from  his 
 third  missionary  tour  (see  Acts  xx.  4).  He  and 
 Aristarchus  are  there  said  to  have  been  Thessa- 
 lonians.     He  is  otherwise  unknown.      II.  B.  H. 
 
 *  SECURE  formerly  differed  from  "  safe,"  as 
 the  feeling  of  safety  (which  may  be  unfounded^ 
 differs  from  the  reality.  Thus,  in  Judg.  xviii.  7, 
 10,  27,  the  people  of  Laish  are  said  to  have  been 
 "secure";  i.  e.  in  their  own  belief,  which  their 
 speedy  and  utter  overthrow  showed  to  be  a  delu- 
 sion. It  is  in  the  same  sense  that  the  A.  V.  ren- 
 ders vfjius  afxepifxi/ovs  TToiriffojXiv  by  "  we  will  se- 
 cure you,"  in  Matt,  xxviii.  14.  (See  Trench's 
 Glossary  of  English  Words,  p.  147,  Amer.  ed.) 
 
 H. 
 
 SBDECI'AS  (SeSeKi'ay:  Sef7e«rrs),  the  Greek 
 form  of  Zedekiah.  1.  A  man  mentioned  in  Bar. 
 i.  1,  as  the  fatlier  of  iMaaseiah,  himself  the  grand- 
 flither  of  Baruch,  and  apparently  identical  with  the 
 fidse  prophet  in  Jer.  xxix.  21,  22. 
 
 2.  The  "  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah  "  (Bar. 
 i.  8).     [Zedekiah.]  B.  F.  W. 
 
 *  SEDITIONS,  in  the  current  sense  of  the 
 word,  appears  out  of  place  in  Paul's  catalogue  of 
 the  sins  of  the  flesh  (Gal.  v.  19-21 ).     It  stands  fo) 
 
2902 
 
 SEER 
 
 Bixuaraaiai,  correctly  rendered  "divisions"  in 
 Koni.  xvi.  16  and  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  as  it  siiould  be  in 
 tlie  above  passage.  The  restricted  political  sense, 
 if  included  at  all  in  this  instance,  is  only  a  part  of 
 the  sense.  Archdeacon  Hare  ascribes  the  mistake 
 of  the  A.  V.  to  Tyndale's  following  Erasmus'  ver- 
 sion, where  sediliimes  means  "divisions  "  as  one  of 
 its  Latin  significations  {3Iission  of  the  Comforier, 
 p.  225  f.  Araer.  ed.).  H. 
 
 SEER.     [Pkophet.] 
 
 SE'GUB  (n*3b  ;  Kri,  ^l^S^  \_elevatefT] : 
 •S,eyovfi  [Vat.  M.  Zeyou^e:]  ^eg-iib).  1.  The 
 youngest  son  of  Hiel  the  Bethelite,  who  rebuilt 
 Jericho  (1  K.  xvi.  34).  According  to  Rabbinical 
 tradition  he  died  when  his  father  had  set  up  the 
 gates  of  the  city.  One  story  says  that  his  father 
 slew  bini  as  a  sacrifice  on  the  same  occasion. 
 
 2.  (Scpoiix'  -^'^-'^-  2e7ouj8.)  Son  of  Hezron, 
 by  the  daughter  of  Machir  the  father  of  Gilead  (1 
 Chr.  ii.  21,"' 22). 
 
 *  SEIR  (y^'SXO,  rough,  bristly:  S.rieip;  in 
 1  Chr.  27J1/J,  Alex.  27?9ip:  Seir),  a  Horite  chief, 
 who,  perhaps,  gave  his  name  to  the  mountainous 
 region  in  which  he  dwelt  (Gen.  xsxvi.  20,  21 ;  1 
 Chr.  i.  38).   [Seik,  Mouht,  1.]  A. 
 
 SE'IR,  MOUNT  i'^^'SW,  rough  or  rugged: 
 
 ■Xtieip:    Seir).      We    have    both    "'''VW   VT?^N 
 
 "  land  of  Seir"  (Gen.  xxxii.  3,  xxxvi.  30),  and  "IH 
 
 l-^VW,  "Mount  Seir"  (Gen.  xiv.  6).  1.  The 
 original  name  of  the  mountain  ridge  extending 
 along  the  east  side  of  tlie  Valley  of  Arabah,  from  the 
 Dead  Sea  to  tlie  Elanitic  Gulf.  The  name  may 
 either  have  been  derived  from  Seir  the  Horite,  who 
 appears  to  have  been  the  chief  of  the  aboriginal 
 inhabitants  (Gen.  xxxvi.  20),  or,  what  is  perhaps 
 more  probable,  from  the  rough  aspect  of  the  whole 
 country.  The  view  from  Aaron's  tomb  on  Hor,  in 
 the  centre  of  Mount  Seir,  is  enough  to  show  the 
 appropriateness  of  the  appellation.  The  sharp  and 
 serrated  ridges,  the  jagged  rocks  and  cliffs,  tlie 
 straggling  bushes  and  stunted  trees,  give  the  whole 
 scene  a  sternness  and  ruggedness  almost  unparal- 
 leled.      In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  instead  of 
 
 "T'l^ti^,  the  name  7173!!  is  used;  and  in  the  Je- 
 rusalem Targum,  in  place  of"  Mount  Seir  "  we  find 
 Sbiam  SmtS,  Mount  Gabla.  The  word  Gabln 
 signifies  "  mountain,"  and  is  thus  descriptive  of  the 
 region  (Eeland,  Prd.  p.  83).  The  name  Gebala,  or 
 Gebalene,  was  applied  to  this  province  by  Josephus, 
 and  also  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (.Joseph.  Anl.  ii. 
 1,  §  2  ;  Oiwmast.  "Idumsea").  The  northern 
 section  of  IMount  Seir,  as  far  as  Petra,  is  still  called 
 Jebdl,  the  Arabic  form  of  Gebal.  The  Mount  Seir 
 of  the  Bible  extended  much  further  south  than  the 
 modern  province,  as  is  shown  by  the  words  of  Deut. 
 ii.  1-8.  In  fact  its  boundaries  are  there  defined 
 with  tolerable  exactness.  It  had  the  Arabah  on 
 the  west  (vv.  1,  8);  it  extended  as  far  south  as 
 the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabah  (ver.  8);  its  east- 
 ern  border  ran  along  the  base  of  the  mountain 
 
 SEIR,  MOUNT 
 
 range  where  the  plateau  of  Arabia  begins.  It' 
 nortliern  border  is  not  so  accurateiy  determined. 
 The  land  of  Israel,  as  described  by  Joshua,  ex- 
 tended from  "  the  Jlount  Halak  that  goeth  up  to 
 Seir,  even  unto  Baal  Gad  "  (Josh.  xi.  17).  As  no 
 part  of  Edoni  was  given  to  Israel,  Slount  Halak 
 must  have  been  on  its  northern  border.  Now  there 
 is  a  line  of  "naked"  {h(dak  signified  "naked") 
 white  hills  or  cliffs  which  runs  across  the  great  val- 
 ley about  eight  miles  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  form- 
 ing the  division  between  the  Arabah  proper  and 
 the  deep  Ghor  north  of  it.  The  view  of  these 
 cliffs,  from  the  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  is  very 
 striking.  They  appear  as  a  line  of  hills  shutting 
 in  the  valley,  and  extending  up  to  the  mountains 
 of  Seir.  The  impression  left  by  them  on  tlie  mind 
 of  the  writer  was  that  this  is  the  very  "  Mount  Ha- 
 lak, that  goeth  up  to  Seir  "  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Ris.  ii. 
 113,  &c.;  see  Keil  on  Josh.  xi.  17).  The  northern 
 liorder  of  the  modern  district  of  Jebdl  is  IVady  el- 
 Ahsy,  which  falls  into  the  Ghiir  a  few  miles  further 
 north  (Burckhardt,  Syr.  p.  401). 
 
 In  l)eut.  xxxiii.  2,  Seir  appears  to  be  connected 
 with  Sinai  and  Paran;  but  a  careful  consideration 
 of  that  difficult  passage  proves  that  the  connection 
 is  not  a  geographical  one.  Moses  there  only  sums 
 up  the  several  glorious  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
 jNlajesty  to  the  Israelites,  without  regard  either  to 
 time  or  place  (conip.  Judg.  v.  4,  5). 
 
 ISlount  Seir  was  originally  inhabited  by  the 
 Horites,  or  "  troglodytes,"  who  were  doubtless  the 
 excavators  of  those  singular  rock-dwellings  found 
 in  such  numbers  in  the  ravines  and  cliffs  around 
 Petra.  They  were  dispossessed,  and  apparently 
 annihilated,  by  the  posterity  of  Esau,  who  "  dwelt 
 in  their  stead"  (Deut.  ii.  12).  The  history  of  . 
 Seir  tlius  early  merges  into  that  of  Edom.  Though 
 the  country  was  afterwards  called  Edom,  yet  the 
 older  name,  Seir,  did  not  pass  away;  it  is  fre- 
 quently mentioned  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
 Israelites  (1  Chr.  iv.  42;  2  Chr.  xx.  10).  Mount 
 Seir  is  the  subject  of  a  terrible  prophetic  curse 
 pronounced  by  Ezekiel  (ch.  xxxv.),  which  seems 
 now  to  be  literally  fulfilled  :  "Thus  saith  the 
 Lord  God,  Behold,  O  Jlount  Seir,  I  am  against 
 thee,  and  I  will  make  thee  most  desolate.  I  will 
 lay  thy  cities  waste,  ....  when  the  whole  earth 
 
 rejoiceth  I  will  make  thee  desolate I  will 
 
 make  thee  perpetual  desolations,  and  thy  cities 
 shall  not  return,  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the 
 Lord."  J.  L.  P. 
 
 2.  i'^'^VW  "in  :  ipos  'Ao-trap ;"  Alex.  o.  :Zve'p- 
 Mons  Seir.)  An  entirely  different  place  from  the 
 foregoing;  one  of  the  landmarks  on  the  north 
 boundary  of  the  territory  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  10 
 only).  It  lay  westward  of  Kirjath-jearim,  and 
 between  it  and  Beth-shemesh.  If  Kuriet  el-Enab 
 be  the  former,  and  Ain-shems  the  latter  of  these 
 two,  then  Mount  Seir  cannot  fail  to  be  the  ridge 
 which  lies  between  the  Wady  Aly  and  the  Wady 
 Ghurab  (Rob.  iii.  155).  A  village  called  Saris  f> 
 stands  on  the  southern  site  of  this  ridge,  which  Tob- 
 ler  (3«e  Wcmderung,  i>.  20d)a,i\d  Schwarz  (p.  97) 
 would  identify  with  Seir.  The  obstacle  to  this  is 
 that  the  names  are  radically  different.^  The  Sa'irah 
 
 «  'Ao-o-ap.  This  looks  as  if  the  Heb.  name  had  once 
 had  the  article  prefixed. 
 
 b  Possibly  the  Scopj);  which,  in  the  Alex.  MS.,  is 
 one  of  the  eleven  names  inserted  by  the  LXX.  in  Josh. 
 XV.  59.  The  neighboring  names  agree.  In  the  Vat. 
 MS.  it  is  'EwjSijs. 
 
 "^   ,  L^J»Lw  is  the  orthography  of  Saris  (Lists  of 
 
 Dr.  Smith  in  1st  ed.  of  Robinson,  iii.  App.  123),  con 
 taining  no  Am  and  a  duplicate  s. 
 
SEIEAH 
 
 (SyOl-ww)  on  the  south  of  the  Wady  Surar  (Rob. 
 
 Bibl.  Res.  1st  ed.  ii.  364),  is  nearer  in  orthogra- 
 phy, but  not  so  suitable  in  position. 
 
 How  the  name  of  Seir  came  to  be  located  so  far 
 to  the  north  of  the  main  seats  of  the  Seirites  we 
 have  no  means  of  linowing.  Perhaps,  like  other 
 names  occuring  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  it  is  a 
 monument  of  an  incursion  by  the  Edoniites  which 
 has  escaped  record.  [Opiini,  etc.]  But  it  is  more 
 probable  that  it  derived  its  name  from  some  pecul- 
 iarity in  the  form  or  appearance  of  the  spot.  Ur. 
 Robinson  (iii.  15.5),  apparently  without  intending 
 any  allusion  to  the  name  of  Seir,  speaks  of  the 
 •'rugged  points  which  composed  the  main  ridge" 
 of  the  mountain  in  question.  Such  is  the  meaning 
 of  the  Hebrew  word  Seir.  A\'hether  there  is  any 
 connection  between  this  mountain  and  Seikath 
 or  has-Seirnh  (see  the  next  article)  is  doubtful.  The 
 name  is  not  a  common  one,  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
 that  it  may  have  been  attached  to  the  more  north- 
 ern continuation  of  the  hills  of  .Judah  which  ran  up 
 into  Benjamin  —  or,  as  it  was  then  called.  Mount 
 Ephraim.  G. 
 
 *  SEI'RAH.  [Seirath.] 
 SEI'RATH  (n"'*:yt^n,  with  the  definite 
 article  [ihe  hairy,  iperh.  =  tcoody]  :  2,6T€ipoc6d;  " 
 Alex.  Seeipcofla:  Seiraih).  The  place  to  which 
 Ehud  fled  after  his  murder  of  Eglon  (.Judg.  iii.  20), 
 and  whither,  by  blasts  of  his  cowhorn,  he  collected 
 his  countrymen  for  the  attack  of  the  Rloabites  in 
 Jericho  (27).  It  was  in  "  Mount  [mountains  of  ] 
 Ephraim  "  (27),  a  continuation,  perhaps,  of  the 
 same  wooded,  shaggy  hills  (such  seems  to  be  the 
 ■  signification  of  Seir,  and  Seir(tth)  which  stretched 
 even  so  far  south  as  to  enter  the  territory  of  Judah 
 (Josh.  XV.  10).  The  definite  article  prefixed  to  the 
 name  in  the  original  shows  that  it  was  a  well- 
 knowii  spot  in  its  day.  It  has,  however,  hitherto 
 escaped  observation  in  modern  times.*  G. 
 
 SE'LA  and  SE'LAH  (Sjbp,  or  Vb^^Tl : 
 nerpa,  or  ^  rr4rpa),  2  K.  xiv.  7;  Is.  xvi.  1:  ren- 
 dered "  the  rock  "  in  the  A.  V.,  in  Judg.  i.  30,  2 
 Chr.  XXV.  12,  Obad.  3.  Probably  the  city  later 
 known  as  Petra,  500  Roman  miles  from  Gaza  (Plin. 
 vi.  32).  the  ruins  of  which  are  found  about  two  days' 
 journey  N.  of  the  top  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  and 
 three  or  four  S.  from  .Jericho.  It  was  in  the  midst 
 of  Mount  Seir,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Mount  Hor 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  4,  §  7),  and  therefore  Edomite 
 territory,  taken  by  Amaziah,  and  called  Joictheel 
 (not  therefure  to  be  confounded  with  Joktheel, 
 Josh.  XV.  38,  which  pertahied  to  Judah  in  the  time 
 of  Joshua),  but  seems  to  have  afterwards  come  un- 
 der the  dominion  of  Moab.  In  the  end  of  the 
 fourth  century  b.  c.  it  appears  as  the  head-quarters 
 of  the   Nabathaeans,  who  successfully  resisted  the 
 
 a  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Vat.  Codex  according 
 to  Mai.     If  accurate,  it  furnishes  an  in?tauce  of  tbe 
 
 37  being  represented  by  t,  which  is  of  the  greatest 
 rarity,  and  is  not  mentioned  by  Frankel  {Vorstudien, 
 etc.,  p.  1121).  y  and k  are  the  ordinary  equivalents  of  ^ 
 in  the  LXX. 
 
 b  *  The  name  for  us  is  properly  Seirah,  and  not 
 Seirath  (which  is  only  the  directive  local  form).  It 
 W!i8  properly  a  district  rather  tlian  a  town,  and  was 
 among  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  (the  Heb.  being  a 
 PoUective  singular).  H. 
 
 SELA-HAM-MAHLEKOTH     2903 
 
 attacks  of  Antigonus  (Diod.  Sic.  xix.  731,  ed. 
 Hanov.  1004),  and  under  them  became  one  of  the 
 greatest  stations  for  the  approach  of  eastern  com- 
 merce to  Rome  (ibid.  94 ;  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  799 ;  Apul. 
 Flur.  i.  0).  About  70  B.  c.  Petra  appears  as  the 
 residence  of  the  Arab  princes  named  Aretas 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  4,  and  5,  §  1 ;  B.  J.  i.  6, 
 §  2,  and  29,  §  3).  It  was  by  Trajan  reduced  to 
 subjection  to  the  Roman  empire  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii. 
 14),  and  from  the  next  emperor  received  the  name 
 of  Hadriana,«  as  appears  from  the  legend  of  a  coin, 
 .losephus  (Ant.  iv.  4,  §  7)  gives  the  name  of  Arce 
 ("'Apycrj)  as  an  earlier  synonym  for  Petra,  where, 
 however,  it  is  probable  that  'ApKri/j.  or  'ApKe/x '' 
 (alleged  by  Euseb.  Onotii.,  as  found  in  Josephus) 
 should  be  read.  The  city  Petra  lay,  though  at  a 
 high  level, <?  in  a  hollow  shut  in  by  mountain  clif&, 
 and  approached  only  by  a  narrow  ra\ine  through 
 which,  and  across  the  city's  site,  the  river  winds 
 (Plin.  vi.  32;  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  779).  The  principal 
 ruins  are  —  (1.)  el-Khuzneh  ;  (2)  the  theatre;  (3)  a 
 tomb  with  three  rows  of  columns;  (4)  a  tomb  with 
 a  Latin  in.scription;  (.5)  ruined  bridges;  (6)  a  tri- 
 umphal arch;  (7)  Zub  Far' on  ;  (8)  Kusr  Far' on  ; 
 and  are  chiefly  known  by  the  illustrations  of  La- 
 borde  and  Linant,  who  also  thought  that  they 
 traced  the  outline  of  a  naumachia  or  theatre  for 
 sea-fights,  which  would  be  flooded  from  cisterns,  in 
 which  the  water  of  the  torrents  in  the  wet  season 
 had  been  reserved  —  a  remarkable  proof,  if  the  hy- 
 pothesis be  correct,  of  the  copiousness  of  the  water 
 supply,  if  properly  husbanded,  and  a  confirmation 
 of  what  we  are  told  of  the  exuberant  fertility  of 
 the  region,  and  its  contrast  to  the  barren  Arabah 
 on  its  immediate  west  (Robinson,  ii.  109).  Prof. 
 Stanley  (S.  cf-  P.  p.  95)  leaves  little  doubt  that  Pe- 
 tra was  the  seat  of  a  primeval  sanctuary,  which  he 
 fixes  at  the  spot  now  called  the  "  Deir  "  or  "  Con- 
 vent," and  with  which  fact  the  choice  of  the  site 
 of  Aaron's  tomb  may,  he  thinks,  have  been  con- 
 nected (p.  96).  As  regards  the  question  of  its  iden- 
 tity with  Kadesh,  see  Kadesh;  and,  for  the  gen- 
 eral subject,  Ritter,  xiv.  69,  997  ff".,  and  Robinson, 
 ii.  1.  H.  H. 
 
 SE'LA-HAM/-MAH'LEKOTH     (t.     e. 
 
 "the  chfF  of  escapes "  or  "of  divisions,"  2?7D 
 mp^nSn :  TrfVpa  ^  ^epiffQitaa,  in  both  MSS. : 
 
 Petra  dividens).  A  rock  or  clift'  in  the  wilderness 
 of  Maon,  the  scene  of  one  of  those  remarkable  es- 
 capes which  are  so  frequent  in  the  history  of  Saul'a 
 pursuit  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  28).  Its  name,  if 
 interpreted  as  Hebrew,  signifies  the  "  cliff  of 
 escapes,"  or  "of  divisions."  The  former  is  the 
 explanation  of  Gesenius  (  TItes.  p.  485),  the  latter  of 
 the  Targum  and  the  ancient  Jewish  interpreters 
 (Midrash;  Rashi).  The  escape  is  that  of  David; 
 the  divisions  are  those  of  Saul's  mind  undecided 
 
 c  Nummi  in  quibus  AAPIANH  HHTPA  MHTPO- 
 IIOAI2,  Reland,  s.  v. 
 
 d  Eusebius  (Onom.),  under  a  later  article,  identi. 
 fies  Petra  and  'Peice'/«.  which  appears  (Num.  xxxi.  8) 
 as  the  name  of  a  Midianitish  prince  (see  Stanley,  S. 
 ^  P.  p.  94,  note). 
 
 e  Robinson  (ii.  124)  computes  the  Wady  Mousa  as 
 about  2,000  feet  or  more  above  the  Arabah. 
 
 /  One  of  the  few  cases  in  which  the  Hebrew  article 
 has  been  retained  in  our  translation.  Uam-moleketh 
 and  Helkath  haz-Zurim  are  examples  of  the  same. 
 
2904 
 
 SELAH 
 
 whether  to  remain  in  pursuit  of  liis  enemy  or  to 
 go  after  the  Philistines;  but  such  explanations, 
 though  appropriate  to  either  interpretation,  and 
 consistent  with  tlie  oriental  habit  of  playing  on 
 words,  are  doubtless  mere  accommodations.  The 
 analogy  of  topographical  nomenclature  makes  it 
 almost  certain  that  this  cliff  must  have  derived  its 
 name  either  from  its  smoothness  (the  radical  mean- 
 ing of  p/H)  or  from  some  peculiarity  of  shape  or 
 position,  such  as  is  indicated  in  the  translations  of 
 the  LXX.  and  Vulgate.  No  identification  has  yet 
 been  suggested.  G. 
 
 SE'LAH  (nbp).  This  word,  which  is  only 
 found  in  the  poetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 occurs  seventy  one  times  in  the  Psalms,  and  three 
 times  in  llabakkuk.  In  sixteen  psalms  it  is  found 
 once,  in  fifteen  twice,  in  seven  three  times,  and  in 
 one  four  times  —  always  at  the  end  of  a  verse,  ex- 
 cept in  Ps.  Iv.  19  [20],  Ivii.  3  [4],  and  Hab.  iii.  o, 
 9,  where  it  is  in  the  middle,  though  at  the  end  of 
 a  clause.  All  the  psalms  in  which  it  occurs,  except 
 eleven  (iii ,  vii.,  xxiv.,  xxxii.,  xlviii.,1.,  lxxxii.,lxxxiii., 
 Ixxxvii.,  Ixxxix.,  cxiiii.),  have  also  the  musical  direc- 
 tion, "  to  the  Chief  Musician  "  (comp.  also  Hab. 
 iii.  19);  and  in  these  exceptions  we  find  the  words 
 
 ^X^TQ,  inizmor  (A.  V.  "Psalm"),  Shiggaion,  or 
 Maschil,  which  sufficiently  indicate  that  they  were 
 intended  for  music.  Besides  these,  in  the  titles  of 
 the  Psalms  in  which  Selah  occurs,  we  meet  with 
 the  musical  terms  Alamoth  (xlvi.),  Altaschith  (Ivii., 
 lix.,lxxv.),  Gittith  (Ixxxi.,  Ixxxiv.),  Mahalath  Lean- 
 noth  (Ixxxviii.),  JMichtam  (Ivii.,  lix.,  Ix.),  Neginah 
 (Ixi.),  Neginoth  (iv.,  liv.,  Iv.,  Ixvii.,  Ixxvi. :  comp. 
 Hab.  iii.  19),  and  Shushan-eduth  (Ix.);  and  on  this 
 association  alone  might  be  formed  a  strong  pre- 
 sumption that,  liice  these,  Selah  itself  is  a  term 
 which  had  a  meaning  in  the  musical  nomenclature 
 of  the  Hebrews.  What  that  meaning  may  have 
 been  is  now  a  matter  of  pure  conjecture.  Of  the 
 many  theories  which  have  been  framed,  it  is  easier 
 to  say  what  is  not  likely  to  be  the  true  one  than  to 
 pronounce  certainly  upon  what  is.  The  Versions 
 are  first  deserving  of  attention. 
 
 In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances  the 
 
 Targum  renders  tlie  word  by  "j"*^ V^7>  le'almhi, 
 "for  ever;  "  four  times  (Ps.  xxxii.  4,  7;  xxxix.  11 
 [12]  ;  4  [6])  S^b^b,  le'almd  ;  once  (Ps.  xliv.  8 
 [9])  V'?^^  "^^bpb,   le'alme  \ilmin ;  and  (Ps. 
 
 xlviii.  8  [9])  r'?^¥  '"'^bV  "Tl?,  'ad  'ahm  'al- 
 min,  with  the  same  meaning,  "for  ever  and  ever.'' 
 In  Ps.  xlix.  13  [14]  it  has  ^^^1  i^'^bl^b,  le- 
 ^almd  dMlhe,  "for  the  world  to  come;"  in  Ps. 
 xxxix.  5  [G]   b^^b?  "**nb,  lechayye  'alma,  "  for 
 
 the  life  everlasting;  "  and  in  Ps.  cxl.  .5  [6]  S^'^iri, 
 ted'ira,  "  continually."  This  interpretation,  which 
 is  the  one  adopted  by  the  majority  of  Rabbinical 
 writers,  is  purely  traditional,  and  based  upon  no 
 etymology  whatever.  It  is  followed  liy  Aquila,  who 
 renders  "Selah"  aei;  by  tlie  Editio  quinld  and 
 Editio  sexta,  which  give  respectively  Siawai'Tds 
 and  els  Tf\os-"  by  Synimachus  (eh  rhv  alcova) 
 and  Theodotion  (eh  t«Aos),  in  Habakkuk;   liy  the 
 
 (I  Except  in  P.s.  ix.  16  [17],  Ixx^r.  3  [4],  Ixxvi.  3,  9 
 ,4,  10],  where  Erl.  bta  has  aet,  Ps.  xxi.  2  [3],  where  it 
 has  £iY)i/eKws,  and  in   Hab.  iii.  3,  13,  where   it  repro- 
 
 SELAH 
 
 reading  of  the  Alex.  MS.  (eh  reXos)  in  Ilab.  iii. 
 13;  by  the  Peshito-Syriac  in  Ps.  iii.  8  [9],  iv.  2 
 [3],  xxiv.  10,  and  Hab.  iii.  13;    and  by  Jerome, 
 
 who  has  semper.  In  Ps.  Iv.  19  [20]  nbo  DIP, 
 kedem  seWi,  is  rendered  in  the  Peshito  "  from  be- 
 fore the  world."  That  this  rendering  is  manifestly 
 inappropriate  in  some  passages,  as  for  instance  Ps. 
 xxi.  2  [3],  xxxii.  4,  Ixxxi.  7  [8],  and  Hab.  iii.  3, 
 and  superfluous  in  others,  as  Ps.  xliv.  8  [9],  Ixxxiv. 
 4  [.5],  Ixxxix.  4  [5],  was  pointed  out  long  since  by 
 Aben  Ezra.  In  the  Psalms  the  uniform  rendering 
 of  the  LXX.  is  Sid\pa\fj.a-  Synmiachus  and  Theo- 
 dotion give  the  same,  except  in  Ps.  ix.  16  [17], 
 where  Theodotion  has  aei,  and  Ps.  Iii.  5  [7],  where 
 Symmachus  has  eh  aei-  In  Hab.  iii.  13,  the  Alex. 
 MS.  gives  eh  reAos.  In  Ps.  xxxviii.  (in  LXX.) 
 7,  Ixxx.  7  [8],  Siai|/aA(Uo  is  added  in  the  LXX., 
 and  in  Hab.  iii.  7  in  the  Alex.  MS.  In  Ps.  Ivii.  it  is 
 put  at  the  end  of  ver.  2;  and, in  Ps.  iii.  8  [9],  xxiv. 
 10,  Ixxxviii.  10  [11],  it  is  omitted  altogether.  In 
 all  passages  except  those  already  referred  to,  in 
 which  it  follows  the  Targum,  the  Peshito-Syriac  has 
 
 «.flQS>>^  an  abbreviation  for  Siail'aA/xa-  This  ab- 
 breviation is  added  in  Ps.  xlviii.  13  [14],  1.  15  [16], 
 Ixviii.  13  [14],  Ivii.  2,  Ixxx.  7  [8],  at  the  end 
 of  the  verse ;  and  in    Ps.  Iii.  3    in  the  middle  of 
 
 the  verse  after  illSH  ;  in  Ps.  xlix.  it  is  put 
 after  ^S2S3  in  ver.  14  [15],  and  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  af- 
 ter niI73?~l    in  ver.  8    [9],  and  after  D"*nbsb 
 
 T  T    T  ■-     -"  ... 
 
 in  ver.  32  [33].  The  Vulgate  omits  it  entirely, 
 while  in  Hab.  iii.  3  the  Editio  sexta  and  others 
 give  /lera^oArj  Siaij/aA/xaroy. 
 
 The  rendering  Zia.\\ia\fj.a  of  the  LXX.  and  other 
 translators  is  in  every  way  as  traditional  as  that  of 
 the  'i'argum  "  for  ever,"  and  has  no  foundation  in 
 any  known  etymology.  AYith  regard  to  the  mean- 
 ing of  5io>J/aA/xa  itself  there  are  many  opinions. 
 Pioth  Origen  ( Comm.  ad.  Ps.,  Opp,  ed.  Delarue, 
 ii.  516)  and  Athanasius  (Synops.  Sciipt.  Sacr.  xin.) 
 are  silent  upon  this  point.  Eusebius  of  Csesarea 
 (Prci'f.  ill  Ps.)  says  it  marked  those  passages  in 
 which  the  Holy  Spirit  ceased  for  a  time  to  work 
 upon  the  choir.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  ( Tract.  2  in 
 Ps.  cap.  X.)  interprets  it  as  a  sudden  lull  in  the 
 midst  of  the  psalmody,  in  order  to  receive  anew 
 the  Divine  inspiration.  Chrysostom  ( 0pp.  ed. 
 INIontfaucon,  v.  540)  takes  it  to  indicate  the  por- 
 tion of  the  psalm  which  was  given  to  another  choir. 
 Augustine  (on  Ps.  iv.)  regards  it  as  an  interval  of 
 silence  in  the  psalmody.  Jerome  (Ep  ad  Marcel- 
 lam)  enumerates  the  various  opinions  which  have 
 been  held  upon  the  subject;  that  diapsalma  de- 
 notes a  change  of  metre,  a  cessation  of  the  Spirit's 
 influence,  or  the  beginning  of  another  sense.  Others, 
 he  says,  regard  it  as  indicating  a  difference  of 
 rhythm,  and  the  silence  of  some  kind  of  music  in 
 the  choir;  but  for  him.self  he  falls  back  upon  the 
 version  of  Aquila,  and  renders  Selah  by  semper, 
 with  a  reference  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  put 
 at  the  end  of  their  writings  Amen,  Selah,  or  Sha- 
 lom. In  his  commentary  on  Ps.  iii.  he  is  doubtful 
 whether  to  regard  it  as  simply  a  musical  sign,  or 
 as  indicating  the  perpetuity  of  the  truth  contained 
 in  the  passage  after  which  it  is  placed ;   so  that,  he 
 
 duces  the  Hebrew  aeXa..  In  Ps.  ix  16  [17]  Editio  6«a 
 has  del,  in  Ps.  Ixxt.  3  [4]  SiaTrafTos,  and  in  Ps.  Ixxyi. 
 3  [4]  ei9  TO  Tc'Aos. 
 
SELAH 
 
 says,  "  wheresoever  Selah,  that  is  dlrtjjsnlma  or 
 semper,  is  put,  there  we  may  know  that  what  fol- 
 lows, as  well  as  what  precedes,  belongs  not  only  to 
 the  present  time,  but  to  eternity."  Theodoret 
 (Prcef'.  ill  Pi.)  explains  d'uipsalina  by  fj,e\ou9  fier- 
 afioK'i]  or  iuaWayr)  (as  isuidas),  "  a  change  of  the 
 melody."  On  the  whole,  the  rendering  5iav//aA/xa 
 rather  increases  the  difficulty,  for  it  does  not  ap- 
 pear to  be  the  true  meaning  of  Selah,  and  its  own 
 signification  is  obscure. 
 
 Leaving  the  Versions  and  the  Fathers,  we  come 
 to  the  Rabbinical  writers,  the  majority  of  whom 
 follow  the  Targum  and  the  dictum  of  K.  Eliezer 
 (Talm.  Babl.  Jirubin,  v.  54)  in  rendering  Selah 
 "  for  ever."  But  Aben  Ezra  (on  Ps.  iii.  3)  showed 
 that  in  some  passages  this  rendering  was  inap- 
 propriate, and  expressed  his  own  opinion  that  Selah 
 was  a  word  of  emphasis,  used  to  give  weight  and 
 importance  to  what  was  said,  and  to  indicate  its 
 truth :  "  But  the  right  explanation  is  that  the 
 meaning  of  Selah  is  like  'so  it  is'  or  'thus,'  and 
 'the  matter  is  true  and  right.'"  Kimchi  {Lex. 
 s.  v.)  doubted  whether  it  had  any  special  meaning 
 at  all  in  connection  with  the  sense  of  the  passage 
 in  which  it  was  found,  and  explained  it  as  a  musi- 
 cal  term.      He    derives    it    from     /VD,  to  raise, 
 
 elevate,  with  H  paragogic,  and  interprets  it  as  sig- 
 nifying a  raising  or  elevating  the  voice,  as  nmch 
 as  to  say,  in  this  place  there  was  an  elevation  of  the 
 voice  in  song. 
 
 Among  modern  writers  there  is  the  same  diver- 
 sity  of  opinion.     Gesenius   {Thes.  s.  v.)    derives 
 
 Selah  from  H  vD,  sdldh,  to  suspend,  of  which  he 
 
 thinks  it  is  the  imperative  Kal,  with  H  paragogic, 
 
 Hvp,  in  pause  Hvp.  But  this  form  is  sup- 
 ported by  no  parallel  instance.  In  accordance  with 
 his  derivation,  which  is  harsh,  lie  interprets  Selah 
 to  mean  either  "suspend  the  voice,"  that  is,  "be 
 silent,"  a  hhit  to  the  singers;  or  " raise,  elevate 
 the  stringed  instruments."  In  either  case  he  re- 
 gards it  as  denoting  a  pause  in  the  song,  which 
 was  filled  up  by  an  interlude  played  by  the  choir 
 of  Levites.  Ewald  (Die  Dichter  des  A.  B.  i.  179) 
 ai-rives  at  substantially  the  same  result  by  a  differ- 
 ent process.  He  derives  Selah  from  7VD,  salal, 
 to  rise,  whence  the  substantive  vD,  which  with  H 
 paragogic  becomes  in  pause  Hvp   (comp.  H^n, 
 
 from  in,  root  "I'lin,  Gen.  xiv.  10).  So  far  as 
 the  form  of  the  word  is  concerned,  this  derivation 
 is  more  tenable  than  the  former.  Ewald  regards 
 the  phrase  "  Higgaion,  Selah,"  in  Ps.  ix.  16  [17], 
 as  the  lull  form,  signifying  "  music,  strike  up !  "  — 
 an  indication  that  the  voices  of  the  choir  were  to 
 cease  while  the  instruments  alone  came  in.  Heng- 
 stenberg  follows  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  others, 
 in  the  rendering  piuse  !  but  refers  it  to  the  con- 
 tents of  the  psalm,  and  understands  it  of  the  silence 
 of  the  music  in  order  to  give  room  for  quiet  reflec- 
 tion. If  this  were  the  case,  Selah  at  the  end 
 of  a  psalm  would  be  superfluous.  The  same 
 meaning  of  pause  or  end  is  arrived  at  by  Fiirst 
 
 {HandiO.  s.  v.)  who  derives  Selah  from  a  root  H^D, 
 sdldh,  to  cut  off  (a  meaning  which  is  perfectly  ar- 
 bitrary), whence  the  substantive  vD,  sel,  which 
 with  n  paragogic  becomes  in  pause  H^D;  a 
 183 
 
 SELAH 
 
 2905 
 
 form  which  is  without  parallel.  While  etymolo- 
 gists have  recourse  to  such  shifts  as  these,  it  can 
 scarcely  be  expected  that  the  true  meaning  of  the 
 word  will  be  evolved  by  their  investigations.  In- 
 deed the  question  is  as  far  from  solution  as  ever. 
 Beyond  the  fact  that  Selah  is  a  musical  term,  we 
 know  absolutely  nothing  about  it,  and  are  entirely 
 in  the  dark  as  to  its  meaning.  Somnier  {Bibl. 
 Abhandl.  i.  1-84)  has  devoted  an  elaborate  dis- 
 course to  its  explanation."  After  observing  that 
 Selah  everywhere  appears  to  mark  critical 
 moments  in  the  religious  consciousness  of  the 
 Israelites,  and  that  the  music  was  employed  to 
 give  expression  to  the  energy  of  the  poet's  sen- 
 timents on  these  occasions,  he  (p.  40)  arrives  at 
 the  conclusion  that  the  word  is  used  "in  those 
 passages  where,  in  the  Temple  Song,  the  choir  of 
 priests,  who  stood  opposite  to  the  stage  occupied  by 
 
 the  Levites,  were  to  raise  their  trumpets  (77D), 
 and  with  the  strong  tones  of  this  instrument  mark 
 the  words  just  spoken,  and  bear  them  upwards  to 
 the  hearing  of  Jehovah.  Probably  the  Levite 
 minstrels  supported  this  priestly  intercessory  music 
 by  vigorously  striking  their  harps  and  psalteries; 
 whence  the  Greek  expression  SiaifaAjita.  To  this 
 points,  moreover,  the  fuller  direction,  '  Higgaion, 
 Selah'  (Ps.  ix.  16);  the  first  word  of  which  de- 
 notes the  whirr  of  the  stringed  instruments  (Ps. 
 xcii.  3),  the  other  the  raising  of  the  trumpets,  both 
 which  were  here  to  sound  together.  The  less  im- 
 portant Higgaimi  fell  away,  when  the  expression 
 was  abbreviated,  and  Selali  alone  remained."  Dr. 
 Davidson  (Introd.  to  the  0.  T.  ii.  248)  with  good 
 reason  rejects  this  explanation  as  labored  and  arti- 
 ficial, though  it  is  adopted  by  Keil  in  Iliivernick's 
 Einleitunrj  (iii.  120-129).  He  shows  that  in  some 
 passages  (as  Ps.  xxxii.  4,  5,  Iii.  3,  Iv.  7,  8)  the 
 playing  of  the  priests  on  the  trumpets  would  be 
 unsuitable,  and  proposes  the  following  as  his  own 
 solution  of  the  difficulty:  "The  word  denotes  ^e- 
 vation  or  ascent,  i.  e.  luud,  char.  The  music 
 which  commonly  accompanied  the  singing  was  soft 
 and  feeble.  In  cases  where  it  was  to  burst  in  more 
 strongly  during  the  silence  of  the  song,  Selah  was 
 the  sign.  At  the  end  of  a  verse  or  strophe,  where 
 it  commonly  stands,  the  music  may  have  readily 
 been  strongest  and  loudest."  It  may  be  remarked 
 of  this,  as  of  all  the  other  explanations  which  have 
 been  given,  that  it  is  mere  conjecture,  based  on  an 
 etymology  which,  in  any  other  language  than  He- 
 brew, would  at  once  be  rejected  as  unsound.  A 
 few  other  opinions  may  be  noticed  as  belonging  to 
 the  history  of  the  subject.  Michaelis,  in  despair  at 
 being  unable  to  assign  any  meaning  to  the  word, 
 regarded  it  as  an  abbreviation,  formed  by  taking 
 the  first  or  other  letters  of  three  other  words 
 (Suppl.  ad  Lex.  Hebr.),  though  he  declines  to 
 conjecture  what  these  may  have  been,  and  rejects 
 at  once  the  guess  of  Meibomius,  who  extracts  the 
 meaning  da  capo  from  the  three  words  which  he 
 suggests.  For  other  conjectures  of  this  kind,  see 
 Eichhorn's  Bibli.othek,  v.  545.  Mattheson  was  of 
 opinion  that  the  passages  where  Selah  occurred 
 were  repeated  either  by  the  instruments  or  by 
 another  choir:  hence  he  took  it  as  equal  to  ritoi'- 
 nello.  Herder  regarded  it  as  marking  a  change  of 
 key;  while  Paulus  Burgensis  and  Schindler  as- 
 signed to  it  no  meaning,  but  looked  upon  it  as  an 
 
 a  *  For  a  translation  of  this  treatise  by  Prof.  B.  B 
 Edwards,  see  Sibl.  Sacra,  v.  fifi-'l  H 
 
2906 
 
 SELED 
 
 enclitic  word  used  to  fill  up  the  verse.  Buxtorf 
 {Lex.  Hebr.)  derived  it  from  H^D,  salah,  to 
 spread,  lay  low :  lieiice  used  as  a  sign  to  lower  the 
 voice,  like  inimo.  In  ICichhorn's  Bibliolhek  (v.  550) 
 it  is  suggested  that  Selah  may  perhaps  signify  a 
 scale  in  music,  or  indicate  a  rising  or  falling  in  the 
 tone.  Koster  (S/i<c/.  wul  Krit.  1831)  saw  in  it 
 only  a  mark  to  indicate  the  strophical  divisions  of 
 the  Psalms,  but  its  position  in  the  middle  of 
 verses  is  against  this  theory.  August!  {Praci. 
 Mid.  in  d.  Ps.  p.  125)  thought  it  was  an  exclama- 
 tion, like  hnlldvjah  !  and  the  same  view  was  taken 
 by  the  late  Prof.  Lee  {Ihh.  Cr.  §  243,  2),  who 
 classes  it  among  the  interjections,  and  renders 
 it  praise!  "For  my  own  part,"  he  says,  "I  be- 
 lieve it  to  be  descended  from  the  root  ^^X^,  'he 
 lilessed,'  etc.,  and  used  not  unlike  the  word  amen, 
 or  the  doxoloyy  among  ourselves."  If  any  further 
 information  be  sought  on  this  hopeless  subject, 
 it  may  be  found  in  the  treatises  contained  in 
 Ugolini,  vol.  xxii.,  in  Noldius  {Concord.  Part. 
 Ann.  et  Vind.  No.  1877),  in  Saalschiitz  {Ihbr. 
 Poes.  p.  3-tG)  and  in  the  essay  of  Sonimer  quoted 
 above.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SEXED  (l^D  [exultation']:  SaAao;  [Vat. 
 once  AAo-aAaS:]  '  Saled).  One  of  the  sons  of  Na- 
 dab,  a  descendant  of  Jerahmeel  (1  Chr.  ii.  30). 
 
 SELEMI'A  {Snlemia).  One  of  the  five  men 
 "ready  to  write  swiftly,"  whom  Esdras  was  com- 
 manded to  take  (2  Esdr.  xiv.  24). 
 
 SELEMI'AS  (SeAe^ms:  om.  in  Vulg.). 
 Shelemi.\h  of  the  sons  of  Bani  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34; 
 comp.  Ezr.  x.  39). 
 
 SELEU'CIA  (2eA€t;/c6ia:  Seleucia)  was 
 practically  the  seaport  of  Antioch,  as  Ostia  was 
 of  Rome.  Neapolis  of  Philippi,  Cenchreas  of  Cor- 
 inth, and  the  Pirseus  of  Athens.  The  ri\er  Oron- 
 tes,  after  flowing  past  Antioch,  entered  the  sea  not 
 far  from  Seleucia.  The  distance  between  the  two 
 towns  was  about  16  miles.  We  are  expressly 
 told  that  St.  Paul,  in  company  with  Barnabas, 
 sailed  from  Seleucia  at  the  beginning  of  his  first 
 missionary  circuit  (Acts.  xiii.  4) ;  and  it  is  almost 
 certain  that  he  landed  there  on  his  return  from  it 
 (xiv.  20).  The  name  of  the  place  shows  at  once 
 that  its  history  was  connected  with  that  line  of 
 Seleucidaj  who  reigned  at  Antioch  from  the  death 
 of  Alexander  the  Great  to  the  close  of  the  Roman 
 Republic,  and  whose  dynasty  had  so  close  a  con- 
 nection with  .Jewish  annals.  This  strong  fortress 
 and  convenient  seaport  was  in  fact  constructed  by 
 the  first  Seleucus,  and  here  he  was  buried.  It  re- 
 tained its  importance  in  Roman  times,  and  in  St. 
 Paul's  day  it  had  the  privileges  of  a  free  city  (Plin. 
 //.  N.  v.  18).  The  remains  ai-e  numerous,  the 
 most  considerable  being  an  immense  excavation 
 extending  from  the  higher  part  of  the  city  to  the 
 sea:  but  to  us  the  most  interesting  are  the  two 
 piers  of  the  old  harbor,  which  still  bear  the  names 
 of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  The  masonry  continues  so 
 good,  that  the  idea  of  clearing  out  and  repairing 
 the  harbor  has  recently  been  entertained.  Ac- 
 counts of  Seleucia  will  be  found  in  the  narrative 
 of  the  Euphrates  Kxpeditum  by  General  Chesney, 
 and  in  his  papers  in  the  Journal  of  tlie  Royal  Gto- 
 
 SEMIS 
 
 graphical  Society,  and  also  in  a  paper  by  Dr.  Vates 
 in  the  Musetun  of  Classical  AiUiquitits." 
 
 J.  S.  H. 
 
 SELEU'CUS  {2.f\evKos  ■  Seleucus)  IV. 
 Philopator,  "king  of  Asia"  (2  Mace.  iii.  3),  that 
 is,  of  the  provinces  included  in  the  Syrian  mon- 
 archy, according  to  the  title  claimed  by  the  Seleu- 
 cidse,  even  when  they  had  lost  tiieir  footing  in  Asia 
 Minor  (comp.  1  Mace.  viii.  0,  xi.  13,  xii.  39,  xiii. 
 32),  was  the  son  and  successor  of  Antiochus  the 
 Great.  He  took  part  in  the  disastrous  battle  of 
 Magnesia  (b.  c.  190),  and  three  years  afterwards, 
 on  the  death  of  his  father,  ascended  the  throne. 
 He  seems  to  have  devoted  himself  to  strengthening 
 the  Syrian  power,  which  had  been  broken  down  at 
 Magnesia,  seeking  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  Rome 
 and  Egypt  till  he  could  find  a  favorable  opportu- 
 nity for  war.  He  was,  however,  murdered,  after  a 
 reign  of  twelve  years  (b.  c.  175),  by  Heliodorus, 
 one  of  his  own  courtiers  [Heliodokus],  "neither 
 in  [sudden]  anger  nor  in  battle  "  (Dan.  xi.  20,  and 
 Jerome,  ad  loc),  but  by  ambitious  treachery, 
 without  having  effected  anything  of  importance. 
 His  son  Demetrius  I.  Soter  [Dejietrius],  whom 
 he  had  sent,  while  still  a  boy,  as  a  hostage  to  Rome, 
 after  a  series  of  romantic  adventures  gained  the 
 crown  in  102  u.  C.  (1  Mace.  vii.  1 ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  1). 
 The  general  policy  of  Seleucus  towards  the  Jews, 
 like  that  of  his  father  (2  Mace.  iii.  2,  3,  koI 
 '2(AevKov),  was  conciliatory,  as  the  possession  of 
 Palestine  was  of  the  highest  importance  in  the 
 prospect  of  an  Egyptian  war;  and  he  undertook  a 
 large  share  of  the  expenses  of  the  Temple-service 
 (2  Mace.  iii.  3,  6).  On  one  occasion,  by  the  false 
 representations  of  Simon,  a  Jewish  officer  [Simon, 
 3],  he  was  induced  to  make  an  attempt  to  carry 
 away  the  treasures  deposited  in  the  Temple,  by 
 means  of  the  same  Heliodorus  who  murdered  him. 
 The  attempt  signally  tailed,  but  it  does  not  appear 
 that  he  afterwards  showed  any  resentment  against 
 the  Jews  (2  Mace.  iv.  5,  0);  though  his  want  of 
 money  to  pay  the  enormous  tribute  due  to  the  Ro- 
 mans [Antiochu.s  III.,  vol.  i  p.  115]  may  have 
 compelled  him  to  raise  extraordinary  revenues,  for 
 which  cause  he  is  described  in  Daniel  as  "  a  raiser 
 of  taxes"  (Dan.  xi.  /.  c. ;  Liv.  xh.  19). 
 
 B.  P.  W. 
 
 SEM  {2-fiiJL-  Sem).  Shem  the  patriarch  (Luke 
 iii.  30). 
 
 SEMACHI'AH(=in;jD^p:  2a0axia;  [Vat. 
 2a^ax<ia;]  Alex.  2a/xaxias:  Samachias).  One 
 of  the  sons  of  Shemaiah,  the  son  of  Obed-edoni 
 (1  Chr.  xxvi.  7). 
 
 SEM'EI  {:S.eixe-i;  [Vat.  Se^eej:]  Seme!.). 
 1.  Shi.mei  of  the  sons  of  Hashum  (1  Esdr.  ix.  33: 
 comp.  Ezr.  x.  33). 
 
 2.  (Seyueios;  [Vat.  Sfyueeiay;  FA.  Se/teios]). 
 Shimei,  the  ancestor  of  Mordecai  (Esth.  xi.  2). 
 
 3.  (26;uei;  [Tisch.  Treg.  2e;ueeii']).  The 
 father  of  jNIattathias  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
 Christ  (Luke  iii.  26). 
 
 SEMEL'LIUS  (2a/ieAAios;  [.41ex.  also  2*- 
 yueAAios,  2e06AAios:]  Sabellius).  Shimshai  the 
 scribe  (1  Esdr.  ii.  10,  17,  25,  30;  comp.  Ezr.  iv.). 
 
 SE'MIS  (2eMe'j;  ["^'at-  2ero-eu-;  Aid.  2fM^s:] 
 Sevieis).  Siiimei  the  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra 
 (1  Esdr.  ix.  23;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  23). 
 
 <t  *  For  a  description  of  Seleucia,  see.  Thom.«on"s 
 JVavels  in   Northern   Syria,  an  article   in    the    Bibl. 
 
 Sacra,  v.  451  ff.    He  mentions  the  incidents  of  a  ride 
 of  five  hours  from  Seleucia  to  Antioch.  H. 
 
SEMITIC  LANGUAGES 
 
 SEMIT'IC  LANGUAGES.  [Shemitic 
 Languages.] 
 
 SENA'AH  (nW3p  [thorny] :  [^eyad,  :S,av- 
 uvd,  'Acravd;  Vat]  ^aava,  Sayafa;  [in  Neh. 
 iii.  3,  Vat.  Aerac,  FA.  Acrayaa;  Alex,  in  Ezr. 
 "^Zevvaa-]  Senaa).  The  "children  of  Senaah " 
 are  enumerated  amongst  the  "  people  of  Israel  " 
 who  returned  from  the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel 
 (I':zr.  ii.  35;  Neh.  vii.  38).  In  Neh.  iii.  3,  the 
 name  is  given  with  the  article  has-Senaah. 
 
 Tlie  names  in  these  lists  are  mostly  those  of 
 towns ;  but  Senaah  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
 Bible  as  attached  to  a  town." 
 
 The  Magdal-Senna,  or  "great  Senna"  of  Eu- 
 sebius  and  Jerome,  seven  miles  N.  of  Jericho 
 {Oiiom.  "Senna"),  however,  is  not  inappropriate 
 in  position.  There  is  a  variation  in  the  numbers 
 given  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  but  even  adopting 
 the  smaller  figure,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
 how  the  people  of  Senaah  should  have  been  so 
 nmch  more  numerous  than  those  of  the  other  places 
 in  the  catalogue.  Bertheau  {Exv(j.  Ilandb.)  sug- 
 gests that  Senaah  represents  not  a  single  place  but 
 a  district;  but  there  is  nothing  to  corroborate 
 this. 
 
 In  the  parallel  passages  of  1  Esdras  (iv.  23 )  the 
 name  is  given  Ann.aas,  and  the  number  3,330. 
 
 G. 
 
 *  SENATE  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  Acts 
 V.  21,  the  translation  of  y^povcria,  also  peculiar  to 
 that  place.  As  crvyeSpiov  accompanies  the  term,  it 
 cannot  be  equivalent  to  Sanhedrim,  but  must  denote 
 a  branch  of  that  body,  and  no  doubt,  as  the  affinity 
 of  meaning  itself  indicates,  is  interchangeable  with 
 npiff^vTipiov,  '-eldership,"  one  of  the  three  classes 
 (priests,  elders,  scribes)  collectively  designated  as 
 the  Sanhedrim  (see  Acts  iv.  5).  We  find  yepovaia 
 in  1  Mace.  xii.  6 ;  2  Mace.  i.  10,  iv.  44,  xi.  27 ; 
 3  Mace.  i.  8,  where  it  designates  the  highest  Jewish 
 Council  of  that  earlier  period,  but  whether  the  Coun- 
 cil was  then  organized  precisely  like  the  Saidiedrim 
 in  the  time  of  the  Saviour  is  not  easily  determined. 
 (See  Fritzsche,  Handb.  zu  den  Ajjtikri/ji/un,  iii. 
 184  f.)  The  Latin  Vulgate  renders  yipovaia  by 
 senaliis  and  senlcrfs  On  the  general  topic,  see  in 
 the  Bictionari),  Elders;  Sanhedrim.  H. 
 
 SE'NEH  {TiyO  [tlwrn]:  2ewa,  [Vat.  Ec- 
 vaap ;]  Alex,  omits :  Sene).  The  name  of  one  of  the 
 two  isolated  rocks  which  stood  in  the  "  passage  of 
 Michmash,"  at  the  time  of  the  adventure  of  Jona- 
 than and  his  armor-bearer  (1  Sam.  xiv.  4).  It  was 
 the  southern  one  of  the  two  (ver.  5),  and  the  near- 
 est to  Geba.  The  name  in  Hel)rew  means  a  "  thorn," 
 or  thorn-bush,  and  is  applied  elsewhere  only  to  the 
 memorable  thorn  of  Horeb;  but  whether  it  refers 
 in  this  instance  to  the  shape  of  the  rock,  or  to  the 
 growth  of  seneh  upon  it,  we  cannot  ascertain.  The 
 latter  is  more  consistent  with  analogy.  It  is  re- 
 markable that  Josephus  (H.  J.  v.  2,  §1),  in  de- 
 scribing the  route  of  Titus  from  the  north  to  Jeru- 
 salem, mentions  that  the  last  encampment  of  his 
 army  was  at  a  spot  "  which  in  the  Jews'  tongue  is 
 called  the  valley"  or  perhaps  the  plain  "of  thorns 
 {aKavdHv  avKav),  near  a  certain  village  called  Ga- 
 bathsaoul^,"  i.  e.  Gibeath  of  Saul.  The  ravine  of 
 Michmash  is  about  four  miles  from  the  hill  which 
 is,  with  tolerable  certainty,  identified  with  Gibeah. 
 
 SENNACHERIB 
 
 2907 
 
 '«  The  rock  of  Seneh  of  1  Sam.  xiv.  4  is  hardly  ap- 
 propriate. 
 
 This  distance  is  perhaps  too  great  to  suit  Josephus 
 expression;  atiU  the  point  is  worth  notice.       G. 
 
 SE'NIR  ("T'PP  [coat  of  mail]:  [Xavip,  Se- 
 veip;  Alex.]  Sa^eip,  [and  so  Vat.  in  1  Chr. :]  Sanh-). 
 This  name  occurs  twice  in  the  A.  V.,  namely.  1  Chr. 
 V.  23,  and  Ez.  xxvii.  5;  but  it  should  be  found  in 
 two  other  passages,  in  each  of  which  the  Hebrew 
 word  is  exactly  similar  to  the  above,  namely,  Deut. 
 iii.  9,  and  Cant.  iv.  8.  In  these  it  appears  in  the 
 A.  V.  as  Shenir.  Even  this  slight  change  is  un- 
 fortunate, since,  as  one  of  the  few  Amorite  words  pre- 
 served, the  name  possesses  an  interest  which  should 
 have  protected  it  from  the  addition  of  a  single  letter. 
 It  is  the  Amorite  name  for  the  mountain  in  the  north 
 of  Palestine  which  the  Hebrews  called  Hekaion,  and 
 the  Phoenicians  Siuidn;  or  perhaps  it  was  rather 
 the  name  for  a  portion  of  the  mountain  than  the 
 whole.  In  1  Chr.  v.  23,  and  Cant.  iv.  8,  Hermon 
 and  it  are  mentioned  as  distinct.  Abulfeda  (ed. 
 Kohler,  p.  104,  quoted  by  Gesenius)  reports  that 
 the  part  of  Anti- Lebanon  north  of  Damascus  —  that 
 usually  denoimnated  J t'bel  esli-Shurki/,  "  the  East 
 Mountain  "  —  was  in  his  day  called  Senir.  I'he  use 
 of  the  word  in  Ezekiel  is  singular.  In  describing 
 Tyre  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  the  Phoe- 
 nician name  (Sirion)  of  the  mountain  employed, 
 if  the  ordinary  Israelite  name  (Hermon)  were  dis- 
 carded. That  it  is  not  so  may  show  that  in  the 
 time  of  Ezekiel  the  name  of  Senir  had  lost  its  orig- 
 inal significance  as  an  Amorite  name,  and  was  em- 
 ployed without  that  I'estriction. 
 
 The  Targum  of  Joseph  on  1  Chr.  v.  23  (ed.  Beck) 
 
 renders  Senir  by  ""P?  '^l^^'O  '^^'^^  of  which 
 the  most  probable  translation  is  "  the  mountain  of 
 the  plains  of  the  Perizzites."     In  the  edition  of 
 
 Wilkins  the  text  is  altered  to  '^II'^S  "'TIP^  '^» 
 "  the  mountain  that  corrupteth  fruits,"  in  agree- 
 ment with  the  Targums  on  Deut.  iii.  9,  though  it 
 is  there  given  as  the  equivalent  of  Sirion.  Which 
 of  these  is  the  original  it  is  perhaps  impossible  now 
 to  decide.  The  former  has  the  slight  consideration 
 in  its  favor,  that  the  Hivites  are  specially  mentioned 
 as  "  under  Mount  Hermon,"  and  tlms  may  have 
 been  connected  or  confounded  with  the  Perizzites; 
 or  the  reading  may  have  arisen  from  mere  caprice, 
 as  that  of  the  Sam.  version  of  Deut.  iii.  9  appears 
 to  have  done.  [See  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
 p.  2812  b.]  G. 
 
 SENNACH'ERIB  or  SENNACHE  RIB 
 (3"^"in3p  [see  below]:    [Rom.    in  2   K.  and   2 
 
 Chr.]  X^yvaxvp'^l^f  ['"  ^^0  ^eui/axvpfif^'i  [Vat. 
 Alex,  and  Sin.  ^Xfwaxripeiij.  throughout,  exc.  2  K. 
 xviii.  13,  Alex.  Sefox-,  ^nd  Is.  xxxvii.  21,  Sin. 
 -XVp^t^'i]  'X^yaxvp^^os,  Joseph.;  'Zayaxcipt^os, 
 Herod.:  Sennnclievib)  was  the  son  and  successor  of 
 Sargon.  [Sargon.]  His  name  in  the  original  is 
 read  as  Tsin-ak/d-irib,  vphich  is  understood  to  mean, 
 "  Sin  (or  the  Moon)  increases  brothers:  "  an  indica- 
 tion that  he  was  not  the  first-born  of  his  father.  The 
 LXX.  have  thus- approached  much  more  nearly  to 
 the  native  articulation  than  the  Jews  of  Palestine, 
 having  kept  the  vowel-sounds  almost  exactly,  and 
 merely  changed  the  labial  at  the  close  from  ^  to  ^. 
 .Josephus  has  been  even  more  entirely  correct,  hav- 
 ing only  added  the  Greek  nominatival  ending. 
 
 We  know  little  or  nothing  of  Sennacherib  during 
 his  father's  lifetinje.  From  his  name,  and  from  a 
 circumstance  related  by  Polyhistor,  we  may  gather 
 that  he  was  not  the  eldest  son,  and  not  the  heir  to 
 the  crown  till  the  year  belbre  his  father's  death. 
 
2908 
 
 SENNACHERIB 
 
 Polyhistor  (following  Berosus)  related  that  the  trib- 
 utary kingdom  of  Babylon  was  held  by  a  brother 
 —  who  would  doubtJess  be  an  elder  Ijrother  —  of 
 Sennacherib's,  not  long  before  that  prince  came  to 
 the  throne  (Beros.  Fr.  12).  Sennacherib's  brother 
 was  succeeded  by  a  certain  Hagisa,  who  reigned 
 only  a  montli,  being  murdered  by  ]\Ierodach-Bala- 
 dan,  who  then  took  the  throne  and  held  it  six 
 months.  These  events  belong  to  the  year  b.  c.  703, 
 which  seems  to  have  been  the  last  year  of  Sargon. 
 Sennacherib  mounted  the  throne  b.  c.  702.  His 
 first  effoits  were  directed  to  crushing  tlie  revolt  of 
 Babylonia,  which  he  invaded  witli  a  large  army. 
 Merodach-Baladan  ventured  on  a  battle,  but  was 
 defeated  and  driven  from  the  country.  Sennacherib 
 then  made  Belibus,  an  otHcer  of  his  court,  viceroy, 
 and,  quitting  Babylonia,  ravaged  the  lands  of  the 
 Aramaean  tribes  on  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates, 
 whence  he  carried  off  200,000  captives.  In  the 
 ensuing  year  (B.C.  701)  he  made  war  upon  the 
 independent  tribes  in  Mount  Zagros,  and  penetrated 
 thence  to  Media,  where  he  reduced  a  portion  of  the 
 nation  which  had  been  previously  independent.  In 
 his  third  year  (b.  o.  700)  he  turned  his  arms  towards 
 the  west,  chastised  Sidon,  took  tribute  from  Tyre, 
 Aradus,  and  the  other  Phcenician  cities,  as  well  as 
 from  Edom  and  Ashdod,  liesieged  and  captured 
 Ascalon,  made  war  on  Egypt,  which  was  still  de- 
 pendent on  Ethiopia,  took  Libnah  and  Lachish  on 
 the  Egyptian  frontier,  and,  having  probably  con- 
 cluded a  convention  with  his  chief  enemy,"  finally 
 marched  against  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah.  Heze- 
 kiah,  apparently,  had  not  only  revolted  and  with- 
 held his  tribute,  but  had  intermeddled  with  the 
 affairs  of  the  Philistian  cities,  and  given  his  support 
 to  the  party  opposed  to  the  influence  of  Assyria. 
 It  was  at  this  time  that  "  Sennacherib  came  up 
 against  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and  took 
 them  "  (2  K.  xviii.  13).  There  can  be  Jio  doubt 
 that  the  record  which  he  has  left  of  his  campaign 
 against  "  Hiskiah  "  in  his  third  year,  is  the  war 
 with  Hezekiah  so  briefly  touched  in  the  four  verses 
 of  this  chapter  (vv.  13-16).  The  Jewisli  monarch 
 was  compelled  to  make  a  most  humble  submission. 
 He  agreed  to  bear  whatever  the  Great  King  laid 
 upon  him;  and  that  monarch,  besides  carrying  off 
 a  rich  booty  and  more  than  200,000  captives,  ap- 
 pointed him  a  fixed  tribute  of  300  talents  of  silver, 
 and  30  talents  of  gold.  He  also  deprived  him  of  a 
 considerable  portion  of  his  territory,  which  he  be- 
 stowed on  the  petty  kings  of  Ashdod,  Ekron,  and 
 Gaza.  Having  made  these  arrangements,  he  left 
 Palestine  and  returned  into  his  own  country. 
 
 In  the  following  year  (b.  c.  6it<J),  Sennacherib 
 invaded  Babylonia  for  the  second  time.  Merodach- 
 Baladan  continued  to  have  a  party  in  that  country, 
 where  his  brothers  still  resided;  and  it  may  be 
 suspected  that  the  viceroy,  Belibus,  either  secretly 
 favored  his  cause,  or  at  any  rate  was  remiss  in 
 opposing  it.  The  Assyrian  monarch,  therefore, 
 took  the  field  in  person,  defeated  a  Chaldeean  chief 
 who  had  taken  up  arms  on  behalf  of  the  banished 
 king,  expelled  the  king's  brothers,  and  displacing 
 Belibus,  put  one  of  his  own  sons  on  the  throne  in 
 his  stead. 
 
 It  was  perhaps  in  this  same  year  that  Sen- 
 nacherib made  his  second  expedition  into  Palestine. 
 Hezekiali  had  again  revolted,  and  claimed  the  pro- 
 
 a  The  impression  on  clay  of  the  seal  of  Sabaco,  found 
 in  Sennacherib's  palace  at  Koyunjik,  had  probably 
 been  appended  to  this  treaty. 
 
 SENNACHERIB 
 
 tection  of  Egypt,  which  seems  to  have  been  regarded 
 by  Sennacherib  as  the  true  cause  of  the  Syrian 
 troubles.  Instead,  therefore,  of  besieging  Jeru- 
 salem, the  Assyrian  king  marched  past  it  to  the 
 Egyptian  frontier,  attacked  once  more  Lachish  and 
 Libnah,  but  apparently  failed  to  take  them,  sent 
 messengers  from  the  former  to  Hezekiah  (2  K. 
 xviii.  17),  and  on  their  return  without  his  submis- 
 sion wrote  him  a  threatening  letter  (2  K.  xix.  14), 
 while  he  still  continued  to  press  the  war  against 
 Egypt,  which  had  called  in  the  assistance  of  Tir- 
 hakah,  king  of  Ethiopia  {ibid.  ver.  9).  Tirhakah 
 was  hastening  to  the  aid  of  the  I'gyptians,  but  prob- 
 ably had  not  yet  united  his  troops  with  theirs, 
 wlien  an  event  occurred  which  relieved  both  Egypt 
 and  Judaja  from  their  danger.  In  one  night  the 
 Assyrians  lost  either  by  a  pestilence  or  by  some 
 more  awful  manifestation  of  Divine  power,  185,000 
 men  !  The  camp  immediately  broke  up  —  the  king 
 fled  —  the  Egyptians,  naturally  enough,  as  the  de- 
 struction happened  upon  their  borders,  ascribed  it  to 
 their  own  gods,  and  made  a  boast  of  it  centuries  after 
 (Herod,  ii.  141).  Sennacherib  reached  his  capital 
 in  safety,  and  was  not  deterred,  by  the  terrible  dis- 
 aster which  had  befallen  his  arms,  from  engaging 
 in  other  wars,  though  he  seems  thenceforward  to 
 have  carefully  avoided  Palestine.  In  his  fifth  year 
 he  led  an  expedition  into  Armenia  and  Media;  after 
 which,  from  his  sixth  to  his  eighth  year,  he  was 
 engaged  in  wars  witli  Susiana  and  Babylonia.  From 
 this  point  his  annals  fail  us. 
 
 Sennacherib  reigned  twenty-two  years.  The  date 
 of  his  accession  is  fixed  by  the  ('anon  of  Ptolemy  to 
 b.  c.  702,  the  first  year  of  Behbus  or  Elibus.  The 
 date  of  his  death  is  marked  in  the  same  document 
 by  the  accession  of  Asaridaims  (Esar-Haddon)  to 
 the  throne  of  Babylon  in  b.  c.  680.  The  monuments 
 are  in  exact  conformity  with  these  dates,  for  the 
 22d  year  of  Sennacherib  has  been  found  upon 
 them,  wliile  they  have  not  furnished  any  notice  of- 
 a  later  year. 
 
 It  is  impossilile  to  reconcile  these  dates  with  the 
 chronology  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  according  to  the 
 innnbers  of  the  present  Hebrew  text.  Those  num- 
 l)ers  assign  to  Hezekiah  the  space  between  b.  c.  726 
 and  B.  c.  697.  Consequently  the  first  invasion  of 
 Sennacherib  falls  into  Hezekiah's  twenly-seventh 
 year  instead  of  his  fourteenth,  as  stated  in  2  K. 
 xviii.  13,  and  Is.  xxxvi.  1.  .Various  solutions  have 
 Ijeen  proposed  of  this  difficulty.  According  to  some, 
 there  has  been  a  dislocation  as  well  as  an  alteration 
 of  the  text.  Originally  the  words  ran,  "  Now  it 
 came  to  pass  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  king  Heze- 
 kiah, that  the  king  of  Assyria  [Sargon]  came  up 
 against  the  fenced  cities  of  .ludah."  Then  followed 
 ch.  XX.  (Is.  xxxviii. )  —  "In  those  days  was  Hezekiah 
 sick  unto  death,"  etc.;  after  which  came  the  nar- 
 rative of  Sennacherib's  two  invasions.  [See  Heze- 
 kiah.] Another  suggestion  is,  that  the  year  has 
 been  altered  in  2  K.  xviii.  13  and  Is.  xxxvi.  1,  by  a 
 scribe,  who,  referring  the  narrative  in  ch.  xx.  (Is. 
 xxxviii.)  to  the  period  of  .Sennacherib's  first  inva- 
 sion, coticluded  (from  xx.  6)  that  the  whole  hap- 
 pened in  Hezekiah's  fourteenth  year  (Eawlinson's 
 Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  479,  note  2),  and  therefore 
 boldly  changed  "twenty-seventh"  into  "four- 
 teenth." 
 
 Sennacherib  was  one  of  the  most  magnificent  of 
 the  Assyrian  kings.  He  seems  to  have  been  the 
 first  who  fixed  the  seat  of  government  permanently 
 at  Nineveh,  which  he  carefully  repaired  and  adorned 
 with  splendid  buildings.     His  greatest  work  is  the 
 
SEN UAH 
 
 irand  palace  at  Koyunjik,  which  covered  a  space  of 
 above  eight  acres,  and  was  adorned  throughout  with 
 sculpture  of  finished  execution.  He  built  also,  or 
 repaired,  a  second  palace  at  Nineveh  on  the  mound 
 of  Nebbi  Yunus,  confined  the  Tigris  to  its  channel 
 by  an  embankment  of  brick,  restored  the  ancient 
 aqueducts  which  had  gone  to  decay,  and  gave  to 
 Nineveh  that  splendor  which  she  thenceforth  re- 
 tained till  the  ruin  of  the  empire.  He  also  erected 
 monuments  in  distant  countries.  It  is  his  memorial 
 which  still  remains"  at  the  mouth  of  the  Nahr-el- 
 Kelb  on  the  coast  of  Syria,  side  by  side  with  an 
 inscription  of  Raraeses  the  Great,  recording  his  con- 
 quests six  centuries  earlier. 
 
 Of  the  death  of  Sennacherib  nothing  is  known 
 beyond  the  brief  statement  of  Scripture,  tliat  "  as 
 he  was  worshipping  in  the  house  of  Nisroch  (  ? ),  his 
 god,  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer  his  sons  smote  him 
 with  the  sword,  and  escaped  into  the  land  of  Ar- 
 menia "  (2  K.  xix.  37;  Is.  xxxvii.  38).  It  is  curious 
 that  Moses  of  Chorene  and  Alexander  Polyhistor 
 should  both  call  the  elder  of  these  two  sons  by  a 
 different  name  (Ardumazanes  or  Argamozanus); 
 and  it  is  still  more  curious  that  Abydenus,  who 
 generally  drew  from  Berosus,  should  interpose  a  king 
 Nergilus  between  Sennacherib  and  Adrammelech, 
 and  make  the  latter  be  slain  by  Esarhaddon  (luiseb. 
 Chr.  Clin.  i.  9 ;  comp.  i.  5,  and  see  also  Mos.  Chor. 
 Arm.  Hist.  i.  22).  Moses,  on  the  contrary,  confirms 
 the  escape  of  both  brothers,  and  mentions  the  parts 
 of  Armenia  wliere  they  settled,  and  which  were 
 afterwards  peopled  by  their  descendants.     G.  R. 
 
 SENU'AH  (nS!^3p  [brMlng,  Gas.]  :  'Ao-a- 
 vd.  Sei'Ma).  Properly  Hassenuah,  with  the  def. 
 article.  A  Be.njamite,  the  father  of  Judah,  who 
 was  second  over  the  city  after  the  return  from  Baby- 
 lon (Neh.  xi.  9).  In  1  Chr.  ix.  7,  "  .ludah  the  son 
 of  Senuah  "  is  "  Hodaviah  tlie  son  of  Hasenuah." 
 [Hasenuah.] 
 
 SEO'RIM  (n"^"li?^  [barley]:  :S,eaipiij.;  [Vat. 
 Sewpei/x;]  Alex.  'Zeaipiv:  Storim).  The  chief  of 
 the  fourth  of  the  twenty-four  courses  of  priests  in- 
 stituted by  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  8). 
 
 SE'PHAR  (~lQp  [book]:  2a(^r;pci;  Alex.  2a)- 
 <j>T)pa:  Seplmr).  It  is  written,  after  the  enumera- 
 tion of  the  sons  of  Joktan,  "  and  their  dwelling  was 
 from  Mesha  as  thou  goest  unto  Sepliar,  a  mount  of 
 the  east  "  (Gen.  x.  30).  The  immigration  of  the 
 Joktanites  was  probably  from  west  to  east,  as  we 
 have  shown  in  Arabia,  Mksha,  etc.,  and  they  oc- 
 cupied the  southwestern  portion  of  the  peninsula. 
 The  undoubted  identifications  of  Arabian  places 
 and  tribes  with  their  Joktanite  originals  are  in- 
 cluded within  these  limits  and  point  to  Sephar  as 
 the  eastern  boundary.  There  appears  to  be  little 
 doubt  that  the  ancient  sea-port  town  called  Dha- 
 fdri  or  Zafarl,  and  Dhafdr  or  Z^rfih\  without 
 the  inflexional  termination,  represents  the  Biblical 
 site  or  district:  thus  the  etymology  is  sufficiently 
 near,  and  the  situation  exactly  agrees  with  tlie  re- 
 quirements of  the  case.  Accordingly,  it  has  been 
 generally  accepted  as  the  Sephar  of  (ienesis.  But 
 the  etymological  fitness  of  this  site  opens  out  an- 
 
 a  It  has  been  stated  that  in  1861  the  French  occu- 
 pants of  Syria  destroyed  this  tablet,  and  repluced  it  by 
 an  inscriptioa  in  their  own  honor  ;  but  such  an  act 
 of  barbarism  seems  scarcely  possible  in  the  nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 b  Abu-I-Fida  has  fallen  into  an  absur'l  error  in  his 
 
 SEPHAR  2909 
 
 other  question,  inasmuch  as  there  are  no  less  than 
 four  places  bearing  the  same  name,  besides  several 
 others  bearing  names  tliat  are  merely  variations 
 from  the  same  root.  Tlie  frequent  recurrence  of 
 these  variations  is  curious;  but  we  need  only  here 
 concern  ourselves  with  the  four  first  named  places, 
 and  of  these  two  only  are  important  to  the  subject 
 of  this  article.  They  are  of  twofold  importance,  as 
 bearing  on  the  site  of  Sephar,  and  as  being  closely 
 comiected  with  the  ancient  history  of  the  .Joktanite 
 kingdom  of  Southern  Araljia,  the  kingdom  founded 
 by  the  tribes  sprung  from  the  sons  of  Joktan.  The 
 following  extracts  will  put  in  a  clear  light  vvliat  the 
 best  Araljian  writers  themselves  say  on  the  sulject. 
 The  first  is  from  the  most  important  of  the  Arabic 
 Lexicons :  — 
 
 ^^  Dhnjuri  (J,  op)  is  a  town  of  the  Yemen; 
 
 one  says,  'He  who  enters  Dhafdri  learns  the  Hini- 
 yeritic'  ....  Es  Silghanee  says,  '  In  the  Yemen 
 are  four  places,  every  one  of  which  is  called  Dlin- 
 f'dri ;  two  cities  and  two  fortresses.  The  two 
 cities  are  Dluifuri-l-llakl,  near  Saii'd,  two  days' 
 journey  from  it  on  the  south ;  and  the  Tubbaas 
 used  to  abide  there,  and  it  is  said  that  it  is  San'a 
 [itself].  In  relation  to  it  is  called  the  onyx  of 
 Dhfijdri.  (Ibn-es-Sikkeet  says  that  the  onyx  ot 
 DIuifdri  is  so  called  in  relation  to  Dhrifdri-Asad, 
 a  city  in  the  Yemen.)  Another  is  in  the  Yemen, 
 near  .Uii-bdl,  in  the  extremity  of  the  Yemen,  and 
 is  known  by  the  name  of  Dhafdri-s-Sdhib  [that  is, 
 of  the  sea-coast],  and  in  relation  to  it  is  called  the 
 KuM-Dhafdri  [either  costus  or  aloes-wood],  that 
 is,  the  wood  with  which  one  fumigates,  because  it 
 is  brought  thither  from  India,  and  from  it  to  [the 
 rest  of  ]  the  Yemen.'  ....  And  it  Yakoot  meant, 
 for  he  said,  '  Dliiijdri  ....  is  a  city  in  the  ex- 
 tremity of  the  Yemen,  near  to  Esh-Shihr.'  As  to 
 the  two  fortresses,  one  of  them  is  a  fortress  on  the 
 south  of  iSoft'rt,  two  days'  journey  from  it,  in  the 
 country  of  [the  tribe  of]  Benoo-.MurdJ,  and  it  is 
 called  Dhajdri-l-  Wadiyeyn  [that  is,  of  the  Two 
 Valleys].  It  is  also  called  Dhnfdii-Ztyd ;  and 
 another  is  on  the  north  thereof,  also  two  days'  jour- 
 ney from  it,  in  the  country  of  Heiiuldn,  and  is 
 called  DhaJdri-dh-B/id/iir"  {Tc'ij-el-' Aroos,  MS., 
 «.  I'.).'' 
 
 Yakoot,  in  his  Homonymous  Dictionary  (El- 
 Mushtarak,  s.  v.)  says:  ^'■Dhafdri  is  a  celebrated 
 city  in  the  extremity  of  the  country  of  the  Yemen, 
 between  '  Oman  and  Mirbdf,  on  the  shore  of  the 
 sea  of  India:  I  have  been  informed  of  this  by  one 
 who  has  seen  it  prosperous,  abounding  in  good 
 things.  It  is  near  Ksh-S/iilu:  Dliafdri-Zeyd  is  a 
 fortress  in  the  Yemen,  in  the  territory  of  Habb; 
 and  Dhafdri  is  a  city  near  to  San'd,  and  in  relation 
 to  it  is  called  the  Dhafdri  onyx;  in  it  was  the 
 abode  of  the  kings  of  Himyer,  and  of  it  was  said 
 '  He  who  enters  Dhafdri  learns  the  Himyeritic ; '  - 
 and  it  is  said  that  SaiVd  itself  is  Dhafdri.''' 
 
 Lastly,  in  the  Geographical  Dictionary  called  the 
 Mardsid,  which  is  ascribed  to  Yakoot,  we  read, 
 s.  v.:  "  Dhafdri:  two  cities  in  the  Yemen,  one  ol 
 
 Geography,  noticed  by  M.  Fresnel  {IVe  Letlre,  p.  317), 
 He  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  two  Za/dris  were  only 
 one,  by  supposing  that  the  inland  town,  which  ht 
 places  only  twenty-four  leagues  from  San''a,  was  orig 
 inally  on  the  sea-coast. 
 
2910 
 
 SEPHAR 
 
 them  near  to  San'a,  in  relation  to  which  is  called 
 the  Dhafdri  onyx:  in  it  was  the  dwelling  of  the 
 kings  of  Himver;  and  it  is  said  that  Diiufdri  is  the 
 city  of  Ban" a  itself.  And  Dhafdri  of  this  day  is  a 
 city  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  India,  between  it  and 
 Mirbdt  are  five  parasangs  of  the  territories  of  Ksli- 
 S/iifir,  [and  it  is]  near  to  Siihdj',  and  Mirbdt  is  the 
 other  anchorage  besides  DIuifdri.  Frankincense  is 
 only  found  on  the  mountain  of  Dhajdri  of  Esh- 
 S/iilir." 
 
 These  extracts  show  that  the  city  of  Dluifdri 
 near  San  a  was  very  little  known  to  the  writers, 
 and  that  little  only  by  tradition:  it  was  even  sup- 
 posed to  be  the  same  as,  or  another  name  for 
 San'a,  and  its  site  had  evidently  follen  into  obliv- 
 ion at  their  day.  But  the  seaport  of  this  name 
 was  a  celebrated  city,  still  flourishing,  and  identified 
 on  the  authority  of  an  eye-witness.  M.  Fresnel  has 
 endeavored  to  prove  that  this  city,  and  not  the 
 western  one,  was  the  Himyerite  capital ;  and  cer- 
 tainly his  opinion  appears  to  be  borne  out  by  most 
 of  the  facts  that  have  been  brought  to  light. 
 Niebuhr,  however,  mentions  the  ruins  of  DhnJ'uri 
 near  Yereem,  which  would  be  those  of  the  western 
 city  (Descr.  p.  206).  While  JJliafdri  is  often 
 mentioned  as  the  capital  in  the  history  of  the  Him- 
 yerite kingdom  (Caussin,  Essai,  i.  passim),  it  was 
 also  in  the  later  times  of  the  kingdom  the  seat  of  a 
 Christian  Church  (Philostorgius,  Hist.  EccU-s.  iii.  4). 
 
 But,  leaving  this  curious  point,  it  remains  to 
 give  what  is  known  respecting  Dhafdri  the  sea- 
 port, or  as  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  tall  it, 
 after  the  usual  pronunciation,  Zafdr.  All  the  evi- 
 dence is  clearly  in  favor  of  this  site  being  tbat  of 
 the  Sephar  of  the  Bible,  and  the  identification  has 
 accordingly  been  generally  accepted  by  critics. 
 More  accurately,  it  appears  to  preserve  the  name 
 mentioned  in  Gen.  x.  30,  and  to  be  in  the  district 
 anciently  so  named.  It  is  situate  on  the  const,  in 
 the  province  of  Hadramdwt,  and  near  to  the  district 
 which  adjoins  that  province  on  the  east,  called  Esh- 
 Shihr  (or,  as  M.  Fresnel  says  it  is  pronounced  in 
 the  modern  Ilimyeritic,  Shher).  Wellsted  says  of 
 it,  "  Dofdr  is  situated  beneath  a  lofty  mountain  '' 
 (ii.  453).  In  the  Mardsid  it  is  said,  as  we  have 
 seen,  that  frankincense  (in  the  author's  time)  was 
 found  only  in  the  "mountain  of  Dhafdri;'"  and 
 Niebuhr  {Descr.  p.  248)  says  that  it  exports  the 
 best  frankincense.  M.  Fresnel  gives  almost  all  that 
 is  known  of  the  present  state  of  this  old  site  in  his 
 Lettres  sur  I' /list,  des  Arabcs  arant  I''  Jslamisun- 
 (Ve  Lettre,  Journ.  Asiat.  iiie  serie,  tome  v.).  Za- 
 fdr, he  tells  us,  pronounced  by  the  modern  inhab- 
 itants "  Islor,"  is  now  the  name  of  a  series  of  vil- 
 lages situate  some  of  them  on  the  shore,  and  some 
 close  to  the  shore,  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  between 
 Mirbdt  and  lids-tidjir,  extending  a  distance  of  two 
 days'  journey,  or  17  or  18  hours,  from  east  to  west. 
 Proceeding  in  this  direction,  those  near  the  shore 
 are  named  Tdkah,  Ed-Dnhdreez,  El-Rtleed,  El- 
 Hdfth,  Saldhcih,  and  Aivktid.  The  first  four  are  on 
 the  sea-shore,  and  the  last  two  at  a  small  distance 
 from  it.  El-Beteed,  otherwise  called  Harkdm,  is, 
 in  M.  Fresnel's  opinion,  the  ancient  Zafdr.  It  is 
 in  ruins,  but  ruins  that  attest  its  former  prosperity. 
 The  inhabitants  were  celebrated  for  their  hospital- 
 ity.    There  are  now  only  three  or  four  inhabited 
 
 n  Obtained  by  taking   the   prefixed  preposition  as 
 
 part  of  the  name  —  ^"^DD!2  I  and  at  the  same  time 
 resjectinjr  the  fiual  D. 
 
 SEPHARAD 
 
 houses  in  El-Bdeed.  It  is  on  a  small  peninsula 
 lying  between  the  ocean  and  a  bay,  and  the  port  is 
 on  the  land  side  of  the  town.  In  the  present  day 
 during  nearly  the  whole  of  the  year,  at  least  at  low 
 tide,  the  bay  is  a  lake,  and  the  peninsula  an  isth- 
 mus, but  the  lake  is  of  sweet  water.  In  the  rainy 
 season,  which  is  in  the  spring,  it  is  a  gulf,  of  sweet 
 water  at  low  tide  and  of  salt  water  at  high  tide. 
 
 The  classical  writers  mention  Sapphar  metrop- 
 olis C^aTTcpapa  fXT]Tp6Tvo\is)  or  Saphar  (in  Anmi. 
 Prript.  p.  274),  in  long.  88°,  lat.  14°  30',  according 
 to  I'tol.,  the  capital  of  the  Sappharitae  {2,aTrtpap7Tai), 
 placed  by  Ptol.  (vi.  6,  §  2.5)  near  the  Homeritae; 
 but  their  accounts  are  obscure,  and  probably  from 
 hearsay.  In  later  times,  as  we  have  already  said, 
 it  was  the  seat  of  a  Christian  Church :  one  of  three 
 which  were  foutided  A.  d.  343,  by  permission  of  the 
 reigning  Tubbaa,  in  Dhafdri  (written  Tajiharon, 
 Td<papov,  by  Philostorgius,  /Jisl.  Eccles.  iii.  4),  in 
 'Aden,  and  on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf. 
 Tlieophilus,  who  was  sent  with  an  embassy  by  or- 
 der of  the  emperor  Constantine  to  effect  this  pur- 
 pose, was  the  first  bishop  (Caussin,  i.  Ill  flf'.).  In 
 the  reigh  of  Abrahah  (a.  d.  537-570),  S.  Gregen- 
 tius  was  bishop  of  these  churches,  having  been  sent 
 by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (cf.  authorities  cited 
 by  Caussin,  i.  142-145).  E.  S.  P. 
 
 SEPH'ARAD  ("I^Sp    [see   below]:    Targ. 
 
 S^'ttSpS,  i.  e.  "  Ispania  "  :  eus  'E(ppa6d,  in  both 
 MSS. :  in  Bosporo).  A  name  which  occurs  in 
 Obad.  ver.  20  only,  as  that  of  a  place  in  which  the 
 Jews  of  Jerusalem  were  then  held  in  captivity,  and 
 whence  they  were  to  return  to  possess  the  cities  of 
 the  south. 
 
 Its  situation  has  always  been  a  matter  of  un- 
 certainty, and  cannot  even  now  be  said  to  be 
 settled. 
 
 1.  The  reading  of  the  LXX.  given  above,  and 
 followed  by  the  Arabic  Version,  is  probably  a  mere 
 conjecture,  though  it  may  point  to  a  modified  form 
 of  the  name  in  the  then  original,  namely,  Sepha- 
 rath.  In  Jerome's  copy  of  the  LXX.  it  appears  to 
 have  been  Ebcppdrris,  since  {Coinm.  in  Abd.)  he 
 renders  their  version  of  the  verse  trnnsmiyratio  le- 
 I'vsalein  usque  Euphrathem.  This  is  certainly  ex- 
 tremely ingenious,  but  will  hardly  hold  water  when 
 we  turn  it  back  into  Hebrew. 
 
 2.  The  reading  of  the  Vulgate,  Bospm-us,"  was 
 adopted  by  Jerome  from  his  Jewish  instructor, 
 who  considered  it  to  be  "  the  place  to  which  Ha- 
 drian had  transported  the  captives  from  Jerusalem  " 
 {Comm.  in  Abdiam).  This  interpretation  Jerome 
 did  not  accept,  but  prefen'ed  rather  to  treat  Seph- 
 arad  as  connected  with  a  similar  Assyrian  word 
 signifying  a  "  boundary,"  and  to  consider  the  pas- 
 sage as  denoting  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  into  all 
 regions. 
 
 We  have  no  means  of  knowing  to  which  Bospo- 
 rus Jerome's  teacher  alluded  —  the  Cimmerian  or 
 the  Thracian.  If  the  former  (Strait  of  Yeni-kale), 
 which  was  in  Iberia,  it  is  not  impossilile  that  this 
 Rabbi,  as  ignorant  of  geography  outside  the  Holy 
 Land  as  most  of  his  brethren,  confounded  it  with 
 Iberia  in  Spain,  and  thus  agreed  with  the  rest  of 
 the  Jews  whose  opinions  have  come  down  to  us.  If 
 the  latter  (Strait  (jf  Constantinople),  then  he  may 
 be  taken  as  confirming  the  most  modern  opinion 
 (noticed  below),  that  Scpharad  was  Sardis  in  Lydia. 
 
 The  Targum  Jonathan  (see  above)  and  the 
 Peshito-Sjriac,  and  from  them  the  modern  Jews, 
 interpret  Sepharad  as  Spain  (Ispamia  and  Ispania), 
 
 ^ 
 
SEPHARAD 
 
 one  common  variation  of  whicli  name,  Hesperia 
 {Diet,  of  Uengr.  i.  1074  b),  does  certainly  bear  con- 
 siderable resemblance  to  Sejiharad ;  and  so  deeply 
 has  this  taken  root  that  at  the  present  day  the 
 Spanish  .lews,  who  form  the  chief  of  the  two 
 great  sections  into  which  the  Jewish  nation  is 
 divided,  are  called  by  the  Jews  themselves  the 
 Sephaix/im.^  (German  Jews  being  known  as  the 
 Ashkenmim. 
 
 It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  either  of  these  can 
 be  the  true  explanation  of  Sepharad.  The  jjroph- 
 ecy  of  Oliadiah  has  every  appearance  of  referring  to 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  Jews  had 
 been  at  that  early  date  transported  to  Spain. 
 
 3.  Others  have  suggested  the  identity  of  Seph- 
 arad with  Sipphara  in  Mesopotamia,  but  that  is 
 more  probably  Ski-harvaim. 
 
 4.  The  name  has  perhaps  been  discovered  in 
 the  cuneiform  Persian  inscriptions  of  Naksh-i-Rus- 
 ium  and  Buhistun ;  and  also  in  a  list  of  Asiatic  na- 
 tions given  by  Niebnhr  (lieiseb.  ii.  pi.  .31).  In  the 
 latter  it  occurs  between  Ka  Ta  Pa  TUK  (Cappa- 
 docia)  and  Ta  UNA  (Ionia).  De  Sacy  was  the 
 first  to  propose  the  identification  of  this  with  Seph- 
 arah,  and  subsequently  it  was  suL,'gested  by  Lassen 
 that  S  Pa  Ra  I)  was  identical  with  Sardis,  the  an- 
 cient capital  of  Lydia.  This  identification  is  ap- 
 proved of  by  Winer,  and  adopted  by  Dr.  Pusey 
 \lnlrod.  to  Obad.  p.  232,  note,  also  p.  24.5).  In 
 support  of  this,  Fiirst  {Handwb.  ii.  95  a)  points 
 out  that  Antigonus  (cir.  b.  c.  320)  may  very  prob- 
 ably have  taken  some  of  his  Jewish  capti\-es  to  Sar- 
 dis; but  it  is  more  consistent  with  the  apparent 
 date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy  to  believe  that  he  is 
 referring  to  the  event  mentioned  by  Joel  (iii.  6), 
 when  "  children  of  Judah  and  .lerusalem  "  were 
 sold  to  the  "sons  of  the  Javanim  "  (lonians), 
 which  —  as  the  first  captivity  that  had  befallen 
 the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  a  transportation  to  a 
 strange  land,  and  that  beyond  the  sea  —  could 
 hardly  fail  to  make  an  enduring  impression  upon 
 the  nation. 
 
 5.  Ewald  (Pro2)heleii,  i.  404)  considers  that 
 Sepharad  has  a  coimection  with  Zarephath  in  the 
 preceding  verse;  and  while  deprecating  the  "pen- 
 etration "  of  those  who  have  discovered  the  name 
 in  a  cuneiform  inscription,  suggests  that  the  true 
 reading  is  Sepharam,  and  that  it  is  to  be  found 
 in  a  place  three  hours  from  Akkn,  i.  e.  doubtless 
 the  modern  SItefa  '  Omni;  a  place  of  much  an- 
 cient repute  and  veneration  among  the  Jews  of 
 Palestine  (see  Zunz,  note  to  "  Parch i,"  p.  428); 
 but  it  is  not  obvious  how  a  residence  within  the 
 Holy  Land  can  have  been  spoken  of  as  a  capti\ity, 
 and  there  are  considerable  differences  in  the  form 
 of  the  two  names. 
 
 0.  iMichaelis  (Suppl.  No.  1778)  has  devoted 
 some  space  to  this  name;  and,  among  other  con- 
 jectures, ingeniously  suggests  tlrat  the  "  Spartans  " 
 of  1  Mace.  xii.  5  are  accurately  "  Sepharadites." 
 This  suggestion,  however,  does  not  appear  to  have 
 stood  the  test  of  later  investigation.     [See  Spak- 
 
 TANS.]  G 
 
 SBPHELA 
 
 2911 
 
 "  When  Pliny  places  Hippara  or  Sippara  on  the 
 Narragam  {Nakr  A^ani),  instead  of  on  the  Euphrates, 
 Uis  reference  is  to  the  artificial  channel  which  branched 
 off  from  the  Euphrates  at   Sippara,   and  led  to   the 
 
 great  Zai-f(Chald.  N^33W)  excavated  by  Nebuchadnez- 
 zar.      A.bydenus    called    this    branch    "Aracanus 
 ('ApoKacof),  Ar  Ahan  {Fr.  10). 
 
 SEPHARVA'IM  (D'll'^PP  [see  below]: 
 2€-n-cpapovaifi,'Eircj)apouaifx:  Sepharvaim)  is  men- 
 tioned by  Sennacherib  in  his  letter  to  Hezekiah  as 
 a  city  whose  king  bad  been  unable  to  resist  the 
 Assyrians  (2  K.  xi.K.  13;  Is.  xxxvii.  13;  comp. 
 2  K.  xviii.  34).  It  is  coupled  with  Hena  and 
 Ava,  or  Ivah,  which  were  towns  on  the  Euphrates 
 above  Babylon.  Again,  it  is  mentioned,  in  2  K. 
 xvii.  24,  as  one  of  the  places  from  which  colonists 
 were  transported  to  people  the  desolate  Samaria, 
 after  the  Israelites  had  been  carried  into  captivity, 
 where  it  was  again  joined  with  Ava,  and  also  with 
 Cuthah  and  Baljylon.  These  indications  are  enough 
 to  justify  us  in  identifying  tlie  place  with  the 
 famous  town  of  Sippara,  on  the  Euphrates  above 
 Babylon  (Ptol.  v.  18),  which  was  near  the  site  of 
 the  modern  Mosail).  Sippara  was  mentioned  by 
 Berosus  as  the  place  where,  according  to  him, 
 Xithrus  (or  Noah)  buried  the  records  of  the  ante- 
 diluvian world  at  the  time  of  the  Deluge,  and  from 
 which  his  posterity  recovered  them  afterv.'ards. 
 (Fragm.  I/ist.  Gr.  ii.  501,  iv.  280.)  Abydenus 
 calls  it  it6Kiu  ^nnrafjrivciv  {Fr.  9),  and  says  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar  excavated  a  vast  lake  in  its  vicin- 
 ity for  the  purposes  of  irrigation.  Pliny  seems  to 
 intend  the  same  place  l)y  his  "  oppida  Uippareno- 
 rum  "  "  —  where,  according  to  him,  was  a  great 
 seat  of  the  Chaldaic  learning  (//.  iV.  vi.  30).  The 
 plural  form  here  used  by  Pliny  may  be  compared 
 with  the  dual  form  in  use  among  the  Jews;  and 
 the  explanation  of  both  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
 that  there  were  two  .Sipparas,  one  on  either  side 
 of  the  river.  Berosus  called  Sippara,  "  a  city  of 
 the  sun"  {'HXiou  iroAiu);  and  in  the  inscriptions 
 it  bears  the  same  title,  being  called  Tsipar  ska 
 Shnmns,  or  "  Sippara  of  the  sun  "  —  the  sun  being 
 the  chief  object  of  worship  there.  Hence  the  Se- 
 pharvites  are  said,  in  2  K.  xvii.  31,  to  ha\e  "burnt 
 their  children  in  the  fire  to  Adrammelech  and 
 Anamnielech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim" — these 
 two  distinct  deities  representing  respecti\ely  the 
 male  and  female  powers  of  the  sun,  as  Luims  and 
 Luna  represented  the  male  and  female  powers  of 
 the  moon  among  the  Romans.  G.  Ii. 
 
 *  SE'PHARVITES  (D'^I'ISP:  2e7r4)ap- 
 ovdifn'i  Vat.  ^i(p(papovv;  Alex.  'S,i<p(pa.povaifj.' 
 hi  qui  erant  de  Sepharvaim),  2  K.  xvii.  31.  The 
 people  of  Sepharvaim.  H. 
 
 SEPHE'LA  if,  26^7j\(i:  Sephela).  The 
 Greek    form    of   the   ancient    word    has-SheJeldh 
 
 (ri^ptJ7n),  the  native  name  for  the  southern  di- 
 vision of  the  low-lying  flat  district  which  intervenes 
 between  the  central  highlands  of  the  Holy  Land 
 and  the  Mediterranean,  the  other  and  northern  por- 
 tion of  which  was  known  as  Sharon.  The  name 
 occurs  throughout  the  topographical  records  of 
 Joshua,  the  historical  works,  and  the  topographical 
 passages  in  the  Prophets;  always  with  the  article 
 prefi,xed,  and  always  denoting  the  same  region  * 
 (Deut.  i.  7;  Josh.  ix.  1,  x.  40,  xi.  2,  16  a,  xii.  8, 
 XV.  33;  Judg.  i.  9;  1  K.  x.  27;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  28; 
 2  Chr.  i.  15,  ix.  27,  xxvi.  10,  xxviii.  18;  Jer.  xvii. 
 26,  xxxii.  44,  xxxiii.  13;  Obad.  19;  Zech.  vii.  7). 
 In   each  of  these  passages,  however,  the  word  is 
 
 b  So  absolute  is  this  usage,  that  on  the  single  occa 
 siou  where  it  is  used  without  the  article  (.Tosh.  xi.  166. 
 it  evidently  does  not  denote  the  region  referred  tc 
 above,  but  the  plains  surrounding  the  mountains  of 
 Ephraim. 
 
2912 
 
 oi<:PHELA 
 
 treated  in  the  A.  V.  not  as  a  proper  name,  analo- 
 gous to  the  Campagna,  the  IVoli/s,  the  Carse,  but 
 as  a  mere  appellative,  and  rendered  "  the  vale,'' 
 'the  valley,"  "the  plain,"  "the  low  plains," 
 and  "the  low  country."  How  destructive  this  is 
 to  the  force  of  the  narrative  may  be  realized  by  im- 
 agining what  confusion  would  be  caused  in  the 
 translation  of  an  Pjiglish  historical  work  into  a 
 foreign  tongue,  if  such  a  name  as  "  The  Downs  " 
 were  rendered  by  some  general  term  applicable  to 
 any  other  district  in  the  country  of  similar  forma- 
 tion. Fortunately  the  book  of  jMaccabees  has  re- 
 deemed our  Version  from  the  charge  of  having 
 entirely  suppressed  this  interesting  name.  In 
 1  Jlacc.  xii.  38  the  name  Sephela  is  found,  though 
 even  here  stripped  of  the  article,  which  was  at- 
 tached to  it  in  Hebrew,  and  still  accompanies 
 it  in  the  Greek  of  the  passage. 
 
 Whether  the  name  is  given  in  the  Hebrew 
 Scriptui'es  in  the  shape  in  which  the  Israelites  en- 
 countered it  on  entering  the  country,  or  modified 
 so  as  to  conform  it  to  the  Hebrew  root  shaj'al,  and 
 thus  (according  to  the  constant  tendency  of  lan- 
 guage) bring  it  to  a  form  intelligent  to  Hebrews  — 
 we  shall  probably  never  know.  The  root  to  which 
 it  is  related  is  in  common  use  both  in  Hebrew  and 
 Arabic.  In  the  latter  it  has  originated  more  than 
 one  proper  name  —  as  Mespila,  now  known  as 
 Koyunji/c;  el-Mtsfile,  one  of  the  quarters  of  the 
 city  of  Mecca  (Burckhardt,  Ambin,  i.  20.3,  204) ;  and 
 Seville,  originally  Ui-spalis,  probably  so  called  from 
 its  \vide  plain  (Arias  Montano,  in  Ford,  Handbook 
 of  Spain). 
 
 The  name  Shefeluh  is  retained  in  the  old  ver- 
 sions, even  those  of  the  Samaritans,  and  Rabbi 
 Joseph  on  Chronicles  (probably  as  late  as  the  11th 
 century  A.  D.).  It  was  actually  in  use  down  to 
 the  5th  century.  Eusebius,  and  after  him  Jerome, 
 {Ooom.  "Sephela,"  and  Comm.  on  Obad.), 
 distinctly  state  that  "  the  region  round  ^leuthe- 
 ropolis  on  the  north  and  west  was  so  called." « 
 And  a  careful  investigation  might  not  improbably 
 discover  the  name  still  lingering  about  its  ancient 
 home  even  at  the  present  day. 
 
 No  definite  limits  are  mentioned  to  the  Shefdah 
 nor  is  it  probable  that  there  were  any.  In  the  list 
 of  Joshua  (xv.  .33-47)  it  contains  43  "cities"  as 
 well  as  the  hamlets  and  temporary  villages  depend 
 ent  upon  them.  Of  these,  as  far  as  our  knowl- 
 edge avails  us,  the  most  northern  was  Ekron,  the 
 most  southern  Gaza,  and  the  most  western  Nezib 
 (about  7  miles  N.  N.  W.  of  Hebron).  A  large 
 number  of  these  towns,  however,  were  situated  not 
 in  the  plain,  nor  even  on  the  western  slopes  of  the 
 central  mountains,  but  in  the  mountains  themselves. 
 [Jahmuth;  Keilah;  Nezib,  etc.]  This  seems 
 to  show,  either  that  on  the  anci<?nt  principle  of 
 dividing  territory  one  district  might  intrude  into 
 the  limits  of  another,  or,  which  is  more  probable, 
 that,  as  already  suggested,  the  name  Sl/efelah  did 
 not  originally  mean  a  lowland,  as  it  came  to  do  in 
 its  accommodated  Hebrew  form. 
 
 The  SheJ'elah  was,  and  is,  one  of  the  most  pro- 
 ductive regions  in  tlie  Holy  Land.  Sloping  as  it 
 does  gently  to  the  sea,  it  receives  every  year  a  fresh 
 dressing  from  the  materials  washed  down  from  the 
 mountains  behind  it  by  the  furious  rains  of  winter. 
 This  natural  manure,  aided  by  the  great  heat  of 
 its  climate,  is  sufficient  to  enable  it  to  reward   the 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 rude  husbandry  of  its  inhabitants  year  after  year 
 with  crops  of  corn  which  are  described  by  the  trav- 
 ellers as  prodigious. 
 
 Thus  it  was  in  ancient  times  the  corn-field  of 
 Syria,  and  as  such  the  constant  subject  of  warfare 
 between  Philistines  and  Israelites,  and  the  refuge 
 of  the  latter  when  the  harvests  in  the  central  coim  - 
 try  were  ruined  by  drou2;ht  (2  K.  viii.  1-3).  But 
 it  was  also,  from  its  evenness,  and  from  its  situa- 
 tion on  the  road  between  Egypt  and  Assyria,  ex- 
 posed to  continual  visits  from  foreign  armies,  visits 
 which  at  last  led  to  the  destruction  of  the  Israel- 
 ite kingdom.  In  the  earlier  history  of  the  country 
 the  Israelites  do  not  appear  to  have  ventured  into 
 the  Sliefelnh,  but  to  have  awaited  the  approach  of 
 their  enemies  from  thence.  Under  the  Maccabees, 
 however,  their  tactics  were  changed,  and  it  became 
 the  field  where  some  of  the  most  hardly  contested 
 and  successful  of  their  battles  were  fought. 
 
 These  conditions  have  hardly  altered  in  modern 
 times.  Any  invasion  of  Palestine  must  take  place 
 through  the  maritime  plain,  the  natural  and  only 
 road  to  the  highlands.  It  did  so  in  Napoleon's 
 case,  as  has  already  been  noticed  imder  Palestine 
 [iii.  2291  rt].  The  Shefeluh  is  still  one  vast  corn- 
 field, but  the  contests  which  take  place  on  it  are 
 now  reduced  to  those  between  the  oppressed  peas- 
 ants and  the  insolent  and  rapacious  officials  of  the 
 Turkish  government,  who  are  gradually  putting 
 a  stop  by  their  extortions  to  all  the  industry  of 
 this  district,  and  driving  active  and  willing  hands 
 to  better  governed  regions.  [See  Judah,  vol.  ii. 
 p.  1490;  Palestine,\o1.  iii.  pp.  2290  f.,  2190  f.; 
 Plains,  2547.]  G. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT.  The  Greek  version  of  the 
 Old  Testament  known  by  this  name,  is  like  the 
 Nile,  foniium  qui  celat  vriyines.  The  causes 
 which  produced  it,  the  number  and  names  of  the 
 translators,  the  times  at  which  different  portions 
 were  translated,  are  all  uncertain. 
 
 It  will  therefore  be  best  to  launch  our  skiff  on 
 known  waters,  and  try  to  track  the  stream  upwards 
 towards  its  source. 
 
 This  Version  appears  at  the  present  day  in  four 
 principal  editions. 
 
 1.  Biblia  Polyglotta  Complutensis,  A.  d.  1514- 
 1517.  [The  publication  of  the  work  was  not  au- 
 thorized till  1520,  and  it  did  not  get  hito  general 
 circulation  before  1522.  —  A.] 
 
 2.  The  Aldine  Edition,  Venice,  A.  D.  1518. 
 
 3.  The  Koman  Edition,  edited  under  Pope 
 Sixtus  v.,  A.  D.  1587.  [Some  copies  have  the 
 date  1580.  These  want  the  "  Corrigenda  in  Nota- 
 tionibus  Psalterii,"  etc.,  and  the  Priviki/ium  of 
 Sixtus  v.,  dated  May  9,  1587.  The  copies  of  this 
 later  issue  have  the  date  1586  changed  to  1587 
 with  a  pen.  Before  the  work  was  published  it 
 was  carefully  revised,  and  many  MS-  corrections 
 were  made  in  all  the  copies.  —  A.] 
 
 4.  Fac-simile  lilition  of  the  Codex  Alexandri- 
 nus,  by  H.  H.  Baber,  A.  d.  1816   [-1828]. 
 
 1,  2.  The  texts  of  (1)  and  (2)  were  probably 
 formed  by  collation  of  several  JISS. 
 
 3.  The  Koman  edition  (3)  is  printed  from  the 
 venerable  Codtx  Vaiicanus,  but  not  without  many 
 errors.  The  text  has  been  followed  in  most  of  the 
 modern  editions. 
 
 A  transcript  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  prepared 
 by  Cardinal  Mai,  was  lately  published  at  Rome,  by 
 
 «  In  his  comment  on  Obadiah,  St.  Jerome  appears    the  same  time  to  extend  Sharon  so  far  south  as  to  in- 
 to extend  it  to  Lydda  and  Emmaus-Nicopolis  ;  and  at   elude  the  Philistine  cities. 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Vercellone.  [Published  in  1857,  in  5  vols,  fol., 
 including  the  N.  T.]  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
 this  edition  is  not  so  accurate  as  to  preclude  the 
 necessity  of  consulting  the  MS.  The  text  of  the 
 Codex,  and  the  parts  added  by  a  later  hand,  to  com- 
 plete the  Codex  (among  them  nearly  all  Genesis), 
 are  printed  in  the  same  Greek  type,  with  distin- 
 guishing notes.     [See  addition  below.] 
 
 4.  The  Fac-siniile  Edition,  by  Mr.  Baber,  is 
 printed  with  types  made  after  the  form  of  the  let- 
 ters in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  (Brit.  jMuseuni 
 Library)  for  the  Fac-siraile  Edition  of  the  New 
 Testament,  by  \7oide.  in  1786.  Great  care  was 
 bestowed  on  the  sheets  as  they  passed  through  the 
 press. 
 
 *  Some  further  account  of  the  first  three  edi- 
 tions here  mentioned  seems  desirable.  The  Com- 
 plutensian  text  has  been  supposed  by  many  critics 
 (e.  (/.  Walton)  to  have  been  arbitrarily  formed  by 
 the  editors,  partly  from  the  Septuagint  and  partly 
 from  the  other  Greek  versions  and  even  the  Greek 
 commentators,  in  order  to  make  it  more  conforma- 
 ble to  the  Hebrew  or  the  Vulgate.  The  fact,  how- 
 ever, is  now  well  established,  that  it  represents  a  cer- 
 tain class  of  manuscripts,  agreeing  particularly  with 
 those  numbered  by  Holmes  and  Parsons  19,  61,  72 
 (in  part),  93,  108,  119,  and  248.  Of  these  we 
 know  that  Nos.  108  and  248  were  borrowed  from 
 the  Vatican  Library  for  the  use  of  the  editor.^. 
 (See  Vercellone's  Preface  to  Cardinal  Mai's  Vit. 
 et  Nov.  Test,  e  Cod.  rat,  Horn.  1857,  vol.  i.  p.  v.) 
 '  The  Comphitensian  text  was  reprinted  in  the  Ant- 
 vperp  Polyglott  (1569-72),  that  of  Vatable  or  rather 
 C.  B.  Bertram  {ex  ojfficiivi  SancUindrenna  [Heidel- 
 berg], 1586  or  1587;  ex  off.  Cominelinianit  [ibid.], 
 1599,  1616),  Wolder's  (Hamb.  1590),  and  the  Paris 
 Polyglott  (1628-45).  It  does  not  contain  the 
 first  (  Vuly.  third)  book  of  Esdras. 
 
 In  the  dedication  of  the  Aldine  edition  the  text 
 is  said  to  have  been  formed  from  the  collation  of 
 many  very  ancient  manuscripts,  "  multis  vetustissi- 
 mis  exemplaribus  collatis;"  but  such  expressions 
 must  be  taken  with  large  allowance.  Its  text  in 
 the  Pentateuch  accords  with  the  MS.  numbered  by 
 Holmes  29,  of  the  10th  or  11th  century,  belonging 
 to  the  Library  of  St.  JIark  in  Venice,  with  which 
 the  other  Venice  MSS.  numbered  by  Holmes  68, 
 120,  121,  122  agree,  being  all  apparently  tran- 
 scripts of  the  same  original.  Copies  of  this  edition, 
 the  first  of  the  whole  Bible  in  Greek,  are  now  ex- 
 ceedingly rare.  There  is  one,  however,  in  the  Li- 
 brary of  Harvard  College,  deposited  by  the  late 
 George  Livermore  of  Cambridge.  '  The  variations 
 of  the  Aldine  text  from  that  of  the  Roman  edition 
 are  given,  though  very  imperfectly,  in  Walton's 
 Polyglott,  from  which  they  have  been  copied  by 
 Bos  in  his  edition  of  the  Septuagint.  As  we  have 
 had  frequent  occasion  to  observe  in  this  Dlctionnry, 
 the  forms  of  the  proper  names  in  the  common 
 English  version  of  the  Apocrypha  generally  agree 
 with  this  edition,  where  it  differs  from  the  Konian 
 text.  Among  the  editions  of  the  whole  Bible  in 
 Greek  derived  mainly  from  the  Aldine,  may  be 
 mentioned  those  printed  Argentorati,  ap.  Wolph. 
 Cephaheum,  1526  (some  copies  dated  1529 ) ; 
 Basilese,  pei-  J.  [lerv/ujium,  1545;  ibid.,  }ier  N. 
 Brylliii/eruni,  1550;  and  Francof.,  ap.  A.  Wecheli 
 heredes,  1597.  The  variations  of  the  last  from 
 the  Aldine  text  are  considerable. 
 
 The  Koman  edition  of  the  Septuagint  has  been 
 generally  supposed  to  represent  the  text  of  the 
 famous  Vatican   MS.  No.  1209,  and  its  readings 
 
 SEPTUAGINT  2913 
 
 are  continually  quoted  in  the  English  edition  of 
 this  Dictioniiry  as  those  of  that  MS.  But  this  is 
 a  grave  error.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  in  the  forms 
 of  proper  names  alone  it  differs  from  the  Vatican 
 MS.  in  more  than  1,000  places.  The  Vat.  MS. 
 was  indeed  used  as  the  basis  of  the  Roman  edition, 
 and  was  understood  by  the  editors  to  be  of  the 
 highest  value;  but  many  other  ancient  MSS.  were 
 collated  for  it,  particularly  one  belonging  to  Cardi- 
 nal Bessarion,  an  uncial  of  the  8th  or  9th  century, 
 numbered  23  in  the  edition  of  Holmes  and  Par- 
 sons, another  in  the  possession  of  Cardinal  Carafa, 
 and  several  from  the  Medicean  Library  at  Florence. 
 I'he  language  of  the  Preface  to  the  Roman  edition 
 (written  by  P.  Morinus)  might  indeed  lead  the 
 reader  to  suppose  the  text  of  tlie  Vat.  MS.  to  have 
 been  more  closely  followed  than  it  really  was, 
 though  he  admits  that  the  editors  ha\e  changed 
 the  old  orthography,  and  have  corrected  evident 
 mistakes  of  the  copyist.  The  Preface  of  Cardinal 
 Carafa  to  the  Latin  translation  pulilished  the  next 
 year  (1588)  as  a  complement  to  the  edition  gives  a 
 more  correct  account  of  the  matter.  (See  on  this 
 subject  Vercellone"s  Preface  to  Card.  Mai's  edition 
 of  the  Vat.  MS.,  vol.  i.  p.  vi.,  note,  and  comp. 
 Tischendorf 's  Prolegom.  to  his  4th  ed.  of  the  Sept., 
 p.  Ixxxix.)  It  should  further  be  oKserved  that  the 
 Vat.  MS.  wants  the  larger  [jart  of  the  book  of 
 Genesis  (it  commences  with  the  word  Tr6\iv,  Gen. 
 xlvi.  28),  Ps.  cv.  27-cxxxviii.  0,  and  the  books  of 
 Jlaccaliees.  Tlie  poetical  and  prophetical  books  of 
 the  0.  T.  (with  the  exception  of  Job),  and  the 
 apocryphal  books  of  Baruch,  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesi- 
 asticus,  were  not  collated  for  the  edition  of  Holmes 
 and  Parsons.  The  edition  of  Cardinal  JMai  men- 
 tioned above  is  unsatisfactory  (comp.  Tischendorf, 
 ut  supra,  p.  Ixxxix.  ff.),  though  we  may  generally 
 place  confidence  in  its  readings  where  its  text  dif- 
 fers from  that  of  the  Roman  edition.  It  will  be 
 wholly  superseded  by  the  magnificent  edition  now 
 publishing  at  Rome  under  the  direction  of  Vercel- 
 lone, Cozza,  and  Sergio,  to  be  completed  in  six  vols., 
 of  which  two  at  least  (one  containing  the  N.  T.) 
 have  already  (Feb.  1870)  appeared.  Comp.  the 
 art.  New  Testament,  vol.  iii.  p.  2121  a.       A. 
 
 Other  Editions. 
 
 The  Septuagint  in  Walton's  Polyglott  (1657)  is 
 the  Roman  text,  with  the  various  readings  of  the 
 Codex  Alexandrinus. 
 
 *  The  readings  of  other  JMSS.  and  of  the  Com- 
 plutensian  and  Aldine  editions  are  also  given,  and 
 Walton  reprints  (vol.  vi.)  the  valuable  critical  notes 
 to  the  Roman  edition,  and  to  the  Latin  transla- 
 tion by  Flaminius  Nobilius  which  accompanied  it. 
 The  text  of  the  Roman  edition  is  not  very  faith- 
 fully reproduced;  see  the  Prolegomena  to  Bos's 
 edition  of  the  Septuagint  (1709).  A. 
 
 The  Cambridge  edition  (1665),  (Roman  text,)  is 
 only  valuable  for  the  Preface  by  Pearson. 
 
 An  edition  of  the  Cod.  Alex,  was  puldished  by 
 Grabe  (Oxford,  1707-1720),  but  its  critical  value 
 is  far  below  that  of  Baber's.  It  is  printed  in  com- 
 mon type,  and  the  editor  has  exercised  his  judg- 
 ment on  the  text,  putting  some  words  of  the  Codex 
 in  the  margin,  and  replacing  them  by  what  he 
 thought  better  readings,  distinguished  by  a  smaller 
 type.  This  edition  was  reproduced  by  Brdtinger 
 (Ziirich,  1730  [-32] ),  4  vols.  4to,  with  the  various 
 readings  of  the  Vatican  text  [the  Roman  edition]. 
 
 The  edition  of  Bos  (Franeq.  1709)  follows  the 
 Roman  text,  with  its  Scholia  and  the  various  read- 
 
2914 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 ings  given  in  Walton's  Polyglott,  especially  those 
 of  the  Cod.  Alex. 
 
 The  valuable  Critical  Edition  of  Holmes,  con- 
 tinued by  Parsons,  is  similar  in  plan  to  the  He- 
 brew Bible  of  Kennicott;  it  has  the  Koman  text, 
 with  a  large  body  of  various  readings  from  numer- 
 ous MSS.  and  editions,  Oxford,  1798-1827  [in  5 
 vols.,  fol.]. 
 
 *  For  a  full  list  of  the  MSS.  used,  see  the  end 
 of  vol.  V. ;  they  are  described  in  the  introductions 
 to  the  different  books.  The  uncials  are  numbered 
 I.  to  XIII.,  IX.  also  being  numbered  by  mistake 
 2;J4,  and  XIII.,  l.Ji.  Nos.  IV.  and  V.  are  really 
 only  parts  of  the  same  MS.  To  these  are  to  be 
 added  Nos.  23,  27,  43,  258,  and  26:2,  making  17 
 uncials  in  all.  The  whole  number  of  cursives,  after 
 making  allowance  for  these  which  are  designated 
 by  two  different  numbers,  appears  to  be  285;  but 
 several  of  these  are  either  mere  transcripts  of  others 
 on  the  list,  or  copied  from  the  same  archetype. 
 Very  few,  if  any,  of  these  MSS.  contain  the  whole 
 of  the  Septuagint.  A. 
 
 The  Oxford  Edition,  by  Galnford,  1848,  has  the 
 Roman  text,  with  the  various  readings  of  the  Codex 
 Alexandrinus  below. 
 
 Tischendorf's  Editions  (the  2d,  1856,  [3d,  1860, 
 4th,  1869,])  are  on  the  same  plan;  he  has  added 
 readings  from  some  other  MSS.  discovered  by  him- 
 self, with  very  useful  Prolegomena. 
 
 *  Besides  the  readings  of  the  Cod.  Alex.,  he 
 has  given  those  of  the  Codex  Friderico-Auyus- 
 innus,  and  of  the  Ephrem  MS.  (See  note  b  be- 
 low.) The  2d  and  subsequent  editions  contain  the 
 Septuagint  version  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  addition 
 to  that  of  Theodotion.  The  first  edition  (1850) 
 having  been  stereotyped,  the  important  materials 
 
 a  There  are  some  singular  variations  in  1  Kings 
 (see  the  article  on  Kdjgs,  vol.  ii.  p.  1-549  f.). 
 
 b  An  uncial  MS.,  brought  by  Tischendorf  from  St. 
 Catherine's  Monastery,  and  named  Codex  Sinaiticus,  is 
 supposed  by  him  to  be  as  ancientas  Cod.  Vatican  us  (II.). 
 
 *  This  important  manu.script  was  published  by 
 Tischendorf  at  St.  Petersburg  in  1862  in  4  vols,  folio, 
 the  last  containing  the  N.  T.  (For  a  description  of 
 the  edition,  see  art.  New  Testament,  iii.  2120  i.)  Of 
 the  Old  Testament,  it  contains  1  Chr.  ix.  27-xi.  22; 
 Tobit  ii.  2  to  the  end  ;  Judith,  except  xi.  14-xiii.  8  ; 
 1st  and  4th  Mace. ;  Isaiah  ;  Jer.  i.  1-x.  25  ;  the  Minor 
 Prophets  from  Joel  to  Malachi  inclusive  (wanting 
 Hosea,  Amos,  Micah);  and  all  the  remaining  poetical 
 books  (Ps-ilms,  Prov.,  Eccles.,  Cant.,  Wisdom  of  Sol., 
 Ecclus.,  Job).  The  Co/iex  Friilerico-Au^ustanus,  dis- 
 covered by  Tischendorf  in  1844,  and  published  in  fac- 
 simile at  Leipzig  In  1846,  consists  of  43  leaves  of  the 
 same  manuscript,  containing  I  Chr.  xi.  22-xix.  17  ; 
 Ezr.  ix.  9  to  the  end  ;  Neh. ;  Esther  ;  Tobit  i.  1-ii.  2  ; 
 Jer.  X.  25  to  the  end  ;  Lam  i.  1-ii.  20.  A  few  more 
 fragments,  most  of  which  had  been  used  by  the  monks 
 of  St.  Catherine  for  binding  MSS.,  contain  small  por- 
 tions of  Gen.  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  and  Num.  v.,  vi.,  vii.,  and 
 wei'e  published  by  Tischendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sarr.  ined. 
 JS'ov.  Coll.  vol.  ii.  p.  821  (1857),  and  Appendix  Codd. 
 Sin.  Vat  Alex.  pp.  3-6  (1867).  The  books  of  Tobit 
 and  Judith  in  the  Sinaitic  MS.  present  a  recension  of 
 the  text  differing  very  widely  from  that  in  the  Codex 
 Vaticanus. 
 
 Respecting  the  uncial  MSS.  mentioned  in  the  text 
 above,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  fragments  of  the 
 Codex  Cottoniantis  (I.),  containing  part  of  Genesis, 
 have  been  published  by  Tischendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sacr. 
 ined.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  ii.  pp.  95-176  (1857).  The  new 
 edition  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus  (II.)  by  Vercellone  and 
 others  has  already  been  referred  to.  The  Codex  Am- 
 brosianus  (VII.),  containing  portions  of  the  Pent,  and 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 gathered  by  Tischendorf  since  its  publication  have 
 not  been  used  (except  to  a  small  extent  in  his 
 4th  edition)  in  the  apparatus  of  various  readings 
 which  accompanies  the  text.  For  a  translation  of 
 the  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's  first  edition,  by 
 Mr.  Charles  Shovt,  see  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct. 
 1852  and  Jan.  1853.  A. 
 
 Some  convenient  editions  have  been  published 
 by  Mr.  Bagster,  one  in  8vo,  and  others  of  smaller 
 size  forming  part  of  his  Polyglott  series  of  Bibles. 
 His  text  is  the  Roman. 
 
 The  latest  edition,  by  Mr.  Field  (1859)  difTers 
 from  any  of  the  preceding.  He  takes  as  his  basis 
 the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  but  corrects  all  the  mani- 
 fest errors  of  transcription,  by  the  help  of  other 
 MSS. ;  and  brings  the  dislocated  portions  of  the 
 Septuagint  into  agreement  with  the  order  of  the 
 Hebrew  Bible." 
 
 3fanusc)-7jyis. 
 The    various    readings    given    by    Holmes    and 
 Parsons,  enal)le  us  to  judge,  in  some  measure,  of 
 the  character  of  the  several  MSS.  and  of  the  degree 
 of  their  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  text. 
 
 They  are  distinguished  thus  by  Holmes:  the 
 uncial  by  Roman  nimierals  [see  the  exceptions 
 above],  the  cursive  by  Arabic  figures. 
 
 Among  them  may  be  specially  noted,  with  their 
 probable  dates  and  estimates  of  value  as  given  by 
 Holmes  in  his  Preface  to  the  Pentateuch :  — 
 
 --  .  Probable 
 
 UnCIAL.0  diite. 
 
 Century. ' 
 I.  CoTTONi.\NUS.     Brit.  Mus.  (fragments)     .       4 
 II.   V.\Tic.\NUS.     Vat.  Library,  Rome  ...       4 
 
 III.  Alexandrinus.     Brit.  Mus 5 
 
 VII.  Ambkosiakus.     Ambros.  Lib.,  Milan  .     .       7 
 X.  CoiSLiNiANUS.     Bibl.  Imp.,  Paris   ...       7 
 
 Joshua,  is  in  course  of  publication  by  Ceriani  in  vol. 
 iii.  of  his  Momimenta  sacra  et  profana  ex  Codicibus 
 prer.sertim  Biblioth.  Ambrosinvo',  Milan,  1864  ff.  Tisch- 
 endorf assigns  it  to  the  5th  century  instead  of  the 
 7th ;  and  he  (with  Montfaucou)  regards  the  Codex 
 Coislinianus  (X.)  as  probably  belonging  to  the  6th 
 century.     The  latter  MS.  has  the  Hexaplar  text. 
 
 The  fragments  of  the  0.  T.  contained  in  the  Ephrem 
 manuscript,  a  palimpsest  of  the  5th  century  belonging 
 to  the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris,  —  namely,  parts  of 
 Job,  Proverbs,  Eeclesiastes,  Canticles,  the  Wisdom  of 
 Solomon,  and  Ecclesiasticus,  —  were  published  by  Tisch 
 endorf  in  1845.  On  his  edition  of  the  N.  T.  portion 
 of  tlie  same  MS.  (designated  by  the  letter  C),  see  the 
 art.  New  Testament,  vol.  iii.  p.  2121. 
 
 Among  the  uncial  MSS.  collated  for  the  edition  of 
 Holmes  and  Parsons,  we  may  mention  further  the 
 Codex  Sarravianus  (numbered  by  Holmes  IV.  and  V.), 
 of  which  130  leaves  are  preserved  at  Ley  den,  £2  at 
 Paris,  and  1  at  St.  Petersburg.  It  has  been  published 
 in  part  by  Teschendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sacr.  ined.  Nova 
 Coll.  vol.  iii.  (1860),  —  the  22  Paris  leaves  are  reserved 
 for  vol.  viii.,  —  and  is  referred  by  him  to  the  4th  cen- 
 tury or  the  beginning  of  the  5th.  This  MS.  is  of 
 great  importance  for  the  Hexaplar  text  of  Origen.  It 
 contains  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  and  Judges. 
 The  Codex  Marclialianus  (XII.  Holmes)  of  the  7th  cen- 
 turj  ,  now  in  the  Vatican  Library,  is.  also  an  important 
 Hexaplar  MS.,  containing  the  Prophets.  The  part 
 containing  Daniel  has  been  published  by  Tischendorf 
 in  vol.  iv.  of  his  Moniim.  (1869).  Another  uncial 
 codex  of  the  8th  or  9th  century  which  has  the  Hex- 
 aplar text  is  Holmes's  No.  23,  belonging  to  the  Library 
 of  St.  Mark  in  Venice,  containing  Proverbs  and  all  the 
 following  books  of  the  0.  T.,  with  part  of  the  book  of 
 Job.  Next  to  the  Vatican,  this  seems  to  have  been 
 the  most  important  MS.  used  for  the  Roman  edition 
 of  the  Sept.  (1587).     See  above,  p.  2913  6.    No.  262  in 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Cursive. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2915 
 
 Probable 
 
 date. 
 Century. 
 
 59. 
 
 61. 
 
 64. 
 
 72. 
 
 75. 
 
 84. 
 106. 
 107. 
 108. 
 118. 
 
 11 
 
 Mediceus.     Med.  Laureatian  Lib.,  Flor- 
 ence   
 
 Chigiauus.     Similar  to  Complut.   Text 
 
 and  108.  118 10 
 
 Moaachiensis.     Munich 10 
 
 Vaticauus  (num.  x.).     Vat.  Lib.,  similar 
 
 to  72 13 
 
 Glasguensis 12 
 
 Bodleianus.     Laud.  36,  notae  optimae         12 
 Parisiensis  (11).     Imperial  Library   .      10  or  11 
 Venetus.     Maximi  facieudus  ....     13 
 
 O.xoniensis.     Univ.  Coll 12 
 
 .  11 
 I  14 
 I  14 
 
 Vaticanus  (330)  I  Similar  to  Comp.  (  14 
 
 Parisiensis.  Imp.  Lib.  )      Text  and  (19)    (  13 
 
 Vaticanus  (1901),  optimae  notae 
 \  Ferrarienses.     These  two  agree 
 
 The  texts  of  these  MSS.  differ  considerably  from 
 each  other,  and  consequently  differ  in  various  de- 
 grees from  the  Heljrew  original. 
 
 The  following  are  the  results  of  a  comparison 
 of  the  readings  in  the  first  eight  chapters  of  Ex- 
 odus :  — 
 
 1.  Several  of  the  MSS.  agree  well  with  the  He- 
 brew; others  differ  very  much. 
 
 2.  Tiie  chief  variance  from  the  Hebrew  is  in 
 the  addition,  or  omission,  of  words  and  clauses. 
 
 3.  Taking  the  Roman  text  as  the  basis,  there 
 are  found  80  places  (a)  where  some  of  the  MSS. 
 differ  from  the  Roman  text,  either  by  addition  or 
 omission,  in  agreement  xoilli  the  Hebrew;  2G  places 
 (;8)  where  differences  of  the  same  kind  are  iwt  in 
 acjreeiiient  with  the  flel/rew.  There  is  therefore  a 
 large  balance  against  the  Roman  text,  in  point  of 
 accordance  with  the  Hebrew. 
 
 4.  Those  MSS.  which  have  the  largest  number 
 of  differences  of  class  (a)  have  the  smallest  num- 
 ber of  class  (^).  There  is  evidently  some  strong 
 reason  for  this  close  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  in 
 these  MSS. 
 
 5.  The  divergence  between  the  extreme  points 
 of  the  series  of  MSS.  may  be  estimated  from  the 
 followinir  statement:  — 
 
 '2  differs  from  the  Roman  (  In  40  places,  with  Hebrew. 
 
 Text (  in    4       "       against    " 
 
 in  40      "       u'ith.         " 
 in    9       "       against    " 
 
 59  ditto 
 
 ditto 
 
 Between  these  and  the  Roman  text  lie  many 
 shades  of  variety. 
 
 The  Alexandrine  text  fiills  about  halfway  between 
 
 the  two  extremes :  — 
 
 .      „        „  .„     ^  (  in  25  places,  ivith  Hebrew. 
 
 D.efenngfromRomanText|  .^jg      „       „.«,„«« 
 
 The  diagram  below,  drawn  on  a  scale  represent- 
 ing the  comparison  thus  instituted  (by  the  test  of 
 agreement  with  the  Hebrew  in  respect  of  additions 
 or  omissions),  may  help  to  bring  these  results  more 
 clearly  into  view. 
 
 The  base-line  R.  T.  represents  the  Roman  text 
 
 Holmes  and  Parson.s"s  edition  also  represents  an  uncial 
 MS.,  being  the  celebrated  Ziirich  Psalter,  to  be  noticed 
 below. 
 
 For  an  account  of  21  other  very  ancient  MSS.  of  the 
 Sept.  not  used  by  Holmes,  see  TischendorPs  Prole- 
 gomena to  his  4th  edition,  p.  Ivii.  ff.  Many  of  these 
 have  been  published  by  Tischendorf  in  vols,  i.-iv.  and 
 vi.  of  his  Man.  Sacr.  ined.  Nova  Coll.  (1855-1869), 
 and  others  are  destiued  for  vol.  viii.  of  tlie  same  collec- 
 tion. The  most  remarlcable  of  them  are  the  (1)  Verona 
 MS.  of  the  Psalms,  of  the  5th  or  6th  century,  in 
 which  the  Ureek  text  is  written  in  Latin  letters,  with 
 the  Old  Latin  version  in  a  parallel  column.  This  was 
 published  by  Blanchinus  (Bianchinij  at  Rome  in  1740, 
 as  an  appendix  to  his  ViwiicicB  Canon.  Scn'pturarum. 
 (2  )  Fragments  of  the  Psalms  on  papi/rus,  in  the  Brit- 
 ish Museum,  ascribed  by  Tischendorf  to  the  4th  cen- 
 tury, and  formerly,  at  least,  regarded  by  him  as  the  old- 
 est known  Biblical  M.S.  They  are  published  in  his 
 Man.  Sacr.  infd.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  i.  pp.  217-278  (18.55). 
 (3.)  Palimpsest  fragments  of  the  book  of  Numbers  (now 
 at  St.  Petersburg),  of  the  6th  ceatury,  published  by 
 Tischendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sacr.  ined.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  i.  pp. 
 51-138  (1855).  (4.)  Codex  Tisr.hendorfimnm  II.  (Uip. 
 zig),  a  palimpsest,  containing  fragments  of  Num.,  Deut., 
 Josh.,  and  Judges,  of  the  7th  century.  Published 
 by  Tischendorf  in  the  vol.  just  mentioned,  pp.  141- 
 176.     (5.)  The  Codex   Oxoniensis  (Bodl.  Libr.)  of  the 
 
 I       I 
 
 I      1      I 
 
 3    < 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 i  1  I  1  I  I  g 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  1  I 
 
 a  ^ 
 
 >     3 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
 
 I       I       I       I       I       I 
 
 I       I       I 
 
 The  above  can  only  be  taken  as  an  approxima- 
 tion, the  range  of  comparison  being  limited.     A 
 
 8th  century,  discovered  by  Tischendorf  in  1853,  and 
 published  in  his  Mon.  Sacr.  ined.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  ii. 
 pp.  179-308  (1857).  It  contains  the  larger  part  of 
 Genesis.  (6  )  Codex  Cryptoferrntensis,  a  palimpse.st 
 of  the  7th  century,  containing  fragments  of  most  of 
 the  prophetical  books,  belonging  to  the  monastery  of 
 Grotta  Ferrata  near  Rome,  and  published  by  Giuseppe 
 Cozza  iu  his  Sacrorum  Bibliorum  vetustiss.  Fragmenta 
 Graica  et  Lntina  ex  pali/npseslis  Cndd.  BiUioth.  Cryp- 
 tofi-rrntenxis  eriita,  etc.,  Romae,  1867.  The  Zurich 
 Psiilter  (No.  262,  Holmes),  a  beautiful  MS.  in  silver 
 letters  with  the  titles  in  gold,  on  purple  vellum,  h.as 
 also  just  been  published  by  Ti.^ehendorf  in  his  i1/;rt. 
 Snrr.  ined.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  iv.  (1869). 
 
 For  further  information  respecting  the  MSS  of 
 the  Septuagint  one  may  consult,  in  addition  to  the 
 Priilegomena  of  Holmes  and  Parsons  and  Tischendorf, 
 F.  A.  Stroth's  Ver.'iur/i  einm  Verzeichniss  der  Hand- 
 schriften  der  LXX  ,  in  Eichhorn"s  Repertoriwn,  v. 
 94  ff.,  viii.  177  ff.,  xi.  45  ff.  (1779,  1780,  1782);  the 
 Preface  to  Lagarde's  Genesis  Graice,  Lips.  1868;  and 
 the  review  of  that  work  by  Kamphausen  in  tlie  Theol. 
 Siud.  n.  Krit.,  1869.  p.  721  ff.  Valuable  contributions 
 towards  a  classification  of  these  MSS.,  with  reference 
 to  the  character  of  their  text,  have  been  made  by  0. 
 F.  Fritzsche  in  the  works  referred  to  at  the  end  of  this 
 article.  A. 
 
2916 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 more  extended  comparison  might  enable  us  to 
 discriminate  tlie  several  MSS.  more  accurately,  but 
 the  result  would,  perhaps,  hardly  repay  the  labor. 
 
 But  whence  these  varieties  of  text?  Was  the 
 Version  at  first  more  in  accordance  with  the  He 
 brew,  as  in  72  and  59,  and  did  it  afterwards  de- 
 generate into  the  less  accurate  state  of  the  Codex 
 Vaticanus  ? 
 
 Or  was  the  Version  at  first  less  accurate,  like  the 
 Vatican  text,  and  afterwards  brought,  by  critical 
 labors,  into  the  more  accurate  form  of  the  MSS. 
 which  stand  iiighest  in  the  scale? 
 
 History  supplies  the  answer. 
 
 Hieronynuis  {Ep-  ad  Suninm  el  Frelelam,  torn. 
 ii.  p.  G27)  speaks  of  two  copies,  one  older  and  less 
 accurate,  Koivr),  fragments  of  wliich  are  believed  to 
 be  represented  by  the  still  extant  remains  of  tlie 
 old  Latin  Version ;  the  other  more  faithful  to  the 
 Hebrew,  which  he  took  as  the  basis  of  his  own  new 
 Latin  Version. 
 
 "  In  quo  illud  breviter  admoneo,  ut  sciatis,  aliani 
 esse  editionem,  quam  Origenes,  et  Csesariensis  Eu- 
 sebius,  omnesque  Graeciae  tractatores  kolv^v,  id 
 est,  co/nnmnem,  appellant,  atque  vulgaUim,  et  a 
 plerisque  nunc  AovKtavhs  dicitur;  aliam  LXX.  in- 
 terpretum,  qu»  et  in  e^av\o7s  codicibus  reperitur, 
 et  a  nobis  in  Latinum  sernionem  fideliter  versa  est, 
 et  Hierosolyma;  atque  in  Orientis  Ecclesiis  decan- 
 tatur  ....  K0LV7]  autem  ista,  hoc  est,  com- 
 munis editio,  ipsa  est  qute  et  LXX.  sed  hoc  interest 
 inter  utramque,  quod  koivt)  pro  locis  et  temporibus, 
 et  pro  voluntate  scriptorum,  vetus  corrupta  editio 
 est;  ea  autem  qu«  habetur  in  k^a-KXois,  et  quam 
 nos  vertimus,  ipsa  est  qua;  in  eriuiitorum  libris  in- 
 corrupta  et  inimaculata  LXX.  interpretura  trans- 
 latio  reservatur.  Quicquid  ergo  ab  hoc  discrepat, 
 nuUi  dubium  est,  quin  ita  et  ab  Hebraeorum  auc- 
 toritate  discordet." 
 
 In  another  place  {Prcefat.  in  Paralip.  tom.  i. 
 col.  1022)  he  speaks  of  tlie  corruption  of  the  an- 
 cient translation,  and  the  great  variety  of  copies 
 used  in  different  countries :  — 
 
 "  Cum  germana  ilia  antiquaque  translatio  cor- 
 rupta sit."  ....  "  Alexandria  et  yEgyptus 
 in  LXX.  suis  Hesychium  laudant  auctorem:  Con- 
 stantinopolis  usque  Antiochiam  Luciani  Martyris 
 exemplaria  prohat  ;  mediae  inter  has  provincire 
 Pala;stinos  codices  legunt:  quos  ab  Oriyene  elab- 
 oratos  Eusebius  et  Paniphilus  vulgaverunt :  to- 
 tusque  orbis  hac  inter  se  contraria  varietate  com- 
 pugnat." 
 
 The  labors  of  Origen,  designed  to  remedy  the 
 conflict  of  discordant  copies,  are  best  described  in 
 his  own  words  (Comment,  in  Matt.  torn.  i.  p.  381, 
 ed.  Huet.). 
 
 "  Now  there  is  plainly  a  great  difference  in  the 
 copies,  either  from  the  carelessness  of  scribes,  or 
 the  rash  and  mischievous  correction  of  the  text  by 
 others,  or  from  tlio  additions  or  omissions  made  by 
 others  at  tlieir  own  discretion.  Tlie  discrepance 
 in  the  copies  of  tlie  Old  Covenant,  we  have  found 
 means  to  remedy,  by  the  help  of  God,  itshif/  as  our 
 crilerion  the  other  versions.  In  all  passages  of  the 
 LXX.  rendered  doubtful  by  the  discordance  of  the 
 copies,  formin/j  a  judrpnent  from  the  other  ver- 
 sions^ we  have  preserved  what  agreed  with  them ; 
 and  some  words  we  have  marked  witli  an  obelos  as 
 not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  not  venturing  to  omit 
 them  entirely ;  and  some  we  have  added  with  aster- 
 isks affixed,  to  show  that  they  are  not  found  in  the 
 LXX.,  but  added  liy  us  from  the  other  versions,  in 
 accordance  with  the  Hebrew." 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 The  other  tKSSaeis,  or  versions,  are  those  of 
 Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Synimaehus. 
 
 Origen,  Comm.  in  Joann.  (torn.  ii.  p.  131,  ed. 
 Huet.).  "  The  same  errors  in  names  may  be  ob- 
 served frequently  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  as 
 we  have  learnt  by  diligent  inquiry  of  the  Hebrews, 
 and  by  comparing  our  copies  with  their  copie.*,  aa 
 represented  in  the  still  uncorrupted  versions  of 
 Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symniachus." 
 
 It  appears,  from  these  and  other  passages,  that 
 Origen,  finding  great  discordance  in  the  several 
 copies  of  the  LXX.,  laid  this  version  side  by  side 
 with  the  other  three  translations,  and,  tahiny  their 
 accordance  trith  each  other  as  the  test  of  their 
 agreement  with  tlie  //ebreio,  marked  the  copy  of 
 the  LXX.  with  an  obelos,  -;-,  where  he  found  su- 
 perfluous words,  and  supplied  the  deficiencies  of  the 
 LXX.  by  words  taken  from  the  other  versions,  with 
 an  asterisk,  *,  jirefixed. 
 
 The  additions  to  the  LXX.  were  chiefly  made 
 from  Theodotion  (Hieronymus,  Prolog,  in  Genesin, 
 tom.  1). 
 
 "Quod  ut  audereni,  Origenis  me  stadium  pro- 
 vocavit,  qui  Editioni  antiquai  translationem  Theo- 
 dotionis  miscuit,  asterisco  *  et  obelo  -,-,  id  est, 
 Stella  et  veru,  opus  omne  distinguens:  dum  aut 
 illucescere  facit  quae  minus  ante  fuerant,  aut  super- 
 flua  qua?que  jugulat  et  confodit "  (see  also  Prief. 
 in  Jul,  p.  795). 
 
 From  Eusebius,  as  quoted  below,  we  learn  that 
 this  work  of  Origen  was  called  rerpaTrXa,  the  four- 
 fold Bible.  The  specimen  which  follows  is  given 
 by  Montfaucon. 
 
 Gen.  i.  1. 
 
 AKYAA2. 
 
 iv  K€<l>aKa.C<o 
 ©ebs  {Tvv  Tov 
 
 2YM- 
 MAX02. 
 
 €V  apxr) 
 
 0609    TOI/ 
 
 OiO. 
 
 ei'  apx!7 
 e7rot7)(T€r 
 6  @e'o'; 
 
 ovpavou  Kai     ovpavov  (cai      tov  ovpavov     ovpavov  xai 
 avv  rrji/  yrji'.    Tr)r  •yjji'.  (col  ttji'  yrjv.    iiqv  yiji'. 
 
 ©eoSoTUUK. 
 
 ©ebs  Tov 
 
 But  this  was  only  the  earlier  and  the  smaller 
 portion  of  Origen's  labors;  he  rested  not  till  he 
 had  acquired  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  and  com- 
 pared the  Septuagint  directly  witli  the  Hebrew 
 copies.  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  16,  p.  217,  ed. 
 Vales.)  thus  describes  tlie  labors  which  led  to  the 
 greater  work,  the  Uexapla ;  the  last  clause  of  the 
 passage  refers  to  the  Tetrajda:  — 
 
 "  So  careful  was  Origen's  investigation  of  the 
 sacred  oracles,  that  he  learnt  the  Hebrew  tongue, 
 and  made  himself  master  of  the  original  Scriptures 
 received  among  tlie  .Jews,  in  the  Hebrew  letters; 
 and  re\iewed  the  versions  of  the  other  interpreters 
 of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  besides  the  LXX. ;  and 
 discovered  some  translations  varying  from  the  well- 
 known  versions  of  .4quila,  Symniachus,  and  Theo- 
 dotion, which  he  searched  out,  and  brought  to  light 
 from  their  long  concealment  in  neglected  corners 
 and  in  his  Ilexapla,  after  the  four 
 principal  versions  of  the  Psalms,  added  a  fifth,  yea, 
 a  sixth  and  seventh  translation,  stating  that  one 
 of  these  was  found  in  a  cask  at  Jericho,  in  the  time 
 of  Antoninus,  son  of  Severus:  and  bringing  these 
 all  into  one  view,  and  dividing  them  in  columns, 
 over  against  one  another,  together  with  the  Hebrew 
 text,  he  left  to  us  the  work  called  liexapln ;  having 
 arranged  separately,  in  the  Tetrapla,  the  versions 
 of  Aquila,  Symniachus,  and  Theodotion,  together 
 with  the  version  of  the  Seventy." 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 So  Jerome  (in  Catal.  Script.  Eccl.  torn.  iv.  P.  2, 
 p.  116):  "Quis  igiiorat,  quod  taiitum  in  Scrii)- 
 turis  divinis  habuerit  studii,  ut  etiam  Hebrwam 
 linguam  contra  setatis  gentisque  suae  naturam 
 edisceret;  et  acceptis  LXX.  interpretibus,  alias 
 qiioque  editiones  in  unum  volumen  congregaret: 
 Aquiloe  scilicet  Pontici  proselyti,  et  Theodotionis 
 Ebiouijei,  et  Symmachi  ejusdem  dogniatis.  .  .  . 
 Prseterea  Quintam  et  Sextain  et  Septiniam  Edi- 
 tioneni,  quas  etiam  nos  de  ejus  Bibliotheca  hal)e- 
 mus,  luiro  labore  reperit,  et  cum  cajteris  editionibus 
 comparavit." 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2917 
 
 From  another  passage  of  Jerome  (in  A/j(s<.  nd 
 Tituni,  torn.  iv.  P.  1,  p.  437)  we  learn  that  in  the 
 Hexapla  the  Hebrew  text  was  placed  in  one  column 
 in  Hebrew  letters,  in  the  next  column  in  Greek 
 letters :  — 
 
 "  Unde  et  nobis  curoe  fuit  omnes  veteris  legis 
 libros,  quos  vir  doctus  Adamantius  (Origenes)  in 
 Hexapla  digesserat,  de  Coesariensi  Bibliotheca  de- 
 scriptos,  ex  ipsis  autheuticis  emendare,  in  quibus  et 
 ipsa  Hebrsea  propriis  sunt  characteribus  verba  de- 
 scripta,  et  Grsecis  Uteris  tramite  expressa  vicino." 
 
 Hexapla  (Hos. 
 
 xi.  1). 
 
 To  EBPAIKON. 
 
 To  EBP. 
 EAAHiNIKOIS  rP. 
 
 AKYAA2. 
 
 2YMMAX02. 
 
 Ol  O. 
 
 ©EOAOTION. 
 
 b^-\w^  n573  ^3 
 
 X'  "^P 
 
 l(rpar}\ 
 
 ovfajiriov 
 
 ovixifjuffpaifj. 
 
 Kapadi 
 
 Xf^avi. 
 
 OTI  irais 
 \(Tpar)\, 
 Kai  riyairriaa 
 
 aVTOV,    KUl 
 
 airo  AiyvTTTOv 
 
 iKa\i(Ta 
 TOV  VIOV  fXOV. 
 
 OTI  Trair 
 
 ItrpaTjA 
 
 Kai 
 
 TiyaTTTj/xevos 
 
 e|  AiyvTTTOv 
 
 K€K\riTai 
 
 VlOS  fJLOV. 
 
 OTI  vr}Trios 
 IcparjA  Kai 
 eycj  Tiyairriaa 
 avTov  Kai 
 
 £|  AiyvTTTOV 
 
 K€K\riTai 
 
 VlOi  fJLOV. 
 
 OTI  vriirtos 
 
 IcrpoTjA 
 
 Kai  riyawrjcra 
 
 avTov  Kai 
 
 eKa\t(Ta 
 
 viov  ixov 
 
 6|  AiyvitTov. 
 
 It  should  here  be  mentioned  that  some  take  the 
 Tetrapla  as  denoting,  not  a  separate  work,  but 
 only  that  portion  of  the  Hexapla  which  contains  the 
 four  columns  filled  by  the  fuur  principal  Greek  ver- 
 sions. Valesius  (Notes  on  /■Jusebius,  p.  100)  thinks 
 that  the  Tetrapla  was  formed  by  taking  those  four 
 colunnis  out  of  the  Hexapla,  and  making  them  into 
 a  separate  book. 
 
 But  the  testimony  of  Origen  himself  (i.  381, 
 ii.  131),  above  cited,  is  clear  that  he  formed  one 
 corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint,  by  comparison  of 
 the.  three  other  Greek  versions  (A,  2,  0),  usint/ 
 them  as  his  criterion.  If  he  had  known  Hebrew 
 at  this  time,  would  he  have  confined  himself  to  the 
 Greek  versions?  Would  he  have  appealed  to  the 
 Hebrew,  as  represented  by  Aquila,  etc.  ?  It  seems 
 very  evident  that  he  must  have  learnt  Hebrew  at  a 
 later  time,  and  therefore  that  the  Hexapla,  which 
 rests  on  a  comparison  with  the  Hebrew,  must  have 
 followed  the  Tetrapla,  nhieh  was  formed  by  the 
 help  of  Greek  versions  only. 
 
 The  words  of  Eusebius  also  {H.  E.  vi.  16)  ap- 
 pear to  distinguish  very  clearlj'  between  the  Hex- 
 apla and  Tetrapla  as  separate  works,  and  to  imply 
 that  the  Tetrapla  preceded  the  Hexapla. 
 
 The  order  of  precedence  is  not  a  mere  literary 
 question ;  the  view  above  stated,  which  is  supported 
 by  Alontfaucon,  Ussher,  etc.,  strengthens  the  force 
 of  Origen's  example  as  a  diligent  student  of  Scrip* 
 ture,  showing  his  increasing  desire  inteijros  acce- 
 dere  fontes. 
 
 The  labors  of  Origen,  pursued  through  a  long 
 course  of  years,  first  in  procuring  by  personal  travel 
 the  materials  for  his  great  work,  and  then  in  com- 
 paring and  arranging  them,  made  him  worthy  of 
 the  name  Adainanliiis. 
 
 But  what  was  the  result  of  all  this  toil  ?  Where 
 is  now  his  great  work,  the  Hexapla,  prepared  with 
 30  much  care,  and  written  by  so  many  skillful 
 nands?  Too  large  for  transcription,  too  early  by 
 centuries  for  printing  (which  alone  could  have  saved 
 it),  it  was  destined  to  a  short  existence.  It  was 
 brought  from  Tyre  and  laid  up  in  the  Library  at 
 Csesarea,  and  there  probably  perished  by  the  flames, 
 A.  D.  653. 
 
 One  copy,  however,  had  been  made,  by  Pam- 
 philus  and  Eusebius,  of  the  column  containing  the 
 corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint,  with  Origen's 
 asterisks  and  obeli,  and  the  letters  denoting  from 
 which  of  the  other  translators  each  addition  was 
 taken.  This  copy  is  probably  the  ancestor  of  those 
 Codices  which  now  approach  most  nearly  to  the 
 Hebrew,  and  are  entitled  Hexaplar ;  but  in  the 
 course  of  transcription  the  distinguishing  marks 
 have  disappeareil  or  become  confused ;  and  we  have 
 thus  a  text  composed  partly  of  the  old  Septuagint 
 text,  partly  of  insertions  from  the  three  other  chief 
 Greek  versions,  especially  that  of  Theodotion. 
 
 The  facts  above  related  agree  well  with  the  phe- 
 nomena of  the  JISS.  before  stated.  As  we  have 
 Codices  derived  from  the  Hexaplar  text,  e.  ff.  72, 
 59,  58;  and  at  the  other  extreme  the  Codex  Vati- 
 canus  (II.),  probably  representing  nearly  the  an- 
 cient uncorrected  text,  Koivii ;  so  between  these  we 
 find  texts  of  intermediate  character  in  the  Codex 
 Ale.\andrinus  (III.),  and  others,  which  may  per- 
 haps be  derived  from  the  text  of  the  Tetrapla. 
 
 To  these  main  sources  of  our  existing  MSS.  must 
 be  added  the  recensions  of  the  Septuagint  mentioned 
 by  Jerome  and  others,  namely,  those  of  Lucian  of 
 Antiooh  and  Hesychius  of  Egypt,  not  long  after  the 
 time  of  Origen.  We  ha\e  seen  above  that  each  of 
 these  had  a  wide  range;  that  of  Lucian  (supposed 
 to  be  corrected  by  the  Hebrew)  in  the  churches 
 from  Constantinople  to  Antioch ;  that  of  Hesychius 
 in  Alexandria  and  l^gypt;  while  the  churches  ly- 
 ing between  these  two  regions  used  the  Hexaplar 
 text  copied  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  (Hieron. 
 tom.  i.  col.  1022). 
 
 The  great  variety  of  text  in  the  existing  MSS.  is 
 thus  accounted  for  by  the  variety  of  sources  from 
 which  they  have  descended. 
 
 I.  History  of  the  "Vep.ssion. 
 
 We  have  now  to  pursue  our  course  upwards,  by 
 such  guidance  as  we  can  find.  The  ancient  text, 
 called  Kniv-f],  which  was  current  before  the  time  of 
 Origen,  whence  came  it? 
 
 We  find  it  quoted  by  the  early  Christian  Fathers, 
 in    Greek  by  Clemens   Ronianus,   Justin  Martyr 
 
2918 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Irenseus;  in  Latin  versions  by  TertuUian  and 
 Cyprian;  we  find  it  questioned  as  inaccurate  by 
 the  Jews  (Just.  Martyr,  ApoL),  and  provoking 
 them  to  obtain  a  better  version  (hence  the  versions 
 of  Aquila,  etc.);  we  find  it  quoted  by  Josephus 
 and  Fliilo:  and  thus  we  are  brought  to  the  time 
 of  the  Apostles  and  E\angelists,  whose  writings  are 
 full  of  citations  and  references,  and  imbued  with 
 the  phraseology  of  the  Septuagint. 
 
 But  when  we  attempt  to  trace  it  to  its  origin, 
 our  patii  is  beset  with  difficulties.  Before  we  enter 
 on  this  doubtful  ground  we  may  pause  awhile  to 
 mark  the  wide  circulation  which  the  Version  had 
 obtained  at  the  Christian  era,  and  the  important 
 services  it  rendered,  first,  in  preparing  the  way  of 
 Christ,  secondly,  in  promoting  the  spread  of  the 
 Gospel. 
 
 1.  This  version  was  highly  esteemed  l\y  the  Hel- 
 lenistic Jews  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  An  an- 
 nual festival  was  held  at  Alexandria  in  remem- 
 brance of  the  completion  of  the  work  (Philo,  I>e 
 
 Vita  Mosis,  lib.  ii.).  The  manner  in  which  it  is 
 quoted  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  proves 
 that  it  had  been  long  in  general  use.  Wherever, 
 by  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  or  by  colonization, 
 the  Greek  language  prevailed :  wherever  Jews  were 
 settled,  and  the  attention  of  the  neighboring  Gen- 
 tiles was  drawn  to  their  wondrous  history  and  law, 
 there  was  found  the  Septuagint,  which  thus  be- 
 came, by  Divine  Providence,  the  means  of  spread- 
 ing widely  the  knowledge  of  the  one  true  God,  and 
 his  promises  of  a  Saviour  to  come,  throughout  the 
 nations;  it  was  indeed  ostium  gentibus  iid  Chris- 
 tum. To  the  wide  dispersion  of  this  version  we 
 may  ascribe  in  great  measure  that  general  persua- 
 sion which  prevailed  over  the  whole  East  (percre- 
 buerat  orienie  tolo)  of  the  near  approach  of  the 
 Redeemer,  and  led  the  IS'Lagi  to  recognize  the  star 
 which  proclaimed  the  birth  of  the  King  of  the  Jews. 
 
 2.  Not  less  wide  was  the  influence  of  the  Sep- 
 tuagint in  the  spread  of  the  (Jospel.  Many  of 
 those  Jews  who  were  assembled  at  Jjerusaleni  on 
 the  day  of  Pentecost,  from  Asia  Minor,  from  Africa, 
 from  Crete  and  Eome,  used  the  Greek  language; 
 the  testimonies  to  Christ  from  the  Law  and  the 
 Prophets  came  to  them  in  the  words  of  the  Septua- 
 gint; St.  Stephen  probably  quoted  from  it  in  his 
 address  to  the  Jews;  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  was 
 reading  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isaiah  in  his  char- 
 iot (.  .  .  .  ojs  wpo^aTOV  inl  arpayi^v  ijx^V  •  •  "  ")'" 
 they  who  were  scattered  abroad  went  forth  into 
 many  lands  speaking  of  Christ  in  Greek,  and  point- 
 ing to  the  things  written  of  Him  in  the  Greek  ver- 
 sion of  Moses  and  the  Prophets;  from  Antioch  and 
 Alexandria  in  the  East  to  Rome  and  iMassilia  in  the 
 West  the  voice  of  the  Gospel  sounded  forth  in 
 Greek;  Clemens  of  Rome,  Ignatius  at  Antioch, 
 Justin  Martyr  in  Palestine,  Irenojus  at  Lyons,  and 
 many  more,  taught  and  wrote  in  the  words  of 
 the  Greek  Scriptures  ;  and  a  still  wider  range 
 was  given  to  them  by  the  Latin  version  (or  ver- 
 sions) made  from  the  LXX.  for  the  use  of  the  Latin 
 Churches  in  Italy  and  Africa;  and  in  later  times 
 by  the  numerous  other  versions  into  the  tongues  of 
 ^gypt,  ^Ethiopia,  Armenia,  Arabia,  and  (ieorgia. 
 For  a  long  period  the  Septuagint  was  the  Old 
 Testament  of  the  far  larger  part  of  the  Christian 
 Church." 
 
 a  On  this  part  of  the  subject  see  an  Hulsean  Prize 
 Essay,  by  W.  R.  Cburton,  On  the  Influence  of  the 
 LXX.  on  the  Progress  of  Christianity. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Let  us  now  try  to  ascend  towards  the  source. 
 Can  we  find  any  clear,  united,  consistent  testimony 
 to  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint?  (1)  Where  and 
 (2)  when  was  it  madeV  and  (3)  by  whom  ?  and 
 (4)  whence  the  title?  The  testimonies  of  ancient 
 writers,  or  (to  speak  more  properly)  their  tradi- 
 tions, have  been  weighed  and  examined  by  many 
 learned  men,  and  the  result  is  well  described  by 
 Pearson  (Praf.  ad  LXX.,  1G65): 
 
 "  Neque  vero  de  ejus  antiquitate  dignitateque 
 quicquam  imprsesentiarum  dicemus,  de  quibus  viri 
 docti  niulta,  hoc  prsesertim  sseculo,  scripsere;  qui 
 cum  maxime  inter  se  dissentiant,  lul/il  aclliuc  satis 
 cerii  el  exploruti  vidcniur  tradidisse."'' 
 
 1.  The  only  point  in  which  all  .agree  is  that 
 Alexandria  was  the  birthplace  of  the  "N'ersion  :  the 
 Septuagint  begins  where  the  Nile  ends  his  course. 
 
 2.  On  one  other  point  there  is  a  near  agree- 
 ment, namely,  as  to  time,  that  the  Version  was 
 made,  or  at  least  connnenced,  in  the  time  of  the 
 earlier  Ptolemies,  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
 tury B.  c. 
 
 3.  By  icJwm  was  it  made  ?  The  following 
 are  some  of  the  traditions  current  among  the 
 Fathers :  — ■ 
 
 Irenoeus  (lib.  iii.  c.  24)  relates  that  Ptolemy 
 Lagi,  wishing  to  adorn  his  Alexandrian  Library 
 with  the  writings  of  all  nations,  requested  from  the 
 Jews  of  Jerusalem  a  Greek  version  of  their  Scrip- 
 tures; that  they  sent  seventy  elders  well  skilled  in 
 the  Scriptures  and  in  later  languages;  that  the 
 king  sepdrattd  them  from  ont  (niotiier,  and  bade 
 them  all  translate  the  several  books.  When  they 
 came  together  before  Ptolemy  and  showed  their 
 versions,  God  was  glorified,  for  they  all  agreed 
 eX'ictly,  from  beginning  to  end,  in  every  phrase 
 and  word,  so  that  all  men  may  know  that  the 
 Scri/Jiiires  are  translated  by  the  inspiration  of 
 God. 
 
 Justin  Martyr  (Cohort,  ad  Grcecos,  p.  34)  gives 
 the  same  account,  and  adds  that  he  was  taken  to 
 see  the  cells  in  which  the  interpreters  worked. 
 
 Epiphanius  says  that  the  translators  were  divided 
 into  pairs,  in  36  cells,  each  pair,  being  provided 
 with  two  scribes;  and  that  36  versions,  agreeing 
 in  every  point,  were  produced,  by  the  gift  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  (De  Pond,  et  Mens.  cap.  iii.-vi.}. 
 
 Among  the  Latin  Fathers  Augustine  adheres  to 
 the  inspiration  of  the  translators :  "  Non  auteni 
 secundum  LXX.  interpretes,  qui  etiani  ipsi  divine 
 Spiritu  interpretati,  ob  hoc  aliter  videntur  nonnulla 
 dixisse,  ut  ad  spiritualem  sensum  scrutandum  ma- 
 gis  admoneretur  lectoris  intentio  .  .  .  ."  {De 
 Doctr.  Christ,  iv.  15). 
 
 But  Jerome  Iioldly  throws  aside  the  whole  story 
 (5f  the  cells  and  the  inspiration :  "  Et  nescio  quis 
 primus  auctor  Septuaginta  cellulas  Alexandrise 
 mendacio  suo  extruxerit,  quibus  divisi  eadem  scrip- 
 titarent,  cum  Aristteus  ejusdem  Ptolenia-i  {nrepacr- 
 iriaTTjs,  et  multo  post  tempore  Josephus,  nihil  tale 
 retulerint:  sed  in  una  basilica  eongregatos,  contu- 
 lisse  scribant,  non  prophetasse.  Aliud  est  enim 
 vatem,  aliud  esse  interpretem.  Ibi  spiritus  ventura 
 pnedicit;  hie  erudltio  et  verborum  copia  ea  quae 
 intelligit  transfert ''  (Pra;f.  ad  Pent.). 
 
 Tlie  decision  between  these  conflicting  reports  as 
 to  the  inspiration  may  be  best  made  by  careful 
 study  of  the  Version  itself. 
 
 It  will  be  observed  that  Jerome,  while  rejecting 
 the  stories  of  others,  refers  to  the  relation  of  Aris- 
 ta?us,  or  Aristeas,  and  to  Josephus,  the  former  be- 
 ing followed  by  the  latter. 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 This  (so-called )  letter  of  Aristeas  to  his  brother 
 Philocrates  is  still  extant ;  it  may  be  found  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  folio  ^'olume  of  Hody  [De  Blbll- 
 oi'uiii  Textihus  Oiiylnallbus,  etc.,  Os.on.  mdccv.), 
 and  separately  in  a  small  volume  published  at  Ox- 
 ford (1692).  It  gives  a  splendid  account  of  the 
 origin  of  the  Septuagint;  of  the  embassy  and  pres- 
 ents sent  by  King  Ptolemy  to  the  high-priest  at 
 Jerusalem,  by  the  advice  of  Deinelrins  P/ialereus, 
 his  librarian,  50  talents  of  gold  and  70  talents  of 
 silver,  etc.;  the  .lewish  slaves  whom  he  set  free, 
 paying  their  ransom  himself;  the  letter  of  the 
 king;  the  answer  of  the  high-priest;  the  choosing 
 of  six  interpreters  from  each  of  the  twelve  tribes, 
 and  their  names ;  the  copy  of  the  Law,  in  letters 
 of  gold ;  their  arrival  at  Alexandria  on  the  aimi- 
 versary  of  the  king's  victory  over  Antigonus ;  the 
 feast  prepared  for  the  seventy-two,  which  continued 
 for  seven  days ;  the  questions  proposed  to  each  of 
 the  interpreters  in  turn,  with  the  answers  of  each; 
 their  lodging  by  the  sea-shore;  and  the  accom- 
 plishment of  their  work  in  seventy-two  days,  by 
 coiij'trtnce  and  compiirison. 
 
 O'l  5r;  4TreT€\ouv  fKacTTa  crv/xcpoova  irotovvTfs 
 wphs  iauTohs  Ta?s  auTL^oXots,  t6  5e  «/c  rrjs 
 (TVfj.cpijiii'ias  •yivSfXivov  TrpeTr6vTriis  avaypaipris  ou- 
 TCiis  iTvyxave  irapa  tov  ^TjfirjTpiov'   .... 
 
 The  king  rejoiced  greatly,  and  commanded  the 
 books  to  be  carefully  kept;  gave  to  each  three  robes, 
 two  talents  of  gold,  etc.;  to  Eleazar  the  high-priest 
 he  sent  ten  silver-footed  tables,  a  cup  of  thirty 
 talents,  etc.,  and  begged  him  to  let  any  of  the 
 interpreters  who  wished  come  and  see  him  again, 
 for  he  loved  to  have  such  men  and  to  spend  his 
 wealth  upon  them. 
 
 This  is  the  story  which  probably  gave  to  this 
 version  the  title  of  the  Septuaijinl.  It  differs  from 
 the  later  accounts  above  cited,  being  more  embel- 
 lished, but  less  marvelous.  It  speaks  much  of 
 royal  pomp  and  nuuiificence,  but  says  notliimj  of 
 impiraiion.  The  translators  met  together  and  con- 
 ferred, and  produced  the  best  version  they  could. 
 
 A  simpler  account,  and  probably  more  genuine, 
 is  that  given  by  Aristobulus  (2d  century  jb.  c.)  in 
 a  fragment  preserved  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
 (Stroinatn,  lib.  v.  p.  595)  and  by  Eusebius  (Prcej). 
 Evang.  bk.  xiii.  c.  12) :  — 
 
 "  It  is  manifest  that  Plato  has  followed  our  Law, 
 and  studied  diligently  all  its  particulars.  For  be- 
 fore Demetrius  I'halereus  a  translation  had  been 
 made,  by  others,  of  the  history  of  the  Hebrews' 
 going  forth  out  of  Egypt,  and  of  all  that  happened 
 to  them,  and  of  the  conquest  of  the  land,  and  of 
 the  exposition  of  the  whole  Law.  Hence  it  is 
 manifest  that  the  aforesaid  philosopher  borrowed 
 many  things  ;  for  he  was  very  learned,  as  was  Py- 
 thagoras, who  also  transferred  many  of  our  doc- 
 trines into  his  system.  l'>ut  the  entire  translation 
 of  our  whole  Law  (^  Se  0A17  epfiyjueia  tuv  Sia  rod 
 vofiov  irdyrwi/)  was  made  hi  the  time  of  the  king 
 named  Philadelphus,  a  man  of  greater  zeal,  under 
 the  direction  of  Demetrius  Phalereus."  « 
 
 This  probably  expresses  the  belief  which  pie- 
 vailed  in  the  2d  century  b.  c,  namely,  that  some 
 portions  of  the  Jewish  history  had  been  published 
 in  Greek  before  Demetrius,  but  that  in  his  time 
 and  under  his  direction  the  whole  Law  was  trans- 
 lated :  and   this  agrees  with  the  story  of  Aristeas. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2919 
 
 "  Some  doubts  have  been  raised  of  the  genuineness 
 of  this  fragment,  but  it  is  well  defended  by  Valckenaer 
 {Diatribf.  de  Aristobulo  Jucleto). 
 
 The  Prologue  of  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Son 
 of  Sirach  (ascribed  to  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Phys- 
 con,  about  133  n.  c. )  makes  mention  of  "  the  Law 
 itself,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books  " 
 having  been  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into 
 another  tongue. 
 
 The  letter  of  Aristeas  was  received  as  genuine 
 and  true  for  many  centuries;  by  Josephus  and  Je- 
 rome, and  by  learned  men  in  modern  times.  The 
 first  who  expressed  doubts  were  Lud.  de  Vives 
 (Note  on  Augustin.  De  Civil.  Dn,  xviii.  42)  and 
 Julius  Scaliger,  who  boldly  declared  his  belief  that 
 it  was  a  forgery:  "«  Jiulueo  qiwdam  Aristece  nom- 
 ine confeclam  esse :  "  and  the  general  belief  of 
 scholars  now  is,  that  it  was  the  \\'ork  of  some  Al- 
 exandrian Jew,  whether  with  the  object  of  enhan- 
 cing the  dignity  of  his  Law,  or  the  credit  of  the 
 Greek  version,  or  for  the  meaner  purpose  of  gain. 
 The  age  in  which  the  letter  of  Aristeas  makes  its 
 appearance  was  fertile  in  such  fictitious  writings 
 (see  Bentley  on  PIml.iris,  p.  85,  ed.  Dyce). 
 
 "  The  passage  in  Galen  that  1  refer  to  is  this: 
 '  When  tlie  Attali  and  the  Ptolemies  were  in  emu- 
 lation about  their  libraries,  the  knavery  of  forging 
 books  and  titles  began.  For  there  were  those 
 that,  to  enhance  the  price  of  their  books,  put  the 
 names  of  great  authors  before  tliem,  and  so  sold 
 them  to  those  princes.'  " 
 
 It  is  worth  while  to  look  through  the  letter  of 
 Aristeas,  that  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  how 
 exactly  the  characters  of  the  writing  correspond  to 
 those  of  the  fictitious  writings  of  the  Sophists,  so 
 ably  exposed  by  Bentley. 
 
 Here  are  the  same  kind  of  errors  and  anachro  ■ 
 nisms  in  history,  the  same  embellishments,  eminent 
 characters  and  great  events,  splendid  gifts  of  gold 
 and  silver  and  purple,  of  which  tlie  writers  of  fic- 
 tion were  so  lavish.  These  are  well  exposed  by 
 Hody ;  and  we  of  later  times,  with  our  inherited 
 wisdom,  wonder  how  such  a  story  could  have  ob- 
 tained credit  with  scholars  of  former  days. 
 
 "  What  clumsie  cheats,  those  Sibylline  oracles 
 now  extant,  and  Aristeas'  story  of  the  Septuagint, 
 passed  without  contest,  even  among  many  learned 
 men  "  (Bentley  un  Flialaris,  Introd.  p.  8-3). 
 
 But  the  Pseudo-Aristeas  had  a  basis  of  fact  for 
 his  fiction ;  on  three  points  of  his  story  there  is  no 
 material  difference  of  opinion,  and  they  are  con- 
 firmed by  the  study  of  the  Version  it>flf:  — 
 
 1.  The  Version  was  made  at  .Alexandria. 
 
 2.  It  was  begun  in  the  time  of  the  earlier  Ptole- 
 mies, about  280  b.  c. 
 
 3.  The  Law  («.  e.  the  Pentateuch)  alone  was 
 translated  at  first. 
 
 It  is  also  very  possible  that  there  is  some  truth 
 in  the  statement  of  a  copy  being  placed  in  the  royal 
 library.  (The  emperor  Akbar  caused  the  New 
 Testament  to  be  translated  into  Persian.) 
 
 But  by  whom  was  the  Version  made?  As  Hody 
 justly  remarks,  "  It  is  of  little  moment  whether  it 
 was  made  at  the  command  of  the  king  or  sponta- 
 neously by  the  Jews;  but  it  is  a  question  of  great 
 importance  whether  the  Hebrew  copy  of  the  Law, 
 and  the  interpreters  (as  Pseudo-.\risteas  and  his 
 followers  relate),  were  sunnnoned  fi'om  Jerusalem, 
 and  sent  by  the  high-priest  to  Alexandria." 
 
 On  this  question  no  testimony  can  be  so  conclu- 
 sive as  the  evidence  of  the  Version  itself,  which 
 bears  upon  its  face  the  marks  of  imperfect  Icnowl- 
 edge  of  Hebrew,  and  exhibits  the  forms  and  phrase.s 
 of  the  Macedonic  Greek  prevalent  in  Alexandria, 
 with  a  plentiful  sprinkling  of  Egyptian  words.  The 
 
2920 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 forms  ijKdoa-av,  irapeve&a.Xoffav,  bewray  the 
 fellow-citizens  of  Lycopliroii,  the  Alexandrian  poet, 
 who  closes  his  iambic  line  with  Kawh  yris  eVxa^b- 
 ffav.  Ilody  (ii.  c.  iv.)  gives  several  examples  of 
 Egyptian  renderings '  of  names,  and  coins,  and 
 measures;  among  them  the  hippodrome  of  Alexan- 
 dria, for  the  Hebrew  Cibrath  (Gen.  xlviii.  7),  and 
 the  papyrus  of  the  Nile  for  tlie  rush  of  Job  (viii. 
 11).  The  reader  of  the  LXX.  will  readily'  agree 
 with  his  conclusion,  "  Sive  regis  jussu,  sive  sponte 
 a  Judffiis,  a  Judaais  Alexandrinis  fuisse  factam." 
 
 Tile  question  as  to  the  moving  cause  which  gave 
 birth  to  the  Version  is  one  which  cannot  be  so  de- 
 cisively answered  either  by  internal  evidence  or  by 
 historical  testimony.  The  balance  of  probability 
 must  be  struck  between  the  tradition,  so  widely 
 and  permanently  prevalent,  of  the  king's  interven- 
 tion, and  the  simpler  account  suggested  by  the 
 facts  of  history,  and  the  phenomena  of  the  Version 
 itself. 
 
 It  is  well  known  that,  after  the  Jews  returned 
 from  the  Captivity  of  Babylon,  having  lost  in  great 
 measure  the  familiar  knowledge  of  the  ancient  He- 
 brew, the  readings  from  tlte  Books  of  Moses  in  the 
 synagogues  uf  Palestine  wi-re  explained  to  them  in 
 the  (Jhalihiic  tongue,  in  Targums  or  Paraphrases; 
 and  the  same  was  done  with  the  Books  of  the 
 Prophets  when,  at  a  later  time,  they  also  were  read 
 in  the  synagogues. 
 
 The  Jews  of  Alexandria  had  probably  still  less 
 knowledge  of  Hebrew;  their  familiar  language  was 
 Alexandrian  Greek.  They  had  settled  in  Alexan- 
 dria in  large  numbers  soon  after  the  time  of  Alex- 
 ander, and  under  the  earlier  Ptolemies.  They 
 would  naturally  follow  the  same  practice  as  their 
 brethren  in  Palestine ;  the  Law  first  and  afterwards 
 the  Prophets  would  be  explained  in  Greek,  and 
 from  this  practice  would  arise  in  time  an  entire 
 Greek  Version. 
 
 All  the  phenomena  of  the  Version  seem  to  con- 
 firm this  view;  the  Pentateuch  is  the  best  part  of 
 the  Version ;  the  other  books  are  more  defective, 
 betraying  probai)ly  the  increasing  degeneracy  of 
 the  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  the  decay  of  Hebrew  learn- 
 ing with  the  lapse  of  time. 
 
 4.  Whence  the  title.?  It  seems  unnecessary  to 
 suppose,  with  Eichhorn,  that  the  title  Sepbiagint 
 arose  from  the  approval  given  to  the  Version  by 
 an  Alexandrian  Sanhedrim  of  70  or  72 ;  that  title 
 appears  sufficiently  accounted  for  above  by  the  prev- 
 alence of  the  letter  of  Aristeas,  describing  the 
 mission  of  72  interpreters  from  Jerusalem.  [For  a 
 different  view  of  the  origin  of  this  name,  founded 
 on  a  curious  Latin  scholion,  see  art.  Versions, 
 Anciejjt  (Gkeek).  —A.] 
 
 II.  Character  of  the  Septuagint. 
 
 We  come  now  to  consider  the  character  of  the 
 Version,  and  the  help  which  it  aflfords  in  the  crit- 
 icism and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 The  Character  of  the  Versimi.  —  Is  it  faithful 
 in  substance?  Is  it  minutely  accurate  in  details? 
 Does  it  bear  witness  for  or  against  the  tradition  of 
 its  having  been  made  by  special  inspiration  ? 
 
 These  are  some  of  the  chief  questions :  there  are 
 others  which  relate  to  particulars,  and  it  will  be 
 well  to  discuss  these  latter  first,  as  they  throw  some 
 light  on  the  more  general  questions. 
 
 S.  Was  the  Version  made  from  Hebrew  MSS. 
 ■with  the  vowel-points  now  used  ? 
 
 A  few  examples  will  indicate  the  answer. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 1.  Proper  Names. 
 
 Hebrew.  Septuagint, 
 
 Ex.  Ti.  17.  "*337»  ^*^°'-  Ao^ci/ei. 
 
 vi.  19.  ''bnQ,   Machli.  MooAei. 
 
 xiii.  20.  QnS,   Etham.  'Odu>ix. 
 
 Deut.  iii.  10.  n^/D,   Salchah.  'EAxa. 
 
 iv.  43.  "1V2,   Bezer.  Boo-op. 
 
 xxxiv.  1.  nUDQ,  Pisgah.  iaaya.- 
 
 2.  Other  Words. 
 
 Hebrew.  Septuagint. 
 
 Gen.  i.  9.    DIpD,  place,      (ruvayaiyrj     (Hlptt). 
 
 XV.  11.    nnS  Dtt'**!,         Kal  a-vveKd6i.crev  aiiToU 
 
 and  he  drove  them  aivay.        (DI^H  Sty'l). 
 
 Ex.  xii.  17.   i'~l'''Sn"nS,         Ti\v  ivTo)a\v  ravniv 
 
 unleavened  bread.  (m2Z2n"i~IS). 
 
 Num.  xvi.  5.  "IjlS,   ™  the  iirea-KenTat. 
 
 morning.  ("1p2), 
 
 Deut.  XV.  18.  rT3lpp,   double.     en-eVeioi'  (H^U^D). 
 Is.  ix.  7.  "^2"^,   «  word.         OdyaTOv   (~15?J)' 
 Examples  of  these  two  kinds  are  innumerable. 
 Plainly  the    Greek    translators    had    not    Hebrew 
 MSS.  pointed  as  at  present. 
 
 In  many  cases  (c.  [/.  Ex.  ii.  25;  Nahum  iii.  8) 
 the  LXX.  have  probably  preserved  the  true  pro- 
 nunciation and  sense  where  the  Masoretic  pointing 
 has  gone  wrong. 
 
 11.  Were   the  Hebrew  words  divided   from  one 
 
 another,  and  were  the  final  letters,  Y^,  ^,  ],  D,  "7» 
 in  use  when  the  Septuagint  was  made  ? 
 Take  a  few  out  of  many  examples :  — 
 
 Hebrew.  LXX. 
 
 (1.)  Deut.  xxiv.  5.    l^'^  '^TS'IW,    Supi'ai/  inipaKev 
 a  perishing  Si/ri  in  (^DS''  mW). 
 
 ^2.)      2  K.  ii.  14.    S-in-PlS, 
 
 he  also. 
 
 (3.)  2  K.  xxii.  20.   "Jpb,  oux  ovtws 
 
 there/ore.  (1?"^^). 
 
 (4.)  1  Chr.  xvii.  10.    tJ  ,'   ^^S'),  Kal  av^rja-oi  <re 
 
 and  I  will  tell  thee.  (Tjb^^nSI). 
 
 (5.)    HOS     Ti.  6.    T^N    Ty'^IODtrtt^        KUL  TO  Kpifxa  flOV 
 
 ■   ^  •     *  cos  (ids  efeXeii- 
 
 rs>  ^,  crtTai. 
 
 and  thy  judgments  (are  The  LXX.  read  : 
 
 as)  t/ie  Uglil  (that)  -,V,y.,_  ^.^-,,«y.^ 
 
 goethforlh.  '"^tT     ^i^V^' 
 
 (6.)  Zcch.  xi.  7.  7S-!in  ■'*3V  TDb,   e!s  TTjv  Xoi/aw- 
 
 even  you,  O  poor  of  the       [they  join  the  two 
 Jiock.  first  words]. 
 
 Here  we  find  three  cases  (2,  4,  G)  where  the 
 LXX.  read  as  one  word  what  makes  two  in  the 
 present  Hebrew  text:  one  case  (3)  where  one  He- 
 brew word  is  made  into  two  by  the  LXX.;  two 
 cases  (1,  5)  where  the  LXX.  transfer  a  letter  from 
 the  end  of  one  word  to  the  beginning  of  the  next. 
 
 [they  join  the  two 
 words  iu  one]. 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 By  inspection  of  tlie  Hebrew  in  these  cases  it  will 
 be  easily  seen  that  the  Hebrew  MSS.  must  have 
 been  written  without  intervals  between  the  words, 
 and  that  the  present  final  forms  were  not  then  in 
 use. 
 
 In  three  of  the  above  examples  (i^  5,  6),  the 
 Septuagint  has  prol)ably  preserved  the  true  division 
 and  sense. 
 
 In  the  study  of  these  minute  particulars,  which 
 enable  us  to  examine  closely  the  work  of  the  trans- 
 lators, great  help  is  afforded  by  Cuppdli  CriLica 
 Siicni^  and  by  the  Vorsiuditn  of  Frankel,  who  has 
 most  diligently  anatomized  the  text  of  the  LXX. 
 His  projected  work  on  the  whole  of  the  Version  has 
 not  been  completed,  but  he  has  published  a  part  of 
 it  in  his  treatise  Ueber  den  Einjhiss  dvr  Palds- 
 tinisclien  l^xer/tse  (luf  die  Alexundrinische  Iler- 
 meneulik,  in  which  he  reviews  minutely  the  Septu- 
 agint Version  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 We  nov/  proceed  to  the  larger  questions. 
 
 A.  Is  t/ie  Sepiuiigint  failhjul  in  substance  ? 
 Here  we  cannot  answer  by  citing  a  few  examples; 
 the  question  refers  to  the  general  texture,  and  any 
 opinion  we  express  must  be  verified  by  conthiuous 
 reading. 
 
 1.  And  first  it  has  been  clearly  shown  by  Hody, 
 Frankel,  and  others,  that  the  several  books  were 
 translated  by  different  persons,  without  any  com- 
 prehensive revision  to  harmonize  the  several  parts. 
 Names  and  words  are  rendered  differently  in  dif- 
 ferent books;  e.  g.  HpS,  thepassover,  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch is  rendered  iracxa,  ii  2  Chr.  xxxv.  6, 
 (pacriic- 
 
 W~W,  Urhn.  Ex.  xxviii.  30  (LXX.  26),Sr)A6o- 
 (TLs,  Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  Sr)Aoi,  Fzr.  ii.  63,  (poori^ov- 
 T€s,  Nell.  vii.  65,  (puiTiaoov. 
 
 D"^a..f,  Thummim,  in  Ex.  xxviii.  30  (LXX.  20), 
 is  a\-l]d€ia;  in  Ezr.  ii.  63,  reXeiov. 
 
 The  I'hilistines  in  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua 
 are  ^vXiamip.,  in  the  other  books,  a\x6(pv\oi. 
 
 The  books  of  J  udges,  Kuth,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
 are  distinguished  by  the  use  of  iyd  el/xi^  instead  of 
 iyd. 
 
 These  are  a  few  out  of  many  like  variations. 
 
 2.  Thus  the  character  of  the  Version  varies 
 much  in  the  several  books ;  those  of  the  Pentateuch 
 are  the  best,  as  Jerome  says  (  Conjitemur  plus  quam 
 ccBtcris  cum  Ilebraicis  consomire),  and  this  agrees 
 well  with  the  external  evidence  that  the  Law  was 
 translated  first,  when  Hebrew  IISS.  were  more  cor- 
 rect and  Hebrew  better  known.  Perhaps  the  sim- 
 plicity of  the  style  in  these  early  books  facilitated 
 the  fidelity  of  the  Version. 
 
 3.  The  poetical  parts  are,  generally  speaking,  in- 
 ferior to  the  historical,  the  original  abounding  with 
 rarer  words  and  expressions.  In  these  parts  the 
 reader  of  the  LXX.  must  be  continually  on  the 
 watch  lest  an  imperfect  rendering  of  a  difficult 
 word  mar  the  whole  sentence.  The  Psalms  and 
 Proverbs  are  [jerhaps  the  best. 
 
 4.  In  the  Major  Prophets  (probably  translated 
 nearly  100  years  after  the  Pentateuch)  some  of  the 
 most  important  prophecies  are  sadly  obscured:  e.  g. 
 Is.  ix.  1,  rovTO  TTpuTOv  Trie  raxv  iroUt,  X'^P°- 
 Za^ovK^v,  K.  T.  A.,  and  in  ix.  6,  Jisrtids  nodus 
 est  iiilerprelem  sese  indignum  (Zuingli);  Jer.  xxiii. 
 6,  Kol  rovTO  rh  uvojxa  avTov  h  KaKecei  avrhv 
 Kvpios  'I&JCTfSfK  eV  To7s  wpotpTiTais. 
 
 Ezekiel  and  the  Minor  Prophets  (speaking  gen- 
 erally) seem  to  be  better  rendered     The  LXX.  ver- 
 184 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2921 
 
 sion  of  Daniel  was  not  used,  that  of  Theodotioii 
 being  substituted  for  it. 
 
 5.  Supposing  the  numerous  glosses  and  dupli- 
 cate renderings,  which  have  evidently  crept  from 
 the  margin  into  the  text,  to  be  removed  (e.  g.  Is. 
 vii.  10;  Hab.  iii.  2;  ,Ioel  i.  8), — for  these  are 
 blemishes,  not  of  the  Version  itself,  but  of  the 
 copies,  —  and  forming  a  rough  estimate  of  what  the 
 Septuagint  was  in  its  earliest  state,  we  may  per- 
 haps say  of  it,  in  the  words  of  the  well-known  sim- 
 ile, that  it  was,  in  many  parts,  the  wrong  side  of 
 tlie  Hebrew  tapestry^  exhibiting  the  general  out- 
 lines of  the  pattern,  but  confused  in  the  more  deli- 
 cate lines,  and  with  many  ends  of  threads  visible; 
 or,  to  use  a  more  dignified  illustration,  the  Sep- 
 tuagint is  the  image  of  the  original  seen  through 
 a  glass  not  adjusted  to  the  proper  focus;  the  larger 
 features  are  shown,  but  the  sharpness  of  definition 
 is  lost. 
 
 B.  We  have  anticipated  the  ansvrer  to  the  sec- 
 ond question —  Js  the  Version  minutely  accurate 
 in  details  'i  —  but  will  give  a  few  examples : 
 
 1.  The  same  word  in  the  same  chapter  is 
 often  rendered  by  differing  words,  —  Ex.  xii.   13. 
 
 ''i^npS,  "  I  will  pass   over,"   LXX.  aKciriiaw, 
 
 but  23,  np5,  "  will  pass  over,"  LXX.  TvapeKev- 
 aerai. 
 
 2.  Differing  words   by  the    same  word,  —  Ex. 
 
 xii.  23,  "^2^)  "pass  through,"  and  PipQ,  "pass 
 over,"  both  by  TrapeXeiKrerai;  Num.  xv.  4,  5, 
 nriD^,  "ofTering,"  and  n^T,  "sacrifice,"  both 
 by  Ovaia. 
 
 3.  The  divine  names  are  frequently  inter- 
 changed; Kvpios  is  put  for  D^n'vW,  God,  and 
 
 @f6s  for  n1n%  Jehovah;  and  the  two  are  often 
 wrongly  combined  or  wrongly  separated. 
 
 4.  Proper  names  are  sometimes  translated, 
 sometimes  not.  In  Gen.  xxiii.  by  translating  the 
 name  Machpelah  {rh  SittAoDc),  the  Version  is 
 made  to  speak  first  of  the  cave  being  in  the  field 
 (ver.  9),  and  then  of  the  ffeld  being  in  the  cave 
 (ver.  17),  6  ayphs  'E(j)pc>>v,  hs  ijv  iv  r^  StirA^ 
 criri)Kcdca,  the  last  word  not  warranted  by  the  He- 
 brew.    Zech.  vi.  14  is  a  curious  example  of  four 
 
 names  of  persons  being  translated,  e.  g.  H^'iltO/, 
 "to  Tobijah,"  LXX.  toIs  xpV'^'f^ois  avrrjs;  Pis- 
 gah  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  1  is  (pacryd,  but  in  Deut.  iii. 
 27,  Tov  AiAa^eofxevou. 
 
 5.  The  translators  are  often  misled  by  the  sim- 
 ilarity  of   Hebrew    words:    e.    g.    Num.    iii.  26, 
 
 I'^nn'^D,  "the  cords  of  it,"  LXX.  ra  /cara- 
 Xonra,  and  iv.  26,  ri  Keptacrd.  In  other  places, 
 ol  KaXot,  and  Is.    liv.  2,   to   (rxotviaixwra,   both 
 
 rightly.  Ex.  iv.  31,  ^l?/Ptt'^  "they  heard," 
 LXX.  e'xaprj  (^npb^) ;  Num.  xvi.  1,5,  "  I  have 
 not  taken  one  ass  "  (~T1Z3n),    LXX.    ovk    iiriOv- 
 
 /x7]ixailf2in)  e'[\7)<pa;  Deut.  xxxii.  10,  ^HS^*^";, 
 "he  found  him,"  LXX.  avrapK-qcnv  avr6v'i  1 
 Sam.  xii.  2,  "^Fl^??^    "  I  '''™  grayheaded,"  LXX. 
 
 Kae^ffofxai  On;^^!');  Gen.  iii.  17,  ■^:^^n^^, 
 
 "  for  thy  sake,"  LXX.  eV  to7s  tpyots  irov  ("T  for 
 1). 
 
2j22 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 In  very  many  cases  the  error  may  be  thus  traced 
 to  the  similarity  of  some  of  the  Hebrew  letters, 
 
 1  and  "1,  n  and  H,  "^  and  1,  etc. ;  in  some  it  is 
 difficult  to  see  any  connection  between  the  original 
 and  the  Version :  e.  g.  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  bW"li^^  ""D?, 
 "  the  sons  of  Israel,"  LXX.  ayyeAcuv  &eov. 
 Aquila  and  Symmachus,  vlwv  'IcparjA. 
 
 Is.  xxi.  11,  12.  LXX. 
 
 Watchman,  what  of  the  night?  $vA.o(r<reT6  en-oAfeis. 
 
 Watchman,  what  of  the  night  ?  4>v\d(rcrtt)  TOTrpcoi  KaC 
 The  watchman  said,  Tr)v  vvkto. 
 
 The  morning  cometh,  and  also  'Eav  fTjTrj?  frjrei- 
 
 the  night :  Kat  Trap'  eixoi  oiKei. 
 If  ye  will  inquire,  inquire  ye. 
 Return,  come. 
 
 6.  Besides  the  above  deviations,  and  many  like 
 them,  which  are  probably  due  to  accidental  causes, 
 the  change  of  a  letter,  or  doubtful  writing  in  the 
 Hebrew,  there  are  some  passages  which  seem  to  ex- 
 hibit a  studied  variation  in  the  LXX.  from  the  He- 
 brew: e.  g.  Gen.  ii.  2,  on  the  seventh  ("'3?'^3L£7n) 
 day  God  eiided  his  work,  LXX.  crvvereXea-ev  6 
 &ehs  ev  rfj  Tjnepa  rfj  fKTTj  to  epya  avTOv.  The 
 addition  in  Ex.  xii.  40,  kuI  eV  tjj  777  Xavadu, 
 appears  to  be  of  this  kind,  inserted  to  solve  a  diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 Frequently  the  strong  expressions  of  the  Hebrew 
 are  softened  down ;  where  human  parts  are  ascribed 
 to  God,  for  hand  the  LXX.  substitute  power ;  for 
 mouth —  word,  etc.     Kx.  iv.  10,  "  Thou  shalt  be  to 
 
 him  instead  of  God"  (D'^n'bwb),  LXX.  ffh  Se 
 avTw  ea-Tj  ra  irphs  rhv  @f6v;  see  Ex.  iv.  15. 
 These  and  many  more  savor  of  design,  rather  than 
 of  accident  or  error. 
 
 The  Version  is,  therefore,  not  minutely  accurate 
 in  details ;  and  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  principle, 
 never  to  build  any  argument  on  words  or  phrases 
 of  the  Se2>iuagint,  without  comparing  them  with 
 the  Hebrew.  The  Greek  may  be  right;  but  very 
 often  its  variations  are  wrong. 
 
 r.  We  shall  now  be  prepared  to  weigh  the  tra- 
 dition of  the  Fathers,  that  the  Version  was  made 
 by  inspiration :  war'  iwinuoiav  rov  &fOv,  Ire- 
 nseus;  "  divino  Spiritu  interpretati,"  Augustine. 
 Even  Jerome  himself  seems  to  think  that  the  LXX. 
 may  have  sometimes  added  words  to  the  original, 
 "  ob  Spii'iius  Snncti  anctoritatem,  licet  in  Hebrcds 
 voluminibiis  non  legatur"  (Frcejai.  in  Paralip. torn. 
 i.  col.  1419). 
 
 Let  us  try  to  form  some  conception  of  what  is 
 meant  by  the  inspiration  of  translators.  It  cannot 
 mean  what  Jerome  here  seems  to  allow,  that  the 
 translators  were  divinely  moved  to  add  to  the  orig- 
 inal, for  this  would  be  the  inspiration  of  Prophets  ; 
 as  he  himself  says  in  another  passage  (Prolog,  in 
 Genesin,  tom.  i.)  "  aliud  est  enim  vertere,  aliud 
 esse  interjiretem.''''  Every  such  addition  would  be, 
 in  fact,  a  new  revelation. 
 
 Nor  can  it  be,  as  some  have  thought,  that  the 
 deviations  of  the  Septuagint  from  the  original  were 
 divinely  directed,  whether  in  order  to  adapt  the 
 Scriptures  to  the  mind  of  the  heatlien,  or  for  other 
 purposes.  This  would  be,  pro  tanto,  a  new  revela- 
 tion, and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  such  a  revela- 
 tion ;  for,  be  it  observed,  the  discrepance  between 
 the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  would  tend  to 
 separate  the  Jews  of  Palestine  from  those  of  Alex- 
 andria, and  of  other  places  where  the  Greek  Scrip- 
 tures were  t  sed ;  there  would  be  two  difl'erent  cop- 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 ies  of  the  same  books  dispersed  throughout  the 
 world,  each  claiming  Divine  authority ;  the  appeal 
 to  Moses  and  the  Propiiets  would  lose  much  of  its 
 force ;  the  standard  of  Divine  truth  would  be  ren- 
 dered doubtful;  the  trumpet  would  give  an  inicer- 
 tain  sound. 
 
 No !  If  there  be  such  a  thing  as  an  inspiration 
 of  translators,  it  nuist  be  an  effect  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit  on  their  minds,  enabling  them  to  do  their 
 work  of  translation  more  perfectly  than  by  their 
 own  abilities  and  acquirements;  to  overcome  the 
 difficulties  arising  from  defective  knowledge,  from 
 imperfect  MSS.,  from  similarity  of  letters,  from 
 human  infirmity  and  weariness;  and  so  to  produce 
 a  copy  of  the  Scriptures,  setting  forth  the  Word  of 
 God,  and  the  history  of  his  people,  in  its  original 
 truth  and  purity.  This  is  the  kind  of  inspiration 
 claimed  for  the  translators  by  Philo  (  Vit.  Mosis, 
 Ub.  ii.):  "We  look  upon  the  persons  who  made  this 
 Version,  not  merely  as  translators,  but  as  persons 
 chosen  and  set  apart  by  Divine  appointment,  to 
 whom  it  was  given  to  comprehend  and  express  the 
 sense  and  meaning  of  Moses  in  the  fullest  and 
 clearest  manner." 
 
 The  reader  will  be  able  to  judge,  from  the  fore- 
 going examples,  whether  the  Septuagint  Version 
 satisfies  this  test.  If  it  does,  it  will  be  found  not 
 only  substantially  faithful,  but  minutely  accurate 
 in  details;  it  will  enable  us  to  correct  the  Hebrew 
 in  every  place  where  an  error  has  crept  in ;  it  will 
 give  evidence  of  that  faculty  of  intuition  in  its 
 highest  form,  which  enables  our  great  critics  to 
 di\ine  from  the  faulty  text  the  true  reading;  it  will 
 be,  in  short,  a  republication  of  the  original  text, 
 purified  from  the  errors  of  human  hands  and  eyes, 
 stamped  with  fresh  authority  from  Heaven. 
 
 This  is  a  question  to  be  decided  by  facts,  by  the 
 phenomena  of  the  Version  itself.  We  will  simply 
 declare  our  own  conviction  that,  instead  of  such  a 
 Divine  republication  of  the  original,  we  find  a 
 marked  distinction  between  the  original  and  the 
 Septuagint;  a  distinction  which  is  well  expressed  in 
 the  words  of  Jerome  {Prolog,  in  Genesin):  "  Ibi 
 Spiritus  Ventura  pri«dicit;  hie  eruditio  et  verborum 
 copia  ea  quae  intelligit  transfert." 
 
 And  it  will  be  remembered  that  this  agrees  with 
 the  ancient  narrative  of  the  Version,  known  by  the 
 name  of  Aristeas,  which  represents  the  interpreters 
 as  meeting  in  one  house,  forming  one  council,  con- 
 ferring together,  and  agreeing  on  the  sense  (see 
 Hody,  lib.  ii.  c.  vi.). 
 
 There  are  some,  perhaps,  who  will  deem  this 
 estimate  of  the  LXX.  too  low ;  who  think  that  the 
 use  of  this  version  in  the  N.  T.  stamps  it  with  an 
 authority  above  that  of  a  mere  translation.  But 
 as  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  do  not  invariably 
 cite  the  0.  T.  according  to  this  version,  we  are  left 
 to  judge  by  the  liglit  of  facts  and  evidence.  Stu- 
 dents of  Holy  Scripture,  as  well  as  .students  of  the 
 natural  world,  should  bear  in  mind  the  maxim  of 
 Bacon:  "  Sola  spes  est  in  vera  inductione." 
 
 III.  What,  then,  are  the  benefits  to  bk 
 
 DERIVED    FROM    THE     STUDY    OF    THE    SEP- 
 TUAGINT ? 
 
 After  all  the  notices  of  imperfection  above  given, 
 it  may  seem  strange  to  say,  but  we  beheve  it  to  be 
 the  truth,  that  the  student  of  Scripture  can  scarcely 
 read  a  chapter  without  some  benefit,  especially  if  he 
 be  a  student  of  Hebrew,  and  able,  even  in  a  very 
 humble  way,  to  compare  the  Version  with  the 
 Original. 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 1.  For  the  Old  Testament.  We  have  seen 
 *bove,  that  the  Septuagint  gives  evidence  of  the 
 eharacter  and  condition  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  from 
 which  it  was  made,  with  respect  to  vowel-points 
 and  the  mode  of  writing. 
 
 This  evidence  often  renders  very  material  help  in 
 the  correction  and  establishment  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
 Being  made  from  MSS.  far  older  than  the  Maso- 
 retic  recension,  the  Septuagint  often  indicates  read- 
 inij;s  more  ancient  and  more  correct  than  those  of 
 our  present  Hebrew  MSS.  and  editions;  and  often 
 speaks  decisively  between  the  conflicting  readings 
 of  the  present  MSS. 
 
 E.  (J.  Ps.  x.\ii.  17  (in  LXX.  xxi.  16),  the  printed 
 Hebrew  text  is    ''"IS^;  but  several  MSS.  have  a 
 
 verb  in  3d  pers.  plural,  THSS :  the  LXX.  steps  in 
 to  decide  the  doubt,  wpv^av  x^ipaj  fJ-ov  Ka\  ir6Sas 
 fj,ov,  confirmed  by  Aquila,  ytrxwav. 
 
 Ps.  xvi.  10.  The  printed  text  is  '7''"^"^^'^'  iii 
 the  plural ;  but  near  200  JISS.  have  the  singular, 
 
 "^T^Dn,  which  is  clearly  confirmed  by  the  evi- 
 dence of  the  LXX.,  oi/5e  ^dcreis  rhv  ocnSv  aov 
 l5e7y  Sia<p6opa.v. 
 
 In  passages  like  these,  which  touch  on  the  cardi- 
 nal truths  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  of  great  importance 
 to  have  the  testimony-  of  an  unsuspected  witness, 
 in  the  LXX.,  long  before  the  controversy  between 
 Christians  and  Jews. 
 
 In  Hosea  vi.  5,  the  context  clearly  requires  that 
 the  first  person  should  be  maintained  throughout 
 the  verse;  the  LXX.  corrects  the  present  Hebrew 
 text,  without  a  change  except  in  the  position  of  one 
 letter,  rh  Kpi^a,  ixov  is  (puis  f^eXfvcrerai,  render- 
 ing uimecessary  the  addition  of  words  in  Italics,  in 
 our  English  Version. 
 
 More  examples  might  be  given,  but  we  must 
 content  ourselves  with  one  signal  instance,  of  a 
 clause  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  (probably  by  what 
 is  called  o/xoioreK^vTOv),  and  preserved  in  the 
 LXX.  In  Genesis  iv.  8,  is  a  passage  which  in  the 
 Hebrew,  and  in  our  English  Version,  is  evidently 
 incomplete :  — 
 
 "And  Cain  talked  (I^W*!!)  with  Abel  his 
 brother;  and  it  came  to  pass  when  they  were  in 
 the  field,"  etc. 
 
 Here  the  Hebrew  word  "liGS*!  is  the  word  con- 
 stantly used  as  the  introduction  to  w^ords  spoken, 
 "Cain  said  unto  Abel"  .  .  .  .  ,  but,  as  the  text 
 stands,  there  are  no  words  spoken ;  and  the  follow- 
 ing words  "  .  .  .  .  when  they  were  in  the  fiekl^^ 
 come  in  abruptly.  The  LXX.  fills  up  the  \tcuna 
 HebrcEoruni  codicum  (Pearson),  koX  dire  KaiV 
 TTphs  'A$f\  rhf  adeAcphv  avrov,  SieKdw/jLev  els  Th 
 ireSiov  {  =  'n'}Wil  n?^^).  The  Sara.  Penta- 
 teuch and  the  Syriac  Version  agree  with  the  LXX., 
 and  the  passage  is  thus  cited  by  Clemens  Romatius 
 (Ep.  i.  c.  iv.).  The  Hebrew  transcriber's  eye  was 
 probably  misled  by  the  word  TllW,  terminating 
 both  the  clauses.  [For  a  different  view,  see  p. 
 2809  «,  2d  par.  (1).  — A.J 
 
 In  all  the  foregoing  cases,  we  do  not  attribute 
 any  paramount  aulhurity  to  the  LXX.  on  account 
 of  its  superior  antiquity  to  the  extant  Hebrew 
 MSS. ;  but  we  take  it  as  an  evidence  of  a  more 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2923 
 
 ancient  Hebrew  text,  as  an  eye-witness  of  the  texts, 
 280  or  180  years  b.  c.  The  decision  as  to  any 
 particular  reading  must  be  made  by  weighing  this 
 evidence,  together  with  that  of  other  ancient  Ver- 
 sions, with  the  arguments  from  the  context,  the 
 rules  of  grammar,  the  genius  of  the  language,  and 
 the  comparison  of  parallel  passages.  And  thus 
 the  Hebrew  will  sometimes  correct  the  Greek,  and 
 sometimes  the  Greek  the  Hebrew:  both  liable  to 
 err  through  the  infirmity  of  human  eyes  and  hands, 
 but  each  checking  the  other's  errors. 
 
 2.  The  close  connection  between  the  Old  and 
 New  Testament  makes  the  study  of  the  Septuagint 
 extremely  valuable,  and  almost  indispensable  to  the 
 theological  student.  Pearson  quotes  from  Ire- 
 nseus  and  Jerome,  as  to  tlie  citation  of  the  words 
 of  prophecy  from  the  Septuagint.  The  former,  as 
 Pearson  observes,  speaks  too  universally,  when  he 
 says  that  the  Apostles,  "  prophetica  omnia  ita  enun- 
 ciaverunt  queinadmodum  Seniorum  interpretatio 
 continet."  But  it  was  manifestly  the  chief  store- 
 house from  which  they  drew  their  proofs  and  pre- 
 cepts. Mr.  Grinfield  «  says  that  "  the  number  of 
 direct  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
 Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles,  may  be  estimated  at 
 350,  of  which  not  more  than  50  materially  differ 
 from  the  LXX.  But  the  indirect  verbal  allusions 
 would  swell  the  number  to  a  far  greater  amount  " 
 {Apol.  fur  LXX.,  p.  37).  The  comparison  of  the 
 citations  with  the  Septuagint  is  much  facilitated 
 by  Mr.  Grinfield's  "  Editio  Hellenistica"  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and  by  Mr.  Cough's  New  Test. 
 Quotations,  in  which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  pas- 
 sages of  the  Old  Test,  are  placed  side  by  side  with 
 the  citations  in  the  New.  (On  this  sulyect  see 
 Hody,  pp.  248,  281;  Kennicott,  Dissert.  Gen.  §  84; 
 Cappelli,  Critica  Sacra,  \o\.  n.)  [See  also  Turpie's 
 The  Old  Test,  in  the  New  (Lond.  1868),  which 
 gives  various  readings  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek; 
 Kautzsch,  De  Vet.  Test.  Locis  a  Paulo  Apost.  al- 
 legntis.  Lips.  1869;  and  the  works  referred  to  at 
 the  end  of  the  art.  Old  Testament,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
 2239  b,  2240  a.  —  A.J 
 
 3.  Further,  the  language  of  the  LXX.  is  the 
 mould  in  which  the  thoughts  and  expressions  of  the 
 Apostles  and  F^vangelists  are  cast.  In  this  version 
 Divine  Truth  has  taken  the  Greek  language  as  its 
 shrine,  and  adapted  it  to  the  things  of  God.  Here 
 the  peculiar  idioms  of  the  Hebrew  are  grafted  upon 
 the  stock  of  the  Greek  tongue ;  words  and  phrases 
 take  a  new  sense.  The  terms  of  the  Mosaic  ritual 
 in  the  Greek  Version  are  employed  by  the  Apostles 
 to  express  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel,  e.  (/.  ap- 
 XJepsi^s,  6vaia,  oafii)  evooSias.  Hence  the  LXX.  is 
 a  treasury  of  illustration  for  the  Greek  Testament. 
 
 Many  examples  are  given  by  Pearson  {Prcef.  ad 
 LXX.),  e.  g.  ao.p\,  irvevij.a,  SiKaiSca,  (ppSuriinaT'os 
 capKSs.  "  Frustra  apud  veteres  Grfficos  quaras 
 quid  sit  -KLcmveiv  rep  @ef,  vel  ds  rhv  ©eov, 
 quid  sit  els  rhv  Kvpiov,  vel  npbs  rhv  @eou  Triarts, 
 quae  toties  in  Novo  Fcedere  inculcantur,  et  ex  lec- 
 tione  Seniorum  facile  intelliguntur." 
 
 Valckenaer  also  (on  Luke  i.  51)  speaks  strongly 
 on  this  subject:  "  Grsecum  Novi  Testament!  con- 
 textum  rite  intellecturo  nihil  est  utilius,  quam  dili- 
 genter  versasse  Alexandrinam  antiqui  Foederis  in- 
 terpretationem,  e  qua  una  plus  peti  [joterit  auxilii, 
 quam  ex  veteriljus  scriptoribus  Grsecis  simul  sumtis. 
 Centena  reperientur  in  N.  T.  nusquam  obvia  in 
 
 a  One  of  ttie  most  diligent  students  of  the  LXX., 
 who   has   devoted   his  life  to  the  promotion  of  this 
 
 branch  of  Scripture  study,  and  has  lately  founded  » 
 Lecture  on  the  LXX.  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
 
2924 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 scriptis  Gratcoruni  veterum,  sed  frequentata  in  Alex"- 
 Versione." 
 
 E.  (J.  the  sense  of  rh  -rraiffxa  in  Deut.  xvi.  2, 
 ineliKlin!4tlie  sacrifices  of  tlie  Paschal  week,  throws 
 light  on  the  question  as  to  the  day  on  which  our  Lord 
 kept  his  last  Passover,  arising  out  of  the  words  in 
 John  xviii.  28,  aW'  'lua  (pdyrcai  to  irdaxa- 
 
 4.  The  fri'quent  citations  of  the  LXX.  by  the 
 Greek  Fatliers,  and  of  tlie  Latin  Version  of  the 
 LXX.  by  the  Fathers  who  wrote  in  Latin,  form 
 anotiier  strong  reason  for  the  study  of  the  Septua- 
 gint.  Pearson  cites  the  appellation  of  Scnrabcetis 
 bonus,  applied  to  Christ  by  Ambrose  and  Augus- 
 tine, as  explained  by  reference  to  the  LXX.  in 
 Habak.  ii.  11,  KavQapos  fK  ^v\ou- 
 
 5.  On  the  value  of  the  LXX.  as  a  monument  of 
 the  Greek  language  in  one  of  its  most  curious 
 phases,  this  is  not  the  place  to  dwell.  Our  busi- 
 ness is  with  the  use  of  this  Version,  as  it  bears  on 
 the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  And 
 we  may  safely  urge  the  theological  student  who 
 wishes  to  be  "  thoroughly  furnished  "  to  have  al- 
 ways at  his  side  the  Septuagint.  Let  the  Hebrew, 
 if  possible,  be  placed  before  him  ;  and  at  his  right, 
 in  the  next  place  of  honor,  the  Alexandrian  Version ; 
 the  close  and  careful  study  of  this  Version  will  be 
 more  profitable  than  the  most  learned  inquiry  into 
 its  origin ;  it  will  help  him  to  a  better  knowledge 
 both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
 
 Objects  to   be  attained  by  the  Critical 
 
 SCHOLAK. 
 
 1.  A  question  of  much  interest  still  waits  for  a 
 solution.  In  many  of  the  passages  which  show  a 
 studied  variation  from  the  Hebrew  (some  of  which 
 are  above  noted),  the  Septuagint  and  the  Samar- 
 itan Pentateuch  agree  together:  e.  y.  Gen.  ii.  2; 
 Ex.  xii.  40. 
 
 They  also  agree  in  many  of  the  ages  of  the 
 post-diluvian  Patriarchs,  adding  100  years  to  the 
 age  at  which  the  first  son  of  each  was  born,  ac- 
 cording to  the  Hebrew.  (See  Cappelli  Crit.  iSacr. 
 iii.,  XX.,  vii.) 
 
 They  agree  in  the  addition  of  the  words  SieXdco- 
 ufv  eis  rh  Treolov,  Gen.  iv.  8,  which  we  have  seen 
 reason  to  think  rightly  added. 
 
 Various  reasons  have  been  conjectured  for  this 
 agreement;  translation  into  Gi'eek  from  a  Samar- 
 itan text,  interpolation  i'rom  the  Samaritan  into 
 the  Greelc,  or  rice  7'ersd ;  but  tlie  question  does  not 
 seem  to  have  found  a  satisfiictory  answer.  [Sainiak- 
 iTAN  Pentateuch,  p.  2811  6;  Versions,  An- 
 cient (Greek).] 
 
 2.  For  the  critical  scholar  it  would  be  a  worthy 
 object  of  pursuit  to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
 the  original  text  of  the  Septuagint  as  it  stood  in 
 the  time  of  the  Apostles  and  Philo.  If  this  could 
 be  accomplished  with  any  tolerable  completeness,  it 
 would  possess  a  strong  interest,  as  being  the  first 
 translation  of  any  writing  into  another  tongue,  and 
 the  first  repository  of  Divine  truth  to  the  great 
 colony  of  Hellenistic  Jews  at  Alexandria. 
 
 The  critic  would  probaldy  take  as  his  basis  the 
 Eoman  edition,  from  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  as  rep- 
 resenting most  nearly  the  ancient  {Koi.vi))  texts. 
 Tlie  collection  of  fragments  of  Origen's  Ihxapli, 
 by  Montfaucon  and  others,  would  help  him  to 
 eliminate  the  additions  which  have  been  made  to 
 the  LXX.  from  other  sources,  and  to  purge  out 
 the  glosses  and  double  renderings;  the  citations  in 
 the  New  Testament  and  in  Philo,  in  the  early 
 Christian  Fathers,  both  Greek   and    Latin,  would 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 render  assistance  of  the  same  kind;  and  perhaps 
 the  most  effective  aid  of  all  would  be  found  in  the 
 fragments  of  the  Old  Latin  Version  collected  by 
 Sabatier  in  3  vols,  folio  (Rlieims,  1743). 
 
 3.  Another  work,  of  more  practical  and  general 
 interest,  still  remains  to  be  done,  namely,  to  provide 
 a  Greek  version,  accurate  and  faithful  to  the  He- 
 brew original,  for  the  use  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
 of  students  reading  the  Scriptures  in  that  language 
 for  purposes  of  devotion  or  mental  improvement. 
 Mr.  Field's  edition  is  as  yet  the  best  edition  of 
 this  kind ;  it  originated  in  the  desire  to  supply  the 
 Greek  Church  with  such  a  faithful  copy  of  the 
 Scriptures;  but  as  the  editor  has  followed  the  text 
 of  the  Alexandrian  MS.,  oidy  correcting,  by  tlie 
 help  of  other  jMSS.,  the  evident  errors  of  transcrip- 
 tion (e.  g.  in  Gen.  xv.  15,  correcting  rpacpels  in 
 the  Alex.  MS.  to  Tacptis,  the  reading  of  the  Com- 
 plut.  text),  and  as  we  have  seen  above  that  the 
 Alexandrian  text  is  far  from  being  the  nearest  to 
 the  Hebrew,  it  is  evident  that  a  more  faithful  and 
 complete  copy  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek 
 might  ^et  be  provided. 
 
 AVe  may  here  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  such 
 an  edition  might  prepare  the  way  for  the  correction 
 of  the  blemishes  which  renjain  in  our  Authorized 
 English  Version.  Embracing  the  results  of  the 
 criticism  of  the  last  250  years,  it  might  exhibit 
 several  passages  in  their  original  puritj":  and  the 
 corrections  thus  made,  being  approved  by  the  judg- 
 ment of  the  best  scholars,  would  probably,  after  a 
 time,  find  their  way  into  the  margin,  at  least,  of  our 
 English  Bibles. 
 
 One  example  only  can  be  here  given,  in  a  passage 
 which  has  caused  no  small  perplexity  and  loads  of 
 commentary.  Is.  ix.  3  is  thus  rendered  in  the 
 LXX. :  rh  irAeTcTOV  rov  \aov,  i  Karriyayes  iv 
 eixppoavvr)  aov  Kal  eij<ppav6ijaoi'Ta,t  ivdo'iTiSv  cov, 
 ws  ol  eu(ppaiv6fiivoi  iv  a/x-qTif,  koI  t)v  rpoirov  ui 
 Siatpov/j.evoi  aKvAa. 
 
 It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  faulty  rendering  of  the 
 first  part  of  this  has  arisen  from  the  similarity  of 
 
 Hebrew  letters,  H  and  H,  "T  and  ~1,  and  from 
 an  ancient  error  in  the  Hebrew  text.  The  follow- 
 ing translation  restores  the  whole  passage  to  its 
 original  clearness  and  force :  — 
 
 inKiqOvva^  rrjv  ayaWCaatv  (7  Sljjj 
 tiK^paiuovTat    evoiiTiop   0"0v    a)5    ot  eiKppctiVOfxevoi 
 
 ov  TpOTTOv  ayaAAttovTat  ot  5taipovju.efOt  cKvKa. 
 
 Thou  hast  multiplied  the  gladnes.s. 
 
 Thou  hast  increased  the  joy  ; 
 
 They  rejoice  before  thee  as  with  the  joy  of  harvest; 
 
 As  men  are  glad  when  they  divide  the  spoil. 
 
 Here  ayaWiacris  and  ayaWiuvrai,  in  the  first 
 and  fourth  lines,  correspond  to  /^^  and  •lv'^3^  : 
 fvfppoavvri  and  iiKppaivovrai,  in  the  second  and 
 third,  to  nn72W  and  ^Ht^b. 
 
 The  fourfold  introverted  parallelism  is  complete, 
 and  the  connection  with  the  context  of  the  prophecy 
 perfect. 
 
 It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  in  such 
 an  edition  the  apocryphal  additions  to  the  book 
 of  Esther,  and  those  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  which 
 are  rot  recognized  by  the  Hebrew  Canon,  would 
 be  either  omitted,  or  (perhaps  more  properly,  since 
 they  iqipear   to  have  been   incorporated   with  the 
 
SEPTUAGINT 
 
 Septuagint  at  an  early  date)  would  be  placed  sepa- 
 rately, as  in  Mr.  Field's  edition  and  our  English 
 Versioh.  [See  Apocrypha;  Canon;  Daniel, 
 Apoc.  Additions;  Esther;  Samaritan  Pent.] 
 
 Literature. 
 
 Cappelli  Critica  iSncra,  1651.  Waltoni  Proleg. 
 ad  Blbl.  Polj/glolL  1657.  Pearsoni  Prcef.  Parm- 
 netica  nd  LXX.,  1655.  Voss,  I.,  de  LXX.  Interp. 
 Hag.  1661;  App.  1663.  'iilonihmaow,  Ilexnplorum 
 Oriffenis  quce  sujiersunt,  Paris,  1710;  ed.  Bahrdt. 
 Lips.  1740.  Hody,  de  Bibl.  Text.  Ori'jinnl.  Vers. 
 Grmcis,  et  Latlnd  Vulyata,  1705.  Hottiiiger, 
 Thesaurus.  Owen,  Dr.  H.,  Enquiry  into  the  LXX.., 
 1769;  Brief  Account,  eic  119)1.  Kennicott's  /)«- 
 sertations.  Holmes,  Prolegg.  ad  LXX.,  1798. 
 Valckenaer,  Diatribe  de  Anstobulo  Jwkeo,  1806. 
 Schleusner,  OjJusc.Crit.  ad  Verss.  Gr.  V.  7'.  1812. 
 Diihne,  Judisch-Alexnndrinische  Pldloso/ihie,  1834. 
 Tcipler,  de  Pentat.  interp.  Alex,  indole  crit.  et 
 herinen.  1830.  Pliischke,  Lectiones  Alex,  et  Hebr. 
 1837.  Thiersch,  de  Pentnteuchi  Vers.  Alexan- 
 driiia,  1841. <"  Frankel,  Vorsiudien  zu  der  Septua- 
 ginta,  1841 ;  Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  Piddstinischen 
 Kxcgeseauf  die  Alex.  Herineneutik,  1851.  Grin- 
 field,  E.  W.,  N.  T.  Editio  Ilellenislicii,  1843,  and 
 Apology  for  the  Septuagint.  Selvvyn,  W.,  Notce 
 Critica;  in  Ex.  i.-x,xiv.,  Numeros,  Deuteronomium, 
 1856-58  (comparing  LXX.  with  Hebrew,  etc.). 
 Hor.  llebr.  on  Is.  ix.  Chnrton,  Hulse.((H  Essay, 
 1861.  Journal  of  Sacred  Lit ,  Papers  (by  G. 
 Pearson)  on  LXX.;  Vols,  i.,  iv.,  vii.,  3d  series. 
 Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  Carpzov,  Eichhorn,  HJi- 
 vernick,  Davidson  [De  Wette,  Keil,  Ijleek]. 
 
 Concordances,  Kircher,  1007;  Tronimius,  1718. 
 
 Lexica,  Biel,  1780;  Schleusner,  182i). 
 
 On  the  Language  of  the  LXX.  —  Winer,  Gram- 
 mar; Sturz,  de  Dinlecto  Macedonica;  Maltby,  Ed., 
 Two  Sermons  before  University  of  Durham,  1843. 
 
 W.  S. 
 
 *  We  have  as  yet  no  critical  edition  of  the 
 Septuagint,  —  none  in  which  the  existing  materials 
 for  settling  the  text  have  been  applied  for  that  pur- 
 pose. The  available  materials  are  indeed  inade- 
 quate. It  is  to  be  hoped,  however,  that  through 
 the  labors  of  Bianchini,  Baber,  Tisciiendorf,  Ver- 
 cellone  and  Cozza,  Ceriani,  and  others,  we  shall 
 soon  have  the  text  of  all  the  known  unci<d  MSS. 
 of  this  version  published  in  a  trustworthy  form. 
 When  this  is  accomplislied,  Tischendorf  promises, 
 if  his  life  is  spared,  to  undertake  a  new  edition, 
 "  talem  qualem  litterse  sacrse  poscunt  et  per  instru- 
 menta  critica  perfici  licebit  "  (Pref.  to  his  4th  ed., 
 1869,  p.  vii.).  But  before  a  thoroughly  satisfac- 
 tory edition  can  be  prepared  a  great  amount  of 
 labor  must  still  be  spent  on  the  cursive  manuscripts, 
 the  ancient  versions  made  from  the  Greek  (the  Old 
 Latin,  Egyptian  in  different  dialects,  ^Ethiopic, 
 Armenian,  and  Hexaplar  Syriac),  and  on  the  quo- 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 2925 
 
 a  *  A  special  value  of  this  treatise  by  Dr.  Thiersch 
 is  the  testimony  which  it  furnishes  to  the  accuracy 
 of  our  present  Hebrew  text.  His  decision  after  an 
 elaborate  collation  of  the  two  works  is,  that  in  the 
 great  bulk  of  the  passages  the  Greek  Septuagint  of 
 the  Pentateuch  and  the  traditionary  Masoretio  text 
 correspond  to  each  other  as  nearly  as  the  different 
 •"■enius  of  the  two  languages  will  permit.  Variations 
 exist,  it  is  true,  but  we  can  refer  these  for  the  most 
 part  to  principles  of  translation  on  the  part  of  the 
 Seventy,  rhetorical  or  dogmatic,  which  will  account 
 for  them  without  assuming  tlie  existence  of  different 
 Hebrew    readings.     The   conclusion    of  Dr.  Thiersch 
 
 tations  from  the  Sept.  in  the  writings  of  the 
 Fathers.  The  edition  of  Holmes  and  Parsons 
 leaves  very  much  to  be  desired  in  all  these  respects. 
 A  formidable  programme  of  the  work  required,  and 
 a  small  but  thankworthy  contribution  towards  it, 
 are  given  by  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  in  his  Genesis  Gicb^ 
 ce,  e  Fide  Ed.  Sixtince  addil.a  Scripturce  Discre- 
 pantia  e  Libris  Manic  sci'iptis  a  se  ipso  conlatis  et 
 Edd.  Conipl.  et  Aid.  ndcuratissime  enotaia  (Lips. 
 1868);  comp.  the  review  ijy  Kamphausen  in  the 
 Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1869,  pp.  721-758.  Useful 
 preliminary  labor  has  also  been  performed  by  0.  F. 
 Fritzsche,  especially  in  regard  to  the  classification 
 of  the  MSS.,  in  his  editions  of  several  books,  namely, 
 E20HP-  Duplicem  Libri  Textuin  ad  optimos  Cod- 
 ices edidit,  Turici,  1848;  'Povd  /caret  rovs  O', 
 ibid.  1864;  IJber  ludicum  secundum  LXX.  Inter- 
 pretcs.  Triplicem  Texlus  Conformationem  recen- 
 suit,  etc.  ibid.  1867,  first  published  as  two  Univer- 
 sity programmes  with  the  title,  Specimen  novce  Ed. 
 crit.  LXX.  Interpretum.  He  has  also  paid  ps^rtic- 
 uJar  attention  to  the  text  in  the  Kurzgef.  exeg. 
 Handb.  zu  d.  Apolcryphen  d.  A.  T.,  edited  by  him 
 and  C.  L.  W.  Grimm  (1851-59);  and  the  valuable 
 articles  Alexandrinische  Ueberset.  -ng  and  ViiU 
 gata  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  are  from  his  pen. 
 
 On  the  MSS.  of  the  Sept.  see  before,  p.  2914  f. 
 and  note  6;  see  also  Aniersfoordt,  De  vuriis  Lec- 
 tionibus  nolmesi((nis  I^ocoruni  quorunda.m  Pentn- 
 teuchi, Lugd.  Bat.  1815.  Respecting  the  Hexaplar 
 text  there  are  a  number  of  important  articles  by 
 Doederlein,  Matthaei,  Eichhorn,  Bruns,  and  De 
 Rossi  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium ;  see  also  Ver- 
 sions, Ancient  (Syriac),  I,  B,  and  the  editions 
 of  Jeremiah  (by  Spohn)  and  Ezekiel  mentioned 
 below.  The  more  important  MSS.  containing  this 
 text  have  ah'eady  been  referred  to  (p.  2914  f.  note  b). 
 For  the  quotations  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  see 
 
 F.  A.  Stroth,  Beitrdge  znr  Kritik  iib.  d.  70  Doll- 
 metscher,  in  Eichhorn's  liepert.  ii.  66  ft",  iii.  213  ff., 
 vi.  124  ff.,  xiii.  158  ff. ;  comp.  Credner's  Beitrdge 
 zur  Einl.  in  d.  bibl.  Schriften  (1838),  Bd.  ii.  .i 
 new  edition  of  the  Hexapla  has  been  begim  by  F. 
 Field,  Tom.  ii.  fasc.  1,  2,  Lond.  I867-(J8,  4to. 
 
 Among  the  monographs  relating  to  the  Septuar 
 gint  version  of  particular  books,  we  may  also  men- 
 tion the  following;    G.  Bickell,  De  Indole  et  Rat. 
 
 Vers.  Alex,  in  interpretando  Libro  ,/obi,  Marb 
 1863.       J.  G.  Jager,    Ob.^s.  in    Prov.    Salomonis 
 
 Vers.  Alex.  1788.  P.  A.  de  Lagarde,  Anmerkun- 
 genzur  griech.   iibers.  d.  Proverbien,  Leipz.  1863. 
 
 G.  L.  Spohn,  Jeremias  Votes  e  Vers.  ,Jud.  Alex, 
 ac  reliq.  Interp.  Gnecoruin  emend.  Notisque  crit. 
 illustr.  2  vols.  Lips.  1794-1824.  F.  C.  Movers, 
 De  utriusque  Recens.  Valicin.  Jerem.  Indole  et 
 Origine,  Hamb.  1837.  J.  Wichelhaus,  De  Jerem. 
 Vers.  Alex.  Indole  et  Auctoritate,  Hal.  1846.    Je- 
 
 zeciel  secundum  LXX.  ex  Tetrajilis  Origenis  e 
 singidari  Chisiano  Codice.  . .  .  op.  A.  Vincentii  de 
 
 tinder  this  head  is  :  "  Hac  dissertatione  videmur  de- 
 monstrasse  earn  esse  versionis  Pentateuch!  Alex, 
 andrinae  indolem,  ut  ad  explicaudum  quidem  te.xtum 
 Masorethicum  non  parum  conferat,  ad  mutandam 
 vero  nisi  magna  cum  temeritate  adhiberi  nequeat." 
 
 The  other  two  parts  of  the  treatise  relate  to  the  char- 
 acter of  the  Greek  dialect  represented  in  this  version, 
 and  to  the  unconsciously  transferred  Hebraisms  which 
 are  mixed  with  it.  The  author's  view  as  to  the  basis 
 of  the  Greek  dialect  in  distinction  from  its  Hebrew 
 coloring  is  substantially  that  of  Sturz,  ]!uttmana,  Wi- 
 ner, and  others.  II. 
 
2926 
 
 SEPULCHRE 
 
 Reyihus,  Rom.  1840,  fol.  Daniel  sec.  LXX.  ex 
 TelrapUs  Ongenis  nunc  priinum  ed.  e  aing.  Cld- 
 sinno  Codice,  Horn.  1772,  fol.,  reprinted  in  several 
 editions,  the  best  by  Hahn,  Jips.  1845.  J.  G.  C. 
 Hoepfner,  Curarurti  cvit.  tt  exeg.  in  LXX.  virnlem 
 Vers.  Voticin.  Jonce  Specini.  i.-iii.  Lips.  1787-88. 
 The  Septuagint  version  of  the  books  of  Samuel 
 and  Kings  is  particularly  discussed  by  Thenius 
 {Kurzgef.  txng.  Ilaiulb.  zuia  A.  V.  vols,  iv.,  ix.). 
 He  regards  it  as  a  very  important  help  in  the  correc- 
 tion of  the  Hebrew  text. 
 
 Other  dissertations  vrorth  naming  are  by  L.  T. 
 Spittler,  De  Usu  Vtrs.  Alex.  op.  Josephum.,  Gott. 
 1779 ;  .(.  G.  Scharfenberg,  De  Jvscphi  et  Vers. 
 Alex.  Consensu,  jjips.  1780;  and  T.  Studer,  De 
 Vevs.  Alex.  Origine,  IJist.  et  AOusu  crilicu,  Ijerii. 
 182-3.  See  also  Geiger,  Ursciirljl  u.  Ueberseizun- 
 gen  der  Bibel,  Bresl.  1857 ;  Ewald,  Gcsch.  des  Volkes 
 Jsrael,  3^  Ausg.  (18G3),  iv.  322  ff.;  and  the  art. 
 Veksions,  Ancient  (Gkeek),  in  this  Dictiunary. 
 
 A  good  Lexicon  to  the  Sept.  is  still  a  desidera- 
 tum. The  iVovus  Thesaurus  pidlol.  sive  Lex.  in 
 LXX.  etc.  of  .L  C.  Biel,  3  vols.  Hagse-Com.  1779 
 -80,  and  the  Nuvus  Tlies.  phil.-criticus  of  .J.  F. 
 Schleusner,  5  pts.  Lips.  1820-21,  reprinted  at  Glas- 
 gow in  1822  in  3  vols.  8vo,  are  but  little  more  than 
 collections  of  valuable  materials  for  a  dictionary, 
 rudely  arranged.  Much  better  (for  the  Apocrypha) 
 is  C.  A.  Walil's  Cliivis  Libronun  Vet.  Test.  Apoci: 
 Phikilogicd,  Lips.  1863.  A. 
 
 SEPULCHRE.     [Burial.] 
 
 SE'RAH  {r\'i^  [abundance]  :  2,dpa  in  Gen., 
 2ope  in  1  Chr. ;  Alex.,  2aap  in  Gen.,  2apai  in 
 1  Chr.:  tiara).  The  daughter  of  Aslier  (Gen. 
 xlvi.  17;  1  Chr.  vii.  30);  called  in  Num.  xxvi.  40, 
 Saeah. 
 
 SERA'IAH  [3syl.]  {Tl'^^'^W  [warrioi- of  Je- 
 horah]  :  ^aad;  [Vat.  Aaa\]  Alex.  2opoia$:  Sara- 
 ias).  1.  Seraiah,  the  king's  scribe  or  secretary  in 
 the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  17).  In  the  Vat- 
 ican MS.  [lloman  ed.]  of  the  LXX.  Saca  appears 
 to  be  the  result  of  a  confusion  between  Seraiah  and 
 Shisha,  whose  sons  were  secretaries  to  Solomon 
 (1  K.  iv.  3). 
 
 2.  {'Sapaias,  [Sapai'a;]  Alex.  [Sapaia,]  2,apa- 
 'ias-  Saraias.)  Tlie  high-priest  in  the  reign  of 
 Zedekiah.  He  was  taken  captive  to  Bal)ylon  by 
 Nebuzaradan,  the  captain  of  the  guard,  and  slain 
 with  utliers  at  Kiblah  (2  K.  xxv.  18;  1  Chr.  vi.  14; 
 Jer.  lii.  24). 
 
 3.  ([Sopaias;  Vat.  in  Jer.,  2apaia:]  Saraia, 
 Sarea.)  The  son  of  I'anhumeth  the  Netophathite, 
 according  to  2  K.  xiv.  23,  who  came  with  Ishniael, 
 Johanan,  and  Jaazaniah  to  Gedaliah,  and  was  per- 
 suaded by  him  to  submit  quietly  to  the  Chalda;ans 
 and  settle  in  the  land  (.Jer.  xl.  8). 
 
 4.  (2apa/a;  [.Vlex.  in  ver.  14,  2apia:]  t'arain.) 
 The  son  of  Kenaz,  brother  of  Otbniel,  and  father 
 of  Joab,  the  father  or  founder  of  the  valley  of  Cha- 
 rashim  (1  Chr.  iv.  13,  14). 
 
 5.  (SapaC;  [Vat.  'Zapaav\\  Alex.  Sapaja) 
 Ancestor  of  Jehu,  a  chief  of  one  of  the  Siuieonite 
 families  (1  Chr.  iv.  35). 
 
 6.  (2apaias;  [Vat.  Apaiax-])  One  of  the 
 children  of  the  province  who  returned  with  Zerub- 
 babel  (Ezr.  ii.  2).  In  Neh.  vii.  7  he  is  called  AzA- 
 RiAir,  and  in  1  Esdr.  v.  8,  Zachakias. 
 
 7.  [Sapai'as.]  One  of  the  ancestors  of  Ezra  the 
 Bcribe  (Ezr.  vii.  1),  but  whether  or  not  the  same  as 
 Seraiah  the  high-priest  seems  uncertain.  Called 
 (ilso  S.viiAiAs  (1  Esdr.  viii.  1 ;  2  Esdr.  i.  1). 
 
 SERAPHIM 
 
 8.  {vihs  'kpaia\  Alex.  [FA.]  mos  2apa<a: 
 [Haraias.'] )  A  priest,  or  priestly  family,  who  signed 
 the  covenant  with  jSfehemiah  (Neh.  x.  2). 
 
 9.  i'Zapaia.  \_Saraia.'])  A  priest,  the  son  of 
 Hilkiah  (Neh.  xi.  11),  who  was  ruler  of  the  house 
 of  God  after  the  return  from  Babylon.  In  1  Chr. 
 ix.  11  he  is  called  Azaiuah. 
 
 10.  (2apaia.)  The  head  of  a  priestly  house 
 which  went  up  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel. 
 His  representative  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the  high- 
 priest  was  Meraiah  (Neh.  xii.  1,  12). 
 
 11.  (2apaias;  [FA.  in  ver.  59,  2apeas.])  The 
 son  of  Neriah,  and  brother  of  Baruch  (Jer.  li.  59, 
 01).  He  went  with  Zedekiah  to  Babylon  in  the 
 4th  year  of  his  reign,  or,  as  the  Targum  lias  it, 
 "  in  the  mission  of  Zedekiah,"  and  is  described  aa 
 
 nn^3p  '^tt?,  sar  menucltdh  (lit.  "prince  of 
 I'est  ;  "  A.  V.  "  a  quiet  prince;  "  marg.  "  or,  prince 
 of  Menucha,  or,  chief  chamberlain  "),  a  title  which 
 is  interpreted  by  Kinichi  as  that  of  the  office  of 
 chamberlain,  "for  he  was  a  friend  of  the  king,  and 
 was  with  the  king  at  the  time  of  his  rest,  to  talk 
 and  to   delight  himself  with   him."      The   LXX. 
 
 and  Targum  read  nn3^,  minclialK  "  an  offering," 
 and  so  Rashi,  who  says,  "  under  his  hand  were 
 those  who  saw  the  king's  face,  who  brought  him  a 
 present."       The  Peshito-Syriac  renders   "  chief  of 
 
 the  camp,"  apparently  reading  nsn^,  machaneh, 
 unless  the  translator  understood  nicni'ichah  of  the 
 halting-place  of  an  army,  in  which  sense  it  occurs 
 in  Num.  x.  33.  Gesenius  adopts  the  latter  view, 
 and  makes  Seraiah  hold  an  office  similar  to  that  of 
 "  quartermaster- general  "  in  the  Babylonian  army. 
 It  is  perfectly  clear,  however,  that  he  was  in  attend- 
 ance upon  Zedekiah,  and  an  officer  of  the  Jewish 
 court.  The  suggestion  of  Maurer,  adopted  byHit- 
 zig,  has  more  to  commend  it,  that  he  was  an  officer 
 who  took  charge  of  the  royal  caravan  on  its  march, 
 and  fixed  the  place  where  it  should  halt.  Hiller 
 [Onom.)  says  Seraiah  w.is  prince  of  Menuchah, 
 a  place  on  the  borders  of  Judah  and  Dan,  elsewhere 
 called  IManahath.  The  rendering  of  the  Vulgate  is 
 unaccountable,  pirinceps  jirophetice. 
 
 Seraiah  was  commissioned  by  the  prophet  Jere- 
 miah to  take  with  him  on  his  journey  the  roll  in 
 which  he  had  written  the  doom  of  Babylon,  and 
 sink  it  in  the  midst  of  the  Euphrates,  as  a  token 
 that  Babylon  should  sink,  never  to  rise  again  (Jer. 
 li.  60-64)".  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SER'APHIM  (D^Dni;;  [see  below] :  2epo- 
 (pei/j.:  SerajJum).  An  order  of  celestial  beings, 
 whom  Isaiah  beheld  in  vision  standing  above  Jeho- 
 vah (not  as  in  A.  V.,  "above  Z/,"  i.  e.  the  throne) 
 as  He  sat  upon  his  throne  (Is.  vi.  2).  They  are 
 described  as  having  each  of  them  three  pairs  oi 
 wings,  with  one  of  which  they  covered  their  faces 
 (a  token  of  humility;  comp.  Ex.  iii.  6;  IK.  xix. 
 13;  Plutarch,  Qucesl.  Horn.  10);  with  the  second 
 they  covered  their  feet  (a  token  of  respect;  see 
 Lowth  on  Is.  vi.  who  quotes  Chardin  in  illustra- 
 tion); while  with  the  third  they  flew.  They  seem 
 to  have  borne  a  general  resemblance  to  the  human 
 figure,  foi-  they  are  represented  as  having  a  face,  a 
 voice,  feet,  and  hands  (ver.  6).  Their  occupation 
 was  twofold  —  to  celebrate  the  praises  of  Jehovah's 
 holiness  and  power  (ver.  3),  and  to  act  as  the  me- 
 dium of  comnuniication  between  heaven  and  earth 
 (ver.  6).  From  their  antiphonal  chant  ("  one 
 cried  unto  another")  we  may  conceive  them  to 
 have  been  ranged  in  opposite  rows  on  each  side  of 
 
SERED 
 
 the  throne.  As  the  Seraphim  are  nowhere  else 
 mentioned  in  tlie  Bible,  our  conceptions  of  their  ap- 
 pearance must  be  restricted  to  the  above  particulars, 
 iided  by  such  uncertain  light  as  etymology  and 
 analogy  will  supply.  We  may  observe  that  the 
 idea  of  a  winged  liuman  figure  was  not  peculiar  to 
 the  Hebrews  :  among  the  sculptures  found  at 
 Mourt/hmb  in  Persia,  we  meet  with  a  representa- 
 tion of  a  man  with  two  pairs  of  wings,  springing 
 from  the  shoulders,  and  extending,  the  one  pair  up- 
 wards, the  other  downwards,  so  as  to  admit  of 
 covering  the  head  and  the  feet  (Vaux's  Niii.  and 
 Persep.  p.  322).  The  wings  in  this  instance  imply 
 deification;  for  speed  and  ease  of  motion  stand,  in 
 man's  imagination,  among  the  most  prominent  to- 
 kens of  Divinity.  The  meaning  of  the  word  "  ser- 
 aph "  is  extremely  doubtful;  the  only  word  which 
 reseml)!es  it  in  the  current  Ilelirew  is  saraph,'^'  "  to 
 burn,"  whence  the  idea  of  brllUancy  has  been  ex- 
 tracted. Such  a  sense  would  harmonize  with  other 
 descriptions  of  celestial  beings  (e.  (j.  Ez.  i.  1.3; 
 Matt,  xxviii.  3);  but  it  is  objected  that  the  Hebrew 
 term  never  bears  this  secondary  sense.  Gesenius 
 ( rAes.  p.  1341)  connects  it  with  an  Arabic  term 
 signifying  high  or  exalted;  and  this  may  be  re- 
 garded as  the  generally  received  etymology;  but 
 the  absence  of  any  cognate  Hebrew  term  is  certainly 
 worthy  of  remark.  The  similarity  between  the 
 names  Seraphim  and  Sarapis,  led  Ilitzig  (in  Is.  vi. 
 2)  to  identify  the  two,  and  to  give  to  the  former 
 the  figure  of  a  winged  serpent.  But  Sarapis  was 
 unknown  in  the  Egyptian  Pantheon  until  the  time 
 of  Ptolemy  Soter  (Wilkinson's  Anc.  Eg.  iv.  360 
 ff.);  and,  even  had  it  been  otherwise,  we  can  hardly 
 conceive  that  the  Hebrews  would  have  borrowed 
 their  imagery  from  such  a  source.  Knobel's  con- 
 jecture that  Seraphim  is  merely  a  false  reading  for 
 shdratliim./^  "  ministers,"  is  ingenious,  but  the  lat- 
 ter word  is  not  Helirew.  The  relation  subsisting 
 between  the  Cherul)im  and  Seraphim  presents  an- 
 other difficulty:  the ''living  creatures  "  described 
 in  Rev.  iv.  8  resemble  the  Seraphim  in  their  occu- 
 pation and  the  number  of  the  wings  ;  and  the 
 Cheruliim  in  their  general  appearance  and  number, 
 as  described  in  Ez.  i.  5  IF.,  x.  12.  The  difference 
 between  the  two  may  not,  therefore,  be  great,  but 
 we  cannot  believe  them  to  be  identical  so  long  as 
 the  distinction  of  name  holds  good.        W.  L.  B. 
 
 SE'RED  (ir'D  [feai-l :  :$epsS  in  Gen.,  2o- 
 pe'SinNum.:  Sm-ed).  The  firstborn  of  Zebulon, 
 and  ancestor  of  the  family  of  the  Sardites  (Gen. 
 xlvi.  14;  Num.  xxvi.  26). 
 
 *  SERGEANTS  occurs  only  in  Acts  xvi.  3.5, 
 38,  answering  to  pa^Sovxoi,  properly  "  rod-bearers  " 
 (in  Latin,  liclores).  They  were  the  official  attend- 
 ants of  the  higher  Roman  magistrates,  and  exe- 
 cuted their  orders,  especially  for  the  arrest  and  pun- 
 isiniient  of  criuiinals.  Their  duties  were  civil 
 rather  than  military,  and  "sergeants,"  in  its  older 
 English  sense,  was  less  inappropriate  than  it  is  at 
 present.  In  the  colonies  the  lictors  carried  staves, 
 not  fdscex,  as  at  Rome.  It  was  to  them  that  the 
 rulers  at  Philippi  gave  the  command  to  beat  Paul 
 and  Silas  (iKiKevov  pal3Si(eiu).  Luke  speaks  of 
 the  presence  of  "  rod-l)earers  "  only  in  his  account 
 of  what  took  place  at  Philippi;  and  it  is  almost 
 the  only  place  in  his  narrative  where  he  coidd 
 rightly  introduce  them.     Philippi  being  a  Roman 
 
 SERPENT  2927 
 
 colony,  unlike  other  Grecian  cities,  was  governed 
 after  the  Roman  mode;  its  chief  officers,  though 
 properly  called  according  to  their  number  duumviri 
 or  qiid/uorciri,  assumed  the  more  honorary  title  of 
 prce/ors  (aTpaTr]yoi,  five  times  here  in  Acts),  and, 
 in  token  of  the  Roman  sovereignty,  had  rod-bear- 
 ers or  lictors  as  at  Rome  [Colony,  Amer.  ed.] 
 The  lictors  exercised  their  highest  functions  during 
 the  time  of  the  republic,  but  still  existed  under  the 
 emperors.  (See  Pauly's  Jieal.  Encyld.  iv.  1082  f.) 
 Paul  was  at  Philippi  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  about 
 A.  D.  52.  H. 
 
 SER'GIUS  PAU'LUS  {S.^pyLos  UaZhos: 
 Sergius  Ptiulus)  was  the  name  of  the  proconsid  of 
 Cyprus  when  the  Apostle  Paul  visited  tliat  island 
 with  Barnabas  on  his  first  missionary  tour  (Acts 
 xiii.  7  ff. ).  He  is  described  as  an  intelligent  man 
 ((Tvvir6s).i  truth-seeking,  eager  for  information 
 Irom  all  soiu'ces  within  his  reach.  It  was  this  trait 
 of  his  character  which  led  him  in  the  first  instance 
 to  admit  to  his  society  Elymas  tiie  Magian,  and 
 afterwards  to  seek  out  the  missionary  strangers  and 
 learn  from  them  the  nature  of  the  Christian  doc- 
 trine. Tlie  strongest  minds  at  that  period  were 
 drawn  with  a  singular  fa.soination  to  the  occult 
 studies  of  the  East;  and  the  ascendancy  which 
 Luke  represents  the  "sorcerer"  as  having  gained 
 over  Sergius  illustrates  a  characteristic  ieature  of 
 the  times.  For  other  examples  of  a  similar  char- 
 acter, see  Howson's  JAj'ti  imd  Epistles  of  Paul,  vol. 
 i.  p.  177  f.  But  Sergius  was  not  effectually  or  long 
 deceived  by  the  arts  of  the  impostor;  for  on  becom- 
 ing acquainted  with  the  Apostle  he  examined  at 
 once  the  claims  of  the  Gospel,  and  yielded  his  mind 
 to  the  evidence  of  its  truth. 
 
 It  is  unfortunate  that  this  officer  is  styled  "  dep- 
 uty "  in  the  Common  Version,  and  not  "  procon- 
 sul," according  to  the  import  of  the  (ii-eek  term 
 (avOinraTOs).  Though  Cyprus  was  originally  an 
 imperial  province  (Dion  Cassius,  liii.  12),  .and  as 
 such  governed  by  propraetors  or  legates  {avTicrrpd- 
 TT]yoi,  irpffffievTai),  it  was  afterwards  transferred 
 to  tlie  Roman  senate,  and  henceforth  governed  by 
 proconsuls  (koI  ovtoos  avdviraToi  kolI  es  iKilva  to, 
 iOvq  iTefj.nea6ai  i^p^auro,  Dion  Cassius,  liv.  4). 
 For  the  value  of  this  attestation  of  Luke's  accuracy, 
 see  Lardner's  Credibility  of' the  Gospel  History,  vol. 
 i.  p.  32  ff.  Coins  too  are  still  extant,  on  which 
 this  very  title,  ascribed  in  the  Acts  to  Sergius 
 Paulus,  occurs  as  the  title  of  the  Roman  governors 
 of  Cyprus.  (See  Akerman's  Numismatic  lllustra- 
 tivns,  p.  41 ;  and  Howson's  Lift  and  Epistles  of 
 Paul,  vol.  i.  pp.  170,  187.)  H.  B.  H. 
 
 SE'RON  {.■2,i)pwv:  in  Syr.  and  one  Gk.  MS. 
 "Upwv.  Seron),  a  general  of  Antiochus  Epiph.,  in 
 chief  command  of  the  Syrian  army  (1  Mace.  iii.  13, 
 6  a.px<^v  r.  Svv.  2.),  who  was  defeated  at  Beth- 
 horon  by  Judas  Maccabaeus  (b.  c.  16G),  as  in  the 
 day  when  Joshua  pursued  the  five  kings  ''  in  the 
 going  down  of  Beth-horon  "  (1  Mace.  iii.  24;  Josh. 
 x.  11).  According  to  Josephus,  he  was  the  gov- 
 ernor of  Coele-Syria  and  fell  in  the  battle  (Josh. 
 Ant.  xii.  7,  §  1 ),  nor  is  there  any  reason  to  suppose 
 that  his  statements  are  mere  deductions  from  the 
 language  of  1  Mace.  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SERPENT.  The  following  Hebrew  words 
 denote  serpents  of  some  kind  or  other.  'Acshub, 
 pethen,  tzepha'  or  tziph'oni,  shephiplwn,  ndchdsh, 
 and  eph'eh.  There  is  great  uncertainty  with  re- 
 spect to  the  identification  of  some  of  tliese  terms, 
 the  first  four  of  which  are  noticed  under  the  arti- 
 
2928  SERPENT 
 
 cles  ADRTiK  and  Asp:  the  two  remaining  names 
 we  proceed  to  discuss. 
 
 1.  Ndchash  (tTHD  :    }j(pis,     SpaKoiv-    serpens, 
 
 coluber),  the  generic  name  of  any  serpent,  occurs 
 frequently  in  the  O.  T.  The  following  are  the 
 principal  Biblical  allusions  to  this  animal :  its  sub- 
 tilty  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  iii.  1;  its  wisdom  is 
 alluded  to  by  our  Lord  in  Matt.  x.  16;  the  poison- 
 ous properties  of  some  species  are  often  mentioned 
 (see  Ps.  Iviii.  4;  Prov.  xxiii.  32);  the  sharp  tongue 
 of  the  serpent,  whicli  it  would  appear  some  of  the 
 ancient  Hebrews  Ijelieved  to  be  the  instrument  of 
 poison,  is  mentioned  in  Ps.  cxl.  3;  Job  xx.  16, 
 "the  viper's  tongue  shall  slay  him;"  although  in 
 other  places,  as  in  Prov.  xxiii.  32;  Eccl.  x.  8,  11; 
 Num.  xxi.  U,  the  venom  is  correctly  ascribed  to  the 
 bite,  while  in  Job  xx.  14  the  gall  is  said  to  be  the 
 poison ;  the  habit  serpents  have  of  lying  concealed 
 in  hedges  is  alluded  to  in  Keel.  x.  8,  and  in  holes 
 of  walls,  in  Am.  v.  19 ;  their  dwelling  in  dry  sandy 
 places,  in  Ueut.  viii.  15;  their  wonderful  mode  of 
 progression  did  not  escape  th3  observation  of  the 
 author  of  Prov.  xxx.  who  expressly  mentions  it  as 
 "  one  of  the  three  things  which  were  too  wonder- 
 ful for  him"  (ver  liM;  the  oviparous  nature  of 
 most  of  the  order  is  alluiled  to  in  Is.  lix.  5,  where 
 the  A.  v.,  however,  lias  the  unfortunate  rendering 
 of  "  cockatrice.''  The  art  of  taming  and  charming 
 serpents  is  of  great  antiquity,  and  is  alluded  to  in 
 Ps.  Iviii.  5;  Eccl.  x  11;  -ler.  viii.  17,  and  doubt- 
 less intimated  by  St.  James  (iii.  7),  who  particu- 
 larizes serpents  among  all  other  animals  that 
 "have  been  tamed  by  man."     [Serpent-chakm- 
 
 ING.] 
 
 It  was  under  the  form  of  a  serpent  that  the  devil 
 Beduced  Eve;  hence  in  Scripture  Satan  is  called 
 "  the  old  serpent  "  (Kev.  xii.  9,  and  comp.  2  Cor. 
 xi.  3). 
 
 The  part  which  the  serpent  played  in  the  trans- 
 action of  the  Fall  must  not  be  passed  over  without 
 some  brief  comment,  being  full  of  deep  and  curious 
 interest.  First  of  all,  then,  we  have  to  note  the 
 subtilty  ascribed  to  this  reptile,  which  was  the 
 reason  for  its  having  been  selected  as  the  instru- 
 ment of  Satan's  wiles,  and  to  compare  with  it  the 
 quality  of  wisdom  mentioned  by  our  Lord  as  be- 
 longing to  it,  "Be  ye  wise  as  serpents,"  Matt.  x. 
 16.  It  was  an  ancient  belief,  both  amongst  Orien- 
 tals and  the  people  of  the  western  world,  that  the 
 serpent  was  endued  with  a  large  share  of  sagacity. 
 The  Hebrew  word  translated  "  subtle,"  though  fre- 
 quently used  in  a  good  sense,  implies,  it  is  proba- 
 ble, in  this  passage,  "  mischievous  and  malignant 
 craftiness,"  and  is  well  rendered  by  Aquila  and 
 Theodotion  by  Travovpyos,  nnd  thus  connnented 
 upon  by  Jerome,  "  magis  itaque  hoc  verbo  calliditas 
 et  versutia  quam  sapientia  demonstratur "  (see 
 Rosenmidler,  Schd.  I.  c).  The  ancients  give  va- 
 rious reasons  for  regarding  serpents  as  being  endued 
 with  wisdom,  as  that  one  species,  the  Cerastes, 
 hides  itself  in  the  sand,  and  bites  the  heels  of  ani- 
 mals as  they  pass,  or  that,  as  the  head  was  consid- 
 ered the  only  vulnerable  part,  the  serpent  takes  care 
 to  conceal  it  under  the  folds  of  the  body.  Serpents 
 have  in  all  ages  been  regarded  as  emblems  of  cun- 
 ning craftiness.  The  particular  wisdom  alluded  to 
 by  our  Lord  refers,  it  is  proliable,  to  the  sagacity 
 displayed  by  serpents  in  avoiding  danger.  The 
 disciples  were  warned  to  be  as  prudent  in  not  in- 
 jurring  unnecessary  persecution. 
 
 It  has  been  supposed  by  many  commentators 
 
 SERPENT 
 
 that  the  serpent,  prior  to  the  Fall,  moved  along  in 
 an  erect  attitude,  as  Milton  {Par.  Lost,  ix.  496) 
 says,  — 
 
 '■  Not  with  indented  wave 
 Prone  on  the  ground,  as  .«ince,  but  on  his  rear, 
 Circular  base  of  rising  folds  that  tower'd 
 Fold  above  fold,  a  surging  maze." 
 
 Compare  also  Josephus,  Antiq.  i.  1,  §  4,  who  be- 
 lieved that  God  now  for  the  first  time  inserted  poi- 
 son under  the  serpent's  tongue,  and  deprived  him 
 of  the  use  of  feet,  causing  him  to  crawl  low  on  the 
 ground  by  the  undulating  inflexions  of  the  body 
 {Kara,  tjjj  yrjs  tAvanwiJ.ei'Of)-  Patrick  {Comment. 
 L  c.)  entertained  the  extraordinary  notion  that  the 
 serpent  of  the  Fall  was  a  winged  kind  {Suraph). 
 
 It  is  quite  clear  that  an  erect  mode  of  progres- 
 sion is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  structure  of  a 
 serpent,  whose  motion  on  the  ground  is  so  beauti- 
 fully effected  by  the  mechanism  of  the  vertebral 
 column  and  the  multitudinous  ribs  which,  forming 
 as  it  were  so  many  pairs  of  levers,  enable  the  ani- 
 mal to  move  its  body  from  place  to  place;  conse- 
 quently, had  the  snakes  before  the  Fall  moved  in 
 an  erect  attitude,  they  nnist  have  been  formed  on  a 
 different  plan  altogether.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
 saurian  reptiles,  such  as  the  Saurophis  ieiradac- 
 tylus  and  the  Chumcesmira  anynina  of  S.  Africa, 
 which  in  external  form  are  very  like  serpents,  but 
 with  qua.si-feet;  indeed,  even  in  the  boa-constric- 
 tor, underneath  the  skin  near  the  extremity,  there 
 exist  rudimentary  legs;  .some  have  been  disposed  to 
 believe  that  the  snakes  before  the  Fall  were  similar 
 to  the  Saurophis.  Such  an  hypothesis,  however, 
 is  untenable,  for  all  the  fossil  ophidia  that  have 
 hithertQ  been  found  differ  in  no  essential  respects 
 from  modern  representatives  of  tiiat  order:  it  is, 
 moreover,  beside  the  mark,  for  the  words  of  the 
 curse,  "  upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,"  are  as  char- 
 acteristic of  the  progression  of  a  saurophoid  serpent 
 before  the  Fall  as  of  a  true  ophidian  after  it. 
 There  is  no  I'eason  whatever  to  conclude  from  the 
 language  of  Scripture  that  the  serpent  underwent 
 any  change  of  form  on  account  of  the  part  it  played 
 in  the  history  of  the  Fall.  The  sun  and  the  moon 
 were  in  the  heavens  long  l)efore  they  were  appointed 
 "  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for 
 years."  The  typical  form  of  the  serpent  and  its 
 mode  of  progression  were  in  all  prolialjility  the 
 same  before  the  Fall  as  after  it;  but  subsequent  to 
 the  Fall  its  form  and  progression  were  to  be  re- 
 garded with  hatred  and  disgust  by  all  mankind, 
 and  thus  the  animal  was  cursed"  above  all  cattle," 
 and  a  mark  of  condenuiation  was  forever  stamped 
 upon  it.  There  can  be  no  necessity  to  show  how 
 that  part  of  the  curse  is  literally  fulfilled  which 
 speaks  of  the  "enmity"  that  was  henceforth  to 
 exist  between  the  serpent  and  mankind  ;  and 
 though,  of  course,  this  has  more  especial  allusion 
 to  the  devil,  whose  instrument  the  serpent  was  in 
 his  deceit,  yet  it  is  perfectly  true  of  the  serpent. 
 Few  will  be  inclined  to  differ  with  Theocritus  {Jcl. 
 XV.  58):  — 
 
 Tbi/  tjjvxpov  o<^i.»'  TafiaAitTTO  ieSoiKOj 
 'E(c  7rai86s. 
 Serpents  are  said  in  Scripture  to  "  eat  dust  "  (see 
 Gen.  iii.  14;  Is.  Ixv.  25;  Mic.  vii.  17);  these  ani- 
 mals, which  for  the  most  part  take  their  food  on 
 the  ground,  do  consequently  swallow  with  it  large 
 portions  of  sand  and  dust. 
 
 "  Almost  tin-ougbout  the  East,"  wTites  Dr.  Kal- 
 isch  {Hist,  and  Crit.  Comment.  Gen.  iii.  1),  "the 
 
SERPENT 
 
 serpent  was  used  as  an  emblem  of  the  evil  princi- 
 ple, of  tlie  spirit  of  disobedience  and  contumacy. 
 A  few  exceptions  only  can  be  discovered.  Tlie 
 Phoenicians  adored  that  animal  as  a  beneficent 
 genius;  and  the  Chinese  consider  it  as  a  symbol  of 
 superior  wisdom  and  power,  and  ascribe  to  the 
 kings  of  heaven  {titn-honngs)  bodies   of  serpents. 
 
 SERPENT 
 
 2929 
 
 Cneph  Agathodsemon ,  denoting  Immortality  (soj 
 HorapoUo,  i.  1). 
 
 Some  other  nations  fluctuated  in  their  conceptions 
 regarding  the  serpent.  The  Egyptians  represented 
 the  eternal  spirit  Kneph,  the  author  of  all  good, 
 under  the  mytliic  form  of  that  reptile;  they  under- 
 stood the  art  of  taming  it,  and  embalmed  it  after 
 death;  but  tliey  applied  the  same  symbol  for  the 
 god  of  revenge  and  punishment  (Tithrambo),  and 
 for  Typhon,  the  author  of  all  moral  and  physical 
 evil;  and  in  the  Egyptian  symbolical  alphabet  the 
 serpent  represents  subtlety  and  cunning,  lust  and 
 sensual  pleasure.  In  Greek  mythology  it  is  cer- 
 tainly, on  the  one  hand,  the  attribute  of  Ceres,  of 
 Mercury,  and  of  ^Esculapius,  in  their  most  benefi- 
 cent qualities;  but  it  forms,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
 part  of  the  terrible  Furies  or  Eumenides:  it  appears 
 in  the  form  of  a  Python  as  a  fearful  monster, 
 which  the  arrows  of  a  god  only  were  a.ble  to  destroy; 
 and  it  is  the  most  hideous  and  most  formidable 
 part  of  the  impious  giants  who  despise  and  blas- 
 pheme the  power  of  Heaven.     The  Indians,  like 
 
 Agathodsemon.      From  Egyptian  Monuments. 
 ".  Sacred  symbol  of  the  winged  globe  and  serpent. 
 '>.  Head  of  hawk  surmounted  by  globe  and  serpent. 
 
 the  savage  tribes  of  Africa  and  America,  suffer  and 
 nourish,  indeed,  serpents  in  their  temples,  and  even 
 in  their  houses;  they  believe  that  they  bring  hap- 
 piness to  the  places  which  they  inhabit;  they 
 worship  them  as  the  symbols  of  eternity ;  liut  they 
 regard  them  also  as  evil  genii,  or  as  the  inimical 
 powers  of  nature  which  is  gradually  depraved  by 
 
 them,  and  as  the  enemies  of  the  gods,  who  either 
 tear  them  in  pieces  or  tread  their  venomous  head 
 under  their  all-conquering  feet.  So  contradictory 
 is  all  animal  worship.  Its  principle  is,  in  some 
 ini^tances,  gratitude,  and  in  others  fear;  but  if  a 
 no.x^ious  animal  is  very  dangerous  the  fear  may 
 manifest  itself  in  two  ways,  either  by  the  resolute 
 desire  of  extirpating  the  beast,  or  by  the  wish  of 
 averting  the  conflict  with  its  superior  power;  thus 
 the  same  fear  may,  on  the  one  hand,  cause  fierce 
 enmity,  and  on  the  other  submission  and  worship." 
 (See  on  the  subject  of  serpent  worship,  Vossius,  de 
 Ori(/.  Idiil.  i.  5;  Bryant's  lUylhology,  i.  420-490; 
 it  is  well  illustrated  in  the  apocryphal  story  of  "  Bel 
 and  the  Dragon;  "  comp.  Steindorflf,  de  'OcpioAa- 
 rpsia,;  Winer's  Bib.  Rvnlioort.  ii.  488.)  The  sub- 
 joined wood-cut  represents  the  horned  cerastes,  as 
 very  frequently  depicted  on  the  Egyptian  monu- 
 ments. 
 
 Horned  Cerastes.     From  Egyptian  Monuments. 
 
 The  evil  spirit  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  appears 
 in  the  Ahriman,  or  lord  of  evil,  who,  according  to 
 the  doctrine  of  Zoroaster,  first  taught  men  to  sin 
 under  the  guise  of  this  reptile  {Zeiidavesta,  ed. 
 Kleuk.  i.  25,  iii.  84;  see  J.  Reinh.  Rus  de  ser 
 pente  seductive  nun  naiurali  sed  diabolo,  Jen.  1712, 
 and  Z.  Grapius,  de  tentatione  Ene  el  Christi  a 
 diabolo  in  <issumptocorpore  facia,  Rostoch.  1712). 
 But  compare  the  ophiion  of  Dr.  Kalisch,  who 
 {Comment,  on  Gen.  iii.  14,  1.5)  says  "the  serpent 
 is  the  reptile,  not  an  evil  demon  tiiat  had  assumed 
 its  shape  ....  If  the  serpent  represented 
 Satan,  it  would  be  extremely  surprising  that  the 
 former  only  was  cursed;  and  that  the  latter  is  not 
 even  mentioned  ....  it  would  be  entirely 
 at  variance  with  the  Divine  justice  forever  to  curse 
 the  animal  whose  shape  it  had  pleased  the  evil  one 
 to  assume."  According  to  the  Talmudists,  the 
 name    of   the   evil   spirit    that  beguiled  Eve   was 
 
 Sammael  (^STSD) ;  "  R.  Moses  ben  Majemon 
 scribit  in  More  lib.  2,  cap.  30,  Sammaelem  inequi- 
 tasse  serpenti  antiquo  et  seduxisse  Evam.  Dicit 
 etiam  nomen  hoc  absolute  usurpari  de  Satana,  et 
 Sammaelem  nihil  aliud  essequam  ipsum  Satanam  " 
 (Buxtorf,  Lex.   Talm.  1495). 
 
 Much  has  been  written  on  the  question  of  the 
 
 "fiery  serpents"  (D^P^ifn  D^Ii^TOn)  of 
 Num.  xxi.  G,  8,  with  which  it  is  usual  erroneously 
 to  identify  the  "  fiery  flying  serpent "  of  Is.  xxx.  6, 
 and  xiv.  29.  In  the  transaction  recorded  (Num. 
 I.e.;  Dent.  viii.  15)  as  having  occurred  at  the 
 time  of  the  Exodus,  when  the  rebellious  Israelites 
 were  visited  with  a  plague  of  serpents,  there  is  not 
 a  word  about  their  having  been  "flying  "  creatures; 
 there  is  therefore  no  occasion  to  refer  the  venomous 
 snakes  in  question  to  the  kuid  of  which  Niebuhr 
 (Descript.  de  i'Arnb.  p.  156)  speaks,  and  which 
 the  Arabs  at  Basra  denominate  Heie  sursurie,  or 
 Heie  thiare,  "flying  serpents,"  which  obtained  that 
 name  from  their  habit  of  "springing  "  from  branch 
 to  branch  of  the  date-trees  they  inhabit.  Besides 
 these  are  tree-serpents  {IJendrophidw),  a  harmless 
 family  of  the  Colubrine  snakes,  and  therefore  quite 
 out  of  the  question.  The  Heb.  term  rendered 
 "  fiery  "  by  the  A.  V.  is  by  the  Alexandrine  edi- 
 tion of  the   LXX.    represented    by  eavuTovVTcs, 
 
2930 
 
 SERPENT 
 
 "deadly;  "  Oiikelos,  the  Arabic  version  of  Saadias, 
 and  the  Vulg.  translate  the  word  "  burning,"  in 
 allusion  to  the  sensation  produced  by  the  bite; 
 other  authorities  understand  a  reference  to  the 
 bright  color  of  the  serjjents.  It  is  impossible  to 
 point  out  tiie  species  of  poisonous  snake  which  de- 
 stroyed the  people  in  the  Arabian  desert.  Niebuhr 
 says  that  the  only  truly  formidable  kind  is  that 
 called  BcettiK,  a  small  slender  creature  spotted  black 
 and  white,  whose  bite  is  instant  death,  and  whose 
 poison  causes  the  dead  body  to  swell  in  an  extraor- 
 dinary maimer  (see  Forskal,  Descript.  Animal,  p. 
 15).  What  the  modern  name  of  this  serpent  is  we 
 have  been  unable  to  ascertain;'  it  is  obvious,  how- 
 ever, that  either  the  Cerastes,  or  the  Ntiia  haje,  or 
 any  other  venomous  species  frequenting  Arabia, 
 may  denote  the  "serpent  of  the  burning  bite" 
 which  destroyed  the  children  of  Isi-ael.  The  "  fiery 
 flying  serpent  "  of  Isaiah  (/.  c.)  can  have  no  exis- 
 tence in  nature,  though  it  is  curious  to  notice  that 
 Herodotus  (ii.  75,  iii.  108)  speaks  of  serpents  with 
 wings  whose  bones  he  imagined  he  had  himself 
 seen  near  Buto  in  Arabia.  Monstrous  forms  of 
 snakes  with  birds'  wings  occur  on  the  Egyptian 
 sculptures;  it  is  probable  that  some  kind  of  flying 
 lizard  {Draco,  JJracocclla,  or  Dracunculus)  may 
 have  been  the  "flying  serpent"  of  which  Herodo- 
 tus speaks:  and  perhaps,  as  this  animal,  though 
 harmless,  is  yet  calculated  to  inspire  horror  by  its 
 appearance,  it  may  denote  the  flying  serpent  of  tJie 
 prophet,  and  have  been  regarded  by  the  ancient 
 Hebrews  as  an  animal  as  terrible  as  a  venomous 
 snake. 
 
 2.  KjjWeh  (n375W  :  v(j)is,aairis,  fiaaiAiaKo^- 
 vipern,  reyulus)  occurs  in  Job  xx.  10,  Is.  xxx.  G, 
 and  lix.  5,  in  all  of  which  passages  the  A.  V.  has 
 "  viper."  There  is  no  Scriptural  allusion  by  means 
 of  which  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  species  of 
 serpent  indicated  by  the  Heb.  term,  which  is  de- 
 rived from  a  root  which  siirnifies  "  to  hiss."      Shaw 
 
 Common  Viper.     {Vipera  berus.) 
 
 (Trar.  p.  251)  speaks  of  some  poisonous  snake 
 which  the  Arabs  call  Letfah  {/■J-cffa/i}:  "it  is  the 
 most  malignant  of  the  tribe,  and  rarely  above  a 
 foot  long."  Jackson  also  (Marocco,  p.  110)  men- 
 tions this  serpent;  from  his  description  it  would 
 seem  to  be  the  Algerine  adder  {Echidna  arietans 
 var.  Mauritaiiicu).     The  snake  (ex'Sra)  that  fast- 
 
 "  The  theory  which  ascribes  the  healing  to  myste- 
 rious powers  known  to  the  astrologers  or  alchemists  of 
 Eg\  pt  may  be  mentioued,  but  hardly  calls  for  exam- 
 ination (Marsham,  Can.  C/iroii.  pp.  148,  149;  R.  Tirza, 
 in  Deyling,  Exercit     .Socr.  ii.  210). 
 
 i  One  of  the  Jewish  interlocutors  in  the  dialogue  of 
 
 SERPENT,  BRAZEN 
 
 ened  on  St.  Paul's  hand  when  he  was  at  Melita 
 (Acts  xxviii.  3)  was  probably  the  common  viper  of 
 this  country  {Felias  berus),  which  is  widely  dis- 
 tributed throughout  Europe  and  the  islands  of  the 
 Mediterranean,  or  else  the  Vipera  aspis,  a  not  un- 
 common species  on  the  coasts  of  the  same  sea. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SERPENT,  BRAZEN.  The  familiar  his- 
 tory of  the  brazen  serpent  need  not  be  repeated 
 here.  The  nature  of  the  fiery  snakes  by  which  the 
 Israelites  were  attacked  has  been  discussed  under 
 Skrpkjs't.  The  scene  of  the  history,  determined 
 by  a  comparison  of  Num.  xxi.  3  and  xxxiii.  42, 
 must  have  been  either  Zalmonah  or  Punon.  The 
 names  of  both  places  probably  connect  themselves 
 with  it,  Zalmonah  as  meaning  "  the  place  of  the 
 image,"  Punon  as  proliably  identical  with  the 
 ^atvoi  mentioned  by  (ireek  writers  as  famous  for 
 its  copper-mines,  and  therefore  possibly  supplying 
 the  materials  (Bochart,  Ilieroz.  ii.  3,13).  [BujS'ON; 
 Zaljionah.]  The  chief  interest  of  the  narrative 
 lies  in  the  thoughts  which  have  at  different  times 
 gathered  round  it.  \^'e  meet  with  these  in  three 
 distinct  ^stages.  We  have  to  ask  by  what  associa- 
 tions each  was  connected  with  the  others. 
 
 I.  The  truth  of  the  history  will,  in  this  place,  be 
 taken  for  granted.  Those  who  prefer  it  may  choose 
 among  the  hypotheses  by  which  men  halting  be- 
 tween two  opinions  have  endeavored  to  retain  the 
 historical  and  to  eliminate  the  supernatural  ele- 
 ment." They  may  look  on  the  cures  as  having 
 been  effected  by  the  force  of  imagination,  which 
 the  visible  symbol  served  to  heighten,  or  by  the 
 rapid  rushing  of  the  serpent-bitten  from  all  parts 
 of  the  camp  to  the  standard  thus  erected,  curing 
 them,  as  men  are  said  to  be  cured  by  dancing  of 
 the  bite  of  the  tarantula  (Bauer,  IJeb.  Gescli.  ii. 
 320;  Baulus,  Comm.  IV.  i.  198,  in  Winer, 
 llealwb.).  They  may  see  in  the  serpent  the  em- 
 blematic signpost,  as  it  were,  of  the  camp  hospital 
 to  which  the  sufferers  were  brought  forsjiecial  treat- 
 ment, the  form  in  this  instance,  as  in  that  of  the  rod 
 of  ^Esculapiup,  being  a  symbol  of  the  art  of  healing 
 (Hoffmann,  in  Scherer's  Schriftforscli.  i.  576; 
 \^'iller,  Keahcb.).  Leaving  these  conjectures  on 
 one  side,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquire  into  the  fit- 
 ness of  the  symbol  thus  employed  as  the  instrument 
 of  healing.  To  most  of  the  Israelites  it  must  have 
 seemed  as  strange  then  as  it  did  afterwards  to  the 
 later  Kabbis,''  that  any  such  symbol  should  be  em- 
 ployed. 'The  Second  Commandment  appeared  to 
 forbid  the  likeness  of  any  living  thing.  The  golden 
 calf  had  been  destroyed  as  an  abomination.  Now 
 the  colossal  serpent  (the  narrative  implies  that  it 
 was  visible  from  all  parts  of  the  encampment), 
 made,  we  may  conjecture,  by  the  hands  of  liezaleel 
 or  Aholiab,  was  exposed  to  their  gaze,  and  they 
 were  told  to  look  to  it  as  gifted  with  a  supematura. 
 power.  What  reason  was  there  for  the  difference'? 
 In  part,  of  course,  the  answer  may  be,  that  the  Sec- 
 ond Commandment  forbade,  not  all  symbolic  forms 
 as  such,  but  those  that  men  made  for  themselves  to 
 worship;  but  the  question  still  remains,  why  was 
 this  form  chosen?  It  is  hardly  enough  to  say,  with 
 Jewish   commentators,   that   any  outward    means 
 
 Justin  Martyr  with  Trypho  (p.  322)  declares  that  he 
 had  often  asked  his  teachers  to  solve  the  difficulty, 
 and  had  never  found  one  who  explained  it  satisfacto- 
 rily. Justin  himself,  of  co  n-se,  explains  it  as  a  type 
 of  Christ. 
 
SERPENT,  BRAZEN 
 
 might  have  been  chosen,  like  the  lump  of  figs  in 
 Hezekiah's  sickness,  the  salt  which  healed  the 
 bitter  waters,  and  that  the  brazen  serpent  made  the 
 miracle  yet  more  miraculous,  inasmuch  as  the  glare 
 of  burnished  brass,  the  gaze  upon  the  serpent  fonn, 
 were,  of  all  things,  most  likely  to  be  fatal  to  those 
 who  had  been  bitten  (Gem.  Bab.  Jomn  ;  Aben  Ezra 
 and  others  in  Buxtorf,  [list.  yEn.  Serp.  c.  5).  The 
 fact  is  doubtful,  the  reason  inadequate.  It  is  hardly 
 enough  again  to  say,  with  most  Christian  interpret- 
 ers, tliat  it  was  intended  to  be  a  type  of  Christ. 
 Some  meaning  it  must  have  had  for  those  to  whom 
 it  was  actually  presented,  and  we  have  no  giounds 
 for  assuming,  even  in  Moses  himself,  still  less  in  the 
 multitude  of  Israelites  slowly  rising  out  of  sensual- 
 ity, unbelief,  rebellion,  a  knowledge  of  the  far-off' 
 mystery  of  redemption.  If  the  words  of  our  i^ord 
 in  .lohn  ill.  14,  15  point  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
 type,  there  must  yet  have  been  another  meaning 
 for  the  symbol.  Taking  its  part  in  the  education 
 of  the  Israelites,  it  must  have  h.id  its  starting-point 
 in  the  associations  previously  connected  .with  it. 
 Two  views,  very  different  fi'om  each  other,  have 
 been  held  as  to  the  nature  of  tho.se  associations. 
 On  the  one  side  it  has  been  maintained  that,  either 
 from  its  simply  ])hysical  effects  or  from  the  mys- 
 terious history  of  the  temptation  in  Gen.  iii.,  the 
 serpent  was  the  representative  of  evil.  To  present 
 the  serpent-form  as  deprived  of  its  power  to  hurt, 
 impaled  as  the  trophy  of  a  conqueror,  was  to  as- 
 sert that  evil,  physical  and  spiritual,  h.ad  been  over- 
 come, and  thus  help  to  strengthen  the  weak  faitli 
 of  the  Israelites  in  a  victory  over  both.  The  ser- 
 pent, on  this  view,  expressed  the  same  idea  as  the 
 dragon  in  the  popular  representations  of  the  Arch- 
 angel Michael  and  St.  George  (Ewald,  Gesc/dchte, 
 ii.  228)."  To  some  writers,  as  to  Kwald,  this  has 
 commended  itself  as  the  simplest  and  most  obvious 
 view.  It  has  been  adopted  by  some  orthodox  divines 
 who  have  been  unable  to  convince  them.selves  that 
 the  same  form  could  ever  really  have  lieen  at  once 
 a  type  of  Satan  and  of  Christ  (.Jackson,  numili- 
 ativii  of  tha  Son  of  God.,  c.  31;  Patrick,  Comm.  in 
 loc.  ;  Kspagnseus,  Burmann,  Vitringa,  in  Deyling, 
 Obiervotl.  Sac.  ii.  15).  Others,  again,  have  started 
 from  a  different  ground.  They  raise  the  question 
 whether  Gen.  iii.  was  then  written,  or  if  written, 
 known  to  the  great  body  of  the  Israelites.  They 
 look  to  Egypt  as  the  starting-point  for  all  the 
 thouirlits  which  the  serpent  could  suggest,  and  they 
 find  there  that  it  was  worshipjied  as  an  a(jnthoikz- 
 mon,  the  symbol  of  health  and  life.''  This,  for 
 them,  explains  the  mystery.  It  was  as  the  known 
 emblem  of  a  power  to  heal  that  it  served  as  the 
 sign  and  sacrament  on  which  the  fliith  of  the  people 
 might  fasten  and  sustain  itself. 
 
 Contrasted  as  these  views  appear,  they  have,  it 
 is  believed,  a  point  of  contact.  The  idea  primarily 
 connected  with  the  serpent  in  the  history  of  the 
 J'all,  as  throughout  tlie  proverbial  language  of 
 Scripture,  is  that  of  wisdom  (Gen.  iii.  1 ;  Matt.  x. 
 16;  2  Cor.  xi.  3).     Wisdom,  apart  from  obedience 
 
 a  Anofher  view,  verging  almost  on  the  ludicrous, 
 has  been  maintained  by  some  Jewish  writers.  The 
 serpent  was  set  up  in  terrorem,  as  a  man  who  has 
 ihasti.sed  his  son  hangs  up  the  rod  against  the  wall  as 
 a  warning  (Otho,  Lexic.  Rabbin   s.  v.  Serpens). 
 
 f>  Comp.  Serpent,  and.  in  addition  to  the  authori- 
 ties tln;re  referred  to,  Wilkinson's  Anc.  Ei;yptians,  ii. 
 134,iv.3&5,  V.  64,  238  ;  Kurtz,  History  of  the  Old  Cov- 
 
 SERPENT,  BRAZEN 
 
 2931 
 
 to  a  di\ine  order,  allying  itself  to  man's  lower  na- 
 ture, passes  into  cunning.  JIan's  nature  is  enven- 
 omed  and  degraded  by  it.  But  wisdom,  the  self- 
 same power  of  understanding,  yielding  to  the  di- 
 vine law,  is  the  source  of  all  healing  and  restoring 
 influences,  and  the  serpent-form  thus  becomes  a 
 symbol  of  deliverance  and  health.  The  Israelites 
 were  taught  that  it  would  be  so  to  them  in  pro- 
 portion as  they  ceased  to  he  sensual  and  rebellious. 
 There  were  facts  in  the  life  of  Moses  himself  which 
 must  have  connected  themselves  with  this  twofold 
 symbolism.  When  he  was  to  be  taught  that  the 
 Divine  Wisdom  could  work  with  any  instruments, 
 his  rod  became  a  serpent  (Ex.  iv.  1-5).  (Comp. 
 Cyril.  Alex.  Schol.  15.  Gltiphyra  in  Ex.  ii.)<^ 
 When  he  and  Aaron  were  called  to  their  great 
 conflict  with  the  perverted  wisdom  of  Ivgypt,  the 
 many  serpents  of  the  magicians  were  overcome  by 
 the  one  serpent  of  the  future  high-priest.  The 
 conqueror  and  the  conquered  were  alike  in  outward 
 form  (Ex.  vii.  10-12;. 
 
 II.  The  next  stage  in  the  history  of  the  brazen 
 serpent  shows  how  easily  even  a  legitimate  symbol, 
 retained  beyond  its  time,  after  it  had  done  its 
 work,  might  become  the  occasion  of  idolatry.  It 
 appears  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  as  having  been, 
 for  some  undefined  period,  an  olyect  of  worship. 
 The  zeal  of  that  king  leads  him  to  destroy  it.  It 
 receives  from  him,  or  had  borne  before,  the  name 
 Nehushtan.  [Comp.  Nehushtan.]  We  are  left 
 to  conjecture  when  the  worship  began,  or  what  was 
 its  locality.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  it  should  have 
 been  tolerated  by  the  reforming  zeal  of  kings  like 
 Asa  and  .Jehoshaphat.  It  must,  Ave  may  believe, 
 have  received  a  fresh  character  and  become  more 
 conspicuous  in  the  ijeriod  which  preceded  its  de- 
 struction. All  that  we  know  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
 makes  it  probable  that  it  was  under  his  auspices 
 that  it  received  a  new  development,*'  that  it  thus 
 became  the  object  of  a  marked  aversion  to  the 
 iconoclastic  party  who  were  prominent  among  the 
 counsellors  of  Hezekiah.  Intercourse  with  countries 
 in  which  Ophiolatry  prevailed  —  Syria,  Assyria, 
 possibly  Egypt  also  —  acting  on  the  feeling  which 
 led  him  to  bring  together  the  idolatries  of  all 
 neighboring  nations,  might  easily  bring  about  this 
 perversion  of  the  reverence  felt  for  the  time 
 honored  relic. 
 
 Here  we  might  expect  the  history  of  the  mate- 
 rial object  would  cease,  but  the  passion  for  relics 
 has  prevailed  even  against  the  history  of  the  Bible. 
 The  Church  of  St.  Ambrose,  at  Milan,  has  boasted, 
 for  centuries,  of  possessing  the  brazen  serpent 
 which  Moses  set  up  in  the  wilderness.  The  earlier 
 history  of  the  relic,  so  called,  is  matter  fur  conjec- 
 ture. Our  knowledge  of  it  begins  in  the  year  A.  d. 
 971,  when  an  envoy  was  sent  by  the  JMilanese  to 
 the  court  of  the  Emperor  John  Zimisces,  at  Con- 
 stantinople. He  was  taken  through  the  imperial 
 cabinet  of  treasures  and  invited  to  make  his 
 choice,  and  he  chose  this,  which,  the  Greeks  as- 
 sured him,  was  made  of  the  same  metal  as    the 
 
 enant,  iii.  348,  Eng.  transl.  ;  Witsius,  JEgijptiaca,  in 
 Ugolini,  i.  852^ 
 
 c  The  explanation  given  by  Cyril  is,  as  might  be 
 expected,  more  mystical  than  that  in  the  text.  The 
 rod  transformed  into  a  serpent  represents  the  Divine 
 Word  taking  on  Himself  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh. 
 
 d  Ewald's  conjecture  (G(?.wA.  iv.  622)  that,  till  then, 
 the  serpent  may  have  remained  at  Zalmonah,  the  o^ 
 ject  of  occasional  pilgrimages,  is  probable  enough. 
 
2932        SERPENT,  BRAZEN 
 
 original  serpent  (Sigonius,  [list.  liegn.  Ital.  b.  vii.)- 
 On  his  return  it  was  placed  in  the  Church  of  St. 
 Ambrose,  and  popularly  identified  with  that  which 
 it  professed  to  represent.  It  is,  at  least,  a  possible 
 hypothesis  that  the  Western  Church  has  in  this 
 way  been  led  to  venerate  what  was  originally  the 
 object  of  the  worship  of  some  Ojihite  sect. 
 
 III.  When  the  material  symbol  had  perished,  its 
 history  began  to  suggest  deeper  thoughts  to  the 
 minds  of  men.  The  writer  of  the  Book  of  Wis- 
 dom, in  the  elaborate  contrast  which  he  draws 
 between  true  and  false  religions  in  their  use  of 
 outward  signs,  sees  in  it  a  avixfioKov  awTTjplas, 
 us  avafxv7](nv  ivTo\y]s  vSfxou  aov\  "he  that 
 turned  himself  was  not  saved  by  the  thing  that  he 
 saw  (5ia  t^  Oeuipovufvov),  but  by  Thee  that  art 
 the  Saviour  of  all"  (Wisd.  xvi.  G,  7).  The  Tar- 
 gum  of  Jonathan  paraphrases  Num.  xxi.  8,  "  He 
 shall  be  healed  if  he  direct  his  heart  unto  the 
 Name  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord."  Philo,  with  his 
 characteristic  taste  for  an  ethical,  mystical  interpre- 
 tation, represents  the  history  as  a  parable  of  man's 
 victory  over  his  lower  sensuous  nature.  The 
 metal,  the  symbol  of  permanence  and  strength,  has 
 changed  the  meaning  of  the  symbol,  and  that 
 which  had  before  been  tlie  emblem  of  the  will, 
 yielding  to  and  poisoned  by  the  serpent  pleasure, 
 now  represents  acocppoawr],  the  ayrnrades  a.Ko- 
 Kaaias  <papjj.aKov  {[>e  Ar/riculL).  The  facts  just 
 stated  may  help  us  to  enter  into  the  bearing  of 
 the  words  of  .John  iii.  14,  15.  If  the  paraphrase 
 of  Jonathan  represents,  as  it  does,  the  current  in- 
 terpretation of  the  schools  of  Jerusalem,  the  devout 
 Rabbi  to  whom  the  words  were  spoken  could  not 
 have  been  ignorant  of  it.  The  new  teacher  cur- 
 ried the  lesson  a  step  further.  He  led  him  to 
 identify  the  "  Name  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord '" 
 with  that  of  the  Son  of  INIan.  He  prepared  him 
 to  see  in  the  lifthig-up  of  the  Crucifixion  that 
 which  should  answer,  in  its  power  to  heal  and  save, 
 to  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness. 
 
 IV.  A  full  discussion  of  the  typical  meaning 
 here  unfolded  belongs  to  Exegesis  rather  than  to 
 a  Dictionary.  It  will  be  enough  to  note  here  that 
 which  connects  itself  with  facts  or  theories  already 
 mentioned.  On  the  one  side  the  typical  interpre- 
 tation has  been  extended  to  all  the  details.  The 
 pole  on  which  the  serpent  was  placed  was  not  only 
 a  type  of  the  cross,  but  was  itself  crucial  in  form 
 (Just.  Mart.  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  p.  3-22).  The  serpent 
 was  nailed  to  it  as  Christ  was  nailed.  As  the 
 symbol  of  sin  it  represented  his  being  made  sin  for 
 us.  The  very  metal,  like  the  fine  brass  of  Rev.  i. 
 15,  was  an  emblem  of  the  miglit  and  glory  of  the 
 Son  of  Man  (conip.  Lampe,  in  lac).  On  the 
 other  it  has  been  maintained  (Patrick  and  Jack- 
 son, ut  suprn)  that  the  serpent  was  from  the  begin- 
 ning, and  remains  still,  exclusively  the  symbol  of 
 evil,  that  the  litting-up  of  the  Son  of  Jlan  answered 
 to  that  of  the  serpent  liecause  on  the  cross  the  vic- 
 tory over  the  serpent  was  accomplished.  The  point 
 of  comparison  lay  not  between  the  serpent  and 
 Christ,  but  between  the  look  of  the  Israelite  to  the 
 outward  sign,  the  look  of  a  justifying  faith  to  the 
 cross  of  Christ.  It  will  not  surprise  us  to  find 
 that,  in  the  spiritual,  as  in  the  historical  interpre- 
 tation, both  theories  have  an  element  of  truth. 
 The  sei'pent  here  also  is  primarily  the  emblem  of 
 the  "knowledge  of  good  and  evil."  To  man,  as 
 having  obtained  that  knowledge  by  doing  evil,  it 
 has  been  as  a  venomous  serpent,  poisoning  and 
 jorrupting.     In  the  nature  of  the  Son  of  Man  it 
 
 SERPENT-CHARMING 
 
 is  once  more  in  harmony  with  the  Divine  will,  and 
 leaves  the  humanity  pure  and  untainted.  Th« 
 Crucifixion  is  the  witness  that  the  evil  has  been 
 o\ercome  by  the  good.  Those  who  are  bitten  by 
 the  serpent  find  their  deliverance  in  looking  to 
 Him  wlio  knew  evil  only  by  subduing  it,  and  who 
 is  therefore  mighty  to  save.  Well  would  it  have 
 been  for  the  Church  of  Christ  if  it  had  been  con- 
 tent to  rest  in  this  truth.  Its  history  shows  how 
 easy  it  was  for  the  old  perversion  to  reproduce 
 itself.  The  highest  of  all  symbols  might  share  the 
 fate  of  the  lower.  It  was  possible  even  for  the 
 cross  of  Christ  to  pass  into  a  Nehushtan.  (Comp. 
 Stier,  Words  «f  ihc  Lord  Jesus,  on  John  iii.,  and 
 Kurtz,  Hist,  of  the-  Old  Cwenant,  iii.  344-358. 
 Eng.  transl.)  E.  H.  P. 
 
 SERPENT-CHARMING.  Some  few  re- 
 marks on  this  subject  are  made  under  Asp  (vol. 
 i.  p.  180  b),  where  it  is    shown   that   the  pethen 
 
 (]0-?)  probably  denotes  the  Egyptian  cobra. 
 There  Qan  be  no  question  at  all  of  the  remarkable 
 power  which,  from  time  immemorial,  has  been  ex- 
 ercised by  certain  people  in  the  East  over  poison- 
 ous serpents.  The  art  is  most  distinctly  mentioned 
 in  the  Bible,  and  probalily  alluded  to  by  St.  Jan:>es 
 (iii.  7).  The  usual  species  operated  upon  both  in 
 Africa  and  India,  are  the  hooded  snakes  (N<na 
 tripudians,  and  N'nia  haje)  and  the  horned  Ceras- 
 tes. The  skill  of  the  Itahan  Marsi  and  the  Libyan 
 Psylli  in  taming  serpents  was  celebrated  through- 
 out the  world ;  and  to  this  day,  as  we  are  told  by 
 Sir  G.  Wilkinson  (Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  iii.  124, 
 7Hite,  ed.  18G2),  the  snake-jilajers  of  the  coast  of 
 Barbary  are  worthy  successors  of  the  Psylli  (see 
 Pliny,  viii.  25,  xi.  25,  and  especially  Lucan's  ac- 
 count of  the  Psylli,  Pliarsal.  ix.  892).  See  nu- 
 merous references  cited  by  Bochart  (Hieruz.  iii. 
 164,  &c.)  on  the  subject  of  serpent-taming. 
 
 That  the  charmers  frequently,  and  perhaps 
 generally,  take  the  precaution  of  extracting  the 
 poison  fangs  before  the  snakes  are  subjected  to 
 their  skill,  there  is  much  probability  for  lielieving, 
 but  that  this  operation  is  not  always  attended  to 
 is  clear  from  the  testimony  of  Bruce  and  nimierous 
 other  writers.  "  Some  peo]3le,"  says  the  traveller 
 just  mentioned,  "  have  doubted  that  it  was  a  trick, 
 and  that  the  animals  so  handled  had  been  first 
 trained  and  then  disarmed  of  their  power  of  hurt- 
 ing, and,  fond  of  the  discovery,  they  have  rested 
 themselves  upon  it  without  experiment,  in  the  face 
 of  all  antiquity.  But  I  will  not  hesitate  to  aver 
 that  I  have  seen  at  Cairo  a  man  .  .  .  who  has 
 taken  a  cerastes  with  his  naked  hand  from  a  num- 
 ber of  others  lying  at  the  bottom  of  the  tub,  has  put 
 it  upon  his  bare  head,  covered  it  with  the  common 
 red  cap  he  w'ears,  then  taken  it  out,  put  it  in  his 
 breast  and  tied  it  about  his  neck  like  a  necklace, 
 after  which  it  has  been  applied  to  a  hen  and  bit  it, 
 which  has  died  in  a  few  minutes."  Dr.  Davy,  in 
 his  Interior  of  Cetjlon,  speaking  of  the  snake- 
 charmers,  says  on  this  subject:  "The  ignorant 
 vulgar  believe  that  these  men  really  possess  a 
 charm  by  which  they  thus  play  without  dread,  and 
 with  impunity  from  danger.  The  more  enlight- 
 ened, laughing  at  this  idea,  consider  the  men  im- 
 postors, and  that  in  playing  their  tricks  there  is  no 
 danger  to  be  avoided,  it  being  removed  by  the  ab- 
 stra<;tion  of  the  poison  fangs.  The  enlightened  in 
 this  instance  are  mistaken,  and  the  vulgar  are 
 nearer  the  truth  in  their  opinion.  I  ha\e  examined 
 the  snakes  I  have  seen  exhibited,  and  have  fou'id 
 
SERUG 
 
 ;heir  poison  ians;s  in  and  uninjured.  These  men 
 io  possess  a  charm,  though  not  a  supernatural 
 one  —  namely,  that  of  confideme  and  courage.  .  .  . 
 They  will  play  their  tricks  with  any  hooded  snakes 
 {Najd  tiipuiiliivs),  whether  just  taken  or  long  in 
 confinement,  but  with  no  other  kind  of  poisonous 
 snake."  See  also  Tennent,  Ceylmi,  i.  199,  3d  ed. 
 Some  have  supposed  that  the  practice  of  taking 
 out  or  breaking  oft'  the  poison  fangs  is  alluded  to 
 in  Ps.  Iviii.  6,  "Break  their  teeth,  0  (Jod,  in  their 
 mouth  " 
 
 SBKVITOR 
 
 2933 
 
 Seipent  cliaiming 
 
 The  serpent-ch.ariiier's  usual  instrument  is  a 
 flute.  Shrill  sounds,  it  would  appear,  are  those 
 which  serpents,  with  their  imperfect  sense  of  hear- 
 ing, are  able  most  easily  to  discern ;  hence  it  is  that 
 the  Chinese  summon  their  tame  fish  by  whistling 
 or  by  ringing  a  bell. 
 
 The  reader  will  find  much  interesting  matter  on 
 the  art  of  serpent-charming,  as  practiced  by  the 
 ancients,  in  Bochart  (Fli.eroz.  iii.  101)  in  the  dis- 
 sertation by  Biihmer  entitled  Be  Psyllorum,  Mnr- 
 soruni,  et.  Ophiot/enwn  adversus  serpenics  inrlute, 
 Lips.  1745;  and  in  Kfempfer's  Aincenilntes  Exot- 
 !Cfc,  iii.  ix.  56.5;  see  also  Broderip's  Note  Book 
 of  a  Ndiuralist,  and  Anecdotes  of  Serpents,  pub- 
 lished by  Chambers;  Lane's  Modern  Kriypt'utns, 
 ii.  lOG.  Those  who  professed  the  art  of  taming 
 serpents  were  called  by  the  Hebrews  mcndchasMm 
 
 {'D"'Vjn^72),  while  the  art  itself  was  called  lichash 
 
 (trn^),  Jer.  viii.  17;  Eccl.  x.  11;  but  these  terms 
 were  not  always  used  in  this  restricted  sense. 
 [Divination;  Ench.vnt.mknt.]  W.  H. 
 
 SE'RUG  {VnW  [shoot,  tendril]:  S.^poix- 
 Sarufi,  [SeriKjl).  [Gen.  xi.  20-2-3;  1  Chr.  i.  20; 
 in  Luke  iii.  35,  Sakucii.]  Son  of  Ken,  and  great- 
 grandfather of  Abraham.  His  age  is  given  in  the 
 Hebrew  Bible  as  230  years  —  30  years  before  he 
 begat  Nahor,  and  200  years  afterwards.  But  in 
 the  LXX.  130  years  are  assigned  to  him  before  he 
 begat  Nahor  (making  his  total  age  330),  being  one 
 of  those  systematic  variations  in  the  ages  of  the 
 
 patriarchs  between  Shem  and  Terah,  as  given  by 
 the  LXX.,  by  which  the  interval  between  the  Flood 
 and  Abraham  is  lengthened  from  292  (as  in  the 
 Heb.  B.)  to  1172  (or  Alex.  1072)  years.  [Chro- 
 nology, vol.  i.  p.  440.]  Bochart  {Plini.  ii.  cxiv.) 
 conjectures  that  the  town  of  Seruj,  a  day's  journey 
 from  Charras  in  Mesopotamia,  was  nameil  from  this 
 patriarch.  Suidas  and  others  ascribe  to  him  the 
 deification  of  dead  benefactors  of  mankind.  Epi- 
 phanius  {Adv.  Hceres.  i.  (i,  8),  who  says  that  his 
 name  signifies  "provocation,"  states  that,  though 
 in  his  time  idolatry  took  its  rise,  yet  it  was  con- 
 fined to  pictures;  and  that  the  deification  of  dead 
 men,  as  well  as  the  making  of  idols,  was  subse- 
 quent. He  characterizes  the  religion  of  mankind 
 up  to  Serug's  days  as  Scythic ;  after  Strug  and 
 the  building  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  the  Hellenic 
 or  Greek  form  of  religion  was  introduced,  and  con- 
 tinued to  the  writer's  time  (see  I'etavius,  Anim. 
 'dr.  Jpiph.  Oper.  ii.  13).  The  account  given  by 
 .lolm  of  Antioch,  is  as  follows:  Serug,  of  the  race 
 of  .lapliet,  tau£;ht  the  duty  of  honoring  eminent 
 deceased  men,  either  by  images  or  statues,"  of  wor- 
 shipping them  on  certain  anniversaries  as  if  still 
 living,  of  preserving  a  record  of  their  actions  in 
 the  sacred  Iwoks  of  the  priests,  and  of  caOing  them 
 (jods,  as  being  benefactors  of  mankind.  Hence 
 arose  Polytheism  and  idolatry  (see  Fraym.  Ilisloric. 
 (jnec.  iv.  345,  and  the  note).  It  is  in  accordance 
 with  his  being  called  of  the  race  of  Japhet  that 
 Epiphanius  sends  Phaleg  and  Ben  to  Thrace  {Ej>ist. 
 ad  JJescr.  Paul.  §  ii.).  There  is,  of  course,  little 
 or  no  historical  value  in  any  of  these  statements. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 SERVANT  ("1^5;  J^'Tl^'?)-  The  Hebrew 
 terms  mCcir  and  mcshdreth,  which  alone  answer  to 
 our  "servant,"  in  as  far  as  this  implies  the  notions 
 of  liberty  and  voluntariness,  are  of  comparatively 
 rare  occurrence.  On  the  other  hand,  \'hed,  which 
 is  common  and  is  equally  rendered  "servant"  in 
 the  A.  v.,  properly  means  a  slave.''  Slavery  was 
 in  point  of  fact  the  normal  condition  of  the  under- 
 ling in  the  Hebrew  conmionwealth  [Sl.vve],  while 
 the  terms  above  given  refer  to  the  exceptii'ual  cases 
 of  young  or  confidential  attendants.  Joshua,  for 
 instance,  is  described  as  at  once  the  na'ar  and  me 
 sliareth  of  Moses  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11);  Elisha's  servant 
 sometimes  as  the  former  (2  K.  iv.  12,  v.  20),  some- 
 times as  the  latter  (2  K.  iv.  43,  vi.  15).  Anuion's 
 servant  was  a  meshdrelh  (2  Sam.  xiii.  17,  18), 
 while  young  -Joseph  was  a  iia''ar  to  the  sons  of 
 Bilhah  (Gen.  xxxvii.  2,  where  instead  of  "  the  lad 
 was  with,"  we  should  read,  "  he  was  the  servant- 
 boy  to"  the  sons  of  Bilhah).  The  confidential 
 desicjnation  meshareth.  is  applied  to  the  priests  and 
 Levites,  in  their  relation  to  .Jehovah  (Ezr.  viii.  17; 
 Is.  Ixi.  6;  Ez.  xliv.  11),  and  the  cognate  verb  to 
 .Joseph  after  he  found  favor  with  Potipliar  (Gen. 
 xxxix.  4),  and  to  the  nephews  of  Ahaziah  (2  Chr. 
 xxii.  8).  In  1  K.  xx.  14,  15,  we  should  substitute 
 "servants  "  {na^ar)  for  "  young  men." 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SERVITOR,  only  in  2  K.  iv.  43,  used  of 
 Elisha's  personal  attendant  or  servant.     The  He- 
 
 «  But  perhaps  eixdi/es  and  afSpiavTes  may  here  be 
 used  of  picture.'!. 
 
 b  In  many  passages  the  correct  reading  would  add 
 considerable  force  to  the  moaning,  e.  ^.  in  Gen.  ix.  25, 
 ■'  Cursed  be  Canaan  ;  «  slave  of  slaves  shall  he  be 
 jnto  his  brethren  ;  "  in  Deut.  v   15,  "  Remember  that 
 
 thou  wast  a  .slave  in  the  land  of  Egypt ;  "  in  Job  iii, 
 19,  "  The  slave  is  free  from  his  master ;  "  and  par 
 ticularly  in  passages  where  the  speaker  uses  the  term 
 of  himself,  as  in  Gen.  xvlii.  3,  "  Pass  not  away,  I  pray 
 thee,  from  thy  slave." 
 
2934 
 
 SESIS 
 
 brew  term,  wliich  is  rT^iytt,  the  A.  V.  commonly 
 renders  "servant"  or  "minister."  H. 
 
 SE'SIS  (260-^s:  [Vat.  Seo-eis;]  Alex.  Seo-o-et?: 
 om.  in  Vulg.).  SuASiiAi  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  comp. 
 Ezr.  X.  40). 
 
 SES'THEL  (Sfo-flijA  :  Beseel).  Bezaleel 
 of  the  sons  of  Pahath-Moab  (1  Esdr.  ix.  31 ;  Esir. 
 X.  30). 
 
 SETH  (no;?,  i.  e.  Sheth  [see  below]  :  2^0: 
 Seih),  Gen.  iv.  25,  v.  3;  1  Chr.  i.  1.  The  third 
 son  of  Adam,  and  ftither  of  Enos.  The  significa- 
 tion of  his  name  (given  in  Gen.  iv.  25)  is  'ap- 
 pointed" or  "put"  in  the  place  of  the  murdered 
 Abel,  and  Delitzsch  speaks  of  him  as  the  second 
 Abel;  but  Ewald  {Gesch.  i.  353)  thinks  that 
 another  signification,  which  he  prefers,  is  indicated 
 in  the  text,  namely,  "seedling,"  or  "germ."  The 
 phrase,  "children  of  Sheth"  (Num.  xxiv.  17)  has 
 been  understood  as  equivalent  to  all  mankind,  or 
 as  denoting  the  trilie  of  some  unknown  Moabitish 
 chieftain ;  but  later  critics,  among  whom  are  Rosen- 
 miiller  and  Gesenius  (  Thes.  i.  346),  bearing  in  mind 
 the  parallel  passage  (Jer.  xlviii.  45),  render  the 
 phrase,  "  children  of  noise,  tunmltuous  ones,"  i.  e. 
 hostile  armies.      [Sheth.] 
 
 In  the  4th  century  there  existed  in  Egypt  a  sect 
 calling  themselves  Sethians,  who  are  classed  by 
 Neander  {Cli.  IJist.  ii.  115,  ed.  Bohn)  among  those 
 Gnostic  sects  which,  in  opposing  Judaism,  approxi- 
 mated to  paganism.  (See  also  Tillemont,  Me- 
 moires,  ii.  318.)  Irenoeus  (i.  30;  comp.  M.issuet, 
 Dissert,  i.  3,  §  14)  and  Theodoret  {/Jceret.  Fab. 
 xiv.  306),  without  distinguishing  between  them 
 and  the  Ophites,  or  worshippers  of  the  serpent,  say 
 that  in  their  system  Seth  was  regarded  as  a  divine 
 effluence  or  virtue.  Epiphanius,  who  devotes  a 
 chapter  to  them  (Adv.  Iker.  i.  3,  §  39),  says  that 
 they  identified  Seth  with  our  Lord.       W.  T.  B. 
 
 SE'THURC^np  {Inddeny.  -Zadoip-  Stkur). 
 The  Asherite  spy,  son'of  Michael  (Num.  xiii.  13). 
 
 SEVEN.  The  frequent  recun-ence  of  certain 
 numbers  in  the  sacred  literature  of  the  Hebrews  is 
 obvious  to  the  most  superficial  reader;  and  it  is 
 almost  equally  obvious  that  these  numbers  are  as- 
 sociated with  certain  ideas,  so  as  in  some  instances 
 to  lose  their  numerical  force,  and  to  pass  over  into 
 the  province  of  symbolic  signs.  This  is  more  or 
 less  true  of  the  numbers  three,  four,  seven,  twelve, 
 and  forty ;  but  seven  so  far  surpasses  the  rest,  both 
 in  the  frequency  with  which  it  recurs,  and  in  the 
 importance  of  the  objects  with  which  it  is  asso- 
 ciated, that  it  may  fairly  be  termed  the  7'tpresenta- 
 tke  symbolic  number.  It  has  hence  attracted 
 considerable  attention,  and  may  be  said  to  be  the 
 keystone  on  ^^■llich  the  symbolism  of  numbers  de- 
 pends. The  origin  of  this  symbolism  is  a  question 
 that  meets  us  at  the  threshold  of  any  discussion  as 
 to  the  number  seven.  Our  limits  will  not  permit 
 us  to  follow  out  this  question  to  its  legitimate  ex- 
 tent, but  we  may  briefly  state  that  the  views  of 
 Biblical  critics  may  be  ranged  under  two  heads, 
 according  as  the  symbolism  is  attributed  to  theo- 
 retical speculations  as  to  the  internal  properties  of 
 the  number  itself,  or  to  external  associations  of  a 
 physical  or  historical  character.  According  to  the 
 former  of  these  views,  the  symbolism  of  the  num- 
 ber seven  would  be  traced  back  to  the  symbolism 
 of  its  component  elements  three  and  four,  the  first 
 of  which  =  Divinity,  and  the  second  =  Humanity, 
 
 SEVEN 
 
 whence  seven  =  Divinity  -f-  Humanity,  or,  in  other 
 words,  the  union  between  God  and  Man,  as  effected 
 by  the  manifestations  of  the  Divinity  in  creation 
 and  revelation.  So  again  the  symbolism  of  twelve 
 is  explained  as  the  symbolisni  of  3x4,  i.  e.  or 
 a  second  comliination  of  the  same  two  elements, 
 though  in  different  proportions,  the  representative 
 number  of  Humanity,  as  a  multiplier,  assuming  a 
 more  prominent  position  (Biihr's  SymboUk,  i.  187, 
 201,  224).  This  theory  is  seductive  from  its  in- 
 genuity, and  its  appeal  to  the  imagination,  but 
 there  appears  to  be  little  foundation  for  it.  For 
 (1)  we  do  not  find  any  indication,  in  early  times  at 
 all  events,  that  the  number  se\en  was  resohcd  into 
 three  and  four,  rather  than  into  nftiy  other  arith- 
 metical elements,  such  as  two  and  five.  Bengel 
 notes  such  a  division  as  running  through  the  hep- 
 tads  of  the  Apocalypse  (Gnomon,  in  Rev.  xvi.  1), 
 and  the  remark  undoubtedly  holds  good  in  certain 
 instances,  e.  (j.  the  trumpets,  the  three  latter  being 
 distinguished  from  the  four  former  by  the  triple 
 "  woe  "  (Rev.  viii.  13),  but  in  other  instances,  e.  (j. 
 in  rel'erence  to  the  promises  {Gnomon,  in  Rev.  ii.  7), 
 the  distinction  is  not  so  well  established,  and  even 
 if  it  were,  an  explanation  might  be  found  in  the 
 adaptation  of  such  a  division  to  the  suliject  in 
 hand.  The  attempt  to  discover  such  a  distinction 
 in  the  Mosaic  writings —  as,  for  instance,  where  an 
 act  is  to  be  done  on  the  third  day  out  of  seven 
 (Num.  xix.  12)—  appears  to  be  a  failure.  (2.)  It 
 would  be  difficult  to  show  that  any  associations 
 of  a  sacred  nature  were  assigned  to  three  and  four 
 previously  to  the  sanctity  of  seven.  This  latter 
 number  is  so  far  the  sacred  number  Kar  e^oxfiv 
 that  we  should  be  less  surprised  if,  by  a  process 
 the  reverse  of  the  one  assumed,  sanctity  had  been 
 subsequently  attached  to  three  and  four  as  the 
 supposed  elements  of  seven.  But  (3)  all  such 
 speculations  on  mere  numbers  are  alien  to  the 
 spirit  of  Hebrew  thought;  they  belong  to  a  dif- 
 ferent stage  of  society,  in  which  speculation  is  rife, 
 and  is  systematized  by  the  existence  of  schools  of 
 philosophy. 
 
 We  turn  to  the  second  class  of  opinions  which 
 attribute  the  symbolism  of  the  number  seven  to 
 external  associations.  This  class  may  be  again 
 subdivided  into  two,  according  as  the  symbolism 
 is  suppo.sed  to  have  originated  in  (he  observation  of 
 purely  physical  phenomena,  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
 in  the  peculiar  religious  enactments  of  Mosaism. 
 The  influence  of  the  number  seven  was  not  re- 
 stricted to  the  Hebrews;  it  prevailed  among  the 
 Persians  (Esth.  i.  10,  14),  among  the  ancient 
 Indians  (Von  Bohlen's  AU.  Jndien,  ii.  224  fF.), 
 among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  to  a  certain  extent, 
 and  proljably  among  all  nations  where  the  week  of 
 seven  days  was  established,  as  in  China,  Egypt, 
 Arabia,  etc.  (Ideler's  Chronol.  i.  88,  178,  ii.  473). 
 The  wide  range  of  the  word  seven  is  in  this  respect 
 an  interesting  and  significant  foct:  with  the  ex- 
 ception of  "six,"  it  is  the  only  numeral  which  the 
 Semitic  languages  have  in  common  with  the  Indo- 
 Euroi3ean ;  for  the  Hebrew  shebtt  «  is  essentially  the 
 same  as  lirra,  septem,  seven,  and  the  Sanskrit. 
 Persian,  and  Gothic  names  for  this  number  (Pott's 
 Etym.  Forsch.  i.  129).  In  the  countries  above 
 enumerated,  the  institution  of  seven  as  a  cyclical 
 number  is  attributed  to  the  observation  of  the 
 changes  of  the  moon,  or  to  the  supposed  number  of 
 
 «  VD.W. 
 
SEVEN 
 
 the  planets.  The  Hebrews  are  held  by  some  writers 
 to  have  borrowed  their  notions  of  the  sanctity  of 
 geven  from  their  heathen  neighbors,  either  wholly 
 or  partially  (Von  Bohlen's  Introd.  to  Gen.  i.  216 
 ff. ;  Hengstenberg's  Balaam,  p.  393,  Clark's  ed.); 
 but  the  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew  view  consists  in 
 the  special  dignity  of  the  seventh,  and  not  simply 
 in  that  of  seven.  Whatever  influence,  therefore, 
 may  be  assigned  to  astronomical  observation  or  to 
 prescriptive  usage,  in  regard  to  the  original  insti- 
 tution of  the  week,  we  cannot  trace  back  the  pe- 
 culiar associations  of  the  Hebrews  farther  than  to 
 the  point  when  the  seventh  day  was  consecrated  to 
 the  purposes  of  religious  rest. 
 
 Assuming  this,  therefore,  as  our  starting-point, 
 the  first  idea  associated  with  seven  would  be  that 
 of  rtliyious  periodicity.  The  Sabbath,  being  the 
 seventh  day,  suggested  the  adoption  of  seven  as  the 
 coefficient,  so  to  say,  for  the  appointment  of  all 
 sacred  periods;  and  we  thus  find  tlie  7th  month 
 ushered  in  by  the  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  signal- 
 ized by  the  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  '1  abernacles 
 and  tlie  great  Day  of  Atonement;  7  weeks  as  the 
 interval  between  the  Passover  and  the  I'entecost; 
 the  7th  year  as  the  Sabbatical  year;  and  the  year 
 succeeding  7x7  years  as  the  Jubilee  year.  From 
 the  idea  of  periodicity,  it  passed  by  an  easy  transi- 
 tion to  the  duration  or  repetition  of  religious  pro- 
 ceedings ;  and  thus  7  days  were  appointed  as  the 
 length  of  the  Feasts  of  I'assover  and  Tabernacles ; 
 7  days  for  the  ceremonies  of  the  consecration  of 
 priests;  7  days  for  the  interval  to  elapse  between 
 the  occasion  and  the  removal  of  various  kinds  of 
 legal  uncleanness,  as  after  cliildbirth,  after  contact 
 with  a  corpse,  etc. ;  7  times  appointed  for  aspersion 
 either  of  the  blood  of  the  victim  (e.  g.  Lev.  iv.  6, 
 xvi.  14),  or  of  the  water  of  purification  (Lev.  xiv. 
 51;  conip.  2  K.  v.  10,  14);  7  things  to  be  ofTered 
 in  sacrifice  (oxen,  sheep,  goats,  pigeons,  wheat,  oil, 
 wine);  7  victims  to  he  offered  on  any  special  occa- 
 sion, as  in  Balaam's  sacrifice  (Num.  xxiii.  1),  and 
 especially  at  the  ratification  of  a  treaty,  the  notion 
 of  seven  being  embodied  in  the  very  term  "  signify- 
 ing to  swear,  literally  meaning  to  do  seven  times 
 (Gen.  xxi.  28;  comp.  Herod,  iii.  8,  for  a  similar 
 custom  among  the  Arabians).  The  same  idea  is 
 further  carried  out  in  the  vessels  and  arrangements 
 of  the  Tabernacle  —  in  the  7  arms  of  the  golden 
 candlestick,  and  the  7  chief  utensils  (altar  of  burnt- 
 ofFerings,  laver,  shewbread  table,  altar  of  incense, 
 candlestick,  ark,  mercy-seat). 
 
 The  number  seven,  having  thus  been  impressed 
 with  tlie  seal  of  sanctity  as  the  symbol  of  all  con- 
 nected with  the  Divinity,  was  adopted  generally  as 
 a  cyclical  number,  with  the  subordinate  notions  of 
 perfection  or  completeness.  It  hence  appears  in 
 cases  where  the  notion  of  satisfaction  is  required, 
 as  in  reference  to  punishment  for  wrongs  (Gen.  iv. 
 15;  I^v.  xxvi.  18,  28:  Ps.  Ixxix.  12;  Frov.  vi.  31), 
 or  to  forgiveness  of  them  (Matt,  xviii.  21).  It  is 
 again  mentioned  in  a  variety  of  passages  too  nu- 
 merous for  quotation  (e.  (/.  Job  v.  19;  Jer.  xv.  9; 
 Matt.  xii.  45)  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  of  a 
 "round  number,"  but  with  the  additional  idea  of 
 sufficiency  and  completeness.  To  the  same  head 
 we  may  refer  the  numerous  instances  in  which  per- 
 sons or  things  are  mentioned  by  sevens  in  the  his- 
 torical portions  of  the  Bible  —  e.  //.  the  7  kine  and 
 Jie   7    ears   of  corn  in  Pharaoh's    dream,    the  7 
 
 «  VIIW2. 
 
 SEVENTY  DISCIPLES       2935 
 
 daughters  of  the  priest  of  Midian,  the  7  sons  of 
 Jesse,  the  7  deacons,  the  7  sons  of  Sceva,  the  twice 
 7  generations  in  the  pedigree  of  Jesus  (Matt.  i.  17); 
 and  again  the  still  mure  numerous  instances  in 
 which  periods  of  seven  days  or  seven  years,  occa- 
 sionally combined  with  the  repetition  of  an  act 
 seven  times ;  as,  in  the  taking  of  Jericho,  the  town 
 was  surrounded  for  7  days,  and  on  the  7th  day  it 
 fell  at  the  blast  of  7  trumpets  borne  round  the 
 town  7  times  by  7  priests ;  or  again  at  the  Flood, 
 an  interval  of  7  days  elapsed  between  the  notice  to 
 enter  the  ark  and  the  coming  of  the  Flood,  the 
 beasts  entered  by  sevens,  7  days  elapsed  between 
 the  two  missions  of  the  dove,  etc.  So  again  in 
 private  life,  7  years  appear  to  have  been  the  usual 
 period  of  a  hiring  (Gen.  xxix.  18),  7  days  for  a 
 marriage-festival  (Gen.  xxix.  27;  Judg.  xiv.  12), 
 and  the  same,  or  in  some  cases  70  days,  for 
 mourning  for  the  dead  (Gen.  1.  3,  10;  1  Sam. 
 xxxi.  13). 
 
 The  foregoing  applications  of  the  number  seven 
 become  of  great  practical  importance  in  coiniection 
 with  the  interpretation  of  some  of  the  prophetical 
 portions  of  the  Bible,  and  particularly  of  the  Apoc- 
 alypse. For  in  this  latter  book  the  ever-recurring 
 number  seven  both  serves  as  the  mould  which  has 
 decided  the  external  form  of  the  work,  and  also  to 
 a  certain  degree  penetrates  into  the  essence  of  it. 
 We  have  but  to  run  over  the  chief  subjects  of  that 
 book  —  the  7  churches,  the  7  seals,  the  7  trumpets, 
 the  7  vials,  the  7  angels,  the  7  spirits  before  the 
 throne,  the  7  horns  and  7  eyes  of  the  Lamb,  etc. — 
 in  order  to  see  the  necessity  of  deciding  whether 
 the  number  is  to  be  accepted  in  a  literal  or  a  met- 
 aphorical sense  —  in  other  words,  whether  it  repre- 
 sents a  inmiber  or  a  quality.  The  decision  of  this 
 question  affects  not  only  the  number  seven,  but  also 
 the  number  which  stands  in  a  relation  of  antagonism 
 to  seven,  namely,  the  half  of  seven,  which  appears 
 under  the  form  of  forty-two  months,  =31  years 
 (Rev.  xiii.  5),  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  days,  also 
 =  3j  years  (xi.  3,  xii.  G),  and  again  a  time,  times, 
 and  half  a  time  =^  3i  years  (xii.  14).  We  find  this 
 number  frequently  recurring  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 as  in  the  forty-two  stations  of  the  wilderness 
 (Num.  xxxiii.),  the  three  and  a  half  years  of  the 
 famine  in  Elijah's  time  (Luke  iv.  25),  the  "time, 
 times,  and  the  dividing  of  time,"  during  which  the 
 persecution  of  Antiochus  I"4iii)hanes  was  to  last 
 (Dan.  vii.  25),  the  same  peiiod  being  again  de- 
 scribed as  "  the  midst  of  the  week,"  i.  e.  the  half 
 of  seven  years  (Dan.  ix.  27).  "a  time,  times,  and  a 
 half"  (Dan.  xii.  7),  and  again  probably  in  the 
 number  of  days  specified  in  Dan.  viii.  14,  xii.  11, 
 12.  If  the  number  seven  express  the  notion  of 
 completeness,  then  the  number  half-seven  =  incom- 
 pleteness and  the  secondary  ideas  of  suffering  and 
 disaster:  if  the  one  represent  Divine  agency,  the 
 other  we  may  expect  to  represent  human  agency. 
 Mere  numerical  calculations  would  thus,  in  regard 
 to  unfulfilled  prophecy,  be  either  wholly  superseded, 
 or  at  all  events  take  a  subordinate  position  to  the 
 general  idea  conveyed.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SEVENTY  DISCIPLES.  A  body  of 
 disciples  whom  Christ  appointed  for  the  immediate 
 purpose  of  going  "  two  and  two  before  his  face  into 
 every  city  and  place,  whither  He  himself  woidd 
 come"  (Luke  x.  1).  They  are  only  mentioned  by 
 St.  Luke,  and  nothing  further  is  s;iid  of  tliem  by 
 him  than  is  contained  in  tlie  first  half  of  the  tenth 
 chapter  of  his  Gospel.    Neither  the  whole  body  nol 
 
2936 
 
 SEVENTY  DISCIPLES 
 
 any  members  of  it  are  ever  mentioned,  as  such,  in 
 the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor  in  any  of  the  Epistles. 
 
 The  time  of  their  appointment  appears  to  have 
 been  near  the  close  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  just  as 
 He  was  taking  his  final  departure  from  Galilee 
 (Luke  ix.  51-x.  1).  Different  chronological  ar- 
 rangements of  the  life  of  our  Lord  would,  of  course, 
 lead  to  a  diflerence  of  opinion  here  also;  but  the 
 most  probable  supposition  seems  to  be  that  Jesus 
 himself,  on  finally  leaving  Galilee,  made  a  rapid  and 
 somewhat  pri\ate  journey  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the 
 Feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  2-10),  sending  forth 
 the  seventy  just  as  He  set  out,  probably  into  I'erea, 
 where  they  were  to  prepare  the  way  for  his  own  com- 
 ing to  teach  during  the  greater  jiart  of  the  interval 
 belbre  his  last  Passover. 
 
 However  this  may  be,  after  the  fulfillment  of  this 
 their  immediate  mission  the  seventy  returned  again 
 rejoicing  in  their  possession  of  miraculous  powers 
 (Luke  X.  17).  From  our  Lord's  answer,  '•  Fehold 
 I  give  unto  30U  puwei-  to  ti'ead  on  serpents  and 
 scorpions,  anil  over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy: 
 and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you  "  (ver. 
 19),  it  is  manifest  that  their  office  did  not  cease 
 with  the  fulfillment  of  their  immediate  and  tem- 
 porary mission,  but  was  to  continue,  as  indeed 
 was  already  proliable  from  the  use  of  the  technical 
 aviSet^ev  in  ver.  1.  Yet  we  hear  nothing  further 
 of  them  in  the  books  of  the  N.  T. 
 
 In  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity  there  is 
 frequent  mention  of  them,  sometimes  as  seventy, 
 sometimes  as  seventy-two  in  number  {Recoy. 
 Clou.  i.  40),  and  comparison  is  very  naturally 
 made  to  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel  (Num.  xi.  IG) 
 appointed  to  assist  Moses  (e.  cj.  Euseb.  De  Evang. 
 iii.  c.  2);  but  there  is  very  little  to  throw  light 
 upon  their  history  or  their  names.  The  earliest 
 notice  of  this  kind  is  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who 
 incidentally  mentions  that  Barnabas  was  one  of 
 them  [Strom,  ii.  c.  20),  and  is  also  quoted  by  Euse- 
 bius  (//.  E.  i.  c.  12)  as  saying  the  same  thing  of 
 Sosthenes,  and  also  of  a  certain  Cephas  whom  Paul 
 "  withstood  to  his  face,"  whom  he,  curiously  enough, 
 supposes  to  have  l)een  not  tlie  Apostle,  but  one  of 
 the  seventy  of  the  same  name.  Eusebius  gives  a 
 variety  of  reports  without  himself  apparently  at 
 taching  any  weight  to  them.  In  addition  to  those 
 already  mentioned,  he  says  (//.  E.  i.  c.  12):  "  And 
 that  Matthias,  who  was  numbered  with  the  Apos- 
 tles in  place  of  Judas,  and  he  who  had  been  hon- 
 ored to  be  a  candidate  with  him,  is  also  said  to 
 have  been  deemed  worthy  of  the  same  calling  with 
 the  seventy.  They  also  say  that  Thaddeus  was  one 
 of  them."  In  the  following  chapter  he  speaks  of 
 Thaddeus  positively  as  one  of  their  number.  Half 
 a  century  later  Epiphanius  (/heres.  li.)  speaks  of 
 their  number  as  seventy-two,  and  of  Mark  and  Luke 
 as  among  them.  Also  (Ilceres.  xx.),  he  says  that 
 our  Lord  "  sent  forth  also  seventy-two  others  to 
 preach,  of  whose  number  were  the  seven  appointed 
 
 SHAALBIM 
 
 over  the  widows,  Stephen,  Philip,  Prochoras,  Nica- 
 nor,  Timon,  Parmenas,  and  Nicolaus:  before  these 
 also  Matthias,  who  was  numbered  among  the  x\pos- 
 tles  in  the  place  of  Judas;  but  after  these  seven  and 
 Matthias  before  them,  Mark,  Luke,  Justus,  Barna- 
 bas and  Apelles,  Kufus,  Niger,  and  the  remainder 
 of  the  seventy-two." 
 
 It  does  not  appear  what  authority  Epiphanius 
 had  for  these  statements.  He  seems  to  be  quite 
 alone  in  this  supposition  as  to  the  seven  deacons. 
 The  names  of  the  seven  indicate  that  they  were 
 Hellenists,  and  as  such  were  not  likely  to  have  been 
 of  the  seventy.  In  regard  to  some  of  the  others, 
 Matthias  and  Justus,  it  is  certain  that  they  were 
 personal  companions  of  our  Lord  during  his  minis- 
 try (Acts  i.'  21-2.3),  and  therefore  probable  that 
 they  were  selected  from  among  the  seventy.  Bar- 
 nabas also  rests  on  the  much  earlier  authority  of 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  according  to  Eusebius, 
 Sosthenes  also,  but  the  original  work  of  Clement  in 
 this  case  is  lost.  In  regard  to  the  others  Epipha- 
 nius must  be  considered  to  have  simply  gathered 
 up  the  current  traditions  of  his  time;  these  are 
 not  quite  the  same  with  those  mentioned  earlier  by 
 Eusebius,  but  even  those  he  does  not  appear  to 
 have  considered  as  of  much  authority.  F.  G. 
 
 SHAALAB'BIN   (^21^17.^',  hut  in  many 
 
 MSS.  n'^dhVW  [cHy  o/ foxes  or  jackals]  :  [Eom. 
 2a\a/Li.iy;  Vat.]  ^aAaPeiV.  Alex.  SaAo/xeij/: " 
 StleOin).  A  town  in  the  allotment  of  Dan,  named 
 between  Ik-Shemesii  and  Ajalon  (Josh.  xix. 
 42).  There  is  some  uncertainty  about  the  form  of 
 the  name.  The  MSS.  preponderate  in  favor  of 
 Shaalbi.^i,  in  which  form  it  is  found  in  two  other 
 passages.  But  there  is  also  some  ground  for  sus- 
 pecting that  it  was  Shaalbon.  [See  Shaalbim 
 and  SiiAALBOmxE.] 
 
 SHAAL'BIM  (D'^sbrtt?  [place  of  foxes 
 or  jackals]:  QaAafieiv,^  Alex,  oi  aXaiireKes;  in 
 1  K.  [Bom.  2a/\a;8iV,  Vat.]  K-ndaAa/xei,  Alex. 
 2aAa/86i/i:  Salal/iiii,  Salebiin).  The  commoner' 
 form  of  the  name  of  a  town  of  Dan  which  in  one 
 passage  is  found  as  Sliaalabbin.  It  occurs  in  an 
 ancient  fragment  of  history  inserted  in  Judg.  i. 
 enumerating  the  towns  of  which  the  original  inhab- 
 itants of  Canaan  succeeded  in  keeping  possession 
 after  the  general  conquest.  Mount  Heies,'^  Aija- 
 lon,  and  Shaalbim  were  held  against  the  Danitea 
 by  the  Amorites  (ver.  3.5)  till, the  help  of  the  great 
 tribe  of  Ephraim  being  called  in,  they  were  at  last 
 compelled  to  succumb.  It  is  mentioned  with  Ai- 
 jalon  again  in  Josh.  xix.  42  (Sliaalabbin)  and  with 
 Beth-shemesh  botli  tiiere  and  in  1  K.  iv.  9,  in  the 
 last  passage  as  making  up  one  of  Solomon's  com- 
 missariat districts.  By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  it  is 
 mentioned  in  the  Onomasticon  ("Selab")  as  a 
 large  village  in  the  district  of  Sebaste  (i.  e.  Sama- 
 ria), and  as  then  called  Selaba.     But  this  is  not 
 
 a  A  city  called  2aAa|UiV,  or  SaAojii's,  formerly  lay 
 at  the  east  end  of  the  island  of  Cyprus,  between  which 
 and  Phoenicia,  or  Canaan,  there  was  a  constant  inter- 
 course and  close  connection.  Perhaps  this  also  was 
 Shaalabbin. 
 
 b  This  passage  in  the  Vatican  Codex  (Mai's  ed.)  con- 
 tains a  curious  specimen  of  a  double  reading,  each  of 
 the  two  being  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  proper 
 names  :  ef  i^p  opei  to!  (XTTpaKioSei.  ef  <Z  al  apKOi  Ka.\  iv 
 Z  ai  aAcijTreKfs  iv  tu>  Mvpcrirwi'i,  Ka\  ev  ©aAo^eiV.  [So 
 Rom.,  exc.  OaAo^iV.]    Here  6crTpaKw<iT)s  and  Mvp(Ti.vu)v 
 
 are  both  attempts  to  render  D^ri,  reading  it  ty")n 
 
 and  DTn   respectively.     The  iAwTreKcs  is  due  to  the 
 
 757ti?  in  Shaalbin  ;  ai  apKoi,  "  the  she-bears,"  is  for 
 Ajalon,  though  that  signifies  deer  or  gazelles. 
 
 c  *  The  A.  V.  represents  Heres  as  situated  m  Aija- 
 lon,  whereas  a  comma  should  separate  Heres  (more 
 correctly  Har-heres)  from  Aijalon  as  well  as  from  the 
 other  names  which  follow.  This  confusion  is  as  old 
 at  least  as  the  Bi.-liops  Bible.  H. 
 
SHAALBONITE,  THE 
 
 very  intelligible,  for  except  in  the  statement  of  Jo- 
 sephus  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  22),  that  the  allotment  of  the 
 Danites  extended  as  far  north  as  Dor  ( Tdiiiuni), 
 there  is  nothing  to  lead  to  the  belief  that  any  of 
 their  towns  were  at  all  near  Samaria,  while  the  per- 
 sistent enumeration  of  Shaalbim  with  Aijalon  and 
 Beth-shemesh,  the  sites  of  both  which  are  known 
 with  tolerable  certainty  as  within  a  radius  of  15 
 miles  west  of  Jerusalem,  is  strongly  against  it.  It 
 is  also  at  variance  with  another  notice  of  Jerome, 
 in  his  commentary  on  Ez.  xlviii.  22,  where  he  men- 
 tions the  "  towers  of  Ailon  and  Selebi  and  Emma- 
 us-Nicopolis,"  in  connection  with  Joppa,  as  three 
 landmarks  of  the  trilie  of  Dan.  No  trace  appears 
 to  have  been  yet  discovered  of  any  name  resembling 
 Shaalbim,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Yulo  or  Ain- 
 s'lems,  or  indeed  anywhere  else,  unless  it  be  a  place 
 
 called  ^Esnlin,  , .  waAaa^C.  ,  mentioned  in  the  lists 
 
 of  Eli  Smith  and  Robinson  {Bibl.  lies.  1st  ed.  iii. 
 App.  120  0)  as  lying  next  to  Surah,  the  ancient 
 Zorah,  a  position  which  is  very  suitable. 
 
 The  Slialn'bm,  disoo\'ered  by  Bl.  Kenan's  expe- 
 dition about  4  miles  X.  W.  of  Bint-Jcbeil,  in  the 
 Bchul  Besharrali  (see  the  Carte  dressee  par  la 
 brigade  topographique,  etc.,  1802),  may  be  an  an- 
 cient Shaalbim,  possibly  so  named  by  the  northern 
 colony  of  Danites  after  the  town  of  their  original 
 dwelling-place.  But  it  is  obvious  from  the  fore- 
 going description  that  it  cannot  be  identical  with 
 it.  G. 
 
 SHAAL'BONITE,  THE  (\3hb^t»n  [see 
 below] :  [in  2  Sam.,  I!om.]  6  :S,a\a.fiii>v'iT7)s  [Vat. 
 Alex,  -uei- ;  in  1  Chr.,  Horn.  Alex.  6  'XaAa^aivi, 
 Vat.  o  O/xei,  I''A.  0  ScOiUei] :  de  Salbnni,  [Salabo- 
 niles] ).  Eliahba  the  Shaallionite  was  one  of  Da- 
 vid's thirty-seven  heroes  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  32;  1  Chr. 
 xi.  33).  He  was  the  native  of  a  place  named  Sha- 
 albon,  which  is  nnmentioned  elsewhere,  unless  it  is 
 identical  with  Sn.v.vi.uni  or  Sha.vl.vbbin  of  the 
 tribe  of  Dan.  In  this  case  it  becomes  difficult  to 
 decide  which  of  the  three  is  the  original  form  of  the 
 name.  G. 
 
 SHA'APH  i^yW  [division]  :  Sayae';  Alex. 
 ^ayacp;  [C'oiiip.  2aa^:]  Saapli).  1.  The  son  of 
 Jahdai  (1  Chr.  ii.  47). 
 
 2.  Tlie  son  of  Caleb  the  brother  of  Jerahmeel  by 
 his  concubine  Maachah.  He  is  called  the  father, 
 that  is,  the  founder,  of  the  town  Madmannah  (1 
 Chr.  ii.  4U). 
 
 SHAARA'IM  (anV.^  \tioo  gates'] :  [in  1 
 Sara.]  Twv  Tvu\'2iu  in  both  MSS. ;  [in  Chr.,  Vat. 
 Alex.j  'S,iciipiLfx\  [Rom.,  joined  with  preceding 
 word,  Qa.j}ov(Tiwpin;  Comp.  Sapei/^:]  Saraim,  Sa- 
 arini).  A  city  in  the  territory  allotted  to  Judah 
 (Josh.  XV.  3ti;  in  X.  V.  incorrectly  Shak.mm).  It 
 is  one  of  the  first  group  of  the  towns  of  the  Sliefe- 
 l(di,  or  lowland  district,  which  contains  also  Zoreah, 
 Jarmuth,  Socoh,  besides  others  not  yet  recognized. 
 It  is  mentioned  again  in  the  account  of  the  rout 
 which  followed  the  fall  of  Goliath,  where  the 
 wounded  fell  down  on  the  road  to  Siiaaraim  and  as 
 far  as  Gath  and  Ekrou   (1  Sam.  xvii.  52).     These 
 
 "  The  word  shaaraim  means  "  two  gateways  ■' ;  and 
 but  for  the  nientioQ  of  the  town  in  Joshua,  and  the 
 oonsistency  of  its  position  witli  1  Sain.  xvii.  52,  it 
 would  be  perhaps  more  natural  in  that  passage  to  take 
 it  as  meaning  the  gates  of  Gath  and  Bkron,  as  the 
 185 
 
 SHACHIA  2937 
 
 two  notices  are  consistent  with  each  other.  Goli- 
 ath probably  fell  in  the  Wadij  es-Sumt,  on  oppo- 
 site sides  of  which  stand  the  representatives  of 
 Socoh  and  Jarmuth;  Gath  was  at  or  near  2\-ll  es- 
 Sajie/i,  a  few  miles  west  of  Socoh  at  the  mouth  of 
 the  same  Wady;  whilst  Ekron  (if '..lA^Vbe  Ekron) 
 lies  farther  north.  Shaaraim  is  therefore  probably 
 to  be  looked  for  somewhere  west  of  S/iuwei/celi,  on 
 tlie  lower  slopes  of  the  hills,  where  they  subside 
 into  the  great  plain. « 
 
 We  find  the  name  mentioned  once  more  in  a  list 
 of  the  towns  of  Simeon  (1  Chr.  iv.  31),*  occupying 
 the  same  place  with  Sharuchen  and  Sansannah,  in 
 the  corre.sponding  lists  of  Joshua.  Lying  as  the 
 allotment  of  Simeon  did  in  the  lowest  part  of  Ju- 
 dah, many  miles  south  of  the  region  indicated 
 above,  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  Shaaraim  can 
 be  intended,  and  indeed  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether 
 it  be  not  a  mere  corruption  of  one  of  the  other  two 
 names. 
 
 Taken  as  Hebrew,  the  word  is  a  dual,  and  means 
 "  two  gatevvays,"  as  the  LXX.  have  rendered  it  in 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  group  in 
 which  Shaaraim  is  included  in  Josh.  xv.  should  con- 
 tain more  names  in  dual  form  than  all  the  rest  of  the 
 list  put  together;  namely,  besides  itself,  Adithaim, 
 and  Gederothaim,  and  probably  also  P>nam  and 
 AduUam.  For  the  possible  mention  of  Shaaraim 
 in  1  Mace.  v.  00,  see  SAM.\t:i.\.  p.  2798.         G. 
 
 SHAASH'GAZ  {f^W^W  [Pers.  servant  of 
 the  beautiful,  Ges.]  :  not  found  in  the  LXX.,  who 
 substitute  Td'i,  Hegai,  as  in  vv.  8,  15 :  Susagnzus) 
 The  eunuch  in  the  palace  of  Xerxes  who  had  the 
 custody  of  the  women  in  the  second  bouse,  i.  e.  of 
 those  who  had  been  in  to  the  king  (Esth.  ii.  14). 
 [Hkgai.]  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHAB'BETHAI  [3  syl.]  (^^2127  [sabbath- 
 birn']  :  [in  Ezr.j  •Za^^aed'i;  Alex.  Ka^^addi:,  [Vat. 
 E.\.  'S.a^aOai;  in  Neh.,  Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  EA.  omit; 
 Comp.  'S.a^ddalos,  Aid.  :S,afia6aTos '■}  Sebetha'i  hi 
 Ezr.,  Sejjtha'i  in  Neh.).  1.  A  Levite  in  the  time 
 of  Ezra,  who  assisted  him  in  investigating  the  mar- 
 riages with  foreigners  which  had  taken  place  among 
 the  people  (Ezr.  x.  15).  It  is  apparently  the  same 
 who  with  Jeshua  and  others  instructed  the  people 
 in  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  (Neh.  viii.  7).  He 
 is  called  SAm5ATHEU.s  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14)  and  Saba- 
 TKAs  (1  Esdr.  ix.  48). 
 
 2.  (Om.  in  LXX.  [i.  e.  Rom.  Vat.  FA.l  Alex.; 
 Iiut  Comp.  :S,aPadda7os,  Aid.  -XajSadaios,  FA.3 
 ^ol30ada6aLOi]:  Sabatlta'i.)  Shabbethai  and  Jo- 
 zabad,  of  the  chief  of  the  Levites,  were  over  the 
 outward  business  of  the  house  of  God  after  the  re- 
 turn from  Babylon  (Neh.  xi.  16).  Possibly  1 
 and  2  are  identical,  although  Burrington  {Geneal. 
 i.  107)  regards  Shabbethai,  who  is  mentioned  in 
 Neh.  viii.  7,  as  a  priest. 
 
 *  SHABI'AH.     [Shachia.] 
 
 SHACHI'A  (n^?tt7  IfameofJah,  Fiirst]  : 
 Za^ia;  [Vat.  2a/3£o;  Alex.  2e/8ia:]  Sechin). 
 Properly  "  Shabiah,"  a  son  of  Shaharaim  by  Ms 
 wife  Hodesh  (1  Chr.  viii.  10).  This  form  of  the 
 name  is  retained  from  the  Geneva  Version.  The 
 translators  have  followed  the   Vulgate  in  reading 
 
 LXX.  have  done.     In  that  case,  however,  it  ought  to 
 have  the  article,  which  it  has  not. 
 
 6  Here  there  is  a  slight  diffcreace  in  the  vowels,  due 
 
 to  the  pause  —  D"^'nl?tt7  —  which  is  reflected  in  both 
 LXX.  and  Vulgate  (see  above,  at  head  of  article). 
 
2938 
 
 SHADDAI 
 
 3  for  12.    Seven  of  Kenuicott's  MSS.  read  S''3Ii?, 
 
 and  fifteen  rT'*DL£7  [=  announcement,  Fiirst]. 
 
 SHAD'DAI  [2  syl]  {''^W,  in  pause,  ''^tL'). 
 An  ancient  name  of  God,  rendered  "  Almiglity  " 
 everywhere  in  tlie  A.  V.  In  all  passages  of  Gen- 
 esis, except  one  (xlix.  25  <"),  in  Ex.  vi.  3,  and  in  Ez. 
 
 X.  5,  it  is  found  in  connection  with  7S,  el,  "  God," 
 El  Shaddai  being  there  rendered  "  God  Almighty," 
 or  '-the  Almighty  God."  It  occurs  six  times  in 
 Genesis,  once  in  Exodus  (vi.  3),  twice  in  Numbers 
 (xxiv.  4,  16),  twice  in  Ruth  (i.  20,  21),  thirty-one 
 times  in  Job,  twice  in  the  Psalms  (Ixviii.  14  [15], 
 xci.  1),  once  in  Isaiah  (xiii.  G),  twice  in  Ezekiel 
 (i.  24,  X.  5),  and  once  in  Joel  (i.  15).  In  Genesis 
 and  Exodus  it  is  found  in  what  are  called  the 
 Elohistic  portions  of  those  books,  in  Numbers  in 
 the  Jehovistic  portion,  and  throughout  Job  the 
 name  Shaddai  stands  in  parallelism  with  Elohim, 
 and  never  with  Jehovah.  By  the  name  or  in  the 
 character  of  El  Shaddai,  God  was  known  to  the 
 patriarchs  —  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  1),  to  Isaac 
 (Gen.  xxviii.  3),  and  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xliii.  14,  xlviii. 
 3,  xlix.  25),  before  the  name  Jehovah,  in  its  full 
 significance,  was  revealed  (Ex.  vi.  3).  By  this 
 title  He  was  known  to  the  Midianite  Balaam 
 (Nunv.  xxiv.  4,  10),  as  God  the  Giver  of  Visions, 
 the  Most  High  (comp.  Ps.  xci.  1);  and  the  iden- 
 tity of  Jehovah  and  Shaddai,  who  dealt  bitterly 
 with  her,  was  recognized  by  Naomi  in  her  sorrow 
 (Piuth  i.  20,  21).  Shaddai,  the  Almighty,  is  the 
 God  who  chastens  men  (Job  v.  17,  vi.  4,  xxiii.  IG, 
 xxvii.  2);  the  just  God  (Job  viii.  3,  xxxiv.  10) 
 who  hears  prayer  (Job  viii.  5,  xxii.  20,  xxvii. 
 10);  the  God  of  power  who  cannot  be  resisted  (Job 
 XV.  25),  who  punishes  the  wicked  (Job  x.xi.  20, 
 xxvii.  13),  and  rewards  and  protects  those  who 
 trust  in  Him  (Job  xxii.  23,  25,  xxix.  5);  the  God 
 of  providence  (Job  xxii.  17,  23,  xxvii.  11)  and  of 
 fore-knowledge  (Job  xxiv.  1),  who  gives  to  men 
 understanding  (Job  xxxii.  8)  and  life  (Job  xxxiii. 
 4):  "excellent  in  power,  and  in  judgment,  and  in 
 plenty  of  justice,"  whom  none  can  perfectly  know 
 (Job  xi.  7,  xxxvii.  23).  The  prevalent  idea  at- 
 taching to  the  name  in  all  these  passages  is  that 
 of  strength  and  power,  and  our  translators  have 
 probably  given  to  "  Shaddai "  its  true  meaning 
 when  they  rendered  it  "Almighty." 
 
 In  the  Targum  throughout,  the  Hebrew  word  is 
 retained,  as  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  of  Genesis  and 
 Exodus  and  of  Ruth  i.  20.  The  LXX.  gives 
 iKavSs,  laxvpi^i  Of6s,  Kvpios,  TravTOKpdrwfi, 
 Kvptos  iravTOKpaTOop,  6  to,  iravra  iroirtaas  (Job 
 viii.  3),  iwovpdvios  (I's-  Ixviii.  14  [15]),  6  6(hs  tov 
 ovpavov  (Ps-  xjci.  i.),  caSSai  (Ez.  x.  5),  and  ra- 
 Kanraipia  (Joel  i.  15).  In  Job  xxix.  5,  we  find  the 
 strange  rendering  vAciS-qs-  In  Gen.  and  Ex.  "  El 
 Shaddai"  is  translated  6  Oeos  ixov,  or  aov,  or  aiiruv, 
 as  the  caselnay  be.  Tlie  Vulgate  has  vmnipotcns 
 in  all  cases,  except  Dotninus  (Job  v.  17,  vi.  4,  14; 
 Is.  xiii.  G),  Deus  (Job  xxii.  3,  xl.  2),  Denscceli  (Ps. 
 xci.  1 ),  svblimis  Deus  (Ez.  i.  24),  cwleslis  (Ps.  Ixviii. 
 14  [15]),  poiens  (Joel  i.  15),  and  dir/ne  (Job  xxxvii. 
 23).  TheVeneto-Greek  has /cpoTOK^r-  The  Peshito- 
 Syriac,  in  many  passages,  renders  "  Shaddai  "  simply 
 
 "God,"    in   others    }  *  *nnA/,   chas'ino,  "strong, 
 
 a  Even  here  some  MSS.  and  the  Samaritan  Text 
 read  bs,  «',  for  HS,  eth. 
 
 SHADRACH 
 
 powerful"  (Job  v.  17,  vi.  4,  &c.),  and  once 
 ^■^•^,  'e%o,  "Most  High  "  (Job  vi.  14).  The 
 Samaritan  Version  of  Gen.  xvii.  1  has  for  "EI  Shad- 
 dai," "powerful,  sufBcient,"  though  in  the  other 
 passages  of  Genesis  and  Exodus  it  simply  retains 
 the  Hebrew  wonl;  while  in  Num.  xxiv.  4,  16,  the 
 
 translator  must  have  read  JTltt?,  sadeh,  "  a  field," 
 for  he  renders  "the  vision  of  Shaddai,"  the  "vision 
 of  the  field,"  i.  e.  the  vision  seen  in  the  open 
 plain.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi  render  it  "  power- 
 ful." 
 
 The  derivations  assigned  to  Shaddai  are  various. 
 We  may  mention,  only  to  reject,  the  Rabbinical 
 
 etymology  which  connects  it  with  "^"T,  dai,  "  suflS- 
 ciency,"  given  by  Rashi  (on  Gen.  xvii.  1),  "I  am 
 He  in  whose  Godhead  there  is  sufficiency  for  the 
 whole  creation;"  and  in  the  Talmud.  {Chayic/n, 
 fol.  12,  col.  1),  "  I  am  He  who  said  to  the  world. 
 
 Enough  !  "  According  to  this,  "''^tt?  =  "^"^  "Itt'W, 
 "  He  who  is  sufficient,"  "the  all-sufficient  One;  " 
 and  so  "  He  who  is  sufficient  in  himself,"  and 
 therefore  self-existent.  This  is  the  origin  of  the 
 'iKavS?  of  the   LXX.,  Theodoret,  and  Ilesychius, 
 
 and  of  the  Arabic  ^^IXJI,  cdkafi,  of  Saadias, 
 which  has  the  same  meaning.  Gcsenius  {Gram. 
 §  86,  and  Jtsnia,  xiii.  6)  regards  '^"iTK',  shaddai, 
 as  the  plural  of  majesty,  from  a  singular  noun, 
 T^tt."',  shad,  root  Tlt^,  shadad,  of  which  the  pri- 
 mary notion  seems  to  be,  "  to  be  strong  "  (Fiiret, 
 Iliindwb.).  It  is  evident  that  this  derivation  was 
 present  to  the  mind  of  the  prophet  from  the  play 
 of  words  in  Is.  xiii.  6.      Ewald  {Leinb.   §  155  c. 
 
 bie  Ausg.)  takes  it  from  a  root  mtf^TlB?, 
 
 and  compares   it   with  *'^'^,  davvai,  from  TTH, 
 
 ddvdh,  the  older  termination  "*"  being  retained. 
 
 He  also  refers  to  the  proper  names  ''tt^^,   Yiskai 
 
 (Jesse),  and  "^H?,  Bavvai  (Neh.  iii.  18).  Eoediger 
 (Ges.  Thes.  s.  v.)  disputes  Evvald's  explanation, 
 and  proposes,  as  one  less  open  to  objection,  that 
 Sliaddai  originally  signified  "  my  powerful  ones," 
 and  afterwards  became  the  name  of  God  Almighty, 
 like  the  analogous  form  Adtmni.  In  favor  of  this 
 is  the  fiict  that  it  is  never  found  with  the  definite 
 article,  but  such  would  be  equally  the  case  if  Shad- 
 dai were  regarded  as  a  projier  name.  On  the 
 whole  there  seems  no  reasonable  objection  to  the 
 view  taken  by  Gesenius,  which  Lee  also  adopts 
 {Gram.  139,  6). 
 
 Shaddai  is  found  as  an  element  in  the  proper 
 names  Ammishaddai,  Zurishaddai,  and  possibly 
 also  in  Shedeur  there  may  be  a  trace  of  it. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHA'DRACH  CT]']"'^'  [circvil  of  the  sun, 
 sun-god,  or  royal  one  (?)  Eiirst]  :  [LXX.]  SeSpox! 
 [in  Dan.  iii.  (Theodot.)  Alex.  'S.eSpa.K:]  Sidrach: 
 of  uncertain  etymology).  The  Chaldee  name  of 
 Hananiah  [Hananiah  7;  Sheshbazzah],  the 
 chief  of  the  "  three  children,"  whose  song,  as  given 
 in  the  apocryphal  Daniel,  forms  part  of  the  service 
 of  the  Church  of  England,  under  the  name  of 
 "Benedicite,  omnia  opera."  A  long  prayer  in  the 
 furnace  is  also  ascribed  to  him  in  the  LXX.  and 
 Vulgate,  but  this  is  thought  to  be  by  a  different 
 hand  from  that  which  added  the  song      The  his- 
 
SHADRACH 
 
 tory  of  Shadracli,  or  Hananiah,  is  briefly  this.  He 
 was  taken  captive  witli  Daniel,  Misliael,  and  Aza- 
 riah,  at  the  first  invasion  of  Jndali  by  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, in  the  fourth,  or,  as  Daniel  (i.  1)  reckons, 
 in  the  third  «  year  of  Jehoiakim,  at  the  time  when 
 the  Jewish  king  himself  was  bound  in  fetters  to  be 
 carried  off  to  Babylon.  [Jehoiakim.]  Being, 
 with  his  three  companions,  apparently  of  royal 
 birth  (Dan.  i.  3),  of  superior  understanding,  and  of 
 goodly  person,  he  was  selected,  with  them,  for  the 
 king's  immediate  service,  and  was  for  this  end  in- 
 structed in  the  lancjuage  and  in  all  the  learning  and 
 wisdom  of  the  Chaldseans,  as  taught  in  the  college 
 of  the  magicians.  Like  Daniel,  he  avoided  the 
 pollution  of  the  meat  and  wine  which  formed  their 
 daily  provision  at  the  king's  cost,  and  obtained  per- 
 mission to  live  on  pulse  and  water.  When  the 
 time  of  his  probation  was  over,  he  and  his  three 
 companions,  being  found  superior  to  all  the  other 
 magicians,  were  advanced  to  stand  before  the  king. 
 When  the  decree  for  the  slaughter  of  all  the  ma- 
 gicians went  forth  from  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  find 
 .Shadrach  uniting  with  his  companions  in  prayer  to 
 God  to  reveal  tlie  dream  to  Daniel;  and  when,  in 
 answer  to  that  prayer,  Daniel  had  successfully  in- 
 terpreted the  dream,  and  been  made  I'uler  of  the 
 province  of  Bal)ylon,  and  head  of  the  college  of 
 magicians,  Shadrach  was  promoted  to  a  high  civil 
 office.  But  the  penalty  of  oriental  greatness, 
 especially  when  combined  with  honesty  and  up- 
 rightness, soon  had  to  be  paid  by  him,  on  the  ac- 
 cusation of  certain  envious  Chaldseans.  For  refus- 
 ing to  worship  the  golden  image  he  was  cast  with 
 Meshach  and  Abed-nego,  into  the  burning  fur- 
 nace. But  his  faith  stood  firm ;  and  his  victory 
 was  complete  when  he  came  out  of  the  furnace, 
 with  his  two  companions,  unhurt,  heard  the  king's 
 testimony  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  was  "  promoted 
 in  the  province  of  Babylon."  We  hear  no  more 
 of  Shadrach,  IMeshach,  and  Abed-nego  in  the  O.  T. 
 after  this;  neither  are  they  spoken  of  in  the  N.  T., 
 except  in  the  pointed  allusion  to  them  in  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  having  "  through  faith 
 quenched  the  violence  of  fire"  (Heb.  xi.  33,  34). 
 But  there  are  repeated  allusions  to  them  in  the 
 later  apocryphal  books,  and  the  martyrs  of  the 
 Maccabiean  period  seem  to  have  been  nuich  en- 
 couraged by  their  example.  See  1  Jlacc.  ii.  59, 
 GO;  3  Mace.  vi.  6;  4  Mace.  xiii.  9,  xvi.  3,  21, 
 xviii.  12.  Ewald  {Gescliichte,  iv.  557)  observes, 
 indeed,  that  next  to  the  Pentateuch  no  book  is  so 
 often  referred  to  in  these  times,  in  proportion,  as 
 the  book  of  Daniel.  The  apocryphal  additions  to 
 Daniel  contain,  as  usual,  many  supplementary  par- 
 ticulars about  the  furnace,  the  angel,  and  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, besides  the  introduction  of  the  prayer 
 of  Shadrach,  and  the  hymn.  Theodore  Barker 
 observes  with  truth,  in  opposition  to  Bertholdt, 
 that  these  additions  of  the  Alexandrine  prove  that 
 the  Melirew  was  the  original  text,  l)ecause  they  are 
 obviou.sly  inserted  to  introduce  a  better  connection 
 into  the  narrative  (Joseph.  A7it.  x.  10:  Prideaux, 
 Connect,  i.  59,  60;  Parker's  De  VVette,  Jntrod.  ii. 
 483-510;  Grimm,  on  1  Mace.  ii.  60;  Hitzig  (who 
 takes  a  thoroughly  skeptical  view),  on  Dan.  iii. ; 
 Ewald,  iv.  lOG,  107,  557-559;  Keil,  Einkil. 
 Daniel).  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHALEM 
 
 2939 
 
 a  Keil  explains  the  discrepancy  by  supposing  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  set  off  from  Babylon  to- 
 wards the  end  of  the  third  year,  but  not  have  reached 
 Judseu  till  the  fourth  {Einleit.  p.  387). 
 
 SHA'GE  (W3tt7  [€?•?•%] :  ^ai\d;  Alex.  2071} : 
 Sage).  Father  of  Jonathan  the  Hararite,  one  of 
 David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  34).  In  the  parallel 
 list  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  33,  he  is  called  Shanimah: 
 unless,  as  seems  probable,  there  is  a  confusion  be- 
 tween Jonathan  the  son  of  "  Shage  the  Hararite," 
 Jonathan  the  son  of  Shammah,  David's  brother, 
 and  •'  Shannnah,  the  son  of  Agee  the  Hararite." 
 [See  Shajijiah,  5.] 
 
 SHAHARA'IM  (Q'^t'ni;?^  ['«'"  claims']: 
 'Zaapiv,  [Vat.  SaapTjA;]  Alex,  taap-qix:  Saha- 
 ra'iin).  A  Benjamite  whose  history  and  descent 
 are  alike  obscure  in  the  present  text  (1  Chr. 
 viii.  8).  It  is  more  intelligible  if  we  remove  the 
 full  stop  from  the  end  of  ver.  7,  and  read  on  thus: 
 "and  begat  Uzza  and  Ahihud,  and  Shaharaim  he 
 begat  in  the  field  of  Moab,"  etc.  This  would 
 make  Shaharaim  the  son  of  Gera.  He  had  three 
 wives  and  nine  children. 
 
 SHAHAZ'IMAH      (n»''^nt^      {heiyht, 
 
 Ges.];  but  in  the  orig.  text  {Cetldb)  TM^TIHW, 
 i.  e.  Shahatsumah:  2aA('/x  [Vat.  2aAei^]  nara.'' 
 BaAacraav;  Alex.  'Sacrei/jiad;  [Coujp.  Aid.  2a<n^a:] 
 tithesima).  One  of  the  towns  of  the  allotment  of 
 Issachar,  apparently  between  Tabor  and  the  Jordan 
 (Josh.  xix.  22  only).  The  name  is  accurately  Sha- 
 hatsini,  the  termination  nh  being  the  particle  of 
 motion  —  "to  Shahatsim."  G. 
 
 SHA'LEM    (nbtt?    [safe,    whole]:    Samar 
 
 D  wtC  :  6(s  2aA.7)/U-'  in  Salem),  Gen.  xxxiii.  18. 
 It  seems  more  than  probable  that  this  word  should 
 not  here  be  taken  as  a  proper  name,  but  that  the 
 sentence  should  be  rendered,  "Jacob  came  safe  to 
 the  city  of  Shechem."  Our  translators  have  fol- 
 lowed the  LXX.,  Peshito-Syriac,  and  Vulgate, 
 among  ancient,  and  Luther's  among  modern  ver 
 sions,  in  all  of  which  Shaleni  is  treated  as  a  proper 
 name,  and  considered  as  ■  a  town  dependent  on  or 
 related  to  Shechem.  And  it  is  certainly  remark 
 able  that  there  should  be  a  modern  village  bearing 
 the  name  of  Snlhii  in  a  position  to  a  certain  degree 
 consistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  narrative 
 when  so  interpreted:  namely,  three  miles  east  of 
 Nahlus  (the  ancient  Shechem),  and  therefore  be- 
 tween it  and  the  Jordan  Valley,  where  the  preced- 
 ing verse  (ver.  17)  leaves  Jacob  settled  (Kob.  Bibl. 
 Res.  ii.  279;  Wilson,  Lands,  ii.  72;  Van  de  Velde 
 Syv.  and  Pat.  ii.  302,  334). 
 
 But  there  are  several  considerations  which  weigh 
 very  much  against  this  being  more  than  a  fortuitous 
 coincidence. 
 
 1.  If  Shalem  was  the  city  in  front  of  which 
 Jacob  pitched  his  tent,  then  it  certainly  was  the 
 scene  of  the  events  of  chap,  xxxiv. ;  and  the  well 
 of  Jacob  and  the  tomb  of  Joseph  must  be  removed 
 from  the  situation  in  which  tradition  has  so  appro- 
 priately placed  them  to  some  spot  further  eastward 
 and  nearer  to  Salim.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  felt 
 this,  and  they  accordingly  make  Sychem  and  Salem 
 one  and  the  same  {Onom.,  under  both  these 
 heads). 
 
 2.  Though  east  of  Ndbltis,  Salim  does  not  ap- 
 pear to  lie  near  any  actual  line  of  communication 
 between  it  and  the  Jordan  Valley.  Tlie  road  from 
 Sakul  to  Nablus  would  be  either  by  Wady  Maleh, 
 
 b  Reading  the   final   syllable   as   17X3^,    "  to    the 
 
2940    SHALIM,  THE  LAND  OF 
 
 through  Teynsir,  Tubas,  and  the  Wady  Bidan,  or 
 bj  Kcrmcd,  Yanun,  and  Beit-Fuiik.  The  former 
 passes  two  miles  to  the  north,  the  latter  two  miles 
 to  the  south  of  Snl'vn,  but  neither  approach  it  in 
 the  direct  way  which  the  narrative  of  Gen.  xxxiii. 
 18  seems  to  denote  that  Jacob's  route  did. 
 
 3.  With  the  exceptions  already  named,  the  unan- 
 imous voice  of  translators  and  scholars  is  in  favor 
 Df  treating  s/ialem  as  a  mere  apitellative.  Among 
 the  ancients,  Josephus  (by  his  silence,  Ant.  i.  21, 
 §  1 ),  the  'J'argunis  of  Onkelos  and  Pseudojonathan, 
 the  Samaritan  Codex,  the  Arabic  Version  Among 
 the  moderns,  the  Veneto  fireek  Version,  Ra.shi,« 
 Junius,  and  Tremellius,  jMeyer  (Annot.  on  Seder 
 Olani),  Ainsworth,  Keland  {Pal.  and  Dissert. 
 Misc.),  Schumann,  Kosenm idler,  J.  D.  Michaelis 
 {Bibel  J'iir  Unijdehri.),  and  the  great  Hebrew 
 scholars  of  our  own  day,  Gesenius  (  Tlies.  p.  1422), 
 Zunz  (2-i  Backer,  and  I]undwb.),  De  Wette,  Luz- 
 zatto,  Knobel,  and  Kaliseh  —  all  these  take  shalem 
 to  mean  "  safe  and  sound,"  and  the  city  before 
 which  Jacob  pitched  to  be  the  city  of  Shechem. 
 
 Salim  does  not  appear  to  have  been  visited  liy 
 any  traveller.*  It  could  be  done  without  difficulty 
 from  Nablvs,  and  the  investigation  might  be  of 
 importance.  The  springs  which  are  reported  to  be 
 there  should  not  be  overlooked,  for  tlieii'  bearing  on 
 its  possible  identity  with  the  Salim  of  St.  John 
 the  Baptist.  G. 
 
 SHALIM,  THE  LAND  OF  i"^~)^ 
 W^'hVW.  i.  e.  Shaalirn  [land  of  foxes] :  [Vat.] 
 T7)s  77JS  Eaaaicefx  [Rom.  '^^yaXlfx];'^  Alex.  t.  7. 
 2aaA6i,u:  [' 'omp.  r.  y.  :S,uayi/x:]  terra  S(diin). 
 A  district  through  which  Saul  passed  on  his  jour- 
 ney in  quest  of  his  father's  asses  (1  Sam.  ix.  4  only). 
 It  appears  to  have  lain  between  the  "  land  of  Sha- 
 lisha'  and  the  '-land  of  Yemini  "  (probably,  but 
 by  no  means  certainly,  that  of  Benjamin). 
 
 In  the  complete  uncertainty  which  attends  the 
 route  —  its  starting-point  and  termination,  no  less 
 than  its  whole  course  —  it  is  very  difficult  to  hazard 
 any  conjecture  on  the  position  of  Shalim.  The 
 spelling  of  the  name  in  the  original  shows  that  it 
 had  no  connection  with  Shalem,  or  with  the  modern 
 Sidim  east  of  A^abliis  (though  between  these  two 
 there  is  probably  nothing  in  common  excejjt  the 
 name).  It  is  more  possibly  identical  with  the 
 "land  of  Shual,"c'  the  situation  of  which  appears, 
 from  some  circumstances  attending  its  mention,  to 
 be  almost  necessarily  fixed  in  the  neighborhood  of 
 Taitjibeli,  i.  e.  nearly  six  miles  north  of  Michmash, 
 and  about  nine  from  Gibeah  of  Saul.  But  this  can 
 only  be  taken  as  a  conjecture.      [Kamaii.]      G. 
 
 SHAL'ISHA,  THE  LAND  OF  ("VT?^? 
 nttJytt'',  ;.  e.  Shalishah  [third-lnnd,  Inirst] :  ^ 
 77J  SeAxa;  Alex,  r)  7.  2a\i(7(ra;  [Comp.  SaAiira:] 
 terra  Salisa).     One  of  the  districts  traversed  by 
 
 a  The  traditional  explanation  of  the  word  among 
 the  Jews,  as  stated  by  Rashi,  is  that  Jacob  arrived 
 before  Sheclieni  sound  from  liis  liimeness  (incurred  at 
 Peniel),  and  with  his  wealth  and  his  faith  alike  un- 
 injured. 
 
 b  *  Tristram  visited  this  village,  which  he  repre- 
 sents as  "  modern  and  insignificant,"'  but,  as  lie  says, 
 "  took  only  a  hasty  glance  at  it."  He  thinks  that 
 Jacob  may  have  crossed  the  Jabbok  at  one  point 
 whence  his  route  would  have  brought  him  to  the  vi- 
 cinity of  Siilhn  (Land  of  Israel,  p.  146).  This  possi- 
 bility, however,  is  not  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  op- 
 posing considerations  stated  in  the  text  above.     H. 
 
 SHALLUM 
 
 Saul  when  in  search  of  the  asses  of  Kish  (1  Sam. 
 ix.  4,  only).  It  apparently  lay  between  "  Mount 
 Ephraim  "  and  the  "land  of  Shaahm,"  a  specifi- 
 cation which  with  all  its  evident  precisene.ss  is  ir- 
 recognizable,  because  the  extent  of  Mount  Ephraim 
 is  so  imcertain;  and  Shaalim,  though  probably 
 near  Tuii/ibeh,  is  not  jet  definitely  fixed  there. 
 The  difficulty  is  increased  by  locating  Shalisha  at 
 l:^aris  or  Khirbet  Saris,  a  village  a  few  miles  west 
 of  Jerusalem,  south  of  Abti  Gosh  (Tobler,  Site 
 Wand.  p.  178),  which  some  have  proposed.  If  the 
 hnd  of  Shalisha  contained,  as  it  not  impossiljly 
 did,  the  place  called  Baal-Shalisha  (2  K.  iv. 
 42),  which,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Eusehius 
 and  Jerome  (  0«();/i.  "  Beth  Salisha  "),  lay  fifteen 
 Roman  (or  twelve  English)  miles  north  of  Lydd, 
 then  the  whole  disposition  of  Saul's  route  would  be 
 changed. 
 
 The  words  Ei/latli  Shnlislnyah  in  Jer.  xlviii.  34 
 (A.  V.  "a  heifer  of  three  years  old")  are  by  some 
 translators  rendered  as  if  denoting  a  place  named 
 Shalisha.  But  even  if  this  be  correct,  it  is  obvious 
 that  the  Shalisha  of  the  prophet  was  on  the  coast 
 of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  therefore  by  no  means  appro- 
 priate for  that  of  Saul.  G. 
 
 SHALLE'CHETH,  THE  GATE  ("1^27 
 
 ^"^5^^  [see  below] :  ^  irvXi]  Tracrocpoplov:  pmia 
 fjme  diccit).  One  of  the  gates  of  the  "house  of 
 Jehovah,"  whether  by  that  expression  be  intended 
 the  sacred  tent  of  David  or  the  Temple  of  Solomon. 
 It  is  mentioned  only  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  16,  in  what 
 purports  to  be  a  list  of  the  staff  of  the  sacred 
 establishment  as  settled  by  David  (xxiii.  6,  25, 
 xxiv.  31,  XXV.  1,  xxvi.  31,  32).  It  was  the  gate 
 "to  the  causeway  of  the  ascent,"  that  is,  to  the 
 long  embankment  which  led  up  from  the  central 
 valley  of  the  town  to  the  sacred  inclosure.  As  the 
 causeway  is  actually  in  existence,  though  very  much 
 concealed  under  the  mass  of  houses  which  fill  the 
 valley,  the  gate  Shallecheth  can  hardly  fail  to  be 
 identical  with  the  Biib  Sikileli,  or  Siiisleli,  which 
 enters  the  west  wall  of  the  llaram  area  opposite 
 the  south  end  of  the  platform  of  the  Dome  of  the 
 Rock,  about  GOO  feet  from  the  southwest  corner 
 of  the  Haram  wall.  For  the  bearing  of  this  posi- 
 tion on  the  topography  of  the  Temple,  see  that 
 article. 
 
 The  signification  of  sJialleceth  is  "  falling  or 
 casting  down."     The  EXX.,  however,   appear  to 
 
 have  read  HSU? 7,  the  word  which  they  usually 
 render  by  Traffrocpopiov.  This  would  point  to  the 
 "chanibers"  of  the  Temple.  G. 
 
 SHAL'LUM  (raba?  [relrihUion] :  2eA- 
 \ov/j..   Selltun). 
 
 1.  The  fifteenth  king  of  Israel,  son  of  Jabesh, 
 conspired  against  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeroboam  II., 
 killed  him,  and  brought  the  dynasty  of  Jehu  to  a 
 close,  I!,  c.  770,  according  to  the  prophecy  in  2  K. 
 
 <••  Many  MSS.  have  2eyaAi/ot  or  2eyaAei|a  (see  Holmes 
 and  Parsons),  the  reading  followed  by  Tischendnrf  in 
 his  text  (1856).  The  reading  of  the  Alex,  is  remark- 
 able for  its  suppression  of  the  presence  of  the  37  in 
 the  Hebrew  word,  usually  rendered  in  Greek  by  y. 
 
 d  It  will  be  seen  that  Shalim  contains  the  Ain  which 
 is  absent  from  Shalem.  It  is,  however,  present  in 
 Shual. 
 
 i:  At  the  same  time  omitting  77  "^DD,  "  the  cause 
 
 T     •     . 
 
 wav,"  or  confounding  it  with,  the  word  before  it. 
 
SHALLUM 
 
 r.  30,  where  it  is  promised  that  Jehu's  children 
 should  occupy  the  throtie  of  Israel  to  the  fourth 
 generation.  In  the  English  version  of  2  K.  xv. 
 10,  we  read,  "  And  Sliallum  the  son  of  Jabesh 
 conspired  against  him,  and  smote  him  before  the 
 ■people^  and  slew  him,  and  reigned  in  his  stead." 
 And  so  the  Vulg.  percussiUjue  eiuii  palaiii  et  inler- 
 J'tcit.  But  in  the  LXX.  we  find  K^^Kad/j.  in- 
 stead of  before  the  people,  i.  e.  Shalluni  and 
 Keblaam  killed  Zechariah.  The  common  editions 
 read  eV  Ke/SAaa/x,  meaning  that  Shallum  killed 
 Zechariah  in  Keblaam;  but  no  place  of  such  a 
 name  is  known,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew 
 to  answer   to  eV.      i'he   words  translated    before 
 
 the    people,  palmn,    Ke/3Aaa^,    are     D^    ^?l^' 
 
 Ewald  (Gesckichte,  iii.  598)  maintains  that   V3p 
 
 never  occurs  in   prose,"  and    that   D3?  would   be 
 
 D17n  if  the  Latin  and  English  translations  were 
 correct.  lie  also  observes  that  in  vv.  1-1-,  25,  30, 
 where  almost  the  same  expression  is  used  of  the 
 deaths  of  Shalluni,  Pekahiah,  and  Pekah,  the  words 
 before  the  people  are  omitted.  Hence  he  accepts 
 the  translation  in  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  LXX., 
 and  considers  that  Qobolam ''  or  Ke^Xad/j.  was  a 
 fellow-conspirator  or  rival  of  Shallum,  of  whose 
 subsequent  fate  we  have  no  information.  On  the 
 death  of  Zechariah,  Shallum  was  made  king,  but, 
 after  reigning  in  Samaria  for  a  month  only,  was  in 
 his  turn  dethroned  and  killed  by  Menahem.  To 
 these  events  Ewald  refers  the  obscure  passage  in 
 Zech.  xi.  8:  Three  shepherds  also  J  cut  off  in  one 
 month,  and  my  soul  abhorred  them  —  the  three  shep- 
 herds being  Zechariah,  Qobolam,  and  Shallum. 
 This  is  very  ingenious :  we  must  remember,  how- 
 ever, that  Ewald,  like  certain  English  divines 
 (JMede,  Hammond,  Newcome,  Seeker,  Pye  Smith), 
 thinks  that  the  latter  chapters  of  the  prophecies 
 of  Zechariah  belong  to  an  earlier  date  than  the 
 rest  of  the  book.  G.  E.  L.  C. 
 
 2.  (2i\\v/J.;  Alex.  -S,eA\ovfi  in  2  K.)  The 
 liusliand  (or  son,  according  to  the  LXX.  in  2  K.) 
 of  Huklah  the  prophetess  (2  K.  xxii.  14;  2  Chr. 
 xxxiv.  22)  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  He  apjaears  to 
 have  been  keeper  of  the  priestly  vestments  in  the 
 Temple,  though  in  the  LXX.  of  2  Chr.  this  office 
 is  wrongly  assigned  to  his  wife. 
 
 3.  (2a\oi'//.;  Alex.  2aAAoi//x.)  A  descendant 
 of  Sheshan  (1  Chr.  ii.  40,  41). 
 
 4.  ([Rom.  SaAou^u,]  Alex.  2aAAoi;u  in  1  Chr., 
 [both]  2sAArj/i  in  Jer.)  The  third  son  of  Josiah 
 king  of  Judah,  known  in  the  books  of  Kings  and 
 Chronicles  as  Jehoahaz  (1  Chr.  iii.  15;  Jer.  xxii. 
 11).  Llengstenberg  {Christology  of  the  0.  T.  ii. 
 400,  Eng.  transl.)  regards  the  name  as  symbolical, 
 "the  recompensed  one,"  and  given  to  Jehoahaz  in 
 token  of  his  fate,  as  one  whom  God  recompensed 
 according  to  his  deserts.  This  would  be  plausible 
 enough  if  it  were  only  found  in  the  prophecy :  but 
 a  genealogical  table  is  the  last  place  where  we 
 should  expect  to  find  a  symbolical  name,  and  Shal- 
 lum is  more  probably  the  original  name  of  the 
 king,  which  was  changed  to  Jehoahaz  when  he 
 same  to  the  crown.     Upon  a  comparison  of  the 
 
 a  Is  not  the  objection  rather  tbat  the  word  is  Chal- 
 lee?  It  occurs  repeatedly  in  Daniel  (ii.  31 ;  iii.  3  ;  iv. 
 I,  5,  10),  and  also  in  the  Chaldee  portions  of  Ezra  (v. 
 16;  vi.  13). 
 
 6  Q  is  the  best  representative  of  the  Hebrew   p. 
 
 SHALMAI  2941 
 
 ages  of  Jehoiakim,  Jehoahaz  or  Shallum,  and  Zede- 
 kiah,  it  is  evident  that  of  the  two  last  Zedekiah 
 must  have  been  the  jounger,  and  therefore  that 
 Shallum  was  the  third,  not  the  fourth,  son  of 
 Josiah,  as  stated  in  1  Chr.  iii.  15. 
 
 5-  (2aA6(U.)  Son  of  Shaul  the  son  of  Simeon 
 (1  Chr.  iv.  25). 
 
 6.  {2a\do/x  in  Chr.,  'S.eKoifj.  [Vat.  SaAou^]  in 
 Ezr. ;  Alex.  SeAAouyU-)  A  high-priest,  son  of 
 Zadok  and  ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Chr.  vi.  12,  13; 
 Ezr.  vii.  2).  Called  also  Salum  (1  Esdr.  viii.  1), 
 and  Sadamias  (2  Esdr.  i.  1). 
 
 7.  (SeAAou^;  [Vat.  "XaKwjxaiv.])  A  son  of 
 Naphthali  (1  Cbr.  vii.  13).  He  and  his  brethren 
 are  called  "sons  of  Hilhah,"  but  in  the  Vat.  MS. 
 of  the  LXX.,  Shallum  and  the  rest  are  the  sons 
 of  Naphthali,  and  Balam  (not  Bilhah)  is  the  son  of 
 Shallum.     Called  also  Siiillem. 
 
 8.  (SaAaSju,  Alex.  SaAAooyu  in  1  Chr.  ix.  17; 
 5eAAoi'yU  [Vat.  2aAov,u]  in  Ezr.  ii.  42;  2aAoi');U, 
 .Alex.  'XeWoufj.  in  Neh.  vii.  45.)  The  chief  of  a 
 family  of  porters  or  gatekeepers  of  the  east  gate 
 of  the  Temple,  for  the  camps  of  the  sons  of  Levi. 
 His  descendants  were  among  those  who  returned 
 with  Zerubbabel.  In  1  Esdr.  v.  28  he  is  called 
 Salum,  and  in  Neh.  xii.  25  Meshullam. 
 
 9.  (2eAAoy;U.  [Vat.  2aAa)yUajj'],  'SaAwfj.;  Alex. 
 2aAa)/i.)  Son  of  Kore,  a  Korahite,  who  with  his 
 brethren  was  keeper  of  the  thresholds  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle (1  Chr.  ix.  19,  31),  "and  their  fathers  (were) 
 over  the  camp  of  Jehovah,  keepers  of  the  entry." 
 On  comparing  this  with  the  expression  in  ver.  18, 
 it  would  appear  that  Shalluni  the  son  of  Kore  and 
 his  brethren  were  gatekeepers  of  a  higher  rank 
 than  Shallum,  Akkub,  Talmon,  and  Ahiman,  who 
 were  only  "  for  the  camp  of  the  sons  of  Levi." 
 With  this  Shallum  we  may  identify  Meshelemiah 
 and  Shelemiah  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  1,  2,  9,  14),  but  he 
 seems  to  be  different  from  the  last^mentioned  Shal- 
 lum. 
 
 10.  (26AAT7/X.)  Father  of  Jehizkiah,  one  of 
 the  heads  of  the  children  of  Ephraim  (2  Chr. 
 xxviii.  12). 
 
 11.  iloKfiriv;  [Vat.  FeWrifi;  FA.  raiAAei|U;] 
 Alex.  2oAA7jyti.)  One  of  the  jwrters  of  the  Tem- 
 ple who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  24). 
 
 12.  (SeWovn;  [Vat.  FA.  2aAou/i.])  Son  of 
 Bani,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife  at  the  com- 
 mand of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  42). 
 
 13.  (2aAAou;u;  [Vat.]  FA.  2aAoi/^.)  The  sou 
 of  Halohesh  and  ruler  of  a  district  of  Jerusalem. 
 With  his  daughters  he  assisted  Nehemiah  in  re- 
 building the  wall  of  the  city  (Neh.  iii.  12). 
 
 14.  {%a\ci>fj.;  [FA.  2aAyua>j'.])  The  uncle  of 
 Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxii.  7);  perhaps  the  same  as 
 Shallum  the  hu.sband  of  Huklah  the  prophetess. 
 [.Ikkejiiah,  vol.  ii.  p.  1254  a.] 
 
 15.  (2eA£tf^;  [FA.i  AiXwfj.,  FA.3  2aiAa)^.]) 
 Father  or  ancestor  of  Maaseiaii,  "keeper  of  the 
 threshold  "  of  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah 
 (Jer.  XXXV.  4);  perhaps  the  same  as  9. 
 
 SHAL'LUN  Cj^btp  [perh.  retribution]  : 
 [Rom.]  2aAc<j/xci)j';  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit:]  Sel- 
 lum).  The  son  of  Col-hozeh,  and  ruler  of  a  dis- 
 trict of  the  Mizpah.  He  assisted  Nehemiah  in 
 repairing  the  spring  gate,  and  "  the  wall  of  the 
 pool  of  Hasshelach  "  (A.  V.  "  Siloah  ")  belonging 
 to  the' king's  garden,  "even  up  to  the  stairs  that 
 go  down  from  the  city  of  David  "  (Neh.  iii.  15). 
 
 SHAL'MAI  [2  syl.]  (^^ntt?,  KeH;  ^a^l» 
 
2942 
 
 SHALMAN 
 
 in  Ezr.,  "^^7ti^  in  Neh.  [my  thanks]:  SeAoyUt, 
 2€A/X€'/';  [Vat.  Sa/uaa;/,  SaAayuei;]  Alex.  SeAoyuei, 
 2eA/uei  [FA.  '^.a/j.aei] :  ^emkii,  Selnuri).  The 
 children  of  Shalniai  (or  Smamlai,  as  in  the  margin 
 of  Ezr.  ii.  40)  were  among  the  Nethinim  who  re- 
 turned with  Zerubbabel  (Kzr.  ii.  40;  Neh.  vii.  48). 
 In  Neh.  the  name  is  properly  Saljiai.  In  1  Esdr. 
 V.  30  it  is  written  Subai. 
 
 SHAL'MAN  ('I'd^W  [as  below]:  2oAa^c{;/: 
 Salmana).  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria  (Hos. 
 X.  14).  The  versions  differ  in  a  remarkable  man- 
 ner in  their  rendering  of  this  verse.     The  LXX. 
 
 read  "1^7,  snr  (apx'>"')t  for  "^^j  -''"''^  ('"  which 
 they  are  followed  by  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglot), 
 and  "'.leroboain "  (Alex.  "Jerubbaal")  for  "Arbel." 
 The  Vulgate,  reading  "Jerubbaal,"  appears  to  have 
 confounded  Slialman  with  Zalnumna,  and  renders 
 the  clause,  sicul  vaslatus  est  Salinann  a  domo  ejus 
 qui  jmlicnvlt  Bual  in  die  prcelii.  The  Targum  of 
 Jonathan  and  Pesliito-Syiiac  both  give  "Shalnia;" 
 
 the  former  for  7S3")S  iH^S,  reading   !ll~)Stt3, 
 
 "by  an  ambush,"  the  latter,  /H  rV^,  "Beth-el." 
 The  Chaldee  translator  seems  to  have  caught  only 
 the  first  letters  of  the  word  "  Arbel,"  while  the 
 Syrian  only  saw  the  last  two.  The  'largum  pos- 
 sibly regards  "  Shalnian  "  as  an  appellative,  "  the 
 peaceable,"  following  in  this  the  traditional  inter- 
 pretation of  the  verse  recorded  by  liashi,  whose 
 note  is  as  follows :  "  As  spoilers  that  come  upon  a 
 people  dwelling  in  peace,  sudderdy  by  means  of  an 
 ambush,  who  have  not  been  warned  against  them 
 to  flee  before  them,  and  destroy  all." 
 
 SHALMANE'SER  ppSSnbtt^  [perh.fre- 
 worshipper;  see  Ges.  s.v.]:  2a\afxa.vaaadp:.  [Vat. 
 2  K.  xvii.,  2,afj.€vyaa<Tap;  Alex.  '2,a\a/j.avaaap, 
 Sctyuarao-crap ;]  Joseph.  'S.aKfxavacrcra.p-qs-  Snliiia- 
 nasar)  was  the  Assyrian  king  who  reigned  imme- 
 diately before  Sargon,  and  probably  immediately 
 after  'I'iglath-pileser.  Very  little  is  known  of  him, 
 since  Sargon,  his  successor,  who  was  of  a  diffeient 
 family,  and  most  likely  a  rebel  against  his  authority 
 [Sakgo>!],  seems  to  have  destroyed  his  monu- 
 ments. He  can  scarcely  have  ascended  the  throne 
 earlier  than  b.  c.  730,  and  may  possibly  not  have 
 done  so  till  a  few  years  later.  [TigIjAth  pileskh.] 
 It  must  have  been  soon  after  his  accession  that  he 
 led  the  forces  of  Assyria  into  Palestine,  where  llo- 
 shea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  had  re\olted  against 
 his  authority  (2  K.  xvii.  3).  No  sooner  was  he 
 come  than  Hoshea  submitted,  acknowledged  him- 
 self a  "servant"  of  the  Great  King,  and  consented 
 to  pay  him  a  fixed  tribute  annually.  Shalmaneser 
 upon  this  returned  home;  but  soon  afterwards  he 
 '•  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea,"  who  had  concluded 
 an  alliance  with  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  withheld 
 his  tribute  in  consequence.  In  b.  c  723  Shalmane- 
 ser invaded  Palestine  for  the  second  time,  and,  as 
 Hoshea  refused  to  submit,  laid  siege  to  Samaria. 
 The  siege  lasted  to  the  third  year  (b.  c.  721), 
 when  the  Assyrian  arms  prevailed ;  Samaria  fell ; 
 Hoshea  was  taken  captive  and  sliut  up  in  prison, 
 and  the  bulk  of  the  Samaritans  were  transported 
 from  their  own  country  to  Upper  Jlesopotamia  (2  K. 
 xvii.  4-0,  xviii.  9-11).    It  is  uncertain  whether  Shal- 
 
 a  In  2  K.  xvii.  6,  the  expression  is  simpiy  " 
 king  of  Assyria  took  it."  In  2  K.  xviii.  9,  10, 
 find,  still  more  remarkably,  "  Shalmaneser,  king  of 
 
 As- 
 
 SHAMER 
 
 nianeser  conducted  the  siege  to  its  close,  or  whether 
 he  did  not  lose  his  crown  to  Sargon  before  the  city 
 was  taken.  Sargon  claims  the  capture  as  his  own 
 exploit  in  his  fii'st  year;  and  Scripture,  it  will  be 
 found,  avoids  saying  that  Shalmaneser  took  the 
 place."  Perhaps  Shalmaneser  died  before  Samaria, 
 or  perhaps,  hearing  of  Sai-gon's  revolt,  he  left  his 
 troops,  or  a  part  of  them,  to  continue  the  siege, 
 and  returned  to  Assyria,  where  he  was  defeated 
 and  deposed  (or  murdered)  by  his  enemy. 
 
 According  to  Josephus,  who  professes  to  follow 
 the  Phoenician  history  of  Menander  of  Ephesus, 
 Shalmaneser  engaged  in  an  important  war  with 
 Phoenicia  in  defense  of  Cyprus  (Ant.  ix.  14,  §  2). 
 It  is  possible  that  he  may  have  done  so,  though  we 
 have  no  other  evidence  of  the  fact;  liut  it  is  perhaps 
 more  probable  that  Josephus,  or  JMenander,  made 
 some  confusion  between  huii  and  Sargon,  who  cer~ 
 tainly  warred  with  Phoenicia,  and  set  up  a  memo- 
 rial in  Cyprus.     [Sargon.]  G.  R. 
 
 SHA'MA  {'StlW  {hearing,  obedient]  :  2a,ua0a; 
 Alex.  Sa^^a:  Samma).  One  of  David's  guard,  son 
 of  Hothan  of  Aroer  (1  Chr.  xi.  44).  and  brother  of 
 Jehiel.     Probably  a  lieubenite  (see  1  Chr.  v.  8). 
 
 SHAMARI'AH  (n^"15^tll?  [ichoin  Jehovah 
 protects]:  :S,afj.opia:  [Vat.]  Alex.  Sa^apm:  So- 
 moria).  Son  of  Eehoboam  by  Abihuil  the  daugh- 
 ter of  Eliab  (2  Chr.  xi.  19). 
 
 *  SHAMBLES.  1  Cor.  x.  2.5  {jxaKiWov  from 
 the  Latin  mactUuin  =  ^pecoTrcuAior  as  explained  by 
 Plutarch),  Jiesh-mnrket.  Meat  which  had  been 
 oflered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  was  olteii  brought  to 
 such  places  for  sale.  Some  of  the  first  Christians 
 doubted  whether  thej'  could  lawfidly  eat  such  meat. 
 Paul  decides  that  the  scruple  was  unnecessary ;  but 
 if  any  one  entertained  it  he  was  bound  by  it,  and 
 even  if  free  from  it  should  forego  his  own  lil)erty 
 out  of  regard  to  the  weak  consciences  of  others. 
 "  Shambles "  is  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  scamel, 
 sciim(d,  which  meant  a  bench  or  stool.  H. 
 
 SHA'MED  ("l^Stt'  [perh.  watch,  keeper]: 
 "Ziixfji-iip;  [Vat.  Sij/trjs;  Comp.  2a;U7jS:]  Sninad). 
 Properly  Sh.vmek,  or  Shemer;  one  of  the  sons  of 
 I^lpaal  tiie  Penjamite,  who  built  Ono  and  Lod,  with 
 the  towns  thereof  (1  Chr.  viii.  12).  'i'he  A.  V.  has 
 followed  the  Vulg.,  as  in  the  case  of  Shachia,  and 
 retains  the  reading  of  the  Geneva  Version.  Thir- 
 teen of  Kennicott's  MSS.  have  "TS2ti7. 
 
 *  SHAMEFACEDNESS  is  a  current  mis- 
 print or  corruption  in  1  Tim.  ii.  9,  for"  Shamefast- 
 ness,"  in  the  sense  of  being  fost  or  established  in 
 modesty  and  decorum..  The  old  luiglish  versions 
 (Wickliffe,  Tyndale,  ( 'rannier,  Geneva),  .as  well  as 
 the  original  ed.  of  1011,  have  "  shamefastne.ss." 
 The  word  is  formed  from  shamefast,  like  steadiast- 
 ness  from  steadfast,  rootfastness  from  rootfast,  etc 
 (See  Trench  On  the  Authorized  Version,  p.  00.) 
 The  Greek  word  is  atSais,  which  the  A.  V.  renders 
 "  reverence  "  in  Heb.  xii.  28.  H. 
 
 *  SHAMEFASTNESS.      [Shamefaced- 
 
 NESS.] 
 
 SHA'MER  (""T.!^"  [keeper,  or  lees  of 
 ivine'^]:  2€/i7jp;   [Vat.]    Alex,  ^ffiiirip:  Somer). 
 
 .<:yria,  cnnie  up  against  Samaria,  and  besieged  it ;  and 
 
 at  the  end  of  tliree  years  tliey  took  it." 
 
SHAMGAR 
 
 1.  A  Merarite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Ethan   (1  Chr. 
 vi.  46). 
 
 2.  i2e/j.fj.i]p;  Alex.  'S.uifxftp-)  Shujiek  the  son 
 of  Heber  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  34).  His  four 
 sons  are  mentioned  by  name.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHAM'GAR  (ISP^  [possibly,  cup-bem-er] : 
 ^afiiydp;  [Vat.  in  .ludg.  iii.  31,  2,a/xayap-]  Sam- 
 </nr :  of  micertain  etymology ;  compare  Sumgar- 
 nebo).  Son  of  Anath,  judge  of  Israel  after  I'^lnid, 
 and  before  Barak,  though  possibly  contemporary 
 with  the  latter,  since  he  seems  to  be  spoken  of  in 
 Judg.  V.  6  as  a  contemporary  of  Jael,  if  the  reading 
 is  correct."  It  is  not  iniproliable  from  his  patronymic 
 that  Shamgar  may  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Naph- 
 tali,  since  15eth-auath  is  in  that  tribe  (.Judg.  i.  33). 
 Ewald  conjectures  that  he  was  of  Dan  —  an  opinion 
 in  which  Bertheau  (  On  Judy.  iii.  31)  does  not  coin- 
 cide. And  since  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  bore  a  chief 
 part  in  the  war  against  Jabin  and  Sisera  (Judg.  iv. 
 6,  10,  V.  18),  we  seem  to  have  a  point  of  contact 
 between  Shamgar  and  Barak.  Anyhow,  in  the 
 days  of  Siiamgar,  Israel  was  in  a  most  depressed 
 condition;  the  tributary  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  33), 
 in  le.ague  apparently  with  their  independent  kins- 
 men, the  Philistines,  rose  against  their  Israelite 
 masters,  and  the  country  became  so  unsafe,  that 
 the  highways  were  deserted,  and  Hebrew  travellers 
 were  oliliged  to  creep  unobserved  by  cross-roads  and 
 by-waj's.  The  open  villages  were  deserted,  the 
 wells  were  inaccessible,  and  the  people  hid  them- 
 selves in  the  mountains.  Their  arms  were  ap- 
 parently taken  from  them,  by  the  same  policy  as 
 was  adopted  later  by  the  same  people  (.'udg.  iii.  31, 
 V.  8;  comp.  with  1  Sam.  xiii.  l'J-22),  and  tlie 
 whole  nation  was  cowed.  At  this  conjuncture 
 Shamgar  was  raised  up  to  be  a  deliverer.  With  no 
 arms  in  his  hand  but  an  ox-goad  (Judg.  iii.  31; 
 comp.  1  Sam.  xiii.  21),  he  made  a  desjjcrate  assault 
 upon  the  Philistines,  and  slew  600  of  them ;  an  act 
 of  valor  by  which  he  procured  a  tenijiorary  respite 
 for  his  people,  and  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of 
 the  Canaanites  and  their  Philistine  allies.  But  it 
 was  reserved  fur  Deiiorah  and  Barak  to  complete 
 the  deliverance;  and  whether  Shamgar  lived  to  wit- 
 ness or  participate  in  it  we  have  no  certain  informa- 
 tion. Prom  the  position  of  '•  the  Philistines  "  in 
 1  Sam.  xii.  9,  between  "  Moab  "  and  "  Hazor," 
 the  allusion  seems  to  be  to  the  time  of  Shamgar. 
 Ewald  oliserves  with  truth  that  the  way  in  which 
 Shamgar  is  mentioned  in  Deiiorah's  song  indicates 
 that  his  career  was  very  recent.  The  resemblance 
 to  Samson,  pointed  out  by  him,  does  not  seem  to 
 lead  to  anything.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 *  It  may  have  been  as  leader  and  not  by  his  own 
 single  hand  that  Shamgar  slew  the  600  Philistines. 
 The  subjugated  Hebrews  being  disarmed  (comp. 
 Judg.  V.  8),  he  may  have  put  himself  at  the  head 
 of  a  band  of  peasants  armed  with  ox-goads,  the  only 
 weapons  lel't  to  them,  and  with  such  warriors  may 
 have  achieved  the  victory.  In  conmion  speech  \vc 
 ascribe  to  the  leader  what  is  done  under  his  leader- 
 ship. [Shechem.]  One  of  Homer's  heroes  put  to 
 flight  Dionysius  and  the  Bacchantes  with  his 
 |8oy7rAT)|  (/'•  vi.  135).  Mr.  Porter  states  (Kitto's 
 Daily  Bible  Illustr.  ii.  310)  that  he  "once  saw  a 
 goad  of  a  Druse  ploughman,  on  the  mountains  of 
 Bashan  —  of  which  the  shaft  was  ten  feet  long 
 ind  made  of  an  oak  sapling ;  the  goad  appeared  to 
 
 o  The  mention  of  Jael  seems  scarcely  natural.  It 
 has  occurred  to  the  writer  to  conjecture  for    ''X2'^3 
 
 SHAMMA  2943 
 
 be  an  old  spear-head,  very  sharp  and  firmly  fast- 
 ened. The  Druse  remarked  that  it  was  for  the 
 Arabs  as  well  as  the  oxen."  Thomson  describes 
 this  formidaljle  weapon  in  his  Land  and  Book,  i. 
 500.     [See  also  Ox-goad.]  H. 
 
 SHAM'HUTH  (n^nttti?  [perh.  desolation, 
 witsie]:  -Zafiawd;  [Vat.  SaAaoie:]  Samnoth).  The 
 fifth  captain  for  the  fifth  month  in  David's  arrange- 
 ment of  his  army  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  8).  His  designa- 
 tion  n"^T*L^)  hnyyizrdch,   i.  e.   the    Yizrach,    is 
 
 probably  for  '^n'l/TrT,  hazzavchi,  the  Zarhite,  or 
 descendant  of  Zerah  the  son  of  Judah.  From  a 
 comparison  of  the  lists  in  1  Chr.  xi.,  xxvii.,  it 
 would  seem  that  Shanihuth  is  the  same  as  Sham- 
 moth  the  Harorite.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHA'MIR  ("T'TSrp  {thom-liedge]:  [Rom. 
 2a^ip;  Vat.]  'Zafiiip;  Alex,  in  Josh.  '2,a(peip,  in 
 Judg.  :S,a.ij.apeta'-  S((mir).  The  name  of  two  places 
 in  the  Holy  Land. 
 
 1.  A  town  in  the  mountain  district  of  Judah 
 (Josh.  XV.  18,  only).  It  is  the  first  in  this  division 
 of  the  catalogue,  and  occurs  in  company  with  Jat- 
 Tii;  in  the  group  containing  Socho  and  Eshte- 
 iMoH.  It  therefore  proliably  lay  some  eight  or  ten 
 miles  south  of  Hebron,  in  the  neighljorliood  of  the 
 three  places  just  named,  all  of  which  have  been 
 identified  with  tolerable  certainty.  But  it  has 
 not  itself  been  yet  discovered. 
 
 2.  A  place  in  Mount  Ephraim,  the  residence 
 and  burial-place  of  Tola  the  J.udge  (-Judg.  x.  1,  2). 
 It  is  singular  that  tliis  judge,  a  man  of  Issachar, 
 should  have  taken  up  his  official  residence  out  of 
 his  own  trilie.  We  may  account  for  it  by  sup- 
 jmsing  tiiat  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  which  formed 
 the  greater  part  of  the  territory  of  Issachar,  was 
 overrun,  as  in  Gideon's  time,  by  the  Canaanites  or 
 other  marauders,  of  whose  incursions  nothing  what- 
 ever is  told  us  —  tiiough  their  existence  is  certain 
 —  driving  Tola  to  the  more  secure  niountauis  of 
 Ephraim.  Or,  as  iManasseh  had  certain  cities  out 
 of  Issachar  allotted  to  him,  so  Issachar  on  the 
 other  hand  may  have  possessed  some  towns  in  the 
 mountains  of  Ephraim.  Both  the.se  suppositions, 
 however,  are  but  conjecture,  and  have  no  corrobora- 
 tion in  any  statement  of  the  records. 
 
 Shamir  is  not  mentioned  by  the  ancient  topog- 
 raphers. Schwarz  (p.  151)  proposes  to  identify  it 
 with  Satiur,  a  place  of  great  natural  strength  (which 
 has  some  claims  to  be  Bethulia),  situated  in  the 
 mountains,  half-way  between  Samaria  and  Jenin, 
 about  eight  miles  from  each.  Van  de  Velde  ( J/ew.  p. 
 348)  proposes  Kldrbet  Sanimer,  a  ruined  site  in  the 
 mountains  overlooking  the  Jordan  valley,  ten  miles 
 E.  S.  E.  of  Ndblus.  There  is  no  connection  be- 
 tween the  names  Shamir  and  Samaria,  as  proposed 
 in  the  Alex.  LXX.  (see  above),  beyond  the  acci- 
 dental one  which  arises  from  the  inaccurate  form 
 of  the  latter  in  that  Version,  arid  in  our  own,  it 
 being  correctly  Shomron.  G. 
 
 SHA'MIR    ("nt?tt7    [tried,  proved,  Fiirst] ; 
 
 Keri,  "T'ttti?  :  "Xafx-np:  Samir).  A  Kohathite, 
 son  of  Micah,  or  Michah,  the  firstborn  of  Uzziel  (1 
 Chr.  xxiv.  21). 
 
 SHAM'MA  (S»y^  [desolation]: Xafxd;  [Vat. 
 
 bl?'',  bWltC'^^,  as  in  ver.  7.    Dr.  Donaldson  (Jashar, 
 pp.  271,  272)  conjectures  H^^QI,  "  and  previously.'' 
 
2944 
 
 SHAMMAH 
 
 Se/io;]  Alex.  Sajtijua:  Samma).  One  of  the  sons 
 of  Zopliar,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  37). 
 
 SHAM'MAH  (n^lW  [desolation]:  So/xe'; 
 Alex.  2o(U/i6  in  1  Chr.  i.  37:  Samiiin).  1.  The 
 son  of  Keuel  the  son  of  Esau,  and  one  of  the  eliief- 
 tains  of  his  tribe  (Gen.  xxxvi.  13,  17;  1  Chr.  i.  37). 
 
 2.  (2a/ia;  Alex,  ^a/xfxa'-  Samma.)  The  third 
 Kon  of  .Jesse,  and  brother  of  David  (1  Sam.  xvi.  9, 
 xvii.  13).  Called  also  Siiimka,  Shimeah,  and 
 Shimma.  He  was  present  when  Samuel  anointed 
 David,  and  with  his  two  elder  brothers  joined  the 
 Hebrew  army  in  the  valley  of  Elah  to  fight  with 
 the  Philistines. 
 
 3.  (2a/xaia;  Alex.  2a/ii^eas:  Semma.)  One  of 
 the  three  greatest  of  David's  mighty  men.  He  was 
 with  him  during  his  outlaw  life  in  the  cave  of 
 Adullam,  and  signalized  himself  by  defending  a 
 piece  of  ground  full  of  lentiles  against  the  Philis- 
 tines on  one  of  their  marauding  incursions.  This 
 achievement  gave  him  a  place  among  the  first  three 
 heroes,  who  on  another  occasion  cut  their  way 
 through  the  Philistine  garrison,  and  brought 
 David  water  from  the  well  of  Bethlehem  (2  Sam. 
 xxiii.  11-17).  The  text  of  Chronicles  at  this  part 
 is  clearly  very  fragmentary,  and  what  is  there  at- 
 tributed to  Eleazar  the  son  of  Dodo  properly  be- 
 longs to  Shammah.  There  is  still,  however,  a 
 discrepancy  in  the  two  narratives.  The  scene  of 
 Shannnah's  exploit  is  said  in  Samuel  to  be  a  field 
 
 of  lentiles  (WWIV),  and  in  1  Chr.  a  field  of  bar- 
 ley (C^T^l^tt^).  Kennicott  proposes  in  both  cases 
 to  read  "  barley,"  the  words  being  in  Hebrew  so 
 similar  that  one  is  produced  from  the  other  by  a 
 very  slight  change  and  transposition  of  the  letters 
 (Diss.  p.  141).  It  is  more  likely,  too,  that  the 
 Philistines  should  attack  and  the  Israelites  defend 
 a  field  of  barley  than  a  field  of  lentiles.  In  the 
 Peshito-Syriac,  instead  of  being  called  "  the  Ha- 
 raritfi,"  he  is  said  to  be  '■  from  the  king's  mountain  " 
 
 ().J3.^.iO  'Q-.ji  t-^);  f>iid  the  same  is  repeated 
 at  ver.  25.  The  Vat.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  makes 
 him  the  son  of  Asa  (vihs  ''Aaa  6  ' Apouxaios, 
 where  'ApovSaios  was  perhaps  the  original  read- 
 ing), .losephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4)  calls  him  Cesa- 
 b£eus  the  son  of  llus  ("lAoC  /xev  vlhs  K7)(ro/3a?os 
 5 6  uvo/j.a). 
 
 4.  (2ai^a;  Alex.  2o;U,ua(:  Sem}nu.)  The  Ha- 
 rodite,  one  of  David's  niighties  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  25). 
 He  is  calletl  "  Shajimoth  the  Harorite  "  in  1 
 Chr.  xi.  27,  and  in  1  Chr.  xxvii.  8  "  Shamiiuth 
 the  Izrahite."  Kennicott  maintained  the  true 
 reading  in  both  to  be  "  Shamhoth  the  Harodite" 
 {Diss.  p.  181). 
 
 5.  {2,aixvdv;  Alex,  ^a/xvas,  [and  so  Vat.'-; 
 Comp.  Aid.  2ajua:  Semma.] )  In  the  list  of  David's 
 mighty  men  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  32,  33,  we  find  '•  .Jona- 
 than, Shammah  the  Hararite;  "  while  in  the  cor- 
 responding verse  of  1  Chr.  xi.  34,  it  is  ".Jonathan, 
 the  son  of  Shage  the  Hararite."  Combining  the 
 two,  Kennicott  proposes  to  read  "  Jonathan,  the 
 son  of  Shamha,  the  Hararite,"  David's  nephew 
 who  slew  the  giant  in  Oath  (2  Sam.  xxi.  21).  In- 
 stead of  "  the  Hararite,"   tlie  Peshito-Syriac  has 
 
 "  of  the  mount  of  Olives  "  {]^)  'Q-^  r-^?\ 
 in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  33,  and  in  1  Chr.  xi.  34,  "  of 
 Mount  Carmel"  (ll-iOi-O  icx^  r^?);  but  the 
 origin  of  both  these  interpretations  is  obscure. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHAPHAN 
 
 SHAM'MAI  [2  syl.f  Ol2W  [desolated]: 
 2a^al;  Alex.  2a;U;uai':  Se7»ei).  1.  The  son  of 
 Onam,  and  brother  of  Jada  (1  Chr.  ii.  28,  32). 
 In  the  last-quoted  verse  the  LXX.  give  ^Ax^Ta/xas 
 for  "  the  brother  of  Shammai." 
 
 2.  (Siimmnt)  Son  of  Rekem,  and  father  or 
 founder  of  Maon  (1  Chr.  ii.  44,  45). 
 
 3.  (26;Ufi';  [Vat.  2€^€i';]  Alex.  2a^^oi:  [Sam- 
 mai.]}  The  brother  of  IVIiriam  and  Ishbah  the 
 founder  of  Eshtemoa,  in  an  obscure  genealogy  of 
 the  descendants  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  17).  Rabbi  D. 
 Kimchi  conjectures  that  these  were  the  children 
 of  Mered  by  his  Egyptian  wife  Bithiah,  the  daugh- 
 ter of  Pharaoh.  [Mered.]  The  LXX.  makes 
 •Jether  the  father  of  all  three.  The  tradition  in 
 the  Qiimst.  in  Libr.  Paral.  identifies  Shammai 
 with  Moses,  and  Ishbah  with  Aaron. 
 
 SHAM'MOTH  (ni72tt7  [desolations,  Ges.]: 
 'Safj.awB-,  Alex.  2a^ci)0;  [Comp.  2afji/xdo0 :]  Sam- 
 moth).  The  Harorite,  one  of  David's  guard  (1 
 Chr.  xi.  27).  He  is  apparently  the  same  with 
 "  Shanunah  the  Harodite "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  25), 
 and  with  "  Shamhuth  "  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  8). 
 
 SHAMMU'A  (V^T^W  [renoimed]  :  2a/i- 
 ovtiA;  Alex.  :S,afxaAiri\:  Sammuri).  1.  The  son 
 of  Zaccur  (Num.  xiii.  4)  and  the  spy  selected  from 
 the  tribe  of  Iteuben. 
 
 2.  (2a^aa;  Alex.  'S.a/j.fxaov ;  [FA.  2a^/xaiaj:] 
 Samua.)  Son  of  David  by  his  wife  Bathsheba, 
 born  to  him  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  xiv.  4).  In  the 
 A.  V.  of  2  Sam.  v.  14  he  is  called  Shammuah, 
 and  in  1  Chr.  iii.  5  Shime.v. 
 
 3.  {^a/jLovi;  [Vat.]  FA.  2a/uoi'f'=  [Samua.]) 
 A  Levite,  the  fother  of  Abda  (Neh.  xi.  17).  He  is 
 the  same  as  Shemaiah  the  father  of  Obadiah  (1 
 Chr.  ix.  IG). 
 
 4.  (2a/ioi'e;  [Vat.  Alex.  FA. 1  omit:]  Sanunua.) 
 The  representative  of  the  priestly  family  of  Bilgah, 
 or  Bilgai,  in  the  days  of  the  high-priest  Joiakim 
 (Neh.  xii.  18). 
 
 SHAMMU'AH  (V^t^W  [remnv)ied]:  2a;u- 
 fxovs;  Alex.  'Sa/x/j.ove  '■  Samua).  Son  of  David 
 (2   Sam.  V.  14);  elsewhere  called  Shammua,  and 
 
 SlII.MEA. 
 
 SHAMS'HERAI  [3  syl.]  C'^tt'ttK^  [heroic, 
 Flirst]  :  'Xafxcrapi;  [Vat.  la/j.aaapia;]  Alex.  'S.a/x- 
 aapia:  Samsari).  One  of  the  sons  of  Jeroham,  a 
 Benjaniite,  whose  family  lived  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr. 
 viii.  20). 
 
 SHATHAM  i:2^W  [perh.  bakl  bare] :  2a- 
 ^a/x;  [Vat.  2o3aT:]  Saplian).  A  Gadite  who 
 dwelt  in  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v.  12).  He  was  second 
 in  authority  in  his  tribe. 
 
 SHATHAN  0^^' [coney]:  :^aTr<pdu;  [Vat.] 
 Alex.  '2,a^<pav  in  2  K.  xxii.  [exc.  ver.  3,  Alex. 
 'S.e:<p(pav,  and  14,  Vat.  'S,e(p<pa6a,  Alex.  'S.aipav].  but 
 elsewhere  both  MSS.  have  'S.a^a.f  [exc.  2  Chr. 
 xxxiv.  15,  Alex.  Aaa^]:  Saplian).  The  scribe  or 
 .secretary  of  king  Josiah.  He  was  the  son  of  Aza- 
 liah  (2  K.  xxii.  3;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  8),  fether  of  Ahi- 
 kam  (2  K.  xxii.  12;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  20),  Elasah 
 (Jer.  xxix.  3),  and  Gemariah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  10,  11, 
 12),  and  grandfather  of  (iedaliah  (Jer.  xxxix.  14, 
 xl.  5,  9,  11,  xli.  2,  xliii.  6),  Michaiah  (Jer.  xxxvi. 
 11),  and  probably  of  Jaazaniah  (Ez.  viii.  11). 
 There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  suppos- 
 ing that  Shaphan  the  father  of  Ahikam,  and  Sha- 
 phan  the  scribe,  were  different  persons.     The  hia« 
 
SHAPHAT 
 
 tory  of  Shaphan  brings  out  some  points  with  regard 
 to  the  office  of  scribe  which  he  held.  He  appears 
 on  an  equality  witli  the  governor  of  tlie  city  and 
 the  royal  recorder,  with  whom  he  was  sent  by  the 
 king  to  Hilkiah  to  take  an  account  of  the  money 
 which  had  been  collected  by  the  I.evites  for  the 
 repair  of  the  Temple  and  to  pay  the  workmen  (2 
 K.  xxii.  4;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  9;  couip.  2  K.  xii.  10). 
 Ewald  calls  him  Minister  of  Finance  {Gvsch.  iii. 
 697).  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Hilkiah  com- 
 municated his  discovery  of  a  copy  of  the  I^aw, 
 which  he  had  probalily  found  while  making  jirep- 
 arations  for  the  repair  of  the  Temple.  [Hilkiah, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  1075  f.]  Shaphan  was  entrusted  to  de- 
 liver it  to  the  king.  Whatever  may  have  been 
 the  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  thus  discovered,  the 
 manner  of  its  discovery,  and  the  conduct  of  the 
 king  upon  hearing  it  read  by  Shapluin,  prove  that 
 for  many  years  it  must  have  been  lost  and  its  con- 
 tents forgotten.  The  part  read  was  apparently 
 from  Deuteronomy,  and  when  Shaphan  ended,  the 
 king  sent  him  with  the  high-priest  Hilkiah,  and 
 other  men  of  high  rank,  to  consult  Huldah  the 
 prophetess.  Her  answer  moved  Josiah  deeply,  and 
 the  work  which  began  with  the  restoration  of  the 
 decayed  fabric  of  the  Temple,  quickly  took  the  form 
 of  a  thorough  reformation  of  religion  and  revival  of 
 the  Levitical  services,  while  ail  traces  of  idolatry 
 were  for  a  time  swepi  away.  Shaphan  was  then 
 probably  an  old  man,  for  his  sou  Ahikam  must 
 have  been  in  a  position  of  importance,  and  his 
 grandson  Gedaliah  was  already  born,  as  we  may 
 infer  from  the  fact  that  thirty-tive  years  afterwards 
 he  is  made  governor  of  the  country  by  the  Chalda;- 
 ans,  an  office  whicli  would  hardly  be  given  to  a  very 
 young  man.  Be  this  as  it  may,  Shaphan  disap- 
 pears from  the  scene,  and  probably  died  before 
 the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  eighteen  years  later, 
 when  we  find  Elishama  was  scribe  (.Jer.  xxxvi.  12). 
 'Iliere  is  just  one  point  in  the  narrative  of  the  burn- 
 ing of  the  roll  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  by  the 
 order  of  the  king,  which  seems  to  identify  Shaphan 
 the  fiither  of  Ahikam  with  Shaphan  the  scribe.  It 
 is  well  known  that  Ahikam  was  Jeremiah's  great 
 friend  and  protector  at  court,  and  it  was  therefore 
 consistent  with  this  friendship  of  his  brother  for 
 the  prophet  that  Gemariah  the  son  of  Shaphan 
 should  warn  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  to  hide  them- 
 sehes,  and  should  intercede  with  the  king  for  the 
 preservation  of  the  roll  (Jer.  xxxvi.  12,  19,  25). 
 
 W.  A.  \Y. 
 
 SHATHAT  (t2Db  DWf/«]:  Sac^ar  :  Sa- 
 phal).  1.  The  son  of  Hori,  selected  from  the  tribe 
 of  Simeon  to  spy  out  the  land  of  Canaan  (Num. 
 xiii.  5). 
 
 2.  [Vat.  1  K.  xix.  16,  2a^a9:  2  K.  iii.  11,  loj- 
 (xacpad,  see  Errata  in  Mai.]  The  father  of  the 
 prophet  Elisha  (1  K.  xix.  16,  19;  2  K.  iii.  11, 
 vi.  31). 
 
 3.  (2a<|)a6;  Alex.  Sai^ar.)  One  of  the  six  sons 
 of  Shemaiah  in  the  royal  line  of  Judah  (1  Chr. 
 iii.  22). 
 
 4.  (6  ypafj.fj.aTevs\  [Comp.  -^acpdy.])  One  of 
 the  chiefs  of  the  Gadites  in  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v.  12). 
 
 a  Codex  A  here  retains  the  y  as  the  equivalent  for 
 the  "3,  which  has  disappeared  from  the  name  in  Codex 
 B.     The  first  p,  however,  is  unusual.  [Comp.  Tidal.] 
 
 b  Two  singular  variations  of  this  are  found  in  the 
 Vat.  MS.  (Mai's  ed.),  namely,  1  Chr.  v.  16,  Tepidfi ;  and 
 xxyii.  29,  'AcretSiii'  [Rom.  Sapioc],  where  the  A  is  a  rem- 
 
 SHARON  2945 
 
 5.  -{'SaxpaT ;  [Vat.  "ZoKpav-] )  The  son  of  Adlai, 
 who  was  over  David's  oxen  in  the  valleys  (1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  29). 
 
 SHA'PHER,  MOUNT  ("I?tt7~in  [see  be- 
 low]:  'Xacpap;  [Alex.  Apcracpap,  l,ap(Ta<t)ap:  mom 
 Sepher,]  Num.  xxxiii.  23,  2-1).  The  nanje  of  a 
 desert  station  where  the  Israelites  encamped,  of 
 which  no  other  mention  occurs.  The  name  prob- 
 ably means  "  mount  of  pleasantness,"  but  no  site 
 has  been  suggested  for  it.  H.  H. 
 
 SHA'RAI  [2  syl.]  ("^^ti?  [beffinmnc/,  or  re- 
 leiisc't']:  %apiov',  [Alex.  Apou(]  1*'A.  Sapoi/g:  Sa- 
 rd'i).  One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  put  away  his 
 foreign  wife  at  the  command  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  40). 
 He  is  called  Eskil  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
 
 SHARA'IM  {'0';'!}^W,  i.  €.  Shaaraim  [two 
 f/atts]  :  [Rom.  2a/fapiV  ;  Vat]  2a/cape(/x;  Alex. 
 "'S.apyapei/j.;  [Aid.  2apaei|U:]  Siiriiii  and  Sirraim). 
 An  imperfect  version  (Josh.  xv.  36  only)  of  the 
 name  which  is  elsewhere  nioi-e  accurately  given 
 .SiLVAKAiM.  The  discrepancy  does  not  exist  in 
 the  original,  and  doubtless  arose  in  the  A.  V.  from 
 adherence  to  the  Vulgate.  G. 
 
 SHA'RAR  ("l^tt7  [cord,  Ges.] :  'Apai;  Alex. 
 Apa5:  S(rrar].  The  father  of  Ahiam  the  Harar- 
 ite,  one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  33).  In  1 
 Chr.  xi.  35  he  is  called  Sacah,  which  Kennicott 
 (Diss.  p.  203)  thinks  the  true  reading. 
 
 SHARE'ZER  C^^W"1tt'  [I'ers.  2)r{nce  of 
 Ji,re\:  ^apacrdp;  [in  Is.  xxxvii.  38,  Sin.  Alex.  2a- 
 paaa-]  Snrasur)  was  a  son  of  Sennacherib,  whom, 
 in  conjunction  with  his  brother  Adrammelech,  he 
 murdered  (2  K.  xix.  37).  Moses  of  Chorene  calls 
 him  Sanasar,  and  says  that  he  was  favorably  re- 
 ceived by  the  Armenian  king  to  whom  he  fled,  and 
 given  a  tract  of  country  on  the  Assyiian  frontier, 
 where  his  descendants  became  very  numerous 
 (Hlit.  Armen.  i.  22).  He  is  not  mentioned  as 
 engaged  in  the  murder,  either  by  Folyhistor  or 
 Abydenus,  who  both  speak  of  Adrammelech. 
 
 G.  E. 
 
 SHA'RON  Clill^^n,  with  the  def.  article 
 [the  plahi]:  d  'Sapdv; ''  6  Spv/xosj  rh  treS'iou: 
 Saron,  campestria,  cfimjms).  A  district  of  the 
 Holy  Land  occasionally  referred  to  in  the  Bible " 
 (1  Chr.  V.  16,  xxvii.  29 ;  Is.  xxxiii.  9,  xxxv.  2,  l.xv. 
 10;  Cant.  ii.  1;  Acts  ix.  35,  A.  V.  Saron).  The 
 name  has  on  each  occurrence,  with  one  exception 
 only,  the  definite  article  —  lias-Sliarun  —  as  is  the 
 case  also  with  other  districts  —  the  Arabah,  the 
 Shefelah,  the  Ciccar;  and  on  that  single  occasion 
 (1  Chr.  v.  16),  it  is  obvious  that  a  different  spot 
 must  be  intended  to  that  referred  to  in  the  other 
 pas.sages.  This  will  be  noticed  further  on.  It 
 would  therefore  appear  that  "  the  Sharon  "  was 
 some  well-defined  region  familiar  to  the  Israelites, 
 though  its  omission  in  the  formal  topographical 
 documents  of  the  nation  shows  that  it  was  not  a 
 recognized  division  of  the  country,  as  the  Shefelah 
 for  example.   [Sepiiela.]   From  the  passages  above 
 
 nant  of  the  Hebrew  def.  article.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
 that  a  more  decided  trace  of  the  Ileb.  article  appears 
 in  Acts  ix.  35,  where  some  MSS.  h.ave  acrcrapiiova. 
 
 c  The  Lasharou  of  Josh.  xii.  18,  which  some  schol- 
 ars consider  to  be  Sharon  with  a  preposition  prefixed, 
 appears  to  the  writer  more  probably  crrrectly  given  in 
 the  A.  V.     [Lasharon.] 
 
2946 
 
 SHARON 
 
 cited  we  gather  that  it  was  a  place  of  pasture  for 
 cattle,  where  the  royal  herds  of  David  grazed  (1 
 Chr.  xxvii.  29);  the  beauty  of  which  was  as  gener- 
 ally recognized  as  that  of  Carmel  itself  (Is.  xxxv. 
 2);  and  the  desolation  of  which  would  he  indeed  a 
 calamity  (xxxiii.  0),  and  its  reestablishnient  a  sym- 
 bol of  the  highest  prosperity  (Ixv.  10).  The  rose 
 of  Sharon  (possibly  the  tall,  graceful,  and  striking 
 squill)  was  a  simile  for  all  that  a  lover  would  ex- 
 press (Cant.  ii.  1).  [ItosE,  note,  Amer.  ed.]  Add 
 to  these  slight  traits  the  indications  contained  in 
 the  renderings  of  the  LXX.  rh  TreSi'oy,  "  the  plain," 
 and  0  Spv/j.6s,  "the  wood,"  and  we  have  exhausted 
 all  that  we  can  gather  from  the  Bible  of  the  char- 
 acteristics of  Sharon. 
 
 The  only  guide  to  its  locality  furnished  by 
 Scri{)ture  is  its  mention  with  Lydda  in  Acts  ix. 
 35.  There  is,  however,  no  doubt  of  the  identifica- 
 tion of  Sharon.  It  is  that  broad  rich  tract  of  land 
 which  lies  between  the  mountains  of  the  central 
 part  of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Mediterranean  — 
 the  northern  continuation  of  the  SiiEFELAir.  Jo- 
 sephus  but  rarely  alludes  to  it,  and  then  so  ob- 
 scurely that  it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  with 
 cei'tainty,  from  his  words  alone,  that  he  does  refer 
 to  it.  He  employs  the  same  term  as  the  LXX., 
 "  woodland."  Apv/xol  rh  x'^P'"''  KaXeTrai,  says 
 he  {Ant.  xiv.  13,  §  3;  and  comp.  B.  J.  i.  ].3,  §  2), 
 but  beyond  its  connection  with  Carmel  there  is  no 
 clew  to  be  gained  from  either  passage.  The  same 
 may  be  said  of  Strabo  (xvi.  28),  who  applies  the 
 same  name,  and  at  the  same  time  mentions  Car- 
 mel. 
 
 Sharon  is  derived  by  Gesenius  ( Thes.  p.  6'42)  from 
 'IK''"',  to  be  straight  or  even  —  the  root  also  of 
 Mislior,  the  name  of  a  district  east  of  Jordan. 
 The  application  to  it,  however,  by  the  LXX.,  by 
 Josephus,  and  by  Strabo,  of  the  name  Apv/xos  or 
 Apvfxoi  - —  "  woodland,"  is  singular.  It  does  not 
 seem  certain  that  that  term  implies  the  existence  of 
 wood  on  the  plain  of  Sharon.  Heland  has  pointed 
 out  {Pal.  p.  190)  that  the  Saronicus  Sinus,  or  Bay  of 
 Saron,  in  Greece,  was  so  called  (Fliny,  //.  N.  iv.  5) 
 because  of  its  woods,  (rapoovis  meaning  an  oak. 
 Thus  it  is  not  impossible  that  Apv/xos  vas  used  as 
 an  equivalent  of  the  name  Sharon,  and  was  not 
 intended  to  denote  the  presence  of  oaks  or  woods  on 
 the  spot.  May  it  not  be  a  token  that  the  original 
 meaning  of  Saron,  or  Sharon,  is  not^that  which  its 
 received  Hebrew  root  would  imply,  and  that  it  has 
 perished  except  in  this  one  instance "?  The  Alex- 
 andrine Jews  who  translated  the  LXX.  are  not 
 likely  t-o  have  known  nnich  either  of  the  Saronic 
 gulf,  or  of  its  connection  with  a  rare  Greek  word. 
 Eusebius  and  Jerome  {Oiiuinast.  "Saron  "),  un- 
 der the  name  of  Saronas,  specify  it  as  the  region 
 extending  from  Cajsarea  to  Joppa.  And  this  is 
 corroborated  by  Jerome  in  his  comments  on  the 
 three  passages  in  Isaiah,  in  one  of  which  (on  Ixv. 
 10)  he  appears  to  extend  it  as  far  south  as  Jamnia. 
 There  are  occasional  allusions  to  wood  in  the  de- 
 scription of  the  events  which  occurred  in  this  dis- 
 trict in  later  times.  Thus,  Iti  the  Chronicles  of 
 the  Crusades,  the  '•  Forest  of  Saron  "  was  the  scene 
 of  one  of  the  most  roniar'ic  adventures  of  Kichard 
 (Michaud,  Histuirt  viii.;,  the  '•  forest  of  Assur  " 
 (i.  e.  Arsuf)  is  mentioned  by  Vinisauf  (iv.  16).  To 
 the  S.  E.  of  Kdisariyeh  there  is  still  "  a  dreary 
 wood  of  (natural)  dwarf  pines  and  entangled 
 bushes"  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  ch.  3-3). 
 The  orchards  and  palm-groves  round  Jimzu,  Li/dd, 
 
 SHARUHEN 
 
 and  Ramleh,  and  the  dense  thickets  of  dom  in  the 
 neighborhood  of  the  two  last  —  as  well  as  the  mul- 
 berry plantations  in  the  '\'alley  of  the  Aitjeli  a  few 
 niiles  from  Jaffa  —  an  industry  happily  increasing 
 every  day  —  show  how  easily  wood  might  be  main- 
 tained Ijy  care  and  cultivation  (see  Stanley,  S.  ^• 
 P.  p.  2G0  note). 
 
 A  general  sketch  of  the  district  is  given  under 
 the  head  of  Palestine  (vol.  iii.  p.  2290  f.).  Je- 
 rome {Comm.  on  Is.  xxxv.  2)  characterizes  it  in 
 words  which  admirably  portray  its  aspects  even  at 
 the  present:  "  Omnis  igitur  candor  (the  white  sand- 
 hills of  the  coast),  cultus  Dei  (the  wide  crops  of  the 
 finest  corn),  et  circinucisionis  scientia  (the  well 
 trimmed  ])lantations)  et  loca  uberrima  et  campes- 
 tria  (the  long,  gentle  swells  of  rich  red  and  black 
 earth)  quse  appellantur  Saron." 
 
 2.  (]'"1")tt7:  [Vat.]  r^pta^;  [Rom.]  Alex.  2o- 
 pwv-  Saron.)  The  Siiahon  of  1  Chr.  v.  16,  to 
 which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  is  distin- 
 guished from  the  western  plain  by  not  having  the 
 article  attached  to  its  name  as  the  other  invariably 
 has.  It  is  also  apparent  from  the  passage  itself 
 that  it  was  some  district  on  the  east  of  Jordan  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Gilead  and  Bashan.  The  ex- 
 pression "suburbs"  ("'K'^ip)  is  in  itself  remark- 
 able. The  name  has  not  been  met  with  in  that 
 direction,  and  the  only  approach  to  an  explanation 
 of  it  is  that  of  Prof.  Stanley  {S.  <}  P.  App.  §  7), 
 i  that  Sharon  may  here  be  a  synonym  for  the  Jli- 
 slior  —  a  word  probably  derived  from  the  same 
 root,  describing  a  region  with  some  of  the  same 
 characteristics,  and  attached  to  the  pastoral  plains 
 east  of  the  Jordan.  G. 
 
 SHA'RONITE,  THE  03'l"ltt'n  [see 
 above]:  [Vat.]  o  SapcocfiTTjy;  [Rom.]  Alex.  2o- 
 pojfiTTjs:  Sar-onites).  Shitrai,  who  had  charge  of 
 the  royal  herds  pastured  in  Sharon  (1  Clir.  xxvii. 
 29),  is  the  only  Sharonite  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
 
 G. 
 
 SHARU'HEN  (]n-1"1K7  [pleasant  lochjing, 
 Ges.]  :  01  a-ypol  "  auTaJj/,  in  both  MSS. :  Snreon 
 \_'^ Sarchtn']).  A  town  named  in  Josh.  xix.  0  only, 
 amongst  those  which  were  allotted  within  Judah 
 to  Simeon.  Sharuhen  does  not  appear  in  the  cat- 
 alogue of  the  cities  of  Judah  ;  but  instead  of  it, 
 and  occupying  the  same  position  with  regard  to 
 the  other  names,  we  find  Shiliiisi  (xv.  32).  In 
 the  list  of  1  Chr.  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  po- 
 sition is  occupied  by  Shaakaim  (iv.  31).  Whether 
 these  are  diH'erent  places,  or  different  names  of  the 
 same  place,  or  mere  variations  of  careless  copyists; 
 and,  in  the  last  case,  which  is  the  original  form,  it 
 is  perhaps  impossible  now  to  determine.  Of  the. 
 three,  Sliaaraim  would  seem  to  have  the  strongest 
 claim,  since  we  know  that  it  was  the  name  of  a 
 place  in  another  direction,  while  Shilhim  and  Sha- 
 ruhen are  found  once  only.  If  so,  then  the  Ain 
 which  exists  in  Shaaraim  has  disappeared  in  the 
 others. 
 
 Knobel  {Exeg.  Bandb.  on  Josh.  xv.  32)  calls 
 attention  to  Tell  SheriUih,  about  10  miles  west  of 
 Bir  es-Seba,  at  the  head  of  Wady  SherVah  (the 
 "watering-place").  The  position  is  not  unsuit- 
 able, but  as  to  its  identity  with  Shaaraim  or  Sha- 
 ruhen we  can  say  nothing.  G. 
 
 a  Probably  reading  ^n^'ltt?,  as  Eeland  c<njeo 
 tures. 
 
SHASHAI 
 
 SHA'SHAI  [2syl.]  ^tt'K?  [perh.  ivhitisliy. 
 Ssffei';  [Vat.  FA.  with  preceding  word,  Na/Soyce- 
 (7-6j:]  Sisa'i).  One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had 
 married  a  foreign  wife  and  put  her  away  in  the  time 
 Df  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  40). 
 
 SHA'SHAK  (ptOtW:  Soo-Vi  [Vat.  Sco/crjA, 
 ScotTjK::]  Sesac).  A  Beiijaniite,  one  of  the  sons  of 
 Beriah  (1  Chr.  viii.  14,  25). 
 
 SHA'UL  (b^Sty  {lonying,  Sim.  Ges.]  :  2a- 
 oi5a;  Alex.  ^a/xourjA  in  Gen.:  Saiil).  1.  The  son 
 of  Snneon  by  a  Canaanitish  woman  (Gen.  xlvi.  10; 
 Ex.  vi.  15;  Num.  xxvi.  13;  1  Chr.  iv.  24),  and 
 founder  of  the  family  of  the  Shauutes.  The  Jew- 
 ish traditions  identify  him  with  Zimri,  "who  did 
 the  work  of  the  Canaanites  in  Shittim "  (Targ. 
 Pseudojon.  on  Gen.  xlvi.). 
 
 2.  Shaul  of  Rehoboth  by  the  river  was  one  of 
 the  kings  of  Edom,  and  successor  of  SaniJah  (1 
 Chr.  i.  48,  49).  In  the  A.  V.  of  Gen.  xxxvi.  37, 
 he  is  less  accurately  called  S.\ul. 
 
 3.  A  Kohathite,  son  of  Uzziah  (1  Chr.  vi.  24). 
 
 *  SHA'ULITES,    THE    C'^^INK?,    patro- 
 
 nyni.:  6  2aouA.i;  Vat.  Alex.  -Aei'-  SaulitiB),  de- 
 scendants of  Shaul,  1  (Num.  xxvi.  13).         A. 
 
 SHA'VEH,  THE  VALLEY   OF  ("Pl? 
 
 TT^V^  [see  note  c  below]  ;  the  Saniar.  Cod.  adds  the 
 
 article,  mtiTl  V,  Sam.  Vers.  HDDD  :«  t^j/ 
 KoiKaSa  ttji/  Sawrj*;  Alex.  t.  k.  t.  2aw7)f :  vallis 
 Save  qme  est  vallis  regis).  A  name  found  only  in 
 Gen.  xiv.  It  is  one  of  those  archaic  names  with 
 which  this  venerable  chapter  abounds  —  such  as 
 Bela,  En-Mishpat,  Ham,  Ilazezon-tamar  —  so  ar- 
 chaic, that  many  of  them  have  been  elucidated  by 
 the  insertion  of  their  more  modern  ^  equivalents  in 
 the  body  of  the  document,  by  a  later  but  still  very 
 ancient  hand.  In  the  present  case  the  explanation 
 does  not  throw  any  light  upon  the  locality  of  Sha- 
 veh:  "  The  valley  of  Shaveli,  that  is  the  Valley  of 
 the  King"  (ver.  17).  True,  the  "Valley  of  the 
 King  "  is  mentioned  again  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  18,  as 
 the  site  of  a  pillar  set  up  by  Alisalom ;  but  this 
 passage  again  conveys  no  indication  of  its  position, 
 and  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  two  passages 
 refer  to  the  same  spot.  I'he  extreme  obscurity  in 
 which  the  whole  account  of  Abram's  route  from 
 Damascus  is  involved,  has  been  already  noticed 
 under  Salem.  A  notion  has  been  long ''  prevalent 
 that  the  pillar  of  Absalom  is  the  well-known  pyram- 
 idal structure  which  forms  the  northern  member 
 of  the  group  of  monuments  at  the  western  foot  of 
 Olivet.  'I'his  is  perhaps  originally  founded  on  the 
 statement  of  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  10,  §  3)  that  Ab- 
 salom erected  (eo-TrjKe)  a  column  {(TTi)\ri)  of  mar- 
 ble {xiQov  fjia^iixajiivov)  at  a  distance  of  two  stadia 
 
 a  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  gives  the  same  equiva- 
 lent, but  with  a  curious  addition,  "  the  plain  of  Me- 
 faua,  which  is  the  king's  place  of  racing  ;  "  recalling 
 the  [TTn6S(ioy.o<;  so  strangely  inserted  by  the  LXX.  in 
 Gen.  xlviii.  7. 
 
 &  This  is  one  of  the  numerous  instances  in  which 
 the  Vatican  Cod.  (Mai)  agrees  with  the  Alex.,  and  dis- 
 agrees with  the  ordinary  text,  which  in  this  case  has 
 Tov  2aj3u.  [This  part  of  Genesis  is  wanting  in  the 
 Vatican  MS.  (see  art.  Septoagint,  p.  2913  6),  and  is 
 printed  in  Mai's  ed.  from  a  comparatively  modern  MS. 
 ^No.  55,  Holmes).  —  A.] 
 
 c  If  the  signification  of  Shaveli  be  "valley,"  as  Ge- 
 genius  and  Fiirst  assert,  then  its  extreme  antiquity  is 
 
 SHAWM  2947 
 
 from  Jerusalem.  But  neither  the  spot  nor  the 
 structure  of  the  so-called  "  Absalom's  tomb  "  agree 
 either  with  this  description,  or  with  the  terms  of 
 2  Sam.  xviii.  18.  The  "  Valley  of  the  King  "  was 
 an  Kviek,  that  is,  a  broad,  open  valley,  having  few 
 or  no  features  in  common  with  the  deep,  rugged 
 ravine  of  the  Kedron.  [Valley.]  The  pillar  of 
 Absalom  —  which  went  by  the  name  of  "Absalom's 
 
 hand  "  —  was  set  up,  erected  (3^'^),  according  to 
 Josephus  in  marble  —  while  the  lower  existing  part 
 of  the  monument  (which  alone  has  any  pretension 
 to  great  antiquity)  is  a  monolith  not  erected,  but 
 excavated  out  of  the  ordinary  limestone  of  the  hill, 
 and  almost  exactly  similar  to  the  so-called  "  tomb 
 of  Zechariah,"  the  second  from  it  on  the  south. 
 And  even  this  cannot  claim  any  very  great  age, 
 since  its  Ionic  capitals  and  the  ornaments  of  the 
 frieze  speak  with  unfaltering  voice  of  Konian  art. 
 
 Shaveh  occurs  also  in  conjunction  with  another 
 ancient  word  in  the  name 
 
 SHAVEH   KIRIATHA'IM  (Plltt? 
 
 D\'n"''^jl  [plain  of  the  double  city'] :  iv  'S.avn  ri) 
 ■ir6kei:  Save  Cnri((tliaiin),  mentioned  in  the  same 
 early  document  (Gen.  xiv.  5)  as  the  residence  of 
 the  Emim  at  the  time  of  Chedorlaomer's  incur- 
 sion. Kiriathaim  is  named  in  the  Liter  history, 
 and,  though  it  has  not  been  identified,  is  known 
 to  have  been  a  town  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan; 
 and  Shaveh  Kiriathaim,  which  was  also  in  the 
 same  region,  was  (if  Shaveh  mean  "valley") 
 probably  the  valley  in  or  by  which  the  town  lay. 
 
 G. 
 
 SHAV'SHA  (SK71tZ7  [ivarrior  of  .Jehovah]: 
 ^ovad;  [Vat.  Irjirous;]  EA.  Sous:  Su.ia).  The 
 royal  secretary  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xviii. 
 16).  He  is  apparently  the  same  with  Skkaiah 
 (2  Sam.  viii.  17),  who  is  called  ^eiad  by  Josephus 
 (Ant.  vii.  5,  §  4),  and  2ao-a  in  the  Vat.  MS.  of 
 the  LXX.  [^aad  in  the  Eoman  ed.,  but  Acra  in 
 the  Vat.  MS.  (Mai). —A.]  ■SiiisiiA  is  the  read- 
 ing of  two  MSS.  and  of  the  Targum  in  1  Chr. 
 xviii.  16.  In  2  Sam.  xx.  25  he  is  called  Sheva, 
 and  in  1  K.  iv.  3,  Shisha. 
 
 SHAWM.  In  the  Prayer-book  version  of  Ps. 
 xcviii.  6,  "with  trumpets  also  and  shaivins"  is  the 
 rendering  of  what  stands  in  the  A.  V.  "  with  trum- 
 pets and  sound  of  coi-net.'^  The  Hebrew  word 
 translated  "  cornet  "  will  be  found  treated  under 
 that  head.  The  "shawm"  was  a  musical  instru- 
 ment resembling  the  clarionet.  The  word  occurs 
 in  the  forms  shalin,  shahnie,  and  is  connected  with 
 the  Germ,  scalaintie,  a  reed-pipe. 
 "  With  shamnes  and  trompets  and  with  clarions  sweet." 
 
 Spenser,  F.  Q.  i.  12,  §  13. 
 "  Even  from  the  shrillest  .<Aa»7n  unto  the  eornamute." 
 Drayton,  Fotyolb.  iv.  306. 
 
 involved  in  the  very  expression  "  the  Emek-Shaveh," 
 which  shows  that  the  word  had  ceased  to  be  intelli- 
 gible to  the  writer,  who  added  to  it  a  modern  word  of 
 the  same  meaning  with  itself.  It  is  equivalent  to 
 such  names  as  "  Puente  d'Alcantara,"  "  the  Greesen 
 Steps,"  etc.,  where  the  one  part  of  the  name  is  a  mere 
 repetition  or  translation  of  the  other,  and  which  can- 
 not exist  till  the  meaning  of  the  older  term  is  ob- 
 solete. 
 
 *  Both  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  define  Hltt?  as  "  plain  " 
 {planities,  Ebene).  H. 
 
 <l  Perhaps  first  mentioned  by  Benjamin  of  Tudela 
 (A.  j>.  1160),  and  next  by  Maundeville  (1323). 
 
2948 
 
 SHEAF 
 
 Mr.  Cbappell  saj-s  (Pop.  Mus.  i.  35,  note  J),  "The 
 modem  clarionet  is  an  improvement  upon  tlie 
 shawm,  which  was  played  with  a  reed  like  the 
 wayte,  or  hauthoy,  but  being  a  bass  instrument, 
 with  aliout  the  compass  of  an  octave,  had  probalily 
 more  the  tone  of  a  l)assoon."  In  the  same  note  he 
 quotes  one  of  the  "  proverbis  "  written  about  the 
 time  of  Henry  VII.  on  the  walls  of  the  Manor 
 House  at  Leckingfield,  near  Beverley,  Yorkshire:  — 
 
 "  A  shawms  niaketh  a  swete  sounde,  for  he  tunythe 
 the  bas.se  ; 
 It  niountithe  not  to  hye,  but  kepith  rule  and  space. 
 Yet  yt  it  be  blowne  with  to  vehement  a  wynde, 
 It  makithe  it  to  mysgoverne  out  of  his  kiude." 
 
 From  a  passage  quoted  by  Nares  ( Glossary)  it  ap- 
 pears that  the  shawm  had  a  mournful  sound :  — 
 
 "He  — 
 
 That  never  wants  a  Gilead  full  of  balm 
 For  his  elect,  shall  turn  thy  woful  shahn 
 Into  the  merry  pipe." 
 
 G.  TooKE,  Bdidfs,  p.  18. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 *  SHEAF.     [Passover,  vol.  iii.  p.  2.34G.] 
 SHE'AL  (/Stp    [ash-int/]:     'ZaJ^ovia;     Alex. 
 2,aa\  '■   Si((d).     One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had 
 married  a  foreign  wife   (Ezr.  x.  29).     In  I  Esdr. 
 ix.  30  he  is  called  Jasael. 
 
 SHEAL'TIEL  (bS'^flbstT,  but  three  times 
 
 in  Haggai  bS''ri^t^''  [who7n  J  asked  of  God] : 
 ':iaKaQi-r]K-  SaUithinl).  Father  of  Zerubbabel,  the 
 leader  of  the  Return  from  Captivity  (Ezr.  iii.  2,  8, 
 V.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1;  Hag.  i.  1,  12,  14,  ii.  2,  23). 
 The  name  occurs  also  in  the  original  of  1  Chr.  iii. 
 17,  though  there  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  Sala- 
 THIEL.  That  is  its  equivalent  in  the  books  of  the 
 Apocrypha  and  the  N.  T. ;  and  under  that  head 
 the  curious  questions  connected  with  his  person  are 
 examined. 
 
 SHEARI'AH  {T^^'^Vlt  [«•/"»»  J>:hovah  es- 
 timatts]:  'S.apaia',  [Vat.  Sin.]  Alex,  lapia  in 
 1  Chr.  ix.  44:  Saria).  One  of  the  six  sons  of 
 Azel,  a  descendant  of  Saul  (1  Chr.  viii.  38.  ix. 
 44). 
 
 SHEARING-HOUSE,  THE  {1\}V  n^^S 
 
 C^lJnn  :«  BaiOaKaO  ruv  iroififvooi';  Alex.  Bai- 
 6aKaS  T.  TT. :  camera  pastovum).  A  place  on  the 
 road  between  Jezreel  and  Samaria,  at  which  Jehu, 
 on  his  way  to  the  latter,  encountered  forty-two  mem- 
 bers of  the  royal  family  of  Judah,  whom  he  slaugh- 
 tered at  the  well  or  pit  attached  to  the  place  (2  K. 
 X.  12, 14).  The  translators  of  our  version  have  givm 
 in  the  margin  the  literal  meaning  of  the  name  — 
 "  house  of  binding  of  the  shejjherds,"  and  in  the 
 text  an  interpretation  perhaps  adopted  from  Jos. 
 Kimchi.  Binding,  however,  is  but  a  subordinate 
 part  of  the  operation  of  shearing,  and  the  word 
 akad  is  not  anywhere  used  in  the  Bible  in  connec- 
 tion therewith,  'i'he  interpretation  of  the  Targum 
 and  Arabic  version,  adopted  by  Kashi,  namely, 
 "house  of  the  meeting  of  shepherds,"  is  accepted 
 by  Simonis  {Onom.  p.  180)  and  Gesenius  (Tlies. 
 p.  l'J5  b).  Other  renderings  are  given  by  Aquila 
 and  Symmachus.  None  of  them,  however,  seem 
 satisfactory,    and    it   is  probable   that    the    origi- 
 
 a  The  last  word  of  the  three  is  omitted  in  ver.  14  in 
 the  original,  and  in  both  the  Versions. 
 
 SHEBA 
 
 nal  meaning  has  escaped.  By  the  LXX.,  Eusfi' 
 bius,  and  Jerome,  it  is  treated  as  a  proper  name, 
 as  they  also  treat  the  "garden-house"  of  ix.  27. 
 Eusebius  {Onom.)  mentions  it  as  a  village  of  Sama- 
 ria "  in  the  great  plain  [of  Esdraelon]  15  niiles 
 from  Legeon."  It  is  remarkable,  that  at  a  distance 
 of  precisely  15  Roman  miles  from  Lcjjm  the  name 
 of  Beth-kad  appears  in  Van  de  Velde's  map  (see 
 also  Rob.  Bibl.  lies.  ii.  31G);  but  this  place,  though 
 coincident  in  point  of  distance,  is  not  on  the  plain, 
 nor  can  it  either  beloni;  to  Samaria,  or  be  on  the 
 road  from  Jezreel  thither,  being  behind  (south  of) 
 Mount  Gilboa.  The  sliuighter  at  the  well  recalls  the 
 massacre  of  the  pilgrims  by  Ishmael  ben-Nethaniah 
 at  Jlizpah,  and  the  recent  tragedj'  at  Cawnpore. 
 
 G. 
 
 SHE'AR-JA'SHUB  (3^ti'''>  ~iSK?  [a  rem- 
 T        T  :     •- 
 
 nant  shall  return]:  o  KaTaAet(p0e]s  'laaov^-  qui 
 dereliclus  est  .lastib).  The  son  of  Isaiah  the 
 prophet,  who  accompanied  him  when  he  went  to 
 meet  Ahaz  in  the  causeway  of  the  fuller's  field  (Is. 
 vii.  3).  The  name,  like  that  of  the  prophet's  other 
 son,  JMaher-.shalal-hash-baz,  had  a  mystical  signifi- 
 cance, and  appears  to  have  been  given  with  mixed 
 feelings  of  sorrow  and  hope  —  sorrow  for  the  cap- 
 tivity of  the  people,  and  hope  that  in  the  end  a 
 renmant  should  return  to  the  land  of  their  fathers 
 (comp.  Is.  X.  20-22). 
 
 SHE'BA  (l??tp  [seven,  an  oath]:  Sa^See; 
 [Alex.  2  Sam.  xx.  1,  7,  AySee;]  Joseph.  2ay8a?oy: 
 Sella).  The  son  of  Bichri,  a  Benjamite  from  the 
 mountains  of  Ephraim  (2  Sam.  xx.  1-22),  the  last 
 chief  of  the  Absalom  insurrection.  He  is  described 
 as  a  "man  of  Belial,"  which  seems  [comp.  Shimei] 
 to  have  been  the  usual  term  of  invective  cast  to  and 
 fro  between  the  two  parties.  But  he  must  have 
 been  a  person  of  some  consequence,  from  the  im- 
 mense effect  produced  by  his  appearance.  It  was 
 in  fact  all  but  an  anticipation  of  the  revolt  of  Jero- 
 boam. It  was  not,  as  in  the  case  of  Alisalom,  a 
 mere  conflict  between  two  fiictions  in  the  court  of 
 Judah,  but  a  struggle,  arising  out  of  that  conflict, 
 on  the  part  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  to  recover  its 
 lost  ascendancy;  a  struggle  of  which  some  indica- 
 tions had  been  already  manifested  in  the  excessive 
 bitterness  of  the  Benjamite  Shimei.  The  occasion 
 seized  by  Sheba  was  the  emulation,  as  if  from  loy- 
 alty, between  the  northern  and  southern  tribes  on 
 David's  return.  Through  the  ancient  custom,  be 
 summoned  all  the  tribes  "to  their  tents;"  and 
 then,  and  afterwards,  Judah  alone  remained  faith- 
 ful to  the  house  of  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  1,  2).  The 
 king  might  well  say,  "  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri 
 shall  do  us  more  harm  than  did  Absalom  "  {ibi<l.  6). 
 What  he  feared  was  Sheba's  occupation  of  the  for- 
 tified cities.  This  fear  was  justified  by  the  result. 
 Sheba  traversed  the  whole  of  Palestine,  apparently 
 rousing  the  population,  Joab  following  him  in  full 
 pursuit,  and  so  deeply  impressed  with  the  gravity 
 of  the  occasion,  that  the  murder  even  of  the  great 
 Amasa  was  but  a  passing  incident  in  the  campaign. 
 He  stayed  but  for  the  moment  of  the  deed,  and 
 "  pursued  after  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri."  The 
 mass  of  the  army  halted  for  an  instant  by  the 
 bloody  corpse,  and  then  they  also  "  went  on  after 
 Joab  to  pursue  after  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri."  It 
 seems  to  have  been  his  intention  to  establish  him- 
 self in  the  fortress  of  Abel-Beth-maacah,  in  the 
 northmost  extremity  of  Palestine,  possibly  allied  to 
 the  cause  of  Absalom  through  his  mother  Maacah, 
 and  famous  for  the  prudence  of  its  inhsbitants  (2 
 
SHEBA 
 
 Sam.  XX.  18).  That  prudence  was  put  to  the  test 
 on  the  present  occasion.  Joab's  terms  were  —  the 
 head  of  the  insurgent  chief.  A  woman  of  the  place 
 undertook  the  mission  to  her  city,  and  proposed 
 the  execution  to  her  fellow-citizens.  The  head  of 
 Sheba  was  thrown  over  the  wall,  and  the  insurrec- 
 tion ended. 
 
 2.  (2e/3€6;  Alex.  SoySaSe:  Sebe.)  A  Gadite. 
 one  of  the  chiefs  of  his  tribe  who  dwelt  in  Bashan 
 (1  Chr.  V.  13).  A.  P.  S. 
 
 SHE'BA  (W3l?^  [see  below]).  The  name 
 of  three  fathers  of  tribes  in  the  early  genealogies 
 of  Genesis,  often  referred  to  in  the  sacred  books. 
 They  are :  — 
 
 1.  (2a/3a';  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.  Sa/SarO  Saba.)  A 
 son  of  Kaamah,  son  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7;  1  Chr. 
 i.  9). 
 
 2.  (Alex.  Sa^ey,  2al3av-)  A  son  of  Joktan 
 (Gen.  X.  28;  1  Chr.  i.  22);  the  tenth  in  order  of 
 his  sons. 
 
 3.  (2aSa,  So/SaJ-;  Alex.  S.al^av,  2a)8o.)  A 
 son  of  .lokshan,  son  of  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  3;  1 
 Chr.  i.  32). 
 
 We  shall  consider,  first,  the  history  of  the  Jok- 
 tanite  Sheba;  and,  secondly,  the  Cushite  Sheba 
 and  the  Keturahite  .Sheba  together. 
 
 I.  It  has  been  shown,  in  Akahia  and  other 
 articles,  that  the  .loktaiiites  were  among  the  early 
 colonists  of  southern  .Arabia,  and  that  the  kijigdom 
 which  they  there  fouiuled  was,  for  many  centuries, 
 called  the  kiMijdoiii  of  .Siielia,  alter  one  of  the  sons 
 of  Joktan.  They  apiiear  to  ha\e  been  preceded  by 
 an  aboriginal  race,  which  the  .\rabiaii  historians 
 describe  as  a  people  of  gigantic  stature,  who  culti- 
 vated the  land  and  peopled  the  deserts  alike,  living 
 with  the  Jinn  in  tlie  "  deserted  quarter,"  or,  like 
 the  tribe  of  Thaniood,  dwelling  in  caves.  This 
 people  correspond,  in  their  traditions,  to  the  abo- 
 riginal races  of  whom  remains  are  found  wherever 
 a  civilized  nation  has  supplanted  and  dispossessed 
 the  ruder  race.  But  besides  these  extinct  tribes, 
 there  are  the  evidences  of  Cushite  settlers,  who 
 appear  to  have  passed  along  the  south  coast  from 
 west  to  east,  and  who  probably  preceded  the  Jok- 
 tanites,  and  mixed  with  tliem  when  they  arrived  in 
 the  country. 
 
 Sheba  seems  to  have  been  the  name  of  the  great 
 south  Arabian  kingdom  and  the  peoples  which 
 composed  it,  until  that  of  llimyer  took  its  place  in 
 later  times.  On  this  point  much  obscurity  re- 
 mains; but  the  Sabseans  are  mentioned  by  Diod. 
 Sic,  who  refers  to  the  historical  books  of  the 
 kings  of  Kgypt  in  the  Alexandrian  Library,  and 
 by  iM'atosthenes,  as  well  as  Artemidorus,  or  Aga- 
 thurchides  (iii.  38,  4G),  who  is  Strabo's  chief  au- 
 thority; and  the  Homeritre  or  Hiniyerites  are  first 
 mentioned  by  Strabo,  in  the  expedition  of  jElius 
 Gallus  (15.  c.  24).  Nowhere  earlier,  in  sacred  or 
 profane  records,  are  the  latter  people  mentioned, 
 except  by  the  Arabian  historians  themselves,  who 
 place  llimyer  very  high  in  their  list,  and  ascribe 
 importance  to  his  family  from  that  early  date. 
 We  have  endeavored,  in  other  articles,  to  show 
 reasons  for  supposing  that  in  this  very  name  of 
 Himyer  we  have  the  Ked  Man,  and  the  origin  of 
 Erythrus,  Erythraean  Sea,  Phoenicians,  etc.  [See 
 Arabia;  Red  Sea.]  The  apparent  difficulties  of 
 the  case  are  reconciled  by  supposing,  as  j\I.  Caussin 
 de  Perceval  {Essai,  i.  54,  55)  has  done,  that  the 
 kingdom  and  its  people  received  the  name  of  Sheba 
 (^Arabic,  Seba),  but  that  its  chief  and  sometimes 
 
 SHEBA 
 
 2949 
 
 reigning  family  or  tribe  was  that  of  Himyer;  and 
 that  an  old  name  was  thus  preserved  until  the 
 foundation  of  the  modern  kingdom  of  Himyer  or 
 the  Tubbaas,  which  i\I.  Caussin  is  inclined  to  place 
 (i)ut  there  is  nuich  uncertainty  about  this  date) 
 about  a  century  Ijefore  our  era,  when  the  two  great 
 rival  families  of  Himyer  and  Kahlan,  together  "with 
 smaller  tribes,  were  united  under  the  former.  In 
 support  of  the  view  that  the  name  of  Sheba  ap- 
 plied to  the  kingdom  and  its  people  as  a  generic 
 or  national  name,  we  find  in  the  Kdinoos  "  the 
 name  of  Sebii  comprises  the  tribes  of  the  Yemen 
 in  common"  {s.  v.  Seba);  and  this  was  written 
 long  after  the  later  kingdom  of  Himyer  had  flour- 
 ished and  fallen.  And  further,  as  Himyer  meant 
 the  "  Ked  Man,"  so  probably  did  Seba.     In  Arabic, 
 
 &  "  " 
 
 the  verb  seba,  Laaw,  said  of  the  sun,  or  of  a 
 journey,  or  of  a  fever,  means  "  it  altered  "  a  man, 
 i  e.  by  turning  him  red ;  the  noun  seba,  as  well  as 
 slbd  and  sebte-a/i,  signifies  "wine"  {TdJ  el-'Aroos 
 MS.).  The  .Vrabian  wine  was  red;  for  we  read 
 "kunieyt  is  a  name  of  wine,  because  there  is  in  it 
 blackness  and  redness"  (Silidh  MS.).  It  appears, 
 then,  that  in  Seba  we  very  possibly  have  the  oldest 
 name  of  the  Ked  Man,  whence  came  (polfi^,  Him- 
 yer, and  Erythrus. 
 
 We  have   assumed  the   identity  of  the   Arabic 
 
 Seba,  Laa*/,  with  Sheba  (W^I?;).      The  pi.  form 
 
 □^HZ2li7  corresponds  with  the  Greek  'S,a0aios  and 
 the  Latin  Sabai.  Gesenius  compares  the  Heb. 
 with  Eth.  A-HA ''man."  The  Hebrew  shin  is, 
 in  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances,  sin  in 
 Arabic  (see  Gesenius);  and  the  historical,  ethno- 
 logical, and  geographical  circumstances  of  the  case, 
 all  require  the  identification. 
 
 In  the  Bible,  the  Joktanite  Sheba,  mentioned 
 genealogically  in  Gen.  x.  28,  recurs,  as  a  kingdom, 
 in  the  account  of  the  visit  of  the  queen  of  Sheba 
 to  king  Solomon,  when  she  heard  of  bis  fame  con- 
 cerning the  name  of  tlie  Lord,  and  came  to  prove 
 him  with  hard  questions  (1  K.  x.  1);  "and  she 
 came  to  Jerusalem  with  a  very  great  train,  with 
 camels  that  bare  spices,  and  \ery  much  gold,  and 
 precious  stones"  (ver.  2).  And,  again,  "  she  gave 
 the  king  an  hundred  and  twenty  talents  of  gold, 
 anil  of  spices  very  great  store,  and  precious  stones : 
 there  came  no  more  such  abundance  of  spices  as 
 these  which  the  queen  of  Sheba  gave  to  king  Solo- 
 mon "  (ver.  10).  She  was  attracted  by  the  fame 
 of  Solomon's  wisdom,  which  she  had  heard  in  her 
 own  land ;  but  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  had 
 recently  been  solemnized,  and,  no  doubt,  the  people 
 of  Arabia  were  desirous  to  see  this  fiinious  house. 
 That  the  queen  was  of  Sheba  in  Arabia,  .and  not  of 
 Seba  the  Cushite  kingdom  of  Ethiopia,  is  unques- 
 tionable; Josephus  and  some  of  the  Kabbinical  writ- 
 ers "  perversely,  as  usual,  refer  her  to  the  latter ;  and 
 the  Ethiopian  (or  Abyssinian )  Church  has  a  con- 
 venient tradition  to  the  same  effect  (comp.  Joseph. 
 Alii.  viii.  6,  §  5;  Ludolf,  IJist.  .'Ethiop.  ii.  3;  Har- 
 ris's Abyssinia,  ii.  105).  The  Arabs  call  her  Bilkees 
 (or  Yelkamah  or  Balkamah;  Ibn  Khaldoon),  a 
 queen  of  the  later  Hiniyerites,  who,  if  M.  Caussin's 
 
 a  Aben-Ezra  (on  Dan.  xi.  6),  however,  remarks  that 
 the  queen  of  Sheba  came  from  the  Yemen,  for  she 
 spoke  an  Ishmaelite  (or  rather  a  Shemitic)  language. 
 
2950  SHEBA 
 
 shronological  adjustments  of  the  early  history  of 
 the  Yemen  be  correct,  reigned  in  the  first  century 
 of  our  era  {/issai,  i.  75,  &c.);  and  an  edifice  at 
 Ma^rib  (Mariaba)  still  bears  her  name,  wliile  M. 
 Fresnel  read  the  name  of  "Almacah"  or  "  Ral- 
 niacah  "  in  many  of  the  Himyeritic  inscriptions. 
 Tlie  Arab  story  of  tiiis  queen  is,  in  the  present 
 state  of  our  knowledge,  altogetlier  unhistorical  and 
 unworthy  of  credit;  but  the  attempt  to  malie  her 
 Solomon's  queen  of  Sheba  probably  arose  (as  jM. 
 Caussin  conjectures)  from  the  latter  being  men- 
 tioned in  the  Kur-an  without  any  name,  and  the 
 commentators  adopting  Bilkees  as  the  most  ancient 
 queen  of  Sheba  in  the  lists  of  the  Yemen.  The 
 Kur-dn,  as  usual,  contains  a  very  poor  version  of 
 the  Biblical  narrative,  diluted  with  nonsense  and 
 encumbered  with  fables  (ch.  xxvii.  ver.  24,  etc.). 
 
 The  other  passages  in  the  Bible  which  seem  to 
 refer  to  the  Joktanite  Sheba  occur  in  Is.  Ix.  6, 
 where  we  read,  "all  they  from  Sheba  shall  come: 
 they  shall  bring  gold  and  incense,"  in  conjunction 
 with  Jlidian,  P^phah,  Kedar,  and  Nebaioth.  Here 
 reference  is  made  to  the  commerce  that  took  the 
 road  from  Sheba  along  the  western  borders  of 
 Araliia  (unless,  as  is  possible,  the  Cushite  or  Ketu- 
 rahite  Sheba  be  meant);  and  again  in  Jer.  vi.  20, 
 it  is  written,  "  To  what  purpose  conieth  there  to 
 me  incense  from  Sheba,  and  the  sweet  cane  from  a 
 far  country?  "  (but  compare  Kz.  xxvii.  22,  23,  and 
 see  below).  On  the  other  hand,  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  10, 
 the  .loktanite  Sheba  is  undoubtedly  meant;  for 
 the  kingdoms  of  Sheba  and  Seba  are  named  to- 
 gether, and  in  ver.  15  the  gold  of  Sheba  is  men- 
 tioned. 
 
 The  kingdom  of  Sheba  embraced  the  greater 
 part  of  the  Yemen,  or  Arabia  Felix.  Its  chief 
 cities,  and  probably  successive  capitals,  were  Sebii, 
 San'a  (Uzal),  and  Zafiir  (Sephar).  Seba  was 
 probably  the  name  of  the  city,  and  generally  of  the 
 country  and  nation ;  but  the  statements  of  the 
 Arabian  writers  are  conflicting  on  this  point,  and 
 they  are  not  made  clearer  by  the  accounts  of  the 
 classical  geographers.  IMa-rib  was  another  name 
 of  the  city,  or  of  the  fortress  or  royal  palace  in  it: 
 "  Sebii  is  a  city  known  by  the  name  of  Ma-rib, 
 three  nights'  journey  from  San'ii"  (Ez-Zejjiij,  in 
 the  Tdj-ePAroos  MS.).  Again,  "Seba  was  the 
 city  of  Ma-rib  {Mushtiirak,  s.  v.),  or  the  country 
 in  the  Yemen,  of  which  the  city  was  Ma-rib " 
 {Mnr'isid,  in  voc  ).  Near  Sebii  was  the  famous 
 Dyke  of  Kl-'Arim,  said  by  tradition  to  have  been 
 built  by  Lukman  the  'Adite,  to  store  water  for  the 
 inhabitants  of  the  place,  and  to  avert  the  descent 
 of  the  mountain  torrents.  The  catastrophe  of  the 
 rupture  of  this  dyke  is  an  important  point  in  .A.rab 
 history,  and  marks  the  dispersion  in  the  2d  century 
 of  the  Joktanite  tribes.  This,  like  all  we  know  of 
 Seba,  points  irresistibly  to  the  great  importance  of 
 the  city  as  the  ancient  centre  of  Joktanite  power. 
 Although  Uzal  (wliich  is  said  to  be  the  existing 
 San'ii)  has  been  supposed  to  be  of  earlier  founda- 
 tion, and  Zafar  (Ski'Iiak)  was  a  royal  residence, 
 we  cannot  doubt  that  Seba  was  the  most  important 
 of  these  chief  towns  of  the  Yemen.  Its  value  in 
 the  eyes  of  the  old  dynasties  is  shown  by  their 
 struggles  to  obtain  and  hold  it ;  and  it  is  narrated 
 that  it  passed  several  times  into  the  hands  alter- 
 nately of  the  so-called  Himyerites  and  the  jjeople 
 of  Hadramtiwt  (Hazar-mavetii).  Eratosthenes, 
 Arteniidorus,  Strabo,  and  Pliny,  speak  of  il/ajinia; 
 Diodorus,  Agatharchides,  Steph.  Byzant.,  of  Sabn. 
 Za^ai  (Steph.  Byzant.).     5o/8as  (Agath.).     Ptol. 
 
 SHEBA 
 
 (vi.  7,  §§  30,  42),  and  Plin.  (vi.  23,  §  34)  mentioD 
 Sa^Srj.  But  the  former  all  say  that  Mariaba  was 
 the  metropolis  of  the  Sabaei ;  and  we  may  conclude 
 that  both  names  applied  to  the  same  place,  one  the 
 city,  the  other  its  palace  or  fortress  (though  prob- 
 al)ly  these  writers  were  not  aware  of  this  fact): 
 unless  indeed  the  form  Sabota  (with  the  variants 
 Sabatha,  Sobatale,  etc.)  of  Pliny  (H.  N.  vi.  28,  § 
 32),  have  reference  to  Shibam,  capital  of  Iladra- 
 miiwt,  and  the  name  also  of  another  celebrated 
 city,  of  which  the  Arabian  writers  (Mardsid,  s.  v.) 
 give  curious  accounts.  The  classics  are  generally 
 agreed  in  ascribing  to  the  Sabsei  the  chief  riches, 
 the  best  territory,  and  the  greatest  numbers  of  the 
 four  principal  peoples  of  the  Arabs  which  they 
 name:  the  Sabasi,  Atramitfe  (=;  Hadramawt),  Ka- 
 tabeni  (=  Kahtan  =  Joktan),  and  Minsei  (for 
 which  see  Diklah).  See  Bochart  {PhaUr/,  xxvi.)» 
 and  Miiller's  Geoy.  Min.  p.  186  flf. 
 
 The  history  of  the  Sabteans  has  been  examined 
 by  M.  Caussin  de  Perceval  {Essai  sur  VBist.  des 
 ArcUjts),  hut  much  remains  to  be  adjusted  before 
 its  details  can  be  received  as  trustworthy,  the 
 earliest  safe  chronological  point  being  about  the 
 commencement  of  our  era.  An  examination  of 
 the  existing  remains  of  Sabaan  and  Himyerite 
 cities  and  buildings  will,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  add 
 more  facts  to  our  present  knowledge;  and  a  further 
 acquaintance  with  the  language,  from  inscriptions, 
 aided,  as  M.  Fresnel  believes,  by  an  existing  dialect, 
 will  probably  give  us  some  safe  grounds  for  placing 
 the  building,  or  era,  of  the  dyke.  In  the  art. 
 Arabia  (vol.  i.  p.  142  b),  it  is  stated  that  there 
 are  dates  on  the  ruins  of  the  dyke,  and  the  conclu 
 sions  which  De  Sacy  and  Caussin  have  drawn  from 
 those  dates  and  other  indications  respecting  the 
 date  of  the  rupture  of  the  dyke,  which  forms 
 then  an  important  point  in  Arabian  history;  but 
 it  must  be  placed  in  the  2d  century  of  our  era,  and 
 the  older  era  of  the  building  is  altogether  unfixed, 
 or  indeed  any  date  before  the  expedition  of  ^lius 
 Gallus.  The  ancient  buildings  are  of  massive 
 masonry,  and  evidently  of  Cushite  workmanship, 
 or  origin.  Later  temples,  and  palace-temples,  of 
 which  the  Arabs  give  us  descriptions,  were  prob- 
 ably of  less  massive  character;  but  Sabtean  art  is 
 an  almost  unknown  and  interesting  subject  of  in- 
 quiry. The  religion  celebrated  in  those  temples 
 was  cosmic;  but  this  subject  is  too  obscure  and  too 
 little  known  to  admit  of  discussion  in  this  place. 
 It  may  be  necessary  to  ol)serve  that  whatever  con- 
 nection there  was  in  rdujion  between  the  Sabseans 
 and  the  Sabians,  there  was  none  in  name  or  in 
 race.  Respecting  the  latter,  the  reader  may  con- 
 sult Chwolson's  Ssabier,  a  work  that  may  be 
 recommended  with  more  confidence  than  the  same 
 author's  Nnbnlhcean  A<jrkidture.  [See  Neba- 
 ioth.] Some  curious  pajiers  have  also  appeared 
 in  the  Journal  of  the  German  Oriental  Society  of 
 Leipsic,  by  Dr.  Osiander.  [Arabia,  i.  142,  note 
 c,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 II.  Sheba,  son  of  Ramah  son  of  Cush,  settled 
 somewhere  on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf  In 
 the  Mardsid  (s.  v. )  the  writer  has  found  an  identi- 
 fication which  appears  to  be  satisfactory  —  that  on 
 the  island  of  Awal  (one  of  the  "Bahreyn  Islands  ") 
 are  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  city  called  Sebii 
 Viewed  in  connection  with  Raamah,  and  tlie  other 
 facts  which  we  know  respecting  Sheba,  traces  of 
 his  settlements  ought  to  be  found  on  or  near  the 
 shores  of  the  gulf.  It  was  tiiis  Sheba  that  carried 
 on  the  great  Indian  traffic  with  Palestine,  in  (an- 
 
SHEBA 
 
 junction  with,  as  we  liold,  the  other  Sheba,  son  of 
 Jokshan  son  of  Keturah,  who,Uke  Uedan,  appears 
 to  have  formed  with  the  Cushite  of  the  same  name, 
 3ne  tribe:  the  Cushites  dwelling  on  the  shores  of 
 the  Persian  Gulf,  and  carryins;  on  the  desert  trade 
 thence  to  Palestine  in  conjunction  with  the  nomade 
 Keturahite  tribes,  whose  pasturages  were  mostly  on 
 the  western  frontier.  The  trade  is  mentioned  by 
 Ez.  xxvii.  22,  23,  in  an  unmistakable  manner;  and 
 possibly  by  Is.  Ix.  G,  and  Jer.  vi.  20,  but  these 
 latter,  we  think,  rather  refer  to  the  Joktanite  Sheba. 
 The  predatory  bands  of  the  Keturahites  are  men- 
 tioned in  Job  i.  15,  and  vi.  19,  in  a  manner  that 
 recalls  the  forays  of  modern  Bedawees.  [Comp. 
 Arabia,  Dedan,  Teman,  etc.]  E.  S.  P. 
 
 SHE'BA  (^5ty  [seivw,  an  oath]:  2a/taa; 
 Alex.  2oj8ee:  Sabee).  One  of  the  towns  of  the 
 allotment  of  Simeon  (.Josh.  xix.  2).  It  occurs  be- 
 tween Beer-sheba  and  JNIoladah.  In  the  list  of  the 
 cities  of  the  south  of  Judah,  out  of  which  those 
 of  Simeon  were  selected,  no  Sheba  appears  apart 
 £rom  Beer-sheba;  but  there  is  a  Shema  (xv.  20) 
 which  stands  next  to  Moladah,  and  which  !s  prob- 
 ably the  Sheba  in  question.  This  suggestion  is 
 supported  by  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  LXX. 
 The  change  from  b  to  m  is  an  easy  one  both  in 
 speaking  and  in  writing,  and  in  their  other  letters 
 the  words  are  identical.  Some  have  supposed  that 
 the  name  Sheba  is  a  mere  repetition  of  the  latter 
 portion  of  the  preceding  name,  Beer-sheba,  —  by 
 the  common  error  called  hoiiwivtektilon,  —  and  this 
 is  supported  by  the  facts  that  the  number  of  names 
 given  in  xix.  2-6  is,  including  Sheba,  fourteen, 
 though  the  number  stated  is  thirteen,  and  that  in 
 the  list  of  Simeon  of  1  Chr.  (iv.  28)  Shel  a  is 
 entirely  omitted.  Gesenius  suggests  that  the  «ords 
 in  xix.  2  may  be  rendered  "  Beer  sheba,  the  town, 
 with  Sheba,  the  well;  "  but  this  seems  forced,  and 
 is  besides  inconsistent  with  the  fiict  that  the  list  is 
 a  list  of  ''cities"  {T/ies.  p.  1355  a,  where  other 
 suggestions  are  cited).  G. 
 
 SHE'BAH  (ni^^tt,',  i.  e.  ShibTih  [fem.  sn-en 
 or  an  ontli]:  op/cos:  Abimdantai).  The  famous 
 well  which  gave  its  name  to  the  city  of  Beer-sheba 
 (Gen.  xxvi.  33).  According  to  this  version  of  the 
 occurrence,  Shebah,  or  more  accurately,  Shibeah, 
 was  the  fourth  of  the  series  of  wells  dug  by  Isaac's 
 people,  and  received  its  name  from  him,  apparently 
 
 in  allusion  to  the  oaths  (31,  -irilti^^,  yisshdbt'u) 
 which  had  passed  between  himself  and  the  Philis- 
 tine chieftains  the  day  before.  It  should  not  be 
 overlooked  that  according  to  the  narrative  of  an 
 earlier  chapter  the  well  owed  its  existence  and  its 
 name  to  Isaac's  father  (xxi.  32).  Indeed,  its  pre- 
 vious existence  may  be  said  to  be  implied  in  the 
 narrative  now  directly  under  consideration  (xxvi. 
 23).  The  two  transactions  are  curiously  identical 
 in  many  of  their  circumstances  —  the  rank  and 
 names  of  the  Philistine  chieftains,  the  strife  be- 
 tween the  sul)ordinates  on  either  side,  the  covenant, 
 the  adjurations,  the  city  that  took  its  name  from 
 the  well.  They  differ  alone  in  the  fact  that  the 
 chief  figure  in  the  one  case  is  Abraham,  in  the 
 other  Isaac.  Some  commentators,  as  Kalisch 
 {Gen.  p.  500),  looking  to  the  fact  that  there  are  two 
 large  wells  at  Bir  es-Seba,  propose  to  consider  the 
 two  transactions  as  distinct,  and  as  belonging  the 
 Dne  to  the  one  well,  the  other  to  the  other.  Others 
 see  in  the  two  narratives  merely  two  versions  of 
 the  circumstances  under  which  this  renowned  well 
 
 SHEBARIM 
 
 2951 
 
 was  first  dug.  And  certainly  in  the  analogy  of  the 
 early  history  of  other  nations,  and  in  the  very  close 
 correspondence  between  the  details  of  the  two  ac- 
 counts, there  is  nuich  to  support  this.    The  various 
 
 plays  on  the  meaning  of  the  name  IJSti.'',  inter- 
 preting it  as  "  seven  " — as  an  "  oath  " —  as  "  ai)un- 
 dance  "  «  —  as  "  a  lion  "  '' —  are  all  so  many  direct 
 testimonies  to  the  remote  date  and  archaic  form  of 
 this  most  venerable  of  names,  and  to  the  fact  that 
 the  narratives  of  the  early  history  of  the  Hebrews 
 are  under  the  control  of  the  same  laws  which  regu- 
 late the  early  history  of  other  nations.  G. 
 
 SHE'BAM  (Ca^ii?,  i.  e.  Sebdm:  26(8a/x({: 
 Saban).  One  of  the  tx)wns  in  the  pastoral  district 
 on  the  east  of  Jordan  —  the  "  land  of  Jazer  and 
 the  land  of  Gilead  "—demanded  and  finally  ceded 
 to  the  tribes  of  lleuben  and  Gad  (Num.  xxxii.  3, 
 only).  It  is  named  between  Elealeh  and  Nebo, 
 and  is  probably  the  same  which  in  a  subsequent 
 verse  of  the  chapter,  and  on  later  occasions,  appears 
 in  the  altered  forms  of  Shibjiah  and  Sin.MAir. 
 The  change  from  Sebam  to  Sibniah  is  perhaps  due 
 to  the  difference  between  the  Amorite  and  JNIoabite 
 and  Hebrew  languages.  (t. 
 
 SHEBANI'AH  (n:;?5t?7  [wfiom  Jehovah 
 biiilt  vp] :  in  Neh.  ix.,  S.ex^v'ia,  [Vat.  2apa/3ja, 
 FA.  2apa5ia,]  Alex,  '^axavio.;  in  Neh.  x..  2a- 
 fiaula,  [Alex.  FA.  :S,f$ai'ta-]  Sabania,  Sc-bnia 
 in  Neh.  ix.,  Sebenia  in  Neh.  x.). 
 
 1.  A  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  one  of  those 
 who  stood  upon  the  steps  of  the  Levites  and  sang 
 the  psalm  of  thanksgiving  and  confession  which  is 
 one  of  the  last  efforts  of  Hebrew  psalmody  (Neh. 
 ix.  4,  5).  He  sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah 
 (Neh.  X.  10).  In  the  LXX.  of  Neh.  ix.  4  he  is 
 made  the  son  of  Sherebiah. 
 
 2.  (2e/8ai'i  [Vat.  -(/e(,  FA.  with  preced.  word 
 rovaafiayei]  in  Neh.  x.,  2eXf'''a  [Kom.,  but  Vat. 
 Ale.K.  F.\.i  omit]  in  Neh.  xii.  14:  Sebenia.)  A 
 priest,  or  priestly  family,  who  sealed  the  covenant 
 with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  4,  xii.  14).  Called  She- 
 CHANiAH  in  Neh.  xii.  3. 
 
 3.  (2f;Savi'a:  Sabania.)  Another  Levite  who 
 sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  12). 
 
 4.  (^n^55t^-:  2o/tj'ia;  Alex.  :S,ufievia\  [FA. 
 2o/3;'6ia:]  Sebenias.)  One  of  the  priests  appointed 
 by  David  to  blow  with  the  trumpets  before  the  ark 
 of  God  (1  Chr.  xv.  24).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHEB'ARIM  (a^-in^n,  with  the  def. 
 article  [breaches,  ruins]:  a'vveTpii\iav:  Sabarim). 
 A  place  named  in  Josh.  vii.  5  only,  as  one  of  the 
 points  in  the  flight  from  Ai.  The  root  of  the  word 
 has  the  force  of  "dividing"  or  "breaking,"  and 
 it  is  therefore  suggested  that  the  name  was  at- 
 tached to  a  spot  where  there  were  fissures  or  rents 
 in  the  soil,  gradually  deepening  till  they  ended  in 
 a  sheer  descent  or  precipice  to  the  ravine  by  which 
 the  Israelites  had  come  from  Gilgal  —  "  the  going 
 
 down"  (T11X2rT;  see  verse  5  and  the  margin  of 
 the  A.  v.).  The  ground  around  the  site  of  Ai,  on 
 any  hypothesis  of  its  locality,  was  very  much  of 
 this  character.  No  trace  of  the  name  has,  how- 
 ever, been  3et  remarked. 
 
 Keil    {,/osua,  ad  loc.)    interprets  Shebarim  bj 
 
 «  This'is  Jerome's  {Qurrst.  in  Gt  ne  si  m  a,ui  Vulgate) 
 as  if  the  word  was   HiyStt',  as  in  Ez.  xvi.  49. 
 o  Tlie  modern  Arabic  Bir  es-Seba', 
 
2952 
 
 SHEBER 
 
 "  stone  ijuarries;"  but  this  does  not  appear  to  be 
 supported  by  other  commentators  or  by  lexicog- 
 raphers. The  ancient  interpreters  usually  discard 
 it  as  a  proper  name,  and  render  it  "  till  they  were 
 broken  up,"  etc.  G. 
 
 SHB'BER  ("l?!;r  [brea/dnf/,  ruin]:  2a3e>; 
 Alex.  2ej36/):  Saber).  Son  of  Caleb  ben-Hezron 
 by  his  concubine  Maachah  (1  Chr.  ii.  48). 
 
 SHEB'NA  (W3?W^  [youth,  Ges.]:  :S,ofjiuis, 
 [exc.  2  K.,  Rom.  :2oo/j.i'ds;  Is.  xxxvi.  3,  Vat.  5o,3- 
 vas-]  So/jhas).  A  person  of  high  position  in 
 Hezelviah's  court,  holding  at  one  time  the  office 
 of  prefect  of  the  prdace  (Is.  xxii.  15),  but  subse- 
 quently the  subordinate  office  of  secretar3'  (Is.  xxxvi. 
 ;j;  2  K.  xviii.  .37,  xix.  2).  This  change  appears 
 to  have  been  effected  by  Isaiah's  interposition ;  for 
 Shebna  had  incurred  the  prophet's  extreme  dis- 
 pleasure, partly  on  account  of  his  pride  (Is.  xxii. 
 16),  his  luxury  (ver.  18),  and  his  tyranny  (as  im- 
 plied in  the  title  of  "father"'  bestowed  on  liis  suc- 
 cessor, ver.  21),  and  partly  (as  appears  from  his 
 successor  being  termed  a  "servant  of  Jehovah" 
 ver.  20),  on  account  of  his  belonging  to  the  political 
 party  which  was  opposed  to  the  theocracy,  and  in 
 favor  of  the  Egyptian  alliance.  From  the  omission 
 of  the  usual  notice  of  his  father's  name,  it  has  been 
 conjectured  that  he  was  a  7wvus  homo.   W.  L.  B. 
 
 SHEBU'EL  (bsn3K7  [captive  of  God]). 
 1-  (SoujSaiiA;  [1  Chr.  xxvi.  24,  Vat.  loirjA. :]  <S«te;, 
 Subael.)  A  descendant  of  Gershom  (1  Chr.  xxiii. 
 IG,  xxvi.  24),  who  was  ruler  of  the  treasures  of  the 
 house  of  (iod ;  called  also  Shubakl  (1  Chr.  xxiv. 
 20).  Tlie  Targum  of  1  Cln:  xxvi.  24  has  a  strange 
 piece  of  confusion  :  "  And  Shebuel,  that  is,  Jona- 
 than the  son  of  Gershom  the  son  of  Moses,  returned 
 to  the  fear  of  Jelio\ah,  and  when  David  saw  that 
 he  was  skillful  in  money  matters  he  appointed  him 
 chief  over  the  treasures."  He  is  the  last  descendant 
 of  Moses  of  whom  tiiere  is  any  trace. 
 
 2.  [2ot/;8ar)\:  Subael.]  One  of  the  fourteen 
 sons  of  Heman  the  minstrel  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4);  called 
 also  SnuBAEL  (IChr.  xxv.  20),  which  was  the  read- 
 ing of  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate.  He  was  chief  of 
 the  thirteenth  band  of  twelve  in  the  Temple  choir. 
 
 SHECANI'AH  (-in^.ptp  [familiar  with 
 Jehvcah]:  'S.ex^i'tas;  [Vat.  laxavia']  Sechenia). 
 1.  The  tenth  in  order  of  the  priests  who  were  ap- 
 pointed by  lot  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  11 ). 
 
 2.  {'S.exovias'  Sechenias.)  A  priest  in  the  reign 
 of  Hezekiah,  one  of  those  appointed  in  the  cities  of 
 the  priests  to  distribute  to  their  brethren  their  daily 
 portion  for  their  service  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  15). 
 
 SHECHANI'AH  (n^:j?tp  [sec  nhove]:  2,e- 
 ;j('e«"'as  [Vat. -j/io]  :  Sechenias).  1.  .1  descendant 
 of  Zerubbabel  of  the  line  royal  of  Judah  (1  Clir.  iii. 
 21,  22). 
 
 2.  (Saxcfiay  [or  -via;  Vat.  'Xauax^as  or 
 -Xia.])  Some  descendants  of  ^ihechaniah  appear 
 to  have  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  3).  lie  is 
 called  Sechenias  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  29. 
 
 3.  (2exe»"'as."  [Vat.  omits.])  The  sons  of  She- 
 cnaniah  were  anotlier  family  who  returned  with 
 Ezra,  three  hundred  strong,  with  the  son  of  Jaha- 
 ziel  at  their  head  (Ezr.  viii.  5).  In  this  verse  some 
 name  appears  to  have  been  omitted,     'i'he  LXX. 
 
 a  From  the  foot  of  the  mountains  on  either  side  of 
 the  town  can  be  discerned  on  the  one  hand  the  range 
 beyond  Jordan  Valley,  and  on  the  other  the  blue  waters 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 has  "  of  the  sons  of  Zathoe,  Sechenias  the  son  of 
 Aziel,"  and  in  this  it  is  followed  by  1  Esdr.  viii.  32, 
 "  of  the  sons  of  Zathoe,  Sechenias  the  son  of  Je- 
 zelus."  Perhaps  the  reading  should  be:  "  of  the 
 sons  of  Zattu,  Shechaniah,  the  .son  of  Jahaziel." 
 
 4.  The  son  of  Jehiel  of  the  sons  of  Elam,  who 
 proposed  to  Ezra  to  put  an  end  to  the  foreign  mar- 
 riages which  had  been  contracted  after  the  return 
 from  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  2). 
 
 5.  The  father  of  Shemaiah  the  keeper  of  the 
 east  gate  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  29). 
 
 6.  The  son  of  Arab,  and  father-in-law  to  Tobiah 
 the  Ammonite  (Neh.  vi.  18). 
 
 7.  {2i€Xfvla:  Sebenias.)  The  head  of  a  priestly 
 fiimily  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  3). 
 He  is  also  called  Shebaniah,  and  Siiecaniah, 
 and  was  tenth  in  order  of  the  priests  in  the  reign 
 of  David. 
 
 SHE'CHEM  (D.PP,  shoulder,  ridrje,  like 
 dorsum  in  Latin :  '2,vx^lJ.  "i  most  passages,  but  also 
 7)  St/fi/uo  in  1  K.  xii.  25,  and  ra  'ZiKifxa,  as  in  Josh, 
 xxiv.  32,  the  form  used  by  Josephus  and  Eusebius, 
 with  stiil  other  variations  [as  2rj/(i|Ua,  and  in  Josh. 
 xxiv.  1,  25,  2r7A.c6]  :  Sichem,  [Sicldma  (both  sing, 
 and  pi.)]).  There  may  be  some  doubt  respecting 
 the  origin  of  the  name.  It  has  lieen  made  a  question 
 whether  the  place  was  so  called  from  Shechem  the 
 son  of  Hamor,  head  of  their  tribe  in  the  time  of 
 J.acob  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18  if.),  or  whether  he  received 
 his  name  from  the  city.  The  import  of  the  name 
 flivors  certainly  tiie  latter  supposition,  since  the  po- 
 sition of  the  place  on  the  "  saddle  "  or  "shoulder  " 
 of  the  heights  which  divide  tlie  waters  there  that 
 flow  to  the  Mediterranean  on  the  west  and  the  Jor- 
 dan on  the  east,'-"  would  n.aturally  originate  such  a 
 name;  and  the  name,  having  been  thus  introduced, 
 would  be  likely  to  appear  again  and  again  in  the 
 family  of  the  hereditary  rulers  of  the  city  or  region. 
 The  name,  too,  if  first  given  to  the  city  in  the  time 
 of  Hamor,  would  have  been  taken,  according  to 
 historical  analogy,  from  the  father  rather  than  the 
 son.  Some  interpret  Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  19  as  show- 
 ing that  Shechem  in  that  p.assage  may  have  been 
 called  also  Shalem.  But  this  opinion  has  no  sup- 
 port except  from  that  passage;  and  the  meaning 
 even  there  more  naturally  is,  that  Jacob  came  in 
 
 svfye^?/ to  Shecliem  (Q^tfj  as  an  adjective,  safe; 
 comp.  Gen.  xviii.  21);  or  (as  recognized  in  the 
 Eng.  Bible)  that  Shalem  belonged  to  Shechem  as  a 
 dependent  triV)utary  village.  [Shalem.]  The  name 
 is  also  given  in  the  Auth.  Version  in  the  form  of 
 SiciiEM,  and  Syciikm,  to  which,  as  well  as  Sy- 
 CHAR,  the  reader  is  referred. 
 
 The  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  w^ord  Shecem  in- 
 dicates, at  the  outset,  that  the  place  was  situated 
 on  some  mountain  or  hill-side;  and  that  jiresump- 
 tion  agrees  with  Josh.  xx.  7,  which  places  it  in 
 .Mount  Ephraim  (.see,  also,  1  K.  xii.  25),  and  with 
 Judg.  ix.  7,  which  represents  it  as  under  the  sum- 
 mit of  Gerizim,  which  belonged  to  the  Ephraim 
 range  The  other  Biblical  intimations  in  regard  to 
 its  situation  are  only  indirect.  They  are  worth  no- 
 ticing, though  no  great  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  them. 
 Thus,  for  example,  Shechem  must  have  been  not 
 tar  from  Shiloh,  since  Shiloh  is  said  (Judg.  xxi.  19) 
 to  be  a  little  to  the  east  of  "  the  highway  "  which 
 led  from  Beth-el  to  Shechem.     Again,  if  Shalem 
 
 of  the  Mediterranean.     The  latter  appears  in  the  illu* 
 tration  to  this  article. 
 
SHECHEM 
 
 in  Gen.  xxxiii.  18  be  a  proper  name,  as  our  version 
 assumes,  and  identical  with  tlie  present  Snlim  on 
 the  left  of  the  plain  of  the  Afiikhn'(,  then  Shechem, 
 which  is  said  to  be  east  of  Sludim,  must  have  lieen 
 among  the  hills  on  the  opposite  side.  Furtlier, 
 Shechem,  as  we  learn  from  Joseph's  history  (Gen. 
 xxxvii.  12,  &c.),  must  have  been  near  Dothan  ;  and, 
 assuming  Dothan  to  be  the  place  of  that  name  a 
 few  miles  northeast  of  Nabuhis,  Shechem  must 
 have  been  among  the  same  mountains,  not  far  dis- 
 tant. So,  too,  "as  the  Sychar  in  .Tohii  iv.  5  was 
 probably  the  ancient  Shechem,  that  town  must 
 have  been  near  INIount  Gerizim,  to  which  the  Sa- 
 maritan woman  pointed  or  glanced  as  she  stood  by 
 the  well  at  its  foot. 
 
 I'>ut  the  historical  and  traditional  data  which 
 exist  outside  of  the  liibleare  almmlant  and  decisive, 
 .losephus  (AnL  iv.  8,  §  44)  descrilies  Shechem  as 
 between  Gerizim  and  Ebal:    tTjs  2iKi/i£oc  Tr6\eais 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 2953 
 
 fxera^v  Suo7v  6po7v,  Tapi^aiov  jxiv  tov  Sk  Se|icijv 
 KfifXfvov,  ToD  5'  e/c  Kaiicv  ri(8aA.ou  irpoaayop^vo- 
 fxivov-  'riie  present  Ndhulus  is  a  corruption 
 merelv  of  Nea])olis;  and  Neapolis  succeeded  the 
 more  ancient  Shechem.  All  the  early  writers  who 
 touch  on  the  topography  of  Palestine,  testify  to 
 this  identity  of  the  two.  Josephus  usually  retains 
 the  old  name,  but  has  Neapolis  in  B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  1. 
 Epiphanius  says  {Adi).  Hcei:  iii.  1055):  eV  2i(fi- 
 /xois,  TovT  i(TTiv,  iv  TTJ  vvv\  T^fdiToA^i-  Jeronie 
 says  in  the  /•.>/<.  P  nike':  "  Transivit  Sichem.  quae 
 nunc  Neapolis  appellatur."  The  city  received  its 
 new  name  (N6a7ro\is=  Ndhulus)  from  Vespasian, 
 and  on  coins  still  extant  (Eckhel,  Borfr.  Nunim.  iii. 
 4:5.3)  is  called  Flavia  Neapolis.  It  had  been  laid 
 waste,  in  all  probability,  during  the  .Tewish  war; 
 and  the  overthrow  had  been  so  comi)lete  that,  con- 
 trary to  what  is  generally  true  in  such  instanci's 
 of  tiie  substitution  of  a  foreign  name  for  the  nati\e 
 
 TUe  Valley  and  Town  of  Ndbliis,  the  ancient  Shechem,  fm.u   the  soatli  .vesteru  flank  of  Movmfc  Ebal,  looking 
 
 westward.      The   mountain  on   the  left  is   Ueriziui.     Tiie  Mediterranean  is  discernible  in  the  d].>t.i 
 
 From  a  sketch  by  W.  Tipping,  Esq. 
 
 I 
 
 one,  the  original  appellation  of  Shechem  never 
 rigained  its  currency  among  the  people  of  the 
 country.  Its  situation  accounts  for  another  name 
 which  it  bore  among  the  natives,  while  it  was 
 known  chiefly  as  Neapolis  to  foreigners.  It  is 
 nearly  midway  between  Judsea  and  Galilee;  and, 
 it  being  customary  to  make  four  stages  of  the 
 journey  between  those  provinces,  the  second  day's 
 halt  occurs  most  conveniently  at  this  place.     Being 
 
 thus  a  "  thoroughfare "  (=  S/H"!!!}?^)  on  this 
 important  route,  it  was  called  "  also  MaBopOd  or 
 Ma0ap6d,  as  Josephus  states  (B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  1). 
 He  says  tiiere  that  Vespasian  marched  from  Am- 
 tnaus,  Sia  ttjs  Sa/xapeiTiSor  koI  irapa  ttiv  Nect- 
 voKiv   KaXovfxivriv,    Mi^opda  Se    virh   tuiv   iirt- 
 
 «  This  happy  conjecture,  in  explanation  of  a  name 
 which  baffled  even  the  iu.;enious  Reland.  is  due  to  01s- 
 t\ausen  (Hitter,  as  above). 
 18G 
 
 Xoipioiy-  riiny  (//.  A^.  v.  13)  writes  the  same 
 name  •'  Mamortha."  Others  wimld  restrict  the  term 
 somewhat,  and  understand  it  rather  of  the  "  pass  " 
 or  "  gorge  "  through  the  mountains  where  the  town 
 was  situated  (Hitter's  Krdkuiule,  P<il.  p.  646). 
 
 The  ancient  town,  in  its  most  flourishing  aice, 
 may  have  filled  a  wider  circuit  than  its  modern 
 representative.  It  could  easily  have  extendcil 
 further  up  the  side  of  Gerizim,  and  eastward  nearer 
 to  the  ojiening  into  the  valley  froni  the  plain.  IJiit 
 any  great  change  in  this  respect,  certaiidy  tiie  idea 
 of  an  altogether  diflTerent  position,  the  natural  con- 
 ditions of  the  locality  render  doubtful.  That  the 
 suburbs  of  the  town,  in  the  age  of  Christ,  aji- 
 proached  nearer  than  at  present  to  the  entrance 
 into  the  valley  between  (Jerizim  and  Ebal,  may 
 be  inferred  from  the  implied  vicinity  of  Jacob's 
 well  to  Sychar,  in  John's  narrative  (iv.  1  AT.). 
 The  impression  made  there  on  the  reader  is,  that 
 the  people  could  be  readily  seen  as  they  came  forth 
 
2954 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 from  the  town  to  repair  to  Jesus  at  the  well,  whereas 
 Nd/ndus  is  more  than  a  mile  distant,  and  not  vis- 
 ible from  that  point.  'I'he  present  inhabitants 
 have  a  belief  or  tradition  that  Siiechem  occupied  a 
 portion  of  the  valley  on  the  east  beyond  the  limits 
 of  the  modern  town ;  and  certain  travellers  speak 
 of  ruins  there,  which  they  regard  as  evidence  of  the 
 same  fact.  The  statement  of  Eusebius  that  Sychar 
 lay  east  of  Neapolis,  may  be  explained  by  the  cir- 
 cumstance, that  the  part  of  Neapolis  in  that  quar- 
 ter had  fallen  into  such  a  state  of  ruin  when  he 
 lived,  as  to  he  mistaken  for  the  site  of  a  separate 
 town  (see  Keland's  Pakest.  p.  1004).  The  portion 
 of  the  town  on  the  edge  of  the  plain  was  more  ex- 
 posed than  that  in  the  recess  of  the  valley,  and,  in 
 the  natural  course  of  things,  would  be  destroyed 
 first,  or  be  left  to  desertion  and  decay.  Josephus 
 says  that  more  than  ten  thousand  Samaritans  (in- 
 habitants of  Shechera  are  meant)  were  destroyed 
 by  the  Romans  on  one  occasion  {B.  J.  iii.  7,  §  32). 
 The  population,  therefore,  must  have  been  much 
 greater  than  Ndlinlus  with  its  present  dimensions 
 would  contain. 
 
 The  situation  of  the  town  is  one  of  surpassing 
 beauty.  "  The  land  of  Syria,"  said  Mohammed, 
 "  is  beloved  by  Allah  beyond  all  lands,  and  the  [lart 
 of  Syria  which  He  lo\eth  most  is  the  district  of  -le- 
 rusalem,  and  the  place  which  He  loveth  most  in  the 
 district  of  Jerusalem  is  the  mountain  of  Nablus'" 
 {Ftim/f/r.  (les  Orients,  ii.  139).  Its  appearance  has 
 called  forth  the  admiration  of  all  travellers  who  have 
 any  sensibility  to  the  charms  of  nature.  It  lies  in  a 
 sheltered  valley,  protected  by  Gerizim  on  the  south, 
 and  Ebal  on  the  north.  The  feet  of  these  nioun- 
 iains,  where  they  rise  from  the  town,  are  not  more 
 than  five  hundred  yards  apart.  The  bottom  of  the 
 valley  is  about  1800  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea, 
 and  the  top  of  Gerizim  800  feet  higher  still.  Those 
 who  have  been  at  Heidellierg  will  assent  to  O.  von 
 Richter's  remark,  that  the  scenery,  as  viewed  from 
 the  foot  of  the  hills,  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  beauti- 
 ful German  town.  The  site  of  the  present  city, 
 which  we  believe  to  have  been  also  that  of  the  He- 
 brew city,  occurs  exactly  on  the  water-summit;  and 
 streams  issuing  from  the  numerous  springs  there, 
 flow  down  the  opposite  slopes  of  the  valley,  spread- 
 ing verdure  and  fertility  in  every  direction.  Travel- 
 lers vie  with  each  other  in  the  language  which  they 
 employ  to  describe  the  scene  that  bursts  here  so 
 suddenly  upon  them  on  arriving  in  spring  or  early 
 summer  at  this  paradise  of  the  Holy  Land.  The 
 somewhat  sterile  aspect  of  the  adjacent  mountains 
 becomes  it.self  a  foil,  as  it  were,  to  set  off  the  effect 
 of  the  verdant  fields  and  orchards  which  fill  up  the 
 valley.  "  There  is  nothing  finer  in  all  Palestine," 
 says  Dr.  Clarke,  "  than  a  view  of  Nabtilus  from  the 
 heights  around  it.  As  the  traveller  descends  to- 
 wards it  from  the  hills,  it  appears  luxuriantly  em- 
 bosomed in  the  most  delightful  and  fragrant  bow- 
 ers, half  concealed  by  rich  gardens  and  by  stately 
 trees  collected  into  groves,  all  around  the  bold  and 
 beautiful  valley  in  which  it  .stands."  "  The  whole 
 valley,"  says  Dr.  Robin.son,  "  was  filled  witli  gar- 
 dens of  vegetables,  and  orchards  of  all  kinds  of 
 fruits,  watered  by  fountains,  which  liiu'st  forth  in 
 various  parts  and  flow  westwards  in  refreshing 
 streams.     It  came  upon  us  suddenly  like  a  scene 
 
 SIIECHEM 
 
 of  fairy  enchantment.  We  saw  uothing  to  com- 
 pare with  it  in  all  Palestine.  Here,  beneath  the 
 shadow  of  an  innnense  mulberry- tree,  by  the  side 
 of  a  purling  rill,  we  pitched  our  tent  for  the  re- 
 mainder  of  the   day    and  the  night 
 
 We  rose  early,  awakened  by  the  songs  of  nightin- 
 gales and  other  binls,  of  which  the  gardens  around 
 us  were  full."  "  Tliere  is  no  wilderness  here," 
 says  Van  de  Velde  (i.  380),  "there  are  no  wild 
 thickets,  yet  there  is  always  verdure,  always  shade, 
 not  of  the  oak,  the  terebinth,  and  the  carob-tree,  but 
 of  the  olive-grove,  so  soft  in  color,  so  picturesque 
 in  form,  that,  for  its  sake,  we  can  willingly  dis- 
 pense with  all  other  wood.  There  is  a  singularity 
 about  the  vale  of  Shechem,  and  that  is  the  pecul- 
 iar coloring  which  olijects  assume  in  it.  You 
 know  that  wherever  there  is  water  the  air  becomes 
 charged  with  watery  particles,  and  that  distant  ob- 
 jects beheld  through  that  medium  seem  to  be  en- 
 veloped in  a  pale  blue  or  gray  mist,  such  as 
 contributes  not  a  little  to  give  a  charm  to  the  laud- 
 scape.  But  it  is  precisely  those  atmospheric  tints 
 that  we  miss  so  much  in  Palestine.  Fiery  tints 
 are  to  be  seen  both  in  the  morning  and  the  even- 
 ing, and  glittering  violet  or  purple  colored  hues 
 where  the  light  falls  next  to  the  long,  deep  shad- 
 ows; but  tliere  is  an  absence  of  colorilig,  and  of 
 that  charming  dusky  hue  in  which  objects  assume 
 such  softly  blended  forms,  and  in  which  also  the 
 transition  in  color  from  the  foreground  to  the 
 furthest  distance  loses  the  hardness  of  outline  pe- 
 culiar to  the  perfect  transparency  of  an  eastern  sky. 
 It  is  otherwise  in  the  vale  of  Shechem,  at  least  in 
 the  morning  and  the  evening.  Here  the  exhala- 
 tions remain  hovering  among  the  branches  and 
 leaves  of  the  olive  trees,  and  hence  that  lovely  blu- 
 ish haze.  The  valley  is  far  from  broad,  not  ex- 
 ceeding in  some  places  a  few  hundred  feet.  This 
 you  find  generally  inclosed  on  all  sides;  here,  like- 
 wise, the  vapors  are  condensed.  And  so  you 
 advance  under  the  shade  of  the  foliage,  along  the 
 living  waters,  and  charmed  by  the  melody  of  a  host 
 of  singing  birds  —  for  they,  too,  know  where  to 
 find  their  best  quarters  —  while  the  perspective 
 fades  away  and  is  lost  in  the  damp,  vapory  atmos- 
 phere." Apart  entirely  from  the  historic  interest 
 of  the  place,  such  are  the  natural  attractions  of  this 
 favorite  resort  of  the  jiatriarchs  of  old,  such  the 
 beauty  of  the  scenery,  and  the  indescribable  air  of 
 tranquillity  and  repose  which  hangs  over  the  scene, 
 that  the  traveller,  anxious  as  he  may  be  to  hasten 
 forward  in  his  journey,  feels  that  he  would  gladly 
 linger,  and  could  pass  here  days  and  weeks  without 
 impatience. 
 
 The  allusions  to  Shechem  in  the  Bible  are  nu- 
 merous, and  show  how  important  the  place  was  in 
 Jewish  history.  Abraham,  on  his  first  migration 
 to  the  Land  of  Promise,  pitched  his  tent  and  built 
 an  altar  inider  the  Oak  "  (or  Terebinth)  of  IMoreh 
 at  Shechem.  "  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
 land;  "  and  it  is  evident  that  the  region,  if  not  the 
 city,  was  already  in  possession  of  the  aboriginal 
 race  (see  Gen.  xii.  6).     Some  have  inferred  from 
 
 the    expression,    "place   of    Shechem,"     (D1~P 
 
 □DC.''),  that  it  was  not  inhabited  as  a  city  in  the 
 
 a  The  rendering  "plains  of  Moreh  '■  ia  the  Auth. 
 Vers,  is  incorrect.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  trans- 
 lilt's  n^S  in  Gen.  xxxv.  4  "  bow  "  or  "arch  ;  ■'  and 
 
 on  the  basis  of  that  error  the  Samaritans  at  Nabulits 
 sliow  a  structure  of  that  sort  under  an  acclivity  of 
 Gerizim,  which  they  say  was  the  spot  where  Jacob 
 buried  tlie  Mesopotamian  idols. 
 
SHECHEM 
 
 lime  of  Abraham.  But  we  have  the  same  expres- 
 sion used  of  cities  or  towns  in  other  instances  (fJeii. 
 xviii.  24,  xix.  12,  xxix.  22);  and  it  may  have  been 
 interchanged  here,  without  any  difterence  of  mean- 
 ing, with  the  phrase,  "  city  of  .Shecheni,"  which 
 occurs  in  xxxiii.  18.  A  position  affording  such 
 natural  advantages  would  hardly  fail  to  be  occupied, 
 as  soon  as  any  population  existed  in  the  country. 
 The  narrative  shows  incontestably  that  at  the  time 
 of  Jacob's  arrival  here,  after  his  sojourn  in  Meso- 
 potamia (Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  xxxiv.),  Sliechem  was  a 
 Hivite  city,  of  wliicli  Hamor,  the  father  of  Shechem, 
 was  the  head-man.  It  was  at  tliis  time  that  the 
 patriarch  purchased  from  that  chieftain  "  the  parcel 
 of  the  field,"  which  he  subsequently  bequeathed,  as 
 a  special  patrimony,  to  his  son  Joseph  (Gen.  xliii. 
 22;  Josh.  xxiv.  32;  John  iv.  .5).  The  field  lay  un- 
 doubtedly on  the  rich  plain  of  the  Muk/inri,  and 
 its  value  was  the  greater  on  account  of  the  well 
 which  Jacob  had  dug  there,  so  as  not  to  be  depend- 
 ent on  his  neighbors  for  a  supply  of  water.  The 
 defilement  of  Dinah,  Jacob's  daughter,  and  the 
 capture  of  Shechem  and  massacre  of  all  the  male 
 inhabitants  liy  Simeon  and  Levi,  are  events  that 
 belong  to  tiiis  period  (Gen.  xxxiv.  1.  f.).  As  tliis 
 bloody  act,  which  Jacob  so  entirely  condemned 
 (Gen.  xxxiv.  30)  and  reprobated  with  his  dying 
 breath  (Gen.  xhx.  5-7),  is  ascribed  to  two  persons, 
 some  urge  that  as  evidence  of  the  very  insignificant 
 character  of  the  town  at  the  time  of  that  transac- 
 tion. But  the  argument  is  loy  no  means  decisive. 
 Those  sons  of  .lacob  were  already  at  the  head  of 
 households  of  their  own,  and  may  have  had  the 
 support,  in  that  achievement,  of  their  numerous 
 slaves  and  retainers.  We  speak,  in  lil\e  manner, 
 of  a  commander  as  takirtg  this  or  that  city,  when 
 we  mean  that  it  was  done  under  his  leadership. 
 The  oak  imder  which  Abraham  had  worshipped, 
 survived  to  Jacolj's  time;  and  tlie  latter,  as  he  was 
 about  to  remove  to  Beth-el,  collected  the  images  and 
 amulets  which  some  of  his  family  had  brought  with 
 them  from  Padan-aram,  and  buried  them  "  under 
 the  oak  which  was  by  Shechem  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  1-4). 
 The  "  oak  of  the   monument "  (if  we  adopt  that 
 
 rendering  of  3--P  P ''^  "i  Judg.  ix.  6),  where 
 the  Shechemites  made  Abinielech  king,  marked, 
 perhaps,  the  veneration  with  which  the  Heltrews 
 looked  back  to  these  earliest  footsteps  (the  incunnb- 
 ula  (jentis)  of  the  patriarchs  in  the  Holy  Land." 
 During  Jacoli's  sojourn  at  Hebron,  his  sons,  in  the 
 course  of  their  pastoral  wanderings,  drove  their 
 flocks  to  Shechem,  and  at  Ilothan,  in  that  neigh- 
 borhood, Joseph,  who  had  been  sent  to  look  after 
 their  welfare,  was  .seized  and  sold  to  the  Ishmaelites 
 (Gen.  xxxvii.  12,  28).  In  the  distribution  of  the 
 land  after  its  conquest  by  the  Hebrews,  Shechem 
 fell  to  the  lot  of  Ephraim  (Josh.  xx.  7),  but  was 
 assigned  to  the  Levites,  and  became  a  city  of 
 refuge  (Josh.  xxi.   20,  21).     It  acquired   new  im- 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 2955 
 
 a  Here  again  the  Auth.  Vers.,  which  renders  "the 
 plain  of  the  pillar,",  is  certiunly  wrong.  It  will  not 
 answer  to  insist  on  the  explanation  suggested  in  the 
 text  of  the  article.  The  Hebrew  expression  may  re- 
 fer to  "  the  stone  "  which  Joshua  erected  at  Shechem 
 IS  a  witness  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  his  peo- 
 ple (.Josh.  xxiv.  26) ;  or  may  mean  "  the  oak  of  the 
 garrison,-'  i.  e.  the  one  where  a  military  post  was  es- 
 lablished.  (See  Gesen.  Heb.  Leic.  s.  v.)  [Piix.\R, 
 Plain  of  the,  vol.  iii.  p.  2532.] 
 
 &  *  The  possibility  of  hearing  such  responsive 
 voices  has  been  questioned ;  but  travellers  have  now 
 
 portance  as  the  scene  of  the  renewed  promulgation 
 of  the  Law,  when  its  blessings  were  beard  from 
 Gerizim  and  its  curses  from  Ebal,  and  the  people 
 bowed  their  heads  and  acknowledged  Jehovah  as 
 their  king  and  ruler  (Deut.  xxvii.  11;  and  Josh, 
 viii.  33-35).''  It  was  here  Joshua  assembled 'the 
 peo|)le,  shortly  before  his  death,  and  delivered  to 
 them  his  last  counsels  (Josh.  xxiv.  1,  25).  After 
 the  death  of  Gideon,  Abimelech,  his  b.astard  son, 
 induced  the  Shechemites  to  revolt  from  tlie  Hebrew 
 commonwealth  and  elect  him  as  king  (Judg.  ix.). 
 It  was  to  denounce  this  act  of  usurpation  and  trea- 
 son that  Jotham  delivered  his  parable  of  the  trees 
 to  the  men  of  Shechem  from  the  top  of  Gerizim, 
 as  recorded  at  length  in  Judg.  ix.  22  f.  The  pic- 
 turesque traits  of  the  allegory,  as  I'rof.  Stanley 
 suggests  (S.  cf  P.  p.  236;  Jewish  Church,  p.  348), 
 are  strikingly  appropriate  to  the  diversified  foliage 
 of  the  region.'^  In  revenge  for  his  expulsion,  after 
 a  reign  of  three  years,  Aliimelech  destroyed  tlie  city, 
 and,  as  an  emblem  of  the  fate  to  which  he  would 
 consign  it,  sowed  the  ground  with  salt  (Judg.  ix. 
 34-45).  It  was  soon  restored,  however,  for  we  are 
 told  in  1  K.  xii.  that  all  Israel  assembled  at 
 Shechem,  and  Keholioam,  Solomon's  successor, 
 went  thither  to  be  inaugurated  as  king.  Its  cen- 
 tral position  made  it  convenient  for  such  asseuililies; 
 its  history  was  fraught  with  recollections  which 
 would  give  the  sanctions  of  religion  as  well  as  of 
 patriotism  to  the  vows  of  sovereign  and  jieople. 
 The  new  king's  obstinacy  made  him  insensible  to 
 such  influences.  Here,  at  this  same  place,  the  ten 
 friljes  renounced  the  hou.se  of  David,  and  trans- 
 ferred their  allegiance  to  Jerolioam  (1  K.  xii.  16), 
 under  whom  Shechem  became  for  a  time  the  capi- 
 tal of  his  kingdom.  We  come  next  to  the  epoch 
 of  the  exile.  The  people  of  Shechem  doubtless 
 shared  the  fate  of  the  other  inhabitants,  and  were, 
 most  of  them  .at  least,  carried  into  captivity  (2  K. 
 xvii.  5,  6,  xviii.  9  f. ).  But  Shalmaneser,  the  con- 
 queror, sent  colonies  from  Baljylonia  to  occupy  the 
 place  of  the  exiles  (2  K.  xvii.  24).  It  \vould  seem 
 that  there  was  another  influx  of  strangers,  at  a 
 later  period,  under  I'^sar-haddon  (Ezr.  iv.  2).  The 
 "  certain  men  from  Shechem,"  mentioned  in  Jer. 
 xii.  5,  who  were  slain  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem, 
 were  possibly  Cuthites,  i.  e.  Babylonian  immigrants 
 who  had  become  proselytes  or  worshippers  of  Jeho- 
 vah (see  Hitzig,  der  Proph.  Jer.  p.  331).  These 
 Babylonian  settlers  in  the  land,  intermixed  no 
 doubt  to  .some  extent  with  the  old  inhabitants,  were 
 the  Samaritans,  who  erected  at  length  a  rival  tem- 
 ple on  Gerizim  (b.  c.  300),  and  between  whom  and 
 the  Jews  a  bitter  hostility  existed  for  so  many  ages 
 (Jo.seph.  Ant.  xii.  1,  §  1,  xiii.  3,  §  4).  The  son  of 
 Siracli  (1.  26)  says,  that  "a  foolish  people,"  /.  e. 
 the  Samaritans,  "  dwell  at  Shechem  "  {to.  liKt/xa)- 
 From  its  vicinity  to  their  pl.ace  of  worsbi]),  it  be- 
 came the  principal  city  of  the  Samaritans,  a  rank 
 which  it  maintained  at  least  till  the  destruction  of 
 
 frequently  made  the  experiment  and  find  they  can 
 hear  others  with  perfect  distinctness  from  the  opposite 
 heights.  See  Sepp's  Jerus.  u.  das  heil.  Lam/,  ii.  29; 
 and  Tobler's  Dritte  Wanderung ,  p.  164  f.  H. 
 
 c  *  Dr.  Rosen  points  out  a  huge  projecting  crag  of 
 Gerizim  which  overlooks  Shechem  .<ind  the  entire  val- 
 ley, .as  in  all  probability  the  rock-pulpit  from  which 
 Jotham  addres.sed  the  Shechemites  (Judg.  ix.  7  fF.). 
 From  that  position  as  "  he  lifted  up  his  voice  "  he 
 could  easily  be  heard  by  the  dwellers  in  the  city.  The 
 same  thing  occurred  in  a  recent  attempt  there  to  insti- 
 gate a  revolt.  H. 
 
2956 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 their  temple,  about  b.  c.  129,  a  period  of  nearly 
 two  hundred  years  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  9,  §  1 ;  B.  J. 
 i.  2,  6).  It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  sketch 
 further.  Fi-om  tlie  time  of  the  origin  of  the  Sa- 
 maritans, the  history  of  Shechem  blends  itself  with 
 that  of  this  people  and  of  their  sacred  mount, 
 Gerizirn ;  and  tiie  reader  will  find  the  proper  in- 
 formation on  this  part  of  the  subject  under  those 
 heads  (see  Iler/.og,  Renl-Encyk.  xiii.  SO'i).      [Sa- 
 
 M.\KI.V;  S.VMAKITAX  PeNT.] 
 
 As  intimated  already,  Sliechem  reappears  in  the 
 New  'restatnent.  It  is  the  Sychar  of  .Joini  iv.  5, 
 near  which  the  Saviour  conversed  with  the  Samari- 
 tan woman  at  .Jacob's  Well."  2ux"Pi  "*  *''^  ])\a.ce 
 is  termed  there  (2iX"P  '"  •^^'^-  ^''*''  •*  incorrect), 
 found  only  in  that  passage,  was  no  doubt  current 
 among  the  Jews  in  the  age  of  Christ,  and   was 
 
 either  a  term  of  reproach  (1p_t£',  "a  lie,")  with 
 reference  to  the  Samaritan  faith  and  worship,  or, 
 possibly,  a  provincial  mispronunciation  of  that 
 period  (see  Liiclte's  Comin.  iib.  Jvhan.  i.  577).  The 
 Saviour,  with  his  disciples,  remained  two  days  at 
 Sychar  on  his  journey  from  Judaja  to  Galilee.  He 
 preached  the  ^^'ord  there,  and  many  of  the  people 
 believed  on  Him  (John  iv.  39,  40).  In  Acts  vii. 
 IG,  Stephen  reminds  his  hearers  that  certain  of 
 the  j)atriarchs  (meaning  Joseph,  as  we  see  in 
 Josh.  x.kIv.  32,  and  following,  perhaps,  some  tra- 
 dition as  to  Jacob's  other  sons)  were  buried  at 
 Sychem.  Jerome,  who  lived  so  long  hardly  more 
 than  a  day's  journey  from  Shechem,  says  that  the 
 tombs  of  the  twelve  patriarclis  were  to  be  seen'' 
 there  in  his  day.  The  anonymous  ^  city  in  Acts 
 viii.  5,  where  Philip  preached  with  sucli  ettect,  may 
 have  been  Sychem,  though  many  would  refer  that 
 narrative  to  Samaria,  the  capital  of  the  province. 
 It  is  interesting  to  remember  that  Justin  Martyr, 
 who  follows  so  soon  after  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
 was  born  at  Shechem. 
 
 It  only  i-emains  to  add  a  few  words  relating 
 more  especially  to  Nabidus^  the  heir,  under  a  dif- 
 ferent name,  of  the  site  and  honors  of  the  ancient 
 Shechem.  It  would  be  inexcusable  not  to  avail 
 oursehes  here  of  some  recent  observations  of  Dr. 
 Rosen,  in  the  Zeitsclir.  der  D.  M.  Gesellsdn'J'l, 
 for  1800  (pp.  G22-639).  He  has  inserted  in  that 
 journal  a  careful  plan  of  Ndbulus  and  the  environs, 
 with  various  accompanying  remarks.  The  popu- 
 lation consists  of  about  five  thousand,  among 
 whom  are  five  hundred  Greek  Christians,  one  hun- 
 dred and  fifty  Samaritans,  and  a  fevi'  Jews.  The 
 enmity  between  the  Samaritans  and  Jews  is  as 
 inveterate  still  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Christ. 
 The  Slohammedans,  of  course,  make  up  the  bulk  of 
 the  population.  The  main  street  follows  the  line 
 of  the  valley  from  east  to  west,  and  contains  a  well- 
 stocked  bazaar.  jNIost  of  the  other  streets  cross 
 this :  here  are  the  smaller  shops  and  the  workstands 
 ■  of  the  artisans.  Jlost  of  the  streets  are  narrow  and 
 dark,  as  the  houses  hang  over  them  on  arches,  very 
 
 a  *  Some  suppose  Shechem  and  Sj  char  to  be  ditfer- 
 ent  places.  See  the  arguments  for  that  view  under 
 SrcHAR.  Dr.  Robiusou  reaffirms  his  belief  that  they 
 are  identical  (Lnler  Res.  iii.  131 :  see  also  ii.  290-292). 
 And  Mr.  Tristram  says :  "  Jacob's  well  is  only  half 
 an  hour  from  the  modern  city  "  {Nabulus,  Shechem), 
 while  ■'  it  is  evident  that  the  ancient  town  lay  more 
 to  the  east,  among  the  rough  rocks  and  stone  that 
 strew  the  uninclosed  and  scattered  olive  yards  for 
 »  mile  and  a  half"  {Land  of  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  14.5). 
 
 H. 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 much  as  in  the  closest  parts  of  Cairo.  The  houses 
 are  of  stone,  and  of  the  most  ordinary  style,  with 
 the  exception  of  those  of  the  wealthy  sheikhs  of 
 Samaria  who  live  here.  There  are  no  public  build- 
 ings of  any  note.  The  Kemseh  or  synagogue  of 
 the  Samaritans  is  a  small  edifice,  in  the  interior  of 
 which  there  is  nothing  remarkable,  unless  it  l)e  an 
 alcove,  screened  by  a  curtain,  in  which  their  sacred 
 writings  are  kept.  The  structure  may  be  tliree 
 or  four  centuries  old.  A  description  and  sketch 
 plan  of  it  is  given  in  Mr.  Grove's  paper  "  On  the 
 Modern  Samaritans"  in  Vacation  Timrhts  for  ISfil. 
 Nabuhis  has  five  mosques,  two  of  which,  according 
 to  a  tradition  in  whicli  Mohanmiedans,  Christians, 
 and  Samaritans  agree,  were  originally  churches. 
 One  of  them,  it  is  said,  was  dedicated  to  John  the 
 Baptist;  its  eastern  portal,  still  well  preserved, 
 shows  the  European  taste  of  its  founders.  The 
 domes  of  the  houses  and  the  minarets,  as  they 
 show  themselves  above  the  sea  of  luxuriant  vegeta- 
 tion which  surrounds  them,  present  a  striking  view 
 to  the  traveller  approaching  from  the  east  or  the 
 west. 
 
 Dr.  Rosen  says  that  the  inhabitants  boast  of  the 
 existence  of  not  less  than  eighty  springs  of  water 
 within  and  around  the  city.  He  gives  the  names 
 of  twenty-seven  of  the  principal  of  them.  ( )ne  of 
 the  most  remarkable  among  them  is  'Ain  el-Ktruii, 
 which  rises  in  the  town  under  a  vaulted  dome,  to 
 which  a  long  flight  of  steps  leads  down,  from  which 
 the  abundant  water  is  conveyed  by  canals  to  two  of 
 the  mosques  and  many  of  the  private  ho\ises,  and 
 after  that  serves  to  water  the  gardens  on  the  north 
 side  of  the  city.  The  various  streams  derived  from 
 this  and  other  fountains,  after  being  distrilmtcd 
 thus  among  the  gardens,  fall  at  length  into  a  single 
 channel  and  turn  a  mill,  kept  going  summer  and 
 winter.  Of  the  fountains  out  of  the  city,  three 
 only  belong  to  the  eastern  water-slied.  One  of 
 them,  ^Ain  Buldia,  clo.se  to  the  liandet  of  that 
 name,  rises  in  a  partly  subterranean  chamber  sup- 
 ported by  three  pillars,  hardly  a  stone's  throw 
 from  Jacob's  \^'ell,  and  is  so  large  that  Dr.  Rosen 
 observed  small  fish  in  it.  Another,  'Ain  'Aslcni; 
 issues  from  an  arched  passage  which  leads  into 
 the  l)ase  of  Ebal,  and  flows  thence  into  a  taiik 
 inclosed  by  hewn  stone,  the  workmanship  of  which, 
 as  well  as  the  archway,  indicates  an  ancient  origin. 
 The  third,  ^Ain  JJefiui,  which  comes  from  the  same 
 mountains,  reminds  us.  by  its  name  (Aacpvri),  of 
 the  time  when  Shechem  was  called  Neapolis. 
 Some  of  the  gardens  are  watered  from  the  fountains, 
 while  others  have  a  soil  so  moist  as  not  to  need 
 such  irrigation.  The  olive,  as  in  the  days  when 
 Jotham  delivered  his  famous  parable,  is  still  the 
 principal  tree.  Figs,  almonds,  walimts,  nmlberries, 
 grapes,  oranges,  apricots,  promegranates,  are  abun- 
 dant. The  valley  of  the  Nile  itself  hardly  surpasses 
 Nabulus  in  the  production  of  vegetables  of  every 
 sort. 
 
 Being,  as  it  is,  the  gateway  of  the  trade  between 
 
 ft  Probably  at  the  Rejel  el-Amtid,  a  wely  at  the  foot 
 of  Gerizim,  east  of  the  city,  which  is  still  beheved  to 
 contiiiu  the  remains  of  forty  eminent  Jewish  .laints 
 (Rosen,  as  above).  Dr.  Stanley  api^ears  to  have  been 
 the  first  to  notice  the  possible  connection  between 
 the  name  Amii//,  "  pillar,"  attiiched  to  this  wet;/,  as 
 well  as  to  one  on  the  west  end  of  Ebal,  and  the  old 
 Hebrew  locality  the  "  oak  of  the  Pillar." 
 
 c  The  Auth.  Vers,  inaccurately  adds  the  article.  It 
 is  simply  ''a  city  of  Samaria." 
 
SHECHEM 
 
 Jdjffa  and  Beirut  on  the  one  side,  and  the  traus- 
 Jordauic  districts  on  the  other,  and  the  centre  also 
 of  a  province  so  rich  in  wool,  grain,  and  oil,  Nd/j- 
 ulus  becomes,  necessarily,  the  seat  of  an  active 
 coiiinierce,  and  of  a  comparative  luxury  to  be  found 
 in  very  few  of  tiie  inland  oriental  cities.  It  pro- 
 duces, in  its  own  niaiuifactories,  many  of  the 
 coarser  woolen  fabrics,  delicate  silk  goods,  cloth  of 
 camel's  hair,  and  especially  soap,  of  which  last  com- 
 modity large  quantities,  after  supplying  the  inuue- 
 diate  country,  are  sent  to  Egypt  and  other  parts 
 of  the  ]'".ast.  The  ashes  and  other  sediments 
 thrown  out  of  the  city,  as  the  result  of  the  soap 
 manufacture,  have  grown  to  the  size  of  hills,  and 
 give  to  the  environs  of  the  town  a  peculiar  aspect. 
 [Ashes,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 Dr.  llosen,  during  his  staj'  at  Ndbulus,  examined 
 anew  the  Samaritan  inscriptions  found  there,  sup- 
 posed to  be  among  the  oldest  written  nionunieuts 
 in  Palestine,  fie  has  furnished,  as  i'rofessor  Kodi- 
 ger  admits,  the  best  copy  of  them  that  has  been 
 taken  (see  a  tac-simile  in  ZulschriJ'/,  as  above,  p. 
 621).  The  inscriptions  on  stone- tablets,  distni- 
 guished  in  his  account  as  No.  1  and  No.  2,  belonged 
 originally  to  a  Samaritan  synagogue  which  stood 
 just  out  of  the  city,  near  the  Samaritan  quarter, 
 of  which  synagogue  a  few  remains  only  are  now 
 left.  'I'hey  are  tliought  to  be  as  old  at  least  as 
 the  age  of  Justinian,  who  (A.  i>.  52U)  destroyed 
 so  many  of  the  Samaritan  places  of  worship.  Some, 
 with  less  reason,  think  they  may  have  been  saved 
 from  the  temple  on  Gerizim,  having  been  transferred 
 afterwards  to  a  later  synagogue.  One  of  the  tab- 
 lets is  now  inserted  in  tiie  wall  of  a  minaret;"  the 
 other  was  discovered  not  long  ago  in  a  heap  of 
 rubbish  not  far  iwm  it.  The  inscriptions  consist 
 of  brief  extracts  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
 probably  valuable  as  palajographic  documents. 
 
 Similar  slabs  are  to  be  found  built  into  tlie  walls 
 of  several  of  the  sanctuaries  in  the  neighborhood 
 of  Ndbulus;  as  at  the  tombs  of  Eleazar,  l^hinehas, 
 and  Ithamar  at  Awtrlali.  H.  13.  11. 
 
 To  tlie  preceding  account  some  notice  should  be 
 appended  of  the  two  spots  in  the  neighborhood  of 
 Ndbulus  which  bear  the  names  of  the  Well  of  .Jacob 
 and  the  Tomb  of  .Joseph.  Of  these  the  former  is 
 the  more  remarkable.  It  lies  about  a  mile  and  a 
 half  east  of  the  city,  close  to  the  lower  road,  and 
 just  beyond  the  wi'etched  hamlet  of  Buldti. 
 Among  the  Mahommedans  and  Samaritans  it  is 
 known  as  Bir  tl-  I'ldcub,  or  'Aln  Yukub  ;  the  Chris- 
 tians sometimes  call  it  Bir  es-Samurlijth  —  "  the 
 well  of  tlie  .Samaritan  woman."  "  A  low  spur  pro- 
 jects liom  the  base  of  Gerizim  in  a  northeastern 
 direction,  between  the  plain  and  the  opening  of  the 
 
 a  *  A  more  perfect  copy  of  this  tablet  "  immured 
 (upside  down)  in  tlie  southei-n  wall  of  the  miuaret " 
 has  been  lately  taken  (1866)  by  the  explorers  of  the 
 Palestine  Exploration  I'uud.  Dr.  Roseu"s  copy  left 
 three  of  its  teu  lines  incomplete,  with  some  of  tlie  char- 
 acters in  other  parts  very  indistinct.  Mr.  Deutscli  of 
 the  IJritish  Museum,  to  whom  the  photograph  was  sub- 
 mitted, has  favored  us  with  a  report  of  the  contents  of 
 the  stone.  These  are,  first,  au  abbreviated  form  of 
 the  Ten  Coumiandments  as  found  in  tlie  Samaritan 
 Veceusion  (8  lines) ;  secondly,  a  sentence  taken  from 
 ihe  interpolated  passage  following  these  command- 
 ments in  the  Samaritan  Oodex  (line  9) ;  and  finally 
 (line  10),  the  formula,  "Arise,  0  Lordl  Return,  0  Lord  1 " 
 which  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  Samaritan  worship, 
 j-t  is  probably  the  oldest  Samaritan  epigraph  in  exist- 
 ence.    (See  Athenceum,  June  30,  1866.)  H. 
 
 SHECHEM  2957 
 
 valley.  On  the  point  of  this  spur  is  a  little  mound 
 of  shapeless  ruins,  with  several  fragments  of  granite 
 columns.  I5eside  these  is  the  well.  Formerly  there 
 was  a  square  hole,  opening  into  a  carefully-built 
 vaulted  chamber,  about  10  feet  square,  in  the  Moor 
 of  which  was  the  true  mouth  of  the  well.  Now  a 
 portion  of  the  vault  has  fallen  in  and  completely 
 covered  up  the  mouth,  so  that  nothing  can  be  seen 
 above  but  a  shallow  pit  half  filled  with  stones  and 
 rubbish.  The  well  is  deep  —  75  feet''  when  last 
 measured — and  there  was  probably  a  considerable 
 accumulation  of  rubbish  at  the  bottom.  Sometimes 
 it  contains  a  few  feet  of  water,  but  at  others  it  is 
 quite  dry.  It  is  entirely  excavated  in  the  solid 
 rock,  perfectly  round,  0  feet  in  diameter,  with  the 
 sides  hewn  smooth  and  regular"  (Porter,  Jlamlbvok; 
 p.  t540).  "  It  has  every  claim  to  be  considered  the 
 original  well,  sunk  deep  into  the  rocky  ground  by 
 'our  father  Jacob.'  "  This  at  least  was  the  tradi- 
 tion of  the  place  in  the  last  days  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
 ple (John  iv.  G,  12).  And  its  position  adds  proba- 
 bility to  the  conclusion,  indicating,  as  has  been  well 
 observed,  that  it  was  there  dug  by  one  who  could 
 not  trust  to  the  springs  so  near  in  the  adjacent 
 vale  —  the  springs  of  ^Ain  Bnldta  and  M/w  J^>^J- 
 ntli  — •  which  still  belonged  to  the  Canaanites.  Of 
 all  the  special  localities  of  our  Lord's  life,  this  is 
 almost  the  only  one  absolutely  undisputed.  "  The 
 tradition,  in  which  by  a  singular  coincidence  Jews 
 and  Samaritans,  Christians  and  Mohammedans,  all 
 agree,  goes  back,"  says  Dr.  Robinson  {Blbl.  lias.  ii. 
 284),  "  at  least  to  the  time  of  Eusebius,  in  the 
 early  part  of  the  4th  century.  That  writer  indeed 
 speaks  only  of  the  sepulchre;  but  the  Hordeaux 
 Pilgrim  in  A.  D.  333,  mentions  also  the  well;  and 
 neither  of  these  writers  has  any  allusion  to  a  church. 
 Uut  Jerome  in  Epllupiiluni  PauLe,  which  is  re- 
 ferred to  A.  D.  404,  makes  her  visit  the  church 
 erected  at  the  side  of  Mount  Gerizim  aroinid  the 
 well  of  Jacob,  where  our  Lord  met  the  Samaritan 
 woman.  The  church  would  seem  therefore  to  have 
 been  built  during  the  4th  century ;  though  not  by 
 Helena,  as  is  reported  in  modern  times.  It  was 
 visited  and  is  mentioned,  as  around  the  well,  by 
 Antoninus  Martyr  near  the  close  of  the  0th  cen- 
 tury; by  Arculfus  a  century  later,  who  describes  it 
 as  built  in  the  form  of  a  cross;  and  again  by  St. 
 Wihibald  in  the  8th  century.  Yet  Saewulf  about 
 A.  D.  1103,  and  Phocas  in  1185,  who  speak  of  the 
 well,  make  no  mention  of  the  church;  whence  we 
 may  conclude  that  the  latter  had  been  destroyed 
 before  the  period  of  the  crusades.  Erocardus  speaks 
 of  ruins  around  the  well,  blocks  of  marble  and  col- 
 umns, which  he  held  to  be  the  ruins  of  a  town, 
 the  ancient  Thebez;  they  were  probably  those  of 
 
 b  The  well  is  fast  filling  up  with  the  stones  thrown 
 iu  by  travellers  and  others.  At  MauudrelPs  visit 
 (1697)  it  was  105  feet  deep,  and  the  same  measure- 
 ment is  given  by  Dr.  Robinson  as  having  been  taken 
 in  May,  1838.  But,  five  years  later,  when  Dr.  Wilson 
 recovered  Mr.  A.  Bouar's  Bible  from  it,  the  depth 
 had  decreased  to  "  exactly  75  "  (Wilson's  Lands,  ii.  57). 
 Mauudrell  (March  24)  found  15  feet  of  water  standing 
 in  the  well.  It  appears  now  to  be  always  dry.  [The 
 water  varies  from  time  to  time,  but  appears  to  be 
 rarely  if  ever  entirely  gone.  Near  the  end  of  De- 
 cember, says  Mr.  Tristram,  "  there  was  no  water, 
 but  broken  stones  and  some  wet  mud,  showing  that  it 
 had  recently  contained  water,  which  indeed  was  found 
 there  afterwards  in  the  month  of  March  "  {Land  of 
 Israel,  2d  ed.,  p.  147).  —  H.] 
 
2958 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 the  church,  to  which  he  makes  no  aUusion.  Other 
 travellers,  l>oth  of  that  age  and  later,  speak  of  the 
 church  only  as  destroyed,  and  the  well  as  already 
 deseited.  Before  the  days  of  Eusebius,  there  seems 
 to  be  no  historical  testimony  to  show  the  identity 
 of  this  well  with  that  which  our  Saviour  visited; 
 and  the  proof  must  therefore  rest,  so  far  as  it  can 
 iie  made  out  at  all,  on  circumstantial  evidence.  I 
 am  not  aware  of  anything,  in  the  nature  of  the 
 case,  that  goes  to  contradict  the  common  tradition; 
 but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  see  much  in  the  circum- 
 stances, tending  to  confirm  the  supposition  that 
 this  is  actually  the  spot  where  our  Lord  held 
 his  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman. 
 Jesus  was  joiu-neying  from  Jerusalem  to  (jalilee, 
 and  rested  at  the  well,  while  '  his  disciples  were 
 gone  away  into  the  city  to  buy  meat.'  The  well 
 therefore  lay  apparently  before  the  city,  and  at 
 some  distance  from  it.  In  passing  along  the  east- 
 ern plain,  Jesus  had  halted  at  the  well,  and  sent  his 
 disciples  to  the  (?ity  situated  in  the  narrow  valley, 
 intending  on  their  return  to  proceed  along  tlie 
 plain  on  his  way  to  Galilee,  without  himself  visit- 
 ing the  city.  All  this  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
 present  character  of  the  ground.  The  well  too 
 was  Jacob's  well,  of  higli  antiquity,  a  known  and 
 venerated  spot ;  which,  after  having  already  lived 
 for  so  many  ages  in  tradition,  would  nut  be 
 likely  to  be  forgotten  in  the  two  and  a  half  cen- 
 turies intervening  between  St.  John  and  Euse- 
 bius."" 
 
 It  is  understood  that  the  well,  and  the  site  around 
 it,  have  lieen  lately  purchased  l)y  the  Russian 
 Church,  not,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  with  the  intention 
 of  erecting  a  church  over  it,  and  thus  forever 
 destroying  the  reality  and  the  sentiment  of  the 
 place.'' 
 
 The  second  of  the  spots  alluded  to  is  the  Tomb 
 of  Joseph.  It  lies  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  north 
 of  the  well,  exactly  in  the  centre  of  the  opening  of 
 the  valley  between  ( lerizim  and  Ebal.  It  is  a  small 
 square  inclosure  of  high  whitewashed  walls,  siu- 
 rounding  a  tomb  of  the  ordinary  kind,  Ijut  with 
 the  peculiarity  that  it  is  placed  diagonally  to  the 
 walls,  instead  of  parallel,  as  usual.  A  rough  pillar 
 used  as  an  altar,  and  black  with  the  traces  of  fire, 
 is  at  the  head,  and  another  at  the  foot  of  the  tomb. 
 In  the  left-hand  corner  as  you  enter  is  a  vine, 
 whose  branches  "  run  over  the  wall,"  recaHing 
 exactly  the  metaphor  of  Jacol)"s  blessing  (fien.  xlix. 
 22).  In  the  walls  are  two  slabs  with  Hebrew  in- 
 scriptions,'' and  tlie  interior  is  almost  covered  with 
 the  names  of  Pilgrims  in  Hebrew,  Aral)ic,  and  Sa- 
 maritan. Beyond  this  there  is  nothing  to  remark 
 in  the  structure  itself.  It  purports  to  cover  the 
 tomb  of  Joseph,  buried   there  in  the  "parcel  of 
 
 a  *  Among  the  proofs  of  this  identity  one  should  not 
 overlook  the  striking  incidental  connection  between 
 John's  narrative  and  the  locality  (iv.  20).  Gerizim 
 is  not  named  by  the  Evangelist ;  but  as  we  read  the 
 words  "our  fathers  worshipped  in  this  movmtain," 
 how  readily  do  we  think  of  the  woman's  glance  of  the 
 eye  or  outstretched  hand  in  that  direction,  which 
 made  the  expression  definite  on  the  spot  though  in- 
 ,  definite  to  us.  Gerizim  stood  at  that  moment  within 
 full  sight  only  a  short  distance  from  the  scene  of  the 
 conversation.  H. 
 
 b  *  No  church  or  chapel  has  yet  been  erected  there 
 (1870).  as  was  feared  might  he  done  at  the  time  of 
 writing  the  above  article.  H. 
 
 '•  One  of  these  is  given  by  Dr.  Wilson  {Lands,  etc., 
 u.  61). 
 
 SHECHEM 
 
 giound  "  which  his  father  bequeathed  especiallj-  to 
 him  his  favorite  son,  and  in  which  his  hones  were 
 deposited  after  the  conquest  of  the  country  was 
 completed  (Josh.  xxiv.  32). 
 
 The  local  tradition  of  the  Tomb,  like  that  of  the 
 well,  is  as  old  as  the  begimiing  of  the  4th  century. 
 Both  Eusebius  {OikiiikisL  SuxeV)  ^"''  ^''^  ^°^' 
 deaux  Pilgrim  mention  its  existence.  So  do  Ben- 
 jamin of  Tudela  (1100-79),  and  Maundeville  (1322), 
 and  so  —  to  pass  over  intermediate  travellers  — 
 does  Maundrell  (16U7).  All  that  is  wanting  in 
 these  accounts  is  to  fix  the  tomb  which  they  men- 
 tion to  the  present  spot.  But  this  is  difficult  — 
 Maundrell  describes  it  as  on  his  right  hand,  in 
 leaving  Nablus  for  Jerusalem;  "just  without  the 
 city  "  —  a  small  mosque,  '•  built  over  the  sepulchre 
 of  Joseph  "  (March  25).  Some  time  after  passing 
 it  he  arrives  at  the  well.  This  description  is  quite 
 inapplicable  to  the  tomb  just  described,  but  perfectly 
 suits  the  Wely  at  the  northeast  foot  of  Gerizim, 
 which  also  bears  (among  the  IMoslems)  the  name 
 of  Joseph.  And  when  the  expressions  of  the  two 
 oldest  authorities  ('  cited  above  are  examined,  it  will 
 be  seen  that  they  are  quite  as  suitable,  if  not  more 
 so,  to  this  latter  s])ot  as  to  the  tomb  on  the  open 
 plain.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Jewish  travellers,^ 
 from  hap-1'archi  (cir.  1320)  downwards,  specify  the 
 tomb  as  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  vil- 
 lage el-Balala.f 
 
 In  this  conflict  of  testimony,  and  in  the  absence 
 of  any  information  on  the  date  and  nature  of  the 
 Bloslem.''  tomb,  it  is  impossilile  to  come  to  a  def- 
 inite conclusion.  There  is  .some  force,  and  that  in 
 fa^■or  of  the  received  site,  in  the  remarks  of  a  learned 
 and  intelligent  Jewish  traveller  (Loewe,  in  Alh). 
 Zntuny  des  Jmkniliinits,  Leipzig,  1839,  No.  50) 
 on  the  peculiar  form  and  nature  of  the  ground  sur- 
 rounding the  tomb  near  the  well :  the  more  so  be- 
 cause they  are  suggested  l)y  the  natural  features 
 of  the  spot,  as  reflected  in  the  curiously  minute, 
 the  almost  technical  language,  of  the  ancient  rec- 
 ord, and  not  based  on  any  mere  traditional  or  arti- 
 ficial considerations.  "  The  thought,"  says  he, 
 "  forced  itself  upon  me,  how  impossible  it  is  to  un- 
 derstand the  details  of  the  Bible  without  examining 
 them  on  the  spot.  This  place  is  called  in  the 
 Scripture,  neither  eriuh  ('valley')  nor  $hefela 
 (' plain '),  but  by  the  individual  name  of  Chelknt 
 has-Sadt ;  and  in  the  whole  of  Palestine  there  is 
 not  such  another  plot  to  be  found,  —  a  dead  level, 
 without  the  least  hollow  or  swelling  in  a  circuit  of 
 two  hours.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  the  loveliest 
 and  most  fertile  spot  I  have  ever  .seen." 
 
 SHE'CHEM.  The  names  of  three  persons  in 
 the  annals  of  Israel. 
 
 1.  (Djp?'''  [shoulder,  ridge\:  Si'X^'a''  [i"  Josh., 
 
 d  Eusebius  :  iv  TrpoacrTec'ois  Ne'as  noAeo)!,  ivd(x  koX  o 
 Ta<^o<;  BeiKt'VTai  tov  'IcootJ^. 
 
 Bordeaux  Pilgrim  :  ■'  Ad  pedem  montis  locus  est  cui 
 nomen  est  Sechim  :  ibi  positum  est  monumentum  ubi 
 positus  est  Joseph.  Inde  passus  mille  ....  ubi  pu- 
 teum,"  etc. 
 
 <i  Benjamin  of  Tudela  (cir.  1165)  says,  "  The  Sa- 
 maritans are  in  possession  of  the  tomb  of  Joseph  the 
 righteous  ;  "  but  does  not  define  its  position. 
 
 /  See  the  Itineraries  entitled  Jir/ms  hat-tsadikiv. 
 (a.  D.  1561),  and  Jir'uis  ha-Ahoth  (1537),  in  Carmoly's 
 Itineraires  de  la  Terre  Saint/-. 
 
 a  It  appears  from  a  note  in  Prof.  Stanley's  Sinai 
 §■  Val.  p.  241,  that  a  later  Joseph  is  also  commemorat&d 
 in  this  sanctuary. 
 
SHECHEMITES,  THE 
 
 SiKi/ua,  pi-"-]  Sicliein.)  The  son  of  Hamor  the 
 shieftaiii  of  tlie  Hivite  settlement  of  Shechem  at 
 the  time  of  Jacob's  arrival  (Gen.  xxxiii.  I'J,  xxxiv. 
 2-26;  Josh.  xxiv.  32;  Jiidg.  ix.  28). 
 
 2.  (SfXfM'  •'^'^chem.)  A  man  of  Manasseh,  of 
 the  elan  ot  Gileatl,  and  head  of  the  family  of  the 
 Shecheniites  (Nnm.  xxvi.  31).  His  family  are 
 aszain  mentioned  as  the  Bene-Shechem  [sons  of  S.j 
 (.losli.  xvii.  2). 
 
 3.  ('S.vx^f^'  •>echem.)  In  the  lists  of  1  Chr. 
 another  Shechem  is  named  amongst  the  (jileadites 
 ris  a  son  of  Shemida,  the  younger  brother  of  the 
 foregoing  (vii.  VJ).  It  must  have  been  the  recol- 
 lection of  one  of  these  two  (iileadites  which  led 
 Cyril  of  Alexandria  into  his  strange  fancy  (quoted 
 liy  Keland,  P<il.  p.  1007,  from  his  Conmi.  on  Hosea) 
 of  placing  the  city  of  Shechem  on  the  eastern  side 
 of  the  Jordan.  G. 
 
 SHE'CHEMITES,  THE  (^a^t^H  [patr., 
 see  aliove] :  6  Suxf^''  [^'at.  M.  -fxei,  l-m.  -|Ueei:] 
 Stchemiiie).  'I'he  family  of  Sechern,  sun  of  Gilead  : 
 one  of  the  minor  clans  of  the  Eastern  Manasseh 
 (Num.  xxvi.  31;  comp.  Josh.  xvii.  2). 
 
 SHECHI'NAH  (Ln  Chaldee  and  neo-Hebrew, 
 
 HD^Stt',  vuijestas  Dti,   ])nestnti(i  Del,   Spiritus 
 
 SancUts,  Buxtorf,  from  15^  and  ^?K7,  "to  rest," 
 
 "settle,"  "dwell,"  whence  ^2£i7p  "a  tent,"  the 
 Tabernacle  ;  comp.  aK-qvr))-  This  term  is  not 
 found  in  the  Bible.  It  was  used  by  the  later  Jews, 
 and  boiTOwed  by  Christians  from  them,  to  express 
 the  visiljle  majesty  of  the  Divine  Presence,  espe- 
 cially when  resting,  or  dwelling,  between  the  cher- 
 ubim on  the  mercy-seat  in  the  'J'abernacle,  and  in 
 the  Temple  of  Solomon ;  but  not  in  Zerubbabel's 
 temple,  for  it  was  one  of  the  five  particulars  which 
 the  Jews  reckon  to  have  been  wanting  in  the  sec- 
 ond temple  "  (Castell,  Lexic.  s.  v. ;  Prideaux,  Con- 
 ned, i.  138).  The  use  of  the  term  is  first  found 
 in  the  Targums,  where  it  forms  a  fiequent  peri- 
 phrasis for  God,  considered  as  dwtllinfj  amongst 
 the  children  of  Israel,  and  is  thus  used,  especially 
 by  Onkelos,  to  avoid  ascribing  corporeity*  to  God 
 himself,  as  Castell  tells  us,  and  may  be  compared 
 to  the  analogous  periphrasis  so  frequent  in  the 
 Targum  of  .Jonathan,  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord." 
 jMany  Christian  writers  have  thought  that  this 
 threefold  expression  for  the  Deity  —  the  Lord,  the 
 word  of  the  Lord,  and  the  Shechinah  —  indicates 
 the  knowledge  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  God- 
 head, and  accordingly,  following  some  liabbinical 
 writers,  identify  the  Shechinah  with  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  Others,  however,  deny  this  (Calmet's  Dkl. 
 of  tlie  Bib.;  Job.  Saubert,  On  the  Loyos,  §  xix.  in 
 Critic.  Sacr.;  Glass.  PhUolofj.  Sacr.  lib.  v.  1,  vii. 
 etc.). 
 
 Without  stopping  to  discuss  this  question,  it 
 will  most  conduce  to  give  an  accurate  knowledge 
 of  the  use  of  the  term  Shechinah  by  the  Jews 
 themselves,  if  we  produce  a  few  of  the  most  strik- 
 ing passages  in  the  Targums  where  it  occurs.  In 
 K\.  xxv.  8,  where  the  Hebrew  has  "  Let  them  make 
 
 me  a  sanctuary  that  I  may  dwell  ("^n^ptCl)  among 
 
 SHECHINAH 
 
 2959 
 
 «  Dr.  Bernard,  in  his  notes  on  Josephus,  tries  to 
 prove  that  these  five  things  were  all  in  the  second 
 temple,  because  Josephus  says  the  Urim  and  Thum- 
 miui  were.     See  Wottoa's  Trar/ilions,  etc.,  p.  xl. 
 
 ''  See,  e.  g.,  Vs.  Ixix.  17,  and  Kulisch  on  Ex.  xxiv. 
 10. 
 
 them,"  Onkelos  has,  "  I  will  make  niy  Shechinah 
 to  dwell  among  them."  In  xxix.  45,  40,  for  the 
 Hebrew  "  I  will  dwell  among  the  children  of  Is- 
 rael," Onkelos  has,  "  I  will  make  my  Shechinah  to 
 dwell,"  etc.  In  Ps.  Ixxiv.  2,  for  "  this  Mount 
 Zion  wherein  thou  hast  dwelt,"  the  Targum  has 
 "  wherein  thy  Shechinah  hath  dwelt."  In  the  de- 
 scription of  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple 
 (1  K.  viii.  12,  13),  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  runs 
 thus:  "The  Lord  is  pleased  to  make  his  Shechinah 
 dwell  in  Jerusalem.  I  have  built  the  house  of  the 
 sanctuary  for  the  house  of  thy  Shechinah  for  ever,'" 
 where  it  should  be  noticed  that  in  ver.  13  the  He- 
 brew I'DW  is  not  used,  but  b^T,  and  ^W"^ 
 And  in  1  K.  vi.  13,  for  the  Heb".  "  I  will  dwell 
 among  the  children  of  Israel,"  Jonathan  has  "  I 
 will  make  my  Shechinah  dwell,"  etc.  In  Is.  vi. 
 .5  he  has  the  comliination,''  "  the  glory  of  the  She- 
 chinah of  the  King  of  ages,  the  Lord  of  Hosts;  " 
 and  in  the  next  verse  he  paraphrases  "  from  off  the 
 altar,"  by  "from  before  his  .Shechinah  on  the 
 throne  of  glory  in  the  lofty  heavens  that  are  above 
 the  altar."  Compare  also  Num.  v.  3,  xxxv.  34; 
 Ps.  Ixviii.  17,  18,  cxxxv.  21;  Is.  xxxiii.  5,  Ivii.  15; 
 Joel  iii.  17,  21,  and  numerous  other  passages.  On 
 the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  Tar- 
 gums never  render  "  the  cloud"  or  "the  glory" 
 
 by  Shechinah,  but  by  M33"y  and  rf^p^,  and  that 
 even  in  such  passages  as  Ex.  xxiv.  16,  17;  Num. 
 ix.  17,  18,  22,  X.  12,  neither  the  mention  of  the 
 
 cloud,  nor  the  constant  use  of  the  verb  )^W  in 
 the  Hebrew  provoke  any  reference  to  the  Shechi- 
 nah. Hence,  as  regards  the  use  of  the  word  She- 
 chinah in  the  Targums,  it  may  be  defined  as  a 
 peri])hrasis  for  God  whenever  He  is  said  to  dwell 
 on  Zion,  amongst  Israel,  or  between  the  cheru- 
 liini,  and  so  on,  in  order,  as  before  said,  to  avoid 
 the  slightest  approach  to  materialism.  Far  most 
 frequently  this  term  is  introduced  when  the  verb 
 
 'JptC  occurs  in  the  Heb.  text;  but  occasionally,  as 
 in  some  of  the  above-cited  instances,  where  it  does 
 not,  but  where  the  Paraphrast  wished  to  interpose 
 an  abstraction,  corresponding  to  Presence,  to  break 
 the  bolder  anthropopathy  of  the  Hebrew  writer. 
 
 Our  view  of  the  Targuniistic  notion  of  the  She- 
 chinah woidd  not  be  complete  if  we  did  not  add, 
 that  though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Jews  reckoned 
 the  Shechinah  among  the  marks  of  the  Divine  fa- 
 vor which  were  wanting  to  the  second  temple,  they 
 manifestly  expected  the  return  of  the  Shechinah  in 
 the  days  of  the  Messiah.  Thus  Hag.  i.  8,  "  Build 
 the  house,  and  I  will  take  pleasure  in  it,  and  I  will 
 1)6  glorified,  saith  the  Lord,"  is  paraphrased  by 
 Jonathan,  "  I  will  cause  my  Shechinah  to  dwell  in 
 it  in  glory."  Zech.  ii.  10,  "  Lo  I  come,  and  I  will 
 dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee,  saith  the  Lord,"  is  para- 
 phrased "  I  will  be  revealed,  and  will  cause  my 
 Shechinah  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee;  "  and  viii. 
 3,  "  I  am  returned  unto  Zion,  and  will  dwell  in  the 
 midst  of  Jerusalem,"  is  paraphrased  "  I  will  make 
 my  Shechinah  dwell  in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem;  " 
 and  lastly,  in  Ez.  xliii.  7,  9,  in  the  vision  of  the  re- 
 turn of  the  Glory  of  God  to  the  Temple,  Jonathan 
 
 c  In  Ps.  Ixviii.  17  (16,  A.  V.),  the  Targum  has  "  the 
 Word  of  the  Lord  has  desired  to  place  his  Shechinah 
 upon  Zion." 
 
 d  Always  (as  far  as  I  have  observed)  rndered   by 
 
 the  Chaldee   H^lW. 
 
29G0 
 
 SHECHINAH 
 
 para((lira.ses  thus,  "  Son  of  man,  this  is  the  phice 
 of  the  house  of  the  throne  of  my  glory,  and  this  is 
 the  place  of  the  house  of  the  ilwellinsr  of  my 
 Shechinah,  where  I  will  make  my  Shechinah  dwi-U 
 in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel  for  ever.  .  .  . 
 Now  let  them  cast  away  their  idols  .  .  .  and  I 
 will  make  my  Shechinah  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them 
 for  ever."  Compare  Is.  iv.  5,  where  the  return  of 
 the  pillar  of  cloud  hy  day  and  fire  by  night  is 
 foretold  as  to  take  place  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 
 As  regards  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  L)i- 
 vine  Presence  dwelling  amongst  the  Israelites,  to 
 which  the  term  Shechinali  has  attached  itself,  the 
 idea  which  the  different  accounts  in  Scripture  con- 
 vey is  that  of  a  most  brilliant  and  glorious  light," 
 enveloped  in  a  cloud,  and  usually  concealed  by  the 
 cloud,  so  that  the  cloud  itself  was  for  the  most  part 
 alone  \  isible  ;  but  on  particular  occasions  the  glory  * 
 appeared.  Thus  at  the  Exodus,  "  the  Lord  went 
 before  "the  Israehtes  "by  day  in  a  pillar  of  cloud 
 ....  and  by  night  in  a  piUar  of  fire  to  gi\e 
 them  light."  And  again  we  read,  that  this  pillar 
 "was  a  cloud  and  darkness "  to  the  Egyptians, 
 "  but  it  gave  light  by  night  "  to  the  Israelites. 
 But  in  the  morning  watch  "the  Lord  looked  unto 
 the  host  of  the  Egyptians  through  the  pillar  of  fire 
 and  of  the  cloud,  and  troubled  the  host  of  the 
 Egyptians:  "  i.  e.  as  Philo  (quoted  by  Patrick)  ex- 
 plains it,  "  the  fiery  appearance  of  the  Deity  shone 
 forth  from  the  cloud,"  and  by  its  amazing  bright- 
 ness confounded  them.  So  too  in  the  Pirke  Eliezer 
 it  is  said,  "  The  Blessed  liod  appeared  in  his 
 glory  upon  the  sea,  and  it  fled  back;  "'  with  which 
 Patrick  compares  Ps.  Ixxvii.  16,  "  The  waters  saw 
 thee,  0  God,  the  waters  saw  thee;  they  were 
 afraid;"  where  the  Targuni  has,  "They  saw  thy 
 Shechinah  in  the  midst  of  the  waters."  In  Ex. 
 xix.  9,  "  the  Lord  said  to  JNIoses,  Lo,  I  come  unto 
 thee  in  a  thick  cloud,"  and  accordingly  in  ver.  It! 
 we  read  that  "  a  thick  cloud  "  rested  "  upon  the 
 mount,"  and  in  ver.  18,  that  "  Mount  Sinai  was 
 altogether  on  a  smoke,  because  the  Lord  descended 
 upon  it  in  fire."  And  this  is  further  explained, 
 Ex.  xxiv.  ](i,  where  we  read  that  "  the  glory  of  the 
 Lord  abode  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  the  cloud  cov- 
 ered it  {(.  e.  as  Aben  Ezra  explains  it,  the  glory) 
 six  days."  But  upon  the  seventh  day,  when  the 
 Lord  called  "  unto  Moses  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
 cloud,"  there  was  a  breaking  forth  of  the  glory 
 through  the  cloud,  for  "  the  sight  of  the  glory  of 
 the  Lord  was  like  de\'ouring  fire  on  the  top  of  the 
 mount  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  ver. 
 17.  So  again  when  God  as  it  were  took  possession 
 of  the  Tabernacle  at  its  first  completion  (Ex.  xl.  34, 
 35),  "the  cloud  covered  the  tent  of  the  congreg.a- 
 tion  (externally),  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled 
 the  Tabernacle  (within),  and  Moses  was  not  able  to 
 enter  into  the  tent  of  the  congregation  "  (rather, 
 of  wcetintj);  just  as  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's 
 Temple  (1  K.  viii.  10,  11),  "the  cloud  filled  the 
 house  of  the  Lord,  so  that  the  priests  could  not 
 stand  to  minister  because  of  the  cloud,  for  the  glory 
 of  the  Lord  had  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord."  In 
 the  Tabernacle,  however,  as  in  the  Temple,  this  was 
 only  a  temporary  state  of  things;  for  throughout 
 the  books  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers  we  find  ^Moses 
 constantly  entering  into  the  Tabernacle.  And  when 
 he  did  so,  the  cloud  which  rested  over  it  externally, 
 dark  by  day,  and  luminous  at  night  (Num.  ix.  15, 
 
 «  The    Arabic    expression,    corrcspondins 
 S/ichiiiah  of  th9  Targums,  is  a  woi-d  siguifjiu;; 
 
 the 
 
 ■la. 
 
 SHECHINAH 
 
 16),  came  down  and  stood  at  the  door  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle, and  the  Lord  talked  with  Moses  inside,  "  face 
 to  face,  as  a  man  talketli  with  his  friend  "  (Ex. 
 xxxiii.  7-11).  It  was  on  such  occasions  that  Moses 
 "  heard  the  voice  of  one  sjieaking  unto  him  from 
 off  the  mercy-seat  that  was  upon  the  ark  of  testi- 
 mony, from  between  the  two  cherubinis  "  (Num. 
 vii.  8U),  in  accordance  with  Ex.  xxv.  22;  Lev.  xvi. 
 2.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  glory  was  habit- 
 ually seen  either  by  Moses  or  the  people.  Occasion- 
 ally, however,  it  flashed  forth  from  the  cloud  which 
 concealed  it;  as  Ex.  xvi.  7, 10;  Lev.  ix.  6,  23,  when 
 "  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  all  the  jieo- 
 ple,"  according  to  a  previous  promi.se;  or  as  Num. 
 xiv.  10,  xvi.  I'J,  42,  xx.  G,  suddenly,  to  strike  terror 
 in  the  people  in  their  rebellion.  The  last  occasion 
 on  which  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  was  that 
 mentioned  in  Num.  xx.  0,  when  they  were  in  Ka- 
 desh  in  the  40th  year  of  the  Exodus,  and  luurnnired 
 for  want  of  water ;  and  the  last  express  mention  of 
 the  cloud  as  visibly  ])resent  over  the  Tabernacle  is 
 in  Deut.  xxxi.  15,  just  before  the  death  of  Moses. 
 The  cloud  had  not  been  mentioned  before  since  the 
 second  year  of  the  Exodus  (Num.  x.  11,  34,  xii.  5, 
 10);  but  as  the  description  in  Num.  ix.  15-23;  Ex. 
 xl.  38,  relates  to  the  whole  time  of  their  wanderings 
 in  the  wilderness,  we  may  conclude  that  at  all 
 events  the  cloud  visiiily  accompanied  them  through 
 all  the  migrations  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  till 
 they  reached  the  plains  of  Moab,  and  till  Moses 
 died.  From  this  time  we  have  no  mention  what- 
 ever in  the  history  either  of  the  cloud,  or  of  die 
 glory,  or  of  the  voice  from  between  the  cherubin), 
 till  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple.  But  since 
 it  is  certain  that  the  Ark  was  still  the  special  sym- 
 bol of  God's  presence  and  power  (Josh,  iii.,  iv.,  vi.; 
 1  Sam.  iv. ;  Ps.  Ixviii.  1  ff. ;  compared  with  Num. 
 x.  35;  Ps.  cxxxii.  8,  Ixxx.  1,  xcix.  1),  and  since  such 
 passages  as  I  Sam.  iv.  4,  21,  22;  2  Sam.  vi.  2;  Ps. 
 xcix.  7;  2  K.  xix.  15,  seem  to  imply  the  continued 
 manifestation  of  God's  Presence  in  the  cloud  be- 
 tween the  cherubim,  and  that  Lev.  xvi.  2  seemed 
 to  promise  so  nuich,  and  that  more  general  expres- 
 sions, such  as  Ps.  ix.  11,  cxxxii.  7,  8,  13,  14,  Ixxvi. 
 2;  Is.  viii.  18,  &c.,  thus  acquire  much  more  point, 
 we  may  perhaps  conclude  that  the  cloud  did 
 continue,  though  with  shorter  or  longer  interrup- 
 tions, to  dwell  between  "  the  cherubinis  of  glory 
 shadowing  the  mercy-seat,"  until  the  destruction 
 of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  [Olivks, 
 Mount  ok,  iii.  2249  a.] 
 
 The  allusions  in  the  N.  T.  to  the  Shechinah  are 
 not  unfrequent.  Thus  in  the  account  of  the  Na- 
 tivity, the  words,  "  Lo,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  canif 
 upon  them,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shone  round 
 about  them"  (Luke  ii.  9),  followed  by  the  appari- 
 tion of  "  the  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host,"  re- 
 call the  appearance  of  the  Divine  glory  on  Sinai, 
 when  "  He  sinned  forth  from  Paran,  and  came  with 
 ten  thousands  of  saints"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  comp. 
 Ps.  Ixviii.  17 ;  Acts  vii.  53;  Heb.  ii.  2;  Ez.  xliii.  2). 
 The  "  God  of  glory  "  (Acts  vii.  2,  55),  "  the  cher- 
 ubinis of  glory  "  (Heb.  ix.  5),  "  the  glory  "  (Kom. 
 ix.  4),  and  other  like  passages,  are  distinct  refer- 
 ences to  the  manifestations  of  the  glory  in  the  O. 
 T.  When  we  read  in  John  i.  14,  that  •'  the  Word 
 was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  (iffKT}V(tiff(v 
 iv  rifjuv),  and  we  beheld  his  glory;  "  or  in  2  Cor. 
 xii.  9,  "  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon 
 
 b  In  Hebrew     >    "7133  ;   in   Chaldee     "^  "If^^ 
 
SHEDEUR 
 
 ne""{eTriaKrivui(rri  eV  e/Me);  or  in  Rev.  xxi.  3, 
 '  Heliold  the  taljeniacle  ot  God  is  with  men,  and 
 He  will  dwell  with  them  "  (7;  <TKr)v)}  rov  &eov 
 •  .  •  •  Koi  ffKTiucixTei  jxiT  avTwv),  we  have  not 
 only  references  to  the  Shechinah,  but  are  dis- 
 tinctly taught  to  connect  it  with  the  incarnation 
 and  future  coming  of  Messiah,  as  type  with  ahti- 
 type.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  constant 
 connection  of  the  second  advent  with  a  cloud,  or 
 clouds,  and  attendant  angels,  points  in  the  same 
 direction  (Matt.  xxvi.  04;  Luke  xxi.  27;  Acts  i.  9, 
 11;  2  Thess.  i.  7,  8;  Ilev.  i.  7). 
 
 It  should  also  be  specially  noticed  that  the  at- 
 tendance of  angels  is  usually  associated  with  the 
 Shechinah.  U'hese  are  most  frequently  called  (Ez. 
 X.,  xi.)  cherubim;  but  sometimes,  as  in  Is.  vi., 
 seraiihim  (comp.  Kev.  iv.  7,  8).  In  Kx.  xiv.  19, 
 "  tlie  angel  of  God  "  is  spoken  of  in  connection 
 with  the  cloud,  and  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  the  descent 
 upon  Sinai  is  described  as  being  "  with  ten  thou- 
 sands of  saints"  (comp.  Ps.  Ixviii.  17;  Zech.  xiv. 
 5).  The  predominant  association,  however,  is  with 
 the  cheruiiini,  of  which  the  golden  cherubim  on  the 
 mercy-seat  were  the  representation.  And  this 
 gives  force  to  the  interpretation  that  has  been  put 
 upon  (Jen.  iii.  24,''  as  being  the  earliest  notice  of 
 the  Shechinah,  under  the  symbol  of  a  pointed 
 flame,  dwelling  between  the  cherubim,  and  consti- 
 tuting that  local  Presence  of  the  Lord  from  which 
 Cain  went  forth,  and  before  which  the  worship  of 
 Adam  and  succeeding  patriarchs  was  performed 
 (see  Hale's  Chronol.  ii.  94;  Smith's  Sacr.  Annal. 
 i.  173,  176,  177).  Parklaurst  went  so  far  as  to  im- 
 agine a  tabernacle  containing  the  cherul  im  and  the 
 glory  all  the  time  from  Adam  to  Jloses  (Heb.  Lex. 
 p.  (J2.3).  It  is,  however,  pretty  certain  that  the 
 various  appearances  to  Abraham,  and  that  to  Moses 
 in  the  bush,  were  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
 Majesty  similar  to  those  later  ones  to  which  the 
 term  Shechinah  is  applied  (see  especially  Acts  vii. 
 2).  I'or  further  information  the  reader  is  referred, 
 besides  the  works  quoted  above,  to  the  articles 
 Cloud,  Ahk,  Cherub,  to  Winer,  Renlwb.  art. 
 Clu-ruhim  ;  to  Bishop  Patrick's  CommenUiry  ;  to 
 ]>uxtorf,  I  fiat.  Arc.  Fieri,  c.  xi. ;  and  to  Lovvman, 
 Un  the  Slwrhinali.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHED'EUR  ("I^WMIT  [darliiifj  of  fire,  Ges. ; 
 sender  <f  a  revtiilion,  Ftirst] :  SeSioup;  [Vat. 
 SeSifroup  in  Num.  vii.  30;]  Alex.  ES/oup  in  Num. 
 i.  .5,  ii.  10:  SeiJeiir).  The  father  of  Klizur,  chief 
 of  the  tribe  of  Reuben  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus 
 (Num.  i.  5,  ii.  10,  vii.  30,  35,  x.  18).  It  has  been 
 conjectured  (Zeltschr.  d.  Deut.  Mor;/.  Ves.  xv. 
 80.))  that  the  name  is  compounded  of  Shaddai. 
 
 SHEEP.  •  'I'he  well-known  domestic  animal 
 which  from  the  earliest  period  has  contributed  to 
 the  wants  of  mankind.  Sheep  were  an  important 
 part  of  the  possessions  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  and 
 of  eastern  nations  generally.  The  first  mention 
 of  sheep  occurs  in  (ien.  iv.  2.  The  following  are 
 t!ie  [irincipal  Pjiblical  allusions  to  these  animals. 
 Thi'y  were  used  in  the  sacrificial  ofTerings,  both  the 
 adult  animal  (Ex.  xx   24;    1   K.  viii.  G3;   2  Chr. 
 
 xxix    -33)   and    the  lamb,    ££7123?  i.e.    "a    male 
 
 a  This  expression  of  St.  Paul's  lias  a  siiif;ular  re- 
 pemblance  to  the  Rabbinical  sasing,  that  of  eighty 
 pupils  of  Ilillel  the  elder,  thirty  were  worthy  that  tlie 
 Shei-hi)iah  sknidd  rest  upon  them  :  and  of  these  Jona- 
 I  !.in  (author  of  the  Targum)  was  the  tirst  (Wolf.  Bib. 
 liJj.  ii.  1159). 
 
 SHEEP  2961 
 
 from  one  to  three  years  old,"  but  young  iambs  of 
 the  tirst  year  were  more  genei  ally  used  in  the  ofTer- 
 ings (see  Ex.  xxix.  38;  Lev.  ix.  3,  xii.  6;  Num. 
 xxviii.  9,  (fee).  No  lamb  under  eight  days  old  was 
 allowed  to  be  killed  (Lev.  xxii.  27).    A  very  young 
 
 lamb  was  called  HvCi  tdlek  (see  1  Sam.  vii:  9; 
 Is.  Ixv.  25).  Sheep  and  lambs  formed  an  impor- 
 tant article  of  food  (1  Sam.  xxv.  18;  1  K.  i.  19,  iy. 
 23;  Ps.  xliv.  11,  &c.).  The  wool  was  used  as 
 clothing  (Lev.  xiii.  47:  Deut.  xxii.  11;  Prov.  xxxi. 
 13;  Job  xxxi.  20,  &c.).  [Wool.]  Trumpets  may 
 have  been  made  of  the  horns  of  rams  (Josh.  vi.  4), 
 though  the  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  in  this  passage 
 is  generally  thought  to  be  incorrect.  "  Rams' 
 skins  dyed  red"  were  used  as  a  covering  for  the 
 Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  5).  Sheep  and  lambs  were 
 sometimes  paid  as  tribute  (2  K.  iii.  4).  It  is  very 
 striking  to  notice  the  immense  numbers  of  sheep 
 that  were  reared  in  Palestine  in  Biblical  times:  see 
 for  instance  1  Chr.  v.  21  ;  2  Chr.  xv.  11,  xxx. 
 24;  2  K.  iii.  4;  .lob  xlii.  12.  Especial  mention 
 is  made  of  the  sheep  of  Bozrah  (Mic.  ii.  12; 
 Is.  xxxiv.  G)  in  the  land  of  Edom,  a  district  well 
 suited  for  pasturing  sheep.  "  Bashan  and  Gilead  " 
 are  also  mentioned  as  pastures  (Mic.  vii.  14). 
 ''  Large  parts  of  Carmel,  Bashan,  and  Gilead,  "  says 
 'YUowsou  {Land  and  Book;  p.  205),  "are  at  their 
 |)roper  seasons  alive  with  countless  flocks "  (see 
 also  p.  331).  "The  flocks  of  Kedar"  and  "  the 
 rams  of  Nebaioth,"  two  sons  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv. 
 13)  that  settled  in  Aral)ia,  are  referred  to  in  Is.  Ix.  7. 
 Sheep-shearing  is  alluded  to  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  xxxviii. 
 13;  Deut.  xv.  19;  1  Sam.  xxv.  4;  Is.  liii.  7,  &c. 
 Sheep-dogs  were  em|)loyed  in  Biblical  times,  as  is 
 evident  from  Job  xxx.  1,  "  the  dogs  of  my  flock." 
 From  the  manner  in  which  they  are  spoken  of  by 
 the  patriarch  it  is  clear,  as  Thomson  {Land  and 
 Book;  p.'  202)  well  observes,  that  the  oriental  shep- 
 herd-dogs were  very  difterent  animals  from  the 
 sheep-dogs  of  our  own  land.  The  existing  lireed 
 are  described  as  being  "  a  mean,  sinister,  ill-con- 
 ditioned generation,  which  are  kept  at  a  distance, 
 kicked  aljout,  and  half-starved,  with  nothing  noble 
 or  attractive  about  them."  They  were,  however, 
 without  doubt,  useful  to  the  shepherds,  more  espe- 
 cially at  night,  in  keeping  off  the  wild  l)easts  that 
 prowled  aliout  the  hills  and  valleys  (comp.  Theoc. 
 Id.  v.  106).  Shepherds  in  Palestine  and  the  East 
 generally  go  before  their  flocks,  which  they  induce 
 to  follow  by  calling  to  tliem  (comp.  John  x.  4;  Ps. 
 Ixxvii.  20,  Ixxx.  1),  though  they  also  drove  them 
 (Gen.  xxxiii.  13).  [Shkpiiki;u.]  It  was  usual 
 amongst  the  ancient  Jews  to  give  names  to  sheep 
 and  goats,  as  in  England  we  do  to  our  dairy  cattle 
 (see  John  x.  3).  This  practice  prevailed  amongst 
 the  ancient  Greeks  (see  Theoc.  Id.  v.  103):  — 
 
 OvK  a-rro  Tas  Spubs  oStos  6  Ktiivapoi,  a.  re  KwalSa  ; 
 The  following  quotation  from  Hartley's  Researdies 
 in  Greece  and  the  Levant,  p.  321,  is  so  .strikingly 
 illustrative  of  the  allusions  in  .lohii  x.  1-16,  that  we 
 cannot  do  better  than  quote  it:  "Having  had  my 
 attention  directed  last  night  to  the  words  in  John 
 X.  3,  I  asked  my  man  if  it  was  usual  in  Greece  to 
 give  names  to  the  sheep.     He  informed  me  that  it 
 
 b  ''■  He  drove  out  the  man,  and  stationed  his   She- 
 chinah of  old  between  the  two  cherubim  "  (Jerusal. 
 
 Targum);      D^'niSnTlS   ]3Kl"»1      (Heb.    Bib.). 
 See  Patricli  On  Gen.  iii.  24. 
 
2962  SHEEP 
 
 was,  and  (hat  the  slieep  obeyed  the  shepherd  when 
 he  called  them  by  their  names.  This  morning  I 
 had  an  opportunity  of  verifying  the  truth  of  this 
 remark.  Passing  by  a  flock  of  sheep,  I  asked  the 
 shqjlierd  the  same  question  which  I  had  put  to 
 the  ser\ant,  and  he  gave  me  the  same  answer.  I 
 then  bade  him  call  one  of  his  sheep.  He  did  so, 
 and  it  instantly  left  its  pasturage  and  its  compan- 
 ions and  ran  up  to  the  hands  of  the  shepherd 
 with  signs  of  pleasure  and  with  a  prompt  obedience 
 which  I  had  never  before  observed  in  any  other 
 animal.  It  is  also  true  in  this  country  that  'a 
 stranger  will  they  not  follow,  but  will  flee  from 
 him.'  The  shepherd  told  me  that  many  of  his 
 sheep  were  still  wild,  that  they  had  not  yet  learned 
 their  names,  but  that  by  teaching  them  they  would 
 all  learn  them."  See  also  Thomson  (p  203):  "  The 
 shepherd  calls  sharply  from  time  to  time  to  remind 
 the  sheep  of  his  presence;  they  know  his  voice  and 
 follow  on;  but  if  a  stranger  call  they  stop  short, 
 lift  up  their  heads  in  alarm,  and  if  it  is  repeated 
 they  turn  and  flee,  because  tl.ey  know  not  the 
 voice  of  a  stranger."  " 
 
 Broad-tailed  Sheep. 
 
 The  common  sheep  of  Syria  and  Palestine  are 
 the  broad-tail  { Oris  Irilicaudntiis).  and  a  variety  of 
 the  common  sheep  of  this  country  (Oris  arics) 
 called  the  Biiloireen  according  to  Russell  {Akppo, 
 ii.  147).  The  broad-tailed  kind  has  long  been 
 reared  in  Syria.  Aristotle,  who  lived  more  than 
 2,000  years  ago,  expressly  mentions  Syrian  sheep 
 with  tails  a  cubit  wide.  This  or  another  variety  of 
 the  species  is  also  noticed  by  Herodotus  (iii.  113)  as 
 occurring  in  Araliia.  The  fiit  tail  of  the  sheep  is 
 probably  alluded  to  in  Lev.  iii.  9,  vii.  3,  etc.,  as  the 
 fat  and  the  whole  rump  that  was  to  be  taken  off 
 hard  by  the  back-bone,  and  was  to  be  consumed  on 
 the  altar.  The  cooks  in  Syria  use  this  mass  of  fot 
 instead  of  Arab  butter,  which  is  often  rancid  (see 
 Thomson,  Lund  and  Book,  p.  97).  [Butteh, 
 Amer.  ed.] 
 
 SHEEP 
 
 The  whole  passage  in  Gen.  xxx.  which  bears  on 
 the  subject  of  Jacolj's  stratagem  with  Lal)an's  sheep 
 is  involved  in  considerable  perplexity,  and  Jacob's 
 conduct  in  this  matter  has  been  severely  and  un- 
 compromisingly condemned  by  some  writers.  We 
 touch  upon  the  question  briefly  in  its  zoological 
 bearing.  It  is  altogether  impossible  to  account  for 
 the  complete  success  which  attended  Jacob's  device 
 of  setting  peeled  rods  before  the  ewes  and  she-goats 
 as  they  came  to  drink  in  the  watering  troughs,  on 
 niitural  f/ruunds.  The  Greek  fathers  for  the  most 
 part  ascribe  the  result  to  the  direct  operation  of  the 
 Deity,  whereas  Jerome  and  the  Latin  fathers  regard 
 it  as  a  mere  natural  operation  of  the  imagination, 
 adducing  as  illustrations  in  point  various  devices 
 that  have  been  resorted  to  by  the  ancients  in  the 
 cases  of  mares,  asses,  etc.  (see  Oppian,  Vyntrj.  i. 
 327,  357 ;  Pliny,  //.  N.  vii.  10,  and  the  passages 
 from  (^uintilian,  Hippocrates,  and  Galen,  as  cited 
 by  Jerome,  Grotius,  and  Hochart).  Even  granting 
 the  general  truth  of  the.se  instances,  and  acknowl- 
 edging the  curious  eft'ect  which  peculiar  sights  by 
 the  power  of  the  imagination  do  occasionally  pro- 
 duce in  the  fetus  of  many  animals,  yet  we  must 
 agree  with  the  Greek  fathers  and  ascribe  the  pro- 
 duction of  Jacob's  spotted  sheep  and  goats  to  Divine 
 agency.  The  whole  question  has  been  earefidly 
 considered  by  Nitschmann  {De  Carylo  Jacobi,  in 
 Thes.  Nov.  Theol.  Phil.  i.  202-200),  from  whom 
 we  quote  the  following  passage :  "  Fatemur  itaque, 
 cum  Vossio  aliisque  piis  viris,  illam  pecudum  im- 
 (Ujiiiatunu-m  tantum  J'liisse  cauKam  adjucantvm,  ac 
 plus  in  hoc  negotio  divinaj  tribuendum  esse  virtuti. 
 quse  suo  concursu  sic  debilem  causaj  secundte  vim 
 adauxit  ut  quod  ea  sola  secundum  naturam  pras- 
 stare  non  valeret  id  divina  benedictione  supra  na- 
 turam pra^staret;  "  and  then  Nitschmann  cites  the 
 passage  in  Gen.  xxxi.  5-13,  where  Jacob  expressly 
 states  that  his  success  was  due  to  Divine  interfer- 
 ence; for  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  Jacob  is  here 
 uttering  nothing  but  a  tissue  of  falsehoods,  which 
 appears  to  be  the  opinion  of  Kalisch  ( I  list,  and 
 (.'lit.  Comment.  Gen.  xxx.  and  xxxi.),  who  repre- 
 sents the  patriarch  as  "  unblushingly  executing 
 frauds  suggested  by  his  fertile  invention,  and  then 
 abusing  the  authority  of  God  in  covering  or  justi- 
 fying them."  We  are  aware  that  a  still  graver 
 (iirticulty  in  the  n\inds  of  some  persons  remains,  if 
 the  aliove  explanation  le  adopted;  but  we  have  no 
 other  alternative,  for,  as  Patrick  has  observed,  '-let 
 any  shepherd  now  try  this  device,  and  he  will  not 
 find  it  do  what  it  did  then  by  a  Divine  operation."  '' 
 The  greater  difficulty  alluded  to  is  the  supposing 
 that  God  would  have  directly  interfered  to  help  Ja- 
 cob to  act  fraudulently  towards  his  uncle.  But  are 
 we  quite  sure  that  there  was  any  fraud,  fairly  called 
 such,  in  the  matter?  Had  Jacob  not  been  thus 
 aided,  he  might  have  remained  the  dupe  of  Lalian's 
 niggardly  conduct  all  his  days.  He  had  served  his 
 money-loviTig  uncle  faithfully  for  fourteen  years; 
 Laban  confesses  his  cattle  had  increased  consider- 
 ably under  Jacob's  management;  but  all  the  return 
 he  got  was  unfair  treatment  and  a  constant  desire 
 
 a  *  Dr.  Thomson's  remarks  in  illustration  of  the.'e 
 traits  of  pastoral  life  in  the  East  are  very  interesting 
 (Land  and  Book,  i.  303,  304).  H. 
 
 6  None  of  the  instancM  cited  by  Jerome  and  others 
 
 selves,  and  not  retieetions  of  inanimate  objects,  were 
 the  cause  of  some  marked  peculiarity  in  the  fetus. 
 Rosenmiiller.  however  {Sckol.  in  lor.),  cites  llastfeer 
 {De  Re  oHaria,  German  version,  pp.  17,  30,  43,46,  47) 
 
 are  exact  parallels  with  that  in  question.     The  quota-    as  a  writer  by  whom   the   contrary  opinion   is   eon- 
 tions  adduced,  with  the  exception  of  those  which  speak    firmed.     We  have  been  unable  to  gain  access  to  this 
 if  painted  iujages  SfK  before  Spartan  women  inter  con-  \  work. 
 tipiendun  refer  ro  cases  in  which  licing  animals  them-  I 
 
SHEEP 
 
 on  the  part  of  Laban  to  strike  a  Jiard  bargain  with 
 him  (Gen.  xxxi.  7).  God  vouchsafed  to  deUver 
 Jacob  out  of  the  hands  of  his  hard  master,  and  to 
 punish  Laban  for  his  cruelty,  which  He  did  by 
 pointing  out  to  Jacob  how  he  could  secure  to  him- 
 self large  flocks  and  abundant  cattle.  God  was  only 
 helping  Jacob  to  obtain  that  which  justly  belonged 
 to  him,  but  which  Laban's  rapacity  refused  to 
 grant.  "  Were  it  lawful,"  says  Stackhouse,  "  fur 
 any  priv.ate  person  to  make  reprisals,  the  injurious 
 treatment  Jacob  had  received  from  Laban,  both  in 
 imposing  a  wife  upon  him  and  prolonging  his  servi- 
 tude without  wages,  was  enough  to  give  him  both 
 the  provocation  and  the  privilege  to  do  so.  God 
 Almighty,  however,  was  pleased  to  take  the  deter- 
 mination of  the  whole  matter  into  his  own  hands."' 
 This  seems  to  us  the  best  way  of  understanding 
 this  disputed  subject.a 
 
 The  following  Hebrevsr  words  occur  as  the  names 
 of  sheep:  "JS!?,  l'"'S!J,  WD!J,  or  np,  a  collec- 
 tive noun  to  denote  "a  flock  of  sheep  or  goats," 
 to  which  is  opposed  the  noun  of  unity,  TIW,  "  a 
 sheep "  or  "a  goat,"  joined  to  a  masc.  where 
 "rams"  or  "he-goats  "  are  signified,  and  with  a 
 fem.  when  "ewes"  or  "she-goats"  are  meant, 
 though  even  in  this  case  sometimes  to  a  masc.  (as 
 
 in  Gen.  xsxi.  10):   ^"'S,  "a  ram;"    VH"!,   "a 
 
 ewe;"   tZ7?3  or  ^W3,  "a  lamb,"  or  rather  "a 
 
 sheep  of  a  year  old  or  above."  o[iposed  to  Tl/i^, 
 
 "  a  sucking  or  very  young  lamb;  "  "13  is  another 
 
 term  applied  to  a  lamb  as  it  s///;*  ("l"!]^)  "i  the 
 pastures. 
 
 SHEEPFOLD  2963 
 
 As  the  sheep  is  an  emblem  of  meekness,  patience, 
 and  submission,  it  is  expressly  mentioned  as  typi- 
 fying these  qualities  in  the  person  of  our  blessed 
 Lord  (Is.  liii.  7 ;  Acts  viii.  32,  &c  ).  The  relation 
 that  exists  between  Christ,  "the  chief  Shepherd," 
 and  his  members,  is  beautifully  compared  to  that 
 which  in  the  East  is  so  strikingly  exhibited  by  the 
 shepherds  to  their  flocks  (see  Thomson,  Lund  and 
 Book,  p.  203).  W.  H 
 
 *  SHEEPCOTE.     [SiiEEPFOLD.] 
 
 *  SHEEPFOLD.       The  original  words  for 
 
 this  expression  in  the  Old  Testament  are  nn"!!!!, 
 
 nb?!3,   L3\nQPQ  (dual,  with  reference  to  the 
 
 troughs  which  divided  them),  and  "JS!?  m^l?? 
 and  in  the  N.  T.,  av\^  to>u  irpofiaroiv  (John  xi. 
 1)  and  auArj  and  noiixvT)  (tlie  latter  erroneously) 
 (John  X.  IG).  Sheepfolds  as  usually  constructed 
 in  the  East,  according  to  Thomson  {Limd  and 
 Book,  i.  2131) ), are  "low,  flat  buildings,  erected  on 
 the  sheltered  side  of  the  valleys,  and,  when  the 
 nights  are  cold,  the  flocks  are  shut  up  in  them, 
 but  in  ordinary  weather  they  are  merely  kept 
 within  the  yard."  During  the  day  of  course  they 
 are  led  forth  to  pasture  by  the  shepherds.  The 
 folds  "  are  defended  by  a  wide  stone  wall,  crowned 
 by  sharp  thorns  which  the  wolf  will  rarely  attempt 
 to  scale.  The  leopard  and  panther,  however,  when 
 pressed  with  hunger,  will  overleap  the  thorny 
 hedge,"  and  make  havoc  of  the  flock.  JNIany  little 
 villages  in  Syria,  especially  in  the  Buka'a  between 
 Lebanon  and  Anti-Lebanon,  consist  of  sheepcotes  or 
 have  sprmig  from  them,  and  have  the  syllable 
 // lUih  (held  fold)  piefixed  to  their  names.  In 
 G  eece  the  writer  has  seen  folds  built  merely  of  a 
 
 Sheeptold. 
 
 parapet  of  bushes  or  branches,  placed  at  the  en- 
 trance of  caves,  natural,  or  made  for  the  purpose 
 ill  the  side  of  hills  or  rocky  ledges.  A  porter  kept 
 the  door  of  the  larger  sheepfolds.  [Porter,  Amer. 
 ed.] 
 
 A  mistranslation  in  John  x.  16,  or  at  least  am- 
 biguity ("fold"  lieing  susceptible  of  a  twofold 
 sense),  mars  the  exquisite  beauty  of  the  passage. 
 Instead  of  "  there  shall  be  one  fold  ami  one  shep- 
 
 a  We  have  considered  this  perplexing  question  in 
 accordance  with  the  generalti/  received  opinion  that 
 the  whole  account  is  the  work  of  one  and  the  same 
 ftathor  :  at  the  same  time,  we  must  allow  that  there 
 ia  strong  probabili';^  that  those  portions  of  the  narra- 
 
 herd,"  it  should  read:  "and  there  shall  be  one 
 flock,  one  shepherd."  The  A.  V.  confuses  oiiAtj 
 and  Troijxvr],  and  we  necessarily  lose  in  any  render- 
 ing the  alliterative  succession  of  -Koifxpr)  and  ttoi- 
 fj.-i)v.  The  Saviour  no  doubt  refers  more  immedi- 
 ately in  the  figure  to  the  union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles 
 in  the  fiiith  and  blessings  of  the  gospel.  "  Sheep- 
 cote  "  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  three  times  interchange- 
 
 ably with  "sheepfold." 
 
 H. 
 
 tive  which  relate  to  Jacob's  stratagem  with  ths 
 "  peeled  rods,"  are  attributable,  not  to  the  Elokistie 
 or  ancient  source,  but  to  the  su|)plementary  Ji  wvistic 
 writer. 
 
296  i 
 
 SHEEP-MASTER 
 
 *  SHEEP-MASTER  (2  K.  iii.  4).    [Shep- 
 
 [IKRU.] 
 
 SHEEP  GATE,  THE  Oi4-!jn  l^ti?:  ^; 
 irv\i]  0  irpo^aTiK-fi--  porta  'jreijh).  One  of  the 
 gates  of  Jerusalem  as  rebuilt  by  Neheniiah  (Neli. 
 iii.  1,  32;  xii.  39).  It  stood  between  the  tower  of 
 JMeali  and  the  chamber  of  the  corner  (iii.  32,  1)  or 
 i;ate  of  the  guard-house  (xii.  39,  A.  V.  "  prison- 
 f^ate").  The  latter  seems  to  have  been  at  the 
 unjile  formed  by  the  junction  of  the  wall  of  the  city 
 of  David  with  that  of  the  city  of  .Jerusalem  proper, 
 having  the  Sheep  Gate  on  the  north  of  it.  (See  the 
 diagram  in  p.  1-322,  vol.  ii.)  According  to  the  view 
 talien  in  the  article  Jekusalem,"  the  city  of  Da- 
 vid occupied  a  space  on  the  mount  Moriah  about 
 coinciding  with  that  between  the  south  wall  of  the 
 platform  of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock  and  the  south 
 wall  of  the  Iliu-am  es-Shenf.  The  position  of  the 
 Sheep  Gate  may  therefore  ha\e  been  on  or  near  that 
 of  the  Bab  el-Kaitdniii.  Bertheau  (Exetj.  Ihmd- 
 huch,  on  Nehenuah,  p.  144)  is  right  in  placing  it 
 on  tlie  east  side  of  the  city  and  on  the  north  of  the 
 corner;  but  is  wrong  in  placing  it  at  the  present 
 St.  Stephen's  Gate,  since  no  wall  existed  nearly  so 
 far  to  the  east  as  that,  till  after  the  death  of  Christ. 
 [Jehu.salem.] 
 
 The  pool  which  v/as  near  the  Sheep  Gate  (.John 
 V.  2;  A.  V.  inaccurately  "  market^')  was  probably 
 the  present  Ilamnidm  esh-Skefa.  G. 
 
 SHEEP-MARKET,  THE  (.John  v.  2). 
 The  word  "  marl<et "  is  an  interpolation  of  our 
 translators,  possilily  after  Luther,  who  has  Schtif- 
 liaiis.  The  words  of  the  original  are  eVi  rrj  irpo- 
 ^ariKV,  to  >vhich  should  probably  be  supjjlied  not 
 market  but  gate,  TrvKri,  as  in  the  LXX.  version  of 
 the  passages  in  Nehemiah  quoted  in  the  foregoing 
 article.  The  Vulgate  connects  the  Trpo^ariKv 
 with  the  Ko\vjxPri6pa,  and  reads  Prolmtica  pis- 
 cina ;  while  the  Syriac  omits  all  mention  of  the 
 sheei>,  and  names  only  "a  place  of  baptism." 
 
 G. 
 
 *  SHEETS,  only  in  Judg.  xiv.  12, 13,  and  there 
 "  shirts  "  in  the  margin.  The  Hebrew  is  T^"]3, 
 elsewhere  only  in  Prov.  xxxi.  24  and  [s.  iii.  23, 
 where  the  A.  V.  renders  "  fine  linen.'"  The  LXX. 
 has  in  the  different  places  aivSSves  or  ^vaaiva, 
 and  the  Vulg.  siiuhmes.  It  was  something  worn 
 by  men  and  women,  as  the  above  passages  show-, 
 and  must  have  been  an  article  of  dress.  It  may 
 have  been  a  thin  covering  of  linen  worn  next  to  the 
 body  as  a  shirt  (Fiirst,  Keil),  or  a  loose  night- 
 wrapper  thrown  around  one  on  taking  oft'  his  other 
 garments  (Saalschutz).  In  the  latter  case  it  cor- 
 responds nearly  to  the  Greek  aiv^dov  (comp.  Mark's 
 CTiv^6va  in\  yu/xi/ov,  xiv.  51).  It  formed  part  of 
 the  raiment  which  Samson  w.as  to  give  to  the 
 Philistines  if  they  should  discover  his  riddle  within 
 the  appointed  time  (Judg.  xiv.  12  ft".).  It  was 
 evidently  at  that  period  an  article  of  value  or  lux- 
 ury among  the  Philistines,  as  it  was  still  later 
 among  the  Hebrews  (Is.  iii.  23;  Prov.  xxxi.  24). 
 
 a  *  Against  this  theory  respecting  the  site  of  "  the 
 city  of  David,"  see  under  Jerusalem,  §  iv.,  near  the 
 end  (Amer.  ed.).  S.  W. 
 
 I'  The  character  nearly  resembles  that  of  Samaritan 
 MSS.,  although  it  is  not  quite  identical  with  it.  Tlie 
 Hebrew  and  Samaritan  alphabets  appear  to  be  diver- 
 freut  representatiyes  of  some  older  form,  as  may  be 
 tuferred  from  several  of  the  letters.     Thus  the  Btt/i 
 
 SHEKEL 
 
 Fiirst  calls  in  question  the  commonly  assumed  af- 
 finity between  aii/Saiy  and  "J'^'JD  (Lex.  s.  v.). 
 
 H. 
 *  SHEFE'LAH.     [Sefiiela.] 
 
 SHEHARFAH  (n^"|n^'  [Jelwcah  seeks]  i 
 'Xaapias-  [Vat.  Sapaia;]  Alex.  2aopia:  Soho~ 
 ria).     A  Benjamite,  son  of  Jeroham   (1  Chr.  viii. 
 
 26). 
 
 SHEKEL.  In  a  former  article  [Money]  a 
 full  account  has  been  given  of  the  coins  called 
 shekels,  which  are  found  with  inscriptions  in  the 
 Samaritan'' character:  so  that  the  present  article 
 will  only  contain  notices  of  a  few  ])articulars  relat- 
 ing to  the  Jewish  coinage  which  did  not  fall 
 within  the  plan  of  the  former. 
 
 It  may,  in  the  first  place,  be  desirable  to  men- 
 tion, that  although  some  shekels  are  found  i  with 
 Hebrew  letters  instead  of  Samaritan,  these  are  un- 
 doubtedly all  forgeries.  It  is  the  more  needful  to 
 make  this  statement,  as  in  some  books  of  high 
 reputation,  e.  g.  Walton's  Polyylutt,  these  shekel.s 
 are  engra\ed  as  if  they  were  genuine.  It  is  hardly 
 necessary  to  suggest  the  reasons  which  may  have 
 led  to  this  series  of  forgeries.  But  the  difterence 
 between  the  two  is  not  confined  to  the  letters  only; 
 the  Hebrew  shekels  ai'e  much  larger  and  thinner 
 than  the  Samaritan,  so  that  a  person  might  dis- 
 tinguish them  merely  by  the  touch,  even  under  a 
 covering. 
 
 Our  attention  is,  in  the  next  place,  directed  to 
 the  early  notices  of  these  shekels  in  Kabbinical 
 writers.  It  might  be  supposed  that  in  the  Mishna, 
 where  one  of  the  treatises  bears  the  title  of  "  Slieka- 
 liiii,'"  or  tSliekels,  we  should  find  some  information 
 on  the  subject.  But  this  treatise,  Ijcing  devoted  to 
 the  consideration  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  pay- 
 ment of  the  half-shekel  ibr  the  Temple,  is  of  course 
 useless  for  our  purpose. 
 
 Some  references  are  given  to  the  works  of  Bashi 
 and  Maimonides  (contemporary  writers  of  the  12th 
 century)  for  information  relative  to  shekels  and  the 
 forms  of  Heljrew  letters  in  ancient  times;  but  the 
 most  important  liabliinical  quotation  given  by 
 Bayer  is  that  from  Jianibari,  i.  e.  Jiabbi-Moses- 
 Bar-Nachimm,  who  lived  about  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  13th  century.  He  describes  a  shekel 
 which  he  had  seen,  and  of  which  tlie  Ctit/neans 
 read  the  inscription  with  ease.  The  explanation 
 which  they  gave  of  the  inscription  was,  on  one  side: 
 Shekel  ha-Sliekaliin,  "the  shekel  of  shekels,"  and 
 on  the  other  "Jerusalem  the  Holy."  The  former 
 was  doubtless  a  misinterpretation  of  the  usual  in- 
 scription "the  shekel  of  Israel;"  but  the  latter 
 corresponds  with  the  inscription  on  our  shekels 
 (Bayer,  Be  N^uints.  p.  11).  In  the  ICth  century 
 1!.  Azarias  de  Kossi  states  that  E.  Closes  Basula 
 had  arranged  a  Cutha?an,  i.  e.  Samaritan,  alphabet 
 from  coins,  and  H.  Moses  Alaskar  (of  whom  little 
 is  known)  is  quoted  by  Bayer  as  having  read  in 
 some  Samaritan  coins,  "  in  such  a  year  of  the  con- 
 solation of  Isr.ael,  in  such  a  year  of  such  a  king." 
 And  the  same  I!.  Azarias  de  Kossi  (or  de  Adumim, 
 as  he  is  called  by  Bartolocci,  BiOl.  Rabb.  vol.  iv.  p. 
 
 and  several  other  letters  are  evidently  identical  in 
 their  origin.  And  the  W  {Skin)  of  the  Hebrew  alpha 
 bet  is  tlie  same  as  that  of  the  Samaritan  ;  for  if  we 
 make  the  two  middle  strokes  of  tlie  Samaritan  Icttei 
 coalesce,  it  takes  the  Hebrew  fomi. 
 
SHEKEL 
 
 158),  ill  liis  2"*3''37 -nsn,  "The  Light  of  the 
 Eyes,"  (not  Fons  Oculorum,  as  Bayer  translates 
 it,  which  would  require  7"'277D,  not  ~11S^), 
 discusses  the  Transfluvial  or  Samaritan  letters,  and 
 describes  a  shekel  of  Israel  which  he  had  seen. 
 But  the  most  important  passage  of  all  is  that  in 
 which  this  writer  quotes  the  description  of  a  shekel 
 Been  by  Kamlian  at  St.  Jean  d'Acre,  A.  D.  1210. 
 He  gives  inscriptions  as  above,  "  the  Shekel  of 
 vShekels,"  and  "  Jerusalem  the  Holy  ;  "  but  he  also 
 determines  the  weight,  which  Le  makes  about  half 
 an  ounce. 
 
 We  find,  therefore,  that  in  early  times  shekels 
 were  known  to  the  Jewish  Eabbis  with  Samai'itan 
 inscriptions,  corresponding  with  those  now  found 
 (except  in  one  point,  which  is  probably  an  error), 
 and  corresponding  with  them  in  weight.  These 
 are  important  considerations  in  tracing  the  his- 
 tory of  tliis  coinage,  and  we  pass  on  now  to  the 
 earliest  mention  of  these  shekels  by  (,'hristian  writ- 
 ers. We  believe  that  \V.  Postell  is  the  first  Chris- 
 tian writer  who  saw  and  described  a  shekel.  He 
 was  a  Parisian  traveller  who  visited  Jerusalem 
 early  in  the  16th  century.  In  a  curious  work  pub- 
 lished by  him  in  l.'J38,  entitled  Alphabetum  Diiu- 
 deciiii  Linguaruin,  the  following  passage  occurs. 
 After  stating  that  the  Samaritan  alphabet  was  the 
 original  form  of  the  Hebrew,  he  proceeds  thus :  — 
 
 "  I  draw  this  inference  from  silver  coins  of  great 
 antiquity,  which  I  found  among  the  .lews.  They 
 set  such  store  by  them  that  I  could  not  get  one  of 
 them  (not  otherwise  worth  a  quincunx)  for  two 
 gold  pieces.  The  Jews  say  they  are  of  the  time  of 
 tSoloiiton,  and  they  added  that,  hating  the  Samari- 
 tans as  they  do,  worse  than  dogs,  and  never  speak- 
 ing to  them,  nothing  endears  these  coins  so  much 
 to  them  as  the  consideration  that  these  characters 
 were  once  in  their  common  usage,  nature,  as  it 
 were,  yearning  after  the  things  of  old.  'J'hey  say 
 that  at  Jerusalem,  now  called  C'hus  or  Chugsem- 
 baricli,  in  the  nuisoin-y  and  in  the  deepest  part  of 
 the  ruins,  these  coins  are  dug  up  daily."  " 
 
 Postell  gives  a  very  bad  wood-cut  of  one  of  these 
 shekels,  but  the  inscription  is  correct.  He  was  un- 
 able to  explain  the  letters  over  tlie  vase,  which 
 soon  became  the  sulyect  of  a  discussion  among  the 
 learned  men  of<iEurope,  which  lasted  lor  nearly  two 
 centuries.  Their  attempts  to  explain  them  are  enu- 
 merated by  Bayer  in  his  Treatise  De  Namis  Ile- 
 brcw-Sam((rUaiiis,  which  may  be  consitlered  as  the 
 first  work  which  placed  the  explanation  of  these 
 coins  on  a  satisfactory  basis.  But  it  would  obvi- 
 ously be  useless  here  to  record  so  many  unsuc- 
 cessfid  guesses  as  Bayer  enumerates.  The  work  of 
 Bayer,  although  some  of  the  authors  nearly  solved 
 the  problem,  called  forth  an  antagonist  in  Professor 
 Tyclisen  of  Rostock,  a  learned  Orientalist  of  that 
 
 SHEKEL 
 
 2965 
 
 a  Postell  appears  to  have  arranged  his  Samaritan 
 alphabet  from'these  coins. 
 
 b  lie  quotes,  e.  g-.,  the  following  passage  from  the 
 Jerusalem  Talmud  :  ^33  (''"l^ti?)  l~l^tt;  ^^IDTID 
 
 (bbna)  ibnia  i^-^w  wnmD  p;  "Revou.- 
 
 tion  (Samaritan)  money,  like  that  of  Ben  Coziba,  does 
 not  defile."  The  meaning  of  this  is  not  very  obvious, 
 nor  does  Tychsen's  explanation  appear  quite  satisfac- 
 tory. He  adds,  "does  not  delile,  if  used  as  an  amu- 
 let." We  should  rather  inquire  whether  the  expres- 
 sion may  not  have  some  relation  to  that  of  '■  defiling 
 the  hands,"  as  applied  to  the  canonical  books  of  the 
 
 period.  Several  publications  passed  between  them 
 which  it  is  unnecessary  to  emmierate,  as  Tychsen 
 gave  a  summary  of  his  objections,  in  a  small  pam- 
 phlet, entitled  O.  G.  Tychsen,  De  Nutnis  Ih- 
 braicis  Diatribe,  qua  siinul  nd  yuj)e7'as  ill.  F.  P. 
 Bayerii  Objeetiones  respondelur  (Kostochii,  IT'.tl). 
 His  first  position  is  —  That  either  (1)  all  the' 
 coins,  whether  with  Hebrew  or  Samaritan  inscrip- 
 tions, are  false,  or  (2)  if  any  are  genuine,  they 
 belong  to  Barcoceba  —  p.  6.  This  he  modifies 
 slightly  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  treatise,  pp. 
 .52,  5-3,  where  he  states  it  to  be  his  conclusion  (1) 
 that  the  Jews  had  no  coined  money  before  the  time 
 of  our  Saviour;  (2)  that  during  the  rebellion  of 
 Barcoceba  (or  Barcoziba),  Samaritan  money  was 
 coined  either  by  the  Samaritans  to  please  the  Jews, 
 or  by  the  Jews  to  please  the  Samaritans,  and  that 
 the  Samaritan  letters  were  used  in  order  to  make 
 the  coins  desirable  as  amulets!  and  (3)  that  the 
 coins  attributed  to  Simon  JMaccabfeus  belong  to 
 this  period.  Tychsen  has  quoted  some  curious 
 passages,''  but  his  arguments  are  wholly  untenable. 
 In  the  first  place,  no  numismatist  can  doidjt  the 
 genuineness  of  the  shekels  attributed  to  Simon 
 Jlaccabwus,  or  believe  that  they  belong  to  the  same 
 epoch  as  the  coins  of  Barcoceba.  But  as  Tychsen 
 never  saw  a  shekel,  he  was  not  a  competent  judge. 
 There  is  another  consideration,  which,  if  further 
 demonstration  were  needed,  would  supply  a  very 
 strong  argument.  These  coins  were  first  made 
 known  to  Europe  through  Postell,  who  does  not  ajv 
 pear  to  liave  been  aware  of  the  description  given  of 
 them  in  Kabbinical  writers.  The  correspondence 
 of  the  newly-found  coins  with  the  earlier  descrip- 
 tion is  almost  demonstrative.  But  they  bear  such 
 undoubted  marks  of  genuineness,  that  no  judge  of 
 ancient  coins  could  doubt  them  for  a  moment. 
 On  the  contrary,  to  a  practical  eye,  those  with  tie- 
 brew  inscriptions  bear  undoubted  marks  of  spuri 
 ousness.*^ 
 
 Among  the  symbols  found  on  this  series  of  coins 
 is  one  which  is  considered  to  represent  that  which 
 was  called  Luhdj  by  the  Jews.  This  term  was  ap- 
 plied (see  Maimon.  on  the  section  of  the  JNIishna 
 called  Rosli  Hashanah,  or  Commencement  of  the 
 Year,  ch.  vii.  1,  and  the  JMishna  itself  in  Succah, 
 
 HDID,  or  Booths,  ch.  ii.  1,  both  of  which  passages 
 are  quoted  by  Bayer,  De  Num.  p.  129)  to  the 
 branches  of  the  three  trees  mentioned  in  Lev.  xxiii. 
 40,  which  are  thought  to  be  the  Palm,  the  Myrtle, 
 and  the  Willow.  These,  which  were  to  lie  carried 
 by  the  Israelites  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  were 
 usually  accompanied  by  the  Iruit  of  the  Citron, 
 whicli  is  also  found  in  this  representation.  Some- 
 times two  of  these  Lulnbs  are  found  together.  At 
 least  such  is  the  explanation  given  by  some  authori- 
 ties of  the  symbols  called  in  the  article  Mo>ey  by 
 
 0.  T.  See  Ginsliurg,  Commentary  on  the  Song  of 
 Songs,  p.  3.  The  word  for  polluting  is  different,  but 
 the  expressions  may  be  analogous.  But,  on  the  other 
 liand,  these  coins  are  often  perforated,  which  gives 
 countenance  to  the  notion  that  they  were  used  as 
 amulets.     The   passage  is   from   the   division  of   the 
 
 Jerusalem  Talmud  entitled  ''^W  1WVT2,  Maaser 
 Shcni,  or  "The  Second  Tithe." 
 
 c  The  statement  here  made  will  not  be  disputed  by 
 any  practical  numismatist.  It  is  made  on  the  au- 
 thority of  the  late  Mr.  T.  Burgon,  of  the  British  Mu- 
 seum, whose  knowledge  and  skill  iu  these  questions 
 was  known  throughout  Europe. 
 
2966  SHEKEL 
 
 the  name  of  Slienves.  The  subject  is  involved  in 
 much  tlitticuity  and  obscurity,  and  we  speak  there- 
 fore with  some  hesitation  and  diffidence,  especially 
 as  experienced  numismatists  differ  in  their  explana- 
 tions. This  explanation  is,  however,  adopted  by 
 Bayer  (De  Num.  pp.  1-28,  219,  Ax.),  and  by  Cave- 
 doiii  (Bll/l.  Num.  pp.  31,  32  of  the  German  transla- 
 tion, who  adds  relerences  to  1  Jlacc.  iv.  59;  John 
 X.  22),  as  he  considers  that  the  Lulab  was  in  use 
 at  the  Feast  of  tlie  Dedication  on  the  25th  day  of 
 the  9th  month  as  well  as  at  that  of  Tabernacles. 
 He  also  refers  to  2  Mace.  i.  18,  x.  C,  7,  where  tlie 
 celelratioM  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  descriljed, 
 and  the  branches  carried  by  the  worshippers  are 
 specified. 
 
 The  symbol  on  the  reverse  of  the  shekels,  repre- 
 senting a  twig  with  three  buds,  appears  to  bear 
 more  resemblance  to  the  buds  of  the  pomegranate 
 than  to  any  other  plant. 
 
 The  following  list  is  given  by  Cavedoni  (p.  11  of 
 the  German  translation)  as  an  enumeration  of  all 
 the  coins  which  can  be  attributed  with  any  cer- 
 tainty to  Simon  jMaccabteus. 
 
 I.  Shekels  of  three  years,  with  the  inscription 
 Shekel  Israel  on  the  ob^■erse  with  a  \ase,  over 
 which  appears  (1)  an  Alepli;  (2)  the  letter  Sliin 
 with  a  Belli ;   (3)  the  letter  Shin  with  a  (Jimel. 
 
 R.  Ou  the  reverse  is  the  twig  with  three  buds, 
 and  the  inscription  Jeviisalem  Kedushah  or  Uak- 
 keclusliah.'^ 
 
 II.  The  same  as  the  above,  only  half  the  weight, 
 
 which  is  indicated  by  the  word  ^l?n,  chdisi,  "a 
 half."  These  occur  only  in  the  first  and  second 
 years. 
 
 The  aliove  are  silver. 
 
 III.  *'"n  :yznS  r\yiD,  Shenath  Arl-a  ChdUl. 
 The  fourth  year  —  a  half.     A  Citron  between  two 
 
 Z,ulabs. 
 
 R.  fV!?  nbSSb,  Lerjeidlath  Tsion,  "  Of  the 
 Liberation  of  Zion."  A  palm-tree  between  two 
 baskets  of  fruit. 
 
 IV.  'H'^ni  m"lS  n2W,  Shmath  Arb'a, 
 RehVa.  The  fourth  year  —  a  fourth.  Two  i?<- 
 labs. 
 
 R.  'JV!i  nbWijb  — as  before.    Citron-fruit. 
 
 V.  S'3"1S  r\2W,  Shenath  Arb'n.  The  fourth 
 year.     Lidab  between  two  citrons. 
 
 R.  ^V!Si  ilvWiv,  Legeullath  Tsion,  as  before. 
 
 The  vase  as  on  the  shekel  and  half-shekel. 
 
 These  are  of  copper. 
 
 The  other  coins  which  belong  to  this  series  have 
 been  sufficiently  illustrated  in  the  article  ^Ioney. 
 
 In  the  course  of  1862  a  work  of  considerable 
 importance  was  published  at  Breslau  liy  Dr.  jM- A. 
 Levy,  entitled  Geschichte  der  Jiidischen  jMunzenfi 
 It  appears  likely  to  be  useful  in  the  elucidation  of 
 the  questions  relating  to  the  Jewish  coinage  which 
 have  been  touched  upon   in  the  present  volume. 
 
 a  The  spelling  varies  with  the  year.  The  shekel 
 of  the  Jirst  year  has  only  jlti^llp  CbU^TT'; 
 while  those  of  the  second  and  third  years  have  the 
 fuller  form,  ntLmpH  C'^bu;'!"!'^.  The  "«  of  the 
 Jerusalem  is  important  as  showing  that  both  modes 
 of  spelling  were  in  use  at  the  same  time. 
 
 '    From  the    time  of  its   publication,   it   was   not 
 
 SHELAH 
 
 There  are  one  or  two  points  on  which  it  is  desirable 
 to  state  the  views  of  the  author,  esjjecially  as  he 
 quotes  coins  which  have  only  become  known  lately. 
 Some  coins  have  been  descriljed  in  the  Revue 
 Numismatique  (1800,  p.  260  seq.),  to  which  the 
 name  of  Eleazar  coins  has  been  given.  A  coin  was 
 published  some  time  ago  by  De  Saulcy  which  is 
 supposed  by  that  author  to  be  a  counterfeit  coin. 
 It  is  scarcely  legible,  but  it  appears  to  contain 
 the  name  Eleazar  on  one  side,  and  that  of 
 Siuion  on  the  other.  During  the  troubles  which 
 preceded  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Elea- 
 zar (the  son  of  Simon),  who  was  a  priest,  and 
 Simon  Ben  Giora,  were  at  the  head  of  large  fac- 
 tions. It  is  suggested  by  Dr.  Levy  that  money 
 may  have  been  struck  which  bore  the  names  of 
 botli  these  leaders ;  but  it  seems  scarcely  probable, 
 as  they  do  not  appear  to  have  acted  in  concert. 
 But  a  copper  coin  has  been  published  in  the  Revue 
 Numismatique  which  undoubtedly  liears  the  in- 
 scription of  "  Eleazar  the  priest."  Its  types  are  — 
 I.  A  vase  with  one  handle  and  the  inscription 
 
 ^mSn  "lT27vS,  "Eleazer  the  priest,"   in 
 Samaritan  letters. 
 R.  A    bunch    of    grapes    with    the    inscription 
 
 [bsn]^;^  nbsab  nn  wnat:?,  "year 
 
 one  of  the  redemption  of  Israel." 
 Some  silver  coins  also,  first  published  by  Reichardt, 
 bear  tlie  same  inscription  on  the  obverse,  under  a 
 palm-tree,  but  the  letters  run  from  left  to  right. 
 The  reverse  bears  the  same  type  and  inscription  as 
 the  copper  coins. 
 
 These  coins  are  attributed,  as  well  as  some  that 
 bear  the  name  of  Simon  or  Simeon,  to  the  period 
 of  this  first  rebellion,  by  Dr.  Levy.  It  is,  however, 
 quite  clear  that  some  of  the  coins  bearing  similar 
 inscriptions  belong  to  the  period  of  Bar-cocab's 
 rebellion  (or  Barcoceba's  as  the  name  is  often 
 spelt)  under  Hadrian,  because  they  are  stamped 
 upon  denarii  of  Trajan,  his  predecessor.  The  work 
 of  Dr.  Levy  will  be  found  very  useful  as  collecting 
 together  notices  of  all  these  coins,  and  throwing 
 out  very  useful  suggestions  as  to  their  attribution ; 
 but  we  must  still  look  to  further  researches  and 
 fresh  collections  of  these  coins  for  full  satisfaction 
 on  many  points.'^  The  attribution  of  the  shekels 
 and  half-shekels  to  Simon  Maccaboeus  may  be  con- 
 sidered as  well  established,  and  several  of  the  other 
 coins  described  in  the  article  Monky  offer  no 
 grounds  for  hesitation  or  doubt.  But  still  this 
 series  is  \ery  nuich  isolated  from  other  classes  of 
 coins,  and  the  nature  of  the  work  hardly  corresponds 
 in  some  cases  with  the  periods  to  which  we  are 
 constrained  from  the  existing  evidence  to  attribute 
 the  coins.  We  must  therefore  still  look  for  further 
 light  from  future  inquiries.  Drawings  of  shekels 
 are  given  in  the  article  Money.  H.  J.  R. 
 
 *  SHE'LACH.     [SiLOAii,  The  Pool  of.] 
 SHE'LAH  (nbtt7  [petiticm]  :  2v^ii/x,   [Stj- 
 \wv,  Vat.  Alex,  in  Num.,  Vat.  1  Chr.  ii.  3;  Comp. 
 
 available  for  the  article  Money  ;  but  I  am  indebted  to 
 the  author  of  that  article  for  calling  my  attention  to 
 this  book.  I  was,  however,  unable  to  procure  it  until 
 the  article  Shekel  was  in  type.  H.  J.  R. 
 
 c  The  passage  from  the  ^Jerusalem  Talmud,  quoted 
 in  a  former  note,  is  considered  by  Dr.  Levy  (p.  127), 
 and  a  different  explanation  given.  The  word  trans- 
 lated by  Tychsen  "  to  pollute,"  is  translated  by  him 
 "  to  pay  "  or  "  redeem  the  tithe,"  which  seems  better. 
 
SHELANITES,  THE 
 
 In  Chr.,  2rjAc6:]  Sela).  1.  The  youngest  son  of 
 Judah  by  the  daughter  of  Shnah  the  Canaanite, 
 and  ancestor  of  the  family  of  the  Shelanites 
 (Gen.  xxxviii.  5,  11,  14,  26,  xlvi.  12;  Num.  xxvi. 
 20;  1  Chr.  ii.  3,  iv.  21).  Some  of  his  descendants 
 are  enumerated  in  a  remarkable  passage,  1  Chr.  iv. 
 21-23. 
 
 2.  {rvpW :  2oAa:  Sale.)  The  proper  form  of 
 the  name  of  Salah  the  son  of  Arphaxad  (1  Chr. 
 i.  18,  24). 
 
 SHE'LANITES,  THE  O^bt^H  [patr.,  see 
 abovej :  6  SrjAcoj/i  [Vat.  -j/e«] :  Selaitte).  The 
 descendants  of  Siielah  1  (Num.  xxvi.  20). 
 
 SHELEMI'AH  (n^TP^l?^  [whom  Jehovah 
 repays]:  ^iA^/xla;  Alex.  2eA.e,uias;  [FA.  SfXe- 
 fieta-l  Siilmias).  1.  One  of  the  sons  of  Uani  who 
 had  married  a  foreign  vt-ife  in  tlie  time  of  Ezra 
 (Ezr.  X.  39).     Called  Selejiias  in  1  Esdr.  is.  34. 
 
 2.  ([Gen.]  2e\€^ia;  Alex.  266^ia;  [Vat.  Te- 
 \f/j.ia;  FA.  TcAe^iasO  Selemue.)  The  father  of 
 Hananiah  (Neh.  iii.  30),  who  assisted  in  restoring 
 the  wall  of  Jerusalem.  If  this  Hananiah  be  the 
 same  as  is  mentioned  in  Neh.  iii.  8,  Shelemiah  was 
 one  of  the  priests  who  made  the  sacred  perfumes 
 and  incense. 
 
 3.  [Gen.  -^eAefxia ;  Vat.  BKffiia  ;  FA.  U\e- 
 fjLia  •  Ace.  Selemiain.]  A  priest  in  the  time  of  Ne- 
 heraiah,  who  was  made  one  of  the  treasiu'ers  over 
 the  treasuries  of  the  Levitical  tithes  (Neh.  xiii.  13). 
 
 4.  [2€A€;Uias.]  The  father  of  Jehucal,  or  Jucal, 
 in  the  time  of  Zedekiah  (Jer.  xxxvii.  3). 
 
 5.  The  father  of  Irijah,  the  captain  of  the  ward 
 who  arrested  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvii.  13).  In  Jer. 
 xxxviii.  1,  his  name  appears  in  the  lengthened  form, 
 like  tlie  following. 
 
 6.  (^n^7?bt^^:  2€X€jUi'a;  [Vat.  2a\a/iem.]) 
 The  same  as  Meshelemiah  and  Shallum  8  (1 
 Chr.  xxvi.  14). 
 
 7.  ([26A.€/xia,  Alex,  -jufar,  FA.  -/^eta^■]  Sele- 
 miaii.)  Another  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had 
 married  a  foreign  wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x. 
 41). 
 
 8.  (2eA6jUias;  Alex.  ^a\afj.ias-  Seleniia  [or 
 -as].)  Ancestor  of  Jehudi  in  the  time  of  Jehoia- 
 kim  (Jer.  xxxvi.  14)» 
 
 9.  (Om.  in  LXX.)  Son  of  Abdeel;  one  of  those 
 who  received  the  orders  of  Jehoiakim  to  take  Baruch 
 and  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26). 
 
 SHE'LEPH  {%?W  [drawitiff  out,  plucking]  : 
 [in  Gen.,  Rom.  laA^O,  in  Chr.,  omits,  with  Vat.;] 
 Alex.  2a\6<|>  [in  both]:  Saleph),  Gen.  x.  26;  1 
 Chr.  i.  20.  The  second  in  order  of  the  sons  of 
 Joktan.  The  tribe  which  sprang  from  him  has 
 been  satisfactorily  identified,  both  in  modern  and 
 classical  times;  as  well  as  the  district  of  the  Ye- 
 men named  after  him.  It  has  been  shown  in  other 
 articles  [Arabia;  Joktan,  etc.]  that  the  evidence 
 of  Joktan's  colonization  of  Southern  Arabia  is  in- 
 disputably proved,  and  that  it  has  received  the 
 assent  of  critics.  Sheleph  is  found  where  we  should 
 expect  to  meet  with  him,  in  the  district  {Mikhldf\ 
 as  the  ancient  divisions  of  the  Yemen  are  called  by 
 
 the  Arabs)  of  Sulaf  {\,^aXjm,  Mardsid,  s.  v.), 
 which  appears  to  be  the  same  as  Niebuhr's  Salfie 
 (Descr.  p.  215),  written  in  his   map  Selfia.     He 
 
 gi\es  the  Arabic  2!Lk.&Xmj,  with  the  vowels  prob- 
 
 SHELOMITH 
 
 2967 
 
 ably  Sulafeeyeh.  Niebuhr  says  of  it,  "  grande 
 etendue  de  pays  gouvernc'e  par  sept  Schechs : "  it 
 is  situate  in  N.  lat.  14°  30',  and  about  60  miles 
 nearly  south  of  San"a. 
 
 Besides  this  geographical  trace  of  Sheleph,  we 
 have  the  trilje  of  Shelif  or  Shulaf,  of  which  the 
 first  notice  appeared  in  the  Zeitschrift  d.  Beulschen 
 Moriienldndhchen  Gesellschaft,  xi.  153,  by  Dr. 
 Osiander,  and  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  the 
 following  information.  Yiikoot  in  the  Moajam,  s. 
 v.,  says,  "  Es-Selif  or  F2s-Sulaf  they  are  two  ancient 
 tribes  of  the  tribes  of  Yemen ;  Hisham  Ibn-SIo- 
 hammed  says  they  are  the  children  of  Yuktan  (Jok- 
 tan); and  Yuktan  was  the  son  of  Eber  the  son  of 
 Salah  the  son  of  Arphaxad  the  son  of  Shem  the 
 son  of  Noah  ....  And  a  district  in  El- Yemen  is 
 named  after  the  Sulaf."  El-Kalkasander  (in  the 
 British  Museum  liljrary)  says,  "  El-Sulaf,  called 
 also  Beni-s-Silf;'in,  a  tribe  of  the  descendants  of 
 Kahtan  (Joktan).  .  .  .  The  name  of  their  father 
 has  remained  with  them,  and  they  are  called  Es- 
 Sulaf :  they  are  children  of  Es-Sulaf  son  of  Yuktan 
 who  is  Kahtan.  .  .  .  Es-Sulaf  originally  signifies 
 one  of  the  little  ones  of  the  partridge,  and  Es-Silfan 
 is  its  plural:  the  tribe  was  named  after  that  on  ac- 
 count of  translation."  Yakoot  also  says  (s.  v. 
 Munldbik)  that  El-i\Iuntabik  was  an  idol  belong- 
 ing to  Es-Sulaf.  Finally,  according  to  the  Kdnioos 
 (and  the  Lubb-el-Luljah,  cited  in  the  Mnrdsid,  s. 
 v.),  Sulaf  was  a  liranch-tribe  of  Dhu-1-Kilaa;  [a 
 Himyerite  family  or  tribe  (Caussin,  Essdi  i.  113), 
 not  to  lie  confounded  with  the  later  king  or  Tub- 
 baa  of  that  name.] 
 
 This  identification  is  conclusively  satisfactory, 
 especially  when  we  recollect  that  Hazarmaveth 
 (Hadraniawt),  Sheba  (Seba),  and  other  .Joktanite 
 names  are  in  the  immediate  neighborhood.  It  is 
 strengthened,  if  further  evidence  were  required,  by 
 the  classical  mention  of  the  2aAa7r7ji/oi,  Salapeni, 
 also  written  ' hXairrivol,  Alapeni  (Ptol.  vi.  7).  Bo- 
 chart  puts  forward  this  people,  with  rare  brevity 
 The  more  recent  researches  in  Arabic  jMSS.  have, 
 as  we  have  shown,  confirmed  in  this  instance  his 
 theory ;  for  we  do  not  lay  much  stress  on  the  point 
 that  Ptolemy's  Salapeni  are  placed  by  him  in  N. 
 lat.  22°.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 SHE'LESH  (tt^btt?  [triad,  Ges.]:  2eA.\^s; 
 [Vat.  Zifx-n  0  Selles).  One  of  the  sons  of  Helem 
 the  brother  of  Shamer  (1  Chr.  vii.  35). 
 
 SHEL'OMI  (  "^rj'btr?  [pacific] :  :s.e\€fxi  [Vat. 
 -fj-ei]  :  Salami).  Father  of  Ahihud,  the  prince  of 
 the  tribe  of  Asher  (Num.  xxxiv.  27). 
 
 SHEL'OMITH  (.T^Jp'lbtT  [love  of  peace]: 
 2aAiDjuei9:  Saliiiiiilh).  1.  The  daughter  of  Dibri 
 of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Lev.  xxiv.  11).  She  had 
 married  an  Egyptian,  and  their  son  was  stoned  for 
 blasphemy. 
 
 2.  (2a\Wyue0i  ,  [Vat.  -dei;  Comp.  %a\aif/.ie ■■] 
 Salomllh.)  The  daughter  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr. 
 iii.  19). 
 
 3.  (2a\a);u&;0;  Alex.  :S,a\ovfic,>e.)  Chief  of  the 
 Izharites,  one  of  the  four  families  of  the  sons  of 
 Kohath  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  18).  He  is  called  Shelo- 
 MOTH  in  1  Chr.  xxiv.  22. 
 
 4.  (m?2'bt?7;  Keri  H^'ttb^  in  1  Chr.  xxvi. 
 
 25;  n'inbE?  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  26;  n"'pb:p  in  1 
 Chr.  xxvi.  28:  [2a\ai/x£«e :]  Selemith)  A  de- 
 scendant of  Eliezer  the  son  of  Moses,  who  with  his 
 
2968 
 
 SHELOMOTH 
 
 lirethreii  bad  charire  of  the  treasures  cletlicatetl  for 
 the  Temple  in  the  reign  of  Da\icl. 
 
 5.  (ma'blp;  Keri  H^pbtp  :  2aAa.^i'0; 
 [Vat.  AAw^fi/*;]  Alex.  2a\W;uei0:  Sulnniitli.)  A 
 Gershonite,  son  of  Shimei  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  9). 
 '■Shiniei"  is  probably  a  mistake,  as  Shelomith  and 
 his  brothers  are  afterwards  described  as  chief  of  the 
 fathers  of  Laadan,  who  was  the  brother  of  Shimei, 
 and  the  sons  of  Shimei  are  then  enumerated. 
 
 6.  (n"'»'btt7  :  S.fKifi.oid  [Vat.  -A6(]  ;  Alex. 
 SaAeiMoufl:  Sdoiiillh.)  According  to  the  present 
 text,  the  sons  of  Shelomith,  with  the  son  of  ,losi- 
 phiah  at  their  head,  returned  from  Babylon  with 
 Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  10).  There  appeal's,  however,  to 
 be  an  omission,  which  may  be  supplied  from  the 
 LXX.,  and  the  true  reading  is  probably,  "  Of  the 
 sons  of  Bani,  Shelomith  the  son  of  Josiphiah." 
 See  also  1  Esdr.  viii.  36,  where  he  is  called  "  AssA- 
 IJMOTH  son  of  Josaphias." 
 
 SHEL'OMOTH  (niD'b^  [fore  of  peace-]  : 
 laKufxwQ'  Siilcmoth).  The  same  as  Shelojiitii 
 3  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  22). 
 
 SHELU'MIEL  (bS"^DbrJ:7  [friend  of  God]  : 
 2aXaju.i->7A :  Solnmid).  The  son  of  Zurishaddai, 
 and  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  at  the  time  of 
 the  Exodus.  He  had  59,300  men  under  him 
 (Num.  i.  G,  ii.  12,  vii.  -36,  41,  x.  19).  In  .Judith 
 (viii.  1)  he  is  called  Sajiael. 
 
 BH'EMiCtp  [nrme,  sif/n]:  :S.'fifi-  Sem).  The 
 eldest  son  of  Koah,  born  (Gen.  v.  32)  when  his 
 father  had  attained  the  age  of  .500  years.  He  was 
 98  years  old,  nian-ied,  and  childless,  at  the  time  of 
 the  Flood.  After  it,  he,  with  his  fixther,  brothers, 
 sisters-in-law,  and  wife,  received  the  blessing  of 
 God  (ix.  1),  and  entered  into  the  covenant.  Tw6 
 years  afterwards  he  became  the  father  of  Arphaxad 
 (xi.  10),  and  other  children  were  born  to  him  sub- 
 sequently. With  the  help  of  his  brother  Japheth, 
 he  covered  the  nakedness  of  their  father,  which  Ca- 
 naan and  Ham  did  not  care  to  hide.  In  the 
 prophecy  of  Noah  which  is  connected  with  this  in- 
 cident (ix.  25-27),  the  first  blessing  falls  on  Shem. 
 He  died  at  the  age  of  GOO  years. 
 
 Assuming  that  the  years  ascribed  to  the  patri- 
 archs in  the  present  copies  of  the  Hebrew  liible  are 
 correct,  it  appears  that  Jlethuselah,  who  in  his  first 
 24:3  years  was  contemporary  with  Adam,  liad  still 
 nearly  100  years  of  his  long  life  to  run  after  Slieni 
 was  born.  And  when  Siiem  died,  Abraliam  was 
 148  years  old,  and  Isaac  had  1  een  9  years  married. 
 There  are,  therefore,  but  two  links  —  Methuselah 
 and  Shem  —  between  Adam  and  Isaac.  So  that 
 the  early  records  of  the  Creation  and  the  Fall  of 
 Jlan,  which  canie  down  to  Isaac,  would  challenge 
 (apart  from  their  hispiration)  the  same  confidence 
 v/hich  is  readily  yielded  to  a  tale  that  reaches  the 
 hearer  through  two  well-known  persons  between 
 himself  and  the  original  chief  actor  in  the  events 
 ••elated. 
 
 There  is  no  chronological  im]irobaliil;ty  in  that  an- 
 cient .Jewish  tradition  which  briiiL^s  Shem  and  Abra- 
 ham into  personal  conference.  [MKi-riiizicDEK.] 
 A  mistake  in  translating  x.  21,  «bich  is  admit- 
 ted into  the  Septuagint,  and  is  followed  by  the  A. 
 V.  and  Luther,  has  suggested  the  supposition  that 
 Shem  was  younger  than  .lapheth  (see  A.  PfeifTeri 
 Opera,  p.  30).  There  can  be,  however,  no  doulit 
 (see  Rosenmiiller.  in  foe,  with  whom  Gesenins, 
 Thesaii-its,  p.  1433,  seems  to  agree)  that  the  trans- 
 
 SHEMAAH 
 
 lation  ought  to  be,  according  to  grammatical  rule, 
 "  the  elder  brother  of  .Japheth."  In  the  six  places 
 (v.  32.  vi.  10,  vii.  1-3,  ix.  18,  x.  1;  1  Chr.  i.  4) 
 where  the  three  sons  of  Noah  are  named  togetluT, 
 precedence  is  uniformly  assigned  to  Shem.  In  cli. 
 X.  the  descendants  of  Ham  and  Japheth  are  enu- 
 merated first,  possibly  because  the  sacred  historian, 
 regarding  the  Shemitic  people  as  his  proper  subject, 
 took  the  earliest  opportunity  to  disencumber  his 
 narrative  of  a  digression.  The  verse  v.  32  com- 
 pared with  xi.  10  may  be  fairly  understood  to  mean 
 that  the  three  sons  of  Noah  were  born  after  their 
 father  had  attained  the  age  of  500  years;  but  it 
 cannot  be.  reasonably  infeired  from  thence  either 
 that  Shem  was  the  second  son,  or  that  they  vveiu 
 all  l)orn  in  one  year. 
 
 The  portion  of  the  earth  occupied  by  the  de- 
 scendants of  Shem  (x.  21-31)  intersects  the  por- 
 tions of  Japheth  and  Ham,  and  stretches  in  an  nii- 
 interru])tecl  line  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  the 
 Indian  Ocean.  Beginning  at  its  northwestern  ex- 
 tremity with  Lydia  (according  to  all  ancient  author- 
 ities, though  doubted  by  JMichaelis  ;  see  Gesen. 
 T/ies.  p.  745),  it  includes  Syria  (.Aram),  Chalda?a 
 (Arphaxad),  parts  of  Assyria  (Asshur),  of  Persia 
 (Elam),  and  of  the  Arabian  Peninsula  (Joktan). 
 The  various  questions  connected  with  the  disper- 
 sion of  the  Shemitic  people  are  discussed  in  the 
 article  Siiejmitic  Languages. 
 
 The  servitude  of  Canaan  under  Shem,  predicted 
 by  Noah  (ix.  2G),  was  fulfilled  primarily  in  the 
 subjugation  of  the  people  of  Palestine  (.losh.  xxiii. 
 4^  and  2  Chr.  viii.  7,  8).  It  is  doubtfid  whetlier 
 in  verse  27  God  or  Japheth  is  mentioned  as  the 
 dweller  in  the  tents  of  Shem :  in  the  former  sense 
 the  verse  may  refer  to  the  special  presence  of  God 
 with  the  .Jews,  and  to  the  descent  of  Christ  from 
 them  ;  or,  in  the  latter  sense,  to  the  occupation  of 
 Palestine  and  adjacent  countries  by  the  Komans, 
 and  (spiritually  understood)  to  the  accession  of  the 
 Gentiles  to  the  Church  of  God  (Eph.  iii.  6).  See  .V. 
 Pfeifferi  Opera,  p.  40;' Newton,  On  the  Propliecies, 
 Diss.  i.  W.  T.  B. 
 
 SHE'MA  (37^iy  [/learinrj,  rumor]  :  [in  Josh.] 
 2aA/xaa;  Alex.  Sa^uaa;  [in  1  Chr.,  Pom.  ^a/xad. 
 Vat.  Alex.  2f/uaa:]  Same).  One  of  the  towns  of 
 Judah.  It  lay  in  the  region  of  the  south,  and  is 
 named  between  Amaim  and  jfoLADAii  (Josh.  xv. 
 2G).  In  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Simeon  selected 
 fi-om  those  in  the  south  of  Judah,  Shel)a  takes  the 
 place  of  Shema,  probably  by  an  error  of  transcrip- 
 tion or  a  change  of  pronunciation.  The  genealog- 
 ical lists  of  1  Chr.  (ii.  43,  44)  infonn  us  that  Shema 
 originally  proceeded  from  Hebron,  and  in  its  turn 
 colonized  Maon.  G. 
 
 SHE'MA  (^^^  [rumor]:  2a/ia:  Samma). 
 1.  A  Reubenite,  ancestor  of  Bela  (1  Chr.  v.  8). 
 
 2.  (Snma.)  Sou  of  Elpaal,  and  one  of  the  heads 
 of  the  fathers  of  the  inhabitants  of  Aijalon  who 
 drove  out  the  inhabitants  of  Gath  (1  Chr.  viii.  13). 
 Prol)ably  the  same  as  Shimiii. 
 
 3.  {'ka/jLaia^  ■■  Semeia.)  One  of  those  who  stood 
 at  Ezra's  risht  hand  when  he  read  the  Law  to  the 
 people  (Neh.  viii.  4).  Called  Sa:\imus.  1  F^sdr.  ix. 
 43. 
 
 SHEM'AAH  (nV^WJ  [fem.,  see  above] : 
 'Ao-fid:  [Vat.]  FA.  A/xa:  [.\lex.  2a/xaa:]  Samoa). 
 A  lienjamite  of  Gibeah,  and  father  of  Ahiezer  and 
 Joasli,  two  warriors  of  their  tribe  who  joined  David 
 at  Ziklag  (1  Chr,  xii.  3).     His  name  is  written 
 
SHEMAIAH 
 
 with  the  article,  and  is  properly  "  Hasshemaah." 
 The  margin  of  A.  V.  gives  "  Plasmaali." 
 
 SHEMA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (H^PP^  [Jehovah 
 hears]:  'Zafj.aias;  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.  xii.,  'Safx/j.aias ■] 
 Se7neiiis).  1.  A  prophet  in  the  reign  of  Keholioam. 
 When  the  king  had  assembled  180,000  men  of  Ben- 
 jamin and  Judah  to  reconquer  the  northern  Iving- 
 dom  after  its  revolt,  Shemaiah  was  commissioned 
 to  charge  them  to  return  to  their  homes,  and  not 
 to  war  against  their  brethren  (1  K.  xii.  22;  2  Chr. 
 xi.  2).  His  second  and  last  appearance,  upon  the 
 stage  was  upon  the  occasion  of  the  invasion  of  .Judah 
 and  siege  of  Jerusalem  liy  Shishak  king  of  Egypt. 
 His  message  was  then  one  of  comfort,  to  assure  the 
 princes  of  Judah  that  the  punishment  of  their 
 idolatry  should  not  come  by  the  hand  of  Shishak 
 (2  Chr.  xii.  5,  7).  This  event  is  in  the  order  of 
 narrative  subsequent  to  the  first,  but  from  some 
 circumstances  it  would  seem  to  have  occurred  before 
 the  disruption  of  the  two  kingdoms.  Compare  xii. 
 1,  where  the  people  of  Rehoboam  are  called  "  Israel," 
 and  xii.  5,  6,  where  the  princes  are  called  indiffer- 
 ently "  of  Judah  "  and  "of  Israel."  He  wrote  a 
 chronicle  containing  the  events  of  Rehoboam's  reign 
 (2  Chr.  xii.  15).     In  2  Chr.  xi.  2    his   name  is 
 
 given  in  the  lengthened  form  ^rT^PPit?. 
 
 2.  (Sa^ala;  [in  Neh.,  FA.  Se^ueia:]  Seme'in, 
 Semnid.)  The  son  of  Shechaniah,  among  the  de- 
 scendants of  Zcrubbabel  (1  Chr.  iii.  22).  He  was 
 keeper  of  the  cast  gate  of  the  city,  and  assisted 
 Nehemiah  in  restoring  the  wall  (Neh.  iii.  29).  Lord 
 A.  Hervey  {Geneal.  p.  107)  proposes  to  omit  the 
 words  at  the  beginning  of  1  Chr.  iii.  22  as  spurious, 
 and  to  consider  Shemaiah  identical  with  Shimei 
 5,  the  brother  of  Zerubbabel. 
 
 3.  {tafxaias;  [Vat.  Su^ecoj/:]  Samaia.)  An- 
 cestor of  Ziza,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (1 
 Chr.  iv.  37).     Perhaps  the  same  as  Shimei  6. 
 
 4.  (26/i€i;  [Vat.  Se^aeei;  Alex.  Se^eii':]  Sa- 
 mia.)  Son  of  Joel  a  Reubenite;  perhaps  the  same 
 as  Shem.v  (1  Chr.  v.  4).     See  Joel  5. 
 
 5.  (2a^ai'a;  Semeia.)  Son  of  Hasshub,  a  Me- 
 rarite  Le\ite  who  lived  in  Jerusalem  after  the 
 Captivity  (1  Chr.  ix.  14;  Neh.  xi.  15),  and  had 
 oversight  of  the  outward  business  of  the  house  of 
 God. - 
 
 6.  ('Safiia:  [Vat.  Su^sia;  Alex.  Sn^ias:  Se- 
 meia.])  Father  of  Obadiah,  or  Abda,  a  Levite  who 
 returned  to  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity  (1  Chr. 
 ix.  16).  He  is  elsewhere  called  Shammua  (Neh. 
 xi.  17). 
 
 7.  ('Ze/xei',  Sfyuaia;  [Vat.  'Zajnaias ',  FA.  2a- 
 fxeas,  'S.a/j.aias \]  Alex.  0<=^ai'a,  2,efj.fia'  SemeiKS.) 
 Son  of  Klizaphan,  and  chief  of  his  house  in  the 
 reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xv.  8,  11).  He  took  part 
 in  the  ceremonial  with  which  the  king  brought  the 
 Ark  from  the  house  of  Obed-edom. 
 
 8.  (Sa^a'i'as;  Alex.  'S.afj.naias ■  [Semeias.])  A 
 Levite,  son  of  Nethaneel,  and  also  a  scribe  in  the 
 time  of  David.  He  registered  the  divisions  of  the 
 priests  by  lot  into  twenty-ftnir  orders  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  6). 
 
 9.  (Sa^aias ;  [Rom.  Vat.  ver.  7,  Sa^oi;]  Alex. 
 Sct^ei'as :  [Semei'is,  Semei.] )  The  eldest  son  of 
 Obed-edom  the  Gittite.  He  and  his  brethren  and 
 his  sons  were  gate-keepers  of  the  Temple  (1  Chr. 
 xxvi.  4,  0,  7). 
 
 10.  ([Sa^uaias;]  Alex.  Sa^eioj:  [Semeias.]) 
 A  descendant  of  Jeduthun  the  singer  who  livetl  in 
 the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  14).  He  as- 
 sisted in  the  purification  of  the  Temple  and  the 
 
 187 
 
 SHEMAIAH 
 
 2969 
 
 reformation  of  the  service,  and  with  Uzziel  repre- 
 sented his  family  on  that  occasion. 
 
 11.  (:SaiJ.aia\  Alex.  Sa^aeia'-  Snmains.)  One 
 of  the  sons  of  Adonikam  who  returned  in  the  second 
 caravan  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  13).  Called  Samaias 
 in  1  Esdr.  viii.  39. 
 
 12.  CSie/xdas;  [Vat.  Sa/uoia?:]  Semeias.) 
 One  of  the  "heads"  whom  Ezra  sent  for  to  his 
 camp  by  the  river  of  Ahava,  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
 taining Levites  and  ministers  for  the  Temple  from 
 "  the  place  Casiphia  "  (Ezr.  viii.  16).  Called  M.vs- 
 MAN  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  43. 
 
 13.  {'Sa/xaia'-  Saneia.)  A  priest  of  the  family 
 of  Harini,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife  at  Ezra's 
 bidding  (Ezr.  x.  21).  He  is  called  Sameius  iu 
 1  Esdr.  ix.  21. 
 
 14.  (SayUai'cts  ;  [Vat.  Sa^uaia ;  FA.  2e^ea  :] 
 Semeias.)  A  layman  of  Israel,  son  of  another  Ha- 
 rim,  who  also  had  married  a  foreigner  (Ezr.  x.  31). 
 Called  Sabbeus  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  32. 
 
 15.  (2e/iEl;  [Vat.  FA.  2€/ieei:  Semains.])  Son 
 of  Delaiah  the  son  of  Mehetabeel,  a  prophet  in  the 
 time  of  Nehemiah,  who  was  bribed  by  Sanballat 
 and  his  confederates  to  frighten  the  Jews  from  their 
 task  of  rebuilding  the  wall,  and  to  put  Neheminh 
 in  fear  (Neh.  vi.  10).  In  his  assumed  terror  he 
 appears  to  have  shut  up  his  house  and  to  have  pro- 
 posed that  all  should  retire  into  the  Temple  and 
 close  the  doors. 
 
 16.  (2a,uola,  "Zefiias;  Alex,  [rather  FA.^J  2€- 
 /xeias  in  Neh.  xii.  [6,  18;  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit, 
 and  so  Rom.  ver.  6;  in  Neh.  xii.  35,  'S.a/j.dia'-]  Se- 
 iiieia,  [Samaia  or  -as.] )  The  head  of  a  priestly 
 house  who  signed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah 
 (Neh.  X.  8).  His  family  went  up  with  Zerubbabel, 
 and  were  represented  iu  the  time  of  Joiakim  by  Je- 
 honathan  (Neh.  xii.  6,  18).  Probably  the  same 
 who  is  mentioned  again  in  Neh.  xii.  35. 
 
 17.  (ta/xatas ;  fV^at.  Alex.  2apaia;]  Alex.  2aa- 
 fia'Cas'-  [Semeia.])  One  of  the  princes  of  Judah 
 who  went  in  procession  with  Ezra,  in  the  right 
 hand  of  the  two  thanksgiving  companies  who  cele- 
 brated the  solemn  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jeru- 
 salem (Neh.  xii.  34). 
 
 18.  ('S.afj.a'ta'-  [Semeia.])  One  of  the  choir  who 
 took  part  in  the  procession  with  which  the  dedica- 
 tion of  the  new  wall  of  Jerusalem  by  Ezra  was  ac- 
 companied (Neh.  xii.  36).  He  appears  to  have  been 
 a  Gershonite  Levite,  and  descendant  of  Asaph,  for 
 reasons  which  are  given  under  jNIattaniah  2. 
 
 19.  (Om.  in  Vat.  MS.  [also  Rom.  Ales.  FA.'] ; 
 Alex,  [rather  FA.'^]  26^6J'as.)  A  priest  who  blew 
 a  trunijjet  on  the  same  occasion  (Neh.  xii.  42). 
 
 20.  (2a^ai'ay;  [FA.  2a/x€as:]  Semeias.)  She- 
 maiah the  Nehelamite,  a  false  prophet  in  the  time 
 of  Jeremiah.  He  prophesied  to  the  peo])le  of  the 
 Captivity  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  attempted 
 to  counteract  the  influence  of  Jeremiah's  advice  that 
 they  should  settle  quietly  in  the  land  of  their  exile, 
 build  houses,  plant  vineyards,  and  wait  patiently  for 
 the  period  of  their  return  at  the  end  of  seventy 
 years.  His  animosity  to  Jeremiah  exhibited  itself 
 in  the  more  active  form  of  a  letter  to  the  high-priest 
 Zephaniah,  urging  him  to  exercise  the  function's  of 
 his  office,  and  lay  the  pi'ophet.  in  prison  and  in  the 
 stocks.  The  letter  was  read  by  Zeplianiah  to  Jer- 
 emiah, who  instantly  pronounced  the  message  of 
 doom  against  Shemaiah  for  his  presumption,  that 
 he  should  have  none  of  liis  family  to  dwell  among 
 the  people,  and  that  himself  should  not  live  to  see 
 their  return  from  captivity  (Jer.  xxix.  24-32).    His 
 
2970 
 
 SHEMARIAH 
 
 name  is  written  in  ver.  24  in  the  lengthened  form 
 
 21.  (2a/uaia?;  [Vat.  Soyuouas;  Alex.  Souou- 
 las-] )  A  Levite  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoshaphat, 
 who  was  sent  with  other  Levites,  accompanied  by 
 two  priests  and  some  of  the  princes  of  Judah,  to 
 teach  the  people  the  Jaook  of  the  Law  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 
 
 22.  (26/^61 ;  [Vat.  Seyuei;/:]  Semeias.)  One  of 
 the  I.evites  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  were 
 placed  in  the  cities  of  the  priests  to  distribute  the 
 titlies  among  their  brethren  (2  Clir.  xxxi.  15). 
 
 23.  {'S.a/j.aias-)  A  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
 who  assisted  at  the  solemn  passover  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  9). 
 He  is  called  the  brother  of  Conaniah,  and  in  2  Chr. 
 xxxi.  12  we  find  Cononiah  and  Shimei  his  brother 
 mentioned  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  as  chief  Levites ; 
 but  if  Cononiah  and  Conaniah  are  the  names  of 
 persons  and  not  of  families,  they  cannot  be  identical, 
 nor  can  Shemaiah  be  the  same  as  Shimei,  who 
 lived  at  least  eighty-five  years  before  him. 
 
 24.  ([VA.  Maaeas-]  Semai.)  The  father  of 
 Urijah  of  Kirjath-jearim  (Jer.  xxvi.  20). 
 
 25.  (SeAe^i'as;  FA-  SeSewuas;  [Comp.  Se- 
 yuei'a?:]  Htmcias.)  The  father  of  Delaiah  (.Jer. 
 xxxvi.  12).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHEMARI'AH  (^n^~l^ti7  [whom  Jehovah 
 lceei)s\:  2,afj.apai:a\  Alex.  [FA.]  :S,a/xapia-  Sa7na- 
 ria).  1.  One  of  the  Benjamite  warriors,  "  helpers 
 of  the  battle,"  who  came  to  Uavid  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr. 
 xii.  5). 
 
 2.  (n'^"1^K7 :  'Xa/xapla  [Vat.  -peia] :  Saina- 
 rias.)  One  of  the  family  of  Harini,  a  layman  of 
 Israel,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife  in  the  time 
 of  Ezra  (Ezr.  X.  32). 
 
 3.  ([Vat.  FA.  Sa^apeia;  Alex.  Sa/^tapciasO 
 Semeiiti.)  One  of  the  family  of  Bani,  under  the 
 same  circumstances  as  the  preceding  (Ezr.  x.  41). 
 
 SHEME'BER  ("I^SJpt^?  \lofly fli(jht,  Ges.] : 
 ^vfio^op'-  Semeber).  King  of  Zebo'im,  and  ally 
 of  the  king  of  Sodom  when  he  was  attacked  by  the 
 northeastern  invaders  under  Chedorlaonier  (Gen. 
 xiv.  2)"  The  Sam.  Text  and  Version  give  "  She- 
 mebel." 
 
 SHE'MER  ("l^t^  [kept,  thence  lees  of  wine]  -. 
 ^(fx-ijp--,  [Vat.  once '2a;Uijp :]  isomer).  The  owner 
 of  the  hill  on  which  the  city  of  Samaria  was  built 
 (1  K.  xvi.  2-4),  and  after  whom  it  was  called  Sho- 
 meron  by  its  founder  Omri,  who  bought  the  site  for 
 two  silver  talents.  We  should  rather  have  expected 
 that  the  name  of  the  city  would  have  been  Shimron, 
 from  Shemer ;  for  <.S'Ao;;ie?-o;i  would  have  been  the 
 name  given  after  an  owner  Shomer.  This  latter 
 form,  which  occurs  1  Chr.  vii.  32,  appears  to  be 
 that  adopted  by  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac,  who  read 
 Somer  and  Shomir  respectively;  but  the  Vat.  MS. 
 of  the  LXX.  retains  the  present  form  "  Shemer," 
 and  changes  the  name  of  the  city  to  2e/x6pwj' or  Se- 
 arjpiov  [so  Kom.,  but  Vat.  Sa/xTj/oajj/]-    W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHEMFDA  (27T^pt!7  {fame  of  hioidechje']: 
 2uf/.aep,  liV/napifi  [Vat.  -peifj.] ;  Alex.  'S.^fjiipae  in 
 Josh.:  Seniida).  A  son  of  Gilead,  and  ancestor  of 
 the  fanuly  of  the  Shemidaites  (Num.  xxvi.  32;  .losh. 
 xvii.  2).  Called  Shejiid,\ii  in  the  [later  editions 
 of  the]  A.  V.  of  1  Chr.  vii.  19. 
 
 SHEMI'DAH  (^JTipt?/'  [see  above] :  Se^ipci ; 
 [Vat.  Seueipa']  Stmida).  The  same  as  Shemida 
 the  son  of  (Jilead  (1  Chr.  vii.  19).  [The  name  is 
 here  spelled  Shemida  in  A.  V.  ed.  1611.  —  A.] 
 
 SHEMIRAMOTH 
 
 SHEMI'DAITES,  THE  ( "^^Tpi^'n 
 [patr.,  above]:  6  'SvfJiaepi  [Vat. -pei]:  Semichiilie). 
 The  descendants  of  Shemida  the  son  of  Gilead 
 (Nun),  xxvi.  32).  They  obtained  their  lot  among 
 the  male  children  of  Manasseh  (.Josh.  xvii.  2). 
 
 SHEM'INITH  (n'^p'^attJn  [Ihe  eighth,  see 
 below]).  The  title  of  I's.  vi.  contains  a  direction 
 to  the  leader  of  the  stringed  iiistinraents  of  the 
 Temple  choir  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the 
 Psalm  was  to  be  sung.  "  To  the  chief  Musician 
 on -Neginoth  upon  Sheniinith,"  or  "  the  eighth," 
 is  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  has  it.  A  similar  di- 
 rection is  found  in  the  title  of  Ps.  xii.  The  LXX. 
 in  both  passages  renders  virlp  ttjs  oyZ6ris,  and 
 the  Vulgate  /*ry  ocloxa.  The  Gene\'a  Version  gives 
 "  upon  the  eighth  tune."  Eeferring  to  1  Chr.  xv. 
 21,  we  find  certain  Levites  were  appointed  by  David 
 to  play  "  with  harps  on  the  Sheminith,"  which  the 
 Vulgate  renders  as  above,  and  the  LXX.  by  afxa.- 
 (Tfvid,  which  is  merely  a  corrujjtion  of  the  Hebrew. 
 The  Geneva  Version  explains  in  the  margin,  "  which 
 was  the  eighth  tune,  over  the  which  he  that  was 
 the  most  excellent  had  charge."  As  we  know 
 nothing  whatever  of  the  music  of  the  Hebrews,  all 
 conjectures  as  to  the  meaning  of  their  musical  terms 
 are  necessarily  vague  and  contradictory.  With  re- 
 spect to  Sheminith,  most  fiabbinical  writers,  as 
 Kashi  and  Aben  Ezra,  follow  the  Targum  on  the 
 Psalms  in  regarding  it  as  a  harp  with  eight  strings ; 
 but  this  has  no  foundation,  and  depends  upon  a 
 misconstruction  of  1  Chr.  xv.  21.    Gesenius  (Thes. 
 
 s.  v.  n^D)  says  it  denotes  the  bass,  in  opposition 
 to  Alamoth  (1  Chr.  xv.  20),  which  signifies  the 
 treble.  But  as  the  meaning  of  Alamoth  itself  is 
 very  obscure,  we  cannot  make  use  of  it  for  deter- 
 mining the  meaning  of  a  term  which,  though  dis- 
 tinct from,  is  not  necessarily  contrasted  with  it. 
 Others,  with  the  author  of  Shilte  Hayfjibburim,  in- 
 terpret "the  sheminith''^  as  the  octave;  but  there 
 is  no  evidence  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  were  ac- 
 quainted with  the  octave  as  understood  by  our- 
 sehes.  On  comparing  the  manner  in  which  the 
 word  occurs  in  the  titles  of  the  two  psalms  already 
 mentioned,  with  the  position  of  the  terms  Aijeleth 
 Shahar,  Gittith,  .Jonath-elem-rechokim,  etc.,  in 
 other  psalms,  which  are  generally  regarded  as  in- 
 dicating the  melody  to  be  employed  by  the  singers, 
 it  seems  most  probable  that  Sheminith  is  of  the 
 same  kind,  and  denotes  a  certain  air  known  as  tie 
 eighth,  or  a  certain  key  in  which  the  psalm  was 
 to  be  sung.  Maurer  ( Com??i.  in  Ps.  vi.)  regards 
 Sheminith  as  an  instrument  of  deep  tone  like  the 
 violoncello,  while  Alamoth  he  compaies  with  the 
 violin ;  and  such  also  appears  to  be  the  view  taken 
 by  Junius  and  Tremellius.  It  is  impo.ssible  in  such 
 a  case  to  do  more  than  point  to  the  most  probable 
 conjecture.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHEMIR'AJMOTH  (n"ir!"n"'?^I?7  [name 
 most  hirjh,  Ges.,  na7ne  of  the  height  =  Jehovah, 
 Flirst]  :  'Zefj.tpa/udod;  Alex.  'Si/n.ipafxccO,  1  Chr.  xv. 
 18 ;  [Vat.]  FA.  S.^y.npo.p.we,  1  Chr.  xv.  18 ;  [Vat. 
 2,aij.€ipa/.iueeie,  FA.  :S.eixipa/j.a}eiie,  1  Chr.  xv.] 
 20;  [Vat.  lafiapei/xcod,  FA.]  Xaixapiixwd,  1  Chr. 
 xvi.  5:  Semii-(niwth).  1.  A  Levite  of  the  second 
 degree,  appointed  to  play  with  a  psaltery  "on  Ala- 
 moth," in  the  choir  formed  by  David.  He  was  in 
 the  division  which  Asaph  led  with  cymbals  (1  Chr. 
 XV.  18,  20,  xvi.  5). 
 
 2.  {■S.ifj.ipafi.tiiO;  [Vat.  2ayueipa/tw0.])     A  Ia 
 
SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 2971 
 
 rite  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  who  was  sent 
 witli  others  through  the  cities  of  Juflah  to  teach 
 the  book  of  the  Law  to  the  people  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 
 
 SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  and  WRIT- 
 ING. iNTitODUCTiON,  §§  1-5.  —  1.  The  expres- 
 sions, "  Shemitic  i'amily,"  and  "  Sheniitic  lan- 
 guages," are  based,  as  is  well  known,  on  a  reference 
 to  Gen.  X.  21  ft"  [See  Shem.]  Subsequently, 
 the  obvious  inaccuracy  of  the  expression  has  led  to 
 an  attempt  to  substitute  others,  such  as  Western 
 Asiatic,  or  Syro-Araliic  —  this  last  a  happily  chosen 
 designation,  as  bringing  at  once  before  us  the  two 
 freographical  extremes  of  this  family  of  languages. 
 Hut  the  earlier,  though  incorrect  one,  has  main- 
 tained its  ground :  and  for  purposes  of  convenience 
 we  shall  continue  to  use  it.« 
 
 2.  It  is  impossible  to  lay  down  with  accuracy 
 the  boundaries  of  the  area  occupied  by  the  tribes 
 employing  so-called  Shemitic  dialects.  Various 
 disturbing  causes  led  to  fluctuations,  especially  (as 
 on  the  northern  .side)  in  the  neighborhood  of  rest- 
 less Aryan  tribes.  For  general  purposes,  the  high- 
 lands of  Armenia  may  be  taken  as  the  northern 
 boundary  —  the  river  I'igris  and  the  ranges  beyond 
 it  as  the  eastern  —  and  the  Red  Sea,  the  Levant, 
 and  certain  portions  of  Asia  Minor  as  the  western. 
 Within  these  limits  lies  the  proper  home  of  tlie 
 Shemitic  famil}%  which  has  exercised  so  miglity  an 
 influence  on  the  history  of  the  world.  The  area 
 named  may  seem  small,  in  comparison  with  the 
 wider  regions  occupied  by  the  Aryan  stock.  But 
 its  geographical  position  in  respect  of  so  much  of 
 the  old  world  —  its  two  noble  rivers,  alike  facilita- 
 ting foreign  and  internal  intercourse  —  the  extent 
 of  seaboard  and  desert,  presenting  long  lines  of 
 jirotectiou  against  foreign  invasion  —  have  proved 
 eminently  favorable  to  the  undisturbed  growth  and 
 development  of  this  family  of  languages,  as  well  as 
 investing  some  branches  (at  certain  periods  of  their 
 history)  with  very  considerable  influence  abroad.'' 
 
 3.  Varieties  of  the  great  Shemitic  language- 
 family  are  to  be  found  in  use  in  the  following 
 localities  within  the  area  named.  In  those  ordi- 
 narily known  as  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  Labyloni:i, 
 and  Assyria,  there  prevailed  Aramaic  dialects  ol 
 different  kinds,  e.  </.  Biblical  Chaldaic  —  that  ol 
 the  Targums  and  of  the  Syriac  versions  of  Scrip- 
 ture —  to  which  may  be  added  other  varieties  of 
 the  same  stock  —  such  as  that  of  the  Palmyrene 
 inscriptions  —  and  of  different  Sabian  fragments. 
 Along  the  Mediterra!iean  seaboard,  and  among  tlie 
 tribes  settled  in  Canaan,  must  be  placed  the  home 
 of  the  language  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  among  wliich  were  interspersed  some 
 relics  of  that  of  the  Phoenicians.  In  the  south, 
 amid  the  seclusion  of  Arabia,  was  preserved  the 
 dialect  destined  at  a  subsequent  period  so  widely 
 to  surpass  its  sisters  in  the  extent  of  territory  over 
 which  it  is  spoken.  A  variety,  allied  to  this  last, 
 is  found  to  have  been  domiciliated  for  a  long  time 
 in  Abyssinia. 
 
 In  addition  to  the  singular  tenacity  and  exclu- 
 siveness  of  the  Shemitic  character,  as  tending  to 
 preserve  unaltered  the  main  features  of  their  lan- 
 guage, we  may  allow  a  good  deal  for  the  tolerably 
 uniform  climate  of  their  geographical  locations. 
 But  (as  compared  with  variations  from  the  partjut 
 stock  in  the  .Japhetian  family),  in  the  case  of  the 
 Shemitic,  the  adherence  to  the  original  type  is  very 
 remarkable.  Turn  where  we  will,  from  whatever 
 causes  springing,  the  same  tenacity  is  discernible  — 
 whether  we  look  to  the  simjjle  pastoral  tribes  of  the 
 wilderness — the  fierce  and  rapacious  inhabitants 
 of  mountain  regions  —  the  craftsmen  of  cities,  tlie 
 tillers  of  the  soil,  or  the  traffickers  in  distant  marts 
 and'havens.'^ 
 
 The  following  table  is  taken  from  Professor  M. 
 Miiller's  late  volume  On  the  (Science  of  Laii;jua<ji 
 (p.  381)  —  a  volume  equally  remarkable  for  re- 
 search, fidelity,  and  graphic  description;    • 
 
 Living  Languages. 
 
 Dialects  of  Arabic 
 Amharic  .      .     . 
 
 Neo-Syriac 
 
 Genealogical  Table  op  the  SaEinTic  Family  op  Laxguages. 
 Dead  Languages. 
 
 Ethiopic .     .     . 
 
 llimyaritic  Inscriptions 
 
 Biblical  Hebrew 
 
 Samaritan  Pentateuch 
 
 Oartliagiiiian-l'lioeuiciiia  Inscriptious 
 
 Chaldee,  Masora.  Tahiuul,  Targum,  Biblical  Chaldee     . 
 
 Syriac  (Peshito,  2d  cent.  A.  D.) 
 
 Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh 
 
 I  Arabic,   or  ■) 
 )  Soutliern. 
 
 Hebraic, 
 or 
 
 Mi.Mie. 
 
 Aramaic, 
 
 Few  inquiries  would  be  more  interesting,  were 
 sufficiently  trustworthy  means  at  hand,  than  that 
 into  the  orii/inal  Shemitic  dialect,  and  as  to 
 whether  or  not  the  Aramaic  was  —  not  only  in  tlie 
 first  instance,  but  more  long  and  widely  than  we 
 ordinarily  suppose  —  the  principal  means  of  inter- 
 counnunication  among  all  tribes  of  Shemitic  origin, 
 with  the  exception  perhaps  of  those  of  the  Arabian 
 peninsula.  The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment show  plainly,  that  between  the  occupation  of 
 Canaan  and  the  victories  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  many 
 
 o  "  La  dt5noniiuation  de  semitiques  ne  peut  avoir 
 d'inconvenient,  du  moment  qu'ou  la  prend  comme 
 une  simple  appellation  conventionnelle  et  que  Ton 
 g'est  expliquci  sur  ce  qu'elle  renferme  de  profondement 
 mexact "  (Reaan,  Hist.  Gen.  des  Langi/es  Scmitiques, 
 i.  2).  English  scholars  have  lately  adopted,  from  the 
 French,  the  form  ''  Semitic  ; "  but  there  is  no  reason 
 
 causes  led  to  the  extension  of  the  Aramaic,  to  the 
 restriction  of  pure  Hebrew.  But  there  is  much 
 that  is  probable  in  the  notion  held .  by  more  than 
 one  scholar,  that  the  spoken  dialect  of  the  Shemitic 
 tribes  external  to  Arabia  (in  the  earliest  periods  of 
 their  history)  closely  resembled,  or  was  in  fact  a 
 better  variety  of  Aramaic,  i'his  notion  is  cor- 
 roborated by  the  traces  still  discernible  in  the 
 Scriptures  of  Aratnaisms,  where  the  language  (as 
 in  poetical  fragments)  would  seem  to  have  been 
 preserved  in  a  form   most  nearly  resembling  its 
 
 why  we  should  abandon  the  Hebrew  sound  because 
 the  French  find  the  pronunciation  difficult. 
 
 b  Bertheau,  in  Herzog"s  Real-Enojktopddie,  v.  609, 
 613  ;  FUrst,  Lehrgebaude  der  Aramdisclien  L/inme,  §  1. 
 
 c  Scholz,  EinteiUing  in  das  A.  T.,  Coin,  1833, 21-26 ; 
 FUrst,  Lehrgeb.  §§  1,  20,  22. 
 
2972 
 
 SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 original  one:°  and  also  from  the  resemblances 
 which  may  be  detected  between  the  Aramaic  and 
 the  earliest  monument  of  Arabic  speech  —  the 
 llimyaritic  fragments.* 
 
 4.  The  history  of  the  Sheniitic  people  tells  us  of 
 various  movements  undertaken  by  them,  but  sup- 
 plies no  remarkable  instances  of  their  (issiiiiiliitiiit/. 
 Though  carrying  with  them  their  language,  insti- 
 tutions, and  habits,  they  are  not  found  to  have 
 struck  root,  but  remained  sti-angers  and  exotics  in 
 several  instances,  passing  away  without  traces  of 
 their  occupancy.  So  late  as  the  times  of  Augus- 
 tine, a  dialect,  derived  fi'om  the  old  Phoenician 
 settlers,  was  spoken  in  some  of  the  more  remote 
 districts  of  Koman  Africa.  But  no  traces  remained 
 of  the  power,  or  arts  of  the  former  lords  of  sea 
 and  land,  from  whom  tliese  fragments  were  in- 
 herited, liqually  striking  is  the  absence  of  I'esults, 
 from  the  occupation  of  a  vast  aggregate  of  coun- 
 tries by  the  victorious  armies  of  Islam.  The  cen- 
 turies since  elapsed  prove  in  the  clearest  maimer, 
 that  the  vocation  of  the  Arab  branch  of  the  Sheni- 
 itic family  was  not  to  leaven  the  nations  whom 
 their  first  onset  laid  prostrate.  They  brought 
 nothing  with  them  but  their  own  stern,  subjective, 
 unsocial  religion.  They  borrowed  many  intellect- 
 ual treasures  from  the  conquered  nations,  yet 
 were  these  ne\er  fully  engrafted  upon  the  alien 
 Shemitic  nature,  but  remained,  under  the  most 
 favorable  circumstances,  only  external  adjuncts  anil 
 ornaments.  And  the  same  inveterate  isolation  still 
 characterizes  tribes  of  the  race,  when  on  new'  soil. 
 
 5.  Tlie  peculiar  elements  of  the  Shemitic  char- 
 acter will  be  found  to  have  exercised  considerable 
 influence  on  their  literature.  Indeed,  accordance 
 is  seldom  more  close,  than  in  the  case  of,  the 
 Sheniitic  race  (where  not  checked  by  external 
 causes)  between  the  generic  type  of  thought,  and 
 its  outward  expression.  Like  other  languages,  this 
 one  is  mainly  resolvable  into  monosyllal)ic  prim- 
 itives. These,  as  far  as  they  may  be  traced  by 
 research  and  analysis,  carry  us  back  to  the  early 
 times,  when  the  broad  line  of  separation,  to  which 
 we  have  been  so  long  accustomed,  was  not  yet 
 drawn  between  the  Japhetian  and  the  Shemitic 
 languages.  Instances  of  this  will  be  brouglit  for- 
 ward in  the  sequel,  but  subsequent  researches  have 
 amply  confirmed  the  substance  of  Halhed's  predic- 
 tion of  the  ultimate  recognition  of  tlie  affinities 
 between  Sanskrit  (=  the  Indo-Gernianic  family) 
 and  Arabic  (=  the  Shemitic)  "  in  the  main  ground- 
 work of  language,  in  monosyllables,  in  the  names 
 of  numbers,  and  the  appellations  of  such  things, 
 as  would  bo  first  discriminated  on  the  immediate 
 dawn  of  civilization."  "^ 
 
 These  monosyllabic  primitives  may  still  be  traced 
 in  particles,  and  words  least  exposed  to  the  ordi- 
 nary causes  of  variation.  But  differences  are  ob- 
 ser\able  in  the  principal  parts  of  speecli  —  the  verb 
 
 and  the  nouu.  Secondary  notions,  and  those  ot 
 relation,  are  grouped  round  the  primary  ones  of 
 meaning  in  a  single  word,  susceptible  of  various 
 internal  changes  according  to  the  particular  re- 
 quirement. Hence,  in  the  Shemitic  family,  the 
 prominence  of  forma  I  km,  and  that  mainly  internal 
 (or  contained  wilhin  the  root  form).  By  such  in- 
 strumentality are  expressed  the  differences  between 
 noun  and  verb,  adjective  and  substantive.  This 
 mechanism,  within  certain  limits,  invests  the  Shem- 
 itic languages  with  considerable  freshness  and  sharp- 
 ness; but,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  this  lan- 
 guage-family does  not  (for  higher  purposes)  possess 
 distinct  powers  of  expression  equal  to  those  pos- 
 sessed by  the  Japhetian  family.  Another  leading 
 peculiarity  of  this  branch  of  languages  is  the 
 absence  (save  in  the  case  of  proper  names)  of  com- 
 pound words  —  to  which  the  sister  family  is  in- 
 debted for  so  much  life  and  variety.  In  the  Shem- 
 itic family  —  agglutination,  not  logical  sequence  — 
 independent  roots,  not  compound  appropriate  deri- 
 vations from  the  same  root,  are  used  to  express 
 respectively  a  train  of  thouglit,  or  different  modifi- 
 cations of  a  particular  notion.  Logical  sequence 
 is  replaced  by  simple  material  sequence. 
 
 Both  language-families  are  full  of  life;  but  the 
 life  of  the  Japhetian  is  organic  —  of  the  Shemitic, 
 an  aggregate  of  units.  The  one  loolss  around  to 
 be  taught,  and  pauses  to  gather  up  its  lessons  into 
 form  and  shape:  the  other  contains  a  lore  within 
 itself,  and  pours  out  its  thoughts  and  fancies  as 
 they  arise.'' 
 
 §§  0-13.  —  Hebrkw  Language.  —  Pekiod  of 
 Growth. 
 6.  The  Hebrew  language  is  a  branch  of  the  so- 
 called  Shemitic  family,  extending  over  a  large  por- 
 tion of  Southwestern  Asia.  The  development 
 and  culture  of  this  latter  will  be  found  to  have 
 been  consideralily  influenced  by  the  situation  or 
 fortunes  of  its  difttjrent  districts.  In  the  north 
 (or  Aram,  under  which  designation  are  compre- 
 hended Syria,  IMesopotamia,  Babylonia),  and  under 
 a  climate  partially  cold  and  ungenial  —  in  the  close 
 proximity  of  tribes  of  a  different  origin,  not  ini- 
 frequently  masters  by  conquest- — the  Shemitic 
 dialect  became  in  places  harsher,  and  its  general 
 character  less  pure  and  distinct.  Towards  tlie 
 south,  opposite  causes  contributed  to  maintain  the 
 language  in  its  purity.  In  Arabia,  preserved  by 
 many  causes  from  foreign  invasion,  the  language 
 maintained  more  eu])hony  and  delicacv,  and  ex- 
 hibited greater  variety  of  words  and  construction. 
 A  reference  to  tlie  map  will  serve  to  explain  this  — 
 lying  as  did  Judasa  between  Aram  and  Arabia,  and 
 chiefly  inhabited  by  the  Hel]rew^  race,  with  the 
 exception  of  Canaanite  and  Phoenician  tribes.  Of 
 the  language  of  these,  last  few  distinctive  remains 
 have   hitherto   been   brouirht  to  light.«      But  its 
 
 a  "  Un  autre  fait,  non  moins  digne  de  remarque, 
 c'est  I'analogie  frappante  <ju"ont  toutes  ces  irregu- 
 laritts  provinciales  avec  I'Aramt^en.  11  semble  que, 
 mrjuie  avant  la  captivite,  le  patois  populaire  se  rap- 
 prochait  beaucoup  de  cette  langue,  en  sorte  qu'il  nous 
 est  maiiitenant  impossible  de  se.pai-er  bien  nettement, 
 ians  le  style  de  certains  ecrits,  ce  qui  appartient  au 
 dialecte  populaire,  ou  au  patois  du  royauuie  d'lsrael, 
 ou  a  rinfluencedes  temps  de  la  captivite."  ''II  est  a 
 reinarquer,  du  rcste,  que  les  langues  seniitiques  dif- 
 ferent nioins  dans  la  bouche  du  peuple  que  dans  les 
 livres  "  (Kenan,  i.  lil,  142 ;  aod  also  Fiir.^t,  Lrhr^'eb. 
 5§  3,  4,  3,  11). 
 
 t>  IIofTmanu,  Gmmm.  Syr.  pp.  5,  6 ;  Scholz,  i.p.  41, 
 iii.  p.  8,  9  ;  Gesenius,  Lehn^ebiiuile  (1817),  pp.  194-196  ; 
 Furst,  Lfhr^eb.  §§  4, 14  ;  Rawlinson,  Journal  of  Asiatic 
 Sociciy,  XT.  2S.3. 
 
 c  Halhed's  Grammar  of  the  Bevaal,  Language,  1778, 
 quoted  in  Delitzfch,  Je.itmin,  p.  113:  Kiirst,  Lehrgeb 
 Zweiter  Ilaupttheil. 
 
 d  Ewald,  Gramm.  d.  A.  T.  1833,  pp.  4-8  ;  Bertheau, 
 in  Ilerzog,  v.  611,  612;  Reuss,  ibid.  pp.  598,  600; 
 Kranck,  Etudes  Orientales,  p.  387. 
 
 e  ''The  name  of  their  courtry,  ntj^^^P  =  the 
 land  of  immigration,  —  points   to  the  fact  that  the 
 
SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 2973 
 
 j^eneral  resemblance  to  that  of  the  Terachite  set- 
 tlers is  beyond  all  doubt,  both  in  the  case  of  the 
 Hamite  tribes,  and  of  the  Philistine  tribes,  another 
 branch  of  the  same  stock. 
 
 Originally,  tiie  lanj,ai.ii,'e  of  the  Hebrews  pre- 
 sented more  affinities  with  the  Aramaic,  in  accord- 
 ance with  their  own  family  accounts,  which  bring 
 the  Patriarchs  from  the  N.  E.,  —  more  directly  from 
 northern  Mesopotamia.  In  consequence  of  vicinity, 
 as  was  to  be  anticipated,  many  features  of  resem- 
 blance U)  the  Arabic  may  be  traced ;  but  subse- 
 quentl}',  the  Hebrew  language  will  be  found  to  have 
 followed  au  independent  course  of  growth  anil  de- 
 velopment. 
 
 7.  Two  questions,  in  direct  connection  with  the 
 early  movements  ol'  the  ancestors  of  the  subsequent 
 Hebrew  nation,  have  been  discussed  with  great 
 earnestness  by  many  writers  —  the  first  bearing  on 
 the  causes  which  set  tlie  Terachite  family  in  mo- 
 tion towards  the  soutii  and  west;  the  second,  on 
 the  origin  and  language  of  the  trilies  in  possession 
 of  Canaan  at  the  arrival  of  Abraham. 
 
 In  Gen.  x.  and  xi.  we  are  told  of  five  sons  of 
 Sheni —  Klam,  Asshur,  Arphaxad,  Lud,and  Aram. 
 The  last  of  tliese  (or  ratiier  the  [leoples  descended 
 from  him)  will  be  considered  subsecjuently.  The 
 fourth  has  beeii  supposed  to  lie  either  tiie  progeni- 
 tor (or  the  collective  appellation)  of  the  trilies 
 which  originally  occupied  Canaan  and  the  so-called 
 Shemitic  regions  to  the  south.  Of  the  remaining 
 three,  the  tribes  descended  from  Elam  and  called 
 by  his  name  were  probably  subjugated  at  an  early 
 period,  for  in  (ien.  xiv.  mention  is  made  of  tlie 
 headship  of  an  anti-Terachite  league  being  vested 
 in  the  king  of  Klam,  Chedorlaomer,  whose  name 
 points  to  a  Cushite  origin.  Whether  Shemitic  oc- 
 cupation was  succeeded  at  once  (in  the  case  of 
 Elam  ")  by  Aryan,  or  whether  a  (Jushite  (Hamite) 
 donunation  intervened,  cannot  now  be  decided. 
 But  in  the  case  of  the  second,  Asshur,  there  can  be 
 little  doubt,  on  the  showing  of  Scripture  (Gen.  x. 
 11),  that  his  descendants  were  disturbed  in  their 
 home  by  the  advance  of  the  clearly  traceable  Cush- 
 ite  stream  of  population,  flowing  upwards  on  a  re- 
 turn course  through  Arabia,  where  plain  marks  are 
 to  be  found  of  its  presence.''  AVhen  we  bear  in 
 mind  the  strongly  marked  diftJirences  existing  be- 
 tween the  Shemitic  and  Cnshite  (  =  Hamite)  races 
 in  habits  and  thought,'-'  and  the  manifestation  of 
 God's  wrath  left  on  record,  we  can  well  understand 
 an  uneasiness  and  a  desh'e  of  removal  among  the 
 Shemitic  population  of  the  plains  by  the  river. 
 Scripture  only  tells  us  that,  led  in  a  way  which  they 
 knew  not,  chosen  Shemitic  wanderers  of  the  lineage 
 of  Arphaxad  set  forth  on  the  journey  fraught  with 
 such  enduring  consequences  to  the  history  of  the 
 world,  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  in  its  second  stage 
 of  progress.  There  is  at  least  nothing  unreason- 
 able in  the  thought,  that  the  movement  of  Terali 
 from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (if  modern  scholarshij)  is 
 right  in  the  locality  selected)  was  caused  by  Divine 
 suggestion,  acting  on  a   mind  ill  at  ease  in  the 
 
 Philistines  did  not  reach  the  lioe  of  coast  from  the 
 interior  at  all  eveuts"  {Quart.  Kev.  Ixxviii.  172). 
 
 a  The  word  Klam  is  simply  the  pronunciation,  ac- 
 cording to  the  organs  of  Western  Asia,  of  Iran  =  Airy- 
 ama  =  Airjaiia.  Kenan,  i.  41,  oa  the  authority  of 
 Burnouf  and  M.  MUIler  ;  J.  G.  MUller,  R.  E.  xiv. 
 833  ;  Rawliuson,  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  xv.  222. 
 
 b  Reaan,  i.  34.  312,  315;  Spiegel,  in  Herzog,  x.  3C5, 
 366. 
 
 e  Compare  Gen.  xi.  6  with  Gen.  xviii.  20,  and  note  1, 
 
 neighborhood  of  Cushite  thought  and  habits.  It 
 may  be  that  the  active  cause  of  the  movement  r3 
 corded  in  Gen.  xi.  31  was  a  renewed  manifestation 
 of  the  One  True  God,  the  influences  of  which  were 
 to  be  stamped -on  all  that  was  of  Israel,  and  not 
 least  palpably  on  its  language  in  its  purity  and 
 proper  development.  The  leading  particulars  of 
 that  memorable  journey  are  preserved  to  us  in 
 Scripture,  which  is  also  distinct  upon  the  fact,  that 
 the  new  comers  and  the  earlier  settlers  in  Canaan 
 found  no  difficulty  in  conversing.  Indeed,  neither 
 at  the  first  entrance  of  Terachites,  nor  at  the  re- 
 turn of  their  descendants  after  their  long  sojourn 
 in  Egypt,  does  there  appear  to  have  been  any  diffi- 
 culty in  this  respect  in  the  case  of  any  of  the  nu- 
 merous tribes  of  either  Shemitic  or  Hamitic  origin 
 of  which  mention  is  made  in  Scripture.  Hut,  as 
 was  to  be  expected,  very  great  difference  of  opinion 
 is  to  1)6  found,  and  very  much  learned  discussion 
 has  taken  place,  as  to  whether  the  I'erachites  adopt- 
 ed the  language  of  the  earlier  settlers,  or  established 
 their  own  in  its  phvce.  The  latter  alternative  is 
 hardly  probable,  although  for  a  long  time,  and 
 among  the  earlier  writers  on  Biblical  subjects,  it  was 
 maintained  with  great  earnestness  —  Walton,  for 
 exanqjle,  holding  the  advanced  knowledge  and  civ- 
 ilization of  the  Terachite  immigration  in  all  im- 
 portant particulars.  It  may  be  doubted,  with  a 
 writer  of  the  present  day,''  whether  this  is  a  sound 
 line  of  reasoning,  and  whether  "  this  contrast  be- 
 tween the  inferiority  of  the  chosen  people  in  all 
 secular  advantages,  and  their  preiiminence  in  re- 
 ligious privileges,''  is  not  i^' an  argument  which 
 caimot  be  too  strongly  insisted  on  by  a  Christian 
 advocate."  The  whole  history  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
 ple anterior  to  the  advent  of  Christ  would  seem  to 
 indicate  that  any  great  early  amount  of  civilization, 
 being  built  nece.s.sarily  on  closer  intercourse  with 
 the  surrounding  peoples,  would  have  tended  to  re- 
 tard rather  than  promote  the  object  for  which  that 
 people  was  chosen.  The  probability  is,  that  a 
 great  original  similarity  existing  between  the  dia- 
 lects of  the  actual  po.5sessors  of  the  country  in 
 their  various  localities,  and  that  of  the  immigrants, 
 the  latter  were  less  likely  to  impart  than  to  borrow 
 from  their  more  advanced  neighbors. 
 
 On  what  grounds  is  the  undoubted  similarity 
 of  the  dialect  of  the  Terachites  to  that  of  the  oc- 
 cupants at  the  time  of  their  immigration,  to  be  ex- 
 plained y  Of  the  origin  of  its  earliest  occu2)ants, 
 known  to  us  in  the  sacred  records  by  the  mysteri- 
 ous and  boding  names  of  Nephilim,  Zamzummim, 
 and  the  like,  and  of  whose  probable  Titanic  size 
 traces  have  been  Ijrought  to  light  by  recent  travel- 
 lers, history  records  nothing  certain.  Some  a.ssert 
 that  no  reliable  traces  of  Shemitic  language  are  to 
 be  found  north  of  JMount  Taurus,  and  claim  for  the 
 early  inhabitants  of  Asia  Minora  J aphetian origin. 
 Others  affirm  the  descent  of  these  early  tribes 
 IVom  Lud,  the  fourth  son  of  Shem,  and  their  mi- 
 gration from  "  Lydia  to  Arabia  Petnea  and  the 
 southern  borders  of  Palestine."  <^     But  these  must 
 
 Rawlinson,  ./.  A.  S.  xv.  231.  Does  the  cuneiform  or- 
 thography Bab-Il  =  "  the  gate  of  God,''  point  to  the  act 
 of  Titanic  audacity  recorded  in  Gen?  and  is  the  punish- 
 ment recorded  in  the  confusion  expressed  in  a  Sliemitio 
 word  of  kindred  sound  ?  Quatremere,  Melaiiires  d'His- 
 toire,  113,  164. 
 
 <<  Bishop  of  St.  David's  Letter  to  the  Hei .  R.  Wil- 
 liams, D.  D.,  p.  65. 
 
 e  l^juan,  i.  45,  107;  Arnold,  in  Ilerzog,  viii.  310 
 11 ;  Graham,  CamOridge  Essays,  1S58. 
 
2974 
 
 SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 have  disappeared  at  an  early  period,  no  mention 
 being  made  of  them  in  Gen.  x.,  and  tlieir  remains 
 being  only  alluded  to  in  references  to  the  tribes 
 which,  under  a  well-known  designation,  we  find  in 
 occupation  of  Palestine  on  the  return  from  Eg}  pt. 
 
 8.  Another  view  is  that  put  forward  by  our  coun- 
 tryman Eavvlinson,  and  shared  by  other  scholars. 
 "  Either  from  ancient  monuments,  or  from  tradi- 
 tion, or  from  the  dialects  now  spoken  by  their  de- 
 scendants, we  are  authorized  to  infer  that  at  some 
 very  remote  period,  before  the  rise  of  the  Shemitic 
 or  Aryan  n.itions,  a  great  Scythic  "  (^Hamitic) 
 "  population  must  have  overspread  Euro])e,  Asia, 
 and  Africa,  speaking  languages  all  more  or  less  dis- 
 similar in  their  vocabulary,  but  possessing  in  com- 
 mon certain  organic  characteristics  of  grammar 
 and  construction."  " 
 
 And  this  statement  would  appear,  in  its  leading 
 features,  to  be  historically  sound.  As  was  to  be 
 anticipated,  both  from  its  importance  and  from  its 
 extreme  obscurity,  few  subjects  connected  with  Bib- 
 lical antiquities  have  been  more  warmly  discussed 
 than  the  origin  of  the  Canaanitish  occupants  of 
 Palestine.  Looking  to  the  authoritative  records 
 (Gen.  ix.  18,  x.  6,  15-20)  there  would  seem  to  be 
 no  reason  for  doubt  as  to  the  Hamitic  origin  of 
 these  tribes.*  Nor  can  the  singular  accordances 
 discernible  between  the  language  of  tliese  Canaan- 
 itish (^Hamitic)  occupants,  and  the  Shemitic 
 family  be  justly  pleaded  in  bar  of  this  view  of  the 
 origin  of  the  former.  "  If  we  examine  the  inval- 
 uable ethnography  of  the  book  of  Genesis  we  siiall 
 find  that,  while  Ham  is  the  brother  of  Sheni,  and 
 therefore  a  relationship  between  his  descendants  and 
 tlfe  Shemitic  nations  fully  recognized,  the  llaniites 
 are  described  as  those  who  previously  occupied  the 
 different  countries  into  which  the  Aramceau  race 
 afterwards  forced  their  way.  Thus  Scripture  (Gen. 
 X.  ff.)  attributes  to  the  race  of  Ham  not  only  the 
 aboriginal  population  of  Canaan,  with  its  wealthy 
 and  civilized  communities  on  the  coast,  but  also  the 
 mighty  empires  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh,  the  rich 
 kingdoms  of  Sheba  and  Havilah  in  Arabia  Felix, 
 and  the  wonderful  realm  of  Egypt.  There  is  every 
 reason  to  believe  —  indeed  in  some  cases  the  proof 
 amounts  to  demonstration  —  that  all  these  Hamitic 
 nations  spoke  languages  which  differed  only  dialec- 
 tically  from  those  of  the  Syro-Arabic  family."  <= 
 
 9.  Connected  with  this  subject  of  the  relation- 
 ship discernible  among  the  early  Noachidse  is  that 
 of  the  origin  and  extension  of  the  art  of  writing 
 among  the  Shemites,  the  branch  with  which  we 
 are  at  present  concerned.  Our  limits  preclude  a 
 discussion  upon  the  many  theories  by  which  the 
 student  is  still  bewildered :  the  question  would 
 seem  to  be,  in  the  case  of  the  Terachite  branch  of 
 the  Shemitic  stock,  did  they  acquire  the  art  of 
 writing  from  the  Phoenicians,  or  Egyptians,  or 
 Assyrians  —  or  was  it  evolved  from  given  elements 
 among  themselves? 
 
 But  while  the  truth  with  respect  to  the  origin 
 of  Shemitic  writing  is  as  yet  involved  in  obscurity. 
 
 a  RawUnson,  J.  of  A.  S.  xv.  230,  232. 
 
 b  "  All  the  Canaanites  were,  I  am  satisfied,  Scyths  ; 
 and  the  inhabitants  of  Syria  retained  their  distinctive 
 ethnic  character  imtil  quite  a  late  period  of  history. 
 According  to  the  inscriptions,  the  Khetta  or  Uittites 
 were  the  dominant  Scythian  race  from  the  earliest 
 times."     Rawlinson,  J.  A.  S.  xv.  2.30. 
 
 c   Quarterly  Rev.  Ixxviii.  173.     See  a  quotation  in 
 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  that  an  indelible  inllurnce 
 was  exercised  by  Egypt  upon  the  Terachite  branch 
 in  this  particular.  The  language  of  Egypt  cannot 
 be  considered  as  a  bar  to  this  theory,  for,  in  the 
 opinion  of  most  who  have  studied  the  subject,  the 
 Egyptian  language  may  claim  an  Asiatic,  and  in- 
 deed a  Shemitic  origin.  Nor  can  the  changes 
 wrought  be  justly  attriljuted  to  the  Hyksos,  instead 
 of  the  l-.Lcyptians.  Tliese  people,  when  scattered 
 after  their  long  sojourn,  doubtless  carried  with 
 them  many  traces  and  results  of  the  superior  cul- 
 ture of  Egypt;  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
 that  they  can  be  considered  in  any  way  as  instruc- 
 tors of  the  Terachites.  The  claim,  so  long  acqui- 
 esced in,  of  the  Phcenicians  in  this  respect,  has 
 been  set  aside  on  distinct  grounds.  What  was  the 
 precise  amount  of  cultivation,  in  respect  of  the  art 
 of  writing,  possessed  l>y  the  Terachites  at  the  im- 
 migration or  at  their  removal  to  Egypt,  we  cannot 
 now  tell,  —  probably  but  limited,  when  estimated 
 by  their  social  position.  But  the  Exodus  found 
 them  possessed  of  that  priceless  treasure,  the  germ 
 of  the  alphabet  of  the  civilized  world,  built  on  a 
 pure'Shemitic  basis,  but  modified  by  Egyptian  cul- 
 ture. "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  phonetic 
 signs  are  subsequent  to  the  objective  and  determi- 
 native hieroglyphics,  and  showing  as  they  do  a 
 much  hiijlier  power  .of  abstraction,  they  must  be 
 considered  as  infinitely  more  valualjle  contributions 
 to  the  art  of  writing.  But  the  l^gyptians  have 
 conferred  a  still  greater  boon  on  the  world,  if  their 
 hieroglyphics  were  to  any  extent  the  origin  of  the 
 Shemitic,  which  has  formed  the  basis  of  almost 
 every  known  system  of  letters.  The  long  contin- 
 uance of  a  pictorial  and  figurative  system  of 
 writing  among  tlie  E^ryptians,  and  their  low,  and 
 after  all,  imperfect  syllaliarium,  must  be  referred  to 
 the  same  source  as  their  pictorial  and  figurative 
 representation  of  their  idea  of  tlie  Deity;  just  as, 
 on  the  contrary,  the  early  adoption  by  the  people 
 of  [srael  of  an  alphabet  properly  so  called,  iiiust 
 be  regarded  as  one  among  many  proofs  which  they 
 gave  of  their  powers  of  abstraction,  and  conse- 
 quently of  their  fitness  for  a  more  spiritual  wor- 
 ship." '^ 
 
 10.  Between  the  dialects  of  Aram  and  Arabia, 
 that  of  the  Terachites  occupied  a  middle  place  — 
 superior  to  the  fii-st,  as  being  the  language  in 
 which  are  preserved  to  us  the  inspired  outpourings 
 of  so  many  great  prophets  and  poets  —  wise, 
 learned,  and  eloquent  — 'h.nd  different  from  the 
 second  (which  does  not  appear  in  history  until  a 
 comparatively  recent  period)  in  its  antique  sim- 
 plicity and  majesty. 
 
 Tlie  dialect  which  we  are  now  considering  has 
 been  ordinarily  desii^nated  as  that  of  the  Hebrews, 
 rather  than  of  the  Israelites,  apparently  for  the  fol- 
 lowing reasons.  The  appellation  Hebrew  is  of  old 
 standing,  but  has  no  reference  to  the  history  of  the 
 people,  as  connected  with  its  glories  or  eminence, 
 while  that  of  Israel  is  bound  up  with  its  historical 
 grandeur.    The  people  is  addressed  as  hruel  by  their 
 
 J.  A.  S.  XV.  238,  on  the  corruption  of  manners  flowing 
 from  the  advanced  civilization  of  the  Uamite.s. 
 
 'f  Q.  R.  Ixxviii.  156  ;  Ewald,  Gcsch.  i.  472-474 ; 
 IIoflFinann,  Gramm.  Sijriac.  pp.  60-62  ;  Leyrer,  Her- 
 zog,  xiv.  358,  359  ;  Lepsius,  Zwe.i  Abhandtim^eii.  39, 
 40° 56,  65;  J.  G.  Miiller,  in  Uerzog,  xiv  232;  lUwlin- 
 son,  J.  A.  S.  XV  222,  226,  230 ;  Saalschutz,  Ziir  Ge- 
 schichle  (i.  Biichslabenschrift,  §§  6,  17,  18;  Vaihinfer. 
 in  llerzog,  xi.  302. 
 
SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 2975 
 
 priests  and  prophets,  on  solemn  occasions,  wliile  Ijy 
 foreigners  they  are  designated  as  HeUrews  ((jen.  xl. 
 15),  and  indeed  by  some  of  their  own  early  writers, 
 where  no  point  is  raised  in  connection  with  tlieir 
 religion  (Gen.  xliii.  32;  Ex.  xxi.  2;  1  Sam.  xiii. 
 3,  7,  xiv.  21).     It   was  long   assumed   that  their 
 
 designation  (D^"1317  =  ol  Trepdrai)  had  reference 
 to  Eber,  the  ancestor  of  Abraham.  More  prol)ably 
 it  should  be  regarded  as  designating  all  the  Shem- 
 itic-speaking  tribes,  which  had  migrated  to  the 
 south  from  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates;  and  in 
 that  case,  nught  have  been  applied  by  the  earlier 
 inhabitants  of  Canaan.  But  in  either  case,  the 
 term  "  Hebrews  "  would  comprise  all  the  descend- 
 ants of  Abraham,  and  their  language  therefore 
 should  be  designated  as  the  Heljrew,  in  accordance 
 with  the  more  usual  name  of  the  peo|)le.  "  Fhe 
 language  of  Canaan''  is  used  instead  (Is.  xix.  18), 
 but  in  this  passage  the  country  of  Canaan  is  con- 
 trasted with  that  of  Egypt.  I'he  expression  "  the 
 Jews'  language"  (Is.  xxxvi.  11,  13)  applies  merely 
 to  the  dialect  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  in  all 
 probability,  more  widely  used  after  the  fall  of 
 Samaria. 
 
 11.  Many  causes,  all  obvious  and  intelligil)le, 
 combine  to  make  difficult,  if  not  impossil)le,  any 
 formal  or  detached  account  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
 guage anterior  to  its  assuming  a  written  shape. 
 But  various  reasons  occur  to  render  difficult,  even 
 within  this  latter  period,  such  a  reliable  history  of 
 the  Hebrew  language  as  befits  the  exceeding  in- 
 terest of  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  very  little 
 has  come  down  to  us,  of  what  appears  to  have  been 
 an  extensi\e  and  diversified  literature.  Where  the 
 facts  requisite  for  a  judgment  are  so  limited,  any 
 attempt  of  the  kind  is  likely  to  mislead,  as  being 
 built  on  speculations,  erecting  into  ciiaracteristics 
 of  an  entire  period  wh.at  may  be  simply  the  pecul- 
 iarities of  the  author,  or  incidental  to  his  subject 
 or  style.  Again,  attempts  at  a  philological  history 
 of  the  Hebrew  language  will  be  much  impeded  by 
 the  fact  —  that  the  chronological  order  of  the  ex- 
 tant Scriptures  is  not  in  all  instances  clear — and 
 that  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation  from  its 
 settlement  to  the  seventh  century  b.  c.  is  without 
 changes  or  progress  of  the  marked  and  promi- 
 nent nature  required  for  a  satisfactory  critical 
 judgment.  Unlike  languages  of  the  Japhetian 
 stock,  such  as  the  Greek  or  German,  the  Hebrew 
 language,  like  all  her  Shemitic  sisters,  is  firm  and 
 hard  as  from  a  mould  —  not  susceptible  of  change. 
 In  addition  to  these  characteristics  of  their  lan- 
 guage, the  people  by  whom  it  was  spoken  were 
 of  a  retired  and  exclusive  cast,  and,  for  a  long  time, 
 exempt  from  foreign  sway.  The  dialects  also  of 
 the  few  conterminous  tribes  with  whom  they  had 
 any  intercourse  were  allied  closely  with  their  own. 
 
 The  extant  remains  of  Hebrew  literature  are 
 destitute  of  any  important  changes  in  language, 
 during  the  period  from  Moses  to  the  Captivity.  A 
 certain  and  intelligible  amount  of  progress,  but  no 
 considerate  or  remarkable  difference  (according  to 
 one  school),  is  really  observable  in  the  language  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Kuth, 
 Samuel,  the  Kings,  the  Psalms,  or  the  prophecies 
 of    Isaiah,    Hosea,   Amos,  Joel,    Micah,    Nahum, 
 
 Habakkuk,  and  Jeremiah  —  widely  separated  from 
 each  other  by  time  as  are  many  of  these  writings 
 Grammars  and  lexicons  are  confidently  referred  to 
 as  supplying  abundant  evidence  of  unchanged  ma- 
 terials and  fashioning;  and  foreign  words,  when 
 occurring,  are  easily  to  be  recognized  under  their 
 Shemitic  dress,  or  their  introduction  as  easily  to 
 be  explained. 
 
 At  the  first  sight,  and  to  modern  judgment, 
 much  of  this  appears  strange,  and  possibly  unten- 
 able. But  an  explanation  of  the  diffictdty  is  sought 
 in  the  unliroken  residence  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
 without  removal  or  molestation  —  a  feature  of  his- 
 tory not  unexpected  or  surprising  in  the  case  of  a 
 people  preserved  by  Providence  simjjly  as  the  guar- 
 dians of  a  sacred  deposit  of  truth,  not  yet  ripe  for 
 publication.  An  additional  illustration  of  the  im 
 munity  from  change,  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  his- 
 tory of  the  other  branches  of  the  Shemitic  stock. 
 The  Aramaic  dialect,  as  used  by  various  writers  for 
 eleven  hundred  years,  although  inferior  to  the  He- 
 brew in  many  respects,  is  almost  without  change, 
 and  not  essentially  different  from  the  language  of 
 Daniel  and  Ezra.  And  the  Arabic  language,  sub- 
 sequently to  its  second  birth,  in  connection  with 
 Mohammedanism,  will  be  found  to  present  the 
 same  phenomena. 
 
 12.  Moreover,  is  it  altogether  a  wild  conjecture 
 to  assume  as  not  impossil)le,  the  formation  of  a 
 sacred  language  among  the  chosen  people,  at  so 
 marked  a  period  of  their  history  as  that  of  Moses  V 
 Every  argument  leads  to  a  belief,  that  the  popular 
 dialect  of  the  Hebrews  from  a  very  early  period 
 was  deeply  tinged  with  Aramaic,  and  that  it  con- 
 tinued so.  But  there  is  surely  nothing  unlikely 
 or  inconsistent  in  the  notion  that  he  who  was 
 ''learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  ICgyptians " 
 should  have  been  taught  to  introduce  a  sacred 
 language,  akin,  but  superior  to  the  every-day  dia- 
 lect of  his  people  —  the  property  of  the  rulers,  and 
 v?hich  subsequent  writers  should  be  guided  to  copy. 
 Such  a  language  would  be  the  sacred  and  learned 
 one,  —  that  of  the  few,  —  and  no  clearer  proof  of 
 the  limited  hold  exercised  by  this  classical  Hebrew 
 on  the  ordinary  language  of  the  people  can  be  re- 
 quired than  its  rapid  withdrawal,  after  the  Cap- 
 tivity, before  a  language  composed  of  dialects 
 hitherto  disregarded,  but  still  living  in  popular 
 use.  It  has  been  well  said  that  "  literai-y  dialects, 
 or  what  are  commonly  called  classical  languages, 
 pay  for  their  temporary  greatness  by  inevitable  de- 
 cay." "  If  later  in  history  we  meet  with  a  new 
 body  of  stationary  language  forming  or  formed,  we 
 may  be  sure  that  its  tributaries  were  those  rivu- 
 lets which  for  a  time  were  almost  lost  to  our 
 sight."  « 
 
 13.  A  few  remarks  may  not  be  out  of  place  here 
 with  reference  to  some  leading  linguistic  pecul- 
 iarities in  different  books  of  the  O.  1'.  For  ordi- 
 nary purposes  the  old  division  into  the  golden  and 
 silver  ages  is  sufficient.  A  detailed  list  of  pecul- 
 iarities observable  in  the  Pentateuch  (without, 
 however,  destroying  its  close  similarity  to  other 
 0.  T.  writings)  is  given  by  Scholz,  divided  under 
 lexical,  granmiatical,  and  syntactical  heads.  With 
 the  style  of  the  Pentateuch  (as  might  be  expected) 
 that  of  Joshua  very  closely  corresponds.      I'iie  feel- 
 
 a  M.  Mliller,  Science  of  Lartfiua^e,  pp.  57-59:  a  most 
 instructive  passage.  Forster,  Voice  of  Ifrafl,  77. 
 '  Vieles  audi,  was  uns  jetzt  zum  ersten  Male  in  den 
 Denkmalern  der  macedouischen  Weltzeit  bej;egnet,  mag 
 
 wohl  alter  .«eyn,  aber  dajials  zuerst  aus  dem  Dunkel 
 der  Volkssprache,  die  ja  iiberall  reicher  ist  als  (li« 
 der  classisclien   Legitimitat."     Reu.is,  in   Herzog,  t 
 
 707. 
 
2976 
 
 SHEMITIP  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 ing  of  hostility  to  the  neighboring  peoples  of  mixed 
 descent,  so  prevalent  at  the  time  of  the  restoration, 
 makes  strongly  against  the  asserted  late  origin  of 
 the  book  of  Kuth,  in  which  it  cannot  be  traced. 
 But  (with  which  we  are  at  present  concerned)  the 
 style  points  to  an  earlier  date,  the  asserted  Ara- 
 maisms  being  probably  relics  of  the  popular  dia- 
 lect/' The  same  linguistic  peculiarities  are  ob- 
 servable (among  other  merits  of  style)  in  the  books 
 of  Sauuiel.'' 
 
 The  l)ooks  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes  contain  many 
 asserted  Aramaisnis,  which  have  been  pleaded  in 
 support  of  a  late  origin  of  these  two  poems.  In 
 the  case  of  the  first,  it  is  argued  (on  the  other  side) 
 that  these  peculiarities  are  not  to  be  considered  so 
 much  poetical  ornaments  as  ordinary  expressions 
 and  usages  of  the  early  Hebrew  language,  affected 
 necessarily  to  a  certain  extent  by  intercourse  with 
 neighboring  tribes.  And  the  asserted  want  of 
 study  and  polish  in  the  diction  of  this  book  leads 
 to  the  same  conclusion.  As  respects  the  book  of 
 Ecclesiastes  the  case  is  more  obscure,  as  in  many 
 instances  the  peculiarities  of  style  seem  rather  ref- 
 erable to  the  secondary  Hebrew  of  a  late  period 
 of  Hebrew  history,  than  to  an  Aramaic  origin. 
 But  our  acquaintance  with  Hebrew  literature  is  too 
 limited  to  allow  the  formation  of  a  positive  opinion 
 on  the  suliject,  in  opposition  to  that  of  ecclesiastical 
 antiquity.<=  In  adtlition  to  roughness  of  diction, 
 growing  proliably  out  of  the  same  cause — close  in- 
 tercourse with  the  people  —  so-called  Aramaisms  are 
 to  be  found  in  the  remains  of  Jonah  and  Hosea, 
 and  expressions  closely  allied  in  those  of  Amos.'' 
 This  is  not  the  case  in  the  writings  of  Nahum, 
 Zephaniah,  and  Haljakkuk,  and  in  the  still  later 
 ones  of  tlie  minor  prophets;  the  treasures  of  past 
 times,  which  filled  tlieir  hearts,  served  as  models 
 of  style.« 
 
 As  with  respect  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  (at 
 the  hands  of  modern  critics),  so,  in  the  case  of 
 Ezekiel,  Jewish  critics  have  sought  to  assign  its 
 peculiarities  of  style  and  expression  to  a  secondary 
 Hebrew  origin.  /  But  the  references  above  given 
 may  serve  to  aid  the  consideration  of  a  most  in- 
 teresting question,  as  to  the  extent  to  which  Ara- 
 maic elements  entered  into  the  ordinary  dialect  of 
 the  Hebrew  people,  from  early  times  to  the  Cap- 
 tivity. 
 
 The  peculiarities  of  language  in  Daniel  belong 
 to  another  field  of  inquiry;  and  under  impartial 
 consideration  more  difficulties  may  be  found  to  dis- 
 appear, as  in  the  case  of  those  with  regard  to  the 
 asserted  Greek  words.  The  language  and  subject- 
 matter  of  Daniel  (especially  the  latter),  in  tlie 
 opinion  of  scholars,  led  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to 
 •place  this  book  elsewhere  than  among  the  prophet- 
 ical writings.  To  their  minds,  the  apocalyptic  char- 
 acter of  the  book  might  seem  to  assign  it  rather  to 
 the  Hagiographa  than  the  roll  of  prophecy,  prop- 
 erly so  called.     Inquiries,  with  respect  to  the  clos- 
 
 «  Scholz,  EM.  313,  and  note ;  Nagelsbach,  in  Her- 
 zog,  xiii.  188. 
 
 b  Nagelsbach.  ibid.  412. 
 
 c  Scholz,  Eiiil.  iii.  65-67,  180, 181 ;  Ewald,  Hiob,  65. 
 
 d  Scholz,  ibid.  581,  537,  549. 
 
 e  Scholz,  ibid.  595,  600,  606  ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  t.2, 
 §  215. 
 
 f  Zunz,  Gotte.<:dienxtliche  Vortrage  der  Juden,  162. 
 
 a  See  also  Kawlinson,  J  A.  S.  xv.  247  ;  Delitzsch, 
 in  Ilerzog,  iii.  274 ;  Vaihinger,  Stud.  «.  Krit.  1857,  pp. 
 »3-99. 
 
 ing  of  the  canon,  tend  to  shake  the  comparatively 
 recent  date  which  it  has  been  so  customary  to  as- 
 sign to  this  book. 3 
 
 With  these  exceptions  (if  so  to  be  considered) 
 few  traces  of  dialects  are  discernible  in  the  small 
 remains  still  extant,  for  the  most  part  conipo.sed  in 
 Judah  and  Jerusalem.  The  dialects  of  the  north- 
 ern districts  probably  were  influenced  by  their  Ara- 
 maic neighbors;  and  local  expressions  are  to  be 
 detected  in  Judg.  v.  and  xii.  6.  At  a  later  period 
 Philistine  dialects  are  alluded  to  (Neh.  xiii.  23,  24), 
 and  that  of  Gahlee  (JIatt.  xxvi.  73). 
 
 As  has  been  remarked,  the  Aramaic  elements 
 above  alluded  to,  are  most  plainly  observable  in  the 
 remains  of  some  of  the  less  educated  writers.  The 
 general  style  of  Hebrew  prose  literature  is  plain 
 and  simple,  but  lively  and  pictorial,  and  rising  with 
 the  subject,  at  times,  to  considerable  elevation.  But 
 the  strength  of  the  Hebrew  language  lies  in  its 
 poetical  and  prophetical  remains.  For  simple  and 
 historical  narrative,  ordinary  words  and  formations 
 sufficed.  But  the  requisite  elevation  of  poetical 
 composition,  and  the  necessity  (growing  out  of  the 
 general  use  of  parallelism)  for  enlarging  the  supply 
 of  striking  words  and  expressions  at  command,  led 
 to  the  introduction  of  many  expressions  which  we 
 do  not  commonly  find  in  Helirew  prose  literature.'' 
 For  the  origin «  and  existence  of  these  we  must 
 look  especially  to  the  Aramaic,  from  which  expres- 
 sions were  borrowed,  whose  force  and  peculiarities 
 might  give  an  additional  ornament  and  point  not 
 otherwise  attainable.  Closely  resembling  that  of 
 the  poetical  books,  in  its  general  character,  is  the 
 style  of  the  prophetical  writings,  but,  as  might  be 
 anticipated,  more  oratorical,  and  running  into 
 longer  sentences.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten,  by 
 the  side  of  so  much  that  is  unifcjrm  in  language 
 and  construction  throughout  so  long  a  period,  that 
 diversities  of  individual  dispositions  and  standing 
 are  strongly  marked,  in  the  instances  of  several 
 writers.  But  from  the  earliest  period  of  the  exist- 
 ence of  a  hterature  among  the  Hebrew  people  to 
 B.  c.  600,  the  Hebrew  language  continued  singu- 
 larly exempt  from  change,  in  all  leading  and  gen- 
 eral features,  and  in  the  general  laws  of  its  expres- 
 sion, forms,  and  combinations. 
 
 From  that  period  the  Hebrew  dialect  "^vill  be 
 found  to  give  way  before  the  Aramaic,  in  what  has 
 been  preserved  to  us  of  its  literature,  although,  as 
 is  not  unfrequently  the  case,  some  later  writers 
 copy,  with  almost  regretful  accuracy,  the  classical 
 and  consecrated  language  of  a  brighter  period. 
 
 §§  14-19.  Aramaic  Language.  —  Scholastic 
 Period. 
 
 14.  The  language  ordinarily  called  Aramaic  is  a 
 dialect  of  the  great  Shemitic  family,  deri\ing  its 
 name  from  the  district  over  which  it  was  spoken, 
 Aram  =  the  high  or  hill  country  (as  Canaan  =the 
 low  country).     But  the  name  is  applied,  both  by 
 
 It  "  L"importance  du  verset  dans  le  style  des  Si5mite8 
 est  la  meilleure  preuve  du  manque  absolu  de  con- 
 struction interieure  qui  caracterise  leur  phrase.  Le 
 verset  n'a  rien  de  commun  avec  la  periode  grecque  et 
 latine,  puisquil  n'offre  pas  une  suite  de  niembres 
 dependants  les  uns  des  autre.s :  c'est  une  coupe  a 
 peu  pres  arbitraire  dans  une  serie  de  propositions 
 separees  par  des  virgules.''     Renan,  i.  21. 
 
 i  Reuss,  in  Herzog,  v.  606-608 ;  Bleek,  Einieitung., 
 pp.  80-89. 
 
SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND.  WRITING 
 
 29: 
 
 Biblical  and  other  writers,  in  a  wider  and  a  more 
 restricted  sense.  Tlie  designation  —  Aram  —  was 
 imperfectly  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  by 
 whom  the  country  was  called  Syria,  an  abbrevia- 
 tion of  Assyria,  according  to  Herodotus  (vii.  63)" 
 In  general  practice  Aram  was  divided  into  Eastern 
 and  Western.  The  dialects  of  these  two  districts 
 were  severally  called  Chaldaic  and  Syriac  —  desig- 
 nations not  happily  chosen,  but,  as  in  the  case  of 
 Shemitic,  of  too  long  currency  to  be  changed  with- 
 out great  inconvenience.  No  traces  remain  of  the 
 numerous  dialects  which  must  have  existed  in  so 
 large  an  aggregate  of  many  very  populous  districts. 
 Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  than  tlie  api)lica- 
 tion  of  the  word  "Chaldaic"  to  the  P^ast  Aramaic 
 dialect.  It  seems  pi'ol  lable  that  the  Chalda-^ans 
 were  a  people  of  Japhetian  extraction,  who  proba- 
 bly took  the  name  of  the  Shemitic  tribe  whom  they 
 dislodged  before  their  connection  with  Babylon,  so 
 long,  so  varied,  and  so  full  of  interest.  But  it 
 would  be  an  error  to  attribute  to  these  conquei'ors  i 
 any  great  or  early  amount  of  cultivation.  The  ori- 
 gin of  the  peculiar  and  advanced  civilization  to  be 
 traced  in  the  basin  of  IMcsopotamia  must  be  as- 
 signed to  another  cause  —  the  influences  of  Cushite 
 immigration.  The  colossal  scientific  and  industrial 
 characteristics  of  Assj'rian  civilization  are  not  rea- 
 sonably deducible  from  Japhetian  influences,  that 
 race,  in  those  early  times,  having  evinced  no  re- 
 markable tendency  for  construction  or  the  study  of 
 the  applied  sciences.  Accordingly,  it  would  seem 
 not  unreasonable  to  place  on  the  two  rivers  a  popu- 
 lation of  Cusliite  (Hamite)  accomplishments,  if  not 
 origin,  subsequent  to  the  Sheniitic  occupation, 
 which  established  its  own  language  as  the  ordinary 
 one  of  these  districts;  and  thirdly  a  body  of  war- 
 riors and  influential  men  of  .Japhetian  origin,  the 
 true  Chaldaaans,'  wliose  name  has  been  applied  to  a 
 Shemitic  district  and  dialect.'' 
 
 The  eastern  boundary  of  the  Shemitic  languages 
 is  obscure;  but  this  much  may  be  safely  assumed, 
 that  this  family  had  its  earliest  settlement  on  the 
 upper  basin  of  the  Tigris,  from  which  extensions 
 were  doubtless  made  to  the  south.  And  (as  has 
 been  before  said)  history  points  to  another  stream, 
 flowing  northward  (at  a  subsequent  but  equally 
 ante-historic  period),  of  Cushite  population,  with 
 its  distinctive  accomplishments.  These  settlements 
 would  seem  to  comprise  the  wide  extent  of  country 
 extending  from  the  ranges  bounding  the  watershed 
 of  the  Tigris  to  the  N.  and  E.,  to  the  plains  in  the 
 S.  and  W.  towards  the  lower  course  of  the  "  great 
 river,"  =  Assyria  (to  a  great  extent),  Mesopotamia 
 and  Babylonia,  with  its  southern  district,  Chaldasa. 
 There  are  few  more  interesting  linguistic  questions 
 than  the  nature  of  the  vernacular  language  of  this 
 last-named  region,  at  the  period  of  the  .Jewish  de- 
 portation by  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  was,  mainly  and 
 incontestably,  Shemitic;  but  by  the  side  of  it  an 
 Aryan  one,  chiefly  official,  is  said  to  be  discern- 
 ible. [CHAr,DEA;  CirALDKAss.]  The  passages 
 ordinarily  relied  on  (Dan.  i.  4,  ii.  4)  are  not  very 
 conclusive  in  support  of  this  latter  theory,  which 
 derives  more  aid  from  the  fact,  that  many  prosier 
 names  of  ordinary  occurrence  (Belshazzar,  JNIero- 
 dach-Baladan,  Nabonassar,  Nabopolassar,  Nebo, 
 Nebuchadnezzar)  are  certainly  not  Shemitic.  As 
 little,  perhaps,  are  they  Aryan  —  but  in  any  case 
 
 they  may  be  naturalized  relics  of  the  Assyr'.an  su 
 premacy. 
 
 The  same  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the 
 Shemitic  or  Aryan  origin  of  the  vernacular  language 
 of  Assyria  —  i.  e.  the  country  to  the  E.  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates. As  in  the  case  of  Bab\lonia,  the  language 
 appears  to  have  been,  ordinarily,  that  of  a  blended 
 Sliemitic  and  Cushite  population,  and  a  similar  dif- 
 ficulty to  lie  connected  with  the  ordinary  proper 
 names  —  Nibchaz,  Pul,  Salmanassar,  Sardanapahis, 
 Sennacherib,  Tart^dt,  and  Tiglath-Pileser.  Is.  xxxiii. 
 19,  and  Jer.  v.  15,  have  been  referred  to  as  estab- 
 lishing the  difference  of  the  vernacular  language  of 
 Assyria  from  the  Shemitic.  Our  knowledge  of  the 
 so-called  Cushite  stock  in  the  basins  of  the  tuo  rivers 
 is  but  limited ;  but  in  any  case  a  strong  Shemitic  if 
 not  Cushite  element  is  so  clearly  discernilile  in  many 
 old  local  and  proper  names,  as  to  make  an  Aryan 
 or  other  vernacular  language  unlikely,  although  in- 
 corporations may  be  found  to  have  taken  place,  from 
 some  other  language,  probably  that  of  a  conquering 
 race. 
 
 Until  recently,  the  literature  of  these  wide  dis- 
 tricts was  a  blank.  Yet  '•  there  must  have  been 
 a  Babylonian  literature,  as  the  wisdom  of  the 
 Chaldffians  had  acquired  a  reputation,  which  could 
 liardly  have  been  sustained  without  a  literature. 
 If  we  are  ever  to  recover  a  knowledge  of  that  an- 
 cient Babylonian  literature,  it  must  be  from  the 
 cuneiform  inscriptions  lately  brought  home  from 
 Babylon  and  Nineveh.  They  are  clearly  written  in 
 a  Shemitic  languige  "  (M.  Midler,  S.  <;/' L.  p.  2G3). 
 As  has  been  before  remarked  [Babylonia,  §  10], 
 the  civilization  of  Assyria  was  derived  from  Baby- 
 lonia in  its  leading  features  —  Assyrian  art,  how- 
 ever, being  progressive,  and  marked  by  local  fea- 
 tures, such  as  the  substitution  of  alabaster  for 
 bricks  as  a  material  for  sculpture.  With  regard  to 
 the  dialects  used  for  the  class  of  inscrijjtions  with 
 which  we  are  concerned,  namely,  the  Assyrian,  aa 
 distinguished  from  the  Zend  (or  Persian)  and  Tar- 
 tar (?)  families  of  cuneiform  memorials,  the  opin- 
 ion of  scholars  is  all  but  unainmous  —  Lassen, 
 Burnouf  (as  far  as  he  pronounces  an  opinion), 
 Layard,  Spiegel,  all  agree  with  the  great  authority 
 above  cited.    Renan  dilVers,  unwillingly,  from  them. 
 
 From  what  source,  then,  does  it  seem  most 
 probable  that  future  scholars  will  find  this  peculiar 
 form  of  writing  deducible?  One  of  the  latest  writ- 
 ers on  the  subject,  Oppert,  divides  the  family,  instead 
 of  three,  into  two  large  classes  —  the  Aryan  or  Old 
 Persian,  and  another  large  class  containing  various 
 subdivisions  of  which  the  Assyrian  forms  one.  The 
 character  itself  he  asserts  to  be  neither  Aryan  nor 
 Shemitic  in  its  origin,  but  ancient  Central  Asiatic, 
 and  applied  with  ditSculty,  as  extraneous  and  ex- 
 otic, to  the  languages  of  totally  different  races.  But 
 it  is  quite  as  likely  that  the  true  origin  may  be 
 found  in  an  exactly  different  direction  —  the  S.  W. 
 —  for  this  peculiar  system  of  characters,  wluch,  be- 
 sides occupying  the  great  river  basins  of  which  we 
 have  spoken,  may  be  traced  westward  as  far  as 
 Beyrout  and  Cyprus,  and  eastward,  although  less 
 plainly,  to  Bactra.  Scholars,  including  Oppert, 
 incline  to  the  judgment,  that  (as  Hebrew,  Greek, 
 and  xVrabic  writers  all  show)  from  a  Cushite  stock 
 (Gen.  X.  8-12)  there  grew  up  Babylon  and  Nine- 
 veh, and  other  great  homes  of  civilization,  extend- 
 
 a  Other  derivations  are  given  and  refuted  by  Quatre- 
 m^re,  Melanges  WHisloire.  p.  122. 
 
 b  Renan,  p.  211.    Quatremftre,  SUlanges  iVHistoirt. 
 
 pp.  58-190,  and  especially  113-164. 
 
2978 
 
 SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 ing  from  the  level  jilains  of  Chakltea  far  away  to  | 
 the  N.  and  E.  of  Assyria.  In  these  districts,  far  | 
 anterior  to  the  deportation  of  the  Jews,  but  down 
 to  that  period,  flourished  the  schools  of  learning 
 that  gave  birth  to  results,  material  and  intellectual, 
 stamped  with  afiinity  to  those  of  Egypt.  It  may 
 well  be,  that  in  the  progress  of  discovery,  from 
 Shemitic-Cushite  records  —  akin  to  the  Himyaritic 
 and  Eth jopic  —  scholars  may  carry  back  these  re- 
 searches to  Shemitic-Cushite  imitations  of  kindred 
 writing  from  southern  lands.  Already  the  notion 
 has  obtained  currency  that  the  so-called  primitive 
 Shemitic  alphabet,  oif  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  ori- 
 gin, is  transitional,  built  on  the  older  formal  and 
 syllabic  one,  preser\ed  in  cuneiform  remains.  To 
 this  fact  ^ye  shall  in  the  sequel  recur  —  passing  now 
 to  the  condition  of  the  Aramaic  language  at  the 
 time  of  the  Captivity.  Little  weight  can  be  attrib- 
 uted to  the  argument  that  the  ancient  literature  of 
 the  district  being  called  '<  Chaldcean,"  an  Aryan 
 origin  is  implied.  The  word  "  Chaldsean  "  natu- 
 rally drove  out  "Babylonian,"  after  the  establish- 
 ment of  Chaldsean  ascendency,  in  the  latter  country ; 
 but  as  in  the  case  of  Greece  and  Rome,  intellectual 
 ascendency  held  its  ground  after  the  loss  of  mate- 
 rial power  and  rule." 
 
 15.  Without  entering  into  the  discussions  re- 
 specting the  exact  propriety  of  the  expressions,  it 
 will  be  sufficient  to  follow  the  ordinary  division  of 
 the  Aramaic  into  the  Chaklaic  or  Eastern,  and  the 
 Western  or  Syriac  dialects. 
 
 The  term  "Chaklaic  "  is  now  (like  "Shemitic") 
 firmly  established,  but  "  Babylonian  "  would  appear 
 more  suitable.  We  know  that  it  was  a  spoken  Ian 
 guage  at  the  time  of  the  Captivity. 
 
 A  valuable  outline  of  the  ditTerent  ages  and  styles 
 observable  in  the  Aramaic  branch  of  the  Shemitic 
 family  has  been  given  by  both  Delitzsch  and  Fiirst, 
 which  (with  some  additions)  is  here  reproduced  for 
 the  reader.'' 
 
 (1.)  The  earliest  extant  fragments  are  the  well- 
 known  ones  to  be  found  at  Dan.  ii.  4-vii.  28 ;  Ezr. 
 iv.  8-vi.  18,  vii.  12-26.  Affinities  are  to  be  traced, 
 without  difficulty,  between  these  fragments,  which 
 differ  again  in  some  very  marked  particulars  from 
 the  earliest  Targums."^ 
 
 To  those  who  in  the  course  of  travel  have  ob- 
 served the  ease,  almost  the  unconsciousness,  with 
 which  persons,  living  on  the  confines  of  cognate 
 dialects,  pass  from  the  use  of  one  to  another,  or 
 who  are  aware  how  close  is  the  connection  and  how 
 very  slight  the  ditlerence  between  conterminous  di- 
 alectical varieties  of  one  common  stock,  there  can 
 be  nothing  strange  in  this  juxtaposition  of  Hebrew 
 and  Aramaic  portions.  The  prophet  Daniel,  we 
 may  be  sure,  cherished  with  true  Israelite  affection 
 the  holy  language  of  his  early  home,  while  his  high 
 official  position  must  have  involved  a  thorough 
 acquaintance  not  only  with  the  ordinary  Babylon- 
 
 ish-Aramaic, but  with  the  Chaklaic  (properly  so 
 called).  Accordingly,  we  may  understand  how  the 
 prophet  might  jiass  w'thout  remark  from  the  use 
 of  one  dialect  to  the  other.  Again,  in  the  case 
 of  Ezra,  although  writing  at  a  later  period,  when 
 the  holy  language  had  a^ain  been  adopted  as  a 
 standard  of  style  and  means  of  expression  by  .lew- 
 ish  writers,  there  is  nothing  difficult  to  be  under- 
 stood in  his  incorporating  with  his  own  com- 
 position accounts,  written  by  an  eye-witness  in 
 Aramaic,  of  events  which  took  place  betbre  his  own 
 arrival.*' 
 
 (2.)  The  Syro-Chaldaic  originals  of  several  of 
 the  Apocryphal  books  are  lost;  many  Hebraisms 
 were  engrafted  on  the  Aramaic  as  spoken  by  the 
 Jews,  but  the  dialect  of  the  earlier  'hirgums  con- 
 tains a  perceptibly  smaller  amount  of  such  admix- 
 ture than  later  compilations. 
 
 (3.)  The  language  of  the  Gemaras  is  extremely 
 composite  —  that  of  the  Jerusalem  Gemara  being 
 less  pure  than  that  of  Babylon.  Still  lower  in  the 
 scale,  according  to  the  same  authority,  are  those 
 of  the  fixst-expiring  Samaritan  dialect,  and  that  of 
 Galilee. 
 
 (i. )  'I'he  curious  book  Zohar  —  an  adaptation  of 
 Aramaic  expressions  to  Judaizing  Gnosticism  — 
 among  its  foreign  additions  contains  very  many 
 from  the  Arabic,  indicative  (according  to  Delitzsch) 
 of  a  Spanish  origin.* 
 
 (5.)  The  Masora,  brief  and  symbolical,  is  chiefly 
 remarkable  for  what  may  be  called  vernacular  pe- 
 culiarities. 
 
 (6.)  The  Christian  or  ecclesiaatical  Aramaic  is 
 that  ordinarily  known  as  Syriac  —  the  language  ol 
 early  Christianity,  as  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  respect- 
 ively, of  the  Jewish  religion  and  Mohammedanism. 
 The  above  classification  may  be  useful  as  a  guide 
 to  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Aramaic  dialect 
 with  which  a  Biblical  student  is  directly  concerned. 
 For  that  ordinarily  called  the  Samaritan  contains 
 very  little  calculated  to  afford  illustration  among 
 its  scanty  remains;  and  future  discoveries  in  that 
 branch  of  pagan  Aramaic  known  as  the  dialect  of 
 the  Nabathjeans,  Mendaites,  or  Zabians  of  Meso- 
 potamia (not  the  Sabeans  of  Southern  Arabia),  can 
 only  exercise  a  remote  or  secondary  influence  on 
 the  study  of  Aramaic  as  cormected  with  tlie  Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 The  following  sketch  of  the  three  leading  varie 
 ties  of  the  West-Aramaic  dialect,  is  built  on  the 
 account  given  by  Fiirst./ 
 
 (((. )  What  is  known  of  the  condition  of  (lalilee 
 corroborates  the  disparaging  statements  given  by 
 the  Talmudists  of  the  sub-dialect  (for  it  is  no 
 more)  of  this  district.  Close  and  constant  com- 
 munication with  the  tribes  to  the  north,  and  a 
 large  admixture  of  heathens  among  the  inhabitants, 
 would  necessarily  contribute  to  this.  The  dialect 
 of  Galilee  appears  to  have  been  marked  by  conl'u- 
 
 a  Lepsius,  Zwei  Abhandlungen ,  \>.  5B.  Quatremere, 
 lEludes  Hislorigufs,  as  quoted  above.  Renan,  pp. 
 56-79.  IIerzog"s  Reat-Enc,  vol.  i.  Babel,  Babylonien 
 (Ruetschi)  ;  vol.  ii.  Ckaldaa  (Arnold)  ;  vol.  x.  Ninive 
 (Spiegel),  pp.  363,  379,  381.  Bleek,  Eml.  i.  d.  A.  T. 
 pp.  43-48. 
 
 b  Delitzsch,  Jesurun,   pp.  65-70  ;    Fiirst,    Lehrgeb. 
 
 §19. 
 
 c  Hengstenberg,  Daniel,  pp.  302-306. 
 
 d  Hengstenberg,  ibid.  p.  298.  Hence  in  our  own 
 time,  Latin  and  Welsh,  and  Latin  and  Saxon  passages, 
 are  to  be  found  iu  the  same  juxtaposition  in  chartu- 
 
 laries  and  historical  records ;  but  the  instances  are 
 more  apposite  (given  in  Delitzsch,  Wisieiiscltafl,  Kunxt, 
 Ju'Jenlhum,  p.  256  ff.)  of  the  simultaneous  use  of  He- 
 brew. Rabbinic,  and  Arabic,  among  Jewish  writers 
 after  the  so  called  revival  of  literature  under  Moham- 
 medan influence. 
 
 e  *  This  book  is  now  clearly  proved  to  have  been 
 the  production  of  Moses  de  Leon,  a  Spanish  Jew  of  the 
 13tli  century.  See  Ginsburg,  Tke  Kabbalali  (Lend. 
 1865),  p  90  £f.  A. 
 
 /  Lehrgtb.  §§  15-19. 
 
SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 ■2979 
 
 lion  of  letters  —  D  and  2,  3  with  p  (as  in  vari- 
 ous European  dialects)  —  and  aphseresis  of  the  gut- 
 tural —  a  habit  of  connecting  words  otherwise 
 separate  (also  not  uncommon  in  rude  dialects); 
 carelessness  about  vowel-sounds,  and  the  substitu- 
 tion of  tJ  final  for  i^. 
 
 (b.)  The  Samaritan  dialect  appears  to  have  been 
 a  compound  of  the  vulgar  Hebrew  with  Aramaic, 
 as  might  have  been  anticipated  from  the  elements 
 of  which  the  population  was  composed,  remains  of 
 the  "Ephraimite"  occupiers,  and  Aramaic  immi- 
 grants. A  confusion  of  the  inute  letters  and  also 
 of  the  gutturals,  with  a  predilection  for  the  letter 
 
 57,  has  been  noticed. 
 
 (c.)  The  dialect  called  that  of  .lerusalem  or  Ju- 
 dsea,  between  which  and  the  purer  one  of  the  Bab- 
 ylonish -Jews  so  many  invidious  distinctions  have 
 been  drawn,  seems  to  have  been  variable,  from  fre- 
 quent changes  among  the  inhabitants,  and  also  to 
 have  contained  a  large  amount  of  words  di/Ferent 
 from  those  in  use  in  Baliylonia,  besides  being  some- 
 what incorrect  in  its  orthography. 
 
 Each  dialect,  it  will  be  seen,  was  directly  influ- 
 enced by  the  circumstances  —  physical  or  social  — • 
 of  its  locality.  For  instance,  in  the  remote  and 
 unlettered  Galilee,  peculiaritie.-i  and  words  could 
 not  fail  to  be  engrafted  from  the  neighboring  tribes. 
 The  bitter  hatred  which  existed  between  the  Sa- 
 maritans and  the  Jews  effectually  precluded  tlie 
 admission  of  any  leavening  influences  from  the 
 latter  source.  A  dialect  originally  impure  —  the 
 Samaritan  became  in  course  of  time  largely  inter- 
 spersed with  Aramaic  words.  That  of  Judaja, 
 alone  being  spoken  by  Jews  to  whom  nationality 
 was  most  precious,  was  preserved  in  tolerable  im- 
 munity from  correspondhig  degradation,  until  over- 
 powered by  Greek  and  Roman  heathenism. 
 
 The  small  amount  of  real  difference  between  the 
 two  branches  of  Aramaic  has  been  often  urged  as 
 an  argument  for  making  any  division  superfluous. 
 But  it  has  been  well  observed  by  Fiirst,"  that  each 
 is  animated  Iw  a  very  different  spirit.  The  chief 
 relics  of  Chaldaic,  or  Eastern  Aramaic  —  the  Tar- 
 gums  —  are  filled  with  traditional  faith  in  the  va- 
 ried pages  of  Jewish  history:  they  combine  much 
 of  the  better  Pharisaism — nourished  as  it  was  on 
 lively  conceptions  of  hallowed,  national  lore,  with 
 warm,  earnest  longings  for  the  kingdom  of  the 
 Messiah.  Western  Aramaic,  or  Syriac  literature, 
 on  the  other  hand,  is  essentially  Christian,  with  a 
 new  terminology  especially  framed  for  its  necessi- 
 ties. Accordingly,  the  tendency  and  linguistic 
 character  of  the  first  is  essentially  Hebrew,  that  of 
 the  second  Hellenic.  One  is  full  of  Hebraisms,  the 
 other  of  Hellenisms. 
 
 16.  Perhaps  few  lines  of  demarcation  are  traced 
 with  greater  difficulty,  than  those  liy  which  one  age 
 of  a  language  is  separated  from  another.  This  is 
 remarkably  the  case  in  respect  of  the  cessation  of 
 the  Hebrew,  and  the  ascendency  of  the  Aramaic, 
 
 a  Lehrgeb   §  14. 
 
 b  Ranke,  D.  O.  im  Zeitalter  d.  Refonnation,  b.  iv. 
 cap.  V.  p.  476  ;  Barth^lemy  St.  Uilaire,  Le  Bouddha 
 <(  sn  Religion,  Paris,  1860,  p.  385.  "  Ordinairement 
 on  ne  rt^cite  que  le  te.xte  Pali  tout  seul,  et  alors  le 
 peuple  n'en  comprend  pas  un  mot  ;  mais  quelquefois 
 aussi,  quand  le  texte  Pali  a  (5te  r(5cit(5,  un  pretre  en 
 donne  une  interpretation  en  Singhalais  pour  le  vul- 
 gaire." 
 
 or,  as  it  may  be  put,  in  respect  of  the  date  at  which 
 the  period  of  growth  terminates,  and  that  of  expo- 
 sition and  scholasticism  begins,  in  the  literature  of 
 the  chosen  people. 
 
 Much  unnecessary  discussion  has  been  roused 
 with  respect  to  the  introduction  of  interpretation. 
 Xot  only  in  any  missionary  station  among  the 
 heathen,  Imt  in  Europe  at  tlie  Reformation,  we  can 
 find  substantially  the  germ  of  Targums.  During 
 the  16th  century,  in  the  eastern  districts  of  the 
 present  kingdom  of  Prussia,  tlie  desh-e  to  bring  the 
 Gospel  home  to  the  humliler  classes,  hitherto  but 
 little  touched  by  its  doctrines,  opened  a  new  field 
 of  activity  among  the  non-German  inhaljitants  of 
 those  provinces,  at  that  time  a  very  lumierous  body. 
 Assistants  were  appointed,  under  the  name  of  Tol- 
 ken  (interpreters),  who  rendered  the  sermon,  sen- 
 tence by  sentence,  into  the  vernacular  old  Prussian 
 dialect.*  Just  so  in  Palestine,  on  the  rfturn,  an 
 eager  desire  to  bring  their  own  Scriptures  within 
 the  reach  of  the  people  led  to  measures  such  as 
 that  described  in  Nehemiah  viii.  8,  a  passage  of  dif- 
 ficult interpretation.  It  is  possiUe,  that  the  ap- 
 parent vagueness  of  this  passage  may  represent  tlie 
 two  methods,  which  would  be  naturally  adopted  for 
 such  different  purposes  as  rendering  IViblical  He- 
 brew intelligilile  to  the  conunon  people,  who  only 
 spoke  a  dialect  of  Aramaic  —  and  supplying  a  com- 
 mentary after  such  deliberate  reading. 
 
 Of  the  several  Targums  which  are  preserved,  the 
 dates,  style,  character,  and  value  are  exceedingly 
 different.  An  account  of  them  is  given  under 
 Veusions,  Ancient  (Takguji). 
 
 17.  In  the  scholastic  period,  of  which  we  now 
 treat,  the  schools  of  the  prophets  were  succeeded  by 
 
 "houses  of  inquiry,"  — W^'ll^  ^^'^-  For  with 
 Vitringa,  in  preference  to  Rabbinical  writei-s,  we 
 prefer  considering  the  first  named  institutions  as 
 pastoral  and  devotional  seminaries,  if  not  monastic 
 retreats —  rather  than  schools  of  law  and  dialectics, 
 as  some  would  explain  them.  It  was  not  until  the 
 scholastic  period  that  all  Jewish  studies  were  so 
 employed.  Two  ways  only  of  extending  the  bless- 
 ings hence  derivable  seem  to  have  presented  them- 
 selves  to   the    national    mind,  by  conmientary  — 
 
 raS'iri,  and  inquiry — tt^r?-  I"  the  first  of 
 these,  Targumic  literature,  but  limited  openings 
 occurred  for  critical  studies  ;  in  the  second  still 
 fewer.c  The  vast  storehouse  of  Hebrew  thought 
 reaching  through  so  many  centuries  —  known  by 
 the  name  of  the  Talmud  —  and  the  collections  of  a 
 similar  nature  called  tlie  ftlidrashim,  extending  in 
 the  case  of  the  first,  dimly  but  tangibly,  from  the 
 period  of  the  Captivity  to  the  times  of  Rabbi  Asher 
 —  the  closer  of  the  Talmud  (a.  d.  426),  contain 
 comparatively  few  accessions  to  linguistic  knowl- 
 edge. The  terms  by  which  serious  or  philosophical 
 inquiry  is  described,  with  the  names  of  its  subor- 
 dinate branches  —  Halacha  (rule)  —  Hagada  (what 
 is  said  or  preached )  —  Tosiphta  (addition )  —  Bo- 
 raitha  (statements  not  in  the  Mishna)  —  Mechilta 
 
 c  Vitringa,  De  Synagoga,  1696,  p.  1,  caps.  v.  vi.  vii., 
 p.  11,  caps.  v. -viii.  —  no  scholar  should  be  without 
 this  storehouse  of  learning  ;  Cassel.  in  Herzog,  ix.  526- 
 529  ;  Franck,  Etudes  Orientales,  p.  127  ;  Oehler,  in 
 Herzog,  xii.  215,  225 ;  Zunz,  GottesdiensUicht  Vortrdge 
 der  Juden,  cap.  10.  This  last  volume  is  most  valuable 
 as  a  guiding  summary,  in  a  little  liuown  and  bewilder- 
 ing field. 
 
2980 
 
 SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   WRITING 
 
 (measure,  form)  ;  the  successive  desij^nations  of 
 learned  dignitaries  —  Soplierim  (scribes)  — Chaca- 
 mim  (sages) — Tannaini  (^  Shonini,  teachers)  — 
 Amoraiin  (speakers)  —  Seburaim  (disputants)  — Ge- 
 onim  (eminences)  —  all  bear  reference  to  the  study 
 and  exposition  of  the  rules  and  liearing  of  the  Mo- 
 saic Liw,  with  none,  or  very  little  to  the  critical 
 study  of  their  own  prized  language —  the  vehicle  of 
 the  l;iw.  The  two  component  parts  of  the  Talnnul, 
 the  iMislma  and  Geniara  —  republication  and  final 
 explanation  —  are  conceived  in  the  same  spirit. 
 The  style  and  composite  nature  of  these  works  be- 
 long to  the  history  of  Kaljbinical  literature. 
 
 18.  Of  the  (jther  main  division  of  the  Aramaic 
 language  —  the  Western  or  Syriac  dialect  —  the 
 earliest  existing  document  is  the  Peshito  version 
 of  the  Scriptures,  which  not  improbably  belongs  to 
 the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Various  sub- 
 dialects  proliably  existed  within  the  wide  aiea  over 
 which  this  Western  one  was  current:  but  there  are 
 no  means  now  attainable  for  pursuing  the  inquiry 
 
 —  what  we  know  of  the  Palniyrene  being  only  de- 
 rivable from  inscriptions  ranging  from  A.  D.  49  to 
 the  middle  of  the  tliird  century.  The  Syriac  dia- 
 lect is  thickly  studded  with  foreign  words,  Araliic, 
 Persian,  tireek,  and  Latin,  esiiecially  with  the  third. 
 A  comparison  of  this  dialect  witii  the  Eastern  branch 
 will  show  that  they  are  closely  allied  in  all  the  most 
 important  peculiarities  of  grammar  and  syntax,  as 
 well  as  in  their  store  of  original  words  —  the  true 
 standard  in  linguistic  researches. 
 
 A  few  lines  may  be  here  allowable  on  the  for- 
 tunes of  a  dialect  which  (as  will  be  shown  hereafter) 
 has  been  so  conspicuous  an  instrument  in  extend- 
 ing a  knowledge  of  the  truths  originally  given,  and 
 go  long  preserved  in  the  sacred  language  of  the  He- 
 brews. Subsequently  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  its 
 chief  seat  of  learning  and  literature  was  at  Edessa 
 
 —  from  A.  D.  440,  at  Nisibis.  Before  the  8th  and 
 9th  centuries  its  decline  had  commenced,  in  spite 
 of  the  protests  made  by  James  of  Edessa  in  favor 
 of  its  own  classical  writers.  But,  as  of  old  the  He- 
 brew language  had  given  way  to  the  Aramaic,  so 
 in  her  turn,  the  Western  Aramaic  was  driven  out 
 by  the  advances  of  the  Arabic  during  the  lOth  and 
 11th  centuries.  Somewhat  later  it  may  be  said  to 
 have  died  out  —  its  last  writer  of  mark,  Barhebrseus 
 (or  Abulpharagius)  composing  in  Arabic  as  well  as 
 Syriac." 
 
 19.  The  Chaldaic  paraphrases  of  Scripture  are 
 exceedingly  valuable  for  the  light  which  they  throw 
 on  Jewish  maimers  and  customs,  and  the  meaning 
 of  passages  otherwise  obscure,  as  likewise  for  many 
 happy  renderings  of  the  original  text.  But  they 
 .are  valuable  also  on  higher  reasons  —  the  (Christian 
 interpretation  put  by  their  autiiors  on  controverted 
 passages.  Their  testimony  is  of  the  greatest  value, 
 as  showing  that  Messianic  interpretations  of  many 
 important  passages  must  have  been  current  among 
 the  Jews  of  the  period.  Walton,  alluding  to  Jew- 
 ish attempts  to  evade  their  own  orthodox  traditions, 
 says  that  "  many  such  passages,"  i.  e.  of  the  later 
 and  evasive  kind,  "  might  be  produced  which  find 
 no  sanction  among  the  Jews.     Those  very  passages. 
 
 which  were  applied  by  their  own  teachers  to  the 
 Messiah,  and  are  incapable  of  any  other  fair  appli- 
 cation save  to  Him  in  whom  tiiey  all  centre,  art 
 not  unfrequently  warped  into  meanings  irreconcil- 
 able alike  with  the  truth,  and  the  judgment  of  their 
 own  most  valued  writers."  * 
 
 A  conqjarative  estimate  is  not  yet  attainable,  as 
 to  what  in  Targumic  literature  is  the  pure  expres- 
 sion and  development  of  the  Jewish  mind,  and  what 
 is  of  foreign  growth.  But,  as  has  been  said,  the 
 Targums  and  kindred  writings  are  of  considerable 
 dogmatical  and  exegetical  value;  and  a  similar  good 
 work  has  been  effected  liy  means  of  the  cognate 
 dialect.  Western  Aramaic  or  Syriac.  From  the 
 3d  to  the  9th  century,  Syriac  was  to  a  great  part 
 of  Asia  —  what  in  their  spheres  Hellenic  Greek  and 
 mediseval  Eatin  have  res])ectively  been  —  the  one 
 ecclesiastical  language  of  the  district  named.  Be- 
 tween the  literally  preserved  records  of  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture, as  delivered  to  the  Teracliites  in  the  infancy 
 of  the  world,  and  the  understandings  and  hearts  of 
 Aryan  peoples,  who  were  intended  to  share  in  those 
 treasures  fully  and  to  their  latest  posterity,  some 
 connecting  medium  was  necessary.  This  was  sup- 
 plied by  the  dialect  in  question  —  neither  so  spe- 
 cific nor  so  clear,  nor  .so  sharply  subjective  as  the 
 pure  Hebrew,  but  for  those  very  reasons  (while  in 
 itself  essentially  Sheniitic)  open  to  impre.ssIons  and 
 thoughts  as  well  as  words  from  without,  and  tliere- 
 fore  well  calculated  to  act  as  the  pioneer  and  intro- 
 ducer of  BiUical  thoughts  and  Biblical  truths 
 among  minds,  to  whom  these  treasures  would 
 otherwise  long  have  remained  obscure  and  unintel- 
 ligible. 
 
 §§  20-24.    Arabic    Language.  —  Period    of 
 Revival. 
 
 20.  The  early  population  of  Arabia,  its  antiqui- 
 ties and  peculiarities,  have  been  descrilied  imder 
 Arabia.^  We  find  Arabia  occupied  by  a  conflu- 
 ence of  tribes,  the  leading  one  of  undoulited  Ish- 
 maelitish  descent — the  others  of  the  seed  or  lin- 
 eage of  Abraham,  and  blended  by  alliance,  language 
 neighborhood,  and  haliits.  Before  these  any  ab- 
 original inhabitants  must  have  disappeared,  as  the 
 Canaanitish  nations  before  their  brethren,  the  chil- 
 dren of  the  greater  promi.se  —  as  the  Edomites 
 and  Ishmaelites  were  of  a  lesser,  but  equally  certain 
 one. 
 
 We  have  seen  [Arabia]  that  the  peninsula  of 
 Arabia  lay  in  rhe  track  of  Cushite  civiliz.ation,  in 
 its  supposed  return-course  towards  the  northeast. 
 .\s  in  the  basin  of  Mesopotamia,  so  in  Aral)ia  it 
 has  left  traces  of  its  constructive  tendencies,  and 
 predilections  for  grand  and  colossal  undertakings. 
 Modern  research  has  brought  to  light  in  addition 
 many  valuable  remains,  full  of  piiilolofrical  interest. 
 There  may  now  be  found  abundant  illustration  of 
 the  relationship  of  the  Himyaritic  with  the  early 
 Shemitic  before  adverted  to;  and  the  language  of 
 the  Ehkili  (or  JMahrah),  on  which  so  much  light 
 has  recently  been  thrown,  presents  us  with  the  sin- 
 gular phenomenon,  not  merely  of  a  specimen  of 
 what  the  Himyaritic  (or  language  of  Yemen)  must 
 
 a  Bleek,  Einteituits,  pp.  51-57. 
 
 b  Walton,  Prol.  xii.  18,  19.  See  also  Delitzscb,  Wis- 
 senxdtqft,  Kimst^  Jiiclenthiim,  p.  173  £f.  (in  respect  of 
 Christian  anticipations  in  the  Targums  and  Synagog.al 
 devotional  poetry),  and  also  p.  190,  note  (in  respect  of 
 moderate  tone  of  Talmud) ;  Oehler,  in  Herzog,  ix.  431- 
 441 ;  and  Westcott,  Introduction,  pp.  110-115. 
 
 c  Comp.  for  the  early  history  of  the  Arabic  language 
 the  recent  work  by  Freytag  (lionn,  1861).  alike  remark- 
 able for  interest  and  research,  Einleitiing  in  dan  Stu- 
 rjiiim  fler  Arabischen  Sprache  bis  Mohammed  und  zum 
 Tfieil  spdter. 
 
SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 
 
 2981 
 
 have  been  before  its  expulsion  by  the  Koreisbite, 
 but  of  a  dialect  less  Arabic  than  Hebrew,  and  pos- 
 sessing close  atfiiiity  with  the  Gliez,  or  Ethiopi- 
 an." 
 
 '21.  The  affinity  of  the  Ghez  (Cush?  the  sacred 
 languaj^e  of  Ethiopia)  with  the  Shemitic  has  been 
 long  remarked.  ^Valton  supposes  its  introduction 
 to  have  been  consequent  on  that  of  Christianity. 
 But  the  tradition  is  probably  correct,  according  to 
 which  Ethiopia  was  colonized  from  S.  W.  Arabia, 
 and  according  to  which  this  language  should  be 
 considered  a  relic  of  the  Himyaritic.  In  the  O.  T., 
 Cush,  in  addition  to  Ethiopia  in  Africa,  comprises 
 S.  Arabia  (Gen.  x.  7,  8;  2  Chr.  xiv.  9,  xxi.  16; 
 Hab.  iii.  7),  and  by  many  the  stream  of  Ilamite 
 civilization  is  supposed  to  have  flowed  in  a  northerly 
 course  ironi  that  point  into  Egypt.  In  its  lexical 
 peculiarities,  the  Ghez  is  said  to  resemble  the  Ara- 
 maic, in  its  granniiatical  the  Arabic.  The  alpha- 
 bet is  very  curious,  differing  from  Shemitic  alpha- 
 bets in  the  number,  order,  and  name  and  form  of 
 the  letters,  by  the  direction  of  the  writing,  and 
 especially  by  the  form  of  vowel  notation.  This  i.s 
 extremely  singular.  Each  consonant  contains  a 
 short  T  —  the  vowels  are  expressed  by  additions  to 
 the  consonants.  The  alphabet  is,  by  this  means, 
 converted  into  a  "  syllaliarium  "  of  202  signs.  Va- 
 rious points  of  resemblance  have  been  traced  be- 
 tween this  alpbaliet  and  the  Samaritan;  but  recent 
 discoveries  establish  its  kindred  (almost  its  identity) 
 with  that  of  the  Himyaritic  inscriptions.  The  lan- 
 guage and  character  of  which  we  have  spoken 
 briefly,  have  now  been  succeeded  for  general  pur- 
 poses by  the  Amharic  —  probably  in  the  first  in- 
 stance a  kindred  dialect  with  the  Ghez,  but  now 
 altered  by  subsequent  extraneous  additions.* 
 
 22.  Internal  evidence  demonstrates  that  the 
 Arabic  language,  at  the  time  when  it  first  apjjears 
 on  the  field  of  history,  was  being  gradually  de- 
 veloped in  its  remote  and  barren  peninsular  home. 
 Not  to  dwell  on  its  broken  (or  internal)  plurals, 
 and  its  system  of  cases,  there  are  peculiarities  in 
 the  earliest  extant  remains,  which  evince  progress 
 made  in  the  cultivation  of  the  language,  at  a  date 
 long  anterior  to  the  period  of  which  we  speak. 
 
 A  well-known  legend  speaks  of  the  present 
 Arabic  language  as  being  a  fusion  of  different 
 dialects,  efftected  by  the  tribe  of  Koreish  settled 
 round  Mecca,  and  the  reputed  wardens  of  the 
 Caaba.  In  any  case,  the  paramount  purity  of  the 
 Koreisbite  dialect  is  asserted  by  Araliic  writers  on 
 grammar,  in  whose  judgment  the  quality  of  the 
 spoken  dialects  appears  to  have  declined,  in  pro- 
 portion to  their  distance  from  Jfecca.  It  is  also 
 asserted,  that  the  stores  of  the  Koreisbite  dialect 
 were  increased  by  a  sort  of  philological  eclecticism 
 —  all  striking  elegancies  of  construction  or  expres- 
 sion, observable  in  the  dialects  of  the  many  dif- 
 ferent tribes  visiting  Mecca,  being  engrafted  upon 
 the  one  in  question.^  But  the  recognition  of  the 
 Koran,  as  the  ultimate  standard  in  linguistic  as  in 
 religious  matters,  established  in  Arabic  judgment 
 tlie  superior  purity  of  the  Koreisbite  dialect. 
 
 That  the  Arabs  possessed  a  literature  anterior  to 
 the  birth  of  Mohammed,  and  expressed  in  a  lan- 
 
 guage marked  with  many  grammatica.  peculiarities 
 is  beyond  doubt.  There  is  no  satisfactory  i)ruof  of 
 the  assertion,  that  all  early  Arabic  literature  was 
 destroyed  by  the  jealous  disciples  of  Islam.  "  t^l 
 old,  the  Arab  gloried  in  nothing  but  his  sword,  bis 
 hospitality,  and  his  fluent  speech."  <'  The  List  gift, 
 if  we  may  judge  from  what  has  been  preserved 
 to  us  of  the  history  of  those  early  times,  seems 
 to  have  been  held  in  especial  honor.  A  zealous 
 purism,  strange  as  it  sounds  amid  the  rude  and 
 uneducated  children  of  the  desert,  seems,  as  in 
 later  times,  to  have  kept  almost  Masoretic  watch 
 over  the  exactitude  of  the  transmission  of  these 
 early  outpourings.^ 
 
 Even  in  our  own  times,  scholars  have  seemed  un- 
 willing altogether  to  abandon  the  legend  —  how  at 
 the  fair  of  Ocadh  ("the  mart  of  proud  rivalry"/) 
 gooils  and  traffic  —  wants  and  profit  —  were  alike 
 neglected,  while  bards  contended  aniid  their  listen- 
 ing countrymen,  anxious  for  such  a  verdict  as  should 
 entitle  their  lays  to  a  place  among  the  Moallakat, 
 tlie  ava6v/j.aTa  of  the  Caaba,  or  national  temple  at 
 Mecca.  IJut  the  appearance  of  JMohammed  put  an 
 end  for  a  season  to  commerce  and  bardic  contests; 
 nor  was  it  imtil  the  work  of  conquest  was  done, 
 that  the  faithful  resumed  the  pursuits  of  peace. 
 And  enough  remains  to  show  that  poetry  was 
 not  alone  cultivated  among  the  ante-Mohammedan 
 Arabians.  "  Seeds  of  moral  truth  a])pear  to  have 
 been  embodied  in  sentences  and  aphorisms,  a  form 
 of  instruction  peculiarly  congenial  to  the  temper  of 
 Orientals,  and  proverbially  cultivated  Ijy  the  inhab- 
 itants of  the  Arabian  jjeninsula."  o  Poetry  and 
 romance,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  degree  of 
 Arab  civilization,  would  seem  to  have  been  the 
 chief  objects  of  attention. 
 
 Against  these  views  it  has  been  urged,  that 
 although  of  such  compositions  as  the  Moallakat, 
 and  others  less  generally  known,  the  substance  may 
 be  considered  as  undoubtedly  very  ancient,  and 
 illustrative  accordingly  of  manners  and  customs  — 
 yet  the  same  antiquity,  according  to  competent 
 judges,  cannot  reasonably  be  assigned  to  their 
 present  form.  Granting  (what  is  borne  out  from 
 analogy  and  from  references  in  the  Helirew  Scrip- 
 tures) the  existence  of  philosophical  compositions 
 among  the  Arabs  at  an  early  period,  still  no  traces 
 of  these  remain.  The  earliest  reliable  relics  of 
 Arabic  literature  are  only  fragments,  to  be  found 
 in  what  has  come  down  to  us  of  pre-Islamite  com- 
 positions. And,  as  has  been  said  already,  various 
 arguments  have  been  put  foi-ward  against  the  prob- 
 ability of  the  present  form  of  these  remains  being 
 their  original  one.  Their  obscurities,  it  is  con- 
 tended, are  less  those  of  age  than  of  individual 
 style,  while  their  miiformity  of  language  is  at  vari- 
 ance with  the  demonstrably  late  cultivation  and 
 ascendency  of  the  Koreisbite  dialect.  Another, 
 and  not  a  feel)le  argument,  is  the  utter  absence  of 
 allusion  to  the  early  relitrion  of  the  Arabs.  Mo^t 
 just  is  Renan's  remark  that,  skeptical  or  volup- 
 tuaries as  were  most  of  their  poets,  still  such  a 
 silence  would  be  inexplicable,  but  on  the  supposi- 
 tion of  a  systematic  removal  of  all  traces  of  former 
 paganism.     No  great  critical  value,   accordingly, 
 
 a  Renan,  i.  302-317. 
 
 h  Walton,  Prot.  ii.  585  ;  Jones,  Coirun.  1774,  p.  18  ; 
 liepsius,  Ztvei  Ahh.  pp.  78,  79;  Kenan,  i.  317-330; 
 Prichard,  Physical  Hist,  of  Mankind,  ii.  169,  quoted 
 by  Forster. 
 
 c  Pococke  (ed.  W'iiite,  Oxford),  pp.  157,  158. 
 
 rf  Pococke,  pp.  166-168. 
 
 e  Umbreit  in  Theolosische  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1841j 
 pp.  223,  224 ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  24,  25. 
 /  Fresnel,  Ire  Letire  sur  les  Arabes,  p.  35. 
 g  Forster,  ii.  298,  319. 
 
2982 
 
 SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   WRITING 
 
 ean  fairly  be  assigned  to  any  Arabic  remains  ante- 
 rior to  the  publication  of  tlie  Koran." 
 
 It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  sketch  to  touch 
 upon  the  theological  teachinfi;  of  the  Koran,  its 
 objects,  sources,  merits,  or  deficiencies.  But  its 
 style  is  very  peculiar.  Assuming  that  it  represents 
 the  liest  forms  of  the  Koreishite  dialect  about  the 
 middle  of  the  .7th  century,  we  may  say  of  the 
 Koran,  that  its  linguistic  approached  its  religious 
 supremacy.  The  Koran  may  be  characterized  as 
 marking  the  transition  from  versification  to  prose, 
 from  poetry  to  eloquence.  Mohammed  himself  has 
 adverted  to  his  want  of  poetical  skill  —  a  blemish 
 which  required  explanation  in  the  judgment  of  his 
 countrymen  —  Init  of  the  effect  of  his  forcible  lan- 
 guage and  powers  of  address  (we  can  hardly  call  it 
 oratory)  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  Koran  itself 
 contains  distinct  traces  of  the  change  (to  which 
 allusion  has  been  made)  then  in  progress  in  Arabic 
 literature.  The  balance  of  proof  inclines  to  the 
 conclusion,  that  the  Suras  of  the  Koran,  which  are 
 placed  last  in  order,  are  earliest  in  point  of  com- 
 position —  outpourings  bearing  some  faint  resem- 
 blance to  those  of  Hebrew  prophecy.'' 
 
 23.  It  would  lead  to  discussions  foreign  to  the 
 present  subject,  were  we  to  attempt  to  follow  the 
 thoughts  respecting  the  future,  suggested  by  the 
 almost  uni\ersal  prevalence  of  the  Arabic  idiom 
 over  so  wide  a  portion  of  the  globe.  A  comparison 
 of  some  leading  features  of  the  A.rabic  language, 
 with  its  two  sisters,  is  reserved  for  the  next  division 
 of  this  sketch.  With  regard  to  its  \alue  in  illus- 
 tration two  different  judgments  obtain.  Accord- 
 ing to  one,  all  the  lexical  riches  and  grammatical 
 varieties  of  the  Shemitic  family  are  to  be  found 
 combined  in  the  Arabic.  What  elsewhere  is  im- 
 perfect or  exceptional  is  here  said  to  be  fully 
 developed  —  forms  elsewhere  rare  or  anomalous  are 
 here  found  in  regular  use.  Great  faults  of  style 
 cannot  be  denied,  but  its  superiority  in  lexical 
 riches  and  grammatical  precision  and  variety  is 
 incontestal)le.  Without  this  means  of  illustration, 
 the  position  of  the  Hebrew  student  may  be  likened 
 to  that  of  the  geologist,  who  should  have  nothing 
 whereon  to  found  a  judgment,  beyond  the  scat- 
 tered and  imperfect  remains  of  some  few  primeval 
 creatures.  But  the  Arabic,  it  is  maintained,  for 
 purposes  of  illustration,  is  to  the  Hebrew  precisely 
 what,  to  such  an  inquirer,  would  be  the  discovery 
 of  an  imbedded  nniltitude  of  kindred  creatures  in 
 all  their  fullness  and  completeness  —  even  more,  for 
 the  Arabic  (it  is  urged)  —  as  a  means  of  comparison 
 and  illustration  —  is  a  living,  lireathing  reality. 
 
 24.  Another  school  maintains  very  different  opin- 
 ions with  respect  to  the  value  of  Arabic  in  illus- 
 tration. The  comparati\ely  recent  date  (in  their 
 present  form  at  least)  and  limited  amount  of  Arabic 
 remains  are  pleaded  against  its  claims,  as  a  stand- 
 ard of  reference  in  resjiect  of  the  Hebrew.  Its 
 verbal  copiousness,  elaborate  mechanism,  subtlety 
 of  thought,  wide  and  diversified  fields  of  literature, 
 cannot  be  called  in  question.  But  it  is  urged  (and 
 colorably)  that  its  riches  are  not  all  pure  metal, 
 and  that  no  great  attention  to  etymology  has  been 
 e^■inced  by  native  writers  on  the  language.  Nor 
 should  the  follies  and  perversions  of  scholasticism 
 
 a  Henan,  Imii^.  S.^m.  1.  iv.  c.  11,  a  lucid  summary 
 of  recent  researches  on  this  subject. 
 
 b  Renan,  pp.  358-360 ;  Umbreit,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1841, 
 833  ff. 
 
 c  Delitzsch,  Jesurim,  pp.  76-89. 
 
 (in  the  case  of  Rabl)inical  writers)  blind  us  to  the 
 superior  purity  of  the  spirit  by  which  the  Hebrew 
 language  is  animated,  and  the  reflected  influences, 
 lor  elevation  of  tone  and  character,  from  the  sub- 
 jects on  which  it  was  so  long  exclusively  employed. 
 "  My  doctrine  shall  drop  as  the  rain,  my  speech 
 shall  distil  as  the  dew,  as  the  small  rain  upon  the 
 tender  herb,  and  as  the  showers  upon  the  grass." 
 No  more  fitting  description  of  the  spirit  and  power 
 of  the  holy  language  can  be  found  than  these  words 
 of  the  Lawgiver's  last  address  to  his  people.  The 
 Arabic  language,  on  the  other  hand,  is  first,  that 
 of  wandering  robliers  and  herdsmen,  destitute  of 
 religion,  or  filled  with  .second-hand  superstitions; 
 in  its  more  cultivated  state,  that  of  a  self-satisfied, 
 luxurious,  licentious  people,  the  vehicle  of  a  bor- 
 rowed philosophy,  and  a  dogmatism  of  the  most 
 wearisome  and  captious  kind.^' 
 
 Undoubtedly  schools  such  as  that  of  Albert 
 Schultens  (d.  1730)  have  unduly  exalted  the  value 
 of  Arabic  in  illustration ;  but  in  what  may  1)6 
 designated  as  the  field  of  lower  criticism  its  im- 
 portance cannot  be  disputed.  The  total  extent  of 
 the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  is  so 
 very  limited  as  in  this  respect  to  make  the  assist- 
 ance of  the  Arabic  at  once  welcome,  trustworthy, 
 and  copious.  Nor  can  the  proposed  substitute  be 
 accepted  without  demur  —  the  later  Hebrew,  which 
 has  found  an  advocate  so  learned  and  able  as 
 Delitzsch.''  That  its  claims  and  usefulness  have 
 been  undeservedly  overlooked  few  will  disj)ute  or 
 deny;  but  it  would  seem  to  be  recent,  uncertain, 
 and  heterogeneous,  to  a  degree  which  lays  it  open 
 to  many  objections  taken  by  the  admirers  of  the 
 Arabic,  as  a  trustworthy  means  of  illustration. 
 
 §§  25-33.     Steuotuke  of  the  Shemitic  Lan- 
 guages. 
 
 2.5.  The  question,  as  to  whether  any  large  amount 
 of  primitives  in  the  Shemitic  languages  is  fairly 
 deducible  from  inutation  of  sounds,  has  been  an- 
 swered very  differently  by  high  authorities.  Gese- 
 nius  thought  instances  of  onomatopoeia  very  rare  in 
 extant  remains,  although  probably  more  numerous 
 at  an  early  period.  Hoffmann's  judgment  is  the 
 same,  in  respect  of  Western  Aramaic.  On  the 
 other  hand,  Itenan  qualifies  his  admission  of  the 
 identity  of  numerous  Shemitic  and  Japhetian  prim- 
 itives by  a  suggestion,  that  these,  for  the  most  part, 
 may  be  assigned  to  biliteral  words,  originating  in 
 the  imitation  of  the  simplest  and  most  obvious 
 sounds.  Scholz  also  has  an  interesting  passage  in 
 which  he  maintains  the  same  proposition  with  con- 
 siderable force,  and  attempts  to  follow,  in  some 
 particular  cases,  the  analogy  between  the  simple 
 original  sign  and  its  distant  derivatives.  But  on  a 
 careful  examination,  it  is  not  unlikely  that,  although 
 many  are  lost,  or  overlaid,  or  no  longer  as  appre- 
 ciable by  our  organs  as  by  the  keener  ones  of  earlier 
 races,  yet  the  truth  is,  as  the  case  has  been  put  by 
 a  great  living  comparative  philologist —  "  Tlie  400 
 or  500  roots  which  remain  as  the  constituent  ele- 
 ments in  different  fomilies  of  languages  are  not 
 interjections,  nor  are  they  imitations.  They  are 
 phonetic  types,  produced  by  a  power  inherent  in 
 human  nature."  ^ 
 
 <l  Ibid.,  pp.  89-108. 
 
 e  Gesenius,  Le/irgebdude,  pp.  183-185;  Eloffmann, 
 Gr.  Syr.  p.  7;  Renan,  pp  449,  454;  Scholz,  EM. 
 1.31,  32,  37;  M.  Mliller,  Sc.  of  Lang.  pp.  358,  369, 
 370. 
 
SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND  WRITING 
 
 2983 
 
 26.  The  deeply  curious  inquiry,  as  to  the  ex- 
 t«]t  of  affinity  still  discernible  between  Shemitic 
 and  Japhetian  roots,  belongs  to  another  article. 
 [Tongues.]  Nothinj];  in  the  Scripture  which  bears 
 upon  the  subject,  can  be  fiiirly  pleaded  ao;ainst  such 
 an  affinity  being  possible.  A  literal  belief  of  Bibli- 
 cal records  does  not  at  all  call  upon  us  to  suppose 
 an  entire  abrogation,  by  Divine  interference,  of  all 
 existing  elements  of  what  must  have  been  the  com- 
 mon language  of  the  early  NoachidiB."  That  such 
 resemblance  is  not  dimly  to  be  traced  cannot  be 
 denied  —  although  the  means  used  for  establishing 
 instances,  by  Delitzsch  and  the  analytical  school, 
 caiuiot  be  admitted  without  great  reserve.*  But 
 in  treating  the  Shemitic  languages  in  connection 
 with  Scripture,  it  is  most  prudent  to  turn  away 
 from  this  tempting  field  of  inquiry  to  the  consid- 
 eration of  the  simple  elements  —  the  primitives  — 
 the  true  base  of  every  language,  in  that  these,  rather 
 than  the  mechanism  of  grammar,  are  to  be  regarded 
 as  exponents  of  internal  spirit  and  character.  It 
 is  not  denied,  that  these  apparently  inorganic  bodies 
 may  very  frequently  lie  found  resolvable  into  con- 
 stituent parts,  and  that  kindred  instances  may  be 
 easily  found  in  conterminous  Japhetian  dialects.  " 
 
 27.  Humboldt  has  named  two  very  remarkable 
 points  of  difference  between  the  Japhetian  and 
 Shemitic  language-families  —  the  latter  of  which  he 
 also,  for  the  second  reason  about  to  be  named, 
 assigns  to  the  number  of  those  which  have  deviated 
 from  the  regular  course  of  development.  The  first 
 peculiarity  is  the  triliteral  root  (as  the  language  is 
 at  present  known) —  the  second  the  expression  of 
 significations  by  consonants,  afid  relations  by  vovcels 
 —  both  fonning  part  of  the  flexions  within  words, 
 so  remarkable  in  the  Shemitic  family.  Widely  dif- 
 ferent from  the  Japhetian  primitive,  a  fully  formed 
 and  independent  word  —  the  Shemitic  one  (even  in 
 its  present  triliteral  state)  appears  to  have  consisted 
 of  three  separate  articulations,  aided  by  an  indefinite 
 sound  like  the  Sheva  of  the  Hebrews,  and  to  have 
 varied  in  the  shades  of  its  meaning,  according  to 
 the  vowels  assigned  to  it.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
 same  scholar,  the  prevalent  triliteral  root  was  sub- 
 stituted for  an  earlier  or  biliteral,  as  being  found 
 impracticable  and  obscure  in  use.'' 
 
 Traces  of  this  survive  in  the  rudest,  or  Aramaic, 
 branch,  where  what  is  pronounced  as  one  syllable, 
 in  the  Hebrew  forms  two,  and  in  the  more  elaborate 
 Arabic  three  —  e.  g.  ktal,  katal,  katala.  It  is  need- 
 less to  I  say,  that  much  has  been  written  on  the 
 question  of  this  peculiarity  being  original  or  sec- 
 ondary. A  writer  among  ourselves  has  thus  stated 
 the  case:  "An  uniform  root-formation  by  three 
 letters  or  two  syllables  developed  itself  out  of  the 
 original  monosyllabic  state  by  the  addition  of  a 
 third  letter.  This  tendency  to  enlargement  presents 
 itself  in  the  Indo-Germanic  also;  but  there  is  this 
 difference,  tliat  in  the  latter  monosyllabic  roots 
 remain  besides  those  that  have  been  enlarged,  while 
 in  the  other  they  have  almost  disappeared."' «  In 
 this  judgment  most  will  agree.    Many  now  triliteral 
 
 o  Walton,  Prol.  (ed.  Wrangham),  i.  121.  "Hoc 
 rationi  niiniuie  conseutaneuin  est,  ut  Deus  in  illo  loco 
 linguani  primaui  servaret,  ubi  linguarum  diversitatem 
 Immiserat,  ne  ccepto  opere  progrederentur.  I'roba- 
 bilius  itaque  est,  liuguas  alias  iu  eos  Devim  infudisse, 
 qui  ibi  coramorati  sunt,  ne  se  mutuo  intelligerent,  et 
 ab  insana  structura  desisterent."  M.  Miiller,  Sc..  of 
 Lang.  p.  269. 
 
 root-words  (especially  those  expressive  of  the  pri- 
 mary relations  of  life)  were  at  first  biliteral  only. 
 
 Thus  2S  is  not  really  from  n3S,  nor  CS  from 
 
 D^M.  In  many  cases  a  third  (assumed)  root-letter 
 has  been  obviously  added  by  repetition,  or  by  the 
 use  of  a  weak  or  movable  letter,  or  by  prefixing  the 
 letter  Nun.     Additional  instances  may  be  found  in 
 
 connection  with  the  biliterals  I1T2,  "7"!,  and  "T3, 
 and  many  others.  Illustrations  may  also  be  drawn 
 from  anothei^quarter  nearer  home  —  in  the  Japhe- 
 tian languages  of  P^urope.  Fear  is  variously  ex- 
 pressed by  (p  p  eu  or  cppia-au,  pavere,  peur,  pa- 
 urn,  parar  (ipa.n.),fear.J'urcfi.l,J'rykt  (Scandin.), 
 and  braw  (Old  Celtic).  In  all  these  cognate  words, 
 the  common  rudimentary  idea  is  expressed  by  the 
 same  two  sounds,  the  third  corresponding  with  the 
 various  non-essential  additions,  by  which  apparent 
 triliteral  uniformity  is  secured  in  Shemitic  dialects. 
 Again,  in  the  Shemitic  fomily  many  primitives 
 may  be  found,  having  the  same  two  letters  in 
 common  in  the  first  and  second  places,  with  a  dif- 
 ferent one  in  the  third,  yet  all  expressive  of  different 
 
 modifications  of  the  same  idea,  as  1.  '^3  and  its 
 
 family;    2.  !!"[=  _,t>,  etc. ;    3.  ID  =  wj,  etc. ; 
 
 t    ..       C  ^  ' 
 
 4.    ^p  =  Jl^i',  etc.  —  each  with  a  similar  train  of 
 
 cognate  words,  containing  the  same  two  consonants 
 of  the  biliteral  form,  but  with  a  third  active  con- 
 sonant added./ 
 
 28.  We  now  approach  a  question  of  great  inter- 
 est. Was  the  art  of  writing  invented  by  Moses 
 and  his  contemporaries,  or  from  what  source  did 
 the  Hel)rew  nation  acquire  it?  It  can  hardly  be 
 doubted,  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known  to  the 
 Israelites  in  the  time  of  Moses.  An  art,  such  as 
 that  of  writing,  is  neither  acquired  nor  invented  at 
 once.  No  trustworthy  evidence  can  be  alleged  of 
 such  an  exception  to  the  ordinary  course.  The 
 writing  on  the  two  tables  of  the  law  (Ex.  xxiv.  4)  — 
 the  list  of  stations  attributed  to  the  hand  of  Bloses 
 himself  (Num.  xxxiii.  2)  —  the  prohibition  of  print- 
 ing on  the  body  (Lev.  xix.  28)  —  the  writing  of 
 "the  curses  in  a  book"  by  the  priest,  in  the  trial 
 of  jealousy  (Num.  v.  2-3)  —  the  description  of  the 
 land  (literally,  the  writing)  required  by  Joshua 
 (.losh.  xviii.  G)  —  all  point  to  the  probability  of  the 
 art  of  writing  being  an  accomplishment  already 
 possessed  by  the  Hebrews  at  that  period.  So  com- 
 plex a  system  as  alphabetic  writing  could  hardly 
 have  been  invented  in  the  haste  and  excitement  of 
 the  desert  pilgrimage. 
 
 (ireat  difference  of  opinion  has  prevailed  as  to 
 which  of  the  Shemitic  peoples  may  justly  claim  the 
 invention  of  letters.  As  has  been  said,  the  award 
 to  the  Phoenicians,  so  long  unchallenged,  is  now 
 practically  set  aside.  The  so-called  Phcenician  al- 
 phabet bears  no  distinctive  tr.aces  of  a  Phoenician 
 origin.  None  of  the  selected  objects,  whose  initial 
 letters  were  to  rule  the  sounds  of  the  several  pho- 
 netic characters,  are  in  keeping  with  the  habits  and 
 
 ''  Couiparative  tables  are  to  be  found  in  Delitzsch, 
 Jrsiirini,  p.  Ill;  Renan,  pp.  451-454;  Scholz,  i.  37. 
 
 <■  Mi^rian,  Principes  fJe  P£tude  Comparative  des 
 L'rni-'^s,  Paris,  1828,  pp.  10, 14,  19,  20. 
 
 <l  Humboldt,  Uber  rile  Verschiedenlieit  d.  mensi  ilichen 
 Sprachbaues,  pp.  307-311. 
 
 e  Davidson,  Biblical  Criticism,  i.  11. 
 
 /  Gesenius,  Lehr^ebdude,  p.  181;  Renan,  Lang 
 Sem.  pp.  100,  412,  450.  M.  Miiller,  Sc.  of  Umg  p.  371- 
 
2984 
 
 SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   WRITING 
 
 jcciipations  of  the  Phoenicians.  On  the  contrary, 
 while  no  references  to  the  sea  and  commerce  are  to 
 V)e  found,  the  majority  of  the  objects  selected  are 
 such  as  would  suggest  themselves  to  an  iidand  and 
 nomadic  people,  e.  g.  Aleph^anox,  Giniel  =  a 
 camel,  'J'eth  =  a  snake.  Lamed  =  an  ox-goad. 
 
 A  more  probable  tlieory  .would  seem  that  which 
 represents  letters  as  having  passed  from  the  Kujyp- 
 tians  to  the  Phoenicians  and  Hebrews.  Either 
 people  may  have  acquired  this  accomplishment  from 
 the  same  source,  at  the  same  time  and  independ- 
 ently —  or  one  may  have  preceded  the  other,  and 
 subsequently  imparted  the  acquisition.  Either 
 case  is  quite  possilile,  on  the  assumption  that  the 
 Egyptian  alphabet  consisted  of  only  such  characters 
 as  were  equivalent  to  those  used  by  the  Hebrews 
 and  Phoenicians  —  that  is,  that  the  multiplicity  of 
 signs,  which  is  found  to  exist  in  the  Egyptian  al- 
 phabet, w-as  only  introduced  at  a  later  period.  But 
 the  contrary  would  seem  to  be  the  case  —  namely, 
 that  the  Egyptian  alphabet  existed  at  a  very  early 
 period  in  its  present  form.  And  it  is  hardly  likely 
 that  two  tribes  would  separately  have  made  the 
 same  selection  from  a  larger  amount  of  signs  than 
 they  required.  But  as  the  Hebrew  and  Phoenician 
 alphabets  do  correspond,  and  (as  has  bee)i  said) 
 the  character  is  less  Phoenician  than  Hebrew  —  the 
 latter  people  would  seem  to  ha\e  been  the  first 
 possessors  of  this  accomplishment,  and  to  have  im- 
 parted it  subsequently  to  the  Phanieians. 
 
 The  theory  (now  almost  passed  into  a  general 
 belief)  of  an  early  uniform  language  overspreading 
 the  range  of  countries  comprehended  in  Gen.  x. 
 serves  to  illustrate  this  question.  There  can  be  no 
 doubt  as  to  the  fact  of  the  Hamite  occupants  of 
 Egypt  having  migrated  thither  from  Asia;  nor  (on 
 this  hypothesis)  can  there  be  any  difficulty  in  ad- 
 mitting, in  a  certain  degree,  the  correspondence  of 
 their  written  character  with  the  Hebrew.  That 
 changes  should  subsequently  have  been  introduced 
 in  the  Egyptian  characters,  is  perfectly  intelligible, 
 when  their  advances  in  civilization  are  considered 
 —  so  different  from  the  nomadic,  unlettered  con- 
 dition of  the  Helirew  people.  On  such  a  primary, 
 generic  agreement  as  this  between  the  advanced 
 language  of  Egypt,  and  that  of  the  Hebrews  —  in- 
 ferior from  necessary  causes  at  the  time,  the  mighty 
 intellect  of  JMo.ses,  divinely  guided  for  such  a  task 
 (as  has  been  before  suggested),  would  find  little 
 ditficulty  in  grafting  impro\ements.  The  theory 
 that  the  Hyksos  built  a  syllabic  alphabet  on  the 
 Egyptian,  is  full  of  difficulties." 
 
 According  to  the  elaborate  analysis  of  Lepsius, 
 the  original  alphabet  of  the  language-family,  of 
 which  the  Shemitic  formed  a  part,  stood  as  fol- 
 lows :  — 
 
 Weak  Gutturals.  Labiab.     Gutturals.    Dentals. 
 
 Aleph  =  A      .  Beth  -|-  Gimel  -f  Daleth  =  Media 
 
 He  =  E-j-i    .  Vav   -j-  Heth    -f  Teth    =  Aspirates 
 
 Ghain  =  0-(-u  Pe      -j.  Kuph  -)-  Tau     =  Teuues 
 
 As  the  processes  of  enunciation  became  more 
 delicate,  the  liquids  Lamed,  ]\Iem,  Nun,  were  ap- 
 parently interposed  as  the  iJiird  row,  with  the 
 original  S,  Samech,  from  which  were  derived  Zain, 
 Tsaddi,  and  Shin  —  Caph  (soft  /;),  from  its  limited 
 
 a  "  Sont-ce  les  Hyksos,  ainsi  que  le  suppose  M. 
 Ewald,  qui  tirent  passer  I'^criture  <?gyptienne  de  I'etat 
 pbonetique  a  I'etat  syllabi  que  ou  alphabi5tique,  comme 
 les  Japonais  et  les  Coreens  Tont  fait  pour  rocriture 
 shinoise  "  (Uenan,  p.  112).     Saalschiitz,  Ziir  Oeschichte 
 
 functions,  is  apparently  of  later  growth ;  and  the 
 separate  existence  of  Kesh,  in  many  languages,  is 
 demonstrably  of  compiiratively  recent  date,  as  dis- 
 tinguished from  the  kindred  sound  Lamed.  In 
 this  manner  (according  to  Lepsius),  and  by  such 
 Shemite  equivalents,  may  be  traced  the  progress  of 
 the  parent  alphabet.  In  the  one  letter  yet  to  be 
 mentioned  —  Yod  —  as  in  Kuph  and  Lamed,  the 
 same  scholar  finds  remains  of  the  ancient  vowel 
 strokes,  which  carry  us  back  to  the  early  sylla1)aria, 
 whose  existence  he  maintains,  with  great  force  and 
 learning. 
 
 Apparently,  in  the  case  of  all  Indo-Germanic 
 and  Shemitic  alphabets,  a  parent  alphabet  may  be 
 traced,  in  which  each  letter  possessed  a  combined 
 vowel  and  con.sonant  sound  —  each  in  fact  forming 
 a  distinct,  well  understood  syllable.  It  is  curious 
 to  mark  the  different  processes,  by  which  (in  the 
 instances  given  by  Lepsius)  these  early  syllabaria 
 have  been  affected  by  the  course  of  enunciation  in 
 different  families,  ^^''hat  has  been  said  above 
 (§  21),  may  serve  to  show  how  far  the  system  is 
 still. in  force  in  the  Ethiopic.  In  the  Indo-Ger- 
 manic languages  of  Europe,  where  a  strong  ten- 
 dency existed  to  draw  a  line  of  demarcation  between 
 vowels  and  consonants,  the  prin)ary  syllal)les  aleph, 
 he,  gho  =  r(,  i\  u,  were  soon  stripped  of  their  weak 
 guttural  (or  consonant)  element,  to  be  treated  sim- 
 ply as  the  vowel  sounds  named,  in  combination 
 with  the  more  obvious  consonant  .sounds.  A  very 
 similar  course  was  followed  by  the  Shemitic  family, 
 the  vowel  element  being  in  most  letters  disregarded; 
 but  the  guttural  one  in  the  breath-syllables  was 
 apparently  too  congenial,  and  too  firmly  fixed  to 
 allow  of  these  being  converted  (as  in  the  case  of  the 
 Indo-Germanic  family)  into  simple  vowels.  Aleph, 
 the  weakest,  for  that  reason  forms  the  exception. 
 As  apparently  containing  (like  the  Devanagari) 
 traces  of  its  people's  syllabarium,  as  well  for  its 
 majestic  forms,  befitting  Baliylonian  learning,  Lep- 
 sius with  others  attributes  a  very  high  antiquity 
 to  the  square  Hebrew  character.  But  this  is  dif- 
 ficult to  be  maintained.'' 
 
 29.  Passing  from  the  growth  of  the  alphabet,  to 
 the  history  of  the  formation  of  their  written  char- 
 acters anions  the  three  leading  branches  of  the 
 Shemitic  family,  that  of  the  Hebrews  has  been  thus 
 sketched.  "  In  its  oldest,  though  not  its  original 
 state,  it  exists  in  Phoenician  monuments,  both 
 stones  and  coins.  It  consists  of  22  letters,  written 
 from  right  to  left,  and  is  characterized  generally  by 
 stiff  straight  down  strokes,  without  regularity  and 
 beauty,  and  by  closed  heads  round  or  pointed.  We 
 have  also  a  twofold  memorial  of  it,  namely,  the 
 inscriptions  on  Jewish  coins,  struck  under  the  Mac- 
 cabean  princes,  where  it  is  evident  that  its  char- 
 acters resemble  the  Phoenician,  and  the  Samaritan 
 character,  in  which  the  Pentateuch  of  the  Samari- 
 t.ans  is  written. c  This  latter  differs  from  the  first 
 named,  merely  by  a  few  freer  and  finer  strokes. 
 The  de;elopnient  of  the  written  character  in  the 
 Aramaic  branch  of  the  Shemitic  family  illustrates 
 the  passage  from  the  stiff  early  character,  spoken 
 of  above,  to  the  more  fully  formed  angular  one  of 
 later  times  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  family,  and 
 in  that  of  the  Arabic,   to  the  Cufic  and  Neshki. 
 
 r/er  Biirhstabenschrift,  Kouigsberg,  1838,  §§  16,  17,  18 
 Conip.  also  Leyrer,  in  Herzog,  xiv.  9. 
 
 b  Lepsius,  Zicei  Ab/ianiiliingen,  pp.  9-29. 
 
 e  Davidson,  Biblical  Criticism,!.  23. 
 
SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND  WRITING 
 
 2985 
 
 Aramaic  writing  may  be  divided  into  two  principal 
 families — (1.)  ancient  Aramaic,  and  (2.)  Syriac, 
 more  properly  so  called.  Of  the  first,  the  most  early 
 specimen  extant  is  the  well-known  Carpentras  stone, 
 preserved  at  that  place  in  France,  since  the  end  of 
 the  17th  century."  Its  date  is  very  donijtful,  but 
 anterior  to  those  of  the  inscriptions  from  Pahnyra, 
 which  extend  from  A.  u.  49,  to  the  3d  century. 
 The  first  very  closely  resembles  the  Phoenician 
 character  —  the  tops  of  the  letters  being  but  sliglitly 
 opened;  in  tlie  second,  these  are  mure  fully  opened, 
 and  many  horizontal  strokes  of  union  added,  show- 
 ing its  cursive  cliaracter.  From  these  remains  may 
 be  fairly  deduced  the  transitional  nature  of  the 
 written  character  of  tlie  period  precedinu;  the  in- 
 vention (or  according  to  others  the  revival)  of  the 
 square  cliaracter. 
 
 Hupfeld,  Fiirst,  and  all  leading  writers  on  the 
 subject,  concur  in  designating  this  last  as  a  gradual 
 development  from  the  sources  mentioned  above.  A 
 reference  to  these  authors  will  show  how  confused 
 were  even  Jewish  notions  at  an  early  period  as  to 
 its  origin,  from  the  diflferent  explanations  of  the 
 
 word  n^n^'.^S    (Assyriaca),   substituted  by  the 
 
 Rabbins  for  272"ip  ("square"),  by  which  this 
 character  was  distinguished  from  their  own  — 
 7^217  3n3 —  "round  writing,"  as  it  was  called. 
 But  assuming  with  Hupfeld  and  Fiirst,  the  presence 
 of  two  active  principles  —  a  wish  to  write  quickly, 
 and  to  write  pictorially  —  the  growth  of  the  square 
 Hebrew  character  from  the  old  Phoenician  is  easily 
 discernible  through  tlie  Carpentras  and  Palmyrene 
 relics.  "  Thus  we  find  in  it  the  points  of  the  letters 
 blunted  ofl'',  the  horizontal  union-strokes  enlarged, 
 figures  that  had  been  divided  rounded  and  closed, 
 the  position  and  length  of  many  cross  lines  altered, 
 and  final  letters  introduced  agreeably  to  tachyg- 
 raphy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  caligraphical  prin- 
 ciple is  seen  in  the  extraordinary  uniformity  and 
 symmetry  of  the  letters,  their  separation  from  one 
 another,  and  in  the  peculiar  taste  which  adorns 
 them  with  a  stiff  and  angular  form."  * 
 
 Few  important  changes  are  to  be  found  from 
 the  period  of  Ezra,  until  the  close  of  the  5tli  cen- 
 tury of  our  era.  During  this  period,  the  written 
 character  of  tlie  text  (as  well  as  the  text  itself)  was 
 settled  as  at  present,  and  likewise,  to  a  great  ex- 
 tent, the  reading  and  divisions  of  the  text.  During 
 this  period,  the  groundwork  of  very  much  con- 
 tained in  the  subsequent  Masora  was  laid,  but  as 
 yet  only  in  an  unwritten,  traditional  shape.  The 
 old  character  gave  way  to  the  square,  or  Assyrian 
 character  —  not  at  once  and  by  the  authority  of 
 Ezra,  but  (as  has  been  proved  with  much  clearness) 
 by  gradual  transitions.''  The  square  character  is, 
 demonstrably,  not  an  exact  copy  of  any  existing 
 Aramaic  style,  but  grew  by  degrees  out  of  the 
 earlier  one,  although  greatly  modified  by  Aramaic 
 influence.  No  exact  date  can  be  assigned  to  the 
 actual  change,  which  probably  was  very  gradual; 
 but  that  the  new  character  had  become  generally 
 adopted  by  the  first  century  of  our  era,  may  be 
 inferred  from  the  Gospels  (Matt.  v.  18).  It  is, 
 moreover,  alluded  to  in  the  Mishna  as  the  Assyrian 
 character,  and  by  Origen  as  settled  by  long  usage. 
 
 «  A  copy  of  it  is  given  in  I'iirst,  Lehrgeb.  p.  23. 
 
 *  Davidson,  Biblic.  Criticism,  i.  29  ;  Hoffmann, 
 Gratntn.  Syriaca,  §  6,  1-6  ;  and  Fiirst,  Lehrg.  i.  §§ 
 22-27. 
 
 188 
 
 and  was  obviously  well-known  to  Jerome  and  the 
 Talmudists.  The  latter  writers,  aided  powerfully 
 l)y  the  ceremonious  (not  to  say  superstitious)  tone 
 engendered  among  the  Jews  by  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
 salem, secured  the  exclusive  use  of  its  square  char- 
 acter for  sacred  purposes.  All  that  external  care 
 and  scrupulous  veneration  could  accomplish  for  the 
 exact  transmission  of  the  received  text,  in  the  con- 
 secrated character,  was  secured.  It  is  true  that 
 much  of  a  secondary,  much  of  an  erroneous  kind 
 was  included  among  the  objects  of  this  devout  ven- 
 eration ;  but  in  the  absence  of  .sound  principles  of 
 criticism,  not  only  in  those  early,  but  many  sub- 
 sequent generations,  this  is  the  le.ss  to  be  deplored. 
 The  character  called  Rabbinic  is  best  described  as 
 an  attempt  at  Hebrew  cursive  writing. 
 
 The  history  of  the  characters  ordinarily  used  in 
 the  Syriac  (or  Western)  branch  of  the  Aramaic 
 family,  is  blended  with  that  of  those  used  in  Judaea. 
 Like  the  square  characters,  they  were  deri\ed  from 
 the  old  Phoenician,  but  passed  through  some  inter- 
 mediate stages.  The  first  variety  is  that  known 
 by  the  name  of  Estrangelo  —  a  heavy,  cumbrous 
 cliaracter,  said  to  be  derived  from  the  Greek  adj. 
 (TTpoyyvXos,  but  more  probably  from  two  Arabic 
 words  signifying  the  writing  of  the  Gospel.  It  is 
 to  be  found  in  use  in  the  very  oldest  documents. 
 Concurrently  with  this,  are  traces  of  the  existence 
 of  a  smaller  and  more  cursive  character,  very  much 
 resembling  it.  The  character  called  the  "double" 
 (a  large,  hollow  variety),  is  almost  identical.  There 
 are  also  other  varieties,  slightly  differing  —  the 
 Nestorian  for  example  —  but  that  in  ordinary  use 
 is  the  Peshito=  simple  (or  lineal  according  to 
 some).  Its  origin  is  somewhat  uncertain,  but 
 probably  may  be  assigned  to  the  7th  century  of 
 our  era.  It  is  a  modification  of  the  Estrangelo, 
 sloped  for  writing,  and  in  some  measure  altered 
 by  use.  This  variety  of  written  characters  in  the 
 Aramaic  family  is  probably  attributable  to  the  fact, 
 that  literature  was  more  extensively  cultivated 
 among  them  than  among  kindred  tribes.  Although 
 not  spared  to  us,  an  extensive  literature  probably 
 existed  among  them  anterior  to  the  Christian  era; 
 and  subsequently  for  a  long  period  they  were  the 
 sole  iniparters  of  knowledge  and  learning  to  West- 
 ern Asia. 
 
 The  historj'  of  the  Arabic  language  has  another 
 peculiar  feature,  beyond  its  excessive  purism,  which 
 has  been  alluded  to,  at  first  sight,  so  singular 
 among  the  dwellers  in  the  desert.  Until  a  com  • 
 paratively  short  time  before  the  days  of  Moham- 
 med, the  art  of  writing  appears  to  have  been  practi- 
 cally unknown.  For  the  Himyarites  guarded  with 
 jealous  care  their  own  peculiar  character — the 
 "musnad,"  or  elevated;''  in  itself  unfitted  for 
 general  use.  Possibly  different  tribes  might  have 
 possessed  approaches  to  written  characters;  but 
 about  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century,  the  heavy, 
 cumbrous  Cufic  character  (so  called  from  Cufa,  the 
 city  where  it  was  most  early  used)  appears  to  have 
 been  generally  adopted.  It  was  said  to  have  been  in- 
 vented liy  Muramar  Ibn-Murrat,  a  native  of  Baby- 
 lonian Irak.  But  the  shapes  and  arrangement  of 
 the  letters  indicate  their  derivation  from  the  Es- 
 trangelo; and  the  name  assigned  to  their  intro- 
 ducer—  containing  the  title   ordinarily  borne  by 
 
 c  Leyrer,  in  Herzog,  xiv.  12. 
 
 d  Another  etymology  of  this  word  is  given  by  Lep- 
 
 8iu3,  JoLwi-tf,  fro™    cN-Aaw,  "India." 
 
2986 
 
 SHEMITIC    LANGUAGES   AND   WRITING 
 
 Syrian  ecclesiastics  —  is  also  indicative  of  their 
 real  origin.  But  it  is  now  only  to  be  found  in 
 the  documents  of  the  early  ages  of  Islaniisni. 
 
 The  well-known  division  of  "  the  people  of  the 
 book  "  =  Christians,  who  were  educated,  and  "  the 
 common  people"  who  could  not  read  ^  the  tribes 
 round  Mecca,  and  the  sunmiary  way  in  which  an 
 authoritative  text  of  the  Koran  was  established 
 (in  the  Caliphate  of  Othman),  alike  indicate  a  very 
 rude  state  of  society.  It  is  generally  asserted  that 
 Mohammed  was  unable  to  write :  and  this  would  at 
 first  sight  appear  to  be  bo;'ne  out  by  his  description 
 of  himself  as  an  illiterate  prophet.  Modern  writers, 
 however,  generally  are  averse  to  a  literal  interpre- 
 tation of  these  and  kindred  statements.  In  any 
 ca.se,  about  the  10th  century  (the  fourth  of  the 
 Hegira),  a  smaller  and  more  flowing  character,  the 
 Nishki,  was  introduced  by  Ibn  iMoklah,  which, 
 with  considerable  alterations  and  improvements,  is 
 that  ordinarily  in  present  use." 
 
 30.  As  in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  branches,  so 
 in  the  Arab  branch  of  the  Shemitic  family,  various 
 causes  rendered  desirable  the  introduction  of  dia- 
 critical signs  and  vowel  points,  which  took  place 
 toward  the  close  of  the  7th  century  of  our  era  — 
 not  however  without  considerable  opposition  at  the 
 outset,  from  Shemitic  dishke  of  innovation,  and 
 addition  to  the  roll  of  instruction  already  complete 
 in  itself.  But  the  system  obtained  general  recogni- 
 tion after  some  modifications  in  deference  to  popular 
 opinion,  though  not  carried  out  with  the  fullness  of 
 the  Masoretes. '' 
 
 Ewald,  with  great  probability,  assumes  the  ex- 
 istence and  adoption  of  certain  attempts  at  vowel 
 marks  at  a  very  early  period,  and  is  inclined  to 
 divide  their  history  into  three  stages. 
 .  At  first  a  simple  mark  or  stroke,  like  the  dia- 
 critical line  in  the  Samaritan  IMSS.,  was  adopted 
 
 to  mark  miusuai  significations,  as  "12"^,  a  "  pesti- 
 lence," as  distinguished  from  ''^"T,  "  to  speak," 
 or  "a  word."  A  further  and  more  advanced  stage, 
 like  the  diacritical  points  of  the  Aramaic,  was  the 
 employment  (in  order  to  e.xpress  generally  the  dif- 
 ference of  sounds)  of  a  point  abuve  the  line  to  ex- 
 press sounds  of  a  high  kind,  like  a  and  o  —  one 
 below  for  feelJer  and  lower  ones  like  i  and  e  —  and 
 a  third  in  the  centre  of  the  letters  for  those  of 
 a  harsher  kind,  as  distinguished  from  the  other 
 two.c 
 
 Originally,  the  number  of  vowel  sounds  among 
 the  Shemitic  races  (as  distinguished  from  vowel 
 points)  was  only  three,  and  apparently  used  in  com- 
 bination with  the  consonants.  Origen  and  Jerome 
 were  alike  ignorant  of  vowel  points,  in  the  ordinary 
 acceptation.  Many  readings  in  the  LXX.  indicate 
 the  want  of  some  such  system  —  a  want  to  which 
 some  directions  in  the  Talmud  are  said  to  refer. 
 But  until  a  later  period,  a  regular  system  of  ))unc- 
 tuation  remained  unknown ;  and  the  number  of 
 vowel  sounds  limited.  The  case  is  thus  put  by 
 Walton.  "  The  modern  points  were  not  either 
 from  Adam,  or  affixed  by  Moses,  or  the  I'ropliets 
 that  were  before  the  Captivity,  nor  after  the  C:i[)tiv- 
 ity,  devised  either  by  Ezra,  or  by  any  other  btiure 
 the  completing  of  the  Talmud,  but  after  five  hun- 
 dred years  after  Christ,  invented  by  some  learned 
 
 a  A  much  earlier  e.xistence  is  claimed  for  this  char- 
 acter by  Forster,  One  Pnm.  Lang.  i.  167. 
 
 b  Pococke,  Abulfeda,  ed.  White ;  Walton,  FroU.  De 
 hingua  Arabiea;  Leyrer,  Herzog,  xiv.  12. 
 
 .lews  for  the  help  of  those  who  were  ignorant  of  the 
 Hebrew  tongue."  "  We  neither  affirm  that  the 
 vowels  and  accents  were  invented  by  the  Masoretes, 
 but  that  the  Hebrew  tongue  did  always  consist  of 
 vowels  and  consonants.  Aleph,  Vau,  and  Yod  were 
 the  \owels  before  the  points  were  invented,  as  they 
 were  also  in  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  other  Eastern 
 tongues."  •' 
 
 We  will  add  one  more  quotation  from  the  same 
 author  with  reference  to  the  alleged  uncertainty 
 introduced  into  the  rendering  of  the  text,  by  any 
 doubts  on  the  antiquity  of  the  system  of  vowel- 
 points,  a  question  which  divided  the  scholars  of  his 
 day.  •'  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  Chaldean  Para- 
 phrase of  the  Pentateuch  and  Prophets,  and  the 
 Syriac  translation  of  the  Bible,  continued  above  a 
 thousand  years  before  they  were  pointed."  "  That 
 the  true  reading  might  be  preserved  above  a  thou- 
 sand years,  is  not  against  all  reason,  since  we  see 
 the  same  done  in  the  Samaritan,  Syriac,  and  Chal- 
 dee,  for  a  longer  time;  and  the  same  may  be  said 
 of  the  Arabic,  though  not  for  so  long  a  time  after 
 the  Alcoran  was  written."  « 
 
 ;31.  The  reverence  of  the  Jews  for  their  sacred 
 writings  would  have  been  outraged  by  any  at- 
 tempts to  introduce  an  authoritative  system  of  in- 
 terpretation at  variance  with  existing  ones.  To 
 reduce  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  to  authorita- 
 tive and  intelligible  uniformity  was  the  object  of 
 the  IMasoretes,  by  means  of  a  system  of  vowels  and 
 accents. 
 
 What  would  have  suggested  itself  to  scholars, 
 not  of  Shemitic  origin,  was  at  utter  variance  with 
 Hebrew  notions,  which  looked  upon  the  established 
 written  characters  as  sacred.  No  other  plan  was 
 possible  than  the  addition  of  different  external 
 marks.  And,  in  fact,  this  plan  was  adopted  by 
 the  three  great  divisions  of  the  Shemitic  family; 
 probably  being  copied  to  a  certain  extent  by  the 
 Hebrew  and  Arabic  branches  from  the  Syriac, 
 among  whom  there  existed  schools  of  some  repute 
 during  the  first  centuries  of  our  era.  Of  the  names 
 of  the  inventors,  or  the  exact  time  of  their  intro- 
 duction, nothing  can  be  stated  with  certainty. 
 Their  use  probably  began  about  the  sixth  century, 
 and  appears  to  have  been  completed  about  the 
 tenth.  The  system  has  been  carried  out  with  far 
 greater  minuteness  in  the  Hebrew,  than  in  the  two 
 sister  dialects.  The  Arabic  grammarians  did  not 
 proceed  beyond  three  signs  for  a,  i,  u  ;  the  Syriac 
 added  e  and  o,  which  they  represented  by  figures 
 borrowed  from  the  Greek  alphabet,  not  very  nmch 
 altered.  In  both  these  cases  all  the  vowels  are, 
 strictly  speaking,  to  be  considered  us  short;  while 
 the  Hebrew  has  five  long  as  well  as  five  short,  and 
 a  half-vowel,  and  other  auxiliary  signs.  Con- 
 nected with  this  is  the  system  of  accents,  which  is 
 involved  in  the  same  obscurity  of  origin.  But  it 
 bears  rather  on  the  relation  of  words  and  the  mem- 
 bers of  sentences,  than  on  the  construction  of  indi- 
 vidual words. 
 
 The  chief  agents  in  this  laborious  and  peculiar 
 undertaking  were  the  compilers  of  the  Masora,  as 
 it  is  called  ^  "  tradition,"  as  distinguished  from 
 the  word  to  be  read.  As  the  Talmud  has  its 
 province  of  interpreting  legal  distinctions  and  regu- 
 lations, under  the  sanction  of  the  sacred  text,  and 
 
 c  Ewald,  Grammatih  (1835),  p.  62." 
 
 d  Walton,  Considerntor  Considered,  ii.  229,  210. 
 
 e  Walton,  ibid.  222,  223. 
 
SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   WRITING 
 
 2987 
 
 the  Kabbala  its  peculiar  function  of  dealing  with 
 theological  and  esoteric  tradition,  so  the  object  of 
 
 the  Masora  (miDXD,  "tradition  ")  and  its  com- 
 
 pilers  the  Masoretes  (or  H^^Dp  '^V^??,  "  masters 
 of  tradition")  was  to  deal  critically,  grammat- 
 ically, and  lexically  with  a  vast  amount  of  tradition 
 bearing  on  the  text  of  Scripture,  and  to  reduce  this 
 to  a  consistent  form.  Little  is  known  with  accu- 
 racy of  the  authors,  or  the  growth  of  this  remark- 
 able collection.  Tradition  assigns  the  commence- 
 ment (as  usual)  to  lizra  and  the  great  synagogue; 
 but  other  authorities,  Jewish  and  Christian,  to 
 the  learned  members  of  the  school  of  Tiberias, 
 about  the  l)eginning  of  the  sixth  century.  These 
 learned  collections,  comprising  some  very  early 
 fragments,  were  probably  in  progress  until  the 
 eleventh  century,  and  are  divided  into  a  greater 
 and  less  Masora,  the  second  a  compendium  of  the 
 former.  "  The  masters  of  the  Masora,"  in  the  well- 
 known  quotation  of  Elias  Levita,  "  were  innumer- 
 able, and  followed  each  other  in  successive  genera- 
 tions for  many  years;  nor  is  the  beginning  of  them 
 known  to  us,  nor  the  end  thereof."  Walton,  who 
 was  by  no  means  blind  to  its  deficiencies,  has  left 
 on  record  a  very  just  judgment  on  the  real  merits 
 of  the  Masora."  It  is  in  truth  a  very  striking  and 
 meritorious  instance  of  the  devotion  of  the  Jewish 
 mind  to  the  text  of  Scripture  —  of  the  earnest- 
 ness of  its  authors  to  add  the  only  proof  in  their 
 power  of  their  zeal  for  its  preservation  and  eluci- 
 dation.'' 
 
 32.  A  comparison  of  the  Shemitic  languages,  as 
 
 known  to  us,  presents  them  as  very  unevenly  de- 
 veloped. In  their  present  form  the  Arabic  is  un- 
 doubtedly the  richest:  but  it  would  have  been 
 rivaled  by  the  Hebrew  had  a  career  been  vouch- 
 safed equally  long  and  favorable  to  this  latter. 
 The  cramping  and  perverting  conditions  of  its 
 labors  depressed  the  Rabbinic  dialect  (child  of 
 the  old  age  of  the  Hebrew)  into  bewildering  con- 
 fusion in  many  instances,  but  there  are  many 
 valuable  signs  of  life  about  it.  Ancient  He- 
 brew, as  has  been  truly  said,  possesses  in  the 
 bud  almost  all  the  mechanisms  which  constitute 
 the  riches  of  the  Arabic.  In  the  preface  to  his 
 great  work  {Lehrffebuude,  p.  vii.)  Gesenius  has 
 pointed  out  various  instances,  which  will  repay  the 
 labor  of  comparison.  It  is  true  that  to  the  Ara- 
 maic has  been  extended  a  longer  duration  than  to 
 the  Hebrew;  but  for  various  causes  its  inferiority 
 is  remarkable,  as  regards  its  poverty  —  lexical  and 
 grammatical  —  its  want  of  harmony  and  flexibility, 
 and  the  consequent  necessary  frequency  of  peri- 
 phrases and  particles  in  aid. 
 
 A  brief  comparison  of  some  leading  grammatical 
 and  syntactical  peculiarities,  in  the  three  main  dia- 
 lects of  the  Shemitic  family,  will  not  be  out  of 
 place  at  the  end  of  this  sketch.  To  scholars  it  will 
 necessarily  appear  meagre:  Ijut,  brief  as  it  is,  it 
 may  not  be  without  interest  to  the  general  reader. 
 The  root-forms  with  the  consonants  and  vowels 
 have  been  already  considered. 
 
 Conjwjdtions  or  their  Eqiiivahnl  Verb-forms. — 
 The  following  is  the  tabulated  form  given  by  Ewald 
 for  the  ordinary  Hebrew  verb :  — 
 
 1.  (Simple  form)  Kal. 
 
 (Forms  extremely  augmented) 
 
 2.  (Causative  form' 
 
 Hiphil.  w. 
 Passive  Hop/tat. 
 
 3.  (Reflexive  form) 
 
 Nipkal. 
 
 4.  (Intensive  form) 
 
 Plel.  w. 
 
 pass.  I  PuaX. 
 
 5.  (Reflexive  and  intensive  form) 
 Hithparl. 
 
 In  the  Aramaic  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  of 
 these  appear,  with  another  (=  Hithpael),  all  with 
 passives,  marked  by  a  syllable  prefixed.  In  the 
 Arabic  the  verb-forms,  at  the  lowest  computation, 
 are  nine,  but  are  ordinarily  reckoned  at  thirteen, 
 and  sometimes  fifteen.  Of  these,  the  ninth  and 
 eleventh  forms  are  comparatively  rare,  and  serve 
 to  express  colors  and  defects.  As  may  be  seen 
 from  the  table  given,  the  third  and  fourth  forms  in 
 Hebrew  alone  have  passives. 
 
 Eqidralents  to  Conjunctive  Moods,  etc.  —  One 
 of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  the  Arabic  lan- 
 guage is  what  is  ordinarily  described  as  the  "  futu- 
 rum  figuratum."  As  in  almost  all  Shemitic  gram- 
 mars imperfect  is  now  substituted  for  future,  this 
 may  be  explained  by  stating  that  in  Arabic  there 
 are  four  forms  of  the  imperfect,  strongly  marked, 
 by  which  the  absence  of  moods  is  almost  compen- 
 sated. The  germs  of  this  mechanism  are  to  be 
 found  in  the  common  imperfect,  the  jussive,  and 
 the  cohortative  of  the  Hebrew,  but  not  in  the 
 Aramaic.  Again,  a  curious  conditional  and  sub- 
 junctive usage  (at  first  sight  almost  amounting  to 
 
 a  Prol.  viii.  17. 
 
 ft  Arnold,  in  Herzog,  ix.  s.  v.  ;  Leyrer,  in  Herzog, 
 xiv.  15. 
 
 an  inversion)  applied  to  the  perfect  and  imperfect 
 tenses  by  the  addition  of  a  portion,  or  the  wliole. 
 of  the  substantive  verb  is  to  be  found  in  botl" 
 Hebrew  and  Arabic,  although  very  differently  de- 
 veloped. 
 
 No7ms.  —  The  dual  number,  very  uncommon  in 
 the  Syriac,  is  less  so  in  Hebrew,  chiefly  hniited, 
 however,  to  really  dual  nouns,  while  in  the  Arabic 
 its  usage  may  be  described  as  general.  \^'liat  is 
 called  the  •'  status  emphaticus,''  i.  e.  the  rendering 
 a  word  definite  by  appending  the  article,  is  found 
 constantly  recurring  in  the  Aramaic  (at  some  loss 
 to  clearness  in  the  singular).  This  usage  brings  to 
 mind  the  addition  of  the  definite  article  as  a  post- 
 positive in  Swedish  —  s/db,  ship;  si:ibet,  the  ship. 
 In  the  Arabic  it  is  lost  in  the  inflections  of  cases, 
 while  in  the  Hebrew  it  may  be  considered  as  un- 
 important. As  regards  nouns  of  abstraction,  also, 
 the  Aramaic  is  fuller  than  the  Hebrew;  but  in  this 
 last  particular,  as  in  the  whole  family  of  nouns, 
 the  Arabic  is  rich  to  excess.  It  is  in  this  last  only 
 that  we  find  not  only  a  regular  system  of  cases, 
 and  of  comparison,  but  especially  the  numerous 
 plural  formations  called  broken  or  internal,  which 
 form  so  singular  a  part  of  the  language.  As  re- 
 gards their  meaning,  the  broken  jilurals  are  totally 
 different  from  the  regular  (or,  as  they  are  techni- 
 
2988    SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES 
 
 Bally  called,  sound)  plurals  — the  latter  denoting 
 several  individuals  of  a  genus,  the  former  a  numl)er 
 of  individuals  viewed  collectively,  the  idea  of  indi- 
 viduality being  wliolly  suppressed.  Broken  plurals 
 accordingly  are  singulars  with  a  collective  meaning, 
 and  are  closely  alciu  to  abstract  nouns. « 
 
 3y.  To  tlie  scholar,  as  before  remarked,  this  re- 
 capitulation of  some  leading  peculiarities  may  ap- 
 pear unnecessary,  while  to  those  unacquainted  with 
 the  Sheiuitic  languages,  it  is  feared,  these  instances 
 must  unavoidably  appear  like  fragments  or  speci- 
 mens, possibly  new  and  peculiar,  but  conveying  no 
 very  definite  instruction.      15ut  in  any  case  some  of 
 the  cliief  grammatical  features  of  the  family  have 
 been  enumerated  —  all,  moreover,  illustrative  of  the 
 internal,  self-contained  type  so  peculiarly  Sheniitic. 
 In  this  respect,  as  with  its  formal,  so  with  its  syn- 
 tactical peculiarities.     Of  one  fertile  parent  of  new 
 words    in    the    .Japhetian    language-family,  —  the 
 power  of  creating  compound  words,  —  the  Sheniitic 
 is    destitute.     Different  meanings  are,  it  is   true, 
 expressed  by  different  primitives,  but  these  stand 
 necessarily   divided    by   impassable    barriers    from 
 each  other;  and  we  look  in  vain  for  the  shades  and 
 gradations  of  meaning  in  a  word  in  the  Sheniitic 
 languages  which  gives  such  copiousness  and  charm 
 to  the  sister-family.     It  is  so  with  regard  to  the 
 whole  range  of  privative  and  negati\e  words.     The 
 prefixes  of  the  otlier  family,  in  conjunction  with 
 nouns,  give  far  more  life  and  clearness  than  do  the 
 collective  verbals  of  the  Sheniitic.     Even  the  preg- 
 nant and  curiously  jointed  verb-forms,  spreading 
 out  from  the  sliarply  defined  root,  with  pronominal 
 adjuncts  of  olivious  meaning,  and  the  aid  of  a  deli- 
 cate  vowtl  s\stem,  have  an   artificial   appearance. 
 The  Japhetian,  whose  spiritual  fullness  would  prob- 
 ably never  liave   reached    him,  but    that  its  sub- 
 stance was  long  preserved  in  these  very  forms,  will 
 gratefully    acknowledge    the   wisdom    of   that  Al- 
 mighty iieing  who  framed  fur  the  preservation  of 
 the  knowledge  of  Himself — the  One  True  God  — 
 so  fitting  a  cradle  as  the  language  of  the  Old  Tes 
 lament.     Of  other  famihes,  the  Japhetian  was  not 
 ripe  for  such  a  trust.     Of  those  allied   with   the 
 Sheniitic,  tlie  Aramaic  was  too  coarse  and  indefi- 
 nite, liowever  widely  and  early  spread,  or  useful  at 
 a  later  period  as  a  means  of  extension  and  explana- 
 tion, and  (as  has  been  before  observed)  the  Arabic 
 in  its  origin  was  essentially  of  the  earth,  earthy. 
 The  Japlietian  cannot  tlien  but  recognize  the  wis- 
 dom, cannot  but  thank  the  goodness  of  God,  in 
 thus  giving  and  preserving  his  lessons  concerning 
 Himself  in  a  form  so  fitting  and  so  removed  from 
 treachery.     He  will  do  all  this,  but  he  will  see  at 
 the  same  time  in  his  own  languages,  so  flexible,  so 
 varied,  so  logical,  drawing  man  out  of  himself  to 
 bind  him  to  bis  neighbor,  means  far  more  likely  to 
 spread  the  treasures  of   the  holy   language  than 
 even  its  general  adoption.     It  is  Humboldt  who 
 has  said,  in  reference  to  tlie  wonderful  mechanism 
 discernible  in    the    consonant    and  vowel  systems 
 of   the  Sheniitic   languages  —  that,  admitting  all 
 this,    there    is    more    energy    and    weiglit,    more 
 truth  to  nature,  when  the  elements  of   language 
 can  be  recognized  independently  and  in  order,  than 
 when  fused    in  such  a  combination,  however  re- 
 markable. 
 
 And  from  this  rigid,  self-contained  character  the 
 
 a  Wriglit's  Arabic  Grammnr,  part  i  p.  189.  "  Cette 
 partie  de  la  grammaire  Arabe  est  celle  ou  il  regne  le 
 plus  d'arbitraire,  et  ou  les  regies  g^uerales  sont  su- 
 
 SHENIR  ^ 
 
 Shemitic  language-family  finds  difficulty  in  depart- 
 ing. The  more  recent  Syriac  has  added  various 
 auxiliary  forms,  and  repeated  pronouns,  to  the 
 characteristic  words  by  which  the  meaning  i.s 
 chiefly  conveyed.  But  the  general  effect  is  cum- 
 brous and  confused,  and  brings  to  mind  some  fea- 
 tures of  the  ordinary  Welsh  version  of  tlie  Epis- 
 tles. In  Arabic,  again,  certain  prefixes  are  found 
 to  be  added  for  the  sake  of  giving  definiteness  to 
 portions  of  the  verb,  and  prepositions  more  fre- 
 quently employed.  But  the  character  of  the  lan- 
 guage remains  unaltered  —  the  additions  stand  out 
 as  something  distinct  from  the  original  elements  of 
 the  sentence. 
 
 In  what  consists  the  most  marked  point  of  dif- 
 ference between  the  Indo-European  Aimily  of  lan- 
 guages and  the  Shemitic  family  as  known  to  us? 
 The  first  has  lived  two  lives,  as  it  were:  in  its  case 
 a  period  of  synthesis  and  complexity  has  been  suc- 
 ceeded by  another  of  analysis  and  decomposition. 
 The  second  family  has  been  developed  (if  the  word 
 may  be  used)  in  one  way  only.  No  other  instance 
 of  a  language-family  can  probably  be  found  cast  in 
 a  mould  equally  unalterable.  Compared  with  the 
 living  branches  of  the  Indo-European  family,  those 
 of  the  Sheniitic  may  be  almost  designated  as  in- 
 organic :  they  have  not  vegetated,  have  not  grown ; 
 they  have  simply  existed.*  T.  J.  O. 
 
 SHEMU'EL  (bS^lISB?  [=  Samuel,  which 
 see]:  1a\ayLiy]X'  Samuel).  1.  Son  of  Ammihud, 
 appointed  from  the  tribe  of  Simeon  to  divide 
 the  land  of  Canaan  among  the  ti-ibes  (Num. 
 xxxiv.  20). 
 
 2.  (-2,afj.ovri\.)  Samuel  the  prophet  (1  Chr. 
 vi.  33). 
 
 3.  [Vat.  lo-oyuouTjA.]  Son  of  Tola,  and  one 
 of  the  chiefs  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (1  Chr. 
 vii.  2). 
 
 SHEN  CltS^n,  with  the  def.  article  [the  tooth]  : 
 Tf)s  TraAaias:  Sen).  A  place  mentioned  only  in 
 1  Sam.  vii.  12,  defining  the  spot  at  which  Samuel 
 set  up  the  stone  Ebeurczer  to  commemorate  the 
 rout  of  the  Pliilistines.  The  pursuit  had  extended 
 to  ''below  Beth-car,"  and  the  stone  was  erected 
 "betweeii  the  Mispah  and  between  the  Shen." 
 Nothing  is  known  of  it.  The  Targuni  has  Shinna. 
 The  Peshito-Syriac  and  Arabic  Versions  render 
 both  Betli-car  and  Shen  by  Btit-.Jtisan,  but  the 
 writer  has  not  succeeded  in  identif^ying  the  name 
 with  any  place  in  the  lists  of  Dr.  Robinson  (1st  ed. 
 
 App.  to  vol.  iii.).     The  LXX.  read  ^tt?^,  ydshdn, 
 old.  G. 
 
 SHENA'ZAR  O^^S^K?  [fery  tooth,  Ges.]  : 
 Sai/eo-ap:  [Comp. -Zava(dp-]  Senneser).  Son  of 
 Salatbiel,  or  Shealtiel  (l\jhr.  iii.  18).  According 
 to  the  Vulgate  he  is  reckoned  as  a  son  of  J  echo- 
 niah. 
 
 SHE'NIR  (~'''3ti7,  i.  e.  Senir  [con;  of  mail]: 
 Sam.  Vers,  pniyt^a  :  [Rom.  Soj/ip;  Vat.  Alex.] 
 I.avsip;  [Sin.  in  Cant.,  Saviei^:]  Sanir).  This 
 name  occurs  in  Deut.  iii.  9,  (/ant.  iv.  8.  It  is  an 
 inaccurate  equivalent  for  the  Hebrew  Serw;  the 
 Amorite  name  for  Mount  Hermon,  and,  like  Shib- 
 mah  (for  Sibmah),  has  found  its  way  into  the  Au- 
 
 jettes  a  un  plus  grand  nombre  d"exceptions."  De  Sacy, 
 j.  279  (ed.  1810). 
 
 b  Kenan,  i.  423,  424. 
 
SHEOL 
 
 thorized  Version  without  any  apparent  authority. 
 The  correct  form  is  found  in  1  Clir.  v.  23  and  Ez. 
 xxvii.  5.     [Sknie.]  G. 
 
 *  SHE'OL.     [Dead,  The;  Hell;  Pit.] 
 
 *  SHEOL,  BANDS  OF.  [Snares  of 
 Death,  Araer.  ed.] 
 
 SHE'PHAM  (D5t?7 :  SeTr^a/^tip;"  [Comp. 
 Aid.  SeTT^aua:]  Sephi(iiia).  A  place  mentioned 
 only  in  the  specification  by  Moses  of  the  eastern 
 boundary  of  the  Promised  Land  (Num.  xxxiv.  10, 
 11),  the  first  landmark  from  Hatser-enan,  at  which 
 the  northern  boundary  terminated,  and  lying  be- 
 tween it  and  Kiblah.  The  ancient  interpreters 
 (Targ.  Pseudojon.;  Saadiah)  render  the  name  by 
 Apameia;  *  but  it  seems  uncertain  whether  by  this 
 they  intend  tlie  Greek  city  of  that  name  on  the 
 Orontes,  50  miles  below  Antioch,  or  whether  they 
 use  it  as  a  synonym  of  Banias  or  Dan,  as  Schwarz 
 affirms  (Descr.  Gcoyr.  p.  27).  No  trace  of  the 
 name  appears,  however,  in  that  direction.  Mr. 
 Porter  would  fix  Hatser-enan  at  Kuryetein,  70 
 miles  E.  N.  E.  of  Damascus,  which  would  remove 
 Shephaui  into  a  totally  different  region,  in  which 
 there  is  equally  little  trace  of  it.  The  writer  ven- 
 tures to  disagree  with  this  and  similar  attempts  to 
 enlarge  the  bounds  of  the  Moly  Land  to  an  extent 
 for  which,  in  his  opinion,  there  is  no  warrant  in 
 Scripture.  G. 
 
 SHEPHATHI'AH  '  (H^tpDK?  [Jehovah 
 ju(l(/eg,  or  is  jtultje]:  'S.acparia-  Sitphatit).  A 
 Benjamite,  father  of  Weshullam  G  (1  Chr.  ix.  8). 
 The  name  is  properly  Shephatiah  [as  in  A.  V. 
 ed.  1611]. 
 
 SHEPHATI'AH  (n>l2Dtt7  [as  above] :  2a- 
 (paTia;  [Vat.  2a,8aT6(a;]  Alex.  ^afaOia,  2,a(pa- 
 Tias'-  Siipliiithiii,  Siipluilifts).  1.  The  filth  son  of 
 David  by  his  wile  Abital  (2  Sam.  iii.  4;  1  Chr. 
 iiL  3). 
 
 2.  (-Za(paTia\  [in  Ezr.  ii.  4,  Vat.  A.(Ta<p:,  viii. 
 8,  2a^aT6»a:]  Sephati'i,  Scphaiia.)  Tlie  family 
 of  Shephatiah,  372  in  number,  returned  with  Ze- 
 rubbabel  (l'>zr.  ii.  4;  Neh.  vii.  9).  A  second  de- 
 tachment of  eighty,  with  Zebadiah  at  their  head, 
 came  up  with  Ezra  (I'^zr.  viii.  8).  The  name  is 
 written  Saphat  (1  Esdr.  v.  9),  and  Saphatias 
 (1  Esdr.  viii.  34). 
 
 3.  ([In  Ezr.  ii.  57,  Vat.  '2,a(f>aTeta'-]  Saphatia.) 
 The  family  of  another  Shepliatiah  were  among  the 
 children  of  Solomon's  servants,  who  came  up  witli 
 Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  57;  Neh.  vii.  59). 
 
 4.  A  descendant  of  Perez,  or  Pharez,  the  son 
 of  Judah,  and  ancestor  of  Athaiah  (Neh.  xi.  4). 
 
 5.  {'S.arpavias  ■  lS(i2)halius.)  The  son  of  Mat- 
 tan;  one  of  the  princes  of  Judah  who  coun.selled 
 Zedekiah  to  put  Jeremiah  in  the  dungeon  (Jer. 
 xxxviii.  1). 
 
 6.  (^n^Tp?^:  2a4,arlas;  [Vat.]  Alex.  2a- 
 (paria;  VA.  iZacpareia'-  Saphntix.)  The  Haruph- 
 ite,  or  Hariphite,  one  of  the  Benjamite  warriors 
 who  johied  David  in  his  retreat  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr. 
 xii.  5). 
 
 7.  (2o(^aTias:  Saphatias.)  Son  of  Maachah, 
 and  chief  of  the  Simeonites  in  the  reign  of  David 
 (1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 
 
 «  The  ar  at  the  end  of  the  LXX.  version  of  the 
 name  ij  partly  due  to  the  ah  (particle  of  motion )  which 
 is  affixed  to  it  in  the  origioal  of  ver.  10,  and  partly 
 derived  from  the  commencement  of  Kiblah,  which  fol- 
 
 SHEPHERD  2989 
 
 8.  (2a<^aTfas;  [Vat.  'Za(paTfiai  ]  Alex.  2a- 
 (pa.ri.as-)     Son  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xxi.  2). 
 
 SHEPHERD  (n??'l;  ~1|7^2,  Am.  vii.  14; 
 
 ^|7^,  Am.  l.  l).  in  a  nomadic  state  of  society 
 every  man,  from  the  sheikh  down  to  the  slave,  is 
 more  or  less  a  shepherd.  As  many  regions  in  the 
 East  are  adapted  solely  to  pastoral  pursuits,  the  in- 
 stitution of  the  nomad  life,  with  its  appliances  of 
 tents  and  camp  equipage,  was  regarded  as  one  of 
 the  most  memorable  inventions  (Gen.  iv.  20).  The 
 progenitors  of  the  Jews  in  the  patriarchal  age  were 
 nomads,  and  their  history  is  rich  in  scenes  of  pas- 
 toral life.  The  occupation  of  tending  the  flocks 
 was  undertaken,  not  only  by  the  sons  of  wealthy 
 ciiiels  (Gen.  xxx.  29  fF.,  xxxvii.  12  ff.),  but  even  by 
 their  daughters  (Gen.  xxix.  6  fF. ;  Ex.  ii.  19).  The 
 Egyptian  captivity  did  nmch  to  implant  a  love  of 
 settled  abode,  and  consequently  we  find  the  tribes 
 which  still  retained  a  taste  for  shepherd  life  select- 
 ing their  own  quarters  apart  from  their  brethren 
 in  the  Transjordanic  district  (Num.  xxxii.  1  fF.). 
 Henceforward  in  Palestine  Proper  the  shepherd 
 held  a  subordinate  position;  the  increase  of  agri- 
 culture involved  the  decrease  of  pasturage;  and 
 though  large  flocks  were  still  maintained  hi  certain 
 parts,  particularly  on  the  iiorders  of  the  wilderness 
 of  Judah,  as  about  Carmel  (1  Sam.  xxv.  2),  Beth- 
 lehem (1  Sam.  xvi.  11;  Luke  ii.  8),  Tekoah  (Am. 
 i.  1),  and  more  to  the  south,  at  Gedor  (1  Chr.  iv. 
 39),  the  nomad  life  was  practically  extinct,  and  the 
 shepherd  became  one  out  of  many  classes  of  the  la- 
 boring population.  The  completeness  of  the  tran- 
 sition from  the  pastoral  to  the  agricultural  state  is 
 strongly  exhibited  in  those  passages  which  allude 
 to  the  presence  of  the  shepherd's  tent  as  a  token 
 of  desolation  (e.  y.  Ez.  xxv.  4;  Zeph.  ii.  6).  The 
 humble  position  of  the  shepherd  at  the  same  period 
 is  implied  in  the  notices  of  David's  wondrous  ele 
 vation  (2  Sam.  vii.  8;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  70),  and  again 
 in  the  self-depreciating  confession  of  Amos  (vii. 
 14).  The  frequent  and  beautiful  allusions  to  the 
 shepherd's  office  in  the  poetical  portions  of  the 
 Bible  {e.  ij.  Ps.  xxiii. ;  Is.  xl.  11,  xlix.  9,  10;  Jer. 
 xxiii.  3,  4;  Ez.  xxxiv.  11,  12,  23)  rather  bespeak 
 a  period  when  the  shepherd  had  become  an  ideal 
 character,  such  as  the  Roman  poets  painted  the  pas- 
 tors of  Arcadia. 
 
 The  office  of  the  eastern  sliepherd,  as  described 
 in  the  Bible,  was  attended  with  much  hardship, 
 iind  even  danger.  He  was  exposed  to  the  extremes 
 of  heat  and  cold  (Gen.  xxxi.  40);  his  food  fre- 
 quently consisted  of  the  precarious  supplies  afforded 
 bj-  nature,  such  as  the  fruit  of  the  "  sycomore,"  or 
 Egyptian  fig  (Am.  vii.  14),  the  "  husks  "  of  the 
 carob-tree  (Luke  xv.  16),  and  perchance  the  locusts 
 and  wild  honey  which  supported  the  Baptist  (Matt, 
 iii.  4j;  he  liad  to  encounter  the  attacks  of  wild 
 1  leasts,  occasionally  of  the  larger  species,  such  as 
 lions,  wolves,  panthers,  and  bears  (1  Sam.  xvii.  34; 
 Is.  xxxi.  4;  Jer.  v.  6;  Am.  iii.  12)  ;  nor  was  he 
 Iree  from  the  risk  of  robbers  or  predatory  hordes 
 (Gen.  xxxi.  39).  To  meet  these  various  foes  the 
 sliepherd's  equipment  consisted  of  the  following 
 articles:  a  mantle,  made  probably  of  sheep's-skin 
 with  the  fleece  on,  which  he  turned  inside  out  in 
 cold  weather,  as  implied  in  the  comparison  in  Jer. 
 
 lows  it  in  ver.  11,  and  which  they  have  given  without 
 its  r,  as  BijAa. 
 
 i  nS"'tt2S  :    JUuoLi  :  Sam.  Vere    rT^DD^?. 
 
2990 
 
 SHEPHERD 
 
 xliii.  12  (cf.  Juv.  xiv.  187);  a  scrip  or  wallet,  con- 
 taining a  small  amount  of  food  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40; 
 Porter's  Damascus,  ii.  100);  a  sling,  which  is  still 
 the  favorite  weapon  of  the  Bedouin  shepherd  (1 
 Sam.  xvii.  40;  Burckhardt's  Notes,  i.  57);  and, 
 lastly,  a  staff,  which  served  the  double  purpose  of  a 
 weapon  against  foes,  and  a  crook  for  the  manage- 
 ment of  the  flock  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40;  Ps.  xxiii.  4: 
 Zech.  xi.  7).  If  the  shepherd  was  at  a  distance 
 from  his  home,  he  was  provided  with  a  light  tent 
 (Cant.  i.  8;  Jer.  xxxv.  7),  the  removal  of  which 
 was  easily  eflected  (Is.  xxxviii.  12).  In  certain 
 localities,  moreover,  towers  were  erected  for  the 
 double  purpose  of  spying  an  enemy  at  a  distance, 
 and  protecting  the  flock:  such  towers  were  erected 
 by  Uzziah  and  Jotham  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  10,  xxvii.  4), 
 while  their  existence  in  earlier  times  is  testified  by 
 the  name  Migdal-Eder  (Gen.  xxxv.  21,  A.  V.  "  tower 
 of  Edar;  "  Mic.  iv.  8,  A.  V.  "  tower  of  the  flock  "). 
 The  routine  of  the  shepherd's  duties  appears  to 
 have  been  as  follows:  in  the  morning  he  led  forth 
 his  flock  from  the  fold  (John  x.  4),  which  he  did 
 by  going  before  them  and  calling  to  them,  as  is 
 still  usual  in  the  East ;  arrived  at  the  pasturage,  he 
 watched  the  flock  with  the  assistance  of  dogs  (Job 
 XXX.  1),  and,  sboidd  any  sheep  stray,  he  had  to 
 search  for  it  until  he  found  it  (Ejj.  xxxiv.  12;  Luke 
 XV.  4);  he  supplied  them  with  water,  either  at  a 
 running  stream  or  at  troughs  attached  to  wells 
 (Gen.  xxix.  7,  xxx.  38;  Ex.  ii.  16;  Ps.  xxiii.  2); 
 at  evening  he  brought  them  back  to  the  fold,  and 
 reckoned  them  to  see  that  none  were  missing,  by 
 passing  them  "under  the  rod  "  as  they  entered  the 
 door  of  the  inclosure  (Lev.  xxvii.  32;  Ez.  xx.  37), 
 checking  each  sheep  as  it  passed,  by  a  motion  of 
 the  hand  (Jer.  xxxiii.  13);  and,  finally,  he  watched 
 the  entrance  of  the  fold  throughout  the  night,  act- 
 ing as  porter  (John  x.  3).  We  need  not  assume 
 that  the  same  person  was  on  duty  both  by  night 
 and  by  day;  Jacob,  indeed,  asserts  this  of  himself 
 (Gen.  xxxi.  40),  but  it  would  be  more  probable 
 that  the  shepherds  took  it  by  turns,  or  that  they 
 kept  watch  for  a  ])ortion  only  of  the  night,  as  may 
 possibly  be  implied  in  the  expression  in  Luke  ii.  8, 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  keeping  watch,"  rather 
 "keeping  the  watches  "  ((pvKdiraovTis  (pvXaKds)- 
 The  shepherd's  office  thus  required  great  watchful- 
 ness, particularly  by  night  (Luke  ii.  8;  cf.  Nah. 
 iii.  18).  It  also  required  tenderness  towards  the 
 young  and  feeble  (Is.  xl.  11),  particularly  in  driv- 
 ing them  to  and  from  the  pasturage -(Gen.  xxxiii. 
 13).  In  large  establishments  there  were  various 
 grades  of  shepherds,  the  highest  being  styled 
 "rulers"  (Gen.  xlvii.  6),  or  "chief  shepherds" 
 (1  Pet.  V.  4):  in  a  royal  household  the  title  of  ab- 
 bir,"  "  mighty,"  was  bestowed  on  the  person  who 
 held  the  post  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7).  Great  responsil)ility 
 attached  to  the  office;  for  the  chief  shepherd  had 
 to  make  good  all  losses  (Gen.  xxxi.  39);  at  the 
 same  time  he  had  a  personal  interest  in  the  flock, 
 inasmuch  as  he  was  not  paid  in  money,  but  re- 
 ceived a  certain  amount  of  the  produce  (Gen.  xxx. 
 32;  1  Cor.  ix.  7).  The  life  of  the  shepherd  was  a 
 monotonous  one;  he  may  perhaps  have  wiled  away 
 an  hour  in  playing  on  some  instrument  (1  Sam. 
 xvi.  18;  Job  xxi.  12,  xxx.  31),  as  his  modern  rep- 
 resentative still  occasionally  does  (Wortal)et's  Syria, 
 i.  234).  He  also  had  his  periodical  entertainments 
 at  the  shearing-time,  which  was  celebrated  by  a 
 
 -1^3W. 
 
 SHEREBTAH 
 
 general  gathering  of  the  neighborhood  for  festiv- 
 ities (Gen.  xxxi.  19,  xxxviii.  12;  2  Sam.  xiii.  2i;); 
 but,  generally  speaking,  the  life  must  have  been 
 but  dull.  Nor  did  it  conduce  to  gentleness  of  man- 
 ners; rival  shepherds  contended  for  the  possession 
 or  the  use  of  water  with  great  acrimony  (Gen.  xxi. 
 25,  xxvi.  20  fit". ;  Ex.  ii.  17);  nor  perhaps  is  this  a 
 matter  of  surprise,  as  those  who  come  late  to  a  well 
 frequently  have  to  wait  a  long  time  until  their  turn 
 comes  (Burckhardt's  Si/ria,  p.  63). 
 
 The  hatred  of  the  I'^gyptiaiis  towards  shepherds 
 (Gen.  xlvi.  34)  may  have  lieen  mainly  due  to  their 
 contempt  for  the  sheep  itself,  which  appears  to  have 
 been  valued  neither  for  food  (Plutarch,  Be  Js.  72), 
 nor  generally  for  sacrifice  (Herod,  ii.  42),  the  only 
 district  where  they  were  oflTered  being  about  the 
 Natron  lakes  (Strab.  xvii.  p.  803).  It  may  have 
 been  increased  by  the  memory  of  the  Shepherd  in- 
 vasion (Herod,  ii.  128).  Abundant  confirmation 
 of  the  fact  of  this  hatred  is  supplied  by  the  low 
 position  which  all  herdsmen  held  in  the  castes  of 
 Egypt,  and  by  the  caricatures  of  them  in  Egyptian 
 paintings  (Wilkinson,  ii.  169). 
 
 The  term  "  shepherd  "  is  applied  in  a  metaphor- 
 ical sense  to  princes  (Is.  xliv.  28;  Jer.  ii.  8,  iii.  15, 
 xxii.  22;  Ez.  xxxiv.  2,  &c.),  prophets  (Zech.  xi.  5, 
 8,  16),  teachers  (Eccl.  xii.  11),  and  to  Jehovah 
 himself  (Gen.  xlix.  24;  Ps.  xxiii.  1,  Ixxx.  1):  to 
 the  same  effect  are  the  references  to  "  feeding  "  in 
 Gen.  xlviii.  15;  Ps.  xxviii.  9;  Hos.  iv.  16. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SHEPHERDS,  TOWER  OF  (Gen. 
 xxxv.  21).     [David,  vol.  i.  p.  553  «.] 
 
 SHE'PHI  ("ptp  [a  naked /nil,  Ges.]:  :S<o(pi; 
 Alex.  :S,c£(t>ap-  Seplii).  Son  of  Shobal,  of  the  sons 
 of  Seir  (1  Chr.  i.  40).  Called  also  Siikpho  (Gen. 
 xxxvi.  23);  which  Burrington  concludes  to  be  the 
 true  reading  (Geneal.  i.  49). 
 
 SHE'PHO  OSP  [smoothness]:  :Zoi<pdp:  Se- 
 pho).     The  same  as  Siiepiii  (Gen.  xxxvi.  23). 
 
 SHEPHU'PHAN  ("J^^^ip  [serpent]:  Se- 
 <l,ov<pdfj.\  Alex.  -2,oi<pav:  Sephvphnn).  One  of  the 
 sons  of  Bela  the  firstborn  of  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  viii. 
 5).  His  name  is  also  written  Siiiii'iiurnAiM  (A. 
 V.  "  Shupbam,"  Num.  x.xvi.  39),  Shuppim  (1  Chr. 
 vii.  12,  15),  and  Muppim  (Gen.  xlvi.  21).  Lord 
 A.  Hervey  conjectures  that  Shephuphan  may  have 
 been  a  son  of  Benjamin,  whose  family  was  reckoned 
 with  those  of  Iri  the  son  of  Bela.      [Muppim.] 
 
 SHE'RAH  (n^Wtt',  i.  e.  Sheer  ah  [kins- 
 woman]: 'Zapad;  Alex.  2aapa:  Sara).  D.augh- 
 ter  of  Ephraim  (1  Chr.  vii.  24),  and  foundress  of 
 the  two  Beth-horons,  and  of  a  town  which  was 
 called  after  her  Uzzen-Shkkah. 
 
 *  SHERD.     [PoTSHEKD;  Pottery.] 
 SHEREBI'AH  (H^^^tr;  [heat  of  Jehovah, 
 
 Ges.] :  Sapaia,  Ezr.  viii.  24 ;  :ZapaBias,  Neh.  viii. 
 7,  ix.  4;  Zapahia,  Neh.  x.  12,  xii.  8,  24;  Alejc. 
 lapa&ia,  Neh.  viii.  7;  Sapa/Soi'a,  Neh.  ix.  4: 
 Sarabias,  Ezr.;  Serebia,  Neh.  viii.  7,  x.  12,  xii. 
 24;  Sarebias,  Neh.  ix.  4;  Sarebia,  Neh.  xii.  8). 
 A  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  of  the  family  of  Malili 
 the  son  of  Merari  (Ezr.  viii.  18,  24).  He  was  one 
 of  the  first  of  the  ministers  of  the  Temple  to  join 
 Ezra  at  the  river  of  Ahava,  and  with  Hashabiah 
 and   ten  of  their  brethren  *  had  the  charge  of  the 
 
 f>  They  are  called  "  priests ; 
 loosely,  as  in  Josh.  iii.  3. 
 
 but  the  term  is  used 
 
SHERESH 
 
 vessels  and  gifts  which  the  king  and  his  court,  and 
 the  people  of  Israel  had  contributed  for  the  service 
 of  the  Temple.  \Vlien  Ezra  read  the  Law  to  the 
 people,  Sherebiah  was  among  the  Levites  who  as- 
 sisted him  (Nell.  viii.  7).  He  took  part  in  the 
 psalm  of  confession  and  thanksgiving  which  was 
 sung  at  the  solemn  fast  after  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles (Neh.  ix.  4,  5),  and  signed  the  covenant 
 with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  12).  He  is  again  men- 
 tioned as  among  the  chief  of  the  Levites  who  be- 
 longed to  the  ciioir  (Neh.  xii.  8,  24).  In  1  Esdr. 
 viii.  54  he  is  called  Esebkias. 
 
 SHE'RESH  (ti?ntI7  in  pause  [rooZ]:  SoGpos; 
 Alex.  'S.opos-  Siires).  Son  of  Machir  the  son  of 
 Manasseh  by  his  wife  Maachah  (1  Chr.  vii.  16). 
 
 SHERE'ZER  ("l^i;?"ltp  [=Shakezer]  : 
 'Xapaadp'-  Sdrdsur).  Properly  "  Sharezer ;  "  one 
 of  the  messengers  sent  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius 
 by  the  people  who  had  returned  from  the  Captivity 
 to  inquire  concerning  fasting  in  the  fifth  month 
 (Zech.  vii.  2).     [See  Regemmeleoh.] 
 
 *  SHERIFFS  ("'riSijI)  only  in  Dan.  iii.  2, 
 3,  enumerated  among  the  high  oflBcers  of  state 
 at  Babylon.  Their  exact  province  is  unknown. 
 The  etymology  (see  Fiirst,  s.  v.)  is  too  obscure  to 
 decide  their  position  or  duties.  According  to  the 
 English  designation  they  may  have  been  an  order 
 of  judges,  as  "  sheriff"  has  sometimes  that  mean- 
 ing. They  are  more  commonly  supposed  to  have 
 been  lawyers  or  jurists  who  acted  as  the  king's  ad- 
 visers, or  the  state  councillors,  and  as  such  held  a 
 high  position  under  the  government.  Gesenius 
 (IJebr.  u.  Cliald.  Lex.  s.  v.)  compares  them  with 
 the  iMufti,  the  head  doctors  of  the  law  in  the 
 Turkish  empire.  De  Wette  translates  the  title 
 Rec/Usf/elehrien,  and  H.  A.  Perret-Gentil  les  juris- 
 consulles.  H. 
 
 SHE'SHACH  CTT?^^  [see  below]  :  [Comp. 
 Srjcax,  Secrafc:]  Sesnch)  is  a  term  which  occurs 
 only  in  Jeremiah  (xxv.  26,  li.  41),  who  evidently 
 uses  it  as  a  synonym  either  for  Babylon  or  for  Bab- 
 ylonia. According  to  some  commentators,  it  rep- 
 resents "  Babel  "  on  a  principle  well  known  to  the 
 later  .Jews  —  the  substitution  of  letters  according 
 to  their  position  in  the  alphabet,  counting  back- 
 wards from  the  last  letter,  for  those  which  hold  the 
 same  numerical  position,  counting  in  the  ordinary 
 
 way.     Thus  iH  represents  S,  W  represents  3,  "1 
 
 represents  2,  and  so  on.     It  is  the  fact  that  in  this 
 
 way  TytL'ty  would  represent  v3!3'  It  may  well 
 be  doubted,  however,  if  this  fanciful  practice  is  as 
 old  as  Jeremiah.  At  any  rate,  this  explanation 
 does  not  seem  to  be  so  satisfactory  as  to  make  any 
 other  superfluous.  Now  Sir  H.  Kawlinson  has  ol)- 
 served  that  the  name  of  the  moon-god,  whicli  was 
 identical,  or  nearly  so,  with  that  of  the  city  of 
 Abraham,  Ur  (or  Hur),  "might  have  been  read  in 
 one  of  the  ancient  dialects  of  Baliylon  as  S/iisha/d,''^ 
 and  that  consequently  "  a  possible  explanation  is 
 thus  obtained  of  tiie  Sheshach  of  Scripture  "  (Kaw- 
 linson's  Herodatux,  vol.  i.  p.  616).  Sheshach  may 
 stand  for  Ur,  Ur  itself,  the  old  capital,  being  taken 
 (as  Babel,  the  new  capital,  was  constantly)  to  rep- 
 resent the  country.  G.  R. 
 
 SHE'SHAI  [2  syl]  {''^'W  [whitish,  Ges.]: 
 Seo-fft  [Vat.  -ffei],  Num.  and  Judg.;  ■S.ovcri  [Vat. 
 -o-€(],  Josh.;  Alex,  ^e/j-n,   Lovirai,   Teddf-  Hisai, 
 
 SHETHAR 
 
 2091 
 
 Num.;  Sesa'i).  One  of  the  three  sons  of  Anak 
 who  dwelt  in  Hebron  (Num.  xiii.  22)  and  were 
 driven  thence  and  slain  by  Caleb  at  the  head  of  the 
 children  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  14;   Judg.  i.  10). . 
 
 SHE'SHAN  (]KtJ7  [perh.  city]  :  :S.coffdv; 
 [Vat.  twice  2orra/j.:]  Sesan).  A  descendant  of 
 Jerahmeel  the  son  of  Hezron,  and  representative  of 
 one  of  the  chief  families  of  Judah.  In  consequence 
 of  the  failure  of  male  issue,  he  gave  his  daugliter^in 
 marriage  to  .Jarha,  his  Egyptian  slave,  and  through 
 this  union  the  line  was  perpetuated  (1  Chr.  ii.  ;h1, 
 34,  35). 
 
 SHESHBAZ'ZAR  O^^'ZWW  [Pevs.,  Jlre- 
 ivorshipper,  Ges.]  :  'S.aaajiaaa.p  \  'CZa^avaaap ; 
 Vat.  "Za&avaaap,  Bayaaap,  :S,ap0ayap:]  Alex. 
 Saca/Saffcrap,  [^aaa^aacrapos  ■]  Sassuiiin  ir  :  of 
 uncertain  meaning  and  etymology).  The  Chalila'un 
 or  Persian  name  given  to  Zerubbabel,  in  Ezr.  i.  8, 
 11,  V.  14,  16;  1  Esdr.  ii.  12,  15,  after  the  analog} 
 of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  Abednego,  Beltesliazzar, 
 and  Esther.  In  like  manner  also  Joseph  received 
 the  name  of  Zaphnath-Paaneah,  and  we  learn  from 
 Manetho,  as  quoted  by  Josephus  (c.  Apkm.  i.  28), 
 that  Modes'  Egyptian  name  was  Osarsiph.  The 
 change  of  name  in  the  case  of  Jehoiakim  and  Zed- 
 ekiah  (2  K.  xxiii.  34,  xxiv.  17)  may  also  be  com- 
 pared. That  Sheshbazzar  means  Zerubliahel  is 
 proved   by  his  being  called   the  prince  of  Judah 
 
 (S'^iC'Sn),  and  governor  (nHJ),  the  former  term 
 marking  him  as  the  head  of  the  tribe  in  the  Jewish 
 sense  (Num.  vii.  2,  10,  11,  &c.),  and  the  latter  as 
 the  Persian  governor  appointed  by  Cyrus,  botli 
 which  Zerubbabel  was;  and  yet  more  distinctly,  liy 
 the  assertion  (Ezr.  v.  16)  that  "  Sheshljazzar  laid 
 the  foundation  of  the  House  of  God  whicli  is  in 
 Jerusalem,"  compared  with  the  promise  to  Zerub- 
 liabel  (Zech.  iv.  9),  "  The  hands  of  Zerubbaliel 
 have  laid  the  foundation  of  this  house,  his  hands 
 shall  also  finish  it."  It  is  also  appai'ent,  from  the 
 mere  comparison  of  Ezr.  i.  11  with  ii.  1,  2,  and  the 
 whole  history  of  the  returned  exiles.  The  Jewish 
 tradition  that  Sheshbazzar  is  Daniel,  is  utterly 
 without  weight.     [Zerubbabel.]       A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHETH  (ntt?  [see  below]:  2i79:  Seth). 
 1.  The  patriarch  Seth  (1  Chr.  i.  1). 
 
 2.  In  the  A.  V.  of  Num.  xxiv.  17,  Htt^  is  ren- 
 dered as  a  proper  name,  but  there  is  reason  to  re- 
 gard it  as  an  appellative,  and  to  translate,  instead  of 
 "the  sons  of  Sheth,"  "the  sons  of  tumult,"  the 
 wild  waiTiors  of  Moab,  for  in  the  parallel  passage, 
 
 -Jer.  xlviii.  45,  "j'1Stt7,  sham,  "  tumult,"  occupies 
 the  place  of  sheth.  Htt',  sheth,  is  thus  equivalent 
 to  nSU!7,  sheth,  as  in  Lam.  iii.  47.  Evvald  pro- 
 poses,   very    unnecessarily,    to   read  HJi?,  seth  = 
 
 nSti?,  and  to  translate  "  the  sons  of  haughtiness  "' 
 {fluchmuthssohne).  Rashi  takes  the  word  as  a 
 proper  name,  and  refers  it  to  Seth  the  son  of  -idam, 
 and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  view  taken  by 
 Onkelos,  who  renders,  "  he  shall  rule  all  the  sons 
 of  men."  The  Jerusalem  Targum  gives,  "  all  the 
 sons  of  the  East;  "  the  Targum  of  .lonathan  ben- 
 Uzziel  retains  the  Hebrew  word  Sheth,  and  ex- 
 plains it  of  the  armies  of  Gog  who  were  to  set 
 themselves  in  battle  array  against  Israel. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHE'THAR  (intt?  [Pers.  a  star] :  Sopcra- 
 
2992 
 
 3HETHAR-B0ZNAI 
 
 Baios;  Alex.  2opeo-0eos;  [FA.'  Ap/cecrooy:]  Se- 
 ihar:  "a  star,"  Pers.).  One  of  the  seven  princes 
 of  Persia  and  Media,  wlio  bad  access  to  the  king's 
 presence,  and  were  the  first  men  in  the  kingdom, 
 in  the  tliird  year  of  Xerxes  (Esth.  i.  14).  (,'ompare 
 Ezr.  vii.  14  and  the  kirTO.  tSiv  YlipaSiv  iirlarifiot 
 of  Ctesias  (14),  and  the  statement  of  Herodotus 
 with  regard  to  the  seven  noble  Persians  who  slew 
 Smerdis,  that  it  was  granted  to  them  as  a  privi- 
 lege to  have  access  to  the  king's  presence  at  all 
 times,  without  being  sent  for,  except  when  he  was 
 with  the  women;  and  that  the  king  might  only 
 take  a  wife  I'rom  one  of  these  seven  families,  iii.  84, 
 and  Gesen.  s.  v.      [Caeshkna;  Estukh.] 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHE'THAR-BOZ'NAI  C^^pa  intp : 
 Sadap-fiou^auai  [Vat.  -ai/u,  -av] ;  Alex.  -avr)i, 
 [ave,  -aval'-]  Slharhuzmii:  "star  of  splendor"). 
 A  Persian  othcer  of  rank,  having  a  conuuand  in 
 the  province  "  on  this  side  the  river  "  under  Tatnai 
 
 the  satrap  (Hn?))  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis 
 (Ezr.  V.  3,  0,  vi.  6,  13).  He  joined  with  Tatnai 
 and  the  Apharsachites  in  trying  to  obstruct  the 
 progress  of  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  Zerubbabel, 
 and  in  writing  a  letter  to  Darius,  of  which  a  copy 
 is  preserved  in  Ezr.  v.,  in  which  they  reported 
 that  "the  house  of  the  great  God"  in  Judaea  was 
 being  buikled  with  great  stones,  and  that  the  work 
 was  going  on  fast,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  a 
 decree  from  Cyrus.  They  requested  that  search 
 might  be  made  in  the  rolls  court  whether 
 such  a  decree  was  ever  given,  and  asked  for 
 the  king's  pleasure  in  the  matter.  The  de- 
 cree was  found  at  Egliatana,  and  a  letter  was 
 sent  to  Tatnai  and  Shethar-boznai  from  Da- 
 rius, ordering  them  no  more  to  obstruct,  but, 
 on  the  contrary,  to  aid  the  elders  of  the  Jews 
 in  rebuilding  the  Temple,  by  supplying  them 
 both  with  money  and  with  beasts,  corn,  salt, 
 wine,  and  oil,  for  the  sacrifices.  Shethar- 
 boznai  after  the  receipt  of  this  decree  offei-ed 
 no  further  obstruction  to  the  Jews.  The 
 account  of  the  Jewish  prosperity  in  Ezr.  vi. 
 14-22,  would  indicate  that  the  Persian  gov- 
 ernors acted  fully  up  to  the  spirit  of  their  in- 
 structions from  the  king. 
 
 As  regards    the   name  Shethar-boznai,  it 
 Beems  to  be  certainly  Persian.     The  first  ele- 
 ment of  it  appears  as  the  name.  Shethar,  one 
 of  the  seven  Persian  princes  in  Esth.  i.  14. 
 It  is  perhaps   also    contained   in  the  name 
 Pharna-zathres  (Herod,  vii.  G5) ;  and  the  whole  name 
 is  not  unlike  Sati-barzanes,  a  l^ersian  in  the  time 
 of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  (Ctesias,  57).    If  the  names 
 of  the  Persian  ofhcers  mentioned  in   the  Book  of 
 Ezra   could   be    identified    in   any  inscriptions  or 
 other  records  of  the  reigns  of  Darius,  Xerxes,  and 
 Artaxerxes,  it  would  be  of  immense  value  in  clearing 
 up  the  difficulties  of  that  book.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 SHE'VA  (S;tt\  Keri;  Sltp,  2  Sam.  [Se- 
 BAIAH]:  2oi;(7a;  [Vat.  Itjctous:]  Alex.  Icovs' 
 aiva).  1.  The  scribe  or  royal  secretary  of  David 
 (2  Sam.  XX.  25).  He  is  called  elsewhere  Sekaiah 
 (2  Sam.  viii.  17),  SiiiSiiA  (1  K.  iv.  3),  and  Shav- 
 snA  (1  Chr.  xviii.  IG). 
 
 2.  (Saoii;  Alex.  "SiaovX'  Sue.)  Son  of  Caleb 
 ben-Hezron  liy  his  concubine  Maachah,  and  founder 
 or  chief  of  Machbena  and  Gibea  (1  Chr.  ii.  49). 
 
 SHEW   BRkaD 
 
 SHEW    BREAD.       (a''3D   CPlb,   or  "b 
 
 D"*3Dn  (Ex.  XXV.  30,  XXXV.  13,  xxxix.  36,  Ac), 
 literally     "bread     of     the     face"     or     "faces." 
 
 Onk.  nD~yan  "b,  d'^es  cnb,  » bread  set 
 
 in  order."  1  Chr.  ix.  32,  xxiii.  29,  2  Chr.  xxix.  18, 
 Neh.  X.  34,  m^l^tt.  In  Num.  ;-.•  7,  we  find 
 T^J2i~in  /)  "  the  perpetual  bread."  In  1  Sam. 
 xxi.  4-6,  it  is  called  W~\p  7j  "holy  bread."  Syr. 
 |la;J^J  CnJO-t^2l>  Jl^Caa^,  "bread  of  the 
 Table  of  the  Lord."  The  LXX.  give  us  aproi 
 evumoi,  Ex.  xxv.  30;  apToi  rrjs  Trpoacpopas,  1  K. 
 N.  T. :   &pTOi  TYis  vpodeaecus,  Walt.  xii. 
 
 4,  Luke  vi.  4; 
 
 7)   TrpOO((TlS  TWV  apTcov, 
 
 Ileb.  ix.  2. 
 
 The  Vulg.  jMines  prnjxisitivnis.  '\\icliffe,  "  loaves  of 
 proposition."  Luther,  Scluivbrode ;  from  which 
 our  subsequent  English  versions  have  adopted  the 
 title  Shew- BREAD.) 
 
 Within  the  Ark  it  was  directed  that  there  should 
 be  a  table  of  shittini-wood,  i.  e.  acacia,  two  cubits 
 in  length,  a  cubit  in  breadth,  and  a  cubit  and  a 
 half  in  height,  overlaid  with  pure  gold,  and  hav- 
 ing "  a  golden  crown  to  the  border  thereof  round 
 about,"  i.  e.  a  border,  or  list,  in  order,  as  we  may 
 suppose,  to  hinder  that  which  was  placed  on  it 
 from  by  any  accident  falling  off.  The  further  de- 
 scription of  this  table  will  be  found  in  Ex.  xxv. 
 23-30,  and  a  representation  of  it  as  it  existed  in 
 
 Table  of  Shew  Bread  (from  relief  ou  au  Arch  ol  'J'itusl. 
 
 the  Herodian  Temple  forms  an  interesting  I'otitnre 
 in  the  bas-reliefs  within  the  Arch  of  Titus.  I  he 
 accuracy  of  this  may,  as  is  obvious,  be  truste<i. 
 It  exhibits  one  striking  correspondence  with  the 
 prescriptions  in  Exodus.  We  there  find  the  fol- 
 lowing words:  "and  thou  shalt  make  unto  it  a 
 border  of  a  handbreadth  round  about."  In  the 
 sculpture  of  the  Arch  the  hand  of  one  of  the  slaves 
 who  is  carrying  the  Table,  and  the  border,  are  of 
 about  equal  breadth."     This  Table  is  itself  called 
 
 CiCn  "|nb*tI7,  "the  TaUe  of  the  Faces,"   in 
 
 Num.  iv.  7,  and  "in!:2n  ^nbtt??  "the  pure 
 table,"  in  Lev.  xxiv.  6;  and  2  Chr.  xiii.  11.  This 
 latter  epithet  is  generally  referred  by  conmienta- 
 tors  to  the'unalloyed  gold  with  which  so  much  of 
 it  was  covered.     It  may,  however,  mean  somewhat 
 
 a  Taking,  i.  e.   the  four  fingers,  when  closed  to- 
 gether, as  the  measure  of  a  handbreadth,  as  we  are 
 
 instructed  to  do  by  a  comparison  of  1  K.  vii.  26  and 
 Jer.  Iii.  21. 
 
SHEW   BREAD 
 
 more  than   this,  and  bear  something  of  the  force 
 which  it  has  in  Malachi  i.  11. 
 
 It  was  thouglit  liy  Philo  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
 andria tiiat  the  table  was  a  symbol  of  the  world, 
 its  four  sides  or  legs  typifying  the  ibur  seasons.  In 
 the  utter  absence  of  any  argument  in  their  sup- 
 port, we  may  fiael  warranted  in  neglecting  such  fan- 
 ciful conjectures,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of 
 Biihr's  arguments  against  them. 
 
 In  2  Chr.  iv.  19,  we  have  mention  of  "the  tables 
 whereon  tlie  shew  bread  was  set,"  and  at  ver.  8  we 
 read  of  Solomon  making  ten  tables.  This  is  prob- 
 ably explained  by  tlie  statement  of  .losephus  {Ant. 
 viii.  3,  §  7),  that  the  king  made  a  mnuber  of  tables, 
 and  one  great  golden  one  on  which  they  placed  the 
 loaves  of  Ciod.     [See  Temple.] 
 
 The  table  of  the  second  temple  was  carried  away 
 by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (1  Mace.  i.  22),  and  a  new 
 one  made  at  the  refurnishing  of  the  sanctuary  under 
 Judas  Maecalia;'us  (1  Mace.  iv.  49).  Afterwards 
 Ptolemy  I'hiladelphus  presented  a  magnificent  table 
 (Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  2,  §§  8,  9). 
 
 The  table  stood  in  the  sanctuary  together  with 
 the  seven-bran  died  candlestick  and  the  altar  of  in- 
 cense. ICvery  Sabbath  twelve  newly-baked  loaves 
 were  put  on  it  in  two  rows,  six  in  each,  and  sprin- 
 kled with  incense  (the  LXX.  add  salt),  where  they 
 remained  till  the  following  .Sabbath.  Then  they 
 were  replaced  Ijy  twelve  new  ones,  the  incense  was 
 burned,  and  they  were  eaten  by  the  priests  in  the 
 Holy  Place,  out  of  which  they  might  not  be  re- 
 moved. Besides  these,  the  Shew-bread  Talde  was 
 adorned  with  dishes,  spoons,  bowls,  etc.,  which  were 
 of  pure  gold  (Ex.  xxv.  29).  These,  however,  were 
 manifestly  subsidiary  to  the  loaves,  the  preparation, 
 presentation,  and  sniisequent  treatment  of  which 
 manifestly  constituted  the  onllnnnce  of  the  shew 
 bread,  whose  proi)able  purport  and  significance 
 must  now  be  considered. 
 
 The  number  of  the  loaves  (twelve)  is  considered 
 by  Philo  and  Josephus  to  represent  the  twelve 
 months.  If  there  was  such  a  reference,  it  must 
 surely  have  been  quite  subordinate  to  that  which  is 
 obvious  at  once.  The  twelve  loaves  plainly  answer 
 to  the  twelve  tribes  (compare  Rev.  xxii.  2).  But, 
 taking  this  for  granted,  we  have  still  to  ascertain 
 the  meaning  of  the  rite,  and  there  is  none  which 
 is  left  in  Scripture  so  wholly  unexplained.  Though 
 it  is  mentioned,  as  we  have  seen,  in  other  parts  of 
 the  O.  T.  besides  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  never  more 
 than  mentioned.  The  narrative  of  Uavid  and  his 
 companions  being  permitted  to  eat  the  shew  bread, 
 does  but  illustrate  the  sanctity  which  was  ascribed 
 to  it;  and  besides  our  Saviour's  appeal  to  that 
 narrative,  the  ordinance  is  only  once  referred  to 
 in  the  N.  T.  (Heb.  ix.  2),  and  there  it  is  merely 
 named  among  the  other  appurtenances  of  the  first 
 sanctuary. 
 
 But,  although  unexplained,  it  is  referred  to  as 
 one  of  the  leading  and  most  solemn  appointment; 
 of  the  sanctuary.  For  example,  the  appeal  of  Abi 
 jam  to  the  revolted  trilies  (2  Chr.  xiii.  10,  11)  runs 
 thus  —  "but  as  for  us,  the  Lord  is  our  God,  and 
 we  ha\'e  not  forsaken  Him ;  and  the  priests,  which 
 minister  unto  the  Lord,  are  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
 and  the  Levites  wait  upon  their  business;  and 
 they  burn  unto  the  Lord  every  morning  and  every 
 evening  burnt-sacrifices  and  sweet  incense;  the 
 shew  bread  also  set  they  in  order  upon  the  pure 
 table,"  etc.,  etc. 
 
 In  this  absence  of  explanation  of  that  which  is 
 yet  regarded  as  so  solemn,  we  have  but  to  seek 
 
 SHEW  BREAD 
 
 2993 
 
 whether  the  names  bestowed  on  and  the  rites  con- 
 nected with  the  shew  bread  will  lead  us  to  some 
 apprehension  of  its  meaning. 
 
 The  first  name  we  find  given  it  is  obviously  the 
 dominant  one,  D'^3D  CH^,  "bread  of  the  face, 
 or  faces."  This  is  explained  by  some  of  the  Rab- 
 bis, even  by  Maimonides,  as  referring  to  the  four 
 sides  of  each  loaf.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
 the  title  was  given  on  a  ground  which  in  no  way 
 distingiushed  them  from  other  loaves.  Besides, 
 it  is  applied  in  Num.  iv.  7,  simply  to  the  table, 
 
 3^2Dn  ]n7Li7,  not,  as  in  the  English  version,  the 
 "table  of  shew  bread,"  but  the  "shew  table,"  the 
 "  table  of  the  face,  or  faces." 
 
 We   have   used  the  words  J'ace  or  faces,  for 
 
 C'^D,  it  needs  scarcely  be  said,  exists  only  in  the 
 plural,  and  is  therefore  applied  equally  to  the  face 
 of  one  person  and  of  many.  In  connection  with 
 this  meaning,  it  continually  bears  the  secondary 
 one  of  presence.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  cite 
 any  of  the  countless  passages  in  which  it  does  so. 
 But  whose  face  or  presence  is  denoted  ?  That  of 
 the  people?  The  rite  of  the  shew  bread,  accoiding 
 to  some,  was  performed  in  acknowledgment  of 
 God's  being  the  giver  of  all  our  bread  and  suste- 
 nance, and  the  loaves  lay  alwajs  on  the  t;ible  as  a 
 memorial  and  monitor  of  this.  But  against  this, 
 besides  other  reasons,  there  is  the  powerl'ul  objec- 
 tion that  the  shew  bread  was  unseen  by  the  people; 
 it  lay  in  the  sanctuary,  and  was  eaten  there  by 
 the  priests  alone.  So  that  the  first  condition  of 
 symbolic  instruction  was  wanting  to  the  rite,  had 
 this  been  its  meaning. 
 
 The  D"'3D,  therefore,  or  Presence,  is  that  not  of 
 the  people  but  of  God.  The  apToi  ivdoirioi  and  the 
 a/jTOi  TTjs  ■!rpo(T(popas  of  the  LXX.  seem  to  indicate 
 as  much.     To  say  nothing  of  1  Saui.  xxi.  G,  where 
 
 the  words  Hin'^  "'32^^  D^Dian  D'^iDH  "b 
 seem  decisive  of  the  whole  question.  But  in  what 
 sense  ?  Spencer  and  others  consider  it  bread  offered 
 to  God  as  was  the  Minchah,  a  symbolical  meal  for 
 God  somewhat  answering  to  a  heathen  Lectister- 
 niuin.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  find  this  meaning  in 
 the  recorded  appointments.  The  incense  is  no  doubt 
 to  be  burnt  on  the  appointed  altar,  but  the  bread, 
 on  the  Sabbath  following  that  of  its  presentation, 
 is  to  be  eaten  in  the  Holy  Place  by  the  priests. 
 There  remains,  then,  the  view  which  has  been 
 brought  out  with  such  singular  force  and '  beauty 
 by  Biihr  —  a  view  broad  and  clear  in  itself,  and 
 not  disturbed  by  those  fanciful  theories  of  numbers 
 which  tend  to  abate  confidence  in  some  parts  of 
 his  admirable  SyinbuUk. 
 
 He  remarks,  and  justly,  that  the  phrase  Q"^3D 
 is  applied  solely  to  the  table  and  the  bread,  not  to 
 the  other  furniture  of  the  sanctuary,  the  altar 
 of  incense,  or  the  golden  candlestick.  There  is 
 something  therefore  peculiar  to  the  former  which 
 
 is  denoted  by  the  title.  Taking  D'^^DH  as  equiva- 
 lent to  the  Presence  {of  God  subaud.),  he  views 
 the  application  of  it  to  the  table  and  the  bread 
 as    analogous    to    its    application    to    the    angel, 
 
 D'*3D  "jSb^  (Is.  Ixiii.  9,  compared  with  l<;x. 
 xxxiii.  14,  15;  Deut.  iv.  37).  Of  the  Angel  of 
 God's  Presence  it  is  said  that  God's  "  Name  is  in 
 Him"  (Ex.  xxiii.  20).  The  Presence  and  the 
 Name  may  therefore  be  taken  as  equivalent.    Both, 
 
2994 
 
 SHIBBOLETH 
 
 in  reference  to  their  context,  indicate  the  manifes- 
 tation of  God  to  his  creatures.  "  Tlie  Name  of 
 God,"  he  remarks,  "  is  Himself,  but  that,  in  so 
 far  as  He  reveals  Himself,  the  face  is  that  wherein 
 the  being  of  a  man  proclaims  itself,  and  makes 
 known  its  individual  personality.  Hence,  as  Name 
 stands  for  He  or  Himself,  so  Face  for  Ftison:  to 
 see  the  I'ace,  for,  to  see  the  Person.  The  Bread 
 of  the  Face  is  therefore  that  bread  through  which 
 God  is  seen,  that  is,  with  the  participation  of  which 
 the  seeing  of  God  is  bound  up,  or  through  the  par- 
 ticipation of  which  man  attains  the  sight  of  God. 
 Whence  it  follows  that  we  have  not  to  think  of 
 bread  merely  as  such,  as  the  means  of  nourishing 
 the  bodily  life,  but  as  spiritual  food,  as  a  njeans  of 
 appropriating  and  retaining  that  life  which  consists 
 in  seeing  the  face  of  God.  Bread  is  therefore  here 
 a  symbol,  and  stands,  as  it  so  generally  does  in  all 
 languages,  both  for  life  and  life's  nourishment;  but 
 by  being  entitled  the  Bread  of  the  Face  it  be- 
 comes a  symbol  of  a  life  higher  than  the  physical; 
 it  is,  since  it  lies  on  the  table  placed  in  the  sym- 
 bolic heaven,  heavenly  bread:  they  who  eat  of  it, 
 and  satisfy  themselves  with  it  see  the  face  of  God  " 
 (Biihr,  SyiuboUk,  book  i.  c.  6,  §  2).  It  is  to  be 
 remembered  that  the  shew  bread  was  "taken  from 
 the  children  of  Israel  by  an  everlasting  covenant  " 
 (Lev.  xxiv.  8),  and  may  therefore  be  well  expected 
 to  bear  the  most  solemn  meaning.  Biihr  proceeds 
 to  show  very  beautifully  the  connection  in  Scrip- 
 ture between  seeing  God  and  being  nourished  by 
 God,  and  points,  as  the  coping-stone  of  his  argu- 
 ment, to  Christ  being  at  once  the  perfect  Image  of 
 God  and  the  Bread  of  Life.  The  references  to  a 
 table  prepared  for  the  righteous  man,  such  as  Ps. 
 xxiii.  5,  Luke  xxii.  30,  should  also  be  considered. 
 
 F.  G. 
 
 SHIB'BOLETH  {n^llW :  Scibloleth), 
 Judg.  xii.  6.  The  Hebrew  word  which  the  Gilead- 
 ites  under  Jephthah  made  use  of  at  the  jiassages  of 
 the  Jordan,  after  a  victory  over  the  Ephraimites, 
 to  test  the  pronunciation  of  the  sound  sh  by  those 
 who  wished  to  cross  over  the  river.  I"he  Ephraim- 
 ites, it  would  appear,  in  their  dialect  substituted 
 for  sh  the  simple  sound  s  ;  and  the  Gileailites,  re- 
 garding e^■ery  one  who  failed  to  pronounce  sh  as  an 
 Ephraimite  and  therefore  an  enemy,  put  him  to 
 death  accordingly. 
 
 The  word  "  Shibboleth,"  which  has  now  a  sec- 
 ond life  in  the  English  language  in  a  new  significa- 
 tion, has  two  meanings  in  Hebrew:  ]st,  an  ear  of 
 corn ;  2dly,  a  stream  or  flood :  and  it  was,  perhaps, 
 in  the  latter  sense  that  this  particular  word  sug- 
 gested itself  to  the  Gileadites,  the  .Jordan  being  a 
 rapid  river.  The  word,  in  the  latter  sense,  is  used 
 twice  in  the  6!)th  Psalm,  in  verses  2  and  15,  where 
 the  translation  of  the  A.  V.  is  "  the  floods  o\erflow 
 me,"' and  ''let  not  the  V!aXtr -flood  overflow  me." 
 If  in  English  the  word  retained  its  original  mean- 
 ing, the  latter  passage  might  be  translated  "  Let 
 not  a  shibboleth  of  waters  drown  me."  There  is 
 no  mystery  in  this  particular  word.  Any  word  be- 
 ginning with  the  sound  sh  would  have  answered 
 equally  well  as  a  test. 
 
 a  In  proper  names  not  naturalized  in  English 
 tnrough  the  LXX.,  the  Hebrew  form  is  retained,  as  in 
 Mephibosheth,  Ishbosheth  The  latter  name  is  melted 
 down  in  the  LXX.  to  'U^otriO  \  as,  with  the  c  ferine 
 the  French  have  softened  many  Iratin  words  beginning 
 
 SHIELD 
 
 Before  the  introdur.tJon  of  rowel-points  (nliich 
 
 took  place  not  earlier  than  the  6th  century  A.  D.) 
 there  was  nothing  in  Hebrew  to  distinguish  the 
 letters  Shin  and  Sin,  so  it  could  not  be  known  by 
 the  eye  in  reading  when  h  was  to  be  sounded 
 after  .«,  just  a-s  now  in  English  there  is  nothing  to 
 show  that  it  should  be  sounded  in  the  words  siiyov, 
 Asia,  Persia  ;  or  in  German,  according  to  the 
 most  common  pronunciation,  after  s  in  the  words 
 Sprache,  Spiel,  Sturm,  Stiefel,,  and  a  large  class 
 of  similar  words.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  sound 
 sh  is  unknown  to  the  Greek  language,  as  the  Eng- 
 lish //(  is  unknown  to  so  many  modern  languages. 
 Hence  in  the  Septuaj^int  proper  names  commence 
 simply  with  ,«,  which  in  Hebrew  commence  with 
 ah  ;  and  one  result  has  been  that,  through  the  Sep- 
 tuagint  and  the  Vulgate,  some  of  these  names, 
 such  as  Samuel,  Samson,  Simeon,  and  Solomon, 
 having  become"  naturalized  in  the  Greek  form  in 
 the  English  language,  have  been  retained  in  this 
 form  in  the  English  version  of  the  O.  T.  Hence, 
 likewise,  it  is  a  singularity  of  the  Septuagint  ver- 
 sion that,  in  the  passage  in  Judg.  xii.  6,  the 
 translator  could  not  introduce  the  word  "  Shib- 
 boleth,"  and  has  substituted  one  of  its  transla- 
 tions, ardxvs,  "  an  ear  of  corn,"  which  tells  the 
 original  story  by  analogy.  It  is  not  impossible 
 that  this  word  may  have  been  ingeniously  preferred 
 to  any  Greek  word  signifying  "  stream,"  or 
 "  flood,"  from  its  first  letters  being  rather  harsh- 
 sounding,  independently  of  its  containing  a  gut- 
 tural. E.  T. 
 
 SHIB'MAH  {TTf2'2LW,  i.  e.  Sibmah  [coolness 
 or  _fr<t [/ranee]:  ^e^a/jid'-  Sabama).  One  of  the 
 places  on  the  east  of  Jordan  which  were  taken 
 possession  of  and  rebuilt  by  the  tribe  of  Eeuben 
 (Num.  xxxii  38).  It  is  probably  the  same  with 
 Shebam  (/.  e.  Sebani)  named  in  the  list  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  chapter,  and  is  certainly  identical 
 with  Sibmah,  so  celebrated  at  a  later  date  for  its 
 vines.  Indeed,  the  two  names  are  precisely  the 
 same  in  Hebrew,  though  our  translators  have 
 chosen  to  introduce  a  difference.  Siumah,  and 
 not  Shibniah,  is  the  accurate  representative  of  the 
 Hebrew  original.  G. 
 
 SHIC'RON  (l^lptt?  Idrunkennessy.  2ok- 
 Xaj0;  Alex.  AKKapoiva'-  Sechrona).  One  of  the 
 landmarks  at  the  western  end  of  the  north  boun- 
 dary of  Judah  (Josh.  XV.  11,  only).  It  lay  between 
 Ekron  {Akir)  and  Jabneel  [Yebmt),  the  port  at 
 which  the  boundary  ran  to  the  sea.  No  trace  of 
 the  name  has  been  discovered  between  these  two 
 places,  which  are  barely  four  miles  apart.  The 
 Alex.  LXX.  (with  an  unusual  independence  of  the 
 Hebrew  text)  has  evidently  taken  Shicron  as  a 
 repetition  of  Ekron,  but  the  two  names  are  too 
 essentially  different  to  allow  of  this,  which  is  not 
 supported  by  any  other  version.*  The  Targuni 
 gi\es  it  Shicaron,  and  with  this  agrees  Eusebius 
 ( Onom.  Aax<^pav),  though  no  knowledge  of  the 
 localijiy  of  the  place  is  to  be  gained  from  his  notice. 
 
 G. 
 
 SHIELD  (nsv;  15^;  ^"^p;  n"nnb). 
 
 with  St,  such  as  Studium  =  ^tude,  Strenae  =  Etrennes, 
 etc.,  etc. 
 
 t>  *  More  probably  the  initial  2  was  omitted  acci- 
 dentally in  the  Alex.  MS.  on  account  of  the  EI2  pre- 
 ceding. The  reading  of  Comp.  and  Aid.  is  eU  laK^a- 
 pSifa,  A. 
 
SHIOGAIOIf 
 
 The  three  first,  of  tlie  Hebrew  terras  quoted  have 
 been  already  noticed  under  the  head  of  Akms, 
 where  it  is  stated  that  the  tziniiiih  was  a  large  ob- 
 long shield  or  target,  covering  the  whole  body ;  that 
 the  mayen  was  a  small,  round  or  oval  shield ;  and 
 that  the  term  shtUt  is  of  doubtful  import,  applying 
 to  some  ornamental  piece  of  armor.  To  these  we 
 may  add  soclirrdh,  a  poetical  term  occurring  only  in 
 Ps.  xci.  i.  The  ordinary  shield  consisted  of  a  frame- 
 work of  wood  covered  with  leather;  it  thus  admit- 
 ted of  being  burnt  (Ez.  xxxix.  9).  The  ma<j&ii  was 
 frequently  cased  with  metal,  either  brass  or  copper; 
 its  appearance  in  this  case  resembled  gold,"  wlien 
 the  sun  shone  on  it  (1  Mace.  vi.  39),  and  to  this, 
 rather  than  to  the  practice  of  smearing  blood  on  the 
 shield,  we  may  refer  the  redness  noticed  by  Nahum 
 (ii.  3).  The  surl'ace  of  the  shield  was  kept  bright 
 by  the  application  of  oil,  as  implied  in  Is.  xxi.  5 ; 
 hence  Saul's  shield  is  descrilied  as  "  not  anohited 
 with  oil,'"  i.  e.  dusty  and  gory  (2  Sam.  i.  21).  Oil 
 would  be  as  useful  lor  the  metal  as  for  the  leather 
 shield.  In  order  to  preserve  it  from  the  effects 
 of  weather,  the  sliield  was  kept  covered,  except  in 
 actual  conflict  (Is.  xxii.  6;  conip.  Ctes.  B.  G.  ii. 
 21;  Cic.  Nat.  Deur.  ii.  14).  The  shield  was  worn 
 on  the  left  arm,  to  which  it  was  attached  by  a 
 strap.  It  was  used  not  only  in  the  field,  but  also 
 in  besieging  towns,  when  it  served  for  the  protec- 
 tion of  the  head,  tiie  combined  shields  of  the  be- 
 siegers forming  a  kind  of  testudo  (Ez.  xxvi.  8), 
 Shields  of  state  were  covered  with  beaten  gold. 
 Solomon  made  such  for  use  in  religious  processions 
 (1  K.  X.  16,  17);  when  the.se  were  carried  off  they 
 were  replaced  by  shields  of  brass,  which,  as  being 
 less  valualjle,  were  kept  in  the  guard- room  (1  K. 
 xiv.  27),  while  the  former  had  been  suspended  in 
 the  palace  for  ornament.  A  large  golden  shield 
 was  sent  as  a  present  to  the  Komans,  when  the 
 treaty  with  them  was  renewed  by  Simon  Maccabseus 
 (1  ]\Iacc.  xiv.  24,  xv.  18);  it  was  intendetl  as  a 
 token  of  alliance  (au/x^oXoi/  rris  (Tv/j.fxaxias,  Jo- 
 seph. Ant.  xiv.  8,  §  5),  but  whether  any  symbolic 
 significance  was  attached  to  the  shield  in  particular 
 as  being  the  weapon  of  protection,  is  uncertain. 
 Other  instances  of  a  similar  present  occur  (Suet. 
 Callg.  16 ),  as  well  as  of  complimentary  presents  of 
 a  different  kind  on  the  part  of  allies  (Cic.  Verr. 
 2  Act.  iv.  29,  §  67).  Shields  were  suspended  about 
 public  buildings  for  ornamental  purposes  (1  K.  x. 
 17;  1  Mace.  iv.  57,  vi.  2);  this  was  particularly 
 the  case  with  the  shields  (assuming  shdet  to  have 
 this  meaning)  which  David  took  from  Hadadezer 
 (2  Sam.  viii.  7;  Cant.  iv.  4),  and  which  were  after- 
 wards turned  to  practical  account  (2  K.  xi.  10;  2 
 Chr.  xxiii.  9);  the  Gammadim  similarly  suspended 
 them  about  their  towers  (Ez.  xxvii.  11 ;  see  Gam  jia- 
 DiJis).  In  the  metaphorical  language  of  the  Bible 
 the  shield  generally  represents  the  protection  of  God 
 (e.  (/.  Ps.  iii.  3,  xxviii.  7);  but  in  Ps.  xlvii.  9  it  is 
 applied  to  earthly  rulers,  and  in  Eph.  vi.  16,  to 
 faith.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SHIGGA'ION  [3  .syl.]  (lV|ti? :  ^a\ix6v. 
 Psalmus),  Ps.  vii.  1.  A  particular  kind  oT  psalm, 
 the  specific  character  of  which  is  now  not  known. 
 
 In  the  singular  number  the  word  occurs  no- 
 where in  Hebrew,  except  in  the  inscription  of  the 
 7th  Psalm,  and  there  seems  to  be  nothing  peculiar 
 
 SHIGGAION 
 
 299.5 
 
 a  In  the  passage  qucted,  the  shields  carried  by  the 
 soldiers  of  Antiochus  are  said  to  have  been  actually 
 of  gold.     This,  however,  must  have  been  a  mistake, 
 
 in  that  psalm  to  distinguish  it  from  numerous 
 others,  in  which  the  author  gives  utterance  to  his 
 feelings  against  his  enemies,  and  implores  the  as- 
 sistance of  Jehovah  against  them;  so  that  the  con- 
 tents of  the  psalm  justify  no  conclusive  inference 
 as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  the  inscription 
 to  the  Ode  of  the  Prophet  Habakkuk  (iii.  1),  the 
 word  occurs  in  the  plural  number:  but  the  phrase 
 in  which  it  stands  "  'al  shiyyoiwth  ''  is  deemed  al- 
 most unanimously,  as  it  would  seem,  by  modern 
 Hebrew  scholars  to  mean  "  after  the  manner  of  the 
 Shiggaion,"  and  to  be  merely  a  direction  as  to  the 
 kind  of  musical  measures  by  wluch  the  ode  was  to 
 be  accompanied.  This  being  so,  the  ode  is  no  real 
 help  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  Shiggaion ;  for 
 the  ode  itself  is  not  so  called,  though  it  is  directed 
 to  be  sung  according  to  the  measures  of  the  shig- 
 gaion. And,  indeed,  if  it  were  called  a  shiggaion, 
 the  difficulty  would  not  ije  diminished;  for,  inde- 
 pendently of  the  inscription,  no  one  would  have 
 ever  thought  that  the  ode  and  the  psalm  belonged 
 to  the  same  species  of  sacred  poem ;  and  even  since 
 their  possil)le  similarity  has  been  suggested,  no  one 
 h.as  definitely  pointed  out  in  what  that  similarity 
 consists,  so  as  to  justify  a  distinct  classification. 
 In  this  state  of  uncertainty  it  is  natural  to  en- 
 deavor to  form  a  conjecture  as  to  the  meaning  of 
 shiggaion  from  its  etymology;  hut  unfortunately 
 there  are  no  less  than  three  rival  etymologies,  each 
 with  plausible  claims  to  attention.     Gesenius  and 
 
 Fiirst,  s.  v.,  concur  in  deriving  it  from  nStt?  (the 
 
 Piel  of  nntf),  in  the  sense  of  maKnifyinn;  or  ex- 
 tolling  with  praises;  and  they  justify  this  deriva- 
 tion by  kindred  Syriac  words.  Shiggaion  would 
 thus  mean  a  hymn  or  psalm:  but  its  specific  mean- 
 ing, if  it  has  any,  as  applicable  to  the  7tli  Psalm, 
 woul<l  continue  unknown.  Ewald,  Die  Poetise  hen 
 Backer  des  Allen  Bundes,  i.  29;  Riidiger,  s.  v.  in 
 his  contiimation  of  Gesenius'  Thesaurus;  and  De- 
 litzsch,  CotiiDientar  ilber  den  Psalter,  i.  51,  derive 
 
 it  from  nnUI7,  in  the  sense  of  reeling,  as  from  wine, 
 and  consider  the  word  to  be  somewhat  equivalent 
 to  a  dithyrambus ;  while  De  Wette,  Die  Psalinen, 
 p.  34,  Lee,  s.  v.,  and  Hitzig,  Pie  Zwolf  Ideinen 
 Prophete7i,  p.  26,  interpret  the  word  as  a  psalm  of 
 lamentation,  or  a  psalm  in  distress,  as  derived  from 
 Arabic.  Hupfeld,  on  the  other  hand,  Die  Psalmen, 
 I.  109,  199,  conjectures  that  shiggaion  is  identical 
 with  higgaion,  Ps.  ix.  16,  in  the  sense  of  poem  or 
 
 song,  from  H^n,  to  meditate  or  compose;  but  even 
 so,  no  information  would  be  conveyed  as  to  the 
 specific  nature  of  the  poem. 
 
 As  to  the  inscription  of  Halaakkuk's  ode,  "  \t,1 
 shiyyonoth"  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  is  ^era 
 coSTis,  which  conveys  no  definite  meaning.  The 
 Vulgate  translates  "  pro  ignorantiis,"  as  if  the 
 word  had  been  sheyayoth,  transgressions  through 
 ignorance  (Lev.  iv.  2,  27;  Num.  xv.  27;  Eccl.  v. 
 6),  or  sheyioth  (Ps.  xix.  13),  which  seems  to  have 
 nearly  the  same  meaning.  Perhaps  the  Vulgate 
 was  influenced  by  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  wliere 
 
 shiyyonoth  seems  to  be  translated  Hmvti7D. 
 In  the  A.  V.  of  Hab.  iii.  1,  the  rendering  is  "  upon 
 shigionoth,"  as  if  shigionoth  were  some  musical 
 instrument.       But   under   any   circumstances    'at 
 
 as  even  silver  shir.lds  were  very  rare  (Diod.  Sic.  xvii. 
 57). 
 
2996  SHiHON 
 
 (v37)  must  not  be  translated  "upon,"  in  the  sense 
 of  playing  upon  an  instrument.  Of  this  use  there 
 is  not  a  single  undoubted  example  in  prose,  although 
 playing  on  musical  instnnnents  is  frequently  re- 
 ferred to;  and  in  poetry,  although  there  is  one  pas- 
 sage, Ps.  xcii»  .3,  where  the  word  viUjIit  be  so  trans- 
 lated, it  might  equally  well  be  rendered  there  "  to 
 the  accompaniment  of"  the  musical  instruments 
 therein  specified  —  and  this  translation  is  preferable. 
 It  seems  likewise  a  niistai<e  that  'aZ  is  translated 
 '■  upon  "  when  preceding  the  supposed  musical  in- 
 struments, Gittith,  JNIachalath,  I>leginath,  Nechi- 
 16th,  Shiishan,  Shoshannim  (Ps.  viii.  1,  Ixxxi.  1, 
 Ixxxiv.  1,  liii.  1,  Ixxxviii.  1,  Ixi.  1,  v.  1,  Ix.  1,  xlv. 
 1,  Ixix.  1,  Ixxx.  1).  Indeed,  all  these  words  are 
 regarded  by  liiwald  {Poet.  Biicli.  i.  177)  as  mean- 
 ing musical  keys,  and  by  Fiirst  (s.  w.)  as  mean- 
 ing musical  bands.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of 
 the  projjosed  substitutes,  it  is  very  singular,  if  those 
 six  words  signify  musical  instruments,  that  not  one 
 of  them  should  be  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  whole 
 Bible.  E.  T. 
 
 SHI'HON  ("l"lW''tp,    i.    e.    Shion :    2ia)w; 
 
 [Alex,  ^eiav'-]  Scon).  A  town  of  Issacliar,  named 
 only  in  .lo.sh.  xix.  ]!).  It  occurs  lietween  Ila- 
 phraim  and  Anaharath.  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
 ( Onomast. )  mention  it  as  then  existing  "  near 
 Mount  Tabor."  The  only  name  at  all  resembling 
 it  at  present  in  that  neighborhood  is  the  Cliirbal 
 Schi'in  of  I)r  Scliulz  (Zimmermann's  Maj)  of  Gal- 
 ilee, 18G1)  li  mile  N.  \V.  of  Deburkh.  this  is 
 probably  the  [ilace  mentioned  by  Schwarz  (p.  IGG) 
 as  "  Sdiii  between  Duherkh  and  Jofii."''  The 
 identification  is,  however,  very  uncertain,  since 
 Sclii'in  appears  to  contain  the  Ain,  while  the  He- 
 brew name  does  not. 
 
 The  redundant  h  in  the  A.  V.  is  an  error  of  the 
 recent  editions.  In  that  of  1611  the  name  is 
 Shion.  G. 
 
 SHI'HOR  OF  EGYPT  {i2*^y^l2  '"i^H'^W  : 
 
 opia  AlyviTTov'.  Sil/or  yEf/ypti,  1  Chr.  xiii.  5)  is 
 spoken  of  as  one  limit  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in 
 David"s  time,  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  being  the 
 other.  It  nntst  correspond  to  "  Shihor,"  "the 
 Shihor  which  [is]  before  Egypt  "  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  .3), 
 A.  V.  "  Sihor,"  sometimes,  at  least,  a  name  of  the 
 Nile,  occurring  in  other  jwssages,  one  of  which 
 (where  it  has  the  article)  is  parallel  to  this.  The 
 use  of  the  article  indicates  that  the  word  is  or  has 
 been  an  appellative,  rather  the  former  if  we  judge 
 only  from  tlie  complete  phrase.  It  must  also  be 
 rememl  ered  that  Shihor  Mizraim  is  used  inter- 
 changeably with  Nahal  Mizraim,  and  that  the 
 name  SiiiHOii-l.iUNATii,  in  the  north  of  Palestine, 
 unless  derived  from  the  Egyptians  or  the  Phoeni- 
 cian colonists  of  Egypt,  as  we  are  disposed  to  think 
 possible,  from  the  connection  of  that  country  with 
 the  ancient  manufacture  of  glass,  shows  that  the 
 word  Shihor  is  not  restricted  to  a  great  river.  It 
 would  appear  therefore  that  Shihor  of  Egypt  and 
 "the  Shilior  which  [is]  before  Egypt"  might  des- 
 ignate the  stream  of  the  Wddi-PAreesh :  Shihor 
 atone  would  still  be  the  Nile.  On  the  other  hand, 
 both  Shihor,  and  even  Nahal,  alone,  are  names  of 
 the  Nile,  while  Nahal  Mizraim  is  used  interchange- 
 ably with  the  river  ("inS,  not  /HD)  of  I\Iizraim. 
 We  therefore  are  disposed  to  hold  that  all  the 
 names   designate   the   Nile.      The   fitness  of  the 
 
 SHIHOR-LIBNATH 
 
 name  Shihor  to  the  Nile  must    be  remembered. 
 [Nile;  River  of  Egypt;  Sihok.]     li.  S.  P. 
 
 *  It  is  difficult  to  adjust  all  the  Biblical  refer- 
 ences to  Shihor,  to  the  river  Nile.  In  Isaiah  xxiii. 
 3,  the  exports  of  Egypt,  especially  in  grain,  are 
 spoken  of  as  contributing  to  swell  the  conunerce  of 
 Tyre:  "By  great  waters  the  seed  of  Uliilior,  the 
 harvest  of  I'eor,  is  her  revenue."  This  must  refer 
 to  the  Nile  as  the  cause  of  the  fertility  of  Egypt. 
 Again,  in  Jeremiah  ii.  18,  where  the  Lord  is  expos- 
 tulating with  Israel  for  seeking  help  from  Egypt  and 
 Assyria,  the  Nile  is  evidently  referred  to  as  the 
 water  of  which  the  Eg3ptians  drink,  and  as  answer- 
 ing to  the  Euphrates:  "  What  hast  thou  to  do  in 
 the  way  of  Egypt,  to  drink  the  waters  of  Sliilior, 
 or  what  hast  thou  to  do  in  the  way  of  Assyria,  to 
 drink  the  waters  of  the  river?  " 
 
 But  the  meaning  is  less  clear  where  S/iihor  is 
 spoken  of  as  the  boundary  between  I'Jgypt  and  Ca- 
 naan. Just  before  his  death  Joshua  described  the 
 land  on  the  south  that  remained  to  be  possessed,  as 
 "  all  the  borders  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri, 
 from  Sihor  which  is  before  Eixypt  "  (Josh.  xiii.  3); 
 and  Uavid,  when  taking  the  ark  up  to  .lerusalem,  is 
 said  to  have  "  gathered  all  Israel  together,  from  Shi- 
 hur  of  Egypt  even  unto  the  entering  of  Hamath" 
 (1  Chr.  xiii.  5).  Joshua  may  have  had  in  view  the 
 breadth  of  dominion  promised  to  Abraham;  but 
 certainly  in  his  day  the  Egyptians  themselves  did 
 not  limit  their  territory  eastward  at  the  Nile;  and 
 there  is  no  evidence  that  the  kingdom  of  David  in 
 its  highest  prosperity,  ever  extended  literally  to  the 
 bank  of  the  Nile.  Hence,  if  the  description  in 
 these  passages  is  taken  with  geographical  accuracy, 
 the  Shihor  before  Knypt  must  denote  the  Wadi-l- 
 ^Areesh  ,-  but  if  taken  with  the  latitude  of  prophetic 
 or  poetic  description  it  may  also  denote  the  Nile, 
 and  so  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  jiassages 
 cited  above.  Only  in  this  way  can  the  name  be 
 relieved  of  its  apparent  ambiguity.  J .  P.  T. 
 
 SHI'HOR-LIB'NATH  (^2?^  '^)^n''W 
 [see  below]  :  raJ  'Xiwv  [Vat.  'Xfiaiv]  Kal  Aa^avdO; 
 Alex.  Sejojp  k-  A-  •  Sihor  et  Lahanafli ).  Named  only 
 in  Josh.  xix.  26  as  one  of  the  landmarks  of  the  boun- 
 dary of  Asher.  Nothing  is  known  of  it.  By  the 
 ancient  translators  and  commentators  (as  Peshito- 
 Syriac,  and  Eusebius  and  Jerome  in  the  Onomnslicon) 
 the  names  are  taken  as  belonging  to  two  distinct 
 places.  But  modern  commentators,  beginning  per- 
 haps with  Masius,have  inclined  to  consider  Shihor  as 
 identical  with  the  name  of  the  Nile,  and  Shihor-Lilv 
 nath  to  be  a  river.  Led  by  the  meaning  of  F^ibnath 
 as  "  white,"  they  interpret  the  Shihor-Lilvnath  as  the 
 glass  river,  which  they  then  naturally  identify  with 
 the  Belus«of  Pliny  (//.  N.  v.  1!J),  the  present 
 Nrihr  Naman,  which  drains  part  of  the  plain  of 
 Akkn,  and  enters  the  IMediterranean  a  short  dis- 
 tance below  that  city.  It  is  a  pity  to  disturb  a 
 theory  at  once  so  ingenious  and  so  consistent,  and 
 supported  by  the  great  name  of  Michaelis  (Siippl. 
 No.  2402),  but  it  is  sin-ely  very  far-fetched.  There 
 is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Shihor-Libnath  is  a 
 stream  at  all,  except  the  agreement  of  the  first  por- 
 tion of  the  name  with  a  rare  word  used  for  the 
 Nile  —  a  river  which  can  have  nothing  in  common  • 
 with  an  insignificant  streamlet  like  the  Nanian. 
 And  even  if  it  be  a  river,  the  position  of  the  Na- 
 
 a  It  is  singular,  too,  that  Jos(!phus  should  state 
 that  there  was  a  monument  of  Memnon  stamiing close 
 to  the  Belus  (£.  J.  ii.  10,  §  2). 
 
SHILHI 
 
 man  is  unsuitable,  since,  as  far  as  can  be  gatherefl 
 from  the  very  obscure  list  in  which  the  name  oc- 
 curs, Shihor-Libnath  was  the  south  pivot  of  the 
 territory  of  Asher,  below  Mount  Carmel.  Kelaiifl's 
 conjecture  of  the  Crocodeilon  river,  probalily  the 
 Moie.li  et-Temseh,  close  to  Kaisniiyeh,  is  too  far 
 south.  G. 
 
 SHIL'HI  C^nbtj;  [perh.  aiiMfl]  :  •S.aKcC'i, 
 2a\i;  [Vat.  26(U6ei,  2aA64;]  Alex.  2aAaA.a,  2o- 
 A.€i:  Snlni,  Sela/d).  The  father  of  Azubah,  .le- 
 hoshaphat's  mother  (I  K.  xxii.  42;  2  Chr.  xx.  31). 
 
 SHIL'HIM  (Q'^nbu:?  [m-med  men,  Ges.; 
 fountain.'!,  Fiirst] :  2aAi7;  Alex.  2eA6€i/t:  Selim). 
 One  of  the  cities  in  the  southern  portion  of  the 
 tribe  of  Judah.  Its  place  in  the  list  is  between 
 Lebaoth  and  Ain,  or  Ain-Rimmon  (.losh.  xv.  32), 
 and  it  is  not  elsewhere  mentioned.  It  is  not  even 
 named  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  No  trace  of  it 
 has  yet  been  discovered.  In  the  list  of  Simeon's 
 cities  in  Josh,  xix.,  Siiaruhen  (ver.  6)  occupies 
 the  place  of  Shilhim,  and  in  1  Clir.  iv.  31  this  is 
 still  further  changed  to  SHAAK.vut.  It  is  difficult 
 to  say  if  these  are  mere  corruptions,  or  denote  any 
 actual  variations  of  name. 
 
 The  juxtaposition  of  Shilhim  and  Ain  has  led  to 
 the  conjecture  that  they  are  identical  with  the  Sa- 
 lim  and  ^non  of  St.  John  the  Baptist:  but  their 
 position  in  the  south  of  Judah,  so  remote  from  the 
 scene  of  St.  John's  labors  and  the  other  events  of 
 the  Gospel  history,  seems  to  forbid  this.  G. 
 
 SHIL'LEM  (nbtZ;  [■requUal] :  2oAA'^m>  2eA- 
 Ati^u  [Vat.  -Arj] ;  Alex.  2!^AAr;^  in  Gen. :  Siillt-m, 
 Sellem).  Son  of  Naphtali,  and  ancestor  of  the 
 family  of  the  Shilleniites  (Gen.  xlvi.  24;  Num. 
 xxvi.  49).     The  same  as  Siialluji  7. 
 
 SHIL'LEMITES,  THE  (^sbtt^n  [patr., 
 as  above] :  6  ^eWri/xi  [Vat.  -fxei]  ■  Sellemitce).  The 
 descendants  of  Shillem  the  son  of  Xaphtali  (Num. 
 xxvi.  49). 
 
 SHILO'AH,    THE    WATERS  OF  {'''D 
 
 n^Wn   [sending  forth]:  rb  CSwp  toD  26iAcoa/x; 
 
 Alex.   2iAa>a^  :   Saad.    ^' jXjm    i^a£,     Ain 
 
 Selwdn  :  aqiice  Siloe).  A  certain  soft-flowing 
 stream  employed  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  (viii.  6)  to 
 point  his  comparison  between  the  quiet  confidence 
 in  .Jehovah  which  he  was  urging  on  the  people,  and 
 the  overwhelming  violence  of  the  king  of  Assyria, 
 for  whose  alliance  they  were  clamoring. 
 
 There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  waters  in 
 question  were  the  same  which  are  better  known 
 under  their  later  name  of  Siloa.m  —  the  only  per- 
 ennial spring  of  Jerusalem.  Objection  has  been 
 taken  to  the  fact  that  the  "  waters  of  Siloam  "  run 
 with  an  irregular  intermittent  action,  and  therefore 
 could  hardly  be  aiipealed  to  as  flowing  "  softly." 
 But  the  testimony  of  careful  investigators  (Rob.  Bibl. 
 lies.  i.  341,  342;  Barclay,  City,  p.  516)  establishes 
 the  fact  that  the  disturbance  only  takes  place,  at  the 
 »ftenest,  two  or  tin-ee  times  a  day,  say  three  to  four 
 hours  out  of  the  twenty-four,  the  flow  being  "  per- 
 fectly quiescent  "  during  the  rest  of  the  time.  In 
 summer  the  disturbance  only  occurs  once  in  two  or 
 three  days.     Such  interruptions  to  the  quiet  flow 
 
 o  The  Targum  Jonathan,  Peshito,  and  Arabic  Ver- 
 sions of  1  K.  i.  33,  read  Shiloah  for  the  Gihon  of  the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 SHILOH  2997 
 
 of  the  stream  would  therefore  not  interfere  with  the 
 contrast  enforced  in  the  prophet's  metaphor. 
 
 The  form  of  the  name  employed  l>y  Isaiah  is 
 midway  between  the  hus-S/iflnch  of  Nehemiah  (A. 
 V.  Siloah)  and  the  Siloam  of  the  N.  T.  A  sim- 
 ilar change  is  noticed  under  Shiloni. 
 
 The  spring  and  pool  of  Siloam  are  treated  of 
 under  that  head.  G. 
 
 SHI'LOH  (n  7  Ip '.  TO  aTTOKei/meva  aur^' 
 qui  miltendus  est).  In  the  A.  V.  of  the  Bible,  Shi- 
 loh  is  once  used  as  the  name  of  a  person,  in  a  very 
 difficult  passage,  in  the  10th  verse  of  the  49th  chap- 
 ter of  Genesis.  Supposing  that  the  translation  is 
 correct,  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  Peaceable,  oi 
 Pacific,  and  the  allusion  is  either  to  Solomon,  whose 
 name  has  a  similar  signification,  or  to  the  expected 
 Messiah,  who  in  Is.  ix.  6  is  expressly  called  the 
 Prince  of  Peace.  This  was  once  the  translation  of 
 Gesenius,  though  he  afterwards  saw  reason  to  aban- 
 don it  (see  his  Lexicon,  s.  v.),  and  it  is  at  present 
 the  translation  of  Ilengstenlierg  in  his  CliristoUtijie 
 des  Alten  Tistaments,  p.  09,  and  of  the  Grand 
 Rabbin  Wogue,  in  his  Translation  of  Genesis,  a 
 work  which  is  approved  and  recommended  by  the 
 Grand  Rabbins  of  France  (Le  Pentnteuque,  ou  les 
 Cinq  Li r res  de  Hfoise,  Paris,  1800).  Both  these 
 writers  regard  the  passage  as  a  IMessianic  prophecy, 
 and  it  is  so  accepted  by  the  writer  of  the  article 
 Mk.ssiah  in  this  work  (vol.  iii.  p.  1906  j. 
 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  original  Hebrew 
 text  is  correct  as  it  stands,  there  are  three  oljec- 
 tions  to  this  translation,  which,  taken  collectively, 
 seem  fatal  to  it.  1st.  The  word  Shiloh  occurs  no- 
 where else  in  Hebrew  as  the  name  or  appellation  of 
 a  person.  2dly.  The  only  other  Hebrew  word, 
 apparently,  of  the  same  form,  is  Giloh  (Josh.  xv. 
 51;  2  Sam.  xv.  12);  and  this  is  the  name  of  a  city, 
 and  not  of  a  person.  3dly.  By  translating  the 
 word  as  it  is  translated  everywhere  else  in  the  Bible, 
 namely,  as  the  name  of  the  city  in  Ephraim  where 
 the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  remained  during  such  a 
 long  period,  a  sufficiently  good  meaning  is  given  to 
 the  passage  without  any  violence  to  the  Hebrew- 
 language,  and,  indeed,  with  a  precise  grammat- 
 ical parallel  elsewhere  (compare  H  VtI7  N!^''^,  1 
 
 Sara.  iv.  12).  The  simple  translation  is,  •'  The 
 sceptre  shall  not  dep.art  from  Judah,  nor  the  ruler's 
 staff"  from  between  his  feet,  till  he  shall  go  to  Shi- 
 loh." And,  in  this  case,  the  allusion  would  be  to 
 the  primacy  of  Judah  in  war  (Judg.  i.  1,  2,  xx.  18; 
 Num.  ii.  3,  x.  14),  which  was  to  continue  until  the 
 Promised  Land  was  conquered,  and  the  Ark  of  the 
 Covenant  was  solemnly  deposited  at  Shiloh.  Some 
 Jewish  writers  had  previously  maintained  that  Shi- 
 loh, the  city  of  Ephraim,  was  referred  to  in  tiiis 
 passage,;  and  Servetus  had  propounded  the  same 
 o|)inion  in  a  fanciful  dissertation,  in  which  he  at- 
 tributed a  double  meaning  to  the  words  [De  Trin- 
 iliite,  lib.  ii.  [>.  61,  ed.  of  1553  a.  n.).  But  the 
 above  translation  and  explanation,  as  proposed  and 
 defended  on  critical  grounds  of  reasonaI)le  validity, 
 was  first  suggested  in  modern  days  by  Teller  (Notce 
 Crilicce  et  Exefjeticce  in  Gen.  xlix..  Dent.,  xxxiii., 
 Ex.  XV.,  Judy,  v.,  H.alse  et  Helmstadii,  1701!),  and 
 it  has  since,  with  modifications,  found  favor  with 
 numerous  learned  men  belonging  to  various  schools 
 of  theology,  such  as  Eichhorn,  Hitzig,  Tuoh,  Bleek, 
 Iwald,  Uelitzsch,  Riidiger,  Kalisch,  Luzzatto,  and 
 Davidson. 
 
 The  objections  to  this  interpretation  are  set  fortb 
 
2998 
 
 SHILOH 
 
 at  length  by  Hengstenberg  {I.  c. ),  and  the  reasons 
 in  its  favor,  with  an  account  of  the  various  inter- 
 pretations which  have  l)een  suggested  by  others,  are 
 well  giver,  by  Davidson  {Introduction  to  the  Old 
 Testament,  i.  199-210).  Supposing  always  that 
 the  existing  text  is  correct,  tlie  reasons  in  favor  of 
 Teller's  interpretation  seem  much  to  preponderate. 
 It  may  be  observed  that  the  main  obstacle  to  inter- 
 preting the  word  Sliiloh  in  its  simple  and  obvious 
 meaning  seems  to  arise  from  an  imaginative  view 
 of  the  prophecy  respecting  the  Twelve  Tribes,  which 
 finds  in  it  more  than  is  justified  by  a  sober  exami- 
 nation of  it.  Thus  Hengstenberg  says:  "The  tem- 
 poral liujit  which  is  here  placed  to  the  preeminence 
 of  Judah  would  be  in  glaring  contradiction  to 
 verses  8  and  9,  in  which  Judah,  without  any  tem- 
 poral limitation,  is  raised  to  be  the  Lion  of  God." 
 But  the  allusion  to  a  lion  is  simply  the  following: 
 "  Judah  is  a  lion's  whelp :  from  the  prey,  my  son, 
 thou  art  gone  up:  he  stooped  down,  he  couched  as 
 a  lion,  and  as  an  old  lion;  who  shall  rouse  him 
 up?  "  Now,  bearing  in  mind  the  general  coloring 
 of  oriental  imagery,  there  is  nothing  in  this  pas- 
 sage which  makes  a  reference  to  the  city  Shiloh 
 improbable.  Again,  Hengstenberg  says  that  the 
 visions  of  Jacob  never  go  into  what  is  special,  but 
 always  have  regard  to  the  future  as  a  whole  and  on 
 a  great  scale  (/"*  ganzen  und  c/rosscn).  If  this  is 
 so,  it  is  nevertheless  compatible  with  the  following 
 geographical  statement  respecting  Zebulun :  "  Zeb- 
 ulun  shall  dwell  at  the  haven  of  the  sea,  and  he 
 shall  be  for  an  haven  of  ships,  and  his  liorder  shall 
 be  unto  Zidon."  It  is  likewise  compatible  with 
 prophecies  respecting  some  of  the  other  tribes, 
 which,  to  any  one  who  examined  Jacob's  blessing 
 minutely  with  lofty  exjiectations  would  be  disap- 
 pointing. Thus  of  Benjamin,  within  whose  terri- 
 tory the  glorious  Temple  of  Solomon  was  afterwards 
 built,  it  is  merely  said,  "  Benjamin  shall  ravin  as  a 
 wolf;  in  the  morning  he  shall  devour  the  prey,  and 
 at  night  he  shall  divide  the  spoil."  Of  Gad  it  is 
 said,  "  A  troop  shall  overcome  him,  but  he  shall 
 overcome  at  the  last."  Of  Asher,  "Out  of  Asher 
 his  bread  shall  be  fat,  and  he  shall  yield  royal 
 dainties."  And  of  Naphtali,  "  Naphtali  is  a  hind 
 let  loose;  he  giveth  goodly  words  "  (Gen.  xUx.  19, 
 20,  21,  27).  Indeed  the  difference  (except  in  the 
 blessing  of  Joseph,  in  whose  territory  Shiloh  was 
 situated)  between  the  realitj'of  the  prophecies  and 
 the  demands  of  an  imaginative  mind,  explains,  per- 
 haps, the  strange  statement  of  St.  Lsidore  of  Pelu- 
 sium,  quoted  by  Teller,  that,  when  Jacob  was  about 
 to  announce  to  his  sons  the  future  mystery  of  the 
 Incarnation,  he  was  restrained  by  the  finger  of 
 God;  silence  was  enjoined  him:  and  he  was  seized 
 with  loss  of  memory.  See  the  letter  of  St.  Isidore,. 
 Lib.  i.  Epist.  365,  in  Bibliothtca  Maxima  Patfum, 
 vii.  570. 
 
 2.  The  next  liest  translation  of  Shiloh  is  per- 
 haps that  of  "  Rest."  The  passage  would  then  run 
 thus:  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah 
 ....  till  rest  come,  and  the  nations  obey  him  " 
 —  and  the  reference  would  be  to  the  jNIessiah,  who 
 was  to  spring  from  the  tribe  of  Judah.  This 
 translation  deserves  respectful  consideration,  as 
 having  been  ultimately  adopted  by  Gesenius.     It 
 
 SHILOH 
 
 w.as  preferred  by  Vater,  and  is  defended  by  Knobel 
 in  the  Exegttisches  JIandOvch,  Gen.  xlix.  10.  There 
 is  one  objection  less  to  it  than  to  the  use  of  Shiloh 
 as  a  person,  and  it  is  not  without  some  probability. 
 Still  it  remains  subject  to  the  objection  that  Shiloh 
 occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible  except  as  the  name 
 of  a  city,  and  that  by  translating  the  word  here  as 
 the  name  of  a  city  a  reasonably  good  meaning  may 
 be  given  to  the  passage. 
 
 3.  A  third  explanation  of  Shiloh,  on  the  as- 
 sumption that  it  is  not  tbe  name  of  a  person,  is  a 
 translation  by  various  learned  Jews,  apparently 
 countenanced  by  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  that 
 Sliiloh  merely  means  "  his  son,"  i.  e.  the  son  of 
 Judah  (in  the  sense  of  the  Messiah),  from  a  sup- 
 posed word  Sliil,  "  a  son."  There  is,  however,  no 
 such  word  in  known  Hebrew,  and  as  a  plea  for  its 
 possible  existence  reference  is  made  to  an  Arabic 
 word,  shalil,  with  the  same  signification.  This 
 meaning  of  "  his  son  "  owes,  perhaps,  its  principal 
 interest  to  its  having  been  substantially  adopted  by 
 two  such  theologians  as  Luther  and  Calvin.  (See 
 the  Commentaries  of  each  on  Gen.  xlix.  10.)  Lu- 
 ther connected  the  word  with  Schilyah  in  Ueut. 
 xxviii.  57,  but  this  would  not  now  be  deemed  per- 
 missible. 
 
 The  translation,  then,  of  Shiloh  as  the  name  of 
 a  city  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  soundest,  if  the  pres- 
 ent Hebrew  text  is  correct.  It  is  proper,  however, 
 to  bear  in  mind  the  possibility  of  there  being  some 
 error  in  that  text.  When  Jerome  translated  the 
 word  "qui  missus  est,"  we  may  be  certain  that  he 
 did    not   read  it  as   Shiloh,  but  as  some  form  of 
 
 n  Vtt7,  "  to  send,"  as  if  the  word  d  awtaTaK- 
 /xeuos  might  have  been  used  in  Greek.  We  may 
 likewise  be  certain  that  the  translator  in  the  Sep- 
 tuagint  did  not  read  the  word  as  it  stands  in  our 
 
 Bibles.     He  read  it  as  H  7ti7=  "'vti',  precisely 
 
 corresponding  to  17  "Iti'W,  and  translated  it  well 
 by  the  phrase  ra  a.TroKeifx€i/a  avTw'-,  so  that  the 
 meaning  would  be,  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart 
 from  Judah  ....  till  the  things  reserved  for  him 
 come."  It  is  most  probable  that  Ezekiel  read  the 
 word  in  the  same  way  when  he  wrote  the  words 
 
 tSDH^^Tan  Sb-1^'>Ji  N2-127  (Ez.  xxi.  32,  in 
 the  A.  V.  verse  27);  and  it  seems  likely,  though 
 not  certain,  that  the  author  «  of  the  Paraphrase  of 
 Jacob's  last  words  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  fol- 
 lowed the  reading  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Septuagint, 
 
 substituting  the  word  SH^Dbtt  for  the  12512?'^ 
 °  T         :   -  T  :    • 
 
 of  Ezekiel.     It  is  not  meant  by  these  remarks  that 
 
 n  7Ci7  is  more  likely  to  have  been    correct  than 
 
 Shiloh,  though  one  main  argument  against  H  VtZ7, 
 
 that  W  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch  as 
 
 an  equivalent  to  ^ti7S,  is  inconclusive,  >as  it  occurs 
 in  the  song  of  Deborah,  which,  on  any  hypothesis, 
 must  be  regarded  as  a  poem  of  great  antiquity. 
 But  the  fact  that  there  were  different  readings,  in 
 former  times,  of  this  very  difficult  passage,  necessa- 
 rily tends  to  suggest  the  possibility  that  the  correct 
 reading  may  have  been  lost. 
 
 «  This  writer,  however,  was  so  fenciful,  that  no  re- 
 Jiance  can  be  placed  on  his  judgment  on  any  point 
 where  it  was  possible  for  him  to  go  wrong.  Thus 
 his  paraphrase  of  the  prophecy  respecting  Benjamin 
 U  :  "  The  shechinah  shall  abide  in  the  land  of  Benja- 
 
 min ;  and  in  his  possession  a  sanctuary  shall  be  built. 
 Morning  and  evening  the  priests  shall  f  fler  oblations  ; 
 and  in  the  evening  they  shall  divide  th(!  residue  ol 
 their  portion." 
 
SHILOH 
 
 Whatever  interpretation  of  the  present  reading 
 may  be  adopted,  the  one  which  must  be  pronounced 
 entitled  to  the  least  consideration  is  that  which 
 supposes  the  prophecy  relates  to  the  birth  of  Christ 
 as  occurring  in  the  reign  of  Herod  just  before  Ju- 
 dsea  became  a  Roman  province.  There  is  no  such 
 interpretation  in  the  Bible,  and  however  ancient 
 this  mode  of  regarding  the  passage  may  be,  it  nnist 
 submit  to  the  ordeal  of  a  dispassionate  scrutiny. 
 In  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible  reasonably  to  re- 
 gard the  dependent  rule  of  King  Herod  tiie  Idu- 
 nia-an  as  an  instance  of  the  sceptre  being  still  borne 
 by  Judah.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  precise  posi- 
 tion of  Herod,  it  may  be  enough  to  quote  the  un- 
 suspicious testimony  of  Jerome,  who,  in  his  Com- 
 mentaries on  Matthew,  lib.  iii.  c.  22,  writes  as 
 follows:  '' Cassar  Augustus  Herodem  filium  Anti- 
 patris  alienigenam  et  proselytum  regem  Juda;is  con- 
 stituerat,  qui  iribulU  jnxeessel,  et  Rumnno  pareret 
 iinperio."  Secondly,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
 about  588  years  before  Christ,  Jerusalem  had  been 
 taken,  its  Temple  destroyed,  and  its  inhabitants 
 led  away  into  Captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
 of  the  Chaldees,  and  during  the  next  fifty  years  the 
 Jews  were  subjects  of  the  Cliaktean  Empire.  After- 
 wards, duiing  a  period  of  somewhat  above  200 
 years,  from  the  taking  of  iJabylon  by  Cyrus  to  the 
 defeat  of  Darius  by  Alexander  the  Great  at  Arbela, 
 Judaea  was  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire.  Sub- 
 sequently, during  a  period  of  16-3  years,  from  the 
 death  of  Alexander  to  the  rising  of  the  Maccabees, 
 the  Jews  were  ruled  by  the  successors  of  Alexander. 
 Hence  lor  a  period  of  more  than  400  jears  from 
 the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
 the  Jews  were  deprived  of  their  independence;  and, 
 as  a  plain,  undeniable  matter  of  fact,  the  sceptre 
 had  already  departed  from  Judah.  Without  pur- 
 suing this  subject  forther  through  the  rule  of  the 
 Maccabees  (a  family  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  not 
 of  the  tribe  of  Judah)  down  to  the  capture  of 
 Jerusalem  and  the  conquest  of  Palestine  by  Poni- 
 pey  (15.  c.  03),  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  a 
 supposed  fulfillment  of  a  prophecy  which  ignores 
 the  dependent  state  of  Juda;a  during  400  years 
 after  the  destruction  of  the  first  Temple,  cannot  be 
 regarded  as  based  upon  sound  principles  of  inter- 
 pretation. E.  T. 
 
 SHI'LOH,  as  the  name  of  a  jjlace,  stands  in 
 
 Hebrew  as  H'bty   (Josh,  xviii.   1-10),  '"^^l*'    (1 
 
 Sam.  i.  24,  iii.  21;  Judg.  xxi.  19),  H'b'^tt?  (1  K. 
 
 ii.  27), '"lVtt7  (Judg.  xxi.  21;   Jer.  vii.   12),  and 
 
 perhaps  also  ^"lv^ti7,  whence  the  gentile  "^3  ^^W 
 
 (1  K.  xi.  29,  xii.  15):  in  the  LXX.  generally  as 
 SrjAuJ,  SrjAoi^u;  in  Judg.  xxi.  Yat.  StjAcoj';  in  Jer. 
 xli.  5  SaArj^,  Alex.  2aAco/x;  in  Joseph.  Aiit.  viii. 
 7,  §  7;  11,  §  1,  etc.  SiAco;  v.  1,  §  19;  2,  §  9, 
 'S.iKovvi  2,  §  12,  2r)Ac<):  and  in  the  Vulg.  as  Silo, 
 and  more  rarely  Sclu.  The  name  was  derived  prob- 
 ably from  rivty,  "l/li?,  "to  rest,"  and  repre- 
 sented the  idea  that  the  nation  attained  at  this 
 place  to  a  state  of  rest,  or  that  the  Lord  himself 
 would  here  rest  among  his  people.  Taanath- 
 SiiiLOii  may  be  another  name  of  the  same  place, 
 or  of  a  different  place  near  it,  through  which  it  was 
 customary  to  pass  on  the  way  to  Shiloh  (as  the 
 obscure  etymology  may  indicate).  [Taanath- 
 SiiiLoii.]  (See  also  Kurtz's  Gesch.  des  A.  Bund. 
 ii.  569.) 
 
 SHILOH  2999 
 
 The  principal  conditions  for  identifying  with, 
 confidence  the  site  of  a  place  mentioned  in  the 
 Bible,  are:  (1)  that  the  modern  name  should  beai 
 a  proper  resemblance  to  the  ancient  one;  (2)  that 
 its  situation  accord  with  the  geographical  notices 
 of  the  Scriptures:  and  (3)  that  the  statements  of 
 early  writers  and  travellers  point  to  a  coincident 
 conclusion.  Shiloh  affords  a  striking  instance  of 
 the  combination  of  these  testimonies.  The  de- 
 scription in  Judg.  xxi.  19  is  singularly  expUcit. 
 Shiloh.  it  is  said  there,  is  "  on  the  north  side  of 
 Beth-el,  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway  that  goeth 
 up  from  Beth-el  to  Shechem,  and  on  the  south  of 
 Lebonah.''  In  agreement  with  this  the  traveller 
 at  the  present  day  (the  writer  quotes  here  his  own 
 note-book),  going  north  from  Jerusalem,  lodges  the 
 first  night  at  Beitin,  the  ancient  Beth-el;  the  next 
 day,  at  the  distance  of  a  few  hours,  turns  aside  to 
 the  right,  jn  order  to  visit  Seib'tn,  the  Arabic  for 
 Shiloh ;  and  then  passing  through  the  n'arrow 
 Wady,  which  brings  him  to  the  main  road,  leaves 
 el-Lcbbdn,  the  Lebonah  of  Scripture,  on  the  left 
 as  he  pursues  "the  highway"  to  Ndblus,  the  an- 
 cient Shechem.  [Shkchkm.]  It  was  by  search- 
 ing for  these  sites,  under  guidance  of  the  clew  thus 
 given  in  Scripture  that  Dr.  liobinson  rediscovered 
 two  of  them  (Shiloh  and  Lebonah)  in  1835.  Its 
 present  name  is  sufficiently  like  the  more  familiar 
 Hebrew  name,  while  it  is  identical  with  Shilon 
 (see  above),  on  which  it  is  evidently  founded. 
 Again,  Jerome  {nd  Zejih.  i.  14),  and  Eusebius 
 {Oimmust.  art.  "Silo")  certainly  have  Stilun  in 
 view  when  they  speak  of  the  situation  of  Shiloh 
 with  reference  to  Neapolis  or  Ndblus.  It  discovers 
 a  strange  oversight  of  the  data  which  control  the 
 question,  that  some  of  the  older  travellers  placed 
 Shiloh  at  N'eby  SamwU,  about  two  hours  north- 
 west of  Jerusalem. 
 
 Shiloh  was  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  sacred 
 of  the  Hebrew  sanctuaries.  The  ark  of  the  cove- 
 nant, which  had  been  kept  at  Gilgal  during  the 
 progress  of  the  Conquest  (Josh,  xviii.  1  f.),  was  re- 
 moved thence  on  the  subjugation  of  the  country, 
 and  kept  at  Shiloh  from  the  last  days  of  Joshua  to 
 tlie  time  of  Samuel  (Josh,  xviii.  10;  Judg.  xviii. 
 31;  1  Sam.  iv.  3).  It  was  here  the  Hebrew  con- 
 queror divided  among  the  tribes  the  portion  of  the 
 west  Jordan-region,  which  had  not  been  already 
 allotted  (Josh,  xviii.  10,  six.  51).  In  this  distri- 
 Inition,  or  an  earlier  one,  Shiloh  fell  within  the 
 limits  of  P'.phraim  (Josh.  xvi.  5).  After  the  vic- 
 tory of  the  other  tribes  over  Benjamin,  the  national 
 camp,  which  appears  to  have  been  temporarily  at 
 Betliel,  was  transferred  again  to  Shiloh  (Judg.  xxi. 
 12).  [House  of  God,  Amer.  ed.]  The  notice 
 in  that  connection  that  Shiloh  was  in  Canaan 
 marks  its  situation  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  as 
 opposed  to  Jabesh-Gilead  on  the  east  side  (Ber- 
 theau,  Keil,  Cassel).  The  seizure  here  of  the 
 "  daughters  of  Shiloh  "  by  the  Benjamites  is  re- 
 corded as  an  event  which  preserved  one  of  the 
 tribes  from  extinction  (Judg.  xxi.  19-23).  The 
 annual  "feast  of  the  Lord"  was  observed  at  Shi- 
 loh, and  on  one  of  these  occasions,  the  men  lay  in 
 wait  in  the  vineyards,  and  when  the  women  went 
 forth  "  to  dance  in  dances,"  the  men  took  them 
 captive  and  carried  them  home  as  wives.  Here 
 Eli  judged  Israel,  and  at  last  died  of  grief  on  hear- 
 ing that  the  ark  of  the  Lord  was  taken  l)y  the  en- 
 emy (1  Sam.  iv.  12-18).  The  story  of  Hannah 
 and  her  vow,  which  belongs  to  our  recollections  ot 
 Shiloh,  transmits  to  us  a  characteristic  incident  in 
 
JOOO 
 
 SHILOH 
 
 the  life  of  the  Hebrews  (1  Sam.  i.  1,  etc.).  Sam- 
 uel, the  child  of  her  prayers  and  hopes,  was  here 
 brought  up  in  the  sanctuar}-,  and  called  to  the  pro- 
 phetic office  (1  Sam.  ii.  2(j,  iii.  1).  The  ungodly 
 conduct  of  the  sons  of  Kli  occasioned  the  loss  of  the 
 ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had  been  carried  into 
 battle  against  the  Philistines,  and  Shiluh  from 
 that  time  sank  into  insignificance.  It  stands  forth 
 in  the  Jewish  history  as  a  striking  example  of  the 
 Divine  indignation.  "Go  ye  now,"  says  the 
 prophet,  "  unto  my  place  which  was  in  Shiloh, 
 where  I  set  my  name  at  the  first,  and  see  what  I 
 did  to  it,  ibr  the  wickedness  of  my  people  Israel " 
 (Jer.  vii.  V2).  Not  a  single  Jewish  relic  remains 
 there  at  the  present  day.  A  few  broken  Corin- 
 thian columns  of  the  Roman  age  are  the  only  an- 
 tiquities now  to  be  found  on  the  site  of  Shiloh. 
 
 Some  have  inferred  from  Judg.  sviii.  31  (comp. 
 Ps.  Ixxviii.  60  f.)  that  a  permanent  structure  or 
 temple  had  been  built  for  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh, 
 and  that  it  continued  there  (as  it  were  sine  tiumine) 
 for  a  long  time  after  the  Tabernacle  was  removed  to 
 other  places."  But  the  language  in  2  Sam.  vii.  fj 
 is  too  explicit  to  admit  of  that  conclusion.  God 
 says  there  to  David  through  the  mouth  of  Nathan 
 the  prophet,  "  I  have  not  dwelt  in  any  house  since 
 the  time  that  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel 
 out  of  Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but  have  walked  in 
 a  tent  and  in  a  tabernacle."  So  in  1  K.  iii.  2,  it 
 is  said  expressly  that  no  "house"  had  been  built 
 for  the  worship  of  God  till  the  erection  of  Solo- 
 mon's Temjjle  at  Jerusalem.  It  must  be  in  a  spir- 
 itual sense,  therefore,  that  the  Tabernacle  is  called 
 a  "  bouse  "  or  "temple  "  in  those  passages  which 
 refer  to  Shiloh.  God  is  said  to  dwell  where  He  is 
 pleased  to  manifest  his  presence  or  is  worshipped ; 
 and  the  place  thus  honored  becomes  his  abode  or 
 temple,  whether  it  be  a  tent  or  a  structure  of  wood 
 or  stone,  or  even  the  sanctuary  of  the  heart  alone. 
 Ahijah  the  projihet  had  his  abode  at  Shiloh  in  the 
 time  of  Jeroboam  I.,  and  was  ^•isited  there  liy  the 
 messengers  of  .Jeroboam's  wife  to  ascertain  the  is- 
 sue of  the  sickness  of  their  child  (1  K.  xi.  29,  xii. 
 15,  xiv.  1,  etc.).  The  people  there  after  the  time 
 of  the  exile  (.ler.  xli.  .5)  appear  to  have  been  Cuth- 
 ites  (2  K.  xvii.  30)  who  had  adopted  some  of  the 
 forms  of  Jewish  worship.  (See  Hitzig,  Zii  Jcrcm. 
 p.  331.)  Jerome,  who  surveyed  the  ruins  in  the 
 4th  century,  says :  "  Vix  ruinarum  parva  vestigia, 
 vix  altaris  fundamenta  monstrantur." 
 
 The  contour  of  the  region,  as  the  traveller  views 
 it  on  the  ground,  indicates  very  clearly  wiiere  the 
 ancient  town  must  have  stood.  A  Tell,  or  moder- 
 ate hill,  rises  from  an  uneven  plain,  surrounded  by 
 other  higher  hills,  except  a  narrow  valley  on  the 
 south,  which  hill  would  naturally  be  chosen  as  the 
 principal  site  of  the  town.  The  Tabernacle  may 
 have  been  pitched  on  this  eminence,  where  it  would 
 be  a  conspicuous  object  on  every  side.  The  ruins 
 found  there  at  present  are  very  inconsiderable. 
 They  consist  chiefly  of  the  remains  of  a  compara- 
 tively modern  village,  with  which  some  large  stones 
 and  fragments  of  columns  are  intermixed,  evidently 
 
 n  *  The  A.  V.  speaks  of"  the  temple  of  the  Lord  " 
 at  Shiloh,  in  I  Sam.  i.  9,  but  erroneously,  for  accord- 
 ing to  the  Hebrew  it  should  be  "  palace  of  the  Lord." 
 
 That  term  (v^^^n)  was  applied  to  the  "  tabernacle  " 
 4S  well  as  the  "  temple."  The  Vulg.  has  in  like  man- 
 Qer,  templum  dotrini.  II. 
 
 b  This  is  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Robinson.     Dr 
 
 SHILOH 
 
 from  much  earlier  times.  Near  a  ruined  mosque 
 flourishes  an  immense  oak.  or  terebintli-tree,  the 
 branches  of  which  the  winds  of  centuries  have 
 swayed.  Just  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  hill 
 stands  a  dilapidated  edifice,  which  combines  some 
 of  the  architectural  properties  of  a  fortress  and  a 
 church.  Three  columns  with  Corinthian  capitals 
 ie  prostrate  on  tlie  floor.  An  amphora  between 
 two  chaplets,  perhaps  a  work  of  Itoman  sculpture, 
 adorns  a  stone  over  the  doorway.  The  natives  call 
 this  ruin  the  "  Mosque  of  »S'ej7«7!."6  At  the  dis- 
 tance of  about  fifteen  minutes  from  the  main  site 
 is  a  fountain,  which  is  approached  through  a 
 narrow  dale.  Its  water  is  abundant,  and  accord- 
 ing to  a  practice  very  connnon  in  the  East,  flows 
 first  into  a  pool  or  well,  and  thence  into  a  larger 
 reservoir,  from  which  flocks  and  herds  are  watered. 
 This  fountain,  which  would  be  so  natural  a  resort 
 for  a  festal  party,  may  have  been  the  place  where 
 the  "daughters  of  Shiloh"  were  dancing,  when 
 they  were  surprised  and  borne  off  by  their  cap- 
 tors. In  this  vicinity  are  rock-hewn  sepulchres, 
 in  which  the  bodies  of  some  of  the  unfortunate 
 house  of  Eli  may  have  been  laid  to  rest.  There 
 was  a  Jewish  tradition  (Asher's  BcnJ.  of  Ttul.  ii. 
 43.5)  that  Eli  and  his  sons  were  buried  here.<^ 
 
 It  is  certainly  true,  as  some  travellers  remark, 
 that  the  scenery  of  Shiloh  is  not  specially  attract- 
 ive; it  presents  no  feature  of  grandeur  or  beauty 
 adapted  to  impress  the  mind  and  awaken  thoughts 
 in  harmony  with  the  memories  of  the  place.  At 
 the  same  time,  it  deserves  to  be  mentioned  that, 
 for  the  olijects  to  which  Shiloh  was  devoted,  it  was 
 not  unwisely  chosen.  It  was  secluded,  and  there- 
 fore favorable  to  acts  of  worship  and  religious  study, 
 in  wliich  the  youth  of  scholars  and  devotees,  like 
 Samuel,  was  to  be  spent.  Yearly  festivals  were  cel- 
 ebrated there,  and  brought  together  assemblages 
 which  would  need  the  supplies  of  water  and  pastur- 
 age so  easily  obtained  in  such  a  place.  Terraces 
 are  still  visible  on  the  sides  of  the  rocky  hills,  which 
 show  that  every  foot  and  inch  of  the  soil  once 
 teemed  with  verdure  and  fertility.  The  ceremonies 
 of  such  occasions  consisted  largely  of  processions 
 and  dances,  and  the  place  aflibrded  ample  scope  for 
 such  movements.  The  surrounding  hills  served  as 
 an  amphitheatre,  whence  the  spectators  could  look, 
 and  have  the  entire  scene  under  their  eyes.  The 
 position,  too,  in  times  of  sudden  danger,  admitted 
 of  an  easy  defense,  as  it  was  a  hill  itself,  and  the 
 neighboring  hills  could  be  turned  into  bulwarks. 
 To  its  other  advantages  we  should  add  that  of  its 
 central  position  for  the  Hebrews  on  the  west  of  the 
 Jordan.  "  It  was  equidistant,"  says  Tristram, 
 "  from  north  and  south,  and  easily  accessible  to  the 
 trans-Jordanic  tribes."  An  air  of  oppressive  still- 
 ness hangs  now  over  all  the  scene,  and  adds  force 
 to  the  reflection  that  truly  the  "  oracles  "  so  long 
 consulted  there  "are  dumb;"  they  had  fulfilled 
 their  purpose,  and  given  place  to  "  a  more  sure 
 word  of  prophecy." 
 
 A  visit  to  Shiloh  requires  a  detour  of  several 
 miles  from  the  ordinary  track,  and  it  has  been  less 
 
 Wilson  understood  it  was  called  "  Mosque  of  the  Sixty  " 
 (Sittin)  (Lands  of  the  Biblf,  ii.  294).  [This  latter  ia 
 the  name  given  also  by  Sepp,  Jfrus.  iind  das  heil. 
 Land,  ii.  25.  —  H.] 
 
 c  *  The  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  have  had  pho- 
 tographic views  taken  of  the  ruins  of  the  mosque  at 
 Seilun,  of  the  rock-hewn  tombs  near  the  fouucain, 
 and  of  various  ruins,  from  the  northwest.  H. 
 
SHILONI 
 
 frequentl}'  descriljed  than  other  n:  3re  accessible 
 places.  (The  reader  may  consult  Reland's  Pala's- 
 tiiii,  p.  lOltJ;  IJachiene's  Beschreibunij^  ii.  §  582; 
 Kaumer's  Pidiist.  p.  221  [4te  Aufl.]  ;  Kitter's 
 Erdk.  XV.  G31  f . ;  Robinson's  BM.  Res.  ii.  2G9- 
 276;  Wilson's  L'inds  of  (he  Bible,  ii.  294;  Stanley, 
 Sin.  ami  Pal.  pp.  231-233;  Porter's  fiandlj.  of 
 Syria,  ii.  328;  Herzog's  Reid-Encyk.  xiv.  3G'J; 
 Dr.  Sepp,  Jems,  und  das  liell.  Land,  ii.  25  f. : 
 Tristram,  Land  of  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  103  f. ;  and 
 Stanley,  Lectures  on  llie  Jewish  Church,  i.  308  fF.) 
 
 II.' 13.  H. 
 
 SHILO'NI  03'b:^n,  i.  e.  "the  Shilonite:" 
 [Vat.]  Tou  AtjAoics  ;  [Rom.  :S,Tj\wvi;  Alex.  HKwvt; 
 FA.  ATjKojyeL:]  Silonites).  This  word  occurs  in 
 the  A.  V.  only  in  Neh.  xi.  5,  where  it  should 
 ha  rendered  —  as  it  is  in  other  cases  —  "  the  Shi- 
 lonite," that  is,  the  descendant  of  Shelah  the 
 younj,'est  son  of  Judah.  The  passage  is  giving  an 
 acciiunt  (like  1  Chr.  ix.  3-G)  of  the  families  of 
 Juda'i  who  lived  in  .lerusalem  at  the  date  to  which 
 itrefrs,  and  (like  that)  it  divides  them  into  the 
 great  houses  of  Pharez  and  Shelah. 
 
 The  change  of  Shelani  to  Shiloni  is  the  same 
 which  seems  to  have  occurred  in  the  name  of 
 Siloam  —  Shelach  in  Nehemiah,  and  Shiloach  in 
 Isaiah.  G. 
 
 SHFLONITE,  THE  C^^b'^t^n  [see  above] ; 
 in  Chron.,  "'^'^^"'tS^n  and  '^yhWH  :  [Vat.]  o 
 ^rjXojveirrjs;  [Rom.]  .Mex.  'S,r]\cvviTr]s'-  Sihmiles, 
 [Silonitis]);  that  i."<,  the  native  or  resident  of 
 Shiloh,  —  a  title  ascribed  oidy  to  Aliijah,  the 
 prophet  who  foretold  to  .leroboam  the  disruption 
 of  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms  (1  K.  xi. 
 2!),  xii.  15,  XV.  29;  2  VA\r.  ix.  29,  x.  15).  Its  con- 
 nection with  Shiloh  is  fixed  by  1  K.  xiv.  2,  4,  which 
 shows  that  that  sacred  spot  was  still  the  residence 
 of  the  prophet.  The  word  is  therefore  entirely  dis- 
 tinct from  that  examined  in  the  following  article 
 and  under  Siiii.oni.  G. 
 
 SHI'LONITES,  THE  (0"b'>tS?n  [see  be- 
 low] :  [Vat.]  Tcov  2r)\a)«i;  [Rom.  Alex.  2-)]\wvi:] 
 Siloiii)  are  mentioned  among  the  descendants  of 
 Judah  dwelling  in  Jerus.alem  at  a  date  difficult  to 
 fix  (1  Chr.  ix.  5).  They  are  doubtless  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  hous<i  of  Shelah,  who  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch are  more  accurately  designated  ShI';l.\niti.;.s. 
 This  is  supported  by  the  reading  of  the  Targum 
 Joseph  on  the  passage — "the  tribe  of  Shelah,'" 
 and  is  allowed  by  Gesenius.  The  word  occurs 
 again  in  Neh.  xi.,  a  document  which  exhibits  a 
 certain  correspondence  with  1  Chr.  ix.  It  is  iden- 
 tical in  the  original  except  a  slight  contraction,  but 
 in  the  A.  V.  it  is  given  as  Siiiloni. 
 
 SHIL'SHAH  (ntt'^a;  [triad,  Ges.] :  2aA- 
 lad  ;  [Vat.]  Alex  SoAeuro :  Salusa).  Son  of 
 Zophah  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  37). 
 
 SHIM'EA  (W:?r:tt7  [rumor]:  Sa^aci;  [Vat. 
 l,ajxav:]  Simmaa).  1.  Son  of  David  by  13ath- 
 sheba  (1  Chr.  iii.  5).  Called  also  Smajuiua,  and 
 Shammuah. 
 
 2.  ([Vat.  So^uea;]  Alex.  2a/io:  [Samaa.])  A 
 Merarite  Levite  (1  Chr.  vi.  30  [15]). 
 
 3.  ([2a^aa:]  Samaa.)  A  Gershonite  Levite, 
 ancestor  of  Asaph  the  minstrel  (1  Chr.  vi.  39  [24]). 
 
 4.  (Alex.  2a^uaas-)  The  brother  of  David  (1 
 Chr.  XX.  7),  elsewhere  called  Shammah,  Shijima, 
 and  Shi.meah. 
 
 189 
 
 SHIMEI 
 
 3001 
 
 SHIM'EAH   C'Vl^W  [7-umor,fame];   Ktri, 
 
 M^Ptt7:  Se^et;  [Vat.]  Alex.  26^€e(:  Samaa). 
 1.  Brother  of  David,  and  father  of  Jonathan  and 
 Jonadab  (2  Sam.  xxi.  21  [where  A.  V.  ed.  1611 
 reads  Shimea]):  called  also  Siiammah,  Shimea, 
 and  Shixm.ma.     In  2  Sam.  xiii.  3,  32,  his  name  is 
 
 written  Hl^Ptt?  (2ayuaa  ;  [Vat.]  Alex.  2a/xa  in 
 ver.  32:   Samma). 
 
 2.  (nH!?tp:  2a/xac{;  [Vat.  2€/xaa;]  Alex. 
 2a^ea:  Samaa.)  A  descendant  of  Jehiel  the  father 
 or  founder  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  viii.  32). 
 
 SHIM'EAM  (nS72tt7  [fame,  name]:  lafxad; 
 Alex.  2a^a:  Samaan).  A  descendant  of  Jehiel, 
 the  founder  or  prince  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  ix.  38). 
 Called  Shimi';ai[  in  1  Chr.  viii.  32. 
 
 SHIM'EATH  {nVpW  [fern.  =  Shimeah]  : 
 'lefjLOudO,  '2,a/j.ad9:  [Vat.  2a/ia,]  Alex.  ^a/xaO  in 
 Chr.  :  Semaa/h,  Seinmaath).  An  Ammonitess, 
 mother  of  Jozacliar,  or  Zabad,  one  of  the  nmrder- 
 ers  of  King  Joasli  (2  K.  xii.  21  [22]  ;  2  Chr.  xxiv. 
 26). 
 
 *  SHIM'EATHITES  {D'^nV'DW,  patron.: 
 'Sa/j.adit/x;  Vat.  Alex.  2a/j.a6i(i/ji,:  rc.'ion'niles),  one 
 of  the  three  families  of  scribes  residing  at  Jabez 
 (1  Chr.  ii.  55),  probably  descendants  of  a  certain 
 Shimea.     See  T1HATIIITE.S.  A. 
 
 SHIM'EI  (  2?Ptt7  [;renowmd] :  ^.efxet ;  [in 
 Zeeh.,  :Svfxfui/;  Vat.  also  26/^661,  2oyueei:]  Seme'i). 
 1.  Son  of  Gershoni  tlie  son  of  Levi  (Num.  iii.  18; 
 1  Chr.  vi.  17,  29,  xxiii.  7,  9,  10;  Zecli.  xii.  13); 
 called  SiiiMi  in  Ex.  vi.  17.  In  1  Chr.  vi.  29,  ac- 
 cording to  the  present  text,  he  is  called  the  son  of 
 Lilini,  and  both  are  reckoned  as  sons  of  Merari,  but 
 there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  there  is  something 
 omitted  in  this  verse.      [See  Lihni  2:  Mahli  1.] 
 
 ^V.  A.    W. 
 
 2.  ([Vat.]  Alex.  2e^6€<-)  Shimei  the  .son  of 
 (iera,  a  Henjamite  of  the  house  of  Saul,  who  lived 
 at  Haliurim.  His  residence  there  agrees  with  the 
 other  notices  of  the  place,  as  if  a  marked  spot  on 
 the  way  to  and  from  the  Jordan  Valley  to  Jeru 
 salem,  and  just  within  the  border  of  Benjamin 
 [BAiiuitiM.]  He  may  have  received  the  unfor- 
 tunate Phaltiel  after  his  separation  from  Jlichal 
 (2  .Sam.  iii.  16). 
 
 When  David  and  his  suite  were  seen  descending 
 the  long  defile,  on  his  flight  from  Absalom  (2  Sam. 
 xvi.  5-13),  the  whole  feeling  of  the  clan  of  Ben- 
 jamin burst  forth  without  restraint  in  the  person 
 of  Shimei.  His  house  appai-ently  was  separated 
 from  the  road  by  a  deep  valley,  yet  not  so  far  as 
 that  anything  that  he  did  or  said  could  not  be  dis- 
 tinctly heard.  He  ran  along  the  ridge,  cursing, 
 throwing  stones  at  the  king  and  his  companions, 
 and  when  he  came  to  a  patch  of  dust  on  the  dry 
 hill-side,  taking  it  up,  and  throwing  it  over  them. 
 Abishai  was  so  irritated,  that,  but  for  David's  re- 
 monstrance, he  would  have  darted  across  the  ravine 
 (2  Sam.  xvi.  9)  and  torn  or  cut  off  his  head.  The 
 whole  conversation  is  remarkable,  as  showing  what 
 may  almost  be  called  the  .slang  terms  of  abuse 
 prevalent  in  the  two  rival  courts.  The  cant  name 
 for  David  in  Shimei's  mouth  is  "  the  man  of  blood," 
 twice  emphatically  repeated  :  "  Come  out,  come 
 out,  thou  man  of  blood  "  —  "  A  man  of  blood  art 
 thou  "  (2  Sam.  xvi.  7,  8).  It  seems  to  have  been 
 derived  from  the  slaughter  of  the  sons  of  Saul  (2 
 
3002 
 
 SHIMEI 
 
 Sam.  xxi.),  or  generally  perhaps  from  David's  pre- 
 datory, warlike  life  (comp.  1  Chr.  xxii.  8).  The 
 cant  name  for  a  Benjamite  in  Abishai's  mouth  was 
 "a  dead  dog"  (2  Sam.  xvi.  9;  compare  Abner's 
 expression,  "Am  I  a  dog's  head,"  2  Sam.  iii.  8). 
 "Man  of  Belial"  also  appears  to  have  been  a 
 favorite  term  on  both  sides  (2  Sam.  xvi.  7,  xx.  1). 
 The  royal  party  passed  on  ;  Shimei  following  them 
 with  his  stones  and  curses  as  long  as  they  were  in 
 sight. 
 
 The  next  meeting  was  very  different.  The  king 
 was  now  returning  from  his  successful  campaign. 
 Just  as  he  was  crossing  the  Jordan,  in  the  ferry- 
 boat or  on  the  bridge  (2  Sam.  xix.  18;  LXX.  5ia- 
 ^aivovTos,  Jos.  Ant.  vii.  2,  §  4,  eVi  rr/c  'ye(pvpav), 
 the  first  person  to  welcome  him  on  the  western,  or 
 perhaps  even  on  the  eastern  side,  was  Shimei,  who 
 may  have  seen  him  approaching  from  the  heights 
 above.  He  threw  himself  at  David's  feet  in  abject 
 penitence.  "  He  was  the  first,"  he  said,  "  of  all 
 the  house  of  Joseph,'"  thus  indicating  the  close 
 political  alliance  between  Benjamin  and  Ephraim. 
 Another  altercation  ensued  between  David  and 
 Abishai,  which  ended  in  David's  guaranteeing 
 Shimei's  life  with  an  oath  (2  Sam.  xix.  18-23),  in 
 consideration  of  the  general  j.ubilee  and  amnesty 
 of  the  return. 
 
 But  the  king's  suspicions  were  not  set  to  rest  by 
 this  submission  ;  and  on  his  death-bed  he  recalls  the 
 whole  scene  to  the  recollection  of  his  son  Solomon. 
 Shimei's  head  was  now  white  with  age  (1  K.  ii.  9), 
 and  he  was  living  in  the  favor  of  the  court  at  Jeru- 
 salem {ibid.  8).  Solomon  g:i\e  him  notice  that 
 from  henceforth  he  must  consider  himself  confined 
 to  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  on  pain  of  death.  The 
 Kidron,  which  divided  him  from  the  road  to  his 
 old  residence  at  Bahurim,  was  not  to  be  crossed. 
 He  was  to  build  a  house  in  Jerusalem  (1  K.  ii.  36, 
 37).  I'or  three  years  the  engagement  was  kept. 
 At  the  end  of  that  time,  for  the  purpose  of  captur- 
 ing two  slaves  who  had  escaped  to  Gath,  he  went 
 out  on  his  ass,  and  made  his  journey  successfully 
 {ibid.  ii.  40).  On  his  return,  the  king  took  him 
 at  his  word,  and  he  was  slain  by  Benaiah  {ibid.  ii. 
 41-46).  In  the  sacred  historian,  and  still  more  in 
 Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  1,  §  5),  great  stress  is  laid  on 
 Shimei's  having  broken  his  oath  to  remain  at  home; 
 «o  that  his  death  is  regarded  as  a  judgment,  not 
 iQrily  for  his  previous  treason,  but  for  his  recent 
 ■saerHege.  A.  P.  S. 
 
 3.  [Vat.  Alex.  26;U€6j.]  One  of  the  adherents 
 of  Solomon  at  the  time  of  Adonijah's  usurpation 
 (1  K.  i.~5).  Unless  he  is  the  same  as  Shimei  the 
 son  of  Elah  (1  K.  iv.  18),  Solomon's  commissariat 
 officer,  or  with  Shimeah,  or  Shammah,  David's 
 brother,  as  Ewald  {Gesch.  iii.  266)  suggests,  it  is 
 impossible  to  identify  him.     From    the    mention 
 
 which  is  made  of  "  the  mighty  men  "  in  the  same 
 verse,  one  might  be  tempted  to  conclude  that 
 Shimei  is  the  same  with  Shanmiah  the  Hararite 
 (2  Sam.  xxiii.  11);  for  the  difference  in  the  He- 
 brew names  of  Shimei  and  Shammah  is  not  greater 
 than  that  lietween  those  of  Shimeah  and  Sham- 
 mah, wliich  are  both  applied  to  David's  brother. 
 
 4.  [Vat.  A;  Alex.  2e/i€€i.]  Solomon's  com- 
 missariat oflScer  in  Benjamin  (1  K.  iv.  18);  son 
 >f  Elah. 
 
 5.  [Vat.  omits  ;  Rom.  ^e/iei ;  Alex.  Se/xei.] 
 Son  of  Pedaiah,  and  brother  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr. 
 iii.  19). 
 
 6.  [Vat.  2e/xeet-]    A  Simeonite,  son  of  Zacchur 
 
 SHIMRATH 
 
 (1  Chr.  iv.  26,  27).     He  hsul  sixteen  sons  and  six 
 daughters.     Perhaps  the  same  as  Shemaiah  3. 
 
 7.  [Vat.  Alex.  26^661.]  Son  of  Gog,  a  Reubenite 
 (1  Chr.  v.  4).     Perhaps  the  same  .as  Shema  1. 
 
 8.  [Vat.  2e/xe€i;  Alex.  2€;U€j.]  A  Gershonit* 
 Levite,  son  of  Jahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  42). 
 
 9.  (26/ii€ia ;  [Vat.  Efxefi  ;]  Alex.  Stfifi : 
 Semeias.)  Son  of  Jeduthun,  and  chief  of  the  tenth 
 division  of  the  singers  (1  Chr.  xxv.  17).  His  name 
 is  omitted  from  tiie  list  of  the  sons  of  Jeduthun  in 
 ver.  3,  but  is  evidently  wanted  there. 
 
 10.  (2«/uei';  [Vat.  26/x€6i:]  Semeins.)  The 
 Ramathite  who  was  over  David's  vineyards  (1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  27).  In  the  Vat.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  he  is 
 described  as  6  e(c  'ParjX. 
 
 11.  (Alex.  2a/i€ias:  Seme'i.)  A  Levite  of  the 
 sons  of  Heman,  who  took  part  in  the  purification 
 of  the  Temple  under  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  14). 
 
 12.  [Alex.  26^61,  26yU6l'-]  The  brother  of  Con- 
 oniah  the  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  had 
 charge  of  the  offerings,  the  tithes,  and  the  dedicated 
 things  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  12,  13).  Perhaps  the  same 
 as  the  preceding. 
 
 13.  {^afjLov:  FA.  2ajuou5.)  A  Levite  in  the 
 time  of  Ezra  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr. 
 X.  23).     Called  also  Semis. 
 
 14.  (2€/u«t;  [Vat.]  FA.  ^.e/xeei.)  One  of  the 
 family  of  Hashuni,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife 
 at  Ezra's  command  (Ezr.  x.  33).  Called  Semei 
 in  1  Esdr.  ix.  33. 
 
 15.  A  son  of  Bani,  who  had  also  married  a 
 foreign  wife  and  put  her  away  (Ezr.  x.  38).  Called 
 Samis  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
 
 16.  (26/x€(os;  [Vat.  FA.]  26/x66my-)  Son  of 
 Kish  a  Benjamite,  and  ancestor  of  Mordecai  (Esth. 
 ii.  5).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHIM'EON  ("j'l^PH?  [a  henrimj,  or  famms 
 one]:  2e^€coj':  Simeon).  A  layman  of  Israel,  of 
 the  family  of  Harim,  who  had  married  a  foreign 
 wife  and  divorced  her  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x. 
 31).     The  name  is  the  same  as  Simeon. 
 
 SHIM'HI  (^27pt??:  2a/.ale;  [Vat.  2aMaet0;] 
 Alex.  'XafjLai'.  Seme'i).  A  Benjamite,  apparently 
 the  same  as  Shema  the  son  of  Elpaal  (1  Chr.  viii. 
 21).     The  name  is  the  same  as  Shimei. 
 
 SHIM'I  OVP^  :  ^e/j.d-,  [Vat.26^€6i;  Alex. 
 2ejue(:]   Semei' =" Shimei  1,  Ex.  vi.  17). 
 
 SHIM'ITES,  THE  C'^JpCS^n  [renowned, 
 Ges.]  :  6  '^sfj.e'i ,  [Alex.  'Se/j.fi:]  Seme'itica,  se. 
 familia).  The  descendants  of  Shimei  the  son  of 
 Gershom  (Num.  iii.  21).  They  are  again  men- 
 tioned in   Zech.   xii.   13,   where   the   LXX.   have 
 
 SHIM'MA  fS^ptt7  :  -S-afxai  ;  Alex.  2a^a(a: 
 Simman).  The  third  son  of  Jesse,  and  brother  of 
 David  (1  Chr.  ii.  13).  He  is  called  also  Sham- 
 mah, Shimea,  and  Shimeah.  Josephus  calls 
 him  ■Zd/j.afj.os  {Ant.  vi.  8,  §  1),  and  2a/ia  {Ant.  vii. 
 12,  §  2). 
 
 SHI'MON  (r^'^tt?  [desert]:  :$ef^^v  ;  [Vat. 
 '2e/xiciiv\]  Alex.  :S,fixeia>v:  Simon).  The  four  sons 
 of  Shimon  are  enumerated  in  an  obscure  genealogy 
 of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20).  There  is  no 
 trace  of  the  name  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew,  but  in 
 the  Alex.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  there  is  mention  made 
 of  "  Someion  the  father  of  Joman  "  in  1  Chr.  iv. 
 19,  which  was  possibly  the  same  as  Shimon. 
 
 SHIM'RATH     {rnpW    [watch,    guard] 
 
SHIMRI 
 
 SajuapcCd:  Samarnih).     A  Benjamite,  of  the  sons 
 of  Shimhi  (1  Chr.  viii.  21). 
 
 SHIM'RI  O'^'Stt?  [viffilant]:  2€^pi';  [Vat. 
 2a/xo/>;]  Alex.  2a//apjas:  Seimi).  1.  A  Simeon- 
 ite,  son  of  Shemaiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  37). 
 
 2.  (2a/iept;  [Vat.  B'A.  2a/xep€j;]  Alex.  2a/xap( : 
 Samri.)  The  father  of  Jediael,  one  of  David's 
 guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  45). 
 
 3.  (Za/xfipi;  [Vat.  ZafxHpei;]  Alex.  -Za/x^pi.) 
 A  Koha^hite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  of  the 
 sons  of  Elizaphan  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13).  He  assisted 
 in  the  purification  of  the  Temple. 
 
 SHIM'EITH  (n''"lPtt7  [fem.  vigilant]  : 
 :Zafji.api}8;  [Vat.  2o/ia(coe  ;J  Alex.  'S.afj.apid  : 
 Semurith).  A  Moabitess,  mother  of  Jehozabad, 
 one  of  the  assassins  of  King  Joash  (2  Chr.  xxiv. 
 26).  In  2  K.  xii.  21,  she  is  called  Siiomek.  The 
 Peshito-Syriac  gives  Neluruth,  which  appears  to  be 
 a  kind  of  attempt  to  translate  the  name. 
 
 SHIM'ROM  {i^'^l?^  iwa/ch-lieight] :  2€/x- 
 epdiy;  Alex.  'Sa/xpa/j.'  Simerun).  Shimkon  the 
 son  of  Issachar  (1  Clir.  vii.  1).  The  name  is  cor- 
 rectly given  "  Shimron  "  in  the  A.  V.  of  IGll. 
 
 SHIM'RON  (l"l~>Ptt7  [wittch-height]:  2i/- 
 lxotl)u;  Alex.  'S.oixipoiv-,  Le/npoov:  Semeron,  Sem- 
 ron).  A  city  of  Zebulun  (.Josh.  xix.  15).  It  is  pre- 
 viously named  in  the  list  of  the  places  whose  kings 
 were  called  by  Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  to  his  assist- 
 ance against  Joshua  (xi.  1).  Its  full  appellation 
 was  perhaps  Shimkon- jieron.  Schwarz  (p.  172) 
 proposes  to  identify  it  with  the  Simonias  of  Jose- 
 phus  ( Vita,  §  24 ),  now  Simuniyeh,  a  village  a 
 few  miles  W.  of  Nazareth,  wliich  is  mentioned  in 
 the  well-known  list  of  the  Talmud  {Jems.  Megil- 
 Z((/(,  cap.  1)  as  the  ancient  Shimron.  This  has  in 
 its  favor  its  proximity  to  Bethlehem  (comp.  xix. 
 15).  The  Vat.  LXX.,  like  the  Talmud,  omits  the 
 r  in  the  name.  G. 
 
 SHIM'RON  (pl^tt?  [see  above] :  in  Gen. 
 [Rom.  :S,aix^pav,  Alex.]  Zafi^pa/x  ;  in  Num. 
 [Vat.]  ■Sa/iapa/j.;  [Horn.  :S,a/jL&pd/u.;]  Alex.  A^- 
 fipaV-  Seim'on,  l_Stiiirrm]).  The  fourth  son  of 
 Issachar  according  to  the  lists  of  Genesis  (xlvi.  13) 
 and  Numbers  (xxvi.  24),  and  the  head  of  the  fam- 
 ily of  the  SiiiMKONiTES.  In  the  catalogues  of 
 Chronicles  his  name  is  given  [in  later  eds.  of  the 
 A.  v.]  as  Shimkom.  G. 
 
 SHIM'RONITES,  THE  OpXpt^n  [patr.. 
 Bee  above]:  [Vat.]  o  "Xa/xapavei;  [Kom.  6  2a/x- 
 pafjii;]  Alex.  0  A/j.$pafxei'  SemraniloB).  The  fam- 
 ily of   Shimron,  son  of  Issachar  (Num.  xxvi.  24). 
 
 SHIMRON-MERON  (I'lSI??  I^""?^ 
 [watck-lieighi  of  M.,  Ges.]  ;  the  Keri  omits  the  S  : 
 '2,vfjL6<t)v  •  ■  •  iMa/LL^pciO,  Vat.]  Mafxpccd;  Alex. 
 1afj.p(iiv  .  •  "  4>aa'7a  •  •  Mapcoj/:  Semeron).  The 
 king  of  Shimron-meron  is  mentioned  as  one  of 
 the  thirty-one  kings  vanquished  by  Joshua  (Josh. 
 xii.  20).  It  is  proljably  (though  not  certainly)  the 
 complete  name  of  the  place  elsewhere  called  Shim- 
 kon. Both  are  mentioned  in  proximity  to  Achshaph 
 (si.  1,  xii.  20).  It  will  be  observed  that  the  LXX. 
 treat  the  two  words  as  belonging  to  two  distinct 
 places,  and  it  is  certainly  worth  notice  that  Madon 
 
 a  This  addition,  especially  in  the  Alex.  MS.  —  usu- 
 ally so  close  to  the  Hebrew  —  is  remarkable.  There 
 ia  nothing  in  the  original  text  to  suggest  it. 
 
 SHINAR 
 
 '.003 
 
 —  in  Hebrew  so  easily  substituted  for  Meron.  and 
 in  fact  so  read  by  the  LXX.,  Peshito,  and  Arabic  — 
 occurs  next  to  Shimron  in  Josh.  xi.  1. 
 
 There  are  two  claimants  to  identity  with  Shim- 
 ron-meron. The  old  Jewish  traveller  hap-Parchi 
 fixes  it  at  two  hours  east  of  I-Cn-gannim  (Jenin)^ 
 south  of  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  at  a  village  called 
 in  his  day  Bar  Mtruti  (Asher's  Benjamin,  ii.  434). 
 No  modern  traveller  appears  to  have  explored  that 
 district,  and  it  is  consequently  a  blank  on  the  maps. 
 The  other  is  the  village  of  Simuniyeh,  west  of  Naza- 
 reth, which  the  Talmud  asserts  to  be  the  same  with 
 Shimron.  G. 
 
 SHIM'SHAI  [2  syl.]  Ott^Ptt?  [sunny]  :  2a/^- 
 \fa;  [Vat.  ^afiaaa,  2ayu66,  etc.;]  Alex.  :Sa/j.(Tar- 
 Samsa'i).  The  scribe  or  secretary  of  Kehum,  who 
 was  a  kind  of  satrap  of  the  conquered  province  of 
 Judaea,  and  of  the  colony  at  Samaria,  supported  by 
 the  Persian  court  (Ezr.  iv.  8,  9,  17,  23).  He  was 
 apparently  an  Aramaean,  for  the  letter  which  he 
 wrote  to  Artaxerxes  was  in  Syriac  (Ezr.  iv.  7),  and 
 the  form  of'his  name  is  in  favor  of  this  supposition. 
 In  1  Esdr.  ii.  he  is  called  Semellius,  and  by  Jose- 
 phus  26/i6Aios  i^nt-  xi.  2,  §  1).  The  Samaritans 
 were  jealous  of  the  return  of  the  Jews,  and  for 
 a  long  time  plotted  against  them  without  effect. 
 They  apj)ear  ultimately,  however,  to  have  preju- 
 diced the  royal  officers,  and  to  have  prevailed  upon 
 them  to  address  to  the  king  a  letter  which  set  forth 
 the  turbulent  character  of  the  Jews  and  the  dan- 
 gerous character  of  their  undertaking,  the  effect  of 
 which  was  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  ceased 
 for  a  time. 
 
 SHI'NAB  i^i^^ip  [fathers  toot/i]:  •S.^wadf,: 
 Sennaab).  The  king  of  Admah  in  the  time  of 
 Abraham:  one  of  the  five  kings  attacked  by  the 
 invading  army  of  Chedorlaomer  (Gen.  xiv.  2). 
 Josephus  {Ant.  i.  9)  calls  him  26J'ay3aprjs. 
 
 SHI'NAR  ("l^ptp  [see  below]:  2emol/), 
 'Zivvaap:,  [Alex.  "Z^vvaap;  see  also  below:]  Sen- 
 naur)  seems  to  haive  been  the  ancient  name  of  the 
 great  alluvial  tract  through  which  the  Tigris  and 
 Euphrates  pass  before  reaching  the  sea  —  the  tract 
 known  in  later  times  as  Chaldaea  or  Babylonia.  It 
 was  a  plain  country,  where  brick  had  to  be  used  for 
 stone,  and  slime  (mud?)  for  mortar  (Gen.  xi.  3). 
 Among  its  cities  were  Babel  (Babylon),  Erech  or 
 Orech  (Orchoti),  Calneh  or  Calno  (probably  Nijfer), 
 and  Accad,  the  site  of  which  is  unknown.  These 
 notices  are  quite  enough  to  fix  the  situation.  It 
 may,  however,  be  remarked  further,  that  the  LXX. 
 render  the  word  by  "  Babylonia  "  {Ba^uKocvia)  in 
 one  place  (Is.  xi.  11),  and  by  "the  land  of  Baby 
 Ion"  (-y?)  BaPv\a>vos)  in  another  (Zech.  v.  11). 
 [The  word  also  occurs  (Josh.  vii.  21)  in  the  phrase 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  Babylonish  Garment. — 
 A.] 
 
 The  native  inscriptions  contain  no  trace  of  the 
 term,  which  seems  to  be  purely  Jewish,  and  un- 
 known to  any  other  people.  At  least  it  is  extremely 
 doubtful  whether  there  is  really  any  connection  be- 
 tween Shinar  and  Singara  or  Sinjur.  Singara  was 
 the  name  of  a  town  in  Central  Mesopotamia,  well 
 known  to  the  Romans  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii.  22;  Amm. 
 Marc,  xviii.  5,  &c.),  and  still  existing  (Layard, 
 Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  249 ).  It  is  from  this  place  that 
 the  mountains  which  run  across  Mesopotamia  from 
 Mosul  to  Rakkeh  receive  their  title  of  "  the  Sinjar 
 range"  (21770^0$  opos,  Ptol.  v.  18).  As  thia 
 name   first   appears    in    central  Mesopotami*,   to 
 
3004 
 
 SHIP 
 
 which  the  term  Shinar  is  never  applied,  about  the 
 time  of  the  Antoiiines,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  it 
 can  represent  the  old  Shinar,  which  ceased  practi- 
 cally to  be  a  geographic  title  soon  after  the  death 
 of  Moses." 
 
 It  may  be  suspected  that  Shinar  was  the  name 
 by  which  the  Hebrews  originally  knew  the  lower 
 Mesopotaniian  country  where  they  so  long  dwelt, 
 and  which  Abraham  brought  with  him  from  "  Ur 
 of  the  Chaldees  "  {Miu/lidr).  Possibly  it  means 
 "the  country  of  the  Two  Kivers,"  being  derived 
 
 from   ""^K?,  -'two''   and  V»r,  which   was  used  in 
 
 Babylonia,  as  well  as  nahr  or  ndhdr  (IHS),  for 
 '•  a  river."  (Compare  the  "  Ar-malchar  "  of  I'liny, 
 //.  N.  vi.  26,  and  '•  Ar-macales  "  of  Abydenus,  Fr. 
 9,  with  the  Xaar-malcha  of  Ammianus,  xxiv.  G, 
 called  Nap^axa,  I'J  Isidore,  p.  5,  which  is  trans- 
 lated as  "the  Royal  River;"  and  compare  again 
 the  "Narragam"  of  Phny,  //.  A^.  vi.  30,  with 
 the  "  Aracauus"  of  Abydenus,  I.  s.  c.)        G.  R. 
 
 SHIP.  No  one  writer  in  the  whole  range  of 
 Greek  and  Roman  literature  has  supplied  us  (it 
 may  be  doubted  whether  all  put  together  have  sup- 
 plied us)  with  so  much  information  concerning  the 
 merchant-ships  of  the  ancients  as  St.  Luke  in  the 
 narrative  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  (Acts 
 xxvii.,  xxviii.).  In  illustrating  the  Biblical  side  of 
 this  question,  it  will  be  best  to  arrange  in  order  the 
 various  particulars  which  we  learn  from  this  nar- 
 rative, and  to  use  them  as  a  basis  for  elucidating 
 whatever  else  occurs,  in  reference  to  the  subject,  in 
 the  Gospels  and  other  parts  of  the  N.  T.,  in  the 
 0.  T.  and  the  Apocrypha.  As  regards  the  earlier 
 Scriptures,  the  Septuagintal  thread  will  be  fol- 
 lowed. 'I'bis  will  be  the  easiest  way  to  secure  the 
 mutual  illustration  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
 in  regard  to  this  subject.  The  merchant-ships  of 
 various  dates  in  the  Levant  did  not  differ  in  any 
 essential  principle;  and  the  Greek  of  Alexandria 
 contains  the  nautical  phraseology  which  supplies 
 our  best  hnguistic  information.  -Two  preliminary 
 remarks  may  be  made  at  the  outset. 
 
 As  regards  St.  Paul's  voyage,  it  is  important  to 
 remember  that  he  accomplished  it  in  three  sliips: 
 first  the  Adraimyttian  vessel  [Adramyttium] 
 which  took  him  from  C.esakea  to  Myra,  and 
 which  was  probahly  a  coastuig  vessel  of  no  great 
 size  (xxvii.  1-6);  secondly,  the  large  Alexandrian 
 corn-ship,  in  which  he  was  wrecked  on  the  coast  of 
 Malta  (xxvii.  6-xxviii.  1)  [Melita];  and  thirdly, 
 another  large  Alexandrian  corn-ship,  in  which  he 
 sailed  from  Malta  by  Syracuse  and  Rhegium  to 
 PUTEOLI  (xxviii.  11-13). 
 
 Again,  the  word  employed  by  St.  Luke,  of  each 
 of  these  ships,  is,  with  one  single  exception,  when 
 he  uses  vavs  (xxvii.  41),  the  generic  term  ■kXoiuv 
 (xxvii.  2,  6,  10,  15,  22,  30,  37,  38,  .39,  44,  xxviii. 
 11 ).  The  same  general  usaije  prevails  throughout. 
 Elsewhere  in  the  .\cts  xx.  13,  38,  xxi.  2,  3,  6)  we 
 have  TrXolov.  So  in  St.  James  (iii.  4),  and  in  the 
 Revelation  (viii.  9,  xviii.  17,  19).  In  the  Gcspels 
 we  have  TrXoiov  (passim)  or  TrAoidpiov  (Mark  iv. 
 36;  John  xxi.  8).  In  the  LXX.  we  find  irXotov 
 used  twenty-eight  times,  and  vavs  nine  times. 
 Both  words   generally  correspond   to   the  Hebrew 
 
 SHIP 
 
 "•pW  or  n*3S.  In  Jon.  i.  5,  ir\o7ov  is  used  to 
 represent  the  Hebrew  n3"'SP,  sepldnah,  which, 
 from  its  etymology,  appears  to  mean  a  vessel  cov- 
 ered with  a  deck  or  with  hatches,  in  opposition 
 to  an  open  boat.  The  senses  in  which  cKa.(pos 
 (2  Mace.  xii.  3^6)  and  ffKouprf  (.Acts  xxvii.  10,  32) 
 are  employed  we  shall  notice  as  we  proceed.  The 
 use  of  TpiripTis  is  liniited  to  a  single  passage  in  the 
 Apocrypha  (2  Mace.  iv.  20). 
 
 (1.)  Size  of  Ancient  Ships.  —  The  narrative 
 which  we  take  as  our  chief  guide  affords  a  good 
 standard  for  estimating  this.  The  ship  in  which 
 St.  Paul  was  wrecked  had  276  persons  on  board 
 (Acts  xxvii.  37),  besides  a  cargo  {(popriov)  of  wheat, 
 (i/j  10,  28);  and  all  these  passengers  seem  to  have 
 been  taken  on  to  PuteoH  in  another  ship  (xxviii.  11) 
 which  had  its  own  crew  and  its  own  cargo;  nor  is 
 there  a  trace  of  any  difHculty  in  the  matter,  though 
 the  emergenc}'  was  unexpected.  Now  in  English 
 transport-ships,  prepared  for  carrying  troops,  it  is 
 a  common  estimate  to  allow  a  ton  and  a  half  per 
 man ;  thus  we  see  that  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  sup- 
 pose that  these  Alexandrian  corn- ships  were  very 
 much  smaller  than  modern  trading  vessels.  What 
 is  here  stated  is  quite  in  harmony  with  other  in- 
 stances. The  ship  in  which  Josephus  was  wrecked 
 (  Vit.  c.  3),  in  the  same  part  of  the  Levant,  had 
 GOO  souls  on  board,  llie  Alexandrian  corn-ship 
 described  by  Lucian  {Natiy.  s.  rota)  as  driven 
 into  the  Piraeus  by  stress  of  weather,  and  as  ex- 
 citing general  attention  from  its  great  size,  would 
 appear  (from  a  consideration  of  the  measurements, 
 which  are  explicitly  given)  to  have  measured  1,000 
 or  1,200  tons.  As  to  the  ship  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
 delpbus,  described  by  Athena?iis  (v.  204),  this  must 
 have  been  much  larger;  but  it  would  be  no  more 
 fair  to  take  that  as  a  standard  than  to  take  the 
 "Gr«at  Eastern  "  as  a  type  of  a  modern  steamer. 
 On  the  whole,  if  we  say  that  an  ancient  merchant- 
 ship  might  range  from  500  to  1,000  tons,  we  are 
 clearly  within  the  mark. 
 
 (2.)  Steer  in;/  Apparatus.  —  Some  commentators 
 have  fallen  into  strange  peri^lexities  from  observing 
 that  in  Acts  xxvii.  40  {ras  feu/crrjpi'as  raif  irrjSa- 
 \icDv  "the  fastenings  of  the  rudders"),  St.  Luke 
 uses  TTTtSaAiov  in  the  plural.  One  even  suggests 
 that  the  ship  bad  one  rudder  fastened  at  the  bow 
 and  another  fastened  at  the  stern.  AVe  may  say 
 of  him,  as  a  modern  writer  says  in  reference  to  a 
 similar  comment  on  a  passage  of  Cicero,  "  It  is 
 hardly  possible  that  he  can  have  seen  a  ship." 
 The  sacred  writer's  use  of  TrrjddXia  is  just  hke 
 Pliny's  use  of  (juberntind't  (//.  N.  xi.  37,  88),  or 
 Lucretius's  of  (juberna  (iv.  440).  .\ncient  ships 
 were  in  truth  not  steered  at  all  by  rudders  fastened 
 or  hinged  to  the  stern,  but  by  means  of  two  pad- 
 dle-rudders, one  on  each  quarter,  acting  in  a  row- 
 lock or  through  a  port-hole,  as  the  vessel  might  be 
 small  or  large.*  This  fact  is  made  familiar  to  us  in 
 classical  works  of  art,  as  on  coins,  and  the  sculptures 
 of  Trajan's  Column.  The  same  thing  is  true,  not 
 only  of  the  Mediterranean,  but  of  the  early  ships 
 of  the  Northmen,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  IJayeux 
 tapestry.  Traces  of  the  "  two  rudders  "  -are  found 
 in  the  time  of  Louis  IX.     The  hinged  rudder  first 
 
 «  In  Isaiah  and  Zechariah,  Shinar,  once  used  by 
 each  writer,  is  an  arcliaism. 
 
 b  Dr.  Wordsworth  gives  a  very  interpsting  illustra- 
 tion from  Hippolytu.s,  bishop  of  Portus  (de  Antichr.  9), 
 
 where,  in  a  detailed  allegorical  comparison  of  the 
 Church  to  a  ship,  he  .says  "  her  two  rudders  are  th* 
 two  Testaments  by  which  she  steers  her  course." 
 
SHIP 
 
 appears  on  the  coins  of  our  King  Edward  III. 
 There  is  nothing  out  of  harmony  with  this  early 
 system  of  steerinij;  in  Jam.  iii.  4,  where  irrjSdKiov 
 occurs  in  the  singular;  for  "the  governor"  or 
 steersman  (6  evOvvaiv)  would  only  use  one  paddle- 
 rudder  at  a  time.  In  a  case  like  that  described  in 
 Acts  xxvii.  40,  where  four  anchors  were  let  go  at 
 the  stern,  it  would  of  course  be  necessary  to  lasii 
 or  trice  up  both  paddles,  lest  they  should  interfere 
 with  the  ground  tackle.  When  it  became  necess  iry 
 to  steer  the  ship  again,  and  the  anchor-ropes  were 
 cut,  the  lashings  of  the  paddles  would  of  course  be 
 unfastened. 
 
 (3. )  Buill  and  Onwinents  of  Ihe  /lull.  —  It  is 
 probable,  from  what  has  been  said  about  the  mode 
 of  steerint;  (and  indeed  it  is  nearly  evident  from 
 ancient  works  of  art),  that  there  was  no  very 
 marked  ditlerence  between  the  bow  (npaipa,  "  fore- 
 ship,"  ver.  -il),  'fore  part,"  \er.  41)  and  the  stern 
 (TTpvfji.va.  "  hinder  part,"  ver.  41 ;  see  Mark  iv.  38). 
 The  -'hold  "  (koiKti,  ''the  sides  of  the  ship,"  Jonah 
 i.  5)  would  present  no  special  peculiarities.  One 
 characteristic  ornament  (tlie  ^(riviaKos,  or  <iphistre !, 
 rising  in  a  lofty  curve  at  the  stern  or  the  bow,  is 
 familiar  to  us  in  works  of  art,  but  no  allusion  to  it 
 occurs  in  Scripture.  Of  two  other  customary  orna- 
 ments, however,  one  is  probably  implied,  and  the 
 second  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  account  of  St. 
 Paul's  voyage.  '1  hat  personification  of  ships,  which 
 seems  to  be  instinctive,  led  the  ancients  to  paint  an 
 eye  on  each  side  of  the  bow.  Such  is  the  custom 
 still  in  the  JMediterranean,  and  indeed  our  own  sail- 
 ors speak  of  "the  eyes  "  of  a  ship.  This  gives  viv- 
 idness to  the  word  ayTo(pda\/x^7v,  which  is  used 
 (Acts  xxx'n.  lij)  where  it  is  said  that  the  vessel 
 could  not  "hear  up  into"  (literally  "look  at") 
 the  wind.  This  was  the  vessel  in  which  St.  Paul 
 was  wrecked.  An  ornament  of  that  which  took  him 
 on  from  3Ialta  to  Pozzuoli  is  more  explicitly  re- 
 ferred to.  I'he  "  sign  "  of  that  ship  (Trapdffrjfxov, 
 Acts  xxviii.  11)  was  C.vstou  and  Poli.u.k;  and 
 the  syuibols  of  these  heroes  (probably  in  the  form 
 represented  in  the  coin  engraved  under  that  article) 
 were  doubtless  painted  or  sculptured  on  each  side 
 of  the  bow,  as  was  tlie  ease  with  the  goddess  Isis 
 on  Lucian's  ship  (^  irpwpa  r^v  iwcoyu/xov  tyjs 
 V€ws  Behv  ix"^'^'^  Triv'^<ftv  kKaTtptaQtv,  Navi(j. 
 c.  5). 
 
 (4.)  Underf/irders.  —  The  imperfection  of  the 
 build,  and  still  more  (see  below,  6)  the  peculiarity 
 of  the  rig,  in  ancient  ships,  resulted  in  a  greater 
 tendency  than  in  our  times  to  the  starting  of  the 
 planks,  and  consequently  to  leaking  and  foundering. 
 We  see  this  taking  place  alike  in  the  voyages  of 
 Jonah,  St.  Paul,  and  Josephus;  and  the  loss  of  the 
 fleet  of  ^neas  in  Virgil  ("  laxis  laterum  conipagi- 
 bus  onines,"  ^iro.  i.  122)  may  lie  adduced  in  illus- 
 tration. Hence  it  was  customary  to  take  on  board 
 peculiar  contrivances,  suitably  called  "  helps  " 
 (/3oT)9siais,  Acts  xxvii.  17),  as  precautions  against 
 such  dangers.  These  were  simpl}-  cables  or  chains, 
 which  in  case  ('f  necessity  could  be  passed  round 
 the  frame  of  the  ship,  at  right  angles  to  its  length, 
 and  made  ti^'ht.  The  process  is  in  the  EngHsh 
 navy  called  frappin;/,  and  many  instances  could 
 le  given  where  it  has  been  found  necessary  in 
 modern  exjierience.  Ptolemy's  great  ship,  in 
 Athenffius  (/.  c),  carried  twelve  of  tiiese  under- 
 girders  {vno^<i)jj.ara)-  Various  allusions  to  the 
 practice  are  to  be  found  in  the  ordinary  classical 
 writers.  See,  for  instance,  Thucyd.  i.  29;  Plat. 
 Rep.  X.   3,   616;  Her.  Od.   i.   14,  6.     But  it  is 
 
 SHIP 
 
 3005 
 
 most  to  our  purpose  to  refer  to  the  inscriptions, 
 containing  a  complete  inventory  of  the  Athenian 
 navy,  as  published  by  Eoeckh  ( Urkunden  iiber  das 
 Seeivesen  des  Attlschen  Slaates,  Berl.  1840).  The 
 editor,  however,  is  quite  mistaken  in  supposing  (pp. 
 1-33-138)  that  these  undergirders  were  passed  round 
 the  body  of  the  ship  from  stem  to  stern. 
 
 (5.)  Anchiirs.  —  It  is  probable  that  the  ground 
 tackle  of  Greek  and  Roman  sailoi's  was  quite  as 
 good  as  our  own.  (On  the  taking  of  soundings, 
 see  below,  12.)  Ancient  anchors  were  similar  in 
 form  (as  may  be  seen  on  coins)  to  those  which  we 
 use  now.  except  that  they  were  without  flukes. 
 Two  allusions  to  anchoring  are  found  in  the  N.  T., 
 one  in  a  vei-y  impressive  metaphor  concerning 
 Christian  hope  (Heb.  vi.  19).  A  saying  of 
 Socrates,  quoted  here  by  Kypke  {ovTe  vavv  e| 
 ivhs  ayKvpiov'  ovre  $lou  e/c  fiias  i\iri8os  dp/ml- 
 aacrOat),  may  serve  to  carry  our  thoughts  to  the 
 other  passage,  which  is  part  of  the  literal  narrative 
 of  St.  Paul's  ^■oyage  at  its  most  critical  point. 
 The  ship  in  which  he  was  sailing  had  four  anchors 
 on  board,  and  these  were  all  employed  in  the  night, 
 when  the  danger  of  falling  on  breakers  was  injmi- 
 nent.  The  sailors  on  this  occasion  anchored  by  the 
 stern  (e/c  irpvpivrjs  (>i\l/avTes  ayKiipas  Tfcraapas, 
 Acts  xxvii.  '29).  In  this  there  is  nothing  remark- 
 alile,  if  thei'e  has  been  time  for  due  preparation. 
 Oin-  own  ships  of  war  anchored  by  the  stern  at 
 Copetdiagen  and  Algiers.  It  is  clear,  too,  that 
 this  was  the  right  course  for  the  sailors  with  whom 
 St.  Paul  was  concerned,  for  their  plan  was  to  run 
 the  ship  aground  at  daybreak.  The  only  motives 
 for  surprise  are  that  they  should  have  been  able  so 
 to  anchor  without  preparation  in  a  gale  of  wind, 
 and  that  the  anchors  should  have  held  on  such  a 
 night.  The  answer  to  the  first  question  thus  sug- 
 gested is  that  ancient  ships,  like  their  modern  suc- 
 cessors, the  small  craft  among  the  Greek  islands, 
 were  in  the  habit  of  anchoring  by  the  stern,  and 
 tiierefore  prepared  for  doing  so.  We  have  a  proof 
 of  this  in  one  of  the  paintings  of  Herculaneum, 
 which  illustrates  another  point  already  mentioned, 
 namely,  the  necessity  of  tricing  up  the  movable 
 rudders  in  case  of  anchoring  by  the  stern  (see  ver. 
 40).  The  other  question,  which  we  have  supposed 
 to  arise,  relates  rather  to  the  holding-ground  than 
 to  the  mode  of  anchoring;  and  it  is  very  in- 
 teresting here  to  quote  what  an  English  sailing 
 book  says  of  St.  Paul's  Bay  in  Malta:  "  While 
 the  cables  hold,  there  is  no  danger,  as  the  anchors 
 will  never  start"  (Purdy's  Sailing  Directiuns,  p. 
 180). 
 
 (G.)  J  fasts,  Sails,  Hopes,  and  Yards. — These 
 were  collectively  called  aKivr)  or  a-K^vr],  or  ffear 
 (to.  Sf  ffv/LLTTavTU  aKeuT]  Ka^eTrai,  Jul.  Poll.).  We 
 find  this  word  twice  used  for  parts  of  the  rigging 
 in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  (xxvii.  17,  19).  The 
 rig  of  an  ancient  ship  was  more  simple  and  clumsy 
 than  that  employed  in  modern  times.  Its  great 
 feature  was  one  large  mast,  with  one  large  square 
 sail  fastened  to  a  yard  of  great  length.  Such  was 
 the  rig  also  of  the  ships  of  the  Northmen  at  a 
 later  period.  Hence  the  strain  upon  the  hull,  and 
 the  danger  of  starting  the  planks,  were  greater 
 than  under  the  present  system,  which  distributes 
 the  mechanical  pressure  more  evenly  over  the  whole 
 ship.  Not  that  there  were  never  more  masts  than 
 one,  or  more  sails  than  one  on  the  same  mast,  in 
 an  ancient  merchantman.  But  these  were  repeti- 
 tions,  so  to  speak,  of  the  same  general  unit  of  rig. 
 In  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  shipwreck  very  explicit 
 
3006  SHIP 
 
 mention  is  made  of  the  hpreixdv  (xxvii.  40),  which 
 is  undoubtedly  the  "loresail"  (not  "mainsail,"  as 
 in  the  A.  V.)-  Such  a  sail  would  be  almost  neces- 
 sary in  putting  a  large  ship  about.  On  that  occa- 
 sion it  was  used  in  the  process  of  running  the  vessel 
 aground.  Nor  is  it  out  of  jilace  here  to  quote  a 
 Crimean  letter  in  the  Times  (Dec.  5,  1855):  "  The 
 'Lord  Eaglan'  (merchant-ship)  is  on  shore,  but 
 taken  there  in  a  most  sailorlike  manner.  Directly 
 her  captain  found  he  could  not  save  her,  he  cut 
 away  his  mainmast  and  mizen,  and  setting  a  top- 
 sail on  her  foremast,  r(m  her  ashore  stem  on:' 
 Such  a  mast  may  be  seen,  raking  over  the  bow,  in 
 representations  of  ships  in  Roman  coins.  In  the 
 O.  T.  the  mast  (iVtJs)  is  mentioned  (Is.  xxxiii. 
 23);  and   from  another  prophet  (Ez.  xxvii.  5)  we 
 
 Ancient  ship.     From  a  painting  at  Pompeii. 
 
 learn  that  cedar-wood  from  Lebanon  was  sometimes 
 used  for  this  part  of  ships.  There  is  a  third  pas- 
 sage (Prov.  xxiii.  34,  V2n  Wi^"^)  where  the  top 
 of  a  ship's  mast  is  probably  intended,  though  there 
 is  some  slight  doul)t  on  the  subject,  and  the  LXX. 
 take  the  phrase  diftifrently.  Both  ropes  ((rxoivia, 
 Acts  xxvii.  32)  and  sails  (ia-rla)  are  mentioned  in 
 the  above-quoted  passage  of  Isaiah;  and  from 
 Ezekiel  (xxvii.  7)  we  learn  that  the  latter  were 
 often  made  of  Egyptian  linen  (if  such  is  the  mean- 
 ing of  ffTpco/j.v7i)-  There  the  word  xa\doo  (which 
 we  find  also  in  Acts  xxvii.  17,  30)  is  used  for  low- 
 ering the  sail  from  the  yard.  It  is  interesting  here 
 to  notice  that  the  word  uTroffrfWo/xat,  the  tech- 
 nical term  for  furling  a  sail,  is  twice  used  by  St. 
 Paul,  and  that  in  an  address  delivered  in  a  seaport 
 in  the  course  of  a  voyage  (Acts  xx.  20,  27).  It  is 
 one  of  the  very  few  cases  in  which  the  Apostle 
 employs  a  nautical  metaphor. 
 
 This  seems  the  best  place  for  noticing  two  other 
 points  of  detail.  Though  we  must  not  suppose 
 that  merchant-ships  were  habitually  propelled  by 
 rowing,  yet  sweeps  nuist  sometimes  have  been  em- 
 ployed. In  Ez.  xxvii.  29,  oars  (iS^tT^)  are  distinct- 
 ly mentioned  ;  and  it  seems  that  oak-wood  from 
 Bashan  was  used  in  making  them  (e/c  rrjs  Baffa- 
 v'lTiSos  eiroir\(Tav  ras  Kciiras  ffov,  ibid.  6).  Again, 
 in  Is.  xxxiii.  21,  ^"1^  "^3^  literally  means  "a  sliip 
 of  oar,"  i.  e.  an  oared  vessel.  Rowing,  too,  is 
 probably  implied  in  Jon.  i.  13,  where  the  LXX. 
 have  simply  irope/SicJforTO.  The  other  feature  of 
 the  ancient,  as  of  the  modern  ship,  is  the  flag  or 
 o-»)ueToi/  at  the  top  of  the  mast  (Is.  /.  c,  and  xxx. 
 17).  Here  perhaps,  as  in  some  other  respects, 
 the  early  Egyptian  paintings  supply  our  best  illus- 
 tration. 
 
 (7.)  Rate  of  Sailmj. 
 
 SHIP 
 
 nish   excellent  data  for  approximately  eatimating 
 this;  and  they  are  quite  in  harmony  with  what  we 
 learn   from  other  sources.     AVe  must  notice  here, 
 however  (what  commentators  sometimes  curiously 
 forget),  that  winds  are  variable.     Thus  the  voyage 
 between  Tuoas   and  Pjiilii'PI,   accomplished   on 
 one  occasion  (Acts  xvi.  11,  12)  in  two  days,  occu- 
 pied on   a7iother  occasion   (Acts  xx.  6)  five  days. 
 Such  a  variation  might  be  illustrated  by  what  took 
 place  almost  any  week  between  Dublin  and  Holy- 
 head before  the  application  of  steam  to  seafaring. 
 "NVitii  a  fair  wind  an  ancient  ship  would  sail  fully 
 seven  knots  an  hour.     Two  very  good   instances 
 are  again  supplied  by  St.  Paul's  experience:  in  the 
 voyages  from  Ctesarea  to  Sidon  (Acts  xxvii.  2,  3), 
 and   from  Rhegiuin   to  Puteoli  (Acts  xxviii.  13). 
 The  result  given  by  comparing  in  these  cases  the 
 measurements  of   time  and    distance  corresponds 
 with  what  we  gather  from  Greek  and  Latin  authors 
 generally;  e.  (j.,  from  Pliny's  story  of  the  fresh  fig 
 produced  by  Cato  in  the  Roman  Senate  before  the 
 third  Punic  war:   "This  fruit  was  gathered  fresh 
 at  Carthage  three  days  ago:  that  is  the  distance 
 of  the  enemy  from  your  walls  "   (Plin.  //.  N.  xv. 
 20). 
 
 (8.)  Sailing  before  the  wind,  and  near  the  wind. 
 —  The  rig  which  has  been  described  is,  like  the  rig 
 of  Chinese  junks,  peculiarly  favorable  to  a  quick 
 run  before  the  wind.  We  have  in  the  N.  T.  (Acts 
 xvi.  11,  xxvii.  16)  the  technical  term  fvdvSpo/ui.4ai 
 for  voyages  made  under  such  advantageous  condi- , 
 tions."  It  would,  however,  be  a  great  mistake  to 
 suppose  that  ancient  ships  could  not  work  to  wind- 
 ward. Pliny  distinctly  says:  "  lisdem  ventis  in 
 contrarium  navigatur  prolatis  pedii)us  "  (//.  N.  ii. 
 48).  The  superior  rig  and  build,  however,  of 
 modern  ships  enable  them  to  sail  nearer  to  the  wind 
 than  was  the  case  in  classical  times.  At  one  very 
 critical  point  of  St.  Paul's  vojage  to  Rome  (Acts 
 xxvii.  7)  we  are  told  that  the  ship  could  not  hold 
 on  her  course  (which  was  W.  by  S.,  from  Cnidus 
 by  the  north  side  of  Crete)  against  a  violent  wind 
 (jLiri  TTpoaecauTos  7]fj.as  tov  ave/xov)  blowing  from 
 the  N.  W.,  and  that  consequently  sh^  rari  down  to 
 the  east  end  of  Cukte  [Salmone],  and  worked 
 up  under  the  shelter  of  the  south  side  of  the  island 
 (vv.  7,  8).  [Fair  IIavk>s.]  Here  the  technical 
 terms  of  our  sailors  have  been  emi)loyed,  whose 
 custom  is  to  divide  the  whole  circle  of  tlie  compass- 
 card  into  thirty-two  equal  parts,  called  points.  A 
 modern  ship,  if  the  weather  is  not  very  boisterous, 
 will  sail  within  six  jioints  of  the  wind.  To  an 
 ancient  vessel,  of  whicli  the  hull  was  more  clumsy, 
 and  the  yards  could  not  be  braced  so  tight,  it 
 would  be  safe  to  assign  seven  points  as  the  limit. 
 This  will  enable  us,  so  far  as  we  know  the  direction 
 of  the  wind  (and  we  can  really  ascertain  it  in  each 
 case  very  exactly),  to  lay  down  the  tacks  of  the 
 ships  in  which  St.  Paul  sailed,  beating  against  the 
 wind,  on  the  voyages  from  Philippi  to  Troas  (axp's 
 T]lj.(pwv  TreVre,  Acts  xx.  6),  from  Sidon  to  Myra 
 (5(a  rb  Tous  aviixovs  ilvai  ivavTiovs,  xxvii.  3-5), 
 from  Myra  to  Cnidus  (eV  LKafah  rifnipais  $paSu- 
 ir\oovvr€s,  xxvii.  6,  7),  from  Salmone  to  Fair  Ha- 
 vens ifj.6\ts  Trapa\ey6fx.evoi,  xxvii.  7,  8),  and  from 
 Syracuse  to  Rhegium  (Trfpif\d6vTes,  xxviii.  12, 
 13). 
 
 (9.)  Lying-to.  —  This  topic  arises  naturally  out 
 
 a  With  this  compare  rby  eir"  evBiCai  &f>6iji0v  in  an 
 interestiug    piissag«   of   Philo    concerning    the    Alex- 
 St.  Paul's  voyages  fur-  1  audriau  ships  {hi  Place,  p.  968,  ed.  Fraukf.  1691). 
 
SHIP 
 
 Df  what  has  preceded,  and  it  is  so  important  in 
 reference  to  the  main  questions  connected  with  the 
 shipwreck  at  Malta,  that  it  is  here  made  tlie  sub- 
 ject of  a  separate  section.  A  ship  that  could  make 
 progress  on  her  proper  course,  in  moderate  weather, 
 when  sailing  within  seven  points  of  the  wind,  wotdd 
 lie-to  in  a  gale,  with  her  length  making  about  the 
 same  angle  with  the  direction  of  the  wind.  This 
 is  done  when  the  object  is,  not  to  make  progress  at 
 all  hazards,  but  to  ride  out  a  gale  in  safety;  and 
 this  is  what  was  done  in  St.  Paul's  ship  when  she 
 was  undergirded  and  the  boat  taken  on  board  (Acts 
 xxvii.  l-t-l")  under  tlie  lee  of  Clauda.  It  is  here 
 that  St.  Luke  uses  the  vivid  term  avTo<pda\fj.ui', 
 mentioned  above.  Had  the  gale  been  less  violent, 
 the  ship  could  easily  ha\e  held  on  her  course.  To 
 anchor  was  out  of  the  question ;  and  to  have  drifted 
 before  the  wind  would  have  been  to  run  into  the 
 fatal  Syrtis  on  the  African  coast.  [Quicksand.s.] 
 Hence  the  vessel  was  hud-to  ("close-hauled,"  as 
 the  sailors  say)  "on  the  starboard  tack,"  *'.  e.  with 
 her  right  side  towards  the  storm.  The  wind  was 
 E.  N.  E.  [Eukoclydom],  the  ship's  bow  would 
 point  N.  by  VV.,  the  direction  of  drift  (six  points 
 being  added  for  "lee-way")  would  be  W.  by  N., 
 and  the  rate  of  drift  about  a  mile  and  a  half 
 an  hour.  It  is  from  these  materials  that  we 
 easily  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  shipwreck 
 must  have  taken  place  on  the  coast  of  JIalta. 
 [Adkia.] 
 
 (10.)  Ship's  Boat. — This  is  perhaps  the  best 
 place  for  noticing  separately  the  ffKatpT],  which  ap- 
 pears prominently  in  the  narrative  of  the  voyage 
 (Acts  xxvii.  16,  32).  Every  large  merchant-ship 
 must  have  had  one  or  more  boats.  It  is  evident 
 that  the  Alexandrian  corn-ship  in  which  St.  Paul 
 was  sailing  from  Fair  Havens,  and  in  which  the 
 sailors,  apprehending  no  danger,  hoped  to  reach 
 Phenick,  had  her  boat  towing  behind.  When 
 the  gale  cante,  one  of  their  first  desires  must  have 
 been  to  take  the  boat  o.i  board,  and  this  was  done 
 under  the  lee  of  Clauda,  when  the  ship  was  under- 
 girded,  and  brought  round  to  the  wind  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  lying-to;  but  it  was  done  Avith  difficulty, 
 and  it  would  seem  that  the  passengers  gave  assist- 
 ance in  the  task  (fx,6\is  (Vxiitra/xe)'  TrepiKpaT(7s  ye- 
 veffdai  rrjs  (TKapr^t,  Acts  xxvii.  l(j).  The  sea  by 
 this  time  must  have  been  furiously  rough,  and  the 
 boat  must  have  been  filled  with  water.  It  is  with 
 this  very  boat  that  one  of  the  most  lively  passages 
 of  the  whole  narrative  is  connected.  When  the 
 ship  was  at  anchor  in  the  night  before  she  was  run 
 aground,  the  sailors  lowered  the  boat  from  the  da- 
 vits with  the  selfish  desire  of  escaping,  on  which  St. 
 Paul  spoke  to  the  soldiers,  and  they  cut  the  ropes 
 (ra  (rxoiVta)  and  the  boat  fell  off  (Acts  xxvii.  JO- 
 32). 
 
 (11.)  Officers  and  Crew.  —  In  Acts  xxvii.  11 
 we  have  both  Kv^ipvi)Ty\s  and  vavK\y)pos.  The 
 latter  is  the  owner  (in  part  or  in  whole)  of  the  ship 
 or  the  cargo,  receiving  also  (possibly)  the  fares  of 
 the  passengers.  The  former  has  the  charge  of  the 
 steering.  The  same  word  occurs  also  in  Kev.  xviii. 
 17:  Prov.  xxiii.  3i;  Ez.  xxvii.  8,  and  is  equivalent 
 to  xpiapei'is  in  Kz.  xxvii.  29 ;  Jon.  i.  6.  In  James 
 iii.  4  6  evdvvaiv,  "the  governor,"  is  simply  the 
 steersman  for  the  moment.  The  word  for  "  ship- 
 men  "  (Acts  xxvii.  27,  30)  and  "sailors"  (Itev. 
 xviii.  17)  is  simply  the  usual  term  vavTai-  In  the 
 latter  passage  o/xiKos  occurs  for  the  crew,  but  the 
 text  is  doul)tful.  In  Ez.  xxvii.  8,  9,  20,  27,  29, 
 ?i,  we  have  KiCTrriKdrai  for  "  those  who  handle  the 
 
 SHIP 
 
 3007 
 
 oar,"  and  in  the  same  chapter  (ver.  29)  e'irtjSaTOi, 
 which  may  mean  either  passengers  or  mariners. 
 The  only  other  passages  which  need  be  noticed 
 here  are  1  K.  ix.  27,  and  2  Chr.  viii.  18,  in  the 
 account  of  Solomon's  ships.  The  former  has  ruv 
 TTaiSoiv  avTOv  avSpes  vavTiKol  iKavveiv  €lS6- 
 res  6d\a(T(rav\  the  latter,  TraiSes  fiSorey  ddXaa" 
 crav." 
 
 (12.)  Storms  and  Shipwrecks.  —  The  first  cen- 
 tury of  the  Christian  era  was  a  time  of  immense 
 traffic  in  the  Mediterranean;  and  there  must  have 
 Ijeen  many  vessels  lost  there  every  year  by  ship- 
 wreck, and  (perhaps)  as  many  by  foundering.  This 
 last  danger  would  be  much  increased  by  the  form 
 of  rig  described  aliove.  Besides  this,  we  nnist  re- 
 meuilier  that  the  ancients  had  no  compass,  and  very 
 imperfect  charts  and  instruments,  if  any  at  all; 
 and  though  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
 that  they  never  ventured  out  of  sight  of  land,  yet, 
 dependent  as  they  were  on  the  heavenly  bodies,  the 
 danger  was  nuieh  greater  than  now  in  liad  weather, 
 when  the  sky  was  overcast,  and  "  neither  sun  nor 
 stars  in  many  days  appeared  "  (Acts  xxvii.  20). 
 Hence  also  the  winter  season  was  considered  dan- 
 gerous, and,  if  possible,  avoided  (uyros  r)5r}  eVfo-- 
 <pa\ods  Tov  ttAoo?,  Sia  rh  Ka\  t)}v  vricTTeiav  ^Stj 
 irapeArjAuflfVai,  i/jid.  9).  Certain  coasts  too  were 
 nmch  dreaded,  especially  the  African  Syrtis  {ibid. 
 17).  The  danger  indicated  by  breakers  {ibid.  29), 
 and  the  fear  of  falling  on  rocks  {rpax^h  tSjtoi), 
 are  matters  of  course.  St.  Paul's  experience  seems 
 to  have  been  full  of  illustrations  of  ail  these  perils. 
 We  learn  from  2  Cor.  xi.  25  that,  before  the  voy- 
 age described  in  detail  by  St.  Luke,  he  had  been 
 "  three  times  wrecked,"  and  further,  that  he  had 
 once  lieen  "  a  night  and  a  day  in  the  deep  "  prob- 
 ably floating  on  a  spar,  as  was  the  case  with  Jose- 
 phus.  These  circumstances  give  peculiar  force  to 
 ins  using  the  metaphor  of  a  shipwreck  {ivava,yr\- 
 aav,  1  Tim.  i.  19)  in  speaking  of  those  who  had 
 apostatized  from  the  faith.  In  connection  with 
 this  general  subject  we  may  notice  the  caution  with 
 which,  on  the  voyage  from  Troas  to  Patara  (Acts 
 XX.  13-16,  xxi.  1),  the  sailors  anchored  for  the 
 night  during  the  period  of  dark  moon,  in  the  in- 
 tricate passages  between  the  islands  and  the  main 
 [Mitylene;  Samos;  Ti!OGyli,ium],  the  evident 
 acquaintance  which,  on  the  voyage  to  Rome,  the 
 sailors  of  the  Adramyttian  ship  had  with  the  cur- 
 rents on  the  coasts  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  (Acts 
 xxvii.  2-5)  [Adramyttium],  and  the  provision 
 for  taking  soundings  in  case  of  danger,  as  clearly 
 indicated  in  the  narrative  of  the  shipwreck  at 
 Malta,  the  measurements  being  apparently  the  same 
 as  those  which  are  customary  with  us  {jSoXiaau- 
 T6J  e'upov  opyvias  f'lKoa'i-  fipaxv  5e  SiaaT-fjcravTfs, 
 Kal  irdKiv  ^oKiaai'TiS,  eupov  opyvMs  SeKavei/re, 
 Acts  xxvii.  28). 
 
 (13.)  Boats  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  —  There  is  a 
 melancholy  interest  in  that  passage  of  Dr.  Kobin- 
 son's  Jiesearches  (iii.  253),  in  which  he  says,  that 
 on  his  approach  to  the  Sea  of  I'iberias,  he  saw  a 
 single  white  siyl.  This  w,as  the  sail  of  the  one 
 rickety  boat  which,  as  we  learn  from  other  travellers 
 (see  especially  Thomson,  Land  and  Booh,  pp.  401- 
 404),  alone  remains  on  a  scene  represented  to  us  in 
 the  Gospels  and  in  Josephus  as  full  of  life  from  the 
 
 a  *  The  "  mariners  "  (A.  V.)  in  Jon.  i.  5  (□"Tl b^  : 
 
 va.vTi.KoC)  are  simply  those  who  follow  the  sea,  whethei 
 offlcers  or  crew.  H 
 
3008 
 
 sHIP 
 
 multitude  of  its  fisliing-boats."  In  the  narratives 
 of  llie  call  of  the  disciijles  to  be  "  fishers  of  men  " 
 (Matt.  iv.  18-22;  Jlark  i.  16-20;  Luke  v.  1-11), 
 there  is  no  special  information  concerning  the  char- 
 acteristics of  these  boats.  In  the  account  of  the 
 storm  and  the  miracle  on  the  lake  (Matt.  viii.  2^- 
 27;  Mark  iv.  35-41 ;  Luke  viii.  22-25),  it  is  for 
 every  reason  instructive  to  compare  the  three  narra- 
 tives; and  we  should  observe  that  Luke  is  more 
 technical  in  his  language  than  Jlatthew,  and  JMark 
 than  Luke.  Thus  instead  of  crfia/xhs  fj-eyas  iyiv- 
 ero  eV  t?7  BaKdaari  (JIatt.  viii.  24),  we  have  ko- 
 TfjSi)  \ai\a']/  auf/wv  els  tV  ^ifJ-vrjv  (Luke  viii. 
 23),  and  again  toJ  k\vSu>ui  tov  vSutos  (ver.  24); 
 and  instead  of  Starf  rh  irKolov  KaAinrreadai  we 
 have  ffvviTTKr)povvro.  In  Mark  (iv.  37)  we  have 
 Ta  Kiifxara  iiri^aWev  eh  rh  irAolov,  ware  avrh 
 fjSTj  yefj.i(^effdat.  This  Evangelist  also  mentions 
 the  TTpo(TKecpa\aiov,  or  boatman's  cushion,''  on 
 which  our  Blessed  Saviour  was  sleeping  ev  rij 
 TTpvfj.i'T],  and  he  uses  the  techtiical  term  eKoiraaev 
 for  the'  lulling  of  the  storm.  [Pillow,  Amer.  ed.] 
 See  more  ou  tiiis  subject  in  Smith,  Dissertatiwi  on 
 tilt  Gdspcls  (Lond.  1853).  We  may  turn  now  to 
 St.  John.  In  the  account  he  gives  of  what  followed 
 the  miracle  of  walking  on  the  sea  (vi.  10-25),  irAoI- 
 0^  and  TvXoiapwv  seem  to  be  used  inditferently, 
 and  we  have  mention  of  other  irKoidpia.  There 
 would  of  coiu'se  be  boats  of  various  sizes  on  the 
 lake.  '1  he  reading,  however,  is  doubtful.'"  Finally, 
 in  the  solemn  scene  after  the  resurrection  (.John  x,\i. 
 1-8),  we  have  the  terms  aiyia\6s  and  ra  Se|ia 
 ue'pjj  TOV  irAoiou,  which  should  be  noticed  as  tech- 
 nical. Here  again  ttKoTov  and  irAoidpioi/  appear 
 to  be  synonymous.  If  we  compare  all  these  pas- 
 sages with  .losephus,  we  easily  come  to  the  conclu- 
 sion that,  with  the  large  population  round  the  Lake 
 of  Tiberias,  there  must  have  been  a  vast  number 
 both  of  fishing-boats  and  pleasure-boats,  and  that 
 boat-building  must  have  been  an  active  trade  on  its 
 shores  (see  Stanley,  Sin.  aiul  Pal.  p.  307).  The 
 term  used  by  Josephus  is  sometimes  irKoiov,  some- 
 times (ri(d(pos.  I'here  are  two  passages  in  the 
 Jewish  historian  to  which  we  should  carefully  refer, 
 one  in  which  he  describes  his  own  taking  of  Tibe- 
 rias by  an  expedition  of  boats  from  Tarichwa  (  Vlt. 
 32,  33,  B.  J.  ii.  21,  §§  8-10).  Here  he  says  that 
 he  collected  all  the  boats  on  the  lake,  amounting  to 
 230  in  number,  with  four  men  in  each.  He  states 
 also  incidentally  that  each  l3oat  had  a  "pilot"  and 
 an  •'anchor."  The  other  passage  describes  the 
 operations  of  Vespasian  at  a  later  period  in  the 
 same  neighborhood  (B.  J.  iii.  10,  §§  1,  5,0,  9). 
 These  operations  amounted  to  a  regular  Roman 
 sea-fight:  and  large  rafts  (ax^Siat)  are  mentioned 
 besides  the  boats  or  crKdcprj. 
 
 (14.)  Mcrchiint-iihipi  in  the  Old  Testament. — 
 The  earliest  passages  where  seafaring  is  alluded  to 
 in  the  0.  T.  are  the  following  in  order.  Gen.  xlix. 
 13,  in  the  prophecy  of  Jacob  concerning   Zebulun 
 
 «  *  Some  recent  travellers  speak  of  two  and  three,  or 
 more,  boats  on  this  lake.  The  number,  at  present, 
 varies  at  different  times,  or  else  they  are  not  all  seen 
 or  heard  of  by  the  same  traveller.  H. 
 
 b  The  word  in  I'nllux  is  un-jjpeVioi',  but  lle.sychius 
 gives  npo<rKe4>aKcLLOv  as  the  equivalent.  See  Kiihn's 
 note  on  Jul.  Poll.  Onotn.  i.  p.  59.  (Ed.  Amstel.  1706.) 
 
 c  So  in  Mark  iv.  36,  ''  little  ships,'"  the  true  read- 
 ing appears  to  be  7rA.oia,  not  TrAotoipia. 
 
 d  So  in  Dan.  xi.  30  where  the  same  phrase  '■  ships 
 of  Chittlu-  "■  occurs  there  is  no  strictly  corresponding 
 
 SHIP 
 
 (KaroiK-fitrei  irap'  opfxou  irKoiuiv) ;  Num.  xxiv.  24, 
 in  Balaam's  prophecy  (where,  however,  sliips  are 
 not  mentioned  in  the  LXX.'');  Deut.  xxviii.  68,  in 
 one  of  the  warnings  of  Moses  (aTroffrpexf/ei  ere  Kv- 
 pioi  els  AiyviTTOv  ev  irKotois)',  Jndg.  v.  17,  in 
 Deborah's  Song  (Aai/  els  ri  irapoiKel  irKoiois;)- 
 Next  after  these  it  is  natural  to  mention  the  illus- 
 trations and  descriptions  connected  with  this  sub- 
 ject in  Job  (ix.  20,  J)  Kai  eVrt  vavclv  "ixvos  6Sov)\ 
 and  in  the  Psalms  (xlvii.  [xlviii.]  7,  iv  irvev^aTi 
 liialcfj ''  (TvvTpi}pets  ir\o7a  ©apcri's,  ciii.  [civ.]  20, 
 e/ceT  TrAoIa  SiairopevovTaty  cvi.  [cvii.]  23,  oi  Kara- 
 ^aivovres  eis  Odhaacrav  ev  ■wKoiois)-  I'rov.  xxiii. 
 34  has  already  been  quoted.  To  this  add  xxx.  19 
 {Tpi^ovs  vfjos  ■KOVTOTTopov(rr)s),  xxxi.  14  (vavs  e/x- 
 ■Kopevofxevr]  fjiaKpSdev)-  Solomon's  own  ships, 
 which  may  have  suggested  some  of  these  illustra- 
 tions (1  k.  ix.  20;  2  Chr.  viii.  18,  ix.  21),  have 
 previously  been  mentioned.  We  must  notice  the 
 disastrous  expedition  of  Jehoshaphafs  ships  from 
 the  same  port  of  lizion-gelier  (1  K.  xxii.  48,  49 ;  2 
 Chr.  XX.  30,  37).  The  passages  which  remain  are 
 in  the  prophets.  Some  have  been  already  adduced 
 from  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel.  In  the  former  prophet 
 the  general  term  '•  ships  of  Tarshish  "  is  variously 
 given  in  the  LXX.,  irXoiov  da\d(r<T-r)s-'  (ii.  16), 
 ■R\ota  VLapx^^ovos  (xxiii.  1,  14),  irXoia  Qapais 
 (Ix.  9).  I'or  another  allusion  to  seafaring,  see  xliii. 
 14.  The  celebrated  27th  chapter  of  Lzekiel  ought 
 to  be  carefully  studied  in  all  its  detail;  and  in  .lo- 
 nah  i.  3-10,  the  following  technical  phrases  (besides 
 what  has  been  already  adduced)  should  l)e  noticed: 
 vavXov  (3),  avvTpi^Tjvai  (4),  eK^oK7)v  eiroiricravTo 
 Twv  (TKevcov,  TOV  Kov<pi(TQr\vai  (5),  Koizaaei  r]  da- 
 Kaaaa  (H,  12).  In  Dan.  xi.  40  (o-waxGriffeTai 
 ^acriXeus  tov  Boppa  ev  dp/xairi  Kal  ev  iTnrev(n 
 Kal  ev  vaval  7roAAa?s)  we  touch  the  sul  ject  of  ships 
 of  war. 
 
 (15.)  Ships  of  War  in  the  Apocrypha. — Mil- 
 itary operations  both  by  land  and  wa(»r  (ivrrj  6a- 
 Aaaari  Kal  enl  t^s  ^Vpns,  1  Mace.  viii.  23,  32) 
 are  prominent  suljects  in  the  books  of  Maccabees, 
 i'hus  in  the  contract  between  Judas  Maccal)8eus 
 and  the  Komans  it  is  agreed  {ibid.  20,  28)  that  no 
 supplies  are  to  be  afforded  to  the  enemies  of  either, 
 whether  (jiros,  oirAa,  dpyvpiov,  or  TrAoTa.  In  a 
 later  passage  (xv.  3)  we  have  more  explicitly,  iu 
 the  letter  of  King  .\ntiochus,  TrAoTa  iroXefxiKd  (see 
 v.  14),  while  in  2  Mace.  iv.  20  (as  observed  above) 
 the  word  Tpirjpsis,  "galleys,"  occurs  in  the  account 
 of  the  proceedings  of  the  infamous  Jason.  Here  we 
 must  not  forget  the  monument  erected  by  Simon 
 Maccalioeus  on  his  father's  grave,  on  which,  with 
 other  ornaments  and  military  symbols,  were  TrAoto 
 eiTiyeyKvixfieva,  els  rh  6eoope7adai  unh  wavraiv 
 Twv  irKeovroiiv  t^v  Qd\aa<Tav  (1  Mace.  xiii.  29). 
 Finally  must  be  mentioned  the  noyide  at  Joppa, 
 when  the  resident  Jew's,  with  wives  and  children, 
 200  in  number,  were  induced  to  go  into  lioats  and 
 were  drowned  (2  Mace.  xii.  3,  4),  with  the  venge- 
 
 phrase  in  the  LXX.     The  translators  appear  to  have 
 
 read  S^.";"!  and  "'SV''  for  D'^V")  and  C^*^  in  these 
 passages  respectively. 
 
 e  The  LXX.  here  read  ^"112p,  kalOn,  "small,"  for 
 
 D"^1p,  k&rtim,  "east." 
 
 /  This  is  perhaps  a  mistake  of  the  copyist,  who  tran- 
 scribed from  dictation,  and  mistook  ©apai's  for  @aAao 
 
SHIP 
 
 auce  tiiken  by  Judas  (rbj'  fxhv  \t/j.iva  vvKTwp  ive- 
 TTpyjo's  Kal  TO,  (TKacprj  Ka.Te(j)\€^f,  ver.  6).  It  seems 
 sufficient  simply  to  enumerate  tlie  other  passages  in 
 the  Apocrypha  where  some  alhision  to  sea-faring  is 
 made.  I'hey  are  the  following:  Wisd.  v.  10,  xiv. 
 1;  Ecclus.  xxxiii.  2,  xliii.  24;  1  Esdr.  iv.  23. 
 
 (IG.)  Nautlail  Terms.  —  The  great  rejjertory  of 
 fcuch  terms,  as  used  by  those  who  spoke  tiie  Greek 
 language,  is  the  f/io/uas^/cow  of  Julius  Pollux;  and 
 it  may  be  useful  to  conclude  tiiis  article  by  men- 
 tioning a  few  out  of  many  which  are  found  there, 
 and  also  in  the  N.  'i'.  or  LXX.  First,  to  quote 
 some  which  have  been  mentioned  above.  We  find 
 the  following  both  in  Pollux  and  the  Scriptures : 
 (Txotvia,  tr/ceuT),  kXv'Swv,  x^^I^'^''i  <p6pTiov,  iK^oA-fj, 
 crvpTts,  ovSkv  vTTocTTeWeadai,  ovk  i]v  rhv  rjAioy 
 tSelv,  ffKaipr].  (TKacpos,  uav\ov,  (rvvrpi^Tivai,  0(/)- 
 6a\/j.hs  OTTou  Kal  Tovvofxa  ttjs  rsajs  itnypdcpovcri 
 (compared  t\ith  Acts  xxvii.  1.5,  xxviii.  11),  rpax^'S 
 alytaAoi  (couipared  with  Acts  xxvii.  2!J,  40).  The 
 following  are  some  which  have  not  been  mentioned 
 in  this  article:  avdyiffdai  and  KaTayta-dai  {e.  g. 
 Acts  xxviii.  11,  12),  aavi^is  (I'-z-  xxvii.  .5),  rp6tris 
 (Wisd.  V.  10),  ava^nivo)  (.(on.  i.  3;  Mark  vi.  51), 
 ya\r)vr]  (Matt.  viii.  2G),  a.fji(pl^K7\(TTpov  (Matt.  iv. 
 18,  Mark  i.  IG),  a.iro(popTiaaa9ai  (Acts  xxi.  4), 
 inroTryecii  (xxvii.  13),  rv(pwv  (dvefj-os  rvcpwviKSs, 
 xxvii.  14),  ayKi'ipas  Karanivfiv  {dyKvpas  eKTei- 
 vtif,  ibid.  30),  u^pi(TTT)s  dvifxas  {v^p^ais,  10, 
 vfipiv,  21),  TTpoaoKeWw  {iiroKfWaj,  ibid.  41), 
 KoAvjx^au  {i-bid.  42).  Sta\v6ei(r7is  rrjs  yeeis  (?; 
 irpiifiva  eKvero,  ibid.  41).  This  is  an  imperfect 
 list  of  the  whole  numljer;  but  it  may  serve  to  show 
 how  rich  the  N.  T.  and  LXX.  are  in  the  nautical 
 phraseology  of  the  (ireek  Levant.  To  this  must 
 be  added  a  notice  of  the  peculiar  variety  and  accu- 
 racy of  St.  Luke's  ordinary  phrases  for  sailing  un- 
 der different  circumstances,  TrAe'o),  a-roTrAeo),  0pa5u- 
 irAoeo),  SfaTrAeo),  e/CTrAeo),  KaTair\eoo,  vrroTrAfCD, 
 TrapaTrAeoj,  evBuSpoueai,  vTroTpex<^,  TrapaKfyofiai, 
 (pepofxai,  Siacp^po/xai,  StaTrepao). 
 
 (17.)  Aalkorities. — The  preceding  list  of  St. 
 Luke's  nautical  verbs  is  from  Mr.  Smith's  work 
 on  the  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul  (Lon- 
 don, 1st  ed.  1848,  2d  ed.  18.56).  No  other  book 
 need  be  mentioned  here,  since  it  has  for  some  time 
 been  recognized,  both  in  England  and  on  the  Con- 
 tinent, as  the  standard  work  on  ancient  ships,  and 
 it  contains  a  complete  list  of  previous  books  on  the 
 subject.  Reference,  however,  may  be  made  to  the 
 memoranda  of  Admiral  Penrose,  incorporated  in 
 the  notes  to  the  27th  chapter  of  Conybeare  and 
 Howson's  Tlie  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (Lon- 
 don, 2d  ed.  185G).  J.  S.  H. 
 
 *  Many  of  the  identical  sea-phrases  pointed  out 
 above  are  still  in  use  among  the  modern  Greeks. 
 T'he  Ovopi.aroKoyiov  "HavrMov  (issued  from  the 
 Admiralty  office  at  Athens,  1858)  prescribes  the 
 nautical  terms  to  be  used  on  board  the  national 
 vessels.  The  object,  of  course,  is  not  to  invent  or 
 arbitrarily  impose  such  terms,  but  taking  them 
 from  actual  life  to  guard  them  against  extrusion  by 
 foreign  words.  AVe  subjoin  some  examples  with  the 
 English  and  French  definitions  as  given  in  the 
 Catalogue,  together  with  references  to  the  Scripture 
 places  where  the  same  words  occur  in  the  same 
 sense:  iKreivco  &yKvpau,  elonger,  to  lay  out  aic/ior, 
 Acts  xxvii.  30 ;  a'tpu,  enlever,  to  hoist,  Acts  xxvii. 
 13 ;  eaoi,  laisser  oiler,  to  let  go,  Acts  xxvii .  40 ; 
 XaKaai,  aiiiener  tout  bus,  to  lower  ax\(k  to  strike  sail, 
 Acts  xxvii.  17,  30;  iTraipoi  icrriov,  hisser  tme  voile, 
 lo  hois    sail,  ibid. ;  di'a(paivoo  yrjv,   decouvrir  la 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 yoo9 
 
 '.erre,  to  sight  land,  Acts  xxi.  3,  and  cf.  a.iroKpvwTa 
 yrif,  a  classical  phrase;  viroir\ea>,  pass  to  letward, 
 cf.  Acts  xxvii.  4,  7,  and  xxviii.  7 ;  Trpoffop/j.i(ofxai, 
 rel'iclier,  put  into  port,  Mark  vi.  53;  Trapa^dWui, 
 accos/er,  to  go  alongside,  to  coast,  Acts  xx.  15 ; 
 iKavvu,  nager,  to  pull  in  rowing,  Mark  vi.  48; 
 (evKTTjpiai,  les  sunvegardes,  rudder-pendants,  Acts 
 xxvii.  40 ;  fioXi^ai,  sonder,  to  sound.  Acts  xxvii. 
 28;  7)  dno^oKr],  la  perle,  loss  by  sea,  or,  throw- 
 ing overboard  ;  €7ro/cf'AAco,  faire  echouer,  to 
 strand  a  ship.  Acts  xxvii.  41 ;  Sta<Td!)(^aj,  faire  le 
 sauvetage,  to  rescue,  i.e.  from  shipwreck,  Acts  xxviii. 
 1;  ffj.Bt0d^u,  debarquer,  to  ship,  embark,  Acts 
 xxviii.  1;  Kov(pl(w,  alleger,  to  lighten.  Acts  xxviii. 
 18;  iinSiSui,  laisser  porter,  to  bear  away.  Acts 
 xxvii.  15 ;  ;^oAacD,  aniener  un  canot,  to  lower  a 
 boat.  Acts  xxvii.  17,  30.  To  these  we  might  add 
 others.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  sea-phrases  which 
 Luke  heard  on  board  the  "Castor  and  Pollux"  may 
 be  heard  now  among  the  seamen  who  navigate  the 
 same  waters. 
 
 The  processes  and  instruments  of  steam-naviga- 
 tion render  a  new  terminology  necessary  to  some 
 extent  in  that  sphere;  but  for  this  exigency  the 
 Greek  language,  so  wonderfully  plastic,  is  able  to 
 provide  within  itself  by  the  use  of  compounds. 
 
 H. 
 
 SHI'PHI  i^ypW  [abundant] :  2a(^a<;  [Vat. 
 2,a(paA;]  Alex.  Sei^eij/:  Sephe'i).  A  Simeonite, 
 father  of  Ziza,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  in  the  time  of 
 Uezekiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  37). 
 
 SHIPH'MITE,  THE  Cppti^n :  [Vat.]  o 
 rov  2e(pi/ei;  [Rom.]  Alex.  6  r-  '2,€<pi/i.  Sophoni- 
 tcs).  Probably,  though  not  certainly,  the  native 
 of  SiiKPiiAJi.  Zabdi,  the  officer  in  David's  house- 
 hold who  had  charge  of  the  wine-making  (1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  27),  is  the  only  person  so  distinguished. 
 
 G. 
 
 SHIPH'RAH  (n-n^tr  [see  below] :  56,r- 
 (piipa:  Scphora,  Ex.  i.  15).  The  name  of  one  of 
 the  two  midwives  of  the  Hebrews  who  disobeyed 
 the  command  of  Pharaoh,  the  first  oppressor,  to 
 kill  the  male  children,  and  were  tiierefore  blessed 
 (vv.  15-21).  It  is  not  certain  that  they  were  He- 
 brews: if  they  were,  the  name  Shiphrah  would  sig- 
 nify -'brightness"  or  "beauty."  It  has  also  an 
 Egyptian  sound,  the  last  syllable  resembling  tliat 
 of  Potiphar,  Poti-phra,  and  Hophra,  in  all  which 
 we  recognize  the  word  PH-RA,  P-RA,  "  the  sim," 
 or  "  Pharaoh,"  in  composition,  when  alone  written 
 
 in  Meb.  n37~]3  :  in  these  cases,  however,  the  V 
 is  usual,  as  we  should  expect  from  the  Egyptian 
 spelling.    [PuAH.]  R.  S.  P. 
 
 SHIPH'TAN  (]^Stt7  [judicial]  ■.•s.aBaOw; 
 [Vat.  -da;  Comp.  Aid.  'S,a(prdv:]  Sephthan). 
 Father  of  Kemuel,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim 
 (Num.  xxxiv.  24). 
 
 HHI'SHA  (STO'^tt^  [see  Seraiah]  :  :<n&d:  [Vat. 
 2a3a;J  Alex.  26i(ra'  Sisa).  Father  of  Elihoreph 
 and  Ahiah,  the  royal  secretaries  in  the  reign  of 
 Solomon  (1  K.  iv.  3).  He  is  apparently  the  same 
 as  SiiAVSHA,  who  held  the  same  position  under 
 David. 
 
 SHI'SHAK   (ntt;^K7«:     Souo-awV;     [Vat. 
 
 a  The  text  in  1  K.  xiv.  25  has  ptj?"1tt7,  but  Or» 
 Keri  proposes   pti7^Ii7. 
 
3010  SHISHAK 
 
 Alex.  -Ketfi :]  Sesac),  king  of  Egypt,  the  Sheshenk 
 I.  of  the  monuments,  first 
 sovereign  of  the  Bubastite 
 XXIId  dynasty.  His  name 
 is  thus  wi'itten  in  hiero- 
 glyphics. 
 
 Chronolo(iy.  —  The  reign 
 of  Shishak  offers  the  first 
 determined  synchronisms  of 
 Egyptian  and  Hebrew  his- 
 tory. Its  chronology  must 
 therefore  be  examined.  We 
 first  yive  a  talile  with  the 
 Egyptian  and  Hebrew  data 
 for  the  chronology  of  the  dynasty,  continued  as 
 far  as  tiie  time  of  Zerali,  who  was  probably  a  suc- 
 cessor of  Shishak,  in  order  to  avoid  repetition  in 
 treating  of  the  latter.      [ZioiAH.] 
 
 Respecting  the  Egyptian  columns  of  this  table, 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that,  as  a  date  of  the 
 23d  year  of  Usarken  H.  occirs  on  the  monuments, 
 it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sum  of  the 
 third,  fourth,  and  fifth  reigns  should  be  29  years 
 instead  of  25,  K0  being  easily  changed  to  KE 
 (Lepsius,  Kimiijsbuch,  p.  85).  We  follow  lepsius' 
 ari'angement,  our  Tekerut  I.,  for  instance,  being 
 the  same  as  his. 
 
 The  synchronism  of  Shishak  and  Solomon,  and 
 that  of  Shishak  and  liehoboam,  may  be  nearly 
 fixed,  as  shown  in  article  CfrKoxoLocjY,  where  a 
 shght  correction  should  be  made  in  one  of  the  data. 
 We  there  mentioned,  on  the  authority  of  Champol- 
 lion,  tliat  an  inscription  bore  the  date  of  the  22d 
 year  of  Shishak  (vol.  i.  p.  448  b).  Lepsius,  however, 
 states  that  it  is  of  the  21st  year,  correcting  Cham- 
 poUion,  who  had  been  followed  by  Bunsen  and 
 others  (xxii  Aey.  Koniysilyn.  p.  272  and  note  1). 
 It  must,  therefore,  be  supposed  that  the  invasion  of 
 
 TABLE    OF   FIRST  SIX    REIGNS   OF  DYNASTY  XXII. 
 
 Egyptian  Dat.\. 
 
 Manelho. 
 
 Africanus. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 1.  Sesfinchis  .   21 
 
 2.  Osorthon.  .  15 
 
 \  Three  others, 
 
 251.29: 
 5.J 
 
 8.  Takelothis    13 
 
 Eusebius. 
 
 Yrs. 
 1.  Scsonchosis     21 
 
 i.  Osorthon  .  .    15 
 
 Takelothis       IS 
 
 Monuments 
 
 Order. 
 
 1.  SHESHENK  [I.] 
 
 1.  USARKEN  [I.] 
 
 ■i.  TEKERUT  [I.] 
 
 4.  USARKEN  [H.] 
 
 5.  SHESHENK  [II.] 
 
 (!.  TEKERUT  [II.] 
 
 Hebrew  Data. 
 
 Solomon,  40  years. 
 Judah.      Yrs.  I  Israel. 
 
 1.  Rehoboam  .    li 
 
 Abijah  ....    3 
 3.  Asa 41 
 
 2.  Nadab 
 
 3.  Baasha 
 
 4.  Elah : 
 
 5.  Zimri 
 
 6.  Omri 1: 
 
 Jerohram  flees  to 
 
 Y^g  1     Shishak. 
 
 22  Shishak  20(?)  in- 
 vades Judah, 
 Relinhoam  .1. 
 
 Judah  took  place  in  the  20th,  and  not  in  the  21st 
 year  of  Shishak.  The  first  year  of  Shishak  would 
 thus  about  correspond  to  the  2Gth  of  Solomon,  and 
 the  20th  to  the  5th  of  Rehoboam. 
 
 The  synchronism  of  Zerah  and  Asa  is  more  dif- 
 ficult to  determine.  It  seems,  from  the  narrative 
 in  Chronicles,  that  the  battle  between  Asa  and  Ze- 
 rah took  place  early  in  the  reign  of  the  king  of  -Ju- 
 dah. It  is  mentioned  before  an  event  of  the  15th 
 year  of  his  reign,  and  afterwards  we  read  that 
 "  there  was  no  [more]  war  unto  the  five  and  thir- 
 tieth year  of  the  reign  of  Asa  "  (2  Chr.  xv.  19). 
 This  is  immediately  followed  by  the  account  of 
 Baasha's  coming  up  against  Judah  "  in  the  six 
 and  thirtieth  year  of  the  reign  of  Asa"  (xvi.  1). 
 The  latter  two  dates  may  perhaps  be  reckoned  from 
 the  division  of  the  kingdom,  unless  we  can  read  the 
 15th  and  Kith,"  for  Baasha  began  to  reign  in  tlie 
 3d  year  of  Asa,  and  died,  after  a  reign  of  24 
 years,  and  was  succeeded  liy  Elah,  in  the  2fith  year 
 of  Asa.  It  seems,  therefore,  most  probable  that 
 the  war  with  Zerah  took  place  early  in  Asa's 
 reign,  before  his  15th  year,  and   thus  also  early 
 
 a  The  25th  and  26th  are  out  of  the  question,  unless 
 the  cessation  of  war  referred  to  relate  to  that  with 
 Zerah,  for  it  is  said  that  Asa  and   Baasha   warred 
 
 in  the  reign  of  Usarken  II.  The  probable  iden- 
 tification of  Zerah  is  considered  under  that  name 
 [Zei:ah]. 
 
 The  chronological  place  of  these  synchronisms 
 may  be  calculated  on  the  Egyptian  as  well  as  the 
 Biblical  side.  The  Egyptian  data  enable  us  to  cal- 
 culate the  accession  of  Shishak  approxiniatively, 
 reckoning  downwards  from  the  XlXth  dynasty, 
 and  upwards  from  the  XXVIth.  The  first  60 
 years  of  the  Sothic  Cycle,  commencing  b.  c.  1322,* 
 appear  to  have  extended  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
 reign  of  Rameses  II.  (o  a  year  after  the  12th  of 
 Kanieses  HI.  The  hitervening  reigns  are  Men- 
 ptah  19,  Sethee  II.  x,  Seth-nekht  x,  which, added 
 to  Rameses  II.  x  and  Rameses  HI.  12,  probably 
 represent  little  less  than  50  years.  The  second  60 
 years  of  the  same  Cycle  extended  from  the  reign  of 
 one  of  the  sons  of  Rameses  HI.,  Rameses  VI.,  sep- 
 arated from  his  father  by  two  reigns,  certainly 
 short,  one  of  at  least  5  years,  to  the  reign  of  Ra- 
 meses XI.,  the  reigns  intervening  between  Rame- 
 ses VI.  and  XI.  giving  two  dates,  which  make  a 
 sum  of  18  years.     We  can  thus  very  nearly  fix  the 
 
 against  each  other  "  all   their  days  "  (1  K.   xr.  16, 
 32). 
 
 b  We  prefer  the  date  B.  c.  1322  to  M.  Riot's  E   0. 
 cir.  1300,  for  reasons  we  cannot  here  explain. 
 
SHISHAK 
 
 accession  of  the  XXth  dynasty.    In  the  order  of  the 
 kings  we  follow  M.  de  Koug6  (Etude,  pp.  183  fl'.). 
 
 XIX. 
 
 2. 
 
 Kameses  II. 
 
 3. 
 
 Meu-ptah        .     . 
 
 .    19 
 
 4. 
 
 Sethee   II.      .      . 
 
 X 
 
 5. 
 
 Seth-nekht    .     . 
 
 X 
 
 1. 
 
 Rameses  III. 
 
 12  (14) 
 
 2. 
 
 Rameses  IV. 
 
 (5) 
 
 3. 
 
 Rameses  V. 
 
 4. 
 
 Rameses  VI. 
 
 5. 
 
 Rameses  VII.     . 
 
 6. 
 
 Rameses  VIII.    . 
 
 7. 
 
 Rameses  IX. 
 
 •     •'  (16) 
 
 8. 
 
 Rameses  X. 
 
 •     •     (2) 
 
 9. 
 
 Rameses  XI. 
 
 I  1322 
 
 \      I 
 I  1263 
 
 1262 
 
 ■      I 
 1203 
 
 J 
 
 The  commencement  of  the  XXth  dynasty  would, 
 on  this  evidence,  fall  about  b.  c.  1280.  The  dura- 
 tion of  the  dynasty,  according  to  JManetho,  was  178 
 (Eus.)  or  135  (Afr.)  years.  The  highest  dates 
 found  give  us  a  sum  of  99  years,  and  the  Sothic 
 data,  and  the  circumstance  that  there  were  five  if 
 not  six  kings  after  Kameses  XI.,  show  that  the 
 length  cannot  have  been  less  than  120  years. 
 Manetho's  numbers  would  bring  us  to  b.  c.  1102 
 or  1145,  for  the  end  of  this  dynasty.  The  monu- 
 ments do  not  throw  any  clear  light  upon  the  chro- 
 nology of  the  succeeding  dynasty,  the  XXIst:  the 
 only  mdications  upon  wliich  we  can  found  a  con- 
 jecture are  tliose  of  Manetho's  lists,  according  to 
 which  it  ruled  for  130  years.  This  ninnber,  sup- 
 posing that  the  dynasty  overlapped  neither  the 
 XXth  nor  the  XXlId,  would  bring  the  connnence- 
 ment  of  the  XXlId  and  accession  of  Shishak  to 
 B.  c.  972  or  1015. 
 
 Reckoning  upwards,  the  highest  certain  date  is 
 that  of  the  accession  of  Psamniitichus  I.,  b.  c.  664. 
 He  was  preceded,  probably  with  a  sliort  interval, 
 by  Tirhakah,  whose  accession  was  B.  c.  cir.  695." 
 The  beginning  of  Tirhakah's  dynasty,  the  XXVth, 
 was  proiiably  719.  For  the  XXIVth  and  XXIIId 
 dynasties  we  have  only  tlie  authority  of  JManetho's 
 lists,  in  which  tliey  are  allowed  a  sum  of  95  (Afr. 
 6+89)  or  88  (Eus.  44-^-44)  years.  This  carries 
 us  up  to  B.  c.  814  or  807,  supposing  that  the  dy- 
 nasties, as  here  stated,  were  wholly  consecutive. 
 To  the  XXIId  dynasty  the  lists  allow  120  (Afr.) 
 or  49  (Eus.)  years.  The  latter  sum  may  be  dis- 
 carded at  once  as  merely  th.it  of  the  three  reigns 
 mentioned.  The  monuments  show  that  the  for- 
 mer needs  correction,  for  the  highest  dates  of  the 
 individual  kings,  and  tlie  length  of  the  reign  of 
 one  of  them,  Sheshenk  111.,  determined  by  the  Apis 
 tablets,  oblige  us  to  raise  its  sum  to  at  least  160 
 years.  This  may  be  thus  shown:  1.  Sesonchis  21. 
 (1.  Slieshenk  I.  21.)  2.  (Jsorthon  15.  (2.  Usar- 
 ken  I.)  3,  4,  5.  Three  others,  '25  (29?).  (3.  Te- 
 kerut  I.  4.  Usarken  U.  23.  5.  Sheshenk  II.) 
 0.  Takelothis  13.  (6.  Tekerut  II.  14.)  7,8,9. 
 Three  others,  42.  (7.  Sheshenk  III.  date  28  reign 
 51.  8.  Peshee  2.  9.  Sheshenk  IV.  37).  (21 -|- 
 15  -f  29  -f- 13  -f  51  +  1  -f-  36  =  166. )  It  seems 
 impossible  to  trace  the  mistake  that  has  occasioned 
 the  difference.  The  most  reasonable  conjectures 
 seem  to  be  either  that  tlie  first  letter  of  the  sum  of 
 the  reign  of  Slieshenk  III.  fell  out  in  some  copy  of 
 Manetho,  and  51  thus  was  changed  to  1,  or  that 
 this  reign  fell  out  altogether,  and  that  there  was 
 
 a  In  a  previous  article  (Chronologt,  i.  447  b)  we 
 dated  the  tirst  year  of  Tirhakah's  reign  over  Egypt 
 3.  C.  689.  This  date  is  founded  upon  an  interpretation 
 jf  an  Apis-tablet,  which  is  not  certain.  It  concludes 
 ffith  the  words  "  done  "  or  "  made  in  year  21  ?  "  which 
 
 SHISHAK  3011 
 
 another  king  not  mentioned  on  the  monuments. 
 The  sum  would  thus  be  166  -|-  a;,  or  169,  which, 
 added  to  our  last  number,  place  the  accession  of 
 Slieshenk  I.  b.  c.  980  or  983,  or  else  seven  years 
 later  than  each  of  these  dates. 
 
 The  results  thus  obtained  from  approximative 
 data  are  sufficiently  near  the  Biblical  date  to  make  it 
 certain  that  Sheshenk  I.  is  the  Shishak  of  Solomon 
 and  Keholioaiii,  and  to  confirm  the  Bible  chronology. 
 
 The  Bililical  date  of  Sheshenk's  conquest  of  Ju- 
 dali  has  been  computed  in  a  previous  article  to  be 
 B.  c.  cir.  969  [Chronology,  i.  448  6],  and  this 
 having  taken  place  in  his  20th  year,  his  accession 
 would  have  been  b.  c.  cir.  988.  The  progress  of 
 Assyrian  discovery  has,  however,  induced  some 
 writers  to  propose  to  shorten  the  chronology  by 
 taking  35  years  as  the  length  of  JIanasseh's  reign, 
 in  wliich  case  all  earlier  dates  would  have  to  be 
 lowered  20  years.  It  would  be  premature  to  ex- 
 press a  positive  opinion  on  this  matter,  but  it  must 
 be  remarked  that,  save  only  the  taking  of  Samaria 
 by  Sargon,  although  tliis  is  a  most  important  ex- 
 ception, the  Assyrian  chronology  appe.Trs  rather  to 
 favor  the  reduction,  and  that  tiie  Egyptian  chronol- 
 ogy, as  it  is  found,  does  not  seem  readily  reconcil- 
 able with  the  received  dates,  but  to  require  some 
 small  reduction.  The  proposed  reduction  would 
 place  the  accession  of  Sheshenk  I.  b.  c.  cir.  968, 
 and  this  date  is  certainly  more  in  accordance  with 
 those  deriyed  from  the  Egyptian  data  than  the 
 higher  date,  but  these  data  are  too  approximative 
 for  us  to  lay  any  stress  upon  minute  results  from 
 them.  Dr.  Hincks  has  drawn  attention  to  what 
 appears  to  be  the  record,  already  noticed  by 
 Brugsch,  in  an  inscription  of  Lepsius'  Tekerut  II., 
 of  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  on  the  24th  Mesori  (4th 
 April)  B.  c.  945,  in  the  15th  year  of  his  father. 
 The  latter  king  must  be  Usarken  I.,  if  tliese  data 
 be  correct,  and  the  date  of  Sheshenk  I.'s  accession 
 would  be  B.  c.  980  or  981.  But  it  does  not  seem 
 certain  that  the  king  of  the  record  must  be  Teke- 
 rut I.  Nor,  indeed,  are  we  convinced  that  the 
 eclipse  was  lunar.  (See  Jourii.  Sac.  Lit.  January, 
 1863;  Lepsius,  Ben/cmdler,  iii.  bl.  256,  a.) 
 
 History.  —  In  order  to  render  the  following  ob- 
 servations clear,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  few 
 words  on  the  history  of  Egypt  before  the  accession 
 of  Sheshenk  I.  On  the  decline  of  the  Theban  line 
 or  Rameses  family  (the  XXth  dynasty  1,  two  royal 
 houses  appear  to  have  arisen.  At  Thebes,  the 
 high-priests  of  Amen,  after  a  virtual  usurpation,  at 
 last  took  the  regal  title,  and  in  Lower  Egypt  a, 
 Tanite  dynasty  (Manetho's  XXIst)  seems  to  have 
 gained  royal  power.  But  it  is  possible  that  tliere 
 was  but  one  line  between  the  XXth  and  XXIId  dy- 
 nasties, and  that  the  high-priest  kings  belonsred  to 
 the  XXIst.  The  origin  of  the  royal  line  of  which 
 Sheslienk  I.  was  the  head  is  extremely  obscure. 
 Mr.  Birch's  discovery  that  several  of  the  names  of 
 the  family  are  Shemitic  has  led  to  the  supposition 
 that  it  was  of  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  origin.  Shi- 
 shak, p£C'''tt7,  may  be  compared  with  Sheshak, 
 "n?"^?^'?  a  iianie  of  Babylon  (rashly  thought  to  be 
 
 for  Babel  by  Atbash),  Usarken  has  been  compaied 
 with  Sargon,  and  Tekerut,  with  Tiglath  in  Tiglath- 
 
 we  formerly  read,  as  had  been  previously  done,  "com- 
 pleting 21  years,"  referring  the  number  to  the  life  of 
 the  bull,  not  to  the  year  of  the  king  in  which  the  tab 
 let  was  executed  or  completed.     (See  the  text  in  Lojv. 
 sius,  Kunigsbiich,  p.  95.) 
 
3012 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 Pileser.  If  there  were  any  doubt  as  to  tl?ese  iden- 
 tifications, some  of  which,  as  the  second  and  third 
 cited,  are  certainly  conjectural,  the  name  Namuret, 
 Ninirod,  which  occui-s  as  that  of  princes  of  this 
 line,  wonld  afford  conclusive  evidence,  and  it  is 
 needless  here  to  compare  other  names,  though  those 
 occurrino;  in  the  genealogies  of  the  dynasty  given  by 
 Lepsius,  well  merit  the  attention  of  Semitic  stu- 
 dents (xxii.  Aey.  Kiiinfjsdyn.  and  Konigsfjuc/i ). 
 It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  name  Nimrod,  and 
 the  designation  of  Zerali  (perhaps  a  king  of  this 
 line,  otherwise  a  general  in  its  service)  as  "the 
 Cusliite,"  seem  to  indicate  that  the  family  sprang 
 from  a  Cushite  origin.  They  may  possibly  have 
 been  connected  with  the  MASHUWASHA,  a 
 Shemitic  nation,  apparently  of  Libyans,  for  Te- 
 kerut  If.  as  Prince  is  called  -'great  chief  of  the 
 MASHUWASHA,"  and  also  "  great  chief  of  the 
 iVIATU,"  or  mercenaries;  but  they  can  scarcely 
 have  been  of  this  people.  ^V^llether  eastern  or 
 western  Cushites,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
 evidence  in  favor  of  their  having  been  Nigritians, 
 and  as  there  is  no  trace  of  any  comiection  between 
 them  and  the  XXVth  dynasty  of  Ethiopians,  they 
 must  ratiier  be  supposed  to  be  of  the  eastern 
 branch.  Their  names,  when  not  Kgyptian,  are 
 tracealile  to  Shemitic  roots,  which  is  not  the  case, 
 as  far  as  we  know,  with  the  ancient  kings  of  Ethi- 
 opia, whose  civilization  is  the  same  as  that  of  Egypt. 
 We  find  these  foreign  Shemitic  names  in  the  fam- 
 ily of  the  high-priest  king  Her-har,  three  of  whose 
 sons  are  called  respectively,  M.VSAHAHATA, 
 MASAKAHAltATA,  and  MATEN-NEIi,  al- 
 though the  names  of  most  of  his  other  sons  and 
 those  of  his  line  appear  to  be  Egyptian.  This  is 
 not  a  parallel  case  to  the  preponderance  of  Shem- 
 itic names  in  the  line  of  the  XXIId  dynasty,  but  it 
 warns  us  against  too  positive  a  conclusion.  IM.  de 
 Rouge,  instead  of  seeing  in  those  names  of  the 
 XXIId  dynasty  a  Shemitic  or  Asiatic  origin,  is  dis- 
 posed to  trace  the  line  to  that  of  the  high-priest 
 kings.  Manetho  calls  the  XXIId  a  dynasty  of  Bu- 
 bastites,  and  an  ancestor  of  the  priest-king  dy- 
 nasty bears  the  name  Meree-bast,  "  beloved  of  Bu- 
 bastis."  Botii  lines  used  Shemitic  names,  and  both 
 held  the  hiu'h-priesthood  of  Amen  (comp.  Elude  sur 
 una  Slek  Eijyptknne,  203,  204).  This  evidence 
 does  not  seem  to  us  conclusive,  for  policy  may  liave 
 induced  the  line  of  the  XXIId  dynasty  to  etfijct  in- 
 termarriages with  the  family  of  the  priest-kings,  and 
 to  assume  their  functions.  The  occurrence  of  Shem- 
 itic names  at  an  earlier  time  may  indicate  nothing 
 more  than  Shemitic  alliances,  but  those  alliances 
 might  not  improbably  end  in  usurpation.  Eepsius 
 gives  a  genealogy  of  Sheshenk  I.  from  the  tablet  of 
 Har-psen  from  the  Serapeum,  which,  if  correct,  de- 
 cides the  question  {xxii.  Kdnii/sdyn.  pp.  267-2G9). 
 In  this,  Sheshenk  I.  is  the  son  of  a  chief  Namuret, 
 whose  ancestors,  e.xcepting  his  mother,  who  is  called 
 "royal  mother,"  not  as  Lepsius  gives  it,  "royal 
 daughter  "  {Etude,  etc.,  p.  203,  note  2),  are  all  un- 
 titled persons,  and,  all  but  the  princess,  bear  foreign, 
 apparently  Shemitic,  names.  But,  as  M.  de  Roug^. 
 observes,  this  genealogy  cannot  be  conclusively  made 
 out  from  the  tablet,  though  we  think  it  more  prob- 
 able than  he  does  {Elude,  p.  203,  and  note  2). 
 
 Sheshenk  I.  on  his  accession,  must  have  found 
 the  state  weakened  by  internal  strife,  and  deprived 
 of  much  of  its  foreign  influence.  In  the  time  of 
 the  later  kings  of  the  Rameses  family,  two,  if  not 
 three,  sovereigns  had  a  real  or  titular  authority; 
 but  before  the  accession  of  Sheshenk  it  is  probable 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 that  their  lines  had  been  united:  certainly  towiirds 
 the  close  of  the  XXIst  dynasty  a  Pharaoh  was  i)ow- 
 erful  enough  to  lead  an  expedition  into  Palestine 
 and  capture  Gezer  (1  K.  ix.  IG).  Sheshenk  took 
 as  the  title  of  his  standard,  "  He  who  attains 
 royalty  by  uniting  the  two  regions  [of  Egypt]." 
 (De  Rougf',  Elude,  etc.,  p.  204;  Lepsius,  Koitifjs- 
 bucJi,  xliv.  567  A,  a.)  He  himself  probably  mar- 
 ried the  heiress  of  the  Rameses  family,  while  his 
 son  and  successor  Usarken  appears  to  have  taken 
 to  wife  the  daughter,  and  perhaps  heiress,  of  the 
 Tanite  XXIst  dynasty.  I'robably  it  was  not  until 
 late  in  his  reign  that  he  was  able  to  carry  on  the 
 foreign  wars  of  the  earlier  king  who  captured  Gezer. 
 It  is  observalile  that  we  trace  a  change  of  dynasty 
 in  the  policy  that  induced  Sheshenk  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  his  reign  to  receive  the  fugitive  Jeroboam 
 (1  K.  xi.  40).  Although  it  was  probably  a  con- 
 stant practice  for  the  kings  of  Egypt  to  show  hos- 
 pitality to  fugitives  of  importance,  Jeroboam  would 
 scarcely  have  been  included  in  their  class.  Proba- 
 bly, it  is  expressly  related  that  he  fled  to  Shisliak 
 because  he  was  well  received  as  an  enemy  of  Solomon. 
 
 We  do  not  venture  to  lay  any  stress  upon  the 
 LXX.  additional  portion  of  1  K.  xii.,  as  the  narra- 
 tive there  given  seems  irreconcilable  with  that  of 
 the  previous  chapter,  which  agrees  with  the  Mas. 
 text.  In  the  latter  chapter  Iladad  (LXX.  Ader) 
 the  Edomite  flees  from  the  slaughter  of  his  people 
 by  Joab  and  David  to  Egypt,  and  marries  the  elder 
 sister  of  Tahpenes  (LXX.  Thekemina),  Pharaoh's 
 queen,  returning  to  Idumtea  after  the  death  of 
 David  and  Joab.  In  the  additional  portion  of  the 
 former  chapter,  .leroboam  —  already  said  to  have 
 fled  to  Shishak  (LXX.  Susacim)  —  is  married  after 
 Solomon's  death  to  Ano,  elder  sister  of  Thekemina 
 the  queen.  Between  Hadad's  return  and  Solomon's 
 death,  probably  more  than  thirty  years  elapsed, 
 certainly  twenty.  Besides,  how  are  we  to  account 
 for  the  two  elder  sisters  ?  Moreover,  Shishak's 
 queen,  his  only  or  principal  wife,  is  called  KARA- 
 .AM.\,  which  is  more  remote  from  Tahpenes  or 
 Thekemina.      [Tahpkne.s.] 
 
 The  king  of  Egypt  does  not  seem  to  have  com- 
 menced hostilities  during  the  powerful  reign  of 
 Solomon.  It  was  not  until  the  division  of  the 
 tribes,  that,  probably  at  the  instigation  of  .lerohoam, 
 he  attacked  Rehoboam.  The  following  particulars 
 of  the  war  are  related  in  the  Bible:  "In  the  fifth 
 year  of  king  Rehoboam,  Shishak  king  of  Egypt 
 came  up  against  Jerusalem,  because  they  had  trans- 
 gressed against  the  Lord,  with  twelve  hundred 
 chariots,  and  threescore  thousand  horsemen :  and 
 the  people  [were]  without  number  that  came  witii 
 him  out  of  Egypt;  the  Lubim,  the  Sukkiim,  and 
 the  Cushim.  And  he  took  the  fenced  cities  which 
 [pertained]  to  Judah,  and  came  to  Jerusalem  " 
 (2  Chr.  xii.  2-4).  Shishak  did  not  pillage  Jerus.a- 
 lem,  but  exacted  all  the  treasures  of  his  city  from 
 Rehoboam,  and  apparently  made  him  tributary 
 (5,  9-12,  esp.  8).  The  narrative  in  Kings  men- 
 tions only  the  invasion  and  the  exactii'U  (1  K.  xiv. 
 25,  26).  The  strong  cities  of  Rehoboam  are  thus 
 enumerated  in  an  earlier  passage :  "And  Rehoboam 
 dwelt  in  .lerusalem,  and  built  cities  for  defense  in 
 Judah.  He  built  even  Beth-lehem,  and  Etani, 
 and  Tekoa,  and  Beth-zur,  and  Shoco,  and  Adul- 
 1am,  and  Gath,  and  Mareshah,  and  Ziph,  and  Ado- 
 raim,  and  Lachish,  and  Azekah,  and  Zorali,  and 
 Aijalon,  and  Hebron,  which  [are]  in  Judah  and  in 
 Benjamin  fenced  cities"  (2  Chr.  xi.  5-10). 
 
SHISHAK 
 
 Shisliak  hns  left  a  record  of  this  expetlitioii, 
 sculptured  on  the  wall  of  the  great  'reinple  of  El- 
 Kaniak.  It  is  a  list  of  the  countries,  cities,  and 
 tribes,  conquered  or  ruled  by  him,  or  tributary  to 
 hini.  In  this  list  ChampoUion  recognized  a  name 
 which  he  translated,  as  we  shall  see,  incorrectly, 
 "  the  kingdom  of  Judah,"  and  was  thus  led  to  trace 
 the  names  of  certain  cities  of  Palestine.  The  docu- 
 ment has  since  been  more  carefully  studied  by  Dr. 
 Brugsch,  and  with  less  success  by  Dr.  Blau.  On 
 account  of  its  great  importance  as  a  geographical 
 record,  we  give  a  full  transcription  of  it. 
 
 Tiiere  are  two  modes  of  transcriliing  Hebrew  or 
 cognate  names  written  in  hieroglyphics.  They  can 
 either  be  rendered  by  the  English  letters  to  which 
 the  hieroglyphics  correspond,  or  by  the  Hebrew 
 letters  for  which  they  are  known  from  other  in- 
 
 SHISHAK  3013 
 
 stances  to  be  used.  The  former  mode  is  perhaps 
 more  scientific;  the  latter  is  more  useful  for  the 
 present  investigation.  It  is  certain  that  the  Egyp- 
 tians employed  one  sign  in  preference  for  PT,  and 
 
 another  for  H,  but  we  cannot  prove  that  these  signs 
 had  any  difference  when  used  for  native  words, 
 though  in  other  cases  it  seems  clear  that  there 
 was  such  a  difference.  We  give  the  list  transcribed 
 by  both  methods,  the  first  as  a  check  upon  the 
 second,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  M.  de  Kongi^'s 
 comparative  alphal)et,  by  far  the  most  satisfactory 
 yet  published,  though  in  some  parts  it  may  be 
 questioned  {Revun  AycheoUxjique,  N.  S.  xi.  351- 
 354).  These  transcriptions  occupy  the  finst  two 
 columns  of  the  table,  the  third  contains  Dr. 
 Brugsch's  identification,  and  the  fourth,  our  own.'* 
 
 THE  GEOGKAPHICAL  LIST  OF  SHESHENK  I. 
 
 No. 
 
 Transcr.  in  English 
 Letters. 
 
 Transcr.   in   Hebrew 
 Letters. 
 
 Brugsch's  Identification. 
 
 Our  Identification. 
 
 13 
 
 ReBATA 
 
 snKab 
 
 Rabbith. 
 
 Rabbith  ? 
 
 14 
 
 TAANKAU 
 
 1S3327St2 
 
 Taanach. 
 
 Taanach. 
 
 15 
 
 SHeNeMA-AA 
 
 KS3?a3ti7 
 
 Shunem. 
 
 Shunem. 
 
 16 
 17 
 
 BAT-SHeNRAX 
 ReHeBAX 
 
 Beth-shan. 
 Rehob. 
 
 Rehob. 
 
 18 
 19 
 
 HePURMAA 
 ATeRMA 
 
 s«r)bi2n 
 
 Ilaphraini. 
 Adoraim. 
 
 Haphraim. 
 Adoraim. 
 
 21 
 
 SIIUATEE. 
 
 •  "nsiE? 
 
 22 
 
 MAHANMA 
 
 2:'a3sn^a 
 
 Mahanaim. 
 
 Mahanaim. 
 
 23 
 
 KeBAXNA 
 
 S327np 
 
 Gibeon. 
 
 Gibeon. 
 
 24 
 
 BAT-HUAReN 
 
 "ibsin  ns2 
 
 Beth-boron. 
 
 Beth-horon. 
 
 25 
 
 KATMeT 
 
 naisp 
 
 Kedemoth. 
 
 Kedemoth. 
 
 26 
 
 AYUReN 
 
 ]b'i^N 
 
 Aijalon. 
 
 Aijalon. 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 MAKeTAU 
 ATEERA 
 
 Megiddo. 
 
 Megiddo. 
 Edrei? 
 
 29 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 
 YUTell-MARK 
 HA.VNeM 
 A. V  RAN  A 
 BARMA 
 
 mssn 
 
 S3S-117 
 
 «abN3 
 
 Eglon. 
 Bileam,  Ibleam. 
 
 Kingdom  of  Judah? 
 Anem? 
 
 Bileam,  Ibleam. 
 
 34 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 TATPeTeR 
 A.  11.  M. 
 BAT-AARMeT 
 
 •X3-n-s 
 
 Alemeth. 
 
 Alemeth,  Almon. 
 
 37 
 38 
 
 ICAKAREE 
 SHAUKA 
 
 ^bspsp 
 spistt; 
 
 Sboco, 
 
 Ha-kikkar  (Circle  of  Jordan). 
 Shoco. 
 
 39 
 40 
 
 BAT-TePU 
 ABARAA 
 
 Beth-Tappuah. 
 Abel. 
 
 Beth-Tappuah. 
 
 45 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 
 BAT-TAB  .  . 
 NUPAR 
 .  PeTSHAT 
 Pe-KeTeT  ? 
 
 •  •  3WT  nsn 
 
 56 
 57 
 
 ATMAA 
 TARMEM 
 
 nnbsT 
 
 Edom 
 Zalmbnah  ? 
 
 Edom? 
 
 58 
 
 .  .  .  RR  .  A 
 
 S4.^^... 
 
 o  The  list  of  Shishak  in  the  original  hieroglyphics 
 is  published  by  Rosellini,  Monumenti.  Heali,  No. 
 sxlviii.  ;  Lepsius,  Denkmaler,  Abth.  iii.  bl.  252  ;  and 
 Brugsch,  Geogr.  Inschr.  ii  taf.  xxiv. ;  and  commented 
 
 upon  by  Brugsch  {ib.  pp.  56  ff.)  and  Dr.  Blau  (Zei'<- 
 sclirifi  d.  Deutsc/i.  Morgenldnd.  Gesellsch.  x»  /p 
 233  ff.). 
 
8014 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 No. 
 
 Ttaiiscr.  in  English 
 lictters. 
 
 Transcr.    in    Hebrew 
 Letters. 
 
 Brugsch's  Identification. 
 
 Our  Identification. 
 
 59 
 
 .  . RTAX 
 
 sstb  •  • 
 
 Tirzah  ? 
 
 64 
 
 .  .  APeN 
 
 ^2H-- 
 
 65 
 
 PeAAMAK 
 
 pV72V^ 
 
 66 
 
 AA-AXTeMAA 
 
 «WX2TS«27 
 
 Azem. 
 
 Azem,  or  Ezem  ? 
 
 67 
 
 ANAKA 
 
 sbS3N 
 
 68 
 
 PellAKRAl 
 
 WHbpsnD 
 
 Ilagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 69 
 
 FeTYUSHAA 
 
 SNa;vnD 
 
 Letushim 
 
 70 
 
 ARAHeReR 
 
 bbnsn« 
 
 71 
 
 PelleKRAA 
 
 s«bpnQ 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 72 
 
 MeRSARAMA 
 
 l^ttN^NDnn 
 
 Cf  Salma? 
 
 73 
 
 SHEBPeReT 
 
 rb:iw 
 
 Shephelah  ? 
 
 Shephelah  ? 
 
 74 
 
 NeKBeREE 
 
 ^b323 
 
 75 
 
 SHeBPeRet 
 
 nhnw 
 
 Shephelah  ? 
 
 Shephelah  ? 
 
 76 
 
 WARAKEET 
 
 n^3snsi 
 
 77 
 
 PeHeKRAl 
 
 swbpns 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 78 
 
 NAABAYT 
 
 n^S3^3 
 
 Nebaioth. 
 
 79 
 
 AATeTMAA 
 
 ssa-n^ 
 
 Tema? 
 
 80 
 
 TePKeKA 
 
 ^;:p^'{ 
 
 81 
 
 MA . A . . 
 
 • • s • rn 
 
 82 
 
 TA  .  .  .  . 
 
 ST^l 
 
 83 
 
 KANAA 
 
 W«2S3 
 
 ...'... 
 
 Kenites  ? 
 
 84 
 
 PeNAKBU 
 
 inns3D 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 85 
 
 ATeM-A'e  Te  T-HeT 
 
 ?  nnnr^n^T^ 
 
 Azem,  or  Ezem. 
 
 86 
 
 TASHTNAU 
 
 isaitt'Nca 
 
 87 
 
 PellKARA 
 
 sbspnD 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 88 
 
 SHNAYAA 
 
 SS"^S2t£7 
 
 89 
 
 UAKA 
 
 Hpsn 
 
 90 
 
 PeNAKBU 
 
 133S3Q 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 91 
 
 WAUTURKA 
 
 HDbinnwT 
 
 92 
 
 PeNAKBU 
 
 in3S32 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 Negeb. 
 
 93 
 
 ASH-HeTA 
 
 snntt^H 
 
 94 
 
 PeHelCREE 
 
 ^bnns 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 95 
 
 HANEENYAU 
 
 •    *lS"'3''3Sn 
 
 96 
 
 PelleKRAU 
 
 isbans 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 97 
 
 ARKAT 
 
 iwpbs 
 
 98 
 
 MERTMAM 
 
 csmia 
 
 Duma? 
 
 99 
 
 HANANYEE 
 
 ''''3S2Sn 
 
 100 
 
 MERTRA-AA 
 
 wssmna 
 
 Cf.  Eddara? 
 
 101 
 
 PelleKeR 
 
 bnns 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 Hagarites. 
 
 102 
 
 TRUAN 
 
 isibn 
 
 103 
 
 HEETBAA 
 
 ww:2T>n 
 
 Adbeel? 
 
 104 
 
 SUeRNeRAM 
 
 csbabiy 
 
 105 
 
 HEETBAX 
 
 ss3i"^n 
 
 Adbeel? 
 
 106 
 
 TEEWATEE 
 
 \nsvi 
 
 107 
 
 HAKeRMA  or 
 
 i^apbsn  > 
 
 HAFvcKMA 
 
 Rekem  (Petra)? 
 
 108 
 
 aIrataX 
 
 ss-Tsbi? 
 
 Eldaah  ? 
 
 109 
 
 RABAT 
 
 ns2sb 
 
 Beth-lebaoth,  Lebaoth. 
 
 Beth-lebaoth,  Lebaoth  ?  Rabbah  \ 
 
 iia 
 
 aXrataXy 
 
 ""MSlsbl? 
 
 Arad. 
 
 Eldaah  ? 
 
 111 
 
 NeBPTeBel 
 
 nutans 
 
SHISHAK 
 
 3015 
 
 No. 
 
 Transcr.  in   English 
 Letters. 
 
 Transcr.    in  Hebrew 
 Letters. 
 
 Brugsch's  Identification. 
 
 Our  Identification. 
 
 112 
 
 YURAHMA 
 
 27anwTn 
 
 Jerahmeelites  ? 
 
 116 
 
 MeREE  .  M 
 
 D-^nr2 
 
 117 
 
 MeRTRA-AX 
 
 sssmin 
 
 . 
 
 Cf.  Eddara  ? 
 
 118 
 
 PeBYAA 
 
 ss-^ns 
 
 119 
 
 MAHKAl 
 
 SS2ni7!3 
 
 Maachah  ? 
 
 120 
 
 . ARYUK 
 
 ivnw  • 
 
 121 
 
 FeRTMA-AA 
 
 ss27arnD 
 
 122 
 
 MeRBARA 
 
 s-ismn 
 
 123 
 
 BPAR-RATA 
 
 ST«nbsn 
 
 124 
 
 BAT-A-AXT 
 
 n^^  ns3 
 
 Beth-anoth.' 
 
 Beth-anoth,  or  Beth-anath' 
 
 125 
 
 SHeRUATAU 
 
 isnwn-itt? 
 
 Sharuhen  ? 
 
 126 
 
 ARMATeN 
 
 ^n27mw 
 
 127 
 
 KeRNAA 
 
 s«Db:i 
 
 Golan  ? 
 
 128 
 
 MeRMA  .  . 
 
 •  •  sa-iD 
 
 129 
 
 .  .  RHeT 
 
 •  nm  •  • 
 
 130 
 
 .  .  .  RAA 
 
 SS"i  •  •  • 
 
 131 
 
 MA  ...  . 
 
 •  •  •  •  17^ 
 
 132 
 
 AR  .  .  .  . 
 
 ..••bs 
 
 133 
 
 YURA  .  .  . 
 
 •  • • sbv 
 
 The  following  identifications  are  so  evident  that , 
 it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  them,  and  they  may  j 
 be  made  the  basis  of  our  whole  investigation :  Nos.  t 
 14,  22,  24,  26,  27,  38,  39.  It  might  appear  at  j 
 first  sirjht  that  there  was  some  geographical  order,  | 
 but  a  closer  examination  of  these  few  names  shows 
 that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  all  that  we  can  infer . 
 is,  that  the  cities  of  each  kingdom  or  nation  are  in  ] 
 general  grouped  together.  The  forms  of  the  names  ; 
 show  that  irregularity  of  the  vowels  that  charac- 
 tfirizes  the  I'-gyptian  language,  as  may  be  seen  in 
 the  different  modes  in  which  a  repeated  name  is 
 written  (Nos.  68,  71,  77,  87,  94,  96,  101).  The 
 consonants  are  used  very  nearly  in  accordance  with 
 the  system  upon  which  we  have  transcribed  in  the 
 second  column,  save  in  the  case  of  the  I'^gyptian 
 
 R,  which  seems  to   be    indifierently  used  for  "1 
 
 and   V. 
 
 There  are  several  similar  geographical  lists, 
 dating  for  the  most  part  during  the  period  of  the 
 Empire,  but  they  differ  from  tliis  in  presenting  few, 
 if  any,  repetitions,  and  only  one  of  them  contains 
 names  certainly  the  same  as  some  in  the  present. 
 They  are  lists  of  countries,  cities,  and  tribes,  form- 
 ing the  Egyptian  Empire,  and  so  far  records  of 
 conquest  that  any  cities  previously  taken  by  the 
 Pharaoii  to  whose  reign  they  belong  are  mentioned. 
 The  list  which  contains  some  of  the  names  in 
 Sheshenk's  is  of  Thothmes  III.,  sixth  sovereign  of 
 the  XVIlIth  dynasty,  and  comprises  many  names  of 
 cities  of  Palestine  mainly  in  the  outskirts  of  tlie 
 Israelite  territory.  It  is  important,  in  reference  to 
 this  list,  to  state  that  Thothmes  III.,  in  his  23d 
 year,  had  fought  a  battle  with  confederate  nations 
 near  Megiddo,  whose  territories  the  list  enumerates. 
 The  narrative  of  the  expedition  fully  establishes 
 the  identity  of  this  and  other  towns  in  the  list  of 
 Shishak.  It  is  given  in  the  document  known  as 
 the  Statistical  Tablet  of  EI-Karnak  (Birch,  "  An- 
 nals of  Thothmes  III.,"   Archceolo(/ia,  1853;    De 
 
 Roug^,  Rev.  Arch.  N.  S.  xi.  347  ff.;  Brugsch, 
 Geogr.  Insclir.  ii.  p.  32  flf.).  The  only  general 
 result  of  the  comparison  of  the  two  lists  is,  that 
 in  the  later  one  tlie  Egyptian  article  is  in  two 
 cases  prefixed  to  foreign  names.  No.  56,  NEKBU, 
 of  the  list  of  Thothmes  III.,  being  the  same  as 
 Nos.  84,  90,  92,  PeNAKBU  of  the  list  of  Shishak; 
 and  No.  105,  .A.AMeKU,  of  the  former,  being  the 
 same  as  No.  65,  Pe.JiAM.AK,  of  the  latter. 
 
 We  may  now  commence  a  detailed  examination 
 of  the  list  of  Shishak.  No,  13  may  correspond  to 
 Kabbith  in  Issachar.  No.  14  is  certainly  Taanach, 
 a  Levitical  city  in  the  same  tribe,  noticed  in  the 
 inscription  of  Thothmes  commemorating  the  cam- 
 paign above  mentioned,  in  some  connection  with 
 the  route  to  Megiddo:  it  is  there  written  TA- 
 ANAKA.  No.  15  is  probably  Shunem,  a  town 
 of  Issachar:  the  form  of  the  hieroglyphic  name 
 seems  to  indicate  a  dual  (comp.  Nos.  18,  19,  22), 
 and  it  is  remarkable  that  Shunem  has  been  thought 
 
 to  be  originally  a  dual,  UV\W  for  U)y\W  (Ges. 
 Thes.  s.  v.).  No.  16  is  supposed  by  Dr.  Brugsch 
 to  be  Beth-shan ;  but  the  final  letter  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian name  is  wanting  in  the  Hebrew.  It  was  a 
 city  of  Manasseh,  but  in  the  tribe  of  Issachar. 
 No.  17  is  evidently  Rehob,  a  Levitical  city  in 
 Asher;  and  No.  18  Haphraira,  a  town  in  Issachar. 
 No.  19  seems  to  be  Adoraim,  one  of  Rehoboam's 
 strong  cities,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah:  Adullam  is 
 
 out  of  the  question,  as  it  commences  with  V,  and 
 is  not  a  dual.  No.  21  we  cannot  explain.  No.  22 
 is  Mahanaim,  a  Levitical  city  in  Gad.  No.  23  is 
 Gibeon,  a  Levitical  city  in  Benjamin.  No.  24  is 
 Beth-horon,  which,  though  counted  to  Ephraim, 
 was  on  the  boundary  of  Benjamin.  It  was  as- 
 signed to  the  Levites.  The  place  consisted  of  two 
 towns  or  villages,  both  of  which  we  may  suppose 
 are  here  intended.  No.  25  is  evidently  the  Le- 
 vitical city  Kedemoth  in  Reuben,  and  No.  26, 
 Aijalon,  also   Levitical,  in  Dan.     No.  27  is  the 
 
3016 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 famous  Megiddo,  which  in  the  Statistical  Tablet  of 
 Thothmes  III.  is  written  MAKeTA,  and  in  the 
 same  Iving's  list  INIAKeTEE,  but  in  the  intro- 
 ductory title  MAKeTA.  It  was  a  city  of  the 
 western  division  of  Manasseb.  No.  28  may  per- 
 haps be  I'Mrei,  in  trans-Jordanite  Slaiiasseh,  tiiough 
 
 the  sign  usually  employed  for  V  is  wanting.  No. 
 29  is  the  famous  name  wliich  CbampoUion  read 
 "the  kingdom  of  Judah."  To  this  Dr.  Brugsch 
 objects,  (1)  that  the  name  is  out  of  place  as  fol- 
 lowing some  names  of  towns  in  the  iiingdom  of 
 Judah  as  well  as  in  that  of  Israel,  and  preceding 
 others  of  both   liingdoms;   (2)  that  the  supposed 
 
 equivalent  of  kingdom  (MARK,  "J^l?^)  does  not 
 
 satisfactorily  represent  the  Hebrew  n^D/.^,  but 
 
 corresponds  to  Tjv^;  and  (3)  that  the  supposed 
 construction  is  inadmissible.      He  proposes  to  read 
 
 "^^^"^  ^irt"*  as  the  name  of  a  town,  whicli  he 
 does  not  find  in  ancient  Palestine.  The  position 
 does  not  seem  to  us  of  much  consequence,  as  the 
 list  is  evidently  irregular  in  its  order,  and  the  form 
 might  not  be  Hebrew,  and  neither  Arabic  nor 
 Syriac  requires  the  final  letter.  The  kingdom  of 
 Judah  cannot  be  discovered  in  the  name  without 
 disregard  of  graunnar;  but  if  we  are  to  read 
 "Judah  the  king,"  to  wiiich  .ludah  does  the  name 
 point?  There  was  no  Jewish  king  of  that  name 
 before  Judas-Aristobulus.  It  seems  useless  to  look 
 for  a  city,  altliough  tliere  was  a  place  called  Jehud 
 in  the  tribe  of  Dan.  Tlie  only  suggestion  we  can 
 propose  is,  that  tlie  second  word  is  "  kingdom," 
 and  was  placed  after  the  first  in  the  manner  of  an 
 Egyptian  determinative.    No.  31  may  be  compared 
 
 with  Anem  in  Issachar  (D.j^),  occurring,  however, 
 only  in  1  Chr.  vi.  73  (Heb.  58),  but  it  is  not  cer- 
 tain that  the  Egyptian  H  ever  represents  V.  No. 
 32  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Brugsch  with  Kglon, 
 but  evidence  as  to  its  position  shows  that  he  is  in 
 error.  In  the  Statistical  Tablet  of  El-Karnak  it  is 
 placed  in  a  mountain-district  apparently  southward 
 of  Megiddo,  a  half-day's  march  frotn  the  plain  of 
 that  city.  There  can  be  little  doubt  tliat  M.  de 
 Rouge  is  correct  in   supposing  that  tlie    Hebrew 
 
 original  signified  an  ascent  (comp.  n*7l?;  ^^>^- 
 Arch.  p.  350).  This  name  also  occurs  in  the  list 
 of  Thothmes  (Id.  p.  3G());  there  diflering  only  in 
 having  another  character  for  the  second  letter. 
 No.  33  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Brugsch  with 
 Bileani  or  Ibleam,  a  Levitical  city  in  tlie  western 
 division  of  Manasseb.  for  No.  3-i  we  can  make 
 no  suggestion,  and  No.  35  is  too  nuich  eflaced  for 
 any  conjecture  to  l)e  hazarded.  No.  3(5  Dr.  Brugsch 
 identifies  with  Aleraeth,  a  Levitical  city  in  Ben- 
 jamin, also  called  Almon,  the  first  being  probably 
 either  the  later  or  a  correct  form.  [Aleimkth; 
 Almon.]  No.  37  we  think  may  be  the  Circle  of 
 Jordan,  in  the  A.  V.  I'lain  of  Jordan.  No.  38  is 
 Shoco,  one  of  Keboboam's  strong  cities,  and  39, 
 Beth-Tappuah,  in  the  mountainous  part  of  Judah.' 
 No.  40  has  been  supposed  by  Dr.  Brugsch  to  Ije  an 
 Abel,  and  of  the  towns  of  that  name  he  chooses 
 Abel-sliittim,  the  Abila  of  .losephus,  in  the  Bible 
 generally  called  Shittim.  No.  45,  though  greatly 
 effiiced,  is  sufficiently  preserved  for  us  to  conclude 
 that  it  does  not  correspond  to  any  known  name  in 
 ancient  Palestine  l)eginning  with  Beth :  the  second 
 
 part  of  the  name  con.menceb  with  DST,  as  though 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 it  were  "  the  house  of  the  wolf  or  Zeeb,"  which 
 would  agree  with  the  southeastern  part  of  Pales- 
 tine, or  indicate,  whicli  is  far  less  likely,  a  place 
 named  after  the  Midianitish  prince  Zeeb,  or  some 
 chief  of  that  name.  No.  53  is  uncertain  in  its  third 
 letter,  which  is  inistinct,  and  we  otier  no  con- 
 jecture. No.  54  commences  with  an  era.sed  sign, 
 followed  by  one  that  is  indistinct.  No.  55  is 
 doubtful  as  to  reading:  proliably  it  is  Pe-KETET. 
 Pe  can  be  the  I'^gyptian  article,  as  in  the  name  of 
 the  Hagarites,  the  second  sign  in  Egyptian  signi- 
 fies "little,"  and  the  remaining  part  corresponds 
 
 to  t^ie  Hebrew  H^f?,  Kattath,  "small,"  the  name 
 of  a  town  in  Zeliulun  (Josh.  xix.  15),  apparently 
 the  same  as  Kitron  (Judg.  i.  30).  The  word  KV/t 
 is  found  in  ancient  Egyptian  with  the  sense  "little" 
 
 (comp.  Copt.KOTXl,  De  Rougd,  Etude,  p.  GG). 
 
 It  seeuis,  however,  rare,  and  may  be  Shemitic. 
 No.  56  is  held  by  Dr.  Brugsch  to  be  Edom,  and 
 there  is  no  olijection  to  this  identification  but  tliat 
 we  have  no  other  names  positively  Edomite  in  the 
 list.  No.  57  Dr.  Brugsch  compares  with  Zalmo- 
 nah,  a  station  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  If  it 
 be  admissible  to  read  the  first  letter  as  a  Hebrew 
 
 r^,  this  name  does  not  seem  remote  from  Telet.^ 
 and  Telaim,  which  are  probably  the  names  of  one 
 place  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Nos.  58,  59,  and  64 
 are  not  sufficiently  pre.served  for  us  to  venture  upon 
 any  conjecture.     No.  65  has  been  well  supposed  by 
 
 Dr.  Brugsch  to  be  the  Hebrew  Pp37,  "a  valley." 
 with  the  Egyptian  article  prefi.xed,  but  what  valley 
 is  intended  it  seems  hopeless  to  conjectin-e :  it  may 
 be  a  town  named  after  a  valley,  like  the  Beth-emek 
 mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  border  of  Aslier 
 (Josh.  xix.  27).  No.  66  has  been  rea.sonably  identi- 
 fied liy  Dr.  Brugsch  with  Azem,  wliich  was  in  the 
 southernmost  part  of  Judah,  and  is  supposed  to 
 have  been  afterwards  allotted  to  Simeon,  in  whose 
 list  an  Ezeni  occurs.  No.  85  reads  ATe'Sl-Kh'T- 
 HeTV  the  second  part  being  the  sign  for  "little" 
 (comp.  No.  55).  This  suggests  tliat  the  u.se  of  the 
 sign  lor  "  great "  as  the  first  character  of  the 
 present  name  is  not  without  significance,  and  that 
 there  was  a  great  and  little  Azem  or  ICzem,  per- 
 haps distinguislied  in  the  Hebrew  text  by  different 
 orthography.  No.  67  we  cannot  explain.  No.  68 
 is  unquestionably  "  the  Hagarites,"  the  Egyptian 
 article  being  prefixed.  The  same  name  recurs  Nos. 
 71,  77,  87,  94,  96,  and  101.  In  the  Bilile  we  find 
 the  Hagarites  to  tlie  east  of  Palestine,  and  in  the 
 classical  writers  they  are  placed  along  the  north 
 of  Arabia.  The  Hagaranu  or  Hagar  are  men- 
 tioned as  conquered  by  Sennacherib  (Rawlinson's 
 IJdt  i.  476;  Oppert,  Sar(joiiidts,  p.  42).  No.  69, 
 FeTYUSHAA,  seems,  from  the  termination,  to  be 
 a  gentile  name,  and  in  form  resembles  I.etushim,  a 
 Iveturahite  tribe.  But  this  resemblance  seems  to 
 be  more  than  superficial,  for  Letushim,  "  the  ham- 
 mered or  sharpened,"   conies  from    ITIO^,    "  he 
 
 hammered,  forged,"  and  tTtpS  (unused)  signifies 
 "he  bent  or  hammered."  From  the  occurrence 
 of  this  name  near  that -of  the  Hagarites,  tliis 
 identification  seems  deserving  of  attention.  No. 
 70  may  perhaps  be  .4roer,  luit  the  corresi)ondence 
 of  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  scarcely  allows  this  sup- 
 po,sition.  No.  72  commences  with  a  sign  that  is 
 frequently  an  initial  in  the  rest  of  the  list.  If  here 
 syllabic,  it  must  read  MEB;  if  alphabetic,  and  its 
 
SHISHAK 
 
 alpliabetic  use  is  possible  at  this  period,  M.  In 
 tlie  terms  used  for  Egyptian  towns  we  find  MER, 
 written  with  the  same  sign,  as  the  designation  of 
 the  second  town  in  a  nome,  therefore  not  a  capital, 
 but  a  town  of  importance.  That  this  sign  is  here 
 similarly  employed  seems  certain  from  its  being 
 once  followed  by  a  geographical  determinative  (No. 
 122).  We  therefore  read  this  name  SARAMA, 
 or,  according  to  Lepsius,  BARAMA.  The  final 
 syllable  seems  to  indicate  a  dual.  We  may  com- 
 pare the  name  Salnia,  which  occurs  in  Ptolemy's 
 list  of  the  towns  of  Arabia  Deserta,  and  his  list 
 of  those  of  the  interior."  No.  73,  repeated  at  75, 
 has  been  compared  by  Dr.  Brugseh  with  the  She- 
 phelali,  or  maritime  plain  of  the  Thilistines.  The 
 word  seems  nearer  to  Shibboleth,  "a  stream,"  but 
 it  is  unlikely  that  two  ])laces  should  have  been  so 
 called,  and  the  names  among  which  it  occurs  favor 
 the  other  explanation.  No.  7-1  seems  cognate  to 
 No.  87,  though  it  is  too  different  for  us  to  venture 
 upon  supposing  it  to  be  another  form  of  the  same 
 name.  No.  7G  has  been  compared  by  Dr.  Brugseh 
 with  Bereeah,  "a  pool,"  but  it  .seems  more  probably 
 the  name  of  a  tribe.  No.  78  reads  NAAB.VYT, 
 and  is  unquestionably  Nebaioth.  There  was  a  peo- 
 ple or  tribe  of  Nebaioth  in  Isaiah's  time  (Is.  Ix  7), 
 and  this  second  occurrence  of  the  name  in  tlie 
 form  of  that  of  Ishmael's  son  is  to  be  considered 
 in  reference  to  the  supposed  (Jlialdwan  origin  of  tlie 
 Naliathseans.  In  Lepsius's  co|)y  the'  name  is  N. 
 TAYT,  the  second  ciiaracter  being  unknown,  and 
 no  doubt,  as  well  as  the  third,  incorrectly  copied. 
 The  occurrence  of  the  name  immediately  after  that 
 of  the  Hagarites  is  sufficient  evidence  in  favor  of 
 Dr.  Brugsch's  reading,  which  in  most  cases  of  dif- 
 ference in  this  list  is  to  be  preferred  to  Lepsius's.* 
 No.  79,  A.\TeTMA.\,  may  perhaps  be  compared 
 with  Tenia  the  son  of  Ishmael,  if  we  may  read 
 AATTeMA.A..  No.  80  we  cannot  explain.  Nos. 
 81  and  82  are  too  much  effaced  for  any  conjecture. 
 No.  83  we  compare  with  the  Kenites:  here  it  is  a 
 tribe.  No.  84  is  also  found  in  the  list  of  Thothmes: 
 here  it  has  the  l'>gyptiaii  .article,  FeNAKBU,  there 
 it  is  written  NeKBU   {Rev.  Arch.  pp.  36-i,  3G.5). 
 
 It  evidently  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  3,5^,  '•  the 
 
 south,"  sometimes  specially  applied  to  the  southern 
 district  of  Palestine.  No.  8.5  re.ads  ATeM-A'er- 
 HeT'?  The  second  part  of  the  name  is  "little'' 
 (conip.  No.  .55).  We  have  already  shown  that  it 
 is  probal)ly  a  "little"  town,  corresponding  to  the 
 "  great "  town  No.  (10.  But  the  final  part  of  No. 
 85  remains  unexplained.  No.  86  we  cannot  ex- 
 plain. No.  87  ditters  from  the  other  occurrences 
 of  tho  name  of  the  Hagarites  in  being  followed  by 
 the  sign  for  MEFi:  we  therefore  suppose  it  to  be 
 a  city  of  this  nation.  No.  88  may  be  compared 
 with  Shen  (1  Sam.  vii.  12),  which,  however,  may 
 not  be  the  name  of  a  town  or  village,  or  with  the 
 two  Ashnahs  (.Josh.  xv.  33,  43).  Nos.  89,  91,  and 
 93,  we  cannot  explain.  No.  95  presents  a  name, 
 repeated  with  slight  variation  in  No.  99,  which  is 
 evidently  that  of  a  tribe,  but  we  cannot  recognize 
 it.  No.  97  equally  bafHes  us.  No.  98  is  a  town 
 TeMAM,  possibly  the  town  of  Dimiah  in  the  north 
 
 SHISHAK 
 
 3017 
 
 of  Arabia  or  that  in  Judah.  No.  100  is  a  town 
 TRA-AA,  which  we  may  compare  with  Eddara  m 
 Arabia  Deserta.  No.  102  may  mean  a  resting- 
 place,  from  the  root  ^^^.  No.  103,  repeated  at 
 105,  is  apparently  the  name  of  a  tribe.  It  may  be 
 Adlieel,  the  name  of  a  son  of  Ishmael,  but  the 
 form  is  not  close  enough  for  us  to  offer  this  as 
 more  than  a  conjecture.  Nos.  104  and  106  we 
 cannot  explain.  No.  107  is  either  HAKeRMA  or 
 HAReKMA.  It  may  be  compared  with  li'ekeiii 
 or  Arekeme,  the  old  name  of  Petra  according  to 
 Josephus  (.J.  ./.  iv.  7),  but  the  form  is  proliably 
 dual.  No.  108  has  been  compared  with  Arad  by 
 Dr.  Brugseh :  it  is  a  country  or  place,  and  the 
 variation  in  No.  110  appears  to  be  the  name  of  the 
 people.  No.  109  may  be  Beth-lebaoth  in  Simeon, 
 evidently  the  .same  as  Lebaoth  originally  in  .lud.ah, 
 or  else  Rabbah  in  Judah.  No.  Ill  we  cannot 
 explain.  No.  112  is  most  like  the  Jerahmeelites 
 in  the  south  of  Judah.  No.  116  is  partly  effaced. 
 No.  1 17  is  the  .same  name  as  No.  100.  No.  118 
 is  probably  the  name  of  an  unknown  tribe.  No. 
 119  may  be  Maachah,  if  the  geographical  direction 
 is  changed.  No.  120  is  partly  effaced.  No.  121 
 we  cannot  explain.  No.  122  appears  to  be  a  town 
 of   BARA  or   BALA.     No.   123   seems  to  read 
 
 BAR-RATA  (STS~I  bl7n),  but  we  know  no 
 place  of  that  name.  No.  124  reads  BAT-AAT, 
 but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  really  BAT- 
 ANAT.  In  this  case  it  might  be  either  Beth- 
 anath  in  Naphtali  or  Beth-anoth  in  Judah.  No. 
 125  we  cannot  explain.  No.  126  appears  to  com- 
 mence with  Aram,  but  the  rest  does  not  correspond 
 to  any  distinctive  word  known  to  follow  this  name. 
 No.  127  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Brugseh  with 
 (iolan,  a  Levitical  city  in  Bashan.  The  remaining; 
 names  are  more  or  less  effaced. 
 
 It  will  be  perceived  that  the  list  contains  three 
 classes  of  names  mainly  grouped  together  —  ( 1 )  Le- 
 vitical and  Canaanite  cities  of  Israel;  (2)  cities  of 
 .ludali:  and  (3)  Arab  trilies  to  the  south  of  Pales- 
 tine. The  occurrence  together  of  Levitical  cities 
 was  observed  by  Dr.  Brugseh.  It  is  evident  that 
 Jerolio.am  was  not  at  once  firmly  established,  and 
 that  the  Levites  especially  held  to  Reholioam. 
 Therefore  it  may  have  been  the  nolicy  of  Jeroboam 
 to  employ  Shishak  to  capture  their  cities.  Other 
 cities  in  his  territory  were  perhaps  still  garrisoned 
 by  Rehoboam's  forces,  or  held  by  the  Canaanites, 
 who  may  have  somewhat  recovered  their  indepen- 
 dence at  this  period.  The  small  number  of  cities 
 identified  in  the  actual  territory  of  Rehoboam  is 
 explained  by  the  erasure  of  fourteen  names  of  the 
 part  of  the  list  where  they  occur.  The  identifica- 
 tion of  some  names  o^  Arab  tribes  is  of  great  in 
 terest  and  historical  value,  though  it  is  to  be  feared 
 that  further  progress  can  scarcely  be  made  in  their 
 part  of  the  list. 
 
 The  Pharaohs  of  the  Empire  passed  through 
 northern  Palestine  to  push  their  conquests  to  the 
 Euphi-ates  and  Blesopotamia.  Shishak,  probably 
 unable  to  attack  the  Assyrians,  attempted  the  suK 
 jugation  of  Palestine  and  the  tracts  of  Arabia  which 
 border  Egypt,  knowing  that  the  Arabs  would  in- 
 
 a  We  were  disposed  to  think  that  this  might  be 
 .Jerusalem,  especially  on  account  of  the  dual  termina- 
 tion ;  but  the  impossibility  of  reading  the  first  char- 
 acter ATUR  or  AUR  ("IS"^),  as  an  ideographic  sign 
 for  "river,''  to  say  nothing  of  the  doubt  aa  to  the 
 190 
 
 second  character,  makes  us  reject  this  reading ;  and 
 the  position  in  the  list  is  unsuitable.  The  Rev.  D. 
 Haigh  has  learnedly  supported  this  view,  at  which  he 
 independently  arrived,  in  a  correspondence. 
 
 *  Lepsius's  copy  presents  many  errors  of  careless- 
 ness. 
 
3018 
 
 SHITRAI 
 
 terpose  an  effectual  resistance  to  any  invader  of 
 Egypt.  He  seems  to  liave  succeeded  in  consolidat- 
 ing his  power  in  Arabia,  and  we  accordingly  find 
 Zerah  in  alliance  with  the  people  of  Gerar,  if  we 
 may  infer  this  from  their  sharing  his  overthrow. 
 
 R.  S.  P. 
 
 *  Bunsen  in  his  Bibelwerk,  i.  p.  ccxxvi.,  gives 
 an  elal)orate  table  of  synchronisms  between  the  early 
 Biblical  history  and  the  history  of  Egypt,  of  As- 
 syria, and  of  Babylon.  He  professes  to  have  found 
 several  points  of  contact  between  Israelitish  and 
 Egyptian  liistory  before  the  reigns  of  Solomon  and 
 Shishak;  such  as  the  exodus,  the  era  of  .Joseph, 
 etc.  Though  his  argument  is  marked  by  the  arbi- 
 trary conjecture  and  the  dogmatic  assertion  so  fre- 
 quent in  his  writings,  it  is  deserving  of  careful 
 study.  The  reign  of  Solomon  he  fixes  at  .39  years, 
 from  1007  to  909  b.  C.,that  of  Sheshonk  from  979 
 to  956  li.  c. 
 
 The  geographical  identifications  of  the  lists  of 
 Shishak's  victories,  will  be  considered  more  at 
 length  in  comparison  with  the  lists  of  Thothmes 
 III.  under  Thebks.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 SHIT'RAI  [2  syl.]  Oltptt?;  AVrO^lt?^ : 
 %arf>di:;  [Vat.  Ao-apTuisO  St-trai).  A  Sharonite 
 who  was  over  David's  herds  that  fed  in  Sharon 
 (1  Chr.  xxvii.  29). 
 
 SHITTAH-TREE,  SHITTIM  (H^r??, 
 shitlah:  ^vAov  ^a-nnTOf  ■  Ufjnii  seliiti,  ttpimi)  is 
 without  doubt  correctly  referred  to  some  species  of 
 tcacin,  of  which  three  or  four  kinds  occur  in  the 
 
 Acacia  Scyal. 
 
 Bible  lands.  The  wood  of  this  tree  —  pernaps  the 
 A.  seyal  is  more  definitely  signified — was  exten- 
 sively employed  in  the  construction  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle, the  boards  and  pillars  of  which  were  made 
 
 SHITTAH-TREE 
 
 of  it;  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  staves  for 
 carrying  it,  the  table  of  shew  biead  with  its 
 .staves,  the  altar  of  burnt-ofFerings  and  the  altar 
 of  incense  with  their  respective  staves  were  also 
 constructed  out  of  this  wood  (see  Ex.  xxv.,  xxvi., 
 xxxvi.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii.).  In  Is.  xli.  19  the  acacia/- 
 tree  is  mentioned  with  the  "cedar,  the  myrtle, 
 and  the  oil-tree,"  as  one  which  God  would  plant  in 
 the  wilderness.  The  Egyptian  name  of  the  acacia 
 is  sonl,  s((7i/j  or  saiilh :  see  Jablonski,  Opusc.  i.  p. 
 2G1;  Kossius,  Etymul.  yEgypl.  p.  273;  and  Pros- 
 per Alpinus  (Plant.  ^■■Ej/ypt.  p.  G),  who  thus  speaks 
 of  this  tree:  "The  acacia,  which  the  Egyptians 
 call  s'tnl,  grows  in  localities  in  Egypt  remote  from 
 the  sea;  and  large  quantities  of  this  tree  are  pro- 
 duced on  the  mountains  of  Sinai,  overhanging  the 
 Red  Sea.  That  tiiis  tree  is,  without  doubt,  the  true 
 acacia  of  the  ancients,  or  the  Egyptian  thorn,  is 
 clear  from  several  indications,  especially  from  tht 
 fact  that  no  other  spinous  tree  occurs  in  Egypt 
 which  so  well  answers  to  the  required  characters. 
 These  trees  grow  to  the  size  of  a  mulberry-tree, 
 and  spread  their  branches  aloft."  "  The  wild  aca- 
 cia {Miimisn  Niloiica),  under  the  name  of  mnt" 
 says  Prof.  Stanley  {Syr.  (f  Pal.  p.  20),  "  every- 
 where represents  the   '  seneh  '   or  '  senna  '  of  the 
 
 Burning   Bush."     The  Heb.  term  (H^tt?)  is,  by 
 
 Jablonski,  Celsius,  and  many  other  authors,  derived 
 
 from  the  Eiryptian  word,  the  3  being  dropped;  and 
 from  an  Araliic  MS.  cited  by  Celsius,  it  appears 
 that  the  Araliic  term  also  comes  from  the  Egyptian, 
 the  true  Arabic  name  for  the  acacia  being  karadh 
 (flierob.  i.  p.  508). 
 
 The  shittdh-tree  of  Scripture  is  by  some  writers 
 thought  to  refer  more  especially  to  the  Acacia 
 Seyal,  though  perlia])s  the  Acacia  Niloiica  and  A. 
 Arabicn  may  be  included  under  the  terra.  The 
 A.  Seyal  is  very  common  in  some  parts  of  the 
 peninsula  of  Sinai  (M.  Bove,  Voyage  du  Caire  au 
 Mont  Sina'i,  Ann.  des  Scienc.  Nat.  18-34,  i.,  sec. 
 ser.  p.  1G6;  Stanley,  Syr.  cj- Pal.  pp.  20,  69,  298). 
 These  trees  are  more  common  in  Arabia  than  in 
 Palestine,  though  there  is  a  valley  on  the  west  side 
 of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  Wady  5p?/«/,  which  derives  its 
 name  from  a  few  acacia-trees  there.  The  Acacia 
 Seyal,  like  the  A.  Arabica,  yields  the  well-known 
 substance  called  gum  arable  which  is  obtained  by 
 incisions  in  the  bark,  but  it  is  impossible  to  say 
 whether  the  ancient  Jews  were  acquainted  with  its 
 use.  Erom  the  tangled  thickets  into  which  the 
 stem  of  this  tree  expands,  Staidey  well  remarks  that 
 hence  is  to  lie  traced  the  use  of  the  plural  form  of 
 the  Hebrew  noun,  fliillim,  the  sini;.  number  occur- 
 ring Ijut  once  only  in  the  Bible."  Besides  the 
 Acacia  Seyal,  there  is  another  species,  the  A.  ior- 
 tilin,  common  on  Jlouiit  Sinai.  Although  none  of 
 the  above  named  trees  are  sufficiently  large  to 
 yield  plants  10  cubits  long  by  1  S  cubit  wide,  which 
 we  are  told  was  the  size  of  the  boards  that  formed 
 the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxvi.  21),  yet  there  is  an  acacia 
 that  grows  near  Cairo,  namely  the  A.  Serissa,  which 
 would  supply  boards  of  the  required  size.  There  is, 
 however,  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  tree  ever 
 grew  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai.  And  though  it 
 would  be  unfair  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  such 
 negative   evidence,  still  it  is  probable   that  "  the 
 
 a  LiTingstone  (Trav.  in  S.  Africa,  abridged  ed., 
 p.  77)  thinks  the  Acacii  girnffa  (camel-thorn)  sup- 
 plied   the   wood  for   the   Tabernacle,   etc.     "  It   is," 
 
 he  adds,  "an  imperishable  wood,  while  that  which  is 
 usually  supposed  to  be  the  Shittim  (Acacia  Ni'.otica) 
 wants  beauty  and  soon  decays." 
 
SHITTIM 
 
 boards  "  (D"^ti7~li^n)  were  supplied  by  one  of  the 
 
 other  acacias.     There  is,  however,  no  necessity  to 
 
 limit  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  ti^l^p.  {keresh) 
 
 to  "  a  siu(jle  plank."  In  Ez.  xxvii.  6,  the  same 
 word  ill  the  singular  number  is  applied  in  a  col- 
 lective sense  to  "  the  deck  "  of  a  ship  (comp.  our 
 "on  board").  The  keresh  of  the  Tabernacle,  there- 
 fore, may  denote  "  two  or  more  boards  joined  to- 
 getlier,"  which,  from  benig  thus  united,  may  have 
 been  expressed  by  a  singular  noun.  These  aca- 
 cias, which  are  ibr  the  most  part  tropical  plants, 
 must  not  be  confounded  with  the  tree  {Rohinin 
 vseudo-ficacin),  popularly  known  by  this  name  in 
 England,  which  is  a  North  American  plant,  and 
 belongs  to  a  different  genus  and  sub-order.  The 
 true  acacias,  most  of  which  possess  hard  and  dura- 
 ble wood  (comp.  Pliny,  //.  N.  xiii.  19;  Josephus, 
 Ant.  iii.  6,  §  1),  belong  to  the  order  Leyumimntie, 
 sub-order  Mimosece.  W.  II. 
 
 SHIT'TIM  (□*'I2)tl?n,  with  the  def.  article: 
 [Vat.]  'Xarreli'':  [Rom.  in  Josh.,  :XaTTiv;  Alex,  in 
 Josh.  ii.  1,  SaTTfi;]  in  the  Prophets,  oi  axo^voi'- 
 SL'fliiii.,  \_k<etim\ ).  The  place  of  Israel's  encampment 
 between  the  conquest  of  the  Transjordanic  highlands 
 and  the  passage  of  tlie  Jordan  (Num.  xxxiii.  49,  xxv. 
 1 ;  Josh.  ii.  1,  iii.  1 ;  Mic.  vi.  5).  Its  full  name  appears 
 to  be  given  in  the  first  of  tliese  passages  —  Abel 
 has-Shittim  —  "  the  meadow,  or  moist  place  of  the 
 acacias."  It  was  •'  in  the  Arboth-Moab,  ijy  Jordaii- 
 .lericho:"  such  is  the  ancient  formula  repeated  over 
 and  over  again  (Num.  xxii.  1,  xxvi.  3,  xxxi.  12, 
 xxxiii.  48,  49).  That  is  to  say,  it  was  in  the  Ara- 
 bah  or  Jordan  Valley  opposite  Jericho,  at  that  part 
 of  the  Araliah  wliich  belonged  to  and  bore  the  name 
 of  Moab,  where  the  streams  which  descend  from  the 
 eastern  mountains  and  force  their  winding  way 
 through  the  sandy  soil  of  the  plain,  nourished  a 
 vast  growth  of  the  seynl,  sunt,  and  sidr  trees,  such 
 as  is  nourished  by  tlte  streams  of  the  Wady  Kelt 
 and  the  Ain  SuUdn  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
 river. 
 
 It  was  in  the  shade  and  the  tropical  heat  of  these 
 acacia-groves  that  the  people  were  seduced  to  the 
 licentious  rites  of  Baal-Peor  by  the  Midianites ;  but 
 it  was  I'rom  the  same  spot  that  Moses  sent  forth 
 the  army,  under  the  fierce  Phinehas,  whicli  worked 
 so  fearful  a  retribution  for  that  license  (xxxi.  1-12). 
 It  was  from  the  camp  at  Shittim  that  Joshua  sent 
 out  the  spies  across  the  river  to  Jericho  (Josh.  ii.  1). 
 
 The  Nachai-Shittim,  or  Wady-Sunt,  as  it  would 
 now  be  called,  of  Joel  (iii.  18),  can  hardly  he  the 
 same  spot  as  that  described  above,  but  there  is 
 notliing  to  give  a  clew  to  its  position."  G. 
 
 *  Tristram  identifies  the  plain  of  Shittim  with 
 the  GItor  es-Seis:dji(n,  extending  in  unbroken  ver- 
 dure from  Kefertin  on  its  nortliern  margin  (which 
 he  identifies  as  the  site  of  Abel-.Shittim,  Num.  xxxiii. 
 49),  to  the  northeast  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and 
 which  he  pronounces  "  Ijy  far  the  largest  and  rich- 
 est oasis  in  the  whole  Ghor."'  It  was  in  the  midst 
 of  its  gardens  and  groves  that  Israel  encamped,  and 
 the  irrigated  luxuriance  around  them  explains  some 
 of  the  allusions   in    the  prophetic  "  parable "  of 
 
 SHOBACH 
 
 3019 
 
 «  *  Joel  in  the  above  passage  may  refer  to  an  ideal, 
 not  an  actual  place,  lie  is  foretelling  the  triumphs 
 of  a  purer  and  more  effective  religion  in  the  latter 
 times.  The  places  where  the  acacias  grow  are  gener- 
 ally arid  and  otherwise  unproductive.    From  the  truth 
 
 Balaam,  as  he  looked  down  upon  them  from  th3 
 heights  of  Peor  {Land of  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  .528). 
 
 S.  W. 
 
 SHI'ZA    (Srtp    [splendor,    Fiirst] :     ^aiCd, 
 
 Alex.  [26%"!  ^*'-'^-]  E^a;  [Comp.  SiC^O  <5>'3«). 
 A  Keulienite,  father  of  Adina,  one  of  David's 
 mighty  men  (1  t'hr.  xi.  42). 
 
 SHO'A(V'*^tt7  [_rich,  liberal]:  2oue;  Alex. 
 2ou5:  tyranni).  A  proper  name  which  occurs 
 only  in  Ez.  xxiii.  2-3,  in  connection  with  Pekod 
 and  Koa.  The  three  apparently  designate  dis- 
 tricts of  Assyria  with  which  the  southern  kingdom 
 of  Judah  had  been  intimately  connected,  and  whicli 
 were  to  be  arrayed  against  it  for  punisliment.  The 
 Peshito-Syriac  has  Lud,  th&t  is  Lydia;  while  the 
 Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglott  has  Sut,  and  Liid  oc- 
 cupies the  place  of  Koa.  Kashi  remarks  on  the  three 
 words,  "  the  interpreters  say  that  they  signify  officers, 
 princes,  and  rulers."  This  rendering  must  have 
 been  traditional  at  the  time  of  Aquila  {iivi(TKfTrrr)s 
 KoX  Tvpavvos  Kal  Kopvcpcuos)  and  Jeruiiie  {no/>iles 
 tyranni  ct  principes).  Gesenius  (T/ies.  p.  1208  «) 
 maintains  that  the  context  requires  the  words  to 
 be  taken  as  appellatives,  and  not  as  proper  name.s; 
 and   Fiirst,  on    the  same   ground,  maintains    tlie 
 
 contrary  {flandtoh.  s.  v.  27'^p).  Those  who  take 
 Shoa  as  an  appellative  refer  to  the  usage  of  tlie 
 word  in  Job  xxxiv.  19  (A.  V.  "rich")  and  Is.  xxxii. 
 5  (A.  V.  "  bountiful  "),.  where  it  signifies  rich, 
 liberal,  and  stands  in  the  latter  passage  in  parallel- 
 ism with  3'''13,  nddib,  by  which  Kimchi  explains 
 it,  and  which  is  elsewhere  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
 "prince"  (Prov.  xvii.  7)  and  "noble"  (Prov.  viii. 
 16).  But  a  consideration  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
 verse  Ez.  xxiii.  2-3,  where  the  captains  and  rulers 
 of  the  Assyrians  are  distinctly  mentioned,  and  the 
 fondness  which  Ezekiel  elsewliere  shows  for  playing 
 upon  the  sound  of  proper  names  (as  in  xxvii.  10, 
 XXX.  5),  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  case 
 Pekod,  Shoa,  and  Koa  are  proper  names  also;  but 
 nothing  further  can  be  said.  The  only  name  which 
 has  been  found  at  all  resembling  Shoa  is  that  of  a 
 town  in  Assyria  mentioned  by  Pliny,  "  Sue  in  ru- 
 pibus,"  near  Gangamela,  and  west  of  the  Orontes 
 mountain  chain.     Bochart  {Plialeij,  iv.  9)  derives 
 
 Sue  from  the  Chaldee   Nl^^li?,  shu'tt,  a  rock. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHO'BAB  {'D.'2^XD  [rebellious,  errin;/]  :  2a>- 
 /3a;3;  Alex.  :S,cc0aSav  in  Sam.;  [1  Chr.  iii..  Vat. 
 2,w0av;  xiv.,  Vat.  lao^oa/j.,  PA.  2o/3aa^:J  Sodab, 
 [Sdbad]).  1.  Son  of  David  by  Bathsheba  (2  Sam. 
 v.  14;   1  Chr.  iii.  5,  xiv.  4). 
 
 2.  (2ov;8a/8;  [Vat.  laaovfi;]  Alex.  2aj/3a;3. ) 
 Apparently  the  son  of  Caleb  the  son  of  Hezion  by 
 his  wife  Azubah  (1  Chr.  ii.  18).  But  the  passage 
 is  corrupt. 
 
 SHO'BACH  (Tjn'ltr  [n  free  one,  Fiirst]: 
 'Zoi^d.K,  Alex.  2a/3ax!  2  Sam.  x.  16:  Soha.ch). 
 The  general  of  Iladarezer,  king  of  the  Syrians  of 
 Zoba,  who  was  in  command  of  the  army  which  was 
 summoned  from  beyond  the  Euphrates  against  the 
 Flebrews,  after  the  defeat  of  the  combined  forces  of 
 
 yet  to  break  forth  from  Judaism  a  new  form  wa.s  tc 
 arise  which  should  transform  and  bless  the  natioiig 
 that  hitherto  have  presented  only  a  scene  of  the  wildest 
 moral  desolation.  Compare  Baca  ;  Jehosuapuat,  Val- 
 ley OP  [Amer.  ed].  H 
 
3020 
 
 SHOBAI 
 
 Syria  and  the  Ammonites  before  the  gates  of 
 Rabbah.  He  was  met  by  David  in  pei-son,  who 
 crossed  the  Jordan  and  attacked  him  at  Helam. 
 The  battle  resulted  in  the  total  defeat  of  the  Syr- 
 ians. Shobacli  was  wounded,  and  died  on  the 
 field  (2  Sam.  x.  15-18).  In  1  Chr.  xix.  10,  18, 
 he  is  called  Shophach,  and  by  Josephus  (Ant.  vii. 
 6,  §  3)  2ay36icos. 
 
 SHO'BAI  [2  syl.]  C^'D.W  [talcing  caplive] : 
 ^wBai.  laBl:  [Vat.  Ajiaov,  Sa^ei;]  Alex.  2=- 
 rfaij  [FA.  SaySei]  in  Neh.:  Sobai).  The  children 
 of  Shobai  were  a  family  of  the  doorkeepers  of  the 
 Temple,  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  42; 
 Neh.  vii.  45).     Called  Sami  in  1  Esdr.  v.  28. 
 
 SHO'BAL  (bn'ltt?  [floicmr/,  or  a  shoot]: 
 'Zcii0d\'-  Sobal).  1.  The  second  son  of  Seir  the 
 Horite  (Gen.  xxxvi.  20;  1  Chr.  i.  38),  and  one  of 
 the  "dukes"  or  phylarchs  of  the  Horites  (fien. 
 xxxvi.  29).  E.  S.  P. 
 
 2.  [Vat.  ill  ver.  50,  Sco^ap.]  Son  of  Caleb,  the 
 son  of  Hur,  and  founder  or  prince  of  Kirjath- 
 jearim  (1  Chr.  ii.  50,  52). 
 
 3.  (2oi;/3aA)  In  1  Chr.  iv.  1,  2,  Shobai  ap- 
 pears with  Hur,  among  the  sons  of  Judah,  and  as 
 the  father  of  Keaiah.  He  is  possibly  the  same  as 
 the  preceding,  in  which  case  Keaiah  may  be  iden- 
 tical with  Haroeh.  the  two  names  in  Hebrew  being 
 not  very  unlike. 
 
 SHO'BEK  (pS'ltr  [perh.  forsakiiiff]  :  2coi3^/c: 
 [Vat.  Kio-ffcoBfiK;  EA-  H^Stj/c:]  Sobec).  Cne  of 
 the  heads  of  the  people  wlio  sealed  the  covenant 
 with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  24). 
 
 SHO'BI  O^W  [one  u-ho  captures]:  OueaBi; 
 [Vat.]  Alex.  OveaBet:  Sobi).  Son  of  Nahash  of 
 Rabbah  of  the  children  of  Amnion  (2  Sara.  xvii. 
 27).  He  was  one  of  the  first  to  meet  David  at  Ma- 
 hanaini  on  his  flight  from  Absalom,  and  to  offer 
 him  the  hospitality  of  a  powerful  and  wealthy  chief, 
 for  he  was  the  son  of  David's  old  friend  Nahash, 
 and  the  bond  between  them  was  strong  enough  to 
 survive  on  the  one  hand  the  insults  of  Hanun,  and 
 on  the  other  the  conquest  and  destruction  of  Rabbah. 
 Josephus  calls  him  Siphar  (Ant.  vii.  9,  §  8),  '-chief 
 (Swdarrjs)  of  the  Ammonite  country." 
 
 SHO'CO  ("in'ltt^  [branches]  :  [Vat.]  rriv  :S.ok- 
 Xc»d'j  a'ld  so  Alex.;  [Rom.  :S,oxcoO:  Conip.  Sok- 
 Xd>']  <Soc/i()),  2  Chr.  xi.  7.  A  variation  of  the 
 name  Socoii,  unnecessarily  increased  in  the  A.  V. 
 by  the  substitution  of  Sh  for  the  <S  of  the  original. 
 
 SHO'CHO  ('"i:3-b  [as  above]:  tV  So-xci: 
 Socho),  2  Chr.  xxviii.  18.  One  of  the  four  [.six] 
 varieties  of  the  name  Socoii.  In  this  case  also  the 
 discrepancies  in  the  A.  V.  are  needlessly  multiplied 
 by  Sh  being  substituted  for  (S  and  ch  for  c  of  the 
 original. 
 
 SHO'CHOH  (nj'-W  [branches]:  2oKx>ie; 
 Alex.  Okx<^  and  'S.okxw'^  [Comp.  2oxaJ:]  Socho), 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  1.  This,  like  Shocho,  Sociioii,  [So- 
 cho,] and  Snoco,  is  an  incorrect  variation  of  the 
 name  SocoH. 
 
 ■SHO'HAM  (DniZ7  [o»7/.i'] : 'IcoaM;  Alex.  lo- 
 ffoafj,;  [Comp.  2,oa.fx:]  Soam).  A  Merarite  Le- 
 vite,  son  of  Jaaziah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  27). 
 
 SHOE.     [Sandal.] 
 
 SHO'MER  (ip'ltI7  [kcfper]:  [Rom.  Vat. 
 Sa/i'^jp;  Alex.]    Sco^rjp:   Somei-).     1.  A   man    of 
 
 SHOSHANNIM-EDUTH 
 
 the  tribe  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  32),  who  is  also 
 called  Shamer  (ver.  34). 
 
 2.  ['ScDfj.-f)p;  Alex,  ncaaifirip.]  The  father  of 
 Jehozabad,  who  slew  king  .loash  (2  K.  xii.  21):  in 
 the  parallel  passage  in  2  Chr.  xxiv.  26,  the  name  is 
 converted  into  the  feminine  form  Shimrith,  who  is 
 further  described  as  a  Moabitess.  This  variation 
 may  have  originated  in  the  dubious  gender  of  the 
 preceding  name  Shimeath,  which  is  also  made  fem- 
 inine by  the  Chronicler.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SHO'PHACH  (TfD1C7  [extension,  FiirstJ: 
 Iwcpde:  [Vat.  2cD(^ap,  ^SacpaO;  EA.i  in  ver.  16, 
 Eawcpap;]  Alex.  Sox^ax,  Sco/Sax:  Siiphach). 
 SiioBACH,  the  general  of  Hadarezer  (1  Chr.  xix. 
 16.  18). 
 
 SHO'PHAN  ('JS'llt'';  Samar.  D^^^:;  [perh. 
 naked,  barren]:  r^u  ^o(pdp:  Sophan).  One  of 
 the  fortified  towns  on  the  east  of  Jordan  which 
 were  taken  possession  of  and  rebuilt  by  the  trilie  of 
 Gad  (Num.  xxxii.  35).  It  is  probably  an  affix  to 
 the  second  Atroth,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  for- 
 mer one,  not  an  independent  place.  No  name 
 resembling  it  has  yet  been  met  with  in  that  lo- 
 cality. G. 
 
 SHOSHAN'NIM.  "  To  the  chief  musician 
 upon  Sboshaniiim  "  is  a  musical  direction  to  the 
 leader  of  the  Temple  choir  which  occurs  in  Pss. 
 xlv.,  Ixix.,  and  most  probably  indicates  the  melody 
 
 "after"  or  ''in  the  manner  of"  (717,  'al,  A.  V. 
 "upon  ")  which  the  psalms  were  to  be  sung  As 
 "  Shoshannim  "  literally  signifies  "lilies,"  it  has 
 been  suggested  that  the  word  denotes  lily-shaped 
 instruments  of  music  (Simonis,  Lex.  s.  v.),  [>er- 
 haps  cymbals,  and  this  view  appears  to  be  adopted 
 by  De  Wette  (Die  Psalmen,  p.  34).  Heiigsten- 
 berg  gives  to  it  an  enigmatical  interpretation,  as 
 indicating  "  the  subject  or  subjects  treated,  as  lilies 
 figuratively  for  bride  in  xlv. ;  the  delightful  conso- 
 lations and  deliverances  experienced  in  Ixix.,  etc." 
 (Davidson,  Jntrod.  ii.  246);  which  Dr.  Davidson 
 very  truly  characterizes  as  "  a  most  improbable 
 fancy."  The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  have  in  both 
 psalms  vTTip  Tccv  aWoioiQ-qaojxevuv  and  jwo  iis 
 qui  immiilabunlur  respectively,  reading  apparently 
 
 WiipTp  bV  for  WpWW  bV.  Ben  Zeb  ( Ol- 
 sar  Hashshnr.  s.  v.)  regards  it  as  an  instrument  of 
 psalmody,  and  Junius  and  Tremellius,  after  Kini- 
 chi,  render  it  "hexachorda,"  an  instrument  with 
 six  strings,  referring  it  to  the  root  shcsh,  "  six," 
 and  this  is  approved  by  Eichhorn  in  his  edition  of 
 Simonis.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SHOSHAN'NIM-E'DUTH.  In  the  title 
 of  Fs.  Ixxx.  is  found  the  direction   "to    the  chief 
 
 musician    upon     Shoshannim  eduth "     fC'^3U!."'ti7 
 
 ^^^5J),  which  appears,  according  to  the  most 
 probable  conjecture,  to  denote  the  melody  or  air 
 "after"  or  "in  the  manner  of"  which  the  psalm 
 was  to  be  sung.  As  the  words  now  stand  they 
 signify  "lilies,  a  testimony,"  and  the  two  are  sep- 
 arated by  a  large  distinctive  accent.  In  themselves 
 they  iiave  no  meaning  in  the  present  text,  and 
 must  therefore  be  regarded  as  jiroliably  a  fragment 
 of  the  Iteginning  of  an  older  psalm  with  which  the 
 choir  were  familiar.  Ewald  gives  what  he  consid- 
 ers the  original  meaning  —  "  '  lilies,'  that  is,  jnire, 
 innocent,  is  'the  Law;  '  "  but  the  words  will  not 
 bear  this  interpretation,  nor  is  it  possible  in  their 
 present  position  to  assign  to  them  any  intelligible 
 
SHOULDER-PIECE 
 
 lense.  For  the  conjectures  of  those  who  regard 
 the  words  as  the  names  of  musical  instruments,  see 
 the  articles  Shoshannim,  Shushan-eduxh. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  SHOULDER-PIECE.  [Ephod;  High- 
 priest.] 
 
 *  SHOVEL.  [Agriculture,  vol.  i.  p. 
 44  a.] 
 
 *  SHROUD,  Ezek.  xxxi.  3,  has  its  older  sense 
 of  "  cover,"  "  shelter."  H. 
 
 SHU'A  {V^W  [rich,  tioble]  :  :$aia;  [Comp. 
 2ovf-]  Sue)-  A  Canaanite  of  AduUam,  father  of 
 Judah's  wife  (1  Chr.  ii.  3),  who  was  hence  called 
 Bath-Shua.  In  the  LXX.  of  Gen.  xxxviii.  2,  Shua 
 is  wrongly  made  to  be  the  name  of  the  daughter. 
 [Bath-Shua.] 
 
 SHU'AH  {n^W  [pit]:  2a)c6',  2«€';  Alex. 
 :Sa>ve:  Sue).  1-  Son  of  Abraham  by  Keturah 
 (Gen.  XXV.  2;  1  Chr.  i.  32). 
 
 2.  (nn^tt7:  *AiTxo:  Sua.)  Properly  "  Shu- 
 chah."  The  name  Shuah  occurs  among  the  de- 
 scendants of  Judah  as  that  of  the  brother  of  Che- 
 lub  (1  Chr.  iv.  11).  For  "  Chelub  the  brother  of 
 Shuah,"  the  LXX.  read  •'  Caleb  the  father  of  Ach- 
 sah  [Ascha]."  In  ten  of  Kennicott's  and  De 
 Rossi's  MSS.,  Shuah  is  made  the  son  of  Chelub. 
 
 3.  (VW  :  2ava:  Sue.)  The  flither  of  Judah's 
 wife,  the  Canaanitess  (Gen.  xxxviii.  2,  12);  also 
 sailed  SnuA  in  the  A.  V.  The  LXX.  make  Shuah 
 the  name  of  the  woman  in  both  instances. 
 
 SHU'AL  (iVW  [jackal]:  :^ovU\  [Vat. 
 2ouA.a;]  Alex.  2oi;a.\:  Sual).  Son  of  Zophah, 
 an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  36). 
 
 SHU'AL,  THE  LAND  OF  (b'2W  V:?W 
 [land  of  the  jackal]:  -yr)  ^wydx;  Alex,  is  lost: 
 tei-ra  Sual).  A  district  named  only  in  1  Sam. 
 xiii.  17,  to  denote  the  direction  taken  by  one  of  the 
 three  parties  of  marauders  who  issued  from  the 
 Philistine  camp  at  Michmash.  Its  connection  with 
 Opiirah  (probably  Taiyibeh)  and  the  direction  of 
 the  two  other  routes  named  in  tlie  passage  make  it 
 pretty  certain  that  the  land  of  Shual  lay  north  of 
 Michmash.  If  therefore  it  be  identical  with  the 
 "land  of  Shalim  "  (1  Sam.  ix.  4)  —  as  is  not  im- 
 possible—  we  obtain  the  first  and  only  clew  yet  ob- 
 tained to  Saul's  journey  in  quest  of  the  asses.  The 
 name  SImal  has  not  yet  been  identified  in  the  neigh- 
 bofhood  of  Taiyibeh  or  elsewhere.  It  may  have 
 originated  in  the  Hebrew  signification  of  the  word 
 —  "jackal  "  ;  in  which  case  it  would  be  appropri- 
 ate enough  to  the  wild,  desolate  region  east  of  Tai- 
 yibeh ;  a  region  containing  a  valley  or  ravine  at  no 
 great  distance  from  Taiyibeh  which  bore  and  per- 
 haps still  bears  the  name  of  "  Hytenas."  [Ze- 
 Boi.M,  Valley  of.]  Others  (as  Thenius,  in 
 Kxeg.  Handb.)  derive  the  name  from  a  different 
 root,  and  interpret  it  as  "  hollow  land."  G. 
 
 SHU'BAEL  (bS3^tr7  [captive  of  God]: 
 'S,w0a.'i]\;  [Vat.  \uBay]K\]  Alex.  2ov3arjA.:  Su- 
 bnel).  1.  Shebuel  the  son  of  Gershom  (1  Chr. 
 «xiv.  20). 
 
 2.  (2ou;8ai!)\.)  Shkbuel  the  son  of  Heraan 
 the  minstrel  (1  Chr.  xxv.  20). 
 
 SHU'HAM  {Dn^W  [perh.pit-diffffer,Ges.]: 
 Sajite';  [Vat.  2a,u€£;]  Alex.  ^aneiSr):  Sttham). 
 Son  of  Dan,  and  ancestor  of  the  Shuhamites 
 
 SHUNAMMITE,  THE         3021 
 (Num.  xxvL  42).     In  Gen.  xlvi.  23  he  is  called 
 
 HUSHIM. 
 
 SHU'HAMITES,  THE  C^^mti^n  [patr., 
 see  above]:  6  ^afid:  [Vat.  la/xei;]  Alex.  2a- 
 fxetSrii,  2a/i6(:  Suhiunitm,  SuamitcB).  The  _  de- 
 scendants of  Shuham,  or  Husliim,  the  son  of  Dan 
 (Num.  xxvi.  42,  43).  In  the  census  taken  in  the 
 plains  of  Moab  they  numbered  4,460. 
 
 SHU'HITE  On-ia?:  [Job  ii.  11,  6  2au- 
 Xi(av  (Vat.  Sin.  -xai-,  Alex.  P^vxai-oiv)  rvpavvos; 
 elsewhere,  2aux'''^')^)  ^^'^'  ^^^-  -x^^~  ^'''-  ^i  '^'''• 
 "Xei-  xlii.  9,  and  Alex.  Aux'tt/j,  xviii  1 :]  Shu- 
 hites),  Job  viii.  1.  This  ethnic  appellative  "  Shu- 
 hite  "  is  frequent  [occurs  5  times]  in  the  book  of 
 Job,  but  only  as  the  epithet  of  one  person,  Bildad. 
 The  local  indications  of  the  book  of  Job  point  to  a 
 region  on  the  western  side  of  Chaldaea,  bordering 
 on  Arabia;  and  exactly  in  this  locality,  above  Hit 
 and  on  both  sides  of  the  Euphrates,  are  found,  in 
 the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  the  Tsukhi,  a  powerful 
 people.  It  is  probable  that  these  were  the  Shuhites. 
 and  that,  having  been  conquered  by  the  Babylonian 
 kings,  they  were  counted  by  Kzekiel  among  the 
 tribes  of  the  Chaldjeans.  Having  lost  their  inde- 
 pendence, they  ceased  to  be  noticed ;  but  it  was  no 
 doubt  from  them  that  the  country  on  the  Euphra- 
 tes immediately  above  Babylonia  came  to  be  desiat- 
 nated  as  Sohene,  a  term  applied  to  it  in  the  Peu- 
 tingerian  Tables.  The  Shuhites  appear  to  have 
 been  descendants  of  Abraham  by  Keturah.  [Shu- 
 ah, 1.]  G.  R. 
 
 SHU'LAMITE,  THE  {rViph^Wll,  i.  e. 
 the  Shidammite  [see  below] :  [Vat.]  7)  'Sov/j.avei- 
 T(s;  [Rom.  2oui'a;UiTis;]  Alex.  [FA.]  n  Sov\a/ui.- 
 iTts:  Siila}nitis  and  Sunainilis).  One  of  the  per- 
 sonages in  the  poem  of  Solomon's  Song,  who. 
 although  named  only  in  one  passage  (vi.  13),  is, 
 according  to  some  interpreters,  the  most  prominent 
 of  all  the  characters.  The  name  —  after  the  anal- 
 ogy of  Shunammite  —  denotes  a  woman  belonging 
 to  a  place  called  Shulem.  The  only  place  bearing 
 that  name,  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  is 
 Shunem  itself,  which,  as  far  back  as  the  4th  cen- 
 tury, was  so  called  (Eusebius,  quoted  under  Shu- 
 nem). In  fiict,  there  is  good  ground  for  believing 
 that  the  two  were  identical.  Since,  then,  Sh>dam- 
 mite  and  Shunammite  are  equivalent,  there  is  noth- 
 ing surely  extravagant  in  supposing  that  the  Shu- 
 nammite who  was  the  object  of  Solomon's  passion 
 was  Abishag,  —  the  most  lovely  girl  of  her  day, 
 and  at  the  time  of  David's  death  one  of  the  most 
 prominent  persons  at  the  court  of  Jerusalem.  Thig 
 would  be  equally  appropriate,  whether  Solomon  was 
 himself  the  author  of  the  Song,  or  it  were  written 
 by  another  person  whose  object  was  to  personate 
 him  accurately.  For  the  light  which  it  throws  on 
 the  circumstances  of  Solomon's  accession,  see  Sol- 
 omon.    [Wedding,  Amer.  ed.]  G. 
 
 SHU'MATHITES,  THE  (\nttti?n,  i.  e. 
 the  Shumathite  [patr.]:  [Vat.]  Haafxadet/u.  [Rom 
 -6i(U,  Alex,  -deiv]:  Semathei).  One  of  the  four 
 families  who  sprang  from  Kirjath-jearim  (1  Chr.  ii. 
 53).  They  probably  colonized  a  village  named 
 Shuraah  somewhere  in  that  neighborhood.  But 
 no  trace  of  such  a  name  has  been  discovered.    G. 
 
 SHU'NAMMITE,    THE    (n^'Sar^n" : 
 
 «  In  1  K.  ji.  21, 22,  the  shorter  form  of  n'^?23tt?n 
 is  used. 
 
3022 
 
 SHUNEM 
 
 [Tat.]  7j  'Zu>naveiris  [Kom.  -j/i-]  ;  Alex.  [2,wfxav- 
 IT7JS,]  Soujuaj/jTij:  Sunamit.is),  i.  e.  the  native  of 
 Shuneiii,  as  is  plain  from  2  K.  iv.  8.  It  is  applied 
 to  two  persons:  Abishai;,  the  nurse  of  King  David 
 (1  K.  i.  3,«  15,  ii.  17,  21," 22),  and  the  nameless  host- 
 ess of  Elisha  (2K.  iv.  12,  25,  36). 
 
 The  modern  representative  of  Shunem  being  So- 
 (am,  some  have  suggested  (as  Gesenius,  T/its.  p. 
 1379  d),  or  positively  affirmed  (as  Fiirst,  Hiindwb.  ii. 
 422),  that  Shunammite  is  identical  with  Shulam- 
 mite  (Cant.  vi.  13).  Of  this  all  that  can  be  said  is, 
 that,  though  higlily  probable,  it  is  not  absolutely 
 certain.  "  G. 
 
 SHU'NEM  {U2^W  [tico  resting-places] :  2ou- 
 uav'^'-  Suneni,  Sunam).  One  of  the  cities  allotted 
 to  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (Josh.  xix.  18).  It  occurs 
 in  the  list  between  ChesuUoth  and  Haphraim.  It 
 is  mentioned  on  two  occasions.  First,  as  the  place 
 of  the  Philistines'  first  encampment  before  the  bat- 
 tle of  Gilboa  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  4).  Here  it  occurs  in 
 connection  with  Mount  Gilboa  and  En-dor,  and 
 also  probably  with  Jezreel  (xxix.  1).  [Gilboa, 
 Amer.  ed.]  Secondly,  as  the  scene  of  Elisha's  in- 
 tercourse with  the  Shunammite  woman  and  her 
 son  (2  K.  iv.  8).  Here  it  is  connected  with  adja- 
 cent cornfields,  and,  more  remotely,  with  INIount 
 Carmel.  It  was  besides  the  native  place  of  Abi- 
 shag,  the  attendant  on  King  David  (1  K.  i.  3), 
 and  possibly  the  heroine  of  the  poem  or  ilrama  of 
 "  Solomon's  Song." 
 
 By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.)  it  is  men- 
 tioned twice:  under  2,ou^rif.i  and  "  Sunem,"  as  5 
 miles  south  of  Mount  Tabor,  and  then  known  as 
 Sulem:  and  under  "  Sonam,"  as  a  village  in  Acra- 
 battine,  in  the  territory  of  Sebaste  called  Saniui. 
 The  latter  of  these  two  identifications  probably  re- 
 fers to  Sam'ir,  a  well-knowji  fortress  some  7  miles 
 from  Sebastlyeh  and  4  from  Arrnheh — a  spot 
 completely  out  of  the  circle  of  the  associations 
 which  connect  themselves  with  Shunem.  The 
 other  has  more  in  its  favor,  sinpe  —  except  for  the 
 distance  from  Mount  Tabor,  which  is  nearer  8  Ro- 
 man miles  than  5  —  it  agrees  with  the  position  of 
 the  present  Solnin,  a  village  on  the  S.  \Y.  flank  of 
 JeOel  Duhy  (the  so-called  "Little  Hermon"),  3 
 miles  N.  of  Jezreel,  5  from  Gilboa  (./.  Fukua),  full 
 in  view  of  the  sacred  spot  on  !Mount  Carmel,  and 
 situated  in  the  midst  of  the  finest  cornfields  in  the 
 world. 
 
 It  is  named,  as  Salem,  by  the  Jewish  traveller, 
 hap-Parchi  (Asher's  Benjamin,  ii.  431).  It  had 
 then  its  spring,  without  which  the  Philistines 
 would  certainly  not  have  chosen  it  for  their  en- 
 campment. Now,  according  to  the  notice  of  Dr. 
 Robinson  (ii.  324),  the  spring  of  the  village  is  but 
 a  poor  one. 
 
 The  change  of  the  n  in  the  ancient  name  to  I  in 
 the  modern  one,  is  the  reverse  of  that  which  has 
 taken  place  in  Zeriii  (Jezreel)  and  Beitin  (Bethel). 
 
 G. 
 
 SHU'NI  02^27  {quieq  :  ^avvU,  :S.ovvi  [Vat. 
 -vef]  ;  Alex.  2auc(s  in  Gen.:  Suni).  Son  of  Gad, 
 and  founder  of  the  family  of  the  Shunites  (Gen. 
 xlvi.  16;  Num.  xxvi.  15) 
 
 n  The  A.  V.  is  here  incorrect  in  omitting  the  defi- 
 nite article. 
 
 6  Perhaps  contracted  ft-om  Q'^S^tt"'  (Geseuius,  Thes. 
 p.  1379  b). 
 >■'  It  is  giveu  differently  on  each  occurrence  in  each 
 
 SHUR 
 
 SHU'NITES,THE  OD^tt^H  [^atr.  from  the 
 above]:  blow;  [Vat.  -vei\-  StmiUe).  Descend- 
 ants of  Shuni  the  son  of  Gad  (Num.  xxvi.  15). 
 
 SHU'PHAM.     [Siiui'i'iM.] 
 
 SHU'PHAMITES,  THE  OaC^t^H 
 [patr.]  :  d  '2co<pavi  [Vat.  -vei]  •  SuphamitoB).  The 
 descendants  of  Shupliam,  or  Shephupham,  the 
 Benjamite  (Num.  xxvi.  ;J9). 
 
 SHUP'PIM  (C2ttV  WBW  Iperh.  serpenis, 
 Ges.] :  2a7r(/)iV;  [Vat.  '2aw<j)eii',  MafxcpeiV,]  Alex. 
 ^acpei/x,  ^efpipeifx:  Sepham,  Saplian).  1.  In  the 
 genealogy  of  Benjamin,  "  Shuppim  and  Huppim, 
 the  children  of  Ir,"  are  reckoned  in  1  Chr.  vii.  12. 
 Ir  is  the  same  as  Iri  the  son  of  Bela  the  son  of 
 Benjamin,  so  that  Shuppim  was  the  great-grandson 
 of  Benjamin.  In  Num.  .xxvi.  39,  he  and  his 
 brother  are  called  Shupham,  and  Hupham,  while  in 
 1  (Jhr.  viii.  5  they  appear  as  Shephuphan  and  Hu- 
 ram,  sons  of  Bela,  and  in  Gen.  xlvi.  21  as  Mup- 
 pim  and  Huppim,  sons  of  Benjamin.  To  avoid 
 the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  Benjamin  had  a 
 great-grandson  at  the  time  he  went  down  to 
 Egypt,  Lord  A.  Hervey  conjectures  that  Shuppim 
 or  Shephuphan  was  a  son  of  Benjamin,  whose 
 family   was    reckoned    with    that   of    Ir    or    Iri. 
 
 [MUPPIM.] 
 
 *  2.  (Rom.  Vat.  omit;  Alex.  2e<|)iei/x:  SeyVa'ni.) 
 A  I.evitewho,  with  Hosah,  had  charge  of  the  gate 
 Shalleeheth  (1  Chron.  xxvi.  16).  A. 
 
 SHUR  ("l^tt?  [icaiq  </  :  2ovp,  re\a/xxf^o6p  ; 
 [Alex,  in  Gen.  xxv.  18  2ovrjA,  1  Chr.  xxvii.  8,  Te- 
 Aafxaovp-]  Sur),  a  place  just  without  the  eastern 
 border  of  Egypt.  Its  name,  if  Hebrew  or  Arabic, 
 signifies  "  a  wall,"  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
 that  it  is  of  Shemitic  origin  from  the  position  of 
 the  place.  Ti:e  LXX.  seems  to  have  thus  inter- 
 preted it,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  ol^scure  render- 
 ing of  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8,  where  it  must  be  remarked 
 the  extraordinary  form  TeAa/i^oup  is  found.  This 
 word    is    evidently    a    transcription  of  the  words 
 
 n~l^ti7   •   •    •   •   D7127!S,  the  former,  save  the  in- 
 
 T  T  ••  '  ' 
 
 itial  particle,  not  being  translated. 
 
 Shur  is  first  mentioned  in  tiie  narrative  of  Ha- 
 gar's  flight  from  Sarah.  Abraham  was  then  in 
 southernmost  Palestine,  and  wlien  Hagar  fled  she 
 was  found  by  an  angel  "  by  the  fountain  in  the  way 
 to  Shur"  (Gen.  xvi.  7).  Proiiably  she  was  en- 
 deavoring to  return  to  Egypt,  the  country  of  her 
 birth  —  she  may  not  have  been  a  pure  Egyptian  — 
 and  had  reached  a  well  in  the  inland  caravan  route. 
 Abraham  afterwards  "  dwelled  between  Kadesh  and 
 Shur,  and  .sojourned  in  Gerar"  (xx.  ]).  P'rom 
 this  it  would  seem  either  that  Shur  lay  in  tlie  ter- 
 ritory of  the  Philistines  of  Gerar,  or  that  this  pas- 
 toral tribe  wandered  in  a  region  extending  from 
 Kadesh  to  Shur.  [Gehak.]  In  neither  case  can  we 
 ascertain  the  position  of  Shur.  The  first  clear  in- 
 dication of  this  occurs  in  the  account  of  Ishmael's 
 posterity.  "  And  they  dwelt  from  Havilah  unto 
 Shur,  that  [is]  before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward 
 Assyria"  (xxv.  18).    With  this  should  be  compared 
 
 of  the  two  great  Codices  :  Vat.  (Mai),  lovi'av,  Stojiov, 
 'S.ovixdv  ;  Alex.  Sovi'aiii,  Tiavafiav,  2(i»|uia/j, ;  [Rom 
 ^ovvajLi,  %03vdfj.,  ^oj/uav.] 
 
 <l  The  ancient  name,  .-iays  Dietrich,  still  exists  in  the 
 Jthel  es-Siir  which  stretches  from  the  southwest  ol 
 the  desert  I' «-r//i  towards  Egypt  (Ges.  Hebr.  Hanrlw. 
 p.  857).  Jl- 
 
\ 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 the  mention  of  the  extent  of  the  Amalekite  terri- 
 tory, given  in  this  passage,  "  And  Saul  smote  the 
 Amalekites  from  Havilah  [until]  thou  comest  to 
 Shur,  that  [is]  over  against  Egypt"  (1  Sam.  xv. 
 7).  It  is  also  important  to  notice  that  the  Geshu- 
 rites,  Gezrites,  and  Amalekites,  whom  Da\id  smote, 
 are  described  as  "  from  an  ancient  period  the  in- 
 habitants of  the  land,  as  thou  comest  to  Shur,  even 
 unto  the  land  of  Egypt"  (xxvii.  8).  The  Wilder- 
 ness of  Shur  was  entered  by  the  Israelites  after 
 they  had  crossed  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xv.  22,  23).  It 
 was  also  called  the  Wilderness  of  Etham  (Nmn. 
 xxxiii.  8).  The  first  passage  presents  one  difficulty, 
 upon  which  the  LXX.  and  VuIlj.  throw  no  light, 
 in  the  mention  of  Assyria.  If,  howe\er,  we  com- 
 pare it  with  later  places,  we  find  m^tS^S  HDSS 
 here,   remarkably  like  m^tt?    tJ^"^^  i"    1   Sam. 
 
 xxvii.  8,  and  ~^^''.''  tJ^^IS  in  xv.  7,  as  though  the 
 same  phrase  had  been  originally  found  in  the  first 
 as  a  gloss,  but  it  may  have  been  there  transposed, 
 and  have  originally  followed  the  mention  of  Havi- 
 lah. In  the  notices  of  the  Amalekite  and  Ishmael- 
 ite  region,  in  which  tlie  latter  succeeded  the  former, 
 there  can  be  no  question  that  a  strip  of  northern 
 Arabia  is  intended,  stretching  from  the  Isthmus  of 
 Suez  towards  and  probal)ly  to  the  Persian  Gulf. 
 The  name  of  the  wilderness  may  perhaps  indicate  a 
 somewhat  southern  position.  Shur  may  thus  have 
 been  a  fortified  t«wn  east  of  the  ancient  head  of 
 the  Red  Sea,  but  in  the  hands  of  the  Arabs,  or  at 
 one  time  the  Philistines,  not  of  the  Egyptians. 
 From  its  l>eing  spoken  of  as  a  limit,  it  was  prob- 
 ably the  last  Arabian  town  before  entering  Egypt. 
 The  hieroglyphic  inscriptions  have  not  been  found 
 to  throw  any  light  upon  this  question.  The 
 SHAIi.4.  or  SHAf^.A.  mentioned  in  them  is  an  im- 
 portant country,  perhaps  S^ria.  R.  S.  P. 
 
 SHUSHAN  CjttJ^tt?:  :$odffa,  [lovadu-]  Su- 
 san) is  said  to  have  received  its  name  from  the 
 abundance  of  the  lily  (Shi'ishan  or  S/ius/kiiui/i)  in 
 its  neighborhood  (Athen.  xii.  51'J).  It  was  one  of 
 the  most  important  towns  in  tlie  whole  East,  and 
 requires  to  be  described  at  some  length. 
 
 1.  I/is/onj.  —  Susa  was  originally  the  capital  of 
 the  country  called  in  Scripture  Elam,  and  by  the 
 classical  writers,  sometimes  (Jissia  (Kifftria),  some- 
 times Susis  or  Susiana.  [El.vji.]  Its  foumlati.in 
 is  thought  to  date  from  a  time  anterior  to  (  hedor- 
 laonier,  as  the  remains  found  on  the  site  have  often 
 a  character  of  very  high  antiquity.  The  first  dis- 
 tinct mention  of  the  town  that  has  been  as  yet 
 found  is  in  the  inscriptions  of  Axshurbani-pdl,  the 
 son  and  successor  of  Esar-Haddon,  who  states  that 
 he  took  the  place,  and  exhibits  a  ground-plan  of  it 
 upon  his  sculptures  (La yard,  Nin.  nnd  Bab.  pp. 
 452,  4.53).  The  date  of  this  monument  is  about 
 B.  C.  660.  We  next  find  Susa  in  the  possession  of 
 the  Babylonians,  to  whom  Elam  had  probably 
 passed  at  the  division  of  the  Assyrian  empire  made 
 by  Cyaxares  and  Nabopolassar.  In  the  last  year 
 of  Belshazzar  (u.  c.  538),  Daniel,  while  still  a 
 Bal)ylonian  subject,  is  there  on  the  king's  business, 
 and  "  at  Sliuslian  in  the  palace  "  sees  his  famous 
 vision  of  the  ram  and  he-goat  (Dan.  viii.  2).  The 
 conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  transferred  Susa  to 
 the  Persian  dominion ;  and  it  was  not  long   before 
 
 «  Not  only  were  the  passes  difficult,  but   they  were 
 in  the  possession  of  semi-independent  tribes,  who  lev- 
 
 SHUSHAN  3023 
 
 the  Achsemenian  princes  determined  to  make  it  the 
 capital  of  their  whole  empire,  and  the  chief  place 
 of  their  own  residence.  According  to  some  writers 
 (Xen.  Cyrop.  viii.  6,  §  22;  Strabf  xv.  3,  §  2), .tlie 
 change  was  made  by  Cyrus;  according  to  others 
 (Ctes.  Exc.  Pers.  §9;  'llerod.  iii.  30,  65,  70),  it 
 had  at  any  rate  taken  place  before  the  death  of 
 Cambyses;  but,  according  to  the  evidence  of  the 
 place  itself  and  of  the  other  Achienienian  monu- 
 ments, it  would  seem  most  probable  that  the  trans- 
 fer was  really  the  work  of  1  )arius  Hystaspis,  who  is 
 found  to  have  been  (as  Pliny  said,  //.  iV.  vi.  27) 
 the  founder  of  the  great  palace  there  —  the  building 
 so  graphically  described  in  the  book  of  Esther  (i.  5, 
 6).  The  reasons  which  induced  the  change  are 
 toler.djly  apparent.  After  the  conquest  of  Baby- 
 lonia and  Egypt,  the  western  provinces  of  the  em- 
 pire were  become  l)y  far  the  most  inqiortant,  and 
 the  court  could  no  longer  be  conveniently  fixed 
 east  of  Zagros,  either  at  Ecbatana  (Haiiiar/nn)  or 
 at  Pasargadte  (Mur;/(iul/),  which  were  cut  off  from 
 the  Mesopotamian  plain  by  the  difiiculty  of  the 
 passes  for  fully  one  half  of  the  year.'*  It  was  ne- 
 cessary to  find  a  capital  west  of  the  mountains,  and 
 here  Babylon  and  Susa  presented  themsehes,  each 
 with  its  peculiar  advantages.  Darius  probably  pre- 
 ferred Susa,  first,  on  account  of  its  vicinity  to  Per- 
 sia (Strab.  XV.  3,  §  2);  secondly,  because  it  was 
 cooler  than  Babylon,  being  nearer  the  mountain- 
 chain;  and  thirdly,  because  of  the  excellence  of  the 
 water  there  {Geogrnph.  Jouni.  ix.  70).  Susa  ac- 
 cordingly became  the  metropolis  of  Persia,  and  is 
 recognized  as  such  by  ^schylus  {Pers.  16,  124, 
 &c.),  Herodotus  (v.  25,  49,  &c.),  Ctesias  (Pers. 
 Exc.  passim),  Strabo  (xv.  3,  §  2),  and  almost  all 
 the  best  writers.  The  court  must  have  resided 
 there  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  only 
 quitting  it  regularly  for  Ecbatana  or  Persepolis  in 
 the  height  of  summer,  and  perhaps  sometimes 
 leaving  it  for  Babylon  in  the  depth  of  winter  (see 
 Ravvlinson's  Herodutus,  iii.  256).  Susa  retained 
 its  pretjminence  to  the  period  of  the  Macedonian 
 conquest,  wlien  Alexander  found  there  al]0ve  twelve 
 millions  sterling,  and  all  the  regalia  of  the  Great 
 King  (Arrian.  Exp.  Alex.  iii.  16).  After  this  it 
 declined.  The  preference  of  Alexander  for  Baby- 
 lon caused  the  neglect  of  Susa  by  his  successors, 
 none  of  whom  ever  made  it  their  capital  city.  We 
 hear  of  it  once  only  in  their  wars,  when  it  fells  into 
 the  power  of  Antigonus  (b.  c.  315),  who  obtains 
 treasure  there  to  the  amount  of  three  millions  and 
 a  half  of  our  money  (Diod.  Sic.  xix.  48,  §  7). 
 Nearly  a  century  later  (b.  c.  221)  Susa  was  at- 
 tacked liy  jMoIo  in  his  rebellion  against  Antiochus 
 the  Great;  he  took  the  town,  but  failed  in  his  at- 
 tempt upon  the  citadel  (Polyb.  v.  48,  §  14).  We 
 hear  of  it  again  at  the  time  of  the  .\rabian  con- 
 quest of  Persia,  when  it  was  bravely  defended  by 
 Hormuzan  (Loftus,  Chiddmn  and  Susiana,  p.  344). 
 2.  Position,  etc.  —  A  good  deal  of  uncertainty 
 has  existed  concerning  the  j>osition  of  Susa.  While 
 most  historians  and  comparative  geographers  have 
 inclined  to  identify  it  with  the  modern  Sus  or  Shush, 
 which  is  in  lat.  32°  10',  long.  48°  26'  E.  from 
 Greenwich,  between  the  Shapur  and  the  river  of 
 Dizful,  there  have  not  been  wanting  some  to  main- 
 tain the  rival  claims  of  Sinister,  which  is  situated 
 on  the  left  bank  of  the  Kuran,  more  than  half  a 
 
 ied  a  toll  on  all  passengers,  even   the  Persian  kings 
 themselves  (Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4). 
 
8024 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 degree  further  to  the  eastward.  A  third  candidate 
 for  the  honor  has  even  been  started,  and  it  has 
 neen  maintained  witli  much  learning  and  ingenuity 
 that  Susan,  on  the  right  banlc  of  the  same  stream, 
 50  or  CO  miles  above  Shvsler,  is,  if  not  the  Susa 
 of  the  Greeks  and  Komans,  at  any  rate  the  Shushan 
 of  Scripture  (G'cor/r.  Joiirn.  ix.  85).  But  a  care- 
 ful examination  of  these  several  spots  has  finally 
 caused  a  general  acquiescence  in  the  belief  that  Sus 
 alone  is  erjtitled  to  the  honor  of  representing  at 
 once  the  Scriptural  Shushan  and  the  Susa  of  the 
 classical  writers  (see  Loftus,  Chaldma  and.  Susiumi, 
 p.  338;  Smith,  Dicliwvtry  of  Geo(/friplnj,  suh  voc. ; 
 Kawlinson,  Herodotus,  iii.  254).  The  difficulties 
 caused  by  the  seemingly  confused  accounts  of  the 
 ancient  writers,  of  whom  some  place  Susa  on  the 
 Choaspes  (Herod,  v.  49,  52;  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4;  Q. 
 Curt.  v.  2),  some  on  the  Eulseus  (Arr.  Kxp.  Al. 
 vii.  7;  Ptol.  vi.  3;  Pliii.  //.  TV.  vi.  27),  have  been 
 removed  by  a  careful  survey  of  the  ground,  from 
 which  it  appears  that  the  Choaspes  (Kerkltali)  orig- 
 inally bifurcated  at  Pai  Put,  20  miles  above  Susa, 
 the  right  arm  keeping  its  present  course,  while  the 
 left  flowed  a  little  to  the  east  of  Sus,  and,  absorb- 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 ing  the  Shapur  about  12  miles  below  the  ruins, 
 flowed  on  somewhat  east  of  south,  and  joined  the 
 Karun  (Pasitigris)  at  Ahwaz.  The  left  branch  of 
 the  Choaspes  was  sometimes  called  by  that  name, 
 but  more  properly  bore  the  appellation  of  Euteus 
 (Ulai  of  Daniel).  Susa  thus  lay  between  the  two 
 streams  of  the  Eulfeus  and  the  Shapur,  the  latter 
 of  which,  being  probably  joined  to  the  Eulseus  by 
 canals,  was  reckoned  a  part  of  it;  and  hence  Pliny 
 said  that  the  Eulseus  surrounded  the  citadel  of 
 Susa  (/.  «.  c. ).  At  the  distance  of  a  few  miles 
 east  and  west  of  the  city  were  two  other  streams  — 
 the  Coprates  or  river  of  Dizful,  and  the  right  arm 
 of  the  Choaspes  (the  modern  Kerkhali).  Thus  the 
 country  about  Susa  was  most  abundantly  watered; 
 and  hence  the  luxuriance  and  fertility  remarked 
 alike  by  ancient  and  modern  authors  (Athen.  xii. 
 513;  Geoyraph.  Journ.  ix.  71).  The  Kerkhah 
 water  was  moreover  regarded  as  of  peculiar  excel- 
 lence; it  was  the  only  water  drunk  by  the  Great 
 King,  and  was  always  carried  with  him  on  his 
 journeys  and  foreign  expeditions  (Herod,  i.  188; 
 Plut.  de  Exil.  ii.  601,  D;  Athen.  Deipn.  ii.  171, 
 &c.).     Even  at  the  present  day  it  is  celebrated  for 
 
 0  500    1000 
 
 ''      -''iV,/iir/ 
 
 1.  Ruins  of  Susa. 
 
 2.  The  hish  mound  o 
 S.  The  pnliice. 
 
 4.  The  great  platform. 
 
 5.  Uuinsof  thecity. 
 
 No.  1.    Plan  of  the  Ruins  of  Susa. 
 
 lightness  and  purity,  and  the  natives  prize  it  above 
 that  of  almost  all  other  streams  {Geogr.  Journ.  ix. 
 70,  89). 
 
 3.  General  Description  of  the  Ruins.  —  The 
 ruins  of  Susa  cover  a  space  about  6,000  feet  long 
 from  east  to  west,  by  4,500  feet  broad  from  north 
 to  south.  The  circumference  of  the  whole,  exclu- 
 sive of  outlying  and  comparatively  insignificant 
 mounds,  is  about  three  miles.  According  to  Mr. 
 Loftus,  "  the  principal  existing  remains  consist  of 
 four  spacious  artiticial  platforms,  distinctly  separate 
 from  each  other.  Of  these  the  western  mound  is 
 .the  smallest  in  superficial  extent,  but  considerably 
 the  most  lofty  and  important Its  highest 
 
 point  is  119  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Shaour 
 (Shapur).  In  form  it  is  an  irregular,  obtuse-an- 
 gled triangle,  with  its  corners  rounded  off,  and  its 
 base  facing  nearly  due  east.  It  is  apparently  con- 
 structed of  earth,  gravel,  and  sun-dried  brick,  sec- 
 tions being  exposed  in  numerous  ravines  produced 
 by  the  rains  of  winter.  The  sides  are  so  perpen- 
 dicular as  to  be  inaccessible  to  a  horseman  except 
 at  three  places.  The  measurement  round  the  sum- 
 mit is  about  2,850  feet.  In  the  centre  is  a  deep, 
 circular  depression,  probal)ly  a  large  court,  sur- 
 rounded by  elevated  piles  of  buildings,  the  fall  of 
 which  has  given  the  present  configuration  to  the 
 surface.    Here  and  there  are  exposed  in  the  ravines 
 
SHUSHAN 
 
 traces  of  brick  walls,  which  show  that  the  present 
 elevation  of  the  mound  has  been  attained  by  much 
 subsequent  superposition  "  ( C/wldiea  ami  Susiam/, 
 p.  343).  Mr.  Loltus  regards  this  mound  as  indu- 
 bitably the  remains  of  the  famous  citadel  {&.Kpa  or 
 aKp6iro\ts)  of  Susa,  so  frequently  mentioned  by 
 the  ancient  writers  (Herod,  iii.  68;  Polyb.  v.  48, 
 §  14;  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  2;  Arr.  Exp.  Al.  iii."  16,  &c.). 
 "  Separated  from  the  citadel  on  the  west  by  a 
 channel  or  ravine,  the  bottom  of  which  is  on  a 
 level  with  the  external  desert,  is  the  great  central 
 platform,  covering  upwards  of  sixty  acres  (No.  3 
 on  the  Plan).  The  highest  point  is  on  the  south 
 side,  where  it  presents  generally  a  perpendicular 
 escarpment  to  the  plain,  and  rises  to  an  elevation 
 of  about  70  feet;  on  the  east  and  north  it  does  not 
 exceed  40  or  50  feet.  The  east  face  measures  3,000 
 feet  in  lengtli.  luiormous  ravines  penetrate  to  the 
 very  heart  of  the  mound"  (Loftus,  p.  345).  The 
 third  platform  (No.  2  on  the  Plan)  lies  towards  the 
 north,  and  is  "  a  considerable  square  mass,"  about 
 a  thousand  feet  each  way.  It  alnits  on  the  central 
 platform  at  its  northwestern  extiemity.  but 
 is  separated  from  it  by  "  a  slight  hollow," 
 which  "  was  perhaps  an  ancient  roadway  " 
 (Loftus,  ibid.).  These  three  mounds  form 
 together  a  lozenge-shaped  mass,  4,500  feet 
 long  and  nearly  3,000  feet  broad,  pointing  in 
 its  longer  direction  a  little  west  of  nortii. 
 East  of  them  is  the  fourth  platform,  which  is 
 very  extensive  but  of  much  lower  elevation 
 than  the  rest  (No.  4  on  the  Plan).  Its  plan 
 is  very  irregular:  in  its  dimensions  it  about 
 equals  all  the  rest  of  the  ruins  put  together. 
 Beyond  this  eastern  platform  a  number  of 
 low  mounds  are  traceable,  extendhig  nearly 
 to  the  Dizful  river;  liut  there  are  no  remains 
 of  walls  in  any  direction,  and  no  marks  of 
 any  buildings  west  of  the  Shapur.  All  the 
 ruins  are  contained  within  a  circumference  of 
 about  seven  miles  {Geograph.  Journ.  ix.  71) 
 G.  R. 
 Architecture.  —  The  explorations  un-  ^ 
 aertaken  by  General,  now  Sir  Fenwick  Wil- 
 liams  of  Kars,  in  the  mounds  at  Susa,  in  the 
 year  1851,  resulted  in  the  discovery  of  tlie 
 bases  of  three  colunuis,  marked  5,  6,  and  7 
 on  the  accompanying  plan  (wood-cut  No.  2).  These 
 were  found  to  be  27  feet  0  inches  apart  from  centre 
 to  centre,  and  as  they  were  very  similar  to  the 
 bases  of  the  great  hall  known  popularly  as  the  Chel 
 Minar  at  Persepolis,  it  was  assumed  that  another 
 row  would  lie  found  at  a  like  distance  inwards. 
 Holes  were  accordingly  dug,  and  afterwards  trenches 
 driven,  without  any  successful  result,  as  it  hap- 
 pened to  be  on  the  spot  where  the  walls  originally 
 stood,  and  where  no  colunms,  consequently,  could 
 have  existed.  Had  any  trustworthy  restoration  of 
 the  Persepolitan  hall  been  published  at  that  time, 
 the  mistake  would  have  been  avoided,  but  as  none 
 then  existed  the  opportunity  was  nearly  lost  for  our 
 becoming  acquainted  with  one  of  the  most  interest- 
 ing ruins  coimected  with  Bible  history  which  now 
 exist  out  of  Syria.  Fortunately  in  the  following 
 year  Mr.  Loftus  resumed  the  excavations  with  more 
 success,  and  ascertained  the  position  of  all  the  72 
 columns  of  which  the  original  building  was  com- 
 posed. Only  one  base  had  been  entirely  removed, 
 and  as  that  was  in  the  midst  of  the  central  pha- 
 lanx, its  absence  threw  no  doubt  on  any  part  of  the 
 arrangement.  On  the  bases  of  four  of  the  columns 
 thus  uncovered   (shaded  darker  on  the  plan,  and 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 3025 
 
 numbered  1,  2,  3,  4)  were  found  trilingual  inscrip- 
 tions in  the  languages  ado])ted  by  the  Achjemenian 
 kings  at  Behistun  and  elsewhere,  but  all  were  so 
 much  injured  by  the  fall  of  the  superincumbent 
 mass  that  not  one  was  complete,  and  unfortunately 
 the  Persian  text,  which  could  have  been  read  with 
 most  certainty,  was  the  least  perfect  of  any.  Not- 
 withstanding this,  Mr.  Edwin  Norris,  with  his  usual 
 ingenuity,  liy  a  careful  comp.arison  of  the  whole, 
 made  out  the  meaning  of  the  first  part  certainly, 
 of  the  latter  half  with  very  tolerable  precision. 
 As  this  inscription  contains  nearly  all  we  know  of 
 the  history  of  this  building,  we  quote  it  entire  from 
 Journ.  As.  Soc,  \ol,  xv.  102:  "Says  Artaxerxes 
 (Mnemon),  the  Great  King,  the  King  of  Kings,  the 
 King  of  the  Country,  the  King  of  the  Earth,  the 
 son  of  King  Darius  —  Darius  was  the  son  of  King 
 Artaxerxes  —  Artaxerxes  was  the  son  of  Xerxes 
 —  Xerxes  was  the  son  of  King  Darius  —  Darius 
 was  the  son  of  Hystaspes  the  Achsemenian  — 
 Darius  my  ancestor  anciently  built  this  temple, 
 and    afterwards    it    was    repaired    by    Artaxerxes 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o    o   o  o    o   o 
 o   o  o  o  o  p 
 
 , .  i 
 
 Oci  ^D    D    □    Q    □    □  o    O 
 
 O^  iUDDDDD  OO 
 
 O  ioDDDDU  OO 
 
 O  iDDDnDD  OO 
 
 O  \iDGDDCD  OO 
 
 ^OOf^  I A/Sy/' r JOn^ft  [ 
 
 No.  2.     Plan  of  the  Great  Palace  at  Susa. 
 
 my  grandfather.  By  the  aid  of  Ormazd  I  placed 
 the  effigies  of  Tanaites  and  Mithra  in  this  tem- 
 ple. May  Ormazd,  Tanaites,  and  Mithra  protect 
 me,  with  the  other  Gods,  and  all  that  I  have 
 done  .   .   .  .  " 
 
 The  bases  uncovered  by  Mr.  Loftus  were  arranged 
 as  on  the  wood-cut  No.  2,  reduced  from  that  given 
 at  page  366  of  his  Chakkea  and  Susinna,  and  most 
 fortunately  it  is  found  on  examination  that  the 
 building  was  an  exact  counterpart  of  the  celebrated 
 Chel  JSIinar  at  Persepolis.  They  are  in  fact  more 
 like  one  another  than  almost  any  other  two  build- 
 ings of  antiquity,  and  consequently  what  is  wanting 
 in  the  one  may  safely  be  supplied  from  the  other,  if 
 it  exists  there. 
 
 Their  age  is  nearly  the  same,  that  at  Susa  having 
 been  conmienced  by  Darius  Hystaspis,  that  at  Per- 
 sepolis —  if  one  may  trust  the  inscription  on  its 
 staircase  (./.  A.  S.  x.  326)  —  was  built  entirely  by 
 Xerxes.  Their  dimensions  are  practically  identical, 
 the  width  of  that  at  Susa,  according  to  Mr.  Loftus, 
 being  345  feet,  the  depth  N.  and  S.  244.  The  cor- 
 responding dimensions  at  Persepolis,  according  to 
 Flandin  and  Coste's  survey,  are  357.6  by  254.6,  or 
 from  10  to   12  feet  in  excess ;  but  the  ditTerence 
 
3026 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 may  arise  as  inucli  from  imperfect  surveying  as 
 from  any  real  discrepancy. 
 
 Tlie  number  of  columns  and  their  arrane;ement 
 are  identical  in  the  two  buildings,  and  the  details 
 of  the  architecture  are 
 practically  the  same  so 
 far  as  they  can  be  made 
 out.  Hut  as  no  pillar 
 is  standing  at  Susa,  and 
 no  capital  was  found 
 entire  or  nearly  so,  it  is 
 not  easy  to  feel  quite 
 siu-e  that  the  annexed 
 restoration  (wood-cut 
 No.  3)  is  in  all  respects 
 correct.  It  is  reduced 
 from  one  made  by  Mr. 
 Churchill,  who  accom- 
 panied iMr.  Loftus  in 
 his  explorations.  If  it 
 is  so,  it  appears  that 
 the  gre'it  diff(?rence  lie- 
 tween  tlie  two  buildings 
 was  that  double  bull 
 capitals  were  used  in 
 the  interior  of  the  cen- 
 tral square  hall  at  Susa, 
 while  their  use  w-as  ap- 
 propriately confined  to 
 the  porticoes  at  I'ersej)- 
 olis.  In  other  respects 
 the  height  of  the  capi- 
 tal, which  measures  28 
 feet,  is  very  nearly  the 
 same,  but  it  is  fuller, 
 No.  3.  Re.'stored  elevation  and  looks  somewhat  too 
 of  capital  at  Susa.  i,eavy  for  the  shaft  that 
 
 supports  it.  This  defect  was  to  a  great  extent  cor- 
 rected at  Persepolis,  and  may  have  arisen  from 
 those  at  Susa  being  the  first  translation  of  the 
 Nincvite  wooden  original  into  stone  architecture. 
 
 The  pillars  at  Persepolis  vary  from  GO  to  67  feet 
 in  height,  and  we  may  therefore  assume  that  those 
 at  Susa  were  nearly  the  same.  No  trace  of  the 
 walls  which  enclosed  these  pillars  was  detected  at 
 Susa,  from  which  Mr.  Loftus  assumes,  somewhat 
 too  linstily,  tliat  none  existed.  As,  however,  he 
 could  not  make  out  the  traces  of  the  walls  of  any 
 other  of  the  numerous  buildings  which  he  admits 
 once  existed  in  these  mounds,  we  ougiit  not  to  be 
 surprised  at  his  not  finding  them  in  this  instance. 
 
 Fortunately  Kt  Persepolis  sufficient  remains  still 
 exist  to  enable  us  to  supply  this  liiatns,  though 
 there  also  sun-burnt  brick  was  too  much  used  for 
 the  walls,  and  if  it  were  not  that  the  jambs  of  the 
 doors  and  windows  were  generally  of  stone,  we 
 should  be  as  nuich  at  a  loss  tliere  as  at  Susa.  The 
 annexed  wood-cut  (No.  4),  representing  the  plan  of 
 the  hall  at  Persepolis,  is  restored  from  data  so  com- 
 plete as  scarcely  to  admit  of  doul>t  with  regard  to 
 any  part,  and  will  suffice  to  exjilain  the  arrange- 
 ment of  both." 
 
 Both  buildings  consisted  of  a  central  hall,  as 
 nearly  as  may  be  200  feet  square,  and  consequently, 
 so  far  as  we  know,  the  largest  intei'ior  of  the  an- 
 cient world,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  great 
 hall  at  Karnac,  which  covers  58.'J0O  square  I'eet, 
 while  this  only  extends  to  40,000.     Uoth  the  Per- 
 
 a  For  details  of  this  restoration,  see  The  Palaces  of 
 Nineveh  and  Persepolis  Restored.     By  Jas.  Fergusson 
 Published  in  1851. 
 
 SHUSHAN 
 
 sian  halls  are  supported  by  .3(j  colunms,  upwards  of 
 GO  feet  in  heiglit,  and  spaced  equidistant  from  one 
 anotiier  at  about  27  feet  G  inches  from  centre  to 
 centre. 
 
 On  the  exterior  of  this,  separated  from  it  by 
 walls  18  feet  in  thickness,  were  three  great  porches, 
 each  measuring  200  feet  in  width  by  G5  in  depth, 
 and  supported  by  12  columns  whose  axes  were  co- 
 incident with  those  of  the  interior.  These  were  be- 
 yond doubt  the  gre^it  audience  halls  of  the  pal.ace, 
 and  .served  the  same  purposes  as  the  House  of  the 
 Forest  of  Lebanon  in  Solomon's  palace,  though  its 
 dimensions  were  somewhat  dirtt-rent,  150  feet  by  75. 
 These  porches  were  also  identical,  as  far  as  use  and 
 arrangement  go,  witli  tlie  throne-rooms  in  the  pal- 
 aces of  Delhi  or  Agra,  or  those  which  are  used  at 
 this  day  in  the  palace  at  Ispahan. 
 
 The  western  porch  would  be  appropriate  to  morn- 
 ing ceremonials,  the  eastern  to  those  of  the  after- 
 noon. There  was  no  porch,  as  we  might  expect  in 
 that  climate,  to  the  south,  but  the  principal  one, 
 both  at  Susa  and  Perse|)olis,  was  that  which  faced 
 the  north  with  a  slight  inclination  towards  the 
 east.  It  was  the  throne-room,  p(tr  exctl/ence,  of 
 the  palace,  and  an  inspection  of  the  Plan  will  show 
 how  easily,  by  the  arrangement  of  the  stairs,  a 
 whole  army  of  courtiers  or  of  tribute-bearers 
 could  file  before  the  king  without  confusion  or  in- 
 convenience. The  bassi  relievi  in  the  stairs  at 
 Persepolis  in  fact  represent  permanently  tlie  pro- 
 cession that  on  great  festivals  took  place  upon 
 their  steps;  and  a  similar  arrangement  of  stairs 
 was  no  doubt  to  be  found  at  Susa  when  the  palace 
 was  entire. 
 
 It  is  by  no  means  so  clear  to  what  use  the  cen- 
 tral hall  was  appropriated.  The  inscription  quoted 
 above  would  lead  us  to  sujipose  that  it  was  a  tem- 
 ple, properly  so  called,  but  the  sacred  and  the  sec- 
 ular functions  of  the  Persian  kings  were  so  inti- 
 mately blended  together  that  it  is  impossible  for  us 
 to  draw  a  line  anywhere,  or  say  how  far  "  temple 
 cella  "  or  "  palace  hall '"  would  be  a  correct  desig- 
 nation for  this  part  of  the  building.  It  probably 
 was  used  for  all  great  semi-religious  ceremonies, 
 such  as  the  coronation  or  enthronization  of  the 
 king  —  at  such  ceremonies  as  returning  thanks  or 
 making  offtjrings  to  the  gods  for  victories  —  for  any 
 purpose  in  fact  requiring  more  than  usual  state  or 
 solemnity;  but  there  seems  no  reason  to  suppose  it 
 ever  was  used  for  purely  festal  or  convivial  purposes, 
 for  which  it  is  singularly  ill  suited. 
 
 From  what  we  know  of  the  buildings  at  Persep- 
 olis, we  may  assert,  almost  with  certainty,  that  the 
 •'King's  Gate,"  where  Mordecai  sat  (Fsth.  ii.  21), 
 and  where  so  many  of  the  transactions  of  the  hook 
 of  ICsther  took  place,  was  a  square  hall  (wood-cut 
 No.  5),  measuring  probably  a  little  more  than  100 
 feet  each  way,  and  with  its  roof  supported  by  four 
 pillars  in  the  centre,  and  that  thi^  stood  at  a  dis- 
 tance of  about  150  or  200  feet  from  the  front  of 
 the  northern  portico,  where  its  remains  will  proba- 
 bly now  be  found  wl\;^n  looked  for.  We  may  also 
 be  tolerably  certain  that  the  inner  court,  where 
 Esther  appeared  to  implore  the  king's  flivor  (Esth. 
 V.  1),  was  the  space  between  the  northern  portico 
 and  this  square  building,  the  outer  court  being  the 
 space  between  the  "  King's  Gate  "  and  the  north- 
 ern terrace  wall.  We  may  also  predicate  with  tol- 
 |erable  certainty  that  the  "Royal  House"  (i.  9) 
 and  the  '  House  of  the  Women"  (ii.  9,  11)  were 
 situated  behind  this  great  hall  to  the  southward, 
 or  between  it  and  the  citadel,  and  having  a  direct 
 
SHUSHAN 
 
 tonimunication  with  it  either  by  means  of  a  bridge 
 »ver  the  ravine,  or  a  covered  way  under  ground, 
 most  probably  the  former. 
 
 There  seems  also  no  reasonable  doubt  but  that  it 
 was  in  front  of  one  of  the  hxteral  porticoes  of  this 
 building  that  Bang  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  "  made  a 
 
 SHUSHAN-EDUTH 
 
 3027 
 
 feast  unto  all  the  people  that  were  present  in  Shu- 
 shan  the  palace,  both  unto  great  and  small,  se\en 
 days  in  the  court  of  the  garden  nf  the  kini/s  pal- 
 ace ;  where  were  white,  green,  and  blue  hangings, 
 fastened  with  cords  of  fine  linen  and  pilrple  to  silver 
 rings  and  pillars  of  marble:  the  beds  were  of  gold 
 
 ®  © 
 
 ®  @ 
 
 Q  ® 
 
 #  @ 
 
 f[ 
 
 P  WfA 
 
 a  H    H  H    H 
 
 El  a  g  n  H  a 
 
 p  H   m  a  ill  H 
 
 H  0    H  H    H  H 
 
 m  M  M  M  M  m 
 
 H  01    H  a    H  H 
 
 TziiEiiiziiix:: 
 
 Q 
 
 ® 
 
 1 ' 
 
 m 
 
 y 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1    1 
 
 //// 
 
 iiiiii! 
 
 No.  4.     Restored  plan  of  Great  Hall  of  Xerxes  at  Persepolis.     Scale  100  feet  to  an  inch. 
 
 and  silver  upon  a  pavement  of  red  and  blue  and 
 white  and  black  marble  "  (Esth.  i.  5,  G).  From 
 this  it  is  evident  that  the  feast  took  place,  not  in 
 the  interior  of  any 
 hall,  but  out  of  doors, 
 in  tents  erected  in 
 one  of  the  courts  of 
 the  palace,  such  as  we 
 may  easily  fancy  ex- 
 isted in  front  of  either 
 the  eastern  or  western 
 porches  of  the  great 
 central  building. 
 
 The  whole  of  this 
 great  group  of  liuild- 
 ings  was  raised  on  an 
 No.  5.  Restored  plan  of  the  artificial  mound,  near- 
 "  King's  Gate  "  at  palace  of  ly  square  in  plan, 
 measuring  about 
 1,000  feet  each  way, 
 and  rising  to  a  height  apparently  of  50  or  60  feet 
 above  the  plain.  As  the  princii)al  building  must, 
 like  those  at  Persepolis,  have  had  a  talar  or  raised 
 platform  [Temple]  above  its  roof,  its  height  could 
 not  have  been  less  than  100  or  120  feet,  and  its 
 elevation  above  the  plain  must  consequently  have 
 been  170  or  200  feet. 
 
 It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  anything  much 
 grander  in  an  architectural  point  of  view  than  such 
 A  building,  rising  to  such  a  height  out  of  a  group 
 of  subordinate  palace-buildings,  iuterspei-sed  with 
 
 Persepolis. 
 
 Scale  100  feet  to  an  inch. 
 
 trees  and  shrubs,  and  the  whole  Ijased  on  such  a 
 terrace,  rising  from  the  flat  but  fertile  plains  that 
 are  watered  by  the  Eula?us  at  its  base.         J.  F 
 
 SHU'SHAN-E'DUTH.  "  To  the  chief  mu- 
 sician upon  Shushan-Eduth  "  (HMV  "JlL'^tt?) 
 is  plainly  a  musical  direction,  whatever  else  may 
 be  obscure  altout  it  (I's.  Ix.).  In  Ps.  Ixxx.  we 
 have  the  fuller  phrase  "  Shoshannim-eduth,"  of 
 which  Roediger  regards  Shushan-eduth  as  an  ab- 
 breviation (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1:585).  As  it  now 
 stands  it  denotes  "  the  lily  of  testimony,"  and  pos- 
 sibly contains  the  first  words  of  some  Psalm  to  the 
 melody  of  which  that  to  which  it  was  prefixed  was 
 
 sung;  and  the  preposition  PV,  'al  (A.  V.  "upon") 
 would  then  signify  "  after,  in  the  manner  of,"  in- 
 dicating to  the  conductor  of  the  Temple-choir  the 
 air  which  he  was  to  follow.  If,  however,  Koediger 
 is  correct  in  his  conjecture  that  Shushan-eduth  is 
 merely  an  abl)reviation  for  Shoshannim-eduth,  the 
 translation  of  the  words  above  given  would  be  in- 
 correct.    The  LXX.  and  VuJgate  appear  to  liave 
 
 read  D'^StT^'bl?,  for  they  render  rois  aWoiu- 
 6y](Toixivovs  and  pro  his  qui  iinmutabuniur  respec- 
 tively. In  the  LXX.,  ^^^V.  'edutli,  becomes 
 "iyS,  'ud,  in.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  much 
 support  for  the  view  taken  by  some  (as  by  Joel 
 Bril)  that  Shushan-eduth  is  a  musical  instrument, 
 so  called  from  its  resemblance  to  a  lily  in  shap« 
 
3028      SHUTHALHITES,  THE 
 
 (Simonis),  or  from  having  lily-shaped  ornaments 
 upon  it,  or  from  its  six  {shesh)  strings.  Fiirst,  in 
 consistenc}'  with  his  theory  with  respect  to  the 
 titles  of  the  Psalms,  regards  Shushan-eduth  as  the 
 name  of  one  of  the  twenty-four  divisions  of  singers 
 appointed  by  David,  so  called  after  a  band-master, 
 Shushan,  and  having  its  headquarters  at  Eduth, 
 which  he  conjectures;  may  be  the  same  as  Adithaim 
 in  Josh.  XV.  3G  {[hmdicb.  s.  v.).  As  a  conjecture 
 tliis  is  certainly  ingenious,  but  it  has  the  disadvan- 
 tage of  introducing  as  many  difficulties  as  it  re- 
 moves.    Simonis  {Lex.  s.  v.)  connects  'klidli  with 
 
 the  Arabic   t>«_£,   '&/,  a  lute,"  or  kind  of  guitar 
 
 played  with  a  plectrum,  and  considers  it  to  be  the 
 melody  produced  by  this  instrument;  so  that  in 
 his  view  Shushan-eduth  indicates  that  the  lily- 
 shaped  cymbals  were  to  be  accompanied  with  play- 
 ing on  the  lute.  Gesenius  proposes  to  render 
 ''eduth  a  "revelation,"  and  hence  a  psalm  or  song 
 revealed ;  but  there  seems  no  reason  why  we  should 
 depart  from  the  usual  meaning  as  above  given,  and 
 we  may  therefore  regard  the  words  in  question  as 
 a  fragment  of  an  old  psalm  or  melody,  the  same  in 
 character  as  .\ijeleth  Shahar  and  others,  which  con- 
 tained a  direction  to  the  leader  of  the  choir. 
 
 w.  A.  \y. 
 SHU'THALHiTES,  THE  C^n^nii^n 
 
 [patr.,  see  below]:  6  'ZovOaXd'i;  [Vat.  SouraAaet; 
 Alex.  &ov(TaKaC--'\  Sulliahiike).  The  descendants 
 of  Shuthelah  the  son  of  Ephraim  (Num.  xxvi.  35). 
 
 SHUTHE'LAH  (Plbn^lt?  [noise  of  break- 
 ing,  Ges.]  :  [in  Num.,]  "S.ovQaXd,  [Vat.  SouraAa,] 
 Alex.  [©coo-owo-aAa,]  ©ovaaXa;  [in  Chr.,  2a)9a- 
 Aafl  (Alex.  2coea\a),  2(i)06A€:]  SiUlxda).  Head 
 of  an  Ephraimite  family,  called  after  him  Shuthal- 
 hites  (Num  xxvi.  35),  and  lineal  ancestor  of  Joshua 
 the  son  of  Nun  (1  Chr.  vii.  20-27).  Shuthelah 
 appears  from  the  former  passage  to  be  a  son  of 
 Ephraim,  and  the  father  of  Eran,  from  whom 
 sprung  a  family  of  Eranites  (ver.  36).  He  appears 
 also  to  have  had  two  brothers,  Becher,  father  of 
 the  Bachrites,  and  'I'ahan,  father  of  the  Tahan- 
 ites.  But  in  1  Chr.  vii.  we  have  a  further  notice 
 of  Shuthelah,  where  he  appears  first  of  all,  as  in 
 Num.,  as  the  son  of  Ephraim;  but  in  ver.  21  he 
 is  placed  six  generations  later.  Instead,  too,  of 
 Becher  and  Tahan,  as  Shuthelah's  brothers,  we  find 
 Bered  and  Tahath,  and  tiie  latter  twice  over;  and 
 instead  of  Eran,  we  find  Eladah;  and  there  is  this 
 strange  anomaly,  that  Ephraim  appears  to  be  alive, 
 and  to  mourn  for  the  destruction  of  his  descendants 
 in  the  eighth  generation,  and  to  have  other  children 
 born  after  their  death.  And  then  again  at  ver.  25, 
 the  genealogy  is  resumed  with  two  personages,  Ke- 
 phah  and  Hesheph,  whose  parentage  is  not  dis- 
 tinctly stated,  and  is  conducted  tln-cjugh  Telah,  and 
 another  Tahan,  and  Laadan,  to  Joshua  the  son  of 
 Nun,  who  thus  appears  to  be  placed  in  the  twelfth 
 generation  from  Joseph,  or,  as  some  reckon,  in  the 
 eighteenth.  Obviously,  therefore,  the  text  in  1 
 Ciir.  vii.  is  corrupt.  The  following  observations 
 will  perhaps  assist  us  to  restore  it. 
 
 1.  The  names  that  are  repeated  over  and  over 
 ao-ain.  either  in  identical  or  in  slightly  varied  forms, 
 
 SHUTHELAH 
 
 represent  probably  only  one  person.  Hence,  Ela- 
 dah, ver.  20;  Elead,  ver.  21;  and  Laadan,  \er.  26, 
 are  the  names  of  one  and  the  same  person.  And 
 a  comparison  of  the  last  name  with  Num.  xxvi.  30, 
 where  we  have  "of  Eran,"  will  further  show  that 
 Eran  is  also  the  same  person,  whether  Eran ''or 
 Laadan  be  the  true  form  of  the  name.  So  again, 
 the  two  Tdhaths  in  ver.  20,  and  Tahan  in  ver.  25, 
 are  the  same  person  as  Tahan  in  Num.  xxvi.  35- 
 and  Shuthelah  in  vv.  20  and  21,  and  Telah  in  ver. 
 25,  are  the  same  as  the  Shuthelah  of  Num.  xxvi. 
 35,  36;  and  the  Bertd  of  ver.  20,  and  Zabad  oi 
 ver.  21,  are  the  same  as  the  Becher  of  Num.  xxvi. 
 35.  The  names  written  in  Hebrew  are  sulyoined 
 to  make  this  clearer. 
 
 nnn,  Tahath. 
 
 inn,  Tahan. 
 
 *132,  Becher. 
 
 *T"121,  and  Bered. 
 
 13T,  Zabad. 
 
 1"1^b,  of  Eran. 
 
 ^^3?7,  Laadan. 
 mi'bW,  Eleadah. 
 
 "T3?bS,  Elead. 
 nbmti7,  Shuthelah. 
 
 nbni,  and  Telah. 
 
 2.  The  words  "his  son"  are  improperly  added 
 after  Bered  and  Tahath  in  1  Chr.  vii.  20. 
 
 3.  Tahan  is  improperly  inserted  in  1  Chr.  vii. 
 25  as  a  son  of  Shuthelah,  as  appears  from  Num. 
 xxvi.  35,  36.  The  result  is  that  Shuthelah's  line 
 maybe  thus  restored:  (1)  Joseph.  (2)  Ephraim. 
 (3)  Shuthelah.  (4)  Eran,  or  Laadan.  (5)  Ammi- 
 hud.  (6)  Elishama,  captain  of  the  host  of  Ephraim 
 (Num.  i.  10,  ii.  18,  vii.  48).  (7)  Nun.  (8)  Joshua; 
 a  number  which  agrees  well  with  all  the  genealo- 
 gies in  which  we  can  identify  individuals  who  were 
 living  at  the  entrance  into  Canaan ;  as  Phinehas, 
 who  was  sixth  from  Levi;  Salmon,  who  was  seventh 
 from  Judah;  Bezaleel,  who  was  seventh;  Achan, 
 who  was  sixth;  Zelophehad's  daughter  seventh,  etc. 
 
 As  regards  the  interesting  story  of  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Ephraim's  sons  by  tlie  men  of  Gath,  which 
 Ewald  (Uesch.  i.  491),  Bunsen  {Eyypt,  vol.  i.  p.' 
 177),  Lepsius  {LMcrs  from  Kyypt,  p.  460),  and 
 others,  have  variously  explained  [Ephraim;  Be- 
 iuah],  it  is  impossible  in  the  confused  state  of  the 
 text  to  speak  positively  as  to  the  part  borne  in  it  by 
 the  house  of  Shuthelah.  But  it  seems  not  unlikely 
 that  the  repetition  of  the  names  in  1  Chr.  vii.  20, 
 21,  if  it  was  not  merely  caused  by  vitiated  MSS. 
 like  2  Sam.  v.  14-16  (LXX.),  arose  from  their  hav- 
 hig  been  really  repeated  in  the  MS.,  not  as  addi- 
 tional links  in  the  genealogy,  but  as  having  home 
 part,  either  personally  or  in  the  persons  of  their  de- 
 scendants, in  the  transaction  with  the  men  of  Gath. 
 If  so,  we  have  mention  first  in  ver.  20  of  the  four 
 families  of  Ephraim  reckoned  in  Num.  xxvi.,  namely, 
 Shuthelah,  Bered  or  Becher,  Tahath  or  Tahan,  and 
 Eladah  or  Eran,  the  son  of  Shuthelah :  and  we  are 
 then,  perhaps,  told  how  Tahath,  Bered,  and  Shu- 
 thelah, or  the  clans  called  after  them,  went  to  help 
 
 ("1~)tr)  Laadan  (or  Eran),  Shuthelah's  son,  and 
 were  killed  by  the  men  of  Gath,  and  how  their 
 father  mourned  them.  This  leads  to  an  account  of 
 another  branch  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  of  which 
 Beriah  was  the  head,  and  whose  daughter  or  sister 
 (for  it  is  not  clear  which  was  meant)  was  Sherah 
 
 a  With  the  article,  el  hut  is  the  origin  of  the  Ital. 
 Kuto,  Fr.  liitli,  and  English  lute. 
 
 b  The  Samaritan  text,  followed  by  the  LXX.  and 
 
 the  Syriac,  .and  two  or  three  Heb.  MSS.,  read  Edan; 
 and  one  Heb.  MS.  reads  Edan  for  Laadan  at  1  Chr 
 vii.  26  (Burrington,  Geneal.  Tables). 
 
SHUTHELAH 
 
 (nni*|f  ),  who  built  the  upper  and  lower  Beth- 
 horon  (on  the  border  of  Benjamin  and  I'^phraini), 
 and  Uzzen-Sherah,  a  town  evidently  so  called  from 
 her  (Sherah's)  ear-ring.  The  writer  tlieii  returns 
 to  his  genealogy,  beginning,  according  to  the  LXX  , 
 with  Laadan.  But  the  fragment  of  Shuthelah's 
 name  in  ver.  23,  clearly  shows  tliat  the  genealogy 
 of  .loshua  which  is  here  given,  is  taken  up  from 
 that  name  in  ver.  20.*  Tiie  clause  probably  be- 
 gan, "  the  sons  of  Shuthelah,  Laadan  (or,  of  Eran) 
 his  son,"  etc.  But  the  question  remains  whether 
 the  transaction  which  was  so  fatal  to  the  Kphraim- 
 ites  occurred  really  in  Ephraim's  lifetime,  and  that 
 of  his  sons  and  grandson,  or  whether  it  belongs  to 
 the  times  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan ;  or,  in 
 other  words,  whether  we  are  to  understand,  by 
 Ephraim,  Shuthelah,  etc.,  the  individuals  who  bore 
 those  names,  or  the  tribe  and  the  families  which 
 sprung  from  them.  Ewald  and  Bunsen,  under- 
 standing the  names  personally,  of  course  refer  the 
 transaction  to  the  time  of  the  sojom-n  of  the  Israel- 
 ites in  Goshen,  while  Lepsius  merely  points  out  the 
 confusion  and  inconsistencies  in  the  narrative, 
 though  he  apparently  suspects  that  the  event  oc- 
 curred in  Palestine  after  the  Exodus,  in  the  Ge- 
 neitl.  of  our  Lord  Jems  Chrisl,  p.  3G5,  the  writer 
 of  this  article  had  suggested  that  it  was  the  men  of 
 Gath  who  had  come  down  into  Goshen  to  steal  the 
 cattle  of  the  Israelites,  in  order  to  obviate  the  ob- 
 jection from  the  word  -'came  down."  [See  too 
 Epiirataii.]  But  subsequent  consideration  has 
 suggested  another  possible  way  of  understanding 
 the  passage,  which  is  also  advocated  by  Bertheau, 
 in  the  Kurzy.  exeyet.  Hindb.  z.  A.  T.  Accord- 
 ing to  this  view,  the  slaughter  of  the  Ephraimites 
 took  place  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  the 
 event  related  in  1  Chr.  viii.  13,  in  which  Beriah 
 also  took  part,  had  a  close  connection  with  it.  The 
 names  therefore  of  the  patriarch,  and  fathers  of 
 families,  must  be  understood  of  the  families  which 
 sprung  from  them  [Neheauah,  iii.  2095  «],  and 
 Bertheau  well  compares  Judg.  xxi.  6.  By  Ephraim 
 (1  Chr.  vii.  22,  23),  we  must  in  this  case  under- 
 stand the  then  head  of  the  tribe,  who  was  probably 
 Joshua,'^  and  this  would  go  iar  to  justify  the  con- 
 jecture in  Genealog.  p.  364,  that  Sherah  (=  rT^D) 
 was  the  daughter  of  Joshua,  arrived  at  by  compar- 
 ison of  Josh.  xix.  49,  50 ;  1  Chr.  vii.  30,  and  by 
 observing  that  the  latter  passage  is  Joshua's  gene- 
 alogy. IJeriah  would  seem, from  1  Chr.  viii.  13,  to 
 have  obtained  an  inheritance  in  Benjamin,  and  also 
 in  Asher,  where  we  find  him  and  "  his  sister  Serah  " 
 
 (n"^5i7)  in  1  Chr.  vii.  30.  It  is,  however,  impos- 
 sible to  speak  with  certainty  where  we  have  such 
 scanty  information.  Bertheau's  suggestion  that 
 Beriah  was  adopted  into  the  family  of  the  I'^phra- 
 imites,  is  inconsistent  with  the  precision  of  the 
 statement  (1  Chr.  vii.  23),  and  therefore  inadmis- 
 sible. Still,  putting  togetlier  the  insuperable  diffi- 
 culties in  understanding  the  passage  of  the  literal 
 Ephraim,  and  his  literal  sons  and  daughter,  with 
 the  fact  that  the  settlements  of  the  Ephrairiiites  in 
 he  mountainous  district,  where  Beth-horon.  Gezer, 
 
 n  It  seems  highly  improbable,  not  to  say  impossi- 
 ble, that  a  literal  daughter  or  granddaughter  of 
 Ephraim  should  have  built  these  cities,  which  must 
 have  been  built  after  tlie  entrance  into  Canaan. 
 
 b  It  does  not  appear  who  Ilephah  and  Resheph  are. 
 Xahan  seems  to  be  repeated  out  of  its  pl.ace,  as  in  the 
 
 SIBMAH  3029 
 
 Timnath-Serah,  etc.,  lay,  were  exactly  suited  for  a 
 descent  upon  the  plains  of  the  Philistine  country 
 where  the  men  of  Gath  fed  their  cattle,  and  with 
 the  further  facts  that  the  Ephraimites  encountered 
 a  -successful  opposition  from  the  Canaanites  in 
 Gezer  (Josh.  xvi.  10;  Judg.  i.  29),  and  that  they 
 apparently  called  in  later  the  Benjamites  to  help 
 them  in  driving  away  the  men  of  Gath  (1  Chr. 
 viii.  13),  it  seems  best  to  understand  the  narrative 
 as  of  the  times  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 *  SHUTTLE.    [Handicraft;  Weaving.] 
 
 SFA  (!S17"^p:  'Ao-om'a;  [FA.  lacrouia;]  Alex. 
 Siai'a:  Sian).  "The  children  of  Sia "  were  a 
 family  of  Nethinini  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel 
 (Neh.  vii.  47).  The  name  is  written  Siaha  in 
 Ezr.  ii.  44,  and  Sud  in  1  Esdr.  v.  29. 
 
 SFAHA  (Sn5?^p:  2,ac^ ;  [Vat.  2a.r,A;] 
 Alex.  Aaaa'-   Siaii)  =  SiA  (Ezr.  ii.  44). 
 
 SIB'BECAI  [3  syl.]  C'^^D :  Se^ox"  IJat. 
 06y3oxa]  '"  Sam.,  ^j^oxai  in  Chr.;  Alex.  2e- 
 l3oxaei,  2o/3oxa'»  =  Hobochni).  Sibbechai  the 
 Hushathite  (2  Sam.  xxi.  18;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  11). 
 
 SIB'BECHAI  [3  syl.]  ("'?2p :  2o/Soxai; 
 [FA.  in  1  Chr.  ix.,  SoySoxe:]  .A.lex '  2o;8;8oxai  in  1 
 Chr.  XX.  4:  Sobboclun,  Soboclmi).  One  of  David's 
 guard,  and  eighth  captain  for  the  eighth  month  of 
 24,000  men  of  the  king's  army  (1  Chr.  xi.  29, 
 xxvii.  11).  He  belonged  to  one  of  the  principal 
 families  of  Judah,  the  Zarhites,  or  descendants 
 of  Zerah,  and  is  called  -'the  Hushathite,"  prob- 
 ably from  the  place  of  his  birth.  Josephus  {Ant. 
 vii.  12,  §  2)  calls  him  "the  Hittite,"  but  this  is  no 
 doubt  an  error.  Sibbechai's  threat  exploit,  which 
 gave  him  a  place  among  the  mighty  men  of  David's 
 army,  was  his  single  combat  with  Saph,  or  Sippai, 
 the  Philistine  giant,  in  the  battle  at  Gezer,  or  Gob 
 (2  Sam.  xxi.  18;  1  Chr.  xx.  4).  In  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
 27  his  name  is  written  Mebunnai  by  a  mistake  of 
 the  copyist.  Josephus  says  that  he  slew  "  many" 
 who  boasted  that  they  were  of  the  descent  of  the 
 
 giants,  apparently  reading  D^'^'H  for  ^SD  in  1 
 Chr.  XX.  4.     [SiBBEC.vi.] 
 
 SIB'BOLETH  (Tlblsp:  Sibbokth).  The 
 Ephraimite  (or,  according  to  the  text,  the  Eph- 
 rathite)  pronunciation  of  the  word  Shibboleth 
 (Judg.  xii.  6).  The  LXX.  do  not  rejiresent  Sib- 
 boleth  at  all.     [See  Shibboleth.]  G. 
 
 SIB'MAH  (na^b  [balsam-place,  Fiirst] : 
 'S.iHafjLo.;  in  .ler.  [Koni.  'Aaeprind,  FA.l  naf pr]fj.os, 
 Vat.  FA.'^]  oo(Tepr]fxa'-  S<(b'tina).  A  town  on  the 
 east  of  the  .fordan,  one  of  those  which  were  taken 
 and  occupied  by  the  tribe  of  Reuben  (Josh.  xiii. 
 19).  In  the  original  catalogue  of  those  places  it 
 appears  as  Sheham  and  Shibmah  (the  latter 
 merely  an  inaccurate  variation  of  the  A.  V.). 
 Like  most  of  the  Transjordanic  places,  Sibniah 
 disappears  from  view  during  tlie  main  part  of  the 
 Jewish  history.  We,  however,  gain  a  parting 
 glimpse  of  it  in  the  lament  over  Moab  pronounced 
 by  Isaiah  and  by  Jeremiah  (Is.  xvi.  8,  9;  Jer.  xlviii. 
 
 Alex.  LXX.     It  is  after  Laadan,  there  corrupted  into 
 Galaada. 
 
 c  There  is  no  mention  elsewhere  of  any  posterity  o( 
 Joshua.  The  Jewish  tradition  assigned  him  a  wift 
 and  children.     [Rahab.] 
 
8030 
 
 SIBRAIM 
 
 32).  It  was  then  a  jMoabite  place,  famed  for  the 
 abundance  and  excellence  of  its  grapes.  They 
 must  have  been  remarkably  good  to  have  been 
 thought  worthy  of  notice  by  those  who,  like  Isaiah 
 and  Jeremiah,  lived  close  to  and  were  familiar  with 
 the  renowned  vineyards  of  Sorek  (Is.  v.  2,  where 
 "choicest  vine"  is  "vine  of  Sorek").  Its  vine 
 yards  were  devastated,  and  the  town  doubtless  de- 
 stroyed by  the  "lords  of  the  heathen,"  who  at 
 some  time  unknown  appear  to  have  laid  waste  the 
 whole  of  that  once  smiling  and  fertile  district. 
 
 Sibmah  seems  to  have  been  known  to  Eusebius 
 (Onuinasticun,  "  Sabania  "),«  and  Jerome  (Com- 
 ment, in  Jscinni,  lib.  v.)  states  that  it  was  hardly 
 500  paces  distant  from  Heshbon.  He  also  speaks 
 of  it  as  one  of  the  very  strong  cities  ( U'rhes  vn- 
 lidisslmce)  of  that  region.  No  trace  of  the  name 
 has  been  discovered  more  recently,  and  nothing 
 resembling  it  is  found  in  the  excellent  lists  of  Dr. 
 Eli  Smith  (Robinson,  BidL  lies.  ed.  1,  App.  109, 
 170).  G. 
 
 SIBRA'IM  (D1"^?P  [a  twofold  hope]: 
 -6rjpa)s  "E.^pa.fx'r\(\tafx;  [Alex.  -dy)pa)s  Etppafi- 
 TiiXeta/x;  (Jonip.  2a;3api/x:]  Subariiii).  One  of 
 the  landmarks  on  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
 Holy  Land  as  stated  by  Ezekiel  (xlvii.  16).  It 
 occurs  between  Berothali  and  Hazarhatticon,  and 
 is  described  in  the  same  passage  as  lying  between 
 the  boundary  of  Damascus  and  that  of  Hamath. 
 It  has  not  been  identified  —  and  in  the  great 
 obscurity  of  the  specification  of  this  boundary  it 
 is  impossible  to  say  where  it  should  be  sought. 
 
 G. 
 
 SI  CHEM  (D?tt7,  i.  e.  Shechem  [shoulder, 
 ridge]  :  Sux^V-  Sichem).  1.  The  same  well-known 
 name —  identical  in  the  Hebrew  —  with  that  which 
 in  all  other  places  in  the  O.  T.  is  accurately  ren- 
 dered by  our  translators  SiiKCfiEM.  Here  (Gen. 
 xii.  6)  its  present  form  arises  from  a  too  close  ad- 
 herence to  the  Vulgate,  or  rather  perhaps  from  its 
 non-correspondence  with  the  Hebrew  having  been 
 overlooked  in  the  revision  of  1611. 
 
 The  unusual  expression  "the  place  of  Sichem  " 
 may  perhaps  indicate  that  at  that  early  age  the 
 city  did  not  exist.  The  "oaks  of  Moreh  "  were 
 there,  but  the  town  of  Shechem  as  yet  was  not, 
 its  "place"  only  was  visited  by  the  great  pa- 
 triarch. 
 
 2.  (eV  ^iKt/jLois:  in  Sichimis  )  Ecclus.  1.  26. 
 The  Greek  original  here  is  in  the  form  which  is 
 occasionally  found  in  the  O.  T.  as  the  equivalent 
 of  Shechkm.  If  there  could  be  any  doubt  that 
 the  son  of  Sirach  was  alluding  in  this  passage  to 
 the  Samaritans,  who  lived  as  they  still  live  at 
 Shechem,  it  would  be  disproved  by  the  character- 
 istic pun  which  he  has  perpetrated  on  the  word 
 Moreh,  the  ancient  name  of  Shechem  :  "  that  fool- 
 ish people  {\uhs  fj.  w  p  6  s)  that  dwell  in  Sichem." 
 
 G. 
 
 SICKLE.     [Agricultuke,  vol.  i.  p.  43.] 
 
 SIC'YON  i^iKvwj')-  A  city  mentioned  with 
 several  others  [see  Phaselis]  in  1  Mace.  xv.  2.3. 
 The  name  is  derived  from  a  Punic  root  (snk,  sik; 
 or  sok),  which  always  implies  a  i)eriodical  market; 
 
 a  The  statement  of  this  pa.'sage  that  Sibmah  was 
 "in  Gilead,"  coupled  with  its  distance  from  Heshbon 
 as  given  by  Jerome,  supports  the  local  tradition  which 
 places  Mount  Gilead  south  of  the  Jabbok,  if  the  Wady 
 Zerka  be  the  Jabbok. 
 
 SICYON 
 
 and  the  original  settlement  was  probably  one  Ui 
 which  the  inhabitants  of  the  narrow  strip  of  highly 
 fertile  soil  between  the  mountains  and  the  southern 
 shore  of  the  Corinthian  Gulf  brought  their  produce 
 for  exportation.  The  oldest  name  of  the  town  on 
 the  coast  (the  Sicyon  of  the  times  before  Alex- 
 aTider)  was  said  to  have  been  KiyiaK-q,  or  AlyiaKoi. 
 This  was  perhaps  the  common  native  name,  and 
 Sicyon  that  given  to  it  by  the  Phoenician  traders, 
 which  would  not  unnaturally  extrude  the  other  as 
 the  place  acquired  conunercial  importance.  It  is 
 this  Sicyon,  on  the  shore,  which  was  the  seat  of 
 the  goverimient  of  the  Orthagorids,  to  which  the 
 Cleistbenes  celebrated  by  Herodotus  (v.  67)  be- 
 longed.'' But  the  Sicyon  referred  to  in  the  book 
 of  Maccabees  is  a  more  recent  city,  built  on  the 
 site  which  served  as  an  acropolis  to  the  old  one, 
 and  distant  from  the  shore  from  twehe  to  twenty 
 stades.  Demetrius  Poliorcetes,  in  the  year  303 
 B.  c,  surprised  the  garrison  which  Ptolemy  had 
 five  years  before  placed  there,  and  made  himself 
 master  of  the  harbor  and  the  lower  town.  The 
 acropolis  was  surrendered  to  him,  and  he  then  per- 
 suaded the  population,  whom  he  restored  to  inde- 
 pendence, to  destroy  the  whole  of  the  buildings 
 adjacent  to  the  harbor,  and  remove  thither;  the 
 site  being  one  much  more  easily  defensible,  espe- 
 cially against  any  enemy  who  might  attack  from 
 the  sea.  Diodorus  describes  the  new  town  as  in- 
 cluding a  large  space  so  surronn.'lod  on  every  side 
 by  precipices  as  to  be  unapproacliMl  le  by  the  ma- 
 chines which  at  that  time  were  employed  in  sieges, 
 and  as  possessing  the  great  advantage  of  a  plentiful 
 supply  of  water  within  its  circuit.  Modern  trav- 
 ellers completely  confirm  his  account.  Mr.  Clark, 
 who,  in  1857,  descended  upon  Sicyon  from  "a 
 ridge  of  hills  running  east  and  west,  and  command- 
 ing a  splendid  pro>pect  of  both  the  [Corinthian 
 and  Saronic]  gulfs  and  the  isthmus  between,"  after 
 two  hours  atid  a  half  of  riding  from  the  highest 
 point,  came  to  a  ruined  bridge,  probably  ancient, 
 at  the  bottom  of  a  ravine,  and  then  ascended  the 
 right  bank  by  a  steep  path.  Along  the  crest  of 
 this  hill  he  traced  Irngnients  of  the  western  wall 
 of  Sicyon.  The  mountain  which  he  had  descended 
 did  not  fall  towards  the  sea  in  a  continuous  slope, 
 but  presented  a  succession  of  abrupt  descents  and 
 level  terraces,  se\ered  at  intervals  by  deep  rents 
 and  gorges,  down  which  the  mountain-torrents 
 make  their  way  to  tlie  sea,  spreading  allu^■inm  over 
 the  plain,  about  two  miles  in  breadth,  which  lies 
 between  the  lowest  cliffs  and  the  shore.  "  Between 
 two  such  gorges,  on  a  smooth  expanse  of  table- 
 land overlooking  the  plain,"  stood  the  city  of 
 Demetrius.  "  On  every  side  are  abrupt  cliffs,  and 
 even  at  the  southern  extremity  there  is  a  lucky 
 transverse  rent  separating  this  from  the  next  pla- 
 teau. The  ancient  walls  may  be  seen  at  intervals 
 along  the  edge  of  the  cliff  on  .all  sides."  It  is 
 easy  to  conceive  how  these  advantages  of  position 
 must  at  once  have  fixed  the  attention  of  the  great 
 engineer  of  antiquity  —  the  besieger. 
 
 Demetrius  established  the  forms  of  republican 
 goverimient  in  his  new  city ;  but  republican  gov- 
 ernment had  by  that  time  Ijecome  an  impossibiUty 
 in  Hellas.     In  the  next  half-century  a  number  of 
 
 b  The  commercial  connection  of  the  Sicyon  of  the 
 Orthagorids  with  Phoenicia  is  shown  by  the  quantity 
 of  Tartessian  brass  in  the  treasury  of  the  Orthagorid 
 Myron  at  Olympia.  The  Phoenician  (Carthaginian; 
 treasury  was  next  to  it  (Pausanias,  vi.  19,  §  1). 
 
SIDDIM,  THE  VALE  OF 
 
 3031 
 
 tyrants  succeeded  one  another,  maintaining  them- 
 selves by  the  aid  of  mercenaries,  and  by  temporiz- 
 ing with  the  rival  sovereigns,  who  each  endeavored 
 to  secure  the  hegemony  of  the  Grecian  race.  This 
 state  of  things  received  a  temporary  check  by  the 
 efforts  of  Aratus,  himself  a  native  of  Sicyon,  of 
 which  his  father  Cleinias  for  a  time  became  dynast. 
 In  his  twentieth  year,  being  at  the  time  in  exile, 
 he  contri\eil  to  recover  possession  of  the  city  and  to 
 unite  it  with  the  Achaean  league.  This  was  in  the 
 year  251  a.  c,  and  it  appears  that  at  this  time  the 
 Dorian  population  was  so  preponderant  as  to  make 
 the  addition  of  the  town  to  a  confederation  of 
 Achajans  a  matter  of  remark.  For  the  half-century 
 before  the  foundation  of  the  new  city,  Sicyon  had 
 favored  the  anti-Lacedoemonian  party  in  Pelopon- 
 nese,  taking  active  part  with  the  Messenians  and 
 Argives  in  support  of  JMegalopolis,  which  Epanii- 
 nondas  had  founded  as  a  counter-check  to  Sparta. 
 The  Sicyonian  territory  is  described  as  one  of 
 singular  fertility,  which  was  probably  increased  l)y 
 artificial  irrigation.  In  the  changeful  times  which 
 preceded  the  final  absorption  of  European  Hellas 
 by  the  IJoinans  it  was  subject  to  plunder  by  who- 
 ever had  the  command  of  the  sea;  and  in  the  year 
 208  B.  c.  the  Konian  general  Sulpicius,  who  had  a 
 squadron  at  Naupactus,  landed  between  Sicyon  and 
 Corinth  (probably  at  the  mouth  of  the  little  river 
 Nemea,  which  was  the  boundary  of  the  two  states), 
 and  was  proceeding  to  harass  the  neighborhood, 
 when  Philip  king  of  JMacedonia,  who  was  then  at 
 Corinth,  attacked  him  and  drove  him  back  to  his 
 ships.  But  vei-y  soon  after  this,  Roman  influence 
 began  to  prevail  in  the  cities  of  the  Achsean  league, 
 which  were  instigated  by  dread  of  Nabis  the  dynast 
 of  Laceda?mon  to  seek  Roman  protection.  One 
 congress  of  the  league  was  held  at  Sicyon  under 
 the  presidency  of  the  Romans  in  198  b.  c,  and 
 another  at  the  same  place  six  years  later.  From 
 this  time  Sicyon  always  appears  to  have  adhered  to 
 the  Roman  side,  and  on  the  destruction  of  Corinth 
 by  JMunnnius  (b.  c.  140)  was  rewarded  by  the 
 victors  not  only  with  a  large  portion  of  the  Corin- 
 thian domain,  but  with  the  management  of  the 
 Isthmian  games.  This  distinction  was  again  lost 
 when  Julius  Ctesar  refounded  Corinth  and  made  it 
 a  Roman  colony;  but  in  the  mean  while  Sicyon 
 enjoyeil  fur  a  century  all  the  advantages  of  an  entre- 
 pot which  had  Ijefore  accrued  to  Corinth  from  her 
 position  between  the  two  seas.  Even  in  the  days 
 of  the  Antonines  the  pleasure-grounds  (Te/xevos)  of 
 the  Sicyonian  tyrant  Cleon  continued  appropriated 
 to  the  Roman  governors  of  Achaia  ;  and  at  the 
 time  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  Maccabees, 
 it  was  probably  the  most  important  position  of 
 all  over  which  the  Romans  exercised  influence  in 
 Greece. 
 
 (Diodorus  Siculus,  xv.  70,  xx.  37,  102:  Polyb- 
 ius,  ii.  4.3;  Strabo,  viii.  7,  §  25;  Livy,  xxxii.  15, 
 ly,  XXXV.  25;  Pausanias,  ii.  8,  v.  14,  9,  vi.  19,  §§ 
 1-6,  X.  11,  §  1;  Clark,  Pekpuimesus,  pp.  3.38  fF.) 
 
 J.  W.  B. 
 SID'DIM,     THE     VALE     OF    ip72V" 
 D^'^ttt^n  [see  below]:  rj   (jxipay^  r)  aA.u/c^,  and 
 
 «  The  following  are  the  equivalents  of  the  name 
 given  in  the  ancient  version-s  :  Sam.  Vers.,  ~m?''/!2 
 n^pbn;  Onkelos,  S*b"n  "ItP"'!?;  Arabic,  merj 
 tl    hakfil  ;     Peshito,      ).a2OO«-C09     jLa.:OQ.J:>  ; 
 
 r)  KoiKas  7)  aAu/cjj:  Vallis  Silveslris).  A  place 
 named  only  in  one  passage  of  Genesis  (xiv.  3,  8, 
 10);  a  document  pronounced  by  Evvald  and  other 
 eminent  Hebrew  scholars  to  be  one  of  the  oldest,  if 
 not  the  oldest,  of  the  fragments  of  historical  record 
 of  which  the  early  portion  of  the  book  is  composed. 
 The  meaning  of  the  name  is  very  doubtful.  Gese- 
 nius  says  truly  {T/ies.  p.  1321  n]  that  every  one  of 
 the  ancient  interpreters  has  tried  his  hand  at  it, 
 and  the  results  are  so  various  as  to  compel  the  be- 
 lief, that  nothing  is  really  known  of  it,  certainly 
 not  enough  to  allow  of  any  trustworthy  inferences 
 being  drawn  therefrom  as  to  the  nature  of  the  spot. 
 Gesenius  expresses  his  conviction  (by  inference  from 
 
 the  Arabic  (\mu,  an  obstacle)  that  the  real  mean- 
 ing of  the  words  £inek  has-Siddim  is  "  a  plain  cut 
 up  by  stony  channels  which  render  it  diflicult  of 
 transit  ;  "  and  with  this  agree  Fiirst  {Hdiidwb.  ii. 
 411  b)  and  Kalisch  {Genesis,  p.  355). 
 
 Prof.  Stanley  conjectures  (S.  </■  P.)  that  Siddini 
 is  connected  with  Uddeli^'  and  thus  that  the  signif- 
 ication of  the  name  was  the  "  valley  of  the  fields," 
 so  called  from  the  high  state  of  cultivation  in  which 
 it  was  maintained  before  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
 and  the  other  cities.  This,  however,  is  to  identifv 
 it  with  the  Ciccnr,  the  "circle  (A.  V.  'plain')  of 
 Jordan,"  which  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
 warrant  for  doing. 
 
 As  to  the  spot  itself  :  — 
 
 1.  It  was  one  of  that  class  of  valleys  which  the 
 Hebrews  designated  by  the  word  eiiu/.-.  This  term 
 appears  to  ha\e  been  assigned  to  a  broad  flatfish 
 tract,  sometimes  of  considerable  width,  enclosed  on 
 each  side  by  a  definite  range  of  hills.      [V'.\lley.] 
 
 The  only  emek  which  we  can  identify  with  any 
 approach  to  certainty  is  that  of  Jezreel,  namely, 
 the  valley  or  plain  which  lies  between  Gilboa  and 
 Little  Hermon. 
 
 2.  It  was  so  fixr  a  suitable  spot  for  the  combat 
 between  the  four  and  five  kings  (ver.  8 ) ;  but, 
 
 3.  It  contained  a  njultitude  of  bitumen-pits, 
 sufficient  materially  to  affect  the  issue  of  the  battle. 
 
 4.  In  this  valley  the  kings  of  the  five  allied  cities 
 of  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Adinah,  Zeboiim,  and  Behi, 
 seem  to  have  awaited  the  approach  of  the  invaders. 
 It  is  therefore  probable  that  it  was  in  the  neighbor- 
 hood of  the  "  plain,  or  circle,  of  Jordan  "  in  which 
 those  cities  stood.  But  this  we  can  only  infer;  it 
 is  not  stated,  and  scarcely  imjjlied. 
 
 5.  So  much  may  be  gathered  Irom  the  passage 
 as  it  appears  originally  to  have  stood.  But  the 
 words  which  more  especially  bear  on  the  subject  of 
 this  article  (ver.  3)  do  not  form  part  of  the  original 
 document.  That  venerable  record  has  —  with  a 
 care  which  shows  how  greatly  it  was  valued  at  a 
 very  early  date  —  been  annotated  throughout  by  a 
 later,  though  still  very  ancient,  chronicler,  who  has 
 added  what  in  his  day  were  believed  to  be  the  equiv- 
 alents ibr  names  of  places  that  had  beeome  obsolete. 
 Bela  is  explained  to  be  Zoar;  En-Mishpat  to  be 
 Kadesh ;  the  Emek-Shaveh  to  be  the  Valley  of  the 
 King;  the  Emek  has-Siddim  to  be  the  Salt  Sea, 
 that  is,  in  modern  phraseolog}',  the  Dead  Sea. 
 And  when  we  remember  how  persistently  the  no- 
 
 Aquila,  K.  twv  TvepLireSCvuv ;  Sjmm.  and  Theod.,  K. 
 Toil'  aKcruiv  (=  mtt^M)  J  Josephus,  *peaTa  a<T<j>a.K- 
 Tou  :  Jerome  (Qiittst.  in  Gen.)   Vallis  Salinariiiii. 
 
 ^  Perhaps  more  accurately  with  Sa'/nd,  "  to  harrow." 
 See  Kalisch  C  Gen.  p.  355  a) ;  who,  however,  disapproyet 
 of  such  a  derivation,  and  adheres  to  that  of  Qescnia8, 
 
3032 
 
 SIDDIM,  THE  VALE  OF 
 
 tion  has  been  entertained  for  the  last  ei2;hteen  cen- 
 turies," that  tlie  Dead  Sea  covers  a  district  wliicli 
 before  its  submersion  was  not  only  the  Valley  of 
 Siddiin  but  also  the  Plain  of  the  Jordan,  and  what 
 an  elaborate  account  of  the  catastrophe  of  its  sub- 
 mersion has  been  constructed  even  very  recently  by 
 one  of  the  most  alile  scholars  of  our  day,  we  can 
 hardly  be  surprised  that  a  chronicler  in  an  age  far 
 less  able  to  interpret  natural  phenomena,  and  at 
 the  same  time  long  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the 
 actual  event,  should  have  shared  in  the  belief.  Ke- 
 cent  investigation,  however,  of  the  geological  evi- 
 dence furnished  by  the  aspect  of  the  spot  itself,  has 
 not  hitherto  lent  any  support  to  this  view.  On  the 
 contrary,  it  seems  to  contradict  it.  The  northern 
 and  deeper  portion  of  the  lake  unquestionably  be- 
 longs to  a  geological  era  of  very  nuich  older  date 
 than  the  time  of  Abraham ;  and  as  to  even  the 
 southern  and  shallower  portion,  if  it  has  undergone 
 any  material  change  in  historic  times,  sucli  change 
 would  seem  to  be  one  rather  of  gradual  elevation 
 than  of  submersion.* 
 
 If  we  could  venture,  as  some  have  done,  to  in- 
 terpret the  latter  clause  of  verse  3,  "  which  is  near," 
 or  "  which  is  at,  or  by,  the  Salt  Sea,"  then  we 
 might  agree  with  L)r.  Kobin.son  and  others  in  iden- 
 tifying the  Valley  of  Siddim  with  the  inclosed  plain 
 which  intervenes  between  the  south  end  of  the  lake 
 and  the  range  of  heights  which  terminate  the  Glwr 
 and  commence  the  Wndy  Arabiih.  This  is  a  dis- 
 trict in  many  respects  suitable.  In  the  ditches  and 
 drains  of  the  Sab/ihah  are  the  impassable  channels 
 of  Gesenius.  In  the  thickly  wooded  Ghor  es-Si[fith 
 are  ample  conditions  for  the  fertility  of  Prof.  Stan- 
 ley. The  general  aspect  and  formation  of  the  plain 
 answers  fully  to  the  idea  of  an  emeks  But  the 
 original  of  the  passage  will  not  bear  even  this  slight 
 accommodation,  and  it  is  evident  that  in  the  mind 
 of  the  author  of  the  words,  no  less  than  of  the 
 learned  and  eloquent  divine  and  historian  of  our 
 own  time  already  alluded  to,  the  Salt  Sea  covers 
 the  actual  space  formerly  occupied  by  the  Vale  of 
 Siddim.  It  should  be  remembered  that  if  the 
 cities  of  the  plain  were,  as  there  is  nuich  reason  to 
 believe  they  were,  at  the  north  end  of  the  Dead 
 Sea,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the  five  kings  would 
 have  gone  so  far  from  home  as  to  the  other  end  of 
 the  lake,  a  distance  of  more  than  ibrty  miles,  espe- 
 cially as  on  their  road  they  must  have  passed  Haz- 
 ezon- Tamar,  the  modern  Ain  July,  where  the 
 Assyrians  were  then  actually  encamped  (ver.  7). 
 The  course  of  the  invaders  at  this  time  was  appar- 
 ently northwards,  and  it  seems  most  probable  — 
 though  after  all  nothing  but  conjecture  on  such  a 
 point  is  possible  —  that  the  scene  of  the  engage- 
 ment was  somewhere  to  the  north  of  the  lake,  per- 
 haps on  the  plain  at  its  northwest  corner.  This 
 plain  is  in  many  of  its  characteristics  not  unlike  the 
 Snbklvih  already  mentioned,  and  it  is  a  proper  and 
 natural  spot  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  plain  of 
 Jericho  to  attack  a  hostile  force  descending  from 
 the  passes  of  Ain  Jidy.  G. 
 
 *  The  discussion  of  this  site  is  so  interwoven 
 with  the  question  of  the  basin  of  the  Salt  Sea,  and 
 the  submersion  of  a  portion  of  the  valley,  that  they 
 
 a  Josephus  states  it  emph-i'ically.  His  words  {Ant. 
 i.  9)  are,  "  They  encamped  in  the  valley  called  the 
 Wells  of  Asphalt ;  for  at  that  time  there  were  wells  in 
 that  spot ;  but  now  that  the  city  of  the  Sodomites  has 
 disappeared,  that  valley  has  become  a  lake  which  is 
 called  Asphaltites.-'     See  also  Strabo,  xvi.  7G4. 
 
 cannot  be  separated.  We  dissent  from  the  writer'* 
 positions  as  presented  in  the  article.  Salt  Sba, 
 and  repeated  in  this.  But  instead  of  repeating  our 
 argument  in  reply,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  former 
 article  (Amer.  ed.),  for  our  reasons  so  far  as  they 
 relate  to  the  submersion  of  the  plain  and  the  site  of 
 the  Vale  of  Siddim.  And  for  an  examination  of 
 his  theory  respectmg  the  site  of  the  cities  of  the 
 plain,  as  north  of  the  Sea,  which  Mr.  Grove  also 
 introduces  here,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  articles 
 Sodom  and  Zoau  (Amer.  ed.).  See  also  Bib. 
 Sacra,  xxv.  112-149. 
 
 Relative  to  the  inroad  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his 
 allies,  we  remark  that  the  northern  invaders,  after 
 making  the  distant  circuit  of  the  valley  on  the  east 
 and  south,  came  up  on  the  west  and  smote  En-gedi 
 and  secured  that  pass.  The  cities  and'their  kings 
 were  in  the  deep  valley  below,  whether  north  or 
 south,  or  opposite,  is  wholly  immaterial,  so  far  as 
 we  can  discover,  in  relation  either  to  the  previous 
 route  of  conquest  or  to  the  subsequent  course  of  the 
 victors.  Between  the  cities,  wherever  situated,  and 
 Kn-gedi,  lay  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  in  which  the  bat- 
 tle was  fought.  Neither  the  narrative  of  the  inva- 
 sion, nor  that  of  the  conflagration  of  the  cities  and 
 the  plain,  as  viewed  by  the  patriarch  Abraham  from 
 a  hill  near  Hebron,  appears  to  us  to  throw  decisive 
 light  on  any  disputed  theory  respecting  their  site. 
 
 If  the  eminence  about  three  miles  east  of  Hebron, 
 the  highest  in  that  part  of  the  country,  now  known 
 as  Beni  Na'im,  and  where,  according  to  Muslim 
 tradition,  is  the  tomb  of  Lot,  was  the  spot  where 
 Abraham  stood  before  the  Lord,  as  claimed  by  Je- 
 rome, it  would  clearly  favor  the  received  theory. 
 Kobinson  speaks  of  the  southern  sand-banks  of  the 
 sea  as  visible  from  it  "  through  gaps  in  the  western 
 mountains,  by  which  the  eye  could  penetrate  into 
 its  deep  bosom  "  (Bibt.  lies.  ii.  188). 
 
 With  reference  to  the  view  expressed  in  the  arti- 
 cle above,  respecting  the  bed  of  the  sea,  that  "  if 
 it  has  undergone  any  material  change  in  historic 
 times,  such  change  would  seem  to  be  one  rather  of 
 gradual  elevation  than  of  submersion,"  we  com- 
 mend to  the  reader  the  pertinent  suggestion  of  Mr. 
 Warington,  that  llie  vkvaiiun  of  the  salt  mountain 
 within  the  historic  period  would  account  both  for 
 the  present  s;iltness  of  the  waters,  and  the  rise  of 
 their  le\el  more  than  fifty  feet,  through  the  salt 
 which  they  hold  in  solution.  The  occurrence  of 
 river  shells,  not  marine,  such  as  are  now  found  in 
 the  Jordan,  along  the  ancient  beaches  of  the  sea, 
 he  regards  as  proof  that  "  the  sea  was  at  one  time 
 fresh  water,  not  salt;  "  and  he  says,  "  if  the  salt 
 were  retno\ed,  the  water  would  be  found  to  occupy 
 only  nine-tenths  of  its  present  bulk  "  {.Journal  oj 
 Sacred  Literature,  April  1866,  p.  47).  This  would 
 leave  the  southern  portion  of  the  present  bed  dry, 
 with  ample  room  on  the  side  for  the  passage  of  the 
 patriarch  and  his  flocks,  north  and  south.  In  a 
 letter  to  the  writer  of  this  (March  7,  18G8),  Mr. 
 Tristram  says,  ■'  Jly  belief  is  that  the  Jebel  Vs- 
 dum  has  been  recently  elevated.  This  I  judge 
 from  the  layers  of  stratified  marl  corresponding 
 with  the  adjacent  deposits  on  its  top.  Mr.  War- 
 inrrton  sujrsests  that  the  influx  of  salt  has  so  in- 
 
 *  The  grounds  of  this  conclusion  are  stated  under 
 Sea,  the  S.\lt. 
 
 f  This  is  the  plain  which  Dr  Robinson  and  others 
 would  identify  with  the  Valley  of  Salt,  gn  melar.h.  It 
 is  hardly  possible  that  it  can  be  both  an  e7nek  and  a 
 
I 
 
 sidJj 
 
 creased  the  volume  of  water,  by  the  introduction  of  i 
 solid  matter,  that  it  must  have  raised  its  level  at 
 least  15  feet  ['  some  56  feet'].  This  would  aihnit 
 of  the  overflow  over  the  southern  lagoon,  and  would 
 admit  generally  of  an  easy  passage  by  tlie  margin 
 of  the  lake  on  the  west  side.  I  must  say  the  ex- 
 planation is  satisfactory  to  my  own  mind."  [Sea, 
 The  Salt,  Anier.  ed.]  S.  W. 
 
 SI'DB  (2i5r/:  Sk/e).  A  city  on  the  coast  of 
 Pamphylia,  in  iat.  30°  40",  long.  31°  27',  ten  or 
 twelve  miles  to  the  east  of  the  river  Eurymedon. 
 It  is  mentioned  in  1  Mace.  xv.  23,  among  the  list 
 of  places  to  whicli  the  Roman  senate  sent  letters 
 in  favor  of  the  .lews  [see  1*iia.ski,is].  It  was  a 
 colony  of  Cumteans.  In  the  time  of  Stnilw  a  tem- 
 ple of  Athene  stood  there,  and  the  name  of  that 
 goddess  associated  witli  Apollo  appears  in  an  in- 
 scription of  undoubtedly  late  times  found  on  the 
 spot  by  Admiral  Beaufort.  Sido  was  closely  con- 
 nected with  Aradus  in  Phoenicia  by  connnerce, 
 even  if  there  was  not  a  considerable  PhoeiiiciaM 
 element  in  tlie  population ;  for  not  oidy  are  tlie 
 towns  placed  in  ju.xtaposition  in  the  passage  of  the 
 Maccabees  quoted  above,  but  Antiochus's  ambas- 
 sador to  the  Achaean  league  (Livy,  xxxv.  48),  when 
 boasting  of  his  master's  navy,  told  his  hearers  tliat 
 tlie  left  division  was  made  up  of  men  of  Side  and  of 
 Anidus,  as  the  right  was  of  those  of  Tyre  and  of  Si- 
 don,  quds  (/enlcs  millce  iwqwun  nee  arte  nee  rir- 
 tiUe  navali  ceqwissent.  It  is  possiijle  that  the  name 
 has  the  same  root  as  that  of  Sidon,  and  that  it  (as 
 well  as  the  Side  on  tlie  southern  coast  of  the  luix- 
 ine,  Strabo,  xii.  3)  was  originally  a  Phoenician  set 
 tlement,  and  that  the  Cuniaean  colony  was  some- 
 thing subsequent.  In  the  times  in  which  Side 
 appears  in  history  it  had  become  a  place  of  consid- 
 erable importance.  It  was  the  station  of  Anti- 
 ochus's  navy  on  the  eve  of  the  battle  with  the 
 Rhodian  fleet  described  by  Livy  (xxxvii.  23,  24). 
 The  remains,  too,  which  still  exist  are  an  evidence 
 of  its  former  wealth.  They  stand  on  a  low  penin- 
 sula running  from  N.  I'^.  to  S.  W.,  and  the  mari- 
 time character  of  the  former  inhabitants  appears 
 from  the  circumstance  that  the  walls  towards  the 
 sea  were  but  slightly  built,  while  the  one  which 
 faces  the  land  is  of  excellent  workmanship,  and  re- 
 mains, in  a  considerable  porti(jn,  perfect  even  to 
 this  time.  A  theatre  (l)elonging  apparently  to  the 
 Roman  times)  is  one  of  the  largest  and  l>est  pre- 
 served in  Asia  iMinor,  and  is  calculated  to  have 
 been  capable  of  containing  more  than  15,000  spec- 
 tators. This  is  so  prominent  an  olyect  that,  to 
 persons  approaching  the  shore,  it  appears  like  an 
 acropolis  of  the  city,  and  in  fact,  during  the  Middle 
 Ages,  was  actually  occupied  as  a  fort.  The  suburbs 
 of  Side  extend  to  some  distance,  but  the  greatest 
 length  within  the  walls  does  not  exceed  1300  ^ards. 
 Three  gates  led  into  the  town  from  the  sea,  and 
 one,  on  the  northeastern  side,  into  the  country. 
 From  this  last  a  paved  street  with  high  curbstones 
 conducts  to  an  agora,  180  feet  in  diameter,  and 
 formerly  surrounded  with  a  double  row  of  colunms, 
 of  which  only  the  bases  remain.  In  the  centre  is  a 
 large  ruined  pedestal,  as  if  for  a  colossal  statue,  and 
 on  the  .southern  side  the  ruins  of  a  temple,  prob- 
 ably the  one  spoken  of  by  Strabo.  Opposite  to 
 this  a  street  ran  to  the  principal  water-gate,  and  on 
 the  fourth  side  of  the  agora  the  avenue  from  the 
 land-gat«  was  continued  to  the  front  of  the  theatre. 
 
 SIHON 
 
 3033 
 
 Of  this  last  the  lower  half  is,  after  the  manner  of 
 Roman  architects  whenever  the  site  permitted,  ex- 
 cavated from  the  native  rock,  the  upper  half  built  up 
 of  e.xcellent  masonry.  The  seats  for  the  spectators, 
 most  of  which  remain,  are  of  white  marble  beauti- 
 fullv  wrought. 
 
 The  two  principal  harbors,  which  at  first  seeni 
 to  have  been  united  in  one,  were  at  the  extremity 
 of  the  peninsula:  they  were  closed,  and  together 
 contained  a  surface  of  nearly  500  yards  by  200. 
 Besides  these,  the  principal  water-gate  on  the  N.  W. 
 side  was  connected  with  two  small  piers  of  150 
 feet  long,  so  that  it  is  plain  that  vessels  used  to 
 lie  here  to  discharge  their  cargoes.  And  the  ac- 
 count which  Livy  gives  of  the  sea-fight  with 
 Antiochus  above  referred  to,  shows  that  shelter 
 could  also  be  found  on  the  other  (or  S.  K.)  side 
 of  the  peninsula  whenever  a  strong  west  wind  was 
 blowing. 
 
 The  country  by  which  Side  is  backed  is  a  broad, 
 swampy  plain,  stretching  out  for  some  miles  beyond 
 the  belt  of  sand-hills  which  fringe  the  sea-shore. 
 \jo\\  hills  succeed,  and  behind  these,  far  inland,  are 
 the  mountains  which,  at  Mount  Climax  40  miles  to 
 the  west,  and  again  aliout  the  same  distance  to  the 
 east,  come  down  to  the  coast.  These  mountains 
 were  the  habitation  of  tlie  Pisidians,  against  whom 
 Antiochus,  in  the  spring  of  the  year  192  n.  c,  made 
 an  expetlition;  and  as  Side  was  in  the  interest  of 
 Antiochus,  until,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  it 
 passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Romans,  it  is  reason- 
 able to  presume  that  hostility  was  the  normal  rela- 
 tion between  its  inhabitants  and  the  highlanders,  to 
 whom  they  were  proliably  olijects  of  the  same  jeal- 
 ousy that  the  Spanish  settlements  on  the  African 
 seaboard  inspire  in  the  Kabyles  round  about  them 
 This  would  not  prevent  a  large  amount  of  traffic,  to 
 the  mutual  interest  of  both  parties,  but  would  hin- 
 der the  people  of  Side  from  extending  their  sway 
 into  the  interior,  and  also  render  the  construction 
 of  effective  fortifications  on  the  land  side  a  neces- 
 sity. (Strabo,  xii.,  xiv. ;  Livy,  xxxv.,  xxxvii.; 
 Beaufort,  Karamania ;  Cicero,  Kj^p.  ad  Fam.  iii. 
 6.)  J.  W.  B. 
 
 SFDON.  The  Greek  form  of  the  Phoenician 
 name  Zidon,  or  (more  accurately)  Tsidon.  As  such 
 it  occurs  naturally  in  the  N.  T.  and  Apocrypha  of 
 the  A.  V.  (SiSoj;/;  [Sin.  in  1  Mace.  SeiSaji/:]  Si- 
 don: 2  Esdr.  i.  11;  Jud.  ii.  28;  1  Mace.  v.  15; 
 Matt.  xi.  21,  22,  xv.  21;  Mark  iii.  8,  vii.  24,  31; 
 Luke  iv.«  26,  vi.  17,  x.  13,  14;  Acts  xii.  20.'' 
 xxviii.  3).     It  is  thus  a  parallel  to  Sion. 
 
 But  we  also  find  it  in  the  0.  T.,  where  it  imper- 
 fectly represents  the  Hebrew  word  elsewhere  pre- 
 sented as  Zidon  (Gen.  x.  15,  19;  "jT^V  •  SiSi^j' 
 Sidon).      [ZiuON.]  G. 
 
 SIDO'NIANS  (D'^a'T'^;  in  Judg.  •^3''T"'V 
 [inhabitants  of  Zidon']:  SeiScoj/ioj;  in  Dent.  $01- 
 viKiS'  in  Judg.  2(5c^i/ios:  Sidonii,  Sidonius) 
 The  Greek  form  of  the  word  Zidonians,  usually 
 so  exhiljited  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  O.  T.  It  oc- 
 curs Deut.  iii.  9;  Josh.  xiii.  4,  6;  Judg.  iii.  3; 
 1  K.  V.  6.  G 
 
 *  SIEVE.     [Agkicultuke.] 
 
 *  SIGNET.     [Ornaments;  Ring;   Seal.] 
 SI'HON    (Vn^'p,    and    "{'""^'^P"  [""«    ^''o 
 
 a  In  this  passage  the  form  'S.LSuivia  is  used. 
 b  Uere  the  adjective  is  employed  —  SiSwi'iois. 
 191 
 
 c  This  form  is  found  frequently,  though  not  exclu- 
 sively, in  the  books  subsequent  to  the  Pentateuch      In 
 
3034 
 
 SIHOR 
 
 $weeps  aw/ty,  Ges-I'.  Samar.  ^IH^D  :  2r)a)V,  [in 
 Josh.  xiii.  21,  Alex.  Srjcup,  and  in  last  part  of  verse, 
 Kom.  Sici;',  Vat.  Seicor;]  Joseph.  S^X'^"-  'S«/'0", 
 [Seun]).  King  of  the  Aniorites  when  Israel  ar- 
 rived on  the  borders  of  the  Promised  Land  (Num. 
 xxi.  21).  He  was  evidently  a  man  of  great  courage 
 and  audacity.  Shortly  before  the  time  of  Israel's 
 arrival  he  had  dispossessed  the  Moabites  of  a  splen- 
 did territory,  driving  them  south  of  the  natural 
 bulwark  of  the  Arnon  with  great  slaughter,  and  the 
 loss  of  a  great  number  of  captives  (xxi.  20-29). 
 When  the  Israelite  host  appears,  he  does  not  hesi- 
 tate or  temporize  like  Balak,  but  at  once  gathers 
 his  people  together  and  attacks  them.  But  the 
 battle  was  his  last.  He  and  all  his  host  were  de- 
 stroyed, and  their  district  from  Arnon  to  Jabbok 
 became  at  once  the  possession  of  the  conqueror. 
 
 Josephus  (Anl.  iv.  5,  §  2)  has  preserved  some 
 singular  details  of  the  battle,  which  have  not  sur- 
 vived in  the  text  either  of  the  Hebrew  or  LXX. 
 He  represents  the  Amorite  army  as  containing 
 every  man  in  the  nation  fit  to  bear  arms.  He 
 states  that  they  were  miable  to  fight  when  away 
 from  the  shelter  of  their  cities,  and  that  being  es- 
 pecially galled  by  the  slings  and  arrows  of  the  He- 
 brews, and  at  last  suffering  severely  from  thirst, 
 they  rushed  to  the  stream  and  to  the  shelter  of  the 
 recesses  of  the  ravine  of  the  Anion.'  Into  these  re- 
 cesses they  were  pursued  by  their  active  enemy  and 
 slaughtered  in  vast  numbers. 
 
 Whether  we  accept  these  details  or  not,  it  is 
 plain,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  name  of  Si- 
 hon  "  fixed  itself  in  the  national  mind,  and  the 
 space  which  his  image  occupies  in  the  official  rec- 
 ords, and  in  the  later  poetry  of  Israel,  that  he  was 
 a  truly  formidable  chieftain.  G. 
 
 SI'HOR,  accurately  SHrHOR,  once  THE 
 
 SHiHOR  {"i^n^^,  "i^nw,  -riw  [black, 
 
 turbid]  :  ^  doi'/CTjTos  r]  Kara  irp6aanroi/  Alyinrrov, 
 Frjiiy-  Jlui'ius  turbk/us,  Nilus,  {aqua)  iurbida):  or 
 
 SHIHOR  OF  EGYPT  (D^'l^p  ")'in"^ty : 
 opia  AiyinrroV-  Si/ior  yE(/ijpti),  when  unqualified, 
 a  name  of  the  Nile.     It  is  held  to  signify  "  the 
 
 black"  or  "turbid,"  from  "^Htt?,  "he  or  it  was 
 or  became  black;  "  a  word  use<l  in  a  wide  sense  for 
 different  degrees  of  dark  color,  as  of  hair,  a  face 
 tanned  by  the  sun,  a  skin  lilack  through  disease, 
 and  extreme  blackness.  [Nile,  vol.  iii.  p.  214!t.] 
 Several  names  of  the  Nile  may  be  compared.  Ne?- 
 \os  itself,  if  it  be,  as  is  generally  supposed  [?],  of 
 Iranian  origin,  signifies  "the  blue,"  that  is,  "the 
 dark"  rather  than  the  turbid;  for  we  must  then 
 compare  the  Sanskrit  ?nla,  "  blue,"  probably  espe- 
 ■cially  "  dark  blue,"  also  even  "  black,"  as  7iUn- 
 panka,  "  black  mud."  The  Arabic  azrak,  "blue," 
 signifies  "  dark"  in  the  vAme  Balir  el-Azrak,  or 
 Blue  River,  applied  to  the  eastern  of  the  two  great 
 confluents  of  the  Nile.  Still  nearer  is  the  Latin 
 Melo,  from  fxeXas,  a  name  of  the  Nile,  according 
 to  Festus  and  Servius  {Geoi-fj.  iv.  291;  yEn.  i. 
 745,  iv.  24G);  but  little  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
 such  a  word  resting  on  no  better  authority.  With 
 the  classical  writers,  it  is  the  soil  of  Egypt  tiiat  is 
 black,  rather  than  its  river.     So  too  in  hieroglyph- 
 
 the  Pent,  itself  it  occurs  four  times,  two  of  which  are 
 in  tlie  song,  Num.  xxi.  27,  29. 
 
 a  It  is  possible  tiiat  a  trace  of  the  name  may  still 
 remain  iu  the  Jtbel  Shihhan,  a  lofty  and  conspicuous 
 mountain  just  to  the  south  of  the  Wariy  Mojeb. 
 
 SILAS 
 
 ics,  the  name  of  the  country,  KEM,  means  "  tTie 
 black;  "  but  there  is  no  name  of  the  Nile  of  like 
 signification.  In  the  ancient  painted  sculptures, 
 liowever,  the  figure  of  the  Nile-god  is  colored  differ- 
 ently according  as  it  represents  the  river  during  the 
 time  of  the  immdation,  and  during  the  rest  of  the 
 year,  in  tlie  former  case  red,  in  the  latter  blue. 
 
 There  are  liut  three  occurrences  of  Shihor  in  the 
 Bible,  and  but  one  of  Shihor  of  Egypt,  or  Shihor- 
 Mizraim.  It  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  limits  of 
 territory  wliicli  was  still  unconquered  when  Joshua 
 was  old.  "  This  [is]  the  land  that  yet  remaineth: 
 all  the  regions  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri, 
 
 from  the  Shihor  (mrT^K^n),  which  [is]  before 
 F.gypt,  even  unto  the  borders  of  Ekron  northward, 
 is  counted  to  the  Canaanite"  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  3). 
 The  enumeration  of  the  Philistines  follows.  Here, 
 therefore,  a  district  lying  between  Egypt  and  the 
 most  northern  Philistine  city  seems  to  be  uitended. 
 With  this  passage  must  be  compared  that  in  which 
 Shihor-Mizraim  occurs.  David  is  related  to  have 
 "  gathered  all  Israel  together,  from  Shihor  of  Egypt 
 even  unto  the  entering  of  Haniath  "  (1  Chr.  xiii. 
 6).  There  is  no  other  evidence  that  the  Israelites 
 ever  spread  westward  beyond  Gaza;  it  may  seem 
 strange  that  the  actual  territory  dwelt  in  by  them 
 in  David's  time  should  thus  appear  to  be  spoken  of 
 as  extending  as  far  as  the  easternmost  branch  of 
 the  Nile,  but  it  must  be  recollected  that  more  than 
 one  tribe  at  a  later  time  had  spread  beyond  even 
 its  first  boundaries,  and  also  that  the  limits  may  be 
 those  of  David's  dominion  rather  than  of  the  land 
 actually  fully  inhabited  by  the  Israelites.  The 
 stream  may  therefore  be  that  of  the  Wddi-l-  Areesli. 
 That  the  stream  intended  by  Shihor  unqualified 
 was  a  navigable  river  is  evident  from  a  passage  in 
 Isaiah,  where  it  is  said  of  Tyre,  "  And  by  great 
 waters,  the  sowing  of  Shihor,  the  harvest  of  the 
 
 river  ( I'edr,  "IS*]),  [is]  her  revenue"  (xxiii.  3). 
 Here  Shihor  is  either  the  same  as,  or  compared 
 with,  Yeor.  generally  thought  to  be  the  Nile 
 [Nile],  but  in  this  work  suggested  to  be  the  ex- 
 tension of  the  Ked  Sea.  [Red  Sea.]  In  Jere- 
 miah the  identity  of  Shihor  with  the  Nile  seems 
 distinctly  stated  where  it  is  said  of  Israel,  ''And 
 now  what  hast  thou  to  do  in  the  way  of  I'-gypt,  to 
 drink  the  waters  of  Shihor?  or  what  hast  thou  to 
 do  in  the  way  of  Assyria,  to  drink  the  waters  of 
 the  river V"  i.  e.  Euphrates  (ii.  18).  In  consider- 
 ing these  passages  it  is  important  to  distinguish  be- 
 tween "the  Shihor  which  [is]  before  Egypt,"  and 
 Shihor  of  Egypt,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Shihor 
 alone,  on  the  other.  In  articles  Nile  and  Rivek 
 OF  Egyi't  it  is  maintained  too  strongly  that  Shi- 
 hor, however  qualified,  is  always  the  Nile.  The 
 later  opinion  of  the  writer  is  expressed  here  under 
 Shihor  of  Egypt.  The  latter  is,  he  thinks,  un- 
 questionably the  Nile,  the  former  two  probably,  but 
 not  certainly,  the  same.  R.  S.  P. 
 
 SI'LAS  (2i'\os:  Silas).  An  eminent  member 
 of  tlie  early  Christian  Church,  described  under  that 
 name  in  the  Acts,  but  as  Silvanus ''  in  St.  Paul's 
 Epistles.  He  first  appears  as  one  of  the  leaders 
 {7)yoviJ.€voi)  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv. 
 22),  holding  the  office  of  an  inspired  teacher  (irpo<t>- 
 
 b  The  Alexandrine  \vriter.s  adopted  somewhat  bold 
 abbreviations  of  proiier  names,  such  as  Zeuas  for  Ze- 
 nodorus,  ApoUos  for  Apollonius,  Ilermaa  for  llermo- 
 dorus.  The  method  by  which  they  arrived  at  these 
 forms  is  not  very  apparent. 
 
SILK 
 
 ■^Trjs,  XV.  32).  His  name,  derived  from  the  Latin 
 siivd,  "wood,"  betokens  him  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  and 
 he  appears  to  have  been  a  Roman  citizen  (Acts  xvi. 
 37).  He  was  appointed  as  a  delejate  to  accom- 
 pany Paul  and  Barnalas  on  their  return  to  Antioch 
 with  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts 
 XV.  22,  32).  Having  accomplished  this  mission, 
 he  returned  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  33;  the  follow- 
 ing verse,  e5o|e  Se  riS  'S.iKa  eTnjxiiuai  avTov,  is 
 decidedly  an  interpolation  introduced  to  harmonize 
 the  passage  with  xv.  40).  He  must,  however, 
 have  immediately  revisited  Antioch,  for  we  find 
 him  selected  by  St.  Paul  as  the  companion  of  his 
 second  missionary  journey  (Acts  xv.  40-xxi.  17). 
 At  IJeroea  he  was  left  behind  with  Timothy  while 
 St.  Paul  proceeded  to  Athens  (Acts  xvii.  14),  and 
 we  hear  nothing  more  of  his  movements  until  he 
 rejoined  the  Apostle  at  Corinth  (.\cts  xviii.  5). 
 Whether  he  had  followed  Paul  to  Athens  in  obedi- 
 ence to  the  injunction  to  do  so  (Acts  xvii.  15),  and 
 had  been  sent  thence  with  Timothy  to  Thessalonica 
 (1  Tlie.ss.  iii.  2),  or  whether  his  movements  were 
 wholly  independent  of  Timothy's,  is  uncertain 
 (Conyb.  and  Hows.  St..  Paul,  i.  458,  note  3).  His 
 presence  at  Corinth  is  several  times  noticed  (2  Cor. 
 i.  19;  1  Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1).  He  probably 
 returned  to  Jerusidem  with  St.  Paul,  and  from  that 
 time  the  connection  between  them  appears  to  have 
 terminated.  AMiether  he  was  the  Silvanus  who 
 conveyed  St.  Peter's  First  Epistle  to  Asia  Minor 
 (1  Pet.  V.  12)  is  doubtful;  the  prol labilities  are  in 
 favor  of  the  identity;  the  question  is  chiefly  inter- 
 esting as  bearing  upon  the  Pauline  character  of  St. 
 Peter's  epistles  (l)e  Wette,  Kinlnt.  §  4).  A  tra- 
 dition of  ver}-  slight  authority  represents  Silas  to 
 have  become  bisiiop  of  Corinth.  We  have  finally 
 to  notice,  for  the  purpose  of  rejecting,  the  theories 
 which  identify  Silas  with  Tertius  (Rom.  xvi. 
 22)    through  a  Hebrew  explanation  of  the  name 
 
 (ly  _/-tt?),  and  again  with  Luke,  or  at  all  events 
 with  the  author  of  the  Acts  (Alford's  Prukgoni.  in 
 ,4cAs,  i.  §  1).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SILK  (<TT}pLK6v)-  The  only  imdoubted  notice 
 of  silk  in  the  Uible  occurs  in  Rev.  .xviii.  12,  where 
 it  is  mentioned  among  the  treasures  of  the  typical 
 Babylon.  It  is,  however,  in  the  highest  degree 
 probable  that  the  texture  was  known  to  the  He- 
 brews from  the  time  that  their  commercial  relations 
 were  extended  by  Solomon.  Por,  though  we  have 
 no  historical  evidence  of  the  importation  of  the  raw 
 material  to  the  shores  of  the  Slediterranean  earlier 
 than  that  of  Aristotle  (//.  A.  v.  ISJ)  in  the  4th 
 century  u.  c.,  yet  that  notice,  referring  as  it  does 
 to  the  island  of  Cos,  would  justify  the  assumption 
 that  it  had  been  known  at  a  far  earlier  period  in 
 Western  Asia.  The  commercial  routes  of  that 
 continent  are  of  the  highest  antiquity,  and  an  indi- 
 rect testimony  to  the  existence  of  a  trade  with  China 
 in  the  age  of  Isaiah  is  proljably  afforded  us  in  his 
 reference  to  the  Sinim.  [Sixim.]  The  well-known 
 ;:lassical  name  of  the  substance  {a-qptKiv,  sericuiii) 
 
 SILLA 
 
 3035 
 
 «  Calmet  conjectured  that  nip"^"1Ci7  (Is.  xix.  9, 
 A.  V.  "fine")  was  connected  with  sericum. 
 
 <i  The  A.  V.  confounds  tCt27  with  silk  in  Prov. 
 xxxi.  22. 
 
 «  2  Chr.  xxiv.  25,  a  passage  tinged  with  the  usual 
 color  of  the  narrative   of  Chronicles,   and   containing 
 
 does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew  language,"  but  this 
 may  be  accounted  for,  partly  on  the  ground  that 
 the  Hebrews  were  acquainted  only  with  the  texture 
 and  not  with  the  raw  material,  and  partly  on  the 
 supposition  that  the  name  serlcvm  reached  the 
 Greeks  by  another  channel,  namely,  through  Ar- 
 menia. The  Hebrew  terms  which  have  been  sup- 
 posed to  refer  to  silk  are  meshl>>  and  demesheks 
 The  former  occurs  only  in  Ez.  xvi.  10,  13  (A.  V. 
 "silk")  and  is  probably  connected  with  the  root 
 muslidh,  "  to  draw  out,"  as  though  it  were  made 
 of  the  finest  dniioii  silk  in  the  manner  described  liy 
 Pliny  (vi.  20,  xi.  26):  the  equivalent  term  in  the 
 LXX.  (rpixa'TTo;/),  though  coimected  hi  point  of 
 etymology  with  linii-  as  its  material,  is  nevertheless 
 explained  by  Hesychius  and  Suidas  as  referring  to 
 silk,  which  may  well  have  been  described  as  resem- 
 bling hair.  The  other  term  demeshek  occurs  in 
 Am.  iii.  12  (A.  V.  "  Damascus  "),  and  has  been 
 supposed  to  refer  to  silk  from  the  resemblance  of 
 the  word  to  our  "damask,"  and  of  this  again  to 
 "  Uavnascus,"  as  the  place  where  the  manufacture 
 of  silken  textures  was  carried  on.  It  appears,  how- 
 ever, that  "  damask  "  is  a  corruption  of  dintnksu, 
 a  term  applied  by  the  Arab.s  to  the  raw  m.aterial 
 alone,  and  not  to  the  manufactured  article  (Pusey's 
 MIn.  Pi-o/ili.  p.  183).  We  must,  therefore,  con- 
 sider the  reference  to  silk  as  extremely  dubious.'' 
 ^V'e  have  notice  of  silk  under  its  classical  name  in 
 the  JNIishna  {Kil.  9,  §  2),  where  Chinese  silk  is  dis- 
 titiguished  from  floss-silk.  Tiie  value  set  upon  silk 
 by  the  Romans,  as  implied  in  Rev.  xviii.  12,  is  no- 
 ticed by  Josephus  (/5.  ./.  vii.  5,  §  4),  as  well  as  by 
 classical  writers  (e.  '/.  Sueton.  Oilic/.  52;  Mart.  xi. 
 9).  '  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SIL'LA  (Sbp  [twii/,  basM]:  [Rom.  SsAa; 
 Vat.]  TaaAAa;  Alex.  I^aAaaS;  [Comp.  SeWarJ 
 Sellit).  "The  house  of  Millo,  which  goeth  down  to 
 Silla,"  was  the  scene  of  the  murder  of  king  Joash 
 (2  K.  xii.  20).  What  or  where  Silla  was  is  en- 
 tirely matter  of  conjecture.  IMillo  seems  most  prob- 
 ably to  have  been  the  citadel  of  the  town,  and  situ- 
 ated on  Mount  Zion.  [See  iii.  1937  «.]  Silla  must 
 have  been  in  the  vidley  below,  overlooked  by  that 
 part  of  the  citadel  which  was  used  as  a  residence. 
 The  situation  of  the  present  so-called  Pool  of  Siloain 
 would  be  appropriate,  and  the  agreement  between 
 the  two  names  is  tempting;  but  the  likeness  exists 
 in  the  Greek  and  English  versions  only,  and  in  the 
 original  is  too  slight  to  admit  of  any  inference. 
 Gesenius,  with  less  than  his  usual  caution,  affirms 
 Silla  to  be  a  town  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jeru- 
 salem. Others  (as  Thenius,  in  Kurz(j.  Exvtj. 
 Himdb.  on  the  passage)  refer  it  to  a  place  on 
 or  coimected  with  the  causeway  or  flight  of  steps 
 
 (n bop)  which  led  from  the  central  valley  of  the 
 city  up  to  the  court  of  the  Temple.  To  indulge  in 
 such  confident  statements  on  either  side  is  an 
 entire  mistake.  Neither  in  the  parallel  passage  ot 
 Chronicles,<^  in  the  lists  of  Nehemiah  iii.  and  xii., 
 the  Jewish  Commentator/  the  LXX.,  in  Josephus, 
 
 some  curious  variations  from  that  of  the  Kings,  but 
 passing  over  the  place  of  the  murder  sub  silentio. 
 
 f  The  reading  of  the  twf  great  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  — 
 agreeing  in  the  r  as  the  commencerient  of  the  name 
 —  is  remarkable,  and  prompts  the  suggestion  tliat  the 
 iiebrew  name  may  originally  have  begun  with  S3, 
 a  ravine  (as  (ie-hinnom).  The  KaraficVoi'Ta  of  the 
 Alex,  is  doubtless  a  corruption  of  KaTa^aCvovTa 
 
3036     SILOAH,  THE  POOL  OF 
 
 nor  in  Jerome,  do  we  find  the  smallest  clew;  and 
 there  is  therefore  no  alternative  but  to  remain  for 
 the  present  in  ignorance.  G. 
 
 SILOAH,    THE    POOL     OF    (nDl? 
 
 n^??^'!'   [see   below]:  KoXvfx^ridpa  ra>v  KoiSiwv'i 
 
 FA.'    K.   TCDJ/    dfTOV    2tA.a>0,u;     [Comp.    K.    TOV    2i- 
 
 Aoxi:]  Piscina  Siloe).  Tliis  name  is  not  accu- 
 rately represented  in  the  A.  V.  of  Neh.  iii.  15  — 
 the  only  passage  in  which  this  particular  form  oc- 
 curs. It  should  be  Shelach,  or  rather  has-Shelach, 
 since  it  is  given  with  the  definite  article.  This 
 was  ])ossibly  a  corrupt  form  of  the  name  which  is 
 first  presented  as  Sliiloach,  then  as  Siloani,  and  is 
 now  Selican.  The  meaning  of  Shelach,  taken  as 
 Hebrew,  is  "  dart.'  This  cannot  be  a  name  given 
 to  the  stream  on  account  of  its  swiftness,  because  it 
 is  not  now,  nor  was  it  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  any- 
 thing but  a  very  soft  and  gentle  stream  (Is.  viii.  6). 
 It  is  probably  an  accommodation  to  tlie  popular 
 mouth,  of  the  same  nature  as  that  exemplified  in  the 
 name  Dart  which  is  now  borne  by  more  than  one 
 river  in  England,  and  which  has  nothing  whatever 
 to  do  with  swiftness,  but  is  merely  a  corruption  of 
 the  ancient  word  which  also  appears  in  the  various 
 forms  of  Derwent,"  Darent,  Trent.  The  last  of 
 tliese  was  at  one  time  supposed  to  mean  "  thirty;  " 
 and  the  ri\er  Trent  was  believed  to  have  yO  tribu- 
 taries, 30  sorts  of  fish,  30  convents  on  its  banks, 
 etc. :  a  notion  preserved  from  oblivion  by  Milton  in 
 his  lines:  — 
 
 "  And  Trent,  that  like  some  earth-born  giant  spreads 
 His  thirty  arms  along  the  indented  meads." 
 
 For  the  fountain  and  pool,  see  Siloam.  G. 
 
 SILO'AM  (Sihwil,   Shiloach,   Is.    viii.    C; 
 
 nvt^n,  Shelach,  Neh.  iii.  15  [see  above];  the 
 change  in  the  Masoretic  punctuation  indicatuig 
 merely  perhaps  a  change  in  the  pronunciation  or 
 in  the  spellliuj  of  the  word,  sometime  during  the 
 three  centuries  between  Lsaiah  and  Nehemiah. 
 Rabbinical  writers,  and,  following  them,  .lewish 
 travellers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  from  Benja- 
 min of  Tudela  to  Schwarz,  retain  the  earlier  Shilo- 
 ach in  preference  to  the  later  Shelach.  The 
 Rabbis  give  it  with  the  article,  as   in    the  Bible 
 
 (m^'^ti^n,  Dachs's  Cockx  Talmudiciis,  p.  367). 
 The  LXX.  gives  StAcoa^  [Vat.  Sin.  SeiXtoa^]  in 
 Isaiah ;  but  in  Nehemiah  KoKv/jL^-r^dpa  tuv  kooSiwv, 
 the  pool  of  the  sheepskins,  or  '■  tieece-pool;  "  per- 
 haps because,  in  their  day,  it  was  used  for  washing 
 the  fleeces  of  the  victims.''  The  Vnlg:ite  has  uni- 
 formly, both  in  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Siloe  ; 
 in  the  Old  calling  it  piscina,  and  in  tlie  New  natn- 
 lorid.  The  Latin  Fathers,  led  by  the  Vulgate, 
 have  always  Siloe ;  the  old  pilgrims,  who  knew 
 nothing  but  the  Vulgate,  Siloe  or  Syloe.  The 
 Greek  Fathers,  adhering  to  the  LXX.,  have  Siloam. 
 l"he  word  does  not  occur  in  the  Apocrypha.  Jo- 
 sephus  gives  both  Siloam  and  Siloas,  generally  the 
 former. ) 
 
 SILOAM 
 
 Siloani  is  one  of  the  few  undisputed  localitiet 
 (though  Keland  and  some  others  misplaced  it)  in 
 the  topography  of  .lerusalem;  still  retaining  its 
 old  name  (with  Arabic  modification,  Silimn),  while 
 every  other  pool  has  lost  its  Bible-<)esignation. 
 This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  it  is  a  mere  sub- 
 urban tank  of  no  great  size,  and  for  many  an  age 
 not  particularly  good  or  plentiful  in  its  waters, 
 though  .losephus  tells  ns  that  in  his  day  they  were 
 both  "sweet  and  abundant"  (B.  ./.  v.  4.  §  1). 
 Apart  from  the  identity  of  mime,  there  is  an  un- 
 broken chain  of  exterior  testimony,  during  eighteen 
 centuries,  connecting  the  present  Birlcet  Silwdn 
 with  the  Shito-ih  of  Isaiah  and  the  Siloam  of  St. 
 John.  There  are  difficulties  in  identifying  the  Bh- 
 Eyub  (the  well  of  Salah-ed-din,  Jbn  A'yuh,  the 
 great  digger  of  wells,  Jalal-Addin,  p.  230),  but 
 none  in  fixing  Siloam.  Josephus  mentions  it  fre- 
 quently in  bis  .feirish  War,  and  his  references  in- 
 dicate that  it  was  a  somewhat  noted  place,  a  sort 
 of  city  landmark.  From  hlni  we  learn  that  it  was 
 without  the  city  (e|a>  toC  &ffTeais,  B.  J.  v.  9,  §  4); 
 that  it  was  at  this  pool  that  the  "  old  wall  took  a 
 bend  and  shot  out  eastward  "  {avaKd/xiTTov  fls  av- 
 aroXriP,  ib-  v.  G,  §  1);  that  there  was  a  valley  under 
 it  (rrji'  uwo  2iAcod/u  (papayya,  ibid.  vi.  8,  §  5).  and 
 one  beside  it  (t?7  Kara,  ttiu  SiAojct/i  ipdpayyi,  ibid. 
 V.  12,  §  2);  a  hill  (Aocpos)  right  opposite,  appar- 
 ently on  the  other  side  of  the  Kedron,  hard  by  a 
 ciitr  or  rock  called  Peristereon  (ibid.);  that  it  was 
 at  the  termination  or  mouth  of  the  Tyropoeon 
 {ibid.  V.  4,  §  1 ) ;  that  close  beside  it,  apparently 
 eastward,  was  another  pool,  called  Solomon's  pool, 
 to  which  the  '•  old  wall  "  came  after  leaving  Siloam, 
 and  past  which  it  went  on  to  Ophlns,  where,  bend- 
 ing northward,  it  was  united  to  the  eastern  arcade 
 of  the  Temple.  In  the  Antonine  Itinerary  (a.  i>. 
 333)  it  is  set  down  in  the  same  locality,  but  it  is 
 .said  to  be  "juxta  nuirum,"  as  Josephus  implies; 
 whereas  now  it  is  a  considerable  distance — up- 
 wards of  1200  feet  —  from  the  nearest  angle  of  the 
 present  wall,  and  nearly  1,!J00  feet  from  the  south- 
 ern wall  of  the  Haram.  Jerome,  towards  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  5th  century,  describes  it  as  ''  ad 
 radices  montis  Moriah  "  {in  Malt,  x.),  and  tells 
 (though  without  indorsing  the  fable)  that  the 
 stones  sprinkled  with  the  blood  (rubra  saxa)  of  the 
 prophet  Zechariah  were  still  pointed  out  {in  Matt. 
 xxiii.).  He  speaks  of  it  <is  being  in  the  Valley  of 
 the  Son  of  Hinnom,  as  Josephus  does  of  its  being 
 at  the  mouth  of  the  Tyropceon  {in  Jer.  ii.);  and 
 it  is  noticeable  that  he  (like  the  Rabbis)  never 
 mentions  the  Tyropoeon.  while  he,  times  without 
 number,  speaks  of  the  Valley  of  the  Son  of  Hin- 
 nom. He  speaks  of  Hinnom,  Tophet,  with  their 
 groves  and  gardens,  as  watered  by  Siloam  {in  .lev. 
 xix.  G,  and  xxxii.  35).  "  Tophet,  qua;  est  in  valle 
 filii  Ennom,  ilium  locum  significat  qui  Siloe  fonti- 
 bus  irrigatur,  et  est  amcenus  atque  nemorosus,  ho- 
 dieque  hortorum  prtebet  delici.as  "  {in  Jer.  viii  ). 
 He  speaks  of  .Siloam  as  dependent  on  the  rains, 
 and  as  the  only  fountain  used  in  his  day:  "  Uno 
 fonte  Siloe  et  hoc  non   perpetuo  utitur  civitas ;  et 
 
 a  Derwent  appears  to  be  the  oldest  of  these  forms, 
 and  to  be  derived  from  denvyn,  an  ancient  British 
 word,  meaning  "  to  wind  about."  On  the  Continent 
 the  name  is  found  in  the  following  forms  :  Fr.  Du- 
 rance;  Germ.  Drewenz;  It.  Trento ;  Russ.  Diina 
 (Ferguson's  River  Names,  etc.). 
 
 b  In  Talmudical  Hebrew  Shelach  signifies  "a  .skin  " 
 'tljevi'B  Lingua  Sacra);  and  the  Alexandrian  transla- 
 
 tors attached  this  meaning  to  it ;  they  and  the  earlier 
 Rabbis  considering  Neheniiah's  Shelach  as  a  different 
 pool  from  Siloam  ;  probably  the  same  as  Bethesda,  by 
 the  Sheep  Gate  (.John  v.  2),  the  Trpo^nTiKJ)  KoXvix^riBpa 
 of  Euseblus,  the  probntica  piscina  of  Jerome.  If  so, 
 then  it  i.s  Bethesda,  and  not  Siloam,  that  is  mentioned 
 by  Nehemiah. 
 
SILOAM 
 
 asque  in  prtesentetn  diem  sterilitas  pluviaruin,  iion 
 toluffi  fi'ugum  sed  et  bibeiidi  inopiam  fecit  "  (in 
 Jer.  xiv.)-  Now,  tliougli  Jerome  ought  to  have 
 known  well  the  water-supplies  of  Jerusalem,  seeing 
 he  lived  the  greater  part  ol  his  life  within  six  miles 
 of  it,  yet  other  authorities,  and  the  modern  water- 
 provision  of  the  city,  show  us  that  it  never  could 
 have  been  wholly  dependent  on  its  pools.  Its  in- 
 numerable bottle-necked  private  cisterns  kept  up  a 
 supply  at  all  times,  and  hence  it  olten  happened 
 that  it  was  the  Ijesieyefs,  not  the  bt;de(jexl,  tliat 
 suflered  most;  though  Josephus  records  a  memora- 
 ble instance  to  the  contrary,  when  —  relating  a 
 speech  he  made  to  the  Jews,  standing,  beyond  their 
 darts,  on  a  part  of  the  southeastei'n  wall  which 
 the  Komans  had  carried  —  he  speaks  of  Siloam  as 
 overflowing  since  the  Romans  had  got  access  to  it, 
 whereas  before,  when  the  Jews  held  it,  it  was  dry 
 {B.  J.  V.  9,  §  4).  And  we  may  here  notice,  in 
 passing,  that  Jerusalem  is,  except  perhaps  in  the 
 very  heat  of  the  year,  a  well-watered  city.  Dr. 
 Barclay  says  that  "  within  a  circuit  swept  by  a 
 radius  of  seven  or  eight  miles  there  are  no  less  than 
 thirty  or  forty  natural  springs  "  (C'tV^  of  the  Great 
 Kiiuj,  p.  295);  and  a  letter  from  Consul  Finn  to 
 the  writer  adds,  "  This  I  believe  to  be  under  the 
 truth ;  but  they  are  almost  all  found  to  the  S.  and 
 8.  W. :  in  those  directions  there  does  not  appear 
 to  be  a  village  witliout  springs."  " 
 
 In  the  7th  century,  Antoninus  Martyr  mentions 
 Siloam  as  both  fountain  and  pool.  Bernhard  the 
 monk  speaks  of  it  in  the  'Jth,  and  the  ainialists  of 
 the  Crusades  mention  its  site  in  the  fork  of  two 
 valleys,  as  we  find  it  Benjamin  of  Tudela  (a.  n. 
 1173)  speaks  of  "  the  great  spring  of  iShiloach 
 which  rvms  into  the  brook  Kedron  "  (Asher's  ed. 
 vol.  i.  p.  71);  and  he  mentions  "a  large  building 
 
 ■upon  it  "  (^2?),  which  he  says  was  erected  in  the 
 days  of  his  fethers.  Is  it  of  this  building  that  the 
 present  ruined  pillars  are  the  relics?  Caumont  (a. 
 i>.  1418)  speaks  of  the  VnUei/  of  Siloali,  "on  est 
 le  fonteyne  ou  le  (sic)  vierge  Alarie  lavoit  les  dra- 
 pellez  de  son  enfant,'"  and  of  tiie  fountain  of  iSi- 
 loam  as  close  at  hand  (  Vuycnje  d' oultrenier  en 
 Jlierusiileiii,  etc.,  Paris  edition,  p.  68).  Felix 
 Fabri  (.\.  d.  1484)  describes  Siloam  at  some 
 length,  and  seems  to  have  attempted  to  enter  the 
 subterraneous  passage;  liiit  lailed,  and  retreated  in 
 dismay  after  filling  his  flasks  with  its  eye-healing 
 water.  Arnold  von  Hirff  (.v.  u.  149(3)  also  identi- 
 fies the  spot  {Die  Pilijerfdirt,  p.  18(j,  Col.  ed.). 
 After  this,  the  references  to  Siloam  are  innumera- 
 ble; nor  do  they,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  vary 
 in  their  location  of  it.  We  hardly  needed  these 
 testimonies  to  enable  us  to  fix.  the  site,  though 
 some  topographers  have  rested  on  these  entirely. 
 Scripture,  if  it  does  not  actually  set  it  down  in  the 
 mouth  of  the  Tyropceon  as  Josephus  does,  brings 
 us  very  near  it,  both  in  Nehemiah  and  St.  John. 
 The  reader  who  compares  Neh.  iii  15  with  Neh. 
 xii.  37,  will  find  that  tlie  pool  of  Siloah,  the  Foun- 
 tain Gate,  the  stairs  of  the  city  of  David,  the  wall 
 above  the  house  of  David,  the  Water  (iate,  and  the 
 king's  gardens,  were  all  near  each  other.  The  Evan- 
 gelist's narrative  regarding  the  blind  man,  whose 
 ayes  the  Lord  miraculously  opened,  when  carefully 
 
 SILOAM 
 
 3037 
 
 «  Strabo"8  statement  is  that  Jerusalem  itself  was 
 rocky  but  well  watered  (euuSpoj/),  but  all  the  region 
 around  was  barrea  and  wateiless  {Kvirpav  koX  avv- 
 6fov),  b.  xvi.  ch.  2,  sect.  36. 
 
 examined,  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  Siloam 
 was  somewhere  in  the  neighljorhood  of  the  Temple. 
 The  Kabbinical  traditions,  or  liislories,  as  they 
 doubtless  are  in  many  cases,  frequently  refer- to 
 Siloam  in  connection  with  the  Temple  service,  it 
 was  to  Siloam  that  tlie  Levite  was  sent  with  the 
 golden  pitcher  on  the  '•  last  and  great  day  of  the 
 feast"  of  Tabernacles;  it  was  from  Siloam  that  he 
 brou<,dit  the  water  which  was  then  poured  over  the 
 sacrifice,  in  memory  of  the  water  from  the  rock  of 
 Kephidim ;  and  it  was  to  this  Siloam  water  tliat 
 the  Lord  pointed  when  He  stood  in  the  Temple  on 
 that  day  and  cried,  "  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him 
 come  unto  me  and  drink." 
 
 The  Lord  sent  the  blind  inan  to  wash,  not  in, 
 as  our  version  has  it,  but  at  (eU)  the  pool  of  Si- 
 loam ;  b  for  it  was  the  clay  from  his  eyes  that  was 
 to  be  washed  off;  and  the  Evangelist  is  careful  to 
 throw  in  a  remark,  not  for  the  purpose  of  telling 
 us  that  Siloam  meant  an  '•  aqueduct,"  as  some 
 think,  but  to  give  higher  significance  to  the  mira- 
 cle. "  Go  wash  at  Siloam,"  was  the  command : 
 the  Evangelist  adds,  "  which  is  by  interpretation. 
 bKNT."  On  the  inner  meaning  here  — the  paral- 
 lelism between  "the  Sent  One"  (Luke  iv.  18: 
 John  X.  30)  and  "the  Sent  water,"  the  missione<l 
 One  and  the  missioned  pool,  we  say  nothing  far- 
 ther than  what  St.  Basil  said  well,  in  his  exposition 
 of  the  8th  of  Isaiah,  r/y  oi/i/  6  aTreffTaA/xeVos  Kal 
 dv(/0(J)7jTl  peciiv ;  •))  Trepl  ov  e'ipTjTat,  Kvpios  airea- 
 TaA.(C6  ^6-  Kal  -waXtv,  o\jk  iplaei  ouSh  Kpavydaet  : 
 That  "  Sent"  is  the  natural  interpretation  is  evi- 
 dent,  not  simply  from  the  word   itself,  but  froni 
 
 other  passages  where  H^^  is  used  in  connection 
 with  water,  as  Job  v.  10,  "  he  sendelh  waters  upon 
 the  fields;"  and  Ez.  xxxi.  4,  "she  sent  out  her 
 little  rivers  unto  all  the  trees  of  the  field."  The 
 Talmudists  coincide  with  the  Evangelist,  and  .say 
 that  Shiloach  was  so  called  because  it  sent  forth  its 
 waters  to  water  the  gardens  (Levi's  Lingua  &'«-• 
 cri().     We  may  add  Homer's  line:  — 
 
 'Evvfifiap  &'  £S  retxos  iet  pooi/  {It-  xii.  25). 
 A  little  way  below  the  Jewish  burying-ground, 
 but  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  valley,  where  the 
 Kedron  turns  slightly  westward,  and  widens  itself 
 considerably,  is  the  fountain  of  the  Virgin,  or 
 [fill  I'll-Deraj,  near  the  beginning  of  that  saddle- 
 shaped  projection  of  the  Temple-hill  supposed  to 
 lie  the  Ol'HKL  of  the  Bible,  and  the  Opldas  oi  Jo- 
 sephus. [En-Ko(;kl.]  At  the  back  part  of  this 
 fountain  a  subterraneous  passage  begins,  through 
 which  the  water  flows,  and  through  which  a  man 
 may  make  his  way,  as  did  Robinson  and  Barclay, 
 sometimes  walking  erect,  sometimes  stooping,  some- 
 times kneeling,  and  sometimes  crawding,  to  Siloam. 
 This  rocky  conduit,  which  twists  considerably,  but 
 keeps,  hi  general,  a  southwesterly  direction,  is,  ac- 
 cording to  Robinson,  1,750  feet  long,  while  the 
 direct  distance  between  Silwan  and  Um  ed-Deni) 
 is  only  a  little  above  1,200  feet.  In  former  days 
 this  passage  was  evidently  deeper,  as  its  bed  is  sand 
 of  some  depth,  which  has  been  accumulating  for 
 ages.  This  conduit  has  had  tributaries,  which 
 have  formerly  sent  their  waters  down  from  the  city 
 pools  or  Temple- wells  to  swell  Siloam.  Barclay 
 writes,   "  In  exploring   the  subterraneous  channel 
 
 ft  See  Wolfii  CurcB,  etc.  Or  ets  gets  its  force  from 
 lin-aye,  vi'i/fai  coming  between  the  verb  and  its  prepo- 
 sition, parenthetically,  "  Go  to  the  pool  and  wash 
 thine  eyes  there." 
 
3038  SILOAM 
 
 conveying  the  water  from  the  ^'^iro;iIl's  Fount  to 
 Siloam.  I  discovered  a  similar  channel  entering 
 from  the  north,  a  few  yards  from  its  cominence- 
 nieiit;  and  on  tracing  it  up  near  the  Mugrabiii 
 (.iate,  where  it  becanie  so  choked  with  rubbish  that 
 it  could  be  traversed  no  farther,  I  there  found  it 
 turn  to  the  west,  in  the  direction  of  the  sontli  end 
 i)f  the  cleft  or  saddle  of  Zion ;  and  if  this  channel 
 was  not  constructed  for  the  jnirpose  of  conveying 
 to  Siloam  the  surplus  waters  of  Hezekiah's  aque- 
 duct, I  am  unable  to  suggest  any  purpose  to  which 
 it  could  have  been  ajiplied  "  ( Cily  of  /he  Grent 
 Kin  I/,  p.  309).  In  another  place  he  tells  us  some- 
 thing more:  " Having  loitered  in  the  pool  [Virgin's 
 
 SILOAM 
 
 Fount]  till  the  coming  down  of  the  waters,  I  soon 
 found  sevei-al  widely  separated  places  wliere  it 
 gained  admittance,  besides  the  opening  under  the 
 steps,  where  alone  it  had  formerly  been  supposed 
 to  enter.  1  then  observed  a  large  opening  entering 
 the  rock-hewn  channel,  just  below  the  pool,  which, 
 though  once  a  copious  tributary,  is  now  dry.  Being 
 too  much  choked  with  tesserse  and  rubbish  to  be 
 penetrated  far,  I  carefully  noted  its  position  and 
 bearing,  and,  on  .searchint;  for  it  above,  soon  identi- 
 fied it  on  the  exterior,  where  it  assumed  an  upward 
 direction  towards  the  Temple,  and,  entering  through 
 a  breach,  traversed  it  for  nearly  a  thousand  feet, 
 sometimes    erect,  sometimes    bending,    sometimes 
 
 I'ool  of  Siloam,  looking  norili.     From  a  sketcli  by  Rev.  S.  C.  Malan. 
 
 inching  my  way  snake-fashion,  till  at  last  I  reached 
 a  point  near  the  wall  where  I  heard  the  donkeys 
 tripping  along  over  my  head.  I  was  satisfied,  on 
 subsequently  locating  our  course  above  ground  with 
 the  tlieodolite,  that  this  canal  derived  its  former 
 
 n  *  Lieut.  Warren"s  re.searches  have  shown  tliat 
 Dr.  Barclay  was  singularly  mistaken  in  the  statements 
 here  quoted.  The  subterrane.m  )>ass;i<re  connectej 
 with  the  aqueduct  and  pool,  which  the  latter  supposed 
 he  had  "  identitied  on  the  exterior,"'  was  ascertained 
 by  the  latter  to  be  about  40  feet  below  the  surface  of 
 the  rock.  The  passage  which  Barclay  mistook  for  this, 
 »nd  entering  from  the  exterior, ''  traversed  it  for  nearly 
 
 supply  of  water,  not  from  Moriah,  but  from  Zion  "  » 
 (6%,  p.  523). 
 
 This  conduit  enters  Siloam  at  the  northwest 
 angle;  or  rather  enters  a  small  rock-cut  chamber 
 which  forms  the  vestibule  of  Siloam,  about  five  or 
 
 a  thousand  feet,"  is,  according  to  Warren,  "  the  main 
 drain  of  the  town,  which  is  built  of  masonry,  and 
 generally  only  a  few  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  made 
 earth."  The  subterranean  pa.ssage,  moreover,  was  not, 
 as  Barclay  supposed,  a  tributary  to  the  fountain,  but 
 a  conduit  to  a  shaft,  of  which,  as  explored  by  War- 
 ren, some  account  is  given  at  the  end  of  this  article 
 (Amer.  ed.).  S.  W. 
 
SILO  AM 
 
 jix  feet  broad.  To  this  you  descend  by  a  few  rude 
 steps,  under  which  the  water  pours  itself  into  the 
 main  pool  {Narrniive  of  Mission  to  the  Jews,  vol. 
 i.  p.  207).  This  pool  is  oblong;  eighteen  paces  in 
 length  according  to  LafR  (  Viaygio  al  Santo  Sepol- 
 cro,  A.  D.  1678);  fifty  feet  according  to  Barclay; 
 and  fifty-three  according  to  Robinson.  It  is  eigh- 
 teen feet  broad,  and  nineteen  feet  deep,  according 
 to  Robinson;  but  Barclay  gives  a  more  minute 
 measurement,  "  fourteen  and  a  li.<)lf  at  the  lower 
 (eastern)  end,  and  seventeen  at  the  upper;  its 
 western  end  side  being  somewhat  bent;  it  is  eigh- 
 teen and  a  half  in  depth,  but  never  filled,  the 
 water  either  passing  directly  through,  or  being 
 maintained  at  a  depth  of  three  or  four  feet;  this 
 is  effected  by  leaving  open  or  closing  (with  a  few 
 handfuls  of  weeds  at  the  present  day,  but  formerly 
 by  a  flood-gate)  an  aperture  at  the  bottom;  at  a 
 height  of  three  or  four  feet  from  the  bottom,  its 
 dimensions  become  enlarged  a  few  feet,  and  the 
 water,  attaining  this  level,  falls  through  an  aper- 
 ture at  its  lower  end,  into  an  educt,  subterranean 
 at  first,  but  soon  appearing  in  a  deep  ditch  under 
 the  perpendicular  cliff  of  Ophel,  and  is  received 
 into  a  few  small  reservoirs  and  troughs  "  {City.  p. 
 524). 
 
 The  small  basin  at  the  west  end,  which  we  have 
 described,  is  what  some  old  travellers  call  "  the 
 fountain  of  Siloe  "  {F.  Fabri,  vol.  i.  p.  420).  "  In 
 front  of  this,"  Fabri  goes  on,  "  there  is  a  bath  sur- 
 rounded by  walls  and  buttresses,  like  a  cloister, 
 and  the  arches  of  these  buttresses  are  supported 
 by  marble  pillars,"  which  pillars  he  affirms  to  be 
 the  remains  of  a  monastery  built  above  the  pool. 
 The  present  pool  is  a  ruin,  with  no  moss  or  ivy  to 
 make  it  romantic;  its  sides  falling  in;  its  pillars 
 broken  ;  its  stair  a  fragment ;  its  walls  giving  way ; 
 the  edge  of  every  stone  worn  round  or  sharp  by 
 time ;  in  some  parts  mere  debris ,  once  Siloam, 
 now,  like  the  city  which  overhung  it,  a  heap; 
 though  around  its  edges,  -'wild  flowers,  and,  among 
 other  plants,  the  caper-tree,  grow  luxuriantly " 
 (Narrative  (f  Minsion,  vol.  i.  p.  207).  The  gray 
 crumbling  limestone  of  the  stone  (as  well  as  of  the 
 surrounding  rocks,  which  are  almost  verdureless) 
 gives  a  poor  and  worn-out  aspect  to  this  venerable 
 relic.  The  present  pool  is  not  the  original  build- 
 ing; the  work  of  crusaders  it  may  be;  perhaps 
 even  improved  by  Saladln,  whose  affection  for  wells 
 and  pools  led  him  to  care  for  all  these  things; 
 perhaps  the  work  of  later  days.  Yet  the  spot  is 
 the  same.  Above  it  rises  tlie  high  rock,  and  be- 
 yond it  the  city  wall;  while  eastward  and  south- 
 ward the  verdure  of  gardens  relieves  the  gray 
 monotony  of  the  scene,  and  beyond  these  the 
 Kedron  vale,  overshadowed  by  the  third  of  the 
 three  heights  of  Olivet,  '-the  mount  of  corruption  " 
 (1  K.  xi.  7;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  with  the  village  of 
 Silivaii  jutting  out  over  its  lower  slope,  and  look- 
 ing into  the  pool  from  which  it  takes  its  name  and 
 draws  its  water. 
 
 I'liis  pool,  \\hich  we  may  call  the  second,  seems 
 anciently  to  have  poured  its  waters  into  a  tliird, 
 selore  it  proceeded  to  water  the  royal  gardens. 
 This  third  is  perhaps  that  which  Josephus  calls 
 "Solomon's  [lool"  {fi.  ./.  v.  4,  §2),  and  which 
 Nehemiah  calls  -'the  ICing's  jiool "  (ii  14);  for 
 this  must  have  lieeii  son)ewhere  about  "  the  king's 
 garden"  (.losephus's  ^aaiKiKhs  napdSeKTOs,  Ant. 
 vii.  14,  §  4);  and  we  know  that  this  was  Ijy  '-the 
 wall  of  the  pool  of  Siloah  "  (iii.  15).  The  Anto- 
 ujne   Itinerary  speaks  of   it   in   connection  with 
 
 SILOAM 
 
 3039 
 
 Siloa,  as  "  alia  piscina  grandis  foras."  It  is  now 
 known  as  the  Birkel  el-Hainra,  and  may  be  per- 
 haps some  five  times  the  size  of  Birket  es-Silwan. 
 Barclay  speaks  of  it  merely  as  a  "  depressed  fig- 
 yard;  "  but  one  would  like  to  see  it  cleared  out. 
 Siloam  is  in  Scripture  always  called  «  ijool.     It 
 
 is  not  an  D3i^,  that  is,  a  marsh-pool  (Is.  xxxv.  7 ) ; 
 
 nor  a  n53,  a  natural  hollow  or  pit  (Is.  xxx.  14); 
 
 nor  a  mi7Q,  a  natural  gathering  of  water  (Gen. 
 
 i.  10;  Is.  xxii.  11);  nor  a  "1W2,  a  well  (Gen.  xvi. 
 
 14);  nor  a  T^2,  a  pit  (Lev.  xi.  30);  nor  an   ^")27, 
 
 a  spring  (Gen.  xvi.  7);  but  a  H^TS,  a  regularly 
 built  pool  or  tank  (2  K.  xx.  20 ;  Nell',  iii.  15 ;  Eccl. 
 ii.  6).  This  last  word  is  still  retained  in  the 
 Arabic,  as  any  traveller  or  reader  of  travels  knows. 
 \Vhile  Nehemiah  calls  it  a  -pool,  Isaiah  merely 
 speaks  of  it  as  "the  waters  of  Shiloah;  "  while  the 
 New  Testament  gives  Ko\v/u,^r]6pa,  and  .Josephus 
 T"OyV-  The  Raljliis  and  .Jewish  travellers  call  it 
 a  fountain;  in  which  they  are  sometimes  followed 
 by  the  Eiu'opean  tra\ellers  of  all  ages,  though 
 more  generally  they  give  us  piscina,  natatoria,  and 
 stagnum. 
 
 It  is  the  least  of  all  the  Jerusalem  pools ;  hardly 
 the  sixth  part  of  the  Birkel  el-Ma7itiUa  ;  hardly 
 the  tenth  of  the  Birket  es-Sultan,  or  of  the  lowest 
 of  the  three  pools  of  Solomon  at  el-Burak.  Yet 
 it  is  a  sacred  spot,  even  to  the  Moslem;  much  more 
 to  the  .lew;  for  not  only  from  it  was  the  water 
 taken  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  but  the  water 
 lor  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  (Dachs's  Taliii.  Babyl. 
 p.  380).  Jewish  tradition  makes  Gihon  and  Si- 
 loam  one  (Lightfoot,  Cent.  Chor.  in  Malt.  p.  51; 
 Schwarz,  p.  205),  as  if  Gihon  were  "the  bursting 
 
 forth "  (n'^2,  to  break  out),  and  Siloam  the  re- 
 ceptacle of  the  waters  "sent."  If  this  were  the 
 case,  it  might  be  into  Siloam,  through  one  of  the 
 many  subterranean  aqueducts  with  which  Jerusa- 
 lem abounds,  and  one  of  which  probably  went  down 
 the  Tyropoeon,  that  Hezekiah  turned  the  watei's  on 
 the  other  side  of  the  city,  when  he  "  stopped  the 
 upper  watercourse  of  Gihon,  and  brought  it  straight 
 down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David"  (2 
 Chr.  xxxii.  30). 
 
 The  rush  of  water  down  these  conduits  is  re- 
 ferred to  by  Jerome  ("  per  terrarum  concava  et 
 antra  saxi  durissimi  cum  magno  sonitu  venit,"  hi 
 Is.  viii.  G),  as  heard  in  his  day,  showing  that  the 
 water  was  more  abundant  then  than  now.  The 
 intermittent  character  of  Siloam  is  also  noticed  by 
 bim;  but  in  a  locality  perforated  by  so  many 
 aqueducts,  and  supplied  liy  so  many  larue  wells 
 and  secret  springs  (not  to  speak  of  the  disehari;e 
 of  the  great  city-baths),  this  irregulnr  How  is  easily 
 accounted  for,  both  by  the  direct  and  the  siphonio 
 action  of  the  water.  How  this  natund  intermit- 
 tency  of  Siloam  could  be  made  identical  with  the 
 miraculous  troubling  of  Bethesda  (John  v.  4)  one 
 does  not  see.  The  lack  of  water  in  the  pool  now 
 is  no  proof  that  there  was  not  the  great  abundance 
 of  which  Josephus  speaks  {B.  .J.  v.  4,  §  1):  and  as 
 to  the  "sweetness"  he  speaks  of,  like  the  ''aquse 
 dulces  "  of  Virgil  {Geory.  iv.  (il),  or  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment pn^  (Ex.  XV.  25),  which  is  used  both  in 
 reference  to  the  sweetness  of  the  Marah  waters 
 (Ex.  XV.  25),  and  of  the  "stolen  waters"  of  the 
 foolish   woman   (Prov.  ix.   17),    it   simply  means 
 
8040 
 
 SILO  AM 
 
 fresh    or    pleasant    in    opposition  to  bitter    ("IJ?: 
 
 TTlKpOs)- 
 
 The  expression  in  Isaiah,  "  waters  of  Shiloah 
 that  go  softly,"  seems  to  point  to  the  slender 
 rivulet,  flowinfj  p;e"tl.V,  though  once  very  profusely, 
 out  of  Siloam  into  the  lower  breadth  of  level,  where 
 the  king's  gardens,  or  "  royal  paradise,"  stood, 
 and  which  is  still  the  greenest  spot  about  the  Holy 
 City,  reclaimed  from  sterility  into  a  fair  oasis  of 
 olive-groves,  fig-trees,  pomegranates,  etc.,  by  the 
 tiny  rill  which  flows  out  of  Siloam.  A  winter- 
 torrent,  like  the  Kedron,  or  a  swelling  river  like 
 the  Euphrates,  carries  havoc  with  it,  by  sweeping 
 off  soil,  trees,  and  terraces;  but  this  Siloam-fed  rill 
 flows  softly,  fertilizing  and  beautifying  the  region 
 through  which  it  passes.  As  the  Euphrates  is  used 
 by  the  prophet  as  the  symbol  of  the  wasting  sweep 
 of  the  Assyrian  king,  so  Siloam  is  taken  as  the 
 
 SILOAM 
 
 type  of  the  calm  prosperity  of  Israel  under  Mes- 
 sianic rule,  when   "  the  desert  rejoices  and  blossoms 
 
 as  the  rose."  'I'he  word  softly  or  secretly  (tOS^) 
 does  not  seem  to  refer  to  the  secret  transmission 
 of  the  waters  through  the  tributary  viaducts,  but, 
 hke  Ovid's  "  molles  aquse,"  "  blandse  aquse,"  .ind 
 Catullu.s'  "  molle  flumen,"  to  the  quiet  gentleness 
 with  which  the  rivulet  steals  on  its  mission  of 
 beneficence,  through  the  gardens  of  the  king.  Thus 
 "  Siloah's  brook"  of  Milton,  and  "cool  Siloam's 
 shady  rill,"  are  not  mere  poetical  fancies.  The 
 "  fountain  "  and  the  "  pool,"  and  the  "  rill  "  of 
 Siloam,  are  all  visible  to  this  day,  eaeli  doing  its 
 old  work  beneath  the  high  rock  of  Moriah,  and 
 almost  beneath  the  shadow  of  the  'i'eniple  wall. 
 
 Ivast  of  the  Kedron,  right  opposite  the  rough 
 gray  slope  extending  between  /)eriij  and  i^Hinh). 
 above  the  kitchen-gardens  watered  by  Siloam  which 
 
 The  Village  ot  kituaii  (biloam),  and  the  lower  part  of  the  V:illey  of  the  Kedron,  showing  the  "King's  Gar- 
 deus,  '  which  are  watered  b.\  the  Pool.  The  biicki^iouiid  is  the  highlands  of  Judah.  The  view  is  from  a 
 photograph  by  James  Graham,  Esq..  taken  from  beneath  the  S.  wall  of  the  Haram. 
 
 supply  Jerusalem  with  vegetables,  is  the  village 
 which  takes  its  name  from  tlie  pool,  —  Kcjr- 
 Siliodn.  At  Dcnij  the  Kedron  is  narrow,  and  the 
 village  is  very  near  the  fountain.  Hence  it  is  to 
 it  rather  than  to  the  pool  that  the  villagers  gen- 
 erally betake  themselves  for  water.  For  as  the 
 Kedron  widens  considerably  in  its  progress  south- 
 ward, the  Kefr  is  at  some  little  distance  from  the 
 Birkeh.  This  village  is  uimientioned  in  ancient 
 times;  perhaps  it  did  not  exist.  It  is  a  wretched 
 place  for  filth  and  irregularity;  its  square  hovels 
 all  huddled  together  like  the  lairs  of  wild  beasts, 
 or  rather  like  the  tombs  and  caves  in  which  savages 
 or  demoniacs  may  Ije  supposed  to  dwell.  It  lies 
 near  the  foot  of  the  third  or  southern  height  of 
 Olivet;  and  in  all  likelihood  marks  the  spot  of  the 
 idol-shrines  which  Solomon  built  to  Chemosh,  and 
 Ashtoreth  and  Milcom.     This  was  "  the  mount  of 
 
 corruption"  (2  K.  xxiii.  13),  the  hill  that  is  before 
 (east;  before  in  Hebrew  geography  means  east) 
 Jerusalem  (1  K.  xi.  7);  and  these  ''abominations 
 of  the  Moabites,  Zidonians,  and  Ammonites"  were 
 built  on  '•  the  right  hand  of  the  mount,"  that  is, 
 the  southern  part  of  it.  This  is  the  "  opprobrious 
 hill"  of  Milton  {Par.  L.  b.  i.  40.3);  the  "  mons 
 ofi'ensionis  "  of  the  Vulgate  and  of  early  travellers; 
 the  Mo(70a0  of  the  Sept.  (see  Keil  On  Kings) ;  and 
 the  Berg  des  ^rgernisses  of  German  maps.  In 
 Kamboux'  singular  volume  of  lithographs  (Col. 
 1858)  of  Jerusalem  and  its  Holy  Places,  in  imita- 
 tion of  the  antique,  there  is  a  sketch  of  an  old 
 monolith  tomb  in  the  village  of  Silwdn,  which  few 
 travellers  have  noticed,  but  of  which  De  Saulcy  has 
 given  us  both  a  cut  and  a  description  (vol.  ii.  p. 
 215);  setting  it  down  as  a  relic  of  Jebusite  work- 
 manship.    One  would  like  to  know  more  about 
 
SILOAM,  TOWER  IN 
 
 this  village  and  about  the  pedigree  of  its  inhab- 
 itants." H.   B. 
 
 *  Tlie  rock-cut  passage  between  the  Fountain 
 of  the  Virgin  and  Siloani  was  traversed  and  care- 
 fully surveyed  by  Lieut.  Warren.  He  found  two 
 passages  leading  into  it  from  the  northwest,  the 
 largest  being  about  50  feet  from  tiie  entrance  to 
 the  pool.  It  was  filled  with  hard  mud,  the  deposit 
 of  centuries,  which  with  much  difficulty  was  dug 
 out  and  carried  through  the  passage  and  pool,  and 
 up  the  steps  to  the  outside.  At  the  end  of  17  feet 
 he  reached  a  shaft  leading  upwards  for  more  thnn 
 40  feet,  with  smooth  sides,  cut  out  of  the  solid 
 rock,  and  averaging  G  feet  in  length  and  4  in 
 width.  By  constructing  a  scaffolding  with  three 
 landings  he  mounted  to  the  top.  In  tlie  masonry 
 overhanging  it  he  found  an  iron  ring,  through  which 
 a  rope  might  have  passed,  and  from  this  he  inferred 
 that  the  shaft  was  "  the  ancient  draw-well  of 
 Ophel."  Connected  with  it,  near  the  top,  he  dis- 
 covered and  explored  extended  passages  and  cham- 
 bers cut  in  the  rock,  and  found  glass  lamps  of 
 curious  construction  and  water-vessels  of  red  pot- 
 tery, showing  that  the  place  had  "evidently  been 
 used  as  a  refuge."  The  other  passage,  40  feet  from 
 the  entrance,  extended  but  9  feet.  Lieut.  W.  also 
 excavated  4  feet  under  the  lowest  step  of  the  Vir- 
 gin's Fount,  to  ascertain  the  source  of  supply,  and 
 reached  a  hard  substance,  "  either  masonry  or 
 rock,"  but  in  that  depth  of  water  could  proceed  no 
 further.  "  The  other  point  of  entrance  of  tlie  water 
 is  a  deep  hole  in  the  middle  of  the  pool,  at  which 
 nothing  can  be  done."  Warren  is  inclined  to  the 
 belief,  contrary  to  Barclay,  that  there  is  a  con- 
 nection between  the  HniniiuXin  esh-SIiefa  and  the 
 Virgin's  Fount;  but  the  point  is  not  yet  ascer- 
 tained. S.  W. 
 
 SILO'AM,  TOWER  IN.  ('O  irlpyos  eV  r^ 
 'S.iXaioLfji,  Luke  xiii.  4.)  Of  this  we  know  nothing 
 definitely  beyond  these  words  of  the  Lord.  Of  the 
 tower  or  its  fall  no  historian  gives  us  any  account; 
 and  whether  it  was  a  tower  in  connection  with  tlie 
 pool,  or  whether  "  in  Siloani  "  refers  to  the  valley 
 near,  we  cannot  say.  There  were  fortifications  hard 
 by,  for  of  Jotliam  we  read,  "  on  the  wall  of  Ophel 
 he  built  much  "  (2  (Jhr.  xxvii.  3);  and  of  Manasseh 
 that  "  he  compassed  about  Ophel  "  {ibid,  xxxiii. 
 14);  and,  in  connection  with  Ophel,  there  is  men- 
 tion made  of  ''a  tower  that  lieth  uiU^'  (Neh.  iii. 
 2());  and  there  is  no  unlikelihood  in  connecting 
 this  projecting  tower  with  the  tower  in  Siloani, 
 while  one  may  be  almost  excused  for  the  conjecture 
 that  its  projection  was  the  cause  of  its  ultimate 
 /■-(//.  H.  B. 
 
 I 
 
 n  *  The  later  publication  of  the  Onbiance  Survey 
 of  Jtrusalem  (Loud.  1865)  enables  us  to  satisfy  in  part 
 this  curicsity.  "  Entering  Siloani  on  the  north,  there 
 is  on  the  left  a  high  cliff,  which  bears  evident  signs 
 of  having  been  worked  as  a  quarry  ;  on  the  right 
 hand  side  is  the  curious  monolith  with  tlie  heavy 
 Egyptian  cornice ;  the  exterior  of  the  cliff  is  quite 
 flat,  but  the  interior  is  sloping  like  a  tent ;  in  front 
 is  a  small  cistern.  The  present  village  of  Siloam  oc- 
 cupies the  site  of  an  old  quarry  ;  the  houses  are  often 
 made  simply  by  the  walling  up  of  the  excavation,  and 
 Bometimes  they  cling  on  the  scarped  face  of  the  rock  : 
 one  excavation  was  of  considerable  extent,  and  similar 
 in  character  to  that  near  the  Damascus  gate,  though 
 not  nearly  so  large  ;  several  pillars  were  left  to  sustain 
 the  roof.  The  stone  from  this  quarry  is  '  uialaki  ' 
 of  a  very  soft  kind  ;  higher  up,  by  the  monolith,  a 
 'uSEsal/  and  the  upper  bed  of  'malaki'  are  found. 
 
 SILVER  3041 
 
 SILVA'NUS.     [SiLA.s.] 
 
 SILVER  e^P?'  '■"■<'M)-  In  very  early  times, 
 according  to  the  Bible,  silver  was  used  for  orna- 
 ments (Gen.  xxiv.  5-3),  for  cups  (Gen.  xliv.  2),  for 
 the  sockets  of  the  pillars  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxvi. 
 19,  &c. ),  their  hoolis  and  fillets,  or  rods  (Ex.  xxvii. 
 10),  and  their  capitals  (Ex.  xxxviii.  17);  for  dishes, 
 or  chargers,  and  bowls  (Num.  vii.  13),  trumpets 
 (Num.  X.  2),  candlesticks  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  15),  tables 
 (1  Clir.  xxviii.  lU),  basins  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  17),  chains 
 (Is.  xl.  19),  the  settings  of  ornanients  (Prov.  xxv. 
 11),  studs  (Cant.  i.  11),  and  crowns  (Zech.  vi.  11). 
 Images  for  idolatrous  worship  were  made  of  silver 
 or  overlaid  with  it  (Ex.  xx.  23;  Hos.  xiii.  2;  Hab. 
 ii.  19 ;  Bar.  vi.  39  [or  Epist.  of  Jer.  39] ),  and  the 
 manufacture  of  silver  shrines  for  Diana  was  a  trade 
 in  Epliesus  (Acts  xix.  24)  [Uemktkius.]  But 
 its  chief  use  was  as  a  medium  of  exchange,  and 
 throughout  the  O.  T.  we  find  ceseph,  "  silver,"  used 
 for  money,  like  the  Fr.  argent.  To  this  general 
 usage  there  is  but  one  exception.  (See  Metai.s, 
 iii.  1910.)  Vessels  and  ornaments  of  gold  and 
 silver  were  common  in  Egypt  in  the  times  of 
 Osirtaseu  I.  and  Thothines  III.,  the  contemporaries 
 of  Joseph  and  Moses  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg.  iii.  225). 
 In  the  Homeric  poems  we  find  indications  of  the 
 constant  application  of  silver  to  purposes  of  orna- 
 ment and  luxury.  It  was  used  for  basins  {Od.  i. 
 137,  iv.  53),  goblets  (//.  xxiii.  741),  baskets  (CW. 
 iv.  125),  coffers  {II.  xviii.  413),  sword-hilts  {II.  i. 
 219;  0</.  viii.  404),  door-handles  {Od.  i.  442),  and 
 clasps  for  the  greaves  {11.  iii.  331).  Door-posts 
 {Od.  vii.  89)  and  lintels  {Od.  vii.  90)  glittered  with 
 silver  ornaments:  baths  {Od.  iv.  128),  tables  {Od. 
 X.  355),  bows  {il.  i.  49,  xxiv.  605),  scabbards  (//. 
 xi.  31),  sword-belts  (//.  xviii.  598),  belts  for  the 
 shield  (//.  xviii.  480),  clKiriot- poles  (//.  v.  729)  and 
 the  naves  of  wheels  {11.  v.  729)  were  adorned  with 
 silver;  women  braided  their  hair  with  silver -thread 
 {II.  xvii.  52),  and  cords  appear  to  have  been  made 
 of  it  {Od.  X.  24);  while  we  constantly  find  that 
 swords  {11.  ii.  45,  xxiii.  807)  and  sword-belts  {II. 
 xi.  237),  thrones,  or  chairs  of  state  {Od.  viii.  65), 
 and  bedsteads  {Od.  xxiii.  200)  were  studded  with 
 silver.  Thetis  of  the  silver  feet  was  probably  so 
 called  from  the  sih'er  ornanients  on  her  sandals 
 (//.  i.  538).  The  practice  of  overlaying  silver  with 
 gold,  referred  to  in  Homer  {Od.  vi.  232,  xxiii.  159), 
 is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Bilile,  though  inferior 
 materials  were  covered  with  silver  (Frov.  xxvi.  23). 
 
 Silver  was  brought  to  Solomon  from  Arabia 
 (2  Chr.  ix.  14)  and  from  Tarshish  (2  Chr.  ix.  21), 
 which  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii.  12). 
 From  Tarsliish  it  came  in  the  form  of  plates  (.Jer. 
 
 A  large  portion  of  the  quarrying  at  Siloam  h.as  been 
 in  the  'missal'  beds,  and  throughout  tlie  village  the 
 deep  vertical  cuts  made  by  the  quarrymen  may  be 
 seen  exactly  corresponding  to  those  found  in  all  the 
 quarries  ;  steps  cut  in  the  rock  lead  to  different  parts 
 of  the  village  ;  first  made  for  the  convenience  of  the 
 workmen,  they  have  now  been  made  to  serve  as  streets. 
 There  are  a  few  tombs  in  the  village,  but  not  as  many 
 as  has  generally  been  supposed.  The  state  of  tlie 
 houses  and  streets  was  worse  than  anything  seen  about 
 Jerusalem,  and  they  were  swarming  with  vermin  ;  still 
 the  village  is  highly  interesting,  and  deserves  more 
 notice  from  travellers  than  has  generally  been  be- 
 stowed upon  it  "  (p.  64  f.). 
 
 For  some  very  recent  discoveries  which  seem  to 
 connect  Siloam  with  Zoheletb  see  in  the  latter  name 
 (Amer.  ed.).  H. 
 
30  i2 
 
 SILVERLINGS 
 
 X.  9),  like  those  on  which  the  sacred  books  of  the 
 Singhalese  are  written  to  this  day  (Tenneiit's  Cey- 
 lon, ii.  102).  The  silver  bowl  given  as  a  prize  by 
 Achilles  was  the  work  of  Sidonian  artists  (//.  xxiii. 
 743;  comp.  Oil  iv.  618).  In  Homer  {11.  ii.  857), 
 Alybe  is  called  the  birthplace  of  silver,  and  was 
 probably  celebrated  for  its  mines.  But  Spain  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  the  chief  source  whence  silver 
 was  obtained  by  the  ancients.  [Mines,  iii.  1039  A.] 
 Possibly  the  hills  of  Palestine  may  have  afforded 
 some  supply  of  this  metal.  "  When  Volney  was 
 aninng  the  Druses,  it  was  mentioned  to  him  that 
 an  ore  affording  silver  and  lead  had  been  discovered 
 on  the  declivity  of  a  hill  in  Lebanon  '"  (Kitto,  Pliys. 
 Hist,  of  Palestine,  p.  73). 
 
 For  an  account  of  the  knowledge  of  obtaining 
 and  refining  silver  possessed  by  the  ancient  He- 
 brews, see  the  articles  Lead  and  Mixes.  The 
 whole  operation  of  mining  is  vividly  depicted  in 
 Job  xxviii.  1-11  ;  and  the  process  of  purifyincr 
 metals  is  frequently  alluded  to  (Ps.  xii.  6;  Prov 
 XXV.  4),  while  it  is  described  with  some  minuteness 
 in  Ez.  xxii.  20-22.  Silver  mixed  w'itli  alloy  is  re- 
 ferred to  in  Jer.  vi.  30,  and  a  finer  kind,  either 
 purer  in  itself,  or  more  thoroughly  purified,  is  men- 
 tioned in  Prov.  viii.  19.  W.  A.    \Y. 
 
 SILVERLINGS  (^D3  :  aiKKos:  argmteus, 
 slclus  understood),  a  word  used  once  only  in  the 
 A.  V.  (Is.  vii.  23),  as  a  translation  of  the  He- 
 brew word  cesep/i,  elsewhere  rendered  "  silver  "  or 
 "money."     [Piece  of  Silvek.]  K.  S.  P. 
 
 SIMALCU'E  ([Rom.]  El^a\Koval  ;  [Sin. 
 l/j-aKKOve  ;  .A.lex.]  'S.iVfxaXKovi]  ;  [Comp.  2i/uaA- 
 Koue':]  Einalchutl,  Maldnn:  KaXxos,  Joseph.), 
 an  Arabian  chief  who  had  charge  of  Antiochns,  the 
 young  son  of  Alexander  Balas,  before  he  was  put 
 forward  by  Tryphon  as  a  claimant  to  the  Syrian 
 throne  (1  Mace.  xi.  39).  [Antiochus  VI.,  vol. 
 i.  p.  117.]  According  to  Diodorus  [Ecloy.  xxxii.  1) 
 the  name  of  the  chief  was  Diodes,  though  in  an- 
 other place  (Frciff.  xxi.  Mliller)  he  calls  him  Jam- 
 lilielnis.  The  name  evidently  contains  the  elemetit 
 J/(/t7.-,  "  king,"  but  the  original  form  is  uncertain 
 (comp.  Grotius  and  Grimm  on  1  ]Macc.  I.  c). 
 
 BxF.  W. 
 
 SIM'EON  {']^'^2'aW  [a  hearing,  listening]: 
 liV/xedy;  [in  1  Chr.  iv.  24,  Rom.  'Zefiedii'  (mis- 
 print? Vat.  Alex,  here  as  elsewhere  'Xvjj.eaiv) :'] 
 Simeon).  The  second  of  Jacob's  sons  by  Leali. 
 1 1  is  liirth  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xxix.  33,  and  in  the 
 explanation  there  given  of  the  name,  it  is  derived 
 from  the  root  sliaimC,  to  hear" —  "  '  Jehovah  hath 
 heard  (slidnui')  that  I  was  hated.'  ....  and  she 
 called  his  name  Shime'on."  *  This  metaphor  is 
 not  carried  on  (as  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  other 
 names)  in  Jacob's  Blessing;  and  in  that  of  Moses 
 all  mention  of  Simeon  is  omitted. 
 
 The  first  group  of  Jacob's  children  consists,  be- 
 sides Simeon,  of  the  three  other  sons  of  Leah  — 
 Reuben,  Levi,  Judah.  With  each  of  these  Simeon 
 is  mentioned  in  some  connection.  "  As  Reuben 
 and  Simeon  are  mine,"  says  Jacob,  "  so  shall  Jo- 
 
 a  I'iirst  (Hamlwb.  ii.472)  inclines  to  the  iuterpreta- 
 tion  "  famous  "  {riihmreicher).  Redslob  (Atttest.  Na- 
 mtn,  93),  on   the   other   hand,  adoptiug   the   Arabic 
 
 root 
 
 bondage  "  or  "bondmen." 
 
 considers  the  name   to  mean  "  sons  of 
 
 SIMEON 
 
 seph's  sons  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  be  mine"  (Gen. 
 xlviii.  5).  With  Levi,  Simeon  was  associated  in 
 the  ma.ssacre  of  the  Shechemites  (xxxiv.  25)  —  a 
 deed  which  drew  on  them  tlie  i-emonstrance  of  their 
 father  (ver.  30),  and  perhaps '^  also  his  dying  curse 
 (xlix.  5-7).  With  Judah  the  connection  was  drawn 
 still  closer.  He  and  Simeon  not  only  "  went  up  " 
 together,  side  by  side,  in  the  forefront  of  the  nation, 
 to  the  conquest  of  the  south  of  the  Holy  Land 
 (Judg.  i.  3,  17),  l)ut  their  allotments  lay  together 
 in  a  more  special  manner  than  those  of  the  other 
 tribes,  something  in  the  same  manner  as  Benjamin 
 and  Ephraim.  Besides  the  massacre  of  Shechem 
 —  a  deed  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the  standards  of 
 a  more  civilized  and  le.ss  violent  age,  and,  when 
 fairly  e.stimated,  not  altogether  discreditable  to  its 
 perpetrators  —  the  only  [lersonal  incident  related 
 of  Simeon  is  the  fact  of  his  being  .selected  by  Jo- 
 seph, without  any  reason  given  or  implied,  as  the 
 hostage  for  the  appearance  of  Benjamin  (Gen.  xlii. 
 19,  24.  30;  xliii.  23). 
 
 These  slight  traits  are  characteristically  amplified 
 in  the  Jewish  traditions.  In  the  Targum  Pseudo- 
 jonathan  it  is  Simeon  and  Levi  who  are  the  ene- 
 mies of  the  lad  Joseph.  It  is  they  who  counsel  his 
 being  killed,  and  Simeon  binds  him  before  he  is 
 lowered  into  the  well  at  Dothan.  (See  further 
 details  in  Fabricus,  Coil.  Pseud,  i.  535.)  Hence 
 Joseph's  selection  of  him  as  the  hostage,  his  bind- 
 ing and  incarceration.  In  the  Midrash  the  strength 
 of  Simeon  is  so  prodigious  that  the  Egyptians  are 
 unable  to  cope  with  him,  and  his  binding  is  only 
 accomplished  at  length  by  the  intervention  of  Ma- 
 nasseh, who  acts  as  the  house-steward  and  inter- 
 ])reter  of  Joseph.  His  powers  are  so  great  that  at 
 the  mere  roar  of  his  voice  70  valiant  I'^gyptians  fall 
 at  his  feet  and  break  their  teeth  (Weil,  Bib.  Leg. 
 88).  In  the  "  Testament  of  Simeon  "  his  fierce- 
 ness and  implacability  are  put  prominently  forward, 
 and  he  dies  warning  his  children  against  the  indul- 
 gence of  such  passions  (Fabricius,  Cod.  Pseudep.  i. 
 533-543). 
 
 The  chief  families  of  the  tribe  are  mentioned  in 
 the  lists  of  Gen.  xlvi.  (10),  in  which  one  of  them, 
 bearing  the  name  of  Shaul  (Saul),  is  specified  as 
 "the  son  of  the  Canaanitess  " — Num.  xxvi.  (12- 
 14),  and  1  Chr.  iv.  (24-43).  In  the  latter  passage 
 (ver.  27)  it  is  mentioned  that  the  family  of  one  of 
 the  heads  of  the  tribe  "  had  not  many  children, 
 neither  did  they  multiply  like  to  the  children  of 
 Judah."  This  appears  to  have  been  the  case  not 
 only  with  one  family  but  with  the  whole  tribe.  At 
 the  census  at  Sinai  Simeon  numbered  59,300  fight- 
 ing men  (Num.  i.  23).  It  was  then  the  most  nu- 
 merous but  two,  .ludah  and  Dan  alone  exceeding 
 it;  but  when  the  second  census  was  taken,  at  Shit- 
 tini,  the  numbers  had  fallen  to  22,200,  and  it  was 
 the  weakest  of  all  the  tribes.  This  was  no  doubt 
 partly  due  to  the  recent  mortality  following  the 
 idolatry  of  Peor,  in  which  the  tribe  of  Simeon  ap- 
 pears to  have  taken  a  prominent  share,  but  there 
 must  ha\e  been  other  causes  which  have  escaped 
 mention. 
 
 The  coimection   between   Simeon  and   Levi  im- 
 
 b  The  name  is  given  in  this  its  more  correct  form 
 in  the  A.  V.  in  connection  with  a  later  Israelite  in 
 Ezr.  X.  31. 
 
 c  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Jacob's  words  al- 
 lude to  the  transaction  at  Shechem.  They  appear 
 rather  to  refer  to  some  other  act  of  the  brothers  which 
 has  escaped  direct  record. 
 
SIMEON 
 
 {Med  in  the  lilessinc;  of  Jacol>  ((Jen.  xlix.  5-7',  has 
 been  ah-eady  ailvtTteil  to.  The  passage  relating  to 
 lliem  is  thus  rendered  :  — 
 
 Shimeon  and  Levi  are  brethren," 
 
 Instruments  of  violence  are  their  machinations  (or 
 
 their''  swords). 
 Into  their  secret  council  come  not  my  soul  1 
 Unto  their  assembly  join  not  mine  honor  1 
 For  in  their  wrath  they  slew  a  man, 
 And  iu  their  self-will  tliey  houglied  an  <•'  ox. 
 Cursed  be  their  wrath,  for  it  is  fierce, 
 And  their  anger,  for  it  is  cruel ! 
 
 I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob, 
 
 And  scatter  them  in  Israel. 
 
 Tlie  terms  of  this  denunciation  seem  to  imply  a 
 closer  bond  of  union  between  Simeon  and  Levi, 
 and  more  violent  and  continued  exploits  performed 
 under  that  bond,  than  now  remain  on  record.  The 
 expressions  of  the  closing  hnes  also  seem  to  necessi- 
 tate a  more  advanced  condition  of  the  nation  of 
 Israel  than  it  coidd  have  attained  at  the  time  of 
 the  death  of  the  father  of  the  individual  patriarchs. 
 Taking  it  however  to  be  what  it  purports,  an  actual 
 prediction  by  the  individual  Jacob  (and,  in  the 
 present  state  of  our  knowledge,  however  doubtful 
 this  may  be,  no  other  conclusion  can  be  safely  ar- 
 rived at),  it  has  been  often  pointed  out  how  differ- 
 ently the  same  sentence  was  accomplished  in  the 
 cases  of  the  two  tribes.  Both  were  "  divided  " 
 and  •' scattered."  But  how  differently  !  The  dis- 
 persion of  the  Levites  arose  from  their  holding  the 
 post  of  honor  in  the  nation,  and  being  spread,  for 
 the  purposes  of  education  and  worship,  broadcast 
 over  the  face  of  the  country.  In  the  case  of  Sim- 
 eon the  dispersion  seems  to  have  arisen  from  some 
 corrupting  element  in  the  tribe  itself,  which  first 
 reduced  its  numbers,  and  at  last  drove  it  from  its 
 allotted  seat  in  the  coiuitry  —  not,  as  Dan,  because 
 it  could  not,  but  because  it  would  not  stay  —  and 
 thus  in  the  end  caused  it  to  dwindle  and  disappear 
 entirely. 
 
 The  non-appearance  of  Simeon's  name  in  the 
 Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  G  ^)  may  be  ex- 
 plained in  two  ways.  On  the  assumption  that  the 
 Blessing  was  actually  pronounced  in  its  present 
 form  by  Mcses,  the  omission  may  be  due  to  his 
 displeasure  at  the  misbehavior  of  the  tribe  at  Shit- 
 tim.  On  the  assumption  that  the  Blessinf;,  or 
 this  portion  of  it,  is  a  composition  of  later  date, 
 then  it  may  be  due  to  the  fact  of  the  tribe  having 
 by  that  time  vanished  from  the  Holy  Land.  The 
 latter  of  these  is  the  explanation  conunonly  adopted. 
 
 Durinir  the  journey  through  the  wilderness  Sim- 
 eon was  a  member  of  the  camp  which    marched  on 
 
 SIMEON 
 
 3043 
 
 the  ScUth  side  of  the  Sacred  Tent.  His  associates 
 were  KeuVien  and  Gad  —  not  his  whole  brothers, 
 but  the  sons  of  Ziipah,  Leah's  maid.  The  head  of 
 the  tribe  at  the  time  of  the  I'.xodus,  was  Shelumi*'!, 
 son  of  Zurishaddai  (Num.  i.  6),  ancestor  of  its 
 one  heroine,  the  intrepid  .ludith.  [SaIjAsadai.] 
 Among  the  .spies  Simeon  was  represented  by  Sha- 
 pliat  son  of  Hori,  i.  e.  Horite,  a  name  which  per- 
 haps, like  the  "  Canaanitess  "  of  the  earlier  list, 
 re\eals  a  trace  of  the  lax  tendencies  which  made 
 the  Simeonites  an  easy  prey  to  the  licentious  rites 
 of  Peor,  and  ultimately  destroyed  the  iiernianence 
 of  the  tribe.  At  the  division  of  the  land  his  rep- 
 resentative was  Shenniel,''  son  of  Ammihud. 
 
 The  connection  between  Judab  and  Simeon  al- 
 ready mentioned  seems  to  have  begun  with  the 
 Conquest.  Judah  and  the  two  Joseph-brethren 
 were  first  served  with  the  lion's  share  of  the  land; 
 and  then,  the  Canaanites  having  been  sufficiently 
 subdued  to  allow  the  Sacred  Tent  to  be  established 
 without  risk  in  the  heart  of  the  country,  the  work 
 of  dividing  the  remainder  amongst  the  seven  in- 
 ferior tribes  was  proceeded  with  (.losh.  xviii.  l-fi). 
 Benjamin  had  the  first  turn,  then  Simeon  (xix.  1 ). 
 By  this  time  Judah  had  discovered  that  the  tract 
 allotted  to  him  was  too  large  (xix.  0),  and  also  t  o 
 much  exposed  on  the  west  and  south  for  even  liis 
 great  powers/  'i'o  Simeon  accordingly  was  allotti'd 
 a  district  out  of  the  territory  of  his  kinsman,  on 
 its  southern  frontier,^/  vidiich  contained  eighteen  <>r 
 nineteen  cities,  with  their  villages,  spread  round 
 the  venerable  well  of  Beer-sheba  (Josh.  xix.  1-8; 
 1  Chr.  iv.  '28-:3;3).  Of  these  places,  with  the  help 
 of  Judah,  the  Simeonites  possessed  themselves 
 (Judg  i.  3,  17);  and  here  they  were  found,  doubt- 
 less by  Joal),  residing  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr. 
 iv.  31).  During  his  wandering  life  David  must 
 have  been  much  amongst  the  Simeonites.  In  fact 
 three  of  their  cities  are  named  in  the  list  of  tho.se 
 to  which  he  sent  presents  of  the  spoil  of  the  Ama- 
 lekites,  and  one  (Ziklag)  was  his  own  private '' 
 property.  It  is  therefore  remarkable  that  the  num- 
 bers of  Simeon  and  Judah  who  attended  his  in- 
 stallation as  king  at  Helu-on  should  have  been  so 
 much  below  those  of  the  other  tribes  (1  Chr.  xii. 
 23-37).  Possibly  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
 event  was  taking  place  in  the  heart  of  their  own 
 territory,  at  Hebron.  This,  however,  will  not  ac- 
 count for  the  curious  fact  that  the  warriors  of 
 Simeon  (7,100)  were  more*  numerous  than  those 
 of  Judah  ((i,800).  After  David's  removal  to  Jeru- 
 salem, the  head  of  the  tribe  was  Shephatiah  son  of 
 Maachah  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 
 
 What  part  Simeon  took  at  the  time  of  the  divis- 
 
 «  The  word  is  CPIS,  meaning  "brothers  "  in  the 
 fullest,  strictest  sense.  In  the  Targ.  Pseudojon.  it  is 
 rendered  nrliin  lelamiii,  "  brothers  of  the  womb." 
 
 b  Identified  by  some  (Jerome,  Talmud,  etc.)  with 
 the  Greel<  fxaxaipa.  The  "habitations"  of  the  A.  V. 
 is  lerived  from  Kimchi,  but  is  not  countenanced  by 
 later  scholars. 
 
 c  A.  V.  "  digged  down  a  wall ;  "  following  Onkelos, 
 
 who  reads   '~{!\W  =  "l^tO,  "  a  town,  a  wall." 
 
 rf  The  Alexandrine  MS.  of  the  LXX.  adds  Simeon's 
 name  in  this  passage  —  "  Let  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
 and  let  Simeon  be  few  in  number."  In  so  doing  it 
 differs  not  only  from  the  Vatican  MS.  but  also  from 
 the  Hebrew  text,  to  which  this  MS.  usurilly  adheres 
 more  closely  than  the  Vatican  does.  The  insertion  is 
 adopted  in  the  Compluteusian  and  Aldine  editions  of 
 the  LXX  but  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  othar 
 rersioHE 
 
 e  It  is  a  curious  coincidence,  though  of  cour.se 
 nothing  more,  that  the  scanty  records  of  Simeon 
 should  disclose  two  names  so  illustrious  in  Israelite 
 history  as  Saul  and  Samuel. 
 
 /  This  is  a  different  account  to  that  supplied  in 
 Judg.  i.  The  two  are  entirely  distinct  documents. 
 That  of  Judges,  from  its  fragmentary  and  abrupt 
 character,  has  the  appearance  of  being  the  more  an 
 cient  of  the  two. 
 
 a  "  The  parts  of  Idumsea  which  border  on  Arabia 
 and  Egypt  "  (Jo.^eph.  Ant.  v.  1,  §  22). 
 
 h  It  had  been  first  taken  from  Simeon  by  the  Philis- 
 tines (1  Sam.  xxvii.  6),  if  indeed  he  ever  got  possession 
 of  it. 
 
 i  Possibly  because  the  Simeonites  were  warriors 
 and  nothing  else,  instead  of  husbandmen,  etc  ,  like 
 the  men  of  Judah. 
 
3044 
 
 SIMEON 
 
 ion  of  the  kingdom  we  are  not  told.  The  tribe 
 wns  probably  not  in  a  sufficiently  strong  or  com- 
 pact condition  to  have  shown  any  northern  tenden- 
 cies, even  had  it  entertained  them.  The  only  thing 
 wliicli  can  be  interpreted  into  a  trace  of  its  having 
 taken  any  part  with  the  northern  kingdom  are  the 
 two  casual  notices  of  2  Chr.  xv.  9  and  xxxiv.  G, 
 wliich  appear  to  imply  the  presence  of  Simeonites 
 tliere  in  the  reigns  of  Asa  and  Josiah.  But  this 
 may  have  been  merely  a  manifestation  of  that 
 vagrant  spirit  which  was  a  cause  or  a  consequence 
 of  the  prediction  ascribed  to  Jacob.  And  on  the 
 otlier  liand  the  definite  statement  of  ]  Chr.  iv.  41- 
 4o  (the  date  of  which  by  Hezekiali's  reign  seems 
 to  show  conclusively  its  southern  origin)  proves 
 tliat  at  that  time  there  were  still  some  of  them  re- 
 maining in  the  original  seat  of  the  tribe,  and  ac- 
 tuated by  all  the  warlike  lawless  spirit  of  their 
 progenitor.  This  fragment  of  ancient  chronicle 
 relates  two  expeditions  in  search  of  more  eligible 
 territory.  The  first,  under  thirteen  chieftains, 
 leading  doubtless  a  large  body  of  followers,  was 
 made  against  the  Haniitos  and  the  Slehunim,"  a 
 powerful  tribe  of  Bedouins,  "at  the  entrance  of 
 Gedor  at  the  east  side  of  the  ravine."  Tlie  second 
 was  smaller,  Ijut  more  adventurous.  Under  the 
 guidance  of  four  chiefs  a  band  of  500  undertook  an 
 expedition  against  the  remnant  of  Amalek,  wlio 
 had  taken  refuge  from  the  attacks  of  Saul  or  Da- 
 vid, or  some  later  pursuers,  in  the  distant  fast- 
 nesses of  Mount  Seir.  The  expedition  was  suc- 
 cessful. They  smote  the  Anialekites  and  took 
 possession  of  their  quarters;  and  they  were  still 
 living  tliere  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from 
 Captivity,  or  whenever  tlie  First  Book  of  Chroni- 
 cles was  edited  in  its  present  form. 
 
 The  audacity  and  intrepidity  wliich  seem  to 
 have  characterized  tlie  founder  of  tlie  tribe  of 
 Simeon  are  seen  in  their  fullest  force  in  the  la.st  of 
 his  descendants  of  whom  there  is  any  express  men- 
 tion in  the  Sacred  liecord.  Whether  the  liook 
 which  bears  her  name  be  a  history  or  a  historic 
 romance,  Judith  will  always  remain  one  of  the 
 most  prominent  figures  among  the  deliverers  of  her 
 nation.  Betliulia  would  almost  seem  to  have  been 
 a  Simeonite  coloiij',  Ozias,  the  chief  man  of  the 
 city,  was  a  Simeonite  (Jud.  vi.  15),  and  so  was 
 Manasses  the  husband  of  Judith  (viii.  2).  She 
 herself  had  the  purest  blood  of  the  tribe  in .  her 
 vei^s.  Her  genealogy  is  traced  up  to  Zurishad- 
 dai  (in  the  Greek  form  of  the  present  text  Salasa- 
 dai,  viii.  1),  the  head  of  the  Simeonites  at  the  time 
 of  their  greatest  power.  She  nerves  herself  for  her 
 tremendous  exploit  by  a  prayer  to  "  tlie  Lord  God 
 of  her  father  Simeon  "  and  by  recalling  in  the 
 most  characteristic  manner  and  in  all  their  details 
 the  incidents  of  the  massacre  of  Shechem  (ix.  2). 
 
 Simeon  is  named  i)y  Ezekiel  (xlviii.  25)  and  the 
 author  of  the  Book  of  the  Revelation  (vii.  7)  in  their 
 catalogues  of  the  restoration  of  Israel.  The  former 
 removes  the  tribe  from  Judah  and  places  it  by  the 
 side  of  Benjamin. 
 
 2.  (2u/x6ajy:  Simeon.)  A  priest  of  the  family 
 ofJoarih  —  or  in  its  full  form  Jeihiiarib  —  one 
 of  the  ancestors  of  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  ii.  1). 
 
 3.  Son  of  Juda  and  father  of  Levi  in  the  gene- 
 alogy of  our  Lord  (Lulie  iii.  30).  The  Vat.  MS. 
 gives  the  name  'S.ifj.^dsv.     [This  is  an  error.  —  A.] 
 
 4.  \_Siiiwn.'\    That  is,   Simon  Peter   (Acts  xv. 
 
 a  A    V.  "  habitations."     See  Mehunim. 
 
 SIMEON   NIGER 
 
 14 ,.  The  use  of  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  name  in 
 this  place  is  very  characteristic  of  the  speaker  in 
 whose  mouth  it  occurs.  It  is  found  once  again 
 (2  I'et.  i.  1 ),  though  here  there  is  not  the  same 
 unanimity  in  the  MSS.  Lachmann,  with  B,  here 
 adopts  "  Simon."  G. 
 
 5.  [<Sj/;;eow.]  A  devout  Jew  in.spired  by  the 
 Holy  Ghost,  who  met  tlie  parents  of  our  Lord  in 
 the  Temple,  took  Him  in  his  arms,  and  gave  thanks 
 for  what  he  saw  and  knew  of  Jesus  (Luke  ii.  2.5- 
 35).  In  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  Sim- 
 eon is  called  a  high-priest,  and  the  narrative  of  our 
 Lord's  descent  into  Hell  is  put  into  the  mouths  of 
 Charinus  and  Lenthius,  wlio  are  described  as  two 
 sons  of  Simeon,  who  rose  from  the  grave  after 
 Christ's  resurrection  (Matt,  xxvii.  53)  and  related 
 their  story  to  Annas,  Caiaphas,  Nicodemus,  Joseph, 
 and  Gamaliel. 
 
 Rabbau  Simeon,  whose  grandmother  was  of  the 
 family  of  David,  succeeded  his  father  Hillel  as  pres- 
 ident of  the  Sanhedrim  about  A.  d.  13  (Otho, 
 Lexicon  Rabb.  p.  697),  and  his  son  Gamaliel  was 
 the  Pharisee  at  whose  feet  St.  Paul  was  brought  up 
 (.Vets  xxii.  3).  A  Jewish  writer  specially  notes 
 that  no  record  of  this  Simeon  is  preserved  in  the 
 Jlishiia  (IJghtfoot,  Hone  Ileb.  Luke  ii.  25).  It 
 h.as  been  conjectured  that  he  (Prideanx,  Connection^ 
 anno  37,  Michaelis)  or  his  grandson  (Schottgeii, 
 Florce  Heb.  Luke  ii.  25;  of  the  same  name,  may 
 be  the  Simeon  of  St.  Luke.  In  favor  of  the  iden- 
 tity it  is  alleged  that  the  name,  residence,  time  of 
 life,  and  general  character  are  the  same  in  both 
 cases;  that  the  remarkable  silence  of  the  Mishna, 
 and  tlie  counsel  given  by  (Gamaliel  (Acts  v.  38), 
 countenance  a  suspicion  of  an  inchiiation  on  the 
 part  of  the  family  of  the  Raliban  towards  Christian- 
 ity. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  argued  that  these 
 facts  fall  far  short  of  historical  proof;  and  that 
 Simeon  was  a  very  common  name  among  the  Jews, 
 that  St.  Luke  would  never  have  introduced  so  cel- 
 ebrated a  character  as  the  President  of  the  Sanhe- 
 drim merely  as  "a  man  in  Jerusalem,"  and  that 
 his  son  Gamaliel,  after  all,  was  educated  as  a  Phar- 
 isee. Tiie  question  is  discussed  in  Witsius,  Mis- 
 cellnnen  <SV(c»y(,  i.  21,  §§  14-16.  See  also  A\^olf,  Cu- 
 rce  Philoloyicm,  Luke  ii.  25,  and  Bihl.  Jlebr.  ii. 
 682.  W.  T.  B. 
 
 *  It  is  customary  to  speak  of  Simeon  (Suyueoii') 
 as  aged ;  he  may  have  been  so,  though  the  proof 
 of  this  is  by  no  means  so  explicit  (Luke  ii.  25,  29) 
 as  in  tlie  case  of  Zacharias  (Luke  i.  18)  and  of 
 Anna  the  proplietess  (ii.  36).  Simeon's  language, 
 "  Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace  " 
 {vvu  kiroXveis  rbv  dovXdv  aov),  is  simply  declara- 
 tive, .and  not  a  prayer  as  some  mistake  it  to  be. 
 The  words  which  the  Spirit  prompted  Simeon  to 
 utter,  as  he  blessed  the  child  Jesus  and  the  par- 
 ents, are  remarkable  for  the  breadth  of  Messianic 
 view  which  they  disclose.  In  his  announcement 
 of  the  universality  of  Christ's  mission  as  destined 
 to  bless  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  he  seems  to  have 
 gone  forward  as  by  a  single  step  to  the  full  teach- 
 ing of  the  apostolic  period  (ii.  31,  32).  There  is  a 
 noticeable  difference  between  his  degree  of  illumi- 
 nation and  that  apparent  in  the  songs  of  Elizabeth, 
 Mary,  and  Zacharias.  It  has  l)een  justly  remarked 
 tliat  they  evince  a  rhetorical  and  psychological 
 diversity  which  stamps  as  authentic  this  prelim- 
 inary history  of  Christ  in  which  they  are  found. 
 Luke  only  records  these  discourses.  H. 
 
 SIM'EON  NI'GER.    Acts  xiii.  1.  [NiGicit.] 
 
SIMON 
 
 SIMMON.  [SijuoJv:  Simon.]  A  name  of  fre- 
 quent occiirii  .ice  in  Jewish  history  in  the  post- 
 liabylonian  [:eriocl.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  was 
 borrowed  from  tiie  Greeks,  with  whom  it  was  not 
 uncommon,  or  whether  it  was  a  contraction  of  the 
 Hebrew  Shiuieon.  That  the  two  names  were  re- 
 garded as  identical  appears  from  1  Mace.  ii.  65. 
 Perhaps  the  Hebrew  name  was  thus  slightly  altered 
 in  order  to  render  it  identical  with  the  Greek. 
 
 1.  Son  of  Mattathias.  [Macc.vukes,  §  4,  vol. 
 ii.  p.  1711.] 
 
 2.  Son  of  Onias  the  high-priest  (lepeu?  6  ue- 
 yos),  whose  eulogy  closes  the  "  praise  of  famous 
 men  "  in  the  book  of  Kcclesiasticus  (ch.  1.).  [Ec- 
 CLEsiASTiCUS,  vol.  i.  p.  651.]  Fritzsche,  whose 
 edition  of  Kcclesiasticus  {Exey.  Handb.)  has  ap- 
 peared (1860)  since  the  article  referred  to  was  writ- 
 ten, maintains  the  common  view  that  the  reference 
 is  to  Simon  H.,  but  without  bringing  forward  any 
 new  arguments  to  support  it,  thougli  he  strangeiy 
 underrates  the  importance  of  Simon  I.  (the  .Just). 
 Without  laying  undue  stress  upon  the  traditions 
 which  attached  to  this  name  (Herzfeld,  Gesch.  Jsr. 
 i.  195),  it  is  evident  that  Simon  the  .Just  was  pop- 
 ularly regarded  as  closing  a  period  iu  .Jewish  his- 
 tory, as  the  last  teacher  of  "the  Great  Synagogue." 
 Yet  there  is  in  fact  a  doubt  to  which  Simon  the 
 title  "the  Just"  was  given.  Herzfeld  (i.  377, 
 378)  has  endeavored  to  prove  that  it  belongs  to  Si- 
 mon H.,  and  not  to  Simon  I.,  and  in  this  he  is  fol- 
 lowed by  Jost  (Gesch.  d.  .ludenth.  i.  95).  The  later 
 Hebrew  authorities,  liy  whose  help  the  question 
 should  be  settled,  are  extremely  unsatisfactory  and 
 confused  (Jost,  110,  &c.);  and  it  appears  better  to 
 adhere  to  the  express  testimony  of  .loseplius,  who 
 identifies  Simon  I.  with  Simon  the  Just  (Ant.  xii. 
 2,  §  4,  &c.),  than  to  follow  the  Talmndic  traditions, 
 wliich  are  notoriously  untrustworthy  in  chronology. 
 The  legends  are  connected  with  the  title,  and  Herz- 
 feld and  Jost  both  agree  in  supposing  that  the  ref- 
 erence in  Kcclesiasticus  is  to  Simon  known  as  "  the 
 Just,"  though  they  believe  this  to  lie  Simon  H. 
 (compare,  for  the  Jewish  anecdotes,  liaphall's  Hist. 
 of  .Jeics,  i.  115-124;   Prideaux,  Comieclidn^  ii.  1). 
 
 3.  "  A  governor  of  the  Temple  "  in  the  time  of 
 Seleucus  Philopator,  whose  information  as  to  the 
 treasures  of  tiie  Temple  led  to  the  sacrilegious 
 attempt  of  Heliodorus  (2  iMacc.  iii.  4,  &c.).  After 
 this  attempt  failed,  through  the  interference  of  the 
 higii-priest  Onias,  Simon  accused  Onins  of  conspir- 
 acy (iv.  1,  2),  and  a  bloody  feud  arose  between  their 
 two  parties  (iv.  3).  Onias  appealed  to  the  king,  but 
 nothing  is  known  as  to  the  result  or  the  later  his- 
 tory of  Simon.  Considerable  doubt  exists  as  to  the 
 exact  nature  of  the  office  which  he  held  (Trpoo-Tarrjs 
 Tov  lepov,  2  Mace.  iii.  4).  Various  interpretations 
 are  given  by  (Jrimm  (Exey.  Hnndb.  ad  loc. ).  The 
 chief  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that  Simon  is  said  to 
 have  been  of  ••  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  "  (2  Mace.  iii. 
 4),  while  the  earlier  "  ruler  of  the  house  of  God  " 
 (6  fiyovfiivoi  oIkov  rov  9eov  (/cupiou),  1  Chr.  ix. 
 11;  2  Chr.  xxxi.  13;  Jer.  xx.  1)  seems  to  have 
 been  always  a  priest,  and  the  "captain  of  the 
 Temple"  (arparriyhs  tov  Upov,  Luke  xxii.  4,  with 
 Lightfoofs  note  ;  Acts  iv.  1,  v.  24,  26)  and  the 
 keeper  of  the  treasures  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  24  ;  2  Chr. 
 xxxi.  12)  must  have  been  at  least  Levites.  Herz- 
 feld (Gescli.  Isr.  i.  218)  conjectures  that  Benjfimiii 
 is  an  error  for  Mhijcnnin,  the  .head  of  a  priestly 
 house  (Nell.  xii.  5,  17).  In  support  of  this  view 
 it  may  be  observed  that  Menelaus,  the  usurping 
 high-priest,  is  said  to  have  been  a  brother  of  Simon 
 
 SIMON 
 
 3045 
 
 (2  Mace.  iv.  23),  and  no  intimation  is  anywhere 
 given  that  he  was  not  of  priestly  descent.  At  the 
 same  time  tlie  corruption  (if  it  exist)  dates  i'roin  an 
 earlier  period  than  the  present  Greek  text,  for 
 "tribe"  (<pv\ii)  could  not  be  used  for  "family" 
 (oIkos)-  I'he  various  reading  ayopavofxias  ("reg- 
 ulation of  the  marliet")  for  irapavofxias  ("disor- 
 der," 2  Mace.  iii.  4),  whicli  seems  to  be  certainly 
 correct,  points  to  some  office  in  connection  with  the 
 supply  of  the  sacrifices;  and  proliably  Simon  was 
 appointed  to  carry  out  the  design  of  Seleucus,  who 
 (as  is  stated  in  the  context)  had  undertaken  to  de- 
 fray the  cost  of  them  (2  Mace.  iii.  3).  In  this  case 
 tliere  would  be  less  ditficnlty  in  a  Benjamite  acting 
 as  the  agent  of  a  foreign  king,  even  in  a  matter 
 which  concerned  the  'I  emple-service.      B.  F.  W. 
 
 4.  Simon  the  Bhotheh  of  Jesus.  —  The 
 only  undoubted  notice  of  this  Simon  occurs  in  Matt, 
 xiii.  55,  Mark  vi.  3,  where,  in  common  with  James, 
 Joses,  and  Judas,  he  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the 
 "  brethren  "  of  Jesus.  He  has  been  identified  by 
 some  writers  with  Simon  tlie  Canaanite,  and  still 
 more  generally  with  Symeon  who  became  bishop 
 of  Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  James,  A.  i).  62 
 (Kuseb.  H.  E.  iii.  11,  iv.  22),  and  who  suffered 
 martyrdom  in  the  reign  of  Trajan  at  the  extreme 
 age  of  120  years  (Hegesippus,  ap.  Euseb.  //.  E. 
 iii.  32),  in  the  year  107,  or  according  to  Burton 
 (Lectures,  ii.  17,  note.)  in  104.  The  former  of 
 these  opinions  rests  on  no  evidence  whatever,  nor 
 is  the  latter  without  its  difficulties.  For  iu  what- 
 ever sense  the  term  "  l_)rother,"  is  accepted — a 
 vexed  question  which  has  been  already  amply  dis- 
 cussed under  Brotiiku  and  J.vmes,  —  it  is  clear 
 that  neitlier  luisebius  nor  the  author  of  the  so-called 
 Apostolical  Constitutions .  iniderstood  Symeon  to 
 be  the  brother  of  James,  nor  consequently  the 
 "  brother  "  of  the  Lord.  Kuse1)ius  invariably  de- 
 scribes .lames  as  "the  brother"  of  Jesus  (//.  /.'.  L 
 12,  ii.  1,  al.),  but  Symeon  as  the  son  of  Clopas, 
 and  the  cousin  of  Jesus  (iii.  11,  iv.  22),  and  the 
 same  distinction  is  made  by  the  other  author 
 (Const.  Apost.  vii.  46). 
 
 5.  Simon  the  Can.vanite,  one  of  the  Twelve 
 Apostles  (Matt.  x.  4;  Mark  iii.  18),  otherwise  de- 
 scribed as  Simon  Zelotes  (Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13). 
 The  latter  term  ((VjAcorrjs),  which  is  peculiar  to 
 Luke,  is  the  Greek  equivalent  for  the  Chaklee  term  " 
 preserved  by  Matthew  and  Mark  (KauavirTis,  as  in 
 text,  recept.,  or  Kavauaios,  as  in  the  Vuig.,  Canrt- 
 metis,  and  in  the  best  modern  editions).  Each  of 
 these  equally  points  out  Simon  as  belonging  to  the 
 faction  of  the  Zealots,  who  were  conspicuous  for 
 their  fierce  advocacy  of  the  Mosaic  ritual.  The 
 supposed  references  to  Canaan  (A.  V.)  or  to  Cana 
 ( Luther's  version )  are  equally  erroneous.  [Canaan- 
 ite.] The  term  Kavavirris  appears  to  have  sur- 
 vived the  other  as  the  distincti\e  surname  of  Simon 
 (Const.  Apost.  vi.  14,  viii.  27).  He  has  been  fre- 
 quently identified  with  Simon  the  brother  c{  Je^us : 
 but  Eusebius  (IT.  E.  iii.  11)  clearly  distinguishes 
 between  the  Apostles  and  the  relations  of  Jesus. 
 Still  less  likely  is  it  that  he  was  identical  with 
 Symeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  stated 
 by  Sophronius  (App.  ad  Hleron.  C'alal.).  Simon 
 the  Canaanite  is  reported,  on  the  doubtful  author- 
 ity of  the  Pseudo-Dorotheus  and  of  Nicephorus 
 Callistus,  to  have  preached  in  Egypt,  Cyrene,  and 
 Mauritania  (Burton's  Lectures,  i.  333,  7iote),  and, 
 
 1W- 
 
3046  SIMON 
 
 on  the  equally  doubtful  authority  of  an  annotation 
 preserved  in  an  original  copy  of  the  Apostolical 
 Constitutions  (viii.  27),  to  have  been  crucified  in 
 Judtea  in  the  reign  of  Doniitian. 
 
 6.  Simon  of  Cykene.  —  A  Hellenistic  Jew, 
 born  at  Cyrene  on  the  north  coast  of  Africa,  who 
 was  present  at  Jerusalem  at  tlie  time  of  tlie  cruci- 
 fixion of  Jesus,  either  as  an  attendant  at  the  feast 
 (Acts  ii.  10),  or  as  one  of  the  numerous  settlers  at 
 Jerusalem  from  that  place  (Acts  vi.  9).  Meeting 
 the  procession  that  conducted  Jesus  to  Golgotha,\is 
 he  was  returning  from  the  country,  he  was  pressed 
 into  the  service  {riyydpevffav,  a  military  term)  to 
 bear  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  32;  Mark  xv.  21; 
 Luke  xxiii.  26),  when  Jesus  himself  was  unable  to 
 bear  it  any  longer  (comp.  John  xix.  17).  Mark 
 describes  him  as  the  father  of  Alexander  and  liufus, 
 perhaps  because  this  was  the  Kufus  known  to  the 
 Roman  Christians  (Rom.  xvi.  13),  for  whom  he 
 more  especially  wrote.  The  l>asilidian  Gnostics 
 believed  that  Simon  suffered  in  lieu  of  Jesus  (Bur- 
 ton's  Lectures,  ii.  G4). 
 
 7.  SiJiON  THE  Leper. — A  resident  at  Beth- 
 any, distinguished  as  "  the  leper,"  not  from  his 
 having  leprosy  at  the  time  when  he  is  mentioned, 
 but  at  some  previous  period.  It  is  not  improbable 
 that  he  had  been  miraculously  cured  by  Jesus.  In 
 his  house  Alary  anointed  Jesus  preparatory  to  his 
 death  and  burial  (Matt.  xxvi.  6,  &c. ;  Mark  xiv.  3, 
 &c. ;  John  xii.  1,  (fee.)."  Lazarus  was  also  present 
 as  one  of  the  guests,  while  Martha  served  (John 
 xii.  2):  the  jjreseuce  of  the  brother  and  his  two 
 sisters,  together  with  the  active  part  the  latter  took 
 in  the  proceedings,  leads  to  the  inference  that  Si- 
 mon was  related  to  them:  but  there  is  no  evidence 
 of  this,  and  we  can  attach  no  credit  to  the  state- 
 ment that  he  was  their  father,  as  reported  on  apoc- 
 ryphal authority  by  Nicephorus  (//.  E.  i.  27),  and 
 still  less  to  the  idea  that  he  was  the  husband  of 
 Mary.  Simon  the  Leper  must  not  be  confounded 
 with  Simon  the  Pharisee  mentioned  in  Luke  vii.  40. 
 
 8.  Simon  M.\gus.  —  A  Samaritan  living  in  the 
 Apostolic  age,  distinguished  as  a  sorcerer  or  '•  ma- 
 gician," from  his  practice  of  magical  arts  (/xayiviev, 
 Acts  viii.  9).  His  history  is  a  remarkable  one: 
 he  was  born  at  Gitton,''  a  village  of  Samaria  (Jus- 
 tin Mart.  Aj)oL  i.  26),  identified  with  the  modern 
 Kuryet  Jit,  near  Ndbulus  (Robhison's  Bibl.  Res. 
 ii.  308,  note).  He  was  probably  educated  at  Alex- 
 andria (as  stated  in  Clement.  Horn.  ii.  22),  and 
 there  became  acquainted  with  the  eclectic  tenets  of 
 the  Gnostic  school.     P^ither  then  or  subsequently 
 
 a  *  Oa  the  chronological  difficulty  relating  to  the 
 time  of  the  feast  in  Simon's  house  see  vol.  ii.  p.  1372, 
 note  a  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 
 
 b  Some  doubt  has  been  thrown  on  Justin's  state- 
 ment from  tlie  fact  that  Josephus  {Ant.  xx.  7,  §  2) 
 mentions  a  reputed  magician  of  the  same  name  aud 
 about  the  same  date,  who  was  born  in  Cyprus.  It 
 has  beea  suggested  that  Justin  borrowed  his  informa- 
 tion from  tills  source,  and  mistook  Citiuui,  a  town  of 
 Cyprus,  for  Gitton.  If  the  writers  had  respectively 
 used  the  gentile  forms  Kirietis  and  YnrUv^,  the  simi- 
 larity would  have  favored  such  an  idea.  But  neither 
 does  Josephus  mention  Citium,  nor  yet  does  Justin 
 use  the  gentile  form.  It  is  far  more  probable  that 
 Josephus  would  be  wrong  than  Justin,  in  any  point 
 respecting  Samaria. 
 
 f  The  A.  V.  omits  the  word  KoXoviiivri,  aud  renders 
 the  words  "  the  great  power  of  God."  But  this  is  to 
 lose  the  whole  point  of  the  designation.  The  Samar- 
 itans described  the  angels  as  &vviij.ei<;,  D"^  V'^H,  «'.  «■ 
 
 SIMON 
 
 he  was  q.  pupil  of  Dositheus,  who  preceded  him  as 
 a  teacher  of  Gnosticism  in  Samaria,  and  whom  he 
 supplanted  with  the  aid  of  Cleobius  ( Constit.  Apos- 
 tol.  vi.  8).  He  is  first  introduced  to  us  in  the  Bible 
 as  practicing  magical  arts  in  a  city  of  Samaria, 
 perhaps  Sychar  (Acts  viii.  5;  conip.  John  iv.  5), 
 and  witii  such  success,  that  he  was  pronounced  to 
 be  "the  power  of  God  which  is  called  great "t' 
 (Acts  viii.  10).  The  preaching  and  miracles  of 
 Philip  having  e.vcited  his  observation,  he  became 
 one  of  his  disciples,  and  received  baptism  at  his 
 hands.  Subsequently  he  witnessed  the  eft'ect  pro- 
 duced by  the  imposition  of  hands,  as  practiced  by 
 the  Apostles  I'eter  and  John,  and,  being  desirous  of 
 acquiring  a  similar  power  for  himself,  he  offered  a 
 sum  of  money  for  it.  His  object  evidently  was  to 
 apply  the  power  to  the  prosecution  of  magical  arts. 
 The  motive  and  the  means  were  equally  to  be  rep- 
 robated ;  and  his  proposition  met  with  a  severe  de- 
 nunciation from  Peter,  followed  by  a  petition  on 
 the  part  of  Simon,  the  tenor  of  which  bespeaks 
 terror  but  not  penitence  (Acts  viii.  9-24).  'I'he 
 memory  of  his  peculiar  guilt  has  been  perpetuated 
 in  the  word  simony,  as  applied  to  all  traffic  in  spir- 
 itual offices.  Simon's  history,  subsequently  to  his 
 meeting  with  Peter,  is  involved  in  difficulties. 
 Early  Church  historians  dejiict  him  as  the  perti- 
 nacious foe  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  whose  movements 
 he  followed  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  encounters, 
 in  which  he  was  signally  defeated.  In  his  jour- 
 neys he  was  accompanied  by  a  female  named  Hel- 
 ena, who  bad  previously  been  a  prostitute  at  Tyre, 
 but  who  was  now  elevated  to  the  position  of  his  ««/- 
 j/oia'' or  divine  intelligence  (Justin  Ma.rt.  Apol.  i. 
 20;  Euseb.  II.  E.  ii.  13).  His  first  encounter 
 with  Peter  took  place  at  Coesarea  Stratonis  (ac- 
 cordmg  to  the  Constitittiunes  Apostolicce,  vi.  8), 
 whence  he  followed  the  Apostle  to  Home.  Euse- 
 bius  makes  no  mention  of  this  first  encounter,  but 
 represents  Simon's  journey  to  Rome  as  following 
 innnediately  after  the  interview  recorded  in  Scrip- 
 ture (//.  E.  ii.  14);  but  his  chronological  state- 
 ments are  evidently  confused ;  for  in  the  very  same 
 chapter  he  states  that  the  meeting  between  the  two 
 at  Rome  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  some 
 ten  years  after  the  events  in  Samaria.  Justin 
 Blartyr,  with  greater  consistency,  represents  Simon 
 as  having  visited  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius, 
 and  omits  all  notice  of  an  encounter  with  Peter. 
 His  success  there  was  so  great  that  he  was  deified, 
 aud  a  statue  was  erected  in  his  honor,  with  the  in- 
 scription "  Sinioni  Deo  Sancto  "  ^  {Apol.  i.  20,  56) 
 
 uncreated  influences  proceeding  from  God  (Gieselcr, 
 Eccl.  Hist.  i.  48,  note  6).  They  intended  to  distin- 
 guish Simon  from  such  an  order  of  beings  by  adding 
 the  words  "  which  is  called  great,"  meaning  thereby 
 the  source  of  all  power,  in  other  words,  the  Supreme 
 Deity.  Simon  was  recognized  as  the  incarnation  of 
 this  power.  He  announced  himself  as  in  a  special 
 sense  "  some  great  one  "  (.\cts  viii.  9) ;  or  to  use  his 
 own  words  (as  reported  by  Jerome,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  5), 
 "  Ego  sum  sermo  Dei,  ego  sum  speciosus,  ego  Paracle- 
 tus,  ego  Omnipotens,  ego  omnia  Dei." 
 
 ''  In  the  evvoia,  as  embodied  in  Helena's  person,  we 
 recognize  the  dualistic  element  of  Gnosticism,  derived 
 from  the  Manicliean  system.  The  Gnostics  appear  to 
 have  recognized  the  Svyafjus  and  the  ^vvoia,  as  the  two 
 original  principles  from  whose  junction  all  beings  em- 
 anated. Simon  and  Helena  were  the  incarnations  in 
 which  these  principU's  resided. 
 
 e  Justin's  authority  has  been  impugned  in  respect 
 to  this  statement,  on  the  ground  that  a  tablet  was  dis- 
 covered in  1574  on  the  TiOtiina  Insula,  which  ansvers 
 
SIMON  OHOSAM^US 
 
 The  above  statements  can  be  reconciled  only  by 
 assuming  that  Siinon  made  two  expeditions  to 
 Kome,  the  first  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  the  second, 
 in  which  he  encountered  Peter,  in  the  reign  of 
 Nero,«  about  the  year  08  (Burton's  Lechu-ts,  i. 
 233,  ijlS):  and  even  this  takes  for  granted  the  dis- 
 puted fact  of  St.  Peter's  visit  to  Kome.  [Peteu.] 
 His  death  is  associated  with  the  meeting  in  ques- 
 tion: according  to  Hippolytus,  the  earliest  author- 
 ity on  the  subject,  Simon  was  buried  alive  at  his 
 own  request,  in  the  confident  assurance  that  he 
 would  rise  again  on  the  third  day  {Adv.  Ihtr.  vi. 
 20).  According  to  another  account,  he  attempted 
 to  fly  in  proof  of  his  supernatural  power;  in  an- 
 swer to  the  prayers  of  Peter,  he  fell  and  sustained 
 a  fracture  of  his  thigh  and  ankle  bones  {Constilut. 
 Apostvl.  ii.  14,  vi.  9);  overcon)e  with  ve,\atiou, 
 he  committed  suicide  (Arnoh.  Adr.  deiil.  ii.  7). 
 Whether  this  statement  is  confirmed,  or,  on  the 
 other  hand  weakened,  by  the  account  of  a  similar 
 attempt  to  fly  recorded  by  heathen  writers  (Sue- 
 ton.  Ner.  1:2;  Juv.  Sul.  iii.  79),  is  uncertain.  Si- 
 mon's attempt  may  have  supplied  the  basis  lor  this 
 report,  or  this  report  may  have  been  erroneously 
 placed  to  his  credit.  Burton  {Ltdures,  i.  '295) 
 rather  favors  the  former  alternative.  .Simon  is 
 generally  pronounced  by  e;irly  writers  t)  have  1  een 
 the  founder  of  heresy.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
 how  he  was  guilty  of  heresy  in  tlie  proper  sense  of 
 the  term,  inasmuch  as  he  was  not  a  Christian:  per- 
 haps it  refers  to  his  attempt  to  combine  ("hristiai- 
 ity  with  Gnosticism.  He  is  also  reported  to  have 
 forged  works  professing  to  emanate  from  Christ 
 and  his  disciples  {ConslittU.  AjMistvl.  vi.  10). 
 
 9.  SiJiON  Peiku.     [Peter.] 
 
 10.  Simon,  a  Pharisee,  in  whose  house  a  penitent 
 woman  anointed  the  head  and  feet  of  Jesus  (Luke 
 vii.  40). 
 
 11.  SiJioN  THE  Tanner.  —  A  Christian  con- 
 vert living  at  Joppa,  at  whose  house  Peter  lodged 
 (Acts  ix.  43).  The  profi^ssion  of  a  tanner  was 
 regarded  with  considerable  contempt,  and  even  as 
 approaching  to  uncleanness,  by  the  rigid  Jews. 
 [Tanner.]  That  Peter  selected  such  an  abode, 
 showed  the  diminished  hold  which  Judaism  had 
 on  him.  The  house  was  near  the  sea-side  (Acts  x. 
 6,  32),  for  the  convenience  of  the  water. 
 
 12.  SiJiON,  the  father  of  Judas  Iscariot  (.Tohn 
 vi.  71,  xiii.  2,  26).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SFMON  CHOSAM^'US  (SZ/^a.^  Xoaa- 
 u.a7os-  Simon).  Shimeon,  and  the  three  follow- 
 ing names  in  Ezr.  x.  31,  32,  are  thus  written  in 
 the  LXX.  (1  Esdr.  ix.  32).  The  Vulgate  has  cor- 
 rectly "  Simon,  Benjamin,  et  Malchus,  et  Marras."' 
 "  Chosamaeus  "  is  apparently  formed  by  combining 
 the  last  letter  of  Malluch  with  the  first  part  of  the 
 following  name,  Shemariah. 
 
 SIN 
 
 3047 
 
 to  the  locality  de.scribeil  by  Justin  (ej/ to!  Ti/3epi.  tto- 
 Ta/iiM  iJieTa.^v  tmv  6uo  yeil>vpuiv).  and  bearing  an  inscrip- 
 tion, the  first;  words  of  which  are  ''  Semoni  satico  Ueo 
 fijio."  This  inscription,  which  really  applies  to  the 
 Sabine  Hercules  Sanctis  Se.mo,  is  supposed  to  have 
 been  mistaken  by  Justin,  in  his  ignorance  of  Latin, 
 for  one  in  honor  of  Simon.  If  the  inscription  had 
 been  confined  to  the  words  quoted  by  Justin,  such  a 
 mistake  might  have  been  conceivable  ;  but  it  goes  on 
 to  state  the  name  of  the  giver  and  other  particulars  : 
 "  Seuioni  Sanco  Deo  Fidio  sacrum  Se.x.  Pompeius,  Sp. 
 F.  Col.  Mussianus  Quiuquennalis  decus  Bideutalis  do- 
 num  dodit."  That  Justin,  a  man  of  literary  acquire- 
 ments, should  be  unable  to  translate  such  an  inscrip- 
 tion ■   that  he  should  misquote  it  in  an  Apology  duly 
 
 SIM'RI  ("'iptp  [lualchful]  :  ^vXdffcrovris-- 
 Semri).  Properly  "  Shimri,"  son  of  Hosah,  a 
 Merarite  i.,evite  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi. 
 10).  Though  not  the  first-born,  his  father  uKide 
 him   the    head    of  the  ftimily.      The  LXX.   read 
 
 "'^HCi?,  sli6men\   "  guards." 
 
 SIN  (]''P  [/«(■;•(-]:  S.ais,  St/Tj^rj;  [in  ver.  15, 
 Alex.  Tayty:]  Pduiium),  a  city  of  Egypt,  men- 
 tioned only  by  Ezekiel  (xxx.  15,  16).  The  name 
 is  Hebrew,  or,  at  least,  Shemitic.  Gesenius  sup- 
 poses it   to  signify  ■'  clay,"  from  the  unusetl  root 
 
 "{"'p,  probably  "he  or  it  was  muddy,  clayey."  It 
 is  identified  in  the  Vulg.  with  Pelusium,  HrjAoy- 
 aiov,  ''the  clayey  or  muddy"  town,  from  tttjAJs; 
 and  seems  to  he  preserved  in  the  Arabic  Et-l\eneh, 
 
 iJuJisJ},  which  forms  part  of  the  names  o(  Funi 
 
 ei-Teeneli,  the  Mouth  of  /■Ji-Teeneh,  the  supposed 
 Pelusiac  mouth  of  the  Nile,  and  Burg  or  Kiitnt  et- 
 Tecneh,  the  Tower  or  Castle  of  Jit-  Teeiieh,  in  the  im- 
 mediate neighborhood,  "  teen  "  signifying  "  mud," 
 etc.,  in  Arabic.  This  evidence  is  sufficient  to  show 
 that  .Sin  is  Pelusium.  The  ancient  Egyptian  name 
 is  still  to  be  sought  for:  it  has  been  supposed  that 
 Pelusium  preserves  traces  of  it,  but  this  is  very  im- 
 probable.     ChampoUion    identifies  Pelusium   with 
 
 the  IlepeiioTJt,  ITepejULtwn  (the 
 
 second  being  a  variation  held  by  Quatremere  to  be 
 incorrect),  and    l^^OeiJLOTn,  of  the  Copts, 
 
 El-Farmii,   UOwOj),  of  the  Arabs,  which  was  in 
 
 the  time  of  the  former  a  boundary-city,  the  limits 
 of  a  governor's  authority  being  stated  to  have  ex- 
 tended from  Alexandria  to  Pilak-h,  or  Philoe,  and 
 Peremoun  (Acts  of  St.  Sarapamon  MS.  Copt.  Vat. 
 67,  fol.  90,  ap.  Quatremere,  Menwires  Geog.  et  f/tsl. 
 sur    I'Egj/pte,    i.   259).     ChampoUion   ingeniously 
 
 derives  this  name  from  the  article  CD;  60^  "to 
 be,"  and  OJULJ,  "mud"  {IJEgypte,  ii.  8'2-87: 
 comp.  Brugsch, Ceof/r.  Inschr.  i.  p.  297).  Brugsch 
 compares  the  ancient  Egyptian  HA-REM,  which 
 he  reads  Pe-rema,  on  our  system,  PE-REM,  "the 
 abode  of  the  tear,"  or  "of  the  fish  rem"  {Gtugr. 
 Insriir.  i.  /.  c,  pi.  Iv.  n".  1G79).  Pelusium,  he 
 would  make  the  city  SAMHAT  (or,  as  he  reads  it 
 Sam-hud),  remarking  that  "the  nome  of  the  city 
 Samhud  "  is  the  only  one  which  has  the  determina- 
 tive of  a  city,  and,  comparing  the  evidence  of  the 
 Poman  nome-coins,  on  which  the  place  is  apparently 
 treated  as  a  nome;  but  this  is  not  certain,  for  there 
 may  have  been  a  Pelusiac  nome,  and  the  etymology 
 
 prepared  at  Rome  for  the  eye  of  a  Roman  emperor ; 
 and  that  the  mistake  should  be  repeated  by  other 
 early  writers  who.«e  knowledge  of  Latin  is  unquestioned 
 (Irenanis,  Adi\  Hares,  i.  20;  Tertullian, /l/w/.  13), — 
 these  .i.ssuniptions  form  a  series  of  improbabilities, 
 amounting  almost  to  an  impossibility.  [See  Norton's 
 Ei.'idenr:es  of  thr  Gen.  of  the  Gospfls,  2d  ed.,  vol.  ii. 
 pp.  iii.-xxiii.  (Addit.  Notes).] 
 
 «  This  later  date  is  to  a  certain  extent  confirmed 
 by  the  account  of  Simon's  death  preserved  by  Hippo- 
 lytus {Ar/c.  Hrer.  vi.  20)  ;  for  the  event  is  stated  to 
 h;ive  occurred  while  Peter  and  Paul  (the  term  cLtto- 
 o-ToAoi!  evidently  implung  the  pre.sence  of  the  latter) 
 were  together  at  Rome 
 
3048 
 
 SIN 
 
 of  the  name  SAMHAT  is  unknown  {Id.  p.  128; 
 PI.  xxviii.  17). 
 
 The  site  of  Pehisiuni  is  as  yet  undetermined.  It 
 has  been  thought  to  he  marked  hy  njouiids  near 
 Burg  et-Tceneli,  now  called  el-Fctima  and  not  el- 
 Teeneh.  This  is  disputed  by  Captain  Spralt,  who 
 supposes  that  the  mound  of  Aboo-KI/eci/dr  indicates 
 where  it  stood.  This  is  further  inland,  and  ap- 
 parently on  the  west  of  the  old  I'elusiac  branch,  as 
 was  Pelusium.  It  is  situate  between  Fmina  and 
 Tel-Dcfenneh."  Whatever  may  have  been  its  e.xact 
 position,  Pelusium  nuist  have  owed  its  strenjith  not 
 to  any  crreat  elevation,  but  to  its  being  placed  in 
 the  midst  of  a  plain  of  marsh-land  and  mud,  never 
 easy  to  traverse.  The  ancient  sites  in  such  alluvial 
 tracts  of  Egypt  are  in  general  only  sufficiently 
 raised  above  the  level  of  the  plain  to  preserve  them 
 from  being  injured  by  the  inundation. 
 
 The  antiquity  of  the  town  of  Sin  may  perhaps 
 be  inferred  from  the  mention  of  "  the  wilderness 
 of  Sin"  in  the  journeys  of  the  Israelites  (Kx.  xvi. 
 1;  Num.  xxxiii.  11).  It  is  remarkable,  however, 
 that  the  Israelites  did  not  immediately  enter  this 
 tract  on  leaving  the  cultivated  ))art  of  Egypt,  so 
 that  it  is  held  to  have  been  within  the  Sinaitic 
 peninsula,  and  therefore  it  may  take  its  name  from 
 some  other  place  or  country  than  the  I'>gyptian  Sin. 
 [Sin,  WiLDEitNKSs  ok.] 
 
 Pelusium  is  mentioned  by  Ezekiel,  in  one  of  the 
 prophecies  relating  to  the  invasion  of  Egypt  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  as  one  of  the  cities  wliich  should 
 then  suffer  calamities,  with,  probably,  reference  to 
 their  later  history.  The  others  spoken  of  are  Noph 
 (Memphis),  Zoan  (Tanis),  No  (Thebes),  Aven 
 (Heliopolis),  Pi-heseth  (Biibastis),  and  Tehaphnehes 
 (DaphuK).  All  these,  excepting  the  two  ancient 
 capitals,  Thebes  and  jMemphis,  lay  on  or  near  the 
 eastern  boundary ;  and,  in  the  approach  to  Memphis, 
 an  invader  could  scarcely  advance,  after  capturing 
 Pelusium  and  Daphnte,  without  taking  Tanis, 
 Bubastis,  and  Heliopolis.  In  the  most  ancient 
 times  Tanis,  as  afterwards  Pelusium,  seems  to  have 
 been  the  key  of  l\gypt  on  the  east.  Bubastis  was 
 an  important  position  from  its  lofty  mounds,  and 
 Heliopolis  as  securing  the  approach  to  Memphis. 
 The  prophet  speaks  of  Sin  as  "  Sin  the  stronghold 
 of  Egypt  "  (ver.  15).  This  place  it  held  from  that 
 time  until  the  period  of  the  Romans.  Herodotus 
 relates  that  Sennacherib  advanced  against  Pelusium, 
 and  that  near  Pelusium  Cambyses  defeated  Psam- 
 menitus.  In  like  manner  the  decisive  battle  in 
 \vliich  Ochus  defeated  the  last  native  king,  Nectane- 
 bos,  NEKIIT-NEBF,  was  fought  near  this  city. 
 It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  ICzekiel  twice 
 mentions  Pelusium  in  the  prophecy  which  contains 
 the  remarkal)le  and  signally-fulfilled  sentence  : 
 "  There  shall  be  no  more  a  prince  of  tlie  laud  of 
 Egypt"  (ver.  13).  As  he  saw  the  long  train  of 
 calamities  that  were  to  fall  upon  the  country, 
 Pelusium  may  well  have  stood  out  as  the  chief  place 
 of  her  successive  humiliations.  Two  Persian  con- 
 quests, and  two  submissions  to  strangers,  first  to 
 Alexander,  and  tiien  to  Augustus,  may  explain  the 
 especial  misery  foretold  of  this  city:  "Sin  shall 
 suffer  great  anguish  "  (ver.  IG). 
 
 We  find  in  the  Bible  a  geographical  name,  which 
 has  the  form  of  a  gent,  noun  derived  fi-om  Sin,  and 
 is  usually  held  to  apply  to  two   difti^rent  nations. 
 
 SIN,  WILDERNESS  OF 
 
 neither  coimected  with  the  city  Sin.     In  the  list 
 
 of  the  descendants  of  Noah,  the  Sinite,  ^3'^P, 
 occurs  among  the  sons  of  Canaan  (Gen.  x.  17; 
 1  Chr.  i.  15).  This  pecple,  from  its  place  between 
 the  Arkite  and  the  Arvadite  has  been  supposed  to 
 have  settled  in  Syria  north  of  Palestine,  where 
 similar  names  occur  in  classical  geography  and 
 have  been  alleged  in  confirmation.  This  theory 
 would  not,  however,  necessarily  imply  that  the  whole 
 tribe  was  there  settled,  and  the  sujiposed  traces  of 
 the  name  are  l)y  no  means  conclusive.  On  the 
 other  hand,  it  must  be  observed  that  some  of  the 
 eastern  towns  of  Lower  Egypt  have  Hebrew  as  well 
 as  Egyptian  names,  as  Heliopolis  and  Tanis;  that 
 those  very  near  tiie  border  seem  to  have  borne  only 
 Hebrew  names,  as  Migdol:  so  that  we  have  an 
 indication  of  a  Shemitic  influence  in  this  part  of 
 Eixypt,  diminishing  in  degree  according  to  the  dis- 
 tance from  the  border.  It  is  ditticult  to  account 
 for  this  influence  l)y  the  single  circumstance  of  the 
 Shephei'd  invasion  of  Egypt,  especially  as  it  is 
 shown  yet  more  strikingly  by  the  leuiarkaljly  strong 
 characteristics  which  have  distinguished  the  in- 
 habitants of  northeastern  Egypt  iiom  their  fellow- 
 countrymen  from  the  days  of  Herodotus  and  .Vchilles 
 Tatius  to  our  own.  And  we  must  not  pa.ss  by  the 
 statement  of  the  former  of  these  writers,  that  the 
 Palestine  Syrians  dwelt  westward  of  the  Araliians 
 to  the  eastern  boundary  of  Egypt  (iii.  5,  and  above 
 p.  273G,  note  a).  Therefore,  it  does  not  seem  a 
 vicilent  hypothesis  that  the  Sinites  were  connected 
 with  Pelusium,  though  their  main  body  may  per- 
 haps have  settled  much  further  to  the  north.  The 
 distance  is  not  greater  than  that  between  the  Hit- 
 tites  of  southern  Palestine  and  those  of  the  valley 
 of  the  Orontes,  although  the  separation  of  the  less 
 power.ful  liivites  into  those  dwelling  beneath  Mount 
 Hermon  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  small  confed- 
 eracy of  which  Gibeon  was  apparently  the  head,  is 
 perhaps  nearer  to  our  supposed  case.  If  the  Wil- 
 derness of  .Sin  owed  its  name  to  Pelusium,  this  is 
 an  evidence  of  the  very  early  inijiortance  of  the 
 town  and  its  connection  with  Arabia,  which  would 
 perha[)S  be  strange  in  the  case  of  a  purely  I'^gyptiau 
 town.  The  conjecture  we  have  put  forth  suggests 
 a  recurrence  to  the  old  explanation  of  the  i'amous 
 
 mention  of  "  the  land  of  Sinim,"  C'3**P  \^1^W, 
 in  Isaiah  (xliv.  12),  supposed  by  some  to  refer  to 
 China.  This  would  appear  from  the  context  to  be 
 a  very  remote  region.  It  is  mentioned  after  the 
 north  and  the  west,  and  would  seem  to  be  in  a 
 southern  or  eastern  direction.  Sin  is  certainly  not 
 remote,  nor  is  the  supposed  place  of  the  Sinites  to 
 the  north  of  Palestine;  but  the  expression  may  be 
 proverbial.  The  people  of  Pelusium,  if  of  Canaanite 
 origin,  were  certainly  remote  compared  to  most  of 
 the  other  Canaanites,  and  were  separated  by  alien 
 peoples,  and  it  is  also  noticeable  that  they  were  to 
 the  northeast  of  Palestine.  As  the  sea  bordering 
 Palestine  came  to  designate  the  west,  as  in  this 
 passage,  .so  the  land  of  Sinim  may  have  passed  i!ito 
 a  proverbial  expression  for  a  distant  and  separated 
 country.     See,  however,  Sinitk,  Sinim. 
 
 11.  S.  P. 
 
 SIN,  WILDERNESS  OF    (rP"'^2"ip: 
 eprifjioi   2iV    [Vat.   2eiv] :    deserluin    Sin).     The 
 
 •«  Capt.  Spratfs  reports  have  uofortunately  been 
 printed  only  in  abstract  ("  Delta  of  the  Nile,"  etc.  ; 
 Beturn,  House  of  Commons,  9th   Feb.  1860),  with  a 
 
 Tery  insufficient  map.  In  M.  Linant'a  map  we  cannot 
 discover  Aboo-Kkeeyar  (Percemtnt  de  VIstlime  de  Suez 
 Atlas,  Carle  Topograplngue). 
 
SIN-OFFERING 
 
 name  of  a  tract  of  the  wilderness  which  the  Israel- 
 ites reached  after  leaving  the  eiicauipment  by  tlie 
 Red  Sea  (Num.  xxxiii.  11,  12).  Their  next  halt- 
 inif-place  (Ex.  xvi.  1,  xvii.  1)  was  Kephidini,  proh- 
 alily  the  Wndy  Ftiran  [Refhidim]  ;  on  which 
 supposition  it  would  follow  that  Sin  must  lie  be- 
 tween that  wady  and  the  coast  of  tlie  Gulf  of  Suez, 
 and  of  course  west  of  Sinai.  Since  they  were  by 
 this  time  gone  more  than  a  month  from  Egypt,  tlie 
 locality  nuist  be  too  far  towai-ds  the  S.  E.  to  receive 
 its  name  from  the  Egyptian  Sin  of  Ez.  xxx.  15, 
 called  2ais  by  the  LXX.,  and  identified  with  Pelu- 
 sium  (see  previous  article).  In  the  wilderness  of 
 Sin  the  Manma  was  first  gathered,  and  those  who 
 adopt  the  supposition  that  this  was  merely  the 
 natural  product  of  the  turf  a  bush,  find  from  the 
 abundance  of  that  shrub  in  Wady  es-Shdkli,  S.  E. 
 of  W.  GImrumlel,  a  proof  of  local  identity.  [Elim.] 
 At  all  events,  that  wady  is  as  probable  as  any 
 other."  H.  H. 
 
 SIN-OFFERING  (HS^n:    ^/xapria,   rh 
 
 T>)s  afxaprlas,  irepl  afxaprias-  pro  j'eccato).  The 
 sin-ofttiring  among  the  Jews  was  the  sacrifice  in 
 which  the  ideas  of  propitiation  and  of  atonement 
 for  sin  were  most  distinctly  marked.  It  is  first 
 directly  enjoined  in  Lev.  iv.,  whereas  in  cc.  i.-iii. 
 the  burnt-oftering,  meat-offering,  and  peace-ofTering 
 are  taken  for  granted,  and  the  object  of  the  Law  is 
 to  regulate,  not  to  enjoin  the  ]iresentation  of  them 
 to  tlie  Lord.  Nor  is  the  woi'd  chatldth  applied  to 
 any  sacrifice  in  ante-Mosaic  times.*  It  is  tliere- 
 fore  peculiarly  a  sacrifice  of  the  Law,  agreeing  with 
 the  clear  definition  of  good  and  evil,  and  the  stress 
 laid  on  the  "sinfulness  of  sin,"  which  were  the 
 main  objects  of  the  Law  in  itself.  The  idea  of 
 propitiation  was  no  doubt  latent  in  earlier  sacri- 
 fices, but  it  was  taught  clearly  and  distinctly  in 
 the  I^vitical  sin-ofifering. 
 
 The  ceremonial  of  the  sin-offering  is  descrilied  in 
 Lev.  iv.  and  vi.  The  animal,  a  young  bullock  for 
 the  priest  or  the  congregation,  a  male  kid  or  lamli 
 for  a  ruler,  a  female  kid  or  lamb  for  a  private  per- 
 son, in  all  cases  without  blemish,  was  brought  by 
 the  sacrificer  to  the  altar  of  sacrifice;  his  hand  was 
 laid  upon  its  head  (with,  as  we  learn  from  later 
 Jewish  authorities,  a  confession  of  sin,  and  a  prayer 
 that  the  victim  might  he  its  expiation);  of  the 
 blood  of  the  slain  victim,  some  was  then  sprinkled 
 seven  times  before  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary,  some 
 put  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense,  and  the 
 rest  poured  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  sacrifice; 
 the  fat  (as  the  choicest  part  of  the  flesh)  was  then 
 burnt  on  the  altar  as  a  burnt-oflfering ;  the  re- 
 mainder of  the  body,  if  the  sin-offering  were  that 
 of  the  priest  himself  or  of  the  whole  congregation, 
 was  carried  out  of  the  camp  or  city  to  a  "  clean 
 place"  and  there  burnt;  but  if  the  offering  were 
 tliat  of  an  individual,  the  flesh  might  be  eaten  by 
 the  priests  alone  in  the  holy  place,  as  being  "  most 
 holy." 
 
 a  *  Rer.  F.  W.  Holland  (Journal  of  the  Roy.  Geogr. 
 Sorie.ty.  vol.  xxxviii.  p.  255)  proposes  to  identity  the 
 "Wilderness  of  Sin  with  the  plaiu  of  es-Seyh,  which 
 lies  beneath  the  Tih  range.  It  is  rather  a  succession 
 of  large  basins  than  one  plain,  and  after  rain  its  fer- 
 tility is  great  and  its  water-svjpply  abundant.  For  an 
 abstract  of  this  important  article  (On  the  Peninsula  of 
 •Sinai)  see  the  addition  to  Sinai  (Amer.  ed.).  II. 
 
 t>  Its  technical  use  in  Gen.  iv.  7  is  asserted,  and 
 supported  by  high  authority.  But  the  word  here 
 1!)2 
 
 SIN  OFFERING 
 
 5049 
 
 The   Trespass-offeiung    (Dtt'"'S :    TrATj/Xjue- 
 
 Xeia,  rb  rfis  irAr/^^eAeias:  pro  delicto)  is  closely 
 connected  with  the  sin-offering  in  Leviticus,  but  at 
 the  same  time  clearly  distinguished  from  it,  being 
 ill  some  cases  offered  with  it  as  a  distinct  part  of 
 the  same  .sacrifice ;  as,  for  example,  ui  the  cleansing 
 of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv.).  The  victim  was  in  each 
 case  to  be  a  ram.  At  the  time  of  offering,  in  all 
 cases  of  damage  done  to  any  holy  thing,  or  to  any 
 man,  restitution  was  made  with  the  addition  of  a 
 fifth  part  to  the  principal;  the  blood  was  sprinkled 
 round  about  upon  the  altar,  as  in  the  burnt-offer- 
 ing; the  fat  burnt,  and  flesh  disposed  of  as  in  the 
 sin-offering.  The  distinction  of  ceremonial  clearly 
 indicates  a  difference  in  the  idea  of  the  two  sacri- 
 fices. 
 
 The  nature  of  that  difl^erence  is  still  a  suliject 
 of  great  controversy.  Looking  first  to  the  deriva- 
 tion of  the  two  words,  we  find  that  HStSn  is  de- 
 rived from  SlSn,  which  is,  properly,  to  "miss'' 
 a  mark,  or  to  "err"  from  a  way,  and  secondarily 
 to  "sin,"  or  to  incur  "penalty;"  that  Dtt'S  i3 
 
 derived  from  the  root  2tt  S,  which  is  properly  to 
 "fail,"  having  for  its  "primary  idea  neijlujence, 
 especially  in  gait"  (Gas.).  It  is  clear  that,  so  far 
 as  derivation  goes,  there  appears  to  be  more  of 
 reference  to  general  and  actual  sin  in  the  former, 
 to  special  cases  of  negligence  in  the  latter. 
 
 Turning  next  to  the  description,  in  tiie  book  of 
 Leviticus,  of  the  circumstances  under  which  each 
 should  be  oftt;red,  we  find  one  important  passage 
 (Lev.  v.  1-13)  ill  which  the  sacrifice  is  called  first 
 a  "trespass-offering"  (ver.  6),  and  then  a  "sin- 
 offering"  (vv.  7,  9,  11,  12).  Rut  the  nature  of 
 the  victims  in  ver.  6  agrees  with  the  ceremonial 
 of  the  latter,  not  of  the  former ;  the  application  of 
 the  latter  name  is  more  emphatic  and  reiterated; 
 and  there  is  at  ver.  14  a  formal  introduction  of  the 
 law  of  the  trespass-oiltiring,  exactly  as  of  the  law 
 of  the  sin-offering  in  iv.  1.     It  is  therefore  safe  to 
 
 conclude  that  the  word  C^'S  is  not  here  used  in 
 its  technical  sense,  and  that  the  passage  is  to  be 
 referred  to  the  sin-offering  only 
 
 We  find,  then,  that  the  siu-offerings  were  — 
 
 A.  Regular. 
 
 1.  For  the  ivhole  peojyle,  at  the  New  Jloon, 
 Passover,  Pentecost.  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  Feast 
 of  Tabernacles  (Num.  xxviii.  15-xxix.  38),  besides 
 the  solemn  offering  of  the  two  goats  on  the  Great 
 Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.). 
 
 2.  For  the  Priests  and  Levites  at  their  conse- 
 cration (Ex.  xxix.  10-14,  36);  besides  the  yearly 
 sin-offering  (a  bullock)  for  the  high-priest  on  the 
 Great  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.).= 
 
 B.  Special. 
 
 1.  For   any  sin  of  "  iijnorance "   against  the 
 
 probably  means  (as  in  the  Vulg.  and  A.  V.)  "sin." 
 The  fact  that  it  is  never  used  in  application  to  any 
 other  sacrifice  in  Genesis  or  Exodus,  alone  makes  the 
 translation  "sin-offering"  here  very  improbable. 
 
 c  To  these  may  be  added  the  sacrifice  of  the  red 
 heifer  (conducted  with  the  ceremonial  of  a  sin-offering), 
 from  the  ashes  of  which  was  made  the  "water  of 
 separation,"  used  in  certain  cases  of  ceremonial  poUu 
 tion.     See  Num.  xix. 
 
3050 
 
 SIN-OFFERING 
 
 commandment  of  the  Lord,  on  the  part  of  priest, 
 people,  ruler,  or  private  man  (Lev.  iv.). 
 
 2.  For  refusal  to  bear  wiiiiess  under  adjuration 
 (Lev.  V.  1). 
 
 3.  For  ceremonidl  dejilement  not  willfully  con- 
 tracted (Lev.  V.  2,  3),  under  which  may  be  classed 
 the  offerings  at  the  purification  of  women  (xii.  G-8), 
 at  the  cleansing  of  leprosy  (xiv.  19,  31),  or  the  un- 
 cleanness  of  men  or  women  (xv.  15,  30),  on  the 
 defilement  of  a  Nazarite  (Num.  vi.  6-11)  or  the 
 expiration  of  his  vow  (ver.  10). 
 
 4.  For  the  br&wh  of  a  rush  oath,  the  keeping 
 of  which  would  involve  sin  (Lev.  v.  4). 
 
 The  trespass-offerings,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
 always  special,  as  — 
 
 1.  For  siicrile(/e  '■'■in  ic/nornnce,''''  with  com- 
 pensation for  the  harm  done,  and  the  gift  of  a  fifth 
 part  of  the  value  besides  to  the  priest  (Lev.  v.  15, 
 16). 
 
 2.  For  ignm'ant  transgression  against  some  defi- 
 nite prohibition  of  the  Law  (v.  17-19). 
 
 3.  For  fraud,  suppression  of  the  truth,  or  per- 
 jury against  man,  with  compensation,  and  with 
 the  addition  of  a  fifth  part  of  the  value  of  the 
 property  in  question  to  the  person  wronged  (vi. 
 1-6). 
 
 4.  For  rape  of  a  betrothed  slave  (Lev.  xix.  20, 
 21). 
 
 5.  At  the  purification  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv. 
 12),  and  the  polluted  Nuzarite  (Num.  vi.  12), 
 offered  with  the  sin-offering. 
 
 From  this  enumeration  it  will  be  clear  that  the 
 two  classes  of  sacrifices,  although  distinct,  touch 
 closely  upon  each  other,  as  especially  in  B.  (1)  of 
 the  sin-offering,  and  (2)  of  the  trespass-offering. 
 It  is  also  evident  that  the  sin-offering  was  the  only 
 regular  and  general  recognition  of  sin  in  the  ab- 
 stract, and  accordingly  was  far  more  solemn  and 
 symbolical  in  its  ceremonial ;  the  trespass-offering 
 was  confined  to  special  cases,  most  of  which  related 
 to  the  doing  of  some  material  damage,  either  to 
 the  holy  things  or  to  man,  except  in  (5),  where  the 
 trespass-offering  is  united  with  the  sin-offering. 
 Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  9,  §  3)  declares  that  the  sin- 
 offering  is  presented  by  those  "  who  fall  into  sin  in 
 ignorance"  (Kar  ayvoiav),  and  the  trespass-offer- 
 ing by  "  one  who  has  sinned  and  is  conscious  of 
 his  sin,  but  has  no  one  to  convict  him  thereof." 
 From  this  it  may  be  inferred  (as  by  Winer  and 
 others)  that  the  former  was  used  in  cases  of  known 
 sin  against  some  definite  law,  the  latter  in  the  case 
 of  secret  sin,  unknown,  or,  if  known,  not  liable  to 
 judicial  cognizance.  Other  opinions  have  been  en- 
 tertained, widely  different  from,  and  even  opposed 
 to  one  another.  Many  of  them  are  given  in 
 Winer's  liealw.  "  Schuldopfer."  The  opinions 
 which  suppose  one  offering  due  for  sins  of  omis- 
 sion, and  the  other  for  sins  of  commission,  have  no 
 foundation  in  the  language  of  the  Law.  Others, 
 with  more  plausibility,  refer  the  sin-offering  to  sins 
 of  pure  ignorance,  the  trespass-offering  to  those  of 
 a  more  sinful  and  deliberate  character;  but  this 
 does  not  agree  with  Lev.  v.  17-19,  and  is  con- 
 tradicted by  the  solemn  contrast  between  sins  of 
 ignorance,  which  might  be  atoned  for,  and  "  sins 
 of  presumption,"  against  which  death  without 
 mercy  is  denounced  in  Num.  xv.  30.  A  third 
 opinion  supposes  the  sin-offering  to  refer  to  sins 
 for  which  no  material  and  earthly  atonement  could 
 be  made,  the  trespass-offering  to  those  for  which 
 material  compensation  was  possible.  This  theory 
 has  something  to  support  it  hi  the  fact  that  in 
 
 SIN-OFFERING 
 
 some  cases  (see  Lev.  v.  15,  16,  vi.  1-6)  compensa- 
 tion was  prescribed  as  accessory  to  the  sacrifice. 
 Others  seek  more  recondite  distinctions,  supposing 
 (t.  g.)  that  the  sin-offering  had  for  its  olject  the 
 cleansing  of  the  sonctuary  or  the  commonwealth, 
 and  the  trespass-ofiering  the  cleansing  of  the  indi- 
 vidual; or  that  the  lurnier  referred  to  the  effect 
 of  sin  upon  the  soul  itself,  the  latter  to  the  effect 
 of  sin  as  the  breach  of  an  external  law.  Without 
 attempting  to  decide  so  difficult  and  so  contro- 
 verted a  question,  we  may  draw  the  following  con- 
 clusions: — 
 
 First,  that  the  sin-offering  was  far  the  more 
 solemn  and  comprehensive  of  the  two  sacrifices. 
 
 (Secondly,  that  the  sin-offering  looked  more  to 
 the  guilt  of  the  sin  done,  irrespective  of  its  con- 
 sequences, while  the  trespass-offering  looked  to  the 
 evil  consequences  of  sin,  either  against  the  service 
 of  God,  or  against  man,  and  to  the  duty  of  atone- 
 ment, as  far  as  atonement  was  possible.  Hence  the 
 two  might  with  propriety  be  offered  together. 
 
 Thirdly,  that  in  the  sin-offering  especially  we 
 find  symbolized  the  acknowledgment  of  sinfulness 
 as  inherent  in  man,  and  of  the  need  of  expiation 
 by  sacrifice  to  renew  the  broken  covenant  between 
 man  and  God. 
 
 There  is  one  other  question  of  some  interest,  as 
 to  the  nature  of  the  sins  for  which  either  sacrifice 
 could  be  oflijred.  It  is  seen  at  once  that  in  the 
 Law  of  Leviticus,  most  of  them,  which  are  not 
 purely  ceremonial,  are  called  sins  of  "  ignorance  " 
 (see  Heb.  ix.  7);  and  in  Num.  xv.  30,  it  is  ex- 
 pressly said  that  while  such  sins  can  be  atoned 
 for  by  offerings,  "  the  soul  that  doeth  aught  pre- 
 sumptuously ''  (Heb.  with  a  high  hand)  "  shall  be 
 cut  off  from  among  his  people."  ....  "His 
 iniquity  shall  be  upon  him  "  (comp.  Heb.  x.  20). 
 But  tliere  are  sufficient  indications  that  the  sins 
 here  called  "  of  ignorance  "  are  more  strictly  those 
 of  "  negligence  "  or  "frailty,"  "  repented  of  by  the 
 unpunished  offender,  as  opposed  to  those  of  de- 
 liberate and  uiu'epentant  sin.  The  Hebrew  word 
 itself  and  its  derivations  are  so  used  in  I's.  cxix. 
 07  (eVArj/iyueAT/o-o,  LXX.)  ;  1  Sam.  xxvi.  21 
 {r)yv67)Ka);  l^s.  xix.  13  (TrapaTrTW/uoTa);  Job  xix. 
 4  {irKavos)-  The  words  a^yvo-rjfj.a  and  ayvoia 
 have  a  corresponding  extent  of  meaning  in  the 
 N.  T. ;  as  when,  In  Acts  iii.  17,  the  .Jews,  in  their 
 crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  are  said  to  have  acted 
 /cot'  ayvoiav  ;  and  in  Eph.  iv.  18;  1  Pet.  i.  14, 
 the  vices  of  heathenism,  done  against  the  light  of 
 conscience,  are  still  referred  to  dyvoia.  The  use 
 of  the  word  (like  that  of  ayvaj/xovelv  in  classical 
 Greek)  is  found  in  all  languages,  and  depends  on 
 the  idea  that  goodness  is  man's  true  wisdom,  and 
 that  sin  is  the  failing  to  recognize  this  truth.  If 
 from  the  word  we  turn  to  the  sins  actually  referred 
 to  in  Lev.  iv.,  v.,  we  find  some  which  certainly  are 
 not  sins  of  pure  ignorance:  they  are  indeed  few 
 out  of  the  whole  range  of  sinfulness,  but  they  are 
 real  sins.  The  later  Jews  (see  Outram,  De  Sacri- 
 ficiis)  limited  the  apjjlication  of  the  sin-offering  to 
 negative  sins,  sins  in  ignorance,  and  sins  in  action, 
 not  in  thought,  evidently  conceiving  it  to  apply  to 
 actual  sins,  but  to  sins  of  a  secondary  order. 
 
 In  considering  this  suliject,  it  must  be  lemem- 
 bered  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  Law  had  a  temporal, 
 
 «  From  the  root    yiW,  or    H^lt?'',    signifying  tc 
 
 -   T  '  T    T  ' 
 
 "err"  or  "wander  out  of  the  way,"  cognate  in  sense 
 to  the  root  of  the  word  ckatlatfi  itself. 
 
SINA,  MOUNT 
 
 as  well  as  a  spiritual  significance  and  effect.  They 
 restored  an  offender  to  his  place  in  the  common- 
 wealth of  Israel;  they  were  therefore  an  atonement 
 to  the  king  of  Israel  for  the  infringement  of  his 
 law.  It  is  clear  that  this  must  have  limited  the 
 extent  of  their  legal  application;  for  there  are 
 crimes  for  which  the  interest  and  vei-y  existence 
 of  a  society  demand  that  there  should  be  no  pardon. 
 But  so  far  as  the  sacrifices  had  a  spiritual  and 
 typical  meaning,  so  far  as  they  were  sought  by  a 
 repentant  spirit  as  a  sign  and  means  of  reconcile- 
 ment with  God,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  they 
 had  a  wider  scope  and  a  real  spiritual  effect  so  long 
 as  their  typical  character  remained.  [See  Sacri- 
 fice.] 
 
 For  the  more  solemn  sin-offerings,  see  Day  of 
 Atonement;  Leprosy,  etc.  A.  B. 
 
 SI'NA,  MOUNT  (rh  6pos  2"/5;  [Vat.  Sin. 
 Alex,  in  Jud.,  'Setva'-]  mons  Sinn).  The  Greek 
 form  of  the  well-known  name  which  in  the  0.  T. 
 universally,  and  as  often  as  not  in  the  Apocr.  and 
 N.  T.,  is  given  in  the  A.  V.  Sinai.  Sina  occurs 
 Jud.  V.  14 ;«  Acts  vii.  30,  38.  G. 
 
 SFNAI  [2syl.]  ("'3'»D  [jaffged,  full  of  clefts, 
 Fiirst] :  2,iua;  [Vat.i  ^eiva-]  Siiun).  Nearly  in  the 
 centre  of  the  peninsula  which  stretches  between  the 
 horns  of  the  Red  Sea  lies  a  wedge  of  gratiite,  griin- 
 stein,'  and  porphyry  rocks,  rising  to  between  8,000 
 and  9,000  feet  above  the  sea.  Its  shape  resembles 
 a  scalene  triangle,  with  a  crescent  cut  from  its 
 northern  or  longer  side,  on  which  border  Russeg- 
 ger's  map  gives  a  broad,  skirting  tract  of  old  red 
 sandstone,  reaching  nearly  from  gulf  to  gulf,  and 
 traversed  by  a  few  ridges,  chiefly  of  a  tertiary  for- 
 mation, running  nearly  N.  W.  and  S.  E.  On  the 
 S.  \V.  side  of  this  triangle,  a  wide  alluvial  plain  — 
 narrowing,  however,  towards  the  N.  —  lines  the 
 coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  whilst  that  on  the  eastern 
 or  Akabah  coast  is  so  narrow  as  almost  to  disap- 
 pear. Between  these  alluvial  edges  and  the  granitic 
 mass  a  strip  of  the  same  sandstone  is  interposed, 
 the  two  strips  converging  at  Jias  Mohammed,  the 
 southern  promontory  of  the  whole.  This  nucleus 
 of  plutonic  rocks  is  said  to  bear  no  trace  of  volcanic 
 action  since  the  original  upheaval  of  its  masses 
 (Stanley,  pp.  21,  22).  Laborde  {Travels,  p.  105) 
 thought  he  detected  some,  but  does  not  affirm  it. 
 Its  general  configuration  runs  into  neither  ranges 
 nor  peaks,  but  is  that  of  a  plateau  cut  across  with 
 intersecting  wadies,*  whence  spring  the  cliffs  and 
 mountain  peaks,  beginning  with  a  very  gradual 
 and  terminating  in  a  very  steep  ascent.  It  has 
 been  arranged  (Stanley,  S.  ^  P.  p.  11)  in  three 
 chief  masses  as  follows :  — 
 
 1.  The  N.  W.  cluster  above  Wady  Feirdn ;  its 
 greatest  relief  found  in  the  five-peaked  ridge  of 
 Serbal,  at  a  height  of  6,342  feet  above  the  sea. 
 (For  an  account  of  the  singular  natural  basin  into 
 which  the  waters  of  this  portion  of  the  mountain 
 
 SINAI  3051 
 
 mass  are  received,  and  its  probable  connection  with 
 Scriptural  topography,  see  Rephidi.m.  ) 
 
 2.  The  eastern  and  central  one ;  its  liighest  point 
 the  Jebel  Katherin,  at  a  height  of  8,063  (Riippell) 
 to  8,168  (Russegger)  feet,  and  including  the  Jebel 
 Milsa,  the  height  of  which  is  variously  set  (by 
 Schubert,  Riippell,  and  Russegger)  at  6,796,  7,033, 
 and  7,097  feet. 
 
 3.  The  S.  E.  one,  closely  connected,  however, 
 with  2;  its  highest  point,  Um  Shaumer,  being  that 
 also  of  the  whole. 
 
 The  three  last-named  peaks  all  lie  very  nearly 
 in  a  line  of  about  9  miles  drawn  from  the  most 
 northerly  of  them,  Musa,  a  little  to  the  W.  of  S.; 
 and  a  perpendicular  to  this  line,  traced  on  the  map 
 westwards  for  about  20  miles,  neaily  traverses  the 
 whole  length  of  the  range  of  Serbal.  These  lines 
 show  the  area  of  greatest  relief  for  the  peninsula,^ 
 nearly  equidistant  from  each  of  its  embracing  gulfs, 
 and  also  from  its  northern  base,  the  range  of  et~ 
 Till,  and  its  southern  apex,  the  Rt'is  Mohammed. 
 
 Before  considering  the  claims  of  the  individual 
 mountains  to  Scriptural  notice,  there  occurs  a  ques- 
 tion regarding  the  relation  of  the  names  Horeb 
 and  Sinai.  The  latter  name  first  occurs  as  that 
 of  the  limit  on  the  further  side  from  Egypt  of  the 
 wilderness  of  Sin  (Ex.  xvi.  1),  and  again  (xix.  1,  2) 
 as  the  "wilderness"  or  "desert  of  Sinai,"  before 
 Mount  Sinai  is  actually  spoken  of.  as  in  ver.  11 
 soon  after  we  find  it.  But  the  name  "  Moreb  "  ^ 
 is,  in  the  case  of  the  rebuke  of  the  people  l)y  God 
 for  their  sin  in  making  the  golden  calf,  reintro- 
 duced into  the  Sinaitic  narrative  (xxxiii.  6),  having 
 been  previously  most  recently  used  in  the  story  of 
 the  murmuring  at  Rephidim  (xvii.  6,  "  I  will  stand 
 before  thee  there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb"),  and 
 earlier  as  the  name  of  the  scene  of  the  appearance 
 of  God  in  the  "burning  bush"  (iii.  1).  Now, 
 since  Rephidim  seems  to  be  a  desert  stage  apart 
 from  the  place  where  Israel  "  camped  before  the 
 mount "  (Sinai,  xix.  2),  it  is  not  easy  to  account 
 for  a  Horeb  at  Rephidim,  apparently  as  the  specific 
 spot  of  a  particular  transaction  (so  that  the  refuge 
 of  a  "general"  name  Horeb,  contrasted  with  Sinai 
 as  a  special  one,  is  cut  off),  and  a  Horeb  in  the 
 Sinaitic  region,  apparently  a  synonym  of  the  moun- 
 tain which,  since  the  scene  of  the  narrative  is  fixed 
 at  it,  had  been  called  Sinai.  Lepsius  removes  the 
 difficulty  by  making  Serial  Sinai,  but  against  this 
 it  will  be  seen  that  there  are  even  stronger  olijec- 
 tions.  But  a  proper  name  given  from  a  natural 
 feature  may  recur  with  that  feature.  Such  is 
 "  Horeb,"  properly  signifying  "  ground  left  dry  by 
 water  drainhig  off."  Now  both  at  Rephidim  and 
 at  Kadesh  JMeribah,  where  was  the  "  fountain  of 
 judgment"  (Gen.  xiv.  7),  it  is  expressly  mentioned 
 that  "there  was  no  water;"  and  the  inference  is 
 that  some  ordinary  supply,  expected  to  be  found 
 there,  had  failed,  possibly  owing  to  drought.  "  The 
 rock   in   Horeb  "  was   (Ex.  xvii.  6)  what  Moses 
 
 «  In  this  passage  the  present  Greek  text  of  both 
 MSS.,  reads  eU  oSov,  not  opo?,  tov  'S.eiva.  But  the 
 note  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  of  1611  is,  notwith- 
 standing, wrong,  —  "  Greek,  into  the  way  of  the  wilder- 
 ness of  Sina  ;  "  that  being  nearer  to  the  Vulg.  deserta 
 Sina  moiilis  occupaverimt. 
 
 b  See  Robinson's  "Memoir  on  the  Maps"  (vol.  iii. 
 Appendix  1,  pp.  32-39),  a  most  important  comment  on 
 the  different  sources  of  authority  for  different  portions 
 of  th<i  region,  and  the  weight  due  to  each,  and  con- 
 taining a  just  caution  regarding  the  indications  of 
 Burfiiee  aspect  given  by  Laborde. 
 
 c  Dr.  Stanley  (p.  77)  notices  another  "  very  high 
 mountain  S.  W.  of  Um-Sh'6nVr,  apparently  calculated 
 by  Riippell  to  be  the  highest  in  the  peninsula  .  .  . 
 possibly  that  called  by  Burckhardt  Tliommar,  or  el- 
 Koly."  But  this  seems  only  to  eflfeet  an  extension  of 
 the  area  of  the  relief  in  the  direction  indicated. 
 
 'I  Dr.  Stiinley  has  spoken  of  two  of  the  three  pas- 
 sages in  Exodus  in.  which  Horeb  occurs  (iii.  1,  xvii.  6) 
 as  "  doubtful,"  and  of  the  third  (xxyiii.  6)  as  "am- 
 biguous ; "  but  he  does  not  say  on  what  grouncU 
 (S.  ^  P.  p.  29,  note). 
 
8052  SINAI 
 
 smote.  It  probably  stood  on  the  exact  spot  where 
 the  water  was  expected  to  be,  but  was  not.  Now 
 Lepsius  {Tour,  April  22,  transl.  by  Cottrell,  p.  74) 
 found  in  Wady  Ftiran,  which  he  identifies  with 
 Eephidim,  singular  alluvial  banks  of  earth  which 
 may  have  once  funned  the  bottom  of  a  lake  since 
 dried. «  If  this  was  the  scene  of  the  miracle  [see 
 Rephidim],  the  propriety  of  the  name  Ilorel),  as 
 applied  to  it,  becomes  clear.  Further,  in  all  the 
 places  of  Deut.  where  Horeb  is  found  [see  Hokku], 
 it  seems  to  be  used  in  reference  to  the  people  as 
 the  place  where  they  stood  to  receive,  rather  than 
 whence  God  appeared  to  give  the  Law,  which  is 
 apparently  in  the  same  book  of  Deut.  indicated  by 
 Sinai  (xxxiii.  2)';  and  in  the  one  remaining  passage 
 of  Exod.,  where  Horeb  occurs  in  the  narrative  of 
 the  same  events,  it  is  used  also  in  reference  to  the 
 people  (xxxiii.  6 ),  and  probably  refers  to  what  they 
 had  previously  dune  in  the  matter  of  the  golden 
 calf  (xxxii.  2,  3).  If  this  be  accepted,  there  remains 
 in  the  Pentateuch  only  Ex.  iii.  1,  where  Closes  led 
 the  flocks  of  Jethro  "  to  the  mountain  of  God,  to 
 Horeb;  "  but  this  form  of  speech,  which  seems  to 
 identify  two  local  names,  is  sometimes  not  a  strict 
 apposition,  but  denotes  an  extension,  especially 
 where  the  places  are  so  close  together  that  the 
 writer  tacitly  recognizes  them  as  one.''  Thus  Horeb, 
 strictly  taken,  may  probalily  be  a  dry  plain,  valley, 
 or  bed  of  a  wady  near  the  mountain;  and  yet 
 Mount  Horeb,  on  the  "  vast  green  plain  "  of  which 
 was  doubtless  excellent  jjasture,  may  mean  the 
 mountain  viewed  in  reference  thereto,'^  or  its  side 
 abutting  thereon.  The  mention  of  Horeb  in  later 
 books  {e.  y.  1  K.  viii.  9,  xix.  8)  seems  to  show  that 
 it  had  then  become  the  designation  of  the  moun- 
 tain and  region  generally.  The  spot  where  the 
 people  themselves  took  part  in  the  greatest  event 
 of  their  history  would  naturally  become  the  popular 
 name  in  later  designations  of  that  event.  "  Thou 
 stoodest  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  llortb  "  was 
 a  literal  fact,  and  became  the  great  basis  of  all 
 traditions  of  it.  By  this  they  recognized  that  they 
 had  been  brought  into  covenant  with  God.  On 
 the  contrary,  in  Neh.  ix.  1-3,  we  read,  "  Thou 
 earnest  down  upon  Mount  Sinaiy 
 
 But  beyond  the  question  of  the  relation  which 
 these  nanjes  mutually  Ijear,  there  remains  that  of 
 site.  Sinai  is  clearly  a  sunmiit  distinctly  marked. 
 "Where  are  we  to  look  for  it  ?  There  are  three 
 principal  views  in  answer  to  this  question :  — 
 
 I.  That  of  Lepsius,  above  mentioned,  favored 
 also  by  Burckhardt  {Trav.  p.  GOD),  that  Svrbdl  is> 
 Sinai,  some  30  miles  distant  westward  from  the 
 Jtbel  Mus't.  but  close  to  the  Wady  Feirdii  and  el- 
 flexsiu',  which  he  identifies,  as  do  most  authorities, 
 with  Rephidim  (Lepsius,  p.  74),  just  a  mile  from 
 the  old  convent  of  Farun.     (Jn   this  view  Israel 
 
 a  "  Alluvial  mounds  "  are  visible  at  the  foot  of  the 
 modem  Horeb  cliffs  in  the  plain  er-Ha/ieh;  just  as 
 Lepsius  uoticed  others  at  the  Wady  Feiriin.  (Comp. 
 Stanley,  S.  If  P.  p.  40,  Lepsius,  p.  84.) 
 
 6  So  in  Gen.  xiii.  3,  Abram  goes  "  to  Betljel,  unto 
 the  place  where  his  tent  had  been  at  the  beginning, 
 between  Bethel  and  Hai  ;  "  i.  e.  really  to  Bethel,  and 
 somewhat  further. 
 
 c  It  ought  not  to  be  left  unnoticed  tliat  different 
 tribes  of  the  desert  often  seem  to  give  ditTerent  names 
 to  the  same  momitain,  valley,  etc.,  or  the  same  names 
 to  dill'erent  mountains,  etc.,  because,  perhaps,  they 
 judge  of  them  by  the  way  in  which  leading  features 
 group  themselves  to  the  eye,  and  which  varies  with 
 Ihe  habitual  point  of  view  (Lepsius,  p.  64). 
 
 SINAI 
 
 would  have  reached  Sinai  the  same  day  that  thej? 
 fought  with  Amalek :  ''  the  decampment  occurred 
 during  the  battle"  {ibid.  p.  80)  —  an  unlikely  thing, 
 since  the  contest  was  evidently  fierce  and  close,  and 
 lasted  till  sunset.  Serbdl  is  the  most  magnificent 
 mountain  of  the  peninsula,  rising  with  a  crown  of 
 five  peaks  from  the  maritime  plain  on  one  side,  and 
 from  the  Wi'f/y  Ftivdn  on  the  other,  and  showing 
 its  full  height  at  once  to  the  eye;  and  Ritter 
 {Geoi/r.  xiv.  734-730)  has  suggested  f'  that  it  might 
 have  been,  before  the  actual  Exodus,  known  as 
 "  the  mount  of  God  "  to  the  Amalekite  Arabs,  and 
 even  to  the  Egyptians. «  'J'he  earliest  traditions  are 
 in  its  fiivor.  "  It  is  undoubtedly  identified  with 
 Sinai  by  luisebius,  Jerome,  and  Cosmas,  that  is, 
 by  all  known  writers  to  the  time  of  Justinian,"  as 
 confirmed  by  the  position  "  of  the  episcopal  city  of 
 Paran  at  its  foot"  (Stanley,  S.  </  P.  p.  40). 
 
 But  there  are  two  main  objections  to  this:  (1.) 
 It  is  clear,  from  Ex.  xix.  2  (comp.  xvii.  1),  that  the 
 interval  between  Rephidim  and  Sinai  was  that  of  a 
 regular  stage  of  the  march.  The  expressions  in  the 
 Hebrew  are  those  constantly  u.sed  for  decamping 
 and  encamping  in  the  books  of  Ex.,  Num.,  and 
 Deut. ;  and  thus  a  Sinai  within  a  mile  of  Rephidim 
 is  unsuitable.  (2.)  There  is  no  plain  or  wady  of 
 any  sufficient  size  near  Serbcil  to  ofier  camping 
 ground  to  so  large  a  host,  or  perhaps  the  tenth  part 
 of  them.  Dr.  Stewart  {The.  Tent  and  the  K'linn, 
 p.  146)  contends  for  Serbdl  as  the  real  Sinai,  seek- 
 ing to  obviate  objection  (1),  by  making  Rephidim 
 "no  higher  up  than  /Jexhut''h^'  [Repiiidi.m],  and 
 (2),  by  regarding  U-ady  Alei'(t  and  Wiidy  Jiinim 
 as  capacious  enough  for  the  host  to  camp  in  {ibid. 
 p.  145);  a  very  doubtful  assertion. 
 
 II.  The  second  is  that  of  Ritter,/  that,  allowing 
 Serbdl  the  reverence  of  an  early  sanctuary,  the 
 ./ebel  Mi'igit  is  Sinai,  and  that  the  \rady  es- 
 Sebayeh,  which  its  S.  I'^.  or  highest  summit  over- 
 hangs, is  the  spot  where  the  people  camped  before 
 the  mount;  but  the  second  objection  to  Serbdl 
 applies  almost  in  equal  force  to  this  —  the  want  of 
 space  below.  The  wady  is  "  rough,  uneven,  and 
 narrow"  (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  76);  and  there  seems 
 lio  possibility  of  the  people's  "  removing  (Ex.  xx. 
 18)  and  standing  afar  off,"  and  yet  preserving  any 
 connection  with  the  scene.  Further,  this  site  ofl^rs 
 no  such  feature  as  a  "  brook  that  descended  out  of 
 the  mount  "  (Deut.  ix.  21). 
 
 HI.  The  third  is  that  of  Robin.son,  that  the 
 modern  Horeb  of  the  monks  —  namely,  the  N.  W. 
 and  lower  face  of  the  Jebtl  MUkk,  crowned  with  a 
 range  of  magnificent  cliffs,  the  highest  point  called 
 Jilts  Sasq/'eli,  or  SuJ'i!dfch,a.s  spelled  by  Robin.son  — 
 overlooking  the  plain  er-Jlnhah,  is  the  scene  of  the 
 giving  of  the  Law,  and  that  peak  the  mountain 
 into  which  Closes  ascended.  In  this  view,  also, 
 Strauss  appears  to  coincide  {Sinai  and  doUjotha. 
 p.  110).  Lepsius  objects,  but  without  much  force 
 (since  he  himself  climbed  it),  that  the  peak  Sasafeh 
 
 d  Kobinson,  on  the  other  hand  (i.  78,  79),  suggests 
 that  Surabit  el-Kha/Jhn  (or  C/taelem),  lying  north  of 
 Serbal,  was  a  place  of  pilgrimage  to  the  ancient  Egyp- 
 tians, and  a  supposable  object  of  Moses'  proposed 
 "  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness."  But  that 
 pilgrimage  was  an  element  in  the  religion  of  ancient 
 Egjpt  seems  at  least  doubtful. 
 
 e  So  Dr.  Stewart  {The  Tent  and  the  Khan,  p.  147) 
 says,  "that  it  was  a  place  of  idolatrous  worship  before 
 the  passage  of  the  children  of  Israel  is  extremely  prob- 
 able."'    He  renders  the  name  by  "  Lord  Baal." 
 
 /  Geogr.  xiv.  593. 
 
SINAI 
 
 is  nearly  inaccessible.  It  is  more  to  the  purpose  to 
 obser\e  that  the  whole  Jebel  Mi'/sii  is,  compara- 
 tively with  adjacent  mountains,  insignificant;  "its 
 prospect  limited  in  the  east,  south,  and  west,  by 
 higher  mountains  "  (Rlippell,"  quoted  by  Robinson, 
 i.  105,  note;  comp.  Seetzen,  lieisvn,  vol.  ii.  p.  9-i); 
 that  it  is  "remote  and  almost  concealed."  But 
 the  high  ground  of  Serbal  being  rejected  for  the 
 above  reasons,  and  no  voice  having  ever  been  raised 
 in  favor  of  the  Uni  Sh<niiner.'>  the  highest  point  in 
 the  peninsula,  lying  S.  W.  of  tlie  Milsa,  some  such 
 secondary  and  overshadowed  peak  must  be  assumed. 
 The  conjunction  of  mountain  with  plaiu  is  the 
 greatest  featui'e  of  this  site;  in  chousing  it,  we  lose 
 in  the  mountain,  as  compared  with  Si-/-/jdl,  but  we 
 gain  in  the  plain,  of  which  Serbal  has  nothing-. 
 Yet  the  view  from  the  plain  appears  by  no  means 
 wanting  in  features  of  majesty  and  awe  {S.  <j'-  P. 
 pp.  42,  43).  Dr.  Stanley  remarked  {S.  cf-  P.  p.  43) 
 some  alluvial  mounds  at  the  foot  of  the  cliff 
 "  which  exactly  answered  to  the  bounds "  set  to 
 restrain  the  people.  In  this  long  retiring  sweep  of 
 er-Riihah,  the  people  could  "  remove  and  stand 
 afar  off;  "  for  it  "  e.xtends  into  the  lateral  valleys," 
 and  so  joins  the  Win/y  es-Sheykh  {ibid.  p.  74).  Here 
 too  Moses,  if  he  came  down  througli  one  of  the 
 oblique  gullies  which  flank  the  Ji  is  iSiinqfeh  on  the 
 N.  and  S.,  might  not  see  the  camp,  although  he 
 might  catch  its  noise,  till  he  emerged  from  the 
 \V(i(/y  ed-Deir,  or  the  Wady  Lejd,  on  the  plain 
 itself.  lu  the  latter,  also,  is  found  a  brook  in  close 
 connection  with  the  mountain. 
 
 Still  there  is  the  name  of  the  Jebcl  Musn  be- 
 longing to  the  0[)posite  or  S.  E.  peak  or  precipice, 
 overhanging  I'S-lScbuytdi.  Lepsius  treats  this  as  a 
 monkish  legend  unknown  before  the  convent;  but 
 there  is  tlie  name  Wady  Slumaib  (valley  of  Ilobab 
 or  Jethro,  S.  tf  /'.  p.  .32),  the  IFady  Lejd  and 
 Jebd  Fureid  (perhaps  from  the  forms  in  Arabic 
 legend  of  the  names  of  his  two  dauuhters  Lljn  and 
 S((J'uri(i=  Zippondi),  forming  a  group  of  Mosaic 
 tradition.  Is  it  nut  possible  that  the  Jtbtl  AIusi, 
 or  loftiest  southeastern  peak  of  that  block  of  which 
 the  modern  1  loreb  is  the  lower  and  opposite  end, 
 may  have  been  the  spot  to  which  Moses  retired, 
 leaving  the  people  encamped  in  er-Raludi  below, 
 from  which  its  distance  is  not  aiiove  three  liiiles? 
 That  the  spot  is  out  of  sight  from  that  plain  is 
 hardly  a  ditticulty,  for  "  the  mountain  burning 
 with  fire  to  the  midst  of  heaven  "  was  what  the 
 people  saw  (Ueut.  iv.  11);  and  this  would  give  a 
 reasonable  distance  for  the  spot,  somewhere  mid- 
 way, whence  the  elders  enjoyed  a  partial  vision  of 
 God  (Kx.  xxiv   9,  10). 
 
 Tradition,  no  doul)t  in  this  case  purely  monkish, 
 has  fixed  on  a  spot  for  Elijah's  visit  —  "(/ie  cave, 
 to  wiiich  he  repaired ;  but  one  at  Strbdl  would 
 equally  suit  {S.  ij- /".  p.  40).  That  on  the  Jtbd 
 Musii  is  called  the  chapel  of  St.  Ellas.  It  has 
 been  thought  possible  that  St.  Paul  may  have  vis- 
 
 a  It  slioufJ  be  added  that  Ruppell  (Lepsius,  p.  12) 
 'oofi  Gel/el  Katkerin  for  lloreb,  but  tliat  there  are 
 fewer  features  iu  its  favor,  as  compared  with  the  his- 
 tory, thau  ahuost  any  otlier  site  (Robinson,  i.  llU). 
 
 b  Thoujiih  Dr.  Stanley  (S.  ^  P.  p.  .39,  note)  states 
 that  it  has  been  "  expiored  by  Mr.  Hogg,  who  tells  me 
 that  it  meets  none  of  tlie  special  reriuirements."' 
 
 c  Sec.  the  work  of  Professor  Beer  of  Leipsic  on  this 
 curious  question.  Mr.  Forster's  attempt  (  Voice  of 
 Isnifl  from  the  Rork^  of  Sixai)  to  regard  them  as 
 a  contemporary  record  of  the  Exodus  by  tlie  Israelites 
 iavolves  this  anachronism  :  the  events  of  the  fortieth 
 
 siKAi  3053 
 
 ited  Sinai  (Gal.  i.  17),  and  been  familiar  with  the 
 name  Ilajar    (j^S,^)  as  given  commonly  to  it, 
 
 signifying  "a  rock."  (Ewald,  Sendschreibeji,- -p. 
 403.) 
 
 It  may  be  added  that,  supposing  Wady  T<iyibeh 
 to  have  been  the  encampment  "by  the  sea,"  as 
 stated  in  Num.  xxxiii.  10,  three  routes  opened 
 there  before  the  Israelites:  the  most  southerly  one 
 (taken  by  Shawe  and  I'ococke)  down  the  plain  el- 
 Kda  to  Tiir ;  the  most  northerly  (Robinson's)  by 
 the  Sdrbt'd  el-Khadem  (either  of  which  would  have 
 left  Serbal  out  of  their  line  of  march);  and  the 
 middle  one  by  Wady  Feirdn,  by  which  they  would 
 pass  'tlie  foot  of  Serbal,  which  therefore  in  this 
 case  alone  could  possibly  be  Sinai  (Stanley,  >S.  <)• 
 /■*.  pp.  36,  37).  .Inst  east  of  the  Jebel  3Iits'i,  across 
 the  narrow  ravine  named  Shuuaib,  lies  ed-Deir,  or 
 tlie  convent  mountain,  called  also,  from  a  local 
 legend  (Stanley,  p.  46;  Kobinson,  i.  98),  "the 
 iMount  of  the  liurning  Bush."  Tradition  has 
 also  fixed  on  a  hollow  rock  in  the  plain  of  the 
 Witdy  es-S/wylch,  on  which  the  modern  lloreb 
 looks,  as  "  the  (mould  of  the)  head  of  the  cow," 
 i.  e.  in  which  the  golden  calf  was  shaped  by  Aaron. 
 In  tlie  ravine  called  J-^eJa,  parallel  to  Siiouaib  on 
 the  western  side  of  the  .lebel  Ah'isa,  lies  what  is 
 called  the  rock  of  Moses  (see  IiKPiriiHsi);  and  a 
 liule  in  the  gruund  near,  in  the  plain,  is  called,  by 
 manifest  error,  the  "pit  of  Korah,"  whose  catas- 
 trophe took  place  far  away  (Robinson,  i.  113 ;  Lep- 
 sius, p.  10). 
 
 The  middle  route  aforesaid  from  IF.  Tayibeh 
 reaches  the  W.  Feirdn  through  what  is  called  the 
 W.  Moknlleb,  or  "  written  valley,"  from  the  in- 
 scriptions on  the  rocks  which  line  it,'^  generally 
 considered  to  have  been  the  work  of  Christian 
 hands,  but  whether  those  of  a  Christian  people 
 localized  there  at  an  unknown  period,  as  Lepsius  '' 
 (p.  90)  thinks,  or  of  passing  pilgrims,  as  is  the 
 more  general  opinion,  is  likely  to  continue  doubtful. 
 
 It  is  remarkable  that  the  names  of  the  chief 
 peaks  seem  all  borrowed  from  their  peculiarities  of 
 
 vegetation:   thus   Uin  Slwmr''   (w,^^  <•')   means 
 
 "mother     of    fennel;"    lias    SasdJ'eh    (properly 
 
 Sdfsafeh,  &A.OJIaO)   is  "  willow-head,"  a  group 
 
 of  two  or  three  of  which  trees  grow  in  the  recessea 
 of  the  adjacent  wady;  so  Serbal  is  perhaps   from 
 
 (JLJyau;  and.  from   analogy,  the  name  "  Sinai," 
 
 now  unknown  amongst  the  Arabs  (unless  Sena, 
 given  to  the  point  of  the  ./ebel  Fureid,  opposite  to 
 the  modern  Horeb  (Stanley,  p.  42),  contain  a  trace 
 
 of  it),  may   be  supposed  derived  from  the   L 
 
 .A/M 
 
 and  La.*u,   the  tree  of  the  Burning  Bush.     The 
 
 year  —  e.  g.  the  plague  of  fiery  serpents  —  are  repre- 
 sented as  recorded  close  on  the  same  spot  with  what 
 took  place  before  the  people  reaphed  Sinai  ;  and  al- 
 though the  route  which  they  took  cannot  be  traced  ia 
 all  its  parts,  yet  all  the  evidence  and  all  the  prooabil- 
 ity  of  the  question  is  clearly  against  their  ever  having 
 returned  from  Kadesh  and  the  Arabah  to  the  valleys 
 west  of  Sinai. 
 
 'I  Arguiug  from  the  fact  that  these  Inscriptions  oc- 
 cur uot  only  on  roads  leading  out  of  Egypt,  but  in  the 
 most  secluded  spots,  and  on  rocks  lying  quite  out  of 
 the  main  roads. 
 
8054  SINAI 
 
 re^etation  «  of  the  peninsula  is  most  copious  at  d- 
 ''Vudy,  near  Ti'ir.  on  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
 in  the  Witdy  Fdrdii  [see  Rei'Hidim],  the  two 
 oases  of  its  waste,  and  "  in  the  nucleus  of  springs 
 in  the  Gebel  Mousa "  (Stanley,  p.  19).  For  a 
 fuller  account  of  its  flora,  see  Wilderness  of 
 THK  Wandeiunu.  As  regards  its  fauna,  Seetzen 
 (iii.  20)  mentions  the  following  animals  as  found 
 at  er-Ii(indtli,  near  Sinai :  the  wild  goat,  the  wub- 
 ber,  hyena,  fox,  hare,  gazelle,  panther  (rare),  field- 
 mouse  {el-Dschiirdi/,  like  a  jerboa),  and  a  lizard 
 called  el-Dso/j,  which  is  eaten.  11.  H. 
 
 *  The  names  lloreb  and  Sinai  are  used  inter- 
 changeably. At  the  &-st  Horeb  had  precedence, 
 being  "the  mountain  of  God  "  to  Moses  prior  to 
 the  giving  of  the  Law  (Ex.  iii.  1,  12,  iv.  27,  xvii. 
 6,  xviii.  5).  Sinai  is  first  mentioned  after  the 
 battle  of  Rephidiin  (Ex.  xix.  1,  2);  and  this  name 
 is  thenceforth  prominent  until  the  breaking  up  of 
 the  encampment  in  that  wilderness,  as  recorded  in 
 Num.  X.  12.  lint  in  the  recapitulation  of  this 
 journey  by  JNIoses,  Horeb  is  spoken  of  as  the  point 
 of  departure  (Ueut.  i.  2,  6,  lU).  Horeb  is  named 
 as  the  mountain  from  which  "  the  Lord  spake  out 
 of  the  midst  of  the  fire,"  and  upon  which  He 
 wrote  the  ten  commandments  (Deut.  iv.  10,  15). 
 Horeb  also  was  the  scene  of  the  transgression  in 
 the  golden  calf  (Deut.  ix.  8).  The  covenant  was 
 made  at  Horeb  (Ueut.  xxix.  1).  In  the  books  of 
 Kings  and  Chronicles  (1  K.  viii.  9,  xix.  8;  2  Chr. 
 V.  10),  Horeb  is  named  as  the  scene  of  the  Law; 
 •while  in  the  I'salms  both  names  are  used  for  the 
 same  place;  Sinai  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  8,  17,  and  Horeb 
 Ps.  cvi.  19.  JMountains  thus  closely  identified 
 ■with  the  same  series  of  events  could  not  have  been 
 far  apart;  and  the  best  solution  of  the  Biblical 
 usage  in  respect  of  these  names  appears  to  be  .that 
 ■which  makes  Horeb  the  central  mass  or  ridge,  of 
 which  Sinai  was  a  prominent  peak.  See  Hitter, 
 xiv.  743;  Hengstenberg,  /"eH^fito/c//,  ii.  325 ;  Rob- 
 inson, i.  591;  Kurtz,  iii.  79;  Kalisch,  Coiimi.  on 
 Exodui.  Bunsen,  Bibelwer/c,  gives  the  name 
 Horeb  to  the  group  of  which  SvJ'sriJ'th  and  J  el/el 
 Musa  are  peaks,  and  places  Sinai  opposite  to  Suf- 
 scifeli,  on  the  northern  side  of  the  plain. 
 
 The  Itev.  F.  W.  Holland,  Fellow  of  the  Royal 
 Geographical  Society,  in  a  paper  read  before  the 
 Society  in  1808,  gave  an  interesting  account  of  his 
 minute  and  carel'ul  exploration  of  the  Sinaitic  re- 
 gion. A  compendium  of  his  results  will  shed  light 
 ■upon  several  points  hitherto  somewhat  in  doubt  or 
 dispute. 
 
 Fertilify  of  the  Desert.  —  "  The  lower  portion 
 of  Wiidy  (ihuruiidel  is  one  of  the  most  fertile  in 
 the  whole  peninsula.  It  is  nearly  300  yards  broad 
 in  many  places,  and  thickets  of  tamarisks,  palms, 
 and  beds  of  bulrushes  and  reeds  abound,  and  wild 
 ducks,  with  many  kinds  of  smaller  birds,  frequent 
 the  pools,  foru)ed  here  and  there  by  a  clear  stream 
 of  ruiming  water,  which  never  fails. 
 
 "  Mainia  and  gum  Arabic  appear  to  be  found  in 
 very  small  quantities.  The  latter  exudes  from  the 
 boughs  of  the  mimosa,  or  shittini-tree,  after  the 
 young  shoots  have  been  lopped  off  in  spring  to 
 feed  the  goats. 
 
 "  Water  is  not  nearly  so  scarce  in  the  granitic 
 district  as  most  tra\ellers  have  supposed.  There 
 is  also  a  far  larger  amount  of  vegetation  than  usu- 
 ally described.       [This  was   in  October  and   No- 
 
 <"■■  for  a  full  account  of  the  climate  and  vegetation 
 Schubert  (iinsen,  ii.  351)  may  be  consulted. 
 
 SINAI 
 
 vember.]  The  basins  on  the  summits  of  the 
 mountains  generally  afford  good  pasturage,  and 
 even  the  mountain  sides,  which  look  so  barren 
 from  the  wadies  below,  are  often  covered  with 
 numerous  plants  on  which  the  goats  delight  to 
 feed.  Many  of  the  smaller  wadies,  too,  are  aston- 
 ishingly fertile,  and  in  former  days,  when  fairly 
 cultivated  by  tlie  monks,  nmst  have  yielded  abun- 
 dance of  fruit,  vegetables,  and  even  corn,  for  I 
 found  traces  in  several  spots  of  terraced  plots  evi- 
 dently laid  out  for  growing  corn.  I  can  readily 
 believe  that  at  one  time  6,000  or  7,000  monks  and 
 hermits  lived,  as  we  are  told,  in  these  mountains, 
 and  were  enabled  in  great  measure,  perhaps  alto- 
 gether, to  support  themselves  by  the  cultivation  of 
 the  soil.  In  IF.  Jldk  alone,  in  addition  to  a  fine 
 grove  of  olives  near  the  ruins  of  an  old  monastery, 
 there  is  for  three  miles  a  constant  succession  of 
 gardens,  each  garden  having  in  it  two  good  wells 
 which  never  fail,  and  producing  olives,  pears,  ap- 
 ples, vines,  figs,  palms,  nebk,  carroub,  apricot, 
 mulberry,  pomegranate,  and  poplar  trees;  while 
 above  and  below  these  gardens  runs  a  stream  of 
 water  which  affords  here  and  there  a  pool  large 
 and  deep  enough  to  swim  in." 
 
 All  this  confirms  the  view  that  the  sustentation 
 of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  was  not  exclusively 
 miraculous,  but  the  resources  of  nature  were  sup- 
 plemented by  special  intervention,  from  time  to 
 time. 
 
 The  Amalekites.  —  Mr.  Holland  discovered  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Jebel  Iladeed,  "  the  Iron 
 Mountain,"  remarkable  ruins  of  buildings  and 
 tombs.  These  were  constructed  of  undressed 
 stones,  of  large  size,  laid  together  without  mortar. 
 The  buildings  were  apparently  designed  for  store- 
 houses, having  no  wuidows;  the  tombs  contained 
 human  bones.  From  the  extent  of  these  struc- 
 tures, and  their  massive  workmanship,  Mr.  Hol- 
 land concludes  that  they  must  have  been  built  by 
 a  large  and  powerful  jieople ;  and  he  is  disposed  to 
 refer  them  to  the  Amalekites. 
 
 The  True  Sinni.  —  After  a  careful  exploration 
 of  each  point,  Mr.  Holland  rejects  Serbtd  and 
 Odjmeh  as  the  Biblical  Sinai,  since  "  in  the  neigh- 
 borhood of  the  former  there  is  no  plain,  in  the 
 latter  range  there  is  no  one  distinct  mvwilain." 
 He  suggests  as  a  possible  competitor  to  Jebel 
 Afusn,  Jebel  UmAlowee,  "  the  Mother  of  Heights." 
 The  road  to  the  two  is  the  same  up  to  the  last  five 
 or  six  miles;  both  rise  almost  precipitously  from 
 the  plains  beneath  them;  but  J.  Uiu  Alowee  has 
 the  advantage  of  much  the  larger  plain  —  Semied, 
 which  contains  about  titirty  square  miles  of  good 
 camping  ground. 
 
 Jimte  of  the  Israelites.  —  Mr.  Holland  is  of 
 opinion  that  Ain  Jhitheruh,  commonly  identified 
 as  Hazeroth,  could  not  have  been  one  of  the  sta- 
 tions of  the  Israelites,  since  it  lies  in  a' cul-de-sac, 
 and  can  be  approached  only  by  a  steep  narrow 
 pass.  "  After  crossing  the  Red  Sea  somewhere  in 
 tlie  neighborhood  of  Suez,  the  Israelites  took  the 
 lower  road  down  the  plain  along  the  coast  as  far 
 as  Ain  Szotiweira,  which  may  possibly  mark  the 
 locality  of  Marah.  They  then  turned  inland  to 
 Klim,  which  I  would  place  at  Ain  IJuinira.  Their 
 next  encanqiment  was  by  the  sea,  possibly  near  the 
 mouth  of  IF.  Ghunindel,  where  was  abundance 
 of  water."  The  wilderness  of  Sin  is  the  plain  of 
 es-Seyh.  Dofhkah  was  in  the  neighborhootl  of 
 IF.  keneh,  near  Lib-el-cheir.  Alush,  at  IF.  el- 
 As/i,  a  broad  wady  uniting  with   IF.  Beruh,  not 
 
SINIM 
 
 far  i'rom  W.  es-Sheikk.  B«phidim,  Mr.  Holland 
 fixes  at  a  point  in  W.  es-Sheikk  about  10  miles 
 from  JeOel  3Ii(sn,  at  the  gorge  of  the  "  Mukad 
 Nebi  iMusii,''  the  "seat  of  tlie  Prophet  Moses." 
 This  would  have  given  the  Ainalekites  strategic 
 advantages  for  surprising  the  Israelites  on  their 
 march.  , 
 
 It  was  mainly  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Holland, 
 and  under  the  stimulus  of  his  energetic  example, 
 that  a  scientific  corps  was  sent  out  in  1809,  to 
 explore  the  peninsula  of  Arabia  Petraja.  The  re- 
 port of  this  expedition  must  give  light  upon  many 
 disputed  points,  but  it  cannot  be  obtained  in  time 
 for  use  in  this  article.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 SINIM  (0''3''p:  [ne'po-aC  term  oustnilis]), 
 a  people  noticed  in  Is.  xlix.  12,  as  living  at  the 
 extremity  of  the  known  world,  either  in  the  south 
 or  east.  The  majority  of  the  early  interpreters 
 adopted  the  former  view,  but  the  LXX.  in  giving 
 Tlfpcrai  favors  the  latter,  and  the  weight  of  modern 
 authority  is  thrown  into  tlie  same  scale,  the  name 
 being  identified  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Knobel,  and 
 others,  with  the  classical  Since,  the  inhabitants  of 
 the  southern  part  of  CIdiin.  No  locality  in  the 
 south  equally  commends  itself  to  the  judgment: 
 Sin,  the  classical  Pelusium,  which  Bochart  {Pludeij, 
 iv.  27)  suggests,  is  too  near,  and  Syene  (Michaelis, 
 Spicil.  ii.  32)  would  have  been  given  in  its  well- 
 known  Hebrew  form.  There  is  no  a  priori  ini- 
 probabihty  in  the  name  of  the  Sinte  being  known 
 to  the  inhabitants  of  Western  Asia  in  the  age  of 
 Isaiah;  for  tliough  it  is  not  mentioned  by  the 
 Greek  geographers  until  the  age  of  Ptolemy,  it  is 
 certain  that  an  inland  commercial  route  connected 
 the  extreme  East  with  the  West  at  a  very  early 
 period,  and  that  a  traffic  was  maintained  on  the 
 frontier  of  China  between  the  Sina;  and  the  Scyth- 
 ians, in  the  maimer  still  followed  by  the  Chinese 
 and  the  Russians  at  Kiuchia.  If  any  name  for 
 these  Chinese  traders  travelled  westward,  it  would 
 probably  be  that  of  the  Sinse,  whose  town  Thinse 
 (another  form  of  the  Sinse)  was  one  of  the  great 
 emporiums  in  the  western  part  of  China,  and  is 
 represented  by  the  modern  Tksin  or  Tin,  in  the 
 province  of  Schensi.  Tlie  Siiue  attained  an  inde- 
 pendent position  in  Western  China  as  early  as  the 
 8th  century  is.  c.,  and  in  the  3d  century  B.  c 
 established  their  sway  under  the  dynasty  of  Tsin 
 over  the  whole  of  the  empire.  The  Rabbinical 
 name  of  China,  7"^*/;,  as  well  as  "China"  itself, 
 was  derived  from  this  dynasty  (Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 SI'NITE  O^'^D:  'Ao-ewaToj;  [in  Chr.,  Eom. 
 Vat.  omit:]  Zinceus).  A  tribe  of  Canaanites 
 (Gen.  X.  17;  1  Chr.  i.  15),  whose  position  is  to  be 
 sought  for  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Lebanon 
 district.  Various  localities  in  that  district  bear  a 
 certain  amount  of  resemblance  to  the  name,  par- 
 ticularly Sinna,  a  mountain  fortress  mentioned  by 
 Strabo  (xvi.  p.  755);  Sinum  or  Sini,  the  ruins  of 
 which  existed  in  the  time  of  .Jerome  (  Qiuest.  in 
 Gen.  1.  c. ) ;  Syn,  a  village  mentioned  in  the  15th 
 century  as  near  the  river  Area  (Gesen.  Thes.  p. 
 948);  and  Dunniyeh,  a  district  near  Tripoli  (Rob- 
 inson's Researches,  ii.  494).  The  Targums  of  On- 
 kelos  and  .Jonathan  give  C)rthosia,  a  town  on  the 
 coast  to  the  northeast  of  Tripolis.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 SI'ON,    MOUNT.     I.    (VS^J?  "in     [lofty 
 
 momil] :  Samar.  pS''t27  "IH  :  rb  opos  tov  Srjciv: 
 mum  Siun).    One  of  the  various  names  of  Mount 
 
 SIPPAI 
 
 3055 
 
 Hermou  which  are  fortunately  preserved,  all  not 
 improbably  more  ancient  than  "  Hermon  "  itself% 
 It  occurs  in  Ueut.  iv.  48  only,  and  is  interpreted 
 by  the  lexicographers  to  mean  "  lofty."  Fiirst 
 conjectures  that  these  various  appellations  were  the 
 names  of  separate  peaks  or  portions  of  the  moun- 
 tain. Some  have  supposed  that  Zion  in  Ps.  cxxxiii. 
 3  is  a  variation  of  this  Sion ;  but  there  is  no  war- 
 rant for  this  beyond  the  fact  that  so  doing  over- 
 comes a  difficulty  of  interpretation  in  that  pas- 
 sage.« 
 
 2.  (rh  opos  ^ttiv,  in  Heb.  'S.tuiv  opos-  mans 
 Sion.)  The  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  name 
 Zion  (Tsion),  the  famous  Mount  of  the  Temple 
 (1  Mace.  iv.  37,  GO,  v.  54,  vi.  48,  62,  vii.  33,  x.  11, 
 xiv.  27;  Heb.  xii.  22;  Rev.  xiv.  1).  In  the 
 books  of  Maccabees  the  expression  is  always  Mount 
 Sion.  In  the  other  Apocryphal  Books  the  name 
 Sion  is  alone  emi)loyed.  Further,  in  the  Macca- 
 bees the  name  unmistakably  denotes  the  mount  on 
 which  the  Temple  was  built ;  on  which  the  mosque 
 of  the  Aksn^  with  its  attendant  mosques  of  Omar 
 and  the  iMogrebbins,  now  stands.  The  first  of  the 
 passages  just  quoted  is  enough  to  decide  this.  If 
 it  can  he  established  that  Zion  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment means  the  same  locality  with  Sion  in  the 
 books  of  Maccabees,  one  of  the  greatest  puzzles  of 
 .Jerusalem  topography  will  be  solved.  This  will  be 
 examined  under  Zion.  G. 
 
 *  There  can  be  scarcely  a  question  that  in  the 
 passages  abo\e  quoted  from  Maccabees,  Sion  is 
 synonymous  with  Jerusalem  —  as  in  Isa.  ii.  3 : 
 "  for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the 
 word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem,"  and  in  Ps. 
 cxlvii.  12:  "Praise  the  Lord,  0  Jerusalem,  praise 
 thy  God,  O  Zion  "  —  where  the  words  are  parallel, 
 and  each  clause  has  the  same  meaning.  Accepting 
 Sion  in  the  books  of  Maccaliees,  as  the  same  local- 
 ity with  Zion  in  the  Old  Testament  used  in  this 
 general  sense,  we  have  no  great  puzzle  of  Jerusalem 
 topography  to  be  solved.  The  examination  pro- 
 posed in  the  last  line  was  for  some  reason  not  insti- 
 tuted. S.  W. 
 
 SIPH'MOTH  (nSr)?J£'  [fruitful  places, 
 Fiirst]:  [Rom.  2a(^t;  Vat.]'  2o<^6i;  Alex.  :S,acj)a- 
 fiws'-  Sephamoth).  One  of  the  places  in  the  south 
 of  Judah  which  David  frequented  during  his  free- 
 booting  life,  and  to  his  friends  in  which  he  sent  a 
 portion  of  the  spoil  taken  from  the  Amalekites.  It 
 is  named  only  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  28.  It  is  not  named 
 l)y  Eusebius  or  Jerome.  No  one  appears  yet  to 
 have  discovered  or  even  suggested  an  identification 
 of  it.  G. 
 
 *  In  1  Chr.  xxvii.  27,  Zabdi,  one  of  David's  pur- 
 veyors, is  called  the  Shiphmite,  not  improbably 
 because  he  belonged  to  Siphmoth.  The  commuta- 
 tion of  sh  and  s  is  easily  made,  and  a  few  MSS. 
 actually  read  Shipmoth  instead  of  Siphmoth  in 
 1  Sam.  xxx.  28.  Thenius  suggests  on  this  last 
 passage  [Blicher  Samuels),  that  Siphmoth  may  be 
 the  same  as  Sliepham  (Num.  xxxiv.  10,  11)  in  the 
 east  part  of  Judah.  This  is  a  mere  conjecture, 
 though  it  agrees  with  1  Chr.  xxvii.  27,  for  Zabdi's 
 office  would  require  him  to  be  at  no  great  distance 
 from  David's  court.  H. 
 
 SIP'PAI  [2  syl.]  C'QD  [threshold,  bowl]: 
 2a<pouT;  Alex.  Sec/x^i:  Suphai).     One  of  the  sona 
 
 a  *  This  supposition,  instead  of  overcoming  a 
 diflSculty,  only  adds  another  and  greater.  See  Ueb- 
 MON,  vol.  ii.  p.  1047,  note  a  (Amer.  ed.).        ,  S.  W. 
 
3056 
 
 SIRACH 
 
 of  the  Rephaim,  or  ''  the  giants,"  slain  by  Sibbe- 
 chai  the  Hushathite  at  Ge-cer  (1  Chr.  xx.  4).  In 
 2  Sam.  xxi.  18  he  is  called  Saph. 
 
 SI'RACU  (Xeifidx,  2ipax=  Sirack:  in  Rab- 
 binic writers,  ST^D)^  tlie  father  of  Jesus  (Joshua), 
 the  writer  of  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  Book  of 
 Ecclesiasticus.  [Pxclesiasticus;  Jksus,  the 
 Son  of  Sikach.]  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SI'RAH  [departure,  ajwsiasy],  THE  WELL 
 
 OF  (n^DfJ  I  13 :  -rh  (ppiap  tov  ^(etpdfx,  in 
 bothJMSS. :  cislenia  Sira).  The  spot  from  which 
 Abner  was  recalled  by  Joab  to  his  death  at  Hebron 
 (2  Sam.  iii.  20  only).  It  was  apparently  on  the 
 northern  road  from  Hebron  —  that  by  which  Abner 
 would  naturally  return  through  Bahurim  (ver.  IG) 
 to  Jlahanaini.  There  is  a  spring  and  reservoir  on 
 the  western  side  of  the  ancient  northern  road, 
 about  one  mile  out  of  Hebron,  which  is  called  Ain 
 Sara,  and  gives  its  name  to  the  little  valley  in 
 which  it  lies  (see  Dr.  Rozen's  paper  on  Hebron,  in 
 the  Ztitschnft  der  D.  M.  G.  xii.  486,  and  the 
 excellent  map  accompanying  it).  This  may  be  a 
 relic  of  the  well  of  Sirah.  It  is  mentioned  as  far 
 back  as  the  12th  century  by  Rabbi  Petachia,  but 
 the  correspondence  of  the  name  with  that  of  Sirah 
 seems  to  have  escaped  notice.  G. 
 
 SIR'ION   (]''"lii7,"  i.  e.  Siryon,  in  Deut.,  but 
 
 in  Ps.  xxix.  ]^"*"^lt"',  Shiryon  [see  below] :  Samar. 
 
 ]''~ltI7;  Sam.  "Vers.   I^"!  :  'Zaviiip;   [Comp.  2a- 
 
 S££^i/:]   Sarion).     One   of  the   various    names  of 
 lount  Hermon,  that  by  which  it  was  known  to 
 the  Zidonians  (Ueut.  iii.  9).     The  word  is  almost 
 
 identical  with  that  (]^~)D)  which  in  Hebrew  de- 
 notes a  "  breastplate"  or  "  cuirass,"  and  Gesenius 
 therefore  expresses  his  belief  that  it  was  applied  in 
 this  sense  to  the  mountain,  just  as  the  name  Thorax 
 
 «  No  variation  from  ti7  to  li?,  or  the  rever.«e,  is 
 noticed  iu  Doderleiu  and  Meisuer,  on  either  occurrence 
 of  the  name.  [It  exists,  however ;  see  Michaelis's 
 Bibl.  Hebr.  on  Deut.  iii.  9.  — A.] 
 
 6  *  Capt.  Warren  reports  some  later  observations 
 respecting  Sirion  or  Hermon,  and  corrects  several  minor 
 inaccuracies  of  previous  travellers.  He  makes  the 
 height  of  Uermon  9,000  feet  above  the  level  of  the 
 Mediterranean,  and  not  10,000  as  in  Murray's  Hnnd- 
 boo/c,  ii.  455.  The  curious  line  of  stones  around  the 
 southern  peak  of  the  three  summits  is  oval  and  not 
 circular,  and  may  have  been  for  the  same  purpose  as 
 the  Kaaha  at  Mecca.  The  existing  temples  on  Hermon 
 probably  were  not  devoted  to  the  older  sun-worship 
 (standing  iu  fact  where  the  sun  is  not  visible  until 
 hours  after  it  has  risen),  and  the  entrances  are  not  on 
 the  west  so  as  to  bring  the  worshipper's  face  toward 
 the  sun-rising  as  to  a  Icibleh,  but  all  of  them  open 
 toward  the  east.  The  inscriptions  on  the  temples 
 about  Hermon  are  mostly  Grecian,  nearly  all  of  them 
 go  defaced  that  only  a  few  letters  in  each  line  can  be 
 deciphered.  {Athenrfiim,  Feb.  12,  1870,  and  Qitnrterly 
 Report  of  the  Pal.  Expl.  Fiinrl,  No.  iv.,  1869.)       H. 
 
 c  Gesenius  (Lex.  a.  v.),  by  comparison  with  the 
 Syriac,  interprets  the  name  as  "  battle-array."  I'iirst, 
 on  the  other  hand  (Handwb.  ii.  279),  gives  as  its 
 equivalent  Ver/n(«etoM^,  the  nearest  appraach  to  which 
 is  perhaps  "lieutenant."  Asa  Oanaanite  word  its  real 
 Bigniflcaiion  is  probably  equally  wide  of  either. 
 
 d  The  site  of  Haroshkth  has  not  yet  been  identified 
 with  certainty.  But  since  the  publication  of  vol.  i. 
 the  writer  observes  tliat  Dr.  Thomson  (Lnift  ami  Book, 
 cb..  xxix.)  has  suggested  a  site  which  seems  possible, 
 
 SISERA 
 
 (which  has  the  same  meaning)  was  given  to  a 
 mountain  in  Magnesia.  This  is  not  supported  by 
 the  Samaritan  Version,  the  rendering  in  which  — 
 liabhan — seems  to  be  equivalent  to  Jebel  esh- 
 Slicykh,  the  ordinary,  though  not  the  only  modern 
 name  of  the  mountain.  [Hekmon,  vol.  ii.  p 
 1048.] 
 
 The  use  of  the  nam'e  in  Ps.  xxix.  6  (slightly 
 altered  in  the  original  —  Shirion  instead  of  Sirion) 
 is  remarkable,  though,  bearing  in  mind  the  occur- 
 rence of  Shenir  in  Solomon's  Song,  it  can  hardly 
 be  used  as  an  argument  for  the  antiquity  of  tho 
 psalm.*  G. 
 
 SIS'AMAI  [3  syl.]  C^^DD  [distinguished, 
 Fiirst]  :  '2,ocroij.a:'i  ■  Sisamo'i).  A  descendant  of 
 Sheshan  in  the  line  of  Jerahnieel  (1  Chr.  ii.  40). 
 
 SIS'ERA  (S^p'^pc  [perh.  battle-army, 
 Ges.]  :  2,€i(ra,pa,  ^ladpa  ;  Joseph.  6  Stcaprjy  : 
 Sisai-a).  Captain  ("'P)  of  the  army  of  Jabin 
 king  of  Canaan  who  reigned  in  Hazor.  He  him- 
 self resided  in  Harosheth ''  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
 particulars  of  the  rout  of  Jlegiddo  and  of  Sisera's 
 flight  and  de.ath  are  drawn  out  under  the  heads  of 
 Barak,  Debokah,  Jael,  Kenites,  Kishon, 
 Mantle,  Tent.  They  have  been  recently  elabo- 
 rated, and  combined  into  a  living  wliole,  with  great 
 attention  to  detail,  yet  witliout  any  sacrifice  of 
 force,  by  Professor  Stanley,  in  his  Lectures  on  the 
 Hist,  of  the  Jewish  Church,  Lect.  xiv.  To  that 
 accurate  and  masterly  picture  we  refer  our  readers. 
 
 The  army  was  mustered  at  the  Kishon  on  the 
 plain  at  the  foot  of  tlie  slopes  of  Lejjun.  Partly 
 owing  to  the  furious  attack  of  Barak,  partly  to  the 
 impassable  condition  of  the  plain,  and  partly  to  the 
 unwieldy  nature  of  the  host  itself,  wliich,  amongst 
 other  impediments,  contained  900  <^  iron  chariots  — 
 a  horrible  confusion  and  rout  took  place.  Sisera 
 deserted  his  troops  and  fled  oft'  on  foot.     He  took 
 
 and  invites  further  examination.  Tliis  is  a  Tell  or 
 mound  on  the  north  side  of  the  Kishon,  iu  the  S.  E. 
 corner  of  the  plain  of  Akka,  just  behind  the  hills  which 
 separate  it  from  the  larger  plain  of  Jezreel.  The  Tell 
 advances  close  to  the  foot  of  Carmel,  and  allows  only 
 room  for  the  passage  of  the  river  between  them.  Its 
 name  is  variously  given  as  Hnroth'ieh  (Thomson), 
 Harihijjeh  (Schulz),  Hm.Myeh  (Robinson),  Hnrti  (Van 
 de  Velde),  and  el-Hurtiyeh.  The  latter  is  the  form 
 given  in  the  official  list  made  for  the  writer  in  1861  by 
 Consul  Rogers,  and  is  probably  accurate.  Dr.  Thom- 
 son—  apparently  the  only  traveller  who  has  examined 
 the  spot  —  speaks  of  the  Tell  as  "covered  with  the 
 remains  of  old  walls  and  buildings,"'  iu  wliich  he  sees 
 the  relies  of  the  ancient  castle  of  Sisera.  [Harosheth, 
 Amer.  ed.] 
 
 e  The  number  of  Jabin's  standing  army  is  given  by 
 Josephus  {Ant.  y.  5,  §  1)  as  300,000  footmen,  10,000 
 horsemen,  and  3,000  chariots.  These  numbers  are 
 large,  but  they  are  nothing  to  those  of  the  Jewish 
 legends.  Sisera  "  had  40.000  generals,  every  one  of 
 whom  had  100,000  men  under  him.  He  was  thirty 
 years  old,  and  had  conquered  the  whole  world :  and 
 there  was  not  a  place  the  walls  of  which  did  not  fall 
 down  at  his  voice.  When  he  shouted  the  very  beasts 
 of  the  iield  were  riveted  to  their  places.  900  horses 
 went  in  his  chariot'"  (  Jcitlciit  ad  loc).  "  Thirty -one 
 kings  (comp.  Josh  xii.  24)  went  with  Sisera  and  wer6 
 killed  with  him.  They  thirsted  after  the  waters  of 
 the  land  of  Israel,  and  they  asked  and  prayed  Si.«era 
 to  t<ike  them  with  him  without  further  reward  " 
 (comp.  Judg.  V.  19).  (Ber.  Rab.  ch.  23.)  The  writer 
 is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Deutsch  for  these 
 extracts. 
 
SISINNES 
 
 a  northeast  direction,  possibly  through  Nazareth 
 and  Safed,  or,  if  tliat  direct  road  was  closed  to  him, 
 stole  alono;  l)y  more  circuitous  routes  till  he  found 
 himself  before  tlie  tents  of  Ileber  the  Kenite,  near 
 Kedesh,  on  the  high  ground  overIooi<ing  the  upper 
 basin  of  tlie  .lordan  Valley.  Here  he  met  his  death 
 from  the  hands  of  Jael,  Heber  s  wife,  wlio,  althougli 
 "  at  peace  "  with  him,  was  under  a  much  more 
 stringent  relation  with  tlie  house  of  Israel  (''udg. 
 iv.  2-22,  V.  21),  2ij,  28,  30).  [Kenites,  vol.  ii.  p. 
 1530.]  His  name  long  survived  as  a  word  of  fear 
 and  of  exultation  in  the  mouths  of  prophets  and 
 psalmists  (1  Sam.  xii.  9;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  U). 
 
 It  is  remarkable  that  from  this  enemy  of  the 
 Jews  shonld  have  sprung  one  of  their  most  eminent 
 characters.  The  great  Rabbi  Akiba,  whose  father 
 was  a  Syrian  pro.selyte  of  justice,  was  descended 
 from  Sisera  of  Harosheth  (Bartolocci,  iv.  272). 
 The  part  which  he  took  in  the  Jewish  war  of  in- 
 dependence, when  he  was  standard-bearer  to  Bar- 
 cocba  (Otlio,  Hist.  doci.  Misii.  134  note),  shows 
 that  the  warlike  force  still  remained  in  the  blood 
 of  Sisera. 
 
 2.  (2icrc{pa,  '2,iffapa9;  Alex,  ^laapaa,  'S.^icrapad; 
 [in  Ezr.,  Vat.  omits;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  i'.-V.  ^.eaetfjaO]-} 
 After  a  long  interval  the  name  reappears  in  tlie 
 lists  of  tlie  Netliiniin  who  returned  from  the  Cap- 
 tivity with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  53;  Neh.  vii.  55). 
 The  number  of  foreign,  non-Israelite  names  "  vvliich 
 occur  in  these  invaluable  lists  has  been  already 
 noticed  under  JlEHUNtJis  (iii.  1875).  Sisera  is 
 another  example,  and  doubtless  tells  of  Canaanite 
 captives  devoted  to  the  lowest  offices  of  the  Temple, 
 even  though  the  Sisera  from  whom  the  family  de- 
 ri\ed  its  name  were  not  actually  the  same  person 
 as  the  defeated  general  of  Jabiii.  It  is  curious 
 that  it  should  occur  in  close  companioiisliip  with 
 the  name  Harsha  (ver.  52)  which  irresistibly  recalls 
 Harosheth. 
 
 In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Esdr.  v.  32  Sisera  is 
 given  as  Askueh.  G. 
 
 SISIN'NES  (Sio'ifi'rjs:  Sisemies).  A  governor 
 of  Syria  and  Phrenicia  under  Darius,  and  a  con- 
 temporary of  Zerubbaliel  (1  Esdr.  vi.  3).  He  at- 
 tempted to  stop  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  but 
 was  ordered  by  Darius,  alter  consulting  the  archives 
 of  Cyrus's  reign,  to  adopt  the  opposite  course,  and 
 to  forward  the  plans  of  Zerubbabel  {i/jid.  vi.  7, 
 vii.  1).     In  Ezra  he  is  called  T.\t>jai. 
 
 *  SISTER'S  SON.  'Avi<l/ius,  so  translated 
 Col.  iv.  10  (A.  v.),  should  be  rendered  "  cousin  " 
 in  accordance  with  its  use  both  in  the  LXX.  and 
 in  classic  Greek.     See  Num.  xxxvi.  11,  and  LXX. 
 
 (Heb.  Cni  ^3|2). 
 
 It  has  been  suggested  (EUicott,  Col.  iv.  10, 
 Trnnsl.)  that  the  term  "sister's  son"  in  the 
 A.  V.  may  be  an  archaism,  as  having  been  formerly 
 used  like  the  German  Geschwislerkliid,  in  tiie  sense 
 of  "cousin."  Similarly  the  word  nephew  where- 
 ever  it  occurs  in  the  A.  V.   (Judg.  xii.    14;  Job 
 
 SLAVE 
 
 y057 
 
 a  Mehunim,  Nephusim,  Harsha,  Rezin. 
 
 b  In  tlie  A.  V.  of  vv.  20,  21,  two  entirely  distinct 
 Hebrew  worJ.s  are  eacli  rendered  "strive." 
 
 e  *  The  word  "  slave  "  occur.s  in  the  English  Bible 
 only  in  Jer.  ii.  14,  and  Rev.  xviii.  13,  and  four  times 
 in  the  Apocrypha.  As  the  word  was  not  uncommon 
 iu  writers  of  the  epoch  to  which  our  version  belongs, 
 there  seems  to  have  been  a  special  reason  for  this  ex- 
 clusion. Trench  suggests  (AiUhorized  Version,  p.  104) 
 tuiit   the  translators  may  have  felt  that  the  modern 
 
 xviii.  19;  Is.  xiv.  22;  1  Tim.  v.  4),  is  used  in  the 
 now  obsolete  sense  of  yrandchild,  dcscendaiil. 
 
 D.  S.  T. 
 
 SIT'NAH  (n^Tpb  [(iccumtion,  strifo]:  i^ 
 dpiai  Joseph.  2iT€;/;'a:  JniiincUiie).  The  second  of 
 the  two  wells  dug  by  Isaac  in  the  valley  of  Gerar, 
 and  the  possession  of  which  the  herdmen  of  the 
 valley  disputed  with  him  (Gen.  xxvi.  21).  Like 
 the  first  one,  Esek,  it  received  its  name  from  the 
 disputes  which  took  place  over  it,  i^iliiidi  meaning, 
 as  is  stated  in  the  margin,  "  hatred,"  or  more 
 accurately  "accusation,"  but  the  {day  of  expression 
 has  not  been  in  this  instance  preserved  in  the  He- 
 l)rew.''  The  LXX.,  however,  have  attempted  it: 
 iKpiuovTo  ....  ex^pia.  ^''e  root  of  the  name 
 is  the  same  as  that  of  Satan,  and  this  has  been 
 taken  advantage  of  by  Aquila  and  Symmachus, 
 who  render  it  respectively  auTiK^ijxivri  and  ivav- 
 rioocris.  *-)f  the  situation  of  Esek  and  Sitnah 
 nothing  whatever  is  known.     [(jEi;.\u.]  G. 
 
 SIVAN.     [Month.] 
 
 *  SKIN.   [UadgerSkins;  Bottle;  Leatii- 
 
 EK.] 
 
 *  SKIRTS,  Ps.  cxxxiii.  2.  See  Oint.ment, 
 vol.  iii.  p.  2214  b. 
 
 SLAVE.'-'  The  institution  of  slavery  was  rec- 
 ognized, though  not  established,  by  the  Mosaic  Law 
 with  a  view  to  mitigate  its  hardships  and  to  secure 
 to  every  man  his  ordinary  rights.  liepugiiant  as 
 the  notion  of  slavery  is  to  our  minds,  it  is  difficult 
 to  see  how  it  can  be  dispensed  with  in  certain 
 phases  of  society  without,  at  all  events,  entailing 
 severer  evils  than  those  which  it  produces.  E.x- 
 clusiveness  of  race  is  an  instinct  that  gains  strength 
 in  proportion  as  social  order  is  weak,  and  the  rights 
 of  citizenship  are  regarded  with  peculiar  jealousy 
 in  communities  which  are  exposed  to  contact  with 
 aliens.  In  the  case  of  war,  carried  on  for  conquest 
 or  revenge,  there  \vere  but  two  modes  of  dealing 
 with  the  captives,  namely,  putting  them  to  death 
 or  reducing  them  to  slavery.  The  same  may  be 
 said  in  regard  to  such  acts  and  outrages  as  dis- 
 qualified a  person  for  the  society  of  his  fellow- 
 citizens.  Again,  as  citizenship  involved  the  con- 
 dition of  i'reedoin^nd  independence,  it  was  almost 
 necessary  to  offer  the  alternative  of  disfranchisement 
 to  all  who  through  poverty  or  any  other  contin- 
 gency were  unal)le  to  support  themselves  in  inde- 
 pendence. In  all  these  cases  slavery  was  the  mildest 
 of  the  alternatives  that  offered,  and  may  hence  be 
 regarded  as  a  blessing  rather  than  a  curse.  It 
 should  further  be  noticed  that  a  laboring  class,  in 
 our  sense  of  the  term,  was  almost  unknown  to  the 
 nations  of  antiquity:  hired  service  was  regarded  as 
 incompatible  with  freedom ;  and  hence  the  slave  iu 
 many  cases  occupied  the  same  social  position  as 
 the  servant  or  laborer  of  modern  times,  though 
 differing  from  him  in  regard  to  jjolitical  status. 
 The  Heljrew  designation  of  the  slave  shows  that 
 service  was  the  salient  feature  of  his  condition ;  for 
 the  term  ebed,<^  usually  applied  to  him,  is  derived 
 
 term  conveys  an  idea  of  degradation  and  contempt 
 which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  equivalents  do  not  con- 
 vey as  applied  to  the  ancient  system  of  servitude. 
 Slave  (softened  from  sklave)  was  originally  a  national 
 appellation,  Sklavonic  or  Sclarnnir.  On  the  etymology 
 of  the  word  .see  Schmitthenner's  Wdrterh.fiir  Eti/mol- 
 ogie.,  etc.,  p.  447,  and  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall  of  Ike 
 Roman,  Empire,  ch.  Iv.  H. 
 
 « lay. 
 
3058  SLAVE 
 
 from  a  verb  signifying  "  to  work,"  and  the  very 
 same  term  is  used  in  reference  to  offices  of  high 
 trust  lield  by  free  men.  In  short,  service  and 
 ehivery  would  have  been  to  the  ear  of  tlie  Hebrew 
 equivalent  terms,  tliough  he  fidly  recognized  grades 
 of  servitude,  according  as  the  servant  was  a  He- 
 brew or  a  non-Hebrew,  and,  if  the  latter,  according 
 as  he  was  bought  with  money  (Gen.  xvii.  12;  Ex. 
 xii.  44)  or  born  in  the  house  (Gen.  xiv.  14,  xv.  3, 
 xvii.  23).  We  shall  proceed  to  describe  the  con- 
 dition of  these  classes,  as  regards  their  original 
 reduction  to  slavery,  the  methods  by  which  it  might 
 be  terminated,  and  their  treatment  while  in  that 
 state. 
 
 I.  Hebrew  Slaves. 
 
 1.  The  circumstances  under  which  a  Hebrew 
 might  be  reduced  to  servitude  were —  (1)  poverty; 
 (2)  the  commission  of  theft;  and  (3)  the  exercise 
 of  paternal  authority.  In  the  first  case,  a  man  who 
 had  mortgaged  his  property,  and  was  unable  to 
 support  his  family,  might  sell  himself  to  another 
 Hebrew,  with  a  view  both  to  obtain  maintenance, 
 and  perchance  a  surplus  sufficient  to  redeem  his 
 property  (Lev.  xxv.  25,  39).  It  has  been  debated 
 whether  under  this  law  a  creditor  could  seize  his 
 debtor  and  sell  him  as  a  slave:  "  the  words  do  not 
 warrant  such  an  inference,  for  the  poor  man  is  said 
 in  Lev.  xxv.  39  to  sell  himself  (not  as  in  the  A.  V., 
 "be  sold;"  see  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  787),  in  other 
 words,  to  enter  into  voluntary  servitude,  and  tliis 
 under  the  pressure  not  of  debt,  but  of  2X)verlij. 
 The  instances  of  seizing  the  childien  of  debtors  in 
 2  K.  iv.  1  and  Neh.  v.  5  were  not  warranted  by 
 law,  and  must  be  regarded  as  the  outrages  of  law- 
 less times,  while  the  case  depicted  in  the  parable  of 
 the  unmeiciful  servant  is  probably  borrowed  from 
 Roman  usages  (Matt,  xviii.  25).  The  words  in  Is. 
 1.  1,  "  Which  of  my  creditors  is  it  to  whom  I  have 
 sold  you '?  "  have  a  prima  facie  hearing  upon  the 
 question,  but  in  reality  apply  to  one  already  in  the 
 condition  of  slavery.  (2.)  The  commission  of  theft 
 rendered  a  perso)i  liable  to  servitude,  whenever  res- 
 titution could  not  be  made  on  the  scale  prescribed 
 by  the  Law  (Ex.  xxii.  1,  3).  The  thief  was  bound 
 to  work  out  the  value  of  his  restitution  money  in 
 the  ser\ice  of  him  on  whom  the  theft  had  been 
 committed  (for,  according  to  Josephus,  Ant.  xvi.  1, 
 §  1,  there  was  no  power  of  selling  the  person  of  a 
 thief  to  a  foreigner);  when  this  had  been  effected 
 he  would  lie  free,  as  implied  in  the  expression  "  sold 
 for  his  tlieft,"  i.  e.  for  llie  amount  of  his  theft. 
 This  law  contrasts  favorably  with  that  of  the  Ko- 
 mans,  under  which  a  thief  became  the  actual  prop- 
 erty of  his  master.  (3.)  The  exercise  of  paternal 
 authority  was  limited  to  the  sale  of  a  daughter  of 
 tender  age  to  be  a  maid-servant,  with  the  ulterior 
 view  of  her  becoming  a  concubine  of  the  purchaser 
 (Ex.  xxi.  7).  Such  a  case  can  perhaps  hardly  be 
 regarded  as  implying  servitude  in  the  ordinary 
 sense  of  the  term. 
 
 2.  The  servitude  of  a  Hebrew  might  be  termi- 
 nated in  three  ways:  (1)  by  the  satisfaction  or  the 
 remission  of  all  claims  against  him ;  *>  (2)  by  the 
 recurrence  of  the  year  of  Jubilee  (Lev.  xxv.  40), 
 
 a  Michaelis  (Comment,  iii.  9,  §  123)  decides  in  the 
 affirmative. 
 
 b  This  is  implied  in  the  statement  of  the  cases  which 
 gave  rise  to  the  servitude :  indeed  witliout  such  an 
 assumption  the  words  "  for  his  theft  •'  (Ex.  xxii.  3) 
 would  be  unmeaning.  The  Rabbiuists  gave  their  sanc- 
 tion to  such  a  view  (Maimon.  Abad.  2,  §§  8,  11). 
 
 SLAVE 
 
 which  might  amve  at  any  period  of  his  servitude: 
 and  (3),  failing  either  of  the.se,  the  expiration  o) 
 six  years  from  the  time  that  his  servitude  com 
 menced  (Ex.  xxi.  2;  Dent  xv.  12).  There  can  be 
 no  doubt  tliat  this  last  regulation  applied  equally 
 to  the  cases  of  poverty  and  theft,  though  Habljinical 
 writers  have  endeavored  to  restrict  it  to  the  former. 
 The  period  of  seven  years  has  reference  to  the  Sab- 
 liatical  ijrincijile  in  general,  but  not  to  the  Sabbat- 
 ical year,  for  no  regulation  is  laid  down  in  reference 
 to  the  manumission  of  servants  in  that  year  (Lev. 
 xxv.  1  ff. ;  Deut.  xv.  1  fi'. ).  We  have  a  single  in- 
 stance, indeed,  of  the  Sabbatical  year  being  cele- 
 brated by  a  general  manumission  of  Hebrew  slaves, 
 but  this  was  in  consequence  of  the  neglect  of  the 
 law  relating  to  such  cases  (Jer.  xxxiv.  14  <^).  (4.) 
 To  the  above  modes  of  obtaining  liberty  the  Rab- 
 biuists added  as  a  fourth,  the  death  of  the  master 
 without  leaving  a  son,  there  being  no  power  of 
 claiming  the  slave  on  the  part  of  any  heir  except  a 
 son  (Maimon.  Abaci.  2,  §  12). 
 
 If  a  servant  did  not  desire  to  avail  himself  of  tl».' 
 opportunity  of  leaving  his  service,  he  was  to  signify 
 his  intention  in  a  formal  njanner  before  the  judges 
 (or  more  exactly  at  the  place  (f  judymenid),  and 
 then  the  master  was  to  take  him  to  the  door-post, 
 and  to  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl  (Ex.  xxi. 
 ti),  driving  the  awl  into  or  "unto  the  door,"  as 
 stated  in  Deut.  xv.  17,  and  thus  fixing  the  servant 
 to  it.  Whether  the  door  was  that  of  the  master's 
 house  or  the  door  of  the  sanctuary,  as  Ewald  (Al- 
 terth.  p.  245)  infers  from  the  expression  el  haehhim, 
 to  which  attention  is  drawn  above,  is  not  stated; 
 but  the  significance  of  the  action  is  enhanced  by 
 the  former  view;  for  thus  a  connection  is  estab- 
 lished between  the  servant  and  the  house  in  which 
 he  was  to  serve.  The  boring  of  the  ear  was  prob- 
 ably a  token  of  subjection,  the  ear  being  the  organ 
 through  which  commands  were  received  (Ps.  xl.  6). 
 A  similar  custom  prevailed  among  the  Mesopota- 
 mians  (Juv.  i.  104),  the  Lydians  (Xen.  Anub.  iii. 
 1,  §  31),  and  other  ancient  nations.  A  servant 
 who  had  submitted  to  this  operation  remained,  ac- 
 cording to  the  words  of  the  Law,  a  servant  "  for 
 ever"  (Ex.  xxi.  6).  These  words  are,  however, 
 interpreted  by  Josephus  {Ant.  iv.  8,  §  28)  and  by 
 the  Rabbinists  as  meaning  until  the  year  of  Jubi- 
 lee, partly  from  the  universality  of  the  freedom  that 
 was  then  proclaimed,  and  partly  perhaps  because  it 
 was  necessary  for  the  servant  then  to  resume  the 
 cultivation  of  his  recovered  inheritance.  The  lat- 
 ter point  no  doubt  presents  a  difficulty,  but  the  in- 
 terpretation of  the  words  "for  ever"  in  any  other 
 than  their  obvious  sense  presents  still  greater  diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 3.  The  condition  of  a  Hebrew  servant  was  by  no 
 means  intolerable.  His  master  was  admonished  to 
 treat  him,  not  "  as  a  bond-servant,  but  as  an  hired 
 servant  and  as  a  sojourner,"  and,  again,  "  not  to 
 rule  over  him  with  rigor"  (Lev.  xxv.  39,  40,  43). 
 The  Rabbinists  specified  a  variety  of  duties  as  com- 
 ing under  these  general  precepts:  for  instance,  com- 
 pensation for  personal  injury,  exemption  from  me- 
 nial duties,  such  as  unbinding  the  master's  sandals 
 
 <^  The  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  "  at  the  end  of  seven 
 years  "  in  tliis  passage  is  not  wholly  correct.  Th» 
 meaning  rather  is  "  at  the  end  of  a  Sabbatical  period 
 of  \  ears,'"  tlie  whole  of  the  seventh  year  Iting  regarded 
 as  the  end  of  the  period. 
 
 "  Dm    /SiI"  /S  ;   Trpbs  t6  Kpirripiov.,  LXX. 
 
SLAVE 
 
 or  carrying  him  in  a  litter,  the  use  of  gentle  lan- 
 guage on  the  part  of  the  master,  and  the  mainte- 
 nance of  the  servant's  uife  and  children,  though 
 the  master  w4>s  not  allowed  to  exact  work  from 
 them  (Mielziner,  ISkluven  bti  chn  Nel/r.  p.  31).  At 
 the  termination  of  his  servitude  the  master  was  en- 
 joined not  to  ''let  him  go  away  empty,"  but  to  re- 
 munerate him  liberally  out  of  his  flock,  his  floor, 
 and  his  vfine-|)ress  (Deut.  xv.  13,  11).  Such  a  cus- 
 tom would  stimulate  the  servant  to  faithful  service, 
 inasmuch  as  the  amount  of  the  gift  was  left  to  the 
 master's  discretion ;  and  it  would  also  provide  him 
 with  means  wherewith  to  start  in  the  world  airesh. 
 
 In  the  event  of  a  Hebrew  becoming  the  servant 
 of  a  "stranger,"  meaning  a  non-Hebrew,  the  ser- 
 vitude could  be  terminated  only  in  two  ways, 
 namely,  by  tlie  arrival  of  tlie  year  of  Jubilee,  or  by 
 the  repayment  to  the  master  of  the  purchase-money 
 paid  for  the  ser\ant,  after  deducting  a  sum  for  the 
 value  of  his  services  proportioned  to  tlie  length  of 
 his  servitude  (Lev.  xxv.  47-55).  The  servant  might 
 be  redeemed  either  by  himself  or  by  one  of  his  re- 
 lations, and  the  olject  of  this  regulation  appears  to 
 have  been  to  impose  upon  relations  the  obligation  « 
 of  effecting  the  redemption,  and  thus  putting  an 
 end  to  a  state  which  nmst  ha\e  been  peculiarly 
 galling  to  the  Hebrew. 
 
 A  Hebrew  woman  might  enter  into  voluntary 
 servitude  on  the  score  of  poverty,  and  in  this  case 
 she  was  entitled  to  her  freetlom  alter  six  years'  ser- 
 vice, together  with  the  usual  gratuity  at  leaving, 
 just  as  in  the  case  of  a  man  (Deut.  xv.  12,  13). 
 According  to  Kabbinical  tradition  a  woman  could 
 not  be  condenmed  to  .servitude  for  theft;  neither 
 could  she  bind  herself  to  perpetual  servitude  by 
 having  her  ear  bored  (Mielziner,  p.  43). 
 
 Thus  far  we  have  seen  little  that  is  objectionable 
 in  the  condition  of  Hebrew  servants.  In  respect 
 to  marriage  there  were  some  peculiarities  which, 
 to  our  ideas,  would  be  regarded  as  hardships.  A 
 master  might,  for  instance,  give  a  wife  to  a  He- 
 brew servant  for  the  time  of  his  servitude,  the  wife 
 being  in  this  case,  it  must  be  remarked,  not  only  a 
 slave  but  a  non-Hebrew.  Should  he  leave  when 
 Lis  term  has  expired,  his  wife  and  children  would 
 remain  the  absolute  property  of  the  master  {Ex. 
 xxi.  4,  5).  The  reason  for  this  regulation  is,  evi- 
 dently, that  the  children  of  a  female  heathen  slave 
 were  slaves;  they  inherited  the  mother's  disqualifi- 
 cation. Such  a  condition  of  marr}  ing  a  slave  would 
 be  regarded  as  an  axiom  by  a  Hebrew,  and  the 
 case  is  only  incidentally  noticed.  Again,  a  father 
 might  sell  his  young  daughter ''  to  a  Hebrew,  witli 
 a  view  either  of  [his]  marrying  her  himself,  or  of 
 [his]  giving  her  to  his  son  (Ex.  xxi.  7-9).  It  di- 
 minishes the  apparent  harshness  of  this  proceeding 
 if  we  look  on  the  purchase-money  as  in  the  light  of 
 a  dowry  gi^■en,  as  was  not  unusual,  to  the  parents 
 of  the  bride ;  still  more,  if  we  accept  the  Rabbin- 
 ical view  (wliich,  however,  we  consider  very  doubt- 
 ful) that  the  consent  of  the  maid  was  required  be- 
 fore the  marriage  could  take  place.  But  even  if 
 this  consent  were  not  obtained,  the  paternal  author- 
 ity would  not  appear  to  be  violently  strained ;  for 
 
 a  In  the  A.  V.  the  sense  of  obligation  is  not  con- 
 veyed ;  instead  of  "  may  "  in  vv.  48.  49.  s/iall  ought 
 to  be  substituted. 
 
 b  The  female  slave  was  in  this  case  termed  n^S 
 
 T    T 
 
 as   di.<tii.ct   from  nnStt.',  applied    to  the  ordinary 
 
 SLAVE  3059 
 
 among  ancient  nations  that  authority  was  generally 
 held  to  extend  even  to  the  lil'e  of  a  cliild,  much 
 more  to  the  giving  of  a  daughter  in  marriage. 
 The  position  of  a  maiden  thus  sold  by  her  I'atlier 
 was  subject  to  the  following  regulations:  (1.)  She 
 could  liot  "  go  out  as  the  men-servants  do,"  i.  e. 
 she  could  not  leave  at  the  termination  of  six  years, 
 or  in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  if  (as  the  regulation  as- 
 sumes) her  master  was  willing  to  fulfill  the  object 
 for  which  he  had  purchased  her.  (2.)  Should  he 
 not  wish  to  marry  her,  he  should  call  upon  her 
 friends  to  procure  her  release  by  the  repayment  of 
 the  purchase-money  (perhaps,  as  in  other  cases, 
 with  a  deduction  for  the  value  of  her  services). 
 (3.)  If  he  betrothed  her  to  his  son,  he  was  Ijound 
 to  make  such  provision  for  her  as  he  would  for  one 
 of  his  own  daughters.  (4.)  If  either  he  or  his  son, 
 having  married  her,  took  a  second  wife,  it  should 
 not  be  to  the  prejudice  of  the  first.  (5.)  If  neither 
 of  the  three  first  specified  alternatives  took  place, 
 the  maid  was  entitled  to  inunediate  and  gratuitous 
 liberty  (Ex.  xxi.  7-11). 
 
 The  custom  of  reducing  Hebrews  to  servitude 
 appears  to  have  fidlen  into  disuse  subsequently  to 
 the  Bajjylonish  Captivity.  The  attempt  to  enforce 
 it  in  Nehemiah's  time  met  with  decided  resistance 
 (Neh.  v.  5),  and  Herod's  enactment  that  thieves 
 should  be  sold  to  foreigners,  roused  the  greatest 
 animosity  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  1,  §  1).  Vast  num- 
 bers of  Hebrews  were  reduced  to  slavery  as  war- 
 captives  at  diflerent  periods  by  the  Phoenicians 
 (Joel  iii.  6),  the  Philistines  (Joel  iii.  G;  Am.  i.  6), 
 the  Syrians  (1  Alacc.  iii.  41;  2  Mace.  viii.  11),  the 
 Egyptians  (.loseph.  Ant.  xii.  2,  §  3),  and,  above 
 all,  by  the  Komans  (Joseph.  B.  J.  vi.  9,  §  3).  We 
 may  form  some  idea  of  the  numbers  reduced  to 
 slavery  by  war  from  the  single  fact  that  Nicanor 
 calculated  on  realizing  2,009  talents  in  one  cam- 
 paign, Ijy  the  sale  of  capti\es  at  the  rate  of  90  for  a 
 talent  (2  JMacc.  viii.  10,  11),  the  nuuiber  required 
 to  fetch  the  sum  being  180,000.  The  Phoenicians 
 were  the  most  active  slave-dealers  of  ancient  times, 
 purchasing  of  the  Philistines  (Am.  i.  9),  of  the 
 Syrians  (2  Mace.  viii.  11),  and  even  of  the  tribes 
 on  the  shores  of  the  Euxine  Sea  (Ez.  xxvii.  13), 
 and  selling  them  wherever  they  could  find  a  mar- 
 ket about  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  and 
 particularly  in  Joel's  time  to  the  people  of  Javan 
 (Joel  iii.  G),  it  being  uncertain  whether  that  name 
 represents  a  place  in  South  Arabia  oi-  the  Greeks 
 of  Asia  Jlinor  and  the  peninsula.  It  was  jtrobably 
 through  the  Tyrians  that  Jews  were  transported 
 in  Obadiah's  time  to  Sepharad  or  Sardis  (Ob.  20). 
 At  Home  vast  numbers  of  Jews  emerged  from  the 
 state  of  slavery  and  became  freedmen.  Tlie  price 
 at  which  the  slaves  were  offered  by  Nicanor  was 
 considerably  below  the  ordinary  value  eitlier  in 
 Palestine  or  Greece.  In  the  former  countiy  it 
 stood  at  30  shekels  (=  about  £3  8s.),  as  stated 
 below,  in  the  latter  at  about  li  minas  {=  about 
 £b  1.S-.  Gc/.),  this  being  the  mean  between  the  ex- 
 tremes stated  by  Xenophon  {Mem.  ii.  5,  §  2)  as 
 the  ordinary  price  at  Athens.  The  price  at  wliich 
 Nicanor  offered  them  was  only  £2  lbs.  2d.  a  head. 
 
 household  slave.  The  distinction  is  marked  in  regard 
 to  Hagar,  who  is  described  by  the  latter  term  before 
 the  birth  of  Ishniael,  and  by  the  former  after  that 
 event  (couip.  Gen.  xvi.  1,  xxi.  10).  The  relative  val us 
 of  the  terms  is  expressed  in  Abigail's  address,  "  Let 
 thine  handmaid  (dmdii)  be  a  servant  (s/iip/ididh)  to 
 wash,"  etc.  (1  Sam.  xxv.  41). 
 
8060 
 
 SLAVE 
 
 Occasionally  slaves  were  sold  as  high  as  a  talent 
 (^243  15a-.)  each  (Xen.  I.  c;  Joseph.  Ant.  xii. 
 4,  §  9). 
 
 II.  Nonr-Hehrew  Slaves. 
 
 1.  The  majority  of  non-Hebrew  slaves  were  war- 
 captives,  either  the  Canaanites  who  had  survived 
 the  general  extermination  of  their  race  under  Joshua, 
 or  such  as  were  conquered  from  the  otiier  surround- 
 ing nations  (Num.  xxxi.  20  tf.).  Besides  these, 
 many  were  obtained  by  purchase  fi-om  foreign  slave- 
 dealers  (I^v.  XXV.  44,  45);  and  others  may  have 
 been  resident  foreigners  who  were  reduced  to  this 
 state  either  by  po\erty  or  crime.  The  Kabbinists 
 further  deemed  that  any  person  who  pertbrmed  tlie 
 services  of  a  slave  became  ipso  fuchi  a  slave  (Mishn. 
 Kediisli.  ],  §  3).  The  children  of  slaves  remained 
 slaves,  being  the  class  described  as  "  born  m  the 
 house"  (Gen.  xiv.  14,  xvii.  12;  Eccl.  ii.  7),  and 
 hence  the  number  was  likely  to  increase  as  time 
 went  on.  The  only  statement  as  to  their  number 
 applies  to  the  jjost-ljabylonian  period,  when  they 
 amounted  to  7,3;jl7,  or  about  1  to  U  of  tiie  free  pop- 
 ulation (Ezr.  ii.  6.5).  We  have  reason  to  believe 
 that  the  number  diminished  suljsequently  to  this 
 period,  the  Pharisees  in  particular  being  opposed  to 
 the  system.  The  average  value  of  a  sla\e  appears 
 to  have  been  thirty  shekels  (Ex.  xxi.  32),  varying 
 of  course  according  to  age,  sex,  and  capaljilities. 
 The  estimation  of  persons  given  in  Lev.  xxvii.  2-8 
 probably  applies  to  war-captives  who  had  been  ded- 
 icated to  the  Lord,  and  the  price  of  their  redemp- 
 tion would  in  this  case  represent  the  ordinary  value 
 of  such  sla\  es. 
 
 2.  That  the  slave  might  be  manumitted,  appears 
 from  Ex.  xxi.  26,  27;  Lev.  xix.  20.  As  to  the 
 methods  by  which  this  might  be  ef}(?cted,  we  are 
 told  nothing  in  the  Bible;  but  the  Kabbinists  spe- 
 cify the  following  four  methods:  (1)  redemption 
 by  a  money  payment,  (2)  a  bill  or  ticket  of  free- 
 dom, (3)  testamentary  disposition,  or,  (4)  any  act 
 that  implied  manumission,  such  as  making  a  slave 
 one's  heir  (Mielziner,  pp.  6.5,  06). 
 
 3.  The  slave  is  described  as  the  "  possession"  of 
 his  master,  apparently  with  a  special  refei-ence  to 
 the  power  which  the  latter  had  of  disposing  of  him 
 to  his  heirs  as  he  would  an}'  other  article  of  per- 
 sonal property  (Lev.  xxv.  45,  40);  the  slave  is  also 
 described  as  his  njaster's  "money"  (Ex.  xxi.  21), 
 i.  e.  as  representing  a  certain  money  value.  Such 
 expressions  show  tliat  he  was  regarded  very  much 
 in  the  light  of  a  miiucipiuiii  or  chattel.  But  on 
 the  other  hand,  pro\  ision  was  made  ibr  the  protec- 
 tion of  his  person  :  willlul  murder  of  a  slave  entailed 
 the  same  punishigent  as  in  the  case  of  a  free  man 
 (Lev.  xxiv.  17,  22).  So  again,  if  a  master  inflicted 
 so  severe  a  punishment  as  to  cause  the  death  of  his 
 servant,  he  was  liable  to  a  penalty,  the  amount  of 
 which  probably  deiiended  on  the  circumstances  of 
 the  case,  for  the  Rabljinical  view  that  the  words 
 "b;  shall  be  surely  punished,"  or,  more  correctly, 
 "  it  is  to  be  avenged,"  imply  a  sentence  of  death, 
 is  wliully  untenalile  (Lx.  xxi.  20).  No  punishment 
 at  all  was  imposed  if  the  slave  survived  the  punish- 
 ment by  a  day  or  two  (Ex.  xxi.  21),  the  loss  of  the 
 slave"  being  regarded  as  a  sufticient  punishment  in 
 this  case.  A  minor  personal  injury,  such  as  the 
 loss  of  an  eye  or  a  tooth  was  to  be  recompensed  by 
 giving  the  servant  his  liberty   (Ex.  xxi.  20,  27). 
 
 «  There  is  an  apparent  disproportion  between  tbis 
 and  the  following  regulation,  arising  probably  out  of 
 the  dill'ereut  circumstances   under  which   the  injury 
 
 SLIME 
 
 The  general  treatment  of  slaves  appears  to  have 
 been  gentle  —  occasionally  too  gentle,  as  we  infer 
 fiom  Solomon's  advice  (Prov.  xxix.  19,  21),  nor  do 
 we  hear  more  than  twice  of  a  slave  running  away 
 from  his  master  (1  Sam.  xxv.  10;  1  K.  ii.  39). 
 The  slave  was  considered  by  a  conscientious  master 
 as  entitled  to  justice  (Job  xxxi.  13-15)  and  honor- 
 able treatment  (Prov.  xxx.  10).  A  slave,  according 
 to  the  Kabbinists,  had  no  power  of  acquiring  prop- 
 erty for  himself;  whatever  he  might  become  entitled 
 to,  e\en  by  way  of  compensation  for  personal  injury, 
 reverted  to  his  master  (Mielziner,  p.  55).  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  master  might  constitute  him  his 
 heir  either  wholly  (Gen.  xv.  3),  or  jointly  with  his 
 children  (I'rov.  xvii.  2);  or  again,  he  might  give 
 him  his  daughter  in  marriage  (1  Ghr.  ii.  35). 
 
 The  position  of  the  slave  in  regard  to  religious 
 privileges  was  favorable.  He  was  to  be  circum- 
 cised (Gen.  xvii.  12),  and  hence  was  entitled  to 
 partake  of  the  Paschal  sacrifice  (lix.  xii.  44),  as 
 well  as  of  tlie  other  religious  festivals  (Deut.  xii. 
 12,  18,  xvi.  11,  14).  It  is  implied  that  every  slave 
 must  have  been  prexiously  brought  to  the  knowl- 
 edge of  the  true  God,  and  to  a  willing  accejjtance 
 of  the  tenets  of  Judaism.  This  would  naturally 
 be  the  case  with  regard  to  all  who  were  "  born  in 
 the  house,"  and  who  were  to  be  circumcised  at  the 
 usual  age  of  eight  days;  but  it  is  ditiicult  to  under- 
 stand how  those  who  were  "bought  with  money," 
 as  adults,  could  be  always  induced  to  change  their 
 creed,  or  how  they  could  be  circumcised  without 
 having  changed  it.  The  Mosaic  Law  certainly  pre- 
 supposes an  universal  acknowledi;ment  of  Jehovah 
 within  the  limits  of  the  Promised  Land,  and  would 
 therefore  enforce  the  dismissal  or  extermination  of 
 slaves  who  persisted  in  heathenism. 
 
 The  occupations  of  slaves  were  of  a  menial  char- 
 acter, as  impUed  in  Lev.  xxv.  39,  consisting  partly 
 in  the  work  of  the  house,  and  partly  in  personal 
 attendance  on  the  master.  Eeniale  slaves,  for  in- 
 stance, ground  the  corn  in  the  handmill  (Ex.  xi.  5; 
 Job  xxxi.  10;  Is.  xlvii.  2),  or  gleaned  in  the  har- 
 vest field  (Kuth  ii.  8).  They  also  baked,  washed, 
 cooked,  and  nursed  the  children  (Mishn.  Cctlnih. 
 5,  §  5).  The  occupations  of  the  men  are  not 
 specified;  the  most  trustworthy  held  confidential 
 posts,  such  as  that  of  steward  or  major-domo  (Gen. 
 XV.  2,  xxiv.  2),  of  tutors  to  sons  (Prov.  xvii.  2), 
 and  of  tenaiits  to  persons  of  large  estate,  for  such 
 appears  to  have  been  the  position  of  Ziba  (2  Sam. 
 ix.  2,  10).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  For  a  translation  of  the  work  of  jMielziner 
 (Copenhagen,  1859)  referred  to  in  tliis  article,  see 
 Aiiitr.  Tlitul.  litview  for  April  and  July,  1801 
 (vol.  iii.):  compare  Saalschiitz's  Das  Mosaische 
 litcht  (Berl.  1853),  ch.  101,  translated  by  Dr.  E. 
 P.  Barrows  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Jan.  1802,  and 
 an  art.  by  Dr.  Barrows,  T/ie  Bible  ami  Slavery, 
 ibid.  July,  1862.  See  also  Albert  Barnes,  Jinjniry 
 into  the  Scriptural  Views  of  Slavery,  Phila.  ]846; 
 G.  B.  Cheever,  Historical  and  Leijal  .fwhjnunt  of 
 the  0.  T.  arjdinst  Slavery,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
 Oct.  1855,  and  Jan.,  April,  and  July,  1850  (one- 
 sided); and  .J.  B.  Bittinger,  Hebrew  Servitude,  in 
 the  New  En(jlander  for  May,  1800.  A. 
 
 SLIME.     The  rendering  in  the  A.  V.  of  the 
 
 Heb.  T -H,  chemdr,  the 
 
 r^ 
 
 (Hommnr)  of  the 
 
 was  effected.  In  this  ease  the  law  is  speaking  of  le- 
 gitimate punishment  "  with  a  rod  ;  "  in  the  next  of  a 
 violent  assault. 
 
SLIME 
 
 Arabs,  ti'auslated  ^(rc^aAros  by  the  LXX.,  and 
 l/iluiiitii,  in  the  Vulgate.  That  our  traushxtors 
 understood  by  this  word  the  substance  now  known 
 as  bitumen,  is  evident  from  the  followiiii;  passages 
 ill  Holhind's  Pliny  (ed.  ]63i):  "The  very  nlaniniy 
 sliinc  Uitunien,  which  at  certaine  times  of  the  yere 
 floteth  and  swinniieth  upon  the  lalve  of  iSodom, 
 called  Asphaltites  in  Jury"  (vii.  15,  vol.  i.  p. 
 103).  "The  Bitumen  whereof  I  speake,  is  in 
 some  places  in  manner  of  a  muddy  sUnii; ;  in 
 others,  very  earth  or  miiierall  "  (xxxv.  15,  vol.  ii. 
 p.  557). 
 
 The  three  instances  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in 
 the  O.  T.  are  aljundantly  illustrated  by  travellers 
 and  historians,  ancient  and  modern.  It  is  first 
 spoken  of  as  used  for  cement  by  the  builders  in  the 
 plain  of  Shinar,  or  Bal)ylonia  (Gen.  xi.  3).  The 
 bitumen  pits  in  the  vale  of  Siddim  are  mentioned 
 in  the  ancient  fragment  of  Canaanitish  history 
 (Gen.  xiv.  10);  and  the  ark  of  papyrus  in  which 
 Moses  was  placed  was  made  impervious  to  water  by 
 a  coating  of  bitumen  and  pitch  (Ex.  ii.  3). 
 
 Herodotus  (i.  17'J)  tells  us  of  the  bitumen  found 
 at  Is,  a  town  of  Babylonia,  eight  days'  journey  from 
 Babylon.  The  captive  Eretrians  (Her.  vi.  119) 
 were  sent  by  Darius  to  collect  asphaltum,  salt,  and 
 oil  at  Ardericca,  a  place  two  hundred  and  ten 
 stadia  from  Susa,  in  the  district  of  Cissia.  The 
 town  of  Is  was  situated  on  a  river,  or  small  stream, 
 of  the  same  name,  which  flowed  into  the  Euphrates, 
 and  carried  down  with  it  the  lumps  of  bitumen, 
 which  was  used  in  the  building  of  Baliylon.  It  is 
 probably  the  bitumen  springs  of  Is  which  are  de- 
 scribed in  Stralio  (xvi.  743).  Eratosthenes,  whom 
 he  quotes,  says  that  the  liqiud  bitumen,  whicli  is 
 called  naphtha,  is  found  in  Susiana,  and  the  dry  in 
 Babylonia.  Of  the  latter  there  is  a  spring  near 
 the  Euphrates,  and  when  the  river  is  flooded  by 
 the  melting  of  the  snow,  the  spring  also  is  filled 
 and  overflows  into  the  river.  The  masses  of  bitu- 
 men thus  produced  are  fit  for  buildings  which  are 
 made  of  baked  brick.  Diodorus  Siculus  (ii.  12) 
 speaks  of  the  abundance  of  bitumen  in  Baliylonia. 
 It  proceeds  from  a  spring,  and  is  gathered  by  the 
 people  of  the  country,  not  only  for  building,  but 
 when  dry  for  fuel,  instead  of  wood.  Ammiaiuis 
 Marcellinus  (xxiii.  6,  §  23)  tells  us  that  Babylon 
 was  built  with  bitumen  by  Semiramis  (comp.  I'lin. 
 xxxv.  51;  Berosus,  quoted  by  Jos.  Ani.  x.  11,  §  1, 
 c.  Apioii.  i.  19;  Arrian,  Ex^i.  Ah  vii.  17,  §  1,  (fee). 
 The  town  of  Is,  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  is  with  - 
 out  doubt  the  modern  Hit  or  Heet,  on  the  west  or 
 right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  and  four  da3S'  jour- 
 ney, N.  W.,  or  rather  ^Y.  N.  W.,  of  Bagdad  (Sir 
 K.  Ker  Porter's  Trav.  ii.  361,  ed.  1822).  The 
 principal  bitumen  pit  at  Heet,  says  Mr.  Rich  {Me- 
 moir on  the  Ruins  of  Bubijlm^  p.  63,  ed.  1815), 
 lias  two  sources,  and  is  divided  by  a  wall  in  the 
 centre,  on  one  side  of  which  the  bitumen  bubbles 
 up,  and  on  the  other  the  oil  of  naphtha.  Sir  R. 
 K.  Porter  (ii.  315)  observed  "that  bitumen  was 
 chiefly  confined  by  the  Chaldajan  builders,  to  the 
 foundations  and  lower  parts  of  their  edifices;  for 
 tlie  purpose  of  preventing  the  ill  effects  of  water." 
 "  With  regard  to  the  use  of  bitumen,"  he  adds, 
 "  I  saw  no  vestige  of  it  whatever  on  any  remnant 
 of  building  oi;  the  higher  ascents,  and  therefore 
 drier  regions."  This  view  is  indirectly  confirmed 
 by  Mr.  i;ich,  who  says  that  the  tenacity  of  bitumen 
 bears  no  proportion  to  that  of  mortar.  The  use 
 of  bitumen  appears  to  have  been  confined  to  the 
 Babjloniiiiis.  for  at  Nineveh,  Mr.  Layard  observes 
 
 Sl-IME 
 
 3061 
 
 {Nin.  ii.  278),  "bitumen  and  reeds  were  not  em- 
 ployed to  cement  the  layers  of  bricks,  as  at  Baby- 
 lon; although  both  materials  are  to  be  Ibund  in 
 abundance  in  the  innuediate  vicinity  of  the  city." 
 At  Nimroud  bitumen  was  found  under  a  pavement 
 {Nin.  i.  29),  and  "the  sculpture  rested  simply 
 upon  the  platform  of  sun-dried  bricks  without  any 
 otber  sul>structure,  a  mere  layer  of  bitumen,  about 
 an  inch  thick,  having  been  placed  under  the  plinth" 
 {Nin.  f  Bab.  p.  208).  In  his  description  of  the 
 firing  of  the  bitumen  pits  at  Nimroud  by  his  Arabs, 
 Mr.  Layard  falls  into  the  language  of  our  trans- 
 lators. "  Tongues  of  flame  and  jets  of  gas,  driven 
 from  the  burning  pit,  shot  through  the  murky 
 canopy.  As  the  fire  brightened,  a  thousand  fan- 
 tastic forms  of  light  played  amid  the  smoke.  To 
 break  the  cindered  crust,  and  to  bring  fresh  slime 
 to  the  surface,  the  Arabs  threw  large  stones  into 
 
 the  spring In  an  hour  the  bitumen 
 
 was  exhausted  for  tlie  time,  the  dense  smoke  grad- 
 ually died  away,  and  the  pale  light  of  the  moon 
 again  shone  over  the  black  slime  pits  "  {Nin.  (.j- 
 Bab.  p.  202). 
 
 The  bitumen  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  described  by 
 Strabo,  Josephus,  and  Pliny,  Strabo  (xvi.  763) 
 gives  an  account  of  the  volcanic  action  by  which 
 tbe  bottom  of  the  sea  was  disturbed,  and  the 
 bitumen  thrown  to  the  surface.  It  was  at  first 
 li(iuefied  by  the  heat,  and  then  changed  into  a 
 tliick  viscous  substance  by  the  cold  water  of  the 
 sea,  on  the  surface  of  which  it  floated  in  lumps 
 {^caKoi).  These  lumps  are  described  by  Josephus 
 (Z>.  ./.  iv.  8,  §  4)  as  of  the  size  and  shape  of  a 
 headless  ox  (comp.  Plin.  vii.  13).  The  semi-liquid 
 kind  of  bitumen  is  that  which  Pliny  says  is  found 
 in  the  Dead  Sea,  the  earthy  in  Syria  about  Sidon. 
 Liquid  bitumen,  such  as  the  Zacynthian,  the  Baby- 
 lonian, and  the  Apolloniatic,  he  adds,  is  known  by 
 the  Greeks  by  the  name  of  pis-asphaltum  (comp. 
 Ex.  ii.  3,  LXX.).  He  tells  us  moreover  that  it  was 
 used  for  cement,  and  that  bronze  vessels  and  statues 
 and  the  heads  of  nails  were  co\ered  with  it  (Plin. 
 xxxv.  51).  The  bitumen  pits  by  the  Dead  Sea  are 
 described  by  the  monk  Brocardus  {Descr.  Ten: 
 Snnct.  c.  7,  in  Ugolini,  vi.  1044).  The  Arabs  of 
 the  neighborhood  have  perpetuated  the  story  of  its 
 formation  as  given  by  Strabo.  "  I'hey  say  that  it 
 forms  on  the  rocks  in  the  depths  of  the  sea,  and 
 by  earthquakes  or  other  submarine  concussions  is 
 broken  off"  in  large  masses,  and  rises  to  the  sur- 
 face "  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  p.  223).  They 
 told  Burckhardt  a  similar  tale.     ••  The  asphaltum 
 
 a  } 
 (y4.S>.),  Hommar,  which  is  collected  by  the  Araljs 
 
 of  the  western  shore,  is  said  to  come  from  a  moun- 
 tain which  blocks  up  the  passage  along  the  eastern 
 O'/ior,  and  which  is  situated  at  about  two  hours 
 south  of  Wadij  Mojeb.  The  Arabs  pretend  that 
 it  oozes  up  from  fissures  in  the  clift',  and  collects  in 
 large  pieces  on  the  rock  below,  where  the  mass 
 gradually  increases  and  hardens,  until  it  is  rent 
 asunder  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  with  a  loud  explo- 
 sion, and,  falling  into  the  sea,  is  carried  by  the 
 waves  in  considerable  quantities  to  the  opposite 
 shores"  {Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  394).  Dr.  Thomson 
 tells  us  that  the  Arabs  still  call  these  pits  by  the 
 name  biaret  hilmmar,  which  strikingly  resembles 
 the  Meb.  beeroth  chemar  of  Gen.  xiv.  10  {Lana 
 and  Hook,  p,  224). 
 
 Stral)o  says  that  in  Babylonia  boats  were  made 
 of  wicker-work,  and  then  covered  with  bitumen  tc 
 
3062 
 
 SLING 
 
 keep  out  the  water  (xvi.  p.  743).  In  the  same 
 tvay  the  ark  of  rushes  or  papjrus  in  which  Jloses 
 was  placed  was  phastered  over  with  a  mixture  of 
 bitumen  and  pitch  or  tar.  Dr.  'I'liomson  remarks 
 (p.  224):  "This  is  doubly  interestini(,  as  it  reveals 
 the  process  by  which  they  prepared  the  bitumen. 
 The  mineral,  as  found  in  this  country,  melts  readily 
 enou.2;h  by  itself;  but  then,  when  cold,  it  is  as 
 brittle  as  glass.  It  must  be  mixed  with  tnr  while 
 melting,  and  in  that  way  forms  a  hard,  glossy  wax, 
 perfectly  impervious  to  water."  We  know  from 
 Strabo  (xvi.  p.  7G4)  that  the  Egyptians  used  the 
 bitumen  of  the  Dead  Sea  in  the  process  of  em- 
 balming, and  Pluiy  (vi.  35)  mentions  a  spring  of 
 the  same  mineral  at  Corambis  in  Ethiopia. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SLING  (37^P.:  (T<pevS6vr):fundn).  The  slhig 
 has  been  in  all  ages  the  favorite  weapon  of  the 
 shepherds  of  Syria  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40;  Burckhardfs 
 Notes,  i.  57),  and  hence  was  adopted  by  the  Israel- 
 itish  army,  as  the  most  effective  weapon  for  light- 
 armed  troops.  The  Benjamites  were  particularly 
 expert  in  their  use  of  it:  even  the  left-handed  could 
 "sling  stones  at  an  hair  and  not  miss  "  (Judg.  xx. 
 16;  couip.  1  Chr.  xii.  2).  According  to  the  Tar- 
 gum  of  .Jonathan  and  the  Syriac,  it  was  the  weapon 
 of  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites.  It  was  advan- 
 tageously used  in  attacking  and  defending  towns 
 (2"k.  iii.  2.5;  .Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  1,  §  3),  and  in 
 skirmishing  {B.  J.  ii.  17,  §  5).  Other  eastern 
 nations  availed  themselves  of  it,  as  the  Syrians  (1 
 Mace.  ix.  11),  who  also  invented  a  kind  of  artificial 
 sling  (1  IMacc.  vi.  51);  the  Assyrians  (.lud.  ix.  7; 
 Layard's  Nin.  ii.  344);  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson, 
 i.  357);  and  the  Persians  (Xen.  Ami/j.  iii.  3,  §  18). 
 The  construction  of  the  weapon  hardly  needs  de- 
 scription:   it  consisted  of  a  couple    of  strings  of 
 
 Kgyptian  Slingers.     (Wilkinson.) 
 
 sinew  or  some  fibrous  substance,  attached  to  a 
 leathern  receptacle  for  the  stone  in  the  centre, 
 which  was  termed  the  capli,"  i.  e.  pan  (1  Sam.  xxv. 
 29):  the  sling  was  swung  once  or  twice  round  the 
 head,  and  the  stone  was  then  discharged  by  letting 
 go  one  of  the  strings.  Sling-stones ''  were  selected 
 Tor  their  smoothness  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40),  and  were 
 
 SMYRNA 
 
 recognized  as  one  of  the  ordinary  mmiitiOns  of  war 
 (2  Chr.  xxvi.  14).  In  action  the  stones  were  either 
 carried  in  a  bag  round  the  neck  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40), 
 or  were  heaped  up  at  the  feet  of  the  combatant 
 (I^ayard's  Nin.  ii.  344)  The  violence  with  which 
 the  stone  was  projected  supplied  a  vivid  image  of 
 sudden  and  forclljle  removal  (Jer.  x.  18).  The 
 rapidity  of  the  whirling  motion  of  the  sling  round 
 the  head,  was  emblematic  of  inquietude  (1  Sam. 
 xxv.  21),  "  the  souls  of  thine  enemies  shall  he  wliirl 
 round  in  the  midst  of  the  pan  of  a  sling  ");  while 
 the  sling-stones  represented  the  enemies  of  God 
 (Zech.  ix.  15,  "they  shall  tread  under  foot  the 
 sling-stones").  The  term  m<iryeiiidli  c  in  Prov. 
 xxvi.  8  is  of  doubtful  meaning;  Gesenius  (Thts. 
 p.  1263)  explains  of  "a  heap  of  stones,"  as  in 
 the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  the  LXX. ;  Ewald,  and 
 Hitzig,  of  "a  sling,"  as  in  the  text.     W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SLUICES.  The  word  so  translated  (I????) 
 in  Is.  xix.  10  seems  to  have  been  entirely  misap- 
 prehended by  our  English  translators,  after  the 
 example  of  some  of  the  ancient  versions.  It  means 
 /lire,  wnfjes,  and  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  should 
 be  rendered,  "  and  all  those  who  work  for  wages 
 shall  be  of  a  sad  heart."  On  the  origin  of  the 
 error  and  the  true  meaning,  see  Gesenius  ( Conim. 
 ii.  den  Jesaia,  in  loc).  E.  D.  C.  R. 
 
 SMITH.''  The  work  of  the  smith,  together 
 with  an  account  of  his  tools,  is  explained  in 
 Handickaft,  vol.  ii.  p.  992  f.  A  description  of 
 a  smith's  workshop  is  given  in  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  28 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 SMYR'^ A  [^./jLvpua,  myrrh:  Smyrna'].  The 
 city  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  Kevelation  ii. 
 8-11,  was  founded,  or  at  least  the  design  of  found- 
 ing it  was  entertained,  by  Alexander  the  Great  soon 
 after  the  battle  of  the  Granicus,  in  consequence  of 
 a  dream  when  he  had  lain  down  to  sleep  after  the 
 fatigue  of  hunting.  A  temple  in  which  two  god- 
 desses were  worshipped  under  the  name  of  Nemeses 
 stood  on  the  hill,  on  the  sides  of  which  the  new 
 town  was  built  under  the  auspices  of  Antigonus 
 and  Lysimachus,  who  carried  out  the  design  of  the 
 conqueror  after  his  death.  It  was  situated  twenty 
 stades  from  the  city  of  the  same  name,  which 
 after  a  long  series  of  wars  with  the  l^ydians  had 
 been  finally  taken  and  sacked  by  Malyattes.  The 
 rich  lands  in  the  neighborhood  were  cultivated  by 
 the  iniiabitants,  scattered  in  villages  about  the 
 country  (like  the  Jewish  population  between  the 
 times  of  Zedekiah  and  Ezra),  for  a  period  which 
 Strabo,  speaking  roundly,  calls  400  years.  The 
 descendants  of  this  population  were  reunited  in  the 
 new  Smyrna,  which  soon  became  a  wealthy  and 
 important  city.  Not  only  was  the  soil  in  the 
 neighborhood  eminently  productive  —  so  that  the 
 \ines  were  even  said  to  have  two  crops  of  grapes  — 
 but  its  position  was  such  as  to  render  it  the  natural 
 outlet  for  the  produce  of  the  whole  valley  of  the 
 Hermus.  The  Pranniean  wine  (which  Nestor  in 
 the  Iliad,  and  Circe  in  the  Odyssey,  are  represented 
 as  mixing  with  honey,  cheese,  and  meal,  to  make  a 
 
 a  r\2. 
 
 3?bp->3nw.       =  nns-itt. 
 
 ''  other  words  besides  those  mentioned  in  vol.  ii.  p. 
 992  f.,  are:  — 
 
 1.  "12p^  :  0  (royKk^iiav :  dusor  (2  K.  xxiv.  14), 
 where  chardsk  is  also  used,  thus  denoting  a  workman 
 ot  an  inferior  kind. 
 
 2.  tt^Iil  V  ;  <r(|)vpoKd7ros :  maUeator :  a  hammerer : 
 a  term  applied  to  Tubal-Cain,  Gen.  iv.  22  (Ges.  pp. 
 530,  755;  Saalschiitz,  Arch.  Heb.  i.  143).  [Ttoal- 
 Cain.] 
 
 3.  Q7*"in  :  6  TviTTiav :  he  that  smites  (the  anvil, 
 □1^5,  o-i^Opa,  incus),  Is.  xli.  7. 
 
SMYRNA 
 
 kind  of  salad  dressing)  grew  even  down  to  the  time 
 of  Pliny  in  tlie  immediate  neighborhood  of  the 
 temple  of  the  Jlotlier  of  the  gods  at  Smyrna,  and 
 doubtless  played  its  part  in  tlie  orgiastic  rites  both 
 of  that  deity  and  of  Dionysus,  each  of  whom  in 
 the  times  of  Imperial  Rome  possessed  a  guild  of 
 worshippers  frequently  mentioned  in  tlie  inscrip- 
 tions as  tlie  iepa  ffwoSos  fjLVCFTWv  /xrjrphs  Sittu- 
 \T)vrjs  and  the  Upa  aiivoSos  fxvffrobv  Kal  rexviToov 
 Aiovvcrov.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the 
 chef's  d'ceum-e  of  Myron  which  stood  at  Smyrna, 
 representing  an  old  woman  intoxicated,  illustrates 
 the  prevalent  habits  of  the  po])ulation. 
 
 The  inhabitants  of  New  Smyrna  appear  to  have 
 possessed  the  talent  of  successfully  divining  the 
 course  of  events  in  the  troublous  times  through 
 which  it  was  their  destiny  to  pass,  and  of  habitu- 
 ally securing  for  tiiemselves  the  favor  of  the  victor 
 for  tlie  time  being.  Their  adulation  of  Seleucus 
 and  his  son  Antiochus  was  excessive.  The  title  6 
 6fbs  Ka\  (TwT-fip  is  given  to  the  latter  in  an  extant 
 inscription;  and  a  temple  dedicated  to  his  mother 
 Siratonice,  under  tlie  title  of  'AcppoS'iTTi  5TpoT0- 
 
 SMYKNA 
 
 3063 
 
 PiKis,  was  not  only  constituted  a  sanctuary  itself, 
 but  the  same  right  was  extended  in  virtue  of  it  to 
 the  wliole  city.  Yet  when  the  tide  turned,  a  tem- 
 ple was  elected  to  the  city  Rome  as  a  divinity  in 
 time  to  save  the  credit  of  the  Smyrna;aiis  as  zeal- 
 ous friends  of  the  Roman  people.  Indeed,  though 
 history  is  silent  as  to  the  particulars,  the  existence 
 of  a  coin' of  Smyrna  with  the  head  of  INIithridates 
 upon  it,  indicates  that  this  energetic  prince  also,  for 
 a  time  at  least,  must  have  included  Smyrna  within 
 the  circle  of  his  dependencies.  However,  during 
 the  reign  of  Tiberius,  the  reputation  of  the  Sniyr- 
 iiaeans  for  an  ardent  loyalty  was  so  unsullied,  that 
 on  this  account  alone  they  obtained  permission  to 
 erect  a  temple,  in  behalf  of  all  the  Asiatic  cities,  to 
 the  emperor  and  senate,  the  question  having  been 
 for  some  time  doubtful  as  to  wliether  their  city  or 
 Sardis  [Sakdis]  — the  two  selected  out  of  a  crowd 
 of  competitors  —  should  receive  this  distinction. 
 The  honor  wliich  had  been  obtained  with  such  dif- 
 ficulty, was  requited  with  a  [)roportionate  adulation. 
 Nero  appears  in  the  inscriptions  as  cruiTr}p  rot 
 crvjJ.iravTOS  avOponweiov  yevovi. 
 
 The  Castie  and  Port  of  Smyrna.     (Laborde.) 
 
 It  seems  not  impossible,  that  just  as  St.  Paul's 
 illustrations  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are 
 derived  from  the  Isthmian  games,  so  the  message 
 to  the  Church  in  Smyrna  contains  allusions  to  the  i 
 ritual  of  the  pagan  mysteries  which  prevailed  in 
 that  city.  The  story  of  the  violent  death  and  re- 
 viviscence  of  Dionysus  entered  into  these  to  such  ' 
 an  extent,  that  Origen,  in  his  argument  against 
 Celsus,  does  not  scruple  to  quote  it  as  generally  ac-  , 
 cepted  by  the  Greeks,  although  by  them  interpreted 
 metaphysically  (iv.  171,  ed.  Spencer).  In  this  view, 
 the  words  i  irpwros  koX  6  %(txo.to^,  hs  iyiv^ro 
 viKphs  Ka\  i^rjaev  (Rev.  ii.  8)  would  come  with 
 peculiar  force  to  ears  perhaps  accustomed  to  hear 
 them  in  a  very  different  application."  The  same 
 may  be  said  of  Swaca  aoi  rhv  ffrfcpavov  T»)y  C'^rjs, 
 it  having  been  a  usual  practice  at  Smyrna  to  pre- 
 sent a  crown  to  the  priest  who  superintended  the 
 religious  ceremonial  at  the  end  of  his  year  of  office. 
 Several  persons  of  both  sexes  have  the  title  of  crre- 
 
 (pavripSpoi  in  the  inscriptions;  and  the  context 
 shows  that  they  possessed  great  social  consider- 
 ation. 
 
 In  the  time  of  Strabo  the  ruins  of  the  Old 
 Smyrna  still  existed,  and  were  partially  inhabited, 
 but  the  new  city  was  one  of  the  most  beautiful  in 
 all  Asia.  The  streets  were  laid  out  as  near  as 
 might  be  at  right  angles;  but  an  unfortunate  over- 
 sight of  the  architect,  who  forgot  to  make  under- 
 ground drains  to  carry  off'  the  storm  rains,  occa- 
 sioned the  flooding  of  the  town  with  the  lilth  and 
 refuse  of  the  streets.  There  was  a  large  public  li- 
 brary there,  and  also  a  handsome  building  sur- 
 rounded with  porticoes  which  served  as  a  museum. 
 It  was  consecrated  as  a  heroiini  to  Homer,  whom 
 the  Smyrnseans  claimed  as  a  countryman.  There 
 was  also  an  Odeum,  and  a  temple  of  the  Olympian 
 Zeus,  with  whose  cult  that  of  the  Roman  emperors 
 was  associated.  Olympian  games  were  celebrated 
 here,  and  excited  great  interest.     On  one  of  these 
 
 «  This  is  the  more  likely  from  the  superstitious  re- '  Sovuv  Upov  just  above  the  city  outside  the  walls,  Id 
 gar  1  in  which  the  SmymaeaDS  held  chance  phrases  which  this  mode  of  divination  was  the  ordinary  ont 
 (k.\.(6<)v€«)  as  a  material  for  augury.     They  had  a  kK-q-    (Pausanias,  ix.  11,  §  1). 
 
3064  SMYRNA 
 
 occasions  (in  the  year  A.  l>.  (i8)  a  liliodian  yontli 
 of  the  name  of  Arteniidonis  obtained  greater  dis- 
 tinctions than  any  on  record,  under  peculiar  cir- 
 cumstances, which  Tausanias  relates.  He  was  a 
 pancratiast,  and  not  long  before  had  been  beaten 
 at  Elis  from  deficiency  in  growth.  But  when  the 
 Sniyrnajaii  Olynipia  next  came  round,  his  bodily 
 strength  had  so  developed  that  he  was  victor  in 
 three  trials  on  the  same  day,  the  first  against  his 
 former  competitors  at  the  I'eloponnesian  Olympia, 
 the  second  with  the  3ouths,  and  the  third  with  the 
 men;  the  last  contest  having  been  provoked  b}'  a 
 taunt  (I'ausanias,  v.  14,  §  4).  The  extreme  inter- 
 est excited  by  the  games  at  Smyrna  may  perhaps 
 account  for  the  remarkable  ferocity  exhibited  by 
 the  population  against  the  aged  bishop  Polycarp. 
 It  was  exactly  on  such  occasions  that  what  the  pa- 
 gans regarded  as  tlie  unpatriotic  and  anti-social 
 spirit  of  the  early  Christians  became  most  apparent ; 
 and  it  was  to  the  violent  demands  of  the  people  as- 
 sembled in  the  stadium  that  the  lloman  proconsul 
 yielded  up  the  martyr.  The  letter  of  the  Smyr- 
 nwans,  in  which  the  account  of  his  martyrdom  is 
 contained,  represents  the  Jews  as  taking  part  with 
 the  Gentiles  in  accusing  him  as  an  enemy  to  the 
 state  religion,  —  conduct  which  would  be  inconceiv- 
 able in  a  sincere  Jew,  but  which  was  quite  natural 
 in  those  whom  the  sacred  writer  characterizes  as 
 "a  synagogue  of  Satan  "  (Kev.  ii.  9). 
 
 Smyrna  under  the  Itomans  was  the  seat  of  a  coii- 
 ventus  juridicus,  whither  law  cases  were  brought 
 from  the  citizens  of  Magnesia  on  the  Sipylus,  and 
 also  from  a  Macedonian  colony  settled  in  the  same 
 country  under  the  name  of  Hyrcani.  The  last  are 
 probably  the  descendants  of  a  military  body  in  the 
 service  of  Seleucus,  to  whom  lands  were  given  soon 
 alter  the  building  of  New  Smyrna,  and  who,  to- 
 gether with  the  Magnesians,  seem  to  have  had  the 
 Smyrnai'an  citizenship  then  bestowed  upon  them. 
 The  decree  containing  the  particulars  of  this  ar- 
 rangement is  among  the  marbles  in  the  University 
 of  Oxford.  The  liomans  continued  the  system 
 which  they  found  existing  when  the  country  passed 
 over  into  their  hands. 
 
 (Strabo,  xiv.  183  ff. ;  Herodotus,  i.  16 ;  Tacitus, 
 Annal.  iii.  6-3,  iv.  5G;  Pliny,  ^i-  ^-  v-  29;  Boeckh, 
 Jnscript.  Grcec.  "  Smyrnajan  Inscriptions,"  espe- 
 cially Nos.  316-3-3176;  Pausanias,  loca  cil.,  and 
 iv.  21,  §  5;  Macrobius,  Saturnalht^  i.  18;  [Prof. 
 G.  M.  Lane,  art.  Smyrna,  in  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Jan. 
 1858.] )  J.  W.  B. 
 
 *  Smyrna  is  about  40  miles  from  Ephesus,  and 
 now  connected  with  it  liy  a  railroad.  [Ephesus, 
 Amer.  ed.]  The  Apostle  John  must  often  have 
 passed  between  the  two  j)laces  during  his  long  life 
 at  Ephesus.  Paul's  ministry  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xx. 
 31)  belongs  no  doubt  to  an  earlier  period,  before  the 
 gospel  had  taken  root  in  the  other  city.  The  spot 
 where  Polycarp  is  supposed  to  have  been  burnt  at 
 the  stake  is  near  the  ruins  of  a  stadium  on  the  hill 
 behind  the  present  town.  It  may  be  the  exact  spot 
 or  certainly  near  there,  for  it  is  the  place  where  the 
 people  were  accustomed  to  meet  for  public  specta- 
 cles. Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  touched  at 
 Smyrna  on  his  voyage  to  Rome,  where  he  was 
 thrown  to  wild  beasts  in  the  amphitheatre,  about 
 A.  D.  108.  Two  of  his  extant  letters  were  addressed 
 to  Polycarp  and  to  the  Smyrnieans.  Smyrna  is  the 
 only  one  of  the  cities  of  the  seven  churches  which 
 retains  any  importance  at  the  present  day.  Its 
 population  is  stated  to  be  150,000,  nearly  one  half 
 of  whom  are  Mohammedans.     On  the  import  of 
 
 SNOW 
 
 the  Kevelator"s  message  to  the  Church  at  Smyrna 
 may  be  mentioned  Stier's  Suppkmerii  to  his  Jit- 
 dtn  Jesu,  pp.  129-137,  and  Archbishop  Trench's 
 Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven 
 Cliurches,  pp.  132-152  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 
 
 SNAIL.  The  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of 
 the  Hebrew  words  slidblid  and  clwmet. 
 
 1.  Sliablul  (7^72t?.'':  K-i)p6s'-,  tvTfpov,  Aq. ; 
 x6pioi',  Sym. :  cera)  occurs  only  in  Ps.  Iviii.  9 
 (8,  A.  v.):  "As  a  s/udil lU  v/hich  melteth  let  (the 
 wicked)  pass  away."  There  are  various  opinions 
 as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word,  the  mo.st  curious, 
 perhaps,  being  that  of  Symmachus.  The  LXX. 
 read  "  melted  wax,"  similarly  the  A'ulg.  The  ren- 
 dering of  the  A.  V.  ("  snail  ")  is  supported  ]>y  the 
 authority  of  many  of  the  Jewish  Doctors,  and  is 
 probably  correct.     The  Chaldee  Paraphr.  explains 
 
 shaUulhythiblala  (NVV^TI),  i.  e.  "a  snail  or  a 
 slug,"  which  was  supposed  by  the  Jews  to  con- 
 sume away  and  die  by  reason  of  its  constantly 
 emitting  slime  as  it  crawls  along.  See  Scliol.  ad 
 Gem.  AloUd  Kalon,  1,  fol.  6  B,  as  quoted  by  Bo- 
 chart  {Hieroz.  iii.  560)  and  Gesenius  (Tlies.  p. 
 212).  It  is  needless  to  observe  that  this  is  not  a 
 zoological  fact,  though  perhaps  generally  believed 
 by  the  Orientals.  'J'he  term  shabliil  would  denote 
 either  a  Umax  or  a  helix,  which  are  paiticularly 
 noticeable  for  the  slimy  track  they  leave  behind 
 them. 
 
 2.  Clwmet  (tCpn  :  aavpa-  la cer fa)  occurs  on] j 
 as  the  name  of  some  unclean  animal  in  Lev.  xi.  30. 
 The  LXX.  and  Vulg.  understand  some  kind  of 
 lizard  by  the  term;  the  Arabic  versions  of  Er- 
 penius  and  Saadias  give  the  chameleon  as  the  ani- 
 mal intended.  The  Veneto-Greek  and  the  Rab- 
 bins, with  whom  agrees  the  A.  V.,  render  the 
 Heb.  term  by  "  snail."  Bochart  {Ilieroz.  ii. 
 500)  has  endeavored  to  show  that  a  species  of 
 small  sand  lizard,  called  chtdttca  by  the  Arabs,  is 
 denoted;  but  his  argument  rests  entirely  upon 
 some  supposed  etymological  foundation,  and  proves 
 nothing  at  all.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that 
 there  is  no  evidence  to  lead  us  to  any  conclusion ; 
 perhaps  some  kind  of  lizard  may  be  intended,  as 
 the  two  most  important  old  versions  conjecture. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 *  SNAKES  OF  DEATH.  The  rendering 
 of  the  A.  V.  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  6;  Ps.  xviii.  5,  "  The 
 sorrows  of  hell  compassed  me  about,  the  snares  of 
 death  prevented  me,"  needs  correction  and  expla- 
 nation.    The  passage  may  be  thus  translated :  — 
 
 '•  The  cords  of  the  underworld  {Hheol}  were  cast 
 around  me; 
 The  snares  of  death  had  caught  me." 
 
 The  psalmist  describes  himself,  in   metaphors  boi 
 rowed  from  hunting,  as  caught  in  the  toils  of  his 
 enemies,  and  in  imminent  danger  of  his  life.    A. 
 
 SNOW  (a^tt' :  x'tiy,  Sp6ffos  m  Prov.  xxvi.: 
 nix).  The  historical  books  of  the  Bible  contain 
 oidy  two  notices  of  snow  actually  falling  (2  Sam. 
 xxiii.  20;  1  Jlacc.  xiii.  22),  buc  the  allusions  in 
 the  poetical  books  are  so  numerous  that  there  can 
 be  no  doubt  as  to  its  being  an  ordinary  occurrence 
 in  the  winter  months.  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
 snow-storm  is  mentioned  among  the  ordinary  oper- 
 ations of  nature  which  are  illustrative  of  the  Cre- 
 ator's power  (Ps.  cxlvii.  16,  cxlviii.  8).  AVe  have, 
 again,  notice  of  the  beneficial  effect  of  snow  on  the 
 soil  (Is.  Iv.  10).     Its  color  is  adduced  as  an  imaj;e 
 
SNOW 
 
 of  brilliancy  (Dan.  vii.  9;  Matt,  xxviii.  3;  Eev.  i. 
 14),  of  purity  (Is.  i.  18;  Lam.  iv.  7,  in  reference 
 to  the  white  robe.s  of  the  princes),  and  of  the 
 blanching  effects  of  leprosy  (Kx.  iv.  6;  Num.  xii. 
 10;  2  K.  V.  27).  In  the  book  of  Job  we  have  ref- 
 erences to  the  supposed  cleansing  effects  of  snow- 
 water (ix.  30),  to  the  rapid  melting  of  snow  mider 
 the  sun's  rays  (xxiv.  19),  and  the  consequent  flood- 
 ing of  the  brooks  (vi.  16).  The  thick  falling  of  the 
 Makes  forms  the  point  of  comparison  in  the  obscure 
 passage  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  14.  The  snow  lies  deep  in  the 
 ravines  of  the  highest  ridge  of  Lebanon  until  the 
 summer  is  far  advanced,  and  indeed  never  wholly 
 disappears  (Robinson,  iii.  531) ;  the  sunnnit  of  Her- 
 mon  also  perpetually  glistens  with  frozen  snow 
 (Robinson,  ii.  437).  From  these  sources  probably 
 the  Jews  obtained  their  supplies  of  ice  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  cooling  their  beverages  in  summer  (I'rov. 
 XXV.  13).  The  •'  snow  of  Lebanon  "  is  also  used  as 
 an  expression  for  the  refreshing  coolness  of  spring 
 water,  probably  in  reference  to  the  stream  of  Si- 
 loam  (Jer.  xviii.  14).  Lastly,  in  Prov.  xxxi.  21, 
 snow  appears  to  be  used  as  a  synonym  for  winter  or 
 cold  weather.  The  liability  to  snow  must  of  course 
 \ary  considerably  in  a  country  of  such  varying  alti- 
 tude as  Palestine.  Jo.sep!ius  notes  it  as  a  j)eculiar- 
 ity  of  the  low  plain  of  Jericho  that  it  was  warm 
 there  even  when  snow  was  prevalent  in  the  rest  of 
 the  country  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  3).  At  Jerusalem  snow 
 often  falls  to  the  depth  of  a  foot  or  more  in  .Janu- 
 ary and  February,  but  it  seldom  lies  (Robinson,  i. 
 429).  At  Nazareth  it  falls  more  frequently  and 
 deeply,  and  it  has  been  observed  to  fidl  even  in  the 
 maritime  plain  at  Joppa  and  about  (."armel  (Kitto, 
 Pliys.  I/ist.  p.  210).  A  comparison  of  the  notices 
 of  snow  contained  in  Scripture  and  in  the  works  of 
 modern  travellers  would,  however,  lead  to  the  con- 
 clusion that  more  fell  in  ancient  times  than  at  the 
 present  day.  At  Damascus,  snow  falls  to  the  depth 
 of  nearly  a  foot,  and  lies  at  all  events  for  a  few 
 days  (Wortabefs  Syrin,  i.  215,  236).  At  Aleppo 
 it  falls,  but  never  lies  for  more  than  a  day  (Russell, 
 i.  69).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  The  "time  of  harvest"  (Prov.  xxv.  13)  an- 
 swers to  our  summer  rather  than  the  autumn.  At 
 Damascus   snow   procured   from  Anti-Lebanon  is 
 
 SO 
 
 306 
 
 D 
 
 kept  for  sale  in  the  bazaars  during  the  hot  months, 
 and  being  mixed  with  the  juice  of  pomegranates, 
 with  sherbet  and  otlier  drinks,  forms  a  fiivorite  bev- 
 erage. "In  the  heat  of  the  day,"  says  Dr.  Wil- 
 son, "the  Jews  at  J/nsbeed,  in  northern  Galilee, 
 offered  us  water  cooled  with  snow  from  Jebtl  esh- 
 S/itilch,  the  modern  Hermon  "  (Lands  of  the  Bible, 
 ii.  186).  "Countless  loads  of  snow,"  says  Dr. 
 Schulz  (Jerus'^ikm,  tine  Vorlesuny,  p.  10),  "are 
 brought  down  to  Beirut  from  the  sides  of  Sannin, 
 one  of  the  highest  peaks  of  Lebanon,  to  freshen  the 
 water,  otherwise  hardly  fit  to  drink."  (See  also 
 Volney,  Voyaffe  en  Eyypte  et  en  Sip-ie,  p.  262.) 
 The  practice  of  using  snow  in  this  maimer  existed 
 also  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans.  The 
 comparison  in  the  proverb  therefore  is  A'ery  signif- 
 icant. The  prompt  return  of  the  messenger  with 
 good  tidings  refreshes  the  heart  of  the  anxiously 
 expectant  like  a  cooling  draught  in  the  heat  of 
 summer.  H. 
 
 *  SNUFF-DISH.  [CexNser;  Fikk-p.\n.] 
 SO  (S^D  [Egypt.  Sevech  or  Sevec,  an  Egyptian 
 deity,  Furst] :  ^irydp;  [Alex.  2coa;  Conip.  2oi;a:] 
 tiua).  "  So  king  of  Egypt"  is  once  mentioned  in 
 the  Bible.  Iloshea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  evi- 
 dently intending  to  become  the  vassal  of  Egypt, 
 sent  messengers  to  him,  and  made  no  present,  as 
 had  been  the  3'early  custom,  to  the  king  of  A.s- 
 syria  (2  K.  xvii.  4).  The  consequence  of  this 
 step,  which  seems  tx)  have  been  forbidden  by  the 
 prophets,  who  about  this  period  are  constantly 
 warning  the  people  against  trusting  in  Egypt  and 
 Ethiopia,  was  the  imprisonment  of  Hoshea,  the 
 taking  of  Samaria,  and  the  carrying  capti\'e  of  the 
 ten  tribes. 
 
 So  has  been  identified  by  different  writers  with 
 the  first  and  second  kings  of  the  Ethiopian  XXVth 
 dyn.asty,  called  by  Manetho,  Sabakon  and  Sebi- 
 ciios.  It  will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  chronol- 
 ogy of  the  jieriod  in  order  to  ascertain  which  of 
 these  identifications  is  the  more  probable.  We 
 therefore  give  a  table  of  the  dynasty  (see  below), 
 including  the  third  and  last  reign,  that  of  Tirha- 
 kah,  for  the  illustration  of  a  later  article.     [TiR- 
 
 HAKAEI.] 
 
 TABLE   OF    DYNASTY 
 
 XXV. 
 
 Egtptun  Data. 
 
 Hebrew  Data. 
 
 B.  C. 
 
 Manetho. 
 
 Momtments. 
 
 Correct 
 reigns  ? 
 
 B.  C. 
 
 Events. 
 
 Africanus. 
 
 Eusebius. 
 
 Order. 
 
 Highest 
 
 Yr. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 719 
 
 1.  Sabakon     8 
 
 1.  Sabakon    12 
 
 1.  SHEBEK   . 
 
 XII. 
 
 12 
 
 cir.  723  or  703. 
 
 Hoshea's  treaty  with 
 •So. 
 
 707 
 
 2.  Sebichos  14 
 
 2.  Sebichos    12 
 
 2.  SHEBETEK 
 
 12 
 
 695 
 
 3.  Tarkos      18 
 
 3.  Tarakos    20 
 
 3.  TEHARKA 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 26 
 
 cir.703or683? 
 
 War  with  Sennacherib. 
 
 The  accession  of  Teharka,  the  Tirhakah  of  Scrip- 
 ture, may  be  nearly  fixed  on  the  evidence  of  an 
 Apis-tablet,  which  states  that  one  of  the  bulls  Apis 
 was  born  in  his  20th  year,  and  died  at  the  end  of 
 the  20th  of  Psaminetichus  I.  This  bull  lived  more 
 than  20  years,  and  the  longest  age  of  any  Apis 
 stated  is  20.  Supposing  the  latter  duration,  which 
 would  allow  a  short  interval  between  Teharka  and 
 193 
 
 Psammetichus  II.,  as  seems  necessary,  the  acces- 
 sion of  Teharka  would  be  b.  c.  695.  If  we  assign 
 24  years  to  the  two  predecessors,  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  dynasty  would  1)6  b.  c.  719.  But  it 
 is  not  certain  that  their  reigns  were  continuous. 
 The  account  which  Herodotus  gives  of  the  war  of 
 Sennacherib  and  Sethos  suggests  that  Tirhakah 
 was  not  ruling  in  Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  destruc- 
 
3066  SOAP 
 
 tion  of  the  Assyrian  army,  so  that  we  may  either 
 conjecture,  as  Dr.  Hiiicks  has  done,  that  the  reign 
 of  Setlios  followed  that  of  Shebetek  and  preceded 
 that  of  'Jlrliakah  o\er  F-gypt  (Juurti.  Sue.  Lit., 
 January,  1853),  or  else  that  Tirhakah  was  king  of 
 Ethiopia  while  Shelietek,  not  the  same  as  Sethos, 
 ruled  in  Egypt,  the  former  hypothesis  being  far  the 
 more  probable.  It  seems  impossible  to  arrive  at 
 any  positive  conclusion  as  to  the  dates  to  which 
 the  mentions  in  the  Bible  of  So  and  Tirhakah 
 refer,  but  it  must  be  remarked  that  it  is  ditRcult 
 to  overthrow  the  date  of  b.  c.  721,  for  the  taking 
 of  Samaria. 
 
 If  we  adopt  the  earlier  dates  So  must  correspond 
 to  Shebek,  if  the  later,  perhaps  to  Shebetek ;  but 
 if  it  should  be  found  that  the  reign  of  Tirhakah  is 
 dated  too  high,  the  former  identification  might  still 
 be  held.  The  name  Shebek  is  nearer  to  the  He- 
 brew name  than  Shebetek,  and  if  the  jMasoretic 
 points  do  not  faithfully  represent  the  original  pro- 
 imnciation,  as  we  might  almost  infer  from  the  con- 
 sonants, and  the  name  was  Sewa  or  Seva,  it  is  not 
 very  remote  from  Shebek.  We  cannot  account  for 
 the  transcription  of  the  LXX. 
 
 From  Egyptian'  sources  we  know  nothing  more 
 of  Shebek  than  that  he  conquered  and  put  to  death 
 Bocchoris,  the  sole  king  of  the  XXIYth  dynasty, 
 as  we  learn  from  Manetho's  list,  and  that  lie  con- 
 tinued the  monumental  works  of  the  Egyptian 
 kings.  There  is  a  long  inscription  at  El-Karnak 
 in  which  Shebek  speaks  of  tributes  from  "  the  king 
 of  the  land  of  Khala  (Shara),"  supposed  to 
 be  Syria.  (Brugsch,  Histoire  d'Egypte,  i.  214.) 
 This  gives  some  slight  confirmation  to  the  identi- 
 fication of  this  king  with  So,  and  it  is  likely  that 
 the  founder  of  a  new  dynasty  would  have  en- 
 deavored, like  Shishak  and  Psammetichus  I.,  the 
 latter  virtually  the  founder  of  the  XXVIth,  to  re- 
 store the  Egyptian  supremacy  in  the  neighboring 
 Asiatic  countries. 
 
 The  standard  inscription  of  Sargon  in  his  palace 
 at  Khursabikl  states,  according  to  M.  Oppert,  that 
 after  the  capture  of  Samaria,  Hanoii  king  of  Gaza, 
 and  Sebech  sultan  of  Egypt,  met  the  king  of  As- 
 syria in  battle  at  Kapih,  Kapliia,  and  were  defeated. 
 Sebech  disappeared,  but  llanon  was  captured. 
 Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  was  then  put  to  tribute. 
 (Les  Inscriptions  Assyriennes  des  Saryonides,  etc. 
 p.  22.)  This  statement  would  appear  to  indicate 
 that  either  Shebek  or  Shebetek,  for  we  cannot  lay' 
 great  stress  upon  the  seeming  identity  of  name 
 with  the  former,  advanced  to  the  support  of  Hoshea 
 and  his  party,  and  being  defeated  fled  into  Ethiopia, 
 leaving  the  kingdom  of  Egypt  to  a  native  prince. 
 'I'his  evidence  favors  the  idea  that  the  Ethiopian 
 kings  were  not  successive.  K.  S.  P. 
 
 SOAP  (nWa,  "lia  :  TrJa;  herha,  h.  horith). 
 The  Hebrew  term  horilh  does  not  in  itself  bear  the 
 specific  sense  of  soap,  but  is  a  general  term  for  any 
 substance  of  cleansing  qualities.  As,  however,  it 
 appears  in  Jer.  ii.  22,  in  contradistinction  to  nether, 
 which  undoubtedly  means  "  nitre,"  or  mineral 
 alkali,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  hor'ith  refers  to  vege- 
 table alkali,  or  some  kind  of  potash,  which  forms 
 one  of  the  usual  ingredients  in  our  soap.  Numer- 
 ous plants,  capable  of  yielding  alkalies,  exist  in 
 Palestine  and  the  surrounding  countries;  we  may 
 notice  one  named  Hubeibeh  (the  salsola  kali  of 
 botanists),  found  near  the  Dead  Sea,  with  glass- 
 like leaves,  the  ashes  of  which  are  called  el-Kuli 
 froni   their   strong  alkaline  properties  (Robinson, 
 
 SOCOH 
 
 Bihl.  Researches,  i.  50u);  the  .ijroiii,  found  near 
 Sinai,  which  when  pounded  serves  as  a  sulistitute 
 for  soap  (Robinson,  i.  84);  the  yilloii,  or  '-soap 
 plant"  of  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  ii.  100);  and  the 
 heaths  in  the  neighborhood  of  Joppa  (Kitto's  Pliys. 
 Hist.  p.  207).  Modern  travellers  have  also  noticed 
 the  Saponarin  ojficinrdis  and  the  Jlesembrycm- 
 themum  nodifloruin,  lioth  possessing  alkaline  prop- 
 erties, as  growing  in  Palestine.  From  these  sources 
 large  quantities  of  alkali  have  been  extracted  in 
 past  ages,  as  the  heaps  of  ashes  outside  Jerusalem 
 and  Ndbliis  testify  (Robinson,  iii.  201,  299),  and 
 an  active  trade  in  the  article  is  still  prosecuted  with 
 Aleppo  in  one  direction  (Russell,  i.  79),  and  Arabia 
 ill  another  (Burckhardt,  i.  GO).  We  need  not  as- 
 sume that  the  ashes  were  worked  up  in  the  form 
 familiar  to  us ;  for  no  such  article  was  known  to  the 
 Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  i.  180).  The  uses  of  .soap 
 among  the  Hebrews  were  twofold:  (1)  for  cleansing 
 either  the  person  (Jer.  ii.  22;  Job  ix.  30,  where 
 for  "never  so  clean,"  read  "with  alkaU  ")  or  the 
 clothes;  (2)  for  purifying  metals  (Is.  i.^5,  where 
 for  "  purely,"  read  "  as  through  alkali  " ).  Hitzig 
 suggests  that  boritli  should  be  substituted  for  beritk, 
 "covenant,"  in  Ez.  xx.  37,  and  Mai.  iii.  1. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 SO'CHO  03"lb  [branches]:  ■S.o>x<iiv:  Socho), 
 1  Chr.  iv.  18.  Probalily  the  town  of  Socoh  in 
 Judah.  though  which  of  the  two  cannot  be  ascer- 
 tained. It  appears  from  its  mention  in  this  list, 
 that  it  was  colonized  by  a  man  or  a  ]jlace  named 
 Heber.  The  Targum,  playing  on  the  passage  after 
 the  custom  of  Hebrew  writers,  interprets  it  as  re- 
 ferring to  Moses,  and  takes  the  names  .lered,  Soco, 
 Jekuthiel,  as  titles  of  him.     He  was  '•  the  Rabba 
 
 of  Soco,  because  he  sheltered  ("73^)  the  house  of 
 Israel  with  his  virtue."  G. 
 
 SO'CHOH  (nbb  [branches]  :  [Rom.  2«- 
 Xi^\]  "Alex.  2oxAco:  Soccho).  Another  form  of 
 the  name  which  is  more  correctly  given  in  the  A.  V. 
 as  Socoh,  but  which  appears  therein  under  no  less 
 than  six  forms.  The  present  one  occurs  in  the  list 
 of  King  Solomon's  commissariat  districts  (1  K.  iv. 
 10),  and  is  therefore  probably,  though  not  certainly, 
 the  town  in  the  Shefelnh,  that  being  the  great  corn- 
 growing  district  of  the  country.     [Socoh,  1.] 
 
 SO'COH  (nb'lty  [see  above]).  The  name 
 of  two  towns  in  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
 
 1.  (2aaix'«';  Alex.  Scoxii'-  Socho.)  In  the  dis- 
 trict of  the  Sliefelnh  (Josh.  xv.  35).  It  is  a 
 member  of  the  same  group  with  Jarmuth,  Azekah, 
 Shaaraim,  etc.  The  same  relative  situation  is  im- 
 plied in  the  other  passages  in  which  the  place 
 (under  slight  variations  of  form)  is  mentioned.  At 
 Ephes-dammim,  between  Socoh  and  Azekah  (1  Sam. 
 xvii.  1),  the  Philistines  took  up  their  position  for 
 the  memorable  engagement  in  which  their  champion 
 was  slain,  and  the  wounded  fell  down  in  the  road 
 to  Shaaraim  (ver.  52).  Socho,  Adullaui,  Azekah, 
 were  among  the  cities  in  Judah  which  Reholioani 
 fortified  after  the  revolt  of  the  northern  tribes 
 (2  Chr.  xi.  7),  and  it  is  mentioned  with  others  of 
 the  original  list  as  being  taken  by  the  Philistines 
 in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  18). 
 
 In  the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  ( Ononuist. 
 "  Soccho")  it  bore  the  name  of  Socchoth,  and  lay 
 
 a  The  text  of  the  Vat.  MS.  is  so  corrupt  as  to  pre. 
 vent  any  name  being  recognized. 
 
SOD 
 
 »«tween  8  and  9  Roman  miles  from  Eleutheropolis, 
 on  the  road  to  Jerusalem.  Paula  passed  through  it 
 on  her  road  from  Bethlehem  (?)  to  Egypt  (Jerome, 
 Ep.  Pcmhe,  §  14).  As  is  not  unfrequently  the  case 
 in  this  locality,  there  were  then  two  villages,  an 
 upper  and  a  lower  (OiiomasL).  Dr.  Kobinson's 
 identification  of  Socoh  with  esh-Shuweikeh  «  in  the 
 western  part  of  the  mountains  of  Judah  is  very 
 probable  (BM.  Bes.  ii.  21).  It  lies  about  I  mile  to 
 the  north  of  the  track  from  Beit  Jihrin  to  Jerusa- 
 len),  between  7  and  8  English  miles  from  the  former. 
 To  the  north  of  it  within  a  couple  of  miles  is  Yar- 
 muki  the  ancient  Jarnuith.  Dumun,  perhaps  Ephes- 
 damniim,  is  about  the  same  distance  to  the  east, 
 and  although  Azekah  and  Shaaraim  have  not  been 
 identified,  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  were  in  this 
 neighborhood.  To  complete  the  catalogue,  the 
 ruins  —  which  must  be  those  of  the  upper  one  of 
 Eusebius's  two  villages  —  stand  on  the  southern 
 slope  of  the  Wady  es-Sumt,  which  with  great  prob- 
 ability is  the  Valley  of  Elah,  the  scene  of  Goliath's 
 death.     (See  Toliler,  3Ue  Wandcrung,  p.  122.) 
 
 No  traveller  appeal's  to  have  actually  visited  the 
 spot,  but  one  of  the  few  who  have  approached  it 
 describes  it  as  '■  nearly  half  a  mile  above  the  bed 
 of  the  Wady,  a  kind  of  natural  terrace  covered 
 with  green  fields  (in  spring),  and  dotted  with  gray 
 ruins  "  (Porter,  Handbk.  p.  24:9  «). 
 
 From  this  village  probably  came  "  Antigonus  of 
 Soco,"  who  lived  about  the  commencement  of  the 
 3d  century  B.  c.  He  was  remarkable  for  being  the 
 earliest  .lew  who  is  known  to  have  had  a  Greek 
 name;  for  being  the  disciple  of  the  great  Simon, 
 surnamed  the  .lust,  whom  he  succeeded  as  president 
 of  the  Sanliedrini ;  for  being  the  master  of  Sadok 
 the  reputed  founder  of  the  Sadducees;  but  most 
 truly  remarkable  as  the  author  of  the  following 
 saying  which  is  given  in  the  Mishna  (Pirke  Ahotli, 
 i.  3)  as  the  substance  of  his  teaching,  "  Be  not  ye 
 like  servants  who  serve  their  lord  that  they  may 
 receive  a  reward.  But  be  ye  like  servants  who 
 serve  their  lord  without  hope  of  receiving  a  reward, 
 but  in  the  fear  of  Heaven." 
 
 Socoh  appears  to  be  mentioned,  under  the  name 
 of  Socliiis,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
 though  its  distance  from  Jerusalem  as  there  given 
 is  not  sufficient  for  the  identification  proposed  above 
 (Reland,  P<iL  p.  1019). 
 
 2.  (Soixa;  Alex.  S&'X'*''  Socot/i.)  Also  a  town 
 of  Judah,  but  in  the  mountain  district  (Josh.  xv. 
 48).''  It  is  one  of  the  first  group,  and  is  named 
 in  company  with  Anab,  Jattir,  Eshtemoh,  and 
 others.  It  has  been  discovered  by  Dr.  Robinson 
 {Bibl.  lies.  i.  494)  in  the  Wady  el-Khalil,  about  10 
 miles  S.  W.  of  Hebron;  bearing,  like  the  other 
 Socoh,  the  name  of  esh-Sliuweikeh,  and  with  Anab, 
 Semoa,  'Attii;  within  easy  distance  of  it.  G. 
 
 *  SOD,  the  preterite  of  seethe ;  "  And  Jacob 
 sod  pottage,"  Gen.  xxv.  29;  and  see  also  2  Chr. 
 XXXV.  13.  H. 
 
 *  SODDEN,  pa.st  participle  of  "  seethe"  (Ex. 
 xii.  19).     [Sod.]  H. 
 
 SO'DI  0"T^D  [a  conjidani,  favorite]:  :^ovSi; 
 
 SODOM 
 
 3067 
 
 a  Skmveikeh  is  a  diminutive  of  Shaukeh.  as  Mureikky 
 of  MurkkaJi,  etc. 
 
 6  The  Keri  to  this  passage  reads  "13"1ti7,  i.  e.  Soco. 
 
 c  It  is  perhaps  doubtful  whether  the  name  had  not 
 ilso  the  form  n^TD,  Sedomah,  which  appears  in 
 Gten.  X.  19.     The  sulfix  may  in  this  case  be  only  the 
 
 [Vat.  SouSec]  Sodi).  The  father  of  Gaddiel,  tht 
 spy  .selected  from  the  tribe  of  Zebuluii  (Num.  xiii. 
 10). 
 
 SOD'OM  (0*1  T',''  ■'•  e-  Seddm  [see  note  be 
 low]:  [to]  2(<5o^a;  -Toseph.  •^  ttiJAij  SoSo^iroii/: 
 Sodoina.  Jerome  vacillates  between  singular  and 
 plural,  noun  and  adjective.  He  employs  all  the 
 following  forms,  Sodiimam,  in  Sadomis,  Sodoinorum, 
 Sodoinm,  Sodoinitm).  One  of  the  most  ancient 
 cities  of  Syria,  whose  name  is  now  a  synonym  for 
 the  most  disgu.sting  and  opprobrious  of  vices.  It 
 is  commonly  mentioned  in  connection  with  Gomor- 
 rah, but  also  with  Admah  and  Zeboim,  and  on  one 
 occasion  (Gen.  xiv. )  with  Bela  or  Zoar.  Sodom 
 was  evidently  the  chief  town  in  the  settlement.  Its 
 king  takes  the  lead  and  the  city  is  always  named 
 first  in  the  list,  and  appears  to  be  the  most  im- 
 portant. The  four  are  first  named  in  the  ethno- 
 logical records  of  Gen.  x.  19,  as  belonging  to  the 
 Canaanites:  "The  border  of  the  Canaanite  was 
 from  Zidon  towards  Gerar  unto  Azzah:  towards 
 Sedoni  and  Aniorah  and  Admah  and  Tsebo'im  unto 
 Lasha."  The  meaning  of  which  appears  to  be  that 
 the  district  in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites  formed 
 a  kind  of  triangle  —  the  apex  at  Zidon,  the  south- 
 west extremity  at  Gaza,  the  southeastern  at  I>asha. 
 Lasha,  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing,  seems  most 
 probably  located  on  the  Wady  Ziirka  Main,  which 
 enters  the  east  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  about  nine 
 miles  from  its  northern  end. 
 
 The  next  mention  of  the  name  of  Sodom  (Gen. 
 xiii.  10-13)  gives  more  certain  indication  of  the 
 position  of  the  city.  Abram  and  Lot  are  standing 
 together  between  J5ethel  and  Ai  (ver.  3),  taking,  as 
 any  spectator  from  that  spot  may  .still  do,  a  survey 
 of  the  land  around  and  below  them.  Eastward  of 
 them,  and  absolutely  at  their  feet,  lay  the  "  circle 
 of  Jordan."  It  was  in  all  its  verdant  glory,  that 
 glory  of  which  the  traces  are  still  to  be  seen,  and 
 which  is  so  strangely  and  irresistibly  attractive  to  a 
 spectator  from  any  of  the  heights  in  the  neighbor- 
 hood of  Bethel  —  watered  by  the  copious  supplies 
 of  the  Wady  Kelt,  the  Ain  Sultan,  the  Ain  Duk, 
 and  the  other  springs  which  gush  out  from  the 
 foot  of  the  mountains.  These  aljundant  waters 
 even  now  support  a  mass  of  verdure  before  they  are 
 lost  in  the  light,  loamy  soil  of  the  region.  But  at 
 the  time  when  Abram  and  Lot  beheld  them,  they 
 were  husbanded  and  directed  by  irrigation,  after 
 the  manner  of  Egypt,  till  the  whole  circle  was  one 
 great  oasis  —  "a  garden  of  Jehovah  "  (ver.  10).  In 
 the  midst  of  the  garden  the  four  cities  of  Sodom, 
 Gomorrah,  Admah,  and  Zeboim  appear  to  have 
 been  situated.  To  these  cities  Lot  descended,  and 
 retaining  his  nomad  habits  amongst  the  more  civ- 
 ilized manners  of  the  Canaanite  settlement  "  pitched 
 his  tent"  by'  the  chief  of  the  four.  At  a  later 
 period  he  seems  to  have  been  living  within  the 
 walls  of  Sodom.  It  is  necessary  to  notice  how 
 absolutely  the  cities  are  identified  with  the  district. 
 In  the  subsequent  account  of  their  destruction 
 (Gen.  xix.y,  the  topographical  terms  are  emploj'ed 
 with  aU  the  precision  which  is  characteristic  of 
 such  early  times.     "  The  Ciccdr,"  the  "  land  of  the 
 
 n  of  motion,  but  the  forms  adopted  by  LXX.  and 
 Vulg.  favor  the  belief  that  it  may  be  part  of  the 
 name. 
 
 'I  The  word  is  157  "  at,"  not  "  towards,''  as  in  the 
 A.  V.  Luzzatto,  vicino  a ;  LXX.  icrKrivia<rev  iv  2o56- 
 /lots. 
 
3068 
 
 SODOM 
 
 Ciccdr"  "  Ciccar  of  Jordan,"  recurs  again  and 
 again  both  in  chaps,  xiii.  and  xix..  and  "  the  cities 
 of  the  Ciccdr"  is  the  ahnost  technical  designation 
 of  the  towns  which  were  destroyed  in  the  catastrophe 
 related  in  the  latter  chapter.  The  mention  of  the 
 Jordan  is  coneli;sive  as  to  the  situation  of  the  dis- 
 trict, for  tlie  Jordan  ceases  where  it  enters  the 
 Dead  Sea,  and  can  have  no  existence  south  of  that 
 point.  But,  in  addition,  there  is  tlie  mention  of 
 tlie  eastward  direction  from  Bethel,  and  the  fact 
 of  tlie  perfect  manner  in  wliich  the  district  north  of 
 the  Lake  can  be  seen  from  the  central  highlands 
 of  the  country  on  which  Abram  and  l^ot  were 
 standing.  And  there  is  still  further  corroboration 
 in  Deut.  xxxiv.  3,  where  "  the  Ciccdr'"  is  directly 
 connected  with  Jericho  and  Zoar,  coupled  with 
 the  statement  of  Gen.  x.  already  quoted,  which  ap- 
 pears to  place  Zoar  to  the  north  of  Lasha.  It 
 may  be  well  to  remark  here,  with  reference  to  what 
 will  be  named  further  on,  that  the  southern  half 
 of  the  Dead  Sea  is  invisible  from  this  point;  not 
 merely  too  distant,  but  shut  out  by  intervening 
 heights. 
 
 ^Ve  have  seen  what  evidence  the  earliest  records 
 afford  of  the  situation  of  the  five  cities.  Let  us 
 now  see  what  they  say  of  the  nature  of  that  catas- 
 trophe by  which  they  are  related  to  have  been  de- 
 stroyed. It  is  described  in  (Jen.  xix.  as  a  shower 
 of  brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah,  from  the  skies 
 —  "  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom,  and  upon  Go- 
 morrah, brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of 
 heaven ;  and  he  overthrew  those  cities,  and  all  the 
 plain,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities,  and  that 
 which  grew  upon  the  ground"  ....  "and  lo! 
 the  smoke  of  the  land  went  up  like  the  smoke  of  a 
 furnace."  "  It  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from 
 heaven  "  (Luke  xvii.  29).  However  we  may  inter- 
 pret the  words  of  the  earliest  narrative  one  thing  is 
 certain,  that  the  lake  was  not  one  of  the  agents  in 
 the  catastrophe.     Further,  two  words  are  used  in 
 
 Gen.  xix.  to  describe  what  happened:  ilTltCn, 
 
 to  throw  down,  to  destroy  (vv.  13,  14),  and  Tf^i^, 
 to  overturn  (21,  25,  20).  In  neither  of  these  is  the 
 presence  of  water  —  the  submergence  of  the  cities 
 or  of  the  district  in  which  they  stood  —  either 
 mentioned,  or  implied.  Nor  is  it  implied  in  any 
 of  the  later  passages  in  which  the  destruction  of 
 the  cities  is  referi-ed  to  throughout  the  Scriptures. 
 Quite  the  contrary.  Those  passages  always  speak 
 of  the  district  on  which  the  cities  once  stood,  not 
 as  submerged,  but  as  still  visible,  though  desolate 
 and  uninhabitable.  "  Brimstone,  and  salt,  and 
 burning  ....  not  sown,  nor  beareth,  nor  any 
 grass  grovveth  therein  "  (Deut.  xxix.  23).  "  Never 
 to  be  inhabited,  nor  dwelt  in  from  generation  to 
 generation ;  where  neither  Arab  should  pitch  tent 
 nor  shepherd  make  fold  "  (Is.  xiii.  20).  "  No  man 
 abiding  there,  nor  son  of  man  dwelling  in  it"  (Jer. 
 xlix.  18;  1.  40).  "A  fruitful  land  turned  into 
 saltness  "  (Fs.  cvii.  34).  "  Overthrown  and  burnt" 
 (Amos  iv.  11).  "  The  breeding  of  nettles,  and 
 saltpits,  and  a  perpetual  desolation  "  (Zeph.  ii.  9). 
 
 SODOM 
 
 "  A  waste  land  that  smoketh,  and  plants  bearing 
 fruit  which  never  cometh  to  ripeness"  (Wisd.  x. 
 7).  "Land  lying  in  clods  of  pitch  and  heaps  of 
 ashes  "  (2  Ksdr.  ii.  9).  "  The  cities  turned  into 
 ashes  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  6,  where  their  destruction  by  fire 
 is  contrasted  with  the  Deluge). 
 
 In  agreement  with  this  is  the  statement  of  Jo- 
 sephus  (B.  J. a  iv.  8,  §  4).  After  describing  the 
 lake,  he  proceeds:  "  Adjoining  it  is  Sodomitis,  once 
 a  blessed  region  abounding  in  produce  and  in  cities, 
 but  now  entirely  burnt  up.  They  say  that  it  was 
 destroyed  by  lightning  for  the  impiety  of  its  inhab- 
 itants.* And  even  to  this  day  the  relics  of  the  Di- 
 vine fire,  and  the  traces  of  five  cities  are  to  be  seen 
 there,  and  moreover  the  ashes  reappear  even  in  the 
 fruit."  In  another  passage  {B.  ./.  v.  13,  §  G)  he 
 alludes  incidentally  to  the  destruction  of  Sodom, 
 contrasting  it,  like  St.  Peter,  with  a  destruction  by 
 water.  By  comparing  these  passages  with  Ant.  i. 
 9,  it  appears  that  Josephus  believed  the  vale  of 
 Siddim  to  have  been  submerged,  and  to  have  been 
 a  distinct  district  from  that  of  Sodom  in  which  the 
 cities  stood,  which  latter  was  still  to  be  seen. 
 
 With  this  agree  the  accounts  of  heathen  writers, 
 as  Strabo  and  Tacitus;  who,  however  vague  their 
 statements,  are  evidently  under  the  belief  that  the 
 district  was  not  under  water,  and  that  the  remains 
 of  the  towns  were  still  to  be  seen.* 
 
 From  all  these  passages,  though  much  is  obscure, 
 two  things  seem  clear. 
 
 1.  I'hat  Sodom  and  the  rest  of  the  cities  of  the 
 plain  of  Jordan  stood  on  the  north  of  the  Dead 
 Sea. 
 
 2.  That  neither  the  cities  nor  the  district  were 
 submerged  by  the  lake,  but  that  the  cities  were 
 overthrown  and  the  land  spoiled,  and  that  it  may 
 still  be  seen  in  its  desolate  condition. 
 
 When,  however,  we  turn  to  more  modern  views, 
 we  discover  a  remarkable  variance  from  these  con- 
 clusions. 
 
 1.  The  opinion  long  current,  that  the  five  cities 
 were  submerged  in  the  lake,  and  that  their  remains 
 —  walls,  columns,  and  capitals  —  might  be  still  dis- 
 cerned below  the  water,  hardly  needs  refutation 
 after  the  distinct  statement  and  the  constant  impli- 
 cation of  Scripture.  Ileland  {Pal.  p.  257)  showed 
 more  than  two  centuries  ago  how  baseless  was  such 
 a  hypothesis,  and  how  completely  it  is  contradicted 
 by  the  terms  of  the  original  narrative.  It  has  suice 
 been  assaulted  with  great  energy  by  De  Saulcy. 
 Professor  Stanley  {S.  (/■  P.  p.  289)  has  lent  his 
 powerful  aid  in  the  same  direction,'^  and  the  theory, 
 which  probably  arose  from  a  confusion  between  the 
 Vale  of  Siddim  and  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  will 
 doubtless  never  again  be  listened  to.     But 
 
 2.  A  more  serious  departure  from  the  terms  of 
 the  ancient  history  is  exhibited  in  the  prevalent 
 opinion  that  the  cities  stood  at  the  south  end  of 
 the  Lake.  This  appears  to  have  been  the  belief 
 of  Josephus  and  Jerome  (to  judge  by  their  state- 
 ments on  the  subject  of  Zoar).  It  seems  to  have 
 been  universally  held  by  the  mediaeval  historians 
 and  pilgrinis,  and  it  is  adopted  by  modern  topog- 
 
 a  Josepbiis  regarded  this  passage  as  his  main  state- 
 ment of  the  event.     See  Am.  i.  11,  §  4. 
 
 6  These  passages  are  given  at  length  by  De  Saulcy 
 (Nan.  i.  448). 
 
 c  «  The  only  expression  which  seems  to  imply  that 
 the  rise  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  within  historical  times,  is 
 that  contained  in  Gen.  xiv.  3  —  '  the  Vale  of  Siddim, 
 which  is  the  Salt  Sea.'     But  this  phrase  may  merely 
 
 mean  that  the  region  in  question  bore  both  names  ;  as 
 in  the  similar  expressions  (tv.  7  and  17)  —  '  Eu  Mish- 
 pat,  which  is  Kadesli ;  '  '  Shaveh,  which  is  the  King's 
 Dale.'  It  should,  however,  be  observed  that  the  word 
 '  Emek,' translated  i  vale,' is  usually  employed  for  a 
 long  broad  valley,  such  as  in  this  connection  would 
 naturally  mean  the  whole  length  of  the  Dctid  Sea  ' 
 (Stanley,  S.  §•  P.  p.  289  note). 
 
SODOM 
 
 raphers,  probably  without  exception.  In  the  words 
 of  one  of  the  most  able  and  careful  of  modern  trav- 
 ellers, Dr.  liobinsou,  "  The  cities  which  were  de- 
 stroyed must  ha\'e  been  situated  on  the  south  end 
 of  the  lake  as  it  tiien  existed  "  {Bibl.  lies.  ii.  188). 
 This  is  also  the  belief  of  M.  Ue  Saulcy,  except  with 
 rejfard  to  Gomorrah;  and,  in  feet,  is  generally  ac- 
 cepted. There  are  several  grounds  for  this  belief; 
 but  the  main  point  on  which  Dr.  IJobinson  rests 
 his  argument  is  the  situation  of  Zoar. 
 
 (rr.)  "  Lot,"  says  he,  in  continuing  the  passage 
 just  quoted,  "  tied  to  Zoar.  which  was  ncir  to 
 Sodom;  and  Zoar  lay  almost  at  the  southern  end 
 of  the  present  sea,  probably  in  the  mouth  of  the 
 Wddy  Keriik,  where  it  opens  upon  the  isthmus  of 
 the  peninsula.  The  fertile  plain,  therefore,  which 
 Lot  chose  for  himself,  where  Sodom  was  situated 
 ....  lay  also  south  of  the  lake  '  as  thou  comest 
 mito  Zoar"  "  {Bibl.  lies.  ibid.). 
 
 Zoar  is  said  by  Jerome  to  have  been  "  the  key 
 ofMoab."  It  is  certainly  the  key  of  the  position 
 which  we  are  now  examining.  Its  situation  is  more 
 properly  investigated  mider  its  own  head.  [Zoah.] 
 It  will  there  he  shown  that  grounds  exist  for  be- 
 lieving that  the  Zoar  of  .losephus,  Jerome,  and  the 
 Crusaders,  whicli  probably  lay  where  Dr.  lioliinson 
 places  it,  was  not  the  Zoar  of  Lot.  On  such  a 
 point,  however,  where  the  evidence  is  so  ft-agment- 
 ary  and  so  olisoure,  it  is  impossil)le  to  speak  other- 
 wise than  with  extreme  difhdenee. 
 
 In  the  me.in  time,  however,  it  may  be  observed 
 that  the  statement  of  tjen.  xix.  hardly  supports  the 
 inlerence  relative  to  the  position  of  tlie.se  two  places, 
 which  is  attempted  to  be  extorted  i'roni  it.  For, 
 assuming  that  Sodom  was  where  all  topographers 
 seem  to  concur  in  placing  it,  at  the  salt  ridge  of 
 Usddin,  it  will  be  found  that  the  distance  between 
 that  .spot  and  the  mouth  of  the  Wndy  Kendc, 
 where  Dr.  Koliinson  proposes  to  place  Zoar,  a  dis- 
 tance which,  according  to  the  narrative,  was  trav- 
 ersed liy  Lot  and  his  party  in  the  short  twilight  of 
 an  eastern  moriung  (Gen.  xix.  15,  2-J),  is  no  less 
 than  If)  miles  " 
 
 Without  questioning  tliat  the  narrative  of  Gen. 
 xix.  is  strictly  histurical  throughout,  we  are  not  at 
 present  in  jjossession  of  sutlicieut  knowledge  of  the 
 topography  and  of  tlie  names  attached  to  the  sites 
 of  tills  remarkable  region,  to  enable  any  profitable 
 conclusions  to  be  arrived  at  on  this  and  the  other 
 kindred  questions  connected  with  the  destruction  of 
 the  five  cities. 
 
 (6.)  Another  consideration  in  favor  of  placing  the 
 cities  at  the  southern  end  of  the  lake  is  the  exist- 
 ence of  similar  names  in  that  direction.  Thus,  the 
 name  Usiluni,  attached  to  the  remarkable  ridge  of 
 salt  which  lies  at  the  southwestern  corner  of  the 
 lake,  is  usually  accepted  as  the  representative  of 
 Sodom  (Koliinson,  Van  de  Velde,  De  Saulcy,  etc., 
 etc.).      But  there  is  a  considerable  ditierence  be- 
 
 '"t 
 tween   the  two  words  DID  and  a  tX*u  1  >  and  at 
 
 SODOM 
 
 30GI) 
 
 «  M.  De  Saulcy  has  not  overlooked  this  consider- 
 ation ( AWra^iiv,  i.  442).  His  own  proposal  to  place 
 Zoar  at  Ziiiveira/t  is  however  inadmissible,  for  reasons 
 stated  under  the  head  of  Zoar.  If  Usdinn  be  Sodom, 
 'iieii  till-  site  which  has  most;  claim  to  be  identified 
 with  the  .site  of  Zoar  is  the  Till  iim-Zn^hal,  which 
 stands  between  the  north  end  of  Kkuslirn  U.silum  and 
 tlie  Ijiike.  But  Zoar,  the  cradle  of  Moab  and  Amnion, 
 uiust  surely  have  been  on  the  east  side  (.f  tlie  Lake. 
 
 *■  It  "  surely  "  was  for  other  reasons  than   that  it 
 
 any  rate  the  point  deserves  further  investigation. 
 The  name  '' Anirali  (s »-♦»£),  which  is  attached  to 
 
 a  valley  among  the  mountains  south  of  Masada 
 (Van  de  Velde,  ii.  99,  and  Map),  is  an  almost  ex- 
 act equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  of  Gomorrha*  ('Am- 
 
 orah).       The   name    Lh-cCa  (x^nO),  and    much 
 
 more   strongly   that   of   Zoghal    (;_^£.»0,   recall 
 
 Zoar. 
 
 (c. )  A  third  argument,  and  perhaps  the  weight- 
 iest of  the  three,  is  the  existence  of  the  salt  moun- 
 tain at  the  south  of  the  lake,  and  its  tendency  to 
 split  off  in  columnar  masses,  presenting  a  rude  re- 
 semblance to  the  human  form.  But  with  reference 
 to  this  it  may  be  remarked  that  it  is  by  no  means 
 certain  that  salt  does  not  exist  at  other  spots  round 
 the  lake.  In  fact,  as  we  shall  see  under  the  head 
 of  Zoar,  Thietmar  (A.  u.  1217)  states  that  be  saw 
 the  pillar  of  Lot's  wife  on  the  east  of  Jordan  at 
 about  a  mile  from  the  ordinary  ford :  and  wherever 
 such  salt  exists,  since  it  doubtless  belongs  to  the 
 same  formation  as  the  Klmskiii  Usduin,  it  will  pos- 
 sess the  habit  of  splitting  into  the  same  shapes  as 
 that  does. 
 
 It  thus  appears  that  on  the  situation  of  Sodom 
 no  satisfactory  conclusion  can  at  present  be  come 
 to.  On  the  one  hand  the  narrative  of  (ienesis 
 seems  to  state  positively  that  it  lay  at  the  W)rlliern 
 end  of  the  1  )ead  Sea.  On  the  other  hand  the  long- 
 continued  tradition  and  the  names  of  existing  spots 
 .seem  to  pronounce  with  almost  equal  positiveness 
 that  it  was  at  its  soul li em  end.  IIow  the  geolog- 
 ical argument  may  attiict  either  side  of  the  propo- 
 sition cannot  be  decided  in  the  present  condition  of 
 our  knowledge. 
 
 Of  the  catastrophe  which  destroyed  the  city  and 
 the  district  of  Sodom  we  can  hardly  hope  ever  to 
 form  a  satisfactory  conception.  Some  catastrophe 
 there  undoubtedly  was.  Not  only  does  the  narra 
 five  of  Gen.  xix.  expressly  state  that  the  cities  were 
 miraculously  destroyed,  but  all  the  references  to  the 
 event  in  subsequent  writers  in  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments  bear  witness  to  the  same  fact.  But 
 what  secondary  agencies,  besides  fire,  were  employed 
 in  the  accomplishment  of  the  punishment,  cannot 
 he  .safely  determined  in  the  almost  total  absence  of 
 exact  scientific  descri[)tion  of  the  natural  fe.attu'es 
 of  the  ground  round  the  lake.  It  is  possible  that 
 when  the  gi-ound  has  been  thoroughly  examined  by 
 competent  observers,  something  may  be  discovered 
 which  may  throw  light  on  the  narrative.  Until 
 then,  it  is  useless,  however  tempting,  to  speculate. 
 Hut  even  this  is  almost  too  much  to  hope  for;  be- 
 cause, as  we  shall  presently  see,  there  is  no  warrant 
 for  imagining,  that  the  catastrophe  was  a  geological 
 one,  and  in  any  other  case  all  traces  of  action  must 
 at  this  distance  of  time  have  vanished. 
 
 It  was  formerly  supposed  that  the  overthrow  of 
 Sodom  was  caused  by  the  convulsion  which  formed 
 
 was    '■  the   cradle  "  of   these    tribes.       [Zo.\B,    Amer. 
 ed.]  S.  W. 
 
 b  The  G  here  is  employed  by  the  Greeks  for  the 
 difficult  guttural  ai7i  of  the  Hebrews,  which  they  were 
 unable  to  pronounce  (comp.  Gothaliah  for  Atliahah, 
 etc.).  This,  however,  would  not  be  the  case  in  .■Vrabic, 
 where  .'he  aiii  is  very  common,  and  theieliire  De  Saul- 
 cy "s  ijeutifieation  of  Goiiniraii  with  Gomorrah  falls  to 
 tbe  ground,  as  tiir,  at  least,  as  etjmolog;  is  con- 
 cerned. 
 
J3070 
 
 SODOM 
 
 the  Dead  Sea.  This  theory  is  stated  by  Dean 
 Milman  in  his  [Ustonj  of  the  Jews  (i.  15,  16)  with 
 great  spirit  and  clearness."  "  The  valley  of  the 
 Jordan,  in  which  the  cities  of  Sodom,  Gon)orrah, 
 Adma,  and  Tseboiin  were  situated,  was  rich  and 
 highly  cultivated.  It  is  most  probable  that  the 
 river  then  flowed  in  a  deep  and  uninterrupted  chan- 
 nel down  a  regular  descent,  and  discharged  itself 
 into  the  eastern  gulf  of  the  Ked  Sea.  The  cities 
 stood  on  a  soil  broken  and  undermined  with  veins 
 of  bitumen  and  sulphur.  These  inflammable  sub- 
 stances, set  on  fire  by  lightning,  caused  a  tremen- 
 dous convulsion:  the  water-courses,  both  the  river 
 and  the  canals  by  which  the  land  was  extensively 
 irrigated,  burst  their  banks;  the  cities,  the  walls 
 of  which  were  perhaps  built  from  the  combustible 
 materials  of  the  soil,  were  entirely  swallowed  up  liy 
 the  fiery  inundation ;  and  the  whole  valley,  which 
 had  been  compared  to  Paradise,  and  £o  the  well- 
 watered  cornfields  of  the  Nile,  became  a  dead  and 
 fetid  lake."  But  nothing  was  then  known  of  the 
 lake,  and  the  recent  discovery  of  the  extraordinary 
 depression  of  its  surface  below  the  ocean  level,  and 
 its  no  less  extraordinary  depth,  has  rendered  it 
 impossible  any  longer  to  hold  such  a  theory.  The 
 changes  which  occurred  when  the  limestone  strata 
 of  Syria  were  split  by  that  ^'ast  fissure  which  forms 
 the  Jordan  Valley  and  the  basin  of  the  Salt  Lake, 
 must  not  only  have  taken  place  at  a  time  long 
 anterior  to  the  period  of  Abraham,  but  must  have 
 been  of  such  a  nature  and  on  such  a  scale  as  to 
 destroy  all  animal  life  far  and  near  (Dr.  Buist,  in 
 Trmtx.  of  Bomhriy  Geogr.  Soc.  xii.  p.  xvi.). 
 
 Since  the  knowledge  of  these  facts  has  rendered 
 the  old  theory  untenable,  a  new  one  has  been 
 broached  by  Dr.  Kobinson.  He  admits  that  "  a 
 lake  must  have  existed  where  the  Dead  Sea  now 
 lies,  into  which  the  Jordan  poured  its  waters  long 
 before  the  catastrophe  of  Sodom.  The  great  de- 
 pression of  the  whole  broad  Jordan  Valley  and  of 
 the  northern  part  of  the  Anihali,  the  direction  of 
 its  lateral  valleys,  as  well  as  the  slope  of  the  high 
 western  district  towards  the  north,  all  go  to  show 
 that  the  configuration  of  this  region  in  its  main 
 features  is  coeval  with  the  present  condition  of  the 
 surface  of  the  earth  in  general,  and  not  the  effect 
 of  any  local  catastrophe  at  a  subsequent  period. 
 ....  In  \iew  of  the  fact  of  the  necessary  ex- 
 istence of  a  lake  before  the  catastrophe  of  Sodom ; 
 the  well-watered  plain  toward  the  south,  in  which 
 were  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  not 
 far  off  the  sources  of  bitumen ;  as  also  the  peculiar 
 character  of  this  part  of  the  lake,  where  alone 
 asphaltum  at  the  jiresent  day  makes  its  appearance 
 —  I  say,  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  there  is  but  a 
 step  to  the  obvious  hypothesis,  that  the  fertile  plain 
 is  now  in  part  occupied  by  the  southern  bay  lying 
 south  of  the  peninsula;  and  that,  by  some  convul- 
 sion or  catastrophe  of  nature  connected  with  the 
 miraculous  destruction  of  the  cities,  either  the  sur- 
 face of  this  plaiPi  was  scooped  out,  or  the  bottom  of 
 the  lake  heaved  up  so  as  to  cause  the  waters  to 
 overflow  and  cover  permanently  a  larger  tract  than 
 formerly"  {Bibl.  Jtes.  ii.  188,  18'J). 
 
 a  This  cannot  be  said  of  the  account  given  by 
 Fuller  in  his  Pisgah-siglit  of  Palestine  (bk.  2,  ch.  13), 
 which  seems  to  combine  every  possible  mistake  with 
 an  amount  of  bad  taste  and  unseemly  drollery  quite 
 astonishing  even  in  Fuller. 
 
 b  This  is  the  account  of  the  Koran  (xi.  84):  ''  We 
 
 SODOM 
 
 To  this  very  ingenious  theory  two  objections 
 may  betaken.  (1.)  The  "plain  of  the  Jordan," 
 in  which  the  cities  stood  (as  has  been  stated)  can 
 hardly  have  been  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake, 
 and  {2.)  The  geological  portion  of  the  theory  does 
 not  appear  to  agree  with  the  facts.  The  whole  of 
 the  lower  end  of  the  lake,  including  the  plain  which 
 l)orders  it  on  the  south,  has  every  appearance  not 
 of  having  been  lowered  since  the  formation  of  the 
 valley,  but  of  undergoing  a  gradual  process  of  fill- 
 ing up.  This  region  is  in  fact  the  delta  of  the 
 ^■ery  large,  though  irregular,  streams  which  drain 
 the  highlands  on  its  east,  west,  and  south,  and 
 have  drained  them  ever  since  the  valley  was  a  val- 
 ley. No  report  by  any  observer  at  all  competent 
 to  read  the  geological  features  of  the  district  will 
 be  found  to  give  countenance  to  the  notion  that 
 any  disturbance  has  taken  place  within  the  his- 
 torical period,  or  that  anything  occurred  there  since 
 the  country  assumed  its  present  general  conforma- 
 tion beyond  the  quiet,  gradual  change  due  to  the 
 regular  operation  of  the  ordinary  agents  of  nature, 
 which  is  slowly  filling  up  the  chasm  of  the  valley 
 and  the  lake  with  the  washings  brought  down  by 
 the  torrents  from  the  highlands  on  all  sides.  The 
 volcanic  appearances  and  marks  of  fire,  so  often 
 mentioned,  are,  so  far  as  we  have  any  trustworthy 
 means  of  judging,  entirely  illusory,  and  due  to 
 ordinary,  natural  causes. 
 
 But  in  fact  the  narrative  of  Gen.  xix.  neither 
 states  nor  impUes  that  any  convulsion  of  the  earth 
 occurred.  The  word  luiphnc,  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
 "overthrow,"  is  the  only  expression  which  sug- 
 gests such  a  thing.  Considering  the  character  of 
 the  whole  passage,  it  may  be  inferred  with  almost 
 absolute  certainty  that,  had  an  earthquake  or  con- 
 vulsion of  a  geological  nature  been  a  main  agent 
 in  the  destruction  of  the  cities,  it  would  have  been 
 far  more  clearly  reflected  in  the  narrative  than  it 
 is.  Compare  it,  for  example,  with  the  forcible 
 language  and  the  crowded  images  of  Amos  and 
 the  Psalmist  in  reference  to  such  a  visitation.  If 
 it  were  possible  to  si)eculate  on  materials  at  once 
 so  slender  and  so  obscure  as  are  furnished  by  that 
 narrative,  it  would  be  more  consistent  to  suppose 
 that  the  actual  agent  in  the  ignition  and  destruc- 
 tion of  the  cities  had  been  of  the  nature  of  a  tre- 
 mendous thunderstorm  accompanied  by  a  discharge 
 of  meteoric  stones.* 
 
 The  name  Sedom  has  been  interpreted  to  mean 
 "  burning  "  (Gesenius,  TliesS  p.  931)  a).  This  is 
 possible,  though  it  is  riot  at  all  certain,  since  tie- 
 senius  himself  hesitates  between  that  interpretation 
 and  one  which  identifies  it  with  a  similar  Hebrew 
 word  meaning  "  vineyard,"  and  Fiirst  [Ilnndwb.  ii. 
 72),  with  equal  if  not  greater  plausibility,  con- 
 nects it  with  a  root  meaning  to  inclose  or  for- 
 tify. Simonis  again  ( Owtmast.  p.  '■iij^)  renders  it 
 "abundance  of  dew,  or  water,"  Ililler  {Oiioi-nast. 
 p.  17Gj  "fruitful  land,"  and  Chytr*us  "mystery." 
 In  fact,  like  most  archaic  names,  it  may,  by  a  little 
 ingenuity,  be  made  to  mean  almost  anything.  Pro- 
 fessor Staidey  {S.  (/■  P.  p.  289)  notices  the  first  of 
 these  interpretations,  and  comparing   it  with  the 
 
 turned  those  cities  upside  down  and  we  rained  upon 
 them  stones  of  baked  clay." 
 
 c  Taking     Dip    =   n^lC;',     and    that   as  = 
 
SODOM 
 
 "  Phlegrasan  fields"  in  the  Campagna  at  Rome, 
 says  that  "  the  name,  if  not  derived  from  the  sub- 
 sequent catastrophe,  shows  that  the  marks  of  fire 
 had  already  passed  over  the  doomed  valley."  Ap- 
 parent "marks  of  fire  "  there  are  all  over  the  neij^h- 
 borhood  of  the  Dead  Sea.  They  lia\e  misled  many 
 travellers  into  lielieving  them  to  he  the  tokens  of 
 conflagration  and  volcanic  action;  and  in  the  same 
 manner  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  originated  the 
 name  Sedinii,  for  they  undoubtedly  abounded  on 
 the  shores  of  tiie  lake  long  before  even  Sodom  was 
 founded.  But  thei'e  is  no  warrant  for  treating 
 those  appearances  as  the  tokens  of  actual  conflagra- 
 tion or  volcanic  action.  They  are  produced  by  the 
 gradual  and  ordinary  action  of  the  atmosphere  on 
 the  rocks.  They  are  fiimiliar  to  geologists  in  many 
 other  places,  and  they  are  found  in  other  parts  of 
 Palestine  where  no  fire  has  ever  been  suspected. 
 
 The  miserable  fate  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is 
 held  up  as  a  warning  in  numerous  passages  of  the 
 Old  and  New  Testaments.  By  St.  I'eter  and  St. 
 Jnde  it  is  made  "  an  ensample  to  those  that  after 
 should  live  ungodly,"  and  to  those  "denying  the 
 only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  ('2 
 Pet.  ii.  6;  Jude,  4-7).  And  our  Lord  himself, 
 when  describing  the  fearful  punishment  that  will 
 befall  tho.se  that  reject  his  disciples,  says  that  "it 
 shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
 in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  that  city  "  (Mark 
 vi.  11:   conip.  Matt.  x.  15). 
 
 The  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Sodom  — "  Severus 
 Sodomoruin  " — appears  amongst  the  Araljian  prel- 
 ates who  signed  the  acts  of  the  first  Council  of 
 Nicsea.  Keland  remonstrates  against  the  idea  of 
 the  Sodom  of  the  Bible  being  intended,  and  sug- 
 gests that  it  is  a  mistake  for  Zuzumaon  or  Zo- 
 raima,  a  see  under  the  metropolitan  of  Bostra 
 {Pal.  p.  1020).  This  M.  De  Saulcy  (iVar;-.  i.  454) 
 refuses  to  admit.  He  explains  it  by  the  fact  that 
 many  sees  still  bear  the  names  of  places  which  have 
 vanished,  and  exist  only  in  name  and  memory, 
 such  as  Troy  The  Coptic  version  to  which  he 
 refers,  in  the  edition  of  M.  Lenormant,  does  not 
 throw  any  light  on  the  point.  G. 
 
 *  The  theory  which  is  propounded  in  this  arti- 
 cle respecting  the  catastroplie  of  the  cities  and  the 
 submergence  of  the  district,  is  examined  in  the 
 articles,  Ska,  Tfie  Salt  (p.  2897  f.)  and  Siddim, 
 The  Valk  of  (p.  3032  f.,  Amer.  ed. ).  The  argu- 
 ment which  woidd  locate  the  cities  north  of  the  sea, 
 is  refuted,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Zoar,  in  the  article 
 ZoAR  (Amer.  ed.).  For  the  reason  above  named, 
 that  Zoai-  is  "  the  key  of  the  position,"  its  site 
 determines  that  of  Sodom,  which  was  so  near  it 
 that  it  could  be  reached  by  flight  between  the  early 
 dawn  and  the  broad  daylight  after  the  sun  had 
 risen  over  the  mountains,  and  it  was  exposed  to 
 the  same  catastrophe,  being  saved  by  special  inter- 
 position. If  Zoar  was  in  the  district  in  which 
 we  have  placed  it,  Sodom  was  south,  and  not 
 north,  of  the  sea.  But  on  this  point  we  offer 
 further  and  cumulative  evidence  relating  especially 
 to  Sodom. 
 
 The  etymological  import  of  the  word  133  is 
 not  settled.  In  an  able  article  on  "  The  Site  of 
 Sodom  and  Gomorrah,"  published  in  the  Journnl 
 of  Sacred  Lileralure,  April,  1806  (pp.  36-57), 
 (.ieorge  Warington,  P^sq.,  offers  forcible  reasons 
 for  translating  the  term,  "hollow,"  and  for  apply- 
 ing it  to  the  entire  crevasse,  of  which  the  valley 
 rf  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea  are  but  a  part. 
 
 SODOM 
 
 :07] 
 
 In  this  view  he  is  supjjorled  by  the  analogous  faeti 
 that  t/ie  entire  valkij  was  designated  by  Jerome 
 and  Lusebius  as  the  Auhn  =  the  ravine,  and  that 
 it  is  now  called  by  the  Arabs  the  Ghor  =  the  de 
 pression. 
 
 'i'he  argmuent  from  the  Scripture  narrative  (Gen 
 xiii. )  given  in  this  article  is,  in  sul)stance,  this : 
 that  Abraham  and  Lot,  standing  on  some  eminence 
 between  Bethel  and  Ai,  surveyed  the  fruitful  plain 
 of  the  Jordan  on  the  east  —  the  region  north  of 
 the  sea  being  visible  from  that  point,  while  what 
 is  now  the  southern  end  of  the  sea  would  be  in- 
 visible; and  that  Lot  selected  the  plain  thus  visible 
 below  him  as  his  residence,  and  descending  to  it 
 pitched  his  tent  near  Sodom,  one  of  the  citiesi 
 planted  amid  its  verdure. 
 
 The  scene  of  the  conference  between  Abraham 
 and  Lot  is  not  stated  by  the  sacred  writer,  but 
 would  seem  to  have  been  near  the  spot  above 
 named.  The  inference  stated  is  also  natural,  and 
 if  there  were  no  special  reason  to  question  it,  it 
 would  pass  unchallenged.  But  the  location  of  the 
 cities  is  not  so  definitely  given  as  to  compel  us  to 
 accept  the  inference.  Nor  is  it  fairly  implied  in 
 the  narrative  that  Lot's  view  took  in  the  whole 
 valley;  he  surveyed  a  section  of  it,  which  in  its 
 I'ruitfulness  represented  the  whole.  The  argument 
 assumes  that  there  has  been  no  essential  change  in 
 the  plain  and  the  sea  since  that  day,  except  what 
 would  result  in  the  former  from  disuse  of  the  arti- 
 ficial irrigation  which  then  made  it  so  fruitful. 
 But  the  phrase  "before  the  Lord  destroyed,"  etc., 
 plainly  indicates  a  marked  change  in  consequence 
 of  the  event;  and  there  certainly  is  nothing  in  the 
 Scripture  narrative  inconsistent  with  the  general 
 belief  that  the  catastrophe  of  the  cities,  which 
 destroyed  also  "  the  country,"  wrought  a  great 
 and  general  change  in  "  the  land  of  Sodom  and 
 Gomorrah,"  thus  turned  "into  ashes."  If  the 
 cultivated  plain  or  valley,  with  or  without  a  lake 
 of  fresh  water  in  a  part  of  the  present  bed  of  the 
 sea,  then  extended  as  far  as  the  present  southern 
 limit  of  the  sea  and  adjacent  plain,  and  the  cities 
 were  in  that  section  of  it,  the  fact  would  not  con- 
 flict with  the  sacred  record.  If  the  passage  cited 
 (Gen.  xiii.)  does  not  countenance  this  view,  neither 
 does  it  contradict  it.  The  host  of  writers,  ancient 
 and  modern,  who  have  firmly  held  it,  have  never 
 felt  that  this  passage  offered  any  olyection  to  it. 
 
 Of  the  reasons  which  we  now  offer  additional  to 
 the  site  of  Zoar,  which  in  itself  is  conclusive,  the 
 first  two  are  conceded  above. 
 
 1.  The  names  suggestive  of  identity  with  the 
 original  sites  which  adhere  to  the  localities  around 
 the  southern  end  of  the  sea,  and  of  which  we  have 
 no  certain  traces  around  the  northern  end. 
 
 2.  'I'he  existence  and  peculiar  features  of  the 
 salt  mountain  south  of  the  sea,  with  no  correspond- 
 ing object  north  of  it,  which  is  certainly  remark- 
 able in  connection  with  the  sacred  narrative,  and 
 irresistibly  associates  the  flight  of  Lot  and  the  fate 
 of  his  wife,  with  this  locality. 
 
 3.  The  living  fountains  and  streams  of  fresh 
 water  which  flow  into  the  plain  south  of  the  sea, 
 correspondent  with  its  original  features,  if  it  was 
 the  southern  extremity  of  the  plain  of  Jordan  which 
 Lot  surveyed,  "  well-watered  everywhere,  before  the 
 Lord  destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  even  as  the 
 garden  of  the  Lord,  like  the  land  of  Lgypt,  as  thou 
 comest  unto  Zoar"  (Gen.  xiii.  10).  This  is  a 
 feature  which  Dr.  Robinson  specially  noted :  "  Even 
 to  the  present  day  more  Uving  streams  flow  into 
 
3072 
 
 SODOM 
 
 the  Glwr,  at  the  south  end  of  the  sea,  from  wadies 
 of  the  eastern  mountains,  than  are  found  so  near 
 together  in  all  Palestine  besides "  {Pliys.  (Jcnf/. 
 p.  234).  Mr.  Tristram's  observations  of  the  soil 
 below  the  surface,  both  at  the  foot  of  Jebel  Uaduiii 
 and  in  the  salt  marsh,  confirm  the  theory  that  the 
 whole  rei^ion  was  once  fruitful.  He  says:  "We 
 collected  specimens  of  the  soil  at  the  depth  of  two 
 feet  from  the  surface,  where  it  is  a  rich  greasy 
 loam,  but  strongly  impregnated  with  salt."  "  At 
 the  depth  of  eighteen  inches  in  the  plain,  the  soil 
 was  a  fat,  greasy  loam  "  {Land  of  hrutl,  pp.  322, 
 335).  iSefore  this  rich  alluvial  soil  was  covered 
 with  the  saline  incrustation  of  the  marsh  and  water 
 of  the  lagoon,  we  have  an  image  of  the  fertility 
 and  beauty  of  the  whole  expanse,  in  Mr.  Tristram's 
 description  of  the  present  luxuriance  of  the  oasis  on 
 the  eastern  border:  "  All  teemed  with  a  prodigality 
 of  life.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  reproduction  of  the  oasis 
 of  Jericho,  in  a  far  more  tropical  climate,  and  with 
 
 yet   more   lavish     supply    of  water For 
 
 three  miles  we  rode  through  these  rich  groves, 
 revelling  in  the  tropical  verdure  and  swarming 
 ornithology  of  its  labyrinths  "  {Ibid.  p.  336). 
 
 4.  The  testimony  of  unbroken  tradition,  ancient 
 and  modern.  Strabo,  Josephus,  Tacitus,  Galen, 
 Jerome,  Eusebius,  '•  mediajval  historians  and  pil- 
 grims, and  modern  topographers,  without  excep- 
 tion,"—  is  the  formidable  array  which  Mr.  Grove 
 proposes  to  turn  aside  by  an  interpretation,  plausi- 
 ble in  itself,  of  a  single  passage  of  Scripture, 
 which  otters  no  bar  to  their  unanimous  verdict, 
 and  which  seems  to  us  even  to  require  it.  (The 
 reader  will  find  these  cited  in  the  Bibl.  Sncni, 
 XXV.  147.)  The  whole  series,  of  course,  does  not 
 amount  to  positive  proof,  but  it  is  so  uni\ersal  and 
 unvarying  that  it  has  not  a  little  value  as  cor- 
 roborative evidence. 
 
 5.  There  remains  a  combined  topographical  and 
 historical  argument  which  to  us  appears  conclusive. 
 No  e\ent  has  perhaps  occurred  on  the  giolie  more 
 fitted  to  leave  a  permanent  scar  on  its  surface  than 
 the  conflagration  of  the  cities  of  the  plain  and  the 
 plain  together.  Of  no  recorded  occurrence  except 
 perhaps  the  Deluge,  might  we  reasonably  look  for 
 clearer  traces.  It  \rtis  a  catastrophe  so  dire  that 
 it  became  a  standing  comparison  for  signal  and 
 overwhelming  destruction,  and  would  naturally 
 leave  a  perpetual  mark  on  the  valley  which  bore 
 it.  This  impression,  which  every  reader  would 
 receive  from  the  original  narrative,  is  ct)nfirmed  by 
 every  succeeding  notice  of  it  and  of  the  locality. 
 The  event  occurred  aliout  nineteen  centuries  before 
 (Christ,  and  the  fertile  and  populous  plain  was  at 
 once  made  desolate  and  tenantless.  This  is  the 
 record :  "  Then  the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and 
 upon  Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord 
 out  of  heaven ;  and  he  overthew  those  cities,  and 
 all  the  plain,  and  alL  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities, 
 and  tiiat  which  grew  u[)on  the  ground  "  (Gen.  xix. 
 24,  25).  About  four  and  a  half  centuries  later, 
 Moses,  warning  the  Israelites  against  apostasj',  ad- 
 monishes them  that  the  judgments  of  God  for 
 idolatry  would  make  their  country  so  desolate  that 
 a  visitor  would  find  its  condition  portrayed  in  the.se 
 words:  "And  the  whole  land  thereof  is  brimstone 
 and  salt  and  burning,  that  it  is  not  sown,  nor 
 beareth,  nor  any  grass  groweth  therein ;  like  the 
 overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Admah  and 
 Zeboim,  which  the  Lord  overthrew  in  his  anger  and 
 in  his  wrath"  (Deut.  xxix.  23).  The  above  is  a 
 picture  of  the  site  o*   Sodom  as  it  appeared  at 
 
 SODOM 
 
 that  period.  The  testimony  which  exhibits  it  still 
 deserted  and  desolate  in  the  subsequent  centuries, 
 as  furnished  by  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
 and  Zephaniah,  by  the  apocryphal  books  of  Ksdras 
 and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  by  the  ancient 
 authors,  Strabo,  Josephus,  and  Tacitus,  together 
 with  the  New  Testament  allusions,  are  partially 
 quoted  above,  and  more  fully  in  Bibl.  Sacra,  xxv. 
 146-148.  No  historic  proof  can  be  more  clear 
 and  complete,  than  that  the  site  of  Sodom,  from 
 the  time  of  its  destruction  to  the  Christian  era 
 and  subsequently,  was  a  blasted  region,  an  utter 
 desolation. 
 
 With  these  historical  and  physical  delineations 
 before  us,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  attention  to 
 the  aspect  of  the  two  sites  to  settle  the  question 
 of  identity.  The  south  end  of  the  sea  and  its 
 surroundings  present  at  this  day  such  an  appear- 
 ance as  the  Scriptural  statements  would  lead  us  to 
 expect.  The  entire  southwest  coast  and  adjacent 
 territory  from  above  Stbbif/i.  round  to  the  fertile 
 border  of  the  Gkor  es-Safieh  on  the  extreme  south- 
 east, relieved  at  a  single  point  by  the  verdure  of 
 the  small  oasis  of  Zuwdrali,  is,  and  has  been,  from 
 the  time  of  Sodom's  destruction,  the  image  of 
 enthroned  desolation.  The  sombre  wildness  and 
 desolateness  of  the  whole  scene:  the  tokens  of  vol- 
 canic action,  or  of  some  similar  natural  convul- 
 sion ;  the  Sodom  mountain,  a  mass  of  crystallized 
 salt,  furrowed  into  fantastic  ridges  and  pillars;  the 
 craggy  sunbtu'nt  precipices  and  ravines  on  the 
 west;  the  valley  below  Uadum,  with  the  mingled 
 sand,  sulphur,  and  bitumen,  which  have  been 
 washed  down  the  gorges;  the  marshy  plain  of 
 the  adjacent  Sabkah,  with  its  briny  drainings, 
 "destitute  of  every  species  of  vegetation;"  the 
 stagnant  sea,  with  its  border  of  dead  driftwood; 
 the  sulphurous  odors;  "the  sterility  and  death- 
 like solitude"  (Robinson);  "desolation,  elsewhere 
 partial,  here  supreme;"  "nothing  in  the  Sahara 
 more  desolate"  (Tristram);  "the  unmitigated 
 desolation"  (Lynch);  "scorched  and  desolate 
 tract"  (W.);  "desolation  which,  perhaps,  cannot 
 be  exceeded  anywhere  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  " 
 (Grove);  "utter  and  stern  desolation,  such  as  the 
 mind  can  scarcely  conceive"  (I'orter);  these  and 
 the  like  features  impress  all  visitors  as  a  fit  me- 
 morial of  such  a  catastrophe  as  the  sacred  writers 
 have  recorded.  Whether  we  accept  or  not  ceitain 
 localities  as  particular  sites,  the  tout  i:'n.<anble  is  a 
 most  striking  confirmation  of  the  narrative. 
 
 The  more  detailed  explorations  of  the  region 
 confirm  the  impression  which  its  general  appear- 
 ance conveys.  Mr.  Tristram,  who  bestowed  upon 
 the  whole  focality  a  careful  scientific  examination, 
 thinks  that  he  discovered  in  the  deposits  of  the 
 Wady  Maliawat,  a  broad  deep  ravine  at  the  north 
 end  of  Jebel  Usdum,  traces  of  the  agency  which 
 destroyed  the  cities.     He  says:  — 
 
 "  I'here  are  exposed  on  the  sides  of  the  wady, 
 and  chiefly  on  the  south,  large  masses  of  bitumen, 
 mingled  with  gravel.  These  overlie  a  thin  stratum 
 of  sulphur,  which  again  overlies  a  thick  stratum 
 of  sand,  so  strongly  impregnated  with  suljihur 
 that  it  yields  powerful  fumes  on  being  sprinkled 
 over  a  hot  coal.  Many  great  blocks  of  the  bitu- 
 men ha\e  been  washed  down  the  gorge,  and  lie 
 scattered  on  the  plain  below,  along  with  huge 
 boulders  and  other  traces  of  tremendous  floods. 
 The  phenomenon  connnences  about  half  a  mile 
 from  where  the  wady  opens  up  on  the  plain,  and 
 may  be  traced  at  irregular  intervals  for  nea;  ly  a 
 
SODOM 
 
 mile  further  up.  The  bitumen  has  many  small 
 water-worn  stones  and  pebbles  embedded  in  it." 
 "  Again,  the  bitumen,  unlike  that  which  we  pick 
 up  on  tlie  shore,  is  strongly  impregnated  with  sul- 
 phur, and  yields  an  overpowerhig  sulphurous  odor; 
 above  all,  it  is  calcined,  and  bears  the  marks  of 
 having  been  subjected  to  extreme  heat."' 
 
 "  1  have  a  great  dread  of  seeking  forced  cor- 
 roborations of  Scriptural  statenieiits  from  ques- 
 tionable physical  evidence,  for  the  skeptic  is  apt  to 
 imagine  that  when  he  has  refuted  the  wrong  argu- 
 ment adduced  in  support  of  a  Scriptural  statement, 
 he  has  refuted  the  Scriptural  statement  itself;  but, 
 so  far  as  I  can  understand  this  deposit,  if  there  be 
 any  physical  evidence  lett  of  the  catastrophe  which 
 destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  or  of  similar 
 occurrences,  we  have  it  here.  The  whole  appear- 
 ance points  to  a  shower  of  hot  sulphur  and  an 
 irruption  of  bitumen  upon  it,  which  would  nat- 
 urally be  calcined  and  imprci^nated  by  its  fumes; 
 and  this  at  a  geologic  period  quite  subsequent  to 
 all  the  diluvial  and  alluvial  action  of  which  we 
 have  such  abundant  evidence.  The  vestiges  remain 
 exactly  as  the  last  relics  of  a  snow-drift  remain  in 
 spring  —  an  atmospheric  deposit.  The  catastrophe 
 must  have  been  since  the  formation  of  the  vvady, 
 since  the  deposition  of  the  marl,  and  while  the 
 water  was  at  its  present  level;  therefore  probalily 
 during  the  historic  period"  {Land  of  Israd,  pp. 
 354-357). 
 
 Our  only  surprise  is,  that  the  intelligent  ob- 
 server who  finds  these  probable  tokens  "  of  the 
 catastroplie  which  destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
 rah" in  the  very  locality  near  which  on  other 
 grounds  we  think  these  cities  must  have  stood, 
 should  himself  place  them  full  fifty  miles  distant. 
 He  has  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the 
 smoke  wliich  Abraham  saw  ascended  from  the 
 nortliern  end  of  the  sea;  but  if  his  interesting 
 discovery  is  reliable,  tiiere  must  have  been  .some 
 "smoke,"  as  well  as  "extreme  heat,"  at  the  south- 
 ern end.  If-  in  these  and  similar  features  we  have 
 not  pliysical  evidence  of  the  visitation  which  de- 
 stroyed Sodom,  we  have  just  such  material  phe- 
 nomena as  we  should  naturally  look  for  in  a  terri- 
 tory which  had  been  the  theatre  of  such  a  catas- 
 trophe, and  whose  subsequent  condition  had  been 
 described  in  the  passages  which  have  been  cited. « 
 
 We  turn  now  to  the  other  proposed  site,  the 
 country  north  of  the  sea,  and  we  find  neither 
 names  of  the  places  nor  traces  of  the  events  em- 
 braced in  the  Scriptural  record.  Instead  of  a 
 territory  scathed  as  by  hot  thunderbolts,  we  find  a 
 district  teeming  with  all  the  elements  of  fruitful- 
 ness.  In  the  very  year  that  JMoses  describes  the 
 site  of  the  destroyed  cities  as  brimstone  and  salt 
 and  burning,  Joshua  brings  the  hosts  of  Israel  to 
 the  territory  which  JMr.  Grove  proposes  as  the  site 
 of  these  cities,  and  finds  there  forests  of  palm  and 
 fields  of  barley,  "  old  corn  and  parched  corn,"  sup- 
 plies of  grain  and  fruit  for  the  multitude,  which 
 enable  them  to  dispense  with  the  manna.  Through 
 the  succeeding  centuries  important  cities  stood  on 
 this  territory.  It  was  here  that  tiie  assembled 
 nation,  with  sacrificial  offerings  and  rejoicings,  in- 
 vested Saul  with  the  kingdom  (1  Sam.  xi.  15); 
 ind  here  were  gatiiered  schools  of  the  prophets  (2 
 K.  ii.  5,  iv.  38).     Josephus  gives  glowing  descrip- 
 
 SODOMITES 
 
 3073 
 
 «  *  We  liave  private  advices  that  Mr.  Tristram  has 
 relinquished   the   theory   respecting   the   site   of    the 
 
 tions  of  the  exuberant  productiveness  of  this  very 
 district,  speaks  of  the  variety  of  its  trees  and  herbs, 
 and  refers  to  the  revenue  which  it  yiekled  {Ant.  xv 
 4,  §  2),  describes  it  as  the  garden  of  Palestine, 
 and  even  calls  it  a  "divine  region"  {B.  J.  iv.  8, 
 §3).  This  plain  or  valley  is  now  marlied  by  a 
 belt  of  luxuriant  vegetation  along  the  sweet  waters 
 of  the  river,  while  the  interval  between  it  and  the 
 highlands  on  each  side,  though  arid  in  the  dry 
 season  from  the  great  heat,  and  presenting  from 
 this  cause  broad,  desolate  strips,  is  yet  susceptible 
 of  irrigation  and  high  cultivation.  Not  a  token 
 do  we  find  here  either  of  the  awful  catastrophe  in 
 which  the  guilty  cities,  with  the  plain  on  which 
 they  stood,  were  consumed,  or  of  the  perpetual 
 desolation  which  subsequently  brooded  over  the 
 scene.  We  find  the  opposite ;  and  in  contrast  with 
 the  descriptions  which  we  have  given  of  travellers 
 who  have  visited  the  district  south  of  the  sea  we 
 quote  the  expression  of  tlie  latest  visitor  to  the 
 district  north  of  it  who  refers  to  "  the  verdant 
 meadows  on  each  side"  (Porter,  BKshiin,  p.  112). 
 
 Can  there  be  a  question  which  of  these  two  sites 
 is,  and  which  is  not,  that  of  the  historic  Sodom? 
 This  combined  topographical  and  historical  argu- 
 ment against  the  pretensions  of  the  new  site,  and 
 in  favor  of  the  identity  of  the  old,  appears  to  us  as 
 conclusive  as  it  well  could  be  with  reference  to  an 
 event  which  occurred  nearly  four  thousand  years 
 ago,  decisive  in  itself,  and  jointly  with  other  proofs 
 potent  enough  to  silence  discussion.  S.  W. 
 
 SOD'OMA  (■^SSo/j.a:  Sodomti).  Rom.  ix.  2!). 
 In  this  place  alone  tlie  Autliorized  Version  has  fol- 
 lowed the  Greek  and  Vulgate  form  of  the  well- 
 known  name  Sodom,  which  forms  the  suiject  of 
 the  preceding  article.  The  passage  is  a  quotation 
 from  Is.  i.  9.  The  form  employed  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch, and  occasionally  in  the  other  books  of  the 
 A.  V.  of  1011  is  Sodonie,  but  the  name  is  now 
 universally  reduced  to  Sodom,  except  in  the  one 
 passage  quoted  above.  G. 
 
 SOD'OMITES  (tt^"Ti7;  D^l^li?  [see  below]: 
 scortatur  eJfl^minaUis).  This  word  does  not  denote 
 the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  (except  only  in  2  Ksdr. 
 vii.  30)  nor  their  descendants;  but  is  employed  in 
 the  A.  V.  of  the  Old  Testament  for  those  who 
 practiced  as  a  rehgious  rite  the  abominable  and  un- 
 natural vice  from  which  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom 
 and  Gomorrah  have  derived  their  lasting  infamy. 
 It  occurs  in  Deut.  xxiii.  17 ;  1  K.  xiv.  24,  xv.  12, 
 xxii.  40;  2  K.  xxiii.  7;  and  Job  xxxvi.  14  (mar- 
 gin). The  Hebrew  word  Kudesh  is  said  to  be 
 derived  from  a  root  bidasli,  which  (strange  as  it 
 may  appear)  means  "pure,"  and  thence  "holy." 
 The  words  sneer  in  Latin,  and  "devoted"  in  our 
 language,  ha\e  also  a  double  meaning,  though  the 
 subordinate  signification  is  not  so  absolutely  con- 
 trary to  the  principal  one  as  it  is  in  the  case  of 
 kndesli.  "  This  dreadful  '  consecration,'  or  rather 
 desecration,  was  spread  in  difl^erent  forms  over  Phoe- 
 nicia, Syria,  Phrygia,  Assyria,  Babylonia.  Ash- 
 taroth,  the  Greek  Astarte,  was  its  ciiief  object." 
 It  appears  also  to  have  been  estalilisheil  at  Home, 
 where  its  victims  were  called  Galli  (not  from  Gallia, 
 but  from  the  river  Gallus  in  Bithynia).  There  is 
 an  instructive  note  on  the  subject  in  Jerome's 
 Coinin.  on  Hos.  iv.  14. 
 
 cities  to  which  he  had  pubhshed  his  assent,  and  noM 
 accepts  tlie  other  view.  H.  \V. 
 
3074  SODOMITISH  SEA 
 
 The  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  with  that 
 anxiety  to  soften  and  conceal  obnoxious  expressions, 
 which  has  been  ol'ten  noticed  as  a  characteristic  of 
 jheir  version,  liave,  in  all  cases  but  one,  avoided 
 rendering  Kadtsh  by  its  ostensible  meaning.  In 
 the  first  of  the  passages  cited  above  tliey  give  a 
 double  translation,  iropvevasv  and  reAiaKUfxevos 
 (initiated).  In  the  second  avvSeafxos  (a  con- 
 spiracy, perhaps  reading  "ltf.''i7.).  In  the  third 
 ras  reXerds  (sacrifices).  In  the  fourth  the  Vat. 
 MS.  omits  it,  and  the  Alex,  has  tov  ivSiriWay- 
 fxivov-  In  tlie  fiftli  tcDc  KaSrjffifi.  and  in  the 
 sixth  inrh  ayyiXwv. 
 
 There  is  a  feminine  equivalent  to  Kadesh,  name- 
 ly, Kndeshali.  This  is  found  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  21, 
 22;  Deut.  xxiii.  17,  and  Hos.  iv.  14.  In  each  of 
 these  cases  it  throws  a  new  light  on  the  passage 
 to  remember  tliat  tliese  women  were  (if  the  expres- 
 sion may  be  allowed)  the  priestesses  of  a  religion, 
 not  plying  for  hire,  or  merely  instruments  for  grat- 
 ifying passing  lust.  Such  ordinary  prostitutes 
 are  called  by  the  name  zonali.'^  The  "strange 
 women  "  of  Prov.  ii.  10,  &c.,  were  foreigners,  za- 
 roth.  G. 
 
 SOD'OMTTTSH  SEA,  THE  {.Um-e  Sodo- 
 tnitirui/i),  2  Esdr.  v.  7;  meaning  tlie  Dead  Sea. 
 It  is  tlie  only  instance  in  the  books  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  New  Testament,  or  Apocryplia,  of  an 
 approach  to  the  inaccurate  modern  opinion  wliich 
 connects  the  salt  lake  with  the  destruction  of  Sod- 
 om. The  name  may,  however,  arise  here  simply 
 from  Sodom  having  been  situated  near  the  lake. 
 
 G. 
 
 *  SOLDIER.     [Akms;  Army.] 
 
 SOL'OMON  (nb'btt7,  S/ielSmoh  [peaceful, 
 parifc] :  SaAoi/xwc ,  LXX. ;  'ZoKofXibv,  N.  T.  and 
 Joseph.:   Sitluino). 
 
 I.  Nnme.  —  The  changes  of  pronunciation  are 
 worth  noticing.  We  lose  something  of  the  dignity 
 of  the  name  when  it  passes  from  the  measured 
 stateliness  of  the  Hebrew  to  the  anapest  of  the 
 N.  T.,  or  the  tribrach  of  our  common  speech. 
 Such  changes  are  perhaps  inevitable  wlierever  a 
 name  liecomes  a  household  word  in  successive  gen- 
 erations, just  as  tliat  of  Friedereich  (identical  in 
 meaning  with  Solomon)  passes  into  Frederick. 
 The  feminine  form  of  the  word  (SaAco^r;)  retains 
 the  long  vowel  in  tlie  N.  T.  It  appears,  though 
 with  an  altered  sound,  in  the  Arabic  Sidehnaun. 
 
 II.  J\tnteri(ds.  —  (1.)  The  comparative  scanti- 
 ness of  historical  duta  for  a  life  of  Solomon  is  itself 
 significant.  While  that  of  David  occupies  1  Sam. 
 xvi.-xxxi. ;  2  Sam.  i.-xxiv. ;  1  K.  i.,  ii. ;  1  Chr. 
 x.-xxix. ;  that  of  Solomon  fills  only  the  eleven 
 chapters  1  K.  i.-xi.,  and  the  nine  2  Chr.  i.-ix. 
 The  compilers  of  those  books  felt,  as  by  a  true 
 inspiration,  that  the  wanderings,  wars,  and  suffer- 
 ings of  David  were  better  fitted  for  the  instruction 
 of  after  ages  than  the  magnificence  of  his  son.'' 
 They  manifestly  give  extracts  only  from  larger 
 works  which  were  before  them,  "  The  book  of  the 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 Nathan  the  prophet,  the  book  of  Ahijah  the  Shi 
 lonite,  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  "  (2  Chr.  ix 
 29).  Those  which  they  do  give,  bear,  with  what 
 for  the  historian  is  a  disproportionate  fullness,  on 
 the  early  glories  of  his  reign,  and  speak  but  little 
 (those  in  2  Chr.  not  at  all)  of  its  later  sins  and 
 misfortunes,  and  we  are  consequently  unable  to 
 follow  the  annals  of  Solomon  step  by  step. 
 
 (2.)  Iwald,  with  his  usual  fondness  for  assigning 
 different  portions  of  each  book  of  the  0.  T.  to  a 
 series  of  successive  editors,  goes  through  the  pro- 
 cess here  with  much  ingenuity,  but  without  any 
 very  satisfactory  result  {Gescliichte,  iii.  259-26.3). 
 A  more  interesting  inquiry  would  l)e,  to  which  of 
 tlie  books  above  named  we  may  refer  the  sections 
 which  the  compilers  have  put  together.  We  shall 
 probably  not  be  far  wrong  in  thinking  of  Nathan, 
 far  advanced  in  life  at  the  commencement  of  the 
 reign,  David's  chief  adviser  during  the  years  in 
 which  he  was  absorbed  in  the  details  of  the  Tem- 
 ple and  its  ritual,  himself  a  priest  (1  K.  iv.  5  in 
 //(?A.,  comp.  Ewald,  iii.  116),  as  having  written  the 
 account  of  the  accession  of  Solomon  and  tlie  dedi- 
 cation of  the  Temple  (1  K.  i.-viii.  66;  2  Chr.  i.- 
 viii.  15).  The  prayer  of  Solomon,  so  fully  repro- 
 duced, and  so  obviously  precomposed,  may  have 
 been  written  under  his  guidance.  To  Ahijah  the 
 Shilonite,  active  at  the  close  of  the  reign,  alive 
 some  time  after  Jeroboam's  accession,  we  may  as- 
 cribe the  short  record  of  the  sin  of  Solomon,  and 
 of  the  revolution  to  which  he  himself  had  so  largely 
 contributed  (1  K.  xi.).  From  the  book  of  the  Acts 
 of  Solomon  came  probably  the  miscellaneous  iiicts 
 as  to  the  commerce  and  splendor  of  his  reign  (1  K. 
 ix.  10-x.  29). 
 
 (3. )  Besides  the  direct  history  of  the  0.  T.  we 
 may  find  some  materials  for  the  life  of  Solomon  in 
 the  books  that  bear  his  name,  and  in  the  psalms 
 which  are  referred,  on  good  grounds,  to  his  time, 
 Vs.  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  cxxvii.  Whatever  doubts  may 
 hang  over  the  date  and  authorship  of  Ecclesiastes 
 and  the  Song  of  Songs,  we  may  at  least  see  in 
 them  the  reflection  of  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of 
 his  reign.  If  we  accept  the  latest  date  wliidi  re- 
 cent criticism  has  assigned  to  them,  they  elabo- 
 rately work  up  materials  whicli  were  accessible  to 
 the  writers,  and  are  not  accessible  to  us.  If  we 
 refer  them  in  their  suiistance,  following  the  judg- 
 ment of  the  most  advanced  Sliemitic  scholars,  to 
 the  Solomonic  period  itself,  they  then  coine  before 
 us  with  all  the  freshness  and  vividness  of  contem- 
 porarv  evidence  (Kenan,  Bist.  des  Lan<jues  Semit. 
 p.  131  )S 
 
 (4.)  Other  materials  are  but  very  scanty.  The 
 history  of  Josephus  is,  for  the  most  part,  only  a 
 loo.se  and  inaccurate  paraphrase  of  the  O.  T.  narra- 
 tive. In  him,  and  in  the  more  erudite  among  early 
 Christian  writers,  we  find  some  fragments  of  older 
 history  not  without  tiieir  value,  extracts  from  ar- 
 chives alleged  to  exist  at  Tyre  in  the  first  century 
 of  the  Christian  era,  and  from  the  Phoenician  his- 
 tories of  JNIenander  and  Dius  (Jos.  Ant.  viii.  2,  §  G ; 
 
 Acts  of  Solomon"   (1   K.  xi.  41);  "The  book  of    5,  §  3),  from  Eupolemos  (Euseb.  Prcej).  Evan;;,  ix 
 
 a  In  1  K.  xxii.  38  the  word  zotioth  is  rendered 
 "armor."  It  should  be  "harlots" — "and  the  har- 
 lots washed  themselves  there  "  (early  in  the  morning;, 
 as  was  their  custom,  adds  Procopius  of  Gaz-i).  The 
 LXX.  have  rendered  this  correctly. 
 
 f>  The  contrast  presented  by  the  Apocryphal  litera- 
 ture of  .lews,  Christians,  Mohammedans,  abounding  in 
 pseudoDyiuous   works  and   legends    gathering  round 
 
 the  name  of  Solomon  {infra),  but  having  hardly  any 
 connection  with  David,  is  at  once  striking  and  in- 
 structive. 
 
 c  The  weight  of  Kenan's  judgment  is  however  di- 
 minished by  the  fiict  that  he  had  previously  assigned 
 Eccle.'^iastes  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great  (CanC 
 /les  Cant.  p.  102). 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 30),  fi'om  Alexander  Polyhistor,  Menander,  and 
 Laitus  (Clem.  Al.  Sfrom.  i.  21).  Writers  such  as 
 these  were  of  course  only  compilers  at  second- 
 hand, but  they  probably  had  access  to  some  earlier 
 documents  which  have  now  perished. 
 
 (5.)  The  levrends  of  later  oriental  literature  will 
 claim  a  disthict  notice.  All  that  tliey  contribute 
 to  history  is  the  help  they  give  us  in  realizing  the 
 impression  made  by  the  colossal  greatness  of  Solo- 
 mon, as  in  earlier  and  later  times  by  that  of  Nini- 
 rod  and  Alexander,  on  the  minds  of  men  of  many 
 countries  and  through  many  ages. 
 
 Ill,  Education.  —  (1.)  The  student  of  the  life 
 of  Solomon  must  take  as  his  starting-point  the 
 circumstances  of  his  birth.  He  was  the  child  of 
 David's  old  age,  the  last-born  of  all  his  sons  (I  Chr. 
 iii.  5)."  His  motlier  had  gained  over  David  a  two- 
 fold power:  first,  as  the  object  of  a  passionate, 
 though  guilty  lo\e;  and  next,  as  the  one  person  to 
 whom,  in  his  repentance,  he  could  make  something 
 like  restitution.  The  months  that  preceded  his 
 birth  were  for  the  conscience-stricken  king  a  time 
 of  self-abasement.  The  birth  itself  of  tlie  child 
 who  was  to  replace  the  one  that  had  been  smitten 
 nmst  have  been  looked  for  as  a  pledge  of  pardon 
 and  a  sign  of  hope.  The  feelings  of  the  king  and 
 of  his  prophet-guide  expressed  themselves  in  the 
 names  with  wliich  they  welcomed  it.  The  yearn- 
 ings of  the  "man  of  war,"  who  "had  shed  much 
 blood,"  for  a  time  of  peace  —  yearnings  which 
 had  shown  tliemselves  before,  when  he  gave  to  his 
 third  son  the  name  of  Ab-salom  (=  father  of 
 peace),  now  led  liiui  to  give  to  the  new-born  infant 
 the  name  of  Solomon  (Shelomoh  =  the  peaceful 
 one).  Nathan,  with  a  marked  reference  to  the 
 meaning  of  the  king's  own  name  (=tlie  darling, 
 the  beloved  one),  takes  another  form  of  the  same 
 word,  and  joins  it,  after  the  growing  custom  of  the 
 time,  with  the  name  of  Jehovah.  David  had  been 
 the  darling  of  his  people.  Jedid-jah  (the  name 
 was  coined  for  the  purpose)  should  be  the  darling 
 of  the  Lord.  (2  Sam.  xii.  21,  2-5.''  See  Jedi- 
 DIAH;  and  Ewald,  iii.  215.) 
 
 (2.)  The  influences  to  which  the  childhood  of 
 Solomon  was  thus  exposed  must  have  contributed 
 largely  to  determine  the  character  of  liis  after 
 years.  The  inquiry,  what  was  tlie  education  which 
 ended  in  such  wonderlul  contrasts,  —  a  wisdom 
 then,  and  perhaps  since,  unparalleled,  —  a  sensual- 
 ity like  that  of  Louis  <^  XV.,  cannot  but  be  instruc- 
 tive. The  three  intluences  which  must  have  en- 
 tered most  largely  into  that  education  were  those 
 of  his  father,  his  mother,  and  the  teacher  under 
 whose  charge  he  was  placed  from  his  earliest  in- 
 fancy (2  Sam.  xii.  25). 
 
 (3.)  The  fact  just  stated,  that  a  prophet-priest 
 was  made  the  special  instructor,  indicates  the 
 king's  earnest  wish  that  this  child  at  least  should 
 be  protected  against  the  evils  which,  then  and  af- 
 terwards, showed  themselves  in  his  elder  sons,  and 
 be  worthy  of  the  name  he  bore.  At  first,  appar- 
 ently, there  was  no  distinct  purpose  to  make  him 
 his  heir.     Absalom  is  still  the  king's  favorite  son 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 3075 
 
 (2  Sam.  xiii.  37,  xviii.  33)  —  is  looked  on  by  the 
 people  as  the  destined  successor  (2  Sam.  xiv.  13, 
 XV.  1-G).  The  death  of  Absalom,  when  Solomon 
 was  al)0ut  ten  years  old,  left  the  place  vacant,  and 
 David,  passing  over  the  claims  of  all  his  elder  sons, 
 those  by  Bathsheba  included,  guided  by  the  influ- 
 ence of  Nathan,  or  by  his  own  discernment  of  the 
 gifts  and  graces  which  were  tokens  of  the  love  of 
 Jehovah,  pledged  his  word  in  secret  to  Bathshelia 
 that  he,  and  no  other,  should  be  the  heir  (1  K.  i. 
 13).  The  words  which  were  spoken  somewhat 
 later,  express,  doubtless,  the  purpose  which  guided 
 him  throughout  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  9,  20).  His  son's 
 life  should  not  be  as  his  own  had  been,  one  of  hard- 
 ships and  wars,  dark  crimes  and  passionate  repent- 
 ance, l)ut,  from  first  to  last,  be  pure,  blameless, 
 peaceful,  fulfilling  the  ideal  of  glory  and  of  right- 
 eousness, after  which  he  himself  had  vainly  striven. 
 The  glorious  visions  of  Ps.  Ixxii.  may  be  looked  on 
 as  the  prophetic  expansion  of  those  hopes  of  his 
 old  age.  So  far,  all  w.is  well.  But  we  may  not 
 ignore  the  fact,  that  the  later  years  of  David's  life 
 presented  a  change  for  the  worse,  as  well  as  for  the 
 better.  His  sin,  though  forgiven,  left  behind  it 
 the  Nemesis  of  an  enfeebled  will  and  a  less  gener- 
 ous activity.  The  liturgical  element  of  religion 
 becomes,  after  the  first  passionate  outpoui'iiig  of 
 I's.  11.,  unduly  predominant.  lie  lives  to  amass 
 treasures  and  materials  for  the  Temple  which  he 
 may  not  build  (1  Chr.  xxii.  5,  14).  He  plans  with 
 liis  own  hands  all  the  details  of  its  architecture  (1 
 Chr.  xxviii.  19).  He  organizes  on  a  scale  of  elab- 
 orate magnificence  all  the  attendance  of  the  priest- 
 hood and  the  choral  services  of  the  Levites  (1  Chr. 
 xxiv.,  XXV.).  But,  meanwhile,  his  duties  as  a  king 
 are  neglected.  He  no  longer  sits  in  the  gate  to  do 
 judgment  (2  Sam.  xv.  2,  4).  He  leaves  the  sin  of 
 Annion  unpunished,  "  because  he  loved  him,  for  he 
 was  his  first-born  "  (LXX.  of  2  Sam.  xiii.  21). 
 The  hearts  of  the  people  fall  away  from  lilm.  First 
 Alisalom,  and  then  Sheba,  become  formidable  rivals 
 (2  Sam.  XV.  6,  xx.  2).  The  history  of  the  inunber- 
 ing  of  the  people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.,  1  Chr.  xxi.)  im- 
 plies the  purpose  of  some  act  of  despotism,  a  poll- 
 tax,  or  a  conscription  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  9  makes  the 
 latter  the  more  probable),  such  as  startled  all  his 
 older  and  more  experienced  counsellors.  If,  in 
 "  the  last  words  of  David  "  belonging  to  this  period, 
 there  is  the  old  devotion,  the  old  hungering  alter 
 righteousness  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  2-5),  there  is  also  — 
 first  generally  {ibid.  6,  7),  and  afterwards  resting 
 on  individual  offenders  (1  K.  ii.  5-8)  — 'a  more 
 passionate  desire  to  punish  those  who  had  wronged 
 him,  a  painful  recurrence  of  vindictive  thoughts  lor 
 offenses  which  he  had  once  freely  forgiven,  and 
 which  were  not  greater  than  his  own.  \Ve  cannot 
 rest  in  the  belief  that  his  influence  over  his  son's 
 character  was  one  exclusively  for  good. 
 
 (4.)  In  eastern  countries,  and  under  a  system 
 of  polygamy,  the  son  is  more  dependent,  even  than 
 elsewhere,  on  the  character  of  the  mother.  The 
 history  of  the  Jewish  monarchy  furnishes  many 
 instances  of  that  dependence.     It  recognizes  it  in 
 
 n  The  narrative  of  2  Sam.  xii.  leaves,  it  is  true,  a 
 different  impression.  On  the  other  hand,  the  order  of 
 the  names  in  1  Chr.  iii.  5,  is  otherwise  unaccountable. 
 Josephus  di.stinctly  states  it  (,4/i/.  vii.  14.  §  2). 
 
 6  Accordiug  to  the  received  interpretation  of  Prov. 
 xxxi.  1,  liis  mother  also  contributed  an  ideal  name, 
 Lemuel  (  =  to  God,  Deodatus),  the  dedicated  one  (comp. 
 Ewald   Poet    Biick.  ir   173).     On  this  hypothesis   the 
 
 reproof  was  drawn  forth  by  the  king's  intemperance 
 and  sensuality.  In  contrast  to  what  his  wives  were, 
 she  draws  the  picture  of  what  a  pattern  wife  ought  tc 
 be  (Pineda,  i.  4). 
 
 e  Here  also  the  epithet  "  le  bien-aime  "  reminds  us, 
 no  less  than  Jedidiah,  of  the  terrible  irony  of  History 
 for  those  who  abuse  gifts  and  forfeit  a  vocation. 
 
3076 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 the  care  with  which  it  records  the  name  of  each  i  wonders  than  had  fallen  to  his  father's  lot.  Ad- 
 monarch's  mother.  Nothing  that  we  know  of  niiralile,  however,  as  all  this  was,  a  shepherd-life, 
 Bathsheha  le.ads  us   to   think  of  her  as   likely  to  1  like  liis  father's,  furnished,  we  may  believe,  a  better 
 
 mould  her  son's  mind  and  heart  to  the  higher 
 foruis  of  goodness.  She  ofl'ers  no  resistance  to  the 
 king's  passion  (Kwald,  iii.  211).  She  makes  it  a 
 stepping-stone  to  power.  Slie  is  a  ready  accom- 
 plice in  tiie  scheme  by  wliich  her  shame  was  to 
 have  been  concealed.  Douljtless  she  too  was  sor- 
 rowful and  penitent  when  the  rebuke  of  Nathan 
 was  followed  by  her  child's  death  (2  Sam.  xii.  24), 
 but  tlie  alter-history  shows  that  the  grand-daugli- 
 ter  of  Alutiiophel  [U.vnisiiiciiA]  had  inherited  not, 
 a  little  of  his  charaoter.  A  willing  adulteress,  who 
 had  become  devout,  but  had  not  ceased  to  be  am- 
 bitious, could  hardly  be  more,  at  the  best,  than 
 the  Madame  de  Maintenon  of  a  king,  whose  con- 
 trition and  piety  were  rendering  him  unlike  his 
 former  self,  unduly  passive  in  the  hands  of  otliers. 
 (5.)  What  was  likely  to  be  the  influence  of  the 
 nropliet  to  whose  care  the  education  of  Solomon 
 was  confided?  (fhb.  of  2  Sam.  xii.  2.5.)  We 
 know,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  he  could  speak  bold 
 and  faithful  words  when  they  were  needed  (2  Sam. 
 vii.  1-17,  xii.  1-14).  But  this  power,  belonging 
 to  moments  or  messages  of  speciaUinspiration,  does 
 not  involve  the  permanent  possession  of  a  clear- 
 sighted wisdom,  or  of  aims  uniformly  hi<;h;  and 
 we  ill  vain  search  the  later  years  of  David's  reign 
 for  any  proof  of  Nathan's  activity  for  good.  He 
 gives  himself  to  the  work  of  writing  the  annals  of 
 David's  reign  (1  Chr.  xxix.  2U).  He  jilaces  liis 
 own  sons  in  the  way  of  ijeing  the  companions  and 
 counsellors  of  the  iuture  king  (1  K.  iv.  .5).  The 
 absence  of  his  name  from  the  history  of  the  "  num- 
 bering," and  the  fact  that  the  census  was  followed 
 early  in  the  reign  of  Solomon  by  heavy  burdens 
 and  a  forced  service,  almost  lead  us  to  the  conclu- 
 sion that  the  pro|)het  had  acquiesced  "  in  a  measure 
 which  had  in  view  the  magnificence  of  the  Temple, 
 and  that  it  was  left  to  David's  own  heart,  returning 
 to  its  better  impulses  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  10),  and  to  an 
 older  and  less  courtly  prophet,  to  protest  against 
 an  act  which  began  in  pride  and  tended  to  oppres- 
 sion.'' 
 
 (6.)  Under  these  influences  the  boy  grew  up. 
 At  the  age  of  ten  or  eleven  he  must  ha\e  passed 
 through  the  revolt  of  Absalom,  and  shared  his 
 father's  exile  (2  Sam.  xv.  IG).  He  would  lie 
 taught  all  that  priests,  or  Levites,  or  prophets  had 
 to  teach :  nmsic  and  song ;  the  Book  of  the  Law 
 of  the  Lord,  in  sucli  portions  and  in  sucli  forms  as 
 were  then  current;  the  "  proverbs  of  the  ancients," 
 which  his  father  had  i)een  wont  to  quote  (1  Sam. 
 xxiv.  13);  probably  also  a  literature  which  has 
 survived  only  in  fragments;  the  Book  of  Jasher, 
 the  upright  ones,  tlie  heroes  of  the  people;  the 
 Hook  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord;  the  wisdom,  oral 
 or  written,  of  the  sat;es  of  his  own  tribe,  Heinan, 
 and  Kthan,  and  Calcol,  and  Darda  (1  Chr.  ii.  G), 
 who  contributed  so  largely  to  the  nolile  hymns  of 
 this  period  (l*s.  Ixxxviii.,  Ixxxix.),  and  were  incor- 
 porated, proliably,  into  the  choir  of  the  Tabernacle 
 (Ewald,  iii.  355).  The  growing  intercourse  of 
 Israel  with  the  Phoenicians  would  lead  naturally  to 
 a  wider  knowledge  of  the  outlying  world   and   its 
 
 education  for  the  kingly  caUing  {Vs.  Ixxviii.  70,  71;. 
 Born  to  the  purple,  there  was  the  inevitable  risk  of 
 a  selfish  luxury,  (.'radled  in  liturgies,  trained  to 
 think  chiefly  of  the  magnificent  "  palace  "  of  Je- 
 hovah (1  Chr.  xxix.  19)  of  which  he  was  to  be  the 
 builder,  there  was  the  danger,  first,  of  an  a'sthetic 
 formalism,  and  then  of  ultimate  indifference. 
 
 IV.  Accessiuii. —  (1.)  The  feebleness  of  David's 
 old  age  led  to  an  attempt  which   might   have  de- 
 prived Solomon  of  the  throne   his  father  destined 
 for  him.     Adonijah,  next  in  order  of  liirtli  to  Ab- 
 salom, like  Absalom  "was  a  goodly  man"  (1  K. 
 i.  G),  in  full  maturity  of  years,  backed  by  the  oldest 
 of  the  king's  friends   and   counsellors,    Joab  and 
 Abiathar,  and  by  all  the  sons  of  David,  who  looked 
 with  jealousy,  the  latter  on  the  obvious  though  not 
 as  yet  declared  preference  of  the  latest-born,  and 
 the  former  on  the  growing  influence  of  the  rival 
 counsellors   who   were   most  in    the    king's   favor, 
 Nathan,  Zadok,  and  Benaiah.     Following  in   the 
 steps  of  Absalom,  he  assumed  the  kingly  state  of  a 
 chariot  and  a  body-guard ;  and  David,  more  passive 
 than  ever,  looked  on  in  silence.     At  last  a  time  was 
 chosen   for  openly  proclaiming  him   as   king.     A 
 solemn  feast  at  En-Rogel  was  to  inaugurate  the 
 new  reign.     All  were  invited  to  it  but  those  whom 
 it  was  intended  to  displace.     It  was  necessary  for 
 those  whose  interests  were  endangered,  backed  ap- 
 parently by  two  of  David's  surviving  elder  brothers 
 (Kwald,  iii.  2G6;   1  Chr.  ii.  13,  14),  to  take  prompt 
 measures.     Bathsheba    and  Nathan   took   counsel 
 togetiier.     The  king  was  reminded  of  his  oath.     A 
 virtual  abdication  was  pressed  upon  him  as  the  only 
 means  by  which  the  succession  of  his  favorite  son 
 could  be  secured.     The  whole  thing  was  completed 
 with   wonderful    rapidity.      Eidiiig    on    the    nude, 
 well-known  as  belonging  to  the  king,  attended  by 
 Nathan   the  prophet,  and   Zadok  the  priest,  and 
 more  important  still,  by  the  king's  special  company 
 of  the  thirty  Gibborim,  or  mighty  men  (1  K.  i.  10, 
 33),   and   the   body-guard  of  the  Cherethites  and 
 I'elethites  (mercenaries,  and  therefore  not  liable  to 
 the  contasiion   of  popular  feeling)  under  the  com- 
 mand of  Benaiah  (himself,  like  Nathan  and  Zadok, 
 of  the  sous  of  .Aaron),  he  went  down  to  Gition,  and 
 was  proclaimed  and  anointed  king."-"     The  shouts 
 of  his  followers  fell  on  the  startled  ears  of  the  guests 
 at  Adonijah's  banquet.     Happily  they  were  as  yet 
 committed  to  no  overt  act,  and  they  did  not  ven- 
 ture on  one  now.     One  by  one  they  rose  and  de- 
 parted.    The  plot  had  failed.     The  counter  coup 
 d'dttit.  of  Nathan  and  Bathsheba  had  been  success- 
 ful.    Such  incidents  are  common   enough   in   the 
 history  of  eastern  monarchies.     They  are  usually 
 followed    by   a    massacre   of    the   defeated    party. 
 Adonijah  expected  such  an  issue,  and  took  refuge 
 at  the  horns  of  the  altar.     In   this  instance,  how- 
 ever, the  young  conqueror  used  his  triunipli  gener- 
 ously.   The  lives  both  of  Adonijah  and  his  partisans 
 were  spared,  at  least  for  a  time.     What  had  i)een 
 done  hurrieilly  was  done  afterwards  in  more  solenm 
 form.     Solomon  was  jjresented  to  a  great  gatliering 
 of  all  the  notables  of  Israel,  with  a  set  speech,  in 
 
 a  Jcsephus,  witti  his  usual  inaccuracy,  substitutes 
 Nathan  for  Gad  in  liis  narrative  (Ant.  vii.  13,  §  2). 
 
 b  We  regret  to  find  ourselves  unable  to  follow  Ewald 
 in  his  liigh  estimate  of  ttie  old  age  of  David,  and, 
 consetiueutly,  of  Solomon's  education. 
 
 c  According  to  later  Jewish  teaching  a  king  was 
 not  anointed  when  he  succeeded  his  lather,  except  in 
 the  case  of  a  previous  usurpation  or  a  disputed  suc- 
 cession (Otho,  Le.xic.  Rabbin,  s.  v.  "Ilex"). 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 which  the  old  king  announced  what  was,  to  his 
 mind,  the  programme  of  the  new  reign,  a  time  of 
 peace  and  plenty,  of  a  stately  worship,  of  devotion 
 to  Jehovah.  A  few  months  more,  and  Solomon 
 found  himself,  by  his  father's  death,  the  sole  oc- 
 cupant of  the  throne. 
 
 (2.)  The  position  to  which  he  succeeded  was 
 unique.  Never  before,  and  never  after,  did  the 
 kingdom  of  Israel  take  its  place  among  the  great 
 monarchies  of  the  East,  able  to  ally  itself,  or  to 
 contend  on  equal  terms  with  Egypt  or  Assyria, 
 stretching  from  th& River  (Euphrates)  to  the  iiorder 
 of  Egypt,  from  tlie  Mediterranean  to  the  Uulf  of 
 Akaba,  receiving  annual  tributes  from  many  sub- 
 ject princes.  Large  treasures  accumulated  throuo;h 
 many  years  were  at  his  disposal."  The  people,  with 
 the  exception  of  the  tolerated  worship  in  high 
 places,  were  true  servants  of  Jehovah.  Knowl- 
 edge, art,  music,  poetry,  had  received  a  new  im- 
 pulse, and  were  moving  on  with  rapid  steps,  to  such 
 perfection  as  the  age  and  the  race  were  cajjable  of 
 attaining.  We  may  rightly  ask  —  what  manner 
 of  man  he  was,  outwardly  and  inwardly,  who  at 
 the  age  of  nineteen  or  twenty,  was  called  to  this 
 glorious  sovereignty  ?  We  have,  it  is  true,  no 
 direct  description  in  this  case  as  we  have  of  the 
 earlier  kings.  There  are,  however,  materials  for 
 filling  up  the  2;ap.  The  wonderful  impression  which 
 Solomon  made  upon  all  who  came  near  him  may 
 well  lead  us  to  believe  that  with  him,  as  with  Saul 
 and  David,  Absalom  and  Adonijah,  as  with  most 
 other  favorite  princes  of  eastern  peoples,  tiiere  must 
 have  been  the  fascination  and  the  grace  of  a  noble 
 presence.  Whatever  higher  mystic  meaning  may 
 be  latent  in  Ps.  xlv.,  or  the  Song  of  Songs,  we  are 
 all  but  compelled  to  think  of  them  as  having  had, 
 at  least,  a  historical  starting-point.  They  tell  us 
 of  one  who  was,  in  the  eyes  of  the  men  of  his  own 
 time,  ''fairer  than  the  children  of  men,"  the  face 
 "bright  and  ruddy"  as  his  ftither's  (Cant.  v.  10; 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  42),  bushy  locks,  dark  as  the  raven's 
 wing,  3'et  not  without  a  golden  glow,*  the  eyes 
 soft  as  "the  eyes  of  doves,"  the  "countenance  as 
 Lebanon,  excellent  as  the  cedars,"  "  the  chiefest 
 among  ten  thousand,  the  altogether  lovely  "  (Cant. 
 9-16).  Add  to  this  all  gifts  of  a  noble,  far-reach- 
 ing intellect,  large  and  ready  sympathies,  a  playful 
 and  genial  humor,  the  lips  "full  of  grace,"  the 
 soul  "  anointed ''  as  "  with  the  oil  of  gladness  " 
 (Ps.  xlv.),  and  we  may  form  some  notion  of  what 
 the  king  was  like  in  that  dawn  of  his  golden 
 prime.'' 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 3077 
 
 a  The  sums  mentioned  are  (1)  the  public  funds  for 
 building  the  Temple,  100,000  talents  (kikarim)  of  gold 
 and  1,000,000  of  silver ;  (2)  David's  private  offerings, 
 3,000  talents  of  gold  and  7.000  of  silver.  Besides  these, 
 large  sums  of  unknown  amount  were  believed  to  have 
 been  stored  up  in  the  sepulchre  of  David.  3,000  talents 
 were  taken  from  it  bv  Ilyrcanus  (Jos.  A7it.  vii.  15,  § 
 3,  xiii.  8.  §  4,  xvi.  7,  §  1). 
 
 ''  Possibly  sprinkled  with  gold  dust,  as  was  the  hair 
 of  the  youths  who  waited  on  him  (Jos.  Aiit.  viii.  7,  §  3), 
 or  dyed  with  henna  (MichaeUs,  Not.  in  Lowth,  Pr(El. 
 xxxi.). 
 
 c  It  will  be  seen  that  we  adopt  the  scheme  of  the 
 older  litenilist  school,  Bossuet,  Lowth,  Michaelis,  rather 
 than  that  of  the  more  recent  critics,  Ewald,  Renan, 
 Ginsburg.  Ingeniously  as  the  idea  is  worked  out  we 
 cannot  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  a  drama,  be- 
 longing to  the  literature  of  the  northern  kingdom,  not 
 to  that  of  Judah,  holding,  up  Solomon  to  ridicule  as 
 at  once  licentious  and  unsuccessful,  would  have  been 
 
 (3.)  The  historical  starting-point  of  the  Song  of 
 Songs  just  spoken  of  connects  itself,  in  all  prob- 
 ability, with  tiie  earliest  facts  in  the  history  of  tlie 
 new  reign.  The  n.arrative,  as  told  in  1  K.  ii.  is 
 not  a  little  perplexing.  Bathshel>a,  who  had  before 
 stirred  up  David  against  Adonijah,  now  appears  as 
 interceding  for  him,  begging  that  Abi.shag  the 
 Shunamite,  the  virgin  concubine  of  David,  might 
 be  given  hini  as  a  wife.  Solomon,  who  till  then 
 had  professed  the  profoundest  reverence  ibr  his 
 mother,  his  willingness  to  grant  her  anything,  sud- 
 denly flashes  into  fiercest  wrath  at  this.  The  peti- 
 tion is  treated  as  part  of  a  conspiracy  in  which  joab 
 and  Abiathar  are  sharers.  Benaiah  is  once  more 
 called  in.  Adonijah  is  put  to  death  at  once.  Joab 
 is  slain  even  within  the  precincts  of  the  Tabernacle, 
 to  which  he  had  fled  as  an  asylum.  Abiathar  is 
 deposed,  and  exiled,  sent  to  a  life  of  poverty  and 
 shame  (1  K.  ii.  31-36),  and  the  high  priesthood 
 transferred  to  another  family  more  ready  than  he 
 had  been  to  pass  from  the  old  order  to  the  new, 
 and  to  accept  the  voTces  of  the  propiiets  as  greater 
 than  the  oracles  which  had  belonged  exclusively  to 
 the  priesthood  [comp.  Uiiui  and  Thummim]. 
 The  facts  have,  however,  an  explanation.  ]\Ir. 
 Grove's  ingenious  theory''  identifying  Abishag  with 
 the  heroine  of  the  Song  of  Songs  [Shulamitk], 
 resting,  as  it  must  do,  on  its  own  evidence,  has  this 
 further  merit,  that  it  explains  the  phenomena  here. 
 The  passionate  love  of  Solomon  for  "the  fjiirest 
 among  women,"  might  well  lead  the  queen-mother, 
 hitherto  supreme,  to  fear  a  rival  influence,  and  to 
 join  in  any  scheme  for  its  removal.  The  king's 
 vehement  abruptness  is,  in  like  maimer,  accounted 
 for.  He  sees  in  the  request  at  once  an  attempt  to 
 deprive  him  of  tlie  woman  he  loves,  and  a  ])lot  to 
 keep  him  still  in  the  tutelage  of  childhood,  to  entrap 
 him  into  admitting  his  elder  brother's  rirrht  to  the 
 choicest  treasure  of  his  fatlier's  harem,  and  tlierefore 
 virtually  to  the  throne,  or  at  least  to  a  regency  in 
 which  he  would  have  his  own  partisans  as  counsel- 
 lors. With  a  keen-sighted  promptness  he  crushes 
 the  whole  scheme.  He  gets  rid  of  a  rival,  fulfills 
 David's  dying  counsels  as  to  Joab,  and  asserts  his 
 own  independence.  Soon  afterwards  an  opiwrtunity 
 is  thrown  in  his  way  of  getting  rid  of  one  [Siiimki], 
 who  had  been  troublesome  before,  and  might  be 
 troublesome  again.  He  presses  the  letter  of  a  com- 
 pact against  a  man  who  by  his  infatuated  disregard 
 of  it  seemed  given  over  to  destruction  <=  (1  K.  ii. 
 36-46).  There  is,  however,  no  needless  slaughter. 
 The  other  "sons  of  David"   are  still  spared,  and 
 
 treasured  up  by  the  Jews  of  the  Captivity,  and  re- 
 ceived by  the  Scribes  of  the  Great  Synagogue  as  by, 
 or  at  least,  in  honor  of  Solomon  (comp.  Kenan,  La 
 Cantlqiie  des  Cantiqiies,  pp.  91,  95).  We  follow  the 
 Jesuit  Pineda  (D'  rebus  Salnm.  iv.  3)  in  applying  the 
 language  of  the  Shulamite  to  Solomon's  personal  ap- 
 pearance, but  not  in  his  extreme  minuteness. 
 
 d  The  hypothe.sis  is,  however,  not  altogether  new 
 It  was  held  by  some  of  the  literalist  historical  school 
 of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (not  by  Theodore  himself; 
 comp.  his  fragments  in  Migne,  Ixvi.  699),  and  as  such 
 is  anathematized  by  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  {Prcpf.  in 
 Cant.  Cantic).  The  latter,  believing  the  Song  of 
 Solomon  to  have  been  supernaturally  dictated  to  Ezra, 
 could  admit  no  interpretation  but  the  mystical  (comp. 
 Ginsburg,  Song  of  Sol.  p.  66). 
 
 e  An  elaborate  vindication  of  Solomon's  conduct  5n 
 this  matter  may  be  found  in  Menthen's  Thesaurus,  i  | 
 Slisser,  Diss,  de  Sa/oiii.  processu  contra  SIdmei. 
 
3078 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 nne  of  tliein,  Nathan,  becomes  the  head  of  a  dis- 
 tinct family  (Zech.  xii.  12),  which  ultimately  fills 
 up  the  failure  of  the  direct  succession  (Luke  iii.  31). 
 As  he  punishes  his  fatlier's  enemies,  he  also  shows 
 kindness  to  the  friends  who  had  been  faithful  to 
 him.  Chimhani,  the  son  of  Barzillai,  apparently 
 receives  an  inheritance  near  the  city  of  David,  and 
 pnilialily  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  displays  his  in- 
 herited hospitality  by  building  a  caravanserai  for 
 the  strangers  whom  the  fauie  and  wealth  of  Sol- 
 omon drew  to  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  xix.  31-40;  1  K. 
 ii.  7;  Jer.  xli.  17;  Ewald,  Gtsch.  iii.  274;  Proph. 
 ii.  191). 
 
 V.  Fore'ujn  Policy.  —  (1. )  The  want  of  sufficient 
 data  for  a  continuous  history  has  been  already  no- 
 ticed. All  that  we  have  are — {n.)  The  duration 
 of  the  reign.  40  years"  (1  K.  xi.  42).  (6.)  The 
 commencement  of  the  Temple  in  the  4th,  its  com- 
 pletion in  the  11th  year  of  his  reign  (1  K.  vi.  1,  37, 
 38).  (c.)  The  counnencement  of  his  own  palace  in 
 the  7th,  its  completion  in  the  20th  year  (1  K.  vii. 
 1;  2  (.'hr.  viii.  1).  ((/.)  The  conquest  of  Hamath- 
 Zobah,  and  the  consequent  foundation  of  cities  in 
 the  region  north  of  I'alestine  after  the  20th  year 
 (2  Chr.  viii.  1-6).  With  materials  so  scanty  as 
 these,  it  will  lie  better  to  group  the  chief  facts  in 
 an  order  which  will  best  enable  us  to  appreciate 
 their  significance. 
 
 (2.)  Egypt.— The  first  act  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
 the  new  reign  must  have  been  to  most  Israelites  a 
 very  startling  one.  He  made  affinity  with  Pharaoh, 
 king  of  Egypt.  He  married  Pharaoh's  daughter 
 (1  K.  iii.  !).'>  Since  the  time  of  the  Exodus  there 
 had  been  no  intercourse  between  the  two  countries. 
 David  and  his  counsellors  had  taken  no  steps  to 
 promote* it.  Egypt  had  probably  taken  part  in 
 assisting  Edom  in  its  resistance  to  David  (1  Chr. 
 xi.  23;  Ewald,  iii.  182),  and  had  received  Hadad, 
 the  prince  of  Edom,  with  royal  honors.  The  king 
 had  given  him  his  wife's  sister  in  marriage,  and 
 adopted  his  son  into  his  own  family  (1  K.  xi.  14- 
 20).  These  steps  indicated  a  purpose  to  support 
 him  at  some  future  time  more  actively,  and  Sol- 
 omon's proposal  of  marriage  was  j)robably  intended 
 to  counteract  it.  It  was  at  the  time  so  far  suc- 
 cessful, that  when  Hadad,  on  hearing  of  the  death 
 of  the  dreaded  leaders  of  the  armies  of  Israel,  David 
 and  Joab,  wished  to  seize  the  opportunity  of  at- 
 tacking the  new  king,  the  court  of  Egypt  rendered 
 him  no  assistance  (1  K.  xi.  21,  22).  The  disturb- 
 ances thus  caused,  and  not  less  those  in  the  North, 
 coming  from  the  foundation  of  a  new  Syrian  king 
 dom  at  Damascus  by  Eezon  and  other  fugitives 
 
 «  Josephus,  again  inaccurate,  lengthens  the  reign 
 to  80  years,  and  makes  the  age  at  accession  14  {Ant. 
 viii.  7,  §  8). 
 
 6  This  Pharaoh  is  identified  by  Ewald  (iii.  279)  with 
 Psusennes,  the  last  king  of  the  XXIXth  dynasty  of 
 Manetho,  which  had  its  seat  in  Lower  Egypt  at  Tanis 
 (but  see  Pharaoh,  iii.  24(36  f.).  Josephus  {Ant.  viii. 
 6,  §  2)  only  notes  the  fact  that  he  was  the  last  king 
 of  Egypt  who  was  known  simply  by  the  title  Pharaoh. 
 
 c  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  7,  §  6),  misled  by  the  position 
 of  these  statements,  refers  the  disturbances  to  the  close 
 of  Solomon's  reign,  and  is  followed  by  most  later 
 writers.  The  dates  given,  however,  in  one  case  after 
 the  deatt;  of  Joab,  in  the  other  after  David's  conquest 
 of  Zobah,  show  that  we  must  think  of  them  as  con- 
 tinuing "all  the  days  of  Solomon,"  surmounted  at  the 
 fommencement  of  his  reign,  becoming  more  formidable 
 at  its  conclusion. 
 
 ''  Ewald  sees  in  Ps.  ii.  a  great  hymn  of  thauks- 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 from  Zobah  (1  K.  xi.  2-3-25),  might  well  lead  Sol- 
 omon to  look  out  for  a  powerful  supjjort,''  to  obtain 
 for  a  new  dynasty  and  a  new  kingdom  a  recognition 
 by  one  of  older  fame  and  greater  power.  The  im- 
 mediate results  were  probably  favorable  enough.'"' 
 The  new  queen  brought  with  her  as  a  dowry  the 
 frontier-city  of  Gezer,  against  which,  as  threatening 
 the  tranquillity  of  Israel,  and  as  still  possessed  by  a 
 remnant  of  the  old  Canaanites,''  Pharaoh  had  led 
 his  armies./  She  was  received  with  all  honor,  the 
 queen-mother  herself  attending  to  place  the  diadem 
 on  her  son's  brow  on  the  day  of  his  espousals 
 (Cant.  iii.  11).  Gifts  from  the  nobles  of  Israel  and 
 from  Tyre  (the  latter  offered  perhaps  by  a  Tyrian 
 princess)  were  lavished  at  her  feet  (Ps.  xlv.  12). 
 A  separate  and  stately  palace  was  built  for  her, 
 before  long,  outside  the  city  of  David  (2  Chr.  viii. 
 l\).(i  She  dwelt  there  apparently  with  attendants 
 of  her  own  race,  "  the  virgins  that  be  her  fellows," 
 proliably  conforming  in  some  degree  to  the  religion 
 of  her  adopted  country.  According  to  a  tradition 
 which  may  have  some  foundation  in  spite  of  its 
 exaggerated  numbers,  Pharaoh  (Psusennes,  or  as 
 in  the  story  Vaphres)  sent  with  her  workmen  to 
 help  in  building  the  Temple,  to  the  number  of 
 80,000  (Eupolemos,  in  Euseb.  Prmp.  Evang.  ii. 
 30-35).  The  "  chariots  of  Pharaoh,"  at  any  rate, 
 appeared  in  royal  procession  with  a  splendor  hitherto 
 unknown  (Cant.  i.  9). 
 
 (3.)  The  ultimate  issue  of  the  alliance  showed 
 that  it  was  hollow  and  impolitic.  There  may  have 
 been  a  revolution  in  Egypt,  changing  the  dynasty 
 and  transferring  the  seat  of  power  to  Bubastis 
 (Ewald,  iii.  389).*  There  was  at  any  rate  a  change 
 of  policy.  The  court  of  I'^gypt  welcomes  the  fugi- 
 tive Jerolioam  when  he  is  known  to  have  aspira- 
 tions after  kingly  power.  There,  we  may  believe, 
 by  some  kind  of  compact,  expressed  or  understood, 
 was  planned  the  scheme  which  led  first  to  the  re- 
 bellion of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and  then  to  the  attack 
 of  Shishak  on  the  weakened  and  dismantled  king- 
 dom of  the  son  of  Solomon.  Evils  such  as  these 
 were  hardly  counterbalanced  by  the  trade  opened 
 by  Solomon  in  the  fine  linen  of  Egypt,  or  the  sup- 
 ply of  chariots  and  horses,  which,  as  belonging 
 to  aggressive  rather  than  defensive  warfare,  a 
 wiser  policy  would  have  led  him  to  avoid  (1  K.  x. 
 28,  29). 
 
 (4.)  Tyre.  —  The  alliance  with  the  Phoenician 
 king  rested  on  a  somewhat  diflferent  footing.  It 
 had  been  part  of  David's  policy  from  the  beginning 
 of  his  reign.  Hiram  had  been  "ever  a  lover  of 
 David."     He,  or  his  grandfather,'  had  helped  him 
 
 giving  for  deliverance  from  these  dangers.  The  evi 
 dence  in  favor  of  David's  authorship  seems,  however, 
 to  preponderate. 
 
 e  Philistines,   according   to  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  6, 
 
 §1). 
 
 /  If,  with  Ewald  (iii.  277),  we  identify  Gezer  with 
 Geshur,  we  may  see  in  this  attack  a  desire  to  weakeii 
 a  royal  house  whicli  was  connected  by  marriage  with 
 Absalom  (2  Sam.  xiii.  37),  and  therefore  likely  to  be 
 hostile  to  Solomon.     But  comp.  Gezer. 
 
 a  We  may  see  in  this  fact  a  sign  of  popular  dis- 
 satisfaction at  least  on  the  part  of  the  Priests  and 
 Levites  represented  by  the  compiler  of  2  Chr. 
 
 A  The  singular  addition  of  the  LXX.  to  the  history 
 of  Jeroboam  in  1  K.  xi.  makes  this  improbable.  Jero- 
 boam, as  well  as  Hadad,  is  received  into  the  king's 
 family  by  marriage  with  his  wife's  sister,  and,  in  each 
 case,  the  wife's  name  is  given  as  Thekemina. 
 
 i  Comp.  the  data  given  in  2  Sam.  v.  11 ;  Joseph 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 by  supplying  materials  and  workmen  for  his  palace. 
 As  soon  as  he  heard  of  Solomon's  accession  he  sent 
 ambassadors  to  salute  him.  A  correspondence 
 passed  between  the  two  kings,  which  ended  in  a 
 treaty  of  commerce."  Israel  was  to  be  supplied 
 from  Tyre  with  the  materials  which  were  wanted 
 for  the  Temple  that  was  to  be  the  glory  of  the  new 
 reign.  Gold  from  Ophir,  cedar-wood  from  Lelia- 
 noii,  probably  also  copper  from  Cyprus  and  tin 
 from  Spain  or  Cornwall  (Niebuhr,  Led.  on  Anr. 
 Hist.  i.  79)  for  the  brass  which  was  so  highly  val- 
 ued, purple  from  Tyre  itself,  workmen  from  among 
 the  Zidonians,  all  these  were  wanteil  and  were  given. 
 The  opening  of  Joppa  as  a  port  created  a  new  coast- 
 ing-trade, and  the  materials  from  Tyre  were  con- 
 vej^ed  to  it  on  floats,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem  (2 
 Clir  ii.  16).  Tlie  chief  architect  of  the  Temple, 
 tliough  an  Israelite  on  his  mother's  side,  belonging 
 to  the  tribe  of  Dan  or  Naphtali  [Hiram],  was  yet 
 by  birtji  a  Tyrian,  a  namesake  of  the  king.  In  re- 
 turn for  these  exports  the  Phoenicians  were  only  too 
 gl.ad  to  receive  the  corn  and  oil  of  Solomon's  terri- 
 tory. Their  narrow  strip  of  coast  did  not  produce 
 enough  for  the  population  of  their  cities,  and  then, 
 as  at  a  later  period,  "  their  country  was  nourished  " 
 by  the  broad  valleys  and  plains  of  Samaria  and 
 Galilee  (Acts  xii.  20). 
 
 ^5. )  The  results  of  the  alliance  did  not  end  here. 
 Now,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Israel, 
 they  entered  on  a  career  as  a  commercial  people. 
 They  joined  the  Phoenicians  in  their  Mediterranean 
 voyages  to  the  coasts  of  Spain  [Taushi.sh].^  Sol- 
 omon's possession  of  the  Edomite  coast  enabled  him 
 to  open  to  his  ally  a  new  world  of  commerce.  The 
 ports  of  Elath  and  Ezion-geber  were  filled  with 
 ships  of  Tarshish,  merchant-ships,  i.  e.  for  the  long 
 voyages,  manned  chiefly  by  Phoenicians,  but  built 
 at  Solomon's  expense,  which  sailed  down  the  ^-Elan- 
 itic  Gulf  of  the  Red  Sea,  on  to  the  Indian  Ocean, 
 to  lands  which  had  tefore  been  hardly  known  even 
 by  name,  to  Ophir  and  Sheba,  to  Arabia  Feli.x, 
 or  India,  or  Ceylon,  and  brought  back,  after  an  ab- 
 sence of  nearly  three  years,  treasures  almost  or  al- 
 together new,  gold  and  siher  and  pi'ecious  stones, 
 nard,  aloes,  sandal-wood,  almug-trees,  and  ivory; 
 and,  last  but  not  least  in  the  eyes  of  the  historian, 
 new  forms  of  animal  life,  on  which  the  inhabitants 
 of  Palestine  gazed  with  wondering  eyes,  "  apes  and 
 peacocks."  The  interest  of  Solomon  in  these  en- 
 terprises was  shown  by  his  leaving  his  palaces  at 
 Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  and  travelling  to  Elath 
 and  Ezion-geber  to  superintend  the  construction  of 
 the  fleet  (2  Chr.  viii.  17),  perhaps  also  to  Sidon  for 
 a  like  purpose.^^  To  the  knowledge  thus  gained, 
 we  may  ascribe  the  wider  thoughts  which  appear 
 in  the  Psalms  of  this  and  the  following  periods,  as 
 of  those  who  "  see  the  wonders  of  the  deep  and 
 occupy  their  business  in  great  waters  "   (Ps.  cvii. 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 3079 
 
 Ant.  vii.  3,  §  2,  viii.  5,  §  3,  c.  Ap.  i.  18,  and  Ewald, 
 iii.  287. 
 
 «  The  letters  are  given  at  length  by  Josephus  (Ant. 
 viii.  2,  §  8)  and  Eupolemos  (Euseb.  Preep.  Elk  1.  c). 
 
 b  Ewald  disputes  this  (iii.  34.5),  but  the  statement 
 in  2  Chr.  ix.  21,  is  explicit  enough,  and  there  are  no 
 grounds  for  arbitrarily  getting  it  aside  as  a  blunder. 
 
 c  The  statement  of  Justin  Mart.  (Dial.  c.  Trypk.  c. 
 34),  £1/  SiSoivi  eiSwAoXarpei,  receives  by  the  .accompa- 
 nying iid.  yvvatKo.  the  character  of  an  extract  firom 
 some  history  then  extant.  The  marriage  of  Solomon 
 with  a  daughter  of  the  king  of  Tyre  is  mentioned  by 
 Eusebius  ( Prcep.  Evang.  x.  11). 
 
 23-30),  perhaps  also  an  experience  of  the  more 
 humiliating  accidents  of  sea-travel  (Prov.  xxiii.  34, 
 35). 
 
 (6.)  According  to  the  statement  of  the  Phoeni- 
 cian writers  quoted  by  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  5,  §  3), 
 the  intercourse  of  the  two  kings  had  in  it  also 
 something  of  the  sportiveness  and  freedom  of 
 friends.  They  deliglited  to  perplex  each  other 
 with  hard  questions,  and  laid  wagers  as  to  their 
 power  of  answering  them.  Hiram  was  at  first  the 
 loser  and  paid  his  forfeits;  but  afterwards,  through 
 the  help  of  a  sharp-witted  Tyrian  boy,  Abdemon, 
 solved  the  hard  problems,  and  was  in  the  end  the 
 winner.''  The  singular  fragment  of  history  in- 
 serted in  1  K.  ix.  11-14,  recording  the  cession  bv 
 Solomon  of  sixteen  [twenty]  cities,  and  Hiram's 
 dissatisfaction  with  them,  is  perhaps  connected  with 
 these  imperial  wagers.  The  king  of  Tyre  revenges 
 himself  by  a  Plioenician  bon-mot  [Cabul].  He 
 fulfills  his  part  of  the  contract,  and  pays  the  stipu- 
 lated price. 
 
 (7.)  These  were  the  two  most  important  alli- 
 ances. The  absence  of  any  reference  to  Babylon 
 and  Assyria,  and  the  fact  that  the  Euphrates  was 
 recognized  as  the  boundary  of  Solomon's  kingdom 
 (2  Chr.  ix.  26),  suggest  the  inference  that  th° 
 Mesopotamian  monarchies  were,  at  this  time,  com- 
 paratively feeble.  Other  neighboring  nations  were 
 content  to  jiay  annual  tribute  in  the  form  of  gifts 
 (2  Chr.  ix.  24).  The  kings  of  the  Hittites  and  of 
 Syria  welcomed  the  opening  of  a  new  line  of  com- 
 merce which  enabled  them  to  find  in  Jerusalem  an 
 emporium  whei'e  they  might  get  the  chariots  and 
 horses  of  I.gypt  (1  K.  ix.  28).  This,  however,  was 
 obviously  but  a  small  part  of  the  traffic  organized 
 by  Solomon.  The  foundation  of  cities  like  Tadmor 
 in  the  wilderness,  and  Tiphsah  (Thapsacus)  on  the 
 Euphrates;  of  others  on  the  route,  each  with  its 
 own  special  market  lor  chariots,  or  horses,  or  stores 
 (2  Chr.  viii.  3-6);  the  erection  of  lofty  towers  on 
 Lebanon  (2  Chr.  I.  c;  Cant.  vii.  4)  pointed  to  a 
 more  distant  commerce,  opening  out  the  resources 
 of  central  Asia,  reaching,  —  as  that  of  Tyre  did 
 afterwards,  availing  itself  of  this  very  route,  — 
 to  the  nomad  tribes  of  the  Caspian  and  the  Black 
 Seas,  to  Togarmah  and  Meshech  and  Tubal  (Ez. 
 xxvii.  13,  14;  comp.  Milman,  Hisl.  of  the  Jews,  i. 
 270). 
 
 (8.)  The  survey  of  the  influence  exercised  by 
 Solomon  on  surrounding  nations  viould  be  incom- 
 plete if  we  were  to  pass  over  that  which  was  more 
 directly  personal  —  the  fame  of  his  glory  and  his 
 wisdom.  The  legends  which  pervade  the  East  are 
 probably  not  merely  the  expansion  of  the  scanty 
 notices  of  the  O.  T. ;  but  (as  suggested  above),  like 
 those  which  gather  round  the  names  of  Nimrod  and 
 Alexander,  the  result  of  the  impression  made  by  the 
 personal  presence  of  one  of  the  mighty  ones  of  the 
 
 d  The  narrative  of  Josephus  implies  the  existence  of 
 some  story,  more  or  less  humorous,  in  Tyrian  litera- 
 ture, in  which  the  wisest  of  the  kings  of  earth  was 
 baffled  by  a  boy's  cleverness.  A  singular  pendant  to 
 this  is  found  in  the  popular  mediaeval  story  of  Solo- 
 mon and  Morolf,  in  which  the  latter  (an  ugly,  deformed 
 dwarf)  outwits  the  former.  A  modernized  version  of 
 this  work  may  be  found  in  the  Walhalla  (Leipzig, 
 1844).  Older  copies,  in  Latin  and  German,  of  the  15th 
 century,  are  in  the  Brit.  MuB.  Library.  The  Anglo- 
 Saxon  Dialogue  of  Solomon  and  Saturn  is  a  mere  cate- 
 chism  of  Scriptural  knowledge. 
 
8080  SOLOMON 
 
 earth."  Wherever  the  ships  of  Tarshish  went,  they 
 carried  with  them  tlie  report,  losing  nothing  in  its 
 passage,  of  what  their  crevvs  had  seen  and  heard. 
 The  impression  made  on  the  Incas  of  I'eru  liy  the 
 poyver  and  knowledge  of  the  Spaniards,  offers  per- 
 haps the  nearest  approach  to  what  falls  so  little 
 within  the  limits  of  our  experience,  though  there 
 was  there  no  personal  centre  round  which  the  ad- 
 miration could  gather  itself.  The  journey  of  the 
 queen  of  Sheba,  though  from  its  circumstances  the 
 most  consjjicuous,  did  not  stand  alone.  The  in- 
 habitants of  .lerusalem,  of  the  whole  line  of  coimtry 
 between  it  and  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  saw  with  amaze- 
 ment the  "great  train"  —  the  men  with  their 
 swarthy  faces,  the  camels  bearing  spices  and  gold 
 and  gems  —  of  a  queen  who  had  come  from  the  fivr 
 South,''  because  she  had  heard  of  the  wisdom  of 
 Solomon,  and  connected  with  it  "  the  name  of  Je- 
 hovah "  (1  K.  X.  1).  She  came  with  hard  ques- 
 tions to  test  that  wisdom,  and  the  words  just 
 quoted  may  throw  light  upon  their  nature.  Not 
 riddles  and  enigmas  only,  such  as  the  sportive 
 fancy  of  the  East  delights  in,  but  the  ever-old,  ever- 
 new  problems  of  life,  such  as,  even  in  that  age  and 
 country,  were  vexing  the  hearts  of  the  speakers  in 
 the  book  of  Job,'^  were  stirring  in  her  mind  when 
 she  conmunied  with  Solomon  of  "  all  that  was  in 
 her  heart"  (2  Chr.  ix.  1).  She  meets  us  as  the 
 representative  of  a  body  whom  the  dedication- 
 prayer  shows  to  have  been  numerous,  the  stran- 
 gers "  coming  from  a  far  country  "  because  of  the 
 "great  name"  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  viii.  41),  many  of 
 them  princes  theinsehes,  or  the  messengers  of  kings 
 (2  Chr.  ix.  23).  The  historians  of  Israel  delighted 
 to  dwell  on  her  confession  that  the  reality  surpassed 
 the  fame,  "  the  one  half  of  the  greatness  of  thy  wis- 
 dom was  not  told  me"  (2  Chr.  ix.  6;  Ewald,  iii. 
 353). 
 
 VI.  Internal  Ilistm-y.  —  (1.)  We  can  now  enter 
 upon  the  reign  of  Solomon,  in  its  bearing  upon  the 
 history  of  Israel,  without  the  necessity  of  a  digres- 
 sion. The  first  prominent  scene  is  one  which  pre- 
 sents his  character  in  its  noblest  aspect.  There  were 
 two  holy  places  which  divided  the  reverence  of  the 
 people,  the  ark  and  its  provisional  tabernacle  at  Je- 
 rusalem, and  the  original  Tabernacle  of  the  congre- 
 gation, which,  after  many  wanderings,  was  now 
 pitched  at  (jibeon.  It  was  thought  right  that  the 
 new  king  should  offer  solemn  sacrifices  at  both. 
 After  those  at  Gibeon  "^  there  came  that  ^■ision  of 
 the  night  which  has  in  all  ages  borne  its  noble  wit- 
 ness to  the  hearts  of  rulers.  Not  for  riches,  or  long 
 life,  or  victory  o\er  enemies,  would  the  son  of  David, 
 then  at  least  true  to  his  high  calling,  feeling  himself 
 
 a  Cities  like  Tadmor  and  Tiph.iali  were  not  likely  to 
 have  been  founded  by  a  king  who  had  never  seeu  and 
 "hosen  the  sites.  2  Chr.  viii.  3,  4,  implies  the  journey 
 which  Josephus  speaks  of  {Ant.  viii.  6,  §  1),  and  at 
 Tadmor  Solomon  was  within  one  day's  journey  of  the 
 Euplirates,  and  six  of  Babylon.  (So  Josephus,  I  c, 
 but  the  day's  journey  must  have  been  a  long  one.) 
 
 b  Josephus,  again  careless  about  authorities,  makes 
 her  a  queen  of  Egypt  (!)  and  Ethiopia  {Am.  viii.  6, 
 §5). 
 
 c  Is  it  possible  that  the  book  itself  came  into  the 
 literature  of  Israel  by  the  intercourse  thus  opened  ? 
 Its  Arabic  character,  both  in  language  and  thought, 
 and  the  obvious  traces  of  its  influence  in  the  book  of 
 Proverbs,  have  been  noticed  by  all  critics  worthy  of 
 the  name  [comp.  Job]. 
 
 (I  Hebron,  in  Josephus,  once  more  blundering  {Ant. 
 viii.  2,  §  1) 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 as  "a  little  child  "  in  comparison  with  the  vastnes9 
 of  his  work,  ofi[er  his  supplications,  but  for  a-'  wise 
 and  understanding  heart,"  that  he  might  judge  the 
 people.  The  "speech  pleased  the  Lord."  Jliere 
 came  in  answer  the  promise  of  a  wisdom  "  like  wliicb 
 there  had  been  none  before,  like  which  there  should 
 be  none  alter  "  (1  K.  iii.  5-16).  .So  far  all  was  well. 
 The  prayer  was  a  right  and  noljle  one.  Yet  there  is 
 also  a  contrast  between  it  and  the  prayers  of  David 
 which  accounts  for  many  other  contrasts.  The  de- 
 sire of  David's  heart  is  not  chiefiy  for  wisdom,  but 
 for  holiness.  He  is  conscious  of  an  oi)pressing  evil, 
 and  seeks  to  be  delivered  from  it.  He  repents,  and 
 falls,  and  repents  again.  Solomon  asks  only  for 
 wisdom.  He  has  a  lofty  ideal  l)efore  him,  and  seeks 
 to  accomplish  it,  but  he  is  as  yet  haunted  by  no 
 deeper  yearnings,  and  speaks  as  one  who  has  "  no 
 need  of  repentance." 
 
 (2.)  The  wisdom  asked  for  was  given  in  large 
 measure,  and  took  a  varied  range.  The  wide  world 
 of  nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  which  the  enter- 
 prises of  his  subjects  were  throwing  open  to  him, 
 the  lives  and  characters  of  men,  in  all  their  surface- 
 weaknesses,  in  all  their  inner  depths,  lay  before  him, 
 and  he  took  cognizance  of  all.<2  But  the  highest 
 wisdom  was  that  wanted  for  the  highest  work,  for 
 governing  and  guiding,  and  the  historian  hastens 
 to  give  an  illustration  of  it.  The  pattern-instance 
 is,  in  all  its  circumstances,  thoroughly  oriental. 
 The  king  sits  in  the  gate  of  the  city,  at  the  early 
 dawn,  to  settle  any  disputes,  however  strange,  be- 
 tween any  litigants,  however  humble.  In  the 
 rough  and  ready  test  which  turns  the  scales  of  evi- 
 dence, belbre  so  evenly  balanced,  there  is  a  kind  of 
 roui;h  humor  as  well  as  sagacity,  specially  attractive 
 to  the  eastern  mind,  then  and  at  all  times  (1  K. 
 iii.  10-28). 
 
 (3.)  But  the  power  to  rule  showed  itself  not  in 
 judging  oidy,  but  in  organizing.  The  sy.steni  of 
 government  which  he  inherited  from  David  received 
 a  fuller  expansion.  Prominent  among  the  "  princes  " 
 of  his  kingdom,  i.  e.  officers  of  his  own  appointment, 
 were  members  of  the  priestly  order  :  /  Azariah  the 
 son  of  Zadok,  Zadok  himself  the  high-priest.  Be- 
 niiiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  as  captain  of  the  host,  an- 
 other Azariah  and  Zabud,  the  sons  of  Nathan,  one 
 over  the  officers  (Nillsdljiin)  who  acted  as  purveyors 
 to  the  king's  household  (1  K.  iv.  2-5),  the  other  in 
 the  more  confidential  character  of  "  king's  friend." 
 In  addition  to  these  there  were  the  two  scribes 
 {Sopliei-iiii),  the  king's  secretaries,  drawing  up  his 
 edicts  and  the  like  [Sciuues],  Elihoreph  and  Ahiah, 
 the  recorder  or  annalist  of  the  king's  reign  (.yfizcir), 
 the  superintendent  of  the  king's  house,  and  house- 
 
 e  Ewald  sees  in  the  words  of  1  K.  iv.  33,  the  record 
 of  books  more  or  less  descriptive  of  natural  history,  the 
 catalogue  raisonnee  of  the  kings  collections,  botanic 
 and  zoological  (iii.  358)  ;  to  Kenan,  however  (following 
 Josephus),  it  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  unsci- 
 entific character  of  all  Shemitic  minds,  to  think  of 
 them  as  looking  on  the  moral  side  of  nature,  drawing 
 parables  or  allegories  from  the  things  he  saw  {Hist, 
 lies  Langiies  Seinitiqiies,  p.  12").  The  multiplied  allu- 
 sions of  this  kind  in  Prov.  xxx.  make  that,  perhaps,  a 
 fair  representative  of  this  form  of  Solomon's  wisdom, 
 though  not  by  Solomon  himself. 
 
 /  We  cannot  bring  ourselve.?,  with  Keil  {Comm.  in 
 loc.)  and  others,  to  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  word 
 Cohen,  and  to  give  it  different  meanings  in  alternate 
 verses.     [Comp.  Priests.] 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 hold  expenses  (Is.  xxii.  15),  includiiic;  probably  the 
 liarem.  The  last  in  order,  at  once  the  most  indis- 
 pensable and  the  most  hated,  wns  Adon'ram,  wlio 
 presided  "over  the  tribute,"  tliat  word  including 
 proliabl}'  the  personal  service  of  forced  labor  (corap. 
 Keil,  Coiiim.  in  loc,  and  Evvald,  Uesch.  iii.  334). 
 
 (4.)  The  l;ist  name  leads  us  to  the  liing's  fii  aiices. 
 The  first  impression  of  the  facts  given  us  is  tliat  of 
 alwunding  plenty.  That  all  the  drinlvinr;  vessels 
 of  the  two  palaces  should  be  of  pure  i;old  was  a 
 small  thing,  "  nothing  accounted  of  in  the  days  of 
 Solomon"  (1  K.  X.  21).  "  "  Silver  was  in  .Jeru- 
 salem as  stones,  and  cedars  as  the  sycamore-trees  in 
 the  vale"  (1  K.  x.  27).  The  people  were  ''  eating 
 and  drinking  and  making  merry"  (I  K.  iv.  20). 
 The  treasures  left  by  David  forbnildijig  the  Temple 
 might  well  seem  almost  inexlwustilile  ''  (1  Chr.  xxix. 
 1-7).  The  large  quantities  of  the  precious  metals 
 imported  from  Oiihir  and  Tarshish  would  speak,  to 
 a  people  who  had  not  learnt  tlie  lessons  of  a  long 
 experience,  of  a  boundless  source  of  wealth  (1  K.  ix. 
 28).  All  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  sulyect-prov- 
 inces  paid  tribute  in  the  form  of  gifts,  in  money 
 and  in  kind,  "at  a  fixed  rate  year  by  year  "  (1  K. 
 X.  2-5).  Monopolies  of  trade,  then,  as  at  all  times 
 in  the  East,  contributed  to  the  king's  treasury,  and 
 the  trade  in  the  fine  linen,  and  chariots,  and  horses 
 of  l"-gypt,  must  have  brought  in  large  profits  (1  K. 
 X.  28,  29).  The  king's  domain-lands  were  appar- 
 ently let  out,  as  vineyards  or  for  other  purposes,  at 
 a  fixed  annual  rental  (Cant.  viii.  II)  Upon  the 
 Israelites  (probably  not  till  the  later  period  of  his 
 reign)  there  was  levied  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent,  on 
 their  produce  (1  Sam.  viii.  15).  All  the  provinces 
 of  his  own  kingdom,  grouped  apparently  in  a  special 
 order  for  this  purpose,  were  bound  eacii  in  turn  to 
 sujiply  the  king's  enormous  household  with  pro- 
 visions (1  K.  iv.  21-23).  [Comp.  Taxk.s.]  Tlie 
 total  amount  thus  brought  into  the  treasury  in 
 gold,  exclusive  of  all  payments  in  kind,  amounted 
 to  006  talents  (1  K.  x.  li}S 
 
 (5.)  It  was  hardly  possible,  however,  that  any 
 financial  system  could  bear  tlie  strain  of  the  king's 
 passion  for  magnificence.  The  cost  of  the  Temjile 
 was,  it  is  true,  provided  for  by  Da\id's  savings  and 
 the  oflTerings  of  the  people;  but  even  while  that  was 
 building,  yet  more  when  it  was  finished,  one  struc- 
 
 <*  A  reminiscence  of  this  form,  of  spleador  is  seen 
 in  the  fact  that  tlie  meiUreval  goldsmiths  described 
 their  earliest  plate  as  "  oeuvre  de  Salomou.''  It  was 
 wrought  in  high  relief,  was  eastern  iu  its  origin,  and 
 was  known  also  as  Saracenic  (Liber  Custumarius,  i.  61, 
 759). 
 
 b  We  labor,  however,  under  a  twofold  uncertainty, 
 (1)  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  numbers,  (2)  as  to  the 
 value  of  the  terms.  Prideaux,  followed  by  Lewis,  es- 
 timates the  amount  at  £833,000,000.  yet  the  savings 
 of  the  later  years  of  David's  lite,  for  one  special  pur- 
 pose, could  hardly  have  surpassed  the  national  debt  of 
 Kngland  (comp.  Milman's  Hift.  of  Jeivs,  i.  2ti7). 
 
 c  066.  There  is  something  startling  in  thus  find- 
 ing in  a  simple  historical  statement  a  number  which 
 has  since  becdme  invested  witli  such  a  mysterious 
 and  terrible  significance  (Rev.  xiii.  18).  The  coinci- 
 dence can  hardly,  it  is  believed,  be  looked  on  as  casual. 
 "  The  Seer  of  the  Apocalyp.se,"  it  has  been  well  said, 
 "'lives  entirely  in  Holy  Scripture.  On  this  territory, 
 therefore,  is  the  solution  of  the  sacred  riddle  to  be 
 sought"  (Uengsteuberg,  Comm.  in  lifv.  in  loc).  If, 
 therefore,  we  find  the  number  occurring  in  the  0.  T., 
 with  any  special  significance,  we  may  well  think  that 
 that  furnishes  the  starting-point  of  the  enigma.  And 
 there  is  such  a  significance  here.  (1.)  As  the  glory 
 194 
 
 SOLOMON  3081 
 
 ture  followed  on  another  with  ruinous  rapidity. 
 A  palace  for  himself,  grander  than  that  which 
 Hiram  had  built  fnr  his  fether,  anotlier  for  Pha- 
 raoh's daughter,  tlie  house  of  the  forest  of  Lelianon, 
 in  which  he  sat  in  his  court  of  judgment,  the  pil- 
 lars all  of  cedar,  seated  on  a  throne  of  ivory  and 
 gold,  in  which  six  lions  on  either  side,  the  symbols 
 of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  appeared  (as  in  the  thrones 
 of  Assyria,  Layard's  Nineveh,  ii.  30)  standing  on 
 the  steps  and  supporting  the  arms  of  the  chair  (1 
 K.  vii.  1-12,  x.  18-20),  ivory  palaces  and  ivory 
 towers,  used  apparently  for  the  king's  armory  (Ps. 
 xlv.  8;  Cant.  iv.  4,  vii.  4);  the  ascent  from  his  own 
 palace  to  the  house  or  palace  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  x. 
 5),  a  summer  palace  in  Lebanon  (1  K.  ix.  19; 
 Cant.  vii.  4),  stately  gardens  at  P^tham,  paradises 
 like  those  of  the  great  eastern  kings  (Keel.  ii.  5, 
 6;  Jo.seph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3;  comp.  P.vhadise), 
 the  foundation  of  .something  like  a  stately  school  or 
 college,''  costly  aqueducts  bringing  water,  it  may 
 be,  from  the  well  of  Betlilehem,  dear  to  David's 
 heart,  to  supply  the  king's  palace  in  .Jerusalem 
 (Kwald,  iii.  323),  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem 
 completed,  those  of  other  cities  begun  (1  K.  ix. 
 1.5-19),  and,  above  all,  the  harem,  with  all  the  e.x- 
 penditure  which  it  involved  on  slaves  and  slave- 
 dealers,  on  concubines  and  eunuchs  (1  Sam.  viii. 
 15;  1  Chr.  xxviii.  1),  on  men-singers  and  women- 
 singers  (Eccl.  ii.  8)  —  these  ro.se  before  the  wonder- 
 ing eyes  of  his  people  and  dazzled  them  v/ith  theii' 
 magnificence.  •  All  the  equipment  of  his  court,  the 
 •'  apparel "  of  his  servants,  was  on  the  same  scale. 
 If  he  went  from  his  hall  of  judgment  to  tiie  Temple 
 he  marclied  between  two  lines  of  soldiers,  each  with 
 a  burnished  shield  of  gold  (1  K.  x.  10,  17;  Ewald, 
 iii.  320).  If  he  went  on  a  royal  progress  to  his 
 paradise  at  P^tham,  he  went  in  snow-white  raiment, 
 riding  in  a  stately  chariot  of  cedar,  decked  with 
 silver  and  gold  and  purple,  carpeted  with  the  cost- 
 liest tapestry,  worked  by  the  daughters  of  Jeru- 
 salem (Cant.  iii.  9,  10).  A  body-guard  attended 
 him,  "  threescore  valiant  men,"  tallest  and  hand- 
 somest of  the  sons  of  Israel,  in  the  freshness  of  their 
 youth,  arrayed  in  Tyrian  purple,  their  long  black 
 hair  sprinkled  freshly  every  day  with  gold-dust  {ib. 
 iii.  7,  8;  .loseph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3).  Forty  thou- 
 sand stalls  of  horses  for  his  chariots,  and   twelve 
 
 and  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  were  the  representatives 
 of  all  earthly  wisdom  and  glory,  so  the  wealth  of 
 Solomon  would  be  the  representative  of  all  earthly 
 wealth.  (2.)  The  purpose  of  the  visions  of  St.  John 
 is  to  oppose  the  heavenly  to  the  earthly  Jerusalem  ; 
 the  true  "  offspring  of  David,"  "  the  lion  of  the  tribe 
 of  Judah,"'  to  all  counterfeits;  the  true  riches  to  the 
 false.  (3.)  The  worship  of  the  beast  is  the  worship  of 
 the  world's  mammon.  It  may  seem  to  reproduce  the 
 glory  and  the  wealth  of  the  old  Jerusalem  in  its 
 golden  days,  but  it  is  of  evil,  not  of  God  ;  a  Babylon, 
 not  a  Jerusalem.  (4.)  This  reference  does  not  of 
 course  exclude  either  the  mystical  meaning  of  the 
 number  si.K,  so  well  brought  out  by  Ilengstenberg  {t. 
 c.)  and  Mr.  Maurice  (on  the  Apocalypse,  p.  251),  or 
 even  names  like  Lateinos  and  Nero  CeC-sar.  The 
 greater  the  variety  of  thoughts  that  could  be  con- 
 nected with  a  single  number,  the  nioi'e  would  it  com- 
 mend itself  to  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  method  of 
 the  Gematria  of  the  Jewish  oabbalists. 
 
 rf  Pineda's  conjecture  (iii.  28)  that  "the  house  with 
 seven  pillars,"  "  the  highest  places  of  the  city,"  of 
 Prov.  ix.  1-3,  had  originally  a  local  reference  is,  at 
 least,  plausible  enough  to  be  worth  mentioning.  It  is 
 curious  to  think  that  there  may  have  been  a  historical 
 "  Solomon's  house,"  like  that  of  the  New  Atlantis 
 
8082 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 thousand  horsemen  made  up  the  measure  of  his 
 magnificence  (1  K.  iv.  20).  If  some  of  the  inibhc 
 works  had  the  plea  of  utility,  the  fortification  of 
 some  cities  for  purposes  of  defense  —  Millo  (the 
 suburb  of  Jerusalem),  Hazor,  Megiddo,  the  two 
 Beth-borons,  the  foundation  of  others,  Tadnior  and 
 Tiphsah,  for  purposes  of  connnerce  —  these  were 
 simply  the  poujps  of  a  selfish  luxury,  and  the  peo- 
 ple, after  the  first  dazzle  was  over,  felt  that  they 
 were  so.  As  the  treasury  became  empty,  taxes 
 multiplied  and  monopolies  became  more  irksome. 
 Even  Israelites,  besides  the  conscription  which 
 brought  them  into  the  king's  armies  (1  K.  ix.  22), 
 were  subject,  though  for  a  part  only  of  each  year, 
 to  the  corvee  of  compulsory  labor  (1  K.  v.  13). 
 The  revolution  that  loUowed  had,  like  most  other 
 revolutions,  financial  disorder  as  the  chief  among 
 its  causes.  The  people  complained,  not  of  the  king's 
 idolatry,  but  of  their  burdens,  of  his  "  grievous 
 yoke  "  (1  K.  xii.  4).  Their  hatred  fell  heaviest  on 
 Adoniram,  who  was  over  the  tribute.  If,  on  the 
 one  side,  the  division  of  the  kingdom  came  as  a 
 penalty  for  Solomon's  idolatrous  apostasy  from 
 Jehovah,  it  was,  on  another,  the  Nemesis  of  a  self- 
 ish passion  for  glory,  itself  the  most  terrible  of  all 
 idolatries. 
 
 (6.)  It  remains  for  us  to  trace  that  other  down- 
 fall, belonijing  more  visibly,  though  not  more  reallv, 
 to  his  religious  life,  from  the  loftiest  height  even  to 
 the  lowest  depth.  The  building  and  dedication  of 
 the  Temple  are  obviously  the  representatives  of  the 
 first.  That  was  the  special  task  which  he  inherited 
 from  his  father,  and  to  that  he  gave  himself  witii 
 all  his  heart  and  strength.  He  came  to  it  with  all 
 the  noble  thoughts  as  to  the  meaning  and  grounds 
 of  worship  which  his  father  and  Nathan  could  instill 
 into  him.  We  have  already  seen,  in  speaking  of 
 his  intercourse  with  Tyre,  what  measures  he  took 
 for  its  completion.  All  that  can  be  said  as  to  its 
 architecture,  proportions,  materials  [Temple],  and 
 the  organization  of  the  ministering  Priests  and 
 Lkvites,  will  be  found  elsewhere.  Here  it  will  be 
 enough  to  picture  to  ourselves  the  feelings  of  the 
 men  of  Judali  as  they  watched,  during  seven  long 
 years,  the  Cyclopean  foundations  of  vast  stones  (still 
 remaining  when  all  else  has  perished,  Ewald,  iii. 
 297)  gradually  rising  up  and  coverinir  the  area  of 
 the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah,  materials  arriving 
 continually  from  Joppa,  cedar,  and  gold  and  silver, 
 brass  "without  weight"  from  the  foundries  of 
 Succoth  and  Zarethan,  stones  ready  hewn  and 
 squared  from  the  quarries.  Far  from  colossal  in 
 its  size,  it  was  conspicuous  chiefly  by  the  lavish 
 use,  within  and  without,  of  the  gold  of  Ophir  and 
 Parvaim.  It  glittered  in  the  morning  sun  (it  has 
 been  well  said)  like  the  sanctuary  of  an  El  Dorado 
 (Milman,  Ilhl.  ofJnvs,  i.  2.5'J).  Throughout  the 
 whole  work  the  tranquillity  of  the  kin^dy  city  was 
 unbroken  by  the  sound  of  the  workman's  hammer: 
 
 "  Like  some  tall  palm,  the  noiseless  fabric  grew."' 
 
 (7.)  We  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  even  now 
 there  were  some  darker  shades  in  the  picture.  Not 
 reverence  only  for  the  Holy  City,  but  the  wish  to 
 shut  out  from  sight  the  misery  he  had  caused,  to 
 close  his  ears  against  cries  which  were  rising  daily 
 to  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth,  led  him  probably 
 
 a  Ewald's  apology  for  these  acts  of  despotism  (iii. 
 292)  presents  a  singular  contrast  to  the  free  spirit 
 which,  for  the  most  part,  pervades  his  work.  Through- 
 cut  his  history  of  David  and  Solouiou,  his  sympathy 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 to  place  the  works  «onnected  with  the  Temple  at 
 as  great  a  distance  as  possible  from  the  Temple 
 itself.  Forgetful  of  the  lessons  taught  by  the  his- 
 tory of  his  own  people,  and  of  the  precepts  of  the 
 Law  (Ex.  xxii.  21,  xxiii.  9,  et  al.),  following  the  ex- 
 ample of  David's  policy  in  its  least  noble  aspect  (1 
 Chr.  xxii.  2),  he  reduced  the  "  strangers  "  in  the 
 land,  the  renuiant  of  the  Canaanite  races  who  had 
 chosen  the  alternative  of  conformity  to  the  religion 
 of  their  conquerors,  to  the  state  of  helots,  and 
 made  their  life  "  bitter  with  all  hard  bondage."  « 
 [Pkoselyte!-.]  Copying  the  Pharaohs  in  their 
 magnificence,  he  copied  them  also  in  their  disregard 
 of  human  sufiering.  Acting,  probably,  under  the 
 same  counsels  as  had  prompted  that  measure,  on 
 the  result  of  David's  census,  he  seized  on  tl]ese 
 "strangers"  for  the  weary,  servile  toil  against 
 which  the  free  spirit  of  Israel  would  ha\e  rebelled. 
 One  hundred  and  fifty-three  thousand,  with  wives 
 and  children  in  proportion,  were  torn  from  their 
 homes  and  sent  off  to  the  quarries  and  the  forests 
 of  Lebanon  (1  K.  v.  15;  2  Chr.  ii.  17,  18).  i:ven 
 the  Israelites,  though  not  reduced  permanently  to 
 the  helot  state  (2  Chr.  viii.  9),  were  yet  summoned 
 to  take  their  share,  by  rotation,  in  the  same  labor 
 (1  K.  V.  13,  11).  One  trace  of  the  special  servitude 
 of  "  these  hewers  of  stone  "  existed  long  afterwards 
 in  the  existence  of  a  body  of  men  attached  to  the 
 Temple,  and  known  as  Solomon's  Sekvants. 
 
 (8.)  After  seven  years  and  a  half  the  work  was 
 completed,  and  the  day  came  to  which  all  Israelites 
 looked  back  as  the  culminating  glory  of  their  nation. 
 Their  worship  was  now  established  on  a  scale  as 
 stately  as  that  of  other  nations,  while  it  yet  retained 
 its  freedom  from  all  worship  that  could  possibly 
 become  idolatrous.  Instead  of  two  rival  sanctuaries, 
 as  l)efore,  there  was  to  be  one  only.  The  ark  from 
 Zion,  the  Tabernacle  from  Gibeon,  were  both  re- 
 moved (2  Chr.  V.  5)  and  brought  to  the  new 
 Temjjle.  The  choirs  of  the  priests  and  Levites  mtt 
 in  their  fullest  force,  arrayed  in  white  linen.  Then, 
 it  may  be  for  the  first  time,  was  heard  the  nolile 
 hymn,  "Lift  up  your  heads,  0  ye  gates,  and  lie  je 
 lift  up,  ye  everlasting  doors,  and  the  King  of  (ilory 
 shall  come  in"  (Milman,  Hht.  of  Jeus,  i.  2G3). 
 The  trumpeters  and  singers  were  "  as  one  "  in  their 
 mighty  Hallelujah  —  "  O  praise  the  Lord,  for  He  is 
 good,  for  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever"  (2  Chr.  v. 
 13).  The  ark  was  solemnly  placed  in  its  golden 
 sanctuary,  and  then  "  the  cloud,"  the  "glory  of 
 the  Lord,"  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  two 
 tables  of  stone,  associated  with  the  first  rude  begin- 
 nings of  the  life  of  the  wilderness,  were  still,  they 
 and  they  only,  in  the  ark  which  had  now  so  mag 
 nificent  a  shrine  (2  Chr.  v.  10).  They  bore  their 
 witness  to  the  great  laws  of  duty  toward  God  and 
 man,  remaining  unchangeable  through  all  the 
 changes  and  chances  of  national  or  individual  life, 
 from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  growth  of  a 
 national  religion.  And  throughout  the  whole  .scene, 
 the  person  of  the  king  is  the  one  central  object, 
 compared  with  whom  even  priests  and  ])rophets  are 
 for  the  time  subordinate,  .\bstaining,  douI)tless. 
 from  distinctively  priestly  acts,  such  as  slaying  the 
 victims  and  offi?ring  incense,  he  yet  appears,  even 
 more  than  David  did  in  the  bringing  up  the  ark,  in 
 a  liturgical  character.     He,  and  not  Zadok,  blesses 
 
 for  the  father's  heroism,  his  admiration  for  the  son's 
 magnificence,  seem  to  keep  his  judgment  xiudcr  a  fasci- 
 nation which  it  is  difficult  for  his  readers  to  escape 
 from. 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 the  congrerjation,  offers  up  the  soleiiiii  prayer,  dedi- 
 cates the  Temple.  He,  and  not  any  member  of  the 
 prophetic  order,  is  then,  and  probably  at  other 
 times,  the  spokesman  and  "  preacher  "  of  the  peo- 
 ple (Kwald,  iii.  320).  He  takes  at  least  some  steps 
 towards  that  far-off  (I's.  ex.  1)  ideal  of  "a  priest 
 after  the  order  of  Melohizedek,"  wliich  one  of  his 
 descendants  rashly  sought  to  fulfill  [UzziAii],  but 
 which  was  to  be  fulfilled  only  in  a  Son  of  David, 
 not  the  crowned  leader  of  a  mighty  nation,  but 
 despised,  rejected,  crucified.  From  him  came  the 
 lofty  prayer,  the  nol)lest  utterance  of  the  creed  of 
 Israel,  setting  ibrth  the  distance  and  the  nearness  of 
 the  Eternal  God,  One,  Incomprehensible,  dwelling 
 not  in  temples  made  with  hands,  yet  ruling  men, 
 hearing  their  prayers,  giving  them  all  good  things, 
 wisdom,  peace,  righteousness." 
 
 (9.)  The  solenni  day  was  followed  by  a  week  of 
 festival,  synclironizing  with  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles, the  time  of  the  completed  vintage.  Repre- 
 sentatives of  all  the  tribes,  elders,  fathers,  captains, 
 proselytes,  it  may  be,  from  the  newly -acquired  ter- 
 ritories in  Northern  Syria  (2  Chr.  vi.  32,  vii.  8), 
 —  all  were  assembled,  rejoicing  in  the  actual  glory 
 and  the  bright  hopes  of  Israel.  For  the  king  him- 
 self then,  or  at  a  later  period  (the  narrative  of  1  K. 
 ix.  and  2  Chr.  vii.  leaves  it, doubtful),  there  was  a 
 strange  contrast  to  the  glory  of  that  day.  A  crit- 
 icism, misled  by  its  own  acuteness,  may  see  in  that 
 warning  prophecy  of  sin,  punishment,  desolation, 
 only  a  I'dticinium  ex  evenlu,  added  some  centuries 
 afterwards  (Ewald,  iii.  404).  It  is  open  to  us  to 
 maintain  that,  with  a  character  such  as  Solomon's, 
 with  a  religious  ideal  so  far  beyond  his  actual  life, 
 such  thoughts  were  psychologically  probable,  that 
 strange  misgivings,  suggested  by  the  very  words  of 
 the  jubilant  hynnis  of  the  day's  solemnity,  might 
 well  mingle  with  the  shouts  of  the  people  and  the 
 hallelujahs  of  the  Levites.*  It  is  in  harmony  with 
 all  we  know  of  the  work  of  the  Divine  Teacher, 
 that  those  misgivings  should  receive  an  interpreta- 
 tion, that  the  king  should  be  taught  that  what  he 
 had  done  was  indeed  right  and  good,  but  that  it 
 was  not  all,  and  might  not  be  permanent.  Obe- 
 dience was  l)etter  than  sacrifice.  There  was  a  dan- 
 ger near  at  hand. 
 
 (10.)  The  danger  came,  and  in  spite  of  the  warn- 
 ing the  king  fell.  Before  long  tlie  priests  and 
 prophets  had  to  grieve  over  rival  temples  to  JMoloch, 
 Chemosh,  Ashtaroth,  forms  of  ritual  not 'idolatrous 
 only,  but  cruel,  dark,  impure.  This  evil  came,  as 
 the  compiler  of  1  K.  xi.  1-8  records,  as  the  penalty 
 of  anothei'.  Partly  from  policy,  seeking  fresh  alli- 
 ances, partly  from  the  terrible  satiety  of  lust  seek- 
 ing the  stimulus  of  change,  he  gave  himself  to 
 "  strange  women."  He  found  himself  involved  in 
 a  fascination  which  led  to  the  worship  of  strange 
 gods.  The  starting-point  and  the  goal  are  given 
 us.  We  are  left,  from  what  we  know  otherwise,  to 
 trace  the  process.  Something  there  was  perhaps 
 in  his  very  "largeness  of  heart,"  so  far  in  advance 
 of  the  traditional  knowledge  of  his  age,  rising  to 
 higher  and  wider  thoughts  of  God,  which  predis- 
 
 a  Ewald,  yielding  to  his  one  special  weakness,  sees 
 in  this  prayer  the  rhetorical  addition  of  the  Deuter- 
 puomist  editor  (iii.  315). 
 
 b  Vs.  cxxxii.  belongs  manifestly  (comp.  vv.  7,  8,10, 
 16,  with  2  Chr.  vi.  41)  to  the  day  of  dedication  ;  and 
 V.  12  contains  the  condition,  of  whicli  the  vision  of  the 
 night  presents  tlie  dark  as  the  day  had  presented  the 
 bright  side. 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 i083 
 
 posed  him  to  it.  His  converse  with  men  of  other 
 creeds  and  climes  might  lead  him  to  anticipate,  in 
 this  respect,  one  phase  of  modern  thought,  as  the 
 confessions  of  the  Preacher  in  Kolieleth  anticipate 
 another.  In  recognizing  what  was  true  in  other 
 forms  of  faith,  he  miglit  lose  his  horror  at  what  was 
 false,  his  sense  of  the  pretiminence  of  tlie  truth  re- 
 vealed to  him,  of  the  historical  continuity  of  the 
 nation's  religious  life.  His  worship  might  go  l)ack- 
 ward  from  Jeliovah  to  Elohim,"^  from  Elohim  to  the 
 '•  Gods  many  and  Lords  many  "  of  the  nations 
 round.  Jehovah,  Baal,  Ashtaroth,  Chemosh,  each 
 form  of  nature-worship,  might  come  to  seem  equally 
 true,  equally  acceptable.  The  women  whom  he 
 bi-ought  from  other  countries  miglit  well  lie  allowed 
 the  luxury  of  their  own  superstitions.  And,  if 
 permitted  at  all,  the  worship  iiuist  be  worthy  of  his 
 fame  and  be  part  of  his  magnificence.  With  this 
 there  may,  as  Ewald  suggests  (iii.  380),<'  have 
 mingled  political  motives.  He  may  have  hoped, 
 by  a  policy  of  toleration,  to  conciliate  neighboring 
 princes,  to  attract  a  larger  traffic.  But  proliably 
 also  there  was  another  influence  less  commonly 
 taken  into  account.  The  wide-spread  lielief  of  the 
 East  in  the  magic  arts  of  Solomon  is  not,  it  is  be- 
 lieved, without  its  foundation  of  truth.  On  the 
 one  hand,  an  ardent  study  of  nature,  in  the  period 
 that  precedes  science,  runs  on  inevitably  into  the 
 pursuit  of  occult,  mysterious  properties.  On  the 
 other,  throughout  the  whole  history  of  Judah,  the 
 element  of  idolatry  which  has  the  strongest  hold  on 
 men's  minds  was  the  thaumaturgio,  soothsaying, 
 incantations,  divinations  (2  K.  i.  2;  Is.  ii.  (i;  2 
 Chr.  xxxiii.  G,  H  al.).  The  religion  of  Israel  op- 
 posed a  stern  prohiliition  to  all  such  perilous  yet 
 tempting  arts  (Deut.  xviii.  10,  et  at.).  The  relig- 
 ions of  the  nations  round  fostered  them.  Was  it 
 strange  that  one  who  found  his  progress  impeded 
 in  one  path  should  turn  into  the  other?  So,  at 
 any  rate  it  was.  The  reign  which  liegan  so  glori- 
 ously was  a  step  backwards  into  the  gross  darkness 
 of  fetish  worship.  As  he  left  I)ehind  him  the  leg- 
 acy of  luxury,  selfishness,  oppression,  more  than 
 counterbalancing  all  the  good  of  higher  art  and 
 wider  knowledge,  so  he  left  this  too  as  an  ineradi- 
 calile  evil.  Not  less  truly  than  the  son  of  Nebat 
 might  his  name  have  been  written  in  history  as 
 Solomon  the  son  of  David  who  "  made  Israel  to 
 sin." 
 
 (11.)  Disasters  followed  before  long  as  the  nat- 
 ural consequence  of  what  was  politically  a  blunder 
 as  well  as  religiously  a  sin.  The  strength  of  the 
 nation  rested  on  its  unity,  and  its  unity  depended 
 on  its  faith.  Whatever  attractions  the  sensuous 
 ritual  which  he  introduced  may  have  had  for  the 
 great  body  of  the  people,  the  priests  and  Levites 
 nnist  have  looked  on  the  rival  worship  with  entire 
 disfavor.  The  zeal  of  the  prophetic  order,  dormant 
 in  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign,  and  as  it  were,  hin- 
 dered from  its  usual  utterances  by  the  more  daz- 
 zling wisdom  of  the  king,  was  now  kindled  int*« 
 active  opposition.  Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  as  if  taught 
 by  the  history  of  his  native  place,  was  sent  to  utter 
 
 c  It  is  noticeable  that  Elohim,  and  not  Jehovah,  is 
 the  Divine  name  used  throughout  Ecrlesiastes. 
 
 d  To  see,  however,  as  Ewald  does,  in  Solomon's  pol- 
 icy nothing  but  a  wise  toleration  like  that  of  a  modem 
 statesman  in  regard  to  Christian  sects,  or  of  the  Eng- 
 lish Government  in  India,  is  surely  to  read  history 
 through  a  refracting  and  distorting  mediura. 
 
3084 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 one  of  tliose  predictions  which  help  to  work  out 
 their  own  fulfillment,  fastening  on  thont^lits  before 
 vague,  pointing  Jerolioani  out  to  himself  and  to  the 
 people  as  the  destined  heir  to  the  lari,'er  half  of  the 
 kingdom,  as  truly  called  as  David  had  been  called, 
 to  be  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  (1  K.  xi.  28-39). 
 The  king  in  vain  tried  to  check  the  current  that 
 was  setting  strong  against  hiiu.  If  Jeroboam  was 
 driven  tor  a  time  into  exile  it  was  only,  as  we  have 
 seen,  to  be  united  in  marriage  to  the  then  reigning 
 dynasty,  and  to  come  back  with  a  daughter  of  the 
 Pharaohs  as  his  queen  (LXX.  ut  suprn).  Tlie  old 
 trilial  jealousies  gave  signs  of  renewed  vitality. 
 Ephraim  was  prepared  once  more  to  dispute  the  su- 
 premacy of  J  udah,  needing  special  control  (1  K.  xi. 
 28).  And  with  this  weakness  within  there  came 
 attacks  from  without.  Hadad  and  Rezon,  the  one 
 in  Edom,  the  other  in  Syria,  who  had  been  foiled 
 in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  now  found  no  effectual 
 resistance.  The  king,  prematurely  old,"  nnist  have 
 foreseen  the  rapid  breaking  up  of  the  great  mon- 
 archy to  which  he  had  succeeded.  Rehoboani,  in- 
 heriting his  foults  without  his  wisdom,  haughty  and 
 indiscreet,  was  not  likely  to  avert  it. 
 
 (12.)  Of  the  inner  changes  of  mind  and  heart 
 which  ran  parallel  with  this  history,  Scripture  is 
 comparatively  silent.  Something  may  be  learned 
 from  the  books  that  bear  his  name,  which,  whether 
 written  by  him  or  not,  stand  in  the  Canon  of  the 
 O.  T.  as  representing,  with  profound,  inspired  in- 
 sight, the  successive  phases  of  his  life;  something 
 also  from  the  fact  that  so  little  remains  out  of  so 
 much,  out  of  the  songs,  proverbs,  treatises  of  which 
 the  historian  sjjeaks  (1  K.  iv.  32,  33).  Legendary 
 as  may  be  the  traditions  which  speak  of  Hezekiah  as 
 at  one  and  the  same  time,  preserving  some  portions 
 of  Solomon's  writings  (Prov.  xxv.  1),  and  destroy- 
 ing others,''  a  like  process  of  selection  must  have 
 been  gone  through  by  the  unknown  Kabbis  of  the 
 Gi:eat  Synagogue  after  the  return  from  the 
 exile.  Slowly  and  hesitatingly  they  received  into 
 the  Canon,  as  they  went  on  with  their  unparalleled 
 
 a  Solomon's  age  at  his  death  could  not  have  been 
 much  more  than  fifty-nine  or  sixty,  yet  it  was  not  till 
 he  was  "  old  "  that  his  wives  perverted  him  (1  Iv.  xi. 
 4). 
 
 b  Hezekiah  found,  it  was  said,  formulae  for  the  cure 
 of  diseases  engraved  on  the  door-posts  of  the  Temple, 
 and  destroyed  them  because  they  drew  men  away  from 
 the  worship  of  Jehovah  (Suidas,  s.  v.  'Efexias)-  Strange 
 as  the  history  is,  it  has  a  counterpart  in  the  complaint 
 of  the  writer  of  2  Chr.  xvi.  12,  that  Asa  "  sought  not 
 to  the  Lord  but  to  the  physicians."  Was  there  a  ri- 
 valry in  the  treatment  of  disease  between  the  priests 
 and  prophets  on  the  one  side  (comp.  Is.  xxxviii.  21), 
 and  idolatrous  thaumaturgists  on  the  other  (comp. 
 also  2  Iv.  i.  2)  ? 
 
 c  The  Song  of  Songs,  however,  was  never  read  pub- 
 licly, either  in  the  Jewish  or  the  Christian  Church, 
 nor  in  the  former  were  young  men  allowed  to  read  it 
 at  all  (Theod  Cyr.  Pro"/,  in  Cant.  Cant.;  Theod. 
 Mops,  p.  699  in  iligne). 
 
 d  We  rest  on  this  as  the  necessary  condition  of  all 
 deeper  interpretation.  To  argue,  as  many  have  done, 
 that  the  mystical  sense  must  be  the  only  one  because 
 the  literal  would  be  insupportable,  is  simply  to  "  bring 
 a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean,"'  to  assert  that  the 
 Divine  Spirit  would  choose  a  love  that  was  lustful  and 
 impure  as  the  fitting  parable  of  the  holiest.  Much 
 r.ither  may  we  say  with  Herder  ( Geist  der  Ebr.  Poes., 
 Oial.  vi.),  that  the  poem,  in  its  literal  sense,  is  one 
 which  '■  might  have  been  written  in  Paradise."  The 
 man  and  the  woman  are,  as  in  their  primeval  inno- 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 work  of  the  expurgation  by  a  people  of  its  own  lit- 
 erature, the  two  books  which  have  been  the  stiuu- 
 bling-blocks  of  commentators,  Ecclesiastes  and  the 
 Song  of  Songs'^  (Ginsburg,  Koliilefh.  pp.  13-15). 
 They  give  excerpta  only  from  the  3,000  Proverbs. 
 Of  the  thousand  and  five  Songs  (the  precise  num- 
 ber indicates  a  known  collection)  we  know  abso- 
 lutely nothing.  They  were  willing,  /.  e.,  to  admit 
 Koheleth  for  the  sake  of  its  ethical  conclusion ;  the 
 Song  of  Songs,  because  at  a  very  early  period,  pos- 
 sibly even  then,  it  had  received  a  mystical  interjire- 
 tation  (Keil,  Kinleit.  in  das  Alt.  Test.  §  127),  be- 
 cause it  was,  at  any  rate,  the  history  of  a  love  which 
 if  passionate,  was  also  tender,  and  pure,  and  true.'' 
 But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  there  are  elements  in  that 
 poem,  the  strong  delight  in  visible  outward  beauty, 
 the  surrender  of  heart  and  will  to  one  overpower- 
 ing impulse,  which  might  come  to  be  divorced  from 
 truth  and  purity,  and  would  then  be  perilous  in 
 proportion  to  their  grace  and  charm.  Such  a  di- 
 vorce took  place  we  know  in  the  actual  life  of  Sol- 
 omon. It  could  not  fail  to  leave  its  stamp  upon 
 the  idyls  in  which  feeling  and  fancy  uttered  them- 
 selves. The  poems  of  the  Son  of  David  may  have 
 been  like  those  of  Ilafiz.  The  Scribes  who  com- 
 piled the  Canon  of  the  0.  T.  may  have  acted  wisely, 
 rightly,  charitably  to  his  fame,  in  excluding  them. 
 (13.)  The  books  that  remain  meet  us,  as  has 
 been  said,  as,  at  any  rate,  representing  the  three 
 stages  of  his  life.  The  Song  of  Songs  brings  before 
 us  the  brightness  of  his  youth,  the  heart  as  yet  un- 
 tainted, human  love  passionate  yet  undefiled,<^  and 
 therefore  becoming,  under  a  higher  inspiration, 
 half-consciously  it  may  be  to  itself,  but,  if  not,  then 
 unconsciously  for  others,  the  parable  of  the  soul's 
 aflTections./  [Caxticlks.]  Then  comes  in  the 
 book  of  Proverbs,  the  stage  of  practical,  prudential 
 thought,  searching  into  the  recesses  of  man's  heart, 
 seeing  duty  in  little  things  as  well  as  great,  resting 
 all  duty  on  the  fear  of  God,  gathering  from  the 
 wide  lessons  of  a  king's  experience,  lessons  which 
 mankind  could  ill  afford  to  hae.o     The  poet  has 
 
 ceuce,  loving  and  beloved,  thinking  no  evil,  "  naked 
 and  not  ashamed." 
 
 e  We  adopt  the  older  view  of  Lowth  (Prfpl.  xxx., 
 xxxi.)  and  others,  rather  than  tlmt  of  Renan  and 
 Ewald,  which  almost  brings  dew*  a  noble  poem  to 
 the  level  of  an  operatic  ballet  at -.^.Parisian  theatre. 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  -(l.  c.)  had,  at  least,  placed  it 
 on  a  level  with  the  Symposium  of  Plato.  The  theory 
 of  Michaelis  {Not.  in  Lowth,  xxxi.)  that  it  represents 
 a  young  husband  and  his  favorite  bride  hindered,  by 
 hai'em  jealousies  or  regulations,  from  free  intercourse 
 with  each  other,  seems  to  us  preferable,  and  connects 
 itself  with  the  identitication  of  the  Shulamite  with  Abi- 
 shag,  already  noticed. 
 
 /  "  The  final  cause  of  Canticles,'"  it  has  been  well 
 said,  "  was  that  it  might  be  a  field  in  which  mysticism 
 could  disport  itself"  (Bishop  Jebb,  Correspond,  with 
 Kno.r,  i.  305).  The  traces  of  the  "  great  mystery  " 
 which  thus  connects  divine  and  human  love,  are  in- 
 deed to  be  found  everywhere,  in  the  Targunis  of  Rab- 
 bis, in  the  writings  of  Fathers,  Schoolmen,  Puritans, 
 in  the  poems  of  Mystics  like  Novalis,  Jelaleddin  Rumi, 
 Saadi  (comp.  Tholuck,  Morgenidnd.  Mystik,  pp.  55, 
 227).  It  appears  iu  its  highest  form  in  the  Vita  Nii- 
 ova  of  Dante,  purified  by  Christian  feeling  from  the 
 sensuous  element  which  in  eastern  writers  too  readily 
 mingles  with  it.  Of  all  strange  assertions,  that  of  Re- 
 nan,  that  mysticism  of  this  kind  is  foreign  to  the  She- 
 mitic  character,  is  perhaps  about  the  strangest  (Cant. 
 '/«  Cant.  p.  119). 
 
 a  Both  in  Ecclesiastes  (ii.  3-12)  and  yet  more  io 
 
SOLOMON 
 
 become  the  philosopher,  the  mystic  has  passed  into 
 the  morahst.  But  the  man  passed  throurfh  both 
 stai^es  without  beiiiff  perniauently  the  better  for 
 either.  They  were  to  him  but  phases  of  his  life 
 which  he  had  known  and  exhausted  (Eccl.  i.,  ii.)- 
 And  therefore  there  came,  as  in  the  Confessions  of 
 the  Preacher,  the  sjreat  retribution.  The  "  sense 
 that  wore  with  time  '"  avenged  "  the  crime  of  sense." 
 There  fell  on  him,  as  on  other  crowned  voluptua- 
 ries," the  weariness  which  sees  written  on  all  things. 
 Vanity  of  Vanities.  Slowly  only  could  he  recover 
 i'rom  that  "vexation  of  spirit,"  and  the  recovery 
 was  incomplete.  It  was  not  as  the  strong  burst  of 
 penitence  that  brought  to  his  father  David  the  as- 
 surance of  forgiveness.  He  could  not  rise  to  the 
 heiitht  from  which  he  had  fallen,  or  restore  the 
 freshness  of  his  first  love.  The  weary  soul  could 
 only  lay  again,  with  slow  and  painful  relapses,  the 
 foundations  of  a   true   morality  [comp.   Ecclesi- 
 
 ASTES]. 
 
 (14.)  Here  our  survey  must  end.  We  may  not 
 enter  into  the  things  within  the  vail,  or  answer 
 either  way  the  doubting  question.  Is  there  any 
 hope?  Others  have  not  shrunk  from  debating  that 
 question,  deciding,  according  to  their  formuh'e,  that 
 he  did  or  did  not  fulfill  the  conditions  of  salvation 
 so  as  to  satisfy  them,  were  they  to  be  placed  upon 
 the  judgment-seat  It  would  not  be  profitaiile  to 
 give  references  to  the  patristic  and  other  writers 
 who  have  dealt  with  this  subject.  They  have  been 
 elaborately  collected  by  Calniet  {D'lctionn.  s.  v. 
 Siilomon,  Nouvtll.  Dissert.  De  la  snliit  du  Sal.). 
 It  is  noticeable  and  characteristic  that  Chrysostoni 
 and  the  theologians  of  the  Greek  Church  are,  for 
 the  most  part,  favorable,  Augustine  and  those  of 
 the  Latin,  for  the  most  part,  adverse  to  his  chances 
 of  salvation.'' 
 
 VII.  Leffends.  —  (1.)  The  impression  made  by 
 Solomon  on  the  minds  of  later  generations,  is  shown 
 in  its  best  form  by  the  desire  to  claim  the  sanction 
 of  his  name  for  even  the  noblest  thoughts  of  other 
 writers.  Possibly  in  Eccles5L\ste.s,  certainly  in 
 the  Book  of  Wisilom,  we  have  instances  of  this, 
 free  from  the  vicious  element  of  an  apocryphal  liter- 
 ature. Before  long,  however,  it  took  other  forms. 
 Round  the  facts  of  the  history,  as  a  nucleus,  there 
 gathers  a  whole  world  of  fantastic  fables,  Jewish, 
 Christian,  JMohanmiedan,  I'efractions,  colored  and 
 distorted,  according  to  the  media  through  which 
 they  pass,  of  a  colossal  form.  Even  in  the  Targum  of 
 Ecclesiastes  we  find  strange  stories  of  his  character. 
 He  and  tbe  Kabliis  of  the  Sanhedrim  sat  and  drank 
 wine  together  in  Jabtie.  His  pnradke  was  filled 
 with  costly  trees  whicii  the  evil  spirits  brought  him 
 from  India.  The  casuistry  of  the  Rabbis  rested  on 
 his  dictii.  Ashmedai,  tlie  king  of  the  demons,  de- 
 prived him  of  his  magic  ring,  and  he  wandered 
 through  tbe  cities  of  Israel,  weeping  and  sayiiig, 
 I,  the  preacher,  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 3085 
 
 Proverbs  (i.  11-17,  vii.  6-23),  we  may  find  traces  of  ex- 
 periences gained  in  other  ways.  Tlie  graphic  picture 
 of  the  life  of  tlie  robbers  and  the  prostitutes  of  an 
 ea.steru  city  could  hardly  have  been  drawn  but  by 
 one  who,  like  ILiroun  Alrashid  and  other  oriental 
 kings,  at  times  laid  aside  the  trappings  of  royalty,  and 
 plunged  into  the  other  extreme  of  social  life,  that  so 
 he  might  gain  the  excitement  of  a  fresh  sensation. 
 
 a  "  A  taste  for  pleasure  is  extinguished  in  the 
 Ifing's  heart  (Louis  XIV.).  Age  and  devotion  have 
 taught  him  to  make  serious  reflections  on  the  vanity 
 of  everything  he  was  formerly  fond  of "  (Mme.  de 
 Maintenon's  Letters,  p.  208). 
 
 (Ginsburg,  Kulteklh,  App.  i.  H.;  Koran.  Sui:  38). 
 He  left  behind  him  spells  and  charms  to  cure  dis- 
 eases and  cast  out  evil  spii'its;  and  for  centuries, 
 incantations  bearing  his  name  were  the  special 
 boast  of  all  the  "vagabond  Jew  exorcists"  who 
 swarmed  in  the  cities  of  the  empire  (Jos.  Ant.  viii. 
 2,  §  5;  Just.  Mart.  Response,  ad  Orthod.  p.  55; 
 Origen,  Comm.  in  M(Ut.  xxvi.  3).  His  wisdom 
 etiabled  him  to  interpret  the  speech  of  beasts  and 
 birds,  a  gift  shared  afterwards,  it  was  said,  by  his 
 descendant  Hillel  (Ewald,  iii.  407;  K-oran,  Sur. 
 37).  He  knew  the  secret  virtues  of  gems  and 
 herbs  ^  (Fabricius,  Codex  Pseui/ep.  V.  T.  1042). 
 He  was  the  inventor  of  Syriac  and  Arabian  alpha- 
 bets {ibid.  1014). 
 
 (2.)  Arabic  imagination  took  a  yet  wilder  flight. 
 After  a  long  struggle  with  the  rebellions  Afreets 
 and  Jinns,  Solomon  conquered  them  and  cast 
 thein  into  the  sea  (Lane,  Arabian  Niylits,  i.  36). 
 The  remote  pre- Adamite  past  was  peopled  with  a 
 succession  of  forty  Solomons,  ruling  over  different 
 races,  each  with  a  shield  and  sword  that  gave  them 
 sovereignty  over  the  ./inns.  To  Solomon  himself 
 belonged  the  magic  ring  which  revealed  to  him  the 
 past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  Because  be 
 sta3ed  his  march  at  the  hour  of  prayer  instead  of 
 riding  on  with  his  horsemen  God  gave  him  the 
 winils  as  a  chariot,  and  the  birds  fiew  over  him, 
 makhig  a  perpetual  canopy.  The  demons  in  their 
 spite  wrote  books  of  magic  in  his  name,  but  he, 
 being  ware  of  it,  seized  them  and  placed  them 
 under  his  throne,  where  they  remained  till  bis 
 death,  and  then  the  demons  again  got  hold  of 
 them  and  scattered  them  aliroad  (U'Herbelot,  s.  v. 
 "  Soliman  ben  Daoud;  "  Koran,  Sur.  21).  The 
 visit  of  the  (iueen  of  Sheba  furnished  some  three  or 
 four  romances.  The  Koran  (Stu:  27)  narrates  her 
 visit,  her  wonder,  her  conversion  to  the  Islam, 
 which  Solomon  professed.  She  appears  Under  three 
 different  names,  Nicaule  (Calmet,  Diet.  s.  v.),  Bal- 
 kis  (D'Herbelot,  s.  v.),  JMakeda  (Pineda,  v.  14). 
 The  Arabs  claim  her  as  belonging  to  Yemen,  the 
 Ethiopians  as  coming  li'om  iVIeroe.  In  each  form 
 of  the  story  a  son  is  born  to  her,  which  calls  Solo 
 mon  its  father,  in  the  Arab  version  Meilekh,  in  the 
 Ethiopian  David,  after  his  grandfather,  the  ancestor 
 of  a  long  line  of  Ethiopian  kings  (Ludolf,  Hist. 
 .Ethiop.  ii.  3,  4,  5).  Twelve  thousand  Hebrews 
 accompanied  her  on  her  return  home,  and  from 
 them  were  descended  the  Jews  of  Ethiopia,  and  the 
 great  Prester  John  (Presbyter  Joannes)  of  mediae- 
 val travellers  (D'Herbelot,  l.  c. ;  Pineda,  l.  c. ; 
 Corylus,  Diss,  de  7-e<jina  Austr.  in  Menthen's 
 T/u'Siiurus,  i.).  She  brought  to  Solomon  the 
 self-same  gifts  which  the  Magi  afterwards  brought 
 to  Christ.  [M.VGi.]  One  at  least  of  the  hard 
 questions  with  which  she  came  was  rescued  from 
 oblivion.  Fair  boys  and  sturdy  girls  were  dressed 
 up  by  her  exactly  alike  so  that  no  eye  could  distin- 
 
 b  How  deeply  this  question  entered  into  the  hearts 
 of  medijeval  thinkers,  and  in  what  way  the  noblest 
 ot  them  all  decided  it,  we  I'ead  in  the  Divina  Comme- 
 (Jia :  — 
 
 "La  quinta  luce  eh 6  tra  noi  piu  bella 
 Spiradi  tal  amor,  che  tutto  il  niondo 
 Lugglu  lie  gola  di  saper  novella." 
 
 Faratlho,  x.  109. 
 
 The  "  spira  di  tal  amor  "  refers,  of  course,  to  the  Song 
 of  Solomon. 
 
 (^  The  name  of  a  well-known  plant,  Solomon's  sea 
 (ConvaUaria  Mnjalis),  jierpetuates  the  old  belief. 
 
3086 
 
 SOLOMON 
 
 giiish  them.  The  kiiii?  placed  water  before  them 
 and  bade  them  wasli,  and  then  when  the  bo3S 
 scrubbed  their  faces  and  the  girls  stroked  them 
 Boftly,  he  made  out  which  were  which  (Gljcas, 
 Annul,  in  Fabricius,  /.  c).  Versions  of  these  and 
 other  legends  are  to  be  found  also  in  ^^'eil,  Bibl. 
 Ltytnds,  p.  171;  Fiirst,  ferltnschiure,  c.  30. 
 
 (3.)  The  fame  of  Solomon  spread  northward 
 and  eastward  to  Persia.  At  Shiraz  they  showed 
 the  Meder-SnUininn.,  or  tomb  of  Bath-sheba,  said 
 that  I'ersepolis  had  been  built  by  the  Jinns  at  his 
 command,  and  pointed  to  the  Takht-i-Suleiman 
 (Solomon's  throne)  in  proof.  Through  their  spells 
 too  he  made  hi.-»  wonderful  journey,  breakfasting  at 
 Persepolis,  dininir  at  Baal-bec,  supping  at  Jerusa- 
 lem (('iiardin,  iii.  13.5,  143;  Ouseley,  ii.  41,  437). 
 Persian  literature,  while  it  had  no  single  life  of 
 David,  boasted  of  countless  histories  of  Solomon, 
 one,  the  Suleiman-Nameh,  in  eighty  books,  ascribed 
 to  the  poet  I'irdousi  (D'Herbelot,  ^.  c. ;  Chardin, 
 iii.  1!>8).  In  popular  belief  he  was  confounded 
 with  the  great  Persian  hero,  Djemschid  (Ouseley, 
 ii.  64). 
 
 (4.)  As  might  be  expected,  the  legends  appeared 
 in  their  coarsest  and  basest  form  in  Euro])e,  losing 
 all  their  poetry,  the  mere  ajipendages  of  the  most 
 detestable  of  Apocrypha,  Books  of  Magic,  a  Ilygro- 
 luanteia,  a  Contradictio  Salomonis  (whatever  that 
 may  be)  condemned  by  Gelasius,  Incantationes, 
 (Jlavicula,  and  the  like."  One  pseudonymous  work 
 has  a  somewiiat  higher  character,  the  PsdUtvium 
 Saloiminis,  altogether  without  merit,  a  mere  centu 
 from  the  Psalms  of  David,  but  not  otherwise 
 offensive  (Fabricius,  i.  917 ;  Tregelles,  Intrud.  to 
 N.  T.  p.  154),  and  therefore  attached  sometimes, 
 as  in  the  great  Alexandrian  Codex,  to  the  sacred 
 vokime.  One  strange  story  meets  us  from  the 
 omnivorous  Note-book  of  Bede.  Solomon  did  re- 
 pent, and  in  his  contrition  he  offered  himself  to 
 the  Sanhedrim,  doing  penance,  and  they  scourged 
 him  live  times  with  rods,  and  then  he  travelled  in 
 sackcloth  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  saying  as  he 
 went.  Give  alms  to  Solomon  (Bede,  de  Sulom.  ap. 
 Pineda). 
 
 VIII.  New  Testament.  —  We  pass  from  this 
 wild  farrago  of  .Jewish  and  other  fiibles,  to  that 
 which  presents  the  most  entire  contrast  to  them. 
 The  teacbinir  of  the  N.  T.  adds  nothing  to  the 
 materials  foi'  a  life  of  Solomon.  It  enables  us  to 
 take  the  truest  measure  of  it.  The  teaching  of 
 the  Son  of  Man  passes  sentence  on  all  that  kingly 
 pomp.  It  declares  that  in  the  humblest  work  of 
 God,  in  the  lilies  of  the  field,  there  is  a  grace  and 
 beauty  inexhaustible,  so  that  even  "  Solomon  in  all 
 his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these  "  (Matt. 
 vi.  2!J).''  It  presents  to  us  the  perfect  pattern  of  a 
 growth  in  wisdom,  like,  and  yet  unlike  his,  taking, 
 in  the  eyes  of  men,  a  less  varied  range;  but  deeper, 
 truer,  purer,  because  united  with  ]jurity,  victory 
 over  temptation,  self-sacrifice,  the  true  large-heart- 
 edness  of  sympathy  with  all  men.     On  tlie  lowest 
 
 a  Two  of  the.«e  strange  books  have  been  reprinted 
 in  facsimile  by  Scheible  (K/oster,  v.).  Tlie  Clnvicula 
 Salomonis  Nerromanlica  consists  of  incantations  made 
 up  of  Hebrew  words  ;  and  the  mightiest  spell  of  the 
 enchanter  is  the  Sigillinn  Salomo7ii.t,  engraved  with 
 Hebrew  characters,  such  as  might  have  been  handed 
 down  through  a  long  succession  of  Jewish  exorcists. 
 Tt  is  singular  (unless  this  too  was  part  of  the  im- 
 posture) that  both  the  books  profess  to  be  published 
 with  the  special  license  of  Popes  Julius  II.  and  Alex- 
 
 SOLOMONS  SERVANTS 
 
 view  which  serious  thinkers  have  ever  taken  of  thg 
 life  of  .Jesus  of  Nazareth,  they  have  owned  that 
 there  was  in  Him  one  "  greater  than  Solomon " 
 (Matt.  xii.  42).  The  historical  Son  of  David, 
 ideally  a  type  of  the  Christ  that  was  to  come,  was 
 in  his  actual  life,  the  most  strangely  contrasted. 
 It  was  reserved  for  the  true,  the  later  Son  of  David, 
 to  fulfill  the  projihetic  yearnings  which  had  gath- 
 ered round  the  birth  of  the  earlier.  He  was  the 
 true  Shilomoh,  the  jn-ince  of  peace,  the  true  Jedid- 
 jah,  the  well-beloved  of  the  Father.         E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  SOLOMON'S  GARDENS.  [Gahukn, 
 vol.  i.  p.  808.] 
 
 SOLOMON'S  PORCH.     [Palace.] 
 •  SOLOMON'S     SERVANTS    (Childeen 
 
 OF),    (-b'btp  ^inv  \::]? :  vm  -Apsw^Afid, 
 
 I'3zr.  ii.  58 ;  viol  SovAwv  SaAoi^wj/,  I'^zr.  ii.  55 ; 
 Neh.  vii.  57,  HO:  jUii  servoriun  Sdlonwnis.)  The 
 persons  thus  named  appear  in  the  lists  of  the  ex- 
 iles who  returned  from  the  Captivity.  They  occupy 
 all  but  the  lowest  places  in  those  lists,  and  their 
 position  indicates  some  connection  with  the  services 
 of  the  Temple.  First  come  the  priests,  then  Le- 
 vites,  then  Nethinim,  then  "the  children  of  Solo- 
 mon's servants."  In  the  Greek  of  1  Esdr.  v.  33, 
 35,  the  order  is  the  salue,  but  instead  of  Nethinim 
 we  meet  with  Up65ovKoi,  "servants"  or  "minis- 
 ters," of  the  Temple.  In  the  absence  of  any 
 definite  statement  as  to  their  office  we  are  left  to 
 conjecture  and  inference.  (1.)  The  name  as  well 
 as  the  order,  implies  inferiority  even  to  the  Ne- 
 thinim. They  are  the  descendants  of  the  glaves 
 of  Solomon.  The  servitude  of  the  Nethinim, 
 "  (/ifen  to  the  Lord,"  was  softened  by  the  idea  of 
 dedication.  [Nethim.m.]  (2.)  The  starting- 
 point  of  their  history  is  to  be  found  yjrobably  in 
 1  K.  V.  13,  14,  ix.  20,  21;  2  Chr.  viii.  7,  8.  Ca- 
 naanites,  who  had  been  living  till  then  with  a  cer- 
 tain measure  of  freedom,  were  reduced  by  Solomon 
 to  the  helot  state,  and  compelled  to  lalior  in  the 
 king's  stone-quarries,  and  in  building  his  palaces 
 and  cities.  To  some  extent,  indeed,  the  ciiange 
 had  been  eflfected  under  David,  but  it  api)ears  to 
 have  been  then  connected  specially  with  tlie  Tem- 
 ple, and  the  servitude  imder  his  successor  was  at 
 once  harder  and  more  extended  (1  Chr.  xxii.  2). 
 (3.)  The  last  jjassage  throws  some  light  on  their 
 special  office.  The  Nethinim,  as  in  the  case  of 
 the  (iibeonites,  were  appointed  to  be  hewers  of 
 wood  (.hjsh.  ix.  23),  and  this  was  enough  for  the 
 services  of  the  Tabernacle.  For  the  construction 
 and  repairs  of  the  Temple  another  kind  of  labor 
 was  reijuired,  and  the  new  slaves  were  set  to  the 
 work  of  hewing  and  sijuaring  sto7ies  (1  K.  v.  17, 
 18).  Their  descendants  appear  to  have  formed  a 
 distinct  order,  iidieriting  probably  the  same  func- 
 tions and  the  same  skill.  The  prominence  which 
 the  erection  of  a  new  Temple  on  their  return  from 
 Babylon  would  give  to  their  work,  accounts  for  the 
 special  mention  of  them  in  the  lists  of  F^zra  and 
 
 ander  VI.  Was  this  the  form  of  Hebrew  literature 
 which  they  were  willing  to  encourage? 
 
 *  A  pleasant  Persian  apologue  teaching  a  like  les- 
 son deserves  to  be  rescued  from  the  mass  of  fables. 
 The  king  of  Israel  met  one  day  the  king  of  the  ants, 
 took  the  insect  on  his  hand,  and  held  converse  with 
 it,  asking,  Croesus-like,  "Am  not  I  the  miglitiest  and 
 most  glorious  of  men  ?  "  "  Not  so,"  replied  the  ant- 
 king,  ''  Thou  sittest  on  a  throne  of  gold,  but  I  make 
 thy  hand  my  throne,  and  thus  am  greater  than  thou  '' 
 (Ciiardiu,  iii.  198). 
 
SOLOMON'S   SONG 
 
 Neliemiali.  I>ike  the  Nethinim,  they  were  in  the 
 position  of  proselytes,  outwardly  coiifortnins;  to  the 
 Jewish  rituul,  thouL;h  belongiiii;  to  the  hated  race, 
 and,  even  in  their  names,  bearin;;  traces  of  their 
 origin  (Ezr.  ii.  55-58).  Like  them,  too,  the  great 
 mass  must  either  have  perished,  or  given  up  their 
 position,  or  remained  at  I5abylon.  Tlie  392  uf  Ezr. 
 ii.  55  (Nethinim  included)  nnist  have  been  but  a 
 small  fragment  of  the  descendants  of  the  150,000 
 employed  by  Solomon  (1  K.  v.  15).  E.  H.  P. 
 SOLOMON'S  SONG.     [Caxhcles.] 
 
 SOLOMON,  WISDOM  OF.  [Wisdom, 
 Book  of.] 
 
 SON."  The  term  "  son  "  is  used  in  Scripture 
 language  to  imply  almost  any  kind  of  descent  or 
 succession,  as  ben  s/ichid/i,  "son  of  a  year,"  i.  e.  a 
 year  old,  ben  keshet/i,  "son  of  a  bow,"  i.  e.  an 
 arrow.  The  word  bar  is  often  found  in  N.  T.  in 
 composition,  as  Bar-timseus.     [CiiiLDitiiN.] 
 
 II.  \V.  P. 
 
 SON  OF  GOU  (vih?  e^oi,),''  the  Second 
 Person  of  the  ever-blessed  Trinity,  who  is  coequal, 
 coeternal,  and  consubstantial  with  the  Father;  and 
 who  took  the  nature  of  man  in  the  wondj  of  the 
 blessed  Virgin  JMary,  and  as  Man  bears  the  name 
 of  Jesus,  or  Saviour,  and  who  proved  Himself  to 
 be  the  Messiah  or  Chkist,  the  Prophet,  Priest, 
 and  King  of  all  true  Israelites,  the  seed  of  faithful 
 Abraham,  the  universal  Church  of  God. 
 
 'I'he  title  Son  of  God  was  gradually  revealed  to 
 the  world  in  this  its  full  and  highest  significance. 
 In  the  book   of  Genesis  the  term  occurs  in   the 
 
 plural  number,  "  Sons  of  God,"  C^n'7Sn"^p3 
 (Gen.  vi.  2,  4),  and  there  the  appellation  is  applied 
 to  the  potentates  of  the  earth,  and  to  those  who 
 were  set  in  authority  over  others  (according  to  the 
 exposition  in  Cyril  Alex.  Ado.  Julian,  p.  290,  and 
 Adv.  AnI/iropomorph.  c.  17),  or  (as  some  have 
 held)  the  sons  of  the  family  of  Seth  —  those  who 
 had  been  most  distinguished  by  piety  and  \'irtue. 
 In  Job  i.  G,  and  ii.  1,  this  title,  "Sons  of  God," 
 is  used  as  a  designation  of  the  Angels.  In  Psalm 
 bcxxii.  6,  "  I  have  said,  ye  are  gods ;  and  ye  are  all 
 
 sons  of  the  Highest "  ('J*"!''^??  \32),  the  title  is 
 explained  by  Theodoret  and  others  to  signify  those 
 persons  whom  (iod  invests  with  a  portion  of  his 
 own  dignity  and  authority  as  rulers  of  his  people, 
 and  who  have  clearer  revelations  of  his  will,  as  our 
 Lord  intimates  (John  x.  35);  and  therefore  the 
 chiklren  of  Israel,  the  favored  peo])le  of  God,  are 
 specially  called  collectively,  by  God,  his  Svn  (Ex. 
 iv.  22,  23;  Hos.  xi.  1). 
 
 But,  in  a  still  higher  sense,  that  title  is  applied 
 by  God  to  his  only  Son,  begotten  by  eternal  gen- 
 eration (see  Ps.  ii.  7),  as  interpreted  in  the  Epistle 
 
 to  the  Hebrews  (i.  5,  v.  5)  ;  the  word  31*71, 
 "  to-day,"  ill  that  passage,  being  expressive  of  the 
 act  of  God,  with  whom  is  no  yesterday,  nor  to- 
 morrow. "  In  seterno  nee  prajteritum  est,  nee 
 futurum,  sed  perpetuum  Iiodie  "  (Luther).     That 
 
 «  1.  T3  :  vloi  :  JUius  ;  from  ~  22,  "build  "(see 
 Jer.  xxxiii.  7).  [On  the  Biblical  use  of  the  word  "  son,"' 
 see  J.  \V.  Gribbs  in  the  Qiiar.  Christ.  Spectator,  vi. 
 156  ff.  —  A.] 
 
 2.  nS,  from  "mS,  "  pure  "' :  reKvov  :  dilectus 
 (Prof.  xxxi.  2). 
 
 3.  T^"*  :    naiSCov  :  puer. 
 
 SON   OF  GOD 
 
 3087 
 
 text  evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  who  is  crowned 
 and  anointed  as  King  by  (Jod  (Ps.  ii.  2,  G),  althoiio-h 
 resisted  liy  men,  Ps.  ii.  1,  3,  compared  with  Acts 
 iv.  25-27,  where  that  text  is  apjjlied  by  St.  Peter 
 to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  and  his  subsequent  ex- 
 altation ;  and  the  same  psalm  is  also  referred  to 
 Christ  by  St.  Paul,  when  preaching  in  the  Jewish 
 synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  33); 
 whence  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Jews  might 
 have  learnt  from  their  own  Scriptures  that  the 
 Messiah  is  in  a  special  sense  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
 this  is  allowed  by  Maimonides  in  Porta  Musis,  ed. 
 Pococke,  pp.  IGO,  239.  This  truth  might  have  been 
 deduced  by  logical  inference  from  the  ()ld  Testa- 
 ment, but  in  no  passage  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
 is  the  Messiah  clearly  and  explicitly  designated  by 
 the  title  "  Son  of  (iod."  The  words,  "  The  form 
 of  the  fourth  is  like  the  Son  of  God,"  are  in  the 
 Chaldee  portion  of  the  book  of  Daniel  (Dan.  iii. 
 25),  and  were  uttered  by  a  heathen  and  idolatrous 
 king,  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  cannot  therefore  be  un- 
 derstood as  expressing  a  clear  appreciation,  on  the 
 part  of  the  speaker,  of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah 
 although  we  may  readily  agree  that,  like  Caiaphas 
 and  Pilate,  the  king  of  Babylon,  especially  as  he  was 
 perhaps  in  habits  of  intercourse  with  Daniel,  may 
 have  delivered  a  true  prophecy  concerning  Christ. 
 
 We  are  now  brought  to  the  question,  whether 
 the  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  age,  generally  believed  that 
 the  Jlessiah,  or  Christ,  was  also  the  Son  of  God 
 in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  namely,  as  a 
 Divine  Person,  coequal,  coeternal,  and  consubstan- 
 tial with  the  Father? 
 
 That  the  Jews  entertained  the  opinion  tliat  the 
 Messiah  would  be  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  subordinate 
 senses  of  the  term  already  specified  (namely,  as  a 
 holy  person,  and  as  invested  with  great  power  by 
 God),  cannot  be  doubted;  but  the  point  at  isSue 
 is,  whether  they  supposed  that  the  Messiah  would 
 be  what  the  Universal  Church  believes  Jesus  Christ 
 to  be?  Did  they  believe  (as  some  learned  persons 
 suppose  they  did)  that  the  terms  Messiah  and  Son 
 of  God  are  "  equivalent  and  inseparable"? 
 
 It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  .lews  ought  to  have 
 deduced  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah's  divinity  from 
 their  own  Scriptures,  especially  from  such  texts  as 
 Psalm  xlv,  G,  7,  "  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever 
 and  ever;  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right 
 sceptre.  Thou  lovest  righteousness  and  hatest 
 wickedness;  therefore  God,  thy  God,  anointed  Thee 
 with  the  oil  oj' gladness  above  thy  fellows;  "  a  text 
 to  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrevrs 
 appeals  (Heb.  i.  8);  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Mes- 
 siah's Godhead  might  also  have  been  inferred  from 
 such  texts  as  Isaiah  ix.  G,  "  Unto  us  a  Child  is 
 born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given  ....  and  his  name 
 shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty 
 God ;  "  and  vii.  14,  "  Behold  a  Virgin  shall  con- 
 ceive and  bear  a  Son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Im- 
 manuel"  (with  us,  God);  and  from  Jer.  xxiii.  5, 
 "  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  I^ord,  that  I  will 
 raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and  a  King 
 shall  reign  and  prosper  .  .  .  ;  and  this  is  the  name 
 
 4.  1^7'^  :   yivv-qixa:  stirps ;  genus. 
 
 5.  ^^3:    a-TTeptxa:  posteri. 
 
 6.  ^"13^,  like  a  son,  /.  e.  a  successor. 
 
 ''  The  present  article,  in  conjunction  with  that  of 
 Saviour,  forms  the  supplement  to  the  life  of  our  Loid 
 [See  Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  1.347.] 
 
3088  SON   OF  GOD 
 
 whereby  He  shall  be  called,  the  Lord  (Jehovah) 
 our  Righteousness;"  and  from  Micah  v.  2,  "  Out 
 of  thee  (liethlehem  L^phratah)  shall  He  come  forth 
 unto  me  that  is  to  be  lluler  in  Israel,  whose  goinj^s 
 forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting;  "  and 
 from  Zech.  xi.  13,  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me. 
 Cast  it  ufito  the  potter:  a  goodly  price  that  I  was 
 prised  at  of  them."  " 
 
 But  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  Jews  miqi/t 
 not  and  otKjIit  nat  to  have  inferred  the  Divine  Son- 
 ship  of  the  Messiah  from  their  own  Scriptures,  but 
 whether,  for  the  most  part,  they  really  did  deduce 
 that  doctrine  from  those  Scriptures?  They  ought 
 doubtless  to  have  been  prepared  by  those  Scriptures 
 for  a  suff'trinij  Messiah ;  but  this  we  know  was  not 
 the  case,  and  the  (,'ross  of  Christ  was  to  them  a 
 stumbling-block  (1  Cor.  i.  2.3);  and  one  of  the 
 strongest  objections  which  they  raised  against  the 
 Christians  was,  that  they  worshipped  a  man  who 
 died  a  death  vi'hich  is  declared  to  be  an  accursed 
 one  in  the  Law  of  Jloses,  which  was  delivered  by 
 God  liimself  (Deut.  xxi.  23). 
 
 JLiy  it  not  also  be  true,  that  the  Jews  of  our 
 Lord's  age  failed  likewise  of  attaining  to  the  true 
 sense  of  their  own  Scriptures,  in  the  opposite  direc- 
 tion V  INIay  it  not  also  be  true,  that  they  did  not 
 acknowledge  the  Dkine  Sonship  of  the  Messiah, 
 and  that  they  were  not  jjrepared  to  admit  the 
 claims  of  one  who  asserted  Himself  to  be  the  Christ, 
 and  also  affirmed  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
 coequal  with  the  Father  V 
 
 In  looking  at  this  question  a  priori,  it  must  be 
 remembered  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  declare  in 
 the  strongest  and  most  explicit  terms  the  Divine 
 Unily.  "  Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one 
 Lord  "  (Deut.  vi.  4),  this  is  the  solemn  declaration 
 which  the  Jews  recite  daily,  morning  and  evening 
 (see  Mishnah,  Beriiclioth,  chap.  i.).  They  regarded 
 themselves  as  set  apart  from  all  the  nations  of 
 earth  to  be  a  witness  of  God's  unity,  and  to  protest 
 against  the  polytheism  of  the  rest  of  mankind. 
 And  having  sufiisred  severe  chastisements  in  the 
 Babylonish  Captivity  for  their  own  idolatries,  they 
 Bhrunk  —  and  still  shrink  —  with  fear  and  abhor- 
 rence, from  everything  that  might  seem  in  any  de- 
 gree to  trench  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
 the  Godhead. 
 
 To  this  consideration  we  must  add,  a  posteriori, 
 the  external  evidence  derived  from  the  testimony  of 
 ancient  writers  who  lived  near  to  our  Lord's  age. 
 
 Trypho,  the  learned  Jew,  who  debated  with 
 Justin  jMartyr  at  Ephesus  about  A.  I).  150,  on  the 
 points  of  controversy  between  the  Jews  and  Chris- 
 tians, expressly  states,  "  that  it  seems  to  him  not 
 only  paradoxical  but  silly  {fjiuipSv),  to  say  that  the 
 Messiah,  or  Christ,  preiixisted  from  eternity  as 
 God,  and  that  He  condescended  to  be  born  as  man, 
 and  "  —  Trypho  explodes  the  notion  —  that  Christ 
 is  ''not  man  begotten  of  man  "  (.lustin  M.  Dialog. 
 c.  Tryphon.  §  48.  vol.  ii.  p.  154,  ed.  Otto,  Jen. 
 1842).  Here  is  a  distinct  assertion  on  the  part  of 
 the  Jew  that  the  ]\Iessiah  is  merely  inan  ;  and  here 
 also  is  a  denial  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  that  He 
 is  God,  pretjxisting  from  eternity,  and  took  the 
 nature  of  man.  In  the  same  Dialogue  the  Jewish 
 interlocutor,  Trypho,  approves  the  tenets  of  the 
 Ebionite  heretics,  who  asserted  that  the  Christ  was 
 a  mere  man  (\|/i\bs  &vQpta-icos),  and  adds  this  re- 
 
 SON   OF  GOD 
 
 markable  declaration:  "all  we  (Jews)  expect  that 
 the  Messiah  will  come  as  a  mnn  from  mnn  (i.  e 
 from  human  parents),  and  that  Elias  will  anoint 
 Him  when  He  is  come"  {irdures  rifxels  rhv 
 X  p  I  (Trh  V  av  0  p  ooTT  0  y  i  ^  avOpiinaiv  irpoa- 
 SoKa>iJ.iV  ysvricreadat,  Kal  rhv  'HXiav  ;x'pi'ffai 
 avrhv  i\66vTa,  Trypho  Juda'us,  ap.  Justin  M. 
 JJiidof/.  §  4!),  p.  1.5G).  And  in  §  54,  St.  Justin 
 Martyr,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Christian  be- 
 lievers, combats  that  assertion,  and  affirms  that  the 
 Hebrew  prophecies  themselves,  to  which  he  appeals, 
 testify  that  the  Messiah  is  not  a  man  born  of  man, 
 according  to  the  ordinary  manner  of  human  gen- 
 eration, audpwTTos  6|  afOpanrwu  kuto.  rh  Koivhv 
 tSiv  avdpwnmv  ■yei'VT)Qils.  -Vnd  there  is  a  remark- 
 able passage  in  a  subsequent  poi'tion  of  the  same 
 dialogue,  where  Justin  says,  '•  //',  0  Trypho,  ye 
 understood  who  He  is  that  is  sometimes  called  the 
 Messenger  of  mighty  counsel,  and  a  Man  by  Ezekiel, 
 and  designated  as  the  Son  of  Man  by  Daniel,  and 
 as  a  Child  by  Isaiah,  and  the  Jlessiah  and  God  by 
 Daniel,  and  a  Stone  by  many,  and  Wisdom  by 
 Solomon,  and  a  Star  by  Moses,  and  the  Day-spring 
 by  Zechariah,  and  who  is  represented  as  sufiering, 
 by  Isaiah,  and  is  called  by  him  a  Rod,  and  a  Flower 
 and  Corner  Stone,  and  the  Son  of  God,  you  would 
 not  have  spoken  blasphemy  against  Him,  who  is 
 already  come,  and  who  has  been  born,  and  has 
 sufiered,  and  has  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  will 
 come  again  "  (Justin  M.  c.  Tryplwn.  §  12G,  p. 
 409);  and  Justin  affirms  that  he  has  jH'oved,  against 
 the  Jews,  that  "  Christ,  who  is  the  Lord  and  (iod, 
 and  Son  of  God,"  appeared  to  their  Fathers,  the 
 Patriarchs,  in  various  forms,  under  the  old  dispen- 
 sation (§  128,  p.  425).  Compare  the  authorities 
 in  Dorner,  On  the  Person  of  Christ,  i.  pp.  20.5- 
 271,  Engl,  transl. 
 
 In  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  Origen  wrote 
 his  apologetic  work  in  defense  of  Christiainty 
 against  Celsus,  the  Epicurean,  and  in  various  places 
 of  that  treatise  he  recites  the  allegations  of  the 
 Jews  against  the  Gospel.  In  one  passage,  when 
 Celsus,  speaking  in  the  person  of  a  Jew,  had  said 
 that  one  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  had  predicted  that 
 the  Son  of  God  would  come  to  judge  the  righteous 
 and  to  punish  the  wicked,  Origen  rejoins,  that  such 
 a  notion  is  most  improperly  ascribed  to  a  Jew  ; 
 inasmuch  as  the  .lews  did  indeed  look  for  a  Blessiah, 
 but  not  as  the  Son  of  God.  "No  Jew,"  he  says, 
 would  allow  that  any  prophet  ever  said  that  a  Son 
 of  (jod  would  come;  but  what  the  Jews  do  say,  is, 
 that  the  Christ  of  God  will  come;  and  they  often 
 dispute  with  us  Christians  as  to  this  very  question, 
 for  instance,  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  on  the 
 plea  that  no  such  Person  exists  or  was  ever  fore- 
 told "  (Origen,  Ado.  Cels.  i.  §  49,  vol.  i.  p.  305, 
 B.;  see  p.  38  and  p.  79,  ed.  Spencer,  and  other 
 places,  e.  y.  pp.  22,  30,  51,  62,  71,  82,  110,  136). 
 
 In  the  4th  century  Eusebius  testified  that  the 
 Jews  of  that  age  would  not  accept  the  title  Son  of 
 God  as  applicable  to  the  JMessiah  (Euseb.  Dem. 
 Kvang.  iv.  1),  and  in  later  days  they  charge  Chris- 
 tians with  impiety  and  blasphemy  for  designating 
 Christ  by  that  title  (Leoutius,  Cone.  Nicen.  ii. 
 Act.  iv.). 
 
 Lastly,  a  learned  Jew,  Orobio,  in  the  17th  cen- 
 tury, in  his  conference  with  Limborch,  affirms  that 
 if  a  prophet,  or  even,  if  it  were  possible,  the  Messiah 
 
 a  *  On  these  passages  and  on  the  general  subject, 
 Bce,  on  the  one  hand,  Ilunssteuberg's  Chrislnlo'j:ii  of 
 Ike  Old  Test.;  on  the  other,  three  articles  by  Dr.  G. 
 
 R.  Noyes  in   the  Chrislian  Examiner  for  Jan.,  May 
 and  July,  1836.  A. 
 
SON   OF  GOD 
 
 himself,  were  to  work  miracles,  and  yet  laj-  claim  | 
 to  diviitily,  he  ought  to  he  put  to  death  by  stoning, 
 as  one  guilty  of  hhispheniy  ( Orobio  ap.  Limborch, 
 Arnica  CoUathi,  p.  205,  ed.  Uoud.  1088). 
 
 Hence,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  there  seems  to 
 be  sufficient  reason  for  concluding  (with  Basnage, 
 Histoire  dts  JuiJ's,  iv.  c.  24),  that  although  the 
 Jews  of  our  Loril's  age  might  liave  inferred,  and 
 ought  to  have  inferred,  froui  their  own  Scriptures, 
 tliat  the  Messiah,  or  Christ,  would  be  a  Divine 
 Person,  and  the  Son  of  God  in  the  highest  sense 
 of  the  term;  and  althougli  some  among  them, 
 who  were  more  enlightened  than  the  rest,  enter- 
 tained that  opinion :  yet  it  was  not  the  popular 
 and  generally  received  doctrine  among  the  Jews 
 that  tlie  Messiah  would  be  other  than  a  man,  born 
 of  human  parents,  and  not  a  Divine  Being,  and  Son 
 of  God. 
 
 This  conclusion  reflects  much  light  upon  certain 
 important  questions  of  the  Gospel  History,  ami 
 clears  up  several  dilticulties  with  regard  to  the  evi- 
 dences of  Christianity. 
 
 1.  It  supplies  an  answer  to  the  question,  "  Why 
 was  Jesus  Christ  put  to  death?  "  He  was  accused 
 by  the  Jews  before  Pilate  as  guilty  of  sedition  and 
 rebellion  against  the  power  of  Rome  (Luke  xxiii. 
 1-3;  cf.  John  xix.  12);  but  it  is  hardly  necessary 
 to  observe  that  this  was  a  mere  pretext,  to  winch 
 the  Jews  resorted  tor  the  sake  of  exasperatiug  the 
 Roman  governor  against  Him,  and  even  of  com- 
 pelling Pilate,  against  his  will,  to  condemn  Him,  in 
 order  that  he  might  not  lay  himself  open  to  the 
 charge  of  "  not  being  Cesar's  friend  "  (John  xix. 
 12);  whereas,  if  our  Lord  had  really  announced  an 
 intention  of  euiaiicipating  the  Jews  from  the  Ro- 
 man yoke.  He  would  have  procured  for  Himself 
 the  favor  and  support  of  the  Jewish  rulers  and 
 people. 
 
 Nor  does  it  appe;ir  that  Jesus  Christ  was  put  to 
 death  l)ecause  lie  claimed  to  be  the  Christ.  The 
 Jews  were  at  that  time  anxiously  looking  for  the 
 jMessiah ;  the  Pharisees  asked  the  Baiitist  whether 
 he  was  the  Christ  (John  i.  20-25);  "and  all  men 
 mused  in  their  hearts  of  John  whether  he  were  the 
 Christ  or  not  "  (Luke  iii.  15). 
 
 On  this  it  may  be  observed,  in  passing,  that  the 
 people  well  knew  that  .lohn  the  Baptist  was  the  son 
 of  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth;  tliey  knew  him  to  be 
 a  mere  iiioi,  born  after  the  ordinary  maimer  of  hu- 
 man generation ;  and  yet  they  all  thought  it  prob- 
 able that  lie  might  be  the  Clirist. 
 
 This  circumstance  proves,  that,  according  to 
 their  notions,  the  t^hrist  was  not  to  be  a  Divine 
 Person  ;  certainly  not  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  Chris- 
 tian sense  of  tlie  term.  The  same  conclusion  may 
 be  deiluced  from  tiie  circumstance  that  the  Jews  of 
 that  ai^e  eagerly  welcomed  the  appearance  of  those 
 faUu  V/irids  (.Matt.  xxiv.  24),  who  promised  to  de- 
 liver tliem  from  the  Roman  yoke,  and  whom  they 
 knew  to  lie  mere  men,  and  who  did  not  claim  Di- 
 vine origin,  which  they  certainly  would  have  done, 
 if  the  Christ  was  generally  expected  ta  be  the  Son 
 of  (jod. 
 
 We  see  also  that  after  the  miraculous  feeding, 
 the  people  were  desirous  of  "making  Jesus  a  king  " 
 (.lohn  vi.  15);  and  after  the  raising  of  Lazarus  at 
 Bethany  they  met  Him  with  enthusiastic  accRima- 
 tions,  "  Ilosamra  to  the  Son  of  David ;  blessed  is 
 He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Matt. 
 xxi.  9;  Mark  xi.  'J;  John  xii.  1.3).  And  the  eager 
 and  restless  facility  with  which  the  Jews  admitted 
 the  pretensions  of  almost  e  eery  fanatical  adventurer 
 
 SON   OF  GOD 
 
 8089 
 
 who  professed  to  be  the  Messiah  at  that  period, 
 seems  to  show  that  they  would  have  willingly  al- 
 lowed the  claims  of  one  who  "  wrought  many  mir- 
 acles,'' as,  even  by  the  confession  of  the  chief  priests 
 and  Pharisees,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  did  (John  xi.  47), 
 if  He  had  been  content  with  such  a  title  as  the 
 Jews  assigned  to  their  expected  Messiah,  namely, 
 that  of  a  great  Prophet,  distinguished  by  mighty 
 works. 
 
 We  find  that  when  our  Lord  put  to  the  Phari- 
 sees this  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ,  whose 
 Son  is  He?  "  their  answer  was  not,  "  He  is  the  Son 
 of  God,"'  but  "  He  is  the  Son  of  David;  "  and  they 
 could  not  answer  the  second  question  which  He  next 
 propounded  to  them,  "  How  then  dotii  L)avid,  speak- 
 ing in  the  Spirit,  call  Him  Lord?'"  The  re.ason 
 was,  because  the  Pharisees  did  not  expect  the  Mes- 
 siah to  be  the  Son  of  God ;  and  when  He,  who  is 
 the  Messiah,  claimed  to  be  God,  they  rejected  his 
 claim  to  be  the  Christ. 
 
 The  reason,  therefore,  of  his  condenniation  by 
 the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  and  of  his  delivery  to  Pi- 
 late for  crucifixion,  was  not  that  He  claimed  to  be 
 the  Messiah  or  Christ,  but  because  He  asserted 
 Himself  to  be  mucli  more  tlian  that:  in  a  word, 
 because  He  claimed  to  be  the  Sun  of  God,  and  to 
 be  God. 
 
 This  is  further  evident  from  t.he  words  of  the 
 Jews  to  Pilate,  "  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law 
 He  ought  to  die,  because  He  made  Himself  the  Son 
 of  God  "  (John  xix.  7):  and  from  the  previous  res- 
 olution of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  "  Then  said  they 
 all.  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God?  .\nd  He  said 
 unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am.  And  they  said. 
 What  need  we  any  further  witness  ?  for  we  our- 
 selves have  he.ard  of  his  own  mouth.  And  the 
 whole  nndtitude  of  them  arose  and  led  Him  unto 
 Pilate  "(Luke  xxii.  70,  71,  xxiii.  1). 
 
 In  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  the  question  of  the 
 high-priest  is  as  follows:  "I  adjure  thee  by  the 
 living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the 
 Christ,  the  Son  of  God"  (Matt.  xxvi.  63).  This 
 question  does  not  intimate  that  in  the  opinion  of 
 the  high-priest  the  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God, 
 l)ut  it  shows  that  Jesus  claimeil  both  titles,  and  in 
 claiming  them  for  Himself  asserted  that  the  Christ 
 was  the  Son  of  God;  but  that  this  was  not  the 
 popular  opinion,  is  evident  from  the  considerations 
 above  stated,  and  also  from  his  words  to  St.  Peter 
 when  the  Apostle  confessed  Him  to  he  the  "Christ, 
 the  Son  of  the  living  God"  (Matt.  xvi.  16);  He 
 declared  that  Peter  had  received  this  truth,  not 
 Irom  human  testimony,  but  by  extraordinary  reve- 
 lation: "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for 
 flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
 my  Father  which  is  in  heaven"'  (JIatt.  xvi.  17). 
 
 It  was  the  claim  which  He  put  forth  to  be  the 
 Christ  and  Son  of  God,  that  led  to  our  Lord's  con- 
 demnation by  the  unanimous  verdict  of  the  Sanhe- 
 drim: "  They  all  condeumed  Him  to  be  guilty  of 
 death"  (Mark  xiv.  64;  Matt.  xxvi.  6-3-(;G);  and 
 the  sense  in  which  He  claimed  to  be  Son  of  God  is 
 clear  from  the  narrative  of  John  v.  15.  The  Jews 
 .sought  the  more  to  kill  Him  because  He  not  only 
 had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was 
 his  own  Father  (warfpa  'iSiov  eXije  rhv  Be6v), 
 making  Himself  "equal  unto  God;  "  and  when  He 
 claimed  Divine  preexistence,  saying,  "  Before  Aijra- 
 ham  was  (iyei/ero),  I  am,  then  took  they  up  stones 
 to  cast  at  Him"  (John  viii.  58,  59);  and  when  He 
 asserted  his  own  unity  with  God,  "  I  and  the  Fa- 
 ther are  one  "  — one  sidistance  (ev),  not  one  jJerson 
 
3090 
 
 SON   OF  GOD 
 
 (els)  —  "  then  the  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to 
 stone  Him"  (John  x.  00,  31);  and  this  is  evident 
 again  from  their  own  words,  "  For  a  good  worli  we 
 stone  tliee  not,  but  for  bhisplieniy ;  and  because 
 tliat  tliou,  being  a  man,  maliest  thyself  God " 
 (John  x.^;33). 
 
 Accordingly  we  find  that,  after  the  Ascension, 
 the  Apostles  labored  to  bring  the  Jews  to  acknowl- 
 edge that  rlesus  was  not  only  the  C/irisl,  but  was 
 also  a  Dicine  Person,  even  the  Lord  Jehovah. 
 'I'hus,  for  example,  St.  Peter,  alter  the  outpouring 
 of  the  Holy  Gliost  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  by 
 Christ,  says,  '■'■Tkurefore,  let  all  the  house  of  Israel 
 know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that  same 
 Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  Imth  Lord  (Kuptoj', 
 Jehovah)  and  C/irist'''  (Acts  ii.  3G).« 
 
 2.  This  conclusion  sujjplies  a  convincing  proof 
 of  Christ's  Godhead.  Jf  He  is  not  the  Son  of 
 God,  equal  with  God,  then  there  is  no  other  alter- 
 native but  that  He  was  guilty  of  blasphemy;  for 
 He  claimed  "  God  as  his  own  Father,  making 
 Himself  equal  with  God,"  and  by  doing  so  He  pro- 
 posed Himself  as  an  object  of  Divine  worship.  And 
 in  that  case  He  would  have  rightly  been  put  to 
 death;  and  the  Jews  in  rejecting  and  killing  Him 
 would  have  been  acting  in  obedience  to  the  Law 
 of  (iod,  which  commanded  them  to  put  to  death 
 any  prophet,  however  distinguished  he  might  be 
 by  the  working  of  miracles,  if  he  were  guilty  of 
 blasphemy  (Deut.  xiii.  1-11);  and  the  crucifixion 
 of  Jesus  would  have  been  an  act  of  pious  zeal  on 
 their  part  tor  the  honor  of  God,  and  would  have 
 commended  them  to  his  favor  and  protection, 
 whereas  we  know  that  it  was  that  act  which  filled 
 the  cup  of  theii'  national  guilt,  and  has  made  them 
 outcasts  from  God  to  this  day  (Matt.  xxiiL  32-38; 
 Luke  xiii.  33-35;  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16;  James 
 V.  G). 
 
 When  they  repent  of  this  sin,  and  say,  "  Blessed 
 {eu\oyrifji4vos)  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
 the  Lord,"  and  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  Christ 
 and  the  Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God,  then  Israel 
 shall  be  sa\ed  (Hom.  xi.  26). 
 
 3.  This  conclusion  also  explains  the  fact  —  which 
 might  otherwise  ha\e  perplexed  and  staggered  us 
 —  that  the  miracles  which  -lesus  wrought,  and 
 which  the  Jews  and  their  rulers  acknowledged  to 
 have  l)een  wrought  by  Him,  did  not  have  their 
 due  influence  upon  them ;  those  mighty  and  mer- 
 ciful works  did  not  produce  the  efliict  upon  them 
 which  they  ought  to  have  produced,  and  which 
 those  works  would  have  produced,  if  the  Jews  and 
 their^  rulers  had  lieen  prepared,  as  they  ought  to 
 have  been,  by  an  intelligent  study  of  their  own 
 Scriptures,  to  regard  their  expected  Messiah  as  the 
 Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God. 
 
 Not  being  so  prepared,  they  applied  to  those 
 miracles  the  test  supplied  by  their  own  Law,  which 
 enjoined  that,  if  a  prophet  arose  among  them,  and 
 worked  miracle;^,  and  endea\ored  to  draw  them 
 away  from  the  worship  of  the  true  (Jod,  tliose  mir- 
 acles were  to  be  regarded  as  trials  of  their  own  stead- 
 fastness, and  were  not  to  be  accepted  as  proofs  of  a 
 Divine  mission,  ■"  but  the  prophet  himself  was  to  be 
 
 «  *  In  ascribing  to  St.  Peter  the  remarkable  prop- 
 osition that  "  God  hath  made  Jesus  Jehovah,"'  the 
 writer  of  tliis  article  appears  to  have  overlooked  the 
 fact  that  Kupioi'  (''  Lord '")  in  Acts  ii.  36  refers  to  tuj 
 Kvpiiu  fiov  ("  my  Lord  ")  in  ver.  34,  quoted  from  Ps. 
 ex.  1,  where  the  Hebrew  correspondent  is  not  Jeho- 
 vah, but   T^TS,  atlon,  the  couiiuouword  for  "  lord" 
 
 SON   OF  GOD 
 
 put  to  death  "  (Deut.  xiii.  1-11).  The  Jews  tried 
 our  Lord  and  his  miracles  by  this  law.  Some  of 
 the  Jews  ventured  to  say  that  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
 was  specially  in  the  mind  of  the  Divine  Lawgiver 
 when  He  framed  that  law "  (see  Fagius  on  the 
 Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  Deut.  xiii.,  and  his  n(^te  on 
 Deut.  xviii.  15),  and  that  it  was  provided  exjjfessly 
 to  meet  his  case.  Indeed  they  do  not  hesitate  to 
 say  that,  in  the  words  of  the  Law,  "  if  thy  brother, 
 the  so)i  of  thy  mutlier,  entice  thee  secretly " 
 (Deut.  xiii.  6),  there  was  a  i>rophetic  reference 
 to  the  case  of  Jesus,  who  "said  that  He  had  a 
 human  mother,  but  not  a  hmnan  father,  but 
 was  the  Son  of  God  and  was  God  "  (see  Fagius, 
 I.  c). 
 
 Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  INlessiah ;  hut,  according 
 to  the  popular  view  and  preconceived  notions  of 
 the  Jews,  the  Messiah  was  to  be  merely  a  human 
 personage,  and  would  not  claim  to  be  God  and  to 
 lie  entitled  to  Divine  power.  Therefore,  though 
 they  admitted  his  miracles  to  be  really  wrought, 
 yet  they  did  not  acknowledge  the  claim  grounded 
 on  those  miracles  to  be  true,  but  rather  regarded 
 those  miracles  as  trials  of  their  loyalty  to  the 
 One  True  God,  whose  prerogatives,  they  thought, 
 were  infringed  and  itivaded  by  Him  who  wrought 
 those  miracles;  and  they  even  ascribed  those  mira- 
 cles to  the  agency  of  the  Prince  of  the  Devils 
 (Matt.  xii.  24,  27;  Mark  iii.  22;  Luke  xi.  15), 
 and  said  that  He,  who  wrought  those  miracles, 
 had  a  devil  (John  vii.  20,  viii.  48),  and  they 
 called  Him  Beelzebub  (Matt.  x.  25),  because  they 
 thought  that  He  was  setting  Himself  in  opposition 
 to  God. 
 
 4.  "  They  all  condemned  Him  to  be  guilty  of 
 death"  (Mark  xiv.  64).  The  Sanhedrim  was 
 unanimous  in  the  sentence  of  condemnation.  This 
 is  remarkable.  We  cannot  suppose  that  there  were 
 not  some  conscientious  persons  in  so  numerous  a 
 body.  Indeed,  it  may  readily  be  allowed  that  many 
 of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  actuated  by 
 an  earnest  zeal  for  the  honor  of  God  when  they 
 condemned  Jesus  to  death,  and  that  they  did  what 
 they  did  with  a  view  to  God's  glory,  which  they 
 supposed  to  1)6  disparaged  by  our  Lord's  preten- 
 sions; and  that  they  were  guided  by  a  desire  to 
 conqjly  with  God's  law,  which  required  them  to  put 
 to  death  every  one  who  was  guilty  of  blasphemy  in 
 arrogating  to  himself  tlie  power  which  belonged  to 
 God. 
 
 Hence  we  may  explain  our  Lord's  words  on  the 
 cross,  "  lather,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  vot 
 what  they  do  "  (Luke  xxiii.  34),  "  Father,  they  are 
 nf)t  aware  that  He  whom  thev  are  crucifying  is 
 thy  Son;  "  and  St.  Peter  said  at  Jerusalem  to  the 
 Jews  after  the  crucifixion,  "  Now,  brethren,  I  wot 
 that  tlirouyh  Ujnovdnct  ye  did  it  (!.  c.  rejected  and 
 crucified  Christ),  as  did  also  your  rulers  "  (.Vets  iii. 
 17);  and  St.  Paul  declared  in  tiie  Jewish  syna- 
 gogue at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  "  they  that  dwell  at 
 Jerusalem,  and  their  rulers,  because  they  knew  Him 
 not,  nor  yet  the  voices  of  the  projihets,  which  are 
 read  every  Sabbath-day,  have  fulfilled  them  in  con- 
 demning Him  "  (Acts  xiii.  27). 
 
 or  "  master."  St.  Peter's  meaning  here  may  be  illus- 
 trattil  by  his  language  elsewhei'e  ;  see  Acts  v.  31 ; 
 1  Pet.  i.  21,  iii.  22  ;  and  comp.  Eph.  i.  20-22,  Phil.  ii. 
 9-11.  On  the  N.  T.  use  of  Kvpios  see  Winer,  De  sensu 
 vociim  Kupto!  et  6  Kvpio5  in  Ac/is  et.  Epj>.  Apost.,  Er- 
 lang.  1828;  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  BUjL  Ri-pos.  for  Octo- 
 ber, 1831,  pp.  733-776 ;  and  Cremer's  Eibl.-lheol. 
 Wurterb.  d.  luutest.  Grdcilat  (1866),  p.  340  f,  A. 
 
SON   OF  GOD 
 
 Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  predictions  of  Holy 
 Scripture  may  be  acconiplislied  before  the  eyes  of 
 men,  while  they  are  unconscious  of  that  fulfillment; 
 and  that  the  prophecies  may  be  even  accomplisiied 
 by  persons  who  have  the  prophecies  in  tiieir  hands, 
 and  do  not  know  that  they  are  fulfilling  them. 
 Hence  also  it  is  clear  that  men  may  be  guilty  of 
 enormous  sins  when  they  are  acting  according  to 
 their  consciences  and  with  a  view  to  God's  glory, 
 and  while  they  hold  the  Bible  in  their  hands  and 
 hear  its  voice  sounding  in  their  ears  (Acts  xiii.  27); 
 and  that  it  is  therefore  of  unspeakable  importance 
 not  only  to  hear  the  words  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
 to  mark,  learn,  and  inwardly  digest  them,  with 
 humility,  docility,  earnestness,  and  prayer,  in  order 
 to  understand  their  true  meanin/j. 
 
 Therefore  the  Christian  student  has' great  reason 
 to  thank  God  that  He  has  given  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament a  divinely-inspired  interpretation  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  and  also  has  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
 teach  the  Apostles  all  things  (John  xiv.  20),  to 
 abide  forever  with  his  Church  (John  xiv.  10), 
 the  body  of  Christ  (Col.  i.  24),  which  He  has 
 made  to  be  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  (1  Tim. 
 iii.  15),  and  on  whose  interpretations,  embodied  in 
 the  creeds  generally  received  among  Christians,  we 
 may  safely  rely,  as  declaring  the  true  sense  of  the 
 Bible. 
 
 If  the  .Tews  and  their  rulers  had  not  been  swayed 
 by  prejudice,  but  in  a  careful,  candid,  and  humlile 
 spirit  liad  considered  the  evidence  beibre  them,  tiiey 
 would  have  known  that  their  promised  JMessiah  was 
 to  be  the  Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God,  and  that 
 He  was  revealed  as  such  in  their  own  Scriptures, 
 and  thus  his  miracles  would  have  had  their  due 
 effect  upon  their  minds. 
 
 5.  Tliose  persons  who  now  deny  Christ  to  be  the 
 Son  of  God,  coequal  and  coeternal  with  the  Father, 
 are  followers  of  the  Jews,  who,  on  the  i)lea  of  zeal 
 for  the  divine  Unity,  rejected  and  crucified  Jesus, 
 who  claimed  to  be  God.  Accordingly  we  find  that 
 the  Ebionites,  Cerinthians,  Nazarenes,  I'hotinians, 
 and  others  who  denied  Christ's  divinity,  arose  from 
 the  ranks  of  Judaism  (cf.  Waterland,  W'or/cs,  v. 
 240,  ed.  Oxf.  1823:  on  these  heresies  the  writer 
 of  this  article  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  refer  to 
 his  Introduction  to  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John, 
 in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament).  It  has 
 been  well  remarked  by  the  late  Professor  Blunt  that 
 the  arguments  by  which  the  ancient  Christian 
 Apolcjgists,  such  as  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and 
 others,  confuted  the  Jews,  aflPord  the  strongest 
 armor  against  the  modern  Socinians  (see  al.so  the 
 remark  of  St.  Athanasius,  Orut.  ii.  adv.  Arianos, 
 pp.  377-383,  where  he  compares  the  Arians  to  the 
 Jews). 
 
 The  Jews  sinned  against  the  comparatively  dim 
 light  of  the  Old  Testament:  they  who  have  fallen 
 into  their  error  reject  the  evidence  of  both  Testa- 
 ments. 
 
 (i.  Lastly,  the  conclusion  stated  in  this  article 
 suiiplies  a  strong  argument  for  the  Divine  origin 
 and  truth  of  Christianity.  The  doctrine  of  Christ, 
 the  Son  of  God  as  well  as  Son  of  Man,  reaches  from 
 the  liiyhest  pole  of  Divine  glory  to  the  lowest  pole 
 of  hufiifin  suffering.  No  human  m««rf  could  ever 
 have  devised  such  a  scheme  as  that :  and  when  it 
 was  presented  to  the  mind  of  the  Jews,  the  favored 
 people  of  God,  they  could  not  reach  to  either  of 
 these  two  poles ;  they  could  not  mount  to  the 
 height  of  the  Divine  exaltation  in  Christ  the  Son 
 of  tsiod,  nor  descend  to  the  depth  of  human  suf- 
 
 SON   OF   MAN 
 
 5091 
 
 fering  in  Christ  the  Son  of  Man.  They  invented 
 the  theory  of  two  Messiahs,  in  order  to  escape  from 
 the  imaginary  contradiction  between  a  .suffering 
 and  triumphant  Christ;  and  they  rejected  the  doc- 
 trine of  Christ's  Godhead  in  order  to  cling  to  a 
 defective  and  unscriptural  Monotheism..  They 
 failed  of  grasping  the  true  sense  of  their  own 
 Scriptures  in  l>oth  res[)ects.  But  in  the  Gospel, 
 Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  ]Man,  reaches 
 from  one  pole  to  the  other,  and  flleth  <dl  in  all 
 (Eph.  i.  23).  The  Gospel  of  Christ  ran  counter 
 to  the  Jewish  zeal  for  Monotheism,  and  incurred 
 the  charge  of  Polytheism,  by  ])reaching  Christ  the 
 Son  of  God,  coequal  with  the  Father;  and  als*' 
 contravened  and  challenged  all  the  complex  anr 
 dominant  systems  of  (ientile  Polytheism,  by  pro- 
 claiming the  Divine  Unity.  It  boldly  confronted 
 the  World,  and  it  has  conquered  the  A\'orld ;  be- 
 cause "  the  excellency  of  the  power  of  the  Gospel 
 is  not  of  man,  but  of  God  "  (2  Cor.  iv.  7). 
 
 The  author  of  the  above  article  may  refer  for 
 further  confirmation  of  his  statements,  to  an  ex- 
 cellent work  by  the  l!ev.  W.  Wilson,  B.  D.,  and 
 Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  entitled 
 An  I/liislration  cf  the  Method,  of  eup/.ainint/  the 
 New  Testament  by  the  early  Opinions  of  .Jews  and 
 Christians  concerning  Christ,  Cambridge,  1797 
 [new  ed.  1838] ;  and  to  Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner's  His- 
 tory of  the  JJerehipment  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 
 Person  of  Christ,  of  which  an  English 'translation 
 has  been  printed  at  Edinbin-gh,  1801,  2  vols.;  and 
 to  Hagenbach,  Do(/inenijeschichte,  §§  42,  05,  00, 
 4te  Autlage,  Leipz.  1857.'  C.  W. 
 
 *  (_)n  the  use  and  meaning  of  the  name  "  Son 
 of  God,"  see  C.  D.  llgen,  De  notione  titiili  Filii 
 Dei,  Afessice  in  Lihris  sac.  tributi,  in  Paulus's 
 Menwrab.  1795,  St.  vii.  pp.  119-198;  ^wo  arts,  in 
 the  General  Jii-j>os.  and  Jicricto  (Camtjridge)  for 
 Oct.  1812  and  April  1813  (by  lulward  Em-ett); 
 Horn,  Ueb.  d.  versSied.  Sinn,  in  welch.  Christus 
 ini  N.  T.  Gottes  Sohn  yennnnt  wird,  in  Kiihr's 
 Mag.  f.  christl.  Prediyer,  1830,  Bd.  iii.  Heft  2; 
 Prof.  Stuart's  A'xcitrstis  on  Pom.  i.  4,  in  his 
 Conim.  on  the  Ej).  to  the  liomans  (2d  ed.  1835); 
 Dr.  Lewis  Mayer,  in  the  Amer.  Bibl.  Repos.  for 
 Jan.  1840;  W.  Gass,  De  utroque  ./e.sH  Christi 
 Nomine  in  N.  T.  obvio,  Dei  Filii  et  Ilominis, 
 Vratisl.  1840;  Neander,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  94  ff. 
 (Amer.  trans.);  Schumann,'  Christus  (18.52),  i.  254 
 ft",  324  ff,  and  elsewhere;  Ewald,  Gesrhichle  Chris- 
 ties', 3«  Ausg.,  p.  150  ft;  (2e  A.  p.  94  ft'.) ;  W.  S-  Tv 
 ler,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1865;  and  Cremer, 
 Bibl.-theol.  Worterb.  d.  nentest.  Grdcitat  (1800), 
 art.  vUs-  Tiie  subject  is  of  course  discussed  in 
 the  various  works  on  Biblical  and  dogmatic  the- 
 ology. A. 
 
 SON  OF  MAN  (Q"TS-J?,  and  in  Chaldee 
 
 ^4^:  -  ■  °  ^'■^^  '''ov  avOpcoirov,  or  u'lhs  avdpw- 
 Tvov),  the  name  of  the  Second  Person  of  the  ever- 
 blessed  Trinity,  the  Eternal  Word,  the  luerlasting 
 Son,  becoming  Incarnate,  and  so  made  tlie  Son  of 
 Man,  the  second  Adam,  the  source  of  all  grace  to 
 all  men,  united  in  his  mystical  body,  the  Christian 
 Church. 
 
 1.  In  a  general  sense  every  descendant  of  Adam 
 bears  the  name  "  Son  of  Man  "  in  Holy  Scripture, 
 as  in  Job  xxv.  0;  Ps.  cxliv.  3,  cxlvi.  3;  Is.  li.  12, 
 Ivi.  2.  But  in  a  more  restricted  signification  it  i-s 
 applied  by  way  of  distinction  to  particular  persons. 
 Thus  the  prophet  Ezekiel  is  addressed  by  Almighty 
 God  as  Ben-Aduni,  or  "  Son  »f  Man,"  about  eighty 
 
3092 
 
 SON   OF   MAN 
 
 times  in  his  prophecies.  This  title  appears  to  be 
 assigned  to  ICzekiel  as  a  nienieiito  from  God  — 
 {fj.f/xvr}(ro  avdpioxos  ihv)  —  in  order  that  the  proph- 
 et, who  had  been  permitted  to  beliold  tlie  glo- 
 rious maiiifestiitioii  of  the  (iodhead,  and  to  hold 
 converse  with  the  Almighty,  and  to  see  visions  of 
 futurity,  should  not  be  '•  exalted  at)Ove  measure  by 
 the  abundance  of  his  revelations,"  but  should  re- 
 member his  own  weakness  and  mortality,  and  not 
 impute  his  prophetic  knowledije  to  himself,  but  as- 
 crilje  all  the  glory  of  it  to  God,  and  be  ready  to 
 execute  with  meekness  and  alacrity  the  duties  of 
 his  [jroplietic  office  and  mission  from  God  to  his 
 fellow-men. 
 
 2.  In  a  still  more  emphatic  and  distinctive  sense 
 the  title  "  Son  of  Man "  is  applied  in  the  Old 
 Testament  to  the  Jlessiah.  And,  inasmuch  as  the 
 Messiah  is  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
 Divine  I'erson  and  the  Son  of  God  (Ps.  ii.  7,  Ixxxix. 
 27;  Is.  vii.  14,  ix.  6),  it  is  a  prophetic  pre-an- 
 nouncenient  of  his  incarnntion  (compare  Fs.  viii. 
 4  with  Heb.  ii.  6,  7,  8,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  27). 
 
 In  the  Old  Testament  the  JMessiah  is  designated 
 by  this  title,  "  Son  of  Man,"  in  his  royal  and 
 judicial  chaiacter,  ]iarticularly  in  the  prophecy  of 
 Dan.  vii.  Vi:  "Behold  One  like  the  Son  of  Man 
 came  with  the  clouds  of  hea\en,  and  came  to  the 
 Ancient  of  Days  ....  and  tliere  was  given  Him 
 dominion  and  glory  ....  His  dominion  is  an 
 everlasting  dominion."  Here  the  title  is  not  Btn- 
 ish,  or  Btii-Adam,  but  Bnr-enosh,  which  represents 
 humanity  in  its  greatest  frailty  and  humility,  and 
 is  a  significant  declaration  that  the  exaltation  of 
 Christ  in  his  kingly  and  judicial  office  is  due  to  his 
 previous  condescension,  obedience,  self-humiliation, 
 and  suffering  in  his  human  nature  (comp.  Phil.  ii. 
 5-11). 
 
 The  title  "  Son  of  Jlan,"  derived  from  that  pas- 
 sage of  Daniel,  is  applied  by  St.  Stephen  to  Christ 
 in  his  heavenly  exaltation  and  royal  majesty: 
 "  Beliold  I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of 
 Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God  "  (Acts 
 vii.  5(5).  'I'his  title  is  also  applied  to  Christ  liy  St. 
 John  in  the  Apocalypse,  describing  our  Lord's 
 priestly  office,  which  He  executes  in  heaven  (Itev. 
 i.  13):  "In  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candle- 
 sticks "  (or  golden  lamps,  which  are  the  emljlenis 
 of  the  churdies,  i.  20/,  "one  like  the  Son  of  Man 
 clothed  with  a  garment  down  to  the  foot  "  (his 
 priestly  attire);  "his  head  and  his  haire  were 
 white  like  wool,  as  white  as  snow  "  (attributes  of 
 divinity;  comp.  Dan.  vii.  9).  St.  John  also  in 
 the  Apocalypse  (xiv.  14)  ascribes  the  title  "  Son  of 
 Man  "  to  Christ  when  he  displays  his  kingly  and 
 judicial  office:  "  I  looked  and  beheld  a  white  cloud, 
 and  upon  the  cloud  One  sat  like  unto  the  Son  of 
 Man,  having  on  his  head  a  golden  crown,  and  in 
 his  hand  a  sharp  sickle  "  —  to  reap  the  harvest  of 
 the  earth. 
 
 3.  It  is  ob.servable  that  Ezekiel  never  culls  him- 
 self "  Son  of  Man;"  and  in  the  (iospels  Christ 
 is  never  called  "  Son  of  Man  "  by  the  Evangelists; 
 but  wherever  that  title  is  applied  to  Him  tliere,  it 
 is  (ippliid  by  Himself. 
 
 The  only  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where 
 Christ  is  called  "  Son  of  Man  "  by  any  one  except 
 Hiinsdf  are  those  just  cited,  and  they  relate  to 
 Him,  not  in  his  humiliation  upon  earth,  but  in 
 his  heavenly  exaltation  consequent  upon  that  hu- 
 miliation. The  passage  in  John  xii.  34,  "  Who  is 
 this  Son  of  Mail?"  is  an  inquiry  of  the  people 
 eonceriiing  Hiui  who  applied  this  title  to  Himself. 
 
 SON   OF   MAN 
 
 The  reason  of  what  has  been  above  rem.arked 
 seems  to  be,  that,  as  on  the  one  hand  it  was  expe- 
 dient for  Ezekiel  to  be  reniinded  of  his  own  hu- 
 manity, in  order  that  he  should  not  be  elated  bj 
 his  revelations;  and  in  order  that  the  readers  of 
 his  prophecies  might  bear  in  mind  that  the^evela- 
 tions  in  them  are  not  due  to  Ezekiel,  but  "  God 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  who  spake  by  him  (see  2  Pet.  i. 
 21);  80,011  the  other  hand,  it  was  necessary  that 
 they  who  saw  ( Jhrist's  miracles,  the  evidences  of 
 his  divinity,  and  they  who  read  the  evangelic  his- 
 tories of  them,  niiglit  indeed  adore  Him  ;is  God, 
 but  might  never  forget  that  He  is  .Man. 
 
 4.  The  two  titles  "  Son  of  God  "  and  "  Son  of 
 Mail,"  declaring  that  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ 
 there  are  two  natures,  the  nature  of  God  and  the 
 nature  of  man,  joined  together,  but  not  confusefl, 
 are  presented  to  us  in  two  memorable  passages  of 
 the  Gospel,  which  declare  the  will  of  Christ  that 
 all  men  should  confess  Him  to  be  God  and  man, 
 and  which  proclaim  the  blessedness  of  this  con- 
 fession. 
 
 (1.)  "Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son"  of 
 JIaii,  am  ?  "  was  our  Lord's  question  to  his  Apos- 
 tles; and  "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am  V  Simon  Peter 
 answered  and  said.  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
 of  the  living  God."  Our  Lord  acknowledged  this 
 confession  to  be  true,  and  to  have  been  revealed 
 from  heaven,  and  He  blessed  him  who  uttered  it: 
 "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Biir-J<iU(i  .  .  .  .  "  — 
 "  Thou  art  son  of  Jonas,  Bur-jonn  (comp.  John 
 xxi.  15);  and  as  truly  as  tliuu  art  Bar-jtiin,  so 
 truly  am  I  Bnr-tnosh,  Son  of  Man,  and  Beii- 
 Elohim,  Son  of  God;  and  My  Fullier,  who  is 
 in  heaven,  hath  revealed  this  truth  unto  thee. 
 Blessed  is  every  one  who  holds  this  fiiitli ;  for  I 
 myself.  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man,  am  the  liv- 
 ing liock  on  which  the  Church  is  built;  and  he 
 who  holds  this  faith  is  a  genuine  Pttros,  a  livel3' 
 stone,  hewn  out  of  me  the  Divine  Petrii,  the  Ever- 
 lasting Buck;  and  built  upon  me  "  (see  the  author- 
 ities cited  in  the  note  on  Matt.  xvi.  18,  in  the 
 present  writer's  edition). 
 
 (2.)  The  other  passage  where  the  two  titles 
 (Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man)  are  found  in  the 
 Gospels  is  no  less  significant.  Our  Lord,  standing 
 before  Caiaphas  and  the  chief  priests,  was  interro- 
 gated by  the  high-priest,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ, 
 the  Son  of  God?"  (Matt.  xxvi.  63;  comp.  Mark 
 xiv.  Gl).  "Art  thou  what  thou  elaimest  to  be, 
 the  Messiah  V  unci  art  thou,  as  thou  profe.ssest  to 
 be,  a  Divine  Person,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Sou  of 
 the  Blessed?"  "Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Thou 
 sayest  it;  I  am  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Mark  xiv.  62). 
 
 But,  in  order  that  the  high-priest  and  the  coun- 
 cil might  not  suppose  Him  to  be  a  Dicine  I'erson 
 only,  and  not  to  be  also  really  and  truly  Man,  our 
 Lord  added  of  his  own  accord,  "  Nevertheless " 
 (irXriv,  besides,  or,  as  St.  Mark  has  it,  ku'i,  aho^ 
 in  addition  to  the  avowal  of  my  divinity)  "  I  say 
 unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man 
 sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in 
 the  clouds  of  heaven  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Mark  xiv. 
 62).  That  is,  "  I  am  indeed  the  Son  of  God,  but 
 do  not  forsret  that  I  am  also  the  Son  of  Man. 
 Believe  and  confess  the  true  fiiith,  that  I,  who 
 claim  to  be  the  Christ,  am  Very  God  and  Very 
 Man." 
 
 5.  The  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  age,  were  not  dis- 
 posed to  receive  either  of  the  truths  expressed  in 
 those  words.  They  were  so  tenacious  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Divine  Unity  (as  they  understood  it). 
 
SON  OF  MAN 
 
 that  they  were  not  willing  to  accept  the  assertion 
 that  L'ltrist  is  the  "  Son  of  God,"  Very  God  of 
 Very  God  (see  above,  article  Son  of  God),  and 
 they  were  not  disposed  to  admit  that  God  could 
 become  Incarnate,  and  that  the  Sou  of  God  could 
 he  also  the  Son  of  JIau  (see  the  remarks  on  this 
 subject  by  Dorner,  On  the.  Person  of  Christ.  In- 
 troduction, throui,'hout). 
 
 Hence  we  find  that  no  sooner  had  our  Lord  as- 
 serted these  truths,  than  "  the  high-priest  rent  his 
 clothes,  saying.  He  hath  spoken  blasphemy.  What 
 think  ye?  and  tbeyall  condemned  Him  to  be  guilty 
 of  death  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  65,  66;  Mark  xiv.  6:3,  6-t). 
 And  when  St.  Stephen  had  said,  "  Behold,  I  see 
 the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing 
 on  the  right  hand  of  God,"  tlitn  they  "  cried  out 
 with  a  loud  voice,  and  stopped  their  ears,  and  ran 
 upon  him  with  oi>e  accord,  and  cast  him  out  of 
 the  city,  and  stoned  him"  (Acts  vii.  57,  58). 
 They  could  no  longer  restrain  their  rage  against 
 him  as  guilty  of  blasphemy,  because  he  asserted 
 that  Jesus,  who  had  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of 
 God,  and  who  had  been  put  to  death  Ijecause  He 
 made  this  assertion,  is  also  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
 was  then  glorified ;  and  that  therefore  they  were 
 mistaken  in  looking  for  nnutlter  Christ,  and  that 
 they  had  been  guilty  of  putting  to  death  the  Jles- 
 siah. 
 
 6.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  clear  view  of  the  diffi- 
 culties which  the  Gospel  had  to  overcome,  in  pro- 
 claiming Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  to  be  the  Son 
 of  God,  and  to  be  the  Son  of  Jlan ;  and  in  the 
 building  up  of  the  Christian  Church  on  this  foun- 
 dation. It  had  to  encounter  the  prejudices  of  the 
 whole  world,  both  Jewish  and  Heathen,  in  this 
 work.  It  did  encounter  them,  and  has  triumphed 
 over  them.     Here  is  a  proof  of  its  Divine  origin. 
 
 7.  If  we  proceed  to  analyze  the  various  passages 
 in  the  Gospel  where  Christ  speaks  of  Himself  as 
 the  Son  of  iMan,  we  shall  find  that  they  not  only 
 teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son 
 of  God  (and  thus  afford  a  prophetic  protest  against 
 the  heresies  which  afterwards  impugned  that  doc- 
 trine, such  as  the  heresy  of  the  Docetse,  Valentinus, 
 and  ]\Iarcion,  who  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
 come  in  thejiesh,  see  on  1  John  iv.  2,  and  2  John 
 7),  but  they  also  declare  the  consequences  of  the 
 Incarnation,  both  in  regard  to  Christ,  and  in  re- 
 gard also  to  all  mankind. 
 
 The  consequences  of  Christ's  Incarnation  are 
 described  in  the  Gospels,  as  a  capacity  of  being  a 
 perfect  pattern  and  example  of  godly  life  to  men 
 (Phil.  ii.  5;  1  Pet.  ii.  21);  and  of  suffering,  of 
 dying,  of  "  giving  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  all,"  of 
 being  "  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
 world"  (1  John  ii.  2,  iv.  10),  of  being  the  source 
 of  life  and  grace,  of  Divine  Sonship  (John  i.  12), 
 of  Resurrection  and  Immortality  to  all  the  family 
 of  Mankind,  as  many  as  receive  Him  (John  iii.  16, 
 36,  xi.  25),  and  are  engrafted  into  his  body,  and 
 cleave  to  Him  by  faith  and  love,  and  participate  in 
 the  Christian  sacraments,  which  derive  their  virtue 
 and  efficacy  from  his  Incarnation  and  Death,  and 
 which  are  the  appointed  instruments  for  conveying 
 and  imparting  the  benefits  of  his  Incarnation  and 
 Death  to  us  (comp.  John  iii.  5,  vi.  53),  who  are 
 "  made  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature  "  (2  Pet.  i. 
 ■  4),  by  virtue  of  our  union  with  Ilira  who  is  God 
 and  Man. 
 
 The  infiinte  value  and  universal  applicability  of 
 the  benefits  derivable  from  the  Incarnation  and 
 •  lacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  are  described  by  our 
 
 SON  OF  MAN 
 
 3093 
 
 Lord,  declaring  the  perfection  of  the  union  of  the 
 two  natures,  the  human  nature  and  the  Divine,  in 
 his  own  person.  ''  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
 heaven  but  He  that  came  down  from  heaven,  evci 
 the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven ;  and  as  Moses 
 lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so 
 must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up:  that  whosoever 
 believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
 life;  for  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  his 
 only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him 
 should  not  |)erish,  but  have  everlasting  life;  foi 
 God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn 
 the  world;  but  that  the  world  through  Him  might 
 be  saved"  (John  iii.  13-17);  and  again,  "What 
 and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up  where 
 He  was  before?"  (John  vi.  62,  compared  witl" 
 John  i.  1-3.) 
 
 8.  By  his  perfect  obedience  in  our  nature,  anc 
 by  his  voluntary  submission  to  death  in  that  nature, 
 Christ  acquired  new  dignity  and  glory,  due  to  his 
 obedience  and  sufferings.  This  is  the  dignity  and 
 glory  of  his  mediatorial  kingdom;  thai  kingdom 
 which  He  has  as  God-man,  "  the  only  Mediator 
 between  (lod  and  man  "  —  (as  partaking  perfectly 
 of  the  nature  of  both,  and  as  making  an  Al-one- 
 meni  between  them),  "the  Man  Christ  Jesus" 
 (1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Heb.  ix.  15,  xii.  24). 
 
 It  was  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  humbled  Himself, 
 it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  is  exalted ;  it  was  as 
 Son  of  JMan,  born  of  a  woman,  that  He  was  made 
 under  the  Law  (Gal.  iv.  4),  and  as  Son  of  IMan 
 He  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath-day  (Matt.  xii.  8); 
 as  Son  of  Man  He  suffered  for  sins  (Matt.  xvii.  12; 
 Mark  viii.  31),  and  as  Son  of  IMan  He  has  au- 
 thority on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (Matt.  ix.  6).  It 
 was  as  Son  of  IMan  that  He  had  not  where  to  lay 
 his  head  (Matt.  viii.  20;  Luke  ix.  58),  it  is  as  Sou 
 of  Man  that  He  wears  on  his  head  a  golden  crown 
 (Kev.  xiv.  14);  it  was  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  was 
 betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinful  men,  and  suffered 
 many  things,  and  was  rejected,  and  condemned,  and 
 crucified  (see  Matt.  xvii.  22,  xx.  18,  xxvi.  2,  24; 
 Mark  viii.  31,  ix.  31,  x.  33;  Luke  ix.  22,  44,  xviii. 
 31,  xxiv.  7),  it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  now  sits 
 at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  as  Son  of  Man  He 
 will  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and 
 great  glory,  in  his  own  glory,  and  in  the  glory  of 
 his  Father,  and  all  his  holy  angels  with  Him,  and 
 it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  will  "  sit  on  the  throne 
 of  his  glory,"  and  "before  Him  will  be  gathered 
 all  nations"  (Matt.  xvi.  27,  xxiv.  30,  xxv.  31,  32; 
 Mark  xiv.  02;  Luke  xxi.  27);  and  He  will  send 
 forth  his  angels  to  gather  his  elect  from  the  foui 
 winds  (Matt.  xxiv.  31),  and  to  root  up  the  tares 
 from  out  of  his  field,  which  is  the  world  (Alatt. 
 xiii.  38,  41);  and  to  bind  them  in  bundles  to  liurn 
 them,  and  to  gather  his  wheat  into  his  barn  (Matt. 
 xiii.  30).  It  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  will  call  all 
 from  their  graves,  and  summon  them  to  his  judg- 
 ment-seat, and  pronounce  their  sentence  for  ever- 
 lasting bliss  or  woe;  "for,  the  Fat Ii er  jncVreth  no 
 man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
 Son ;  .  .  .  .  and  hath  given  Him  authority  to 
 execute  judgment  also,  because  He  is  the  Son  of 
 Man"  (John  v.  22,  27).  Only  "the  pure  in  heart 
 will  see  God"  (Matt.  v.  8;  Heb.  xii  14);  but  the 
 evihas  well  as  the  good  will  see  their  Judge:  "  every 
 eye  shall  see  Him  "  (Rev.  i.  7).  This  is  fit  and 
 equitable;  and  it  is  also  fit  and  equitable  that  He 
 wlio  as  Son  of  Man  was  judged  by  tiie  world, 
 should  also  judge  the  world;  and  that  He  who  was 
 rejected  openly,  and  suffered   death  for  all,  should 
 
8094  SON  OF  MAN 
 
 be  openly  glorified   by  all,  and  be  exalted   in   the 
 eyes  of  all,  as  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords. 
 
 9.  Christ  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  the 
 second  Adam  (1  Cor.  xv.  4.5,  47 ;  conip.'  Eom.  v. 
 14),  inasmuch  as  He  is  the  Futher  of  the  new  race 
 of  mankind;  and  as  we  are  all  by  nature  in  Adam, 
 60  are  we  by  grace  in  Christ;  and  "as  in  Adam 
 all  die,  even  so  in  Chri.st  all  are  made  alive"  (1  Cor. 
 XV.  22);  and  "if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a 
 new  creature"  (2  Cor.  v.  17;  Eph.  iv.  24);  and 
 He,  who  is  the  Son,  is  also  in  this  respect  (i  Futlter  ; 
 and  therefore  Isaiah  joins  both  titles  in  one,  "  To 
 ns  a  Sou  is  given  .  .  .  and  his  name  shall  be  called 
 the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Fotlitr"  (Is.  ix. 
 6).  Christ  is  the  second  Adam,  as  the  Father  of 
 the  new  r.ace;  but  in  another  respect  He  is  unlike 
 Adam,  because  Adam  was  formed  in  mature  man- 
 hood _/r(j/«  the  earth  ;  but  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
 is  Bcn-Adiim,  the  Son  of  Adam;  and  therefore  St. 
 Luke,  writing  specially  for  the  Gentiles,  and  desir- 
 ous to  show  the  universality  of  the  redemption 
 wrought  by  Christ,  traces  hi.s  genealogy  to  Adam 
 (Luke  iii.  2.3-38).  He  is  Son  of  Man,  inasnuich 
 as  he  was  the  Promised  Seed,  and  was  conceived 
 in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  took  our 
 nature,  the  nature  of  us  all,  and  became  "  Em- 
 manuel, God  with  us  "  (Matt.  i.  23),  "  God  man- 
 ifest in  the  flesh"  (1  Tim.  iii.  16).  Thus  the  new 
 Creation  sprung  out  of  the  old;  and  He  made 
 "all  things  new  "  (Rev.  xxi.  5).  The  Son  of  God 
 in  Eternity  became  the  Son  of  Man  in  Time.  He 
 turned  back,  as  it  were,  the  streams  of  pollution 
 and  of  death,  flowing  in  the  innumerable  channels 
 of  the  human  family,  and  introduced  into  them 
 a  new  element,  the  element  of  life  and  health,  of 
 Divine  incorruption  and  immortality;  which  would 
 not  have  been  the  case,  if  He  had  been  merely  like 
 Adam,  having  an  independent  origin,  springing  by 
 a  separate  efflux  out  of  the  earth,  and  had  not  been 
 Ben-Adam  as  well  as  Ben-Flohiin,  the  Son  of 
 Adam,  as  well  as  the  Son  of  God.  And  this  is 
 what  St.  Paul  observes  in  his  comparison  —  and 
 contrast  —  between  Adam  and  Christ  (Rom.  v.  IS- 
 IS), '■'■Not,  as  was  the  transgression  (in  Adam)  so 
 likewise  was  the  free  gift  (in  Christ).  For  if  (as  is 
 the  fact)  the  many  (i.  e.  all)  died  by  the  transgres- 
 sion of  the  one  (Adam),  much  more  the  grace  of 
 God,  and  the  gift  by  the  grace  that  is  of  the  one 
 Man  Jesus  Christ,  overflowed  to  the  many;  and 
 not,  as  by  one  who  sinned,  so  is  the  gift;  for  the 
 judgment  came  from  one  man  to  condemnation, 
 but  the  free  gift  came  forth  from  many  transgres- 
 sions to  their  .state  of  justification.  For  if  by  the 
 transgression  of  the  one  (Adam),  Death  reigned  by 
 means  of  the  one,  much  more  they  who  receive  the 
 abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness 
 will  reign  in  life  through  the  one,  Jesus  Christ  .  .  . 
 Thus,  where  Sin  abounded,  Grace  did  much  more 
 abound  (Rom.  v.  20);  for,  as,  by  the  disobedience 
 of  the  one  man  (Adam),  the  many  were  made  sin- 
 ners, so  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  (Christ),  the 
 many  were  made  righteous.  ..." 
 
 10.  The  benefits  accruing  to  mankind  from  the 
 Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  are  obvious  from 
 these  considerations :  — 
 
 We  are  not  so  to  conceive  of  Christ  as  of  a  De- 
 liverer external  to  humanity,  but  as  incorporating 
 humanity  in  Himself,  and  uniting  it  to  God;  as 
 rescuing  our  nature  from  Sin,  Satan,  and  Death; 
 and  as  carrying  us  through  the  gra\e  and  gate  of 
 death  to  a  glorious  immortality;  and  bearing  man- 
 kind, his  lost  sheep,  on  his  shoulders;  as  bearing 
 
 SON  OF  MAN 
 
 us  and  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree  (1  Pet, 
 ii.  24);  as  bringing  us  through  suftering  to  glory, 
 as  raishig  our  nature  to  a  dignity  higher  than  thai 
 of  angels;  as  exalting  us  by  his  Ascension  into 
 heaven ;  and  as  making  us  to  "  sit  together  with 
 Himself  in  heavenly  places"  (Eph.  ii.  G),  even  at 
 the  right  hand  of  God.  "  To  him  that  overcometh," 
 He  says,  "will  I  grant  to  sit  with  lue  on  my 
 throne,  even  as  I  also  o\ercame  and  am  set  down 
 with  my  Feather  on  his  throne"  (Rev.  iii.  21). 
 These  are  tlie  hopes  and  privileges  which  we  deri\e 
 from  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  who  is  the  Life 
 (.lohn  i.  4,  xi.  25,  xiv.  G;  1  John  i.  2):  from  our 
 filial  adoption  by  God  in  Him  (John  i.  12;  1  John 
 iii.  1,  2);  and  from  our  consequent  capacity  of  re- 
 ceiving the  Spirit  of  adoption  in  our  hearts  (Gal. 
 iv.  G);  and  from  our  membership  and  indwelling 
 in  Him,  who  is  the  Son  of  God  from  all  eternity, 
 and  who  !)ecame,  for  our  sakes  and  for  our  salva- 
 tion, the  Son  of  Man,  and  submitted  to  the  weak- 
 ness of  our  humanity,  in  order  that  we  might  par- 
 take in  the  glory  of  his  immortality. 
 
 11.  These  conclusions  from  Holy  Scripture  have 
 been  stated  clearly  by  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
 among  whom  it  may  suffice  to  mention  St.  Irenajus 
 i^Adc.  Hiereses,  iii.  20,  p.  247,  (irabe):  rjvwaev 
 (XpiffThs)  ixvdpccTrov  rt^  &(w-  fi  yap  jjlt)  avQpwKos 
 ivlK-r}(Tei>  rhv  avriTraKov  too  avOpai-rrov,  ovk  tiu 
 SiKaiws  iviKi]67)  6  e^dp6^'  TrctAic  re  el  /x?;  o  Qehs 
 iSuipyjaaTO  rriv  awrripiav,  ovk  hv  /SsySai'&jy  eVxo" 
 fxev  avT'f]v  Kol  el  fjii]  avvr)vci>d7)  b  &v  Q  p  oi- 
 ir  0  s  T  ^  @  e  cS,  OVK  av  r\dvvi]67)  fifTaarx^^v  r  r)  s 
 OLKpOapaias'  eSei  yap  rhv  /aeairrjv  &iov  re 
 Ka\  avQpuTTov,  5ia  Tr\s  iSias  ■Kphs  kKarepovs  oi- 
 KewTTiTos  els  ((>i\Lav  Kal  d/xdvoiav  eKarepovs 
 (Xvvayayelv.  And  iii.  21,  p.  2.JU:  "Hie  iu'itur 
 Filius  Dei,  existens  Verbum  Patris  .  .  .  quoniam 
 ex  Maria  factus  est  Filius  hominis  .  .  .  primitias 
 resurrectionis  hominis  in  Seipso  faciens,  ut  quemad- 
 modum  Caput  resurrexit  a  mortuis,  sic  et  reliquum 
 corpus  omnis  hominis,  qui  invenitur  in  vita  .  .  . 
 resurgat  per  compagines  et  conjunctiones  coalescens, 
 et  confirmatum  augmento  Dei"  (Eph.  iv.  16). 
 And  St.  Cyprian  {De  Idolorum  Vanitate,  p.  538, 
 ed.  Venet.  1758):  "  Hujus  gratiaj  disciplina^que 
 arbiter  et  magister  Sermo  {\6yos)  et  Filius  Dei 
 mittitur,  qui  per  prophetas  onnies  retro  Illuminator 
 et  Doctor  humani  generis  praedicabatur.  Hie  est 
 virtus  Dei  .  .  .  carnem  Spiritu  Sancto  coiiperante 
 induitur  .  .  .  Hie  Deus  noster.  Hie  Christus  est, 
 qui  Mediator  duorum  hominem  induit,  quem  per- 
 ducat  ad  Patrem.  Quod  homo  est,  esse  Christus 
 voluit,  ut  et  homo  possit  esse,  quod  Christus  est." 
 And  St.  Augustine  {Serm.  121):  "  F'ihus  Dei  factus 
 est  Filius  hominis,  ut  vos,  qui  eratis  filii  hominis, 
 efficeremini  filii  Dei."  C.  W. 
 
 *  On  the  title  "  Son  of  Man "  as  applied  to 
 Christ,  see  the  works  of  Gass,  Neander,  and  Cremer, 
 as  referred  to  at  the  end  of  the  art.  Son  of  God  ; 
 also  Scholten,  I)e  Appell.  rov  vlov  rod  audpilnrov, 
 qua  Jesus  se  Messiam  professus  est,  Traj.  ad  Rhen. 
 1809;  C.  F.  Bohme,  Versuch  d.  Geheimniss  d. 
 Menschensohnes  zu  enthiiUen,  Neust.  a.  d.  O.,  1839 ; 
 F\  C.  Baur  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitselir.f.  iciss.  Theol. 
 for  1860,  iii.  274-292,  comp.  his  Neutest.  Theol. 
 (1864),  pp.  75-83;  Hilgenfeld,  in  h.\&  Zeitschrift, 
 etc.  1863,  p.  327  flf. ;  Strauss's  Leben  Jesu  f.  d. 
 deutsche  Volk  (1864),  §  37;  Weizsiicker,  Unters. 
 lib.  d.  evang.  Geschichte  (1864),  p.  426  fF. ;  Ewald, 
 Geschichte  Christus',  3^  Ausg.,  p.  304  fF. ;  and  es- 
 pecially Holtzmann,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f. 
 tciss.  Theol.  1865,  viii.  212-237,  who  reviews  Uie 
 
SONG 
 
 more  recent  literature.  See  further  W.  S.  Tyler, 
 in  Bibl.  Sacra  for  .Ian.  1865,  Peyschlag,  Chris- 
 tidotjie  (h's  N'.  T.  (1860),  pp.  9-3-t,  and  tlie  writers 
 on  Biblical  Theolo<j;y  iu  general,  as  Von  Coellii, 
 Keuss,  Lutz,  Schniid,  and  Weiss;  also  the  com- 
 mentators on  Matt.  viii.  20  and  John  i.  52.  For 
 the  older  literature,  see  Ilase's  Lthen  Jesu,  4e  Aufl. 
 §  64,  note/'.  "  Son  of  Man  "  is  a  frequent  desij;- 
 nation  of  tlie  ]\Iessiah  in  the  apocryphal  Boolv  of 
 Enoch,  but  the  date  of  this  book  is  uncertain. 
 [liNOCHj  Book  ok.]  A. 
 
 *  SONG.     [Hymn;  Poetry,  Hebrew.] 
 
 *  SONGS  OF  DEGREES.  [Degrees, 
 Songs  of.] 
 
 *SONG  OF  THE  THREE  HOLY 
 CHILDREN.  [Daniel,  Apocryphal  Ad- 
 ditions TO.] 
 
 *  SONS  OF  THUNDER.     [Boanerges.] 
 SOOTHSAYER.     [Divination.] 
 
 *  SOP.     [Lord's  Supper,  vol.  ii.  p.  1081  a.] 
 SOP'ATER    {SciSTrarpos:    Sopater).      Sopater 
 
 the  son  of  Pyrrhus  of  Beroea  was  one  of  the  com- 
 panions of  St.  Paul  on  his  return  from  Greece  into 
 Asia,  as  he  came  back  from  his  tliird  missionary 
 journey  (Acts  xx.  4).  Whether  he  is  the  same 
 with  Sosipater,  mentioned  in  Koni.  xvi.  21,  caimot 
 be  positively  deternuned.  The  name  of  his  father, 
 Pyrrhus,  is  omitted  in  the  received  text,  thousrh  it 
 has  the  authority  of  the  oldest  MSS.,  A,  B,  D,  E, 
 and  the  recently  discovered  Codex  Sinaiticus,  as 
 well  as  of  the  Vulgate,  Coptic,  Sahidic,  Philoxenian- 
 Syriac,  Armenian,  and  Slavonic  versions.  Mill  con- 
 demns it,  apparently  without  reason,  as  a  tradi- 
 tional gloss.     [Pyrrhus,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 SOPHE'RETH  (n;nQb  [inriter,  sciifje]: 
 2e(^rjpa,  '2,a(papaT^^  [Vat.  A(Te(pr}pa6,  '2,a<papad\ 
 FA.  in  N.  ^aipapaOi;]  Alex.  Aaecpopad,  'Saipapad- 
 Sojjiieret,  Sophereth).  "The  children  of  Sophe- 
 reth  "  were  a  family  who  returned  from  Babylon 
 with  Zerul)haliel  among  the  descendants  of  Sol- 
 omon's servants  (Fzr.  ii.  55;  Neh.  vii.  57).  Called 
 AzAPHiON  in  1  F'sdr.  v.  33. 
 
 SOPHONI'AS  (Sophonias).  The  Prophet 
 Zeph.vniah  (2  Esdr.  i.  40). 
 
 SORCERER.     [Divination.] 
 
 SO'REK,    THE    VALLEY    OF    (bn3 
 
 p^ltt?  [see  below]:  « 'AAcwpiiJx;  ^lex.  x^i-l^°-P' 
 povs  Soiprjx  •  Vullis  Sorec).  A  wady  (to  use  the 
 modern  .\ral)ic  term  which  precisely  answers  to  the 
 Helirew  nachal),  in  which  lay  the  residence  of 
 Delilah  (Judg.  xvi.  4).  It  appears  to  have  been  a 
 Philistine  place,  and  possil)ly  was  nearer  Gaza  than 
 any  other  of  tlie  chief  Philistine  cities,  since  thither 
 Samson  was  taken  after  his  capture  at  Delilah's 
 house.  Beyond  tliis  there  are  no  indications  of  its 
 position,  nor  i.s  it  mentioned  again  in  the  Bible. 
 Euset)ius  and  .Jerome  (Onomast.  Scoprj^)  state  that 
 a  village  named  Capharsorech  was  shown  in  their 
 day  "  on  the  north  of  Eleutheropolis,  near  the  town 
 of  Saar  (or  Saraa),  i.  e.  Zorah,  the  native  place  of 
 Samson."  Zorah  is  now  supposed  to  have  been 
 fully  10  miles  N.  of  Beit-Jibrin,  the  modern  repre- 
 
 SOSTHENES 
 
 3095 
 
 a  The  A\  is  no  doubt  the  last  relic  of  NaxiA :  comp. 
 Ue-ab.vrim;  and  Kanah,  RrvER. 
 
 b  M.  Van  de  Velde  {Mem.  350)  proposes  the  Wady 
 
 sentative  of  Eleutheropolis,  though  it  is  not  impos- 
 sible that  there  may  have  been  a  second  furthei 
 south.  No  trace  of  tlie  name  of  Sorek  has  been 
 yet  discovered  either  in  the  one  position  or  the 
 other.*  But  the  district  is  comparatively  unex- 
 plored, and  doubtless  it  will  ere  long  be  discovered. 
 The  word  isore/c  in  Hebrew  signifies  a  peculiarly 
 choice  kind  of  vine,  which  is  said  to  have  derived 
 its  name  from  the  dusky  color  of  its  grapes,  that 
 perhaps  being  the  meaning  of  the  root  (Gesenius, 
 T//es.  p.  1342).  It  occurs  in  three  passages  of  the 
 Old  Test.  (Is.  v.  2;  Jer.  ii.  21;  and,  with  a  mod- 
 ification, in  Gen.  xlix.  '^ll).  It  appears  to  be  used 
 in  modern  Aral)ic  for  a  certain  purple  grape,  grown 
 in  Syria,  and  higlily  esteemed;  whicli  is  noted  for 
 its  small  raisins,  and  minute,  soft  pips,  and  pro- 
 duces a  red  wine.  This  being  the  case,  the  valley 
 of  Soi'ek  may  liave  derived  its  name  from  the  growth 
 of  such  vines,  though  it  is  hardly  safe  to  affirm  tlie 
 fact  in  the  uiKiuestioning  manner  in  which  Gesenius 
 (T/its.  ibid.)  does.  Ascalon  was  celebrated  among 
 the  ancients  for  its  wine;  and  thoui;h  not  in  the 
 neighborhood  of  Zorah,  was  the  natural  port  by 
 which  any  of  the  productions  of  that  district  would 
 be  exported  to  the  west.  G. 
 
 SOSIP'ATER  CEoifflwaTpos--  Sostpnter).  1. 
 A  general  of  .ludas  JlaccaliKus,  who  in  conjunction 
 with  Dositheus  defeated  Tiiiiotheus  and  took  him 
 prisoner,  c.  v>.  c.  I(i4  (2  Maec.  xii.   19-24). 
 
 2.  Kinsman  or  fellow  tribesman  of  St.  Paul, 
 mentioned  in  the  salutations  at  the  end  of  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  21).  He  is  probably 
 the  same  person  as  Sopater  of  Beroea.  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SOS'THENES  CXwad^ws  [preserver  of 
 sirenr/lh]  :  Sii:il/u'/ies)  was  a  Jew  at  Corinth,  who 
 was  seized  and  beaten  in  the  presence  of  Gallio,  on 
 the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  entertain  the  charge  of 
 heresy  which  the  .lews  alleged  against  the  Apostle 
 Paul  (see  Acts  xviii.  12-17).  His  precise  conneq- 
 tion  with  that  affair  is  left  in  some  doubt.  Some 
 have  thought  that  he  was  a  Christian,  and  was 
 maltreated  thus  by  his  own  countrymen,  because 
 he  was  known  as  a  special  friend  of  Paul.  But  it 
 is  improbable  if  Sostlienes  was  a  believer,  that  Luke 
 would  mention  him  merely  as  "  the  ruler  of  the 
 synagogue"  (apx^cvvdywyos)-  without  any  allu- 
 sion to  his  change  of  faith.  A  better  view  is,  that 
 Sosthenes  was  one  of  the  bigoted  Jews;  and  that 
 "the  crowd"  (TrdvTfs  simply,  and  not  irdvTes  ol 
 "EAArj^'ey,  is  the  true  reading)  were  Greeks  who, 
 taking  advantage  of  the  indifference  of  Gallio,  and 
 ever  ready  to  show  their  contempt  of  the  Jews, 
 turned  their  indignation  against  Sosthenes.  In  this 
 case  he  must  have  been  the  successor  of  Crispus, 
 (Acts  xviii.  8)  as  chief  of  the  synagogue  (possibly 
 a  colleague  with  him,  in  the  looser  sense  of  apxi- 
 (Tuvdyuyot,  as  in  Mark  v.  22),  or,  as  BLscoe  con- 
 jectures, may  have  belonged  to  some  other  syna- 
 gogue at  Corinth.  Chrysostom's  notion  that  Crispus 
 and  Sosthenes  were  names  of  the  same  person,  is 
 arbitrary  and  unsupported. 
 
 Paul  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
 jointly  in  his  own  name  and  that  of  a  certain  Sos- 
 thenes whom  he  terms  "  the  lirother"  (1  Cor.  i.  1). 
 The  mode  of  designation  imjilies  that  he  was  well 
 known  to  the  Corinthians;  and  some  have  held 
 that  he  was  identical  with  the  Sosthenes  mentioned 
 
 Simsim,  which  runs  from  near  Bi^it  Jibriii  to  Askulan; 
 but  this  he  admits  to  be  mere  conjecture. 
 
 c  The  Arabic   versious   of  this  passage   retain   th< 
 term  Sorek  as  a  proper  name. 
 
8096 
 
 SOSTRATUS 
 
 in  the  Acts.  If  this  be  so,  he  must  have  been  con- 
 verted at  a  later  period  (Wetstein,  N.  Test.  vol.  ii. 
 p.  576),  and  have  been  at  Kphesus  and  not  at  Cor- 
 inth, when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
 name  was  a  common  one,  and  but  little  stress  can 
 be  laid  on  that  coincidence.  luiseljius  saj-s  (//.  £. 
 i.  12,  §  1)  that  this  Sosthenes  (1  Cor.  i.  1)  was 
 one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  a  later  tradition 
 adds  that  he  became  bishop  of  the  church  at  Colo- 
 phon in  Ionia.  H.  B.  H. 
 
 SOS'TRATUS  (Scio-rpaTos  [savimr  of  llie 
 (irmy] :  Sosfriitus),  a  commander  of  the  Syrian 
 garrison  in  the  Acra  at  Jerusalem  (6  ttJs  a.KpoTz6- 
 Aeois  %iTaf>xos)  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 (c.  B.  c.  172:  2  Mace.  iv.  27,  29).         B.  V.  W. 
 
 SO'TAI  [2  syl.]  ("^Kl'ID  {one  who  turns  nsiV/e]  : 
 2c<;Tai',  XovTe'i;  Alex,  lovriei  in  Nell. :  Sotai,  So- 
 iha'i).  The  children  of  Sotai  were  a  family  of  the 
 descendants  of  Solomon's  servants  who  returned 
 with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  55;  Neb.  vii.  57). 
 
 *  SOUTH,  QUEEN  OF  THE.   [Sheba.] 
 
 SOUTH  RA'MOTH  (3;i5  HIDn :  «V 
 'Pa/xa  v6tov;  Alex,  fp  pa/xad  v.:  R<nno1h  ad  me- 
 ru/ie'iit).  (hm  of  the  places  frequented  by  David 
 and  his  band  of  outlaws  during  the  latter  part  of 
 Saul's  life,  and  to  his  friends  in  which  he  showed 
 his  gratitude  when  opportunity  ofiered  (1  Sam. 
 XXX.  27).  The  towns  mentioned  with  it  show  that 
 Ramoth  must  have  been  on  the  southern  confines 
 of  the  country  —  the  very  border  of  the  desert. 
 Bethel,  in  ver.  27,  is  almost  certainly  not  the  well- 
 known  sanctuary,  but  a  second  of  the  same  name, 
 and  Hebron  was  probably  the  most  northern  of  all 
 the  jJaces  in  the  list.  It  is  no  doubt  identical 
 with  Kam.vth  of  the  South,  a  name  the  same 
 in  every  respect  except  that  by  a  dialectical  or 
 other  change  it  is  made  plural,  Kamoth  instead  of 
 Ramath.  G. 
 
 SOW.  [Swine.] 
 
 SOWER,  SOWING.  The  operation  of  sow- 
 ing with  the  hand  is  one  of  .so  simple  a  character, 
 as  to  need  little  description.  The  Egyptian  paint- 
 ings furnish  many  illustrations  of  the  mode  in 
 which  it  was  conducted.  The  sower  held  the  ves- 
 sel or  basket  containing  the  seed,  in  his  left  hand, 
 while  with  his  right  he  scattered  the  seed  Inoad- 
 cast  (Wilkinson's  Anc.  Kg.  ii.  12,  18,  39;  see 
 Agriculture  for  one  of  these  paintings).  The 
 "drawing  out"  of  the  seed  is  noticed,  as  the  most 
 characteristic  action  of  the  sower,  in  Ps.  cxxvi.  6 
 (A.  V.  "precious  ")  and  Am.  ix.  13:  it  is  uncer- 
 tain whether  this  expression  refers  to  drav/ing  out 
 the  handful  of  seed  from  the  basket,  or  to  the 
 dispersion  of  the  seed  in  regular  rows  over  the 
 ground  (Gesen.  Tlies.  p.  827).  In  some  of  the 
 Egyptian  paintings  the  sower  is  represented  as  pre- 
 ceding the  plough :  this  may  be  sinnjly  the  result 
 of  bad  perspective,  but  we  are  told  that  such  a 
 practice  actually  prevails  in  the  East  in  the  case  of 
 sandy  soils,  the  plough  serving  the  purpose  of  the 
 harrow  for  covering  the  seed  (Russell's  Aleppo,  i. 
 74).     In  wet  soils  the  seed  was  trodden  in  by  the 
 
 SPAIN 
 
 feet  of  animals  (Is  xxxii.  20),  as  represented  in 
 Wilkinson's  Anc.  I'.y.  ii.  12."  Tiie  sowing  season 
 connnenced  in  October  and  continued  to  the  end  "t 
 February,  wheat  being  put  in  before,  and  barley 
 after  the  beginning  of  .January  (Russell,  i.  74  >. 
 The  Mosaic  law  prohibited  the  sowing  of  mixed 
 seed  (Lev.  xix.  19;  Deut.  xxii.  9):  Josephns  {Aiil. 
 iv.  8,  §  20)  supposes  this  prohibition  to  be  based 
 on  the  repugnancy  of  nature  to  intermixture,  but 
 there  would  appear  to  be  a  further  object  of  a  moral 
 character,  namely,  to  impress  on  men's  niinds  the 
 general  lesson  of  purity.  The  regulation  offered  a 
 favorable  opportunity  for  Rabbinical  refinement,  the 
 results  of  which  are  embodied  in  the  treatise  of  the 
 Mishna.  entitled  Kilaiin,  §§  1-.3.  That  the  an- 
 cient Hebrews  did  not  consider  themselves  prohib- 
 ited from  planting  several  kinds  of  seeds  in  the 
 same  field,  appears  from  Is.  xxviii.  25.  A  distinc- 
 tion is  made  in  Lev.  xi.  37,  38,  between  dry  and 
 wet  seed,  in  respect  to  contact  with  a  corpse;  the 
 latter,  as  being  more  susceptible  of  contamination, 
 would  be  rendered  unclean  thereby,  the  former 
 would  not.  The  analogy  between  the  germination 
 of  seed  and  the  effects  of  a  princiide  or  a  course  of 
 action  on  the  human  character  for  good  or  for  evil 
 is  frequently  noticed  in  Scripture  (Prov.  xi.  18; 
 Matt.  xiii.  19,  24;  2  Cor.  ix.  6;  GaL  vi.  7). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 SPAIN  {'S.Travia  ■  Bispanin).  The  Hebrews 
 were  acquainted  with  the  position  and  the  nnneral 
 wealth  of  Spain  from  the  time  of  Solomon,  whose 
 alliance  with  the  Phoenicians  enlarged  the  circle  of 
 their  geographical  knowledge  to  a  very  great  extent. 
 [Tabsiiisii.]  The  local  designation,  Tarshish,  rep- 
 resenting the  l^irtc-sniis  of  the  Greeks,  probably 
 prevailed  until  the  fame  of  the  Roman  wars  in  that 
 country  reached  the  East,  when  it  was  superseded 
 by  its  classical  name,  which  is  traced  back  by  Bo- 
 chart  to  the  Shemitic  tsaplian,  "rabbit,"  and  by 
 Humboldt  to  the  Basque  Ezpaiia,  descriptive  of  its 
 position  on  the  ed(je  of  the  continent  of  Europe 
 {Diet,  of  Geufj.  i.  1074).  The  Latin  form  of  this 
 name  is  represented  by  the  'Itnrai/ia  of  1  Mace, 
 viii.  3  (where,  however,  some  cojiies  exhil)it  the 
 Greek  form),  and  the  Greek  by  the  'X-rravia  of  Rom. 
 XV.  24,  28.  The  passages  cited  contain  all  tho 
 Biblical  notices  of  Spain :  in  the  former  the  con 
 quests  of  the  Romans  are  descrilied  in  somewhat 
 exaggerated  terms;  for  though  the  Carthaginians 
 were  expelled  as  early  as  b.  c.  206,  the  native  tribes 
 were  not  finally  subdued  until  b.  c.  25,  and  not 
 until  then  could  it  be  said  with  truth  that  "  they 
 had  conquered  all  the  place"  (1  Mace.  viii.  4).  Iii 
 the  latter,  St.  Paul  announces  his  intention  of  vis- 
 iting Spain.  Whether  he  carried  out  this  inten- 
 tion is  a  disputed  point  connected  with  his  personal 
 history.  [Paul.]  The  mere  intention,  however, 
 implies  two  interesting  facts,  namely,  the  estalilish- 
 ment  of  a  Christian  conmnmity  in  that  country, 
 and  this  by  means  of  Hellenistic  Jews  resident  there. 
 We  have  no  direct  testimony  to  either  of  these 
 facts ;  but  as  the  Jews  had  spread  along  the  shores 
 of  the  Mediterranean  as  far  as  Cyrene  in  Africa  and 
 Rome  in  Europe  (Acts  ii.  10),  there  would  be  no 
 
 a  *  Ploughs  in  the  East,  at  present,  often  have  a 
 quiver  or  tunnel  attached  to  the  front  of  them,  espe- 
 cially when  the  soil  is  mellow  .ind  easily  broken, 
 through  which  the  grain  is  dropped,  and  then  covered 
 up  by  the  earth  as  turned  aside  in  the  furrow.  It 
 may  be  stated  here  that  plough.s  in  Palestine  have 
 quite  invariably  but  one  handle,   which   the  driver 
 
 holds  by  one  hand,  while  he  carries  his  long  goad  in 
 the  other.  This  peculiarity  makes  the  Saviour's  ex- 
 pression precisely  accurate :  "  He  that  putteth  his 
 /land  to  the  plough,"  etc.  (Luke  ix.  62)  ;  whereas,  with 
 the  plough  constructed  as  among  us,  the  plural  would 
 be  more  natural  than  the  singular.  H. 
 
SPAN 
 
 difficulty  in  assuming  that  they  were  also  found  in 
 the  commercial  cities  of  the  eastern  coast  of  Spain. 
 The  early  introduction  of  Christianity  into  that 
 country  is  attested  by  Irenaeus  (i.  3)  and  Tertullian 
 (adv.  J  ad.  7).  An  inscription,  purportin£;  to  record 
 a  persecution  of  the  Spanish  Christians  in  the  reign 
 of  Nero,  is  probably  a  forgery  (Gieseler's  Eccl. 
 Hist.  i.  82,  note  5).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SPAN.  [Weights  and  Measueks,  11. 
 1.  (1.)] 
 
 SPARROW  ("I'lQ^,  tzlppur:  ipveov,  opviS- 
 lov,  rh  TTsreivov,  ffTpovdiov-  ;ti^apos  in  Neh.  v. 
 18,  where  LXX.  probably  read  T^D^ :  acis,  volu- 
 cris^  passer).  The  above  lleb.  word  occurs  up- 
 wards of  forty  times  in  the  O.  T.  In  all  passages 
 excepting  two  it  is  rendered  by  A.  V.  indifferently 
 "  bird  "  or  "fowl."  In  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  and  Ps.  cii. 
 7,  A.  V.  renders  it  "  sparrow."  The  Greek  arpov- 
 diov  ("sparrow,"  A.  V.)  occurs  twice  in  N.  T., 
 Matt.  X.  29,  Luke  xii.  6,  7,  where  the  Vulg.  has 
 
 passe7\'S.  Tzlppor  ("119^),  from  a  root  signify- 
 ing to  "  chirp  "  or  "  twitter,"  appears  to  be  a  pho- 
 netic representation  of  the  call  note  of  any  passer- 
 ine bird."     Similarly  the  modern  Arabs  use  the 
 
 term  i  wi«i\  (zaoush)  for  all  small  birds  which 
 chirp,  and  \»\\\  (zerzour)  not  only  for  the  star- 
 ling, but  for  any  other  bird  with  a  harsh,  shrill 
 twitter,  both  tliese  being  evidently  phonetic  names. 
 
 Tzippor  is  therefore  exactly  translated  by  the 
 LXX.  (TTpovdiov,  explained  by  Moschopulus  ra 
 LKpa  Twi'  opvidwv,  although  it  may  sometimes 
 lave  been  used  in  a  more  restricted  sense.  See 
 Athen.  Dnipn.  ix.  391,  where  two  kinds  of  (rrpov- 
 dia  in  the  more  restricted  signification  are  noted. 
 
 It  was  reserved  for  later  naturalists  to  discrim- 
 inate the  immense  variety  of  the  smaller  birds  of 
 the  passerine  order.  Excepting  in  the  cases  of  the 
 thrushes  and  the  larks,  the  natural  history  of  Aris- 
 totle scarcely  comprehends  a  longer  catalogue  than 
 that  of  Moses. 
 
 Yet  in  few  parts  of  the  world  are  the  species  of 
 passerine  birds  more  numerous  or  more  abundant 
 than  in  Palestine.  A  very  cursory  survey  has  sup- 
 plied a  list  ,of  above  100  different  species  of  this 
 order.  See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  26  fF.  and  vol.  iv.  p. 
 277  ft'. 
 
 But  although  so  numerous,  they  are  not  gener- 
 ally noticeable  for  any  peculiar  brilliancy  of  plum- 
 age beyond  the  birds  of  our  own  climate.  In  fact, 
 with  the  exception  of  the  denizens  of  the  mighty 
 forests  and  fertile  alluvial  plains  of  the  tropics,  it 
 is  a  popular  error  to  suppose  that  the  nearer  we 
 approach  the  equator,  the  more  gorgeous  neces- 
 sarily is  the  coloration  of  the  birds.  There  are 
 certain  tropical  families  with  a  brilliancy  of  plum- 
 age which  is  unrivalled  elsewhere;  but  any  out- 
 lying members  of  these  groups,  as  for  instance  the 
 kingfisher  of  Britain,  or  the  bee-eater  and  roller  of 
 Europe,  are  not  surpassed  in  brightness  of  dress  by 
 any  of  their  southern  relations.  Ordinarily  in  the 
 warmer  temperate  regions,  especially  in  those  which 
 like  Palestine  possess  neither  dense  forests  nor 
 morasses,  there  is  nothing  in  the  brilliancy  of  pluni- 
 
 SPARROW 
 
 3097 
 
 & 
 
 5      "     > 
 
 a  Comp.   the  Arabic  •^^A.'H.T'  {'<^'f^^)%  "  ^  spar- 
 row." 
 
 195 
 
 •   \ySOa£.  ('«•!/ 
 
 age  which  especially  arrests  the  attention  of  the 
 unobservant.  It  is  therefore  no  matter  for  surprise 
 if,  in  an  unscientific  age,  the  smaller  bii'ds  were 
 generally  groujjcd  indiscriminately  under  the  terni 
 tzippor,  opvtSiov  or  pa.-iser.  The  proportion  of 
 bright  to  obscure  colored  birds  is  not  greater  in 
 Palestine  than  in  England ;  and  this  is  especially 
 true  of  the  southern  portion,  .ludoea,  where  the  wil- 
 derness with  its  bare  hills  and  arid  ravines  affords 
 a  home  chiefly  to  those  species  which  rely  for  safety 
 and  concealment  on  the  modesty  and  inconspic- 
 uousness  of  their  plumage. 
 
 Although  the  connnon  sparrow  of  England  (Pas- 
 ser dumesticus,  L.)  does  not  occur  in  the  Holy 
 Land,  its  place  is  abundantly  supplied  by  two  very 
 closely  allied  Southern  species  (Fnsser  salicicola, 
 Vieill.  and  Passer  cisidpina.  Tern.).  Our  English 
 Tree  Sparrow  (Passer  montanus,  L.)  is  also  very 
 common,  and  may  be  seen  in  numbers  on  Mount 
 Olivet,  and  also  about  the  sacred  inclosure  of  the 
 mosque  of  Omar.  This  is  perhaps  the  exact  spe- 
 cies referred  to  in  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  "  Yea,  the  sparrow 
 hath  found  an  house." 
 
 Though  in  Britain  it  seldom  frequents  houses, 
 yet  in  China,  to  which  country  its  eastward  range 
 extends,  Mr.  Swinhoe,  in  his  Orniiholoyy  nf'Ainoy, 
 informs  us  its  habits  are  precisely  those  of  our 
 familiar  house  sparrow.  Its  sh3ness  here  may  be 
 the  result  of  persecution ;  but  in  the  East  the  Mus- 
 sulmans hold  in  respect  any  bird  which  resorts  to 
 their  houses,  and  in  reveience  such  as  build  in  or 
 about  the  mosques,  considering  them  to  be  under 
 the  Divine  protection.  This  natural  veneration 
 has  doubtless  been  inherited  Irom  antiquity.  We 
 learn  from  yElian  (Var.  Hist.  v.  17)  that  the  Athe- 
 nians condemned  a  man  to  death  ior  molesting  a 
 sparrow  in  the  temple  of  zl<2sculapius.  The  story 
 of  Aristodicus  of  Cyme,  who  rebuked  the  cowardly 
 advice  of  the  oracle  of  Branchidaj  to  surrender  a 
 suppliant,  by  his  symbolical  act  of  driving  the  spar- 
 rows out  of  the  temple,  illustrates  the  same  senti- 
 ment (Herod,  i.  159),  which  was  probably  shared 
 by  David  and  the  Israelites,  and  is  alluded  to  in 
 the  psalm.  There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  inter- 
 preting ninStp,  not  as  the  altar  of  sacrifice  ex- 
 clusively, but  as  the  place  of  sacrifice,  the  sacred 
 inclosure  generally,  rh  re/xevo".  "  fanum."  The 
 interpretation  of  some  commentators,   who  would 
 
 explain  ~nS^  in  this  passage  of  certain  sacred 
 birds,  kept  and  preserved  by  the  priests  in  the 
 temple  like  the  Sacred  Ibis  of  the  Egyptians,  seems 
 to  be  wholly  without  warrant.  See  Bochart,  ill. 
 21,  22. 
 
 Most  of  our  commoner  small  birds  are  found  in 
 Palestine.  The  starling,  chaffinch,  greenfinch, 
 linnet,  goldfinch,  corn  bunting,  pipits,  blackbird, 
 song  thrush,  and  the  various  species  of  wagtail 
 abound.  The  wood  lark  (Alauda  arborea,  L.), 
 crested  lark  (Galerida  cristnta,  Boie.),  Calandra 
 lark  (Melnnocoryplm  calandra,  Bp.),  short-toed 
 lark  (Calandrelln  bracitydactyla,  Kaup.),  Isabel 
 lark  (Alauda  dcserii,  Li'cht.),  and  various  other 
 desert  species,  which  are  snared  in  great  numiiers 
 for  the  markets,  are  far  more  numerous  on  the 
 southern  plains  than  the  skylark  in  England.  In 
 the  olive-yards,  and  among  the  brushwood  of  the 
 hills,  the  Ortolan  bunting  (Kmberiza  hortulana, 
 L.),  and  especially  Cretzschmaer's  bunting  (Embe- 
 riza  ciesia,  Cretz.),  take  the  place  of  our  common 
 yellow-hammer,  an  exclusively  northern  species, 
 indeed,  the  second  is  seldom  out  of  the  traveller's 
 
3098 
 
 SPARROW 
 
 sight,  hopping  before  him  from  bough  to  bough 
 with  its  simple  but  not  unpleasing  note.  As  most 
 of  our  warblers  (Sijlnndm)  are  summer  migrants, 
 and  have  a  wide  eastern  range,  it  was  to  be  expected 
 that  they  should  occur  in  Syria;  and  accordingly 
 upwards  of  twenty  of  those  on  the  British  list  have 
 been  noted  there,  including  the  robin,  redstart, 
 whitethroat,  blackcap,  nightingale,  willow -wren, 
 Dartford  warbler,  whinchat.  and  stonechat.  Be- 
 sides these,  the  Palestine  lists  contain  fourteen 
 others,  more  southern  species,  of  which  the  most 
 interesting  are  perhaps  the  little  fantail  ( Cislicola 
 sclicenicola,  Bp.),  the  orphean  {Curruca  orplicBd, 
 Boie.)  and  the  Sardinian  wathlev  (Sijkia  melanu- 
 cephdlii,  Lath.). 
 
 The  chats  (Saxicolce),  represented  in  Britain  by 
 the  wheatear,  whinchat,  and  stonechat,  are  very 
 numerous  in  the  southern  parts  of  the  country.  At 
 least  nine  species  have  been  observed,  and  by  their 
 lively  motions  and  the  striking  contrast  of  black 
 and  white  in  the  plumage  of  most  of  tlieui,  they  are 
 the  most  attractive  and  conspicuous  bird-inhab- 
 itants which  catch  the  eye  in  the  hill  country  of 
 Judaea,  the  favorite  resort  of  the  genus.  Yet  they 
 are  not  recognized  among  the  Bedouin  inhabitants 
 by  any  name  to  distinguish  them  from  the  larks. 
 
 The  rock  sp.arrow  [Petronia  stidtn,  Strickl.)  is  a 
 common  bird  in  the  barer  portions  of  Palestine, 
 eschewing  woods,  and  generally  to  be  seen  perched 
 alone  on  the  top  of  a  rock  oi-  on  any  large  stone. 
 trom  this  habit  it  has  been  conjectured  to  be  the 
 bird  alluded   to  in  Ps.  cii.  7,  as  "  the  sparrow  that 
 
 Petrocossyplius  cyaneiis. 
 
 sitteth  alone  upon  the  housetop;  "  but  as  the  rock 
 sparrow,  though  found  among  ruins,  never  resorts 
 to  inhabited  buildings,  it  seems  more  probable  that 
 the  bird  to  which  the  psalmist  alludes  is  the  Ijlue 
 thrush  {Ptirocussyplius  cynneus,  Boie.),  a  bird  so 
 conepi^uoiis  that  it  cannot  fail  to  attract  attention 
 by  its  dark-blue  dress  and  its  plaintive  monotonous 
 note;  and  which  may  frequently  be  observed 
 perched  on  houses  and  especially  on  outbuildings  in 
 the  villages  of  Judoea.  It  is  a  solitary  bird,  es- 
 chewing the  society  of  its  own  species,  and  rarel}- 
 more  than  a  pair  are  seen  together.  Certainly  the 
 allusion  of  the  psalmist  will  not  apply  to  the  so- 
 ciable and  garrulous  house  or  tree-sparrows. 
 
 Among  the  most  conspicuous  of  the  small  birds 
 
 SPARROW 
 
 of  Palestine  are  the  shrikes  (Lanii),  of  which  the 
 red-backed  shrike  {Lanius  collurio,  Ij.)  is  a  familiar 
 example  in  the  south  of  England,  but  there  repre- 
 sented by  at  least  fi\e  species,  all  abundantly  and 
 generally  distributed,  namely,  Enneoctonus  rufus, 
 Bp.,  the  woodchat  shrike,  Lanius  meridionalis,  L. ; 
 L.  mitior,  L. ;  L.  jn-rsonatus,  Tern.;  and  Telepli- 
 onus  cucidlatus,  Gr. 
 
 There  are  but  two  allusions  to  the  singing  of 
 birds  in  the  Scriptures,  Eccl.  xii.  4  and  Ps.  civ.  12, 
 
 "  By  them  shall  the  fowls  (^^27)  of  the  heaveo  have 
 their  habitation,  which  sing  among  the  branches." 
 As  the  psalmist  is  here  speaking  of  the  sides  of 
 streams  and  rivers  ("By  them"),  he  probably  had 
 
 in  his  mind  the  bulbul  ((jkA^j)  of  the  country,  or 
 Palestine  nightingale  (Ixos  xanlhopyffius.'HempT.), 
 a  bird  not  very  far  removed  from  the  thrush  tribe, 
 and  a  closely  allied  species  of  which  is  the  true 
 bulbul  of  Persia  and  India.  This  lovely  songster, 
 whose  notes,  for  volume  and  variety,  surpass  those 
 of  the  nightingale,  wanting  only  the  final  cadence, 
 abounds  in  all  the  wooded  districts  of  Palestine,  and 
 especially  by  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  where  in  the 
 early  morning  it  fills  the  air  with  its  music. 
 
 In  one  passage  (Ez.  xxxix.  4),  tzippor  is  joined 
 
 with  the  epithet  ^^2?  (ravenous),  which  may  very 
 well  describe  the  raven  and  the  crow,  both  passerine 
 birds,  yet  carrion  feeders.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to 
 stretch  the  interpretation  so  as  to  include  raptorial 
 birds,  which  are  distinguished  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic 
 by  so  many  specific  appellations. 
 
 With  the. exception  of  the  raven  tribe,  there  is  no 
 prohibition  in  the  Levitical  law  against  any  pas- 
 serine birds  being  used  for  food ;  while  the  wanton 
 destruction  or  extirpation  of  any  species  was 
 guarded  against  by  the  humane  provision  in  Deut. 
 xxii.  6.  Small  birds  were  therefore  probably  as 
 ordinary  an  article  of  consumption  among  the  Is- 
 raelites as  they  still  are  in  the  markets  both  of  the 
 Continent  and  of  the  East.  The  inquiry  of  our 
 Lord,  "  Are  not  five  sparrows  sold  for  two  far- 
 things? "' (Luke  xii.  G),  "Are  not  two  sparrows 
 sold  for  a  farthing?  "  (Matt.  x.  29),  points  to  their 
 ordinary  exposure  for  sale  in  his  time.  At  the  pres- 
 ent day  the  markets  of  Jerusalem  and  Jafia  are  at- 
 tended by  many  "  fowlers  "  who  offer  for  sale  long 
 strings  of  little  birds  of  various  species,  chiefly  spar- 
 rows, wagtails,  and  larks.  These  are  also  frequently 
 sold  ready  plucked,  trussed  in  rows  of  about  a  dozen 
 on  slender  wooden  skewers,  and  are  cooked  and 
 eaten  like  kabobs. 
 
 It  may  well  excite  surprise  how  such  vast  num- 
 bers can  be  taken,  and  how  they  can  be  vended  at 
 a  price  too  small  to  have  purchased  the  powder  re- 
 quired for  shooting  them.  But  the  gun  is  never 
 used  in  their  pursuit  The  ancient  methods  of 
 fowling  to  which  we  find  so  many  allusions  in  the 
 Scriptures  are  still  pursued,  and,  though  simple, 
 are  none  the  less  effective.  The  art  of  fowling  is 
 spoken  of  no  less  than  seven  times  in  cormection 
 
 with  TlS^,  e.  g.  "  a  bird  caught  in  the  snare," 
 "bird  hasteth  to  the  snare,"  "fall  in  a  snare," 
 "  escaped  out  of  the  snare  of  the  fowler."  'I'here  is 
 also  one  still  more  precise  allusion,  in  Ecclus.  xi.  30, 
 to  the  well-known  practice  of  using  decoy  or  call- 
 birds,  7re'p5i|  97)jO€UT?V  iv  KaprdWu-  The  refer- 
 ence in  Jer  v.  27,  "  As  a  cage  is  full  of  birds  " 
 
 (C^2117),  is  probably  to  the  same  mode  of  snaring 
 birds. 
 
SPARROW 
 
 There  are  four  or  five  simple  methods  of  fowling 
 practiced  at  this  day  in  Palestine  which  are  prob- 
 ably identical  with  those  alluded  to  in  the  O.  T. 
 The  simplest,  but  by  no  means  the  least  successful, 
 among  the  dexterous  Bedouins,  is  fowling  with  tlie 
 throw-stick.  The  only  weapon  used  is  a  short  stick, 
 about  18  inches  long  and  half  an  inch  in  diameter, 
 and  the  chase  is  conducted  after  the  fashion  in 
 which,  as  we  read,  the  Australian  natives  pursue 
 the  kangaroo  with  their  boomerang.  When  the 
 game  has  been  discovered,  which  is  generally  the 
 red-legged  great  partridge  ( Caccabis  saxatlUs, 
 jNIey.),  the  desert  partridge  (Ammoperclix  IJeyi, 
 Gr. ),  or  the  little  bustard  ( C/Zs  tetrax,  L.},  the 
 stick  is  hurled  with  a  revolving  motion  so  as  to  strike 
 the  legs  of  the  bird  as  it  runs,  or  sometimes  at  a 
 rather  higher  elevation,  so  that  when  the  victim, 
 alarmed  by  the  approach  of  the  weapon,  beghis  to 
 rise,  its  wings  are  struck  and  it  is  slightly  disabled. 
 The  fleet  pursuers  soon  come  up,  and  using  their 
 burnouses  as  a  sort  of  net,  catch  and  at  once  cut 
 the  throat  of  the  game.  The  Mussulmans  rigidly 
 observe  the  JMosaic  injunctions  (Lev.  xvii.  1^)  to 
 spill  the  blood  of  every  slain  animal  on  the  ground. 
 This  primitive  mode  of  fowling  is  confined  to  those 
 birds  whicli,  like  the  red-legged  partridges  and  bus- 
 tards, rely  for  safety  chiefly  on  their  running  powers, 
 and  are  with  difficulty  induced  to  take  flight.  The 
 writer  once  witnessed  the  capture  of  the  little  desert 
 partridge  {Ammojji^nllx  ihyi)  by  this  method  in 
 the  wilderness  near  Hebron :  an  interesting  illustra- 
 tion of  the  expression  in  1  Sam.  xxvi.  20,  "  as  when 
 one  doth  hunt  a  partridge  in  the  mountains." 
 
 A  more  scientific  method  of  fowling  is  that  al- 
 luded to  in  Ecclus.  xi.  30,  by  the  use  of  decoy- 
 birds.  The  birds  employed  for  this  purpose  are 
 very  carefully  trained  and  perfectly  tame,  that  they 
 may  utter  their  natural  call-note  without  any  alarm 
 from  the  neighborhood  of  man.  Partridges,  quails, 
 larks,  and  plovers  are  taken  by  this  kind  of  fowl- 
 ing, especially  the  two  former.  The  decoy-bird,  in 
 a  cage,  is  placed  in  a  concealed  position,  while  the 
 fowler  is  secreted  in  the  neighborhood,  near  enough 
 to  manage  his  gins  and  snares.  For  game-birds, 
 a  connuon  method  is  to  construct  of  brushwood  a 
 narrow  run  leading  to  the  cage,  sometimes  using 
 a  sort  of  bag-net  within  the  brushwood.  This  has 
 a  trap-door  at  the  entrance,  and  when  the  dupe  has 
 entered  tlie  run,  the  door  is  dropped.  Great  num- 
 bers of  quail  are  taken  in  this  manner  in  spring. 
 Sometimes,  instead  of  the  more  elaborate  decoy  of  a 
 run,  a  mere  cage  with  an  open  door  is  placed  in 
 front  of  the  decoy -bird,  of  course  well  concealed  by 
 grass  and  herbage,  and  the  door  is  let  fall  by  a 
 string,  as  in  the  other  method.  For  larks  and 
 other  smaller  birds  the  decoy  is  used  in  a  somewhat 
 different  manner.  The  cage  is  placed  without  con- 
 cealment on  the  ground,  and  springes,  nets,  or  horse- 
 hair nooses  are  laid  round  it  to  entangle  the  feet  of 
 those  whom  curiosity  attracts  to  the  stranger;  or 
 a  net  is  so  contrived  as  to  be  drawn  over  them,  if 
 the  cage  be  placed  in  a  thicket  or  among  brushwood. 
 Immense  numbers  can  be  taken  by  this  means  in  a 
 very  short  space  of  tiuie.  Traps,  the  door  of  which 
 overbalances  by  the  weight  of  the  liird,  exactly  like 
 the  traps  used  by  the  shepherds  on  the  Sussex 
 downs  to  take  wheatears  and  larks,  are  constructed 
 by  the  Bedouin  boys,  and  also  the  horse-hair 
 springes  so  familiar  to  all  English  school-boys, 
 though  these  devices  are  not  wholesale  enough  to 
 repay  the  professional  fowler.  It  is  to  the  noose  on 
 the  ground  that  reference  is  made  in  Ps.  cxxiv.  7, 
 
 SPARROW 
 
 3091 
 
 "  The  snare  is  broken  and  we  are  escaped."  In  the 
 towns  and  gardens  great  numbers  of  birds,  starlings 
 and  others,  are  taken  for  the  markets  at  night  by 
 means  of  a  large  loose  net  on  two  poles,  and  a 
 lanthorn,  which  startles  the  birds  from  their  perch, 
 when  they  fall  into  the  net. 
 
 At  the  season  of  migration  immense  numbers  of 
 birds,  and  especially  quails,  are  taken  by  a  yet  more 
 simple  method.  \Vhen  notice  has  been  given  of 
 the  arrival  of  a  flight  of  quails,  the  whole  village 
 turns  out.  The  birds,  fatigued  by  their  long  flight, 
 generally  ilescend  to  rest  in  some  open  space  a  few 
 acres  in  extent.  The  fowlers,  perhaps  twenty  or 
 thirty  in  number,  spread  themselves  in  a  circle 
 round  them,  and,  extending  their  loose  large  bur-. 
 nouses  with  botli  arms  before  them,  gently  advance 
 toward  the  centi'e,  or  to  some  spot  where  they 
 take  care  there  shall  be  some  low  brushwood.  The 
 birds,  not  seeing  their  pursuers,  and  only  slightly 
 alarmed  by  the  cloaks  spread  before  them,  begin  to 
 run  together  without  taking  flight,  until  they  are 
 hemmed  into  a  very  small  space.  At  a  given  signal 
 the  whole  of  the  pursuers  make  a  din  on  all  sides, 
 and  the  flock,  not  seeing  any  mode  of  escape,  rush 
 huddled  together  into  the  bushes,  when  the  bui- 
 nouses  are  thrown  over  them,  and  the  whole  are 
 easily  captured  by  hand. 
 
 Although  we  have  evidence  that  dogs  were  useil 
 by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Assyrians,  and  Indians 
 in  the  chase,  yet  there  is  no  allusion  in  Scripture  to 
 their  being  so  employed  among  the  Jews,  nor  does 
 it  appear  that  any  of  the  ancients  employed  the 
 sagacity  of  the  dog,  as  we  do  that  of  the  pointer  and 
 setter,  as  an  auxiliary  in  the  chase  of  winged  game. 
 At  the  present  day  the  Bedouins  of  Palestine  em- 
 ploy, in  the  pursuit  of  larger  game,  a  very  valuable 
 race  of  greyhounds,  equalhng  the  Scottish  stag- 
 hound  in  size  and  strength;  but  the  inhabitants  of 
 the  towns  have  a  strong  prejudice  against  the  un- 
 clean animal,  and  never  cultivate  its  instinct  for 
 any  further  purpose  than  that  of  protecting  their 
 houses  and  flocks  (Is.  Ivi.  10;  Job  xxx.  1),  and  of 
 removing  the  oflal  from  their  towns  and  villages. 
 No  wonder,  then,  that  its  use  has  been  neglected 
 for  purposes  which  would  have  entailed  the  constant 
 danger  of  defilement  from  an  unclean  animal,  be- 
 sides the  risk  of  being  compelled  to  reject  as  food 
 game  which  might  be  torn  by  the  dogs  (cf.  Ex.  xxii. 
 31;   Lev.  xxii.  8,  &c.). 
 
 Whether  falconry  was  ever  employed  as  a  mode 
 of  fowling  or  not  is  by  no  means  so  clear.  Its 
 antiquity  is  certainly  much  greater  than  the  intro- 
 duction of  dogs  in  the  chase  of  birds ;  and  from  the 
 statement  of  Aristotle  {Anim.  Hist.  ix.  21),  "  In 
 the  city  of  Thrace,  fornjerly  called  Cedropolis,  men 
 hunt  birds  in  the  marshes  with  the  help  of  hawks," 
 and  from  the  allusion  to  the  use  of  falconry  in  In- 
 dia, according  to  Photius'  abridgment  of  Ctesias,  we 
 may  presume  that  tlie  art  was  known  to  the  neigh- 
 bors of  the  ancient  Israelites  (see  also  jElian,  IlUl. 
 An.  iv.  20,  and  Pliny,  x.  8).  Falconry,  however, 
 requires  an  open  and  not  very  rugged  country  for 
 its  successful  pursuit,  and  Palestine  west  of  the  Jor- 
 dan is  in  its  whole  extent  ill  adapted  for  this  species 
 of  chase.  At  the  present  day  falconry  is  practiced 
 with  nmch  care  and  skill  by  the  Arab  inhabitants 
 of  Syria,  though  not  in  Judrea  proper.  It  is  indeed 
 the  favorite  amusement  of  all  the  Bedouins  of  Asia 
 and  Africa,  and  esteemed  an  exclusively  noble  sport, 
 only  to  be  indulged  in  by  wealthy  sheiks.  The 
 rarest  and  most  valuable  species  of  hunting  falcon 
 {Falco  Lanarius,  L.),  the  Lanner,  is  a  native  of  the 
 
3100 
 
 SPARTA 
 
 Lebanon  and  of  the  northern  hills  of  Palestine.  It 
 IS  highly  prized  by  the  inhabitants,  and  the  young 
 are  taken  from  the  nest  and  sold  for  a  considerable 
 price  to  the  chieftains  of  the  Hauran.  Forty  pounds 
 sterling  is  no  uncommon  price  for  a  well-trained  fal- 
 con. A  description  of  falconry  as  now  practiced 
 among  the  Arabs  would  be  out  of  place  here,  as 
 there  is  no  direct  allusion  to  the  subject  in  the  0. 
 T.  or  N.  T.  H.  B.  T. 
 
 SPARTA  (SrrapTTj  [cord,  stranci],  1  Mace, 
 xiv.  16;  AaK€SaifjL6vioi,  2  Mace.  v.  9:  A.  V. 
 "  Lacedsemonians  ").  In  the  history  of  the  Macca- 
 bees mention  is  made  of  a  remarkable  correspond- 
 ence between  the  Jews  and  the  Spartans,  which  has 
 been  the  subject  of  much  discussion.  The  alleged 
 facts  are  briefly  these.  When  Jonathan  endeav- 
 ored to  strengthen  his  government  by  foreign  alli- 
 ances (cir.  B.  c.  1-i-i),  he  sent  to  Sparta  to  renew  a 
 friendly  intercourse  which  had  been  begun  at  an 
 earlier  time  between  Areus  and  Onias  [Akkus; 
 Onias],  on  the  ground  of  their  common  descent 
 from  Abraham  (1  Mace.  xii.  5-2.3).  The  embassy 
 was  favorably  received,  and  after  the  death  of  Jona- 
 than "the  friendship  and  league"  was  renewed 
 with  Simon  (1  Mace.  xiv.  lfi-2.3).  No  results  are 
 deduced  from  this  correspondence,  which  is  recorded 
 in  the  narrative  without  comment;  and  imperfect 
 copies  of  the  official  documents  are  given  as  in  the 
 case  of  similar  negotiations  with  the  Komans. 
 Several  questions  arise  out  of  these  statements  as 
 to  (1)  the  people  described  under  the  name  Spar- 
 tans, (2)  the  relationship  of  the  Jews  and  Spar- 
 tans, (3)  the  historic  character  of  the  events,  and 
 (4)  the  persons  referred  to  under  the  names  Onias 
 and  Areus. 
 
 1.  The  whole  context  of  the  passage,  as  well  as 
 the  independent  reference  to  the  connection  of  the 
 "  Lacedemonians  "  and  Jews  in  2  Mace.  v.  9,  seem 
 to  prove  clearly  that  the  reference  is  to  the  Spar- 
 tans, properly  so  called;  Josephus  evidently  under- 
 stood the  records  in  this  sense,  and  the  other 
 interpretations  which  have  been  advanced  are 
 merely  conjectures  to  avoid  the  supposed  difficul- 
 ties of  the  literal  interpretation.  Thus  Miehaelis 
 conjectured  that  the  words  in  the  original  text  were 
 
 1-lDD,  DmCD  (Obad.  ver.  20;  Ges.  Thes. 
 s.  v.),  which  the  translators  read  erroneously  as 
 13"IDD,  D'^tDIDD,  and  thus  substituted  Sparta 
 for  Sapharad  [Skpharad].  And  Frankel,  again 
 {Monatsschrif/,  1863,  p.  450),  endeavors  to  show 
 that  the  name  Spartans  may  have  been  given  to 
 the  Jewish  settlement  at  Nisibis.  the  chief  centre  of 
 the  Armenian  Dispersion.  But  against  these  hy- 
 potheses it  may  be  urged  conclusively  that  it  is  in- 
 credible that  a  Jewish  colony  should  have  been  so 
 completely  separated  from  the  mother  state  as  to 
 need  to  be  reminded  of  its  kindred,  and  also  that 
 the  vicissitudes  of  the  government  of  this  strange 
 city  (1  Mace.  xii.  20,  ySatriAeus;  xiv.  20,  ipxov- 
 res  Koi  71  TfdAis)  should  have  corresponded  with 
 those  of  Sparta  itself. 
 
 2.  The  actual  relationship  of  the  Jews  and 
 Spartans  (2  Mace.  v.  9,  (rvyyfusia)  is  an  ethno- 
 logical error,  which  it  is  ditticult  to  trace  to  its 
 origin.  It  is  possible  that  the  Jews  regarded  the 
 Spartans  as  the  representatives  of  the  Pelasgi,  the 
 supposed  descendants  of  Feleg  the  son  of  Eber 
 (Stillingfleet,  Origines  Sacrcc,  iii.  4,  15;  Ewald, 
 Gesch.  iv.  277,  note),  just  as  in  another  place  the 
 Pergamenes   trace  back  their  friendship  with  the 
 
 SPARTA 
 
 Jews  to  a  connection  in  the  time  of  Abraham  (Jo- 
 seph. Ant.  xiv.  10,  §  22);  if  this  were  so,  they 
 might  easily  spread  their  opinion.  It  is  certain, 
 from  an  independent  passage,  that  a  Jewish  colony 
 existed  at  Sparta  at  an  early  time  (1  Mace.  xv.  23); 
 and  the  important  settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Gyrene 
 may  have  contributed  to  favor  the  notion  of  some 
 intimate  connection  between  the  two  races.  The 
 belief  in  this  relationshi])  appears  to  have  continued 
 to  later  times  (Joseph.  B.  J.  i.  26,  §  1),  and,  how- 
 ever mistaken,  may  be  paralleled  by  other  popular 
 legends  of  the  eastern  origin  of  Greek  states.  The 
 vaiious  hypotheses  proposed  to  support  the  truth  of 
 the  statement  are  examined  by  Weriisdorff  (Defide 
 Lib.  Mace.  §  94),  but  probably  no  one  now  would 
 maintain  it. 
 
 3.  The  incorrectness  of  the  opinion  on  which  the 
 intercourse  was  based  is  obviously  no  objection  to 
 the  fact  of  the  intercourse  itself;  and  the  very  ol)- 
 scurity  of  Sparta  at  tlie  time  makes  it  extremely 
 unlikely  that  any  forger  would  invent  such  an  inci- 
 dent. But  it  is  urged  that  the  letters  said  to  have 
 been  exchanged  are  evidently  not  genuine,  since 
 they  betray  their  fictitious  origin  negatively  by  the 
 absence  of  characteristic  forms  of  expression,  and 
 positively  by  actual  inaccuracies.  To  this  it  may 
 be  replied  that  the  Spartan  letters  (1  Mace.  xii.  20- 
 23,  xiv.  20-23)  are  extremely  brief,  and  exist  only 
 in  a  translation  of  a  translation,  so  that  it  is  unrea- 
 sonable to  expect  that  any  Doric  peculiarities  should 
 have  been  preserved.  The  Hellenistic  translator  ol 
 the  Hebrew  original  would  naturally  render  the  text 
 before  him  without  any  regard  to  what  might  have 
 been  its  original  form  (xii.  22-25,  e/pV'/,  KTrji/17; 
 xiv.  20,  aSfXcpol).  On  the  other  hand  the  absence 
 of  the  name  of  the  second  king  of  Sparta  in  the 
 first  letter  (1  Mace.  xii.  20),  and  of  both  kings  in 
 the  second  (1  Mace.  xiv.  20),  is  probably  to  be  ex- 
 plained by  the  political  circumstances  under  which 
 the  letters  were  written.  The  text  of  the  first  letter, 
 as  given  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xii.  4,  §  10),  contains 
 some  variations,  and  a  very  remarkable  additional 
 clause  at  the  end.  The  second  letter  is  apparently 
 only  a  fragment. 
 
 4.  The  difficulty  of  fixing  the  date  of  the  first 
 correspondence  is  increased  by  the  recurrence  of  the 
 names  involved.  Two  kings  bore  the  name  Areus, 
 one  of  whom  reigned  n.  c.  309-265,  and  the  other, 
 his  grandson,  died  li.  c.  257,  being  only  eight  years 
 old.  The  same  name  was  also  borne  by  an  ad- 
 venturer, who  occupied  a  prominent  position  at 
 Sparta,  cir.  p..  c.  184  (Polyb.  xxiii.  11,  12).  In 
 Judffia,  again,  three  high-priests  bore  the  name 
 Onias,  the  first  of  whom  held  office  B.  c.  330-309 
 (or  300);  the  second,  b.  c.  240-226;  and  the  third, 
 cir.  B.  c.  108-171.  Thus  Onias  I.  was  for  a  short 
 time  contemporary  with  Areus  I.,  and  the  corre- 
 spondence has  been  connnonly  assigned  to  them 
 (Palmer,  Be  Epist.  etc.,  Darmst.  1828;  Grimm,  on 
 1  Mace.  xii.).  But  tlie  position  of  Juda?a  at  that 
 time  was  not  such  as  to  make  the  contraction  of 
 foreign  alliances  a  likely  occurrence;  and  the  spe- 
 cial circumstances  which  are  said  to  have  directed 
 the  attention  of  the  Spartan  king  to  the  Jews  a? 
 likely  to  effect  a  diversion  against  Demetrius  I'oli 
 orcetes  when  he  was  engaged  in  the  war  with  Cas- 
 sander,  b.  c.  302  (Palmer,  quoted  by  Grimm,  /.  c), 
 are  not  completely  satisfactory,  even  if  the  priest- 
 hood of  Onias  can  be  extended  to  the  later  date." 
 
 a  Ewald  (Gesch.  iv.  276,  277,  note)  supposes  that 
 the  letter  was  addressed  to  Ouias  II.  during  his  mi- 
 
SPEAR 
 
 This  being  so,  Josephus  is  probably  correct  in  fix- 
 ing the  event  in  the  time  of  Onias  111.  (Anl.  xii.  4, 
 §  10).  The  last-named  Areus  may  have  assumed 
 the  royal  title,  if  that  is  not  due  to  an  exaggerated 
 translation,  and  the  absence  of  the  name  of  a  second 
 king  is  at  once  explained  (Ussher,  Anncdes,  A.  c. 
 183;  Herzfeld,  Gesch.  d.  V.  hr.  i.  215-218).  At 
 the  time  when  Jonathan  and  Simon  made  negotia- 
 tions with  Sparta,  the  succession  of  kings  had 
 ceased.  The  last  absolute  ruler  was  Nabis,  who 
 was  assassinated  in  b.  c.  192.  (WernsdorfF,  Dt 
 fidt  Lib.  Mace.  §§  93-112;  Grimm,  I.  c;  Herzfeld, 
 /.  c.  The  early  literature  of  the  subject  is  given 
 by  Wernsdorir.)  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SPEAR.     [Arms.] 
 
 SPEARMEN  (SelioXi^oi).  The  word  thus 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  of  Acts  xxiii.  23  is  of  very 
 rare  occurrence,  and  its  meaning  is  extremely  ol)- 
 scure.  Our  translators  followed  the  lancearii  of 
 the  Vulgate,  and  it  seems  probable  that  their  ren- 
 dering approximates  most  nearly  to  the  true  mean- 
 ing. Tlie  reading  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  is 
 SefiOjSoAoiiy,  which  is  literally  followed  by  the  Pe- 
 shito-Syriac,  where  the  word  is  translated  "  darters 
 with  the  right  hand."  Lachmann  adopts  this  read- 
 ing, which  appears  also  to  have  been  that  of  tiie 
 Arabic  in  Walton's  Polyglot.  Two  hundred  5e|i- 
 o\d0oi  formed  part  of  the  escort  which  accompa- 
 nied St.  Paul  in  the  night-march  from  Jerusalem 
 to  Cffisarea.  They  are  clearly  distinguished  both 
 from  the  (XTparicaTat,  or  heavy-armed  legionaries, 
 who  only  went  as  far  as  Antipatris,  and  from  the 
 iirirels,  or  cavalry,  who  continued  the  journey  to 
 Csesarea.  As  nothing  is  said  of  the  return  of  the 
 Se^ioXd^oi  to  Jerusalem  after  their  arrival  at  Antip- 
 atris, we  may  infer  tliat  they  accompanied  the  cav- 
 alry to  Csesarea,  and  this  strengtliens  the  supposi- 
 tion that  they  were  irregular  light-armed  troops,  so 
 lightly  armed,  indeed,  as  to  be  able  to  keep  pace  on 
 the  march  with  mounted  soldiers.  Meyer  [Kom- 
 meiilar.  ii.  3,  s.  404,  2^^  A  nil.)  conjectures  that 
 they  were  a  particular  kind  of  light-armed  troops 
 (called  by  the  Romans  Velilts,  or  Eoraiii),  proba- 
 bly either  javelin-men  or  slingers.  In  a  passage 
 quoted  by  the  Emperor  Constantine  Porphyrogen- 
 neta  (Them.  i.  1)  from  John  of  Philadelphia,  they 
 are  distinguished  both  from  the  archers  and  from 
 the  peltasts,  or  targeteers,  and  with  these  are  de- 
 scriljed  as  forming  a  body  of  light-armed  troops, 
 who  in  the  10th  century  were  under  the  command 
 of  an  officer  called  a  tunnnrch.  Grotius,  however, 
 was  of  opinion  that  at  this  late  period  the  term 
 had  merely  been  adopted  from  the  narrative  in  the 
 Acts,  and  that  the  usage  in  the  10th  centiu-y  is  no 
 safe  guide  to  its  true  meaning.  Others  regard 
 them  as  body-guards  of  the  governor,  and  Meursius, 
 in  his  Gloasiirium  Grceco-burbaruin,  supposes  them 
 to  have  been  a  kind  of  military  lictors,  who  had 
 the  charge  of  arresting  prisoners;  but  the  great 
 number  (200)  employed  is  against  both  these  sup- 
 positions. In  Suidas  and  the  Eiymoloyicum  May- 
 num  Trapa<pv\a^  is  given  as  the  equivalent  of  Se^t- 
 o\a;8oj.  The  word  occurs  iigain  in  one  of  the 
 Byzantine  historians,  Theophylactus  Simocatta  (iv. 
 1),  and  is  used  by  him  of  soldiers  who  were  em- 
 ployed on  skirmishing  duty.  It  is  probable,  there- 
 fore, that  the  Se^ioXd^oi  were  light-armed  troops 
 of  some  kind,  but  nothing  is  certainly  known  about 
 them.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SPICE 
 
 3101 
 
 nority  (B.  c.  290-240),  in  the  course  of  the  wars  with 
 Demetrius. 
 
 *  SPED,  Judg.  v.  30  (from  the  A.-S.  spedan) 
 means  "succeeded,"  i.  e.  as  a  warrior  in  battle. 
 The  Bishops'  Bible  has  in  that  place  "  found,"  i.  e. 
 
 booty,  hence  literally  =  ^M^^.  H.  • 
 
 *  SPELT.     [Rye.] 
 
 SPICE,  SPICES.  Under  this  head  it  wil 
 be  desirable  to  notice  the  following  Hebrew  words, 
 bdsdin,  necolh,  and  saminin. 
 
 1.  Bdsdm,  besem,  or  boserii  (D£i72,   Dtt7S,  or 
 
 D^2  :  T^Sva/xaTa,  evixidfiara:  aroinata).  The 
 first-named  form  of  the  Hebrew  term,  which  occurs 
 only  in  Cant.  v.  1,  "  I  have  gathered  my  myrrh 
 with  my  spice,"  points  apparently  to  some  definite 
 substance.  In  the  other  places,  with  the  exception 
 perhaps  of  Cant.  i.  13,  vi.  2,  the  words  refer  more 
 generally  to  sweet  aromatic  odors,  the  principal  of 
 which  was  that  of  the  balsam,  or  balm  of  Gilead ; 
 the  tree  which  yields  this  substance  is  now  gen- 
 erally admitted  to  be  the  Amyris  (Balsamoden- 
 dron)  opobalsamwtn ;  though  it  is  proliable  that 
 other  species  of  Amyridactce  are  included  under 
 the   terms.      The   identity  of  the   Hebrew  name 
 
 with    the  Arabic   Basham  ((*L(ao)  or   Balasdii 
 
 IT)      y    ^    ^ 
 
 (jjLaaaJo)  leaves  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
 
 substances  are  identical.  The  Amyris  opobalsa- 
 mum  was  observed  by  Forskal  near  Mecca;  it  was 
 
 Balsam  of  Gilead  {Amyris  Giteadcn.yis). 
 
 called  by  the  Arabs  Abuscham,  i.  e.  "  very  odor- 
 ous." But  whether  this  was  the  same  plant  that 
 was  cultivated  in  the  plains  of  Jericho,  and  cele- 
 brated throughout  the  world  (Pliny,  H.  N.  xii. 
 25;  Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant,  ix.  6;  Josephus, 
 Ant.  XV.  4,  §  2;  Strabo,  xvi.  307;  &c.),  it  is  diffi- 
 cult to  determine;  but  being  a  tropical  plant,  it 
 
3102 
 
 SPICE 
 
 cannot  be  supposed  to  have  grown  except  in  the 
 warm  valleys  of  the  S.  of  Palestine.  The  shrub 
 mentioned  by  Burckhardt  {Ti-av.  p.  323)  as  grow- 
 ing in  gardens  near  Tiberias,  and  which  he  was 
 informed  was  the  balsam,  cannot  have  been  tlie 
 tree  in  question.  The  A.  V.  never  renders  Bdsani 
 by  "  balm  ";  it  gives  this  word  as  the  i-epresenta- 
 tive  of  the  Hebrew  tzeri,  or  fzoi-i  [15ai.m].  The 
 form  BeseiH  or  Bosem,  which  is  of  frequent  occur- 
 rence in  the  0.  T.,  may  well  be  represented  by  the 
 general  term  of  ".spices,"  or  "sweet  odors,"  in  ac- 
 cordance with  the  renderings  of  the  LXX.  and 
 Vulg.  The  balm  of  Gilead  tree  grows  in  some 
 parts  of  Arabia  and  Africa,  and  is  seldom  more 
 than  fifteen  feet  high,  with  straggling  branches  and 
 scanty  foliage.  The  Iialsam  is  chiefly  obtained 
 from  incisions  in  the  bark,  but  the  substance  is 
 procured  also  from  the  green  and  ripe  berries.  The 
 balsam  orchards  near  .Jericho  appear  to  have  ex- 
 isted at  the  time  of  Titus,  by  whose  legions  they 
 were  taken  formal  possession  of,  but  no  remains  of 
 
 Astru^aLus  Tragacaiitha. 
 
 this  celebrated  plant  are  now  to  be  seen  in  Pales- 
 tine.     (See  Scriplurt  fJerlial,  p.  .3-3.) 
 
 3.  Necoth  (nSD3  :  evfiiafia'-  aromata).  The 
 company  of  Ishmaelitish  merchants  to  whom  Joseph 
 was  sold  were  on  their  way  from  Uilead  to  Eijypt, 
 with  their  camels  bearing  itikvlh,  tzeri  [Halm], 
 and  Ut  (ladaiium)  (Gen.  xxxvii.  25);  this  same 
 substance  was  also  among  the  presents  which  Jacob 
 sent  to  Joseph  in  Egypt  (see  Gen.  xliii.  11).  It  is 
 probable  from  both  these  passages  that  necoth,  if  a 
 name  for  some  definite  substance,  was  a  product  of 
 Palestine,  as  it  is  named  with  other  "  best  fruits 
 of  the  land,"  the  lot  in  the  former  passage  being 
 the  gum  of  the  Clstus  creiicus,  and  not  "  myrrh," 
 as  the  A.  V.  renders  it.  [Myukh.]  Various 
 ojiinions  have  been  formed  as  to  what  ndcM  denotes, 
 ior  which  see  Celsius,  Ilierob.  i.  548,  and  Ilosen- 
 mliller,  Schol.  in  Gen.  (1.  c);  the  most  probable 
 explanation  is  that  which  refers  the  word  to  the 
 
 0  ^  .-  ^ 
 4rabic  naka'at  (xxXj),  *.  e,  "  the  gum  obtained 
 
 SPIDER 
 
 from  the  tragacanth  "  {Astragalus),  three  or  four 
 species  of  which  genus  are  enumerated  as  occurring 
 in  Palestine;  see  Strand's  Flora  Paleestina,  No 
 413-416.  The  gum  is  a  natural  exudation  from 
 the  trunk  and  branches  of  the  plant,  which  on 
 being  "  exposed  to  the  air  grows  hard,  and  is  formed 
 either  into  lumps  or  slender  pieces  curled  and 
 winding  like  worms,  more  or  less  long  according 
 as  matter  offers"  (Tournefort,  Vuyaf/e,i.  59,  ed. 
 Lond.  1741). 
 
 It  is  uncertain  whether  the  word  nD3  in  2  K. 
 XX.  13;  Is.  xxxix.  2,  denotes  spice  of  any  kind. 
 The  A.  V.  reads  in  the  text  "  the  house  of  his 
 precious  things,"  the  margin  gives  "  spicery," 
 which  has  the  support  of  the  Vidg.,  Aq.,  and  Symni. 
 It  is  clear  from  the  passages  referred  to  that  Ileze- 
 kiah  possessed  a  house  or  treasury  of  precious  and 
 useful  vegetable  productions,  and  that  ndcoih  may 
 in  these  places  denote,  thoni;h  perhaps  not  ex- 
 clusively, tragacanth  gum.     Keil  (Comment.  I.  c.) 
 
 derives  the  word  from  an  uimsed  root  (H^S,  "  im- 
 plevit  loculum  "),  and  renders  it  by  "treasure." 
 
 3.  Siimmi?n  (D'^^D  :  TjSuo-jua,  rjSvfffjLds,  &pufj.a, 
 Ovfiia/j.u:  suave  fra grans,  honiodoris.  grnthsimus, 
 aromata).  A  general  term  to  denote  those  aromatic 
 substances  which  were  used  in  the  preparation  of 
 the  anointing  oil,  the  incense  offerings,  etc  The 
 root  of  the  word,  according  to  Gesenius,  is  to  lie 
 referred  to  the  Arabic  Samm,  "  olfecit,"  whence 
 Samihn,  "  an  odoriferous  substance."  For  more 
 particular  information  on  the  \arious  aromatic  sub- 
 stances mentioned  in  the  Bible,  the  reader  is  re- 
 ferred to  the  articles  which  treat  of  the  difierent 
 kinds  :    Fkamkincknse,    Galbanum,    Mykkii, 
 
 Si'IKENAKD,  ClNNAJlON,  etc. 
 
 The  spices  mentioned  as  being  used  by  Nico- 
 dennis  for  the  preparation  of  our  Lord's  body  (John 
 xix.  39,  40)  are  "  myrrh  and  aloes,"  by  which  latter 
 wind  must  be  understood,  not  the  aloes  of  medicine 
 (Aire),  but  the  highly-scented  wood  of  the  Aqni- 
 liiia  agallochum  (but  see  Aloks,  i.  71  f.).  The 
 enormous  quantity  of  100  lbs.  weight  of  which  St. 
 .)ohn  speaks,  has  excited  the  incredulity  of  some 
 authors.  Josephus,  however,  tells  us  that  there 
 were  five  hundred  spicebearers  at  Herod's  funeral 
 (Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  3),  and  in  the  Talmud  it  is  said 
 that  80  lbs.  of  opobalsannmi  were  employed  at  the 
 funeral  of  a  certain  Kabbi ;  still  there  is  no  reason 
 to  conclude  that  100  lbs.  weight  of  pure  myrrh  and 
 aloes  was  consumed ;  the  words  of  the  Evangelist 
 imply  a  prep;aation  (julyna)  in  which  perhaps  the 
 myrrh  and  aloes  were  the  principal  or  most  costly 
 aromatic  ingredients;  again,  it  must  be  remem- 
 bered that  Nicodemus  was  a  rich  man,  and  perhaps 
 was  the  owner  of  large  stores  of  precious  sub- 
 stances; as  a  constant  though  timid  disciple  of  our 
 Lord,  he  j)rolial)ly  did  not  scruple  at  any  sacrifice 
 so  that  he  could  show  his  respect  for  Him. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SPIDER.     The  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of 
 
 the  Hebrew  words  'acrtWisli  and  semamith. 
 
 1.  'Acrdbish  {W''D.'^'3  :  apdxfV'  oranea)  oc- 
 curs in  .lob  viii.  14,  where  of  the  ungodly  (A.  V. 
 hypocrite)  it  is  s.aid  his  "  hope  shall  be  cut  off,  and 
 his  trust  shall  be  the  house  of  an  'accdliish,"  and 
 in  Is.  lix.  5,  where  the  wicked  Jews  are  allegorically 
 said  to  "  weave  the  web  of  the  'accaUsh."  There 
 is  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  our  translation  in 
 rendering  this  word  "  spider."     In  the  two  pas- 
 
SPIKENARD 
 
 lages  quoted  above,  allusion  is  made  to  the  fragile 
 nature  of  the  spider's  web,  which,  though  admirably 
 suited  to  fulfill  all  the  requirements  of  the  animal, 
 is  yet  most  easily  torn  by  any  violence  that  may 
 be  offered  to  it.  In  the  passage  in  Is.  {I.  c),  how- 
 ever, there  is  probably  allusion  also  to  the  lurking 
 habits  of  the  spider  for  his  prey:  "The  wicked 
 hatch  viper's  eggs  and  weave  the  spider's  web  .  .  . 
 their  works  are  works  of  iniquity,  wasting  and  de- 
 struction are  in  their  paths."  We  have  no  infor- 
 mation as  to  the  species  of  Anmeidie  that  occur  in 
 Palestine,  but  doubtless  this  order  is  abundantly 
 represented. 
 
 2.  Semdmilh  {n^l2T2W  :  KaKa^ur-qs-  stellio), 
 wrongly  translated  by  the  A.  V.  "  spider  "  in  Prov. 
 XXX.  28,  the  only  passage  where  the  word  is  found, 
 has  reference,  it  is  probable,  to  some  kind  of  lizard 
 (Bochart,  lltcroz.  ii.  510).  The  semainilh  is  men- 
 tioned by  Solomon  as  one  of  the  four  things  that 
 are  exceeding  clever,  though  they  be  little  upon 
 earth.  "  The  semdmith  taketh  hold  with  her  hands, 
 and  is  in  kings'  palaces."  This  term  exists  in  the 
 modern  Greek  language  under  the  form  aa/jLtdfiiv- 
 dos.  "  Quem  Graici  hodie  aaixiafxivdov  vocant, 
 antiquae  Grsecioe  est  acrKa.\a^<i>T7]s,  id  est  stellio  — 
 quae  vox  pura  Hebraica  est  et  reperitur  in  Prov. 
 
 cap.  XXX.  28,  jl^ttttti)"  (Salmasii  PUn.  Exercit. 
 p.  817,  b.  G.).  The  lizard  indicated  is  evidently 
 some  species  of  Gecko,  some  notice  of  which  genus 
 of  animals  is  given  under  the  article  Liz.vkd,  where 
 the  ktdf'h  was  referi-ed  to  the  Ptijodactijlus  Gecko. 
 The  semdmith  is  perhaps  another  species. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SPIKENARD  ("^"13,  wrd :  udpSos-  nardus). 
 We  are  much  indebted  to  tlie  late  lamented  Dr. 
 Royle  for  helping  to  clear  up  the  doubts  that  had 
 long  existed  as  to  what  particular  plant  furnished 
 the  aromatic  substance  known  as  "  spikenard." 
 Of  this  substance  mention  is  made  twice  in  the 
 O.  T.,  namely,  in  Cant.  i.  12,  where  its  sweet  odor 
 is  alluded  to,  and  in  iv.  13,  14,  where  it  is  enumer- 
 ated with  various  other  aromatic  substances  which 
 were  imported  at  an  early  age  from  Arabia  or 
 India  and  the  far  East.  The  ointment  with  which 
 our  Lord  was  anointed  as  He  sat  at  meat  in  Simon's 
 house  at  Bethany  consisted  of  this  precious  sub- 
 stance, the  costliness  of  which  may  be  inferred  from 
 the  indignant  surprise  manifested  by  some  of  the 
 witnesses  of  the  transaction  (see  Mark  xiv.  .3-5 ; 
 John  xii.  3-5).  With  this  may  be  compared 
 Horace,  4  Carm.  xii.  16,  17  — 
 
 "  Nardo  vina  merebere. 
 Nardi  parvus  onyx  eliciet  cadum." 
 
 Dioscorides  speaks  of  several  kinds  of  vdpSos, 
 and  gives  the  names  of  various  substances  which 
 composed  the  ointment  (i.  77).  The  Hebrew  7(er(/, 
 according  to  Gesenius,  is  of  Indian  origin,  and  sig- 
 nifies the  stalk  of  a  plant;  hence  one  of  the  Arabic 
 names  given  by  Avicenna  as  the  equivalent  of  nard 
 is  sunbul,  "spica;  "  comp.  the  Greek  vapB6crTaxv'i, 
 and  our  "  s/j/ienard."     But  whatever  may  be  the 
 
 derivation  of  the  Heb.  ^^3)  there  is  no  doubt  that 
 sunhul  is  by  Arabian  authors  used  as  the  represent- 
 ative of  the  Greek  nardos,  as  Sir  Wm.  Jones  has 
 shown  (Asi(d.  Ees.  ii.  416).  It  appears,  however, 
 that  this  great  oriental  scholar  was  unable  to  obtain 
 the  plant  from  which  the  drug  is  procured,  a  wrong 
 plant  having  been  sent  him  by  Roxburgh.  Dr. 
 Koyle,  when  director  of  the  E.  I.  Company's  botanic 
 
 SPINNING  3103 
 
 garden  at  Saharunpore,  about  30  miles  from  the 
 foot  of  the  Himalayan  Mountains,  having  ascer- 
 tained that  the  jaiamcinsee,  one  of  the  Hindu 
 synonyms  for  the  sunbul,  was  annually  brought 
 from  the  mountains  overhanging  the  G.anges  and 
 Junnia  rivers  down  to  the  plains,  purchased  some 
 of  these  fresh  roots  and  planted  them  in  the  botanic 
 garden.  They  produced  the  same  plant  which  in 
 1825  had  been  described  by  Don  from  specimens 
 sent  by  Dr.  Wallich  from  Nepal,  and  named  by 
 him  P(drinin  jatamnnsi  (see  the  Prodromus  Florae 
 lYejmlensis,  etc.,  accedunt  plantcB  (t  Walllchio 
 nuperius  missce,  Lond.  1825).  The  identity  of  the 
 jntamrmsi  with  the  Sunbul  liindce  of  the  Arabs  is 
 established  beyond  a  doubt  Ity  the  form  of  a  portion 
 of  the  rough  stem  of  the  plant,  which  the  Arabs 
 describe  as  being  like  the  tail  of  an  ermine  (see 
 wood-cut).    This  plant,  which  has  been  called  Nai-- 
 
 Spikenard. 
 
 dosiachys  jatamami  by  De  Candolle,  is  evidently 
 the  kind  of  nardos  described  by  Dioscorides  (i.  6) 
 under  the  name  of  yayylTts,  «'■  f-,  "  the  Ganges 
 nard."  Dioscorides  refers  especially  to  its  having 
 many  shaggy  {Tro\vK6fjLovs)  spikes  growing  from 
 one  root.  It  is  very  interesting  to  note  that  Dios- 
 corides gives  the  same  locality  for  the  plant  as  is 
 mentioned  by  Koyle,  airS  rivos  iroTaij.ov  -Kapap- 
 piovTos  rov  opovs,  Tayyov  KaXovfiivov  nap  cb 
 (pveraf-  though  he  is  here  freaking  of  lowland 
 specimens,  he  also  mentions  plants  obtained  from 
 the  mountains.  W.  H. 
 
 SPINNING  Cny^:  v-heav).  The  notices 
 of  spinning  in  the  Bible  are  confined  to  Ex.  xxxv. 
 25,  26;  Matt.  vi.  28;  and  Prov.  xxxi.  19.  The 
 latter  passage  implies  (according  to  the  A.  V.)  the 
 use  of  the  same  instruments  which  have  been  in 
 vogue  for  hand-spinning  down  to  the  present  day, 
 namely,  the  distaff  and  spindle.  The  distaff,  how- 
 ever, appears  to  have  been  dispensed  with,  and  the 
 term  "  so  rendered  means  the  spindle  itself,  while 
 that  rendered  "spindle"*  represents  the  ivhiri 
 (verticillus,  Plin.  xxxvii.  11)  of  the  spindle,  a  but- 
 ton or  circular  rim  which  was  affixed  to  it,  and 
 gave  steadiness  to  its  circular  motion.    The  "  whirl" 
 
 ""n)???- 
 
 nntt7^2. 
 
3104         SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 
 
 of  the  Syrian  women  was  made  of  amber  in  the 
 time  of  Pliny  (l.  c).  The  spindle  was  held  per- 
 pendicularly in  the  one  hand,  while  the  other  was 
 employed  in  drawing  out  tlie  tlire;id.  The  process 
 is  exhibited  in  the  Egyptian  paintings  (Wilkinson, 
 ii.  85).  Spiiniing  was  the  business  of  women,  both 
 among  the  Jews  (l-^x.  I.  c),  and  for  the  most  part 
 among  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  ii.  84). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 SPIRIT,  THE   HOLY.    In  the  O.  T.  He  is 
 
 generally  called  □'^n'bH  ^^'^,  or  niTT;  n^-|, 
 the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit  of  .Jehovah;  some- 
 times the  Holy  Spirit  of  .Jehovah,  as  Ps.  Ii.  11 ; 
 Is.  Ixiii.  10,  11;  or  the  Good  Spirit  of  .Jehovah,  as 
 Ps.  cxliii.  10;  Neh.  ix.  20.  In  the  N.  T.  He  is 
 generally  t^  iry^v/xa  rh  ayiov,  or  simply  rb  Trvev/ma, 
 the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit;  sometimes  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  of  the  Lord,  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  Matt, 
 iii.  16 ;  Acts  v.  9 ;   Phil.  i.  19,  &c. 
 
 In  accordance  with  what  seems  to  be  the  general 
 rule  of  Divine  Revelation,  that  the  knowledge  of 
 heavenly  things  is  given  more  alnnidantly  and  more 
 clearly  in  later  ages,  the  person,  attributes,  and 
 operations  of  the  Holy  (Jhost  are  made  known  to 
 us  chiefly  in  the  New  Testament.  And  in  the 
 light  of  such  later  revelation,  words  which  when 
 heard  by  patriarchs  and  prophets  were  probably  un- 
 derstood imperfectly  by  them,  become  full  of  mean- 
 ing to  (liristians. 
 
 In  the  earliest  period  of  Jewish  history  the  Holy 
 Spirit  was  revealed  as  coiiperating  in  the  creation 
 of  the  world  (Gen.  i.  2),  as  the  Source,  Giver,  and 
 Sustainer  of  life  (Job  xxvii.  .3,  xxxiii.  4;  Gen.  ii. 
 7);  as  resisting  (if  the  common  interpretation  be 
 correct)  the  evil  inclinations  of  men  (tjen.  vi.  3); 
 as  the  Source  of  intellectual  excellence  (Gen.  xli. 
 38;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9);  of  skill  in  handicraft  (Ex. 
 xxviii.  3,  xxxi.  3,  .xxxv.  31);  of  supernatural  knowl- 
 edge and  prophetic  gifts  (Num.  xxiv.  2);  of  valor 
 and  those  qualities  of  mind  or  body  which  give  one 
 man  acknowledged  superiority  over  others  (Judg. 
 iii.  10,  vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  25). 
 
 In  that  period  which  began  with  Samuel,  the 
 effect  of  the  Spirit  coming  on  a  man  is  described 
 in  the  remarkable  case  of  Saul  as  change  of  heart 
 (1  Sam.  X.  6,  9),  shown  outwardly  by  prophesying 
 (1  Sam.  X.  10;  comp.  Num.  xi.  25,  and  1  Sam. 
 xix.  20).  He  departs  from  a  man  whom  He  has 
 once  changed  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14).  His  departure  is 
 the  departure  of  God  (xvi.  14,  xviii.  12,  xxviii.  15). 
 His  presence  is  the  presence  of  God  (xvi.  13,  xviii. 
 12).  In  the  period  of  the  Kingdom  the  operation 
 of  the  Spirit  was  recognized  chiefly  in  the  inspira- 
 tion of  the  prophets  (see  Witsius,  Miscellanea  Sa- 
 cra, lib.  i. ;  J.  Smith's  Select  Discourses,  p.  6, 
 Of  Prophecy ;  Knobel,  Prophetismus  der  He- 
 brder).  Separated  more  or  less  from  the  common 
 occupations  of  men  to  a  hfe  of  special  religious 
 exercise  (Bp.  Bull's  Sermons,  x.  p.  187.  ed.  1840), 
 they  were  sometimes  workers  of  miracles,  always 
 foretellers  of  future  events,  and  guides  and  advisers 
 of  the  social  and  political  life  of  the  people  who 
 were  contemporary  with  them  (2  K.  ii.  9 ;  2  Chr, 
 xxiv.  20;  Neh.  ix.  30,  &c.).  In  their  writings  are 
 found  abundant  predictions  of  the  ordinary  opera- 
 tions of  the  Spirit  which  were  to  be  most  frequent 
 in  later  times,  by  which  holiness,  justice,  peace,  and 
 consolation  were  to  be  spread  throughout  the  world 
 (Is.  xi.  2,  xlii.  1,  Ixi.  1,  &c.). 
 
 Even  after  the  closing  of  the  canon  of  the  O.  T. 
 the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  world  con- 
 
 SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 
 
 tinned  to  be  acknowledged  by  Jewish  writers  (Wisd. 
 i.  7,  ix.  17;  Philo,  De  Gif/ani.  5;  and  see  Ridley, 
 Moyer  Lectures,  Serm.  ii.  p.  81,  &c.). 
 
 In  the  N.  T.,  both  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
 and  in  the  narratives  of  the  events  which  preceded 
 his  ministry  and  occurred  in  its  course,  the  exist- 
 ence and  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  frequently 
 revealed,  and  are  mentioned  in  such  a  manner  as 
 shows  that  these  facts  were  part  of  the  common 
 belief  of  the  Jewish  people  at  that  time.  Theirs 
 was,  in  truth,  the  ancient  faith,  but  more  generally 
 entertained,  which  looked  upon  prophets  as  inspired 
 teachers,  accredited  by  the  power  of  working  signs 
 and  wonders  (see  Nitzsch,  Chrisll.  Lehre,  §  84). 
 It  was  made  plain  to  the  understanding  of  the  Jews 
 of  that  age  that  the  same  Spirit  who  wrought  of 
 old  amongst  the  people  of  God  was  still  at  work. 
 "  The  Dove  forsook  the  ark  of  INIoses  and  fixed  its 
 dwelling  in  the  Church  of  Christ  "  (Bull,  On  Justi- 
 Jication.  Diss.  ii.  ch.  xi.  §  7).  The  gifts  of  mira- 
 cles, prediction,  and  teaching,  which  had  cast  a 
 fitful  lustre  on  the  times  of  the  great  Jewish 
 prophets,  were  manifested  with  remarkable  vigor  in 
 the  first  century  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  Wliether 
 in  the  course  of  eighteen  hundred  years  miracles 
 and  predictions  have  altogether  ceased,  and,  if  so, 
 at  what  definite  time  they  ceased,  are  questions 
 still  debated  among  Christians.  On  this  subject 
 reference  may  be  made  to  Dr.  Conyers  Middleton's 
 Free  Enquiry  into  the  Miraculous  Powers  of  (he 
 Christian  Church ;  Dr.  Brooke's  Examination  (if' 
 Middleton's  Free  Enquiry ;  W.  Dodwell's  Letter 
 to  Middleton  ;  Bp.  Douglas's  Criterion  ;  J.  H.  New- 
 man's Essay  on'Miracles,  etc.  With  respect  to  the 
 gifts  of  teaching  bestowed  both  in  early  and  later 
 ages,  compare  Neander,  Planting  of  Christianity, 
 b.  iii.  ch.  v.,  with  Horsley,  .Sermons,  xiv..  Potter, 
 On  Church  Government,  ch.  v.,  and  Hooker,  Eccl. 
 Polity,  V.  72,  §§  5-8. 
 
 The  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Incarnate 
 Son  of  God  (see  Oxford  translation  of  Treatises  of 
 Athanasius,  p.  196,  note  d)  is  a  sul  ject  for  reverent 
 contemplation  rather  than  precise  definition.  By 
 the  Spirit  the  redemption  of  mankind  was  made 
 known,  though  imperfectly,  to  the  prophets  of  old 
 (2  Pet.  i.  21 ),  and  through  them  to  the  people  of 
 God.  And  when  the  time  for  the  Incarnation  had 
 arrived,  the  miraculous  conception  of  the  Redeemer 
 (llatt.  i.  18)  was  the  work  of  the  Spirit;  by  the 
 Spirit  He  was  anointed  in  the  womb  or  at  baptism 
 (Acts  X.  38;  cf.  Pearson,  On  the  Creed,  Art.  ii. 
 p.  126,  ed.  0.xon.  1843);  and  the  gradual  growth 
 of  his  perfect  human  nature  was  in  the  Spirit 
 (Luke  ii.  40,  52).  A  visilile  sign  from  heaven 
 showed  the  Spirit  descending  on  and  abiding  with 
 Christ,  whom  He  thenceforth  filled  and  led  (Luke 
 iv.  1),  cooperating  with  Christ  in  his  miracles 
 (Matt.  xii.  18).  The  multitude  of  disciples  are 
 taught  to  pray  for  and  expect  the  Spirit  as  the  best 
 and  greatest  boon  tliey  can  seek  (Luke  xi.  13). 
 He  inspires  witli  miraculous  powers  the  first 
 teachers  whom  Christ  sends  forth,  and  He  is  re- 
 peatedly promised  and  given  by  Christ  to  the 
 Apostles  (Jlatt.  x.  20,  xii.  28 ;  John  xiv.  16,  xi 
 22;  Acts  i.  8). 
 
 Perhaps  it  was  in  order  to  correct  the  grossly 
 defective  conceptions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
 prevailed  connnonly  among  the  people,  and  to  teach 
 them  that  this  is  the  most  awful  possession  of  the 
 heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  our  Lord 
 himself  pronounced  the  strong  condemnation  of 
 blasphemers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matt.  xii.  31). 
 
SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 
 
 This  has  roused  in  every  age  the  susceptibility  of 
 tender  consciences,  and  has  caused  much  inquiry  to 
 be  made  as  to  the  specific  character  of  the  sin  so 
 denounced,  and  of  the  human  actions  wliich  fall 
 under  so  terrible  a  ban.  On  the  one  liand  it  is 
 argued  that  no  one  now  occupies  the  exact  position 
 of  the  Pharisees  whom  our  Lord  condemned,  for 
 they  had  not  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Holy 
 Spirit  by  baptism;  they  did  not  merely  disobey 
 the  Spirit,  but  blasphemously  attributed  his  works 
 to  tlie  devil; -they  resisted  not  merely  an  inward 
 motion  but  an  outward  call,  supported  by  the  evi- 
 dence of  miracles  wrought  before  their  eyes.  On 
 the  other  hand,  a  morbid  conscience  is  prone  to 
 apprehend  the  uiipardonaljle  sin  in  every,  even  un- 
 intentional, resistance  of  an  inward  motion  which 
 may  proceed  from  the  Spirit.  This  subject  is  re- 
 ferred to  in  Article  XVI.  of  the  (Jhurcli  of  Eng- 
 land, and  is  discussed  by  Burnet,  Beveridge,  and 
 Harold  Browne,  in  their  Expositions  of  the  Arti- 
 cles. It  occupies  the  greater  part  of  Athanasius' 
 Fourth  Epistle  to  Serapioti.,  cc.  8-22  (sometimes 
 printed  separately  as  a  Treatise  on  Matt.  xii.  31). 
 See  also  Augustine,  Ep.  ad  Rom.  Expositio  in- 
 choata,  §§  14-23,  torn.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  933.  Also 
 Odo  Cameracensis  (a.  d.  1113),  Be  Blasphemia  in 
 Sp.  Sanctum,  in  Migne's  Patvoloijia  Lat.  vol.  163 ; 
 J.  Denison  (a.  d.  IGll),  The  Sin  against  the  Holy 
 Ghost ;  VVaterland's  Sermons,  xxvii.  in  Worlcs, 
 vol.  V.  p.  706;  Jackson,  On  the  Creed,  bk.  viii.  ch. 
 iii.  p.  770. 
 
 But  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord  is  marked  (Eph. 
 iv.  8;  John  vii.  39,  &c.)  as  the  commencement  of 
 a  new  period  in  the  history  of  the  inspiration  of 
 men  by  the  Holy  Ghost  The  interval  between 
 that  event  and  the  end  of  the  world  is  often  de- 
 scribed as  the  Dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  It  was 
 not  merely  (as  Didymus  Alex.  Be  Trinitate,  iii. 
 3-1,  p.  431,  and  others  have  suggested)  that  the 
 knowledge  of  the  Spirit's  operations  became  more 
 general  among  mankind.  It  cannot  be  allowed 
 (though  Bp.  Heber,  Lectures,  viii.  514  and  vii. 
 488,  and  Warburton  have  maintained  it)  that  the 
 Holy  Spirit  has  sufficiently  redeemed  his  gracious 
 promise  to  every  succeeding  age  of  Christians  only 
 by  presenting  us  with  the  New  Testament.  Some- 
 thing more  was  promised,  and  continues  to  be 
 given.  Under  the  old  dispensation  the  gifts  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  were  uncovenanted,  not  universal,  in- 
 termittent, chiefly  external.  All  this  was  changed. 
 Our  Lord,  by.  ordaining  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  that 
 every  Christian  should  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  indicated  at  once  the  absolute  ne- 
 cessity from  that  time  forth  of  a  personal  connec- 
 tion of  every  believer  with  the  Spirit ;  and  (in  .John 
 xvi.  7-15 )  He  declares  the  internal  character  of  the 
 Spirit's  work,  and  (in  .John  xiv.  16,  17,  &c.)  his 
 permanent  stay.  And  subsequently  the  Spirit's 
 operations  under  the  new  dispensation  are  authori- 
 tatively announced  as  universal  and  internal  in  two 
 remarkable  passages  (Acts  ii.  16-21;  Heb.  viii. 
 8-12).  The  different  relations  of  the  Spirit  to 
 believers  severally  under  the  old  and  new  dispensa- 
 tion are  described  by  St.  Paul  under  the  images  of 
 *  master  to  a  servant,  and  a  father  to  a  son  (Rom. 
 viii.  15);  so  much  deeper  and  more  intimate  is  the 
 union,  so  much  higher  the  position  (Matt.  xi.  11) 
 of  a  believer,  in  the  later  stage  than  in  the  earlier 
 (see  J.  G.  Walchius,  Miscellanea  Sacra,  p.  763, 
 Be  Spiritu  Adoptionis,  and  the  opinions  collected 
 in  note  H  in  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter, 
 rol.  ii.  p.  433)      The  rite  of  imposition  of  hands, 
 
 SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY        3105 
 
 not  only  on  teachers,  but  also  on  ordinary  Chris- 
 tians, which  has  been  used  in  the  Apostolic  (Acts 
 vi.  6,  xiii.  3,  xix.  6,  &c.)  and  in  all  subsequent 
 ages,  is  a  testimony  borne  by  those  who  come  un- 
 der the  new  dispensation  to  their  belief  of  the 
 reality,  permanence,  and  universality  of  the  gift  of 
 the  Spirit. 
 
 Under  the  Christian  dispensation  it  appears  to 
 be  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  enter  into  and 
 dwell  within  every  believer  (Rom.  viii.  9,11;  1 
 John  iii.  24).  By  Him  the  work  of  Redemption  is 
 (so  to. speak)  appropriated  and  carried  out  to  its 
 completion  in  the  case  of  every  one  of  the  elect 
 people  of  God.  To  believe,  to  profess  sincerely 
 the  Christian  faith,  and  to  walk  as  a  Christian,  are 
 his  gifts  (2  Cor.  iv.  13;  1  Cor.  xii.  3;  Gal.  v.  18) 
 to  each  person  severally ;  not  oidy  does  He  bestow 
 the  power  and  faculty  of  acting,  but  He  concurs 
 (1  Cor.  iii.  9;  Phil.  ii.  13)  in  every  particular  ac- 
 tion so  far  as  it  is  good  (see  South's  Sermons, 
 XXXV.,  vol.  ii.  p.  292).  His  inspiration  brings  the 
 true  knowledge  of  all  things  (1  John  ii.  27).  He 
 unites  the  whole  multitude  of  believers  into  one 
 regularly  organized  body  (1  Cor.  xii.,  and  Eph. 
 iv.  4—16).  He  is  not  only  the  source  of  light  to 
 us  on  earth  (2  Cor.  iii.  6;  Rom.  viii.  2),  but  also 
 the  power  by  whom  God  raises  us  from  the  dead 
 (Rom.  viii.  11).  All  Scripture,  by  which  men  in 
 every  successive  generation  are  instructed  and  made 
 wise  unto  salvation,  is  inspired  by  Him  (Eph.  iii. 
 6;  2  Tim.  iii.  16;  2  Pet.  i.  21)';  He  cooperates 
 with  suppliants  in  the  utterance  of  every  effectual 
 prayer  that  ascends  on  high  (Eph.  ii.  18,  vi.  18; 
 Rom.  viii.  20);  He  strengthens  (Eph.  iii.  16), 
 sanctifies  (2  Thes.  ii.  13),  and  seals  the  souls  of 
 men  unto  the  day  of  completed  redemption  (Eph 
 i.  13,  iv.  30). 
 
 That  this  work  of  the  Spirit  is  a  real  work,  and 
 not  a  mere  imagination  of  enthusiasts,  may  be 
 shown  (1)  from  the  words  of  Scripture  to  which 
 reference  has  been  made,  which  are  too  definite  and 
 clear  to  be  explained  away  by  any  such  hypothesis; 
 (2)  by  the  experience  of  intelligent  Christians  in 
 every  age,  who  are  ready  to  specify  the  marks  and 
 tokens  of  his  operation  in  themselves,  and  even  to 
 describe  the  manner  in  which  they  believe  He 
 works,  on  which  see  Barrow's  Serinons,  Ixxvii.  and 
 Ixxviii.,  towards  the  end;  Waterland's  Sermons, 
 xxvi.,  vol.  V.  p.  686;  (3)  by  the  superiority  of 
 Christian  nations  over  heathen  nations,  in  the 
 possession  of  those  characteristic  qualities  which  are 
 gifts  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  establishment  of  such 
 customs,  habits,  and  laws  as  are  agreeable  thereto, 
 and  in  the  exercise  of  an  eidightening  and  purify- 
 ing influence  in  the  world.  Christianity  and  civ- 
 ilization are  never  far  asunder :  those  nations  which 
 are  now  eminent  in  power  and  knowledge  are  all  to 
 be  found  within  the  pale  of  Christendom,  not  in- 
 deed free  from  national  vices,  yet  on  the  whole 
 manifestly  superior  both  to  contemporary  unbe- 
 lievers and  to  Paganism  in  its  ancient  palmy  days. 
 (See  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  Serm.  6, 
 vol.  i.  p.  202 ;  Porteus  on  the  Beneficial  Effects  of 
 Christianity  on  the  Temporal  Concerns  of  Man- 
 kind, in  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  375-460.) 
 
 It  has  been  inferred  from  various  passages  of 
 Scripture  that  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
 are  not  limited  to  those  persons  who  either  by  cir- 
 cumcision or  by  baptism  have  entered  into  covenant 
 with  God.  Abimelech  (Gen.  xx.  3),  Melchizedek 
 (xiv.  18),  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii.  12),  Balaam  (Num 
 xxii.  9),  and  Job  in  the  0.  T.;  and  the  Mag^ 
 
3106        SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 
 
 (Matt.  ii.  12)  and  the  case  of  Cornelius,  with  the 
 declaration  of  St.  I'eter  (Acts  x.  35)  thereon,  are 
 instances  showing  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bestowed 
 his  gifts  of  knowledge  and  holiness  in  some  degree 
 e\en  among  heathen  nations;  and  if  we  may  go 
 beyond  the  attestation  of  Scripture,  it  might  be 
 argued  from  the  virtuous  actions  of  some  heathens, 
 from  their  ascription  of  whatever  good  was  in  them 
 to  the  influence  of  a  present  Deity  (see  tlie  refer- 
 ences in  Ileber's  Lectures,  vi.  44G),  and  from  their 
 tenacious  preservation  of  the  rite  of  animal  sacri- 
 fice, that  the  Spirit  whose  name  they  knew  not 
 must  have  girded  theui,  and  still  girds  such  as  they 
 were,  with  secret  blessedness. 
 
 Thus  far  it  has  been  attempted  to  sketch  biiefly 
 the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  among  men  in  all  ages 
 as  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible.  But  after  the 
 closing  of  the  canon  of  the  N.  T.  the  religious 
 .subtilty  of  oriental  Christians  led  them  to  scru- 
 tinize, with  the  most  intense  accuracy,  the  words 
 in  which  (Jod  has,  incidentally  as  it  were,  revealed 
 to  us  something  of  the  mystery  of  the  Being  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost.  It  would  be  vain  now  to  con- 
 denm  the  superfluous  and  irreverent  curiosity  with 
 which  these  researches  were  sometimes  prosecuted, 
 and  the  scandalous  contentions  wliich  they  caused. 
 The  result  of  them  was  the  formation  and  general 
 acceptance  of  certain  statements  as  inferences  from 
 Holy  Scripture  which  took  their  place  in  the  estab- 
 lished creeds  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers 
 of  the  Church,  and  which  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
 tians throughout  the  world  continue  to  adhere  to, 
 and  to  guard  with  more  or  less  vigilance. 
 
 The  Sadducees  are  sometimes  mentioned  as  pre- 
 ceding any  professed  Christians  in  denying  the  per- 
 sonal existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such  was  the 
 inference  of  Epiphanius  {Hceres.  xli.),  Gregory  Na- 
 zianzen  {Oratio,  xxxi.  §  5,  p.  558,  ed.  Ben.),  and 
 others,  from  the  testimony  of  St.  Luke  (Acts  xxiii. 
 8).  But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  error  of 
 the  Sadducees  did  not  rather  consist  in  asserting  a 
 corporeal  Deity.  Passing  over  this,  in  the  first 
 youthful  age  of  the  Church,  when,  as  Neander  ob- 
 serves {Cli-  Hist.  ii.  327,  Bohn's  ed.),  the  power 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  so  mightily  felt  as  a  new 
 creative,  transforming  principle  of  life,  the  knowl- 
 edge of  this  Spirit,  as  identical  with  the  Essence 
 of  God,  was  not  so  thoroughly  and  distinctly  im- 
 pressed on  the  understanding  of  Christians.  Simon 
 Magus,  the  Montanists,  and  the  Manicheans,  are 
 said  to  have  imagined  that  the  proniised  Comforter 
 was  personified  in  certain  human  beings.  The  lan- 
 guage of  some  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  though  its 
 deficiencies  have  been  greatly  exaggerated,  occa- 
 sionally comes  short  of  a  full  and  complete  ac- 
 knowledgment of  the  Divinity  of  the  Spirit.  Their 
 opinions  are  given  in  their  own  words,  with  much 
 valuable  criticism,  in  Dr.  Burton's  Testliiionies  of 
 the  Anie-Nicene  Fathers  to  the  Doctrine  of  the 
 Trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (1831). 
 Valentinus  believed  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  an 
 angel.  The  Sabellians  denied  that  He  was  a  dis- 
 tinct Person  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Euno- 
 mius,  with  the  Anoma;ans  and  the  Arians,  regarded 
 Him  as  a  created  Being.  JMacedonius,  with  his 
 followers  the  Pneumatomachi,  also  denied  his  Di- 
 vinity, and  regarded  Him  as  a  created  Being  at- 
 tending on  the  Son.  His  procession  from  the  Son 
 as  well  as  from  the  Father  was  the  great  point  of 
 controversy  in  the  Middle  Ages.  In  modern  times 
 the  Socinians  and  Spinoza  have  altogether  denied 
 the  Personality,  and  have  regarded  Him  as  an  in- 
 
 SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 
 
 fluence  or  power  of  the  Deity.  It  must  suffice  in 
 this  article  to  give  the  principal  texts  of  Scripture 
 in  which  these  erroneous  opinions  are  contradicted, 
 and  to  refer  to  the  principal  works  in  which  they 
 are  discussed  at  length.  The  documents  in  which 
 various  existing  comnnmities  of  Christians  have 
 stated  their  behef  are  specified  by  G.  B.  Winer 
 ( Comparative  Darstellung  dts  Lthrheyriffs,  etc., 
 pp.  41  and  80). 
 
 The  Di\inity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  proved  by 
 the  fact  that  He  is  called  God.  Compare  1  Sam. 
 xvi.  13  with  xviii.  12;  Acts  v.  3  with  v.  4;  2  Cor. 
 iii.  17  with  Ex.  xxxiv.  34;  Acts  xxviii.  25  with  Is. 
 vi.  8;  Matt.  xii.  28  with  l.uke  xi.  20;  1  Cor.  iii. 
 16  with  vi.  19.  The  attributes  of  God  are  ascribed 
 to  Him.  He  creates,  works  miracles,  inspires 
 prophets,  is  the  Source  of  holiness  (see  above),  is 
 everlasting  (Heb.  ix.  14),  omnipresent,  and  omnis- 
 cient (Ps.  cxxxix.  7;  and  1  Cor.  ii.  10). 
 
 The  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  shown  by 
 the  actions  ascribed  to  Him.  He  hears  and  speaks 
 (John  xvi.  13;  Acts  x.  19,  xiii.  2,  &c.).  He  wills 
 and  acts  on  his  decision  (1  Cor.  xii.  11).  He 
 chooses  and  directs  a  certain  course  of  action  (Acts 
 XV.  28).  He  knows  (1  Cor.  ii.  11).  He  teaches 
 (John  xiv.  20).  He  intercedes  (llom.  viii.  26). 
 The  texts  2  Thes.  iii.  5,  and  1  Thes.  iii.  12,  13, 
 are  quoted  against  those  who  confound  the  three 
 persons  of  the  Godhead. 
 
 The  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the 
 Father  is  shown  from  John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26,  &c. 
 The  tenet  of  the  Western  Church  that  He  pro- 
 ceeds from  the  Son  is  grounded  on  John  xv.  26, 
 xvi.  7;  Rom.  viii,  9;  Gal.  iv.  6;  Phil.  i.  19;  1 
 Pet.  i.  11;  and  on  the  action  of  our  Lord  recorded 
 by  St.  John  xx.  22.  The  history  of  the  long  and 
 important  controversy  on  this  point  has  been  writ- 
 ten by  Pfaff",  by  J.  G.  Walchius,  Historia  Contro- 
 rersim  de  Processione,  1751,  and  by  Neale,  History 
 (if  the  Eastern  Church,  ii.  1093. 
 
 Besides  the  Expositions  of  the.  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
 cles referred  to  above,  and  Pearson,  On  the  Creed, 
 art.  viii.,  the  work  of  Barrow  {De,  Spiritu  Sancto) 
 contains  an  excellent  sunmiary  of  the  various  here- 
 sies and  their  confutation.  The  following  works 
 may  be  consulted  for  more  detailed  discussion : 
 Athanasius,  Epistolce  1 V.  ad  Serapiimem ;  Didy- 
 mus  Alex.  De  Spiritu  Sancto ;  Basil  the  Great, 
 De  Spiritu  Sancto,  and  Adversus  Eunomium  ; 
 Gregory  Nazianzen,  Orationes  de  Theohr/ia;  Greg- 
 ory of  Nyssa,  Contra  Eunomium,  lib.  xiii.;  Am- 
 brose, De  Spiritu  Sancto,  lib.  iii. ;  Augustine, 
 Contra  Maxiininum,  and  De  Trinitate  ;  Paschasius 
 DiacoTms,  De  Spiritu  Sancto ;  Isidorus,  Hisp. 
 Etymologia,  vii.  3,  De  Spiritu  Sancto;  Eatramnus 
 Corbeiensis,  Contra  Grcecorum,  etc.,  lib.  iv. ;  Al- 
 cuin,  P.  Damian,  and  Anselm,  De  Processione; 
 Aquinas,  Sum.  Theol.  i.  36-43;  Owen,  Treatise 
 on  the  Holy  Spirit ;  J.  Howe,  Office  and  Works 
 of  the  Holy  Spririt ;  W.  Clagett,  On  the  Opera- 
 tions of  the  Spirit,  1678;  M.  Hole,  On  the  Gifts  and 
 Graces  of  the  H.  S.;  Bp.  Warburton,  Doctrine  of 
 Grace ;  Gl.  liidley,  Moyer  Lectures  on  the  Divin- 
 ity and  Operations  (f  the  H.  S.,  1742;  S.  Ogden, 
 Sermons,  pp.  157-176;  Faher,  Practical  Treatise 
 an  the  Ordinary  Operations  of  the  //.  S.,  1813:  Bp. 
 Heber,  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Personality  and 
 Office  of  the  Comforter,  1816;  Archd.  Hare,  Mis- 
 sion of  the  Comforter,  1846.  W.  T.  B. 
 
 *  Though  this  subject  hardly  comes  within  the 
 proper  scope  of  the  Dictionary,  a  few  references 
 may  be  added   to  writers  of   different  theological 
 
SPOIL 
 
 schools.  F.  A.  Lampe,  Diss.  l.-VU.  Je  Spirifu 
 sancto,  Bretu.  1728-2U,  4to.  l^arcii)er,  First  Fost- 
 icripi  to  his  Letter  an  the  Loyos  (  Works,  x.  117- 
 169,  ed.  1829).  (Henry  Ware,)  Use  and  Meaninf/ 
 of  the  Fhrnse  ^'-  Holy  Spirit"  in  the  Christ.  Dis- 
 ciple (Boston)  for  July,  1819,  i.  2G0  ft'.  Biichs- 
 enschiitz,  La  doctrine  de  VEsprit  de  Dieu  selon 
 I'Anc.  et  Nouv.  Test.,  Strash.  1810.  C.  F.  Fritz- 
 sche.  De  Spiritu  smicto  Conim.  dofpn.  et  execjet., 
 4  pt.  Haloe,  1810  ff".,  reprinted  in  his  Nova  Opiisc. 
 Acad.  (1846),  pp.  233-337.  K.  F.  Kahnis,  Die 
 Lehre  mm  heiUgen  Ueiste,  l«r  Theil,  Halle,  1847. 
 (.A.non.,)  Die  biblische  Bedeutung  des  Woi-tes  Geist, 
 Giessen,  1862  (263  pp.).  Kleinert,  Zur  alitest. 
 Lehre  voin  Geiste  Gottes,  in  the  .Jdlirb.f.  deutsche 
 TheoL,  1867.  pp.  3-59.  J.  B.  Walker,  The  Doc- 
 trine of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Chicago,  1869.  Art. 
 TTvevfia  in  Cremer's  Bibl.-theol.  Worterb.  der 
 neutest.  Gracitat  (1866),  and  C.  L.  W.  Grimm's 
 Lex.  Gr.-Lat.  in  Libros  N.  T.  (1868).  See  also 
 Von  Coelln,  Biblisclie  Theologie  (1836),  i.  131  ft'., 
 456  ff.,  ii.  97  ft".,  256  ft'. ;  Neander,  Hist,  of  Chris- 
 tian Dogmas,  i.  171  ft".,  303  ft".,  Ryland's  trans. 
 (Bohn):  Hagenbach's  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  §§  44, 
 93;  and  the  other  well-known  works  on  Biblical 
 and  dogmatic  theology.  A. 
 
 *  SPOIL,  as  a  verb  =  despoil  or  plunder  (Gen. 
 xxxiv.  27,  29;  Ex.  iii.  22;  Col.  ii.  8,  &c.),  like 
 spoliare  in  Latin.  H. 
 
 *  SPOILER  = /;/"M(/c;er  (Judg.  ii.  14;  Jer. 
 vi.  26,  vii.  12,  &c.).     [Spoil.]  H. 
 
 SPONGE  icnr6yyos '■  spongia)  is  mentioned 
 only  in  the  N.  T.  in  those  passages  which  relate 
 the  incident  of  "  a  sponge  filled  with  vinegar  and 
 put  on  a  reed"  (Matt,  xxvii.  48;  iMark  xv.  36), 
 or  "on  hyssop"  (John  xix.  29),  being  off'ered  to 
 our  Lord  on  the  cross.  I'he  commercial  value  of 
 the  sponge  was  known  from  very  early  times;  and 
 although  there  appears  to  be  no  notice  of  it  in  the 
 0.  T.,  yet  it  is  prol)able  that  it  was  used  l)y  the 
 ancient  Hebrews,  who  could  readily  have  obtained 
 it  good  from  the  Mediterranean.  Aristotle  njen- 
 tions  several  kinds,  and  carefully  notices  those 
 which  were  useful  for  economic  purposes  {Hist. 
 Aniin.  v.  14).  His  speculations  on  the  nature  of 
 the  sponge  are  very  interesting.  W.  H. 
 
 SPOUSE.     [Marriage.] 
 
 STA'CHYS  {:S.Tdxvs  [ear  of  com]:  Sttichys). 
 A  Christian  at  Rome,  saluted  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  9).  The  name  is 
 Greek.  According  to  a  tradition  recorded  by 
 Nicephorus  Callistus  (//.  A',  viii.  6)  he  was  ap- 
 pointed bishop  of  Byzantium  by  St.  Andrew,  held 
 the  office  for  sixteen  years,  and  was  succeeded  by 
 Onesimus. 
 
 *  STALL.     [Crib;  Manger.] 
 
 STACTE  eitpa,  ndtaf:  o-Ta/CT^:  stacte),  the 
 name  of  one  of  the  sweet  spices  which  composed 
 the  holy  incense  (see  Ex.  xxx.  34).  The  Hebrew 
 word  occurs  once  again  (Job  xxxvi.  27),  where  it 
 is  used  to  denote  simply  "a  drop  "  of  water.  For 
 the  various  opinions  as  to  what  substance  is  in- 
 tended by  ndtaf,  see  Celsius  {Hierob.  i.  529); 
 Rosenmiiller  {Bib.  Bot.  p.  164)  identifies  the  ndtaf 
 with  tlie  gum  of  the  storax  tree  {Styrax  officinale); 
 the  LXX.  araKT-i]  (from  (ttol^w,  "to  drop")  is 
 the  exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word.  Now 
 Dioscorides  describes  two  kinds  of  o-ra/fTrj:  one 
 is  the  fresh  gum  of  the  myrrh  tree  {Balsamo- 
 dendron  myrrha)  mixed  with  water  and  squeezed 
 
 STAR  OF  THE  WISE  MEN    3107 
 
 out  through  a  press  (i.  74);  the  other  kind,  which 
 he  calls,  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  prepared, 
 cTKoArjKiTrj?  aTvpal,  denotes  the  resin  of  the 
 storax  adulterated  with  wax  and  fat.  The  true 
 stacte  of  the  Greek  writers  points  to  the  distilla'tion 
 from  the  myrrh  tree,  of  which,  according  to  The- 
 ophrastiis  {Fr.  iv.  29,  ed.  Schneider),  both  a  nat- 
 ural and  an  artificial  kind  were  known ;  this  is  the 
 
 mor  derdr  ("n~l"7  TlQ)  of  Ex.  xxx.  23.  Perhaps 
 the  ndtaf  denotes  the  storax  gum ;  but  all  that 
 is  positively  known  is  that  it  signifies  an  odorous 
 distillation  from  some  plant.  For  some  account  of 
 the  styrax  tree  see  under  Poplar.  W.  H. 
 
 *  STAFF.     [Sceptre.] 
 
 *  STAIRS,  Neh.  iii.  15;  Acts  xxi.  35.  [Je- 
 rusalem, vol.  ii.  p.  1331  6.] 
 
 STANDARDS.     [Ensign.] 
 
 *  STARGAZERS.  [Magi;  and  see  the 
 next  article.] 
 
 STAR  OF  THE  WISE  MEN.  Until  the 
 last  few  years  the  interpi-etation  of  St.  Jlatt.  ii. 
 1-12,  by  theologians  in  general,  coincided  in  the 
 main  with  that  which  would  be  given  to  it  by  any 
 person  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  read  the  ac- 
 count with  due  attention.  Some  supernatural  light 
 resembling  a  star  had  appeared  in  some  country 
 (possibly  Persia)  far  to  the  east  of  Jerusalem,  to 
 men  who  were  versed  in  the  study  of  celestial 
 phenomena,  conveying  to  their  minds  a  supernat- 
 ural impulse  to  re])air  to  Jerusalem,  where  they 
 would  find  a  new-born  king.  It  supposed  them 
 to  be  followers,  and  possibly  priests,  of  the  Zend 
 religion,  whereby  they  were  led  to  expect  a  Re- 
 deemer in  the  person  of  the  Jewish  infant.  On 
 arriving  at  Jerusalem,  after  diligent  inquiry  and 
 consultation  with  the  priests  and  learned  men  who 
 could  naturally  liest  inform  them,  they  are  du'ected 
 to  proceed  to  Bethlehem.  The  star  which  they 
 had  seen  in  the  east  reappeared  to  them  and  pre- 
 ceded them  {xporiyev  avrovs),  until  it  took  up  its 
 station  over  the  place  where  the  young  child  was 
 (eojs  eXdoip  iarddrj  ivavo}  ob  ijv  rh  ■Kaibiov). 
 The  whole  matter,  that  is,  was  supernatural  ; 
 formhig  a  portion  of  that  divine  prearrangement, 
 whereby,  in  his  deep  humiliation  among  men,  the 
 child  Jesus  was  honored  and  acknowledged  by  .the 
 Father,  as  his  beloved  Son  in  whom  He  was  well 
 pleased.  Thus  the  lowly  shepherds  who  kept  their 
 nightly  watch  on  the  hills  near  to  Betldehem, 
 together  with  all  that  remained  of  the  highest  and 
 liest  philosophy  of  the  East,  are  alike  the  par- 
 takers and  the  witnesses  of  the  glory  of  Him  whc 
 was  '-born  in  the  city  of  David,  a  Saviour  which 
 is  tlirist  the  Lord."  Such  is  substantially  the 
 account  which,  until  the  earlier  part  of  the  present 
 century  would  ha\e  been  given  by  orthodox  divines, 
 of  the  Star  of  the  Blagi.  Latterly,  however,  a 
 very  different  opinion  has  gradually  become  prev- 
 alent upon  the  subject.  The  star  has  been  dis- 
 placed from  the  category  of  the  supernatural,  and 
 has  been  referred  to  the  ordinary  astronomical 
 phenomenon  of  a  conjunction  of  the  planets  Jupiter 
 and  Saturn.  The  idea  oritrinated  with  Kepler, 
 who,  among  many  other  brilliant  but  untenable 
 fancies,  supposed  that  if  he  could  identify  a  con- 
 junction of  the  above-named  planets  with  the  Star 
 of  Bethlehem,  he  would  thereby  be  able  to  de- 
 termine, on  the  basis  of  certainty,  the  very  difficult 
 and  obscure  point  of  the  Annus  Domini.  Kepler's 
 suggestion  was  worked  out  with  great  care  and  no 
 
8108 
 
 STAR  OF  THE  WISE  MEN 
 
 very  great  inaccuracy  by  Dr.  Ideler  of  Berlin,  and 
 tlie  results  of  his  calculations  certainly  do,  on  the 
 first  impression,  seem  to  show  a  very  specious  ac- 
 cordance with  the  phenomena  of  the  star  in  ques- 
 tion. We  purpose,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  state 
 what  celestial  phenomena  did  occur  with  reference 
 to  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  at  a  date  as- 
 suredly not  very  distant  from  the  time  of  our 
 Saviour's  birth ;  and  then  to  examine  how  far  they 
 fulfill,  or  fail  to  fulfill,  the  conditions  required  by 
 the  narrative  in  St.  Matthew. 
 
 In  the  month  of  May,  b.  c.  7,  a  conjunction  of 
 the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  occurred,  not  far 
 from  the  first  point  of  Aries,  the  planets  rising  in 
 Chaldiea  about  3i  hours  before  the  sun.  It  is 
 said  that  on  astrological  grounds  such  a  conjunc- 
 tion could  not  fail  to  excite  the  attention  of  men 
 like  the  Magi,  and  that  in  consequence  partly  of 
 their  knowledge  of  Balaam's  prophecy,  and  partly 
 from  the  uneasy  persuasion  then  said  to  be  prev- 
 alent that  some  great  one  was  to  be  born  in  the 
 East,  these  Magi  commenced  their  journey  to  Jeru- 
 salem. Supposing  them  to  have  set  out  at  the 
 end  of  ]\Iay  b.  c.  7  upon  a  journey  for  which  the 
 circumstances  will  be  seen  to  require  at  least  seven 
 months,  the  planets  were  obser\'ed  to  separate  slowly 
 until  the  end  of  July,  when  their  motiortg  becom- 
 ing retrograde,  they  again  came  into  conjunction 
 by  the  end  of  September.  At  that  time  there  can 
 be  no  doubt  Jupiter  would  present  to  astronomers, 
 especially  in  so  clear  an  atmosphere,"  a  magnificent 
 spectacle.  It  was  then  at  its  most  brilliant  appa- 
 rition, for  it  was  at  its  nearest  approach  both  to 
 the  sun  and  to  the  earth.  Not  far  from  it  would 
 be  seen  its  didler  and  much  less  conspicuous  com- 
 panion Saturn.  This  glorious  spectacle  continued 
 almost  unaltered  for  several  days,  when  the  planets 
 again  slowly  separated,  then  came  to  a  halt,  when, 
 by  reassuming  a  direct  motion,  .Tupiter  again  ap- 
 proached to  a  conjunction  for  the  third  tim^  with 
 Saturn,  just  as  the  Magi  may  be  supposed  to  have 
 entered  the  Holy  City.  And,  to  complete  the  fasci- 
 nation of  the  tale,  about  an  hour  and  a  half  after 
 sunset,  the  two  planets  might  be  seen  from  Jeru- 
 salem, hanging  as  it  were  in  the  meridian,  and 
 suspended  over  Bethlehem  in  the  distance.  These 
 celestial  phenomena  thus  described  are,  it  will  Ije 
 seen,  beyond  the  reach  of  question,  and  at  the  first 
 impression  they  assuredly  appear  to  fulfill  the  con- 
 ditions of  the  Star  of  the  Magi. 
 
 The  first  circumstance  which  created  a  suspicion 
 to  the  contrary,  arose  from  an  exaggeration,  unac- 
 countable for  any  man  ha\ing  a  claim  to  be  ranked 
 among  astronomers,  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Ideler  him- 
 self, who  described  the  two  planets  as  wearing  the 
 appearance  of  one  bright  but  diffused  light  io  per- 
 sons Itaving  iveak  eyes.  "  So  ditss  fiir  ein 
 sclnvaches  Auge  der  eine  Planet  fast  in  den  Zer- 
 streuiingskreis  des  andern  trat,  mitliin  bekle  als  ein 
 einziger  Stern  erscheinen  konnten"  p.  •i07,  vol.  ii. 
 Not  only  is  this  imperfect  eyesight  inflicted  upon 
 the  Magi,  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  had  they 
 possessed  any  remains  of  eyesight  at  all,  they  could 
 not  have  failed  to  see,  not  a  single  star,  but  two 
 planets,  at  the  very  considerable  distance  of  double 
 the  moon's  apparent  diameter.  Had  they  been 
 even  twenty  times  closer,  the  duplicity  of  the  two 
 stars  must  have  been  apparent:  Saturn,  moreover. 
 
 a  The  atmosphere  in  parts  of  Persia  is  so  trans- 
 parent that  the  Magi  may  have  seen  the  satellites  of 
 Jupiter  with  their  naked  eyes. 
 
 rather  confusing  than  adding  to  the  brilliance  of  his 
 companion.  This  forced  blending  of  the  two  lights 
 into  one  by  Ideler  was  still  further  improved  by 
 Dean  Alford,  in  the  first  edition  of  'lis  very  valu- 
 able and  suggestive  Greek  Testament,  who  indeed 
 restores  ordinary  sight  to  the  Magi,  but  represents 
 the  planets  as  forming  a  single  star  of  surpassing 
 brightness,  although  they  were  certainly  at  more 
 than  double  the  distance  of  the  sun's  apparent 
 diameter.  Exaggerations  of  this  description  in- 
 duced the  writer  of  this  article  to  undertake  the 
 very  formidable  labor  of  calculating  afresh  an  eplum- 
 eris  of  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  and  of 
 the  sun,  from  May  to  December  b.  c.  7.  The  re- 
 sult was  to  confirm  the  fact  of  there  being  three 
 conjtuictions  during  the  aliove  period,  though  some- 
 what to  modify  the  dates  assigned  to  them  by  Dr. 
 Ideler.  Similar  results,  also,  have  been  obtained 
 by  Encke,  and  the  December  conjunction  has  been 
 confirmed  by  the  Astronomer-Royal;  no  celestial 
 phenomena,  therefore,  of  ancient  date  are  so  cer- 
 tainly ascertained  as  the  conjunctions  in  question. 
 We  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  to  what  extent, 
 or,  as  it  will  be  seen,  to  how  slight  an  extent  the 
 December  conjunction  fulfills  the  conditions  of  the 
 narrative  of  St.  IMatthew.  We  can  hardly  avoid 
 a  feeling  of  regret  at  the  dissipation  of  so  fascinating 
 an  illusion  :  but  we  are  in  quest  of  the  truth,  rather 
 than  of  a  picture,  however  beautiful. 
 
 (a.)  The  writer  must  confess  himself  profoundly 
 ignorant  of  any  system  of  astrology;  but  supposing 
 that  some  system  did  exist,  it  nevertheless  is  incon- 
 cei\able  that  solely  on  the  ground  of  astrological 
 reasons  men  would  be  induced  to  undertake  a  se\en 
 months'  journej'.  And  as  to  the  widely-spread 
 and  prevalent  expectation  of  some  powerful  person- 
 age about  to  show  himself  in  the  East,  the  fact  of 
 its  existence  depends  on  the  testimony  of  Tacitus, 
 Suetonius,  and  Josephus.  But  it  ought  to  be  very 
 carefully  observed  that  all  these  writers  speak  of  this 
 expectation  as  applying  to  Vespasian,  in  A.  D.  69, 
 which  date  was  seventy-five  years,  or  two  genera- 
 tions after  the  conjunctions  in  question  !  The  well- 
 known  and  often  quoted  words  of  Tacitus  are  '•  eo 
 ipso  tempore;"  of  Suetonius,  "eo  tempore;"  of 
 Josephus,  "  Kara  rhv  Kaiphv  iKfiuoV,  "  all  pointing 
 to  A.  D.  69,  and  not  to  b.  c.  7.  Seeing,  then,  that 
 these  writers  refer  to  no  general  uneasy  expectation 
 as  prevailing  in  B.  c.  7,  it  can  have  formed  no 
 reason  for  the  departure  of  the  Magi.  And,  fiu'ther 
 more,  it  is  quite  certain  that  in  the  February  of  B 
 c.  66  (Pritchard,  in  Trans.  R.  Ast.  Soc.  vol.  xxv. ), 
 a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  occurred  in 
 the  constellation  Pisces,  closer  than  the  one  on 
 December  4,  b.  c.  7.  If,  therefore,  astrological 
 reasons  alone  impelled  the  Magi  to  journey  to  Jeru- 
 salem in  the  latter  instance,  similar  considerations 
 would  have  impelled  their  fathers  to  take  the  same 
 journey  fifty-nine  years  before. 
 
 (6.)  But  even  supposing  the  Magi  did  undertake 
 the  journey  at  the  time  in  question,  it  seems  impos- 
 sible that  the  conjunction  of  December,  ]•..  c.  7  can 
 on  any  reasonable  grounds  be  considered  as  fulfill- 
 ing the  conditions  in  St.  Matt.  ii.  9.  The  circum- 
 stances are  as  follows :  On  December  4,  the  sun  set 
 at  Jerusalem  at  5  p.  m.  Supposing  the  Magi  to 
 have  then  conniienced  their  journey  to  Bethlehem, 
 they  would  first  see  Jupiter  and  his  dull  and  some- 
 what distant  companion  Ii  hour  distant  from  the 
 meridian,  in  a  S.  E.  direction,  and  decidedly  to  the 
 east  of  Bethlehem.  By  the  time  they  came  tc 
 Rachel's  tomb  (see  Robinson's  Bibl.  Res.  ii.  ^58* 
 
STATER 
 
 tlie  planets  would  be  due  south  of  them,  on  the 
 meridian,  and  no  longer  over  the  hill  of  Bethlehem 
 (see  the  maps  of  Van  de  Velde  and  of  Tobler),  for 
 that  village  (see  Eobinson,  as  above)  bears  from 
 Rachel's  tomb  S.  5°  E.  +  8°  .declension  =  S.  13° 
 E.  The  road  then  takes  a  turn  to  the  east,  and 
 ascends  the  hill  near  to  its  western  extremity;  the 
 planets  therefore  would  now  be  on  their  right  hands, 
 and  a  little  behind  them:  the  "star,"  therefore, 
 ceased  altogether  to  go  "  before  them  "  as  a,  guide. 
 Arrived  on  the  hill  and  in  the  village,  it  became 
 physically  impossible  for  the  star  to  stand  over  any 
 house  whatever  close  to  them,  seeing  that  it  was 
 now  visible  far  away  beyond  the  hill  to  the  west, 
 and  far  oft'  in  the  heavens  at  an  altitude  of  57°.  As 
 they  advanced,  the  star  would  of  necessity  recede, 
 and  under  no  circumstances  could  it  be  said  to 
 stand  "over"  ("eTra^co")  any  house,  unless  at 
 the  distance  of  miles  from  the  place  where  they 
 were.  Thus  the  two  heavenly  bodies  altogether  fail 
 to  fulfill  either  of  the  conditions  implied  in  the 
 words  "jrpoTj'yej'  avrovs"  or  "  iaTaOr]  cVacco." 
 A  star,  if  vertical,  would  appear  to  stand  over  any 
 house  or  object  to  which  a  spectator  might  chance 
 to  be  near;  but  a  star  at  an  altitude  of  57°  could 
 appear  to  stand  over  no  house  or  oliject  in  the 
 immediate  neighborhood  of  the  observer.  It  is 
 scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  if  the  jNIagi  had  left 
 the  Jafta  Gate  before  sunset,  they  would  not  have 
 seen  the  planets  at  the  outset :  and  if  they  had  left 
 Jerusalem  later,  the  "  star "  would  have  been  a 
 more  useless  guide  than  before.  Thus  the  beauti- 
 ful phantasm  of  Kepler  and  Ideler,  which  has  fasci- 
 nated so  many  writers,  vanishes  before  the  more 
 perfect  daylight  of  investigation. 
 
 A  modern  writer  of  great  ability  (Dr.  Words- 
 worth) has  suggested  the  antithesis  to  Kepler's 
 speculation  regarding  the  star  of  the  Magi,  namely, 
 that  the  star  was  visible  to  the  j\Iagi  alone.  It  is 
 difficult  to  see  what  is  gained  or  explained  by  the 
 hypothesis.  The  song  of  the  multitude  of  the 
 heavenly  host  was  published  abroad  in  Bethlehem ; 
 the  journey  of  the  Magi  thither  was  no  secret  whis- 
 pered in  a  corner.  Why,  then,  should  the  heavenly 
 light,  standing  as  a  beacon  of  glory  over  the  place 
 where  the  young  child  was,  be  concealed  from  all 
 eyes  but  theirs,  and  form  no  part  in  that  series  of 
 wonders  which  the  Virgin  Mother  kept  and  pon- 
 dered in  her  heart? 
 
 The  original  authorities  on  this  question  are 
 Kepler,  Be  Jesu  Christi  vero  anno  natidil'w,  b'rank- 
 furt,  1614;  Ideler,  Bimdbuch  der  C/iro/iolo(jie,  ii. 
 398 ;  Pritchard,  Memoirs  of  Royal  Ast.  Society, 
 vol.  XXV.  C.  P. 
 
 *  See  The  Wise  Men  of  the  East,  etc.  (by  F.  W. 
 Upham,  LL.  D.),  N.  Y.,  1869,  12mo.         '     A. 
 
 STATER  ia-Tar-np-  slater:  A.  V.  "a  piece 
 of  money;  "  margin,  "stater"). 
 
 1.  The  term  stater,  from  'larri^i,  is  held  to  sig- 
 nify a  coin  of  a  certain  weight,  but  perhaps  means 
 a  standard  coin.  It  is  not  restricted  by  the  Greeks 
 to  a  single  denomination,  but  is  applied  to  standard 
 coins  of  gold,  electrum,  and  silver.  The  gold  staters 
 were  didrachms  of  the  later  Phcenician  and  the 
 Attic  talents,  which,  in  this  denomination,  differ 
 only  about  four  grains  troy.  Of  the  former  talent 
 were  the  Daric  staters  or  Darics  (ffrarripei  AapetKot, 
 AapsiKoi),  the  famous  Persian  gold  pieces,  and  those 
 
 STATER 
 
 3109 
 
 of  Croesus  (KpoLaelot),  of  the  latter,  the  stater  of 
 Athens.  The  electrum  staters  were  coined  by  the 
 Greek  towns  on  the  west  coast  of  Asia  iSIinor;  the 
 most  famoni  nerc  those  of  Cyzicus  (a-TaTrjpes 
 KvCiKrjvoi  t^u(iKT}voi),  which  weigh  about  248 
 grains.  'I'hey  are  of  gold  and  silver  mixed,  in  the 
 proportion,  according  to  ancient  authority  —  for  we 
 believe  these  rare  coins  have  not  been  analyzed  — 
 of  three  parts  of  gold  to  one  of  silver.  The  gold 
 was  alone  reckoned  in  the  value,  for  it  is  said  that 
 one  of  these  coins  was  equal  to  28  Athenian  silver 
 drachms,  while  the  Athenian  gold  stater,  weighing 
 about  132  grains,  was  equal  to  20  (20:  132  :  :  28: 
 1844"  or  ii  of  a  Cyzicene  stater).  This  stater  was 
 thus  of  184-)-  grains,  and  equivalent  to  a  didrachm 
 of  the  .(Eginetan  talent.  Thus  far  the  stater  is  al- 
 ways a  didrachm.  In  silver,  however,  the  term  is 
 applied  to  the  tetradrachm  of  Athens,  which  was 
 of  the  weight  of  two  gold  staters  of  the  same  cur- 
 rency. There  can  therefore  lie  no  doubt  that  the 
 name  stater  was  applied  to  the  standard  denomina- 
 tion of  both  metals,  and  does  not  positively  imply 
 either  a  didrachm  or  a  tetradrachnu 
 
 2.  In  the  N.  T.  the  stater  is  once  mentioned,  in 
 the  narrative  of  the  miracle  of  the  sacred  tribute- 
 money.  At  Capernaum  the  receivers  of  the  di- 
 drachms (oi  Td  SiSpax/J-a  Aa/x^ai/ovTis)  asked 
 St.  Peter  whether  his  master  paid  the  didrachms. 
 The  didrachm  relers  to  the  .yearly  tribute  paid  by 
 every  Hebrew  into  the  treasury  of  the  Temple.'' 
 The  sum  was  half  a  shekel,  called  by  the  LXX.  rh 
 rjfxiav  rov  SiSpdxfJ-ou-  The  plain  inference  would 
 therefore  be,  that  the  recei\'ers  of  sacred  tribute 
 took  their  name  from  the  ordinary  coin  or  weight  of 
 metal,  the  shekel,  of  which  each  person  paid  half. 
 But  it  has  been  supposed  that  as  the  coined  equiva- 
 lent of  this  didrachm  at  the  period  of  the  Evangel- 
 ist was  a  tetradrachm,  and  the  payment  of  each 
 person  was  therefore  a  current  didrachm  [of  ac- 
 count], the  term  here  applies  to  single  payments  of 
 didrachms.  This  opinion  would  appear  to  receive 
 some  support  from  the  statement  of  Josephus,  that 
 Vespasian  fixed  a  yearly  tax  of  two  drachms  on 
 the  Jews  instead  of  that  they  had  formerly  paid 
 into  the  treasury  of  the  Temple  (B.  J.  vii.  6,  §  6). 
 But  this  passage  loses  its  force  when  we  remember 
 that  the  common  current  silver  coin  in  Palestine  at 
 the  time  of  Vespasian,  and  that  in  which  the  civil 
 tribute  was  paid,  was  the  denarius,  the  tribute- 
 money,  then  equivalent  to  the  debased  Attic  drachm. 
 It  seems  also  most  unlikely  that  the  use  of  the  term 
 didrachm  should  have  so  remarkably  changed  in  the 
 interval  between  the  date  of  the  LXX.  translation 
 of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the  writing  of  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel.  To  return  to  the  narrative. 
 St.  Peter  was  commanded  to  take  up  a  fish  which 
 should  be  found  to  contain  a  stater,  which  he  was 
 to  pay  to  the  collectors  of  tribute  for  our  Lord  and 
 himself  (Matt.  xvii.  24-27).  The  stater  must  here 
 mean  a  siher  tetradrachm;  and  the  only  tetra- 
 drachms  then  current  in  Palestine  were  of  the  same 
 weight  as  the  Hebrew  shekel.  And  it  is  observable, 
 in  confirmation  of  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  Evan- 
 gelist, that  at  this  period  the  silver  currency  in 
 Palestine  consisted  of  Greek  imperial  tetrad rachras, 
 or  staters,  and  Roman  denarii  of  a  quarter  their 
 value,  didrachms  having  fallen  into  disuse.  Had 
 two  didrachms  been  found  by  St.  Peter  the  receivers 
 
 n  It  has  beeu  supposed  by  some  ancient  and  modern 
 commentators  that  the  civil  tribute  is  here  referred  to  ; 
 bat  by  this  explanatiou  tb'  force  of  our  Lord's  reason 
 
 for  freedom  from  the  payment  seems  to  be  completely 
 missed- 
 
3110 
 
 STEEL 
 
 STEPHEN 
 
 of  tribute  would  scarcely  have  taken  them;  and,  no  i  for  the  saints"  to  which  he  and  his  family  had 
 
 doubt,  the  ordinary  coin  paid  was  that  miraculously 
 supplied.  K.  S.  P. 
 
 STEEL.  In  all  cases  where  the  word  "  steel " 
 occurs  in  the  A.  V.  the  true  rendering  of  the  He- 
 brew is  "copper."  ntf^n?,  necln'islidh,  except  in 
 2  Sam.  xxii.  3.5,  Job  xx.  2-i'  Ps.  xviii.  34  [35],  is 
 always  translated  "brass;"  as  is  the  case  with  the 
 
 cognate  word  iHtyn?,  niichusliet/i,  with  the  two 
 exceptions  of  Jer.'xv.  12  (A.  Y.  "steel")  and  Ezr. 
 viii.  27  (A.  V.  "copper").  Whether  the  ancient 
 Hebrews  were  acquainted  witli  steel  is  not  perfectly 
 certain.  It  has  been  inferred  from  a  passage  in 
 Jeremiah  (xv.  12),  that  the  "  iron  from  the  north  " 
 there  spoken  of  denoted  a  superior  kind  of  metal, 
 hardened  in  an  unusual  manner,  like  the  steel  ob- 
 tained from  the  Chalybes  of  the  Pontus,  the  iron- 
 smiths  of  the  ancient  world.  The  hardening  of 
 iron  for  cutting  instruments  was  practiced  in  Pon- 
 tus, Lydia,  and  Laconia  (Eustath.  II.  ii.  p.  294, 
 6r,  quoted  in  Midler,  flnnd.  d.  Arch.  d.  Kunst, 
 §  307,  n.  4).  Justin  (xliv.  3,  §  8)  mentions  two 
 rivers  in  Spain,  the  Bilbilis  (the  Salo,  or  Xalon,  a 
 tributary  of  the  YAtro)  and  Chalybs,  the  water  of 
 which  was  used  for  hardening  iron  (comp.  Plin. 
 sxxiv.  41).  The  same  practice  is  alluded  to  both 
 by  Homer  (Od.  ix.  393)  and  Sophocles  (Aj.  650). 
 The  Celtiberians,  according  to  Diodorus  Siculus 
 (v.  33),  had  a  singular  custom.  They  buried 
 sheets  of  iron  in  the  earth  till  the  weak  part,  as 
 Diodorus  calls  it,  was  consumed  by  rust,  and  what 
 was  hardest  remained.  This  firmer  portion  was 
 then  converted  into  weapons  of  different  kinds. 
 The  same  practice  is  said  by  Beckmann  {Hist,  of 
 Inv.  ii.  328,  ed.  Bohn)  to  prevail  in  Japan.  The 
 last-mentioned  writer  is  of  opinion  that  of  the  two 
 methods  of  making  steel,  by  fusion  either  from 
 iron-stone  or  raw  iron,  and  by  cementation,  the 
 ancients  were  acquainted  only  with  the  former. 
 
 There  is,  however,  a  word  in  Hebrew,  n^V?5 
 palddli,  which  occurs  only  in  Nah.  ii.  3  [4],  and  is 
 there  rendered  "torches,"  but  which  most  prob- 
 ably denotes  steel  or  hardened  iron,  and  refers  to 
 the  flashing  scythes  of  the  Assyrian  chariots.     In 
 
 Syriac  and   Arabic   the  cognate  words  (i«--^S, 
 
 poldo,  O^J^SiJdludli,  (^J'aj)  JulMh)  signify  a 
 
 kind  of  iron  of  excellent  quaUty,  and  especially 
 steel. 
 
 Steel  appears  to  have  been  known  to  the  Egyp- 
 tians. The  steel  weapons  in  the  tomb  of  Rameses 
 III.,  says  Wilkinson,  are  painted  blue,  the  bronze 
 red  {Anc.  Eg.  iii.  247).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 STEPH'ANAS(2Te(/)ams:  Stephanas).  A 
 Christian  con\'ert  of  Corinth  whose  household  Paul 
 baptized  as  the  "  first  fruits  of  Achaia"  (1  Cor.  i. 
 16,  xvi.  15).  He  was  present  with  the  Apostle  at 
 Ephesus  when  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
 Corinthians,  having  gone  thither  either  to  consult 
 him  about  matters  of  discipline  coimected  with  the 
 Corinthian  Church  (Chrysost.  /Tom.  44),  or  on 
 some  charitable  mission  arising  out  of  the  "  service 
 
 devoted  themselves  (1  Cor.  xvi.  16,  17). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 STE'PHEN  (2T4<pavos  [n  crotvn]  :  Slepk- 
 amis),  the  First  Martyr.  His  Hebrew  «  (or  rather 
 Syriac)  name  is  traditionally  said  to  have  been 
 Chelil,  or  Cheliel  (a  crown). 
 
 He  was  the  chief  of  the  Seven  (commonly  called 
 Deacons)  appointed  to  rectify  the  complaints  in 
 the  early  Church  of  Jerusalem,  made  by  the  Hel- 
 lenistic against  the  Hebrew  Christians.  His  Greek 
 name  indicates  his  own  Hellenistic  origin. 
 
 His  importance  is  stamped  on  the  narrative  by  a 
 reiteration  of  emphatic,  almost  superlative  phrases: 
 "  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  vi.  5); 
 "full  of  grace''  and  power"  (iOid.  8);  irresistible 
 "  spirit  and  wisdom  "  (ibid.  10) ;  "  full  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost  "  <^  (vii.  55).  Of  his  ministrations  amongst 
 the  poor  we  hear  nothing.  But  he  seems  to  have 
 been  an  instance,  such  as  is  not  uncommon  in  his- 
 tory, of  a  new  energy  derived  from  a  new  sphere. 
 He  shot  far  ahead  of  his  six  companions,  and  far 
 above  his  particular  office.  First,  he  arrests  atten- 
 tion by  the  "  great  wonders  and  miracles  that  he 
 did."  Then  begins  a  series  of  disputations  with 
 the  Hellenistic  .Jews  of  North  Africa,  Alexandria, 
 and  Asia  Minor,  his  companions  in  race  and  birth- 
 place. The  subject  of  these  disputations  is  not 
 expressly  mentioned;  but,  from  what  follows,  it  is 
 evident  that  he  struck  into  a  new  vein  of  teaching, 
 which  eventually  caused  his  martyrdom. 
 
 Down  to  this  time  the  Apostles  and  the  early 
 Christian  community  had  clung  in  their  worship, 
 not  merely  to  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Holy  City, 
 but  to  the  holy  place  of  the  Temple.  Tliis  local 
 worship,  with  the  Jewish  customs  belonging  to  it, 
 he  now  deiiounced.  So  we  must  infer  from  tlie 
 accusations  brought  against  him,  confirmed  as  they 
 are  by  the  tenor  of  his  defense.  The  actual  words 
 of  the  charge  may  have  lieen  false,  as  the  sinister 
 and  malignant  intention  which  they  ascribed  to 
 him  was  undoubtedly  false.  "  Blasphemous " 
 (.I3\a.a(pri,aa),  that  is,  "  cdumnioiis "  words, 
 "against  Moses  and  against  God"  (vi.  11),  he  is 
 not  likely  to  have  used.  But  the  overthrow  of  the 
 Temple,  the  cessation  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  is  no 
 more  than  St.  Paul  preached  openly,  or  than  is 
 implied  in  Stejihen's  own  speech:  "against  this 
 holy  place  and  the  Law  "  —  "  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
 reth shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change  the 
 customs  that  jMoses  delivered  us"  (vi.  13,  14). 
 
 For  these  sayings  he  was  arrested  at  the  instiga- 
 tion of  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  brought  before  the 
 Sanhedrim,  where,  as  it  would  seem,  the  Pharisaic 
 party  had  just  before  this  time  (v.  34,  vii.  51) 
 gained  an  ascendency. 
 
 When  the  charge  was  formally  lodged  against 
 him,  his  coinitenance  kindled  as  if  with  the  view 
 of  the  great  prospect  which-T\'as  opening  for  the 
 Church ;  the  whole  body  even  of  assembled  judges 
 was  transfixed  by  the  sight,  and  "  saw  his  face  as 
 it  had  been  the  face  of  an  angel  "  (vi.  15). 
 
 For  a  moment,  the  account  seems  to  imply,  the 
 judges  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  awed  at  his  pi-esence.'' 
 Then  the  high-priest  that  presided  appealed  to  him 
 (as  Caiaphas  had  in  like  manner  appealed  in  the 
 
 a  Basil    of  Seleucia,  Orat.    de    S.    Stepliano.     See 
 
 Gesenius  in  voce   V  v3. 
 
 6  A.  B,  D,  and  most  of  the  versions,  read  ;(apiTos. 
 Ihe  Rec.  Text  reads  Tri'orfws. 
 
 c  Traditionally  he  was  reckoned  amongst  the  Seventy 
 disciples. 
 
 <'  Well  described  in  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Life  of 
 S.  Paul,  i.  74  ;  the  poetic  aspect  of  it  beautifully  ffiren 
 in  Tennyson's  Two  Voices. 
 
STEPHEN 
 
 Great  Trial  in  the  gospel  history)  to  know  his  own 
 Bentiments  on  the  accusations  brought  against  him. 
 To  this  Stephen  replied  in  a  speech  which  has 
 every  appearance  of  being  faithfully  reported.  The 
 peculiarities  of  the  style,  the  variations  from  the 
 Old  Testament  history,  the  abruptness  which,  by 
 breaking  off'  the  argument,  prevents  us  from  easily 
 doing  it  justice,  are  all  indications  of  its  being 
 handed  down  to  us  substantially  in  its  original 
 form. 
 
 The  framework  in  which  his  defense  is  cast  is  a 
 summary  of  the  history  of  the  .Jewish  Church.  In 
 this  respect  it  has  only  one  parallel  in  the  N.  T., 
 the  11th  chapter"  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  — 
 a  likeness  that  is  the  more  noticeable,  as  in  all 
 probability  the  author  of  that  epistle  was,  like 
 Stephen,  a  Hellenist. 
 
 In  the  facts  which  he  selects  from  this  history, 
 be  is  guided  by  two  principles  — -  at  first  more  or 
 less  latent,  but  gradually  becoming  more  and  more 
 apparent  as  he  proceeds.  The  first  is  the  endeavor 
 to  prove  that,  even  in  the  previous  Jewish  history, 
 the  presence  and  favor  of  God  had  not  been  con- 
 fined to  the  Holy  Land  or  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem. 
 This  he  illustrates  with  a  copiousness  of  detail 
 which  makes  his  speech  a  summary  almost  as  much 
 of  sacred  geography  as  of  sacred  history  —  the  ap- 
 pearance of  God  to  Abraham  ••  in  Mesopotamia 
 before,  he  dwelt  in  Huran  "  (vii.  2);  his  successive 
 migrations  to  Haran  and  to  Canaan  (vii.  4);  his 
 want  of  even  a  resilnrj-place  for  his  foot  in  Canaan 
 (vii.  5);  the  dwelling  of  his  seed  in  a  strange  land 
 (vii.  6);  the  details  of  the  stay  m  Erjypt{s'\\.  8-13); 
 the  education  of  Moses  in  Eyxjpt  (vii.  20-22);  his 
 exile  in  Midinn  (vii.  29);  the  appearance  in  Sinai, 
 with  the  declaration  that  the  desert  ground  was 
 holy  earth  (-y7J  ayia)  (vii.  30-33);  the  forty  years 
 in  the  wilderness  (vii.  3G,  44);  the  long  delay 
 before  the  preparation  for  the  tabernacle  of 
 David  (vii.  4,5);  the  proclamation  of  spiritual  wor- 
 ship even  after  the  building  of  the  Temple  (vii. 
 47-50). 
 
 The  second  principle  of  selection  is  based  on  the 
 attempt  to  show  that  there  was  a  tendency  from 
 the  earliest  times  toward  the  same  ungrateful  and 
 narrow  spirit  that  had  appeared  in  this  last  stage 
 of  their  political  existence.  And  this  rigid,  suspi- 
 cious disposition  he  contrasts  with  the  freedom  of 
 the  Divine  Grace  and  of  the  human  will,  which 
 were  manifested  in  the  exaltation  of  Abraham  (vii. 
 4),  Joseph  (vii.  10),  and  Moses  (vii.  20),  atid  in  the 
 jealousy  and  rebellion  of  the  nation  against  these 
 their  greatest  benefactors,  as  chiefly  seen  in  the 
 bitterness  against  Joseph  (vii.  9)  and  Moses  (vii. 
 27),  and  in  the  long  neglect  of  true  religious 
 worship  in  the  wilderness  (vii.  39-43). 
 
 Both  of  tliese  selections  are  worked  out  on  what 
 may  almost  be  called  critical  principles.  There  is 
 no  allegorizing  of  the  text,  nor  any  forced  con- 
 structions. I'vvery  passage  quoted  yields  fairly  the 
 sense  assigned  to  it. 
 
 Besides  the  direct  illustration  of  a  freedom  from 
 local  restraints  involved  in  the  general  argument, 
 there  is  also  an  indirect  illustration  of  the  same 
 doctrine,  from  his  mode  of  treating  the  subject  in 
 detail.    No  less  than  twelve  of  his  references  to  the 
 
 a  Other  verbal  likenesses  to  this  epistle  are  pointed 
 out  by  Dr.  Howson,  i.  77  (quoting  from  Mr.  Humphry, 
 Comm.  on  t/ie  Acts). 
 
 b  *  This  is  overstating  the  idea.  The  dative  is  that 
 of  opinion,  decision,  i.  e.  aoretos  in  God's  view,  hence 
 
 STEPHEN  Sill 
 
 Mosaic  history  differ  from  it  either  by  variation  or 
 addition. 
 
 1.  The  call  of  Abraham  before  the  migration  to 
 Haran  (vii.  2),  not,  as  according  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  in 
 Haran. 
 
 2.  The  death  of  his  father  after  the  call  (vii.  4), 
 not,  as  according  to  Gen.  xi.  32,  before  it. 
 
 3.  The  75  souls  of  Jacob's  migration  (vii.  14), 
 not  (as  according  to  Gen.  xlvi.  27)  70. 
 
 4.  The  godlike  loveliness  (acTTetos  tw  @e^) 
 of  Moses''  (vii.  20),  not,  simply,  as  according  to 
 Ex.  ii.  2,  the  statement  that  "  he  was  a  goodly 
 child." 
 
 5.  His  Egyptian  education  (vii.  22)  as  contrasted 
 with  the  silence  on  this  point  in  Ex.  iv.  10. 
 
 6.  The  same  contrast  with  regard  to  his  secular 
 greatness,  "  mighty  in  words  and  deeds  "  (vii.  22, 
 conip.  Ex.  ii.  10). 
 
 7.  The  distinct  mention  of  the  three  periods  of 
 forty  j-ears  (vii.  23,  30,  36)  of  which  only  the  last 
 is  specified  in  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 8.  The  terror  of  Moses  at  the  bush  (vii.  32),  not 
 mentioned  in  Ex.  iii.  3. 
 
 9.  The  supplementing  of  the  Mosaic  narrative 
 by  the  allusions  in  Amos  to  their  neglect  of  the 
 true  worship  in  the  desert  (vii.  42,  43). 
 
 10.  The  intervention  of  the  angels  in  the  giving 
 of  the  law  (vii.  53),  not  mentioned  in  Ex.  xix.  16. 
 
 11.  The  burial  of  the  twelve  Patriarchs  at 
 Shechem  (vii.  16),  not  mentioned  in  Ex.  i.  (i. 
 
 12.  The  purchase  of  the  tomb  at  Shechem  by 
 Abraham  from  the  sons  of  Emmor  (vii.  16),  not,  as 
 according  to  Gen.  xxiii.  15,  the  purchase  of  the 
 cave  at  Machpelah  from  Ephron  the  Hittite. 
 
 To  which  may  be  added 
 
 13.  The  introduction  of  Remphan  from  the  LXX. 
 of  Amos  V.  26,  not  found  in  the  Hebrew. 
 
 The  explanation  and  source  of  these  variations 
 must  be  sought  under  the  different  names  to  which 
 they  refer;  but  the  general  fact  of  theii-  adoption 
 by  Stephen  is  significant,  as  showing  the  freedom 
 with  which  he  handled  the  sacred  history,  and  the 
 comparative  unimportance  assigned  by  him  and  by 
 the  sacred  historian  who  records  his  speech,  to 
 minute  accuracy.  It  may  almost  be  said  that  the 
 whole  speech  is  a  protest  against  a  rigid  view  of  the 
 mechanical  exactness  of  the  inspired  records  of  the 
 0.  T.  "  He  had  regard,"  as  St.  Jerome  says,  "  to 
 the  meaning,  not  to  the  words." 
 
 It  would  seem  that,  just  at  the  close  of  his  argu- 
 ment, Stephen  saw  a  change  in  the  aspect  of  his 
 judges,  as  if  for  the  first  time  they  had  caught  the 
 drift  of  his  meaning.  He  broke  off"  from  his  calm 
 address,  and  turned  suddenly  upon  them  in  an  im- 
 passioned attack  which  shows  that  he  saw  what  was 
 in  store  for  him.  Those  heads  thrown  back  on 
 their  inibending  necks,  those  ears  closed  against 
 any  penetration  of  truth,  were  too  much  for  his 
 patience:  "Ye  stiffnecked  and  uncircumcised  in 
 heart  and  ears  I  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost: 
 as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.  Which  of  the 
 prophets  did  not  your  fathers  persecute  ?  .  .  .  the 
 Just  One:  of  whom  ye  are  the  betrayers  and  mur- 
 derers." As  he  spoke  they  showed  by  their  faces 
 that  their  hearts  (to  use  the  strong  language  of  the 
 narrative)  "  were  being  sawn  asunder,"  and  they 
 
 =  "  truly  beautiful ;  "  of.  vrdAts  ju.eyaA>)  t(3  9e<a,  Jon. 
 iii.  3,  in  Sept.  See  Winer's  Gr.  of  the  N.  T.,'p.  212 
 (Thayer's  ed.),  and  Green'.s  Gr.  of  the  N.  T.  p.  272 
 It  is  a  form  of  the  Hebrew  superlative.  H. 
 
3112 
 
 STEPHEN 
 
 kept  gnashing  their  set  teeth  against  him ;  but  still, 
 though  with  difficulty,  restraining  themselves.  He, 
 in  this  last  crisis  of  his  fate,  turned  his  face  upwards 
 to  the  open  sky,  and  as  he  gazed  the  vault  of  heaven 
 seemed  to  him  to  part  asunder  {SL7]vofyfJifvos)\  and 
 'iie  Divine  Glory  appeared  through  the  rending  of 
 the  earthly  veil — the  Divine  Presence,  seated  on  a 
 throne,  and  on  the  right  hand  the  human  form  of 
 "  Jesus,"  not,  as  in  the  usual  representations,  sit- 
 ting in  repose,  but  standing  erect  as  if  to  assist  his 
 suffering  servant.  Stephen  spoke  as  if  to  himself, 
 describing  the  glorious  vision ;  and,  in  so  doing, 
 alone  of  all  the  speakers  and  writers  in  the  N.  T., 
 except  only  Christ  himself,  uses  the  expressive 
 phrase,  "the  Son  of  Man."  As  his  judges  heard 
 the  words,  expressive  of  the  Divine  exaltation  of 
 Him  whom  they  had  sought  so  lately  to  destroy, 
 they  could  forbear  no  longer.  They  broke  into  a 
 loud  yell ;  they  clapped  their  hands  to  their  ears,  as 
 if  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  any  more  blasphemous 
 words,  they  flew  as  with  one  impulse  upon  him, 
 and  dragged  him  out  of  the  city  to  the  place  of 
 execution. 
 
 It  has  been  questioned  by  what  right  the  San- 
 hedrim proceeded  to  this  act  without  the  concur- 
 rence of  the  Eonian  government;  but  it  is  enough 
 to  reply  that  the  whole  transaction  is  one  of  violent 
 excitement.  On  one  occasion,  even  in  our  Lord's 
 life,  the  Jews  had  nearly  stoned  Him  even  within 
 the  precincts  of  the  Temple  (John  viii.  59).  "  Their 
 vengeance  in  other  cases  was  confined  to  those  sub- 
 ordinate punishments  which  were  left  under  their 
 own  jurisdiction :  imprisonment,  public  scourging 
 in  the  synagogue,  and  excommunication "  (Mil- 
 man's  Hist,  of  Latin  Christlnnittj,  i.  400).  See 
 Conyljeare  and  Howson's  St.  Paid,  i.  74. 
 
 On  this  occasion,  however,  they  determined  for 
 once  to  carry  out  the  full  penalties  enjoined  by  the 
 severe  code  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 
 
 Any  violator  of  the  Law  was  to  be  taken  outside 
 the  gates,  and  there,  as  if  for  the  sake  of  giving  to 
 each  individual  member  of  the  community  a  sense 
 of  his  responsibility  in  the  transaction,  he  was  to 
 be  crushed  liy  stones,  thrown  at  him  by  all  the 
 people. 
 
 'rhose,  however,  were  to  take  the  lead  in  this 
 wild  and  terril4e  act  who  had  taken  upon  them- 
 selves the  responsibility  of  denouncing  him  (Deut. 
 xvii.  7;  comp.  John  viii.  7).  These  were,  in  this 
 instaTice,  the  witnesses  who  had  reported  or  mis- 
 reported  the  words  of  Stephen.  They,  according 
 to  the  custom,  for  the  sake  of  facility  in  their 
 dreadful  task,  stripped  themselves,  as  is  the  eastern 
 practice  on  commencing  any  violent  exertion  ;  and 
 one  of  the  prominent  leaders  in  the  transaction  was 
 deputed  by  custom  to  signify  his  assent"  to  the 
 act  by  taking  the  clothes  into  his  custody,  and 
 standing  over  them  whilst  the  bloody  work  went 
 on.  The  person  who  officiated  on  this  occasion 
 was  a  young  man  from  Tarsus  —  one  probably  of 
 the  Cilician  Hellenists  who  had  disputed  with 
 Stephen.  His  name,  as  the  narrative  significantly 
 adds,  was  Saul. 
 
 Everything  was  now  ready  for  the  execution.     It 
 
 «  Comp.  "  I  was  standing  by  and  consenting  to  tiis 
 death,  and  kept  the  raiment  of  those  that  slew  him" 
 (Acts  xxii.  20). 
 
 b  These  conflicting  versions  are  well  given  in  Cony- 
 beare  and  Howson,  S.  Paul.,  i.  80. 
 
 c  The  date  of  Stephen's  death  is  unknown.  But 
 ecclesiastical  tradition  fixes  it  in  the  same  year  as  the 
 
 STEPHEN 
 
 was  outside  the  gates  of  Jerusalem.  The  earlier 
 tradition  *  fixed  it  at  what  is  now  called  the  Da- 
 mascus Gate.  The  later,  which  is  the  present  tra- 
 dition, fixed  it  at  what  is  hence  called  St.  Stephen's 
 Gate,  opening  on  the  descent  to  the  Mount  of  Ol- 
 ives; and  in  the  red  streaks  of  the  white  limestone 
 rocks  of  the  sloping  hill  used  to  be  shown  the  marks 
 of  his  blood,  and  on  the  first  rise  of  Olivet,  oppo- 
 site, the  eminence  on  which  the  Virgin  stood  to 
 support  him  with  her  prayers. 
 
 The  sacred  narrative  fixes  its  attention  only  on 
 two  figures  —  that  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  already  no- 
 ticed, and  that  of  Stephen  himself. 
 
 As  the  first  volley  of  stones  burst  upon  him,  he 
 called  upon  the  Master  whose  human  form  he  had 
 just  seen  in  the  heavens,  and  repeated  almost  the 
 words  with  which  He  himself  had  given  up  his  life 
 on  the  cross,  "  O  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit." 
 
 Anotiier  crash  of  stones  brought  him  on  his 
 knees.  One  loud,  piercing  cry  (tKpa^e  /u-eydXr) 
 (poovfj)  —  answering  to  the  loud  shriek  or  yell  with 
 which  his  enemies  had  flown  upon  him  —  escaped 
 his  dying  lips.  Again  clinging  to  the  spirit  of  his 
 Master's  words,  he  cried,  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to 
 their  charge,"  and  instantly  sank  upon  the  ground, 
 and,  in  the  touching  language  of  the  narrator,  who 
 then  uses  for  the  first  time  the  word,  afterwards 
 applied  to  the  departure  of  all  Christians,  but  here 
 the  more  remarkable  from  the  bloody  scenes  in  the 
 midst  of  which  the  death  took  place  —  (Koifiyidrj, 
 '■'■fdl  asleep."  •-' 
 
 His  mangled  body  was  buried  by  the  class  of 
 Hellenists  and  proselytes  to  which  he  belonged  (oi 
 fvaepels),  vvith  an  amount  of  funeral  state  and 
 lamentation  expressed  in  two  words  used  here  only 
 in  the  N.  T.  {a-vviK6fj.i<Tav  and  kott^tSs)- 
 
 This  simple  expression  is  enlarged  liy  writers  of 
 the  fifth  century  into  an  elaborate  legend.  The 
 high-priest,  it  is  said,  had  intended  to  leave  the 
 corpse  to  be  devoured  by  beasts  of  prey.  It  was 
 rescued  by  Gamaliel,  carried  off"  in  his  own  chariot 
 by  night,  and  buried  in  a  new  tomb  on  his  prop- 
 erty at  Caphar  Gamala  (village  of  the  Camel),  8 
 leagues  from  Jerusalem.  The  funeral  lamentations 
 lasted  for  forty  days.  All  the  Apostles  attended. 
 Gamaliel  undertook  the  expense,  and,  on  his  death, 
 was  interred  in  an  adjacent  cave. 
 
 This  story  was  probably  first  drawn  up  on  the 
 occasion  of  the  remarliable  event  which  occurred  in 
 A.  D.  415,  under  the  name  of  the  Invention  and 
 Translation  of  the  IJelics  of  St.  Stephen.  Succes- 
 sive visions  of  Gamaliel  to  Lucian,  the  parish  priest 
 of  Caphar  Gamala,  on  the  3d  and  18th  of  Decem- 
 ber in  that  year,  revealed  the  spot  where  the  mar- 
 tyr's remains  would  be  found.  They  were  identi- 
 fied by  a  tablet  bearing  his  name  Cheliel,  and  were 
 carried  in  state  to  Jerusalem,  amidst  various  por- 
 tents, and  buried  in  the  church  on  Mount  Zion,  the 
 scene  of  so  many  early  Christian  traditions.  The 
 event  of  the  translation  is  celebrated  in  the  Latin 
 Church  on  August  3,  probably  from  the  tradition 
 of  that  d.iy  being  the  anniversary  of  the  dedication 
 of  a  chapel  of  St.  Stephen  at  Ancona. 
 
 The  story  itself  is  encompassed  with  legend,  but 
 
 Crucifixion,  on  the  26th  of  December,  the  day  after 
 Christmas-day.  It  is  beautifully  said  by  Augustine  (in 
 allusion  to  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  festivals),  that 
 men  would  not  have  had  the  courage  to  die  for  God, 
 if  God  had  not  become  man  to  die  for  them  (TlUemont, 
 S.  Etienne,  art.  4). 
 
STEPHEN 
 
 the  event  is  mentioned  in  all  the  chief  writers  of  the 
 time.  Parts  of  liis  remains  were  afterwards  trans- 
 ported to  different  i)arts  of  the  coast  of  the  West 
 —  iMinorca,  Portugal,  North  Africa,  Ancona,  Con- 
 stantinople,—  and  in  4G0  wliat  were  still  lelt  at  Jeru- 
 salem were  translated  by  the  Empress  Eudocia  to  a 
 splendid  church  called  by  his  name  on  the  supposed 
 scene  of  his  martyrdom  (Tillemont,  S.  Eiieune, 
 art.  5-y,  where  all  the  authorities  are  quoted). 
 
 The  importance  of  Stephen's  career  may  be  briefly 
 summed  up  under  three  heads:  — 
 
 I.  He  was  the  first  great  Christian  ecclesiastic. 
 The  appointment  of  "the  Seven,"  commonly 
 (though  not  in  the  Bible)  called  Deacons,  formed 
 the  tirst  direct  institution  of  the  nature  of  an  or- 
 ganized Christian  ministry,  and  of  these  Stephen 
 was  the  head,  —  "the  Archdeacon,"  as  he  is  called 
 in  the  Eastern  Church,  —  and  in  this  capacity  rep- 
 resented as  the  companion  or  precursor  of  Lau- 
 rence, Archdeacon  of  Kome  in  the  Western  Church. 
 In  this  sense  allusion  is  made  to  him  in  the  Angli- 
 can Ordination  of  Deacons. 
 
 II.  He  is  the  first  nuirlyr  —  the  proto-martyr. 
 To  him  the  name  "  martyr  '  is  first  applied  (Acts 
 xxii.  20).  He,  first  of  the  Christian  Cliurch,  bore 
 witness  to  the  truth  of  his  convictions  by  a  violent 
 and  dreadful  death.  The  veneration  which  has  ac- 
 crued to  his  name  in  consequence  is  a  testimony  of 
 the  Hible  to  the  sacredness  of  truth,  to  the  noble- 
 ness of  sincerity,  to  the  wickedness  and  the  folly 
 of  persecution.  It  also  contains  the  first  jrerms  of 
 the  re\erence  for  the  character  and  for  tlie  relics  of 
 martyrs,  which  afterwards  grew  to  a  height  now 
 regarded  by  all  Christians  as  excessive.  A  beauti- 
 ful hymn  by  Reginahl  Heber  connnemorates  this 
 side  of  Stephen's  character. 
 
 III.  He  is  the  forerumier  of  St.  Paul.  So  he 
 was  already  regarded  in  ancient  times.  TlavKov 
 6  5iSdaKa\os  is  the  expression  used  for  him  by 
 Basil  of  Seleucia.  But  it  is  an  aspect  that  has 
 been  mucli  more  forcibly  drawn  out  in  modern 
 times.  Not  only  was  his  martjrdom  (in  all  prob- 
 ability) the  first  means  of  converting  St.  Paul,  his 
 prayer  for  his  murderers  not  only  was  fulfilled  in 
 the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  —  the  blood  of  the  first 
 martyr  the  seed  of  the  greatest  Apostle,  the  pangs 
 of  remorse  for  his  death  amongst  the  stings 
 of  conscience  against  which  the  Apostle  vainly 
 writhed  (Acts  ix.  5 )  —  not  only  thus,  but  in  his 
 doctrine  also  he  was  the  anticipator,  as,  had  he 
 lived,  he  would  have  been  the  propagator,  of  the 
 new  phase  of  Christianity,  of  which  St.  Paul  be- 
 came the  main  support.  His  denunciations  of  local 
 worship,  the  stress  which  he  lays  on  the  spiritual 
 side  of  the  .Jewish  history,  his  freedom  in  treating 
 that  history,  the  very  turns  of  expression  that  he 
 uses,  are  all  Pauline. 
 
 The  history  of  the  above  account  is  taken  from 
 Acts  (vi.  1-viii.  2;  xxii.  19,  20):  the  legends  from 
 Tillemont  (ii.  1-2-i);  the  more  general  treatment 
 from  Neander's  Plantiny  of  iha  Christian  Church, 
 and  from  llowson  and  Conybeare  in  The  Lifn  of 
 St.  Paul,  ch.  2.  A.  P."  S. 
 
 *  It  is  impossible  that  all  the  facts  in  regard  to 
 the  Divine  dealings  with  man  can  have  been  pre- 
 served in  the  sacred  records.  The  memory  of 
 many  circumstances,  additional  to  the  original  rec- 
 ord, must  have  been  long  kept  alive  by  tradition; 
 and,  although  gradually  overlaid  by  a  mass  of  hu- 
 man fictions,  later  writers  have  frequently  rescued 
 the  facts  from  such  inventions  and  transmitted 
 tnem  to  us  in  a  truthful  form.  For  examples  of 
 196 
 
 STEPHEN 
 
 3113 
 
 this,  see  Ps.  cv.  18;  2  Tim.  iii.  8;  2  Pet.  ii.  7,  8; 
 (ial.  iii.  19;  Heb.  ii.  2;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  Acts  xx. 
 3-5,  &c.  [Tradition,  Anier.  ed.]  It  is  not 
 surprising,  therefore,  to  find  St.  Stephen  mention- 
 ing some  minor  details,  evidently  already  familiar 
 to  his  audience,  not  recorded  in  the  JMosaic  narra- 
 tive. Our  Lord's  promise  to  his  disciples  (.John 
 xiv.  2G),  when  placed  in  the  situation  of  Stephen, 
 warrants  us  in  trusting  to  the  accuracy  of  such  sup- 
 plementary information. 
 
 Stephen's  speech,  however,  contains  some  appar- 
 ent variations  from  tlie  JMosaic  narrative,  pointed 
 out  in  the  preceding  article,  of  a  difl'erent  kind,  and 
 worthy  of  a  closer  examination.  One  of  these  re- 
 lates to  the  time  of  Abram's  call,  represented  by 
 Stephen  as  occurring  in  Mesopotamia,  before  the 
 sojourn  in  Haran.  The  allegecl  inconsistency  does 
 not  ajipeur  in  Gen.  xii.  1,  according  to  the  A.  V. ; 
 for  the  \erb  is  very  properly  rendered  as  pluperfect 
 and  not  as  perfect.  The  Hebrew  verb  has  in  fact 
 no  specific  Ibrm  for  the  pluperfect;  and  the  form 
 in  Gen.  xii.  1  supplies  the  place  of  several  tenses  of 
 our  western  tongues.  For  other  instances  of  the 
 same  form  of  this  verb  as  pluperfect  (necessarily, 
 ^"had  said"),  see  Ex.  xxxiii  5;  1  Iv.  xxi.  4;  Is. 
 xxxviii.  21,  22.  The  same  remark  applies  of  course 
 to  the  corresponding  forms  of  other  Hebrew  verbs. 
 The  truth  in  this  matter,  therefore,  must  depend 
 not  on  the  Hebrew  tense,  but  the  context,  and 
 other  Scripture  notices. 
 
 The  most  probable  reason  for  the  migration  of 
 Terah  and  his  family  is  the  one  assigned  by  Ste- 
 phen —  the  Divine  command  made  known  to 
 Abram  in  Ur.«  "We  are  not  left,  however,  to  mere 
 conjecture  here;  but  have  explicit  statements,  both 
 in  the  jNIosaic  narrative,  and  in  other  parts  of 
 Scripture.  •'  I  am  the  Lord  that  brought  thee 
 out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  (Gen.  xv.  7);  "1  took 
 your  father  Abraham  from  the  other  side  of  the 
 fouil"  (.Josh.  xxiv.  3);  "  who  didst  choose  Abram, 
 and  broughtest  him  forth  out  of  Ur  of  the  (Jhal- 
 dees"  (Nell.  ix.  7).  The  positive  assertions  so 
 often  made  that  according  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  and  xi.  32, 
 the  call  of  Abram  was  not  before  his  migration  to 
 Haran,  and  not  before  the  death  of  his  father,  are 
 utterly  gratuitous.  They  are  founded  upon  an  un- 
 justifiable limitation  of  the  Hebrew  tense,  and  are 
 contradictory  to  other  parts  of  the  narrative.  View- 
 ing Stephen  simply  as  a  pious  Jew,  evidently  a  m:in 
 of  ability,  addressing  Jews  i'amiliar  with  their  own 
 history,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have 
 blundered  so  grossly  in  the  facts  of  that  history 
 and  the  meaning  of  words  in  the  saci-ed  language 
 of  his  nation,  as  to  be  open  to  correction  at  the 
 distance  of  1,800  years  by  men  of  another  tongue. 
 
 Another  difficulty  is  about  the  age  of  Abram's 
 father  at  the  time  of  his  nativity.  Gen.  xi.  26 
 asserts :  "  Terah  lived  75  years  and  begat  Abram, 
 Nahor,  and  Haran;"  Gen.  xii.  4,  "Abram  was 
 7.5  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haraii;" 
 Gen.  xi.  32,  Terah  died  at  the  age  of  205  years, 
 and  Abram  removed  from  Haran  after  the  death 
 of  his  father  (Acts  vii.  4).  Now  since  205  —  75 
 =  130,  either  Abram,  in  contradiction  to  Stephen's 
 statement,  nuist  have  left  Haran  before  the  death 
 of  his  father,  or  else  —  as  was  really  the  case  — 
 Terah  must  have  been  at  least  130  at  the  time  of 
 his  birth.      It  is  neither  to  be  assumed  that  Terah's 
 
 a  *  For  tlie  expression  of  this  view  by  I'hilo,  and 
 by  the  Christian  tathers,  see  the  references  given  by 
 Wordsworth  in  loco. 
 
3114  STEPHEN 
 
 three  sons  were  all  born  in  one  year,  nor  that 
 Abram  was  the  eldest  because  his  name  is  men- 
 tioned first.  In  a  parallel  case,  Gen.  v.  .32,  it  is 
 said  "  Noah  was  500  years  old,  and  Noah  begat 
 Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth;  but  in  Gen.  x.  21,  it  is 
 expressly  said  that  Japheth  was  older  than  Shem, 
 and  by  comparing  v.  -32  with  vii.  11  and  xi.  10, 
 we  see  that  Noah  was  at  least  502  at  Shem's  birth. 
 In  both  cases  all  the  sons  are  mentioned  together 
 in  connection  with  the  Ijirth  of  the  eldest;  and  that 
 one  is  mentioned  first  from  whom  the  Jews  were 
 descended.  It  is  nowhere  stated  in  terms  that 
 Abram  was  the  younger  brother,  but  the  facts  of 
 the  narrative  show  that  he  must  have  been  very 
 much  the  younger.  Nahor  married  the  daughter 
 of  Haran  (Gen.  xi.  29),  and  was  therefore  probably 
 many  years  his  junior;  Isaac,  Abraham's  son,  mar- 
 ried Rebecca,  the  granddmightcr  of  Nahor  througli 
 Bethuel  the  youngest  of  his  eight  sons  (Gen.  xxii. 
 20-23).  This  would  make  Abram  — notwithstand- 
 ing his  advanced  age  at  the  birth  of  Isaac  —  much 
 younger  than  Nahor,  as  he  in  turn  was  much 
 younger  than  Ilaran.  These  facts  put  together 
 imply  that  Abram  was  at  least  the  sixty  years 
 younger  than  Haran  required  by  the  facts  men- 
 tioned at  the  outset,  and  hence  that  Terah  was  at 
 least  130  years  old  at  his  birth.  In  accordance 
 with  this  was  the  Jewish  tradition  (mentioned  by 
 Lightfoot,  Hor.  Ileb.  in  Acts  vii.  4,  11.)  that 
 Abram  was  the  youngest  of  the  brothers.  In  ac- 
 cordance with  this,  also,  is  the  fact  that  Haran, 
 already  the  father  of  a  family  (Gen.  xi.  29,  31), 
 died  before  his  father  left  Ur  (xi.  28),  while  Abram 
 must  have  been  still  a  comparatively  young  man. 
 
 Again,  Stephen  puts  the  number  who  went  down 
 into  Egypt  at  75,  in  accordance  with  the  LXX.; 
 but  whether  he  took  this  number  from  the  LXX., 
 or  the  text  of  that  version  has  been  altered  to  cor- 
 respond with  liis  speech,  does  not  matter.  In  Gen. 
 xlvi.  26,  the  number  is  given  as  66,  and  again  in 
 the  following  verse  as  70.  All  these  statements 
 are  the  result  of  looking  at  the  same  facts  from  dif- 
 ferent points  of  view.  Now,  Jacob  himself  and  Jo- 
 seph with  his  two  sons  already  in  Egypt  are  ex- 
 cluded from  the  number  to  make  60 ;  now  they  are 
 included  to  make  70;  and  now  with  them  are  also 
 included  (as  in  tlie  LXX.)  the  children  of  Joseph's 
 sons  —  the  sons  themselves  having  been  taken  for 
 heads  of  tribes  —  to  make  75.  Obviously  by  in- 
 cluding the  wives,  and  in  other  ways,  still  other 
 numbers  might  be  obtained.  Stephen,  not  stop- 
 ping to  discuss  the  matter,  merely  gives  the  reck- 
 oning then  in  most  common  use. 
 
 The  Egyptian  education  of  Moses  is  surely  a 
 necessary  consequence  of  his  being  the  adopted  son 
 of  Pharaoh's  daughter  (Ex.  ii.  10);  while  the 
 statement  that  he  was  "  mighty  in  words  and 
 deeds  "  manifestly  refers  to  the  whole  life  and  char- 
 acter of  Moses,  and  there  is  no  man  in  history  of 
 whom  it  could  more  truly  be  affirmed.  We  know 
 that  his  entire  age  was  120  years,  during  the  last 
 forty  of  which  he  was  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of 
 his  people.  At  exactly  what  age  he  tied  from  the 
 court  of  Pharaoh  is  not  recorded.  Probability 
 would  point  to  the  age  of  about  forty,  according  to 
 the  tradition,  thus  making  the  three  periods  men- 
 tioned by  Stephen  (vii.  23,  30,  36).  The  same 
 tradition  appears  to  have  kept  alive  the  memory  of 
 his  fear  at  the  bush  (ver.  32),  as  similar  fear  at 
 Mount  Sinai  is  elsewhere  recorded  (Ileb.  xii.  21). 
 -Vs  Stephen  does  not  profess  to  confine  himself  to 
 the  Mosaic  narrative  he  was  quite  free  to  make  use 
 
 STEPHEN 
 
 of  what  was  true  in  these  traditions,  as  well  as  to 
 embody  in  his  speech  any  additional  information 
 contained  in  the  prophetic  writings  (Am.  v.  25,  26), 
 or  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  such  as  "  the  inter- 
 vention of  angels  in  the  giving  of  the  law"  men- 
 tioned in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  and  well  known  to  the 
 Jews,  as  appears  from  Gal.  iii.  19,  and  Heb.  ii.  2. 
 The  burial  of  ( —  not  explicitly,  "  the  twelve  patri- 
 archs," but  of — )  "  our  fathers  "  at  Shecheni 
 must  have  been  a  fact  within  the  knowledge  of 
 every  Jew  at  the  time,  and  in  regard  to  one  of 
 them,  Joseph,  we  have  the  express  record  of  it  in 
 Josh.  xxiv.  32. 
 
 The  only  point  in  Stephen's  speech  that  involves 
 any  real  difficulty  is  the  purchase  of  the  tomb  at 
 Shechem  by  Abraham  of  the  sons  of  lunmor  (Acts 
 vii.  16).  The  facts  recorded  are,  that  Abraham 
 bought  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  with  the  adjoining 
 field,  "  for  a  possession  of  a  burying-place  of  the 
 sons  of  Ephron  the  Hittite  "  ((>en.  xxiii.  3-20), 
 and  that  Jacob  also  bought  a  field  near  Shechem 
 of  the  sons  of  Emmor  (xxxiii.  18,  19).  These 
 purchases  were  made  at  some  distance  of  time  from 
 each  other,  and  were  made  by  different  persons  of 
 different  parties.  In  the  former  .lacob  was  buried 
 (1.  13);  in  the  latter  Joseph  (Josh.  xxiv.  32),  and 
 according  to  constant  tradition,  Jewish  as  well  as 
 Christian,  also  bis  brothers.  Is  it  possible  that 
 Stephen  can  have  confused  the  two  places  and 
 transactions  together?  On  the  supposition  that 
 he  makes  one  common  statement  in  regard  to  the 
 burial-place  of  Jacob  and  his  sons,  and  that  he 
 refers  to  the  purchases  mentioned  above,  the  difli- 
 culty  is  palpable.  As  to  the  first,  his  words  are: 
 "  So  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  died,  he 
 and  our  fathers,  and  were  carried  ()\er  into  Sycheni 
 and  laid  in  the  sepulchre,"  etc.  (Acts  vii.  15,  16). 
 The  sentence  niay,  in  itself,  be  understood  in  either 
 of  two  ways:  either  as  referring  throughout  to 
 both  Jacob  and  the  patriarchs ;  or  as,  in  the  num- 
 ber of  its  clauses,  dropping  out  Jacob  from  the 
 latter  ones,  and  predicating  them  only  of  "  our 
 fathers."  In  the  original  this  is  much  plainer; 
 indeed,  by  placing  a  period  after  Trarepes  r)fxS>u, 
 the  following  fieTfTeOrjaay  and  irtdnaai/  would 
 naturally  t.ake  warfpes  for  their  nominative,  and 
 the  meaning,  if  at  all  doubtful  in  the  written  text, 
 would  have  been  clear  when  spoken  by  the  living 
 voice.  There  was,  too,  the  less  need  of  explicit- 
 ness  because  the  bin'ial-places  were  so  familiarly 
 known  to  every  one  in  the  audience.  In  this 
 therefore  there  is  no  real  difficulty.  But  Stephen 
 continues,  "  in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought 
 for  a  sum  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Ennnor  the 
 father  of  Sychem."  It  is  certain  that  this  does 
 not  refer  to  the  cave  of  Machpelah  which  was  ]5ur- 
 chased  of  Ephron,  and  where  the  twelve  patriarchs 
 were  not  buried.  A  conjectural  emendation  of  the 
 text,  sulistituting  the  name  of  Jacob  for  that  of 
 Abraham  has  been  suggested,  but  is  not  necessary, 
 since  the  same  result  follows  from  the  supposition 
 that  Abraham  did  actually  purchase  this  field, 
 which,  being  reclaimed  by  the  Shechemites,  was 
 afterwards  purchased  again  by  Jacob;  and  there 
 is  some  ground  for  this  supposition.  From  Gen. 
 xii.  6,  7,  we  learn  that  there  God  appeared  to 
 Abram,  and  there  he  "  builded  an  altar  unto  the 
 Lord."  Now  while  he  might  have  done  this  with- 
 out hesitation  in  an  uninhabited  place  (as  Jacob 
 afterwards  did  at  Bethel,  Gen.  xxviii.  11-22,  xxxv. 
 1),  it  is  unlikely  that  one  so  scrupulous  in  matters 
 of  property  (see  e.  (/.  xiv.  23)  would  have  done  ao 
 
STOCKS 
 
 without  purchase  in  an  inhabited  region,  wliere 
 rights  of  property  already  existed.  I'hat  this  was 
 the  case  at  Sychem  appears  from  the  statement 
 (xii.  6),  "the  Canaanite  was  then  in  tlie  land," 
 and  from  the  subsequent  purchase  by  Jacob  in  this 
 very  locality,  and  apparently  for  the  same  purpose 
 (xxxiii.  18-2()).  It  is  in  itself,  therefore,  not  un- 
 likely that  Abrahura  did  nialce  a  purchase  there. 
 Again,  this  probability  is  increased  by  the  ftict  of 
 Jacob's  purchase.  For  in  the  prolonged  absence 
 of  Abrain  and  his  descendants,  the  field  would 
 almost  certainly  have  been  reoccupied  by  the  She- 
 chemites,  just  as  the  Philistines  stopped  the  wells 
 dug  by  Abraham  (Gen.  xxvi.  15,  18).  And  just 
 •m  ImuS  reopened  those  wells  (ver.  18),  so  Jacob 
 would  have  desired  to  repossess  the  field  and  to 
 rebuild  the  altar  of  his  grandfather.  A  reason  is 
 thus  found  for  his  purchase  of  this  particular 
 locality ;  and  it  is  not  probable  that  he  would  have 
 built  another  altar  there  if  Abram's  remained  un- 
 disturbed. Further,  if  in  Acts  vii.  16  we  translate 
 according  to  the  all  but  universal  Greek  usage  (in 
 the  N.  T.  quite  universal),  we  must  read,  not 
 "  Emmor  the  J'ather,'"  but  "  Emmor  the  son  of 
 Sychem."  Of  course  it  is  possible  that  Hamor's 
 father  and  son  may  both  have  been  named  Sychem, 
 but  it  is  more  likely  that  a  different  Hamor  is 
 referred  to;  if  so,  then  it  is  evident  that  Stephen 
 had  in  mind  distinctly  a  purchase  made  by  Abrara 
 of  the  sons  of  one  Hamor,  quite  distinct  from  the 
 subsequent  repurchase  by  Jacob  of  the  same  field 
 from  the  sons  of  another  Hamor.  Such  repetitions 
 of  names  are  of  no  uncommon  occurrence  in  orien- 
 tal— -or  for  that  matter,  in  occidental  —  genealo- 
 gies. On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  that  while, 
 negatively,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  deny  the 
 previous  purchase  of  this  field  by  Abraham,  there 
 is  positively  no  inconsiderable  reason  in  favor  of 
 the  supposition. 
 
 Thus  in  Stephen's  speech  we  find  no  loose  and 
 inaccurate  references  to  the  Jlosaic  narrative;  but 
 rather  a  most  careful  and  conscientious,  as  well  as 
 able,  use  of  the  facts  in  the  ancient  history  of  his 
 people.  Some  of  these  facts,  but  for  Stephen,  might 
 have  been  lost  to  us;  preserved  as  they  are,  they 
 lead  to  still  further  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the 
 patriarchal  story.  F.  G. 
 
 STOCKS  (n??3nn,  ip:  ^{;Kov).  The 
 term  '•  stocks  "  is  applied  in  the  A.  V.  to  two  dif- 
 ferent articles,  one  of  which  (the  Hebrew  mahpe- 
 cetli )  answers  rather  to  our  pillory,  inasmuch  as  its 
 name  implies  that  the  body  was  placed  in  a  bent 
 position  by  the  confinement  of  the  neck  and  arms 
 as  well  as  the  legs;  while  the  other  (sad)  answers 
 to  our  "  stocks,"  the  feet  alone  being  confined  in  it. 
 The  former  may  be  comjiared  with  the  Greek  kv- 
 (pcou,  as  described  in  the  Scholia  ad  Aristoph.  Plut. 
 47G :  the  latter  with  the  Roman  nei-vus  (Plant. 
 Asiii.  iii.  2,  5;  Ciij)t.  v.  3,  40),  which  admitted, 
 however,  of  being  converted  into  a  species  of  tor- 
 
 i 
 
 n  *  The  term  in  Acts  xvi.  24  is  fu'Aov.  The  writer 
 was  told  at  KnuaUa  (Neapolis),  that  this  is  still  a  com- 
 jnoQ  mode  of  punishment  ia  that  part  of  Greece. 
 
 H. 
 
 ft  E.  g.  Seneca,  De  Clem.  §  5  :  "  Peocavimus  om- 
 Hes  .  .  .  ne-,  deliquimus  tantum  sed  ad  extremum 
 ?evi  delinquemus."'  Rom.  iii.  23  :  "  Peccavenmt  om- 
 nes''"'  .... 
 
 Ep.  i.  :  "  Quern  mihi  dabls  ....  qui  intelligat  se 
 fuotidie  mori?"     Rom.  xv.  31 :  "Qiiotidie  niorior.^' 
 
 De  Vil.  beata,  §  12:  "Laudant  enim  [Epicurei]  ea 
 
 STOICS  3115 
 
 tm-e,  as  the  legs  could  be  drawn  asunder  at  the  will 
 of  the  jailer  (Biscoe  on  Acts,  p.  229).  The  prophet 
 Jeremiah  was  confined  in  the  first  sort  (Jer.  xx. 
 2),  which  appears  to  have  been  a  common  mode,  of 
 punishment  in  his  day  (Jer.  xxix.  26),  as  the  pris- 
 ons contained  a  chamber  for  the  special  purpose, 
 termed  "  the  house  of  the  pillory  "  (2  Chr.  xvi. 
 10;  A.  V.  "prison-house").  The  stocks  {sad) 
 are  noticed  in  Job  xiii.  27,  xxxiii.  11,  and  Acts 
 xvi.  24. «  The  term  used  in  Prov.  vii.  22  (A.  V. 
 "stocks")  more  properly  means  a  fetter. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 STOICS.  The  Stoics  and  Epicureans,  who  are 
 mentioned  together  in  Acts  xvii.  18,  represent  the 
 two  opposite  schools  of  practical  philosophy  which 
 survived  the  fall  of  higher  speculation  in  Greece 
 [Philosophy].  The  Stoic  school  was  founded 
 by  Zeno  of  Citium  (cir.  b.  c.  280),  and  derived  its 
 name  from  the  painted  portico  (^  ttoikiAt;  ffrod, 
 Diog.  L.  vii.)  in  which  he  taught.  Zeno  was  fol- 
 lowed by  Cleanthes  (cir.  b.  c.  260),  Cleanthes  by 
 Chrysippus  (cir.  b.  c.  240),  who  was  regarded  as 
 the  intellectual  founder  of  the  Stoic  system  (Diog. 
 L.  vii.  183).  Stoicism  soon  found  an  entrance  at 
 Rome.  Diogenes  Pabylonius,  a  scholar  of  Chry- 
 sippus, was  its  representative  in  the  famous  em- 
 bassy of  philosophers,  b.  c.  161  (Aulus  Gellius, 
 A'^.  .4.  vii.  14);  and  not  long  afterwards  Panajtius 
 was  the  friend  of  Scipio  Africanus  the  younger,  and 
 many  other  leading  men  at  Pome.  His  successor 
 Posidonius  numbered  Cicero  and  Pompey  among 
 his  scholars;  and  under  the  empire  stoicism  was 
 not  unnaturally  connected  with  republican  virtue. 
 Seneca  (JA.  d.  65)  and  Musonius  (Tac.  Hist.  iii. 
 81)  did  much  to  popularize  the  ethical  teaching  of 
 the  school  by  their  writings ;  but  the  true  glory  of 
 the  later  Stoics  is  Epictetus  (tcir.  A.  d.  115),  the 
 records  of  whose  doctrine  form  the  noblest  mon- 
 ument of  heathen  morality  (E/Jtcletece  Philos. 
 Monum.  ed.  Schweighiiuser,  1799).  The  precepts 
 of  Epictetus  were  adopted  by  Marcus  Aurelius 
 (a.  d.  121-180)  who  endeavored  to  shape  his  pub- 
 lic life  by  their  guidance.  With  this  last  effort 
 stoicism  reached   its  climax  and  its   end.      [Phi- 
 
 LO.SOPHY.] 
 
 The  ethical  system  of  the  Stoics  has  been  com- 
 monly supposed  to  have  a  close  connection  with 
 Christian  morality  (Gataker,  Antoninus,  Prmf. ; 
 Meyer,  Stoic.  Eth.  c.  Christ.  coiDpar.,  1823),  and 
 the  outward  similarity  of  isolated  precepts  is  very 
 close  and  worthy  of  notice.*  But  the  morality  of 
 stoicism  is  essentially  based  on  pride,  that  of  Chris- 
 tianity on  humility ;  the  one  upholds  individual  in- 
 dependence, the  other  absolute  faith  in  another;  the 
 one  looks  for  consolation  in  the  issue  of  fate,  the 
 other  in  Providence ;  the  one  is  limited  by  periods 
 of  cosraical  ruin,  the  other  is  consummated  in  a 
 personal  resurrection  (iVcts  xvii.  18). 
 
 But  in  spite  of  the  fundamental  error  of  stoicism, 
 w-hich  lies  in  a  supreme  egotism,''  the  teaching  of 
 
 quibus  erubescebant  et  vitio  gloriantur."  Phil.  iii. 
 19 :   "  Quorum  ....  gloria  iu  coufusione  eorum." 
 
 Ibid.  §  15  :  "  In  regno  nati  sumus  :  Deo  parere  lib- 
 ertas  est." 
 
 Epict.  Diss.  ii.  17,  22  :  in-Aios  lUTjSer  aAAo  de\e  fj  a.  6 
 0ebs  ^tAet. 
 
 Anton,  vii.  74 :  ^r;  oiv  Kaixve  ox^cAov/iei'OS  ev  iji 
 wi^eAet?. 
 
 <-■  Seneca,  De  Vit.  beata,  §  8  :  "  Incorruptus  vir  sit 
 externis  et  insuperabilis  miratorque  tantum  sui,  fidcns 
 animo  atque  in  utrumque  paratus  artifex  vitae." 
 
3116 
 
 STOMACHER 
 
 this  scliool  gave  a  wide  currency  to  the  noble  doc- 
 trines of  (he  Fatherhood  of  (iod  (C'leantlies,  Hymn. 
 31-38;  conip.  Acts  xvii.  28),  the  common  bonds 
 of  mankind  (Anton,  iv.  4),  the  sovereignty  of  the 
 BOul.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  tliat  the  earlier 
 Stoics  were  very  closely  connected  with  the  East, 
 from  which  much  of  the  form,  if  not  of  the  essence, 
 of  their  doctrines  seems  to  have  been  derived.  Zeno 
 himself  was  a  native  of  Citium,  one  of  the  oldest 
 Phcenician  settlements.  [Ciiittiji.]  His  successor 
 Chrysippus  came  irom  Soli  or  Tarsus;  and  Tarsus 
 is  mentioned  as  the  birthplace  of  a  second  Zeno  and 
 Antipater.  Diogenes  came  from  Seleucia  in  Baby- 
 lonia, l^osidonius  fi'om  Apamea  in  Syria,  and  Epic- 
 tetus  from  the  Phrygian  Hierapolis  (comp.  Sir  A. 
 Grant,  The  Ancient  Stoics,  Oxfwd  A'sgays,  J858, 
 p.  82). 
 
 The  chief  authorities  for  the  opinions  of  the 
 Stoics  are  Diog.  Laert.  vii. ;  Cicero,  De  Fin. ; 
 Plutarch,  Be  Stoic,  repuyn. ;  Be  jilac.  Plrikis. 
 adv.  Stoic;  Sextus  Enipiricus;  and  the  remains 
 of  Seneca,  P.pictetus,  and  Marcus  Aurelius.  Gat- 
 aker,  in  his  edition  of  the  MeiHtativns  of  .)/.  Au- 
 relius, has  traced  out  with  the  greatest  care  the 
 parallels  which  they  ofler  to  Christian  doctrine. 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 *  See  Merivale,  History  of  the  Romans  (vi.  190- 
 233),  for  an  account  of  the  Stoics  and  their  prin- 
 ciples. Some  have  supposed  that  Seneca  may  have 
 been  one  of  the  members  of  the  emperor's  house- 
 hold, to  whom  Paul  refers  in  Phil.  iv.  22.  On 
 this  question  of  the  possibility  of  an  acquaintance 
 between  the  Apostle  and  the  philosopher  during 
 Paul's  captivity  at  Eome,  Professor  Lightfoot  has 
 an  extended  Bisstrtotimi  in  his  Commentary  on 
 Philippians  (pp.  268-031).  The  discussion  in- 
 volves an  elaborate  examination  of  the  spirit  and 
 teachings  of  Stoicism  as  compared  with  those  of  the 
 Gospel.  The  fourteen  letters  said  to  be  written  by 
 Seneca  to  St.  Paul  are  undoubted  forgeries.     H. 
 
 STOMACHER  (b"'a\~!D),  The  Heb.  pe?/i- 
 igil  describes  some  article  of  female  attire  (Is.  iii. 
 24),  the  character  of  which  is  a  mere  matter  of 
 conjecture.  I'he  LXX.  describes  it  as  a  variegated 
 tunic  {xi.T(i)v  /xea-oTTopipvpos)',  the  Vulg.  as  a  spe- 
 cies of  girdle  {fascia  pectoruUs).  The  word  is 
 evidently  a  compound,  but  its  elements  are  uncer- 
 tain.    Gesenius   {Thes.  p.   1137)    derives  it  from 
 
 V^3   Ty^nQ,  with  very  much  the  same  sense  as  in 
 
 the  LXX. ; '  Saalschiitz  (Archdol.  i.  30)  from  \"12 
 
 V^2,  with  the  sense  of  "undisguised  lust,"  as  ap- 
 plied to  some  particular  kind  of  dress.  Other 
 explanations  are  given  in  Gesen.  T/ies.  1.  c. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 STONES  (]?i;?).  The  uses  to  which  stones 
 were  applied  in  ancient  Palestine  were  very  various. 
 (1.)  They  were  used  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of 
 building,  and  in  this  respect  the  most  noticeable 
 point  is  the  very  large  size  to  which  they  occasion- 
 ally run  (Mark  xiii.  1).  Robinson  gives  the  di- 
 mensions of  one  as  24  feet  long  by  6  feet  broad 
 and  3  feet  high  (Jies.  i.  233;  see  also  p.  284,  note). 
 For  most  public  edifices  hewn  stones  were  used :  an 
 exception  was  made  in  regard  to  altars,  which  were 
 to  be  built  of  unhev^'n  stone  (Ex.  xx.  25 ;  Deut. 
 sxvii.  5;  Josh.  viii.  31),  probably  as  being   in  a 
 
 «  -1.1!J  or  'n!i. 
 
 STONES 
 
 more  natural  state.  The  Phoenicians  were  partic- 
 ularly famous  for  their  skill  in  hewing  stone  (2 
 Sam.  V.  11;  IK.  v.  18).  Stones  were  selected  of 
 certain  colors  in  order  to  form  oinaniental  string- 
 courses: in  1  Chr.  xxix.  2  we  find  enumerated 
 "  onyx  stones  and  stones  to  be  set,  glistering  stones 
 (lit.  stones  of  eye-paint),  and  of  divers  colors  (i.  e. 
 streaked  with  veins),  and  all  manner  of  precious 
 stones,  and  marble  stones"  (comp.  2  Chr.  iii.  6). 
 They  were  also  employed  for  pavements  (2  K.  xvi. 
 17;  comp.  Esth.  i.  (j).  (2.)  Large  stones  were 
 used  for  closing  the  entrances  of  caves  (Josh.  x. 
 18;  Dan.  vi.  17),  sepulchres  (Matt,  xxvii.  60; 
 John  xi.  38,  xx.  1),  and  springs  (Gen.  xxix.  2). 
 (3.)  Flint  stones "  occasionally  served  the  purpose 
 of  a  knife,  particularly  for  circumcision  and  similar 
 olyects  (Ex.  iv.  25;  Josh.  v.  2,3;  comp.  Ilerod.  ii. 
 86;  Plutarch,  Nicias,  p.  13;  CatuU.  Carm.  Ixii.  5). 
 (4.)  Stones  were  further  used  as  a  munition  of 
 war  for  slings  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40,  49),  catapults  (2 
 Chr.  xxvi.  14),  and  bows  (Wisd.  v.  22;  comp.  1 
 Mace.  vi.  51);  as  boundary  marks  (Deut.  xix.  14, 
 xxvii.  17;  Job  xxiv.  2;  Prov.  xxii.  28,  xxiii.  10); 
 such  were  probably  the  stone  of  Bohan  (Josh.  xv. 
 6,  xviii.  17),  the  stone  of  Al)el  (1  Sam.  vi.  15,  18), 
 the  stone  Ezel  (1  Sam.  xx.  19),  the  great  stone  by 
 Gibeon  (2  Sam.  xx.  8),  and  the  stone  Zoheleth  (1 
 K.  i.  9):  as  weights  for  scales  (Deut.  xxv.  13; 
 Prov.  xvi.  11);  and  for  mills  (2  Sam.  xi.  21).  (5.) 
 Laige  stones  were  set  up  to  commemorate  any  re- 
 markable events,  as  by  Jacob  at  Bethel  after  his 
 interview  with  Jehovah  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxv.  14), 
 and  again  when  he  made  the  covenant  witli  Laban 
 (Gen.  xxxi.  45) ;  by  Joshua  after  the  passage  of  the 
 Jordan  (Josh.  iv.  9);  and  by  Samuel  in  token  of 
 bis  victory  over  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  vii.  12). 
 Similarly  the  Egyptian  monarchs  erected  their  ste- 
 ke  at  the  fiirthest  point  they  reached  (Herod,  ii. 
 106).  Such  stones  were  occasionally  consecrated 
 by  anointing,  as  instanced  in  the  stone  erected  at 
 Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  18).  A  similar  practice  ex- 
 isted in  heathen  countries,  and  by  a  singular  coin- 
 cidence these  stones  were  descril)ed  in  Phoenicia  by 
 a  name  very  similar  to  Bethel,  namely,  hcetylia 
 (^aiTvKia),  whence  it  has  been  surmised  that  the 
 heathen  name  was  derived  from  the  Scriptural  one, 
 or  vice  versa  (Kalisch's  Comm.  in  Gen.  1.  c.). 
 But  neither  are  the  names  actually  identical,  nor 
 are  the  associations  of  a  kindred  nature;  the  bte- 
 tylia  were  meteoric  stones,  and  derived  their  sanc- 
 tity from  the  belief  that  they  had  fallen  from  heaven, 
 whereas  the  stone  at  Bethel  was  simply  commemo- 
 rative. [Bethel;  Idol.]  The  only  point  of  re- 
 semblance between  the  two  consists  in  the  custom 
 of  anointing  —  the  anointed  stones  {hidoi  \nrapoi), 
 which  are  freqiiently  mentioned  by  ancient  writers 
 as  objects  of  divine  honor  ( Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  i.  39 ; 
 Euseb.  Prcep.  Evan.  i.  10,  §  18;  Plin.  xxxvii.  51), 
 being  probably  aijrolites.  (6.)  That  the  worship  of 
 stones  prevailed  among  the  heathen  nations  sur- 
 rounding Palestine,  and  was  borrowed  from  them 
 by  apostate  Israelites,  appears  from  Is.  Ivii.  6,  ac- 
 cording to  the  ordinary  rendering  of  the  passage; 
 but  the  original ''  admits  of  another  sense,  "  in  the 
 smooth  (clear  of  wood)  places  of  the  vall^,"  and 
 no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  a  peculiar  term  intro- 
 duced partly  for  the  .sake  of  alliteration.  The  eben 
 mascith,'^  noticed  in  Lev.  xxvi.  1  (A.  V.  "image  of 
 stone  "),  has  again  been  identified  with  the  hoetylia, 
 
 ^12:0 
 
 ^na-^i^Vna. 
 
 n'^stt'-p  ps. 
 
STONES,  PRECIOUS 
 
 the  doubtful  term  mascith  (comp.  Num.  xxxiii.  52, 
 "picture";  Ez.  viii.  12,  "  imagery  " )  being  sup- 
 posed to  refer  to  devices  engraven  on  the  stone. 
 [Idol.]  The  statue  {matslsebd/i  ")  of  Baal  is  said 
 to  have  been  of  stone  and  of  a  conical  shape  (Movers, 
 Ph(£n.  i.  G73),  but  this  is  hardly  reconcilable  with 
 the  statement  of  its  being  burnt  in  2  K.  x.  20  (the 
 correct  reading  of  wliicli  would  be  matstsebah,  and 
 not  matstsebotli).  (7.)  Heaps  of  stones  were  piled 
 up  on  various  occasions,  as  in  token  of  a  treaty 
 (Gen.  xxxi.  -16),  in  which  case  a  certain  amount  of 
 sanctity  probably  attached  to  them  (cf.  Honi.  Od. 
 xvi.  -171);  or  over  the  grave  of  some  notorious  of- 
 fender (Josh.  vii.  26,  viii.  29;  2  Sam.  xviii.  17;  see 
 Projiert.  iv.  5,  75,  for  a  similar  custom  among  the 
 Romans).  Tlie  size  of  some  of  these  heaps  becomes 
 very  great  fi'om  the  custom  prevalent  among  the 
 Arabs  that  each  passer-by  adds  a  stone  ;'^  Burciv- 
 hardt  mentions  one  near  Damascus  20  ft.  long,  2  ft. 
 high,  and  3  ft.  broad  {Syria,  p.  40).  (8.)  The 
 '•  white  stone  "  noticed  in  Rev.  ii.  17  has  been  va- 
 riously regarded  as  rei'eri-ing  to  the  pebble  of  acquit- 
 tal used  in  the  Greel<  courts  (Ov.  Mat.  xv.  41);  to 
 the  lot  cast  in  elections  in  Greece:  to  botli  tliese 
 combined,  the  ivhik  conveying  the  notion  of  acquit- 
 tal, the  sto/ie  that  of  election  (Bengel,  Gnorn.):  to 
 tlie  stones  in  the  high-priest's  breastplate  (Ziillig); 
 to  the  tickets  presented  to  tlie  victors  at  the  public 
 games,  Sfcuring  them  maintenance  at  the  public 
 expense  (Hammond);  or,  lastly,  to  the  custom  of 
 writing  on  stones  (Alford  in  I.  c).  (ij.)  The  use 
 of  stones  for  tablets  is  alluded  to  in  Ex.  xxiv.  12, 
 and  Josh.  viii.  32.  (10.)  Stones  for  striking  fire 
 are  mentioned  in  2  Mace.  x.  3.  (11-)  Stones  were 
 prejudicial  to  the  operations  of  husbandry:  hence  the 
 custom  of  spoiling  an  enemy's  field  by  throwing 
 quantities  of  stones  ujwn  it  (2  K.  iii.  19,  25),  and, 
 again,  the  necessity  of  gathering  stones  previous  to 
 cultivation  (Is.  v.  2) :  allusion  is  made  to  both  tliese 
 practices  in  Eccl.  iii.  5  ("a  time  to  cast  away 
 stones,  and  a  time  to  gather  stones  ").  (12.)  The 
 notice  in  Zech.  xii.  3  of  the  "  burdensome  stone  "  is 
 referred  by  Jerome  to  the  custom  of  lifting  stones 
 as  an  exercise  of  strength,  which  he  describes  as 
 being  practiced  in  Judtea  in  his  day  (comp.  Ecclus. 
 vi.  21);  but  it  may  equally  well  be  explained  of  a 
 large  corner-stone  as  a  symbol  of  strength  (Is. 
 xxviii.  10). 
 
 Stones  are  used  metaphorically  to  denote  hard- 
 ness or  insensibility  (1  Sam.  xxv.  37 ;  Ez.  xi.  19, 
 xxxvi.  20),  as  well  as  firmness  or  strength,  as  in 
 Gen.  xlix.  24,  where  "  the  stone  of  Israel  "  is  equiv- 
 alent to  "the  rock  of  Israel  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  3;  Is. 
 XXX.  29).  The  members  of  the  Church  are  called 
 "living  stones,"  as  contributing  to  rear  that  living 
 temple  in  which  Christ,  himself  "a  living  stoue," 
 is  the  chief  or  head  of  the  corner  (Eph.  ii.  20-22; 
 1  Pet.  ii.  4-8).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 STONES,  PRECIOUS.  The  reader  is  re- 
 ferred to  tlie  separate  articles,  such  as  Agate, 
 Cai:uu.n(;i,e,  Saudony.v,  etc.,  for  such  informa- 
 tion as  it  has  been  possible  to  obtain  on  the  various 
 jrems  mentioned  in  the  Bible.     The  identification 
 
 T    ••    - 
 
 fc  A  reference  to  this  practice  is  supposed  by  Gese- 
 nlus  to  be  contained  in  Prov.  xxvi.  8,  which  he  ren- 
 ders "  as  a,  bag  of  gems  in  a  heap  of  stones  "  ( TlifS. 
 \f.  1263).  The  Vulgate  has  a  curious  version  of  this 
 passage  :  "  Sicut  qui  mittit  lapidem  in  acervuni  Mer- 
 ■jurii." 
 
 STONES,  PRECIOUS        3117 
 
 of  many  of  the  Hebrew  names  of  precious  stones 
 is  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty:  sometimes  we 
 have  no  further  clew  to  aid  us  in  the  determination 
 of  a  name  than  the  mere  derivation  of  the  word, 
 which  derivation  is  always  too  vague  to  be  of  any 
 service,  as  it  merely  expresses  some  quality  often 
 common  to  many  precious  stones.  As  far,  how- 
 ever, as  regards  the  stones  of  the  high-priest's 
 breastplate,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  au- 
 thority of  Josephus,  who  had  frequent  opportuni- 
 ties of  seeing  it  worn,  is  preferable  to  any  other. 
 The  Vulgate  agrees  with  his  nomenclature,  and  in 
 .lerome's  time  tlie  breastplate  was  still  to  be  in- 
 spected in  the  Temple  of  Concord :  hence  this 
 agreement  of  the  two  is  of  great  weight.'"  The 
 modern  Arabic  names  of  the  more  usual  gems, 
 which  have  probably  remained  fixed  the  last  2,000 
 years,  afFoi-d  us  also  some  approximations  to  the 
 Hebrew  nomenclature;  still,  as  it  was  intimated 
 above,  there  is  much  that  can  only  be  regarded  as 
 conjecture  in  attempts  at  identification.  Precious 
 stones  are  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  Holy  .Scrip- 
 tures; tliey  were  known  and  very  highly  valued  in 
 the  earliest  times.  The  onyx-stone,  fine  specimens 
 of  which  are  still  of  great  value,  is  expressly  men- 
 tioned by  JMoses  as  being  found  in  the  land  of 
 llavilah.  The  sard  and  sardonyx,  the  amethyst 
 or  rase-quartz,  with  many  agates  and  other  varie- 
 ties of  quartz,  were  doubtless  the  best  known  and 
 most  readily  procured.  "  Onyx-stones,  and  stones 
 to  be  set,  glistering  stones  and  of  divers  colors, 
 and  all  manner  of  precious  stones  "  were  among 
 the  articles  collected  by  David  for  the  temple  (1 
 Chr.  xxix.  2).  The  Tyrians  traded  in  precious 
 stones  supplied  by  Syria  (Ez.  xxvii.  16),  and  the 
 robes  of  their  king  wei'e  covered  with  the  most 
 brilliant  gems.  The  merchants  of  Shel)a  and 
 Kaaraah  in  South  Arabia,  and  doubtless  India  and 
 Ceylon,  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  with  various 
 precious  stones. 
 
 The  art  of  engraving  on  precious  stones  was 
 known  from  the  very  earliest  times.  Sir  G.  Wil- 
 kinson says  (Aiic.  Eijypt.  ii.  07,  Loud.  1854), 
 "  riie  Israelites  learnt  the  art  of  cutting  and  en- 
 graving stones  from  the  Egyptians."  There  can 
 be  no  doubt  that  they  did  learn  much  of  the  art 
 from  this  skillful  nation,  but  it  is  probable  that  it 
 was  known  to  them  long  before  their  sojourn  in 
 Egypt;  for  we  read  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  18,  that  when 
 I'amar  desired  a  pledge  Judah  gave  her  his  signet, 
 which  we  may  safely  conclude  was  engraved  with 
 some  device.  The  twelve  stones  of  the  breastplate 
 were  engraved  each  one  with  the  name  of  one  of 
 the  tribes  (Ex.  xxviii.  17-21).  The  two  onjx  (or 
 sardonyx)  stones  which  formed  the  high-jjriest's 
 shoulder-pieces  were  engraved  with  the  names  of 
 the  twelve  tribes,  six  on  one  stone  and  six  on  the 
 other,  "  with  the  work  of  an  engraver  in  stone  like 
 tlie  enyravings  of  a  sitjnet.'"  See  also  ver.  30, 
 "  like  the  engravings  of  a  signet."  It  is  an  unde- 
 cided question  whether  the  diamond  was  known  to 
 the  early  nations  of  antiquity.     The  A.  \ .  gives 
 
 it  as  the  rendering  of  the  Heb.  Yahdloin,  D  VH^), 
 
 c  The  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Josephus,  are  all  agreed 
 as  to  the  names  of  the  stones;  there  is,  hosvever, 
 some  little  difference  as  to  their  relative  positions  in 
 the  breastplate:  thus  the  laa-vc-;,  which,  according  to 
 Josephus,  occupies  the  secoud  place  in  the  third  row, 
 is  by  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  put  in  the  third  place; 
 a  similar  transpo-sitiou  occurs  with  respect  to  the 
 aixi9v<TT0^  and  the  dxaTrjs  in  the  third  row. 
 
3118       STONES,  PRECIOUS 
 
 but  it  is  probable  that  the  jasper  is  intended.  Sir 
 G.  Wilkinson  is  of  opinion  that  the  ancient  Egyp- 
 tians were  acquainted  with  the  diamond,  and  used 
 it  for  engraving  (ii.  07).  Beclvuiann,  on  the  other 
 hand,  maintains  that  the  use  of  the  diamond  was 
 unknown  even  to  the  Greeks  and  Komans:  "I 
 must  confess  that  I  have  found  no  proofs  that  the 
 ancients  cut  glass  with  a  diamond "  {JJisl.  of' 
 Jnvenduns,  ii.  87,  Bohn's  ed.).  The  substance 
 used  for  polishing  precious  stones  by  the  ancient 
 Hebrews  and  Egyptians  was  emery  powder  or  the 
 emery  stone  {Coruiuhiiii),  a,  mineral  inferior  only 
 to  the  diamond  in  hardness  [Adamant].  There 
 is  no  proof  that  the  diamond  was  known  to  the 
 ancient  Orientals,  and  it  certainly  must  be  banished 
 from  the  list  of  enyraved  stones  which  made  the 
 sacerdotal  breastplate ;  for  the  diamond  can  be  cut 
 only  by  abrasion  with  its  own  powder,  or  by  friction 
 ■with  another  diamond ;  and  this,  even  in  the  hands 
 of  a  well-practiced  artist,  is  a  work  of  most  patient 
 labor  and  of  considerable  difficulty ;  and  it  is  not 
 likely  that  the  Hebrews,  or  any  other  oriental 
 people,  were  able  to  engrave  a  name  upon  a  dia- 
 mond as  upon  a  signet  ring."  Again,  Josephus  tells 
 us  {Anl.  iii.  7,  §  5)  that  the  twelve  stones  of  the 
 breastplate  were  of  great  size  and  extraordinary 
 beauty.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  their 
 size;  probably  they  were  nearly  an  inch  square; 
 at  any  rate  a  diamond   only  half  that  size,  with 
 
 the  five  letters  of  ]  vlST  (Zebulun)  engraved  on 
 it  —  for,  as  he  was  the  sixth  son  of  Jacob  (Gen. 
 xsx.  20),  his  name  would  occupy  the  third  place 
 in  the  second  row  —  is  quite  out  of  the  ijuestion, 
 and  cannot  possibly  be  the  Yahdloiii  of  the  breast- 
 plate. 
 
 Perhaps  the  stone  called  "  ligure  "  by  the  A.  V. 
 has  been  the  subject  of  more  discussion  than  any 
 other  of  the  precious  stones  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
 In  our  article  on  that  subject  we  were  of  opinion 
 that  the  stone  denoted  was  probably  tourmaline. 
 We  objected  to  the  "  hyacinth  stone  "  representing 
 the  lyncurmm  of  the  ancients,  because  of  its  not 
 possessing  attractive  powers  in  any  marked  degree, 
 as  we  supposed  and  had  been  informed  by  a  well- 
 known  jeweler.  It  appears,  however,  from  a  com- 
 munication kindly  made  to  us  by  Mr.  King,  that 
 the  hyacinth  {zircon)  is  highly  electric  when 
 rubbed.  He  states  he  is  practically  convinced  of 
 this  fact,  although  he  allows  that  highly  electric 
 powers  are  not  usually  attributed  to  it  by  mineralo- 
 gists. Mr.  King  asserts  that  our  hyacinth  (jacinth, 
 zircon)  was  greatly  used  for  engraving  on  by 
 Greeks,  Komans,  and  Persians,  and  that  numerous 
 intaglios  in  it  exist  of  the  age  of  Theophrastus. 
 The  ancient  hyacinthus  was  our  sapphire,  as 
 Solinus  shows. 
 
 Precious  stones  are  used  in  Scripture  in  a  figu- 
 rative sense,  to  signify  value,  beauty,  durability, 
 etc.,  in  those  objects  with  which  they  are  com- 
 pared (see  Cant.  v.  14;  Is.  liv.  11,  12;  Lam.  iv, 
 7;  Kev.  iv.  3,  xxi.  10-21).  As  to  the  precious 
 stones  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high-priest,  see 
 Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  7,  §  5;  Epiphanius,  -jrefil  ran/ 
 i^'  \iQo3V  Toiv  uvraiv  iv  r.  aroA.  t.  'Aapwv, 
 in  Epiphanii  Opusc.  ed.  Petavius,  ii.  22o-2o2, 
 Cologne,  1682  (this  treatise  has  been  edited  sepa- 
 rately by  Conr.  Gesner,  De  vmni  rerani  J'vssil. 
 yentre,  etc.,   Tiguri,  1565;    and  by  Mat.   Hiller, 
 
 o  "  The  artists  of   the  Renaissance  actually   suc- 
 leeded  in  engraving  on  the  diamond ;  the  discovery  is 
 
 STORK 
 
 the  author  of  the  Uierophyticon,  in  his  Syntag- 
 mata IJernieneutica,  p.  83,  Tubing.  1711);  Braun, 
 De  Vestitu  Sactrdotuni  Eehraorum  (Amstel.  1680, 
 and  2d  ed.  1698),  lib.  ii.  caps.  7  and  8;  Beller- 
 mann.  Die  Urim  unci  Thummim  die  Aeltesteii 
 Gemnien,  Berlin,  1824;  Kosenmiiller,  "The  Min- 
 eralogy of  the  Bible,"  Biblical  Cabinet,  vol.  xxvii. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 *  STONE-SQUARERS.    [Giblites.] 
 STONING.    [Punishments.] 
 
 *  STOOL.     [Midwife.] 
 
 *  STORE-CITIES  (n'l35p7:p  ^nV,  LXX. 
 iroKfis  oxvpai,  A.  V.  "  treasure-cities  "  once,  Ex. 
 i.  11).    mDSpp  occurs  alone  in  2  Chr.  xxxii.  28 
 
 (A.  V.  "  store-houses  "),  and  is  followed  by  "^]^17 
 in  2  Chr.  xvi.  4  (A.  V.  incorrectly  "  store-cities"). 
 
 The  rendering  siore-ho2tses  for  m^SpK  seems 
 therefore  more  appropriate  than  stores.  According 
 to  2  Chr.  xxxii.  28,  they  were  for  the  products  of 
 the  soil.  But  whether  the  provisions  thus  stored 
 up  were  designed  chiefly  for  purposes  of  trade 
 (Ewald,  (Jescli.  d.  V.  Israel,  ii.  p.  16),  or  for  the 
 benefit  of  travellers  and  their  beasts  (Bertheau  on 
 2  Chr.  viii.  4,  6),  or  for  times  of  need  (Knobel  on 
 Ex.  i.  11;  Thenius  on  1  K.  ix.  19),  or  for  purposes 
 of  war  (Bush  on  Ex.  i.  11 ;  Kurtz,  Gesch.  d.  A. 
 Bundes,  ii.  167),  and,  if  for  the  latter  purpose, 
 whether  fortified  (LXX.  Bush,  I.  c. ;  Hengstenberg, 
 Die  Biicher  Mose's  u.  yE<jypten,  p.  46;  Hawks, 
 Egypt  and  its  Monuments,  p.  178)  or  not  (Kurtz, 
 /.  c.,and  Keil  on  Ex.  i.  11),  is  disputed.  The  con- 
 jecture that  the  store-cities  had  a  military  object, 
 is  favored  by  the  position  of  Pitiiom  and  Kaamses, 
 Ex.  i.  11,  and  of  Hamath,  1  K.  ix.  19,  2  Chr. 
 viii.  4 ;  and  by  the  mention  of  the  building  of  store- 
 cities  in  connection  with  that  of  fortresses,  as  illus- 
 trating -Jehoshaphat's  greatness,  2  Chr.  xvii.  12. 
 
 c.  M.  m. 
 
 STORK  (ni'^pn,  chasiddh:  translated  in- 
 differently by  LXX.  aaiSa,  eTroi/',  epuidios,  ■KtX^Ka.v'. 
 Vulg.  herodio,  herodins,  milvus :  A.  V.  "  stork," 
 except  in  Job  xxxix.  13,  where  it  is  translated 
 "wing"  ("stork"  in  the  margin).  But  there  is 
 some  question  as  to  the  correct  reading  in  this 
 passage.  The  LXX.  do  not  seem  to  have  recog- 
 nized the  stork  under  the  Hebrew  term  HT^pn ; 
 otherwise  they  could  scarcely  have  missed  the  ob- 
 vious rendering  of  ireXapyos,  or  have  adopted  in 
 two  instances  the  phonetic  representation  of  the 
 original,  dciSa  (whence  no  doubt  Hesych.  aais, 
 elSoi  opviov)-  It  is  singular  that  a  bird  so  con- 
 spicuous and  familiar  as  the  stork  n)ust  have  been 
 both  in  Egypt  and  Palestine  should  have  escaped 
 notice  by  the  LXX.,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
 the    correctness   of  the  rendering  of  A.  V.      The 
 
 Heb.  term  is  derived  from  the  root  "TPH,  whence 
 
 "TpD)  "  kindness,"  from  the  maternal  and  filial 
 affection  of  which  this  bird  has  been  in  all  ages  the 
 
 type). 
 
 The  White  Stork  (Ciconia  alba,  L.)  is  one  of 
 the  largest  and  most  conspicuous  of  land  birds, 
 standing  nearly  four  feet  high,  the  jet  black  of  its 
 wings  and  its  bright  red  beak  and  legs  contrasting 
 
 as.signed  to  Clement  Birago,  by  others  to  J.  da  Trezzo, 
 Philip  II. 's  engraver."  C.  \V.  Kino. 
 
STORK 
 
 finely  with  tlic  pure  white  of  its  plumage  (Zech.  v. 
 9,  "  Tliey  had  wings  like  the  wings  of  a  stork  "). 
 It  is  placed  by  naturalists  near  the  Heron  tribe, 
 with  which  it  has  some  affinity,  forming  a  connect- 
 ing link  between  it  and  the  spoonbill  and  ibis,  like 
 all  of  which,  the  stork  feeds  on  (ish  and  reptiles, 
 especially  on  the  latter.  In  the  neighborhood  of 
 man  it  devours  readily  all  kinds  of  otial  and  garb- 
 
 STORK 
 
 3119 
 
 ■White  Stork  {Cicoiua  niba). 
 
 asre.  For  this  reason,  douljtless,  it  is  placed  in  the 
 list  of  unclean  birds  by  the  Jlosaic  law  (Lev.  xi.  19; 
 Dent  xiv.  18).  The  range  of  the  white  stork  ex- 
 tends o\er  the  whole  of  Europe,  except  the  British 
 isles,  where  it  is  now  only  a  rare  visitant,  and  over 
 Northern  Africa  and  Asia,  as  far  at  least  as  Bur- 
 niah. 
 
 The  Black  Stork  (Ciconia  nigra,  L.),  though 
 less  al)undant  in  places,  is  scarcely  less  widely  dis- 
 tributed, but  has  a  more  easterly  range  than  its 
 congener.  Both  species  are  very  numerous  in  Pal- 
 estine, the  white  stork  being  universally  distril)nted, 
 generally  in  pairs,  over  the  whole  country,  the  black 
 stork  living  in  large  flocks  after  the  fashion  of 
 herons,  in  the  more  secluded  and  marshy  districts. 
 The  writer  met  with  a  flock  of  ujnvards  of  fifty 
 black  storks  feeding  near  the  west  shore  of  the 
 Dead  Sea.  They  are  still  more  abundant  by  the 
 Sea  of  Galilee,  where  also  the  white  stork  is  so 
 numerous  as  to  be  gregarious;  and  in  the  swamps 
 round  the  waters  of  Merom. 
 
 While  the  black  stork  is  never  found  about 
 buildings,  but  prefers  marshy  places  in  forests,  and 
 breeds  on  the  tops  of  the  loftiest  trees,  where  it 
 heaps  up  its  ample  nest  far  from  the  haunts  of  man  ; 
 the  white  stork  attaches  itself  to  him,  and  for  the 
 service  which  it  renders  in  the  destruction  of  rep- 
 tiles and  tlie  removal  of  offal  has  been  repaid  from 
 the  earliest  times  by  protection  and  reverence. 
 This  is  especially  the  case  in  the  countries  where  it 
 breeds.  In  the  streets  of  towns  in  Holland,  in  the 
 villages  of  Denmark,  and  in  the  bazaars  of  Syria 
 and  Tunis,  it  may  be  seen  stalking  gravely  among 
 Jie  crowd,  and  .woe  betide  the  stranger  either  in 
 Holland  or  in  Palestine  who  should  dare  to  molest 
 it.     The  claim  of  the  stork  to  protection  seems  to 
 
 have  been  equally  recognized  by  the  ancients. 
 Sempr.  Rufus,  who  first  ventured  to  bring  young 
 storks  to  table,  gained  the  following  epigram,  on 
 the  fiiilure  of  his  candidature  for  the  prsetorship:  — 
 
 "  Quanquam  est  duobus  clegantior  Plancis 
 Suffragioi'um  puncta  non  tulit  septem. 
 Ciconiarum  populus  ultus  est  uiortem." 
 
 Horace  contemptuously  alludes  to  the  same  sacrilege 
 in  the  lines 
 
 "  Tutoque  ciconia  nido. 
 Donee  vos  auctor  docuit  prastorius  "  {Sat.  ii.  2,  4!)). 
 
 Pliny  {Nat.  Hist.  x.  21)  tells  us  that  in  Thessalv 
 it  was  a  capital  crime  to  kill  a  stork,  and  that  they 
 were  thus  valued  equally  with  human  life,  in  con- 
 sequence of  their  warfare  against  serpents.  They 
 were  not  less  honored  in  Egypt.  It  is  said  that  at 
 Fez  in  Morocco,  there  is  an  endowed  hospital  for 
 the  purpose  of  assisting  and  nursing  sick  cranes 
 and  storks,  and  of  burying  them  when  dead.  The 
 Marocains  hold  that  storks  are  human  beings  in 
 that  form  from  some  distant  islands  (see  note  to 
 Brown's  Psew/.  h'pid.  ill.  27,  §  3).  The  Turks  in 
 S3  ria  point  to  the  stork  as  a  true  follower  of  Islam, 
 from  the  preference  he  always  shows  for  the  Turkish 
 and  Arab  over  the  Christian  quarters.  For  this 
 undoubted  fact,  however,  there  may  be  two  other 
 reasons  —  the  greater  amount  of  offal  to  be  found 
 about  the  Moslem  houses,  and  the  persecutions 
 suffered  from  the  skeptical  Greeks,  who  rob  the 
 nests,  and  show  none  of  the  gentle  consideration 
 towards  the  lower  animals  which  often  redeems  the 
 Turkish  character.  Strickland,  Mem.  and  Papers, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  227,  states  that  it  is  said  to  have  quite 
 deserted  (ireece,  since  the  expulsion  of  its  Moham- 
 medan protectors.  The  observations  of  the  writer 
 corroborated  this  remark.  Similarly  the  rooks  were 
 said  to  be  so  attached  to  the  old  regime,  that  most 
 of  them  left  France  at  the  Kevolution ;  a  true  state- 
 ment, and  accounted  for  by  the  clearing  of  most 
 of  the  fine  old  timber  which  used  to  surround  the 
 chateaux  of  the  noblesse. 
 
 The  derivation  of  nT^pH  points  to  the  paternal 
 and  filial  attachment  of  which  the  stork  seems  to 
 have  been  a  type  among  the  Hebrews  no  less  than 
 the  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  was  believed  that  the 
 young  repaid  the  care  of  their  parents  by  attaching 
 themselves  to  them  for  life,  and  tenduig  them  in 
 old  age.  Hence  it  was  commonly  called  among  the 
 Latins  "  avis  pia."  (See  Laburuus  in  Petronius 
 Arbiter;  Aristotle,  Ilisl.  Anim.  ix.  14;  and  Pliny, 
 Nat.  Hist.  X.  32.) 
 
 Pliny  also  notices  their  habit  of  always  returning 
 to  the  sanje  nest.  Probably  there  is  no  foundation 
 for  the  notion  that  the  stork  so  far  differs  from 
 other  birds  as  to  recognize  its  parents  after  it  has 
 become  mature;  but  of  the  fact  of  these  birds  re- 
 turning year  after  year  to  the  same  spot,  there  is 
 no  question.  Unless  when  molested  Ijy  man,  storks' 
 nests  all  over  the  world  are  rebuilt,  or  rather  re- 
 paired, for  generations  on  the  same  site,  and  in 
 Holland  the  same  individuals  have  been  recognized 
 for  many  years.  That  the  parental  attachment  of 
 the  stork  is  very  strong,  has  been  proved  on  many 
 occasions.  The  tale  of  tlie  stork  which,  at  the 
 burning  of  the  town  of  Delft,  vainly  endeavored  to 
 carry  off  her  young,  and  at  length  sacrificed  her 
 life  with  theirs  rather  than  desert  them,  has  been 
 often  repeated,  and  seems  corroborated  by  unques- 
 tionable evidence.  Its  watchfulness  over  its  young 
 is  unremitting,  and  often  shown  in  a  somewhat 
 droll  manner.     The  writer  was  once  in  camp  near 
 
3120 
 
 STORK 
 
 STRAIN  AT 
 
 an  old  ruined  tower  in  the  plain  of  Zana,  south  of  i  abound  he  does  not  hesitate  to  select  a  tall  tree,  aa 
 the  Atlas,  where  a  pair  of  storks  had  their  nest.  |  both  storks,  swallows,  and  many  other  birds  must 
 
 The  four  young  might  often  be  seen  from  a  little 
 distance,  surveying  the  prospect  from  their  lonely 
 height;  but  whenever  any  of  the  human  party  hap- 
 pened to  stroll  near  the  tower,  one  of  the  old  storks, 
 hivisible  before,  would  instantly  appear,  and,  light- 
 ing on  the  nest,  put  its  foot  gently  on  the  necks  of 
 all  the  young,  so  sis  to  hold  them  down  out  of  sight 
 till  the  stranger  had  passed,  snapping  its  liill  mean- 
 while, and  assuming  a  grotesque  air  of  indifference 
 and  unconsciousness  of  there  being  anything  under 
 its  charge. 
 
 Few  migratory  birds  are  more  punctual  to  the 
 time  of  their  reappearance  than  the  white  stork,  or 
 at  least,  from  its  familiarity  and  conspicuousness, 
 its  migrations  have  been  more  accurately  noted. 
 "  The  stork  in  the  heaven  knoweth  her  appointed 
 times  "  (see  Virgil,  Georg.  ii.  319,  and  Fetron. 
 >Sr(^).  I'liny  states  that  it  is  rarely  .seen  in  Asia 
 Minor  after  the  middle  of  August.  This  is  prob- 
 ably a  slight  error,  as  the  ordinary  date  of  its  ar- 
 rival in  Holland  is  the  second  week  in  April,  and 
 it  remains  until  Octol)er.  In  Denmark  Judge  Bole 
 noted  its  arrival  from  1820  to  1847.  The  earliest 
 date  was  the  2Gth  March,  and  the  latest  the  12th 
 April  (KjaerboUing,  Dunmarks  Fuijk,  p.  202).  In 
 Palestine  it  has  been  observed  to  airive  on  the  22d 
 March.  Inmiense  flocks  of  storks  may  be  seen  on 
 th^  banks  of  the  Upper  Nile  during  winter,  and 
 some  few  further  west,  in  the  Sahara;  but  it  does 
 not  appear  to  migrate  very  far  south,  unless  indeed 
 the  birds  that  are  seen  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope 
 in  December  be  the  same  which  visit  Eiu'ope. 
 
 The  stork  has  no  note,  and  the  only  sound  it 
 emits  is  that  caused  by  the  sudden  snapping  of 
 its  long  mandibles,  well  expressed  by  the  epithet 
 "  crotalistria "  in  Petron.  (quasi  KpoTaXi^ai,  to 
 rattle  the  castanets).  From  the  absence  of  voice 
 probably  arose  the  error  alluded  to  by  Pliny,  "  Sunt 
 qui  ciconiis  non  inesse  linguas  confirment." 
 
 Some  unnecessary  difficulty  has  been  raised  re- 
 specting the  expression  in  Ps.  civ.  17,  "  As  for  the 
 stork,  the  fir-trees  are  her  house."  In  the  west  of 
 Europe  the  home  of  the  stork  is  connected  with 
 the  dwellings  of  man,  and  in  the  Itast,  as  the  e.agle 
 is  mentally  associated  with  the  most  sublime  scenes 
 in  nature,  so,  to  the  traveller  at  least,  is  the  stork 
 with  the  ruins  of  man's  nolilest  works.  Amid  the 
 desolation  of  his  fallen  cities  throughout  Eastern 
 Europe  and  the  classic  portions  of  Asia  and  Africa, 
 we  are  sure  to  meet  with  them  surmounting  his 
 temples,  his  theatres  or  baths.  It  is  the  same  in 
 Palestine.  A  pair  of  storks  have  possession  of  the 
 only  tall  piece  of  ruin  in  the  plain  of  .Jericho ;  they 
 are  the  only  tenants  of  the  noble  tower  of  Richard 
 Coeur  de  Lion  at  Lydda;  and  they  gaze  on  the 
 plain  of  Sharon  from  tlie  lofty  tower  of  Ramleh 
 (the  ancient  Arimathea).  So  they  have  a  pillar  at 
 Tiberias,  .and  a  corner  of  a  ruin  at  Nebi  Alousseh. 
 And  no  doubt  in  ancient  times  the  sentry  shared 
 the  watch-tower  of  Samaria  or  of  Jezreel  with  the 
 cherished  storks.  But  the  instinct  of  the  stork 
 seems  to  be  to  select  the  loftiest  and  most  con- 
 spicuou.s  spot  he  can  find  where  his  huge  nest  may 
 be  supported;  and  whenever  he  can  combine  this 
 taste  with  his  instinct  for  the  society  of  man,  he 
 naturally  .selects  a  tower  or  a  roof.  In  lands  of 
 ruins,  which  from  their  neglect  and  want  of  drain- 
 age supply  him  with  abundance  of  food,  he  finds  a 
 cohnnn  or  a  solitary  arch  the  most  secure  position 
 for  his  nest;  but  where  neither  towers  nor  ruins 
 
 have  done  before  they  were  tempted  by  the  artificial 
 conveniences  of  man's  buildings  to  desert  their 
 natural  places  of  nidification.  [Nk.st,  Anier.  ed.] 
 Thus  the  golden  eagle  builds,  according  lo  circum- 
 stances, in  cliffs,  on  trees,  or  even  on  the  ground; 
 and  the  common  heron,  which  generally  associates 
 on  the  tops  of  the  tallest  trees,  builds  in  West- 
 moreland and  in  Galway  on  bushes.  It  is  therefore 
 needless  to  interpret  the  te.xt  of  the  stork  merely 
 percliiiii/  on  trees.  It  jirobably  was  no  less  numer- 
 ous in  Palestine  when  David  wrote  than  now;  but 
 the  number  of  suitable  towers  must  have  been  far 
 fewer,  and  it  would  therefore  resort  to  trees. 
 'I'hough  it  does  not  frequent  trees  in  South  Judiea, 
 yet  it  still  builds  on  frees  by  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
 according  to  several  travellers;  and  the  writer  may 
 remark,  that  while  he  has  never  seen  the  nest  ex- 
 cept on  towers  or  pillars  in  tliat  land  of  ruins,  Tunis, 
 the  only  nest  he  ever  saw  in  Morocco  was  on  a  tree. 
 Varro  (Jie  Rustica,  iii.  5)  observes,  "  Advenie 
 volucres  puUos  faciunt,  in  agro  cicoiiice,  in  tecto 
 hirundines."  All  modern  authorities  give  instances 
 of  the  white  stork  building  on  trees.  Degland 
 mentions  several  pairs  which  still  breed  in  a  marsh 
 near  Chalons-sur-JIarne  {Or7i.  Kurop.  ii.  153). 
 KjaerboUing  makes  a  similar  statement  with  re- 
 spect to  Denmark,  and  Nillson  also  as  to  Sweden. 
 Biideker  observes  "that  in  Germany  the  wiiite 
 stork  builds  in  the  gables,  etc.,  and  in  trees,  chiefly 
 tiie  tops  of  poplars  and  the  strong  upjier  branches 
 of  the  oak,  binding  the  br.anches  together  with 
 twigs,  turf,  and  earth,  and  covering  the  flat  surface 
 with  straw,  moss,  and  feathers"  {Eier  Eur.  pi. 
 xxxvi.). 
 
 The  black  stork,  no  less  connnon  in  Palestine, 
 has  never  relinquished  its  natural  habit  of  building 
 upon  trees.  This  species,  in  tiie  northeastern 
 portion  of  the  land,  is  the  most  abundant  of  the 
 two  (Harmer's  Obs.  iii.  323).  Of  either,  how- 
 ever, the  expression  may  be  taken  literally,  that 
 "  the  fir-trees  are  a  dwelling  for  the  stork." 
 
 H.  B.  T. 
 *  STORY,  2  Chr.  xiii.  22,  xxiv.  27,  is  used  in 
 the   sen.se   of  history    (Ital.  slorin).     So   "  storj-- 
 writer  "  for  liistorian,  1  Esdr.  ii.  17.  A. 
 
 STRAIN  AT.  The  A.  V.  of  1611  renders 
 Matt,  xxiii.  24,  "  Ye  blind  guides  !  which  strain  nt 
 a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel."  There  can  be  little 
 doubt,  as  Dean  Trench  has  supposerl,  that  this  ob- 
 scure phrase  is  due  to  a  printer's  error,  and  that 
 the  true  reading  is  "strain  out."  Such  is  tiie 
 sense  of  the  tJreek  ^ivXl^nv,  as  used  by  Plutarch 
 ( Op.  Mor.  p.  602  D,  Symp.  Pro/A.  vi.  7,  §  1 )  and 
 Dioscorides  (ii.  8G),  namely,  to  clarify  by  passing 
 through  a  strainer  (uAia-T-np)-  "  Strain  out  "  is 
 the  reading  of  Tyndale's  (1539),  Cranmer's  (1539), 
 the  Bishops'  (1508),  and  the  Geneva  (1557)  Bibles, 
 and  "  strain  <it,"  which  is  neither  correct  nor  in- 
 telligible, could  only  have  crept  into  our  A.  V., 
 and  been  allowed  to  remain  there,  by  an  oversight. 
 Dean  Trench  gives  an  interesting  illustration  of  the 
 passage  from  a  private  letter  written  to  him  by  a 
 recent  traveller  in  North  Africa,  who  says:  "  In  a 
 ride  from  Tangier  to  Tetuan,  I  observed  that  a 
 Moorish  soldier  who  accompanied  me,  when  he 
 drank,  always  unfolded  the  end  of  his  turban  and 
 placed  it  over  the  mouth  of  his  botn,  drinking 
 through  the  muslin,  to  strain  out  the  gnats,  whose 
 larvse  swarm  in  the  water  of  that  country  "  (  On  the 
 Auth.  Vers,  of  the  N.  T.  pp.  172, 1733.    If  one  might 
 
STRAITLY 
 
 STRANGER 
 
 1121 
 
 jonjicture  the  cause  which  led,  even  erroneously,  to 
 the  substitution  of  at  for  otit,  it  is  perhaps  to  be 
 found  in  tlie  marginal  note  of  the  Geneva  Version, 
 which  explains  the  verse  thus:  "Ye  stay  n<  that 
 vviiich  is  nothing,  and  let  pass  that  which  is  of 
 greater  importance." 
 
 *  STRAITLY  is  often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in 
 the  now  obsolete  senses  of  closely  (Josh.  vi.  1;  Wisd. 
 xvii.  IG;  Gen.  xliii.  7);  and  strictly  (Matt.  ix.  .30; 
 Acts  V.  28,  etc.).  A. 
 
 *  STRANGE,  as  used  ^ax  fortirjn,  in  some 
 passaires  of  the  A.  V.  may  not  be  understood  by  all 
 readers;  c.  g.  '■'■  stranye  vanities,"  Jer.  viii.  19,  for 
 "  foreiij;n  idols."  The  '■^stranye  woman"  in  Prov. 
 ii.  IG  is  so  designated  as  being  tlie  wife  of  another 
 (ver.  17),  or  at  least,  as  one  who  has  no  business 
 with  the  person  whom  she  tempts.  A. 
 
 STRANGER  (12,  ntt.nn).    A  "stranger" 
 in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term  may  he  defined  to 
 be  a  person  of  foreign,  i.  e.  non-Israelitish,  extrac- 
 tion, resident  within  the  limits  of  the  promised  land. 
 He  was  distinct  from  the  proper    "foreigner,"" 
 inasmuch  as  the  latter  still   belonged  to   another 
 country,  and  would  only  visit  Palestine  as  a  travel- 
 ler: he  was  still  more  distinct  from  the  "  nations,"  ^ 
 or  non-Israelite  peoples,  who  held   no  relationship 
 with  the  chosen  people  of  God.     The  term  answers 
 most  nearly  to  the  Greek  /xeVoiKos,  and  may  be 
 compared   with  our  expression   "  naturalized   for- 
 eigner," in  as  far  as  this  implies  a  certain  political 
 stiittis  in  the  country  where  the  foreigner  resides:  it 
 is  op[)osed  to  one  "  bom  in  the  land,"  <^  or,  as  the 
 term  more  properly  means,  "  not  transplanted,"  in 
 the  same  way  that  a  naturalized  foreigner  is  opposed 
 to  a  native.     The  terms  applied  to  the  "  stranger  " 
 have  special  reference  to  the  fact  of  his  residing ''  in 
 the  land.     The  existence  of  such  a  class  of  persons 
 among  the  Israelites  is  easily  accounted  for:  the 
 "  mixed  nmltitude  "  that  accompanied  them  out  of 
 Egypt  (lix.  xii.  38)  formed  one  element;  the  Ca- 
 naanitish  population,  which  was  never  wholly  extir- 
 pated from  their  native  soil,  formed  another  and  a 
 still   more   important  one;  captives  taken  in  war 
 formed  a  third;  fugitives,  hired  servants,  merchants, 
 etc.,  ibrmed  a  fourth.     The  number  from  these  va- 
 rious sources  must  have  been  at  all  times  very  con- 
 siderable; the  census  of  them  in   Solomon's  time 
 gave  a  return  of  1.53,600  males  (2  Chr.  ii.  17),  which 
 was  equal  to  about  a  tenth  of  the  whole  population. 
 The  enactments  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  which  regu- 
 lated tlie  political  and   social  position  of  resident 
 strangers,  were  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  great  libei'- 
 ality.    With  the  excejition  of  the  iloabites  and  Am- 
 monites (Deut.  xxiii.  3),  all  nations  were  admissible 
 to  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  certain  conditions. 
 It  would  appear,  indeed,  to  be  a  consequence  of  the 
 proliibition   of  intermarriage  with  the  Canaanites 
 (Deut.  vii.  3),  that  these  would  be  excluded  from 
 the  rights  of  citizenship;  but  the  Rabbinical  view 
 that  this  exclusion  was  superseded  in  the  case  of 
 proselytes  seems  highly  probable,  as  we  find  Doeg 
 
 the  Edomite  (1  Sam.   xxi.   7,   xxii.  9),   Uri:ih   the 
 Hittite  (2  Sam.  xi.  6),  and  Araunah  the  .lebusite 
 (2  Sam.  xxiv.  18),  enjoying  to  all  appearance  the 
 full  rights  of  citizenship.    Wliether  a  stranger  could 
 ever  become  legally  a  landowner  is  a  question  aliout 
 which  there  may  be  doubt.    Theoretically  tlie  whole 
 of  the  soil  was  portioned  out  among  the  twelve  tribes, 
 and  Kzekiel  notices  it  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  division 
 which  he  witnessed  in  vision,  that  the  strangers 
 were  to  share  the  inheritance  with  the  Israelites, 
 and  should  thus  become  as  those  "born  in  the  coun- 
 try "  (Ez.  xlvii.  22).    Indeed  the  term  "stranger" 
 is  more  than  once  applied  in  a  pointed  manner  to 
 signify  one  who  was  not  a  landowner  (Gen.  xxiii.  4; 
 Lev.  XXV.  23):  while  on  the  other  hand  ezracli  (A. 
 V.  "born  in  the  land")  may  have  reference  to  the 
 possession  of  the  soil,  as  it  is  borrowed  fi'om  the 
 image  of  a  tree  not  tr(ins2)liinted,  and  so  occupying 
 its  native  soil.     The  Israelites,  however,  never  suc- 
 ceeded in  olitaining  possession  of  the  whole,  and  it 
 is  possible  that  the  Canaanitish  occupants  may  in 
 course  of  time  have  been  recognized  as  "  strangers," 
 and  had  the  right  of  retaining  their  land  conceded 
 to  them.    There  was  of  course  nothing  to  prevent  a 
 Ganaanite  from  becoming  the  mortgagee  in  posses- 
 sion of  a  plot,  but  this  would  not  constitute  him  a 
 proper  landowner,  inasmuch  as  he  would  lose  all 
 interest  in  the  property  when  the  year  of  Jubilee 
 came  round.     That  they  possessed  land  in  one  of 
 these  two  capacities  is  clear  from  the  case  of  Arau- 
 nah above  cited.     The  stranger   appears  to  have 
 been  eligible  to  all  civil  offices,  that  of  king  excepted 
 (Deut.  xvii.  15).    In  regard  to  religion,  it  was  abso- 
 lutely necessary  that  the  stranger  should  not  in- 
 fringe any  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Israelitish 
 state:  he  was  forbidden  to  blaspheme  the  name  of 
 Jehovah  (Lev.  xxiv.  IG),  to  work  on  the  Sabbath 
 (Kx.  XX.  10),  to  eat  leavened  bread  at  the  time  of 
 the  Passover  (Ex.  xii.  19),  to  commit  any  breach  of 
 the  marriage  laws  (Lev.  xviii.  2G),  to  worship  Mo- 
 lech   (Lev.  XV.  2),  or  to  eat  blood  or  the  flesh   of 
 any  animal  that  had  dietl  otherwise  than  by  the 
 hand  of  man  (Lev.  xvii.  10,  15).     He  was  required 
 to  release  a  Hebrew  servant  in  the  year  of  Jubilee 
 (Lev.  XXV.  47-54),  to  observe  the  day  of  atonement 
 (Lev.  xvi.  29),  to  perform  the  rites  of  purification 
 when  necessary  (Lev.  xvii.  15;  Num.  xix.  10),  and 
 to  ofler  sin-ofterings  after  .sins  of  ignorance  (Num. 
 XV.  29).     If  the  stranger  was  a  bondsman  he  was 
 obliged  to  submit  to  circumcision   (Ex.  xii.  44);  if 
 he  was  independent,  it  was  optional  with  him;  but 
 if  he  remained  uiicircumcised,  he  was   prohibited 
 from  partaking  of  the  Passover  (Ex.  xii.  48),  and 
 could  not  be  regarded  as  a  full  citizen.     Liberty 
 was  also  given  in  regard  to   the  use  of  prohibited 
 food    to  an    uiicircumcised    stranger;  for   on    this 
 ground  alone  can  we  harmonize  the  statements  in 
 Deut.  xiv.  21  and  Lev.  xvii.  10,  15.     Assuming, 
 however,  that  the  stranger  was  circumcised,  no  dis- 
 tinction existeil  in  regard  to  legal  rights  between 
 the  stranger  and  the  Israelite:  "one  law"  for  both 
 classes  is  a  principle  afhrmed  in  respect  to  religious 
 
 D^12. 
 
 n-ir^ 
 
 • :  T  T .  . 
 
 ''  "13,  3Ii7"li^.  These  terms  appear  to  de.<cribe, 
 not  two  difTerent  classes  of  strangers,  but  the  stranger 
 under  two  different  aspects,  gcr  rather  implying  his 
 foreign  origin,  or  the  fact  of  his  having  ttirneti  asi'/e 
 to  abide  with  another  people,  tOshab  implying  his  per- 
 tnanent  resilience  in  the  land  of  his  adoption.  Winer 
 \Rtalwb.   "Fremde'")  regards  the  latter  as  equivalent 
 
 to  hireling.  Jahn  (Archmnt.  i.  11,  §  181)  explains 
 tOshab  of  one  who,  whether  Helirew  or  foreigner,  was 
 destitute  of  a  home.  We  see  no  evidence  for  either  of 
 these  opinions.  In  the  LXX.  these  terms  are  most 
 frequently  rendered  by  TrapoiKo?,  the  Alexandrian  sub- 
 stitute for  the  classical  hctoiko?.  Sometimes  Trpocr^- 
 AvTos  Is  used,  and  in  two  passages  (Ex.  xii.  19  ;  Is. 
 xiv.  1)  ■yeicopas,  as  representing  the  Chaldee  form  ol 
 the  words-er. 
 
3122  STRAW 
 
 obseiTances  (Ex.  xii.  49;  Num.  xv.  10),  .iiid  to 
 legal  pi-oceediiigs  (Lev.  xxiv.  22),  and  the  judges 
 are  .strictly  warned  against  any  partiality  in  their 
 decisions  (Deut.  i.  16,  xxiv.  17,  13).  The  Israel- 
 ite is  also  enjoined  to  treat  him  as  a  brother  (Lev. 
 xix.  34;  Deut.  x.  19),  and  the  precept  is  enforced 
 in  each  case  by  a  reference  to  his  own  state  in  the 
 land  of  Lgypt.  Sucii  precepts  were  needed  in  oi'- 
 der  to  counteract  tlie  natural  tendency  to  treat  per- 
 sons in  the  position  of  strangers  with  rigor.  For, 
 though  there  was  the  possibility  of  a  stranger  ac- 
 quiring wealth  and  becoming  the  owner  of  Hebrew 
 slaves  (Lev.  xxv.  47),  yet  his  normal  state  was  one 
 of  poverty,  as  implied  in  tlie  numeious  passages 
 where  he  is  coupled  with  the  fatherless  and  the 
 widow  (e.  g.  Ex.  xxii.  21-23 ;  Deut.  x.  18,  xxiv. 
 17),  .ind  in  the  special  directions  respecting  his 
 having  a  share  in  the  feasts  that  accompanied  cer- 
 tain religious  festivals  (Deut.  xvi.  11,  14,  xxvi.  11), 
 in  the  leasing  of  the  cornfield,  the  vineyard,  and 
 the  olive-yard  (Lev.  xix.  10,  xxiii.  22;  Deut.  xxiv. 
 20),  in  the  produce  of  the  triennial  tithe  (Deut. 
 xiv.  28,  29),  in  the  forgotten  sheaf  (Deut.  xxiv.  19), 
 and  in  the  spontaneous  production  of  the  soil  in  the 
 sabbatical  year  (Lev.  xxv.  6).  It  also  appears  that 
 the  "  stranger  "  formed  the  class  whence  the  hire- 
 lings were  drawn :  the  terms  being  coupled  together 
 in  Ex.  xii.  45 ;  Lev.  xxii.  10,  xxv.  G,  40.  Such  la- 
 borers were  engaged  either  by  the  day  (Lev.  xix. 
 13;  Deut.  xxiv.  15),  or  by  the  year  (Lev.  xxv.  53), 
 and  appear  to  have  been  considerately  treated,  for 
 the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  slave  is  iavorably  com- 
 pared with  that  of  the  hired  servant  and  the  so- 
 journer in  eontr.adistinction  to  the  bondman  (Lev. 
 xxv.  39,  40).  A  less  fortunate  class  of  strangers, 
 probably  captives  in  war  or  for  debt,  were  reduced 
 to  slavery,  and  were  subject  to  be  bought  and  sold 
 (Lev.  xxv.  45),  as  well  as  to  be  put  to  task-work,  as 
 was  the  case  with  the  Gibeonites  (.losh.  ix.  21)  and 
 with  those  whom  Solomon  employed  in  the  build- 
 ing of  the  Temple  (2  Chr.  ii.  18).  The  liberal 
 spirit  of  the  Mosaic  regulations  respecting  strangers 
 presents  a  strong  contrast  to  the  rigid  exclusiveness 
 of  the  .lews  at  tiie  commencement  of  the  Christian 
 era.  The  growth  of  this  spirit  dates  from  the  time 
 of  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  originated  partly 
 in  the  outr.ages  which  the  Jews  suflered  at  the 
 hands  of  foreigners,  and  partly  through  a  fear  lest 
 their  nationality  should  be  swamped  by  constant 
 admixture  with  foreigners:  the  latter  motive  appears 
 to  have  dictated  the  stringent  measures  adopted  by 
 Nehemiah  (Neh.  ix.  2,  xiii.  3).  Our  Lord  coidemns 
 this  exclusive  spirit  in  the  parable  of  the  good  Sa- 
 maritan, where  He  defines  the  term  "  neighbor  " 
 in  a  sense  new  to  his  hearers  (Luke  x.  30).  It 
 should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  proselyte  « 
 of  the  New  Testament  is  the  true  representative  of 
 the  stranger  of  the  (Jld  Testament,  and  towards 
 this  class  a  cordial  feeling  was  manifested.  [I'lios- 
 elytb;.]  The  term  "stranger"  (^eVos)  is  gen- 
 erally used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  general 
 sense  of  forcirjner,  and  occasionally  in  its  more 
 technical  sense  as  opposed  to  a  citizen  (Eph.  ii. 
 19).&  W.  L.  B. 
 
 STRAW  (1?^,  ieben:  &xvpov:  paka).  Both 
 wheat  and  barley  straw  were  used  by  the  ancient 
 Hebrews  chiefly  as  fodder  for  their  horses,  cattle, 
 
 a  The  term  jrpoo^AvTos  occurs  in  the  LXX.  as  = 
 ■n^   in  Ex.  xii.  19,  xx.  10,  xxii.  21,  xxiii.  9. 
 
 b  *  '<  Strangers    of    Rome  "    (ot  €7rt6r)fx.ovi'Tes  'Pu>- 
 
 STREET 
 
 and  camels  (Gen.  xxiv.  25;  1  K.  iv.  28;  Is.  xi.  7 
 Ixv.  25).  The  straw  was  probably  often  chopped 
 and  mixed  with  barley,  beans,  etc.,  for  provender 
 (see  Harmer's  Obscrvdiions,  i.  423,  424;  Wilkin- 
 son, Anc.  Kfiypt.  ii.  48,  Lond.  1854).  Tliere  is  no 
 intimation  that  straw  was  used  for  litter;  Harnier 
 thinks  it  was  not  so  employed ;  the  litter  the  people 
 now  use  in  those  countries  is  the  animals'  dung, 
 dried  in  the  sun  and  bruised  between  their  hands, 
 wliich  they  heap  up  again  in  the  morning,  sprink- 
 ling it  in  the  summer  with  fresh  water  to  keep  it 
 from  corrupting  {Obs.  p.  424,  Lond.  1797).  Straw 
 was  employed  by  the  Egyptians  for  making  bricks 
 (Ex.  v.  7,  10):  it  was  chopped  up  and  mixed  with 
 the  clay  to  make  them  more  compact  and  to  pre\ent 
 their  cracking  {Anc.  Eyypt.  ii.  194).  [Bi;icks.] 
 The  ancient  Egyptians  reaped  their  corn  close  to 
 the  ear,  and  afterwards  cut  the  straw  close  to  the 
 ground  {ibid.  p.  48)  and  laid  it  by.  This  was  the 
 straw  that  Pharaoh  refused  to  give  to  the  Israelites, 
 who  were  therefore  compelled  to  gather  "  stubble  '' 
 
 (irf2,  Kash)  instead,  a  matter  of  considerable  diffi- 
 culty, seeing  that  the  straw  itself  had  been  cut  off 
 near  to  the  ground.  The  stubble,  frequently  al- 
 luded to  in  the  Scriptures  may  denote  either  the 
 short  standing  straw,  mentioned  above,  which  was 
 commonly  set  on  fire,  hence  the  allusions  in  Is.  v. 
 24;  .Joel  ii.  5,  or  the  small  fragments  that  would  be 
 left  behind  after  the  reapings,  hence  the  expression, 
 "  as  the  kitsh  before  the  wind"  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.  13;  Is. 
 xii.  2;  Jer.  xiii.  24).  W.  H. 
 
 STREAM    OF    EGYPT  (D';^!?'?   ^C? : 
 
 '7ivoK6povpa  (pi.):  torrvns  yEf/ypfi)  once  occurs 
 in  the  A.  V.  instead  of  "  the  river  of  Egypt,"  ap- 
 parently to  avoid  tautology  (Is.  xxvii.  12).  It  is 
 the  best  translation  of  this  doubtful  name,  for  it  ex- 
 presses the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  while  retaining  the 
 vagueness  it  has,  so  long  as  we  cannot  decide  whether 
 it  is  applied  to  the  Pelusian  liranch  of  the  Nile  or 
 the  stream  of  the  W(tdi4-  Arei^sh.  [Rivek  of 
 Egypt;  Nile.]  E.  S.  P. 
 
 STREET  (V^n,  d^^^),  \:^T■.  ^Aarem, 
 
 ^vfiri)-  The  streets  of  a  modern  oriental  town  pre- 
 sent a  great  contrast  to  those  with  which  we  are 
 familiar,  being  generally  narrow,  tortuous,  and 
 gloomy,  even  in  the  best  towns,  such  as  Cairo 
 (Lane,  i.  25),  Damascus  (Porter,  i.  30),  and 
 Aleppo  (Kussell,  i.  14).  Their  character  is  mainly 
 fixed  by  the  climate  and  the  style  of  architecture, 
 the  narrowness  being  due  to  the  extreme  heat,  and 
 the  gloominess  to  the  circumstance  of  the  windows 
 looking  for  the  most  part  into  the  inner  court.  As 
 these  same  influences  existed  in  ancient  times, 
 we  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  the  streets 
 were  much  of  the  same  character  as  at  present. 
 The  opposite  opinion  has,  indeed,  been  maintaiTied 
 on  account  of  the  Hebrew  term  recliob,  frequently 
 applied  to  streets,  and  propei'ly  meaning  a  icide 
 place.  The  specific  signification  of  this  term  is 
 rather  a  court-yard  or  square :  it  is  applied  in  this 
 sense  to  the  liroad  open  space  adjacent  to  the  gate 
 of  a  town,  where  public  business  was  transacted 
 (Deut.  xiii.  16),  and,  again,  to  the  court  before  the 
 Temple  (Ezr.  x.  9)  or  before  a  p.alace  (l'>sth.  iv.  6). 
 Its  ajjplication  to  the  street  may  point  to  the  com- 
 parative width  of  the  main  street,  or  it  may  per- 
 
 fiaioi).  Acts  ii.  10,  are  literally  "  Romans  who  ar« 
 sojouruers,"  i.  e.  as  the  subjoined  apposition  shows, 
 "  Jews  and  proselytes  "  who  had  come  to  Jeru.salem 
 from  Rome.  H 
 
STRIKING  THE  MOUTH 
 
 haps  convey  the  idea  of  jiuhlicity  rather  than  of 
 widtii,  a  sense  well  adapted  to  the  passages  in 
 which  it  occurs  (e.  ij.  (ien.  xix.  2 ;  Judg.  xix.  15 ; 
 2  Sam.  xxi.  12).  The  street  called  "  Straight,"  in 
 Damascus  (Acts  ix.  11),  was  an  exception  to  the 
 rule  of  narrowness:  it  was  a  noble  thoroughfare, 
 100  feet  wide,  divided  in  the  Roman  age  by  colon- 
 nades into  tliree  avenues,  the  central  one  for  foot 
 passengers,  the  side  passages  for  vehicles  and  horse- 
 men going  in  different  directions  (Porter,  i.  47). 
 The  shops  and  warehouses  vpere  probably  collected 
 together  into  bazars  in  ancient  as  in  modern  times : 
 we  read  of  the  bakers'  bazar  (.Jer.  xxxvii.  21),  and 
 of  the  wool,  brazier,  and  clothes  bazars  {ayopd)  in 
 Jerusalem  (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  8,  §  1),  and  perhaps 
 the  agreement  between  Benhadad  and  Ahab,  that 
 the  latter  should  "  make  streets  in  Damascus  "  (1 
 K.  XX.  yi),  was  in  reference  rather  to  bazars  (the 
 term  chuts  here  used  being  the  same  as  in  Jer.  xxxvii. 
 21),  and  thus  amounted  to  the  establishment  of  a 
 jus  commtrcii.  A  lively  description  of  the  Ijazars 
 at  Damascus  is  furnished  us  by  Porter  (i.  58-60). 
 The  broad  and  narrow  streets  are  distinguished  un- 
 der the  terms  reclwb  and  chiits  in  the  following  pas- 
 sages, though  the  point  is  frequently  lost  in  the  A. 
 V.  by  rendering  the  latter  term  "  abroad  "  or  "  with- 
 out": Prov.  V.  10,  vii.  12,  xxii.  13;  Jer.  v.  1,  ix. 
 21;  Am.  v.  IG;  Nah.  ii.  4.  The  same  distinction  is 
 apparently  expressed  by  the  terms  recliob  and  shuk 
 in  Cant.  ill.  2,  and  by  TrAareio  and  pv^Tj  in  Luke 
 xiv.  21:  but  the  etymological  sense  of  sliuk  points 
 rather  to  a  place  of  concourse,  such  as  a  market- 
 place, while  f)v/j.ri  is  applied  to  the  "  Straight "  street 
 of  Damascus  (Acts  ix.  11),  and  is  also  used  in  ref- 
 erence to  the  Pliarisees  (Matt.  vi.  2)  as  a  place  of 
 the  greatest  publicity:  it  is  therefore  doul)tful 
 whether  the  contrast  can  be  sustained :  Jusephus 
 describes  the  alleys  of  Jerusalem  under  the  term 
 (TTevooTroL  (B.  J.  v.  8,  §  1).  The  term  sJiiik  oc- 
 curs elsewhere  oidy  in  Prov.  vii.  8 ;  Eccl.  xii.  4,  5. 
 The  term  cla'its,  already  noticed,  applies  generally 
 to  that  which  is  uuiside  the  residence  (as  in  Prov. 
 vii.  12,  A.  V.  "she  is  without"),  and  hence  to 
 other  places  than  streets,  as  to  a  pasture-ground 
 (Job  xviii.  17,  where  the  A.  V.  requires  emenda- 
 tion). That  streets  occasionally  had  names  ap- 
 pears from  Jer.  xxxvii.  21;  Acts  ix.  11.  That 
 they  were  generally  unpaved  may  be  inferred  from 
 the  notices  of  the  pavement  laid  by  Herod  tlie 
 Great  at  Antioch  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  5,  §  3),  and 
 by  Herod  Agrippa  II.  at  Jerusalem  (Ant.  xx.  U, 
 §  7).  Hence  pavement  forms  one  of  the  peculiar 
 features  of  the  ideal  Jerusalem  (Tob.  xiii.  17 ;  IJev. 
 xxi.  21).  Each  street  and  bazar  in  a  modern  town 
 3  locked  up  at  night  (Lane,  i.  25;  Eussell,  i.  21), 
 ind  hence  a  person  cannot  pass  without  being  ob- 
 served by  the  watchman :  the  same  custom  appears 
 to  have  prevailed  in  ancient  times  (Cant.  iii.  3).  ' 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 *  STRIKING  THE  MOUTH.    [Pumsii- 
 JIKNTS,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 SUCCOTH 
 
 5123 
 
 «  D'^DpT,  A.  V.  "  elders."  The  word  has  exactly 
 the  siguiflcatioa  of  the  Arabic  Sheikh,  an  old  man, 
 and  hence  the  head  of  a  tribe. 
 
 b  *  Gideon  as  he  was  pursuing  Zebah  and  Zal- 
 munna,  kings  of  Midian,  threatened  to  "  tear  the  flesh 
 of  the  princes  of  Suecoth,"  because  they  refused  to 
 supply  his  men  with  bread  (Judg.  viii.  8  ff.).  On  re- 
 turning from  his  victory  he  executed  that  menace. 
 "  He  took  the  elders  of  the  city  and  thorns  of  the 
 wilderness  and  briars,  and  with  them  he  taught  (pun- 
 
 STRIPES.     [Punishments.] 
 
 SU'AH  (noD  [fiU/i]:  2ov€;  [Vat.  corrupt:] 
 Sue).  Son  of  Zophah,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii. 
 36). 
 
 SU'BA  (2a/3i^;  [Vat.]  Alex.  2ou/3as:  Suba). 
 The  sons  of  Suba  were  among  the  sons  of  Solo- 
 mon's servants  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel 
 (1  Esdr.  v.  34).  There  is  nothing  corresponding 
 to  the  name  in  the  Hebrew  lists  of  Ezra  and  Ne- 
 hemiah. 
 
 SU'BAI  (2u/3af;  [Vat.]  Alex.  :S,vPoLei:  Obni) 
 =  Shai.jiai  (1  Esdr.  v.  30;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  46). 
 
 *  SUBURBS,  as  the  composition  of  the 
 word  (sub  and  urbs)  would  imply,  designates  any- 
 thing, as  Lwyl  or  buildings,  under  the  walls  of  a 
 town,  i.  e.  lying  close  around  it.  In  several  0.  T. 
 passages  it  designates  land  given  to  the  Levites  in 
 connection  with  their  cities  as  pasturage  for  their 
 animals  and  for  other  purposes.  See  Lev.  xxv.  34; 
 Num.  XXXV.  3  ff.  and  elsewhere.  Num.  xxxv.  5 
 gi\es  the  extent  of  the  territory  designated  as  sub 
 urbs.  The  usual  Hebrew  term  denoting  such  de- 
 pendencies is  ti7~13^,  properly  a  place  whither 
 Hocks  and  herds  are  driven.  R.  D.  C.  K. 
 
 SUCCOTH  (ni3D  [booths]  :  ^K-qvai  in  Gen. 
 [and  Ps.,]  elsewhere  2okx'<^^.  'S.oKx^^a;  [Vat.  in 
 2  Chr.  iv.  17,]  26XX'^S'  '^'^^-  "S-oicxoid,  [in  Josh. 
 xiii.  27,  2aixa):J  in  Gen.  Soco/h,  id  es/,  t'lbifi-mtc- 
 ula ;  [fS'oco///,]  Soccoth,  \_Sochulli,  Socliol]).  A 
 town  of  ancient  date  in  the  Holy  Land,  which  is 
 first  heard  of  in  the  account  of  the  homeward 
 journey  of  Jacob  from  Padau-aram  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
 17).  The  name  is  fancifully  derived  from  the  fact 
 of  Jacob's  having  there  put  up  '•  booths  "  {Suecoth, 
 
 nSp)  for  his  cattle,  as  well  as  a  house  for  him- 
 self. Whether  that  occurrence  originated  the  name 
 of  Suecoth  (and,  following  the  analogy  of  other 
 history,  it  is  not  probable  that  it  did),  the  mention 
 of  the  house  and  the  booths  in  contrast  to  the 
 "  tents  "  of  the  wandering  life  indicates  that  the 
 Patriarch  made  a  lengthened  stay  there  —  a  fact 
 not  elsewhere  alluded  to. 
 
 From  the  itinerary  of  Jacob's  return  it  seems 
 that  Suecoth  lay  between  Pknikl,  near  the  ford  of 
 the  torrent  Jabliok,  and  Shechem  (comp.  xxxii.  30, 
 and  xxxiii.  18,  which  latter  would  be  more  accu- 
 rately rendered  "  (_'ame  safe  to  the  city  Sliecheui"). 
 In  accordance  with  tins  is  the  mention  of  Suecoth 
 in  the  narrative  of  Gideon's  pursuit  of  Zebah  and 
 Zalniunna  (-'udg.  viii.  5-17).  His  course  is  east- 
 ward —  the  reverse  of  Jacob's  —  and  he  comes  first 
 to  Suecoth,  and  then  to  Penuel,  the  latter  being 
 further  up  the  mountain  than  the  former  (ver.  3, 
 "went  up  thence").  Its  importance  at  tliis  time 
 is  shown  by  the  organization  and  number  of  its 
 seventy-seven  head-men  —  chiefs  and  "  slieikhs  — 
 and  also  liy  the  defiance  with  which  it  treated 
 Gideon  on  his  first  application.*' 
 
 ished)  the  men  of  Suecoth."  The  Egyptians  in  like 
 manner  sentenced  certain  criminals  "  to  be  lacerated 
 with  sharpened  reeds,  and  after  being  thrown  on 
 thorns  to  be  burnt  to  death  •'  (Wilkinson,  Anrient 
 Egyptians,  ii.  209).  Dr.  Robinson  found  almost  a 
 forest  of  thistles  at  SaktU  (Suecoth)  sometimes  so  high 
 as  to  overtop  the  rider's  head  on  horseback  {Later 
 Res.,  p.  313).  Such  thickets  however  are  by  no 
 means  peculiar  to  any  one  locaUty  in  Palestine. 
 
 U. 
 
3124 
 
 SUCCOTH 
 
 It  would  appear  from  this  passage  that  it  lay  on 
 the  east  of  Jordan,  which  is  corroborated  by  the 
 fact  that  it  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Gad  (Josh. 
 xiii.  27).  In  tlie  account  of  Jacob's  journey,  all 
 mention  of  the  Jordan  is  omitted. 
 
 Succoth  is  named  once  again  after  this  —  in  1 
 K.  vii.  46 ;  2  Chr.  iv.  17  —  as  marking  the  spot 
 at  which  the  brass  foimdries  were  placed  for  cast- 
 ing the  metal-work  of  the  Temple,  "  in  the  district 
 uf  Jordan,  in  the  fat  or  soft  ground  between  Suc- 
 coth and  Zarthan."  But,  as  the  position  of  Zar- 
 thaii  is  not  yet  known,  this  notice  has  no  topo- 
 graphical value  beyond  the  mention  of  the  Jordan. 
 
 It  appears  to  have  been  known  in  the  time  of 
 Jerome,  who  says  (  Qucest.  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  16 )  tliat 
 there  was  then  a  town  named  Sochoth  beyond  the 
 Jordan  (trans  Jonhtnem),  in  the  district  (parte) 
 of  Scythofwlis.  Nothing  more,  however,  was  heard 
 of  it  till  Burckhardt's  Journey.  He  mentions  it  in 
 a  not«  to  p.  345  (July  2).  He  is  speaking  of  the 
 places  about  the  jQrdan,  and,  after  naming  three 
 ruined  towns  "  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  to  the 
 north  of  Bysan,"  he  says:  "  Near  where  we  crossed 
 
 to  the  south  are  the  ruins  of  Sukkot  (j^Smu)-  On 
 the  western  bank  of  the  river  tliere  are  no  ruins 
 between  Ain  Sultan  (which  he  has  just  said  was 
 the  southernmost  of  the  three  ruined  places  north 
 of  Bysan)  and  Rieha  or  Jericho."  There  can, 
 therefore,  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sukkot  of  Burck- 
 hardt  was  on  tlie  east  of  the  Jordan.  The  spot 
 at  which  he  crossed  he  has  already  stated  (pp.  34:J, 
 344)  to  have  been  -'two  hours  from  Bysan,  which 
 bore  N.  N.  W." 
 
 Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl.  lii^s.  iii.  309,  &c.)  and  Mr. 
 Van  de  Velde  (Syr.  and  Pal.  ii.  343)  have  discovered 
 
 a  place  named  SdhU  (cu  yS  L.u/),  evidently  en- 
 tirely distinct  both  in  name  and  position  from  that 
 of  Burckhardt.  In  the  accounts  and  maps  of  these 
 travellers  it  is  placed  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jor- 
 dan, less  than  a  mile  from  the  river,  and  about  10 
 miles  south  of  Beimn.  A  fine  spring  bubbles  out 
 on  the  east  side  of  the  low  bluff  on  which  tlie  ruins 
 stand.  The  distance  of  SCikid  from  Beimn  is  too 
 great,  even  if  it  were  on  the  other  side  of  the 
 Jordan,  to  allow  of  its  being  the  place  referred  to 
 by  Jerome.  The  Sukkul  of  Burckhardt  is  more 
 suitable.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  either  of 
 them  can  be  the  Succoth  of  the  Old  Test.  For 
 the  events  of  Gideon's  stor}'  the  latter  of  the  two 
 is  not  unsuitable.  It  is  in  the  line  of  flight  and 
 pursuit  which  we  may  suppose  the  Midianites  and 
 Gideon  to  have  taken,  and  it  is  also  near  a  ford. 
 Sdh'd,  on  the  otiier  hand,  seems  too  far  south,  and 
 is  also  on  the  west  of  the  river.  But  both  a]ipear 
 too  far  to  the  north  for  the  Succoth  of  Jacob,  lying 
 as  that  did  iietween  the  Jabbok  and  Shechem,  es- 
 pecially if  we  place  the  Wndi/  Zerbi  (usually  iden- 
 tiiied  with  the  .labbok)  further  to  the  south  than  it 
 is  placed  in  Van  de  Velde's  map,  as  Mr.  Beke  " 
 proposes  to  do.  Jacob's  direct  road  from  the  IVarh/ 
 Ztrka  to  Shechem  would  ha\e  led  him  by  the 
 Wady  Ferrali,  on  the  one  hand,  or  through  Ya- 
 n&n,  on  the  other.     If  he  went  north   as  far  as 
 
 n  This  gentleman,  an  old  and  experienced  traveller, 
 has  lately  returned  from  a  journey  between  Damascus, 
 the  Warty  Zerica,  and  Nablus.  It  was  undertaken 
 (vith  the  view  of  testing  his  theory  that  liaran  was  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Damascus  [Haran,  Anier.  ed.]. 
 Without  going  into  that  question,  all  that  concerns 
 
 SUCCOTH 
 
 Sd/:iil,  he  must  have  ascended  by  the  Wady  Jfaleli 
 to  Teyasir,  and  so  through  Tvhas  and  the  Wudy 
 Biddn.  Perhaps  his  going  north  was  a  rust  to 
 escape  the  dangerous  proximity  of  Esau ;  and  if  he 
 made  a  long  stay  at  Succoth,  as  suggested  in  the 
 outset  of  this  article,  the  detaur  from  the  direct 
 road  to  Shechem  would  be  of  little  importance  to 
 him. 
 
 Until  the  position  of  Succoth  is  more  exactly 
 ascertained,  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  was  the 
 Valley  of  Succoth  mentioned  in  Ps.  Ix.  6  and 
 cviii.  7.  The  word  rendered  •'  Valley  "  is  'emelc  in 
 both  cases  (ri  KolAas  tSiu  (rK-r)vuV-  Vallis  Soccoth). 
 The  same  word  is  employed  (Josh.  xiii.  27)  in 
 specifying  the  position  of  the  group  of  towns 
 amongst  which  Succoth  occurs,  in  describing  the 
 allotment  of  Gad.  So  that  it  evidently  denotes 
 some  marked  feature  of  the  country.  It  is  not 
 probable,  however,  that  the  main  valley  of  the 
 Jordan,  the  Glwr,  is  intended,  that  being  always 
 designated  in  the  Bible  by  the  name  of  "  the  Ara- 
 bah."  G. 
 
 SUCCOTH  (n'l2p  [booths]:  ■2.oKx<i>6\  [ex. 
 xii.  37,  Vat.  '2,oKX'»6a.'-]  iiocolh,  Soccoth,  "  booths," 
 or  "tents  "),  the  first  camping-place  of  the  Israel- 
 ites when  they  left  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  37,  xiii.  20; 
 Num.  xxxiii.  5,  6).  This  place  was  apparently 
 reached  at  the  close  of  the  first  day's  march.  It 
 can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  each  of  the  first  three 
 stations  marks  the  end  of  a  single  journey.  Ba- 
 meses,  the  starting-place,  we  have  shown  was  proba- 
 bly near  the  western  end  of  the  Wddi-t-Tuineyldt. 
 AVe  have  calculated  the  distance  traversed  in  each 
 day's  journey  to  have  been  about  fifteen  miles,  and 
 as  Succoth  was  not  in  the  desert,  the  next  station, 
 Etham,  being  "  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness" 
 (Ex.  xiii.  20;  Num.  xxxiii.  6),  it  must  have  been 
 in  the  valley,  and  consequently  nearly  due  east  of 
 liameses,  and  fifteen  miles  distant  in  a  straight 
 line.  If  Rameses  may  be  supposed  to  have  been 
 near  the  mound  called  El-'Abbdseeyeh,  the  position 
 of  Succoth  can  be  readily  determined  within  mod- 
 erate limits  of  uncertainty.  It  was  probably,  to  judge 
 from  its  name,  a  resting-place  of  caravans,  or  a  mili 
 tary  station,  or  a  town  named  from  one  of  the  two. 
 We  find  similar  names  in  Scente  MandrK  (Jtin. 
 Ant.),  Scenfe  Mandrorum  (Not.  Diyn.)  or  '2,K7]v)) 
 MacSpw;/  (Not.  Grmc.  Episcopatuum),  Scena;  Veter- 
 aiiorum  (It.  Ant.  Not.  Diyn.),  and  Scenve  extra 
 Gerasa  (sic;  Not.  Diyn.).  See,  for  all  these  places, 
 I'arthey,  Zur  Erdkunde  des  alien  Atyyptens,  p. 
 535.  It  is,  however,  evident  that  such  a  name 
 would  be  easily  lost,  and  even  if  preserved,  hard  to 
 j'ecognize,  as  it  might  be  concealed  inuler  a  corre- 
 sponding name  of  similar  signification,  though  very 
 different  in  sound,  as  that  of  the  settlement  of 
 Ionian  and  Carian  mercenaries,  called  ra  'S.Tpa.- 
 T^TreSa  (Herod,  ii.  154). 
 
 AVe  must  here  remark  upon  the  extreme  careless- 
 ness with  which  it  has  been  taken  for  granted  that 
 the  whole  journey  to  the  Red  Sea  was  through  the 
 desert,  and  an  argument  agauist  the  authenticity 
 of  the  sacred  narrative  based  upon  evidence  which 
 it  not  only  does  not  state  but  contradicts.  For, 
 as  we  have  seen,  I'vtham,  the  second  camping-place. 
 
 us  here  is  to  say  that  he  has  fixed  the  latitude  of  the 
 mouth  of  the  Wady  Zerica  at  32°  13'',  or  more  than 
 ten  miles  south  of  its  position  in  Van  de  Velde's  map. 
 Mr.  Beke"s  paper  and  map  will  be  published  in  the 
 Journal  of  the  R.  Geogr.  Society  for  1863. 
 
SUCCOTH-BENOTH 
 
 was  "  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  and  the 
 tounti-y  was  once  cultivated  along  the  valley 
 through  which  passed  the  canal  of  the  Red  Sea. 
 The  demand  that  Moses  was  commissioned  to 
 make,  that  the  Israelites  might  take  "  three  days' 
 'ourney  into  the  wilderness  "  (Kx.  iii.  18),  does 
 not  imply  that  the  journey  was  to  be  of  three  days 
 tiirough  the  wilderness,  but  rather  that  it  would  be 
 necessary  to  make  three  days'  journey  in  order  to 
 sacrifice  in  the  wilderness.  [Exodus,  the;  Red 
 Ska,  Passage  of.]  R.  S.  P. 
 
 SUCCOTH-BE'NOTH  (n"l3?-rj'l3D 
 [bodtJis  of  ddui/hlers']  :  "XaiKX^O  BeuiO  [Vat.  Pox" 
 Xw6  BaiveiSei,  Alex.  2o/cx'«'*^  BtviOei] :  Sochotli- 
 Otiiot/i)  occurs  only  in  2  K.  xvii.  -iO,  where  the 
 Babylonish  settler.s  in  Samaria  are  said  to  have  set 
 up  the  worship  of  Succoth-benoth  on  their  arrival 
 in  that  country.  It  has  generally  been  supposed 
 that  this  term  is  pure  Hebrew,  and  signifies  the 
 "tents  of  daughters;"  which  some  explain  as 
 "  the  booths  in  which  the  daughters  of  the  Baby- 
 lonians prostituted  themselves  in  honor  of  their 
 idol,"  others  as  "small  tabernacles  in  which  were 
 contained  images  of  female  deities  "  (compare  Ge- 
 
 senius  and  S.  Newman,  acl  voc.  HSD  ;  Winer, 
 Realicorterbiich,  ii.  543  ;  Calmet,  Conimeniaire 
 Li/leral,  ii.  897).  It  is  a  strong  oVijection  to  both 
 these  explanations,  that  Succoth-benoth,  which  in 
 the  passage  in  Kings  occurs  in  the  same  construc- 
 tion with  Nergal  and  various  other  gods,  is  thus 
 not  a  deity  at  all,  nor,  strictly  speaking,  an  object* 
 of  worship.  Perhaps  therefore  the  suggestion  of 
 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  against  which  this  objection  does 
 not  lie,  may  be  admitted  to  deserve  some  attention. 
 This  writer  thinks  that  Succoth-benoth  represents 
 the  ChaldiBan  goddess  Zir-bunit^  the  wife  of  JNIe- 
 rodach,  who  was  especially  worshipped  at  Babylon, 
 in  conjunction  with  her  husband,  and  who  is  called 
 the  "  queen  "  of  the  place.  Succoth  he  supposes 
 to  be  either  "  a  Hamitic  term  equivalent  to  Zir" 
 or  possibly  a  Sheniitic  mistranslation  of  the  term 
 —  Z/r((^,  "  supreme,"  being  confounded  with  Zd- 
 rat,  "tents."  (See  the  L'ssaij  oi  Sir  H.  Rawlin- 
 son in  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  G30.) 
 
 G.  R. 
 
 SU'CHATHITES  (aNnD^tt?  [patr.  whence 
 unknown]:  [Sajxafli^;  Vat.  Alex.]  2u"ca9i€i^:  ?'« 
 t'l/jeriiKCulls  commortintes).  One  of  the  families 
 of  scribes  at  Jabez  (1  Chr.  ii.  55). 
 
 SUD  (2oy5:  iS'or/j).  A  river  in  the  immediate 
 neighborhood  of  Babylon,  on  the  banks  of  which 
 Jewish  exiles  lived  (Bar.  i.  4).  No  such  river  is 
 known  to  geographers:  but  if  we  assume  that  the 
 first  part  of  the  book  of  Baruch  was  written  in 
 Hebrew,  the  original  text  may  have  been  Sur,  the 
 
 final  "^  having  been  changed  into  *T.  In  this 
 case  the  name  would  represent,  not  the  town  of 
 Sora,  as  suggested  by  Bochart  {Phaleg,  i.  8),  but 
 the  river  Eupiirates  itself,  which  is  always  named 
 by  Arab  geographers  "the  river  of  Sura,"  a  cor- 
 ruption probably  of  the  "  Sippara"  of  the  inscrip- 
 tions (Rawlinson's  Herod,  i.  611,  note  4). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 SUD    (2ou5a;    [Vat.    2oua;]    Alex.   2ou(ra; 
 [Aid.  2oi'5:]    Sit)  =  SiA,  or   Siaiia   (1  Esdr.  v. 
 29;  comp.  Neh.  vii.  47;  Ezr.  ii.  44). 
 
 SUDI'AS  (2ou5ias  :  Serebias  et  Edins)  = 
 IIoDAViAH  3  and  Hodevah  (1  Esdr.  v.  26; 
 uomp.  Ezr.  iii.  40;  Neh.  vii.  43). 
 
 SUN 
 
 3125 
 
 SUK'KIIMS  (D"^?3p  [boolk-dwdlers]  :  [Rom. 
 Vat.  TpcoyoCivTai;  Alex.]  TpaiyKoBvrai-  Trocjlo- 
 ditoi),  a  nation  mentioned  (2  Ciir.  xii.  3)  with  the 
 Lubim  and  Cushim  as  supplying  part  of  the  ai-my 
 which  came  with  Shishak  out  of  Egypt  when  he 
 invaded  Judah.  Gesenius  {Lex.  s.  v.)  suggests 
 that  their  name  signifies  "dwellers  in  tents,"  in 
 which  case  it  might  perhaps  be  better  to  suppose 
 them  to  have  been  an  Arab  tribe  like  the  Scenitse, 
 than  Ethiopians.  If  it  is  borne  in  mind  that 
 Zerah  was  apparently  allied  witli  the  Arabs  south 
 of  Palestine  [Zei;aii],  whom  we  know  Shishak  to 
 have  subdued  [Shi.siiak],  our  conjecture  does  not 
 seem  to  be  improbable.  The  Sukkiinis  may  cor- 
 respond to  some  one  of  the  shepherd  or  wandering 
 races  mentioned  on  the  Egyptian  monuments,  but 
 we  have  not  found  any  name  in  hieroglyphics  re- 
 sembling their  name  in  the  Bible,  and  this  some- 
 what favors  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  Sheniitic  ap- 
 pellation. R.  S.  P. 
 
 *  SUMMER.  [Aur.icuLTur.E,  p.  40  6  ; 
 Palestine,  p.  2317;  Rain.] 
 
 *  SUMMER-PARLOR.  [House, p.  1105] 
 SUN  (Wt^W).      In  the  history  of  the  creation 
 
 the  sun  is  described  as  the  "greater  light"  in  con- 
 tradistinction to  the  moon  or  "  lesser  light,"  in 
 conjunction  with  which  it  was  to  serve  "for  siccus, 
 and  for  seasons,  .and  for  days,  and  for  years," 
 while  its  special  office  was  "  to  rule  the  day  "  (( jen. 
 i.  14-16).  The  "signs"  referred  to  were  prol)- 
 ably  such  extraordinary  phenomena  as  eclipses 
 which  were  regarded  as  conveying  premonitions  of 
 coming  events  (.ler.  x.  2;  Matt.  xxiv.  29,  with  Luke 
 xxi.  25).  The  joint  influence  assigned  to  the  sun 
 and  moon  in  deciding  the  ".seasons,"  both  for 
 agricultural  operations  and  for  religious  festivals, 
 and  also  in  regulating  the  length  and  subdivisions 
 of  the  "years,"  correctly  describes  the  combina- 
 tion of  the  lunar  and  solar  year,  which  prevailed 
 at  all  events  subsequently  to  the  Mosaic  period — ■ 
 the  moon  being  the  mensurer  (kut  e^oxw")  ^^  *'^^*' 
 lapse  of  time  by  the  subdivisions  of  months  and 
 weeks,  while  the  sun  was  the  ultimate  reyulator 
 of  the  length  of  the  year  by  means  of  the  recur- 
 rence of  the  feast  of  Pentecost  at  a  fixed  agricul- 
 tural season,  namely,  when  tiie  corn  became  ripe. 
 The  sun  "ruled  the  day"  alone,  sharing  the  do- 
 minion of  the  skies  with  the  moon,  the  brilliancy 
 and  utility  of  which  for  journeys  and  other  pur- 
 poses enhances  its  value  in  eastern  countries.  It 
 "ruled  the  day,"  not  only  in  reference  to  its  pow- 
 erful influences,  but  also  as  deciding  the  leuLcth  of 
 the  day  and  supplying  the  means  of  calculating 
 its  progress.  Sun-rise  and  sun-set  are  the  only 
 defined  points  of  time  in  the  absence  of  artificial 
 contrivances  for  telling  the  hour  of  the  day:  and 
 as  these  points  are  less  variable  in  the  latitude  of 
 Palestine  than  in  our  country,  they  served  the  pur 
 pose  of  marking  the  commencement  and  conclu- 
 sion of  the  working  day.  BetSveen  these  two 
 points  the  Jews  recognized  three  periods,  namely, 
 when  the  sun  became  hot,  about  9  A.  M.  (1  Sam. 
 xi.  9;  Neh.  vii.  3);  the  double  light  or  noon  (Gen. 
 xliii.  16;  2  Sam.  iv.  5),  and  "  the  cool  of  the  day" 
 shortly  before  sunset  (Gen.  iii.  8).  The  sun  also 
 served  to  fix  the  quarters  of  tiie  hemisphere,  east, 
 west,  north,  and  south,  which  were  represented 
 respectively  by  the  rising  sun,  the  setting  sun  (Is. 
 xlv.  6;  Ps.  1.  1),  the  dark  quarter  (Gen.  xiii.  14; 
 Joel  ii.  20),  and  the  brilliant  quarter  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
 
3126  SUN 
 
 23;  Job  xxxvii.  17;  Ez.  xl.  2-4);  or  othei-wise  bj' 
 their  position  relative  to  a  person  facing  the  risint:; 
 sun  —  before,  behind,  on  tlie  left  hand,  and  on  the 
 right  hand  (Job  xxiii.  8,  9).  The  apparent  motion 
 of  the  sun  is  frequently  referred  to  in  terms  that 
 would  imply  its  reality  (Josh.  x.  13;  2  K.  xx.  11; 
 Ps.  xix.  G;  Eccl.  i.  5;  Hab.  iii.  11).  'J'he  ordinary 
 name  for  the  sim,  sheniesli,  is  supposed  to  refer  to 
 the  extreme  brilliancy  of  its  rays,  producing  stupor 
 or  astonishment  in  tlie  mind  of  the  beliolder;  the 
 poetical  names,  chamindh'^  (Jo!)  xxx.  28;  Cant, 
 vi.  10;  Is.  xxx.  20),  and  clivres^  (-'"tig-  xiv.  18; 
 Job  ix.  7)  have  reference  to  its  heat,  the  beneficial 
 effects  of  wliich  are  duly  commemorated  (Ueut. 
 xxxiii.  14;  Ps.  xix.  6),  as  well  as  its  baneful  influ- 
 ence wlien  in  excess  (Ps.  cxxi.  6;  Is.  xlix.  10;  Jon. 
 iv.  8;  Kcclus.  xliii.  3.  4).  The  vigor  with  which 
 the  sun  travei'ses  the  heavens  is  compared  to  that 
 of  a  "bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber," 
 and  of  a  "giant  rejoicing  to  run  his  course"  (Ps. 
 xix.  5).  The  speed  with  which  the  beams  of  the 
 rising  sun  dart  across  the  sky,  is  expressed  in  the 
 term  "  wings "  applied  to  them  (Ps.  cxxxix.  9 ; 
 Mai.  iv.  2). 
 
 The  worship  of  the  sun,  as  the  most  prominent 
 and  powerful  agent  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  was 
 widely  dittused  throughout  the  countries  adjacent 
 to  Palestine.  The  Arabians  appear  to  have  paid 
 direct  worship  to  it  without  the  intervention  of  any 
 statue  or  symbol  (Job  xxxi.  26,  27;  Strab.  xvi. 
 p.  784),  and  this  simple  .style  of  worship  was  prob- 
 ably familiar  to  the  ancestors  of  the  Jews  in 
 Chaldsea  and  Mesopotamia.  In  Egypt  the  sun 
 was  worshipped  under  the  title  of  Re  or  Ea,  and 
 not  as  was  supposed  by  ancient  writers  under  the 
 form  of  Osiris  (Uiod.  bic.  i.  11;  see  Wilkinson's 
 Anc.  Kg.  iv.  289):  the  name  came  conspicuously 
 forward  as  the  title  of  the  kings,  Pharaoh,  or  rather 
 Phra,  meaning  "the  sun"  (Wilkinson,  iv.  287). 
 The  Helirews  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with 
 the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  sun  during  the  Cap- 
 tivity in  Egypt,  both  from  the  contiguity  of  On, 
 the  chief  seat  of  the  worship  of  the  sun  as  implied 
 in  the  name  itself  (On  =  the  Hebrew  IJeth-she- 
 niesh,  "  house  of  the  sun,"  Jer.  xliii.  13),  and  also 
 from  the  connection  between  Joseph  and  Poti- 
 pherah  ("he  who  belongs  to  Ra"),  the  priest  of 
 On  (Gen.  xli.  45).  After  their  removal  to  Canaan, 
 the  Hebrews  came  in  contact  with  various  forms  of 
 idolatry,  which  originated  in  the  worship  of  the 
 sun ;  such  as  the  Baal  of  the  Phoenicians  (Movers, 
 Phon.  i.  180),  the  Molech  or  Milcom  of  the  Am- 
 monites, and  the  Hadad  of  the  Syrians  (Plin.xxxvii. 
 71).  These  idols  were,  with  the  exception  of  the 
 last,  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  at 
 various  periods  (Judg.  ii.  11;  1  Iv.  xi.  5);  but  it 
 does  not  follow  that  the  object  symbolized  l)y  them 
 was  known  to  the  Jews  themselves.  If  we  have 
 any  notice  at  all  of  conscious  sun-worship  in  the 
 early  stages  of  their  history,  it  exists  in  the  doubt- 
 ful term  chammdnhn  <^  (Lev.  xxvi.  30;  Is.  xvii.  8, 
 &c.),  which  was  itself  significant  of  the  sun,  and 
 probably  described  the  stone  pillars  or  statues 
 unfler  which  the  solar  Baal  (Baal-Haman  of  the 
 Punic  inscriptions,  Gesen.  Thes.  i.  489)  was  wor- 
 shipped at  Baal-Hamon  (Cant.  viii.  11)  and  other 
 places.  Pure  sun-worship  appears  to  have  been 
 introduced  by  the  Assyrians,  and  to  have  become 
 fcjrmally  established  by  Manasseh  (2  K.  xxi.  3,  5), 
 
 'nttr 
 
 6  D-in. 
 
 SUR  * 
 
 in  contravention  of  the  prohibitions  of  Moses  (Deut. 
 iv.  19,  xvii.  3).  Whether  the  practice  was  bor- 
 rowed from  the  Sepharvites  of  Samaria  (2  K.  xvii. 
 31),  whose  gods  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech 
 are  supposed  to  represent  the  male  and  female  sun, 
 and  whose  original  residence  (the  Heliopolis  of 
 Berosus)  was  the  chief  seat  of  the  worship  of  the 
 sun  in  Babylonia  (Rawlinson's  Herod,  i.  Gil),  or 
 whether  the  kings  of  Judah  drew  their  model  of 
 worship  more  immediately  from  the  east,  is  uncer- 
 tain. The  dedication  of  chariots  and  horses  to 
 the  sun  (2  K.  xxiii.  11)  was  perhaps  borrowed  from 
 the  Persians  (Herod,  i.  189;  Curt.  iii.  3,  §  11; 
 Xen.  Cyrop.  viii.  3,  §  24),  who  honored  the  sun 
 under  the  form  of  IMithras  (Strab.  xv.  p.  732).  At 
 the  same  time  it  should  be  observed  that  the  horse 
 was  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  sun  in  other 
 countries,  as  among  the  INIassagetifi  (Herod,  i.  216), 
 and  the  Armenians  (Xen.  Annb.  iv.  5,  §  35),  both 
 of  whom  used  it  as  a  sacrifice.  To  judge  from 
 the  few  notices  we  have  on  the  subject  in  the 
 Bible,  we  should  conclude  that  the  Jews  derived 
 their  mode  of  worshipping  the  sun  from  several 
 quarters.  The  practice  of  burning  incense  on  the 
 house-tops  (2  K.  xxiii.  5,  12;  Jer.  xix.  13;  Zeph. 
 i.  5)  might  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Arabians 
 (Strab.  xvi.  p.  784),  as  also  the  simple  act  of  adora- 
 tion directed  towards  the  rising  sun  (Ez.  viii.  16 ; 
 comp.  Job  xxxi.  27).  On  the  other  hand,  the  use 
 of  the  chariots  and  horses  in  the  processions  on 
 festival  days  came,  as  we  have  observed,  from  Per- 
 sia ;  and  so  also  the  custom  of  "  putting  the  branch 
 to  the  nose"  (Ez.  viii.  17),  according  to  the  gen- 
 erally received  explanation,  which  identifies  it  with 
 the  Persian  practice  of  holding  in  the  left  hand 
 a  bimdle  of  twigs  called  Bersam  while  worshipping 
 the  sun  (Strab.  XV.  p.  733;  Hyde,  Rel.  Pers.  p. 
 345).  This,  however,  is  very  doul)tful,  the  expres- 
 sion being  otherwise  understood  of  "  putting  the 
 knife  to  the  no.se,"  i.  e.  producing  self-mutilation 
 (Hitzig,  On  Ezek.).  An  objection  lies  against 
 the  former  view  from  the  fact  that  the  Persians  are 
 not  said  to  have  held  the  branch  to  the  nose.  The 
 importance  attached  to  the  worship  of  the  sun  l)y 
 the  Jewish  kings,  may  be  inferi'ed  from  the  fact  that 
 the  horses  were  stalled  within  the  precincts  of  the 
 temple  (the  term  parwr''  meaning  not  "suburb" 
 as  in  the  A.  V.,  but  either  a  portico  or  an  out- 
 building of  the  temjile).  They  were  removed  thence 
 by  Josiah  (2  K.  xxiii.  11).  ' 
 
 In  the  metaphorical  language  of  Scripture  the 
 sun  is  emblematic  of  the  law  of  God  (Ps.  xix.  7), 
 of  the  cheering  presence  of  God  (Ps.  Ixxxiv.  11}, 
 of  the  person  of  the  Saviour  (John  i.  9 ;  Mai.  iv. 
 2),  and  of  the  glory  and  purity  of  heavenly  beings 
 (Rev.  i.  16,  X.  1,  xii.  1).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  SITN-DIAL.     [Dial.] 
 
 *  SUPPER.     [Lord's  Supper;  Meals.] 
 
 *  SUPPER,  THE  LAST.  [Passover,  iii.] 
 
 SUR  (Soiyp;  [Vat.iAo-o-oup;  Sin.ToypO  Vulg. 
 omits).  One  of  the  places  on  the  sea-coast  of  Pal- 
 estine, which  are  named  as  having  been  disturbed 
 at  the  approach  of  Holofernes  with  the  Assyrian 
 army  (Jud.  ii.  28).  It  cannot  be  Tyre,  the  mod- 
 ern Stir,  since  that  is  mentioned  immediately  be- 
 fore. Some  have  suggested  Dor,  others  a  place 
 named  Sora,  mentioned  by  Steph.  Byz.  as  in 
 Phoenicia,  which  they  would  identify  with  Athlii, 
 
 c^3r2n. 
 
 d  -11-15. 
 
SURETISHIP 
 
 others,  again,  SuinJhuL  But  none  of  these  are 
 satisfoctory. 
 
 SURETISHIP.  (1.)  The  A.  V.  rendering 
 for  tolce'iiii"  lit.  in  niarg.  "  those  tliat  strike 
 (hands)."  (2.)  The  phrase"  tesumelh  yad,  "de- 
 positing in  tlie  liand,"  i.  e.  giving  in  pledge,  may 
 be  understood  to  apply  to  the  act  of  pledging,  or 
 virtual  though  not  personal  suretiship  (Lev.  vi.  2, 
 in  Heb.  v.  21).  In  the  entire  absence  of  connnerce 
 the  Law  laid  down  no  rules  on  the  subject  of  sure- 
 tiship, but  it  is  evident  that  in  the  time  of  Solo- 
 mon commercial  dealings  had  become  so  multiplied 
 that  suretiship  in  the  commercial  sense  was  com- 
 mon (Prov.  vi.  1,  xi.  15,  xvii.  18,  xx.  16,  xxii.  20, 
 xxvii.  10).  But  in  older  times  the  notion  of  one 
 man  becoming  a  surety  for  a  service  to  Ije  dis- 
 charged hy  another  was  in  full  force  (see  Gen.  xliv. 
 32),  and  it  ia  probable  that  the  same  form  of  mi- 
 dertaking  existed,  namely,  the  giving  the  hand  to 
 (striking  hands  with),  not,  as  Blichaelis  represents, 
 the  person  who  was  to  discharge  the  service  —  in 
 the  commercial  sense  the  debtor  —  but  the  person 
 to  whom  it  was  due,  the  creditor  (.Job  xvii.  .3; 
 Prov.  vi.  1;  Michaelis,  Laws  of  Moses,  §  151,  ii. 
 322,  ed.  Smith).  The  surety  of  course  became 
 liable  for  his  client's  debts  in  case  of  his  failure. 
 In  later  Jewish  times  the  system  had  become  com- 
 mon, and  caused  much  distress  in  many  instances, 
 yet  the  duty  of  suretiship  in  certain  cases  is  recog- 
 nized as  valid  (Ecclus.  viii.  13,  xxix.  14,  15,  lU, 
 18,  19).     [Loan.]  H.  W.  P. 
 
 *  SURETY.     [Suretiship;  Pledge.] 
 SUSA   ([2oC(7a:]   Susan).     Esth.   xi.  3,   xvi. 
 
 18.       [SilUSHAX.] 
 
 SU'SANCHITES  (S^D3tt?m'  [see  below] : 
 'S.ovaa.vaxouoi;  [Vat.  'Si. -ffw-'l  Susanechwi)  is 
 found  once  only  —  in  Ezr.  iv.  9,  where  it  occurs 
 among  the  list  of  the  nations  wliom  the  Assyrians 
 had  settled  in  Samaria,  and  whose  descendants  still 
 occupied  the  country  in  the  reign  of  the  Pseudo- 
 Smerdis.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  designates 
 
 either  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  Susa  (^K?-lffi'),  or 
 those  of  the  country — Susis  or  Susiana — where- 
 of Susa  was  the  capital.  Perhaps  as  the  I'^lamites 
 are  mentioned  in  the  same  passage,  and  as  Daniel 
 (viii.  2)  seems  to  call  the  country  Elara  and  the 
 city  Shushan  (or  Susa),  the  former  explanation  is 
 preferable.     (See'SnusiiAN.)  G.  K. 
 
 SUSAN'NA  ([Theodot.]  :S,w<Tdpva,  [Alex.] 
 2ou(rawa;  [LXX.  ^ovcrduva-]  i-  c.  n3t?.''1tL'',  "a 
 lily").  1.  The  heroine  of  the  story  of  the  Judg- 
 ment of  Daniel.  [Daniel,  Ai'ochypiial  Ad- 
 ditions TO.]  The  name  occurs  in  Diod.  Sic.  as 
 that  of  the  daughter  of  Ninus  (ii.  6),  and  Sheshan 
 (1  Chr.  ii.  31,  34,  35)  is  of  the  same  origin  and 
 meaning  (Ges.  Thes.  s.  v.). 
 
 2.  One  of  tlie  women  who  ministered  to  the  Lord 
 (Luke  viii.  3).  B.  F.  W. 
 
 SU'SI  Op'^'O  :  2ouo-t  [Vat.  -o-et] :  Susi).  The 
 
 father  of  Gaddi  the  Manassite  spy  (Num.  xiii.  11). 
 
 SWALLOW,  -I'll"^,  der<Jr,&nd'-)^:iV,di/ur, 
 
 both  thus  translated  in  A.  V.  TIT^  occurs  twice, 
 Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  and  Prov.  xxvi.  2:  transl.  by  LXX. 
 rpaiycov  and  crrpovdSs',  Vulg.  turtur  and  passer. 
 
 ^  D'^^l7in  :  Vulg.  laqueos :  from  VHH,  "  strike  " 
 Ges.  p.  islY). 
 
 SWALLOW 
 
 3127 
 
 "^^yS  also  twice,  Is.  xxxviii.  14,  and  -Ter.  viii.  7, 
 
 both  times  in  conjunction  with  D^D  or  'O^'O, 
 and  rendered  by  LXX.  ireptaTepd  and  (rrpovQiov, 
 Vulg.  "columba"  and  "  ciconia."    In  each  passage 
 
 D'^D  is  rendered,  probably  correctly,  by  LXX.  ;^6- 
 AiScif  (swallow),  A.  V.  crane  [Chane],  which 
 is  more  probably  the  true  signification  of  ~l!1317. 
 D'^D  is  perhaps,  connected  with  Arab.       aa^a-w^ 
 
 Cmsissi),  applied  to  many  warbling  birds. 
 
 The  rendering  of  A.  V.  for  "TIT^   seems  less 
 
 open  to  question,  and  the  original  (quasi  ~11T^, 
 "  freedom  ")  may  include  the  swallow  with  other 
 swiftly  flying  or  free  Ijirds.  The  old  conmientators, 
 except  Bocbart,  who  renders  it  "  columba  fera," 
 apply  it  to  the  swallow  from  the  love  of  freedom  in 
 this  bird,  and  the  impossibility  of  retaining  it  in 
 captivity. 
 
 Whatever  be  the  precise  rendering,  the  characters 
 ascribed  in  the  several  passages  where  the  names 
 occur,  are  strictly  applicable  to  the  swallow,  naniel3-, 
 its  swiftness  of  flight,  its  nesting  in  the  buildings 
 of  the  Temple,  its  mournful,  garrulous  note,  and  its 
 regular  migration,  shared  indeed  in  common  with 
 several  others.     But  the  turtle-dove,  for  which  the 
 
 LXX.  have  taken  "m"^,  was  scarcely  likely  to  be 
 a  familiar  resident  in  the  Temple  Enclosure.  On 
 Is.  xxxviii.  14,  "Like  a  swallow,  so  did  I  chatter," 
 we  may  observe  that  the  garrulity  of  the  swallow 
 was  proverbial  among  the  ancients  (see  Nonn. 
 Dionys.  ii.  133,  and  Aristoph.  Bair.  93).  Hence 
 its  epithet  waJTiAas,  "the  twitterer,"  KWTt\dfas 
 Se  ray  x«^'5(f»'a5,  Athen.  p.  622.  See  Anacr. 
 104,  and  6pdpoy6ri,  lies.  O/).  506  ;  and  Virg. 
 Georff.  iv.  300. 
 
 Although  Aristotle  in  his  "  Natural  History," 
 and  Pliny  following  him,  have  given  currency  to  the 
 fable  that  many  swallows  bury  themselves  during 
 winter,  yet  the  regularity  of  their  migration  alluded 
 to  by  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  was  familiarly  recog- 
 nized by  the  ancients.     See  Anacreon  (  Od.  xxxiii.). 
 
 The  ditty  quoted  by  Athen.  (p.  300)  from  The- 
 ognis  is  well  known  — 
 
 'HAS'  rjKOe  x^AiSaj;/,  KaAois  b>pa9  ayoucra, 
 KaAovs  €i^tauT0V9,  eirt  ya<TT4pa  AevKa,  cttI   voiTO. 
 fXe'Aau'a. 
 
 So  Ovid  {Fast.  ii.  853),  "  Proenuntia  veris  hi- 
 rundo." 
 
 Many  species  of  swallow  occur  in  Palestine.  All 
 those  familiar  to  us  in  Britain  are  found.  The 
 swallow  {llirundo  rustica,  L.,  var.  Cahirica, 
 Lichst.),  martin  {Chelldoii  urhica,  L. ),  sand  martin 
 ( Cotyle  riparia,  L. )  abound.  Besides  these  the 
 eastern  swallow  {Hir.  rtcjula,  Tem.),  which  nestles 
 generally  in  fissures  in  rocks,  and  the  crag  martin 
 (Cotyle  riipesliis,  L.),  which  is  confined  to  moun- 
 tain gorges  and  desert  districts,  are  also  common. 
 See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  27,  vol.  ii.  p.  386.  The  crag 
 martin  is  the  only  member  of  the  genus  which 
 does  not  migrate  from  Palestine  in  winter.  Of  the 
 genus  Cypsehis  (swift),  our  swift  ( Cypsdus  apus,  L.) 
 is  common,  and  the  splendid  alpine  swift  {Cyps. 
 nielba,  L.)  may  be  seen  in  all  suitable  localities. 
 A  third  species,  peculiar,  so  far  as  is  yet  known, 
 
 6  T^  n!2^Ji^.ri  :  TTopatfiJKjj. 
 
8128  SWAN 
 
 to    the  northeast  of  Palestine,    has  recently    been 
 described  under  the  name  of  Cypseliis  (Udikensis. 
 
 "Whatever  be  the  true  appellation  for  the  swallow 
 tribe  in  Hebrew,  it  would  perhaps  include  the  bee- 
 eaters,  so  similar  to  many  of  the  swallows,  at  least 
 in  the  eyes  of  a  cursory  observer,  in  flight,  note, 
 and  habits.  Of  this  beautiful  genus  three  species 
 occur  in  Palestine,  Aferops  (tpidsler,  L.,  Merops 
 Pei-siais.  L.,  and  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  onli/, 
 the  eastern  sub-tropical  form  iMerops  virklls,  L. 
 
 H.  B.  T. 
 
 SWAN  (nptt?3ri,  llnshemeth).  Thus  ren- 
 dered by  A.  V.  in  Lev.  xi.  18 ;  Deut.  xiv.  16,  where  it 
 occurs  in  the  list  of  unclean  birds ;  LXX.  iropcpvpiwv, 
 Jf/8ij;  Vulg.  parpliyrio,  ibis.  Bochart  (Hleruz.  ii. 
 2y0)  explains  it  uoctua  (owl),  and  derives  the  name 
 
 from    C^tf,   "  to   astonish,"  because  other  birds 
 are  startled  at  the  apparition  of  the  owl.     Gesenius 
 suggests  theyje^tcnw,  from  Qtt73,  "to    breathe,  to 
 pufF,"  with  reference  to  the  inflation  of  its  pouch. 
 Whatever  may  ha\e    been    the    bird    intended   by 
 Moses,  these  conjectures  cannot  be  admitted  as  sat- 
 isfactory, the  owl  and  pelican  being  both  distinctly 
 expressed  elsewhere  in  the  catalogue.     Nor  is   the 
 A.  V.   translation  likely  to  be  correct.     It  is   not 
 probable  that  the  swan  was  known  to  IMoses  or  the 
 Israelites,  or  at  least  that  it  was  sufficiently  famil- 
 iar to  have  obtained  a  place  in  this  list.     Hassel- 
 quist  indeed  mentibns  his   having  seen  a  swan  on 
 the  coast  of  Damietta;  but  though  a  regular  winter 
 visitant  to  Greece,  only  accidental  stragglers  wan- 
 der so  far  south  as  the  Nile,  and   it  has  not  been 
 observed  by  recent  naturalists  either  in  Palestine 
 or  Egypt.     Nor,  if  it  had  been  known  to  the  Israel- 
 itlfc,  is  it  easy  to  understand  why  the  swan  should 
 have  been  classed  among  the  unclean  birds.     The 
 renderings  of  the  LXX.,  "  porphyrio  "  and  "  ibis," 
 are  either  of  them  more  probable.     Neither  of  these 
 birds  occur  elsewhere  in  the  catalogue,  both  would 
 be  familiar  to  residents  in  Egypt,  and  the  original 
 seems  to  point  to  some  water-lbwl.     The  Samaritan 
 Version   also   agrees  with  the  LXX.     Tlop(pvpiooi/, 
 porjihyrio  antiquorum,  Bp.,  the  purple  water-hen,  is 
 mentioned  by  Aristotle  {Hist.  An.  viii.  8),  Aristoph- 
 anes (Av.  707),   Pliny    {Nat.    Hist.  x.  63),    and 
 more  fully  described  by  Athenreus  (Deijm.  ix.  388). 
 It  is  allied  to  our  corn-crake  and  water-hen,  and  is 
 the  largest  and  most  beautiful  of  the  family  Rallidce, 
 being  larger  than  the  domestic   fowl,  with  a  rich 
 dark-blue  plumage,  and  brilliant  red  beak  and  legs. 
 From  the  extraordinary  length  of  its  toes  it  is  en- 
 abled, lightly  treading  on  the  flat  leaves  of  water- 
 plants,    to  support   itself  without  immersion,  and 
 apparently  to  run  on   the  surface  of  the  water.     It 
 frequents  marshes  and  the  sedge  by  the  banks  of 
 rivers  in   all  the  countries  bordering  on  the  JNIedi- 
 terranean,  and  is  abundant  in  Lower  Egypt.    Athe- 
 nseus  has  correctly  noted  its  singular  habit  of  grasp- 
 ing  its  food    with  its    very  long    toes,    and    thus 
 conveying  it  to  its  mouth.     It  is  distinguished  from 
 all  the  other  species  of  Rallidce  by  its  short  powerful 
 mandibles,  with  which  it  crushes  its  prey,  consisting 
 often   of  reptiles  and   yomig    birds.     It    will  fre- 
 quently seize  a  young  duck  with  its  long  feet,  and 
 at  once  crunch  the  head  of  its  victim  with  its  beak. 
 It  is  an  omnivorous  feeder,  and  from  the  miscel- 
 laneous character  of  its  food,  might  reasonably  find 
 a  place  in  the  catalogue  of  unclean  birds.     Its  flesh 
 is  rank,  coarse,  and  very  dark-colored.     H.  B.  T. 
 SWEARING      [Oath.] 
 
 SWEAT,  BLOODY 
 
 SWEAT,  BLOODY.  One  of  the  phy.sicfl] 
 phenomena  attending  our  Lord's  agony  in  the 
 garden  of  Gethsemane  is  described  by  St.  Luke 
 (xxii.  44):  "  His  sweat  was  as  it  were  great  (h-ops 
 (lit.  clots,  ep6/j.$ot)  of  lilood  falling  down  to  tlie 
 ground."  The  genuineness  of  this  verse  and  of  tlie 
 preceding  has  been  doubted,  but  is  now  generally 
 acknowledged.     They  are  omitted  in  A  and  B,  but 
 
 are  foinid  in  the  Oodex  Sinaiticus  (S),  Codex  Bezoe, 
 and  others,  and  in  the  Peshito,  Philoxenian,  and 
 Curetonian  Syriac  (see  Tregelles,  (ireek  New  Test. ; 
 Scrivenei-,  Jnlrod.  to  the  Vrit.  of  the  N.  T.  p.  434), 
 and  Tregelles  points  to  the  notation  of  the  section 
 and  canon  in  ver.  42  as  a  trace  of  the  existence  of 
 the  verse  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus. 
 
 Of  this  malady,  known  in  medical  science  by  the 
 term  diapedesif,  there  have  been  examples  recorded 
 both  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  Aristotle  was 
 aware  of  it  (De  Par-t.  Auini.  iii.  5).  The  cause 
 assigned  is  generally  violent  mental  emotion. 
 "  Kannegiesser,"  quoted  by  Dr.  Stroud  (Phys. 
 Cii'iise  of  the  Death  of  Christ,  p.  86),  "remarks, 
 '  Violent  mental  excitement,  whether  occasioned  by 
 uncontrollable  anger  or  vehement  joy,  and  in  like 
 manner  sudden  terror  or  intense  tear,  forces  out  a 
 sweat  accompanied  with  signs  either  of  anxiety  or 
 hilarity.'  After  ascribing  this  sweat  to  the  unequal 
 constriction  of  some  vessels  and  dilatation  of  others, 
 he  further  observes:  '  If  the  mind  is  seized  with  a 
 sudden  fear  of  death,  the  sweat,  owing  to  the  exces- 
 sive degree  of  constriction,  often  becomes  bloody.'  " 
 L)r.  Millingen  ( Curiosities  of  Aledical  Experience, 
 p.  489,  2d  ed.)  gives  the  following  explanation  of 
 the  iihenomenon:  "  It  is  probable  that  this  strange 
 disorder  arises  from  a  violent  commotion  of  the 
 nervous  system,  turning  the  streams  of  lilood  out 
 of  their  natural  course,  and  forcing  the  red  [larticlea 
 into  the  cutaneous  excretories.  A  mere  relaxation 
 of  the  fibres  could  not  produce  so  powerful  a  re- 
 vulsion. It  may  also  arise  in  cases  of  extreme  de- 
 bility, in  connection  with  a  thinner  condition  of  the 
 blood." 
 
 The  following  are  a  few  of  the  instances  on  record 
 which  have  been  collected  by  Calmet  [Diss,  sur  la 
 Sueur  du  Santj),  IMillingen,  Stroud,  Trusen  {Die 
 Siiten,  Gebrditche,  tend  Krankheiicn  d.  alt.  Hebr., 
 Breslau,  1853).  Schenkius  {Obs.  Med.  lib.  iii. 
 p.  4.58)  mentions  the  case  of  a  nun  who  was  so  ter- 
 rified at  falling  into  the  hands  of  soldiers  that  blood 
 oozed  from  all  the  pores  t)f  her  body.  The  same 
 writer  says  that  in  the  plague  of  JMiseno,  in  1.554, 
 a  woman  who  was  seized  sweated  blood  for  three 
 days.  In  1552,  Conrad  lACosthenes  {de  Prodi(jiis, 
 p.  623,  ed.  1557)  reports,  a  woman  sick  of  the  plague 
 sweated  blood  from  the  upper  part  of  her  body. 
 JNIaldonato  {Coinm.  in  Pvani/.)  gives  an  instance, 
 attested  by  eye-witnesses,  of  a  man  at  Paris  in  full 
 health  and  vigor,  who,  hearing  the  sentence  of 
 death,  was  covered  with  a  bloody  sweat.  .Accord- 
 ing to  De  Thou  (lib.  xi.  vol.  i.  p.  326,  ed.  1626), 
 the  governor  of  Jlontemaro,  being  seized  by  strata- 
 gem and  threatened  witii  deatli,  was  so  moved 
 thereat  that  he  sweated  blood  and  water.  .Another 
 case,  recorded  in  the  same  historian  (lil).  Ixxxii. 
 vol.  iv.  p.  44),  is  that  of  a  Florentine  youth  who  was 
 unjustly  condemned  to  death  by  Pope  Sixtus  V. 
 The  death  of  Charles  IX.  of  France  was  attended  by 
 the  same  phenomenon.  Blezeray  {Hist,  de  France, 
 ii.  1170,  ed.  1646)  says  of  his  last  moments, 
 "  II  s'agitoit  et  se  remuoit  sans  cesse,  et  le  sang 
 luy  jaillissoit  par  tous  les  conduits  mesme  par  les 
 
SWINE 
 
 pores,  de  sorte  qu'on  le  trouva  line  fois  qui  baign- 
 oit  dedans."  A  sailor,  during  a  fearful  storm,  is 
 said  to  have  fallen  with  terror,  and  when  taiven  up 
 his  whole  body  was  covered  with  a  bloody  sweat 
 (JUUingen,  p.  -ISS).  lu  the  Melanges  d' Uistuire 
 (iii.  179),  by  Dom  Ijonaventure  d'Argonne,  the  case 
 is  given  of  a  woman  who  suffered  so  much  from  this 
 malady  that,  after  her  death,  no  blood  was  found 
 in  her  veins.  Another  case,  of  a  girl  of  18  wlio 
 suffered  in  the  same  way,  is  reported  by  Mesaporiti," 
 a  physician  at  Genoa,  accompanied  by  the  oliserva- 
 tionsof  Vallisneri,  Professor  of  Medicine  at  Padua. 
 It  occurred  in  1703  {Phil.  Trans.  No.  303,  p. 
 214-t).  Tliere  is  still,  however,  wanted  a  well- 
 autlienticated  instance  in  modern  times,  observed 
 with  all  the  care  and  idtested  by  all  the  exactness 
 of  later  medical  science.  That  given  in  Caspar's 
 Woclieitschrifl,  1848,  as  having  been  observed  by 
 Dr.  Schneider,  appears  to  be  the  most  recent,  and 
 resembles  the  phenomenon  mentioned  by  Theo- 
 phrastus  (London  .)/(.'(/.  Giiz.,lSi8,  vol.  ii.  p.  953). 
 For  further  reference  to  authorities,  see  Copland's 
 Diet.  ((/■  Medicine,  ii.  72.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 SWINE  ("I'^'fn,  chdzir:  Is,  veios,  trCs;  x"^P'>^ 
 in  N.  T. :  siis,  aper).  Allusion  will  be  found  in  the 
 Bible  to  these  animals,  both  (1)  in  their  domestic 
 and  (2)  in  their  wild  state. 
 
 (1.)  The  flesh  of  swine  was  forbidden  as  food  by 
 the  Levitical  law  (Lev.  xi.  7;  Deut.  xiv.  8);  tlie 
 abhorrence  which  tlie  Jews  as  a  nation  had  of  it 
 may  be  inferred  from  Is.  Ixv.  4,  where  some  of  the 
 idolatrous  people  are  represented  as  "  eating  swine's 
 flesh,"  and  as  having  the  •'  liroth  of  abominable 
 things  in  their  vessels;  "  see  also  Ixvi.  3,  17,  and  2 
 Mace.  vi.  18,  19,  in  vvliich  passage  we  read  that  Klea- 
 zar,  an  aged  scribe,  when  compelled  by  Antiochus 
 to  receive  in  his  mouth  swine's  flesh,  "spit  it  forth, 
 choosing  rather  to  die  gloriously  than  to  live  stained 
 with  such  an  abonunation."  The  use  of  swine's 
 flesh  was  forbidden  to  the  Egyptian  priests,  to 
 whom,  says  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  {Anc.  Egypt,  i.  322), 
 "  above  all  meats  it  was  particularly  obnoxious  " 
 (see  Herodotus,  ii.  47;  ^lian,  de  Not.  Anim.  x. 
 l(i;  .Josephus,  Contr.  Apion.  ii.  14),  though  it  was 
 occasionally  eaten  by  the  people.  The  Arabians  also 
 were  disallowed  the  use  of  swine's  flesh  (see  Pliny, 
 viii.  //.  N.  52:  Koran,  ii.  175),  as  were  also  the 
 Phoenicians,  ^Ethiopians,  and  other  nations  of  the 
 l<:ast. 
 
 No  other  reason  for  the  command  to  abstain  from 
 swine's  flesh  is  given  in  the  Law  of  iMoses  beyond 
 the  general  one  which  forliade  any  of  the  mamma- 
 lia as  food  which  did  not  literally  fulfill  the  terms 
 of  the  definition  of  a  "clean  animal,"  namely,  that 
 it  was  to  be  a  cloven-footed  ruminant.  The  pig, 
 tlieretbre,  tliough  it  divides  the  hoof,  but  does  not 
 chew  the  cud,  was  to  be  considered  unclean;  and 
 consequently,  inasmuch  as,  unlike  the  ass  and  the 
 horse  in  the  time  of  the  Kings,  no  use  could  be 
 made  of  the  animal  when  alive,  the  Jews  did  not 
 breed  swine  (Lactant.  Jnstit.  iv.  17).  It  is,  how- 
 e\er,  probable  that  dietetical  considerations  may 
 have  influenced  Moses  in  his  prohibition  of  swine's 
 flesh ;  it  is  generally  believed  that  its  use  in  hot 
 countries  is  liable  to  induce  cutaneous  disorders; 
 hence  in  a  people  liable  to  leprosy  the  necessity  for 
 the  observance  of  a  strict  rule.  "  The  reason  of 
 the  meat  not  being  eaten  was  its  iinvvholesomeness. 
 
 SWINE 
 
 3129 
 
 a  So   the    name    is   given   in    the   P/iilos.    Tmns 
 Calmet  writes  it  "  M.  Saporitius." 
 197 
 
 on  which  account  it  was  forbidden  to  the  Jews  and 
 Moslems  "  (Sir  G.  Wilkinson's  note  in  Eawlinson's 
 Herodotus,  ii.  47).  Ham.  Smith,  however  (Kitto's 
 Cycl.  art.  "Swine"),  maintains  that  tliis  reputed 
 unwholesomene.ss  of  swine's  flesh  has  been  much 
 exaggerated;  and  recently  a  writer  in  Colburn's 
 New  Monthly  Magazine  (July  1,  1862,  p.  2GG) 
 has  endorsed  this  opinion.  Other  conjectures  for 
 the  reason  of  the  prohiliition,  which  are  more  curi- 
 ous than  valuable,  may  be  seen  in  Bochart  (Uieroz. 
 i.  806,  f.).  Callistratus  (apud  Plutarch.  Sywpos. 
 iv.  5)  suspected  that  the  Jev/s  did  not  use  swine's 
 flesh  for  tlie  same  reason  which,  he  says,  influenced 
 the  Egyptians,  namely,  that  this  animal  was  sacred, 
 inasmuch  as  by  turning  up  the  earth  with  its  snout 
 it  first  taught  men  the  art  of  ploughing  (see  Bo- 
 chart, Uieroz.  i.  806,  and  a  dissertation  by  Cassel, 
 entitled  De  Judworum  odio  ei  abstinenlia  a  porcina 
 ej'mque  caiisis,  INIagdeb. ;  also  Michaelis,  Comment. 
 on  tlie  Laws  of  Mosifs,  art.  203,  iii.  230,  Smith's 
 traiisl.).  Although  the  Jews  did  nut  breed  s'.vine, 
 during  the  greater  period  of  their  existence  as  a 
 nation,  there  can  be  little  doul>t  that  the  heathen 
 nations  of  Palestine  used  the  flesh  as  food. 
 
 Wild  Boar. 
 
 At  the  time  of  our  Lords  ministry  it  wouLl  ap- 
 pear that  the  Jews  oceasionaly  violated  the  law  of 
 Moses  with  respect  to  swine's  flesh.  Whether 
 "  the  herd  of  swine  "  into  which  the  devils  were 
 allowed  to  enter  (Matt.  viii.  32;  Mark  v.  13)  were 
 the  property  of  the  Jewish  or  Gentile  inhabitants 
 of  Gadara  does  not  appear  from  the  sacred  narra- 
 tive; but  that  the  practice  of  keeping  swine  did 
 exist  amongst  some  of  the  Jews  seems  clear  from 
 the  enactment  of  the  law  of  Hyrcanus,  "  ne  cui 
 porcum  alere  liceret "  (Grotius,  Annot.  ad  Matt.  1. 
 c).  Allusion  is  made  in  2  Pet.  ii.  22  to  the  fond- 
 ness which  swine  have  for  "  wallowuig  in  the  mire;  " 
 this,  it  appears,  was  a  proverbial  expression,  with 
 which  may  be  compared  the  "arnica  luto  sus  "  of 
 Horace  (A'p.  i.  2,  20).  Solomon's  comparison  of  a 
 "jewel  of  gold  in  a  swine's  snout"  to  a  "fair 
 woman  without  discretion  "  (Prov.  xi.  22),  and 
 the  expression  of  our  Lord,  "  neither  cast  ye  youi 
 pearls  before  swine,''  are  so  obviously  intelligible  as 
 to  render  any  remarks  uimecessary.  The  trans.ac- 
 tion  of  the  destruction  of  the  herd  of  swine  already 
 alluded  to,  like  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree, 
 has  been  the  subject  of  most  unfair  cavil :  it  is  well 
 answered  by  Trench  (Miracles,  p.  173),  who  ob- 
 serves that  "  a  man  is  of  more  va\ue  than  many 
 swine  ;  "  besides  which  it  nuist  be  rememliered 
 that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  our  Lord 
 
3130 
 
 SWORD 
 
 tent  the  devils  into  the  swine.  He  merely  permit- 
 ted them  to  go,  as  Aquinas  says,  "  quod  auteni 
 pnrci  in  mare  j^roecipitati  sunt  non  fuit  operatio  di- 
 vini  miraculi,  sed  operatio  diEuionum  e  pennissione 
 diviiiii;  "  and  if  these  Gadarene  villagers  were  Jews 
 and  owned  the  swine,  they  were  rightly  punished 
 by  the  loss  of  that  which  they  ought  not  to  have 
 had  at  all. 
 
 (2.)  The  wild  boar  of  the  wood  (Ps.  Ixxx.  13) 
 is  the  connnon  Siis  so^ti/'a  which  is  frequently  met 
 with  in  the  woody  parts  of  Palestine,  especially  in 
 Mount  Tabor.  The  allusion  in  the  psalm  to  the 
 injury  the  wild  boar  does  to  the  vineyards  is  well 
 borne  out  by  fact.  •'  It  is  astonishing  what 
 havoc  a  wild  boar  is  capable  of  effecting  during  a 
 single  night;  what  with  eating  and  trampling  un- 
 der foot,  he  will  destroy  a  vast  quantity  of  grapes  " 
 (Hartley's  Mesearches  in  Greece,  p.  234). 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 SWORD.     [Arms.] 
 
 SYCAMINE  TREE  (avKifjuvos-  morus)^ 
 mentioned  once  only,  namely,  in  l.uke  xvii.  G,  "  If 
 ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  niiistard-seed,  ye  might 
 
 -:,^ 
 
 ( 
 
 Moms  nigra  (Mulberry), 
 say  to  this  sycamine  tree.  Be  thou  plucked  up," 
 etc.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  avKo.- 
 uivos  is  distinct  from  the  avKo/ncopaia  of  the  same 
 Evangelist  (xix.  4)  [Sycajioi;k],  although  we  learn 
 from  Dioscorides  (i.  180)  that  this  name  was  some- 
 times given  to  the  avK6fjLopos-  The  sycamine  is 
 the  mulberry  tree  {Moms),  as  is  evident  from  Di- 
 jscorides,  Theophrastus  {H.  P.  i.  6,  §  1;  10,  §  10; 
 13,  §  4,  &c.),  and  various  other  Greek  writers;  see 
 Celsius,  Hieivh.  i.  288.  A  form  of  the  same  word, 
 (ruKafjLTjvrid,  is  still  one  of  the  names  for  the  mul- 
 
 »  *  The  size  of  this  tree  made  it  a  fitting  emblem 
 for  the  Saviour's  use  (Luke  xvii.  6).  "  Its  ample 
 girth,  its  wide-spi'ead  arms  branching  off  from  the  par- 
 ent trunk  only  a  few  feet  from  the  ground,  its  euor- 
 mous  roots,  as  thick,  as  numerous,  and  as  wide-spread 
 ii.vo  the  deep  soil  below  as  the  branches  extend  into 
 tua  air  above,  made  it  the  very  best  type  of  iiivinei- 
 Vile  steadfastness"  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  i.  24) 
 
 SYCAMORE 
 
 berry  tree  in  Greece  (see  Heldreich's  Nulzjtfltinzen 
 GriechenUnKh,  Athen.  1862,  p.  19.  "Morns  alba 
 L.  und  M.  nigra  L.  »)  Mopria,  Movpyrid,  und  Mou 
 pTjd,  auch  'SvKa/j.rivrid  —  pelasg.  nuire, —  ed."). 
 iioth  lilack  and  white  nuiUierry  trees  are  common 
 in  Syria  and  Palestine,  and  are  largely  cultivated 
 there  for  the  sake  of  sup|)lying  food  to  the  caterpil- 
 lars of  the  silk- worm,  which  are  bred  in  great  num- 
 bers. The  mulberry  tree  is  too  well  known  to  ren- 
 der further  remarks  necessary.  W.  II. 
 
 SYCAMORE  (nnptp,  shlk'mdh  :  avKd- 
 Hivos,  crvKOfiitipfo.  or  avKofj-copaia,  in  the  N.  T. : 
 Kijcniiuyi'iis,  morus,  Jicetum).  The  Hebrew  word 
 occurs  in  the  0.  T.  only  in  the  plural  form  masc. 
 and  once  fem.,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  47  ;  and  it  is  in  the 
 LXX.  always  translated  by  the  Greek  word  aund- 
 /xtvos.  The  two  Greek  words  occur  oidy  once  each 
 in  the  N.  T  ,  (rvKdfxivos  (lAike  xvii.  G),  and  avKO- 
 fjioopea  (I>uke  xix.  4).  Although  it  may  be  admit- 
 ted that  the  sycamine  is  properly,  and  in  Luke 
 xvii.  G,  the  mulberry,  and  the  sycamore  the  jig- 
 mulberry,  or  sycamore-fig  (Ficus  sycomoiiis),  yet 
 the  latter  is  the  tree  generally  referred  to  in  the  O. 
 v.,  and  called  by  the  LXX.  sycamine,  as  1  K.  x. 
 27;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  28;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  47;  Am.  vii.  14. 
 Dioscorides  expressly  says  'S.vKSjj.opov,  evioi  5e  Ka\ 
 Tovro  crvKa/xivov  Afyovtrt,  lib.  i.  cap.  180.  Com- 
 pare Gesenius,  Tliesaurtis  Heb.  p.  147G  b;  Winer, 
 liirli.  ii.  05  ff. ;  Rosennuiller,  Alterilnunskitnde,  13. 
 iv.  §  281  ff.;  Celsius,  Hierob.  i.  310. 
 
 The  sycamore,  or  Jig-mulberry  (from  avKov, 
 Jig,  ai]d  fx6pov,  mulberry),  is  in  Egypt  and  Pales- 
 tine a  tree  of  great  importance  and  very  extensive 
 use.  It  attains  the  size  of  a  walnut  tree,  has  wide- 
 spreading  Ijranches,  and  affords  a  delightful  shade." 
 On  this  account  it  is  frequently  planted  by  the 
 waysides.  Its  leaves  are  heart-shaped,  downy  on 
 the  under  side,  and  fragrant.  The  fruit  grows  di- 
 rectly from  the  trunk  itself  on  little  sprigs,  and  in 
 clusters  like  the  grape.  To  make  it  eatable,  each 
 fruit,  three  or  four  days  before  gathering,  must,  it 
 is  said,  be  punctured  with  a  sharp  instrument  or 
 the  finger-nail.  Comp.  Theophrastus,  l)e  Cavs. 
 Plant,  i.  17,  §  0;  Hist.  PI.  iv.  2,  §  1;  Pliny,  //. 
 N.  xiii.  7 ;  Forskal,  Bescr.  Plant,  p.  182.  This 
 was  the  original  employment  of  the  prophet  Amos, 
 as  he  says,  vii.  14.*  Ilasselquist  {Trav.  p.  260: 
 Lond.  1766)  says,  "The  fruit  of  this  tree  tastes 
 pretty  well  ;  when  quite  ripe  it  is  soft,  watery, 
 somewhat  sweet,  with  a  very  little  portion  of  an 
 aromatic  taste."  It  appears,  however,  that  a 
 species  of  gall  insect  ( Cynips  sycomori)  often  spoils 
 nnich  of  the  fruit.  "  The  tree,"  Hasselquist  adds, 
 "  is  wounded  or  cut  by  the  inhabitants  at  the  time 
 it  buds,  for  without  this  precaution,  :is  they  say,  it 
 will  not  bear  fruit"  (p.  261).  In  form  and  smell 
 and  inward  structure  it  resembles  the  fig,  and  hence 
 its  name.  The  tree  is  always  verdant,  and  bears 
 fruit  several  times  in  the  year  without  being  con- 
 fined to  fixed  seasons,  and  is  thus,  as  a  permanent 
 food-bearer,  invaluable  to  the  poor.  The  wood  of 
 the  tree,  though  very  porous,  is  exceedingly  duralile. 
 It  suffers   neither  from  moisture  nor  heat.     The 
 
 This  writer  supposes  the  sycamine  and  sycamore  tree 
 to  be  one  and  the  same.  II. 
 
 b  Amos  says  of  himself  he  was  C^Xipli?  D/13  : 
 LXX.  Kvi^iav  oTiKofiii'a  :  Vulg.  v.ellicans  sycamhia  ;  i.  «. 
 a  cutter  of  the  fruit  for  the  purpose  of  ripening  it 
 Ki'i't'u  is  the  very  word  used  by  Theophrastus. 
 
SYCHAR 
 
 Egyptian  mummy  coffins,  which  are  made  of  it,  are 
 still  perfectly  sound  after  an  entombment  of  thou- 
 sands of  years.  It  was  much  used  for  doors,  and 
 large  furniture,  such  as  sofas,  tables,  and  chairs.« 
 So'great  was  the  value  of  these  trees,  that  David 
 appointed  for  them  in  his  kingdom  a  special  over- 
 seer, as  he  did  for  the  olives  (1  C'hr.  xxvii.  28); 
 and  it  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  heaviest  of  Egypt's 
 calamities,  that  her  sycamores  were  destroyed  by 
 hailstones  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  47).  That  which  is  called 
 sycamore  in  N.  America,  the  Occuh-nlal  plnne  or 
 butlon-wood  tree,  has  no  resemblince  whatever  to 
 the  sycamore  of  the  Bible;  the  name  is  also  applied 
 to  a  species  of  maple  (the  Acer  pxeiK/o-plntmiHs  or 
 Fnlse-/)lnu),  which  is  much  used  liy  tm-ners  and 
 millwrii'hts.''  <-'•  l"--  I^- 
 
 SYCHAR 
 
 3131 
 
 A^^-. 
 
 yh^ 
 
 ■'#''■■' yi 
 
 Ficiix  sycomonis. 
 
 SY'CHAR  (Suxap  in  S  A  C  D;  but  Rec. 
 Text  2ixt»p  ^^'itli  K:  Sidim- ;  but  Codd.  Am.  and 
 Fuld.    Syckar:   Syriac,   Socar).     A  place   named 
 
 «  See  Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egyptians,  ii.  110,  Lond. 
 1854.  "  For  coffins,  boxes,  tables,  doors,  and  other 
 objects  which  required  large  and  thick  planks,  for  idols 
 and  wooden  statues,  the  sycamore  was  principally  em- 
 ployed ;  and  from  the  quantity  discovered  in  the  tombs 
 alone,  it  is  evident  that  the  tree  was  cultivated  to  a 
 great  extent."  Don,  however,  believed  that  the  mum- 
 my-cases of  the  Egyptians  were  made  of  the  wood  of 
 the  Corr/ia  mi/xn,  a  tree  which  furnishes  the  Sebesten 
 plums.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the 
 wood  of  the  Ficiis  si/comorus  was  extensively  used  in 
 ancient  days.  The  dry  climate  of  Egypt  might  have 
 helped  to  hare  preserved  the  timber,  which  must  have 
 been  valuable  in  a  country  wliere  large  timber-trees 
 are  scarce. 
 
 only  in  John  iv.  5.  It  is  specified  as  a  city  of 
 Samaria,  called  Sychar,  near  the  ground  which 
 .lacob  gave  to  Joseph  his  son;  and  there  was  the 
 well  of  Jacob." 
 
 Jerome  believed  that  the  name  was  merely  a 
 copyist's  error  for  Sycheni ;  but  the  unanimity  of 
 the  MSS.  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  this  supposition. 
 
 Sjchar  was  either  a  name  applied  to  the  town  of 
 Shecheui,  or  it  was  an  independent  place.  1.  The 
 first  of  these  alternatives  is  now  almost  universally 
 accepted.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Koliinson  {Bihl.  lies. 
 ii.  290),  "  In  consequence  of  the  hatred  which  ex- 
 isted between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  and  in 
 allusion  to  their  idolatry,  the  town  .of  Sicheni  re- 
 ceived, among  the  Jewish  common  people,  the  by- 
 name Sychar."  This  theory  may  be  correct,  but 
 the  only  support  which  can  be  found  for  it  is  the 
 very  imperfect  one  afforded  by  a  passage  in  Isaiah 
 (xxviii.  1,  7),  in  which  the  prophet  denounces  the 
 Ephraimites  as  sin'ccorhn — "drunkards;"  and  by 
 a  passage  in  Habakkuk  (ii.  18)  in  which  the  words 
 inoreh  sliekei\  "  a  teacher  of  lies,"  are  su]iposed  to 
 contain  an  allusion  to  Moreh,  the  original  niune  of 
 the  district  of  Shechem,  and  to  the  town  itself, 
 IJut  this  is  surely  arguing  in  a  circle.  And  had 
 such  a  nickname  been  applied  to  Shechem  so  habit- 
 ually as  its  occurrence  in  St.  John  would  seem  to 
 imply,  there  would  be  some  trace  of  it  in  those 
 passages  of  the  'i'almud  which  refer  to  the  Samari- 
 tans^  and  in  which  every  term  of  opprobrium  and 
 ridicule  that  can  be  quoted  or  invented  is  heaped 
 on  them.  It  may  be  affirmed,  however,  with  cer- 
 tainty that  neither  in  Targum  nor  Talmud  is  there 
 any  mention  of  such  a  thing.  Lightfbot  did  not 
 know  of  it.  The  numerous  treatises  on  the  Sa- 
 maritans are  silent  about  it,  and  recent  close  search 
 has  failed  to  discover  it. 
 
 Presuming  that  Jacob's  well  was  then,  where  it 
 is  now  shown,  at  the  entrance  of  the  valley  of 
 Ndblus,  Shechem  would  be  too  distant  to  answer 
 to  the  words  of  St.  John,  since  it  must  have  been 
 more  than  a  mile  off. 
 
 "  A  city  of  Samaria  called  Sychar,  near  to  the 
 plot  of  ground  which  Jacob  gave  to  Joseph  "  — 
 surely  these  are  hardly  the  terms  in  which  such  a 
 place  as  Shechem  would  be  described;  for  though  it 
 was  then  perhaps  at  the  lowest  ebb  of  its  fortunes, 
 yet  the  tenacity  of  places  in  Syria  to  name  and 
 fame  is  almost  proverbial. 
 
 There  is  not  much  force  in  the  argument  that 
 St.  Stephen  uses  the  name  Sychem  i-n  speaking  of 
 Shechem,  for  he  is  recapitulating  the  ancient  his- 
 tory, and  the  names  of  the  Old  Testament  narrative 
 (in  the  LXX.  form)  would  come  most  naturally  to 
 his  mouth.  But  the  earliest  (^'hristian  tradition,  in 
 the  per.sons  of  Eusebius  and  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim 
 —  both  in  the  early  part  of  the  4th  century  — 
 discriminates  Shechem  from  Sychar.  luisebius 
 {Onuiiwst.   2uxdp  and  Aov(d)  says  that  Sychar 
 
 *  *  Trench  states  after  Robinson  (see  Bibl.  Rfs.  ii. 
 290),  that  ''There  are  no  sycamores  now  iu  the  Plain 
 of  Jericho  "  (Studies  in  the  Gospels,  p.  264,  Amer.  ed.). 
 But  Tristram  (Land  of  Israel,  p.  509)  says:  "Here 
 (near  Jericho)  was  a  fine  old  sycamore  fig-tree,  iierhaps 
 a  lineal  descendant,  and  nearly  the  last,  of  that  into 
 which  Zacchaeus  climbed."  In  his  Nat.  Hist,  of  the 
 Bible,  p.  399,  lie  says  that  this  tree  "  is  very  easy  to 
 climb,  with  its  short  trunk  and  its  wide  lateral 
 branches  forking  out  in  all  directions  ;  and  would 
 naturally  be  selected  by  Zacchseus  (Luke  xix.  4)  a- 
 the  most  accessible  position  from  which  to  obtain  a 
 view  of  our  Lord  as  he  passed  "  H. 
 
8182 
 
 SYCHAK 
 
 was  in  front  of  the  city  of  Neapolis;  and,  again, 
 that  it  lay  by  tlie  side  of  Luza,  which  was  "  three 
 miles  from  Neapolis.  Syeheni,  on  the  other  hand, 
 he  places  in  the  suburbs  of  Neapolis  by  the  tomb 
 of  Joseph.  The  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  describes  Se- 
 chim  as  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  and  as  con- 
 taining Joseph's  monument ''  and  plot  of  ground 
 {villa).  And  he  then  proceeds  to  say  that  a  thou- 
 sand paces  thence  was  the  place  called  Sechar. 
 
 And  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  of 
 the  predilection  of  Orientals  for  the  water  of  certain 
 sprinucs  or  wells  (Porter,  IJandbuok;  p.  342),  it  does 
 appear  remarkable,  when  the  very  large  number  of 
 sources  in  A'ablus  itself  is  rememliered,  that  a 
 woman  should  have  left  them  and  come  out  a  dis- 
 tance of  more  than  a  mile.  On  the  other  hand, 
 we  need  not  suppose  that  it  was  her  habit  to  do  so ; 
 it  may  have  been  a  casual  visit. 
 
 2.  In  favor  of  Sychar  having  been  an  independ- 
 ent place  is  the  fact  that  a  village  named  ^As/car 
 
 (yX.M*£-)  still  exists ''  at  the   southeast  foot  of 
 
 Ebal,  about  northeast  of  the  Well  of  Jacob,  and 
 about  half  a  mile  from  it.  Whether  this  is  the 
 village  alluded  to  by  Eusebius,  and  Jerome,  and  the 
 Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  it  is  inipossilile  to  tell.  The 
 earliest  notice  of  it  which  the  writer  has  been  able 
 to  discover  is  in  Quaresmius  (h'bwidaiio,  ii.  808  0). 
 It  is  uncertain  if  he  is  speaking  of  himself  or 
 quoting  Brocardus.  If  the  latter,  he  had  a  diflerent 
 copy  from  that  which  is  published.''  It  is  an  im- 
 pbrtant  point,  because  there  is  a  difference  of  more 
 than  four  centuries  between  the  two,  Brocardus 
 having  written  about  1280,  and  Quaresmius  about 
 1G30.  The  statement  is,  that  "on  the  left  of  the 
 well,"  i.  e.  on  the  north,  as  Gerizim  has  just  lieen 
 spoken  of  as  on  the  right,  "  is  a  large  city  (oppidiim 
 mrifinum),  but  deserted  and  in  ruins,  which  is  be- 
 lieved to  have  been  the  ancient  Sichem.  .  .  .  The 
 natives  told  me  that  they  called  the  place  Jstnr." 
 
 A  village  like  MsAifir  "^  answers  much  more  ap- 
 propriately to  the  casual  descrip'tion  of  St.  John 
 than  so  large  and  so  venerable  a  place  as  Shechem. 
 
 On  the  other  hand  there  is  an  etymological  dif- 
 ficulty in  the  way  of  this  identification,  ^'iakar 
 begins  with  the  letter  \-im.  which  Sychar  does  not 
 appear  to  have  contained ;  a  letter  too  stubborn  and 
 enduring  to  be  easily  either  dropped  or  assumed  in 
 a  name.     [But  see  p.  297!)  «,  (b. )  —  A.] 
 
 In  favor  of  the  theory  that  Sychar  was  a  "  nick- 
 name "  of  Shechem,  il;  should  not  be  overlooked 
 that  St.  John  ajipears  always  to  use  the  expression 
 Afyo/uivos,  "called,"  to  denote  a  soubriquet  or 
 title  borne  by  place  or  person  in  addition  to  the 
 name,  or  to  attach  it  to  a  place  remote  and  little 
 known.  Instances  of  the  former  practice  are  xi. 
 16,  XX.  24,  xix.  13,  17 ;  of  the  latter,  xi.  54. 
 
 These  considerations  have  been  stated  not  so 
 much  with  the  hope  of  leading  to  any  conclusion 
 on  the  identity  of  Sychar,  which  seems  hopeless,  as 
 with  the  desire  to  show  that  the  ordinary  explana- 
 
 a  The  text  of  Eusebius  reads  6  =  9  miles  ;  but  this 
 is  corrected  by  Jerome  to  3. 
 
 b  The  tomb  or  monument  alluded  to  in  these  two 
 passages  must  have  occupied  the  place  of  the  Moslem 
 tomb  of  Yiisiif,  now  shown  at  the  foot  of  Gerizim,  not 
 far  from  the  east  gate  of  Nahliis. 
 
 c  Dr.  Rosen,  in  Zeitschrift  dcr  D  M  G.  xiv.  634. 
 Van  deVelde  {S.  ^  P.  ii.  333)  proposes  ^Askar  us  the 
 native  place  of  Judas  Iscariot. 
 
 '/  Perhaps  this  is  quo  of  the  variations  spoken  of  by 
 Robinson  (ii.  539). 
 
 SYENE 
 
 tion  is  not  nearly  so  obvious  as  it  is  usually  assumed 
 to  be.      [SiiF.CHEM,  at  the  end.]  G. 
 
 SY'CHEM  (2uxe>=  Sichem;  Cod.  Amiat. 
 Sycheiii).  The  Greek  form  of  the  word  Shechem, 
 the  name  of  the  well-known  city  of  Central  Pales- 
 tine. It  occurs  in  Acts  vii.  IG  only.  The  main 
 interest  of  the  passage  rests  on  its  containing  two 
 of  tliose  numerous  and  singular  variations  from  the 
 early  history,  as  told  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  which 
 the  speech  of  St.  Stephen/ abounds.  [Stkphen.] 
 This  single  verse  exhibits  an  addition  to,  and  a 
 discrepancy  from,  the  earlier  account.  (1.)  The 
 patriarchs  are  said  in  it  to  have  been  buried  at 
 Sycheni,  whereas  in  the  0.  T.  this  is  related  of  the 
 bones  of  Joseph  alone  (Josh.  xxiv.  32).  (2.)  The 
 sepulchre  at  Sychem  is  said  to  have  been  bought 
 from  Emmor  by  Abraham ;  whereas  in  the  0.  T. 
 it  was  the  cave  of  JIachpelah  at  Kirjath-arba  which 
 Aliraham  bought  and  made  into  his  sepulchre,  and 
 Jacob  who  bought  the  plot  of  ground  at  Shechem 
 from  Hamor  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19).  In  neither  of  these 
 cases  is  there  any  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
 present  Greek  text,  nor  has  any  explanation  been 
 put  forward  which  adequately  meets  the  difficulty 
 —  if  difficulty  it  be.'  That  no  attempt  should  have 
 been  made  to  reconcile  the  numerous  and  obvious 
 discrepancies  contained  in  the  speech  of  St.  Stephen 
 by  altering  the  IMSS.  is  remarkable,  and  a  cause  of 
 great  thankfulness.  Thankfulness  because  we  are 
 thus  permitted  to  possess  at  once  a  proof  that  it  is 
 possible  to  be  as  thoroughly  inspired  Ity  the  Spirit 
 of  God  as  was  Stephen  on  this  occasion,  and  yet 
 have  remained  ignorant  or  forgetful  of  minute  facts. 
 • —  and  a  broad  and  conspicuous  seal  to  the  unim- 
 portance of  such  slight  variations  in  the  diflerent 
 accounts  of  the  sacred  history,  as  long  as  the  gen- ' 
 eral  tenor  of  the  whole  remains  harmonious. 
 
 A  bastard  variation  of  the  name  Sychem,  namely, 
 vSiCHEJi,  is  found,  and  its  people  are  mentioned 
 
 SY'CHEMITE,  THE  {rlv  S^xfV:  Hevceus), 
 in  Jud.  V.  IG.  This  passage  is  remarkable  for  givhig 
 the  inhabitants  of  Shechem  an  independent  place 
 among  the  tribes  of  the  country  who  were  disj)os- 
 sessed  at  the  conquest.  G. 
 
 *  SYCOMORE,  originally  and  properly  so 
 written  in  the  A.  V.      [Syca.moee.]  II. 
 
 SYE'LUS  (2u7")Aos;  [Vat.  rj  awo^os^]  Alex. 
 Ho-urjAof :  om.  in  Vulg.)  ^  Jehiee  3  (1  Esdr.  i.  8; 
 conqi.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  8).     [The  A.  V.  ed.  IGll  reads 
 
 "  Sielus."] 
 
 SYE'lSfE,  properly  Seveneh  {l^'l^'D  [see  be- 
 low]:  '2,vT)vi\\  [Alex.  '2,o7\vy),^ovy\vn-'\  Syene),  a. 
 town  of  Egypt  on  the  frontier  of  Cush  or  Ethiopia. 
 The  prophet  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  desolation  of 
 Egypt  "  from  JMigdol  to  Se\eneh,  even  imto  the 
 liorder  of  Cush  "  (xxix.  10),  and  of  its  people  being 
 slain  "  from  Migdol  to  Seveneh  "  (xxx.  6).  Migdol 
 was  on  the  eastern  border  [Migdol],  and  Seveneh 
 is  thus  rightly  identified  with  the  town  of  Syene, 
 which  was  always  the  last  town  of  Egypt  on  the 
 
 e  The  identity  of  Askar  with  Sychar  is  supported 
 by  Br.  Thomson  (Land  o.ntl  Bonk,  ch.  xxxi.),  and  by 
 Mr.  Williams  in  the  Diet,  of  Geof;r.  (ii.  412  A).  [So 
 Ewald,  Gesch.  iv.  284,  v.  348,  3e  Ausg. ;  Neubauer, 
 Gcog.  dit  Talmud  (1868),  p.  169  f.  ;  Caspari,  C/iron.- 
 geog.  Ebileitiing  (1869),  p.  106  f.  f  comp.  Raumer, 
 Pal.  p.  162  f  —  A.] 
 
 /  These  are  examined  at  great  length,  and  elab- 
 orately reconciled,  in  the  New  Testament  of  Canon 
 Wordsworth,  1860,  pp.  65-69. 
 
SYNAGOGUE 
 
 south,  though  at  one  time  inckided  m  the  nonie 
 Nuljia.  Its  ancient  Egyptian  name  is  SUN 
 (Brugseh,  Utotjr.  Jnschrift.  i.  155,  tab.  i.,  No.  55), 
 preserved  in  the  Coptic  C0T<5,Jt,    CeflOft, 
 
 and  tiie  Arabic  Asu-rin.  Tlie  modern  town  is 
 slightly  to  the  north  of  the  old  site,  which  is  mariced 
 by  an  interesting  early  Arab  burial-ground,  covered 
 with  remarkable  tombstones,  having  inscriptions 
 in  the  tlufic  character.     Champollion  suggests  the 
 
 derivation  C^,  causative,  OTHJl;  OTejt, 
 "  to  open,"  as  though  it  signified  the  opening  or  key 
 of  Egypt  {VE;/y/ite,  i.  101-100),  and  this  is  the 
 meaning  of  the  hieroglyphic  name.         E.  S.  P. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE  i^wayaiyn'  Sipui(/0(/<i).  It 
 may  1)6  well  to  note  at  the  outset  the  points  of  con- 
 tact between  the  history  and  ritual  of  the  syna- 
 gogues of  tiie  .lews,  and  tlie  fticts  to  which  the 
 inquiries  of  the  Biblical  student  are  principally 
 directed.  (1.)  They  meet  us  as  the  great  charac- 
 teristic institution  of  the  later  phase  of  Judaism. 
 More  even  than  the  Temple  and  its  services,  in  the 
 time  of  which  tlie  N.  T.  treats,  they  at  once  repre- 
 sented and  determined  the  religious  life  of  the 
 peo[)le.  (2.)  We  cannot  separate  theni  from  tlie 
 most  intimate  connection  with  our  Lord's  life  and 
 ministry.  In  them  He  worshipped  in  his  youth, 
 and  in  his  manhood.  \\'hatever  we  can  learn  of 
 the  ritual  which  then  prevailed  tells  us  of  a  worship 
 which  He  rer.'Ognized  and  sanctioned;  which  for 
 that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  though,  like  the  state- 
 lier services  of  the  Temple,  it  was  destined  to  pass 
 away,  is  worthy  of  our  respect  and  honor.  They 
 were  the  scenes,  too,  of  no  small  portion  of  his 
 work.  In  them  were  wrought  some  of  his  mightiest 
 works  of  healing  (Mark  i.  23;  Matt.  xii.  9;  Luke 
 xiii.  11).  In  them  were  spoken  some  of  the  most 
 glorious  of  his  recorded  words  (Luke  iv.  10;  .lohn 
 vi.  59);  many  more,  beyond  all  reckoning,  which 
 are  not  recorded  (Matt.  iv.  2-3,  xiii.  54;  John  xviii. 
 20,  etc.,  etc.).  (3.)  There  are  the  questions,  lead- 
 ing us  back  to  a  remoter  past:  In  what  did  the 
 worship  of  the  synagogue  originate?  what  type  w.as 
 it  intended  to  reproduce?  what  customs,  alike  in 
 nature,  if  not  in  name,  served  as  the  starting-point 
 for  it?  (4.)  The  synagogue,  with  all  that  be- 
 longed to  it,  was  connected  with  the  future  as  well 
 as  with  the  past.  It  was  the  order  with  which  the 
 first  (,'hristian  believers  were  most  familiar,  from 
 which  they  wei'e  most  likely  to  take  the  outlines, 
 or  even  the  details,  of  the  worship,  organization, 
 government  of  their  own  society.  Widely  divergent 
 as  the  two  words  and  the  things  they  represented 
 afterwards  became,  the  Ecclesia  had  its  starting- 
 point  in  the  Synagogue. 
 
 Keeping  these  points  in  view,  it  remains  to  deal 
 with  the  subject  in  a  somewhat  more  formal  manner. 
 
 I.     Xiiiiie.  —  (1.)     The     Aramaic     equivalent 
 
 Snty^^  first  appears  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 
 
 as  a  substitute  for  the  Hebrew  rn^  (  =  congre- 
 gation) in  the  Pentateuch  (Leyrer,  ut  infr.).    The 
 
 /more  precise  local  designation,  i^DpSH  n"^3 
 {Bi^tli  h'i-Cenneiieth  =  Uo\\se  of  gathering),  be- 
 longs to  a  yet  later  d.ate.  This  is,  in  itself,  tolerably 
 strong  evidence  that  nothing  precisely  answering 
 to  tlie  later  synagogue  was  recognized  before  the 
 Exile.  If  it  had  lieen,  the  name  was  quite  as  likely 
 to  have  been  perpetuated  as  the  thing. 
 
 (2.)  The  word  cruyayooy-fi,  not  unknown  in  clas- 
 Jical  Greek  (Thuc.   ii.   18,   Plato,  Republ.  520  D.), 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 3133 
 
 became  prominent  in  that  of  the  Hellenists.  It 
 appears  in  the  LXX.  as  the  translation  of  not  le.sr 
 than  twenty-one  Hebrew  words  in  which  the  idea 
 of  a  gathering  is  implied  (Tromni.  Concordant,  s.  v.,). 
 With  most  of  these  we  have  nothing  to  do.  Two 
 ot  them  are  more  noticeable.     It  is  used  130  times 
 
 for  n"T^,  where  the  prominent  idea  is  that  of  an 
 appointed  meeting  (Gesenius,  s.  t'.),  and  25  times 
 
 for  ^np,  a  meeting  called  together,  and  therefore 
 more  connnonly  translated  in  the  LXX.  by  e'/c- 
 K\y]aia.  In  one  memorable  passage  (I'rov.  v.  14), 
 the  two  words,  4KK\i}a'ia  and  (ruvayaiyv,,  destined 
 to  have  such  divergent  histories,  to  be  representa- 
 tives of  such  contrasted  sjstems,  appear  in  close 
 juxtaposition.  In  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  the 
 word,  as  in  those  of  the  0.  T.,  retains  its  general 
 meaning,  and  is  not  used  specifically  for  any  recog- 
 nized place  of  worship.  Lor  this  the  received  phrase 
 seems  to  be  rSnoi  Trpo(reuxrji  (1  Mace.  iii.  40, 
 3  Mace.  vii.  20).  In  the  N.  T.,  however,  the  local 
 meaning  is  the  dominant  one.  Sometimes  the  word 
 is  applied  to  the  tribunal  which  was  connected  with 
 or  sat  in  the  synagogue  in  the  narrower  sense 
 (Matt.  X.  17,  xxiii.  34;  Mark  xiii.  9;  Luke  xxi.  12, 
 xii.  11).  Within  the  limits  of  the  Jewish  Church 
 it  perhaps  kept  its  ground  as  denoting  the  plucc  of 
 meeting  of  the  Christian  brethren  (.las.  ii.  2).  It 
 seems  to  have  been  claimed  by  some  of  the  pseudo- 
 .ludaizing,  half-Gnostic  .sects  of  the  Asiatic  churches 
 for  their  meetings  (Kev.  ii.  9;.  It  was  not  alto- 
 gether obsolete,  as  applied  to  Christian  meetings, 
 in  the  time  of  Ignatius  (Ep.  ad  Trail,  c.  5,  ad 
 Poli/c.  c.  3).  Even  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  the 
 two  words  appear  united  as  they  had  done  in  the 
 LXX.  (eVl  rrjv  avvayooyrtu  iKK\riaiai,  Strom,  vi. 
 p.  033).  Afterwards,  when  the  chalm  between  Ju- 
 daism and  Christianity  became  wider.  Christian 
 writers  were  fond  of  dwelling  on  the  meanings  of 
 the  two  words  which  practically  represented  them, 
 and  showing  how  far  the  Synagogue  was  excelled 
 by  the  Ecclesia  (August.  Euarr.  in  Ps.  Ixxx. ; 
 Trench,  Synonyms  "f  N.  T.  §  i.).  The  cognate 
 word,  however,  avva^is,  was  formed  or  adopted  in 
 its  place,  and  applied  to  the  highest  act  of  worship 
 and  communion  for  which  Christians  met  (Suicer, 
 Thes.  s.  v.;  [Sophocles,  Gr.  Lex.  s.  v.]). 
 
 II.  History.  —  (1.)  Jewish  writers  have  claimed 
 for  their  synagogues  a  very  remote  antiquity.  In 
 well-nigh  every  place  where  the  phrase  •'  belbre  the 
 Lord  "  appears,  they  recognize  in  it  a  known 
 sanctuary,  a  fixed  place  of  meeting,  and  therefore 
 a  synagogue  (Vitringa,  De  Synag.  pp.  271  et  stq.). 
 The  Targum  of  Onkelos  finds  in  Jacob's  "  dwelling 
 in  tents  "  (Gen.  xxv.  27)  his  attendance  at  a  syna- 
 gogue or  house  of  prayer.  That  of  .lonathan  finds 
 them  in  Judg.  v.  9,  and  in  "  the  calling  of  assem- 
 blies "  of  Is.  i.  13  (Vitringa,  pp.  271-315). 
 
 (2.)  Apart  from  these  far-fetched  interpretations, 
 we  know  too  little  of  the  life  of  Israel,  both  before 
 and  under  the  monarchy,  to  be  able  to  say  with 
 certainty  whether  there  was  anything  at  all  corre- 
 sponding to  the  synagogues  of  later  date.  On  the 
 one  hand,  it  is  probable  that  if  new  moons  and 
 Sabbaths  were  observed  at  all,  they  must  have  been 
 attended  by  some  celebration  apart  from,  as  well  as 
 at,  the  Tabernacle  or  the  Temple  (1  Sam.  xx.  5; 
 2  K.  iv.  23).  On  the  other,  so  far  as  we  find 
 traces  of  such  local  worship,  it  seems  to  have  follen 
 too  readily  into  a  fetich-religion,  sacrifices  to  epliods 
 and  teraphim  (Judg.  viii.  27,  xvii.  5)  in  groves  and 
 
3134 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 on  high-places,  ofi'ering  nothing  but  a  contrast  to 
 the  "reasonable  service."  the  prayers,  psahns,  in- 
 struction in  the  Law,  of  the  later  synagogue.  The 
 special  mission  of  the  Priests  ai\d  Levites  under 
 Jehoshaphat  (2  Cln-.  xvii.  7-9)  shows  that  there 
 was  no  regular  provision  for  reading  the  "  book  of 
 the  law  of  the  Lord  "  to  the  people,  and  makes  it 
 probable  that  even  the  rule  which  prescribed  that  it 
 should  be  read  once  every  seven  years  at  the  feast 
 of  Tabernacles  had  fallen  into  disuse  (Deut.  xxxi. 
 10).  With  the  rise  of  the  prophetic  order  we 
 trace  a  more  distinct  though  still  a  partial  approxi- 
 mation. Wherever  there  was  a  company  of  such 
 prophets  there  must  have  been  a  life  analogous  in 
 many  of  its  features  to  that  of  the  later  Essenes 
 and  Therapeutai,  to  that  of  the  cumvbia  and  mon- 
 asteries of  Christendom.  In  the  abnormal  state  of 
 the  polity  of  Israel  under  Samuel,  they  appear  to 
 have  aimed  at  purifying  the  worship  of  the  high- 
 places  from  idolatrous  associations,  and  met  on 
 fixed  days  for  sacrifice  and  psalmody  (1  Sam.  ix. 
 12,  x.  5).  The  scene  in  1  Sam.  xix.  20-24  indi- 
 cates that  the  meetings  were  open  to  any  worship- 
 pers who  might  choose  to  come,  as  well  as  to  "  the 
 sons  of  the  prophets,"  the  brothers  of  the  order 
 themselves.  Later  on  in  the  time  of  Klisha,  the 
 question  of  the  Shunannnite's  husband  (2  K.  iv.  23), 
 "Wherefore  wilt  thou  go  to  him  (the  prophet)  to- 
 day? It  is  neither  new  moon  nor  sabbath,"  implies 
 frequent  periodical  gatherings,  instituted  or  perhaps 
 revi\ed  by  Elijah  and  his  successors,  as  a  means  of 
 sustaining  the  religious  life  of  the  northern  king- 
 dom, and  counteracting  the  prevalent  idolatry.  The 
 date  of  Ps.  jxxiv.  is  too  uncertain  for  us  to  draw  any 
 inference  as  to  the  nature  of  the  "  synagogues  of 
 
 God"  (^S  "^75?1!3,  meeting-places  of  God),  which 
 the  invaders  are  represented  as  destroying  (v.  8). 
 It  may  have  belonged  to  the  time  of  the  Assyrian 
 or  Chaldoean  invasion  (Vitringa,  Symtf/.  pp.  396- 
 405).  It  has  been  referred  to  that  of  the  Macca- 
 bees (De  Wette,  Psalmen,  in  loc),  or  to  an  inter- 
 mediate period  when  .Jerusalem  was  taken  and  the 
 land  laid  waste  by  the  army  of  Bagoses,  under  Ar- 
 taxerxes  II.  (Ewald,  Poet.  Biich.  ii.  358).  The 
 "  assembly  of  the  elders,"  in  Ps.  cvii.  32,  leaves  us 
 in  like  uncertainty. 
 
 (3.)  Durin<r  the  exile,  in  the  abeyance  of  the 
 Temple  -  worship,  the  meetings  of  devout  .Jews 
 probably  became  more  systematic  (Vitringa,  De 
 Synci;/.  pp.  413-429 ;  Jost,  Judentlium,  i.  108 ; 
 Bornitius,  De  Synagog.  in  Ugolini,  Tlies.  xxi.), 
 and  nnist  have  helped  forward  the  change  which 
 appears  so  conspicuously  at  the  time  of  the  Keturn. 
 The  repeated  mention  of  gatherings  of  the  elders 
 of  Israel,  sitting  before  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  and 
 hearing  his  word  (Kz.  viii.  1,  xiv.  1,  xx.  1,  xxxiii. 
 31),  implies  the  transfer  to  the  land  of  the  captiv- 
 ity of  the  custom  that  had  originated  in  the  schools 
 of  the  prophets.  One  remarkable  passage  may 
 possibly  contain  a  more  distinct  reference  to  them. 
 Those  who  still  remained  in  .lerusalem  taunted  the 
 prophet  and  his  companions  with  their  exile,  as 
 outcasts  from  the  blessings  of  the  sanctuary.   "  Get 
 
 a  The  passage  is  not  without  its  difficulties.  The 
 interpretation  given  above  is  supported  by  the  LXX., 
 Vulg  .  and  A.  V.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  general  con- 
 sensus of  Jewish  interpreters  (Vatablus,  in  Cril.  Sac. 
 in  loco,  Calniet,  s.  v.  Synas;o^ue).  The  other  render- 
 ings (conip.  Ewald  and  RosenmuUer,  in  loc),  "  I  will 
 be  to  them  a  sanctuary,  for  a  little  time,"  or  "in  a 
 little  measure,'"  give  a  less  satisfactory  meaning.    The 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 ye  far  from  the  Lord ;  unto  us  is  this  land  given  in 
 a  possession."  The  prophet's  answer  is,  that  it 
 was  not  so.  Jehovah  was  as  truly  witli  thein  in 
 their  "  little  sanctuary  "  as  He  had  been  in  the 
 Temiile  at  Jerusalem.  His  presence,  not  the  out- 
 ward glory,  was  itself  the  sanctuary  (ICz.  xi.  15, 
 16).«  The  whole  history  of  Ezra  presupposes  the 
 habit  of  solemn,  probably  of  periodic  meetings 
 (Ezr.  viii.  15;  Neh.  viii.  2,  ix.  1;  Zech.  vii.  5). 
 To  that  period  accordingly  we  may  attribute  the 
 revival,  if  not  the  institution  of  synagogues.  The 
 "  ancient  days  "  of  which  St.  James  speaks  (Acts 
 XV.  21)  may,  at  least,  go  back  so  far.  Assuming 
 Ewald's  theory  as  to  the  date  and  occasion  of  Ps. 
 Ixxiv.,  there  must,  at  some  subsequent  period,  have 
 been  a  great  destruction  of  the  buildings,  and  a 
 consequent  suspension  of  the  services.  It  is,  at 
 any  rate,  striking  that  they  are  not  in  any  way 
 prominent  in  the  IMaccaliaean  history,  either  as  ob- 
 jects of  attack,  or  rallying  points  of  defense,  unless 
 we  are  to  see  in  the  gathering  of  the  persecuted 
 Jews  at  IMaspha  (Mizpah)  as  at  a  "  place  where 
 they  prayed  aforetime  in  Israel"  (1  Mace.  iii.  46), 
 not  only  a  reminiscence  of  its  old  glory  as  a  holy 
 place,  but  the  continuance  of  a  niore  recent  custom. 
 When  that  struggle  was  over,  there  appears  to  have 
 been  a  freer  development  of  what  may  be  called  the 
 synagogue  parochial  system  among  the  Jews  of 
 Palestine  and  other  countries.  The  influence  of 
 John  Hyrcanus,  the  growing  power  of  the  Phari- 
 sees, the  authority  of  the  Scribes,  the  exam]>le, 
 probably,  of  tlie  Jews  of  the  "dispersion"  (Vi- 
 tringa, p.  420),  would  all  tend  in  the  same  direction. 
 Well-nigh  every  town  or  village  had  its  one  or 
 more  synagogues.  Where  the  Jews  were  not  in 
 sufficient  numbers  to  be  able  to  erect  and  fill  a 
 building,  there  was  the  -Kpocnvxhi  o'"  pl-^ce  of 
 prayer,  sometimes  open,  sometimes  covered  in, 
 commonly  by  a  running  stream  or  on  the  sea-shore, 
 in  which  devout  Jews  and  proselytes  met  to  wor- 
 ship, and,  perhaps,  to  read  (Acts  xvi.  13;  Jos. 
 Ant.  xiv.  10,  23;  Juven.  Sat.  iii.  296).*  Some- 
 times the  term  irpoff^vxh  (  =  ^V?^  ^"^"^t?)  ^^''is 
 applied  even  to  an  actual  synagogue  (Jos.  Vit.  c. 
 54). 
 
 (4.)  It  is  hardly  possiiile  to  overestimate  the 
 influence  of  the  system  thus  developed.  To  it  we 
 may  ascribe  the  tenacity  with  which,  after  the 
 M»ccaba;an  struggle,  the  Jews  adhered  to  the  re- 
 ligion of  their  fathers,  and  never  again  relapsed 
 into  idolatry.  The  people  were  now  in  no  danger 
 of  forgetting  the  Law,  and  the  external  ordinances 
 that  hedged  it  round.  If  pilgrimages  were  still 
 made  to  Jerusalem  at  the  great  feasts,  the  habitual 
 religion  of  the  Jews  in,  and  yet  more  out  of  Pales- 
 tine, was  coimected  much  more  intimately  with 
 the  synagogue  than  with  the  Temple.  Its  simple, 
 edifying  devotion,  in  which  mind  and  heart  cculd 
 alike  enter,  attracted  the  heatlien  proselytes  who 
 miL;ht  have  been  repelled  by  the  bloody  sacrifices  of 
 the  Temple,  or  would  certaiidy  have  been  driven 
 from  it  unless  they  could  make  up  their  minds  to 
 submit    to    circumcision    (Acts    xxi.    28;    comp.. 
 
 language  of  the  later  Jews   applied   the  term  "  sanc- 
 tuary ''  to  the  ark-end  of  the  synagogue  (infra). 
 
 b  We  may  trace  perhaps  in  this  selection  of  locali- 
 ties, like  the  "  sacri  fontis  nemiis  "  of  Juv.  Sat.  iii. 
 13,  the  reappearance,  freed  from  its  old  abominations, 
 of  the  attachment  of  the  Jews  to  the  worship  of  the 
 groves,  of  the  charm  whicli  led  them  to  bow  dowu 
 under  "  every  green  tree  "  (Is.  Ivii.  6  ;  Jer.  ii.  20). 
 
SYNAGOGUE 
 
 PiiOSELYTES).  Here  too,  as  in  the  cognate  order 
 of  the  Scribes,  there  was  an  influence  tending  to 
 diminish  and  ultimately  ahnost  to  destroy  the 
 autliority  of  the  liereditary  priestliood.  The  ser- 
 vices of  tlie  synagogue  required  no  sons  of  Aaron ; 
 gave  them  nothing  more  than  a  complimentary 
 precedence.  [Pkiests;  Sckihes.]  The  way  was 
 silently  prepared  for  a  new  and  higher  order,  wliich 
 should  rise  in  "the  fullness  of  time"  out  of  the 
 decay  and  abolition  of  both  the  priesthood  and  the 
 Temple.  In  another  way  too  the  synagogues  every- 
 where prepared  the  way  for  that  order.  Not 
 "  Moses"  only,  but  "  the  Prophets  "  were  read  in 
 them  every  Sabbath-day,  and  thus  the  Messianic 
 hopes  of  Israel,  the  expectation  of  a  kingdom  of 
 Heaven,  were  universal!}'  difliised. 
 
 III.  Structure.  —  (1.)  The  size  of  a  synagogue, 
 like  that  of  a  church  or  chapel,  varied  with  the 
 population.  We  have  no  reason  for  believing  that 
 there  were  any  fixed  laws  of  proportion  for  its  di- 
 mensions, like  those  which  are  traced  in  the  Taber- 
 nacle and  the  Temple.  Its  position  was,  however, 
 determinate.  It  stood,  if  possible,  on  the  highest 
 ground,  in  or  near  the  city  to  which  it  belonged. 
 Failing  this,  a  tall  pole  rose  from  the  roof  to  render 
 it  conspicuous  (Leyrer,  s.  v.  Syna<j.  in  Herzog's 
 Real-Encyhl.).  And  its  direction,  too,  was  fixed. 
 Jerusalem  was  the  Kiblch  of  .lewisli  devotion.  The 
 synagogue  was  so  constructed,  that  the  worshippers 
 as  they  entered,  and  as  they  pr.ayed,  looked  toward 
 it"  (Vitringa,  pp.  178,  457).  The  building  was 
 commonly  erected  at  the  cost  of  the  district, 
 whether  liy  a  church-rate  levied  for  the  purpose, 
 or  by  free  gifts,  must  remain  uncertain  (Vitringa, 
 p.  2-29).  Sometimes  it  was  built  by  a  rich  Jew, 
 or  even,  as  in  Luke  vii.  5,  by  a  friendly  proselyte. 
 In  the  later  stages  of  eastern  Judaism  it  was  often 
 erected,  like  the  mosques  of  Mohammedans,  near 
 the  tombs  of  famous  llabbis  or  holy  men.  When 
 the  building  was  finished  it  was  set  apart,  as  the 
 Temple  had  been,  by  a  special  prayer  of  dedication. 
 From  that  time  it  had  a  consecrated  character. 
 The  common  acts  of  life,  eating,  drirdving,  reckon- 
 ing up  accounts,  were  forbidden  in  it.  No  one 
 was  to  pass  through  it  as  a  short  cut.  Even  if  it 
 ceased  to  be  used,  the  building  was  not  to  be  ap- 
 plied to  any  base  purpose  —  might  not  be  turned, 
 e.  (/.  into  a  bath,  a  laundry,  or  a  tannery.  A 
 scraper  stood  outside  the  door  that  men  might  rid 
 themselves,  before  they  entered,  of  anything  that 
 would  be  defiling  (Leyrer,  I.  c,  and  Vitringa). 
 
 (2.)  In  the  internal  arrangement  of  the  syna- 
 gogue we  trace  an  obvious  analogy,  mutatis  mu- 
 tandis,  to  the  type   of  the    Tabernacle.     At    the 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 3135 
 
 a  The  practice  of  a  fixed  Kiblek  ( =  (lirection)  in 
 praver  was  clearly  very  ancient,  and  commended  itself 
 to  some  sp<»cial  necessities  of  ttie  eastern  character. 
 It  Ps.  xxviii.,  ascribed  to  David,  we  have  probably 
 the  earliest  trace  of  it  (De  Wette,  in  loc).  It  is  recog- 
 nized iu  the  dedication  prayer  of  Solomon  (1  K  viii. 
 29,  et  al.).  It  appears  as  a  fixed  rule  in  the  devotioas 
 of  Daniel  (Dan.  vi.  10).  It  was  adopted  afterwards 
 by  Mohammed,  and  the  point  of  tlie  Kibleh,  after 
 some  lingering  reverence  to  the  Holy  City,  transferred 
 from  .Jerusalem  to  the  Kaaba  of  Mecca.  The  early 
 Christian  practice  of  praying  toward  the  east  indi- 
 cates a  like  feeling,  and  probably  originated  in  the 
 adoption  by  the  churches  of  Europe  and  Africa  of 
 the  structure  of  the  synagogue.  The  position  of  the 
 altar  in  those  churches  rested  on  a  like  analogy.  The 
 table  of  the  Lord,  bearing  witness  of  the  blood  of  the 
 New  (Covenant,  took  the  place  of  the  Ark  which  con- 
 tained the  Law  that  was  the  groundwork  of  the  Old. 
 
 upper  or  Jerusalem  end  stood  the  Ark,  the  chest 
 which,  like  the  older  and  more  sacred  Ark,  con- 
 tained the  Book  of  the  Law.     It  gave  to  that  end 
 
 the  name  and  character  of  a  sanctuary   ( V3^). 
 
 The  same  thought  was  sometimes  expressed  by  its 
 being  called  after  the  name  of  Aaron  (Buxtorf, 
 Synag.  Jud.  cli.  x.),  and  was  developed  still  further 
 in  the  name  of  Copherelh,  or  Alercy-seat,  given  to 
 the  lid,  or  door  of  the  chest,  and  in  the  Veil  which 
 hung  be&re  it  (Vitringa,  p.  181).  This  part  of 
 the  synagogue  was  naturally  the  place  of  honor. 
 Here  were  the  wpuTOKadeSpiat,  after  which  Phari- 
 sees and  Scribes  strove  so  eagerly  (JIatt.  xxiii.  6), 
 to  which  the  wealthy  and  honored  worshipper  was 
 invited  (James  ii.  2,  '■}).  Mere  too,  in  front  of  the 
 Ark,  still  reproducing  the  type  of  the  Tabernacle, 
 was  the  eight-branched  lamp,  lighted  only  on  the 
 greater  festivals.  Besides  this,  there  was  one  lamp 
 kept  burning  perpetually.  Others,  brought  by  de- 
 vout worshippers,  were  lighted  at  the  beginning  of 
 the  Sabbath,  i.  e.  on  Friday  evening  (Vitringa,  j). 
 I'JS).''  A  little  further  toward  the  middle  of  the 
 building  was  a  raised  platform,  on  which  several 
 persons  could  stand  at  once,  and  in  the  middle  of 
 this  rose  a  pulpit,  in  which  the  Reader  stood  to 
 read  the  lesson,  or  sat  down  to  teach.  The  con- 
 gregation were  divided,  men  on  one  side,  women  on 
 the  other,  a  low  partition,  five  or  six  feet  high, 
 running  between  them  (I'hilo,  De,  Vit.  C'ontempl. 
 ii.  476).  The  arrangements  of  modern  synagogues, 
 for  many  centuries,  have  made  the  separation  more 
 complete  by  placing  the  women  in  low  side-galleries, 
 screened  off  by  lattice-work  (Leo  of  Modena,  in 
 Picart,  Cereiii.  Jielit/.  i.).  Within  the  Ark,  as 
 above  stated,  were  the  rolls  of  the  sacred  books. 
 The  rollers  round  which  they  were  wound  were 
 often  elaborately  decorated,  the  cases  for  them  em- 
 broidered or  enameled,  according  to  their  material. 
 Such  cases  were  customary  ofit^rings  from  the  rich 
 when  they  brought  their  infant  children  on  the 
 first  anniversary  of  their  birthday,  to  be  blessed 
 liy  the'Iiabbi  of  the  synagogue.''  As  part  of  the 
 fittings  we  have  also  to  note  (1),  another  chest  for 
 the  Hajjldarotli,  or  rolls  of  the  prophets.  (2.) 
 Alms-boxes  at  or  near  the  door,  after  the  pattern 
 of  those  at  the  Temple,  one  for  the  poor  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, the  other  for  local  charities.''  (3.)  Notice- 
 boards,  on  which  were  written  the  names  of  ottend- 
 ers  who  had  been  "  put  out  of  the  Synagogue." 
 (4.)  A  chest  for  trumpets  and  other  musical  instru- 
 ments, used  at  the  New  Years,  Sabbaths,  and  other 
 festivals  (Vitringa,  Leyrer,  /.  c.)fi 
 
 IV.    Officers.  —  (1.)  In  smaller  towns  there  was 
 
 ''  Here  also  the  customs  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
 the  votive  silver  lamps  hanging  before  the  shrines 
 and  holy  places,  bring  the  old  practice  vividly  before 
 our  eyes. 
 
 c  The  custom,  it  may  be  noticed,  connects  itself 
 with  the  memorable  history  of  those  who  "  brought 
 young  children  "  to  Jesus  that  He  should  touch  them 
 (Mark  x.  13). 
 
 d  If  this  practice  existed,  as  is  probable,  in  the  first 
 century,  it  throws  light  upon  the  special  sti-ess  laid 
 by  St.  Paul  on  the  collection  for  the  "  poor  saints  " 
 in  Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  &c.).  The  Christian 
 Churches  were  not  to  be  behind  the  Jewish  Syna- 
 gogues in  their  contributions  to  the  Palestine  Relief 
 Fund. 
 
 e  *  For  remains  of  ancient  synagogues  in  Galilee, 
 see  Notes  on  Jewish  Synagogues,  by  Capt.  C.  W.  Wil- 
 son t^Quarterly  Statement  of  the  Palestine  Exploiation 
 Fund,  No.  ii.'  1869).  H. 
 
8136 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 often  but.  one  Rabbi  (Vitrin2;a,  p.  549).  AVhere  a 
 fuller  organization  was  possible,  there  was  a  college 
 
 of  Elders  (CDpT  ^^irpecrfivTepoi,  Luke  vii.  3)  pre- 
 sided over  by  one  who  was  /car'  i^ox'r]v,  o  apX'" 
 <rvvdywyos  (Luke  viii.  41,  4'J,  xiii.  14;  Acts  xviii. 
 8,  17).  To  these  elders  belonged  a  variety  of  syn- 
 onyms, each    with  a    special    significance.      They 
 
 were  Q'*D3~lD  (Parnasim  =  voifj.ei'es,  Eph.  iv. 
 11),  watching  over  their  flock,  irpoecrTSirfs,  rjyov- 
 /isyot,  as  ruling  over  it  (1  Tim.  v.  17;  Heb.  xiii. 
 7).  With  their  head,  they  formed  a  kind  of  Chap- 
 ter, managed  the  affairs  of  the  synagogue,  possessed 
 the  power  of  excommunicating  (Vitriuga,  pp.  549- 
 621,  727). 
 
 (2.)  The  most  prominent  functionary  in  a  large 
 
 synagogue  was  known  as  the  PT'Vii?  {S/icliach  = 
 legatus),  the  officiating  minister  who  acted  as  the 
 delegate  of  the  congregation,  and  was  therefore  the 
 chief  reader  of  prayers,  etc.,  in  their  name.  The 
 conditions  laid  down  for  this  office  remind  us  of  St. 
 Paul's  rule  for  the  choice  of  a  bishop.  He  was  to 
 be  active,  of  full  age,  the  father  of  a  family,  not  rich 
 or  engaged  in  business,  possessing  a  good  voice,  ai)t 
 to  teach  (comp.  1  Tim.  iii.  1-7;  Tit.  i.  0-9).  In 
 him  we  find,  as  the  name  might  lead  us  to  expect, 
 the  prototype  of  the  &,yy eXos  fKKATjcrias  of  Kev.  i. 
 20,  ii.  1,  &c.  (Vitriuga,  p.  934). 
 
 (3.)  The  Chazzdn  ("j'^n),  or   uiT7]p€T7is  of  the 
 
 synagogue  (Luke  iv.  20)  had  duties  of  a  lower  kind 
 resembling  those  of  the  Christian  deacon,  or  sub- 
 deacon.  He  was  to  open  the  doors,  to  get  the 
 building  ready  for  service.  For  him  too  there  were 
 conditions  like  those  for  the  Ityatvs.  Like  the  le- 
 gatus and  the  ekkrs,  he  was  appointed  by  the  im- 
 position of  hands  (Vitriuga,  p.  836).  I'ractically 
 he  often  acted  during  the  week  as  school-master  of 
 the  town  or  village,  and  in  this  way  came  to  gain 
 a  prominence  which  placed  him  nearly  on  the  same 
 level  as  the  leyatus." 
 
 (4.)  Besides  these  there  were  ten  men  attached 
 to  every  synagogue,  whose  functions  have  been  the 
 subject-matter  of  voluminous  controversy'.''      They 
 
 were  known  as  the  Batlanim  (C'DvI^^  ^Oliosi), 
 and  no  synagogue  was  complete  without  them. 
 They  were  to  be  men  of  leisure,  not  obliged  to  la- 
 bor for  their  livelihood,  able  therefore  to  attend  the 
 week-day  ai  well  as  the  Sabbath  services.  By  some 
 (Lightfoot,  Hvr.  Heb.  in  Matt.  iv.  23,  and,  in  part, 
 Vitriuga,  p.  532)  they  have  been  identified  with 
 the  above  officials,  with  the  addition  of  the  alms- 
 collectors.'-'    Rhenferd,  however  (Ugolini,  Tlies.  vol. 
 
 a  *  With  the  account  here  given  of  the  functions  of 
 the  S/ielmch  or  legatus,  and  of  the  C/utzzan,  should 
 be  compared  the  more  detailed  statements  of  Dr.  Gins- 
 burg  in  his  valuable  and  elaborate  art.  Synagogue,  in 
 the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit.  He  makes  the 
 office  of  the  Chazzan  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  for  sev- 
 eral centuries  later,  more  like  that  of  the  sexton  or 
 beadle  in  our  churches,  than  that  of  deacon,  and  de- 
 nies that  either  he  or  the  legatus  was  appointed  by 
 the  imposition  of  hands.  The  function  of  the  legatus, 
 he  says,  "  was  not  permanently  vested  iu  any  individ- 
 ual ordained  for  this  pui-po.se,  but  was  alternately  con- 
 ferred upon  any  lay  member  who  was  supposed  to 
 possess  the  qualifications  necessary  for  offering  up 
 prayer  iu  the  name  of  the  congregation."  A. 
 
 6  The  two  treatises  De  decern  Oliosis,  by  Rhenferd 
 and  Vitrlnga  in  Ugolini's  Thesaurus,  vol.  xxi.,  occupy 
 more  than  700   folio   pages.     The  present  writer  has 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 xxi.),  sees  in  them  simply  a  liody  of  men,  perma' 
 nently  on  duty,  making  up  a  congregation  (ten 
 being  the  minimum  number  ''),  so  that  there  might 
 be  no  delay  in  begnming  the  service  at  the  proper 
 hours,  and  that  no  single  worsliipper  might  go 
 away  disappointed.  The  latter  hypothesis  is  sup- 
 ported by  the  fact  that  there  was  a  like  body  of 
 men,  the  Stationarii  or  Viri  Stationis  of  Jewish 
 Archaeologists,  appointed  to  act  as  permanent  rep- 
 resentatives of  the  congregation  in  the  services  of 
 the  Temple  (.lost,  Gesc/i.  Jiulentli.  i.  168-172)  It 
 is  of  course  jjossible  that  in  many  cases  the  same 
 persons  may  have  united  both  characters,  and  been, 
 e.  g.,  at  once  Otiosi  and  alms-collectors. 
 
 (5.)  It  will  be  seen  at  once  how  closely  the  or- 
 ganization of  the  synagogue  was  reproduced  in  that 
 of  the  Ecclesia.  Here  also  there  wiis  the  single 
 presbyter-bishop  [Bishop]  in  small  towns,  a  council 
 of  pi-esbyters  under  one  head  in  large  cities.  The 
 Ixgatiis  of  the  synagogue  apjjears  in  the  ayyeXos 
 (liev.  i.  20,  ii.  1),  perhaps  also  in  the  aTro'trroAoj 
 of  the  Chi'istian  Church.  To  the  elders  as  such 
 is  given  the  name  of  Shepherds  (Eph.  iv.  11;  1 
 Pet.  V.  1).  They  are  known  also  as  riyov/j-eyoi 
 (lleb.  xiii.  7).  Even  the  transfer  to  the  Christian 
 proselytes  of  the  once  distinctively  sacerdotal  name 
 of  Upfvs,  foreign  as  it  was  to  the  feelings  of  the 
 Christian*  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  was  not  without 
 its  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  synagogue.  Sceva, 
 the  exorcist  Jew  of  Ephesus,  was  probably  a  "  chief 
 priest  "  in  this  sense  (Acts  xix.  14).  In  the  edicts 
 of  the  later  Roman  emperors,  the  terms  apx'^p^^s 
 and  hpevs  are  repeatedly  apjilied  to  the  rulers  of 
 synagogues  (Cod.  Theodos.  De  Jud.,  (Rioted  by 
 Vitriuga,  i)e  decern  Otiosis,m  Ugolini,  Thes.wi.). 
 Possibly,  however,  this  may  ha\e  been,  in  part, 
 owing  to  the  presence  of  the  scattered  priests,  after 
 the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  as  the  Rabbis  or 
 elders  of  what  was  now  left  to  them  as  their  only 
 sanctuary.  To  them,  at  any  rate,  a  certain  prece- 
 dence was  given  in  the  synagogue  services.  They 
 were  invited  first  to  read  the  lessons  for.  the  day. 
 The  Ijenediction  of  Xum.  vi.  22  was  reseiveJ  for 
 them  alone. 
 
 V.  Worship.  —  (1.)  The  ritual  of  the  syna- 
 gogue was  to  a  large  extent  the  reproduction  (here 
 also,  as  with  the  fabric,  with  many  inevitable 
 changes)  of  the  statelier  liturgy  of  the  Temple. 
 This  is  not  the  place  for  an  examination  of  the 
 principles,  and  structure  of  that  liturgy,  or  of  the 
 baser  elements,  wild  Talmudic  legends,  curses 
 against  Christians  under  the  name  of  Epicureans, « 
 and  other  extravagances  which  have  mingled  with 
 it  (McCaul,  Old  Paths,  ch.  xvii.,  xix.).     It  will  be 
 
 not  read  them  through.  Is  there  any  one  living  who 
 has? 
 
 c  Lightfoot's  classification  is  as  follows.  The  Ten 
 consisted  of  three  Judges,  the  Legatus,  whom  this 
 writer  identifies  with  the  Chazzan,  three  Parnasim, 
 whom  he  identifies  with  alms-collectors  and  compares 
 to  the  deacons  of  the  church,  the  Targuniist  or  inter- 
 preter, the  school-master  and  his  assistant.  The  whole 
 is,  however,  very  conjectural. 
 
 d  This  was  based  on  a  fantastic  inference  from  Num. 
 xiv.  27.  The  ten  unfaithful  spies  were  spoken  of  as 
 an  "  evil  congregation.'"  Sanhedr.  iv.  6,  iu  Lightfoot, 
 I.  c. 
 
 e  *  Dr.  Ginsburg.  art.  Synagogue  in  the  3d  ed.  of 
 Kitto"s  Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  iii.  907,  note,  denies  that 
 the  .lewish  prayers  contain  "  curses  against  Christians 
 under  the  name  of  Epicureans."  His  account  of  the 
 Jewish  hturgy  is  ver}  full  and  interesting.  A. 
 
SYNAGOGUE 
 
 enough,  in  this  place,  to  notice  in  what  way  the 
 rituiil,  no  less  than  the  organization,  was  connected 
 witli  tlie  tiicts  of  the  N.  T.  history,  and  with  the 
 life  and  order  of  the  Christian  Church.  Here  too 
 we  meet  with  multiplied  coincidences.  It  would 
 l]:irdly  he  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  worship 
 of  the  Church  was  identical  with  that  of  tiie  Syna- 
 gogue, modified  (1)  bj'  the  new  truths,  (2)  by  the 
 new  institution  of  tlie  Supper  of  the  Lord,  (3)  by 
 the  spiritual  CharismaUi . 
 
 (2.)  From  the  synagogue  came  the  use  of  fixed 
 forms  of  prayer.  To  tliat  tiie  first  disciples  had 
 been  accustomed  from  their  youth.  They  had  asked 
 tlieir  Master  to  give  them  a  distinctive  one,  and  He 
 had  cumpHed  witii  tlieir  request  (Luke  xi.  1),  as 
 tlie  Baptist  had  done  before  for  his  disciples,  as 
 every  Uabbi  did  f<jr  his.  The  forms  might  be  and 
 were  abused.  The  Pharisee  miglit  in  synagogues, 
 or,  when  the  synagogues  were  closed,  in  the  open 
 street,  recite  aloud  the  devotions  appointed  for 
 hours  of  prayer,  might  galtble  through  the  Slieina 
 ("  Hear  0  Israel,"  etc  ,  from  Deut.  vi.  4),  his  Kad- 
 dish,  his  S/iemuneh  Esri'.h,  the  eighteen  Bcriic.holh 
 or  blessings,  witli  the  "  vain  repetition  "  which  has 
 reappeared  in  Christian  worsliip.  But  for  the  dis- 
 ciples this  was,  as  yet,  tlie  true  pattern  of  devo- 
 tion, and  their  Jlaster  sanctioned  it.  To  their 
 minds  there  would  seem  nothing  inconsistent  with 
 true  heart  worship  in  the  recurrence  of  a  fixed  order 
 (KaTO,  rd^ii',  1  Cor.  xiv.  40),  of  the  same  prayers, 
 hymns,  doxologies,  such  as  all  liturgical  study  leads 
 us  to  think  of  as  existing  in  the  Apostolic  Age.  if 
 the  gifts  of  utterance  wliich  characterized  the  first 
 period  of  that  age  led  for  a  time  to  greater  freedom, 
 to  unpremeditated  prayer,  if  that  was  in  its  turn 
 succeeded  by  tlie  renewed  predominance  of  a  fornial 
 fixed  order,  the  alternation  and  the  struggle  which 
 have  reappeared  in  so  many  periods  of  the  history 
 of  tiie  Church  were  not  witliout  their  parallel  in 
 that  of  Judaism.  There  also,  was  a  protest  agahist 
 the  rigidity  of  an  unbending  form.  Eliezer  of 
 Lydda,  a  contemporary  of  the  second  Gamaliel 
 (circ.  A.  D.  80-115),  tiiught  that  the  Iti/aliiA  of  the 
 synagogue  should  discard  even,  the  Slienwiieh  Es- 
 ri'h,  the  eighteen  fixed  prayers  and  benedictions  of 
 the  daily  and  Stibliath  services,  and  should  pray  as 
 his  heart  prompted  him.  The  offense  against  the 
 formalism  into  which  Judaism  stiffened,  was  appar- 
 ently too  great  to  lie  forgiven.  He  was  excommu- 
 nicated (not,  indeed,  avowedly  on  this  ground),  and 
 died  at  Csesarea  (.lost,  Gcscli.  Judenth.  ii.  36,  45). 
 
 (3.)  The  large  admixture  of  a  didactic  element 
 in  Christian  worship,  that  by  which  it  was  distin- 
 guished from  all  Uentile  forms  of  adoration,  was 
 derived  from  the  older  order.  "Moses"  was  "read 
 in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath-day  "  (Acts  xv. 
 21),  the  wliole  Law  being  read  consecutively,  so  as 
 to  be  completed,  according  to  one  cycle,  in  three 
 years,  according  to  that  whicli  ultimately  prevailed 
 and  determined  the  existing  divisions  of  the  ile- 
 lirevv  text  (IUule,  and  Leyrer,  /.  c),  in  the  52 
 weeks  of  a  single  year.  The  writings  of  the  Proph- 
 ets were  read  as  second  lessons  in  a  corresponding 
 onler.  Ihey  were  followed  by  the  Bci-<isli,  the 
 \6'yo5  TzapaK\i)(TiCtis  (Acts  xiii.  15),  the  exposition, 
 the  sermon  of  the  synagogue.  The  first  Christian 
 synagogues,  we  must  believe,  followed  this  order 
 with  but  little  deviation.  It  remained  for  them 
 before  long  to  add  "the  other  Scriptures"  which 
 they  had  learned  to  recognize  as  more  precious  even 
 than  the  Law  itself,  the  "  prophetic  word  "  of  the 
 New  Testament  which  not  less  truly  than  that  of 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 3137 
 
 the  Old,  came,  in  epistle  or  in  narrative,  from  the 
 same  Spirit  [Sckiptui:e].  The  synagogue  use  of 
 Psalms  again,  on  the  plan  of  selecting  those  which 
 had  a  special  fitness  for  special  times,  answered  to 
 that  which  appears  to  have  pre\ailed  in  the Churcli 
 of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  for  which  the  sim- 
 ple consecutive  repetition  of  the  whole  Psalter,  in  a 
 ilay  as  in  some  I'^astern  monasteries,  in  a  week  as 
 in  the  Latin  Church,  in  a  moutli  as  in  the  luiglish 
 Prayer-book,  is,  perhaps,  a  less  satisfactory  substi- 
 tute. 
 
 (4.)  To  the  ritual  of  the  synagogue  we  may 
 proliaiily  trace  a  practice  which  has  sometimes  been 
 a  stumliling-block  to  the  student  of  Christian  an- 
 tiquity, the  subject-matter  of  fierce  debate  among 
 Christian  controversialists.  Whatever  account  may 
 be  given  of  it,  it  is  certain  that  Prayers  for  the 
 Uead  appear  in  the  Church's  worship  as  soon  as  we 
 have  any  trace  of  it  after  the  immediate  records  of 
 the  Apostolic  age.  It  has  well  lieen  described  by  a 
 writer,  whom  no  one  can  suspect  of  Romish  ten- 
 dencies, as  an  "  immemorial  jjractice."  Though 
 "  Scripture  is  silent,  yet  antiquity  plainly  speaks." 
 The  prayers  "  have  found  a  place  in  every  early 
 liturgy  of  the  world "  (EUicott,  Destiny  of  the 
 C'rtiiiiire,  Serin,  vi.).  How,  indeed,  we  may  ask, 
 could  it  have  been  otherwise?  The  strong  feeling 
 shown  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  that  it  was 
 not  "superfluous  and  vain"  to  pray  for  the  dead 
 (2  .Mace.  xii.  44),  was  sure,  under  the  influence  of 
 the  dominant  Pharisaic  Scribes,  to  show  itself  in 
 tiie  devotions  of  the  synagogue.  So  far  as  we  trace 
 Ijack  these  devotions,  we  may  say  that  tliere  also 
 the  practice  is  "  immemorial,"  as  old  at  least  as 
 the  traditions  of  the  Rabbinic  fathers  (Buxtorf,  De 
 S,jwn/.  pp.  709,  710  ;  McCaul,  Old  Pallix,  ch. 
 xxxviii.).  There  is  a  prol>ability  indefinitely  great 
 that  prayers  for  the  departed  (tiie  Knddish  of  later 
 .hulaism)  were  familiar  to  the  synagogues  of  Pales- 
 tine and  other  countries,  that  the  early  Ciiristian 
 lielievers  were  not  startled  by  them  as  an  innova- 
 tion, that  tliey  passed  uncondemned  even  by  our 
 Lord  himself.  The  writer  already  quoted  sees  a 
 probal)le  reference  to  them  in  2  Tim.  i.  18  (EUi- 
 cott, Past.  Eju'.ftles,  in  loc).  St.  Paul  reineinber- 
 ing  Onesiphorus  as  one  whose  "house"  had  been 
 bereaved  of  him,  prays  that  he  may  find  mercy  of 
 tlie  Lord  "  in  that  day."  Prayers  for  the  dead 
 can  hardly,  therefore,  be  looked  upon  as  anti-Scrip- 
 tural. If  the  English  Church  has  wisely  and 
 rightly  eliminated  them  from  her  services,  it  is  not 
 because  Scripture  says  nothing  of  them,  or  that 
 their  antiquity  is  not  primitive,  but  because,  in 
 sucii  a  matter,  experience  is  a  truer  guide  than  the 
 silence  or  the  hints  of  Scripture,  or  than  the  voice 
 of  the  most  primiti\e  antiquity. 
 
 (5.)  The  conformity  extends  also  to  the  times 
 of  prayer  In  the  hours  of  service  this  was  obvi- 
 ously the  case.  The  third,  sixth,  and  ninth  hours 
 were,  in  the  times  of  the  N.  T.  (.\cts  iii.  1,  x.  3, 
 9),  and  had  been,  proliably,  for  some  time  before 
 (Ps.  Iv.  17;  Dan.  vi.  10),  the  fixed  times  of  devo- 
 tion, known  then,  and  still  known,  respectively  as 
 the  Sli.tchdrU/i,  the  Miiidia,  and  the  ' Ai-uhilh  ; 
 they  had  not  only  the  prestit/e  of  an  authoritative 
 tradition,  but  were  connectecl  respectively  with  the 
 names  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  to  whom,  as 
 to  the  first  originators,  their  institution  was  ascribed 
 (Buxtorf,  Syii'if/.  p.  280).  The  same  hours,  it  is 
 well  known,  were  recognized  in  the  Churcli  of  the 
 second,  probably  in  that  of  the  first  century  alsc 
 (Clem.  Al.  Slroia.  1.  c. ;  TertuU.  De  Oral.  c.  xxv.). 
 
3138 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 The  sacred  days  belonging  to  the  two  systems 
 seem,  at  first,  to  present  a  contrast  rather  tlian  a 
 reseinlilance;  but  here,  too,  there  is  a  symmetry 
 which  points  to  an  original  connection.  The  sol- 
 emn days  of  the  synagogue  were  tlie  second,  the 
 fifth,  and  tlie  seventh,  the  last  or  Sabbath  being 
 the  conclusion  of  the  whole.  In  whatever  way  the 
 change  was  brought  about,  the  transfer  of  the 
 sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  to  tlie  Lord's  Day  involved 
 a  corresponding  change  in  the  order  of  the  week, 
 and  the  first,  the  fourth,  and  the  sixth  became  to 
 the  Christian  society  what  the  other  days  had  been 
 to  the  .Jewish. 
 
 (6.)  The  following  suggestion  as  to  the  mode  in 
 which  this  transfer  was  effected,  involves,  it  is  be- 
 lieved, fewer  arbitrary  assumptions  tliiui  any  other 
 [couip.  Ldud's  Day,  Sabbath],  and  connects  it- 
 self with  another  interesting  custom,  common  to 
 the  Church  and  the  Synagogue.  It  was  a  Jewish 
 custom  to  end  the  Sabbath  with  a  feast,  in  which 
 they  did  honor  to  it  as  to  a  parting  king.  The 
 feast  was  held  in  the  synagogue.  A  cup  of  wine, 
 over  which  a  special  blessing  had  been  spoken,  was 
 handed  round  (.lost,  Gescli.  Judenth.  i.  180).  It 
 is  olnious  that,  so  long  as  the  Apostles  and  their 
 followers  continued  to  use  the  Jewish  mode  of 
 reckoninic,  so  lonir,  /.  e.  as  they  fraternized  with 
 their  brethren  of  the  stock  of  Abraham,  this  would 
 coincide  in  point  of  time  with  tlieir  de7Trvov  on  the 
 first  day  of  the  week.  A  supper  on  what  we 
 should  call  Sunday  evening  would  have  been  to 
 them  on  the  second.  By  degrees,  as  has  been 
 shown  elsewliere  [Lord's  Supper],  the  time  be- 
 came later,  passed  on  to  midnight,  to  the  early 
 dawn  of  the  next  day.  So  the  Lord's  Supper 
 ceased  to  be  a  supper  really.  So,  as  the  Church 
 rose  out  of  .ludaism,  the  supper  t/nve  its  holiness 
 to  the  coming,  instead  of  deiivini/  it  from  the  de- 
 parting day.  The  day  came  to  be  KvpiaKV,  because 
 it  began  with  the  Selirvov  KvfiiaKov."  Gi-adually 
 the  Sabbath  ceased  as  such  to  be  observed  at  all. 
 The  practice  of  observing  both,  as  in  the  Church 
 of  Home  up  to  the  fifth  century,  gives  us  a  trace 
 of  the  transition  period. 
 
 (7.)  From  the  synagogue  lastly  came  many  less 
 conspicuous  practices,  which  meet  us  in  the  litur- 
 gical life  of  tlie  first  three  centuries.  Ablution, 
 entire  or  partial,  liefbre  entering  the  place  of  meet- 
 ing (Heb.  X.  22;  John  xiii.  1-15;  Tertull.  De  Ond. 
 cap.  xi.);  standing  and  not  kneeliiiir.  as  the  attitude 
 of  prayer  (Luke  xviii.  11;  Tertnll.  ibid.  ca|>.  xxiii.); 
 the  arms  stretched  out  (Tertull.  ihiil.  cap.  xiii.); 
 the  face  turned  toward  the  Kibleh  of  the  East 
 (Clem.  Al.  Strom.  1.  c);  the  responsive  Amen  of 
 the  congreij;ation  to  the  prayers  and  benedictions 
 of  the  elders  (1  Cor.  xiv.  10).''  In  one  strange  ex- 
 ceptional custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  we 
 trace  tlie  wilder  type  of  Jewish,  of  oriental  devotion. 
 •   There,  in  the  closing  responsive  chorus  of  the  prayer, 
 
 SYNAGOGUE 
 
 the  worshippers  not  only  stretclied  out  their  necks 
 and  lifted  up  their  hands,  but  leapt  up  with  wild 
 gestures  (rovs  re  nSSas  iireyeipoiJ.€v),  as  if  they 
 would  fain  rise  with' their  prayers  to  heaven  itself 
 (Clem.  Al.  Strom,  vii.  40).'^  This,  too,  reiiroduced 
 a  custom  of  the  synagogue.  Three  times  did  the 
 whole  body  of  worshippers  leap  up  simultaneously 
 as  they  repeated  the  gieat  Ter-sanctus  hymn  of 
 Isaiah  vi.  (Vitringa,  p.  1100  fl^". ;  Buxtorf,  cap.  x.). 
 
 VI.  Judicial  Functions.  —  (1.)  The  language  of 
 the  N".  T.  shows  that  the  officers  of  the  synagogue 
 exercised  in  certain  cases  a  judicial  power.  The 
 synagogue  itself  was  the  place  of  trial  (Luke  xii. 
 11,  xxi.  12);  even,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  of  tlie 
 actual  punishment  of  scourging  (Matt.  x.  17 ;  JMark 
 xiii.  9).  They  do  not  appear  to  have  had  the  rigiit 
 of  inflicting  any  severer  penalty,  unless,  under  this 
 head,  we  may  include  that  of  excommunication,  or 
 "  putting  a  man  out  of  the  synagogue"  (John  xii. 
 42,  xvi.  2),  placing  him  under  an  anathema  (1  Cor. 
 xvi.  22;  Gal.  i.  8,  9),  "delivering  him  to  Satan" 
 (1  Cor.  V.  5;  1  Tim.  i.  20).  (Meyer  and  Stanley, 
 in  he.)  In  some  cases  they  exercised  the  right, 
 even  outside  the  limits  of  Palestine,  of  seizing  the 
 persons  of  the  accused,  and  sending  them  in  chains 
 to  take  their  trial  befoi-e  the  Supreme  Council  at 
 Jerusalem  (Acts  ix.  2,  xxii.  5). 
 
 (2.)  It  is  not  quite  so  easy,  however,  to  define 
 the  nature  of  the  tribunal,  and  the  jirccise  limits  of 
 its  jurisdiction.  In  two  of  the  passages  referred  to 
 (Matt.  X.  17;  Mark  xiii.  9)  they  are  carefully  dis- 
 tinguished from  the  auveSpia,  or  councils,  yet  both 
 appear  as  instruments  by  which  the  spirit  of  re- 
 ligious persecution  might  fasten  on  its  victims. 
 The  explanation  commonly  given  that  the  council 
 sat  in  the  synagogue,  and  was  thus  identified  with 
 it,  is  hardly  satisfactory  (Leyrer,  in  Herzog's  Rerd- 
 Knci/k.  "  Synedrien  ").  It  seems  more  probalile 
 that  the  council  was  the  larger  tribunal  of  2-3,  which 
 sat  in  every  city  [Council]',  identical  with  that 
 of  the  seven,  with  two  Levites  as  assessors  to  each, 
 which  .losephus  describes  as  acting  in  the  smaller 
 provincial  towns  {Ant.  iv.  8,  §  14;  B.  J.  ii.  20, 
 §  5),''  and  that  under  the  term  synagogue  «e  are 
 to  undei'stand  a  smaller  court,  prolialily  that  of  the 
 Ten  judges  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  (Gem.  Hieros. 
 Sanliedr.  1.  c. ),  consisting  either  of  the  elders,  the 
 chazzan,  and  the  legatus,  or  otherwise  (as  Herzfeld 
 conjectures,  i.  392)  of  tlie  ten  Batlanim,  or  Otiosi 
 (see  aljove,  IV.  4). 
 
 (.3.)  Here  also  we  trace  the  outline  of  a  Christian 
 institution.  The  ckk Ar/cri'a,  either  by  itself  or  by 
 appointed  delegates,  was  to  act  as  a  Court  of  Arl)i- 
 tration  in  all  disputes  among  its  members.  The 
 elders  of  the  Church  were  not,  however,  to  descend 
 to  the  trivial  disputes  of  daily  life  {ra  l3iwTiKd)- 
 For  these  any  men  of  common  sense  and  fairness, 
 however  destitute  of  official  honor  and  position  {ol 
 i^ov6evr]fj.evoi)  would  be  enough  (1  Cor.  vi.  1-8). 
 
 a  It  has  always  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  word 
 was  obviously  coiued  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  life, 
 and  is  applied  in  the  first  instance  to  the  supper  (1  Cor. 
 xi.  20),  afterwards  to  the  day  (Rev.  i .  10). 
 
 *  One  point  of  contrast  is  as  striking  as  these  points 
 of  resemblance.  Tlie  Jew  prayed  with  his  head  eov- 
 3red,  with  the  Tallitli  drawn  over  his  ears  and  reach- 
 ing to  the  slioulders.  The  Greek,  however,  habitually 
 in  worship  as  in  other  acts,  went  bare-headed  ;  and 
 the  Apostle  of  the  Gentile  churches,  renouncing  all 
 early  prejudices,  recognizes  this  as  more  fitting,  more 
 
 natural,  more  in  harmony  with  the  right  relation  of 
 the  sexes  (1  Cor.  xi.  4). 
 
 c  The  same  curious  practice  existed  in  the  17th 
 eentury,  and  is  perhaps  not  yet  extinct  in  the  Church 
 of  Abyssinia,  in  this,  as  in  other  tilings,  pieserving 
 more  than  any  other  Christian  society,  the  type  of 
 Judaism  (Ludolf,  Hist.  JEthiop.  iii.  6  ;  Stanley,  Eastern, 
 Chnrch,  p.  12). 
 
 ''  The  identification  of  these  two  is  due  to  an  in- 
 genious conjecture  by  Grotius  (on  Matt.  v.  21).  The 
 addition  of  two  scribes  or  secretaries  makes  the  num- 
 ber iu  both  cases  equal. 
 
SYNAGOGUE 
 
 For  the  elders,  as  for  those  of  the  syn;itroL;ne.  were 
 reserved  the  graver  ofteiises  against  religion  and 
 morals.  In  such  cases  they  had  power  to  excom- 
 municate, to  "  put  out  of"  the  Ecclesia,  which  had 
 taken  the  place  of  the  synagogue,  sometimes  by 
 their  own  authority,  sometimes  with  the  consent 
 of  the  whole  society  (1  Cor.  v.  4).  It  is  worth  men- 
 tioning that  Hammond  and  other  commentators 
 have  seen  a  reference  to  these  judicial  functions  in 
 James  ii.  2-4.  Tlie  special  sin  of  those  who  fawned 
 upon  the  rich  was,  on  this  view,  that  tliey  were 
 ^'■jurlf/es  of  evil  thoughts,"  carrying  respect  of  per- 
 sons into  their  administration  of  justice.  The  in- 
 terpretation, however,  though  ingenious,  is  hardly 
 sufficiently  supported.  "     E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  Syiia(/0(jiies  <is  related  to  the  Spread  of  Chris- 
 tianity. —  That  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel 
 made  much  use  of  the  synagogues  in  spreading  the 
 new  faith  is  evident  from  many  passages  in  the 
 book  of  Acts.  Thus  Paul  in  Damascus  (ix.  20),  im- 
 mediately after  his  conversion,  "  preached  Christ  in 
 the  synagogues,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God."  So 
 Paul  and  Barnabas  at  .Salamis  in  Cyprus  (xiii.  5) 
 "  preached  the  word  of  God  in  the  synagogues  of 
 the  .Jews ;  "  and  so  again  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (xiii. 
 14-10);  and  yet  again  at  Iconium  (xiv.  1).  When 
 Paul  and  Silas  had  come  to  Amphipolis  (xvii.  1,  2), 
 "where  was  a  synagogue  of  the  .Jews,"  it  is  stated 
 that  "  Paul,  as  his  viaiiner  was,  went  in  unto  them, 
 and  three  sabbath-days  reasoned  with  them  out  of 
 the  .Scriptures."  Coming  thence  to  Berea  (xvii.  10), 
 they  "went  into  the  synagogue  of  the  .Jews."  At 
 Athens  (xvii.  10,  17),  while  Paul  was  waiting  for 
 his  companions,  "  he  disputed  in  tlie  synagogue  with 
 the  Jews,  and  witli  the  devout"  [Greeks].  At 
 Corinth  (xviii.  4),  "  he  reasoned  in  the  synagogue 
 every  sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews  and  the 
 Greeks."  At  Ephesus  (xviii.  19)  "he  himself 
 entered  into  the  synagogue,  and  reasoned  with  the 
 Jews."  In  like  manner,  Apollos  at  Ephesus  (xviii. 
 20)  "began  to  speak  boldly  in  the  synagogue ;  "  and 
 when,  in  Achaia  (xviii.  28),  "  he  mightily  convinced 
 the  .lews,  and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the  Scrip- 
 tures that  Jesus  was  Christ,"  it  was,  doubtless,  in 
 the  synagogues  that  he  did  so.  That  this  use 
 of  the  place  was  sometimes  long  continued  is  seen 
 in  the  statement  of  xix.  8,  that  in  Ephesus  Paul 
 "  went  into  the  synagogue,  and  spake  boldly  for  the 
 space  of  three  months,  disputing  and  persuading 
 the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God." 
 
 These  passages  are  more  than  sufficient  to  show 
 that  in  the  early  ditfbsion  of  Christianity  the  syna- 
 gogues bore  a  very  important  part.  To  its  first 
 preachers  they  afforded  a  pulpit  and  an  audience,  — 
 a  place  where  they  could  set  forth  their  new  doctrine, 
 and  an  assembly  prepared  to  hear  it.  In  the  free 
 and  pliable  order  of  the  synagogue-service,  an  oppor- 
 tunity of  Scripture-reading,  exposition,  or  exhorta- 
 tion seems  to  have  been  offered  to  any  who  wished 
 it.  Of  such  opportunities  our  Lord  had  made 
 habitual  use  (Matt.  iv.  23,  xiii.  54;  Mark  i.  21; 
 Johnvi.  5'J;  "lever  taught  in  the  synagogues," 
 John  xviii.  20).  In  Luke  iv.  16,  it  is  said  of 
 Jesus  at  Nazareth,  that,  "  as  his  custom  was,  he 
 went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  sabbath-day,  and 
 stood  up  to  read,"  and  after  the  reading  began  an 
 address  to  the  people.  When  Paul  and  liarnabas 
 were  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  1.5),  it  is 
 stated  that,  "after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the 
 prophets,  the  rultrs  of  the  sijnagorjue  sent  unto 
 Ihem,  saying.  Ye  men  and  bretln-en,  if  ye  have  any 
 word  of  exhortation  for  the  people,  say  on."     The 
 
 SYNAGOGUE,  THE  GREAT     3139 
 
 opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Christianity  was  not  for 
 some  time  so  developed  that  its  apostles  were  ex- 
 cluded from  this  privilege  of  the  synagogue.  In 
 every  Jewish  community  (and  one  was  found  in 
 almost  every  city  of  the  civilized  world)  there  were 
 persons  ready  to  hear  and  receive  a  faith  which 
 offered  itself  as  the  necessary  complement  of  the 
 Jewish  religion  and  scriptures.  But  the  syna- 
 gogues brought  together  many  Gentiles,  who  had 
 either  become  members  of  the  Jewish  body  by  cir- 
 cumcision, or  had  adopted  the  belief  and  worship 
 of  the  Jews  without  submitting  to  the  ritual  law 
 [Proselytes].  The  latter  cl.ass  were,  doubtless, 
 more  open  than  the  Jews  themselves  to  the  truths 
 and  principles  of  Christianity. 
 
 It  was  under  the  influences  of  the  synagogue  that 
 the  Greek  language  assumed  the  peculiar  cliai'acter 
 which  fitted  it  to  be  the  vehicle  for  Christian  teach- 
 ing. That  process  of  translating  Jewish  ideas  into 
 Greek  words,  which  we  see  first  in  the  Septuagint, 
 must  have  gone  on  wherever  Jewish  worship  was 
 conducted  in  tlie  Greek  language;  that  is,  in  most 
 synagogues  out  of  Palestine,  and,  to  some  extent 
 certainly,  in  those  of  Palestine  itself.  [L.vnguage 
 OK  THE  New  Test.vment.]  Hence  arose  the 
 idiom  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  colored  by 
 Semitic  forms  of  speech,  and  thoroughly  impreg- 
 nated with  the  religious  conceptions  common  to 
 both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  posses- 
 sion of  such  an  idiom,  fully  developed  and  widely 
 understood,  was  an  important  advantage  to  the  first 
 preachers  of  ( 'hristianity.  Many  new  words  must 
 be  formed,  many  old  words  taken*in  new  connec- 
 tions and  senses,  before  the  language  of  Xenophon 
 could  express  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  But  changes 
 like  these  require  time  for  their  accomplishment: 
 if  it  had  been  left  for  the  apostles  to  make  and  in- 
 troduce them,  the  spread  of  the  new  religion  must 
 have  been  seriously  retarded. 
 
 It  is  not  easy  to  overestim.ate  the  value  of  the.se 
 preparations  and  opportunities  for  tlie  preaching  of 
 the  gospel.  Unquestionably,  they  had  much  to  do 
 with  its  immediate  and  rapid  progress.  The  New 
 Testament  accounts  of  this  progress  will  not  seem 
 incredible  to  any  one  who  duly  appreciates  these 
 favoring  influences.  Among  the  causes  which  by 
 divine  arrangement  paved  the  way  for  the  spread 
 of  Christianity,  we  may  claim  as  high  a  place  for 
 the  general  planting  of  the  .Jewish  synagogues,  as 
 for  the  universal  diffusion  of  the  Greek  language, 
 or  the  unifying  conquests  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
 
 J.  H. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE,   THE    GREAT    (i'^?:? 
 
 n^nsn).  The  institution  thus  described,  though 
 
 not  Biblical  in  the  sense  of  occurring  as  a  word  in 
 the  Canonical  Scriptures,  is  yet  too  closely  con- 
 nected with  a  large  number  of  Biljlical  facts  and 
 names  to  be  passed  over.  In  the  absence  of  direct 
 historical  data,  it  will  be  best  to  jnit  together  the 
 traditions  or  conjectures  of  Kabbinic  writers. 
 
 (1.)  On  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  a 
 great  council  was  appointed,  according  to  these 
 traditions,  to  reorganize  the  religious  life  of  the 
 people.  It  consisted  of  120  members  (.Uefjillolh, 
 17  b,  18  c),  and  these  were  known  as  the  men  of 
 the  Great  Synagogue,  the  successors  of  the  prophets, 
 themselves,  in  their  turn,  succeeded  by  scribes 
 prominent,  individually,  as  teachers  (Pirke  Aboth, 
 i.  1).  Ezra  was  recognized  as  president.  Among 
 the  other  members,  in  jiart  togetiier,  in  part  suc- 
 cessively, were  Joshua,  the  high-priest,  Zerubbabel, 
 
pa4o 
 
 SYNTYCHE 
 
 and  their  companions,  Daniel  and  the  tliree  "chil- 
 dren," the  prophets  Hagwai,  Zechariah,  Malachi, 
 the  rulers  Neheiniah  and  Mordecai.  'i'heir  aim  was 
 to  restore  again  the  crown  or  ffJorij  of  Israel,  i.-e. 
 to  reinstate  in  its  majesty  the  name  of  tied  as 
 Great,  Mighty,  Terrible  (E)eut.  vii.  21,  x.  17;  Neh. 
 i.  5,  ix.  32;  Jer.  xxxii.  18;  Dan.  ix.  4).  To  this 
 end  they  collected  all  the  sacred  writings  of  former 
 ages  and  their  own,  and  so  completed  tlie  canon  of 
 the  0.  T.  Their  work  included  the  revision  of  the 
 text,  and  this  was  settled  by  the  introduction  of 
 the  vowel  points,  which  have  been  handed  down  to 
 us  by  the  Masoretic  editors.  They  instituted  the 
 feast  of  Purim.  They  organized  the  ritual  of  the 
 synagogue,  and  gave  their  sanction  to  the  S/iemone/i 
 Esveli,  the  eighteen  solemn  benedictions  in  it 
 (Evvald,  Gesch.  iv.  193).  Their  decrees  were  quoted 
 afterwards  as  those  of  the  elders  (the  irpia^vripoi 
 of  Mariv  vii.  3,  the  Lpxaioi  of  Matt.  v.  21,  27,  33), 
 the  Dibrc  Soplierini  (  =  words  of  the  scribes),  which 
 were  of  more  authority  than  tiie  Law  itself.  They 
 left  behind  them  the  characteristic  saying,  handed 
 down  by  Simon  the  high-priest,  the  last  member 
 of  the  order,  "  Be  cautious  in  judging;  train  up 
 many  scholars;  set  a  hedge  about  the  Law"  {Pirke 
 Aboih,  i.  1).     [Scribes.] 
 
 (2.)  Much  of  this  is  evidently  uncertain.  The 
 absence  of  any  historical  mention  of  sucli  a  liody, 
 not  only  in  the  0.  T.  and  the  Apocrypha,  Ijut  in 
 Josephus,  Pbilo,  and  the  SetJcr  Ulmn,  so  that  the 
 earliest  record  of  it  is  found  in  the  Pirke.  Almth, 
 circ.  the  second  century  after  Christ,  had  led  some 
 critics  (e.  r/.  I^  Wette,  J.  D.  Michaelis)  to  reject 
 the  whole  statement  as  a  Rabbinic  invention,  rest- 
 ing on  no  otiier  foundation  than  the  existence,  after 
 the  eiile,  of  a  Sanhedrim  of  71  or  72  members, 
 charged  with  supieme  executive  functions.  P'vvald 
 {Gesch.  Isr.  iv.  192)  is  disposed  to  adopt  this  view, 
 and  looks  on  the  nmnber  120  as  a  later  element,  in- 
 troduced for  its  symljolic  significance.  Jost  {Gesch. 
 lies  J  ltd.  i.  41)  maintains  that  the  Greek  origin  of 
 the  word  Saidiedrini  points  to  its  later  date,  and 
 that  its  functions  were  prominently  judicial,  while 
 those  of  the  so-called  Great  Synagogue  were  prom- 
 inently legislative.  He  recognizes,  on  tlie  other 
 hand,  the  prol)ability  that  120  was  used  as  a  round 
 number,  never  actually  made  up,  and  thinks  that 
 the  germ  of  the  institution  is  to  be  foinid  in  the 
 85  names  of  tliose  wlio  are  recorded  as  having 
 joined  in  the  solemn  league  and  covenant  of  Neh. 
 X.  1-27.  The  narrative  of  Neh.  viii.  13  clearly 
 implies  the  existence  of  a  body  of  men  acting  as 
 counsellors  under  the  presidency  of  Ezra,  and  these 
 may  have  been  (as  Jost,  following  the  idea  of  an- 
 other Jewish  critic,  suggests)  an  asseml)ly  of  dele- 
 gates from  all  provincial  synagogues  —  a  synod  (to 
 use  the  terminology  of  a  later  time)  of  the  National 
 Church.  The  Pirke  Abolh,  it  should  he  men- 
 tioned, speaks  of  the  Great  Synacogue  as  ceasing 
 to  exist  before  the  historical  origin  of  tlie  San- 
 hedrim (x.  1),  and  it  is  more  probable  that  the  lat- 
 ter rose  out  of  an  attempt  to  reproduce  the  former 
 than  that  the  former  was  only  the  mythical  trans- 
 fer of  the  latter  to  an  earlier  time.  (( 'omp.  Leyrer, 
 s.  V.  Syni((joae,  die  grosse,  in  Herzog's  Pnctjk/op.) 
 
 E.  IL  P. 
 
 SYN'TYCHE  (2ui/Ti'<xr?  [nccideiil,  event]: 
 Sipilyche),  a  female  member  of  the  Church  of 
 Philippi,  mentioned  (Phil.  iv.  2,  3)  along  with  an- 
 other named  EuowAS  (or  rather  Euodia).  To 
 wlirtt  has  been  said  under  the  latter  head  the  fol- 
 lowing may  be  added.     The  Apostle's  injunction 
 
 SYRACUSE 
 
 to  these  two  women  is,  that  they  should  live  in 
 Iiarmony  with  one  another:  from  which  we  infer 
 that  they  had,  more  or  less,  failed  in  tin's  respect. 
 Sucii  harmony  was  doubly  important,  if  tliey  held 
 an  office,  as  deaconnesses,  in  the  church ;  and  it  is 
 highly  probable  that  this  was  the  case.  They  had 
 aftbrded  to  St.  Paul  active  coriperation  under  dif- 
 ficult circumstances  (eV  rai  (vayyiXlcxi  Gwr,dKriffav 
 fxoi,  ver.  2),  and  perhaps  there  were  at  Philippi 
 other  women  of  the  same  class  (aiVicey,  ihid.).  At 
 all  events  this  jjassage  is  an  illustration  of  what  the 
 Gospel  did  for  women,  and  women  for  the  Gospel, 
 in  the  Apostolic  times:  and  it  is  the  more  interest- 
 ing, as  having  reference  to  that  church  which  was 
 the  first  founded  lay  St.  Paul  in  Europe,  and  the 
 first  memiier  of  which  was  Lydia.  Some  thoughts 
 on  this  subject  will  be  found  in  Rilliet,  Comin.  svr 
 iEpilre  mix  Pliillpp.  pp.  311-314.         J.  S.  H. 
 
 SYR'ACUSE(2upa;foD(7a/:  Syrnciisa).  The 
 celelirated  city  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Sicily.  St. 
 Paul  arrived  thither  in  an  Alexandrian  shi])  from 
 Melita,  on  his  voyage  to  Pome  (Acts  xxviii.  12). 
 The  magnificence  which  Cicero  describes  as  still  re- 
 maining in  his  time,  was  then  no  doubt  greatly  im- 
 paired. The  whole  of  the  resources  of  Sicily  had 
 lieen  exhausted  in  the  civil  wars  of  Caesar  and 
 Pompey,  and  the  piratical  warfare  which  Sextus 
 Pompeius,  the  youngest  son  of  the  latter,  subse- 
 quently carried  on  against  the  triumvir  Octavius. 
 Augustus  restored  Syracuse,  as  also  Catana  and 
 Centoripa,  which  last  had  contributed  much  to  the 
 successful  issueof  his  struggle  with  Sextus  Ponqjeius. 
 Yet  the  island  Ortygia,  and  a  very  small  portion  of 
 the  mainland  adjoining,  sufficed  for  tlie  new  colo- 
 nists and  the  remnant  of  the  former  ]iopidation. 
 l!ut  the  site  of  Syracuse  rendered  it  a  convenient 
 place  for  the  African  corn-sliips  to  touch  at,  for  the 
 harbor  was  an  excellent  one,  and  the  fbunt.ain  Are- 
 thusa  in  the  island  furnislied  an  unfailing  supply  of 
 excellent  water.  The  prevalent  wind  in  this  part  of 
 the  Mediterranean  is  the  ^V.  N.  W.  This  would 
 carry  the  vessels  from  the  corn  rei;;ion  lying  east 
 ward  of  Cape  Bon,  round  the  southern  point  of 
 Sicily,  Cape  Pachynus,  to  the  eastern  sliore  of  the 
 island.  Creeping  up  under  tlie  shelter  of  this,  they 
 would  lie  either  in  the  harbor  of  Messana,  or  at 
 Kliegium,  until  tlie  wind  changed  to  a  southern 
 point  and  enabled  them  to  fetch  the  Campanian 
 liarbors,  Puteoli  or  Gaeta,  or  to  proceed  as  far  as 
 Ostia.  In  cro.ssing  from  Africa  to  Sicily,  if  the 
 wind  was  excessive,  or  varied  two  or  tliree  points 
 to  the  northward,  they  would  naturally  bear  up  for 
 jNIalta,  —  and  this  had  probably  been  the  case  with 
 the  "Twins,"  the  ship  in  which  St.  Paul  found  a 
 passage  after  his  shipwreck  on  the  coast  of  that  isl- 
 and. Arrived  in  M.alta,  tliey  watched  for  the  op- 
 portunity of  a  wiiul  to  take  them  westward,  and 
 with  such  a  one  they  readily  made  Syracuse.  To 
 jiroeeed  further  while  it  continued  blowing  would 
 have  exposed  them  to  the  dangei-s  of  a  lee-shore,  and 
 accordingly  they  remained  "  three  days."  They 
 then,  the  wind  having  proliably  shifted  into  a  west- 
 erly quarter  so  as  to  give  them  smooth  water, 
 coasted  the  shore  and  made  {wepie\66pri9  Karr]v- 
 TiiffafjLfv  els)  Khegium.  After  one  day  there,  tlie 
 wind  got  round  still  more  and  lilew  from  the  .south; 
 they  therefore  weighed,  and  arrived  at  Puteoli  in  the 
 course  of  the  second  day  of  the  run  (Acts  xxviii. 
 12-14). 
 
 In  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  voyage,  Sicily  did  not 
 supply  the  Romans  with  corn  to  the  exte7;t  it  had 
 done  in  the  time  of  King  Hiero,  and  in  a  less  degree 
 
SYRIA 
 
 ES  late  as  the  time  of  Cicero.  It  is  an  error,  "how- 
 ever, to  suppose  that  the  soil  was  exhausted;  for 
 Strabo  expressly  says,  that  for  corn,  antl  some  other 
 productions,  Sicily  even  surpassed  Italy.  But  the 
 country  had  become  depopulated  by  the  long  series 
 of  wars,  and  when  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  Rome, 
 her  great  nobles  turned  vast  tracts  into  pasture. 
 In  the  time  of  Augustus,  the  whole  of  the  centre 
 of  the  island  was  occupied  in  this  manner,  and 
 among  its  exports  (except  from  the  neighborhood 
 of  the  volcanic  region,  where  excellent  wine  was 
 produced),  fat  stock,  hides,  and  wool  appear  to  have 
 been  the  prominent  articles.  These  grazing  and 
 horse-breeding  farms  were  kept  up  by  slave  labor; 
 and  this  was  the  reason  that  the  whole  island  was 
 in  a  chronic  state  of  disturbance,  owing  to  the 
 slaves  continually  rumiing  away  and  forming  bands 
 of  brigands.  Sometimes  these  becanie  so  fornu- 
 dable  as  to  require  the  aid  of  regular  military  opera- 
 tions to  put  them  down ;  a  circumstance  of  which 
 Tiberius  Gracchus  made  use  as  an  argument  in 
 fovor  of  his  measure  of  an  Agrarian  law  (Appian, 
 B.  V-  i.  9),  which  would  have  reconverted  the  spa- 
 cious grass- lands  into  small  arable  larms  cultivated 
 by  Roman  freemen. 
 
 In  the  time  of  St.  Paul  there  were  only  five  Ro- 
 man colonies  in  Sicily,  of  which  Syracuse  was  one. 
 The  others  were  Catana,  Tauromenium,  Therniie, 
 and  Tyndaris.  Messana  too,  although  not  a  colony, 
 was  a  town  tilled  with  a  Roman  population.  I'roli- 
 ably  its  inhabitants  were  merchants  coimected  with 
 the  wine  trade  of  the  neighborhood,  of  which  Mes- 
 sana was  the  shipping-port.  Syracuse  and  I'anor- 
 mus  were  important  as  strategical  points,  and  a 
 Roman  force  was  kept  up  at  each.  Sicels,  Sicani, 
 Morgetes,  and  Iberes  (aboriginal  inhabitants  of  the 
 island,  or  very  early  settlers),  still  existed  in  the 
 interior,  in  what  exact  political  condition  it  is  im- 
 possible to  saj';  but  most  likely  in  that  of  villeins. 
 Some  few  towns  are  mentioned  by  Pliny  as  having 
 the  Latin  franchise,  and  some  as  paying  a  fixed 
 tribute;  but  with  the  exception  of  the  five  colonies, 
 the  owners  of  the  soil  of  the  island  were  mainly 
 great  absentee  proprietors,  and  almost  all  its  prod- 
 uce came  to  Rome  (Strabo,  vi,  c.  2;  Ajjpian,  B.  C. 
 iv.  84  fl'..  V.  15-118;  Cicero,  IWr.  iv.  53;  Plin. 
 H.  N.  ii.  8).  J.  W.  B. 
 
 SYR'IA  (Q"^W:  Supia:  Syria)  is  the  term 
 used  throughout  our  version  for  the  Hebrew  Aram, 
 as  well  as  for  the  Greek  5i/pia.  The  Greek  writers 
 generally  regarded  it  as  a  contraction  or  corruption 
 of  Assyria  (Herod,  vii.  63;  Scylax,  Peripl.  p.  80; 
 Dionys.  Perieg.  970-975;  Eustath.  Comment,  ad 
 loc,  etc.).  But  this  derivation  is  exceedingly  doubt- 
 ful. Most  probably  Syria  is  for  Tstjria,  the  coun- 
 try about  Tsur  ("l-l-j,  or  Tyre,  which  was  the  first 
 of  the  Syrian  towns  known  to  the  Greeks.     The 
 
 resemblance  to  Assyria  ("l^t^H)  is  thus  purely  ac- 
 cidental; and  the  two  words  must  be  regarded  as 
 in  reality  completely  distinct. 
 
 1.  Geo/jraphic'd  Extent. —  It  is  very  difficult  to 
 fix  the  limits  of  Syria.  The  Hebrew  Aram  seems 
 to  commence  on  the  northern  frontier  of  Palestine, 
 and  to  extend  thence  northward  to  the  skirts  of 
 Taurus,  westward  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  east- 
 ward probably  to  the  Khabour  River.  Its  chief 
 divisions  aro  Aram-Dammesek,  or  "  Syria  of  Da- 
 mascus," Aram-Zobah,  or  "  Syria  of  Zobah,"  Aram- 
 Naharaim,  "  Mesopotamia,"  or  "  Syria  of  the  Two 
 Rivers  "  and   Padan-Aram,  "  the   plain  Syria,"  or 
 
 ,      SYRIA  3141 
 
 "  the  plain  at  the  foot  of  the  mountains."  Of  these 
 we  cannot  be  mistaken  in  identifying  the  first  with 
 the  rich  country  about  Damascus,  lying  between 
 Anti-Libanus  and  the  desert,  and  the  last  with  the 
 district  about  Harran  and  Orfah,  the  flat  country 
 stretching  out  from  the  western  extremity  of  Moiis 
 jNIasius  toward  the  true  source  of  the  Khabour  at 
 Itds  el-Ain.  Aram-Naharaim  seems  to  lie  a  term 
 including  this  last  tract,  and  extending  beyond  it, 
 though  how  far  beyond  is  doubtful.  'J'he  "  two 
 rivers  "  intended  are  probaVily  the  Tigris  and  the 
 Euphrates,  which  approach  very  near  each  other  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Diarbekr;  and  Aram-Naha- 
 raim may  have  originally  been  applied  especially  to 
 the  mountain  tract  which  here  separates  them.  If 
 so,  it  no  doubt  gradually  extended  its  meaning;  for 
 in  Gen.  xxiv.  10  it  clearly  includes  the  district 
 about  Harran,  the  Padan-Aram  of  other  places. 
 Whether  the  Scriptural  meaning  ever  extends  much 
 beyond  this  is  uncertain.  It  is  perhaps  most  prob- 
 able that,  as  the  jMesopotamia  of  the  later  Greeks, 
 so  the  Aram-Naharaim  of  the  Hebrews  was  limited 
 to  the  northwestern  portion  of  the  country  con- 
 tained between  the  two  great  streams.  [See  Meso- 
 potamia.] Aram-Zobah  seems  to  be  the  tract 
 between  the  Euphrates  and  Coele-Syria;  since,  on 
 the  one  hand,  it  reaches  down  to  the  Great  River 
 (2  Sam.  viii.  3,  x.  10),  and  on  the  other  excludes 
 Hamath  (2  Sam.  viii.  9,  10).  The  other  divisions 
 of  Aram,  such  as  Aram-Maachah  and  Aram-beth- 
 Rechob,  are  more  difficult  toi  locate  with  any  cer- 
 tainty. Probably  they  were  portions  of  the  tract 
 intervening  between  Anti-Libanus  and  the  desert. 
 
 The  Greek  writers  used  the  term  S3  ria  still  more 
 vaguely  than  the  Hebrews  did  Aram.  On  the  one 
 hand  they  extended  it  to  the  Luxine,  including  in 
 it  Cappadocia,  and  even  Bithynia  (Herod,  i.  72,  76, 
 ii.  104;  Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  2;  Dionys.  Perieg.  972); 
 on  the  other  they  carried  it  to  the  borders  of  Egypt, 
 and  made  it  comprise  Philistia  and  Edoni  (Herod, 
 iii.  5;  Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  2).  Again,  through  the 
 confusion  in  their  minds  between  the  Syrians  and 
 the  Assyrians,  they  sometimes  included  the  country 
 of  the  latter,  and  even  its  southern  neighbor  Baljy- 
 lonia,  in  Syria  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  2).  Still  they  seem 
 always  to  have  had  a  feeling  that  Syria  Proper  was 
 a  narrower  region.  Herodotus,  vifliile  he  calls  the 
 Cappadocians  and  the  Assyrians  Syrians,  gives  the 
 name  of  Syria  only  to  the  country  lying  on  the  iMed- 
 iterranean  between  Cilicia  and  Egypt  (ii.  100,  157, 
 159,  iii.  6,91).  Dionysius,  who  speaks  of  two  Syrias, 
 an  eastern  and  a  western,  assigns  the  first  place 
 to  the  latter  {Perieg.  895).  Strabo,  like  Herod- 
 otus, has  one  Syria  only,  which  he  defines  as  the 
 maritime  tract  between  Egypt  and  the  Gulf  of  Issus. 
 The  ordinary  use  of  the  term  Syria,  by  the  LXX. 
 and  New  Testament  writers,  is  even  more  restricted 
 than  this.  They  distinguish  Syria  from  Phoenicia 
 on  the  one  hand,  and  from  Samaria,  .Uida'a,  Idu- 
 msea,  etc.,  on  the  other.  In  the  present  article  it 
 seems  best  to  take  the  word  in  this  narrow  sense, 
 and  to  regard  Syria  as  bounded  by  Amanus  and 
 Taurus  on  the  north,  by  the  Euphrates  and  the 
 Arabian  desert  on  the  east,  by  Palestine,  or  the 
 Holy  Land,  on  the  south,  by  the  Mediterranean 
 near  the  mouth  of  the  Orontes,  and  then  by  Phce- 
 nicia  upon  the  west.  The  tract  thus  circumscribed 
 is  about  300  miles  long  from  north  to  south,  and 
 from  50  to  150  miles  broad.  It  contains  an  area 
 of  about  30,000  square  miles. 
 
 2.  General  Pliij»ical  Features.  —  The  general 
 character  of  the  tract  is  mountainous,  as  the  He- 
 
3142 
 
 SYKIA 
 
 brew  name  Aram  (from  a  root  sigiiifyiiip;  "  Height,  ") 
 sutticieiitly  implies.  (_)ii  the  west,  two  loiigitudiiial 
 chains,  running  parallel  with  the  coast  at  no  great 
 distance  from  one  another,  extend  along  two  thirds 
 of  the  length  of  Syria,  from  the  latitude  of  Tyre  to 
 that  of  Antioch.  These  chains,  toward  the  south, 
 were  known  respectively  as  Liliaiuis  and  Anti- 
 Libanus,  after  which,  about  lat.  35°,  the  more 
 western  chain,  Libanus,  became  l^argylus,  while  the 
 eastern,  sinking  into  comparative  insignificance, 
 was  without  any  special  appellation.  In  the  lati- 
 tude of  Antioch  the  longitudinal  chains  are  met  by 
 the  chain  of  Amanus,  an  outlying  barrier  of  Taurus, 
 having  the  direction  of  that  range,  which  in  this 
 part  is  from  southwest  to  northeast.  From  this 
 point  northward  to  the  true  Taurus,  which  here 
 bounded  Syria,  and  eastward  to  the  luiphrates 
 about  Bin/i-Jik  and  Sumeisal,  the  whole  tract  ap- 
 pears to  consist  of  mountains  infinitely  ramified; 
 below  which,  toward  Sajur  and  Aleppo,  are  some 
 elevated  plains,  diversified  with  ranges  of  hills,  while 
 south  of  these,  in  about  lat.  30°,  you  enter  the 
 desert.  The  most  fertile  and  valuable  tract  of 
 Syria  is  the  long  valley  intervening  between  Li- 
 banus and  Anti-Libanus,  which  slopes  southward 
 from  a  point  a  little  north  of  Baalbek,  and  is  there 
 drained  by  the  Litimy ;  while  above  that  point  the 
 slope  is  northward,  and  the  streams  form  the 
 Orontes,  whose  course  is  in  that  direction.  The 
 northern  mountain  region  is  also  fairly  productive; 
 but  the  soil  of  the  plains  about  Aleppo  is  poor,  and 
 the  eastern  flank  of  the  Anti-Libanus,  except  in  one 
 place,  is  pecuharly  sterile.  The  exception  is  at  the 
 lower  or  .southern  extremity  of  the  chain,  where 
 the  stream  of  the  Barada  forms  the  rich  and  de- 
 lightful tract  already  described  under  the  head  of 
 Damascus. 
 
 3.  The  Mounlain  Ranges. —  («.)  Lebanon.  Of 
 the  various  mountain  ranges  of  Syria,  Lebanon 
 possesses  the  greatest  interest.  It  extends  from  the 
 mouth  of  the  Litany  to  Arka^  a  distance  of  nearly 
 100  miles,  and  is  composed  chiefly  of  .jura  lime- 
 stone, but  varied  with  sandstone  and  ba.salt.  It 
 culminates  toward  its  northern  extremity,  half-way 
 between  Tripoli  and  Beyrut,  and  at  this  point  at- 
 tains an  elevation  of  nearly  10,000  feet  (Kobinson, 
 Bibl.  lieseiu-ches,  iii.  547).  Anciently  it  was 
 thickly  wooded  with  cypresses,  cedars,  and  firs ;  but 
 it  is  now  very  scantily  clothed.  As  a  minute  de- 
 scription of  its  present  condition  has  been  already 
 given  in  the  proper  place,  it  is  unnecessary  to  pro- 
 long the  present  account.  [Lebanojj.]  (A.)  Anti- 
 Libanus.  This  range,  as  the  name  implies,  stands 
 over  against  Lebanon,  running  in  the  same  direc- 
 tion, i.  e.  nearly  north  and  south,  and  extending 
 the  same  length.  It  is  composed  of  .Jura  limestone, 
 oolite,  and  .Jura  dolomite.  The  culminating  point 
 is  Hernion,  at  the  southern,  or  rather  the  south- 
 eastern end  of  the  chain ;  for  Anti-Libanus,  unlike 
 Libaiuis,  bifurcates  at  its  lowest  extremity,  dividing 
 into  two  distinct  ridges,  tietween  which  flows  the 
 stream  of  the  Ilasbeijd.  Hernion  is  thought  to  ex- 
 ceed the  height  of  9,000  feet.  (c. )  Bargy lus.  ]\Iount 
 Bargylus,  called  now  JtM  A^osalri  toward  the 
 south,  and  toward  the  north  ./cliifl  Knaid.  extends 
 from  the  mouth  of  the  Nahr  d-Kebir  (I'^leutherus), 
 nearly  opposite  Hems,  to  the  vicinity  of  Antioch,  a 
 distance  of  rather  more  than  100  miles.  It  is 
 separated  from  Lebanon  by  a  comparati\ely  level 
 tract,  15  or  20  miles  broad  {el-Bii/ceva),  through 
 which  flows  the  stream  called  el-Kebh:  Mount 
 Bargylus  is  broader  than  Lebanon,  and  throws  out 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 a  niKiiber  of  short  spurs  east  and  west  both  toward 
 the  sea  and  toward  the  valley  of  the  Orontes. 
 One  of  the  western  spurs  terminates  in  a  remark- 
 able headland,  known  to  the  ancients  as  Mount 
 C'asius,  and  now  called  Jebel  el-Akra,  or  the  "  Bald 
 Mountain,"  which  rises  abruptly  liom  the  sea  to  a 
 height  exceeding  5,000  feet.  At  the  northern  ex- 
 tremity of  Bargylus,  where  it  o^■erllangs  the  lower 
 course  of  ^le  Orontes,  was  Daphne,  the  delicious 
 suburb  of  Antioch,  and  the  favorite  haunt  of  its 
 luxurious  populace.  (</.)  Amanus.  North  of  the 
 mouth  of  the  Orontes,  between  its  course  and  the 
 eastern  shore  of  the  Uulf  of  Issus  (Jsk-iin(kru7i), 
 lies  the  range  of  Amanus,  which  extends  from  the 
 southwest  end  of  the  gulf,  in  a  northeasterly  di- 
 rection, a  distance  of  85  or  00  miles,  and  finally 
 forms  a  junction  with  Taurus  in  about  long.  30° 
 25'.  Amanus  divides  Syria  from  Cilicia.  and  is  a 
 stony  range  with  bold  rugged  peaks  and  conical 
 summits,  formed  of  serpentines  and  other  secondaiy 
 rocks  supporting  a  tertiary  formation.  Its  a\erane 
 elevation  is  5,000  feet,  and  it  terminates  abruptly  at 
 Ens  el-Kha)izir,  in  .a  high  cliff  overhanging  the  sea. 
 There  are  only  two  or  three  passes  across  it ;  and 
 one  alone,  that  of  Beilan,  is  tolerably  commodious. 
 Amanus,  like  Anti-Libanus,  bifurcates  at  its  south 
 western  extremity,  having,  besides  its  termination 
 at  the  Has  el-Kliaiizir,  another,  now  called  Miisn 
 D(i(jh,  which  approaches  within  about  six  miles  of 
 the  mouth  of  the  Orontes,  and  seems  to  be  the 
 Pieria  of  Strabo  (xvi.  2,  §  8).  This  spur  is  of 
 limestone  formation.  The  flanks  of  Amanus  are 
 well  clothed  with  forests  of  pine,  oak,  and  larch,  or 
 copses  of  myrtle,  arbutus,  oleander,  and  other 
 shrulis.  The  range  was  well  known  to  the  Assy  rians, 
 who  called  it  Khamann.  and  not  unirequently  cut 
 tind>er  in  it,  which  was  conveyed  thence  to  their 
 capital. 
 
 4.  Tlie  Hirers.  —  The  principal  rivers  of  Syria 
 are  the  Litany  and  the  Orontes.  The  Litany  springs 
 from  a  small  lake  situated  in  the  middle  of  tlie 
 Coele-Syrian  valley,  about  six  miles  to  the  south- 
 west of  Baalbek.  Hence  it  descends  the  valley 
 called  el-Biikaa,  with  a  course  a  little  west  of 
 south,  sending  out  on  each  side  a  number  of  canals 
 for  irrigation,  and  receiving  rills  from  the  opposite 
 ranges  of  Libamis  and  Anti-Lil>anus,  which  com- 
 pensate for  the  water  gi\en  oft'.  The  chief  of  these 
 is  called  el-Burckmy,  and  descends  from  Lebanon 
 near  Zahleh.  The  Bi'ikad  narrows  as  it  proceeds 
 southward,  and  terminates  in  a  gorge,  through 
 which  the  Litany  forces  itself  with  a  course  which 
 is  still  to  the  southwest,  flowing  deep  between  high 
 precipices,  and  spanned  by  a  1  old  bridge  of  a  single 
 arch,  known  as  the  Jisr  Bunjltus.  Having  emerged 
 from  the  ravine,  it  flows  first  southwest  by  west, 
 and  then  nearly  due  south,  till  it  reaches  the  lati- 
 tude of  Tyre,  when  meeting  the  mountains  of  Upper 
 Galilee,  it  is  forced  to  bend  to  the  west,  and,  pass- 
 ing with  many  windings  through  the  low  coast 
 tract,  enters  the  sea  about  5  miles  north  of  the 
 great  Bhccnician  city.  The  entire  coinse  of  the 
 stream,  exclusive  of  small  windings,  is  about  SO 
 miles.  The  source  of  the  Orontes  is  but  about  15 
 miles  from  that  of  the  Litany.  A  little  north  of 
 Baalbek,  the  highest  point  or  water- shed  of  the 
 Ccele-Syrian  valley  is  reached,  and  the  ground  be- 
 gins to  descend  northward.  A  small  rill  breaks 
 out  from  the  foot  of  Anti-Libanus,  which,  after 
 flowing  nearly  due  north  for  15  miles  across  the 
 jilain,  meets  another  greater  source  given  out  by 
 Lebanon  in  lat.  34°  22',  which  is  now  considej-ed 
 
SYRIA 
 
 the  tnie  "head  of  the  stream."  The  Oroiites  from 
 this  point  flows  down  the  valley  to  the  northeast, 
 and  passint;  through  the  Hahr  el-Kiides  —  a  kke 
 about  6  miles  long  and  2  broad  —  approaches  /Jems 
 (P>mesa),  which  it  leaves  on  its  right  iiank.  It 
 then  flows  for  20  miles  nearly  due  north;  after 
 which,  on  approaching  Hamah  (Hamath),  it  makes 
 a  slight  bend  to  the  east  round  the  base  of  the 
 Jebel  F.rhaijn,  and  then,  entering  the  rich  pasture 
 country  of  el-dhab,  runs  northwest  and  north  to 
 Jisr  IJiidid.  The  tributaries  which  it  receives  in 
 this  part  of  its  course  are  many  but  small,  tlie  only 
 one  of  any  importance  being  the  Wiuhj  el-Sariij\ 
 which  enters  it  from  the  west  a  little  below  Hamath. 
 At  Jisr  Hadu/,  or  "the  Iron  Bridge,"  the  course 
 of  the  Orontes  suddenly  changes.  Prevented  by 
 the  range  of  Amanus  from  flowing  any  furtiier  to 
 tlie  north,  it  sweeps  round  boldly  to  the  west,  and 
 receiving  a  large  tributary  —  the  Kara-Su  —  from 
 the  northeast,  the  volume  of  whose  water  exceeds 
 its  ov?n,  it  enters  the  broad  valley  of  Antioch, 
 "  doubling  back  here  upon  itself,  and  flowing  to 
 the  southwest."  In  this  part  of  its  course  the 
 Orontes  has  b^en  compared  to  the  Wye  (Stanley, 
 Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  409).  The  entire  length 
 of  the  stream  is  estimated  at  above  200  miles. 
 Its  modern  name  is  the  Nahr  el-Asi,  or  "  Kebel 
 Stream,"  an  appeflatiou  given  to  it  on  account  of 
 its  violence  and  impetuosity  in  many  parts  of  its 
 course. 
 
 The  other  Syrian  streams  of  some  consequence, 
 besides  the  Litany  and  the  Orontes,  are  the  Ba- 
 rada,  or  River  of  Damascus,  the  Kowtik,  or  River 
 of  Aleppo,  and  the  Sajui;  a  tributary  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates. The  course  of  the  Barada  has  already 
 been  described  under  the  head  of  Damascus.  [Da- 
 mascus.] The  Kotceik  rises  in  the  highlands 
 south  of  Aiii-Ta/j,  from  two  sources,  one  of  which 
 is  known  as  the  Buluklu-iiu,  or  "Fish-River."  It 
 seems  to  be  the  L'halus  of  Xenophon  {Anab.  i.  4, 
 §  9).  Its  course  is  at  first  east,  but  soon  becomes 
 south,  or  a  little  west  of  south,  to  Aleppo,  after 
 which  it  meanders  considerably  through  the  high 
 plain  south  of  that  city,  finally  terminating  in  a 
 marsh  known  as  el^Matkli.  The  Sajur  rises  a 
 little  further  to  the  north,  in  the  mountains  north 
 of  A  ill- Tab.  Its  course  for  the  first  25  miles  is 
 southeast,  after  which  it  runs  east  for  15  or  20 
 miles,  finally  resuming  its  first  direction,  and  flow- 
 ing by  the  town  of  Sajur  into  the  Euphrates.  It 
 is  a  larger  river  than  the  Koweik,  though  its  course 
 is  scarcely  so  long. 
 
 5.  The  Lnkts.  —  The  principal  lakes  of  Syria 
 are  the  Ayli-Denr/iz,  or  Lake  of  Antioch;  the  »S((- 
 bdkhah,  or  Salt  Lake,  between  Aleppo  and  Balis; 
 the  Bahr  el-Kades,  on  the  Upper  Orontes;  and 
 the  Bahr  el-Merj,  or  Lake  of  Damascus,  (a. )  The 
 Lake  of  Antioch  is  an  oblong  fresh-water  basin,  10 
 miles  long  by  7  l)road,  situated  to  the  north  of  the 
 Orontes,  where  it  sweeps  round  through  the  plain 
 of  Umk,  before  receiving  the  Kara-Su.  It  is 
 formed  by  the  waters  of  three  large  streams  —  the 
 Kara-Su,  the  Afriti,  and  the  AsuHul  —  which  col- 
 lect the  drainage  of  the  great  mountain  tract  lying 
 northeast  and  east  of  Antioch,  between  the  36th 
 and  37th  parallels.  It  has  been  argued,  from  the 
 silence  of  Xenophon  and  Strabo,  that  this  lake  did 
 not  exist  in  ancient  times  (Kennell,  Illustr(dions  of 
 the  Expedition  of  Cyrus,  p.  05),  but  modern  inves- 
 tigations pursued  upon  the  spot  are  tliought  to  dis- 
 prove this  theory  (Ainsworth,  Researches  in  Afesn- 
 potamia,  p  209).    The  waters  flow  into  the  lake  on 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 3140 
 
 the  east  and  north,  and  flow  out  of  it  at  its  south- 
 west angle  by  a  liroad  and  deep  stream,  known  as 
 the  Kara-Su,  which  falls  into  the  Orontes  a  few 
 miles  above  Antioch.  (6.)  The  Sabakhidi  is  a  salt 
 lake,  into  which  only  insignificant  streams  flow, 
 and  which  has  no  outlet.  It  lies  midway  between 
 Balis  and  Aleppo,  the  route  between  these  places 
 passing  along  its  northern  shore.  It  is  longer  than 
 the  Lake  of  Antioch,  but  narrower,  being  about  13 
 miles  from  east  to  west,  and  4  miles  only  from 
 north  to  south,  even  where  it  is  widest.  (c.)The 
 Bahr  el-Kades  is  smaller  than  either  of  the  forego- 
 ing lakes.  It  has  been  estimated  at  8  miles  long 
 and  3  liroad  (Pococke,  Descriplion  of  the  East,  i. 
 140),  and  again  at  6  miles  long  and  2  broad  (Ciies- 
 ney,  Euphrates  Exp.  i.  394),  but  has  ne\'er  been 
 accurately  measured.  Pococke  conjectures  that  it 
 is  of  recent  formation ;  but  his  only  reason  seems  to 
 be  the  silence  of  ancient  writers,  which  is  scarcely 
 sufficient  to  prove  the  point.  ('/.)  The  B<dir  el- 
 iferj,  like  the  piece  of  water  in  which  the  Koweik 
 or  River  of  Aleppo  ends,  scarcely  deser\es  to  be 
 called  a  lake,  since  it  is  little  better  than  a  large 
 marsh.  The  length,  according  to  Colonel  Chesney, 
 is  9  miles,  and  tlie  breadth  2  miles  {Euphrat.  Exp. 
 i.  503);  but  the  size  seems  to  vary  with  the  sea.sons, 
 and  with  the  extent  to  which  irrigation  is  used 
 along  the  course  of  the  Barada.  A  recent  travel- 
 ler, who  traced  the  Barada  to  its  termination, 
 found  it  divide  a  few  miles  below  Damascus,  and 
 observed  that  each  branch  terminated  in  a  marsh 
 of  its  own;  while  a  neighboring  stream,  the 
 Awadj,  commonly  regarded  as  a  tributary  of  the 
 Barada,  also  lost  itself  in  a  third  marsh  separate 
 from  the  other  two  (Porter  in  Geofjraph.  Juurn. 
 xxvi.  43-4f)). 
 
 6.  The  Great  Valley.  —  By  far  the  most  im- 
 portant part  of  SjTia,  and  on  the  whole  its  most 
 striking  feature,  is  the  great  valley  which  reaches 
 from  the  plain  of  Umk,  near  Antioch,  to  the  nar- 
 row gorge  on  which  the  Litany  enters  in  about  lat. 
 33°  30'.  This  valley,  which  runs  nearly  parallel 
 with  the  Syrian  coast,  extends  the  length  of  230 
 miles,  and  has  a  width  varying  from  G  or  8  to  15 
 or  20  miles.  The  more  southern  portion  of  it  was 
 known  to  the  ancients  as  Coele-Syria,  or  "  the 
 Hollow  Syria,"  and  has  been  already  described. 
 [CtELESYKiA.]  In  length  this  portion  is  rather 
 more  than  100  miles,  terminating  with  a  screen  of 
 hills  a  little  south  of  Hems,  at  which  point  the 
 northeastern  direction  of  the  valley  also  ceases, 
 and  it  begins  to  bend  to  the  northwest.  The  lower 
 valley  from  Hems  downward  is  broader,  generally 
 speaking,  and  richer  than  the  upper  portion.  Here 
 was  "  Hamath  the  Great "  (Am.  vi.  2),  now 
 Hamah  ;  and  here  too  was  Apameia,  a  city  but 
 little  inferior  to  Antioch,  surrounded  by  rich  pas- 
 tures, where  Seleucus  Nicator  was  wont  to  feed  500 
 elephants,  300  stallion  horses,  and  30,000  mares 
 (Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10).  The  whole  of  this  region  is 
 fertile,  being  watered  not  only  by  the  Orontes,  but 
 by  the  numerous  afHuents  which  flow  into  it  from 
 the  mountain  ranges  inclosing  the  valley  on  either 
 side. 
 
 7.  The  Nortliern  Highlands.  —  Northern  Syria. 
 especially  the  district  called  Commaijene,  between 
 Taurus  and  the  Euphrates,  is  still  very  insutti- 
 ciently  explored.  It  .seems  to  be  altogether  an  ele- 
 vated tract,  consisting  of  twisted  spurs  from  Taurus 
 and  Amanus,  with  narrow  valleys  between  them, 
 which  open  out  into  bare  and  sterile  plains.  The 
 valleys  themselves  are  not  very  fertile.     They  are 
 
3144 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 watered  liy  small  streams,  producing  often  abuii- 
 daut  fish,  and,  for  the  most  part,  flowing  into  the 
 Orontes  or  the  luijshrates.  A  certain  numljer  of 
 the  more  central  ones,  however,  unite,  and  consti- 
 tute the  "  river  of  Alejipo,"  which,  unalile  to  reach 
 either  of  the  oceanic  streams,  forms  (as  we  have 
 seen)  a  lake  or  marsh,  wherein  its  waters  evaporate. 
 Along  the  course  of  the  Euphrates  there  is  rich  land 
 and  abundant  vegetation;  but  the  character  of  the 
 country  thence  to  the  valley  of  the  Orontes  is  bare 
 and  woodless,  except  in  the  vicinity  of  the  towns, 
 where  fruit-trees  are  cultivated,  and  orchards  and 
 gardens  make  an  agreeable  ajipearance.  Most  of 
 this  region  is  a  mere  sheep-walk,  which  grows  more 
 and  more  harsh  and  repulsive  as  we  approach  the 
 south,  where  it  gradually  mingles  with  the  desert. 
 The  highest  elevation  of  the  plateau  between  the 
 two  rivers  is  1500  feet;  and  this  heir;ht  is  reached 
 soon  after  leavinir  the  Euphrates,  while  toward  the 
 west  the  decline  is  gradual. 
 
 8.  Tlie  Eastern  Desert.  —  East  of  the  inner 
 mountain-chain,  and  south  of  the  cultivable  ground 
 about  Aleppo,  is  the  great  Syrian  Desert,  an  "  ele- 
 vated di-y  upland,  for  the  most  part  of  gypsum  and 
 marls,  producing  nothing  but  a  few  spare  bushes  of 
 wormwood,  and  the  usual  aromatic  plants  of  the 
 wilderness."  Here  and  there  bare  and  stony  ridges 
 of  no  great  height  cross  this  arid  region,  but  fail  to 
 draw  water  from  the  sky,  and  have,  consequently, 
 no  streams  flowing  from  them.  A  few  wells  sup- 
 ply the  nomad  population  with  a  brackish  fluid. 
 The  region  is  traversed  with  difficulty,  and  has 
 ne\er  been  accurately  surveyed.  The  most  remark- 
 able oasis  is  at  Palmyra,  where  there  are  several 
 small  streams  and  abundant  palm-trees.  [See  Tah- 
 Mou.]  Toward  the  more  western  part  of  the  re- 
 gion along  the  foot  of  the  mountain  range  which 
 there  bounds  it,  is  likewise  a  good  deal  of  tolerably 
 fertile  country,  watered  by  the  streams  which  flow 
 eastward  from  the  range,  and  after  a  longer  or  a 
 shorter  course  are  lost  in  the  desert.  The  best  known 
 and  the  most  productive  of  these  tracts,  which  seem 
 stolen  from  the  desert,  is  the  famous  plain  of  Da- 
 mascus—  the  el-<jlnitah  and  el-Merj  of  the  Arabs 
 —  already  descri lied  in  the  account  given  of  that  city. 
 [Dama.scus.]  No  rival  to  this  "earthly  paradise" 
 is  to  be  found  along  the  rest  of  the  chain,  since  no 
 other  stream  flows  down  from  it  at  all  comparalile 
 to  the  Barada;  but  wherever  the  eastern  side  of  the 
 chain  has  been  visited,  a  certain  amount  of  cultiva- 
 ble territory  has  been  found  at  its  foot;  com  is 
 grown  in  places,  and  olive-trees  are  abundant 
 (Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria,  pp.  124-129;  Po- 
 cocke.  Description  of  the  East,  ii.  146).  Further 
 from  the  hills  all  is  bare  and  repulsive;  a  dry,  hard 
 desert  like  that  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  with  a 
 soil  of  marl  and  gravel,  only  rarely  diversified  with 
 sand. 
 
 9.  Chief  Divisions.  —  According  to  Strabo,  Syria 
 Proper  was  divided  into  the  following  districts: 
 (1.)  Comma  gene ;  (2.)  Cyrrhestica. ;  (3.)  Seieucis  ; 
 (4.)  Caele- Syria  ;  and  (5.)  Damascene.  If  we  take 
 its  limits,  however,  as  laid  down  above  (§  1),  we 
 must  add  to  these  districts  three  others:  Chalybo- 
 nitis,  or  the  country  about  Aleppo;  Chalcis  or 
 Chalcidice,  a  small  tract  south  of  this,  about  the 
 lake  in  which  the  river  of  Aleppo  ends ;  and  Pal- 
 myrenc.  or  the  desert  so  far  as  we  consider  it  to 
 have   been    Syrian,     {a.)  Comma (/ene "  lay  to  the 
 
 a  The  root  of  this  name  appears  in  the  early  Assyr- 
 ian inscriptious  as  that  nf  a  people,  the  QimimiilJi,  or 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 north.  Its  capital  was  Samosata  or  Sumeina' 
 The  territory  is  said  to  have  been  fairly  fertile,  but 
 small;  and  from  this  we  may  gather  that  it  did  not 
 descend  lower  than  about  Ain-T<ih.  (b.)  From  Ain- 
 Tali,  or  perhaps  from  a  point  higher  up,  commenced 
 Cirrhestica  or  Cyristica.  It  was  bounded  on  the 
 north  by  Commagene,  on  the  northwest  by  Ama- 
 nus,  on  the  west  and  southwest  by  Seleuds,  and 
 on  the  south  by  Chalyhonitis  or  the  region  of  Chal- 
 ybon.  Both  it  and  Commagene  reached  eastward 
 to  the  Euphrates.  Cyrrhestica  was  so  called  from 
 its  capital  Cyrrhus,  which  seems  to  be  tlie  modern 
 Corns.  It  included  Hierapolis  {Bambuk),  Batnse 
 {Dahab?),  and  Gindarus  {(Jindaries).  (c. )  Cha!- 
 ybonitis  adjoined  Cyrrhestica  on  the  south,  lying 
 between  that  region  and  the  desert.  It  extended 
 probably  from  the  Euphrates,  about  Balis,  to  jNIount 
 St.  Simeon  (Amgidi  Dagh).  Like  Cyrrhestica,  it 
 derived  ife  name  from  its  capital  city,  which  was 
 Chalybon,  now  corrupted  into  Haleb  or  Aleppo. 
 {d.)  Chalcidice  was  south  of  the  more  western  por- 
 tion of  Chalyhonitis,  and  was  named  from  its  capi- 
 tal, Chalcis,  which  seems  to  be  marked  liy  the  mod- 
 ern Kennasserin,  a  little  south  of  tlfe  lake  in  which 
 the  Elver  of  Aleppo  ends  (Pococke,  Travels,  ii.  149). 
 (e. )  Seleucis  lay  between  Cyrrhestica,  Chalyhonitis, 
 and  Chalcis  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Mediten-anean 
 on  the  other.  It  was  a  large  province,  and  con- 
 tained four  important  subdivisions:  (1)  Seleucis 
 Proper  or  Pieria,  the  little  corner  between  Amanus 
 and  the  Orontes,  with  its  capital,  Seleucia,  on  the 
 coast,  above  the  month  of  the  Orontes;  (2)  Anti- 
 ochis,  the  region  about  Antioch;  (3)  Laodicene, 
 the  coast  tract  between  the  mouth  of  the  Orontes 
 and  Phoenicia,  named  after  its  capital,  Laodiceia 
 (still  called  Ladildyeh),  which  was  an  excellent 
 port,  and  situated  in  a  most  fertile  district  (Strab. 
 xvi.  2,  §  9);  and  (4)  Apauiene,  consisting  of  the 
 valley  of  the  Orontes  from  .//;.■/•  Undid  to  I/amah, 
 or  perhaps  to  Hems,  and  having  Apameia  (now  Fa- 
 mieli)  for  its  chief  city,  f /'.)  Ccele-Syria  lay  south 
 of  Apameia,  being  the  continuation  of  the  Great 
 Valley,  and  extendiTig  from  Hems  to  the  gorge  in 
 which  the  valley  ends.  The  chief  town  of  this 
 region  was  Heliopolis  {Baalbek),  (g.)  Damascene 
 included  the  whole  cultivable  tract  between  the 
 bare  range  which  breaks  away  from  Anti-Libanus 
 in  lat.  .33°  -30',  and  the  hills  which  shut  in  the 
 valley  of  the  Awaj  on  the  south.  It  lay  east  of 
 Coele-Syria  and  southwest  of  Palmyren(!'.  (/(.) 
 Palmyren^  was  the  name  applied  to  the  whole 
 of  the  Syrian  Desert.  It  was  bounded  on  the  east 
 by  the  Euphrates,  on  the  north  by  Chalyhonitis 
 and  Chalcidice,  on  the  west  by  Apamene  and 
 Coele-Syria,  and  on  the  south  by  the  great  desert  of 
 Arabia. 
 
 10.  Principal  Tmcns.  — The  chief  towns  of  Syria 
 may  be  thus  arranged,  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the 
 order  of  their  importance:  1.  Antioch;  2.  Damas- 
 cus ;  3.  Apameia ;  4.  Seleucia ;  5.  Tadnior  or 
 Palmyra;  6.  Laodiceia;  7.  Epiphaneia  (Hamath); 
 8.  Samosata;  9.  Hierapolis  (Mabog);  10.  Chaly- 
 bon; IL  Emesa ;  12.  Heliopolis;  13.  Laodiceia 
 ad  I.ibanum  ;  14.  Cyrrhus  ;  15.  Chalcis  ;  16. 
 Poseideium  ;  17.  Heracleia  ;  18.  Gindarus  ;  19. 
 Zeugma  ;  20.  Thapsacus.  Of  these,  Samosata, 
 Zeugma,  Thapsacus,  are  on  the  Euphrates ;  Seleucia, 
 Laodiceia,  Poseideium,  and  Heracleia,  on  the  sea- 
 shore; Antioch,  Apameia,  Epiphaneia,  and  Emesa 
 
 Qvmmuhki.     They  dwell,  however,  east  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates, between  Sumtisat  and  Diaihelcr 
 
SYRIA 
 
 (Hems)  on  the  Orontes:  Heliopolis  and  Laodiceia 
 ad  Libaiium,  in  Coele-Sjria;  Hierapolis,  Chaljbon, 
 Cyrrhus,  Chalcis,  and  Giiidarus,  in  the  northern 
 highlands;  Damascus  on  the  skirts,  and  Pahnyra 
 in  the  centre  of  the  eastern  desert. 
 
 11.  llistory.  — ^  Tlie  first  occupants  of  Syria  ap- 
 pear to  have  been  of  Hamitic  descent.  The  Ca- 
 naanitish  races,  the  Hittites,  Jebusites,  Aniorites, 
 etc.,  are  connected  in  Scripture  with  Egypt  and 
 Ethiopia,  Cush  and  Mizraini  (Gen.  x.  0  and  15-18); 
 and  even  independently  of  this  evidence,  there  seems 
 to  be  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  the  races 
 in  question  stood  in  close  ethnic  connection  with 
 the  Cushite  stock  (Kawlinson's  Herodotus,  iv.  213- 
 215).  These  tribes  occupied  not  Palestine  only, 
 but  also  Lower  Syria,  in  very  early  times,  as  we 
 may  gather  from  the  fact  that  Ilamath  is  assigned 
 to  them  in  Genesis  (x.  18).  Afterwards  they  seem 
 to  ha\e  become  possessed  of  Upper  Syria  also,  for 
 when  the  Assyrians  first  push  their  conquests  be- 
 yond the  Euphrates,  they  find  the  Hittites  (K/mtti) 
 established  in  strength  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
 Great  River.  After  a  while  the  first  comers,  who 
 were  still  to  a  great  extent  nomads,  received  a 
 Sheniitic  infusion,  which  most  proliably  came  to 
 them  from  tlie  southeast.  The  family  of  Aljraham, 
 whose  original  domicile  was  in  Lower  Babylonia, 
 may,  perhaps,  be  best  regarded  as  furnishing  us 
 with  a  specimen  of  the  migratory  movements  of  the 
 period.  Another  example  is  that  of  Chedorlaomer 
 with  his  confederate  kings,  of  whom  one  at  least  — 
 Amraphel  —  must  have  been  a  Shemite.  The  move- 
 ment may  have  begun  before  the  time  of  Abraham, 
 and  hence,  perhaps,  the  Shemitic  names  of  many  of 
 the  inhabitants  when  Abraham  first  comes  into  the 
 country,  as  Abimelech,  IMelchizedek,  Eliezer,  etc." 
 The  only  Syrian  town  wliose  existence  we  find  dis- 
 tinctly marked  at  this  time  is  Damascus  (Gen.  xiv. 
 15,  XV.  2),  winch  appears  to  have  been  already  a 
 place  of  some  importance.  Indeed,  in  one  tradition, 
 Abraham  is  said  to  have  been  king  of  Damascus 
 for  a  time  (Nic.  Dam.  Fr.  30);  but  this  is  quite 
 unworthy  of  credit.  Next  to  Damascus  must  be 
 placed  Hamath,  whicli  is  mentioned  by  Moses  as  a 
 well-known  place  (Num.  xiii.  21,  xxxiv.  8),  and 
 appears  in  Egyptian  papyri  of  tlie  time  of  the 
 eighteenth  dynasty  ( Cmnbridge  Essays,  1858,  p. 
 2G8).  Syria  at  this  time,  and  for  many  centuries 
 afterwards,  seems  to  have  been  L)roken  up  among  a 
 number  of  petty  kingdoms.  Several  of  these  are 
 mentioned  in  Scripture,  as  Damascus,  llehob, 
 Maachah,  Zobah,  Gesliur,  etc.  We  also  hear  oc- 
 casionally of  "  tlie  kings  of  Syria  and  of  the  Hit- 
 tites "  (1  K.  X.  29;  2  K.  vii.  6)  —  an  expression 
 indicative  of  tliat  extensive  subdivision  of  the  tract 
 among  nuuierous  petty  chiefs  which  is  exhibited  to 
 us  very  clearly  in  the  early  Assyrian  inscriptions. 
 At  various  times  different  states  had  the  preemi- 
 nence; but  none  was  ever  strong  enough  to  estab- 
 lish an  authority  over  the  others. 
 
 The  .lews  first  come  into  hostile  contact  with  the 
 Syrians,  uiidur  tliat  name,  in  the  time  of  David. 
 The  wars  of  Joshua,  however,  nuist  have  often  been 
 with  Syrian  chiefs,  with  whom  he  disputed  the 
 possession  of  the  tract  about  Lebanon  atid  Hermon 
 (.losh.  xi.  2-18).  After  his  time  tlie  Syrians  were 
 apparently  undisturbed,  until  David  began  his  ag- 
 gressive wars  upon  them.  Claiming  the  frontier  of 
 the  Euphrates,  which  God  had  promised  to  Abraham 
 
 a  It  is  possible,  however,  that  these  names  may  be 
 the  Shemitic  equivalents   of  the  real  names  of  these 
 198 
 
 SYRIA  3145 
 
 (Gen.  XV.  18),  David  made  war  on  Hadadezer,  king 
 of  Zobah,  whom  he  defeated  in  a  great  i)attle,  kill- 
 ing 18,000  of  his  men,  and  taking  from  him  1,000 
 chariots,  700  horsemen,  and  20,000  footmen  (2  Sam. 
 viii.  3,  4,  13).  The  Damascene  Syrians,  having 
 endeavored  to  succor  their  kinsmen,  were  likewise 
 defeated  with  great  loss  {ibid.  ver.  5);  and  the 
 blow  so  weakened  them  that  they  shortly  afterwards 
 sulimitted  and  became  David's  subjects  (ver.  6). 
 Zol)ah,  however,  was  far  from  being  subdued  as 
 yet.  When,  a  few  years  later,  the  Ammonites  de- 
 termined on  engaging  in  a  war  with  David,  and 
 applied  to  the  Syrians  for  aid,  Zobah,  together  with 
 Beth-Kehol),  sent  them  20,000  footmen,  and  two 
 other  Syrian  kingdoms  furnished  13,000  (2  Sam. 
 X.  6).  This  army  being  completely  defeated  by 
 Joab,  Hadadezer  obtained  aid  from  Mesopotamia 
 (ibid.  ver.  10),  and  tried  the  chance  of  a  third  bat- 
 tle, whicli  likewise  went  against  him,  and  produced 
 the  general  submission  of  Syria  to  the  Jewish 
 monai-ch.  The  submission  thus  begun  continued 
 under  the  reign  of  Solomon,  who  "  reigned  over 
 all  the  kingdoms  from  the  river  (Euphrates)  unto 
 the  land  of  the  Philistines  and  unto  the  border  of 
 Egypt;  they  brought  presents  and  served  Solomon 
 all'the  days  of  his  lite"  (1  K.  iv.  21).  The  only 
 part  of  Syria  whicli  Solomon  lost  seems  to  have 
 been  Damascus,  where  an  independent  kingdom 
 was  set  up  by  Rezon,  a  native  of  Zobah  (1  K.  xi. 
 23-25).  On  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
 soon  after  the  accession  of  Kehoboain,  the  remainder 
 of  Syria  no  doubt  shook  off  the  yoke.  Damascus 
 now  became  decidedly  the  leading  state,  Hamath 
 being  second  to  it,  and  the  northern  Hittites, 
 whose  capital  was  C'archeniish  near  Bnmbuk,  third. 
 [Cakchemisii.]  The  wars  of  this  period  fall  most 
 properly  into  the  history  of  Damascus,  and  have 
 already  been  described  in  tlie  account  given  of  that 
 city.  [Damascus.]  Their  result  was  to  attach 
 Syria  to  the  great  Assyrian  empire,  from  which  it 
 passed  to  the  Babylonians,  after  a  short  attempt 
 on  the  part  of  Egypt  to  hold  possession  of  it,  which 
 was  frustr.ated  by  Nebuciiadnezzar.  From  the 
 Babylonians  Syria  passed  to  the  Persians,  under 
 whom  it  formed  a  satrapy  in  conjunction  with 
 Jud^a,  Phcenicia,  and  Cyprus  (Herod,  iii.  91).  Its 
 resources  were  still  great,  and  probably  it  was  his 
 confidence  in  them  which  encouraged  the  Syrian 
 satrap,  JMegabazus,  to  raise  the  standard  of  revolt 
 against  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  (li.  c.  417).  After 
 this  we  hear  little  of  Syria  till  the  year  of  the  battle 
 of  Issus  (b.  c.  333),  when  it  submitted  to  Alex- 
 ander without  a  struggle. 
 
 Upon  the  death  of  Alexander  Syria  became,  for 
 the  first  time,  the  head  of  a  great  kingdom.  On 
 the  division  of  the  provinces  among  his  generals 
 (b.  c.  321),  Seleucus  Nicator  received  Mesopotamia 
 and  Syria;  and  though,  in  the  twenty  years  of 
 struggle  which  followed,  this  country  was  lost  and 
 won  repeatedly,  it  remained  finally,  with  the  ex- 
 ception of  Coele-Syria,  in  the  hands  of  the  prince 
 to  whom  it  was  originally  assigned.  That  prince, 
 whose  dominions  reached  from  the  Mediternmern 
 to  the  Indus,  and  from  the  Oxus  to  the  Sonthtiii 
 Ocean,  liavhig,  as  he  believed,  been  exposed  to 
 great  dangers  on  account  of  the  distance  from 
 Greece  of  his  original  capital,  Babylon,  resolved 
 immediately  upon  his  victory  of  Ipsus  (b.  c.  301) 
 to  fix  his  metropolis  in  the  West,  and  settled  upon 
 
 persons,  which  names  might  in  that  case  hare  been 
 Uamitic. 
 
8146 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 Syria  as  the  fittest  place  for  it.  Antiocli  was  be- 
 gun in  B.  c.  300,  and,  feeing  finished  in  a  few  ye;iis, 
 was  made  the  capital  of  Seleucus'  kingdom.  The 
 whole  realm  was  thenceforth  ruled  from  this  centre, 
 and  Syria,  which  had  long  been  the  prey  of  stronger 
 countries,  and  had  been  exhausted  by  their  ex- 
 actions, grew  rich  with  the  wealth  which  now  flowed 
 into  it  on  all  sides.  The  luxury  and  magnificence 
 of  Antioch  were  extraordinary.  Broad  straight 
 streets,  with  colonnades  from  end  to  end,  temples, 
 statues,  arches,  bridges,  a  royal  palace,  and  various 
 «ther  public  buildings  dispersed  throughout  it, 
 made  the  Syrian  capital  by  far  the  most  splendid 
 of  all  the  cities  of  the  East.  At  the  same  time,  in 
 the  provinces,  other  towns  of  large  size  were  grow- 
 ing up.  Seleucia  in  Pieria,  Apameia,  and  both 
 Laodiceias  were  foundations  of  the  Seleucidis,  as 
 their  names  sufficiently  indicate.  Weak  and  in- 
 dolent as  were  many  of  these  monarchs,  it  would 
 seem  that  they  had  a  hereditary  taste  for  building : 
 and  so  each  aimed  at  outdoing  his  predecessors  in 
 the  number,  beauty,  and  magnificence  of  his  con- 
 structions. As  the  history  of  Syria  under  the 
 Seleucid  princes  has  been  already  given  in  detail, 
 in  the  articles  treating  of  each  monarch  [Anti- 
 OCHUS,  Demetrius,  Seleucus,  etc.],  it  will  be 
 uimecessary  here  to  do  more  than  sum  it  up  gen- 
 erally. The  most  flourishing  period  was  the  reign 
 of  the  founder,  Nicator.  The  empire  was  then  al- 
 most as  large  as  that  of  the  Acha?menian  Persians, 
 for  it  at  one  time  included  Asia  Elinor,  and  thus 
 reached  from  the  ^Egean  to  India.  It  was  organized 
 into  satrapies,  of  which  the  immlier  was  72.  Trade 
 flourished  greatly,  old  lines  of  traffic  being  restored 
 and  new  ones  opened.  The  reign  of  Nicator's  son, 
 Antiochus  I.,  called  Soter,  was  the  beginning  of 
 the  decline,  which  was  progressive  from  his  date, 
 with  only  one  or  two  slight  interruptions.  Soter 
 lost  territory  to  the  kingdom  of  Pergamus,  and 
 failed  in  an  attempt  to  subject  Bithynia.  He  was 
 also  unsuccessful  against  Egypt.  Under  his  son, 
 Antiochus  II.,  called  @e6s,  or  "  the  tiod,'"  who 
 ascended  the  throne  in  b.  c.  261,  the  disintegration 
 of  the  empire  proceeded  more  rajiidly.  The  revolt 
 of  Parthia  in  n.  c.  2.50,  followed  l)y  that  of  Bactria 
 in  15.  c.  2bi,  deprived  the  Syrian  kingdom  of  some 
 of  its  best  provinces,  and  gave  it  a  new  enemy 
 which  shortly  became  a  rival  and  finally  a  superior. 
 At  the  same  time  the  war  with  Egypt  was  prose- 
 cuted without  either  advantage  or  glorj'.  Fresh 
 losses  were  suffered  In  the  reign  of  Seleucus  II. 
 (Callinicus),  Antiochus  the  Second's  successor. 
 While  Callinicus  was  engaged  in  Egypt  against 
 Ptolemy  Euergetes,  Eumenes  of  Pergamus  obtained 
 possession  of  a  great  part  of  Asia  Minor  (n.  c.  242) ; 
 and  about  the  same'  time  Arsaces  II.,  king  of 
 Parthia,  conquered  Hyrcania  and  annexed  it  to 
 his  dominions.  An  attempt  to  recover  this  latter 
 province  cost  Callinicus  his  crown,  as  he  was  de- 
 feated and  made  prisoner  by  the  Parthians  (b.  c. 
 220).  In  the  next  reign,  that  of  Seleucus  III. 
 (Ceraunus),  a  slight  reaction  set  in.  Most  of  Asia 
 Minor  was  recovered  for  Ceraunus  by  his  wife's 
 nephew,  Achoeus  (b.  c.  224),  and  he  was  preparing 
 to  invade  Pergamus  when  he  died  poisoned.  His 
 successor  and  brother,  Antiochus  III.,  though  he 
 gained  the  surname  of  Great  from  the  grandeur  of 
 his  expeditious  and  the  partial  success  of  some  of 
 them,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  really  done  any- 
 thing toward  raising  the  empire  from  its  declining 
 condition,  since  his  conquests  on  the  side  of  I'-gypt, 
 eonsisting  of  Coele-Syria,  Phcenicia,  and  Palestine, 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 formed  no  sufficient  compensation  for  the  loss  of 
 Asia  Minor,  which  he  was  forced  to  cede  to  Rome 
 lor  the  aggrandizement  of  the  rival  kingdom  of 
 Pergamus  (b.  c.  190).  Even  had  the  territorial 
 balance  been  kept  more  even,  the  ill  policy  of  making 
 liome  an  enemy  of  the  Syrian  kingdom,  with  which 
 Antiochus  the  Great  is  taxable,  would  have  neces- 
 sitated our  placing  him  among  the  princes  to  whom 
 its  ultimate  ruin  was  mainly  owing.  Toward  the 
 East,  indeed,  he  did  something,  if  not  to  thrust 
 back  the  Parthians,  at  any  rate  to  protect  his  em- 
 pire from  their  aggressions.  But  the  exhaustion 
 consequent  upon  his  constant  wars  and  signal  de- 
 feats —  more  especially  those  of  Raphia  and  Mag- 
 nesia —  left  Syria  far  moie  feeble  at  his  death  than 
 she  had  been  at  any  former  period.  The  almost 
 eventless  reign  of  Seleucus  IV.  (Philopator),  his  son 
 and  successor  (b.  c.  187-1 75),  is  sufficient  proof 
 of  this  feebleness.  It  was  not  till  twenty  jears  of 
 peace  had  recruited  the  resources  of  Syria  in  men 
 and  money,  that  Antiochus  IV.  (Epiphanes),  brother 
 of  Philopator,  ventured  on  engaging  in  a  great  war 
 (b.  c.  171)  —  a  war  for  the  conquest  of  Egypt.  At 
 first  it  seemed  as  if  the  attempt  would  succeed. 
 Egypt  was  on  the  point  of  yielding  to  her  foe  of  so 
 many  years,  when  Rome,  following  out  her  tradi- 
 tions of  hostility  to  Syrian  power  and  influence, 
 interposed  her  mediation,  and  deprived  Epiphanes 
 of  all  the  fruits  of  his  victories  (b.  c.  168).  A 
 greater  injury  was,  about  the  same  time  (b.  c.  167), 
 inflicted  on  Syria  by  the  folly  of  Epiphanes  him- 
 self. Not  content  with  replenishing  his  treasury  by 
 the  plunder  of  the  Jewish  temple,  he  madly  ordered 
 the  desecration  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  thus 
 caused  the  revolt  of  the  Jews,  which  proved  a  per- 
 manent loss  to  the  empire  and  an  aggra^■ation  of 
 its  weakness.  After  the  death  of  Epiplianes  the 
 empire  rapidly  verged  to  its  fall.  The  regal  power 
 fell  into  the  hands  of  an  infant,  Antiochus  V. 
 (Eupator),  son  of  Epiphanes  (B.  c.  164);  the  nobles 
 contended  for  the  regency;  a  pretender  to  the  crown 
 started  up  in  the  person  of  Demetrius,  son  of 
 Seleucus  IV.;  Rome  put  in  a  claim  to  administer 
 the  government;  and  amid  the  troubles  thus  caused, 
 the  Parthians,  under  Mithridates  I.,  overran  the 
 eastern  provinces  (n.  c.  104),  conquered  Media, 
 Persia,  Susiana,  Babylonia,  etc.,  and  advanced  their 
 frontier  to  the  Euphrates.  It  was  in  vain  that 
 Demetrius  II.  (Nicator)  made  an  attempt  (b.  C. 
 142)  to  recover  the  lost  territory;  his  boldness  cost 
 him  his  liberty;  while  a  similar  attempt  on  the 
 part  of  his  successor,  Antiochus  VII.  (Sidetes),  cost 
 that  monarch  his  life  (b.  c.  128).  Meanwhile,  in 
 the  shorn  Syrian  kingdom,  disorders  of  every  kind 
 were  on  the  increase;  Commagene  revolted  and 
 established  her  independence;  civil  wars,  murders, 
 mutinies  of  the  troops,  rapidly  succeeded  one  an- 
 other; the  despised  Jews  were  called  in  by  both 
 sides  in  the  various  struggles;  and  Syria,  in  the 
 space  of  about  ninety  years,  from  b.  c.  154  to  b.  c. 
 64,  had  no  fewer  than  ten  sovereigns.  All  the 
 wealth  of  the  country  had  been  by  this  time  dis- 
 sipated ;  much  had  flowed  Romewards  in  the  shape 
 of  bribes;  more,  probably,  had  been  spent  on  the 
 wars;  and  still  more  had  been  wasted  by  tlie  kings 
 in  luxury  of  every  kind.  Under  these  circumstances 
 the  Romans  showed  no  eagerness  to  occupy  the 
 exhausted  region,  which  passed  under  the  power  of 
 Tigranes,  king  of  Armenia,  in  b.  c.  8-3,  and  was 
 not  made  a  province  of  the  Roman  Empire  till  after 
 Pompey's  complete  defeat  of  Mithridates  and  hig 
 ally  Tigranes,  b.  c.  64. 
 
SYRIA 
 
 The  chronology  of  this  period  has  been  well 
 worked  out  by  Clinton  (F.  H.  vol.  iii.  pp.  308- 
 346),  from  whom  the  following  table  of  the  kings, 
 with  the  dates  of  their  accession,  is  taken  :  — 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 3147 
 
 Kings. 
 
 Length  of 
 
 Date  of 
 
 Reign. 
 
 Accession. 
 
 1.  Seleucus  Nicator 
 
 32  years. 
 
 Oct.   312 
 
 2.  Autiochus  Soter 
 
 19      " 
 
 Jan.  280 
 
 3.  Autiochus  Theus     . 
 
 15      " 
 
 Jan.  261 
 
 4.   Seleucus   Calliuicus 
 
 20     " 
 
 Jan.  246 
 
 5.  Seleucus  Ceraunus 
 
 3     " 
 
 Aug.  226 
 
 6.  Autiochus  Magnus 
 
 36      " 
 
 Aug.  223 
 
 7.   Seleucus   Philopator    . 
 
 12     " 
 
 Oct.   187 
 
 8.  Autiochus  Epiphaues 
 
 11      " 
 
 Aug.  175 
 
 9.  Autiochus  Eupator 
 
 2     '' 
 
 Dec.  164 
 
 10.  Demetrius  Soter      .     .     . 
 
 12     " 
 
 Nov.  162 
 
 11.  Alexander  Bala 
 
 5     " 
 
 Aug.  150 
 
 12.  Demetrius  Nicator  (1st  reign) 
 
 9     " 
 
 Nov.  146 
 
 13.  Autiochus  Sidetes    . 
 
 9     " 
 
 Feb.  137 
 
 14.  Deuietrius  Nicator  (2d  reign) 
 
 3     " 
 
 Feb.  128 
 
 15.  Autiochus   Grypus       .     . 
 
 13     " 
 
 Aug.  125 
 
 16.  Autiochus  Cyzicenus 
 
 18     " 
 
 113 
 
 17.  Antiochus    Eusebes    and    ) 
 Philippus ) 
 
 12     " 
 
 95 
 
 18.  Tigranes 
 
 14      " 
 
 83 
 
 19    Antiochus  Asiaticus     .     . 
 
 4     " 
 
 69 
 
 As  Syria  holds  an  important  place,  not  only  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  New,  some  account 
 of  its  condition  under  the  Romans  must  now  be 
 given.  That  condition  was  somewhat  peculiar. 
 VVhile  the  country  ij;enerally  was  formed  into  a  Ro- 
 man province,  under  governors  wlio  were  at  first 
 proprsetors  or  quaestors,  then  proconsuls,  and  finally 
 legates,  there  were  exempted  from  the  direct  rule 
 of  the  governor,  in  the  first  place,  a  number  of 
 "  free  cities,"  which  retained  the  administration  of 
 their  own  affairs,  subject  to  a  tril)ute  levied  accord- 
 ing to  the  Roman  principles  of  taxation ;  and  2dly, 
 a  number  of  tracts,  which  were  assigned  to  petty 
 princes,  commonly  natives,  to  be  ruled  at  their 
 pleasure,  suliject  to  the  same  oblisjations  with  the 
 free  cities  as  to  taxation  (Appiau,  Syr.  50).  The 
 free  cities  were  Antioch,  Seleucia,  Apameia,  Epi- 
 phaneia,  Tripolis,  Sidon,  and  Tyre;  the  prhicipali- 
 ties,  Coramagen^,  Chalcis  ad  Belum  (near  Baal- 
 bek), Arethusa,  Abila  or  Abilen^,  Palmyra,  and 
 Damascus.  The  principalities  were  sometimes 
 called  kingdoms,  sometimes  tetrarchies.  They 
 were  established  where  it  was  thought  that  the  na- 
 tives were  so  inveterately  wedded  to  their  own  cus- 
 toms, and  so  well  disposed  for  revolt,  that  it  was 
 necessary  to  consult  their  feelings,  to  flatter  the 
 national  vanity,  and  to  give  them  the  semblance 
 without  the  substance  of  freedom,  {a.)  Comma- 
 gene;  was  a  kingdom  (retjnum).  It  had  broken  off 
 from  Sjria  during  the  later  troubles,  and  become  a 
 separate  state  under  the  government  of  a  l)ranch  of 
 the  Seleucidte,  who  attected  the  names  of  Antiochus 
 and  Withridates.  The  Romans  allowed  this  con- 
 dition of  things  to  continue  till  a.  d.  17,  when, 
 upon  the  death  of  Antiochus  III.,  they  made  Com- 
 magene  into  a  province;  in  which  condition  it  con- 
 tinued till  A.  D.  38,  when  Caligula  gave  the  crown 
 to  Antiochus  IV.  (Epiphanes),  the  son  of  Anti- 
 ochus III.  Antiochus  IV.  contimied  king  till  a. 
 D.  72,  when  he  was  deposed  by  Vespasian,  and 
 Commagen^  was  finally  absorbed  into  tlie  Empire. 
 He  had  a  son,  called  also  Antiochus  and  Epiphanes, 
 *ho  was  betrothed  to  Drusilla,  the  sister  of  "  King 
 
 Agrippa,"  and  afterwards  the  wife  of  Felix,  the 
 procurator  of  Judaea.  (0.)  Chalcis  "ad  Belmn  " 
 was  not  the  city  so  called  near  Aleppo,  which  ga\e 
 name  to  the  district  of  Cnalcidice,  but  a  town  ol 
 less  importance  near  Heliopolis  (Baalbek),  whence 
 probably  the  suffix  "  ad  Belum."'  It  is  mentioned 
 in  this  connection  by  Strabo  (xvi.  2,  §  10),  and 
 Josepbus  says  that  it  was  under  Lebanon  (Ant.  xiv. 
 7,  §  4),  so  that  there  cannot  be  much  doubt  as  to 
 its  position.  It  must  have  been  in  the  "  Hollow 
 Syria" — the  modern  Bukaa — to  the  south  of 
 Baalbek  (.loseph.  B.  J.  i.  9,  §  2),  and  therefore 
 probably  at  Anjnr,  where  there  are  large  ruins 
 (Robinson,  Bibl.  Res.  iii.  496,  497).  This  too  was 
 generally, or  perhaps  always,  a  "  kingdom."  Pom- 
 pey  found  it  under  a  certain  Ptolemy,  "  the  son  of 
 Mennfeus,"  and  allowed  him  to  retain  possession  of 
 it,  togetlier  with  certain  adjacent  districts.  From 
 him  it  passed  to  his  sou,  Lysanias,  who  was  put  to 
 death  iiy  Antony  at  the  instigation  of  Cleopatra 
 (ab.  li.  c.  34),  after  which  we  find  its  revenues 
 farmed  by  Lysanias'  steward,  Zenodorus,  the  roy- 
 alty being  in  abeyance  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  10,  §  1). 
 In  B.  c.  22  Chalcis  was  added  by  Augustus  to  the 
 dominions  of  Herod  the  Great,  at  whose  death  it 
 probably  passed  to  his  son  Philip  (ibid.  xvii.  11,  § 
 4).  Philip  died  a.  d.  34;  and  then  we  lose  sight 
 of  Chalcis,  until  Claudius  in  his  first  year  (A.  d. 
 41)  bestowed  it  on  a  Herod,  the  brother  of  Herod 
 Agrippa  I.,  still  as  a  "  kingdom."  From  this 
 Herod  it  passed  (A  d.  49)  to  his  nephew,  Herod 
 Agrippa  II.,  who  held  it  only  three  or  four  years, 
 being  promoted  from  it  to  a  better  government 
 (ibid.  XX.  7,  §  1).  Chalcis  then  fell  to  Agrippa's 
 cousin  Aristobulus,  son  of  the  first  Herodian  king, 
 under  whom  it  remained  till  A.  d.  73  (Joseph.  B. 
 J.  vii.  7,  §  1).  About  this  time,  or  soon  after,  it 
 ceased  to  be  a  distinct  government,  being  finally 
 absorbed  into  the  Roman  province  of  Syria,  (e.) 
 Arethusa  (now  Mestim)  was  for  a  time  separated 
 from  Syria,  and  governed  by  phylarchs.  The  city 
 lay  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Orontes  between  Ha- 
 mah  and  Hems,  rather  nearer  to  the  former.  In 
 the  government  were  included  the  Emiseni,  or  peo- 
 ple of  Hems  (Emesa),  so  that  we  may  regard  it  as 
 comprising  the  Orontes  valley  from  the  Jebel  Kr- 
 bayn,  at  least  as  high  as  the  Bahr  el^Kades,  or 
 Bahtivet-llems,  the  lake  of  Hems.  Only  two  gov- 
 ernors are  known,  Sampsiceramus,  and  Jamblichus, 
 his  son  (Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10).  Probably  this  prm- 
 cipality  was  one  of  the  first  absorbed.  ((/. )  Abilene, 
 so  called  from  its  capital  Abila,  was  a  "  tetrarchy." 
 It  was  situated  to  the  east  of  Anti-Libanus,  on  the 
 route  between  Baalbek  and  Damascus  ([(in.  Ant). 
 Ruins  and  inscriptions  mark  the  site  of  the  capital 
 (Robinson,  Bibl.  Rts.  iii.  479-482),  which  was  at 
 the  village  called  el-Suk,  on  the  river  Barada,  just 
 where  it  breaks  forth  from  the  mountains.  The 
 limits  of  the  territory  are  uncertain.  We  first  hear 
 of  this  tetrarchy  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel  (iii.  1),  where 
 it  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  possession  of  a  certain 
 Lysanias  at  the  conimencemeut  of  St.  John's  min- 
 istry, which  was  probably  A.  D.  27.  Of  this  Ly- 
 sanias nothing  more  is  known;  he  certainly  cannot 
 be  the  Lysanias  who  once  held  Chalcis;  since  that 
 Lysanias  died  above  sixty  years  previously.  Eleven 
 years  after  the  date  mentioned  by  St.  Luke,  A.  d. 
 3S,  the  heir  of  Caligula  bestowed  "  the  tetrarchy  of 
 Lysanias,'"  by  which  Abilem^  is  no  doubt  intended, 
 on  the  elder  Agrippa  (Joseph.  A)it.  xviii.  6,  §  10); 
 and  four  years  later  Claudius  confirmed  the  same 
 prince  in  the  possession  of  the  "  Abila  of  Lj  manias  " 
 
3148  SYRIA 
 
 {ibid.  xix.  5,  §  1).  Finally,  in  A.  D.  53,  Claudius, 
 among  other  grants,  conferred  on  the  younger 
 Agrippa  "  Abila,  which  had  been  the  tetrarchy  of 
 Lysanias  "  {iljid.  xx.  7,  §  1).  Abila  was  taken  i>y 
 Placidus,  one  of  the  generals  of  Vespasian,  in  n.  c. 
 69  (Joseph.  Bell.  Jtid.  iv.  7,  §  C),  and  thenceforth 
 was  annexed  to  Syria.  (e.)  Palmyra  appears  to 
 ha\e  occupied  a  different  position  from  the  rest  of 
 the  Syrian  principalities,  it  was  in  no  sense  de- 
 pendent upon  liome  (Plin.  //.  ^V.  v.  2.5),  but  rely- 
 ing on  its  position,  claimed  and  exercised  the  right 
 of  self-government  from  the  breaking  up  of  the 
 Syrian  kingdom  to  the  reign  of  Trajan.  Antony 
 made  an  attempt  against  it,  n.  c.  41,  but  failed. 
 It  was  not  till  Trajan's  successes  against  the  Par- 
 thians,  between  a.  i>.  114  and  A.  d.  116,  that 
 Palmyra  was  added  to  the  Empire.  (J'.)  Damas- 
 cus is  the  last  of  the  principalities  which  it  is  nec- 
 essary to  notice  here.  It  appears  to  have  been  left 
 by  Pompey  in  the  hands  of  an  Arabian  prince, 
 Aretas,  who,  however,  was  to  pay  a  tribute  for  it, 
 and  to  allow  the  Romans  to  occupy  it  at  their  pleas- 
 ure with  a  garrison  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  5;  5, 
 §  1;  11,  §  7).  This  state  of  things  continued 
 most  likely  to  the  settlement  of  the  Empire  by  Au- 
 gustus, when  Damascus  was  attached  to  the  prov- 
 ince of  Syria.  During  the  rest  of  Augustus'  reign, 
 and  during  the  entire  reign  of  Tiberius,  this  ar- 
 rangement was  in  I'orce ;  but  it  seems  probable  that 
 Caligula  on  his  accession  separated  Damascus  from 
 Syria,  and  gave  it  to  another  Aretas,  who  was  king 
 of  Petra,  and  a  relation  (son  ?)  of  the  former.  [See 
 Aketas.]  Hence  the  fact,  noted  Ijy  St.  Paul  (2 
 Cor.  xi.  32),  that  at  the  time  of  his  conversion 
 Damascus  was  held  by  an  "  ethnarch  of  king  Are- 
 tas." The  semi-independence  of  Damascus  is 
 thought  to  have  continued  through  the  reigns  of 
 Caligula  and  Claudius  (from  a.  d.  37  to  a.  d.  54), 
 but  to  have  come  to  an  end  under  Nero,  when  the 
 district  was  probably  reattached  to  Syria. 
 
 The  list  of  the  governors  of  Syria,  from  its  con- 
 quest by  the  Romans  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, has  been  made  out  with  a  near  approach  to 
 accuracy,  and  is  as  follows :  — 
 
 Date  of  Date  of 
 
 Names.  Titles  of  office,  entering  quitting 
 
 oliice.         otiiee. 
 (  QuiBstor  pro 
 
 \       prffitore  .  B.  c.  02  .  B.  c.  61 
 
 L.  Marcius  Philippus  .     .   Proprietor     .     .  61  .     .59 
 
 Lentulus  Marcellinus     .  Propraetor     .      .  bQ  .     .57 
 
 Gabinius   ....  Proconsul     .     .  56  .     .55 
 
 Crassus     ....  .     .  55  .     .  53 
 
 Cassius      .  .     .  Quajstor .     .     .  53  .     .51 
 
 M.  Calpurnius  Bibulu."    .  Proconsul    .     .  51  .     .47 
 
 Sext.  Julius  Cicsar     .     .  .     .  47  •     .  46 
 
 Q.  Caecilius  Bassus  .  .  Praetor  .  .  .  46  .  .44 
 (Q.  Cornificius  .  .  .  (  received  authority  from  tlie 
 (Ij.  Statius  Marcus  .  <  Senate  to  dispossess  Bassus, 
 (Q.  Marcius  Crispus    .      (      but  failed.) 
 
 0.  Cassius  Longinus    .     .  Proconsul   B.  c.  43  B.  c.  42 
 
 L.  Deridius  Saxa    .      .      .   Legatus  .      .     .  41  .      .40 
 
 P.  Ventidius  Bassus    .     .  Legatus  .     .     .  40  .     .38 
 
 C.  Sosius Legatus  .      .      .  38  .      .  35 
 
 L.  Muaatius  Plancus  .     .  Legatus  .      .      .  35  .      .32 
 
 L.  Calpurnius  Bibulus     .  Legatus  .      .     .  31  .      .31 
 
 Q.  Didius Legatus  ...  30 
 
 M.  Valerius  Messalla  .     .  Legatus  .      .      .  29  .      .29 
 
 Varro Legatus  ...  24 
 
 M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa     .  Legatu.s  .  .  22  .     .20 
 
 M.  TuUius Legatus  ...   19  (?) 
 
 M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa     .  Legatus  ...  15 
 
 M.  Titius Legatus        .     .  11  .     .     7 
 
 C.  Sentius  Saturninus     .   Legatus  .      .      .     7  .      .     3 
 
 p.  Quintilius  Varus    .     .  Ijegatus  .     .  3  .  a.  d.  5 
 
 M.  .^hnilius  Scaurus 
 
 Na 
 
 SYRIA 
 
 Date  of  Date  CR 
 
 Titles  of  office,  entering  quitting 
 
 office.  office. 
 
 Legatus  .     a.  D.  5 
 Legatus  . 
 
 P.  Sulpicius  Quirinus 
 Q.     CiEcilius    Metellus 
 
 Crcticus  Silauus     . 
 
 M.  Calpurnius  Piso     .      .  Legatus  .  .  .  17  .  .19 
 
 Cn.  Seutius  Saturninus  .  Prolegatus  .  .  19 
 
 L.  Poniponius  flaccus     .   Proprjetor  .  .  22  .  .33 
 
 L.  Vitellius Legatus  .  .  .  35  .  .39 
 
 P.  Petronius     ....  Legatus  .  .  .  39  .  .42 
 
 Vibius  Marsus  ....  Legatus  ...  42  .  48 
 
 C.  Cassius  Longinus  .      .  Legatus  .  .  .  48  .  .51 
 
 T.  Nuniidius  '  Quadratus  Legatus  .  .  .  51  .  .60 
 
 Domitius   Corbulo      .     .  Legatus  .  .  .  00  .  .63 
 
 Cincius     .  .      .  Legatus  ...  63 
 
 C.  Cestius  Gallus  .     .     .  Legatus  .  .  .  65  .  .67 
 
 P.  Licinius  Mucianus     .  Legatus  .  .  .  67  .  .69 
 
 The  history  of  Syria  during  this  period  may  be 
 summed  up  in  a  few  words.  Down  to  the  battle 
 of  Pliarsalia,  Syria  was  fairly  tranquil,  the  only 
 troubles  being  with  the  Arabs,  who  occasionally  at- 
 tacked the  eastern  frontier.  The  Roman  gcA'crnons 
 laliored  hard  to  raise  the  condition  of  the  province, 
 taking  great  pains  to  restore  the  cities,  wliich  had 
 gone  to  decay  under  the  later  Seleucidse.  Gabinius, 
 proconsul  in  the  years  56  and  55  b.  c.,  made  him- 
 self particularly  conspicuous  in  works  of  tliis  kind. 
 After  Pharsalia  (n.  c.  46)  the  troubles  of  Syria  were 
 renewed.  Julius  Cassar  gave  the  ]irovince  to  his 
 relative  Sextus  in  u.  c.  47 ;  but  I'ompey's  party 
 was  still  so  strong  in  the  east,  ti)at  in  the  next 
 year  one  of  his  adherents,  Cfecilius  Ba.ssus,  put 
 Sextus  to  death,  and  established  himself  in  the 
 government  so  firmly  that  he  was  able  to  resist  for 
 tliree  years  three  proconsuls  appointed  by  the  .Senate 
 to  dispossess  him,  and  only  finally  yielded  upoji 
 terms  which  he  himself  offered  to  liis  antagonists. 
 Many  of  the  petty  princes  of  Syria  sided  with  him, 
 and  some  of  the  nomadic  Arabs  took  his  pay  and 
 fought  under  his  iianner  (Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10). 
 Rassus  had  but  just  made  his  submission,  wlien, 
 upon  the  assassination  of  Csesar,  Syria  was  disputed 
 between  Cassius  and  Dolal)ella,  the  friend  of  An- 
 tony, a  dispute  terminated  by  the  suicide  of  Dola- 
 bella,  B.  c.  43,  at  Laodiceia,  where  he  was  besieged 
 by  Cassius.  Tlie  next  year  Cassius  left  his  province 
 and  went  to  Philippi,  where,  after  the  first  unsuc- 
 cessful engagement,  he  too  eonnnitted  suicide. 
 Syria  then  fell  to  Antony,  who  appointed  as  his 
 legate  L.  Decidius  Saxa,  in  n.  c.  41.  Tlie  troubles 
 of  the  empire  now  tempted  the  Partliians  to  seek 
 a  further  extension  of  their  dominions  at  the  ex- 
 pense of  Rome,  and  Pacorus,  the  crown-prince,  son 
 of  Arsaces  XIV.,  assisted  by  the  Roman  refugee, 
 Labienus,  overran  Syria  and  Asia  Jlinor,  defeating 
 Antony's  generals,  and  threatening  Rome  with  the 
 loss  of  all  her  Asiatic  possessions  (b.  C.  40-39). 
 Ventidius,  however,  in  B.  c.  38,  defeated  the  Par- 
 thians,  slew  Pacorus,  and  recovered  for  Rome  her 
 former  boundary.  A  quiet  time  followed.  From 
 IJ.  C.  38  to  B.  c.  31  Syria  was  governed  peaceably 
 l)y  the  legates  of  Antony,  and,  after  his  defeat  at 
 Actium  and  death  at  Alexandria  in  tliat  year,  by 
 those  of  Augustus.  In  b.  c.  27  took  place  that 
 formal  division  of  the  provinces  between  Augustus 
 and  the  Senate,  from  whicli  the  imperial  adminis- 
 trative system  dates;  and  Syria,  being  from  its  ex- 
 posed situation  among  the  provincim  pvincipis, 
 continued  to  be  ruled  by  legates,  who  were  of 
 consular  rank  (consulares)  and  bore  severally  the 
 
 1  Called  "  Vinjdius  "'  by  Tacitus. 
 
SYKIA 
 
 full  title  of  "  I^egatus  August!  pro  prtetore."  Dur- 
 ing tlie  whole  of  this  period  the  province  enlarged 
 or  contracted  its  limits  according  as  it  pleased  the 
 reigning  emperor  to  bestow  tracts  of  land  on  the 
 native  princes,  or  to  resume  them  and  place  them 
 under  his  legate.  Jud;ea,  when  attached  in  this 
 way  to  Syria,  occupied  a  peculiar  position.  Partly 
 perhaps  on  account  of  its  remoteness  from  the  Syr- 
 ian capital,  Antioch,  partly  no  doubt  because  of 
 the  peculiar  character  of  its  people,  it  was  thought 
 best  to  make  it,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  separate  gov- 
 ernment. A  special  procurator  was  therefore  ap- 
 pointed to  rule  it,  who  was  subordinate  to  the 
 governor  of  Syria,  but  within  his  own  pro\ince  had 
 the  power  of  a  legatus.  [See  Jud.ea.]  Syria 
 continued  without  serious  disturbance  Irom  the 
 expulsion  of  the  I'arthians  (b.  c.  38)  to  tlie  break- 
 ing out  of  the  Jewish  war  (a.  n.  66).  In  n.  c. 
 19  it  was  visited  liy  Augustus,  and  in  A.  d.  18-19 
 by  Germanicus,  who  died  at  Antioch  in  the  last- 
 named  year.  In  A.  d.  44-47  it  was  the  scene  of 
 a  severe  famine.  [See  Agabus.]  A  little  earlier 
 Christianity  had  begun  to  spread  into  it,  partly  by 
 means  of  those  who  "  were  scattered  "  at  the  time 
 of  Stephen's  persecution  (Acts  xi.  19),  partly  by 
 the  exertions  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  i.  '21).  The  Syrian 
 Church  soon  grew  to  be  one  of  the  most  flourishing 
 (Acts  xiii.  1,  XV.  23,  35,  41,  Ac).  Here  the  name 
 of  "  Christian  "  first  arose  —  at  the  outset  no  doubt 
 a  gibe,  but  thenceforth  a  glory  and  a  boast. 
 Antioch,  the  capital,  became  as  early  probaldy  as 
 A.  D.  44  the  see  of  a  bishop,  and  was  soon  recog- 
 nized as  a  patriarchate.  The  Syrian  Church  is  ac- 
 cused of  laxity  both  in  faith  and  morals  (Newman, 
 Ariaiis.,  p.  10);  but,  if  it  must  admit  the  disgrace 
 of  having  given  birth  to  Lucian  and  Paulus  of 
 Samosata,  it  can  claim  on  the  other  hand  the  glory 
 of  such  names  as  Ignatius,  Theophilus,  Kphraem, 
 and  Babyhis.  It  sutttired  without  shrinking  many 
 grievous  persecutions;  and  it  helped  to  make  that 
 emphatic  protest  against  worldliness  and  luxurious- 
 iiess  of  living  at  which  monasticism,  according  to 
 its  original  conception,  nmst  be  considered  to  have 
 aimed.  1  he  Syrian  monks  were  among  tlie  most 
 earnest  and  most  self-denying;  and  the  names  of 
 Hilarion  and  Simon  Stylites  are  enough  to  prove 
 that  a  most  important  part  was  played  by  Syria  in 
 the  ascetic  movement  of  the  4th  and  5th  centuries. 
 
 (For  the  geography  of  Syria,  see  Pococke's  l>t- 
 scriptwii  of  the  Juisl,  vol.  ii.  pp.  88-209 ;  Burck- 
 hardt's  Triwels  in  Syria  ami  the  Holy  Land,  pp. 
 1-309;  Iiobinson's  Later  Biblical  Restarches,  pp. 
 419-625;  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  ^03- 
 414;  Porter's  Five  Yeais  in  Damascus;  Ains- 
 worth's  Travels  in  the  Track  oj' the  Ten  Thousand, 
 pp.  57-70;  Itesearehes,  etc.,  p.  290  ff  For 
 the  history  under  the  Seleucidoe,  see  (besides  the 
 original  sources)  Clinton's  Fasti  Helknici,  vol.  iii. 
 Appendix  iii.  pp.  308-346 ;  Vaillant's  Imperium 
 Seleucidarum,  and  F'rulich's  Annates  Rerum  el 
 Regum  Syrice.  For  the  history  under  the  Romans, 
 see  Norisius,  Cenota2)liia  Pisana,  Op.  vol.  iii.  pp. 
 424-531.)  G.  K. 
 
 *  For  a  table  of  JMeteorological  Observations 
 taken  at  Beirut  from  Nov.  1868  to  July  1869,  see 
 Quarterli)  Statement  of  the  P(destine  Exploration 
 Fund,  No.  iii.,  1869.  The  two  articles  on  Mount 
 Lebanon,  in  the  Bibl.  Saci-a,  xxvi.  541-571,  and 
 'J73-713,  by  Rev.  T.  Laurie,  D.  D.,  treat  some- 
 what fully  of  the  topography  and  antiquity  of 
 Northern  Syria.  For  a  graphic  description  of 
 Ccele-Syria  (the  modern  Buka\i),  the  great  military 
 
 SYRO-PHCENICIAN 
 
 3149 
 
 road  of  the  ancient  invaders  of  Palestine,  see  Raw- 
 linson's  Ancient  Monarchies,  iii.  244  ft'.  H. 
 
 *  SYR'IAC,  Dan.  ii.  4.     [Syrian.] 
 SYRIAC  VERSIONS.     [Versions,  Syr- 
 
 lAC] 
 
 *  SYR'IAN  OS'DW.:  -Zvpos-  Stjrus),  a  na- 
 tive or  inhabitant  of  Syria  (Gen.  xxv.  20,  x.xviii.  5, 
 xxxi.  20,  24;  Deut.  xxvi.  5;  2  K.  v.  20).  The 
 plural,  "  Syrians,"  is  commonly  the  translation  of 
 
 C"1M,  Aram;  e.  ff.  2   Sam.  viii.  5-13,  x.  6-19, 
 
 &c.;  but  of  D^'a^M,  2  K.  viii.  28,  29,  ix.  15; 
 comp.  2  Chr.  xxii.  5.  "  In  the  Syrian  Language" 
 or  "tongue,"  2  K.  xviiL  26;  Is.  xxxvi.  11;  E^r.  iv. 
 
 7;  or  "in  Syriac,"  Dan.  ii.  4,  is  rY'p"1S  (2upt- 
 crTi-  Syriace,  Syra  lingun,  sermone  Syro);  in  2 
 Mace.  XV.  36,  tj7  ^upiaKrj  (j>CDi/rj,  voce  Syriaca. 
 
 A. 
 
 *  SYR'IA-MA'ACHAH,  1  Chr.  xis.  6. 
 [Aram:  Maaohak,  2]. 
 
 SY'RO-PHCENIC'IAN  (^.upocpoiulKLcTaa 
 [Lachm.,  Ti.sch.,  8th  ed.],  ^vpocpoiviacra  [Rec. 
 Text:  "Xvpa  ^otviKiffaa  or  Xvpacp.,  Griesb.,  Tisch. 
 7th  ed.,  Treg.],  or  2,vpa  ^oivKTcra  [no  good  MS.] : 
 Syro-Phasnissa)  occurs  only  in  Mark  vii.  26.  The 
 coinage  of  the  words  "  Syro-Phoenicia,"  and  "S}- 
 ro-Phoenicians,"  seems  to  have  been  the  work  of 
 the  Romans,  though  it  is  difficult  to  say  exactly 
 what  they  intended  by  the  expressions.  It  has 
 generally  been  supposed  that  they  wished  to  dis- 
 tinguish the  Phoenicians  of  Syria  from  those  of 
 Africa  (the  Carthaginians);  and  the  term  "  Syro- 
 phoenix  "  has  been  regarded  as  the  exact  converse 
 to  "  Libyphoenix  "  (Alford,  in  loc).  But  the  Liby- 
 phcenices  are  not  the  Phoenicians  of  Africa  gen- 
 erally —  they  are  a  peculiar  race,  half-African  and 
 half-Phoenician  ("  mixtum  Punicum  Afris  genus," 
 Liv.  xxi.  22).  The  Syro-Phoenicians,  therefore, 
 should,  on  this  analogy,  be  a  mixed  race,  half-Phoe- 
 nicians and  half-Syrians.  This  is  probably  the 
 sense  of  the  word  in  the  satirists  Lucilius  (ap.  Non. 
 iVIarc.  De  proprietat.  semi.  iv.  431)  and  Juvenal 
 {Sat.  viii.  159),  who  would  regard  a  mongrel 
 Oriental  as  peculiarly  contemptible. 
 
 In  later  times  a  geographic  sense  of  the  terms 
 superseded  the  ethnic  one.  The  iMnperor  Hadrian 
 divided  Syria  into  three  parts,  Syria  Proper,  Syro- 
 Phoenice,  and  Syria  Paltestina;  and  henceforth  a 
 Syro-Pho2nician  meant  a  native  of  this  sub-prov- 
 ince (Lucian,  i)e  Cone.  Deor.  §  4),  which  included 
 Phoenicia  Proper,  Damascus,  and  Palmyrene. 
 
 As  the  geographic  sense  had  not  come  into  use 
 in  St.  Jiark's  time,  and  as  the  ethnic  one  would  be 
 a  refinement  unlikely  in  a  sacred  writer,  it  is  per- 
 haps most  probable  that  he  really  wrote  'Svpa 
 ^olviaaa,  "  a  Phoenician  Syrian,"  which  is  found 
 in  some  copies.  [The  reading  2,vpa  ^oiviKiffffa  is 
 much  better  supported.  —  A.] 
 
 St.  Matthew  uses  "  Canaan itish  "  Oi.o.vavaia)m 
 the  place  of  St.  Mark's  "  Syro-Phoenician,"  or 
 "  Phoenician  Syrian,''  on  the  same  ground  that  the 
 LXX.  translate  Canaan  by  Phoenicia  {^oiv'iKr)). 
 The  terms  Canaan  and  Phoenicia  had  succeeded 
 one  another  as  geographical  names  in  the  same 
 country;  and  Phoenicians  were  called  '•  Canaan- 
 ites,"  just  as  Englishmen  are  called  "  Britons." 
 No  conclusion  as  to  the  identity  of  the  Canaanites 
 with  the  Phoenicians  can  properly  be  drawn  from 
 the  indifferent  use  of  the  two  terms.  (See  Rawlin- 
 son's  Herodotus,  vol.  iv.  pp.  243-245.)       G.  R. 
 
3150 
 
 SYRTIS 
 
 •  SYR'TIS.     [Quicksands.] 
 »  SYZ'YGUS  or  SYN'ZYGUS,   Phil.  iv. 
 •3^     [YoKE-FKLLOW,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 T 
 
 TA'ANACH  C^y^.F^  [perh.  castle,  Dietr.] : 
 Zaxa«  [Vat.  Za/cax],  @avd.X,  @avadxi  [lOaavax, 
 Vat.  corrupt;]  Alex.  @avax,  Tavax,  (KdavaaS, 
 &evvax,  ®'^o-''°'X'-  ['^/'<^'"ac,]  Thamic,  Thanach). 
 An  ancient  Canaanitish  citj',  whose  king  is  enum- 
 erated amongst  the  thirty-one  conquered  by  .Joshua 
 (.Tosh.  xii.  21).  It  came  into  the  hands  of  the  half 
 tribe  of  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  11,  xxi.  2.5 ;  1  Chr.  vii. 
 29),  though  it  would  appear  to  have  lain  outside 
 their  boundary  and  within  the  allotment  of  either 
 Issachar  or  Asher  (Josh.  xvii.  11),  probably  the 
 former.  It  was  bestowed  on  the  Kohathite  Levites 
 (Josh.  xxL.  25).  Taanach  was  one  of  the  places 
 in  which,  either  from  some  strength  of  position,  or 
 from  the  ground  near  it  lieing  favorable  for  their 
 mode  of  fighting,  the  Aborigines  succeeded  in  mak- 
 ing a  stand  (Josh.  xvii.  12;  Judg.  i.  27);  and  in 
 the  great  struggle  of  the  Canaanites  under  Sisera 
 against  Deborah  and  Barak,  it  appears  to  have 
 formed  the  head-quarters  of  their  army  (Judg.  v. 
 19).  After  this  defeat  the  Canaanites  of  Taanach 
 were  probably  made,  like  the  rest,  to  pay  a  tril)ute 
 (Josh.  xvii.  1-3;  Judg.  i.  28),  but  in  the  town  they 
 appear  to  have  remained  to  the  last.  Taanach  is 
 almost  always  named  in  company  with  Megiddo, 
 and  they  were  evidently  the  chief  towns  of  that 
 fine  rich  district  which  forms  the  western  portion 
 of  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon  (1  K.  iv.  12). 
 
 There  it  is  still  to  be  found.  The  identification 
 of  Tn\mmik  with  TaAuach,  may  be  taken  as  one  of 
 the  surest  in  the  whole  Sacred  Topography.  It  was 
 known  to  Eusebius,  who  mentions  it  twice  in  the 
 Onomasticon  {Qaava-x  ^^^  @a.vai] )  as  a  "  very 
 large  village,"  standing  between  3  and  4  Roman 
 miles  from  Legio  — ■  the  ancient  !Megiddo.  It  was 
 known  to  hap-Farchi,  the  Jewish  mediaeval  travel- 
 ler, and  it  still  stands  about  4  miles  southeast  of 
 Lejjun,  retaining  its  old  name  with  hardly  the 
 change  of  a  letter.  The  ancient  town  was  planted 
 on  a  large  mound  at  the  termination  of  a  long 
 spur  or  promontory,  which  runs  out  northward 
 from  the  hills  of  Manasseh  into  the  plain,  and 
 leaves  a  recess  or  bay,  subordinate  to  the  main 
 plain  on  its  north  side  and  between  it  and  Lejjun. 
 The  modern  hamlet  clings  to  the  S.  W.  base  of 
 the  mound  (Rob.  ii.  316,  329;  Van  de  Velde, -i. 
 358;  Stanley,  Jtwisli  Church,  pp.  321,  322). 
 
 In  one  passage  the  name  is  slightly  changed  both 
 in  [the]  original  and  A.  V.      [Ta.n'Ach.]         G. 
 
 TA'ANATH-SHI'LOH  {H'^W  n3H.n 
 [ch-cle  of  Shiloh,  Fiirst]  :  «  Qrjvaaa  koI  ^4\\r]s 
 [Vat.  2eAArj(ra];  Alex.  Trjuad  (n)\o)-  Tawilh- 
 Seh).  A  place  named  once  only  (Josh.  xvi.  6)  as 
 one  of  the  landmarks  of  the  boundary  of  Kphraini, 
 but  of  which  boundary  it  seems  impossible  to  as- 
 certain. All  we  can  tell  is,  that  at  this  part  the 
 enumeration  is  from  west  to  east,  Janohah  being 
 east  of  Taanath  Shiloh.  With  this  agrees  the 
 statement  of  Eusebius   {Onomasticon),  who  places 
 
 TABEAL 
 
 Janohah  \2,  and  Thenath,  or  as  it  was  then  calleil 
 Thena,'^  10  Roman  miles  east  of  Neapolis.  Jano- 
 hah has  been  identified  with  some  probability  at 
 Yanu7i,  on  the  road  from  Nablus  to  the  Jordan 
 Valley.  The  name  Tana,  or  Ain  Tana,  seems  to 
 exist  in  that  direction.  A  place  of  that  name  was 
 seen  by  Robinson  N.  E.  of  Mtjdel  {Bibl.  Res.  iii. 
 295),  and  it  is  mentioned  by  Barth  (Ritter,  .Jordan, 
 p.  471),  but  without  any  indication  of  its  position. 
 Much  stress  caimot  however  be  laid  on  Eusebius's 
 identification. 
 
 In  a  list  of  places  contained  in  the  Talmud 
 {.Terusalem  3Ie(jiUah  i.),  Taanath  Shiloh  is  said  to 
 be  identical  with  Shiloh.  This  has  been  recently 
 revived  by  Kurtz  {Uesch.  des  All.  Bundes,  ii.  70). 
 His  view  is  that  Taanath  was  the  ancient  Canaanite 
 name  of  the  place,  and  Shiloh  the  Hebrew  name, 
 conferred  on  it  in  token  of  the  "rest"  which  al- 
 lowed the  Tabernacle  to  be  established  there  after 
 the  conquest  of  the  country  had  been  completed. 
 This  is  ingenious,  but  at  present  it  is  a  mere  con- 
 jectuie,  and  it  is  at  variance  with  the  identification 
 of  Eusebius,  with  the  position  of  Janohah,  and,  as 
 far  as  it  can  be  inferred,  of  Michmethath,  which  is 
 mentioned  with  Taanath  Shiloh  in  Josh.  xvi.  6. 
 
 G. 
 
 TAB'AOTH  (ra^atid]  Alex.  Ta/ScoS:  Tob- 
 locli).     Tabbaoth  (1  Esdr.  v.  29). 
 
 TAB'BAOTH  (n'll'2^  [rings,  6Vs.] :  Ta/8- 
 00)9;  [Vat.  Tay3co9,  TaSacoS;]  Alex.  Ta^^accO: 
 Tabbaoth,  Tebhnoth).  The  children  of  Tabbaoth 
 were  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  retiu-ned  with  Ze- 
 rubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  43;  Neh.  vii.  4G).  The  name 
 occurs  in  the  form  Tabaoth  in  1  Esdr.  v.  29. 
 
 TAB'BATH  (n2^  [perh.  celebrated] :  Ta- 
 /3.ci9;  Alex.  Va^aQ.  Tebbnth).  A  place  mentioned 
 only  in  Judg.  vii.  22,  in  describing  the  flight  of 
 the  Midianite  host  after  tiideon's  night  attack. 
 The  host  fled  to   Beth-shittah,  to  Zererah,  to  the 
 
 brink  of  Abel-meholah  on  {TS)  Tabbath.  Beth- 
 shittah  may  be  Shutlah,  which  lies  on  the  open 
 plain  between  Jebd  Fukua  and  Jebel  Duhy,  4 
 miles  east  of  Ain  Jali'id,  the  probable  scene  of 
 Gideon's  onslaught.  Abel-meholah  was  no  doubt 
 in  the  Jordan  Valley,  though  it  may  not  have  been 
 so  much  as  8  miles  south  of  Beth-shean,  where 
 Eusebius  and  Jerome  would  place  it.  But  no 
 attempt  seems  to  have  been  made  to  identify  Tab- 
 bath,  nor  does  any  name  resembling  it  appear  in 
 the  books  or  maps,  unless  it  be  Tubukhal-Fahil, 
 i.  e.  "Terrace  of  Fahil."  This  is  a  very  striking 
 natural  bank,  600  feet  in  height  (Rob.,  iii.  325), 
 with  a  long,  horizontal,  and  apparently  flat  top, 
 which  is  embanked  against  the  western  face  of  the 
 mountains  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  descends  with  a 
 very  steep  front  to  the  river.  It  is  such  a  remark- 
 alile  object  in  the  whole  view  of  this  part  of  the 
 Jordan  Valley  that  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  it 
 did  not  bear  a  distinctive  name  in  ancient  as  well  as 
 modern  times.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  doubt 
 that,  whether  this  Tubukah  represents  Tabbath  or 
 not,  the  latter  was  somewhere  about  this  part  of 
 the  Ghor.  G. 
 
 TAB'EAL  (bW5^  [Godisffood]:  ToiSe^A: 
 Tnbeel).  Properly   "  Tabeel,"   the  pathach    being 
 
 a  *  Dietrich  resolyes  the  name  into  Taanath  by 
 Shiloh  (Ges.  Hebr.  Lex.  p.  906,  6te  Aufl.).  H. 
 
 b  Ptolemy  names  Thena  and  Neapolis  as  the  two 
 
 chief  towns  of  the  district  of  Samaria  (cap.  16,  quoted 
 in  Reland,  Pal.  p.  461). 
 
TABEEL 
 
 due  to  the  pause  (Geseii.  Lehry.  §  52,  1  i  ,•  rhb.  Gr. 
 §  29,  4  c).  The  son  of  Tabeal  was  aiipareiitly  an 
 Ephrainiite  in  the  army  of  Pekah  tlie  son  of  Hema- 
 liah,  or  a  Syrian  in  tlie  army  of  Kezin,  when  they 
 went  up  to  besiege  Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
 (Is.  vii.  G).  The  Aramaic  form  of  the  name  favors 
 the  latter  supposition  [comp.  TabkimbionJ.  The 
 Targuni  of  Jonatlian  renders  the  liame  as  an  appel- 
 lative, "  and  we  will  make  king  in  the  midst  of  her 
 
 him  who  seems  good   to  us "   ("Itl^S'l    "J^    i"T' 
 
 ^^7).  Rashi  by  Gematrin   turns    the  name   into 
 
 M7D~1,  Riiiila,  by  which  apparently  he  would  un- 
 derstand liemalia/i. 
 
 TAB'EEL  (bW5^  [see  above]:  Ta8e-l,\: 
 Thabeel).  An  officer  of  the  Persian  goveriniient 
 in  Samaria  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  (Ezr.  iv.  7). 
 His  name  appears  to  indicate  tliat  he  was  a  Syrian, 
 for  it  is  really  the  same  as  that  of  the  S3  riaii  vassal 
 of  Eezin  who  is  called  in  our  A.  V.  "  Tabael."  Add 
 to  this  that  the  letter  which  he  and  his  companions 
 wrote  to  the  king  was  in  the  Syrian  or  Aramsan 
 language.  Gesenius,  however  {Jcs.  i.  280),  tliinks 
 that  he  may  have  been  a  Samaritan.  He  is  called 
 Taisellius  in  1  Ksdr.  ii.  10.  The  name  of  Tobiel 
 the  father  of  Tobit  is  probably  the  same. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 TABEL'LIUS  (TaySeAAios:  Sabellius)  1  Esdr. 
 ii.  16.     [Tabeel.] 
 
 TAB'ERAH  (n"ll?3ri  [a  burning] :  e'^,ru- 
 l>i(rfi.6s)-  The  name  of  a  place  in  the  wilderness  of 
 Paran,  given  from  the  fact  of  a  •'  burning  "  among 
 the  people  by  the  "  fire  of  the  Lord  "  which  there 
 took  place  (Num.  xi.  3,  Deut.  ix  22).  It  has  not 
 been  identified,  and  is  not  mentioned  among  the  list 
 of  encampments  in  Num.  xxxiii.  H.  H. 
 
 TABERING  (n'"l2?hp :  ,peeyy6/jiivai: 
 murmurantes) .  The  obsolete  word  thus  used  in 
 the  A.  V.  of  Nah.  ii.  7  requires  some  explanation. 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  connects  itself  with  '^Fl,  u^ 
 timbrel,"  and  the  image  which  it  brings  before  us 
 in  this  passage  is  that  of  the  women  of  Nineveh,  led 
 away  into  captivity,  mourning  with  the  plaintive 
 tones  of  doves,  and  beating  on  their  breasts  in  an- 
 guish, as  women  beat  upon  their  timbrels  (comp. 
 Ps.  Ixviii.  25  [2fi],  where  the  same  verb  is  used). 
 The  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  as  above,  make  no  attempt 
 at  giving  the  exact  meaning.  The  Targum  of 
 Jonathan  gives  a  word  which,  like  the  Hebrew,  has 
 the  meaning  of  "  tynipanizantes."  The  A.  V.  in 
 like  maimer  reproduces  the  original  idea  of  the 
 words.  The  "  tabour  "  or  "  tabor  "  was  a  musical 
 instrument  of  the  drum  type,  which  with  the  pipe 
 formed  the  band  of  a  country  village.  We  retain 
 a  trace  at  once  of  the  word  and  of  the  thing  in  the 
 "  tabourine  "  or  "tambourine"  of  modern  music, 
 in  the  "  tabret "  of  the  A.  V.  and  older  English 
 writers.  To  "  tabour,"  accordingly,  is  to  beat  with 
 loud  strokes  as  men  beat  upon  such  an  instrument. 
 The  verb  is  found  in  this  sense  in  Beaumont  and 
 Fletcher,  The  Turner  Tamed  ("  I  would  tabor 
 her  "),  and  answers  with  a  singular  felicity  to  the 
 exact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  E.  H.  P. 
 
 TABERNACLE  (13tf13,  b^'W:  cTK-nvi,: 
 tabernaeulum).  The  description  of  the  Tabernacle 
 and  its  materials  will  be  found  under  Temti-e. 
 The  writer  of  that  article  holds  that  he  cannot  deal 
 Batisfactorily  with  the  structural  order  and  propor- 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 3161 
 
 tions  of  tlie  one  without  discussing  also  those  of  the 
 other.  Here,  therefore,  it  remains  for  us  to  treat  — 
 (1)  of  the  word  and  its  synonyms;  (2)  of  the  his- 
 tory of  the  Tabernacle  itself;  (3)  of  its  relation  to 
 the  religious  life  of  Israel;  (4)  of  the  theories  of 
 later  times  respecting  it. 
 
 I.    The   Word  and  its    Synonyms.  —  (1.)     The 
 
 first  word  thus  used  (Ex.  xxv.  9)  is  )2tpjp  (Ulish- 
 cdn),  formed  from  'J5^=to  settle  down  or  dwell, 
 and  thus  itself  =  dwelling.  It  connects  itself  with 
 the  Jewish,  though  not  Scriptural,  word  Shechiiiah, 
 as  describing  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Divine  Glory. 
 It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  it  is  not  applied  in 
 prose  to  the  common  dwellings  of  men,  the  tents  of 
 the  Patriarchs  in  tieiiesis,  or  those  of  Israel  in  the 
 wilderness.  It  seems  to  belong  rather  to  the  speech 
 of  poetry  (Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2;  Cant.  i.  8).  The  loftier 
 cliaracter  of  the  word  may  obviously  have  helped  to 
 determine  its  religious  use,  and  justifies  translators 
 who  ha\e  the  choice  of  synonyms  like  "  tabernacle  " 
 and  "  tent  "  in  a  like  preference. 
 
 (2.)     Another  word,  however,  is  also  used,  more 
 
 connected  with  the  common  life  of  men;  ^HM 
 (ohel),  the  "  tent  "  of  the  Patriarchal  age,  of  Abra- 
 ham, and  of  Isaac,  and  of  -lacob  (Gen.  ix.  21,  &c.). 
 For  the  most  part,  as  needing  something  to  raise  it, 
 it  is  used,  when  applied  to  the  Sacred  'lent,  with 
 some  distinguishing  epithet.  In  one  passage  only 
 (1  K.  i.  39)  does  it  appear  with  this  meaning  by 
 itself.  The  LXX.  not  distinguishing  between  the 
 two  words    gives    a-Krivij    for  both.     The   original 
 
 difference  appears  to  have  been  that  VHH  repre- 
 sented the  outermost  covering,  the  black  goat's  hair 
 curtains;  ^3li7X3,  the  inner  covering,  the  curtains 
 which  rested  on  the  boards  ((iesenius,  s.  v.).  The 
 two  words  are  accordingly  .sometimes  joined,  as  in 
 l';x.  xxxix.  32,  xl.  2,  6,  29  (A.  V.  "the  tabernacle 
 of  the  tent").  Even  here,  however,  the  LXX. 
 gives  aKrivij  only,  with  the  exce])tioii  of  the  var. 
 lict.  of  7;  (TKrivri  rfjs  (TKiiryjs  in  Ex.  xl.  29. 
 
 (3.)  n^3  {Bailhy.  oIkos-  domiis,  is  applied  to 
 the  Tabernacle  in  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  2G ;  Josh.  vi. 
 24,  ix.  23;  Judg.  xviii.  31,  xx.  18,  as  it  had  been, 
 apparently,  to  the  tents  of  the  Patriarchs  (Gen. 
 xxxiii.  17).  So  far  as  it  differs  from  the  two  pre- 
 ceding words,  it  expresses  more  definitely  tiie  idea 
 of  a  fixed,settled  habitation.  It  was  therefore  fitter 
 for  the  sanctuary  of  Israel  after  the  people  were 
 settled  in  Canaan,  than  during  their  wanderings. 
 F'or  us  the  chief  interest  of  the  word  lies  in  its  hav- 
 ing descended  from  a  yet  older  order,  the  first  word 
 ever  applied  in  the  0.  T.  to  a  local  sanctuary, 
 '■  Beth-el,"  "  the  house  of  God  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  17, 
 22),  keeping  its  place,  side  by  side,  with  other 
 words,  tent,  tabernacle,  palace,  temjile,  synagogue, 
 and  at  last  outliving  all  of  them,  rising,  in  the 
 Christian  Ecclesia,  to  yet  higher  uses  (1  Tim.  iii. 
 15). 
 
 (4.)  W'yp  {Kddesh),  XD'^'^12  {Mikdash):  kyi- 
 aa/J-a,  ayia(XT7]pLov,  rh  dyiov,  ra  ciyta-  sanctua- 
 rium,  the  holy,  consecrated  place,  and  therefore  ap- 
 plied, according  to  the  graduated  scale  of  holiness 
 of  which  the  Tabernacle  bore  witness,  sometimes  to 
 the  whole  structure  (Ex.  xxv.  8;  Lev.  xii.  4),  some- 
 times to  the  court  into  which  none  but  the  priests 
 might  enter  (Lev.  iv.  6;  Num.  iii.  38,  iv.  12), 
 sometimes  to  the  innermost  sanctuary  of  all,  the 
 Holy  of  Holies  (Lev.  iv.  6  ?).     Here  also  the  word 
 
3152 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 had  an  earlier  starting-point  and  a  far-reaching  his- 
 tory. En-Misiipat,  the  city  of  judgment,  the 
 seat  of  some  old  oracle,  had  been  also  Kahesh, 
 the  sanctuary  (Gen.  xiv.  7;  Ewald,  Gesch.  Jsr.  ii. 
 307).  The  name  el-Khuds  clings  still  to  the  walls 
 of  Jerusalem. 
 
 (5.)  73"^rT  {Hecdl):  i/a6s-  t<!m2'^ii-ni,  as  meauing 
 the  stately  building,  or  palace  of  Jehovah  (1  Chr. 
 xxix.  1,  19),  is  applied  njore  commonly  to  the 
 Temple  "  (2  K.  xxiv.  13,  &c.),  but  was  used  also 
 (probably  at  the  period  when  the  thought  of  the 
 Temple  had  aftected  the  religious  nomenclature  of 
 the  time)  of  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  i.  9, 
 iii.  3)  and  Jerusalem  (Fs.  v.  7).  In  either  case  the 
 thought  which  the  word  embodies  is,  that  the 
 "tent,"  the  "house,"  is  royal,  the  dwelling-place 
 of  the  great  king. 
 
 (6.)  The  two  words   (1)  and   (2)  receive  a  new 
 
 meaning  in  combination    («)  with  ^3?^Q  {mu'cd), 
 
 and  (b)  with  J"^^^!y^T,  laCedulh.  To  understand 
 the  full  meaning  of  the  distinctive  titles  thus  formed 
 is  to  possess  the  key  to  the  significance  of  the  whole 
 
 Tabernacle.    («.)  The  primary  force  of  "^3^  is  "to 
 
 meet  by   appointment,"    and   the    phrase     ^HS 
 
 ^^^^  has  therefore  the  meaning  of  "  a  place  of  or 
 for  a  fixed  meeting."  Acting  on  the  behef  that 
 the  meeting  in  this  case  was  that  of  the  worship- 
 pers, the  A.  V.  has  uniluruily  rendered  it  by  •'  tab- 
 ernacle of  the  congregation  "  (so  Seb.  Schmidt, 
 "tentorium  conventus;  "  and  Luther,  "  Stifts- 
 hiitte "  in  which  Stift=  Pfarrkirche),  while  the 
 I>XX.  and  Vulg.  confounding  it  with  the  other 
 epithet,  have  rendered  both  by  r]  a-K-r)vr\  rov  fjLap- 
 Tvpiov,  and  "  tabernaculum  testimonii."  None  of 
 these  renderings,  however,  bring  out  the  real  mean- 
 ing of  the  word.  This  is  to  be  found  in  what  may 
 be  called  the  locus  clnsslcus,  as  the  interpretation 
 of  all  words  connected  with  the  Tabernacle.  "  This 
 shall  be   a  continual    burnt-oftering  ...    at   the 
 
 door  of  the  tabernacle  of  mutdng  (^^"^^3)  where 
 
 I  will  meet  you  (^1?^W,    yvaiadrjaofxai)   to  speak 
 
 there  unto  thee.  And  there  will  I  meet  (^rn"1^3, 
 ra^oixai)  with  the  children  of  Israel.     And  I  will 
 
 sunciify  O^^Uf/j  the  taliernade  of  meeting  .  .  . 
 
 and  I  will  diced  ("'PlDptJ?)  among  the  children 
 of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  God.  And  they  shall 
 know  that  I  am  the  Lord  their  God  "  (Ex.  xxix. 
 42-46).  The  same  central  thought  occurs  in  Ex. 
 XXV.  22,  "There  I  will  iiiett  with  thee"  (comp.  also 
 Ex.  XXX.  0,  30;  Num.  xvii.  4).  It  is  clear,  there- 
 fore, that  "  congregation  "  is  inadequate.  Not  the 
 gathering  of  the  worshippers  only,  but  the  meeting 
 of  God  with  his  people,  to  commune  with  them,  to 
 make  himself  known  to  them,  was  what  the  name 
 embodied.  Ewald  has  accordingly  suggested  Offen- 
 bdrunc/szelt  =  Tent  of  Revelation,  as  the  best  eqiiiv- 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 alent  {Alleriltumer,  p.  130).  This  made  the  place 
 a  sanctuary.  Thus  it  was  that  the  tent  was  the 
 dwelling,  the  house  of  God  (Biihr,  Symbolik,  i.  81). 
 
 (7.)  The    other   compound    phrase,  (6.)    VHM 
 
 i  I'Ji^'^,  as  connected  with  1^17  (=to  bear  wit- 
 ness), is  rightly  rendered  by  fi  (TK-qv^  tov  fxap-'vpiov, 
 iiibernuculum  testimonii,  die  Wohnuny  des  Zeuy- 
 nisses,  "  the  tent  of  the  testimony"  (Num.  ix.  15), 
 "the  tabernacle  of  witness"  (Num.  xvii.  7,  xviii. 
 2).  In  this  case  the  tent  derives  its  name  from 
 that  which  is  the  centre  of  its  holiness.  The  two 
 tables  of  stone  within  the  ark  are  emphatically  the 
 testimony  (Ex.  xxv.  IG,  21,  xxxi.  18).  They  were 
 to  all  Israel  the  abiding  witness  of  the  nature  and 
 will  of  God.  The  tent,  by  virtue  of  its  relation  to 
 them,  became  the  witness  of  its  own  significance  as 
 the  meeting-place  of  God  and  man.  The  probable 
 connection  of  the  two  distinct  names,  in  sense  as 
 well  as  in  sound  (Biihr,  Syinb.  i.  83;  Ewald,  Alt. 
 p.  230),  gave,  of  course,  a  force  to  each  which  no 
 translation  can  represent. 
 
 II.  History.  —  (1. )  The  outward  history  of  the 
 Tabernacle  begins  with  Ex.  xxv.  It  comes  after 
 the  first  great  group  of  Laws  (xix.-xxiii.),  after  the 
 covenant  with  the  people,  after  the  vision  of  the 
 Divine  Glory  (xxiv.).  Eor  forty  days  and  nights 
 Jloses  is  in  the  mount.  Before  him  there  lay  a 
 problem,  as  measured  by  human  judgment,  of  gi- 
 gantic difficulty.  In  what  fit  symbols  was  he  to  em- 
 body the  great  truths,  without  which  the  nation 
 would  sink  into  brutality?  In  what  way  could 
 those  symbols  be  guarded  against  the  evil  which  he 
 had  seen  in  I'^gypt,  of  idolatry  the  most  degrading? 
 He  was  not  left  to  solve  the  problem  for  himself. 
 There  rose  before  him,  not  without  points  of  con- 
 tact with  previous  associations,  yet  in  no  degree 
 formed  out  of  them,  the  "  pattern  "  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle. The  lower  analogies  of  the  painter  and  the 
 architect  seeing,  with  their  inward  e3e,  their  com- 
 pleted work,  before  the  work  itself  begins,  may  help 
 us  to  understand  how  it  was  that  the  vision  on  the 
 mount  included  all  details  of  foru),  measurement, 
 materials,  the  order  of  the  ritual,  the  apparel  of  the 
 priests.*  He  is  directed  in  his  choice  of  the  two 
 chief  artists,  Bezaleel  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,*^  Aholiab 
 of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (xxxi.).  The  sin  of  the  golden 
 calf  apjiarently  postpones  the  execution.  For  a 
 moment  it  seems  as  if  the  people  were  to  be  left 
 without  the  Divine  Presence  itself,  without  any 
 recognized  symbol  of  it  (Ex.  xxxiii.  3).  As  in  a 
 transition  period,  the  whole  future  depending  on  the 
 penitence  of  the  people,  on  the  intercession  of  their 
 leader,  a  tent  is  pitched,  probably  that  of  Moses 
 himself,  outside  the  camp,  to  be  provisionally  the 
 Tabernacle  of  lleeting.  There  the  mind  of  the 
 Lawgiver  enters  into  ever-closer  fellowship  with  the 
 mind  of  God  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11),  learns  to  think  of 
 Him  as  "merciful  and  gracious"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6), 
 in  the  strength  of  that  thought  is  led  back  to  the 
 fulfillment  of  the  plan  which  had  seemed  likely  to 
 end,  as  it  began,  in  vision.     Of  this  provisional 
 
 "  *  In  Acts  vil.  46,  "  tabernacle  "  in  tlie  A.  V.  is 
 anachronistic.  It  should  be  "  habitation  ''  or  ''  place 
 of  abode'"  (see  Scholefield's  Hints  for  the  Imfnovuntnt 
 of  tlie  A.  v.,  p.  40)  David  desired  to  build  a  Temple 
 for  Jehovah  ;  the  Tabernacle  had  already  existed  for 
 eenturies.  U. 
 
 >>  An  interesting  parallel  is  found  in  the  preparations 
 for  the  Temple.  There  also  the  extreniest  minutise 
 irere  among  the  things  which  the  Lord  made  David 
 
 "  to  undersfcind  in  writing  by  his  hand  upon  him," 
 ('.  e.  by  an  inward  illumination  which  seemed  to  ex- 
 clude the  slow  process  of  deliberation  and  decision  (1 
 Chr.  xxviii.  19). 
 
 c  The  prominence  of  artistic  power  in  the  geneal- 
 ogies of  tlie  tribe  of  .ludah  is  worth  noticing  (1  Chr. 
 iv.  4,  14,  21,  23).  Dan,  also,  iu  the  person  of  Uirjim,  ig 
 afterwards  conspicuous  (2  Chr.  ii  14  |  comp.  1  K.  tU. 
 13,14). 
 
TABERNACLE 
 
 Tabernacle  it  has  to  be  noticed,  tliat  there  was  as 
 jet  no  ritual  and  no  priesthood.  The  people  went 
 out  to  it  as  to  an  oracle  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7).  Joshua, 
 though  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraini,  had  free  access  to 
 it  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11). 
 
 (2.)  Another  outline  Law  was,  however,  given ; 
 another  period  of  solitude,  like  the  first,  followed. 
 The  work  could  now  be  resumed.  The  peo])le 
 offered  the  necessary  materials  in  excess  of  what 
 was  wanted  (Ex.  xxxvi.  5,  G).  Other  workmen 
 (Ex.  xxxvi.  2)  and  work-women  (Ex.  xxxv.  2.5) 
 placed  themselves  under  the  direction  of  Bezaleel 
 and  Aholiab.  The  parts  were  completed  sepa- 
 rately', and  then,  on  the  first  day  of  the  second 
 year  from  the  I'kodus,  the  Tabernacle  itself  was 
 erected  and  the  ritual  appointed  for  it  begun  (Ex. 
 xl.  2). 
 
 (3.)  The  position  of  the  new  tent  was  itself  sig- 
 nificant. It  stood,  not,  like  the  i)rovisional  Taber- 
 nacle, at  a  distance  from  the  camp,  but  in  its  very 
 centre.  The  multitude  of  Israel,  hitherto  scattered 
 with  no  fixed  order,  were  now,  within  a  month  of 
 its  erection  (Num.  ii.  2),  grouped  round  it,  as 
 around  the  dwelling  of  the  unseen  Captain  of  the 
 Host,  in  a  fixed  order,  according  to  their  triljal  rank. 
 The  Priests  on  the  east,  the  other  three  fiimilies  of 
 the  Levites  on  the  other  sides,  were  closest  in  at- 
 tendance, the  "  body-guard  "  of  the  Great  King. 
 [Lkvites.]  In  the  wider  square,  .ludah,  Zebulun, 
 Issachar,  were  on  the  east;  Ephraim,  Manasseh, 
 Benjamin,  on  the  west;  the  less  conspicuous  tribes, 
 Dan,  Asher,  Naphtali,  on  the  nortli;  Keuben,  Sim- 
 eon, Gad,  on  the  south  side.  When  the  army  put 
 itself  in  order  of  march,  the  position  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle, carried  by  the  Levites,  was  still  central,  the 
 tribes  of  the  east  and  south  in  front,  those  of  the 
 north  and  west  in  the  rear  (Num.  ii.).  Upon  it 
 there  rested  the  symbolic  cloud,  dark  by  day,  and 
 fiery  red  by  night  (Ex.  xl.  ;J8).  When  the  cloud 
 lemoved,  the  host  knew  that  it  was  the  signal  for 
 them  to  go  forward  (Ex.  xl.  .30,  37;  Num.  ix.  17). 
 As  long  as  it  remained,  whether  for  a  day,  or 
 month,  or  year,  they  continued  where  they  were 
 (Num.  ix.  15-23).  Each  march,  it  must  be  re- 
 membered, involved  the  breaking  up  of  tlie  whole 
 structure,  all  the  parts  being  carried  ou  wagons 
 by  the  three  Levite  families  of  Kohath,  Gershon, 
 and  Merari,  whib  the  "  sons  of  Aaron  "  prepared 
 for  the  removal  by  covering  everything  in  the 
 Holy  of  Holies  witii  a  purple  cloth  (Num.  iv.  U- 
 15). 
 
 (4.)  In  all  special  facts  connected  with  the  Tab- 
 ernacle, the  original  thought  reappears.  It  is  the 
 place  where  man  meets  with  God.  There  the  Spirit 
 "comes  upon  "  the  seventy  Elders,  and  they  proph- 
 esy (Num.  xi.  21,  25).  Thither  Aaron  and  Mir- 
 iam are  called  out,  when  they  rebel  against  the 
 servant  of  the  Lord  (Num.  xii.  4).  There  the 
 "  glory  of  the  Lord  "  appears  after  the  unfaithful- 
 ness of  the  twelve  spies  (Num.  xiv.  10),  and  the 
 rebellion  of  Korah  and  his  company  (Num.  xvi.  19, 
 42),  and  the  sin  of  Meribah  (Num.  xx.  6).  Thither, 
 when  there  is  no  sin  to  punish,  but  a  difficulty  to 
 be  met,  do  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  come  to 
 bring  their  cause  "  before  the  Lord  "  (Num.  xxvii. 
 2).     There,  when  the  death  of  Moses  draws  near, 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 3153 
 
 «  The  occurrence  of  the  same  distinctive  word  in 
 Ex.  xxxviii.  8,  implies  a  recognizod  dedication  of  some 
 kind,  by  which  women  bound  themselves  to  the  ser- 
 vice of  the  Tabernacle,  probably  as  singers  and  dan- 
 •ers.     What  we  find  under  Kli  was  the  corruption  of 
 
 is  the  solemn  "charge"  given  to  his  successor 
 (Ueut.  xxxi.  14). 
 
 (5.)  As  long  as  Canaan  remained  unconquered, 
 and  the  people  were  still  therefore  an  army,  the 
 Tabernacle  was  probably  moved  from  place  to  place, 
 wherever  the  host  of  Israel  was,  for  the  time,  en- 
 camped, at  Gilgal  (Josh.  iv.  19),  in  the  valley  be- 
 tween Ebal  and  Gerizim  (Josh.  viii.  30-35);  agahi, 
 at  the  headquarters  of  Gilgal  (Josh.  ix.  6,  x.  15, 
 43);  and,  finally,  as  at  "the  place  which  the  Lord 
 had  chosen,"  at  Shiloh  (Josh.  ix.  27,  xviii.  1).  The 
 reasons  of  the  choice  are  not  given.  Partly,  per- 
 haps, its  central  position,  partly  its  belonging  to 
 the  powerful  tribe  of  Ephraim,  the  tribe  of  the 
 great  captain  of  the  host,  may  have  determined  the 
 preference.  There  it  continued  during  the  whole 
 period  of  the  Judges,  the  gathering-point  for  "  the 
 heads  of  the  fathers"  of  the  tribes  (Josh.  xix.  51), 
 for  councils  of  peace  or  war  (Josh.  xxii.  12;  Judg. 
 xxi.  12),  for  annual  solemn  dances,  in  which  the 
 women  of  Shiloh  were  conspicuous  (Judg.  xxi.  21). 
 There,  too,  as  the  religion  of  Israel  sank  towards 
 the  level  of  an  orgiastic  heathenism,  troops  of 
 women  assembled,"  shameless  as  those  of  ilidian, 
 worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and,  like  the  lepo'Soi/Aoi 
 of  heathen  temples,  concubines  of  his  priests  (1 
 Sam.  ii.  22).  It  was  far,  however,  from  being 
 what  it  was  intended  to  be,  the  one  national  sanc- 
 tuary, the  witness  against  a  localized  and  divided 
 worship.  The  old  religion  of  the  high  places  kept 
 its  ground.  Altars  were  erected,  at  first  under  pro- 
 test, and  with  reserves,  as  being  not  lor  sacrifice 
 (Josh.  xxii.  2li),  afterwards  freely  and  without 
 scruple  (Judg.  vi.  24,  xiii.  19).  Of  the  names  by 
 which  the  one  special  sanctuary  was  known  at  this 
 period,  those  of  the  "  House,"  or  the  "  Temple," 
 of  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  i.  9,  24,  iii.  3,  15)  are  most 
 prominent. 
 
 (0.)  A  state  of  things  which  was  rapidly  assim- 
 ilating the  worship  of  Jehovah  to  that  of  Ashta- 
 rotli,  or  Mylitta,  needed  to  be  broken  up.  The 
 Ark  of  God  was  taken  and  the  sanctuary  lost  its 
 glory;  and  the  Tabernacle,  though  it  did  not  per- 
 ish, never  again  recovered  it*  (1  Sam.  iv.  22). 
 Samuel,  at  once  the  Luther  and  the  Alfred  of  Is- 
 rael, who  had  grown  up  within  its  precincts,  treats 
 it  as  an  abandoned  shrine  (so  Ps.  Ixxviii.  60),  and 
 sacrifices  elsewhere,  at  Mizpeh  (1  Sam.  vii.  9),  at 
 Kamah  (ix.  12,  x.  13),  at  Gilgal  (x.  8,  xi.  15).  It 
 probably  became  once  again  a  movable  sanctuary, 
 less  honored  as  no  longer  possessing  the  symbol  of 
 the  Divine  Presence,  yet  cherished  by  the  priest- 
 hood, and  some  portions,  at  least,  of  its  ritual  kept 
 up.  For  a  time  it  seems,  under  Saul,  to  have 
 been  settled  at  Nob  (1  Sam.  xxi.  1-6),  which  thus 
 became  what  it  had  not  been  before  —  a  priestly 
 city.  The  massacre  of  the  priests  and  the  flight  of 
 Abiathar  must,  however,  have  robbed  it  yet  further 
 of  its  glory.  It  had  before  lost  the  Ark.  It  now 
 lost  the  presence  of  the  High-Priest,  and  with  it 
 the  oracular  ephod,  the  Ukiji  and  the  Tnu.^iMiJi 
 (1  Sam.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  6).  What  change  of  for- 
 tune then  followed  we  do  not  know.  The  fiict 
 that  all  Israel  was  encamped,  in  the  last  days  of 
 Saul,  at  Gilboa,  and  that  there  Saul,  tliough  with- 
 out success,  inquired  of  the  Lord  by  Urim  (1  Sam. 
 
 the  original  practice  (comp.  Ewald,  Atterth.  297).  In 
 the  dances  of  Judg.  x.si.  21,  we  have  a  stage  of  tran- 
 sition. 
 
 6  Ewald  ( Geschichte,  ii.  540)  inferfi  that  Shiloh  itaell 
 was  conciuered  and  laid  waste. 
 
3154 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 xxviii.  4-6),  makes  it  probable  that  the  Tabernacle, 
 as  of  old,  was  ha  the  encampment,  and  that  Abia- 
 thar  had  returned  to  it.  In  some  way  or  other,  it 
 found  its  way  to  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  xvi.  39).  Tlie 
 anomalous  separation  of  the  two  things  which,  in 
 the  original  order,  liad  been  joined,  brought  about 
 yet  greater  anomalies ;  and,  while  the  ark  remained 
 at  Kirjath-jearim,  the  Tabernacle  at  Gibeon  con- 
 nected itself  with  the  worship  of  the  high-places 
 (1  K.  iii.  4).  The  capture  of  Jerusalem  and  tlie 
 erection  there  of  a  new  Tabernacle,  with  the  ark,  of 
 which  the  old  had  been  deprived  (2  Sam.  vi.  17;  1 
 Chr.  XV.  1),  left  it  little  more  tlian  a  traditional, 
 historical  sanctity.  It  retained  only  the  old  altar 
 of  burnt-offerings  (1  Chr.  xxi.  29).  Such  as  it 
 was,  however,  neither  king  nor  people  could  bring 
 themselves  to  sweep  it  away.  Tlie  double  service 
 went  on ;  Zadok,  as  high-priest,  officiated  at  Gib- 
 eon (1  Chr.  xvi.  39):  the  more  recent,  more  pro- 
 phetic service  of  psalms  and  hymns  and  music, 
 under  Asaph,  gathered  round  the  Tabernacle  at 
 Jerusalem  (1  Hir.  xvi.  4,  37).  The  divided  wor- 
 ship continued  all  the  days  of  Uavid.  The  sanc- 
 tity of  both  places  was  recognized  by  Solomon  on 
 his  accession  (1  K.  iii.  15;  2  Chr.  i.  3).  But  it 
 was  time  that  the  anomaly  should  cease.  As  long 
 as  it  was  simply  Tent  against  Tent,  it  was  difficult 
 to  decide  between  them.  The  purpose  of  Uavid 
 fulfilled  l)y  Solomon,  was  that  the  claims  of  both 
 should  merge  in  the  higher  glory  of  the  Temple. 
 Some,  Abiathar  probably  among  them,  clung  to  tlie 
 old  order,  in  tliis  as  in  other  things  [Solomon; 
 UrtiM  AND  Thu.mmiji],  but  the  final  day  at  last 
 came,  and  the  Tabernacle  of  Bleeting  was  either 
 taken  down,"  or  left  to  perish  and  be  forgotten. 
 So  a  page  in  the  religious  history  of  Israel  was 
 closed.  So  the  disaster  of  Shiloh  led  to  its  natural 
 consummation. 
 
 III.  Rdation  to  the  Rdifjious  Life  of  Israel.  — 
 (1.)  Whatever  connection  may  be  traced  between 
 other  parts  of  the  ritual  of  Israel  and  that  of  the 
 nations  with  which  Israel  had  Ijeen  lirought  into 
 contact,  the  thought  of  the  Tabernacle  meets  us  as 
 entirely  new.''  The  "house  of  God"  [Betiikl] 
 of  the  Patriarchs  had  been  the  large  "  pillar  of 
 stone"  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  19),  bearing  record  of 
 some  high  spiritual  experience,  and  tending  to  lead 
 men  upward  to  it  (Biilir,  Symbol,  i.  93),  or  the 
 grove  which,  witli  its  dim,  doubtful  light,  attuned 
 the  souls  of  men  to  a  divine  awe  (Gen.  xxi.  33). 
 The  temples  of  Egyjit  were  stately  and  colossal, 
 hewn  in  the  solid  rock,  or  built  of  huge  blocks  of 
 granite,  as  unlike  as  possible  to  the  sacred  tent  of 
 Israel.  The  command  was  one  in  which  we  can 
 trace  a  special  fitness.  The  stately  temples  be- 
 longed to  the  house  of  bondage  which  they  were 
 leaving.  The  sacred  places  of  their  fathers  \^ere  in 
 the  land  toward  which  they  were  journeying.  In 
 the  mean  while  they  were,  to  be  wanderers  in  the 
 wilderness.  To  have  set  up  a  Bethel  after  the  old 
 pattern  would  have  been  to  malce  that  a  resting- 
 place,  the  object  then  or  afterwards  of  devout  pil- 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 grimage;  and  the  multiplication  of  such  places 
 at  the  diflferent  stages  of  their  march  would  iiave 
 led  inevitably  to  polytheism.  It  would  have  failed 
 utterly  to  lead  them  to  the  thought  which  tliey 
 needed  most  —  of  a  Divine  Presence  never  ab- 
 sent from  them,  protecting,  ruling,  judging.  A 
 sacred  tent,  a  moving  Bethel,  was  the  fit  sanctu- 
 ary for  a  people  still  nomadic.'^  It  was  capable  of 
 being  united  afterwards,  as  it  actually  came  to  be, 
 with  "the  grove"  of  the  older  cuUus  (Josh.  xxiv. 
 20). 
 
 (2.)  The  structure  of  the  Tabernacle  was  obvi- 
 ously determined  by  a  complex  and  profound  sym- 
 bolism; but  its  meaning  remains  one  of  the  things 
 at  which  we  can  but  dimly  guess.  No  interpreta- 
 tion is  gi>en  in  the  Law  itself.  The  explanations 
 of  Jewish  writers  long  afterwards  are  manifestly 
 wide  of  tlie  mark.  That  wliicli  meets  us  in  the 
 Kpistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  application  of  the  types 
 of  the  Tabernacle  to  the  mysteries  of  Kedeniption, 
 was  latent  till  those  mysteries  were  made  known. 
 And  yet  we  cannot  but  believe  that,  as  each  por- 
 tion of  the  wonderful  order  rose  before  the  inward 
 eye  of  the  lawgiver,  it  must  have  embodied  dis- 
 tinctly manifold  truths  whicli  he  ajipreliended 
 liimself,  and  sought  to  communicate  to  others.  It 
 entered,  indeed,  into  the  order  of  a  divine  educa- 
 tion for  Moses  and  for  Israel:  and  an  education  by 
 means  of  symbols,  no  less  than  by  means  of  words, 
 presupposes  an  existing  language.  So  far  from 
 shrinking,  therefore,  as  men  have  timidly  and  un- 
 wisely shrunk  (Witsius,  /Eyyptiaca,  in  Ugolini, 
 Tilts,  vol.  i.)  from  asking  what  thoughts  the  Egyp- 
 tian education  of  Moses  would  lead  him  to  connect 
 with  the  symbols  he  was  now  taught  to  use,  we 
 may  see  in  it  a  legitimate  method  of  inquiry  —  al- 
 most the  only  method  possible.  Where  that  fails, 
 tlie  gap  may  be  filled  up  (as  in  Biilir,  Symbol,  pas- 
 sim) from  the  analogies  of  other  nations,  indicating, 
 where  they  agree,  a  wide-spread  primeval  symbol- 
 ism. So  far  from  laboring  to  prove,  at  the  price 
 of  ignoring  or  distorting  facts,  that  everything  was 
 till  then  unknown,  we  shall  as  little  expect  to  find 
 it  so,  as  to  see  in  Hel)rew  a  new  and  heaven-born 
 language,  spoken  for  the  first  time  on  Sinai,  writ- 
 ten for  the  first  time  on  the  Two  Tables  of  the  Cov- 
 enant. 
 
 (3.)  The  thought  of  a  graduated  sanctity,  like 
 that  of  the  outer  court,  the  Holy  Place,  the  Holy  of 
 Holies,  had  its  counterpart,  often  the  same  number 
 of  stages,  in  the  structure  of  Egyptian  temples 
 (Biihr,  i.  216).  The  interior  Adytum  (to  proceed 
 from  the  innermost  recess  outward)  was  small  in 
 proportion  to  the  rest  of  the  building,  and  com- 
 monly, as  in  the  Tabernacle  (Joseph.  Ant.  ii.  6, 
 §  3),  was  at  the  western  end  (Spencer,  iii.  2),  and 
 was  unlighted  from  without. 
 
 In  tlie  Adytum,  often  at  least,  was  the  sacred 
 AiUv,  tlie  culminating  point  of  holiness,  containing 
 the  highest  and  most  mysterious  symbols,  winged 
 figures,  generally  like  those  of  the  cherubim  (W^il- 
 kinson,  Anc.   Eijypt.   v.  275;  Kenrick,   Eyypt,  i. 
 
 a  The  language  of  2  Chr.  v.  5,  leaves  it  doubtful 
 whether  the  Tabernacle  there  referred  to  was  that 
 at  Jerusalem  or  Gibeon.     (But  see  Joseph.  Ant.  viii. 
 
 4,  §  !•) 
 
 b  Spencer  (X)e  leg.  Hebrcpor.  iii.  3)  labor.s  hard,  but 
 not  successfully,  to  prove  that  the  tabernacles  of  Mo- 
 loch of  Amos  V.  26,  were  the  prototypes  of  the  Tent  of 
 Meeting.  It  has  to  be  remembered,  however,  (1)  that 
 the  word  used  in  Amos  (sicciitli)  is  never  used  of  ttie 
 labernacle,  and  means  something  very  different ;  and 
 
 (2)  that  the  Moloch-worship  represented  a  defection  of 
 the  people  suhsi-qiient  to  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle. 
 On  these  grounds,  then,  and  not  from  any  abstract  re- 
 pugnance to  the  idea  of  such  a  transfer,  1  abide  by  the 
 statement  in  the  text. 
 
 c  Analogies  of  like  wants  met  in  a  like  way,  with  no 
 ascertainable  historical  connection,  are  to  be  found 
 among  the  Gajtulians  and  other  tribes  of  northern 
 Africa  (Sil.  Ital.  iii.  289),  and  in  the  Sacred  Tent  of  th« 
 Carthaginian  encampments  (Dlod.  Sic.  xx.  66). 
 
TABERNACLE 
 
 460),  the  emblems  of  stability  and  life.  Here  were 
 outward  points  of  resemblance.  Of  all  elements  of 
 Egyptian  worship  this  was  one  which  could  be 
 transferred  with  least  hazard,  with  most  train.  No 
 one  could  think  that  the  Ark  itself  was  the  likeness 
 of  the  God  he  worshipped.  When  we  ask  what 
 gave  the  Ark  its  holiness,  we  are  led  on  at  once  to 
 the  infinite  difference,  the  great  gulf  between  the 
 two  systems.  That  of  I'^gypt  was  predominantly 
 cusmiciil,  starting  from  the  productive  powers  of 
 nature.  The  symbols  of  those  powers,  though  not 
 originally  involving  what  we  know  as  impurity, 
 tended  to  it  fatally  and  rapidly  (Spencer,  iii.  1 ; 
 Warburton,  Divine  Legntion,  II.  4  note).  That  of 
 Israel  was  predominantly  ethical.  The  nation  was 
 taught  to  think  of  God,  not  chiefly  as  revealed  in 
 nature,  but  as  manifesting  himself  in  and  to  the 
 spirits  of  men.  In  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  as  the 
 highest  revelation  then  possible  of  the  Divine  Na- 
 ture, were  the  two  tables  of  stone,  on  which  were 
 graven,  by  the  teaching  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and 
 therefore  by  "  the  finger  of  God,"  "  the  great  un- 
 changing laws  of  human  duty  which  had  been  pro- 
 claimed on  Sinai.  Here  the  lesson  taught  was 
 plain  enough.  The  highest  knowledge  was  as  tlie 
 simplest,  the  esoteric  as  the  exoteric.  In  the  depths 
 of  tlie  Holy  of  Holies,  and  for  the  high-priest  as  for 
 all  Israel,  there  was  the  revelation  of  a  righteous 
 Will  requiring  righteousness  in  man  (Saalschiitz, 
 Archdol.  c.  77).  And  over  the  Ark  was  the  Coph- 
 ereth  (Mercy-Seat),  so  called  with  a  twofold  ref- 
 erence to  the  root-meaning  of  the  word.  It  covered 
 the  Ark.  It  was  the  witness  of  a  mercy  covering 
 sins.  As  the  "  footstool  "  of  God,  the  "  throne  " 
 of  the  Divine  Glory,  it  declared  that  over  the  Law 
 which  seemed  so  rigid  and  unbending  there  rested 
 the  compassion  of  One  forgiving  "  iniquity  and 
 transgression."  *  And  over  the  ^lercy  seat  were 
 the  Cherubim,  i-eproducing,  in  part  at  least,  the 
 symbolism  of  the  great  Hamitic  races,  forms  famil- 
 iar to  Moses  and  Israel,  needing  no  description  for 
 them,  interpreted  for  us  by  the  fuller  vision  of  the 
 later  prophets  (Ez.  i.  5-1.3,  x.  8-15,  xli.  19),  or  liy 
 the  winged  forms  of  the  imagery  of  Egypt.  Rep- 
 resenting as  they  did  the  manifold  powers  of  na- 
 ture, created  life  in  its  highest  form  (Hahr,  i.  341), 
 their  "overshadowing  wings,"  "meeting"  as  in 
 token  of  perfect  harmony,  declared  that  nature  as 
 well  as  man  found  its  highest  glory  in  subjection  to 
 a  Divine  Law,  that  men  might  take  refuge  in  that 
 Order,  as  under  t' the  shadow  of  the  wings"  of 
 God  (Stanley,  Jewish  Churchy  p.  98).  Placed 
 where  those  and  other  like  figures  were,  in  the  tem- 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 3155 
 
 «  Tbe  equivalence  of  the  two  plirases,  "  by  tlie 
 Spirit  of  God,"  and  "  by  the  finger  of  God,"  is  seen 
 by  comparing  Matt.  xii.  28  and  Luke  xi.  20.  Conip. 
 also  the  language  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  vi. 
 §  133)  and  the  use  of  "  the  hand  of  the  Lord  "  in  1 
 K.  xviii.  46;  2  K.  iii.  15  ;  Ez.  i.  3,  iii.  14  ;  1  Chr. 
 xxviii.  19. 
 
 b  Ewald,  giving  to  "1D3,  the  root  of  Cupherel/i,  the 
 meaning  of  "  to  scrape,"  "  erase,"  derives  from  that 
 meaning  the  idea  implied  in  the  LXX.  jAao-r^pioi',  and 
 denies  that  the  word  ever  signified  eTriSeiaa  {Alterth. 
 pp.  128,  129). 
 
 c  A  full  discussion  of  the  subject  is  obviously  im- 
 possible here,  but  it  may  be  useful  to  exhibit  briefly 
 the  chief  thoughts  which  have  been  connected  with 
 the  numbers  that  are  most  prominent  in  the  language 
 of  symbolism.  Arbitrary  as  some  of  them  may  seem, 
 a  sufficient  induction  to  establish  each  will  be  found 
 Id  Bahr's  elaborate  dissertation,  i.  128-255,  and  other 
 
 pies  of  Egypt,  they  might  be  hindrances  and  not 
 helps,  might  sensualize  instead  of  purifying  tha 
 worship  of  the  people.  But  it  was  part  of  the  wis- 
 dom which  we  may  reverently  trace  in  the  order  of 
 the  Tabernacle,  that  while  Egyptian  symbols  are 
 retained,  as  in  the  Ark,  the  Cherubim,  the  Urim 
 and  the  Thummi31,  their  place  is  changed.  They 
 remind  the  high-priest,  the  representative  of  the 
 whole  nation,  of  the  truths  on  which  the  order  rests. 
 The  people  cannot  bow  down  and  worship  that 
 which  they  never  see. 
 
 The  material  not  less  than  the  forms,  in  the 
 Holy  of  Holies  was  significant.  The  acacia  or 
 shittim-wood,  least  liable,  of  woods  then  accessible, 
 to  decay,  might  well  represent  the  imperishal)le- 
 ness  of  Divine  Truth,  of  the  Laws  of  Duty  (Bahr, 
 i.  280).  Ark,  mercy-seat,  cherubim,  the  very 
 walls,  were  all  overlaid  with  gold,  the  noblest  of  all 
 metals,  the  symbol  of  light  and  purity,  sun-light 
 itself  as  it  were,  fixed  and  embodied,  the  token  of 
 the  incorruptible,  of  the  glory  of  a  great  king 
 (Biihr,  i.  282).  It  was  not  without  meaning  that 
 all  this  lavish  expenditure  of  what  was  most  costly 
 was  placed  where  none  might  gaze  on  it  The  gold 
 thus  offered  taught  man,  that  the  nolilest  acts  of 
 beneficence  and  sacrifice  are  not  those  which  are 
 done  that  they  may  be  seen  of  men,  but  those 
 which  are  known  only  to  Him  who  "  seeth  in 
 secret"  (Matt.  vi.  4).  Dimensions  also  had  their 
 meaning.  Difficult  as  it  may  be  to  feel  sure  that 
 we  have  the  key  to  the  enigma,  there  can  be  but 
 little  doubt  that  the  older  religious  systems  of  the 
 world  did  attach  a  mysterious  significance  to  each 
 separate  nmnber;  that  the  training  of  Moses,  as 
 afterwards  the  far  less  complete  initiation  of  Pythag- 
 oras in  the  symltolism  of  Egypt,  must  have  made 
 that  transparently  clear  to  him,  which  to  us  is 
 almost  impenetralily  dark.<^  To  those  who  think 
 over  the  words  of  two  great  teachers,  one  heathen 
 (Plutarch,  De  h.  et  Os.  p.  411),  and  one  Christian 
 (Clem.  Al.  Stro7H.  vi.  pp.  84-87),  who  had  at  least 
 studied  as  far  as  they  could  tlie  mysteries  of  the 
 religion  of  Egypt,  and  had  inherited  jiart  of  the  old 
 system,  the  precision  of  the  numbers  in  the  plan  of 
 the  Tabernacle  will  no  longer  seem  unaccountable. 
 If  in  a  cosmical  system,  a  right-angled  triangle 
 with  the  sides  three,  four,  five,  represented  the  triad 
 of  Osiris,  Isis,  Orus,  creative  force,  receptive  matter, 
 the  universe  of  creation  (Plutarch,  I.  c),  the  perfect 
 cube  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  constant  recurrence 
 of  the  numbers  4  and  10,  may  well  be  accepted  as 
 
 works.  Comp.  Wilkinson,  Anc.  E^.  iv.  190-199 ; 
 Leyrer  in  Herzng^s  Encyrlop.  "  Stiftshiitte." 
 
 One —  The  Godhead,  Eternity,  Life,  Creative  Force, 
 the  Sun,  Man. 
 
 Two  —  Matter,  Time,  Death,  Receptive  Capacity,  the 
 Moon,  AVoman. 
 
 Three  (as  a  number,  or  in  the  triangle)  —  The 
 Universe  in  connection  with  God,  the  Abso- 
 lute in  itself,  the  Unconditioned,  God. 
 
 FoDR  (the  number,  or  in  the  square  or  cube)  —  Con- 
 ditioned Existence,  the  World  as  created. 
 Diviue  Order,  Revelation. 
 
 Seven  (as  =  3  -|-  4)  —  The  Union  of  the  World  and 
 God,  Re.st  (as  in  the  Sabbath),  Peace,  Blessing, 
 Purification. 
 
 Ten  (as  =  1  -)-  2  -|-  3  -j-  4)  —  Completeness,  moral 
 and  physical.  Perfection. 
 
 Five  —  Perfection  half  attained.  Incompleteness. 
 
 Twelve  — The  Signs  of  .the  Zodiac,  the  Cycle  of  the 
 Season?  ;  in  Israel  the  ideal  number  of  th« 
 people,  of  the  Covenant  of  God  with  them. 
 
3156  TABERNACLE 
 
 Bymbolizing  order,  stability,  perfection  (Biihr,  i. 
 225 ).« 
 
 (4.)  Into  the  inner  sanctuary  neitlier  people  nor 
 the  priests  as  a  body  ever  entered.  Strange  as  it 
 may  seem,  that  in  which  everything  represented 
 light  and  life  was  left  in  utter  darkness,  in  pro- 
 found solitude.  Once  onlj'  in  the  year,  on  tlie 
 Day  op  Atokkment,  might  the  high-priest 
 enter.  The  strange  contrast  has,  however,  its 
 parallel  in  the  spiritual  lii'e.  Death  and  life,  light 
 and  darkness,  are  wonderfully  united.  Only 
 through  death  can  we  truly  live.  Only  by  passing 
 into  the  "  thick  darkness  "  where  God  is  (Ex.  xx. 
 21;  1  K.  viii.  12),  can  we  enter  at  all  into  the 
 "  light  inaccessible,"  in  which  He  dwells  everlast- 
 ingly. The  solemn  annual  entrance,  like  the  with- 
 drawal of  symbolic  forms  from  the  gaze  of  the 
 people,  was  itself  part  of  a  wise  and  divine  order. 
 Intercourse  with  Egypt  had  shown  how  easily  the 
 symbols  of  Truth  might  become  conmion  and 
 familiar  things,  yet  without  symbols,  the  truths 
 themselves  might  be  forgotten.  Both  dangers  were 
 met.  To  enter  once,  and  once  only  in  the  year, 
 into  the  awful  darkness,  to  stand  before  the  Law 
 of  Duty,  before  tlie  pre.-i.'iice  of  the  God  who  gave 
 it,  not  in  the  stately  robes  that  became  the  repre- 
 sentative of  God  to  man,  but  as  representing  man 
 in  his  humiliation,  in  the  garb  of  the  lower  priests, 
 bare-footed  and  in  the  linen  ephod,  to  confess  his 
 own  sins  and  the  sins  of  the  people,  this  was  what 
 connected  the  Atonement-day  ( Cippiir)  with  the 
 Mercy-seat  (CoplieretJi).  And  to  come  there  with 
 blood,  the  symbol  of  life,  touching  with  that  blood 
 the  mercy-seat,  with  incense,  the  symbol  of  adora- 
 tion (Lev.  xvi.  12-14),  what  did  that  express  but 
 the  truth:  (1)  that  man  must  draw  near  to  the 
 righteous  God  with  no  lower  offering  than  the  pure 
 worship  of  the  heart,  with  the  li^'ing  sacrifice  of 
 body,  soul,  and  spirit;  (2)  that  could  such  a 
 perfect  sacrifice  be  found,  it  would  have  a  myste- 
 rious power  working  beyond  itself,  in  proportion  to 
 its  perfection,  to  cover  the  multitude  of  sins  V 
 
 (5.)  From  all  others,  from  the  high-priest  at  all 
 other  tinjes,  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  shiouded  by  the 
 double  Veil,  bright  with  many  colors  and  strange 
 forms,  even  as  cuitains  of  golden  tissue  were  to  be 
 seen  hanging  before  the  Adytum  of  an  Egyptian 
 temple,  a  strange  contrast  often  to  the  bestial  form 
 behind  them  (Clem.  Al.  Pml.  iii.  4).  In  one 
 memorable  instance,  indeed,  the  veil  was  the  wit- 
 ness of  higher  and  deeper  thoughts.  On  the  shrine 
 of  Isis  at  Sais,  there  were  to  be  read  words  which, 
 though  pointing  to  a  pantheistic  rather  than  an 
 ethical  religion,  were  yet  wonderful  in  their  lol'ti- 
 ness,  "I  am  all  that  has  been  (ttSj/  rh  yeyov6s), 
 and  is,  and  shall  be,  and  my  veil  no  mortal  hath 
 withdrawn "  (a,-n-€Kd\vip€v)  {De  Is.  et  Oaii:  p. 
 394).  Like,  and  yet  moie,  unlike  the  truth,  we 
 feel  that  no  such  words  could  have  appeared  on  the 
 veil  of  the  Tabernacle.  In  that  identification  of 
 the  world  and  God,  all  idolatry  was  latent,  as  in 
 the  faith  of  Israel  in  the  I  AJM,  all  idolatry  was 
 excluded.''  In  that  despair  of  any  withdrawal  of 
 the  veil,  of  any  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will,  there 
 were  latent  all  the  arts  of  an  unbelieving  priestcraft, 
 substituting  symbols,  pomp,  ritual  for  such  a  revela- 
 
 "  The  symbol  reappears  in  the  most  startling  form 
 in  the  closing  visions  of  the  Apocalypse.  There  the 
 heavenly  Jerusalem  is  described,  in  words  which 
 libsolutely  exclude  the  literalism  which  has  sometimes 
 been   blindly    applied    to  it,    as   a   city  four-square, 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 tion.  But  wnat  then  was  the  meaning  of  the  veil 
 which  met  the  gaze  of  the  priests  as  they  did 
 service  in  the  sanctuary  ?  Colors  in  the  art  of 
 Egypt  were  not  less  significant  than  number,  and 
 the  four  bright  colors,  probably,  after  the  fashion 
 of  that  art,  in  parallel  bands,  blue  symbol  of 
 heaven,  and  purple  of  kingly  glory,  and  crimson  of 
 life  and  joy,  and  white  of  light  and  purity  (Biihr,  i. 
 305-330),  formed  in  their  combination  no  remote 
 similitude  of  the  rainbow,  which  of  old  had  been 
 a  symbol  of  the  Divine  covenant  with  man,  the 
 [iledge  of  peace  and  hope,  the  sign  of  the  Divine 
 Presence  (b:z.  i.  28;  Ewald,  Alterth.  p.  333). 
 Within  the  veil,  light  and  truth  were  seen  in  their 
 unity.  The  veil  itself  represented  the  infinite 
 variety,  the  ■jroAuiroiKiAos  ao(pia  of  the  divine 
 order  in  Creation  (Eph.  iii.  10).  And  there  again 
 were  seen  copied  upon  the  veil,  the  mysterious  forms 
 of  the  cherubim ;  how  many,  or  in  what  attitude, 
 or  of  what  size,  or  in  what  material,  we  are  not 
 told.  The  words  "  cunning  work  "  in  Ex.  xxxvi. 
 35,  applied  elsewhere  to  combinations  of  embroidery 
 and  metal  (Ex.  xxviii.  15,  xxxi.  4),  justify  perhaps 
 the  conjecture  that  here  also  they  were  of  gold.  In 
 the  absence  of  any  other  evidence  it  would  have 
 been,  perhaps,  natural  to  think  that  they  repro- 
 duced on  a  larger  scale,  the  number  and  the 
 position  of  those  that  were  over  the  mercy-seat. 
 The  visions  of  Ezekiel,  however,  reproducing,  as 
 they  obviously  do,  the  forms  with  which  his  priestly 
 life  had  made  him  familiar,  indicate  not  less  than 
 four  (c.  i.  and  x.),  and  those  not  all  alike,  having 
 severally  the  faces  of  a  man,  a  lion,  an  ox,  and  an 
 eagle,  strange  symbolic  words,  which  elsewhere  we 
 should  have  identified  with  idolatry,  but  which  here 
 were  bearing  witness  against  it,  emblems  of  the 
 manifold  variety  of  creation  as  at  once  manifesting 
 and  conceahng  God. 
 
 (0.)  The  outer  sanctuary  was  one  degree  less 
 awful  in  its  holiness  than  the  inner.  Silver,  the 
 type  of  Human  Purity,  took  the  place  of  gold,  the 
 type  (if  the  Divine  Glory  (Biihr,  i.  284).  It  was  to 
 be  trodden  daily  by  the  priests,  as  by  men  who  lived 
 in  the  per[ietual  consciousness  of  the  nearness  of 
 God,  of  the  mystery  behind  the  veil.  Barefooted 
 and  in  garments  of  white  linen,  like  the  priests  of 
 Isis  [PitiESTs],  they  accomplished  their  ministra- 
 tions. And  here,  too,  there  were  other  emblems 
 of  Divine  realities.  With  no  opening  to  admit 
 light  from  without,  it  was  illumined  only  by  the 
 golden  LAJiP  with  its  seven  lights,  one  taller  than 
 the  others,  as  the  Sabbath  is  more  sacred  than  the 
 other  days  of  the  week,  never  all  extinguished 
 together,  the  perpetual  symbol  of  all  derived  gifts 
 of  wisdom  and  holiness  in  man,  reaching  their 
 mystical  perfection  when  they  shine  in  God's  sanc- 
 tuary to  his  glory  (Ex.  xxv.  31,  xxvii.  20;  Zcch. 
 iv.  1-14).  The  SiiEW-iiiiEAD,  the  "bread  of 
 faces,"  of  the  Divine  Presence,  not  unlike  in  out- 
 ward form  to  the  sacred  cakes  which  the  Egyptians 
 placed  before  the  shrines  of  their  gods,  served  as  a 
 token  that,  though  there  was  no  form  or  likeness 
 of  the  Godhead,  He  was  yet  there,  accepting  all 
 offerings,  recognizing  in  particular  that  special 
 ottering  which  represented  the  life  of  the  nation  at 
 once  in   the   distinctness  of  its   tribes  and  iu  its 
 
 12,000   furlongs  in  length   and   breadth   and   height 
 (Ilev.  xxi.  16). 
 
 b  The  name  Jehovah,  it  has  been  well  said,  was 
 "  the  rending  asunder  of  the  veil  of  Sais.'"  (Stanley, 
 Jewish  Church,  p.  110.) 
 
TABERNACLE 
 
 unity  as  a  people  (Ewald,  Allerth.  p.  120).  The 
 meaning  of  the  Altar  of  Incense  was  not  less 
 obvious.  The  cloud  of  fragrant  smoke  was  the 
 tiatm'al,  almost  the  universal,  emblem  of  the 
 heart's  adoration  (Ps.  cxli.  2).  The  incense 
 sprinkled  on  the  shew-bread  and  the  lamp  tau2;ht 
 men  that  all  other  offerings  needed  the  inter- 
 mingling of  that  adoration.  Upon  that  altar  no 
 "strange  fire"  was  to  be  kindled.  When  fiesh 
 fire  was  needed  it  was  to  be  taken  from  the  .Vltak 
 OF  Burnt-offering  in  the  outer  court  (I^ev.  ix. 
 24,  X.  1 ).  Very  striking,  as  compared  with  what 
 is  to  follow,  is  the  sublimity  and  the  purity  of 
 these  symbols.  It  is  as  though  the  priestly  order, 
 already  leading  a  consecrated  life,  were  capable  of 
 understanding  a  higher  language  which  had  to  he 
 translated  into  a  lower  for  those  that  were  still 
 without  (Saalschiitz,  Archdol.  §  77). 
 
 (7.)  Outside  the  tent,  but  still  within  the  con- 
 secrated precincts,  was  the  Court,  fenced  in  by  an 
 enclosure,  yet  open  to  all  the  congregation  as  well 
 as  to  the  Ixvites,  those  only  excepted  who  were 
 ceremonially  unclean.  No  Gentile  might  pass 
 beyond  the  curtains  of  the  entrance,  but  every 
 member  of  the  priestly  nation  might  thus  far 
 "  draw  near  "  to  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Here 
 therefore  stood  the  Alt.vr  of  Burnt-offerings, 
 at  which  Sacrifices  in  all  their  varieties  were 
 offered  by  penitent  or  thankful  worshippers  (Ex. 
 xxvii.  1-8,  xxxviii.  1),  the  brazen  Layer  at  which 
 those  worshippers  purified  themselves  before  they 
 sacrificed,  the  priests  before  they  entered  into  the 
 sanctuary  (Ex.  xxx.  17-21).  Here  the  graduated 
 scale  of  holiness  ended.  What  Israel  was  to  the 
 world,  fenced  in  and  set  apart,  that  the  Court  of 
 the  I'abernacle  was  to  the  surrounding  wilderness, 
 just  as  the  distinction  between  it  and  the  sanc- 
 tuary answered  to  that  between  the  sons  of  Aaron 
 and  other  Israelites,  just  as  the  idea  of  holiness  cul- 
 minated personally  in  the  high-priest,  locally  in  the 
 Holy  of  Holies. 
 
 IV.  Theorivs  of  Later  Thiies.  —  (1.)  It  is  not 
 probable  that  the  elaborate  symbolism  of  such  a 
 structure  was  understood  by  the  rude  and  sensual 
 multitude  that  came  out  of  Egypt.  In  its  fullness 
 perhaps  no  mind  but  that  of  the  lawgiver  himself 
 ever  entered  into  it,  and  even  for  him,  one  half,  and 
 that  the  highest,  of  its  meaning  must  have  been 
 altogether  latent.  Yet  it  was  not  the  less,  was 
 perhaps  the  more  fitted,  on  that  account  to  be  an 
 instrument  for  the  education  of  the  people.  To 
 the  most  ignorant  and  debased  it  was  at  least  a 
 witness  of  the  liearness  of  the  Divine  King.  It 
 met  the  craving  of  the  human  heart  which  prompts 
 to  worship,  with  an  order  which  was  neither  idol- 
 atrous nor  impure.  It  taught  men  that  their  fleshly 
 nature  was  the  hindrance  to  worship;  that  it  ren- 
 dered them  unclean  ;  that  only  l>y  subduing  it,  kill- 
 ing it,  as  they  killed  the  bullock  and  the  goat, 
 could  they  offer  up  an  acceptable  sacrifice  ;  that 
 such  a  sacrifice  was  the  condition  of  forgiveness,  — 
 a  higher  sacrifice  than  any  tliey  could  ofl«r  the 
 ground  of  that  forgiveness.  The  sins  of  the  past 
 were  considered  as  belonging  to  the  fleshly  nature 
 r/hich  was  slain  and  offered,  not  to  the  true  inner 
 self  of  the  worshipper.  iNIore  thoughtful  minds 
 were  led  inevitably  to  higher  truths.  They  were 
 not  slow  to  see  in  the  Tabernacle  the  parable  of 
 God's  presence  manifested  in  Creation.     Darkness 
 
 a  It  is  curious  to  note  how  in  Clement  of  Alexan- 
 dria the  two  systems  of  interpretation  cross  each  other, 
 
 TABERNACLE  3157 
 
 was  as  his  pavilion  (2  Sam.  xxii.  12).  He  has 
 made  a  Tabernacle  for  the  Sun  (Ps.  xix.  4).  The 
 heavens  wpre  spread  out  liice  its  curtains.  The 
 beams  of  his  cnambers  were  in  the  mighty  waters 
 (Ps.  civ.  2,  -3;  Is.  xl.  22;  Lowth,  De  Sue.  Foes. 
 viii.).  The  majesty  of  God  seen  in  the  storm  arid 
 tempest  was  as  of  one  who  rides  upon  a  cherub  (2 
 Sam.  xxii.  11).  If  the  words,  "  He  that  dwelleth 
 between  the  cherubim,"  spoke  on  the  one  side  of  a 
 special,  localized  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Pres- 
 ence, they  spoke  also  on  the  other  of  that  Presence 
 as  in  the  heaven  of  heavens,  in  the  light  of  setting 
 suns,  in  the  blackness  and  the  flashes  of  the  thun- 
 der-clouds. 
 
 (2.)  The  thought  thus  uttered,  essentially  poet- 
 ical in  its  nature,  had  its  fit  place  in  the  psalms 
 and  hynuis  of  Israel.  It  lost  its  beauty,  it  led  men 
 on  a  false  track,  when  it  was  formalized  into  a  sys- 
 tem. At  a  time  when  Judaism  and  Greek  phil- 
 osophy were  alike  effete,  when  a  feeble  physical 
 science  which  could  read  nothing  l)ut  its  own 
 thoughts  in  the  symbols  of  an  older  and  deeper 
 system,  was  after  its  own  fashion  rationalizing 
 the  mythology  of  heathenism,  there  were  found 
 Jewish  writers  willing  to  apply  the  same  principle 
 of  interpretation  to  the  Tabernacle  and  its  order. 
 In  that  way,  it  seemed  to  them,  they  would  secure 
 the  respect  even  of  the  men  of  letters  who  could 
 not  bring  themselves  to  be  Proselytes.  The  result 
 appears  in  Josephus  and  in  Philo,  in  part  also  in 
 Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen.  Thus  inter- 
 preted, the  entire  significance  of  the  Two  Tables  of 
 the  Covenant  and  their  place  within  the  ark  disap- 
 peared, and  the  truths  which  the  whole  order  rep- 
 resented liecame  cosnncal  instead  of  ethical.  If 
 the  special  idiosyncrasy  of  one  writer  (Philo,  De 
 Profu;/.)  led  him  to  see  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
 and  the  Sanctuary  that  which  answered  to  the  Pla- 
 tonic distinction  between  the  visible  {aladrjra.)  and 
 the  spiritual  {vut^to),  the  coarser,  less  intelligent 
 Josephus  goes  still  more  completely  into  the  new 
 system.  The  Holy  of  Holies  is  the  visilile  firma- 
 ment in  which  God  dwells,  the  Sanctuary  as  the 
 earth  and  sea  which  men  inhabit  (Ant.  iii.  6,  §  4, 
 7;  7,  §  7).  The  twelve  loaves  of  the  shew-bread 
 represented  the  twelve  months  of  the  year,  the 
 twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac.  The  seven  Lunps  were 
 the  seven  planets.  The  four  colors  of  tiie  veil  were 
 the  four  elements  (aroix^la),  air,  fire,  water,  earth. 
 Even  the  wings  of  the  cherubim  were,  in  the  eyes 
 of  some,  the  two  hemispheres  of  the  universe,  or 
 the  constellations  of  the  Greater  and  the  Lesser 
 Bears!  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  §  35).  The  table 
 of  shew-bread  and  the  altar  of  incense  stood  on  the 
 north,  because  north  winds  were  most  fruitful,  the 
 lamp  on  the  south  because  the  motions  of  the  plan- 
 ets were  southward  (ibid.  §§  34,  3.5).  We  need  not 
 follow  such  a  system  of  interpretation  further.  -It 
 was  not  unnatural  that  the  authority  with  which  it 
 started  should  secure  for  it  considerable  respect. 
 We  find  it  reappearing  in  some  Christian  writers, 
 Ciirysostom  {Hum.  in  .Joimn.  Bapt.)  and  Theodo- 
 ret  (Qiussl.  in  Exod.)  —  in  some  Jewish,  Ben 
 Uzziel,  Kimchi,  Abarbanel  (Biihr,  i.  103  f. ).  It 
 was  well  for  Christian  thought  that  the  Church 
 had  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Apoc- 
 alypse of  St.  John  that  which  helped  to  save  it 
 from  the  pedantic  puerilities  of  tliis  physico-the- 
 ology." 
 
 leading  sometimes  to  extravagances  like  those  in   th* 
 text,  sometimes  to  thought.s  at  once   lofty  and   true. 
 
3158 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 (3).  rt  will  have  been  clear  from  all  that  has 
 been  said  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  not 
 been  looked  on  as  designed  to  limit  our  inquiry 
 into  the  nieanin^;  of  the  symbolism  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle, and  that  there  is  consequently  no  ground  for 
 adopting  the  system  of  interpreters  who  can  see  in 
 it  nothing  but  an  aggregate  of  types  of  Christian 
 mysteries.  Such  a  system  has.  in  fact,  to  choose 
 between  two  alternatives.  Either  the  meaning  was 
 made  clear,  at  least  to  the  devout  worshippers  of 
 old,  and  then  it  is  no  longer  true  that  the  mystery 
 was  hid  "from  ages  and  generations,"  or  else  the 
 mystery  was  concealed,  and  then  the  whole  order 
 was  voiceless  and  unmeaning  as  long  as  it  lasted, 
 then  only  beginning  to  be  instructive  when  it  was 
 "  ready  to  vanish  away."  Rightly  viewed  there  is, 
 it  is  believed,  no  antagonism  between  the  interpre- 
 tation which  starts  from  the  idea  of  symbols  of 
 Great,  Eternal  Truths,  and  that  which  rests  on  the 
 idea  of  types  foreshadowing  Chrigt  and  his  Work, 
 and  his  Church.  If  the  latter  were  the  highest 
 manifestation  of  the  former  (and  this  is  the  key- 
 note of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  then  the  two 
 systems  run  parallel  with  each  other.  The  type 
 may  help  us  to  understand  the  symbol.  The  sym- 
 bol may  guard  us  against  misinterpreting  the  type. 
 That  the  same  things  were  at  once  synibols  and 
 types  may  take  its  place  among  the  proofs  of  an  in- 
 sight and  a  foresight  more  than  human.  Not  the 
 veil  of  nature  only  but  the  veil  of  the  flesh,  the 
 humanity  of  Christ,  at  once  conceals  and  manifests 
 the  Eternal's  Glory.  The  rending  of  that  veil  en- 
 abled all,  who  had  eyes  to  see  and  hearts  to  believe, 
 to  enter  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  into  the  Divine 
 Presence,  and  to  see,  not  less  clearlj"  than  the  High 
 Priest,  as  he  looked  on  the  ark  and  the  INIercy  Seat, 
 that  Righteousness  and  Eove,  Truth  and  Mercy 
 were  as  one.  Blood  had  been  shed,  a  life  had  been 
 offered  which,  through  the  infinite  power  of  its 
 Love,  was  able  to  atone,  to  satisfy,  to  purify."^ 
 
 (4.)  We  cannot  here  fbllow  out  that  strain  of  a 
 higher  mood,  and  it  would  not  be  profitable  to  enter 
 into  the  speculations  which  later  writers  have  en- 
 grafted on  the  first  great  thought.  Those  who  wish 
 to  enter  upon  that  line  of  inquiry  may  find  materi- 
 als enough  in  any  of  the  greater  commentaries  on  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Owen's,  Stuart's  Bleek's, 
 Tholuck's,Delitzsch's,  Alford's),  orin  special  treat- 
 ises, such  as  those  of  Van  Till  {De  Tahernac.  in 
 Ugolini,  T/ies.  viii.);  Bede  {Exjwsitio  Mystica  et 
 Moralis  Masaici.  Tribernandi);  Witsius  {De  Tab- 
 em.  Levit.  Jfysteriis,  in  Miscell.  Sacr. ).  Strange, 
 outlying  hallucinations,  like  those  of  ancient  Rab- 
 bis, inferring,  from  "  the  pattern  showed  to  IMoses 
 in  the  Mount,"  the  permanent  existence  of  a  heav- 
 enly Tabernacle,  like  in  form,  structure,  proportions 
 to  that  which  stood  in  the  wilderness  (Leyrer,  I.  c. ), 
 CIV  of  later  writers  who  have  seen  in  it  (not  in  the 
 spiritual  but  the  anatomical  sense  of  the  word)  a 
 type  of  humanity,  representing  the  outer  bodily 
 framework,  the  inner  vital  organs  (Eriederich, 
 Synib.  der  Mos.  StifteshuUe,  in  Leyrer,  I.  c. ;  and 
 Ewald,  Alt.  p.  338),  may  be  dismissed  with  a  sin- 
 gle glance  :  — 
 
 Some  of  these  have  been  alreiidy  noticed.  Others,  not 
 to  be  pa.ssed  over,  are,  that  the  seven  lamps  .'-et  forth 
 the  varied  degrees  and  forms  (TroAujuepuj?  Kal  TroAuxpo- 
 Tws)  of  God's  Revelation,  the  form  and  the  attitude  of 
 the  Cherubim,  the  union  of  active  ministry  and  grate- 
 ful, ceaseless  contemplation  (Strom,  v.  §§  36,  37). 
 «  Tha  allusions  to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  Apocalypse 
 
 TABERNACLE 
 
 "  Non  ragioniam  di  lor,  nia  guarda  e  passa." 
 (5.)  It  is  not  quite  as  open  to  us  to  ignore  a 
 speculative  hypothesis  which,  though  in  itself  un- 
 substantial enough,  has  been  lately  revived  under 
 circumstances  which  have  given  it  prominence.  It 
 has  been  maintained  by  Von  Bohlen  and  Vatke 
 (Biihr,  i  117,  273)  that  the  commands  and  the  de- 
 scriptions relating  to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  Books 
 of  Moses  are  altogether  unhistorical,  the  result  of 
 the  eflbrt  of  some  late  compiler  to  ennoble  the  cra- 
 dle of  his  people's  history  Ijy  transferring  to  a  re- 
 mote antiquity  what  he  found  actually  existing  in 
 the  Temple,  modified  only  so  far  as  was  necessary 
 to  fit  it  in  to  the  theory  of  a  migration  and  a  wan- 
 dering. The  structure  did  not  belong  to  the  time 
 of  the  Exodus,  if  indeed  there  ever  was  an  Exodus. 
 The  Taliernacle  thus  becomes  the  mythical  after- 
 growth of  the  Temjile,  not  the  Temple  the  histor- 
 ical sequel  to  the  Tabernacle.  It  has  lately  been 
 urged  as  tending  to  the  same  conclusion  that  the 
 circumstances  connected  with  the  Tabernacle  in 
 the  Pentateuch  are  manifestly  unhistorical.  The 
 whole  congregation  of  Israel  are  said  to  meet  in  a 
 court  which  could  not  have  contained  more  than  a 
 few  hundred  men  (Colenso,  Penlafetich  and  Book 
 of  Joshua,  P.  I.  c.  iv.,  v.).  The  number  of  priests 
 was  utterly  inadequate  for  the  services  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle {ibid.  c.  XX.).  The  narrative  of  the  head- 
 money  collection,  of  the  gifts  of  the  people,  is  full 
 of  anachronisms  {ibid.  c.  xiv.). 
 
 (6.)  Some  of  these  olijections  —  those,  e.  g.  as 
 to  the  number  of  th«  first-born,  and  the  dispropor- 
 tionate smallness  of  the  priesthood,  have  been  met 
 by  anticipation  in  remarks  under  Priests  and  Le- 
 ViTES,  written  some  months  before  the  objections, 
 in  their  present  form,  appeared.  Others  bearing 
 upon  the  general  veracity  of  the  Pentateuch  his- 
 tory it  is  impossible  to  discuss  here.  It  will  be 
 sufficient  to  notice  such  as  bear  immediately  upon 
 the  subject  of  this  article.  (1.)  It  may  be  said 
 that  this  theory,  like  other  similar  theories  as  to  the 
 history  of  Christianity,  adds  to  instead  of  dimin- 
 ishing difficulties  and  anomalies.  It  may  be  pos- 
 sible to  make  out  plausibly  that  what  purports  to 
 be  the  first  period  of  an  institution,  is,  with  all  its 
 docuu.ents,  the  creation  of  the  second;  but  the 
 question  then  comes  how  we  are  to  explain  the  ex- 
 istence of  the  second.  The  world  rests  upon  an 
 elephant,  and  the  elephant  on  a  tortoise,  but  the 
 footing  of  the  tortoise  is  at  least  somewhat  inse- 
 cure. (2.)  Whate\'er  may  lie  the  weight  of  the 
 argument  drawn  from  the  alleged  presence  of  the 
 whole  congregation  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle 
 tells  with  equal  force  against  the  historical  exist- 
 ence of  the  Temple  and  the  narrative  of  its  dedica- 
 tion. There  also  when  the  population  numbered 
 some  seven  or  eight  luillions  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  !)),  •'  all 
 the  men  of  Israel"  (1  K.  viii.  2),  .all  "the  congre- 
 gation "  (ver.  .5),  all  the  children  of  Israel  (ver.  63) 
 were  assembled,  and  the  king  "  blessed  "  all  the 
 congregation  (vv.  14,  55).  (3.)  There  are,  it  is 
 believed,  undesigned  touches  indicating  the  nomad 
 life  of  the  wilderness.  The  wood  eiuployed  for  the 
 Tabernacle  is  not  the  sycamore  of  the  valleys  nor 
 
 are,  as  might  be  expected,  full  of  interest.  As  in  a 
 vision,  which  Icses  sight  of  all  time  limits,  the  Temple 
 of  the  Tabernacle  is  seen  in  heaven  (Rev.  xv.  5),  and 
 yet  in  the  heavenly  .Jerusalem  there  is  no  Temple  seen 
 (xxi.  22).  And  in  the  heavenly  Temple  there  is  dc 
 longer  any  veil  ;  it  is  open,  and  the  ark  of  the  cov- 
 enant is  clearly  seen  (xi.  19). 
 
TABERNACLE 
 
 tlie  cedar  of  Lebanon,  as  afterwards  in  the  Temple, 
 hut  the  shittim  of  the  Sniaitic  peninsula.  [Siiit- 
 TAH  Tree,  Shittim.]  The  abundance  of  fine 
 linen  points  to  Egypt,  the  seal  or  dolphin  skins 
 ("  badgers "    in   A.    V.    but   see    Gesenius    s.    v. 
 
 E7niJ1)  to  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea.  [Badger- 
 Skins.]  The  Levites  are  not  to  enter  on  their 
 office  till  the  age  of  thirty,  as  needing  for  their 
 work  as  bearers  a  man's  full  strength  (Num.  iv. 
 23,  30).  Afterwards  when  their  duties  are  chiefly 
 those  of  singers  and  gate-keepers,  tiiey  were  to  be- 
 gin at  twenty  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  24).  Would  a  later 
 history  again  have  excluded  the  priestly  tribe  from 
 all  share  in  the  structure  of  the  Taliernacle,  and 
 left  it  in  the  hands  of  mythical  persons  belonging 
 to  Judah,  and  to  a  tribe  tlien  so  little  prominent 
 as  that  of  Dan  ?  (4. )  There  remains  the  strong 
 Egyptian  stamp  impressed  npon  well-nigh  every 
 part  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  ritual,  and  implied 
 in  other  incidents.  (Comp.  Pkiksts,  Levites, 
 Urim  A:sn  Thum.mim,  Urazen  Serpent.] 
 AVhatever  bearing  tliis  may  have  on  our  views  of 
 the  things  themselves,  it  points,  beyond  all  doubt, 
 to  a  time  when  the  two  nations  had  been  brought 
 into  close  contact,  when  not  jewels  of  silver  and 
 gold  only,  but  treasures  of  \visdom,  art,  knowledge 
 were  "  borrowed  "  by  one  people  from  the  other. 
 To  what  other  period  in  the  history  before  Samuel 
 than  that  of  the  Exodus  of  the  I'entateuch  can  we 
 refer  that  intercourse?  When  was  it  likely  that  a 
 Mild  trilie,  with  ditHcully  keeping  its  ground  against 
 neighljoring  nations,  would  have  adopted  such  a 
 complicated  ritual  from  a  system  so  alien  to  its  own  ? 
 So  it  is  that  tlie  wheel  comes  full  circle.  The  facts 
 which  when  urged  by  Spencer,  with  or  without  a 
 hostile  purpose,  were  denounced  as  daring  and  dan- 
 gerous and  unsettling,  are  now  seen  to  he  witnesses 
 to  the  antiquity  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  so  to 
 the  sulistantial  truth  of  the  Mosaic  history.  They 
 are  useil  as  such  by  theologians  who  in  various  de- 
 grees enter  their  protest  against  the  more  destruc- 
 tive criticism  of  our  own  time  (Hengstenberg, 
 /\i,'y//f  and  the  Books  tf  J/(W<s;  Stanley,  Jeivisk 
 L'liurch,  lect.  iv.).  (5.)  We  may,  for  a  moment, 
 j)ut  an  imaginary  case.  Let  us  suppose  that  the 
 records  of  tlie  O.  T.  had  given  us  in  1  and  2  Sam. 
 a  history  like  that  which  men  now  seek  to  substi- 
 tute for  what  is  actually  given,  had  represented 
 Samuel  as  the  first  great  preacher  of  the  worship  of 
 I'^lohim,  Gad,  or  some  later  prophet  as  introducing 
 for  the  first  time  the  name  and  worship  of  Jehovah, 
 and  that  the  0.  T.  Ijegan  with  this  (Colenso,  P.  IL 
 c.  xxi.).  Let  us  then  suppose  that  some  old  pap3'- 
 rus,  freshly  discovered,  slowly  deciphered,  gave  us 
 the  whole  or  the  greater  part  of  what  we  now  find 
 in  Exodus  and  Nundiers,  that  there  was  thus  given 
 an  explanation  both  of  the  actual  condition  of  the 
 people  and  of  the  I'X'yptian  element  so  largely  in- 
 termingled with  their  ritual.  Can  we  not  imagine 
 with  what  jubilant  zeal  the  books  of  Samuel  would 
 then  have  been  "critically  examined,"  what  incon- 
 sistencies would  have  been  detected  in  them,  how 
 eager  men  would  have  been  to  prove  that  Samuel 
 had  had  credit  given  him  for  a  work  which  was  not 
 
 a  The  word  HSD  means  ''  a  hut,"  and  is  to  be 
 
 T  •-. 
 
 distinguished  from  VHS,  '■  a  tent  of  skins  or  cloth," 
 which  is  the  term  applied  to  the  Tabernacle  of  the 
 Congregation.     See  Gescn.  s.  v. 
 
 b  This  is  the  view  of  the  Rabbinists,  which  appears 
 
 TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF    3159 
 
 his,  that  not  he,  but  Moses,  was  the  founder  of  the 
 polity  and  creed  of  Lsrael,  that  the  Tabernacle  on 
 Zion,  instead  of  coming  fresh  from  David's  creative 
 mind,  had  been  preceded  by  the  humbler  Taber- 
 nacle in  the  Wilderness?  E.  H.  P. 
 
 TABERNACLES,  THE  FEAST  OF 
 (ni3SrT  3n  :  eoprri  (TKrifaiV-  f trice  tahernac- 
 ulorum  :  V^^'t^Tl  ^H,  Ex.  xxiii.  16,  "  the  feast  of 
 ingathering:  "  (TKr^voinTyia,  John  vii.  2;  Jos.  Ant. 
 viii.  4,  §  5:  aKi^yai,  Philo,  Be  Sept.  §  24;  i^  aKTivr], 
 Pint.  Sympos.  iv.  02),  the  third  of  the  three  great 
 festivals  of  the  Hebrews,  which  lasted  from  the  15th 
 till  the  22d  of  Tisri. 
 
 L  The  following  are  the  principal  passages  in 
 the  Pentateuch  which  refer  to  it:  Ex.  xxiii.  16, 
 where  it  is  spoken  of  as  the  Eeast  of  Ing.athering, 
 and  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  other  fes- 
 tivals under  their  agricultural  designations,  the 
 Eeast  of  Unleavened  Bread  and  the  Feast  of  Harvest  ? 
 Lev.  xxiii.  34-36,  313-43,  where  it  is  mentioned  as 
 commemorating  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through 
 the  desert;  Deut.  xvi.  13-15,  in  which  there  is  no 
 notice  of  the  eighth  day,  and  it  is  treated  as  a 
 thanksgiving  for  the  harvest;  Num.  xxix.  12-38, 
 where  there  is  an  enumeration  of  the  sacrifices 
 which  belong  to  the  festival;  Deut.  xxxi.  10-13, 
 where  the  injunction  is  given  for  the  public  reading 
 of  the  Law  in  the  Sabbatical  year,  at  the  Feast  of 
 Tabernacles.  In  J{eh.  viii.  tliere  is  an  account  of 
 the  observance  of  the  feast  by  Ezra,  from  which 
 several  additional  particulars  respecting  it  may  be 
 gathered. 
 
 H.  The  time  of  the  festival  fell  in  the  autumn, 
 when  the  whole  of  the  chief  fruits  of  the  ground, 
 tlie  corn,  the  wine,  and  the  oil,  were  gathered  in 
 (Kk.  xxiii.  16;  Lev.  xxiii.  39;  Deut.  xvi.  13-15). 
 Hence  it  is  spoken  of  as  occurring  "  in  the  end  of 
 the  year,  when  thou  hast  gathered  in  thy  labors 
 out  of  the  field."  Its  duration  was  strictly  only 
 seven  days  (Deut.  xvi.  13;  Ez.  xlv.  25).  But  it 
 was  followed  by  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  distin- 
 guished by  sacrifices  of  its  own,  which  was  some- 
 tinies  spoken  of  as  an  eighth  day  (Lev.  xxiii.  36; 
 Neh.  viii.  18). 
 
 During  the  seven  days  the  Israelites  were  com- 
 manded to  dwell  in  booths  or  huts  "  formed  of  the 
 boughs  of  trees.  These  huts,  when  the  festival  was 
 celebrated  in  Jerusalem,  were  constructed  in  the 
 courts  of  houses,  on  the  roofs,  in  the  court  of  the 
 Temple,  in  the  street  of  tlie  Water  Gate,  and  in 
 the  street  of  the  Gate  of  F^phraim.  The  boughs 
 were  of  the  olive,  palm,  pine,  myrtle,  and  other 
 trees  with  thick  foliage  (Neh.  viii.  15,  10).  The 
 command  in  Lev.  xxiii.  4(1  is  said  to  have  been  so 
 understood,''  that  the  Israelites,  from  the  first  day 
 of  the  feast  to  the  seventh,  carried  in  their  hands 
 "  the  fruit  (as  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  not 
 branches,  as  in  the  text)  of  goodly  trees,  with 
 branches  of  palm  trees,  boughs  of  thick  trees,  and 
 willows  of  the  brook." 
 
 According  to  Eabbinical  tradition,  each  Israelite 
 used  to  tie  the  branches  into  a  bunch,  to  be  carried 
 in  his  hand,  to  which  the  name  hdab  <^  was  given. 
 
 to  be  countenanced  by  a  comparison  of  v.  40  with  v. 
 42.  But  the  Karaites  held  that  the  boughs  here  men- 
 tioned were  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  cover  the 
 huts,  and  that  the  willow  branches  were  merely  foi 
 tying  the  parts  of  the  huts  together. 
 
 «  The  word   D^-w   strictly  means  simply  a  palm 
 
3160 
 
 TABERNACLES,  THE  FEAST  OF 
 
 The  "  fruit  of  goodly  trees  "  is  generally  taken  by 
 the  Jews  to  mean  the  citron."  But  Josephus  {Ant. 
 iii.  10,  §  4)  says  that  it  was  the  fruit  of  the  perse n, 
 R  tree  said  by  Pliny  to  have  been  coineyed  from 
 Persia  to  Egypt  {Hist.  Nat.  xv.  13),  and  which  some 
 have  identified  with  the  peach  {Mulits  persica). 
 The  boughs   of  thick    trees   were   understood   by 
 
 Onkelos  and  others  to  be  myrtles  (C'^B'li^),  but 
 that  no  such  limitation  to  a  single  species  could 
 have  been  intended  seems  to  be  proved  by  the 
 boughs  of  thick  trees  and  myrtle  branches  being 
 mentioned  together  (Neh.  viii.  15). 
 
 The  burnt-offerings  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
 were  by  far  more  numerous  than  those  of  any  other 
 festival.  It  is  said  that  the  services  of  the  priests 
 were  so  ordered  that  each  one  of  the  courses  was 
 employed  during  the  seven  days  {Sucadi,  v.  G). 
 There  were  offered  on  each  day  two  i-ams,  fourteen 
 lambs,  and  a  kid  for  a  shi-oftering.  But  what  was 
 most  peculiar  was  the  arrangement  of  the  sacrifices 
 of  bullocks,  in  all  amounting  to  seventy.  Thirteen 
 were  offered  on  the  first  day,  twelve  on  the  second, 
 eleven  on  the  third,  and  so  on,  reducing  the  num- 
 ber by  one  each  day  till  the  seventh,  when  seven 
 bullocks  only  were  offered  (Num.  xxix.  12-38). 
 
 T'he  eighth  day  was  a  day  of  holy  convocation 
 of  peculiar  solemnity,  and,  with  the  seventh  day  of 
 the  I'assover,  and  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  desig- 
 nated nn^l?  [Passover,  iii.  23'43,  note  a].  We 
 are  told  that  on  the  morning  of  this  day  the  He- 
 brews left  their  huts  and  dismantled  them,  and  took 
 up  their  abode  again  in  their  houses.  The  special 
 offerings  of  the  day  were  a  bullock,  a  ram,  seven 
 lambs,  and  a  goat  for  a  sin-offering  (Num.  xxix. 
 3G-38).'> 
 
 When  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  fell  on  a  Sab- 
 batical year,  portions  of  the  Law  were  read  each  day 
 in  public,  to  men,  women,  children,  and  strangers 
 (Deut.  xxxi.  10-13).  It  is  said  that,  in  the  time 
 of  the  Kings,  the  king  himself  used  to  read  from  a 
 wooden  pulpit  erected  in  the  court  of  the  women, 
 and  that  the  people  were  summoned  to  assemble  by 
 sound  of  trumpet. «  Whether  the  selections  were 
 made  from  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  only,  pr  from 
 the  other  books  of  the  Law  also,  is  a  question.  But 
 according  to  the  Mishna  {Suta,  vi.  8,  quoted  by 
 Keland)  the  portions  read  were  Deut.  i.  1-vi.  4,  xi. 
 J3-xiv.  22,  xiv.  23-xvi.  22,  xviii.  1-14,  xxvii.  1- 
 xxviii.  68  (see  Fagius  and  Eosenmiiller  on  Deut. 
 xxxi.  11;  Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  c.  xvii.).  We 
 find  I'^zra  reading  the  Law  during  the  festi^■al  "  day 
 by  day,  from  the  first  day  to  the  last  day  "  (Neh. 
 viii.  18).^' 
 
 [II.  There  are  two  particulars  in  the  observance 
 of  the  Feast  of  T'abernacles  which  appear  to  be  re- 
 ferred to  in  the  New  Testament,  but  are  not  noticed 
 
 branch.     Buxt.   Lex.  Talm.  c.  1143 ;  Carpzov,  App. 
 Crit.  p.  416  ;  Drusius,  Not.  Maj.  in  Lev.  xxiii. 
 
 a   2l"nnM.     So   Onkelos,   Jonathan,   anil    Succah. 
 
 See  Buxt.  Le.x.  Talm.  sub  2"in. 
 
 1/  The  notion  of  Munster,  Godwin,  and  others,  that 
 the  eighth  day  was  called  "  the  day  of  palms,"  is 
 utterly  without  foundation.  No  trace  of  such  a  desig- 
 nation is  found  in  any  Jewish  writer.  It  probably 
 resulted  from  a  theory  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
 must,  like  the  Passover  and  Pentecost,  have  a  festival 
 to  answer  to  it  in  the  calendar  of  the  Christian  Church, 
 and  that  "  the  day  of  palms"  passed  into  Palm  Sun- 
 day. 
 
 in  the  Old.  These  were,  the  ceremony  of  pouring 
 out  some  water  of  the  pool  of  Siloain,  and  the 
 display  of  some  great  lights  in  the  court  of  the 
 women. 
 
 We  are  told  that  each  Israelite,  in  holiday  attire, 
 having  made  up  his  lidiib,  liefore  he  broke  his  fast 
 (Fagius  in  Lev.  xxiii.),  repaired  to  the  TempJe  with 
 the  luldO  in  one  hand  and  the  citron  in  the  other, 
 at  the  time  of  the  ordinary  morning  sacrifice.  The 
 parts  of  the  victim  were  laid  upon  the  altar.  One 
 of  the  priests  fetched  some  water  in  a  golden  ewer 
 from  the  pool  of  Siloam,  which  he  brought  into  the 
 court  through  the  Water  Gate.  As  he  entered  the 
 trumpets  sounded,  and  he  ascended  the  slope  of 
 the  altar.  At  the  top  of  this  were  fixed  two  silver 
 basins  with  small  openings  at  the  bottom.  Wine 
 was  poured  into  that  on  the  eastern  side,  and  the 
 water  into  that  on  the  western  side,  whence  it  was 
 conducted  by  jiipes  into  the  Kedron  (Maimon.  ap. 
 Carpzov.  p.  410).  The  linllel  was  then  sung,  and 
 when  the  singers  reached  the  first  verse  of  Ps. 
 cxviii.  all  the  company  shook  their  lulabs.  T'his 
 gesture  was  repeated  at  the  2.5th  verse,  and  again 
 when  they  sang  the  29th  verse.  The  sacrifices 
 which  belonged  to  the  day  of  the  festival  were  then 
 offered,  and  special  passages  from  the  Psalms  were 
 chanted. 
 
 In  the  evening  (it  would  seem  after  the  day  of 
 holy  convocation  with  which  the  festival  had  com- 
 menced had  ended),  both  men  and  women  assembled 
 in  the  court  of  the  women,  expressly  to  hold  a 
 rejoicing  for  the  drawing  of  the  water  of  Siloam. 
 On  this  occasion,  a  degree  of  unrestrained  hilarity 
 was  ])ermitted,  such  as  would  have  been  unbecoming 
 while  the  ceremony  itself  was  going  on,  in  the 
 presence  of  the  altar  and  in  connection  with  the 
 offering  of  the  morning  sacrifice  {Succnli,  iv.  9,  v. 
 1,  and  the  passages  from  the  Gem.  given  by  Light- 
 foot,   Temple  Service,  §  4). 
 
 At  the  same  time  there  were  set  up  in  the  court 
 two  lofty  stands,  each  supporting  four  great  lamps. 
 These  were  lighted  on  each  night  of  the  festival. 
 It  is  said  that  they  cast  their  light  over  nearly  the 
 whole  compass  of  the  city.  The  wicks  were  fur- 
 nished from  the  cast-off'  garments  of  the  priests, 
 and  the  supply  of  oil  was  kept  up  by  the  sons  of 
 the  priests.  Many  in  the  assembly  carried  flam- 
 beaux. A  body  of  Levites,  stationed  on  the  fifteen 
 steps  leading  up  to  the  women's  court,  played  in- 
 struments of  music,  and  chanted  the  fifteen  psalms 
 which  are  called  in  the  A.  V.  Songs  of  Degrees 
 (Ps.  cxx.-cxxxiv.).  Singing  and  dancing  were 
 afterwards  continued  for  some  time.  The  same 
 ceremonies  in  the  day,  and  the  same  joyous  meet- 
 ing in  the  evening,  were  renewed  on  each  of  the 
 seven  days. 
 
 It  appears   to  be  generally  admitted   that  the 
 
 c  A  story  is  told  of  Agrippa,  that  when  he  was  once 
 performing  this  ceremony,  as  he  came  to  the  words 
 "  thou  may'st  not  set  a  stranger  over  thee  which  is 
 not  thy  brother,"  the  thought  of  his  foreign  blood 
 occurred  to  hiui,  and  he  was  affected  to  tears.  But 
 the  bystanders  encour.iged  him,  crying  out  "Fear  not, 
 Agrippa  I  Xhou  art  our  brother."  Lightfoot,  T.  S.  c. 
 xvii. 
 
 d  Dean  Alford  considers  that  there  may  be  a  refer- 
 ence to  the  public  reading  of  the  Law  at  the  Feast  of 
 Tabernacles,  John  vii  19  —  "  Did  not  Moses  give  you 
 the  law  ?  and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law  "  — 
 even  if  that  year  was  not  the  Sabbati<ral  year,  and  the 
 observance  did  not  actually  take  place  at  the  time. 
 
TABERNACLES,   THE   FEAST   OF 
 
 3161 
 
 words  of  our  Saviour  (John  vii.  37,  38)  —  "  If  any 
 man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  He 
 that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said, 
 out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water  "  — 
 were  suggested  by  the  pouring  out  of  the  water  of 
 Siloam.  The  Jews  seem  to  have  regarded  the  rite 
 as  symbolical  of  the  water  miraculously  supplied  to 
 their  fathers  from  the  rock  at  Meribah.  13ut  they 
 also  gave  to  it  a  more  strictly  spiritual  signification, 
 in  accordance  with  tlie  use  to  which  our  Lord  ap- 
 pears to  turn  it.  JMaimonides  (note  in  Siiccah) 
 applies  to  it  the  very  passage  which  appears  to  be 
 referred  to  by  our  Lord  (Is.  xii.  3 )  —  "  Therefore 
 with  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out  of  the  wells  of 
 salvation."  The  two  meanings  are  of  course  per- 
 fectly harmonious,  as  is  shown  by  the  use  which 
 St.  Paul  makes  of  the  historical  fact  (1  t'or.  x.  4) 
 —  "  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed 
 them:  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 
 
 But  it  is  very  doubtful  what  is  meant  by  "  the 
 last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast."  It  would 
 seem  that  either  the  last  day  of  the  feast  itself,  th.at 
 is  the  seventh,  or  the  last  day  of  the  religious  ob- 
 servances of  the  series  of  annual  festivals,  the  eighth, 
 must  be  intended.  But  there  seeuis  to  have  been 
 nothing,  according  to  ancient  testimony,  to  distin- 
 guisli  the  seventh,  as  a  great  day,  compared  with 
 the  other  days;  it  was  decidedly  inferior,  in  not 
 being  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  and  in  its  number 
 of  sacrifices,  to  the  first  day."  On  the  other  hand, 
 it  is  nearly  certain  that  the  ceremony  of  pouring 
 out  the  water  did  not  take  place  on  the  eighth 
 day,*  though  the  day  might  have  been,  by  an  easy 
 license,  called  the  great  day  of  the  feast  (2  Jlacc. 
 X.  6;  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  10,  §  4;  Philo,  Be  Sept. 
 §  24).  Dean  Alford  reasonably  supposes  that  the 
 eighth  day  may  be  meant,  and  that  the  reference 
 of  our  Lord  was  to  an  ordinary  and  well-known 
 observance  of  the  feast,  though  it  was  not,  at  the 
 very  time,  going  on. 
 
 We  must  resort  to  some  such  explanation,  if  we 
 adopt  the  notion  that  our  Lord's  words  (John  viii. 
 12)  —  "I  am  the  light  of  the  world  "  — refer  to  the 
 great  lamps  of  the  festival.  The  suggestion  must 
 have  arisen  in  the  same  way,  or  else  from  the 
 apparatus  for  ligliting  not  being  removed,  although 
 the  festival  had  come  to  an  end.  It  should,  how- 
 ever, be  remarked  that  Bengel,  Stier,  and  some 
 others,  think  that  the  words  refer  to  the  light  of 
 morning  which  was  then  dawning.  The  view  that 
 may  be  taken  of  the  genuineness  of  John  viii.  1-11 
 will  modify  the  probability  of  the  latter  interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 IV.  There  are  many  directions  given  in  the 
 Jlishiia  for  the  dimensions  and  construction  of  the 
 huts.  They  were  not  to  be  lower  than  ten  palms, 
 nor  higher  than  twenty  cubits.  They  were  to  stand 
 by  tliemselves,  and  not  to  rest  on  any  external  sup- 
 port, nor  to  be  under  the  shelter  of  a  larger  build- 
 ing, or  of  a  tree.  They  were  not  to  be  covered 
 witii  skins  or  cloth  of  any  kind,  but  only  with 
 boughs,  or,  in  part,  with  reed  mats  or  laths.  They 
 were  to  be  constructed  expressly  for  the  festival,  out 
 
 «  But  Buxtorf,  who  contends  that  St.  John  speaks 
 of  the  seventh  day,  says  that  the  modern  Jews  of  his 
 time  called  that  day  "  the  Great  Uosanna,"  and  dis- 
 tinguished it  by  a  greater  attention  than  usual  to 
 their  personal  appearance,  and  by  performing  certain 
 peculiar  rites  in  the  synagogue  (Syn.  Jail.  xxi). 
 
 b  R.  Jehuda,   however,  said    that    the   water   was 
 
 ^99 
 
 of  new  materials.  Their  forms  might  vary  in  ac- 
 cordance with  the  taste  of  the  owners."^  According 
 to  some  authorities,  the  Israelites  dwelt  in  them 
 during  the  whole  period  of  the  festival  (Sifri,  in 
 Reland ).  but  others  said  it  was  sufficient  if  they  ate 
 fourteen  meals  in  them,  that  is,  two  on  each  day 
 {Succiili,  ii.  G).  Persons  engaged  in  religious  ser- 
 vice, the  sick,  nurses,  women,  slaves,  and  minors, 
 were  excepted  altogether  from  the  obligation  of 
 dwelling  in  them,  and  some  indulgence  appears  to 
 have  been  given  to  all  in  very  tempestuous  weather 
 (Succali,  i.  ii.;  Miinster  on  Lev.  xxiii.  40;  Buxt. 
 Syn.  Juil.  c.  xxi.). 
 
 The  furniture  of  the  huts  was  to  be,  according  to 
 most  authorities,  of  the  plainest  description.  There 
 was  to  be  nothing  wiiich  was  not  fairly  necessary. 
 It  would  seem,  however,  that  there  was  no  strict 
 rule  on  this  point,  and  that  there  was  a  consider- 
 able difference  according  to  the  habits  or  circum- 
 stances of  the  occupant''  (Carpzov,  p.  415;  Buxt. 
 Syn.  Jud.  p.  451). 
 
 It  is  said  that  the  altar  was  adorned  throughout 
 the  seven  days  with  sprigs  of  willows,  one  of  which 
 each  Israelite  who  came  into  the  court  brought 
 with  him.  The  great  number  of  the  sacrifices  has 
 been  already  noticed.  The  immber  of  public  vic- 
 tims offered  on  the  first  day  exceeded  those  of  any 
 day  in  the  year  {Memich.  xiii.  5).  But  besides 
 these,  the  Chagigahs  or  private  peace-ofterings 
 [Passover,  iii.  2.'J46  f.]  were  more  abundant  than 
 at  any  other  time;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe 
 that  the  whole  of  the  sacrifices  nearly  outnumbered 
 all  those  offered  at  the  other  festivals  put  together. 
 It  belongs  to  the  character  of  the  feast  that  on  each 
 day  the  trumpets  of  the  Temple  are  said  to  have 
 sounded  twenty-one  times. 
 
 V.  Though  all  the  Hebrew  annual  festivals  were 
 seasons  of  rejoicing,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was, 
 in  this  respect,  distinguished  above  them  all.  The 
 huts  and  the  lidabs  must  have  made  a  gay  and 
 striking  spectacle  over  the  city  by  day,  and  the 
 lamps,  the  flambeaux,  the  nnisic,  and  the  joyous 
 gatherings  in  the  court  of  the  Temple  must  have 
 given  a  still  more  festive  character  to  the  night. 
 
 Hence,  it  was  called  by  the  Rabbis  ^H,  the  J'tsli- 
 val,  Kar'  i^oxv"-  There  is  a  proverb  in  Succah 
 (v.  1 ),  "  He  who  has  never  seen  the  rejoicing  at  the 
 pouring  out  of  the  water  of  Siloam  has  never  seen 
 rejoicing  in  his  life."  Maimonides  says  that  he 
 who  failed  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  contrib- 
 uting to  the  public  joy  according  to  his  means, 
 incurred  especial  guilt  (Carpzov,  p.  419).  The 
 feast  is  designated  by  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  4,  §  1) 
 toprr]  ayicoTdrri  Koi  /neyiffTTi,  ^'id  by  Philo,  eop- 
 ra>v  jue-yicTTTj.  Its  thoroughly  festive  nature  is 
 shown  in  the  accounts  of  its  observance  in  Josephus 
 (Ant.  viii.  4,  §  1,  xv.  33),  as  well  as  in  the  accounts 
 of  its  celebration  by  Solomon,  Ezra,  and  Judas 
 Maccabaeus.  From  this  fact,  and  its  coimection 
 with  the  ingathering  of  the  fruits  of  the  year,  es- 
 pecially the  vintage,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  Plu- 
 tarch should  have  likened  it  to  the  Dionysiac  fes- 
 tivals,  calling    it  Bvparo^opia   and  Kparyjpo(popia 
 
 poured  out  on  eight  days.  (Succa/i,  iv.  9,  with  Bar 
 tenora's  note.) 
 
 c  There  are  some  curious  figures  of  different  forms 
 of  huts,  and  of  the  great  lights  of  the  Feast  of  Taberna- 
 cles, in  Surenhusius'  Mishna,  vol.  ii. 
 
 d  There  is  a  lively  description  of  some  of  the  huts 
 used  by  the  Jews  in  modern  times  in  La  Vie  Juive  en 
 Alsace,  p.  170,  &c. 
 
3162    TABERNACLES,   FEAST   OF 
 
 (Sympos.  iv.)'  The  account  which  he  gives  of  it  is 
 curious,  hut  it  is  not  much  to  our  purpose  here.  It 
 contains  about  as  mucli  truth  as  the  more  famous 
 passai^'e  on  the  Hebrew  nation  in  the  fifth  book  of 
 tlie  History  of  Tacitus. 
 
 VI.  The  main  purposes  of  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles are  plainly  set  forth  (Kx.  xxiii.  16,  and  Lev. 
 xxiii.  i'-i).  It  was  to  be  at  once  a  thanksgiving  for 
 the  harvest,  and  a  commemoration  of  the  time  when 
 the  Israelites  dwelt  ui  tents  during  their  passage 
 through  the  wilderness.  In  one  of  its  meanings,  it 
 stands  in  connection  with  the  Passover,  as  the 
 Feast  of  Abib,  the  month  of  green  ears,  when  the 
 first  sheaf  of  barley  was  ottered  before  the  Lord ; 
 and  with  Pentecost,  as  tiie  feast  of  harvest,  when 
 the  first  loaves  of  the  year  were  waved  before  the 
 altar:  in  its  other  meaning,  it  is  related  to  the  Pass- 
 over as  the  gi'eat  yearly  memorial  of  the  deliverance 
 from  the  destroyer,  and  from  the  tyranny  of  Egypt. 
 The  tents  of  the  wilderness  furnished  a  home  of 
 freedom  compared  with  the  house  of  bondage  out 
 of  which  they  had  been  brought.  Hence  the 
 Divine  Word  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  command 
 that  they  should  dwell  in  huts  during  the  festival, 
 "  that  your  generations  may  know  that  I  made 
 the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when  I 
 brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt''  (Lev. 
 xxiii.  43). 
 
 But  naturally  connected  with  this  exultation  in 
 their  regained  freedom,  was  the  rejoicing  in  the 
 more  perfect  fulfillment  of  God's  promise,  in  the 
 settlenient  of  his  people  in  the  Holy  Land.  Hence 
 the  festival  became  an  expression  of  thanksgiving 
 for  the  rest  and  blessing  of  a  settled  abode,  and,  as 
 connected  with  it,  for  the  regular  annual  cultivation 
 of  the  ground,  with  the  storing  up  of  the  corn  and 
 the  wine  and  the  oil,  liy  which  the  prosperity  of  the 
 nation  was  promoted  and  the  fear  of  famine  put  into 
 a  remoter  distance.  Thus  the  agricultural  and  the 
 historical  ideas  of  the  feast  became  essentially  con- 
 nected with  each  other. 
 
 But  besides  this,  Philo  saw  in  this  feast  a  wit- 
 ness for  the  original  equality  of  all  the  members  of 
 the  chosen  race.  All,  during  the  week,  poor  and 
 rich,  the  inhabitant  ahke  of  the  palace  or  the  hovel, 
 lived  in  huts  which,  in  strictness,  were  to  be  of  the 
 plainest  and  most  ordinary  materials  and  construc- 
 tion." From  this  point  of  view  the  Israelite  would 
 be  reminded  with  still  greater  edification  of  the  per- 
 ilous and  toilsome  march  of  his  forefathers  through 
 the  desert,  when  the  nation  seemed  to  be  more  im- 
 mediately dependent  on  God  for  food,  shelter,  and 
 protection,  while  the  completed  har\est  stored  up 
 for  the  coining  winter  set  before  him  the  benefits  he 
 had  derived  from  the  possession  of  the  land  flowing 
 with  milk  and  honey  which  had  been  of  old  prom- 
 ised to  his  race. 
 
 But  the  culminating  point  of  this  blessing  was 
 the  establishment  of  the  central  spot  of  the  national 
 
 «  Some  Jewish  authorities  and  other.s  connect  with 
 this  the  fact  that  in  the  month  Tisri  the  weather  be- 
 comes rather  cold,  and  heuee  there  was  a  degree  of 
 self-denial,  at  least  for  the  rich,  in  dweUing  in  huts 
 (Joseph.  A/it.  iii.  10,  §4;  Bu.xt.  Sijn.  JwJ.  p.  447  ; 
 Kel.  Ant.  iv.  5).  They  see  in  this  a  reason  why  the 
 commemoration  of  tlie  journey  through  the  desert 
 should  have  been  fixed  at  tliis  season  of  the  year. 
 The  notion  seems,  however,  not  to  be  in  lieeping  with 
 the  general  character  of  the  feast,  tlie  time  of  which 
 appears  to  have  beeu  determined  entirely  on  agricul- 
 tural groundsC^iJence  the  appropriateness  of  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  prophet,  Zech.  xiv.  16,  17;  comp.  Ex. 
 
 TABITHA 
 
 worship  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  it 
 was  evidently  fitting  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernaclea 
 should  be  kept  with  an  unwonted  degree  of  observ- 
 ance at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple  (1  K. 
 viii.  2,  05;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  4,  §  5),  again,  after 
 the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  by  Ezra  (Neh.  viii. 
 13-18),  and  a  third  time  by  Judas  Maccabaeus 
 when  he  had  driven  out  the  Syrians  and  restored 
 the  Temple  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (2  Mace. 
 X.  .5-8). 
 
 The  origin  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  by 
 some  connected  with  Succoth,  the  first  halting- 
 place  of  the  Israelites  on  their  march  out  of 
 Egypt;  and  the  huts  are  taken  not  to  conmiem- 
 orate  the  tents  in  tlie  wilderness,  but  the  leafy 
 booths  (siiccolh)  in  which  they  lodged  for  the  last 
 time  before  they  entered  the  desert.  The  feast 
 would  thus  call  to  mind  the  transition  from  settled 
 to  nomadic  life  (Stanley,  Sinai  ami  Palestine,  Ap- 
 pendix, §  89). 
 
 Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  p.  414;  Biihr,  Symbolik,  ii. 
 024;  Buxt.  Syn.  Jud.  c.  xxi.;  Reland,  Ant.  iv.  5; 
 Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  xvi.  and  Exercit.  in 
 Joan.  vii.  2,  37;  Otho,  Lex.  Rab.  p.  230;  the 
 treatise  Succali,  hi  the  Mishna,  with  Surenhusius' 
 Notes;  Hupfeld,  De  Fest.  IJebr.  part  ii.  Of  the 
 monographs  on  the  subject  the  most  important 
 appear  to  be,  Ikenius,  De  Libatione  AqucB  in 
 Fest.  Tab.  ;  Groddek,  De  Ceremonin  Palmarwn 
 in  Fest.  Tab.  (in  Ugolini,  vol.  xviii.),  with  the 
 Notes  of  Dachs  on  Succah,  in  the  Jerusalem  Ge- 
 mara.  S.  C. 
 
 TAB'ITHA  (TaMd  [ffazellt]  :  Tabitha),  also 
 called  Dorcas  ( Aop/c-as )  by  St.  Luke :  a  female  dis- 
 ciple of  Joppa,  "  full  of  good  works,"  among  which 
 that  of  making  clothes  for  the  poor  is  specifically 
 mentioned.  AVhile  St.  Peter  was  at  the  neighbor- 
 ing town  of  Lydda,  Tabitha  died,  upon  which  the 
 disciples  at  Jojipa  sent  an  urgent  message  to  the 
 Apostle,  begging  him  to  come  to  them  without  de- 
 lay. It  is  not  quite  evident  from  the  narrative 
 whether  they  looked  for  any  exercise  of  miraculous 
 power  on  his  part,  or  whether  they  simply  wished 
 for  Christian  consolation  under  what  they  regarded 
 as  the  common  calamity  of  their  Church;  but  the 
 miracle  recently  performed  on  Iineas  (Acts  ix.  34), 
 and  the  expression  in  ver.  38  {SaXOilv  ecos  r)ixS>v), 
 lead  to  the  former  supposition.  Upon  his  arrival 
 Peter  found  the  deceased  already  prepared  for  bur- 
 ial, and  laid  out  in  an  upper  chamber,  where  she 
 was  surrounded  l)y  the  recipients  and  the  tokens  of 
 her  charity.  Alter  the  example  of  our  Saviour  in 
 the  house  of  Jainis  (Matt.  ix.  2.5;  Mark  v.  40). 
 "  Peter  put  them  all  forth,"  prayed  for  the  Divine 
 assistance,  and  then  commanded  Tabitha  to  arise 
 (comp.  Mark  v.  41 ;  Luke  viii.  54).  She  opened 
 her  eyes  and  sat  up,  and  then,  assisted  by  the  Apos- 
 tle, rose  from  her  couch.  This  great  miracle,  a.s  we 
 are  further  told,  produced  an  extraordinary  effect  in 
 
 xxiii.  16  ;  Deut  xvi.  13-17.  As  little  worthy  of  more 
 than  a  passing  notice  is  the  connecting  the  fall  of 
 Jericho  with  the  festival  (Godwyn,  p.  72  ;  Reland,  iv. 
 5),  and  of  the  seventy  bullocks  offered  during  the 
 seven  d.avs  being  a  symbol  of  the  seventy  Gentile  na- 
 tions (Reland.  iv.  5  ;  Bochart,  Phale:;,  i.  15).  But  of 
 somewhat  more  interest  is  the  older  notion  found  in 
 Onkelos,  that  the  shade  of  the  branches  represented 
 the  cloud  by  day  which  sheltered  the  Israelites.  He 
 renders  the  words  in  Lev.  xxiii.  43  —  "  that  I  made 
 the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  under  the  .shadow  of  a 
 cloud.'' 
 
TABLE 
 
 Joppa,  and  was  the  occasion  of  many  conversions 
 there  (Acts  ix.  36-42). 
 
 The   name    of    » Tabitha "    (Mri''2tD)  is   the 
 
 Aramaic  form  answering  to  the  Hebrew  71*11^, 
 a  "  female  gazelle,"  the  gazelle  being  regarded  in 
 the  Eiist,  among  both  Jews  and  Arabs,  as  a  stand- 
 ard of  beauty,  —  indeed,  the  word  "^11^  properly 
 means  "  beauty."  St.  Luke  gives  "  Dorcas  "  as 
 the  Greek  equivalent  of  the  name.     Similarly  we 
 
 find  Sop/cay  as  the  LXX.  rendering  of  "^3?  in 
 Deut.  xii.  15,  22;  2  Sam.  ii.  18;  Prov.  vi.  5.  It 
 has  been  inferred  from  the  occurrence  of  the  two 
 names,  that  'i'abitha  was  a  Hellenist  (see  Whitby, 
 in  loc).  This,  however,  does  not  follow,  even  if  we 
 suppose  that  the  two  names  were  actually  borne  by 
 her,  as  it  would  ^eem  to  have  been  the  practice  even 
 of  the  Hebrew  Jews  at  this  period  to  have  a  Gentile 
 name  in  addition  to  their  Jewish  name.  But  it  is 
 by  no  means  clear  from  the  language  of  St.  Lulie 
 that  Tabitha  actually  bore  the  name  of  Dorcas.  All 
 he  tells  us  is  that  the  name  of  Tabitha  means  "  ga- 
 zelle "  (Sop/cas),  and,  for  the  benefit  of  his  Gentile 
 readers,  he  afterwards  speaics  of  her  by  the  Greek 
 equivalent.  At  the  same  time  it  is  very  possible 
 that  she  may  have  been  known  by  both  names;  and 
 we  leani  from  Josephus  {B.  J.  iv.  3,  §  5)  that  the 
 name  of  Dorcas  was  not  unknowti  in  Palestine. 
 Among  the  Greeks,  also,  as  we  gather  from  Lucret. 
 iv.  1164,  it  was  a  term  of  endearment.  Other  ex- 
 amples of  the  use  of  the  name  will  be  found  in 
 Wetstein,  in  loc.  W.  B.  J. 
 
 *  TABLE.  See  under  other  heads  for  impor- 
 tant information  connected  with  this  word  [Mkals; 
 MoNEY-CiiANGEKs;  SuEw  Bread  ;  Tabekna- 
 Cle].     The  eai'liest  Hebrew  term  may  have  been 
 
 slmlchan  (from  n^tt?,  to  stretch  out),  being 
 simply  a  piece  of  leather  or  cloth  spread  on  the 
 ground  on  which  the  food  was  placed.  The  word 
 naturally  passed  to  other  applications  so  as  to  de- 
 note a  table  of  any  kind.  We  read  in  Judg.  i.  7 
 that  the  vassals  of  Adoni-bezek  (which  see)  "  gath- 
 ered their  meat  under  his  table,"  apparently  there- 
 fore a  raised  cushion  or  triclinium  at  that  early 
 period.  A  table  formed  part  of  the  furniture  of 
 the  prophet  Elisha's  chamber  (2  K.  iv.  10).  The 
 table  and  its  entertainments  stand  figuratively  for 
 the  soul's  food  which  God  provides  for  his  people 
 (Ps.  xxxiii.  5,  Ixix.  23);  and  also  for  the  enjoy- 
 ments of  Christ's  perfected  kingdom  in  heaven 
 (Matt.  viii.  11;  Luke  xiii.  29).  'J'o  "  serve  tables  '' 
 (Acts  vi.  2)  meant  to  provide  food,  or  the  means 
 oi  purchasing  it,  for  the  poor,  as  arranged  in  the 
 primitive  Church  at  Jerusalem.  The  "table  of  the 
 Lord,"  1  Cor.  x.  21,  designates  the  Lord's  Supper 
 as  opposed  to  the  "  table  of  demons  "  {Saifxovicov) 
 or  feasts  of  heathen  revelling.  The  "  writing-ta- 
 ble "  on  which  Z-icharias  wrote  the  name  of  John 
 (Luke  i.  63)  was  no  doubt  a  "tablet"  (wivaKi- 
 Slov)  covered  with  wax,  on  which  the  ancients 
 wrote  with  a  stylus.  As  TertuUian  says :  "  Zach- 
 arias  loquitur  in  stylo,  auditur  in  eera." 
 
 In  Mark  vii.  4  "  tables  "  is  a  mistranslation  for 
 "beds"  or  "couches."  The  same  Greek  term 
 (/cAiVai)  is  rendered  "  bed  "  in  the  nine  other  pas- 
 lages  where  it  occurs  (Matt.  ix.  2,  6;  Mark  iv.  21, 
 
 a  The  full  form  occurs  in  Judg.  iv.  6,  12,  14  ;  that 
 of  Tabor  only,  in  Josh.  xix.  22  ;  Judg.  Tiii.  18  ;  Ps. 
 Ixxxix.  12  J  Jer.  xlvi.  18 ;  Hos.  v.  1. 
 
 TABOR  AND  MOUNT  TABOR     3163 
 
 vii.  30;  Luke  v.  18,  viii.  16,  xvii.  34;  Acts  v.  15; 
 Rev.  ii.  22),  and  should  be  so  rendered  here.  Not 
 beds  of  every  sort  are  intended  in  Mark  vii.  4,  but 
 as  Meyer  observes  (in  loc),  "table-beds"  {Speise- 
 kiyer),  which  might  be  defiled  by  the  leprous,  the 
 menstruous,  or  others  considered  unclean,  for  the 
 entire  context  relates  to  the  act  of  eating.  This  is 
 made  reasonably  certain  by  the  manifest  relation  of 
 the  piissage  to  Lev.  xv.  4,  where  the  same  rule  is 
 enjoined,  and  where  the  language  is:  "  Every  bed 
 whereon  he  lieth  that  hath  the  issue,  is  unclean; 
 and  everything  whereon  he  sitteth  shall  be  un- 
 clean." They  were  couches  or  raised  sofas  on 
 which  the  ancients  I'eclined  at  meals,  or  on  ordi- 
 nary occasions  may  have  been  little  more  than 
 cushions  or  rugs  (see  Matt.  ix.  6;  Acts  v.  15). 
 This  washing  of  such  articles  was  something  which 
 the  Pharisees  were  always  careful  to  have  done 
 after  the  couches  bad  been  used,  before  they  them- 
 selves would  run  the  risk  of  any  defilement.  It 
 should  be  added  that  Tischendorf  rejects  KXivai 
 from  Mark  vii.  4,  but  against  adequate  testimony 
 for  it.  ■  H. 
 
 TA'BOR  and  MOUNT"    TABOR    ("IH 
 
 "m2i^,  probably  =  "  height,"  as  in  Siraonis' 
 OnoinasticoH,  p.  300:  Vaid&wp  [Alex.  Ta<^a)0], 
 upos  ©a^cip,  @al3u!p,  but  rh  'Ira^vptov  in  Jer. 
 and  Husea,  and  in  Josephus,  who  has  also  'Arop- 
 fivpioV-  Tlialjor),  one  of  the  most  interesting  and 
 remarkable  of  the  single  mountains  in  Palestine. 
 It  was  a  liabbinic  saying  (and  shows  the  Jewish 
 estimate  of  the  attractions  of  the  locality),  that  the 
 Temple  ought  of  right  to  have  been  built  here,  but 
 was  required  by  an  express  revelation  to  be  erected 
 on  Mount  Moriah.  It  rises  abruptly  from  the  north- 
 eastern arm  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and  stands 
 entirely  insidated,  except  on  the  west,  where  a  nar- 
 row ridge  connects  it  with  the  hills  of  Nazareth. 
 It  presents  to  the  eje,  as  seen  from  a  distance,  a 
 beautiful  appearance,  being  so  symmetrical  in  its 
 proportions,  and  rounded  otf  like  a  hemisphere  or 
 the  segment  of  a  circle,  yet  varying  somewhat  as 
 viewed  from  different  directions.  ITie  body  of  the 
 mountain  consists  of  the  peculiar  limestone  of  the 
 country.  It  is  studded  with  a  comparatively  dense 
 forest  of  oaks,  pistacias,  and  other  trees  and  bushes, 
 with  tlie  exception  of  an  occasional  opening  on  the 
 sides,  and  a  small  uneven  tract  on  the  summit. 
 The  coverts  afford  at  present  a  shelter  for  wolves, 
 wild  boars,  lynxes,  and  various  reptiles.  Its  height 
 from  the  base  is  estimated  at  1,000  feet,  but  may  be 
 somewhat  more  rather  than  less.''  Its  ancient  name, 
 as  already  suggested,  indicates  its  elevation,  though 
 it  does  not  rise  much,  if  at  all,  above  some  of  the 
 other  summits  in  the  vicinity.  It  is  now  called 
 Jtibtl  et-Tur.  It  lies  about  six  or  eight  miles  al- 
 most due  east  from  Nazareth.  The  writer,  in  re- 
 turning to  that  village  toward  the  close  of  the  day 
 (May  3,  1852),  found  the  sun  as  it  went  down  in 
 the  west  shining  directly  in  his  face,  with  hardly 
 any  deviation  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left  by  a 
 single  turn  of  the  path.  The  ascent  is  usually 
 made  on  the  west  side,  near  the  little  village  of  De,~ 
 huridi,  probably  the  ancient  Daberath  (Josh.  xix. 
 12),  though  it  can  be  made  with  entire  ease  in  other 
 places.  It  requires  three-quarters  of  an  hour  or  an 
 hour  to  reach  the  top.     The  path  is  circuitous  and 
 
 b  *  Tristram  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  499)  says  1,300  feet 
 from  the  base,  and  1,865  from  the  seft-lerel.  The  latter 
 is  Van  de  Velde's  estimate.  H. 
 
3164 
 
 TABOR  AND    MOUNT   TABOR 
 
 at  times  steep,  but  not  so  much  so  as  to  render  it 
 difBcult  to  ride  the  entire  way.  The  trees  and 
 bushes  are  generally  so  tliiclv  as  to  intercept  the 
 prospect;  but  now  and  then  tlie  traveller  as  he  as- 
 cends comes  to  an  open  spot  which  re\eals  to  him 
 a  magi)ificent  view  of  the  jjlain.  One  of  the  most 
 pleasing  aspects  of  tlie  landscape,  as  seen  from 
 such  points,  in  the  season  of  the  early  harvest,  is 
 that  presented  in  the  diversified  appearance  of  the 
 fields.  The  different  plots  of  ground  exhibit  vari- 
 ous colors,  according  to  the  state  of  cultivation  at 
 the  time.  Some  of  them  are  red,  where  the  land 
 lias  been  newly  plowed  up,  owing  to  the  natural 
 properties  of  the  soil;  others  yellow  or  white,  where 
 the  harvest  is  beginning  to  ripen  or  is  already  ripe; 
 and  others  green,  being  covered  with  grass  or  spring- 
 ing grain.  As  they  are  contiguous  to  each  other, 
 or  intermixed,  these  parti-colored  plots  present,  as 
 looked  down  upon  from  above,  an  appearance  of 
 gay  checkered  work  which  is  singularly  beautiful. 
 
 The  top  of  Tabor  consists  of  an  irregular  platform, 
 embracing  a  circuit  of  half  an  hour's  walk,  and 
 commanding  wide  views  of  the  suljjacent  plain 
 from  end  to  end.  A  copious  dew  falls  here  dur- 
 ing the  warm  months.  Travellers  who  have 
 spent  the  night  there  have  found  their  tents  as 
 wet  in  the  morning  as  if  they  had  been  drenched 
 with  rain. 
 
 It  is  the  universal  judgment  of  those  who  have 
 stood  on  the  spot  that  the  panorama  spread  before 
 them  as  they  look  from  Tabor  includes  as  great  a 
 variety  of  objects  of  natural  beauty  and  of  sacred 
 and  historic  interest  as  any  one  to  be  seen  from 
 any  position  in  the  Holy  Land.  On  the  east  the 
 waters  of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  not  less  than  fifteen 
 miles  distant,  are  seen  glittering  through  the  clear 
 atmosphere  in  the  deep  bed  where  they  repose  so 
 quietly.  Though  but  a  small  portion  of  the  surface 
 of  the  lake  can  be  distinguished,  the  entire  outline 
 of  its  basin  can  be  traced  on   every  side.      In  the 
 
 View  of  Mount  Tabor  from  the  S.  W.,  from  a  sketch  taken  in  1842  by  W.  Tipping,  Esq.,  and  engraved   by  liis 
 
 permission. 
 
 same  direction  the  eye  follows  the  course  of  the 
 Jordan  for  many  miles;  while  still  further  east  it 
 rests  upon  a  boundless  perspective  of  hills  and 
 valleys,  embracing  tlic  modern  Ilauran,  and 
 further  south  the  mountains  of  the  ancient  Gilead 
 and  Bashan.  The  dark  line  which  skirts  the 
 horizon  on  the  west  is  the  Mediterranean;  the  rich 
 plains  of  Galilee  fill  up  the  intermediate  sp.ace  as 
 far  as  the  foot  of  Tabor.  The  ridge  of  Carniel 
 lifts  its  head  in  the  northwest,  though  the  portion 
 which  lies  directly  on  the  sea  is  not  distinctly 
 visible.  On  the  north  and  northeast  we  behold 
 the  last  ranges  of  Lebanon  as  they  rise  into  the 
 hills  about  Safed,  overtopped  in  the  rear  by  the 
 snow-capped  Hermon,  and  still  nearer  to  us  the 
 Horns  of  Hattin,  the  reputed  Mount  of  the  Beati- 
 tudes. On  the  south  are  seen,  first  the  summits 
 of  Gilboa,  which  David's  touching  elegy  on  Saul 
 aiA  Jonathan  has  fixed  forever  in  the  memory  of 
 mankind,  and  further  onward  a  confused  view  of 
 
 the  mountains  and  valleys  which  occupy  the 
 central  part  of  Palestine.  Over  the  heads  of  Duhy 
 and  Gilboa  the  spectator  looks  into  the  valley  of 
 the  Jordan  in  the  neighborhood  of  ISeisiin  (itself 
 not  within  sight),  the  ancient  Beth-shean,  on  wlio.se 
 walls  the  Philistines  hung  up  the  headless  trunk 
 of  Saul,  after  their  victory  over  Israel.  Looking 
 across  a  branch  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  we 
 behold  Endor,  the  abode  of  the  sorceress  whom  the 
 king  consulted  on  the  night  before  his  fatal  battle. 
 Another  little  village  clings  to  the  hill-side  of 
 another  ridge,  on  which  we  gaze  with  still  deeper 
 interest.  It  is  Nain,  the  village  of  that  name  in 
 the  New  Testament,  where  the  Saviour  touched 
 the  bier,  and  restored  to  life  tlie  widow's  son.  The 
 Saviour  must  have  passed  often  at  the  foot  of  this 
 mount  in  the  course  of  his  journeys  in  different 
 parts  of  Galilee.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
 Hebrews  looked  up  with  so  much  admiration  to 
 this  glorious    work  of  the   Creator's   hand.     The 
 
TABOR  AND   MOUNT   TABOR 
 
 ?465 
 
 same  beauty  rests  upon  its  brow  to-day,  the  same 
 richness  of  verdure  refreshes  the  eye,  in  contrast 
 witli  the  blealier  aspect  of  so  many  of  the  adjacent 
 mountains.  The  Christian  traveller  yields  sponta- 
 neously to  the  impression  of  wonder  and  devotion, 
 and  appropriates  as  his  own  the  language  of  the 
 psalmist  (Ixxxix.  11,  12):  — 
 
 "  The  heavens  are  thine,  the  earth  also  is  thine ; 
 ■'he  world  and  the  fullness  thereof,  thou  hast  found- 
 ed them. 
 j_e  north  and  the  south  thou  hast  created  them  ; 
 Tabor  and  Hermon  shall  rejoice  in  thy  name." 
 
 Tabor  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testament, 
 but  makes  a  prominent  figure  in  the  Old.  The 
 book  of  Joshua  (xix.  22)  mentions  it  as  the 
 boundary  between  Issachar  and  Zebulon  (see  ver. 
 12).  Barak,  at  the  command  of  Del^orah,  assem- 
 bled his  forces  on  Tabor,  and,  on  the  arrival  of  the 
 opportune  moment,  descended  thence  witli  "  ten 
 thousand  men  after  him  "  into  the  plain,  and  con- 
 quered Sisera  on  the  banks  of  the  Kishon  (-ludg. 
 iv.  6-15).  The  brothers  of  Gideon,  each  of  whom 
 "resembled  the  children  of  a  king,"  were  murdered 
 here  by  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  (.ludg.  viii.  18,  19). 
 Some  >vriters,  after  Herder  and  others,  think  that 
 Tabor  is  intended  when  it  is  said  of  Issachar  and 
 Zebulon  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  19,  that  "  they  shall  call 
 the  people  unto  the  mountain;  there  they  shall 
 offer  sacrifices  of  righteousness.''  Stanley,  who 
 adopts  this  view  {Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  3.51), 
 remarks  that  he  was  struck  with  the  aspect  of  the 
 open  glades  on  the  summit  as  specially  fitted  for 
 the  convocation  of  festive  assemblies,  and  could 
 well  believe  that  in  some  remote  age  it  may  have 
 been  a  sanctuary  of  the  northern  tribes,  if  not  of 
 the  whole  nation.  The  prophet  in  Hos.  v.  1,  re- 
 proaches the  priests  and  royal  family  with  having 
 "  been  a  snare  on  Mispah  and  a  net  spread  upon 
 Tabor."  The  chartce  against  them  probably  is 
 that  they  had  set  up  idols  and  practiced  heatheiush 
 rites  on  the  high  places  which  were  usually  selected 
 for  such  worship.  The  comparison  in  Jer.  xlvi. 
 18,  "as  Tabor  is  among  the  mountains  and  Carmel 
 by  the  sea,"  imports  apparently  that  these  heights 
 were  proverbial  for  their  conspicuousness,  beauty, 
 and  strength. 
 
 Dr.  Kobinson  {Researches,  ii.  .35-3)  has  thus 
 described  the  ruins  which  are  to  be  seen  at  present 
 on  the  summit  of  Tabor.  "  All  around  the  top  are 
 the  foundations  of  a  thick  wall  built  of  large  stones, 
 some  of  which  are  beveled,  showing  that  the  entire 
 wall  was  perhaps  originally  of  that  character.  In 
 several  parts  are  the  remains  of  towers  and  bastions. 
 The  chief  remains  are  upon  the  ledge  of  rocks  on 
 the  south  of  the  little  basin,  and  esjiecially  towards 
 its  eastern  end ;  here  are  —  in  indiscriminate  con- 
 fusion —  walls,  and  arches,  and  foundations,  ap- 
 parently of  dwelling-houses,  as  well  as  other  build- 
 ings, some  of  hewn,  and  some  of  large  beveled 
 stones.  The  walls  and  traces  of  a  fortress  are 
 seen  here,  and  further  west  along  the  southern 
 brow,  of  which  one  tall  pointed  arch  of  a  Saracenic 
 gateway  is  still  standing,  and  bears  the  name  of 
 Bab  el-Hatva,  '  Gate  of  the  Wind.'  Connected 
 with  it  are  loopholes,  and  others  are  seen  near  by. 
 
 These  latter  fortifications  belong  to  thi  era  of  the 
 Crusades ;  but  the  large  beveled  stones  ive  reler  to 
 a  style  of  architecture  not  later  than  the  times  of 
 the  Ilomans,  before  which  period,  indeed,  a  town 
 and  fortress  already  existed  on  Mount  Taljor.  In 
 the  days  of  the  crusaders,  too,  and  earlier,  there 
 were  here  churches  and  monasteries.  The  summit 
 has  many  cisterns,  now  mostly  dry."  The  same 
 wiiter  found  the  thermometer  here  at  10  a.  m. 
 (June  18th)  at  98°  F.,  at  sunrise  at  64°,  and  at 
 sunset  at  74°.  The  Latin  Christians  have  now  an 
 altar  here,  at  which  their  priests  from  Nazareth 
 perform  an  annual  mass.  The  Greeks  also  have 
 a  chapel,  where,  on  certain  festivals,  they  assemble 
 for  the  celebration  of  religious  rites." 
 
 Most  travellers  who  have  visited  Tabor  in  recent 
 times  ha\e  found  it  utterly  solitary  so  far  as  resiards 
 the  presence  of  human  occupants.  It  happened  to 
 the  v/riter  on  his  visit  here  (1852)  to  meet,  un- 
 expectedly, with  four  men  who  had  taken  up  their 
 abode  in  this  retreat,  so  well  suited  to  encourage 
 the  devotion  of  religious  devotees.  One  of  them 
 was  an  aged  priest  of  the  Greek  Church,  a  native 
 of  Wallachia,  named  Erinna,  accordiiiir  to  his  own 
 account  more  than  a  hundred  years  old,  who  harl 
 come  here  to  await  the  final  advent  of  Christ. 
 Dean  Stanley  found  the  old  hermit  still  living  in 
 1862.  According  to  his  own  story,  Erimia  "  in  his 
 early  years  received  an  intimation  in  his  sleep  tha*'- 
 he  was  to  build  a  church  on  a  mountain  .shown  fe 
 him  in  his  dream.  He  wandered  through  man^ 
 countries,  and  found  his  mountain  at  last  in  Tabor. 
 There  he  lived  and  collected  money  from  pilgrims, 
 which  at  his  death,  a  few  years  ago,  amounted  to 
 a  sufficient  sum  to  raise  the  church,  which  is 
 approaching  completion.  He  was  remarkable  for 
 his  long  beard  and  for  a  tame  panther,  which,  like 
 the  ancient  hermits,  he  made  his  constant  com- 
 panion "  {Sermons  in  the  A'rts/,  p.  191  f.).  He 
 was  a  man  of  huge  physical  proportions,  and  stood 
 forth  as  a  good  witness  for  the  efficacy  of  the  diet 
 of  milk  and  herbs,  on  which,  according  to  his  own 
 account,  he  subsisted.  The  other  three  men  were 
 nati\es  of  the  same  jirovince.  Two  of  them,  having 
 been  to  Jerusalem  and  the  Jordan  on  a  pilgrimage, 
 had  taken  Tabor  in  their  way  on  their  return 
 houieward,  where,  finding  unexpectedly  the  priest, 
 whom  they  happened  to  know,  they  resolved  to 
 remain  with  him  for  a  time.  One  of  them  was 
 deliberating  whether  he  should  not  take  up  his  per- 
 manent abode  there.  The  fourth  person  was  a 
 young  man,  a  relative  of  the  priest,  who  seemed  to 
 have  taken  on  himself  the  filial  office  of  caring  for 
 his  aged  friend  in  the  last  extremity.  In  the 
 monastic  ages  Tabor,  in  consequence,  partly,  of  a 
 belief  that  it  was  the  scene  of  the  Saviour's  trans- 
 figuration, was  crowdetl  with  hermits.  It  was  one 
 of  the  shrines  from  the  earliest  period  which  pilgrims 
 to  the  Holy  Land  regarded  it  as  a  sacred  duty  tp 
 honor  with  their  presence  and  their  prayers. 
 .Jerome,  in  his  Itinerary  of  Paula,  writes,  "  Scan- 
 debat  monteni  Thabor,  in  quo  transfiguratus  est 
 Domimis;  aspiciebat  procul  Hermon  et  Hermonim 
 et  campos  latissimos  Galiloese  (Jesreel),  in  quibus 
 Sisara  prostratus  est.     Torrens  Cison  qui  mediam 
 
 a  Professor  Stanley,  in  his  Notices  of  Localities 
 visited  icith  tfie  Prince  of  Wales,  has  mentioned  some 
 particulars  attached  to  the  modern  history  of  Tabor 
 which  appear  to  have  escaped  former  travellers. 
 "  The  fortress,  of  which  the  ruins  crown  the  summit, 
 bad  eyidently  four  gateways,  like  those  by  which  the 
 
 great  Roman  camps  of  our  own  country  were  entered. 
 By  one  of  the.'ie  gatew.ays  my  attention  was  called  to 
 an  Arabic  inscription,  said  to  be  the  only  one  on  the 
 mountain."  It  records  the  building  or  rebuilding  of 
 "  this  blessed  fortress  "  by  the  order  of  the  Sultiin  AbU 
 Bekr  on  his  return  from  the  East  4.  H.  607. 
 
3166 
 
 TABOR 
 
 platiitiem  dividebat,  et  oppidum  juxta,  Xaini,  mon- 
 strabaiitur." 
 
 This  idea  that  our  Saviour  was  transfigured  on 
 Tabor  prevailed  extensively  among  such  of  the 
 sarly  Christians  as  adopted  legends  of  this  nature 
 (though  not  earlier  than  the  Gth  century),  and  re- 
 appears often  still  in  popular  religious  works.  If 
 one  might  choose  a  place  which  he  would  deem 
 peculiarly  fitting  for  so  sublime  a  transaction,  there 
 is  none  certainly  which  would  so  entirely  satisfy 
 our  feelings  in  this  respect  as  the  lofty,  majestic, 
 beautiful  Talwr.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to 
 acquiesce  in  the  correctness  of  tliis  opinion.  It  is 
 susceptible  of  proof  from  the  Old  Testament,  and 
 from  later  history,  that  a  fortress  or  town  existed 
 on  Tabor  from  very  early  times  down  to  B.  c.  50 
 or  53;  and  as  Josephus  says  (fleW.  J-ud.  iv.  1,  §  8) 
 that  he  strengthened  the  fortifications  of  a  city 
 there,  about  a.  u.  60,  it  is  morally  certain  tliat 
 Tabor  must  have  been  inhabited  during  the  inter- 
 vening period,  that  is,  in  the  days  of  Christ. 
 Tabor,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  the  Mount 
 of  Transfiguration;  for  when  it  is  said  that  Jesus 
 took  his  disciples  "  up  into  a  high  mountain  apart 
 and  was  transfigured  before  them"  (Jlatt.  xvii.  1, 
 2),  we  must  understand  that  He  brought  them  to 
 the  sununit  of  the  mountain,  where  they  were  alone 
 by  themselves  (/car'  l^iav)-  It  is  impossible  to 
 ascertain  with  certainty  what  place  is  entitled  to 
 the  glory  of  this  marvelous  scene.  The  evan- 
 gelists record  the  event  in  connection  with  a  jour- 
 ney of  the  Saviour  to  Ca;sarea  Philippi,  near  the 
 sources  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  conjectured  that  the 
 Transfiguration  may  have  taken  place  on  one  of  the 
 summits  of  Mount  Hermon  in  that  vicinity.  [Her- 
 MON,  Amer.  ed.]  See  Hitters  t^rclkumle,  xv.  39-1 
 if. ;  and  Lichtenstein's  Leben  Jesu,  p.  309.  For 
 the  history  of  the  tradition  which  connects  Tabor 
 with  the  Transfiguration,  consult  Robinson's  Rt- 
 searches,  ii.  358,  359.  [Tkanskiguration,  Amer. 
 ed.]  H.  B.  H. 
 
 TA'BOR  0"l3ri  [/u'/f//^0 :  [Vat.]  ©axx^'a; 
 [Rom.]  Alex.  0a/3cop:  Tliabor)  is  mentioned  in 
 the  lists  of  1  Chr.  vi.  as  a  city  of  the  Merarite  Le- 
 vites,  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (ver.  77).  The  cata- 
 logue of  Levitical  cities  in  Josh.  xxi.  does  not  con- 
 tain any  name  answering  to  this  (comp.  vers.  34, 
 35).  But  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Zebulun  {ib. 
 xix.)  contains  the  name  of  Chisloth-Tabor  (ver. 
 12).  It  is,  therefore,  possible,  either  that  Chisloth- 
 Tabor  is  abbreviated  into  Tabor  by  the  chronicler, 
 or  that  by  the  time  these  later  lists  were  compiled, 
 the  Merarites  had  established  themselves  on  the 
 sacred  mountain,  and  that  Tabor  is  Mount  Tal)or. 
 
 G. 
 
 TA'BOR,  THE  PLAIN  OF  0"13n  I'lbW 
 [oak  of  the  heiyht]  :  r]  Spvs  ©ajidp:  qiwrcus  Tha- 
 bor).  It  has  been  already  pointed  out  [see  Plain, 
 iii.  2547  f.],  that  this  is  an  incorrect  translation, 
 and  should  be  the  Oak  ov  Tabok.  It  is  men- 
 tioned in  1  Sam.  x.  3,  only  as  one  of  the  points  in 
 the  homeward  journey  of  Saul  after  his  anointing 
 by  Samuel.  It  was  the  next  stage  in  the  journey 
 after  "  Rachel's  sepulchre  at  Zelzach."  But  un- 
 fortunately, like  so  many  of  the  other  spots  named 
 in  this  interesting  passage,  the  position  of  the  Oak 
 of  Tabor  has  not  yet  been  fixed. 
 
 Ewald  seems  to  consider  it  certain  (gewiss)  that 
 Tabor  and  Deborah  are  merely  different  modes  of 
 pronouncing  the  same  name,  and  he  accordingly 
 Identifies  the  Oak  of  Tabor  with  the  tree  under 
 
 TACHMONITE,  THE 
 
 which  Deborah,  Rachel's  nurse,  was  buried  (Gen 
 XXXV.  8),  and  that  again  with  the  palm,  under 
 which  Deborah  the  prophetess  delivered  her  oraclea 
 (Gesch.  iii.  29,  i.  390,  ii.  489),  and  this  again  with 
 the  Oak  of  the  old  Prophet  near  Bethel  (ib.  iii. 
 444).  But  this,  though  most  ingenious,  can  only 
 be  received  as  a  conjecture,  and  the  position  on 
 which  it  would  land  us  —  "  between  Ramah  and 
 Bethel"  (Judg.  iv.  5),  is  too  ilir  from  Rachel's 
 sepulchre  to  fall  in  with  the  conditions  of  the  nar- 
 rative of  Saul's  journey,  as  long  as  we  hold  that  to 
 Ije  the  traditional  sepulchre  near  Bethlehem.  A 
 further  opportunity  for  examining  this  most  puz- 
 zling route  will  occur  under  Zklzah;  but  the 
 writer  is  not  sanguine  enough  to  hope  that  any 
 light  can  be  thrown  on  it  in  the  present  state  of 
 our  knowledge.  [See  Ramah,  Amer.  ed.]  G. 
 TABRET.     [Timbrel.] 
 
 TAB'RIMON  (]b~l3ip:  Ta/Sepe/xti;  Alex. 
 Tal3fvpari/xa:  Tabremon).  Properly,  Tabrimmon; 
 /.  e.  "good  is  Rimmon,"  the  Syrian  god;  compare 
 the  analogous  forms  Tobiel,  Tobiah,  and  the  Phoe- 
 nician Tab-aram  (Gesen.  Jfon.  Plio&n.  p.  456). 
 The  father  of  Benhadad  I.,  king  of  Syria  in  the 
 reign  of  Asa  (1  K.  xv.  18). 
 
 TACHE  (DnJ7.:  npiKos--  drculus,fibidn).  The 
 word  thus  rendered  occurs  only  in  the  description 
 of  the  structure  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  fittings 
 (Ex.  xxvi.  6,  11,  33,  xxxv.  11,  xxxvi.  13,  xxxix. 
 33),  and  appears  to  indicate  the  small  hooks  by 
 which  a  curtain  is  suspended  to  the  rings  from 
 which  it  hangs,  or  connected  vertically,  as  in  the 
 ease  of  the  veil  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  vt'ith  the 
 loops  of  another  curtain.  The  history  of  the  Eng- 
 lish word  is  philologically  interesting,  as  presenting 
 points  of  contact  with  many  difierent  languages. 
 I'he  Gaelic  and  Breton  branches  of  the  Keltic  fam- 
 ily give  Utc,  or  tacli,  in  the  sense  of  a  nail  or  hook. 
 The  latter  meaning  appears  in  the  aitaccare,  stac- 
 care,  of  Italian,  in  the  allncher,  detacher,  of  French. 
 On  the  other  hand,  in  the  tak  of  Dutch,  and  the 
 Zacke  of  German,  we  have  a  word  of  like  sound 
 and  kindred  meaning.  Our  Anglo-Saxon  taccan 
 and  linglish  lake  (to  seize  as  with  a  hook '? )  are 
 proliably  connected  with  it.  In  later  use  the  word 
 lias  slightly  altered  both  its  form  and  meaning,  and 
 the  tack  is  no  longer  a  hook,  but  a  small  tiat-headed 
 nail  (comp.  Diez,  Roman.  Worteb.  s.  v.  Tacco). 
 
 E.  H.  P. 
 
 TACHMONITE,  THE  (^iblpn^l  [see 
 below]:  6  Xavavaios;  [Comp.  6  iiihs  ©e/fe^oi'i:] 
 S(ij)ienlissimus).  "  The  Tachmpnite  (properly, 
 Tachcemonite)  that  sat  in  the  seat,"  chief  among 
 David's  captains  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  8),  is  in  1  Chr. 
 xi.  11  called  "  Jashobeam  an  Hachmoiiite,"  or,  as 
 the  margin  gives  it,  -'son  of  Hachmoni."  The 
 Geneva  version  has  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8,  "  He  that 
 sate  in  the  seate  of  wisedome,  being  chiefe  of  the 
 princes,  was  Adino  of  Ezni,"   regarding   "  Tach- 
 
 monite  "  as  an  adjective  derived  from  DUH,  chd- 
 cam,  "  wise,"  and  in  this  derivation  following 
 Kimchi.  Kennicott  has  shown,  with  much  ap- 
 pearance   of   probability,  that    the    words    ^tt"'"' 
 
 nilU^2,  ydslieb  basshebelh,  "  he  that  sat  in  the 
 seat,"  are  a  corruption  of  Jashobeam,  the  true 
 name  of  the  hero,  and  that  the  mistake  arose 
 from  an   error  of  the  transcriber,   who   carelessly 
 
 inserted  n3v£?2l  from  the  previous  verse  where  it 
 
TACKLING 
 
 occurs.  He  further  considers  "  the  Tachmonite  " 
 a.  corruption  of  the  appellation  in  Chronicles,  "  son 
 of  Hachiiioiii,"  which  was  the  fomily  or  local  name 
 of  Jasliobeani.     "  The  name  here  in  Samuel  was 
 
 at  first  ''DJS^nrT,  the  article  H  at  the  beginning 
 
 having  been  corrupted  into  a  iH;  for  the  word  "ji 
 in  Chronicles  is  regularly  supplied  in  Samuel  by 
 that  article  "  (Dtsser/.  p.  82).  Therefore  he  con- 
 cludes "Jashobeam  the  llaclnnoiiite  "  to  have  been 
 the  true  reading.  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4) 
 calls  him  'Ucrcra/Mos  vlhs  'Axf/uaiou,  which  favors 
 Kennicott's  emendation.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  TACKLING.  For  this  nautical  term  in 
 Acts  xxvii.  17,  see  Ship  (6).  It  occurs  also  Is. 
 xxxiii.    23,    where   in    the    prophet's    allegory    it 
 
 (75Q)  refers  to  the  ropes  connected  with  the  ves- 
 sel's mast  and  sails.  H. 
 
 TAD'MOR  (~lb"T.n  [prob.  cily  of  palms]: 
 [in  1  K.  ix.  18,  Kom.  Vat.  omit,  Alex.  &€p/u.a9'-,  in  2 
 Chr.,  Rom.]  eofS/xop,  [Vat.  QoeSofMop,  Alex.  065- 
 fiop-]  Pidmira),  called  '•  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness  " 
 (2  Chr.  viii.  4).  There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
 this  city,  said  to  have  been  built  by  Solomon,  is  the 
 same  as  the  one  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
 and  to  modern  Europe  by  the  name,  in  some  form 
 or  other,  of  Palmyra  (naA/j.vpd,  TlaXfjupd,  Pal- 
 mira). The  identity  of  the  two  cities  results  from 
 the  following  circumstances:  1st,  The  same  city  is 
 specially  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  6,  §  1) 
 as  bearing  in  his  time  the  name  of  Tadmor  among 
 the  Syrians,  and  Palmyra  among  the  Greeks;  and 
 in  his  Latin  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  Je- 
 rome translates  Tadmor  by  Palmira  (2  Chr.  viii.  4). 
 2dly,  The  modern  -Arabic  name  of  Palmyra  is 
 substantially  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  word,  being 
 Tadmur  or  Tathniur.  3dly,  The  word  Tadmor 
 has  nearly  the  same  meaning  as  Pahnyra,  signifying 
 probably  the  "  City  of  Palms,"'  from  Taniar,  a  palm ; 
 and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Araliic  word  for  Palma, 
 a  Spanish  town  on  the  Guadalquivir,  which  is  said 
 to  be  called  Tadmir  (see  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus, 
 p.  345).  4thly,  The  name  'I'admor  or  Tadmor 
 actually  occurs  as  the  name  of  the  city  in  Aramaic 
 and  Greek  inscriptions  which  have  been  found 
 there.  5thly,  In  the  Chronicles,  the  city  is  men- 
 tioned as  having  been  Ijuilt  by  Solomon  after  his 
 conquest  of  Hamath  Zobah,  and  it  is  named  in 
 conjunction  with  "  all  the  store-cities  which  he 
 built  in  Hamath."  This  accords  fully  with  the 
 situation  of  Palmyra  [Haji.vth]  ;  and  there  is 
 no  other  known  city,  either  in  the  desert  or  not  in 
 the  desert,  which  can  lay  claim  to  the  name  of 
 Tadmor. 
 
 .  In  addition  to  the  passage  in  the  Chronicles, 
 there  is  a  passage  in  the  book  of  Kings  (1  K.  ix. 
 18)  in  which,  according  to  the  marginal  reading 
 (Km),  the  statement  that  Solomon  built  Tadmor 
 likewise  occurs.  But  on  referring  to  the  original 
 text  (Cctlii/j),  the  word  is  found  to  be  not  Tadmor, 
 but  Tamar.  Now,  as  all  the  other  towns  men- 
 tioned in  this  passage  with  Tamar  are  in  Palestine 
 (Gezer,  Beth-horon,  Baalath),  as  it  is  said  of 
 Tamar  that  it  was  "  in  the  wilderness  in  the  land," 
 and  as.  in  Ezekiel's  prophetical  description  of  the 
 
 TADMOR 
 
 3167 
 
 «  A  misunderstanding  of  this  passage  has  counte- 
 nanced the  ideas  of  those  who  believe  in  a  future  sec- 
 ond return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine.  This  belief  may, 
 under  peculiarly  favorable  circumstances,  lead  here- 
 
 Holy  Land,  there  is  a  Tamar  mentioned  as  one  of 
 the  borders  of  the  land  on  the  south  (Ez.  xlviii. 
 19),  wliere,  as  is  notorious,  there  is  a  desert,  it  is 
 probable  that  the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings  did 
 not  really  mean  to  refer  to  Palmyra,  and  that  the 
 marginal  reading  of  "  Tadmor  "  was  founded  on  the 
 passage  in  the  Chronicles  (see  Thenius,  Exegetisches 
 Handbuch,  1  K.  ix.  18). 
 
 If  this  is  admitted,  the  suspicion  naturaEy  sug- 
 gests itself,  that  the  compiler  of  the  Chronicles  may 
 have  misapprehended  the  original  passage  in  the 
 book  of  Kings,  and  may  have  incorrectly  written 
 "  Tadmor"  instead  of  "  Tamar."  On  this  hypothe- 
 sis there  would  have  been  a  curious  circle  of  mis- 
 takes ;  and  the  final  result  would  be,  that  any  sup- 
 posed connection  between  Solomon  and  the  foun- 
 dation of  I'almyra  must  be  regarded  as  purely 
 imaginary.  This  conclusion  is  not  necessarily  in- 
 correct or  unreasonaWe,  but  there  are  not  sufficient 
 reasons  for  adopting  it.  In  the  first  place,  the 
 Tadmor  of  the  Chronicles  is  not  mentioned  in 
 connection  with  the  same  cities  as  the  Tamar  of 
 the  Kings,  so  there  is  nothing  cogent  to  suggest 
 the  inference  that  the  statement  of  the  (Jhronicles 
 was  copied  from  the  Kings.  Secondly,  admitting 
 the  historical  correctness  of  the  statement  that  the 
 kingdom  of  Solomon  extended  from  Gaza,  near  the 
 Mediterranean  Sea,  to  Tiphsah  or  Thapsacus,  on 
 the  Euphrates  (1  K.  iv.  24;  conip.  Ps.  Ixxii.  8,  U), 
 it  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
 Solomon  occupied  and  garrisoned  such  a  very  im- 
 portant station  for  connecting  different  parts  of  his 
 dominions  as  Palmyra.  And,  even  without  refer- 
 ence to  military  and  political  considerations,  it 
 would  have  been  a  masterly  policy  in  Solomon  to 
 have  secured  Palmyra  as  a  point  of  commercial 
 communication  with  the  Euphrates,  Bab\'lon,  and 
 the  Persian  Gulf.  It  is  evident  that  Solomon  had 
 largo  views  of  commerce;  and  as  we  know  that  he 
 availed  himself  of  the  nautical  skill  of  the  Tyrians 
 by  causing  souje  of  his  own  subjects  to  accompany 
 them  in  distant  vojages  from  a  port  on  the  Red 
 Sea  (1  K.  ix.  26,  27,  28,  x.  22),  it  is  unlikely  that 
 he  should  have  neglected  trade  by  land  with  such 
 a  centre  of  wealth  and  civilization  as  Babylon. 
 But  that  great  city,  though  so  nearly  in  the  same 
 latitude  with  Jerusalem  that  there  is  not  the  dif- 
 ference of  even  one  degree  between  them,  was  sep- 
 arated from  Jerusalem  by  a  great  desert,  so  that 
 regular  direct  communication  between  the  two 
 cities  was  impracticable.  In  a  celebrated  passage, 
 indeed,  of  Isaiah  (xl.  3),  connected  with  "the 
 voice  of  him  tliat  crieth  in  the  wilderness,"  images 
 are  introduced  of  a  direct  return  of  the  Jewish 
 exiles  from  Babylon  through  the  desert.  Such  a 
 route  was  known  to  the  Bedawin  of  the  desert : 
 and  njay  have  been  exceptionally  passed  over  by 
 others;  but  evidently  these  images  are  only  poetical, 
 and  it  may  be  deemed  indisputable  that  the  suc- 
 cessive caravans  of  Jews  who  returned  to  their  own 
 land  from  Babylon  arrived  from  the  same  quarter 
 as  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  Chaldteans  (Jer.  i.  14, 
 15,  X.  22,  XXV.  9 ),  namely,  from  the  North.  In  fact, 
 Babylon  thus  became  so  associated  with  the  North 
 in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  that  in  one  passage  of 
 Jeremiah  «  (xxiii.  8 )  it  is  called  "  tlie  North  coun- 
 try," and  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  many 
 
 after  to  its  own  realization.  It  has  not,  however,  been 
 hitherto  really  proved  that  a  second  dispersion  or  a 
 second  return  of  the  Jews  was  ever  contemplated  bjr 
 any  Hebrew  prophet. 
 
3168 
 
 TADMOR 
 
 of  the  Jews  may  have  been  ignorant  that  Babylon 
 was  nearly  clue  east  from  Jerusalem,  although 
 Bomewhat  more  than  600  miles  distant.  Now,  the 
 way  in  which  Palmyra  would  have  been  useful  to 
 Solomon  in  trade  between  liabylon  and  the  west 
 is  evident  from  a  glance  at  a  good  map.  By 
 merely  following  the  road  up  the  stream  on  the 
 right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  the  traveller  goes  in 
 a  northwesterly  direction,  and  the  width  of  the 
 desert  becomes  proportionally  less,  till  at  length, 
 from  a  point  on  the  Euphrates,  there  are  only 
 about  120  miles  across  the  desert  to  Palmyra," 
 and  thence  about  the  same  distance  across  the 
 desert  to  Damascus.  Erom  Damascus  there  were 
 ultimately  two  roads  into  Palestine,  one  on  each 
 side  of  the  Jordan ;  and  there  was  an  easy  com- 
 munication with  Tyre  by  Paneias,  or  Caesarea 
 Philippi,  now  Bdnias.  It  is  true  that  the  Assyrian 
 and  Chaldee  armies  did  not  cross  the  desert  by 
 Palmyra,  but  toolc  tlie  more  circuitous  road  by 
 Hamath  on  the  Orontes:  but  this  was  doubtless 
 owing  to  the  greater  facilities  which  that  route 
 afforded  for  the  subsistence  of  the  cavalry  of  which 
 
 TADMOil 
 
 those  armies  were  mainly  composed.  For  mere 
 purposes  of  trade,  the  shorter  road  by  Palmyra 
 had  some  decided  advantages,  as  long  as  it  was 
 thoroughly  secure.  See  Alovers,  Das  Phonizische 
 Alterthvm,  3ter  Theil,  p.  2-13,  &c. 
 
 Hence  there  are  not  sufficiently  valid  reasons  for 
 denying  the  statement  in  the  Chronicles  that  Solo- 
 mon built  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness,  or  Palmyra. 
 As,  however,  the  city  is  nowhere  else  mentioned  in 
 the  whole  Bible,  it  would  be  out  of  place  to  enter 
 into  a  long,  detailed  history  of  it  on  the  present 
 occasion.  The  following  leading  facts,  however, 
 may  be  mentioned.  The  first  author  of  antiquity 
 who  mentions  Palmyra  is  Pliny  the  Elder  (f/isl. 
 Nat.  V.  2Ct),  who  says,  "  Palmira  nobilis  urbs  situ, 
 divitiis  soli  et  aquis  amcenis  vasto  undique  ambitu 
 arenis  includitagros;  "  and  then  proceeds  to  speak  of 
 it  as  placed  apart,  as  it  were  between  the  two  em- 
 pires of  the  Romans  and  the  Parthians,  and  as  the 
 first  oliject  of  solicitude  to  each  at  the  commence- 
 ment of  war.  Afterwards  it  was  mentioned  by  Ap- 
 pian  (De  Bell.  Cicil.  v.  9),  in  reference  to  a  still 
 earlier  period  of  time,  in  connection  with  a  design 
 
 of  Mark  Antony  to  let  his  cavalry  plunder  it.  Ti)e 
 inhabitants  are  .said  to  have  withdrawn  themselves 
 and  their  effects  to  a  strong  position  on  the  Eu- 
 phrates—  and  the  cavalry  entered  an  empty  city. 
 In  the  second  century  a.  d.  it  seems  to  have  been 
 beautified  by  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  as  may  be  in- 
 ferred from  a  statenieiit  of  Stephanus  of  Byzantium 
 as  to  the  name  of  the  city  having  been  changed  to 
 Hadrianopolis  (s.  v.  TlaAfj.vpd).  In  the  beginning 
 of  the  third  century  a.  i>.  it  became  a  Koman 
 colony  under  Caracalla  (211-217  a.  d.),  and  re- 
 ceived the  jus  Italicum.  Subsequently,  in  the  reign 
 of  Gallienus,  the  Roman  Senate  invested  Odena- 
 thus,  a  senator  of  Palmyra,  with  the  regal  dignity, 
 on  account  of  his  services  in  defeating  Sapor  king 
 of  Persia.  On  the  assassination  of  Odenathus,  his 
 celebrated  wife  Zenobia  seems  to  have  conceived 
 the  design  of  erecting  Palmyra  into  an  independent 
 monarchy;  and  in  prosecution  of  this  object,  she 
 for  a  while  successfully  resisted  the  Roman  arms. 
 
 a  The  exact  latitude  and  longitude  of  Palmyra  do 
 not  seem  to  have  been  scientifically  taken.  Mr.  Wood 
 mentious  that  his  party  had  no  quadrant  with  them, 
 
 I'lliioi 
 
 She  was  at  length  defeated  and  taken  captive  by 
 the  Emperor  Aurelian  (a.  d.  273),  who  left  a 
 Roman  garrison  in  Palmyra.  Tins  garrison  was 
 massacred  in  a  revolt;  and  Aurelian  punished  the 
 city  by  the  execution  not  only  of  those  who  were 
 taken  in  arms,  but  likewise  of  common  peasants,  of 
 old  men,  women,  and  children.  From  this  blow 
 Palmyra  never  recovered,  though  there  are  proofs 
 of  its  having  continued  to  be  inhabited  until  the 
 downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  There  is  a  frag- 
 ment of  a  building,  with  a  Latin  inscription,  liear- 
 ing  the  name  of  Diocletian ;  and  there  are  existing 
 walls  of  the  city  of  the  age  of  the  Emperor  Justinian. 
 In  1172,  Benjamin  of  Tudela  found  4,000  Jews 
 there;  and  at  a  later  period  Abulfeda  mentioned  it 
 as  full  of  splendid  ruins.  Subsequently  its  very 
 existence  had  become  unknown  to  modern  Europe, 
 when,  in  1691  A.  D.,  it  was  visited  by  some  mer- 
 chants from  the  English  fiictory  in  Aleppo;  and  an 
 account  of  their  discoveries  was  published  in  1695, 
 
 and  there  is  a  disagreement  between  various  map* 
 and  geographical  works.  According  to  Jlr.  Johnston, 
 the  po.sitiou  i.s,  lat.  34°  IS'  N.,  and  long.  38°  13/  E. 
 
TAHAN 
 
 in  the  Philosophical  Transactions  (vol.  xix.  No. 
 21  r,  p.  83,  No.  218,  p.  129).  In  1751,  Robert 
 Wood  took  drawings  of  the  ruins  on  <i  verj'  large 
 scale,  which  he  published  in  175^,  in  a  splendid  folio 
 work,  under  the  title  of  The  Jiuins  of  Ptdmijni, 
 otherwise,  Tadnwr  in  the  Destrt.  This  work  still 
 continues  to  be  the  best  on  l^almyra;  and  its  valu- 
 able engravings  fully  justify  the  powerful  impression 
 which  the  ruins  make  on  every  intelligent  traveller 
 ■who  crosses  the  desert  to  visit  tliem.  The  colon- 
 nade and  individual  temples  are  inferior  in  beauty 
 and  majesty  to  those  which  may  be  seen  elsewhere 
 —  such,  for  example,  as  the  Parthenon,  and  the  re- 
 mains of  the  Temple  of  Jupiter,  at  Athens:  and 
 there  is  evidently  no  one  temple  equal  to  the  Temple 
 of  the  Sun  at  Baalbek,  which,  as  built  both  at  about 
 the  same  period  of  time  and  in  the  same  order  of 
 architecture,  suggests  itself  most  naturally  as  an 
 object  of  comparison.  But  tlie  long  lines  of  Corin- 
 thian columns  at  Palmjra,  as  seen  at  a  distance, 
 are  peculiarly  imposing;  and  in  their  general  effect 
 and  apparent  vastne.^s,  they  seem  to  surpass  all 
 other  ruins  of  the  same  kind.  All  the  buildings  to 
 which  these  colunms  belonged  were  probably  erected 
 in  the  second  and  third  centuries  of  our  era.  Many 
 inscriptions  are  of  later  date,  but  no  inscription 
 earlier  than  the  second  century  seems  yet  to  have 
 been  discovered. 
 
 P'or  further  information  consult  the  original  au- 
 thorities for  the  history  of  Palmyra  in  the  Scrip- 
 tores  Uistori(B  Auyustm,  Triyinta  Tyranni,  xiv., 
 Divus  Aurelianus,  xxvi. ;  Eutropius,  ix.  cap.  10, 
 11,  12.  In  1696  A.  D.,  Abraham  Seller  published 
 a  most  instructive  work  entitled.  The  Antiquities 
 of  Palmyra,  containing  the  History  of  the  City  and 
 its  Emperors,  which  contains  several  Greek  inscrip- 
 tions, with  translations  and  explanations.  The 
 Preface  to  Wood's  work  likewise  contains  a  detailed 
 history  of  the  city;  and  Gibbon,  in  the  11th  chap- 
 ter of  the  Decline  and  Fall,  has  given  an  account 
 of  Palmyra  vfith  his  usual  vigor  and  accuracy.  For 
 an  interesting  account  of  the  present  state  of  the 
 ruins  see  Porter's  Handboolc  for  isyrid  and  Pales- 
 tine, pp.  5-13-549,  and  Beaufort's  Egyptian  Sepul- 
 chres, etc.,  vol.  i.  E.  T. 
 
 TA'HAN  (inFl  [tent-place,  encampment'^ : 
 TavdxiQaf''-  Thehen,  Tiiaan).  A  descendant  of 
 Ephraim,  but  of  what  degree  is  uncertain  (Num. 
 xxvi.  35).  In  1  Chr.  vii.  25  he  appears  as  the  son 
 of  Telah. 
 
 TA'HANITES,  THE  C'^nFin  [patr.] :  b 
 Tafax'i  [Vat.  -xei]  •  Tiiehenitce).  The  descend- 
 ants of  the  preceding,  a  branch  of  the  tribe  of  Eph- 
 raim (Num.  xxvi.  35). 
 
 *TAHAP'ANES.     [Tahpanhes.] 
 TA'HATH  (nnri   [jdace,  station]:    eadO; 
 [Vat.  in  ver.  24,  Kaaf):]    Thaliath).     1.  A  Koha- 
 thite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Samuel  and  Hemau  (1  Chr. 
 vi.  24,  37  [9,  22] ). 
 
 2.  (0aa5;  [Vat.  omits;]  Alex.  @aad.)  Ac- 
 cording to  the  present  text,  son  of  Bered,  and  great- 
 grandson  of  E))hraim  (1  Chr.  vii.  20).  Burring- 
 ton,  however  (Geneal.  i.  273),  identifies  Tahath 
 with  Tahan,  the  son  of  Ephraim. 
 
 3.  (2aa0;  [ Vat.  Noo/xe ;]  Alex.  Noyuee.)  Grand- 
 son of  the  preceding,  as  the  text  now  stands  (1  Chr. 
 vii.  20).  But  Burrington  considers  him  as  a  son 
 of  Ephraim  (ii.  tab.  xix.).  In  this  case  Tahath 
 was  one  of  the  sons  of  Ephraim  who  were  slain  by 
 the  men  of  Gath  in  a  raid  made  upon  their  cattle. 
 
 TAHPANHES 
 
 3169 
 
 TA'HATH  (nnri  [see  below] :  Karade  : 
 [  Thahath] ).  The  name  of  a  desert-station  of  tlie 
 Israelites  between  Rlakheloth  and  Tarah  (Num. 
 xxxiii.  26).  The  name,  signifying  "under"  or 
 "below,"  may  relate  to  the  level  of  the  ground. 
 The  site  has  not  been  identified. 
 
 Tachtn,  from  the  same  root,  is  the  common  word 
 employed  to  designate  the  lower  one  of  the  double 
 villages  so  common  in  Syria,  the  upper  one  being 
 fvka.  Thus  Beitur  el-foka  is  the  upper  Beth- 
 horon,  Beitur  el-tachta  the  lower  one.         H.  H. 
 
 TAHPANHES,         TEHAPH'NEHES, 
 
 TAHAP'ANEs    (DnpsHri,    Dji^^niTi, 
 
 D_3Qni^,  the  last  form  in  text,  but  Keri  has  first 
 [see  below]:  Ta<|)ms,  Ta<f)i'at:  Taphnis,  Taphne). 
 A  city  of  Egypt,  of  importance  in  the  time  of  the 
 prophets  Jeremiah  arid  Ezekiel.  The  name  is  evi- 
 dently Egyptian,  and  closely  resemWes  that  of  the 
 I'^gyptian  queen  Tahpenes.  The  Coptic  name 
 of  this  place,  T^cbJt^C;  (Quatremere,  Mem. 
 (li-og.  et  Hist.  i.  297,  298),  is  evidently  derived  from 
 the  LXX.  form:  the  Gr.  and  Lat.  forms,  Ad<pi'ai, 
 Hdt.,  Aacpvri,  Steph.  Byz.,  Dafno.  Itin.  Ant.,  are 
 perhaps  nearer  to  the  Egyptian  original  (see  P.ar- 
 they,  Zur  Erdkunde  des  Alten  jE<jyplens,  p.  528). 
 
 Tahpanhes  was  evidently  a  town  of  Lower  Egypt 
 near  or  on  the  eastern  border.  When  Johanan  and 
 the  other  captains  went  into  Egypt  "  they  came  to 
 Tahpanhes"  (Jer.  xliii.  7).  Here  Jeremiali  proph- 
 esied the  conquest  of  the  country  by  Nel)uchad- 
 nezzar  (8-13).  Ezekiel  foretells  a  battle  to  be 
 there  fought  apparently  by  the  king  of  Babylon 
 just  mentioned  (xxx.  18).  The  Jews  in  Jeremiah's 
 time  remained  here  (Jer*  xliv.  1).  It  was  an  im- 
 portant town,  being  twice  mentioned  by  the  latter 
 prophet  with  Noph  or  Memphis  (ii.  16,  xlvi.  14), 
 as  well  as  in  the  passage  last  previously  cited.  Plere 
 stood  a  house  of  Pharaoh  Plophra  before  which 
 Jeremiah  hid  great  stones,  where  the  throne  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  would  afterwards  be  set,  and  his 
 pavilion  spread  (xliii.  8-10).  It  is  mentioned  with 
 "Kamesse  and  all  the  land  of  Gesen  "  in  Jud.  i.  9. 
 Herodotus  calls  this  place  Daphnse  of  Pelusium 
 {Aacpvai  alnr]\ouffiat),  and  relates  that  Psamnjet- 
 ichus  I.  here  had  a  garrison  against  the  Arabians 
 and  Syrians,  as  at  Elephantine  against  the  Ethio- 
 pians, and  at  Marea  against  Libya,  adding  that  in 
 his  own  time  the  Persians  had  garrisons  at  Daph- 
 na3  and  Elephantine  (ii.  30).  Daphnae  was  there- 
 fore a  very  important  post  under  the  XXVIth 
 dynasty.  According  to  Stephanus  it  was  near 
 Pelusium  (s.  v.). 
 
 In  the  Itinerary  of  Antoninus  this  town,  called 
 Dafno,  is  placed  16  Koman  miles  to  the  southwest 
 of  Pelusium  (ap.  Parthey,  Map  vi.,  where  observe 
 that  the  name  of  Pelusium  is  omitted).  This  po- 
 sition seems  to  agree  with  that  of  Tel-Defenneh, 
 which  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  supposes  to  mark  the 
 site  of  Daphnffi  {Modern  Eijypt  and  Thebes,  i.  447, 
 448).  This  identification  favors  the  inland  posi- 
 tion of  the  site  of  Pelusium,  if  we  may  trust  to  the 
 distance  stated  in  the  Itinerary.  [Sin.]  Sir  G. 
 Wilkinson  {I.  c.)  thinks  it  was  an  outpost  of  Pelu- 
 sium. It  may  be  observed  that  the  Camps,  to. 
 2TpaT(^7re5a,  the  fixed  garrison  of  lonians  and  Ca- 
 rians  established  by  Psammetichus  I.,  may  possi- 
 bly have  been  at  Daphne.  Can  the  name  be  of 
 Greek  origin  ?  If  the  Hanes  mentioned  by  Isaiah 
 (xxx.  4)  be  the  same  as  Tahpanhes,  as  we  have 
 
3170  T AH PENES 
 
 suggested  (s.  v.),  this  conjecture  must  be  dismissed. 
 No  satisfactory  Egyptian  etymology  of  this  name  has 
 
 been   suggested,    Jablonski's    T^C^GGJlG^j 
 
 "  the  head  "  or  "beginning  of  the  age  "  {Opusc.  i. 
 343),  being  quite  untenable,  nor  has  any  Egyptian 
 name  resembling  it  been  discovered."  The  name 
 of  Queen  Tahpknes  throws  no  light  upon  this 
 matter.  K.  S.  P. 
 
 TAH'PENES  (D"^3?)riri  [see  above] :  ©ewe- 
 IJ.iva\  [Vat. -yuei-;  i^'om]).  QeKicpfvr]^-]  T((plmes), 
 a  proper  name  of  an  Egyptian  queen.  She  was 
 wife  of  the  Pharaoh  who  received  Hadad  the  Edoni- 
 ite,  and  who  gave  him  her  sister  in  marriage  (1  K. 
 xi.  18-20).  in  the  LXX.  the  latter  is  called  the 
 elder  sister  of  Thekemina,  and  in  the  addition  to 
 ch.  xii.  Shishak  (Susakim)  is  said  to  have  given 
 Ano,  the  elder  sister  of  Thekemina  his  wife  to  Jer- 
 oboam. It  is  obvious  that  this  and  the  earlier 
 statement  are  irreconcilable,  even  if  the  evidence 
 from  the  probable  repetition  of  an  elder  sister  be 
 set  aside,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that 
 the  name  of  Shishak's  chief  or  only  wife,  KARA.i- 
 MAT,  does  not  support  the  LXX.  addition.  [Shi- 
 shak.] There  is  therefore  but  one  Tahpenes  or 
 Thekemina.  At  the  time  to  which  the  narrative 
 refers  there  were  probably  two,  if  not  three,  lines 
 ruling  in  Egypt,  the  Tanites  of  the  XXIst  dynasty 
 in  the  lower  country,  the  high-priest  kings  at 
 Thebes,  but  possibly  they  were  of  the  same  line, 
 and  perhaps  one  of  the  last  J'ame'ints  of  the  liame- 
 ses  family.  To  the  Tanite  line,  as  apparently  then 
 the  most  powerful,  and  as  holding  the  territory 
 nearest  Palestine,  the  Pharaoh  in  question,  as  well 
 as  the  fether-in-law  of  Solomon,  probalily  belonged. 
 If  Manetho's  list  be  correct  he  may  be  conjectured 
 to  have  been  Psusennes.  [Phahaoh.]  No  name 
 that  has  any  near  resemblance  to  either  Tahpenes 
 or  Thekemina  has  yet  been  found  among  those  of 
 the  period  (see  Lepsius,  Koniysbuch).     R.  S.  P. 
 
 TAHRE'A  (^l^nj?  [craft,  cunninfj]  :  ©„- 
 pax;  Alex.  0apa;  [Comp.  Aid.  ©apaa:]  Tliaraa). 
 Son  of  Micah,  and  grandson  of  iNIephiliosheth  (1 
 Chr.  ix.  41).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Chr.  viii.  35 
 his  name  appears  as  Tare.\. 
 
 TAH'TIM  HOD'SHI,  THE  LAND  OF 
 
 C*K?"Tn  D"^nnri  V"^i:<  [see  below]  :  els  7V  @a- 
 fiacru>v  "]  i(TTiv  'Ajiaaai  [Vat.  NayS.] ;  Alex,  -yrjj/ 
 eOaoof  aSaaai-  U-rra  inferior  Ilodsi).  One  of  the 
 places  visited  by  Joab  during  his  census  of  the  land 
 of  Israel.  It  occurs  between  Gilead  and  Dan-jaan 
 (2  Sam.  xxiv.  6).  The  name  has  puzzled  all  the 
 interpreters.  The  old  versions  throw  no  light  upon 
 it.  Fiirst  {IJandwb.  i.  380)  proposes  to  separate 
 the  "  Land  of  the  Tachtini  "  from  "  Hodshi,"  and 
 to  read  the  latter  as  Harshi  —  the  people  of  Haro- 
 sheth  (comp.  .ludg.  iv.  2).  Thenius  restores  the 
 text  of  the  LXX.  to  read  "the  Land  of  Bashan, 
 which  is  Edrei."  This  in  itself  is  feasible,  although 
 it  is  certain!}'  verj-  difficult  to  comiect  it  with  the 
 Hebrew.  Ewald  {Gescli.  iii.  207)  proposes  to  read 
 Hermon  for  Hodshi;  and  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  450  a) 
 dismisses  the  passage  with  a  vix  jiro  sano  haben- 
 dum. 
 
 There  is  a  district  called  the  Ard  et-iahta,  to 
 the  E.  N.  E.  of  Damascus,  which   recalls  the  old 
 
 «  Dr.  Brugsch,  following  Mr.  Heath  (.Exodus  Pa- 
 jryri,  p.  174),  identifies  the  fort  TeBNeT  with  Tahpan- 
 ktw  J  but  this  name  does  not  seem  to  us   sufficiently 
 
 TALMON 
 
 name  —  but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  any  Is- 
 raelite was  living  so  far  from  the  Holy  Land  in  the 
 time  of  David.  G. 
 
 TALENT  ("133  :  raXavrov  ■  ialenium),  the 
 greatest  weight  of  the  Hebrews.  Its  Hebrew  name 
 properly  signifies  "  a  circle  "  or  "  globe,"  and  was 
 perhaps  given  to  it  on  account  of  a  form  in  which 
 it  was  anciently  made.  The  Assyrian  name  of  the 
 talent  is  tiknn  according  to  Dr.  Hincks. 
 
 The  sul  ject  of  the  Hebrew  talent  will  be  fully 
 discussed  in  a  later  article  [Weights]. 
 
 R.  S.  P. 
 
 TAL'ITHA  CU'MI  (roAiOa  /coG^u.  : 
 cOOOA  J  ,tsA^^).  Two  Syriac  words  (Mark 
 V.  41),  signifying  "  Damsel,  arise." 
 
 The  word  SiT^^tS  occurs  in  the  Chaklee  para- 
 phrase of  Prov.  ix.  3,  where  it  signifies  a  girl ;  and 
 Lightfoot  {Horce  Ht^b.  Mark  v.  41)  gives  an  in- 
 stance of  its  use  in  the  same  sense  by  a  Rabbinical 
 writer.      Gesenius  {Tln:sauriis,  p.  550)  derives  it 
 
 from  the  Hebrew  H^tS,  a  lamb.  The  word  ^Z21p 
 is  both  Hebrew  and  Syriac  (2  p.  feni.  Imperative, 
 Kal,  and  Peal),  signifying  stand,  arise. 
 
 As  might  be  expected,  the  last  clause  of  this 
 verse,  after  Cumi,  is  not  found  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
 sion. 
 
 Jerome  (Ep.  Ivii.  ad  Pammnchium,  0pp.  torn.  i. 
 p.  308,  ed.  Vallars. )  records  that  St.  Mark  was 
 blamed  for  a  false  translation  on  account  of  the  in- 
 sertion of  the  words,  "  I  say  unto  thee;  "  but  .Je- 
 rome points  to  this  as  an  instance  of  the  superiority 
 of  a  free  over  a  literal  translation,  inasmuch  as  the 
 words  inserted  serve  to  show  the  emphasis  of  our 
 Lord's  maimer  in  giving  this  command  on  his  own 
 personal  authority.  W.  T.  B. 
 
 TAL'MAI  [2  syl.]  C'tt'^n  [furrowed]  :  @e- 
 Xa/xi,  ©oAOyUi,  ©oA/xi;  [\  at.  ©eAa/xei,  ©oaA^usi, 
 ©oAjUei)/  ;]  Alex.  QeXa/xeiv,  QoAfxai,  ©afxfi'- 
 Tlioliuu'i).  1.  One  of  the  three  sons  of  "  the 
 Anak,"  who  were  driven  out  from  their  settlement 
 in  Kirjath-Arba,  and  slain  by  the  men  of  Judah, 
 under  the  command  of  Caleb  (Num.  xiii.  22;  Josh. 
 XV.  14:  Judg.  i.  10). 
 
 2.  (©oA/tii  [Vat.  0oA;Uei,  ©oA/iOiAryju]  in  2  Sam.. 
 ©oAjuai  [Vat.  ©oa/xai]  in  1  Chr.;  Alex.  ©oA/ttei, 
 QoKojxdi,  ©oKfiai".  Tholmai,  Tlwloma'i.)  Son  of 
 .\mmihud,  king  of  Geshur  (2  Sam.  iii.  3,  xiii.  37 ; 
 1  Chr.  iii.  2).  His  daughter  Maachah  Avas  one  of 
 the  wives  of  David  and  mother  of  Absalom.  He 
 was  probably  a  petty  chieftain  dependent  on  David, 
 and  his  wild  retreat  in  Bashan  afforded  a  shelter  to 
 his  grandson  after  the  assassination  of  Amnon. 
 
 TAL'MON  O'l?:)^^  [oj-ipressed]  :  TeAficiu, 
 but  TeAauiV  in  Neh.  xi.  19 ;  [in  1  Chr.,  Vat.  Ta/x- 
 /xa/JL;  in  Neh.  xi.  1!),  Vat.  FA.  TeXa/j.wi';  xii.  25, 
 Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit,  FA.^  TaX/xcov;]  Alex. 
 TeK/xav,  Tohfxoiv,  TeXa/xeiv  :  Telinon).  The 
 head  of  a  family  of  doorkeepers  in  the  'lemple, 
 "  the  porters  for  the  camps  of  the  sons  of  Levi  " 
 (1  Chr.  ix.  17;  Neh.  xi.  19).  Some  of  his  de- 
 scendants returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  42; 
 Neh.  vii.  45),  and  were  employed  in  their  heredi- 
 tary office  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra  (Neh. 
 xii.  25),  for  the  proper  names  in  this  passage  must 
 be  considered  as  the  names  of  families. 
 
 near  either  to  the  Hebrew  or   to  the   Greek   (Gtogr 
 Insc/ir.  i.  300,  301;Taf.  Ivi.  no.  1728J. 
 
TALMUD 
 
 *  TAL'MUD.  [Pharisees,  iii.  2472  f.,  and 
 note  b  ;  Sci4I1jes,  p.  2867,  and  note  6.] 
 
 TAL'SAS  (2aA(Jaj;  [Vat.  SaAOtty;  Wechel 
 TaAcras:]    Thalsiis).     Elasaii  (J  Esdr.  ix.  22) 
 
 TA'MAH  (npri  [prob.  hiLrjhtcr']  :  erffxci; 
 [Vat.]  FA.  H^a0:  Thema).  The  children  of  Ta- 
 uiali,  or  TiiAMAH  (Ezr.  ii.  53),  were  among  the 
 Nethinim  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Neli.  vii. 
 55). 
 
 TA'MAR  (""^^  =  "pahii-tree").  The 
 name  of  three  women  remarkable  in  the  history  of 
 Israel. 
 
 1.  {@dfxap'  Tlidiriar.)  The  wife  successively  of 
 the  two  sons  of  Judah,  Ek  and  Onan  ((ien.  xxxviii. 
 6-30).  Her  importance  in  the  sacred  narrative 
 depends  on  the  s^i-eat  anxiety  to  l<eep  up  tlie  lineage 
 of  Judah.  It  seemed  as  if  the  family  were  on  the 
 point  of  extinction.  Er  and  Onan  had  succes- 
 sively perished  suddenly.  Judah's  wife  Bathshuah 
 died  ;  and  there  only  remained  a  child  Shelah, 
 whom  .Judah  was  unwilling  to  trust  to  the  danger- 
 ous union,  as  it  appeared,  with  Tamar,  lest  he 
 should  meet  with  the  same  fate  as  his  brothers. 
 That  he  should,  however,  marry  her  seems  to  have 
 been  regarded  as  part  of  the  fixed  law  of  the  tribe, 
 whence  its  incorj)oration  into  the  Mosaic  Law  in 
 after  times  (l)eut.  xxv.  5;  Matt.  xxii.  24);  and,  as 
 such,  Tamar  was  determined  not  to  let  the  oppor- 
 tunity escape  through  Judah's  parental  anxiety. 
 Accordingly  she  resorted  to  the  desperate  expedient 
 of  entrapping  the  father  hini.self  into  the  union 
 which  he  feared  for  his  son.  He,  on  the  first  emer- 
 gence from  his  mourning  for  his  wife,  went  to  one 
 of  the  festivals  often  mentioned  in  Jewish  history  as 
 attendant  on  sheep-shearing.  He  wore  on  his  fin- 
 ger thei'ing  of  his  chieftainship;  he  carried  his  staff 
 in  his  hand;  he  wore  a  collar  or  necklace  round  his 
 neck.  He  was  encountered  by  a  veiled  woman 
 on  the  road  leading  to  Timnath,  the  future  birth- 
 place of  Samson,  amongst  the  hills  of  Dan.  He 
 took  her  for  one  of  the  unfortunate  women  who 
 were  consecrated  to  the  impure  rites  of  the  Canaan- 
 ite  worship.  [Sodomites.]  He  promised  her, 
 as  the  price  of  his  intercourse,  a  kid  from  the  flocks 
 to  which  he  was  going,  and  left  as  his  pledge  his 
 ornaments  and  his  staff.  The  kid  he  sent  back  by 
 his  shepherd  (LXX.),  Hirah  of  Adullam.  The 
 woman  could  nowhere  be  found.  Months  after- 
 wards it  was  discovered  to  be  his  own  daughter-in- 
 law  Tamar  who  had  thus  concealed  herself  under 
 the  \eil  or  mantle,  which  she  cast  off  on  her  return 
 home,  where  she  resumed  the  seclusion  and  dress  of 
 a  widow.  She  was  sentenced  to  be  burned  alive, 
 and  was  only  saved  by  the  discovery,  through  the 
 pledges  wliich  Judah  had  left,  that  her  seducer  was 
 no  less  than  the  chieftain  of  the  tribe.  He  had  the 
 magnanimity  to  recognize  that  she  had  been  driven 
 into  this  crime  by  his  own  neglect  of  his  promise  to 
 give  her  in  marriage  to  his  youngest  son.  "  She 
 hath  been  more  righteous  than  I  .  .  .  .  and  he 
 knew  her  again  no  more"  (Gen.  xxxviii.  26).  The 
 fruit  of  this  intercourse  were  twins,  Piiarez  and 
 Zarati,  and  through  I'harez  the  sacred  line  was 
 continued.  Hence  the  prominence  given  to  Tamar 
 in  the  iniptial  benediction  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
 (Ruth  iv.  12),  and  in  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord 
 (Matt.  i.  3). 
 
 The  story  ig  important  (1)  as  showing  the  sig- 
 nificance, from  early  times,  attached  to  the  contin- 
 luuice  of  the  line  of  Judah;  (2)  as  a  glimpse  into 
 
 TAMAR  3171 
 
 the  rough  manners  of  the  patriarchal  time;   (3)  as 
 the  germ  of  a  famous  Mosaic  law. 
 
 2.  {@7)iJ.dp;  Alex,  ©a/xap  [exc.  1  Chr.  Qr^/xap]; 
 Joseph,  ©a/iidpa-  T/iamar.)  Daughter  of  David 
 and  Maachah  the  Geshurite  princess,  and  thus  sis- 
 ter of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xiii.  1-32;  1  Chr.  iii.  9; 
 Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  8,  §  1).  She  and  her  brother 
 were  alike  remarkable  for  their  extraordinary  beauty. 
 Her  name  ("Palm-tree")  may  have  been  given 
 her  on  this  account.  This  fatal  beauty  inspired  a 
 frantic  passion  in  her  half-brother  Amnon,  the  eld- 
 est son  of  David  by  Ahinoam.  He  wasted  away 
 from  the  feeling  that  it  was  impossible  to  gratify 
 his  desire,  "  for  she  was  a  virgin  " —  the  narrative 
 lea\es  it  uncertain  whether  from  a  scruple  on  his 
 part,  or  from  the  seclusion  in  which  in  her  unmar- 
 ried state  she  was  kept.  Morning  by  morning,  as 
 he  received  the  visits  of  his  friend  Jonauab,  he  is 
 paler  and  thinner  (Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  8,  §  1).  Jona- 
 dab  discovers  the  cause,  and  suggests  to  him  the 
 means  of  accomplishing  his  wicked  purpose.  He 
 was  to  feign  sickness.  The  king,  who  appears  to 
 have  entertained  a  considerable  affection,  almost 
 awe,  for  him,  as  the  eldest  son  (2  Sam.  xiii.  5,  21: 
 LXX.),  came  to  visit  him;  and  Amnon  entreated 
 the  presence  of  Tamar,  on  the  pretext  that  she 
 alone  could  give  him  food  that  he  would  eat.  What 
 follows  is  curious,  as  showing  the  siniphcity  of  the 
 royal  life.  It  would  almost  seem  that  Tamar  was 
 supposed  to  have  a  peculiar  art  of  baking  palatalile 
 cakes.  She  came  to  his  house  (for  each  prince  ap- 
 pears to  have  had  a  separate  establishment),  took 
 the  dougli  and  kneaded  it,  and  then  in  his  presence 
 (for  this  was  to  be  a  part  of  his  fancy,  as  though 
 there  were  something  e.xquisite  in  the  manner  of 
 her  performing  the  work)  kneaded  it  a  second  time 
 into  the  form  of  cakes.  The  name  given  to  these 
 cakes  (/e6i6(7.'0,  "  heart  cakes,"  has  been  variously 
 explained:  "hollow  cakes"  —  "cakes  with  some 
 stimulating  spices  "  (like  our  word  covdhil)  —  cakes 
 in  the  shape  of  a  heart  (like  the  Moravian  (jeruhrtu 
 !hrzen,  Thenius,  ad  loc.)  —  cakes  "  the  delight  of 
 the  heart."  Whatever  it  be,  it  implies  something 
 special  and  peculiar.  She  then  took  the  pan,  in 
 which  they  had  been  baked,  and  poured  them  all 
 out  in  a  heap  before  the  prince.  This  operation 
 seems  to  have  gone  on  in  an  outer  room,  on  which 
 Amnon's  bedchamber  opened.  He  caused  his  at- 
 tendants to  retire  —  called  her  to  the  inner  room 
 and  there  accomplished  his  design.  In  her  touch- 
 ing remonstrance  two  points  are  remarkable.  First, 
 the  expression  of  the  infamy  of  such  a  crime  "  in 
 Israel,"  implying  the  loftier  standard  of  morals 
 that  prevailed,  as  compared  with  other  countries  at 
 that  time;  ar-",  secondly,  the  belief  that  even  this 
 standard  might  be  overborne  lawfully  by  royal  au- 
 thority —  "  Speak  to  the  king,  for  he  will  not  with- 
 hold me  from  thee."  This  expression  has  led  to 
 nmch  needless  explanation,  from  its  contradiction  to 
 Lev.  xviii.  9,  XX.  17;  Deut.  xxvii.  22:  as,  e.  //., 
 that,  her  mother  Maachah  not  being  a  Jewess, 
 there  was  no  proper  legal  relationship  between  her 
 and  Amnon ;  or  that  she  was  ignorant  of  the  law ; 
 or  that  the  Mosaic  laws  were  not  then  in  existence. 
 (Thenius,  rtrf foe.)  It  is  enough  to  suppose,  what 
 evidently  her  whole  speech  implies,  that  the  king 
 had  a  dispensing  power,  which  was  conceived  to 
 cover  even  extreme  cases. 
 
 The  brutal  hatred  of  Amnon  succeeding  to  his 
 brutal  passion,  and  the  indignation  of  Tamar  at 
 his  barbarous  insult,  even  surp.assing  her  indigna- 
 '  tion  at  his  shameful  outrage,  are  pathetically  and 
 
3172 
 
 TAMAR 
 
 graphically  told,  and  in  the  narrutive  another 
 glimpse  is  given  us  of  the  manners  of  the  royal 
 household.  The  unmarried  princesses,  it  seems, 
 were  distinguished  liy  robes  or  gowns  with  sleeves 
 (so  the  LXX.,  .losephus,  etc.,  take  the  word  trans- 
 lated in  the  A.  V.  "divers  colors'')-  Such  was 
 the  dress  worn  by  Tamar  on  the  present  occasion, 
 and  when  the  guard  at  Amnon's  door  had  thrust 
 her  out  and  clo.sed  the  door  after  her  to  prevent  her 
 return,  she,  in  her  agony,  snatched  handfuls  of 
 ashes  from  the  ground  and  threw  them  on  her  hair, 
 then  tore  off'  her  royal  sleeves,  and  clasped  her  bare 
 hands  upon  her  head,  and  rushed  to  and  fro  through 
 the  streets  screaming  aloud.  In  this  state  .she  en- 
 countered her  brother  Absalom,  who  took  her  to 
 his  house,  where  she  remained  as  if  in  a  state  of 
 widowhood.  The  king  was  afraid  or  utivvilling  to 
 interfere  with  the  heir  to  the  throne,  but  she  was 
 avenged  by  Absalom,  as  Dinah  had  been  I)y  Simeon 
 and  Levi,  and  out  of  that  vengeance  grew  the  series 
 of  calamities  which  darkened  the  close  of  David's 
 reign. 
 
 The  story  of  Tamar,  revolting  as  it  is,  has  the 
 interest  of  revealing  to  us  the  interior  of  the  royal 
 household  beyond  that  of  any  other  incident  of 
 those  times.  (1.)  The  establishments  of  the  princes. 
 (2.)  The  simplicity  of  the  royal  employments.  (3.) 
 The  dress  of  the  princesses.  (4. )  The  relation  of 
 the  king  to  the  ]innces  and  to  the  law. 
 
 3.  (©Tjjuap;  .Vlex.  Qafiap-  Tlinmar.)  Daughter 
 of  Absalom,  called  probably  after  her  beautiful  aunt, 
 and  inheriting  the  beauty  of  both  aunt  and  father 
 (2  Sam.  xiv.  27).  She  was  the  sole  survivor  of  the 
 house  of  Absalom ;  and  ultimately,  by  her  mar- 
 riage with  Uriah  of  Gibeah,  became  the  mother  of 
 Maachah,  the  future  queen  of  Judah,  or  wife  of 
 Abijah  (1  K.  xv.  2),  Maachah  being  called  after 
 her  great-grandmother,  as  Tamar  after  her  aunt. 
 
 A.  P.  S. 
 
 TA'MAR  ("'^■i^l  [palm-tree]:  ©at/xdv''  in 
 both  MSS. :  Thamar).  A  spot  on  the  south- 
 eastern frontier  of  Judah,  named  in  Ez.  xlvii.  J!), 
 xlviii.  28  only,  evidently  called  from  a  palm-tree. 
 If  not  Hazazun  Tamcn;  the  old  name  of  En-gedi,  it 
 may  be  a  place  called  Thrimnr  in  the  Onomagticdti 
 ("  Hazazon  Tamar"),  a  day's  journey  south  of 
 Hebron.  The  Peutinger  Tal)les  give  Thamar  in  the 
 same  direction,  and  Robinson  {BiM.  Jles.  ii.  198,  201) 
 identifies  the  place  with  the  ruins  of  an  old  fortress 
 at  Kurnub.  De  Saulcy  {Narr.  i.  ch.  ",)  endeavors 
 to  establish  a  connection  between  Tamar  and  the 
 Kalaat  einharrliag,  at  the  mouth  of  the  ravine  of 
 that  name  on  the  S.  W.  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on 
 the  ground  (amongst  others)  that  the  names  are 
 similar.  But  this,  to  say  the  least,  is  more  than 
 doubtful.  A.  P.  S. 
 
 TAM'MUZ  (T^72j*nn  [see  below]  :  ^  ©afx- 
 fiov^'-  Adonis).  [Ez.  viii.  14.]  Properly  "the 
 Tammuz,"  the  article  indicating  that  at  some  time 
 or  other  the  word  had  been  regarded  as  an  appel- 
 lati\e,  though  at  the  time  of  its  occurrence  and 
 subsequently  it  may  have  been  applied  as  a  proper 
 name.  As  it  is  found  once  only  in  the  O.  T.,  and 
 then  in  a  passage  of  extreme  obscurity,  it  is  not 
 surprising  that  many  conjectures  have  been  formed 
 concerning  it;  and  as  none  of  the  opinions  which 
 have  been  expressed  rise  above  the  importance  of 
 
 «  Ez.  xlyii.  19  contains  an  instance  of  the  double 
 translation  not  infrequent  in  the  present  text  of  the 
 LXX.,  ano  @ai;u,ai/  koj.  4>oifCKa»'os. 
 
 TAMMUZ 
 
 conjecture,  it  will  be  the  object  of  this  article  to  set 
 them  forth  as  clearly  as  possible,  and  to  give  at 
 least  a  iiistory  of  what  has  been  said  ujwn  the 
 subject. 
 
 In  the  sixth  year  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin, 
 in  the  sixth  month,  and  on  the  fifth  day  of  the 
 month,  the  propiiet  Ezekiel,  as  he  sat  in  his  house 
 surrounded  by  the  elders  of  Judah,  was  transported 
 in  spirit  to  tiie  far  distant  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 
 The  hand  of  the  Lord  God  was  upon  him,  and  led 
 him  "  to  the  door  of  the  gate  of  the  house  of  Je- 
 hovah, which  w.is  towards  the  north;  and  behold 
 there  the  women  sitting,  weepuig  for  the  Taunnuz." 
 Some  translate  the  last  clause  "  causing  the  Tam- 
 muz to  weep,"  and  the  influence  which  tiiis  ren- 
 dering has   upon   the   interpretation   will   be  seen 
 
 hereafter.    If  T-I^JH  be  a  regularly  formed  Hebrew 
 
 word,  it  must  be  derived  either  from  a  root  TD3 
 
 '  T 
 
 or  t^ri  (comp.  the  forms  H^^^N  l^^Fl),  which 
 is  not  known  to  exist.  To  remedy  this  defect  I'iirst 
 {[Lindwh.  s.  V.)  invents  a  root  to  which  he  gives 
 the  signification  "  to  be  strong,  mighty,  victorious," 
 and  transitively,  "to  overpower,  annihilate."  It  is 
 to  be  regretted  that  this  lexicographer  cannot  be 
 contented  to  confess  his  ignorance  of  what  is  un- 
 known.    Roediger  (in  Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.)  suggests 
 
 the  derivation  from  a  root,  DD^  =  Tf ^ ;  accord- 
 '        -  T  -     ' 
 
 ing  to  which  T^SJ^I  is  a  contraction  of  T^^pi^, 
 and  signifies  a  melting  away,  dissolution,  departure, 
 and  so  the  acpavicr/nhs  'ASdviSos,  or  disappearance 
 of  Adonis,  which  was  mourned  by  the  Phoenician 
 women,  and  after  them  by  the  Greeks.  But  the 
 etymology  is  unsound,  and  is  evidently  contrived 
 so  as  to  connect  the  name  Tammuz  with  the  gen- 
 eral tradition  regarding  it. 
 
 The  ancient  versions  supply  us  with  no  help. 
 The  LXX.,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel, 
 the  Peshito  Syriac,  and  the  Arabic  in  Walton's 
 Polyglot,  merely  reproduce  the  Heltrew  word.  The 
 Vulgate  alone  gives  Adonis  as  a  modern  equivalent, 
 and  this  rendering  has  been  eagerly  adopted  by 
 subsequent  counnentators,  with  but  few  exceptions. 
 It  is  at  least  as  old,  therefore,  as  Jerome,  and  tlie 
 fact  of  his  having  adopted  it  shows  that  it  must 
 have  embodied  the  most  credible  tradition.  In  his 
 note  upon  the  passage  he  adds  that  since,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Gentile  fable,  Adonis  had  been  slain  in 
 the  month  of  June,  the  Syrians  give  the  name  of 
 Tammuz  to  this  month,  when  they  celebrate  to  him 
 an  anniversary  solemnity,  in  which  he  is  lamented 
 by  the  women  as  dead,  and  afterwards  coming  to 
 life  again  is  celebrated  with  songs  and  praises.  In 
 another  passage  {(id  PauUnum,  Op.  i.  p.  102,  ed. 
 Basil.  15G5)  he  laments  that  Bethlehem  was  over- 
 shadowed by  a  grove  of  Tammuz,  that  is,  of  Adonis, 
 and  that  "  in  the  cave  where  the  infant  Christ  once 
 cried,  the  lover  of  Venus  was  bewailed."  Cyril  of 
 Alexandria  {in  Osenm,  Op.  iii.  79,  ed.  Paris,  1G38), 
 and  Theodoret  {in  Ezecli.),  give  the  same  explana- 
 tion, and  are  followed  by  the  author  of  the  Chronicon 
 Paschale.  The  only  exception  to  this  uniformity 
 is  in  the  Syriac  translation  of  ISIelito's  .Apology, 
 edited  by  Dr.  Cureton  in  his  Spicileyium  Syri<tcum. 
 The  date  of  the  translation  is  unknown ;  the  original 
 if  genuine  must  belong  to  the  second  century.  The 
 following  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the  Syriac :  "  I'he 
 sons  of  Phoenicia  worshipped  Balthi,  the  queen  of 
 Cyprus.  For  she  loved  Tamuzo,  the  son  of  Cuthai , 
 the  king  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  forsook  her  king- 
 
TAMMUZ 
 
 iom,  and  came  and  dwelt  in  Gebal,  a  fortress  of 
 the  Phoenicians.  And  at  that  time  she  made  all 
 the  villages  "  suhject  to  Cuthar  the  king.  For  be- 
 fore Tamuzo  she  had  loved  Ares,  and  committed 
 adultery  with  him,  and  Hephwstus  her  husband 
 caught  her,  and  was  jealous  of  her.  And  he  (^.  e. 
 Ares)  came  and  slew  Tamuzo  on  Lebanon  while  he 
 made  a  hunting  among  the  wild  boars. ''  And  from 
 that  time  lialthi  remained  in  Gebal,  and  died  in 
 the  city  of  Aphaca,  where  Tamuzo  was  buried  " 
 (p.  25  of  the  Syriac  text).  We  have  here  \ery 
 clearly  the  Greek  legend  of  Adonis  reproduced  with 
 a  simple  change  of  name.  Whether  this  change 
 is  due  to  the  translator,  as  is  not  improbable,  or 
 whether  he  found  "  Tanmiuz  "  in  the  original  of 
 Melito,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Be  this  as  it  niay, 
 the  tradition  embodied  in  the  passage  quoted  is 
 probably  as  valualjle  as  that  in  the  same  author 
 which  regards  Serapis  as  the  deification  of  .Joseph. 
 The  Syriac  lexicographer  Bar  Bahlul  (10th  cent.) 
 gives  the  legend  as  it  had  come  down  to  his  time. 
 '>  Tomuzo  was,  as  they  say,  a  hunter  shepherd  and 
 chaser  of  wild  beasts;  who  when  Belathi  loved  him 
 took  her  away  from  her  husband.  And  when  her 
 husband  went  forth  to  seek  her  Tomuzo  slew  him. 
 And  with  regard  to  Tounizo  also,  there  met  him 
 in  the  desert  a  wild  boar  and  slew  him.  And  his 
 father  marie  for  him  a  great  lamentation  and  weep- 
 ing ui  the  month  Tonuiz  ;  and  Belathi  his  wife, 
 she  too  made  a  lamentation  and  mourning  over 
 him.  And  this  tradition  was  handed  down  among 
 the  heathen  people  during  her  lifetime  and  after 
 her  death,  which  same  tradition  the  .Jews  received 
 with  the  rest  of  the  evil  festivals  of  the  people,  and 
 in  that  month  Tomuz  used  to  make  for  him  a 
 great  feast.  Tomuz  also  is  the  name  of  one  of  the 
 months  of  the  Syrians."  <■'  In  the  next  century  tlie 
 legend  assumes  for  the  first  time  a  different  form 
 in  the  hands  of  a  liabbinical  commentator.  Kaljbi 
 Solomon  Isaaki  (Ilashi)  has  the  following  note  on 
 the  passage  in  Ezekiel.  "  An  image  which  the 
 women  made  hot  in  the  inside,  and  its  eyes  were 
 of  lead,  and  they  melted  by  reason  of  the  heat  of 
 the  burning,  and  it  seemed  as  if  it  wept;  and  they 
 (the  women)  said.  He  asketh  for  offerings.     Tani- 
 
 niuz    is    a   word    signifying    burning,   as  "'"^   7l7 
 
 nna^  n^n  (Dan.  iii.  19 ),  and  nrs  S3^n« 
 
 •^^"^'H-  (''^«'-  ^'er.  22)."  And  instead  of  render- 
 ing "  weeping  for  the  Tamnuiz,"  he  gives,  what 
 appears  to  be  the  equivalent  in  French,  "  faisantes 
 pleurer  I'echauffe."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
 Kashi  regards  Tamniuz  as  an  appellative,  derived 
 
 from  the  Chaldee  root  H^S,  dzd,  "to  make  hot." 
 It  is  equally  clear  that  liis  etymology  cannot  be 
 defended  for  an  instant.  In  the  i2th  century 
 (a.  I).  IIGI),  Solomon  ben  Abraham  Parchon  in 
 his  Lexicon,  compiled  at  Salerno  from  the  works  of 
 Jehuda  ('luiyug  and  Abulwalid  Merwan  ben  Gan- 
 nach,  has  the  following  observations  upon  Tamnuiz. 
 "It  is  the  likeness  of  a  reptile  which  they  make 
 upon  the  water,  and  the  water  is  collected  in  it 
 and  flows  through  its  holes,  and  it  seems  as  if  it 
 wept.  But  the  month  called  Tammuz  is  Persian, 
 and  so  are  all  our  months;  none  of  them  is  from 
 
 TAMMUZ 
 
 3173 
 
 «  Not  "  Cyprians,"  as  Dr.  Cureton  translates. 
 t>  Dr.  Cureton's  emendation  of  this  corrupt  passage 
 seems  the  only  one  which  can  be  adopted. 
 
 c  In  this  translation  I  have  followed  the  MS.  of  Bar 
 
 the  sacred  tongue,  though  they  are  written  in  the 
 Scripture  they  are  Persian;  but  in  the  sacred  tongua 
 the  first  month,  the  second  month,"  etc.  At  the 
 close  of  this  century  we  meet  for  the  first  time  mth 
 an  entirely  new  tradition  repeated  by  R.  David 
 Kimclii,  both  in  his  Lexicon  and  in  his  Com- 
 mentary, from  the  Mureh  Ncbiichiin  of  Maimonides. 
 "  In  the  month  Tammuz  they  made  a  feast  of  an 
 idol,  and  the  women  came  to  gladden  him;  and 
 some  say  that  liy  crafty  means  they  caused  the  water 
 to  come  into  the  eyes  of  the  idol  which  is  called 
 TamiiiU.?,  and  it  wept,  as  if  it  asked  them  to  worship 
 it.  And  some  interpret  Tammuz  'the  burnt  one,' 
 as  if  from  D;ni.  iii.  19  (see  atjove),  i.  e.  they  wept 
 over  him  because  he  was  burnt;  for  they  used  to 
 burn  their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire,  and 
 the  women  useJ  to  weep  over  them.  .  .  .  But  the 
 Rab,  the  wise,  the  great,  our  Rablii  iMoslie  bar 
 Maimon,  of  blessed  memory,  has  written,  that  it  is 
 found  written  in  one  of  the  ancient  idolatrous  books, 
 that  there  was  a  man  of  the  idolatrous  prophets, 
 and  his  name  was  Tammuz.  And  he  cai.'ed  to  a 
 certain  king  and  commanded  him  to  seive  the 
 seven  planets  and  the  twelve  signs.  And  that  king 
 put  him  to  a  violent  death,  and  on  the  night  of  his 
 death  there  were  gathered  together  all  the  images 
 from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  the  temple  of  Baliel, 
 to  the  golden  image  which  was  the  image  of  the 
 sun.  Now  this  image  was  suspended  between 
 heaven  and  earth,  and  it  fell  down  in  the  midst  of 
 the  temple,  and  the  images  likewise  (fell  down) 
 round  about  it,  and  it  fold  them  what  had  befallen 
 Tannnuz  the  iiroidiet.  And  the  images  all  of  them 
 wept  and  lamented  all  the  night;  and,  as  it  came 
 to  pass,  in  the  morning  all  the  images  flew  away 
 to  their  own  temples  in  the  ends  of  the  earth.  And 
 this  was  to  them  for  an  everlasting  statute;  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  first  day  of  the  month  Tammuz 
 each  year  they  lamented  and  wept  over  Tammuz. 
 And  some  interpret  Tammuz  as  the  name  of  an 
 animal,  for  they  used  to  worship  an  image  which 
 
 they  had,  and  the  Targum  of  (the  passage)  lii^nDI 
 
 D^^S  nS  D"^"*!?  (Is.  xxxiv.  14)  is  p-l3?-l27'^T 
 
 I'^binnn  I'^T'inn.  But  in  most  copies  ^^lan 
 
 is  written  with  two  vaws."  The  book  of  the  an- 
 cient idolaters  from  which  Maimonides  quotes,  is 
 the  now  celebrated  work  on  the  Agriculture  of  the 
 Xabatheans,  to  which  reference  will  he  made  here- 
 after. Ben  Melech  gives  no  help,  and  Abendana 
 merely  quotes  the  explanations  given  by  Rashi  and 
 Kimchi. 
 
 The  tradition  recorded  liy  Jerome,  which  identi- 
 fies Tammuz  with  Adonis,  has  been  followed  by 
 most  subsequent  commentators:  among  others  by 
 Vatabhis,  C'astellio,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Osiander. 
 Casp.ar  Sanctius,  Lavater,  Villalpandus.  Selden, 
 Simonis,  Calmet,  and  in  later  times  by  J.  D. 
 Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Ben  Zeb,  Rosen.miiller,  Maurer, 
 Ewald,  Ha\ernick,  Hitzig,  and  Movers.  Luther 
 and  others  regarded  Tannnuz  as  a  name  of  Bacchus. 
 That  Tammuz  was  the  Egyptian  Osiris,  and  that 
 his  worship  was  introduced  to  .Jerusalem  from 
 Egypt,  was  held  by  Calvin,  Piscator,  .Junius, 
 Leusden,  and  PfeifFer.  This  view  depends  chiefly 
 upon  a  false  etymology  proposed  by  Kircher,  which 
 
 Bahlul  in  the  Cambridge  University  Library,  the  read- 
 ings of  which  seem  preforable  in  many  respects  to  those 
 in  the  extract  furnished  by  Bernstein  to  Cbwolsolm 
 {Die  Usabier,  etc.  ii.  206). 
 
3174 
 
 TAMMUZ 
 
 connects  the  word  Taniniuz  with  the  Coptic  tamul, 
 to  hide,  and  so  makes  it  signify  the  liidden  or  con- 
 cealed one;  and  tiierefore  Osiris,  the  Egyptian  king 
 slain  by  Typho,  whose  loss  was  commanded  by  Isis 
 to  be  yearly  lamented  in  Egypt.  The  women  weep- 
 ing for  Tamniuz  are  in  this  case,  according  to 
 Junius,  the  priestesses  of  Isis.  The  Egyptian  origin 
 of  the  name  Tammuz  has  also  been  defended  by  a 
 reference  to  the  god  Aniuz,  mentioned  by  Plutarch 
 and  Herodotus,  who  is  identical  witli  Osiris.  There 
 is  good  reason,  however,  to  believe  that  Amuz  is  a 
 mistake  for  Amun.  That  something  corresponding 
 to  Tamniuz  is  found  in  Egyptian  proper  names,  as 
 they  appear  in  (ireek,  cannot  be  denied.  Ta^cis, 
 an  ICgyptian,  appears  in  Thucydides  (viii.  31)  as  a 
 Persian  officer,  in  Xenophon  (Anah.  i.  4,  §  2)  as 
 an  adnjiral.  Tiie  Egyptian  pilot  who  heard  the 
 mysterious  voice  bidding  him  proclaim,  "  Great  Pan 
 is  dead,"  was  called  @a/xovs  (Plutarch,  De  Defect. 
 Orac.  17).  The  names  of  the  Egyptian  kings, 
 @ovfj.fj.(tiais,  Tedfj.wats,  and  @jj.uais,  mentioned  by 
 Manetho  (Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  14,  15),  have  in  turn  been 
 compared  with  Tamniuz;  but  unless  some  more 
 certain  evidence  be  biought  forward  than  is  found 
 in  these  apparent  resemblances,  there  is  little  reason 
 to  conclude  that  the  worship  of  Tammuz  was  of 
 J<;gyptian  origin. 
 
 It  seems  perfectly  clear,  from  what  has  been  said, 
 that  the  name  Tammuz  affords  no  clew  to  the 
 identification  of  the  deity  whom  it  designated.  The 
 slight  hint  given  bj'  the  prophet  of  the  nature  of 
 the  worship  and  worshippers  of  Tammuz  has  been 
 sufficient  to  connect  them  with  the  yearly  mourn- 
 ing for  Adonis  by  the  Syrian  damsels.  Beyond 
 this  we  can  attach  no  especial  weight  to  the  expla- 
 nation of  Jerome.  It  is  a  conjecture  and  nothing 
 more,  and  does  not  appear  to  represent  any  tradi- 
 tion. All  that  can  be  said  therefore  is  that  it  is 
 not  impossible  that  Tammuz  may  be  a  name  of 
 Adonis  the  sun-god,  but  that  there  is  nothii  g  to 
 prove  it.  The  town  of  Byblos  in  Phoenicia  was  the 
 headcpiarters  of  the  Adonis-worship  "  The  feast  in 
 his  honor  was  celebrated  each  year  in  the  temple  of 
 Aphrodite  on  the  Lebanon*  (Lucian,  l)e  Bed  %''«, 
 §  G),  with  rites  partly  sorrowful,  partly  joyful. 
 The  Emperor  Julian  was  present  at  Antioch  when 
 the  same  festival  was  held  (Amm.  Marc.  xxii.  9, 
 §  1-3).  It  lasted  seven  days  (Amm.  Marc.  xx.  1), 
 the  period  of  mourning  among  the  Jews  (Ecclus. 
 xxii.  12;  Gen.  1.  10;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13;  Jud.  xvi. 
 24),  the  Egyptians  (Heliodor.  ^th.  vii.  11),  and 
 the  Syrians  (Lucian,  I)e  Bed  Si/rd,  §  52),  and  be- 
 gan with  the  disappearance  (a(pavitTfx6s)  of  Adonis. 
 Then  followed  the  search  ((rjrriais)  made  by  the 
 women  after  him.  His  body  was  represented  by  a 
 wooden  image  placed  in  the  so-called  "  gardens  of 
 Adonis"  {'ASdvioos  /cTJTroi),  which  were  earthen- 
 ware vessels  filled  with  mould,  and  planted  \^'ith 
 wheat,  barley,  lettuce,  and  fennel.  Tiiey  were  ex- 
 posed by  the  women  to  the  heat  of  the  sun,  at  the 
 house-tloors  or  in  the  "porches  of  Adonis;"  and 
 the  withering  of  the  plants  was  regarded  as  symbol- 
 ical of  the  slaughter  of  the  youtli  by  the  fire-god 
 Mars.  In  one  of  these  gardens  Adonis  was  found 
 again,  whence  the  fable  says  he  was  slain  by  the 
 boar  in  the  lettuce  (dcfoKTj  =  Aphaca?),  and  was 
 there  found  by  Aphrodite.     The  finding  again  (eu- 
 
 «  There  was  a  temple  at  Amathus,  in  Cyprus, 
 shared  by  Adonis  and  Aphrodite  (Paus.  ix.  41,  §  2)  ; 
 and  tho  worship  of  Adonis  is  said  to  have  come  from 
 Ojprus  to  Athens  in  the  time  of  the  Persian  War. 
 
 TAMMUZ 
 
 peats)  was  the  commencement  of  a  wake,  accompa- 
 nied by  all  the  usages  which  in  the  East  attend 
 such  a  ceremony — prostitution,  cutting  off  the  hair 
 (comp.  Lev.  xix.  28,  29,  xxi.  5;  Deut.  xiv.  1),  cut- 
 ting the  breast  with  knives  (Jer.  xvi.  6),  and  play- 
 ing on  pipes  (comp.  Matt.  ix.  23).  The  image  of 
 Adonis  was  then  washed  and  anointed  with  spices, 
 placed  in  a  coffin  on  a  bier,  and  tlie  wound  made 
 by  the  boar  was  shown  on  the  figure.  The  people 
 sat  on  the  ground  round  the  bier,  with  their  clothes 
 rent  (comp.  /.'p.  of  Jer.  31,  32  [or  Bar.  vi.  31, 
 32] ),  and  the  women  howled  and  cried  aloud.  The 
 whole  terminated  with  a  sacrifice  for  the  dead,  and 
 the  burial  of  tiie  figure  of  Adonis  (see  Movers,  Plio- 
 nizier,  i.  c.  7).  According  to  Lucian,  some  of  the 
 inhabitants  of  Byblos  maintained  that  the  Egyp- 
 tian Osiris  was  buried  among  them,  and  that  the 
 moui'ning  and  orgies  were  in  honor  of  him,  and 
 not  of  Adonis  {Be  Bed  Syrd,  §  7).  This  is  in  ac- 
 cordance with  the  legend  of  Osiris  as  told  by  Plu- 
 tarch {Be  Is.  ei  Os.).  Lucian  further  relates  that, 
 on  the  same  day  on  which  the  women  of  Byblos 
 every  year  mourned  for  Adonis,  the  inhabitants  of 
 Alexandria  sent  them  a  letter,  inclosed  in  a  vessel 
 which  was  wrapped  in  rushes  or  papyrus,  announ- 
 cing that  Adonis  was  found.  The  vessel  was  cast 
 into  the  sea,  and  carried  by  the  current  to  Byblos 
 (Procopius  on  Is.  xviii.).  It  is  called  by  Lucian 
 ^v^Xiv7]u  KecpaA-fji/,  and  is  said  to  have  traversed 
 the  distance  between  Alexandria  and  Byblos  in  seven 
 days.  Another  marvel  related  by  the  same  narra- 
 tor is  that  of  the  river  Adonis  (Na/ir  Ihrahim), 
 which  flows  down  from  the  Lebanon,  and  once  a 
 year  was  tinged  with  blood,  which,  according  to  the 
 legend,  came  from  the  wounds  of  Adonis  (comp. 
 jNlilton,  P.  L.  i.  460);  but  a  rationalist  of  Byblos 
 gave  him  a  different  explanation,  how  that  the  soil 
 of  the  Lebanon  was  naturally  very  red-colored,  and 
 was  carried  down  into  the  river  by  violent  winds, 
 and  so  gave  a  bloody  tinge  to  the  water;  and  to 
 this  day,  says  Mr.  Porter  {Ihmdb.  p.  187),  "after 
 every  storm  that  breaks  upon  the  brow  of  Lebanon, 
 the  Adonis  still  '  runs  purple  to  the  sea.'  The 
 rushing  waters  tear  from  the  banks  red  soil  enough 
 to  give  them  a  ruddy  tinge,  which  poetical  fancy, 
 aided  by  popular  credulity,  converted  into  the  blood 
 of  Tliammuz  " 
 
 The  time  at  which  these  rites  of  Adonis  were 
 celebrated  is  a  subject  of  much  dispute.  It  is  not 
 so  important  with  regard  to  the  passage  in  Ezekiel, 
 for  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  reason  for  sup- 
 posing that  the  time  of  the  prophet's  vision  was 
 coincident  with  the  time  at  wliich  Tammuz  was 
 worshipped.  Mo\ers,  who  maintained  the  contrary, 
 endeavored  to  prove  that  the  celebration  was  in  the 
 late  autumn,  the  end  of  the  Syrian  year,  and  cor- 
 responded with  the  time  of  the  autumnal  equinox. 
 He  relies  chiefly  for  his  conclusion  on  tlie  account 
 given  by  Ammiaims  Marcellinus  (xxii.  0,  §  13)  of 
 the  feast  of  Adonis,  which  was  being  held  at  Anti- 
 och when  the  Emperor  Julian  entered  the  city.  It 
 is  clear,  from  a  letter  of  the  emperor's  (/.};.  Jul. 
 52),  that  he  was  in  Antioch  before  the  first  of  Au- 
 gust, and  his  entry  may  therefore  have  taken  place 
 in  July,  the  Tammuz  of  the  Syrian  year.  This 
 time  agrees  moreover  with  the  explanation  of  the 
 symbolical  meaning  of  the  rites  given  by  Ammia- 
 nus  Marcellinus  (xxii.  9,  §  15),  that  they  were  a 
 token  of  the  fruits  cut  down  in  their  prime.     Now 
 
 *  Said   to  have  been  founded  by  KinyrJS,  the  i» 
 puted  father  of  Adonis. 
 
TAMMUZ 
 
 at  Aleppo  (Russell,  Aleppo,  i.  72)  the  harvest  is  all 
 over  before  the  end  of  June,  and  we  may  fairly  con- 
 clude that  the  same  was  the  case  at  Antioch.     Add 
 
 to  this  that  in  Hebrew  astronomical  works  ilDlpi"! 
 
 TIDn,  tekuphath  Tammuz,  is  the  "  summer  sol- 
 stice," and  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  conclude 
 that  the  Adonis  feast  of  the  Phoenicians  and  Syr- 
 ians was  celebrated  rather  as  the  summer  solstice 
 than  as  the  autumnal  equinox.  At  this  time  the 
 sun  begins  to  descend  among  the  wintry  signs  (Ken- 
 rick,  J'/uejiiciii,  p.  310). 
 
 The  identification  of  Tammuz  with  an  idolatrous 
 prophet,  which  has  already  been  given  in  a  quota- 
 tion from  Maimonides,  who  himself  quotes  from  the 
 Acjriculture  of  the  Nabuthmans,  has  been  recently 
 revived  by  Professor  Chwolsohn  of  St.  Petersburg 
 {Uebvr  Tammuz,  etc.  1860).  An  Arab  writer  of 
 the  10th  century,  En-Nedim,  in  his  book  called 
 Fihrist  el-  Ulum,  says  (quoting  from  Abu  Said 
 Wahb  ben  Ibrahim)  that  in  the  middle  of  the 
 month  Tammus!  a  feast  is  held  in  honor  of  the  god 
 Ta'iiz.  The  women  bewailed  him  because  his  lord 
 slew  him  and  ground  his  liones  in  a  mill,  and  scat- 
 tered them  to  the  winds.  In  consequence  of  this 
 the  women  ate  nothing  during  the  feast  that  had 
 '■seen  ground  in  a  mill  (Chwolsohn,  Die  Ssnbier,  etc. 
 li.  27).  Professor  Chwolsohn  regards  Ta-'fiz  as  a 
 corruption  of  Tammuz;  but  the  most  important 
 passage  in  his  63  es  is  from  tlie  old  Babylonian  book 
 called  the  Affi-iculture  of  the  Nabulhmims,  to  which 
 he  attributes  a  fiibulous  antiquity.  It  was  written, 
 he  maintains,  by  one  Qut'iimi,  towards  the  end  of 
 the  14th  century  b.  c,  and  was  translated  into 
 Arabic  by  a  descendant  of  the  ancient  Chaldaians, 
 whose  name  was  Ibn  Washiyyah.  As  Proi'essor 
 Chwolsohn's  theory  has  been  strongly  attacked,  and 
 as  the  chief  materials  upon  which  it  is  founded  are 
 uot  yet  before  the  public,  it  would  be  equally  prem- 
 ature to  take  him  as  an  authority,  or  to  pronounce 
 positively  against  his  hypothesis,  though,  judging 
 from  present  evidence,  the  writer  of  this  article  is 
 more  than  skeptical  as  to  its  truth.  Qut'ami  then, 
 in  that  dim  antiquity  from  which  he  speaks  to  us, 
 tells  the  same  story  of  the  prophet  Tammuz  as  has 
 already  been  given  in  the  quotation  from  Kimchi. 
 It  was  read  in  the  temples  after  prayers,  to  an  au- 
 dience who  wept  and  wailed ;  and  so  great  was  the 
 magic  influence  of  the  tale  that  Qut'ami  himself, 
 though  incredulous  of  its  truth,  was  unable  to  re- 
 strain his  tears.  A  part,  he  thought,  might  be 
 true,  but  it  referred  to  an  event  so  far  removed  by 
 time  from  the  age  in  which  he  lived  that  he  was 
 compelled  to  be  skeptical  on  many  points.  His 
 translator,  Ibn  Washiyyah,  adds  that  Tammuz  be- 
 longed neither  to  the  Chaldseans  nor  to  the  Ca- 
 naanites,  nor  to  the  Hebrews,  nor  to  the  Assyrians, 
 but  to  the  ancient  people  of  Janban.  This  last, 
 Chwolsohn  conjectures,  may  be  the  Shemitic  name 
 given  to  the  gigantic  Cushite  aborigines  of  Chal- 
 dfea,  whom  the  Shemitic  Nabathseans  found  when 
 they  first  came  into  tlie  country,  and  from  whom 
 they  adopted  certain  elements  of  their  worship. 
 Thus  Tammuz,  or  Tamnu'izi,  belongs  to  a  religious 
 epoch  in  Babylonia  which  preceded  the  Shemitic 
 (Chwolsohn,  Ueberreste  d.  Altbahyl.  Lit.  p.  19). 
 Ibn  Washiyyah  says  moreover  that  all  the  Sabians 
 of  his  time,  both  those  of  Babylonia  and  of  Harran, 
 wept  and  wailed  for  Tannnuz  in  the  month  which 
 was  named  after  him,  but  tliat  none  of  them  pre- 
 served any  tradition  of  the  origin  of  the  worship. 
 This  fact  alone  appears  to  militate  strongly  against 
 
 TANNER  3175 
 
 the  truth  of  Ibn  Washiyyah's  story  as  to  the  man- 
 ner in  which  he  discovered  the  works  he  professed 
 to  translate.  It  has  been  due  to  Professor  Chwol- 
 sohn's reputation  to  give  in  brief  the  substance  of 
 his  explanation  of  Tammuz;  but  it  must  be  con-r 
 fessed  that  he  throws  little  light  upon  the  obscu- 
 rity of  the  subject. 
 
 In  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  on  Gen.  viii.  5, 
 "  the  tenth  month "  is  translated  "  the  month 
 Tammuz."  According  to  Castell  {Lex.  Hept), 
 tiimuz  is  used  in  Arabic  to  denote  "  the  heat  of 
 summer;"  and  Tamuzi  is  the  name  given  to  the 
 Pharaoh  who  cruelly  treated  the  Israelites. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 TA'NACH  (Tf3pri  [perh.  castle,  Dietr.] :  ^ 
 Tofax;  Alex,  tj  @aavax-  Tltanach).  A  slight 
 variation,  in  the  vowel-points  alone,  of  the  name 
 Taanach.     It  occurs  in  Josh.  xxi.  25  only.    G. 
 
 TANHU'METH  (Hpn^ijl  [comfort] :  @av- 
 afxdd,  @avae/xe6  \  [Vat.  Qaye/xaO,  ©auaefj-aiO;] 
 Alex.  @av€/j.av  in  2  K.:  Tkanehumeth).  The  fa- 
 ther of  Seraiah  in  the  time  of  Gedaliah  (2  K.  xxv. 
 23;  Jer.  xl.  8).  In  the  former  passage  he  is  called 
 "  the  Netophathite,"  but  a  reference  to  the  parallel 
 narrative  of  Jeremiah  will  show  that  some  words 
 have  dropped  out  of  the  text. 
 
 TA'NIS  ilivis),  Jud.  i.  10.     [Zoan.] 
 
 *  TANNER.  This  was  Simon's  occupation 
 with  whom  Peter  lodged  at  Joppa  at  the  time  of 
 his  vision  on  the  house-top,  and  of  the  arrival  of 
 the  messengers  from  Cornelius  (Acts  x.  5).  He  is 
 termed  ^upaeus,  for  which  the  more  descriptive 
 equivalent  is  jiupcroSexpris  (from  ^vpaa,  a  skin,  and 
 Seipw,  to  soften,  make  supple):  while  aKvTo^ii\n)s 
 (I'rom  (TKvTOS,  'I  dressed  hide)  designates  tlie  oper- 
 ation with  reference  to  its  result  or  product. 
 Among  the  Jews,  as  well  as  the  Greeks  and  Ko- 
 mans,  the  tamiing  process  included  the  removal  of 
 the  hair  of  the  skins,  and  also  the  making  of  the 
 skins  smooth  and  soft.  (For  the  manipulations  of 
 the  art  and  the  depilatory  astringents  used,  see  es- 
 pecially Walcb's  Dissertationes  in  Acta  Apostolo- 
 riim,  ii.  91-128.)  Skins  tanned  and  dyed  were 
 used  for  covering  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  5,  xxvi. 
 1-1).  [Badgkk.]  The  occupation  of  the  tanner 
 was  in  ill-repute  aniong  all  the  ancient  nations,  es- 
 pecially the  Jews.  The  Jews  considered  the  enter- 
 ing into  this  business  and  concealing  the  fact  before 
 marriage,  or  the  entering  into  it  after  marriage,  a 
 suthcient  cause  for  divorce.  It  was  also  one  of  the 
 few  interdicted  trades  from  wliich  they  held  that  no 
 one  could  be  taken  for  the  othce  of  high-priest  or 
 king.  For  other  reasons  as  well  as  the  disrepute  of 
 the  business,  tanners  were  required  to  live,  or  at 
 least  to  carry  on  their  work,  outside  of  the  cities. 
 The  Greeks  and  Romans  made  it  a  law  tliat  they 
 should  remove  their  houses  and  workshops  out  of 
 the  towns,  and  establish  themselves  near  streams  or 
 other  bodies  of  water.  "  Apud  veteres  coriarii  ple- 
 rumque  extra  urbes,  prope  flumina,  ofticinas  et 
 domos  suas  habuerant,  non  solum  ob  mortua  ani- 
 malia,  quorum  usum  ipsa  eorum  opificii  ratio  ef- 
 flagitabat;  sed  etiam  ob  foetidos  in  eorum  officinis 
 et  sedibus  odores  et  sordes ;  turn  vero,  quod  aqua 
 hi,  coria  prseparantes,  nullo  fere  pacto  carere  pote- 
 rant"  (Walch).  Yet  such  restrictions,  from  the 
 nature  of  the  case,  would  be  more  or  less  severe  in 
 ditterent  places,  and  in  the  same  place  be  enforced 
 or  relaxed  very  much  as  a  variable  public  feeling 
 might  dictate.     Generally  in  the  East  at  present 
 
3176 
 
 TAPHATH 
 
 "  sucli  establishments  are  removed  to  a  distance  be- 
 yond the  walls,  because  they  are  offensive  as  well  as 
 prejudicial  to  health  "  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book, 
 ii.  281).  Yet  even  at  Jerusalem  a  tannery  is  toler- 
 ated, near  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  a 
 nuisance  and  offense  to  all  the  neighborhood  (Tobler, 
 Denkwiirdii/keiten  des  Jerus.  p.  242).  Peter  in 
 being  the  guest  of  Siinon  may  have  been  less  scru- 
 pulous than  most  of  the  Jews.  According  to  the 
 Talmud  the  house  of  a  tanner  was  considered  like 
 that  of  a  lieutlien.  It  has  been  suggested  that  as 
 both  the  host  and  the  guest  bore  the  name  of  Simon 
 they  may  have  lieen  related  to  each  other,  and  that 
 Peter  acted  the  more  freely  on  that  account.  It 
 certainly  was  not  this  relationship  that  brought 
 Peter  to  Joppa  from  I.ydda,  but  information  of  the 
 death  of  Uorcas  (Acts  ix.  38).  The  two  places 
 (now  Jaffa  and  Lud)  are  within  siglit  of  each  other. 
 
 The  house  of  Simon  was  "  by  the  sea-side  " 
 (Acts  X.  0),  and  though  Peter  is  said  to  have  dwelt 
 with  him  ■'  in  Joppa  "  (Acts  ix.  4.3),  we  may  under- 
 stand this  expression  of  the  suburbs  as  well  as  of 
 the  town  itself.  Stanley  seriously  thinks  that  the 
 house  at  Jaffa  now  shown  as  Simon's  may  occupy 
 the  original  site.  It  is  "close  on  the  sea-shore: 
 the  waves  beat  against  the  low  wall.  In  the  court- 
 yard is  a  spring  of  fresh  water,  such  as  must  always 
 have  been  needed  for  the  purposes  of  tanning.  .  .  . 
 There  is  a  tradition  which  describes  the  premises 
 to  have  been  long  employed  as  a  tannery  "  {Sin. 
 and  Pal.  p.  261)).  Sepp  suggests  with  more  prob- 
 ability that  it  may  have  been  further  out  of  the 
 town,  though  at  no  very  great  distance  from  it, 
 near  the  mouth  of  a  brook  where  there  are  now 
 four  tanneries  still  in  operation  {Jerus.  u.  das  he'd. 
 Land,  i.  11).  H- 
 
 TATHATH  (H?^  [drop,  ornament] :  Te- 
 ^de--,  Alex.  Ta(paTa-  Tapheth).  The  daughter  of 
 Solomon,  who  was  married  to  Ben-Abinadab,  one 
 of  the  king's  twelve  commissariat  officers  (1  K.  iv. 
 11). 
 
 *  TAPH'NES  {Ta<pva.s),  Jud.  i.  9.      [Taii- 
 
 PANHKS.]  II. 
 
 TA'PHON  {t]  Ti<pwv;  Joseph.  Toxda.  or  To- 
 Xoav":  Thapu;  Syr.  Tc/os).  One  of  tlie  cities  in 
 Judaea  fortified  by  Bacchides  (1  Mace.  ix.  50).  It 
 is  probably  the  Bkth-Tai'puah  of  the  Old  Test. 
 which  lay  near  Hebron.  The  form  given  by  Jose- 
 phus  suggests  Tekoa,  l)ut  Grinmi  {Kxerj.  Hand- 
 Ouch)  has  pointed  out  that  his  equivalent  for  that 
 name  is  ©eKoie;  and  there  is  besides  too  much 
 unanimity  among  the  Versions  to  allow  of  its  being 
 accepted.  G. 
 
 TAPPU'AH  (n-"l3ri  [apple,  apple-tree]  :  [in 
 Josh.  xii.  17,  TacpovT,  Alex,  ©a^cpofx;  in  xv.  .S-t,] 
 LXX.  omits  in  both  MSS.  [but  Comp.  Aid.  Ta</)- 
 ^ova.-]  T(iphhua).  1.  A  city  of  Judah,  in  the 
 district  of  the  tiliefdah,  or  lowland  (Josh.  xv.  34). 
 It  is  a  mend)er  of  the  group  which  contains  Zoreah, 
 Zanoah,  and  Jarmuth ;  and  was  therefore  no  doubt 
 situated  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountains  of 
 the  N.  W.  portion  of  Judah,  about  12  miles  W.  of 
 Jerusalem,  where  these  places  have  all  been  identi- 
 fied with  tolerable  probability.  It  is  remarkable 
 that  the  name  should  be  omitted  in  both  MSS.  of 
 the    LXX.      The    Syriac    Peshito   has    Pathuch, 
 
 a  It  is  probable  that  the  v  is  the  sign  of  the  accu- 
 aative  case.  Jericho,  Emmaus,  and  Bethel,  in  the 
 lame  paragraph,  are  certainly  in  the  accusative. 
 
 TAREA 
 
 which,  when  connected  with  the  Enam  that  fol- 
 lows it  in  the  list,  recalls  the  Pathuch-enayini  of 
 Gen.  xxxviii.  14,  long  a  vexed  place  with  the  com- 
 mentators. [See  Enam,  i.  732.]  Neither  Tap- 
 puah  nor  Pathuch  have  however  been  encountered. 
 This  Ta|jpuah  must  not  be  confounded  either  with 
 the  Beth- Tappuah  near  Hebron,  or  with  the  Land 
 of  Tappuah  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim.  It  is  un- 
 certain which  of  the  three  is  named  in  the  list  of 
 the  thirty-o?ie  kings  in  Josh.  xii. 
 
 2.  {T6.(pou,  &a<p4e;  Alex.  E<^<^oue,  &a(pea>e; 
 [Comp.  @aTr<t)ovi '■]  Tapliua.)  A  place  on  the 
 boundary  of  the  "children  of  Joseph"  (Josh.  xvi. 
 8,  xvii.  8).  Its  full  name  was  probably  Kn-tap- 
 puah  (xvii.  7),  and  it  had  attached  to  it  a  district 
 called  the  Laud  of  Tappuah  (xvii.  8).  This  docu- 
 ment is  evidently  in  so  imperfect  or  confused  a  state 
 that  it  is  impossible  to  ascertaui  from  it  the  situa- 
 tion of  the  places  it  names,  especially  as  compara- 
 tively few  of  them  have  been  yet  met  with  on  the 
 ground.  But  from  the  apparent  connection  be- 
 tween Tappuah  and  the  Nachal  Kanah,  it  seems 
 natural  to  look  for  the  former  somewhere  to  the 
 S.  W.  of  Nublus,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Wadij 
 Falalk,  the  most  likely  claimant  for  the  Kanah. 
 We  must  await  further  investigation  in  this  hith- 
 erto unexplored  region  before  attempting  to  form 
 any  conclusion.  G. 
 
 TAPPU'AH  (nSri  [apple]:  [Rom.  0a7r- 
 ^ovs\  Vat.]  ©ttTTOUs;  Alex.  0a(^(/)oy;  [Comp.  ©o- 
 <povd'-]  Taphua).  One  of  the  sons  of  Hebron,  of 
 the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  (Jhr.  ii.  43).  It  is  doubtless 
 the  same  as  BETH-TArruAii,  now  Teffuh,  near'' 
 Ileliron;  and  the  meaning  of  the  record  is  that 
 Ta[)puah  was  colonized  by  the  men  of  Hebron. 
 
 G. 
 
 TAPPU'AH,  THE    LAND    OF    (V^^ 
 
 n^Sj^  [land  of  the  apple]:  Vat.  omits;  [so  also 
 Kom.  Alex. :]  terra  Taphua).  A  district  named 
 in  the  specification  of  the  boundary  between  Eph- 
 raim and  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  8).  It  apparently 
 lay  near  the  torrent  Kanah  (probably  the  IVady 
 Falaik),  but  the  name  has  not  yet  been  met  with 
 at  all  in  the  central  district  of  Palestine.  G. 
 
 TA'RAH  (H'T'jT'  [turning  or  wandering] : 
 TapdO ;  [Alex.  ©apa9:  Tliare,]  Num.  xxxiii.  27). 
 A  desert-station  of  the  Israelites  between  Tahath 
 and  Mithcah,  not  yet  identified  with  any  known 
 site.  "  H.  H. 
 
 TAR'ALAH  (n"T'S"}rn  [i-eeUny,  drunkenness, 
 Ges.,  Fiirst]:  ©opeTjAa;  Alex.  0apa,\a ■  Tharela). 
 One  of  the  towns  in  the  allotment  of  Benjamin 
 (Josh,  xviii.  27,  only).  It  is  named  between  Irpeel 
 and  Zelah;  but  nothing  certain  is  known  of  the 
 position  of  either  of  those  places,  and  no  name  at 
 all  resembling  Taralah  has  yet  been  discovered. 
 Schwarz's  identification  (with  "  Thaniel  "  JJanlyal), 
 jiear  Lydd,  is  far-fetehed  in  etymology,  and  unsuit- 
 able as  to  position ;  for  there  is  nothing  to  lead  to 
 the  conclusion  that  the  Benjamites  had  extended 
 themselves  so  far  to  the  west  when  the  lists  oi 
 Joshua  were  drawn  up.  G. 
 
 TARE'A  (Prpifi?  [Jlight,  Fiirst]:  @apdx  ! 
 [Vat.  ©epee;]   Alex',  ©apee:    Tharaa).    The  same 
 
 b  Xhe  principal  valley  of  the  town  of  Hebron  is 
 called  Wady  Tuff  ah  (Map  to  Rosen's  paper  in  Ztitstfi. 
 D.  M.  G.  xii.  and  p.  481), 
 
TAKES 
 
 as  Talirea,  the  son  of  Micah  (1  Clir.  viii.  35),  the 
 
 Hebrew  letters  M  and  H  being  interchanged,  a 
 phenomenon  of  rare  occurrence  (Gesen.  Tlies.  p.  2). 
 TARES  i^i^dvia'  ziznnin).  There  can  be  Ut- 
 ile doubt  that  the  (i^dvta  of  the  parable  (Matt. 
 xiii.  25)  denote  the  weed  called  "  darnel  "  {Loliiun 
 teinulentum),  a  widely  distributed  grass,  and  the 
 only  species  of  the  order  that  has  deleterious  prop- 
 erties. The  word  used  by  the  Evangelist  is  an 
 Oriental,  and  not  a  Greek  term.     It  is  the  Arabic 
 
 zawdn  C.i'«'0>    aiid    the    zonin    (]''3^T)  of  the 
 
 Talmud   (Buxtorf,   Lex.   Talin.  s.  v.).     The  deri- 
 
 0    ^ 
 vation    of   the    Arabic  word,    from    aa/i     (..jl'Oi 
 
 "nausea,"  is  well  suited  to  the  character  of  the 
 plant,  the  grains  of  which  produce  vomiting  and 
 purging,  convulsions,  and  even  death.  Volney 
 ( Trav.  ii.  306 )  experienced  the  ill  effects  of  eating 
 its  seeds ;  and  the  "  whole  of  the  inmates  of  the 
 SheflBeld  workhouse  were  attacked  some  years  ago 
 
 TAIIPELITES,  THE 
 
 3177 
 
 Bearded  Darnel. 
 
 with  symptoms  supposed  to  l)e  produced  by  their 
 oatmeal  having  been  accidentally  adulterated  with 
 M'?«w"  {Enyl.  Cyc.  s.  v.  LoUum)."  The  darnel 
 before  it  comes  into  ear  is  very  similar  in  appear- 
 ance to  wheat;  hence  the  command  that  the  zizania 
 should  be  left  to  the  harvest,  lest  while  men  plucked 
 up  the  tares  "  they  should  root  up  also  the  wheat 
 with  them."  Prof.  Stanley,  however  {.S'.  </■  P.  p. 
 426),  speaks  of  women  and  children  picking  out 
 from  the  wheat  in    the  cornfields  of  Samaria  the 
 
 «  *  The  ^i£"iiiio!'  is  described  in  the  Geoponica  (ii. 
 c.  13)  as   a   pl.uit   which   "destroys   the  wheat,  and 
 when  mixed  with  bread  produces  blindness  in  those 
 200 
 
 tall  green  stalks,  still  called  by  the  Arabs  zmcdii 
 "  These  stalks,"  he  continues,  "  if  sown  design- 
 edly throughout  the  fields,  would  be  inseparable 
 from  the  wheat,  from  which,  even  when  growing 
 naturally  and  by  chance,  they  are  at  first  sight 
 hardly  distinguishable."  See  also  Thomson  {Laiul 
 and  Book,  p.  420):  "The  grain  is  just  in  the 
 proper  stage  to  illustrate  the  parable.  In  those 
 parts  where  the  grain  has  headed  out,  the  tares 
 have  done  the  same,  and  then  a  child  cannot  mis- 
 take them  for  wheat  or  barley ;  but  where  both  are 
 less  developed,  the  closest  scrutiny  will  often  fail 
 to  detect  tliem.  Even  the  farmers,  who  in  this 
 country  generally  weed  their  fields,  do  not  attempt 
 to  separate  the  one  from  the  other."  The  grain- 
 growers  in  Palestine  believe  that  the  zuirdii  is 
 merely  a  degenerate  wheat:  that  in  wet  seasons 
 the  wheat  turns  to  tares.  Dr.  Thomson  asserts  that 
 this  is  their  fixed  opinion.  It  is  curious  to  observe 
 the  retention  of  the  fallacy  through  many  ages. 
 "  Wheat  and  zunm"  says  Lightfoot  (//(;;•.  fleb.  on 
 Matt.  xiii.  25),  quoting  from  the  Talmud,  "are  not 
 seeds  of  different  kinds."     See  also  Buxtorf  {Lex. 
 
 Tidm.  s.  V.  ^^31?)  :  "Zizania,  species  tritici 
 degeneris,  sic  dicti,  quod  scortando  cum 
 bono  tritico,  in  pejorem  naturam  degenerat." 
 The  Roman  writers  appear  to  have  enter- 
 tained a  similar  opinion  with  respect  to  some 
 of  the  cereals:  thus  Pliny  (77.  N.  xviii.  17), 
 borrowing  probably  from  Theophrastus,  asserts 
 that  "  barlfy  will  degenerate  into  the  oat." 
 The  notion  that  the  zizania  of  the  parable 
 are  merely  diseased  or  degenerate  wheat  has 
 been  defended  by  P.  Brederod  (see  his  letter 
 to  Schultetus  in  Exercit.  Evang.  ii.  cap.  65), 
 and  strangely  adopted  by  Trench,  who  {Notes 
 on  the  Parables,  p.  91,  4th  ed.)  regards  the 
 distinction  of  these  two  plants  to  be  "  a 
 falsely  assumed  fact."  If  the  zizania  of  the 
 parable  denote  the  Lolium  temulentum,  and 
 there  cannot  be  any  reasonable  doubt  about  it, 
 the  plants  are  certainly  distinct,  and  the  L. 
 temulentum  has  as  much  right  to  specific 
 distinction  as  any  other  kind  of  grass. 
 
 W.  H. 
 *  TARGET.     [Arms,  I.  2.  b ;  II.  5.  b  ; 
 Akmory.] 
 
 TARGUMS.    4;Versions;  Chaldee.] 
 TAR'PELITES,   THE    («"^bQ-|^ : 
 
 Tap(pa\aLOi;  Alex.  Tup<paK\a1oi'  Thar- 
 phidai).  A  race  of  colonists  who  were  planted 
 in  the  cities  of  Samaria  after  tiie  captivity  of 
 the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel  (Ezr.  iv.  9). 
 They  have  not  been  identified  with  any  cer- 
 tainty. Junius  and  others  have  found  a  kind 
 of  resemblance  in  name  to  the  Tarpelites  in 
 the  Tapyri  (TaTroupoi)  of  Ptolemy  (vi.  2, 
 §  6),  a  tribe  of  Media  who  dwelt  eastward  of  Ely- 
 mais,  liut  the  resemblance  is  scarcely  more  than 
 apparent.  They  are  called  by  Strabo  Tdnvpoi  (xi. 
 514,  515,  520,  523).  Others,  with  as  little  proba- 
 bility, have  sought  to  recognize  the  Tarpelites  in  the 
 Tarpetes  (TapTrf/rey,  Strab.  xi.  495),  a  M;eotic  race. 
 In  the  Peshito-Syriac  the  resemblance  is  greater,  for 
 they  are  there  called  Tarpinj}.  Fiirst  {llandwb.) 
 says  in  no  case  can  Taipei,  the  country  of  the  Tar- 
 pelites, be  the  Phcenician  TripoUs.        W.  A.  \V. 
 
 who  eat  it  ;  "  to  ^ifoi'ioi',  to  Ae^d/xei/oj/  alpa,  <l>8eipet 
 rhu  <Ti70v,  apTots  6e  fjnyi'vixei^i)  aKOTOt,  Tovs  ea^t'ovTa?. 
 Cornp.  lib.  xiv.  c.  1,  §  5  ;  c.  7,  §  3.  A. 
 
3178 
 
 TARSHISH 
 
 TAR'SHISH  (t^^'^a^-jri  [prob.  fortress, 
 Dietr.] :  [generally]  ©aprrfis  [or  Qapcrts;  i"  Is- 
 xxiii.  KafixV^^V,  in  I'^z.  Kapx^/Siij'ioi,  exc.  Alex, 
 in  Ez.  xxxviii.  13,  ^a^iK-riSuiv;  LXX.  in  Is.  ii.  ]C, 
 edXaaaa']  Tliarsis,  [in  Is.  xxiii.,  Ix.,  Ixvi.,  and 
 Ez.  xxvii.  25,  xxxviii.  13,  mare  ;  in  Ez.  xxvii.  12, 
 Cartli(i(jinaisi'S,\  Gen.  x.  4).  1.  Probably  Tar- 
 tessus;  Gr.  TapTr)cro-(Js-  A  city  and  eniporiuin  of 
 the  riioeniciaMs  in  the  south  of  Spain.  In  psalm 
 ixxii.  10,  it  seems  api)lied  to  a  large  district  of 
 country;  perhaj)s,  to  that  portion  of  Spain  which 
 was  known  to  the  Hebrews  when  that  psalm  was 
 written.  And  the  word  may  have  been  likewise 
 used  in  this  sense  in  Gen.  x.  4,  where  Knobel  ( lol- 
 ktrtiij'd  der  (Jmcsis,  Giessen,  1850,  ad  Inc.)  ap- 
 plies it  to  the  Tuscans,  thouj^h  he  agrees  with  nearly 
 all  Biblical  critics  in  regarding  it  elsewhere  as  sy- 
 nonymous with  Tartessus.  The  etymology  is  un- 
 certain. 
 
 W'ith  three  exceptions  in  the  book  of  Chronicles, 
 which  will  be  noticed  separately  (see  below.  No.  2), 
 the  following  are  references  to  all  the  passages  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  word  "  Tarshish  " 
 occurs;  commencing  with  the  passage  in  the  book 
 of  Jonah,  which  shows  that  it  was  accessible  from 
 Yapho,  '^'afa,  or  Joppa,  a  city  of  Palestine  with  a 
 well-known  harbor  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (Jon. 
 i.  3,  iv.  2;  Gen.  x.  4;  1  Chr.  i.  7;  Is.  ii.  10,  xxiii. 
 1,  G,  10,  14,  Ix.  9,  Ixvi.  lit;  Jer.  x.  9;  Ez.  xxvii.  12, 
 25,  xxxviii.  13;  1  K.  x.  22,  xxii.  48  [49];  [in  1  K., 
 A.  V.  TiiAUSiiisii;]  Ps.  xlviii.  7,  Ixxii.  10).  On 
 a  review  of  these  passages,  it  will  lie  seen  that  not 
 one  of  them  furnishes  direct  proof  that  Tarshish 
 and  Tartessus  were  the  same  cities.  l>ut  their 
 identity  is  rendered  highly  probable  by  the  follow- 
 ing circumstances.  1st,  There  is  a  very  close  simi- 
 larity of  name  between  them,  Tartessus  being  merely 
 Tarshish  in  the  Aramaic  form,  as  was  first  pointed 
 out  by  Bochart  (P/aile;/,  lib.  iii.  cap.  7).  Thus 
 the  Hebrew  word  Ashshur  =  Assyria,,  h  in  the 
 Aramaic  form  Ailn'ir,  Allur,  and  in  Greek  'Aroupia 
 (Strabo,  xvi.  1,  2),  and  ' hrvpia  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii. 
 26)  —  though,  as  is  well  known,  the  ordinary  Greek 
 form  was  ^Aaaupia.  Again,  the  Hebrew  word 
 Bnshan,  translated  in  the  same  form  in  the  A.  V. 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  is  Bathan  or  Butlimin  in 
 Aramaic,  and  'Qaravaia  in  (ireek;  whence  also  15a- 
 tanoea  in  Latin  (see  IJuxtortii  Lexicon  L'kaldmcuiiL 
 Talmudkum  et  Rahblnicum,  s.  vv.).  Moreover, 
 there  are  numerous  changes  of  the  same  kind  in 
 common  words;  such  as  the  Aramaic  numeral  8, 
 iamnei,  which  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew  word 
 slienumeh ;  and  telafj,  the  Aramaic  word  for 
 "snow,"  which  is  the  same  word  as  the  Hebrew 
 sheleff  (see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  1344).  And 
 it  is  likely  that  in  some  way  which  cannot  now  be 
 explained,  the  Greeks  received  the  word  "  Tarshish  " 
 from  the  Phoenicians  in  a  partly  Aramaic  form,  just 
 as  they  received  in  that  form  many  Heljrew  letters 
 of  the  alphabet.  The  last  sh  of  Tarshish  «  would 
 naturally  be  represented  by  the  double  s  in  the 
 Greek  ending,  as  the  sound  and  letter  sk  was  im- 
 known  to  the  Gveek  language.  [SiiiisnoLKTii.] 
 2dly,  There  seefiis  to  have  been  a  special  relation 
 between  Tarshi.'sli  and  Tyre,  as  there  was  at  one 
 time  between  Tartessus  and  the  Phcenicians.  In 
 the  23d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  there  is  something  like 
 
 TARSHISH 
 
 an  appeal  to  Tarshish  to  assert  its  ii<<?.'pendence  (see 
 the  notes  of  Kosenmiiller,  Gesenius^  and  Ewald,  uii 
 rerse  18).  And  Arrian  {Be  Exped.  Alexandri,  ii 
 16,  §  3)  expressly  states  that  Tartessus  was  founded 
 or  colonized  ijy  the  Phcenicians,  saying,  ^oiv'ikwv 
 KTiafxa  1]  TapTT]<ra6s.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
 this  is  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Arrian,  because 
 Uiodorus  (xxvi.  14)  represents  Ilamilcar  as  defeat- 
 ing the  Iberians  and  Tarlessians,  which  has  been 
 thought  to  imply  that  the  latter  were  not  Phoeni- 
 cians. But  it  is  to  be  remembered  t  hat  there  was  a 
 river  in  Hispania  Bwtica  called  Tartessus,  as  well  as 
 a  city  of  that  name  (Strabo,  iii.  148),  and  it  may 
 easily  have  been  the  case  that  tribes  which  dwelt  on 
 its  banks  may  have  been  called  Tartessians,  and  may 
 have  been  mentioned  under  this  name,  as  defeated 
 by  Hamilcar.  Still,  this  would  be  perfectly  com- 
 patible with  the  fact,  that  the  Phcenicians  estab- 
 lished there  a  factory  or  settlement  called  Tartessus, 
 which  had  dominion  for  a  while  over  the  adjacent 
 territory.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  likewise,  that 
 Arrian,  who  must  be  pronounced  on  the  whole  to 
 be  a  judicious  writer,  had  access  to  the  writings  of 
 Menander  of  Ephesus,  who  translated  souie  of  the 
 Tyriaii  archives  into  Greek  (Joseph.  Aid.  ix.  14, 
 §  2),  and  it  may  be  presumed  Arrian  consulted 
 those  writings  when  he  undertook  to  give  some  ac- 
 count of  Tyre,  in  reference  to  its  celebrated  siege 
 by  Alexander,  in  connection  with  which  he  makes 
 his  statement  respecting  Tartessus. 
 
 3dly.  The  articles  which  Tarshish  is  stated  by 
 the  prophet  Ezekiel  to  have  supplied  to  Tyre  are 
 precisely  such  as  we  know  through  classical  writers 
 to  have  been  productions  of  the  Spanish  Peninsula. 
 Ezekiel  specifies  siher,  iron,  lead,  and  tin  (I'^z.  xxvii. 
 12),  and  in  regard  to  each  of  these  metals  as  con- 
 nected with  Spain,  there  are  the  following  au- 
 thorities. As  to  silver,  Diodorus,  who  (v.  35) 
 speaks  of  Spain  as  possessing  this  metal  in  the 
 greatest  abundance  and  of  the  greatest  beauty 
 (o'xeSoi'  T£  vXiicTTOV  Kol  KaWiarov),  and  par- 
 ticularly mentions  that  the  Phoenicians  made  a 
 great  profit  by  this  metal,  and  established  colonies 
 in  Spain  on  its  account,  at  a  time  when  the  mode 
 of  working  it  was  unknown  to  the  natives  (comp. 
 Aristot.  de  Mirahil.  c.  135,  87).  This  is  confirmed 
 by  Pliny,  who  says  {Hist.  Nat.  xxxiii.  31),  "  Ar- 
 gentum  reperitur  —  in  Hispania  pulcherrinutm  ;  id 
 quoque  in  sterili  solo,  atque  etiani  montibus;  "  and 
 he  proceeds  to  say  that  wherever  one  vein  has  been 
 found,  another  vein  is  found  not  far  off".  With  re- 
 gard to  iron  and  lead,  Pliny  says,  "  metallis  jjluinlji, 
 J'erri,  ieris,  argenti,  auri  tota  ferme  Hispania 
 scatet "  {Hist.  Nat.  iii.  4).  And  as  to  lead,  more 
 especially,  this  is  so  true  even  at  present,  that  a 
 writer  on  Mines  and  Mining  in  the  last  edition  of 
 the  /incijc.  Brdannicn,  p.  242,  states  as  follows: 
 "  Spain  possesses  numerous  and  valuable  lead 
 mines.  The  most  important  are  those  of  Linares, 
 which  are  situated  to  the  east  of  Bailen  near  the 
 Sierra  Morena.  They  have  been  long  celelirated, 
 and  perhaps  no  known  mineral  field  is  naturally  so 
 rich  in  lead  as  this."  And,  lastly,  in  regard  to 
 tin,  the  trade  of  Tarshish  in  this  metal  is  peculiarly 
 significant,  and  taken  in  conjunction  with  similarity 
 of  name  and  other  circumstances  already  men- 
 tioned, is  reasonably  conclusive  as  to  its  identity 
 
 »  It  Is  unsafe  to  lay  any  stress  on  Tarseiuni  (Tap- 
 trqiov),  which  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  says  (s.  v.)  was 
 a  city  near  the  Columns  of  Hercules.  Stephanus  was 
 probably  misled  by  a  passage  to  which  he  refers  in 
 
 Polybius,  iii.  24.  The  Tapa-qiov  of  Polybius  couM 
 scarcely  have  been  very  far  from  the  Pulchrum  I'ro- 
 montorium  of  Carthage. 
 
TAKSHISH 
 
 fflth  Tartessus.  For  even  now  the  countries  in 
 Europe,  or  on  the  shores  of  the  iMeiliterraneaii  Sea 
 where  tin  is  found  are  very  few:  and  in  reference 
 to  ancient  times,  it  would  be  difficult  to  name  any 
 such  coimtries  except  Iberia  or  Spain,  Lusitania, 
 whicli  was  somewliat  less  in  extent  than  Portugal, 
 and  Cornwall  in  Great  Britain.  Now  if  the  Phoe- 
 nicians, for  purposes  of  trade,  really  niade  coasting 
 voyages  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  as  far  as  to  Great 
 Britain,  no  emporium  was  more  favorably  situated 
 for  such  voyaL^es  than  Tartessus.  If,  however,  in 
 accordance  with  the  views  of  Sir  G.  Cornevvall 
 Lewis,  it  is  deemed  unlilvely  that  PlicBnieiau  ships 
 made  such  distant  voyages  {llUtoriad  Snrvti)  of 
 tilt  Aslronumy  (if'  the  Ancients,  p.  455),  it  may  be 
 added,  that  it  is  improbable,  and  not  to  be  admitted 
 as  a  fact  without  distinct  proof,  tliat  nearly  000 
 years  before  Christ,  when  Ezekiel  wrote  his  proph- 
 ecy against  Tyre,  they  should  have  supplieil  the 
 nations  on  the  shoi'es  of  the  Mediterranean  with 
 British  tin  obtained  by  the  months  of  the  Khone. 
 Diodorus  indeed  mentions  (v.  38),  that  in  his  time 
 tin  was  imported  into  Gaul  from  Britain,  and  was 
 then  conveyed  on  horseback  by  traders  across  Gaul 
 to  JNIassilia,  and  the  Roman  colony  of  Narbo.  liut 
 it  would  be  a  very  diiFereiit  thing  to  assume  tliat 
 this  was  the  case  so  many  centuries  earlier,  when 
 Rome,  at  that  time  a  small  and  insignilicant  town, 
 did  not  possess  a  foot  of  land  in  Gaul;  and  when, 
 according  to  the  received  systems  of  chronology,  the 
 settlement  of  JNIassilia  had  only  just  beeu  founded 
 by  the  Phocseans.  As  countries  then  from  which 
 Tarshish  was  likely  to  obtain  its  tin,  there  remain 
 only  Lusitania  and  Spain.  And  in  regard  to  both 
 of  these,  the  evidence  of  Pliny  the  Elder  at  a  time 
 when  they  were  tlourishing  provinces  of  the  lioman 
 empire,  remains  on  record  to  show  that  tin  was 
 found  in  each  of  them  {Hist.  Nat.  xxxiv.  47).  After 
 mentioning  tluit  there  were  two  kinds  of  lead, 
 namely,  black  lead  and  white  lead,  the  latter  of 
 which  was  called  "  Cassiteros  "  by  the  Greeks,  and 
 was  fabulously  reported  to  be  obtained  in  islands  of 
 tlie  Atlantic  Sea,  Pliny  proceeds  to  saj',  "  Nunc  cer- 
 ium est  in  Lusitania  gigni,  et  in  Galtecia;  "  and 
 he  goes  on  to  describe  where  it  is  found,  and  the 
 mode  of  extracting  it  (compare  Pliny  himself,  iv. 
 34,  and  Diodorus,  /.  c.  as  to  tin  in  Spain).  It  may 
 be  added  that  Strabo,  on  the  autiiority  of  Posei- 
 donius,  had  made  previously  a  similar  statement 
 (iii.  147),  though  fully  aware  that  in  his  time  tin 
 was  likewise  brought  to  the  Mediterranean,  tlirough 
 Gaul  by  Massilia,  from  the  supposed  Cassiterides  or 
 Tin  Islands.  jMoreover,  as  confirming  the  state- 
 ment of  Strabo  and  Pliny,  tin  mines  now  actually 
 exist  in  Portugal;  both  in  parts  which  tielonged 
 to  ancient  Lusitania,  and  in  a  district  which  formed 
 part  of  ancient  Galltecia."  And  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
 mind  that  Seville  on  the  Guadalquivir,  which  has 
 free  communication  with  the  sea,  is  only  about  80 
 miles  distant  from  the  Portuguese  frontier. 
 
 Subsequently,  when  Tyre  lost  its  independence, 
 the  relation  between  it  and  Tarshish  was  probably 
 altered,  and  for  a  while,  the  exhortation  of  Isaiah 
 (xxiii.  10)  may  have  been  realized  by  the  inhabitants 
 passing  through  their  land,  free  as  a  river.  This 
 independence  of  Tarshish,  combined  with  the  over- 
 shadowing growth  of  the  Carthaginian  power, 
 would  explain  why  in  after  times  the  learned  Jews 
 do  not  seem  to  have  known  where  Tarshish  was. 
 
 TARSHISH 
 
 3179 
 
 a  Namely,  in  the  provinces  of  Porto,  Beira,  and 
 Bra^auza.  Specimens  were  iu  the  International  Ex- 
 hibiUoQ  of  1862. 
 
 Thus,  although  in  the  Septuagint  translation  of 
 the  Pentateuch  the  Hebrew  word  was  as  closely 
 followed  as  it  could  be  in  Greek  (©apo-eis,  in  which 
 
 the  B  is  merely  H  without  a  point,  and  ei  is  equiv- 
 alent to  J,  according  to  the  pronunciation  in  modern 
 Greek),  the  Septuagint  translators  of  Isaiah  and 
 I'^zekiel  translate  tlie  word  by  "  Carthage "  and 
 "the  Carthaginians"  (Is.  xxiii.  1,  10,  14;  Ez. 
 xxvii.  12,  xxxviii.  13);  and  in  the  Targuni  of  the 
 book  of  Kings  and  of  .leremiah,  it  is  translated 
 '•  Ai'rica,"  as  is  pointed  out  by  Gesenius  (1  K.  xxii. 
 48;  Jer.  x.  9).  In  one  passage  of  the  Septuagint 
 (Is.  ii.  16),  and  in  others  of  the  Targum,  tlie  word 
 is  translated  sea ;  which  recei\es  ai)parently  some 
 countenance  from  Jerome,  in  a  note  on  Is.  ii.  Iti, 
 wherein  he  states  that  the  Hebrews  believe  that 
 Tliarsis  is  the  name  of  the  sea  in  their  own  lan- 
 guage. And  Josephus,  misled,  apfiarently,  by  the 
 Septuagint  translation  of  tlie  Pentateuch,  which  he 
 misinterpreted,  regarded  Tharsisas  Tarsus  in  Cilicia 
 {Ant.  i.  G,  §  1),  in  which  he  was  followed  by  other 
 .Jews,  and  (using  Tarsus  in  the  sense  of  all  Cilicia) 
 by  one  learjied  writer  in  modern  times.  See  Hart- 
 mann's  Aufklarimijen  iiber  Asien,  vol.  i.  p.  G!),  as 
 quoted  by  Winer,  s.  v. 
 
 It  tallies  with  the  ignorance  of  the  Jews  respect- 
 ing Tarshish,  and  helps  to  account  for  it,  that  in 
 Strabo's  time  the  emporium  of  Tartessus  had  lonw 
 ceased  to  exist,  and  its  precise  site  had  become  a 
 subject  of  dispute.  In  the  absence  of  positive  proof, 
 we  may  acquiesce  in  the  statement  of  Stralio  (iii. 
 148),  that  the  river  15:ttis  (now  the  Guadal- 
 quivir) was  formerly  called  Tartessus,  that  the  city 
 Tartessus  was  situated  between  the  two  arms  by 
 which  the  river  flowed  into  the  sea,  and  that  the 
 adjoining  country  was  called  Tartessis.  But  there 
 were  two  other  cities  which  some  deemed  to  have 
 been  Tartessus  ;  one,  (iadir,  or  Gadira  (Cadiz) 
 (Sallust,  Fraijm.  lib.  ii.;  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  iv.  36, 
 and  Avienus,  Descript.  Orb.  Terr.  p.  614);  and 
 the  other,  Carteia,  in  the  bay  of  Gibraltar  (Strabo, 
 iii.  151;  Ptolem.,  ii.  4;  Pliny,  iii.  3;  Mela,  ii.  6). 
 Of  the  three,  Carteia,  which  has  found  a  learned 
 suppoi-ter  at  the  present  day  (Ersch  and  Gruber's 
 Enajdopadie,  s.  v.),  seems  to  have  the  weaj^est 
 claims,  for  in  the  earliest  Greek  prose  work  extant, 
 Tartessus  is  placed  beyond  the  Columns  of  Hercules 
 (Herodotus,  iv.  152);  and  in  a  still  earlier  fragment 
 of  Stesichorus  (Strabo,  iii.  148),  mention  is  made 
 of  the  river  Tartessus,  whereas  there  i.s  no  stream 
 near  Carteia  (  =  El  Roccadillo)  which  deserves  to 
 be  called  more  than  a  rivulet.  Strictly  speaking, 
 the  same  objection  would  apply  to  Gadir;  but,  for 
 poetical  uses,  the  Guadalquivir,  which  is  only  20 
 miles  distant,  would  be  sufficiently  near.  It  was, 
 perhaps,  in  reference  to  the  claim  of  Gadir  that 
 Cicero,  in  a  letter  to  Atticus  (vii.  3),  jocosely  callg 
 Balbus,  a  native  of  that  town,  "  Tartessium  istum 
 tuum."  But  Tartessius  was,  likewise,  used  by 
 poets  to  express  the  extreme  west  where  the  sun 
 set  (Ovid,  Metam.  xiv.  416;  Silius  Italicus,  x. 
 358;  compare  Sil.  Ital.  iii.  399). 
 
 Literature.  —  For  Tarshish,  see  Boch.art,  Plialeg, 
 lib.  iii.  cap.  7;  Winer,  Biblisdtes  liecdworterbuch, 
 s.  v.;  and  Gesenius,  Thesaurus  Ling.  Hebr.  et 
 Chald.  s.  v.  For  Tartessus,  see  a  learned  Paper  ot 
 Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis,  Notes  and  Queries,  2d 
 Series,  vol.  vii.  pp.  189-191. 
 
 2.  If  the  book  of  Chronicles  is  to  be  followed, 
 there  would  seem  to  have  been  a  Tarshish,  acces- 
 sible from  the  Red  Sea,  iu  addition  to  the  TarshisI; 
 
3180  TARSHISH 
 
 of  the  south  of  Spain.  Thus,  with  re;^'ard  to  the 
 ships  of  Tarshish,  which  Jehosliaphat  caused  to  be 
 cousti'ucted  at  I'^zion-geher  on  the  yElanitic  Gulf  of 
 the  lied  Sea  (1  K.  xxii.  48),  it  is  said  in  the 
 Chronicles  (2  Chr.  xx.  3G)  that  they  were  made  to 
 go  to  'I'arsliish ;  and  in  like  manner  the  navy  of 
 bhips  which  Solomon  had  previously  made  in  l"2zion- 
 geber  (1  K.  ix.  26)  is  said  in  the  Chronicles 
 (2  Chr.  ix.  21)  to  have  gone  to  Tarshish  with  the 
 servants  of  Iliram.  It  is  not  to  be  supjjosed  that 
 the  author  of  these  passages  in  the  Chronicles  con- 
 templated a  voyage  to  Tarshish  in  the  south  of 
 Spahi  by  going  round  what  has  since  been  called 
 the  Cape  of  (jood  Hope.  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis 
 (Azotes  and  Queries,  2d  series,  vol.  vi.  pp.  Ol-G-t, 
 81-83)  has  shown  reasons  to  doubt  whether  the 
 circumnavigation  of  Africa  was  ever  effected  by  the 
 Phoenicians,  even  in  the  celebrated  voyage  which 
 Herodotus  says  (iv.  42)  they  made  by  Neco's  orders; 
 but  at  any  rate  it  camiot  be  seriously  supposed 
 that,  according  to  the  Chronicles,  this  great  voyage 
 was  regularly  accomplished  once  in  three  years  in 
 the  reign  of  Solomon.  Keil  supposes  that  the 
 vessels  built  at  Ezion-geber,  as  mentioned  in  1  K. 
 xxii.  49,  50,  were  really  destined  for  the  trade  to 
 Tarshish  in  Spain,  but  that  they  were  intended  to 
 be  transported  across  the  isthmus  of  .Suez,  and  to  be 
 launched  in  one  of  the  havens  of  Palestine  on  the 
 Mediterranean  Sea.  (See  his  Notes  ad  locum, 
 Engl,  transl. )  But  this  seems  improbable;  and 
 the  two  alternatives  from  which  selection  should  be 
 made  seem  to  be,  1st,  that  there  were  two  emporia 
 or  districts  called  Tarshish,  namely,  one  in  the  south 
 of  Spain,  and  one  in  the  Indian  Oce.an ;  or,  2dly, 
 that  tlie  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  misapprehend- 
 ing the  expression  "ships  of  Tarshish,"'  supposed 
 that  they  meant  ships  destined  to  go  to  Tarsliish ; 
 whereas,  although  this  was  the  original  meaning, 
 the  words  had  come  to  signify  large "  Phoenician 
 ships,  of  a  particular  size  and  description,  destined 
 for  long  voyages,  just  as  in  English  "  East  India- 
 man  "  was  a  general  name  given  to  vessels,  some 
 of  which  were  not  intended  to  go  to  India  at  all. 
 The  first  alternative  was  adopted  by  Bochart,  Pita- 
 leg,  lib.  iii.  c.  7,  and  has  probably  been  the  ordinary 
 view  of  those  who  have  perceived  a  ditficulty  in  the 
 passages  of  the  Chronicles;  but  the  second,  which 
 was  first  suggested  by  Vitringa,  has  been  adopted 
 by  the  acutest  Biblical  critics  of  our  own  time, 
 such  as  De  Wette,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Tesla- 
 vient,  Parker's  translation,  Boston,  184-3,  p.  2(j7, 
 vol.  ii. ;  \Mner,  Biblisches  RealwHrterbuch,  s.  v. ; 
 Gesenius,  Thesaurus  LinijiUB  Ileb.  et  Chald.  s.  v., 
 and  Ewald,  Geschichle  des  Vulkrs  Jsrael,  vol.  iii. 
 1st  ed.  p.  76;  and  is  acknowledged  by  JNIovers, 
 Ueber  die  bibl.  Chrmiik.  1834,  254,  and  Hiivernick, 
 SpezieUe  FAnleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1839, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  237.  This  alternative  is  in  itself  by  far 
 the  most  probable,  and  ought  not  to  occasion  any 
 surprise.  The  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  who 
 probably  lived  in  the  time  of  Alexander's  succes- 
 sors, had  the  book  of  Kings  before  him,  and  in 
 copying  its  accounts,  occasionally  used  later  and 
 more  common  words  for  words  older  and  more  un- 
 usual (De  \A'ette,  I.  c.  p.  266).  It  is  probable  that 
 during  the  Persian  domination  Tartessus  was  in- 
 
 a  Sir  Emerson  Tennent  has  pointed  out  and  traus- 
 lateila  very  instructive  passage  in  Xenophon,  CEcoiiom. 
 ;ap.  viii.,  in  whicli  there  is  a  detailed  description  of  a 
 large  Phoenician  vessel,  to  ixeyo.  ttKoIov  to  •toirtKoj'. 
 Ihis  seems  to  have  struck  Xenophon  with  the  same 
 
 TARSHISH 
 
 dependent  (Herodotus  i.  163);  at  any  rate,  when 
 first  visited  by  the  Greeks,  it  appears  to  have  had 
 its  own  kings.  It  is  not,  tiierefore,  by  any  means 
 unnatural  that  the  old  trade  of  the  Phcenicians 
 with  Tarshish  had  ceased  to  be  understood ;  and 
 the  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  when  he  read  of 
 "  ships  of  Tarshish,"  presuming,  as  a  matter  of 
 course,  that  tliey  were  destined  for  Tarshish,  con- 
 sulted, as  he  thought,  tiie  convenience  of  his  readers 
 by  inserting  the  explanation  as  part  of  the  text. 
 
 Although,  however,  the  point  to  which  the  fleet 
 of  Solomon  and  Hiram  went  once  in  three  years  did 
 not  bear  the  name  of  Tarshish,  the  question  here 
 arises  of  what  that  point  was,  however  it  was 
 called'?  And  the  reasonable  answer  seems  to  be 
 India,  or  the  Indian  islands.  This  is  shown  iiy  the 
 nature  of  the  imports  with  which  the  fleet  returned, 
 which  are  specified  as  "  gold,  silver,  ivory,  apes, 
 and  peacocks"  (1  K.  x.  22).  The  gold  might 
 possibly  have  been  obtained  from  Africa,  or  from 
 Ophir  in  Arabia  [OpiiikJ,  and  the  ivory  and  the 
 apes  might  likewise  have  been  imported  from 
 Africa;  but  the  peacocks  point  conclusively,  not  to 
 Africa,  but  to  India.  One  of  the  English  transla- 
 tors of  Cuvier's  Aninnd  Kingdom,  London,  182!), 
 vol.  viii.  p.  136,  says,  in  reference  to  this  bird : 
 "  It  has  long  since  been  decided  that  India  was  the 
 cradle  of  the  peacock.  It  is  in  the  countries  of 
 Soutliern  Asia,  and  the  vast  archipelago  of  the 
 Eastern  Ocean,  that  this  bird  appears  to  have  fixed 
 its  dwelling,  and  to  live  in  a  state  of  freedom.  All 
 tra\ellers  who  have  visited  these  countries  make 
 mention  of  these  birds.  Thevenot  encountered 
 great  numbers  of  them  in  the  province  of  Guzzerat; 
 Tavernier  throughout  all  India,  and  Payrard  in  the 
 neighliorhood  of  Calcutta.  Labillardiere  tells  us 
 that  peacocks  are  common  in  the  island  of  Java." 
 To  this  may  be  added  the  statement  of  Sir  William 
 .lardine,  N(duruUsVs  Library,  vol.  xx.  p.  147. 
 There  are  only  two  species  "  known ;  both  inhabit 
 the  continent  and  islands  of  India  "  —  so  that  the 
 mention  of  the  peacock  seems  to  exclude  the  possi- 
 bility of  the  voyage  having  been  to  Africa.  Mr. 
 Crawfurd,  indeed,  in  his  excellent  Descriptive  Dic- 
 tionary of  the  Indian  Islands,  p.  310,  expresses  an 
 opinion  that  the  liirds  are  more  likely  to  have  been 
 parrots  than  peacocks;  and  he  objects  to  the  pea- 
 cock, that,  independent  of  its  great  size,  it  is  of 
 delicate  constitution,  which  would  make  it  nearly 
 impossible  to  convey  it  in  small  vessels  and  by  a 
 long  sea  voyage.  It  is  proper,  however,  to  mention, 
 on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Gould,  whose  splendid 
 works  on  birds  are  so  well  known,  that  the  peacock 
 is  by  no  means  a  bird  of  delicate  constitution,  and 
 tliat  it  would  liear  a  sea  voyage  very  well.  Mr. 
 Gould  observes  that  it  might  be  easily  fed  during  a 
 long  voyage,  as  it  lives  on  grain ;  and  that  it  would 
 merely  have  been  necessary,  in  order  to  keep  it  in 
 a  cage,  to  have  cut  off  its  train ;  which,  it  is  to  be 
 observed,  falls  off  of  itself,  and  is  naturally  renewed 
 once  a  year. 
 
 The  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  importation 
 of  peacocks  is  confirmed  by  the  Hel)rew  name  for 
 the  ape  and  the  peacock.  Neither  of  these  names 
 is  of  Hebrew,  or  even  Shemitic  origin;  and  each 
 points  to  India.*    Thus  the  Hebrew  M'ord  for  ape  is 
 
 kind  of  admiration  which  every  one  feels  who  be- 
 comes acquainted  for  the  first  time  with  the  arrange- 
 ments of  an  English  man-of-war.  See  Encyd.  Bri- 
 taniiira,  8th  ed.  s.  v.  "  Tarshish."' 
 
 b  The     word    "  shenhabhim  ■'  =  ivory,    is    liliewise 
 
I 
 
 TAKSHISH 
 
 Kc'iph,  while  the  Sanskrit  word  is  kapi  (see  Gese- 
 nius  and  Fiirst,  s.  v ,  and  Max  Miiller,  On  the  >S'c/- 
 ence  <>/'  Lciuymiffe,  p.  I'JO).  Again,  the  Hebrew 
 word  for  peacock  is  iidfci,  which  caiuiot  be  ex- 
 plained in  Hebrew,  but  is  akin  to  (oka  in  the  Tanjil 
 language,  in  wliich  it  is  likewise  capable  of  expla- 
 nation. Thus,  the  liev.  Dr.  R.  Caldwell,  than  whom 
 there  is  no  greater  authority  on  the  Tamil  language, 
 writes  as  follows  from  I'alamcottah,  Madras,  June 
 12,  1802:  "  Tuka"  is  a  well  recognized  Tamil  word 
 for  peacock,  though  now  used  only  in  poetry.  The 
 Sanskrit  si/cki  refers  to  the  peculiar  crest  of  the 
 peacock,  and  means  (aris)  cristaUi ;  the  Tiunil  tiikd 
 refers  to  the  other  and  still  mure  marked  peculiarity 
 of  the  peacock,  its  tail  [i.  e.  its  train),  and  means 
 ((irk)  cauLiiln.  The  Tamil  tdka  signifies,  accord- 
 ing to  the  dictionaries,  '  plumage,  the  peacock's  tail, 
 the  peacock,  the  end  of  a  skirt,  a  flag,  and,  lastly,  a 
 woman  '  (a  comparison  of  guyly-dressed  women  with 
 peacocks  being  implied).  The  explanation  of  all 
 these  meanings  is,  that  tuka  literally  means  that 
 which  hangs  —  a  hanging.  Hence  iokhal,  another 
 form  of  tlie  same  word  in  provincial  use  in  Tamil 
 (see  also  the  tui/((i  of  Kcidiger  in  Gesenius's  77; e- 
 Sf(tirus,  p.  1502),  means  'skirt,'  and  hi  Telugu, 
 tiikd  means  a  tail."  It  is  to  be  observed,  however, 
 that,  if  there  was  any  positive  evidence  of  the 
 voyage  having  been  to  Africa,  the  Indian  origin  of 
 the  Hebrew  name  for  ape  and  peacock  would  not  be 
 of  much  weiglit,  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
 Hebrews  first  became  acquainted  with  the  names  of 
 these  animals  through  Solomon's  naval  expeditions 
 S-om  EzioM-geber.  Still,  this  Indian  origin  of 
 those  names  must  be  regarded  as  important  in  the 
 absence  of  any  e\'idence  in  favor  of  Africa,  and  in 
 conjunction  with  the  fact  that  the  peacock  is  an 
 Indian  and  not  an  African  bird.'' 
 
 It  is  only  to  be  added,  that  there  are  not  suf- 
 ficient data  for  determining  what  were  the  ports  in 
 India  or  the  Indian  i.^ands  which  were  reached  by 
 the  fleet  of  Hiram  and  Solomon.  Sir  lunerson 
 Tennent  has  made  a  suggestion  of  Puiiit  (/k  Uallf, 
 ill  C'e\lon,  on  the  ground  that  from  three  centuries 
 before  the  Christian  era  there  is  one  unbroken 
 chain  of  evidence  down  to  the  present  time,  to 
 prove  that  it  \vas  the  grand  emporium  for  the  com- 
 merce of  all  nations  east  of  the  lied  Sea.  [See 
 article  TAKSiiitiii,  al)Ove.]  But  however  reasonable 
 this  suggestion  may  be,  it  can  only  be  received  as 
 a  pure  conjecture,  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  evidence 
 that  any  emporium  at  all  was  in  existence  at  the 
 Point  de  Galle  700  years  earlier.  It  can  scarcely 
 be  doubted  that  there  will  always  henceforth  be  an 
 emporium  at  Singapore;  and  it  might  seem  a  spot 
 marked  out  l)y  nature  for  the  commerce  of  nations: 
 yet  we  know  how  fallacious  it  would  be,  under  any 
 circumstances,  to  argue  2,000  years  hence  that  it 
 must  have  been  a  great  emporium  in   the  twelfth 
 
 u.sually  regarded  as  of  Indian  origin,  "  ibha  "  being 
 in  Sanskrit,  "  elephant."  But  "  shenhabbim,''  or 
 "  shenhav^m,"  as  the  word  would  be  without  points, 
 is  nowhere  used  for  ivory  e.Kcept  in  oonnectioa  with 
 this  vo.v  age,  the  usual  word  for  ivory  being  shen  by 
 itself.  The  conjecture  ot  Rodiger  in  Gesenius's  The- 
 aanriis,  s.  v.  is  very  probable,  that  the  correct  reading 
 
 is  D^^^n  Str.  ivory  (and)  ebony  =  shen  habnim, 
 which  is  remarkably  confirmed  by  a  passage  in  Eze- 
 kiel  (xxvii.  l.'i).  wliere  he  speaks  of  the  men  of  Dodan 
 having   brouglit   to  Tyre  horns  of  ivory  and  ebony. 
 
 TARSUS 
 
 181 
 
 century,  or  even  previous  to  the  nineteenth  centurv, 
 of  the  Christian  era.  E.  T. 
 
 *  In  addition  to  the  two  cities  in  the  extreme 
 East  and  West,  there  were  others  called  Tarshish. 
 One  of  these.  Tarsus  of  Cilicia,  has  a  fair  claim  to 
 recognition  as  mentioned  in  the  0.  T.  as  well  as 
 the  N.  T.    That  tlie  name  is  the  same  is  shown  on 
 
 the  one  hand  by  the  Sept.  rendering  of  tt^'^tp'^J^ 
 in  Gen.  x.  4,  Jon.  i.  3,  Qdpoets,  and  l)y  the  same 
 rendering  liy  other  (ireek  interpreters  in  other 
 passages  (Is.  ii.  IG,  xxiii.  10;  Ez.  xxxviii.  13);  and 
 on  the  other  hand,  by  the  fact  that  in  the  N.  T. 
 the  Greek  Tapa6s  is  uniformly  rendered  in  the 
 ancient  Syriac  of  Acts  ix.  11,  30,  xi.  25,  xxi.  39, 
 
 xxii.  3,  *-COQ.COi.^,  and  in  the  modern  Hebrew 
 ffi'^tt^'^in.    Now  Tarsus  of  Cilicia  is  said  to  have 
 
 been  founded  by  the  Assyrian  king  Sardanapalua 
 (Smith's  Diet,  of  Greek  and  Rom.  Geo/jr.  s.  v.), 
 and  therefore  in  the  time  of  Jonah  would  naturally 
 have  been  in  active  communication  with  Nineveh. 
 If  tlien  we  may  suppose  Tarsus  of  Cilicia  to  be  the 
 Tarshish  of  the  book  of  Jonah,  we  readily  see  how 
 tiie  prophet  might  have  found  at  Joppa  a  vessel 
 |}Oimd  for  this  port.  The  prophet's  story,  carried 
 by  the  ship's  crew  to  Tarsus,  would  thence  have 
 gone  on  before  him  to  Nineveh,  and  would  have 
 prepared  the  city  to  receive  his  preaching.  It  is 
 interesting  to  think  of  this  city  as  thus  possibly 
 connected  with  the  ancient  propiiet  sent  to  the 
 heathen,  and  with  the  Christian  Apostle  sent  to  tha 
 Gentiles.  F.  G. 
 
 TAR'SUS  {Tapff6s).  The  chief  town  of  Cili- 
 Ci.\,  "  no  mean  city  "  in  other  respects,  but  illu.<« 
 trious  to  all  time  as  the  birthplace  and  early 
 residence  of  the  Apostle  I'aul  (Acts  ix.  11,  xxi. 
 39,  xxii.  3).  It  is  simply  in  this  point  of  view  that 
 the  place  is  mentioned  in  tlie  three  passages  just 
 rel'erred  to.  And  the  only  other  passages  in  which 
 the  name  occurs  are  Acts  ix.  30  and  xi.  2.5,  which 
 give  the  limits  of  that  residence  in  his  native  town 
 which  succeeded  the  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after 
 his  conversion,  and  preceded  his  active  ministerial 
 work  at  Antioch  and  elsewhere  (compare  Acts  xxii. 
 21  and  Gal.  i.  21).  Though  Tarsus,  however,  is 
 not  actually  mentioned  elsewhere,  there  is  little 
 doubt  that  St.  Paul  was  there  at  the  beginning  of 
 his  second  and  third  missionary  journeys  (Acts  xv 
 41,  xviii.  23). 
 
 Even  in  the  flourishing  period  of  Greek  history 
 it  was  a  city  of  some  considerable  consequence  i  Xeii. 
 Aniibi  i.  2,  §  23).  After  Alexander's  conquests  had 
 swept  this  way  (Q.  Curt.  iii.  5),  and  the  Seleucid 
 kingdom  was  established  at  Antioch,  Tarsus  usually 
 belonged  to  that  kingdom,  though  for  a  time  it  was 
 under  the  Ptolemies.     In  the  civil  wars  of  Rome 
 
 «  The  Greeks  received  the  peacock  through  the 
 Persians,  as  is  shown  by  the  Greek  name  taos,  raws 
 which  is  nearly  identical  with  the  Persian  name  tafis, 
 
 ,  uy«Ll5.      The  fact  that  the  peacock  is  mentioned 
 
 for  the  first  time  in  Aristophanes,  Aves, 102,  269  (being 
 unknown  to  the  Homeric  poems),  agrees  with  this 
 Persian  origin. 
 
 ''  *  When  it  is  said  (2  Chr.  ix.  21)  tliafc  "  once  every 
 three  years  came  the  ships  of  Tarshish,"'  it  is  fairly 
 implied  that  the  length  of  a  voyage  corresponded  in 
 some  measure  with  the  interval  of  time  at  which  it 
 was  repeated.  This  accords  very  well  with  aTirsliish 
 iu  India,  but  not  with  a  Tarshish  in  Spain.      ¥.  G. 
 
8182  TARTAR 
 
 it  took  Caesar's  side,  and  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit 
 from  him  had  its  name  chanj^ed  to  Juliopolis  (Cfes. 
 Bdl.  Akx.aOi;  Dion  Cass,  xlvii.  20).  Augustus 
 made  it  a  •'  free  city."  We  are  not  to  suppose 
 ihat  St.  Paul  had,  or  could  have,  his  Itoman  citizen- 
 ship from  tills  circumstance,  nor  would  it  be  neces- 
 sary to  mention  this,  hut  that  many  respectalile 
 commentators  have  fallen  into  this  error.  We 
 oun;ht  to  note,  on  the  other  hand,  the  circumstances 
 in  the  social  state  of  Tarsus,  which  had,  or  may  be 
 conceived  to  have  bad,  an  influence  on  the  Apostle's 
 training  and  character.  It  was  renowned  as  a 
 place  of  education  under  the  early  Roman  emperors. 
 Strabo  compares  it  in  this  respect  to  Athens  and 
 
 TARTAN 
 
 Alexandria,  givins;,  as  regards  the  zeal  for  learning 
 showed  by  the  residents,  the  preference  to  Tarsus 
 (xiv.  073).  Some  eminent  Stoics  resided  here, 
 among  others  Athenodorus,  the  tutor  of  Augustus, 
 and  Nestor,  the  tutor  of  Tiberius.  Tarsus  also  was 
 a  place  of  much  conunerce,  and  St.  Basil  describes 
 it  as  a  point  of  union  for  Syrians,  Cilicians,  Isaur- 
 ians,  and  Cappadocians  (IJasil,  Ep.  Jiuseb.  Samus. 
 EpUc. ). 
 
 Tarsus  was  situated  in  a  wide  and  fertile  plain 
 on  the  banks  of  the  Cydnus,  the  waters  of  which 
 are  famous  for  the  dangerous  fever  caught  by  Alex- 
 ander when  bathini;,  and  for  the  meeting  of  Antony 
 and  Cleopatra.    This  jiart  of  Cilicia  was  intersected 
 
 in  Roman  times  by  good  roads,  especially  one  cross- 
 ing the  Tarsus  northwards  Iiy  the  "  Cilician  dates" 
 to  the  neighborhood  of  Lystra  and  Iconium,  the 
 other  joining  Tarsus  with  Antioch,  and  passing 
 eastwards  by  the  •' Amanian"  and  "  Syrian  (iates." 
 No  ruins  of  any  importance  remain.    The  following 
 
 Coin  of  Tarsus 
 
 authorities  may  be  consulted :  Belley  in  vol.  xxvii. 
 of  the  Ac'idemie  ch-s  Jnscrijit. ;  Beaufort's  Kara- 
 mnniii,  p.  27-5  ;  Le.ake's  Asia  Minm;  p.  214; 
 Barkers  Lures  (nid  Penates,  pp.  31,  173,  187. 
 
 J.  S.  H. 
 
 TAR'TAK  (priori  [see  below]  :  ©apflcJ/c : 
 Tharihac).  One  of  the  gods  of  the  Avite,  or  Av- 
 rite,  colonists  who  were  planted  in  the  cities  of 
 
 Samaria  after  the  remiiv:il  cjf  the  tribes  by  Shal- 
 mniiesor  (2  K.  xvii.  31 ).  According  to  Rabbinical 
 tradition.  Tartak  is  said  to  have  lieen  worshipped 
 under  the  form  of  an  ass  (Talm.  Babl.  Saiiliei/rin, 
 fol.  03  h).  From  this  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
 this  idol  was  the  Kgyptian  Typho,  but  though  in 
 the  hieroglyphics  the  ass  is  the  symbol  of  Ty])lio, 
 it  was  so  far  from  being  regarded  as  an  ol  ject  of 
 worship,  that  it  was  ccinsidered  absolutely  unclean 
 (I'liit.  /f.  et  Os.  c.  14).  A  Persian  or  Pehlvi 
 origin  has  been  suggested  for  Tartak,  according  to 
 which  it  signifies  either  "  intense  darkness,"  or 
 "hero  of  darkness,"  or  the  underworld,  and  so 
 perhaps  some  planet  of  ill-luck  as  Saturn  or  !Mars 
 (Ges.  77/cs. ;  I'iirst,  lliimlwb.).  'i'he  Carmanians, 
 a  warlike  race  on  the  Persian  Gulf,  worshipjieil 
 Mars  alone  of  all  the  gods,  and  sacrificed  an  ass 
 in  his  honor  (Stralio,  xv.  727).  I'erliaps  some 
 trace  of  this  worshii)  m.ay  have  gi\en  rise  to  the 
 •Jewish  tradition.  W.  A.  AV. 
 
 TAR'TAN  ilPTin  [see  below]  :  ©apBiv 
 [Vat.  QavQav],  TavaQaV,  [in  Is.,  Vat.^  Sin.  Alex. 
 Naflav:]  ThuHhnn),  which  occurs  only  in  2  K. 
 xviii.  17,  and  Is.  xx.  1,  has  been  generally  regarded 
 as  a  proper  name.  (Gesen.  Lex.  Ileb.  s.  v. ;  AV'iner, 
 RenlwoHerbucli  ;     Kitto,    Bibl.  '  Cyclojjced.,     etc.) 
 
TATNAI 
 
 Winer  assumes,  on  account  of  the  identity  of  name, 
 that  the  same  person  is  intended  in  the  two  places. 
 Kitto,  with  more  caution,  notes  that  this  is  uncer- 
 tain. Recent  discoveries  make  it  probable  that  in 
 Tartan,  as  in  Kabsaris  and  Kabsliakeh,  we  have  not 
 a  proper  name  at  all,  but  a  title  or  otticial  desii^na- 
 tion,  like  l*h:ii-aoh  or  Surena.«  The  Assyrian  Tttr- 
 tnn  is  a  ijeneral,  or  commander-in-chief.  It  seems 
 as  if  the  (ireek  translator  of  2  Kin<j;s  had  an  inklinn; 
 of  the  truth,  and  therefore  prefixed  the  article  to 
 all  three  names  (aTreVreiAe  ^acnXehs  ^Acra-upiaiu 
 rhv  QapOav  Kal  rhv  'Pa(^iy  ( V)  koI  rov  'Paifa- 
 Kriv  Trphs  tuv  ^aaiKea  'E(eKiav),  which  he  very 
 rarely  prefixes  to  the  names  of  persons  where  they 
 are  first  mentioned. 
 
 If  this  be  the  true  account  of  the  term  Taiinn, 
 we  must  understand  m  2  K.  xviii.  17,  that  Sen- 
 nacherib sent  "a  (general,"  together  with  his  "  chief 
 eunuch"  and  "chief  cup-bearer,"  on  an  embassy 
 to  Hezekiah,  and  in  Is.  xx.  1  that  "  a  general  "  — 
 probably  a  different  person  —  was  employed  by 
 Sargon  against  Ashdod,  and  succeeded  in  taking 
 the  city.  G.  li. 
 
 TAT'NAI  [2  syl]  O^nn  [perh.  ffi/l]  : 
 ©avOai/ai^  [Vat.  @avavai,  Qai^Oauas,  Tavdavar,] 
 Alex,  eaedavai,    [Oaedavais  ■■]     TliKtluimd:     Si- 
 
 monis,  (iesenins,  Fiirst),  Satrap  (nPID)  of  the  prov- 
 ince west  of  the  Euphrates  in  the  time  of  Darius 
 Hystaspis  and  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  v.  -3,  0,  vi.  6,  13). 
 [Shktiiau-Boznai.]  The  name  is  thought  to  be 
 Persian.  A.  C.  II. 
 
 *  TAU  or  TAV,  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters. 
 [Wkitixg.]  H. 
 
 TAVERNS,  THE  THREE.  [TiiiiEE 
 Tavehxs.] 
 
 TAXES.  In  the  history  of  Israel,  as  of  other 
 nations,  the  student  who  desires  to  form  a  just 
 estimate  of  the  social  condition  of  the  people  must 
 take  into  account  the  taxes  which  they  had  to  pay. 
 According  as  these  are  light  or  heavy  may  vary  the 
 happiness  and  prosperity  of  a  nation.  To  them, 
 though  lying  in  the  background  of  history,  may 
 often  be  traced,  as  to  the  true  motive-power,  many 
 political  revolutions.  Within  the  limits  of  the 
 present  article,  it  will  not  be  {jossible  to  do  more 
 than  indicate  the  extent  and  form  of  taxation  in 
 the  several  periods  of  Jewish  history  and  its  influ- 
 ence on  the  life  of  the  people. 
 
 I.  Under  the  .ludges,  according  to  the  theocratic 
 government  contemplated  by  the  law,  the  only  pay- 
 ments obligatory  upon  the  people  as  of  permanent 
 obUgation  were  the  Tithes,  the  Fiust  Fkuits, 
 the  Kedemption-money  of  the  first-born,  and 
 other  otterings  as  belonging  to  special  occasions 
 [Pkiests].  The  payment  by  each  Israelite  of  the 
 half-sliekel  as  "  atonement-money,"  for  the  service 
 of  the  Tabernacle,  on  taking  the  census  of  the  people 
 (Ex.  XXX.  13),  does  not  appear  to  have  had  the 
 character  of  a  recurring  tax,  but  to  have  been  sup- 
 plementary to  the  free-will  offerings  of  Ex.  xxv. 
 1-7,  levied  for  the  one  pui'pose  of  the  construction 
 of  the  sacred  tent.  In  later  times,  indeed,  after  the 
 return  from  Babylon,  there  was  an  annual  payment 
 
 TAXES 
 
 ;i83 
 
 «  Surena,  the  Parthian  term  for  "  a  general,"  was 
 often  mistaken  for  a  proper  name  by  the  classical 
 writers.  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  23  ;  Appian,  Bell.  Parlh.  p. 
 140  ;  Dion  Cas.s.  xl.  16  ;  Pint.  Crass,  p.  561,  E,  etc.) 
 Tacitus  is  tlie  first  aufhor  who  seems  to  be  aware  tliat 
 it  is  a  title  {Ann.  vi.  42). 
 
 for  maintaining  the  fabric  and  services  of  the 
 Temple;  but  the  fact  that  this  begins  by  the  vol- 
 untary compact  to  pay  one  third  of  a  shekel  (Neh 
 X.  32)  shows  that  till  then  there  was  no  such  pay- 
 ment recognized  as  necessary.  A  little  later  the 
 third  became  a  half,  and  under  the  name  of  the 
 didriichiiKi  (Matt.  xvii.  24)  was  paid  by  every  Jew, 
 in  whatever  part  of  the  world  he  might  be  living 
 (Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  9,  §  1).  Large  sums  were  thus 
 collected  in  Babylon  and  other  eastern  cities,  and 
 were  sent  to  Jerusalem  under  a  special  escort  (Jos. 
 Ant.  1.  c. ;  Cic.  pro  Flacc.  c.  28).  We  have  no 
 trace  of  any  further  taxation  than  this  during  the 
 period  of  tiie  Judges.  It  was  not  in  itself  heavy: 
 it  was  lightened  by  the  feeling  that  it  was  paid  as 
 a  religious  act.  In  return  for  it  the  peojjle  secured 
 the  celebration  of  their  worship,  and  the  presence 
 among  them  of  a  body  of  men  acting  more  or  less 
 efficiently  as  priests,  judges,  teachers,  perliaps  also 
 as  physicians.  [Pkiests.J  We  cannot  wonder 
 that  the  people  should  afterwards  look  baciv  to  the 
 good  old  days  when  they  had  been  so  lightly  bur- 
 dened. 
 
 II.  The  kingdom,  with  its  centralized  govern- 
 ment and  greater  magnificence,  involved,  of  course, 
 a  larger  expenditure,  and  therefore  a  heavier  taxa- 
 tion. Tliis  may  have  come,  during  the  long  his- 
 tory of  the  monarchy,  in  many  dittijrent  forms, 
 according  to  the  financial  necessities  of  the  times. 
 The  chief  burdens  appear  to  have  been:  (1.)  A  tithe 
 of  the  produce  both  of  the  soil  and  of  live  stock, 
 making,  together  with  the  ecclesiastical  tithe,  20 
 per  cent,  on  incomes  of  this  nature  (1  Sam.  viii. 
 1.5,  17).  (2.)  Forced  military  service  for  a  month 
 every  year  (1  Sam.  viii.  12;  1  K.  ix.  22;  1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  1).  (3.)  Gifts  to  the  king,  theoretically  free, 
 like  the  old  Benevolences  of  English  taxation,  but 
 expected  as  a  thing  of  course,  at  the  connnence- 
 ment  of  a  reign  (1  Sam.  x.  27)  or  in  time  of  war 
 (comp.  the  gifts  of  Je.s.se,  1  Sam.  xvi.  20,  xvii.  18). 
 In  the  case  of  subject-princes  the  gifts,  still  made 
 in  kind,  armor,  horses,  gold,  silver,  etc.,  appear  to 
 have  been  regularly  assessed  (1  K.  x.  2.5;  2  Chr. 
 ix.  24).  Whether  this  was  ever  the  case  with  the 
 jiresents  from  Israelite  subjects  must  remain  uncer- 
 tain. (4.)  Import  duties,  chiefly  on  the  produce 
 of  the  spice  districts  of  Arabia  (1  K.  x.  15).  (5.) 
 The  monopoly  of  certain  branches  of  commerce,  as, 
 for  example,  that  of  gold  (1  K.  ix.  28,  xxii.  48), 
 fine  linen  or  byssus  from  Egypt  (1  K.  x.  28),  and 
 hor.ses  (ibid.  ver.  29).  (6.)  The  appropriation  to 
 the  king's  use  of  the  early  crop  of  hay  (Am.  vii.  1). 
 This  may,  however,  have  been  peculiar  to  the 
 northern  kingdom  or  occasioned  by  a  special  emer- 
 gency (Ewald,  Proph.  in  loc.).* 
 
 It  is  obvious  that  burdens  such  as  these,  coming 
 upon  a  people  previously  unaccustomed  to  them, 
 must  have  been  almost  intolerable.  Even  under 
 Saul  exemption  from  taxes  is  looked  on  as  a 
 sufficient  reward  for  great  military  services  (1 
 Sam.  xvii.  25).  Under  the  outward  splendor  and 
 prosperity  of  the  reign  of  Solomon  there  lay  the 
 deep  discontent  of  an  over-taxed  people,  and  it 
 contributed  largely  to  the  revolution  that  followed. 
 The  people  complain  not  of  Solomon's  idolatry 
 but  of  their  taxes  (1  K.  xii.  4).  Of  ail  the  king's 
 officers  he  whom  they  hate  most  is  Aooram  or 
 
 f  The  history  of  the  drought  in  the  reign  ot  Ahah 
 (1  K.  xviii.  5)  shows  that  in  such  cases  a  power  like 
 this  must  have  been  essential  to  the  support  of  tha 
 cavalry  of  the  royal  army. 
 
3184  TAXES 
 
 Adoniram,  who  was  "  over  the  tribute "  (1  K. 
 ^ii.  18).  At  times,  too,  in  the  history  of  both 
 the  kingdoms  there  were  special  burdens.  A  trib- 
 ute of  50  shekels  a  head  had  to  be  paid  by  Mena- 
 hem  to  the  Assyrian  king  (2  Iv.  xv.  '20),  and 
 under  his  successor  Hoshea,  this  assumed  the  form 
 of  an  annual  tribute  (2  K.  xvii.  4;  amount  not 
 stated).  After  tlie  defeat  of  Josiah  by  Tharaoh- 
 Necho,  in  like  manner  a  heavy  income-tax  had  to 
 be  imposed  on  the  kingdom  of  Judah  to  pay  tlie 
 tribute  demanded  by  Egypt  (2  K.  xxiii.  35),  and 
 the  change  of  masters  consequent  on  the  battle  of 
 Carchemish  brought  in  this  respect  no  improve- 
 ment (.los.  Ant.  x.  9,  §§  1-3). 
 
 III.  Under  the  Persian  empire,  the  taxes  paid 
 by  the  .Jews  were,  in  their  broad  outlines,  the 
 same  in  kind  as  those  of  other  subject  races.  The 
 financial  system  which  gained  for  Darius  Hystaspis 
 the  name  of  the  "shopkeeper  king"  (KaTTjAos, 
 Herod,  iii.  89),  involved  the  payment  by  each 
 satrap  of  a  fixed  sum  as  the  tribute  due  from  his 
 province  (ibid.),  and  placed  him  accordingly  in  the 
 position  of  a  piMicanus,  or  farmer  of  the  revenue, 
 exposed  to  all  the  temptation  to  extortion  and 
 tyranny  inseparable  iioni  such  a  system.  Here, 
 accordingly,  we  get  glimpses  of  taxes  of  many 
 kinds.  In  Judtea,  as  in  other  provinces,  the  in- 
 habitants had  to  provide  in  kind  for  the  mainte- 
 nance of  the  governor's  household  (comp.  the  case 
 of  Themistocles,  Thuc.  i.  138,  and  Herod,  i.  192, 
 ii.  98),  besides  a  money-payment  of  40  shekels  a 
 day  (Neh.  v.  14,  15).  In  Ezr.  iv.  13,  20,  vii.  24. 
 we  get  a  formal  enumeration  of  the  three  great 
 
 branches  of  the  revenue.  (1.)  The  IT^P,  fixed, 
 measured  payment,  probably  direct  taxation  (Gro- 
 tius).      (2.)   172,  the  excise  or  octrui  on  articles 
 
 of  consumption  (Gesen.  s.  v.).  (3.)  T|7n,  prob- 
 ably the  toll  payable  at  bridges,  fords,  or  certain 
 stations  on  the  high  road.  The  influence  of  Ezra 
 secured  for  the  whole  ecclesiastical  order,  from  the 
 priests  down  to  the  Nethinim,  an  imnmnity  from 
 all  three  (Ezr.  vii.  24);  but  the  burden  pressed 
 heavily  on  the  great  body  of  the  people,  and  they 
 complained  bitterly  both  of  this  and  of  the  017- 
 yapii'iov,  or  forced  service,  to  which  they  and  their 
 cattle  were  liable  (Neh.  ix.  37).  They  were  com- 
 pelled to  mortgage  their  vineyards  and  fields,  bor- 
 rowing money  at  12  per  cent.,  the  interest  being 
 payable  apparently  either  in  money  or  in  kind 
 (Neh.  V.  1-11).  Failing  payment,  the  creditors 
 exercised  the  power  (with  or  without  the  mitiga- 
 tion of  the  year  of  Juuilee)  of  seizing  the  per- 
 sons of  the  debtors  and  treating  them  as  slaves 
 (Neh.  V.  5;  conip.  2  K.  iv.  1).  Taxation  was 
 leading  at  Jerusalem  to  precisely  the  same  evils  as 
 those  which  appeared  i'rom  like  causes  in  the  early 
 history  of  Rome.  To  this  cause  may  probably 
 be  ascribed  the  incomplete  payment  of  tithes  or 
 offerings  at  this  iieriod  (Neh.  xiii.  10,  12;  Mai. 
 iii.  8),  and  the  consequent  necessity  of  a  special 
 poll-tax  of  the  third  part  of  a  shekel  for  the  ser- 
 vices of  the  Temple  (Neh.  x.  32).  What  could  be 
 done  to  mitigate  the  evil  was  done  by  Nehemiah, 
 but  the  taxes  contihued,  and  oppression  and  injus- 
 tice marked  the  government  of  the  pro\ince  accord- 
 ingly (Eccl.  v.  8).« 
 
 IV.  Under  the  Egyptian  and  Syrian  kings  the 
 
 a  The  later  date  of  the  book  is  assumed  in  thi5 
 reference.     Comp.  Eccles^astes. 
 
 TAXES 
 
 taxes  paid  by  the  Jews  became  yet  heavier.  The 
 "  farming  "  system  of  finance  was  adopted  in  its 
 worst  form.  The  Persian  governors  had  had  to 
 pay  a  fixed  sum  into  the  treasury.  Now  the  taxes 
 were  put  up  to  auction.  The  contract  sum  for 
 those  of  Phoenicia,  Judaea,  Samaria,  had  lieen  es- 
 timated at  about  8.000  talents.  An  unscrupulous 
 adventurer  (e.  g.  Joseph,  under  Ptolemy  Euergetes) 
 would  bid  double  that  sum,  and  would  then  go 
 down  to  the  province,  and  Ijy  violence  and  cruelty, 
 like  that  of  Turkish  or  Hindoo  collectors,  squeeze 
 out  a  large  margin  of  profit  for  himself  (Jos.  Ant. 
 xii.  4,  §  1-5). 
 
 Under  the  Syrian  kings  we  meet  with  an  ingen- 
 ious variety  of  taxation.  Direct  tribute  {(p6poi), 
 an  excise  duty  on  salt,  crown-taxes  {(rrecpauot, 
 golden  crowns,  or  their  value,  sent  yearly  to  the 
 king),  one  half  the  produce  of  fruit  trees,  one  third 
 that  of  corn  land,  a  t.ax  of  some  kind  on  cattle: 
 these,  as  the  heaviest  burdens,  are  ostentatiously 
 enumerated  in  the  decrees  of  the  two  Demetriuses 
 remitting  them  (1  Mace.  x.  29,  30,  xi.  35).  Even 
 after  this,  however,  the  golden  crown  and  scarlet 
 robe  continue  to  be  sent  (1  Maec.  xiii.  39).  The 
 proposal  of  the  apostate  Jason  to  farm  the  revenues 
 at  a  rate  above  the  average  (400  talents,  while 
 Jonathan  —  1  Alacc.  xi.  28  — pays  300  only),  and 
 to  pay  150  talents  more  for  a  license  to  open  a 
 circus  (2  Mace.  iv.  9),  gives  us  a  glimpse  of 
 another  source  of  revenue.  The  exemption  given 
 by  Antiochus  to  the  priests  and  other  ministers, 
 with  the  deduction  of  one  third  for  all  the  residents 
 in  Jerusalem,  was  apparently  only  temporary  (Jos. 
 Ant.  xii.  3,  §  3). 
 
 V.  The  pressure  of  Roman  taxation,  if  not 
 absolutely  heavier,  was  probably  more  galling,  as 
 being  more  thorough  and  systematic,  more  dis- 
 tinctively a  mark  of  bondage.  The  captme  of 
 Jerusalem  by  Ponipey  was  followed  immediately 
 by  the  imposition  of  a  tribute,  and  witiiin  a  short 
 time  the  sum  thus  taken  from  the  resources  of  the 
 country  amounted  to  10,000  talents  (Jos.  Ant.  xiv. 
 4,  §§  4,  5).  The  decrees  of  Julius  Ca;sar  showed 
 a  characteristic  desire  to  lighten  the  burdens  that 
 pressed  upon  the  subjects  of  the  republic.  The 
 tribute  was  not  to  be  farmed.  It  was  not  to  be 
 levied  at  all  in  the  Sabbatic  year.  One  fourdh 
 only  was  demanded  in  the  year  that  followed  (.Jos. 
 Ant.  xiv.  10,  §§  5,  0).  The  people,  still  under  the 
 government  of  Hyrcanus,  were  thus  protected 
 against  their  own  rulers.  The  struggle  of  the 
 republican  party  after  the  death  of  the  Dictator 
 brought  fresh  burdens  upon  the  whole  of  Syria, 
 and  Cassius  levied  not  less  than  700  talents  from 
 Judtea  alone.  Under  Herod,  as  might  be  expected 
 from  his  lavish  expenditure  in  pul)lic  buildings, 
 the  taxation  became  heavier.  Even  in  years  of 
 famine  a  portion  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  was 
 seized  for  the  royal  revenue  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  9,  §  1), 
 and  it  was  not  till  the  discontent  of  the  people 
 became  formidable  that  he  ostentatiously  dimin- 
 ished this  Ijy  one  third  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  10,  §  4).  It 
 was  no  wonder  that  when  Herod  wished  to  found  a 
 new  city  in  Trachonitis,  and  to  attract  a  (lopulation 
 of  residents,  he  found  that  the  most  eftective  bait 
 was  to  promise  immunity  from  taxes  (Jos.  Ant. 
 xvii.  2,  §  1 ),  or  that  on  his  death  the  people  should 
 be  loud  in  their  demands  that  Archelaus  should 
 release  them  from  their  burdens,  com|)Iaft)ing  spe- 
 cially of  the  duty  levied  on  all  sales  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii. 
 8,  §  4). 
 
 When  Judaja  became  formally  a  Roman  prov- 
 
TAXING 
 
 ince,  the  whole  financial  system  of  the  Empire  came 
 as  a  natural  consequence.  The  taxes  were  sys- 
 tematically farmed,  and  the  publicans  appeared  as 
 a  new  curse  to  the  country.  [Publicans.]  The 
 I'ortoria  were  levied  at  harbors,  piers,  and  the  gates 
 of  cities.  These  were  the  tsAt;  of  JMatt.  xvii.  24; 
 Kom.  xiii.  7.  In  addition  to  this  there  was  the 
 K?)va-os  or  poll-tax  ((.'od.  D.  gives  ewiicecpdAaioi'  iu 
 Mark  xii.  15)  paid  by  every  Jew,  and  looived  upon, 
 for  that  reason,  as  tiie  special  badge  of  servitude. 
 It  was  about  the  lawfulness  of  this  payment  that 
 the  lval)bis  disputed,  while  they  were  content  to 
 acquiesce  in  the  payment  of  the  customs  (Matt. 
 xxii.  17;  Mark  xii.  13;  Luke  xx.  20).  It  was 
 against  this  apparently  that  the  struggles  of  Judas 
 of  Galilee  and  his  folhjwers  were  chiefly  directed 
 (Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  0:  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1).  United 
 with  this,  as  part  of  the  same  system,  there  was 
 also,  in  all  proliability,  a  property-tax  of  some 
 kind.  Quirinus,  after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus, 
 was  sent  to  Syria  to  complete  the  work  —  begun, 
 probably,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  birth  —  of 
 valuing  and  registering  property  [Cykknius,  Ta.y- 
 ing],  and  this  would  hardly  have  been  necessary 
 for  a  mere  poll-tax.  The  intluence  of  Joazar  the 
 high-priest  led  the  people  generally  (the  followers 
 of  Judas  and  the  Pharisee  Sadduc  were  the  only 
 marked  exceptions)  to  acquiesce  in  this  measure 
 and  to  make  the  required  returns  (Jos.  4nt-  xviii. 
 1,  §  1);  but  their  discontent  still  continued,  and, 
 under  Tiberius,  they  applied  for  some  alleviation 
 (Tac.  Ann.  ii.  42).  In  addition  to  these  general 
 taxes,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  subject  to 
 a  special  house-duty  about  this  jieriod;  Agrippa,  in 
 his  desire  to  reward  the  good-will  of  the  people,  re 
 mitted  it  (.los.  Ant  xix.  6,  §  -i). 
 
 It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  in  this,  as  in  most 
 other  cases,  an  oppressive  taxation  tended  greatly 
 to  demoralize  the  people.  Manj-  of  the  most  glar- 
 ing faults  of  the  .lewisli  character  are  distinctly 
 traceable  to  it.  The  fierce,  vindictive  cruelty  of 
 the  Galilreans,  the  Zealots,  the  Sicarii,  was  its 
 natural  fruit.  It  was  not  the  least  striking  proof 
 that  the  teaching  of  our  Lonl  and  his  disciples  was 
 more  than  the  natural  outrush  of  popular  feeling, 
 that  it  sought  to  raise  men  to  the  higher  region  in 
 which  all  such  matters  wei-e  regarded  as  things 
 indifferent;  and,  instead  of  expressing  the  popular 
 impatience  of  taxation,  gave,  as  the  true  counsel, 
 the  precept  "  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
 are  Caesar's,"  "  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due, 
 custom  to  whom  custom."  E.  H.  P. 
 
 TAXING.  1.  (ri  a.TToypacp'fi  ■  (lescriptlo,  L,u]ie 
 ii.  2;  pnifegsio,  Acts  v.  37)  The  cognate  verb 
 airoypdipeaOai  in  like  manner  is  rendered  by  "  to 
 be  taxed  "  in  the  A.  V.,«  while  the  Vulgate  em- 
 ploys "  at  de.scriberetur  universus  orbis  "  in  Luke 
 ii.  1,  and  "  ut  protiterentur  singuli "  in  ver.  3. 
 Both  the  Latin  words  thus  used  are  found  in  class- 
 ical writers  with  the  meaning  of  a  registration  or 
 formal  return  of  population  or  property  (Cic.  Verr. 
 ii.  3,  §  47;  (/«  Off.  i.  7;  Sueton.  'J'iber.  p.  30). 
 'I'he  luiglish  word  conveys  to  us  more  distinctly 
 the  notion  of  a  tax  or  tribute  actually  levied,  but 
 it  appears  to  have  been  used  in  the  16th  century 
 for  the  simple  assessment  of  a  sulisidy  upon  the 
 property  of  a  <riven  county  (Hacon,  Hen.  VH.  p. 
 '57 ),  or  the  registration  of  the  people  for  the  pur- 
 
 TAXING 
 
 8185 
 
 o  In  Heb.  xii.  23  {wpmtotokmv  aTroyeypaij.ft.ivtav  iv 
 ovpavoi<;),  where  the  idea  is  that  of  the  registration 
 of  the   tirst-borQ   as   citizens   of   the   heavenly  Jeru- 
 
 pose  of  a  poll-tax  (Camden,  Hist,  of  Mis.).  This 
 may  account  for  the  choice  of  the  word  by  Tindal 
 in  lieu  of  "description"  and  "profession,"  which 
 Wickliffe,  following  the  Vulgate,  had  given.  Since 
 then  "  taxing  "  has  kept  its  ground  in  most  Eng- 
 lish versions  with  the  exception  of  "tribute"  in 
 the  Geneva,  and  "enrolment"  in  the  liheniish  of 
 Acts  V.  37.  The  word  aToypa(p-n  by  itself  leaves 
 the  question  whether  the  returns  made  were  of 
 population  or  property  undetermined.  Josephus, 
 using  the  words  ^  aTron'/xrjo-is  toj;/  ovcnoiv  (Ant. 
 xviii.  1,  §  1)  as  an  equivalent,  shows  that  '■'the 
 taxing  "  of  which  Gamaliel  speaks  included  both. 
 That  connected  with  the  nativity,  the  first  step 
 toward  the  complete  statistical  returns,  was  prob- 
 ably limited  to  the  former  (Greswell,  llarnwni),  i. 
 542).  In  either  case  "census  "  would  have  seemed 
 the  most  natural  Latin  equivalent,  but  in  the  Greek 
 of  the  N.  T.,  and  therefore  probably  in  the  familiar 
 Latin  of  the  period,  as  afterwards  in  the  Vulg., 
 that  word  slides  oft"  into  the  sense  of  the  tribute 
 actually  paid  (Matt.  xvii.  24,  xxii.  17). 
 
 II.  Two  distinct  registrations,  or  taxings,  are 
 mentioned  in  the  N.  T.,  both  of  them  by  St.  Luke. 
 The  first  is  said  to  have  been  the  result  of  an  edict 
 of  the  emperor  Augustus,  that  "  all  the  world  ((.  e. 
 the  Itoman  empire)  should  be  taxed  (dTroypd- 
 (j)ea6ai  izaaav  t)]v  oIkovix4v7)v)  (Luke  ii.  1),  and 
 is  connected  by  the  Evangelist  with  the  name  of 
 Cyrenius,  or  Quirinus.  The  second,  and  more  im- 
 portant (t)  anoypacjiri,  Acts  v.  37),  is  referred  to  in 
 the  report  of  Gamaliel's  speech,  and  is  there  dis- 
 tinctly associated,  in  point  of  time,  with  the  revolt 
 of  .ludas  of  Galilee.  The  account  of  Josephus  (Ant. 
 xviii.  1,  §  1;  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1)  brings  together  the 
 two  names  which  St.  Luke  keeps  distinct,  with  an 
 interval  of  several  years  between  them.  Cyrenius 
 comes  as  governor  of  Syria  after  the  deposition  of 
 Archelaus,  accompanied  by  Coponius  as  procurator 
 of  Judasa.  He  is  sent  to  make  an  assessment  of 
 the  value  of  property  iu  Syria  (no  intimation  being 
 given  of  its  extension  to  the  oiKovixevrj),  and  it  is 
 this  which  rouses  .ludas  and  his  followers  to  their 
 rebellion.  The  chronological  questions  presented 
 by  these  apparent  discrepancies  liave  been  discussed, 
 so  far  as  they  are  connected  with  the  name  of  the 
 governor  of  Syria,  under  Cykenius.  .Vn  account 
 of  the  tumults  caused  by  the  taxing  wiU  be  found 
 under  Judas  of  Galilke. 
 
 I[[.  There  are,  however,  some  other  questions 
 coimected  with  the  statement  of  Luke  ii.  1-3,  which 
 call  for  some  notice. 
 
 (1.)  The  truth  of  the  statement  has  been  ques- 
 tioned by  Strauss  (Leben  Jesu.  i.  28)  and  De  Wette 
 (L'onun.  in  foe),  and  others,  on  the  ground  that 
 neither  Josephus  nor  any  other  contemporary  writer 
 mentions  a  census  extending  over  the  whole  empire 
 at  this  period  (a.  u.  c.  750).  An  edict  like  this, 
 causing  a  general  movement  from  the  cities  where 
 men  resided  to  those 'in  which,  fyr  some  reason  or 
 other,  they  were  to  be  registered,  must,  it  is  said, 
 have  been  a  conspicuous  fact,  such  as  no  historian 
 would  pass  over.  (2.)  Palestine,  it  is  urged  further, 
 was,  at  this  time,  an  independent  kingdom  under 
 Herod,  and  therefore  would  not  have  come  under 
 the  o[)eration  of  an  imperial  edict.  (3.)  If  such  a 
 measure,  involving  the  recognition  of  Ifoman  sov- 
 ereignty, had  been  attempted  under  Herod,  it  would 
 
 salem,   the  A.  V.   has  simply  "  written,"  the  Vulg, 
 "qui  conscripti  sunt." 
 
3186  TAXING 
 
 have  rousefl  the  same  resistance  as  the  undisputed 
 census  under  (iuirinus  did  at  a  later  period.  (4.) 
 The  statement  of  St.  Luke  tliat  "  all  went  to  be 
 taxed,  every  one  into  his  own  city,"  is  said  to  he 
 inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  the  Itonian  census, 
 which  took  coi;nizance  of  the  place  of  residence  only, 
 not  of  the  [)lace  of  birth.  (5.)  Neither  in  the 
 Jewish  nor  the  lionian  census  would  it  have  been 
 necessary  for  tiie  wife  to  travel  with  her  husband 
 in  order  to  a[)pear  pei'sonally  before  the  registrar 
 {ccnsitvr).  Tlie  conclusions  from  all  these  objec- 
 tions are,  that  this  staten)ent  belongs  to  legend,  not 
 to  history;  that  it  was  a  contrivance,  more  or  less 
 ingenious,  to  account  for  the  birth  at  Bethlehem 
 (that  being  assumed  in  popular  tradition  as  a  pre- 
 conceived necessity  for  the  Messiah)  of  one  whose 
 kindred  lived,  and  who  himself  had  grown  up  at 
 Nazareth;  that  tlie  whole  narrative  of  the  Infancy 
 of  our  Lord,  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  is  to  be  looked 
 on  as  mythical.  A  sufficient  defense  of  that  narra- 
 tive may,  it  is  believed,  be  presented  within  com- 
 paratively narrow  limits. 
 
 (1.)  It  must  be  remembered  that  our  history  of 
 this  portion  of  the  reign  of  Augustus  is  defective. 
 Tacitus  begins  his  Amials  with  the  emperor's  death. 
 Suetonius  is  gossiping,  inaccurate,  and  ill-arranged. 
 Dion  Cassias  leaves  a  gap  from  A.  u.  C.  748  to  lhV>. 
 with  hardly  any  incidents.  Jo.sephus  does  not  pro- 
 fess to  give  a  history  of  the  empire.  It  might  easily 
 be  that  a  general  census,  cir.  A.  u.  c.  749-750, 
 should  remain  unrecorded  l)y  them.  If  the  measure 
 was  one  of  ireqiient  oceui'rence,  it  would  be  all 
 the  more  likely  to  be  passed  over.  The  testimony 
 of  a  writer,  like  St.  Luke,  obviou.sly  educated  and 
 well  informed,  giving  many  casual  indications  of  a 
 study  of  chronological  data  (Luke  i.  5,  iii.;  Acts 
 xxiv.  27),  and  of  acquaintance  with  the  Herodian 
 family  (Luke  viii.  3,  xxiii.  8;  Acts  xii.  20,  xiii.  1) 
 and  other  official  people  (Acts  xxiii.-xxvi.),  recog- 
 nizing distinct!}'  the  later  and  more  conspicuous 
 airoypacp-f),  nnist  be  admitted  as  fair  presumptive 
 evidence,  hardly  to  lie  set  aside  in  the  absence  of 
 any  evidence  to  the  contrary.  How  hazardous  such 
 an  inference  from  the  silence  of  historians  would  be, 
 we  may  judge  from  the  fact  that  there  was  un- 
 douljtedly  a  geometrical  survey  of  the  empire  at 
 some  period  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  of  which 
 none  of  the  above  writers  take  any  notice  (com)), 
 the  extracts  from  the  I!ei  Agrariaj  Scriptores  in 
 Greswell,  llnrmoinj,  i.  5.37).  It  has  been  argued 
 further  that  the  whole  policy  of  Augustus  rested  on 
 a  perpetual  conunuuication  to  the  central  govern- 
 ment of  the  statistics  <jf  all  parts  of  the  empire. 
 Tlie  inscription  on  tlie  monument  of  Ancyra  (tiru- 
 ter,  Corpus  Jnscripl.  i.  230)  names  three  general 
 censuses  hi  the  years  A.  U.  C.  72G,  74G,  7G7  (comp. 
 Sueton.  Octav.  c.  28;  (Jreswell,  I/arm.  i.  .535). 
 Uioii  Cass.  (Iv.  13)  mentions  another  in  Italy  in 
 A.  u.  C.  757.  Others  in  Gaul  are  assigned  to  A. 
 u.  c.  727,  741,  707.  Stiaha  (vi.  4,  §  2)  writing 
 early  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  speaks  of  f^ia  tu>v 
 Kad'  rifxas  Tt/j.r}fffa>v,  as  if  they  were  common 
 things.  In  A.  u.  C.  720,  when  Augustus  ottered  to 
 resign  his  power,  he  laid  before  the  senate  a  "  ratio- 
 narium  imperii "  (Sueton.  OcUtr.  c.  28).  After 
 his  death,  in  like  manner,  a  "  breviarium  totius 
 imperii "  was  produced,  containing  full  returns  of 
 the  population,  wealth,  resources  of  all  parts  of  the 
 
 «  The  fullness  with  which  .losephus  dwells  on  the 
 history  of  David".s  census  and  the  toue  in  which  he 
 speaks  of  it  {Ant.  vii.  13)  make  it  probable  that  there 
 
 TAXING 
 
 empire,  a  careful  digest  apparently  of  facts  collected 
 during  the  labors  of  many  years  (Suetor..  OcUic.  c 
 101;  DionCass.lv.;  Tacit.  Ann.  i.  11).  It  will 
 hardly  seem  strange  that  one  of  the  routine  official 
 steps  in  this  process  should  only  be  mentioned  by 
 a  writer  who,  like  St.  Luke,  had  a  special  reason 
 for  noticing  it.  A  census,  involving  property-re- 
 turns, and  the  direct  taxation  consequent  on  them, 
 might  excite  attention.  A  mere  a.i:oypa<py]  would 
 have  little  in  it  to  disturb  men's  minds,  or  force 
 itself  upon  a  writer  of  history. 
 
 There  is,  however,  some  evidence,  more  or  less 
 circumstantial,  in  confirmation  of  St.  Luke's  state- 
 ment. (1.)  The  inference  drawn  from  the  silence  of 
 historians  may  be  legitimately  met  by  an  inference 
 drawn  from  the  silence  of  objectors.  It  never  oc- 
 curred to  Celsus,  or  Lucian,  or  Porphyry,  question- 
 ing all  that  they  could  in  the  (iospel  history,  to 
 question  this.  (2.)  A  remarkable  passage  in  Sui- 
 das  (s.  V.  airoypcKpri)  mentions  a  census,  obviously 
 dittt-ring  from  the  three  of  the  Ancyran  monument, 
 and  agreeing,  in  some  respects,  with  that  of  St. 
 Luke.  It  was  made  by  Augustus  not  as  censor, 
 but  by  his  own  imperial  authority  (S6^ay  auT&j; 
 comp.  e|f;A0€  Soy/xa,  Luke  ii.  1).  The  returns 
 were  collected  by  twenty  commissioiiers  of  high 
 rank,  i'hey  included  property  as  well  as  popula- 
 tion, and  extended  over  the  whole  empire.  (3.) 
 Teitulliaj),  incidentally,  writing  controversially,  not 
 against  a  heathen,  but  against  ^larcion,  appeals  to 
 the  returns  of  the  census  for  Syria  under  Sentius 
 Saturninus  as  accessible  to  all  who  cared  to  search 
 them,  and  proving  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  the  city  of 
 David  (Tert.  adc.  Marc.  iv.  19).  Whatever  diflfi- 
 culty  the  diflerence  of  names  may  present  [comp. 
 CYitENius],  here  is,  at  any  rate,  a  strong  indica- 
 tion of  the  fact  of  a  census  of  population,  cir.  A.  u. 
 c.  749,  and  therefore  in  harmony  with  St.  Luke's 
 narrative.  (4.)  Greswell  (Hm-m.  i.  47t),  iv.  0)  has 
 jjoiiited  to  some  circumstances  mentioned  by  Jose- 
 jilius  in  the  last  year  of  Herod's  life,  and  therefore 
 coinciding  with  the  time  of  the  Nativity,  which  im- 
 ply some  special  action  of  the  Koman  government 
 in  Syria,  the  nature  of  which  the  historian  care- 
 lessly or  delilierately  suppresses."  A\  hen  Herod 
 attends  the  council  at  Berytus  there  are  mentioned 
 as  present,  besides  Saturninus  and  the  Trocurator, 
 oi  we  pi  TlfSdviou  irpta^fis,  as  though  the  officer 
 thus  named  had  come,  accompanied  by  other  com- 
 missioners, for  some  purpose  which  gave  him  for 
 the  time  almost  coordinate  influence  with  the  ijov- 
 ernor  of  Syria  him^lf  {B.  J.  i.  27.  §  2).  Just  alter 
 this  again,  Herod,  for  some  unexiilained  reason, 
 found  it  necessary  to  administer  to  the  whole  peo- 
 ple an  oath,  not  of  allegiance  to  himself,  but  of 
 good-will  to  the  emperor;  and  this  oath  0,000  of  the 
 Pharisees  refused  to  take  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  2,  §  4; 
 B.  .1.  i.  29,  §  2).  This  statement  implies,  it  is 
 urged,  some  disturbing  cause  afiecting  the  jiublic 
 tranquillity,  a  formal  appearance  of  all  citizens  be- 
 fore the  king's  officers,  and  lastly,  some  measure 
 specially  distasteful  to  the  Pharisees.  The  narra- 
 tive of  St.  Luke  offers  an  undesigned  explanation 
 of  these  phenomena. 
 
 (2.)  Tlie  second  olijection  admits  of  as  satisfac- 
 tory an  answer.  The  statistical  document  already 
 referred  to  included  subject-kingdoms  and  allies, 
 no  less    than  the    provinces    (Sueton.   /.  c).      If 
 
 may  liave  been  a  superstitious  unwillinguess  to  speak 
 of  this  population  census,  which  would  not  apply  to 
 tlie  pioperty  as.*essment  of  Quiriuus. 
 
TAXING 
 
 Augustus  had  any  desire  to  know  the  resources  of 
 Judaea,  the  position  of  Ilerod  made  him  neither 
 Mailing  nor  alile  to  resist.  From  first  to  last  we 
 meet  with  repeated  instances  of  subs^-vience.  He 
 does  not  dare  to  try  or  punish  his  sons,  l)iit  refers 
 their  cause  to  the  emperor's  cognizance  (Joseph. 
 Aiil.  xvi.  4,  §  1,  xvii.  5,  §  8).  He  holds  his  king- 
 dom on  condition  of  paying  a  fixed  tribute.  Per- 
 mission is  ostentatiously  given  him  to  dispose  of 
 the  succession  to  his  throne  as  he  likes  best  (Joseph. 
 Ant.  xvi.  4,  §  5).  He  binds  his  people,  as  we  have 
 seen,  by  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  (Jo- 
 seph. Aiit.  xvii.  2,  §  4).  The  threat  of  Augustus 
 that  he  would  treat  Herod  no  longer  as  an  ally  but 
 as  a  sulject  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  9,  §  3)  would  be 
 lollowed  naturally  enough  by  some  such  step  as 
 this,  and  the  desire  of  Herod  to  regain  his  favor 
 would  lead  him  to  acquiesce  in  it. 
 
 (3. )  We  need  not  wonder  that  the  measure 
 should  have  lieen  carried  into  ettect  without  any 
 popular  outbreak.  It  was  a  return  of  the  popula- 
 tion only,  not  a  valuation  of  property;  there  was 
 no  inmiediate  taxation  as  the  consequence.  It 
 might  ofl'end  a  paity  like  the  Pharisees.  It  was 
 not  likely  to  excite  tlie  nuiltitude.  Even  if  it 
 seemed  to  some  the  prognostication  of  a  coming 
 change,  and  of  direct  government  by  tlie  IJoman 
 emperor,  we  know  that  there  was  a  large  and  influ- 
 ential party  ready  to  welcome  that  change  as  the 
 best  thing  that  could  happen  for  their  country  (Jo- 
 seph. AiH.  xvii.  11,  §  2). 
 
 (4.)  The  alleged  inconsistency  of  what  St.  Luke 
 narrates  is  precisely  what  might  be  expected  luider 
 the  known  circumstances  of  tlie  case.  The  census, 
 though  liomaii  in  origin,  was  etiected  by  Jewish 
 instrumentality,  and  in  harmony  therefore  with 
 Jewish  customs.  The  alleged  practice  is,  however, 
 doubtful,  and  it  has  been  maintained  (Huschke, 
 iibcr  dfii  Census,  etc.  in  Winer  "Schatzung") 
 that  the  inhabitants  of  the  provinces  were,  as  far 
 as  possible,  registered  in  their  furuiii  oriijinis  — 
 not  in  the  place  in  which  they  were  only  residents. 
 It  may  lie  noticed  incidentally  that  the  journey 
 from  Nazaretli  to  Bethlehem  iielongs  to  a  time  when 
 Galilee  and  Judwa  were  under  the  same  ruler,  and 
 would  therefore  have  been  out  of  the  question  (as 
 the  suliject  of  one  prince  would  certainly  not  be 
 registered  as  belonging  to  another)  after  the  death 
 of  Herod  the  Great.  The  circumstances  of  the 
 Nativity  indicate,  if  they  do  not  prove,  that  Joseph 
 went  there  only  for  personal  enrollment,  not  because 
 he  was  tlie  possessor  of  house  or  land. 
 
 (■5.)  The  last  objection  as  to  the  presence  of  the 
 Virgin,  where  neither  Jewish  nor  Konian  practice 
 would  have  required  it,  is  perhaps  the  most  frivolous 
 and  vexatious  of  all.  If  Mary  were  herself  of  the 
 house  and  lineage  of  David,  there  may  have  been 
 special  reasons  for  her  appearance  at  IJethleheni. 
 In  any  case  the  Scripture  narrative  is  consistent 
 witli  itself.  Nothing  could  lie  more  natural,  look- 
 ing to  the  unsettled  state  of  Palestine  at  this  period, 
 than  that  Joseph  should  keep  his  wife  under  his 
 own  protection,  instead  of  leaving  her  by  herself 
 in  an  ol)scure  village,  exposed  to  danger  and  re- 
 proaiMi.  In  proportion  to  the  hopes  he  had  been 
 taught  to  cherish  of  the  l)irth  of  a  Son  of  David, 
 in  proportion  also  to  his  accejjtance  of  the  popidar 
 belief  that  the  Christ  was  to  be  born  in  the  city  of 
 David  (Matt.  ii.  .5;  John  vii.  42),  would  be  his 
 desire  to  guard  against  tlie  accident  of  birth  in  the 
 :lespised  Nazareth  out  of  which  •'  no  good  thing'' 
 tould  come  (John  i.  40). 
 
 TAXING  3187 
 
 The  literature  connected  with  this  subject  is,  m 
 might  be  expected,  very  extensive.  Every  com- 
 mentary contains  something  on  it.  Meyer,  Words- 
 worth, and  Allbrd  may  be  consulted  as  giving  the 
 latest  summaries.  Good  articles  will  be  found  un- 
 der "Schatzung"  in  Winer,  yi'«n/(t'6. ;  and  ller- 
 zog's  litdl-h'iici/khp.  A  very  full  and  exhaustive 
 discussion  of  all  points  connected  with  the  suliject 
 is  given  by  Spaiiheim,  iJubbi  Evan;/,  ii.  3-iJ ;  and 
 Kichardus,  Diss,  de  Censu  Aur/usli,  in  Menthen's 
 'J'litsdurus,  ii.  428;  comp.  also  EUicott,  Jltdsean 
 Ledums,  p.  57.  E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  The  exact  nature  of  the  census  at  the  time  of 
 our  Lord's  birth  cannot  be  ascertained,  as  we  know 
 nothing  of  the  census  itself  except  what  Luke  t«Ils 
 us.  That  all  the  provinces  were  suljected  to  an 
 a-KoypacpT}  indicates  nothing,  since  this  might  be 
 on  one  plan  in  Syria  and  Judaja,  and  on  another  in 
 (jaul.  At  that  age  of  Pome  it  was  still  the  policy 
 not  to  smooth  down  all  the  ditierences  in  the  em- 
 pire. A.  W.  Zumpt  in  his  recent  work,  />  w  6'e- 
 burtsjidir  Clirisli  (Leipz.  1869),  strives  to  show 
 that  the  airoypa(p'q  was  held  for  the  purpose  of 
 levjing  a  capitation  tax.  For  had  it  been  of  the 
 same  kind  with  the  census  of  (.juirinius,  in  A.  i>. 
 (J,  when  property  in  land  was  certainly  registered 
 and  assessed,  we  might  e.xpect,  Zumpt  thinks,  to 
 have  mention  made  of  it  by  Josephus,  and  to  hear 
 of  commotions  such  as  occurred  owing  to  that  cen- 
 sus. Ijiit  if  inhutuia  cajnlis  included  only  a  poll- 
 tax,  of  equal  amount  for  all.  what  need  to  send 
 the  population  to  the  ancestral  abodes  of  their 
 tribes,  iiiinilies,  and  smaller  subdivisions  V  If  how- 
 ever this  tax  included  also  a  levy  upon  movable 
 property  (see  Pein,  in  Paiily  v.  trlbutum,  Marquardt 
 in  Bekker-Marq.  iii.),  there  would  be  more  need  to 
 make  a  registration  at  the  places  where  the  holders 
 of  property  had  been  gathered  for  this  purpose  in 
 earlier  times. 
 
 This  census  then  cannot  be  shown  to  be  a  mere 
 enumeration  of  inhabitants.  The  population  of 
 the  provinces  does  not  appear  to  have  been  counted 
 except  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  taxable 
 capacity.  It  has  been  said  that  the  Breviariuui  of 
 Augustus  contained  lists  of  the  population  of  the 
 empire,  but  the  passages  (Tac.  Aniuil.  i.  11;  Suet. 
 Aui/ust.  sub  fin.,  Dion  Cass.  Ivi.  §  33,  ed.  Sturz) 
 show  only  that  Augustus  had  preiiared  a  brief 
 statement  of  the  resources  of  the  empire  in  money 
 and  troops  together  with  the  exiienses.  Pliny  the 
 elder,  although  often  referring  to  measurements  of 
 distances  made  under  the  supervision  of  Agrippa, 
 gives  no  sutticient  proof  that  he  was  acquainted 
 with  general  tables  of  population.  A  passage  of 
 the  lexicographer  Suidas,  under  the  word  Augustus, 
 does  indeed  speak  of  an  enumeration,  but  all  schol- 
 ars admit,  we  believe,  that  the  fact  to  which  he  re- 
 fers is  to  be  restricted  to  the  number  of  lioman 
 citizens.  In  the  other  passage  spoken  of  on  page 
 3186,  it  is  clearly  implied  that  tribute  was  the  ob- 
 ject of  the  airoypatpri.  This  passage,  notwithstand- 
 ing its  errors  and  its  derivation  from  a  Christian 
 writer,  who  had  Luke  ii.  in  his  mind,  is  thought  by 
 A.  W.  Zumpt  and  JNIarquardt,  two  of  tlie  leading 
 archteologists  of  our  day,  to  contain  sulistantial  truth 
 (Zumpt,  M.  s.,  p.  160;  Bekker-Manp  iii.  2,  168). 
 The  difficulty  found  by  some  in  a  census  of 
 .ludffia,  when  Herod  was  king  there,  is  best  met  by 
 Wieseler,  in  his  recent  Beitrdt/e  ((Jotha,  1869),  a 
 supplement  to  his  Synopse.  Ilerod  had  very  limited 
 powers.  He  could  not  make  war  on  his  own  account, 
 nor  even  coin  money  in  gold  and  silver.     Judoea 
 
3188 
 
 TEBAH 
 
 had  been  subject  to  tribute  from  Pompey's  time 
 down  to  the  appointment  of  Herod  as  kin<;,  and 
 there  are  indications  that  this  subjection  to  lionian 
 taxation  did  not  cease  at  liis  accession.  Conip. 
 Wieseler,  u.  s.,  pp.  67, 69  ff.  If  made  under  the  di- 
 rection of  the  president  of  Syria  by  .lewisli  utficers, 
 it  would  not  greatly  differ  from  a  similar  registra- 
 tion made  by  Ilerod,  nor  need  it  have  alarmed  the 
 Jews,  if  carefully  managed. 
 
 Souie  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  Joseph,  if  living 
 at  Nazareth,  could  be  obliged  to  go  to  ISetldeheni 
 to  be  i-egistered.  We  are  forced  to  say  that  noth- 
 ing is  known  of  the  relations  of  men  to  the  trilies 
 and  towns  of  their  fathers  at  this  period  of  Jewish 
 history.  The  difficulty  here  is  an  argument  from 
 our  ignorance  and  cannot  be  removed.  'I'ertuUian, 
 a  lawyer  of  no  mean  learning,  accepted  the  state- 
 ment. If  it  be  called  mythical,  we  can  fairly  say 
 that  the  myth  does  not  invent  new  usages  but 
 grows  up  aroimd  old  ones.  So,  then,  if  the  history 
 of  our  Lord's  birth  were  a  myth,  this  passage  it- 
 self would  prove  that  Joseph  might  have  gone  to 
 Bethlehem  to  be  registered,  consistently  with  pre- 
 vailing usage  in  Judffia.  Add  to  this  that  family 
 genealogies  were  still  kept  up,  as  is  shown  by  the 
 cases  of  Zacharias,  father  of  John,  of  Anna, 
 daughter  of  I'hanuel  (l.uke  ii.  36),  though  belong- 
 ing to  one  of  the  ten  tribes,  of  our  Lord's  family 
 (Euseb.  likt.  iii.  20),  and  by  the  family  registers 
 of  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  at  least  show  that  it 
 was  then  supposed  that  descent  might  be  and  ought 
 to  be  traced  a  good  way  backwards. 
 
 One  more  remark:  in  the  discussions  on  the 
 taxing  and  some  other  historical  difficulties,  Luke 
 is  brought  to  the  stand  by  a  certain  class  of  writ- 
 ers, as  if  he  had  no  independent  authority  in  him- 
 self. But  this  is  unfair.  Luke's  honesty  is  more 
 ■  clear  than  that  of  Josephus,  and  his  accuracy  in 
 many  respects  is  shown  liy  modern  Research  to  be 
 great.  If  one  puts  against  a  statement  of  his  the 
 absence  of  all  mention  by  Josepiius,  or  other  his- 
 torians, this  is  unfair,  and  proceeds  upon  the  as- 
 sumption that  there  is  a  great  balance  of  proba- 
 bility against  the  truth  of  the  Gospels.  Such  a 
 one  should  also  remember  too,  that  Josephus  de- 
 spatches the  whole  reign  of  Archelaus  in  a  few 
 passages;  that  Dion  Cassius  is  defective  just  where 
 we  want  his  testimony,  and  that  Tacitus  begins  his 
 annals  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  notices  only 
 that  which  is  politically  injportant  to  Kunie. 
 
 T.  D.  W. 
 
 TE'BAH  (n^p  \ilauij]der\.  Ta^eK^  Tabet). 
 Eldest  of  the  sons  of  Nalior,  by  his  concubine  Ivcu- 
 mah  (Gen.  xxii.  2-i).  Josephus  calls  him  Ta^aios 
 {Ant.  i.  6,  §  5). 
 
 TEBALI'AH  (^n^/D^  [Jili<imh  immtrsts 
 or  piirlfits,  Oes.]:  Ta^Aai;  Alex.  Ta^eAtas:  Ta- 
 bdiiis).  Third  son  of  Ilosah  of  the  children  of 
 Merari  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 
 
 TE'BETH.     [Month.] 
 
 *  TEHAPH'NEHES,  Ez.  xxx.  18.     [Tah- 
 
 PAJsHKS.] 
 
 TEHIN'NAH  (nSn^TI  [cnj  for  mercy, 
 mercy']:  Qatixdv,  Alex,  ©oca;  [Conip.  Qeevva.-] 
 Tehinmi).  The  father  or  founder  of  Ir-Nabash, 
 the  city  of  Nahash,  and  son  of  Eshton  (1  Chr.  iv. 
 12).  His  name  only  occurs  in  an  obscure  geneal- 
 ogv  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  among  those  who  are 
 sailed  "  the  men  of  Kechah." 
 
 TEKOA 
 TEIL-TREE.     [Oak.] 
 TEKO'A  and  TEKO'AH  (I'^ri,  but  in 
 
 2  Sam.  xiv.  2  only,  n^ipn  [see   below]:  QeKwe 
 
 and  ©ewoue;  Joseph.  QeKooe,  ©ewcoa:  T/iecun, 
 'J'liectie),  a  town  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xi. 
 6,  as  the  associated  places  show),  on  the  range  of 
 bills  which  rise  near  Hebron,  and  stretch  eastward 
 toward  the  Dead  Sea.  These  hills  bound  the 
 \  iew  of  the  spectator  as  he  looks  to  the  south  from 
 the  summit  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Jerome  {in 
 Amos,  I'rocem.)  says  that  Tekoa  was  six  lioman 
 miles  from  Bethlehem,  and  that  as  he  wrote  {in 
 .Itreiii.  vi.  1)  he  had  that  village  daily  before  his 
 eyes  {Tliekoani  qmitidie  oculis  cei'iiinnis).  In  his 
 Unovauticiin  (art.  Elthece,  'EAdeKw)  he  represents 
 Tekoa  as  nine  miles  only  from  Jerusalem;  ])nt  else- 
 where he  agrees  with  Eusebius  in  making  the  dis- 
 tance twelve  miles.  In  the  latter  case  he  reckons 
 by  the  way  of  Bethlehem,  the  usual  course  in  going 
 from  the  one  place  to  the  other;  but  there  may 
 have  been  also  another  and  shorter  way,  to  which 
 he  has  reference  in  the  other  computation.  Some 
 suggest  (liachiene,  PaUisdnit,  ii.  60)  that  an  error 
 may  have  crept  into  Jerome's  text,  and  that  we 
 should  read  twelve  there  instead  of  nine.  In  2 
 Chr.  XX.  20  (see  also  1  Mace.  ix.  33),  mention  is 
 made  of  "  the  wilderness  of  Tekoa,"  which  nuist  be 
 understood  of  the  adjacent  region  on  the  east  of 
 the  town  (see  tV;/;v(),  which  in  its  physical  charac- 
 ter answers  so  entirely  to  that  designation.     It  is 
 
 evident  from  the  name  (derived  from  17f2^  "  to 
 strike,"  said  of  driving  the  stakes  or  pins  into  the 
 ground  for  securing  the  tent),  as  well  as  from  the 
 manifest  adaptation  of  the  region  to  pastoral  pur- 
 suits, that  the  people  who  lived  liere  must  have 
 been  occupied  mainly  as  shepherds,  and  that  Tekoa 
 in  its  best  days  could  have  been  little  more  than  a 
 cluster  of  tents,  to  which  the  men  returned  at  in- 
 tervals from  the  neighboring  pastures,  and  in  which 
 their  families  dwelt  during  their  absence. 
 
 The  Biblical  interest  of  Tekoa  arises,  not  so  much 
 from  any  events  which  are  related  as  having  oc- 
 curred there,  as  from  its  connection  with  various 
 persons  who  are  mentioned  in  Scripture.  It  is  not 
 enumerated  in  the  Hebrew  catalogue  of  towns  in 
 Judah  (Josh.  xv.  49),  but  is  inserted  in  that  j)as- 
 sage  of  the  Septuagint.  The  "  wise  woman  ''  whom 
 Joab  employed  to  effect  a  reconciliation  between 
 David  and  Absalom  was  obtained  from  this  jilace 
 (2  Sam.  xiv.  2).     Here  also,  Ira,  the  son  of  Ikkesh, 
 
 one  of  David's  thirty  "  mighty  men  "  (lZ'^"133)) 
 was  born,  and  was  called  on  that  account  "the  Te- 
 koite  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20).  It  was  one  of  the  places 
 which  Kehoboam  fortified,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
 reign,  as  a  defense  against  invasion  from  the  south 
 (2  Chr.  xi.  6).  Some  of  the  people  from  Tekoa 
 took  part  in  building  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  after 
 the  return  from  the  Captivity  (Neh.  iii.  5,  27).  In 
 .ler.  vi.  1  the  prophet  exclaims,  "  Blow  the  trum- 
 pet in  Tekoa  and  set  up  a  sign  of  fire  in  Beth-llac- 
 cerem  " — the  latter  prolialily  the  "  Frank  Moun- 
 tain," the  cone-shaped  hill  so  conspicuous  from 
 Ijethlehem.  It  is  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  as  a 
 warning  of  the  approach  of  enemies,  and  a  signal- 
 fire  kindled  at  niglit  for  the  same  purpose,  which 
 are  described  here  as  so  appropriately  heard  and 
 seen,  in  the  hour  of  danger,  among  the  mountains 
 iif  Judah.  But  Tekoa  is  chiefly  memorable  as  the 
 birthplace  of  the  prophet  Amos,  who  was  here  called 
 
TEKOA 
 
 by  a  special  voice  from  heaven  to  leave  liis  occupa- 
 tion as  "a  herd  man '"  and  "a  gatherer  of  wild 
 figs,"  and  was  sent  forth  thence  to  Bethel  to  testify 
 against  the  sins  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (Amos  vii. 
 14)/'  Accustomed  as  Amos  was  to  a  shepherd's 
 life,  he  must  iiave  been  familiar  with  the  solitude 
 of  the  desert,  and  with  the  dangers  there  incident 
 to  such  an  occupation.  Some  efiect  of  his  peculiar 
 training  amid  such  scenes  may  be  traced,  as  critics 
 think  (De  Wette,  Einl.  ins  Alte  Test.  p.  35G),  in 
 the  contents  and  style  of  his  prophecy.  Jerome 
 {ad  Am.  i.  2)  says,  "  .  .  .  .  etiam  Amos  proph- 
 etam  qui  pastor  de  pastoribus  fuit  at  pastor  non  in 
 locis  cultis  et  arboribus  ac  vineis  consitis,  aut  certe 
 inter  sylvas  et  prata  virentia,  sed  in  lata  eremi  vas- 
 titate,  in  qua  versatur  leonum  feritas  et  interfectio 
 pecorum,  ivtis  sme  iisum  esse  sei-iinmibtis."  "The 
 imagery  of  his  visions,"  says  Stanley,  "is  full  of 
 his  country  life,  whether  in  Judjea  or  Kphraim. 
 The  locusts  in  the  royal  meadows,  the  basket  of 
 fruit,  vineyards  and  fig-trees,  the  herds  of  cows 
 rushing  heedlessly  along  the  hill  of  Samaria,  the 
 shepherds  fighting  with  lions  for  their  prey,  the 
 lion  and  the  bear,  the  heavy-laden  wagon,  the  sift- 
 ing of  corn,  —  these  are  his  figures "  {.hwisli 
 Church,  i.  y.^'J,  Amer.  ed.).  See,  also,  the  striking 
 remarks  of  Dr.  I'usey  {Introd.  to  Amos).  Compare 
 Am.  ii.  1-J,  iii.  4,  12,  iv.  1,  vi.  12,  vii.  1,  &c. 
 
 In  the  genealogies  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  24,  and 
 iv.  5),  Asimr,  a  posthumous  son  of  Ilezron  and  a 
 brother  of  Caleb,  is  mentioned  as  the  father  of 
 Tekoa,  which  appears  to  mean  that  he  was  the 
 founder  of  Tekoa,  or  at  least  the  owner  of  that  vil- 
 lage. (See  Koediger  in  Gesen.  Thes.  iii.  1518.) 
 If  he  was  the  owner  of  the  village,  it  was  of  course 
 in  his  capacity  as  the  prince  or  sheik  of  Tekoa 
 (Bertheau,  Biicher  der  Chr.  p.  17). 
 
 Tekoa  is  known  still  as  Tekil'a,  and,  though  it 
 lies  somewhat  aside  from  the  ordinary  route,  has 
 been  visited  and  described  by  several  recent  travel- 
 lers. The  writer  was  there  on  the  21st  of  April, 
 1852,  during  an  e-Kcursion  from  .Jerusalem  by  the 
 way  of  Bethlehem  and  Urtus.  Its  distance  from 
 Bdi  L'diin  agrees  precisely  with  that  assigned  by 
 the  early  writers  as  the  distance  between  Tekoa 
 and  Bethlehem.  .  It  is  within  sight  also  of  the 
 "Frank  Mountain,"  beyond  question  tiie  famous 
 Herodium,  or  site  of  Herod's  Castle,  which  Jose- 
 phus  {B.  J.  iv.  9,  §  5)  represents  as  near  the  an- 
 cient Tekoa.  It  lies  on  an  elevated  hill,  which 
 spreads  itself  out  into  an  irregular  plain  of  mod- 
 erate extent.  Its  "high  position"  (Robinson, 
 Bibl.  Res.  i.  486)  "gives  it  a  wide  prospect.  To- 
 ward the  northeast  the  land  slopes  down  toward 
 Wadij  Khi'irtitun  ;  on  the  other  sides  the  hill  is 
 surrounded  by  a  belt  of  level  table-land ;  beyond 
 which  are  valleys,  and  then  other  higher  hills.  On 
 the  south,  at  some  distance,  another  deep  valley 
 runs  oft"  southeast  toward  the  Dead  Sea.  The  view 
 in  this  direction  is  bounded  only  by  the  level  moun- 
 tains of  Moab,  with  frequent  bursts  of  the  Dead 
 Sea,  seen  through  openings  among  the  rugged  and 
 desolate  intervening  mountains."  The  scene,  on 
 the  occasion  of  the  writer's  journey  above  referred 
 to,  was  eminently  a  pastoral  one,  and  gave  back  no 
 doubt  a  fiiithful  image  of  the  olden  times.     There 
 
 a  *  It  was  a  journey  of  6  or  7  hours  only,  being 
 just  the  same  distance  (12  miles)  north  of  Jerusalem 
 that  Tekoa  was  south  of  it.  H. 
 
 6  *  A  still  aess  almost  fearful  hangs  over  the  deep 
 :hasm.     H.  von  Schubert  tells  us  in  his  characteris- 
 
 TEKOA  3189 
 
 were  two  encampments  of  shepherds  tnere,  consist- 
 ing of  tents  covered  with  the  black  goat-skins  so 
 commonly  used  for  that  purpose;  they  were  sup- 
 ported on  poles  and  turned  up  in  part  on  one  side, 
 so  as  to  enable  a  jjerson  without  to  look  into  the 
 interior.  Flocks  were  at  pasture  near  the  tents 
 and  on  the  remoter  hill-sides  in  every  direction. 
 There  were  horses  and  cattle  and  camels  also, 
 though  these  were  not  so  numerous  as  the  sheep 
 and  goats.  A  well  of  living  water,  on  the  outskirts 
 of  the  village,  was  a  centre  of  great  interest  and 
 activity;  women  were  coming  and  going  with  their 
 pitchers,  and  men  were  filling  the  troughs  to  water 
 the  animals  which  they  had  driven  thither  for  that 
 purpose.  The  general  aspect  of  the  region  was 
 sterile  and  unattractive;  though  here  and  there 
 were  patches  of  verdure,  and  some  of  the  fields, 
 which  had  yielded  an  early  crop,  had  been  recently 
 ploughed  up  as  if  for  some  new  species  of  cultiva- 
 tion. Fleecy  clouds,  white  as  the  driven  snow, 
 were  floating  toward  the  Dead  Sea,  and  their  shad- 
 ows, as  they  chased  each  other  over  the  landscape, 
 seemed  to  be  fit  emblems  of  the  changes  in  the  des- 
 tiny of  men  and  nations,  of  which  there  was  so 
 much  to  remind  one  at  such  a  time  and  in  such  a 
 place.  Various  ruins  exist  at  Tekoa.  such  as  the 
 wails  of  houses,  cisterns,  broken  columns,  and  heaps 
 of  building-stones.  Some  of  these  stones  have  the 
 so-called  "  beveled  "  edges  which  are  supposed  to 
 show  a  Hebrew  origin.  There  was  a  convent  here 
 at  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century,  and  a  Chris- 
 tian settlement  in  the  time  of  the  Crusaders;  and 
 undoubtedly  most  of  these  remains  belong  to  mod- 
 ern times  rather  than  ancient.  Among  these  should 
 be  mentioned  a  baptismal  font,  sculptured  out  of  a 
 limestone  block,  three  feet  and  niiie  inches  deep, 
 with  an  internal  diameter  at  the  top  of  four  feet, 
 and  designed  evidently  for  baptism  as  administered 
 in  the  Creek  Church.  It  stands  in  the  open  air, 
 like  a  similar  one  which  the  writer  saw  at  Jujha, 
 near  Btitiii,  the  ancient  Bethel.  ■  [Ophni,  Amer. 
 ed.]  See  more  fully  in  the  Christian  Jitvitw  (New 
 Tork,  185.3,  p.  519). 
 
 Near  l^ku'a,  among  the  same  mountains,  on 
 the  brink  of  a  frightful  precipice,*  are  the  ruins  of 
 Kliurcitun,  which  some  have  thought  may  be  a 
 corruption  of  Kerioth  (Josh.  xv.  25),  and  in  that 
 case  perhaps  the  birthplace  of  Judas  the  traitor, 
 who  was  thence  called  Iscariot,  i.  e.  •'  man  of  Keri- 
 oth." It  is  impossible  to  survey  the  scenery  of  the 
 place,  and  not  feel  that  a  dark  spirit  would  find  it- 
 self in  its  own  element  amid  the  seclusion  and  vvild- 
 ness  of  such  a  spot.  High  up  from  the  bottom  of 
 the  ravine  is  an  opening  in  the  face  of  the  rocks 
 which  leads  into  an  immense  subterranean  laby- 
 rinth, which  many  suppose  may  have  been  the 
 Cave  of  Adullam,  in  which  David  and  his  followers 
 sought  refuge  from  the  pursuit  of  Saul.  [AnuL- 
 LA.M.]  It  is  large  enough  to  contain  hundreds  of 
 men,  and  is  capable  of  defense  against  almost  any 
 attack  that  could  be  made  upon  it  from  without. 
 When  a  party  of  the  Turks  fell  uiwn  TcAu'rt  and 
 sacked  it,  A.  D.  11.38,  most  of  the  inhabitants,  an- 
 ticipating the  danger,  fled  to  this  cavern,  and  thua 
 saved  their  lives.  It  is  known  among  the  Arabs 
 as  the  "Cave  of  Eefuge."     It  may  be  questioned 
 
 tic  way  how  he  was  impressed  there.  His  first  im 
 pulse  on  reaching  the  place  was  to  fire  his  carbine  and 
 wake  the  echoes,  but  the  next  moment  he  was  so  awed 
 that  he  dared  not  disturb  the  silence  {Reise  in  das 
 Morgenland,  iii.  29).  H- 
 
3190  TEKOA 
 
 (Robinson,  i.  481)  whether  this  was  the  actual 
 place  of  David's  retreat,  hut  it  illustrates,  at  all 
 events,  that  peculiar  geological  formation  of  the 
 country,  which  accounts  for  such  frequent  allusions 
 to  "dens  and  caves"  in  the  narrations  of  the  Bi- 
 ble. The  writer  was  told,  as  a  connnon  opinion  of 
 the  natives,  that  some  of  the  passages  of  this  par- 
 ticular excavation  extended  as  far  as  to  ITebron, 
 several  miles  distant,  and  that  all  the  cord  at  Jeru- 
 salem would  not  be  sufficient  to  serve  as  clew  for 
 traversing  its  windings.  [Odollaji.]  Tobler,  in 
 his  exi)loration  of  the  cave,  found  a  number  of  sar- 
 cojihagi  ami  some  Phcenician  inscriptions. 
 
 One  of  the  i^ates  of  Jerusalem  in  Christian  times 
 seems  to  have  borne  the  name  of  Tekoa.  Arculf, 
 at  any  rate,  mentions  the  "gate  called  Tecuitis  " 
 in  his  enumeration  of  the  gates  of  the  city  (a.  d. 
 TOO).  It  appears  to  have  led  down  into  the  valley 
 of  the  Kedron,  probably  near  the  southern  end  of 
 the  east  wall.  (See  Tobler's  Tvpo(jr.  von  Jerusii- 
 Itiii,  p.  1(J5.)  But  his  description  is  not  very  clear. 
 Can  it  be  to  this  that  St.  Jerome  alludes  in  the 
 shigular  expression  in  the  J^pil.  Pniike  (§  12), 
 ....  rtvtrlar  Jerogolyiuam  et  per  Tlncuam  cli- 
 que Amog^  rutilanleni  monlis  Olireli  C  nice  in  aqii- 
 ciitm.  The  Cliurch  of  the  Ascension  on  the  sum- 
 mit of  Olivet  would  be  just  opposite  a  gate  in  tlie 
 east  wall,  and  the  "glittering  cross"  would  be  par- 
 ticularly conspicuous  if  seen  from  beneatii  its 
 shadow.  Tliere  is  no  more  prima  focie  improba- 
 bility in  a  Tekoa  gate  than  in  a  Bethlehem,  Jatt'a, 
 or  Damascus  gate,  all  which  still  exist  at  Jerusalem. 
 But  it  is  strange  that  the  allusions  to  it  should  be 
 so  rare,  and  that  the  circumstances  which  made 
 Tekoa  prominent  enough  at  that  period  to  cause  a 
 gate  to  he  named  alter  it  should  ha\e  escaped  pres- 
 ervation. H.  B.  H. 
 
 TEKO'A  (VP^  {strikin(j,intchinfj  of  tents]: 
 &eK(ii4:  Tliecna).  A  name  occuriing  in  the  gene- 
 alogies of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  2-1,  iv.  5),  as  the  son 
 of  Ashur.  Tliere  is  little  doul)t  that  the  town  of 
 Tekoa  is  meant,  and  that  the  notice  implies  that 
 the  town  was  colonized  or  founded  by  a  man  or  a 
 town  of  the  name  of  Asiiuit.  G. 
 
 T  E  K  O'l  T  E,    THE     C'S'pnn ;    in  Chr. 
 
 "'l^lpriin  [patr.]  :  5  GeKcoiVrjs  ["^'at.  Alex,  -ei-], 
 6  &fKci}i  [Vat.  FA.  QfKw],  6  @€KwiT7)s  [Vat.  -vei-; 
 in  Neh.,  ol  ©e/ccoi^,  Vat.  -eii/,  Alex,  -ei/x,  FA. 
 -ftp., -etv'-]  de  T/iccua,  [Tlieciii/ex,  Thenieniis\). 
 Ii;a  ben-lkkesh,  one  of  David's  warriors,  is  thus 
 designated  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20;  1  Chr.  xi.  28,  xxvii. 
 9).  The  connnon  people  among  tiik  Tkicoites 
 displayed  great  activity  in  the  repairs  of  the  wall 
 of  Jerusalem  under  Neheniiah.  'I'hey  undertook 
 two  lengths  of  the  rebuilding  (Neh.  iii.  5,  27). 
 It    is    ho^ve^cr    specially    mentioned    that    their 
 
 "lords"   (Ci^^3^S)  took  no  part  in  the  work. 
 
 G. 
 
 TEL-A'BIB  (n'^2S-bri  [Chald.  corn-hill] : 
 
 ufTewpos'-  "'i  ucervum  novnrum  fru;/um)  [Ez.  iii. 
 
 15]  was  probalily  a  city  of  Chaldwa  or  Bal)ylonia, 
 
 not  of  Upper  Mesopotamia,  as  generally  imagined. 
 
 TELASSAR 
 
 (See  Calmet  on  Ez.  iii.  15,  and  Winer,  ad  vac.) 
 The  whole  scene  of  Ezekiel's  preaching  and  visions 
 seems  to  have  been  Chaldaa  Proper ;  and  the  river  . 
 Chebar,  as  already  observed  [see  Ciiebai!],  was 
 not  the  Khahovr,  but  a  branch  of  the  I-iijihrates. 
 Ptolemy  has  in  this  region  a  Thel-beiicane  and  a 
 Thal-atha  {Geograph.  v.  20);  but  neither  name 
 can  be  identified  with  Tel-abib^ unless  we  suppose 
 a  serious  corru])tion.  The  element  "  Tel  "  in  Tel- 
 abib,  is  undoubtedly  "  hill."  It  is  applied  in  mod- 
 ern times  by  the  Arabs  es|iecially  to  the  mounds  or 
 heaps  which  mark  the  site  of  ruined  citifs  all  over 
 the  Mesopotamian  plain,  an  application  not  very 
 remote  from  the  Hebrew  use,  according  to  which 
 "  Tel  "  is  "  especially  a  heap  of  stones  "  (Gesen. 
 ad  roc).  It  thus  forms  the  first  syllable  in  many 
 modern,  as  in  many  ancient  names,  throughout 
 Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Syria.  (See  Assemann, 
 Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  784.) 
 
 The  LXX.  have  given  a  translation  of  the  term, 
 by  which  we  can  see  that  tliey  did  not  regard  it  as 
 a  proper  name,  but  which  is  quite  inexplicable. 
 The  Vulgate  likewise  translates,  and  correctly 
 enough,  so  far  as  Heljrew  scholarship  is  concerned ; 
 but  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
 word  is  really  a  proper  name,  and  therefore  ouglit 
 not  to  be  translated  at  all.  G.  It. 
 
 TE'LAH  (rhn  [breach]:  GaAee'j;  Alex. 
 @a\e:  Tliale).  A  descendant  of  F^phraim,  and 
 ancestor  of  Joshua  (1  Chr.  vii.  25). 
 
 TEL'AIM    (CSb^an,    with    the    article 
 
 ^  •  T  :  -  ' 
 [lamhsi]  :  iv  TaXyaXois  in  l>oth  JISS.,  and  so  al.so 
 •losephus:  quftsi  dipins).  The  place  at  which  Saul 
 collected  and  numbered  his  forces  before  his  attack 
 on  Amalek  (1  Sam.  xv.  4,  only).  It  may  be  iden- 
 tical with  Tki.kji,  the  southern  position  of  which 
 would  be  suitable  for  an  expedition  against  Ama- 
 lek; and  a  certain  support  is  given  to  this  l)y  the 
 mention  of  the  name  (Thailam  or  Thelam)  in 
 the  LXX.  of  2  Sam.  iii.  12.  On  the  other  hand 
 the  reading  of  the  LXX.  in  1  Sam.  xv.  4  (not  only 
 in  the  Vatican  MS.,  but  also  in  the  Alex.,  usually 
 so  close  an  adherent  of  the  Hebrew  text),  and  of 
 Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  7,  §  2),  who  is  not  given  to  fol- 
 low «  the  LXX.  slavishly  —  naiiiely,  Gilgal,  is  re- 
 markal)le;  and  when  the  frequent  connection  of  that 
 sanctuary  with  Saul's  history  is  recollected,  it  is  al- 
 most sufficient  to  induce  the  belief  that  in  this  case 
 the  LXX.  and  Josephus  have  preserved  the  right 
 name,  and  that  instead  of  Telaim  we  should,  with 
 them,  read  Gilgal.  It  should  be  observed,  how- 
 ever, that  the  Hebrew  MSS.  exhibit  no  variation 
 in  the  name,  and  that,  excepting  the  LXX.  and  the 
 Targum,  the  Versions  all  agree  with  the  Hebrew. 
 The  Targum  renders  it  "  laniljs  of  the  Passover," 
 according  to  a  curious  fancy,  mentioned  elsewhere 
 in  the  Jewish  books  {Yalkut  on  1  Sani.xv.  4,  <tc.), 
 that  the  arni^'  met  at  the  Passover,  and  that  the 
 census  was  taken  by  counting  the  lambs.''  This 
 is   partly  indorsed  liy  Jerome  in  the    Ytdi/ate. 
 
 G. 
 
 TELAS'SAR  (Itt'/^  {Assyrian  hill]: 
 @afa6ev,    @e€/xdd:    [.\lex.   (ia\aacrap,    Qai/xad; 
 
 a  In  this  instance  his  rendering  is  more  worthy  of 
 notice,  because  it  would  have  been  easy  for  him  to 
 have  interpreted  the  name  as  the  Rabbis  do,  with 
 whose  traditions  he  was  well  acquainted. 
 
 b  A  similar  fancy  in  reference  to  the  name  Bkzek 
 ;1  Sam.  xi.  8)  is  found  in   the   Midrash.     It  is   tikea 
 
 literally  as  meaning  "  broken  pieces  of  pottery,"  by 
 which,  as  by  counters,  the  numbering  was  effected. 
 Bezek  and  Telaim  are  considered  by  the  Tahiuidists 
 as  two  of  the  ten  numberings  of  Israel,  part  and 
 future. 
 
TELEM 
 
 Sin.  in  Is.,  ©ee^ua:]  Thelassm;  Thalassar)  is 
 raeutioiied  in  2  K.  xix.  12  and  in  Is.  xxxvii.  12  as 
 a  city  inhabited  by  "  tlie  children  of  Eden,"  which 
 had  been  conquered,  and  was  held  in  the  time  of 
 Sennacherib  by  the  xVssyrians.  In  the  former  pas- 
 sage the  name  is  rather  differently  given  both  in 
 Hebrew  and  English.  [Thelasak.]  In  Ijoth 
 it  is  connected  with  Gozan  (Gauzanitis),  Haran 
 (Carrhse,  now  Hnrran),  and  Kezeph  (the  Hdzuppn 
 of  the  Assyrian  Inscriptions),  all  of  which  belong 
 to  the  hill  country  above  the  Upper  JMesopotamian 
 plain,  the  district  from  which  rise  the  Klaibur  and 
 Belik  rivers.  [See  Mesoputajiia,  Gozan,  and 
 Haran.]  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  indi- 
 cations of  locality  which  arise  from  this  connection, 
 to  find  Eden  joined  in  another  passage  (Ez.  xxvii. 
 2-3)  witli  Maran  and  Asshur.  Telassar,  the  chief 
 city  of  a  tribe  known  as  the  Benl  Kden,  must  have 
 been  in  Western  Mesopotamia,  in  the  neighborhood 
 of  Harran  and  Orfli.  It  would  be  uncritical  to 
 attempt  to  fix  the  locality  more  exactly.  The  name 
 is  one  which  might  have  been  given  by  the  Assyr- 
 ians to  any  place  where  they  had  built  a  temple 
 to  Asshur,"  and  hence  perhaps  its  application  by 
 the  Targums  to  the  Resen  of  Gen.  x.  12,  which 
 nnist  have  been  on  the  Tigris,  near  Nineveh  and 
 Calah.      [Keskn.]  G.  R. 
 
 TE'LEM  (QI?^  [oppression]  :  Uaivdix;'' 
 Alex.  TeXefj.'  Tdem).  One  of  the  cities  in  the 
 extreme  south  of  Judah  (.Josh.  xv.  24).  It  occurs 
 between  ZiPit  (not  the  Ziph  of  David's  escape)  and 
 Bealoth:  but  has  not  been  identified.  The  name 
 DlmUdni  is  found  in  Van  de  Velde's  map,  attached 
 to  a  district  immediately  to  the  north  of  the  Kub- 
 bet  el-Biiul,  south  of  el-Milh  and  Ar'urali  —  a 
 position  very  suitable;  but  whether  the  coincidence 
 of  the  name  is  merely  accidental  or  not,  is  not  at 
 present  ascertainable.  Telem  is  identified  by  some 
 with  Telaim,  which  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  text  of 
 1  Sam.  XV.  4,-  but  there  is  nothing  to  say  either 
 for  or  against  this. 
 
 The  LXX.  of  2  Sam.  iii.  12,  in  both  MSS.,  ex- 
 hibits a  singular  variation  from  the  Hebrew  text. 
 
 Instead  of  "on  the  spot"  (VTHni^,  A.  V.  incor- 
 rectly, "on  his  behalf")  they  read  "to  Thailam  (or 
 rhelam)  where  he  was."  If  this  variation  should 
 be  substantiated,  there  is  some  probability  that 
 Telem  or  Telaim  is  intended.  David  was  at  the 
 time  king,  and  quartered  in  Hebron,  but  there  is 
 no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  had  relinquished  his 
 marauding  habits;  and  the  south  country,  where 
 Telem  lay,  had  formerly  been  a  favorite  field  for 
 his  expeditions  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  8-11). 
 
 The  Vat.  LXX.  in  Josh.  xix.  7,  adds  the  name 
 0aA.x")  luetween  Remmon  and  Ether,  to  the  towns 
 of  Simeon.  This  is  said  by  Eusebius  ( Onomast. ) 
 and  Jerome  to  have  been  then  existing  as  a  very 
 large  village  called  Thella,  16  miles  south  of  VAen- 
 theropolis.     It  is  however  claimed  as  equivalent  to 
 
 TOCHEN.  G. 
 
 TE'LEM  (^7^  [oppression]:  Te\/iT)i/;  [Vat. 
 TiXri/j.;  FA.]  Alex.  TeWrjfi'-  Telem).  A  porter 
 or  doorkeeper  of  the  Tenjple  in  the  time  of  Ezra, 
 who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  24).     He 
 
 TEMA  3191 
 
 is  probably  the  same  as  Taemon  in  Neh.  xii.  25, 
 the  name  being  that  of  a  family  rather  than  of 
 an  individual.  In  1  Esdr.  ix.  25  he  is  called  Tol- 
 banes. 
 
 TEL-HAR'SA,  or  TEL-HAR  ESHA 
 (Sty"!n"7ri  [see  below]:  ®e\apriad;  [in  Ezr., 
 Vat.  corrupt;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  FA.  Apria'a,  Alex. 
 @e\apaa'']  Tlielharsa)  was  one  of  the  Babylonian 
 towns,  or  villages,  from  which  some  Jews,  who 
 "  could  not  show  their  father's  house,  nor  their 
 seed,  whether  they  were  of  Israel,"  returned  to 
 Judaja  with  Zerubbabel  (I'^zr.  ii.  51);  Neh.  vii.  61). 
 Gesenius  renders  the  term  "  Hill  of  the  Wood  " 
 {Lex.  ad  voc).  It  was  probably  in  the  low  coun- 
 try near  the  sea,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tel-Melah 
 and  Cherub;  but  we  cannot  identify  it  with  any 
 known  site.  G.  R. 
 
 TEL-ME'LAH  (nbrp-bri  [Idll  of  salt] : 
 0€A/xeAe'x,  06Ayae\€9;  [V'at.  \\\  Eir.,  OepjueAgfl- 
 0a;  Alex.  0eApex«''^)  ©sA^eAex^  FA.  in  Neh., 
 0ep/x6A€0:]  Tlieliiiidii)  is  joined  with  Tel-Harsa 
 and  Cherub  in  the  two  passages  already  cited  under 
 Tel-Haksa.  It  is  perhaps  the  Thelme  of  Ptolemy 
 (v.  20),  which  some  wrongly  read  as  'Theame 
 (0EAIVIH  for  0EAMH),  a  city  of  the  low  salt  tract 
 near  the  Per.sian  (iulf,  whence  probably  the  name, 
 which  means  "  Hill  of  Salt  "  (Gesen.  Lex.  Heb. 
 sub  voc).  Cherub,  which  may  be  pretty  surely 
 identified  with  Ptolemy's  Chiripha  {Xtpicpd),  was 
 in  the  same  region.  G.  R. 
 
 TE'MA  (Wa'^ri  [oji  the  r!(jlit,  south]  :  Qai/xdv. 
 Thentii,  [term  Au.-tlri]).  The  ninth  son  of  Ish- 
 mael  (Gen.  xxv.  15;  1  Chr.  i.  30);  whence  the 
 tribe  called  after  him,  mentioned  in  Job  vi.  19, 
 "  The  troops  of  Tema  looked,  the  companies  of 
 Shel)a  waited  for  them,"  and  l)y  Jeremiah  (xxv. 
 23),  "  Dedan,  Tema,  and  Buz;  "  and  also  the  land 
 occupied  by  this  tribe:  "The  burden  upon  Arabia. 
 In  the  forest  in  Arabia  shall  ye  lodge,  O  ye  trav- 
 elling companies  of  Dedanim.  The  inhabitants  of 
 the  land  of  Tema  brought  water  to  him  that  was 
 tiiirsty,  they  prevented  with  their  bread  him  that 
 fled"  (Is.  xxi.  1.3,  14). 
 
 The  name  is  identified  satisfactorily  with  Teymd, 
 
 jiL*.aJ',  a  small  town  on  the  confines  of  Syria, 
 between  it  and  IVcuU  el-Kiird,  on  the  road  of  the 
 Damascus  pilgrim-caravan  (J/anisi'/,  s.  v.).  It  is 
 in  the  neighborhood  of  JJooitmt  el-Jendel,  which 
 agrees  etymologically  and  by  tradition  with  the 
 Ishmaelite  Dumah,  and  the  country  of  Keyddr, 
 or  Keuar.  Teymd  is  a  well-known  town  and 
 district,  and  is  appropriate  in  every  point  of  view 
 as  the  chief  settlement  of  Islnnael's  son  Tema.  It 
 is  connnanded  by  the  castle  called  el-Ablnk  (or 
 el-Abliik  el-Fard),  of  Es-Sem;iw-al  (Samuel)  Ibn- 
 'Adiyii  the  Jew,  a  contem]X)rary  of  Inn'ii  el-Keys 
 (a.  d.  550  cir. );  but  according  to  a  tradition  it 
 was  built  by  Solomon,  which  points  at  any  rate  to 
 its  antiquity  (comp.  el-Bekree,  in  Mardsid,  iv.  23); 
 now  in  ruins,  described  as  being  built  of  rubble 
 and  crude  bricks,  and  said  to  be  named  el-Ablak 
 from  having  whiteness  and  redness  in  its  structure 
 
 a  It  would  signify  simply  "the  Hill  of  A.sshur." 
 Compare  Tcl-ane,  "the  Hill  of  Ana,"  a  name  which 
 leems  to  have  been  applied  in  later  times  to  the  city 
 tiiUed  by  the  Assyrians  "Asshur,"  and  marked  by  tlie 
 rmns  at  Kileh  S/inghat     (Steph.  Byz.  ad  voc.  TfKduri.) 
 
 b  The  passage  is  in  such  confusion  in  the  Vatican 
 MS.,  that  it  is  difficult  rightlv  to  assign  the  words, 
 and  impossible  to  infer  anything  from  the  equiT- 
 aleuts. 
 
31 92  TEMAN 
 
 fMardsid,  s.  v.  Ablalc).  This  fortress  seems,  like 
 that  of  Doomat  el-Jendel,  to  I)e  one  of  the  strong- 
 holtls  that  must  have  jjrotected  the  caravan  route 
 alono;  the  northern  frontier  of  Arabia:  and  they 
 recall  the  passage  following  the  enumeration  of  the 
 sons  of  Ishniael:  "  These  [are]  the  sons  of  Ishmael, 
 and  these  [are]  their  names,  by  their  towns,  and 
 by  their  ca.t/les;  twelve  princes  according  to  their 
 nations  "  (Gen.  xxv.  IG). 
 
 Teyind  signifies  "a  desert,"  "an  unfilled  dis- 
 trict," etc.  Freytag  (s.  v.)  writes  the  name  with- 
 out a  long  final  aUf,  but  not  so  the  Marasid. 
 
 Ptolemy  (xix.  6)  mentions  e^'^^j;  in  Arabia  De- 
 serta,  which  may  Ije  the  same  place  as  the  existing 
 Ttyind.  The  LXX.  reading  seems  to  have  a  refer- 
 ence to  Tejian,  which  see.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 *  "The  troops  of  Tema,"  "the  companies  of 
 Sheba"  (Job  vi.  19),  elsewhere  referred  to  as 
 "  predatory  bands "  [Sheba],  were,  probably, 
 companies  of  travellers,  or  caravans,  crossing  the 
 wilderness  in  the  dry  season.  Parched  with  thirst, 
 they  pressed  forward  with  eager  hope  to  the  re- 
 membered beds  of  winter-streams,  only  to  find  that 
 under  the  extreme  heat  the  winding  "  brook  "  had 
 disappeared  —  evaporated  and  absorbed  in  the  sands 
 —  leaving  its  channel  as  dry  as  the  contiguous 
 desert.  Their  keen  disappointment  was  a  lively 
 image  of  the  experience  of  Job,  when  in  his  deep 
 aflBiction  he  looked  for  sympathy  from  his  brethren, 
 and  listened  to  censure  instead  of  condolence. 
 The  simile,  poetic  and  vivid,  is  scarcely  less  forci- 
 ble in  its  broader  application  to  the  illusiveness  of 
 the  fairest  earthly  promises  and  to  the  fading  hopes 
 of  mortals.  [Dkceitfully,  Amer.  ed. ;  Kivei:, 
 2.]  S.  W. 
 
 TE'MAN  (]^"^.n  {on  the  right  hand,  south] : 
 @aiu.dv-  Thenian).  1.  A  son  of  Eliphaz,  son  of 
 Esau  by  Adah  (Gen.  xxxvi.  11;  1  Chr.  i.  30,  53), 
 afterwards  named  as  a  duke  (phylarch)  of  Edom 
 (ver.  1.5),  and  mentioned  again  in  the  separate  list 
 (vv.  40-43)  of  "the  names  of  the  rulers  [that 
 came]  of  Esau,  according  to  their  families,  after 
 their  places,  by  their  names:  "  ending,  "these  be 
 the  dukes  of  Edom,  according  to  their  habitations 
 in  the  land  of  their  possession :  he  [is]  Esau  the 
 father  of  the  Edomites." 
 
 2.  [Rom.  Vat.  ©ajxav,  Am.  i.  12;  FA.  and  Sin. 
 0€^aj',  Jer.  xlix.  7,  Ob.,  Hab. :  Theman,  mister, 
 mendies.]  A  country,  and  probably  a  city,  named 
 after  the  Edomite  phylarch,  or  fr6m  which  the 
 phylarch  took  his  name,  as  may  be  perhaps  inferred 
 from  the  verses  of  (ien.  xxxvi.  just  quoted.  The 
 Hebrew  signifies  "south,"  etc.  (see  Job  ix.  9;  Is. 
 xliii.  6;  besides  the  use  of  it  to  mean  the  south 
 side  of  the  Tabernacle  in  Ex.  xxvi.  and  xxvii.,  etc.); 
 and  it  is  probable  that  the  land  of  Teman  was  a 
 southern  portion  of  the  land  of  Edom,  or,  in  a 
 wider  sense,  that  of  the  sons  of  the  East,  the 
 Bene-kedeni.  Teman  is  mentioned  in  five  places  by 
 the  Prophets,  in  four  of  which  it  is  connected  with 
 Edom,  showing  it  to  be  the  same  place  as  that  in- 
 dicated in  the  list  of  the  dukes ;  twice  it  is  named 
 with  Dedan. 
 
 "Concerning  Edom,  thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
 hosts:  [Is]  wisdom  no  more  in  Teman?  is  counsel 
 perished  from  the  prudent'?  is  their  wisdom  van- 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 ished?  Flee  ye,  turn  back,  dwell  deep,  O  inhg'j- 
 itaiits  of  Dedan"  (Jer.  xlix.  7,  8);  and  "I  wul 
 make  it  [Edom]  desolate  from  Teman ;  and  they 
 of  Dedan  shall  fall  by  the  sword"  (Ez.  xxv.  13). 
 This  connection  with  the  great  Keturahite  tribe 
 of  Dedan  gives  additional  importance  to  Teman, 
 and  helps  to  fix  its  geographical  position.  This  is 
 further  defined  by  a  passage  in  the  chapter  of  Jer. 
 already  cited,  vv.  20,  21,  where  it  is  said  of  Edom 
 and  Teman,  "  The  earth  is  moved  at  the  noise  of 
 their  fall;  at  the  cry  the  noise  thereof  was  heard 
 in  the  Red  Sea  {yavi  S?;/')."  In  the  sublime 
 prayer  of  Habakkuk,  it  is  written,  "  God  came 
 irom  Teman,  and  the  Holy  One  from  Mount  Paran  " 
 (iii.  3).  Jeremiah,  it  has  lieen  seen,  speaks  of  the 
 wisdom  of  Teman ;  and  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah 
 implies  the  same  (vv.  8,  9),  "  Shall  I  not  in  that 
 day,  saith  the  Lord,  even  destroy  the  wise  (men) 
 out  of  Edom,  and  understanding  out  of  the  mount 
 of  Esau?  And  thy  [mighty]  men,  0  Teman,  shall 
 be  dismayed."  In  wisdom,  the  descendants  of 
 Esau,  and  especially  the  inhabitants  of  Teman, 
 seem  to  have  been  preeminent  among  the  sons  of 
 the  East. 
 
 In  common  with  most  Edomite  names,  Teman 
 appears  to  have  been  lost.  The  occupation  of  the 
 country  by  the  Nabathtoans  seems  to  have  oblit- 
 erated almost  all  of  the  traces  (always  obscure)  of 
 the  migratory  tribes  of  the  desert.  It  is  not  likely 
 that  much  can  ever  be  done  by  modern  research  to 
 clear  up  the  early  history  of  this  part  of  the  "  east 
 country."  True,  Eusebius  and  Jerome  mention 
 Teman  as  a  town  in  their  day  distant  15  miles 
 (according  to  Eusebius)  from  Petra,  and  a  Roman 
 post.  The  identification  of  the  existing  JIaan  (see 
 Burekhardt)  with  this  Teman  may  be  geosraph- 
 ically  correct,  but  it  cannot  rest  on  etymological 
 grounds. 
 
 The  gentilic  noun  of  Teman  is  '^3Ki"^rn  (Job  ii. 
 11;  xxii.  1),  and  Eliphaz  the  Temanite  was  one 
 of  the  wise  men  of  Edom.  The  gen.  n.  occurs 
 also  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  34,  where  the  land  of  Temani 
 (so  ill  the  A.  V.)  is  mentioned.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 TE'MANI.     [Teman.] 
 
 TE'MANITE.     [Temai*.] 
 
 TEM'ENI  C'3??'^ri  [patr.]:  Bat/j.di':  The- 
 mam).  Son  of  Ashur,  the  father  of  Tekoa,  by  his 
 wife  Naarah  (1  Chr.  iv.  6).     [Tekoa.] 
 
 *  T.EMPERANCE  (A.  V.  Acts  xxiv.  2.5, 
 (ial.  V.  23;  2  Pet.  i.  6)  is  the  rendering  of  the 
 Greek  iyKpareia,  which  signifies  "self-control," 
 the  restraint  of  all  the  appetites  and  passions. 
 "  Temperate  "  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  a  correspond- 
 ing sense.  A. 
 
 TEMPLE."  There  is  perhaps  no  building  of 
 the  ancient  world  which  has  excited  so  much  at- 
 tention since  the  time  of  its  destruction  as  the 
 Temple  which  Solomon  built  at  Jerusalem,  and  its 
 successor  as  rebuilt  by  Herod.  Its  spoils  were 
 considered  worthy  of  forming  the  principal  illus- 
 tration of  one  of  the  most  beautiful  of  Roman 
 triumphal  arches,  and  Justinian's  highest  archi- 
 tectural ambition  was  that  he  might  surpass  it. 
 Throughout  the  Middle  Ages  it  influenced  to  a 
 considerable  degree  the  forms  of  Christian  churches, 
 
 a  *  In  some  of  tlie  topographical  allusions  in  this 
 article,  the  reader  will  recoguize  the  author's  peculiar 
 and  unsupported  theory  respecting  the  topography  of 
 lerusalem,  which   we   have  examined  in   the  article 
 
 jERns.iLEM  (ii.  1330  ff.,  Amer.  ed.),  and  which  we  pass 
 without  comment  here,  as  not  affecting  his  reasonings 
 respecting  this  edifice  — ■  its  history,  its  form,  dimen- 
 sions, style  of  architecture,  etc.  S.  W. 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 and  its  peculiarities  were  the  watchwords  and  rally- 
 ing points  of  all  associations  of  builders.  Since 
 the  revival  of  learning  in  the  16th  century  its 
 arrangements  have  employed  the  pens  of  number- 
 less learned  antiquarians,  and  architects  of  every 
 country  have  wasted  their  science  in  trying  to  re- 
 produce its  forms. 
 
 But  it  is  not  only  to  Christians  that  the  Temple 
 of  Solomon  is  so  interesting;  the  whole  jNIoham- 
 medan  world  look  to  it  as  the  foundation  of  all 
 architectural  knowledge,  and  the  .Jews  still  recall 
 its  glories  and  sigh  over  their  loss  with  a  constant 
 tenacity,  unmatched  by  that  of  any  other  people 
 to  any  other  building  of  the  ancient  world. 
 
 With  all  this  interest  and  attention  it  might 
 fairly  be  assumed  that  there  was  nothing  more  to 
 be  said  on  such  a  subject  —  that  every  source  of 
 information  had  been  ransacked,  and  every  form  of 
 restoration  long  ago  exhausted,  and  some  settlement 
 of  the  disputed  points  arrived  at  which  had  been 
 generally  accepted.  This  is,  however,  far  from 
 being  the  case,  and  few  things  would  be  more  curi- 
 ous than  a  collection  of  the  various  restorations 
 that  have  been  proposed,  as  showing  what  different 
 meanings  may  be  applied  to  the  same  set  of  simple 
 architectural  terms. 
 
 The  most  important  work  on  this  subject,  and 
 that  which  was  principally  followed  by  restorers 
 in  the  17tli  and  18th  centuries,  was  that  of  the 
 brothers  I'radi,  Spanish  .Jesuits,  better  known  as 
 Villalpandi.  Their  work  was  published  in  folio  at 
 Rome,  1596-1604,  superbly  illustrated.  Their  idea 
 of  Solomon's  Temple  was,  that  both  in  diuiensions 
 and  arrangement  it  was  very  like  the  Escurial  in 
 Spain.  But  it  is  by  no  means  clear  whether  the 
 Escurial  was  being  built  while  their  book  was  in 
 the  press,  in  order  to  look  like  the  Temple,  or 
 whether  its  authors  took  their  idea  of  the  Temple 
 from  the  palace.  At  all  events  their  design  is  so 
 much  the  more  beautiful  and  commodious  of  the 
 two,  that  we  cannot  but  regret  that  Herrera  was 
 not  employed  on  the  book,  and  the  Jesuits  set  to 
 build  the  palace. 
 
 When  the  French  expedition  to  Egypt,  in  the 
 first  years  of  this  century,  had  made  the  world 
 familiar  with  the  wonderful  architectural  remains 
 of  that  country,  every  one  jumped  to  the  conclusion 
 that  Solomon's  Temple  nuist  have  been  designed 
 after  an  Egyptian  model,  forgetting  entirely  how 
 hateful  that  land  of  bondage  was  to  the  Israelites, 
 and  how  completely  all  the  ordinances  of  their 
 religion  were  opposed  to  the  idolatries  they  had 
 escaped  from — forgetting,  too,  the  centuries  which 
 had  elapsed  since  the  E.xode  before  the  Temple  was 
 erected,  and  how  little  communication  of  any  sort 
 there  had  been  between  the  two  countries  in  the 
 interval. 
 
 The  Assyrian  discoveries  of  Botta  and  Layard 
 have  within  the  last  twenty  years  given  an  entirely 
 new  direction  to  the  researches  of  the  restorers,  and 
 this  time  with  a  very  considerable  prospect  of  suc- 
 cess, for  the  analogies  are  now  true,  and  whatever 
 can  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  subject  is  in  the 
 right  direction.  The  original  seats  of  the  progen- 
 itors of  tile  Jewish  races  were  in  Mesopotamia. 
 Tlieir  language  was  practically  the  same  as  that 
 spoken  on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris.  Their  historical 
 traditions  were  consentaneous,  and,  so  far  as  we  can 
 judge,  almost  all  the  outward  symbolism  of  their 
 religions  was  the  same,  or  nearly  so.  Unfortunately, 
 however,  no  Assyrian  temple  has  yet  been  ex- 
 humed of  a  nature  to  throw  much  light  on  this 
 201 
 
 TEMPLE  3193 
 
 subject,  and  we  are  still  forced  to  have  recourse  to 
 the  later  buildings  at  Persepolis,  or  to  general  de- 
 ductions from  the  style  of  the  nearly  contemporary 
 secular  buildings  at  Nineveh  and  elsewhere,  for 
 such  illustrations  as  are  a^•ailable.  These,  howe\er, 
 nearly  suffice  for  all  that  is  required  for  Solomon's 
 Temple.  For  the  details  of  that  erected  by  Herod 
 we  must  look  to  Rome. 
 
 Of  the  intermediate  Temple  erected  by  Zerub- 
 babel  we  know  very  little,  but,  from  the  circum- 
 stance of  its  having  been  erected  under  Persian 
 influences  contemporaneously  with  the  buildings  at 
 Persepolis,  it  is  perhaps  the  one  of  which  it  would 
 be  most  easy  to  restore  the  details  with  anything 
 like  certainty. 
 
 Before  proceeding,  however,  to  investigate  the 
 arrangements  of  the  Temple,  it  is  indispensable 
 first  carefully  to  determine  those  of  the  Tabernacle 
 which  Moses  caused  to  be  erected  in  the  Desert  of 
 Sinai  innnediately  after  the  promulgation  of  the 
 Law  from  that  mountain.  For,  as  we  shall  pres- 
 ently see,  the  Temple  of  Solomon  was  nothing  more 
 nor  less  than  an  e.xact  rei>etition  of  that  earlier 
 Temple,  differing  only  in  being  erected  of  more 
 durable  materials,  and  with  exactly  double  the 
 dimensions  of  its  prototype,  but  still  in  every  essen 
 tial  respect  so  identical  that  a  knowledge  of  the 
 one  is  indispensable  in  order  to  understand  the 
 other. 
 
 Taukknacle. 
 
 The  written  authorities  for  the  restoration  of  the 
 Tabernacle  are,  first,  the  detailed  account  to  be 
 found  in  the  26th  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  repeated 
 in  the  36th,  verses  8  to  -38,  without  any  variation 
 beyond  the  slightest  possilile  abridgment.  Sec- 
 ondly, the  account  given  of  the  building  by  .Josephua 
 {Ant.  iii.  6),  which  is  so  nearly  a  repetition  of  the 
 account  found  in  the  Bible  that  we  may  feel  assured 
 that  he  had  no  really  important  authority  before 
 him  except  the  one  which  is  equally  accessible  to 
 us.  Indeed  we  might  almost  put  his  account  on 
 one  side,  if  it  were  not  that,  being  a  Jew,  and  so 
 much  nearer  the  time,  he  may  have  had  access  to 
 some  traditional  accounts  which  may  have  enabled 
 him  to  realize  its  appearance  more  readily  than  we 
 can  do,  and  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  technical 
 terms  may  have  enabled  him  to  understand  what 
 we  might  otherwise  be  unable  to  explain. 
 
 The  additional  indications  contained  in  the  Tal- 
 mud and  in  Philo  are  so  few  and  indistinct,  and 
 are  besides  of  such  doubtful  authenticity,  that  they 
 practically  add  nothing  to  our  knowledge,  and  may 
 safely  be  disr^arded. 
 
 For  a  complicated  architectural  building  these 
 written  authorities  probably  would  not  suffice  with- 
 out some  remains  or  other  indications  to  supple- 
 ment them ;  but  the  arrangements  of  the  Tal)er- 
 nacle  were  so  simple  that  they  are  really  all  that 
 are  required.  Every  important  dimension  was  eitiier 
 5  cubits  or  a  multiple  of  5  cubits,  and  all  the 
 arrangements  in  plan  were  either  squares  or  double 
 squares,  so  that  there  really  is  no  difficulty  in  put- 
 ting the  whole  together,  and  none  would  ever  have 
 occurred  were  it  not  that  the  dimensions  of  the 
 sanctuary,  as  obtained  from  the  "  boards "  that 
 formed  its  walls,  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  one 
 thing,  while  those  obtained  from  the  dimensions 
 of  the  curtains  which  covered  it  appear  to  give 
 another,  and  no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  recon- 
 ciling these  with  one  another  or  with  the  text  of 
 Scripture.  The  apparent  discrepancy  is,  however 
 easily  explained,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  and  never 
 
3194 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 would  have  occurred  to  any  one  who  had  lived  long 
 under  canvas  or  was  familiar  with  the  exi£;encies 
 of  tent  architecture. 
 
 Outer  Jndosiire.  —  The  court  of  the  Tabernacle 
 was  surrounded  by  canvas  screens  —  in  the  East 
 called  Kannauts  —  and  still  universally  used  to  in- 
 close the  private  apartments  of  important  person- 
 ages. Those  of  the  Tabernacle  were  5  cubits  in 
 height,  and  supported  by  pillars  of  brass  5  cubits 
 apart,  to  which  the  curtains  were  attached  by  hooks 
 and  fillets  of  silver  (Ex.  xxvii.  9,  &c.).  This  in- 
 closure  was  only  broken  on  the  eastern  side  by  the 
 entrance,  which  was  20  cubits  wide,  and  closed  l)y 
 curtains  of  fine  twined  linen  wrought  with  needle- 
 work, and  of  the  most  gorgeous  colors. 
 
 50  Cubits. 
 
 10        20        30       4tO        60        60        70   75  Feet. 
 No.  1.  —  Plan  of  the  Outer  Court  of  the  Tabernacle. 
 
 a  The  cubit  used  throughout  this  article  is  assumed 
 to  be  the  ordinary  cubit,  of  the  length  of  a  mau's  fore- 
 arm from  the  elbow-joint  to  the  tip  of  the  middle 
 finger,  or  18  Greek  inches,  equal  to  18^  English  inches. 
 There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  but  that  the  Jews  also 
 used  occasionally  a  shorter  cubit  of  5  handbreadths,  or 
 15  inches,  but  only  (in  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained)  in 
 speaking  of  vessels  or  of  metal  work,  and  never  applied 
 it  to  buildings.  After  the  Babylonish  Captivity  they 
 seem  also  occasionally  to  have  employed  the  Babj- 
 lonian  cubit  of  7  handbreadths,  or  21  inches.  This, 
 however,  can  evidently  have  no  application  to  the 
 Tabernacle  or  Solomon's  Temple,  which  was  erected 
 befose  the  Captivity  ;  nor  can  it   be  available  to  ex- 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 The  space  inclosed  within  these  screens  was  a 
 double  square,  50  cubits,  or  75  feet  north  «  and 
 south,  and  100  cubits  or  150  ft.  east  and  west.  In 
 the  outer  or  eastern  half  was  placed  the  altar  of 
 burnt-offerings,  described  in  Ex.  xxvii.  1-8,  and  be- 
 tween it  and  the  Tabernacle  the  laver  {Ant.  iii.  6, 
 §  2),  at  which  the  priests  washed  their  hands  and 
 feet  on  entering  the  Temple. 
 
 In  the  square  towards  the  west  was  situated  the 
 Temple  or  Tabernacle  itself.  The  dimensions  in 
 plan  of  this  structure  are  easily  ascertained.  Jo- 
 sephus  states  them  {Ant.  iii.  0,  §  3)  as  30  cubits 
 long  by  10  liroad,  or  45  feet  by  15,  and  the  Bible 
 is  scarcely  less  distinct,  as  it  .says  that  the  north 
 and  south  walls  were  each  composed  of  twenty  up- 
 right boards  (Ex.  xxvi.  15,  &c.),  each  board  one 
 cubit  and  a  half  in  width,  and  at  the  west  end 
 there  were  six  boards  equal  to  9  cubits,  which,  with 
 the  angle  boards  or  posts,  made  up  the  10  cubits 
 of  Josephus. 
 
 Each  of  these  boards  was  furnished  with  two 
 tenons  at  its  lower  extremity,  which  fitted  into 
 silver  sockets  placed  on  the  ground.  At  the  top 
 at  least  they  were  jointed  and  fastened  together  by 
 bars  of  shittini  or  acacia  wood  run  through  rings 
 of  gold  (Ex.  xxvi.  26).  Both  authorities  agree  that 
 there  were  five  bars  for  each  side,  but  a  little  dif- 
 ficulty arises  from  the  Bible  describing  (ver.  28)  a 
 middle  bar  which  reached  i'rom  end  to  end.  As 
 we  shall  presently  see,  this  bar  was  probably  ap- 
 plied to  a  totally  different  purpose,  and  we  may 
 therefore  assume  for  the  present  that  Josephus' 
 description  of  the  mode  in  which  they  were  applied 
 is  the  correct  one:  "  Every  one,"  he  says  {Ant.  iii. 
 6,  §  3),  "  of  the  pillars  or  boards  had  a  ring  of  gold 
 affixed  to  its  front  outwards,  into  which  were  in- 
 serted bars  gilt  with  gold,  each  of  them  5  cubits 
 long,  and  these  bound  together  the  boards;  the 
 head  of  one  bar  running  into  another  after  the 
 manner  of  one  tenon  inserted  into  another.  But 
 for  the  wall  behind  there  was  only  one  bar  that 
 went  through  all  the  boards,  into  which  one  of  the 
 ends  of  the  bars  on  both  sides  was  inserted." 
 
 So  far,  therefore,  everything  seems  certain  and 
 easily  understood.  The  Tabernacle  was  an  oblong 
 rectangular  structure,  30  cubits  long  by  10  broad, 
 open  at  the  eastern  end,  and  divided  internally  into 
 two  apartments.  The  Holy  of  Holies,  into  which 
 no  one  entered  —  not  even  the  priest,  except  on 
 very  extraordinary  occasions  —  was  a  cube,  10  cubits 
 square  in  plan,  and  10  cubits  high  to  the  top  of 
 the  wall.  In  this  was  placed  the  Mercy-seat,  sur- 
 mounted by  the  cherubim,  and  on  it  was  placed 
 the  Ark,  containing  the  tables  of  the  Law.  In 
 front  of  these  was  an  outer  chamber,  called  the 
 Holy  Place  —  20  cubits  long  by  10  broad,  and  10 
 high,  appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  priests.     In  it 
 
 plain  the  peculiarities  of  Herod's  Temple,  as  Josephus, 
 who  is  our  principal  authority  regarding  it,  most  cer- 
 tainly did  always  employ  the  Greek  cubit  of  18  inches, 
 or  400  to  1  stadium  of  600  Greek  feet ;  and  the  Tal- 
 mud, which  is  the  only  other  authority,  always  gives 
 the  same  number  of  cubits  where  we  ca,1t  be  certain 
 they  are  speaking  of  the  same  tiling  ;  so  that  we  may 
 feel  perfectly  sure  they  both  were  using  the  same 
 measure.  Thus,  whatever  other  cubits  the  Jewii  may 
 have  used  for  otlier  purposes,  we  may  rest  assured 
 that  for  the  buildings  referred  to  in  this  article  the 
 cubit  of  18  inches,  and  that  only,  wus  the  one  em- 
 ployed. 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 were  placed  the  golden  candlestick  on  one  side,  the 
 table  of  shew-bread  opposite,  and  between  them  in 
 the  centre  the  altar  of  incense. 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 8196 
 
 No.  2. — The  Tabernacle,  showing  one  half  ground 
 plan  and  oue  half  as  covered  by  the  curtains. 
 
 The  roof  of  the  Tabernacle  was  formed  by  3,  or 
 rather  4,  sets  of  curtains,  the  dimensions  of  two  of 
 which  are  given  with  great  minuteness  both  in  the 
 Bible  and  by  Josephus.  The  iimermost  (Ex.  xxvi. 
 1,  (fee),  of  fine  twined  linen  according  to  our  trans- 
 lation (.Josephus  calls  them  wool:  epiuv,  Ani.  iii. 
 6,  §  4),  were  ten  in  number,  each  4  cubits  wide 
 and  28  cubits  long.  These  were  of  various  colors, 
 and  ornamented  with  cherubim  of  "  cunning  work." 
 Five  of  these  were  sewn  together  so  as  to  form 
 larger  curtains,  each  20  cubits  by  28,  and  these 
 two  again  were  joined  together,  when  used,  by  fifty 
 gold  buckles  or  clasps. 
 
 Above  these  were  placed  curtains  of  goats'  hair 
 each  4  cubits  wide  by  30  cubits  long,  but  eleven  in 
 number;  these  were  also  sewn  together,  six  into 
 one  curtain,  and  five  into  the  other,  and,  when 
 used,  were  likewise  joined  together  by  fifty  gold 
 buckles. 
 
 Over  these  again  was  thrown  a  curtain  of  rams' 
 skins  with  the  wool  on,  dyed  red,  and  a  fourth 
 aovering  is  also  specified  as  being  of  badgers'  skins, 
 so  named  in  the  A.  V.,  but  which  probably  really 
 consisted  of  seakskins.  [Badger-Skins,  vol.  i. 
 p.  224  f.J  This  did  not  of  course  cover  the  rams' 
 skins,  but  most  probably  was  only  used  us  a  cop- 
 ing or  ridge  piece  to  protect  the  junction  of  the  two 
 curtains  of  rams'  skins  which  were  laid  on  each 
 slope  of  the  roof,  and  probably  only  laced  together 
 at  the  top. 
 
 The  question  which  has  hitherto  proved  a  stum- 
 bling block  to  restorers  is,  to  know  how  these  cur- 
 tains were  appHed  as  a  covering  to  the  Tabernacle. 
 Strange  to  s.ay,  this  has  appeared  so  difficidt  that, 
 with  hardly  an  exception,  they  have  been  content 
 to  assume  that  they  were  thrown  over  its  walls  as  a 
 
 pall  is  thrown  over  a  cofSn,  and  they  have  thus  cut 
 the  Gordian  knot  in  defiance  of  all  probabilities, 
 as  well  as  of  the  distinct  specification  of  the  Pen 
 tateuch.  To  this  view  of  the  matter  there  are  sev- 
 eral important  objections. 
 
 First.  If  the  inner  or  ornamental  curtain  was  so 
 used,  only  about  one  third  of  it  would  be  seen ;  9 
 cubits  on  each  side  would  be  entirely  hidden  be- 
 tween the  walls  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  goats'- 
 hair  curtain.  It  is  true  that  Bahr  {Symbolik  des 
 Mosaischtn  CuUtis),  Neumann  {Der  Sfijh/iiitte, 
 1861),  and  others,  try  to  avoid  this  difhculty  by 
 hanging  this  curtain  so  as  to  drape  the  walls  inside; 
 but  for  this  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  authority,  and 
 the  form  of  the  curtain  would  be  singularly  awk- 
 ward and  unsuitable  for  this  purpo.se.  If  such  a 
 thing  were  intended,  it  is  evident  that  one  curtain 
 would  have  been  used  as  wall-hangings  and  another 
 as  a  ceiling,  not  one  great  range  of  curtains  all 
 joined  the  same  way  to  hang  the  walls  all  round 
 and  form  the  ceiling  at  the  same  time. 
 
 A  second  and  more  cogent  objection  will  strike 
 any  one  who  has  ever  lived  in  a  tent.  It  is,  that 
 every  drop  of  rain  that  fell  on  the  Tabernacle  would 
 fall  through;  for,  however  tightly  the  curtains  might 
 be  stretched,  the  water  could  never  run  over  the 
 edge,  and  the  sheep-skins  would  only  make  the  mat^ 
 ter  worse,  as  when  wetted  their  weight  would  de- 
 press the  centre,  and  probably  tear  any  curtain  that 
 could  be  made,  while  snow  lying  on  such  a  roof 
 would  certainly  tear  the  curtains  to  pieces. 
 
 But  a  third  and  fatal  objection  is,  that  this  ar- 
 rangement is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Scripture. 
 We  are  there  told  (Ex.  xxvi.  !))  that  half  of  one  of 
 the  goats'-hair  curtains  shall  be  doubled  Ijack  in 
 front  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  only  the  half  of  another 
 (ver.  12)  hang  down  behind;  and  (ver.  13)  that 
 one  cubit  shall  hang  down  on  each  side  —  whereas 
 this  arrangement  makes  10  cubits  hang  down  all 
 round,  except  in  front. 
 
 The  solution  of  the  difficulty  appears  singularly 
 obvious.  It  is  simply,  that  the  tent  had  a  ridge, 
 as  all  tents  have  had  from  the  days  of  Moses  down 
 to  the  present  day;  and  we  have  also  very  little 
 difficulty  in  predicating  that  the  angle  formed  by 
 the  two  sides  of  the  roof  at  the  ridge  was  a  right 
 angle  —  not  only  because  it  is  a  reasonable  and 
 usual  angle  for  such  a  roof,  and  one  that  would 
 most  likely  be  adopted  in  so  regular  a  building,  but 
 because  its  adoption  reduces  to  harmony  the  only 
 abnormal  measurement  in  the  whole  building.  As 
 mentioned  above,  the  principal  curtains  were  only 
 28  cubits  in  length,  and  consequently  not  a  mul- 
 tiple of  5 ;  but  if  we  assume  a  right  angle  at  the 
 ridge,  each  side  of  the  slope  was  14  cubits,  and 
 W  4-  14^  =  392,  and  20^  =  400,  two  numbers 
 which  are  practically  identical  in  tent-building. 
 The  base  of  the  triangle,  therefore,  formed  by  the 
 I'oof  was  20  cubits,  or  in  other  words,  the  roof  of 
 the  Tabernacle  extended  5  cubits  beyond  the  wails, 
 not  only  in  front  and  rear,  but  on  both  sides ;  and 
 it  may  be  added,  that  the  width  of  the  Tabernacle 
 thus  became  identical  with  the  width  of  the  en- 
 trance to  the  enclosure ;  which  but  for  this  circum- 
 stance would  appear  to  have  been  disproportionately 
 large. 
 
 With  these  data  it  is  easy  to  explain  all  the  other 
 difficulties  which  have  met  previous  restorers. 
 
 First.  The  Holy  of  Holies  was  divided  from  the 
 Holy  Place  by  a  screen  of  four  pillars  supporting 
 curtains  which  no  one  was  allowed  to  pass.  But, 
 strange  to  say,  in  the  entrance  there  were  ^ve  pil- 
 
3196  TEMPLE 
 
 lars  in  a  similar  space.  Now,  no  one  would  put 
 a  piUar  in  the  centre  of  an  entrance  without  a 
 motive;  hut  the  moment  a  ridge  is  assumed  it  be- 
 comes indispensable. 
 
 .^ 
 
 y 
 
 to 
 
 1-  X 
 
 /    "1 
 
 Zi 
 
 00      \ 
 
 /             H 
 
 u 
 
 :j        \ 
 
 z. 
 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 (0 
 
 O 
 
 20   CUBITS 
 
 m             m 
 
 V- 
 
 1-             H- 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 ca              m 
 
 3 
 
 3                     3 
 
 U 
 
 o              o 
 x,5CUBITS. 
 
 cubits; 
 
 < 
 
 10  CUBITS 
 
 No.  3.  — Diagram  of  the  Dimeusioas  of  the  Tabernacle 
 in  Section. 
 
 It  may  be  assumed  that  all  the  five  pillars  were 
 spaced  within  the  limits  of  the  10  cubits  of  the 
 breadth  of  the  Tabernacle,  namel}-,  one  in  the 
 centre,  two  opposite  the  two  ends  of  the  walls,  and 
 tiie  other  two  between  them ;  but  the  probabilities 
 are  so  infinitely  greater  that  those  two  last  were 
 beyond  those  at  the  angles  of  the  tent,  that  it  is 
 hardly  worth  while  considering  the  first  hypothesis. 
 By  the  one  here  adopted  the  pillars  in  front  would, 
 like  everything  else,  be  spaced  exactly  5  cubits 
 apart. 
 
 Secondly.  Josephus  twice  asserts  {Anl.  iii.  6, 
 §  4)  that  the  Tabernacle  was  divided  into  three 
 parts,  though  he  specifies  only  two  —  the  Adytum 
 and  the  Pronaos.  The  third  was  of  course  the 
 porch,  5  cubits  deep,  which  stretched  across  the 
 width  of  the  house. 
 
 Thirdly.  In  speaking  of  the  western  end,  the 
 Bible  always  uses  the  plural,  as  if  there  were  two 
 sides  there.  There  was,  of  course,  at  least  one  pil- 
 lar in  the  centre  beyond  the  wall,  —  there  may 
 have  been  five,  —  so  that  there  practically  were  two 
 sides  there.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that  the 
 Pentateuch,  in  speaking  (Ex.  xxvi.  12)  of  this  after 
 part  calls  it  Mislicov,  or  the  dwelling,  as  contradis- 
 tinguished from  Olti:l,  or  the  tent,  which  applies  to 
 the  whole  structure  covered  by  the  curtains. 
 
 Fourthly.  We  now  understand  why  there  are  10 
 breadths  in  the  under  ctirtains,  and  11  in  the 
 upper.  It  was  that  they  might  break  joint  —  in 
 other  words,  that  the  seam  of  the  one,  and  espe- 
 cially the  great  joining  of  the  two  divisions,  might 
 be  over  the  centre  of  the  lower  curtain,  so  as  to 
 prevent  the  rain  penetrating  through  the  joints.  It 
 may  also  be  remarked  that,  as  the  two  cubits  which 
 were  in  excess  at  the  west  liung  at  an  angle,  the 
 depth  of  fringe  would  be  practically  about  the  same 
 as  on  the  sides. 
 
 With  these  suggestions,  the  whole  description  in 
 the  Book  of  Exodus  is  so  easily  xmderstood  that  it 
 is  not  necessary  to  dilate  further  upon  it;  there  are, 
 however,  two  points  wliich  remain  to  be  noticed, 
 but  more  with  reference  to  the  Temple  which  suc- 
 ceeded it  tiian  with  regard  to  the  Tabernacle  itself. 
 
 The  first  is  thft  disposition  of  the  side  bars  of 
 shittim-wood  that  joined  tlie  boards  together.  At 
 first  sight  it  would  appear  that  there  were  four  short 
 and  one  long  bar  on  each  side,  but  it  seems  impos- 
 sible to  see  how  these  could  be  arranged  to  accord 
 with  the  usual  interpretation  of  the  text,  and  ^■e^y 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 improbable  that  the  Israelites  would  have  carried 
 about  a  bar  45  feet  long,  when  5  or  6  bars  would 
 have  answered  the  purpose  equally  well,  and  5  rows 
 of  bars  are  quite  unnecessary,  besides  being  in  op- 
 position to  the  words  of  the  text. 
 
 The  explanation  hinted  at  above  seems  the  most 
 reasonable  one  —  that  the  five  bars  named  (vers.  26 
 and  27)  were  joined  end  to  end,  as  Josephus  asserts, 
 and  the  liar  mentioned  (ver.  28)  was  the  ridge-pole 
 of  tlie  roof.  The  words  of  the  Hebrew  text  will 
 equally  well  Ijear  the  translation  —  "  and  the  mid- 
 dle bar  which  is  beltceen,''  instead  of  "  in  the  midst 
 of  the  boards,  shall  re.ich  from  end  to  end."  This 
 would  appear  a  perfectly  reasonable  solution  but  for 
 the  meclianical  difficulty  that  no  pole  could  be 
 made  stiff' enough  to  bear  its  own  weight  and  that 
 of  the  curtains  over  an  extent  of  45  feet,  without 
 intermediate  supports.  A  ridge-roi)e  could  easily  be 
 stretched  to  twice  that  distance,  if  required  for  the 
 purpose,  tliongh  it  too  would  dioop  in  the  centre. 
 A  pole  would  be  a  much  more  appropriate  and 
 likely  architectural  arrangement  —  so  nuich  so.  that 
 it  seems  more  than  probable  that  one  was  employed 
 with  supports.  One  pillar  in  the  centre  where  the 
 curtains  were  joined  would  be  amply  sufficient  for 
 all  practical  purposes;  and  if  the  centre  board  at 
 the  back  of  the  Holy  of  Hohes  was  15  cubits  high 
 (which  there  is  nothing  to  contradict),  the  whole 
 would  be  easily  constructed.  Still,  as  no  internal 
 supports  are  mentioned  either  Ijy  the  Bible  or  Jo- 
 sephus, the  question  of  how  the  ridge  was  formed 
 and  supported  nnist  remaiii  an  open  one,  incapable 
 of  proof  witli  our  present  knowledge,  but  it  is  one 
 to  which  we  shall  have  to  revert  presently. 
 
 The  other  question  is  —  were  the  sides  of  the 
 Verandah  which  surrounded  the  Sanctuary  closed 
 or  left  open  V  The  only  hint  we  have  that  this  was 
 done,  is  the  mention  of  the  western  sides  always  in 
 the  plural,  and  the  employment  of  Mislicon  and 
 Ohel  throughout  this  chapter,  apparently  in  opposi- 
 tion to  one  another,  Mishcan  always  seeming  to 
 apply  to  an  inclosed  space,  which  was  or  might  be 
 dwelt  in,  Olitl  to  the  tent  as  a  whole  or  to  the 
 covering  only;  though  here  again  the  point  is  by 
 no  means  so  clear  as  to  be  decisive. 
 
 The  only  really  tangible  reason  for  supposing  the 
 sides  were  inclosed  is,  that  the  Temple  of  Solomon 
 was  surrounded,  on  all  sides  but  the  front,  by  a 
 range  of  small  cells  five  cubits  wide,  in  which  the 
 priests  resided  who  were  specially  attached  to  tlie 
 service  of  tlie  Temple. 
 
 It  would  ha\e  been  so  easy  to  have  done  this  in 
 the  Tabernacle,  and  its  convenience  —  at  night  at 
 least  —  so  great,  that  I  cannot  help  suspecting  it 
 was  the  case. 
 
 It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain,  with  anything  like 
 certainty,  at  what  distance  from  the  tent  the  tent- 
 pegs  were  fixed.  It  could  not  be  less  on  the  sides 
 tlian  7  cubits,  it  may  as  probably  have  been  10. 
 In  front  and  rear  the  central  peg  could  hardly  have 
 been  at  a  less  distance  than  20  cubits ;  so  that  it 
 is  by  no  means  improbable  that  from  the  front  to 
 rear  the  whole  distance  may  have  been  80  cubits, 
 and  from  side  to  side  40  cubits,  measured  from 
 peg  to  peg;  and  it  is  this  dimension  that  seems  to 
 have  governed  the  pegs  of  the  iiiclosures,  as  it  would 
 just  allow  room  for  the  fastenings  of  the  inclosure 
 on  either  side,  and  for  the  altar  and  laver  in  front. 
 It  is  scarcely  worth  while,  however,  insisting 
 strongly  on  these  and  some  other  minor  points. 
 
 I'jiough  has  been  said  to  explain  with  the  wood- 
 cuts all  the  main  points  of  the  pro[)osed  restoration, 
 
TEMPLE  TEMPLE  3197 
 
 and  to  show  that  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  1  time  to  show  that  the  Tahernacle  was  a  reasonable 
 Tabernacle  in  strict  conformity  with  every  word  and  i  tent-like  structure,  admirably  adapted  to  the  pur- 
 everj  indication  of  the  sacred  text,  and  at  the  same  I  poses  to  which  it  was  applied. 
 
 No   4  —  Southeabt  \ilw  ot  the  1  il  eiadcle,  as  le^toied 
 
 SoLOJtoN's  Tic-Mi>i>i;. 
 
 The  Tabernacle  accompanied  the  Israelites  in  all 
 their  wanderings,  and  remained  their  only  Holy 
 Place  or  Temple  till  David  obtained  possession  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  erected  an  altar  in  the  threshing- 
 floor  of  Arainiah,  on  the  spot  where  the  altar  of 
 the  Temple  always  afterwards  stood.  He  also 
 brought  the  Ark  out  of  Kirjath-jearim  (2  Sam.  vi. 
 2;  1  Chr.  xiii.  6)  and  prepared  a  tabernacle  for  it 
 in  the  new  city  which  he  called  after  his  own  name. 
 Both  these  were  brought  up  tlience  by  Solomon 
 (2  Chr.  V.  5);  the  Ark  placed  in  the  Holy  of 
 Holies,  but  the  Tabernacle  seems  to  have  been  put 
 on  one  side  as  a  relic  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  32).  We  have 
 no  account,  however,  of  the  removal  of  the  original 
 Tabernacle  of  Moses  from  Gibeon,  nor  anything 
 that  would  enable  us  to  connect  it  with  that  one 
 which  Solomon  removed  out  of  the  City  of  Uavid 
 (2  Chr.  V.  5).  In  fact,  from  the  time  of  the  build- 
 ing of  the  Temple,  we  lose  sight  of  the  Tabernacle 
 altogether.  It  was  David  who  first  proposed  to  re- 
 place the  Tabernacle  by  a  more  permanent  building, 
 but  was  forbidden  for  the  reasons  assigned  by  the 
 prophet  Nathan  (2  Sam.  vii.  5,  &c.),  and  though 
 he  collected  materials  and  made  arrangements,  the 
 execution  of  the  task  was  left  for  his  son  Solomon. 
 
 He,  with  the  assistance  of  Hiram  king  of  Tyre, 
 commenced  this  great  undertaking  in  the  fourth 
 year  of  his  reign,  and  completed  it  in  seven  years, 
 about  1005  B.  c.  according  to  the  received  chro- 
 nology. 
 
 On  comparing  the  Temple,  as  described  in  1 
 Kings  vi.  and  2  Chronicles  iii.  and  by  Josephus 
 vii.  3,  with  the  Tabernacle,  as  just  explained,  the 
 first  thing  that  strikes  us  is  that  all  the  arrange- 
 ments were  identical,  and  the  dimensions  of  every 
 part  were  exactly  double  those  of  the  preceding 
 structure.  Thus  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  the  Taber- 
 nacle was  a  cube,  10  cubits  each  way;  in  the  Tem- 
 ple it  was  20  cubits.  The  Holy  Place,  or  outer 
 hall  was  10  cubits  wide  by  20  long  and  10  high  in 
 the  Tabernacle.  In  the  Temple  all  these  dimen- 
 sions were  exactly  double.  The  porch  in  the 
 Tabernacle  was  5  cubits  deep,  in  the  Temple  10; 
 its  width  in  both  instances  being  the  width  of  the 
 
 house.  The  chambers  round  the  House  and  the 
 Talieriiacle  were  each  5  cubits  wide  on  the  ground- 
 floor,  the  difference  being  that  in  the  Temple  the 
 two  walls  taken  together  made  up  a  thickness  of 
 5  cubits,  thus  makhig  10  cubits  for  the  chambers. 
 
 Taking  all  these  parts  together,  the  ground-plan 
 of  the  Temple  measured  80  cubits  by  40;  that  of 
 the  Tabernacle,  as  we  have  just  .<!een,  was  40  by  20; 
 and  what  is  more  striking  than  even  this  is  that 
 though  the  walls  were  10  cubits  high  in  the  one 
 
 No.  5.  —  Plan  of  Solomon's  Temple,  showiuf:  the  Jia 
 position  of  the  chambers  in  two  stories. 
 
 and  20  cubits  in  the  other,  the  whole  height  of  the 
 Tabernacle  was  15,  that  of  the  Temple  30  cubits ; 
 the  one  roof  rising  5,  the  other  10  cubits  above  the 
 height  of  the  internal  walls."  So  exact  indeed  is  thifl 
 
 n  In  the  Apocrypha  there  is  a  passage  which  bears 
 curiously  and  distinctly  on  this  subject.     In  Wisd.  ix. 
 
3198 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 coincidence,  that  it  not  only  confirms  to  the  fullest 
 extent  the  restoration  of  tiie  Tabernacle  which  has 
 just  been  explained,  but  it  is  a  singular  confirma- 
 tion of  the  minute  accuracy  which  characterized  the 
 writers  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  books  of  Kings 
 and  Chronicles  in  this  matter:  for  not  only  are  we 
 able  to  check  the  one  by  the  other  at  this  distance 
 of  time  with  perfect  certainty,  but,  now  that  we 
 know  the  system  on  which  they  were  constructed, 
 we  might  almost  restore  both  edifices  from  .lose- 
 phus'  account  of  the  Temple  as  reijrected  by  Herod, 
 Df  which  more  hereafter. 
 The  proof  that  the  Temple,  as  built  by  Solomon, 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 was  only  an  enlarged  copy  of  the  Tabernacle,  goes 
 far  also  to  change  the  form  of  another  important 
 question  which  has  been  long  agitated  by  the  stu- 
 dents of  Jewish  antiquities,  inasmuch  as  the  in- 
 quiry as  to  whence  the  -lews  derived  the  plan  and 
 design  of  the  Temple  must  now  be  transferred  to 
 the  earlier  type,  and  the  question  thus  stands, 
 Whence  did  they  derive  the  scheme  of  the  Taber- 
 nacle ? 
 
 From  Egypt? 
 
 There  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  the  Egyptians 
 ever  used  a  movable  or  tent-like  temple;  neither  the 
 pictures  in  their  temples  nor  any  historical  records 
 
 No.  6.  —  Tomb  of  Darius  near  Persepolis. 
 
 point  to  such  a  form,  nor  has  any  one  hitherto  ven- 
 tured to  suggest  such  an  origin  for  that  structure. 
 
 From  Assyria? 
 
 Here  too  we  are  equally  devoid  of  any  authority 
 or  tangible  data,  for  though  the  probabilities  cer- 
 tainly are  that  the  Jews  would  rather  adopt  a  form 
 from  the  kindred  Assyrians  than  from  the  hated 
 strangers  whose  land  they  had  just  left,  we  have 
 nothing  further  to  justify  us  in  such  an  assumption. 
 
 8,  it  is  said,  "  Thou  hast  commanded  me  {i.  e.  Solo- 
 mon) to  build  a  Temple  in  Thy  Holy  Mount,  and  an 
 altar  iu  the  city  wherein  Thou  dwellest,  a  resemblance 
 
 From  Arabia? 
 
 It  is  possible  that  the  Arabs  may  have  used 
 movable  tent-like  temples.  They  were  a  people 
 nearly  allied  in  race  with  the  .Jews.  Moses'  father- 
 in-law  was  an  Arab,  and  something  he  may  have 
 seen  there  may  have  suggested  the  form  he  adopted. 
 But  beyond  this  we  cannot  at  present  go." 
 
 of   the   Holy  Tabernacle  which   Thou  hast  prepared 
 from  the  beginning." 
 
 a  The  only  thing  resembling  it  we  know  of  is  the 
 Holy  Tent  of  the  Carthaginians,  mentioned  by  Diod- 
 orus    Siculus,   xx.  65,  which,   in  consequence   of   » 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 For  the  present,  at  least,  it  must  suffice  to  know 
 that  the  form  of  the  Temple  was  copied  from  the 
 Tabernacle,  and  that  any  architectural  ornaments 
 that  riia.y  have  been  added  were  such  as  were  usu- 
 ally employed  at  that  time  in  Palestine,  and  more 
 especially  at  Tyre,  whence  most  of  the  artificers 
 were  obtained  who  assisted  in  its  erection. 
 
 So  far  as  the  dimensions  above  quoted  are  con- 
 cerned, everythins;  is  as  clear  and  as  certain  as  any- 
 thing that  can  be  predicated  of  any  building  of 
 which  no  remains  exist,  but  bejond  this  there  are 
 certain  minor  problems  by  no  means  so  easy  to 
 resolve,  but  fortunately  they  are  of  much  less  im- 
 portance.    The  first  is  the  — 
 
 Heiyht.  —  That  given  in  1  K.  vi.  2  — of  30  cubits 
 —  is  so  reasonable  in  proportion  to  the  other  di- 
 mensions, that  the  matter  might  be  allowed  to  rest 
 there  were  it  not  for  the  assertion  (2  Chr.  iii.  4) 
 that  the  height,  though  apparently  only  of  the 
 porch,  was  120  cubits  =  180  feet  (as  nearly  as  may 
 be  the  height  of  the  steeple  of  St.  Martin's  in  the 
 Fields).  This  is  so  unlike  anything  we  know  of  in 
 ancient  architecture,  that,  having  no  counterpart  in 
 the  Tabernacle,  we  might  at  first  sight  feel  almost 
 justified  in  rejecting  it  as  a  mistake  or  interpolation, 
 but  for  the  assertion  (2  Chr.  iii.  9)  that  Solomon 
 overlaid  the  upper  chambers  with  gold,  and  2  K. 
 xxiii.  12,  where  the  altars  on  the  top  of  the  xipptr 
 chambers^  apparently  of  the  Temple,  are  mentioned. 
 In  addition  to  this,  both  Josephus  and  the  Talmud 
 persistently  assert  that  there  was  a  superstructure 
 on  the  Temple  equal  in  height  to  the  lower  part, 
 and  the  total  height  they,  in  accordance  with  the 
 book  of  Chronicles,  call  120  cubits  or  180  feet 
 {Ant.  viii.  3,  §  2).  It  is  evident,  however,  that  he 
 obtains  these  dimensions  first  by  doubling  the 
 heiglit  of  the  lower  Temple,  making  it  GO  instead 
 of  30  cubits,  a:id  in  like  manner  e.xaggerating 
 every  other  dimension  to  make  up  this  quantity. 
 Were  it  not  for  these  authorities,  it  would  satisfy 
 all  the  real  exigencies  of  the  case  if  we  assumed 
 that  the  upper  chamber  occupied -the  space  between 
 the  roof  of  the  Holy  Place  and  the  roof  of  the 
 Temple.  Ten  cubits  or  15  feet,  even  alter  deduct- 
 ing the  thickness  of  the  two  roofs,  is  sutlicient  to 
 constitute  such  an  apartment  as  history  would  lead 
 us  to  suppose  existed  there.  But  the  evidence  that 
 there  was  something  beyond  this  is  so  strong  that 
 it  cannot  be  rejected. 
 
 In  looking  through  the  monuments  of  antiquity 
 for  something  to  suggest  what  this  might  be,  the 
 only  thing  that  occurs  is  the  platform  or  Talar  that 
 existed  on  the  roofs  of  the  Palace  Temples  at  Per- 
 sepolis  —  as  shown  in  ^^'ood-cut  No.  G,  which  rep- 
 resents the  Tomb  of  Darius,  and  is  an  exact  repro- 
 duction of  the  fa(jade  of  the  Palace  shown  in  plan, 
 Wood-cut  No.  9.  It  is  true  these  were  erected  five 
 centuries  after  the  building  of  Solomon's  Temple ; 
 but  they  are  avowedly  copies  in  stone  of  older  As- 
 syrian forms,  and  as  such  may  represent,  with  more 
 or  less  exactness,  contemporary  buildings.  Nothing 
 in  fact  could  represent  more  correctly  "  the  altars 
 on  the  top  of  the  upper  chambers  "  which  Josiah 
 beat  down  (2  K.  xxiii.  12)  than  this,  nor  could  any- 
 thing more  fully  meet  all  the  architectural  or  de- 
 votional exigencies  of  the  case ;  but  its  height  never 
 
 sudden  change  of  wind  at  night  blowing  the  flames 
 from  which  victims  were  being  sacrificed,  towards  Trjv 
 tepai'  <TKr\vr)v,  toolc  fire,  a  circumstance  which  spread 
 such  consternation  throughout  the  army  as  to  lead  to 
 Us  destruction. 
 
 TEMPLE  3199 
 
 could  have  been  60  cubits,  or  even  30,  but  it  might 
 very  probably  be  the  20  cubits  which  incidentally 
 Josephus  (xv.  11,  §  3)  mentions  as  "sinking  down 
 in  the  failure  of  the  foundations,  but  was  so  left  till 
 the  days  of  Nero."  Tliere  can  be  little  doubt  but 
 that  the  part  referred  to  in  this  paragraph  was 
 some  such  superstructure  as  that  shown  in  the  last 
 wood-cut;  and  the  incidental  mention  of  20  cubits 
 is  much  more  to  be  trusted  than  Josephus'  heigfits 
 generally  are,  which  he  seems  systematically  to  hav> 
 exaggerated  when  he  was  thinking  about  them. 
 
 Jachiii  and  Boiiz.  —  There  are  no  features  con 
 nected  with  the  Temple  of  Solomon  which  have 
 given  rise  to  so  much  controversy,  or  been  so  diffi- 
 cult to  explain,  as  the  form  of  the  two  pillars  of 
 brass  which  were  set  up  in  the  porch  of  the  house. 
 It  has  even  been  supposed  that  they  were  not  pillars 
 in  the  ordinary  sense  of  tiie  term,  but  obelisks;  for 
 this,  however,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  au- 
 thority. 'I'he  porch  was  30  ieet  in  width,  and  a 
 roof  of  that  extent,  even  if  composed  of  a  wooden 
 
 No.  7.  —  Cornice  of  lily-worlt  at  Persepolis. 
 
 beam,  would  not  only  look  painfully  weak  without 
 some  support,  but  be, in  fact,  almost  impossible  tc 
 construct  with  the  imperfect  science  of  these  days. 
 Another  difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
 book  of  Chronicles  nearly  doubles  the  dimensions 
 given  in  Kings;  but  this  arises  from  the  system- 
 atic reduplication  of  the  height  which  misled  Jose- 
 phus; and  if  we  assume  the  Temple  to  have  been 
 GO  cubits  high,  the  height  of  the  pillars,  as  given  in 
 the  book  of  Chronicles,  would  be  appropriate  to 
 support  the  roof  of  its  porch,  as  those  in  Kings  are 
 the  proper  height  for  a  temple  30  cubits  high, 
 which  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  was  the  true 
 dimension.  According  to  1  K.  vii.  15  ff.,  the  pil- 
 lars were  18  cubits  high  and  12  in  circumference, 
 with  capitals  five  cubits  in  height.  Above  this 
 was  (ver.  19)  another  member,  called  also  chapiter 
 of  lily-work,  four  cubits  in  height,  but  which  from 
 
 The  Carthaginians  were  a  Shemitic  people,  and  seem 
 to  have  carried  their  Holy  Tent  about  with  their  ar- 
 mies, and  to  have  performed  sacrifices  in  front  of  it, 
 precisely  as  was  done  by  the  Jews,  excepting,  of 
 course,  the  nature  of  the  victims. 
 
8200  TEMPLE 
 
 ihe  second  mention  of  it  in  ver.  22  seems  more 
 jirobably  to  have  been  an  entablature,  which  is  ne- 
 cessary to  complete  the  order.  As  these  members 
 make  out  27  cubits,  leaving  3  cubits  or  4^  feet  for 
 the  slope  of  the  roof,  tiie  whole  design  seems  rea- 
 sonable and  proper. 
 
 If  this  conjecture  is  correct,  we  have  no  great 
 difficulty  in  suggesting  that  tlie  lily-work  must 
 have  been  something  like  the  Persepolitan  cornice 
 (Wood-cut  No.  7),  which  is  probably  nearer  in  style 
 to  tliat  of  the  buildings  at  Jerusalem  than  anything 
 else  we  know  of. 
 
 It  seems  almost  in  vain  to  try  and   speculate  on 
 what  was  the  exact  form 
 f^  of  the  decoration  of  these 
 
 celebrated  pillars.  The 
 nets  of  checker-work  and 
 wreaths  of  chain-work, 
 and  the  pomegranates, 
 etc.,  are  all  features  ap- 
 plicable to  metal  archi- 
 tecture; and  though  we 
 know  that  the  old  Tartar 
 races  did  use  metal  archi- 
 tecture everjwhere,  and 
 especially  in  bronze,  from 
 the  very  nature  of  the 
 material  every  specimen 
 has  perished,  and  we  liave 
 now  no  representations 
 i'roui  which  we  can  restore 
 them.  The  styles  we  are 
 familiar  with  were  all  de- 
 rived more  or  less  from 
 wood,  or  from  stone  with 
 wooden  ornaments  re- 
 peated in  the  harder  ma- 
 terial. Even  at  Persepo- 
 lis,  though  we  may  feel 
 certain  that  everything 
 we  see  there  had  a  wooden 
 prototype,  and  may  sus- 
 pect that  much  of  their 
 wooden  ornamentation 
 was  derived  from  the  ear- 
 lier metal  forms,  still  it  is 
 so  hr  removed  from  the 
 original  source  that  in 
 the  present  state  of  our 
 knowledge,  it  is  danger- 
 ous to  insist  too  closely 
 on  any  point.  Notwith- 
 standing this,  the  pillars 
 at  Persepolis,  of  which 
 Wood-cut  No.  8  is  a  type, 
 are  probably  more  like 
 Jachin  and  Boaz  than  any 
 other  pillars  which  have 
 40  icet  reached  us  from  antiquity, 
 and  give  a  better  idea  of 
 the  immense  capitals  of 
 these  columns  than  we  ob- 
 tain from  any  other  ex- 
 amples ;  but  being  in  stone,  they  are  far  more  sim- 
 ple and  less  ornamental  than  they  would  have  been 
 iu  wood,  and  infinitely  less  so  than  their  metal 
 prototypes. 
 
 Internal  Supports.  —  The  existence  of  these  two 
 pillars  in  the  porch  suggests  an  inquiry  wliich  has 
 hitherto  been  entirely  overlooked  :  Were  there  any 
 pillars  in  the  jnterior  of  the  Temple  ?  Considering 
 that  the  clear  space  of  the  roof  was  20  cubits,  or 
 
 No.  8.  — Pillar  of  Northern 
 Portico  at  PerBepolis. 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 30  feet,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  no  cedar 
 beam  could  be  laid  across  this  without  sinking  in 
 the  centre  by  its  own  weight,  uidess  trussed  or  sup- 
 ported from  below.  There  is  no  reason  whatever 
 to  suppose  that  the  Tyrians  in  those  days  were 
 acquainted  with  tlie  scientific  forms  of  carpentry 
 inqjlied  in  the  first  suggestio(j,  and  there  is  no 
 reason  why  they  should  have  resorted  to  them  even 
 if  they  knew  how;  as  it  cannot  be  doubted  but 
 that  architecturally  the  introduction  of  pillars  in  the 
 interior  would  have  increased  the  apparent  size  and 
 improved  the  artistic  eftect  of  the  building  to  a  very 
 considerable  degree. 
 
 If  they  were  introduced  at  all,  there  must  have 
 been  four  in  the  sanctuary  and  ten  in  tiie  hall,  not 
 necessarily  equally  spaced,  in  a  transverse  direction, 
 but  probably  standing  G  cubits  from  the  walls, 
 leaving  a  centre  aisle  of  8  cubits. 
 
 The  only  building  at  Jerusalem  whose  construc- 
 tion throws  any  light  on  this  subject  is  the  House 
 of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon.  [Palace.]  There  the 
 pillars  were  an  inconvenience,  as  the  purposes  of 
 the  hall  were  state  and  festivity ;  but  though  the 
 pillars  in  the  palace  had  nothing  to  support  above 
 the  roof,  they  were  spaced  probably  10,  certainly 
 not  more  than  12h,  cubits  apart.  If  Solomon  had 
 been  able  to  roof  a  clear  space  of  20  cubits,  he  cer- 
 tainly would  not  have  neglected  to  do  it  there. 
 
 At  Persepolis  there  is  a  small  building,  called 
 the  Palace  or  Temple  of  Darius  (Wood-cut  No.  9), 
 which  more  closely  resembles  the  Jewish  Temple 
 than  any  other  building  we  are  acquainted  with. 
 It  has  a  porch,  a  central  hall,  an  adytum  —  the  plan 
 of  which  cannot  now  be  made  out  —  and  a  range 
 of  small  chambers  on  either  side.  The  principal 
 diflxn-ence  is  that  it  has  four  pillars  in  its  porch  in- 
 stead of  two,  and  consequently  four  rows  in  its  in 
 terior  hall  instead  of  half  that  number,  as  suggested 
 above.  All  the  buildings  at  Persepolis  have  their 
 floors  equally  crowded  with  pillars,  and,  as  there  is 
 no  doubt  but  that  they  borrowed  tliis  peculiarity 
 from  Nineveh,  there  seems  no  a  priori  reason  why 
 Solomon  should  not  have  adopted  this  expedient  to 
 get  over  what  otherwise  would  seem  an  insuperable 
 constructive  ditticulty. 
 
 The  question,  in  fact,  is  very  much  the  same 
 that  met  us  in  discussing  the  construction  of  the 
 Tabernacle.  No  .internal  supports  to  the  roofs  of 
 either  of  these  l)uildings  are  mentioned  anywhere. 
 But  the  difficulties  of  construction  without  them 
 would  have  been  so  enormous,  and  their  introduc- 
 tion so  usual  and  so  entirely  unolijectionable,  that 
 we  can  hardly  understand  their  not  being  employed. 
 Either  building  was  possible  without  them,  but 
 certainly  neither  in  the  least  degree  probable. 
 
 It  may  perhaps  add  something  to  the  probability 
 of  their  arrangement  to  mention  that  the  ten  bases 
 for  the  lavers  which  Solomon  made  would  stand 
 one  within  each  inter-column  on  either  hand,  where 
 they  would  be  beautifid  and  appropriate  ornaments. 
 Without  some  such  accentuation  of  the  space,  it 
 seems  difficult  to  understand  what  they  were,  and 
 why  ten. 
 
 Chambers.  —  The  only  other  feature  which  re- 
 mains to  be  noticed  is  the  application  of  three  tiers 
 of  small  chambers  to  the  walls  of  the  Temple  exter- 
 nally on  all  sides,  except  that  of  the  entrance. 
 Though  not  expressly  so  stated,  these  were  a  sort  of 
 monastery,  appropriated  to  the  residence  of  the 
 priests  who  were  either  permanently  or  in  turn  de- 
 voted to  the  service  of  the  Temple.  The  lowest 
 story  was  only  5  cubits  iu  width,  the  next  6,  and 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 tiie  upper  7.  allowing  an  offset  of  1  cubit  on  the 
 side  of  tlie  Temple,  or  of  9  inches  on  each  side,  on 
 which  the  flooring  joists  rested,  so  as  not  to  cut 
 into  the  walls  of  the  Temple.  Assuming  the  wall 
 of  the  Temple  at  the  level  of  the  upper  chambers  to 
 have  been  2  culiits  tliick,  and  the  outer  wall  one,  — 
 it  could  not  well  have  been  less,  —  this  would  ex- 
 actly make  up  the  duplication  of  the  dimension 
 found  as  before  mentioned  for  the  verandah  of  the 
 Tabernacle. 
 
 It  is,  again,  only  at  Persepolis  that  we  find  any- 
 thing at  all  analogous  to  this;  but  in  the  plan  last 
 quoted  as  that  of  the  Palace  of  Darius,  we  find  a 
 similar  range  on  either  hand.  The  palace  of  Xerxes 
 possesses  this  feature  also;  but  in  the  great  hall 
 there,  and  its  counterpart  at  Susa,  the  place  of 
 these  chambers  is  supplanted  by  lateral  porticoes 
 outside  the  walls  that  surrounded  the  central  pha- 
 lanx of  pillars.  Unfortunately  our  knowledge  of 
 Assyrian  temple  architecture  is  too  limited  to  en- 
 able us  to  say  whether  this  feature  was  common 
 elsewhere,  and  thuULrli  something  verv  like  it  occurs 
 
 No.  9.  —  Palace  of  Darius  at  Persepolis.  Scale  of  50  feet  to  1  inch. 
 
 in  Buddhist  Viharas  in  India,  these  latter  are  com- 
 paratively so  modern  that  their  disposition  hardly 
 bears  on  the  inquiry. 
 
 Outer    Courl The   inclosure  of  the  Temple 
 
 consisted,  according  to  the  Bible  (1  K.  vi.  36),  of 
 a  low  wall  of  three  courses  of  stones  and  a  row  of 
 cedar  beams,  both  jirobably  highly  ornamented.  As 
 it  is  more  tlian  probable  tliat  the  same  duplication 
 of  dimensions  took  place  in  this  as  in  all  the  other 
 features  of  the  Tabernacle,  we  may  safely  assume 
 that  it  was  10  cubits,  or  15  feet,  in  height,  and 
 almost  certainly  100  cubits  north  and  south,  and 
 200  east  and  west. 
 
 There  is  no  mention  in  the  Bible  of  any  porti- 
 coes or  gateways  or  any  architectural  ornaments  of 
 this  inclosure,  for  though  names  which  were  after- 
 wards transferred  to  the  gates  of  the  Temple  do  oc- 
 cur in  1  Chr.  ix.,  xxiv.,  and  xxvi.,  this  was  before 
 the  Temple  itself  was  built;  and  although  .Tosephus 
 does  mention  such,  it  must  be  recollected  that  he 
 was  writing  five  centuries  after  its  total  destruction, 
 and  he  was  too  apt  to  confound  the  past  and  the 
 present  in  his  descriptions  of  buildings  which  did 
 not  then  exist.  There  was  an  eastern  porch  to 
 Herod's  Temple,  which  was  called  Solomon's  Porch, 
 and  Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was  built  by  that 
 monarch ;  but  of  this  there  is  absolutely  no  proof, 
 
 TEMPLE  3201 
 
 and  as  neither  in  the  account  of  Solomon's  building 
 nor  in  any  subsequent  repairs  or  incidents  is  any 
 mention  made  of  such  buildings,  we  may  safely 
 conclude  that  they  did  not  exist  before  the  time  of 
 the  great  rebuilding  inuuediately  preceding  the 
 Christian  era. 
 
 Temple  of  Zekubbabel. 
 We  have  very  few  particulars  regarding  the 
 Temple  which  the  -Jews  erected  after  their  return 
 from  the  Captivity  (cir.  520  b.  c),  and  no  de- 
 scription that  would  enable  us  to  realize  its  apjjear- 
 ance.  But  there  are  some  dimensions  given  in  the 
 Bible  and  elsewhere  which  are  extremely  interest- 
 ing as  affording  points  of  comparison  between  it 
 and  the  temples  which  preceded  it,  or  were  erected 
 after  it. 
 
 The  first  and  most  autlientic  are  those  given  in 
 the  book  of  Ezra  (vi.  3),  when  quoting  the  decree 
 of  Cyrus,  wherein  it  is  said,  "  Let  the  house  be 
 builded,  the  place  where  they  offered  sacrifices,  and 
 let  the  ibundations  thereof  be  strongly  laid ;  the 
 height  thereof  tlireescore  cubits,  and 
 tlie  breadth  thereof  tlu'eescore  culjits, 
 with  three  rows  of  great  stones  and  a 
 row  of  new  timber."  Josephus  quotes 
 tins  passage  almost  literally  (xi.  4, 
 §  6),  but  in  doing  so  enables  us  with 
 certainty  to  translate  the  word  here 
 called  row  as  "story"  [hofj.o'i)  —  as 
 indeed  the  sense  would  lead  u.s  to  infer 
 —  for  it  could  only  apply  to  the  three 
 stories  of  chambers  that  surrounded 
 Solomon's,  and  afterwards  Herod's 
 Temple,  and  with  this  again  we  come 
 to  the  wooden  Talar  which  sur- 
 mounted the  Temple  and  formed  a 
 fourth  story.  It  may  be  remarked 
 in  passing,  tliat  this  dimension  of  GO 
 cubits  in  height  accords  perfectly 
 with  the  words  which  Josephus  puts 
 into  the  mouth  of  Herod  (xv.  11,  §  1) 
 when  he  makes  him  say  that  the 
 Temple  built  after  the  Capti\'ity 
 wanted  GO  cubits  of  the  height  of 
 that  of  Solomon.  For  as  he  had  adopted,  as  we 
 have  seen  above,  the  height  of  120  cubits,  as  writ- 
 ten in  the  Clu-onicles,  for  that  Temple,  this  one^re- 
 mained  only  60. 
 
 The  other  dimension  of  60  cubits  in  breadth  is 
 20  cubits  in  excess  of  that  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
 but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  its  correctness,  for 
 we  find  both  from  Josephus  and  the  Talmud  that 
 it  was  the  dimension  adopted  for  the  Temple  when 
 rebuilt,  or  rather  repaired,  by  Herod.  At  the  same 
 time  we  have  no  authority  for  assuming  that  any 
 increase  was  made  in  the  dimensions  of  either  the 
 Holy  Place  or  the  Holy  of  Holies,  since  we  find 
 that  these  were  retained  in  Ezekiel's  description  of 
 an  ideal  Temple  —  and  were  afterwards  those  of 
 Herod's.  And  as  this  Temple  of  Zerubbabel  was 
 still  standing  in  Herod's  time,  and  was  more  strictly 
 speaking  repaired  than  rebuilt  by  him,  we  cannot 
 conceive  that  any  of  its  dimensions  were  then  di- 
 minished. We  are  left  therefore  with  the  alterna- 
 tive of  assuming  that  the  porch  and  the  chambers 
 all  round  were  20  cubits  in  width,  including  the 
 thickness  of  the  walls,  instead  of  10  cubits,  as  in 
 the  earlier  building.  Tliis  may  perhaps  to  some  ex- 
 tent be  accounted  for  by  the  introduction  of  a  pas- 
 sage between  the  Temple  and  the  rooms  of  th« 
 priest's  lodgings  instead  of  each  being  a  thorough- 
 
3202  TEMPLE 
 
 fare,  as  must  certainly  have  been  the  case  in  Solo- 
 mon's Temple. 
 
 This  alteration  in  the  width  of  the  Pteromata 
 made  the  Temple  100  cubits  in  length  by  GO  in 
 breadth,  with  a  height,  it  is  said,  of  GO  cubits,  in- 
 cluding the  upper  room  or  Talar,  though  we  cannot 
 help  suspecting  that  this  last  dimension  is  some- 
 what in  excess  of  the  truth." 
 
 The  only  other  description  of  this  Temple  is 
 found  in  llecataeus  the  Abderite,  who  wrote  shortly 
 after  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great.  As  quoted 
 by  Josephus  {conl.  Ap.  i.  22),  he  says,  that  "  In  Je- 
 rusalem towards  the  middle  of  the  city  is  a  stone 
 walled  iuclosure  about  500  feet  in  length  {i,s  irev- 
 Tdw?^eBpos)>  and  100  cubits  in  width,  with  double 
 gates,"  in  which  he  describes  the  Temple  as  being 
 situated. 
 
 The  last  dimension  is  exactly  what  we  obtained 
 above  by  doubling  the  width  of  the  Tabernacle  iu- 
 closure as  applied  to  Solomon's  Temple,  and  may 
 therefore  be  accepted  as  tolerably  certain,  but  the 
 500  feet  in  length  exceeds  anything  we  have  yet 
 reached  by  200  feet.  It  may  be  that  at  this  age  it 
 was  found  necessary  to  add  a  court  for  the  women 
 or  the  Gentiles,  a  sort  of  Narthex  or  Galilee  for 
 those  who  could  not  enter  the  Temple.  If  this  or 
 these  together  were  100  cubits  square,  it  would 
 make  up  the  "  nearly  5  plethra  "  of  our  author. 
 Hecataeus  also  mentions  that  the  altar  was  20  cu- 
 bits square  and  10  high.  And  although  he  men- 
 tions the  Temple  itself,  he  unfortunately  does  not 
 supply  us  with  any  dimensions. 
 
 From  these  dimensions  we  gather,  that  if  "  the 
 Priests  and  I-^vites  and  Elders  of  families  were  dis- 
 consolate at  seeing  how  much  more  sumptuous  the 
 old  Temple  was  than  the  one  which  on  account  of 
 their  poverty  they  had  just  been  able  to  erect" 
 (Ezr.  iii.  12;  Joseph.  AnI.  xi.  4,  §  2),  it  certainly 
 was  not  because  it  was  smaller,  as  almost  every  di- 
 mension had  been  increased  one  third  ;  but  it  may 
 have  been  that  the  carving  and  the  gold,  and  other 
 ornaments  of  Solomon's  Temple  far  surpassed  this, 
 and  the  pillars  of  the  portico  and  the  veils  may  all 
 have  been  far  more  splendid,  so  also  probably  were 
 the  vessels;  and  all  this  is  what  a  Jew  would  mourn 
 over  far  more  than  mere  architectural  splendor.  In 
 speaking  of  these  temples  we  must  always  bear  in 
 mind  that  their  dihiensions  were  practically  \ery  far 
 inferior  to  those  of  the  heathen.  Even  that  of  Ezra 
 is  not  larger  than  an  average  parish  church  of  the 
 last  century—  Solomon's  was  smaller.  It  was  the 
 lavish  display  of  the  precious  metals,  the  elabora- 
 tion of  carved  ornament,  and  the  beauty  of  the  tex- 
 tile fabrics,  which  made  up  their  splendor  and  ren- 
 dered them  so  precious  in  the  eyes  of  the  people, 
 and  there  can  consequently  be  no  greater  mistake 
 than  to  judge  of  them  by  the  number  of  cubits  they 
 measured.  They  were  temples  of  a  Shemitic,  not 
 of  a  Celtic  people. 
 
 Temple  of  Ezekiel. 
 The  vision  of  a  Temple  which  the  prophet  Eze- 
 kiel saw  while  residing  on  the  banks  of  the  Cheliar 
 in  Babylonia  in  the  25th  year  of  the  Captivity,  does 
 not  add  much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  subject.  It 
 is  not  a  description  of  a  Temple  that  ever  was  built 
 
 «  In  recounting  the  events  narrated  by  Ezra  (x.  9), 
 Josephus  says  (Ant.  xi.  5,  §  4)  that  the  assembly  there 
 referred  to  took  place  in  the  upper  room,  ev  tiZ  iirepwu) 
 ToC  UpoC,  which  would  be  a  very  curious  illustration 
 of  the  use  of  that  apartment  if  it  could  be  depended 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 or  ever  could  be  erected  at  Jerusalem,  and  can  con- 
 sequently only  be  considered  as  the  benu  ideal  of 
 what  a  Shemitic  temple  ought  to  be.  As  such  it 
 would  certainly  be  interesting  if  it  could  be  cor- 
 rectly restored,  but  unfortunately  the  difficulties  of 
 making  out  a  complicated  plan  from  a  mere  verbal 
 description  are  very  great  indeed,  and  are  enhanced 
 in  this  instance  by  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
 exact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  architectural  terms, 
 and  it  may  also  be  from  the  prophet  describing  not 
 what  he  actually  knew,  but  only  what  he  saw  in  a 
 vision. 
 
 Be  this  as  it  may,  we  find  that  the  Temple  itself 
 was  of  the  exact  dimensions  of  that  built  by  Solo- 
 mon, namely,  an  adytum  (Ez.  xl.  1-4),  20  cubits 
 square,  a  naos,  20x40,  and  surrounded  by  cells  of 
 10  cubits'  width  including  the  thickness  of  the 
 walls,  the  whole,  with  the  porch,  making  up  40  cu- 
 bits by  80,  or  very  little  more  than  one  four-thou- 
 sandth part  of  the  whole  area  of  the  Temple:  the 
 height  unfortunately  is  not  given.  Beyond  this 
 were  various  courts  and  residences  for  the  priests, 
 and  places  for  sacrifice  and  other  ceremonies  of  the 
 Temple,  till  he  comes  to  the  outer  court,  which 
 measured  600  reeds  on  each  of  its  sides;  each  reed 
 (Ez.  xl.  5)  was  6  Babylonian  cubits  long,  namely, 
 of  cubits  each  of  one  ordinary  cubit  and  a  hand- 
 breadth,  or  21  inches.  The  reed  was  therefore  10 
 feet  6  inches,  and  the  side  consequently  5,250  Greek 
 feet,  or  within  a  few  i'eet  of  an  English  mile,  con- 
 siderably more  than  the  whole  area  of  the  city  of 
 Jerusalem,  Temple  included ! 
 
 It  has  been  attemjjted  to  get  o^er  this  difficulty 
 by  saying  that  the  prophet  meant  cubits,  not  reeds ; 
 but  this  is  quite  untenable.  Nothing  can  be  more 
 clear  than  the  specification  of  the  length  of  the  reed, 
 and  nothing. more  careful  than  the  mode  in  which 
 reeds  are  distinguished  from  cubits  throughout;  as 
 for  instance  in  the  two  next  verses  (G  and  7)  where 
 a  chamber  and  a  gateway  are  mentioned,  each  of 
 one  reed.  If  cubit  were  substituted,  it  would  be 
 nonsense. 
 
 Notwithstanding  its  ideal  character,  the  whole  is 
 extremely  curious,  as  showing  what  were  the  aspi- 
 rations of  the  Jews  in  this  direction,  and  how  dif- 
 ferent they  were  from  those  of  other  nations;  and 
 it  is  interesting  here,  inasmuch  as  there  can  be 
 little  doubt  but  that  the  arrangements  of  Herod's 
 Temple  were  in  a  great  measure  influenced  by  the 
 de,scription  here  given.  The  outer  court,  for  in- 
 stance, with  its  porticoes  measuring  400  cubits  each 
 way,  is  an  exact  counterpart  on  a  smaller  scale  of 
 the  outer  court  of  Ezekiel's  Temple,  and  is  not 
 found  in  either  Solomon's  or  Zerubbabel's;  and 
 so  too,  evidently,  are  several  of  the  internal  ar- 
 rangements. 
 
 Temple  of  Hekod. 
 
 For  our  knowledge  of  the  last  and  greatest  of  the 
 Jewish  Temples  we  are  indebted  almost  wholly  to 
 the  works  of  Josephus,  with  an  occasional  hint 
 from  the  Talmud. 
 
 The  Bible  unfortunately  contains  nothing  to  as- 
 sist the  researches  of  the  antiquary  in  this  respect. 
 With  true  Shemitish  indifference  to  such  objects, 
 the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  furnish 
 
 upon,  but  both  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.  are  so  clear  that 
 it  was  in  the  "  street,"  or  "  place  "  of  the  Temple,  that 
 we  cannot  base  any  argument  upon  it,  though  it  is 
 curious  as  indicating  what  was  passing  iu  the  mind  oj 
 Josephus. 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 a  single  hint  which  would  enable  us  to  ascertain 
 either  what  the  situation  or  the  dimensions  of  the 
 Temple  were,  nor  any  characteristic  feature  of  its 
 architecture.  But  Josephus  knew  tlie  spot  per- 
 sonally, and  his  horizontal  dimensions  are  so  mi- 
 nutely accurate  that  we  almost  suspect  he  had  be- 
 fore liis  eyes,  when  writing,  some  ground-plan  of  the 
 building  prepared  in  tlie  quartermaster-general's  de- 
 partment of  Titus"s  army.  They  form  a  strange  con- 
 trast with  his  dimensions  in  height,  which,  with 
 .scarcely  an  exception,  can  be  shown  to  be  exagger- 
 ated, generally  doubled.  As  tlie  buildings  were  all 
 tlirown  down  during  the  siege,  it  was  impossible  to 
 convict  him  of  error  in  respect  to  elevations,  but  as 
 regards  pkfi  he  seems  always  to  have  had  a  whole- 
 some dreaa  of  the  knowledge  of  those  among  whom 
 he  was  living  and  writing. 
 
 TEMPLE  3203 
 
 The  Temple  or  naos  itself  was  in  dimensions  and 
 arrangement  very  similar  to  that  of  Solomon,  or 
 rather  that  of  Zerubbabel  —  more  like  tlie  latter; 
 but  this  was  surrounded  by  an  inner  inclosure  of 
 great  strength  and  magnificence,  measuring  as 
 nearly  as  can  be  made  out  180  cubits  by  240,  and 
 adorned  by  porches  and  ten  gateways  of  great 
 magnificence ;  and  beyond  this  again  was  an  outer 
 inclosure  measuring  externally  400  cubits  each 
 way,  which  was  adorned  with  porticoes  of  greater 
 splendor  than  any  we  know  of  attached  to  any 
 temple  of  the  ancient  world:  all  showing  how 
 strongly  Roman  influence  was  at  work  in  envelop- 
 ing with  heathen  magnificence  the  simple  templar 
 arrangements  of  a  Shemitic  people,  which,  how- 
 ever, remained  nearly  unchanged  amidst  all  this 
 external  incrustation. 
 
 No.  10. —  Temple  of  Herod  restored.     Scale  of  200  feet  to  1  inch. 
 
 It  has  already  been  pointed  out  [Jerusalem, 
 vol.  ii.  pp.  1313-14:]  that  the  Temple  was  certainly 
 situated  in  the  S.  W.  angle  of  the  area  now  known 
 as  the  Haram  area  at  Jerusalem,  and  it  is  hardly 
 necessai-y  to  repeat  here  the  arguments  there  ad- 
 duced to  prove  that  its  dimensions  were  what 
 Josephus  states  them  to  be,  400  cubits,  or  one  sta- 
 dium, each  way. 
 
 At  the  time  when  Herod  rebuilt  it  he  inclosed  a 
 space  ''twice  as  large  "  as  that  before  occupied  by 
 the   Temple  and  its  courts    {B.  J.  i.  21,  §  1),  an 
 
 a  *  Since  the  writer's  note  at  the  commencenieut 
 of  this  article  was  sent  to  press,  the  report  of  Lieut. 
 Warren's  latest  excavations  about  the  south  wall  of 
 the  Haram  area  has  come  to  hand,  containing,  he 
 thinks,  '■  as  much  information  with  regard  to  this 
 portion  of  the  Haram  Wall,  as  we  are  likely  to  be 
 able  to  obtain."  His  conclusions  are  adverse  to  the 
 theory  given  abov<».  Of  this  massive  wall,  he  thinks 
 that  the  600  teet  east  of  the  Double  Gate  is  of  a  dif- 
 
 expression  that  probably  must  not  be  taken  toe 
 literally,  at  least  if  we  are  to  depend  on  the  meas- 
 urements of  Hecatseus.  According  to  them  the 
 whole  area  of  Herod's  Temple  was  between  four 
 and  five  times  greater  than  that  which  preceded  it. 
 What  Herod  did  apparently  was  to  take  in  the 
 whole  space  between  the  Temple  and  the  city  wall 
 on  its  eastern  side,  and  to  add  a  considerable  space 
 on  the  north  and  south  to  support  the  porticoes 
 which  he  added  there."  [See  Palestine,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  2303,  note,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 ferent  construction  from  the  .300  feet  west  of  it,  and 
 more  ancient.  It  is  built  up  with  beveled  stones  from 
 the  rock,  and  on  some  of  the  stones  at  the  S.  E.  an- 
 gle were  found  signs  and  characters  (supposed  to  be 
 Phoenician)  which  had  been  cut  before  the  stones  were 
 laid  (Pal.  Expl.  Fund,  Warren's  Letters,  XLV.).  Re- 
 jecting Mr.  Fergussou's  theory,  that  the  S.  W.  angle 
 of  the  area  was  the  site  of  the  Temple,  Liout.  Warren 
 is  undecided  between  three  points,  which  present,  he 
 
3204 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 As  the  Temple  ten-ace  thus  became  the  principal 
 defense  of  the  city  on  the  east  side,  there  were  no 
 gates  or  openings  in  that  direction,"  and  being  situ- 
 ated on  a  sort  of  rocky  brow  —  as  evidenced  from 
 its  appearance  in  tlie  vaults  that  bound  it  on  this 
 side  —  it  was  at  all  future  times  considered  unat- 
 tackable  from  the  eastward.  The  north  §ide,  too, 
 where  not  covered  by  the  fortress  Antonia,  liecame 
 part  of  the  defenses  of  the  city,  and  was  likewise 
 without  external  gates.  But  it  may  also  have  been 
 that,  as  the  tombs  of  the  kings,  and  indeed  the 
 general  cemetery  of  .Jerusalem,  were  situated  im- 
 mediately to  the  nortliward  of  the  Temple,  there 
 was  some  religious  feeling  in  preventing  too  ready 
 access  from  the  Temple  to  the  burjing-places  (Ez. 
 xliii.  7-9). 
 
 On  the  south  side,  which  was  inclosed  by  the 
 wall  of  Ophel,  there  were  double  gates  nearly  in 
 the  centre  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5).  These  gates  still 
 exist  at  a  distance  of  about  365  feet  from  the 
 southwestern  angle,  and  are  perhaps  the  only 
 architectural  features  of  the  Temple  of  Herod 
 which  remain  in  situ.  This  entrance  consists  of 
 a  double  archway  of  Cyclopean  architecture  on  the 
 level  of  the  ground,  opening  into  a  square  vestilnde 
 measuring  40  feet  each  way.  In  the  centre  of  this 
 is  a  pillar  crowned  by  a  capital  of  the  Greek  — 
 rather  than  Roman  —  Corinthian  order  (Wood-cut 
 No.  11);  the  acanthus  alternating  with  the  water- 
 leaf,  as  in  the  Tower  of  the  Winds  at  Athens,  and 
 other  Greek  examples,  but  which  was  an  arrange- 
 ment abandoned  by  the  Romans  as  early  as  the 
 time  of  Augustus,  and  never  afterwards  employed.'' 
 From  this  pillar  spring  four  fiat  segmental  arches, 
 and    the   space    between   these   is    roofed   by   flat 
 
 No.  11.  —  Capital  of  Pillar  in  Testibu'.e  of  southeru 
 entrance. 
 
 domes,  constructed  apparently  on  the  horizontal 
 principle.  The  walls  of  this  vestibule  are  of  the 
 same  beveled  masonry  as  the  exterior;  but  either 
 at  the  time  of  erection  or  subsequently,  the  pro- 
 jections seem  to  have  been  chiseled  off  in  some 
 parts  so  as  to  form  pilasters.  From  this  a  doulile 
 'lunnel,  nearly  200  feet  in   length,  leads  to  a  flight 
 
 thinks,  about  equal  claims  —  namely,  the  present 
 Dome  of  the  Rock  platform,  a  space  east  of  it  reach- 
 ing to  the  east  wall,  and  the  S.  E.  angle  of  the  area. 
 Further  examination  and  evidence  will  be  neces.sar.v, 
 to  shake  the  traditional  belief  in  the  first-named  site. 
 
 S.  W. 
 «  The  Talmud,  it  is  true,  does  mention  a  gate  as 
 existing  in  the  eastern  wall,  but  its  testimony  on  this 
 point  is  so  unsatisfactory  and  in  such  direct  opposition 
 to  Josephus  and  the  probabilities  of  the  case,  that  it 
 may  safely  be  disregarded. 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 of  steps  which  rise  to  the  surface  in  the  court  of 
 the  Temple,  exactly  at  that  gateway  of  the  inner 
 Temple  which  led  to  the  altar,  and  is  the  one  of 
 the  four  gatevvays  on  this  side  by  which  any  one 
 arriving  from  Ophel  would  naturally  wisli  to  enter 
 the  imier  inclosure.  It  seems  to  have  been  this 
 necessity  that  led  to  the  external  gateway  being 
 placed  a  little  more  to  the  eastward  than  the  exact 
 centre  of  the  inclosure,  where  naturally  we  should 
 otherwise  have  looked  for  it. 
 
 We  learn  from  the  Talmud  {.Mid.  ii.  G),  that  the 
 gate  of  the  inner  Temple  to  which  this  passage  led 
 was  called  the  "Water  Gate;  "  and  it  is  interesting 
 to  be  able  to  identify  a  spot  so  prominent  in  the  de- 
 scription of  Nehemiah  (xii.  37).  The  Water  Gate 
 is  more  often  mentioned  in  the  mediievin  references 
 to  the  Temple  than  any  other,  especially  liy  ^lo- 
 hammedan  authors,  though  by  them  frequently 
 confounded  with  the  outer  gate  at  the  other  end  of 
 this  passage. 
 
 Towards  the  westward  there  were  four  gateways 
 to  the  external  inclosure  of  the  Temple  (Ant.  xv. 
 11,  §  5),  and  the  positions  of  three  of  these  can 
 still  be  traced  with  certainty.  The  first  or  most 
 southern  led  over  the  bridge  the  remains  of  which 
 were  identified  l\y  Dr.  Robinson  (of  which  a  view 
 is  given  in  art.  Jerusalem,  vol.  ii.  p.  1313),  and 
 joined  the  Stoa  Basilica  of  the  Temple  with  the 
 royal  palace  {Ant.  ibid.).  The  second  was  that 
 discovered  by  Dr.  Barclay,  270  feet  from  the  S.  W. 
 angle,  at  a  level  of  17  feet  below  that  of  the  south- 
 ern gates  just  described.  The  site  of  the  third  is 
 so  completely  covered  by  the  buildings  of  the 
 Meckm^  that  it  has  not  yet  been  seen,  but  it  will 
 be  found  between  200  and  250  feet  from  the  N.  W. 
 angle  of  the  Temple  area ;  for,  owing  to  the  greater 
 width  of  the  southern  portico  beyond  that  on  tiie 
 northern,  the  Temple  itself  was  not  in  the  centre 
 of  its  inclosure,  but  situated  more  towards  the 
 north.  The  fourth  was  that  which  led  over  the 
 causeway  which  still  exists  at  a  distance  of  600 
 feet  from  the  southwestern  angle. 
 
 In  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  until  the  area  was 
 enlarged  by  Ilerod,  the  ascent  from  the  western 
 valley  to  the  Temple  seems  to  have  been  by  an 
 external  flight  of  stairs  (Neh.  xii.  37;  IK.  x.  5, 
 ifcc),  similar  to  those  at  Persepolis,  and  like  them 
 probably  placed  laterally  so  as  to  form  a  part  of 
 tlie  architectural  design.  When,  however,  the 
 Temple  came  to  be  fortified  "  modo  arcis  "  (Tacit. 
 //.  v.  12),  the  causeway  and  the  bridge  were  es- 
 tablished to  afford  communication  with  tlie  upper 
 city,  and  the  two  intermediate  lower  entrances  to 
 lead  to  the  lower  city,  or,  as  it  was  originally  called, 
 "  the  city  of  David." 
 
 Cloisters The  most  magnificent  part  of  the 
 
 Temple,  in  an  architectin-al  point  of  view,  seems 
 certairdy  to  have  been  the  cloisters  which  were 
 added  to  the  outer  court  when  it  was  enlarged  by 
 Herod.  It  is  not  quite  clear  if  there  was  not  an 
 eastern   porch  before  this  time,  and  if  so,  it  may 
 
 b  Owing  to  the  darkness  of  the  place,  blocked  up 
 as  it  now  is,  and  the  ruined  state  of  the  capital,  it  is 
 not  easy  to  get  a  correct  delineation  of  it.  This  is  to 
 be  regretted,  as  a  considerable  controTersy  has  arisen 
 as  to  its  exact  character.  It  may  therefore  be  interest- 
 ing to  mention  that  the  drawing  made  by  the  archi- 
 tectural draughtsman  who  accompanied  M.  Renan  in 
 his  late  scientific  expedition  to  Syria  confirms  to  the 
 fullest  extent  the  character  of  the  architecture,  as 
 shown  in  the  view  given  above  fi'om  Mr.  Arundale'a 
 drawing. 
 
TEMPLE 
 
 have  been  nearly  on  the  site  of  tliat  subsequently 
 erected ;  but  on  the  three  other  sides  the  Temple 
 area  was  so  extended  at  the  last  rebuilding  that 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  from  the  very 
 foundations  the  terrace  walls  and  cloisters  belonged 
 wholly  to  the  last  period. 
 
 The  cloisters  in  the  west,  north,  and  east  side  were 
 composed  of  double  rows  of  Corinthian  columns,  25 
 cubits  or  37  feet  6  inches  in  height  (Z?.  J.  v.  5,  §  2), 
 with  flat  roofs,  and  resting  against  the  outer  wall 
 of  the  Temple.  These,  however,  were  immeasurably 
 surpassed  in  magnificence  by  tiie  ro)  al  porch  or  Stoa 
 Basilica  which  overhuni;  the  southern  wall.  This 
 is  so  minutely  described  by  Josephus  [Ant.  xv.  11, 
 §  5)  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  understanding  its 
 arrangement  or  ascertaining  its  dimensions.  It 
 consisted  (in  the  language  of  Gothic  architecture) 
 of  a  nave  and  two  aisles,  that  towards  the  Temple 
 being  open,  that  tov\ards  the  country  closed  by  a 
 wall.  The  breadth  of  the  centre  aisle  was  4.5  feet; 
 of  the  side  aisles  30  from  centre  to  centre  of  the 
 pillais;  their  heigiit  50  feet,  and  that  of  the  centre 
 aisle  100  feet.  Its  section  was  thus  something  in 
 excess  of  that  of  York  Cathedral,  while  its  total 
 length  was  one  stadium  or  COO  (ireek  feet,  or  100 
 feet  in  excess  of  York,  or  our  largest  (jothic  ca- 
 thedrals. This  magnificent  structure  was  sup- 
 ported by  162  Corinthian  columns,  arranged  in 
 four  rows,  forty  in  each  row  —  the  two  odd  pillars 
 forming  apparently  a  screen  at  the  end  of  the  bridge 
 leading  to  the  palace,  whose  axis  was  coincident 
 with  that  of  the  Stoa,  which  thus  formed  the 
 principal  entrance  from  the  city  and  palace  to  the 
 Temple. 
 
 At  a  short  distance  from  the  front  of  these 
 cloisters  was  a  niarlile  screen  or  inclosure,  3  cubits 
 in  height,  lieautifully  ornamented  with  carving,  but 
 bearing  inscriptions  in  Greek  and  Roman  characters 
 forbidding  any  Gentile  to  pass  within  its  bounda- 
 ries. Again,  at  a  short  distance  within  this  was  a 
 flight  of  steps  supporting  tlie  terrace  or  platform 
 on  which  the  Temple  itself  stood.  According  to 
 Josephus  (B.  J.  V.  5,  §  2)  this  terrace  was  15 
 cubits  or  224  feet  high,  and  was  apprpached  first 
 by  fourteen  steps,  each  we  may  assume  about  one 
 foot  in  height,  at  the  top  of  which  was  a  berm  or 
 platform,  10  cubits  wide,  called  the  Chel;  and 
 there  were  again  in  the  depth  of  the  gateways 
 five  or  six  steps  more  leading  to  the  inner  court 
 of  the  Temple,  thus  making  20  or  21  steps  in  the 
 whole  heiglit  of  2251^  feet.  To  the  eastward,  where 
 the  court  of  the  women  was  situated,  this  arrange- 
 ment was  reversed ;  five  steps  led  to  the  Chel,  and 
 fifteen  from  that  to  the  court  of  tlie  Temple. 
 
 The  court  of  the  Temple,  as  mentioned  above, 
 was  very  nearly  a  square.  It  may  have  been  ex- 
 actly so,  for  we  have  not  all  the  details  to  enable 
 us  to  feel  quite  certain  about  it.  The  Mkldoth 
 says  it  was  187  cubits  E.  and  W.,  and  137  N.  and 
 S.  (ii.  6).     But  on  the  two  last  sides  there  were 
 
 «  It  does  not  appear  difficult  to  account  for  this  ex- 
 traordinary excess.  The  lte.bbis  adopted  the  sacred 
 number  of  Ezekiel  of  500  for  their  external  dimensions 
 of  the  Temple,  without  caring  much  whether  it  meant 
 reeds  or  cubits,  and  though  the  commentators  say 
 that  they  only  meant  the  smaller  cubit  of  15  inches, 
 or  625  feet  in  all,  this  explanation  will  not  hold  good, 
 as  all  their  other  measurements  agree  so  closely  with 
 those  of  Josephus  that  they  evidently  were  using  the 
 same  cubit  of  18  inches.  The  fact  seems  to  be,  that 
 having  erroneously  adopted  500  cubits  instead  of  400 
 
 TEMPLE  3205 
 
 the  gateways  with  their  exhedrse  and  chambers, 
 which  may  have  made  up  25  cubits  each  way, 
 though,  with  such  measurements  as  we  have,  it 
 appears  they  were  something  less. 
 
 To  the  eastward  of  this  was  the  court  of  the 
 women,  the  dimensions  of  which  are  not  given  by 
 ■Josephus,  but  are  in  the  Middoth,  as  137  cubits 
 square  —  a  dimension  we  may  safely  reject,  first, 
 from  the  extreme  improbability  of  the  Jews  allot- 
 ting to  the  women  a  space  more  than  ten  times 
 greater  than  that  allotted  to  the  men  of  Israel  or 
 to  the  Levites,  who.se  courts,  according  to  the  same 
 authority,  were  respectively  137  by  11  cubits;  but, 
 more  than  this,  from  the  impossibility  of  finding 
 room  for  such  a  court  while  adhering  to  the  other 
 dimensions  given. '^  If  we  assume  that  the  inclosure 
 of  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  or  the  Chel,  was  nearly 
 equidistant  on  all  four  sides  from  the  cloisters,  its 
 dimension  must  have  been  about  37  or  40  cubits 
 east  and  west,  most  probably  the  former. 
 
 The  great  ornament  of  these  inner  courts  seems 
 to  have  been  their  gateways,  the  three  especially 
 on  the  north  and  south  leading  to  the  Temple 
 court.  These,  according  to  Josei)hus,  were  of  great 
 height,  strongly  fortified  and  ornamented  with  great 
 elaboration.  But  the  wonder  of  all  was  the  great 
 eastern  gate  leading  from  the  coui't  of  the  women 
 to  the  upper  court.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
 pride  of  the  Tenqile  area — covered  with  carving, 
 richly  gilt,  having  apartments  over  it  (Ant.  xv. 
 11,  §  7),  more  like  the  Gopura  *  of  an  Indian  tem- 
 ple than  anything  else  we  are  acquainted  with  in 
 architecture.  It  was  also  in  all  probability  the  one 
 called  the  "Beautiful  Gate''  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 Innnediately  within  this  gateway  stood  the  altar 
 of  burnt-offerings,  according  to  Josephus  (B.  J.  v. 
 5,  §  0),  50  cubits  square  and  15  cubits  high,  with 
 an  ascent  to  it  by  an  inclined  plane.  The  Talmud 
 reduces  this  dimension  to  32  cubits  (Middolh,  iii. 
 1),  and  adds  a  numbei-  of  particulars,  which  make 
 it  appear  that  it  must  have  been  like  a  model  of 
 the  Babylonian  or  other  Assyrian  temples.  On  the 
 north  side  were  the  rings  and  stakes  to  which  the 
 victims  were  attached  which  were  lirought  in  to  be 
 sacrificed ;  and  to  the  south,  an  inclined  plane  led 
 down,  as  before  mentioned,  to  the  Water  Gate  — 
 so  caUed  because  innnediately  in  front  of  it  was  the 
 great  cistern  excavated  in  the  rock,  first  explored 
 and  described  by  Dr.  Barclay  ( City  of  the  Great 
 King,  p.  520),  from  which  water  was  supplied  to 
 the  Altar  and  the  Temple.  And  a  little  beyond 
 this,  at  the  S.  W.  angle  of  the  Altar  was  an  open- 
 ing {Mkldoth,  iii.  3),  through  which  the  blood  of 
 the  victims  flowed  <^  westward  and  southward  to  the 
 king's  garden  at  Siloam. 
 
 Both  the  Altar  and  the  Temple  were  inclosed  by 
 a  low  parapet  one  cubit  in  height,  placed  so  as  to 
 keep  the  people  separate  from  the  priests  while  the 
 latter  were  performing  their  functions. 
 
 Within  this  la«t  inclosure  towards  the  westward 
 
 for  the  external  dimensions,  they  had  100  cubits  to 
 spare,  and  introduced  them  where  no  authority  ex- 
 isted to  show  they  were  wrong. 
 
 &   Handbook  nf  Architecture,  p.  93  ff. 
 
 c  A  channel  exactly  correspondhig  to  that  described 
 in  the  Talmud  has  been  discovered  by  Signor  Pierotti, 
 running  towards  the  southwest.  In  his  published  ac> 
 counts  he  mistakes  it  for  one  flowing  northeast,  in 
 direct  contradiction  to  the  Talmud,  ivhich  is  our  only 
 authority  on  the  subject 
 
3206 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 stood  the  Temple  itself.  As  before  mentioned,  its 
 internal  dimensions  were  the  same  as  those  of  the 
 Temple  of  Solomon,  or  of  that  seen  by  the  pi-ophet 
 in  a  vision,  namely,  20  cubits  or  30  feet,  by  60 
 cubits  or  90  feet,  divided  into  a  cubical  Holy  of 
 Holies,  and  a  holy  place  of  2  cubes;  and  there  is 
 no  reason  whatever  for  doubting  but  that  the  Sanc- 
 tuary always  stood  on  the  identically  same  spot  in 
 which  it  had  been  placed  by  Solomon  a  thousand 
 years  before  it  was  rebuilt  by  Herod. 
 
 Although  the  internal  dimensions  remained  the 
 same,  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that 
 the  whole  plan  was  augniented  by  the  Pteromata 
 or  surrounding  parts  being  increased  from  10  to 
 20  cubits,  so  that  tlie  third  Temple  like  the  second, 
 measured  60  cubits  across,  and  100  cubits  east  and 
 west.  The  width  of  the  facade  was  also  augmented 
 by  wings  or  shoulders  {D.  J.  v.  5,  §  4)  projecting 
 20  culjits  each  way,  making  the  whole  breadth  100 
 cubits,  or  equal  to  the  length.  So  far  all  seems 
 certain,  but  when  we  come  to  the  height,  every 
 measurement  seems  doubtful.  Both  Josephus  and 
 the  Talmud  seem  delighted  with  the  truly  Jewish 
 idea  of  a  building  which,  without  being  a  cube, 
 was  100  cubits  long,  100  broad,  and  100  high  — 
 and  everything  seems  to  be  made  to  bend  to  this 
 simple  ratio  of  proportion.  It  may  also  be  partly 
 owing  to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  heights  as 
 compared  with  horizontal  dimensions,  and  the  ten- 
 dency that  always  exists  to  exaggerate  these  latter, 
 that  maj'  have  led  to  some  confusion,  but  from 
 whatever  cause  it  arose,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
 believe  that  the  dimensions  of  the  Temple  as  re- 
 gards height,  were  what  they  were  asserted  to  be 
 by  Josephus,  and  specified  with  such  minute  detail 
 in  the  Mkldolh  (iv.  6).  This  authority  makes  the 
 height  of  the  floor  0,  of  the  hall  40  cubits;  the 
 roofing  5  cubits  in  thickness;  then  the  cosnaculum 
 or  upper  room  40,  and  the  roof,  parapet,  etc.,  9  !  — 
 all  the  parts  being  named  with  the  most  detailed 
 particularity. 
 
 As  the  adytum  wa.s  certainly  not  more  than  20 
 cubits  high,  the  first  40  looks  very  like  a  duplica- 
 tion, and  so  does  the  second;  for  a  room  20  cubits 
 wide  and  40  high  is  jo  absurd  a  proportion  that  it 
 is  impossible  to  accept  it.  In  fact,  we  cannot  help 
 suspecting  that  in  this  instance  Josephus  was  guilty 
 of  systematically  doubling  the  altitude  of  the  build- 
 ing he  was  describing,  as  it  can  be  proved  be  did 
 in  some  other  instances." 
 
 From  the  above  it  would  appear,  that  in  so  far 
 as  the  horizontal  dimensions  of  the  various  parts 
 of  this  celebrated  building,  or  their  arrangement  in 
 plan  is  concerned,  we  can  restore  every  part  with 
 very  tolerable  certainty ;  and  there  does  not  appear 
 either  to  be  very  much  doubt  as  to  their  real  height. 
 But  when  we  turn  from  actual  measurement  and 
 try  to  realize  its  appearance  or  the  details  of  its 
 architecture,  we  launch  into  a  sea  of  conjecture 
 with  very  little  indeed  to  guide  us,  at  least  in  re- 
 gard to  the  appearance  of  the  Temple  itself. 
 
 We  know,   however,   that   the  cloisters  of  the 
 
 «  As  it  is  not  easy  always  to  realize  figured  dimen- 
 sions, it  may  assist  those  who  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
 doing  so  to  state  that  the  western  fafade  and  nave  of 
 Lincoln  Cathedral  are  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  Her- 
 od's Temple.  Thus,  the  fafade  with  its  shoulders  is 
 about  100  cubits  wide.  The  nave  is  GO  cubits  wide 
 and  60  high,  and  if  you  divide  the  aisle  into  three 
 stories  you  can  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  chambers  ; 
 und  if  the  nave  with  its  clerestory  were  divided  by  a 
 
 TEMPLE 
 
 outer  court  were  of  the  Corinthian  order,  and  from 
 the  appearance  of  nearly  contemporary  cloisters  at 
 i'almyra  and  Baalbec  we  can  judge  of  their  effect. 
 There  are  also  in  the  Haram  area  at  Jerusalem  a 
 number  of  pillars  which  once  belonged  to  these 
 colonnades,  and  so  soon  as  any  one  will  take  the 
 trouble  to  measure  and  draw  them,  we  may  restore 
 the  cloisters  at  all  events  with  almost  absolute  cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 We  may  also  realize  very  nearly  the  general  ap- 
 pearance of  the  inner  fortified  inclosure  with  its 
 gates  and  their  accompaniments,  and  we  can  also 
 restore  the  Altar,  but  when  we  turn  to  the  Temple 
 itself,  all  is  guess  work.  Still  the  speculation  is  so 
 interesting,  that  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  say 
 a  few  words  regarding  it. 
 
 In  the  first  place  we  are  told  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5) 
 that  the  priests  built  the  Temple  itself  in  eighteen 
 months,  while  it  took  Herod  eight  years  to  com- 
 plete his  part,  and  as  only  priests  apparently  were 
 employed,  we  may  fairly  assume  that  it  was  not  a 
 rebuilding,  but  only  a  repair  —  it  may  be  with 
 additions  —  which  they  undertook.  We  know  also 
 from  Maccabees,  and  from  the  unwillingness  of  the 
 priests  to  allow  Herod  to  undertake  the  rebuilding 
 at  all,  that  the  Temple,  though  at  one  time  dese- 
 crated, was  never  destroyed ;  so  we  may  fairly  as- 
 sunie  that  a  great  part  of  the  Temple  of  Zerubbabel 
 was  still  standing,  and  was  incorporated  in  the 
 new. 
 
 Whatever  may  have  been  the  case  with  tne 
 Temple  of  Solomon,  it  is  nearly  certain  that  the 
 style  of  the  second  Temple  must  have  been  iden- 
 tical with  that  of  the  buildings  we  are  so  familiar 
 with  at  Persepolis  and  Susa.  In  fact  the  Wood- 
 cut No.  6  correctly  represents  the  second  Temple 
 in  so  far  as  its  details  are  concerned ;  for  we  must 
 not  be  led  away  with  the  modern  idea  that  different 
 people  built  in  different  styles,  which  they  kept  dis- 
 tinct and  practiced  only  within  their  own  narrow 
 limits.  The  Jews  were  too  closely  connected  with 
 the  Persians  and  Babylonians  at  this  period  to 
 know  of  any  other  style,  and  in  fact  their  Temple 
 was  built  under  the  superintendence  of  the  very 
 parties  who  were  erecting  the  contemporary  edifices 
 at  Persepolis  and  Susa. 
 
 The  question  still  remains  how  much  of  this 
 building  or  of  its  details  were  retained,  or  bow 
 much  of  Roman  feeling  added.  We  may  at  once 
 dismiss  the  idea  that  anything  was  borrowed  from 
 Egypt.  That  country  had  no  influence  at  this 
 period  beyond  the  limits  of  her  own  narrow  valley, 
 and  we  cainiot  trace  one  vestige  of  her  taste  or  feel- 
 ing in  anything  found  in  Syria  at  or  about  this 
 epoch. 
 
 Turning  to  the  building  itself,  we  find  that  the 
 only  things  that  were  added  at  this  period  were  the 
 wings  to  the  faoade,  and  it  may  consequently  be 
 surmised  that  the  facade  was  entirely  remodeled 
 at  this  time,  especially  as  we  find  in  the  centre  a 
 great  arch,  which  was  a  very  Roman  feature,  and 
 rery  unlike  anything  we  know  of  as  existing  before. 
 
 floor,  they  would  correctly  represent  the  dimensions 
 of  the  Temple  and  its  upper  rooms.  The  nave,  how- 
 ever, to  the  transept,  is  considerably  more  than  100 
 cubits  long,  while  the  fafade  is  only  between  50  and 
 60  cubits  higli.  Those,  therefore,  who  adhere  to  the 
 written  text,  must  double  its  height  in  imagination  to 
 realize  its  appearance,  but  my  own  conviction  is  that 
 the  Temple  was  not  higher  in  reality  than  the  fap'ide 
 of  the  cathedral. 
 
TEMPLE,  CAPTAIN  OF  THE 
 
 This,  Josephus  says,  was  23  cubits  wide  and  70 
 high,  whicli  is  so  monstrous  in  proportion,  and, 
 being  wider  than  the  Temple  itself,  so  unlikely,  that 
 it  may  safely  lie  rejected,  and  we  may  adopt  in  its 
 stead  the  more  moderate  diuiensions  of  the  Middotk 
 (iii.  7),  which  makes  it  20  cubits  wide  by  40  high, 
 which  is  not  only  more  in  accordance  vvitli  the 
 dimensions  of  the  building,  but  also  With  the  pro- 
 portions of  Roman  architecture.  This  arch  occu- 
 pied the  centre,  and  may  easily  be  restored ;  but 
 what  is  to  be  done  with  the  .'37  cubits  on  either 
 hand  '?  Were  they  plain  like  an  unfinished  Egyp- 
 tian propylon,  or  co\ered  with  ornament  like  an 
 Indian  Gopura?  My  own  impression  is  that  the 
 fa9ade  on  either  hand  was  covered  with  a  series  of 
 small  arches  and  panels  four  stories  in  height,  and 
 more  like  the  Tak  Kesra  at  Ctesiphoii "  than  any 
 other  building  now  existing.  It  is  true  that  nearly 
 five  centuries  elapsed  between  the  destruction  of  the 
 one  building  and  the  erection  of  the  other.  But 
 Herod's  Temple  was  not  the  last  of  its  race,  nor 
 was  Nushirvan's  the  first  of  its  class,  and  its  pointed 
 arches  and  clumsy  details  show  just  such  a  degra- 
 dation of  style  as  we  should  expect  from  the  in- 
 terval which  had  elapsed  between  them.  We  know 
 so  little  of  the  architecture  of  this  part  of  Asia  that 
 it  is  impossible  to  speak  with  certainty  on  such  a 
 subject,  liut  we  may  yet  recover  many  of  the  lost 
 links  which  connect  the  one  with  the  other,  and  so 
 restore  the  earlier  examples  with  at  least  proximate 
 certainty. 
 
 Whatever  the  exact  appearance  of  its  details  may 
 have  been,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  the  triple 
 Temple  of  Jerusalem  —  the  lower  court,  standing 
 on  its  magnificent  terraces  —  the  iimer  court,  raised 
 on  its  platform  in  the  centre  of  this  —  and  the 
 Temple  itself,  rising  out  of  this  group  and  crown- 
 ing the  whole-;- must  have  formed,  when  combined 
 with  the  beauty  of  its  situation,  one  of  the  most 
 splendid  architectural  combinations  of  the  ancient 
 world.  J.  F. 
 
 *  On  this  subject  one  may  also  consult  the  Ap- 
 pendix to  Dr.  James  Strong's  New  Harmony  and 
 Kxpus.  of  the  Gospels  (N".  Y.  1852),  pp.  24-37; 
 T.  O.  Paine,  Solomon''s  Temple,  etc.,  Boston,  1801 
 (21  plates);  ilerz's  art.  Teiiipel  zu  Jerusalem,  in 
 Herzog's  Rml-Encykl.  xv.  500-516;  and  the  liter- 
 ature referred  to  under  Ezekiel,  vol.  i.  p.  801  b. 
 
 A. 
 
 *  TEMPLE,  CAPTAIN  OF  THE.  [Cap- 
 tain.] 
 
 *  TEMPT  (Lat.  temptare,  tentare)  is  very 
 often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  sense  of  "to  try," 
 "put  to  the  test."  Thus  God  is  said  to  have 
 "  tempted  "  Abraham  when  he  tried  his  faith  by 
 commanding  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  1). 
 The  Israelites  "  tempted  God  "  in  the  wilderness 
 when  they  put  his  patience  and  forbearance  to  the 
 proof  by  murmuring,  distrust,  and  disobedience 
 (Exod.  xvii.  2,  7;  Num.  xiv.  22;  Deirt.  vi.  16; 
 Ps.  Ixxviii.  18,  41,  56,  xcv.  9,  cvi.  14).  The  lawyer 
 is  said  to  have  "  tempted"  Christ  when  he  asked 
 
 TEN  COMMANDMENTS      3207 
 
 him  a  question  to  see  how  he  would  answer  it 
 (Matt.  xxii.  35;  Luke  x.  25).  So  the  word  is 
 used  in  reference  to  the  ensnaring  questions  of  the 
 Pharisees  (Matt.  xvi.  1,  xix.  3;  Mark  xii.  15;  Luke 
 XX.  23).     [Temptation.]  A. 
 
 *  TEMPTATION  is  often  used  in  the  A.  V. 
 in  its  original  sense  of  "  trial "  (e.  ff.  Luke  xxii. 
 28;  Acts  XX.  19;  James  i.  2,  12;  1  Pet.  i.  6; 
 Rev.  iii.  10).  The  plagues  of  Egypt  are  called 
 "  temptations  "  (Ueiit.  iv.  34,  vii.  19,  xxix.  3),  be- 
 cause they  tested  the  extent  to  which  Pharaoh 
 would  carry  his  oijstinacy.      [Tejipt.]  A. 
 
 TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  (1.)  The  pop- 
 ular name  in  this,  as  in  so  many  instances,  is  not 
 that  of  Scripture.     There  we  have  the  "  ten  words  " 
 
 (D''"}D"^rT  iT^tt?^:  TO  SeKO.  prj/xara:  verba 
 decern),  not  the  Ten  Commandments _(Ex.  xxxiv. 
 28;  Deut.  iv.  13,  x.  4,  Heb.).  The  difference  is 
 not  altogether  an  unmeaning  one.  The  icord  of 
 (5od,  the  "word  of  the  Lord,"  the  constantly  re- 
 curring term  for  the  fullest  revelation,  was  higher 
 than  any  phrase  expressing  merely  a  command,  and 
 caiTied  with  it  more  the  idea  of  a  self-fulfilling 
 power.  If  on  the  one  side  there  was  the  special 
 contrast  to  which  our  Lord  refers  between  the  com- 
 mandments of  God  and  the  traditions  of  men 
 (Matt.  XV.  3),  the  arrogance  of  the  Rabbis  showed 
 itself,  on  the  other,  in  placing  the  words  of  the 
 Scribes  on  the  same  level  as  the  words  of  God. 
 [Comp.  Scribes.]  Nowhere  in  the  later  books 
 of  the  0.  T.  is  any  direct  reference  made  to  their 
 number.  The  treatise  of  Philo,  however,  Trepl  twi> 
 Se'/ca  Aoyiocif,  shows  that  it  had  fixed  itself  on  the 
 .lewish  mind,  and  later  still,  it  gave  occasion  to  the 
 formation  of  a  new  word  ("  The  Decalogue "  rj 
 SeKaKoyos,  first  in  Clem.  Al.  Peed.  iii.  12),  which 
 has  perpetuated  itself  in  modern  languages.  Other 
 names  are  even  more  significant.  These,  and  these 
 alone,  are  "the  words  of  the  covenant,"  the  un- 
 changing ground  of  the  union  between  Jeho\ah  and 
 his  people,  all  else  being  as  a  superstructure,  acces- 
 sory and  suliordinate  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28).  They  are 
 also  the  Tables  of  Testimony,  sometimes  simply 
 "  the  testimony,"  the  witness  to  men  of  the  Divine 
 will,  righteous  itself,  demanding  righteousness  in 
 man  (Ex.  xxv.  16,  xxxi.  18,  &c.).  It  is  by  virtue 
 of  their  presence  in  it  that  the  Ark  becomes,  in  its 
 turn,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  (Num.  x.  33,  <fec. ), 
 that  the  sacred  tent  became  the  Tabernacle  of 
 Witness,  of  Testimony  (Ex.  xxxviii.  21,  &c.). 
 [Tabernacle.]  They  remain  there,  throughout 
 the  glory  of  the  kingdom,  the  primeval  relics  of  a 
 hoar  antiquity  (1  K.  viii.  9),  their  material,  the 
 writing  on  them,  the  sharp  incisive  character  of  the 
 laws  themselves  presenting  a  striking  contrast  to 
 the  more  expanded  teaching  of  a  later  time.  Not 
 less  did  the  conunandments  themselves  speak  of 
 the  earlier  age  when  not  the  silver  and  the  gold, 
 but  the  OS  and  the  ass  were  the  great  representa  • 
 fives  of  wealth*  (comp.  1  Sam.  xii.  3). 
 
 (2.)  The  circumstances  in  which  the  Ten  great 
 
 o  Handbook  of  Architecture,  p.  375. 
 
 b  Ewald  is  disposed  to  think  that  even  in  the  form 
 in  which  we  have  the  Commaudments  there  are  some 
 ^additions  made  at  a  later  period,  and  that  the  second 
 and  the  fourth  commaudments  were  originally  as 
 briefly  Imperative  as  the  sixth  or  seventh  (Gesch.  Isr. 
 ii.  206).  The  difference  between  the  reason  given  in 
 Ex.  XX.  11  for  the  fourth  commandment,  and  that 
 stated   to  have   been   given  in  Deut.   y.  15,   makes. 
 
 perhaps,  such  a  conjecture  possible.  Sc/iolia  which 
 modern  annotators  put  into  the  margin  are  in  the 
 existing  state  of  the  0.  T.  incorporated  into  the  text. 
 Obviously  both  forms  could  not  have  appeared  written 
 on  the  two  Tables  of  Stone,  yet  Deut.  v.  15,  22  not 
 only  states  a  different  reason,  but  afBrms  tliat  "  iiU 
 the.se  words"  were  thus  written.  Keil  (Coinm.  on 
 Ex.  XX.)  seems  on  this  poijt  disposed  to  agree  with 
 Ewald. 
 
3208    TEN   COMMANDMENTS 
 
 Words  were  first  given  to  the  people  surrounded 
 them  with  an  awe  which  attached  to  no  other  pre- 
 cept. In  the  midst  of  the  cloud,  and  the  darkness, 
 and  the  flashing  lightning,  and  the  fiery  smoke, 
 and  the  thunder,  like  the  voice  of  a  trumpet,  Moses 
 was  called  to  receive  the  Law  without  which  the 
 people  would  cease  to  be  a  holy  nation.  Here,  as 
 elsewhere.  Scripture  unites  two  facts  which  men 
 separate.  God,  and  not  man,  was  speaking  to  the 
 Israelites  in  those  terrors,  and  yet  in  the  language 
 of  later  inspired  teachers,  other  instrumentality  was 
 not  excluded."  The  law  was  "  ordained  by  angels  " 
 (Gal.  iii.  19),  "  spoken  by  angels  "  (Heb.  ii.  2),  re- 
 ceived as  the  ordinance  of  angels  (Acts  vii.  53). 
 The  agency  of  those  whom  the  thoughts  of  the 
 Psalmist  connected  with  the  winds  and  the  flaming 
 fire  (Ps.  civ.  4;  Heb.  i.  7)  was  present  also  on 
 Sinai.  And  the  part  of  Moses  himself  was,  as  the 
 language  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  iii.  19)  affirms,  that  of 
 "  a  mediator."  He  stood  '•  between  "  the  people 
 and  the  Lord,  "  to  show  them  the  word  of  the 
 Lord"  (Deut.  v.  5),  while  they  stood  afar  oft',  to 
 give  form  and  distinctness  to  what  would  else  have 
 been  terrible  and  overwhelming.  The  "  voice  of 
 the  Lord  "  which  they  heard  in  the  thunderings 
 and  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  "  full  of  majesty," 
 "  dividing  the  flames  of  fire  "  (I's.  xxix.  3-9),  was 
 for  him  a  Divine  word,  the  testimony  of  an  Eternal 
 will,  just  as  in  the  parallel  instance  of  John  xii.  29, 
 a  like  testimony  led  some  to  say,  "  it  thundered," 
 while  others  received  the  witness.  No  other  words 
 were  proclaimed  in  like  manner.  The  people  shrank 
 even  from  this  nearness  to  the  awful  presence,  e\en 
 from  the  very  echoes  of  the  Divine  voice.  And  the 
 record  was  as  exceptional  as  the  original  revelation. 
 Of  no  other  words  could  it  be  said  that  they  were 
 written  as  these  were  written,  engra\ed  on  the 
 Tables  of  Stone,  not  as  originating  in  man's  con- 
 trivance or  sagacity,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Eternal 
 Spirit,  by  the  "  finger  of  God  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  18,  xxxii. 
 16;  conjp.  note  on  Tabehnacle). 
 
 (3.)  The  number  Ten  was,  we  can  hardly  doubt, 
 itself  significant  to  Moses  and  the  Israelites.  The 
 received  symbol,  then  and  at  all  times,  of  complete- 
 ness (Biihr,  SijmboUk,  i.  175-183),  it  taught  the 
 people  that  the  Law  of  Jehovah  was  perfect  (Ps. 
 xix.  7).  The  fact  that  they  were  written  not  on 
 one,  but  on  two  tables,  probably  in  two  groups  of 
 five  each  (infra),  taught  men  (though  with  some 
 variations,  from  the  classification  of  later  ethics)  the 
 great  division  of  duties  toward  God,  and  duties 
 toward  our  neighbor,  which  we  recognize  as  the 
 groundwork  of  every  true  moral  system.  It  taught 
 them  also,  five  being  the  symbol  of  imperfection 
 (Uiihr,  i.  183-187),  how  incomplete  each  set  of 
 duties  would  be  when  divorced  from  its  companion. 
 The  recurrence  of  these  numliers  in  the  Pentateuch 
 is  at  once  frequent  and  striking.  Ewald  ( Gesch.  hr. 
 ii.  212-217)  has  shown  by  a  large  induction  how 
 continually  laws  and  precepts  meet  us  in  groups 
 of  five  or  ten.  The  numbers,  it  will  be  remem- 
 bered, meet  us  again  as  the  basis  of  all  the  propor- 
 tions of  the  Tabernacle.  [Tejiple.]  It  would 
 show  an  ignorance  of  all  modes  of  Hebrew  thought 
 
 a  Buxtort,  it  is  true,  asserts  that  Jewish  interpreters, 
 with  hardly  an  exception,  maintain  that  "  Deum  verba 
 Decalogi  per  se  immediate  locutum  esse "  (Diss,  de 
 Decal).  The  language  of  Josephus,  however  (Ant.  xv. 
 6,  §  3),  not  less  than  that  of  the  N.  T.,  shows  that  at 
 one  time  the  traditions  of  the  Jewish  schools  pointed 
 to  the  opposite  conclusion 
 
 TEN  COMMANDMENTS 
 
 to  exclude  this  symbolic  aspect.  We  need  not, 
 however,  shut  out  altogether  that  which  some 
 writers  (e.  r/.  Grotius,  De  Decal.  p.  36)  have  sub- 
 stituted for  it,  the  connection  of  the  Ten  AVords 
 with  a  decimal  system  of  numeration,  with  the  ten 
 fingers  on  which  a  man  counts.  Words  which 
 were  to  be  the  rule  of  life  for  the  poor  as  vv'ell  as  the 
 learned,  the  groundwork  of  education  for  all  chil- 
 dren, might  well  be  connected  with  the  simplest 
 facts  and  processes  in  man's  mental  growth,  and 
 thus  stamped  more  indelibly  on  the  meinory.'' 
 
 (4.)  In  what  way  the  Ten  Commandments  were 
 to  be  di\ided  has,  however,  been  a  matter  of  much 
 controversy.  At  least  four  distinct  arrangements 
 present  themselves. 
 
 (ft.)  In  the  received  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church, 
 resting  on  that  of  St.  Augustine  (  Qu.  in  Ax.  71, 
 EjK  ad  Junuar.  c.  xi.,  De  Decal.  etc.,  etc.),  the  first 
 Table  contained  three  commandments,  the  second 
 the  other  seven.  Partly  on  mystical  grounds,  be- 
 cause the  Tables  thus  symbolized  the  Trinity  of 
 Divine  Persons,  and  the  Eternal  Sabbath,  partly  as 
 seeing  in  it  a  true  ethical  division,  he  adopted  this 
 classification.  It  involved,  however,  and  in  part  pro- 
 ceeded from  an  alteration  in  the  received  arrange- 
 ment. \Miat  we  know  as  the  first  and  second  were 
 united,  and  consequently  the  Sabbath  law  appeared 
 at  the  close  of  the  First  Table  as  the  third,  not  as 
 the  fourth  commandment.  The  completeness  of 
 the  number  was  restored  in  the  Second  Table  by 
 making  a  separate  (the  ninth)  command  of  the 
 precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
 wife,"  which  with  us  forms  part  of  the  tenth.  It 
 is  an  almost  fatal  objection  to  this  order  that  in  the 
 First  Table  it  confounds,  where  it  ought  to  distin- 
 guish, the  two  sins  of  polytheism  and  idolatry;  and 
 that  in  the  Second  it  introduces  an  arbitrary  and 
 meaningless  distinction.  The  later  theology  of  the 
 Church  of  Kome  apparently  adopted  it  as  seeming 
 to  prohibit  image-worship  oidy  so  far  as  it  accom- 
 panied the  acknowledgment  of  another  God  ( Cattcli. 
 Trident,  iii.  2,  20). 
 
 {b.)  The  familiar  division,  referring  the  first  four 
 to  our  duty  toward  God,  and  tlie  six  remaining  to 
 our  duty  toward  man,  is,  ou  ethical  grounds,  simple 
 and  natural  enout:;h.  If  it  is  not  altogether  satisfy- 
 ing, it  is  because  it  fails  to  recognize  the  synnnetry 
 which  gives  to  the  number  five  so  great  a  promi- 
 nence, and,  perhaps  also,  because  it  looks  on  the  duty 
 of  the  fifth  commandment  from  the  point  of  view 
 of  modern  ethics  rather  than  from  that  of  the  an- 
 cient Israelites,  and  the  first  disciples  of  Christ 
 {infra). 
 
 (c.)  A  modification  of  {a)  has  been  adopted  by 
 later  Jewish  writers  (Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  Aben 
 Ezra,  Moses  ben  Nachman,  in  Suicer,  Tlie.s.  s.  v. 
 SeKaKoyos).  Petaining  the  combination  of  the 
 first  and  second  commandments  of  the  common 
 order,  they  have  made  a  new  "word  "  of  the  open- 
 ing declaration,  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  which 
 brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the 
 house  of  bondage,"  and  so  have  avoided  the  neces- 
 sity of  the  subdivision  of  the  tenth.  The  objection 
 to  this  division  is,  (1)  that  it  rests  on  no  adequate 
 
 b  Bahr, absorbed  in  symbolism,  has  nothing  for  this 
 natural  suggestion  but  two  notes  of  admiration  (!!). 
 The  analogy  of  Ten  Great  Commandments  in  the  moral 
 law  of  Buddhism  might  have  shown  him  how  naturally 
 men  crave  for  a  number  that  thus  helps  them.  A  true 
 .system  was  as  little  likely  to  ignore  the  natural  craving 
 as  a  false.     (Conip.  note  in  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isf.  ii.  207-) 
 
i 
 
 TEN  COMMANDMENTS 
 
 authority,  and  (2)  that  it  turns  into  a  single  precept 
 what  is  evidently  given  as  the  groundwork  of  the 
 whole  body  of  laws. 
 
 (d.)  Kejecting  these  three,  there  remains  that 
 recognized  by  the  older  Jewish  writers,  Josephus 
 (iii.  6,  §  6)  and  Philo  (De  Decal.  i.),  and  sup- 
 ported ably  and  thoughtfully  by  Ewald  {Gesch.  Jsr. 
 ii.  208),  which  places  five  commandments  in  each 
 Table;  and  thus  preserves  the  2)(^nta(l  and  decud 
 grouping  which  pervades  the  whole  code.  A 
 modern  jurist  would  perhaps  object  that  this  places 
 the  fifth  commandment  in  a  wrong  position,  that  a 
 duty  to  parents  is  a  duty  toward  our  neighbor. 
 From  the  Jewish  point  of  view,  it  is  believed,  tlie 
 place  thus  given  to  that  commandment  was  essen- 
 tially the  right  one.  Instead  of  duties  toward  God, 
 and  duties  toward  our  neighbors,  we  must  think  of 
 the  First  Table  as  containing  all  that  belonged  to 
 the  Euo-e'^era  of  the  Greeks,  to  the  Pie/ns  of  the 
 liomans,  duties  i.  e.  with  no  corresijonding  rights, 
 while  the  second  deals  with  duties  which  involve 
 rights,  and  come  therefore  under  the  head  of  Jus- 
 iitliL.  The  duty  of  honoring,  i.  e.  supporting,  par- 
 ents came  under  the  former  head.  As  soon  as  the 
 son  was  capable  of  it,  and  the  parents  required  it, 
 it  was  ah  absolute,  unconditional  duty.  His  right 
 to  any  maintenance  from  them  had  ceased,  lie 
 owed  them  reverence,  as  he  owed  it  to  his  Father  in 
 heaven  (Heb.  xii.  9).  He  was  to  show  piety  (evae- 
 ^ilv)  to  them  (1  Tim.  v.  4).  What  made  tbe 
 "  Corban  "  casuistry  of  the  scribes  so  specially  evil 
 was,  that  it  was,  in  this  way,  a  sin  against  the  piety 
 of  the  First  Table,  not  merely  against  the  lower 
 obligations  of  tlie  second  (Mark  vii.  11 ;  comp. 
 Piety).  It  at  least  harmonizes  with  this  division 
 that  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  command- 
 ments, all  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  having  spe- 
 cial sanctions  attaching  to  them,  while  the  others 
 that  follow  are  left  in  their  simpUcity  by  themselves, 
 as  though  the  reciprocity  of  rights  were  in  itself  a 
 sufficient  ground  for  obedience." 
 
 (5.)  To  these  Ten  Commandments  we  find  in 
 the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  an  eleventh  added:  — 
 "But  when  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  have  brought 
 thee  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  whitlier  thou  goest  to 
 possess  it,  thou  shalt  set  thee  up  two  great  stones, 
 and  shalt  plaister  them  with  plaister,  and  shalt 
 write  upon  these  stones  all  the  words  of  this  Law. 
 Moreover,  after  thou  shalt  have  passed  over  .Jordan, 
 thou  shalt  set  up  those  stones  whicli  I  command 
 thee  this  day,  on  iSIount  Gerizim,  and  thou  shalt 
 build  there  an  altar  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  an  altar 
 of  stones:  thou  shalt  not  lift  up  any  iron  thereon. 
 Of  unhewn  stones  shalt  thou  build  that  altar  to  tlie 
 Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  offer  on  it  burut- 
 ofFerings  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  sacri- 
 fice peace-offerings,  and  shalt  eat  them  there,  and 
 thou  shalt  rejoice  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  that 
 mountain  beyond  Jordan,  i)y  the  way  where  the 
 sun  goetli  down,  in  the  land  of  the  Canaanite  that 
 dwelleth  in  tlie  plain  country  over  against  Gilgal, 
 by  the  oak  of  Moreh,  towards  Sichem  "  (Walton, 
 Bill.  Polijijlotl.).  In  the  absence  of  any  direct 
 evidence  we  can  only  guess  as  to  tlie  histoi-y  of  this 
 remarkable  addition.  (1.)  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
 whole  passage  is  made  up  of  two  which  are  found 
 in  the  Hebrew  te.^t  of  Deut.  xxvii.  2-7,  and  xi.  30, 
 with  the  substituiiun,  in  the  former,  of  Gerizim  for 
 
 «  A  further  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  this  division 
 is  found  in  Rom.  xiii.  9.     St.  Paul,  summing  up  the 
 duties  '■  briefly  comprehended  "  in  the  one  great  Law, 
 202 
 
 TEN  COMMANDMENTS.     3209 
 
 Ebal.  (2.)  In  the  absence  of  confirmation  from  any 
 other  version,  Fbal  must,  as  far  as  textual  criticism 
 is  concerned,  be  looked  upon  as  the  true  reading, 
 Gerizim  as  a  falsification,  casual  or  deliberate,  of 
 the  text.  (3.)  Probalily  the  choice  of  Gerizim  as 
 the  site  of  the  Samaritan  temple  was  determined  by 
 the  fact  that  it  had  been  the  .Mount  of  Blessings, 
 Ebal  that  of  Ciu'ses.  Possibly,  as  Walton  suggests 
 (Prohgom.  c.  xi.),  the  difficulty  of  understanding 
 how  the  latter  should  have  been  chosen  instead  of 
 the  former,  as  a  place  for  sacrifice  and  offering,  may 
 have  led  them  to  look  on  tlie  reading  Ebal  as  er- 
 roneous. They  were  unwilling  to  expo.se  themselves 
 to  the  taunts  of  their  .Judsean  enemies  by  building 
 a  temple  on  the  Hill  of  Curses.  They  would  claim 
 the  inheritance  of  the  blessings.  They  would  set 
 the  authority  of  their  text  against  that  of  the 
 scribes  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  One  was  as  likely 
 to  be  accepted  as  the  other.  I'he  "  Hebrew  verity  " 
 was  not  then  acknowledged  as  it  has  been  since. 
 (■1.)  In  other  repetitions  or  transfers  in  the  Samar- 
 itan Pentateuch  we  may  perhaps  admit  the  plea 
 which  Walton  makes  in  its  behalf  (/.  c),  that  in 
 the  first  formation  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  Codex, 
 the  transcribers  had  a  large  number  of  separate 
 documents  to  copy,  and  that  consequently  much 
 was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual  scribe. 
 Here,  however,  that  excuse  is  hardly  admissible. 
 The  interpolation  has  every  mark  of  being  a  bold 
 attempt  to  claim  for  the  schismatic  worship  on  Ger- 
 izim the  solenui  sanction  of  the  voice  on  Sinai,  to 
 place  it  on  the  same  footing  as  the  Ten  great 
 Words  of  God.  Tlie  guilt  of  the  interpolation  be- 
 longed of  course  only  to  the  first  contrivers  of  it. 
 The  later  Samaritans  might  easily  come  to  look  on 
 their  text  as  the  true  one,  on  that  of  the  Jews  as 
 corrupted  by  a  fraudulent  omission.  It  is  to  the 
 credit  of  the  Jewish  scribes  that  they  were  not 
 tempted  to  retaliate,  and  that  their  reverence  for 
 the  sacred  records  prevented  them  from  suppressing 
 the  history  which  connected  the  rival  sanctuary 
 with  the  blessings  of  Gerizim. 
 
 (G.)  The  treatment  of  the  Ten  Commandments 
 in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  is  not  with- 
 out interest.  There,  as  noticed  above,  the  first  and 
 second  commandments  are  united,  to  make  up  the 
 second,  and  the  words  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God," 
 etc.,  are  given  as  the  first.  More  remarkable  is  the 
 addition  of  a  distinct  reason  for  the  last  five  com- 
 mandments no  less  than  for  the  first  five:  '•  Thou 
 shalt  commit  no  murder,  for  because  of  the  sins  of 
 murderers  the  sword  goeth  forth  upon  the  world." 
 So  in  like  manner,  and  with  the  same  formula, 
 "death  goeth  forth  upon  the  world  "  as  the  punish- 
 ment of  adultery,  famine  as  that  of  thell,  drought 
 as  that  of  false  witness,  invasion,  plunder,  captivity 
 as  that  of  covetousness  (Walton,  Bilil.  Poli/z/lotl.). 
 
 (7.)  The  absence  of  any  distinct  reference  to  the 
 Ten  Commandments  as  such  in  the  Pirke  Aboth 
 (=  Maxims  of  the  Fathers)  is  both  strange  and 
 significant.  One  chapter  (ch.  v.)  is  expressly  given 
 to  an  enumeration  of  all  the  Scriptural  facts  which 
 may  be  grouped  in  decades,  the  ten  words  of  Cre- 
 ation, the  ten  generations  from  Adam  to  Noah,  and 
 from  Noah  to  Abraham,  the  ten  trials  of  Abraham, 
 the  ten  plagues  of  Egypt,  and  the  like,  but  the  ten 
 Divine  words  find  no  place  in  the  list.  With  all 
 their  ostentation  of  profound  reverence  for  the  Law, 
 
 "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  enumerates 
 the  last  five  commandments,  but  makes  no  mention  ot 
 the  fifth. 
 
B210  TENDER 
 
 the  teaching  of  the  Rabbis  turned  on  other  points 
 than  the  great  laws  of  duty.  In  this  way,  as  in 
 others,  they  made  void  the  commandments  of  God 
 that  they  might  keep  their  own  traditions.  —  Com- 
 pare Stanley,  ^ew/s/;  Cliurch,  Lect.  vii.,  in  illustration 
 of  many  of  the  points  here  noticed.        E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  TENDER,  as  a  verb,  is  used  in  2  Mace.  iv.  2 
 (A.  V.)  in  the  sense  of  "  to  care  for."  For  similar 
 examples,  see  Richardson's  Dictionary.  A. 
 
 TENT."  Among  the  leading  characteristics  of 
 the  nomad  races,  those  two  have  always  been  num- 
 bered, vvliose  origin  has  been  ascribed  to  Jabal  the 
 son  of  Laniech  (Gen.  iv.  20),  namely,  to  be  tent- 
 dwellers  and  keepers  of  cattle.  The  same  may  be 
 said  of  the  forefathers  of  the  Hebrew  race;  nor  was 
 it  until  the  return  into  Canaan  from  Egypt  that 
 the  Hebrews  Ijecame  inhabitants  of  cities,  and  it 
 may  be  remarked  that  (he  tradition  of  tent-usage 
 eurvived  for  many  years  later  in  the  Tabernacle  of 
 
 TENT 
 
 Shiloh,  which  consisted,  as  many  Arab  tents  still 
 consist,  of  a  walled  inclosure  covered  with  curtains 
 (Mishna,  Zebacliim,  xiv.  6;  Stanley,  /S.  cf  J',  p. 
 233).  Among  tent-dwellers  of  the  present  day 
 must  be  reckoned  (1)  the  great  Mongol  and  Tar- 
 tar hordes  of  central  Asia,  whose  tent-ilwellings  are 
 sometimes  of  gigantic  dimensions,  and  who  exhibit 
 more  contrivance  both  in  the  dwellings  themselves 
 and  in  their  method  of  transporting  them  from 
 place  to  place  than  is  the  case  with  the  Arab  races 
 (Marco  Polo,  Tmv.  pp.  128,  135,  211,  ed.  Eohn; 
 Hor.  3  Od.  xxiv.  10;  Gibbon,  c.  xxvi.,  vol.  iii.  298, 
 ed.  Smith).  (2.)  The  Bedouin  Arab  tribes,  who 
 inhabit  tents  which  are  probably  constructed  on  the 
 same  plan  as  those  which  were  the  dwelling-places 
 of  Abraham  and  of  Jacob  (Heb.  xi.  9).  A  tent  or 
 pavilion  on  a  magnificent  scale,  constructed  for 
 Ptolemy  Philadelphus  at  Alexandria,  is  described 
 by  Athenseus,  v.  19G,  foil. 
 
 An  Arab  teut  is  minutely  described   by  Burck- 
 
 Arab  Tent  (Layard). 
 
 hardt.  It  is  called  beil,  "house;"  its  covering 
 consists  of  stuff,  about  three  quarters  of  a  yard 
 broad,  made  of  black  goats'-hair  (Cant.  i.  5;  Shaw, 
 Trav.  p.  220),  laid  parallel  with  the  tent's  length. 
 This  is  sufficient  to  resist  the  heaviest  rain.  The 
 tent-poles,  called  kiiiuiJ,  or  columns,  are  usually 
 nine  in  number,  placed  in  three  groups,  but  many 
 tents  have  only  one  pole,  others  two  or  three.  The 
 ropes  which  hold  the  tent  in  its  place  are  fastened, 
 not  to  the  tent-cover  itself,  but  to  loops  consisting 
 of  a  leathern  thong  tied  to  the  ends  of  a  stick, 
 round  which  is  twisted  a  piece  of  old  cloth,  which 
 is  itself  sewed  to  the  tent  cover.  The  ends  of  the 
 tent-ropes  are  fastened  to  short  sticks  or  pins,  called 
 teed  or  aouind,  which  are  driven  into  the  ground 
 
 "  1.  ^riS:  oTK05,<r  ■qvri  :  tabernaculum^tenlorhim: 
 often  in  A.  V.  "  tabernacle." 
 
 2.  ^StTH  :  tr/crji'ij :  (en«on'«OT.- opposed  to  j'T'S, 
 "  Viouse." 
 
 3-  n3D  {siicca/i},  only  once  "tent"  (2  Sam.  xi. 
 11).        "■* 
 
 with  a  mallet  (Judg.  iv.  21).  [Pin.]  Round  the 
 back  and  sides  of  the  tents  runs  a  piece  of  stuff  re- 
 movable at  pleasure  to  admit  air.  The  tent  is  di- 
 vided into  two  apartments,  separated  by  a  carpet 
 partition  drawn  across  the  middle  of  the  tent  and 
 fastened  to  the  three  middle  posts.  The  men's 
 apartment  is  usually  on  the  right  side  on  enteiing, 
 and  the  women's  on  the  left;  but  this  Tisage  varies 
 in  different  tribes,  and  in  the  Mesopotamian  tribes 
 the  contrary  is  the  rule.  Of  the  three  side  posts 
 on  the  men's  side,  the  first  and  third  are  called  yed 
 (hand);  and  the  one  in  the  middle  is  rather  higher 
 than  the  other  two.  Hooks  are  attached  to  these 
 posts  for  hanging  various  articles  (Gen.  xviii.  10; 
 Jud.  xiii.  G;  Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  187;  Layard,  Nin. 
 mid  Bull.  p.  2G1).  [Pillar.]  Few  Arabs  have 
 more  than  one  tent,  luiless  the  family  be  augmented 
 
 4.  r!3r7  :  Kafiivoi:  lupanar:  Ara  ■  gjJi  '■ 
 whence,  with  art.  prefixed,  comes  alcoba  (Span.)  and 
 "alcove"  (Russell,  Aleppo,  i.  30):  only  once  used 
 (Niim.  XXV.  8). 
 
TENT 
 
 by  the  families  of  a  son  or  a  deceased  brother,  or 
 in  case  the  wives  disagree,  when  the  master  pitches 
 a  tent  for  one  of  them  adjoining  his  own.  The 
 separate  tents  of  Sarah,  Leah,  Rachel,  Zilpah,  and 
 Bilhah,  may  thus  have  been  either  separate  tents 
 or  apartments  in  the  principal  tent  in  each  case 
 (Gen.  xxiv.  G7,  xxxi.  33).  When  the  pasture  near 
 an  encampment  is  exhausted,  the  tents  are  taken 
 down,  packed  ou  camels  and  removed  (Is.  xx.xviii. 
 12;  Gen.  xxvi.  17,  22,  25).  The  beauty  of  an 
 Arab  encampment  is  noticed  by  Shaw  {Trav.  p. 
 221;  see  Num.  xxiv.  5).  Those  who  cannot  afford 
 more  complete  tents,  are  content  to  hang  a  cloth 
 from  a  tree  liy  way  of  shelter.  In  choosing  places 
 for  encampment,  Arabs  prefer  the  neighborhood  of 
 trees,  for  the  sake  of  the  shade  and  coohiess  which 
 they  afford  (Gen.  xviii.  4,  8;  Niebuhr,  /.  c).  In 
 observii}g  the  directions  of  the  Law  respecting  the 
 feast  of  Tabernacles,  the  Rabbinical  writers  laid 
 down  as  a  distinction  between  the  ordinary  tent 
 and  the  booth,  succali,  that  the  latter  must  in  no 
 case  be  covered  by  a  cloth,  but  be  restricted  to 
 boughs  of  trees  as  its  shelter  (Succnii,  i.  3).  In 
 hot  weather  the  Arabs  of  INIesopotamia  often  strike 
 their  tents  and  betake  themsehes  to  sheds  of  reeds 
 and  grass  on  the  bank  of  the  river  (Layard,  Nine- 
 Vih,  i.  123;  Burckhardt,  Notes  on  Bed.  i.  37,  46; 
 Volney,  Trav.  i.  :i'.)8;  Layard,  Nin.  rmd  Bab. -pp. 
 171,  17-5;  Niebuhr,   Voy.  i.  l.  c).  II.  W.  P. 
 
 *  As  we  might  expect,  the  use  of  tents  by  the 
 Helirews,  and  their  familiarity  with  nomadic  life, 
 became  a  fruitful  source  of  illustration  to  the  sacred 
 writers.  Tlie  pitching  of  the  tent  at  night,  the 
 stretching  out  of  the  goat-skin  roof,  the  driving  of 
 the  pins  or  stalces,  and  fastening  the  cords,  furnish 
 the  imagery  of  numerous  passages.  Isaiah,  refer- 
 ring to  God  as  the  Creator,  says :  "  He  stretcheth 
 out  the  heavens  as  a  curtain,  and  s[)readeth  them 
 out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in  "  (Is.  xl.  22).  The 
 prophet,  as  he  looks  forward  to  a  happier  day  for 
 the  people  of  God,  says :  "  Thine  ej'es  shall  see  Je- 
 rusalem a  quiet  habitation,  a  tabernacle  that  shall 
 not  be  taken  down ;  not  one  of  the  stakes  thereof 
 shall  ever  be  removed,  neither  shall  any  of  the 
 cords  thereof  be  broken"  (Is.  xxxiii.  20).  Again, 
 in  anticipation  of  accessions  to  their  number,  he 
 exclaims  :  "  Enlarge  the  place  of  thy  tent,  and 
 stretch  forth  the  curtains  of  thy  habitations ;  spare 
 not,  lengthen  thy  cords  and  strengthen  thy  stakes; 
 for  thou  shalt  break  forth  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
 the  left"  (Is.  liv.  2).  The  taking  down  as  well  as 
 putting  up  of  the  tent  suggested  instructive  analo- 
 gies to  the  Hebrew  pilgrim.  The  ti'aveller  in  the 
 East  erects  his  temporary  abode  for  the  night,  takes 
 it  down  in  the  morning,  and  journeys  onward.  The 
 shepherds  of  the  country  are  constantly  moving 
 from  one  place  to  another.  The  brook  ftiils  on 
 which  they  had  relied  for  water,  or  the  grass  re- 
 quired for  the  support  of  their  flocks  is  consumed, 
 and  they  wander  to  a  new  station.  "  There  is 
 something  very  melancholy,"  writes  Lord  Lindsay, 
 "in  our  morning  flittings.  The  tent-pins  are 
 plucked  up,  and  in  a  few  minutes  a  dozen  holes,  a 
 heap  or  two  of  ashes,  and  the  marks  of  the  camels' 
 knees  in  the  sand,  soon  to  be  oliliterated,  are  the 
 only  traces  left  of  what  has  been,  for  a  while,  our 
 home"  {LeUers  from  the  Holy  Lam/,  p.  165). 
 Hence,  this  rapid  change  of  situation,  this  removal 
 from  one  spot  to  another,  without  being  alile  to 
 foresee  to-day  where  the  wanderer  will  rest  to-mor- 
 row, affords  a  striking  image  of  man's  life  —  so 
 brief,  fleeting,  uncertain.     Thus  Hezekiah  felt  in 
 
 TERAH  3211 
 
 the  near  prospect  of  death :  "  Mine  age  is  departed, 
 and  is  removed  from  me  as  a  shepherd's  tent"  (Is. 
 xxxviii.  12).  Jacob  calls  his  life  a  pilgrimage 
 (Gen.  xlvii.  9),  with  reference  to  the  same  expres- 
 sive idea.  The  body,  as  the  temporary  home  of 
 the  soul,  is  called  a  "  tent "  or  "tabernacle,"  be- 
 cause it  is  so  frail  and  perishable.  Thus  Paul  says, 
 in  2  Cor.  v.  1 :  "  Eor  we  know  that  if  our  earthly 
 house  of  this  tabernacle  {o'lKia  tov  aKr]vovs,  tent- 
 house.)  were  dissolved  "  ("  taken  down  "  is  more 
 correct),  "w-ehavea  building  of  God.  an  house  not 
 made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens."  The 
 Apostle  Peter  employs  the  same  figure:  "Yea,! 
 think  it  meet,  as  long  as  I  am  in  this  tabernacle 
 {ffK7ii/ci)/ji.a},  to  stir  you  up,  by  putting  you  in  re- 
 membrance; knowing  that  shortly  I  must  put  oft 
 this  my  tabernacle,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
 hath  showed  me  "  (2  Pet.  i.  13). 
 
 The  A.  V.  obscures  many  of  the  references  to  the 
 tent-life  of  the  patriarchs.  Thus  in  Gen.  xii.  9, 
 where  it  is  said,  "  Abraham  journeyed,  going  on 
 still,"  a  stricter  translation  would  be,  "  He  pulled 
 up,"  namely,  his  tent-pins,  "  going  and  pulling 
 up,"  as  he  advanced  from  one  station  to  another. 
 So,  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  12,  instead  of  "Let  us  take  our 
 journey  and  go,"  it  is  literally,  "  Let  us  pull  up 
 the  pins  of  our  tents  and  let  us  go."  See,  also, 
 Gen.  XXXV.  21,  xlvi.  1;  Ex.  xiii.  20.  For  the  "  tents 
 of  Kedar,"  .see  Kkdar.  H. 
 
 *  TENT-MAKERS  {o-K-nvonotoi).  Accord- 
 ing to  the  custom  of  his  age  and  nation,  that  every 
 male  child  should  lie  taught  some  trade,  the  Apos- 
 tle Paul  had  learned  that  of  a  tent-maker  (Acts  xviii. 
 3).  It  was  not  the  weaving  of  the  fabric  of  goats'- 
 hair,  which,  for  the  most  part,  was  probably  done 
 by  women  in  his  native  Cilicia,  but  the  construc- 
 tion of  the  tents  themselves  from  the  cloth.  Yet 
 we  need  not  suppose  that  Paul  confined  himself  to 
 the  use  of  this  particular  fabric ;  for,  in  that  case, 
 he  would  not  have  found  ready  occupation  in  all 
 places  (see  Hemsen's  Der  Apostel  Fatilus,  p.  5  f.). 
 [Paul.]  This  was  the  occupation  also  of  Aquila, 
 with  whom  Paul  worked  at  Corinth,  as  a  means  of 
 support  (Acts  xviii.  3).  R.  D.  C.  R. 
 
 TE'RAH  (n'ri  :  @dppa,  Qdpa  in  Josh. ; 
 Alex.  Qapa,  exc.  Gen.  xi.  28:  Thare).  The  father 
 of  Abram,  Nahor,  and  Haran,  and  through  them 
 the  ancestor  of  the  great  families  of  the  Israelites, 
 Islnnaelites,  Midianites,  Moabites,  and  Ammonites 
 (Gen  xi.  21-32).  The  account  given  of  him  in 
 the  O.  T.  narrative  is  very  brief.  We  learn  from 
 it  simply  that  he  was  an  idolater  (Josh.  xxiv.  2), 
 that  be  dwelt  beyond  the  Euphrates  in  Ur  of  the 
 Cbaldees  (Gen.  xi.  28),  and  that  in  the  southwest- 
 erly migration,  which  from  some  unexplained  cause 
 he  undertook  in  his  old  age,  he  went  with  his  son 
 Abram,  his  daughter-in-law  Sarai,  and  his  grand- 
 son Lot,  "  to  go  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  they 
 came  unto  Haran,  and  dwelt  there  "  (Gen.  xi.  31). 
 .Vnd  finally,  "  the  days  of  Terah  were  two  hundred 
 and  five  years:  and  Terah  died  in  Haran"  (Gen. 
 xi.  32).  In  connection  with  this  last-mentioned 
 event  a  chronological  difficulty  has  arisen  which 
 may  be  noticed  here.  In  the  speech  of  Stephen 
 (.Vets  vii.  4)  it  is  said  that  the  further  migration 
 of  Abram  from  Haran  to  the  land  of  Canaan  did 
 not  take  place  till  after  his  father's  death.  Now  ae 
 Terah  was  205  years  «  old  when  he  died,  and  Abram 
 
 "  The  Sam.  text  and  version  make  liim  ltr»,  and  so 
 avoid  tills  difficulty. 
 
3212 
 
 TERAH 
 
 was  75"  when  he  left  Haran  (Gen.  xii.  41,  it  follows 
 that,  if  the  speech  of  Stephen  be  cori-ect.  at  Abraui's 
 birth  Terah  must  have  been  130  years  old;  and 
 therefore  that  the  order  of  his  sons  —  Abrani,  Na- 
 hor,  Haran— given  in  Gen.  xi.  20,  27,  is  not  their 
 order  in  point  of  age.  [See  Lot,  ii.  1(>85,  note  a.~\ 
 Lord  Arthur  Hervey  says  {Geneal.  pp.  82,  8-3), 
 "  The  ditticulty  is  easily  got  over  by  supposing  that 
 Abrani,  though  named  first  on  account  of  his  dig- 
 nity, was  not  the  eldest  son,  but  probably  the 
 youngest  of  the  three,  born  when  his  father  was  130 
 years  old  —  a  supposition  with  which  the  marriage 
 of  Nahor  with  his  elder  brother  Haran's  daughter, 
 Milcah,  and  the  apparent  nearness  of  age  between 
 Abram  and  Lot,  and  the  three  generations  from 
 Nahor  to  Kebecca  corresponding  to  only  two  from 
 Abraham  to  Isaac,  are  in  perfect  harmony."  From 
 the  simple  facts  of  Terah's  life  recorded  in  the  0. 
 T.  has  been  constructed  the  entire  legend  of  Abram 
 which  is  current  in  .Jewish  and  Arabian  traditions. 
 Terah  the  idolater  is  turned  into  a  maker  of  images, 
 and  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  is  the  original  of  the 
 "furnace"  into  which  Abram  was  cast  (comp.  Ez. 
 V.  2).  Eashi's  note  on  Gen.  xi.  28  is  as  follows  : 
 "  '  In  the  presence  of  Terah  his  father :  '  in  the  life- 
 time of  his  father.  And  the  Midrash  Hagada  says 
 that  he  died  beside  his  father,  for  Terah  had  com- 
 plained of  Abram  his  son,  before  Kimrod,  that  he 
 had  broken  his  images,  and  he  cast  him  into  a  fur- 
 nace of  fire.  And  Haran  was  sitting  and  sayhig 
 in  his  heart,  If  Abram  overcome  I  am  on  his  side, 
 and  if  Nimrod  overcome  I  am  on  his  side.  And 
 when  Abram  was  saved  they  said  to  Haran,  On 
 whose  side  art  thou?  He  said  to  them,  I  am  on 
 Abram's  side.  So  they  cast  him  into  the  furnace 
 of  fire  and  he  was  burned ;  and  this  is  [what  is 
 meant  by]  Ur  Casdim  (Urofthe  Chaldees)."  In 
 Beresliith  linhba  (Par.  17)  the  story  is  told  of 
 Abram  being  left  to  sell  idols  in  his  father's  stead, 
 which  is  repeated  in  Weil's  Biblical  Legends,  p. 
 49.  The  wliole  legend  depends  upon  the  ambigu- 
 ity of  the  word  ^^^,  wliich  signifies  "  to  make  " 
 and  "to  serve  or  worship,"  so  that  Terah,  who  in 
 the  Biblical  narrative  is  only  a  worshipper  of  idols, 
 is  in  the  Jewish  tradition  an  image-maker;  and 
 about  this  single  point  the  whole  story  has  grown. 
 It  certainly  was  unknown  to  .Josephus,  who  tells 
 nothing  of  Terah,  except  that  it  was  grief  for  the 
 death  of  his  son  Haran  that  induced  him  to  quit 
 Ur  of  the  Chaldees  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  6). 
 
 In  the  Jewish  traditions  Terah  is  a  prince  and  a 
 great  man  in  the  palace  of  Nimrod  (Jellinek,  Bel 
 ham-Midraxh,  p.  27),  the  captain  of  his  army  (.S'e- 
 pher  Hayi/dshar),  his  son-in-law  according  to  the 
 Arabs  (Beer,  Lebtn  Ahriiliams,  p.  97);  His  wife 
 is  called  in  the  Talmud  {Baba  Bathrn,  fol.  91  a) 
 Anitelai,  or  limtelai,  the  daughter  of  Carnebo.  In 
 the  book  of  the  Jubilees  she  is  called  Edna,  the 
 daughter  of  Arem,  or  Aram;  and  by  the  Arabs 
 Adna  (D'Herbelot,  art.  Abraham;  Beer,  p.  97). 
 According  to  D'Herlielot,  the  name  of  Abraham's 
 father  was  xVzar  in  the  Arabic  traditions,  and  Te- 
 rah was  his  grandfather.  Elmakiii,  quoted  Ijy 
 Hettinger  (Smef/mn  Oiientak,  p.  281),  says  that, 
 after  the  death  of  Ynna,  Abraham's  mother,  Terah 
 took  another  wife,  who  bare  him  Sarah.  He  .adds 
 that  in  the  days  of  Terah  the  king  of  Babylon  made 
 war  upon  the  country  in  which  he  dwelt,  and  that 
 Hazrun,  the  brother  of  Terah,  went  out  against 
 him  and  slew  him ;  and  the  kingdom  of  B.abylon 
 was  transferred  to  Nineveh   and  JNIosul.      For  all 
 
 TERTIUS 
 
 these  traditions,  see  the  book  of  Jashar,  and  the 
 works  of  Hottinger,  D'Herbelot,  Weil,  and  Beer 
 above  quoted.  Thilo  (De  Somniis)  indulges  in 
 some  strange  speculations  with  regard  to  Terah's 
 name  and  his  migration.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 TER'APHIM  (3"^  57^  :  e^pacplp,  rh  e^pa- 
 (peiy,  TO,  6(pa(piy,  Kefordcpia,  eiSwAa,  yXviTTO,, 
 S^Aoj,  atrocpdeyyonei'ot:  tlieraphim,  statua,  idola, 
 simulacra,  p'yurce  idolurum,  idololcitria),  only  in 
 plural,  images  connected  with  magical  rites.  The 
 suljject  of  terapliim  has  been  fully  discussed  in  art. 
 Magic  (iii.  1743  ft'.),  and  it  is  therefore  unneces- 
 sary here  to  do  more  than  repeat  the  results  there 
 stated.  The  derivation  of  the  name  is  ob,scure.  In 
 one  case  a  single  statue  seems  to  be  intended  by  the 
 plural  (1  Sam.  xix.  13,  16).  The  terapliim  carried 
 away  from  Laban  by  Kacbel  do  not  seem  to  have 
 been  very  small  ;  and  the  image  (if  one  be  in- 
 tended), hidden  in  David's  bed  by  Michal  to  deceive 
 Saul's  messengers,  was  probably  of  the  size  of  a 
 man,  and  perhaps  in  the  head  and  shoulders,  if  not 
 lower,  of  liuman  or  like  form:  but  David's  sleep- 
 ing-room may  have  been  a  mere  cell  without  a  win- 
 dow, opening  from  a  large  apartment,  which  would 
 render  it  necessary  to  do  no  more  than  fill  the  bed. 
 Laban  regarded  his  tera[ihim  as  gods;  and,  as  he 
 was  not  ignorant  of  the  true  God,  it  would  there- 
 fore appear  that  they  were  used  by  those  who  added 
 corrupt  practices  to  the  patriarchal  religion.  Ter- 
 aphim  again  are  included  among  Jlicah's  images, 
 which  were  idolatrous  objects  connected  with  heret- 
 ical corruptions  rather  than  with  heathen  worship 
 (Judg.  xvii.  3-5,  xviii.  17,  18,  20).  Teraphim 
 were  consulted  for  oracular  answers  by  the  Israel- 
 ites (Zech.  X.  2;  comp.  Judg.  xviii.  5,  6;  1  Sam. 
 XV.  22,  23,  xix.  13,  16,  LXX. ;  and  2  K.  xxiii. 
 24),  and  by  the  Bal)ylonians,  in  the  ca,se  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar (Ez.  xxi.  19-22).  There  is  no  evidence 
 that  they  were  ever  worshipped.  Though  not  fre- 
 quently mentioned,  we  find  they  were  used  by  the 
 Israelites  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  of  Saul, 
 and  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  who  put  them  away 
 (2  K.  xxiii.  24),  and  apparently  again  after  the 
 Captivity  (Zech.  x.  2).  '      R.  S.  P. 
 
 TE'RESH  (tt.'~irn  [Pers.  severe,  austere, 
 Ges.]  :  oni.  in  Vat.  and  Alex. ;  FA.  third  hand  has 
 Qdpai,  Qdppas-  Tlinres).  One  of  the  two  eu- 
 nuchs who  kept  the  door  of  the  palace  of  Ahasue- 
 rus,  and  whose  plot  to  assassinate  the  king  was  dis- 
 covered by  Mordecai  (Ksth.  ii.  21,  vi.  2).  He  was 
 hanged.  Josephus  calls  him  Theodestes  {Ant.  xi. 
 C,  §  4),  and  says  that  the  conspiracy  was  detected 
 by  Barnabazus,  a  servant  of  one  of  the  eunuchs, 
 who  was  a  Jew  by  birth,  and  who  revealed  it  to 
 Mordecai.  According  to  Josephus,  the  conspirators 
 were  crucified. 
 
 TER'TIUS  (Te'pTios:  Tertius)  was  the  aman- 
 uensis of  Paul  in  writing  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans 
 (Kom.  xvi.  22).  He  was  at  Corinth,  therefore,  and 
 Cenchreas,  the  port  of  Corinth,  at  the  time  when 
 the  .\postle  wrote  to  the  Church  at  Konie.  It  is 
 noticealile  tli.at  Tertius  interrupts  the  message  which 
 Paul  sends  to  the  Koman  Christians,  and  inserts  a 
 greeting  of  his  own  in  the  first  person  singular 
 {aand^ofxai  eyoo  Teprios)-  Both  that  circumstance 
 and  the  frequency  of  the  name  among  the  Romans 
 may  indicate  that  Tertius  was  a  Roman,  and  was 
 known  to  those  whom  Paul  salutes  at  the  close  of 
 the  letter.  Secundus  (Acts  xx.  4)  is  another  hi- 
 stance  of  the  familiar  usage  of  the  Latin  ordinals 
 
TERTULLUS 
 
 employed  as  proper  names.  The  idle  pedantry 
 which  would  malie  him  and  Silas  the  same  person 
 
 because  tertius  and  ''tE'^7^  mean  the  same  in 
 Latin  and  Hel)rew,  hardly  deserves  to  be  mentioned 
 (see  Wolf,  Cui-ae  PldlologiccB,  torn.  iii.  p.  295). 
 In  regard  to  the  ancient  practice  of  writing  letters 
 from  dictation,  see  Becker's  Oallus,  p.  180.  [Kpis- 
 TLE.]  Nothing  certain  is  known  of  Tertius  apart 
 from  this  passage  in  the  Romans.  No  credit  is 
 due  to  the  writers  who  speak  of  him  as  bishop  of 
 Iconium  (see  Fabricius,  Lux  Evanjdlca,  p.  117). 
 
 H.  B.  H. 
 
 TERTUL'LUS  (TepruAXo?,  a  diminutive 
 form  from  the  Roman  nanie  Tertius,  analogous  to 
 Lucullus  from  Lucius,  FabuUus  from  FaOiua,  etc.), 
 "a  certain  orator"  (Acts  xxiv.  1)  who  was  re- 
 tained by  the  high-priest  and  Sanhedrim  to  accuse 
 the  Apostle  Paul  at  Csesarea  before  the  Roman 
 Procurator  Antonius  Felix.  [Paul.]  He  evi- 
 dently belonged  to  the  class  of  professional  orators, 
 multitudes  of  whom  were  to  be  found  not  only  in 
 Rome,  but  in  other  parts  of  the  empire,  to  which 
 they  had  betaken  themselves  in  the  hope  of  finding 
 occupation  at  the  tribunals  of  the  provincial  magis- 
 trates. Both  from  his  name,  and  from  the  great 
 probability  that  the  proceedings  were  conducted  in 
 Latin  (see  especially  Milnian,  Bampiou  Lectures  for 
 1827,  p.  185,  note),  we  may  infer  that  Tertullus 
 was  of  Roman,  or  at  all  events  of  Italian  origin. 
 The  Sanhedrim  would  naturally  desire  to  secure  his 
 services  on  account  of  their  own  ignorance  both  of 
 the  Latin  language  and  of  the  ordinary  procedure  of 
 a  Roman  law-court. 
 
 The  exordium  of  his  -speech  is  designed  to  con- 
 ciliate the  good  will  of  the  Procurator,  and  is  ac- 
 cordingly overcharged  with  flattery.  There  is  a 
 strange  contrast  between  the  opening  clause  —  tfoA- 
 At)s  elpriV7)s  Tvyx^i'ovTes  Sta.  aov  —  and  the  brief 
 summary  of  the  Procurator's  administration  given 
 hy  Tacitus  {Hist.  v.  9) :  "  Antonius  Felix  per  omnem 
 sEevitiam  ac  libidinem,  jus  regium  servili  ingenio 
 exercuit"  (comp.  Tac.  Ann.  xii.  S-t).  But  the 
 connnendations  of  Tertullus  were  not  altogether 
 unfounded,  as  Felix  had  really  succeeded  in  putting 
 down  several  seditious  movements.  [Fklix.]  It 
 is  not  very  easy  to  determine  whether  St.  Luke  has 
 preserved  the  oration  of  Tertullus  entire.  On  the 
 one  hand  we  have  the  elaborate  and  artificial  open- 
 ing, which  can  hardly  be  other  than  an  accurate 
 report  of  that  part  of  the  speech ;  and  on  the  other 
 hand  we  have  a  narrative  which  is  so  very  dry  and 
 concise,  that  if  there  were  nothing  more,  it  is  not 
 easy  to  see  why  the  orator  should  have  been  called 
 in  at  all.  The  difficulty  is  increased  if,  in  accord- 
 ance with  the  greatly  preponderating  weight  of  ex- 
 ternal authority,  we  omit  the  words  in  vv.  6-8,  koI 
 Kara,  rhv  7i/j.^T€pov  .  .  .  ,  epx^o'Sai  eVl  <r6.  On 
 the  whole  it  seems  most  natural  to  conclude  that 
 the  historian,  who  was  almost  certaiidy  an  ear-wit- 
 ness, merely  gives  an  abstract  of  the  speech,  giving 
 however  in  full  the  most  salient  points,  and  those 
 which  had  the  most  forcibly  impressed  themselves 
 upon  him,  such  as  the  exordium,  and  the  character 
 ascribed  to  St.  Paul  (ver.  5). 
 
 The  doubtful  reading  in  vv.  G-8,  to  which  refer- 
 ence has  already  been  made,  seems  likely  to  remain 
 an  unsolved  difficulty.  Against  the  external  evi- 
 dence there  would  be  nothing  to  urge  in  favor  of  the 
 disputed  passage,  were  it  not  that  the  statement 
 vvhich  remains  after  its  removal  is  not  merely  ex- 
 U^mely  brief  (its  brevity  may  be  accounted  for  in 
 
 TETRARCH 
 
 5213 
 
 the  manner  already  suggested),  but  abrupt  and 
 awkward  in  point  of  construction.  It  may  be 
 added  that  it  is  easier  to  refer  Trap'  ou  (ver.  8)  to 
 the  Tribune  Lysias  than  to  Paul.  For  arguments 
 founded  on  the  words  koI  /caret  ....  Kpiveiif 
 (ver.  6)  —  arguments  which  are  dependent  on  the 
 genuineness  of  the  disputed  words  —  see  Lardner 
 Crtdibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  b.  i.  ch.  2;  Bis 
 coe.  On  the  Acts,  ch.  vi.  §  16. 
 
 We  ought  not  to  pass  over  without  notice  a 
 strange  etymology  for  the  name  Tertullus  proposed 
 by  Calmet,  in  the  place  of  which  another  has  been 
 suggested  by  his  English  editor  (ed.  1830),  who 
 takes  credit  for  having  rejected  "  fanciful  and  im- 
 probable "  etymologies,  and  substituted  improve- 
 ments of  his  own.  Whether  the  suggestion  is  an 
 inqjrovement  in  this  case  the  reader  will  judge 
 "  Tertullus,  Te'pTvAAos,  H'n;  impostor,  from  repa- 
 To\6yos,  «  teller  of  stories,  a  cheat.  [Qy.  was  his 
 true  appellation  Ter-TuUius,  'thrice  Tully,'  that 
 is,  extremely  eloquent,  varied  by  Jewish  wit  into 
 Tertullus?]"  W.  B.  .1. 
 
 *  TESTAMENT.  As  n'^~11il  denotes  not 
 oidy  a  covenant  between  two  parties,  but  also  the 
 promise  made  by  the  one  (Gen.  ix.  9 ),  or  the  yjre- 
 cept  to  be  observed  by  the  other  (Ueut.  iv.  13),  and, 
 in  a  wider  sense,  a  religious  dispensation,  economy 
 (.Jer.  xxxi.  33);  so,  in  the  LXX.  and  the  N.  T., 
 its  equivalent  StaBi^Kr].  In  the  Vulgate,  although 
 in  the  0.  T.  pactum  or  J'cedus  is  more  often  used  for 
 
 n*^~|2l,  yet  tesiamentum  is  not  unfrequently  em- 
 ployed, especially  in  the  Psalms,  where  the  word 
 has  the  looser  signification  of  promise  or  dis- 
 pensation (cf.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  (Ixxiii.)  20,  Mai.  iii.  1); 
 while  in  the  N.  T.  it  uniformly  stands  for  SiaOrjKr]. 
 This  use  of  testamentum  for  an  authoritative,  sol- 
 emu  decree  or  document  is  found  also  in  the  later 
 Latin  (cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossarium  man.  ad  scriptores 
 med.  et  inf.  Latinitatis).  In  the  classical  sense  of 
 (677/,  it  may  be  understood  in  Heb.  ix.  16,  17,  as 
 Sta6r]Krj  has  there  apparently  the  same  meaning  (as 
 often  in  classical  Greek,  though  not  elsewhere  in 
 the  Bible).  Compare,  on  this  passage,  Hofmann, 
 Schriftbeweis,  ii.  1,  p.  426  f. ;  Stuart,  Liinemann, 
 Ebrard. 
 
 The  use  of  testament  for  the  books  containing  the 
 records  of  the  two  dispensations,  arose  by  an  easy 
 metonymy,  suggested  by  2  Cor.  iii.  1-t,  and  had 
 become  common  as  early  as  the  time  of  Tertullian 
 [Bible].  See  Guericke,  Neutestamentliche  Isa- 
 ijoyik,  p.  4 ;  Bertholdt,  Einleitunq  in  die  Bchriften 
 des  Altenii.  Neuen  Testaments,  §  19;  and  especially 
 .J.  G.  Rosenmiiller,  Dissertaiio  de  vocabulo  Sta6r)Kr], 
 in  Commentationes  Theoloyica,  vol.  ii. 
 
 C.  M.  M. 
 
 TESTAMENT,    NEW.       [New    Testa- 
 
 iMENT.] 
 
 TESTAMENT,  OLD.  [Old  Testa- 
 ment.] 
 
 TE'TA  (Vat.  omits;  [Rom.]  Alex.  ArrjTa; 
 [Aid.  Tt/tix:]  Topa).  The  form  under  which  the 
 name  Hatita,  one  of  the  doorkeepers  of  the  Tem- 
 ple, appears  in  the  lists  of  1  Esdr.  v.  28. 
 
 TETRARCH  (TeTpapx'?^)-  Pt'operly  the 
 sovereign  or  governor  of  the  fourth  part  of  a  coun- 
 try. On  the  use  of  the  title  in  Thessaly,  (5alatia, 
 and  Syria,  consult  the  Diciiouary  of  Greek  and 
 Roman  Antiquities,  "  Tetrarcha,"  and  the  authori- 
 ties there  referred  to.     "  In  the  later  period  of  the 
 
3214 
 
 TETRARCH 
 
 republic  and  under  the  empire,  the  Romans  seem 
 to  have  used  the  title  (as  also  those  of  vthnnrch  and 
 vhylarch )  to  designate  those  tributary  princes  who 
 were  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  called 
 kings."  In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  witli 
 the  designation,  either  actually  or  in  the  form 
 of  its  derivative  Tirpapxeiv,  applied  to  three  per- 
 sons :  — 
 
 1.  Herod  Antipas  (Matt.  xiv.  1;  Luke  iii.  1, 19, 
 "<.  7;  Acts  xiii.  1),  who  is  commonly  distinguished 
 as  "  Herod  the  tetrarch,"  although  the  title  of 
 "  king  "  is  also  assigned  to  him  both  by  St.  3\Iat- 
 thew  (xiv.  9)  and  by  St.  Mark  (vi.  14,  22  tt'.).  St. 
 Luke,  as  u)ight  be  expected,  invariably  adheres  to 
 the  formal  title,  which  would  be  recognized  by 
 Gentile  readers.  Herod  is  described  by  the  last- 
 named  Evangelist  (ch.  iii.  1)  as  "tetrarch  of  Gali- 
 lee; "  but  his  dominions,  which  were  bequeathed 
 to  him  by  his  father  Herod  the  Great,  embraced  the 
 district  of  I'ersea  beyond  the  Jordan  (Joseph.  Ant. 
 xvii.  8,  §  1):  this  bequest  was  confirmed  by  Au- 
 gustus (Joseph.  B.  .1.  ii.  6,  §  3).  After  the  dis- 
 grace and  banishment  of  Antipas,  his  tetrarchy 
 was  added  by  Caligula  to  the  kingdom  of  Herod 
 Agrippa  L  {Ant.  xviii.  7,  §  2).  [Herod  Anti- 
 pas.] 
 
 2.  Herod  Philip  (the  son  of  Herod  the  Great 
 and  Cleopatra,  not  the  husband  of  Herodias),  who 
 is  said  by  St.  Luke  (iii.  1 )  to  have  been  "  tetrarch 
 of  Itursea,  and  of  the  region  of  Trachonitis."  Jo- 
 sephiis  tells  us  that  his  father  bequeathed  to  him 
 Gaulonitis,  Trachonitis,  and  Paneas  {Ant.  xvii.  8, 
 §  1),  and  that  his  father's  bequest  was  confirmed 
 by  Augustus,  who  assigned  to  him  Batansea,  Trach- 
 onitis, and  Auranitis,  with  certain  parts  about 
 Jamnia  belonging  to  the  "house  of  Zenodorus " 
 (JS.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3).  Accordingly  the  territories  of 
 Philip  extended  eastward  from  the  Jordan  to  the 
 wilderness,  and  from  the  borders  of  Peraea  north- 
 wards to  Lebanon  and  the  neighborhood  of  Da- 
 mascus. After  the  death  of  Philip  his  tetrarchy 
 was  added  to  the  province  of  Syria  by  Tiberius 
 {Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  6),  and  subsequently  conferred  by 
 Caligula  on  Herod  Agrippa  L,  with  the  title  of 
 king  {Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  10).  [Hekod  Philip  L; 
 Hekod  Agrippa  L] 
 
 3.  Lysanias,  who  is  said  (Luke  iii.  1)  to  have 
 been  "  tetrarch  of  Abilene,"  a  small  district  sur- 
 rounding the  town  of  Abila,  in  the  fertile  valley  of 
 the  Barada  or  Chrysorrhoas,  between  Damascus 
 and  the  mountain-range  of  Anti-Libanus.  [Abi- 
 lene.] There  is  some  difficulty  in  fixing  the 
 limits  of  this  tetrarchy,  and  in  identifying  the 
 person  of  the  tetrarch.  [Lysanias.]  We  learn, 
 however,  from  Joscphus  {Ant.  xviii.  G,  §  10,  xix. 
 5,  §  1)  that  a  Lysanias  had  been  tetrarch  of  Abila 
 before  the  time  of  Caligula,  who  added  this  tet- 
 rarchy to  the  dominions  of  Herod  Aa;rippa  L  — 
 an  addition  which  was  confirmed  by  the  emperor 
 Claudius. 
 
 It  remains  to  inquire  whether  the  title  of  te- 
 trarch, as  applied  to  these  princes,  had  any  refer- 
 ence to  its  etymological  signification.  AVe  have 
 seen  that  it  was  at  this  time  probably  applied  to 
 petty  princes  without  any  such  determinate  mean- 
 ing. But  it  appears  from  Josephus  {Ant.  xvii.  11, 
 §  4;  B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3)  that  the  tetrarchies  of  Anti- 
 
 THANK-OFFERING 
 
 pas  and  Philip  were  regarded  as  constituting  each 
 a  fourth  part  of  their  father's  kingdom.  For  we 
 are  told  that  Augustus  gave  one  half  of  Herod's 
 kingdom  to  his  son  Archelaus,  with  the  appellation 
 of  ethnarch,  and  with  a  promise  of  the  regal  title; 
 and  that  he  divided  the  remainder  into  the  two  tet- 
 rarchies. Moreover,  the  revenues  of  Archelaus, 
 drawn  from  his  territory,  which  included  Judsea, 
 Samaria,  and  Idumaea,  amounted  to  400  talents, 
 the  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Antipas  producing  200 
 talents  each.  We  conclude  that  in  these  two  cases, 
 at  least,  the  title'  was  used  in  its  strict  and  literal 
 sense.  W.  B.  J. 
 
 THADDiE'US  (GaSSawy:  ThaMceus),  a 
 name  in  St.  ftlark's  catalogue  of  the  twelve  Apos- 
 tles (Mark  iii.  18)  in  the  great  majority  of  MSS. 
 In  St.  Matthew's  catalogue  (Matt.  x.  3)  tlie  cor- 
 responding place  is  assigned  to  0a55a7os  l>y  the 
 Vatican  MS.  (B),  and  to  AejSySaios  by  the  Codex 
 Bezas  (D).  The  Received  Text,  following  the  first 
 correction  of  the  Codex  Ephraemi  (C) —  where  the 
 original  reading  is  doubtful  —  as  well  as  several 
 cursive  MSS.,  reads  Ae^^aTos  u  ewtK\T]6€\s  0a5- 
 SaTos.  We  are  probably  to  infer  that  Ae^^aios, 
 alone,  is  the  original  reading  of  Matt.  x.  3,  and 
 ©aSSaToj  of  Mark  iii.  18."  By  these  two  Evan- 
 gelists the  tenth  place  among  the  Apostles  is  given 
 to  Lebbreus  or  Thaddseus,  the  eleventh  place  being 
 given  to  Simon  the  Canaanite.  St.  Luke,  in  both 
 his  catalogues  (Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13),  places 
 Simon  Zelotes  tenth  among  the  Apostles,  and  as- 
 signs the  eleventh  place  to  "lovSas  'IukooPov.  As 
 the  other  names  recorded  by  St.  Luke  are  identical 
 with  those  which  appear  (though  in  a  difterent 
 order)  in  the  first  two  Gospels,  it  seems  scarcely 
 possible  to  doubt  that  the  three  names  of  Judas, 
 Lebbaeus,  and  Thaddoeus  were  borne  by  one  and 
 the  same  person.     [Jude;  Lebb.eus.] 
 
 W.  B.  J. 
 
 THA'HASH  (t^''^^l  [badger  or  seal]:  To- 
 x6s'-  Thnlins).  Son  of  Nahor  by  his  concubine 
 Reumah  (Gen.  xxii.  24).  He  is  called  Tavaos  by 
 Josephus  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  5). 
 
 THA'MAH  {Tlf^ri  [Snma.T.  laughter'} -.Qe/xd.- 
 Thtvia).  "  The  children  of  Thamah  "  were  a  fam- 
 ily of  Nethinim  who  returned  with  Zeruljbabel  (Ezr. 
 ii.  53).  The  name  elsewhere  appears  in  the  A.  V. 
 as  Tamah. 
 
 THA'MAR  {@(i.fj.ap:  Thamar).  Tamar  1 
 (Matt.  i.  3). 
 
 THAM'NATHA  {y,  Qanvaed:  Thamnata). 
 One  of  the  cities  of  Jud«a  fortified  by  Bacchides 
 after  he  had  driven  the  Maccabees  over  the  Jordan 
 (1  Mace.  ix.  50).  Thanmatha  no  doubt  represents 
 an  ancient  Timnath,  possibly  the  present  Tib- 
 neli,  half-way  between  Jerusalem  and  the  jNIediter- 
 ranean.  Whether  the  name  should  be  joined  to 
 Pharathoni,  which  follows  it,  or  whether  they 
 should  be  independent,  is  matter  of  doubt.  [Phar- 
 athoni.] 
 
 THANK-OFFERING,  or  PEACE-OF 
 FERING  (Q^JP^^'  n?T,  or  simply  C^lb^', 
 
 and  in  Amos  v.  22,  Q  „^"  '■  9v(ria  craiTTipiov,  acc- 
 Tijpioi',  occasionally  elpi)viKT}-  hostia  pacijicorum, 
 
 a  *  In  Mark  iii.  18  the  reading  of  D  is  Ae^^aios, 
 and  in  Matt.  x.  3,  M  concurs  with  B  in  reading  ®a6- 
 fiaios.     Tlie  conclusions  given  above  as  to  the  true 
 
 reading  in  both  places  are  sustained  by  Tischendorf  in 
 his  eighth  edition  of  the  Greek  Neu  Testament. 
 
 F.  G. 
 
THARA 
 
 pncifica),  the  properly  eucharistic  offerint;  among 
 the  Jews,  in  its  theor}-  resembling  the  Meat-of- 
 fering, and  therefore  indicating  that  the  otFerer 
 was  already  reconciled  to,  and  in  covenant  with, 
 God.  Its  ceremonial  is  described  in  Lev.  iii.  The 
 nature  of  the  victim  was  left  to  the  sacrificer;  it 
 might  be  male  or  female,  of  the  flock  or  of  the 
 herd,  provided  that  it  was  unblemished ;  the  hand 
 of  the  sacrificer  was  laid  on  its  head,  the  fat  burnt, 
 and  the  blood  sprinkled,  as  in  the  burnt-ottering; 
 of  the  tlesh,  the  breast  and  right  shoulder  were 
 given  to  the  priest;  the  rest  belonged  to  the  sacri- 
 ficer, to  be  eaten,  either  on  the  day  of  sacrifice,  or 
 on  the  ne.xt  day  (Lev.  vii.  11-18,  20-34),  except  in 
 the  case  of  the  firstlings,  which  belonged  to  the 
 priest  alone  (xxiii.  20).  The  eating  of  the  flesh  of 
 the  meat-ofFering  was  considered  a  partaking  of  the 
 "table  of  the  Lord;  "  and  on  solemn  occasions,  as 
 at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  it  v/as 
 conducted  on  an  enormous  scale,  and  became  a  great 
 national  feast. 
 
 The  peace-offerings,  unlike  other  sacrifices,  were 
 not  ordained  to  be  offered  in  fixed  and  regular 
 course.  The  meat-offering  was  regularly  ordained 
 as  the  eucharistic  sacrifice;  and  the  only  constantly 
 recurring  peace-ofFering  appears  to  have  been  tliat 
 of  the  two  firstling  lambs  at  Pentecost  (Lev.  xxiii. 
 19).  The  general  principle  of  the  peace- ottering 
 seems  to  have  been,  that  it  should  be  entirely  spon- 
 taneous, offered  as  occasion  sliould  arise,  from  the 
 feeling  of  the  sacrificer  himself  "  If  ye  otter  a 
 sacrifice  of  peace-ofFerings  to  the  Lord,  ye  shall 
 offer  it  at  your  oivn  iviU"  (Lev.  xix.  5).  On  the 
 first  institution  (Lev.  vii.  11-17),  peace-offerings 
 are  divided  into  "  offerings  of  thanksgiving,"  and 
 "vows  or  free-will  offerings;  "  of  which  latter  class 
 the  oflfering  by  a  Nazarite,  on  the  completion  of 
 his  vow,  is  the  most  remarkable  (Num.  vi.  14). 
 The  very  names  of  both  divisions  imply  complete 
 freedom,  and  show  that  this  sacrifice  differed  from 
 others,  in  being  considered  not  a  duty,  but  a  priv 
 ilege. 
 
 We  find  accordingly  peace-offerings  oflfered  for 
 the  people  on  a  great  scale  at  periods  of  unusual 
 solemnity  or  rejoicing;  as  at  the  first  inauguration 
 of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  5),  at  the  first  conse- 
 cration of  Aaron  and  of  the  Tabernacle  (Lev.  ix. 
 18),  at  the  solemn  reading  of  the  Law  in  Canaan 
 by  Josluia  (Josh.  viii.  31),  at  the  accession  of  Saul 
 (I  Sam.  xi.  15),  at  the  bringing  of  the  ark  to 
 Mount  Zion  by  David  (2  Sam.  vi.  17),  at  the  con- 
 secration of  the  Temple,  and  thrice  every  year 
 afterwards,  by  Solomon  (1  K.  viii.  63,  ix.  25),  and 
 at  the  great  passover  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxx.  22). 
 In  two  cases  only  (Judg.  xx.  26;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25) 
 peace-oflPerings  are  mentioned  as  offered  with  burnt- 
 offerings  at  a  time  of  national  sorrow  and  fast- 
 ing. Here  their  force  seems  to  have  been  prec- 
 atory rather  than  eucharistic.     [See  Sacrifice.] 
 
 A.  B. 
 
 THA'RA  (0apa:  Thare).  Teraii  the  father 
 of  Abraham  (Luke  iii.  34). 
 
 TH AR'RA  ( Thnra),  Esth.  xii.  1.  A  corrupt 
 form  of  the  name  Tekesh. 
 
 THAR'SHISH  {W^W'^n  [prob.  fortress, 
 Dietr.]:  [Rom.  &apa-ls:  Vat.  Alex.]  Ga^o-ei?: 
 Tharsis).  1.  In  this  more  accurate  form  the 
 'translators  of  the  A.  V.  have  given  in  two  pas- 
 sages (1  K.  X.  22,  xxii  48)  the  name  elsewhere 
 presentfcd  as  Taksiiisii.     In  the  second  passage 
 
 THEATRE 
 
 3215 
 
 the  name  is  omitted  in  both  MSS.  of  the  LXX., 
 while  the  Vulgate  has  in  marl. 
 
 2.  ([Kom.  ©apo-i;  Vat.]  Pa^so-ira*;  Alex.  @ap- 
 aeis-  Tltars^is.)  A  Benjamite,  one  of  the  family 
 of  Bilhan  and  the  house  of  Jediael  (1  Chr.  vii.  10 
 only).  The  variation  in  the  Vatican  LXX.  (MaiJ 
 is  very  remarkable.  G. 
 
 THAS'SI  {@aa(xi\  [Sin.  QacrcTiL-  Alex.]  @a(T- 
 ffis:  Thasi,  Hassii:  Syr.  U£0»!.).  The  sur- 
 name of  Simon  the  son  of  Mattathias  (1  JNIacc.  ii. 
 3).  [Maccabees,  vol.  ii.  p.  1711.]  The  deri- 
 vation of  the  word  is  uncertain.  Michaelis  sug- 
 gests ''C^'ll^,  Chald.  "the  fresh  grass  springs  up," 
 i.  e.  "the  spring  is  come,"  in  reference  to  the 
 tranquillity  first  secured  during  the  supremacy  of 
 Sinion  (Grimm,  ud  1  Mace.  ii.  3).  This  seems 
 very  far-fetched.  Winer  (Realwb.  "Simon")  sug- 
 gests a  connection  with  DDITI,  fervere,  as  Grotius 
 {ad  loc.)  seems  to  have  done  before  him.  In  Jose- 
 phus  {Ant.  xii  6,  §  1)  the  surname  is  written 
 MaT07}s,  with  various  readings  0a5-(js,  0a0i)j. 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 THEATRE  {eiarpov.  thealron).  For  the 
 general  subject,  see  Diet,  of  Ant.  pp.  995-998. 
 For  the  explanation  of  the  Biblical  allusions,  two 
 or  three  points  only  require  notice.  The  Greek 
 term,  like  the  corresponding  English  term,  denotes 
 the  place  ^vhere  dramatic  performances  are  ex- 
 hibited, and  also  the  scene  itself  or  spectacle  which 
 is  witnessed  there.  It  occurs  in  the  first  or  local 
 sense  in  Acts  xix.  29,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
 nndtitude  at  Ephesus  rushed  to  the  theatre,  on  the 
 occasion  of  the  excitement  stirred  up  against  Paul 
 and  his  associates  by  Demetrius,  in  order  to  con- 
 sider what  should  be  done  in  reference  to  the 
 charges  against  them.  It  may  be  remarked  also 
 (although  the  word  does  not  occur  in  the  original 
 text  or  in  our  English  version )  tliat  it  was  in  the 
 theatre  at  Csesarea  that  Ilerod  A^rippa  I.  gave 
 audience  to  the  Tyrian  deputies,  and  was  himself 
 struck  with  death,  because  he  heard  so  gladly  the 
 impious  acclamations  of  the  people  (Acts  xii. 
 21-23).  See  the  remarkably  confirmatory  account 
 of  this  event  in  Josephus  {Ant.  xix.  8,  §  2).  Such 
 a  use  of  the  theatre  for  public  assemblies  and  the 
 transaction  of  public  business,  though  it  was  hardly 
 known  among  the  Romans,  was  a  connnon  practice 
 among  the  Greeks.  Thus  Valer.  Max.  ii.  2 :  "Le- 
 gati  in  theatrum,  ut  est  consuetudo  Grajcia;,  intro- 
 ducti."  Justin  xxii.  2  :  "  Veluti  reipublicae  statum 
 formaturus  in  theatrum  ad  contionem  vocari  jus- 
 sit."  Corn.  Nep.  Timol.  4,  §  2:  "  Veniebat  in  thea- 
 trum, cum  ibi  concilium  plebis  haljeretur." 
 
 The  other  sense  of  the  term  "theatre"  occurs 
 in  1  Cor.  iv.  9,  where  the  Common  Version  ren- 
 ders :  "  God  hath  set  forth  us  the  Apostles  last, 
 as  it  were  appointed  to  death;  for  we  are  made 
 (rather,  loere  made,  dearpov  iyivhQrjfxiu)  a  spec- 
 tacle unto  the  world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men." 
 Instead  of  "spectacle"'  (so  also  WickliflTe  and  the 
 Rhemish  translators  after  the  Vulgate),  some  might 
 prefer  the  more  energetic  Saxon,  "  gazing-stock," 
 as  in  Tyndale,  Cramner,  and  the  Geneva  version. 
 But  the  latter  would  be  now  inappropriate,  if  it 
 includes  the  idea  of  scorn  or  exultation,  since  the 
 angels  look  down  upon  the  sufferings  of  the  mar- 
 tyrs with  a  very  different  interest.  AVhether 
 "  theatre"  denotes  more  here  than  to  be  an  object 
 of  earnest  attention  {eea/j.a),  or  refers  at  the  sama 
 
3216 
 
 THEBES 
 
 time  to  the  theatre  as  the  place  where  criminals 
 were  sometimes  brought  forward  for  punishuient, 
 is  not  agreed  among  interpreters.  I'aid's  rh 
 (TX^H-"-  •^0"  ({(^afiov  in  1  Cor.  vii.  31,  where  some 
 find  an  allusion  to  the  stage,  is  too  doubtful  to  be 
 reckoned  here.  In  Ileb.  x.  33  the  A.  V.  renders 
 Bearpt^Sixepoi,  not  inaptl.y,  "  men  made  a  gazing- 
 Btock,"'  since  (^"hristians  in  that  passage  are  held 
 up  to  view  as  objects  of  the  world's  scorn  and 
 derision.  In  Heb.  xii.  1,  where  the  writer  speaks 
 of  our  liaviug  around  us  "  so  great  a  cloud  of  wit- 
 nesses "  {toctovtov  exovT€S  vhpiKei/xevov  7]fuv 
 veipos  ixaoTvpav),  he  has  in  mind  no  doubt  the 
 agonistic  scene,  in  which  Christians  are  viewed  as 
 ruiming  a  race,  and  not  the  theatre  or  stage  where 
 tlie  eyes  of  the  spectators  are  fixed  on  them. 
 
 11.  B.  H. 
 *  The  taste  for  theatrical  amusements  was  never 
 strongl}'  de\'eloped  among  the  .lews,  though  some 
 of  their  later  rulers,  especially  the  lierods,  favored 
 them,  and  established  theatres  in  Palestine.  Herod 
 the  Great  introduced  Greek  actors  at  his  court  in 
 Jerusalem,  greatly  to  the  scandal  of  the  Jews,  and 
 built  a  theatre  and  amphitheatre  at  Ca-sarea  (see 
 2  Mace.  iv.  li:  Jos.  J.  B.  xv.  8,  §§  1,  2;  xx.  9, 
 §  4).  H- 
 
 THEBES  ("j""1ttS-S3:  0f,;3ai,  AiSaizoXis, 
 fiepls  ^Afj.f.(.(iv;  in  Jer.  rhv  'Afj./nwi'  rhv  vlhy 
 avT-qs'  Alcxiindvin,  Al.  pojndovum,  iumultus  Alex- 
 andricB,  No-Amon:  A.  V.,  No,  the  multitude  of 
 No,  pojmlotis  No).  A  chief  city  of  ancient  Egypt, 
 long  the  capital  of  the  upper  country,  and  the  seat 
 of  the  Diospolitan  dynasties,  that  ruled  over  all 
 Egypt  at  the  era  of  its  highest  splendor.  Upon 
 the  monuments  this  city  bears  three  distinct  names 
 
 —  that  of  the  Nome,  a  sacred  name,  and  the  name 
 by  which  it  is  commonly  known  in  profane  history. 
 Of  the  twenty  Nonies  or  districts  into  which  Upper 
 Egypt  was  divided,  the  fourth  in  order,  proceeding 
 northward  from  Nubia,  was  designated  in  the  hiero- 
 glyphics  as  Za'iii  —  the  Phathyrite  of  the  Greeks 
 
 —  and  Thebes  appears  as  the  "  Z«';»-city,"  the 
 principal  city  or  metropolis  of  the  Zd'ni  Nome. 
 In  later  times  the  name  Z«'/«  was  applied  in  com- 
 mon sjjeech  to  a  particular  locality  on  the  western 
 side  of  Thebes. 
 
 The  sacred  name  of  Thebes  was  P-amen,  "  the 
 abode  of  Anion,"  which  the  Greeks  reproduced  in 
 their  Dlospolls  {Aihs  tto'Ais),  especially  with  the 
 addition  the  Grcid  (^  fMiydXr]),  denoting  that  this 
 was  the  chief  seat  of  Jupiter-Annnon,  and  dis- 
 tinguishing it  from  Diusjjdlh  the  Less  {rj  fxiKoa)- 
 No-Anion  is  the  name  of  Thebes  in  the  Helirew 
 Scriptures  (Jer.  xlvi.  25;  Nali.  iii.  8).  Ezekiel 
 uses  No  simply  to  designate  the  Egyptian  seat  of 
 Ammon,  which  the  Septuagint  translates  by  Dios- 
 polis  (Ez.  XXX.  14r,  16).  Ge.senius  defines  this  name 
 by  the  phrase  -'portion  of  Ammon,"  i.  e.  the  pos- 
 session of  the  god  Amnion,  as  the  chief  seat  of  his 
 worship. 
 
 The  name  of  Thebes  in  the  hieroglyphics  is  ex 
 plained  under  No-Amon. 
 
 The  origin  of  the  city  is  lost  in  antiquity. 
 Niebuhr  is  of  opinion  that  Thebes  was  much 
 older  than  Mempiiis,  and  that  "  after  the  centre 
 of  ICgyptian  life  was  transferred  to  Lower  Egypt, 
 Memphis  acquired  its  greatness  through  the  ruin 
 of  Thebes"  (Lectures  on  Ancient  History,  Lect. 
 vii.).  Other  authorities  assign  priority  to  Mem- 
 phis. But  both  cities  date  from  our  earliest  au- 
 tjientie  knowledge  of  Egyptian  history.     The  first 
 
 THEBES 
 
 allusion  to  Thebes  in  classical  literature  is  the  fa- 
 miliar passage  of  the  Iliad  (ix.  381-385):  "Egyp- 
 tian Thebes,  where  are  vast  treasures  laid  up  in 
 the  houses;  where  are  a  hundred  gates,  and  from 
 each  two  hundred  men  go  forth  with  horses  and 
 chariots."  Homer  —  speaking  with  a  poet's  hcense, 
 and  not  with  the  accuracy  of  a  statistician  —  no 
 doubt  incorporated  into  his  verse  the  glowing  ac- 
 counts of  the  Egyptian  capital  current  in  his  time. 
 Wilkinson  thinks  it  conclusive  against  a  literal 
 understanding  of  Homer,  that  no  traces  of  an 
 ancient  city-wall  can  be  found  at  Thebes,  and 
 accepts  as  probable  the  suggestion  of  Diodorus 
 Siculus  that  the  "  gates "  of  Homer  may  ha\e 
 been  the  propylsea  of  the  temples :  "  Non  centum 
 portas  habuisse  urbeni,  sed  multa  et  ingentia  tem- 
 plorum  vestibula "  (i.  45,  7).  In  the  time  of 
 Diodorus,  the  city-wall,  if  any  there  was,  had 
 already  disappeared,  and  the  question  of  its  exist- 
 ence in  Homer's  time  was  in  dispute.  But,  on 
 the  other  hand,  to  regard  the  "  gates  "  of  Homer 
 as  temple- porches  is  to  make  these  the  barracks  of 
 the  army,  since  from  these  gates  the  horsemen  and 
 chariots  issue  forth  to  war.  The  almost  universal 
 custom  of  walling  the  cities  of  antiquity,  and  the 
 poet's  reference  to  the  gates  as  pouring  forth 
 troops,  point  strongly  to  the  supposition  that  the 
 \ast  area  of  Thebes  was  surrounded  with  a  wall 
 having  many  gates. 
 
 Homer's  allusion  to  the  treasures  of  the  city,  and 
 to  the  size  of  its  standing  army,  numbering  20,000 
 chariots,  shows  the  early  repute  of  Thebes  for 
 wealth  and  power.  Its  fame  as  a  great  capital  had 
 crossed  the  sea  when  Greece  was  yet  in  its  infancy 
 as  a  nation.  It  has  been  questioned  whether  He- 
 rodotus visited  Upper  Egypt  (see  Did.  of  Greek 
 and  Rom.  Geog.  art.  "  Thebes"),  but  he  says,  "I 
 went  to  Heliopolis  iind  to  Thebes,  expressly  to  try 
 whether  the  priests  of  those  places  would  agree 
 in  their  accounts  with  the  priests  at  Memphis" 
 (Herod,  ii.  3).  Afterwards  he  describes  the  fea- 
 tures of  the  Nile  valley,  and  the  chief  points  and 
 distances  upon  the  river,  as  oidy  an  eye-witness 
 would  be  likely  to  record  them.  He  informs  us 
 that  "from  Heliopolis  to  Thebes  is  nine  days'  sail 
 up  the  river,  the  distance  4,800  stadia  ....  and 
 the  distance  from  the  sea  inland  to  Thebes  6,120 
 stadia  "  (Herod,  ii.  8,  9).  In  chap.  29  of  the  same 
 book  he  states  that  he  ascended  the  Nile  as  high 
 as  I'Uephantin^.  Herodotus,  however,  gives  no  par- 
 ticular account  of  the  city,  which  in  his  time  had 
 lost  much  of  its  ancient  grandeur.  He  alludes  to 
 the  temple  of  Jupiter  there,  with  its  ram-headed 
 image,  and  to  the  feet  that  goats,  never  sheep, 
 were  offered  in  sacrifice.  In  the  1st  centur}'  before 
 Christ,  Diodorus  visited  Thebes,  and  he  devotes 
 several  sections  of  his  general  work  to  its  history 
 and  appearance.  Though  he  saw  the  city  when  it 
 had  sunk  to  quite  secondary  importance,  he  pre- 
 serves the  tradition  of  its  early  grandeur  —  its  cir- 
 cuit of  140  stadia,  the  size  of  its  pulilic  edifices, 
 the  magnificence  of  its  temples,  the  number  of  its 
 monuments,  the  dimensions  of  its  private  houses, 
 some  of  them  four  or  five  stories  high  —  all  giving 
 it  an  air  of  grandeur  and  beauty  surpassing  not 
 only  all  other  cities  of  Egypt,  lint  of  the  world. 
 Diodorus  deplores  the  spoiling  of  its  buildiiyi;s  and 
 monuments  l)y  Cambyses  (Diod.  i.  45,  46).  Strabo, 
 who  visited  Egypt  a  little  later  —  at  about  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  Christian  era —  thus  describes  (xvii. 
 81G)  the  city  under  the  name  Diospolis:  "  Vestiges 
 of  its  magnitude  still  exist  which  extend  80  stadia 
 
THEBES 
 
 in  length.  There  are  a  great  number  of  temples, 
 many  of  which  Cambyses  mutilated.  The  spot  is 
 at  present  occupied  by  villages.  One  part  of  it,  in 
 which  is  the  city,  lies  in  Arabia;  another  is  in  the 
 country  on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  where  is 
 the  Memnoniuiii."  Strabo  here  makes  the  Nile 
 the  di\iding  line  between  Libya  and  Arabia.  The 
 temples  of  Karnak  and  Luxor  are  on  the  eastern 
 si<le  of  the  river,  where  was  probably  the  main 
 part  of  the  city.  Strabo  gi\es  the  following  de- 
 scription of  the  twin  colossi  still  standing  upon  the 
 western  plain :  "  Here  ai-e  two  colossal  figures  near 
 one  another,  each  consisting  of  a  single  stone.  One 
 is  entire;  the  upper  parts  of  the  other,  from  the 
 chair,  are  fallen  down  —  the  effect,  it  is  said,  of  an 
 earthquake.  It  is  liclieved  that  once  a  day  a  noise, 
 as  of  a  slight  IjIow,  issues  from  the  part  of  the 
 statue  which  remains  in  the  seat,  and  on  its  base. 
 When  I  was  at  those  places,  with  .iElius  Gallus, 
 and  numerous  friends  and  soldiers  about  him,  I 
 heard  a  noise  at  the  first  hour  of  the  day,  but 
 whether  proceeding  from  the  base,  or  from  the 
 colossus,  or  produceil  on  purpose  by  some  of  those 
 standing  around  the  base,  I  cannot  confidently  as- 
 sert. For,  from  the  uncertainty  of  the  cause,  I 
 am  inclined  to  believe  anything  rather  than  that 
 stones  disposed  in  that  manner  could  send  forth 
 sound"  (.xvii.  §  4G).  Simple,  honest,  skeptical 
 Strabo !  Eighteen  centuries  later,  the  present 
 writer  interrogated  these  same  stones  as  to  the 
 ancient  mystery  of  sound ;  and  not  at  sunrise,  but 
 in  the  glaring  noon,  the  statue  emitted  a  sharp, 
 clear  sound  like  the  ringing  of  a  disc  of  brass 
 under  a  sudden  concussion.  This  was  produced 
 by  a  ragged  urchin,  who,  for  a  few  piastres,  clam- 
 bered up  the  knees  of  the  "  \-ocal  Menmon,"  and 
 there  effectually  concealing  himself  from  observa- 
 tion, struck  with  a  hammer  a  sonorous  stone  in 
 the  lap  of  the  statue.  \Vilkinson,  who  was  one 
 of  the  first  to  describe  this  sounding  stone,  con- 
 jectures that  the  priests  had  a  secret  chamber  in 
 the  body  of  the  statue,  from  which  they  could 
 strike  it  unobserved  at  the  instant  of  sunrise:  thus 
 producing  in  the  credulous  multitude  the  notion 
 of  a  supernatural  phenomenon.  It  is  difficult  to 
 conceive,  however,  that  such  a  trick,  performed  in 
 open  day,  could  have  escaped  detection,  and  we  are 
 therefore  left  to  share  the  mingled  wonder  and 
 skepticism  of  Stralio  (see  Wilkinson;  also  'Thomp- 
 son's Photogrnphic  Views  of  Erjypt,  Past  and 
 Present,  p.  15fi). 
 
 Pliny  speaks  of  Thebes  in  Egypt  as  known  to 
 fame  as  "  a  hanging  city,"  i.  e.  liuilt  upon  arclies, 
 so  that  an  army  could  be  led  forth  fi-om  lieneath 
 the  city  while  the  inhabitants  above  were  wholly 
 unconscious  of  it.  He  mentions  also  that  the  river 
 flows  through  the  middle  of  the  city.  l>ut  he 
 questions  the  story  of  the  arches,  because,  "  if  this 
 had  really  been  the  case,  tiiere  is  no  doul)t  that 
 Homer  would  have  mentioned  it,  seeing  that  he 
 has  celebrated  the  hundred  gates  of  Thebes.''  Do 
 not  the  two  stories  possibly  explain  each  other? 
 May  there  not  have  been  near  the  river-line  arched 
 buildings  used  as  barracks,  from  whose  gateways 
 issued  fm'th  20,000  chariots  of  war? 
 
 But,  in  the  uncertainty  of  these  historical  allu- 
 sions, the  tiionumenls  of  Thebes  are  the  most  relia- 
 ble witnesses  for  the  ancient  grandeur  of  the  city. 
 These  are  found  in  almost  equal  proportions  upon 
 both  sides  of  the  river.  The  parallel  ridi;;es  which 
 skirt  the  narrow  Nile  valley  upon  the  east  and  west 
 ironi  the  northern  limit  of  Upper  Egypt,  here  sweep 
 
 THEBES  3217 
 
 outward  upon  either  side,  forming  a  circukr  plain 
 whose  diameter  is  nearly  ten  miles.  Through  the 
 centre  of  this  plain  flows  the  river,  usually  at  thii 
 point  about  half  a  mile  in  width,  but  at  the  inmi- 
 dation  overflowing  the  plain,  especially  upon  the 
 western  bank,  for  a  breadth  of  two  or  more  miles.  ■ 
 Thus  the  two  colossal  statues,  which  are  several 
 hundred  yards  from  the  bed  of  the  low  Nile,  hava 
 accumulated  about  their  bases  alluvial  deposit  to 
 the  depth  of  seven  feet. 
 
 The  plan  of  the  city,  as  indicated  by  the  princip;xJ 
 monuments,  was  nearly  quadrangular,  measuring 
 two  miles  from  north  to  south,  and  four  from  east 
 to  west.  Its  four  great  landmarks  were,  Karnal 
 and  Luxor  upon  the  e.isteru  or  Arabian  side,  ana 
 Qoornah  and  Meileenet  llaboo  u[)on  the  western  oi 
 Liljyan  side.  There  are  indications  that  each  of 
 these  temples  may  have  been  connected  with  those 
 facing  it  upon  two  sides  by  grand  dromoi,  lined 
 with  sphin.Kes  and  other  colossal  figures.  Upon  the 
 w^estern  bank  there  was  almost  a  continuous  line 
 of  temples  and  pulilic  edifices  for  a  distance  of  two 
 miles,  from  Qoornah  to  Medeenet  Ilaboo;  and  Wil- 
 kinson conjectures  that  from  a  point  near  the  latter, 
 perhaps  in  the  line  of  the  colossi,  the  "  Royal 
 Street "  ran  down  to  the  river,  which  was  crossed 
 by  a  ferry  terminating  at  Luxor  on  the  eastern 
 side.  The  recent  excavations  and  discoveries  of 
 M.  Mariette,  now  in  course  of  publication  (1863), 
 may  enable  us  to  restore  the  ground-plan  of  the 
 city  and  its  principal  edifices  with  at  least  proxi- 
 mate accuracy. 
 
 It  does  not  enter  into  the  design,  nor  would  it 
 fall  withiu  the  limits  of  this  article,  to  give  a  mi- 
 nute description  of  these  stupendous  monuments. 
 Not  only  are  verbal  descriptions  everywhere  ac- 
 cessible through  the  pages  of  Wilkinson,  Kenrick, 
 and  other  standard  writers  upon'  Egypt,  but  the 
 magnificently  illustrated  work  of  Lepsius,  already 
 completed,  the  companion  work  of  M.  Mariette, 
 just  referred  to,  and  multiplied  photographs  of  the 
 prhicipal  ruins,  are  within  easy  reach  of  the  scholar 
 through  the  munificence  of  public  libraries.  A  mere 
 outline  of  the  groups  of  ruins  must  here  suffice. 
 Beginning  at  the  northern  extremity  on  the  western 
 bank,  the  first  consi)icuous  ruins  are  those  of  a 
 palace  temple  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  and  there- 
 fore belonging  to  the  middle  style  of  Egyptian 
 architecture.  It  bears  the  name  Menej^hththm, 
 suggested  by  ChampoUion  because  it  appears  to 
 have  been  founded  by  j\Ienephthah  (the  Osu-ei  of 
 Wilkinson),  though  built  principally  by  his  son, 
 the  great  Rameses.  The  plan  of  the  building  is 
 much  oljscured  by  mounds  of  rubbish,  but  some 
 of  the  bas-reliefs  are  in  a  fine  state  of  preservation. 
 There  are  traces  of  a  dromos,  128  feet  in  length, 
 with  sphinxes,  whose  fragments  here  and  there 
 remain.  This  building  stands  upon  a  slight  ele- 
 vation, nearly  a  mile  from  the  river,  in  the  now 
 deserted  village  of  old  Qoornah. 
 
 Nearly  a  mile  southward  from  the  IMenephtheion 
 are  the  remains  of  the  combined  palace  and  temple 
 known  since  the  days  of  Strabo  as  the  Memnonium. 
 An  examination  of  its  sculptures  shows  that  this 
 name  was  inaccurately  applied,  since  the  building 
 was  clearly  erected  by  Rameses  II.  Wilkinson 
 suggests  that  the  title  Rliamun  attached  to  the 
 name  of  this  king  misled  Strabo  in  his  designation 
 of  the  building.  The  general  form  of  the  Mem- 
 nonium is  that  of  a  parallelogram  in  three  main 
 sections,  the  interior  areas  being  successively  nar- 
 rower  than    the    first  court,  and   the  whole  ter^ 
 
3218 
 
 THEBES 
 
 minating  in  a  series  of  sacred  cliambers  beautifully 
 sculptured  and  ornamented.  The  proportions  of 
 this  building  are  remarl;abl.y  fine,  and  its  remains 
 are  in  a  sufficient  state  of  preservation  to  enable 
 one  to  reconstruct  its  plan.  From  the  first  court 
 or  area,  nearly  180  feet  sipiare,  there  is  an  ascent 
 by  steps  to  the  second  court,  140  feet  by  170. 
 Upon  three  sides  of  this  area  is  a  double  colonnade, 
 and  on  the  south  side  a  single  row  of  Osiride 
 pillars,  facing  a  row  of  like  pillars  on  the  north, 
 the  other  columns  being  circular.  Another  ascent 
 leads  to  tlie  hall,  loi) -f- 133,  which  originally 
 had  48  huge  colunnis  to  support  its  solid  roof. 
 Beyond  the  hall  are  the  sacred  chambers.  The 
 historical  sculptures  upon 
 the  walls  and  columns  of 
 the  Memnonium  are  among 
 the  most  finished  and  legi- 
 ble of  the  Egyptian  mon- 
 uments. But  the  most  re- 
 markable feature  of  these 
 ruins  is  the  gigantic  statue 
 of  Rame-ses  II.,  once  a  sin- 
 gle block  of  syenite  carved 
 to  represent  the  king  upon 
 his  throne,  but  now  scat- 
 tered in  Iragments  upon  the 
 floor  of  the  first  hall.  The 
 weight  of  this  statue  has 
 been  computed  at  887  tons, 
 and  its  height  at  75  feet. 
 By  measurement  of  the  frag- 
 ments, the  writer  found  the 
 body  51  feet  around  the 
 shoulders,  the  arm  11  feet  G 
 inches  from  shoulder  to  el- 
 bow, and  the  foot  10  feet 
 10  inches  in  length,  by  4  feet 
 8  inches  in  breadth.  This 
 stupendous  monolith  must  have  been  transported 
 at  least  a  hundred  miles  from  the  quarries  of 
 Assouan.     About  a  third  of  a  mile  further  to  the 
 
 b        a  b 
 
 Plan  of  Memnonium. 
 
 Hall  of  Columns  in  the  Memnouium. 
 
 south  are  the  two  colossal  statues  already  referred 
 to,  one  of  which  is  familiarly  known  as  "  the  \'ocal 
 Memnon."  The  height  of  each  figure  is  about  53 
 feet  above  the  plain. 
 
 Proceeding  again  toward  the  south  for  about  the 
 same  distance,  we  find  at  Medeenei  flabuo  ruins 
 upon  a  more  stupendous  scale  than  at  any  otlicr 
 point  upon  the  western  liank  of  Thebes.  These 
 consist  of  a  temple  founded  by  Thothmes  I.,  but 
 which  also  exhibits  traces  of  the  Ptolemaic  archi- 
 tecture in  the  shape  of  pyramidal  towers,  gate- 
 ways, colonnades,  and  vestibules,  inscribed  with  the 
 memorials  of  the  Koman  era  in  Egypt.  This 
 temple,  even  with  all  its  additions,  is  compara- 
 tively small;  but  adjacent  to  it  is  the  magnificent 
 
 THEBES 
 
 ruin  known  as  the  southern  Ramescion,  the  palace- 
 temple  of  Rameses  III.  The  general  plan  of  this 
 building  corresponds  with  those  above  described; 
 a  series  of  grand  courts  or  halls  adorned  Vifith 
 columns,  conducting  to  the  inner  pavilion  of  the 
 king  or  sanctuary  of  the  god.  The  second  court 
 is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  Egypt  for  the 
 massiveness  of  its  columns,  which  measure  24  feet 
 in  height  by  a  circumference  of  nearly  23.  Within 
 this  area  are  the  fallen  columns  of  a  Christian 
 church,  which  once  established  tiie  worship  of  the 
 true  God  in  the  \'ery  sanctuary  of  idols  and  amid 
 their  sculptui-ed  images  and  symbols.  This  temple 
 presents  some  of  the  grandest  effects  of  the  old 
 Egyptian  architecture,  and  its  battle-scenes  are  a 
 valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of  Rameses  III. 
 Behind  this  long  range  of  temples  and  palaces 
 are  the  Libyan  hiUs,  which,  for  a  distance  of  five 
 miles,  are  excavated  to  the  depth  of  several  hun- 
 dred feet  for  sepulchral  chambers.  Some  of  these 
 are  of  vast  extent  —  one  tomb,  for  instance,  having 
 a  total  area  of  22,217  square  feet.  A  retired  valley 
 in  the  mountains,  now  known  as  Beehan-tl- li/dook, 
 seems  to  have  been  appropriated  to  the  sepulchres 
 of  kings.  Some  of  these,  in  the  number  and  variety 
 of  their  chambers,  the  finish  of  their  sculptures, 
 and  the  beauty  and  freslniess  of  their  frescoes,  are 
 among  the  most  remarkable  monuments  of  Egyptian 
 grandeur  and  skill.  It  is  from  the  tombs  especially 
 that  we  learn  the  manners  and  customs  of  domestic 
 life,  as  from  the  temples  we  gather  the  record  of 
 dynasties  and  the  history  of  battles.  The  preserva- 
 tion of  these  sculptured  and  pictorial  records  is  due 
 mainly  to  the  dryness  of  the  climate.  The  sacred- 
 ness  with  which  the  Egyptians  regarded  their  dead 
 preserved  these  mountain  catacombs  from  molesta- 
 tion during  the  long  succession  of  native  dynasties, 
 and  the  sealing  up  of  the  entrance  to  the  tomb  for 
 the  concealment  of  the  sarcophagus  from  human 
 observation  until  its  mummied  occupant  should  re- 
 sume his  long-suspended  life,  has  largely  secured 
 I  the  city  of  the  dead  from  the  violence  of  invaders 
 and  the  ravages  of  time.  It  is  from  the 
 adornments  of  these  subterranean  tombs, 
 often  distinct  and  fresh  as  \^■hen  prepared 
 ^  by  the  hand  of  the  artist,  that  we  derive 
 V,  our  principal  knowledge  of  the  manners 
 —  and  customs  of  the  Egyptians.  Herodotus 
 himself  is  not  more  minute  and  graphic 
 than  these  silent  but  most  descriptive  walls. 
 1  The  illustration  and  confirmation  which 
 they  bring  to  the  sacred  narrative,  so  well 
 :  discussed  by  Ilengstenberg,  Osborn,  Poole, 
 and  others,  is  capable  of  much  ampler 
 treatment  than  it  has  yet  received.  Every 
 incident  in  the  pastoral  and  agricultural 
 life  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  and  in  the 
 exactions  of  their  servitude,  every  art  employed  in 
 the  fiibrication  of  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness, 
 every  allusion  to  Egyptian  rites,  customs,  laws, 
 finds  some  counterpart  or  illustration  in  this  pic- 
 ture-history of  Egypt;  and  whenever  the  Theban 
 cemetery  shall  be  thoroughly  explored,  and  its  sym- 
 bols and  hieroglyphics  fully  interpreted  by  science, 
 we  shall  have  a  commentary  of  unrivaled  interest 
 and  value  upon  the  books  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus, 
 as  well  us  the  later  historical  fiooks  of  the  Hebrew 
 Scriptures.  The  art  of  photography  is  already 
 contributing  to  this  result  by  furnishing  scholars 
 with  materials  for  the  leisurely  study  of  the  pic- 
 torial and  monumental  records  of  Egypt. 
 
 The  eastern  side  of  tlie  river  is  distinguished  by 
 
THEBES 
 
 the  remains  of  Luxor  and  Karnak,  the  latter  being 
 of  itself  a  city  of  temples.  The  main  colonnade  of 
 Luxor  faces  the  river,  but  its  princii)al  entrance 
 looks  northward  towards  Karnak,  with  which  it 
 was  orijiinally  connected  by  a  dronios  0,000  feet  in 
 length,  lined  on  either  side  with  sphinxes.  At  this 
 entrance  are  two  gigantic  statues  of  Rauieses  11. ,  one 
 upon  each  side  of  the  grand  gateway;  and  in  front 
 of  these  formerly  stood  a  pair  of  beautifully  wrought 
 obelisks  of  red  granite,  one  of  which  now  graces  the 
 I'lace  de  la  Concorde  at  Paris. 
 
 I'be  approach  to  Karnak  from  the  south  is  marked 
 by  a  series  of  majestic  gate- 
 ways and  towers,  which  were 
 the  appendages  of  later  times 
 to  the  original  structure. 
 The  temple  properly  faces 
 the  river,  i.  e.  toward  tiie 
 northwest.  The  courts  and 
 propyleea  connected  with  this 
 structure  occupy  a  space 
 nearly  1,800  feet  square,  and 
 the  buildings  represent  al- 
 most every  dynasty  of 
 Egypt,  from  Sesortasen  L 
 to  rtolemy  Euergetes  L 
 Courts,  pylons,  obeli.sks, 
 statues,  pillars,  everything 
 pertaining  to  Karnak,  are  on 
 the  grandest  scale.  Near- 
 est the  river  is  an  area 
 measuring  275  feet  by  329, 
 __  which  once  had  a  covered 
 Figure  of  Rameses  II.  corridor  on  either  side,  and 
 a  double  row  of  columns 
 through  the  centre,  leading  to  the  entrance  of 
 the  hypostyle  hall,  the  most  wonderful  monument 
 
 THEBES 
 
 3219 
 
 Sculptured  Gateway  at  Karnak. 
 
 of  Egyptian  architecture.  This  grand  hall  is  a 
 forest  of  sculptured  columns;  in  the  central  avenue 
 are  twelve,  measuring  each  66  feet  in  height  by  ]2 
 in  diameter,  which  formerly  supported  the  most 
 elevated  portion  of  the  roof,  answering  to  the  clere- 
 story in  Gothic  architecture;  on  either  side  of 
 these  are  seven  rows,  each  column  nearly  42  feet 
 high  by  9  in  diameter,  making  a  total  of  IH  pillars 
 in  an  area  measuring  170  feet  by  3-W.  Most  of 
 ihe  pillars  are  yet  standing  in  their  original  site, 
 though  in  many  places  the  roof  has  fallen  in.  A 
 vioonlight  view  of  this  hall  is  the  most  weird  and 
 
 impressive  scene  to  be  witnessed  among  all  the  ruins 
 of  antiquity  —  the  Coliseum  of  Rome  not  exce|)ted. 
 With  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  mechanic  arts 
 among  the  Egyptians,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
 how  the  outer  wall  of  Karnak  —  forty  feet  in  thick- 
 ness at  the  base,  and  nearly  a  hundred  feet  high  — 
 was  built;  how  single  blocks  weighing  several  hun- 
 dred tons  were  lilted  into  their  place  in  the  wall, 
 or  hevrn  into  obelisks  and  statues  to  adorn  its  gates; 
 how  the  majestic  colunnis  of  the  Grand  Hall  were 
 quarried,  sculptured,  and  set  up  in  mathematical 
 order;  and  how  the  whole  stupendous  structure 
 was  reared  as  a  fortress  in  which  tlie  most  ancient 
 civilization  of  the  world,  as  it  were  petrified  or 
 fossilized  in  the  very  flower  of  its  strength  and 
 beauty,  might  defy  the  desolations  of  war,  and  the 
 decay  of  centuries.  The  grandeur  ^f  Egypt  is  here 
 in  its  architectvu'e,  and  almost  every  pillar,  obelislc, 
 and  stone  tells  its  historic  legend  of  her  greatest 
 monarchs. 
 
 We  have  alluded,  in  the  opening  of  this  article, 
 to  the  debated  question  of  the  priority  of  Thebes  to 
 JNIeniphis.  As  yet  the  data  are  not  sufficient  for 
 its  satisfactory  solution,  and  Egyptologists  are  not 
 agreed.  Upon  the  whole  we  may  conclude  tiiat 
 before  the  time  of  Menes  there  was  a  local  sove- 
 reignty in  the  Thebaid,  but  the  historical  nationality 
 of  Egypt  dates  from  the  founding  of  Memphis. 
 "  It  is  probable  that  the  priests  of  Memphis  and 
 Thebes  differed  in  their  representations  of  early 
 history,  and  that  each  sought  to  extol  the  glory  of 
 their  own  city.  The  history  of  Herodotus  turns 
 about  Memphis  as  a  centre;  he  mentions  Thebes 
 only  incidentally,  and  does  not  describe  or  allude  to 
 one  of  its  monuments.  L)iodorus,  on  the  contrary, 
 is  full  in  his  description  of  Thebes,  and  says  little 
 of  ftlemphis.  But  the  distinction  of  Upper  and 
 Lower  Egypt  exists  in  geological  structure,  in  lan- 
 guage, in  religion,  and  in  historical  tradition  "  (Ken- 
 rick).  A  careful  digest  of  the  Egyptian  and  Greek 
 authorities,  the  Turin  papyrus,  and  the  monumental 
 tablets  of  Abydos  and  Karnak,  gives  this  general 
 outline  of  the  early  history  of  Egypt :  That  Ijefore 
 Memphis  was  built,  the  nation  was  mainly  confined 
 to  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  and  subdivided  politically 
 into  several  sovereignties,  of  which  Thebes  was  one ; 
 that  Menes,  who  was  a  native  of  T/iis  in  the  The- 
 baid, centralized  the  government  at  Alemphis,  and 
 united  the  upper  and  lower  countries;  that  Mem- 
 phis retained  its  preeminence,  even  in  the  hereditary 
 succession  of  sovereigns,  until  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
 teenth dynasties  of  Manetho,  when  Diospolitan  kings 
 appear  in  his  lists,  who  brought  Thebes  into  prom- 
 inence as  a  royal  city;  that  when  the  Shepherds 
 or  Hyksos,  a  nomadic  race  from  the  east,  invaded 
 Egypt  and  fixed  their  capital  at  Memphis,  a  native 
 Egyptian  dynasty  was  maintained  at  Tliebes,  at 
 times  triljutary  to  the  Hyksos,  and  at  times  in 
 military  alliance  with  Ethiopia  against-the  invaders; 
 until  at  length,  by  a  general  uprising  of  the  The- 
 baid, the  Hyksos  were  expelled,  and  Thebes  became 
 the  capital  of  all  Egypt  under  the  resplendent 
 eighteenth  dynasty.  This  was  the  golden  era  of 
 the  city  as  we  have  already  described  it  from  its 
 monuments.  The  names  and  deeds  of  the  Thothmes 
 and  the  Rameses  then  figure  upon  its  temples  and 
 [lalaces,  representing  its  wealth  and  grandeur  in 
 architecture,  and  its  prowess  in  arms.  'J'hen  it  waa 
 that  Thebes  extended  her  sceptre  over  Libya  and 
 Ethiopia  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  otlier  over 
 Syria,  Media,  and  Persia;  so  that  the  walls  of  her 
 palaces  and  temples  are  crowded  with  battle-scenes 
 
3220  THEBES 
 
 in  which  all  contiguous  nations  appear  as  captives 
 or  as  suppliants.  This  supremacy  continued  until 
 the  close  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  or  for  a  period 
 of  more  than  fi\e  hundred  years;  but  under  the 
 twentieth  dynast} — the  Diospolitan  house  of  Ranie- 
 ses  numbering  ten  kini;s  of  that  name  —  the  glory 
 of  Thelies  began  to  decline,  and  after  the  close  of 
 that  dynasty  her  name  no  more  appears  in  the  lists 
 of  kings.  Still  the  city  was  retained  as  the  capital, 
 in  whole  or  in  part,  and  the  achievements  of  Shi- 
 shonk  the  Bubastite,  of  Tirhakah  the  Ethiopian, 
 and  other  monarchs  of  celebrity,  are  recorded  upon 
 its  walls.  The  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Shishonk 
 is  graphically  depicted  upon  the  outer  wall  of  the 
 grai\d  hall  of  Karnak,  and  the  names  of  several 
 towns  in  Palestine,  as  well  as  the  general  name  of 
 "the  land  of  ^he  king  of  Judah,"  have  been  de- 
 ciphered from  the  hieroglyphics.  At  the  later  in- 
 vasion of  Judaja  by  Sennacherib,  we  find  Tirhakah, 
 the  Ethiopian  monarch  of  the  Thebaid,  a  powerful 
 ally  of  the  Jewish  king.  But  a  century  later, 
 Ezekiel  proclaims  the  destruction  of  Thebes  by  the 
 arm  of  Babylon :  "  I  will  execute  judgments  in 
 No;  "  "  I  will  cut  off  the  multitude  of  No;  "  "  No 
 shall  be  rent  asunder,  and  Noph  [Memphis]  shall 
 have  distresses  daily"  {Ez.  xxx.  14-lG);  and  Jere- 
 miah, predicting  the  same  overthrow,  says,  "  The 
 Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of  Israel  saith.  Behold,  I 
 will  punish  the  multitude  of  No,  and  Pharaoh,  and 
 Egypt,  with  their  gods  and  their  kings."  The  Per- 
 sian invader  completed  the  destruction  that  the 
 Babylonian  had  begun;  the  hammer  of  Cambyses 
 leveled  the  proud  statue  of  Rameses,  and  his  torch 
 consumed  the  temples  and  palaces  of  the  city  of 
 the  hundred  gates.  No-Auimon,  the  shrine  of  the 
 Egyptian  Jupiter,  ' '  that  was  situate  among  the 
 ri\ers,  and  whose  rampart  was  the  sea,"  sank  from 
 its  metropolitan  splendor  to  the  position  of  a  mere 
 provincial  town;  and,  notwithstanding  the  spas- 
 modic efibrts  of  the  Ptolemies  to  revive  its  ancient 
 glory,  became  at  last  only  tlie  desolate  and  ruined 
 sepulchre  of  the  empire  it  had  once  embodied.  It 
 lies  to-day  a  nest  of  Arab  hovels  amid  crumbling 
 cohunns  and  drifting  sands. 
 
 *  Three  names  of  Thebes  are  made  prominent 
 in  the  hieroglyphic  monun:ents  of  the  city.  The 
 first  is  the  sacerdotal  name  Pi-amun  —  the  abode 
 of  Amnion.  The  expression  j\o-(unun,  which  cor- 
 responds even  more  exactly  with  the  Greek  Aiotr- 
 ■.ro\is,  is  found  in  the  Sallier  Papyrus,  No.  III., 
 showing  that  the  Hebrew  prophets  used  a  well- 
 known  designation  of  the  city.  At  Thebes  Anmion 
 was  worshipped  preeminently  under  the  type  of  the 
 sun. 
 
 A  second  designation  of  Thebes  was  the  city  of 
 Apeiu  or  Apet.  Some  liave  attempted  to  derive 
 the  name  Thebes  from  this  title,  thus :  Ta-Ajjctu, 
 or  more  simply  Ta-ape,  by  contraction  Tapt,  which 
 the  Greeks  softened  into  @ri^-r)-  But  this  deriva- 
 tion is  hypothetical,  and  at  best  it  seems  plain  from 
 the  hieroglyphics  that  the  name  Apeiu  was  given 
 to  but  a  single  quarter  of  ancient  Thebes.  —  a  sec- 
 tion of  the  eastern  bank  embracing  the  yreat  temple 
 of  Karnak.  The  name  Apilii  has  not  been  found 
 upon  any  monument  of  the  old  empire. 
 
 There  is  a  third  designation,  or  perhaps  more 
 properly  a  representation,  of  the  city  in  the  hiero- 
 glyphics, from  which  it  is  conjectured  that  the 
 Greeks  derived  its  name.  This  capital  is  pictured 
 IS  a  martial  city,  thoroughly  equip[)ed,  and  armed 
 with  divine  power  for  dominion  over  all  nations. 
 These  symbols  give  the  nan  e  Ol/e,  which  with  the 
 
 THEBEZ 
 
 feminine  article  becomes  Tobe  or  7'ebe,  which  ap- 
 pears in  the  Greek  form  Q-lj^n-  Tebe  and  not 
 Apeiu  was  the  city  of  Anmion,  who  there  dwelt  in 
 Apeiu,  which  was  probably  the  great  temple  of 
 Karnak. 
 
 The  foregoing  is  the  substance  of  a  monograph 
 by  Mons.  F.  Chabas,  entitled  Jiecherches  sur  le 
 nom  ec/yjHien  (h  Thebes,  and  is  the  latest  contri- 
 bution to  the  literature  of  the  subject. 
 
 The  explorations  of  M.  Mariette-Bey,  M.  Dii- 
 michen,  and  others,  have  brought  to  light  some 
 curious  memorials  of  Thelies  that  serve  to  illustrate 
 its  ancient  history  and  renown,  and  to  verify  the 
 surviving  fragments  of  its  literature.  The  Abbott 
 papyrus  relates  to  the  conviction  and  punishment 
 of  a  band  of  robbers  that  in  the  reign  of  Kanieses 
 IX.  spoiled  the  necropolis  of  Thebes  of  treasures 
 deposited  in  tombs  of  the  priestesses  of  Amnion 
 and  in  the  royal  sepulchres.  In  the  vicinity  of 
 Gournah,  M.  Mariette  has  identified  three  of  ten 
 royal  tombs  named  in  the  papyrus.  This  fixes 
 definitely  the  quarter  of  the  city  referred  to  in  the 
 papyrus. 
 
 M.  Mariette's  excavations  within  the  temple  of 
 Karnak  ha\'e  restored  to  the  eye  of  scholars  valuable 
 inscriptions  that  had  long  licen  hidden  under  the 
 sand.  In  particular  he  has  restored  as  far  as  pos- 
 sible the  famous  Annals  of  Thothmes  HI.,  from 
 the  sanctuary  which  that  monarch  built  in  the 
 centre  of  the  great  temple  as  a  memorial  of  his 
 victories.  Under  the  date  of  each  year  of  this  in- 
 scription follows  a  narrative  of  the  warlike  expedi- 
 tions of  the  year,  which  is  followed  Iiy  an  enumera- 
 tion of  the  spoils.  The  minute  accuracy  of  these 
 returns  may  be  judged  by  an  example  of  the  tribute 
 paidbyCush:  gold,  1.54  pounds  2  ounces;  slaves, 
 male  and  female,  134;  beef-cattle,  young,  114; 
 bulls,  305;  total  419,  &c.  These  ann.<ils  shed  light 
 upon  ancient  geography,  and  upon  the  Biblical  and 
 other  accounts  of  the  wars  of  Egypt  in  the  East. 
 From  one  hundred  and  fifteen  names  we  instance 
 Arabia,  Gush,  Eglon,  Gaza,  i\Iai;eddo,  Mesopotamia, 
 Nineveh,  Taanak,  in  the  list  of  liatfles  or  conquest. 
 In  one  inscription  it  is  stated  that  the  king  set  ii]) 
 a  monument  in  Slesopotamia  to  mark  the  eastern 
 boundary  of  Egypt. 
 
 The  commerce  of  antiquity  is  also  illustrated 
 by  these  inscriptions.  Gush  returns  a  tribute  of 
 gold,  silver,  and  cattle;  the  Potennou,  ivory,  cattle, 
 horses,  goats,  metals,  armor,  precious  woods:  the 
 Syrians,  silver,  iron,  lapis-lazuli,  and  leather;  an 
 unknown  people,  precious  vases,  dates,  hone}',  wine, 
 farina,  perfumes,  asses,  and  instruments  of  iron. 
 Mention  is  made  also  of  chariots  ornamented  with 
 silver,  and  of  shiploads  of  ivory,  ebony,  leopard- 
 skins,  etc.  All  this  confirms  the  story  of  Herodotus 
 touching  the  immense  wealth  and  the  vast  military 
 power  of  Thebes.  Fifteen  successive  campaigns  are 
 here  recorded  in  which  the  monarch  himself  carried 
 his  triumphant  arms  to  the  very  heart  of  Asia.  In 
 some  of  these  campaigns  he  marched  through  Ccele- 
 Syria,  and  subdued  the  region  of  Lebanon.  The 
 entire  inscription  of  Thothmes  HI.  is  translated 
 in  the  Revue  Arc/ieolof/itpie,  Nouvelle  Ss^rie,  vol.  ii. 
 
 The  inscription  of  Shishak  upon  the  outer  wall 
 of  Karnak  in  the  same  way  illustrates  the  power 
 and  grandeur  of  Thebes,  even  when  bordering  upon 
 its  decline.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 THP^'BEZ  (V?^  [bri(/Iitncss]  :  e^ySrjy, 
 ®afj.affl\  Alex.  Qai^ais,  @aiJ.a(Tet  :  T/iebes).  A 
 place  memorable  for  the  death  of  the  bravo  A  bime- 
 
THECOE,  WILDERNESS  OF 
 
 lech  (.Tudg.  ix.  50  ").  After  suffocating  a  thousand 
 of  the  Shecheiiiites  in  the  hold  of  liaal-beritli  by 
 the  smoke  of  green  wood  — an  exploit  which  recalls 
 the  notorious  feat  of  a  modern  French  general  in 
 Algeria  (Eccl.  i.  9,  10)  —  he  went  off  with  his  band 
 to  Thebez.  The  town  was  soon  tal<en,  all  but  one 
 tower,  into  which  the  people  of  the  place  crowded. 
 and  which  was  strong  enough  to  hold  out.  To  this 
 he  forced  his  way,  and  was  about  to  repeat  the 
 barbarous  stratagem  which  had  succeeded  so  well 
 at  Shechem,  when  the  fragment  of  millstone  de- 
 scended and  put  an  end  to  his  turbulent  career. 
 The  story  was  well  known  in  Israel,  and  gave  the 
 point  to  a  familiar  maxim  in  the  camp  (2  Sam.  xi. 
 21). 
 
 Thebez  is  not  mentioned  again  in  the  Bible.  But 
 it  was  known  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  In  their 
 day  the  village  still  bore  its  old  name,  and  was 
 situated  "in  the  district  of  Neapolis,"  l-'3  Roman 
 miles  therefrom,  on  the  road  to  Scythopolis  ( Oiiom. 
 @7l^7]s}-  There  it  still  is;  its  name — Tubas  — 
 hardly  changed ;  the  village  on  a  rising  ground  to 
 the  left  of  the  road,  a  thriving,  compact,  and  strong- 
 looking  place,  surrounded  by  immense  v/oods  of 
 olives,  and  by  perhaps  the  best  cultivated  land  in 
 all  Palestine.  It  was  known  to  hap-1'archi  in  the 
 13th  century  (Zunz's  Baynmin,  ii.  42<j),  and  is 
 mentioned  occasionally  by  later  travellers.  But  Dr. 
 Robinson  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to  recog- 
 nize its  identity  with  Thebez  {Bill.  lies.  ill.  305). 
 
 G. 
 
 THECOE,  THE  WILDERNESS  OF 
 (r')]v  (ptj/xov  QeKooe'  desertiiin  Theciue).  The  wild, 
 uncultivated  pastoral  tract  lying  around  the  town 
 of  Tekoa,  more  especially  to  the  east  of  it  (1  JMacc. 
 ix.  33).  In  the  Old  Test.  (2  Chr.  xx.  20)  it  is 
 mentioned  by  the  term  3fidbm;  which  answers  to 
 the  Greek  eprinos. 
 
 Thecoe  is  merely  the  Greek  form  of  the  name 
 Tekoa.  G. 
 
 THELA'SAR  (iffi'Sbr]  Ihill  of  Assyria, 
 Ges.,  Fiirst] :  ©aeffOev;  Alex.  QaAaffaap'-  Thtflns- 
 S'lr).  Another  form  of  the  name  examined  under 
 Tel-assak.  It  occurs  2  K.  xix.  12.  The  A.  V. 
 is  unfortunate  in  respect  of  this  name,  for  it  has 
 contrived  to  give  the  contracted  Hebrew  form  in 
 the  longest  EngMsh  shape,  and  vice  versa.        G. 
 
 THELER'SAS  (QeXepads;  [Alex.  ©eAo-aj:] 
 Tkelharsn),  1  Esdr.  v.  30.  T'he  Greek  equivalent 
 of  the  name  Tel-iiaksas. 
 
 THE'MAN  (Qatudv-  Tlieman),  Bar.  iii.  22, 
 23.     [Teman.] 
 
 THEOCA'NUS  {@iwKav6s;  [Vat.  0o«ai/os;] 
 AXex.  QwKavos-  Thecavi).  Tikvah  the  father  of 
 Jahaziah  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14). 
 
 THEOD'OTUS  (qMotos  [given  by  God] : 
 Theodotius,  T/ievdorus).  An  envoy  sent  by  Nicanor 
 to  Judas  jNIacc.  c.  b.  c.  162  (2  JIacc.  xiv.  19). 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 THEOPH'ILUS  {&e6<pi\os  [friend  of 
 Goil] ).  1.  The  person  to  whom  St.  Luke  inscribes 
 his  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (Luke  i.  3; 
 Acts  i.  1).  The  important  part  played  by  The- 
 ophihis,  as  having  immediately  occasioned  the  com- 
 position of  these  two  books,  together  with  the 
 silence  of  Scripture  concerning  him,   has  at  once 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 3221 
 
 a  In  the  Hebrew  text  Thebez  occurs  twice  in  the 
 verse,  but  iu  the  LXX   it  stands  thus,  "  And  Abime- 
 
 stimulated  conjecture,  and  left  the  field  clear  for  it. 
 Accordingly  we  meet  with  a  considerable  number 
 and  variety  of  theories  concerning  him. 
 
 (1.)  Several  commentators,  especially  among  the 
 Fathers,  have  Ijeen  disposed  to  doubt  the  personality - 
 of  Theophilus,  regarding  the  name  either  as  that  of 
 a  fictitious  person,  or  as  applicaljle  to  every  Chris- 
 tian reader.  Thus  Origen  {Horn.  i.  in  Luc.)  raises 
 the  question,  but  does  not  discuss  it,  his  object 
 being  merely  practical.  He  says  that  all  who  are 
 lieloved  of  God  are  Theophili,  and  may  therefore 
 appropriate  to  themselves  the  Gospel  which  was 
 addressed  to  Theophilus.  Epiphanius  {f/ieres.W. 
 n.  429)  speaks  doubtfully:  e'tr  odv  Ttvl  ©eoc^iAoi 
 rdre  ypdcpuv  e\eyev,  ^  ttuvtI  avOpdirrfi  &ehu 
 aya-KwuTi.  Salvianus  (Kpist.iyi.  ad  Snloniuni)  ap- 
 parently assumes  that  Theophilus  had  no  historical 
 existence.  He  justifies  the  composition  of  a  work 
 addressed  "Ad  Ecclesiam  Catholicam,"  under  the 
 name  of  Timotheus,-  by  the  example  of  the  Evan- 
 gelist St.  Luke,  who  addressed  his  Gospel  nomi- 
 nally to  a  particular  man,  but  really  to  "  the  love 
 of  God;"  "nam  sicut  Theophili  vocabulo  amor, 
 sic  Timothei  honor  divinitatis  expriraitur."  Even 
 Theophylact,  who  believes  in  the  existence  of  The- 
 ophilus, takes  the  opportunity  of  moralizing  upon 
 his  name:  koCi  iras  5e  avQpooTTos  6  e  o  (p  i  \t)  s,  koI 
 K  p  dr  0  s  Kara  ruv  iradan'  afaSei^dfiivos,  0  e- 
 6  (j>  iK6  s  icTTL  K  p  dr  icrr  0  s,  'os  koI  ^|ios  tS 
 ovTi  ecTiv  CLKOviiv  TOv  ^vayyeXiov  {Ar(/um.  in 
 Luc).  Among  modern  connnentators  Hammond 
 and  Leclerc  accept  the  allegorical  view:  Erasmus 
 is  doubtful,  but  on  the  whole  believes  Theophilus 
 to  have  had  a  real  existence. 
 
 (2.)  From  the  honorable  epithet  Kpartare,  ap- 
 plied to  Theophilus  in  Luke  i.  3,  compared  with 
 the  use  of  the  same  epithet  as  applied  by  Claudius 
 Lysias  and  Tertullus  severally  to  Felix,  and  by  St. 
 Paul  to  Festus  (Acts  xxiii.  26,  xxiv.  3,  xxvi.  25), 
 it  has  been  argued  with  much  probability,  but  not 
 quite  conclusively,  that  he  was  a  person  in  high 
 official  position.  Thus  Theophylact  {Argum.  in 
 Luc.)  conjectures  that  he  was  a  Roman  governor, 
 or  a  person  of  senatorial  rank,  grounding  his  con- 
 jecture expressly  on  the  use  of  KpdrKTTe.  Qicu- 
 menius  (ad  Act.  Apost.  i.  1)  tells  us  that  he  was  a 
 governor,  but  gives  no  authority  for  the  assertion. 
 The  traditional  connection  of  St.  Luke  with  Antioch 
 has  disposed  some  to  look  upon  Antioch  as  the 
 abode  of  Theophilus,  and  possibly  as  the  seat  of  his 
 government.  Bengel  believes  him  to  have  been  an 
 inhabitant  of  Antioch,  "  ut  veteres  testantur."  The 
 belief  may  partly  have  grown  out  of  a  story  in  the 
 so-cjlled  Recognitions  of  Si.  Clement  (lib.  x.),  which 
 represents  a  certain  nobleman  of  Antioch  of  that 
 name  to  have  been  converted  by  the  preaching  of 
 St.  Peter,  and  to  have  dedicated  his  own  house  as 
 a  church,  in  which,  as  we  are  told,  the  Apostle  fixed 
 his  episcopal  seat.  Bengel  thinks  that  the  omission 
 of  Kpdriare  in  Acts  i.  1  proves  that  St.  Luke  was 
 on  more  familiar  terms  with  Theophilus  than  when 
 he  composed  his  Gospel. 
 
 (3.)  In  the  Syriac  Lexicon  extracted  from  the 
 Lexicon  Heptaglotton  of  Castell,  and  edited  by 
 Michaelis  (p.  948),  the  following  description  of 
 Theophilus  is  quoted  from  Bar  Bahlul,  a  Syrian 
 lexicographer  of  the  10th  century:  "Theophilus, 
 primus  credentium  et  celeberrimus  apud  Alexan- 
 
 lech  went  out  of  Bethelberith  (Vulg.  inde)  and  feC 
 upon  Thebes,"  etc. 
 
3222 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 drienses,  qui  cum  aliis  JEgyptiis  Lucam  rogabat, 
 ut  eis  Kvangelium  scriberet."  In  the  inscription 
 of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke  in  the  Syriac 
 ifersion  we  are  told  tliat  it  was  published  at  Alex- 
 andria. Hence  it  is  inferred  by  Jacob  Hase  {Bibl. 
 Bremensis  Class,  iv.  Fase.  iii.  Diss.  4,  quoted  by 
 Michaelis,  Introd.  to  the  N.  T.,  vol.  iii.  ch.  vi.  §  4, 
 ed.  Marsh)  and  by  Beiigel  {Ordo  Temponun,  p. 
 196,  ed.  2),  that  Theophilus  was,  as  asserted  by 
 Bar  Ikhlul,  a  convert  of  Alexandria.  This  writer 
 ventures  to  advance  the  startling  opinion  that  The- 
 ophilus, if  an  Alexandrian,  was  no  other  than  the 
 celebrated  Philo,  who  is  said  to  have  borne  the  He- 
 brew name  of  Jedidiah  (n'^'^'T'^,  i.  e.  @^6(pi\osi- 
 It  hardly  seems  necessary  to  refute  this  theory,  as 
 Michaelis  has  refuted  it,  by  chronological  argu- 
 ments. 
 
 (4.)  Alexander  Morus  (Ad  qitcedam  loca  Nov. 
 Fad.  Notce  :  ad  Luc.  i.  1)  makes  the  rather  hazard- 
 ous conjecture  that  the  Theophilus  of  St.  Luke  is 
 identical  with  the  person  who  is  recorded  by  Tacitus 
 {Ann.  ii.  55)  to  have  been  condemned  for  fraud  at 
 Athens  by  the  court  of  the  Areopagus.  Grotius 
 also  conjectures  that  he  was  a  magistrate  of  Achaia 
 baptized  by  St.  Luke.  The  conjecture  of  Grotius 
 must  rest  upon  the  assertion  of  Jerome  (an  asser- 
 tion which,  if  it  is  received,  renders  that  of  Alex. 
 Morus  possible,  though  certainly  most  improbable), 
 namely,  that  Luke  published  his  Go.spel  in  the  parts 
 of  Achaia  and  Boeotia  (Jerome,  Comm.  in  Matt. 
 Prooem.). 
 
 (5.)  It  is  obvious  to  suppose  that  Theophilus  was 
 a  Christian.  But  a  different  view  has  been  enter- 
 tained. In  a  series  of  Dissertations  in  the  Bib- 
 liotliecn  Bremensis,  of  which  Michaelis  gives  a 
 resume  in  the  section  already  referred  to,  the  notion 
 that  he  was  not  a  Christian  is  maintained  by  dif- 
 ferent writers,  and  on  different  grounds.  Heumann, 
 one  of  the  contributors,  assuming  that  he  was  a 
 Eoman  governor,  argues  that  he  could  not  be  a 
 Christian,  because  no  Christian  would  be  likely  to 
 have  such  a  charge  entrusted  to  him.  Another 
 writer,  Theodore  Hase,  believes  that  the  Theophilus 
 of  Luke  was  no  other  than  tlie  deposed  high-priest 
 Theophilus  the  son  of  Ananus,  of  whom  more  will 
 be  said  presently.  Michaelis  himself  is  inclined  to 
 adopt  tliis  theory.  He  thinks  that  the  use  of  the 
 word  KaTTj-xvdv^  ■"  L"l^e  i.  4,  proves  that  The- 
 ophilus had  an  imperfect  aequaintatice  with  the 
 facts  of  the  Gospel  (an  argument  of  which  Bishop 
 Marsh  very  jjroperly  disposes  in  his  note  upon  the 
 passage  of  Michaelis),  and  further  contends,  from 
 the  ill  Tjixlv  of  Luke  i.  1,  that  he  was  not  a  member 
 of  the  Christian  community.  He  thinks  it  prob- 
 able that  the  I^vangelist  wrote  his  Gospel  during 
 the  imprisonment  of  St.  Paul  at  Cfesarea,  and  ad-, 
 dressed  it  to  Theophilus  as  one  of  the  heads  of  the 
 Jewish  nation.  According  to  this  view,  it  would 
 be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  historical  apology  for  the 
 Christian  faith. 
 
 In  surveying  this  series  of  conjectures,  and  of 
 traditions  which  are  nothing  more  than  conjectures. 
 we  find  it  easier  to  determine  what  is  to  be  re- 
 jected than  what  we  are  to  accept.  In  the  first 
 place,  we  may  safely  reject  the  Patristic  notion  that 
 Theophilus  was  either  a  fictitious  person,  or  a  mere 
 personification  of  Christian  love.  Sucli  a  personifi- 
 cation is  alien  from  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment witers,  and  the  epithet  Kpdriffre  is  a  sufficient 
 evidence  of  the  historical  existence  of  Theophilus. 
 It  does  not,  indeed,  prove  that  he  was  a  governor, 
 
 THESSALONIANS 
 
 but  it  makes  it  most  probable  that  he  was  a  person 
 of  high  rank.  His  supposed  connection  with  An- 
 tiocli,  Alexandria,  or  Achaia,  rests  on  too  .slender 
 evidence  either  to  claim  acceptance  or  to  need  refu- 
 tation; and  the  view  of  Theodore  Hase,  although 
 endorsed  by  Michaelis,  appears  to  be  incontestably 
 negatived  by  the  Gentile  complexion  of  the  'J'hird 
 Gospel.  The  grounds  alleged  by  Heumann  for  his 
 hypothesis  that  Theophilus  was  not  a  Christian  are 
 not  at  all  trustworthy,  as  consisting  of  two  very 
 disputable  premises.  Por,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
 not  at  all  evident  that  Theophilus  was  a  Roman 
 governor ;  and  in  the  second  place,  even  if  we  as- 
 sume that  at  that  time  no  Christian  would  be  ap- 
 pointed to  such  an  office  (an  assumption  which  we 
 can  scarcely  venture  to  make),  it  does  not  at  aU 
 follow  that  no  person  in  that  ))Osition  would  become 
 a  Christian.  In  fact,  we  have  an  example  of  such 
 a  conversion  in  the  case  of  Sergius  Paulus  (Acts 
 xiii.  12).  In  the  article  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
 [vol.  ii.  p.  1697  «],  reasons  are  given  for  believing 
 that  Theophilus  was  "  not  a  native  of  Palestine.  .  .  . 
 not  a  Macedonian,  nor  an  Athenian,  nor  a  Cretan. 
 But  that  he  was  a  native  of  Italy,  and  perhaps  an 
 inhabitant  of  Rome,  is  probable  from  similar  data." 
 All  that  can  be  conjectured  with  any  degree  of 
 safety  concerning  him,  comes  to  this,  that  he  was 
 a  Gentile  of  rank  and  consideration,  who  came 
 under  the  influence  of  St.  Luke,  or  (not  improbably) 
 under  that  of  St.  Paul,  at  Rome,  and  was  converted 
 to  the  Christian  faith.  It  has  been  observed  that 
 the  Greek  of  St.  Luke,  which  elsewhere  approaches 
 more  nearly  to  the  classical  type  than  that  of  the 
 other  Evangelists,  is  purer  and  more  elegant  in  the 
 dedication  to  Theophilus  than  in  any  other  part  of 
 his  Gospel. 
 
 2.  A  Jewish  high-priest,  the  son  of  Annas  or 
 Ananus,  brother-in-law  to  Caiaphas  [Annas;  Ca- 
 lAPHAs],  and  brother  and  immediate  successor  of 
 Jonathan.  The  Roman  Prefect  Vitellius  came  to 
 Jerusalem  at  the  Passover  (a.  d.  37),  and  deposed 
 Caiaphas,  appointing  Jonathan  in  his  place.  In 
 the  same  year,  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  he  came  to 
 .lerusalem,  and  deprived  Jonathan  of  the  high- 
 priesthood,  which  he  gave  to  Theophilus  (Joseph. 
 Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  3,  xviii.  5,  §  3).  Theophilus  was  re- 
 moved from  his  post  by  Herod  Agrippa  I.,  after  the 
 accession  of  that  prince  to  the  government  of  Judaea 
 in  A.  D.  41,  so  that  he  must  have  continued  in 
 office  about  five  years  (Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  6,  §  2). 
 Theophilus  is  not  mentioned  by  name  in  the  New 
 Testament;  but  it  is  most  probable  that  he  was  the 
 high-priest  who  granted  a  commission  to  Saul  to 
 proceed  to  Damascus,  and  to  take  into  custody  any 
 believers  whom  he  might  find  there.       W.  B.  J. 
 
 THE'RAS  (06>a;  [in  ver.  41,  V<it.  omits:] 
 Tliin  ;  Syr.  Tharan).  The  equivalent  in  1  Esdr. 
 viii.  41,  61,  for  the  Aiiava  of  the  parallel  passage  in 
 Ezra.     Nothing  whatever  appears  to  be  known  of  it. 
 
 THER'MELETH  (Gep^eAe'e:  Thelmela),  1 
 Esdr.  v.  36.  The  Greek  equivalent  of  the  name 
 Tel-jielah. 
 
 THESSALO'NIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE 
 TO  THE.  1.  The  date  of  the  epistle  is  made 
 out  appproximately  in  the  following  way.  During 
 the  course  of  his  second  missionary  journey,  prob- 
 ably in  the  year  52,  St.  Paul  founded  the  Church 
 of  Thessalonica.  Leaving  Thessalonica  he  passed 
 on  to  Beroea.  From  Bcroea  he  went  to  Athens, 
 and  from  Athens  to  Corinth  (Acts  xvii.  1-xviii.  18). 
 \\\i\\  this  visit  to  Corinth,  which  extends  "ver  a 
 
THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 3223 
 
 period  of  two  years  or  thereabouts,  his  second  mis- 
 sionary journey  closed,  for  from  Corintli  he  returned 
 to  Jerusalem,  paying  only  a  brief  visit  to  Ephesus 
 on  the  way  (xviii.  20,  21).  Now  it  appears  that, 
 when  this  epistle  was  written,  Silvanus  and  Timo- 
 theus  were  in  the  Apostle's  company  (1  Thess.  i.  1; 
 comp.  2  Thess.  i.  1)  —  a  circumstance  which  con- 
 fines the  date  to  the  second  missionary  journey,  for 
 though  Timotheus  was  with  him  on  several  occa- 
 sions afterwards,  the  name  of  Silvanus  appears  for 
 the  last  time  in  connection  with  St.  Paul  during 
 this  visit  to  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  5;  2  Cor.  i.  19). 
 The  epistle  then  must  have  been  written  in  the  in- 
 terval between  St.  Paul's  leaving  Thessalonica  and 
 the  close  of  his  residence  at  Corinth,  i.  e.  according 
 to  the  received  chronology  within  the  years  52-54. 
 The  following  considerations  howe\er  narrow  tlie 
 limits  of  the  possible  date  still  more  closely.  (1.) 
 When  St.  Paul  wrote,  he  had  already  visited,  and 
 probably  left  Athens  (1  Thess.  iii.  1).  (2.)  Hav- 
 ing made  two  unsuccessful  attem|.)ts  to  revisit 
 Thessalonica,  he  had  dispatched  Timothy  to  obtain 
 tidings  of  his  converts  there.  Timothy  had  re- 
 turned before  the  Apostle  wrote  (iii.  2,  G).  (3.) 
 St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Thessalonians  as  "  ensamples 
 to  all  that  believe  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,"  add- 
 ing that  "  in  every  place  their  foith  to  (iodward 
 was  spread  aljroad  "  (i.  7,  8)  —  language  prompted 
 indeed  by  the  overflowing  of  a  grateful  heart,  and 
 therefore  not  to  be  rigorously  pressed,  but  still  im- 
 plying some  lapse  of  time  at  least.  (4. )  There  are 
 several  traces  of  a  growth  and  progress  in  the  con- 
 dition and  circumstances  of  the  Thessaloiiian 
 Church.  Perhaps  the  mention  of  "  rulers  "  in  the 
 church  (v.  12)  ought  not  to  be  adduced  as  proving 
 this,  since  some  organization  would  be  necessary 
 from  the  very  beginning.  But  there  is  other  evi- 
 dence besides.  Questions  had  arisen  relating  to 
 the  state  of  those  who  had  fnllen  asleep  in  Christ, 
 so  that  one  or  more  of  the  Thessalonian  converts 
 must  have  died  in  the  interval  (iv.  1.3-18).  The 
 storm  of  persecution  which  the  Apostle  had  dis- 
 cerned gathering  on  the  horizon  had  already  burst 
 upon  the  Christians  of  Thessalonica  (iii.  4,  7).  Ir- 
 regularities had  crept  in  and  sullied  the  infant 
 purity  of  the  church  (iv.  4,  v.  14).  The  lapse  of 
 a  few  months  however  would  account  for  these 
 changes,  and  a  much  longer  time  cannot  well  be  al- 
 lowed. For  (5)  the  letter  was  evidently  written  by 
 St.  Paul  immediately  on  the  return  of  Timothy,  in 
 the  fullness  of  his  gratitude  for  the  joyful  tidings 
 (iii.  C).  Moreover,  (6)  the  second  epistle  also  was 
 written  before  he  left  Corinth,  and  there  must  have 
 been  a  sufficient  interval  between  the  two  to  allow 
 of  the  growth  of  fresh  difficulties,  and  of  such  com- 
 munication between  the  Apostle  and  his  converts  as 
 the  case  supposes.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong 
 therefore  in  placing  the  writing  of  this  epistle  early 
 in  St.  Paul's  residence  at  Corinth,  a  few  montlis 
 after  he  had  founded  the  church  at  Thessalonica, 
 at  the  close  of  the  year  52  or  the  beginning  of  53. 
 The  statement  in  tlie  subscription  appearing  in  sev- 
 eral iMSS.  and  versions,  that  it  was  written  "  from 
 Athens,"  is  a  superficial  inference  from  1  Thess.  iii. 
 1,  to  which  no  weight  should  be  attaclied.  The 
 views  of  critics  who  have  assigned  to  this  epistle 
 a  later  date  than  the  second  missionary  journey  are 
 stated  and  refuted  in  the  Introductions  of  Koch  (p. 
 23,  etc.),  and  Liinemann  (§  3). 
 
 2.  The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  then  (for 
 the  second  followed  the  first  after  no  long  interval) 
 are  the  earliest  of  St.  Paul's  writings  —  perhaps  the 
 
 earliest  written  records  of  ChristianLty.  They  be- 
 long to  that  period  which  St.  Paul  elsewhere  styles 
 "the  beginning  of  the  Gospel"  (Phil.  iv.  15). 
 They  present  the  disciples  in  the  first  flush  of  love 
 and  devotion,  yearning  for  the  day  of  deliverance,  ' 
 and  straining  their  eyes  to  catch  the  first  glimpse 
 of  their  Lord  descending  amidst  the  clouds  of 
 heaven,  till  in  their  feverish  anxiety  they  forget  the 
 sober  business  of  life,  absorbed  in  this  one  engross- 
 ing thought.  It  will  be  remembered  that  a  period 
 of  about  five  years  intervenes  before  the  second 
 group  of  epistles  —  those  to  the  Corinthians,  Gala- 
 tians,  and  Romans  —  were  written,  and  about  twice 
 that  ]ieriod  to  the  date  of  the  epistles  of  the  Roman 
 captivity.  It  is  interesting  therefore  to  compare 
 the  Thessalonian  Epistles  with  the  later  letters,  and 
 to  note  the  points  of  difference.  These  dift'erences 
 are  mainly  threefold.  (1.)  In  the  general  style  of 
 these  earlier  letters  there  is  greater  simplicity  and 
 less  exuberance  of  language.  The  brevity  of  the 
 opening  salutation  is  an  instance  of  this.  "  Paul 
 .  ...  to  the  Church  of  the  Thessalonians  in  God 
 the  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  grace  and 
 peace  to  you  "  (1  'Hiess.  i.  1;  comp.  2  Thess.  i.  1). 
 I'he  closing  benediction  is  correspondingly  brief:  — • 
 "  Tlie  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you  " 
 (1  Thess.  v.  28;  comp.  2  Thess.  iii.  18).  And 
 throughout  the  epistles  there  is  much  more  even- 
 ness of  style,  words  are  not  accumulated  in  the 
 same  way,  the  syntax  is  less  involved,  parentlieses 
 are  not  so  frequent,  the  turns  of  thought  and  feel- 
 ing are  less  sudden  and  abrupt,  and  altogether  there 
 is  less  intensity  and  variety  than  we  find  in  St. 
 Paul's  later  epistles.  (2.)  The  untayonism  to  Si. 
 Paid  is  not  the  same.  The  direction  of  the  attack 
 has  changed  in  the  interval  between  the  writing  of 
 these  epistles  and  those  of  the  next  group.  Here 
 tlie  opposition  comes  from  Jtws.  The  admission 
 of  the  Gentiles  to  the  hopes  and  privileges  of  Mes- 
 siah's kingdom  on  any  condition  is  repulsive  to 
 them.  They  "forbad  the  Apostle  to  speak  to  the 
 Gentiles  that  they  might  be  saved "  (ii.  16).  A 
 period  of  five  years  changes  the  aspect  of  the  con- 
 troversy. The  opponents  of  St.  Paul  are  now  no 
 longer  Jews,  so  much  as  Juduiziny  Christians 
 (Ewald,  J«/(/-6.  iii.  249;  Sendscin:,  p.  14).  The 
 question  of  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  has  been 
 solved  by  time,  for  they  have  "  taken  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  by  storm."  But  the  antagonism  to  the 
 Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  having  been  driven  from 
 ils  first  position,  entrenched  itself  behind  a  second 
 barrier.  It  was  now  urged  that  though  the  Gen- 
 tiles may  be  admitted  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  the 
 only  door  of  admission  is  the  Jlosaic  covenant-rite 
 of  circumcision.  The  language  of  St.  Paul,  speak- 
 ing of  the  Jewish  Christians  in  this  epistle,  shows 
 that  the  opposition  to  his  teaching  had  not  at  this 
 time  assumed  this  second  phase.  He  does  not  yet 
 regard  them  as  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the 
 church,  the  false  teachers  who  by  imposing  a  bond- 
 age of  ceremonial  observances  frustrate  the  free 
 grace  of  God.  He  can  still  point  to  them  as  e.x- 
 amples  to  his  converts  at  Thessalonica  (ii.  14).  The 
 change  indeed  was  imminent,  the  signs  of  the  gath- 
 ering storm  had  already  appeared  (Gal.  ii.  11),  but 
 hitherto  they  were  f;^int  and  indistinct,  and  had 
 scarcely  darkened  the  horizon  of  the  Gentile 
 churches.  (3.)  It  will  be  no  surprise  that  the 
 doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Apostle  does  not  bear 
 quite  the  same  aspect  in  these  as  in  the  later 
 epistles.  Many  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
 Christianity  which  are   inseparably  connected  m  ith 
 
3224 
 
 THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 St.  Paul's  name,  though  implicitly  contained  in  the 
 teachins;  of  these  earlier  letters  —  a.s  indeed  they 
 follow  directly  from  the  true  conception  of  the  I'er- 
 Bon  of  Christ  —  were  yet  not  evolved  and  distinctly 
 enunciated  till  the  needs  of  the  church  drew  them 
 out  into  prominence  at  a  later  date.  It  has  often 
 been  observed,  for  instance,  that  there  is  in  tlie 
 Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  no  mention  of  the 
 characteristic  contrast  of  '-faith  and  works;  "  that 
 the  word  "justification  "  does  not  once  occur;  that 
 the  idea  of  dying  with  Christ  and  living  with  Christ, 
 so  frequent  in  St.  Paul's  later  writings,  is  alisent 
 in  these.  It  was  in  fact  the  opposition  of  .Judaizing 
 Christians,  insisting  on  a  strict  ritualism,  which 
 led  tlie  Apostle  somewhat  later  to  dwell  at  greater 
 length  on  the  true  doctrine  of  a  saving  faith,  and 
 the  true  conception  of  a  godly  life.  But  the  time 
 had  not  yet  come,  and  in  the  epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
 lonians, as  has  been  truly  oliserved.  the  Gospel 
 preached  is  that  of  tlie  coming  of  Cln-ist,  rather 
 than  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  There  are  many  rea- 
 sons why  the  subject  of  the  second  advent  should 
 occupy  a  larger  space  in  the  earliest  stage  of  the 
 Apostolical  teaching  than  afterwards.  It  was 
 closely  bound  up  with  the  fundamental  fact  of  the 
 Gospel,  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  thus  it 
 formed  a  natural  starting-point  of  (^hristian  doc- 
 trine. It  afforded  the  true  satisfaction  to  those 
 jMessianic  hopes  which  had  drawn  the  Jewish  con- 
 verts to  the  fold  of  Christ.  It  was  the  liest  conso- 
 lation and  support  of  the  infant  church  under  per- 
 secution, which  nnist  have  been  most  keenly  felt  in 
 the  first  abandonment  of  worldly  pleasures  and  in- 
 terests. More  especially,  as  telling  of  a  rigliteous 
 Judge  who  would  not  overlook  iniquity,  it  was  es- 
 sential to  that  call  to  repentance  which  must  every- 
 where precede  the  direct  and  positi\'e  teaching  of 
 the  (jospel.  "  Now  He  conimandeth  all  men  every- 
 where to  repent,  for  He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the 
 which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  hj 
 that  man  whom  He  hath  ordained,  whereof  He  hath 
 given  assurance  unto  all  men  in  tliat  He  raised  him 
 from  the  dead  "  (Acts  xvii.  .30,  31). 
 
 3.  The  occasion  of  tliis  epistle  was  as  follows : 
 St.  Paul  had  twice  attempted  to  revisit  Thessa- 
 lonica,  and  both  times  had  been  disappointed.  Thus 
 prevented  from  seeing  tliem  in  person,  lie  had  sent 
 Timothy  to  inquire  and  report  to  him  as  to  their 
 condition  (iii.  1-5).  Timothy  returned  with  most 
 favorable  tidings,  reporting  not  only  their  progress 
 in  Christian  faitli  and  practice,  but  also  their  strong 
 attachment  to  their  old  teacher  (iii.  G-IO).  The 
 First  Epistle  to  tlie  Tlicssalonians  is  the  outpouring 
 of  the  Apostle's  gratitude  on  receiving  this  welcome 
 news.  At  the  same  time  the  report  of  Timothy 
 was  not  unmi;ced  with  alloy.  There  were  certain 
 features  in  the  condition  of  the  Thessalonian  Church 
 which  called  for  St.  Paul's  interference,  and  to 
 wliich  he  addresses  himself  in  his  letter.  (1.)  The 
 very  intensity  of  their  Christian  faitli,  dwelling  too 
 exclusively  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming,  had 
 been  attended  with  evil  consequences.  On  the  one 
 hand  a  practical  inconvenience  had  arisen.  In 
 their  feverish  expectation  of  this  great  crisis,  some 
 had  been  led  to  neglect  their  ordinary  business,  as 
 though  the  daily  concerns  of  life  were  of  no  account 
 in  the  immediate  presence  of  so  vast  a  change  (iv. 
 11;  comp.  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  iii.  6,  11,  12).  On  the 
 other  hand  a  theoretical  difficulty  had  been  felt. 
 Certain  members  of  the  church  had  died,  and  there 
 was  great  anxiety  lest  they  should  be  excluded  from 
 any  share  in  the  glories  of  the  Lord's  advent  (iv. 
 
 1.3-18).  St.  Paul  rebukes  the  irregularities  of  the 
 former,  and  dissipates  the  fears  of  the  latter.  (2.) 
 The  flame  of  persecution  had  broken  out,  and  the 
 Thessalonians  needed  consolation  and  encourage- 
 mejit  under  their  sore  trial  (ii.  14,  iii.  2-4).  (.3.) 
 An  unhealtliy  state  of  feeling  with  regard  to  spirit- 
 ual gifts  was  manifesting  itself.  Like  the  Corin- 
 thians at  a  later  day,  they  needed  to  be  reminded 
 of  the  superior  value  of  "  propliesying,"  compared 
 with  other  gifts  of  the  Spirit  wiiich  they  exalted  at 
 its  expense  (vv.  19,  20).  (4.)  There  was  the  danger, 
 which  they  sliared  in  conmion  with  most  Gentile 
 churches,  of  relapsing  into  their  old  heathen  profli- 
 g.acy.  Against  this  the  ^Viiostle  offers  a  word  in 
 season  (iv.  4-8).  We  need  not  suppose  however 
 that  Thessalonica  was  worse  in  this  respect  tlian 
 other  Greek  cities. 
 
 4.  Yet  notwithstanding  all  these  drawljacks,  the 
 condition  of  the  Thessalonian  Church  was  highly 
 satisfactory,  and  the  most  cordial  relations  existed 
 between  St.  Paul  and  his  converts  there.  This 
 honorable  distinction  it  shares  witli  the  other  great 
 church  of  Macedonia,  that  of  Philippi.  At  all 
 times,  and  amidst  every  change  of  circumstance,  it 
 is  to  his  Macedonian  churches  that  the  Apostle 
 turns  for  sympathy  and  support.  A  period  of 
 about  ten  years  is  interposed  between  the  First 
 Kpistle  to  the  Thessalonians  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Philippians,  and  yet  no  two  of  his  letters  more 
 closely  resemlile  each  other  in  this  respect.  In 
 both  he  drops  his  official  title  of  Apostle  in  the 
 opening  salutation,  thus  appealing  rather  to  their 
 attection  than  to  his  own  authority;  in  both  he 
 commences  the  liody  of  his  letter  with  hearty  and 
 unqualified  commendation  of  his  converts;  and  in 
 both  the  same  spirit  of  confidence  and  warm  affec- 
 tion breathes  throughout. 
 
 5.  A  comparison  of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts 
 with  the  allusions  in  this  and  the  Second  Epistle 
 to  the  Thessalonians  is  instructive.  With  some 
 striking  coincidences,  there  is  just  that  degree  of 
 divergence  whicli  might  be  expected  l]etween  a 
 writer  who  had  borne  the  principal  part  in  the 
 scenes  referred  to,  and  a  narrator  who  derives  his 
 information  from  others,  between  the  casual  half- 
 expressed  allusions  of  a  familiar  letter  and  the 
 direct  account  of  the  professed  historian. 
 
 I'assing  over  patent  coincidences,  we  may  single 
 out  one  of  a  more  suljtle  and  delicate  kind.  It 
 arises  out  of  the  form  which  the  accusation  l)rought 
 against  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  at  Thessa- 
 lonica takes  in  the  Acts:  "All  these  do  contrary 
 to  tlie  decrees  of  Ciesar,  saying  tliat  there  is 
 another  king,  one  Jesus"  (xvii.  71.  The  allusions 
 in  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  enable  us  to 
 understand  the  ground  of  this  accusation.  It  ap- 
 pears that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  had  entered 
 largely  into  his  oral  teaching  in  this  city,  as  it 
 does  into  that  of  the  Epistles  themselves.  He  had 
 cliarged  his  new  converts  to  await  tlie  coming  of 
 the  Son  of  God  from  hea^■en,  as  their  deliverer  (i. 
 10).  He  had  dwelt  long  and  earnestly  (TrpoeiVa- 
 HfV  Kal  Si(fiapTvpd,ueea)  on  the  terrors  of  the 
 judgment  wliich  would  overtake  the  wicked  (iv.  6). 
 He  had  even  explained  at  length  the  signs  which 
 would  usher  in  the  last  day  (2  Tliess.  ii.  5).  Either 
 from  malice  or  in  ignorance  such  language  had 
 been  misrepresented,  and  he  was  accused  of  setting 
 up  a  rival  sovereign  to  the  Roman  emperor. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  language  of  these  epistles 
 diverges  from  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke  on  two  oi 
 three  points  in  such  a  way  as  to  establish  the  inde- 
 
THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 3225 
 
 pendeiice  of  tlie  two  accounts,  and  even  to  require 
 some  explanation.  (1.)  The  first  of  these  relates 
 to  the  composition  of  the  Church  of  Thessalonica. 
 In  the  first  epistle  St.  Paul  addresses  his  readers 
 distinctly  as  Gentiles,  who  had  been  converted  from 
 idolatry  to  the  Gospel  (i  9,  10).  In  the  Acts  we 
 are  told  tiiat  "some  (of  the  Jews)  believed  .  .  .  . 
 and  of  the  devout  Greeks  (i.  e.  proselytes)  a  great 
 multitude,  and  of  the  chief  women  not  a  few" 
 (xvii.  4).  If  for  ae^o/xevcov  'EWiiywv  we  read  (re- 
 SofXfvwi'  Kai  'EAA7};/a)i/,  "  proselytes  and  Greeks," 
 tlie  difficulty  vanishes;  but  though  internal  prob- 
 abilities are  somewhat  in  favor  of  this  reading,  the 
 array  of  direct  evidence  (now  reinforced  by  the 
 Cod.  Sinaiticus)  is  against  it.  But  even  if  wu 
 retain  the  common  reading,  the  account  of  St. 
 Luke  does  not  exclude  a  number  of  lielievers  con- 
 verted directly  from  heathendom  —  inileed,  if  we 
 may  argue  from  the  parallel  case  at  Beroea  (xvii. 
 12).  the  "  women"  were  chiefly  of  this  class:  and, 
 if  any  divergence  remains,  it  is  not  greater  than 
 might  be  expected  in  two  independent  writers,  one 
 of  whom,  not  being  an  eye-witness,  possessed  oidy 
 a  partial  and  indirect  knowledge."  Both  accounts 
 alike  convey  the  impression  that  the  Gospel  made 
 but  little  progress  with  the  .Jews  themselves.  (2.) 
 In  the  epistle  the  persecutors  of  the  Thessalonian 
 Christians  are  represented  as  their  fellow-country- 
 men, i.  e.  as  heathens  {uwh  twv  tBiwv  ffvfxrpvKirSiv, 
 ii.  14),  whereas  in  the  Acts  the  .lews  are  regarded 
 as  the  bitterest  opponents  of  the  faith  (xvii.  .5). 
 This  is  fairly  met  by  Paley  {Hone  Pnul.  ix.  Xo.  5), 
 who  points  out  that  the  .Tews  were  the  instigators 
 of  tlie  persecution,  which  however  they  were  pow- 
 erless of  themselves  to  carry  out  without  aid  from 
 the  heathen,  as  may  be  gathered  ex-en  from  the 
 narratixe  of  St.  Luke.  We  may  add  also,  that  the 
 expression  i'Sioi  crvfj.(j>v\eTai  need  not  be  restricted 
 to  the  heathen  population,  but  might  include  many 
 Hellenist  .Jews  who  must  have  been  citizens  of  the 
 free  town  of  Thessalonica.  (.3.)  The  narrative  of 
 St.  Luke  appears  to  state  that  St.  Paul  remained 
 only  three  weeks  at  Thessalonica  (xvii.  2),  whereas 
 in  the  epistle,  though  there  is  no  direct  mention  of 
 tlie  lengtii  of  his  residence  among  them,  the  whole 
 language  (i.  4,  ii.  4-11)  points  to  a  much  longer 
 period.  The  latter  part  of  the  assertion  seems 
 quite  correct;  the  former  needs  to  be  modified.  In 
 the  Acts  it  is  stated  simply  that  for  three  Sabbath 
 d.ays  (three  weeks)  St.  Paul  taught  in  the  syna- 
 gogue, 'llie  silence  of  the  writer  does  not  exclude 
 subsequent  labor  among  the  Gentile  population, 
 and  indeed  as  much  seems  to  he  implied  in  the 
 success  of  his  preaching,  which  exasperated  the 
 Jews  against  him.  (4.)  The  notices  of  the  move- 
 ments of  Silas  and  Tiinotheus  in  the  two  docu- 
 ments do  not  accord  at  first  sight.  In  the  Acts 
 St.  Paul  is  conveyed  away  secretly  from  Beroea  to 
 escape  the  Jews.  Arrived  at  Athens,  he  sends  to 
 Silas  and  Timothy,  whom  he  had  left  behind  at 
 I'eroea,  urging  them  to  join  him  as  soon  as  possi- 
 ble (xvii.  14-16).  It  is  evident  from  the  language 
 of  St.  Luke  that  the  Apostle  expects  them  to  join 
 
 n  *  The  difficulty  may  be  further  urged,  that  if 
 the  church  at  Thessalonica  contained  both  ''a  great 
 multitude  "  of  proselytes  and  still  such  an  overpow- 
 ering majority  of  Gentiles,  that  the  address  of  the 
 epistle  could  take  its  tone  from  the  latter,  a  much 
 larger  total  number  of  believers  would  be  implied 
 than  is  consistent  with  the  other  circumstances  of  the 
 case.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  .\postle,  in  ad- 
 203 
 
 him  at  ,A.thens.  Yet  we  hear  nothing  more  of 
 them  for  some  time,  when  at  length,  after  St.  Paul 
 had  passed  on  to  Corinth,  and  several  incidents 
 had  occurred  since  his  arrival  there,  we  are  told 
 that  Silas  and  Tiniotheus  came  from  JNIacedonia 
 (xvii.  5).  From  the  first  epistle,  on  the  other  hand 
 we  gather  the  following  facts.  St.  Paul  there  tells 
 us  that  they  {■qfj.us,  i-  e.  himself,  and  probably 
 Silas),  no  longer  able  to  endure  the  suspense, 
 "  consented  to  be  left  alone  at  .\thens,  and  sent 
 Timothy  their  brother  "  to  Thessalonica  (iii.  1,  2). 
 Timothy  returned  with  good  news  (iii.  6)  (whether 
 to  Athens  or  Corinth  does  not  appear),  and  when 
 the  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  were  written, 
 both  Timothy  and  Silas  were  with  St.  Paul  (1 
 Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1;  comp.  2  Cor.  i.  19). 
 Now,  though  we  may  not  be  prejjared  with  Paley 
 to  construct  an  undesigned  coincidence  out  of  these 
 materials,  yet  on  the  other  hand  there  is  no  in- 
 soluble difficulty;  for  the  events  may  be  arranged 
 in  two  different  ways,  either  of  which  will  bring 
 the  narrative  of  the  Acts  into  accordance  with  the 
 allusions  of  the  epistle,  (i.)  Tiniotheus  was  de- 
 spatched to  Thessalonica,  not  from  Athens,  but  from 
 Beroea,  a  supposition  quite  consistent  with  the 
 Apostle's  expression  of  "consenting  to  be  left  alone 
 at  Athens."  In  this  case  Timotiiens  would  take 
 up  Silas  somewhere  in  Macedonia  on  his  return, 
 and  the  two  would  join  St.  Paul  in  company;  not 
 however  at  .Athens,  where  he  was  expecting  them, 
 but  later  on  at  Corinth,  .some  delay  having  arisen. 
 This  explanation  however  supposes  that  the  plurals 
 "  we  consented,  we  sent  "  (fvSoK-i^aafj.ei',  eirf/jL^a- 
 fj.eu),  can  refer  to  St.  Paul  alone.  The  alternative 
 mode  of  reconciling  the  .accounts  is  as  follows: 
 (ii.)  Tiniotheus  and  Silas  did  join  the  x\postle  at 
 Athens,  where  we  learn  from  the  Acts  that  he 
 was  expecting  them.  From  Athens  he  despatched 
 Tiniotheus  to  Thessalonica,  so  that  he  and  Silas 
 (^lUeis)  had  to  forego  the  services  of  their  fellow- 
 laborer  for  a  time.  This  mission  is  mentioned  in 
 the  epistle,  but  not  in  the  Acts.  Subsequently  he 
 sends  Silas  on  some  other  mission,  not  recorded 
 either  in  the  history  or  the  epistle;  probably  to 
 another  Macedonian  church,  Philippi  for  instance, 
 from  which  he  is  known  to  have  received  contribu- 
 tions about  this  time,  and  with  which  therefore  he 
 was  in  coran;unication  (2  Cor.  xi.  9;  comp.  Phil, 
 iv.  14-lG;  see  Koch,  p.  1.5).  Silas  and  Tiniotheus 
 returned  together  from  Macedonia  and  joined  the 
 .•\postle  at  Corinth.  This  latter  solution,  if  it 
 assumes  more  than  the  former,  has  the  advantage 
 that  it  preserves  the  proper  sense  of  the  plural 
 "  loe  consented,  we  sent,"  for  it  is  at  least  doubtful 
 whether  St.  Paul  ever  uses  the  plural  of  himself 
 alone.  The  silence  of  St.  Luke  may  in  this  case 
 be  explained  either  by  his  possessing  only  a  partial 
 knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  or  by  his  passing 
 over  incidents  of  which  he  was  aware,  as  unim- 
 portant, 
 
 6.  This  epistle  is  rather  practical  than  doctrinal. 
 It  was  suggested  rather  by  personal  feeling,  than 
 by  any  urgent  need,  which  might  have  formed  a 
 
 dressing  proselytes  converted  to  the  Christian  faith, 
 would  naturally  regard  them  as  having  been  originally 
 heathen,  rather  (dian  Jews.  Their  Judaism  had  been 
 but  a  temporary  and  transitional  stage ;  and  thus  th« 
 address  in  the  epistle  is  altogether  consistent  with  tUa 
 fact  that  they  had  been  prepared  for  Christianity  by 
 a  previous  reception  of  Judaism.  1'.  Q, 
 
3226 
 
 THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 centre  of  unity,  and  impressed  a  distinct  character 
 on  tlie  whole.  Under  these  circumstances  we  need 
 not  expect  to  trace  unity  of  purpose,  or  a  contin- 
 uous argument,  and  any  analysis  must  be  more  or 
 less  artificial.  The  body  of  the  epistle,  however, 
 may  conveniently  be  divided  into  two  parts,  the 
 former  of  whicli,  extending  over  the  first  three 
 chapters,  is  chiefly  taken  up  with  a  retrospect  of 
 the  Apostle's  relation  to  his  Thessalonian  converts, 
 and  an  explanation  of  his  present  circumstances 
 and  feelings,  while  the  latter,  comprising  the  4th 
 and  5th  chapters,  contains  some  seasonalde  exhor- 
 tations. At  the  close  of  each  of  these  divisions  is 
 a  prayer,  commencing  with  the  same  words,  "  May 
 God  himself,"  etc.,  and  expressed  in  somewhat 
 similar  language. 
 
 The  following  is  a  table  of  contents:  — 
 
 Salutation  (i.  1). 
 
 1.  Narrative  portion  (i.  2-iii.  13). 
 
 (1.)  i.  2-10.  'J'he  Apostle  gratefully  records 
 their  convei'sion  to  the  Gospel  and  prog- 
 ress in  the  faith. 
 
 (2.)  ii.  1-T2.  He  reminds  them  hovp^pure  and 
 blameless  his  life  and  ministry  among 
 them  had  lieen. 
 
 (.3.)  ii.  13-10.  He  repeats  his  thanksgiving 
 for  their  conversion,  dwelling  especially 
 on  the  persecutions  which  they-  had  en- 
 dured. 
 
 (4.)  ii.  17-iii.  10.  He  describes  his  own  sus- 
 pense and  anxiety,  the  consequent  mis- 
 sion of  Timothy  to  Thessalonica,  and 
 the  encouraging  report  which  he  brought 
 back. 
 
 (.5.)  iii.  11-13.  The  Apostle's  praj/e?' for  the 
 Thessalonians. 
 
 2.  Hortatory  portion  (iv.  1-v.  24). 
 
 (1.)  iv.  1-8.    Warning  against  impurity. 
 (2.)  iv.  9-12.    Exhortation  to  brotherly  love 
 
 and  sobriety  of  conduct. 
 (3.)  iv.   13-v.  11.    Touching  the  advent  of 
 the  Lord. 
 (a.)  The  dead  siiall  have  their  place  in  the 
 
 resurrection,  iv.  13-18. 
 
 (b.)  The  time  however  is  uncertain,  v.  1-3. 
 
 (c.)  Therefore   all    must   be   watchful,    v. 
 
 4-11. 
 
 (4.)  V.  12-15.    Exhortation   to  orderly  living 
 
 and  the  due  performance  of  social  duties. 
 
 (5.)  V.  16-22.    Injunctions  relating  to  prayer 
 
 and  spiritual  matters  generally. 
 (6.)  V.  23,  24.    The  Apostle's  praye7-  for  the 
 Thessalonians. 
 
 The  epistle  closes  with  personal  injunctions  and 
 a  benediction  (v.  25-28). 
 
 7.  The  external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  gemdne- 
 ness  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is 
 chiefly  ivegative,  but  this  is  important  enough. 
 There  is  no  trace  that  it  was  ever  disputed  at  any 
 age  or  in  any  section  of  the  Church,  or  even  by 
 any  individual,  till  the  present  century.  On  the 
 otlier  hand,  the  allusions  to  it  in  writers  before  the 
 close  of  the  2d  century  are  confessedly  faint  and 
 uncertain  —  a  circumstance  easily  explained,  when 
 we  remember  the  character  of  the  epistle  itself,  its 
 comparatively  simple  diction,  its  silence  on  the  most 
 important  doctrinal  questions,  and,  generally  speak- 
 ing, the  absence  of  any  salient  /loints  to  arrest  the 
 sttention  and  provoke  reference.  In  Clement  of 
 Kome  there  are  some  slight  coincidences  of  lan- 
 guage, perhaps  not  purely  accidental  (c.  38,  Kara 
 
 iravTO,  evxapicrTelu  auroi,  comp.  1  Thess.  v.  78; 
 il/id.  crctf^eVfieo  ouv  r]fjuv  oKov  rh  ffw/xa  ii/  X,  I., 
 comp.  1  Thess.  v.  23).  Ignatius  in  two  pivssages 
 {Polyc.  c.  1,  and  Kplies.  c.  10)  seems  to  be  reminded 
 of  St.  Paul's  expression  aSiaXeiTrrais  Trpo(revxf(T6e 
 (1  Thess.  v.  17),  Viut  in  both  passages  of  Ignatius 
 the  v\'ord  aSiaAe'nrTcoi,  in  which  the  similarity 
 mainly  consists,  is  absent  in  the  Syriac,  and  is 
 therefore  probably  spurious.  The  supposed  refer- 
 ences in  Polycarp  (c.  iv.  to  1  Thess.  v.  17,  and  c. 
 ii.  to  1  Thess.  v.  22)  are  also  unsatisfactory.  It  is 
 more  important  to  observe  that  the  epistle  was  in- 
 cluded in  the  Old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions,  that 
 it  is  found  in  the  Canon  of  the  Muratorian  frag- 
 ment, and  that  it  was  also  contained  in  that  of 
 Marcion.  Towards  the  close  of  the  2d  century 
 from  Irenaeus  downwards,  we  find  this  epistle  di- 
 rectly quoted  and  ascribed  to  St.  Paul. 
 
 The  evidence  derived  from  the  character  of  the 
 epistle  itself  is  so  strong  that  it  may  fairly  be  called 
 irresistilile.  It  would  be  impossible  to  enter  into 
 the  question  of  style  here,  but  the  reader  may  be 
 referred  to  the  Introduction  of  Jowett,  who  has 
 handled  this  subject  very  fully  and  satisfactorily. 
 An  equally  strong  argument  may  be  drawn  also 
 from  the  matter  contained  in  the  epistle.  Two  in- 
 stances of  this  must  suffice.  In  the  first  place,  the 
 fineness  and  delicacy  of  touch  with  which  the 
 Apostle's  relations  towards  his  The.ssalonian  con- 
 \erts  are  drawn  —  his  yearning  to  see  them,  his 
 anxiety  in  the  absence  of  Timothy,  and  his  heart- 
 felt rejoicing  at  the  good  news  —  are  quite  beyond 
 the  reach  of  the  clumsy  forgeries  of  the  early  Church. 
 In  the  second  place,  the  writer  uses  language  which, 
 however  it  may  be  explained,  is  certainly  colored 
 by  the  anticipation  of  the  speedy  advent  of  the 
 Lord  —  language  natural  enough  on  the  Apostle's 
 own  lips,  but  quite  inconceivable  in  a  forgery 
 written  after  his  death,  when  time  had  disappointed 
 these  anticipations,  and  when  the  revival  or  men- 
 tion of  them  would  serve  no  purpose,  and  might 
 seem  to  discredit  the  Apostle.  Such  a  position 
 would  be  an  anachronism  in  a  writer  of  the  2d 
 century. 
 
 The  genuineness  of  this  epistle  was  first  ques- 
 tioned by  Schrader  (Apostel  Paidtis),  who  was  fol- 
 lowed by  Baut  {Paulus,  p.  480).  The  latter  writer 
 has  elaborated  and  systematized  the  attack.  The 
 arguments  which  he  alleges  in  favor  of  his  view 
 have  already  been  anticipated  to  a  great  extent. 
 They  are  briefly  controverted  by  Liinemann,  and 
 more  at  length  and  with  great  fairness  by  .Jowett. 
 The  following  is  a  summary  of  Baur's  arguments: 
 (i.)  He  attributes  great  weight  to  the  general  char- 
 acter of  the  epistle,  the  difference  of  style,  and 
 especially  the  absence  of  distinctive  Pauline  doe- 
 trines  —  a  peculiarity  which  has  already  been  re- 
 marked upon  and  explained,  §2.  (ii.)  In  the  men- 
 tion of  the  "  wrath  "  overtaking  the  Jewish  people 
 (ii.  16),  Baur  sees  an  allusion  to  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  therefore  a  proof  of  the  later  date  of 
 the  epistle.  The  real  significance  of  these  words 
 will  be  considered  below  in  discussing  the  apocalyp- 
 tic passage  in  the  second  epistle,  (iii.)  He  urges 
 the  contradictions  to  the  account  in  the  Acts  —  a 
 strange  argument  surely  to  be  brought  forward  by 
 Baur,  who  postdates  and  discredits  the  authority  of 
 that  narrative.  The  real  extent  and  bearing  of 
 these  divergences  has  been  already  considered,  (iv. ) 
 He  discovers  references  to  the  Acts,  whicli  show 
 that  the  epistle  was  written  later.  It  has  been 
 seen  however  that  the  coincidences  are  subtle  and 
 
THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 3227 
 
 incidental,  and  the  points  of  divergence  and  prima 
 facie  contradictions,  wliicli  Baur  liimself  allows, 
 and  indeed  insists  upon,  are  so  numerous  as  to  pre- 
 clude the  supposition  of  copying.  Schleiermacher 
 {Einl.  ins  N.  T.  p.  150)  rightly  infers  the  inde- 
 pendence of  the  epistle  on  these  grounds,  (v.) 
 He  supposes  passages  in  this  epistle  to  have  been 
 borrowed  from  the  acknowledi^ed  letters  of  St. 
 Paul.  The  resemblances  however  which  he  points 
 out  are  not  greater  than,  or  indeed  so  great  as, 
 those  in  other  epistles,  and  bear  no  traces  of  imi- 
 tation. 
 
 8.  A  list  of  the  Patristic  commentaries  compris- 
 ing the  whole  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  will  be  found 
 in  the  article  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro.mans. 
 To  this  list  should  be  added  the  work  of  Theodore 
 of  Mopsuestia,  a  portion  of  which  containing  the 
 shorter  epistles  from  Galatians  onward  is  preserved 
 in  a  Latin  translation.  The  part  relating  to  the 
 Thessalonians  is  at  present  only  accessible  in  the 
 compilation  of  Rabanus  Maurus  (where  it  is  quoted 
 under  the  name  of  Ambrose),  which  ought  to  be 
 read  with  the  corrections  and  additions  given  by 
 Dom  Pitra  {Spicil.  Sultsm.  i.  p.  133).  This  com- 
 mentary is  attributed  by  Pitra  to  Hilary  of  Poi- 
 tiers, but  its  true  authorship  was  pointed  out  by 
 Hort  {Journal  of  Class,  and  Sacr.  Phil.  iv.  p. 
 302).  The  portion  of  Cramer's  Catena  relating  to 
 this  epistle  seems  to  be  made  up  of  extracts  from 
 Chrysostom,  Severianus,  and  Theodore  of  Mop- 
 suestia. 
 
 For  the  more  important  recent  works  on  the 
 whole  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  the  reader  may  again 
 be  referred  to  the  article  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
 mans. The  notes  on  the  Thessalonians  in  Meyer's 
 Commentary  are  executed  by  Liinemann  [od  ed., 
 1807].  Of  special  annotators  on  the  Thessalonian 
 epistles,  the  chief  are,  in  Germany,  Flatt  (1829), 
 Pelt  (1830),  Schott  (1834),  and  Koch  (2d  ed.  1855, 
 the  First  Epistle  alone),  and  in  England,  Jowett 
 (2d  ed.  1859)  and  EUicott  (2d  ed.  18G2). 
 
 J.  B.  L. 
 
 *  On  the  critical  questions  relating  to  this  epistle 
 the  following  wi'iters  deserve  mention:  W.  Grimm, 
 Die  Echtheit  d.  Briefe  an  d.  Thess.  (against  Baur), 
 in  the  Theol.  SlwL  u.  Krit.,  18o0,  pp.  753-81G; 
 R.  A.  Lipsius,  Ucber  Zweck  u.  Veranlassuny  des 
 ersten  Thessahmicherbiiejs,  ibid.  1854,  pp.  905- 
 934  (comp.  Liinemann's  criticisms,  in  Meyer's 
 Komm.,  Abth.  x.  p.  5  fF.,  3^  Aufl.);  I^'-  C.  Baur, 
 Die  beiden  Briefe  an  d.  T/iess.,  Hire  Aechtheit  u. 
 Bedeutunf/  f.  d.  Lehre  von  d.  Parusie  Chrisli,  in 
 Baur  and'z'eller's  Tlieol.  Jahrb.  1855,  xiv.  141-169, 
 reprinted  in  the  2d  ed.  of  his  Paulus  (1867),  ii. 
 341  fF. ;  Ililgenfekl,  Die  beidtn  Briefe  an  d.  Thess., 
 nach  Inhall  u.  Ursprunr/,  in  his  Ztitschrift  f. 
 I,  wiss.  T/ieoL,  1862,  v.  225-264;  J.  C.  Laurent, 
 Neutest.  Studien,  Gotha,  1866  (several  short  arti- 
 cles); Holtzniann  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk^vm.  429- 
 434  (1806);  and  Reuss,  Bleek,  and  Davidson,  in 
 their  respective  Inlroduclions.  The  so-called  "  Sec- 
 ond Ejiistle  to  the  Thessalonians  "  is  regarded  by 
 Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Ewald,  Laurent  and  Davidson  as 
 the  first  written.  Among  the  recent  Commenta- 
 ries we  may  name  J.  C.  K.  Hofmann,  Die  heil. 
 Schrifl  N.  T.  zusammenhangend  untersuclit, 
 Theil  i.  (1862);  and  0.  A.  Auberlen  and  C.  J. 
 Riggenbach,  Die  beiden  Briefe  an  die  Thess., 
 Theil  X.  of  Lange's  Bibdwerk  (1864),  translated 
 with  large  additions  by  Dr.  John  Lillie,  in  vol.  viii. 
 of  the  Araer.  ed.  of  Lange's  Commentary  (N.  Y. 
 
 1868),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  a  fuller 
 view  of  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  epistle. 
 
 A. 
 THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPIS- 
 TLE TO  THE.  (1.)  This  epistle  appears  to 
 have  been  written  from  Corinth  not  very  long  after 
 the  first,  for  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  were  still  with 
 St.  Paul  (i.  1).  In  the  former  letter  we  saw  chiefly 
 the  outpouring  of  strong  personal  affection,  occa- 
 sioned by  the  renewal  of  the  Apostle's  intercourse 
 with  the  Thessalonians,  and  the  doctrinal  and  hor- 
 tatory portions  are  there  subordinate.  In  the  sec- 
 ond epistle,  on  the  other  hand,  his  leading  motive 
 seems  to  have  been  the  desire  of  correcting  errors 
 in  the  Church  of  Thessalonica.  We  notice  two 
 points  especially  which  call  forth  his  rebuke.  First, 
 it  seems  that  the  anxiotis  expectation  of  the  Lord's 
 advent,  instead  of  subsiding,  had  gained  ground 
 since  the  writing  of  the  first  epistle.  They  now 
 looked  upon  this  great  crisis  as  imminent,  and  their 
 daily  avocations  were  neglected  in  consequence. 
 There  were  expressions  in  the  first  epistle  which, 
 taken  by  themselves,  might  seem  to  favor  this 
 view;  and  at  all  events  such  was  falsely  repre- 
 sented to  be  the  Apostle's  doctrine.  He  now 
 writes  to  soothe  this  restless  spirit  and  quell  their 
 apprehensions  by  showing  that  many  things  must 
 happen  first,  and  that  the  end  was  not  yet,  refer- 
 ring to  his  oral  teaching  at  Thessalonica  in  confir- 
 mation of  this  statement  (ii.  1-12,  iii.  6-12).  Sec- 
 ondly, the  Apostle  had  also  a  personal  ground  of 
 complaint.  His  authority  was  not  denied  by  any, 
 but  it  was  tampered  with,  and  an  unauthorized  use 
 was  made  of  his  name.  It  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
 the  exact  circumstances  of  the  case  from  casual  and 
 indirect  allusions,  and  indeed  we  may  perhaps  infer 
 from  the  vagueness  of  the  Apostle's  own  language 
 that  he  himself  was  not  in  possession  of  definite  in- 
 formation ;  but  at  all  events  his  suspicions  were 
 aroused.  Designing  men  might  misrepresent  his 
 teaching  in  two  ways,  either  by  suppressing  what 
 he  actually  had  written  or  said,  or  by  forging  letters 
 and  in  other  ways  representing  him  as  teaching 
 what  he  had  not  taught.  St.  Paul's  language 
 hints  in  different  places  at  both  these  modes  of 
 fiilse  dealing.  He  seems  to  have  entertained 
 suspicions  of  this  dishonesty  even  when  he  wrote 
 the  first  epistle.  At  the  close  of  that  epistle  he 
 binds  the  Thessalonians  by  a  solemn  oath,  "  in 
 the  name  of  the  Lord,"  to  see  that  the  epistle  is 
 read  "  to  all  the  holy  brethren  "  (v.  27)  —  a  charge 
 unintelligible  in  itself,  and  only  to  be  explained  by 
 supposing  some  misgivings  in  the  Apostle's  mind. 
 Before  the  second  epistle  is  written,  his  suspicions 
 seem  to  have  been  confirmed,  for  there  are  two  pas- 
 sages which  allude  to  these  misrepresentations  of 
 his  teaching.  In  the  first  of  these  he  tells  them 
 in  vague  language,  which  may  refer  equally  well  to 
 a  false  interpretation  put  upon  his  own  words  in 
 the  first  epistle,  or  to  a  supplemental  letter  forged 
 in  his  name,  "  not  to  be  troubled  either  by  spirit 
 or  by  word  or  by  letter,  as  coming  from  us,  as  if 
 the  day  of  the  Lord  were  at  hand."  They  are  not 
 to  be  deceived,  he  adds,  by  any  one,  whatever  means 
 he  employs  (jcaTos  /xriSeva  rp6iTov,  ii-  2,  3).  In 
 the  second  passage  at  the  close  of  the  epistle  he 
 says,  "  the  salutation  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand, 
 which  is  a  token  in  every  epistle:  so  I  write" 
 (iii.  17)  —  evidently  a  precaution  agauist  forgery. 
 With  these  two  passages  should  be  combined  the 
 expression  in  iii.  14,  from  which  we  infer  that  he 
 now  entertained  a  fear  of  direct  opposition:  "If 
 
3228 
 
 THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 any  man  obey  not  our  word  conveyed  by  our 
 epistle,  note  that  man." 
 
 It  will  be  seen  then  that  the  teaching  of  the 
 second  epistle  is  corrective  of,  or  rather  supple- 
 mental to,  that  of  the  first,  and  therefore  presup- 
 poses it.  Moreover,  the  first  epistle  bears  on  its 
 face  evidence  that  it  is  the  first  outpouring  of  his 
 affectionate  yearnings  towards  liis  converts  after  his 
 departure  from  Thessalonica;  while  on  the  other 
 hand  the  second  epistle  contains  a  direct  allusion 
 to  a  previous  letter,  which  may  suitably  be  referred 
 to  the  first:  "Hold  fast  the  tradition  which  ye 
 were  taught  either  by  word  or  by  letter  i'roni  us  " 
 (ii.  15).  We  can  scarcely  be  wrong  therefore  in 
 maintaining  the  received  order  of  the  two  epistles. 
 It  is  due  however  to  the  great  names  of  Grotius 
 and  of  Evvald  {Jnhrb.  iii.  p.  250;  Seiidschr.  p. 
 16)  to  mention  that  they  leverse  the  order,  placing 
 the  second  epistle  before  the  first  in  point  of  time 
 —  on  different  grounds  indeed,  but  both  equally 
 insutticient  to  disturb  the  traditional  order,  sup- 
 ported as  it  is  by  the  considerations  ah-eady  al- 
 leged. 
 
 (2.)  This  epistle,  in  the  range  of  subject  as  well 
 as  in  style  and  general  character,  closely  resembles 
 the  first;  and  the  remarks  made  on  that  epistle 
 apply  for  the  most  part  equally  well  to  this.  The 
 structure  also  is  somewhat  similar,  the  main  body 
 of  the  epistle  being  divided  into  two  parts  in  the 
 same  way,  and  each  part  closing  with  a  prayer 
 (ii.  10,  17,  iii.  IG;  both  commencing  with  avrhs 
 8e  6  Kvptos)-  The  following  is  a  table  of  con- 
 tents :  — 
 
 The  opening  salutation  (i.  1,  2). 
 
 1.  A  general  expression  of  thankfulness  and  in- 
 terest, leading  up  to  the  difficulty  about  the  Lord's 
 advent  (i.  3-ii.  17). 
 
 (1.)  The  Apostle  pours  forth  his  thanksgiving 
 for  their  progress  in  the  faith ;  he  en- 
 courages them  to  be  patient  under  per- 
 secution, reminding  tliem  of  the  judg- 
 ment to  come,  and  prays  that  they 
 may  be  prepared  to  meet  it  (i.  .3-12). 
 
 (2.)  He  is  thus  led  to  correct  the  erroneous 
 idea  that  the  judgment  is  inmiinent, 
 pointing  out  that  much  must  happen 
 first  (ii.  1-12). 
 
 (3.)  He  repeats  his  thanksgiving  and  exhorta- 
 tion, and  concludes  this  portion  with 
 a,  prayer  (ii.  13-17). 
 
 2.  Direct  exhortation  (iii.  1-lG). 
 
 (1.)  He  urges  them  to  pray  for  him,  and  con- 
 fidently anticipates  their  progress  in 
 the  faith  (iii.  1-5). 
 (2.)  He  reproves  the  idle,  disorderly,  and  dis- 
 obedient, and  ciiarges  the  faithful  to 
 withdraw  from  such  (iii.  G-15). 
 This  portion  again  closes  with  a  praver   (iii. 
 16). 
 The  epistle  ends  with   a  special  direction    and 
 benediction  (iii.  17,  18). 
 
 (3.)  The  external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  sec- 
 ond epistle  is  somewhat  more  definite  than  that 
 which  can  be  brought  in  fiivor  of  the  first.  It 
 seems  to  be  referred  to  in  one  or  two  passages  of 
 Pol3carp  (iii.  15,  in  Polyc.  c.  11,  and  possibly  i.  4 
 in  the  same  chapter;  cf.  Polyc.  c.  3,  and  see  Lard- 
 ner,  pt.  ii.  c.  6);  and  the  language  in  which  -Justin 
 Martyr  (Dial.  p.  336  u)  speaks  of  the  Man  of  Sin 
 >«  so  similar  that  it  can  scarcely  be  independent  of 
 
 this  epistle.  The  second  epistle,  like  the  first,  is 
 found  in  the  canons  of  the  SyriaC  and  Old  Latin 
 Versions,  and  in  those  of  the  Muratorian  fragment 
 and  of  the  heretic  Marcion ;  is  quoted  expressly 
 and  by  name  by  Irenasus  and  others  at  the  close 
 of  the  second  century,  and  was  universally  received 
 by  the  Cliurch.  The  internal  character  of  the 
 epistle  too,  as  in  the  former  case,  bears  the  strong- 
 est testimony  to  its  Pauline  origin.  (See  Jowett, 
 L  143.) 
 
 Its  genuineness  in  fact  was  never  questioned 
 until  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  Ob- 
 jections were  first  started  by  Christ.  Schmidt  (Einl. 
 ins  N.  T.  1804).  He  has  been  followed  by  Schra- 
 der  {Ajiosid  Puidus),  Kern  {Tiihiiuj.  Zvitschr.f. 
 Theol.  1839,  ii.  p.  145),  and  Baur  {Prndus  dur 
 Apostel).  De  Wette  at  first  condemned  this  epistle, 
 but  afterward  withdrew  his  condemnation  and 
 frankly  accepted  it  as  genuine. 
 
 It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  epistle  has  been  re- 
 jected by  some  modern  critics  who  acknowledge  the 
 first  to  be  genuine.  Such  critics  of  course  attrib- 
 ute no  weight  to  arguments  brought  against  the 
 first,  such  as  we  have  considered  already.  The  apoc- 
 alyptic passage  (ii.  1-12)  is  the  great  stumbling- 
 block  to  them.  It  has  been  objected  to,  either  as 
 alluding  to  events  subsequent  to  St.  Paul's  death, 
 the  Neronian  persecution,  for  instance;  or  as  be- 
 traying religious  views  derived  from  the  Montanism 
 of  the  second  century;  or  lastly,  as  contradicting 
 St.  Paul's  anticipations  expressed  elsewhere,  espe- 
 cially in  the  first  epistle,  of  the  near  approach  of 
 the  Lord's  advent.  That  there  is  no  reference  to 
 Nero,  we  shall  endeavor  to  show  presently.  That 
 the  doctrine  of  an  Antichrist  did  not  start  into 
 being  with  Montanism,  is  shown  from  the  allusions 
 of  Jewish  writers  even  before  the  Christian  era 
 (see  Bertholdt,  Christ,  p  09;  Gfriirer,  Jtdirb.  des 
 licils,  pt.  ii.  p.  257);  and  appears  still  more  clearly 
 from  the  passage  of  Justin  ]\Iartyr  referred  to  in  a 
 former  paragraph.  That  tlie  language  used  of  the 
 Lord's  coming  in  the  second  epistle  does  not  con- 
 tradict, but  rather  supplement  the  teaching  of  the 
 first  —  postponing  the  day  indeed,  but  still  antici- 
 pating its  approach  as  probable  within  the  Apostle's 
 lifetime  —  may  be  gathered  l)oth  from  expressions 
 in  the  passage  itself  (e.  (j.  ver.  7,  "  is  already 
 working"),  and  from  other  parts  of  the  epistle 
 (i.  7,  8).  Other  special  olijections  to  the  epistle 
 will  scarcely  command  a  hearing,  and  must  neces- 
 sarily be  passed  over  here. 
 
 (4.)  The  most  striking  feature  in  the  epistle  is 
 this  apocalyptic  passage,  announcing  the  I'evclation 
 of  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  (ii.  1-12);  and  it  will  not  be 
 irrelevant  to  investigate  its  meaning,  bearing  as  it 
 does  on  the  circumstances  under  which  the  epistle 
 was  written,  and  illustrating  this  aspect  of  the 
 Apostle's  teaching.  He  had  dwelt  much  on  the 
 subject ;  for  he  appeals  to  the  Thessalonians  as  know- 
 ing tiiis  truth,  and  reminds  them  that  he  had  told 
 them  these  things  when  he  was  yet  with  them. 
 
 (I.)  The  passage  speaks  pf  a  great  apostasy  which 
 is  to  usher  in  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  great  judg- 
 ment. There  are  three  prominent  figures  in  the 
 picture,  Christ,  Antichrist,  and  the  licstrainer. 
 Antichrist  is  described  as  the  Jlan  of  Sin,  the  Son 
 of  Perdition,  as  the  Adversary  who  exalteth  himself 
 above  all  that  is  called  God,  as  n>aking  himself  out 
 to  be  God.  Later  on  (for  apparently  the  reference 
 is  the  same)  he  is  styled  the  "  mystery  of  lawless- 
 ness," "the  lawless  one."  The  Pestrainer  is  in 
 one  place  spoken  of  in  the  masculine  as  a  person 
 
THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
 
 3229 
 
 (6  KaT€X(^'')-,  in  another  ia  the  neuter  as  a  power, 
 an  influence  (rh  Karexov)-  The  "  mystery  of  law- 
 lessness "  is  already  at  work.  At  present  it  is 
 checked  by  the  Restrainer;  but  the  check  will  be  re- 
 moved, and  then  it  will  break  out  in  all  its  violence. 
 Then  Christ  will  appear,  and  the  enemy  shall  be 
 consumed  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth,  shall  be 
 brought  to  naught  by  the  splendor  of  his  presence. 
 
 (I[.)  Many  different  explanations  have  been 
 offered  of  this  passage.  By  one  class  of  interpreters 
 it  has  been  referred  to  circumstances  which  passed 
 within  the  circle  of  the  Apostle's  own  experience, 
 the  events  of  his  own  lifetime,  or  the  period  im- 
 mediately following.  Others  again  have  seen  in  it 
 the  |)redictioa  of  a  crisis  yet  to  be  realized,  the  end 
 of  all  things.  The  former  of  these,  the  Proeterists, 
 have  identified  the  "Alan  of  Sin  "  with  divers  his- 
 torical characters  —  with  Caligula,  Nero,  Titus, 
 Simon  Jlagus,  Simon  son  of  tiiora,  the  high-priest 
 Ananias,  etc.,  and  have  sought  for  a  historical  coun- 
 terpart to  the  Restrainer  in  like  manner.  The  lat- 
 ter, the  Futurists,  have  also  given  various  accounts 
 of  the  Antichrist,  the  mysterious  power  of  evil  which 
 is  already  working.  To  Protestants,  for  instance, 
 it  is  the  Papacy;  to  the  Greek  Clhurch,  Jloham- 
 medanism.  And  in  the  same  way  each  generation 
 and  each  section  in  the  Church  has  regarded  it  as 
 a  prophecy  of  that  particular  power  which  seemed 
 to  them  and  in  their  own  time  to  be  most  fraught 
 with  evil  to  the  true  faitli.  A  good  account  of 
 these  manifold  interpretations  will  be  found  in 
 Liineraaim's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle,  p.  204; 
 Sclilussbem.  zu  ii.  1-12.     See  also  Alford,  Prole<j. 
 
 (III.)  Now  in  arbitrating  between  the  Prasterists 
 and  the  Futurists,  we  are  led  by  the  analogy  of 
 other  prophetic  amiouncements,  as  well  as  by  the 
 language  of  the  passage  itself,  to  take  a  middle 
 course.  Neither  is  wholly  riglit,  and  yet  both  are 
 to  a  certain  extent  right.  It  is  the  special  charac- 
 teristic of  prophecy  to  speak  of  the  distant  future 
 through  the  present  and  innnediate.  The  persons 
 and  events  falling  within  the  horizon  of  the  proph- 
 et's own  view,  are  the  types  and  representatives  of 
 greater  figures  and  crises  far  ofl^,  and  as  yet  but 
 dimly  discerned.  Thus  the  older  prophets,  while 
 speaking  of  a  delivery  from  the  temporary  oppres- 
 sion of  Egypt  or  Babylon,  spoke  also  of  Messiah's 
 kingdom.  Thus  our  Ixird  himself,  foretelling  the 
 doom  which  was  even  then  hanging  over  tiie  holy 
 city,  glances  at  the  future  judgment  of  the  world 
 as  typified  and  portrayed  in  this;  and  the  two  are 
 so  interwoven  that  it  is  impossible  to  disentangle 
 them.  F'ollowing  this  analogy,  we  may  agree  with 
 the  Proeterists  that  St.  Paul  is  referring  to  events 
 which  fell  under  his  own  cognizance;  for  indeed 
 the  Restrainer  is  said  to  be  restraining  now,  and 
 the  mystery  of  iniquity  to  be  already  working:  while 
 at  the  same  time  we  may  accept  the  Futurist  view, 
 that  the  Apostle  is  describing  the  end  of  all  things, 
 and  that  therefore  the  prophecy  has  not  yet  recei\"ed 
 its  most  striking  and  complete  fulfillment.  This 
 commingling  of  the  immediate  and  partial  with  the 
 final  and  universal  manifestation  of  God's  judg- 
 ments, characteristic  of  all  prophecy,  is  rendered 
 more  easy  in  St.  Paul's  case,  because  he  seems  to 
 have  contemplated  the  end  of  all  things  as  possibly, 
 or  even  probably,  near  at  hand ;  and  therefore  the 
 particular  manifestation  of  Antichrist,  which  he 
 witnessed  with  his  own  eyes,  would  naturally  be 
 merged  in  and  identified  with  the  final  Antichrist, 
 in  which  the  opposition  to  the  Gospel  will  cul- 
 oiiuate. 
 
 (IV.)  If  this  view  be  correct,  it  remains  to  in- 
 quire what  particular  adversary  of  the  Gospel,  and 
 what  particular  restraining  influence,  St.  Paul  may 
 have  had  in  view.  But,  before  attempting  to  ap- 
 proximate to  an  explanation,  we  may  clear  the  way 
 by  laying  down  two  rules.  First.  The  imagery  of 
 the  passage  must  be  interpreted  mainly  by  itself, 
 and  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  Tlie  symbols 
 may  be  borrowed  in  some  cases  from  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament; they  may  reappear  in  other  parts  of  the 
 New.  But  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  same  image 
 denotes  exactly  the  same  thing  in  both  cases.  The 
 language  describing  the  Man  of  Sin  is  borrowed  to 
 some  extent  from  the  representation  of  Antiochu^ 
 Epiphanes  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  but  Antiochus 
 cannot  be  meant  there.  The  great  adversary  in  the 
 Revelation  seems  to  be  the  Roman  power;  but  it 
 may  be  widely  difterent  here.  There  were  even  in 
 the  ApostoHc  age  "many  Antichrists;"'  and  we 
 cannot  be  sure  that  the  Antichrist  present  to  the 
 mind  of  St.  Paul  was  the  same  with  the  Antichrist 
 contemplated  by  St.  .John.  Secondly.  In  all  figu- 
 rative passages  it  is  arljitrary  to  assume  that  a 
 person  is  denoted  where  we  find  a  personification. 
 Thus  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  here  need  not  be  an  in- 
 dividual man ;  it  may  be  a  body  of  men,  or  a  power, 
 a  spiritual  influence.  In  the  case  of  the  Restrainer 
 we  seem  to  have  positive  ground  for  so  interpreting 
 it,  since  in  one  passage  the  neuter  gender  is  used, 
 "the  thing  which  restraineth  "  {rh  /carexov),  as 
 if  synonymous.  (See  -Jowett's  Essny  on  (he  Mnn 
 of  Sin,  i.  178,  rather  for  suggestions  as  to  the 
 mode  of  interpretation,  than  for  the  conclusion  he 
 arrives  at.) 
 
 (V.)  When  we  inquire  then,  what  St.  Paul  had 
 in  view  when  he  spoke  of  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  and 
 the  Restrainer,  we  can  oidy  hope  to  get  even  an 
 approximate  answer  by  investigating  the  circum- 
 stances of  the  Apostle's  life  at  this  epoch.  Now 
 we  find  that  the  chief  opposition  to  the  Gospel,  and 
 especially  to  St.  Paul's  preaching  at  this  time, arose 
 from  the  .lews.  The  Jews  had  conspired  against 
 the  Apostle  and  his  companions  at  Thessalonica, 
 and  he  only  saved  himself  by  secret  flight.  Thence 
 they  followed  him  to  Beroea,  which  he  hurriedly 
 left  in  the  same  way.  At  Corinth,  whence  the  let- 
 ters to  the  Thessalonians  were  written,  they  perse- 
 cuted him  still  further,  raising  a  cry  of  treason 
 against  him,  and  bringing  him  before  the  Roman 
 proconsul.  These  incidents  explain  the  strong  ex- 
 pressions he  uses  of  them  in  these  epistles:  "  They 
 slew  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  prophets,  and  perse- 
 cuted the  Apostles ;  they  are  hateful  to  God ;  they 
 are  the  common  enemies  of  mankind,  whom  the 
 Divine  wrath  (^  0^71^)  at  length  overtakes  "  (1 
 Thess.  ii.  1.5,  16).  With  these  facts  in  view,  it 
 seems  on  the  whole  probable  that  the  Antichrist  is 
 represented  especially  by  Judaism.  With  a  pro- 
 phetic insight  the  Apostle  foresaw,  as  he  contem- 
 plated the  moral  and  political  condition  of  the  race, 
 the  approach  of  a  great  and  overwhelming  catastro- 
 phe. And  it  is  not  improbable  that  our  Lord's 
 predictions  of  the  vengeance  which  threatened  Jeru- 
 salem blended  with  the  Apostle's  vision,  and  gave 
 a  color  to  this  passage.  If  it  seem  strange  that 
 "lawlessness"  should  be  mentioned  as  the  distin- 
 guishing feature  of  those  whose  very  zeal  for  "  the 
 Law"  stimulated  their  opposition  to  the  Gospel,  we 
 may  appeal  to  our  Lord's  own  words  (Matt,  xxiii. 
 28),  describing  the  Jewish  teachers:  "  within  they 
 are  full  of  hypocrisy  and  lawlessness  (avo/j.ias)-'''' 
 Corresponding  to  this  view  of  the  Antichrist,  w« 
 
3230 
 
 THESSALONICA 
 
 shall  probably  be  correct  in  regarfling  the  Roman 
 Empire  as  the  restraining  power,  for  so  it  was  taken 
 by  many  of  the  Fathers,  though  without  altogether 
 understanding  its  bearing.  It  was  to  Konian  justice 
 and  Roman  magistrates  that  the  Apostle  had  re- 
 course at  this  time  to  shield  him  from  the  enmity 
 of  the  Jews,  and  to  check  their  violence.  At 
 Phili2)pi,  his  Roman  citizenship  extorted  an  ample 
 apology  for  ill-treatment.  At  Thessalonica,  Roman 
 law  secured  him  fair  play.  At  Corinth,  a  Roman 
 proconsul  acquitted  him  of  frivolous  charges  lirouujht 
 by  the  Jews.  It  was  only  at  a  later  date  under 
 Nero,  that  Rome  became  the  antagonist  of  Chris- 
 tendom, and  then  she  also  in  turn  was  fitly  por- 
 trayed by  St.  John  as  the  type  of  Antichrist. 
 Whether  the  Jewish  opposition  to  the  Gospel  entirely 
 exhausted  St.  Raul's  conception  of  the  "  mystery 
 of  lawlessness"  as  he  saw  it  "  already  working  " 
 in  his  own  day,  or  whether  other  elements  did  not 
 also  combine  with  this  to  complete  the  idea,  it  is 
 impossible  to  say.  Moreover  at  this  distance  of 
 time  and  with  our  imperfect  information,  we  catmot 
 hope  to  explain  the  exact  bearing  of  all  the  details 
 in  the  picture.  But  following  the  guidance  of  his- 
 tory, we  seem  justified  in  adopting  this  as  a  prob- 
 able, tliough  only  a  partial,  explanation  of  a  very 
 difficult  passage.     [Antichkist.] 
 
 5.  A  list  of  commentaries  has  been  given  in  the 
 article  on  the  First  I'^pistle.  J.  B.  L. 
 
 THESSALONI'CA  (0eo-<raAoriK7j).  The 
 original  name  of  this  city  was  Therma;  and  that 
 part  of  the  Macedonian  shore  on  which  it  was 
 situated  ("  Medio  flexu  litoris  sinus  Thermaici," 
 Plin.  //.  N.  iv.  10)  retained  through  the  Roman 
 period  the  designation  of  the  Thermaic  Gulf.  The 
 history  of  the  city  under  its  earlier  name  was  of  no 
 great  note  (see  Herod,  vii.  128  ff. ;  Thucyd.  i.  61, 
 ii.  29;  ^Esch.  De  fnls.  Leg.  p.  31).  It  rose  into 
 importance  with  the  decay  of  Greek  nationality. 
 Cassander  the  son  of  Antipater  rebuilt  and  enlarged 
 it,  and  named  it  after  his  wife  lliessalonica,  the 
 sister  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  first  author 
 in  which  the  new  appellation  occurs  is  Polybius 
 (xxiii.  4).  The  name  ever  since,  under  various 
 slight  modifications,  has  been  continuous,  and  the 
 city  itself  has  never  ceased  to  be  eminent.  Sahniki 
 (though  Adrianople  may  possibly  be  larger)  is  still 
 the  most  important  town  of  European  Turkey,  next 
 after  Constantinople. 
 
 Under  the  Romans,  when  Macedonia  was  di- 
 vided into  four  governments,  Thessalonica  was  made 
 the  capital  of  the  second  (Liv.  xlv.  29);  afterwards, 
 when  the  whole  was  consolidated  into  one  province, 
 this  city  became  practically  the  metropolis.  Notices 
 of  the  place  now  become  frequent.  Cicero  was  here 
 in  his  exile  {pro  Plane.  41),  and  some  of  his  letters 
 were  written  from  hence  during  his  journeys  to  and 
 from  his  own  province  of  Cilicia.  During  the  first 
 Civil  War  it  was  the  headquarters  of  the  Pompeian 
 party  and  the  Senate  (Dion  Cass.  xli.  20).  During 
 the  second  it  took  the  side  of  Octavius  (Plut.  Bi~n'. 
 46;  Appian,  B.  C.  iv.  118),  whence  apparently  it 
 reaped  the  honor  and  advantage  of  being  made  a 
 "free  city"  (libera  civitas,  Plin.  /.  c),  a  privilege 
 which  is  commemorated  on  some  of  its  coins. 
 Strabo  in  the  first  century  speaks  of  Thessalonica 
 
 «  Timothy  is  not  mentioned  in  any  part  of  the 
 direct  narrative  of  what  happened  at  Thessalonica, 
 though  he  appears  as  St.  Paul's  companion  before  at 
 Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  1-13),  and  afterwards  at  Beroea 
 xTji.  14,  15) ;  but  from  his  subsequent  mission   to 
 
 THESSALONICA 
 
 as  the  most  populous  city  in  Macedonia  (fidKiara 
 reap  &Wcov  evavSp(7),  similar  language  to  which 
 is  used  by  Lucian  in  the  second  century  (Asin 
 46).  ^ 
 
 Thus  vre  are  brought  to  St.  Paul's  visit  (with 
 Silas  and  Timothy)  «  during  his  second  missionary 
 journey,  and  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity 
 into  Thessalonica.  Three  circumstances  must  here 
 be  mentioned,  which  illustrate  in  an  important 
 manner  this  visit  and  this  journey,  as  well  as  the 
 two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  the  Apostle 
 wrote  from  Corinth  very  soon  after  his  departure 
 from  his  new  Macedonian  converts.  (1.)  This  was 
 the  chief  station  on  the  great  Roman  Road,  called 
 the  Via  Egnaiin,  which  connected  Rome  with  the 
 whole  region  to  the  north  of  the  iEgean  Sea.  St. 
 Paul  was  on  this  road  at  Neapolis  (Acts  xvi.  11) 
 and  Pniupi'i  (xvi.  12-40),  and  his  route  from  the 
 latter  place  (xvii.  1)  had  brought  him  through  two 
 of  the  well-known  minor  stations  mentioned  in  the 
 Itineraries.  [Amphipolis  ;  Apollonia.]  (2.) 
 Placed  as  it  was  on  this  great  road,  and  in  con- 
 nection with  other  important  Roman  ways  ("posita 
 in  gremio  imperii  Romani,"  to  use  Cicero's  words), 
 Thessalonica  was  an  invaluable  centre  for  the  spread 
 of  the  Gospel.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that, 
 besides  its  inland  communication  with  the  rich 
 plains  of  Macedonia  and  with  far  more  remote  re- 
 gions, its  maritime  position  made  it  a  great  em- 
 porium of  trade  by  sea.  In  fact  it  was  nearly,  if 
 not  quite,  on  a  level  with  Corinth  and  Ephesus  in 
 its  share  of  the  commerce  of  the  Levant.  Thus  we 
 see  the  force  of  what  St.  Paul  says  in  his  first 
 epistle,  shortly  after  leaving  Thessalonica  —  a<^' 
 vfj-wu  ii;rixV'aL  6  \6yos  rod  Kupi'ov  ov  ix6vov  iv 
 rfi  MaKfSoi/ia  Kcd  iv  rrj  'Axaia.,  aAA'  ev  -rravrl 
 tSttcj  (i.  8).  (3.)  The  circumstance  noted  in  Acts 
 xvii.  1,  that  here  was  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews 
 in  this  part  of  Macedonia,  had  evidently  much  to 
 do  with  the  Apostle's  plans,  and  also  doubtless  with 
 his  success.  Trade  would  inevitably  bring  Jews  to 
 Thessalonica:  and  it  is  remarkable  that,  ever  since, 
 they  have  had  a  prominent  place  in  the  annals  of 
 the  city.  They  are  mentioned  in  the  seventh  cen- 
 tui7  during  the  Sclavonic  wars;  and  again  in  the 
 twelfth  by  Eustathius  and  Benjamin  of  Tudela.  In 
 the  fifteentii  century  there  was  a  great  influx  of 
 Spanish  Jews.  At  the  present  day  the  numbers 
 of  residents  in  the  Jewish  quarter  (in  the  south- 
 east part  of  the  town)  ai-e  estimated  at  10,000  or 
 20,000,  out  of  an  aggregate  population  of  60,000 
 or  70,000. 
 
 The  first  scene  of  the  Apostle's  work  at  Thessa- 
 lonica was  tiie  Synagogue.  According  to  his  custom 
 he  began  there,  arguing  from  the  Ancient  Scrip- 
 tures (Acts  xvii.  2,  3):  and  the  same  general  results 
 followed,  as  in  other  places.  Some  believed,  both 
 Jews  and  proselytes,  and  it  is  particularly  added, 
 that  among  these  were  many  influential  women 
 (ver.  4) ;  on  which  the  general  body  of  the  Jews, 
 stirred  up  with  jealousy,  excited  the  Gentile  popu- 
 lation to  persecute  Paul  and  Silas  (vv.  5-10).  It 
 is  stated  that  the  ministrations  among  the  Jews 
 continued  for  three  weeks  (ver.  2).  Not  that  wa 
 are  obliged  to  limit  to  this  time  the  whole  stay  of 
 the  Apostles  at  Thessalonica.    A  flourishing  church 
 
 Thessalonica  (1  Thess.  iii.  1-7  ;  see  Acts  xviii.  5),  and 
 the  mention  of  his  name  iu  the  opening  salutation  of 
 both  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  we  can  hardly 
 doubt  that  he  had  been  with  the  Apostle  through- 
 out. 
 
THESSALONICA 
 
 was  certainly  formed  there:  and  the  epistles  show 
 that  its  elements  were  imich  more  Gentile  than 
 Jewish.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Thessalonians  as 
 Laving  turned  "from  idols;"  and  he  does  not  here, 
 as  in  other  epistles,  quote  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 
 In  all  respects  it  is  important  to  compare  these  two 
 letters  with  the  narrative  in  the  Acts;  and  such 
 relerences  iiave  the  greater  freshness  from  the  short 
 interval  which  elupsed  between  visiting  the  Thessa- 
 lonian.s  and  writing  to  tliem.  Such  expressions  -.o 
 eV  SAii|/ei  TToAAjj  (1  Thess.  i.  6),  and  iv  ttoWw 
 aywvi  (ii.  2),  sum  up  the  suffering  and  confiiet 
 which  I'aul  and  Silas  and  their  converts  went 
 through  at  Thessalonica.  (See  also  1  Thess.  ii.  14, 
 1-5.  iii.  ;J,  4;  2  Thess.  i.  4-7.)  The  jiersecution  took 
 place  through  the  instrumentality  of  worthless  idlers 
 (tcou  ayopalwu  dvdpas  Tivas  'T^ovi]j)ovs,  Acts  xvii. 
 5),  who,  instigated  by  the  Jews,  raised  a  tumult. 
 The  house  of  Jason,  with  whom  the  Apostles  seem 
 
 THESSALONICA  3231 
 
 to  have  been  residing,  was  attacked;  they  themselves 
 were  not  found,  but  Jason  was  brought  liefore  the 
 authorities  on  the  accusation  tliat  the  Christians 
 were  trying  to  set  up  a  new  King  in  opposition  to 
 tiie  Emperor;  a  guarantee  (t^  LKav6v)  \\'a.%  taken 
 from  Jason  and  others  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
 peace,  and  Paul  and  Silas  were  sent  away  by  night 
 southwards  to  Bekcea  (Acts  xvii.  5-1 OJ.  The 
 pai-ticular  charge  brought  against  the  Ajjostles  re- 
 ceives an  illustration  from  the  epistles,  where  the 
 tiiif/doin  of  Christ  is  prominently  mentioned  (I 
 Thess.  ii.  12;  2  Thess.  i.  5).  So  again,  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Ke.su rrection  is  conspicuous  both  in  St.  Luke's 
 narrative  (xvii.  3),  and  in  the  first  letter  (i.  10,  iv.  14, 
 10).  If  we  pass  from  these  points  to  such  as  are  per- 
 sonal, we  are  enabled  from  the  epistles  to  complete 
 the  picture  of  St.  Paul's  conduct  and  attitude  at 
 Thessalonica,  as  regards  his  love,  tenderne.ss,  and 
 zeal,  his  care  of  individual  souls,  and  his  disinterest- 
 
 Tbessalonica. 
 
 edness  (see  1  Thess.  i.  5,  ii.  1-10).  As  to  this  la.st 
 point,  St.  Paul  was  partly  supported  here  by  con- 
 tributions from  Philippi  (Phil.  iv.  15,  IG),  partly  by 
 the  labor  of  his  own  hands,  which  he  diligently 
 practiced  for  the  sake  of  the  better  success  of  the 
 Gospel,  and  that  he  might  set  an  example  to  the 
 idle  and  selfish.  (He  refers  very  expressly  to  what 
 he  had  said  and  done  at  Thessalonica  in  regard  to 
 this  point.  See  1  Thess.  ii.  9,  iv.  11;  comparing 
 2  Thess.  iii.  8-12.)  [The.ssalonian.s,  Epistle.s 
 TO.]  To  complete  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  con- 
 nection with  Thessalonica,  it  must  be  noticed  that 
 he  was  certainly  there  again,  though  the  name  of 
 the  city  is  not  specified,  on  his  third  missionary 
 journey,  both  in  going  and  returning  (Acts  xx. 
 1-3).  Possibly  he  was  also  there  again,  after  his 
 liberation  from  his  first  imprisonuient.  See  Phil.  i. 
 25,  20,  ii.  24,  for  the  hope  of  revisiting  Macedonia, 
 entertained  by  the  Apostle  at  Rome,  and  1  Tim.  i. 
 3;  2  Tim.  iv.  13;  Tit.  iii.  12,  for  subsequent  jour- 
 ueys  ill  the  neighborhood  of  Thessalonica. 
 
 Of  the  first  Christians  of  Thessalonica,  we  are 
 able  to  specify  by  name  the  above-mentioned  Jason 
 (who  may  be  the  .same  as  the  .Apostle's  own  kins- 
 man mentioned  in  Itoni.  xvi.  21),  Uemas  (at  least 
 conjecturally ;  .see  2  Tim.  iv.  10),  Gaius,  who  shared 
 some  of  St.  Paul's  perils  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  29), 
 Secundus  (who  accompanied  him  from  Macedonia 
 to  Asia  on  the  eastward  route  of  his  third  missionary 
 journey,  and  was  probably  concerned  in  the  busine.'^s 
 of  the  collection;  see  Acts  xx.  4),  and  especially 
 Aristarchus  (who,  besides  being  mentioned  here 
 with  Secundus,  accompanied  St.  Paul  on  his  voyage 
 to  Korae,  and  had  therefore  probably  been  with  him 
 during  the  whole  interval,  and  is  also  specially  re- 
 ferred to  in  two  of  the  epistles  written  during  the 
 first  Rom.an  imprisonment.  See  Acts  xxvii.  2; 
 Col.  iv.  10;  Philem.  24;  also  Acts  xix.  29,  for  his 
 association  with  the  Apostle  at  Ephesus  in  the  ear- 
 lier part  of  the  third  journey). 
 
 We  must  recur,  however,  to  the  narrative  in  the 
 Acts,  for  the  purpose  of  noticing  a  singularly  accu- 
 
3232 
 
 THESSALONICA 
 
 rate  illustration  which  it  affords  of  the  political 
 constitution  of  'I'hessalonica.  Not  only  is  the  deiiius 
 mentioned  (Tbu  Sri/xov,  Acts  xvii.  5)  in  harmony 
 with  what  has  been  aliove  said  of  its  being  a  "free 
 city,"  but  tiie  peculiar  title, polilarclis  (voKtTa.pxO'S, 
 ib.  0),  of  the  chief  magistrates.  This  term  occurs 
 in  no  other  writing;  but  it  may  be  read  to  tiiis 
 day  conspicuously  on  an  arch  of  the  early  imperial 
 times,  wliich  si)ans  the  main  street  of  the  city. 
 From  this  inscription  it  would  appear  that  the 
 number  of  politarciis  was  seven.  The  whole  may 
 be  seen  in  lioeckh,  C'"ry>    lusc.  No.  I'JUT. 
 
 This  seems  the  riglit  place  for  noticing  the  other 
 remains  at  Thessalunica.  The  arcii  first  mentioned 
 (called  the  Varddr  gate)  is  at  the  western  extremity 
 of  the  town.  At  its  eastern  extremity  is  another 
 Eoman  arch  of  later  date,  and  probably  commemo- 
 rating some  victory  of  Constantine.  The  main 
 street,  which  both  these  arches  cross,  and  vvhicli 
 intersects  the  city  from  east  to  west,  is  undoubtedly 
 the  lins  of  the  Via  K<jn(Uiit.  Near  the  course  of 
 this  street,  and  between  the  two  arches,  are  four 
 Corinthian  colunnis  supporting  an  architrave,  and 
 believed  by  some  to  have  belonged  to  the  Hippo- 
 drome, which  is  .so  famous  in  comiection  with  the 
 history  of  Theodosius.  Two  of  the  mosques  ha\e 
 been  anciently  heathen  temples.  The  city  walls  are 
 of  late  (ireek  construction,  but  resting  on  a  much 
 older   foundation,    with  hewn    stones   of    immense 
 
 Coin  of  Thessalouica. 
 
 thickness.  The  castle  contains  the  fragments  of  a 
 shattered  triumphal  arch,  erected  in  the  reign  of 
 Marcus  Aurelius. 
 
 A  word  must  be  said,  in  conclusion,  on  the  later 
 ecclesiastical  liLstory  of  Thessalouica.  For  during 
 several  centuries  this  city  was  the  bulwark,  not 
 simply  of  the  later  Greek  Empire,  but  of  oriental 
 Christendom,  and  was  largely  instrumental  in  the 
 conversion  of  the  Slavonians  and  Bulgarians.  Thus 
 it  received  the  designation  of  "the  Orthodo.v  City; '' 
 and  its  struggles  are  very  prominent  in  the  writings 
 of  the  Byzantine  historians.  Three  conspicuous 
 passages  are,  its  capture  i)y  the  Saracens,  A.  i).  OOi 
 (Jo.  Cameniata,  IJt  ExcidUi  T/iessnlonlceiisi.,  with 
 Theophanes  Continuatus,  1838);  by  the  Crusaders 
 in  118.5  (Nicetas  Choniates,  iJe  Andron.  Coiiim-mi, 
 18-3.5;  also  luistath.  De  TlicusidDuica  a  Luttuis 
 ciipia,  in  the  same  vol.  with  Leo  (Jranmiaticus, 
 1842);  and  finally  by  the  Turks  under  Amurath 
 n.  in  1430  (.lo.  Anagnostes,  De,  Tliessnlonicensi 
 KxckUo  Narralio,  with  I'hrantzes  and  Canamis, 
 1838).  The  references  are  to  tiie  Bonn  editions. 
 A  very  large  ])art  of  the  population  at  the  [)resent 
 day  is  Greek;  .and  Thessalouica  may  still  lie  destined 
 to  take  a  prominent  part  in  struggles  connected 
 with  nationality  and  religion. 
 
 a  *  The  Notes  upon  the  Geos:raphij  of  ]SIaceilonin, 
 by  Rev.  E.  M.  Doda,  Bihl.  Sacra,  xi.  8,30  ff.,  include 
 Thessalonica.  They  describe  step  by  step  I'luil's  route 
 from  that  city  to  15eroe:i  (.\cts  xvii.  10).  The  .lews  are 
 said  to  constitute  one  half  of  the  entire  population. 
 
 H. 
 
 THEUDAS 
 
 The  travellers  to  whom  it  is  most  important  to 
 refer,  as  having  given  full  accounts  of  this  place, 
 are  Clarke  {Truwls  in  Jiurvpe,  etc.,  1810-1823), 
 Sir  H.  Holland  ( Travels  hi  the  Jonian  Isles,  etc., 
 1815),  Cousint'ry  (Voyac/e  dans  In  Maccduiiie, 
 1831),  and  Leake  (Northern  Greece,  1835).  An 
 anticjuarian  essay  on  the  suliject  by  the  Abb6  Belley 
 will  be  found  in  the  Memuires  de  V Academie  des 
 Jnscrijilions,  tom  xxxviii.  Sect.  Hist.  pp.  121-146. 
 But  the  most  elaborate  work  is  that  of  Tafel,  the 
 first  part  of  which  was  published  at  Tiibingen  in 
 1835.  This  was  afterwards  reprinted  as  "  Prole- 
 gomena "  to  the  Dissertiiiiude  Thessalonica  ejiisque 
 A(jro  ijeoijrapliico,  Berlin,  1839.  With  this  should 
 be  compared  his  work  on  the  Via  A'ynatia."  The 
 Commentaries  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Thassalonians 
 of  course  contain  useful  compilations  oti  the  suliject. 
 Among  these,  two  of  the  most  copious  are  those  of 
 Koch  (Berlin,  1849)  and  Liinemann  ((Jijttingen, 
 1850).  J.  S.  H. 
 
 THEU'DAS  (0eu55x:  r//eo*/s:  and  probably 
 =  rmi^),  the  name  of  an  insurgent  mentioned  in 
 Gamaliel's  speech  before  the  Jewish  council  (Acts 
 v.  35-39)  at  the  time  of  the  arraignment  of  the 
 Apostles.  He  appeared,  according  to  Luke's  ac- 
 count, at  the  head  of  about  four  hundred  men;  he 
 sougiit  not  merely  to  lead  the  people  astray  by  false 
 doctrine,  but  to  accomplish  his  designs  by  violence; 
 he  entertained  a  high  conceit  of  himself  {Keyoov 
 ilva'i  Tiva  eauToc);  was  slain  at  last  (a,vqf>(di}), 
 and  bis  party  was  dispersed  and  brought  to  nothing 
 (hiiXvQtfrav  koI  ^ytvovro  ^Is  ovS4v).  Josephus 
 {A lit.  XX.  5,  §  1)  speaks  of  a  Theudas  who  played  a 
 similar  part  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  about  .\.  i).  44, 
 ('.  c.  some  ten  or  twelve  years  at  least  later  than 
 the  delivery  of  (Gamaliel's  speech ;  and  since  Luke 
 places  his  Theudas,  in  the  order  of  time,  betbre 
 Judas  the  Galilean,  who  made  his  appearance  soon 
 after  the  dethronement  of  Archelaus,  i.  e.  A.  d.  6  or 
 7  (Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1 ;  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  6,  xx.  5, 
 §2),  it  has  been  charged  that  the  wxiter  of  the  Acts 
 eitlier  fabricated  tiie  speech  put  into  the  mouth  of 
 (iamaliel,  or  has  wrought  into  it  a  transaction 
 wliieh  took  place  thirty  years  or  niore  after  the 
 time  when  it  is  said  to  have  occurred  (see  Zeller, 
 Die  Apostelcjesciiichte,  pp.  132  ff.).  Here  we  may 
 protest  at  the  outset  against  the  injustice  of 
 liastily  imputing  to  Luke  so  gross  an  error;  for 
 having  established  his  character  in  so  many  deci- 
 sive instances  in  which  he  has  alluded,  in  the 
 course  of  the  Acts,  to  persons,  places,  customs,  and 
 events  in  sacred  and  profane  history,  he  has  a  right 
 to  the  presumption  that  he  was  well  informed  also 
 as  to  tlie  facts  in  this  particular  passage.''  Every 
 princijile  of  just  criticism  demands  tliat,  instead  of 
 tlistrusting  him  as  soon  as  he  goes  beyond  our 
 means  of  verification,  we  should  avail  ourselves  of 
 any  supposition  for  the  purpo.se  of  upholding  his 
 credibility  which  the  conditions  of  the  case  will 
 allow. 
 
 Various  solutions  of  the  difficulty  have  been 
 ottered.  'I'he  two  following  have  been  suggested  as 
 especially  counuending  themselves  by  their  fulfill- 
 ment of  every  reasonable  requisition,  and  as  ap- 
 
 6  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  remind  the  reader  of  some 
 tino  remarks,  in  illustration  of  Luke's  historical  accu- 
 racy, in  Tlioluck's  Glniihiviirdi^keit  r/er  Evang.  Gf- 
 schkhle,  pp.  161-177.  375-889.  See  also  El  rard,  Emri' 
 uetische  Kritilc,  pp.  678  ff. ;  and  Lechler,  Das  Aposlo- 
 lisclie  Zeitalter,  pp.  9  ff. 
 
THEUDAS 
 
 proved  by  learned  ami  judicious  men:  (1.)  Since 
 Luice  represents  Theudas  as  haviij<f  preceded  Judas 
 the  Galilean  [see  vol.  ii.  p.  1495],  it  is  certain  that 
 he  could  not  have  appeared  later,  at  all  events, 
 than  the  latter  part  of  the  reiijn  of  llerod  the  Great. 
 The  very  year,  now,  of  that  monarch's  death  was 
 remarkalily  turbulent;  the  land  was  overrun  with 
 belligerent  parties,  under  the  direction  of  insurrec- 
 tionary chiefs  or  fanatics.  Josephus  mentions  but 
 three  of  these  disturbers  by  name  ;  he  passes  over 
 the  others  with  a  general  allusion.  Among  those 
 whom  the  .Jewish  historian  has  omitted  to  name, 
 may  have  been  the  Theutlas  whom  Gamaliel  cites 
 as  an  example  of  unsuccessful  innovation  and  in- 
 subordination. The  name  was  not  an  uncommon 
 one  (Winer,  liealwh.  ii.  GOD);  and  it  can  excite 
 no  surprise  that  one  Theudas,  who  was  an  insur- 
 gent, sliould  have  appeared  in  the  time  of  Augus- 
 tus, and  another,  fifty  years  later,  in  the  time  of 
 Claudius.  As  analogous  to  this  supposition  is  the 
 fact  that  Josephus  gives  an  account  of  four  men 
 named  Simun,  who  followed  each  other  within  forty 
 years,  and  of  three  named  Jih/ks,  within  ten  years, 
 who  were  all  instigators  of  reljeUion.  This  mode  of 
 reconciling  Luke  with  Josephus  is  affirmed  by 
 Lardner  {CredibUUy,  vol.  i.  p.  ■429),  Bengel,  Kui- 
 noel,  Olshausen,  Anger  {de  Tumpp.  in  Act.  Apost. 
 Jialiimi',  p.  185),  Winer,  and  others. 
 
 (2.)  Another  explanation  (essentially  different 
 only  as  proposing  to  identify  the  person)  is,  that 
 Luke's  Theudas  may  have  been  one  of  the  three  in- 
 surgents whose  names  are  mentioned  by  Josephus 
 in  connection  with  thedisturliances  which  took  place 
 about  the  time  of  Herod's  death.  Soimtag  (  Thtol. 
 Stud.  u.  Kritik.  1837,  p.  622,  &c.)  has  advanced 
 this  view,  and  supported  it  with  much  learning  and 
 ability.  lie  argues  that  the  Theudas  referred  toby 
 Gamaliel  Is  the  individual  who  occurs  in  .Josephus 
 under  the  name  of  Simon  {B.  J.  ii.  4,  §  2;  Ant. 
 xvii.  10,  §  6),  a  slave  of  Herod,  who  attempted  to 
 make  himself  king,  amid  the  confusion  which  at- 
 tended the  vacancy  of  the  throne  when  that  mon- 
 arch died.  He  urges  the  following  reasons  for  that 
 opinion  :  first,  this  Simon,  as  he  was  the  most  noted 
 among  those  who  disturbed  the  public  peace  at 
 that  time,  would  be  apt  to  occur  to  Gamaliel  as  an 
 illustration  of  his  point;  secondly,  he  is  described 
 as  a  man  of  the  same  lofty  pretensions  {(Ivm  d^ios 
 i\Tri(Tas  Trap'  SuTii/ouf  =  \4yuu  €li/ai  riua  eav- 
 r6v)'-i  thirdly,  he  died  a  violent  death,  which  Jose- 
 phus does  not  mention  as  true  of  the  other  two  in- 
 surgents; fourthly,  he  appears  to  have  had  compar- 
 atively few  adherents,  in  conformity  with  Luke's 
 wael  mpaKocriwv;  and,  lastly,  his  having  been 
 originally  a  skne  accounts  for  the  twofold  appella- 
 tion, since  it  was  very  common  among  the  Jews  to 
 assume  a  different  name  on  changing  their  occupa- 
 tion or  mode  of  life.  It  is  very  possible,  therefore, 
 that  Gamaliel  speaks  of  him  as  Theudas,  because, 
 having  borne  that  name  so  long  at  Jerusalem,  he 
 was  liest  known  by  it  to  the  members  of  the  San- 
 hedrim; and  that  Josephus,  on  the  contrary,  who 
 wrote  for  Romans  and  Greeks,  speaks  of  him  as 
 Simon,  because  it  was  under  that  name  that  he  set 
 himself  up  as  king,  and  in  that  way  acquired  his 
 foreign  notoriety  (see  Tacit.  Hist.  v.  9). 
 
 There  can  be  no  valid  objection  to  either  of  the 
 Ibre'going  suppositions:  both  are  reasonable,  and 
 both  must  be  dispro\ed  before  Luke  can  be  justly 
 charged  with  having  committed  an  anachronism  in 
 the  passage  under  consideration.  So  impartial  a 
 witness   as  Jost.  the  historian  of  the  Jews  (6'e 
 
 THIEVES,  THE  TWO       3233 
 
 schidite  der  Israeliten,  ii.  Anh.  p.  76),  admits  the 
 reasonableness  of  such  combinations,  and  holds  la 
 this  case  to  the  credibility  of  Luke,  as  well  as  that 
 of  Josephus.  The  considerate  Lardner  ( Credibility, 
 vol.  i.  p.  433),  tlierefore,  could  well  say  here,  "In- 
 deed, I  am  surprised  that  any  learned  man  should 
 find  it  hard  to  believe  that  there  were  two  impos- 
 tors of  the  name  of  Theudas  in  the  compass  of  forty 
 years."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  advert  to  other 
 modes  of  explanation.  Josepluis  was  by  no  means 
 infoUible,  as  Strauss  and  critics  of  his  school  may 
 ahnost  be  said  to  take  for  granted;  and  it  is  possi- 
 ble, certainly  (this  is  the  position  of  some),  that  Jo- 
 .sephus  himself  may  have  misplaced  the  time  of 
 Theudas,  instead  of  Luke,  who  is  charged  with  that 
 oversight.  Calvin's  view  that  Judas  the  Galilean 
 appeared  not  after  but  befure  Theudas  (ix€Ta  rou- 
 Tov  ^  iitsuper  \e\  preeterea),  niid  that  the  exam- 
 ination of  the  Ajwstles  before  the  Saidiedrim  oc- 
 curred in  the  time  of  Claudius  (contrary  to  the 
 manifest  chronological  order  of  the  Acts),  deserves 
 mention  only  as  a  waymark  of  the  progress  which 
 has  been  made  in  Uiblical  exegesis  since  his  time. 
 Among  other  writers,  in  addition  to  those  already 
 mentioned,  who  have  discussed  this  question  or 
 touched  upon  it,  are  the  following :  U'ieseler,  Chro- 
 nolotjie  der  Apont.  Zeitnlters,  p.  138:  Neander, 
 Gescliiclite  der  PJianzung,  i.  75,  76;  Guerike, 
 Beitrd[/e  zur  Kinleit.  ins  N.  Test.  p.  90;  A. 
 Kiihler,  Herzog's  Heal-Kiicyk.  xvi.  39-41;  Bauni- 
 garten,  Aposielgescliichte,  i.  114;  Lightfoot,  Ifor. 
 Hebr.  ii.  704;  Biscoe,  History  of  the  Acts,  p.  428; 
 and  Wordswortli's  Commentary.,  ii.  26. 
 
 II.  B.  H. 
 
 THIEVES,   THE    TWO.      The  men  who 
 
 under  this  name  appear  in  the  history  of  the  Cruci- 
 fixion were  robbers  (ATjcTTai)  rather  than  thieves 
 (/cAeTTToOi  belonging  to  the  lawless  bands  by  which 
 Palestine  was  at  that  time  and  afterwards  infested 
 (Jos.  Ant.  x^•ii.  10,  §  8,  xx.  8,  §  10).  Against 
 these  brigands  every  Roman  procurator  had  to 
 wage  continual  war  (Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  13,  §  2).  The 
 parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  shows  liow  common 
 it  was  for  them  to  attack  and  plunder  travellers 
 even  on  the  high-road  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho 
 (Luke  X.  30).  It  was  necessary  to  use  an  armed 
 police  to  encounter  them  (Luke  xxii.  52).  Often, 
 as  in  the  case  of  Barabbas,  the  wild  robber  life  was 
 connected  with  a  fanatic  zeal  for  freedom,  which 
 turned  the  marauding  attack  into  a  popular  insur- 
 rection (Mark  xv.  7).  For  crimes  such  as  these 
 the  Romans  had  but  one  sentence.  Crucifixion  was 
 the  penalty  at  once  of  the  robber  and  the  rebel 
 (Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  13,  §  2). 
 
 Of  the  previous  history  of  the  two  who  suffered 
 on  Golgotha  we  know  nothing.  They  had  been 
 tried  and  condemned,  and  were  waiting  their  execu- 
 tion before  our  Lord  was  accused.  It  is  probable 
 enough,  as  the  death  of  Barabbas  was  clearly  ex- 
 pected at  the  same  time,  that  they  were  among  the 
 ffvffTaaMCTTai  who  had  been  imprisoned  with  him, 
 and  had  taken  part  in  the  insurrection  in  which 
 zeal,  and  hate,  and  patriotism,  and  lust  of  plunder 
 were  mingled  in  wild  confusion. 
 
 They  had  expected  to  die  with  Jesus  Barabbas. 
 [Conip.  Bakaisbas.]  They  find  themselves  with 
 one  who  bore  the  same  name,  but  who  was  described 
 in  the  superscri|)tio!i  on  his  cross  as  Jesus  of  Naza- 
 reth. They  could  hardly  fail  to  have  heard  some- 
 thing of  his  fame  as  a  prophet,  of  his  triumphal 
 1  entry  as  a  king.     They  now  find  Him  sharing  the 
 
3234         THIEVES,  THE  TWO 
 
 same  fate  as  theniseh'es,  condemned  on  much  the 
 Banie  cliarge  (l-uke  xxiii.  5).  They  too  would  bear 
 their  crosses  to  the  appointed  place,  while  He  fainted 
 by  the  wa}'.  Their  garments  would  be  parted 
 among  the  soldiers.  For  them  also  there  would  Ije 
 the  drugged  wine,  which  He  refused,  to  dull  the 
 sharp  pain  of  tiie  first  hours  on  the  cross.  They 
 catch  at  first  the  prevailing  tone  of  scorn.  A  king 
 of  the  Jews  who  could  neither  save  himself  nor 
 help  them,  whose  followers  had  not  even  fought  for 
 him  (.John  xviii.  30),  was  strangely  unlike  the 
 many  chieftains  whom  they  had  probably  known 
 claiming  the  same  title  (.Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  8), 
 strangely  unlike  the  "notable  prisoner"  for  whom 
 they  had  not  hesitated,  it  would  seem,  to  incur  the 
 risk  of  bloodshed.  But  over  one  of  them  there 
 came  a  change.  The  darkness  which,  at  noon,  was 
 begiiniing  to  steal  over  the  sky  awed  him,  and  the 
 Divine  patience  and  silence  and  meekness  of  the 
 sufferer  touched  him.  He  looked  back  upon  his 
 past  life,  and  saw  an  infinite  evil.  He  looked  to 
 the  man  dying  on  the  cross  beside  him,  and  saw  an 
 infinite  compassion.  There  indeed  was  one,  uidike 
 all  other  "  kings  of  the  Jews  "  wliom  the  robber 
 had  ever  known.  Such  a  one  must  be  all  that  He 
 had  claimed  to  be.  To  be  forgotten  by  that  king 
 seems  to  him  now  the  most  terrible  of  all  punish- 
 ments; to  take  part  in  the  triumph  of  his  return, 
 the  most  blessed  of  all  hopes.  The  yearning  prajer 
 was  answered,  not  in  the  letter,  but  in  the  spirit. 
 To  him  alone,  of  all  the  myriads  who  had  listened 
 to  Him,  did  the  Lord  speak  of  Paradise  [comp. 
 Paradise],  waking  with  that  word  the  thoughts 
 of  a  purer  past  and  the  hopes  of  an  immediate  rest. 
 But  its  joy  was  to  be  more  than  that  of  fair  groves 
 and  pleasant  streams.  "  Thou  shalt  be  with  inc.'' 
 He  sliould  be  remembered  there. 
 
 We  cannot  wonder  that  a  history  of  such  won- 
 derful interest  should  at  all  times  have  fixed  itself 
 on  men's  minds,  and  led  them  to  speculate  and  ask 
 questions  which  we  have  no  data  to  answer.  The 
 siniplest  and  truest  way  of  looking  at  it  has  been 
 that  of  those  who,  from  the  great  Alexandrian 
 thinker  (Origen,  in  Rom.  iii. )  to  the  writer  of  the 
 most  popular  hynm  of  our  own  times,  have  seen  in 
 the  "dying  thief"  the  first  great  typical  instance 
 that  "a  man  is  justified  by  fiiith  without  the  deeds 
 of  the  law."  pjven  those  whose  thoughts  were  less 
 deep  and  wide  acknowledged  that  in  this  and  other 
 like  cases  the  baptism  of  blood  supplied  the  place 
 of  the  outward  sign  of  regeneration  (Hilar.  JJe 
 7 linit.  c.  X.;  Jerome,  Ep.  xiii.).  The  logical  spec- 
 ulations of  the  Pelagian  controversy  overclouded, 
 in  this  as  in  other  instances,  the  clear  judgment  of 
 Augustine.  Maintaining  the  absolute  necessity  of 
 baptism  to  salvation,  he  had  to  discuss  the  question 
 whether  the  penitent  thief  had  been  baptized  or 
 not,  and  he  oscillates,  with  melancholy  indecision, 
 between  the  two  answers.  At  times  he  is  disposed 
 to  rest  contented  with  the  solution  which  had  satis- 
 fied others.  Then  again  he  ventures  on  the  con- 
 jecture that  the  water  which  sprang  forth  from  the 
 pierced  side  had  sprinkled  him,  and  so  had  been  a 
 suflicient  baptism.  Finally,  yielding  to  the  inex- 
 orable logic  of  a  sacramental  theory,  he  rests  in  the 
 assumption  that  he  probably  had  been  baptized  be- 
 fore, either  in  his  prison  or  before  he  entered  on  his 
 robber-hfe  (comp.  De  Anima,  i.  11,  iii.  12;  Serm. 
 de  Temp.  130;  Retract,  i.  26,  iii.  18,  55). 
 
 Other  conjectures  turn  more  on  the  circimi- 
 stances  of  the  history.  Bengel,  usually  acute,  here 
 overshoots  the  mark,  and  finds  in  the  Lord's  words 
 
 THIMNATHAH 
 
 to  him,  dropping  all  mention  of  the  Messianio  king- 
 dom, an  indication  that  the  penitent  thief  was  a 
 Gentile,  the  impenitent  a  Jew,  and  that  thus  the 
 scene  on  Calvary  was  typical  of  the  position  of  tlie 
 two  Churches  (Gmmion  N.  T.  in  Luke  xxiii.). 
 .Stier  ( IFwf/s  of'  t/te  Lord  Jesus,  in  loc.)  reads  in 
 tlie  words  of  rejjroof  (oiiSe  (po^fj  crv  rhv  6i6v)  the 
 language  of  one  who  had  all  along  listened  with 
 grief  and  horror  to  the  revilings  of  the  multitude, 
 the  burst  of  an  indignation  previously  suppressed. 
 The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  as  usual,  do  their  best  to 
 lower  the  Divine  history  to  the  level  of  a  legend. 
 They  follow  the  repentant  robber  into  the  luiseen 
 world.  He  is  the  first  to  enter  Paradise  of  all 
 mankind.  Adam  and  Seth  and  the  patriarchs  find 
 him  already  there  bearing  his  cross.  Michael  the 
 archangel  had  led  him  to  the  gate,  and  the  fiery 
 sword  bad  turned  aside  to  let  him  pass  [J-lvtinij. 
 Nicod.  ii.  10).  Names  were  given  to  the  two  rob- 
 bers. Demas  or  Dismas  was  the  penitent  thief, 
 hanging  on  the  right,  Gestas  the  impenitent  on  the 
 left  {Evnng.  Nicod.  i.  10;  Narrctt.  Joseph,  c.  3). 
 The  cr^'  of  entreaty  is  expanded  into  a  long  wordy 
 prayer  {Nitrr.  Jos.  1.  c),  and  the  pronuse  suft'ers 
 the  same  treatment.  The  history  of  the  Infancy  is 
 made  prophetic  of  that  of  the  Crucifixion.  The 
 holy  family,  on  their  flight  to  Egypt,  come  upon  a 
 band  of  robbers.  One  of  them,  Titus  (the  names 
 are  different  here),  has  compassion,  purchases  the 
 silence  of  his  companion,  Dumachus,  and  the  infant 
 Christ  prophesies  that  after  thirty  years  Titus  shall 
 be  crucified  with  him,  and  shall  go  before  him  into 
 Paradise  {Evang.  Infant,  c.  23).  As  in  other 
 instances  [comp.  Magi],  so  in  this,  the  fancy  of 
 inventors  seems  to  have  been  fertile  in  names. 
 Bede  {Colleclan.)  gives  Matha  and  Joca  as  those 
 which  prevailed  in  his  time.  The  name  given  in 
 the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  has,  however,  kept  its 
 ground,  and  St.  Dismas  takes  his  place  in  the  ha- 
 giology  of  the  Syrian,  the  Greek,  and  the  Latin 
 Churches. 
 
 All  this  is,  of  course,  puerile  enough.  The  cap- 
 tious olyections  to  the  narrative  of  St.  J>uke  as 
 inconsistent  with  that  of  St.  lAIatthew  and  St.  Mark, 
 and  the  inference  drawn  from  them  that  both  are 
 more  or  less  legendary,  are  hardly  less  puerile 
 (hStrauss,  Leben  Jesu,  ii.  519  ;  Ewald,  Christris, 
 Gesch.  v.  438).  The  obvious  answer  to  this  is 
 that  which  has  been  given  by  Origen  [Horn.  35  in 
 Matt.),  Chrysostom  {Horn.  88  in  Matt.),  .and 
 others  (comp.  Suicer,  s.  v.  ArjcTT.ris)-  Both  began 
 by  reviling.  One  was  subsequently  touched  with 
 sympathy  and  awe.  The  other  explanation,  given 
 by  Cyprian  (De  Passione  Domini),  Augustine  (De 
 Cons.  Evang.  iii.  16),  and  others,  which  forces  the 
 statement  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  into  agree- 
 ment with  that  of  St.  Luke  by  assuming  a  synec- 
 doche, or  STjIhpsis,  or  enaJlage,  is,  it  is  believed, 
 far  less  satisfactory.  The  technical  word  does  hut 
 thinly  veil  the  contradiction  which  this  hyjwthesis 
 admits  but  does  not  explain.  E.  H.  P. 
 
 THIMNA'THAH  (nn:7?ri  :  0a/j.vaed; 
 Alex.  @a/j.va:  Themnatlia).  A  town  in  the  allot- 
 ment of  Dan  (Josh.  six.  43  only).  It  is  named 
 between  Eion  and  Ekron.  The  name  is  the  same 
 as  that  of  the  residence  of  Samson's  wife  (inaccu- 
 rately given  in  A.  V.  Timnaii);  but  the  position 
 of  that  place,  which  seems  to  agree  with  the  mod- 
 ern Tilmeh  below  Zarenh,  is  not  so  suitable,  being 
 fully  ten  miles  from  Akir,  the  representative  of 
 Ekron.     Timnah  appears  to  ha\e  been  almost  as 
 
THISBE 
 
 sommon  a  name  as  Gibeali,  and  it  is  possible  that 
 there  may  have  been  another  in  the  allotment  of 
 Dan  besides  that  represented  by  Tibnth.  G. 
 
 THIS'BE  (0i'<T/37j;  [Alex.]  @i^-q).  A  name 
 found  only  in  Tob.  i.  2,  as  tbat  of  a  city  of  Naph- 
 tali  from  which  Tobit's  ancestor  had  been  carried 
 captive  by  the  Assyrians.  The  real  interest  of  the 
 name  resides  in  the  fact  that  it  is  maintained  by 
 some  interpreters  (Hiller,  Oiiom.  pp.  236,  947 ;  Ee- 
 land,  Pill.  p.  1035)  to  be  the  place  which  liafl  the 
 glory  of  giving  birth  to  Vaajwi  the  TisHniTK. 
 'I'his,  however,  is,  at  the  best,  ver}'  questionable,  and 
 derives  its  main  support  Iroiii  the  fact  that  the  word 
 
 THOMAS 
 
 3235 
 
 employed  in  1  K.  xvii.  1  to  denote  the  relation  of 
 Elijah  to  Gilead,  if  pointed  as  it  now  stands  in  tlie 
 Received  Hebrew  Te.xt,  signifies  that  he  was  not  a 
 native  of  Gilead  but  merely  a  resident  there,  :ind 
 came  originally  from  a  different  and  foreign  district 
 But  it  is  also  possible  to  point  the  word  so  that  th« 
 sentence  shall  mean  '-from  Tishbi  of  Gile.id,"  in 
 which  case  all  relation  between  the  great  Prophet 
 and  Thisbe  of  Naphtali  at  once  falls  to  the  ground. 
 [See  TisHBiTK.] 
 
 There  is,  however,  a  truly  singular  variation  in  the 
 texts  of  the  passage  in  Tobit,  a  glance  at  which  will 
 show  how  hazardous  it  is  to  base  any  definite  topo- 
 graphical conclusions  upon  it :  — 
 
 Out  of  Thisbe  which 
 Is  at  the  rijjht  hand 
 of  that  city  which  is 
 called  properl}'  Neph- 
 thali  in  Galilee  above 
 Aser.*  [Mars;.  or 
 Kedesh  of  Nephthali 
 In  Galilee,  ./udg.  iv. 
 6-]        
 
 *  1.  e.  probably, 
 Hazor. 
 
 Out  of  the  tribe 
 and   city  of  Nepli- 
 
 LXX. 
 
 Out   of  Thisbe 
 which    is  at    the 
 
 thali  which  is  in  right  baud  of 
 the  upper  parts  Jvudi  3s  of  Neph- 
 of  Galilee  above  |thaleim  in  Gali- 
 Naasson,  behind  lee  above  Aser. 
 the  road  which 
 leads  to  the  west, 
 having  on  the  left 
 hand  the  city  of 
 Sephet. 
 
 Revised  Greek  Text. 
 
 Out  of  Thibe  which 
 is  at  the  right  hand  of 
 Kudion  of  Nephthaleim 
 in  Upper  Galilee  above 
 Asser,  behind  the  setting 
 sun  on  the  right  of  Pho- 
 gor  (Peor). 
 
 Vetcs  Latin  a. 
 
 Out  of  the  city  of  Bihil 
 which  is  on  the  right 
 hand  of  Edisse,  a  city  of 
 Nephthalim  in  Upper 
 Galilee  over  against  Naa- 
 sou,  behind  the  road 
 which  leads  to  the  west 
 of  the  left  of  Kaphain. 
 
 [Another  M3.  reads  Ge- 
 briel,  Cydiscus,  and  Ra- 
 phaim,  for  Bihil,  Edisse, 
 and  Raphain.] 
 
 Assuming  that  Thisbe,  and  not  Thibe,  is  the  cor- 
 rect reatling  of  the  name,  it  has  been  conjectured 
 (apparently  for  the  first  time  by  Keil,  Comin.  iiber 
 die  Konige,  p.  2-17 )  that  it  originated  in  an  erroneous 
 
 rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word  "^SIL'/^^,  which 
 word  in  fact  occurs  in  the  Helirew  version  of  the 
 passage,  and  may  be  pointed  in  two  ways,  so  as  to 
 mean  either  "  from  the  inhabitants  of,"  or  "from 
 Tishbi,"  i.  e.  Thi.sbe.  The  reverse  suggestion,  in 
 respect  of  the  same  word  in  1  K.  xvii.  ],  has  been 
 already  alluded  to.  [Ti.siiiute.]  But  this,  though 
 very  ingenious,  and  quite  within  the  bounds  of  pos- 
 sibility, is  at  present  a  mere  conjecture,  since  none 
 of  the  texts  support  it,  and  there  is  no  other  evi- 
 dence in  its  favor. 
 
 No  name  resembling  Thisbe  or  Thibe  has  been 
 yet  encountered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Ktdes  or 
 SaJ'ed,  but  it  seems  impossii)le  to  suppose  that  the 
 minute  definition  of  the  Latin  and  Kevised  Greek 
 Texts  —  equaled  in  tlie  sacred  books  only  by  the 
 well-known  description  of  the  position  of  Shiloh  in 
 Judg.  xxi.  19  — can  be  mere  invention.  G. 
 
 THISTLE.     [Thorns  and  Thistles.] 
 
 THOM'AS  i&w/xas:  Thomas),  one  of  the 
 Apostles.  According  to  Eusebius  (//.  A',  i.  13)  his 
 real  name  was  Judas.  This  may  have  been  a  mere 
 confusion  with  Thaddaeus,  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
 extract.     But   it   may  also  be  that  Thomas  was  a 
 
 surname.  The  word  SttSH,  T/ioma,"  means  "  a 
 twin;  "  and  so  it  is  translated  in  John  xi.  16,  xxi. 
 2,  o  SiSufios-  Out  of  this  name  has  grown  the 
 tradition  that  he  had  a  twin-sister,  Lydia  (Palres 
 Apost.  p.  272),  or  that  he  was  a  twin-brother  of 
 our  Lord  (Thilo,  Acta  Thoince,  p.  94) ;  which  last, 
 
 again,  would  confirm  his  identification  with  Judas 
 (comp.  Matt.  xiii.  55). 
 
 He  is  said  to  have  been  born  at  Antioch  (Paires 
 Apost.  pp.  272,  512). 
 
 In  the  catalogue  of  the  Apostles  he  is  coupled 
 with  Matthew  in  Matt.  x.  3,  Mark  iii.  18,  Luke  vi. 
 15,  and  with  Philip  in  Acts  i.  13. 
 
 All  that  we  know  of  him  is  derived  from  the 
 Gospel  of  St.  John;  and  this  amounts  to  three 
 traits,  which,  however,  so  exactly  agree  together, 
 that,  slight  as  they  are,  they  place  his  ch.-iraoter 
 before  us  with  a  precision  which  belongs  to  no  other 
 of  the  twelve  Apostles,  except  Peter,  John,  and 
 Judas  Iscariot.  This  character  is  that  of  a  man 
 slow  to  believe,  seeing  all  the  difficulties  of  a  case, 
 suliject  to  despondency,  viewing  things  on  the 
 darker  side,  and  yet  full  of  ardent  love  for  his  Mas- 
 ter. 
 
 The  first  trait  is  his  speech  when  our  Lord  deter- 
 mined to  face  the  dangers  that  awaited  Him  in 
 Judsea  on  his  journey  to  Bethany.  Thomas  said 
 to  his  fellow-disciples,  "  Let  U5  also  go  {koI  r]fj.e7s) 
 that  we  may  die  with  Him"  (John  xi.  16).  He 
 entertained  no  hope  of  His  escape  —  he  looked  on 
 the  journey  as  leading  to  total  ruin;  but  he  deter- 
 mined to  share  the  peril.  "  Though  He  slay  me, 
 yet  will  I  trust  in  Him." 
 
 The  second  was  his  speech  during  the  Last  Sup- 
 per. "  Thomas  saith  unto  Him,  Lord,  we  know 
 not  whither  thou  goest,  and  how  can  we  know  the 
 way"  (xiv.  5)?  It  was  the  prosaic,  incredulous 
 doubt  as  to  moving  a  step  in  the  unseen  future,  and 
 yet  an  eager  inquiry  to  know  how  this  step  was  to 
 be  taken. 
 
 The  third  was  after  the  Eesurrection.  He  was 
 absent  —  possibly  by  accident,  perhaps  characteris- 
 
 a  In  Cant.  vii.  4  [A.  V.  3],  it  is  simply  DWn,  ex-   England  is  derived  not  from  the  Aiiostle,  but  from  St. 
 ,r  m       „     mi      *■  «-  xi.  .      Thomas  of  Canterbury, 
 
 ai^tly   our  "  Ton."     The  frequency  of  the  name  in  | 
 
3236 
 
 THOMAS 
 
 tically  —  from  the  first  assembly  when  Jesus  had 
 appeared.  The  others  told  him  what  they  had  seen. 
 He  broke  forth  into  an  exclamation,  the  terms  of 
 which  convey  to  us  at  once  the  vehemence  of  his 
 doubt,  and  at  the  same  time  the  vivid  picture  that 
 his  mind  retained  of  his  Master's  form  as  he  liad 
 last  seen  Him  lifeless  on  the  cross.  "  Except  I  see 
 in  his  hands  tlie  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my 
 finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
 hand  into  his  side,  I  will  not,  I  cannot  believe  " 
 (oil  n)j  iriffTeiffai),  •loliii  xx.  25. 
 
 On  the  eiglitli  day  he  was  with  thcni  at  their 
 gathering,  perliaps  in  expectation  of  a  recurrence 
 of  the  visit  of  the  previous  week;  and  Jesus  stood 
 amongst  them.  He  uttered  the  same  salutation, 
 "  Peace  be  unto  you ;  "  and  then  turning  to  Thomas, 
 as  if  this  had  been  tiie  special  object  of  his  appear- 
 ance, uttered  the  words  which  convey  as  strongly 
 the  sense  of  condemnation  and  tender  reproof,  as 
 those  of  Thomas  had  shown  the  sense  of  hesitation 
 and  doubt.  "  Dring  thy  finger  hither  [^Se  —  as 
 if  Himself  pointing  to  his  wounds]  and  see  my 
 hands;  and  bring  thy  hand  and  thrust  it  in  my 
 side;  and  do  not  become  (^7;  yivov)  unbelieving 
 {awKTTOs),  but  believing  {iriaTSs)-"  "  He  answers 
 to  the  words  that  Thduias  had  spoken  to  the  ears 
 of  his  fellow-disciiiles  only;  but  it  is  to  the  thought 
 of  his  heart  rather  than  to  the  words  of  his  lips  that 
 
 the  Searcher  of  hearts  answers Eye,  ear, 
 
 and  touch,  at  once  appealed  to,  and  at  once  satisfied 
 —  the  form,  the  look,  the  voice,  the  solid  and  actual 
 body:  and  not  the  senses  only,  but  the  mind  satis- 
 fied too;  the  knowled'^e  that  searches  the  very  reins 
 and  the  hearts;  the  love  that  loveth  to  the  end,  in- 
 finite and  eternal  "  (Arnold's  Serm.  vi.  238). 
 
 The  effect "  on  Thomas  is  inniiediate.  The  con- 
 viction produced  by  the  removal  of  his  doubt  be- 
 came deeper  and  stronuer  than  that  of  any  of  the 
 other  Apostles.  'l"he  words  in  which  he  expressed 
 his  belief  contain  a  far  higher  assertion  of  his  Mas- 
 ter's Divine  nature  than  is  contained  in  any  other 
 expression  used  by  Apostolic  lips,  •'  My  Lord,  and 
 my  God."  Some  have  supposed  that  Kvpios  refers 
 to  the  human,  Qiis  to  tlie  Divine  nature.  This  is 
 too  artificial.  It  is  more  to  the  point  to  observe 
 the  exact  terms  of  the  sentence,  uttered  (as  it  were) 
 in  astonished  awe.  "  It  is  then  my  Lord  and  my 
 God !  "  ''  And  the  word  "  my  "  gives  it  a  personal 
 application  to  himself.  Additional  empliasis  is 
 given  to  this  declaration  from  its  being  the  last 
 incident  narrated  in  the  direct  narrative  of  the 
 Gospel  (liefore  the  supplement  of  ch.  xxi.),  thus 
 corresponding  to  the  opening  words  of  the  prologue. 
 "  Thus  Christ  was  acknowledged  on  earth  to  be 
 what  St.  John  had  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gcspel 
 declared  him  to  be  from  all  eternity;  and  the  words 
 of  Thomas  at  the  end  of  the  2()th  chapter  do  but 
 repeat  the  truth  which  St.  John  had  stated  before  in 
 his  own  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  "  (Ar- 
 uold's  Serm.  vi.  401). 
 
 The  answer  of  our  Lord  sums  np  the  moral  of 
 the  whole  narrative:  "  Because  <•■  thou  hast  seen  me, 
 
 THOMOI 
 
 thou  hast  believed:  blessed  are  they  that  hare  no» 
 seen  me,  and  j-et  have  believed  "  (xx.  29).  By  this 
 incident,  therefore,  Thomas,  "the  Doubting  Apos- 
 tle," is  raised  at  once  to  the  Theologian  in  the 
 original  sense  of  the  word.  "  Ab  eo  dubitatum 
 est,"  says  Augustine,  "ne  a  nobis  dubitaretur." 
 It  is  this  feature  of  his  character  which  has  been 
 caught  in  later  ages,  when  for  the  first  time  its 
 peculiar  lesson  became  apparent.  In  the  famous 
 statue  of  him  by  Thorwaldsen  in  the  church  at 
 Copenhagen,  he  stands,  the  thoughtful,  meditative 
 skeptic,  with  the  rule  in  his  hand  for  the  due 
 measuring  of  evidence  and  argument.  This  scene 
 was  one  of  the  favorite  passages  of  the  English 
 theologian  who  in  this  century  gave  so  great  an 
 impulse  to  the  progress  of  free  inquiry  comljined 
 with  fervent  belief,  of  which  'I'homas  is  so  remark- 
 able an  example.  Two  discourses  on  this  subject 
 occur  in  Dr.  Arncjld's  published  volumes  of  Ser- 
 mons (v.  312,  vi.  233).  Amongst  the  last  words 
 which  he  repeated  before  his  own  sudden  death 
 {Life,  and  Correspondence,  7th  ed.  p.  617)  was  the 
 blessing  of  Christ  on  the  faith  of  Thomas. 
 
 In  the  N.  T.  we  hear  of  Thomas  only  twice  agahi, 
 once  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee  with  the  seven  disciples, 
 where  he  is  ranked  next  after  Peter  (John  xxi.  2), 
 and  again  in  the  assemblage  of  the  Apostles  after 
 the  Ascension  (Acts  i.  13). 
 
 The  clo.se  of  his  life  is  filled  with  traditions  or 
 legends;  which,  as  not  resting  on  Biblical  grounds, 
 may  be  briefly  dispatched. 
 
 The  earlier  traditions,  as  believed  in  the  4th  cen- 
 tury (Eus.  H.  E.  i.  13,  iii.  1;  Socrat.  //.  E.  i.  19), 
 represent  him  as  preaching  in  Parthia  or  Persia, 
 and  as  finally  buried  at  Edessa  (Socr.  //.  E.  iv.  18). 
 Chrysostom  mentions  his  grave  at  Edessa,  as  being 
 one  of  the  four  genuine  tombs  of  Apostles;  the 
 other  three  being  Peter,  Paul,  and  John  {Horn,  in 
 Ihb.  20).  With  his  burial  at  Edessa  agrees  the 
 story  of  his  sending  Thadda?us  to  Abgarus  with  our 
 Lord's  letter  (I'^us.  H.  E.  i.  13). 
 
 The  later  traditions  carry  him  further  East,  and 
 ascribe  to  him  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
 church  in  Jlalabar,  which  still  goes  by  the  name 
 of  "  the  Christians  of  St.  Thomas;  "  and  his  tomb 
 is  shown  in  the  neighborhood.  This,  however,  is 
 now  usually  regarded  as  arising  from  a  confusion 
 with  a  later  Thomas,  a  missionary  from  the  Nesto- 
 rians. 
 
 His  martyrdom  (whether  in  Persia  or  India)  is 
 said  to  have  been  occasioned  by  a  lance;  and  is 
 commemorated  by  the  Latin  Church  on  December 
 21,  by  the  Greek  Church  on  October  6,  and  by  the 
 Indians  on  July  ]. 
 
 For  these  traditions  and  their  authorities,  see 
 Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  December  21.  An 
 apocryphal  "Gospel  of  Thomas"  (chiefly  relating 
 to  the  Infancy)  published  in  Tischendorf 's  Evan- 
 fjelia  Apocrypha.  The  Apocryphal  "  Acts  of 
 Thomas  "  by  Thilo  {Codex  Apocryphus).''- 
 
 A.P.  S. 
 
 THOM'OI  {<doixoi\  [Vat.  ©o^eej:]  CoUsi). 
 Thamah  or  Tamah  (1  Esdr.  v.  32). 
 
 a  It  is  useless  to  speculate  whether  he  obeyed  our 
 Lord's  invitation  to  examine  the  wounds.  The  im- 
 pression is  that  he  did  not. 
 
 6  It  is  obviously  of  no  dogmatic  importance  whether 
 the  words  are  au  address  or  a  description.  That  they 
 are  the  latter,  appears  from  the  use  of  the  nominative 
 6  icOpios.  The  form  6  eeo;  proves  nothing,  as  this  is 
 used  for  the  vocative.  At  the  same  time  it  should  be 
 observed  that  the  passage  is  said  to  Christ,  elinv  auT<p. 
 
 c  «  Thomas  "  (©ijiia)  is  omitted  in  the  best  MSS. 
 
 d  *  The  apocryphal  "  Acts  of  Thomas  "  have  been 
 separately  puhlished  by  Thilo  {Acta  S.  Thomoi  Apos- 
 toli,  etc.  Lips.  1823),  but  they  are  not  contained  in  his 
 Codex  Apocryphiis  (1832),  which  is  confined  to  the 
 Apocryphal  Gospels.  TUe  text  is  best  given  in  Tisch- 
 endorf s  Acta  Ai'oslolorum  Apocrypha,  Li^'s.  1851. 
 
THORN  IN  THE  FLESH 
 
 *  THORN  IN  THE  FLESH.  [Paul,  iii. 
 23331 
 
 THORNS  AND  THISTLES.  There  appear 
 to  be  eighteen  or  twenty  Hebrew  words  vvliich  point 
 t»  different  kinds  of  prickly  or  tliorny  shrubs,  but 
 the  context  of  the  passages  where  the  several  terms 
 occur  affords,  for  the  most  part,  scarcely  a  single 
 clew  whereby  it  is  possible  to  come  to  anything 
 like  a  satisfactory  conclusion  with  regard  to  their 
 respective  identifications.  These  words  are  vari- 
 ously rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  "  thorns,"  "  briers," 
 "  thistles,"  etc.  It  were  a  hopeless  task  to  enter 
 into  a  discussion  of  these  numerous  Hebrew  terms; 
 we  shall  not  therefore  attempt  it,  but  confine  our 
 remarks  to  some  of  the  most  important  names,  and 
 those  which  seem  to  afford  some  slight  indications 
 as  to  the  plants  they  denote. 
 
 1.  Aidd  (^tOS  :  •^  pd/jLVos-  rhammis)  occurs  as 
 
 the  name  of  some  spinous  plant  in  Judg.  ix.  14,  15, 
 where  the  A.  V.  renders  it  by  "  bramble  "  (Marg. 
 "  thistle  "■»,  and  in  Ps.  Iviii.  1)  (A.  V.  "  thorns  "). 
 The  plant  in  question  is  supposed  to  be  Lyciuiii  Eu- 
 ropicum,  or  L.  of  rum  (box-thorn),  both  of  which 
 species  occur  in  Palestine  (see  Strand,  Flov.  Pala'sL 
 Nos.  124.  125).  Hioscorides  (i.  119)  thus  speaks 
 of  the  "Pduv OS '•  "The  rhamnus,  which  some  call 
 persep/wniuti,  others  Itucacanllici ,  the  I\omans 
 wliite-thorn,  or  Ctrbalis,  and  the  Carthaginians 
 attultn.  IS  a  shrub  which  grows  around  hedges;  it 
 has  erect  branches  with  sharp  spines,  like  the  uxy- 
 acanitia  (hawthorn?),  but  with  small,  oblong,  thick 
 soft  leaves."  Dioscorides  mentions  three  kinds  of 
 rhaunius,  two  of  which  are  identified  by  Sprengel, 
 in  his  Commentary,  with  the  two  species  of  Lyciuiii 
 menuoned  above."  See  Belon,  Obscrvaiiuns  da  Plus. 
 Hiiuj.  etc.,  ii.  ch.  78;  KauwoUf,  Trav.  bk.  iii.  ch. 
 8.  Prosper  Alpinus,  i>e  Plant.  yEyypt.  p.  21; 
 Celsius,  Uierob.  i.  I'JD.     The  Arabic  name  of  this 
 
 plant  (tXJof,  atdd)  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew; 
 but  it  was   also  know'u   by  the   name  of   ^Austj 
 
 .^). 
 
 Lycium  Europaum  is  a  native  of  the  south  of 
 Europe  and  the  north  of  Africa:  in  the  Crecian 
 islands  it  is  common  in  hedges  {Enylish  i'ychip. 
 '•Lycium").  See  also  the  passages  in  Pelon  and 
 RauwolIF  cited  above. 
 
 2.  Cliedek  \p1]'^,  '•  IxKavda,  aijs  eKTptiiywv- 
 s/inia,  pcdiurus]  occurs  in  Prov.  xv.  19,  "  The  way 
 ot  tlie  slothful  is  as  an  hedge  of  Chedeic"  (A.  V. 
 ••  thorns  "),  and  in  Mic.  vii.  4,  where  the  A.  V.  has 
 •'  brier."  The  Alexand.  LXX.,  in  the  former  pas- 
 sage, interprets  the  meaning  thus,  "  The  wa}s  of 
 the  slothful  are  strewed  with  thorns."  Celsius 
 {Ilierob.  ii.  35),  referring  the  Ileb.   term   to  the 
 
 Arabic  Chadak  (     »cX&.),  is  of  opinion  that  some 
 
 spinous  species  of  the  Solanum  is  intended.  The 
 Arabic  term  clearly  denotes  some  kind  of  Solmum; 
 either  the  S.  mchnytla,  var.  escukntiun,  or  the 
 S.  Sodomeum  (-'apple  of  Sodom").  Both  these 
 kinds  are  beset  with  prickles;  it  is  hardly  probable, 
 nowever,  tliat  they  are  intended  by  the  Heb.  word. 
 
 o  In  his   Hist.   Rei  Herb.,  howeyer,  he  refers  the 
 oaiufos  to  the  Zizypluis  vulgaris. 
 
 THORNS  AND  THISTLES    3237 
 
 Several  varieties  of  the  egg-plant  are  found  in 
 Palestine,  and  some  have  supposed  that  the  fenied 
 Dead  Sea  apples  are  the  fruit  of  the  S.  Sodomeum 
 when  suffering  from  the  attacks  of  some  in.sect; 
 but  see  on  this  subject  Vine  of  Sodom.  The 
 Heb.  term  may  be  generic,  and  intended  to  denote 
 any  thorny  plant  suitable  for  hedges. 
 
 3.  Clwach  (ij  1(1 :  &Kav,  &Kav6a,  aKXovx, 
 KviSr]:  prdhirus,  lappa,  spina,  tribulus),  a  word  of 
 very  uncertain  meaning  which  occurs  in  the  sense 
 of  some  thorny  plant  in  Is.  xxxiv.  13;  Hos.  ix.  6; 
 Prov.  xxvi.  9;  Cant.  ii.  2;  2  K.  xiv.  9,  "  the  cliuach 
 of  Lebanon  s-ent  to  the  cedar  of  Lebanon,"  etc.  See 
 also  Job  xxxi.  40:   "  Let  choach  (A.  V.  'thistles  ') 
 
 hyciimi  Europmum. 
 
 grow  instead  of  wheat."  Celsius  (Tliernb.  i.  477) 
 believes  the  black-thorn  (Primus  sylvestris)  i.s 
 denoted,  but  this  would  not  suit  the  jiassage  in 
 .Job  just  quoted,  from  which  it  is  probable  that 
 some  thorny  weed  of  a  quick  growth  is  intended. 
 Perha|is  the  term  is  used  in  a  wide  sense  to  signify 
 any  thorny  plant;  this  opinion  may,  perhaps,  re- 
 ceive some  slight  confirmation  from  the  various 
 renderings  of  the  Hebrew  word  as  given  by  the 
 LXX.  and  Vulgate. 
 
 4.    Dardar   ("T?"!"^:     rpi^oXos'    tribulus)    is 
 mentioned  twice  in  connection  with  the   Heb.  kols 
 
 ( V^P)'  namely,  in  Gen.  iii.  18,  "  thorns  and  this- 
 tles  "  (A.  v.),  and  in  Hos.  x.  8,  "  the  thorn  and 
 the  thistle  shall  come  up  on  their  altars."  The 
 Greek  Tpi^oXos  occurs  in  Matt.  vii.  IG,  "  Do  men 
 gather  figs  of  thistles'? "  See  also  Heb.  vi.  8, 
 where  it  is  rendered  "  briers  "  by  tlie  A.  V.  There 
 is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  plant  oi 
 
3238    THORNS  AND  THISTLES 
 
 plants  indicated  by  the  Greek  rpi0o\os  and  the 
 Latin  tribulus.  Of  tlie  two  kinds  of  land  tribuU 
 mentioned  by  the  Greeks  (Dioscorides,  iv.  15; 
 Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plunt.  vi.  7,  §  5),  one  is  sup- 
 posed by  Sprengel,  Stackhouse,  Royle,  and  otliers, 
 to  refer  to  the  Tribulus  lerrestris,  Linn.,  the  other 
 to  the  Fayonia  Crelica  ;  but  see  Schneider's  Com- 
 ment, on  Theophrastus  /.  c,  and  Du  Molin  (Flore 
 Poetique  A>icle7ine,  p.  305),  who  identifies  the  trib- 
 ulus of  Vir2;il  with  the  Centaurea  calcilrrqya,  Linn. 
 ("star-thistle").  Celsius  (Hierob.  ii.  128)  ar- 
 gues in  fa^•or  of  the  Fac/onia  Arabics,  of  which 
 a  figure  is  given  in  Shaw's  Travels  (Catal.  Plant. 
 No.  229);  see  also  Forskal,  Flor.  Arab.  p.  88.  It 
 is  probable  that  either  the  Tribulus  terreslris, 
 which,  however,  is  not  a  spiny  or  thorny  plant, 
 but  has  spines  on  the  fruit,  or  else  the  C.  calcitrapa, 
 is  the  plant  which  is  more  particularly  intended  by 
 the  word  dardar. 
 
 THORNS  AND  THISTLES 
 
 5.  Slidmir  (T^QE?),  almost  always  found  in  con- 
 nection with  the  word  sha'ith  (H^l^),  occurs  in  sev- 
 eral places  of  the  Hebrew  text ;  it  is  variously  rej.~ 
 dered  by  the  LXX.,  x^P<ros,  x^P'^o^->  5e'p/Jij,  &y- 
 pcoffTis,  ^ripa..      According  to  Abu'lfadl,  cited  by 
 
 Celsius  {Hierob.  ii.  188),  "the  Samur  (..4,.^)  of 
 
 the  Arabs  is  a  thorny  tree ;  it  is  a  species  of  Sidra 
 which  does  not  produce  fruit."  No  thorny  plants 
 are  more  conspicuous  in  Palestine  and  the  Bible 
 lands  than  different  kinds  of  Rhamnacece  such  as 
 Paliurus  aculeatus  (Christ's  Thorn),  and  Zizyphus 
 Spina  C/irisli ;  this  latter  plant  is  the  neb/c  of  the 
 Arabs,  which  grows  abundantly  in  Syria  and  Pal- 
 estine, both  in  wet  and  dry  places;  Dr.  Hooker 
 noticed  a  specimen  nearly  40  feet  high,  spreading 
 as  widely  as  a  good  Quercus  ilex  in  England.    The 
 
 Tribulus  Terrestris. 
 
 nebk  fringes  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  and  flourishes 
 on  the  marshy  banks  of  the  Lake  of  Tiberias;  it 
 forms  either  a  shrub  or  a  tree,  and,  indeed,  is  quite 
 common  all  over  the  country.  The  Arabs  have  tlie 
 terms  S(dam,  Sidrn^  Dlidl,  Nnbca,  which  appear  to 
 denote  either  varieties  or  different  species  of  Paliu- 
 rus and  Zizyphus,  or  different  states  perhaps  of 
 the  same  tree:  but  it  is  a  difficult  matter  to  assign 
 to  each  its  particular  signification.     The  Nadtsvts 
 
 (V11J373)  of  Is',  vii.  19,  Iv.  13,  probably  denotes 
 
 some  species  of  ZizypJitts.  The  "  crown  of  thorns  " 
 which  was  put  in  derision  upon  our  Lord's  head  just 
 before  his  crucifixion,  was  probably  composed  of 
 the  thorny  twigs  of  the  nebk  {Zizyphus  Spina 
 Christi)  mentioned  above;  being  common  every- 
 where, they  could  readily  be  procured.  "  This 
 plant,"  says  Hasselquist  {Trav.  p.  288),  was  very 
 suitable  for  the  purpose,  as  it  has  many  sharp 
 thorns,  and  its  flexible,  pliant,  and  round  branches 
 might  easily  be  plaited  in  the  form  of  a  crown;  and 
 what,  in  my  opinion,  seems  to  be  the  greatest  proof 
 is,  tnat  the  leaves  much  resemble  those  of  ivy,  as 
 they  are  a  very  deep  green."  Perhaps  the  enemies 
 of  Christ  would  have  a  plant  somewhat  resembling 
 that  with  which  emperors  and  generals  were  used 
 to  be  crowned,  that  there  might  be  calumny  even 
 in  the  punishment."     Still,  as  RosenmiiUer  {Bib. 
 
 Bot.  p.  201)  remarks,  "  there  being  so  many  kinds 
 of  thorny  plants  in  Palestine,  all  conjectures  must 
 remain  uncertain,  and  can  never  lead  to  any  satis- 
 factory result."  Although  it  is  not  possible  to  fix 
 upon  any  one  definite  Hebrew  word  as  the  repre- 
 sentative of  any  kind  of  "  thistle,"  yet  there  can  be 
 no  doubt  this  plant  must  be  occasionally  alluded  to. 
 Hasselquist  {Trnv.  p.  280),  noticed  six  species  of 
 Cardui  and  Cuici  on  the  road  between  Jerusalem 
 and  Rama;  and  Miss  Beaufort  speaks  of  giant 
 thistles  of  the  height  of  a  man  on  horseback,  which 
 she  saw  near  the  ruins  of  I'ellham  ( F//yplian  Sep. 
 and  Syrian  Shrines,  ii.  45,  50).  We  must  also 
 notice  another  thorny  plant  and  very  troublesome 
 weed,  the  rest-harrow  {Ononis  spinosa),  which 
 covers  entire  fields  and  plains  both  in  Egypt  and 
 Palestine,  and  which,  as  Hasselquist  says  (p.  289), 
 is  no  doubt  referred  to  in  some  parts  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 Dr.  Thomson  {Land  and  Bool;  p.  59)  illus- 
 trates Is.  xxxiii.  12,  "  the  people  shall  be  as  the 
 burning  of  lime,  as  thorns  cut  up  shall  they  be 
 burned  in  the  fire,"  by  the  following  observation, 
 "  Those  people  j-onder  are  cutting  up  thorns  with 
 their  mattocks  and  pruning-hooks,  and  gathering 
 them  into  bundles  to  be  burned  in  these  burnings 
 of  lime.  It  is  a  curious  fidelity  to  real  life  that 
 when  the  thorns  are  merely  to  be  destroyed,  they 
 
 a  Hasselquist  must  have  intended  to  restrict  the   leaves,  for  the  plants  do  not  in  the  slightest  jtegref 
 •imilarlty  here  spoken  of  entirely  to  the  color  of  the    resemble  each  other  in  the  form  of  the  leaves. 
 
THOROW 
 
 are  never  cut  up,  but  set  on  fire  where  they  grow. 
 They  are  cut  up  only  for  the  lime-kiln."  See  also 
 p.  342  for  other  Scriptural  allusions."         W.  H. 
 
 *  THOROW,  Ex.  xiv.  16  (A.  V.),  in  the  ed. 
 of  1011,  the  old  forjii  for  "through."  H. 
 
 *  THOROWOUT,  originally  in  Num.  xxviii. 
 29,  but  superseded  by  "throughout."  H. 
 
 *  THOUGHT.  The  phrase  "to  take  ?/(o?(ry/!r' 
 is  used  in  the  A.  V^.  (1  Sam.  ix.  5;  Matt.  vi.  25,  27, 
 28,  31,  31,  X.  19,  and  the  parallel  passages)  in  the 
 sense  of  "to  be  anxious"  (Gr.  jj.epijj.ydoo)-  So 
 often  in  the  older  English  writers.  A. 
 
 THRA'CIA  (QpaKla,  7])-  A  Thracian  horse- 
 man is  incidentally  mentioned  in  2  Mace.  xii.  35, 
 apparently  one  of  the  body-guard  of  Ciorgias,  gover- 
 nor of  Idumaia  under  .Vntiochus  Epiphanes.  Thrace 
 at  this  period  included  the  whole  of  the  country 
 within  the  boundary  of  the  Strymon,  the  Danube, 
 and  the  coasts  of  the  yEgean,  Fropontis,  and  Eux- 
 ine  —  all  the  region,  in  fact,  now  comprehended  in 
 Bulgaria  and  Roumelia.  In  the  early  times  it  was 
 inhabited  by  a  number  of  tribes,  each  under  its 
 own  chief,  having  a  name  of  its  own  and  preserving 
 its  own  customs,  although  the  same  general  charac- 
 ter of  fej'ocity  and  addiction  to  plunder  pre\ailed 
 throughout.  Thucydides  describes  the  limits  of 
 the  coautry  at  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian  war, 
 when  Sitalces  king  of  the  Odrysoe,  who  inhaliited 
 the  valley  of  the  Uebrus  {Marilza),  had  acquired 
 a  predominant  power  in  the  country,  and  derived 
 what  was  for  those  days  a  large  revenue  from  it. 
 This  revenue,  however,  seems  to  have  arisen  mainly 
 out  of  his  relations  with  the  Greek  trading  connnu- 
 nities  established  on  ditterent  points  of  his  seaboard. 
 Some  of  the  clans,  even  within  the  limits  of  his  do- 
 minion, still  retained  their  independence;  but  after 
 the  estalilislnnent  of  a  Macedonian  dynasty  under 
 Lysimachus,  the  central  autliority  became  more  pow- 
 erful ;  and  tlie  wars  on  a  large  scale  which  followed 
 the  death  of  Alexander  furnished  employment  for 
 the  martial  tendencies  of  the  Thracians,  who 
 found  a  demand  for  their  services  as  mercenaries 
 e\'erywhere.  Cavalry  was  the  arm  which  they 
 chieriy  furnished,  the  rich  pastures  of  Koumelia 
 abounding  in  horses.  From  that  region  came  the 
 greater  part  of  Sitalces'  cavalry,  amounting  to 
 nearly  50,000. 
 
 The  only  other  passage,  if  any,  containing  an 
 allusion  to  Thrace,  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  is 
 Gen.  X.  2,  where  —  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  sons 
 of  Japhet,  who  are  enumerated,  may  he  regarded  as 
 the  eponymous  representatives  of  difterent  branches 
 of  the  Japhetian  family  of  nations  —  Tlras  has  by 
 some  been  supposed  to  mean  Thrace;  but  the  only 
 ground  for  this  identification  is  a  fancied  similarity 
 between  the  two  names.  A  stronger  likeness,  how- 
 ever, might  lie  urged  between  the  name  Tiras  and 
 that  of  the  Tyrsi  or  Tyrseni,  the  ancestors  of  the 
 Italian  Etruscans,  whom,  on  the  strength  of  a 
 local  tradition,  Herodotus  places  in  Lydia  in  the 
 ante-historical  times.  Strabo  brings  forward  sev- 
 eral facts  to  show  that,  in  the  early  ages,  Thra- 
 cians existed  on  the  Asiatic  as  well  as  the  Euro- 
 pean shore;  but  this  circumstance  furnisiies  very 
 little  help  towards   the  identification  referred  to. 
 
 a  *  On  tlie  Biblical  names  of  thorn  and  thistle, 
 see  Dietrich's  AbkamJlungtn  far  Seinitisdie  Wortfor- 
 ichung,  pp.  35-95  (Leipz.  1S44).  H. 
 
 THRESHOLDS,  THE       3239 
 
 (Herodotus,  i.  94,  v.  3  ff.;  Thucydides,  ii.  97- 
 Tacitus,  Annal.  iv.  35;  Horat.  Sat.  i.  6.) 
 
 J.  W.  B. 
 
 THRASE'AS  {©paffalos--  Tharsceas).  Fa- 
 ther of  Apollonius  (1).     2   Mace.  iii.  5.     [Apo' - 
 
 LONIUS.] 
 
 *  THREAD.     [Hanpicraft,  6;  Lace.] 
 
 THREE  TAVERNS  (TpersTa/Sepmi:  Tres 
 Taber7U(i),  a  station  on  the  Appian  Road,  along 
 which  St.  Paul  travelled  from  Puteoli  to  Rome 
 (Acts  xxviii.  15).  The  distances,  reckoning  south- 
 ward from  Rome,  are  given  as  follows  in  the  Anto- 
 nine  Jtinerary,  "to  Aricia,  16  miles;  to  Three 
 Taverns,  17  miles;  to  Appii  Forum,  10  miles;  " 
 and,  comparing  tliis  with  what  is  observed  stiU 
 along  the  line  of  road,  we  have  no  dithculty  in 
 coming  to  the  conclusion  that  "  Three  Taverns  " 
 was  near  the  modern  Cislcrna.  For  details  see 
 the  Diet,  of'  Greek  and  Rom.  Geog.  ii.  1226  b, 
 1291  b. 
 
 Just  at  this  point  a  road  came  in  frohi  Antium 
 on  the  coast.  This  we  learn  from  what  Cicero  says 
 of  a  journey  from  that  place  to  his  villa  at  Formiae 
 {Alt.  ii.  12).  There  is  no  doubt  that  "  Three  Tav- 
 erns "  was  a  frequent  meeting-place  of  travellers. 
 The  point  of  interest  as  regards  St.  Paul  is  that  he 
 met  here  a  group  of  C-hristians  who  (like  a  previous 
 group  whom  he  had  met  at  Appii  Forum)  came 
 from  Rome  to  meet  him  in  consequence  of  having 
 heard  of  his  arrival  at  Puteoli.  A  good  illustra- 
 tion of  this  kind  of  intercourse  along  the  Appian 
 Way  is  supplied  by  Josephus  {Anl.  xvii.  12,  §  1)  in 
 his  account  of  the  journey  of  the  pretender  Herod- 
 Ale.\ander.  He  landed  at  Pufeoli  (Dicsearchia)  to 
 gain  over  the  Jews  that  were  there;  and  "when 
 the  report  went  about  him  that  he  was  coming  to 
 Rome,  the  whole  multitude  of  the  Jews  that  were 
 there  went  out  to  meet  him,  ascribing  it  to  Divine 
 Pro\idence  that  he  had  so  unexpectedly  escaped." 
 
 J.  S.  H. 
 
 THRESHING.     [Agriculture,  i.  43  f.] 
 
 *  THRESHING-FLOOR.  [Agricul- 
 ture; Ruth,  Book  of.] 
 
 THRESHOLD.  1.  (See  Gate.)  2.  Of 
 the  two  words  so  rendered  in  A.  V.,  one,  miph- 
 idii,"-  seems  to  mean  sometimes,  as  the  Targum 
 explains  it,  a  projecting  beam  or  corbel,  at  a  higher 
 jjoint  than  the  threshold  properly  so  called  (Ez. 
 ix.  3,  X.  4,  18). 
 
 THRESHOLDS,  THE  C'H'pSn  :  eV  t^ 
 (Tvvayaye^V'  vestlbul't).  This  word,  ha-Asiippi, 
 appears  to  be  inaccurately  rendered  in  Neh.  xii. 
 25,  though  its  real  force  has  perhaps  not  yet  been 
 
 discovered.     The  "  house  of  the  Asuppim"   (n"^!Il 
 
 D'^^pSn),  or  simply  "the  Asuppim,"  is  men- 
 tioned in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  15,  17,  as  a  part,  probably  a 
 gate,  of  the  inclosure  of  the  "  House  of  Jehovah,'' 
 L  e.  the  Tabernacle,  as  established  by  David  —  ap- 
 parently at  its  S.  W.  corner.  The  allusion  in  Neh. 
 xii.  25  is  undoubtedly  to  the  same  i)lace,  as  is 
 shown  not  only  by  the  identity  of  the  name,  but 
 by  the  reference  to  David  (ver.  24;  compare  1  Chr. 
 xxv.  1).     Asuppim  is  derived  from  a  root  signifying 
 
 a   ^rnpQ  :   aWpioc  :  limeti  (see  Qes.  p.  1141). 
 
3240 
 
 THRONE 
 
 "  to  gather  "  (Gesenius,  Thes.  p.  131),  and  in  the 
 absence  of  any  indication  of  what  the  "  lionse  of 
 the  Asiip])ini  "  was,  it  is  \arionsIy  explained  by  tlie 
 lexicographers  as  a  store-chamber  (Gesenius),  or  a 
 place  of  assembly  (Fiirst.  Bertheau).  The  LXX. 
 in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  have  olicos  "Ecreipeiv-  Vul^r.  ihmms 
 seniorum  concilium.  On  the  other  hand  the  Tar- 
 gum  renders  the  word  by  ?l*lpt?7,  "  a  lintel,''  as  if 
 deriving  it  from  r|P,  G. 
 
 THRONE  'WB3).  The  Hebrew  term  ciisc 
 applies  to  any  elevated  seat  occupied  by  a  person 
 in  authority,  whether  a  high-priest  (1  Sam.  i.  0),  a 
 judge  (I's.  cxxii.  5),  or  a  military  chief  (Jer.  i.  15). 
 The  use  of  a  chair  in  a  country  where  the  usual 
 postures  were  squatting  and  reclining,  was  at  all  times 
 regarded  as  a  symbol  of  dignity  (2  K.  iv.  10;  Prov. 
 ix.  14).  In  order  to  specify  a  throne  in  our  sense 
 of  the  term,  it  was  necessary  to  add  to  cisse  the 
 notion  of  royalty:  hence  the  freqiient  occurrence  of 
 such  expressions  as  "the  throne  of  the  kingdom  " 
 
 Assvrifiu  throne  or  chair  of  state  (Layard,  Nineveh,  ii. 
 301). 
 
 (Deut.  xvii.  18;  1  K.  i.  46;  2  Chr.  vii.  18).  The 
 characteristic  feature  in  the  royal  throne  was  its 
 elevation :  Solomon's  throne  was  approached  by  six 
 steps  (1  K.  X.  19;  2  Chr.  ix.  18);  and  Jehovah's 
 throne  is  described  as  "  high  and  lifted  up  "  (Is.  vi. 
 1).  The  materials  and  workmanship  were  costl}': 
 that  of  Solomon  is  described  as  a  "  throne  of  ivory  " 
 {i.  e.  inlaid  with  ivory),  and  overlaid  with  pure 
 gold  in  all  parts  except  where  the  ivory  was  appar- 
 ent. It  was  furnished  with  arms  or  "stays,"  after 
 the  manner  of  the  Assyrian  chair  of  state  depicted 
 above.  The  steps  wei'e  also  lined  with  pairs  of 
 lions,  the  number  of  them  being  perhaps  designed 
 to  correspond  with  that  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
 As  to  tlie  form  of  the  chair,  we  are  only  informed 
 in  1  K.  X.  19,  that  "  the  top  was  round  behind  " 
 (apparently  meaning  either  that  the  back  was 
 rounded  off  at  the  top,  or  that  there  was  a  cir- 
 cular canopy  over  it):  in  lieu  of  this  particular  we 
 are  told  in  2  Chr.  ix.  18  that  "there  was  a  footstool 
 of  gold,  fastened  to  the  throne,"  but  the  verbal 
 agreement  of  the  descriptions  in  other  respects  leads 
 to  the  presumption  that  this  variation  arises  out  of 
 a  corrupted  text  (Thenius,  Comm.  in  1  K.  /.  c. ),  a 
 *esumption  which  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  the 
 
 THUNDER 
 
 terms  IT??  and  the  Hophal  form  CTFIS^ 
 occur  nowhere  else.  The  king  sat  on  his  throne  on 
 Slate  occasions,  as  when  granting  audiences  (1  K. 
 ii.  19,  xxii.  10;  Esth.  v.  1),  receiving  homage  (2 
 K.  xi.  19),  or  administering  justice  (I'rov.  xx.  8). 
 At  such  times  he  appeared  in  his  royal  robes  (1  K. 
 xxii.  10;  Jon.  iii.  G;  Acts  xii.  21).  The  throne 
 was  the  symbol  of  supreme  power  and  dignity  (Gen. 
 xli.  40),  and  hence  was  attributed  to  Jehovah  both 
 in  respect  to  his  heavenly  abode  (I's.  xi.  4,  ciii.  19 ; 
 Is.  Ixvi.  1 ;  Acts  vii.  49 ;  Kev.  iv.  2),  or  to  his  earthly 
 aliode  at  Jerusalem  (Jer.  iii.  17),  and  more  particu- 
 larly in  the  Temple  (Jer.  xvii.  12;  Ez.  xliii.  7). 
 Siniilarly  "  to  sit  upon  the  throne  "  imiilied  the  e.x- 
 ercise  of  regal  power  (Deut.  xvii.  18;  1  K.  xvi.  11; 
 2  K.  X.  30;  Esth.  i.  2),  and  "  to  sit  upon  the  throne 
 of  another  person,"  succession  to  the  royal  dignity 
 (1  K.  i  13).  In  Neb.  iii.  7,  the  term  cisse  is  applied 
 to  the  official  residence  of  the  governor,  which  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  either  on  or  near  to  the  city 
 wall.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 THUMMIM.     [UniM  AND  TnuMMiM.] 
 
 THUNDER  (C5^r)-  In  a  physical  point  of 
 view,  the  most  noticeable  feature  in  connection  with 
 thunder  is  the  extreme  rarity  of  its  occurrence  dur- 
 ing the  summer  months  in  Palestine  and  the  adja- 
 cent countries.  Erom  the  middle  of  Ajiril  to  the 
 middle  of  September  it  is  hardly  ever  heard.  Kob- 
 inson,  indeed,  mentions  an  instance  of  thunder  in 
 the  early  part  of  May  {Jiesearclus,  i.  430),  and 
 Kus.sell  in  July  (Aleppo,  ii.  289),  but  in  each  case 
 it  is  stated  to  be  a  most  unusual  event.  Hence  it 
 was  selected  by  Samuel  as  a  striking  expression  of 
 the  Divine  displeasure  towards  the  Israelites:  "Is 
 it  not  wheat  harvest  to-day  ?  I  will  call  upon  the 
 Lord,  and  he  shall  send  thunder  and  rain"  (1  Sam. 
 xii.  17).  liain  in  harvest  was  deemed  as  extraor- 
 dinary as  snow  in  summer  (Prov.  xxvi.  1 ),  and  Je- 
 rome asserts  that  he  had  never  witnessed  it  in  the 
 latter  part  of  June  or  in  July  {Comm.  on  Am.  iv. 
 7):  the  same  observations  apply  equally  to  tiiunder 
 which  is  rarely  unaccompanied  witli  rain  (Kussell, 
 i.  72,  ii.  285).  In  the  imaginative  philosophy  of 
 the  Hebrews,  thunder  was  regarded  as  the  voice  of 
 Jehovah  (Job  xxxvii.  2,  4,  5,  xl.  9;  Ps.  xviii.  13, 
 xxix.  3-9;  Is.  xxx.  30,  31),  who  dwelt  behind  the 
 thunder-cloud  (Ps.  Ixxxi.  7).  Hence  tiiunder  is 
 occasionally  described  in  the  Hebrew  by  the  term 
 "voices"  (Ex.  ix.  23,28;  1  Sam.  xii.  17).  Hence 
 the  people  in  the  Gospel  supposed  that  the  voice  of 
 the  Lord  was  the  sound  of  thunder  (John  xii.  29). 
 Thunder  was,  to  the  mind  of  the  Jew,  the  symbol 
 of  Divine  power  (Ps.  xxix.  3,  (ic),  and  vengeance 
 (1  Sam.  ii.  1^;  2  Sam.  xxii.  14;  Ps.  Ixxvii.  18;  Is. 
 xxix.  C;  I!ev.  viii.  5).  It  was  either  the  sign  or 
 the  instrument  of  his  wrath  on  numerous  occasions, 
 as  during  the. plague  of  hail  in  I'^gypt  (Ex.  ix.  23, 
 28),  at  the  promulgation  of  the  Law  (Ex.  xix.  16), 
 at  the  discomfiture  of  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  vii. 
 10),  and  when  the  Israehtes  demanded  a  king  (1 
 Sam.  xii.  17).  The  term  thunder  was  transferred 
 to  the  war-shout  of  a  military  leader  (Job  xxxix. 
 25),  and  hence  Jehovah  is  descrii)ed  as  "causing 
 his  voice  to  be  heard  "  in  the  battle  (Is.  xxx.  30). 
 It  is  also  used  as  a  superlative  expression  in  Job 
 xxvi.  14,  where  the  "  thunder  of  his  power  "  is  con- 
 trasted with  the  "  little  portion,"  or  rather  the//«n- 
 tle  u-Jiiaper  that  can  be  heard.  In  Job  xxxix.  19, 
 "  thunder  "is  a  mistranslation  for  "a  flowing  mane." 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
THYATIRA 
 
 THYATI'RA  (@vdrfipa,  rd'  civitns  Tlnjati- 
 renorum).  A  city  on  the  Lycus,  fotinded  by  Seleu- 
 cas  Nicator.  It  was  one  of  the  many«i\Iacecloiiian 
 colonies  established  in  Asia  Minor,  in  the  sequel  of 
 the  destruction  of  the  Persian  empire  by  Alexan- 
 der. It  lay  to  the  left  of  tlie  road  ironi  Pers;anius 
 to  Sardis,  on  the  southern  incline  of  the  water-shed 
 which  separates  the  valley  of  tlie  Cains  (Bakijri- 
 chui)  from  that  of  the  Hernuis,  on  the  very  con- 
 fines of  Mysia  and  Ionia,  so  as  to  be  sometimes 
 reckoned  witiiiu  the  one,  and  sometimes  within  the 
 other.  In  earlier  times  it  had  borne  the  names  of 
 Pelopia,  Semiraniis,  and  Euhippia.  At  the  com- 
 mencement of  tlie  Christian  era,  the  JMacedonian 
 element  so  preponderated  as  to  give  a  distinctive 
 character  to  the  population ;  and  Stralio  simply  calls 
 it  a  ilucedonian  colony.  The  original  inhabitants 
 had  probably   been   distributed  in  hamlets  round 
 
 THYATIRA  3241 
 
 about,  when  Thyatira  was  founded.  Two  of  these, 
 the  inhabitants  of  which  are  termed  Areni  and 
 Naychmi,  are  noticed  in  an  inscription  of  tlie  Ro- 
 man times.  The  resources  of  the  neigliborini^  re- 
 i^ion  may  be  inferred,  both  from  the  name  Euhippia 
 and  from  the  magnitude  of  tiie  booty  which  was 
 carried  oft'  in  a  foray  conducted  jointly  by  Eumenes 
 of  Pergannis  and  a  force  detached  by  the  Roman 
 admiral  from  Canae,  during  tlie  war  against  Anti- 
 ochus.  During  the  campaign  of  b.  c.  190,  Thy- 
 atira formed  the  base  of  the  king's  operations;  and 
 after  his  defeat,  which  took  place  only  a  few 
 miles  to  tlie  south  of  the  city,  it  submitted,  at  the 
 same  time  with  its  neighbor  Jlagnesia-on-Sipylus, 
 to  the  Romans,  and  was  included  in  the  territory 
 made  over  by  them  to  their  ally  the  Pergaiuene 
 sovereign. 
 
 During  the  continuance  of  the  Attalic  dynasty, 
 
 '^'^^T^^^Wl 
 
 Thjatiia 
 
 Thyatira  scarcely  appears  in  history;  and  of  the 
 various  inscriptions  which  have  been  found  on  the 
 site,  now  called  Ak  Hissar,  not  one  unequivocally 
 belongs  to  earlier  times  than  those  of  the  Roman 
 empire.  The  prosperity  of  the  city  seems  to  have 
 received  a  new  impulse  under  Vespasian,  whose  ac- 
 quaintance with  the  East,  previously  to  mounting 
 the  imperial  tlirone,  may  have  directed  his  atten- 
 tion to  the  development  of  tlie  resources  of  the 
 Asiatic  cities.  A  bilingual  inscription,  in  Greek 
 and  Latin,  belonging  to  the  latter  part  of  his  reign, 
 shows  him  to  have  restored  the  roads  in  the  domain 
 of  Thyatira.  Erom  others,  between  this  time  and 
 that  of  Caracalla,  there  is  evidence  of  the  existence 
 of  many  corporate  guilds  in  the  city.  Bakers,  pot- 
 ters, tanners,  weavers,  robemakers,  and  dyers  {ol 
 ^a<(>e7s)  are  specially  mentioned.  Of  these  last 
 there  is  a  notice  in  no  less  than  three  inscriptions, 
 so  that  dyeing  apparently  formed  an  important  part 
 of  the  industrial  activity  of  Thyatira,  as  it  did  of 
 that  of  Colosste  and  Laodieea.  With  this  guild 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Lydia,  the  seller  of  pur- 
 204 
 
 pie  stuffs  {■irop<pvp6Trcii\is),  from  whom  .St.  Paul 
 met  with  so  favorable  a  reception  at  Piiilippi  (Acts 
 xvi.  14),  was  connected. 
 
 The  principal  deity  of  the  city  was  Apollo,  wor- 
 shipped as  the  sun-god  under  the  surname  Tyrim- 
 nas.  He  was  no  doubt  introduced  by  the  Jlace- 
 doniaii  colonists,  for  the  name  is  Macedonian.  One 
 of  the  three  mythical  kings  of  Macedonia,  whom  the 
 genealogists  placed  before  Perdiccas  —  the  first  of 
 the  Temenidaj  that  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  rec- 
 ognize —  is  so  called ;  the  other  two  being  Cnranus 
 and  Canus,  manifestly  impersonations  of  the  cliief 
 and  the  tribe.  The  inscriptions  of  Thyatira  give 
 Tyrimnas  the  titles  of  -n-poTroXis  and  ■n-puxd.Twp 
 Qi6s'i  and  a  special  priesthood  was  attached  to  his 
 service.  A  priestess  of  Artemis  is  also  mentioned, 
 ])robably  the  adi^inistratrix  of  a  cult  derived  from 
 the  earlier  times  of  the  city,  and  similar  in  its 
 nature  to  that  of  the  Ephesian  Artemis.  Another 
 superstition,  of  an  extremely  curious  nature,  which 
 existed  at  Thyatira,  seems  to  have  lieen  brought 
 thither  by  some  of  the  corrupted  Jews  o*'  the  dis- 
 
3242 
 
 THYINE  WOOD 
 
 persed  tribes.  A  fane  stood  outside  the  walls, 
 dedicated  to  Sanibatha  —  the  name  of  the  sibyl 
 who  is  sometimes  called  Chaldajan,  sometimes  Jew- 
 ish, sometimes  Persian  —  in  the  midst  of  an  in- 
 closure  desi^niated  "  the  t'haldajan's  court  "  (toC 
 Xa\5aioi/  7r6pi';6oAo$).  This  seems  to  lend  an 
 illustration  to  tiie  obscure  passage  in  liev.  ii.  20, 
 21,  which  Grotius  interprets  of  the  wife  of  the 
 bishop.  The  drawback  a<;ainst  tlie  commendation 
 bestowed  upon  the  angel  of  the  Thjatiran  church 
 is  that  he  tolerates  "  that  woman,  that  Jezebel, 
 who,  professing  herself  to  be  a  i)rophetess,  teaches 
 and  deludes  my  servants  into  connnittiiig  fornica- 
 tion and  eating  things  otiered  to  idols."  Time, 
 however,  is  given  her  to  repent;  and  this  seems  to 
 imply  a  form  of  religion  which  had  become  con- 
 denniable  from  the  admixture  of  foreign  alloy, 
 rather  than  one  idolatrous  ab  initio.  Now  there 
 is  evidence  to  show  that  in  Thyatira  there  was  a 
 great  amalgamation  of  races.  Latin  inscriptions 
 are  frequent,  indicating  a  considerable  influx  of 
 Italian  innnigrants;  and  in  some  Greek  inscriptions 
 many  Latin  words  are  introduced.  Latin  and 
 Greek  names,  too,  are  found  accumulated  on  the 
 same  individuals,  —  such  as  Titus  Antonius  Alfenus 
 Arignotus,  and  Julia  Severina  Stratonicis.  l!ut 
 amalgamation  of  different  races,  in  pagan  nations, 
 always  went  together  with  a  syncretism  of  diftijrent 
 religions,  every  relation  of  life  having  its  religious 
 sanction.  If  tlie  sibyl  Sanibatha  was  really  a 
 Jewess,  lending  her  aid  to  this  proceeding,  and  not 
 discountenanced  by  the  authorities  of  the  Judwo- 
 Christian  churcli  at  Thyatira,  both  the  censure  and 
 its  qualification  become  easy  of  explanation. 
 
 It  seems  also  not  improbable  that  the  imagery 
 of  the  description  in  Eev.  ii.  18,  6  ex'"*'  ''""^^ 
 6(pdaAfj.ovs  aiiTOv  ous  <p\6ya  irvp6s,  Kol  ol  TrJSes 
 aiiTov  oixoioi  x'^^f oAiySafo),  niay  have  been  sug- 
 gested by  the  current  pagan  rejiresentations  of  the 
 tutelary  deity  of  the  city.  See  a  parallel  case  at 
 Smyrna.      [Smyrna.] 
 
 Besides  the  cults  which  have  been  mentioned, 
 there  is  evidence  of  a  deification  of  Home,  of  Ha- 
 drian, and  of  the  imperial  family.  Games  were 
 celebrated  in  honor  of  Tyrimnas,  of  Hercules,  and 
 of  the  reigning  emperor.  On  the  coins  before  the 
 imperial  times,  the  beads  of  Bacchus,  of  Athene, 
 and  of  Cybele,  are  also  found :  but  the  inscriptions 
 only  indicate  a  cult  of  the  Last  of  these. 
 
 (Strabo,  xiii.  c.  4;  Pliny,  //.  N.  v.  31;  Liv. 
 xxxvii.  8,  21,  44;  Polybius,  xvi.  1,  xxxii.  25;  Steph- 
 anus  Byzant.  sub  v.  Qvar eipa;  Boeckh,  Jnscript. 
 Grcec.  T/iynlir.,  especially  Nos.  -3484-3499;  Suidas, 
 V.  'S.oLjx^rfit]'-  ^lian,  Vnr.  Hint.  xii.  3-5;  Clinton, 
 F.  11.  ii.  221;  Hoffmann,  Gritchenlnnd,  ii.  1714.) 
 
 J.  W.  B. 
 
 THYINE  WOOD  (|,',Aoi/  dvivoV.  lifjmm 
 tliyinum)  occurs  once  only,  namely,  in  Rev.  xviii. 
 12,  where  the  margin  has  "sweet"  (wood).  It  is 
 mentioned  as  one  of  the  valuable  articles  of  com- 
 merce that  should  be  found  no  more  in  Babylon 
 (Kome),  whose  fall  is  here  predicted  by  St.  John. 
 There  can  be  little  iloubt  that  the  w'ood  here  spoken 
 of  is  that  of  the  Tliuyi  artictdata,  Desfont.,  the 
 Cttllitris  quKi/riralcis  of  present  botanists.  This 
 tree  was  much  prized  by  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
 Eomans,  on  account  of  the  beauty  of  its  wood  for 
 various  ornamental  purposes.  It  is  the  Ouela  of 
 Theophrastus  {Hist.  Plmit.  iii.  4,  §§  2,  (i);  the 
 diuvov  li'Xov  of  Dioscorides  (i.  21).  By  the  I!o- 
 mans  the  tree  was  called  citrus,  the  wood  citrum. 
 It  is  a  native  of  Barbary,  and  grows  to  the  height 
 
 TIBERIAS 
 
 of  15  to  25  feet.  Pliny  (//.  N.  xiii.  15/  says  that 
 the  citrus  is  found  abundantly  in  IMauritania.  He 
 speaks  of  a  'mania  amongst  his  countryn)en  for 
 tables  made  of  its  wood;  and  tells  us  that  when 
 the  Roman  ladies  were  upbraided  by  their  husbands 
 fur  their  extra\'agance  in  pearls,  they  retorted  upoti 
 tliem  their  excessive  fondness  for  tables  made  of 
 this  v\ood.  Fabulous  prices  were  given  for  tables 
 and  other  ornamental  furniture  made  of  citrus  wood 
 (see  Pliny,  I.  c. ).  The  Greek  and  Roman  writers 
 frequently  allude  to  this  wood.  See  a  number  of 
 references  in  Celsius,  Ilierob.  ii.  25.     The  roof  of 
 
 r  y  I    , 
 
 rf      II 
 
 Thuya  ariiciilala. 
 
 the  mosque  at  Cordova,  built  in  the  9th  cent.,  is 
 of  "thyine  wood  "  (Loudon's  Arboretum,  iv.  2463). 
 Lady  Callcott  says  the  wood  is  dark  nut-brown, 
 close  grained,  and  very  fragrant."  The  resin 
 known  by  the  name  of  Sandarach  is  the  produce 
 of  this  tree,  which  belongs  to  the  cypress  tribe 
 ( C'upressinece),  of  the  nat.  order  Cvnijtrce. 
 
 W.  II. 
 
 TIBE'RIAS  {Til3epia.s-  Tiberias),  a  city  in 
 the  time  of  Christ,  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee;  first 
 mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  (John  vi.  1,  23, 
 xxi.  1),  and  then  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xviii.,  Bel. 
 Jud.  ii.  9,  §  1),  who  states  that  it  was  built  by 
 Herod  Antipas,  and  was  named  by  him  in  honor 
 of  the  emperor  I'iberius.  It  was  probably  a  new 
 town,  and  not  a  restored  or  enlarged  one  merely; 
 for  "  Rakkatli  "  (Josh.  xix.  35),  which  is  said  in 
 the  Talmud  to  have  occupied  the  same  position, 
 lay  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  (if  we  insist  on  the 
 boundaries  as  indicated  by  the  clearest  passages), 
 whereas  Til)erias  appears  to  have  been  within  the 
 limits  of  Zebulun  (Matt.  iv.  13).  See  Winer. 
 Ee(dw.  ii.  619.  The  same  remark  may  be  made 
 respecting  Jerome's  statement,  that  Tiberias  suc- 
 ceeded to  the  place  of  the  earlier  Chinnereth  (  Ono- 
 maslicon,  sub  voce);  for  this  latter  town,  as  may 
 
 a  "  It  is  highly  balsamic  and  odoriferous,  the  resiu, 
 no  doubt,  preventing  the  ravages  of  insects  as  well  as 
 the  influence  of  the  air"  (Loudon's  Arb.  1.  c). 
 
TIBERIAS 
 
 DC  argued  from  the  name  itself,  must  have  been 
 further  north  than  the  site  of  Tiberias.  The 
 tenacitj'  with  which  its  Roman  name  has  adhered 
 to  the  spot  (see  infra)  indicates  the  same  fact;  fur, 
 generally  speaking,  foreign  names  in  the  luist  ap- 
 plied to  towns  previously  known  under  names  de- 
 rived from  the  native  dialect,  as  e.  ;/.  Epiphania  for 
 Hammath  (Josh.  xix.  35),  Palmyra  for  Tadmor 
 (2  Chr.  viii.  4),  Ptoleniais  for  Akko  (Acts  xxi.  7), 
 lost  their  foothold  as  soon  as  the  foreign  power 
 passed  away  which  had  imposed  them,  and  gave 
 place  again  to  the  original  appellations.  Tiberias 
 was  the  capital  of  Galilee  from  the  time  of  its 
 origin  until  the  reign  of  Ilerod  Agrippa  II.,  who 
 changed  the  seat  of  power  back  again  to  Sejiphoris, 
 where  it  had  been  before  the  founding  of  the  new 
 city.  Many  of  the  inhabitants  were  (Jreeks  and 
 Romans,  and  foreign  customs  prevailed  there  to 
 such  an  extent  as  to  give  offense  to  the  stricter 
 Jews.     [IIkrodians.]      Herod,  the   founder   of 
 
 TIBERIAS 
 
 3243 
 
 Tiberias,  had  passed  most  of  his  early  life  in  Italy, 
 and  had  brought  with  him  thence  a  taste  for  the 
 amusements  and  magnificent  buildings,  with  which 
 he  had  been  familiar  in  that  country.  He  built  a 
 stadium  there,  like  that  in  whick  the  Roman  youth  , 
 trained  themselves  for  feats  of  rivalry  and  war. 
 He  erected  a  palace,  which  he  adorned  with  figures 
 of  animals,  "  contrary,"  as  Josephus  says  (  Vit.  §§ 
 12,  13,  6-1),  ''  to  the  law  of  our  countrymen." 
 The  place  was  so  much  the  less  attractive  to  the 
 Jews,  because,  as  the  same  authority  states  {Ant. 
 xviii.  2,  §  3),  it  stood  on  the  site  of  an  ancient 
 burial-ground,  and  was  viewed,  therefore,  by  the 
 more  scrupulous  among  them  almost  as  a  polluted 
 and  forbidden  Ijcality.  Coins  of  the  city  of  Tibe- 
 rias are  still  extant,  which  are  referred  to  the  times 
 of  Tiberias,  Trajan,  afld  Hadrian. 
 
 The  ancient  name  has  survi\ed  in  that  of  the 
 modern  Tubnrieh,  which  occupies  unquestionably 
 the  original  site,  except  that  it  is  confined  to  nar- 
 
 .^0^~ 
 
 lonu  mj  Lake  of  libcnas  lium  the  bouthwest 
 
 rower  limits  than  those  of  the  original  city.  Near 
 Tubiirie/i,  aliout  a  mile  further  south  along  the 
 shore  are  the  celebrated  warm  baths,  which  the 
 Roman  naturalists  (Plin.  Hist.  Nut.  v.  1.5)  reck- 
 oned among  the  greatest  known  curiosities  of  the 
 world.  [H.VMMATH.]  The  intermediate  space  be- 
 tween these  baths  and  the  town  abounds  with  the 
 traces  of  ruins,  such  as  the  foundations  of  walls, 
 heaps  of  stone,  blocks  of  granite,  and  the  hke; 
 and  it  cannot  be  doubted,  tlierefore,  that  the  an- 
 cient Tiberias  occupied  also  this  ground,  and  was 
 nuich  more  extensive  than  its  modern  successor. 
 From  such  indications,  and  from  the  explicit  testi- 
 mony of  Josephus,  who  says  (Ant.  xviii.  2,  §  3) 
 that  Tiberias  was  near  Ammaus  ('A;U^aous),  or  the 
 Warm  Baths,  there  can  be  no  uncertainty  respect- 
 ing the  identification  of  the  site  of  this  important 
 city.  It  stood  anciently  as  now,  on  the  western 
 shore,  about  two  thirds  ■  of  the  way  between  the 
 
 a  *  Mr.  MacGregor,  who  was  teu  days  iu  his  boat 
 on  the  lake  of  Galilee,  reports  an  interesting  discovery 
 on  the  sea-side  of  tlie  town  of  Tiberias.  He  observed 
 a  long  wall  of  stones,  just  above  the  surface  of  the 
 water,  300  or  400  yards  in  e.xtent,  three  cour.ses  of  them 
 out  of  the  water  at  one  end,  and  only  two  of  them  at 
 
 northern  and  southern  end  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
 There  is  a  margin  or  strip  of  land  there  between 
 the  water  and  the  steep  hills  (which  elsewhere  in 
 that  quarter  come  down  so  boldly  to  the  edge  oi 
 the  lake),  about  two  miles  long  and  a  quarter  of  a 
 mile  broad.  The  tract  in  question  is  somewhat 
 undulating,  but  approximates  to  the  character  of  a 
 plain.  Tubarieli,  the  modern  town,  occupies  the 
 northern  end  of  this  parallelogram,  and  the  Warm 
 Baths  the  southern  extremity;  so  that  the  more 
 extended  city  of  the  Roman  ap-e  must  have  covered 
 all,  or  nearly  all  of  the  peculiar  ground  whose 
 limits  are  thus  clearly  defined.  (See  Robinson's 
 Bibl.  Res.  ii.  380;  and  Porter's  Handbook,  ii.  421.) 
 The  present  Tubarith  has  a  rectangular  form,  is 
 guarded  by  a  strong  wall  on  the  land  side,  but  is 
 left  entirely  open  towards  the  sea.«  A  few  palm- 
 trees  still  remain  as  witnesses  of  the  luxuriant 
 vegetation  which  once  adorned  this  garden  of  the 
 
 the  other.  It  was  evident  that  it  had  "all  bodily 
 sunk  ;  the  whole  town  of  Tiberias  had  lowered  to- 
 wards the  south."  He  ascribes  this  sinking  to  the 
 great  earthquake  which  took  place  in  1837  (see  the 
 art.  above).  See  Report  of  the  Paleitine  Exptoration 
 i^M«rf,ch.  iii.  p.  101  f  U. 
 
8244  TIBERIAS 
 
 Promised  Land,  but  they  are  greatly  inferior  in 
 size  and  beauty  to  those  seen  in  Kgyijt.  Tlie 
 oleander  grows  here  profusely,  almost  rivaling  that 
 flower  so  much  admired  as  found  on  the  neighbor- 
 ing plain  of  Gemiesaret.  The  people,  as  of  old, 
 draw  their  subsistence  in  part  from  the  adjacent 
 lake.  The  spectator  from  his  position  here  com- 
 mands a  view  of  almost  the  entire  expanse  of  the 
 sea,  except  the  southern  part,  which  is  cut  off  by 
 a  slight  projection  of  the  coast.  The  precipices 
 on  the  opposite  side  appear  almost  to  overhang  the 
 water,  but  on  being  approached  are  found  to  stand 
 back  at  some  distance,  so  as  to  allow  travellers  to 
 pass  between  them  and  the  water.  The  lofty  Her- 
 mon,  the  modern  Jebtl  esli-Slieikli,  with  its  glisten- 
 ing snow-heaps,  forms  a  conspicuous  object  of  the 
 landscape  in  the  northeast.  ']\Iany  rock-tombs  ex- 
 ist in  the  sides  of  the  hills,  behind  the  town,  some 
 of  them  no  doubt  of  great  antiquity,  and  con- 
 structed in  the  best  style  of  such  monuments.  The 
 climate  here  in  the  warm  season  is  \ery  hot  and 
 unhealthy;  but  most  of  the  tropical  fruits,  as  in 
 other  parts  of  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  become 
 ripe  \ery  early,  and,  with  industry,  might  be  culti- 
 vated in  great  abundance  and  perfection.  The 
 article  on  GiiNNES.\HET  [vol.  i.  p.  895]  should  be 
 read  in  this  connection,  since  it  is  the  relation  of 
 Tiberias  to  the  surrounding  region  and  the  lake, 
 which  gave  to  it  its  chief  importance  in  the  first 
 Christian  age.  The  place  is  four  and  a  half  hours 
 from  Nazareth,  one  hour  from  Mejdel,  probably 
 the  ancient  JMagdala,  and  thirteen  hours,  by  the 
 shortest  route,  from  Bdnias  or  Ctesarea  Philippi. 
 
 It  is  remarkable  that  the  Gospels  give  us  no 
 information  that  the  Saviour,  who  spent  so  much 
 of  his  public  life  in  Galilee,  ever  visited  Tiberias. 
 The  surer  meaning  of  the  expression,  "  He  went 
 away  beyond  the  sea  of  Galilee  of  Tiljerias "  in 
 John  vi.  1  {irepav  t^s  6a\a.ffcrr)s  ttjs  VaKiAaias 
 r?)s  TifiepidSos),  is  not  that  Jesus  eniliarked  from 
 Tiberias,  but,  as  Meyer  remarks,  that  He  crossed 
 from  the  west  side  of  the  Galilean  sen  of  Tibeiins 
 to  the  opposite  side.  A  reason  has  been  assigned 
 for  this  singular  fact,  which  may  or  may  not  ac- 
 count for  it.  As  Herod,  the  nuirderer  of  John  the 
 Baptist,  resided  most  of  the  time  in  this  city,  the 
 Saviour  may  have  kept  purposely  away  from  it,  on 
 account  of  the  sanguinary  and  artful  (Luke  xiii. 
 32)  character  of  that  ruler.  It  is  certain,  from 
 Luke  xxiii.  8,  that  though  Herod  had  heard  of  tiie 
 fame  of  Christ,  he  never  saw  Him  in  person  until 
 they  met  at  Jerusalem,  and  never  witnessed  any  of 
 his  miracles.  It  is  possible  that  the  character  of 
 the  place,  so  much  like  that  of  a  lioman  colony, 
 may  have  been  a  reason  why  He  who  was  sent  to 
 the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  performed  so 
 little  labor  in  its  vicinity.  The  head  of  the  lake, 
 and  especially  the  plain  of  Gemiesaret,  where  the 
 population  was  more  dense  and  so  thoroughly  Jew- 
 ish, formed  the  central  point  of  his  Galilean  min- 
 istry. The  feast  of  Herod  and  his  courtiers,  befoie 
 whom  the  daughter  of  Herodias  danced,  and  in 
 fulfillment  of  the  tetrarch's  rash  oath  demanded 
 the  head  of  the  dauntless  reformer,  was  held  in  all 
 probability  at  Tiberias,  the  capital  of  the  province. 
 If,  as  Josephus  mentions  {Aid.  xviii.  5,  §  2),  the 
 Baptist  was  imprisoned  at  the  time  in  the  castle 
 of  ilachaerus  beyond  the  Jordan,  the  order  for  his 
 execution  could  have  been  sent  thither,  and  the 
 
 a  *  Probably  in  no  place  in  the  world  is  the  He-    teut  as  at  Tiberias.    (See  Tobler,  DeiihblaUer  aus  Jeru- 
 trew  spoken  as  a  vernacular  language  to  sucli  au  ex-    saiem,  p  284)  H. 
 
 TIBERIAS 
 
 bloody  trophy  forwarded  to  the  implacable  Herodiaa 
 at  the  palace  where  she  usually  resided.  Gams 
 [Johannes  der  TauJ'er  iin  Gejanqniss,  p.  47,  &c.) 
 suggests  that  John,  instead  of  being  kept  all  the 
 time  in  the  .same  castle,  may  have  been  confined  in 
 different  places,  at  diffcM-ent  times.  [Maoii.ekus, 
 Amer.  ed.]  The  three  passages  already  referred 
 to  are  the  only  ones  in  the  New  Testament  which 
 mention  Tiberias  by  name,  namely,  John  vi.  1, 
 and  xxi.  1  (in  both  instances  designating  the  lake 
 on  which  the  town  was  situated),  and  John  vi. 
 23,  where  boats  are  said  to  have  come  from 
 Tiberias  near  to  the  place  at  which  Jesus  had 
 supplied  miraculously  the  wants  of  the  multitude. 
 Thus  the  lake  in  the  time  of  Christ,  among  its 
 other  appellations,  bore  also  that  of  the  principal 
 city  in  the  neighborhood;  and  in  like  manner, 
 at  the  present  day,  Ba/u-  Tubariel/,  ''  Sea  of  Tu- 
 barieh,"  is  almost  the  oidy  name  under  which  it 
 is  known  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  country. 
 
 'I'ilierias  has  an  interesting  history,  apart  from  its 
 strictly  Biblical  associations.  It  bore  a  conspicu- 
 ous part  in  the  wars  between  the  Jews  and  the  lio- 
 mans.  The  Sanhedrim,  subsequently  to  the  fall  of 
 Jerusalem,  after  a  temporary  sojoin-n  at  Jamnia  and 
 Sepphoris,  became  fixed  tiiere  about  the  middle  of 
 the  2d  century.  Celelirated  schools  of  Jewish  leara- 
 ing  flourished  there  tiirough  a  succession  of  several 
 centuries.  The  Misbna  was  conqiiled  at  this  place 
 by  the  great  Kabbi  Judah  Ilakkodesh  (a.  d.  190). 
 The  Masorah,  or  body  of  traditions,  which  trans- 
 mitted the  readings  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  and  preserved  by  means  of  the  vowel 
 system  the  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew,  originated 
 in  a  great  measure  at  Tilierias.  The  place  passed, 
 under  Constantine,  into  the  power  of  the  Christians; 
 and  during  tlie  period  of  the  Crusades  was  lost  and 
 won  repeatedly  liy  the  different  condjatants.  Since 
 that  time  it  has  been  possessed  successively  by  Per- 
 sians, Arabs,  and  Turks;  and  contains  now,  under 
 the  'i'urkish  rule,  a  mixed  population  of  Moham- 
 medans, Jews,  and  Christians,  variously  estimated 
 at  from  two  to  four  thousand.  The  Jews  consti- 
 tute, perhaps,  one  fourth  of  the  entire  number. 
 They  regard  Tiberias  as  one  of  the  four  holy  places 
 (Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Safed,  are  the  others),  in 
 which,  as  they  say,  prayer  must  be  offered  without 
 ceasing,  or  the  world  would  fall  back  instantly  into 
 chaos.  One  of  their  singular  o|)inions  is  that  the 
 Messiah  when  He  appears  will  emerge  from  the 
 waters  of  the  lake,  and,  landing  at  Tiberias,  proceed 
 to  Safed,  and  there  establish  his  thi'one  on  the 
 highest  summit  in  Galilee.  In  addition  to  the 
 language  of  the  particidar  country,  as  Poland,  Ger- 
 many, Spain,  from  which  they  or  their  families  em- 
 igrated, most  of  the  Jews  here  speak  also  the  Eab- 
 binie  Hebrew,  and  modern  Arabic."  They  occupy 
 a  quarter  in  the  middle  of  the  town,  adjacent  to  the 
 lake;  just  north  of  which,  near  the  shore,  is  a 
 Latin  convent  and  church,  occupied  by  a  solitary 
 Italian  monk.  Tiberias  suffered  terribly  from  the 
 great  earthquake  in  1837,  and  has  not  yet  recovered 
 by  any  means  from  the  etiijcts  of  that  disaster.  In 
 18.52,  the  writer  of  this  article  (later  travellers 
 report  but  little  improvement)  rode  into  the  city 
 over  the  dilapidated  walls;  in  other  parts  of  them 
 not  overthrown,  rents  were  visible  from  top  to 
 bottom,  and  some  of  the  towers  looked  as  if  they 
 had  been  shattered  bj'  battering-rams.     It  is  sup- 
 
TIBERIAS 
 
 posed  that  at  least  seven  hundred  of  the  inhabit- 
 ants were  destroyed  at  that  time.  This  earthquake 
 was  severe  and  destructive  in  other  parts  of  Galilee. 
 It  was  a  similar  calamity  no  doubt,  such  as  had 
 left  a  strong  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  people, 
 to  which  Amos  refers,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
 prophecy,  as  forming  a  well-known  epoch  from 
 which  other  events  were  reckoned.  There  is  a 
 place  of  interment  near  Tii)erias,  in  which  a  distin- 
 guished Kabbi  is  said  to  be  buried  with  14,000  of 
 his  disciples  around  him.  The  grave  of  the  Ara- 
 bian philosopher  Lokman,  as  Burclchardt  states. 
 was  pointed  out  here  in  the  14th  century.  Kau- 
 mer's  Pnlastina  (p.  125)  mentions  some  of  the 
 foregoing  facts,  and  others  of  a  kindred  nature. 
 The  later  fortunes  of  the  place  are  sketclied  some- 
 what at  length  in  Dr.  Robinson's  Biblicnl  Re- 
 searches^ iii.  267-274  (ed.  1841).  It  is  unnecessary 
 to  specify  other  works,  as  Tiberias  lies  in  the  ordi- 
 nary route  of  travellers  in  the  East,  and  will  be 
 found  noticed  more  or  less  fully  in  most  of  the 
 books  of  any  completeness  in  this  department  of 
 authorship. 
 
 Professor  Stanley,  in  his  Notices  of'  some  Local- 
 ities, etc.  (p.  193),  has  added  a  few  charming 
 touches  to  the  admirable  description  already  given 
 in  his  Sill,  unci  Pal.  (.368-82).  H.  B.  H. 
 
 TIBE'RIAS,  THE  SEA  OF  (^  edkaacra 
 TTJs  Ti^epiddos'  mare  Tiberiadis).  Tiiis  term  is 
 found  only  in  John  xxi.  1,  the  other  passage  in 
 which  it  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  {ibid.  vi.  1)  being,  if 
 the  original  is  accurately  rendered,  "  the  sea  of 
 Galilee,  of  Tiberias."  St.  John  probably  uses  the 
 name  as  more  familiar  to  non-residents  in  Palestine 
 than  the  indigenous  name  of  the  "  sea  of  Galilee," 
 or  "sea  of  Gennesaret,"  actuated  no  doubt  by  the 
 same  motive  which  has  induced  him  so  constantly 
 to  translate  the  Hebrew  names  and  terms  which 
 he  uses  (such  as  Rabbi,  Rabboni,  JMessias,  Cephas, 
 Siloam,  etc.)  into  the  language  of  the  Gentiles. 
 [Gennesaret,  Ska  of.]  G. 
 
 TIBE'RIUS  {Tifiepwr-  in  full,  Tiberius  Clau- 
 dius Nero),  the  second  Roman  emperor,  successor 
 of  Augustus,  who  began  to  reign  A.  d.  14,  and 
 reigned  until  A.  d.  37.  lie  was  the  son  of  Tibe- 
 rius Claudius  Nero  and  Livia,  and  hence  a  stepson 
 of  Augustus.  He  was  born  at  Rome  on  the  16th 
 of  November,  b.  c.  45.  He  became  emi)eror  in  his 
 fifty-fifth  year,  after  having  distinguished  himself  as 
 a  commander  in  various  wars,  and  having  evinced 
 talents  of  a  high  order  as  an  orator,  and  an  admin- 
 istrator of  civil  aft'airs.  His  military  exploits  and 
 those  of  Drusus,  his  brother,  were  sung  by  Horace 
 (Cann.  iv.  4,  14).  He  even  gained  the  reputation 
 of  possessing  the  sterner  virtues  of  the  Rom;m  char- 
 acter, and  was  regarded  as  entirely  worthy  of  tlie 
 imperial  honors  to  which  his  birth  and  supposed 
 personal  merits  at  length  opened  the  waj'.  Yet  on 
 being  raised  to  the  supreme  power,  he  suddenly 
 became,  or  showed  himself  to  be,  a  very  difierent 
 man.  His  subsequent  life  was  one  of  inacti\ity, 
 sloth,  and  self-indulgence.  He  was  despotic  in  his 
 government,  cruel  and  vindictive  in  his  disposition. 
 He  gave  up  the  affairs  of  the  state  to  the  vilest 
 favorites,  while  he  himself  wallowed  in  the  very 
 kennel  of  all  that  was  low  and  debasing.  The  only 
 palliation  of  his  monstrous  crimes  and  vices  which 
 can  be  offered  is,  that  his  disgust  of  life,  occasioned 
 by  his  early  domestic  troubles,  may  have  driven  him 
 at  last  to  despair  and  insanity.  Tilierius  died  at 
 the  age  of  seventy-eight,  after  a  reign  of  twenty- 
 
 Coin  of  Tiberius. 
 
 TIBHATH  3245 
 
 three  years.  The  ancient  writers  who  supply  most 
 of  our  knowledge  respecting  him  are  Suetonius 
 Tacitus  (who  describes  his  character  as  one  o 
 studied  dissimulation  and  hypoc- 
 risy from  the  beginning),  Annnl. 
 i.-vi. ;  Veil.  Paterc.  L.  ii.  94, 
 ifcc. ;  and  Dion  Cass,  xlvi.-xlviii. 
 The  article  in  the  Diet.  of'Gr. 
 and  Rom.  Bio;/,  (vol.  iii.  pp. 
 1117-1127)  furni.shes  a  copious 
 outline  of  the  principal  events  in 
 his  life,  and  holds  him  up  in  his 
 true  light  as  deserving  the  scorn  and  abhorrence 
 of  men.  For  an  extended  sketch  of  the  character 
 and  administration  of  Tiberius,  the  reader  is  referred 
 to  Merivale's  History  of  the  Romans,  iv.  170  ff.,  and 
 V.  1  ff.  (N.  Y.,  1805).  It  is  claimed  for  Tiberius 
 that  the  Jews  in  Palestine  suffered  much  less  during 
 his  reign  from  the  violence  and  rapacity  of  the  Ro- 
 man governors,  than  during  the  reign  of  other  em- 
 perors. He  changed  the  rulers  there  only  twice, 
 alleging  that  "  the  governor  who  anticipates  but  a 
 short  harvest,  makes  the  most  of  his  term,  and  ex- 
 torts as  much  as  he  is  able  in  the  shortest  possible 
 period  "  (Milman's  Hist,  of  the  Jeics,  ii.  126). 
 
 The  city  of  Tiberias  took  its  name  from  this 
 emperor.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Saviour's  public 
 life,  and  some  of  the  introductory  events  of  the 
 a])ostolic  age,  must  have  fallen  within  the  limits  of 
 his  administration.  The  memorable  passage  in 
 Tacitus  {Annul,  xv.  44)  respecting  the  origin  of 
 the  Christian  sect,  places  the  crucifixion  of  the  Re- 
 deemer under  Tiberius:  "Ergo  abolendo  rumori 
 (that  of  his  having  set  fire  to  Rome)  Nero  subdidit 
 reos,  et  quaesitissimis  poenis  afFecit.  quos  per  flagitia 
 invisos  vulgus  Christianos  appellabat.  Auctor  nom- 
 iiiis  ejus  Christus  Tiberio  imperitante  per  procura- 
 torem  Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  afiectus  erat." 
 The  martyrdom  of  Stephen  belongs  in  all  proba- 
 bility to  the  last  year,  or  last  but  one  of  this  reign. 
 In  Luke  iii.  1,  he  is  termed  Tilierius  Caesar;  John 
 the  Baptist,  it  is  there  said,  began  his  ministry  in 
 the  ffteenth  year  of  his  reign  {fjy e/jLovia)-  This 
 chronological  notation  is  an  important  one  in  deter- 
 mining the  year  of  Christ's  birth  and  entrance  on 
 his  public  work  [Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  1383]. 
 Augustus  admitted  Tiberius  to  a  share  in  the  em- 
 pire two  or  three  years  before  his  own  death ;  and 
 it  is  a  question,  therefore,  whether  the  fifteenth 
 year  of  v/hich  Luke  speaks,  should  be  reckoned  from 
 the  time  of  the  copartnership,  or  from  that  when 
 Tiberius  began  to  reign  alone.  The  former  is  the 
 computation  more  generally  adopted ;  but  the  data 
 which  relate  to  this  point  in  the  chronology  of  the 
 Saviour's  life,  may  be  reconciled  easily  with  the  one 
 view  or  the  other.  Some  discussion,  more  or  less 
 extended,  in  reference  to  this  inquiry  will  be  found 
 in  Krafft's  Chronologie,  p.  66 ;  Sepp's  Leben  Chrisii, 
 i.  1,  &c. ;  Friedlieb's  Leben  Jesu  Christi,  p.  47,  &a. ; 
 Ebrard's  Krilik,  p.  184;  Tischendorf's  Synopsis, 
 xvi.;  Greswell's  Dissertations,  i.  334;  Robinson's 
 Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  p.  181;  Ellicott's  Life 
 of  Christ,  p.  106,  note,  Amer.  ed.  ;  Andrews's 
 Life,  of  our  Lord,  p.  24  ff. ;  and  Wieseler's  Bei- 
 trd(ie  zur  richtinen  Wiirdigung  der  Erunr/eUen 
 (1869),  p.  177  ff.  H.  B.  H. 
 
 TIB'HATH  (nnnip  [extensive,  level,¥i\rst] : 
 MaraySe'e;  Vat.  FA  MeTa/SrjxaSi  Alex.  Mare- 
 /3e0:]  Thehath),  a  city  of  Iladadezer,  king  of  Zo- 
 baii  (1  Chr.  xviii.  8),  which  in  2  Sam.  viii.  8  is 
 called  Betah,  probably  by  an  accidental  transjjosi- 
 
8246  TiBNi 
 
 tion  of  the  first  two  letters.  Its  exact  position  is 
 unknown,  but  if  Arani-Zobah  is  the  country  be- 
 tween the  Euphrates  and  Coelesjria  [see  Syuia], 
 we  nuist  loolv  for  Tibliath  on  the  eastern  sliirts  of 
 the  Anti-Libanus,  or  of  its  continuation,  the  Jehcl 
 Shahshfibu  and  tlie  Jebcl  liltha.  G.  K- 
 
 TIB'NI  C^^^n  [intellif/ent,  Fiirst] :  Qa/xvi 
 [Vat.  -j/6i]  :  Tl'iehni).  After  Zimri  had  burnt 
 himself  in  liis  palace,  there  was  a  division  in  the 
 northern  kins;dom,  half  of  the  people  followini; 
 Tibni  the  son  of  Ginath,  and  half  following  Oniri 
 (1  K.  xvi.  21,  22).  Omri  was  the  choice  of  the 
 army.  Tibni  was  probably  put  forward  by  the 
 people  of  Tirzah,  which  was  then  besieged  by  Omri 
 and  his  host.  The  struggle  between  the  contend- 
 ing fiictions  lasted  four  years  (conip.  1  K.  xvi.  1.5, 
 23);  but  the  only  record  of  it  is  given  in  the  few 
 words  of  the  historian  :  "  The  people  that  followed 
 Omri  prevailed  against  the  people  that  followed 
 Tibni  the  son  of  Ginath;  so  Tibni  died,  and  Omri 
 reigned."  The  T^XX.  add  that  Tibni  was  bravely 
 seconded  by  his  brother  .Joram,  for  they  tell  us,  in 
 a  clause  which  Ewald  pronounces  to  be  undoubt- 
 edly genuine,  "  and  Thanuii  and  .loram  his  brother 
 died  at  that  time;  and  Ambri  reigned  after  Thani- 
 ni."  W.  A.  W. 
 
 TI'DAL  (v^J'liyi  [splendor,  renown,  Fiirst]: 
 @apyd\'-  [Alex.  0a\7o,  0a\7aA.:]  Thadnl)  is 
 mentioned  only  in  Gen.  xiv.  1,  9.  He  there  ap- 
 pears among  the  kings  confederated  with,  and  sub- 
 ordinate to,  Chedorlaomer,  the  sovereign  of  Elam, 
 who  leads  two  expeditions  from  the  country  about 
 the  mouth  of  the  Tigris  into  Syria.  The  name. 
 Tidal,  is  certainly  an  incorrect  representation  of  the 
 original.  If  the  present  Hebrew  text  is  accepted, 
 the  king  was  called  T/iid'al;  while,  if  the  Septua- 
 gint  more  nearly  represents  the  original,"  his  name 
 ■was  T/iarfjfd,  or  perhaps  Tlmrgal.  This  last  ren- 
 dering is  probably  to  be  prefei-red,  as  the  name  is 
 then  a  significant  one  in  the  early  Hamitic  dialect 
 of  the  lower  Tigris  and  Euphrates  country  —  Thur- 
 ^nZ  being  "  the  great  chief"  —  ^affiXivs  6  jxiyas 
 {naqa    wazarka)    of    the    Persians.      Thargal    is 
 
 called  "  king  of  nations  "  (C^S  T]^^),  by  which 
 it  is  reasonable  to  understand  that  he  was  a  chief 
 over  various  nomadic  tribes  to  whom  no  special 
 tract  of  country  could  be  assigned,  since  at  differ- 
 ent times  of  the  year  they  inhabited  diflierent  portions 
 of  Lower  ^Mesopotamia.  This  is  the  case  with  the 
 Arabs  of  these  parts  at  the  present  day.  Thargal, 
 however,  should  from  his  name  have  been  a  Tura- 
 nian. G.  R. 
 
 TIG'LATH-PILE'SER  (~ip^bQ-nb?ri 
 [see  below]:  ®aKyaB^(:XXa(ja.p\  [V.at.  also  AA7ae- 
 <pf\\acrap,  &a\ya\(pe\\a<Tap;  Alex.  AyAaS  *oA- 
 Xaaap:]  Tlu'uhilh-Pltidnsiir).  In  1  Chr.  v.  20, 
 and  again  in  2  Chr.  xxviii.   20,  the  name  of  this 
 
 king  is  written  "IpD.bpTiabri,  "  Tilgath-pilne- 
 ser;  "  but  in  this  form  there  is  a  donlile  corruption. 
 The   native   word   reads    as    Tiyullt-pal-tsird,   for 
 
 TIGLATH-PILESER 
 
 which  the  Tiglath-pil-eser  of  2  Kings  is  a  fair 
 equivalent.  The  signification  of  the  name  is  souie- 
 wliat  doul)tful.  JM.  Ojjpert  renders  it,  "  Adoratio 
 [sit]  filio  Zodiaci,"  and  explains  "  the  son  of  the 
 Zodiac "  as  Nin,  or  Hercules  {A'xjKditiun  Hcien- 
 iijhjue  en  Megopotnmie,  ii.  352). 
 
 Tiglath-Pileser  is  the  second  As.syrian  king  men- 
 tioned in  Scripture  as  having  come  into  contact 
 with  the  Israelites.  He  attacked  Samaria  in  the 
 reign  of  I'ekah,  on  what  ground  we  are  not  told, 
 I)ut  probably  because  I'ekah  withheld  his  tribute, 
 and,  having  entered  his  territories,  "  took  Ijon,  and 
 Abel-beth-niaachah,  and  .Janoah,  and  Kedesh,  and 
 Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  and  all  the  land  of 
 Naphtali,  and  carried  them  captive  to  Assyria  " 
 (2  K.  XV.  29):  thus  "lightly  afflicting  the  land 
 of  Zebulun  and  the  land  of  Xaphtali  "  (Is.  ix.  1),'' 
 the  most  northern,  and  so  the  most  exposed  portion 
 of  the  country.  The  date  of  this  invasion  cannot 
 at  present  be  fixed;  but  it  was,  apparently,  many 
 years  afterwards  that  Tiglath-Pileser  made  a  second 
 expedition  into  these  parts,  which  had  n)ore  im- 
 portant results  than  his  .former  one.  It  appears 
 that,  after  the  date  of  his  first  expedition,  a  close 
 league  was  formed  between  liezin,  king  of  Syria, 
 and  Pekah,  having  for  its  special  object  the  humil- 
 iation of  Judaja,  and  intended  to  further  generally 
 the  interests  of  the  two  allies.  At  first  great  suc- 
 cesses were  gained  by  Pekah  and  his  confederate 
 (2  K.  XV.  37;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  G-8);  but,  on  their 
 proceeding  to  attack  .Jerusalem  itself,  and  to  threaten 
 Ahaz,  who  was  then  king,  with  deposition  from  his 
 throne,  which  they  were  about  to  give  to  a  pre- 
 tender, "  the  son  of  Tabeal  "  (Is.  vii.  6),  the  .Jewish 
 monarch  applied  to  Assyria  for  assistance,  and  Tig- 
 latii-l'ileser,  consenting  to  aid  him,  again  ajipeared 
 at  the  head  of  an  army  in  the.se  regions.  He  first 
 marched,  naturally,  against  Damascus,  which  he 
 took  (2  K.  xvi.  9),  razing  it  (according  to  his  own 
 statement)  to  the  ground,  and  killing  Kezin,  the 
 Damascene  monarch.  After  this,  probably,  he  pro- 
 ceeded to  chastise  Pekah,  whose  country  he  entered 
 on  the  northeast,  where  it  bordered  upon  "  Syria 
 of  Damascus."  Here  he  overran  the  whole  district 
 to  the  east  of  Jordan,  no  longer  "  lightly  afHicting  " 
 Samaria,  but  injuring  her  far  "  m<n-e  (/rievously, 
 by  the  way  of  the  sea,  in  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  " 
 (Is.  ix.  1),  carrying  into  captivity  "  the  Reubenites, 
 the  Gadites,  and  the  half  tribe  of  JManasseh  "  (I  Chr. 
 v.  2G),  who  had  previously  held  this  country,  and 
 placing  them  in  Upper  Mesopotamia  from  Ilarran 
 to  about  Nisibis  {ibid.)  Thus  the  result  of  this 
 expedition  was  the  absorption  of  the  kingdom  of 
 Damascus,  and  of  an  important  portion  of  Samaria, 
 into  the  Assyrian  empire;  and  it  further  brought 
 the  kingdom  of  Judah  into  the  condition  of  a  mere 
 triluitary  and  vassal  of  the  Assyrian  monarch. 
 
 Before  returning  into  his  own  land,  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  had  an  interview  with  Ahaz  at  Damascus 
 (2  K.  xvi.  10).  Here  doubtless  was  settled  the 
 amount  of  tribute  which  Judtea  was  to  pay  an- 
 nually; and  it  may  be  suspected  that  here  too  it 
 W'as  explained  to  Ahaz  by  his  suzerain  that  a  cer- 
 
 a  The  LXX.  evidently  read  v37~in  for  bl^in, 
 
 and  therefore  wrote  ©apyaA.,  representing  the  37  by  a 
 y.  The  Alex.  Codex,  however,  has  ©AAPA,  which 
 originally  was  doubtless  ©AAFA,  agreeing  so  far  with 
 the  present  Hebrew  text. 
 
 b  *  A  more  accurate   translation  of  Is.  ix.  1,  and 
 more  in  harmony  with  the  context  is  :  "  He  lightly 
 
 e.'teemed  the  land  of  Zebulon  and  the  land  of  Naphtali, 
 but  afterward  will  signally  honor,"  etc.  In  this  form 
 it  is  e.^pecially  appropriate  as  understood  of  the  resi- 
 dence and  public  ministry  of  Christ  in  that  despised 
 region.  Interpreters  generally  (see  Michaeli.*,  Vitringa, 
 Hengstenberg,  and  Alexander  on  Is.  viii.  23)  i-eoognize 
 this  as  the  primary  reference.  F.  U. 
 
TIGLATH-PILESER 
 
 tain  deference  to  the  Assyrian  gods  was  due  on  the 
 part  of  all  tributaries,  who  were  usually  required  to 
 set  up  in  their  capital  "  the  Laws  of  Asshur,"  or 
 "altars  to  the  Great  Gods"  [see  vol.  i.  p.  190  «]. 
 The  "altar"  which  Ahaz  "saw  at  Damascus," 
 and  of  which  he  sent  the  pattern  to  Urijah  the 
 priest  (2  K.  xvi.  10,  11),  was  probably  such  a  badge 
 of  subjection. 
 
 This  is  all  that  Scripture  tells  us  of  Tiglath- 
 Pileser.  He  appears  to  have  succeeded  Pul,  and  to 
 have  been  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser ;  to  have  been 
 contemporary  with  Kezin,  I'ekah,  and  Ahaz;  and 
 thei-efore  to  have  ruled  Assyria  during  the  latter 
 half  of  the  eighth  century  before  our  era.  From 
 his  own  inscriptions  we  learn  that  his  reign  lasted 
 at  least  seventeen  years;  that,  besides  warring  in 
 Syria  and  Samaria,  he  attacked  ISabylonia,  Media, 
 Armenia,  and  the  independent  tribes  in  the  upper 
 regions  of  ]Mesopotamia,  thus,  like  the  other  great 
 Assyrian  monarchs,  warring  along  the  whole  fron- 
 tier of  the  enipii'e;  and  finally,  that  he  was  (prob- 
 ably) not  a  legitimate  prince,  but  an  usurper  and 
 the  founder  of  a  dynasty.  This  last  fact  is  gathered 
 from  the  circumstance  that,  whereas  the  Assyrian 
 kings  generally  glory  in  their  ancestry,  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  omits  all  mention  of  his,  not  even  recording 
 his  father's  name  upon  his  monuments.  It  accords 
 remarkably  with  the  statements  of  Berosus  (in 
 Euseb.  C/iron.  Can.  i.  4)  and  Herodotus  (i.  95), 
 that  about  this  time,  i.  e.  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
 eighth  century  ii.  c,  there  was  a  change  of  dynasty 
 in  Assyria,  the  old  family,  which  had  ruled  for  520 
 (526)  years,  being  superseded  by  another  not  long 
 before  the  accession  of  Sennacherib.  The  authority 
 of  these  two  writers,  combined  with  the  monumental 
 indications,  justifies  us  in  concluding  that  the 
 founder  of  the  Lower  Dynasty  or  Empire,  the  first 
 monarch  of  the  New  Kingdom,  was  the  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  of  Scripture,  whose  date  must  certainly  be 
 aboiit  this  time,  and  whose  monuments  show  him 
 to  have  been  a  self-raised  sovereign.  The  exact 
 date  of  the  change  cannot  be  positively  fixed;  but 
 it  is  2}i'ohiMij  marked  by  the  era  of  Nabonassar  in 
 Babylon,  which  synchronizes  with  b.  c.  747.  Ac- 
 cording to  this  view,  Tiglath-Pileser  reigned  cer- 
 tainly from  B.  c.  747  to  b.  c.  730,  and  possibly  a 
 few  years  longer,  being  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser 
 at  least  as  early  as  b.  c.  725."     [Shaljianeser.] 
 
 The  circumstances  under  which  Tiglath-Pileser 
 obtained  the  crown  have  not  come  down  to  us  from 
 any  good  authority;  but  there  is  a  tradition  on  the 
 suiiject  which  seems  to  deserve  mention.  Alexander 
 Polyhistor,  the  friend  of  Sylla,  who  had  access  to 
 the  writings  of  Berosus,  related  that  the  first  As- 
 syrian dynasty  continued  from  Ninus,  its  founder, 
 to  a  certain  lieleus  (I'ul),  and  that  he  was  suc- 
 ceeded by  Beletaras,  a  man  of  low  rank,  a  mere 
 vine-dresser  {(pvTovpy6s),  ^vho  had  the  charge  of 
 the  gardens  attached  to  the  royal  palace.  Beletaras, 
 he  said,  having  acquired  the  sovereignty  in  an  ex- 
 traordinary way,  fixed  it  in  his  own  family,  in  which 
 it  continued  to  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Nin- 
 eveh (/'"/'.  HUt.  Gr.  iii.  210).  It  can  scarcely  be 
 doubted  that  Beletaras  here  is  intended  to  represent 
 Tiglath-Pileser,  Beletar  being  in  fact  another  mode 
 of  expressing  the  native  PaUtsira  or  Palli-tsir 
 (Oppert),  which  the  Hebrews  represented  by  Pileser. 
 Whether   there  is  any  truth  in  the  tradition  may 
 
 TIGRIS 
 
 3247 
 
 a  In  tlie  Assyrian  Chronological  Canon,  of  which 
 there  are  four  copies  in  the  British  Museum,  all  more 
 or  less  fragmentary,  the  reign  of  Tiglath-Pileser  seems 
 
 perhaps  be  doubted.  It  bears  too  near  a  resem- 
 blance to  the  oriental  stories  of  Cyrus,  Gyges, 
 Amasis,  and  others,  to  have  in  itself  mucli  claim 
 to  our  acceptance.  On  the  other  hand,  it  har- 
 monizes with  the  remarkable  fact —  unparalleled  ir 
 the  rest  of  the  Assyrian  records  —  that  Tiglath- 
 Pileser  is  absolutely  silent  on  the  subject  of  his 
 ancestry,  neither  mentioning,his  father's  name,  nor 
 making  any  allusion  whatever  to  his  birth,  descent, 
 or  parentage. 
 
 Tigl^th-Pileser's  wars  do  not,  generally,  appear 
 to  have  been  of  much  importance.  In  Babylonia 
 he  took  Sippara  (Sepharvaim),  and  se\'eral  places 
 of  less  note  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  country ; 
 but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  penetrated  far,  or 
 to  have  come  into  contact  with  Nabonassar,  who 
 reigned  from  b.  c.  747  to  b.  c.  733  at  Babylon. 
 In  Media,  Armenia,  and  Upper  jNIesopotamia,  he 
 obtained  certain  successes,  but  made  no  permanent 
 conquests.  It  was  on  his  western  frontier  only  that 
 his  victories  advanced  the  limits  of  the  empire. 
 'I'he  destruction  of  Damascus,  the  absorption  of 
 Syria,  and  the  extension  of  .Assyrian  influence  over 
 Judrea,  are  the  chief  events  of  Tiglath-Pileser's 
 reign,  which  seems  to  have  had  fewer  external 
 triumphs  than  those  of  most  Assyrian  monarchs. 
 Probably  his  usurpation  was  not  endured  quite 
 patiently,  and  domestic  troubles  or  dangers  acted 
 as  a  check  upon  his  expeditions  against  foreign 
 countries. 
 
 No  palace  or  great  building  can  be  ascribed  to 
 this  king.  His  slabs,  which  are  tolerably  numerous, 
 show  that  he  must  have  built  or  adorned  a  residence 
 at  Calah  (Nimrud),  where  they  were  found;  but, 
 as  they  were  not  discovered  in  siiu,  we  cannot  say 
 anything  of  the  edifice  to  which  they  originally  be- 
 longed. They  ijear  marks  of  wanton  defacement; 
 and  it  is  plain  that  the  later  kings  purposely  injured 
 them;  for  not  only  is  the  writing  often  erased,  but 
 the  slabs  have  been  torn  down,  broken,  and  used 
 as  building  materials  by  Esar-haddon  in  the  great 
 palace  which  he  erected  at  Calah,  the  southern 
 capital  [see  vol.  i.  p.  701  «].  The  dynasty  of  Sargon 
 was  hostile  to  the  first  two  princes  of  the  Lower 
 Kingdom,  and  the  result  of  their  hostiUty  is  that 
 we  have  far  less  monumental  knowledge  of  Shal- 
 maneser and  Tiglath-Pileser  than  of  various  kings 
 of  the  Upper  Empire.  G.  R. 
 
 TI'GRIS  {Tiypis  [see  below]  :  Tygris,  Tigris) 
 is  used  by  the  LXX.  as  the  Greek  equivalent  of  the 
 
 Hebrew  Iliddekel  (^p'^H)  ;  and  occurs  also  in 
 several  of  the  apocryphal  books,  as  in  Tobit  (vi.  1), 
 Judith  (i.  G),  and  Ecclesiasticus  (xxiv.  25).  The 
 meaning,  and  various  forms,  of  the  word  have  been 
 considered  under  Hiddekel.  It  only  remains, 
 therefore,  in  the  present  article,  to  describe  the 
 course  and  character  of  the  stream. 
 
 The  Tigris,  like  the  Euphrates,  rises  from  two 
 principal  sources.  The  most  distant,  and  therefore 
 the  true,  source  is  the  western  one,  which  is  in  lat. 
 38°  10',  long.  39°  20'  nearly,  a  little  to  the  south 
 of  the  high  mountain  lake  called  (Jo/jik  or  Goknjik, 
 in  the  peninsula  formed  by  the  Euphrates  where 
 it  sweeps  round  between  Pahni  and  Tekk.  The 
 Tigris'  source  is  near  the  southwestern  angle  of  the 
 lake,  and  cannot  be  more  than  two  or  three  miles 
 from  the  channel  of  the  Euphrates.     The  course  of 
 
 to  be  reckoned  at  either  16  or  17  years.  (See  Athenminn^ 
 No.  1812,  p.  84.) 
 
3248 
 
 TIGRIS 
 
 the  Tio;ris  is  at  first  somewhat  north  of  east,  but 
 after  pursuing  this  direction  for  atiout  25  miles  it 
 makes  a  sweep  round  to  the  south,  and  descends 
 by  Avyhani  Mndtn  upon  Diarbekr.  Here  it  is 
 already  a  river  of  considerable  size,  and  is  crossed 
 by  a  bridge  of  ten  arches  a  little  below  that  city 
 (Niebuhr,  Voyage  en  Arable,  p.  320).  It  then 
 turns  suddenly  to  the  east,  and  flows  in  this  direc- 
 tion, past  Osman  Kicui  to  Til,  where  it  once  more 
 alters  its  course  and  takes  that  southeasterly  direc- 
 tion, which  it  pursues,  with  certain  slight  vaHations, 
 to  its  final  junction  with  the  Euphrates.  At  Osman 
 Kleui  it  receives  the  second  or  Eastern  Tigris, 
 which  descends  from  Niphates  (the  modern  Ala- 
 Tagh)  with  a  course  almost  due  south,  and,  col- 
 lecting on  its  way  the  waters  of  a  large  number  of 
 streams,  unites  with  the  Tigris  half-way  between 
 Diarbekr  and  Til,  in  long.  41°  nearly.  The  courses 
 of  the  two  streams  to  the  point  of  junction  are  re- 
 spectively 150  and  100  miles.  A  little  below  the 
 junction,  and  before  any  other  tributary  of  im- 
 portance is  received,  the  Tigris  is  150  yards  wide 
 and  from  three  to  four  feet  deep.  Near  Til  a  large 
 stream  flows  into  it  from  the  northeast,  bringing 
 almost  as  much  water  as  the  main  channel  ordinarily 
 holds  (Layard,  jV(«ei'e/(  and  Babylon,  p.  49).  This 
 branch  rises  near  BilU,  in  northern  Kurdistan,  and 
 nnis  at  first  to  the  northeast,  but  presently  sweeps 
 round  to  the  north,  and  proceeds  through  the  dis- 
 tricts of  Shatluk  and  Boktan  with  a  general  west- 
 erly course,  crossing  and  recrossing  the  line  of  the 
 38th  parallel,  nearly  to  Sert,  whence  it  flows  south- 
 west and  south  to  Til.  From  Til  the  Tigris  runs 
 southward  for  20  miles  through  a  long,  narrow,  and 
 deep  gorge,  at  the  end  of  which  it  emerijes  upon 
 the  comparatively  low  but  still  hilly  country  of 
 Mesopotamia,  near  Jezireh.  Through  this  it  flows 
 with  a  course  which  is  south-southeast  to  Mosul, 
 thence  nearly  south  to  Kileh-Slierghat,  and  again 
 south-southeast  to  Samara,  where  the  hills  end 
 and  the  river  enters  on  the  great  alluvium.  The 
 course  is  now  more  irregular.  Between  Samara 
 and  Baghdad  a  considerable  bend  is  made  to  the 
 east;  and,  after  the  Shai-el-IJie  is  thrown  oft"  in 
 lat.  32°  30',  a  second  bend  is  made  to  the  north, 
 the  regular  southeasterly  course  being  only  resumed 
 a  little  above  the  32d  parallel,  from  which  point  the 
 Tigris  runs  in  a  tolerably  direct  line  to  its  junction  I 
 with  the  Euphrates  at  Kiirnuh.  The  length  of  the 
 whole  stream,  exclusive  of  meanders,  is  reckoned  at 
 1146  miles.  It  can  be  descended  on  rafts  during 
 the  flood  season  from  Dinrbekr,  which  is  only  150 
 miles  from  its  source;  and  it  has  been  navigated 
 by  steamers  of  small  draught  nearly  up  to  JIosul. 
 From  Diarbekr  to  Samara  the  navigation  is  much 
 impeded  by  rapids,  rocks,  and  shallows,  as  well  as 
 by  artificial  bunds  or  dams,  which  in  ancient  times 
 were  thrown  across  the  stream,  probably  for  pur- 
 poses of  irrigation.  Below  Samara  there  are  no 
 obstructions;  the  river  is  deep,  with  a  bottom  of 
 soft  mud ;  the  stream  moderate ;  and  the  course 
 very  meandering.  The  average  width  of  the  Tigris 
 in  this  part  of  its  course  is  200  yards,  while  its 
 depth  is  very  considerable. 
 
 Besides  the  three  head-streams  of  the  Tigris, 
 which  have  been  already  described,  the  river  re- 
 ceives, along  its  middle  and  lower  course,  no  fewer 
 than  five  important  tributaries.  These  are  the  river 
 of  Zakko  or  Eastern  Khabour,  the  Great  Zab  {Zub 
 Ala),  the  Lesser  Zab  {Zab  Asfal),  the  Adhem,  and 
 the  Diyaleh  or  ancient  Gyndes.  All  these  rivers 
 flow  from  the  high  range  of  Zagros,  which  shuts 
 
 TIGRIS 
 
 iti  the  Mesopotamian  valley  on  the  east,  and  is  able 
 to  sustain  so  large  a  number  of  great  streams  from 
 its  inexhaustible  springs  and  abundant  snows. 
 From  the  west  the  Tigris  obtains  no  tributary  of 
 the  slightest  importance,  for  the  Tiinrthar,  which 
 is  said  to  have  once  reached  it,  now  ends  in  a  salt 
 lake,  a  little  below  Tekril.  Its  volume,  however, 
 is  continually  increasing  as  it  descends,  in  conse- 
 quence of  the  great  bulk  of  water  brought  into  it 
 from  the  east,  particularly  by  the  Great  Zab  and 
 the  Diyaleh ;  and  in  its  lower  course  it  is  said  to 
 be  a  larger  stream  and  to  carry  a  greater  body  than 
 the  Euphrates  (Chesney,  Eujjhrates  Expedition,  i. 
 62). 
 
 The  Tigris,  like  the  Euphrates,  has  a  flood  season. 
 Early  in  the  month  of  March,  in  consequence  of  the 
 melting  of  the  snows  on  the  southern  flank  of  Ni- 
 phates, the  river  rises  rapidly.  Its  breadth  grad- 
 ually increases  at  Diarbekr  from  100  or  120  to  250 
 yards.  The  stream  is  swift  and  turbid.  The  rise 
 continues  through  March  and  April,  reaching  its 
 full  height  generally  in  the  first  or  second  week  of 
 ]May.  At  this  time  the  country  about  Baghdad  is 
 often  extensively  flooded,  not,  however,  so  much 
 from  the  Tigris  as  from  the  overflow  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates, which  is  here  poured  into  the  eastern 
 stream  through  a  canal.  Further  down  the  river, 
 in  the  ten'itory  of  the  Beni-Lam  Arabs,  between 
 the  32d  and  31st  parallels,  there  is  a  great  annual 
 inundation  on  both  banks.  About  the  middle  of 
 May  the  Tigris  begins  to  fall,  and  by  midsummer  it 
 has  reached  its  natural  level.  In  October  and  No- 
 vember there  is  another  rise  and  fall  in  consequence 
 of  the  autunmal  rains;  but  compared  with  the 
 spring  flood  that  of  autumn  is  insignificant. 
 
 The  Tigris  is  at  present  better  fitted  for  purposes 
 of  traffic  than  the  Euphrates  (Layard,  Ninevili  and 
 Babylon,  p.  475);  but  in  ancient  times  it  does  not 
 seem  to  have  been  much  used  as  a  line  of  trade. 
 The  Assyrians  probably  floated  down  it  the  timber 
 which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  cutting  in  Amanus 
 and  Lebanon,  to  be  used  for  building  purposes  in 
 their  capital;  but  the  general  line  of  conmiunica- 
 tion  between  the  JMediterranean  and  the  Persian 
 Gulf  was  by  the  Euphrates.  [See  vol.  i.  p.  784.] 
 According  to  the  historians  of  Alexander  (Arrian, 
 Exp.  Al.  vii.  7;  comp.  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4),  the 
 Persians  purposely  obstructed  the  navigation  of  the 
 lower  Tigris  by  a  series  of  dams  which  they  threw 
 across  from  bank  to  bank  between  the  embouchure 
 and  the  city  of  Opis,  and  such  trade  as  there  was 
 along  its  course  proceeded  by  land  (Strab.  ibid.). 
 It  is  probable  that  the  dams  were  in  reality  made 
 for  another  purpose,  namely,  to  raise  the  level  of  the 
 waters  for  the  sake  of  irrigation ;  but  they  would 
 undoubtedly  have  also  the  eftect  ascribed  to  them, 
 unless  in  the  spring  flood  time,  when  they  might 
 have  been  shot  by  boats  descending  the  river.  I'hus 
 there  may  always  have  been  a  certain  amount  of 
 traffic  down  the  stream;  but  up  it  trade  would 
 scarcely  have  been  practicable  at  any  time  further 
 than  Samara  or  Tekrit,  on  account  of  the  natural 
 obstructions,  and  of  the  great  force  of  the  stream. 
 The  lower  part  of  the  course  was  opened  by  Alex- 
 ander (Arrian,  vii.  7);  and  Opis,  near  the  mouth  of 
 the  l)iyaleh,  became  thenceforth  known  as  a  mart 
 (e^Trdpioi/),  from  which  the  neighboring  districts 
 drew  the  merchandise  of  India  and  Arabia  (Strab. 
 xvi.  1,  §  9).  Seleucia,  too,  which  grew  up  soon 
 after  Alexander,  derived  no  doubt  a  portion  of  its 
 prosperity  from  the  facilities  for  trade  offered  by  this 
 great  stream. 
 
TIKVAH 
 
 We  find  Imt  little  mention  of  the  Tigris  in 
 Scripture.  It  appears  indeed  under  the  name  of 
 lliddelcel,  among  the  rivers  of  Eden  (Gen.  ii.  14), 
 and  is  there  correctly  described  as  "  ruiming  east- 
 ward to  Assyria."  liut  after  this  we  liear  no  more 
 of  it,  if  we  except  one  doubtful  allusion  in  Nahum 
 (ii.  G),  until  the  Captivity,  when  it  becomes  well 
 known  to  the  prophet  Daniel,  who  had  to  cross  it 
 in  his  journeys  to  and  from  Susa  (Shuslian).    With 
 
 Daniel  it  is  "  the  Great  River  "  —  ^"nSH  "inin 
 —  an  expression  commonly  applied  to  the  Eu- 
 phrates ;  and  by  its  side  he  sees  some  of  his  most 
 important  visions  (Dan',  x.  toxii.).  No  other  men- 
 tion of  the  Tigris  seems  to  occur  except  in  the  apoc- 
 ryphal books  ;  and  there  it  is  unconnected  with 
 any  real  history. 
 
 The  Tigris,  in  its  upper  course,  anciently  ran 
 through  Armenia  and  Assyria.  Lower  down,  from 
 about  the  point  where  it  enters  on  the  alluvial  plain, 
 it  separated  Babylonia  from  Susiana.  In  the  wars 
 between  the  Romans  and  the  Parthians,  we  tind  it 
 constituting,  for  a  short  time  (from  A.  d.  114  to 
 A.  D.  117),  the  boundary  line  between  these  two 
 empires.  Otherwise  it  has  scarcely  been  of  any 
 political  importance.  The  great  chain  of  Zagros  is 
 the  main  natural  boundary  between  Western  and 
 Central  Asia;  and  beyond  this,  the  next  defensible 
 line  is  the  Euphrates.  Historically  it  is  found  that 
 either  the  central  power  pushes  itself  westward  to 
 that  river;  or  the  power  ruling  the  west  advances 
 eastward  to  the  mountain  barrier. 
 
 The  water  of  the  Tigris,  in  its  lower  course,  is 
 yellowish,  and  is  regarded  as  luiwholesome.  The 
 stream  abounds  with  fish  of  many  kinds,  which  are 
 often  of  a  large  size  (see  Tobit  vi.  2,  and  compare 
 Strab.  xi.  14,  §  8).  Abundant  water-fowl  float  on 
 the  waters.  The  banks  are  fringed  with  palm-trees 
 and  pomegranates,  or  clothed  with  jungle  and  reeds, 
 the  haunt  of  the  wild  boar  and  the  lion. 
 
 (The  most  important  notices  of  the  Tigris  to  he 
 found  in  the  classical  writers  are  the  following: 
 Strabo,  xi.  14,  §  8,  and  xvi.  1,  §§  9-1-3;  Arrian, 
 Exped.  Alex.  vii.  7 ;  and  Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  27.  The 
 best  modern  accounts  are  those  of  Col.  Chesney, 
 Euphrates  Expedition,  i.  16,  etc.,  and  \Yiner,  Real- 
 ivorterbuch,  ii.  622,  623;  with  which  may  be  com- 
 pared Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  49-51,  and 
 464-476 ;  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  3-8 ; 
 Jones  in  Transactions  of  the  Geographical  Society 
 of  Bombay,  vol.  ix. ;  Lynch  in  Journal  of  Geo- 
 (/raphical  Society,  vol.  ix. ;  and  Rawliuson's  //erorf- 
 otos,  i.  552,  553.)  G.K. 
 
 TIK'VAH  (nii7ri  [cord,  expectation]:  ©e- 
 Kovdv,  [Vat.  @€KKouav;  Alex,  ©e/c/foue:  Thecua). 
 1.  The  father  of  t>hallum  the  husliand  of  the 
 prophetess  lluldah  (2  K.  xxii.  14).  He  is  called 
 TiKVATii  in  the  A.  V.  of  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22. 
 
 2.  (©eKcoe;  [Vat.  FA.  EA/ceia  ;]  Alex,  ©e- 
 Kove'  Thecue.)  The  father  of  Jahaziah  (Ezr.  x. 
 15).     In  1  Esdr.  ix.  14  he  is  called  Tiieocanus. 
 
 TIK'VATH    (nnnnri     [obedience]-,    Keri, 
 
 ni^Tpn  ;  properly  Tukcltath  ov  Tokliath  :  QeKoie; 
 [Vat.  KadovaX;]  Alex.  QaKovad:  Thecuatli).    TlK- 
 Vaii  tlie  lather  of  Shallum  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22). 
 TILE.     For  general  information  on  the  subject, 
 
 TIMBREL 
 
 3249 
 
 'E^opiJfai/Tes  (Mark  ii.  4). 
 
 *  Tlie  bar  is  Aramaean,  =  son,  and  Mark's  uib?  Ti- 
 
 seethe  articles  Brick,  Pottery,  Seat,.  The  ex- 
 pression in  the  A.  V.  rendering  of  Luke  v.  19 
 "  tiirough  "  the  tiling,"  has  give.n  much  trouble  t« 
 expositors,  from  the  fact  that  Syrian  houses  are  in 
 general  covered,  not  with  tiles,  but  with  plaster 
 terraces.  Some  suggestions  toward  the  solution  of 
 this  difficulty  have  been  already  given.  [House, 
 vol.  ii.  p.  1104.]  An  additional  one  may  here  be 
 offered.  1.  Terrace-roofs,  if  constructed  improperly, 
 or  at  the  wrong  season  of  the  year,  are  apt  to  crack 
 and  to  become  so  saturated  with  rain  as  to  be  easily 
 jienetrable.  May  not  the  roof  of  the  house  in  which 
 our  Lord  performed  his  miracle,  have  been  in  this 
 condition,  and  been  pierced,  or,  to  use  St.  Mark's* 
 word,  "  broken  up,"  by  the  bearers  of  the  paralytic? 
 (.■\rundell,  Trav.  in  Asia  Minor,  i.  171;  Russell, 
 Aleppo,  i.  35.) 
 
 2.  Or  may  the  phrase  "  through  the  tiling  "  be 
 accounted  for  thus  ?  Greek  houses  were  often,  if 
 not  always,  roofed  with  tiles  (Pollux,  vii.  161 ; 
 Vitruvius,  iii.  3).  Did  not  St.  Luke,  a  native, 
 probably,  of  Greek  Antioch,  use  the  expression 
 "  tiles,"  as  the  form  of  roof  which  was  most  familiar 
 to  himself  and  to  his  Greek  readers  without  reference 
 to  the  particular  material  of  the  roof  in  question  ? 
 (Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  4;  Jerome,  Prol.  to  t'omm.  on 
 St.  Jfatth.  vol.  vii.  4;  Conybeare  and  Howson, 
 >S^  Paul,  i.  367.)  It  may  perhaps  be  worth  re- 
 marking that  houses  in  modern  Antioch,  at  least 
 many  of  them,  have  tiled  roofs  (Fisher,  ]'iews  in 
 Syria,  i.  19,  vi.  56).  [See  House,  note  b,  i.  1104, 
 Amer.  ed.]  H.  W.  P. 
 
 TIL'GATH-PILNE'SER    (H?^^. 
 
 -ipwbs;  'q  nabri;  -ippbs  nabri:  [Rom. 
 
 &ay\a(paAXa(rap,  @a\yacp€A\acrdp;  Vat.]  0a\- 
 ya^avacrap,  @ayva(pajj.aaap,  &a\ya<peKAaSap ; 
 Alex.  &ay\aO  (paXvaaap-  Theli/at/i/ihalnasar).  A 
 variation,  and  probably  a  corruption,  of  the  name 
 Tiglath-pileser.  It  is  peculiar  to  the  books  of 
 Chronicles,  being  found  in  1  Chr.  v.  C,  26 ;  2  Chr. 
 xxviii.  20.  G. 
 
 *  TILLAGE.     [Agriculture.] 
 
 TFLON  (I'lVin;  Keri,  "ll^""^  [P^rh. gift]: 
 '\uwv;  Alex.  @lXwv'  Thilon).  One  of  the  four 
 sons  of  .Shimon,  whose  family  is  reckoned  in  the 
 genealogies  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 
 
 TIM^'US  {TiiJiaios--  Timceus).  The  father 
 of  the  blind  man,  Bar-timoeus,  who  was  restored  to 
 sight  by  Jesus  as  he  left  Jericho  (Mark  x.  46).= 
 
 TIMBREL,  TABRET.  By  these  words  the 
 A.  V.  translates  the  Heb.  P^n,  toph,  which  is  de- 
 rived from  an  imitative  root  occurring  in  many 
 languages  not  immediately  connected  with  each 
 other.     It  is  the  same  as  the  Arabic  and  Persian 
 
 0;>,  duff,  which  in  Spanish  becomes  adufe,  a 
 tambourine.  The  root,  which  signifies  to  beat  or 
 strike,  is  found  in  the  Greek  Tviravov  or  rvpiravov, 
 Lat.  tympanum.  It.  tamburo,  Sp.  tambor,  Fr.  taj)i- 
 bour,  Prov.  tabor,  Eng.  tabor,  tabouret,  timbrel, 
 tambmirine,  A.-S.  dubbiin,  to  strike,  Eng.  tap,  and 
 many  others.''     In  Old  English  tabor  was  used  for 
 
 (iiaiou  Is  the  Greek  translation.     On  the  circutnstancea 
 of  the  miracle,  see  B.^rtimjeus  [Amer.  ed.].  H. 
 
 'I  It  is   usual  for  etymologists  to  quote  the  Arab. 
 
8250  TIMBREL 
 
 any  drum.  Thus  Rol^  of  Gloucester,  p.  396  (ed. 
 Heariie,  1810)  :  — 
 
 *'  Vor  of  trompes  and  of  labors  the  Saracens  made  there 
 So  giet  noise,  that  Cristenmen  ill  distourbed  were." 
 
 In  Shakespeare's  time  it  seems  to  have  become  an 
 instrument  of  peace,  and  is  thus  contrasted  with  tlie 
 drum:  "I  have  known  when  there  was  no  music 
 with  him  but  the  drum  and  fife;  and  now  had  he 
 rather  hear  the  Idlior  and  tlie  pipe  "  (Much  Ado,  ii. 
 3).  Tdboiivvt  and  tahourine  are  diminutives  of 
 tnbor,  and  denote  the  instrument  now  known  as  the 
 tambourine:  — 
 
 "  Or  Mimoe's  whistling  to  his  tnhovret, 
 SelHng  a  laughter  for  a  cold  meal's  meat." 
 
 Hall,  Sat.  iv.  1,  78. 
 
 Tahret  is  a  contraction  of  tabouret.  The  word  is 
 retained  in  tlie  A.  V.  from  Coverdale's  translation 
 in  all  passages  except  Is.  xxx.  32,  where  it  is 
 omitted  in  Coverdale,  and  Ez.  xxviii.  13,  where  it 
 is  rendered  "beauty." 
 
 The  Heb.  toph  is  undoubtedly  the  instrument 
 described  by  travellers  as  the  dvff  or  (/iff  of  the 
 Arabs.  It  was  used  in  very  early  times  by  the 
 Syrians  of  Padan-aram  at  their  merry-makings 
 (Geu.  xxxi.  27).  It  was  played  principally  by 
 women  (Kx.  xv.  20;  Judg.  xi.  34;  1  Sam.  xviii.  6; 
 Ps.  Ixviii.  25  [2G] )  as  an  accompaniment  to  the 
 song  and  dance  (comp.  Jud.  iii.  7),  and  appears  to 
 have  been  worn  by  them  as  an  ornament  {.Jer.  xxxi. 
 4).  The  toph  was  one  of  the  insti-uments  played 
 by  the  young  prophets  whom  Saul  met  on  his  re- 
 turn from  Samuel  (1  Sam.  x.  5),  and  by  the  Le- 
 vites  in  the  Temple-band  (2  Sam.  vi.  5;  1  Chr. 
 xiii.  8).  It  accompanied  the  merriment  of  feasts 
 (Is.  V.  12,  xxiv.  8),  and  the  joy  of  triumphal  pro- 
 cessions (Judg.  xi.  34;  1  Sam.  xviii.  6),  when  the 
 women  came  out  to  meet  the  warriors  returning 
 from  victory,  and  is  everywhere  a  sign  of  happiness 
 and  peace  (Job  xxi.  12;  Is.  xxx.  32;  Jer.  xxxi.  4). 
 So  in  the  grand  triumphal  entry  of  God  into  his 
 Temple  described  in  strong  figures  in  Ps.  Ixviii., 
 the  procession  is  made  up  by  the  singers  who 
 marched  in  front,  and  the  players  on  stringed  in- 
 struments who  brought  up  the  rear,  while  round 
 them  all  danced  the  young  maidens  with  their  tim- 
 brels (Ps.  Ixviii.  25  [20]). 
 
 The  cliff  oi  the  Arabs  is  described  by  Eussell 
 {Aleppo,  p.  94,  1st  ed.)  as  "  a  hoop  (sometim&s  with 
 pieces  of  brass  fixed  in  it  to  make  a  jingling)  over 
 which  a  piece  of  parchment  is  distended.  It  is  beat 
 with  the  fingers,  and  is  tlie  true  tympanum  of  the 
 ancients,  as  appears  irom  its  figure  in  several  re- 
 lievos, representing  the  orgies  of  Bacchus  and  rites 
 of  Cybele."  The  same  instrument  was  used  by  the 
 Egyptian  dancing-women  whom  Hasselquist  saw 
 {Trav.  p.  59,  ed.  17(i()).  In  Uarbary  it  is  called 
 tar,  and  "  is  made  like  a  sieve,  consisting  (as  Isi- 
 dore«  describes  the  tympanum)  of  a  rim  or  thin 
 hoop  of  wood  with  a  skin  of  parchment  stretched 
 over  the  top  of  it.  This  serves  for  the  bass  in  all 
 their  concerts,  which  they  accordingly  touch  very 
 artfully  with  their  fingers,  or  with  the  knuckles  or 
 palms  of  their  hands,  as  the  time  and  measure  re- 
 quire, or  as  force  and  softness  are  to  be  communi- 
 cated to  the  several  parts  of  the  performance" 
 (Shaw,  Ti'av.  p.  202). 
 
 TIMNAH 
 
 The  tympanum  was  tised  in  the  feasts  of  Cybele 
 (Her.  iv.  70),  and  is  said  to  have  been  tiie  inven- 
 tion of  Dionysus  and    b'hea  (Kur.  Burrli.  59).     Jt 
 
 tunbttr  as  the  original  of  tambour  and  tabor  ;  but  un- 
 fortunately the  tunbftr  is  a  guitar,  and  not  a  drum 
 (Russell's  ALejrpo,  i.  152,  2d  ed.).  The  parallel  Arabic 
 word  is  tabl,  which  denotes  a  kind  of  drum,  and  is  the 
 
 Tar.  (Lane's  ISloderii.  Egyptians,  366,  5th  ed.) 
 
 was  played  by  women,  who  beat  it  with  the  palms 
 of  their  hands  (Ovid,  Met.  iv.  29),  and  Juvenal 
 {Sat.  iii.  04)  attributes  to  it  a  Syrian  origin:  — 
 
 "Jam  pridem  Syrus  in  Tiberim  defluxit  Orontes 
 Et  liuguam,  et  mores  et  cum  tibiciue  chordas 
 Obliquas,  necnon  gentilia  ty7npana  secum 
 Vexit.' 
 
 In  the  same  way  the  tabor  is  said  to  have  been 
 introduced  into  Europe  by  the  Crusaders,  who 
 adopted  it  from  the  Saracens,  to  whom  it  was 
 peculiar  (see  Du  Cange's  note  on  De  Joinville's 
 [Jisl.  du  Koy  Saint  Lotiis,  p.  01). 
 
 The  author  of  Sliilte  Ha(j<jibboriin  (c.  2)  gives 
 the  Greek  Kvp^aXov  as  the  equivalent  of  ti'ph,  and 
 says  it  was  a  hollow  basin  of  metal,  beaten  with  a 
 stick  of  brass  or  iron. 
 
 The  passage  of  lizekiel  (xxviii.  13)  is  obscure,  and 
 appears  to  have  been  early  corrupted.     Instead  of 
 
 tJ^QFIj  "  thy  tabrets,"  the  Vidg.  and  Targum  read 
 
 tJ^D"^)  "  thy  beauty,"  which  is  the  rendering 
 adopted  in  Coverdale's  and  Cranmer's  Bibles. 
 The  LXX.  seem  to  have  read  Tjpin,  as  in  ver. 
 10.  If  the  ordinary  text  be  adopted,  there  is  no 
 reason  for  taking  ttph,  as  Jerome  suggests,  in  the 
 sense  of  the  setting  of  a  gem,  "  pala  qua  gemma 
 continetur."  \V.  A.  W. 
 
 TIM'NA,  TIM'NAH  (2?3ari  [perh.  re- 
 strained  or  inaccessible]  :  @a/j.vd;  [in  1  Chr.  i.  39, 
 Vat.  corrupt:]  Tliamna).  1.  A  concubine  of  Eli- 
 phaz  son  of  Esau,  and  mother  of  Amalek  ((Jen. 
 xxxvi.  12;  in  1  Chr.  i.  36  named  as  a  son  of  Eli- 
 phaz);  it  may  be  presumed  that  she  was  the  same 
 as  Timna,  sister  of  Lotan,  and  daughter  of  Seir 
 the  Horite  ([Gen.  xxxvi.]  ver.  22,  and  1  Chr.  i. 
 39). 
 
 2.  [In  1  Chr.,  Vat.  @atfj.av;  Alex,  ©afxaya.l 
 A  duke,  or  phylarch,  of  Edom  in  the  last  list  in 
 Gen.  xxxvi.  40-45  (1  Chr.  i.  51-54),  where  the 
 dukes  are  named  "  according  to  their  families,  after 
 their  places,  by  their  names  ....  according  to 
 their  habitations:  "  whence  we  may  conclude,  as  in 
 the  case  of  Teiman,  that  Timnah  was  also  the  name 
 of  a  place  or  a  district.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 TIM'NAH  (nspri  [lot,  portio7i]).  A  name 
 which  occurs,  simple  and  compounded,  and  with 
 slight  variations  of  form,  several  times,  in  the  topog- 
 raphy of  the  Holy  Land.  The  name  is  derived  by 
 the  lexicographers  (Gesenius,  Simonis,  Fiirst)  from 
 
 same  with    the  Rabb.  Heb.  tabta,  and   Span,  atabat,  a 
 kettle-drum.     The  instrument  and  the  word  may  have 
 come  to  us  through  the  Saracens. 
 a   Orig.  iii.  81. 
 
TIMNATH 
 
 ii  root  sit;nifying  to  "  portion  out,  or  divide";  "  but 
 its  frequent  occurrence,  and  the  analogy  of  the  to- 
 porjraphical  names  of  other  countries,  would  rather 
 imply  that  "it  refeiTed  to  some  natural  feature  of  the 
 country. 
 
 1-  (A.i3a,  @afMud ;  [in  2  Chr.  Vat.  omits  ;J  Alex. 
 voTOf,  &afxva\  Joseph.  Qa/xud-  Thirmna,  Tham- 
 nnn.)  A  place  which  formed  one  of  the  landniarl\s 
 on  the  nortii  boundary  of  the  allotment  of  .Tudah 
 (.Tosh.  XV.  10).  It  was  obviously  near  the  western 
 end  of  the  boundary,  lieing  between  Beth-shemesh 
 and  the  "  shoulder  of  Ekron."  It  is  probably  iden- 
 tical with  the  Thimnatifah  of  .Josh.  xix.  4.3,  one 
 of  the  towns  of  Dan,  also  named  in  connection  with 
 Ekron,  and  that  again  with  the  Timnatli,  or  more 
 accurately  Tinuiathah,  of  Samson,  and  the  Thaui- 
 natha  of  the  Jlaccabees.  Its  belonging  at  that 
 time  to  Dan  would  explain  its  absence  from  the 
 list  of  the  towns  of  Judah  (.Tosh,  xv.),  though  men- 
 tioned in  describing  the  course  of  the  boundary. 
 The  modern  representative  of  all  these  various  forms 
 of  the  same  name  is  probably  Tibneh,  a  village 
 about  two  miles  west  of  Alii  Shems  (Beth-shemesh), 
 among  the  broken  undulating  country  by  which 
 the  central  mountains  of  this  part  of  Palestine  de- 
 scend to  the  maritime  plain.  It  has  been  shown  in 
 several  other  cases  [Keilah,  etc  ]  that  this  district 
 contained  towns  which  in  the  lists  are  enumerated 
 as  belonging  to  the  [ilain.  Timnah  is  probably  an- 
 other instance  of  the  same  thing,  for  in  2  Chr.  xxviii. 
 18  a  place  of  the  same  name  is  mentioned  as  among 
 the  cities  of  the  Sliefelak,  which  from  its  occurrence 
 with  Beth-shemesh,  Gideroth,  Gimzo,  all  more  or 
 less  in  the  neighborhood  of  Ekron,  is  probably  the 
 same  as  that  just  described  as  in  the  hills.  After 
 the  Danites  had  deserted  tlieir  original  allotment 
 for  the  north,  their  towns  would  naturally  fall  into 
 the  hands  of  .ludah,  or  of  the  Philistines,  as  the  con- 
 tinual struggle  between  theui  might  happen  to  fluc- 
 tuate. 
 
 In  the  later  history  of  the  Jews  Tinuiah  must 
 have  been  a  conspicuous  place.  It  was  fortified  by 
 Bacchides  as  one  of  the  most  important  military 
 posts  of  Judoea  (1  Mace.  ix.  50),  and  it  became 
 the  head  of  a  district  or  toparchy,  which  was  called 
 after  its  name,  and  was  reckoned  the  fourth  in 
 order  of  importance  among  the  fourteen  into  which 
 the  whole  country  was  divided  at  the  time  of  Ves- 
 pasian's invasion  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  5;  and  see 
 Pliny,  v.  14). 
 
 Tibneh  is  now  spoken  of  as  "  a  deserted  site  '' 
 (Rob.  ii.  16),  and  not  a  single  western  traveller 
 appears  to  have  visited  it,  or  even  to  have  seen  it, 
 though  its  position  is  indicated  with  tolerable  cer- 
 tainty.      [TiMNATH.] 
 
 2.  {©a^jLvada.  ^^li\■  @afj.va-  Tliamnn.)  A  town 
 in  the  mountain  district  of  Judah  (,Iosh.  xv.  57). 
 It  is  named  in  the  same  group  with  Maon,  Ziph, 
 and  Carniel,  wliich  are  known  to  have  lieen  south 
 of  Hebron.  It  is,  therefore,  undoubtedly  a  distinct 
 place  from  that  just  examined.  G. 
 
 TIM'NATH.  The  form  hi  which  the  trans- 
 lators of  the  A.  V.  inaccurately  present  two  names 
 which  are  certainly  distinct,  though  it  is  possible 
 that  they  refer  to  the  same  place. 
 
 1.  TniNAH  (n^Tpri,  i.  e.  Timnah  [lot,  por- 
 tion]: Qa/xud:  Tlimunatlia).  The  scene  of  the  ad- 
 Venture  of  Judah  with  his  daughter-in-law  Tamar 
 
 TIMNATH-SERAH 
 
 3251 
 
 «  The  LXX.,  as  above,  derived  it  from  teman,  the 
 South. 
 
 (Gen.  xxxviii.  12,  1.3,  14).  There  is  nothing  hero 
 to  indicate  its  position.  The  expression  "  went  up 
 to  Timnah  "  (ver.  12)  indicates  that  it  was  on 
 higher  ground  than  the  s[)ot  from  which  Judab 
 started.  But  as  we  are  ignorant  where  that  was, 
 the  indication  is  of  no  service.  It  seeins  to  have 
 been  the  place  where  Judah's  flocks  were  kept. 
 There  w.is  a  road  to  it  (A.  V.  "  way  ").  It  may 
 be  identified  either  with  the  Timnah  in  the  moun- 
 tains of  .ludah,  which  was  in  the  neighborhood  of 
 Carmel  where  Nabal  kept  his  huge  flocks  of  sheep; 
 or  with  the  Timnathah  so  familiar  in  the  story  of 
 Samson's  conflicts.  In  favor  of  the  latter  is  the 
 doubtful  suggestion  named  under  Enam  and  Tap- 
 PUAH,  that  ill  the  words  translated  "  an  open 
 place  "  there  is  a  reference  to  those  two  towns.  In 
 favor  of  the  former  is  the  possibility  of  the  name  in 
 Gen.  xxxviii.  being  not  Timnah  but  Timnathah  (as 
 in  the  Vulgate),  which  is  certainly  the  name  of  the 
 Philistine  place  connected  with  Samson.  More 
 than  this  cannot  be  said. 
 
 The  place  is  named  in  the  specification  of  the 
 allotment  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  where  the  A.  V.  ex- 
 hibits it  accurately  as  TiiiiMNATHAii,  and  its  name 
 doubtless  survives  in  the  modern  Tibneh  which  is 
 SLiid  to  lie  below  Zareah,  about  three  miles  to  the 
 S.  W.  of  it,  where  the  great  ^Vady  es-Surdr  issues 
 upon  the  plain. 
 
 2.  Timnathah  (nn^^^l  :  Qafj.i'aed;  Joseph. 
 @aiJ.vd'-  Thamnathn).  The  residence  of  .Samson's 
 wife  (Judg.  XIV.  1,  2,  5).  It  was  then  in  the  occu- 
 pation of  the  Philistines.  It  contained  vineyards, 
 haunted  however  by  such  savage  animals  as  indi- 
 cate that  the  population  was  but  sparse.  It  was  on 
 hitrher  ground  than  Ashkelon  (xiv.  19),  but  lower 
 than  Zorah,  which  we  may  presume  was  Samson's 
 starting-point  (xiii.  25).  G. 
 
 TIM'NATH-HE'KES  (D^f!  HSTpri  [por- 
 ikn  of  til e  sun,  Ges.]:  QayLvaQapis;  A.\ex.  ®afj.va- 
 9ap  eois'-  Thamnatsare).  The  name  under  which 
 the  city  and  burial-place  of  Joshua,  previously  called 
 TiMNATH-SERAH,  IS  mentioned  in  Judg.  ii.  9.  The 
 constituent  consonants  of  the  word  are  the  same, 
 but  their  order  is  reversed.  The  authorities  differ 
 considerably  in  their  explanations.  The  Jews  adopt 
 Heres  as  the  real  name;  interpret  it  to  mean  the 
 sun;  and  see  in  it  a  reference  to  the  act  of  making 
 the  sun  stand  still,  which  is  to  them  the  greatest 
 exploit  of  Joshua's  life.  Others  (as  Fiirst,  i.  442), 
 while  accepting  Heres  as  the  original  form,  in- 
 terpret that  word  as  "clay,"  and  as  originating  in 
 the  character  of  the  soil.  Others  again,  like 
 Kvvald  {Gesch.  ii.  347,  348),  and  Bertheau  {On 
 ./ud(/es),  take  Serah  to  be  the  original  form,  and 
 Heres  an  ancient  but  unintentional  error.         G. 
 
 TIM'NATH-SE'RAH  (nnp-nS^pri  [por- 
 lion  of  abundance]:  [Kom.  Qa/j.i'aaapdx'^  Vat.] 
 Qa/xapxapris,  ©a/xi'aflacraxttp'^ !  Alex.  @afjLvad 
 aapa,  ©a/j-vaaaxap;  Joseph.  Qa/ai/d-  T/iimmalh 
 Saraa,  Thamnath  Sare).  The  name  of  the  city 
 which  at  his  request  was  presented  to  Joshua  after 
 the  partition  of  the  country  was  completed  (Josh, 
 xix.  50);  and  in  "the  border"  of  which  he  was 
 buried  (xxiv.  30).  It  is  specified  as  "  in  Mount 
 I'phraim  on  the  north  side  of  Mount  Gaash."  In 
 .Judg.  ii.  9,  the  name  is  altered  to  Ti.mnath-heres. 
 The  latter  form  is  that  adopted  by  the  Jewish  writers, 
 who  interpret  Heres  as  meaning  the  sun,  and  account 
 for  the  name  by  stating  that  the  figure  of  the  sun 
 (lemunat^   ha  clieres)  was  carved  upon  the  .sepul- 
 
8252 
 
 TIMNITE 
 
 ehre,  to  indicate  that  it  was  the  tomh  of  the  man 
 who  had  caused  the  sun  to  stand  still  (Rashi,  Com- 
 ment, on  l)oth  passages).  Accordingly,  they  iden- 
 tify the  place  with  Kefar  clieres,  which  is  said  by 
 Rabbi  Jacob  (Carnioly,  Ilinernins,  etc.,  p.  186), 
 hap-Parchi  (Asher's  Benj.  p.  4-34),  and  othey  Jew- 
 ish travellers  down  to  Schwarz  in  our  own  day  (p. 
 151),  to  be  about  5  miles  S.  of  Shechem  (NaUus). 
 No  place  with  that  name  appears  on  the  maps,  the 
 closest  approach  to  it  beins;  Kefr-Hant.  which  is 
 more  nearly  double  that  distance  S.  S.  W.  of  Na- 
 hlus.  "SA'herever  it  be,  the  place  is  said  by  the  .Jews 
 still  to  contain  the  tombs  of  Joshua,  of  Nun,  and  of 
 Caleb  (Schwarz,  p.  151). 
 
 Another  and  more  promising  identification  has, 
 however,  been  sugs^ested  in  our  own  day  by  Dr.  Eli 
 Smith  {Bibl.  Sacrn,  184-3).  In  his  journey  from 
 Jifna  to  Mejdel-  Yaha,  about  six  miles  from  the 
 former,  he  discovered  the  ruins  of  a  considerable 
 town  on  a  gentle  hill  on  the  left  (south)  of  the 
 road.  Opposite  the  town  (apparently  to  the  south) 
 was  a  much  higher  hill,  in  the  north  side  of  which 
 are  several  excavated  sepulchres,  which  in  size  and 
 in  the  richness  and  character  of  their  decorations 
 resemlile  the  so-called  "  Tombs  of  the  Kings  "  at 
 Jerusalem.  The  whole  bears  the  name  of  Tiiitieh, 
 and  although  without  furtlier  examination  it  can 
 hardly  be  affirmed  to  be  the  Timnah  of  Joshua, 
 yet  the  identification  appears  probable.  [Gaash, 
 Amer.  ed.] 
 
 Timnath-Serah  and  the  tomb  of  its  illustrious 
 owner  were  shown  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  who 
 mentions  them  in  the  EpUaphium  Paulie  (§  13). 
 Beyond  its  being  south  of  Shechem,  he  gives  no 
 indication  of  its  position,  but  he  dismisses  it  with 
 the  following  characteristic  remark,  a  fitting  tribute 
 to  the  simple  self-denial  of  the  great  soldier  of  Israel : 
 "  Satisque  mirata  est,  quod  distributor  possessionum 
 sibi  montana  et  aspera  delegisset."  G. 
 
 TIM'NITE,  THE  (^3pi^n  [patr.]:  rod 
 &afj.v'i  [Vat.  -I'd];  Alex,  o  @afj.va9aLos '■  TJiam- 
 ■natli(eus),  that  is,  the  Timnathite  (as  in  the  Alex. 
 LXX.,  and  Vulg.).  Samson's  father-in-law  (Judg. 
 XV.  6). 
 
 TVMO'N  (Ti/x'jiV.  Timon).  One  of  the  seven, 
 commonly  called  "  deacons  "  [Deacon],  who  were 
 appointed  to  act  as  almoners  on  the  occasion  of 
 complaints  of  partiality  being  raised  by  the  Hellen- 
 istic Jews  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.  1-6).  Like  his 
 colleagues,  Timon  bears  a  Greek  name,  from  which, 
 taken  together  with  the  occasion  of  their  appoint- 
 ment, it  has  been  inferred  with  much  probability 
 that  the  seven  were  themselves  Hellenists.  The 
 name  of  Timon  stands  fifth  in  the  catalogue. 
 Nothing  further  is  known  of  him  with  certainty; 
 but  in  the  "  Synopsis  de  Vita  et  Morte  Frophetarum 
 Apostolorum  et  Discipnlorum  Domini,"  ascribed  to 
 Dorotheus  of  Tyre  {Bibl.  Patnim,  iii.  149),  we  are 
 informed  that  he  was  one  of  the  "  seventy-two  " 
 disciples  (the  catalogue  of  whom  is  a  mere  conge- 
 ries of  New  Testament  names),  and  that  he  after- 
 wards became  bishop  of  Bostra  ( ?  "  Bostra  Ara- 
 bum  "),  where  he  suffered  martyrdom  by  fire. 
 
 W.  B.  J. 
 
 TIMO'THEUS  iTifiSetos  [hmoring  God]). 
 
 a  The  children  of  these  marriages  were  known  as 
 Mamzerim  (bastards),  and  stood  just  above  the  Ne- 
 THDJIM.  This  was,  however,  crr'terh  paribus.  A  bas- 
 tard who  was  a  wise  student  of  the  Law  was,  in  theory, 
 above  an  ignorant  high-priest  (Gem.  Hieros.  Horajoth, 
 
 TIMOTHY 
 
 1.  A  "captain  of  the  Ammonites"  (1  Mace,  v  0\ 
 who  was  defeated  on  several  occasions  by  Judas 
 Maccabajus,  R.  c.  164  (1  Mace.  v.  6,  11,  34-44). 
 He  was  probably  a  Greek  adventurer "  (comp.  Jos. 
 Ant.  xii.  8,  §  1),  who  had  gained  the  leadership  of 
 the  tribe.  Thus  Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  8,  §  1,  quoted 
 by  Grinmi,  on  1  Mace.  v.  6)  mentions  one  '•  Zeno, 
 surnamed  Cotylas,  who  was  despot  of  Kabbah  "  in 
 the  time  of  Johannes  Hyrcanus. 
 
 2.  In  2  IMacc.  a  leader  named  Timotheus  is 
 mentioned  as  having  taken  part  in  the  invasion  of 
 Nicanor  (b.  c.  166:  2  Mace.  viii.  -30,  ix.  3).  At 
 a  later  time  he  made  great  preparations  for  a  second 
 attack  on  Judas,  but  was  driven  to  a  stronghold, 
 Gazara,  which  was  stormed  by  Judas,  and  there 
 Timotheus  was  taken  and  slain  (2  Mace,  x  24-37). 
 It  has  been  supposed  that  the  events  recorded  in 
 this  latter  narrative  are  identical  with  those  in  1 
 Mace.  V.  6-8,  an  idea  rendered  more  plausible  by 
 the  similarity  of  the  names  Jazer  and  Gazara  (in 
 Lat.  Gazer,  Jazare,  Gazara).  But  the  name  Timo-, 
 theus  was  very  common,  and  it  is  evident  that 
 Timotheus  the  Ammonite  leader  was  not  slain  at 
 Jazer  (1  Mace.  v.  34) ;  and  Jazer  was  on  the  east 
 side  of  Jordan,  while  Gazara  was  almost  certainly 
 the  same  as  Gezer.  [Jaazer;  Gazara.]  It 
 may  be  lu'ged  further,  in  support  of  the  substantial 
 accuracy  of  2  Mace,  that  the  second  campaign  of 
 Judas  against  Timotheus  (1)  (1  Mace.  v.  27-44)  is 
 given  in  2  Slacc.  xii.  2-24,  after  the  account  of  the 
 capture  of  Gazara  and  the  death  of  Timotheus  (2) 
 there.  Wernsdorf  assumes  that  all  the  differences 
 in  the  narratives  are  blunders  in  2  Mace.  {De  fide, 
 IJhr.  Mace.  §  Ixx.),  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by 
 Grimm  (on  2  Slacc.  x.  24,  32).  But,  if  any  reli- 
 ance is  to  be  placed  on  2  Mace,  the  differences  of 
 place  and  circumstances  are  rightly  taken  by  I'atri- 
 tius  to  mark  different  events  (De  Libr.  Mace. 
 §  xxxii.  p.  259). 
 
 3.  The  (jreek  name  of  TuroriiY  (Acts  xvi.  1, 
 xvii.  14,  &c.).  He  is  called  by  this  name  in  the 
 A.  V.  in  every  case  except  2  Cor.  i.  1,  Philem.  1, 
 Heb.  xiii.  23,  and  the  epistles  addressed  to  him. 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 TIM'OTHY  {Tiix6eios  [limoring  God]  :  Tim- 
 otheus). The  disciple  thus  named  was  the  son  of 
 one  of  those  mixed  marriages  which,  though  con- 
 demned by  stricter  Jewish  opinion,  and  placing 
 their  offspring  on  all  Init  the  lowest  step  in  the 
 Jewish  scale  of  precedence,"  were  yet  not  uncom- 
 mon in  the  later  periods  of  Jewish  history.  The 
 father's  name  is  unknown :  he  was  a  Greek,  i.  e.  a 
 Gentile  by  descent  (Acts  xvi.  1,  3).  If  in  any 
 sense  a  proselyte,  the  fact  that  the  issue  of  the 
 marriage  did  not  receive  the  sign  of  the  covenant 
 would  render  it  probable  that  he  belonged  to  the 
 class  of  half-converts,  the  so-called  Proselytes  of  the 
 Gate,  not  those  of  Kighteousness  [comp.  Pkose- 
 LYTKs].  The  absence  of  any  personal  allusion  to 
 the  father  in  the  Acts  or  Epistles  suggests  the  infer- 
 ence that  he  must  have  died  or  disappeared  during 
 his  son's  infancy.  The  care  of  the  boy  thus  de- 
 volved upon  his  mother  Eunice  and  her  mother 
 Lois  (2  Tim.  i.  5).  Under  their  training  his  edu- 
 cation was  emphatically  Jewish.  "  From  a  child  " 
 he  learnt  (probably  in  the  LXX.  version)  to  "  know 
 
 fol.  84,  in  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  in  Matt,  xxiii.  14) ;  and 
 the  education  of  Timotheus  (2  Tim.  iii.  15)  may  there- 
 fore have  helped  to  overcome  the  prejudice  which 
 the  .Tews  would  naturally  have  against  him  on  this 
 ground. 
 
TIMOTHY 
 
 the  Holy  Scriptures  "  daily.  The  language  of  the 
 Acts  lea\es  it  uncertain  whether  Lystra  or  Derbe 
 were  the  residence  of  tlie  devout  feniily.  The  latter 
 has  been  inferred,  l>ut  without  much  likelihood, 
 from  a  possible  construction  of  Acts  xx.  4,  tlie 
 former  from  Acts  xvi.  1,  2  (comp.  Neander,  Pji. 
 2111(1  Leit.  i.  288;  Alford  and  Huther,  in  loc).  In 
 either  case  tlie  absence  of  any  indication  of  the 
 existence  of  a  synagoijue  makes  this  devout  con- 
 sistency more  noticeable.  We  may  think  here, 
 as  at  Philippi,  of  the  few  devout  women  going 
 forth  to  their  daily  worship  at  some  river-side  ora- 
 tory (Conybeare  and  Howson,  i.  211).  The  read- 
 ing Trapa  rivwv,  in  2  Tim.  iii.  14,  adopted  by 
 Lachmann  and  'fischendorf,  indicates  that  it  w.as 
 from  them  as  well  as  from  the  Apostle  that  the 
 young  disciple  received  his  first  impression  of 
 Christian  truth.  It  would  be  natural  that  a 
 character  thus  fashioned  should  retain  throughout 
 something  of  a  feminine  piety.  A  constitution  far 
 from  roliust  (1  Tim.  v.  2-^),  a  morbid  shrinking 
 from  opposition  and  responsiltility  (1  Tim.  iv.  12- 
 16,  V.  20,  21,  vi.  11-14;  2  Tim"  ii.  1-7),  a  sen- 
 sitiveness even  to  tears  (2  Tim.  1.  4),  a  tendency 
 to  an  ascetic  rigor  which  he  had  not  strength  to 
 bear  (1  Tim.  v.  2:{),  united,  as  it  often  is,  with  a 
 temperament  exposed  to  some  risk  from  "  youthful 
 lusts""  (2  Tim.  ii.  22)  and  the  softer  emotions 
 (1  Tim.  V.  2)  —  these  we  may  well  think  of  as 
 characterizing  the  youth  as  they  afterwards  char- 
 acterized the  man. 
 
 The  arri\al  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  Lycaonia 
 (.Vets  xiv.  6)  brought  the  message  of  glad-tidings 
 to  Timotheus  and  his  mother,  and  they  received  it 
 with  "unfeigned  faith"  (2  Tim.  i.  5).  If  at  Lys- 
 tra, as  seems  probable  from  2  Tim.  iii.  11,  he  may 
 have  witnessed  the  half-completed  sacrifice,  the 
 half  finished  martyrdom,  of  Acts  xiv.  19.  The 
 preaching  of  the  Apostle  on  his  return  from  his 
 short  circuit  prepared  him  for  a  life  of  suffering 
 (.\cts  xiv.  22).  From  that  time  his  life  and  edu- 
 cation must  have  been  under  the  direct  superin- 
 tendence of  the  body  of  elders  (jbid.  23).  During 
 the  interval  of  seven  years  between  the  Apostle's 
 first  and  second  journeys,  the  boy  grew  up  to 
 nianliood.  His  zeal,  probably  his  asceticism,  be- 
 came known  lioth  at  Lystra  and  Iconium.  The 
 mention  of  tlie  two  churches  as  united  in  testify- 
 ing to  his  character  (Acts  xvi.  2),  leads  us  to  be- 
 lieve that  the  early  work  was  prophetic  of  the  later, 
 that  he  had  been  already  employed  in  what  was 
 afterwards  to  be  tlie  great  labor  of  his  life,  as  "the 
 me.ssen^er  of  the  churclies,"  and  that  it  was  his 
 tried  fitness  for  that  office  which  determined  St. 
 Paul's  choice.  Those  who  had  the  deepest  insight 
 into  character,  and  spoke  with  a  prophetic  utter- 
 ance, pointed  to  him  (1  Tim.  i.  18,  iv.  14),  as 
 other.s  had  pointed  before  to  Paul  and  Barnaljas 
 (.A.cts  xiii.  2),  as  specially  fit  for  the  missionary  work 
 in  which  the  .Vpostle  was  engaged.  Personal  feel- 
 ing led  St.  Paul  to  the  same  conclusion  (Acts  xvi. 
 3),  and  he  was  solemnly  set  apart  (the  whole  as- 
 sembly of  the  elders  laying  their  hands  on  him,  as 
 did  the  .\postle  himself)  to  do  the  work  and  possi- 
 bly to  bear  the  title  of  Evangelist  (I  Tim.  iv.  14: 
 2    Tim.  i.  G,  iv.  .5).''     A  great  obstacle,   however, 
 
 «  Comp.  the  elaborate  dissertation,  De.  vewTepixais 
 eTTiflufiiais,  by  Bosius,  iu  Hase's   Thesaurus,  vol.  ii. 
 
 b  Iconium  has  beeu  suggested  by  Couybeare  and 
 Howsoa  (1.  289)  as  the  probable  scene  of  the  orJina- 
 tion. 
 
 TIMOTHY  3253 
 
 presented  itself.  Timotheus,  though  inheriting,  aa 
 it  were,  from  the  nobler  side  (Wetstein,  in  loc), 
 and  therefore  reckoned  as  one  of  the  seed  of  Abra/- 
 ham,  had  been  allowed  to  grow  up  to  the  age  of 
 manhood  without  the  sign  of  circumcision,  and  in 
 this  point  he  might  seem  to  be  disclaiming  the 
 Jewish  blood  that  was  in  him,  and  choosing  to 
 take  up  his  position  as  a  heathen.  Had  that  been 
 his  real  position,  it  would  have  been  utterly  incon- 
 sistent with  St.  Paul's  principle  of  action  to  urge 
 on  him  the  necessity  of  circumcision  (1  Cor.  vii. 
 18  V  Gal.  ii.  3,  v.  2).  As  it  was,  his  condition 
 was  that  of  a  negligent,  almost  of  an  apostate 
 Israelite;  and,  though  circumcision  was  nothing, 
 and  uncircumcisiou  was  nothing,  it  was  a  serious 
 question  whether  the  scandal  of  such  a  position 
 should  be  allowed  to  frustrate  all  his  efforts  as  an 
 Evangelist.  The  fact  that  no  ofTense  seems  to 
 have  been  felt  hitherto  is  explained  by  the  pre- 
 dominance of  the  Gentile  element  in  the  churches 
 of  Lycaonia  (Acts  xiv.  27).  But  his  wider  work 
 would  bring  him  into  contact  with  the  Jews,  who 
 had  already  shown  themselves  so  ready  to  attack, 
 and  then  the  scandal  would  come  out.  They 
 might  tolerate  a  heathen,  as  such,  in  the  syna- 
 gogue or  the  church,  but  an  uncircumcised  Israel- 
 ite would  be  to  tiieni  a  horror  and  a  portent. 
 \^'ith  a  special  view  to  their  feelings,  making  no 
 sacrifice  of  principle,  the  Apostle,  who  had  refused 
 to  permit  the  circumcision  of  Titus,  "  took  and 
 circumci.sed  "  Timotheus  (Acts  xvi.  3);  and  then, 
 as  conscious  of  no  inconsistency,  went  on  his  way 
 distributing  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Jeru- 
 salem, the  great  charter  of  the  freedom  of  the 
 Gentiles  {iliid.  4).  Henceforth  Timotheus  was  one 
 of  his  most  constant  companions.  Not  since  he 
 parted  from  Barnabas  had  he  found  one  whose 
 heart  so  answered  to  his  own.  If  Barnabas  had 
 been  as  the  brother  and  friend  of  early  days,  he 
 had  now  found  one  whom  he  could  claim  as  his 
 own  true  son  by  a  spiritual  parentage  (1  Cor.  iv. 
 17;  1  Tim.  i.  2;  2  Tim.  i.  2).  They  and  Sil- 
 vanus,  and  probably  Lidce  also,  journeyed  to  Phi- 
 lippi  (.Vets  xvi.  12),  and  there  already  the  young 
 Evangelist  was  coiLspicuous  at  once  for  his  filial 
 devotion  and  his  zeal  (Phil.  ii.  22).  His  name 
 does  not  appear  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  work 
 at  Thessalonica,  and  it  is  possible  that  he  remained 
 some  time  at  Philippi,  and  then  acted  as  the  mes- 
 senger by  whom  the  members  of  that  church  sent 
 what  they  were  able  to  gi\e  for  the  Apostle's  wants 
 (Phil.  iv.  1.5).  He  appears,  however,  at  Beroea, 
 and  remains  there  when  Paul  and  Silas  are  obliged 
 to  leave  (Acts  xvii.  14),  going  on  afterwards  to 
 join  his  master  at  .\thens  (1  Thess.  iii.  2).  From 
 .-Vtheiis  he  is  sent  back  to  Thessalonica  (ibid.),  as 
 having  special  t;ifts  for  comforting  and  teaching. 
 He  returns  from  Thessalonica,  not  to  Athens  but 
 to  Corinth,'^  and  his  name  appears  united  with 
 .St.  Paul's  in  the  opening  words  of  both  the  letters 
 written  from  that  city  to  the  Thessalonians  (1 
 Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1).  Here  also  he  was 
 apparently  active  as  an  Evangelist  (2  Cor.  i.  19), 
 and  on  him,  probably,  with  some  exceptions,  de- 
 volved the  duty  of  baptizing  the  new  converts  (1 
 Cor.  i.  14).     Of  the  next  five  years  of  his  life  we 
 
 c  Dr.  fTordsworth  infers  from  2  Cor.  ix.  11,  and 
 Acts  xviii.  5,  that  he  brought  contributions  to  the 
 support  of  the  Apostle  froui  the  Macedonian  churches, 
 and  thus  released  him  from  his  continuous  labor  as  a 
 tent-maker. 
 
3254 
 
 TIMOTHY 
 
 have  no  record,  and  can  infer  nothing  beyond  a 
 continuance  of  liis  active  service  as  St.  Paul's  com- 
 panion. AVhen  we  next  meet  with  him  it  is  as 
 being  sent  on  in  advance  wlien  the  Apostle  was 
 contemplating  the  long  journey  which  was  to  in- 
 clude IMacedonia,  Achaia,  Jerusalem,  and  Eome 
 (Acts  xix.  22).  He  was  sent  to  "  bring "  the 
 churches  "  into  remembrance  of  the  ways  "  of  the 
 Apostle  (1  i'or.  iv.  17).  We  trace  in  the  words 
 of  the  "father"  an  anxious  desire  to  guard  the  son 
 from  the  perils  which,  to  his  eager  but  sensitive 
 temperament,  would  be  ..lo^t  trying  (1  Cor.  :^i. 
 10).  His  route  would  lake  him  through  the 
 churches  which  he  had  been  instrumental  in  found- 
 ing, and  this  would  give  him  scope  for  exercising 
 the  gifts  which  were  afterwards  to  be  displayed  in 
 a  still  more  responsible  office.  It  is  probable,  from 
 the  passages  already  referred  to,  that,  after  accom- 
 plishing the  special  work  assigned  to  him,  he 
 returned  by  the  same  route,  and  met  St.  Paul  ac- 
 cording to  a  previous  arrangement  (1  Cor.  xvi.  11), 
 and  was  thus  with  him  when  the  second  epistle 
 was  written  to  the  Church  of  Corinth  (2  Cor.  i.  1). 
 He  returns  with  the  Apostle  to  that  city,  and  joins 
 in  messages  of  greeting  to  the  disciples  whom  he 
 had  known  personally  at  Corinth,  and  who  had 
 since  found  their  way  to  Eome  (Rom.  xvi.  21). 
 He  forms  one  of  the  company  of  friends  who  go 
 with  St.  Paul  to  Philippi  and  then  sail  by  them- 
 selves, waiting  lor  his  arrival  by  a  different  ship 
 (Acts  XX.  3-6).  Whether  he  continued  his  jour- 
 ney to  .Jerusalem,  and  what  became  of  him  during 
 St.  Paul's  two  years'  imprisonment,  are  points  on 
 which  we  must  remain  uncertain.  The  language 
 of  St.  Paul's  address  to  the  elders  of  Ejihesus 
 (Acts  XX.  17-35)  renders  it  unlikely  that  he  was 
 then  left  there  with  authority.  The  absence  of 
 his  name  from  Acts  xxvii.  in  like  manner  leads  to 
 the  conclusion  that  lie  did  not  share  in  the  perilous 
 voyage  to  Italy.  He  nuist  have  joined  him,  how- 
 ever, apparently  soon  after  his  arri\al  in  liome, 
 and  was  with  him  when  the  epistles  to  the  Phi- 
 lippians,  to  the  Colossians,  and  to  Philemon  were 
 written  (Phil.  i.  1,  ii.  19;  Col.  i.  1;  Philem.  1). 
 All  the  indications  of  this  period  point  to  incessant 
 missionary  activity.  As  liefore,  so  now,  he  is  to 
 precede  the  personal  coming  of  the  Apostle,  in- 
 specting, advising,  reporting  (Phil.  ii.  19-23),  car- 
 ing especially  for  the  Macedonian  churches  as  no 
 one  else  could  care.  The  special  messages  of  greet- 
 ing sent  to  him  at  a  later  date  (2  Tim.  iv.  21),  show 
 that  at  Home  also,  as  elsewhere,  he  had  gained 
 the  warm  affection  of  those  among  whom  he  min- 
 istered. Among  those  most  eager  to  be  thus 
 remembered  to  him,  we  find,  according  to  a  fairly 
 supported  hypothesis,  the  names  of  a  Roman  noble 
 [PuoKNs],  of  a  futurcbishop  of  Rome  [Linus], 
 and  of  the  daughter  of  a  British  king  [Claudia] 
 (Williams,  Claudia  and  Pudens ;  Conybeare  and 
 
 TIMOTHY 
 
 How.son,  ii.  501;  Alford,  Excursus  in  Greek  Test. 
 iii.  104).  It  is  interesting  to  think  of  the  young 
 Evangelist  as  having  been  the  instrument  by  which 
 one  who  was  surrounded  by  the  fathomless  impu- 
 rity of  the  Roman  world  was  called  to  a  higher 
 life,  and  the  names  which  would  otherwise  have 
 appeared  only  in  the  foul  epigrams  of  Martial  (i. 
 32,  iv.  13,  V.  48,  xi.  53)  raised  to  a  perpetual 
 honor  in  the  salutations  of  an  apostolic  epistle." 
 To  this  period  of  his  life  (the  exact  time  and  place 
 being  uncertain)  we  may  proliably  refer  the  im- 
 prisonment of  Heb.  xiii.  23,  and  the  trial  at  which 
 he  "  witnessed  the  good  confession  "  not  unworthy 
 to  be  likened  to  that  of  the  Great  Confessor  before 
 Pilate  (1  Tim.  vi.  13). 
 
 Assuming  the  genuineness  and  the  later  date  of 
 the  two  epistles  addressed  to  him  [comp.  the  fol- 
 lowing article],  we  are  able  to  put  together  a  few 
 notices  as  to  his  later  life.  It  follows  from  1  Tim. 
 i.  3  that  he  and  his  master,  after  the  release  of  the 
 latter  from  his  imprisonment,  revisited  the  pro- 
 consular Asia,  that  the  Apostle  then  continued  his 
 journey  to  Macedonia,*  while  the  disciple  remained, 
 half-reluctantly,  even  weeping  at  the  separation 
 (2  Tim.  i.  4),  at  Ephesus,  to  check,  if  possible, 
 the  outgrowth  of  heresy  and  licentiousness  which 
 had  sprung  up  there.  The  time  during  which  he 
 was  thus  to  exercise  authority  as  the  delegate  of  an 
 Apostle  —  a  vicar  apostolic  rather  than  a  bishop  — 
 was  of  imcertain  duration  (1  Tim.  iii.  14).  The 
 position  in  which  he  found  himself  might  well 
 make  him  anxious.  He  had  to  rule  presbyters, 
 most  of  whom  were  older  than  himself  (1  Tim. 
 iv.  12),  to  assign  to  each  a  stipend  in  proportion 
 to  his  work  (ibid.  v.  17),  to  receive  and  decide  on 
 charges  that  might  be  brought  against  them  (ibid. 
 v.  1,  19,  20),  to  regulate  the  ahu.sgiving  and  the 
 sisterhoods  of  the  Church  (ibid.  v.  3-10),  to  ordain 
 presbyters  and  deacons  (^ibid.  iii.  1-13).  There  was 
 the  risk  of  being  entangled  in  the  disputes,  prej- 
 udices, covetousness,  sensuality  of  a  great  city. 
 There  was  the  risk  of  injuring  health  and  strength 
 by  an  overstrained  asceticism  {ibid.  iv.  4,  v.  23). 
 Leaders  of  rival  sects  were  there  —  Hymena?us, 
 Philetus.  Alexander  —  to  oppose  and  thwart  him 
 (1  Tim.'  i.  20;  2  Tim.  ii.  17,  iv.  14,  15).  The 
 name  of  his  beloved  teacher  was  no  longer  hon- 
 ored as  it  had  been ;  the  strong  affection  of  former 
 days  had  vanished,  and  "  Paul  the  aged  "  had  be- 
 come unpopular,  the  object  of  suspicion  and  dis- 
 like (comp.  Acts  XX.  37  and  2  Tim.  i.  15).  Only 
 in  the  narrowed  circle  of  the  faithful  few,  Aquila, 
 Pj-iscilla,  Mark,  and  others,  who  were  still  with 
 him,  was  he  likely  to  find  sympathy  or  support  (2 
 Tim.  iv.  19).  We  cannot  wonder  that  the  Apos- 
 tle, knowing  these  trials,  and,  with  his  marvelous 
 power  of  bearing  another's  burdens,  making  them 
 his  own,  should  be  full  of  anxiety  and  fear  for  his 
 disciple's  steadfastness;  that  admonitions,  appeals, 
 
 «  Tlie  writer  has  to  thank  Prof.  Lightfoot  for  call- 
 ing his  attention  to  an  article  ("  They  of  Caesar's 
 Household")  in  Joiirn.  of  Class,  and  Sncrnl  Philology, 
 No.  X,  in  wtiich  the  liypothe.sis  is  questioned,  on  the 
 ground  that  the  Epigrams  are  later  than  the  Epistles, 
 and  tliat  tliey  connect  the  name  of  Pudens  with 
 heathen  customs  and  vices.  On  the  other  liand  it 
 may  he  urged  that  tlie  bantering  tone  of  the  Epigrams 
 forbids  us  to  take  them  as  evidences  of  character. 
 Pudens  tells  Martial  that  he  does  not  "  like  his 
 poems."  "Oh,  that  is  because  you  read  too  many  at 
 a  time  "  (iv.  29).  He  begs  him  to  correct  their  blem- 
 ishes.    "  You  want  an  autograph  copy  then,  do  you  ?  " 
 
 (vii.  11).  The  slave  Eii-  or  Eucolpos  (the  name  is 
 possibly  a  willful  distortion  of  Eubulus)  does  what 
 might  be  the  fulfillment  of  a  Christian  vow  (.\cts  xviii. 
 18),  and  this  is  the  occasion  of  the  suggestion  which 
 .seems  most  damnatory  (v.  48).  With  this  there  min- 
 gles however,  as  in  iv.  13,  vi.  58,  the  Language  of  a 
 more  real  esteem  than  is  comnion  in  Martial  (comp 
 some  good  remarks  in  Rev.  W.  B.  Galloway,  A  Clergy- 
 man's Holidays,  pp.  35-49). 
 
 6  Dr.  Wordsworth,  in  an  intei-esting  note  on  2  Tim. 
 i.  15,  supposes  the  parting  to  have  been  in  conse- 
 quence of  St.  Paul's  second  arrest,  and  sees  in  this 
 the  explanation  of  the  tears  of  Timotheus. 
 
TIMOTHY 
 
 warnings,  should  follow  each  other  in  rapid  and 
 vehement  succession  (1  Tim.  i.  18,  iii.  15,  iv.  14, 
 V.  21,  vi.  11).  In  tlie  second  epistle  to  him  this 
 deep  personal  feeling  utters  itself  yet  more  fully. 
 The  i'riendship  of  fifteen  years  was  drawing  to  a 
 close,  and  all  memories  connected  with  it  throng 
 upon  the  mind  of  the  old  man,  now  ready  to  be 
 ottered,  the  blameless  youth  (2  Tim.  iii.  15),  the 
 holy  household  (ibid.  i.  5),  the  solemn  ordination 
 (ibid.  i.  6),  the  tears  at  parting  {ibid.  i.  4).  The 
 last  recorded  words  of  the  Apostle  express  the 
 earnest  ho]5e,  repeated  yet  more  earnestly,  that  he 
 might  see  him  once  again  {ibid.  iv.  1),  21).  Timo- 
 theus  is  to  come  before  winter,  to  bring  with  him 
 the  cloak  for  which  in  that  winter  there  would  be 
 need  (2  Tim.  iv.  13).  We  may  hazard  the  con- 
 jecture that  he  reached  him  in  time,  and  that  the 
 last  hours  of  the  teacher  were  soothed  by  the 
 presence  of  the  disciple  whom  he  loved  so  truly. 
 Some  writers  have  even  seen  in  Heb.  xiii.  23  an 
 indication  that  he  shared  St.  Paul's  imprisonment 
 and  was  released  from  it  by  the  death  of  Nero 
 (Conybeare  and  Ilowion,  ii.  502;  Neander,  PJi. 
 und  Ltii.  i.  552).  Beyond  this  all  is  apocryphal 
 and  uncertain.  He  continues,  according  to  the 
 old  traditions,  to  act  as  bishop  of  Ephesus  (Euseb. 
 //.  E.  iii.  14),  and  dies  a  martyr's  death  under 
 Doniitian  or  Nerva  (Niceph.  //.  E.  iii.  11).  The 
 great  festival  of  Artemis  (the  Ka.Tayu>^iov  of  that 
 goddess)  led  him  to  protest  against  the  license  and 
 frenzy  which  accompanied  it.  The  mob  were  roused 
 to  fury,  and  put  him  to  death  with  clubs  (comp. 
 folycrates  and  Simeon  jMetaphr.  in  llenschen's 
 Ada  tSimcturuin.^  Jan.  24).  Some  later  critics  — 
 Schleiermacher,  iMayerhofF —  have  seen  in  him  the 
 author  of  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Acts  (Olshau- 
 sen,  CoiHinenLar.  ii.  612). 
 
 A  somewhat  startling  theory  as  to  the  inter- 
 vening period  of  his  life  has  found  favor  with 
 Calmet  (s.  v.  Timot/iee),  Tillemont  (ii.  147),  and 
 others.  If  he  continued,  according  to  the  received 
 tradition,  to  be  bishop  of  Ephesus,  then  he,  and  no 
 other,  must  have  been  the  "  angel"  of  that  church 
 to  whom  the  message  of  Kev.  ii.  1-7  was  ad- 
 dressed. It  may  be  urged,  as  in  some  degree 
 confirming  this  view,  that  both  the  praise  and  the 
 blame  of  that  message  are  such  as  harmonize  with 
 the  impressions  as  to  the  character  of  Timotheus 
 derived  from  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  The 
 refusal  to  acknowledge  the  self-styled  apostles, 
 the  abhorrence  of  the  deeds  of  the  Nicolaitans,  the 
 unwearied  labor,  all  this  belongs  to  "  the  man  of 
 God  "  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  And  the  fault  is 
 no  less  characteristic.  The  strong  language  of  St. 
 Paul's  entreaty  would  lead  us  to  expect  that  the 
 temptation  of  such  a  man  would  be  to  fall  away 
 from  the  glow  of  his  "  first  love,"  the  zeal  of  his 
 first  faith.  The  promise  of  the  Lord  of  the 
 Churches  is  in  substance  the  same  as  that  implied 
 in  the  language  of  the  Apostle  (2  Tim.  ii.  4-6). 
 
 The  conjecture,  it  should  be  added,  has  been 
 passed  over  unnoticed  by  most  of  the  recent  com- 
 mentators on  the  Apocalypse  (comp.  Alford  and 
 Wordsworth,  m  ^c).  Trench  {Sevtn  Churches  of 
 Asiit,  p.  64),  contrasts  the  "angel"  of  Kev.  ii. 
 with  Timotheus  as  an  "earlier  angel"  who,  with 
 the  generation  to  which  he  belonged,  had  passed 
 away  when  the  Apocalypse  was  written.  It  must 
 be  rememliered,  however,  that  at  the  time  of 
 St.  Paul's  death,  Timotheus  was  still  "  young," 
 probably  not  more  than  thirty-five,  that  he  might, 
 therefore,  weU  be  living,  even  on  the  assumption  of 
 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO     3255 
 
 the  later  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  that  the 
 traditions  (valeant  qumUum)  place  his  death  after 
 that  date.  Bengel  admits  this,  but  urges  the 
 objection  that  he  was  not  the  bishop  of  any  single 
 diocese,  but  the  superintendent  of  many  churches. 
 This  however  may,  in  its  turn,  be  traversed,  by 
 the  answer  that  the  death  of  St.  Paul  may  have 
 made  a  great  difference  in  the  work  of  one  who  had 
 hitherto  been  employed  in  travelling  as  his  repre- 
 sentative. The  special  charge  conmiitted  to  him 
 in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  might  not  unnaturally 
 give  fixity  to  a  life  which  had  previously  been 
 wandering. 
 
 An  additional  fact  connected  with  the  name  of 
 Timothy  is  that  two  of  the  treatises  of  the  Pseudo- 
 Dionysius  the  Areopagite  are  addressed  to  him  {De 
 IJierarch.  CteL  i.  1;  comp.  Le  Nourry,  Dissert. 
 c.  ix.,  and  Halloix,   Qtuest.  iv.  in  iSIigne's  edition). 
 
 E.  H.  P. 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO.  Authorship. 
 —  The  question  whether  these  epistles  were  written 
 by  St.  Paul  was  one  to  which,  till  within  the  last 
 half-century,  hardly  any  answer  but  an  attiimative 
 one  was  thought  possible.  They  are  reckoned  among 
 the  Pauline  Jspistles  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  and 
 the  Peshito  version.  Eusebius  (H.  E.  iii.  25; 
 places  them  among  the  6jxo7^oyovix(va  of  the  N.  T., 
 and,  while  recording  the  doubts  which  affected  the 
 Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  and  the  other  avTiM- 
 ■yofxiva,  knows  of  none  which  affect  these.  They 
 are  cited  as  authoritative  by  Tertullian  {Da  Prmscr. 
 c.  25;  ad  Uxcn-em,  i.  7),  Clement  of  Alexandria 
 {Strom,  ii.  11),  Irenseus  {Adv.  Iher.  iv.  16,  §  3, 
 ii.  14,  §  8).  Parallelisms,  implying  quotation,  in 
 some  cases  with  close  verbal  agreement,  are  found 
 in  Clem.  Rom.  1  Cor.  c.  2.')  (comp.  1  Tim.  ii.  8); 
 Ignat.  ad  .\fafj7i.  c.  8  (1  Tim.  i.  4) ;  Polycarp,  c.  4 
 (comp.  1  Tim.  vi.  7,  8);  Theophilus  of  Antioch 
 ad  Atitol.  iii.  126  (comp.  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2).  There 
 were  indeed  some  notable  exceptions  to  this  con- 
 sensus. The  three  Pastoral  Epistles  were  all  re- 
 jected by  Marcion  (Tertull.  ade.  Mttrc.  v.  21; 
 Iren.  i.  29),  Basilides,  and  other  Gnostic  teachers 
 {Wiexon.  P reef,  ill  Titum).  Tatian,  while  strongly 
 maintaining  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
 denied  that  of  the  other  two  (Hieron.  ib.).  In 
 these  instances  we  are  able  to  discern  a  dogmatic 
 reason  for  the  rejection.  The  sects  which  these 
 leaders  represented  could  not  but  feel  that  they 
 were  condemned  by  the  teaching  of  the  PastonU 
 Epistles.  Origen  mentions  some  who  excluded 
 2  Tim.  from  the  Canon  for  a  very  different  reason. 
 The  names  of  Jannes  and  Jambres  belonged  to 
 an  apocryphal  history,  and  from  such  a  history 
 St.  Paul  never  would  have  quoted  (Origen,  Comm. 
 in  Mail.  117). 
 
 The  Pastoral  Epistles  have,  however,  been  sub- 
 jected to  a  more  elaborate  scrutiny  by  the  criticism 
 of  Germany.  The  first  doubts  were  uttered  by 
 J.  C.  Schmidt.  These  were  followed  by  the  Send- 
 schreiben  of  Schleiermacher,  who,  assunung  the 
 genuineness  of  2  Tim.  and  I'itus,  undertook,  on 
 that  hypothesis,  to  prove  the  spuriousness  of  1  Tim. 
 Bolder  critics  saw  that  the  position  thus  taken  wag 
 untenable,  that  the  three  epistles  must  stand  or 
 fall  together.  Eichhorn  {Einl.  iii.)  and  Ue  Wette 
 {Einleit.)  denied  the  Pauline  authorship  of  all  three. 
 There  was  still,  however,  an  attempt  to  maintain 
 their  authority  as  embodying  the  substance  of  the 
 Apostle's  teaching,  or  of  letters  written  by  him, 
 on  the  hypothesis  that  they  had  been  sent  forth 
 after  his  death  by  some  over-zealous  disciple,  whci 
 
8256     TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 wished,  under  the  shadow  of  his  name,  to  attack 
 the  prevailing  errors  of  the  time  (Eichhorn,  ib.). 
 One  writer  (Schott,  laagoc/e  Hist.  Cril.  p.  324) 
 ventures  on  the  hypotliesis  that  Luke  was  the 
 writer.  Baur  {Die  sotjenannteii  Paslinal-BiieJ'e), 
 here  as  elsewhere  more  daring  than  others,  assigns 
 them  to  no  earher  period  than  the  latter  half  of 
 the  second  century,  after  the  death  of  I'olycarp  in 
 A.  D.  107  (p.  138).  On  this  hypothesis  2  Tim.  was 
 the  earliest,  1  Tim.  the  latest  of  the  three,  each 
 probably  by  a  different  writer  (pp.  72-70).  They 
 grew  out  of  the  state  of  parties  in  the  Church  of 
 Kome,  and,  like  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  and  the 
 Acts,  were  intended  to  mediate  between  the  extreme 
 Pauline  and  the  extreme  Petrine  sections  of  the 
 Church  (p.  58).  Starting  from  the  data  supplied 
 by  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  writers,  first 
 of  2  Tim.,  then  of  Titus,  and  lastly  of  1  Tim., 
 aimed,  by  the  insertion  of  personal  incidents,  mes- 
 sages, and  the  like,  at  giving  to  their  compilations 
 an  air  of  verisimilitude  (p.  70). 
 
 It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  statement  that 
 the  question  of  authorship  is  here  more  than  usually 
 important.  There  can  be  no  solution  as  regards 
 these  epistles  like  that  of  an  obviously  dramatic 
 and  therefore  legitimate  personation  of  character, 
 such  as  is  possible  in  relation  to  the  authorship 
 of  Ecclesiastes.  If  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  not 
 Pauline,  the  writer  clearly  meant  them  to  pass 
 as  such,  and  the  animus  decipiendi  would  be  there 
 in  its  most  flagrant  form.  They  would  have  to 
 take  their  place  with  the  Pseudo-Clementine  Hom- 
 ilies, or  the  Pseudo-Ignatian  Epistles.  Where  we 
 now  see  the  traces,  full  of  life  and  interest,  of  the 
 character  of  "  Paul  the  aged,"  firm,  tender,  zealous, 
 loving,  we  should  have  to  recognize  only  the  tricks, 
 sometimes  skillful,  sometimes  clumsy,  of  some  un- 
 known  and  dishonest  controversialist. 
 
 Consequences  such  as  these  ought  not,  it  is  true, 
 to  lead  us  to  suppress  or  distort  one  iota  of  evi- 
 dence. They  may  well  make  us  cautious,  in  ex- 
 amining the  evidence,  not  to  admit  conclusions  that 
 are  wider  than  the  premises,  nor  to  take  the  prem- 
 ises themselves  for  granted.  The  task  of  exam- 
 ining is  rendered  in  some  measure  easier  by  the 
 fact  that,  in  the  judgment  of  most  critics,  hostile  as 
 well  as  friendly,  the  three  Pastoral  Epistles  stand 
 on  the  same  ground.  The  intermediate  hypotheses 
 of  Schleiermacher  (supra)  and  Credner  {Einl.  ins 
 N.  T.),  who  looks  on  Titus  as  genuine,  2  Tim.  as 
 made  up  out  of  two  genuine  letters,  and  1  Tim.  as 
 altogether  spurious,  may  be  dismissed  as  individual 
 eccentricities,  hardly  requiring  a  separate  notice. 
 In  dealing  with  objections  which  take  a  wider  range, 
 we  are  meeting  those  also  which  are  confined  to 
 one  or  two  out  of  the  three  epistles. 
 
 The  chief  elements  of  the  alleged  evidence  of 
 spuriousness  may  be  arranged  as  follows :  — 
 
 I.  Laiujuaye.  —  The  style,  it  is  urged,  is  different 
 from  that  of  the  acknowledged  Pauline  Epistles. 
 There  is  less  logical  continuity,  a  want  of  order 
 and  plan,  subjects  brought  up,  one  after  the  other, 
 abruptly  (Schleiermacher).  Not  less  than  filty 
 words,  most  of  them  striking  and  characteristic, 
 are  found  in  these  epistles  which  are  not  found  in 
 St.  Paul's  writings  (see  the  list  in  Conybeare  and 
 Howson,  App.  I.,  and  Huther's  Eiidtit.).  Tlie 
 formula  of  salutation  (^dpis,  eKeos,  elfirjvr)),  half- 
 technical  words  and  phrases,  like  evae^eta  and  its 
 cognates  (1  Tim.  2,  iii.  16,  vi.  6,  et  al.),  Tropa- 
 KaTae-riKV  (1  Tim.  i.  J  8,  vi.  20;  2  Tim.  i.  12,  14, 
 U.  2),  the  frequently  recurring    Tnarhs  o   \6yos 
 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 (1  Tim.  i.  15,  iii.  1,  iv.  9;  2  Tim.  ii.  11),  the  use 
 of  vyiaivovaa  as  the  distinctive  epithet  of  a  true 
 teaching,  these  and  others  like  them  appear  here 
 for  the  first  time  (Schleierm.  and  iiaur).  Some  of 
 these  words,  it  is  urged,  (pavepovv,  (itKpiveia, 
 (Twrrip,  (pus  aTrpSaiTov,  belong  to  the  Gnostic  ter- 
 minohjgy  of  the  2d  century. 
 
 On  the  other  side  it  may  be  said,  (1)  that  there 
 is  no  test  so  uncertain  as  that  of  language  and  style 
 thus  applied;  how  uncertain -we  may  judge  from 
 the  fact  that  Schleiermacher  and  Neander  find  no 
 stumbling-blocks  in  2  Tim.  and  Titus,  while  they 
 detect  an  un-Pauline  character  in  1  Tim.  A  dif- 
 ference like  that  which  marks  the  speech  of  men 
 divided  from  each  other  by  a  century  may  be  con- 
 clusive against  the  identity  of  authorship,  but  short 
 of  that  there  is  hardly  any  conceivable  divergency 
 which  may  not  coexist  with  it.  The  style  of  one 
 man  is  stereotyped,  formed  early,  and  enduring  long. 
 The  sentences  move  after  an  unvarying  rhythm;  the 
 same  words  recur.  That  of  another  chsdiges,  more 
 or  less,  from  year  to  year.  As  his  tlioughts  expand 
 they  call  for  a  new  vocabulary.  The  last  works 
 of  such  a  writer,  as  those  of  Bacon  and  of  Burke, 
 may  be  florid,  redundant,  figurative,  while  the 
 earlier  were  almost  meagre  in  their  simplicity.  In 
 proportion  as  the  man  is  a  solitary  thinker,  or  a 
 strong  asserter  of  his  own  will,  will  he  tend  to  the 
 former  state.  In  proportion  to  his  power  of  re- 
 ceiving impressions  from  without,  of  sympathizing 
 with  others,  will  be  his  tendency  to  the  latter. 
 Apart  from  all  knowledge  of  St.  Paul's  character, 
 the  alleged  peculiarities  are  but  of  little  weight  in 
 the  adverse  scale.  With  that  knowledge  we  m.ay 
 see  in  them  the  natural  result  of  the  intercourse 
 with  men  in  many  lands,  of  that  readiness  to  be- 
 come all  things  to  all  men,  which  could  hardly  fail 
 to  show  itself  in  speech  as  well  as  in  action.  Each 
 group  of  his  epistles  has,  in  like  manner,  its  char- 
 acteristic words  and  phrases.  (2.)  If  this  is  true 
 generally,  it  is  so  yet  more  emphatically  when  the 
 circumstances  of  authorship  are  ditterent.  The 
 language  of  a  bishop's  charge  is  not  that  of  his 
 letters  to  his  private  friends.  The  epistles  which 
 St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  churches  as  societies,  might 
 well  diflTer  from  those  which  he  wrote,  in  the 
 full  freedom  of  open  speech,  to  a  familiar  friend, 
 to  his  own  "true  son."  It  is  not  strange  that  we 
 should  find  in  the  latter  a  Luther-like  vehemence 
 of  expression  (e.  f/.  KfKavaTrjpiaa/j.fvaiv,  1  Tim.  iv. 
 2,  SiairapaTpi^al  SiifpOap/xevaiv  avBpiinruiv  rhv 
 voxjv,  1  Tim.  vi.  5,  aeacopev/xtva  afjiapriais,  2  Tim. 
 iii.  0),  mixed  sometimes  with  words  that  imply  that 
 which  few  great  men  have  been  without,  a  keen 
 sense  of  hmnor,  and  the  capacity,  at  least,  for  satire 
 (e.  (/.  ypawSiis  jxvOovs,  1  Tim.  iv.  7 ;  (pKvapoi 
 kclL  TTepiepyoi,  1  Tim.  v.  13;  rervcfiuTai,  1  Tim. 
 vi.  4;  yaarepei  apyai,  Tit.  i.  12).  (3.)  Other 
 letters,  again,  were  dictated  to  an  amatmensis.  These 
 have  every  appearance  of  having  been  written  with 
 his  own  hand,  and  this  can  hardly  have  been  with- 
 out its  influence  on  their  style,  rendering  it  less 
 diffuse,  the  transitions  more  abrupt,  the  treatment 
 of  each  subject  more  concise.  In  this  respect  it 
 may  be  compared  with  the  other  two  autograph 
 epistles,  those  to  the  Galatians  and  Philemon.  A 
 list  of  words  given  by  Alford  (iii.  Prolty.  c.  vii.) 
 shows  a  considerable  I'esemblance  between  the  former 
 of  the  two  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  (4.)  It  may 
 be  added,  that  to  whatever  extent  a  forger  of  spu- 
 rious epistles  would  be  likely  to  form  his  style 
 after  the  pattern  of   the  recognized  ones,  so  that 
 
TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 men  might  not  be  able  to  distinguish  the  counterfeit 
 from  the  true,  to  that  extent  the  diversity  which 
 has  been  dwelt  on  is,  within  the  limits  that  have 
 been  above  stated,  not  against,  but  for  the  genuine- 
 ness of  these  epistles.  (5.)  Lastly,  there  is  the 
 positive  argument  that  there  is  a  large  common 
 element,  both  of  thoughts  and  words,  shared  by 
 these  epistles  and  the  others.  The  grounds  of  faith, 
 the  law  of  life,  the  tendency  to  digress  and  go  off 
 at  a  word,  the  personal,  individualizing  afiection, 
 the  free  reference  to  his  own  sufferings  for  the 
 truth,  all  these  are  in  both,  and  by  them  we 
 recognize  the  identity  of  the  writer.  The  evidence 
 can  hardly  be  given  within  the  limits  of  this  article, 
 l)ut  its  weight  will  be  felt  by  any  careful  student. 
 The  coincidences  are  precisely  those,  in  most  in- 
 stances, which  the  forger  of  a  document  would 
 have  been  unlikely  to  think  of,  and  give  but  scanty 
 support  to  the  perverse  ingenuity  which  sees  in 
 these  resemblances  a  proof  of  compilation,  and 
 therefore  of  spuriousness. 
 
 n.  It  has  been  urged  (chiefly  by  Eichhorn,  Kinl. 
 p.  315)  against  the  reception  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
 that  they  cannot  be  fitted  in  to  the  records  of  St. 
 Paul's  life  in  the  Acts.  To  this  there  is  a  threefold 
 answer.  (1.)  The  difficulty  has  been  enormously 
 exaggerated.  If  the  dates  assigned  to  them  must, 
 to  some  e.xtent,  be  conjectural,  there  are  at  least 
 two  hypotheses  in  each  case  (iiif'ni)  which  rest  on 
 reasonably  good  grounds.  (2.)  If  the  difficulty  were 
 as  great  as  it  is  said  to  be,  the  mere  fact  that  we 
 camiot  fix  the  precise  date  of  three  letters  in  the 
 life  of  one  of  whose  ceaseless  labors  and  journeyings 
 we  have,  after  all,  but  fragmentary  records,  ought 
 not  to  be  a  stumbHng-block.  The  hypothesis  of  a 
 release  from  the  imprisonment  with  which  the  his- 
 tory of  the  Acts  ends  removes  all  difficulties;  and 
 if  this  be  rejected  (Baur,  p.  67),  as  itself  not  rest- 
 ing on  sufficient  evidence,  there  is,  in  any  case,  a 
 wide  gap  of  which  we  know  nothing.  It  may  at 
 least  claim  to  be  a  theory  which  explains  phenomena, 
 (y.)  Here,  as  before,  the  reply  is  obvious,  that  a 
 man  composing  counterfeit  epistles  would  have  been 
 likely  to  make  them  square  with  the  acknowledged 
 records  of  the  life. 
 
 III.  The  three  epistles  present,  it  is  said,  a  more 
 developed  state  of  church  organization  and  doctrine 
 than  that  belonging  to  the  lifetime  of  St.  Paul. 
 (1. )  The  rule  that  the  bishop  is  to  be  "  the  husband 
 of  one  wife"  (1  Tim.  iii.  2;  Tit.  i.  6)  indicates 
 the  strong  opposition  to  second  marriages  which 
 characterized  the  2d  century  (Baur,  pp.  ll;j-120). 
 (2.)  The  -'younger  widows"  of  1  Tim.  v.  11  can- 
 not possibly  be  literally  widows.  If  they  were,  St. 
 Paul,  in  advising  them  to  marry,  would  be  exclud- 
 ing them,  according  to  the  rule  of  1  Tim.  v.  !),  from 
 all  chance  of  sharing  in  the  church's  bounty.  It 
 follows  therefore  that  the  word  ;^;^pai  is  used,  as  it 
 was  in  the  2d  century,  in  a  wider  sense,  as  denoting 
 a  consecrated  life  (Haur,  pp.  42-49).  (3.)  The  rules 
 affecting  the  relation  of  the  bishops  and  elders  in- 
 dicate a  hierarchic  development  characteristic  of 
 the  Petrine  element,  which  became  dominant  in 
 the  (Jliurch  of  Rome  in  the  post-Apostolic  period, 
 but  foreign  altogether  to  the  genuine  epistles  of 
 St.  Paul  (Baur,  pp.  80-89).  (4.)  The  term  alperLKos 
 is  used  in  its  later  sense,  and  a  formal  procedure 
 against  the  heretic  is  recognized,  which  belongs  to 
 the  2d  century  rather  than  the  1st.  (5.)  The  up- 
 ward progress  from  the  office  of  deacon  to  that  of 
 presliyter,  implied  in  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  belongs  to  a 
 later  period  (Baur,  I.  c). 
 205 
 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO     3257 
 
 (t  is  not  difficult  to  meet  objections  which  con- 
 tain so  large  an  element  of  mere  arbitrary  assump- 
 tion. (1.)  Admitting  Baur's  interpretation  of  1 
 Tim.  iii.  2  to  be  the  right  one,  the  rule  which 
 makes  monogamy  a  condition  of  the  episcopal  oiBce 
 is  very  far  removed  from  the  harsh,  sweeping  cen- 
 sures of  all  second  marriages  which  we  find  in 
 Athenagoras  and  TertuUian.  (2.)  There  is  not  a 
 shadow  of  proof  that  the  "  younger  widows  "  were 
 not  literally  such.  The  x'JP"'  ^^  ''''^  Pastoral 
 Epistles  are,  like  those  of  .Vets  vi.  1,  ix.  39,  women 
 dependent  on  the  alms  of  the  church,  not  neces- 
 sarily deaconesses,  or  engaged  in  active  labors.  The 
 rule  fixing  the  age  of  sixty  for  admission  is  all  but 
 conclusive  against  Baur's  hypothesis.  (3. )  The  use 
 of  iiricTKOTroi  and  irpeaBuTepoi  in  the  Pastoral 
 Epistles  as  equivaletit  (Tit.  i.  .5,  7),  and  the  absence 
 of  any  intermediate  order  between  the  bishops  and 
 deacons  (1  Tim.  iii.  1-8),  are  quite  unlike  what  we 
 find  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles  and  other  writings  of 
 the  2d  century.  They  are  in  entire  agreement  with 
 the  language  of  St.  Paul  (Acts  xx.  17,  28;  Phil, 
 i.  1).  Few  features  of  these  epistles  are  more 
 striking  than  the  absence  of  any  high  hierarchic 
 system.  (4.)  The  woril  alpeTiK6s  has  its  counter- 
 part in  the  alpfcreis  of  1  Cor.  xi.  19.  The  sentence 
 upon  Hymenreus  and  Alex.ander  (1  Tim.  i.  20)  has 
 a  precedent  in  that  of  1  Cor.  v.  5.  (.5.)  The  best 
 inter]jreters  do  not  see  in  1  Tim.  iii.  13  the  transi- 
 tion from  one  office  to  another  (comp.  Ellicott,  in 
 loc,  and  Deacon).  If  it  is  there,  the  assumption 
 that  such  a  change  is  foreign  to  the  Apostolic  age 
 is  entirely  an  arbitrary  one. 
 
 IV.  Still  greater  stress  is  laid  on  the  indications 
 of  a  later  date  in  the  descriptions  of  the  false 
 teachers  noticed  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  These 
 point,  it  is  .said,  unmistakably  to  Marcion  and  his 
 followers.  In  the  avrideffeis  rrjs  ^eu^ofuij.ov 
 yvdoaeeos  (1  Tim.  vi.  20)  there  is  a  direct  reference 
 to  the  treatise  which  he  wrote  under  the  title  of 
 'AfTidea^is,  setting  forth  the  contradiction  between 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament  (Baur,  p.  26).  The 
 •'  genealogies  "  of  1  Tim.  i.  4,  Tit.  iii.  9,  in  like 
 manner,  point  to  the  JEons  of  the  Valentinians  and 
 Ophites  (ibid.  p.  12).  The  "forbidding  to  marry, 
 and  commanding  to  abstain  from  meats,"'  fits  in 
 to  Marcion's  system,  not  to  that  of  the  Judaizing 
 teachers  of  St.  Paul's  time  (ibid.  p.  24).  The  as- 
 sertion that  "the  law  is  good"  (1  Tim.  i.  8)  im- 
 plies a  denial,  like  that  of  Marcion,  of  its  Divine 
 authority.  The  doctrine  that  the  "  Resurrection 
 was  past  already"  (2  Tim.  ii.  18)  was  thoroughly 
 Gnostic  in  its  character.  In  his  eagerness  to  find 
 tokens  of  a  later  date  everywhere,  Baur  sees  in  the 
 writer  of  these  epistles  not  merely  an  opponent  of 
 Gnosticism,  but  one  in  part  infected  with  their 
 teaching,  and  appeals  to  the  doxologies  of  1  Tim. 
 i.  17,  vi.  15,  and  their  Christology  throughout,  as 
 having  a  (inostic  stamp  on  them  (pp.  28-33). 
 
 Carefully  elaborated  as  this  part  of  Baur's  attack 
 has  been,  it  is  perhaps  the  weakest  and  most  ca- 
 pricious of  all.  The  false  teachers  of  the  Pastoral 
 Epistles  are  predominantly  .Jewish,  vofj.o5iSd(TKa\oi 
 (1  Tim.  i.  7),  belonging  altogether  to  a  different 
 school  from  that  of  Marcion,  giving  heed  to  "Jewish 
 fables"  (Tit.  i.  14)  and  "disputes  connected  with 
 the  Law"  (Tit.  iii.  9).  Of  all  monstrosities  of 
 exegesis  few  are  more  willful  and  fantastic  than 
 that  which  finds  in  vo/nodiSdo-icaXoi  Antinomian 
 teachers  and  in  fxaxal  vofxLKai  Antinomian  doctrine 
 (Baur,  p.  17).  The  natural  suggestion  that  in  Acts 
 XX.  30,  31,  St.  Paul  contemplates    the  rise  and 
 
3258    TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 progress  of  a  like  perverse  teaching,  that  in  Col.  ii. 
 8-23  we  have  the  same  combination  of  Judaism  and 
 a  self-styled  yuSxris  (1  Tim.  vi.  20)  or  (ptAoaocpia 
 (Col.  ii.  8),  leading  to  a  like  false  asceticism,  is  set 
 aside  summarily  liy  the  rejection  both  of  the  speech 
 and  the  epistle  as  spurious.  I'lven  the  denial  of 
 the  Ilesurrection,  we  may  remark,  belongs  as  nat- 
 urally to  the  mingling  of  a  Sadducsean  element  with 
 an  eastern  mysticism  as  to  the  teaching  of  Marcion. 
 The  self-contradictory  hypothesis  that  the  writer 
 of  1  Tim.  is  at  once  the  strongest  opponent  of  the 
 Gnostics,  and  that  he  adopts  their  language,  need 
 hardly  be  refuted.  The  whole  line  of  argument, 
 indeed,  first  misrepresents  tlie  language  of  St.  Paul 
 in  these  epistles  and  elsewhere,  and  then  assumes 
 the  entire  absence  from  the  first  century  of  even 
 the  germs  of  tlie  teaching  which  characterized  the 
 second  (comp.  Neander,  PJi.  unil  Leit.  i.  p.  401; 
 Heydenreich,  p.  Gi). 
 
 Dale.  —  Assuming  the  two  epistles  to  Timothy 
 to  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul,  to  what  period 
 of  his  life  are  they  to  be  referred '?  The  questi&n 
 as  it  affects  each  epistle  may  be  discussed  sep- 
 arately. 
 
 First  Epistle  to  Timothy.  —  The  direct  data  in 
 this  instance  are  very  few.  (1.)  i.  3,  implies  a 
 journey  of  St.  Paul  from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia, 
 Timothy  remaining  behind.  (2.)  The  age  of  Tim- 
 othy is  described  as  viurris  (iv.  12).  (3.)  The 
 general  resemblance  between  the  two  epistles  in- 
 dicates that  they  were  written  at  or  about  the  same 
 time.  Three  hypotheses  have  been  maintained  as 
 fulfilling  these  conditions. 
 
 (A.)  The  journey  in  question  has  been  looked 
 on  as  an  unrecorded  episode  in  the  two  years' 
 work  at  Ephesus  of  Acts  xix.  10. 
 
 (B.)  It  has  been  identified  with  tlie  journey  of 
 Acts  XX.  1,  after  the  tumult  at  Ephesus. 
 
 On  either  of  these  suppositions  the  date  of  the 
 epistle  has  been  fixed  at  various  periods  after  St. 
 Paul's  arrival  at  Ephesus,  before  the  conclusion  of 
 his  first  imprisonment  at  Rome. 
 
 (C.)  It  has  been  placed  in  the  interval  between 
 St.  Paul's  first  and  second  imprisonments  at 
 Rome. 
 
 Of  these  conjectures,  A  and  B  have  the  merit  of 
 bringing  the  epistle  within  the  limit  of  the  authen- 
 tic records  of  St.  Paul's  life,  but  they  have  scarcely 
 any  other.  Against  A,  it  may  be  urged  that  a 
 journey  to  Macedonia  would  hardly  have  been 
 passed  over  in  silence  either  by  St.  Luke  in  the 
 Acts,  or  by  St.  Paul  himself  in  writing  to  the 
 Corinthians.  Against  B,  that  Timotiiy,  instead  of 
 remaining  at  Ephesus  when  the  Apostle  left,  had 
 gone  on  into  Macedonia  before  him  (Acts  xix.  22). 
 The  hypothesis  of  a  possil)le  return  is  traversed  by 
 the  fact  that  he  is  with  St.  Paul  in  Macedonia  at 
 the  time  when  2  Cor.  was  written  and  sent  off.  In 
 favor  of  C  as  compared  with  A  or  B,  is  the  internal 
 evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  epistle.  The  errors 
 against  which  Timothy  is  warned  are  present,  dan- 
 gerous, portentous.  At  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  visit 
 to  Miletus  in  Acts  xx.,  i.  e.,  according  to  those 
 hypotheses,  subsequent  to  the  epistle,  they  are  still 
 only  looming  in  the  distance  (ver.  30).  All  the 
 circumstances  referred  to,  moreover,  imply  the  pro- 
 longed absence  of  the  Apostle.  Disciphne  had  be- 
 come lax,  heresies  rife,  the  economy  of  the  church 
 disordered.  It  was  necessary  to  check  the  chief 
 offenders  by  the  sharp  sentence  of  excommunication 
 (1  Tim.  i.  20).  Other  churches  called  for  his  coun- 
 sel and  directions,  or  a  sharp  necessity  took  him 
 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 away,  and  he  hastens  on,  leaving  behind  him,  with 
 full  delegated  authority,  the  disciple  in  whom  he 
 most  confided.  The  language  of  the  epistle  also 
 has  a  bearing  on  the  date.  According  to  the  hy- 
 potheses A  and  B,  it  belongs  to  the  same  periods 
 as  1  and  2  Cor.  and  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  or,  at 
 the  latest,  to  the  same  group  as  Philippians  and 
 Ephesians;  and,  in  this  case,  the  differences  of 
 style  and  language  are  somewhat  difficult  to  ex- 
 plain. Assume  a  later  date,  and  then  there  is  room 
 for  the  changes  in  thought  and  expression  which, 
 in  a  character  like  St.  Paul's,  were  to  be  expected 
 as  the  years  went  by.  The  only  objections  to  the 
 position  thus  assigned  are — (1)  the  doubtfulness 
 of  the  second  imprisonment  altogether,  which  has 
 been  discussed  in  another  place  [Paul]  ;  and  (2), 
 the  "  youth  "  of  Timothy  at  the  time  when  the 
 letter  was  written  (iv.  12).  In  regard  to  the  latter, 
 it  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  on  the  assumption  of  the 
 later  date,  the  disciple  was  probably  not  more  than 
 34  or  35,  and  that  this  was  young  enough  for  one 
 who  was  to  exercise  authority  over  a  whole  body  of 
 Bishop-presbyters,  many  of  them  older  than  him- 
 self (v.  1). 
 
 Second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  —  The  number  of 
 special  names  and  incidents  in  the  2d  epistle  make 
 the  chronological  data  more  numerous.  It  will  be 
 best  to  bring  them,  as  far  as  possible,  together, 
 noticing  briefly  with  what  other  facts  each  connects 
 itself,  and  to  what  conclusion  it  leads.  Here  also 
 there  are  the  conflicting  theories  of  an  earlier  and 
 later  date,  (A)  during  the  imprisonment  of  Acts 
 xxviii.  30,  and  (B)  during  the  second  imprisonment 
 already  spoken  of. 
 
 (1.)  A  parting  apparently  recent,  under  circum- 
 stances of  special  sorrow  (i.  4).  Not  decisive.  The 
 scene  at  Miletus  (Acts  xx.  37 )  suggests  itself,  if  we 
 assume  A.  The  parting  referred  to  in  1  Tim.  i.  3 
 might  meet  B. 
 
 (2.)  A  general  desertion  of  the  Apostle  even  by 
 the  disciples  of  Asia  (i.  15).  Nothing  in  the  Acts 
 indicates  anything  like  this  before  the  imprison- 
 ment of  Acts  xxviii.  30.  Everythirg  in  Acts  xix. 
 and  XX.,  and  not  less  the  language  of  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Ephesians,  speaks  of  general  and  strong 
 affection.  This,  therefore,  so  far  as  it  goes,  must 
 be  placed  on  the  side  of  B. 
 
 (3.)  The  position  of  St.  Paul  as  suffering  (i.  12), 
 in  bonds  (ii.  9),  expecting  "the  time  of  his  de- 
 parture "  (iv.  6),  forsaken  by  almost  all  (iv.  16). 
 Not  quite  decisive,  but  tending  to  B  rather  than  A. 
 The  language  of  the  epistles  belonging  to  the  first 
 imprisonment  imply,  it  is  true,  bonds  (Phil.  i.  13, 
 10;  Eph.  iii.  1,  vi.  20),  but  in  all  of  them  the 
 Apostle  is  surrounded  by  many  friends,  and  is 
 hopeful,  and  confident  of  release  (Phil.  i.  25; 
 Philem.  22). 
 
 (4.)  The  mention  of  Onesiphorus,  and  of  services 
 rendered  by  him  both  at  Rome  and  f'phesus  (i.  IB- 
 IS). Not  decisive  again,  but  the  tone  is  rather 
 that  of  a  man  looking  back  on  a  past  period  of  his 
 life,  and  the  order  of  the  names  suggests  the  thought 
 of  the  ministrations  at  Ephesus  being  subsequent  to 
 those  at  Rome.  Possibly  too  the  mention  of  "  the 
 household,"  instead  of  Onesiphorus  himself,  may 
 imply  his  death  in  the  interval.  This  therefore 
 tends  to  B  rather  than  A. 
 
 (5.)  The  abandonment  of  St.  Paul  by  Demas  (iv. 
 10 ).  Strongly  in  favor  of  B.  Demas  was  with  the 
 Apostle  when  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  (iv.  14) 
 and  Philemon  (24)  were  written.  2  Tim.  must 
 therefore,  in  all  probability,  have  been  writt(in  after 
 
TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 
 
 them ;  but,  if  we  place  it  anywliere  in  the  first  iiii- 
 prisonrnent,  we  are  all  but  compelled  «  by  the  men- 
 tion of  Mark,  for  whose  coming  the  Apostle  asks  in 
 2  Tim.  iv.  11,  and  who  is  with  him  in  Col.  iv.  10, 
 to  place  it'  at  an  earlier  age. 
 
 (6.)  The  presence  of  Luke  (iv.  11).  Agrees  well 
 enough  with  A  (Col.  iv.  14),  but  is  perfectly  com- 
 patible with  B. 
 
 (7.)  The  request  that  Timothy  would  bring  Mark 
 (iv.  11).  Seenis  at  first,  compared  as  above,  with 
 Col.  iv.  14,  to  support  A,  but,  in  connection  with 
 the  mention  of  Demas,  tends  decidedly  to  B. 
 
 (8.)  Mention  of  Tycliicus  as  sent  to  Ephesus  (iv. 
 12),  Appears,  as  connected  with  Kph.  vi.  21,  22, 
 Col.  iv.  7,  in  favor  of  A,  yet,  as  Tychicus  was  con- 
 tinually employed  on  special  missions  of  this  kind, 
 may  just  as  well  fit  in  with  B. 
 
 (9.)  The  request  that  Timothy  would  bring  the 
 cloak  and  books  left  at  Troas  (iv.  13).  On  the  as- 
 sumption of  A,  the  last  visit  of  St.  Paul  to  Troas 
 would  have  been  at  least  four  or  five  years  before, 
 during  which  there  would  probably  have  been  op- 
 portunities enough  for  his  regaining  what  he  had 
 left.  In  that  case,  too,  the  circumstances  of  the 
 journey  present  no  trace  of  the  haste  and  sudden- 
 ness which  the  request  more  than  half  implies.  On 
 the  whole,  then,  this  must  be  reckoned  as  in  favor 
 of  B. 
 
 (10.)  "Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  me  much 
 evil,"  "greatly  withstood  our  words  "  (iv.  14,  15). 
 The  part  taken  by  a  Jew  of  this  name  in  the  uproar 
 of  Acts  xix.,  and  the  natural  connection  of  the  x"^" 
 K€vs  with  the  artisans  represented  by  Demetrius, 
 suggest  a  reference  to  that  event  as  something  re- 
 cent and  so  far  support  A.  On  the  other  hand, 
 the  name  Alexander  was  too  common  to  make  us 
 certain  as  to  the  identity,  and  if  it  were  the  same, 
 the  hypothesis  of  a  later  date  only  requires  us  to 
 assume  what  was  probable  enough,  a  renewed  hos- 
 tility. 
 
 (11.)  'The  abandonment  of  the  Apostle  in  his  first 
 defense  {airoXoyia),  and  his  deliverance  "  from  the 
 mouth  of  the  lion  "  (iv.  16,  17).  Fits  in  as  a  pos- 
 sible contingency  with  either  hypothesis,  but,  like 
 the  mention  of  Demas  in  (5),  must  belong,  at  any 
 rate,  to  a  tnne  much  later  than  any  of  the  other 
 epistles  written  from  Rome. 
 
 (12.)  "  Krastus  abode  at  Corinth,  but  Trophimus 
 I  left  at  Miletus  sick  "  (iv.  20).  Language,  as  in 
 (9),  implying  a  comparatively  recent  visit  to  both 
 places,  if,  however,  the  letter  were  written  during 
 the  first  imprisonment,  then  Trophimus  had  not 
 been  left  at  Miletus  but  had  gone  on  with  St.  Paul 
 to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  29),''  and  the  mention  of 
 Erastus  as  remaining  at  Corinth  would  have  been 
 superfluous  to  one  who  had  left  that  city  at  the 
 same  time  as  the  Apostle  (Acts  xx.  4). 
 
 (13.)  "  Hasten  to  come  before  winter."  Assum- 
 ing A,  the  presence  of  Timothy  in  Phil.  i.  1 ;  Col.  i. 
 1;  I'hilem.  1,  might  be  regarded  as  the  consequence 
 of  this;  but  then,  .as  shown  in  (5)  and  (7),  there 
 are  almost  insuperable  difficulties  in  supposing  this 
 epistle  to  have  been  written  before  those  three. 
 
 (14.)  The  salutations  from  Eubulus,  Pudens, 
 Linus,  and  Claudia.  Without  laying  much  stress 
 on  this,  it  may  be  said  that  the  absence  of  these 
 names  from  all  the  epistles,  which,  according  to  A 
 
 o  The  qualifying  words  might  have  been  omitted, 
 but  for  the  fact  that  it  has  been  suggested  that  Demas, 
 having  forsaken  St.  Paul,  repented  and  returned  (Lard- 
 ner,  vi.  3t38). 
 
 TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO      3259 
 
 belong  to  the  same  period,  would  be  difficult  to  ex- 
 plain. B  leaves  it  open  to  coiyecture  that  they 
 were  converts  of  more  recent  date.  They  are  men- 
 tioned too  as  knowing  Timothy,  and  this  impUes, 
 as  at  least  probable,  that  he  had  already  been  at 
 Rome,  and  that  this  letter  to  him  was  consequently 
 later  than  those  to  the  Philippians  and  Colossians. 
 
 On  the  whole,  it  is  believed  that  the  evidence 
 preponderates  strongly  in  favor  of  the  later  date, 
 and  that  the  epistle,  if  we  adndt  its  genuineness,  is 
 therefore  a  strong  argument  for  believing  that  the 
 imprisonment  of  Acts  xxviii.  was  followed  by  a 
 period  first  of  renewed  activity  and  then  of  suffer- 
 ing. 
 
 Places.  —  In  this  respect  as  in  regard  to  time 
 1  Tim.  leaves  much  to  conjecture.  The  absence  of 
 any  local  reference  but  that  in  i.  3,  suggests  Mace- 
 donia or  some  neighboring  district.  In  A  and 
 other  MSS.  in  the  Peshito,  Ethiopic,  and  other 
 versions,  Laodicea  is  named  in  the  inscription  as 
 the  place  whence  it  was  sent,  but  this  appears  to 
 llkve  grown  out  of  a  traditional  belief  resting  on 
 very  insufficient  grounds,  and  incompatible  with 
 the  conclusion  which  li;is  been  above  adopted,  that 
 this  is  the  epistle  referred  to  in  Col.  iv.  16  as  that 
 from  I^aodicea  (Theopbyl.  in  luc).  The  Coptic 
 version  with  as  little  likelihood  states  that  it  was 
 written  from- Athens  (Huther,  EinUit.]. 
 
 The  second  epistle  is  free  from  this  conflict  of 
 conjectures.  With  the  solitary  exception  of  Bijtt- 
 ger,  who  suggests  Csesarea,  there  is  a  consensus  in 
 favor  of  Home,  and  everything  in  the  circumstances 
 and  names  of  the  epistle  leads  to  the  same  conclu- 
 sion (ibid.). 
 
 Stfucture  and  Characteristics.  —  The  peculiar- 
 ities of  language,  so  fiir  as  they  affect  the  question 
 of  authorship,  have  been  already  noticed.  Assum- 
 ing the  genuineness  of  the  epistles,  some  character- 
 istic features  remain  to  be  noticed. 
 
 (1.)  The  ever-deepening  sense  in  St.  Paul's  hejirt 
 of  the  Divine  Mercy,  of  which  he  was  the  object, 
 as  shown  in  the  insertion  of  eAeos  in  the  salutations 
 of  both  epistles,  and  in  the  yjKe-ffOrjvot  1  Tim.  i.  13. 
 
 (2.)  The  greater  abruptness  of  the  second  epistle. 
 From  first  to  last  there  is  no  plan,  no  treatment  of 
 subjects  carefully  thought  out.  All  speaks  of  strong 
 overflowing  emotion,  memories  of  the  past,  anxieties 
 about  the  future. 
 
 (3.)  The  absence,  as  compared  with  St.  Paul's 
 other  epistles,  of  Old  Testament  references.  This 
 may  connect  itself  with  the  fact  just  noticed,  that 
 tiiese  epistles  are  not  argumentative,  possibly  also 
 with  the  request  for  the  "  books  and  parchments  " 
 which  had  been  left  behind  (2  Tim.  iv.  13).  He 
 may  have  been  separated  for  a  time  from  the 
 hpa  ypdiJ.ixaTa,  which  were  commonly  his  com- 
 panions. 
 
 (4.)  The  conspicuous  position  of  the  "  faithful 
 sayings "  as  taking  the  place  occupied  in  other 
 epistles  by  the  0.  T.  Scriptures.  The  way  in 
 which  these  are  cited  as  authoritative,  the  variety 
 of  sulyects  which  they  cover,  suggest  the  thought 
 that  in  them  we  have  specimens  of  the  prophecies 
 of  the  x\postolio  Church  which  had  most  impressed 
 themselves  on  the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  and  of  the 
 disciples  generally.  1  Cor.  xiv.  shows  how  deep 
 a  reverence  he  was  likely  to  feel  for  such  spiritual 
 
 b  The  conjecture  that  the  "  leaving  "  refen-ed  to 
 took  place  during  the  voyage  of  Acts  xxi-ii.  i.^  purely 
 arbitrary,  and  at  variance  with  vers.  5  and  6  of  thai 
 chapter. 
 
3260  TIN 
 
 utterances.  In  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  we  have  a  distinct 
 reference  to  tlieni. 
 
 (5.)  The  tendency  of  the  Apostle's  mind  to  dwell 
 more  on  the  universality  of  the  redemptive  work  of 
 Christ  (1  Tim.  ii.  iJ-G,  iv.  10),  his  strong  desire  that 
 all  the  teaching  of  his  disciples  should  be  "  sound  " 
 iuyiaivovaa),  commending  itself  to  minds  in  a 
 healthy  state,  his  fear  of  the  corruption  of  that 
 teaching  by  morbid  subtleties. 
 
 (6.)  The  importance  attached  by  him  to  the 
 practical  details  of  administration.  The  gathered 
 experience  of  a  long  life  had  taught  him  that  the 
 lile  and  well-being  of  the  Church  required  these  for 
 its  safeguards. 
 
 (7.)  The  recurrence  of  doxologies  (1  Tim.  i.  17, 
 vi.  15, 16;  2  Tim.  iv.  18)  as  from  one  living  per- 
 petually in  the  presence  of  (jod,  to  whom  the  lan- 
 guage of  adoration  was  as  his  natural  speech. 
 
 It  has  been  thought  desirable,  in  the  above  dis- 
 cussion of  conflicting  theories,  to  state  them  simply 
 as  they  stand,  with  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest, 
 without  encumbering  the  page  with  constant  reft 
 erence  to  authorities.  The  names  of  writers  on 
 the  N.  T.  in  such  a  case,  where  the  grounds  of 
 reasoning  are  open  to  all,  add  little  or  nothhig  to 
 the  weight  of  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them. 
 Full  particulars  will,  however,  be  found  in  the  in- 
 troductions of  Alibrd,  Wordsworth,  Huther,  David- 
 son, Wiesinger,  Hug.  Conybeare  and  Howson 
 {App.  i.)  give  a  good  tabular  summary  both  of  the 
 objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  and  of 
 the  answers  to  them,  and  a  clear  statement  in  favor 
 of  the  later  date.  The  most  elaborate  argun)ent  in 
 favor  of  the  earlier  is  to  be  found  in  N.  Lardner, 
 History  of  Apost.  and  Evany.  (  Works,  vi.  pp.  315- 
 375).  E.  H.  P. 
 
 -  *  Por  the  literature  relating  to  these  epistles,  see 
 under  Titus,  Epistle  to.  A. 
 
 TIN  (7*'"T2  :  Kaaclrepos- stannum).  Among 
 
 the  various  metals  found  among  the  spoils  of  the 
 Midianites,  tin  is  enumerated  (Num.  xxxi.  22).  It 
 was  known  to  the  Hebrew  metal-workers  as  an 
 alloy  of  other  metals  (Is.  i.  25;  Ez.  xxii.  18,  20). 
 The  maricets  of  Tyre  were  supplied  with  it  by  the 
 ships  of  Tarshish  (Ez.  xxvii.  12).  It  was  used  for 
 plunmiets  (Zech.  iv.  10),  and  was  so  plentiful  as  to 
 furnish  the  writer  of  I'^cclesiasticus  (xlvii.  18)  with 
 a  figure  by  which  to  express  the  wealth  of  Solomon, 
 whom  he  apostrophizes  thus:  "  Thou  didst  gather 
 gold  as  tin,  and  didst  multiply  silver  as  lead."  In 
 the  Homeric  times  the  Creeks  were  familiar  with  it. 
 Twenty  layers  of  tin  were  in  Agamemnon's  cuirass 
 given  him  by  Kinyres  (//.  xi.  25),  and  twenty  bosses 
 of  tin  were  upon  his  shield  (//.  xi.  34).  Copper, 
 tin,  and  gold  were  used  by  lleplia?stus  in  welding 
 the  famous  shield  of  Achilles  (//.  xviii.  474).  The 
 fence  round  the  vineyard  in  the  device  upon  it  was 
 of  tin  {II.  xviii.  564),  and  tiie  oxen  were  wrought 
 of  tin  and  gold  (ibid.  574).  The  greaves  of  Achilles, 
 made  by  Hephastus,  were  of  tin  beaten  fine,  close 
 fitting  to  the  limb  (//.  xviii.  612,  xxi.  592).  His 
 shield  had  two  folds  or  layers  of  tin  between  two 
 outer  layers  of  bronze  aiid  an  inner  layer  of  fold 
 (//.  XX.  271).  Tin  was  used  in  ornamenting  chariots 
 {U.  xxiii.  503),  and  a  cuirass  of  iironze  overlaid 
 with  tin  is  mentioned  in  M.  xxiii.  561.  No  allu- 
 sion to  it  is  found  in  the  Odyssey.  The  melting 
 of  tin  in  a  smelting-pot  is  mentioned  by  Hesiod 
 (n<o<7.  862). 
 
 Tin  is  not  found  in  Palestine.  Whence,  then,  did 
 the  ancient  Hebrews  obtain  their  supply "?     "  Only 
 
 TIN 
 
 three  countries  are  known  to  contain  any  consider- 
 able quantity  of  it :  Spain  and  Portugal,  Cornwall 
 and  the  adjacent  parts  of  Devonshire,  and  the 
 islands  of  Junk,  Ceylon,  and  Banca,  in  the  Straits 
 of  Malacca  "  (Kenrick,  Pliienicia,  p.  212).  Ac- 
 cording to  Diodorus  Siculus  (v.  46)  there  were  tin- 
 mines  in  the  island  of  Panchaia,  ofl'  the  east  coast 
 of  Arabia,  but  the  metal  was  not  exported,  'i'here 
 can  be  little  doulit  that  the  mines  of  Britain  were 
 the  chief  source  of  supply  to  tiie  ancient  world. 
 Mr.  Cooley,  indeed,  writes  very  positively  {Maritime 
 and  Inland  JJiscovery,  i.  131):  "  There  can  be  no 
 difficulty  in  determining  the  country  from  which 
 tin  first  arrived  in  Egypt.  That  metal  has  been  in 
 all  ages  a  principal  exi»rt  of  India:  it  is  enumer- 
 ated as  such  by  Arrian,  who  found  it  abundant  in 
 the  ports  of  Arabia,  at  a  time  when  the  supphes  of 
 Pome  flowed  chiefly  through  that  channel.  The 
 tin-mines  of  Banca  are  probably  the  richest  in  the 
 world ;  but  tui  was  unquestionably  brought  from 
 the  West  at  a  later  period."  But  it  has  been 
 shown  conclusively  l)y  Dr.  Ceorge  Smith  (  Tlie  Cas- 
 si/ei-ides,  Lond.  1863)  that,  so  far  from  such  a 
 statement  being  justified  by  the  authority  of  Arrian, 
 the  facts  are  all  the  other  way.  After  examining 
 the  commerce  of  the  ports  of  Abyssinia,  Arabia,  and 
 India,  it  is  abundantly  evident  that,  "  instead  of  its 
 coming  from  the  East  to  Egypt,  it  has  been  invari- 
 ably  exported  from  Egypt  to  the  East  "  (p.  23). 
 With  regard  to  the  tin  obtained  from  Spain,  al- 
 though the  metal  was  found  there,  it  does  not  ap- 
 pear to  have  been  produced  in  sufficient  quantities 
 to  supply  the  Phoenician  markets.  Posidonius  (in 
 Strab.  iii.  147)  relates  that  in  the  country  of  the 
 Artabri,  in  the  extreme  N.  W.  of  the  peninsula, 
 the  ground  was  bright  with  silver,  tin,  and  white 
 gold  (mixed  with  silver),  which  were  brought  down 
 by  the  rivers;  but  the  quantity  thus  obtained  could 
 not  have  been  adequate  to  the  demand.  At  the 
 present  day  the  whole  surface  bored  for  mining  in 
 Spain  is  little  more  than  a  square  mile  f  Smith, 
 Cassilerides,  p.  46).  We  are  therefore  driven  to 
 conclude  that  it  was  from  the  Cassiterides,  or  tin 
 districts  of  I5ritain,  than  the  Phoenicians  obtained 
 the  great  bulk  of  tins  connnodity  (Sir  C  C.  Lewis, 
 Hist.  lSurv(fy  vf  titb  Astr.  of  lite  Anc.  p.  45J ),  and 
 that  this  was  done  by  the  direct  voyage  from  Cades. 
 It  is  true  that  at  a  later  period  (Strabo,  iii.  147)  tin 
 was  conveyed  overland  to  Marseilles  by  a  thirty 
 days'  journey  (l)iod.  Sic.  v.  2);  but  Strabo  (iii. 
 175)  tells  us  that  the  Phoenicians  alone  carried  on 
 this  traffic  in  former  times  from  Cades,  concealing 
 tlie  passage  from  every  one;  and  that  on  one  occa- 
 sion, when  the  liomans  followed  one  of  their  vesseb 
 in  order  to  discover  the  source  of  supply,  the  master 
 of  the  ship  ran  upon  a  shoal,  leading  those  who 
 followed  him  to  destruction.  In  course  of  time, 
 however,  the  liomans  discovered  the  passage.  In 
 Ezekiel,  "  the  trade  in  tin  is  attributed  to  Tarshish, 
 as  •  the  merchant '  for  the  commodity,  without  any 
 mention  of  the  place  whence  it  was  procured  " 
 {CfissHerides,  p.  74);  and  it  is  after  the  time  of 
 Julius  Csesar  that  we  first  hear  of  the  overland 
 traffic  by  Marseilles. 
 
 Pliny  (vi.  36)  identifies  the  cassileros  of  the 
 Creeks  with  the  plumbum  album  or  candidum  of 
 the  IkOmans,  which  is  om-  tin.  Stannum,  he  says, 
 is  obtained  from  an  ore  containing  lead  and  silver 
 and  is  the  first  to  become  melted  in  the  furnace. 
 It  is  the  same  which  the  Cermans  call  Wvrk,  and 
 is  apparently  the  meaning  of  the  Ilebr.  bedil  in  Is. 
 i.  25.     The  etymology  of  cassiterus  is  uncertain. 
 
TIPHSAH 
 
 From  the  fact  that  in  Sanskrit  kastira  signifies 
 "  tin,"  an  argument  has  been  derived  in  favor  of 
 India  being  the  source  of  the  ancient  supply  of  this 
 metal,  but  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  upon 
 it.     [Lead.]  W.  A.  W. 
 
 TIPH'SAH  (nppri  [ford] :  [in  1  K.,  Rom. 
 Vat.  omit;  in  2  K.]  ©ipad;  [.41ex.  0ai|/a,  0a;pa :] 
 Thaphsa,  llifipsn)  is  mentioned  in  1  K.  iv.  24  as 
 the  limit  of  Solomon's  empire  towards  the  Euphra- 
 tes, and  in  2  K.  xv.  16  it  is  said  to  have  been  at- 
 taclved  by  Menahem,  king  of  Israel,  who  "  smote 
 Tiphsah  and  all  that  were  therein,  and  all  the 
 coasts  thereof."  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the 
 town  intended,  at  any  rate  in  the  former  passage,  is 
 that  which  tlie  Greeks  and  Komans  knew  under  the 
 name  of  Thapsacus  (@d\paKos),  situated  in  North- 
 ern Syria,  at  the  point  where  it  was  usual  to  cross 
 the  Euphrates  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  21).     The  name  is 
 
 therefore,  reasonably  enough,  connected  with  npQ, 
 "to  pass  over"  (Winer,  Realwurti'vbucli,  ii.  613), 
 and  is  believed  to  correspond  in  meaning  to  tlie 
 Greek  irSpos,  the  German y«?'^,  and  our  "ford." 
 
 Thapsacus  was  a  town  of  consideral)le  import- 
 ance in  the  ancient  world.  Xenophon,  who  saw  it 
 in  the  time  of  Cyrus  the  younger,  calls  it  "  great 
 and  prosperous  "  {fnyaXy)  icaX  evSai/j.aiv,  Anab.  i. 
 4,  §  11).  It  must  have  been  a  place  of  considera- 
 ble trade,  tlie  land-traffic  between  East  and  West 
 passing  through  it,  first  on  account  of  its  fordway 
 (which  was  the  lowest  upon  tlie  Euphrates),  and 
 then  on  account  of  its  bridge  (Sirab.  xvi.  1,  §  23), 
 while  it  was  likewise  the  point  where  goods  were 
 both  embariied  for  transport  down  the  stream  (Q. 
 Curt.  X.  1),  and  also  disembarked  from  boats  which 
 had  come  up  to  it,  to  be  conveyed  on  to  their  final 
 destination  by  land  (Strab.  xvi.  3,  §  4).  It  is  a 
 fair  conjecture  that  Solomon's  occupation  of  the 
 place  was  connectetl  with  his  efforts  to  establish  a 
 line  of  itrade  witli  Central  Asia  directly  across  the 
 continent,  and  that  Tadmor  was  intended  as  a 
 resting-place  on  the  journey  to  Thapsacus. 
 
 Thapsacus  was  the  place  at  whicli  armies  march- 
 ing east  or  west  usually  crossed  the  "  Great  River." 
 It  was  there  that  the  Ten  Thousand  first  learned 
 the  real  intentions  of  Cyrus,  and,  consenting  to  aid 
 him  in  his  enterprise,  passed  the  stream  (Xen. 
 Anab.  i.  4,  §  11).  There  too  Darius  Codomaimus 
 crossed  on  his  flight  from  Issus  (Arr.  Uxp.  Al.  ii. 
 13);  and  Alexander,  following  at  his  leisure,  made 
 his  passage  at  the  same  point  {ibid.  iii.  7).  A 
 bridge  of  boats  was  usually  maintained  at  the  place 
 by  the  Persian  kings,  which  was  of  course  broken 
 up  when  danger  threatened.  Even  then,  however, 
 the  stream  could  in  general  be  forded,  unless  in  the 
 flood-season." 
 
 It  has  been  generally  supposed  that  the  site  of 
 Thapsacus  was  the  modern  Deir  (D'Anville,  Ren- 
 nell,  Vaux,  etc.).  But  the  Euphrates  expedition 
 proved  that  there  is  no  ford  at  Dc'ir,  and  indeed 
 showed  that  the  only  ford  in  this  part  of  tlie  course 
 of  the  Euphrates  is  at  Suriyeh,  45  miles  below  Ba- 
 lis, and  16-5  above  fJe'ir  (Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the 
 Track  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  p.  70).  This  then 
 must  have  been  the  position  of  Thapsacus.  Here 
 the  river  is  exactly  of  the  width  mentioned  by  Xen- 
 ophon (4  stades  or  800  yards),  and  here  for  four 
 
 TIRAS 
 
 3261 
 
 a  This  is  clear  from  the  very  name  of  the  place, 
 and  is  confirmed  by  modern  researches.  Wlien  the 
 natives  told  Cyrus  that  the  stream  had  acknowledged 
 him  as  its  king,  having  never  been  forded  until  his 
 
 months  in  the  winter  of  1841-1842  the  river  had 
 but  20  inches  of  water  {ibid.  p.  72). 
 
 "  The  Euphrates  is  at  this  spot  full  of  beauty 
 and  majesty.  Its  stream  is  wide,  and  its  water? 
 generally  clear  and  blue.  Its  banks  are  ow  and 
 level  to  the  left,  but  undulate  gently  to  the  right. 
 Previous  to  arriving  at  this  point  the  course  of  the 
 river  is  southerly,  but  here  it  turns  to  the  east,  ex- 
 panding more  like  an  inland  lake  than  a  river,  and 
 quitting  (as  Pliny  has  described  it)  the  Palmyrean 
 solitudes  for  the  fertile  Mygdonia"  {ibid.).  A 
 pa^ed  causeway  is  visible  on  either  side  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates at  Suriyeh,  and  a  long  line  of  mounds  may 
 be  traced,  disposed,  something  like  those  of  Nine- 
 veh, in  the  form  of  an  irregular  parallelogram. 
 These  mounds  probably  mark  the  site  of  the  ancient 
 city.  G.  R. 
 
 TI'RAS  (Wyn  [peril,  hmginf/,  desire] :  Qel- 
 pas;  [Horn,  in  1  Clir.  Qipas'-]  Thiras).  The 
 youngest  son  of  Japheth  (Gen.  x.  2).  As  the  name 
 occurs  only  in  the  ethnological  talile.  we  have  no 
 clew,  as  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned,  to  guide  us 
 as  to  the  identification  of  it  with  any  particular 
 people.  .Ancient  authorities  generally  fixed  on  the 
 Thracians,  as  presenting  the  closest  verbal  approx- 
 imation to  the  name  (Joseph.  Ant.  i.  6,  §  1;  Je- 
 rome, in  Gen.  x.  2;  Targums  Pseudoj.  and  Jerus. 
 071  Gen.  1.  c. ;  Targ.  on  1  Chr.  i.  5):  the  occasional 
 rendering  Persia  probably  originated  in  a  corrup- 
 tion of  the  original  text.  The  correspondence  be- 
 tween Thrace  and  Tiras  is  not  so  complete  as  to  be 
 convincing;  the  gentile  form  0pa|  brings  them 
 nearer  together,  but  the  total  absence  of  the  i  in 
 the  Greek  name  is  observable.  Granted,  however, 
 the  verbal  identity,  no  objection  would  arise  on 
 ethnological  grounds  to  placing  tlie  Thracians 
 among  the  Japhetic  races.  Their  precise  ethnic 
 position  is  indeed  involved  in  great  uncertainty; 
 but  all  authorities  agree  in  their  general  Indo-Eu- 
 ropean character.  The  evidence  of  tliis  is  circum- 
 stantial rather  than  direct.  The  language  has  dis- 
 appeared, with  the  exception  of  the  ancient  names 
 and  the  single  word  bria,  which  forms  the  termina- 
 tion of  Meseinbria,  Selymbria,  etc.,  and  is  said  to 
 signify  "  town  "  (Strab.  vii.  p.  319).  The  Thra- 
 cian  stock  was  represented  in  later  times  by  the 
 Getaj,  and  these  again,  still  later,  by  the  Daci, 
 CLicli  of  wlioni  inherited  the  old  Thracian  tongue 
 (Strab.  vii.  p.  303).  But  this  circumstance  throws 
 little  light  on  the  subject;  for  the  Dacian  language 
 has  also  disappeared,  though  fragments  of  its  vo- 
 cabulary may  possibly  exist  either  in  Wallachian 
 dialects  or  perhaps  in  the  Albanian  language  (Die- 
 fenliach,  Or.  Eur.  p.  68).  If  Grimm's  identifica- 
 tion of  the  Getas  with  the  Goths  were  established, 
 the  Teutonic  affinities  of  the  Thracians  would  be 
 placed  lieyond  question  {Gesch.  Deuts.  Spr.  i.  178); 
 but  this  view  does  not  meet  with  general  accept- 
 ance. The  Thracians  are  associated  in  ancient  his- 
 tory with  the  Pelasgians  (Strab.  ix.  401),  and  the 
 Trojans,  with  whom  they  had  many  names  in  com- 
 mon (Strab.  xiii.  .590);  in  Asia  Minor  they  were 
 represented  by  the  Bithynians  (Herod,  i.  28,  vii. 
 75).  These  circumstances  lead  to  the  conclusion 
 that  they  belonged  to  the  Indo-European  family, 
 but  do  not  warrant  us  in  assigning  them  to  any 
 
 army  waded  through  it,  they  calculated  on  his  igno- 
 rance, or  thought  he  would  not  examine  too  strictly 
 into  the  groundwork  of  a  complimeat.  (See  Xea.  Anab. 
 i.  4,  §  11). 
 
3262 
 
 TIRATHITES,  THE 
 
 particular  branch  of  it.  Other  explanations  have 
 been  offered  of  the  name  Tiras,  of  which  we  may 
 notice  the  Agathyrsi,  the  first  part  of  the  name 
 {A(ja)  being  treated  as  a  prefix  (Knobel,  Volkert. 
 p.  129);  Taurus  and  the  various  tribes  occupying 
 that  range  (Kalisch,  Comm.  p.  246);  the  river  Ty- 
 ras,  D)iu-stei;  with  its  cognouiinous  inhabitants, 
 the  'J'yritse  (Haveriiick,  Kinleit.  ii.  231;  Schul- 
 thess,  'Parnd.  p.  19-1);  and,  lastly,  the  maritime 
 Tyrrheni   (Tuch,  in  Gen.  I.  c).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 TI'RATHITES,  THE  (□\7l2?"^ri  [fmm  a 
 2)l(ice  =  "  g'lte,"  Ges.] :  [Kom.  Qapyaddix'-,  Vat.] 
 Taeiiifx;  Alex.  Apyadmu-  Cancntes).  One  of 
 the  three  fiiniilies  of  Scribes  residing  at  Jabez  (1 
 Chr.  ii.  55),  the  others  being  the  Shinieathites  and 
 Suchathites.  The  passage  is  hopelessly  obscure, 
 and  it  is  perhaps  impossible  to  discover  whence 
 these  three  families  derived  their  names.  The 
 Jewish  commentators,  playing  with  the  names  in 
 true  Shemitic  Aishion,  interpret  them  thus;  "  They 
 called  them  Tirathim,  because    their  voices  when 
 
 they  sung  resounded  loud  (V^Pl)  ;  and  Shinieath- 
 ites because  they  made  themselves  heard  (3?^K.'') 
 in  reading  the  Law." 
 
 The  SniMKATiiiTES  having  been  inadvertently 
 omitted  in  their  proper  place,  it  may  be  as  well  to 
 
 give  here  the  equivalents  of  the  name  (C^n^P^"" : 
 2a/xa0iei/i:  Jieson(mtes).  G. 
 
 TIRE  (~1^?).  An  ornamental  head-dress  worn 
 on  festive  occasions  (Ez.  xxiv.  17,  2-3).  The  term 
 peer  is  elsewhere  rendered  "goodly"  (Ex.  xxxix. 
 28);  "bonnet"  (Is.  iii.  20;  Ez.  xliv.  18);  and 
 "ornament"  (Is.  Ixi.  10).  For  the  character  of 
 the  article,  see  Head-dress.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 TIR'HAKAH  (Hf^nniJI  [perh.  brou(/hi 
 forth,  exalted,  Sim.]:  @apaKa\  [Vat.  in  2  K., 
 ©apa;  Sin.  Alex,  in  Is.,  eapaea:]  Tluiraca).  King 
 of  Ethiopia,  Cnsh  (ISaffiXehs  A19i6ttuiv,  LXX.), 
 the  opponent  of  Sennacherib  (2  K.  xix.  9 ;  Is.  xxxvii. 
 9).  While  the  king  of  Assyria  was  "  warrint; 
 against  Libnah,"  in  the  south  of  Palestine,  he  heard 
 of  Tirhakah's  advance  to  fight  him,  and  sent  a 
 second  time  to  demand  the  surrender  of  Jerusalem. 
 This  was  b.  c.  cir.  713,  unless  we  suppose  that  the 
 expedition  took  place  in  the  24th  instead  of  the 
 14th  year  of  Hezekiah,  which  would  bring  it  to 
 B.  C.  cir.  703.  If  it  were  an  expedition  later  than 
 that  of  which  the  date  is  mentioned,  it  must  have 
 been  before  b.  c.  cir.  098,  TIezekiah's  last  year. 
 But  if  the  reign  of  ISIanasseh  is  reduced  to  35  years, 
 these  dates  woukl  be  respectively  a.  C.  cir.  G93, 
 683,  and  678,  and  these  numbers  might  have  to  be 
 slightly  modified,  the  fixed  date  of  the  capture  of 
 Samaria,  b.  c.  721,  being  abandoned. 
 
 According  to  Manetho's  epitomists,  Tarkos  or 
 Tarakos  was  the  third  and  last  king  of  the  XXVth 
 dynasty,  which  was  of  Ethiopians,  and  reigned  18 
 (Afr.)  or  20  (Eus. )  years.  [So.]  From  one  of  the 
 Apis-tablets  we  learn  that  a  bull  Apis  was  born  in 
 his  26th  year,  and  died  at  the  end  of  the  20th  of 
 Psanimetichus  I.  of  the  XXVIth  dynasty.  Its  life 
 exceeded  20  years,  and  no  Apis  is  stated  to  have 
 lived  longer  than  26.  Taking  that  sum  as  the 
 most  probable,  we  should  date  Tirhakah's  accession 
 B.  c.  cir.  695,  and  assign  him  a  reign  of  26  years. 
 In  this  case  we  should  be  obliged  to  take  the  later 
 reckoning  of  the  Biblical  events,  were  it  not  for  the 
 possibility  that  Tirhakah  ruled  over  Ethiopia  before 
 
 TIRSHATHA 
 
 becoming  king  of  Egypt.  In  connection  with  this 
 theory  it  must  be  observed,  that  an  earlier  I'^thi- 
 opian  of  the  same  dynasty  is  called  in  the  Bible 
 "  So,  king  of  Egypt,"  while  this  ruler  is  called 
 "  Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,"  and  that  a  Pharaoh 
 is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  at  the  period  of  the  latter, 
 and  also  that  Herodotus  represents  the  Egyptian 
 opponent  of  Sennacherib  as  Sethos,  a  native  king, 
 who  may  however  have  been  a  vassal  under  the 
 Ethiopian. 
 
 The  name  of  Tirhakah  is  written  in  hieroglj'ph- 
 ics  TEHAKKA.  Sculptures  at  Thebes  commem- 
 orate his  rule,  and  at  (jebel-Berkel,  or  Napata,  he 
 constructed  one  temple  and  part  of  another.  Of 
 the  events  of  his  reign  little  else  is  known,  and  the 
 account  of  Megasthenes  {op.  Strabo,  xv.  p.  686), 
 that  he  Hvaled  Sesostris  as  a  warrior  and  reached 
 the  Pillars  of  Hercides,  is  not  supported  by  other 
 e\idence.  It  is  probable  that  at  the  close  of  his 
 reign  he  found  the  Assyrians  too  powerful,  and  re- 
 tired to  his  Ethiopian  dominions.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 TIR'HANAH  (n2n"iri  [indination  ov  fa- 
 vor, Ges.,  Fiirst] :  @apd/x\  Alex.  @apxvu,-  Tha- 
 rnnn).  Son  of  Caleb  ben-Hezron  by  his  concubine 
 Maachah  (1  Chr.  ii.  48). 
 
 TIR'IA  (S^"]"^ri  [fear,  Ges.]:  @ipid;  [Vat. 
 Zaipa;]  Alex.  @r]pia'  Thiria).  Son  of  Jehaleleel 
 of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  16). 
 
 TIRSHA'THA  (always  written  with  the  ar- 
 ticle, Sntt?~irin  [see  below]  :    hence  the  LXX. 
 '       T  T     :    •  -    I-  J 
 
 give  the  word  'A0ep<Taaed  [Alex.  FA.  AdepaaQa, 
 Vat.  other  forms]  (Ezr.  ii.  63;  Neh.  vii.  65),  and 
 'Apraffaadd  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit]  (Neh.  x.  1): 
 Vulg.  Athersailia).  The  title  of  the  governor  of 
 Judaea  under  the  Persians,  derived  by  Ge.senius 
 from  a  Persian  root  signifying  "stern,"  "severe." 
 He  compares  the  title  Gestrenger  Herr,  formerly 
 given  to  the  magistrates  of  the  free  and  imperial 
 cities  of  Germany.  Compare  also  our  expression, 
 "  most  dread  sovereign."  It  is  added  as  a  title 
 after  the  name  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  viii.  9,  x.  1  [Heb. 
 2] ) :  and  occurs  also  in  three  other  places,  Ezr.  ii. 
 (ver.  63),  and  the  repetition  of  that  account  in  Neh. 
 vii.  (vv.  65-70),  where  probably  it  is  intended  to 
 denote  Zerubbabel,  who  had  held  the  ofhce  before 
 Nehemiah.  In  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  (Ezr.  ii. 
 63;  Neh.  vii.  66,  x.  1)  it  is  rendered  "governor;" 
 an  explanation  justified    by  Neh.   xii.   26,   where 
 
 "Nehemiah  the  governor,"  HnprT  {Pec/in,  pos- 
 sibly from  the  same  root  as  the  word  we  write  Pa- 
 cha, or  Pasha),  occurs  instead  of  the  more  usual 
 expression,  "  Nehemiah  the  Tirshatha."    This  word, 
 
 nHQ,  is  one  of  very  connnon  occurrence.  It  is 
 twice  applied  by  Nehemiah  to  himself  (vv.  14,  18), 
 and  by  the  prophet  Haggai  (i.  1,  ii.  2,  21)  to  Ze- 
 rubbabel. According  to  Gesenius,  it  denotes  the 
 prefect  or  governor  of  a  province  of  less  extent  than 
 a  satrapy.  The  word  is  used  of  officers  and  gov- 
 ernors under  the  Assyrian  (2  K.  xviii.  24 ;  Is.  xxxvi. 
 9),  Babylonian  (Jer.  Ii.  57;  Ez.  xxiii.  6,  23;  see 
 also  Ezr.  v.  3,  14,  vi.  7 ;  Dan.  iii.  2,  3,  27,  vi.  7 
 [Heb.  8]),  Median  (Jer.  Ii.  28),  and  Persian  (Esth. 
 viii.  9,  ix.  3)  monarchies.  And  under  this  last  we 
 find  it  applied  to  the  rulers  of  the  provinces  bor- 
 dered by  the  Euphrates  (Ezr.  viii.  36 ;  Neh.  ii.  7, 
 9,  iii.  7),  and  to  the  governors  of  Judaea,  Zerubba- 
 Ijel  and  Nehemiah  (compare  Mai.  i.  8).  It  is 
 found  also  at  an  earlier  period  ia  the  times  of  Solo- 
 
TIRZAH  ^ 
 
 tnon  (1  K.  X.  15,  2  Clir.  ix.  14)  and  Benhailad  king 
 of  Syria  (1  K.  xx.  24):  from  wliich  last  place,  com- 
 pared with  others  (2  K.  xviii.  24,  Is.  xxxvi.  9),  we 
 find  that  military  coinniands  were  often  held  by 
 these  governors;  the  word  indeed  is  often  rendered 
 by  the  A.  V.,  either  in  the  text  or  the  margin, 
 "  captain." 
 
 By  thus  briefly  examining  the  sense  of  Pecha, 
 which  (though  of  course  a  much  more  general  and 
 less  distinctive  word)  is  given  as  an  equivalent  to 
 Tirshatha,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  forming  an 
 opinion  as  to  the  general  notion  implied  in  it.  We 
 have,  however,  no  sufficient  information  to  enable 
 us  to  explain  in  detail  in  what  consisted  the  special 
 peculiarities  in  honor  or  functions  which  distin- 
 guished the  Tirshatha  from  others  of  the  same  class, 
 governors,  captains,  princes,  rulers  of  provinces. 
 
 E.  P.  E. 
 
 TIR'ZAH  (rt!J-iri,  i.  e.  Thirza  [delic/ht]  : 
 @ep(ra,'-  Tliers'i).  The  youngest  of  the  five  daugh- 
 ters of  Zelophehad,  whose  case  orighiated  the  law 
 that  in  the  event  of  a  man  dying  without  male 
 issue  his  property  should  pass  to  his  daughters 
 (Num.  xxvi.  'io,  xxvii.  1,  xxxvi."  11;  Josh.  xvii.  3). 
 [Zelophehad.]  G. 
 
 TIR'ZAH  (n^nn  Iddlyhq  -.   [Rom.  Oepcrci, 
 
 @epaiKa;  Vat.]  @apaa,  Qepaa,  &ap(Tei\a;  Alex. 
 ®epfxa,  @epcra,  QepaiXa-  T/iersn).  An  ancient 
 Canaanite  city,  whose  king  is  enumerated  amongst 
 the  twenty-one  overthrown  in  the  conquest  of  the 
 country  (Josh.  xii.  24).  From  that  time  nothing 
 is  heard  of  it  till  after  the  disruption  of  Israel  and 
 Judah.  It  then  reappears  as  a  royal  city  —  the 
 residence  of  Jeroboam  (1  K.  xiv.  ''17)  and  of  his 
 successors,  Baasha  (xv.  21,  33),  Elah  (xvi.  8,  9),  and 
 Zimri  (ibid.  15).  It  contained  the  royal  sepulchres 
 of  one  (xvi.  6),  and  probably  all  the  first  four  kings 
 of  the  northern  kingdom.  Zimri  was  besieged  there 
 by  Omri,  and  perished  in  the  flames  of  bis  palace 
 (iOid.  18).  The  new  khig  continued  to  reside  there 
 at  first,  but  after  six  years  he  removed  to  a  new 
 city  which  he  built  and  named  Shomron  (Samaria), 
 and  which  continued  to  be  the  capital  of  the  north- 
 ern kingdom  till  its  fall.  Once,  and  only  once, 
 does  Tirzah  reappear,  as  the  seat  of  the  conspiracy 
 of  iMenahem  ben-Gaddi  against  the  wretched  Shal- 
 lum  (2  K.  XV.  14,  16);  but  as  soon  as  his  revolt 
 had  proved  successful,  Menahem  removed  the  seat 
 of  his  government  to  Samaria,  and  Tirzah  was 
 again  left  in  obscurity. 
 
 Its  reputation  for  beauty  throughout  the  country 
 must  have  been  wide-spread.  It  is  in  this  sense 
 that  it  is  mentioned  in  the  <^  Song  of  Solomon, 
 where  the  juxtaposition  of  Jerusalem  is  sufficient 
 proof  of  the  estimation  in  which  it  was  held  — 
 ''  Beautiful  as  Tirzah,  comely  as  Jerusalem  "  (Cant. 
 vi.  4).     The  LXX.   (euSoKia)  and  Vulg.   (swtvis) 
 
 TISHBITE,  THE 
 
 3263 
 
 «  In  this  passage  the  order  of  the  names  is  altered 
 in  the  Hebrew  text  from  that  preserved  ia  the  other 
 passages  —  auil  still  more  so  in  the  LX.Y. 
 
 b  The  LXX.  version  of  the  narrative  of  which  this 
 verse  forms  part,  anioagst  other  remarkable  variations 
 from  the  Hebrew  text,  substitutes  Sarira  [Sapipa],  that 
 is,  ZereJa,  for  Tirzah.  lu  this  they  are  supported  by 
 no  other  version. 
 
 c  Its  occurrence  here  on  a  level  with  .Jerusalem  has 
 been  held  to  indicate  that  the  Song  of  Songs  was  the 
 work  of  a  writer  belongiug  to  the  northern  Itingdom. 
 But  surely  a  poet,  and  so  ardent  a  poet  as  the  author 
 
 do  not,  however,  take  tirlsah  as  a  proper  name  in 
 this  passage. 
 
 Eusebius  (Oiiomasi.  ©apcriAa'^)  mentions  it  in 
 connection  with  Menahem,  and  identifies  it  with  a 
 "  village  of  Samaritans  in  Batanaea."  There  is, 
 however,  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  lead  to  the  in- 
 ference that  the  Tirzah  of  the  Israelite  monarchs 
 was  on  the  east  of  Jordan.  It  does  not  appear  to 
 be  mentioned  by  the  Jewish  topographers,  or  any 
 of  the  Christian  travellers  of  the  Middle  Ages,  ex- 
 cept Brocardus,  who  places  "  Thersa  on  a  high 
 mountain,  three  leagues  {leucce)  from  Samaria  to 
 the  <!east  "  {Descrijj/io,  cap.  vii.).  This  is  exactly 
 the  direction,  and  very  nearly  the  distance,  of  Tel- 
 luza/i,  a  place  in  the  mountains  north  of  NaiAiis, 
 which  was  visited  by  Dr.  Robinson  and  Mr.  Van 
 de  Velde  in  1852  {Bibl.  Rvs.  iii.  302;  Syr.  and  Pal. 
 iii.  334).  The  town  is  on  an  eminence,  which  to- 
 wards the  east  is  exceedingly  lofty,  tiiongli,  being 
 at  the  edge  of  the  central  highlands,  it  is  more 
 approachable  from  the  west.  The  place  is  large 
 and  thriving,  but  without  any  obvious  marks  of 
 antiquity.  The  name  may  very  probably  lie  a  cor- 
 ruption of  Tirzah ;  but  beyond  that  similarity,  and 
 the  general  agreement  of  the  site  with  the  require- 
 ments of  the  narrative,  there  is  nothing  at  present 
 to  establish  the  identification  with  certainty. 
 
 G. 
 
 TISH'BITE,  THE  C'S^'i^H  [patr.]  :  [Vat.] 
 0  6eff/3eLTris:  [liom.]  Alex.  f'dea$iT7]s:  Thesbites). 
 The  well-known  designation  of  Elijah  (1  K.  xvii.  1, 
 xxi.  17,  28;  2  K.  i.  3,  8,  ix.  30). 
 
 (1.)  The  name  naturally  points  to  a  place  called 
 Tishbeh  (Fiirst),  Tishhi,  or  rather  perhaps  Tesheb, 
 as  the  residence  of  the  prophet.     And  indeed  the 
 
 word  *^31i7ni!3,  which  follows  it  in  1  K.  xvii.  1, 
 and  which  in  the  received  Helirew  text  is  so  pointed 
 as  to  mean  "  from  the  residents,"  may,  without 
 violence  or  grannnatical  impropriety,  be  pointed  to 
 read  '•  from  Tishl)i."  This  latter  reading  appears 
 to  have  been  followed  by  the  LXX.  (o  ©ec/SeiTTjj 
 6   ere  @s(T^uiv),   Josephus  {Anl.  viii.  13,  §  2,  Trj- 
 
 \eo3s  ©eo-yStijA'vjs),  and  the  Targum  (l^WiriD"^, 
 "from  out  of  Toshab  " ) ;  and  it  has  the  support 
 of  Ewald  {Gi'Stch.  iii.  468,  note).  It  is  also  sup- 
 ported by  the  fact,  which  seems  to  have  escaped 
 notice,  that  the  word  does  not  in  this  passage  con- 
 tain the  1  which  is  present  in  each  one  of  the  places 
 where  I2271j*^  is  used  as  a  mere  appellative  noun. 
 
 Had  the  1  been  present  in  1  K.  xvii.  1,  the  inter- 
 pretation "from  Tishbi  "  could  never  have  been 
 proposed. 
 
 Assuming,  however,  that  a  town  is  alluded  to, 
 as  Elijah's  native  place,  it  is  not  necessary  to  infer 
 that  it  was  itself  in  Gilead,  as  Epiphanius,  Adricho- 
 
 of  the  Song  of  Songs,  may  have  been  sufficiently  in- 
 dependent of  political  considerations  to  go  out  of  his 
 
 own  country if  Tirzah  can  be  said  to  be  out  of  the 
 
 country  of  a  native  of  Judah  —  for  a  metaphor. 
 
 d  It  will  be  observed  that  the  name  stood  iij  the 
 LXX.  of  2  K.  XV.  14  in  Eusebius'  time  virtually  in  the 
 same  strange  un-Uebrew  form  that  it  now  does. 
 
 e  Scliwarz  (150)  seems  merely  to  repeat  this  passage. 
 
 /  The  Alex.  MS.  omits  the  word  in  1  K.  xvii.  1,  and 
 both  MSS.  omit  it  in  xxi.  28,  which  they  cast,  with 
 the  whole  passage,  in  a  different  form  from  the  Hebrew 
 text. 
 
3264 
 
 TITANS 
 
 tnius,  «  Castell,  and  others  have  imagined ;  for  the 
 word  lUtU'in,  which  in  the  A.  V.  is  rendered  by 
 ihe  general  term  '  inhabitant,"  has  really  the 
 special  force  of  "resident"  or  even*  "stranger." 
 This,  and  the  fact  tliat  a  place  with  a  similar  name 
 is  not  elsewhere  mentioned,  has  induced  the  com- 
 mentators'^ and  lexicographers,  with  lew  exceptions, 
 to  adopt  the  name  "  Tishbite  "  as  referring  to  the 
 place  TiiiaKK  in  Naphtali,  wliich  is  found  in  the 
 LXX.  text  of  Tobit  i.  2.  The  difficulty  in  the  way 
 of  this  is  the  great  uncertainty  in  which  tlie  text 
 of  that  passage  is  involved,  as  has  already  been 
 shown  under  the  head  ofTiiisBK;  an  uncertainty 
 quite  sufficient  to  destroy  atiy  dependence  on  it  as 
 a  topograjihical  record,  altliough  it  bears  the  traces 
 of  having  originally  been  extremely  minute.  Bunsen 
 {Bibelwerlc,  not«  to  1  K.  xvii.  1)  suggests  in  sup- 
 port of  the  reading  "  the  Tishbite  from  Tishbi  of 
 Gilead  "  (which  however  he  does  not  adopt  in  his 
 text),  that  the  place  may  have  been  purposely  so 
 described,  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  town 
 of  the  same  name  in  Galilee. 
 
 (2.)  But  "'Sli^nn  has  not  always  been  read  as 
 
 a  proper  name,  referring  to  a  place.  Like  ''DtZ^jn^, 
 though  exactly  in  reverse,  it  has  been  pointed  so  as 
 to  make  it  mean  "  the  stranger."  This  is  done  by 
 Michaelis  in  the  text  of  his  interesting  BiOel  J'iir 
 UmjtMirten —  "  der  Fremdling  Elia,  einer  vou  den 
 Fremden,  die  in  Gilead  wohnhaft  waren ;  "  and  it 
 throws  a  new  and  impressive  air  round  the  prophet. 
 who  was  so  emphatically  the  champion  of  the  God 
 of  Israel.  But  this  suggestion  does  not  appear  to 
 have  been  adopted  by  any  other  interpreter,  ancient 
 or  modern. 
 
 The  nunieric.il  value  of  the  letters  "'^li^H  is  712, 
 on  which  account,  and  also  doubtless  with  a  view 
 to  its  correspondence  with  his  own  name,  Elias 
 Levita  entitled  his  work,  in  which  712  words  are 
 explained,  Seplier  Tishbi  (Bartolocci,  i.  140  b). 
 
 G. 
 
 TI'TANS  (TiTares,  of  uncertain  derivation). 
 These  children  of  Uranus  (Heaven)  and  Gaia 
 (Earth)  were,  according  to  the  earliest  Greek  le- 
 gends, the  vanquished  predecessors  of  the  01\inpian 
 gods,  condemned  by  Zeus  to  dwell  in  Tartarus,  yet 
 not  without  retaining  many  relics  of  their  ancient 
 dignity  (^'Esch.  Prom.  Vinci,  passim)-  By  later 
 (Latin)  poets  they  were  confounded  with  the  kindred 
 Gigantcs  (Hor.  Ud.  iii.  4,  42,  &c. ),  as  the  traditions 
 of  the  primitive  Greek  faith  died  away;  and  both 
 terms  were  transferred  by  the  Seventy  to  the  Ke- 
 phaim  of  ancient  Palestine.  [GIA^'T.]  The  usual 
 Greek  rendering  of  Rephaim  is  indeed  TijavTfs 
 (Gen.  xiv.  5;  Josh.  xii.  4,  &c.),  or,  with  a  yet 
 clearer  reference  to  Greek  mythology,  •yT)yivus 
 (Prov.  ii.  18,  ix.   18),   and   Oeo/xaxoi  (Synmiach 
 
 «  This  lexicographer  pretends  to  have  been  in  pos- 
 sessiou  of  some  special  information  as  to  the  situation 
 of  the  place.  IJe  says  (Lex.  Hebr.  ed.  Michaelis), 
 "  Urbs  in  tribu  Gad,  Jebaa  inter  et  Saron."  Jebaa 
 should  be  Jecbaa  (/.  e.  Jogbehah)  and  this  strange  bit 
 of  confident  topography  is  probably  taken  from  the 
 map  of  AdrichomiuG,  made  on  the  principle  of  insert- 
 ing every  name  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  known  or  un- 
 known, 
 
 b  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  meaning  of 
 
 Dti7W,     See  Gen.  xxiii.  4  ("sojourner"),  Ex.  xii.  45 
 («  foreigner  "),  Lev.  xxv.  6  ("  stranger  "),  Ps.  xxxix.  12 
 
 ^  TITHE 
 
 Prov.  ix.  18,  xxi.  16 ;  Job  xxvi.  o).  But  in  2  Sam. 
 V.  18,  22,  "  the  valley  of  Eephaim  "  is  represented 
 by  fj  KOi\as  tSiv  rirdvoiv  instead  of  ri  koiXols  rwf 
 yiydvTcov,  1  Cln-.  xi.  15,  xiv,  9,  1.3:  and  the  same 
 rendering  occurs  in  a  Hexa])l.  text  in  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
 13.  Thus  Ambrose  defends  his  use  of  a  classical 
 allusion  by  a  reference  to  the  Old  Latin  version  of 
 2  Sam.  v.,  which  preserved  the  LXX.  rendering 
 (Dejide,  iii.  1,  4,  Nam  et  yif/antes  et  vallem  Ti- 
 tanuin  prophetici  sermonis  series  non  refugit.  Et 
 Esaias  Hirtnas  .  .  .  dixit).  It  can  therefore  oc- 
 casion no  surprise  that  in  the  Greek  version  of  the 
 triumplial  liynm  of  Judith,  "  the  sons  of  the  Titans" 
 (viol  TLTavuiv-  YvX^.  Jild  Titan:  Old  Latin,  yZ/jJ 
 Dathaii ;  f.  Teln  ;  f.  bdldorum)  stands  parallel 
 with  "  high  giants,"  v\\i7}Ko\  TlyavTes,  where  the 
 original  text  probably  had  Q^SD"!  and  C"^132. 
 The  word  has  yet  another  interesting  point  of  con- 
 nection with  tlie  Bible;  for  it  may  have  been  from 
 some  vague  sense  of  the  struggle  of  the  infernal  and 
 celestial  powers,  dimly  shadowed  forth  in,  the  clas- 
 sical myth  of  the  Titans,  that  several  Christian 
 fathers  inclined  to  tiie  belief  that  Turdv  was  the 
 mystic  name  of  '•  the  beast  "  indicated  in  Eev.  xiii. 
 18  (Iren.  v.  30,  -3  .  .  .  "divinum  putatur  apud 
 midtos  esse  hoc  nomen  .  .  .  et  ostentationem  quan- 
 dam  continet  ultionis  .  .  .  et  alias  autem  et  anti- 
 quum, et  fide  dignum,  et  regale,  niagis  autem  et 
 tyrannicum  nomen  .  .  .  ut  ex  multis  colligamus 
 ne  forte  Tita7i  vocetur  qui  veniet"). 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 TITHE. ^'  Without  inquiring  into  the  reason 
 for  which  the  number  ten''  has  been  so  frequently 
 preferred  as  a  number  of  selection  in  the  cases  of 
 trilnite-offerings,  both  sacred  and  secularj  voluntary 
 and  conqjuisory,  we  may  remark  that  numerous 
 instances  of  its  use  are  found  both  in  profane  and 
 also  in  Biblical  history,  prior  to  or  independently 
 of  the  appointment  of  the  Levitical  tithes  under  the 
 Law.  In  Biblical  history  the  two  prominent  in- 
 stances are  —  1.  Abram  presenting  the  tentli  of  all 
 his  property,  according  to  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
 versions  of  Heb.  vii.  and  S.  Jarchi  in  his  Com.,  but 
 as  the  passages  themselves  appear  to  show,  of  the 
 spoils  of  his  victory,  to  Melchizedek  (Gen.  xiv.  20; 
 Heb.  vii.  2,  6;  Joseph.  Aid.  i.  10,  §  2;  Selden  On 
 Tillies,  c.  1).  2.  Jacob,  after  his  vision  at  Luz, 
 devotinir  a  tenth  of  all  his  property  to  God  in  case 
 he  should  return  home  in  safety  ((jen.  xxviii.  22). 
 These  instances  bear  witness  to  the  antiquity  of 
 tithes,  in  some  shape  or  other,  previous  to  the 
 Mosaic  tithe-system.  But  numerous  instances  are 
 to  be  found  of  the  practice  of  heathen  nations, 
 Greeks,  Romans,  Carthaginians,  Arabians,  of  apply- 
 ing tenths  derived  from  property  in  general,  Irom 
 spoil,  from  confiscated  goods,  or  from  commercial 
 profits,  to  sacred,  and  quasi-sacred,  and  also  to  fiscal 
 purposes,   namely,  as  consecrated  to  a  deity,  pre- 
 
 ("  sojourner  ").  It  often  occurs  in  connection  with 
 "13,  "  an  alien,'-  as  in  Lev.  xxv.  23,  35,  40,  47  b,  1  Chr. 
 xxix.  15.  Besides  the  above  passages,  lOsliab  is  found 
 in  Lev.  xxii.  10,  xxv.  45,  47  a. 
 
 c  lleland,  Pal.  p.  1035  ;  Gesenius,  Tlies.  p.  1352  6, 
 &c.,  &c. 
 
 d  ~liyi?n  :  fie/can) :  'licima:  and  pi.  n''nii^?':?  : 
 at  SeKOTat:   decimcB ;  from   "1^737,    "ten.'' 
 
 e  Philo  derives  Se'ica  from  hixi<r6ai.  (De  X  Orac   U, 
 
 184). 
 
TITHE  ^ 
 
 sented  as  a  reward  to  a  successful  general,  set  apart 
 as  a  tribute  to  a  so\ereigti,  or  as  a  permanent 
 source  of  revenue.  Among  other  passanes,  the  fol- 
 lowing may  be  cited:  1  Mace.  xi.  ^5;  Herod,  i.  89, 
 iv.  15-2,  V.  77,  vii.  132.  ix.  81;  Diod.  Sic.  v.  42,  xi. 
 33,  XX.  14;  Pans.  v.  10,  §  2,  x.  10,  §  1;  Dionys. 
 Hal.  i.  19,  23;  .Justin,  xviii.  7,  xx.  3;  Arist.  (Earn. 
 ii.  2;  Liv.  v.  21;  Polyb.  ix.  39;  Cic.  Verr.  ii.  3,  6, 
 and  7  (where  tithes  of  wine,  oil,  and  "  niinut.'E 
 fruges,"  are  mentioned).  Pro  Leg.  Mnnil.  6;  Flut. 
 Ages.  c.  19,  p.  389;  Pliny,  N.  H.  xii.  14;  Macrob. 
 Sat.  iii.  C;  Xen.  Ildl.  i.  7,  10,  iv.  3,  21;  Rose, 
 Inscr.  Gi:  p.  215;  Gibbon,  vol.  iii.  p.  301,  ed. 
 Smith ;  and  a  remarkable  instance  of  fruits  tithed 
 and  offered  to  a  deity,  and  a  feast  made,  of  which 
 the  people  of  the  district  partook,  in  Xen.  Exp. 
 Cyr.  V.  3,  9,  an.swering  thus  to  tlie  Hebrew  poor 
 man's  tithe-feast  to  be  mentioned  below. 
 
 The  first  enactment  of  the  Law  in  respect  of 
 tithe  is  the  declaration  that  the  tenth  of  all  prod- 
 uce, as  well  as  of  flocks  and  cattle,  belongs  to 
 Jehovah,  and  must  be  offered  to  Him.  2.  That  the 
 tithe  was  to  be  paid  in  kind,  or,  if  redeemed,  with 
 an  addition  of  one  fifth  to  its  value  (Lev.  xxvii. 
 30-33).  This  tenth,  called  Teniiiioi/i,  is  ordered  to 
 be  assigned  to  tlie  Levites,  as  the  reward  of  their 
 service,  and  it  is  ordered  further,  that  they  are 
 themselves  to  dedicate  to  the  Lord  a  tenth  of  these 
 receipts,  which  is  to  be  devoted  to  the  maintenance 
 of  tlie  high-priest  (Num.  xviii.  21-28). 
 
 This  legislation  is  modified  or  extended  in  tlie 
 book  of  Deuteronomy,  i.  e.  from  thirty-eight  to 
 forty  years  later.  Commands  are  given  to  the  peo- 
 ple, —  1,  to  bring  their  tithes,  together  with  their 
 votive  and  other  offerings  and  first-fruits,  to  the 
 chosen  centre  of  worship,  the  metropolis,  there  to 
 be  eaten  in  festive  celebration  in  company  with  their 
 children,  their  servants,  and  the  Levites  (Deut.  xii. 
 5-18).  2.  After  warnings  against  idolatrous  or 
 virtually  idolatrous  practices,  and  the  definition 
 of  clean  as  distinguished  from  unclean  animals, 
 among  which  latter  class  the  swine  is  of  obvious 
 importance  in  reference  to  the  suljject  of  tithes,  the 
 legislator  proceeds  to  direct  that  all  the  produce  of 
 the  soil  shall  be  tithed  every  year  (ver.  17  seems  to 
 show  that  corn,  wine,  and  oil  alone  are  intended), 
 and  that  these  tithes  with  the  firstlings  of  the  flock 
 and  herd  are  to  be  eaten  in  the  metropolis.  3.  But 
 in  case  of  distance,  permission  is  given  to  convert 
 the  produce  into  money,  which  is  to  be  taken  to  the 
 appointed  place,  and  there  laid  out  in  the  purchase 
 ot  food  for  a  festal  celebration,  in  which  the  Levite 
 is,  by  special  command,  to  be  included  (Deut.  xiv. 
 22-27).  4.  Then  follows  the  direction,  that  at 
 the  end  of  three  years,  i.  e.  in  the  course  of  the 
 third  and  sixth  jears  of  the  Sabbatical  period,  all 
 the  tithe  of  that  year  is  to  be  gathered  and  laid  up 
 "within  the  gates,"  i.  e.  probably  in  some  central 
 place  in  each  district,  not  at  the  metropolis;  and 
 that  a  festival  is  to  be  held,  in  which  the  stranger, 
 the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  together  with  the 
 Levite,  are  to  partake  (iOld.  vv.  28,  29).  5.  Lastly, 
 it  is  ordered  that  after  taking  the  tithe  in  each  third 
 year,"  which  is  the  year  of  titliing,"  «  an  exculpa- 
 tory declaration  is  to  be  made  liy  every  Israelite, 
 that  he  has  done  his  best  to  fulfill  the  Di^■ine  com- 
 mand (Deut.  xxvi.  12-14).* 
 
 From  all  this  we  gather,  1.  That  one  tenth  of 
 
 TITHE 
 
 3265 
 
 6  The  LXX.  has  here  iav  crvrreAcoT)?  aTroScKaToxrai 
 
 the  whole  produce  of  the  soil  was  to  be  assigned  for 
 the  maintenance  of  the  Levites.  2.  That  out  of  thia 
 the  Levites  were  to  dedicate  a  tenth  to  God,  for 
 the  use  of  the  high-priest.  3.  That  a  tithe,  in  all 
 probaliility  a  second  tithe,  was  to  be  applied  to 
 testival  purposes.  4.  That  in  every  third  year, 
 either  this  festival  tithe  or  a  lliird  teiitii  was  to  be 
 eaten  in  company  with  the  poor  and  the  Levites. 
 I'he  question  arises,  were  there  three  tithes  taken 
 in  this  third  year;  or  is  the  third  titlie  only  the 
 second  under  a  difterent  description?  That  there 
 were  two  yearly  tithes  seems  clear,  both  from  the 
 general  tenor  of  the  directions  and  from  tlie  LXX. 
 rendering  of  Deut.  xxvi.  12.  But  it  must  be  allowed 
 that  the  t/iird  tithe  is  not  without  support.  1.  Jo- 
 sephus  distinctly  says  that  one  tentli  was  to  be  given 
 to  the  priests  and  Levites,  one  tenth  was  to  be  ap- 
 plied to  feasts  in  the  metropolis,  and  that  a  tenth 
 besiiles  these  (rpirriv  Trphs  avTois)  was  every  tliird 
 year  to  be  given  to  the  poor  (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  8,  and 
 22).  2.  Tobit  says,  he  gave  one  tenth  to  the  priests, 
 one  tenth  he  sold  and  spent  at  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  com- 
 muted according  to  Deut.  xiv.  24,  25,  and  another 
 tenth  lie  gave  away  (Tob.  i.  7,  8).  3.  St.  Jerome 
 says  one  tenth  was  given  to  the  Levites,  out  of 
 which  they  gave  one  tenth  to  the  priests  (Seure- 
 poSfKarr]);  a  second  tithe  was  applied  to  festival 
 purposes,  and  a  third  was  given  to  the  poor  (irro)- 
 XoSeKoLTTj)  (Com.  on  Eztk.  xiv.  vol.  i.  p.  505). 
 S|ieiicer  tliinics  there  were  three  tithes.  Jennings, 
 with  iMede,  thinks  there  were  only  two  complete 
 tithes,  but  tliat  in  tlie  third  year  an  addition  of 
 some  sort  was  made  (Spencer,  De  Leg.  llebr.  p. 
 727;  Jennings,  Jew.  Ant.  p.  183). 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  Maiinonides  says  the  third  and 
 sixth  years'  second  tithe  was  shared  between  the 
 poor  and  the  Levites,  i.  e.  that  there  was  no  third 
 tithe  {De  Jur.  Paiip.  vi.  4).  Seidell  and  Michaelis 
 remai'k  that  the  burden  of  three  tithes,  besides  the 
 first-fruits,  would  be  excessive.  Seidell  thinks  that 
 the  third  year's  tithe  denotes  only  a  different  appli- 
 cation of  the  second  or  festival  tithe,  and  JNlichaelis, 
 that  it  meant  a  surplus  after  the  consumption  of 
 the  festival  tithe  (Selden,  On  Tithes,  c.  2,  p.  13; 
 Michaelis,  Laws  of  Muses,  §  192,  vol.  iii.  p.  143, 
 ed.  Smith).  Against  a  third  tithe  may  be  added 
 Keland,  Ant.  Ilebr.  p.  359;  Jahn,  Ant.  §  389; 
 Goilwyn,  .Moses  and  Aaron,  p.  13G,  and  Carpzov, 
 pp.  G21,  622;  Keil,  Bibl.  Arch.  §  71,  i.  337;  Saal- 
 schiitz,  Ihbr.  Arch.  i.  70 ;  AViiier,  Reidwb.  s.  v. 
 Zehnte.  Knobel  thinks  the  tithe  was  never  taken 
 in  full,  and  that  the  third  year's  tithe  only  meant 
 the  portion  contributed  in  that  year  {Coin,  on  Deut. 
 xiv.  29,  in  Kiirzgef.  Exeg.  Ilandbuch).  Evvald 
 thinks  that  for  two  years  the  tithe  was  left  in  great 
 measure  to  free-will,  and  that  the  third  year's  tithe 
 only  was  compulsory  (Alterlhiiin.  p.  340). 
 
 Of  these  opinions,  that  which  maintains  three 
 separate  and  complete  tithings  seems  improbable,  as 
 imposing  an  excessive  burden  on  the  land,  and  not 
 easily  reconcilable  with  the  other  directions;  yet 
 there  seems  no  reason  for  rejecting  the  notion  of 
 two  yearly  tithes,  when  we  recollect  the  especial 
 promise  of  fertility  to  the  soil,  conditional  on  ob- 
 •servance  of  the  commands  of  the  Law  (Deut.  xxviii). 
 There  would  thus  be,  1,  a  yearly  tithe  for  the 
 Levites ;  2,  a  second  tithe  for  the  festivals,  which 
 last  would  every  third  year  be  shared  by  the  Levites 
 
 KOLV  TO  iniSeKarov  tmv  yevvrnxartav  Trjs  yijs  trov  iv  Tu 
 eTct  TO)    TpiTci)  TO  BevT  e  pov   in  I.  Se  K(f\  ov  Siicreis 
 
 Tui  AcVtTT),  K.  T.  A. 
 
3266 
 
 TITTLE 
 
 TITUS 
 
 with  the  poor.     It  is  this   poor  man's  tithe  which   of  the  Greek   and   Hebrew  alphabets.     It  will  be 
 
 Michaelis  thinks  is  spoken  of  as  likely  to  be  con 
 verted  to  the  king's  use  under  tlie  regal  dynasty 
 (1  Sam.  viii.  15,  17;  Mich.  Lma  of  JAwes,  vol.  i. 
 p.  299).  Ewuld  thinks  that  under  the  kings  the 
 ecclesiastical  tithe-system  reverted  to  what  lie  sup- 
 poses to  have  been  its  original  free-will  character. 
 It  is  plain  that  during  that  period  tlie  tithe-system 
 partook  of  tlie  general  neglect  into  which  the  ob- 
 servance of  the  Law  declined,  and  that  Hezekiah, 
 among  his  other  reforms,  took  effectual  means  to 
 revive  its  use  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  5,  12,  19).  iSiniilar 
 measures  were  taken  after  the  Captivity  by  Nehe- 
 miah  (Neh.  xii.  44),  and  in  both  tliese  cases  special 
 officers  were  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  stores 
 and  storehouses  for  the  purpose.  The  practice  of 
 tithing  especially  for  relief  of  the  poor  appears  to 
 have  subsisted  even  in  Israel,  for  the  prophet  Amos 
 speaks  of  it,  though  in  an  ironical  tone,  as  existing 
 in  his  day  (.Am.  iv.  4).  But  as  any  degeneracy  in 
 the  national  faith  would  be  likely  to  have  an  ettt^ct 
 on  the  tithe-system,  we  find  complaint  of  neglect  in 
 this  respect  made  by  the  prophet  Malachi  (iii.  8, 
 10).  Yet,  notwithstanding  jjartial  evasion  or  omis- 
 sion, the  system  itself  was  continued  to  a  late  period 
 in  Jewish  history,  and  was  even  carried  to  excess 
 by  those  who,  like  the  Pharisees,  aflijcted  peculiar 
 exactness  in  observance  of  the  Law  (Meb.  vii.  5-8; 
 Matt,  xxiii.  23;  Luke  xviii.  12;  Josephus,  Ani.  xx. 
 9,  §  2;    Vit.  c.  15). 
 
 Among  details  relating  to  the  tithe  payments 
 mentioned  by  liabbinical  writers  may  be  noticed : 
 (1.)  That  in  reference  to  the  permission  given  in 
 case  of  distance  (Ueut.  xiv.  24),  Jews  dwelling  in 
 Babylonia,  Amnion,  Moab,  and  Egypt,  were  consid- 
 ered as  subject  to  the  law  of  titlie  ni  kind  (lieland, 
 iii.  9,  2,  p.  355).  (2.)  In  tithing  sheep  the  custom 
 was  to  inclose  them  in  a  pen,  and  as  the  sheep 
 went  out  at  the  opening,  every  tenth  animal  was 
 marked  with  a  rod  dipped  in  vermilion.  This  was 
 the  "passing  under  the  rod."  The  Law  ordered 
 that  no  inquiry  should  be  made  whether  the  animal 
 were  good  or  bad,  and  that  if  the  owner  changed  it, 
 both  the  original  and  the  changeling  were  to  be  re- 
 garded as  devoted  (Lev.  xxvii.  32,  33;  Jer.  xxxiii. 
 13;  Btcorotli,  ix.  7;  Godwyn,  31.  and  A.  p.  130, 
 vi.  7).  (3.)  Cattle  were  tithed  in  and  after  Au- 
 gust, corn  in  and  after  September,  fruits  of  trees 
 in  and  after  January  (Godwyn,  p.  137,  §  9); 
 Buxtorf,  Sijn.  Jud.  c.  xii.  pp.  282,  283.  (4.) 
 "Corners"  were  exempt  from  tithe  (Peali,  i.  G). 
 (5.)  The  general  rule  was  that  all  edible  articles 
 not  purchased,  were  tithable,  but  that  products 
 not  specified  in  Deut.  xiv.  23,  were  regarded  as 
 doubtful.  Tithe  of  them  was  not  forbidden,  but 
 was  not  required  (Mnnseroih,  i.  1;  JJtinai,  i.  1; 
 Carpzov,  App.  Bibl.  pp.  G19,  620).        H.  \V.  T. 
 
 *  TITTLE  is  the  diminutive  of  tit,  hence  = 
 miniimim,  the  very  least  of  a  thing.  It  stands  for 
 the  Greek  Kfpaia  (Matt.  v.  18;  Luke  xvi.  17), 
 a  little  /(()r7i,  denoting  the  slightly  curved  hooks  at- 
 tachetl  to  some  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  especially 
 Lamed,  more  noticeable  in  Hebrew  manuscripts  than 
 in  the  ordinary  printed  Hebrew.  It  vitiated  a  letter 
 or  an  entire  copy  to  omit  this  appendage  where  it 
 belonged.  The  jot  in  the  same  connection  was  the 
 jireek   iota   or   Hebrew  yodli,  the  smallest  letter 
 
 «  His  birthplace  may  have  been  here ;  but  this  is 
 quite  uncertain.  The  name,  which  is  Roman,  proves 
 nothing 
 
 seen  how  strong,  therefore,  was  the  Saviour's  assev- 
 eration :  "  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
 from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled  "  (Matt.  v.  18). 
 
 H. 
 TI'TUS  MAN-LIUS.  [Manlius.] 
 TI'TUS  (Titos:  Titus).  Our  materials  for  the 
 biography  of  this  companion  of  St.  Paul  must  be 
 drawn  entirely  from  the  notices  of  him  in  the  Second 
 ICpistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Galatians,  and  to 
 Titus  himself,  combined  with  the  Second  Kjjistle  to 
 Timothy.  He  is  not  mentioned  in  tlie  Acts  at  all. 
 The  reading  Tlrov  'lovarov  in  Acts  xviii.  7  is  too 
 precarious  for  any  inference  to  be  drawn  from  it. 
 ^V^ieseler  indeed  lays  some  slight  stress  upon  it 
 {Cliroriol.  di's  Apost.  Ztit.  Gctt.  1848,  p.  204), 
 but  this  is  in  connection  with  a  theory  which  needs 
 every  help.  As  to  a  recent  hypothesis,  that  Titus 
 and  Timothy  were  the  same  person  (li.  King,  Who 
 teas  St.  Til  lis  f  Dublin,  1853),  it  is  certainly  in- 
 genious, but  quite  untenable. 
 
 Taking  the  passages  in  the  epistles  in  the  chrono- 
 logical order  of  the  events  referred  to,  we  turn  first 
 to  Gal.  ii.  1,  3.  We  conceive  the  journey  men- 
 tioned here  to  be  identical  uith  that  (recorded  iu 
 Acts  XV.)  in  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  \\ent  from 
 Antioch  to  .Jerusalem  to  the  conference  which  was 
 to  decide  the  question  of  the  necessity  of  circum- 
 cision to  the  Gentile.«.  Here  we  see  Titus  in  close 
 association  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch."  He 
 goes  witii  them  to  Jerusalem.  He  is  in  fact  one  of 
 the  Tivfs  oAAoi  of  Acts  xv.  2,  who  were  deputed  to 
 accompany  them  from  Antioch.  His  circumcision 
 was  either  not  insisted  on  at  Jerusalem,  or,  if  de- 
 manded, was  firmly  resisted  {ovk  TivayKaadr) 
 TrfpLT/nTqdrivai)-  He  is  very  emphatically  spoken  of 
 as  a  Gentile  (^"EAATjf),  by  which  is  most  probably 
 meant  that  both  his  parents  were  Gentiles.  Here 
 is  a  double  contrast  from  Timothy,  who  was  circum- 
 cised liy  St.  Paul's  own  directions,  and  one  of  whose 
 ])arents  was  Jewish  (Acts  xvi.  1,  3;  2  Tim.  i.  5,  iii. 
 15).  Titus  would  seem,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
 council,  to  have  been  specially  a  representative  of 
 the  church  of  the  uncircumcision. 
 
 It  is  to  our  purpose  to  remark  that,  in  the  pas- 
 sage cited  above,  Titus  is  so  mentioned  as  apparently 
 to  iniply  that  he  had  become  personally  known  to 
 the  Galatian  Christians,  'i'his,  again,  we  combine 
 with  two  other  circumstances,  namely,  that  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the  Second  Epistle  to 
 tlie  Corinthians  were  probably  written  within  a  few 
 months  of  each  other  [Galati.\ks,  Epistle  to], 
 and  both  during  the  same  journey.  Erom  the  latter 
 of  these  two  epistles  we  obtain  fuller  notices  of 
 Titus  in  connection  with  St.  Paul. 
 
 After  leaving  Galatia  (Acts  xviii.  23),  and  spend- 
 ing a  long  time  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  1-xx.  1), 
 the  Apostle  proceeded  to  Macedonia  by  way  of  Troas. 
 Here  he  expected  to  meet  Titus  (2  Cor.  ii.  13),  who 
 liad  l)een  sent  on  a  mission  to  Corinth.  In  this  hope 
 lie  was  disappointed  [Tkoa-s],  but  in  Macedonia 
 Titus  joined  him  (2  Cor.  vii.  6,  7,  13-15).  Here 
 we  begin  to  see  not  only  the  above-mentioned  fact 
 of  the  mission. of  this  disciple  to  Corinth,  and  the 
 strong  personal  affection  which  subsisted  between 
 him  and  St.  Paul  (eV  Tfj  Trapovaia  avrov,  vii.  7), 
 but  also  some  part  of  the  purport  of  the  mission 
 itself.  It  had  reference  to  the  immoralities  at 
 Corinth  rebuked  in  the  first  epistle,  and  to  the 
 effect  of  that  first  epistle  on  the  offending  church. 
 We  learn  further  that  the  mission  was  so  far  sue- 
 
TITUS 
 
 cessful  and  satisfactory:  avayjiWwv  r^y  vjxSiu 
 €Tnw69')}aiv  (vii.  7),  i\vTr7]di}Te  e/s  fxeravoiav  (vii. 
 9),  ry]v  irduTcoi/  vfiiiy  vKUKO-riv  (vii.  15);  and  we 
 are  enalileii  also  to  draw  from  tlie  cliapter  a  strong 
 conclusion  regarding  tlie  warm  zeal  and  sympathy 
 of  Titus,  his  grief  for  what  was  evil,  his  rejoicing 
 over  what  was  good:  rfj  irapaKKriaei  t;  wap(K\ridTi 
 i<p'  VfUi'  (vu.  7);  di'aTreTrai/Tai  rh  iTU€v/j.a  ai/TOv 
 aTrh  iravTOiv  vfxSiv  (vii.  lo);  to  anXd-yxfoi.  aurov 
 irepicraoTepws  eis  vfxas  iariv  (vii.  15).  But  if  we 
 proceed  tiuther,  we  discern  another  part  of  the 
 mission  with  which  he  was  entrusted.  This  had 
 reference  to  the  collection,  at  that  time  in  progress, 
 for  tlie  pour  Christians  of  Judtea  (kuOJcs  -rrpo- 
 eviip^aTo,  viii.  6),  a  phrase  wiiiih  shows  tliat  he 
 had  been  active  and  zealous  in  the  matter,  while 
 the  Corinthians  themselves  seem  to  have  been  rather 
 remiss.  This  connection  of  his  mission  with  the 
 gathering  of  these  charitable  funds  is  also  proved  by 
 another  passage,  wliich  contains  moreover  an  im- 
 plied assertion  of  his  integrity  in  the  business  (utj 
 Ti  iK\eoyeKT'r]ffeu  v/jlus  Titos;  xii.  18),  and  a 
 statement  that  St.  Paul  himself  had  sent  him  on 
 the  errand  (napeKa.\eaa  TItou,  ibid.).  Thus  we 
 are  prepared  for  what  the  Apostle  now  proceeds  to 
 do  after  his  encouraging  conversations  with  Titus 
 regarding  the  Corinthian  Church.  He  sends  him 
 back  from  JMacedonia  to  Corinth,  in  company  with 
 two  other  trustworthy  Christians  [Tkophijiu.s, 
 Tychicl's],  bearing  the  second  epistle,  and  with 
 an  earnest  request  (Trapa/caAeVai,  viii.  6,  tV 
 TrapdicArjffii',  viii.  17)  that  he  would  see  to  the 
 completion  of  the  colkction,  which  he  had  zealously 
 promoted  on  his  late  visit  (iVa  Kadws  irpofv-np^aTo, 
 ovTois  Kal  eTriTeAeV??,  viii.  0),  Titus  himself  being 
 in  nowise  backward  in  undertaking  the  commission. 
 On  a  review  of  all  these  passages,  elucidating  as  they 
 do  the  chan;cterist;cs  of  the  man,  the  duties  he  dis- 
 charged, and  his  close  and  fiithful  coiiperation  with 
 St.  Paul,  we  see  how  much  meaning  there  is  in 
 the  Apostle's  short  and  forcilile  description  of  him 
 (6iT6  vwhp  TiTov,  Koivu>vhs  i/j.hs  Kal  (is  uij,as 
 (rvvepy6s,  viii.  23). 
 
 All  tiiat  has  preceded  is  drawn  from  direct  state- 
 ments in  the  epistles;  but  by  indirect  though  f;iir 
 inference  we  can  arrive  at  something  further,  which 
 gives  coherence  to  the  rest,  with  additional  elucida- 
 tions of  the  close  connection  of  Titus  with  St.  Paul 
 and  the  Corinthian  Church.  It  has  generally  been 
 considered  doubtful  who  the  aSeXtfoi  were  (1  Cor. 
 xvi.  11,  12)  that  took  the  first  epistle  to  Corinth. 
 Timothy,  who  had  been  recently  sent  thither  from 
 Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  22),  could  not  have  Ijeen  one  of 
 them  (eav  eAOjj  Tifi.  1  Cor.  xvi.  10),  and  ApoUos 
 declined  the  commission  (1  Cor.  xvi.  12).  There 
 can  be  little  doubt  that  the  messengers  who  took 
 that  first  letter  were  Titus  and  his  companion,  who- 
 ever that  might  be,  who  is  mentioned  with  him  in 
 the  second  letter  (Trape/caAecra  TItov,  koI  crvvawe- 
 (TTSiAa  rhu  aS^Acpdu,  2  Cor.  xii.  18).  This  view 
 was  held  by  Macknight,  and  very  clearly  set  forth 
 by  him  ( Transl.  of  tlie  Apostolical  Epistles,  with 
 Comm.  Edinb.  1829,  vol.  i.  pp.  451,  674,  vol.  ii. 
 pp.  2,  7.  124).  It  has  been  more  recently  given 
 by  Professor  Stanley  {Connlliiinis,  2d  ed.  pp.  348, 
 492 ),«  but  it  has  been  worked  out  by  no  one  so  elab- 
 orately as  by  Professor  Lightfoot  ( Cainh.  Journal 
 of  Classical  and  Sacred  Fliilulor/y,  ii.  201,  202). 
 
 «  There  is  some  danger  of  confusing  Titus  and  the 
 bnfther  (2  Cor.  xii.  18),  i.  e.  t/ie  brethren  of  1  Cor.  xvi 
 11,  12,  who  (according  to  this  view)  took  the  first  let- 
 
 TiTus  3267 
 
 As  to  the  connection  between  the  two  contempora- 
 neous missions  of  Titus  and  Timotheus,  this  obser- 
 vation may  be  made  here,  that  the  difttjrence  of  the 
 two  errands  may  have  had  some  connection  with  a 
 diflTerence  in  the  characters  of  the  two  agents.  If 
 Titus  was  the  firmer  and  more  energetic  of  the  two 
 men,  it  was  natin-al  to  give  him  the  task  of  enfor- 
 cing the  Apostle's  rebukes,  and  urging  on  the  flag- 
 ging business  of  the  collection. 
 
 A  considerable  interval  now  elapses  before  we 
 come  upon  the  next  notices  of  this  disciple.  St. 
 Paul's  first  imprisonment  is  concluded,  and  his  last 
 trial  is  impending.  In  the  interval  between  the 
 two,  he  and  'litus  were  together  in  Crete  (onrtAi- 
 ttSv  0-6  eV  KprtT-p,  Tit.  i.  5).  We  see  Titus  re- 
 maining in  the  island  when  St.  Paul  left  it,  and 
 receiving  there  a  letter  written  to  him  by  the 
 Apostle.  From  this  letter  we  gather  the  following 
 biographical  details:  In  the  first  place  we  learn  that 
 he  was  orii;inally  converted  through  St.  Paul's  in- 
 strumentality: this  must  be  the  meaning  of  the 
 phrase  yvr^criov  rfKvov,  which  occurs  so  emphat- 
 ically in  the  opening  of  the  epistle  (i.  4).  Next 
 we  learn  the  various  particulars  of  the  responsible 
 duties  which  he  had  to  discharge  in  Crete.  He  is 
 to  complete  what  St.  Paul  had  been  obliged  to  leave 
 unfinished  (jVa  to.  \eiiTovra  iiriSiopBwffr!,  i-  5), 
 and  he  is  to  organize  the  church  throughout  the 
 island  by  appointing  presliyters  in  every  city  [Gor- 
 tyna;  Las.ea].  Instructions  are  given  as  to  the 
 suitable  character  of  such  presbyters  (vv.  6-9);  and 
 we  learn  further  that  we  have  here  the  repetition  of 
 instructions  previously  furnished  by  word  of  mouth 
 (cLr  iydli  aoi  SieTa^d/j.riv,  ver.  5).  Next  he  is  to 
 control  and  liridle  [iincrTOfxi^eiv,  ver.  11)  the  rest- 
 less and  mischievous  .hidaizers,  and  he  is  to  be  per- 
 emptory in  so  doing  (6A67x^  aurovs  awoT6/xa>s, 
 ver.  13).  Injunctions  in  the  .same  spirit  are  reiter- 
 ated (ii.  1,  15,  iii.  8).  He  is  to  urge  the  duties  of 
 a  decorous  and  Christian  life  upon  tlie  women  (ii. 
 3-5),  some  of  whom  (Trpea^vTiSa?,  ii-  3)  possibly 
 had  something  of  an  official  character  (/caAoSiSao-- 
 Kakovs,  'iva  (Too^povi^caai  ras  v^as,  vv.  3,  4 ).  He 
 is  to  be  watchful  over  his  own  conduct  (ver.  7);  he 
 is  to  impress  ujjon  the  slaves  the  peculiar  duties  of 
 their  position  (ii.  9,  10);  he  is  to  check  all  social 
 and  political  turbulence  (iii.  1),  and  also  all  wild 
 theological  speculations  (iii.  9);  and  to  exercise  dis- 
 cipline on  the  heretical  (iii.  10).  When  we  con- 
 sider all  these  particulars  of  his  duties,  we  see  not 
 only  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the  Apostle, 
 but  the  need  there  was  of  determination  and  strength 
 of  purpose,  and  therefore  the  probability  th.at  this 
 was  his  character;  and  all  this  is  enhanced  if  we 
 liear  in  mind  his  isolated  and  unsupported  position 
 in  Crete,  and  the  lawless  and  immoral  character  of 
 the  Cretans  themselves,  as  testified  by  their  own 
 writers  (i   12,  13).     [Crete.] 
 
 The  notices  which  remain  are  more  strictly  per- 
 sonal. Titus  is  to  look  for  the  arrival  in  Crete  of 
 Artemas  and  Tychicus  (iii.  12),  and  then  he  is  to 
 hasten  (.aKovBaaov)  to  join  St.  Paul  at  Nicopolis, 
 where  the  Apostle  is  proposing  to  pass  the  winter 
 (ibid.).  Zenas  and  ApoUos  are  in  Crete,  or  expected 
 there;  for  Titus  is  to  send  them  on  their  journey, 
 and  supply  them  with  whatever  they  need  for  it 
 (iii.  13).  It  is  observable  that  Titus  and  Apollos 
 are  brought  into  juxtaposition  here,  as  they  were 
 
 ter,  with  Titus  and  the  brethren  (2  Cor.  viii.  16-24)  who 
 took  the  second  letter. 
 
3268 
 
 TITUS 
 
 before  in  the  discussion  of  the  mission  from  Ephe- 
 sus  to  Corinth. 
 
 The  movements  of  St.  Paul,  with  which  these 
 later  instructions  to  I'itus  are  connected,  are  con- 
 tiidered  elsewhere.  [Paul;  Timothy.]  We  need 
 only  observe  here  that  there  would  be  great  diffi- 
 culty in  insertinsj  the  visits  to  Crete  and  Nicopolis 
 in  any  of  the  journeys  recorded  in  the  Acts,  to  say 
 nothing  of  the  other  objections  to  giving  the  epistle 
 any  date  anterior  to  the  \03age  to  Rome.  [Titus, 
 Epistle  to.]  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  dif- 
 ficulty in  arranging  these  circumstances,  if  we  sup- 
 pose St.  Paid  to  have  travelled  and  written  after 
 being  liijerated  from  Home,  while  thus  we  gain  the 
 further  advantage  of  an  explanation  of  what  Faley 
 has  well  called  the  affinity  of  this  epistle  and  the 
 first  to  'I'iraothy.  Whether  Titus  did  join  the 
 Apostle  at  Nicopolis  we  cannot  tell.  But  we  nat- 
 urally connect  tlie  mention  of  this  place  with  what 
 St.  Paul  wi-ote  at  no  great  interval  of  time  after- 
 wards, in  the  last  of  the  pastoral  epistles  (Titos  els 
 AaKfxaTiav,  2  Tim.  iv.  10);  for  Dalmatia  lay  to 
 the  north  of  Nicopolis,  at  no  gre;it  distance  from  it. 
 [Nia)roLis.]  From  the  form  of  the  wliole  sen- 
 tence, it  seems  probable  that  this  disciple  had  been 
 with  St.  Paul  in  IJonie  during  his  final  imprison- 
 ment; but  this  cannot  be  asserted  confidently.  The 
 touching  words  of  the  Apostle  in  this  passage  might 
 seem  to  iniiily  some  reproach,  and  we  might  draw 
 from  them  the  conclusion  that  Titus  became  a  sec- 
 ond Demas:  but  on  the  whole  this  seems  a  harsh 
 and  unnecessary  judgment. 
 
 Whatever  else  remains  is  legendary,  though  it 
 may  contain  elements  of  truth.  Titus  is  connected 
 by  tradition  with  Dalmatia,  and  he  is  said  to  have 
 been  an  object  of  much  reverence  in  that  region. 
 This,  however,  may  simply  be  a  result  of  the  pas- 
 sage quoted  immediately  above :  and  it  is  observ- 
 able that  of  all  the  churches  in  modern  Dalmatia 
 (Neale's  Ecclesiolui/ical  Notes  on  Diilm.  p.  175) 
 not  one  is  dedicated  to  him.  The  traditional  con- 
 nection of  Titus  with  Crete  is  much  more  specific 
 and  constant,  though  here  again  we  cannot  be  cer- 
 tain of  the  facts.  Me  is  said  to  have  been  perma- 
 nent liishop  in  the  island,  and  to  have  died  there  at 
 an  advanced  age.  The  modern  capital,  Cnndia,  ap- 
 pears to  claim  tlie  honor  of  being  his  burial-place 
 (Cave's  Apostoltci,  1716,  p.  42).  In  the  fragment, 
 De  Vita  tt  Aclis  Till,  by  the  lawyer  Zenas  (Fabric. 
 Cod.  Apoc.  N.  T.  ii.  8.31,  832),  Titus  is  caHed 
 Bishop  of  Gortyna :  and  on  the  old  site  of  Gortyna 
 is  a  ruined  church,  of  ancient  and  solid  masonry, 
 which  bears  the  name  of  St.  Titus,  and  where  ser- 
 vice is  occasionally  celebrated  by  priests  from  the 
 neighboring  hamlet  of  Metropolis  (E.  Falkener, 
 Remains  in  Crete ,  from  a  MS.  History  of  Can- 
 did by  Onorio  Belli,  p.  23).  The  cathedral  of  Me- 
 galo-Castron,  in  the  north  of  the  island,  is  also 
 dedicated  to  this  saint.  Lastly,  the  name  of  Titus 
 was  the  watchword  of  the  Cretans  when  they  were 
 invaded  by  the  Venetians:  and  the  Venetians  them- 
 selves, after  their  conquest  of  the  island,  adopted  him 
 to  some  of  the  honors  of  a  patron  saint;  for,  as  the 
 response  after  the  prayer  for  the  Doge  of  Venice 
 was  "  Sancte  Marce,  tu  nos  adjuva,"  so  the  response 
 after  that  for  the  Duke  of  Candia  was  "  Sancte  Tite, 
 tu  nos  adjuva"  (Pashley's  Travels  in  Crete,  i.  6, 
 175).« 
 
 a  The  day  on  which  Titus  is  commemorated  is 
 January  4  in  the  Latin  Calendar,  and  August  25  in 
 the  Greek. 
 
 TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 
 
 We  must  not  leave  unnoticed  the  striking,  though 
 extravagant,  panegyric  of  Titus  by  his  successor  in 
 the  see  of  Crete,  Andreas  Cretensis  (published,  with 
 Amphilochius  and  ]\Iethodius,  by  Conibefis,  Paris. 
 1644).  This  panegyric  has  many  excellent  points: 
 e.  r/.  it  incorporates  well  the  more  importar.t  pas- 
 sages from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 
 The  following  are  stated  as  facts.  Titus  is  related 
 to  the  Proconsul  of  the  island  :  aujong  his  ancestors 
 are  Minos  and  llbadamanihus  (oi  (k  Ai6s)-  Early 
 in  life  he  obtains  a  copy  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
 and  learns  Hebrew  in  a  short  time.  He  goes  to 
 Judiea,  and  is  present  on  the  occasion  mentioned 
 in  Acts  i.  15.  His  c(mversion  takes  place  before 
 that  of  St.  Paul  himself,  but  afterwards  he  attaches 
 himself  closely  to  the  Apostle.  Whatever  the  value 
 of  these  statements  may  be,  the  following  descrip- 
 tion of  Titus  (p.  156)  is  worthy  of  quotation:  6 
 wpoiiTos  rrjs  Kp7)Tu:v  eK/cArjcias  0(/j.(\ius-  iljS 
 a.\7)0eias  6  (TTvKos'  rh  rrjs  tt'kttiws  epaa/ua- 
 Twu  evayyfAiKccv  KfipvyfiaroiV  rj  aalyoros  aa\- 
 ■Kiy^'  rh  vxj/riAhv  Trjx  TlavXov  yXdmris  o.tttjxvh-'^- 
 
 J.  S.  FI. 
 
 TI'TUS,  EPISTLE  TO.  There  are  no 
 specialties  in  this  epistle  which  require  any  very 
 elaborate  treatment  distinct  from  the  other  Pastoral 
 Letters  of  St.  Paul.  [Tijiothy,  Epistles  to.] 
 If  those  two  were  not  genuine,  it  would  be  diffi- 
 cult confidently  to  maintain  the  genuineness  of  this. 
 On  the  other  hand,  if  the  epistles  to  Timothy  are 
 received  as  St.  Paul's,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
 reason  for  doubting  the  authorship  of  that  to  Titus. 
 Amidst  the  various  combinations  which  are  found 
 among  those  who  have  been  skeptical  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  the  pastoral  epistles,  there  is  no  instance  of 
 the  rejection  of  that  before  us  on  the  part  of  those 
 who  have  accepted  the  other  two.  So  far  indeed 
 as  these  doubts  are  worth  considering  at  all,  the 
 argument  is  more  in  favor  of  this  than  of  either 
 of  those.  Tatian  accepted  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
 and  rejected  the  other  two.  Origen  mentions  some 
 who  excluded  2  Tim.,  but  kept  1  Tim.  with  Titus. 
 Schleiermacher  and  Neander  invert  this  process  of 
 doubt  in  regard  to  the  letters  addressed  to  Timothy, 
 but  believe  that  St.  Paul  wrote  the  present  letter 
 to  Titus.  Credner  too  believes  it  to  be  genuine, 
 though  he  pronounces  1  Tim.  to  be  a  forgery,  and 
 2  Tim.  a  compound  of  two  epistles. 
 
 To  turn  now  from  opinions  to  direct  external 
 evidence,  this  epistle  stands  on  quite  as  firm  a 
 ground  as  the  others  of  the  pastoral  group,  if  not 
 a  firmer  ground.  Nothing  can  well  be  more  ex- 
 plicit than  the  quotations  in  Irenaeus,  C.  I/ceres,  i. 
 16,  3  (see  Tit.  iii.  10),  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  350 
 (see  i.  12),  Tertull.  Be  Prcescr.  Bar.  c.  6  (see  iii. 
 10,  11),  and  the  reference,  also  Adv.  Marc.  v. 
 21;  to  say  nothing  of  earlier  allusions  in  Justin 
 Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Trijpli.  47  (see  iii.  4),  which  can 
 hardly  be  doubted,  Theoph.  Ad  Autol.  ii.  p.  95 
 (see  iii.  5),  iii.  126  (see  iii.  1),  which  are  probable, 
 and  Clem.  Eom.  1  Cor.  2  (see  iii.  1),  which  is 
 possible. 
 
 As  to  internal  features,  we  may  notice,  in  the 
 first  place,  that  the  Epistle  to  Titus  has  all  the  char- 
 acteristics of  the  other  pastoral  epistles.  See,  for 
 instance,  irta-Ths  o  A(^7oj(iii.  8),  vyiaivovaa  5i5acr- 
 KaXia  (i.  9,  ii.  1,  comparing  i.  13,  ii.  8),  a-atppo- 
 vilv,  ffuxppwv,  acti(pp6v<jis  (i-  8,  ii.  5,  6,  12),  crccrri' 
 pios,  awTvp,  cnJo^cv  (i.  3,  4,  ii.  10,  11,  13,  iii.  4,  5, 
 6),  'lovSaiKol  /xdeoi  (i-  14,  comparing  iii.  9),  eVx- 
 (pdveia  (ii-  13),  eiia-f^eia  (i-  1),  eXfos  (iii-  5;  ip  i. 
 4  the  word  is  doubtful).     All  this  tends  t(    suow 
 
TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 
 
 that  this  letter  was  written  about  the  same  time 
 and  under  siuiilai"  circumstances  with  the  other  two. 
 But,  on  the  other  liaiid,  this  epistle  has  marks  in 
 its  phraseology  and  style  which  assimilate  it  to  the 
 general  body  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Such  may 
 fairly  be  reckoned  the  following:  K7]pvyaaTi.  'o 
 iiria-Tevdr^v  iyu>  (i-  3);  the  quotation  from  a 
 heathen  poet  (i.  12);  the  use  of  aSdKi/xos  (i-  10); 
 the  "  going  off  at  a  word  "  ((rcoTijpos  ....  eire- 
 (pavr^  yap  ....  aoiT^pio^  .  .  .  .  ii-  10,  11); 
 and  the  modes  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Atone- 
 ment (ii.  13)  and  of  Free  Justification  (iii.  5-7) 
 come  to  the  surface.  As  to  any  difficulty  arising 
 from  supposed  indications  of  advanced  hierarchical 
 arrangements,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  this  epis- 
 tle Trp€(T0vT€po!  and  iwiaKowos  are  used  as  synon- 
 ymous {'iva  KaTaffTrjCTTjs  ■n-pea0uTepoi0s  ....  Se7 
 yap  rhv  iir'iaKOTTov.  .  .  .  i-  5,  7),  just  as  they  are 
 in  the  address  at  Miletus  about  the  year  58  a.  d. 
 (Acts  XX.  17,  28).  At  the  same  time  this  epistle 
 has  features  of  its  own,  especially  a  certain  tone  of 
 abruptness  and  severity,  which  probably  arises 
 partly  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  Cretan  popu- 
 lation [('RETI-:],  partly  out  of  the  character  of  Ti- 
 tus himself.  If  all  these  things  are  put  together, 
 the  phenomena  are  seen  to  be  very  unlike  what 
 would  be  presented  l)y  a  forger}-,  to  say  nothing  of 
 the  general  overwhelming  difficulty  of  imagining 
 who  could  have  been  the  writer  of  the  pastoral 
 epistles,  if  it  were  not  St.  Paul  himself. 
 
 Concerning  the  contents  of  this  epistle,  some- 
 thing has  already  been  said  in  the  article  on  Titus. 
 No  very  exact  subdivision  is  either  necessary  or 
 possible.  After  the  introductory  salutation,  which 
 has  marked  pecidiarities  (i.  1-4),  Titus  is  enjoined 
 to  appoint  suital)le  presbyters  in  the  Cretan  (Jhuroh, 
 and  specially  such  as  shall  be  sound  in  doctrine  and 
 able  to  refute  error  (.'j-O).  The  Apostle  then  passes 
 to  a  description  of  the  coarse  character  of  the  Cre- 
 tans, as  testified  by  their  own  writers,  and  the  mis- 
 chief caused  by  Judaizing  error  among  the  Chris- 
 tians of  the  island  (lO-lfJ).  In  opposition  to  this, 
 Titus  is  to  urge  sound  and  practical  Christianity 
 on  all  classes  (ii.  1-10),  on  the  older  men  (ii.  2),  on 
 the  older  women,  and  especially  in  regard  to  their 
 influence  over  the  younger  women  (3-5),  on  the 
 younger  men  (6-8),  on  slaves  (!),  10),  taking  heed 
 meanwhile  that  he  himself  is  a  pattern  of  good 
 works  (ver.  7).  The  grounds  of  all  this  are  given 
 in  the  free  grace  which  trains  the  Christian  to  self- 
 denying  and  active  piety  (11,  12),  in  the  glorious 
 hope  of  Christ's  second  advent  (ver.  13),  and  in  the 
 atonement  by  which  He  has  purchased  us  to  be  his 
 people  (ver.  14).  All  which  lessons  Titus  is  to  urge 
 with  fearless  decision  (ver.  15).  Next,  oliedience 
 to  rulers  is  enjoined,  with  gentleness  and  forbear- 
 ance towards  all  men  (iii.  1,  2),  these  duties  being 
 again  rested  on  our  sense  of  past  sin  (ver.  3),  and 
 on  the  gift  of  new  spiritual  life  and  free  justification 
 (4-7).  With  these  practical  duties  are  contrasted 
 those  idle  speculations  which  are  to  be  carefully 
 avoided  (3,  ',));  and  with  regard  to  those  men  who 
 are  positively  heretical,  a  peremptory  charge  is 
 given  (10,  11).  Some  personal  allusions  then  fol- 
 low: Artenias  or  Tychicus  may  be  expected  at 
 Crete,  and  on  the  arrival  of  either  of  them  Titus  is 
 to  hasten  to  join  the  Apostle  at  Nicopolis,  where 
 he  intends  to  winter;  Zenas  the  lawyer  also,  and 
 ApoUos,  are  to  be  provided  with  all  that  is  necessary 
 for  a  journey  in  prospect  (12,  13).  Finally,  before 
 the  concluding  messages  of  salutation,  an  admoni- 
 tion is  given  to  the  Cretan  Christians,  that  they 
 
 TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 
 
 3269 
 
 give  heed  to  the  duties  of  practical,  useful  jiety 
 (14,  15). 
 
 As  to  the  time  and  place  and  other  circumstances 
 of  the  writing  of  this  epistle,  the  following  scheme 
 of  filling  up  St.  Paul's  movements  after  his  first 
 imprisonment  will  satisfy  all  the  conditions  of  the 
 case :  We  may  suppose  him  (possibly  after  accom- 
 plishing his  long-projected  visit  to  Spain)  to  have 
 gone  to  Ephesus,  and  taken  voy.ages  from  thence, 
 first  to  Macedonia  and  then  to  Crete,  during  the 
 former  to  have  written  the  First  F^pistle  to  Tim- 
 othy, and  after  returninir  from  the  latter  to  have 
 written  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  being  at  the  time  of 
 desp.atching  it  on  the  point  of  starting  for  Nicop- 
 olis, to  which  place  he  went,  taking  Miletus  and 
 Corinth  on  the  way.  At  Nicopolis  we  may  con- 
 ceive him  to  have  been  finally  apprehended  and 
 taken  to  Home,  whence  he  wrote  the  .Second  Epis- 
 tle to  Timothy.  Other  possible  combinations  may 
 be  seen  in  Birks  {Horce  Apostolictjii,  at  the  end  of 
 his  edition  of  the  Horce  Paidbue,  pp.  239-301), 
 and  in  Wordsworth  (Grei'k  Testament,  Pt.  iii.  pp. 
 418,  421).  It  is  an  undoubted  mistake  to  en- 
 deavor to  insert  this  epistle  in  any  period  of  that 
 part  of  St.  Paul's  life  which  is  recorded  in  the 
 .A.cts  of  the  Apostles.  There  is  in  this  writing 
 that  unmistakable  difference  of  style  (as  compared 
 with  the  earlier  epistles)  which  associates  the  Pas- 
 toral Letters  with  one  another,  and  with  the  latest 
 period  of  St.  Paul's  life;  and  it  seems  strange  that 
 tills  should  have  been  so  sligiitly  observed  by  good 
 scholars  and  exact  chronologists,  e.  g.  Archdn. 
 Iwans  {Script.  Bivrj.  iii.  327-333),  and  Wieseler 
 {Clironol.  des  Apost.  Zeitalt.  pp.  32!)-355),  who, 
 approaching  the  subject  in  very  different  ways,  agree 
 in  thinking  that  this  letter  was  written  at  Ephesus 
 (between  1  and  2  Cor.),  when  the  Apostle  was  in 
 tlie  early  part  of  his  third  missionary  journey 
 (Acts  xix.). 
 
 The  following  list  of  commentaries  on  the  Pas- 
 toral Epistles  may  be  useful  for  1  and  2  Tim.,  as 
 well  as  tor  Titus.  Besides  the  general  Patristic 
 commentaries  on  all  .St.  Paul's  epistles  (Chrysos- 
 tom,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  Jerome,  Bede,  Al- 
 cuin),  the  Mediaeval  ((Ecumenius,  Euthymius, 
 Aquinas),  those  of  the  Keformation  period  (Luther, 
 Melancthon,  Calvin),  the  earlier  Roman  Catholic 
 (Justiniani,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Estius),  the  Prot- 
 estant connnentaries  of  the  17th  century  (Cocceius, 
 Grotius,  etc.),  and  the  recent  annotations  on  the 
 whole  Greek  Testament  (Kosenmiiller,  De  Wette, 
 Alford,  Wordsworth,  etc.),  the  following  on  the 
 Pastoral  Epistles  may  be  specified :  Daille,  Exposi- 
 tion (1  Tim.  Genev.  1G61,  2  Tim.  Genev.  1659, 
 Til.  Par.  1655);  Heydenreich,  Die  Pustornlbriefe 
 Paidi  erlduteri  (lladam.  1826,  1828);  Flatt,  Vor- 
 lesuni/en  iiber  die  Br.  P.  an  J^im.  u.  Til.  (Tiib. 
 1831);  Mack  (Roman  Catholic),  Comm.  iiber  die 
 Postoralbriefe  (Tiib.  1836);  Matthies,  Erklarung 
 di^r  Pastorn'lbriefe  (Greifsw.  1840);  Huther  (part 
 [xi.]  of  Meyer's  Commentary,  Giitt.  1850  [3e  Aufl. 
 1806]);  Wiesinger  (in  continuation  of  Olshausen, 
 Koenigsb.  1850),  translated  (with  the  exception  of 
 2  Tim.)  in  Clark's  Foreign  Tlieolog.  Lib.  (Edinb. 
 1851  [the  whole  is  translated  in  vol.  vi.  of  the 
 .\mer.  ed.  of  Olshausen,  N.  Y.  1858]),  and  espe- 
 cially Ellicott  [Pastoral  Epistles,  2d  ed.,  London, 
 1801),  who  mentions  in  his  preface  a  Danish  com- 
 mentary liy  Bp.  MiiUer,  and  one  in  modern  Greek, 
 Suj'fKiSTj/ios  'UpaTiK6s,  by  Coray  (Par.  1831). 
 Besides  these,  there  are  commentaries  on  1  Tim. 
 and  2  Tim.  by  Mosheim  (Ilamb.  1755  i,  and  I^c 
 
3270 
 
 TIZITE,  THE 
 
 fLips.  1837,  1850),  on  1  Tim.  by  Fleisclimann 
 (Tiib.  1791),  and  \Vec;scheider  (Gttt.  1810),  on  2 
 Tim.  by  J.  Barlow  an\l  T.  Hall  (Lond.  1632  and 
 1058),  and  by  Brocbner  (Hafn.  1829),  on  Tit.  by 
 T.  Taylor  (London,  1GG8),  Van  Haven  (Hal.  1742), 
 and  Kuinoel  {Comment.  Tlieol.  ed.  Velthiisen, 
 Ruperti  et  Kuinoel  [i.  p.  292  fF.]).  To  these  must 
 be  added  what  is  found  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  Siipp. 
 ii.,  v.,  vii.,  and  a  still  fuller  list  is  given  in  Dar- 
 ling's CyclopcBdin  Bihllofjraphica  ;  Pt.  ii.  Subjects, 
 pp.  1535,  1555,  1571.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 *  The  earlier  literature  of  the  controversy  on 
 the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  referred 
 to  in  the  art.  Timothy,  Epistles  to.  Among 
 the  more  recent  essays  on  the  subject  we  may 
 name  the  following:  C.  E.  Scharliiig,  Die  neuesten 
 Untersudiunyen  iib.  die  sogenannten  Pastorid- 
 briefe,  mis  dem  Danischen,  Jena,  1816  (unde- 
 cided). Th.  Rudow,  De  Argumentis  historicis, 
 quibus  recenter  Epistolurum  Past.  Or'igo  Paulina 
 impugnaia  est,  a  prize  essay,  Getting.  1852  (rejects 
 1  Tim.,  with  Liicke  and  Bleek,  but  defends  2  Tim. 
 and  Titus).  W.  Mangold,  Die  Jrrhlirer  der  Pas- 
 toralbriefe,  Marb.  1850.  C.  W.  Otto,  Bie  ge- 
 schiclUlichen  Verhaltnisse  der  Pastoralbriefe  ttufs 
 Neue  wilersuclif,  Leipz.  1800,  pp.  xvi.,  408  (de- 
 fends tlie  genuineness  of  the  epistles,  but  wealvens 
 the  argument  by  denying  the  Apostle's  release 
 from  his  first  imprisonment) ;  comp.  tlie  review  by 
 AVeiss,  Theol.  tititd.  u.  Kril.,  1801,  pp.  575-597, 
 and  Huther's  criticisms  in  the  3d  ed.  of  his  Kril. 
 exeg.  Ihmdbuch  (18GG).  L.  Ruffet.  Saint  Paul, 
 sa  double  captivite  a  Rome,  Paris,  1800.  Reuss, 
 Gesch.  d.  hell.  Scliriften  N.  T.  (4e  Ausg.  1864),  pp. 
 70  ft'.,  112  ft",  (defends  the  genuineness).  Wieseler, 
 art.  Timatheus  u.  Titus,  die  Briefe  Paidi  an,  in 
 Herzog's  Rml-Encylcl  xxi.  270-342  (1866 ).  Holtz- 
 mann,  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  viii.  480-512  (1806), 
 reviewing  the  recent  literature.  Laurent,  Neutest. 
 Studien  (1800),  p.  104  ff".,  chiefly  on  the  point  of 
 Paul's  release  from  his  first  imprisonment,  which 
 he  maintains;  so  Ewald,  Gesciiidde,  vi.  620  f., 
 3<^  Ausg.  It  may  be  noted  here  that  recent  ex- 
 aminations of  tlie  Alexandrine  MS.  show  that  the 
 reading  e  tt  2  rb  Tepiji.a  rrjs  dvcnws  in  the  Epist. 
 of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians  (c.  5)  is 
 unquestionable.  See  on  the  passage  Lightfoofs 
 note,  in  his  excellent  edition  of  the  epistle  (1809). 
 L.  jMiiUer,  in  the  3d  ed.  of  the  jjart  of  Ue  Wette's 
 Kiivzgef.  exeg.  Ilawlbucii  (Bd.  ii.  Theil  v.)  which 
 contains  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  observes  that,  though 
 formerly  holding  a  pretty  firm  conviction  of  their 
 spuriousness,  renewed  study  has  satisfied  him  of 
 the  untenableness  or  altogether  too  subjective  char- 
 acter of  many  of  the  objections  to  them,  though 
 he  cannot  yet  feel  that  confidence  in  their  genuine- 
 ness whicli  the  recent  commentators  (Wiesinger, 
 Huther,  Oosterzee)  express  {Pi-ef.,  p.  x.).  Guer- 
 iclie,  Neutest.  Isayogik,  .3e  Aufl.  (1868),  pp.  350- 
 390,  defends  tlie  genuineness  of  these  epistles,  as  in 
 his  earlier  works.  Davidson,  hit  rod.  to  the  Study 
 of  tlie  N.  T.  (Lond.  1808),  ii.  144-195,  repeats  the 
 arguments  of  the  Tubingen  school  against  them. 
 
 To  the  list  of  comnientarifs  on  the  Pastoral 
 Epistles  given  above,  we  may  add  that  of  J.  J. 
 van  Oosterzee,  Theil  xi.  of  Lange's  Bibelwerk  (2«^ 
 Aufl.  1804),  translated  with  additions  by  Dr.  E. 
 A.  Washburn  and  Dr.  E.  Harwood,  in  vol.  viii.  of 
 the  Amer.  ed.  of  Lange  (N.  Y.  1808).  A. 
 
 TI'ZITE,  THE  C'^'^rin  [patr.] :  Vat.  and 
 FA.    0    leaa-ef.     [Rom.    Quaai:]     Alex.   Qaxraei. 
 
 TOBIAH 
 
 T/iosaites).  The  designation  of  Joha,  the  brother 
 of  Jediael  and  son  of  Shiniri,  one  of  the  heroes  of 
 David's  army  named  in  the  supplementary  list  of  1 
 Chr.  xi.  45.  It  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  nothing 
 is  known  of  the  place  or  family  which  it  denotes. 
 
 G. 
 
 TO'AH  (n'ln  [inclined,  Imdy,  Ges.]  :  Qooi; 
 [Vat.  0616;]  Alex.  @oove.  Tlioliu).  A  Kohathite 
 Levite,  ancestor  of  Sanmel  and  Heman  (1  Chr.  vi. 
 34  [19] ).  The  name  as  it  now  stands  may  be  a 
 fragment  of  "  Nahath  "  (comp.  w.  26,  34). 
 
 TOB-ADONi'jAH  (n*2""n^  nhta  [good 
 
 is  A.]:  Ta)/8o5oj/ias ;  [Vat.  Ta>^a5a)/36ia;  Alex.l 
 Tw^aSoovtav,  2.  m.  -ta'-]  Tiiobadonias).  One  of 
 the  Levites  sent  by  Jehosliaphat  through  the  cities 
 of  Judah  to  teach  the  Law  to  the  people  (2  Chr 
 xvii.  8). 
 
 TOB,  THE  LAND  OF  (^'llD  V"!?^  V''^^ 
 of  goodness,  fruitful]:  yr}  T&)y3:  terra  Tob).  The 
 place  in  which  .Jephthah  took  refuge  when  expelled 
 from  home  by  his  half-brother  (Judg.  xi.  3);  and 
 where  he  remained,  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  free- 
 booters, till  he  was  brought  back  by  the  sheikhs  " 
 of  Gilead  (ver.  5). 
 
 The  narrative  implies  that  the  land  of  Tob  was 
 not  far  distant  from  Gilead :  at  the  same  time, 
 from  tlie  nature  of  the  case,  it  must  have  lain  out 
 towards  the  eastern  deserts.  It  is  undoubtedly 
 mentioned  again  in  2  Sam.  x.  6,  8,  as  one  of  the 
 jjetty  Aramite  kingdoms  or  states  which  supported 
 the  Ammonites  in  their  great  conflict  with  David. 
 In  the  Authorized  Version  the  name  is  presented 
 literatim  as  Ishtob,  i.  e.  Man  of  Tob,  meaning, 
 according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  the  "  men 
 of  Tob."  After  an  immense  interval  it  appears 
 again  in  the  Slaccabsean  history  (1  Mace.  v.  13). 
 Tob  or  Tobie  was  then  the  abode  of  a  considerable 
 colony  of  Jews,  numbering  at  least  a  thousand 
 males.  In  2  Mace.  xii.  17  its  position  is  defined 
 very  exactly  as  at  or  near  Charax,  750  stadia  from 
 the  strong  town  Caspis,  though,  as  the  position  of 
 neither  of  these  places  is  known,  we  are  not  there- 
 by  assisted    in    the   recovery   of    Tob.      [Tobie; 
 
 TUBIEXI.] 
 
 Ptolemy  (Geogr.  v.  19)  mentions  a  place  called 
 ©aDySa  as  lying  to  the  S.  W.  of  Zobah,  and  there- 
 fore possibly  to  the  E.  or  N.  E.  of  the  country  of 
 Amnion  proper.  In  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  and 
 in  Eckhel  (Doctr.  Numm.  iii.  352),  the  names 
 Tubal  and  Talieni  occur. 
 
 No  identification  of  this  ancient  district  with 
 any  modern  one  has  yet  been  attempted.  The 
 name  Tell  Dobbe  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  April  25), 
 or,  as  it  is  given  by  the  latest  explorer  of  those 
 regions.  Tell  Dibbe  (Wetzstein,  Map),  attached  to 
 a  ruined  site  at  the  south  end  of  the  Leja,  a  few 
 miles  N.  W.  of  Kendwat,  and  also  that  of  ed-Dab, 
 some  twelve  hours  east  of  the  mountain  el-Kuleib, 
 are  both  suggestive  of  Tob.  But  nothing  can  be 
 said,  at  present,  as  to  their  connection  with  it. 
 
 G. 
 
 TOBI'AH  (n^^'lt:)  [goodness  of  Jehovali] : 
 Tco/Sias  [Vat.  TajjSeta],  Ta>i3ia:  Tobia).  1.  "The 
 children  of  Tobiah  "  were  a  family  who  returned 
 with  Zerubbabel,  but  were  unable  to  prove  their 
 connection  with  Israel  (Ezr.  ii.  60;  Neh.  vii.  62). 
 
 a  The  word  is    **2^'^,  which  exactly  answers  to 
 
 sheikhs. 
 
TOBIAS 
 
 2.  ([Neh.  ii.  19,  FA.  ToolBeia;  iv.  3,  FA.i  Tco- 
 /3<s:]  Tobias.)  "Tobiali  the  slave,  the  Aiinnon- 
 ite,''  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  rancorous 
 opposition  made  by  Sanballat  the  Moabite  and  his 
 adherents  to  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem.  The 
 two  races  of  JMoab  and  Amnion  found  in  these 
 men  fit  representatives  of  that  hereditary  hatred 
 to  the  Israelites  which  began  before  the  entrance 
 into  Canaan,  and  was  not  extinct  when  the  He- 
 brews had  ceased  to  exist  as  a  nation.  The  hor- 
 rible story  of  the  origin  of  the  Moabites  and  Am- 
 monites, as  it  was  told  by  the  Hebrews,  is  an  index 
 of  the  feeling  of  repulsion  which  must  have  existed 
 between  these  hostile  families  of  men.  In  the 
 dignified  rebuke  of  Nehemiah  it  received  its  high- 
 est expression :  "  ye  have  no  portion,  nor  right, 
 nor  memorial  in  Jerusalem  "  (Neh.  ii.  20).  But 
 Tobiah,  though  a  slave  (Neh.  ii.  10,  19),  unless 
 this  is  a  title  of  opprobrium,  and  an  Anuuonite, 
 found  means  to  ally  himself  witli  a  priestly  family, 
 and  his  son  Johanan  married  the  daughter  of 
 Meshullam  the  son  of  Berechiah  (Neh.  vi.  18). 
 He  himself  was  the  son-in-law  of  Shechaniah  the 
 son  of  Arab  (Neh.  vi.  17),  and  these  family  re- 
 lations created  for  him  a  strong  faction  among 
 the  Jews,  and  may  have  had  something  to  do  with 
 the  stern  measures  which  Ezra  found  it  necessary 
 to  take  to  repress  the  intermarriages  with  foreigners. 
 Even  a  grandson  of  the  high-priest  Eliasliib  had 
 married  a  daughter  of  Sanballat  (Neh.  xiii.  28).  In 
 xiii.  4  Eliasliib  is  said  to  have  been  allied  to  Tobiah, 
 which  would  imply  a  relationship  of  some  kind 
 between  Tobiah  and  Sanballat,  though  its  nature 
 is  not  mentioned.  The  evil  had  spread  so  far  that 
 the  leaders  of  the  people  were  compelled  to  rouse 
 their  religious  antipathies  by  reading  from  the  Law 
 of  Moses  the  strong  prohibition  that  the  Ammon- 
 ite and  the  Moabite  should  not  come  into  the  con- 
 gregation of  God  for  ever  (Neh.  xiii.  1).  Ewald 
 (Gtscli.  iv.  173)  coiyectures  that  Tobiah  had  been 
 a  page  ("slave  ")  at  the  Persian  court,  and,  being 
 in  favor  there,  had  been  promoted  to  be  satrap  of 
 the  Ammonites.  But  it  almost  seems  that  against 
 Tobiah  there  was  a  stronger  feeling  of  animosity 
 than  against  Sanballat,  and  that  this  animosity 
 found  expression  in  the  epithet  "  the  slave,"  which 
 is  attached  to  his  name.  It  was  Tobiah  who  gave 
 venom  to  the  pitying  scorn  of  Sanballat  (Neh.  iv. 
 3),  and  provoked  the  bitter  cry  of  Nehemiah  (Neh. 
 iv.  4,  5);  it  was  Tobiah  who  kept  up  communica- 
 tions with  the  factious  Jews,  and  who  sent  letters 
 to  put  their  leader  in  fear  (Neh.  vi.  17,  lU):  but 
 his  crowning  act  of  insult  was  to  take  up  his  resi- 
 dence in  the  Temple  in  the  chamber  which  Eliasliib 
 had  prepared  for  him  in  defiance  of  the  JMosaic 
 statute.  Nehemiah's  patience  could  no  longer  con- 
 tain itself,  "  therefore,"  he  sa}'.^,  "  I  cast  forth  all 
 the  household  stuff  of  Tobiah  out  of  the  cham- 
 ber," and  with  this  summary  act  Tobiah  diaaiijiears 
 from  history  (Neh.  xiii.  7,  8).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 TOBI'AS.  The  Greek  form  of  the  name  To- 
 biah or  TonijAu.  1.  (Tco^i'ay:  Thobias,  Tobias.) 
 The  son  of  Tobit,  and  central  character  in  the  book 
 of  that  name.      [Tobit,  Book  of.] 
 
 2.  The  father  of  Hyrcanus,  apparently  a  man  of 
 great  wealth  and  reputation  at  .lerusalem  in  the 
 time  of  Seleucus  Bhilopator  (cir.  B.  c.  187).  In 
 the  high-priestly  schism  which  happened  afterwards 
 [MenklaCs],  "the  sons  of  Tobias''  took  a  con- 
 spicuous part  (Joseph.  A71.L  xii.  5,  §  1).  One  of 
 these,  Joseph,  who  raised  himself  by  intrigue  to 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF  B271 
 
 high  favor  with  the  Egyptian  court,  had  a  son 
 named  Hyrcanus  (Joseph.  Ani.  xii.  4,  §  2).  It 
 has  been  supposed  that  this  is  the  Hyrcanus  re- 
 ferred to  in  2  Mace.  iii.  11 ;  and  it  is  not  impossi- 
 ble that,  for  some  unknown  reason  (as  in  the  case 
 of  the  Maccabees),  the  whole  family  were  called 
 after  their  grandfather,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
 father's  name.  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural 
 recurrence  of  names  in  successive  generations  makes 
 it  more  probable  that  the  Hyrcanus  mentioned  in 
 Joseplius  was  a  nephew  of  the  Hyrcanus  in  2  Mace. 
 (Comp.  Ewald,  Oesck.  d.  V.  I.  iv.  309;  Grimm, 
 ad  Mace.  1.  c).  B.  F.  W. 
 
 TO'BIE,  THE  PLACES  OF  (eV  rots 
 Tov&iov  [Koni.  Tcc^iov] :  in  locis  Tubin :  Syr. 
 Tubiii).  A  district  which  in  the  time  of  the 
 Maccabees  was  the  seat  of  an  extensive  colony  of 
 Jews  (1  Mace.  v.  13).  It  is  in  all  probability 
 identical  with  the  Land  of  Tob  mentioned  in  the 
 history  of  Jephthah.      [See  also  Tubieni.]     G. 
 
 TO'BIEL  (bS'^aitD,  the  goodness  of  God: 
 ToilBiriK:  TItobid,  Tobiel),  the  father  of  Tobit  and 
 grandfather  of  Tobias  (1),  Tob.  i.  1.  The  name 
 may  be  compared  with  Tabael  (Ta/SeijA.).  [Ta- 
 BAEL.]  B.  F.  W. 
 
 TOBI'JAH  (-insnilS  [goodness  of  Jeho- 
 vah]: Tw^'ias;  [Vat.  Alex,  omit:]  Tliobias).  1. 
 One  of  the  Levites  sent  by  Jehoshaphat  to  teach 
 the  Law  in  the  cities  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 
 
 2.  (01  xp'ho'i/J.oi  avrrjs'  Tobias.)  One  of  the 
 Captivity  in  the  time  of  Zechariah,  in  whose  pres- 
 ence the  prophet  was  commanded  to  take  crowns 
 of  silver  and  gold  and  put  them  on  the  head  of 
 Joshua  the  high-priest  (Zech.  vi.  10).     In  ver.  14 
 
 his  name  appears  in  the  shortened  form  H^IinD. 
 Kosenmiiller  conjectures  that  he  was  one  of  a 
 <ieputation  who  came  up  to  Jerusalem,  from  the 
 Jews  who  still  remained  in  Babylon,  with  contri- 
 butions of  gold  and  silver  for  the  Temple.  But 
 i\Iam'er  considers  that  the  offerings  were  presented 
 by  Tobijah  and  his  companions,  because  the  crowns 
 were  commnnded  to  be  placed  in  the  Temple  as  a 
 memorial  of  their  visit  and  generosity. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 TO'BIT  (Toi^iie,  Tco/SeiV,  Twfilr:  Vulg.  To- 
 bias; Vat.  Lat.  Tobi,  T/wbi,  roJ/.s),  the  son  of  To- 
 biel (TcDySirjA:  Thobiel,  Tobiel)  and  fother  of  Tobias 
 (Tob.  i.  1,  etc.).     [Tobit,  Book  of.]     The  name 
 
 appeals  to  answer  to  ''IlIT^,  which  occurs  frequently 
 in  later  times  (Fritzsche,  ad.  Tob.  i.  1),  and  not  (as 
 Welte,    Einl.  65)  to  H^IlhlD;  yet   in    that   case 
 
 Tco^is,  according  to  the  analogy  of  Aev'h  (^12)» 
 would  have  been  the  more  natural  form.  Ths 
 etymology  of  the  word  is  obscure.  Ilgen  translates 
 it  simply  "my  goodness;  "  Fritzsche,  with  greater 
 
 probability,  regards  it  as  an  abbreviation  of  n^IillS, 
 
 comparing  MeAx't  (Luke  iii.  24,  28),  "^171^5  etc. 
 {ad  Tub.  1.  c).  The  form  in  the  Vulgate  is  of  no 
 weight  against  the  Old  Latin,  except  so  for  as  it 
 shows  the  reading  of  the  Chaldaic  text  which  Jerome 
 used,  in  which  the  identity  of  the  names  of  the 
 father  and  sou  is  directly  affirmed  (i.  9,  Vulg.). 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 TO'BIT,   BOOK    OF.     The  book  is  called 
 
 simply  Tobit   (Toj^Sit,   TaiSe'iT)  in   the  old    MSS. 
 
 .\t  a  later  time  the  opening  words  of  the  book,  Bi0~ 
 
 Kos   \6y<)>v  TcojSiV,  were    taken   as   a  title.     In 
 
3272 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 Latin  MSS.  it  is  styled  Tohis,  Liber  T/iohis,  Liber 
 Tobke.  (Sahatier,  p.  706),  7'obil  et  Tubics,  Liber 
 ulriusque  Tobias  (Fritzsche,  Lint.  §  1). 
 
 1.  Text.  —  The  book  exists  at  present  in  Greek, 
 Latin,  Sjriac,  and  Hebrew  texts,  which  differ  more 
 or  less  from  one  anotlier  in  detail,  but  yet  on  the 
 whole  are  so  I'ar  alike  tiiat  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
 pose that  ail  were  derived  from  one  written  original, 
 which  was  modified  in  the  course  of  translation  or 
 transcription.  The  Greek  text  is  found  in  two 
 distinct  recensions.  The  one  is  followed  by  the 
 muss  of  the  MSS.  of  the  LX^T.,  and  gives  the  oldest 
 text  which  remains.  The  other  is  only  fragmen- 
 tary, and  manil'estly  a  re\ision  of  the  former.  Of 
 this,  one  piece  (i.  1-ii.  2)  is  contained  in  the  Cod. 
 Sinaiticus  (  =:  Cod.  Frid.  Augustanus),  and  another 
 in  three  later  MSS.  (44,  100,  107,  Holmes  and 
 Parsons;  vi.  9-xiii. ;  F'ritzsche,  Lxeg.  Ilandb.ll- 
 110).  The  Latin  texts  are  also  of  two  kinds. 
 The  common  (Vulgate)  text  is  due  to  Jerome,  who 
 formed  it  by  a  \ery  hasty  revision  of  the  old  Latin 
 version  with  the  help  of  a  Chaldee  copy,  which  was 
 translated  into  Hebrew  for  him  by  an  assistant  who 
 was  master  of  both  languages.  The  treatment  of 
 the  text  in  this  recension  is  very  arbitrary,  as  might 
 be  expected  from  the  description  which  Jerome 
 gives  of  the  mode  in  which  it  was  made  (comp. 
 Frcef.  in  Tub.  §  4);  and  it  is  of  very  little  critical 
 value,  for  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  accurately 
 the  different  elements  which  are  incorporated  in  it. 
 The  ante-Hieronymian  (Vetus  Latina)  texts  are  far 
 more  valuable,  though  these  present  considerable 
 variations  among  themselves,  as  generally  happens, 
 and  represent  the  revised  and  not  the  original  Creek 
 text.  Sabatier  has  given  one  text  from  tliese  MSS. 
 of  the  eighth  century  and  also  added  various  read- 
 ings from  another  BLS.,  formerly  in  the  possession 
 of  Christina  of  Sweden,  which  contains  a  distinct 
 version  of  a  considerable  |>art  of  the  book,  i.-vi.  ]'2 
 {Ribl.  Lat.  ii.  706).  A  third  text  is  found  in  the 
 quotations  of  the  Speculum,  published  by  Mai,  Sjn- 
 cilcg.  Bom.  ix.  21-23.  The  Hebrew  versions  are 
 of  no  great  weight.  One,  which  was  published  by 
 1'.  Fagius  (1542),  after  a  Constantinopolitan  edition 
 of  1517,  is  closely  moulded  on  the  common  Greek 
 text  without  being  a  servile  translation  (Fritzsche, 
 §  4).  Another,  published  by  S.  Minister  (1542, 
 etc.),  is  based  upon  the  revised  text,  but  is  extremely 
 free,  and  is  rather  an  adaptation  than  a  version. 
 Both  these  versions,  with  the  Syriac,  are  reprinted 
 in  Walton's  Polyglot,  and  are  late  Jewish  works  of 
 uncertain  date  (Fritzsche,  I.  c.  Ilgen,  ch.  xvii.  ft".). 
 The  Syriac  version  is  of  a  composite  character.  As 
 far  as  ch.  vii.  9  it  is  a  close  rendering  of  the  com- 
 mon Greek  text  of  the  LXX.,  but  from  this  point 
 to  the  end  it  follows  the  revised  text,  a  fact  which 
 is  noticed  in  the  margin  of  one  of  the  MSS. 
 
 2.  Contents.  —  The  outline  of  the  book  is  as  fol- 
 lows. Tol.'it,  a  Jew  of  the  tribe  of  Nai)htali,  who 
 strictly  observed  the  Law  and  remained  faithful  to 
 the  Temple-service  at  Jerusalem  (i.  4-8),  was  carried 
 captive  to  Assyria  by  Sliahnaneser.  While  in  cap- 
 tivity he  exerted  himself  to  reheve  his  countrymen, 
 which  his  favorable  position  at  court  {a,yopaaTT)s, 
 i.  13,  "purveyor")  enabled  him  to  do,  and  at  this 
 time  he  was  rich  enough  to  lend  ten  talents  of  silver 
 to  a  countryman,  Gabael  of  Kages  in  Media.  But 
 when  Sennacherib  succeeded  his  father  Salmaneser, 
 the  fortune  of  Tol)it  was  changed.  He  was  accused 
 of  burying  the  Jews  whom  the  king  had  put  to 
 death,  and  was  only  able  to  save  himself,  his  wife 
 Anna,  and  his  son  Tobias,  by  flight.     On  the  ac- 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 cession  of  Esarhaddon  he  was  allowed  to  return  to 
 Nineveh,  at  the  intercession  of  his  nephew,  Achi- 
 acharus,  who  occupied  a  high  place  in  the  king's 
 household  (i.  22);  but  his  zeal  for  his  countrymen 
 brought  him  into  a  strange  misfortune.  As  he  lay 
 one  night  in  the  court  of  his  house,  being  unclean 
 from  having  buried  a  Jew  whom  his  son  had  found 
 strangled  in  the  market-place,  sparrows  "  muted 
 warm  dung  into  his  eyes,"  and  he  became  blind. 
 Being  thus  disabled,  he  was  for  a  time  supported  liy 
 Achiacharus,  and  after  his  departure  (read  iirnptv- 
 07],  ii.  10),  by  the  labor  of  his  wife.  On  one  oc- 
 casion he  falsely  accused  her  of  stealing  a  kid  which 
 had  been  added  to  her  wages,  and  in  return  she  re- 
 proached him  with  the  miserable  issue  of  all  his 
 righteous  deeds.  Grieved  by  her  taunts  he  prayed 
 to  God  for  help;  and  it  happened  that  on  the  same 
 day  Sara,  his  kinswoman  (vi.  10,  11),  the  only 
 daughter  of  I.'aguel,  also  sought  help  from  God 
 against  the  reproaches  of  her  father's  household. 
 F'or  seven  young  men  wedded  to  her  had  perished 
 on  their  marriage  night  by  the  powei'  of  the  evil 
 spirit  Asmodeus  [Asmodeus]  ;  and  she  thought 
 that  she  should  "  bring  her  father's  old  age  with 
 sorrow  unto  the  grave"  (iii.  10).  So  Kaphael  was 
 sent  to  deliver  both  from  their  sorrovv.  In  the 
 mean  time  Tobit  called  to  mind  the  money  which 
 he  had  lent  to  Gabael,  and  despatched  Tobias,  with 
 many  wise  counsels,  to  reclaim  it  (iv.).  On  this 
 Raphael  (under  the  form  of  a  kinsman,  Azarias) 
 ofli^red  himself  as  a  guide  to  Tobias  on  his  journey 
 to  Media,  and  they  "  went  forth  both,  and  the 
 young  man's  (log  with  them,"  and  Anna  was  com- 
 forted for  the  absence  of  her  son  (v.).  When  they 
 reached  the  Tigris,  Tobias  was  commanded  by  Ka- 
 phael to  take  "  the  heart,  and  liver,  and  gall "  of  "  a 
 fish  which  leaped  out  of  the  river  and  would  have 
 devoured  him,"  and  instructed  how  to  use  the  first 
 two  against  Asmodeus,  for  Sara,  liaphael  said,  was 
 appointed  to  be  his  wife  (vi.).  So  when  they 
 reached  Fxbatana  they  were  entertained  by  L'aguel, 
 and  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  the  angel,  Sara 
 was  given  to  I'obias  in  marriage  that  night,  and 
 Asmodeus  was  "  driven  to  the  utmost  parts  of 
 i'^gypt,"  where  "the  angel  bound  him"  (vii.,  viii.). 
 Alter  this  Kaphael  recovered  the  loan  from  Gabael 
 (ix.),  and  Tobias  then  returned  with  Sara  and  half 
 her  father's  goods  to  Nineve  (x.).  Tobit,  informed 
 by  Anna  of  their  son's  approach,  hastened  to  meet 
 him.  Tobias  by  the  conmiand  of  the  angel  applied 
 the  fish's  gall  to  his  father's  eyes  .nnd  restored  his 
 sight  (x.).  After  this  Kaphael,  addressing  to  both 
 words  of  good  counsel,  revealed  himself,  and  "they 
 saw  him  no  more"  (xii.).  On  this  Tobit  expressed 
 his  gratitude  in  a  fine  psalm  (xiii.);  and  he  lived  to 
 see  the  long  prosperity  of  his  son  (xiv.  1,  2).  After 
 his  death  'J'obias,  according  to  his  instruction,  re- 
 turned to  Ecbatana.  and  "  before  he  died  he  heard 
 of  the  destruction  of  Nineve,"  of  which  "  Jonas  the 
 prophet  spake  "  (xiv.  15,  4). 
 
 3.  Ilislorical  Ckaructer.  —  The  narrative  which 
 has  been  just  sketched,  seems  to  have  been  received 
 without  inquiry  or  dispute  as  historically  true  till 
 the  rise  of  free  criticism  at  the  Keforniation.  Luther, 
 wliile  warmly  i)raising  the  general  teaching  of  the 
 book  (comp.  §  0),  yet  expressed  doubts  as  to  its 
 literal  truth,  and  these  doubts  gradually  gained  a 
 wide  currency  among  Protestant  writers.  Bertholdt 
 (Liiil.  §  579)  has  given  asunnnary  of  alleged  errors 
 in  detail  (e.  g.  i.  1,  2,  of  Naphtliali,  compared  with 
 2  K.  XV.  29 ;  vi.  9,  Rages,  said  to  have  been  founded 
 by  Sel.  Nicator),  but  the  question  turns  rather  upon 
 
TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 the  general  complexion  of  the  history  than  upon 
 minute  olijectioiis,  which  are  often  captious  and 
 rarely  satisfactory  (conip.  Welte,  FAiiL  pp.  8i-94). 
 This,  however,  is  fetal  to  the  supposition  tliat  the 
 book  could  have  been  completed  shortly  after  the  fall 
 of  Nineveh  (b.  c.  600;  Tob.  xiv.  15),  and  written 
 in  the  main  some  'time  before  (Tob.  xii.  20).  The 
 whole  tone  of  the  narrative  bespeaks  a  later  age;  and 
 above  all,  the  doctrine  of  good  and  evil  spirits  is 
 elaborated  in  a  form  which  belongs  to  a  period  con- 
 siderably posterior  to  the  Babylonian  Captivity 
 (Asmodeus,  iii.  8,  vi.  14,  viii.  3;  Kaphael,  xii.  15). 
 The  incidents,  again,  are  completely  isolated,  and 
 tliere  is  no  reference  to  them  in  any  part  of  Scrip- 
 ture (the  supposed  parallels,  Tob.  iv.  15  (16)  || 
 Matt.  vii.  12;  lob.  xiii.  16-18  ||  Uev.  xxi.  18,  are 
 mere  general  ideas),  nor  in  Joseplius  or  Philo. 
 And  though  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  de- 
 tails, as  such,  is  no  objection  against  the  reality  of 
 the  occurrences,  yet  it  may  be  fairly  urged  that  the 
 character  of  the  alleged  miraculous  events,  when 
 taken  together,  is  alien  from  the  general  character 
 of  such  events  in  the  historical  books  of  Scripture, 
 while  there  is  nothing  e.xceptional  in  the  circum- 
 st;niccs  of  the  persons  as  in  the  case  of  Daniel 
 [Danikl,  vol.  i.  543],  which  might  serve  to  explain 
 this  difference.  On  all  these  grounds  it  may  cer- 
 tainly be  concluded  that  the  narrative  is  not  simply, 
 history,  and  it  is  superfluous  to  inquire  how  far  it 
 is  based  upon  facts.  It  is  quite  possible  that  some 
 real  occurrences,  preserved  by  tradition,  furnished 
 the  basis  of  the  narrative,  but  it  does  not  follow  by 
 any  means  that  the  elimination  of  the  extraordinary 
 details  will  leave  beliind  pure  history  (so  Ilgen). 
 As  llie  book  stands  it  is  a  distinctly  didactic  narra- 
 tive. Its  point  lies  in  the  moral  lesson  which  it 
 conveys,  and  not  in  the  incidents.  Tiie  incidents 
 furnish  hvely  pictures  of  the  trutli  which  the  author 
 wished  to  inculcate,  but  the  lessons  themselves  are 
 independent  of  them.  Nor  can  any  weight  be  laid 
 on  the  minute  exactness  with  which  apparently 
 unimportant  details  are  described  (e.  (j.  the  geneal- 
 ogy and  dwelling-place  of  Tobit,  i.  1,  2;  the  mar- 
 riage festival,  viii.  20,  xi.  18,  19,  quoted  by  Ilgen 
 and  Welte),  as  proving  the  reality  of  tlie  events, 
 for  such  particularity  is  characteristic  of  Eastern 
 romance,  and  appears  again  in  the  book  of  Judith. 
 The  writer  in  composing  his  story  necessarily  ob- 
 served tiie  ordinary  form  of  a  historical  narrative. 
 
 4.  Oriyiniil  LaiKjiuuje  and  Jiecisions.  —  In  the 
 absence  of  all  direct  evidence,  considerable  doubt 
 has  been  felt  as  to  the  original  language  of  the  book. 
 I'he  superior  clearness,  simplicity,  and  accuracy  of 
 the  LXX.  text  prove  conclusively  that  this  is  nearer 
 the  original  than  any  otlier  text  which  is  known,  if 
 it  be  not,  as  some  have  supposed  (Jahn  and  I'ritzsche 
 doubtfully),  the  original  itself.  Indeed,  the  argu- 
 ments wliich  have  been  brought  forward  to  show 
 that  it  is  a  translation  are  far  from  conclusive.  The 
 supposed  contradictions  between  different  parts  of 
 the  book,  especially  the  change  from  the  first  (i.-iii. 
 6)  to  the  third  person  (iii.  7-xiv. ),  from  which  Ilgen 
 endeavored  to  prove  that  the  narrative  was  made 
 up  of  distinct  Hebrew  documents,  carelessly  put 
 together,  and  afterwards  rendered  by  one  Greek 
 translator,  are  easily  explicable  on  other  grounds ; 
 and  the  alleged  mistranslations  (iii.  0;  iv.  19,  etc.) 
 dei)end  rather  on  errors  in  interpreting  the  Greek 
 text,  than  on  errors  in  the  text  itself.  The  style, 
 again,  though  harsh  in  parts,  and  far  from  the 
 classical  standard,  is  not  more  so  than  some  books 
 which  were  undoubtedly  written  in  Greek  (e.  </.  the 
 206 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 3273 
 
 Apocalypse);  and  there  is  little,  if  anything,  in  it 
 which  points  certainly  to  the  immediate  intiuence 
 of  an  Aramaic  text.  (i.  4,  els  irdaas  t^s  yepias 
 Tou  alUfos,  comp.  Kph.  iii.  21;  i.  22,  e'«  SevTf pas; 
 iii.  15,  'iva  tI  jjloi  ^'r)^';  v.  15,  riva  crui  ecrofxai 
 fxiaQhv  5i5oVai;  xiv.  -i,  rpoaeOero  (po0e7ff0ai,  etc.) 
 To  this  it  may  be  added  that  Origen  was  not  ac- 
 quainted with  any  Hebrew  original  (A/;,  ad  Afric. 
 13);  and  the  C'iialdee  copy  which  Jerome  used,  as 
 far  as  its  character  can  be  ascertained,  was  evi- 
 dently a  later  version  of  the  story.  On  the  other 
 hand,  there  is  no  internal  evidence  against  the  sup- 
 position that  the  Greek  text  is  a  translation.  Some 
 difficulties  appear  to  be  removed  by  this  supposition 
 (e.  g.  ix.  6);  and  if  the  consideration  of  tlie  date 
 and  place  of  the  composition  of  the  l)ook  favor  this 
 view,  it  may  rightly  be  admitted.  The  Greek  offers 
 some  peculiarities  in  vocabulary:  i.  0,  Trpcoro- 
 Kovpia,  I-  c-  T]  awapxr)  ruiv  KOupSiv,  Deut.  xviii.  4; 
 i-  7,  aizoirpaTi^oixai'i  i-  21,  eKKoyiaria'-,  ii.  3, 
 ffTpa.yya\6oi,  etc.:  and  in  construction,  xiii.  7, 
 ayaWiaaQai  tiiv  ixeya\C)i(rvv7\v;  xii.  4,  SiKaiovaOal 
 Ttvi;  vi.  19,  Trpoffdyeiv  TLvi  (intrans.);  vi.  6,  e-y- 
 yiC^iv  eV,  etc.  liut  these  furnish  no  argument  on 
 either  side. 
 
 The  various  texts  which  remain  have  already 
 been  emnnerated.  Of  these,  three  varieties  may  be 
 distinguished:  (1)  the  LXX. ;  (2)  the  revised  Greek 
 text,  followed  by  the  Old  Latin  in  the  main,  and  by 
 the  Syriac  in  part;  and  (3)  the  Vulgate  Latin. 
 The  Hebrew  versions  have  no  critical  value.  (1.) 
 The  LXX.  is  followed  by  A.  V.,  and  has  been  al- 
 ready characterized  as  the  standard  to  which  the 
 others  are  to  be  referred.  (2.)  The  revised  text, 
 first  brought  distinctly  into  notice  by  Fritzsche 
 {FAnl.  §  5),  is  based  on  the  LXX.  Greek,  which  is 
 at  one  time  extended,  and  then  compressed,  with  a 
 view  to  greater  fullness  and  clearness.  A  few  of 
 the  variations  in  the  first  chapter  will  indicate  its 
 character:  Ver.  2,  ©iV/Srjs,  add.  ottiVo;  Suafxaiv 
 7)\'lov  e|  apiarepcov  ^oydp;  ver.  8,  oTs  KaOrjKei, 
 given  at  length  ruh  6p(pavo7s  koI  tois  xijpai?, 
 K.  T.  A.;  ver.  18,  e'/c  rrjs  'lovSaias,  add.  eV  rj/xepats 
 TTjs  Kpiaicos  T)s  i-Ko'n)(T€v  e|  avTov  6  ySaciAeus 
 TOU  ovpavov  irepl  rwv  ^\aa(p7]fj.i'2v  wv  e'^Aacr- 
 (pjlfxriffeu;  ver.  22,  olfox^os,  apxioivoxoos-  (3.) 
 I'he  Vulgate  text  was  derived  in  part  from  a 
 Chaldee  copy  which  was  translated  by  word  of 
 mouth  into  Hebrew  for  Jerome,  who  in  turn  dic- 
 tated a  Latin  rendering  to  a  secretary.  {Prmf.  in 
 Tob. :  .  .  .  .  Exigitis  ut  librum  Chaldseo  sermone 
 conscriptum  ad  Latiiuim  st}luni  trahani  .... 
 Feci  satis  desiderio  vestro,  non  tamen  meo  studio 
 .  .  .  .  Et  quia  vicina  est  Ghaldieorum  lingua  ser- 
 moni  Hebraico,  utriusque  lingua;  peritissinuim  lo- 
 quacem  reperiens  unius  diei  labnrem  arripui,  et 
 quidquid  ille  mihi  Hebraicis  verbis  expressit,  hoc 
 ego,  accito  iiotario,  .sermonibus  Latinis  exposui.)  It 
 is  evident  that  in  this  process  Jerome  made  some  use 
 of  the  Old  Latin  version,  which  he  follows  almost 
 verbally  in  a  few  places :  iii.  3-6 ;  iv.  6,  7, 11,  23,  etc. ; 
 but  the  greater  part  of  the  version  seems  to  be  an 
 independent  work.  On  the  whole,  it  is  more  concise 
 than  the  Old  Latin ;  but  it  contains  interpolations 
 and  changes,  many  of  which  mark  the  asceticism  of 
 a  late  age:  ii.  12-14  (parallel  with  Job);  iii.  17-23 
 (expansion  of  iii.  14);  vi.  17  ff.  (expansion  of  vi. 
 18);  ix.  11, 12;  xii.  13  (et  quia  acceptus  eras  Deo, 
 necesse  fuit  ut  tentatio  probaret  te). 
 
 5.  Date  and  Place  of  Composition.  —  The  data 
 for  determining  the  age  of  the  book  and  the  place 
 where  it  was  compiled  are  scanty,  and  consequently 
 
3274 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 very  different  opinions  have  been  entertained  on 
 these  points.  Eichhorn  {Kinl.  pp.  408  ff. )  places 
 the  author  after  tlie  time  of  Darius  IljsUispis  with- 
 out fixing  any  further  hmit  of  age  or  country. 
 Bertiioldt,  insisting  (wrongly)  on  the  sup|)osed  date 
 of  tiie  foundation  of  Rages  [It ages],  brings  the 
 boolv  considerably  later  than  Seleucus  Nicator  (cir. 
 B.  c.  250-200),  and  supposes  that  it  was  written 
 by  a  Gahlsean  or  Baliylonian  Jew,  from  the  prom- 
 inence given  to  those  districts  in  the  narrative 
 {Ehtl.  pp.  24y'J,  2500).  De  Wette  leaves  the  date 
 undetermined,  but  argues  that  the  author  was  a 
 native  of  Palestine  ( ICinl.  §  -311 ).  Ewald  ( Gescliiclile, 
 iv.  2o3-2.38)  fixes  the  composition  in  the  far  East, 
 towards  the  close  of  the  Persian  period  fcir.  .350 
 B.  c).  This  last  opinion  is  almost  certaiidy  cor- 
 rect. The  superior  and  inferior  limits  of  the  date 
 of  the  book  seem  to  be  defined  with  fhir  distinct- 
 ness. On  the  one  hand  tiie  detailed  doctrine  of 
 evil  spirits  points  clearly  to  some  time  after  the 
 Babylonian  Captivity;  and  this  date  is  definitely 
 marked  by  the  reference  to  a  new  Temple  at  Jeru- 
 salem, "not  like  the  first"  (Tob.  xiv.  5;  comp. 
 Ezr.  iii.  12).  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing 
 to  show  that  tlie  Jews  were  threatened  with  any 
 special  danger  when  the  narrative  was  written  (as 
 in  Judith),  and  the  manner  in  which  Media  is  men- 
 tioned (xiv.  4)  implies  that  the  Persian  monarchy 
 was  still  strong.  Thus  its  date  will  fall  somewhere 
 within  the  period  between  the  close  of  the  work  of 
 Neheniiah  and  the  invasion  of  Alexander  (cir.  b.  c. 
 430-334).  The  contents  of  the  book  furnish  also 
 some  clew  to  the  place  where  it  was  written.  Not 
 only  is  there  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  scenes 
 described  (Ewald,  p.  233),  but  the  incidents  have  a 
 local  coloring.  The  continual  reference  to  alms- 
 giving and  the  burial  of  the  dead,  and  the  stre.ss 
 which  is  laid  upon  the  right  performance  of  vi'orship 
 at  Jerusalem  by  those  who  are  afar  off  (i.  4),  can 
 scarcely  be  due  to  an  effort  of  imagination,  but 
 must  rather  have  been  occasioned  by  the  immediate 
 experience  of  tlie  writer.  This  would  suggest  that 
 he  was  living  out  of  Palestine,  in  some  Persian  city, 
 perhaps  Babylon,  where  his  countrymen  were  ex- 
 posed to  the  capricious  cruelty  of  heathen  go\ernors, 
 and  in  danger  of  neglecting  the  Temple-service. 
 Glimpses  are  also  given  of  the  presence  of  the  Jews 
 at  court,  not  only  in  the  history  (Tob.  i.  22),  but 
 also  in  direct  counsel  (xii.  7,  /xvaT-fipioi'  ySacriAecus 
 KuXhv  KpvtpaL),  which  better  suit  such  a  position 
 than  any  other  (comp.  xiii.  3).  If  tliese  conjectures 
 as  to  the  date  and  place  of  writing  be  correct,  it 
 follows  that  we  must  assume  the  existence  of  a  He- 
 brew or  Chaldee  original.  And  even  if  the  date 
 of  the  book  be  brought  much  lower,  to  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  second  century  b.  c.,  which  seems  to 
 be  the  latest  possible  limit,  it  is  equally  certain  that 
 it  must  have  Ijeen  written  in  some  Aramaic  dialect, 
 as  the  Greek  literature  of  Palestine  belongs  to  a 
 much  later  time;  and  the  references  to  Jerusalem 
 seem  to  show  that  the  book  could  not  have  been 
 composed  in  Egypt  (i.  4,  xiv.  5),  an  inference,  in- 
 deed, which  may  be  deduced  from  its  general  con- 
 tents. As  long  as  the  book  was  held  to  be  strict 
 history  it  was  supposed  that  it  was  written  by  the 
 immediate  actors,  in  accordance  with  the  direction 
 of  the  angel  (xii.  20).     The  passages  where  Tobit 
 
 a  This  is  expressed  still  more  distinctly  in  the 
 Specidiim  (p.  1127,  C.,  ed.  Par.  1836):  "  Non  sunt 
 omittendi  et  hi  [libri]  quos  quidem  ante  S:Uvatoris  ad- 
 veotum  constat  esse  conscriptos,  sed  eos  non  receptos 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 speaks  in  the  first  person  (i.-iii.  6,  xiii.)  were  as- 
 signed to  his  authorship.  The  intervening  chapters 
 to  iobit  or  Tobias.  The  description  of  the  close 
 of  the  life  of  Tobit  to  Tobias  (xiv.  1-11);  and  the 
 concluding  verses  (xiv.  12-15)  to  one  of  his  friends 
 who  survived  him.  If,  however,  the  historical 
 character  of  the  narrative  is  set  aside,  there  is  no 
 trace  of  the  person  of  the  author. 
 
 6.  History.  —  The  history  of  the  book  is  in  the 
 main  that  of  the  LXX.  version.  While  the  con- 
 tents of  the  I^XX.,  as  a  whole,  were  received  as 
 canonical,  the  liook  of  Tobit  was  necessarily  included 
 without  further  inquiry  among  the  books  of  Holy 
 Scripture.  [Canon.]  ■  The  peculiar  merits  of  the 
 l>ook  contributed  also  in  no  small  degree  to  gain 
 for  it  a  wide  and  hearty  reception.  There  ap[)ears 
 to  be  a  clear  reference  to  it  in  the  Latin  version  of 
 the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  (c.  10,  eletinosynn  de  morte 
 libeviit,  Tob.  iv.  10,  xii.  9).  In  a  scheme  of  the 
 Ophites,  if  there  be  no  corruption  in  the  text,  Tobias 
 appears  among  the  prophets  (Iren.  i.  30,  11). 
 Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  ii.  23,  §  139,  tovto 
 Ppax^i^s  7]  ypacp^  SeSv'jAco/cfi/  ^IpriKvia,  Tob.  iv.  16) 
 and  Urigen  practically  use  the  book  as  canonical; 
 but  Origen  distinctly  notices  that  neither  Tobit  nor 
 Judith  were  received  by  the  Jews,  and  rests  the 
 authority  of  Tobit  on  the  usage  of  the  churches 
 (A>.  ad  Afric.  13,  'E&pa7oi  tw  Too^ia  ov  xpt^vrai 
 .  .  .  .  aAA.',  eTrei  xP'^^'tc"  t<S  Too^ia,  al  6/CKArj- 
 aiat  .  .  .  .  l>e  Orut.  1,  §  14,  rfj  tov  Tw^^t 
 Pi0\co  avT lAeyovaiv  oi  iK  Trepi.TOfj.rjs  iis  /xrj  4v- 
 diaO-iiKCfi  ....).  Even  Athanasius  when  writing 
 without  any  critical  regard  to  the  Canon  quotes 
 Tobit  as  Scripture  {Apol.  c.  Arian.  §  11,  ois  yt- 
 ypaiTTai,  Tob.  xii.  7);  but  when  he  gives  a  formal 
 list  of  the  sacred  books,  he  definitely  excludes  it 
 from  the  Canon,  and  jilaces  it  with  other  apocryphal 
 books  among  the  writings  which  were  "  to  be  read 
 Ijy  those  who  were  but  just  entering  on  Christian 
 teaching,  and  desirous  to  lie  instructed  in  the  rules 
 of  piety  "  (Ej).  Fest.  p.  1177,  ed.  Jligne).  In  the 
 Latin  Church  Tobit  found  a  much  more  decided 
 acceptance.  Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Lucifer  quote  it 
 as  authoritative  (Cypr.  Be  Orat.  Bom.  32;  Ilil 
 Pict.  Ill  Psalm,  cxxix.  7;  yet  comp.  Prol.  in  Ps 
 XV.;  Lucif.  Pro  Atlinn.  i.  p.  871).  Augustine  in- 
 cludes it  with  the  other  apocrypha  of  the  LXX. 
 among  "  the  books  which  the  Christian  Church 
 received  "  {Be  Boctr.  Christ,  ii.  8),"  and  in  this 
 he  was  followed  by  the  mass  of  the  later  Latin 
 lathers  [comp.  Canon,  vol.  i.  p.  3f;4,  &c.].  Am- 
 brose in  especial  wrote  an  essay  on  Tobias,  treating 
 of  the  evils  of  usury,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  book 
 as  "  prophetic  "  in  the  strongest  terms  {Be  Tabia, 
 i.  1;  comp.  Hexaein.  vi.  4).  Jerome  however,  fol- 
 lowed by  KufEnus,  maintained  the  purity  of  the 
 Hebrew  Canon  of  the  0.  T.,  and,  as  has  been  seen, 
 treated  it  very  summarily  (for  later  authorities  see 
 Canon).  In  modern  times  the  moral  excellence 
 of  the  book  has  been  rated  highly,  except  in  the 
 heat  of  controversy.  Luther  pronounced  it,  if  only 
 a  fiction,  yet  "a  truly  beautiful,  wholesome,  and 
 profitable  fiction,  the  work  of  a  gifted  poet.  .  .  . 
 A  book  useful  for  Christian  reading  "  (ap.  Fritzsche, 
 Kinl.  §  11).  The  same  view  is  held  also  in  the 
 English  Church.  A  passage  from  Tobit  is  quoted 
 in  the  Second  Book  of  Homilies  as  the  teaching 
 
 a  JudEeis  reeipit  tanien  ejusdem  Salvatoris  ecclesia." 
 The  preface  from  which  these  words  are  taken  is  fol- 
 lowed by  quotations  from  Wisdom,  Ekiclesiasticus,  and 
 Tobit. 
 
TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 "of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Scripture"  (Of  Ahiisdeeds, 
 ii.  p.  391,  ed.  Corrie);  and  the  Prayer-book  offers 
 several  indications  of  the  same  feeling  of  respect  for 
 the  book.  Three  verses  are  retained  among  the 
 sentences  used  at  the  Ofiertory  (Tob.  iv.  7-9);  and 
 the  Preface  to  the  Marriage  Service  contains  a  plain 
 adaptation  of  Jerome's  version  of  Tob.  vi.  17  (Hi 
 namque  qui  conjugium  ita  suscipiunt  ut  Deuni  a 
 se  et  a  sua  mente  excludant,  et  sum  libidini  ita 
 vacent,  sicut  equus  et  mulus  quibus  non  est  intel- 
 lectus,  habet  potestatem  da?monium  super  eos).  In 
 the  First  Piook  of  Edward  VI.  a  reference  to  the 
 blessing  of  Tobias  and  Sara  by  Raphael  was  re- 
 tained in  the  same  service  from  the  old  ofiice  in 
 place  of  the  jiresent  reference  to  Abraham  and 
 Sarah ;  and  one  of  the  opening  clauses  of  the  Litany, 
 introduced  from  the  Sarum  Bieviary,  is  a  repro- 
 duction of  the  Vulgate  version  of  Tob.  iii.  3  (Ne 
 vindictam  sumas  de  peccatis  nieis,  neque  reminis- 
 caris  delicta  mea  vel  parentum  nieorum). 
 
 7.  lidigious  Character.  —  Few  probably  can  read 
 the  book  in  the  LXX.  text  without  assenting 
 heartily  to  the  favorable  judgment  of  Luther  on  its 
 merits.  Nowhere  else  is  there  preserved  so  com- 
 plete and  beautiful  a  picture  of  the  domestic  life  of 
 the  Jews  after  the  Return.  There  may  be  symptoms 
 of  a  tendency  to  formal  righteousness  of  works,  but 
 as  yet  the  works  are  painted  as  springing  from  a 
 living  faith.  The  devotion  due  to  Jerusalem  is 
 united  with  definite  acts  of  charity  (i.  6-8)  and 
 with  the  prospect  of  wider  blessings  (xiii.  11).  The 
 giving  of  alms  is  not  a  mere  scattering  of  wealth, 
 but  a  real  service  of  love  (i.  16,  17,  ii.  1-7,  iv.  7-11, 
 16),  though  at  times  the  emphasis  which  is  laid 
 upon  the  duty  is  exaggerated  (as  it  seems)  from 
 the  special  circumstances  in  which  the  writer  was 
 placed  (xii.  9,  xiv.  10).  Of  the  special  precepts  one 
 (iv.  15,  %  fxiaels  ij.7}5evl  Troirjcrj^s)  contains  the 
 negative  side  of  the  golden  rule  of  conduct  (Matt. 
 vii.  I'i),  which  in  this  partial  form  is  found  among 
 the  maxims  of  Confucius.  But  it  is  chieflj'  hi  the 
 exquisite  tenderness  of  the  portraiture  of  domestic 
 life  that  the  book  excels.  The  parting  of  Tobias 
 and  his  mother,  the  consolation  of  Tobit  (v.  17-'22), 
 the  aftection  of  Raguel  (vii.  4-8),  the  anxious  wait- 
 ing of  the  parents  (x.  1-7),  the  son's  return  (ix.  4, 
 xi.),  and  even  the  unjust  suspiciousness  of  the  sor- 
 ,  row  of  Tobit  and  Anna  (ii.  11-14)  are  painted  with 
 a  simplicity  worthy  of  the  best  times  of  the  patri- 
 archs." Almost  every  family  relation  is  touched 
 upon  with  natural  grace  and  affection :  husband  and 
 wife,  parent  and  child,  kinsmen,  near  or  distant, 
 master  and  ser\aiit,  are  presented  in  the  most  varied 
 action,  and  always  with  life-like  power  (ii.  13,  14, 
 V.  17-22,  vii.  16,  viii.  4-8,  x.  1-7,  xi.  1-13,  i.  22, 
 ii.  10,  vii.  3-8,  v.  14,  15,  xii.  1-5,  &c.).     Prayer 
 
 »  hallows  the  whole  conduct  of  life  (iv.  19,  vi.  17, 
 viii.  5-8,  Ac);  and  even  in  distress  there  is  con- 
 fidence that  in  the  end  all  will  be  well  (iv.  6,  14, 
 19),  though  there  is  no  clear  anticipation  of  a  future 
 personal  existence  (iii.  6).  The  most  remarkable 
 JL  doctrinal  feature  in  the  book  is  the  prominence 
 ^K  given  to  the  action  of  spirits,  who,  while  they  are 
 ^^L  conceived  to  be  subject  to  the  passions  of  men  and 
 ^^H  material  influences  (.\smodeus),  are  yet  not  affected 
 ^^B  by  bodily  wants,  and  manifested  only  by  their  own 
 ^^Bwill  (Raphael,  xii.  19).     Powers  of  evil  {^aiix6viov, 
 
 a  In  thU  connection  may  be  noticed  the  incident, 
 which  \*  without  a  parallel  in  Scripture,  and  seems 
 more  natural  to  the  West  than  to  the  Etist,  the  com- 
 panionship of  the  dog  with  Tobias  (v.  16,  xi.  4 :  comp. 
 
 TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 
 
 3275 
 
 TTViVfia  irovnpSv,  iii-  8,  17,  vi.  7,  14, 17)  are  rep- 
 resented as  gaining  the  means  of  injuring  men  by 
 sin  [ASMODEUs],  while  they  are  driven  away  and 
 bound  by  the  exercise  of  faith  and  prayer  (viii.  2,  3). 
 On  the  other  hand  Raphael  comes  among  men  as 
 "  the  healer  "  (comp.  Dillmann,  Das  Buck  fJenoch, 
 c.  20),  and  by  the  mission  of  God  (iii.  17,  xii.  18), 
 restores  those  whose  good  actions  he  has  secretly 
 watched  (xii.  12,  13),  and  "the  remembrance  of 
 whose  prayers  he  has  brought  before  the  Holy  One  " 
 (xii.  12).  This  ministry  of  intercession  is  elsewhere 
 expressly  recognized.  Seven  holy  angels,  of  whom 
 Raphael  is  one,  are  specially  described  as  those 
 "  which  present  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  and  which 
 go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  God  "  (xii.  15). 
 It  is  characteristic  of  the  same  sense  of  the  need 
 of  some  being  to  interpose  between  God  and  man 
 that  singular  prominence  is  given  to  the  idea  of 
 "the  glory  of  God,"  before  which  these  archangels 
 appear  as  priests  in  the  holiest  place  (viii.  15,  xii. 
 15):  and  in  one  passage  "the  angel  of  God"  (v. 
 10,  21)  occupies  a  position  closely  resembling  that 
 of  the  Word  in  the  Targums  and  Philo  {De  mut. 
 noiii.  §  13,  &c.).  Elsewhere  blessing  is  rendered 
 to  "all  the  holy  angels"  (xi.  14,  iu\oyriiJL€uoi  &s 
 contrasted  with  ev\oyr]T6s'  comp.  Luke  i.  42), 
 who  are  themselves  united  with  "the  elect "'  in  the 
 dnty  of  praising  God  forever  (viii.  15).  This  men- 
 tion of  "  the  elect "  points  to  a  second  doctrinal 
 feature  of  the  book,  which  it  shares  with  Baruch 
 alone  of  the  apocryphal  writings,  the  firm  belief  in 
 a  glorious  restoration  of  tlie  Jewish  people  (xiv.  6, 
 xiii.  9-18).  But  the  restoration  contemplated  is 
 national,  and  not  the  work  of  a  universal  Saviour. 
 The  Temple  is  described  as  "consecrated  and  built 
 for  all  ages  "  (i.  4),  the  feasts  are  "an  everlasting 
 decree  "  (i.  6),  and  when  it  is  restored  "  the  streets 
 of  .lei'usalem  shall  say  .  .  .  Blessed  be  God  which 
 halh  extolled  it  for  ever"  (xiii.  18).  In  all  there 
 is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  belief  in  a  personal 
 Messiah. 
 
 8.  Comparisons  have  often  been  made  between 
 the  iiook  of  Tobit  and  .Tob,  but  from  the  outline 
 which  has  been  given  it  is  obvious  that  the  resem- 
 blance is  only  superficial,  though  Tob.  ii.  14  was 
 probably  suggested  by  Job  ii.  9,  10,  while  the  dif- 
 ferences are  such  as  to  mark  distinct  periods.  In 
 Tobit  the  sorrows  of  those  who  are  afflicted  are 
 laid  at  once  in  prayer  l)efore  God,  in  perfect  reli- 
 ance on  his  final  judgment,  and  then  inmiediately 
 relieved  by  Divine  interposition.  In  Job  the  real 
 conflict  is  in  the  soul  of  the  sufferer,  and  his  relief 
 comes  at  length  with  humiliation  and  repentance 
 (xiii.  6).  The  one  book  teaches  by  great  thoughts; 
 the  other  by  clear  maxims  translated  into  touching 
 incidents.  The  contrast  of  Tobit  and  Judith  is 
 still  more  instructive.  These  books  present  two 
 pictures  of  Jewish  life  and  feeling,  broadly  dis- 
 tinguished in  all  their  details,  and  yet  mutually 
 illustrative.  The  one  represents  the  exile  prosper- 
 ous and  even  powerful  in  a  strange  land,  exposed 
 to  sudden  dangers,  cherishing  his  national  ties, 
 and  looking  with  unshaken  love  to  the  Holy  City, 
 but  still  mainly  occupied  by  the  common  duties  of 
 social  life;  the  other  portrays  a  time  of  reproach 
 and  peril,  when  national  independence  was  threat- 
 ened, and  a  righteous  cause  seemed  to  justify  un- 
 
 Ambr.  Hexacin.  vi.  4, 17  :  "  Muta;  specie  bestise  satictuf 
 Rtiphael,  angelus  Tobiie  juvenis  ....  ad  relationem 
 gvatiae  erudiebat  affectum  "). 
 
3276 
 
 TOCHEN 
 
 scrupulous  valor.  The  one  gives  the  popular  ideal 
 »f  holiness  of  living,  the  other  of  courage  in  daring. 
 The  one  reflects  the  current  feeling  at  the  close  of 
 the  Persian  rule,  the  other  during  the  struggles  for 
 freedom. 
 
 9.  The  first  complete  edition  of  the  book  was  by 
 K.  D.  ligen  {Die  Gesch.  Toll's  ....  viit  .... 
 dner  EinUitung  vtrselien,  Jen.  1800),  which,  in 
 spite  of  serious  defects  due  to  the  period  at  which 
 it  was  published,  contains  the  most  full  discussion 
 of  the  contents.  The  edition  of  Fritzsche  (Exei/et. 
 Ilandb.  ii.,  Leipzig,  1853)  is  concise  and  scholar- 
 like, but  leaves  some  points  without  illustration. 
 In  England  the  book,  like  the  rest  of  the  Apocry- 
 pha, seems  to  have  follen  into  most  undeserved 
 neglect.  B.  F.  W. 
 
 *  Additional  Lileralure.  —  Among  the  more 
 recent  works  we  may  mention  F.  H.  Reusch,  Das 
 Buch  Tobias  til/ers.  u.  erklarl,  Freib.  im  Br., 
 1857;  H.  Sengelmann,  Das  Buch  Tobit  erkldrl, 
 Hanib.  1857 ;  Hitzig,  Zur  Krit.  d.  apokr.  BUcher 
 des  A.  Test.,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  /'.  loiss. 
 T/ieoL,  1860,  pp.  250-2G1;  Hilgenfeld,  in  liis  Zeit- 
 schrifl;  1862,  pp.  181-198;  Vaihinger,  art.  Tobias, 
 Buch  des,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  xvi.  180  ff. 
 (1862);  Ewald,  Geseh.  d.  Volkes  /sme^  (4^  Ausg. 
 18G4),  iv.  269-274;  Noldeke,  Alltest.  Lit.  (1868), 
 pp.  101-109;  and  the  Jntroductions  to  the  0.  T. 
 by  Keil  (1859),  p.  708  ff.,  De  Wette  (8^  Ausg., 
 bearb.  von  Schrader,  1869),  p.  580  ff,  and  David- 
 son (Lond.  1863),  iii.  366  ff  A. 
 
 TO'CHEN  Clph  [task,  measure]:  Qokko.; 
 Alex.  0OXX"''-  Tliochen).  A  place  mentioned  (1 
 Chr.  iv.  32  only)  amongst  the  towns  of  Simeon. 
 In  the  parallel  list  of  Josh.  (xix.  7)  there  is  noth- 
 ing corresponding  to  Tochen.  The  LXX.,  how- 
 ever, adds  the  name  Thalcha  between  Kemmon 
 and  Ether  in  the  latter  passage;  and  it  is  not 
 impossible  tliat  this  may  be  the  remnant  of  a 
 Tochen  anciently  existing  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
 though  it  has  been  considered  as  an  indication  of 
 Telem.  G. 
 
 TOGAR'MAH  (n^"^nhl:  ©of^-yaMa;  [Alex. 
 @epyafj.a:  in  1  (.'hr.  i.  6,  ©oppafi;  Vat.  in  Ez., 
 &aiypafj.a,  Qepya/xa'-]  T/ioi/orma).  A  son  of 
 Gouier,  and  brother  of  Ashkenaz  and  Riphath 
 (Gen.  X.  3).  It  has  been  already  shown  that  To- 
 garmah,  as  a  geographical  term,  is  connected  with 
 Armenia,"  and  that  the  subsequent  notices  of  the 
 name  (Ez.  xxvii.  14,  xxxviii.  6 )  accord  with  this  view. 
 [Ai«iKNiA.]  It  remains  for  us  to  examine  into 
 the  ethnology  of  the  Armenians  with  a  view  to 
 the  position  assigned  to  them  in  the  Mosaic  table. 
 The  most  decisive  statement  respecting  them  in 
 ancient  literature  is  furnished  by  Herodotus,  who 
 says  that  they  were  Phrygian  colonists,  that  they 
 were  armed  in  tlie  Phrygian  fashion,  and  were  as- 
 sociated with  the  Phrygians  under  the  same  com- 
 mander (Herod,  vii.  73).  The  remark  of  Eudoxus 
 (Steph.  Byz.  s.  v.  'Apfievia)  that  the  Armenians 
 resemble  the  Phrygians  in  many  respects  in  lan- 
 guage (rfj  (pcovrj  TToWa  (ppvyi(^ovai)  tends  in 
 the  same  direction.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  un- 
 derstand the  statement  of  Herodotus  as  implying 
 more  than  a  common  origin  of  the  two  peoples; 
 for,  looking  at  the  general  westward  progress  of  the 
 Japhetic  races,  and  on  the  central  position  which 
 
 a  The  name  itself  may  possibly  have  reference  to 
 Armenia,  for,  according  to  Grimm  (Gesch.  Deutsiii. 
 Spr.  ii.  825),  Togarmah  come."  from  the  Sanskrit  toka, 
 
 TOLA 
 
 Armenia  held  in  regard  to  their  movements,  we 
 should  rather  infer  that  Phrygia  was  colonized  from 
 Armenia,  than  vice  versa.  The  Phrygians  were 
 indeed  reputed  to  have  had  their  first  settlements 
 in  Europe,  and  thence  to  have  crossed  into  Asia 
 (Herod,  vii.  73),  but  this  must  be  regarded  as  sim- 
 ply a  retrograde  movement  of  a  section  of  the  great 
 Phrygian  race  in  the  direction  of  their  original 
 home.  The  period  of  this  movement  is  fixed  sub- 
 sequently to  the  Trojan  war  (Strab.  xiv.  p.  680), 
 whereas  the  Phrygians  appear  as  an  important 
 race  in  Asia  Minor  at  a  far  earlier  period  (Strab. 
 vii.  p.  321;  Herod,  vii.  8,  11).  There  can  be  little 
 doubt  but  that  they  were  once  the  dominant  race 
 in  the  peninsula,  and  that  they  sprea^l  westward 
 from  the  confines  of  Armenia  to  the  shores  of  the 
 ^gaean.  The  Phr3gian  language  is  undoubtedly 
 to  be  classed  with  the  Indo-European  family.  The 
 resemblance  between  words  in  the  Phrygian  and 
 Greek  tongues  was  noticed  by  the  Greeks  them- 
 selves (Plat.  Cratyl.  p.  410),  and  the  inscriptions 
 still  existing  in  the  former  are  decidedly  Indo- 
 European  (Rawlinson's  Herod,  i.  666).  The  Ar- 
 menian language  presents  many  peculiarities  which 
 distinguish  it  from  other  liranches  of  the  Indo- 
 European  family;  but  these  may  be  accounted  for 
 partly  by  the  physical  character  of  the  country, 
 and  partly  by  the  large  amount  of  foreign  admix- 
 ture that  it  has  experienced.  In  spite  of  this, 
 however,  no  hesitation  is  felt  by  philologists  in 
 placing  Armenian  among  the  Indo-European  lan- 
 guages (Pott,  Etym.  Forsch.  Introd.  p.  32;  Die- 
 fenbacb.  Grig.  Europ.  p.  43).  With  regard  to  the 
 ancient  inscriptions  at;  Wan,  some  doubt  exists; 
 some  of  them,  but  apparently  not  the  most  an- 
 cient, are  thought  to  bear  a  Turanian  character 
 (Layard"s  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  402;  Rawlinson's 
 Herod,  i.  652);  but,  even  were  this  fully  estab- 
 lished, it  fails  to  prove  the  Turanian  character  of 
 the  population,  inasmuch  as  they  may  have  been 
 set  up  by  foreign  conquerors.  The  Armenians 
 themsehes  have  associated  the  name  of  Togarmah 
 with  their  early  history  in  tliat  they  represent  the 
 founder  of  their  race,  Haik,  as  a  son  of  Thorgom 
 (Moses  Choren.  i.  4,  §§  9-11).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 TO'HU  (^nn  [perh.  inclined,  lowly] :  ©o/ce; 
 Alex.  &oov:  Thohu).  An  ancestor  of  Samuel  the 
 prophet,  perhaps  the  same  as  ToAH  (1  Sam.  i.  1; 
 comp.  1  Chr.  vi.  34). 
 
 TO'i  C^l^n  [errm-]:  Qoov;  [Vat.  once  ©ouou;] 
 Alex,  ©aei:  Tlioll).  King  of  Hamath  on  the 
 Orontes,  wlio,  after  the  defeat  of  his  powerful 
 enemy  the  Syrian  king  Hadadezer  by  the  army  of 
 David,  sent  his  son  Joram,  or  Hadoram,  to  con- 
 gratulate the  victor  and  do  him  homage  with 
 presents  of  gold  and  silver  and  brass  (2  Sam.  viii. 
 9,  10).  "  For  Hadadezer  had  wars  with  Toi,"  and 
 Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  199)  conjectures  that  he  may 
 have  even  reduced  him  to  a  state  of  vassalage. 
 There  was  probal/ly  some  policy  in  the  conduct  of 
 Toi,  and  his  olject  may  have  been,  as  Josephus 
 says  it  was  {Ant.  vii.  5,  §  4),  to  buy  off  the  con- 
 queror with  the  "  vessels  of  ancient  workmanship  " 
 {aKevT}  T^s  apxciias  KaracTKevris)  which  he  pre- 
 sented. 
 
 TO'LA  (Vih^Pi  [aivorm]'.  eu\d;  [Vat.  ©w- 
 
 "  tribe,''  anil  Arnm  =  Armenia,  which  he  further  con- 
 nects with  Ilermino  the  son  of  Mannus. 
 
TOLAD 
 
 KaeK,  @ai\e,  QccKasi:]  T/i'da).  1.  The  first- 
 born of  Issachar,  and  ancestor  of  the  Tolaites 
 (Gen.  xlvi.  13;  Num.  xxvi.  23;  1  Chr.  vii.  1,  2), 
 who  in  the  time  of  David  numbered  22,600  men 
 of  valor. 
 
 2.  Judge  of  Israel  after  Abimelech  (Judg.  x.  1, 
 2).  He  is  described  as  "the  son  of  Puah,  the  son 
 of  Dodo,  a  man  of  Issachar."  In  the  LXX.  and 
 Vulg.  he  is  made  the  son  of  Abimelech's  uncle, 
 
 Dodo  ("nT^)  being  considered  an  appellative. 
 But  Gideon,  Abimelech's  father,  was  a  Manassite. 
 Tola  judged  Israel  for  twenty-three  years  at  Sha- 
 mir in  Mount  Ephraim,  where  he  died  and  was 
 buried. 
 
 TO'LAD  CTy"1i^  [blrlh,  generation']  :  [Vat.] 
 ©ouAaeju;  [Rom. J  Alex.  ©oiAaS:  Tliolwl).  One 
 of  the  towns  of  Simeon  (1  Chr.  iv.  29),  which  was 
 in  the  possession  of  the  tribe  up  to  David's  reign, 
 probably  to  the  time  of  the  census  taken  by  Joal). 
 In  the  lists  of  Joshua  the  name  is  given  in  the 
 fuller  form  of  El-tolai>.  G. 
 
 TO'LAITES,  THE  ("•l^Vinn  [from  Tola]  : 
 6  @w\di  [Vat.  -ei] :  Tlnitaike).  The  descendants 
 of  Tola  the  son  of  Issachar  (Num.  xxvi.  23). 
 
 TOL'BANES  (ToA/Sarrjs  :  Tolbnnes).  Te- 
 LKSi,  one  of  the  porters  in  the  days  of  Ezra  (1 
 Esdr.  ix.  25). 
 
 *  TOLL.     [Taxes;  Tribute.] 
 
 TOMB.  Althougli  the  sepulchral  arrange- 
 ments of  the  Jews  have  necessarily  many  points  of 
 contact  with  those  of  the  surrounding  nations,  they 
 are  still  on  the  whole  —  like  everything  else  that 
 peojile  did  —  so  essentially  diffweiit,  that  it  is  most 
 unsafe  to  attempt  to  elucidate  them  by  appealing 
 to  the  practice  of  other  races. 
 
 It  has  been  hitherto  too  much  the  fashion  to 
 look  to  Egypt  for  the  prototype  of  every  form  of 
 Jewish  art;  but  if  there  is  one  thing  in  tlie  Old 
 Testament  more  clear  than  another,  it  is  the  abso- 
 lute antagonism  between  the  t«o  peoples,  and  the 
 abhorrence  of  everything  Egyptian  that  prevailed 
 from  first  to  last  among  the  Jewish  people.  Erom 
 the  burial  of  Sarah  in  the  cave  of  Machpelah  (Gen. 
 xxiii.  19)  to  the  funeral  rites  prepared  for  Dorcas 
 (Acts  ix.  37),  there  is  no  mention  of  any  sarcoph- 
 agus, or  even  coffin,  in  any  Jewish  liurial.  No 
 pyramid  was  raised  —  no  separate  hypogeum  of  any 
 individual  king,  and  what  is  most  to  be  regretted 
 by  modern  investigators,  no  inscription  or  painting 
 which  either  recorded  the  name  of  the  deceased, 
 or  symbolized  the  religious  feeling  of  the  Jews 
 towards  the  dead.  It  is  true  of  course  that  Jacob, 
 dying  in  Egypt,  was  embalmed  (Gen.  1.  2),  but  it 
 was  only  in  order  that  he  might  be  brought  to 
 be  entombed  in  the  cave  at  Hebron,  and  Joseph, 
 as  a  naturalized  Egyptian  and  a  ruler  in  the  land, 
 was  embalmed;  and  it  is  also  mentioned  as  some- 
 thing exceptional  that  he  was  put  into  a  coffin,  and 
 was  80  brought  l)y  the  Israelites  out  of  the  land, 
 and  laid  with  his  forefathers.  But  these,  like  the 
 burning  of  the  body  of  Saul  [see  Burial],  were 
 clearly  exceptional  cases. 
 
 Still  less  were  the  rites  of  the  Jews  like  those  of 
 the  Pelasgi  or  Etruscans.  With  that  people  the 
 graves  of  the  dead  were,  or  were  intended  to  be,  in 
 every  respect  similar  to  the  homes  of  the  living. 
 The  lucumo  lay  in  his  robes,  the  warrior  in  his 
 armor,  on  the  bed  on  which  he  had  reposed  in  life, 
 surrounded  by  the  furniture,  the  vessels,  and  the 
 
 TOMB  3277 
 
 ornaments  which  had  adorned  his  dwelling  when 
 alive,  as  if  he  were  to  live  again  in  a  new  world, 
 with  the  same  wants  and  feelings  as  before.  Be- 
 sides this,  no  tall  stel(?,  and  no  sepulchral  mound, 
 has  yet  been  found  in  the  hills  or  plains  of  Judsea, 
 nor  have  we  any  hint  either  in  the  Bible  or  Jose- 
 phus  of  any  such  having  existed  which  could  be 
 traced  to  a  strictly  Jewish  origin. 
 
 In  very  distinct  contrast  to  all  this,  the  sepul- 
 chral rites  of  the  Jews  were  marked  with  the  same 
 simplicity  that  characterized  all  tlieir  religious  ob- 
 servances. The  body  was  washed  and  anointed" 
 (Mark  xiv.  8,  xvi.  1;  John  xix.  39,  &e. ),  wrapped 
 in  a  clean  linen  cloth,  and  borne  without  any 
 fmieral  pomp  to  the  grave,  where  it  was  laid  with- 
 out any  ceremonial  or  form  of  prayer.  In  addition 
 to  this,  with  kings  and  great  persons,  there  seems 
 to  have  been  a  "great  burning"  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14, 
 xxi.  19;  Jer.  xxxiv.  5):  all  these  being  me.asures 
 more  suggested  by  sanitary  exigencies  than  by  any 
 hankering  after  ceremonial  pomp. 
 
 This  simplicity  of  rite  led  to  what  may  be 
 called  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Jewish 
 sepulchres  —  the  deep  hiculus  —  which,  so  far  as  is 
 now  known,  is  universal  in  all  purely  Jewish  rock- 
 cut  tombs,  but  hardly  known  elsewhere.  Its  form 
 will  be  luiderstood  by  referring  to  the  annexed  dia- 
 gram, representing  the  forms  of  Jewish  sepulture. 
 
 No   1  — Diagram  of  Jewish  Sepulchre. 
 
 In  the  apartment  marked  A,  there  are  twelve 
 such  loculi,  about  2  feet  in  width  by  3  feet  high. 
 On  the  ground-floor  these  generally  open  on  the 
 level  of  the  floor ;  when  in  the  upper  story,  as  at 
 C,  on  a  ledge  or  platform,  on  which  the  body 
 might  be  laid  to  be  anointed,  and  on  which  the 
 stones  might  rest  which  closed  the  outer  end  of 
 each  loculus. 
 
 The  shallow  loculus  is  shown  in  chamber  B,  but 
 was  apparently  only  used  when  sarcophagi  were 
 employed,  and  therefore,  so  far  as  we  know,  only 
 during  the  Grajco-Roman  period,  when  foreign  cus- 
 toms came  to  be  adopted.  The  shallow  loculus 
 would  have  been  singularly  inappropriate  and  in- 
 convenient, where  an  unembalmed  Ijody  was  laid 
 out  to  decay  —  as  there  would  evidently  be  no 
 means  of  shutting  it  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
 catacomb.  The  deep  loculus  on  the  other  hand 
 was  as  strictly  conformable  with  Jewish  customs, 
 and  could  easily  be  closed  by  a  stone  fitted  to  the 
 end  and  luted  into  the  groove  which  usually  exists 
 there. 
 
 This  fact  is  especially  interesting  as  it  affords  a 
 key  to  much  that  is  otherwise  hard  to  be  under- 
 stood in  certain  passages  in  the  New  Testanrent. 
 Thus  in  John  xi.  39,  Jesus  says,  "  Take  away  the 
 
5278 
 
 TOMB 
 
 »tone,"  and  (ver.  41)  "they  took  away  the  stone" 
 without,  difficulty,  apparently;  which  could  hardly 
 have  been  the  case  liad  it  been  such  a  rock  as 
 would  be  required  to  close  the  entrance  of  a  cave. 
 And  ch.  XX.  1,  the  same  expression  is  used,  "  the 
 stone  is  taken  away;"  and  though  the  Greek  word 
 in  the  other  three  Evangelists  certainly  injplies  that 
 it  was  rolkd  away,  this  would  equally  apply  to  tiie 
 stone  at  the  nioutii  of  the  loeulus,  into  which  the 
 Maries  must  have  tiien  stooped  down  to  look  in. 
 In  fact  the  whole  narrative  is  infinitely  more  clear 
 '  and  intelligilile  if  we  assume  that  it  was  a  stone 
 closing  the  end  of  a  rock-cut  grave,  than  if  we  sup- 
 pose it  to  have  been  a  stone  closing  the  entrance 
 or  door  of  a  hypogeuni.  In  the  latter  case  the 
 stone  to  close  a  do(jr  —  say  C  feet  by  3  feet,  could 
 hardly  have  weighed  less  than  3  or  4  tons,  and 
 could  not  have  been  moved  without  machinery. 
 
 There  is  one  catacomb  —  that  known  as  the 
 "Tombs  of  the  Kings" — which  is  closed  by  a 
 stone  rolling  across  its  entrance;  btit  it  is  the  only 
 one,  and  the  iunnense  amount  of  contrivance  and 
 fitting  which  it  has  required  is  sufficient  proof  that 
 such  an  arrangement  was  not  applied  to  any  other 
 of  the  numerous  rock-tombs  around  .Jerusalem,  nor 
 could  the  traces  of  it  have  been  obliterated  had  it 
 anywhere  existed.  From  the  nature  of  the  open- 
 ings wliere  they  are  natural  caverns,  and  the  orna- 
 mental form  of  their  doorways  where  they  are  ar- 
 chitecturally a<lorned,  it  is  evideiit,  except  in  this 
 one  instance,  that  they  could  not  have  been  closed 
 by  stones  rolled  across  their  entrances ;  and  conse- 
 quently it  seems  only  to  be  to  the  closing  of  the 
 loculi  that  these  expressions  can  refer.  But  until 
 a  more  careful  and  more  scientific  exploration  of 
 these  tomlis  is  made  than  has  hitherto  been  given 
 to  the  public,  it  is  difficult  to  feel  quite  certain  on 
 this  point. 
 
 Although,  therefore,  the  Jews  were  singularly  free 
 from  the  pomps  and  vanities  of  funereal  magnifi- 
 cence, they  were  at  all  stages  of  their  independent 
 existence  an  eminently  burying  people. 
 
 From  the  time  of  their  entrance  into  the  Holy 
 Land  till  their  expulsion  by  the  Romans,  they  seem 
 to  have  attached  the  greatest  importance  to  the 
 l)ossession  of  an  undisturbed  resting-place  for  the 
 bodies  of  their  dead,  and  in  all  ages  seem  to  have 
 shown  the  greatest  respect,  if  not  veneration,  for 
 the  sepulchres  of  their  ancestors.  Few,  however, 
 could  enjoy  the  luxury  of  a  rock-cut  tomlj.  Taking 
 all  that  are  known,  and  all  that  are  likely  to  be 
 discovered,  there  are  not  probably  500,  certainly  not 
 1000,  rock-cut  loculi  in  or  about  Jerusalem,  and 
 as  that  city  must  in  the  days  of  its  prosperity  have 
 possessed  a  population  of  from  30,000  to  40,000 
 souls,  it  is  evident  that  tlie  bulk  of  the  people 
 must  then,  as  now,  have  been  content  with  graves 
 dug  in  the  earth ;  but  situated  as  near  the  Holy 
 Places  as  their  means  would  allow  their  obtaining 
 a  place.  The  bodies  of  the  kings  were  buried  close 
 to  the  Temple  walls  (Ez.  xliii.  7-'J),  and  however 
 little  they  may  have  done  in  their  life,  the  place  of 
 their  burial  is  carefully  recorded  in  the  Chronicles 
 of  the  Kings,  and  the  cause  why  tliat  place  was 
 chosen  is  generally  pointed  out,  as  if  that  record 
 was  not  only  the  most  important  event,  but  the 
 final  judgment  on  tiie  life  of  the  king. 
 
 Tombs  of  the  Patriarchs.  —  Turning  from  these 
 considerations  to  the  more  strictly  historical  part  of 
 the  subject,  we  find  that  one  of  the  most  striking 
 events  in  the  life  of  Abraham  is  the  purciiase  of 
 the  field  of  Ephron  the  llittit«  at  Hebron,  in  which 
 
 TOMB 
 
 was  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  in  order  that  he  might 
 therein  bury  Sarah  his  wife,  and  that  it  might  be 
 a  sepulchre  for  himself  and  his  children.  His  re- 
 fusing to  accept  the  privilege  of  burying  there  as 
 a  gift  when  offered  to  him,  shows  the  importance 
 Abraham  attached  to  the  transaction,  and  his  insist- 
 ing on  purchasing  and  paying  for  it  (Gen.  xxiii. 
 20),  in  order  that  it  might  be  "made  sure  unto 
 him  for  the  possession  of  a  burying-place."  There 
 he  and  his  immediate  descendants  were  laid  3,700 
 years  ago,  and  there  they  are  believed  to  rest  now; 
 but  no  one  in  modern  times  has  seen  their  re- 
 mains, or  been  allowed  to  enter  into  the  cave  where 
 they  rest. 
 
 A  few  jears  ago,  Signor  Pierotti  says,  he  was 
 allowed,  in  company  with  the  Pasha  of  Jerusalem, 
 to  descend  the  steps  to  the  iron  grating  that  closes 
 the  entrance,  and  to  look  into  the  cave.  What  he 
 seems  to  have  seen  was  —  that  it  was  a  natural 
 cavern,  untouched  by  tiie  chisel  and  unaltered  Ify 
 art.  in  any  way.  Those  who  accompanied  the 
 Prince  of  Wales  in  his  visit  to  the  Mosque  were 
 not  permitted  to  see  even  this  entrance.  All  tliey 
 saw  was  the  round  hole  in  the  floor  of  the  Mosque 
 which  admits  light  and  air  to  the  cave  below.  The 
 same  round  opening  exists  at  Nvby  Sainwil  in  the 
 roof  of  the  reputed  sepulchre  of  the  Prophet  Sam- 
 uel, and  at  Jerusalem  there  is  a  similar  opening 
 into  the  tomb  under  the  Dome  of  the  rock.  In 
 the  former  it  is  used  by  the  pious  votai-ies  to  drop 
 petitions  and  prayers  into  the  tombs  of  patriarchs 
 and  prophets.  The  latter  having  lost  the  tradi- 
 tion of  its  having  been  a  burying-place,  the  open- 
 ing only  now  serves  to  admit  light  into  the  cave 
 below. 
 
 Unfortunately  none  of  those  who  have  visited 
 Hebron  have  had  sufficient  architectural  knowledge 
 to  be  able  to  say  when  the  church  or  mosque  which 
 now  stands  al)Ove  the  cave  was  erected ;  but  there 
 seems  no  great  reason  for  doubting  that  it  is  a 
 Byzantine  church  erected  there  between  the  age  of 
 ConsUintine  and  that  of  Justinian.  From  such  in- 
 dications as  can  be  gathered,  it  seems  of  the  later 
 period.  On  its  floor  are  sarcophagi  purporting  to 
 be  those  of  the  patriarchs;  but,  as  is  usual  in  east- 
 ern tombs,  they  are  only  cenotaphs  representing 
 those  that  stand  below,  and  which  are  esteemed  too 
 sacred  for  the  vulgar  to  approach. 
 
 Though  it  is  much  more  easy  of  access,  it  is 
 almost  as  difficult  to  ascertain  the  age  of  the  wall 
 that  incloses  the  sacred  precincts  of  these  tombs. 
 From  the  account  of  Josephus  (B.  J.  iv.  7),  it  does 
 not  seem  to  have  existed  in  his  day,  or  he  surely 
 would  have  mentioned  it;  and  such  a  citadel  could 
 hardly  fail  to  have  been  of  warlike  importance  in 
 those  troublous  times.  Besides  this,  we  do  not 
 know  of  any  such  inclosure  encircling  any  tombs 
 or  sacred  place  in  Jewish  times,  nor  can  we  con- 
 ceive any  motive  for  so  secluding  these  graves. 
 
 Theie  are  not  any  architectural  mouldings  about 
 this  wall  which  would  enable  an  archieologist  to 
 approximate  its  date;  and  if  the  beveling  is  as- 
 sumed to  be  a  Jewish  arrangement  (which  is  very 
 far  from  being  exclusively  the  case),  on  the  other 
 hand  it  may  be  contended  that  no  buttressed  wall 
 of  Jewish  masonry  exists  anywhere.  There  is  in 
 fact  nothing  known  with  sufficient  exactness  to 
 decide  the  question,  but  the  probabilities  certainly 
 tend  towards  a  Christian  or  Saracenic  origin  for  the 
 whole  structure  both  internally  and  externally. 
 
 Aaron  died  on  the  summit  of  Mount  Hor  (Num. 
 XX.  28,  xxxiii.  39),  and  we  are  led  to  infer  he  waa 
 
I 
 
 TOMB 
 
 buried  there,  thouf^h  it  is  not  so  stated;  and  we 
 liave  no  details  of  his  tomb  which  would  lead  us  to 
 suppose  that  anything  existed  there  earlier  than  the 
 Mohannnedaii  Kubr  that  now  crowns  the  hill  over- 
 looking Petra,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time  extremely 
 doubtful  whether  thiit  is  the  Mount  Hor  where  the 
 high-priest  died. 
 
 Moses  died  in  the  plains  of  Moab  (Dent,  xxxiv. 
 6),  and  was  buried  there,  "but  no  man  knoweth  his 
 sepulchre  to  this  day,''  which  is  a  singular  utter- 
 ance, as  being  the  only  instance  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment of  a  sepulchre  being  concealed,  or  of  one  being 
 admitted  to  be  unkTiown. 
 
 Joshua  was  buried  in  his  own  inheritance  in 
 Timnath-Serah  (Josh.  xxiv.  30),  and  Sanmel  in  his 
 own  house  at  Kamah  (1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  an  expression 
 which  we  may  probably  interpret  as  meaning  in 
 the  garden  attached  to  his  liouse,  as  it  is  scarcely 
 probable  it  would  be  the  dwellir)g  itself.  We  know, 
 however,  so  little  of  the  feelings  of  tlie  Jews  of  that 
 age  on  the  subject  that  it  is  by  no  means  improb- 
 able but  that  it  may  have  been  in  a  chaml)er  or 
 loculus  attached  to  the  dwelling,  and  which,  if 
 closed  by  a  stone  carefully  cemented  into  its  place, 
 would  have  prevented  any  aimoyance  from  the  cir- 
 cumstance. Joab  (1  K.  ii.  34)  was  also  buried  "  in 
 his  own  house  in  the  wilderness."  In  fact  it  appears 
 that  from  the  time  when  Abraham  established  the 
 burying-place  of  bis  family  at  Hebron  till  the  time 
 when  David  fixed  that  of  his  family  in  tiie  city 
 which  bore  his  name,  the  Jewish  rulers  liad  no  fixed 
 or  favorite  place  of  sepulture.  Each  was  buried  on 
 his  own  property,  or  where  he  died,  without  mucli 
 caring  either  for  the  sanctity  or  convenience  of  tlie 
 place  chosen. 
 
 Tomb  of  the  Kings.  —  Of  the  twenty-two  kings 
 of  Judah  who  reigned  at  Jerusalem  from  1048  to 
 590  B.  c,  eleven,  or  exactly  one  half,  were  buried 
 in  one  hypogeum  in  the  "  city  of  David."  The 
 names  of  the  kings  so  lying  together  were  David, 
 Solomon,  Kehoboam,  Abijah,  Asa,  Jeshoshapluit, 
 Ahaziah,  Amaziah,  Jotham,  Hezekiah,  and  Josiah, 
 together  with  the  good  priest  Jehoiada.  Of  all 
 these  it  is  merely  said  that  they  were  buried  in 
 "the  sepulchres  of  their  fathers  "  or  "of  the  kings" 
 in  tlie  city  of  David,  except  of  two — Asa  and  Hez- 
 ekiah. Of  the  first  it  is  said  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14), 
 "  they  buried  him  in  his  own  sepulchres  which  he 
 had  made  for  himself  in  the  city  of  David,  and  laid 
 him  in  the  bed  [loculus  V],  which  was  filled  with 
 sweet  odors  and  divers  spices  prepared  by  tlie 
 apothecaries'  art,  and  they  made  a  very  great  burn- 
 ing for  him."  It  is  not  quite  clear,  however,  from 
 this,  whether  this  applies  to  a  new  chamber  at- 
 taclied  to  the  older  sepulchre,  or  to  one  entirely 
 distinct,  though  in  the  same  neighborhood.  Of 
 Hezekiah  it  is  said  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  33),  they  buried 
 him  in  "  the  chiefest  [or  highest]  of  the  sepulchres 
 of  the  sons  of  David,"  as  if  there  were  several  apart- 
 ments in  the  hypogeum,  though  it  may  merely  be 
 that  they  excavated  for  him  a  chamber  above  the 
 others,  as  we  find  frequently  done  in  Jewish  sep- 
 ulchres. 
 
 Two  more  of  these  kings  (Jehoram  and  Joash) 
 were  buried  also  in  the  city  of  David,  "but  not  in 
 the  sepulchres  of  the  kings."  The  first  because  of 
 the  sore  diseases  of  which  he  died  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20); 
 the  second  apparently  in  consequence  of  his  disas- 
 trous end  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  25);  and  one  king,  Uzziah 
 (2  Chr.  xxvi.  23),  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in 
 the  "  field  of  the  burial  of  the  kings,"  because  he 
 was  a  leper.     All  this  evinces  the  extreme  care  the 
 
 TOMB 
 
 3279 
 
 Jews  took  in  the  selection  of  the  bmjing-places  of 
 their  kings,  and  the  importance  they  attached  to 
 the  record.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that 
 the  highest  honor  which  cotdd  lie  bestowed  on  the 
 good  priest  Jehoiada  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  ](j)  was  that  - 
 "  they  buried  him  in  the  city  of  David  among  the 
 kings,  because  he  had  done  good  in  Israel,  both  to- 
 ward God  and  toward  his  House." 
 
 The  p.assage  in  Neh.  iii.  16,  and  in  Ez.  xliii.  7, 
 9,  together  with  the  reiterated  assertion  of  the 
 books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  that  these  sepul- 
 chres were  situated  in  the  city  of  David,  leave  no 
 doubt  but  that  they  were  on  Zion  [see  .Ikhusa- 
 li£m],  or  the  I'".astern  Hill,  and  iu  the  immediate 
 proximity  of  the  Temple.  They  were  in  fact  cer- 
 tainly within  that  inclosure  now  known  as  the  "  Ha- 
 ram.\rea";  but  if  it  is  asked  on  what  exact  spot, 
 we  must  pause  for  further  information  before  a  re- 
 ply can  be  given." 
 
 This  area  has  been  so  altered  by  Roman,  Chris- 
 tian, and  Moslem,  dm-ing  the  last  eighteen  centu- 
 ries, that,  till  we  can  explore  Ireely  below  the  sur- 
 face, much  that  is  interesting  must  be  hidden  from 
 us.  It  is  quite  clear,  however,  that  the  spot  was 
 well  known  during  the  whole  of  tlie  Jewish  period, 
 inasmuch  as  the  sepulchres  were  again  and  again 
 opened  as  each  king  died;  and  from  the  tradition 
 that  Hyrcanus  and  Herod  opened  these  sepulchres 
 {Aid.  xiii.  8,  §  4;  xvi.  7,  §  I).  The  accounts  of 
 these  last  openings  are,  it  must  be  confessed,  some- 
 what apocrxphal,  resting  only  on  the  authority  of 
 .losephus;  but  they  prove  at  least  that  he  consid- 
 ered there  could  be  no  difticiilty  in  finding  the 
 place.  It  is  ^"ery  improbable,  however,  from  what 
 we  know  of  the  extreme  simplicity  of  the  Jewish 
 sepulchral  rites,  that  any  large  sum  should  have 
 been  buried  in  David's  tomli,  and  ha\e  escaped  not 
 only  the  Persian  invaders,  but  their  own  necessitous 
 rulers  in  the  time  of  their  extremest  need.  It  is 
 much  more  probable  that  Hyrcanus  borrowed  the 
 treasure  of  the  Temple,  and  invented  this  excuse; 
 whereas  the  story  of  Herod's  descent  is  so  like  that 
 told  more  than  1,000  years  afterward,  by  Benjamin 
 of  Tudela,  that  both  may  be  classed  in  the  same 
 category.  It  was  a  secret  transaction,  if  it  took 
 place,  regarding  which  rumor  might  fashion  what 
 wondrous  tales  it  pleased,  and  no  one  could  contra- 
 dict them ;  but  his  having  built  a  marble  stele 
 (Anl.  xvi.  7,  §  1)  in  front  of  the  tomb  may  have 
 been  a  fact  within  the  cognizance  of  Josephus,  and 
 would  at  all  events  serve  to  indicate  that  the  sepul- 
 chre was  rock-cut,  and  its  site  well  known. 
 
 So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  this  and  other  indi- 
 cations, it  seems  probable  there  was  originally  a  nat- 
 ural cavern  in  the  rock  in  this  localit)-,  which  may 
 afterward  have  been  improved  by  art,  and  in  the 
 sides  of  which  loculi  were  sunk,  in  whicli  the  bodies 
 of  the  eleven  kings  and  of  the  good  high-priest  were 
 laid,  without  sarcophagi  or  coffin,  but  "  wound  in 
 linen  clothes  with  the  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the 
 Jews  is  to  bury  "  (John  xix.  40). 
 
 Besides  the  kings  above  enumerated,  Manasseh 
 was,  according  to  the  book  of  Chronicles  (2  Chr. 
 xxxiii.  20)  buried  in  his  own  house,  which  the  book 
 of  Kings  (2  K.  xxi.  18)  explains  as  the  "garden  of 
 his  own  house,  the  garden  of  Uzza,"  where  his  son 
 Anion  was  buried,  also,  it  is  said,  in  liis  own  sepul- 
 chre (ver.  2G),  but  we  have  nothing  that  would  en- 
 able us  to  indicate  where  this  was;  and  Ahaz,  the 
 
 a  *  See  note  at  the  end  of  this  article,  Amor.  ed. 
 
 S.  W. 
 
8280  TOMB 
 
 wicked  king,  was,  according  to  the  book  of  Chron- 
 icles (2  Chr.  xxviii.  27)  "  buried  in  the  city,  even 
 in  Jerusalem,  and  they  brought  him  not  into  the 
 sepulchres  of  the  kings  of  Israel."  The  fact  of 
 these  three  last  kings  having  been  idolaters,  though 
 one  reformed,  and  their  having  all  three  been  buried 
 apparently  in  the  city,  proves  what  importance  the 
 Jews  attached  to  tlie  locality  of  the  sepulchre,  but 
 also  tends  to  show  that  burial  within  the  city,  or 
 the  inclosure  of  a  dwelling,  was  not  so  repulsi\e  to 
 their  feelings  as  is  generally  supposed.  It  is  just 
 possible  that  tiie  rock-cut  sepulchre  under  the  west- 
 ern wall  of  the  present  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
 chre may  be  the  remains  of  such  a  cemetery  as  that 
 in  which  the  wicked  kings  were  buried. 
 
 TOMB 
 
 This,  with  many  other  cognate  questions,  must 
 be  relegated  for  further  information ;  for  up  to  the 
 present  time  we  have  not  been  able  to  identify  one 
 single  sepulchral  excavation  about  Jerusalem  which 
 can  be  said  with  certainty  to  belong  to  a  period 
 anterior  to  that  of  the  Maccabees,  or,  more  cor- 
 rectly, to  have  been  used  for  burial  before  the  time 
 of  the  Romans. 
 
 The  only  important  hypogeum  which  is  wholly 
 .Tewish  in  its  arrangements,  and  may  consequently 
 belong  to  an  earlier  or  to  any  epoch,  is  that  known 
 as  the  Tombs  of  the  Prophets  in  the  western  flank 
 of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It  has  every  appearance  of 
 having  originally  been  a  natural  cavern  improved  liy 
 art,  and  with  an  external  gallerv  some  140  feet  in 
 
 W////M/0%ww////////////f''<VM''/''/W////^^^^^  ':  ■  y/'A'/m/////'/'  './/'f  y7////////&yM;}/j/wMy'/M. 
 
 No.  2.  —  Plan  of  the  "  Tombs  of  the  Prophets."     From  De  Saulcy. 
 
 extent,  into  which  twenty-seven  deep  or  Jewish  loculi 
 open.  Other  chambers  and  loculi  have  been  com- 
 menced in  other  parts,  and  in  the  passages  there  are 
 spaces  where  many  other  graves  could  have  been 
 located,  all  which  would  tend  to  show  that  it  had 
 been  disused  before  completed,  and  consequently  was 
 very  modern;  but  be  this  as  it  may,  it  has  no 
 architectural  moulditjgs  —  no  sarcophagi  or  shallow 
 locuh,  nothing  to  indicate  a  foreign  origin,  and 
 may  therefore  be  considered,  if  not  an  early,  at 
 least  as  the  most  essentially  .Jewish  of  the  sepul- 
 chral excavations  in  this  locality — every  other  im- 
 portant sepulchral  excavation  being  adorned  with 
 architectural  features  and  details  betraying  most 
 unmistakably  their  Greek  or  Roman  origin,  and 
 fixing  their  date  consequently  as  subsequent  to  that 
 of  the  Maccabees;  or  in  other  words,  like  every 
 other  detail  of  pre-Christian  architecture  in  Jeru- 
 salem, they  belong  to  the  140  years  that  elapsed 
 from  the  ad\'ent  of  Pompey  till  the  destruction  of 
 the  city  by  Titus- 
 
 GrcBCO-Roman  Tombs.  — Besides  the  tombs  above 
 enumerated,  there   are   around  Jerusalem,  in    the 
 
 valleys  of  Hinnom  and  Jehoshaphat,  and  on  the 
 plateau  to  the  north,  a  number  of  remarkable  rock- 
 cut  sepulchres,  with  more  or  less  architectural  deco- 
 ration, sufficient  to  enable  us  to  ascertain  that  they 
 are  all  of  nearly  the  same  age,  and  to  assert  with 
 very  tolerable  confidence  that  the  epoch  to  which 
 they  belong  nmst  be  between  the  introduction  of 
 Roman  influence  and  the  destruction  of  the  city  by 
 Titus.  The  proof  of  this  would  be  easy  if  it  were 
 not  that,  like  everything  Jewish,  there  is  a  remark- 
 able absence  of  inscriptions  which  can  be  assumed 
 to  be  integral.  The  excavations  in  the  Valley  of 
 Hinnom  with  Greek  inscriptions  are  comparatively 
 modern,  the  inscriptions  being  all  of  Christian  im- 
 port and  of  such  a  nature  as  to  render  it  extremely 
 doubtful  whether  the  chambers  were  sepulchral  at 
 all.  and  not  rather  the  dwellings  of  ascetics,  and 
 originally  intended  to  be  used  for  this  purpose. 
 These,  however,  are  neither  the  most  important  nor 
 the  most  architectural  —  indeed  none  of  those  in  that 
 valley  are  so  remarkable  as  those  in  the  other  locali- 
 ties just  enumerated.  The  most  important  of  those 
 in  the  Valley  of   Hinnom  is   that    known  as  (he 
 
TOMB 
 
 "  Retreat-place  of  the  Apostles."  It  is  an  unfinished 
 ••xcavat'on  of  extremely  late  date,  and  many  of  the 
 others  look  much  more  like  the  dwellings  for  the 
 living  than  the  resting-places  of  the  dead. 
 
 In  the  village  of  Siloam  there  is  a  monolithic  cell 
 of  singularly  Egyptian  aspect,  which  l)e  Saulcy 
 {Voyvje  niiiiurde  la  Mer  Morte,  ii.  300)  assumes 
 to  be  a  chapel  of  Solomon's  Egyiitian  wife.  It  is 
 probably  of  very  much  more  modern  date,  and  is 
 more  Assyrian  tlian  I'-gyptian  in  character;  but  as 
 he  is  prolialily  quite  correct  in  stating  that  it  is  not 
 sepulchral,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention  it  here 
 in  order  that  it  may  not  be  confounded  with  those 
 that  are  so.  It  is  the  more  worthy  of  remark  as 
 one  of  the  great  difficulties  of  the  subject  arises 
 from  travellers  too  readily  assuming  that  every 
 cutting  ill  the  rock  must  be  sepulchral.  It  may 
 he  so  in  Egypt,  but  it  certainly  was  not  so  at 
 C'yrene  or  Petra    where  many  of   the  excavations 
 
 No.  3.  —  So-called  "  Tomb  of  Zechariah." 
 
 were  either  temples  or  monastic  establishments,  and 
 it  certainly  was  not  universally  the  case  at  .leru- 
 salem,  though  our  information  is  frequently  too 
 scanty  to  enable  us  always  to  discriminate  exactly 
 to  which  class  the  cutting  in  the  rock  may  belong. 
 
 The  principal  remaining  architectural  sepulchres 
 niay  be  divided  into  three  groups. 
 
 First,  those  existing  in  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat, 
 and  known  popularly  as  the  Tombs  of  Zechariah, 
 of  St.  .James,  and  of  Absalom. 
 
 Second,  those  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the  Judges, 
 and  the  so-called  Jewish  tomb  about  a  mile  north 
 if  the  city. 
 
 Third,  that  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the  Kings, 
 *,bout  half  a  mile  north  of  the  Damascus  Gate. 
 
 Of  the  three  first-named  tombs  the  most  southern 
 is  known  as  that  of  Zechariah,  a  popular  name 
 which  there  is  not  even  a  shadow  o^  tradition 
 to  justify.  It  consists  of  a  square  solid  basement, 
 measuring  18  feet  0  inches  each  way,  and  20  feet 
 high  to  the  top  of  the  cornice.  On  each  face  are 
 four  engaged  Ionic  cohnnns  between  antae,  and 
 these  are  surmounted,  not  by  an  Egyptian  cornice, 
 as  is  usually  asserted,   but  by  one  of  purely  As- 
 
 TOMB  3281 
 
 Syrian  type,  such  as  is  found  at  Khorsabad  (wood- 
 cut No.  4).     As  the  Ionic  or  voluted  order  came 
 also  from   Assyria,  this   ex- 
 ample  is    in    fact    a    more 
 pure  specimen  of  the  Ionic 
 order   than    any   found    in 
 Europe,  where  it  was  always 
 used   by  the  Greeks  with   a 
 quasi-Doric    cornice.      Not- 
 withstanding   this,    in    the 
 form    of    the   volutes  —  the 
 egg-and-dart    moulding   be- 
 neath,   and    every   detail  —  No.  4. —  Section  of  Styl- 
 it    is    so    distinctly    Roman     obate  at  Kborsabad. 
 that  it  is  impossible  to  as- 
 sume that  it  belongs  to  an  eirlier  age  than  that  of 
 their  influence. 
 
 Above  the  cornice  is  a  pyramid  rising  at  rather  a 
 sharp  angle,  aTid  hewn  like  all  the  rest  out  of  the 
 solid  rock.  It  may  further  be  remarked  that  only 
 the  outward  flice,  or  that  fronting  Jerusalem,  is 
 completely  finished,  the  other  three  being  only 
 blocked  out  (De  Saulcy.  ii.  303),  a  circumstance 
 that  would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the  works  may 
 ha\e  been  interrupted  by  the  t\ill  of  Jerusalem,  or 
 some  such  catastrophe,  and  this  may  possibly  also 
 iccount  for  there  being  no  sepulchre  on  its  rear,  if 
 such  be  really  the  case. 
 
 To  call  this  building  a  tomb  is  evidently  a  mis- 
 nomer, as  it  is  absolutely  solid  —  hewn  out  of  the 
 living  rock  by  cutting  a  passage  round  it.  It  has 
 no  internal  chambers,  nor  even  the  semblance  of  a 
 doorway.  From  what  is  known  of  the  explorations 
 carried  on  by  M.  Renaii  about  Byblus,  we  should 
 tx|)ect  that  the  tomb,  properly  so  called,  would  be 
 n  excavation  in  the  passage  behind  the  monolith  — 
 ■  lit  none  such  has  been  found,  probably  it  was 
 icver  looked  for  —  and  that  this  monolith  is  the 
 stel6  or  indicator  of  that  fact.  If  it  is  so,  it  is  very 
 singular,  though  very  Jewish,  that  any  one  should 
 take  the  troutile  to  carve  out  such  a  monument 
 without  putting  an  inscription  or  symbol  on  it  to 
 mark  its  destination  or  to  tell  in  whose  honor  it 
 was  erected. 
 
 The  other,  or  so-called  Tomb  of  Absalom,  figured 
 m  vol.  i.  p.  17,  is  somewhat  larger,  the  base  being 
 about  21  feet  square  in  plan,  and  probably  23  or  24: 
 to  the  top  of  the  cornice.  Like  the  other,  it  is  of 
 the  Roman  Ionic  order,  surmounted  by  a  cornice  of 
 Ionic  type;  but  between  the  pillars  and  the  cornice 
 a  Irieze,  unmistakably  of  the  Homan  Doric  order, 
 is  introduced,  so  Roman  as  to  be  in  itself  quite 
 sutficieut  to  fix  its  epoch.  It  is  by  no  means  clear 
 whether  it  h.ad  originally  a  pyramidical  top  like  its 
 neighbor.  The  existence  of  a  square  blocking  above 
 the  cornice  would  lead  us  to  suspect  it  had  not;  at 
 all  events,  either  at  the  time  of  its  excavation  or 
 subsequently,  this  was  removed,  and  the  present 
 very  peculiar  termination  erected,  raising  its  height 
 to  over  60  feet.  At  the  time  this  was  done  a 
 cliamber  was  excavated  in  the  base,  we  must 
 assume  for  sepulchral  purposes,  though  how  a  body 
 could  be  introduced  through  the  narrow  hole  above 
 the  cornice  is  by  no  means  clear,  nor,  if  inserted, 
 liow  disposed  of  in  the  two  very  narrow  loculi  that 
 exist. 
 
 The  great  interest  of  this  excavation  is  that  im- 
 mediately in  rear  of  the  monolith  we  do  find  just 
 such  a  sepulchral  cavern  as  we  should  expect.  It 
 is  called  the  Tomb  of  -lehoshaphat,  with  about  the 
 same  amount  of  discrimination  as  governed  tha 
 nomenclature  of  the  others,  but  is  now  closed  bj 
 
3282  TOMB 
 
 jhe  rubbish  and  stones  thrown  by  the  pious  at  the 
 Tomb  of  the  undutiful  Son,  and  consequently  its 
 internal  arrangements  are  unknown;  but  externally 
 it  is  crowned  by  a  pediment  of  considerable  beauty, 
 and  in  the  same  identical  style  as  that  of  the  Tombs 
 of  the  Judges,  mentioned  further  on  —  showing  that 
 
 No.  5.  —  Angle  of  Tomb  of  Absiilom.    From  De  Saulcy. 
 
 these  two  at  least  are  of  the  same  age,  and  this  one 
 at  least  must  have  been  subsequent  to  the  excava- 
 tion of  the  monolith ;  so  that  we  may  feel  perfectly 
 certain  that  the  two  groups  are  of  one  age,  even  if 
 it  should  not  be  thought  quite  clear  what  that  age 
 may  be. 
 
 so  FT 
 
 No.  6.  —  Plan  of  Tomb  of  St.  James. 
 
 The  third  tomb  of  this  group,  called  that  of  St. 
 Tames,  is  situated  between  the  other  two,  and  is 
 of  a  very  different  character.    It  consists  (see  Plan) 
 
 «  Pierotti.  iu  his  published  Plan  of  Jerusalem,  adds 
 a  sarcophagus  chamber  with  shallow  loculi,  but  as 
 both  Scoles  and  De  Saulcy  omit  thi.s,  it  is  probable  the 
 
 TOMB 
 
 '  of  a  verandah  with  two  Doric  pillars  in  antis,  which 
 u)ay  be  characterized  as  belonging  to  a  very  late 
 (jreek  order  rather  than  a  Itoman  example.  Be- 
 hind this  screen  are  several  apartments,  which  in 
 another  locality  we  might  be  justified  in  calling  a 
 rock-cut  monastery  appropriated  to  sepulchral  pur- 
 poses, but  in  Jerusalem  we  know  .so  little  that  it  is 
 necessary  to  pause  before  applying  any  such  desig- 
 nation. In  the  rear  of  all  is  an  ajjartment,  aj)- 
 parently  unfitiished,  with  three  shallow  loculi  meant 
 for  the  reception  of  sarcophagi,  and  so  indicating  a 
 j)0st-Je\vish  date  for  the  whole  or  at  least  for  that 
 part  of  the  excavation. 
 
 The  hypogeum  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the 
 Judges  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the  cata- 
 combs around  Jerusalem,  containing  about  sixty 
 deep  loculi,  arranged  in  thiee  stories;  the  upper 
 stories  witb  ledges  in  front  to  give  convenient  access, 
 and  to  support  the  stones  that  closed  them ;  the 
 lower  flush  with  the  ground : "  the  whole,  conse- 
 quently, so  essentially  Jewish  that  it  might  be  of 
 any  age  if  it  were  not  for  its  distance  from  the 
 town,  and  its  architectural  character.  The  latter, 
 as  before  stated,  is  identical  with  th.^t  of  the  Tomb 
 of  Jeliosliapliat,  and  has  nothing  .lewish  about  it. 
 It  might  of  course  be  difficult  to  prove  this,  as  we 
 know  so  little  of  what  Jewish  architecture  really  is; 
 but  we  do  know  that  the  pediment  is  more  essen- 
 tially a  Greek  invention  than  any  other  part  of  their 
 architecture,  and  was  introduced  at  least  not  previ- 
 ou.sly  to  the  age  of  the  Cypselidie,  and  this  peculiar 
 form  not  till  long  afterwards,  and  this  particular 
 example  not  till  after  an  age  when  the  debased 
 Roman  of  the  Tomb  of  Absalom  had  become  pos- 
 sible. 
 
 P^ 
 
 .  —  i'a^ade  ol  the  Tombs  of  the  Judges. 
 
 The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  tomb  without  a 
 name,  and  merely  called  "  a  Jewish  Tomb,"  in  this 
 neigliliorhood,  with  beveled  fiieets  over  its  fii^ade, 
 but  with  late  Roman  Doric  details  at  its  angles, 
 sufficient  to  indicate  its  epoch;  but  there  is  nothing 
 else  about  these  tombs  requiring  especial  mention. 
 
 Tombs  of  Herod.  —  The  last  of  the  great  groups 
 enumerated  above  is  that  known  as  the  Tombs  of 
 the  Kings  —  Kehuv  es  -  Siillnn  —  or  the  Royal 
 Caverns,  so  called  because  of  their  magnificence, 
 and  also  because  that  name  is  applied  to  them  by 
 Josephus,  who  in  describing  the  third  wall  men- 
 tions them  (B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2).  He  states  that  "the 
 wall  reached  as  far  as  the  Tower  I'sephinns,  and 
 then  extended  till  it  came  opposite  tlie  Monuments 
 (.fj,vri/j,eiciiv)  of  Helena.  It  then  extended  further  to 
 a  great  length   till    it   passed   by  the  Sepulchral 
 
 It.alian  is  mistaken.  Wood-cut  No.  1  is  taken  fKom  his 
 plan,  but  used  as  a  diagram  rether  than  as  represent- 
 ing the  exact  facts  of  the  case 
 
TOMB 
 
 C'averns  of  the  Kings,"  etc.  We  have  thus  first 
 the  Tower  Psephinus,  the  site  of  which  is  very 
 tolerably  ascertaiiieil  on  the  ridge  above  the  Pool 
 Biiket  MiimiUa  ;  then  the  Monument  of  Helena, 
 and  then  at  some  distance  eastward  these  Royal 
 Caverns. 
 
 They  are  twice  again  mentioned  under  the  title 
 of  'HpciSov  fxvrtixeiuv.  First,  when  Titus,  ap- 
 proachiriij;  from  the  north,  ordered  the  ground  to 
 be  cleared  from  Scopus  —  which  is  tolerably  well 
 known  —  up  to  those  Monuments  of  Herod  {B.  J. 
 V.  3,  §  2);  and  lastly  in  the  description  of  the  cir- 
 cumvalLition  (B.  J.  v.  12,  §  2),  where  they  are 
 mentioned  after  pa.ssing  the  Alonument  of  Ananus 
 and  Pompey's  Camp,  evidently  on  the  ridge  wliere 
 I'sephinus  afterwards  stood,  antl  on  the  north  of 
 the  city. 
 
 These  three  passages  refer  so  evidently  to  one 
 and  the  .«ame  place,  that  no  one  would  probably 
 ever  have  doubted  — especially  when  taken  in  con- 
 junction with  the  architecture  —  but  that  these 
 caverns  were  the  tombs  of  Herod  and  his  family, 
 were  it  not  for  a  curious  conti'adiction  of  himself 
 in  the  works  of  .Josephus,  which  has  led  to  consid- 
 erable confusion.  Herod  died  at  Jericho,  and  the 
 mo-it  probaMe  account  {Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  3)  would  lead 
 us  to  suppose  (it  is  not  so  stated)  that  his  body 
 was  brought  to  .Jeru.mlem,  where  the  ftmeral  j)ro- 
 cession  was  formed  on  a  scale  and  with  a  magnifi- 
 cence whicli  would  have  been  impossible  at  such  a 
 place  as  .lericho  without  long  previous  [jreparation : 
 and  it  then  goes  on  to  say,  "and  so  they  went 
 eight  stiidin  to  [the]  Herodium,  for  tiiere,  liy  his 
 own  commanii,  he  was  to  be  buried  "'  —  eight  stadia, 
 or  one  mile,  being  the  exact  distance  between  the 
 royal  palace  and  these  tombs. 
 
 The  other  account  [B.  J.  i.  33,  §  9)  repeats  tin 
 details  of  the  [irocession,  and  nearly  in  the  same 
 words,  but  substitutes  200  for  8,  which  has  led  to 
 the  belief  that  he  was  buried  at  Jebel  Fiimidis, 
 where  he  had  erected  a  palace  GO  stadia  south  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  170  from  Jericho.  Even  then  the 
 procession  must  have  passed  through  Jerusalem, 
 and  this  hardly  would  have  been  the  case  without 
 its  being  mentioned;  bftt  the  great  difficulty  is  that 
 there  is  no  hint  anywhere  else  of  Herod's  intention 
 to  be  buried  thei'e,  and  the  most  extreme  improb- 
 ability that  be  should  wish  to  be  interred  so  far 
 from  the  city  where  all  his  predecessors  were  laid. 
 Though  it  would  be  unpardonable  to  alter  the  text 
 in  order  to  meet  any  particular  view,  still  when  an 
 author  makes  two  statements  in  direct  contradic- 
 tion the  one  to  the  other,  it  is  allowable  to  choose 
 the  most  conformable  with  probability;  and  this, 
 added  to  his  assertion  that  Herod's  Tombs  were  in 
 this  neighborhood,  seems  to  settle  the  question. 
 
 The  architecture  (wood-cut  No.  8)  exhibits  the 
 same  ill-understood  Roman  Doric  arrangements  as 
 are  found  in  all  these  tombs,  mixed  with  bunches 
 of  grapes,  which  first  appear  on  Maccabean  coins, 
 and  foliage  which  is  local  and  peculiar,  and,  so  far 
 a.s  anything  is  known  elsewhere,  might  be  of  any 
 age.  Its  connection,  however,  with  that  of  the 
 Tombs  of  Jehoshaphat  and  the  Judges  fixes  it  to 
 the  same  epoch. 
 
 The  entrance  doorway  of  this  tomb  is  below  the 
 level  of  the  ground,  and  concealed,  as  far  as  any- 
 thing can  be  said  to  be  .so  whicii  is  so  architecturally 
 adorned ;  and  it  is  remarkable  as  the  only  instance 
 of  this  quasi-concealment  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  closed 
 by  a  very  curious  and  elaliorate  contrivance  of  a 
 rolling   stone,   often  described,    but  very  clumsily 
 
 TOMB 
 
 3283 
 
 answering  its  purpose.  This  also  is  characteristit. 
 of  its  age,  as  we  know  from  Pausanias  that  tiie 
 structural  niarlile  monument  of  Queen  Helena  of 
 Adial)ene  was  remarkable  for  a  similar  piece  of  mis- 
 placed ingenuity,  ^^'ithin,  the  tomli  coTisists  of  a 
 vestibule  or  entrance-hall  al)out  20  feet  square,  from 
 which  tliree  other  square  apartments  open,  each 
 surrounded  by  deep  loculi.  These  again  possess  a 
 peculiarity  not  known  in  any  other  tomb  about 
 Jerusalem,  of  having  a  square  apartment  either 
 beyond  the  head  of  the  loculus  or  on  one  side:  as, 
 for  instance  (wood-cut  No.  9),  a  a  have  their  inner 
 chandlers  a'  a'  within,  but  B  and  B,  at  n'  b',  on 
 one  side.  What  the  purpose  of  these  was  it  is  dif- 
 ficult to  guess,  but  at  all  events  it  was  not  Jewish. 
 But  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  peculiarity  of 
 the  bypogeum  is  the  sarcophagus  chamber  d,  in 
 which  two  sarcophagi  were  found,  one  of  which  was 
 brought  home  by  iJe  Saulcy,  and  is  now  in  the 
 T.ouvre.  It  is  of  course  quite  natural  that  a  Roman 
 king  wiio  was  buried  with  such  Roman  pomp  should 
 have  adopted  the  Roman  mode  of  sepulture;  and 
 if  this  and  that  of  St.  James  are  the  only  sarcophagi 
 chambers  at  .Jerusalem,  this  alone  should  settle  the 
 controversy  ;  and    all    certainly   tends   to   make   it 
 
 No.  8.  —  FafaJe  of  iKruil's  Tuinb.'^,  from  a  I'hotograph. 
 
 more  and  more  probable  that  this  was  really  the 
 sepulchre  of  Herod. 
 
 If  the  sarcophagus  now  in  tiie  Louvre,  which 
 came  from  this  chamber,  is  that  of  Herod,  it  is  the 
 most  practical  illustration  that  has  yet  come  to 
 light  of  a  theory  which  has  recently  been  forcing 
 itself  on  the  attention  of  antiquarians.  According 
 to  this  new  view,  it  is  not  necessary  that  furniture, 
 or  articles  which  can  be  considered  as  such,  must 
 always  follow  the  style  of  the  architecture  of  the 
 day.  They  nnist  have  done  so  always  in  E<:typt,  in 
 Greece,  or  in  the  Middle  Ages;  but  might  have 
 deviated  from  it  at  Rome,  and  maj'  proliaWy  have 
 done  so  at  Jerusalem,  among  a  people  who  had  no 
 art  of  their  own,  as  was  the  case  with  the  .Jews. 
 The  discord  in  fact  may  not  have  been  more  offen- 
 sive to  them  than  the  Louis  Quatorze  furniture  is 
 to  us,  with  which  we  adorn  our  Classical  and  Gothic 
 buildings  with  such  cosmopolite  impartiality.  If 
 this  is  so,  the  sarcophagus  may  have  been  made  for 
 Herod.  If  this  hypothesis  is  not  tenable,  it  may 
 belong  to  any  age  from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees 
 to  that  of  Justinian,  most  probably  the  latter,  for 
 it  certainly  is  not  Roman,  and  has  no  connection 
 with  the  architecture  of  the.se  tombs. 
 
 Be  this  as  it  may,  there  seems  no  reason  for 
 
8284 
 
 TOMB 
 
 donbtiiifj  bill  that  all  the  architectural  tombs  of 
 Jpriisalem  belona;  to  the  age  of  the  Romans,  like 
 everything  that  has  yet  been  found  eitlier  at  Petra, 
 Baalbec,  Palmyra,  or  Damascus,  or  even  among  the 
 stone  cities  of  the  Hauran.     Throughout  Syria,  iu 
 
 TOMB 
 
 fact,  there  is  no  important  architectural  example 
 which  is  anterior  to  their  day:  and  all  the  speci- 
 mens which  can  be  called  Classical  are  strongly 
 marked  with  the  impress  of  the  peculiar  forms  of 
 Roman  art. 
 
 No.  9.  —  Plan  of  Tombs  of  Herod.     From  De  Saulcy. 
 
 Tutnb  of  Helena  of  Adlabene.  —  There  was  one 
 other  very  famous  tonib  at  Jerusalem,  which  can- 
 not be  passed  over  in  silence,  though  not  one  ves- 
 tige of  it  exists  — for  the  simple  reason  that  though 
 Queen  Helena  of  Adial)ene  was  converted  to  the 
 Jewish  faith,  she  had  not  so  fully  adopted  Jewish 
 feelings  as  to  think  it  necessary  she  should  be 
 buried  under  ground.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
 told  that  '•  she  with  her  brother  were  bia-ied  in  tlie 
 pyramids  which  she  had  ordered  to  be  constructed 
 at  a  distance  of  three  stadia  from  Jerusalem  "  {AnI. 
 XX.  4,  §  3).  This  is  contiruied  by  Pausanias  (viii. 
 16),  who,  besides  mentioning  the  marble  door  of 
 very  apocryphal  mechanism  which  closed  its  en- 
 trance, speaks  of  it  as  a  Td(pos  in  the  same  sense 
 in  which  he  understands  the  mausoleum  at  Ilali- 
 carnassus  to  have  been  a  structured  tomb,  which 
 he  could  not  have  done  if  this  were  a  cave,  as  some 
 have  supiKised. 
 
 The  specification  of  the  locality  by  Josephus  is  so 
 minute  that  we  have  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining 
 whereabouts  the  monuuient  stood.  It  w-as  situated 
 outside  the  third  wall,  near  a  gate  between  the 
 Tower  Psephinus  and  the  Royal  Caverns  (B.  ./.  v. 
 22,  and  v.  4,  §  2).  These  last  are  perfectly  known, 
 and  the  tower  with  very  toleral)le  approximate  cer- 
 tainty, for  it  was  placed  on  the  highest  jwint  of  the 
 ridge  between  the  hollow  in  which  the  Birket  Ma- 
 niilla  is  situated  and  the  upper  valley  of  the  Kedron  ; 
 they  were  consequently  either  exactly  whei'e  marked 
 on  the  i)lan  in  vol.  ii.  p.  1312,  or  it  may  be  a  little 
 more  to  the  eastward. 
 
 They  remained  sufficiently  entire  in  the  4th  cen- 
 tury to  form  a  conspicuous  object  hi  the  landscape, 
 to  be  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  and  to  be  remarked 
 by  those  who  accompanied  Sta.  Paula  (luiseb.  ii. 
 12;  Hieron.  Epilajjk.  Paulce)  on  her  journey  to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 There  is  no  difficulty  in  forming  a  tolerably  dis- 
 tinct idea  of  what  the  appearance  of  this  remark- 
 able monument  must  have  been,  if  we  compare 
 the  words  descriptive  of  it  in  the  various  authors 
 who  have  mentioned  it  with  the  contemporary 
 monuments  in  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  If 
 we  place  together  in  a  row  three  such  monu- 
 ments as  the  Tomb  of  Zecliariah,  or  rather  two 
 such,  with  the  monument  of  Absalom  between 
 them,  we  have  such  an  edifice  as  will  answer  to 
 the  Pyramid  of  Josephus,  the  Taphos  of  Pausa- 
 nias, the  Steles  of  Eusebius,  or  the  Mausoleum  of 
 Jerome.  But  it  need  hardly  be  added,  that  not 
 one  of  these  expressions  applies  to  an  underground 
 excavation.  According  to  this  view  of  the  mat- 
 ter, the  entrance  would  be  under  the  Central  Cip- 
 pus,  which  would  thus  form  the  ante-room  to  the 
 two  lateral  pyramids,  in  one  of  which  Helena  her- 
 self reposed,  and  in  the  other  the  remains  of  her 
 brother. 
 
 Since  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  Titus,  none 
 of  the  native  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  have  been  in 
 a  position  to  indulge  in  much  sepulchral  magnifi- 
 cence, or  perhaps  had  any  taste  for  this  class  of  dis- 
 play; and  we  in  consequence  find  no  rock-cut  hy- 
 pogea,  and  no  structural  monuments  that  arrest 
 attention  in  modern  times.  The  people,  however, 
 still  cling  to  their  ancient  cemeteries  in  the  Valley 
 of  Jehoshaphat  with  a  tenacity  singularly  charac- 
 teristic of  the  East.  The  only  difference  being, 
 that  the  erection  of  the  ^V^all  of  Agrippa,  which 
 now  forms  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Harara 
 Area,  has  pushed  the  cemetery  further  toward  the 
 Kedron,  or  at  least  cut  off  the  upper  and  nobler 
 part  of  it.  And  the  contraction  of  the  city  on 
 the  north  has  enabled  the  tombs  to  .approach 
 nearer  the  limits  of  the  modern  town  than  was 
 the  case  in  the  days  when  Herod  the  Great  and 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 Helena  of  Adiabene  were  buried  "  on  the  sides  of 
 the  north.'' 
 
 The  only  remarkable  exception  to  this  assertion 
 is  that  splendid  Mausoleum  which  Constantine 
 erected  over  what  he  believed  to  Ije  the  torab  of 
 Christ,  and  which  still  exists  at  Jerusalem,  known 
 to  Moslems  as  tlie  Dome  of  the  Rock ;  to  Christians 
 as  the  Mosque  of  Omar. 
 
 The  arL;uments  for  its  authenticity  have  already 
 been  suthciently  insisted  upon  in  the  article  Jehu- 
 SALEM,  in  tlie  second  volume,  and  its  general  form 
 and  position  sliown  in  the  wood- cut,  p.  1316.  It 
 will  not,  tlierefore,  lie  necessary  to  go  over  this 
 ground  again.  Externally  its  appearance  was  very 
 much  altered  by  the  repairs  of  Suleiman  the  Mag- 
 nificent, when  the  city  had  returned  to  the  posses- 
 sion of  tlie  Moslems  after  the  retreat  of  tlie  Cru- 
 saders, and  it  has  consequently  lost  much  of  its 
 original  Byzantine  character;  hut  internally  it  re- 
 mains much  as  it  was  left  by  its  founder;  and  is 
 now  —  with  the  exception  of  a  few  Indian  tombs 
 —  the  most  magnificent  sepulchral  monument  in 
 Asia,  and  is,  as  it  ought  to  be,  the  most  splendid 
 Christian  sepulchre  in  the  world."  J.  F. 
 
 *  On  this  subject  one  may  see  also  Oidnance 
 Survey  of  Jerusukin,  pp.  01-70  (Lond.  186.5); 
 Remains  of  Tombs  in  Palestine,  by  Captain  C.  W. 
 Wilson,  in  Qaarlerli/  Sliteintnt  of  ike  Palestine 
 Explor.  Fund,  accompanied  by  drawings  (Lond. 
 1869);  Tobler,  Denkblatttr  mis  Jems.  pp.  60i)- 
 635,  and  Dritte  Wanderumj  nach  PaU'istina,  pp. 
 344-362;  Sepp,  Jerusalem  u.  das  heil.  Lund,  i. 
 217  ff. ;  Rev.  Ceoige  AV^illiams,  Holy  City,  more  es- 
 pecially in  regard  to  tombs  in  and  around  Jerusa- 
 lem, iii.  129  ff . ;  and  in  this  Dictionary,  Jerusa- 
 lem, ancient  and  modern.  H. 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF.  The 
 unity  of  the  human  race  is  most  clearly  implied,  if 
 not  positively  asserted,  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The 
 general  declaration,  "  So  God  created  man  in  his 
 own  image,  ....  male  and  female  created  He 
 them  "  (Gen.  i.  27),  is  limited  as  to  the  mode  in 
 which  the  act  was  carried  out,  by  the  subsequent 
 narrative  of  the  creation  of  the  protoplast  Adam, 
 who  stood  alone  on  the  earth  amidst  the  beasts  of 
 the  field,  until  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  create  "  an 
 help-meet  for  him  "  out  of  the  very  substance  of 
 his  body  (Gen.  ii.  22).  From  this  original  pair 
 sprang  the  whole  antediluvian  [jopulation  of  the 
 world,  and  hence  the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
 conceived  the  unity  of  the  human  race  to  be  of  the 
 most  rigid  nature  —  not  simply  a  generic  unity,  nor 
 again  simply  a  specific  unity  (for  unity  of  species 
 may  not  be  inconsistent  with  a  plurality  of  original 
 centres),  but  a  specific  based  upon  a  numerical 
 unity,  the  species  being  nothing  else  than  the  en- 
 largement of  the  individual.     Such  appears  to  be 
 
 «  *  The  author  of  this  article  has  introduced  into 
 It  two  points  of  a  favorite  theory  which  is  original 
 with  him,  namely,  that  the  Dome  of  the  Rock,  or  the 
 Mosque  of  Omar,  and  Coustantiue's  Church  of  the 
 Holy  Sepulchre  are  identical ;  and  that  Mount  Moriah, 
 or  the  Eastern  Hill,  and  Mount  Zion,  are  identical  : 
 and,  consequently,  that  the  royal  sepulchi-ea  of  Judah 
 were  somewhere  within  the  present  UaramArea.  The 
 grounds  of  utter  dissent  from  these  views  have  been 
 given  by  the  writer  of  this  in  the  article  .Jerusalem, 
 *  IV.  p.  1330  ff.,  Amer.  ed.  The  assertion  above, 
 which  hag  no  historical  support,  that  "  the  Wall  of 
 Agrippa  now  forms  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Ha- 
 ram  Area,''  cootracting  the  ancient  cemetery,  is  dis- 
 proved by  Capt.  Warren's  explorations,  who  finds   no 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3285 
 
 the  natural  meaning  of  the  first  chapters  of  Gene- 
 sis, when  taken  by  themselves  —  much  more  so 
 when  read  under  the  reflected  light  of  the  New 
 Testament;  for  not  only  do  we  meet  with  refer- 
 ences to  the  historical  fact  of  such  an  origin  of  the 
 human  race  —  e.  g.  in  St.  Paul's  declaration  that 
 (iod  "  hath  made  of  one  blood  every  nation  of  men 
 to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth  ''  **  (Acts  xvii. 
 26)  —  but  the  .same  is  evidently  implied  in  the  nu- 
 merous passages  which  represent  .lesus  Clirist  as  the 
 counterpart  of  Adam  in  regard  to  the  universality 
 of  his  connection  with  the  human  race.  Attempts 
 have  indeed  been  made  to  show  that  the  idea  of  a 
 plurality  of  original  pairs  is  not  inconsistent  with 
 the  Mosaic  writings;  but  there  is  a  wide  distinction 
 between  a  view  not  inconsistent  with,  and  a  view 
 drawn  from,  the  words  of  the  author:  the  latter  is 
 founded  upon  the  facts  he  relates,  as  well  as  his 
 mode  of  relating  them;  the  former  takes  advantage 
 of  the  weaknesses  arising  out  of  a  concise  or  un- 
 methodical style  of  composition.  Even  if  such  a 
 view  could  be  sustained  in  reference  to  the  narra- 
 tive of  the  original  creation  of  man,  it  must  inevi- 
 tably fail  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the  repopu- 
 lation  of  the  world  in  the  postdiluvian  age;  for 
 whatever  objections  may  be  made  to  the  historical 
 accuracy  of  the  history  of  the  Flood,  it  is  at  all 
 events  clear  that  the  historian  believed  in  the  uni- 
 versal destruction  of  the  human  race  with  the  ex- 
 ception of  Noah  and  his  family,  and  consequently 
 that  the  unity  of  the  human  race  was  once  more 
 reduced  to  one  of  a  numerical  cliaracter.  To  Noah 
 the  historian  traces  up  the  whole  postdiluvian  pop- 
 ulation of  the  world :  ■'  These  are  the  three  sons  of 
 Noah :  and  of  them  was  the  whole  earth  overspread  " 
 (Gen.  ix.  19). 
 
 Unity  of  language  is  assumed  by  the  sacred  histo- 
 rian ajiparently  as  a  corollary  of  the  unity  of  race. 
 No  explanation  is  given  of  the  origin  of  speech,  but 
 its  exercise  is  evidently  regarded  as  coeval  with  the 
 creation  of  man.  No  support  can  be  obtained  in 
 behalf  of  any  theory  on  this  subject  from  the  first 
 recorded  instance  of  its  exercise  ("Adam  gave 
 names  to  all  cattle")  for  the  simple  reason  that 
 this  notice  is  introductory  to  what  follows:  "but 
 for  Adam  there  was  not  found  an  help-meet  for 
 him  "  (Gen.  ii.  20).  It  was  not  so  much  the  inten- 
 tion of  the  writer  to  state  the  fact  of  man's  power  of 
 speech,  as  the  fact  of  the  inferiority  of  all  other  ani- 
 mals to  him,  and  the  consequent  necessity  for  the 
 creation  of  woman.  The  proof  of  that  inferiority  is 
 indeed  most  appropriately  made  to  consist  in  the 
 authoritative  assignment  of  names,  implying  an  act 
 of  reflection  on  their  several  natures  and  capacities, 
 and  a  recognition  of  the  offices  which  they  were  de- 
 signed to  fiU  in  the  economy  of  the  world.  The 
 exercise  of  speech  is  thus  most  happily  connected 
 
 substructions  in  Jerusalem  more  ancient  and  massive 
 than  portions  of  the  Eastern  Wall,  layers  of  which 
 remain  in  situ. 
 
 The  Quarterly  Statement  No.  V.  of  the  Pal.  Expl. 
 Fund  (pp.  245-251)  cbn tains  an  account,  by  Dr.  Ch. 
 Sandreczki,  of  the  rock-tombs  of  et-Medyeli,  a  village 
 near  Lydda,  and  his  reasons  for  identif *  ing  this  site 
 with  Modin,  and  these  tombs,  known  as  Kiibir  et-Yu' 
 hiirJ,  with  the  Maccabaean  mausoleum.  Tlie  sugges- 
 tion appears  quite  plausible.     [Modcj,  iii.  1989.] 
 
 S.  W. 
 
 b  The  force  of  the  Apostle's  statement  is  inade- 
 quately given  in  the  A.  V.,  which  gives  "for  to 
 dwell "  as  the  result,  instead  of  the  direct  object  of 
 the  principal  verb. 
 
328f)     TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 with  the  exercise  of  reflection,  and  the  relationshii) 
 between  the  inner  act  of  the  mind  (\6y07  ivSidde- 
 Tos)  and  the  outward  expression  (A070J  Trpocpopi- 
 k6s)  is  fully  recognized.  Speech  being  thus  inhe- 
 rent in  man  as  a  reflecting  being,  was  regarded  as 
 handed  down  from  father  to  son  by  the  same  process 
 of  imitation  by  which  it  is  still  perpetuated.  What- 
 ever divergences  may  have  arisen  in  the  antedilu- 
 vian period,  no  notice  is  taken  of  them,  inasmuch 
 as  their  effects  were  obliterated  by  the  universal  catas- 
 trophe of  the  Flood.  The  original  unity  of  speech 
 was  restored  in  Noah,  and  would-  naturally  be  re- 
 tained by  his  descendants  as  long  as  they  were  held 
 together  by  social  and  local  bonds.  Accordingly 
 we  are  informed  that  for  some  time  "  the  whole 
 earth  was  of  one  lip  and  the  same  words  "  (Gen.  xi. 
 1),  i.  e.  both  the  vocal  sounds  and  the  vocables 
 were  identical  —  an  exhaustive,  but  not,  as  in  the 
 A.  v.,  a  tautologous  description  of  complete  unity. 
 Disturbing  causes  were,  however,  early  at  work  to 
 dissolve  this  twofold  union  of  community  and  speech. 
 The  human  family  «  endeavored  to  check  the  ten- 
 dency to  separation  by  the  establishment  of  a  great 
 central  edifice,  and  a  city  which  should  serve  as  the 
 metropolis  of  the  whole  world.  I'hey  attempted  to 
 carry  out  this  project  in  the  wide  plain  of  Baby- 
 lonia, a  locality  admirably  suited  to  such  an  object 
 from  the  physical  and  geographical  peculiarities  of 
 the  country.  The  project  was  defeated  by  the  in- 
 terposition of  Jehovah,  who  determined  to  "  con- 
 found their  language,  so  that  they  might  not  under- 
 stand one  another's  speech."  Contemporaneously 
 with,  and  perhaps  as  the  result  of,  this  confusion 
 of  tongues,  the  people  were  scattered  abroad  from 
 thence  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth,  and  the 
 memory  of  the  great  e\ent  was  preserved  in  the 
 nanie  Babel  (=  confusion).  The  ruins  of  the  tower 
 are  identified  by  M.  Oppert,  the  highest  authority 
 on  Babylonian  antiquities,  with  the  basement  of 
 the  great  mound  of  Birs-N'uiirud,  the  ancient  Bor- 
 sippa.'' 
 
 Two  points  demand  our  attention  in  reference  to 
 this  narrative,  namely,  the  degree  to  wliich  the  con- 
 fusion of  tongues  may  be  sujjposed  to  have  extended, 
 and  the  connection  between  the  confusion  of  tongues 
 and  the  dispersion  of  nations.  (1.)  It  is  unneces- 
 sary to  assume  that  the  judgment  inflicted  on  the 
 builders  of  Babel  amounted  to  a  loss,  or  even  a  sus- 
 pension, of  articulate  speech.  The  desired  object 
 would  be  equally  attained  by  a  miraculous  fore- 
 stalment  of  tliose  dialectical  difTerenees  of  language 
 ■which  are  constantly  in  process  of  production,  but 
 which,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  require  time 
 and  variations  of  jilace  and  habits  to  reach  such  a 
 point  of  maturity  that  people  are  unable  to  under- 
 stand one  another's  speech.  The  elements  of  the 
 one  original  language  may  have  remained,  but  so 
 disguised  by  variations  of  pronunciation,  and  by  the 
 introduction  of  new  combinations,  as  to  be  practi- 
 cally obliterated.  Each  section  of  the  human  fam- 
 ily may  have  spoken  a  tongue  unintelligible  to  the 
 remainder,  and  yet  containing  a  substratum  which 
 was  common  to  all.  Our  own  experience  suffices 
 to  show  how  completely  even  dialectical  differences 
 render  strangers  unintelligible  to  one  another;  and 
 if  we  further  take  into  consideration  the  differences 
 
 a  The  project  has  been  restricted  by  certain  critics 
 to  the  Ilaniites,  or,  at  all  events,  to  a  mere  section  of 
 the  human  race.  This  and  various  other  questions 
 arising  out  of  the  narrative  are  di.scussed  by  Vitringa 
 in  his  Obstrv.  Sacr.  i.  1,  §§2-8  ;  6,  §§  1-4.  Although 
 the  restrictiou  above  noticed  is  not  irreconcilable  with 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 of  habits  and  associations,  of  which  dialectical  dif. 
 ferences  are  the  exponents,  we  shall  have  no  diffi- 
 culty in  accounting  for  the  result  described  by  the 
 sacred  historian.  (2.)  The  confusion  of  tongues 
 and  the  dispersion  of  nations  are  spoken  of  in  the 
 Bible  as  contemporaneous  events.  "  80  the  Lord 
 scattered  them  abroad  "  is  stated  as  the  execution 
 of  the  Divine  counsel,  "  Let  us  confound  their  lan- 
 guage." The  divergence  of  the  various  families 
 into  distinct  tribes  and  nations  ran  parallel  with 
 the  divergence  of  speech  into  dialects  and  languages, 
 and  thus  the  10th  chapter  of  Genesis  is  posterior  in 
 historical  sequence  to  the  events  recorded  in  the 
 11th  chapter.  Both  passages  must  be  taken  into 
 consideration  in  any  disquisition  on  the  early  for- 
 tunes of  the  human  race.  A\'e  projjose  therefore  to 
 inquire,  in  the  first  place,  how  tar  modern  re- 
 searches into  the  phenomena  of  language  favor  the 
 idea  that  there  was  once  a  time  when  "  the  whole 
 earth  was  of  one  speech  and  language;  "  and,  in 
 the  second  place,  whether  the  ethnological  views 
 exhibited  in  the  Mosaic  table  accord  with  the  evi- 
 dence furnished  by  history  and  language,  both  in 
 regard  to  the  special  facts  recorded  in  it,  and  in  the 
 general  Scriptural  view  of  a  historical  or  more 
 properly  a  gentilic  unity  of  the  human  race.  These 
 questions,  though  independent,  yet  exercise  a  re- 
 flexive influence  on  each  other's  results.  Unity  of 
 speech  does  not  necessarily  involve  unity  of  race, 
 nor  yet  vice  versa  ;  but  each  enhances  the  proba- 
 bility of  the  other,  and  therefore  the  arguments 
 derived  from  language,  physiology,  and  history, 
 may  ultimately  furnish  a  cumulative  amount  of 
 probability  which  will  fall  but  little  below  demon- 
 stration. 
 
 (A.)  The  advocate  of  the  historical  unity  of  lan- 
 guage has  to  encounter  two  classes  of  opposing 
 arguments;  one  arising  out  of  the  differences,  the 
 other  out  of  the  resemblances  of  existing  languages. 
 On  the  one  hand,  it  is  urged  that  the  diflt.>rences 
 are  of  so  decisive  and  specific  a  character  as  to  place 
 the  possibility  of  a  common  origin  wholly  out  of 
 the  question ;  on  the  other  hand  that  the  resem- 
 blances do  not  necessitate  the  theory  of  a  historical 
 unity,  but  may  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  on 
 psychological  jirinciples.  It  will  be  our  object  to 
 discuss  the  amount,  the  value,  and  the  probable 
 origin  of  the  varieties  exhiliited  by  languages,  with 
 a  view  to  meet  the  first  class  of  objections.  But 
 before  proceeding  to  this,  we  will  make  a  few  re- 
 marks on  the  second  class,  inasmuch  as  these,  if 
 established,  would  nullify  any  conclusion  that  might 
 be  drawn  from  the  other. 
 
 A  psychological  unity  is  not  necessarily  opposed 
 to  a  gentilic  unity.  It  is  perfectly  open  to  any 
 theorist  to  combine  the  two  by  assuming  that  the 
 language  of  the  one  protoplast  was  founded  on 
 strictly  psychological  principles.  But,  on  the  other 
 hand,  a  psychological  unity  does  not  necessitate  a 
 gentilic  unity.  It  permits  of  the  theory  of  aplu-- 
 rality  of  protoplasts,  who  under  the  influence  of 
 the  same  psychological  laws  arrived  at  similar  inde- 
 pendent results.  Whether  the  phenomena  of  lan- 
 guage are  consistent  with  such  a  theory,  we  think 
 extremely  doubtful;  certainly  they  cannot  furnish 
 the  basis  of  it.     The  whole  question  of  the  origin 
 
 the  text,  it  interferes  with  the  ulterior  object  for  which 
 the  narrative  was  probably  inserted,  naniei^',  to  recon- 
 cile the  manifest  diversity  of  language  with  :hf  idea  of 
 an  original  unity. 
 
 '>  See  the  Appendix  to  this  article. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 of  language  lies  beyond  the  pale  of  historical  proof, 
 and  any  theory  coiniected  with  it  admits  neither 
 of  being  proved  nor  disproved.  We  know,  as  a 
 matter  of  fact,  that  language  is  communicated  from 
 one  generation  to  another  solely  by  force  of  imita- 
 tion, and  that  there  is  no  play  whatever  for  the  in- 
 ventive faculty  in  reference  to  it.  But  in  what 
 maimer  tlie  substance  of  language  was  originally 
 produced,  we  do  not  know.  No  argument  can  be 
 derived  against  the  common  origin  from  analogies 
 drawn  from  the  animal  world,  and  whe)i  Professor 
 Agassiz  compares  similarities  of  language  with 
 those  of  the  cries  of  animals  (v.  Bohlen's  IiilrocL  to 
 Gun.  ii.  278),  he  leaves  out  of  consideration  the 
 important  fact  that  language  is  not  identical  with 
 sound,  and  that  the  words  of  a  rational  being,  how- 
 ever originally  produced,  are  perpetuated  in  a  man- 
 ner wholly  distinct  from  that  whereby  animals  learn 
 to  utter  their  cries.  Nor  does  tlie  internal  evidence 
 of  language  itself  reveal  the  mystery  of  its  origin  ; 
 for  tliough  a  very  large  number  of  words  may  be 
 referred  either  directly  or  mediately  to  the  prin- 
 ciple of  onomatopteia,  there  are  otliers,  as,  for  in- 
 stance, the  first  and  second  personal  pronouns,  wliich 
 do  not  admit  of  such  an  explanation.  In  short, 
 this  and  other  similar  theories  cannot  be  reconciled 
 with  tlie  intimate  connection  evidently  existing  be- 
 tween reason  and  speech,  and  which  is  so  well  ex- 
 pressed in  the  Greek  language  by  the  application 
 of  the  term  \6yos  to  each,  reason  being  notliing 
 else  than  inward  speech,  anil  speech  notliing  else 
 than  outward  reason,  neither  of  them  possessing  an 
 independent  existence  without  the  other.  As  we 
 conceive  that  the  psycliological,  as  opposed  to  the 
 gentilic,  unity  involves  questions  connected  with  the 
 origin  of  language,  we  can  only  say  that  in  this  re- 
 spect it  falls  outside  the  range  of  our  inquiry. 
 
 Reverting  to  tlie  other  class  of  objections,  we 
 proceed  to  review  the  extent  of  the  ditlerences  ob- 
 servable in  the  languages  of  the  world,  in  order  to 
 ascertain  whether  they  are  such  as  to  preclude  the 
 possibility  of  a  common  origin.  Such  a  review 
 must  necessarily  be  imperfect,  both  from  the  mag- 
 nitude of  the  subject,  aiid  also  from  the  position  of 
 the  linguistic  science  itself,  which  as  yet  has  hardly 
 advanced  beyond  the  stage  of  infancy.  On  the 
 latter  point  we  would  observe  that  the  most  impor- 
 tant links  between  the  various  language  families 
 may  jet  be  discovered  in  languages  that  are  either 
 unexplored,  or,  at  all  events,  unplaced.  Mean- 
 while, no  one  can  doubt  that  the  tendency  of  all 
 linguistic  research  is  in  the  direction  of  unity. 
 Already  it  has  brought  within  the  bonds  of  a  well- 
 establisiied  relationship  languages  so  remote  liom 
 each  other  in  external  guise,  in  age,  and  in  geo- 
 graphical position  as  Sanskrit  and  English,  Celtic 
 and  Greek.  It  has  done  the  same  for  other  groups 
 of  languages  equally  widely  extended,  but  present- 
 ing less  opportunities  of  investigation.  It-  has 
 recognized  athuities  between  languages  which  the 
 ancient  Greek  ethnologist  would  have  classed  under 
 the  heail  of  '■  barbarian  "  in  reference  to  each  other, 
 and  even  in  many  instances  where  the  modern  phi- 
 lologist has  anticipated  no  relationship.  The  lines 
 of  discovery  therefore  point  in  one  direction,  and 
 favor  tiie  expectation  that  the  various  families  may 
 be  combined  by  the  discovery  of  connecting  links 
 into  a  single  family,  comprehending  in  its  capacious 
 bosom  all  the  languages  of  the  world.  But  should 
 such  a  result  never  be  attained,  the  probability  of 
 a  common  origin  would  still  remain  unshaken;  for 
 the  failure  would  probably  be  due  to  the  absence. 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3287 
 
 in  many  classes  and  families,  of  that  chain  of  his- 
 torical evidence,  which  in  the  ease  of  the  Indo- 
 European  and  Sheinitic  families  enables  us  to  trace 
 their  progress  for  above  -3,000  years.  In  many  lan- 
 guages no  literature  at  all,  in  many  others  no  ancient 
 literature  exists,  to  supply  the  philologist  with 
 materials  for  comparative  study :  in  these  cases  it 
 can  only  be  by  laborious  research  into  existing 
 dialects  that  the  original  forms  of  words  can  be 
 detected,  amidst  the  incrustations  and  transmuta- 
 tions with  wdiich  time  has  obscured  them. 
 
 In  dealing  with  the  phenomena  of  language,  we 
 shoidd  duly  consider  the  plastic  nature  of  the  mate- 
 rial out  of  which  it  is  formed,  and  the  numerous  in- 
 fluences to  which  it  is  subject.  Variety  in  unity 
 is  a  general  law  of  nature,  to  which  even  the  most 
 stubborn  physical  substances  yield  a  I'eady  obe- 
 dience. In  the  case  of  language  it  would  be  diffi- 
 cult to  lay  any  bounds  to  the  variety  which  we 
 might  a  priurl  expect  it  to  assume.  Eor  in  the 
 first  place  it  is  brought  into  close  contact  with  the 
 spirit  of  man,  and  reflects  with  amazing  fidelity  its 
 endless  variations,  adapting  itself  to  the  expression 
 of  each  feeling,  the  designation  of  each  object,  the 
 working  of  each  cast  of  thought  or  stage  of  reason- 
 ing power.  Secondly,  its  sounds  are  subject  to 
 external  influences,  such  as  peculiarities  of  the 
 organ  of  speech,  the  result  either  of  natural  con- 
 formation, of  geographical  position,  or  of  habits  of 
 life  and  associations  of  an  accidental  character.  In 
 the  third  place,  it  is  generally  afttjcted  by  the  state 
 of  intellectual  and  social  culture  of  a  people,  as 
 manifested  more  especially  in  the  presence  or  ab- 
 sence of  a  standard  literary  dialect,  and  in  the  pro- 
 cesses of  verbal  and  syntactical  structure,  which 
 again  react  on  the  very  core  of  the  word,  and  pro- 
 duce a  variety  of  sound-mutations.  Lastly,  it  is 
 subjected  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  time  and  use,  ob- 
 literating, as  hi  an  old  coin,  tlie  original  impress  of 
 the  word,  reducing  it  in  bulk,  producing  new  com- 
 binations, and  occasionally  leading  to  singular  in- 
 terchanges of  sound  and  idea.  The  varieties,  re- 
 sulting from  the  modifying  influences  above  enu- 
 merated, may  be  reduced  to  two  classes,  according  as 
 they  att'ect  the  formal  or  the  radical  elements  of  lan- 
 guage. On  each  of  these  subjects  we  propose  to 
 make  a  few  remarks. 
 
 I.  Widely  as  languages  now  differ  from  each 
 other  in  external  form,  the  raw  material  (if  we  may 
 use  the  expression)  out  of  which  they  have  sprung 
 appears  to  have  been  in  all  cases  the  same.  A  sub- 
 stratum of  significant  monosyllabic  roots  underlies 
 the  whole  structure,  supplying  the  materials  neces- 
 sary not  only  for  ordinary  predication,  but  also  for 
 what  is  usually  termed  the  "growth"  of  language 
 out  of  its  primary  into  its  more  complicated  forms. 
 It  is  necessary  to  point  this  out  clearly  in  order 
 that  we  may  not  be  led  to  suppose  that  the  ele- 
 ments of  one  language  are  in  themselves  endued 
 with  any  greater  vitality  than  those  of  another. 
 Such  a  distinction,  if  it  existed,  would  go  far  to 
 prove  a  specific  difference  between  languages, 
 which  could  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of 
 then*  common  origin.  The  appearance  of  vitality 
 arises  out  of  the  manipulation  of  the  roots  by  the 
 human  mind,  and  is  not  inherent  in  the  roots 
 themselves. 
 
 The  proofs  of  this  original  equality  are  furnished 
 by  the  languages  themselves.  Adopting  for  the 
 present  the  threefold  morphological  classification 
 into  isolating,  agglutinative,  and  inflecting  lan- 
 guages, we  shall  find  that  no  original  element  exists 
 
3288     TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 in  the  one  which  does  not  also  exist  in  the  other. 
 With  regard  to  the  isolating  class,  the  terms  '>  mon- 
 osyllabic "  and  "  radical,"  by  which  it  is  other- 
 wise described,  are  decisive  as  to  its  character. 
 Laiiguajres  of  this  class  are  wholly  unsusceptible  of 
 graniniatical  mutations:  there  is  no  formal  distinc- 
 tion between  verb  and  noun,  substantive  and  ad- 
 jective, preposition  and  conjunction:  there  are  no 
 inflections,  no  case  or  person  terminations  of  any 
 kind :  the  bare  root  forms  the  sole  and  whole  sub- 
 stance of  the  language.  In  regard  to  the  other  two 
 classes,  it  is  necessary  to  establish  the  two  distinct 
 points,  (1)  that  the  formal  elements  represent  roots, 
 and  (2)  that  the  roots  both  of  the  formal  and  the 
 radical  elements  of  the  word  are  monosyllabic. 
 Now,  it  may  be  satisfactorily  proved  by  analysis 
 that  all  the  component  parts  of  both  inflecting  and 
 agglutinative  languages  are  reducible  to  two  kinds 
 of  roots,  predicable  and  pronominal;  the  former 
 supplying  the  material  element  of  verbs,  substan- 
 tives, and  adjectives,  the  latter  that  of  conjunctions, 
 prepositions,  and  particles;  while  each  kind,  but 
 more  particularly  the  pronominal,  supply  the  formal 
 element,  or,  in  other  words,  the  terminations  of 
 verbs,  substantives,  and  adjectives.  The  full  proofs 
 of  these  assertions  would  involve  nothing  less  than 
 a  treatise  on  comparative  grannnar:  we  can  do  no 
 more  than  adduce  in  tlie  accompanying  note  a  few 
 illustrations  of  the  various  points  to  which  we  have 
 adverted."  Whether  the  two  classes  of  roots,  pred- 
 icable and  jjronominal,  are  further  reducible  to 
 one  class,  is  a  point  that  has  been  discussed,  but 
 has  not  as  yet  been  established  (Bopp's  Compar. 
 Gram.  §  105;  Mas  JNliiller's  Lectures,  p.  2(iiJ). 
 We  have  further  to  show  that  the  roots  of  agglu- 
 tinative and  inflecting  languages  are  monosyllabic. 
 This  is  an  acknowledged  characteristic  of  the  Indo- 
 European  family;  monosyllabism  is  indeed  the  only 
 
 a  1.  That  prepositions  are  reducible  to  pronominal 
 roots  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  instances. 
 The  Greek.  a.Ti6,  with  its  cognates  the  German  ab  and 
 our  of,  is  derived  from  the  demonstrative  base  a, 
 whence  also  the  Sanskrit  apa  (Bopp,  §  1000} ;  Trpo  and 
 irupa  ai-e  akin  to  the  Sansk.  pro.  and  pird,  secondary 
 formations  of  the  above-mentioned  apa  (Bopp,  §  1009). 
 The  only  preposition  which  appears  to  spring  from  a 
 predicable  base  is  trans,  with  its  cognates  durck  and 
 through,  which  are  referred  to  the  verbal  root  tar  (Bopp. 
 1018). 
 
 2.  That  conjunctions  are  similarly  reducible  may  be 
 illustrated  by  the  familiar  instances  of  on,  qvoiJ,  and 
 "  that,"  indifferently  used  as  pronouns  or  conjunctions. 
 The  Latin  si  is  connected  with  the  pronoun  si-bi  ;  and 
 61,  together  with  the  Sansk.  yadi,  with  the  relative  base 
 ya  (Bopp,  §  991). 
 
 3.  That  the  suffixes  forming  the  infiectious  of  verbs 
 and  nouns  are  nothing  else  than  the  relics  of  eii^her 
 predicable  or  pronominal  roots,  will  appear  from  the  fol- 
 lowing instances,  drawn  (1)  from  the  Indo-European 
 languages,  and  (2)  from  the  Ural-Altaian  languages.  (1. ) 
 The  -fxi.  in  SiSwmi  is  connected  with  the  root  whence 
 spring  the  oblique  cases  of  the  pei-sonal  pronoun  iyui ; 
 the  -<T  in  SiSios  is  the  remains  of  <tv  ',  and  the  t  in  ecrri 
 (for  which  an  „.  is  substituted  in  ficSwo-i)  represents 
 the  Sanskrit  ta,  which  reappeai'S  in  aiiyos  and  in  the  ob- 
 lique cases  of  the  article  (Bopp,  §§  431,  44.3,  456).  So 
 again,  the  -o-  in  the  nominative  Aoyos  represents  the 
 Sanskrit  pronominal  root  sa,  and  the  -d  of  the  neuter 
 quid  the  Sanskrit  ta  (Schleicher's  Compend.  §246); 
 the  genitive  terminations  -os,  -oio  (originally  -ocroio), 
 and  hence  -ov  =  the  Sanskrit  sya,  another  form  of  sa 
 (Schleicher,  §  252) ;  the  dative  (or  more  properly  the 
 locative)  -oi  or  -oi  is  referable  to  the  demonstrative 
 root  (■  (Schleicher,  §  254) ;  and  the  accusative  -v  (orig- 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 feature  which  its  roots  have  in  common;  in  other 
 respects  they  exhibit  every  kind  of  variation  from  a 
 uniliteral  root,  such  as  i  (ire),  up  to  combinations 
 of  five  letters,  such  as  scaml  {scamlere),  the  total 
 number  of  admissible  forms  of  root  amounting  to 
 no  less  than  eight  (Schleicher,  §  20ti).  In  the 
 Shemitic  family  monosyllabism  is  not  a  prima  facie 
 characteristic  of  the  root;  on  the  contrary,  the  ver- 
 bal''stems  exhibit  bisyllaltism  with  such  remark- 
 able uniformity,  that  it  would  lead  to  the  impres- 
 sion that  the  roots  also  must  have  been  bisyllabic. 
 The  bisyllabism,  however,  of  the  Shemitic  stem  is 
 in  reality  triconsonantalism,  the  vowels  not  forming 
 any  part  of  the  essence  of  the  root,  but  being 
 wholly  subordinate  to  the  consonants.  It  is  at 
 once  apparent  that  a  triconsonantal  and  even  a 
 quadriconsonantal  root  may  be  in  certain  combina- 
 tions unisyllabic.  But  further,  it  is  more  than 
 probable  that  the  triconsonantal  has  been  evolved 
 out  of  a  biconsonantal  root,  which  must  necessarily 
 be  unisyllabic  if  the  consonants  stand,  as  they  in- 
 variably do  in  '^  Shemitic  roots,  at  the  beginning 
 and  end  of  the  word.  With  regard  to  the  agglu- 
 tinative class,  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  same  law 
 which  we  have  seen  to  prevail  in  the  isolating  and 
 inflecting  classes,  prevails  also  in  this,  holding  as  it 
 does  an  interuiediate  place  between  those  opposite 
 poles  in  the  world  of  language. 
 
 From  the  consideration  of  the  crude  materials  of 
 language,  we  pass  on  to  the  varieties  exhiliited  in 
 its  structure,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  whether  in 
 these  there  exists  any  bar  to  the  itiea  of  an  original 
 unity.  (1.)  Reverting  to  the  classification  already 
 noticed,  we  have  to  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that 
 the  princijile  on  which  it  is  based  is  the  nature  of 
 the  connection  existing  between  the  predicable  and 
 the  relational  or  inflectional  elements  of  a  word.  In 
 the  isolating  class  these  two  are  kept  wholly  dis- 
 
 inally  -fi.)  to  a  pronominal  base,  probably  am,  which 
 no  longer  appears  in  its  simple  form  (Schleicher,  §  249). 
 (2.)  In  the  Ural-.\ltaiau  languages,  we  find  that  the 
 terminations  of  the  verbs,  gerunds,  and  participles  are 
 referable  to  significant  roots  ;  as  in  Turkish  the  active 
 affix  «  or  d  to  a  root  signifying  "  to  do  "  (Ewald, 
 Sprachw.  Abh.  ii.  27),  and  in  Hungarian  the  factitive 
 affix  /  to  te,  ''  to  do,"  the  passive  affi.x  I  to  le,  "  to  be- 
 come ;  "  the  affix  of  possibility  /lac  to  hat,  "  to  work," 
 etc.  (Pulszky,  in  Philol.  Trans.  1859,  p.  115). 
 
 b  Monosyllabic  substantives  are  not  unusual  in  He- 
 brew, as  instanced  in  3M,  72,  etc.  It  is  unnecessary 
 to  regard  these  as  truncated  forms  from  bisyllabic 
 roots. 
 
 c  That  the  Shemitic  languages  ever  actually  existed 
 in  a  state  of  monosyllabism  is  questioned  by  Renan, 
 partly  because  the  surviving  monosyllabic  languages 
 have  never  emerged  from  their  primitive  condition, 
 and  partly  because  he  conceives  synthesis  and  com- 
 plexity to  be  anterior  in  the  history  of  language  to 
 analysis  and  simplicity  (Hist.  (Jen.  i.  98-100).  The 
 first  of  these  objections  is  based  upon  the  assumption 
 that  languages  are  developed  only  in  the  direction  of 
 syntheticism  ;  but  this,  as  we  shall  liereafter  show, 
 is  not  the  only  possible  form  ofdevelopment,  and  it  is 
 just  because  the  monosyllabic  lan^ages  have  adopted 
 another  method  of  perfecting  themselves,  that  they 
 have  remained  in  their  original  stage.  The  second 
 objection  seems  to  involve  a  violation  of  the  natural 
 order  of  things,  and  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  evi- 
 dence afforded  by  language  itself;  for,  though  there  is 
 undoubtedly  a  tendency  in  language  to  pass  from  the 
 synthetical  to  the  analytical  state,  it  is  no  less  clear 
 from  the  elements  of  synthetic  forms  that  they  must 
 have  originally  existed  in  an  analytical  state. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 tinct:  relational  ideas  are  expressed  by  juxtapo- 
 sition or  by  syntactical  arrangement,  and  not  by 
 any  combination  of  the  roots.  In  the  agglutinative 
 class  the  relational  elements  are  attached  to  the 
 principal  or  predicable  theme  by  a  mechanical  kind 
 of  junction,  the  individuality  of  each  being  pre- 
 served even  in  the  combined  state.  In  the  inflecting 
 class  the  jiniction  is  of  a  more  perfect  character, 
 and  may  be  compared  to  a  cliemical  combination, 
 the  predicable  and  relational  elements  being  so  fused 
 too-ether  as  to  present  the  appearance  of  a  single 
 and  indivisible  word.  It  is  clear  that  there  exists 
 no  insuperalile  barrier  to  original  unity  in  these 
 differences,  from  the  simple  fact  that  every  inflect- 
 ing language  must  once  have  been  agglutinative, 
 and  every  agglutinative  language  once  isolating. 
 If  the  predicable  and  relational  elements  of  an  iso- 
 lating language  be  linked  together,  either  to  the 
 eye  or  the  ear,  it  is  rendered  agglutinative;  if  the 
 material  and  formal  parts  are  pronounced  as  one 
 word,  eliminating,  if  necessary,  the  sounds  that 
 resist  incorporation,  the  language  becomes  inflecting. 
 (2.)  In  the  second  place,  it  should  be  noted  that 
 these  three  classes  are  not  separated  from  each 
 other  by  any  sh.arp  line  of  demarcation.  Not  only 
 does  each  possess  in  a  measure  the  quality  pre- 
 dominant in  each  other,  but  moreover  each  grad- 
 uates into  its  neighbor  through  its  bordering 
 members.  The  isolating  languages  are  not  wholly 
 isolating;  they  avail  themselves  of  certain  words  as 
 relational  particles,  though  these  still  retain  else- 
 where their  independent  cliaracter:  they  also  use 
 composite,  though  not  strictly  compound  words. 
 The  agglutinative  are  not  wholly  agglutinative:  the 
 Finnish  and  Turkish  classes  of  the  Ural-Altaian 
 family  are  in  certain  instances  inflectional,  the  rela- 
 tional adjunct  being  fully  incorporated  with  the 
 predicable  stem,  and  having  undergone  a  large 
 amonnt  of  attrition  for  that  purpose.  Nor  again 
 are  the  inflectional  languages  wholly  inflectional: 
 Hebrew,  for  instance,  abounds  with  agglutinative 
 forms,  and  also  avails  itself  largely  of  separate 
 particles  for  the  ex|)ression  of  relational  ideas:  om- 
 own  language,  though  classed  as  inflectional,  retains 
 nothing  more  than  the  vestiges  of  inflection,  and  is 
 in  many  respects  as  isolating  and  juxtapositional  as 
 any  language  of  that  class.  Wiiile,  therefore,  the 
 classification  holds  good  with  regard  to  the  pre- 
 dominant characters  of  the  classes,  it  does  not  imply 
 diffi;rences  of  a  specific  nature.  (-3.)  But  further, 
 the  morphological  varieties  of  language  are  not  con- 
 fined to  the  exliibition  of  the  single  principle  hitherto 
 described.  A  comparison  between  the  westerly 
 branches  of  the  Ural-Altaian  on  the  one  hand,  and 
 the  Indo-European  on  the  other,  belonging  resjiec- 
 tively  to  the  agglutinative  and  inflectional  classes, 
 will  show  that  the  quantitative  amount  of  syn- 
 thesis is  fully  as  prominent  a  point  of  contrast  as 
 the  qualitati\e.  The  combination  of  primary  and 
 subordinate  terms  may  be  more  perfect  in  the 
 Indo-European,  but  it  is  more  extensively  employed 
 in  the  Ural-Altaian  family.  The  former,  for  in- 
 stance, appends  to  its  verbal  stems  the  notions  of 
 time,  number,  person,  and  occasionally  of  interro- 
 gation;  the  latter  further  adds  suflSxes  indicative 
 of  negation,  hypothesis,  causativeness,  reflexiveness, 
 and  other  similar  ideas,  whereby  the  word  is  built 
 up  tier  on  tier  to  a  marvelous  extent.  The  former 
 appends  to  its  substantival  stems  suffixes  of  case 
 and  number;  the  latter  adds  governing  particles, 
 rendering  them  post- positional  instead  of  pre-posi- 
 tional,  and  combining  them  synthetically  with  the 
 207 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    8289 
 
 predicable  stem.  If,  again,  we  compare  the  Shemitio 
 with  the  Indo-European  languages,  we  shall  find  a 
 morphological  distinction  of  an  equally  diverse 
 character.  In  the  former  the  grammatical  category 
 is  expressed  by  internal  vowel-changes,  in  the  latter 
 by  external  suffixes.  So  marked  a  distinction  has 
 not  unnaturally  been  constituted  the  basis  of  a 
 classification,  wherein  the  languages  that  adopt  this 
 system  of  internal  flection  stand  by  themselves  as  a 
 separate  class,  in  contradistinction  to  those  which 
 either  use  terminational  additions  for  the  same  pur- 
 pose, or  which  dispense  wholly  with  inflectional 
 forms  (Bopp's  Coiiip.  Gr.  i.  102).  The  singular 
 use  of  pretbrmatives  in  the  Coptic  language  is, 
 again,  a  morphological  peculiarity  of  a  very  decided 
 character.  And  even  within  the  same  family,  say 
 the  Indo-European,  each  language  exhibits  an  idio- 
 syncrasy in  its  morphological  character,  whereby  it 
 stands  out  apart  from  the  other  members  with  a 
 decided  impress  of  individuality.  The  inference  to 
 be  drawn  from  the  number  and  character  of  the 
 difftjrences  we  have  noticed  is  favorable,  rather  than 
 otherwise,  to  the  theory  of  an  original  unity.  Start- 
 ing from  the  same  common  ground  of  monosyllabic 
 roots,  each  language-family  has  carried  out  its  own 
 special  line  of  development,  following  an  original  im- 
 pulse, the  causes  and  nature  of  which  must  remain 
 probably  forever  a  matter  of  conjecture.  We  can 
 perceive,  indeed,  in  a  general  way,  the  adaptation  of 
 certain  forms  of  s[)eech  to  certain  states  of  society. 
 The  agglutinative  languages,  for  instance,  seem  to  be 
 specially  adapted  to  the  nomadic  state  by  the  prom- 
 inence and  distinctness  with  which  they  enunciate 
 the  leading  idea  in  each  word,  an  arrangement 
 whereby  comnuniication  would  be  facilitated  be- 
 tween tribes  or  families  that  associate  only  at  inter- 
 \als.  We  might  almost  imagine  that  these  languages 
 derived  their  impress  of  uniformity  and  solidity 
 from  the  monotonous  steppes  of  Central  Asia,  which 
 have  in  all  ages  formed  their  proper  habitat.  So, 
 again,  the  inflectional  class  reflects  cultivated 
 thought  and  social  organization,  and  its  languages 
 have  hence  been  termed  "state"  or  "political." 
 Monosyllabism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  pronounced  to 
 lie  suited  to  the  most  primitive  stage  of  thought  and 
 society,  wherein  the  family  or  the  individual  is  the 
 standard  by  which  things  are  regulated  (Max  Miil- 
 ler,  in  P/nlos.  of  UistA.  28o).  We  should  hesi- 
 tate, howevei',  to  press  this  theory  as  furnishing  an 
 adequate  explanation  of  the  differences  observable  in 
 language-families.  The  Indo-European  languagesat- 
 tained  their  high  organization  amid  the  same  scenes 
 and  in  the  same  nomad  state  as  those  wherein  the 
 agglutinative  languages  were  nurtured,  and  we 
 should  be  rather  disposed  to  regard  both  the  language 
 and  the  higher  social  status  of  the  former  as  the 
 concurrent  results  of  a  higher  mental  organization. 
 If  from  words  we  pass  on  to  the  varieties  of  syn- 
 tactical arrangement,  the  same  degree  of  analogy 
 will  be  found  to  exist  between  class  and  class,  or 
 between  family  and  family  in  the  same  class;  in 
 other  words,  no  peculiarity  exists  in  one  which  does 
 not  admit  of  explanation  by  a  comparison  with 
 others.  The  absence  of  all  grannnatical  forms  in 
 an  isolating  language  necessitates  a  rigid  collocation 
 of  the  words  in  a  sentence  according  to  logical  prin- 
 ciples. The  same  law  prevails  to  a  very  great  extent 
 in  our  own  language,  wherein  the  subject,  verb,  and 
 object,  or  the  subject,  copula,  and  predicate,  geiier- 
 aliy  hold  their  relative  positions  in  the  order  ex- 
 hibited, the  exceptions  to  such  an  arrangement  being 
 easily  brought  into  harmony  with  that  genenl  law. 
 
3290     TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 In  the  agglutinative  languages  the  law  of  arrange- 
 ment is  that  the  principal  word  should  come  last 
 in  the  sentence,  every  qualifying  clause  or  word 
 preceding  it,  and  being  as  it  were  sustained  by  it. 
 The  syntactical  is  thus  the  reverse  of  the  verbal 
 structure,  tlie  principal  notion  taking  tlie  precedence 
 in  the  latter  (Ewald,  SprncJiw.  Abli.  ii.  29).  There 
 is  in  this  nothing  peculiar  to  this  class  of  languages, 
 beyond  the  greater  uniformity  with  which  the  ar- 
 rangement is  adhered  to:  it  is  the  general  rule  in 
 the  classical,  and  the  occasional  rule  in  certain  of  the 
 Teutonic  languages.  In  the  Shemitic  family  the 
 rev(^rse  arrangement  prevails:  the  qualifying  adjec- 
 tives follow  the  noun  to  which  they  belong,  and 
 the  verb  generally  stands  first :  short  sentences  are 
 necessitated  by  such  a  collocation,  and  hence  more 
 room  is  allowed  for  the  influence  of  emphasis  in 
 deciding  the  order  of  the  sentence.  In  illustration 
 of  grammatical  peculiarities,  we  may  notice  that 
 in  the  agglutinative  class  adjectives  qualifying 
 substantives,  or  substantives  placed  in  a[)position 
 with  substantives,  remain  undeclined :  in  this  case 
 the  process  may  be  compared  with  the  formation 
 of  compound  words  in  the  Indo-European  languages, 
 where  the  final  member  alone  is  inflected.  So  again 
 the  omission  of  a  plural  termination  in  nouns  fol- 
 lowing a  numeral  may  be  paralleled  with  a  similar 
 usage  in  our  own  language,  where  the  terms 
 "  pound  "  or  •' head  "  are  used  collectively  after  a 
 numeral.  We  may  again  cite  the  peculiar  manner 
 of  expressing  the  genitive  in  Hebrew.  This  is 
 eflfected  by  one  of  the  two  following  methods  — 
 placing  the  governing  noun  in  the  status  con- 
 siructus,  or  using  the  relative  pronoun «  with  a 
 preposition  before  the  governed  case.  The  first  of 
 these  processes  appears  a  strange  inversion  of  the 
 laws  of  language;  but  an  examination  into  the 
 origin  of  tlie  adjuncts,  whether  prefixes  or  affixes, 
 used  in  other  languages  for  tlie  indication  of  the 
 genitive,  will  show  that  they  have  a  more  intimate 
 connection  witii  the  go\erning  than  with  the 
 governed  word,  and  that  they  are  generally  re- 
 solvable into  either  relati\e  or  personal  pronouns, 
 which  serve  the  simple  purpose  of  connecting  the 
 two  words  together  (Garnetfs  /.'ssa?/s,  pp.  214-227). 
 The  same  end  may  be  gained  by  connecting  the 
 words  in  pronunciation,  which  would  lead  to  a  rapid 
 utterance  of  the  first,  and  consequently  to  the  changes 
 which  are  witnessed  in  the  status  coustructus.  The 
 second  or  periphrastic  process  is  in  accordance  with 
 the  general  method  of  expressing  the  genitive;  for 
 the  expression  "the  Song  which  is  to  Solomon" 
 strictly  answers  to  "  Solomon's  Song,"  the  s  repre- 
 senting (according  to  Bopp's  explanation)  a  com- 
 bination of  the  demonstrative  sa  and  the  relative  ya. 
 It  is  thus  that  the  varieties  of  construction  may  be 
 shown  to  be  consistent  with  unity  of  law,  and  that 
 they  therefore  furnish  no  argument  against  a  com- 
 mon origin. 
 
 Lastly,  it  may  be  shown  that  the  varieties  of 
 language  do  not  arise  from  any  constitutional  in- 
 equality of  vital  energy.     Nothing  is  more  remark- 
 
 "  b  "T^s. 
 
 b  The  actiou  of  this  law  is  as  follows  :  The  vowels 
 are  divided  into  three  classes,  which  we  may  term 
 snarp,  medial,  and  flat:  the  first  and  the  l;ist  cannot 
 be  combined  in  any  fully  formed  word,  but  all  the 
 vowels  must  be  either  of  the  two  first,  or  of  the  two 
 last  classes.  The  suffixes  must  always  accord  with 
 the  root  in  regard  to  the  quality  of  its  vowel-sounds, 
 and  hence  the  necessity  of  having  double  forms  for  all 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 able  than  the  compensating  power  apparently  in- 
 herent in  all  language,  whereby  it  finds  tlie  means 
 of  reaching  the  level  of  the  human  spirit  through  » 
 Aiithful  adherence  to  its  own  guiding  principle. 
 The  isolating  languages,  being  shut  out  from  the 
 manifold  advantages  of  verbal  composition,  attain 
 their  object  by  multiplied  combinations  of  radical 
 sounds,  assisted  by  an  elaborate  system  of  accentua- 
 tion and  intonation.  In  this  manner  the  Chinese 
 language  has  framed  a  vocabulary  fully  equal  to 
 the  demands  made  upon  it;  and  though  this  mode 
 of  development  may  not  commend  itself  to  our 
 notions  as  the  most  effective  that  can  be  devised, 
 yet  it  plainly  evinces  a  high  susceptibility  on  the 
 part  of  the  linguistic  faculty,  and  a  keen  perception 
 of  the  correspondence  between  sound  and  sense. 
 Nor  does  the  absence  of  inflection  interfere  with 
 the  expression  even  of  the  most  delicate  shades  of 
 meaning  in  a  sentence;  a  compensating  resource  is 
 found  partly  in  a  multiplicity  of  subsidiary  terms 
 expressive  of  plurality,  motion,  action,  etc.,  and 
 partly  in  strict  attention  to  syntactical  arrangement. 
 The  agglutinative  languages,  again,  are  deficient 
 in  compoimd  words,  and  in  this  respect  lack  the 
 elasticity  and  expansiveness  of  the  Indo-European 
 family;  but  they  are  eminently  synthetic,  and  no 
 one  can  fail  to  admire  the  regularity  and  solidity 
 with  which  its  words  are  built  up,  suffix  on  sutfix, 
 and,  when  built  up,  are  suffused  with  an  uniformity 
 of  tint  by  the  law  of  vowel-harmony.''  The  Shemitic 
 languages  have  worked  out  a  ditik'ent  principle  of 
 growth,  evolved,  not  improiiably,  in  the  midst  of  a 
 conflict  between  the  systems  of  prefix  and  suffix, 
 whereby  the  stem,  being  as  it  were  inclosed  at  both 
 extremities,  was  precluded  from  all  external  incre- 
 ment, and  was  forced  back  into  such  changes  as 
 could  be  eflected  by  a  modification  of  its  vowel 
 sounds.  But  whatever  may  be  the  origin  of  the 
 system  of  internal  inflection,  it  must  be  conceded 
 that  the  results  are  \ery  effective,  as  regards  both 
 economy  of  material,  and  simplicity  and  dignity  of 
 style. 
 
 The  residt  of  the  foregoing  observations  is  to 
 show  that  the  formal  varieties  of  language  present 
 no  obstacle  to  the  theory  of  a  common  origin. 
 Amid  these  varieties  there  may  1)6  discerned  mani- 
 fest tokens  of  unity  in  the  original  material  out  of 
 which  language  was  formed,  in  the  stages  of  forma- 
 tion through  which  it  has  passed,  in  the  general 
 principle  of  grammatical  expression,  and,  lastly,  in 
 the  spirit  and  power  displayed  in  tlie  development 
 of  these  various  formations.  Such  a  result,  though 
 it  does  not  prove  the  unity  of  language  in  respect 
 to  its  radical  elements,  nevertheless  tends  to  estab- 
 lish the  a  priori  probability  of  this  unit}';  for  if  all 
 connected  with  the  forms  of  language  may  be  re- 
 ferred to  certain  general  laws,  if  nothing  in  that 
 department  owes  its  origin  to  chance  or  arbitrary 
 appointment,  it  surely  favors  the  presumption  that 
 the  same  principle  would  extend  to  the  formation 
 of  the  roots,  which  are  the  very  core  and  kernel  of 
 language.     Here  too  we  might  expect  to  find  the 
 
 the  suffixes  to  meet  the  sharp  or  the  flat  character  of 
 the  root.  The  practice  is  probably  referable  to  the 
 same  principle  which  assigned  so  remarkable  a  prom- 
 inence to  the  root.  As  the  root  sustains  the  series  of 
 suffixes,  its  vowel-sound  becomes  not  unnaturally  the 
 key-note  of  the  whole  strain,  facilitating  the  processes 
 of  utterance  to  the  speaker,  and  of  perception  to  the 
 hearer,  and  communicating  to  the  word  the  unifoiniity 
 which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  whole  structure  of 
 these  languages. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 operation  of  fixed  laws  of  some  kind  or  other,  pro- 
 ducing results  of  an  uniform  character ;  here  too 
 actual  variety  may  not  be  inconsistent  with  original 
 unity. 
 
 11.  Before  entering  on  the  subject  of  the  radical 
 identity  of  languages,  we  must  express  our  convic- 
 tion that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  a  decisive 
 opinion  as  to  the  possibility  of  establisliing  it  by 
 proof.  Let  us  briefly  review  the  difiiculties  that 
 beset  the  question.  Every  word  as  it  ajipears  in 
 an  organic  language,  whether  written  or  spoken, 
 is  resolvable  into  two  distinct  elements,  which  we 
 have  termed  predicable  and  formal,  the  first  being 
 what  is  commonly  called  the  root,  the  second  the 
 grammatical  termination.  In  point  of  fact  both  of 
 these  elements  consist  of 'independent  roots;  and  in 
 order  to  prove  the  radical  identity  of  two  languages, 
 it  must  be  shown  that  they  agree  in  both  respects, 
 that  is,  in  regard  both  to  the  predicable  and  the 
 formal  roots.  As  a  matter  of  experience  it  is  found 
 that  the  formal  elements,  consisting  for  the  most 
 part  of  pronominal  bases,  exhibit  a  greater  tenacity 
 of  life  than  the  others ;  and  hence  agreement  of  in- 
 flectional forms  is  justly  regarded  as  furnishing  a 
 strong  presumption  of  general  radical  identity. 
 Even  foreign  elements  are  forced  into  the  formal 
 mould  of  the  language  into  which  they  are  adopted, 
 and  thus  bear  testimony  to  the  original  character 
 of  that  language.  But  though  such  a  formal  agree- 
 ment supplies  the  philologist  with  a  most  valuable 
 instrument  of  investigation,  it  cannot  be  accepted 
 as  a  substitute  for  complete  radical  agreement:  this 
 would  still  remain  to  be  proved  by  an  independent 
 examination  of  the  predicable  elements.  'I'he  ditR- 
 culties  connected  with  these  latter  are  many  and 
 varied.  Assuming  that  two  languages  or  language- 
 families  are  under  comparison,  the  phonological 
 laws  of  each  must  be  investigated  in  order  to  arrive, 
 in  the  first  place,  at  the  primary  forms  of  words  in 
 the  language  in  which  they  occur,  and,  in  tiie  sec- 
 ond place,  at  the  corresponding  forms  in  the  lan- 
 guage which  constitutes  the  "  other  member  of 
 comparison,  as  done  by  Grinnn  for  the  Teutonic  as 
 compared  with  the  Sanskrit  and  the  classical  lan- 
 guages. The  genealogy  of  sound,  as  we  may  term 
 it,  must  be  followed  up  by  a  genealogy  of  significa- 
 tion, a  mere  outward  accordance  of  soimd  and  sense 
 in  two  terms  being  of  no  value  whatever,  unless  a 
 radical  afliinity  be  proved  by  ati   independent  ex- 
 
 a  Grimm  was  the  first  to  discover  a  regular  system 
 of  displacement  of  sounds  {lautverschiebun^)  pervading 
 tlie  Gothic  and  Low  German  languages  as  compared 
 with  Greek  and  Latin.  According  to  this  system,  the 
 Gothic  substitutes  aspirates  for  tenues  (A  for  Gr.  k  or 
 Lat.  c,  til  for  «,  and  ./  for  p)  ;  tenues  for  medials  {t  for 
 rf,  p  for  6,  and  k  for  g) ;  and  medials  for  aspirates 
 (§  for  Gr.  cli  or  Lat.  /^,  (I  for  6r.  tk,  and  b  for  Lat.yor 
 Gr.ph){Gesdi.  Dents.  Spr.  i.  393).  We  may  illustrate 
 the  changes  by  comparing  heart  with  ror  or  xapSia ; 
 thou  with  n/.  ,•  five  with  ney-ire  (-nivTe),  or  father  with 
 •pater  :  two  with  duo  ;  hnee  with  yoi'v  ;  snose  with  ^-qv  ; 
 rfa/-e  with  flapcreo) ;  6far  with /ero  or  <|)6'pco.  AV'hat  has 
 thus  been  done  for  the  Teutonic  languages,  has  been 
 carried  out  by  Schleicher  in  his  Compendiittn  for  each 
 cl.'tss  of  the  Indo-European  family. 
 
 b  It  is  a  delicate  question  to  decide  whether  in  any 
 given  language  the  onomatopoetic  words  that  may 
 occur  are  original  or  derived.  Numerous  coincidences 
 of  sound  and  sense  occur  in  different  languages  to 
 which  little  or  no  value  is  attached  by  etymologists 
 on  the  ground  that  they  are  onomatopoetic.  But 
 evidently  these  may  have  been  handed  down  from 
 generation   to   generation,  and  from  language  to  lan- 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3291 
 
 amination,  of  the  cognate  words  in  each  case.  It 
 still  remains  to  be  inquired  how  far  the  ultimate 
 accordance  of  sense  and  sound  may  be  the  result  of 
 onomatopoeia,*  of  mere  borrowing,  or  of  a  possible . 
 mixture  of  languages  on  equal  terms.  The  final 
 stage  in  etymological  inquiry  is  to  decide  the  limit 
 to  which  comparison  may  be  carried  in  the  prim- 
 itive strata  of  language  —  in  other  words,  how  far 
 roots,  as  ascertained  fr^m  groups  of  words,  may  lie 
 compared  with  roots,  and  reduced  to  yet  sinqiler 
 elementary  forms.  Any  flaw  in  the  processes  above 
 described  will  of  com-se  invalidate  the  whole  result. 
 Even  where  the  philologist  is  provided  with  ample 
 materials  for  inquiry  in  .stores  of  literature  ranging 
 over  long  periods  of  time,  nmch  difficulty  is  ex- 
 perienced in  making  good  each  link  in  the  chain 
 of  agreement;  and  yet  in  such  cases  the  dialectic 
 varieties  have  been  kept  within  some  degree  of  re- 
 straint by  the  existence  of  a  literary  language, 
 which,  by  impressing  its  authoritative  stamp  on 
 certain  terms,  has  secured  both  their  general  use 
 and  their  external  integrity.  Where  no  literature 
 exists,  as  is  the  case  with  the  general  mass  of  lan- 
 guages in  the  world,  the  difficulties  are  infinitely 
 increased  by  the  combined  etfects  of  a  prolific  growth 
 of  dialectic  forms,  and  an  absence  of  all  means  of 
 tracing  out  their  progress,  ^^'hether  under  these 
 circumstances  we  may  reasonably  expect  to  establish 
 a  radical  inuty  of  language,  is  a  question  which 
 each  person  must  decide  for  himself.  JIuch  may 
 yet  be  done  by  a  larger  induction  and  a  scientific 
 analysis  of  languages  that  are  yet  comparatively 
 unknown.  The  tendency  hitherto  has  been  to  en- 
 large the  limits  of  a  "family"  according  as  the 
 elements  of  atfinity  have  been  recognized  in  out- 
 lying members.  These  limits  may  perchance  be 
 still  more  enlarged  by  the  discovery  of  connecting 
 liidvs  between  the  language-families,  whereby  the 
 criteria  of  relationsliip  will  be  modified,  and  new 
 elements  of  internal  unity  be  discovered  amid  the 
 manifold  appearances  of  external  diversity. 
 
 Meanwhile  we  must  content  ourselves  with  stating 
 the  present  position  of  the  linguistic  science  in  ref- 
 erence to  this  important  topic.  In  the  first  place 
 the  Indo-European  languages  have  been  reduced  to 
 an  acknowledged  and  well-defined  relationship:  they 
 form  one  of  the  iwo  fauiilies  included  under  the 
 head  of  "  inflectional  "  in  the  morphological  classi- 
 fication.    The  other  family  in  this  class  is  the  (so- 
 
 guage,  and  may  have  as  true  a  genealogy  as  any  other 
 terms  not  bearing  that  character.     For  instance,  the 
 
 Hebrew  Iti'a  (37^  v)  expresses  in  its  very  sound  the 
 notion  of  sii-allowing  or  gulping,  the  word  consisting, 
 as  Renan  has  remarked  {H.  G.  i.  460),  of  a  lingual 
 and  a  guttural,  representing  respectively  the  tongue 
 and  the  throat,  which  are  chiefl3'  engaged  in  the 
 operation  of  swallowing.  In  the  Indo-European  lan- 
 guages we  meet  with  a  large  class  of  words  containing 
 the  same  elements  and  conveying,  more  or  less,  the 
 same  meaning,  such  as  Aei'xw.  Ai^niaoj,  ligurio,  lingua, 
 gula,  "  lick,"  and  others.  These  words  may  have  had 
 a  common  source,  but,  because  they  are  onomatopoetic 
 in  their  character,  they  are  excluded  as  evidence  of 
 radical  affinity.  This  exclusion  may  be  carried  too 
 far,  though  it  is  difficult  to  point  out  where  it  should 
 stop.  But  even  onomatopoetic  words  bear  a  specific 
 character,  and  the  names  given  in  imitation  of  the 
 notes  of  birds  differ  materially  in  different  languages, 
 apparently  from  the  perception  of  some  subtle  analogy 
 with  previously  existing  sounds  or  ideas.  The  subject 
 is  one  of  great  interest,  and  may  yet  play  an  important 
 part  in  the  history  of  language. 
 
3292    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 called )  Shemitic,  the  limits  of  which  are  not  equally 
 flrell  defined,  inasmuch  as  it  may  be  extended  over 
 what  are  termed  the  sub-Sheniitic  languages,  in- 
 cluding the  Egy])tian  or  Coptic.  The  criteria  of 
 the  proper  Shemitic  family  {i.  e.  the  Aramaean, 
 Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  languages)  are  dis- 
 tinctive enough;  but  the  connection  between  the 
 Shemitic  and  the  Egyptian  is  not  definitely  estab- 
 lished. Some  philologists  are  inclined  to  claim  for 
 the  latter  an  independent  position,  intermediate 
 between  the  Indo-European  and  Shemitic  families 
 (Bunsen's  Pliil.  of  JlUt.  i.  185  fF.).  The  aggluti- 
 native languages  of  ICurope  and  Asia  are  combined 
 by  Prof.  M.  Miiller,  in  one  family  named  "  Tu- 
 ranian." It  is  conceded  that  the  family  bond  in 
 this  case  is  a  loose  one,  and  that  the  agreement  in 
 roots  is  very  partial  (Lectures,  pp.  290-292).  Many 
 philologists  of  high  standing,  and  more  particularly 
 Pott  {Ungleich.  Merisch.  Eassen,  p.  232),  deny  the 
 family  relationship  altogether,  and  break  up  the 
 agglutinative  languages  into  a  great  number  of 
 families.  Certain  it  is  that  within  the  Turanian 
 circle  there  are  languages,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
 Ural-Altaian,  which  show  so  close,  an  affinity  to 
 each  other  as  to  be  entitled  to  form  a  separate 
 division,  either  as  a  family  or  a  subdivision  of  a 
 family :  and  this  being  the  case,  we  should  hesitate 
 to  put  them  on  a  parity  of  footing  with  the  re- 
 mainder of  the  Turanian  langtiages.  The  Caucasian 
 group  again  diflfers  so  widely  from  the  other  mem- 
 bers of  the  family  as  to  make  the  relationship  very 
 dubious.  The  monosyllabic  languages  of  south- 
 eastern Asia  are  not  included  in  the  Turanian 
 family  by  Prof.  M.  Midler  (Lect.  pp.  290,  32G), 
 apparently  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  ag- 
 glutinative; but  as  the  Chinese  appears  to  be  con- 
 nected radically  with  the  Burmese  (Humboldt's 
 Verschied.  p.  368),  with  the  Tibetan  {Pli.  of  Hist. 
 i.  39.3-395),  and  with  the  Ural-Altaian  languages 
 (Schott  in  Abh.  Ab.  Bed.  1801,  p.  172),  it  seems 
 to  have  a  good  title  to  be  placed  in  the  Turanian 
 family.  With  regard  to  the  American  and  the 
 bulk  of  the  African  languages,  we  are  unable  to  say 
 whether  they  can  be  brought  under  any  of  the 
 heads  already  mentioned,  or  whether  they  stand  by 
 themselves  as  distinct  families.  The  former  are 
 referred  by  writers  of  hii;h  eminence  to  an  Asiatic 
 or  Turanian  origin  (Hunsen,  Phil,  of  Hist.  ii.  Ill; 
 Latham's  Man  and  his  Mi(/rat.  p.  186);  the  latter 
 to  the  Shemitic  family  (Latham,  p.  148). 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 The  problem  that  awaits  solution  is,  whether  the 
 several  families  above  specified  can  be  reduced  to  a 
 single  family  by  demonstrating  their  radical  iden- 
 tity. It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  that  this 
 identity  should  be  coextensive  with  the  vocabula- 
 ries of  the  various  languages:  it  would  naturally 
 be  confined  to  such  ideas  and  objects  as  are  com- 
 mon to  mankind  generally.  Even  within  this  circle 
 the  difficulty  of  proving  the  identity  may  be  in- 
 finitely enhanced  by  the  absence  of  materials. 
 There  are  indeed  but  two  families  in  which  these 
 materials  are  found  in  anything  like  sufficiency, 
 namely,  the  Indo-European  and  the  Shemitic,  and 
 even  these  furnish  us  with  no  historical  evidence 
 as  to  the  earlier  stages  of  their  growth.  We  find 
 each,  at  the  most  remote  literary  period,  already 
 exhibiting  its  distinctive  character  of  stem-  and 
 word-formation,  leaving  us  to  infer,  as  we  best 
 may,  from  these  phenomena  the  processes  by  which 
 they  had  reached  that  point.  Hence  there  arises 
 abundance  of  room  for  difference  of  opinion,  and 
 the  extent  of  the  radical  identity  wiU  depend  very 
 much  on  the  view  adopted  as  to  these  earlier  pro- 
 cesses. If  we  could  accept  in  its  entirety  the  sys- 
 tem of  etymology  propounded  by  the  analytical 
 school  of  Hebrew  scholars,  it  would  not  be  diflScult 
 to  establish  a  very  large  amount  of  radical  identity; 
 but  we  cannot  regard  as  established  the  preposi- 
 tional force  of  the  initial  letters,  as  stated  by 
 Delitzsch  in  his  Jeshurun  (pp.  166,  173,  note), 
 still  less  the  correspondence  between  these  and  the 
 initial  letters  of  Greek  and  Latin  words"  (pp. 
 170-172).  The  striking  imiformity  of  bisyllabism 
 in  the  verbal  stems  is  explicable  only  on  the  as- 
 sumption that  a  single  principle  underlies  the 
 whole;  and  the  existence  of  groups*  of  words  dif- 
 fering slightly  in  form,  and  having  the  same  radi- 
 cal sense,  leads  to  the  presumption  that  this  princi- 
 ple was  one  not  of  composition,  but  of  euphonism 
 and  i)ractical  convenience.  This  presumption  is 
 still  further  favored  by  an  analysis  of  the  letters 
 forming  the  stems,  showing  that  the  third  letter  is 
 in  many  instances  a  reduplication,  and  in  others  a 
 liquid,  a  nasal,  or  a  sibilant,  introduced  either  as 
 the  initial,  the  medial,  or  the  final  letter.  The 
 Hebrew  alphabet  admits  of  a  classification  <^  based 
 on  the  radical  character  of  the  letter  according  to 
 its  position  in  the  stem.  The  effect  of  comj)osi- 
 tion  would  have  been  to  produce,  in  the  first  place, 
 a  greater  inequality  in  the  length  of  the  words, 
 
 a  Several  of  the  terms  compared  by  him  are  ono- 
 matopoetic,  as  parak  (/rac-turel,  pdlask  (vraTdo-creii'), 
 and  kalap,  and  in  each  of  these  cases  the  initial  letter 
 forms  part  of  the  onomatopoeia.  In  others  tlie  initial 
 letter  in  the  Greek  is  radical,  as  in  /SacriAeu'ei^  (Potts 
 Et.  Forscli.  ii.  272),  Spvnreiv  (i.  229),  and  o-ToAdfeii' 
 (i.  197).  In  others  again  it  is  euphonic,  as  in  p&d\- 
 Aeii'.  Lastly,  we  are  unable  to  see  how  larap  and  tdrep 
 admit  of  close  comparison  with  6pu<J)eif  and  rpe^eii'. 
 It  shows  the  uncertainty  of  such  analogies  that  Gese- 
 
 nius  compares  tarap  with  SpvimLV,  and  kalap  (r|^3) 
 with  y\.v<j>ei.v,  which  Delitzsch  compares  with  klmLaji 
 (?17n).  An  attempt  to  establish  a  large  amount 
 of  radical  identity  by  means  of  a  resolution  of  the 
 Hebrew  word  into  its  component  and  significant  ele- 
 ments may  lie  seen  in  the  Pkilolo'j;.  Trans,  for  1858, 
 where,  for  instance,  the  ba  in  the  Hebrew  baka.i/i,  is 
 compared  with  the  Teutonic  prefix  be ;  the  'Inr  in  dnr- 
 kash  with  the  Welsh  linr  in  dar-paru;  and  the  ciapli 
 in  clmpliash.  with  the  Welsh  cyf  in  ryfnrns. 
 
 b  These  groups  are  sufficiently  cou;mou  in  Ik'brew. 
 
 We  will  take  as  an  instance  the  following  one  :  ll?!^t3, 
 
 tt?tO"1    trtob,  tt?t03.  and  E?t3Q,  all  conveying  the 
 
 -t'  -t"          -t'  ~t' 
 
 idea  of  "dash"  or  "strike."  Or,  again,  the  follow- 
 ing  group,   with   the    radical   sense    of   slipperiiiess : 
 
 nb,  n^b,  nab,  nnb,  nbn,  r\hn,  ^bo, 
 
 r)bC',  etc.  A  classificatory  lexicon  of  such  groups 
 would  assist  the  etymological  inquiry. 
 
 c  Such  a  classification  is  attempted  by  Boetticher, 
 in  Bunsen,  Philos.  of  Hht.  ii.  357.  After  stating  what 
 letters  may  be  in.serted  either  at  the  beginning,  mid- 
 dle, or  end  of  the  root,  he  enumerates  those  which 
 
 are  always  radical  in  the  several  positions ;  2,  for 
 instance,  in  the  beginning  and  middle,  but  not  at  the 
 end ;  V  .and  7^  in  the  beginning  only  ;  D  and  W 
 in  the  middle  and  at  the  end,  but  not  in  the  begin- 
 ning. We  are  not  prepared  to  accept  this  classifica/- 
 tion  ns  wholly  correct,  but  we  adduce  it  in  illustration 
 of  the  point  above  noticed. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 and,  in  the  second  place,  a  greater  equality  in  the 
 use  of  the  various  organic  sounds. 
 
 After  deducting  largely  from  the  amount  of  ety- 
 mological correspondence  based  on  the  analytical 
 tenets,  there  still  remains  a  considerable  amount  of 
 radical  identity  which  appears  to  be  above  sus- 
 picion. It  is  impossible  to  produce  in  tliis  place  a 
 complete  list  of  the  terms  in  which  that  identity  is 
 manifested.  In  the  subjoined  note  "  we  cite  some 
 instances  of  agreement,  which  cannot  possibly  be 
 explained  on  the  principle  of  direct  onomatopoeia, 
 •and  which  would  therefore  seem  to  be  the  common 
 inheritance  of  the  Indo-European  and  Shemitic 
 families.  Whether  this  agreement  is,  as  Kenan 
 suggests,  the  result  of  a  keen  susceptibility  of  the 
 onomatopoetic  faculty  in  the  original  framers  of  ' 
 the  words  (Hist.  Gen.  i.  405),  is  a  point  that  can 
 neither  be  proved  nor  disproved,  liut  even  if  it 
 were  so,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  words  were  not 
 framed  before  the  separation  of  the  families.  Our 
 list  of  comparative  words  might  be  mucli  enlarged, 
 if  we  were  to  include  comparisons  based  on  the 
 reduction  of  Shemitic  roots  to  a  bis^llabic  form. 
 A  list  of  such  words  may  be  found  in  Delitzsch's 
 Jeshurun,  pp.  177-180.  In  regard  to  pronouns 
 and  numerals,  the  identity  is  but  partial.  We 
 may  detect  the  t  sound,  which  forms  tlie  distinc- 
 tive sound  of  the  second  personal  pronoun  in  the 
 Indo-luiropean  languages,  in  tlie  Hebrew  atldh, 
 and  in  the  personal  terminations  of  the  perfect 
 tense;  but  the  in,  which  is  the  prevailing  sound  of 
 the  first  personal  pronoun  in  the  former,  is  sup- 
 planted by  an  n  in  the  latter.  The  numerals 
 skesh  and  she.bn,  for  "six"  and  "seven,"  accord 
 witli  the  Indo-European  forms:  those  representing 
 the  numbers  from  "one"  to  "five"  are  possibly, 
 though  not  evidently,  identical.*  With  regard  to 
 the  other  language-families,  it  will  not  be  expected, 
 after  the  observations  already  made,  that  we  should 
 attempt  the  proof  of  their  radical  identity.  The 
 Ural- Altaian  languages  have  been  extensi\ely  stud- 
 ied, but  are  hardly  ripe  for  comparison.  Occa- 
 sional resemblances  have  been  detected  in  gram- 
 matical forms  "  and  in  the  vocabularies ; '"'  but  the 
 value  of  tliese  remains  to  be  proved,  and  we  must 
 await  the  results  of  a  more  extended  research  into 
 this  and  other  regions  of  the  world  of  language. 
 
 (B.)  We  pass  on  to  the  second  point  proposed 
 for  consideration,  namely,  the  ethnological  views 
 expressed   in  the  Bible,  and  more  particularly  in 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3293 
 
 the  10th  chapter  of  Genesis,  which  records  the  dis- 
 persion of  nations  consequent  on  the  Confusion  of 
 Tongues. 
 
 I.  The  Mosaic  talile  does  not  profess  to  describe 
 the  process  of  the  dispersion ;  but  assuming  that 
 dispersion  as  a  fnit  (iccompli,  it  records  the  ethnic 
 relations  existing  between  the  various  nations  af- 
 fected by  it.  These  relations  are  expressed  under 
 the  guise  of  a  genealogy;  the  ethnological  char- 
 acter of  the  document  is,  however,  clear  botli  from 
 the  names,  some  of  which  are  gentilic  in  form,  as 
 Ludim,  Jebusite,  etc.,  others  geogra|)hical  or  local, 
 as  Mizraim,  Sidon,  etc.;  and  again  from  tlie  form- 
 ulary, which  concludes  each  section  of  the  suliject 
 "after  their  faniihes,  after  their  tongues,  in  their 
 countries,  and  in  their  nations"  (vv.  5,  20,  .31). 
 Incidentally,  the  table  is  geographical  as  well  as 
 ethnological;  but  this  arises  out  of  the  practice  of 
 designating  nations  by  the  countries  they  occupy. 
 It  has  indeed  been  frequently  surmised  that  the  ar- 
 rangement of  the  taijle  is  purely  geographical,  and 
 tliis  idea  is  to  a  certain  extent  favored  by  the  pos- 
 sibility of  explaining  the  names  Shem,  Ham,  and 
 Japlieth  on  this  principle;  the  first  signifying  the 
 "high"  lands,  the  second  the  "hot"  or  "low" 
 lands,  and  the  third  the  "Ijroad."  undefined  regions 
 of  the  nortli.  .The  three  families  may  have  been 
 so  located,  and  such  a  circumstance  could  not  have 
 been  unlvnown  to  the  writer  of  the  table.  But 
 neither  internal  nor  external  evidence  satisfactorily 
 prove  such  to  have  been  the  leading  idea  or  prin- 
 ciple embodied  in  it;  for  the  Japhetites  are  mainly 
 assigned  to  the  "  isles  "  or  maritime  districts  of 
 the  west  and  northwest,  while  the  Shemites  press 
 down  into  the  plain  of  Mesopotamia,  and  the 
 Hamites,  on  the  other  hand,  occupy  the  high 
 lands  of  Canaan  and  Lebanon.  We  hold,  there- 
 fore, the  geographical  as  subordinate  to  the  ethno- 
 graphical element,  and  avail  ourselves  of  the  former 
 oidy  as  an  instrument  for  the  discovery  of  the 
 latter. 
 
 The  general  arrangement  of  the  table  is  as  fol- 
 lows :  The  whole  human  race  is  referred  back  to 
 Noah's  three  sons,  Shem,  Ham,  and  .lapheth.  The 
 Shemites  are  descril)ed  last,  apparently  that  the 
 continuity  of  the  narrative  may  not  be  further 
 disturbed;  and  the  Hamites  stand  next  to  the 
 Shemites,  in  order  to  show  that  these  were  more 
 closely  related  to  each  other  than  to  the  Japhetites. 
 The  comparative  degrees  of  affinity  are  expressed, 
 
 «   ?^p,   cornu,  horn. 
 
 TJPtt,  iJ,Ccry<a,  misceo,  mix. 
 
 "TT'^3,  circa,  circle. 
 
 V^W,   Germ,  erde,  earth. 
 
 p  ^n,  glaber,  glisco,  Germ,  glatt,  glide. 
 
 □^3,    C3,    1237,     cum,   (TUV,  KOIVOS. 
 
 Mv£i,  ttAsos,  plenus,  Germ,  volt,  full. 
 
 13,  piirus,  pure. 
 
 M13,  m2,    vorare,  Bopd. 
 
 ni2,   <f>e'pw,  j3apvs,/«>'0,  bear. 
 
 HDS,   e'l/jw,  epala. 
 
 ID,   amarus. 
 
 n'n3,   ciirtus. 
 -  t' 
 
 371T,  severe. 
 
 iH^I^,  San.sk.  niath,m(ith,  mith  (Fiirst,  Lex.  s. 
 v.),  whence  by  the  introductiou  of  r  the  Latin  9nors. 
 
 b  See  Rodiger's  note  in  Gesen.  Gramm.  p.  165. 
 The  identity  even  of  shesli  and  "  six  "  has  been  ques- 
 tioned, on  the  ground  that  the  original  form  of  the 
 Hebrew  word  was  sliet  and  of  the  Aryan  ksvaks  {P/iilol. 
 Trans.  1860,  p.  131). 
 
 c  Several  such  resemblances  are  pointed  out  by 
 Ewald  iu  his  Sprachtv.  Abkand.,  ii.  18,  34,  note. 
 
 d  The  following  verbal  resemblances  in  Hungarian 
 and  Sanskrit  have  been  noticed :  egy  and  eka,  "  one ;  " 
 hat  and  skash,  "  six  ;  "  hit  and  saptan,  "  seven  ;  "  Hz 
 and  dasan,  "  ten  ;  "  ezer  and  sahasra,  "  thousand  ;  " 
 beka  and  bheka,  "  frog  ;  "  arainj  and  hiranja,  "  gold  ;  " 
 (Pkilol.  Trans,  for  1858,  p.  25).  Proofs  of  a  more  in- 
 timate relationship  between  the  Finnish  and  Indo- 
 European  languages  are  adduced  in  a  paper  on  tha 
 subject  in  the  PhiloL.  Trans,  for  1860,  p.  281  ff. 
 
3294    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 partly  by  coupling  the  names  too;ether,  as  in  the 
 cases  of  Elishah  and  Tarshish,  Kittini  and  Doda- 
 nim  (ver.  4),  and  partly  by  representing  a  genea- 
 logical descent,  as,  when  the  nations  just  mentioned 
 are  said  to  be  "  sons  of  Javan."  An  inequality 
 may  be  observed  in  the  length  of  the  genealogical 
 lilies,  which  hi  the  case  of  Japheth  extends  only 
 to  one,  in  Ham  to  two,  in  Sheni  to  three,  and  even 
 four  degrees.  This  inequality  clearly  arises  out 
 of  the  varying  interest  taken  in  the  several  lines 
 by  the  author  of  the  table,  and  by  those  for  wiiose 
 use  it  was  designed.  We  may  lastly  observe,  that 
 the  occurrence  of  the  same  name  in  two  of  tlie  lists, 
 as  in  the  case  of  Lud  (vv.  1;J,  22),  and  Sheba 
 (vv.  7,  28),  possibly  indicates  a  fusion  of  the 
 races. 
 
 The  identification  of  the  Biblical  with  the  his- 
 torical or  classical  names  of  nations,  is  by  no  means 
 an  easy  taslv,  particularly  where  the  names  are  not 
 subsequently  noticed  in  the  Bible.  In  these  cases 
 comparisons  with  ancient  or  modern  designations 
 are  the  only  resource,  and  where  the  designation  is 
 one  of  a  purely  geographical  character,  as  in  the 
 case  of  Riphath  compared  with  Uiptd  inontes,  or 
 Mash  compared  with  Masiiis  inons,  great  doubt 
 must  exist  as  to  the  ethnic  force  of  the  title,  inas- 
 much as  several  nations  may  have  successively 
 occupied  the  same  district.  Equal  doubt  arises 
 where  names  admit  of  being  treated  as  appella- 
 tives, and  so  of  being  transferred  from  one  district 
 to  another,  llecent  research  into  Assyrian  and 
 Egyptian  records  has  in  many  instances  thrown 
 light  on  the  Biblical  titles.  In  the  former  we  find 
 Meshech  and  Tubal  noticed  under  the  forms  Mus- 
 k(d  and  Tuplai,  while  Javan  appears  as  the  appel- 
 lation of  Cyprus,  where  the  Assyrians  first  met 
 with  Greek  civilization.  In  the  latter  the  name 
 Phut  appears  under  the  form  of  Fount,  Hittite 
 as  Khita,  Cush  as  Ktesh,  Canaan  as  Kanana, 
 etc. 
 
 1.  The  Japhetite  list  contains  fourteen  names, 
 of  which  seven  represent  independent,  and  the  re- 
 mainder afhliated  nations,  as  follows:  (i.)  Gonier, 
 connected  ethnically  with  the  Cimmerii,  Cimbri  {'^), 
 and  Cymry;  and  geographically  with  Crimea.  As- 
 sociated with  Gomer  are  the  three  following:  {(i.) 
 Ashkenaz,  generally  compared  with  lake  Ascanius 
 ill  Bithynia,  but  by  Knobel  with  the  tribe  Ascei, 
 As,  or  Osseies  in  the  Caucasian  district.  On  the 
 whole  we  prefer  Basse's  suggestion  of  a  connection 
 between  this  name  and  that  of  the  Axenus,  later 
 the  Euxinus  Pontus.  {b.)  Eiphath,  the  liipKi 
 Montes,  which  Knobel  connects  etymologically  and 
 geographically  with  Ccrpates  Mons.  (c.)  I'ogar- 
 mah,  undoubtedly  Armenia,  or  a  portion  of  it. 
 (ii.)  Magog,  the  Scytliicms.  (iii.)  Madai,  Mediii. 
 (iv.)  Javan,  the  Joninns,  as  a  general  appellation 
 for  the  Hellenic  race,  with  whom  are  associated 
 the  four  following:  {a.)  Elishali,  the  yEolians,  less 
 probably  identified  with  the  district  Elis.  (b.) 
 Tarshish,  at  a  later  period  of  Bililical  history  cer- 
 tainly identical  with  Turtessus  in  Spain,  to  which, 
 however,  there  are  objections  as  regards  tlie  table, 
 partly  from  the  too  extended  area  thus  given  to  the 
 Mosaic  world,  and  partly  because  Tartessus  was  a 
 Phoenician,  and  consequently  not  a  Japhetic  settle- 
 ment. Knobel  compares  the  Tyiseni,  Tyrrheni, 
 and  Tusci  of  Italy;  but  this  is  precarious,  (c.) 
 Kittim,  the  town  Ciiiuin  in  Cyprus,  {d.)  Doda- 
 nim,  the  Ihtrdani  of  Illyria  and  Mysia:  Dodona 
 is  sometimes  compared,  (v.)  Tubal,  the  Tibareni 
 in    Pontus.     (vi.)   Meshech,    the    Moschi    in    the 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 northwestern  part  of  Armenia,     (vii.j  Tiras,  per- 
 haps Thraciit. 
 
 2.  The  Hamitic  list  contains  thirty  names,  of 
 which  four  represent  independent,  and  the  remain- 
 der affiliated  nations,  as  follows:  (i.)  Cush,  in  two 
 branches,  the  western  or  African  representing 
 ^■-EthiopM,  the  Keesli  of  the  old  Egyptian,  and  the 
 eastern  or  Asiatic  being  connected  with  the  names 
 of  the  tribe  Cosswi,  the  district  Cissia,  and  the 
 province  Susiana  or  KliiizisUm.  With  Cush  are 
 associated:  («.)  Seba,  the  Snbmi  of  Yemen  in 
 south  Arabia.  (6.)  Ilavilah,  the  district  Kliiiwldn 
 in  the  same  part  of  the  peninsula,  (c.)  Sabtah, 
 the  town  Hubatha  in  ILulramaut.  (d.)  IJaamah, 
 the  town  Rhegma  on  the  southeastern  coast  of 
 Arabia,  with  whom  are  associated:  («-.)  Sheba,  a 
 tribe  probably  connected  ethnically  or  commercially 
 with  the  one  of  the  same  name  already  mentioned, 
 but  located  on  the  west  coast  of  the  I'ersian  Gulf. 
 (6-.)  Dedan,  also  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Persian 
 Gulf,  where  the  name  perhaps  still  survives  in  the 
 island  Dadnn.  (e.)  Sabtechah,  perhaps  the  town 
 Samydace  on  the  coast  of  the  Indian  Ocean  east- 
 ward of  the  Persian  Gulf,  {f.)  Ninn-od,  a  per- 
 sonal and  not  a  geographical  name,  the  representa- 
 tive of  the  eastern  Cushites.  (ii.)  Mizraim,  the 
 two  Misrs,  i.  e.  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  with 
 whom  the  following  seven  are  connected:  {«.) 
 Ludim,  according  to  Knobel  a  tribe  allied  to  the 
 Shemitic  Lud,  but  settled  in  Egypt;  others  com- 
 pare the  river  Laud  (Plin.  v.  2),  and  the  Leicdiali, 
 a  Berber  tribe  on  the  Syrtes.  (/;.)  Anamim,  ac- 
 cording to  Knobel  tlie  inhabitants  of  the  Delta, 
 which  would  be  descrilied  in  Egyptian  by  the  term 
 sanemhit  or  isanemlnt,  "  northern  district,"  con- 
 verted by  the  Helirews  into  Anamim.  (c.)  Naphtu- 
 hiin,  variously  explained  as  the  people  of  Nepldhys, 
 i.  e.  the  northern  coast  district  (Bochart),  and  as 
 the  worshippers  of  Phtliah,  meaning  the  inhabit- 
 ants of  Memphis,  [d.]  Pathrusini,  Upper  Egypt, 
 the  name  being  explained  as  meaning  in  the  Egyp- 
 tian "  the  south  "  (Knobel).  (e.)  Casluhim,  Ca- 
 siiis  mons,  Cassiotis,  and  Cassiuiii,  eastward  of  the 
 Delta  (Knobel):  the  Colchians,  according  to  Bo- 
 chart, but  this  is  unlikely.  {/.)  Caphtorini,  most 
 probably  the  district  about  Coplus  in  Upper  Egypt 
 [Caphtoe]  ;  the  island  of  Crete  according  to  many 
 modern  critics,  Cappadocia  according  to  the  older 
 interpreters,  (y.)  Phut,  the  Pmit  of  the  Egyptian 
 inscriptions,  meaning  the  Libyans,  (iii.)  Canaan, 
 tlie  geographical  position  of  which  calls  for  no  re- 
 mark in  this  place.  The  name  has  been  variously 
 explained  as  meaning  the  "  low  "  land  of  the  coast 
 district,  or  the  "subjection  "  threatened  to  Canaan 
 personally  (Gen.  ix.  25).  To  Canaan  belong  the 
 following  eleven :  (a. )  Sidon,  the  well-known  town 
 of  that  name  in  Phoenicia,  (b.)  Heth,  or  the  Hit- 
 tites  of  Biblical  history,  (c.)  The  Jebusite,  o{  de- 
 bus or  Jerusalem,  (d.)  The  Amorite  frequently 
 mentioned  in  Biblical  history,  (e.)  The  Girgasite, 
 the  same  as  the  Girgashites.  (J'.)  The  Hivite,  va- 
 riously explained  to  mean  the  occupants  of  the 
 "interior"  (Ewald),  or  the  dwellers  in  "villages  " 
 (Gesen.).  (</.)  The  Arkite,  of  Area,  north  of  Trip- 
 olis,  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon.  (/;.)  The  Sinite,  of 
 Sin  or  Sinna,  places  in  tiie  Lebanon  district,  (i.) 
 The  Arvadite  of  Aradus  on  the  coast  of  Phoenicia. 
 (_;'.)  The  Zemarite,  of  Simyra  on  the  Eleutherus. 
 (A-. )  The  Hamathite,  of  llamcUh,  the  classical  Epi~ 
 phania,  on  the  Orontes. 
 
 3.  The  Shemitic  list  contains  twenty-five  names, 
 of  which  five  refer  to  independent,  and  the  remain- 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 der  to  affiliated  tribes,  as  follows:  (i.)  Elam,  the 
 tribe  Elyiiuei  and  the  district  Elymais  in  Susiana. 
 (ii.)  Asshiir,  Assyria  between  the  Tigris  and  the 
 raii^e  of  Zagrus.  (iii.)  Arphaxad,  Arrapacltilis  in 
 northern  Assyria,  with  whom  are  associated:  (a.) 
 Salah,  a  personal  and  not  a  geoE^raphical  title,  in- 
 dicating a  migration  of  the  people  represented  by 
 him;  Salah's  son  (a-)  Eber,  representing  geograph- 
 ically the  district  ((cross  (i.  e.  eastward  of)  the  Eu- 
 phrates; and  Eber's  two  sons  (rr*)  Peleg,  a  personal 
 name  indicating  a  "  division  "  of  this  branch  of  the 
 Shemitic  family,  and  (i'^)  Joktan,  representing  gen- 
 erally the  inhabitants  of  Ardli/a,  with  tbe  following 
 thirteen  sons  of  Joktan,  namely:  ("''.)  Almodad, 
 probably  representing  the  tribe  of  Jurhuiii  near 
 Mecca,  whose  leader  was  named  Muikid.  ((!)■'.) 
 Sheleph,  the  Sulipeni  in  Yemen,  (c*.)  Hazarma- 
 veth,  //(tdrioniiul,  in  southern  Arabia,  (d^.)  Je- 
 rah.  (e*.)  Hadoram,  the  AdrniniUe  on  the  south- 
 ern coast,  in  a  district  of  Hadramaut.  if*-)  Uzal, 
 supposed  to  represent  the  town  Szanaa  in  south 
 Arabia,  as  having  been  founded  by  Asnl.  (g*.) 
 Diklah.  (ItK)  Obal,  or,  as  in  1  Chr.  i.  22,  Ebal, 
 which  latter  is  identified  by  Knobel  with  the  6'e- 
 bunlke  in  the  southwest,  (j-*.)  Al)imael,  doubtfully 
 connected  with  the  district  Miilirn,  eastward  of 
 Hadraiiiitut,  and  with  the  towns  A[ara  and  i\[<iU. 
 (j*.)  Sheba,  the  Sabcei  of  southwestern  Arabia, 
 about  ilariaba.  (/;+.)  Ophir,  probably  Admie  on 
 the  southern  coast,  but  see  article,  (l^.)  Havilah, 
 the  district  KluitvU'm  in  the  northwest  of  Yemen. 
 (/»*.)  Jobab,  possibly  the  Jobarike  of  Ptolemy  (vi. 
 7,  §  24),  for  which  Jobabita:  may  originally  have 
 stood,  (iv.)  Lud  generally  compared  with  Lyditi, 
 but  explained  by  Kuobel  as  referring  to  the  various 
 aboriginal  tribes  in  and  about  Palestine,  such  as 
 the  Amalekites,  Rephaites,  Emim,  etc.  We  can- 
 not consider  either  of  these  views  as  well  established. 
 Lydia  itself  lay  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  Mosaic 
 table:  as  to  the  Shemitic  origin  of  its  population, 
 conflicting  opinions  are  entertained,  to  which  we 
 shall  have  occasion  to  advert  hereafter.  Knol.iel's 
 view  has  in  its  favor  the  probability  that  the  tribes 
 referred  to  would  be  represented  in  the  talile;  it  is, 
 however,  wholly  devoid  of  historical  confirmation, 
 with  the  exception  of  an  Arabian  tradition  that 
 AmlUc  was  one  of  the  sons  of  L'ind  or  Laicnd,  the 
 son  of  Shem."  (v.)  Aram,  the  general  name  for 
 Syrld  and  northern  Mesopotamin,  with  whom  the 
 following  are  associated:  (n.)  Uz,  probably  the 
 Ji^sike  of  Ptolemy.  (6.)  Hul,  doubtful,  but  best 
 connected  with  the  name  IluleJi^  attaching  to  a  dis- 
 trict north  of  Lake  IMeroni.  (c.)  Gether,  not  iden- 
 tified. ((/.)  Mash,  M((sius  Muns,  in  the  north  of 
 Mesopotamia. 
 
 There  is  yet  one  name  noticed  in  the  talile, 
 namely,  Philistim,  which  occurs  in  the  llamitic 
 division,  but  without  any  direct  assertion  of  Ham- 
 itic  descent.  The  terms  used  in  the  A.  V.  "  out 
 of  whom  (Casluhim)  came  Philistim"  (ver.  14), 
 would  naturally  imply  descent;  but  the  Hebrew 
 text  only  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the  Philis- 
 tines sojourned  in  the  land  of  the  Casluhim.  Not- 
 withstanding this,  we  believe  the  intention  of  the 
 author  of  the  table  to  have  been  to  affirm  the 
 Hamitic  origin  of  the  Philistines,  leaving  unde- 
 cided the  particular  branch,  whether  Casluhim  or 
 
 a  This  tradition  probably  originated  in  the  desire  to 
 form  a  conuecting  link  between  the  Mosaic  table  and 
 tlie  various  elements  of  the  Arabian  population.  The 
 only  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from   it  is   that,  in  the 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3295 
 
 Caphtorim,  with  which  it  was  more  innnediateh 
 connected. 
 
 The  total  number  of  names  noticed  in  the  table 
 including  Philistim,  would  thus  amount  to  70, 
 which  was  raised  by  patristic  writers  to  72. 
 These  totals  afforded  scope  for  numerical  compari- 
 sons, and  also  for  an  estimate  of  the  luunber  of 
 nations  and  languages  to  be  found  on  the  earth's 
 surAice.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  P.iljle  itself 
 furnishes  no  ground  for  such  calculations,  inasvnuch 
 as  it  does  not  in  any  case  specify  the  numbers. 
 
 Before  proceeding  further,  it  woidd  be  well  tc 
 discuss  a  question  materially  affecting  the  historical 
 \alue  of  the  jMosaic  table,  namely,  the  period  to 
 which  it  refers.  (_)n  this  point  very  various  opin- 
 ions are  entertained.  Knobel,  conceiving  it  to  rep- 
 resent the  commercial  geography  of  the  Plioenicians^ 
 assigns  it  to  about  1200  b.  c.  (  Vdlkert.  pp.  4-9), 
 and  Kenan  supports  this  view  {Hist.  Gdii.  i.  40), 
 while  others  allow  it  no  higher  an  antiquity  than 
 the  period  of  the  Piabylonish  Captivity  (v.  Bohlen's 
 Gen.  ii.  207;  Winer,  Bivb.  ii.  6(j5).  Internal 
 evidence  leads  us  to  refer  it  back  to  the  age  of 
 Abraham  on  the  following  grounds:  (1.)  The  Ca- 
 naanites  were  as  yet  in  undisputed  possession  of 
 Palestine.  (2.)  The  Philistines  had  not  concluaed 
 their  migration.  (3.)  Tyre  is  wholly  unnoticed,  an 
 omission  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
 for  on  the  ground  that  it  is  included  under  the 
 name  either  of  Heth  (Knobel,  p.  32-3),  or  of  SidoD 
 (v.  Pohlen,  ii.  241).  (4.)  Various  places  such  as 
 Simyra,  Sinna,  and  Area,  are  noticed,  which  had 
 fallen  into  insignificance  in  later  times.  (.5. )  Kit- 
 tim,  which  in  the  age  of  Solomon  was  under  PhcB- 
 nician  dominion,  is  assigned  to  Japheth,  and  the 
 same  may  be  said  of  Tarshish,  which  in  that  age 
 undoubtedly  referred  to  the  Phcenician  emporium 
 of  T((rtessus,  whatever  may  have  been  its  earlier 
 significance.  The  chief  objection  to  so  early  a  date 
 as  we  have  ventured  to  propose,  is  the  notice  of  the 
 Medes  under  the  name  Madai.  The  Aryan  nation, 
 which  bears  this  name  in  history,  appears  not  to 
 have  reached  its  final  settlement  until  about  900 
 B.  c.  (Kawlinson's  Ilerod.  i.  404).  But  on  the  other 
 hand,  the  name  Media  may  well  have  belonged  to 
 the  district  before  the  arrival  of  the  Aryan  Medes, 
 whether  it  were  occupied  by  a  tribe  of  kindred  ori- 
 gin to  them  or  by  Turanians;  and  this  probability 
 is  to  a  certain  extent  confirmed  by  the  notice  of  a 
 Median  dynasty  in  Babylon,  as  reported  by  Berosus, 
 so  early  as  the  2.5th  century  b.  c.  (I^awlinson,  i. 
 434).  Little  difficulty  would  be  found  in  assigning 
 so  early  a  date  to  the  iledes,  if  the  Aryan  origin 
 of  the  allied  kings  mentioned  in  Gen.  xiv.  1  were 
 thoroughly  established,  in  accordance  with  Renan's 
 view  (//.  G.  i.  61):  on  this  point,  however,  we  have 
 our  doubts. 
 
 The  Mosaic  table  is  supplemented  by  ethnolog- 
 ical notices  relating  to  the  various  divisions  of  tlie 
 Terachite  family.  These  belonged  to  the  Shemitic 
 division,  being  descended  from  Arphaxad  through 
 Peleg,  with  whom  the  line  terminates  in  the  table. 
 Ken,  Serug,  and  Nahor  form  tbe  intermediate  links 
 between  Peleg  and  Terah  (Gen.  xi.  18-2.5),  with 
 whom  began  the  movement  that  terminated  in  the 
 occupation  of  Canaan  and  the  adjacent  districts  by 
 certain  branches  of  the  family.     The  original  seat 
 
 opinion  of  its  originator,  there  was  an  element  which 
 was  neither  Ishmaelite  nor  Joktanid  (Ewald,  Gesch.  i. 
 339,  note). 
 
3296    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 of  Terah"  was  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (Gen.  xi.  28): 
 thence  he  migrated  to  Haran  (Gen.  xi.  31),  where 
 a  section  of  his  descendants,  the  representatives  of 
 Nahor,  remained  (Gen.  xxiv.  10,  xxvii.  4-3,  xxix. 
 4  ff),  wliile  the  two  branches,  represented  by  Abra- 
 ham and  Lot,  the  son  of  liaran,  crossed  the  Euphra- 
 tes and  settled  in  Canaan  and  the  adjacent  districts 
 (Gen.  xii.  5).  From  Lot  sprant;  the  Moabites  and 
 Ammonites  (Gen.  xix.  30-38):  from  Abraham  the 
 Ishmaelites  through  his  son  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  12), 
 the  Israelites  through  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  I'>dom- 
 ites  through  Isaac  and  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.),  and  cer- 
 tain Arab  tribes,  of  wliom  the  Midianites  are  the 
 most  conspicuous,  through  the  sons  of  liis  concubine 
 Keturali  (Gen.  xxv.  1-4). 
 
 Tlie  most  important  geographical  question  in 
 comiection  witli  the  Teracliites  concerns  their  orig- 
 inal settlement.  The  presence  of  the  Chaldees  in 
 Babylonia  at  a  subsequent  period  of  Scriptural  liis- 
 tory  lias  led  to  a  supposition  that  they  were  a  Ham- 
 itic  people,  originally  belongiog  to  Babylonia,  and 
 thence  transplanted  in  the  7th  and  8th  centuries  to 
 northern  Assyria  (Kawlinson's  Herod,  i.  319).  We 
 do  not  tliinlc  this  view  supported  by  Biblical  notices. 
 It  is  more  consistent  vvitli  the  general  direction  of 
 the  Teracliite  movement  to  loolv  for  Ur  in  northern 
 Mesopotamia,  to  tlie  east  of  Haran.  Tliat  tlie  Clial- 
 dees,  or,  according  to  the  Hebrew  nomenclature, 
 the  Kasdim,  were  found  in  that  neighborhood,  is 
 indicated  l)y  the  name  Che.sed  as  one  of  the  sons  of 
 Nahor  (Gen.  xxii.  22),  and  possibly  by  the  name 
 Arphaxad  itself,  which,  according  to  Ewald  (Gesc/i. 
 i.  378),  means  "fortress  of  the  Chaldees."  In 
 classical  times  we  find  the  Kasdim. still  occupying 
 the  mountains  adjacent  to  Arrapaclntis,  the  Bibli- 
 cal Arpachsad,  under  the  names  Chaldcei  (Xen. 
 Anab.  iv.  3,  §§  1-4)  and  Gordymi  or  Carduciti 
 (Strab.  xvi.  p.  747),  and  here  the  name  still  has  a 
 vital  existence  under  the  form  of  Kurd.  The  name 
 Kasdim  is  explained  by  Oppert  as  meaning  "  two 
 rivers,"  and  thus  as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew 
 Naharaim  and  the  classical  Mesopotamia  (Zeit. 
 Mor(j.  Ges.  xi.  137).  We  receive  this  explanation 
 with  reserve;  but,  as  far  as  it  goes,  it  favors  the 
 northern  locality.  The  evidence  for  the  antiquity 
 of  the  southern  settlement  appears  to  be  l)ut  small, 
 if  the  term  Kaldai  does  not  occur  in  the  Assyrian 
 injcriptions  until  the  'Jth  century  n.  c.  (Ravvlinson, 
 i.  449).  We  therefore  conceive  the  original  seat 
 of  the  Chaldees  to  have  been  in  the  north,  whence 
 they  moved  southward  along  the  course  of  the  Tigris 
 until  they  reached  Babylon,  where  we  find  them 
 dominant  in  the  7th  century  B.  c.  Whether  they 
 first  entered  this  country  as  mercenaries,  and  then 
 conquered  their  employers,  as  suggested  by  Kenan 
 (//.  G.  i.  68),  must  remain  uncertain;  but  we  think 
 the  suggestion  supported  by  the  circumstance  that 
 tlie  name  was  afterwards  transferred  to  the  whole 
 Babylonian  population.  The  sacerdotal  character 
 of  the  Chaldees  is  certainly  difficult  to  reconcile 
 with  this  or  any  other  hypothesis  on  the  subject. 
 
 Keturning  to  the  Teracliites,  we  find  it  impossible 
 to  define  the  geographical  limits  of  their  settlements 
 with  precision.  They  intermingled  with  the  pre- 
 viously existing  inhabitants  of  the  countries  inter- 
 vening between  the  Red  Sea  and  the  luiphrates, 
 and  hence  we  find  an  Aram,  an  Uz,  and  a  Chesed 
 among  the  descendants  of  Nahor  (Gen.  xxii.  21,  22), 
 a  Dedan  and  a  Sheba  among  those  of  Abraham  by 
 
 a  A  connection  between  the  names  Terah  and  Trach- 
 onitis,  Haran  and  Hauran,  is  suggested  by   Renan 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  3),  and  an  Amalek  among  the 
 descendants  of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.  12).     Few  of  the 
 
 numerous  tribes  which  sprang  from  this  stock  at- 
 tained historical  celebrity.  The  Israelites  must  of 
 course  be  excepted  from  this  description;  so  also 
 the  Naliateans,  if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  repre- 
 sented by  the  Nebaioth  of  the  Bible,  as  to  which  there 
 is  some  doubt  (Quatremere,  Melanges,  p.  59).  Of 
 the  rest,  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Midianites,  and 
 Edomites  are  chiefly  known  for  their  hostilities  with 
 the  Israelites,  to  whom  they  were  close  neighbors. 
 The  memory  of  the  westerly  migration  of  the  Israel- 
 ites was  perpetuated  in  the  name  Hebrew,  as  refer- 
 ring to  their  residence  beyond  the  river  Euphrates 
 (Josh.  xxiv.  3). 
 
 Besides  the  nations  whose  origin  is  accounted  for 
 in  the  Bible,  we  find  other  early  populations  men- 
 tioned in  the  course  of  the  history  without  any 
 notice  of  their  ethnology.  In  this  category  we  may 
 place  the  llorims,  who  occupied  Edom  before  the 
 descendants  of  Esau  (Ueut.  ii.  12,  22);  the  Ama- 
 lekites  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula;  the  Zuzims  and 
 Zanizummims  of  Pera?a  (Gen.  xiv.  5;  Deut.  ii. 
 20);  the  Rephaims  of  Bashan  and  of  the  valley 
 near  Jerusalem  named  after  them  (Gen.  xiv.  5; 
 2  Sam.  V.  18);  the  Emiins  eastward  of  the  Dead 
 Sea  (Gen.  xiv.  5);  the  Avims  of  the  southern  Phi- 
 listine plain  (Deut.  ii.  23);  and  the  Anakims  of 
 southern  Palestine  (Josh.  xi.  21).  The  question 
 arises  whether  these  tribes  were  Hamites,  or  whether 
 they  represented  an  earlier  population  which  pre- 
 ceded the  entrance  of  the  Hamites.  The  latter 
 view  is  sup)5orted  by  Knobel,  who  regards  the 
 majority  of  these  tribes  as  Shemites,  who  preceded 
 the  Canaanites,  and  communicated  to  them  the 
 Shemitic  tongue  (  Vulkert.  pp.  204,  315).  No 
 evidence  can  be  adduced  in  support  of  this  theory, 
 which  was  probably  suggested  by  the  double  dith- 
 culty  of  accounting  fur  the  name  of  Lud,  and  of 
 explaining  the  apparent  anomaly  of  the  Hamites 
 and  Teracliites  speaking  the  same  language.  Still 
 less  evidence  is  there  in  favor  of  the  Turanian 
 origin,  which  would,  we  presume,  be  assigned  to 
 these  tribes  in  coiiimon  with  the  Canaanites  proper, 
 in  accordance  with  a  current  theory  that  the  first 
 wave  of  iiopuliition  which  o\'erspread  western  Asia 
 belonged  to  tiiat  branch  of  the  human  race  (Raw- 
 linson's  Herod,  i.  045,  note).  To  this  theory  we 
 shall  presently  advert:  meanwhile  we  can  only 
 observe,  in  reference  to  these  fragmentary  popu- 
 lations, that,  as  they  intermingled  with  the  Canaan- 
 ites, they  probably  belonged  to  the  same  stock  (comp. 
 Num.  xiii.  22;  Judg.  i.  10).  They  may  perchance 
 have  belonged  to  an  earlier  migration  than  the 
 Canaanitish,  and  may  have  been  subdued  by  the 
 later  comers;  but  this  would  not  necessitate  a  dif- 
 ferent origin.  The  names  of  these  tribes  and  of 
 their  abodes,  as  instanced  in  Gen.  xiv.  5;  Deut.  ii. 
 23;  Num.  xiii.  22,  bear  a  Shemitic  ch.aracter  (Ewald, 
 Gescli.  i.  311),  and  the  only  objection  to  their  Ca- 
 naanitish origin  arising  out  of  these  names  would 
 be  in  connection  with  Zamzunimim,  which,  according 
 to  Renan  (N.  G.  p.  35,  note),  is  formed  on  the 
 same  principle  as  the  Greek  ^dp^apos,  and  in  this 
 case  implies  at  all  events  a  dialectical  diftt>rence. 
 
 Having  thus  surveyed  the  ethnological  statements 
 contained  in  the  Bible,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquiie 
 how  far  they  are  based  on,  or  accord  with,  physio- 
 logical or  linguistic  principles.     Knobel  maintains 
 
 (Hist.  Gen.  i.   29).      This,    however,  is  inconsistent 
 with  the  position  generally  assigned  tt>  Haran. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 that  the  threefold  division  of  the  Mosaic  table  is 
 founded  on  the  physiological  principle  of  color, 
 Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth  representing  respectively 
 the  red,  black,  and  white  complexions  prevalent  in 
 the  different  regions  of  the  then  known  world  (  Vol- 
 kert.  pp.  11-13).  He  claims  etymological  support 
 for  this  view  in  respect  to  Ham  {=^  "  dark  ")  and 
 Japheth  (="fair"),  but  not  in  respect  to  Shem, 
 :lnd  he  ailduces  testimony  to  the  (act  that  such 
 difterences  of  color  were  noted  in  ancient  times. 
 The  etymological  argument  weakens  rather  than 
 sustains  his  view,  for  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that 
 the  principle  of  cLissification  would  be  embodied  in 
 two  of  the  names  and  not  also  in  the  third:  the 
 force  of  such  evidence  is  wholly  dependent  upon  its 
 uniformity.  ^Vith  I'egard  to  the  actual  prevalence 
 of  the  hues,  it  is  quite  consistent  with  the  physical 
 character  of  tiie  districts  that  the  Hamites  of  the 
 south  should  be  dark,  and  the  Japhetites  of  the 
 north  fair,  and  further  that  the  Shemites  should 
 hold  an  intermediate  place  in  color  as  in  geograph- 
 ical position.  But  we  have  no  evidence  that  this 
 distinction  was  strongly  marked.  The  "  redness  " 
 expressed  in  the  name  lulom  probably  referred  to 
 the  soil  (Stanley,  S.  (/•  F.  p.  87):  the  Krythrieuin 
 Mart  was  so  called  from  a  peculiarity  in  its  own 
 tint,  arising  from  the  presence  of  some  vegetal ile 
 substance,  and  not  because  the  red  Shemites  bordered 
 on  it,  the  black  Cushites  being  equally  numerous 
 on  its  shores:  the  name  Admn,  as  applied  to  the 
 Sheniitic  man,  is  ambiguous,  from  its  reference  to 
 soil  as  well  as  color.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
 Phoenicians  (assuming  them  to  have  reached  the 
 Mediterranean  seaboard  before  the  table  was  com- 
 piled) were  so  called  from  their  red  hue,  and  yet 
 are  placed  in  the  table  among  the  Hamites.  The 
 argument  drawn  from  the  red  hue  of  the  Egyptian 
 deity  Typhon  is  of  little  value  until  it  can  be 
 decisively  proved  that  the  deity  in  question  repre- 
 sented the  Shemites.  This  is  asserted  by  Kenan 
 (//.  G.'i.  38),  who  endorses  Knobel's  view  as  far 
 as  the  Shemites  are  concerned,  though  he  does  not 
 accept  his  general  theory. 
 
 The  linguistic  difficulties  coiniected  with  the 
 Mosaic  table  are  very  considerable,  and  we  cannot 
 pretend  to  unravel  the  tangled  skein  of  conflicting 
 opinions  on  the  subject.  The  primary  difficulty 
 arises  out  of  the  Biblical  narrative  itself,  and  is 
 consequently  of  old  standing  — the  difficulty,  namely, 
 of  accounting  for  the  evident  identity  of  language 
 spoken  by  the  Sheniitic  Terachites  and  the  Hamitic 
 Canaanites.  jModern  linguistic  research  has  rather 
 enhanced  than  removed  this  difficulty.  The  alter- 
 natives hitherto  offered  as  satisfactory  solutions, 
 namely,  that  the  Terachites  adopted  the  language 
 of  the  Canaanites,  or  the  Canaanites  that  of  the 
 Terachites,  are  both  inconsistent  with  the  enlarged 
 area  which  the  language  is  found  to  cover  on  each 
 side.  Setting  aside  the  question  of  the  high  im- 
 probability that  a  wandering  nomadic  tribe,  such 
 as  the  Terachites,  would  be  able  to  impose  its  lan- 
 guage on  a  settled  and  powerful  nation  like  the 
 Canaanites,  it  would  still  remain  to  be  explained 
 how  the  Cushites  and  other  Hamitic  tribes,  who 
 did  not  come  into  contact  with  the  Terachites, 
 acquired  the  same  general  type  of  language.  And 
 on  the  other  hand,  assuming  that  what  are  called 
 Sheniitic  languages  were  really  Hamitic,  we  have  to 
 explain  the  extension  of  the  Hamitic  area  over 
 Jlesopotamia  and  Assyria,  which,  according  to  the 
 table  and  the  general  opinion  of  ethnologists,  be- 
 longed wholly  to  a  uon-Hamitic    population.      A 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3297 
 
 further  question,  moreover,  arises  out  of  this  ex- 
 planation, namely,  what  was  the  language  of  the  Te- 
 rachites before  they  assumed  this  Hamitic  tongue? 
 This  question  is  answered  by  J.  G.  Miiller,  in 
 Herzog's  R.  E.  xiv.  238,  to  the  effect  that  the 
 Shemites  originally  spoke  an  Indo-European  lan- 
 guage, —  a  view  which  we  do  not  expect  to  see 
 generally  adopted. 
 
 Restricting  ourselves,  for  the  present,  to  the  lin- 
 guistic question,  we  must  draw  attention  to  the  fact 
 that  there  is  a  well-defined  Hamitic  as  well  as  a 
 Shemitic  class  of  languages,  and  that  any  theory 
 wliich  obliterates  this  distinction  must  fiill  to  the 
 ground  The  Hamitic  type  is  most  highly  devel- 
 oped, as  we  might  expect,  in  the  country  which 
 was,  i>(tr  axcdk-nce,  the  land  of  Ham,  namely,  Egypt ; 
 and  whatever  elements  of  original  unity  with  the 
 Shemitic  type  may  be  detected  by  philologists,' 
 practically  the  two  were  as  distinct  from  each  other 
 in  historical  times,  as  any  two  languages  could 
 possibly  be.  We  are  not  therefore  prepared  at  once 
 to  throw  overboard  the  linguistic  element  of  the 
 Mosaic  table,  ^^t  the  same  time  we  recognize  the 
 extreme  difficulty  of  explaining  the  anomaly  of 
 Hamitic  tribes  speaking  a  Sheniitic  tongue.  It  will 
 not  suffice  to  say,  in  answer  to  this,  that  these 
 tribes  were  Shemites;  for  again  the  correctness  of 
 the  Mosaic  table  is  vindicated  by  the  difterences 
 of  social  and  artistic  culture  which  distinguish  the 
 Shemites  proper  from  the  Bhoenicians  and  Cushites 
 using  a  Sheniitic  tongue.  The  former  are  charac- 
 terized by  habits  of  simplicity,  isolation,  and  ad- 
 herence to  patriarchal  ways  of  living  and  thinking; 
 the  Phoenicians,  on  the  other  hand,  were  emi- 
 nently a  commercial  people;  and  the  Cushites  are 
 identified  with  the  massive  architectural  erection? 
 of  Babylonia  and  South  Arabia,  and  with  equally 
 extended  ideas  of  empire  and  social  progress. 
 
 The  real  question  at  issue  concerns  the  language, 
 not  of  the  whole  Hamitic  family,  but  of  the  Ca- 
 naanites and  Cushites.  With  regard  to  the  former, 
 various  explanations  have  been  oftered  —  such  as 
 Knobel's,  that  they  acquired  a  Shemitic  languao-e 
 from  a  prior  population,  represented  by  the  Refiiites, 
 Zuzim,  Zamzunimim,  etc.  [Volkert.  p.  315);  or 
 Bunsen's,  that  they  were  a  Sheniitic  race  who  had 
 long  sojourned  in  Egypt  {Phil,  of  Hist.  i.  191)  — 
 neither  of  which  are  satisfactory.  With  regard  to 
 the  latter,  the  only  explanation  to  be  offered  is  that 
 a  Joktanid  iuiniigration  supervened  on  the  original 
 Hamitic  population,  the  result  being  a  combination 
 of  Cushitic  civilization  with  a  Shemitic  language 
 (Kenan,  i.  322).  Nor  is  it  unimportant  to  men- 
 tion that  peculiarities  have  been  disc<n'ered  in  the 
 Cushite  Shemitic  of  Southern  Arabia  which  suggest 
 a  close  affinity  with  the  Phoenician  forms  (Penan, 
 i.  318).  We  are  not,  however,  without  expecta- 
 tion that  time  and  research  will  clear  up  much  of 
 the  mystery  that  now  enwraps  the  subject.  There 
 are  two  directions  to  which  we  may  hopefully  turn 
 for  light,  namely,  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  with  re- 
 gard to  each  of  which  we  make  a  few  remarks. 
 
 That  the  Egyptian  language  exhibits  many 
 striking  points  of  resemblance  to  the  Sheniitic  type 
 is  acknowledged  on  all  sides.  It  is  also  allowed 
 that  the  resemblances  are  of  a  valuable  character, 
 being  observable  in  the  pronouns,  numerals,  in 
 agglutinative  forms,  in  the  treatment  of  vowels, 
 and  other  such  points  (Kenan,  i.  8-1,  85).  There 
 is  not,  however,  an  equal  degree  of  agreement 
 among  scholars  as  to  the  deductions  to  be  drawn 
 from  these  resemblances.     \N'hile  many  recognize  in 
 
3298    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 them  the  proofs  of  a  substantial  identity,  and  hence 
 regard  Hamitisni  as  an  early  stage  of  Shemitism, 
 others  deny,  either  on  general  or  on  special  grounds, 
 the  probability  of  such  a  connection.  A\'hen  we  find 
 Buch  high  autliorities  as  Bunsen  on  the  former  side 
 (Phil,  of  Hist.  i.  I8G-18i),  ii.  3)  and  Kenan  (i.  80) 
 on  the  otlier,  not  to  mention  a  long  array  of  scholars 
 who  have  adopted  each  \  Jew,  It  would  be  presump- 
 tion dogmatically  to  assert  the  correctness  or  in- 
 correctness of  either.  "We  can  only  point  to  the 
 possibility  of  the  identity  being  established,  and  to 
 the  further  possibility  that  coimecting  links  may  be 
 discovered  between  the  two  extremes,  which  may 
 serve  to  bridge  over  the  gulf,  and  to  render  the 
 use  of  a  Shemitic  language  by  a  Hamitic  race  less 
 of  an  anomaly  than  it  at  present  appears  to  be. 
 
 1'urning  eastward  to  the  banks  of  the  Tigris  and 
 Euphrates,  and    the    adjacent    countries,  we    find 
 ample  materials  for  research  in  the  inscriptions  re- 
 cently discovered,  the    examination   of  which    has 
 not  yet  yielded  undisputed  results.      The  Mosaic 
 table  places  a  Shemitic  population  in  Assyria  and 
 Elam,  and  a  Cushitic  one  in  I5aV)ylon.     The  proba- 
 bility of  this   being  ethnically  (as  opposed  to  geo- 
 g;raphically)  true  depends  partly  on  the  age  assigned 
 to  the  table.     There  can  be  no  question  that  at  a 
 late  period  Assyria  and  Elaui   were  held  by  non- 
 Shemitic,  probably  Aryan  conquerors.     But  if  we 
 carry  the  table  back  to  the  age  of  Abraham,  the 
 case  may  have  been  difterent;    for    though    Elam 
 is  regarded  as  etymologically  identical  with    Iran 
 (Eenan,  i.  41),  this    is    not    conclusive  as  to  the 
 Iranian  character  of  the  language  in  early  times. 
 Sutficient  evidence  is  afforded  by  language  that  the 
 basis  of  the  population  in  Assyria  was    Shemitic 
 (Kenan,  i.  70;  Knobel,  pp.   154-156);    and    it  is 
 by  no  means  improbable  that  the  inscriptions  be- 
 longing more    especially  to  the   neighborhood    of 
 Susa  may  ultimately  establish  the  fact  of  a  Shemitic 
 population  in  Elam.     The  presence  of  a  Cushitic 
 population  in  Babylon  is  an  opinion  very  generally 
 held  on  linguistic  grounds;  and  a  close  identity  is 
 said  to  exist  between  the  old  Babylonian  and  the 
 Maliri  language,  a  Shemitic  tongue  of  an  ancient 
 type  still    living  in  a  district   of   Hadramaut,   in 
 Southern  Arabia  (Kenan,  //.  G.  i.  60).     In  addition 
 to  the  Cushitic  and  Shemitic  elements  in  the  popu- 
 lation of  Babylonia  and  the  adjacent  districts,  the 
 presence  of  a  Turanian  element  has  been  inferred 
 from  the  linguistic  character  of  the  early  inscrip- 
 tions.    We  must  here  express  our  conviction  that 
 the  ethnology  of  the  countries  in  question  is  con- 
 siderably clouded  by  the  undefined  use  of  the  terms 
 Turanian,  Scythic,  and   the  like.     It  is  frequently 
 difficult  to  decide  whether  these  terms  are  used  in  a 
 linguistic  sense,  as  equivalent  to  agylut'matice,  or 
 in  an  ethnic  sense.   The  presence  of  a  certain  amount 
 of  Turanianism  in  the  former  does  not  involve  its 
 presence  in  the  latter  sense.  The  old  Babylonian  and 
 Susianian  inscriptions  may  be  more  agglutinatne 
 than  the    later  ones,  but  this  is  only  a  proof  of 
 their  belonging  to  an  eiirlier  stage  of  the  language, 
 and  does  not  of  itself  indicate  a  foreign  population ; 
 and  if  these  early  Babylonian  inscriptions  graduate 
 into  the  Shemitic,  as  is  asserted   even  by  the  advo- 
 cates of  the  Turanian  theory  (Kawlinson's  Ihrod.  i. 
 442,  445),  the  presence  of  an  ethnic  Turanianism 
 cannot  possibly  be  inferred.     Added  to  tliis,  it  is 
 inexplicable  how  the   presence  of  a  large    Scythic 
 population  in  the    Achsenienian    period,  to  which 
 many  of  the  Susianian  inscriptions  belong,  could 
 ascape  the  notice  of  historians.     The  only  Scythic 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 tribes  noticed  by  Herodotus  in  his  review  of  the 
 Persian  en)pire  are  the  Parthians  and  the  Sacse,  the 
 former  of  wliom  are  known  to  have  lived  in  the 
 north,  while  the  latter  probably  lived  in  the  extreme 
 east,  where  a  memorial  of  them  is  still  supposed  to 
 exist  in  the  name  IScistan,  representing  the  ancient 
 Sacastene.  Even  with  regard  to  these,  Scythic 
 may  not  mean  Turanian ;  for  they  may  have  be- 
 longed to  the  Scythians  of  history  (the  Skolots),  for 
 whom  an  Indo-Euro]5ean  origin  is  claimed  (Kawlin- 
 son's Ilerod.  iii.  197).  The  impression  conveyed 
 by  the  supposed  detection  of  so  many  heterogeneous 
 elements  in  the  old  Babylonian  tongue  (Kawlinson, 
 i.  442,444,  640.  notes)  is  not  favorable  to  the  gen- 
 eral results  of  the  researches. 
 
 With  regard  to  Arabia,  it  may  safely  be  asserted 
 that  the  IMosaic  table  is  confirmed  by  modern  re- 
 search. The  Cushitic  element  has  left  memorials 
 of  its  presence  in  the  south  in  the  vast  ruins  of 
 Maxell  and  S(mn  (Kenan,  i.  318),  as  well  as  in  the 
 influence  it  has  exercised  on  the  JJimyai'itic  and 
 Maliri  lanffuau;es,  as  couipared  with  the  Helirew. 
 The  .Joktanid  element  forms  the  basis  of  the  Arabian 
 population,  the  Shemitic  character  of  whose  lan- 
 guage needs  no  proof.  With  regard  to  the  Ish- 
 maelite  element  in  the  north,  we  are  not  aware  of 
 any  linguistic  proof  of  its  existence,  but  it  is  con- 
 firmed l)y  the  traditions  of  the  Aral)ians  themselves. 
 
 It  remains  to  be  inquired  how  far  the  Japhetic 
 stock  represents  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  the 
 Indo-European  and  Turanian  families.  Adopting 
 the  twofold  division  of  the  former,  suggested  by  the 
 name  itself,  into  the  eastern  and  western ;  and  sub- 
 dividing the  eastern  into  the  Indian  and  Iranian, 
 and  the  western  into  the  Celtic,  Hellenic,  lUyrian, 
 Italian,  Teutonic,  Slavonian,  and  Lithuanian  classes, 
 we  are  able  to  assign  JMadai  (Media)  and  Togarmah 
 {Armenia)  to  the  Iranian  class;  .lavan  {loniav) 
 and  Elishah  (yEuliaii)  to  the  Hellenic;  Gomer  con- 
 jecturally  to  the  Celtic;  and  Dodanim,  also  con- 
 jecturally,  to  the  Ilhrian.  According  to  the  old 
 interpreters,  Ashkenaz  represents  the  Teutonic  class, 
 while,  according  to  Knobel,  the  Italian  would  be 
 represented  by  Tarshish,  whom  he  identifies  with 
 the  Etruscans;  the  Slavonian  by  Magog;  and  the 
 Lithuanian  possibly  by  Tiras  (pp.  90,  68,  130). 
 The  same  writer  also  identifies  Kiphath  with  the 
 Gauls,  as  distinct  from  the  Cymry  or  Gomer  (p.  45) ; 
 while  Kittim  is  referred  by  him  not  improbably  to 
 the  Carians,  who  at  one  peiiod  were  predominant 
 on  the  islands  adjacent  to  Asia  Minor  (p.  98).  The 
 evidence  for  these  identifications  varies  in  strength, 
 but  in  no  instance  approaches  to  demonstration. 
 Beyond  the  general  probability  that  the  main 
 branches  of  the  human  family  would  be  represented 
 in  the  Mosaic  table,  we  regard  much  that  has  been 
 advanced  on  this  subject  as  highly  precarious.  At 
 the  same  time  it  must  be  conceded  tliat  the  subject 
 is  an  open  one,  and  that  as  there  is  no  possibility 
 of  proving,  so  also  none  of  disproving,  the  correct- 
 ness of  these  conjectures.  Whether  the  Turanian 
 family  is  fairlj'  represented  in  the  Mosaic  table  may 
 be  doubted.  Those  who  advocate  the  IMongolian 
 origin  of  the  Scythians  would  naturally  regard 
 Magog  as  the  representative  of  this  family ;  and 
 even  tliose  who  dissent  from  the  Mongolian  theory 
 may  still  not  unreasonably  conceive  that  the  title 
 Magog  applied  broadly  to  all  the  nomad  trilies  of 
 Northern  Asia,  whether  Indo-European  or  Tu- 
 ranian. Tubal  and  Mesehech  remain  to  be  consid- 
 ered: Knobel  identifies  these  respectively  with  the 
 Iberians  and  the  Ligurians  (pp.  Ill,  119);  and  if 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 the  Finnish  character  of  the  Basque  lani;uage  were 
 estalilislied,  he  would  regard  tlie  Iberians  as  cer- 
 tainly, and  the  Ligurians  as  prol)alily  Turanians, 
 Uie  relics  of  the  first  wave  of  population  which  is 
 supposed  to  have  once  overspread  the  whole  of  the 
 European  continent,  and  of  which  the  Finns  in  the 
 north,  and  the  Basques  iu  tiie  south,  are  the  sole 
 surviving  representatives.  The  Turanian  character 
 of  the  two  liiblical  races  above  mentioned  has  been 
 otherwise  maintained  on  the  ground  of  the  identity 
 of  tiie  names  Meschech  and  Muscovite  (Kawlinson's 
 [lerod.  i.  G52). 
 
 n.  Having  tlius  reviewed  the  ethnic  relations  of 
 the  nations  who  fell  within  the  circle  of  the  Mosaic 
 table,  we  propose  to  cast  a  glance  beyond  its  limits, 
 and  inquire  how  far  the  present  results  of  ethno- 
 logical science  support  tlie  general  idea  of  the  unity 
 
 '  of  the  human  race,  which  underlies  the  Mosaic  sys- 
 tem. The  chief  and  in  many  instances  the  only 
 instrument  at  our  command  for  ascertaining  the 
 relationship  of  nations  is  language.  In  its  general 
 results  this  instrument  is  thoroughly  trustworthy, 
 and  in  each  individual  case  to  which  it  is  applied  it 
 furnishes  a  strong  priiiid  ficic  evidence;  l)ut  its  evi- 
 dence, if  unsupported  by  collateral  proofs,  is  not  miim- 
 peachable,  in  consequence  of  tiie  numerous  instances 
 of  adopted  languages  which  iiave  occurred  within 
 historical  times.  This  drawl  lack  to  the  value  of 
 the  evidence  of  language  will  not  materially  affect 
 our  present  inquiry,  inasmuch   as  we  shall  confine 
 
 .ourselves  as  much  as  possible  to  the  general  results. 
 The  nomenclature  of  modern  ethnology  is  not 
 identical  with  that  of  tlie  Bible,  partly  from  the 
 enlargement  of  the  area,  and  partly  from  the  gen- 
 eral adoption  of  language  as  the  basis  of  classifica- 
 tion. The  term  Shemitic  is  indeed  retained,  not, 
 however,  to  indicate  a  descent  from  Shem,  but  the 
 use  of  languages  allied  to  that  which  was  current 
 among  the  Israehtes  in  historical  times.  Hamitic 
 also  finds  a  place  in  modern  ethnology,  but  as  sub- 
 ordinate to,  or  coordinate  with,  Shemitic.  Japhetic 
 is  superseded  mainly  by  Indo-I']uropean  or  Aryan. 
 The  various  nations,  or  families  of  nations,  which 
 find  no  place  under  the  Biblical  titles  are  classed 
 by  certain  ethnologists  under  the  broad  title  of 
 Turanian,  while  b}"  others  they  are  broken  up  into 
 divisions  more  or  less  numerous. 
 
 The  first  branch  of  our  subject  will  be  to  trace 
 the  extension  of  the  Shemitic  family  beyond  the 
 limits  assigned  to  it  in  the  Bible.  The  most  marked 
 characteristic  of  this  foniily,  as  compared  with  the 
 Indo-European  or  Turanian,  is  its  inelasticity. 
 Hemmed  in  both  by  natural  barriers  and  by  the 
 superior  energy  and  expansiveness  of  the  Aryan 
 and  Turanian  races,  it  retains  to  the  present  day 
 the  ilntui  quo  of  early  times."  The  only  *  direction 
 in  which  it  has  exhibited  any  tendency  to  expand 
 has  been  about  the  shores  of  the  Blediterraneau, 
 and  even  here  its  activity  was  of  a  sporadic  charac- 
 ter, limited  to  a  single  branch  of  the  family,  namely, 
 the  Phoenicians,  and  to  a  single  phase  of  expansion, 
 namely,  commercial  colonies.  In  Asia  Minor  we 
 find  tokens  of  Shemitic  presence  in  Cilicia,  which 
 
 «  The  total  amount  of  the  Shemitic  population  at 
 present  is  computed  to  be  only  30  millions,  while  the 
 Indo-European  is  computed  at  400  millions  (Kenan,  i. 
 43,  note). 
 
 !»  Eastward  of  the  Tigris  a  Shemitic  population  has 
 been  supposed  to  exist  iu  Afghanistan,  where  the 
 Pus/ttu  language  has  been  regarded  as  bearing  a 
 Shemitic  character.     A  theory  consequently  has  been 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3299 
 
 was  connected  with  Phoenicia  both  by  tradition 
 (Herod,  vii.  'Jl),  and  liy  language,  as  attested  by 
 existing  coins  (Geseii.  Mo7i.  Phcen.  iii.  2):  in  Pani- 
 pliylia,  Pisidia,  and  Lycia,  parts  of  which  were  oc- 
 cupied by  the  Solymi  (l^lin.  v.  24;  Herod,  i.  173),  • 
 whose  name  bears  a  Shemitic  character,  and  who 
 are  reported  to  have  spoken  a  Shemitic  tongue 
 (Euseb.  Priej).  Ev.  ix.  0),  a  statement  confirmed 
 by  the  occurrence  of  other  Shemitic  names,  such 
 as  Phoenix  and  Cabalia,  though  the  subsequent  pre- 
 dominance of  an  Aryan  population  in  these  same 
 districts  is  attested  by  the  existing  Lycian  inscrip- 
 tions :  again  in  Caria,  though  the  evidence  arising 
 out  of  the  supposed  identity  of  the  names  of  the 
 gods  Osogo  and  Chrysaoreus  with  the  Ovawos  and 
 Xpvcrdp  of  Sanchuniathon  is  called  in  question 
 (lienan,  //.  G.  i.  49):  and,  lastly,  in  Lydia,  where 
 the  descendants  of  Lud  are  located  by  many  au- 
 thorities, and  where  the  prevalence  of  a  Shemitic 
 language  is  asserted  by  scholars  of  the  highest 
 standing,  among  whom  we  may  specify  Bunsen  and 
 Lassen,  in  spite  of  tokens  of  the  contemporaneous 
 presence  of  the  Aryan  element,  as  instanced  in  the 
 name  Sardis,  and  in  spite  also  of  the  historical 
 notices  of  an  ethnical  connection  with  Mysia  (Herod, 
 i.  171).  Whether  the  Shemites  ever  occupied  any 
 portion  of  the  plateau  of  Asia  J\Iinor  may  be 
 doubted.  In  the  opinion  of  the  ancients  the  later 
 occupants  of  Cappadocia  were  Syrians,  distinguished 
 from  the  mass  of  their  race  by  a  lighter  hue,  and 
 hence  termed  Leuamjvi  (Strab.  xii.  p.  542);  but 
 tills  statement  is  traversed  by  the  evidences  of 
 Aryanism  afforded  by  the  names  of  tiie  kings  and 
 deities,  as  well  as  by  the  Persian  character  of  the 
 religion  (Strab.  xv.  p.  733).  li  therefore  the 
 vShemites  ever  occupied  this  district,  they  must  soon 
 have  been  brought  under  the  dominion  of  Aryan 
 conquerors  (Diefenbacli,  Oriy.  Europ.  p.  44).  The 
 Phoenicians  were  ubiquitous  on  the  islands  and 
 shores  of  the  JMediterranean:  in  Cyprus,  where  they 
 have  left  tokens  of  their  presence  at  Citium  and 
 other  places;  in  Crete;  in  Malta,  where  they  were 
 the  original  settlers  (Diod.  Sic.  v.  12)  ;  on  the 
 mainland  of  Greece,  where  their  presence  is  be- 
 tokened by  the  name  Cadnnis;  in  Samos,  Same,  and 
 Samothrace,  which  bear  Shemitic  names;  in  los 
 and  Tenedos,  once  known  I13'  the  name  of  Phoenice; 
 in  Sicily,  wliere  Panormus,  Motya,  and  Soloeis  were 
 Shemitic  settlements;  in  Sardinia  (Uiod.  Sic.  v. 
 3.5);  on  the  eastern  and  southern  coasts  of  Spain; 
 and  on  the  north  coast  of  .-Vfrica,  which  was  lined 
 with  Plioenician  colonies  from  the  Syrtis  Major  to 
 the  Pillars  of  Hercules.  They  must  also  have  pene- 
 trated deeply  into  the  interior,  to  judge  from 
 Strabo's  statement  of  the  destruction  of  three  hun- 
 dred towns  liy  the  Pharusians  and  Nigritians  (Strab. 
 xvii.  p.  826).  Still  in  none  of  the  countries  we 
 have  mentioned  did  they  supplant  the  original  pop- 
 ulation :  they  were  conquerors  and  settlers,  but  no 
 more  than  this. 
 
 The  bulk  of  the  North  African  languages,  both 
 in  ancient  and  modern  times,  though  not  Shemitic 
 in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  so   far  resemble 
 
 started  that  the  people  speaking  it  represent  the  ten 
 tribes  of  Israel  (Forster's  Prim.  Lann.  iii.  241).  We 
 believe  the  supposed  Shemitic  resemblances  to  be  un- 
 founded, and  that  the  Pushtu  language  holds  an  inter- 
 mediate place  between  the  Iranian  and  Indian  classes, 
 with  the  latter  of  which  it  possesses  iu  comcion  the 
 lingual  or  cerebral  sounds  (Diefenbach,  Or.  Eur.  p. 
 37). 
 
3300    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 that  type  as  to  have  obtained  the  title  of  suh- 
 Shemitic.  In  the  nortli  the  old  Nuuiidian  lai><,'uaiie 
 appears,  from  the  prevalence  of  tlie  s.yllaljle  Mas  in 
 tlie  name  M(tssy/ii,  etc.,  to  be  allied  to  the  modern 
 Berber ;  and  the  same  conclusion  has  been  drawn 
 with  reward  to  the  Libyan  tongue.  The  Berber, 
 in  turn,  together  with  the  Touarick  and  the  great 
 body  of  the  North  African  dialects,  is  closely  allied 
 to  the  Cofitic  of  Eirypt,  and  therefore  falls  under 
 the  title  of  Ilamitic,  or,  according  to  the  more  usual 
 nomenclature,  sub-Sheniitic  (Renan,  //.  G.  i.  201, 
 202).  Southwards  of  b-gypt  the  Shemitic  type  is 
 reproduced  in  the  majority  of  the  Abyssinian  lan- 
 guages, particularly  in  the  Glieez,  and  in  a  less 
 marked  degree  in  the  Aniharic,  the  Sitlio,  and  the 
 Galln ;  and  Shemitic  influence  may  be  traced  along 
 the  whole  east  coast  of  Africa  as  far  as  Mozambique 
 (Renan,  i.  336-340).  As  to  the  languages  of  the 
 interior  and  of  the  south  there  appears  to  be  a  con- 
 flict of  opinions,  the  writer  from  whom  we  have 
 just  quoted  denying  any  trace  of  resemblance  to 
 tlie  Shemitic  tyi)e,  while  Dr.  Latham  asserts  very 
 confidently  that  comiecting  links  exist  between  the 
 sub-Shemitic  languages  of  the  north,  the  Negro 
 languages  in  the  centre,  and  the  Cafli'e  languages 
 of  the  south ;  and  that  even  the  Hottentot  language 
 is  not  so  isolated  as  has  been  generally  supposed 
 (Man  and  liis  Migr.  pp.  134-148).  Buiisen  sup- 
 ports this  view  as  far  as  the  languages  north  of  the 
 equator  are  concerned,  but  regards  the  southern  as 
 rather  approximating  to  the  Turanian  type  {Pliil. 
 of  Hist.  i.  178,  ii.  20).  It  is  impossible  as  yet  to 
 form  a  decided  opinion  on  this  large  sulject. 
 
 A  question  of  considerable  interest  remains  yet 
 to  be  noticed,  namely,  whether  we  can  trace  the 
 Shemitic  family  back  to  its  original  cradle.  In  the 
 case  of  the  Indo-Kuropean  family  this  can  be  done 
 with  a  high  degree  of  probability;  and  if  an  original 
 unity  existed  between  these  stocks,  the  domicile  of 
 the  one  would  necessarily  be  that  of  the  other.  A 
 certain  community  of  ideas  and  traditions  favors 
 this  assumption,  and  possibly  the  frequent  allusions 
 to  the  east  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  may 
 contain  a  reminiscence  of  the  direction  in  which 
 the  primeval  abode  lay  (Renan,  //.  G.  i.  470).  The 
 position  of  this  abode  we  shall  describe  presently. 
 
 The  Indo-European  family  of  languages,  as  at 
 present «  constituted,  consists  of  the  following  nine 
 classes:  Indian,''  Iranian,  Celtic,  Italian,  Albanian, 
 Greek,  Teutonic,  Lithuanian,  and  Slavonian.  Geo- 
 graphically, these  classes  may  be  grouped  together 
 in  two  divisions  —  Eastern  and  Western  —  the  former 
 comprising  the  two  first,  the  latter  the  se\'en  re- 
 maining classes.  Schleicher  divides  what  we  have 
 termed  the  Western  into  two  —  the  southwest 
 European,  and  the  north  pAU'opean  —  in  the  former 
 of  which  he  places  the  Greek,  Albanian,  Italian, 
 and  Celtic,  in  the  latter  the  Slavonian,  Lithuanian, 
 and  Teutonic  (Compend.  i.  5).  Prof.  M.  Midler 
 combines  the  Slavonian  and  Lithuanian  classes  in 
 the  Windic,  thus  reducing  the  number  to  eight. 
 These  classes  exhibit  various  degrees  of  aflinity  to 
 each  other,  which  are  described  by  Schleicher  in  the 
 following  manner:  The  earliest  deviation  from  the 
 
 a  We  use  tlie  qualifying  expression  "  at  present," 
 partly  because  it  is  not  improbable  that  new  classes 
 may  be  hereafter  added,  as,  for  instance,  an  Anatolian, 
 to  describe  the  languages  of  Asia  Minor,  and  partly 
 because  there  may  have  been  other  classes  once  in 
 existence,  which  liave  entirely  disappeared  from  the 
 face  of  the  earth. 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 common  language  of  the  family  was  eft'ected  by 
 the  Slavono-Teutonic  branch.  After  another  in- 
 terval a  second  bifurcation  occurred,  which  separated 
 what  we  may  term  the  Grseco-Italo-Celtic  branch 
 from  the  Aryan.  The  former  held  together  for  a 
 while,  and  then  threw  off  the  Greek  (including 
 probably  the  Albanian),  leaving  the  Celtic  and 
 Italian  still  connected:  the  final  division  of  the  two 
 latter  took  place  after  another  considerable  interval. 
 The  first-mentioned  branch  —  the  Slavono-Teutonic 
 —  remained  intact  for  a  period  somewhat  longer 
 tlian  that  which  witnessed  the  second  bifurcation 
 of  the  original  stock,  and  then  divided  into  the 
 Teutonic  and  Slavono- Lithuanian,  which  latter 
 finally  broke  up  into  its  two  com|)onent  elements. 
 The  Aryan  branch  similarly  held  together  for  a 
 lengthened  period,  and  then  bifurcated  into  the 
 Indian  and  Iranian.  The  conclusion  Schleicher 
 draws  from  these  linguistic  affinities  is  that  the 
 more  easterly  of  the  l^uropean  nations,  the  Sla- 
 vonians and  Teutons,  were  the  first  to  leave  the 
 common  home  of  the  Indo-European  race;  that  they 
 were  followed  by  the  Celts,  Italians,  and  Greeks; 
 and  that  the  Indian  and  Iranian  branches  were  the 
 last  to  coimiience  their  migrations.  We  feel  unal^le 
 to  accept  this  conclusion,  which  appears  to  us  to 
 lie  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  antiquity  of  a 
 language  is  to  be  measured  by  its  approximation 
 to  Sanskrit.  Looking  at  the  geographical  position 
 of  the  representatives  of  the  diflferent  language- 
 classes,  we  should  infer  that  the  most  westerly  were 
 the  earliest  immigrants  into  Europe,  and  therefore 
 pi-obably  the  earliest  emigrants  from  the  primeval 
 seat  of  the  race;  and  we  believe  this  to  be  con- 
 firmed by  linguistic  proofs  of  the  high  antiquity  of 
 the  Celtic  as  eon)pared  with  the  other  branches 
 of  the  Indo-European  family  (Bunsen,  Phil,  of 
 Hist.  i.  1G8). 
 
 The  original  seat  of  the  Indo-Europeari  race  was 
 on  the  plateau  of  Central  Asia,  probably  to  the 
 westward  of  the  Bolm-  and  Mustayh,  ranges.  The 
 Indian  branch  can  be  traced  back  to  the  slopes  of 
 Himalaya  by  the  geographical  allusions  in  the  Vedic 
 hynnis  (M.  Miiller's  Zec^  p.  201):  in  confirmation 
 of  which  we  may  adduce  the  circumstance  that  the 
 only  tree  for  which  the  Indians  have  an  appellation 
 in  common  with  the  western  nations,  is  one  which 
 in  India  is  found  only  on  the  southern  slope  of  that 
 range  (Pott,  Ktym.  Forsch.  i.  110).  The  westward 
 progress  of  the  Iranian  tribes  is  a  matter  of  history, 
 and  though  we  cannot  trace  this  progress  back  to  its 
 fountain-head,  the  locality  above  mentioned  best 
 accords  with  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Asiatic 
 Aryans,  and  with  the  physical  and  geographical 
 requirements  of  the  case  (Renan,  //.  G.  i.  481). 
 
 The  routes  by  which  the  various  western  branches 
 reached  their  respective  localities,  can  only  be  con- 
 jectured. We  may  suppose  them  to  have  succes- 
 sively crossed  the  plateau  of  Iran  until  they  reached 
 Armenia,  whence  they  might  follow  either  a  north- 
 erly course  across  Caucasus,  and  by  the  shore  of  the 
 Black  Sea,  or  a  direct  westerly  one  along  the  plateau 
 of  Asia  Minor,  which  seems  destined  by  nature  to 
 be  the  bridge  between  the  two  continents  of  Europe 
 
 b  Professor  M.  Miiller  adopts  the  termination  -?>,  in 
 order  to  show  that  classes  are  intended.  This  appears 
 unnecessary,  when  it  is  specified  that  the  arrangement 
 is  one  of  classes,  and  not  of  single  languages.  More- 
 over, in  conniion  usage,  the  termination  does  not 
 necessarily  carry  the  idea  of  a  class. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 and  Asia.  A  third  route  has  been  suvuiised  for  a 
 portion  of  the  Celtic  stock,  namely,  along  the  north 
 coast  of  Africa,  and  across  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar 
 into  Spain  (Bunsen,  Ph.  of  H.  i.  148),  but  we  see 
 little  contirniation  of  this  opinion  beyond  the  fact  of 
 the  early  presence  of  the  Celtai  in  that  peninsula, 
 which  is  certainly  difficult  to  account  for. 
 
 The  eras  of  the  several  migrations  are  again  very 
 much  a  matter  of  conjecture.  The  original  move- 
 ments belong  for  the  most  part  to  the  ante-histor- 
 ical age,  and  we  can  do  no  more  than  note  the 
 period  at  which  we  first  encounter  the  several  na- 
 tions. That  the  Indian  Aryans  had  reached  the 
 mouth  of  the  Indus  at  all  events  before  1000  u.  c, 
 appears  from  the  Sanskrit  names  of  the  articles 
 which  Solomon  imported  from  that  country  [Ix- 
 Di.v].  The  presence  of  Aryans  on  the  Shemitic 
 frontier  is  as  old  as  the  composition  of  the  Mosaic 
 table;  and,  according  to  some  authoritie.*,  is  proved 
 l)y  the  names  of  the  confederate  kings  in  the  age 
 of  Abraham  (Gen.  .\iv.  1;  Kenan,  H.  G.  i.  Gl). 
 The  Aryan  ^ledes  are  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian 
 annals  about  000  b.  c.  The  Greeks  were  settled  on 
 the  peninsula  named  after  them,  as  well  as  on  the 
 islands  of  the  .^Egsean,  long  before  tiie  dawn  of 
 history,  and  the  Italians  had  reached  their  quarters 
 at  a  yet  earlier  period.  Tlie  Uelta;  had  reached  the 
 west  of  Europe  at  all  events  before,  probably  very 
 long  before,  the  age  of  Heeata^us  (500  b.  c);  the 
 latest  branch  of  this  stock  ariixed  there  about  that 
 period  according  to  Bunsen's  conjecture  {Ph.  of  II. 
 i.  152).  The  Teutonic  migration  followed  at  a  long 
 interval  after  the  (."eltic :  Pytheas  found  them  al- 
 ready seated  on  the  shores  of  tlie  Baltic  in  the  age 
 of  .Vlexander  the  Great  (Plin.  xxxvii.  11),  and  the 
 term  (j/csiiiii  itself,  by  which  amber  was  described 
 in  that  district,  belongs  to  them  (Diefenbach,  Or. 
 Eur.  p.  359).  The  earliest  historical  notice  of 
 them  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  nationality 
 of  the  leutones,  who  accompanied  the  Cinibri  on 
 their  southern  expedition  in  113-102  b.  c.  If 
 these  were  Celtic,  as  is  not  uncommonly  thought, 
 then  we  must  look  to  Csesar  and  Tacitus  for  the 
 earliest  definite  notices  oT  the  Teutonic  tribes.  The 
 Slavonian  immigration  was  nearly  contemporaneous 
 with  the  Teutonic  (Bunsen,  Ph.  of  II.  i.  72):  this 
 stock  can  be  traced  back  to  tlie  Venetl  or  Wni^ihii 
 of  Northern  Germany,  fir.st  mentioned  by  Tacitus 
 {Germ.  46),  from  whom  the  name  ]Vend  is  probably 
 descended.  The  designation  of  Sl(tvi  or  Schi.ci  is  of 
 comparati\'ely  late  date,  and  applied  specially  to  the 
 western  liranch  of  the  Slavonian  stock.  The  Li- 
 thuanians are  probably  represented  liy  the  Giilimkc 
 ■and  Sudeiii  of  Ptolemy  (iii.  5,  §  21),  the  names  of 
 which  tribes  have  been  preserved  in  all  ages  in  the 
 Lithuanian  district  (Uiefenbach,  p.  202).  They  are 
 frequently  identified  with  the  yEsliil,  and  it  is  not 
 iuqwssible  that  they  may  have  adopted  the  title, 
 which  was  a  geographical  one  (=rthe  east  men); 
 the  jEstui  of  Tacitus,  however,  were  (ieruians.  In 
 the  above  statements  we  have  omitted  the  problem- 
 atical identifications  of  the  northern  stocks  with 
 the  earlier  nations  of  history:  we  may  here  mention 
 that  tiie  Slavonians  are  not  unfrequently  regarded 
 as  the  representatives  of  the  Scythians  (Skolots) 
 and  the  Sarmatians  (Knobel,  Volkert.  p.  69).  The 
 writer  whom  we  have  just  cited,  also  endeavors  to 
 connect  the  Lithuanians  with  the  Agathyrsi  (p. 
 130).     So  again  Grimm  traced  the  Teutonic  stock 
 
 a  We  must  be  understood  as  speaking  of  linguistic 
 and  ethnological  proofs  furnisbed  by  populations  ex- 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3301 
 
 to  the  Getoe,  whom  he  identified  with  the  Goths 
 {Gisch.  Deut.  Spr.i.  178). 
 
 It  may  be  asked  whether  the  Aryan  race  were 
 the  first  comers  in  the  lands  which  they  occupied 
 in  historical  times,  or  whether  they  superseded  an 
 earlier  population.  With  regard  to  the  Indian 
 branch  this  question  can  be  answered  decisively: 
 the  vestiges  of  an  aboriginal  population,  which  once 
 covered  the  plains  of  Hindostan,  still  exist  in  the 
 southern  extremity  of  the  peninsula,  as  well  as  in 
 isolated  localities  elsewhere,  as  instanced  in  the  case 
 of  the  Brahus  of  the  nortii.  Not  only  this,  but 
 the  Indian  class  of  languages  possesses  a  peculiarity 
 of  sound  (the  lingual  or  cerebral  consonants)  which 
 is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  this  pojiu- 
 lation,  and  to  betoken  a  fusion  of  the  conquerors 
 and  the  conquered  (Schleicher,  CompenJ.  i.  111). 
 The  languages  of  this  early  population  are  classed 
 as  Turanian  (M.  Miiller,  Ltd.  p.  399).  We  are 
 unable  to  find  decided  traces  of  Turanians  on  tlie 
 [)lateau  of  Iran.  The  Sacte,  of  whom  we  have 
 already  spoken,  were  Scythians,  and  so  were  the 
 Parthians,  both  by  reputed  descent  (Justin,  xli.  1) 
 and  by  haliits  of  life  (Strab.  xi.  515);  but  we  can- 
 not positively  assert  that  they  were  Turanians,  inas- 
 much as  the  term  Scythian  was  also  applied,  as  in 
 the  case  of  the  Skolots,  to  Indo- Europeans.  In 
 the  Caucasian  district  the  Iberians  and  others  may 
 have  been  Turanian  in  early  as  in  later  tiuies;  but 
 it  is  ditficult  to  unravel  the  entanglement  of  races 
 and  languages  in  that  district.  In  Europe  there 
 exists  in  the  present  day  an  undoubted  Turanian 
 population  eastward  of  the  Baltic,  namely,  the 
 Finns,  who  have  Ijeen  located  there  certainly  since 
 the  time  of  Tacitus  {Germ.  16),  and  who  probably 
 at  an  earlier  period  had  spread  more  to  the  south- 
 wards, but  had  been  gradually  thrust  back  by  the 
 advance  of  the  Teutonic  and  Slavonian  nations 
 (Diefenbach,  0.  E.  p.  209).  There  exists  again  in 
 the  south  a  population  whose  language  (the  Basque, 
 or,  as  it  is  entitled  in  its  own  land,  the  Euskara.) 
 [iresents  numerous  points  of  affinity  to  the  Finnish 
 in  grammar,  tiiough  its  vocabulary  is  wholly  dis- 
 tinct. We  cannot  consider  the  Turanian  character 
 of  this  language  as  fully  established,  and  we  are 
 therefore  unaljle  to  divine  the  ethnic  affinities  of 
 the  early  Iberians,  who  are  generally  regarded  as 
 the  progenitors  of  the  Basques.  We  ha\e  already 
 adverted  to  the  theory  that  the  Finns  in  the  north 
 and  the  Basques  in  the  south  are  the  surviving 
 monuments  of  a  Turanian  population  whicli  over- 
 spread the  whole  of  F^urope  before  the  arrival  of  the 
 Indo-Europeans.  This  is  a  mere  theory  which  can 
 neither  be  proved  nor  disproved." 
 
 It  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  assign 
 to  the  various  subdivisions  of  the  Indo-European 
 stock  their  respective  areas,  or,  where  admixture 
 has  taken  place,  their  relative  proportions.  Lan- 
 guage and  race  are,  as  already  observed,  by  no 
 means  coextensive.  The  Celtic  race,  for  instance, 
 which  occupied  Gaul,  Northern  Italy,  large  por- 
 tions of  Spain  and  Germany,  and  even  penetrated 
 across  the  Hellespont  into  Asia  Minor,  where  it 
 gave  name  to  the  province  of  Galatia,  is  now  rep- 
 resented linguistically  by  the  insignificant  popula- 
 tions among  whom  the  Welsh  and  the  Gaelic  or 
 Erse  languages  retain  a  lingering  existence.  The 
 Italian  race,  on  the  other  hand,  which  must  have 
 been   well-nigh  annihilated  by  or  absorbed  in   the 
 
 isting  within  historical  times,  without  reference  to  the 
 geological  questions  relating  to  the  antiquity  of  mao 
 
3302    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 overwhelming  masses  of  the  northern  hordes,  has 
 imposed  its  language  outside  the  bounds  of  Italy 
 over  the  peninsula  of  Spain,  France,  and  Wallachia. 
 But,  while  the  races  have  so  intermingled  as  in 
 many  instances  to  lose  all  trace  of  their  original 
 individuality,  the  broad  I'act  of  their  descent  from 
 one  or  other  of  the  branches  of  the  Indo-Euro- 
 pean family  remains  unaffected.  It  is,  indeed,  im- 
 possible to  affiliate  all  the  nations  whose  names  ap- 
 pear on  the  roll  of  history,  to  the  existing  divisions 
 of  that  family,  in  consequence  of  the  absence  or  the 
 obscurity  of  etlmological  criteria.  Where,  for  in- 
 stance, shall  we  place  the  languages  of  Asia  Jlinor 
 and  the  adjacent  districts?  The  Phrygian  approx- 
 imates perhaps  to  the  Greek,  and  yet  it  differs  from 
 it  materially  both  in  form  and  vocabulary  (Hawlin- 
 son's  Iltrod.  i.  (iCC):  still  more  is  this  the  case 
 with  the  J-.ycian,  which  appears  to  possess  a  vocab- 
 ulary wholly  distinct  from  its  kindred  languages 
 {ibid.  i.  GGU,  677-679).  The  Armenian  is  ranged 
 under  the  Iranian  division :  yet  this,  as  well  as  the 
 language  of  the  Caucasian  Ossets,  whose  indigenous 
 name  of  Ji-  or  Irtni  seems  to  vindicate  for  them  the 
 same  relationship,  are  so  distinctive  in  their  features 
 as  to  render  the  connection  dubious.  The  lan- 
 guages prevalent  in  the  mountainous  di.strict,  an- 
 swering to  the  ancient  Pontus,  are  equally  peculiar 
 (Diefenbach,  0.  K.  p.  51 ).  Passing  to  the  west- 
 ward we  encounter  the  Thracians,  reputed  by  Herod- 
 otus (v.  3)  the  most  powerful  nation  in  the  world, 
 the  Indians  excepted ;  yet  but  one  word  of  their  lan- 
 guage (67'Ki  =  "  town  " )  has  survived,  and  all  his- 
 torical traces  of  the  people  have  been  obliterated. 
 It  is  true  that  they  are  repi-esented  in  later  times 
 by  the  Getfe,  and  these  in  turn  by  the  Daci,  but 
 neither  of  these  can  be  tracked  either  by  history  or 
 language,  unless  we  accept  Grimm's  more  than 
 doubtful  identification  which  would  connect  them 
 with  the  Teutonic  branch.  The  remains  of  the 
 Scythian  language  are  sufficient  to  establish  the 
 Indo-Kuropean  affinities  of  that  nation  (Rawlinson's 
 Ilerod.  iii.  11)6-203),  but  insufficient  to  assign  to 
 it  a  definite  place  in  the  family.  The  Scythians, 
 as  well  as  most  of  the  nomad  triljes  associated  with 
 them,  are  lost  to  the  eye  of  the  ethnologist,  having 
 been  either  absorbed  into  other  nationalities  or 
 swept  away  by  the  ravages  of  war.  The  Sarmata; 
 can  be  traced  down  to  the  lazyges  of  Hunyary  and 
 Poillachia,  in  which  latter  district  they  sur\i\ed 
 until  the  10th  century  of  our  era  {Diet,  of  Ocog. 
 ii.  8),  and  then  they  also  vanish.  The  Albanian 
 language  presents  a  problem  of  a  different  kind; 
 materials  for  research  are  not  wanting  in  this  case, 
 but  no  definite  conclusions  have  as  jet  been  drawn 
 from  them :  the  people  who  use  this  tongue,  the 
 Hkipeifires  as  they  call  themselves,  are  generally  re- 
 garded as  the  representatives  of  the  old  lllyrians, 
 who  in  turn  appear  to  have  been  closely  comiected 
 with  the  Thracians  (Strab.  vii.  31.5;  Justin,  xi.  1), 
 the  name  Dardani  being  found  b(ith  in  Illyria  and 
 on  the  shores  of  the  Hellespont;  it  is  not,  tlierefore, 
 improbable  that  the  Alljanian  may  contain  what- 
 ever vestiges  of  the  old  Thracian  tongue  still  survive 
 (Diefenbach,  0.  A",  p.  68).  In  the  Italic  peninsula 
 the  Etruscan  tongue  remains  as  great  an  enigma  as 
 ever:  its  Indo-European  character  is  supposed  to 
 be  established,  together  with  the  probability  of  its 
 being  a  mixed  language  (IJunsen's  P!i.  of  II.  \.  85- 
 88).  The  result  of  researches  into  the  Umbrian 
 language,  as  represented  in  the  Eugubine  tablets,  the 
 earliest  of  which  date  from  about  400  u.  C. ;  into  the 
 Sabellian,  as  represented  in  the  tablets  of  Vdktri 
 
 TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 and  Aniino;  and  into  the  Oscan,  of  which  the  re- 
 mains are  numerous,  have  decided  their  position  as 
 members  of  the  Italic  class  {ibid.  i.  90-94).  The 
 same  cannot  be  asserted  of  the  iNIessapian  or  Iai)y<;ian 
 language,  which  stands  apart  from  all  neighboring 
 dialects.  Its  Indo-European  character  is  affirmed, 
 but  no  ethnological  conclusion  can  as  yet  be  drawn 
 from  the  scanty  information  afforded  us  (ib.  i.  94). 
 Lastly,  within  the  Celtic  area  there  are  ethnological 
 problems  which  we  cannot  pretend  to  solve.  The 
 Ligurians,  for  instance,  present  one  of  these  prob- 
 lems: were  they  Celts,  but  belonging  to  an  earlier 
 migration  than  the  Celts  of  history  ?  Their  name 
 has  been  referred  to  a  Welsh  original,  but  on  this 
 no  great  reliance  can  be  placed,  as  it  would  be  in 
 this  case  a  local  (=coostmen)  and  not  an  ethnical 
 title,  and  might  have  been  imposed  on  them  by  the 
 Celts.  They  evidently  hold  a  posterior  place  to  the 
 Iberians,  inasmuch  as  they  are  said  to  have  driven 
 a  section  of  this  people  across  the  Alps  into  Italy. 
 That  they  were  distinct  from  the  Celts  is  asserted 
 by  Strabo  (ii.  128),  but  the  distinction  may  have 
 been  no  greater  than  exists  between  the  British 
 and  the  Gaehc  branches  of  that  race.  The  admix- 
 ture of  the  Celts  and  Iberians  in  the  Spanish  pen- 
 insula is  again  a  somewhat  intricate  question,  which 
 Dr.  Latham  attempts  to  explain  on  the  ground  that 
 the  term  Celt  (KeArai)  really  meant  Iberian 
 {EVin.  of  Fur.  Yt.  3b).  That  such  questions  as 
 these  should  arise  on  a  subject  which  carries  us 
 back  to  times  of  hoar  antiquity,  forms  no  ground 
 for  doubting  the  general  conclusion  that  we  can  ac- 
 count ethnologically  for  the  population  of  the  Euro- 
 pean continent. 
 
 The  Shemitic  and  Indo-European  families  cover 
 after  all  but  an  insignificant  portion  of  the  earth's 
 surface :  the  large  areas  of  northern  and  eastern 
 Asia,  the  numerous  groups  of  islands  that  line  its 
 coast  and  .stud  the  Pacific  in  the  direction  of  South 
 America,  and  again  the  immense  continent  of 
 America  itself,  stretching  well-nigh  from  jjole  to 
 pole,  remain  to  be  accounted  for.  Historical  aid 
 is  almost  wholly  denied  to  the  ethnologist  in  his 
 researches  in  these  quarters;  physiology  and  lan- 
 guage are  his  only  guides.  It  can  hardly,  there- 
 fore, be  matter  of  surprise,  if  we  are  unable  to 
 obtain  certainty,  or  even  a  reasonable  degree  of 
 probability,  on  this  part  of  our  subject.  Much  has 
 been  done;  but  far  more  remains  to  be  done  before 
 the  data  for  forming  a  conclusive  opinion  can  be 
 obtained.  In  Asia,  the  languages  fall  into  two 
 large  classes  —  the  monosyllabic,  and  the  aggluti- 
 nati\e.  The  former  are  repieseiited  ethnologically 
 by  the  Chinese,  the  latter  by  the  various  nations 
 classed  together  l)y  I'rof.  IM.  Miiller  under  the 
 common  head  of  Turanian.  It  is  unnecessary  for 
 us  to  discuss  the  correctness  Of  his  view  in  re- 
 garding all  these  nations  as  members  of  one  and 
 the  same  family.  M'hether  we  accept  or  reject 
 his  theory,  the  fact  of  a  gradation  of  linguistic 
 types  and  of  connecting  links  between  the  various 
 branches  remains  unaffected,  and  for  our  present 
 purpose  the  question  is  of  comparatively  little  mo- 
 ment. The  monosyllabic  type  apparently  betokens 
 the  earliest  movement  from  the  common  home  of 
 tl'.e  human  race,  and  we  should  therefore  assign 
 a  chronological  priority  to  the  settlement  of  the 
 Chinese  in  the  east  and  southeast  of  the  continent. 
 The  agglutinative  languages  fall  geographically  into 
 two  divisions,  a  northern  and  southern.  The  north- 
 ern consists  of  a  well-defined  group,  or  family,  desig- 
 nated  by   German  ethnologists  the  Ural- Altaian. 
 
TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 
 
 It  consists  of  the  following  five  branches:   (1.)  The 
 
 TONGUES,  ETC.  (APPENDIX)  3303 
 Malay  class  (Buiisen,  Ph.  of  11.  ii.  114),  but  the 
 
 k 
 
 Tiingusian,  covering  a  large  ai-ea,  east  of  the  river 
 Yenisei,  between  lake  Baikal,  and  the  Ttuiguska. 
 (2.)  The  Mongolian,  which  prevails  over  the  Great 
 Desert  of  Gobi,  and  among  the  Kalnuicks,  wher- 
 ever their  nomad  habits  lead  them  on  the  steppes 
 either  of  Asia  or  Europe,  in  the  latter  of  wliich 
 they  are  found  about  the  lower  course  of  the 
 Volga.  (3.)  The  Turkish,  covering  an  immense 
 area  from  the  Mediterranean  in  the  southwest  to 
 the  river  Lena  in  the  northeast ;  in  luirope  spoken 
 by  the  Osmanli,  who  form  the  governing  class  in 
 Turkey ;  by  the  Nogai,  between  the  Caspian  and 
 the  Sea  of  Azov ;  and  by  various  Caucasian  tribes. 
 (4.)  'i'he  Samoiedic,  on  the  coast  of  the  Arctic 
 Ocean,  between  the  White  Sea  in  the  west  and  the 
 river  Anabara  in  the  east.  (5.)  The  Finnish, 
 which  is  spoken  by  the  Finns  and  Lapps;  by  the 
 inhabitants  of  Esthonia  and  Livonia  to  the  south 
 of  the  Gulf  of  Finland;  by  various  tribes  about 
 the  Volga  (the  Tcheremissians  and  Mordvinians), 
 and  the  Kama  (the  Votiakes  and  Permians);  and, 
 lastly,  by  the  ^Magyars  of  Hungary.  The  southern 
 branch  is  subdivided  into  the  following  four  classes: 
 (1.)  The  Tamulian,  of  the  south  of  Hindostan. 
 (2.)  The  Bhotiya,  of  Tibet,  the  sub-Himalayan 
 district  (Xepaul  and  Bhotan),  and  the  Lohitic  lan- 
 guages east  of  the  Brahmapootra.  (3. )  The  Tai, 
 in  Siam,  Laos,  Anam,  and  Pegu.  (4.)  The  Malay, 
 of  the  Malay  peninsula,  and  the  adjacent  islands; 
 the  latter  being  the  original  settlement  of  the  Ma-  I 
 lay  race,  wheuce  they  spread  in  comparatively  mod- 
 ern times  to  the  mainland. 
 
 The  early  movements  of  the  races  representing 
 these  several  divisions  can  only  be  divined  by  lin- 
 guistic tokens.  Prof.  j\L  Miiller  assigns  to  the 
 northern  trilies  the  following  chronological  order: 
 Tungusian,  Mongolian,  Turkish,  and  Finnish;  and 
 to  the  southern  division  the  following:  Ta'i,  Malay, 
 Bhotiya,  and  Tamulian  {Ph.  nf  HA.  481).  Geo- 
 graphically it  appears  more  likely  that  the  JIalay 
 preceded  the  Ta'i,  inasuuich  as  they  occupied  a 
 more  southerly  district.  The  later  movements  of 
 the  European  branches  of  the  northern  division 
 can  be  traced  historically.  The  Turkish  race  com- 
 menced their  westerly  migration  from  the  neigh- 
 borhood of  the  Altai  range  in  the  1st  century  of 
 our  era;  in  the  Gth  they  had  reached  the  Caspian 
 and  the  Volga;  in  the  11th  and  12th  the  Turc- 
 omans took  possession  of  their  present  quarters 
 south  of  Caucasus:  in  the  l-3th  the  Osmanli  made 
 their  first  appearance  in  Western  Asia;  about  the 
 middle  of  the  14th  they  crossed  from  Asia  Minor 
 into  Europe;  and  in  the  middle  of  the  1.5th  they 
 had  established  themselves  at  Constantinople.  The 
 Finnish  race  is  supposed  to  have  been  originally 
 settled  about  the  Ural  range,  and  thence  to  have 
 migrated  westward  to  the  shores  of  the  Baltic, 
 which  they  had  reached  at  a  period  anterior  to  the 
 Christian  era;  in  the  7th  century  a  branch  pressed 
 southwards  to  the  Danube,  and  founded  the  king- 
 dom of  Bulgaria,  where,  however,  they  have  long 
 ceased  to  have  any  national  existence.  The  Ugrian 
 tribes,  who  are  the  early  representatives  of  the 
 Hungarian  iSIagyars,  approached  Europe  from  Asia 
 in  the  5th  and  settled  in  Hungary  in  the  9th  cen- 
 tury of  our  era.  The  central  point  from  which 
 the  various  branches  of  the  I'uranian  family  radi- 
 ated would  appear  to  be  about  lake  Baikal.  With 
 regai'd  to  the  ethnology  of  Oceania  and  America  we 
 can  say  but  little.  The  languages  of  the  former 
 are  generally  supposed  to  be  connected  with  the 
 
 •elations,  both  linguistic  and  ethnological,  existing 
 between  the  Jlalay  and  the  black,  or  Negrito  pop- 
 ulation, which  is  found  on  many  of  the  groups  oi 
 islands,  are  not  well  defined.  The  approximation 
 in  language  is  far  greater  than  in  physiology 
 (Latham's  Essays,  pp.  213,  218;  Garnett's  E.^^says, 
 p.  310),  and  in  certain  cases  amounts  to  identity 
 (Kennedy's  Essays,  p.  85);  but  the  whole  subject 
 is  at  present  involved  in  obscurity.  The  polysyn- 
 thetic  languages  of  Nortii  America  are  regarded 
 as  emanating  from  the  Mongolian  stock  (Bunsen, 
 Ph.  of  II.  ii.  Ill),  and  a  close  affinity  is  said  to 
 exist  between  the  North  American  and  the  Kams- 
 kadale  and  Korean  languages  on  the  opposite  coast 
 of  Asia  (Latham,  Mnii  and  his  Mtgr.  p.  185). 
 The  conclusion  drawn  from  this  would  be  that 
 the  population  of  America  entered  by  way  of 
 Behring's  Straits.  Other  theories  have,  however, 
 been  broached  on  this  suliject.  It  has  been  con- 
 jectured that  the  chain  of  islands  which  stretches 
 across  the  Pacific  may  have  conducted  a  JIalay 
 population  to  South  America :  and,  again,  an 
 African  origin  has  been  claimed  for  the  Caribs 
 of  Central  America  (Kennedy's  Essays,  pp.  100- 
 123). 
 
 In  conclusion,  we  may  safely  assert  that  the  ten- 
 dency of  all  ethnological  and  linguistic  research  is 
 to  discover  the  elements  of  unity  amidst  the  most 
 striking  external  varieties.  Already  the  myriads 
 of  the  human  race  are  massed  together  into  a  few 
 1  large  groups.  Whether  it  will  ever  be  possible  to 
 go  lieyond  this,  and  to  show  the  historical  unity 
 of  these  groups,  is  more  tlian  we  can  undertake  to 
 say.  But  we  entertain  the  firm  persuasion  that  in 
 their  broad  results  these  sciences  will  yield  an  in- 
 creasing testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  Bible. 
 
 (The  authorities  referred  to  in  the  foregoing 
 article  are:  M.  Miiller,  Lectures  on  ihe  Science  of 
 Lmujuaije,  1862  [and  2d  Series,  1864;  both  re- 
 printed, N.  Y.  1862-65]  ;  Bunsen,  Philosophy  of 
 History,  2  vols.,  1854  [vols,  iii,,  iv.  of  his  Chris- 
 tinnity  awl  Manldml~\ ;  Kenan,  Ilistoire  Generale 
 des  Lanr/ves  Semitiqucs,  3d  ed.,  1863  [4th  ed., 
 1864];  knobel,  Vulkertaf  el  der  Genesis,  1850;  W. 
 von  Humboldt,  Ueher  die  Verschiedenheit  des 
 menschlichen  Spraclibaiies,  1836 ;  Delitzsch,  ,Iesh- 
 urun,  1858 ;  Transactions  of  the  Philological  So- 
 ciety;  Rawlinson,  Herodotus,  4  vols.,  1858;  Pott, 
 Etymologische  Forschungen,  1833  [-36;  new  ed., 
 Bd.  i.-ii.  Abth.  1-3,  1859-69] ;  Garnett,  Essays, 
 1859 ;  Schleicher,  Compendium  der  vergleichenden 
 Grammaiik,  1861  [2^  Aufl.,  1866];  Diefenbach, 
 Origincs  Europem,  1861;  ICwald,  Sprachm'ssen- 
 schaflliche  Abhandlungen,  1862. )  [To  these  should 
 be  added  the  excellent  work  of  Prof.  W.  D.  Whit- 
 ney, Lanquage  and  the  Sticdy  of  Language,  N.  Y. 
 1867.  —  A.]  W.  L.  B. 
 
 Appi:ndix.  —  TowEK  of  B.vbel. 
 
 The  Tower  of  Babel  forms  the  subject  of  a  pre- 
 vious article  [B.vbel,  Tower  of]  ;  but  in  con^p- 
 quence  of  the  discovery  of  a  cuneiform  inscription, 
 in  which  the  tower  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
 the  Confusion  of  Tongues,  the  eminent  cuneiform 
 scholar  Dr.  Oppert  has  kitidly  sent  the  following 
 addition  to  the  present  article. 
 
 The  history  of  the  confusion  of  languages  was 
 preserved  at  Babylon,  as  we  learn  by  the  testimo- 
 nies of  classical  and  Babylonian  authorities  (Aby- 
 denus,  Fragm.  Hist.  Gra>,c.,  ed.  Didot,  vol.  iv.). 
 Only  the  Chaldeans  themselves  did  not  admit  th» 
 
3304    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF  (APPENDIX  —  TOWER  OF  BABEL) 
 
 Hebrew  etymology  of  the  name  of  their  metrop- 
 olis; they  derived  it  from  Bah-el.  the  door  of  El 
 (Kronos  or  Saturiius),  whom  Diodonis  Siculus 
 states  to  have  been  the  planet  most  adored  by  the 
 Babylonians. 
 
 The  Talmudists  say  that  the  true  site  of  the 
 Tower  of  Babel  was  at  Borsif,  the  Greek  Boi-sippa, 
 the  Birs  Nimrud,  seven  miles  and  a  half  from 
 Ilillali,  S.  W.,  and  nearly  eleven  miles  from  the 
 northern  ruins  of  Baljylon.     Several  passages  state 
 
 that  the  air  of  Borsippa  makes  forgetful  ("I^IS 
 
 nDti?^,  av'ir  maslikakh) ;  and  one  Rabbi  says  that 
 Borsif  in  BiihiJ\  the  Confusion  of  Tongues  {Bere- 
 sliit.  Rabba,  f.  42,  1).  The  Babylonian  name  of 
 this  locality  is  Barsip  or  Btirzipa,  which  we  ex- 
 plain by  Tower  of  Tomjues.  The  French  expedi- 
 tion to  Mesopotamia  found  at  the  B'trs  Nimrud  a 
 clay  cake,  dated  from  Barsip  the  30th  day  of  the 
 Cth  month  of  the  16th  year  of  Nabonid,  and  the 
 discovery  confirmed  the  hypothesis  of  several  trav- 
 ellers, who  had  supposed  the  Birs  Nimrud  to  con- 
 tain the  remains  of  Borsippa. 
 
 Borsippa  (the  Tongue  Tower)  was  formerly  a 
 suburb  of  Babylon,  when  the  old  Babel  was  merely 
 restricted  to  the  northern  ruins,  before  the  great 
 extension  of  the  city,  which,  according  to  ancient 
 writers,  was  the  greatest  that  the  sun  ever  warmed 
 with  its  beams.  Nebuchadnezzar  included  it  in 
 the  great  circumvallation  of  480  stades,  but  left  it 
 out  of  the  second  wall  of  3G0  stades;  and  when 
 the  exterior  wall  was  destroyed  by  Darius,  Bor- 
 sippa became  independent  of  Babylon.  The  his- 
 torical writers  respecting  Alexander  state  that  Bor- 
 sippa bad  a  great  sanctuary  dedicated  to  Apollo 
 and  Artemis  (Strab.  xvi.  739;  Stephanus  Byz. 
 s-  V-  Bf^pffiTTTro),  and  the  former  is  the  building 
 elevated  in  modern  times  on  the  very  basement  of 
 the  old  Tower  of  Babel. 
 
 This  building,  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  is 
 the  same  that  Herodotus  describes  as  the  Tower 
 of  Jupiter  Belus.  In  our  Expedition  to  Mesopo- 
 Imnia^^  v>e  have  given  a  description  of  this  ruin, 
 and  proved  our  assertion  of  the  identity.  This 
 tower  of  Herodotus  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
 pyramid  described  by  Strabo,  and  which  is  cer- 
 tainly to  be  seen  in  the  remains  called  now  Babil 
 (the  Mujellibeh  of  Rich).  The  temple  of  Borsippa 
 is  written  with  an  ideogram, 'j.  com  posed  of  the  signs 
 for  house  and  spirit  (anima),  the  real  pronuncia- 
 tion of  which  was  probably  Sarakii,  tower. 
 
 The  temple  consisted  of  a  large  substructure,  a 
 stade  (GOO  Babylonian  feet)  in  breadth,  and  75 
 feet  in  height,  over  which  were  built  seven  other 
 stages  of  25  feet  each.  Nelmchadnezzar  gives 
 notice  of  this  building  in  the  Borsippa  inscription. 
 He  named  it  the  temple  of  the  Seven  Li<jhts  of 
 tlie  Earth,  i.  e.  the  planets.  The  top  was  the 
 temple  of  Nebo,  and  in  the  substructure  (igar) 
 was  a  temple  consecrated  to  the  god  Sin,  god  of 
 the  month.  This  building,  mentioned  in  the  East 
 India  House  inscription  (col.  iv.  1.  61),  is  spoken 
 of  by  Herodotus  (i.  181,  ifec). 
 
 Here  follows  the  ]3orsippa  inscription :  "  Nabu- 
 chodonosor,  king  of  Babylon,  shepherd  of  peoples, 
 who  attests  the  inmiutable  atlection  of  Merodacii, 
 the  mighty  ruler-exalting  Nebo;  the  saviour,  the 
 
 wise  man  who  lends  his  ears  to  the  orders  of  the 
 highest  god ;  the  lieutenant  without  reproach,  the 
 repairer  of  the  Pyramid  and  the  Tower,  eldest  son 
 of  Nabopallassar,  king  of  Babylon. 
 
 "  We  say:  Merodach,  the  great  master,  has  cre- 
 ated me:  he  has  imposed  on  me  to  reconstruct  his 
 building.  Nebo,  the  guardian  over  the  legions  of 
 the  heaven  and  the  earth,  has  charged  my  hands 
 with  the  sceptre  of  justice. 
 
 "  The  Pyramid  is  the  temple  of  the  heaven  and 
 the  earth,  the  seat  of  Merodach,  the  chief  of  the 
 gods;  the  place  of  the  oracles,  the  spot  of  his  rest, 
 I  have  adorned  in  the  form  of  a  cupola,  with 
 shining  gold. 
 
 "  The  Tower,  the  eternal  house,  which  I  founded 
 and  built,  I  have  completed  its  magnificence  with 
 silver,  gold,  other  metals,  stone,  enameled  bricks, 
 fir,  and  pine. 
 
 "The  first,  which  is  the  house  of  the  earth's 
 base,  the  most  ancient  monument  of  Babylon,  I 
 built  and  finished  it;  I  have  highly  exalted  its  head 
 with  bricks  covered  with  copper."^ 
 
 "  We  say  for  the  other,  that  is,  this  edifice,  the 
 house  of  the  Seven  Lights  of  the  Earth,  the  most 
 ancient  monument  of  Borsippa:  A  former  king 
 built  it  (they  reckon  42  ages),  but  he  did  not  com- 
 plete its  head.  Since  a  remote  time  people  had 
 abandoned  il,  without  order  expressin//  their  irords. 
 Since  that  time,  the  earthquake  and  the  thunder 
 had  dispei'sed  its  sun-dried  clay;  the  bricks  of  the 
 casing  had  been  split,  and  the  earth  of  the  interior 
 had  been  scattered  in  heaps.  Merodach,  the  great 
 lord,  excited  my  mind  to  repair  this  building.  I 
 did  not  change  the  site,  nor  did  I  take  away  the 
 foundation-stone.  In  a  fortunate  month,  an  aus- 
 picious day,  I  undertook  to  build  porticoes  around 
 the  crude  brick  masses,  and  the  casing  of  burnt 
 bricks.  I  adapted  the  circuits.  I  put  the  inscrip- 
 tion of  my  name  in  the  Kitir  of  the  porticoes. 
 
 "  I  set  my  hand  to  finish  it,  and  to  exalt  its  head. 
 ,-\s  it  had  been  in  former  times,  so  I  founded,  I 
 made  it;  as  it  had  been  in  ancient  days,  so  I  exalted 
 its  summit. 
 
 "  Nebo,  son  of  himself,  ruler  who  exaltest  Mero- 
 dach, be  propitious  to  my  works  to  maintain  mj' 
 authority,  tirant  me  a  life  until  the  remotest  tinje, 
 a  sevenfold  jirogeny,  the  stability  of  my  throne,  the 
 victory  of  my  sword,  the  pacification  of  foes,  the 
 triumph  over  the  lands !  In  the  columns  of  thy 
 eternal  table,  that  fixes  the  destinies  of  the  heaven 
 and  of  the  earth,  bless  the  course  of  my  days,  in- 
 scribe the  fecundity  of  my  race. 
 
 "  Imitate,  0  Merodach,  king  of  heaven  and  earth, 
 the  father  who  begot  thee;  bless  my  buildings, 
 strengthen  my  authority.  May  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 the  king-repairer,  remain  before  thy  face!  " 
 
 This  allusion  to  the  Tower  of  tiie  Tongues  is  the 
 only  one  that  has  as  yet  been  discovered  in  the 
 cuneiform  inscriptions.''  The  story  is  a  Shemitic 
 and  not  only  a  Hebrew  one,  and  we  have  no  I'eason 
 whatever  to  douljt  of  the  existence  of  the  same 
 story  at  Babylon. 
 
 The  ruins  of  the  building  elevated  on  the  spot 
 where  the  story  placed  the  tower  of  the  dispersion 
 of  tongues,  have  therefore  a  more  modern  origin, 
 but  interest  nevertheless  by  their  stupendous  ap- 
 pearance. Oppert. 
 
 «  Expedition   en  Mesopotamie,    i.  208.     Compare        c  This  manner  of  building  is  expre.ssly  mentioned 
 also  the  trigonometrical  survey  of  ttie  river  in  the    by  Philostratus  {ApoU.  Tyan.  i.  25)  as  Babylonian, 
 plates.  I      <'  See  Expedition  en  Mesopotamie,  tom.  i.  p  200. 
 
 6  BIT.ZI.DA  in  syllabic  characters.  1 
 
TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF.  —  I.  The  history  of 
 n  word  which  has  been  used  to  express  some  spe- 
 cial, wonderful  fact  in  the  spiritual  life  of  man  is 
 itself  lull  of  interest.  It  may  be  a  necessary  prep- 
 aration for  the  study  of  the  fact  which  that  word 
 represents. 
 
 r\a)TTa,  or  yXSxTcra.,  the  word  employed  through- 
 out the  N.  T.  for  the  gift  now  under  consideration, 
 is  used  —  (1.)  for  the  bodily  organ  of  speech;  (2.) 
 for  a  foreign  word,  imported  and  half  naturalized  in 
 Greek  (Arist.  Rhet.  iii.  2,  §  14),  a  meaning  which 
 the  words  "gloss"  and  "  glossary "  preserve  for 
 us;  (3.)  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  after  the  pattern  of 
 
 the    corresponding    Hebrew    word    (]^ti7v),    for 
 
 "  speech  "  or  "  language  "  (Gen.  x.  5;  Dan.  i.  4, 
 &c.,  &c.). 
 
 Each  of  these  meanings  might  be  the  starting- 
 point  for  the  application  of  the  word  to  the  gift  of 
 tongues,  and  each  accordingly  has  found  those  who 
 have  maintained  that  it  is  so.  (A.)  Eichhorn  and 
 Bardili  (cited  by  I51eek,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1829,  p.  8  f ), 
 and  to  some  extent  Bunsen  [HippohjlHs^  i.  9),  start- 
 ing from  the  first,  see  in  the  so-called  gift  an  inar- 
 ticulate utterance,  the  cry  as  of  a  brute  creature,  in 
 which  the  tongue  moves  while  the  lips  refuse  their 
 office  in  making  the  sounds  definite  and  distinct. 
 (B.)  Bleek  himself  {ut  supr.  p.  3-3)  adopts  the  sec- 
 ond meaning,  and  gives  an  interesting  collection  of 
 passages  to  prove  that  it  was,  in  the  time  of  the 
 N.  T.,  the  received  sense.  He  infers  from  this  that 
 to  speak  in  tongues  was  to  use  unusual,  poetic  lan- 
 guage—  that  the  speakers  were  in  a  high-wrought 
 excitement  which  showed  itself  in  mystic,  figurative 
 terms.  In  tliis  view  he  had  been  preceded  by  Er- 
 nesti  (Opiisc.  Tltenlog.;  see  Bfoniimj  Watch,  iv. 
 101)  and  Herder  {Die  Gabe  der  Spntche,  pp.  47, 
 70),  the  latter  of  whom  extends  the  meaning  to 
 special  mystical  interpretations  of  the  0.  T.  (C.) 
 The  received  traditional  view  starts  from  the  third 
 meaning,  and  sees  in  the  gift  of  tongues  a  distinctly 
 linguistic  power. 
 
 We  have  to  see  which  of  these  views  has  most  to 
 commend  it.  (A.),  it  is  believed,  does  not  meet 
 the  condition  of  answering  any  of  the  facts  of  the 
 N.  T.,  and  errs  in  ignoring  the  more  prominent 
 meaning  of  the  word  in  later  Greek.  (B.),  though 
 true  in  some  of  its  conclusions,  and  able,  as  far  as 
 tliey  are  concerned,  to  support  itself  by  the  au- 
 thority of  Augustine  (corap.  De  Gen.  <td  Ut.  xii.  8, 
 ''  linguam  esse  cum  quis  loquatur  obscuras  et  mys- 
 ticas  significationes "),  appears  faulty,  as  failing 
 (1)  to  recognize  the  fact  thafthe  sense  of  the  word 
 ill  the  N.  T.  was  more  likely  to  be  determined  by 
 that  which  it  bore  in  the  LXX.  than  by  its  mean- 
 ing in  Greek  historians  or  rhetoricians,  and  (2)  to 
 •neet  the  phenomena  of  Acts  ii.  (G.)  therefore 
 commends  itself,  as  in  this  respect  starting  at  least 
 from  the  right  point,  and  likely  to  lead  us  to  the 
 truth  (comp.  Olshausen,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1829,  p. 
 5381." 
 
 H.  The  chief  passages  from  whicli  we  have  to 
 draw  our  conclusion  as  to  the  nature  and  purpose 
 of  the  gift  in  question,  are — (1.)  Mark  xvi.  17; 
 (2.)  Acts  ii.  1-13,  X.  46,  xix.  6;  (3.)  1  Cor.  xii.,  xiv. 
 It  deserves  notice  that  the  chronological  sequence  of 
 these  passages,  as  determined  by  the  date  of  their 
 
 a  Several  scholars,  we  know,  do  not  agree  with  us. 
 We  gave  our  reasons  five  years  ago,  and  our  antago- 
 nists have  not  yet  refuted  them. 
 208 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF         3305 
 
 composition,  is  probably  just  the  opposite  of  that 
 of  the  periods  to  which  they  severally  refer.  The 
 first  group  is  later  than  the  second,  the  second 
 than  the  third.  It  will  be  expedient,  however, 
 wliatever  modifications  this  fact  may  suggest  after- 
 ward,  to  deal  with  the  passages  in  their  commonly 
 received  order. 
 
 HI.  The  promise  of  a  new  power  coming  from 
 the  Divine  Spirit,  giving  not  only  comfort  and  in- 
 sight into  truth,  but  fresh  powers  of  utterance  of 
 some  kind,  appears  once  and  again  in  our  Lord's 
 teaching.  The  disci|)les  are  to  take  no  thought 
 what  they  shall  speak,  for  the  Spirit  of  their  Father 
 shall  speak  in  them  (Matt.  x.  19,  20;  Blark  xiii.  11). 
 The  lips  of  Galilean  peasants  are  to  speak  freely 
 and  boldly  before  kings.  The  only  condition  is  that 
 they  are  "not  to  premeditate" — to  yield  them- 
 selves altogether  to  the  power  that  works  on  them. 
 Thus  they  shall  have  given  to  them  "  a  mouth  and 
 wisdom"  which  no  adversary  shall  be  able  "to 
 gainsay  or  resist."  In  Mark  xvi.  17  we  have  a 
 more  definite  term  employed:  "  They  shall  speak 
 with  new  tongues  {Katvois  yXcoffaais)-"  Starting, 
 as  above,  from  (C),  it  can  liardly  be  questioned 
 that  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  promise  is  that  the 
 disciples  should  speak  in  new  languages  which  they 
 had  not  learned  as  other  men  learn  them.  It  must 
 be  remembered,  however,  that  the  critical  questions 
 connected  with  Mark  xvi.  9-20  (comp.  Meyer, 
 Tischendorf,  Alford,  in  loc.)  make  it  doubtful 
 whether  we  have  here  the  language  of  the  Evan- 
 gelist —  doubtlul  therefore  whether  we  have  the 
 ipsissima  verba  of  the  Lord  himself,  or  the  nearest 
 approximation  of  some  early  transcriber  to  the  con- 
 tents of  the  section,  no  longer  extant,  with  which 
 the  Gospel  had  originally  ended.  In  this  case  it  be- 
 comes possible  that  the  later  phenomena,  or  later 
 thoughts  respecting  them,  may  have  determined  the 
 language  in  which  the  promise  is  recorded.  On 
 either  hypothesis,  the  promise  determines  nothing 
 as  to  the  nature  of  the  gift,  or  the  purpose  for  which 
 it  was  to  be  employed.  It  was  to  be  "a  sign."  It 
 w.as  not  to  belong  to  a  chosen  few  only  —  to  Apos- 
 tles and  Evangelists.  It  was  to  "follow  them  that 
 believed"  —  to  be  among  the  fruits  of  the  living 
 intense  faith  which  raised  nien  above  the  common 
 level  of  their  lives,  and  brought  them  within  the 
 kingdom  of  God. 
 
 IV.  The  wonder  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  is,  in  its 
 broad  features,  familiar  enough  to  us.  The  days 
 since  the  Ascension  had  been  spent  as  in  a  ceaseless 
 ecstasy  of  worship  (Luke  xxiv.  53).  The  120  dis- 
 ciples were  gathered  togetlier,  waiting  with  eager 
 expectation  for  the  coming  of  power  from  on  high 
 —  of  the  Spirit  that  was  to  give  them  new  gifts  of 
 utterance.  The  day  of  Pentecost  was  come,  which 
 they,  like  all  other  Israelites,  looked  on  as  the  wit- 
 ness of  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will  given  on 
 Sinai.  Suddenly  there  swept  over  them  "  the 
 sound  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,"  such  as 
 Kzekiel  had  heard  in  the  visions  of  God  by  Cheliar 
 (i.  24,  xliii.  2)  at  all  times  the  recognized  symbol 
 of  a  spiritual  creative  power  (comp.  Ez.  xxxvii. 
 1-14;  Gen.  i.  2;  1  K.  xix.  11;  2  Chr.  v.  14;  Ps. 
 civ.  3,  4).  With  this  there  was  another  sign  as- 
 sociated even  more  closely  with  their  thoughts  of 
 the  day  of  Pentecost.  There  appeared  unto  them 
 "tongues  like  as  of  fire."  Of  old  the  brightness 
 had  lieen  seen  gleaming  through  the  "  thick 
 cloud"  (Ex.  xix.  16),  or  "enfolding"  the  Divine 
 glory  (Fjz.  i.  4).  Now  the  tongues  were  distrib- 
 uted    (8iaiiLfpi(6;j.fvat),     lighting     upon     each    ol 
 
3306        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 them."  The  outward  symbol  was  accompanied  by 
 an  inward  change.  They  were  "  filled  with  the  Holy 
 Spirit,"  as  the  Baptist  and  their  Lord  had  been 
 (Luke  i.  15,  iv.  1),  thouL^h  tliey  themselves  had  as 
 yet  no  experience  of  a  like  kind.  "  They  began  to 
 sjieak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
 utterance."  The  narrative  that  fohows  leaves 
 hardly  any  room  for  doubt  that  the  writer  meant 
 to  convey  the  impression  that  the  disciples  were 
 heard  to  speak  in  languages  of  which  they  had  no 
 colloquial  knowledge  previously.  The  direct  state- 
 ment, "  They  heard  them  speaking,  each  man  in 
 his  own  dialect,"  the  long  list  of  nations,  the  words 
 put  into  the  lips  of  the  hearers  —  these  can  scarcely 
 be  reconciled  with  the  theories  of  Bleek,  Herder, 
 and  Bunsen,  without  a  willful  distortion  of  the  evi- 
 dence.* What  view  are  we  to  take  of  a  phenom- 
 enon so  marvelous  and  exceptional?  What  views 
 have  men  actually  taken?  (1.)  The  prevalent  belief 
 of  the  (Jhurcli  has  been,  that  in  the  Pentecostal 
 gift  tlie  disciples  received  a  supernatural  knowledge 
 of  all  such  languages  as  they  needed  for  their  work 
 as  Evangelists.  The  knowledge  was  permanent, 
 and  could  be  used  at  their  own  will,  as  thougli  it 
 had  been  acquired  in  the  common  order  of  things. 
 With  tliis  they  went  forth  to  preach  to  the  nations. 
 Differences  of  opinion  are  found  as  to  special  points. 
 Augustine  tliougiit  that  each  disciple  spoke  in  all 
 languages  {De  l^erb.  Apost.  clxxv.  3);  Chrysostom 
 that  each  had  a  special  language  assigned  to  him, 
 and  that  this  was  the  indication  of  the  country 
 which  he  was  called  to  evangelize  [Ilom.  in  Act. 
 ii.).  Some  thought  that  the  number  of  languages 
 spoken  was  70  or  75,  after  the  number  of  the  sons 
 of  Noah  (Gen.  x.)  or  the  sons  of  Jacob  (Gen.  slvi.), 
 or  120,  after  tliat  of  the  disciples  (comp.  Baronius, 
 Annul,  i.  107).  Most  were  agreed  in  .seeing  in  the 
 Pentecostal  gift  the  antithesis  to  the  confusion  of 
 tongues  at  Babel,  the  witness  of  a  restored  unity. 
 "  Poena  linguarum  dispersit  homines,  donum  lin- 
 guarum  disperses  in  unum  populum  coUegit " 
 (Grotius,  in  loc). 
 
 Widely  diffused  as  this  belief  has  been,  it  must 
 be  rememViered  that  it  goes  beyond  the  data  witli 
 which  the  N.  T.  supplies  us.  Each  instance  of  the 
 gift  recorded  in  the  Acts  connects  it,  not  with  the 
 work  of  teaching,  but  with  that  of  praise  and 
 adoration  ;  not  with  the  normal  order  of  men's 
 lives,  but  with  exceptional  epochs  in  them.  It 
 came  and  went  as  the  Spirit  gave  men  the  power  of 
 utterance  —  in  this  respect  analogous  to  the  other 
 gift  of  prophecy  with  which  it  was  so  often  associ- 
 ated (Acts  ii.  IG,  17,  3«.x.  6)  — and  was   not  pos- 
 
 «  The  sign  in  this  case  had  its  starting-point  in  the 
 traditional  belief  of  Israelites.  There  had  been,  it  was 
 said,  tongues  of  fire  on  the  original  Pentecost  (Schneck- 
 enburger.  Beilrw^e,  p.  8,  referring  to  Buxtorf,  De 
 Synag.,  and  Philo,  -De  Dccal.).  The  later'  Rabbis 
 were  not  without  their  legends  of  a  like  "  baptism  of 
 fire."  Nicodemus  ben  Gorion  and  Jochanan  ben  Zac- 
 cai,  men  of  great  holiness  and  wisdom,  went  into  an 
 upper  chamber  to  expound  the  Law,  and  the  house 
 began  to  be  full  of  fire  (Lightfoot,  Harm.  iii.  14  ; 
 Schoettgen,  Hor.  Heb.  in  Acts  ii.). 
 
 6  It  deserves  notice  that  here  also  there  are  analo- 
 gies in  Jewish  belief  Every  word  that  went  forth 
 from  the  mouth  of  God  on  Sinai  was  said  to  have  been 
 divided  into  the  seventy  languages  of  the  sous  of  men 
 (Wetstein,  on  Acts  ii.) ;  and  the  bath-/cnl,  the  echo  of 
 the  voice  of  God,  was  heard  by  every  man  in  his  own 
 tongue  (Schneckenburger,  Beitrdge).  So,  as  reg.ards 
 .he  power  of  speaking,  there  was  a  tradition  that  the 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 sessed  by  them  as  a  thing  to  lie  used  this  way  or 
 that,  according  as  they  chose.=  The  speech  of  St. 
 Peter  which  follows,  like  most  other  speeches  ad- 
 dressed to  a  Jerusalem  audience,  was  spoken  a|)par- 
 ently  in  Aramaic'  ^^^len  St.  Paul,  who  "  spake 
 with  tongues  more  than  all,"  was  at  Lystra,  there 
 is  no  mention  made  of  his  using  the  language  of 
 Lycaonia.  It  is  almost  implied  that  he  did  not 
 understand  it  (Acts  xiv.  11).  Not  one  word  in 
 the  discussion  of  spiritual  gifts  in  1  Cor.  xii.-xiv. 
 implies  that  the  gift  was  of  this  nature,  or  given 
 for  this  purpose.  If  it  had  been,  the  Apostle  would 
 surely  have  told  those  who  possessed  it  to  go  and 
 preach  to  the  outlying  nations  of  tlie  heathen  world, 
 instead  of  disturbing  the  church  by  what,  on  this 
 hypothesis,  would  have  been  a  needless  and  offen- 
 sive ostentation  (comp.  Stanley,  Corinthians,  p.  261, 
 2d  ed.).  Without  laying  much  stress  on  the  tra- 
 dition that  St.  Peter  was  followed  in  his  work  by 
 Mark  as  an  interpreter  (ep^uTjj/euTTjs)  (Papias,  in 
 Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  30),  that  even  St.  Paul  was  ac- 
 companied by  Titus  in  the  same  character  —  "  quia 
 non  potuit  divinorum  sensuum  majestatem  digno 
 (iraeci  eloquii  sermone  explicare"  (Hieroii.  quoted 
 by  Estius  in  2  Cor.  ii.)  — they  must  at  least  be 
 received  as  testimonies  that  the  age  which  was 
 nearest  to  the  phenomena  did  not  take  the  same 
 \'iew  of  them  as  those  have  done  who  lived  at  a 
 greater  distance.  The  testimony  of  Irenseus  {Adv. 
 Fher.  vi.  G),  sometimes  urged  in  support  of  the 
 common  view,  in  reality  decides  nothing,  and,  as 
 far  as  it  goes,  tends  against  it  (infra).  Nor,  it 
 may  be  added,  within  the  limits  assigned  by  the 
 providence  of  God  to  the  working  of  the  Apostolic 
 Church,  was  such  a  gift  necessary.  Aramaic, 
 Greek,  Latin,  the  three  languages  of  the  inscription 
 on  the  cross,  were  media  of  intercourse  throughout 
 the  empire.  Greek  alone  sufficed,  as  the  N.  T. 
 shows  us,  for  the  Churches  of  the  West,  for  Mace- 
 donia and  Achaia,  for  Pontus,  Asia,  Phrygia.  The 
 conquests  of  Alexander  and  of  Kome  had  made 
 men  diyluUic  to  an  extent  which  has  no  parallel  in 
 history.  (2.)  Some  interpreters,  influenced  in  part 
 by  these  facts,  have  seen  their  way  to  another  solu- 
 tion of  the  difficulty  by  changing  the  character  of 
 the  miracle.  It  lay  not  in  any  new  power  bestowed 
 on  the  speakers,  but  in  the  impression  produced  on 
 the  hearers.  Words  which  the  Galilean  disciples 
 uttered  in  their  own  tongue  were  heard  by  those 
 who  listened  as  in  their  native  speech.  This  view 
 we  find  adopted  by  (iregory  of  Nyssa  {De  Spir. 
 Sand.),  discussed,  but  not  accepted,  by  Gregory  of 
 
 great  Rabbis  of  the  Sanhedrim  could  speak  all  the 
 seventy  languages  of  the  world. 
 
 c  The  first  di.*!cussion  whether  the  gift  of  tongues 
 was  bestowed  "  per  modum  liabitus  "  with  whicli  I  am 
 acquainted  is  found  in  Salmasius,  De  Ling.  Hebr. 
 (quoted  by  Thilo,  De  Ling.  Ignit.  in  Menthen's  The- 
 saurus, ii.  497),  who.se  conclusion  is  in  the  negative. 
 Even  Calmet  admits  that  it  was  not  permanent  (  Comm. 
 in  loc).  Compare  also  Wetstein,  in  loc.  ;  and  Olshau- 
 sen.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1829,  p.  546. 
 
 d  Dr.  Stanley  suggests  Greek,  as  addressed  to  the 
 Hellenistic  Jews  who  were  present  in  such  large  num- 
 bers (Excurs.  on  Gift  of  Tongues,  Corinthians,  p.  260, 
 2d  ed.).  That  St.  Peter  and  the  Apostles  could  speak 
 a  provincial  Greek  is  probable  enough  ;  but  in  this 
 instance  the  speech  is  addressed  chiefly  to  the  perma- 
 nent dwellers  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  ii.  22,  36),  and  was 
 likely,  like  that  of  St.  Paul  (Acts  xxi.  40),  to  be  spoken 
 in  their  tongue.  To  most  of  the  Hellenistic  hearers 
 this  would  be  iutelligible  enough. 
 
TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 Naziaiizus  {Oral,  xliv.),  and  reproduced  by  Eras- 
 mus (m  loc).  A  modification  of  the  same  theory 
 is  presented  by  Schneckenburger  {Bdlriiye),  and 
 in  part  adopted  by  Olshausen  {I.  c.)  and  Neander 
 (PJlnnz.  u.  Leit.  i.  15).  The  phenomena  of  som- 
 nambulism, of  the  so-called  mesmeric  state,  are  re- 
 ferred to  as  analogous.  The  speaker  was  en  fcipport 
 with  his  hearers;  the  latter  shared  the  thoughts  of 
 the  former,  and  so  heard  them,  or  seemed  to  hear 
 them,  in  their  own  tongues. 
 
 There  are,  it  is  believed,  weighty  reasons  against 
 both  the  earlier  and  later  forms  of  this  hypothesis. 
 (1.)  It  is  at  variance  with  the  distinct  statement 
 of  Acts  ii.  4,  "  They  began  to  speak  with  other 
 tongues."  (2.)  It  at  once  multiplies  the  miracle, 
 and  degrades  its  character.  Not  the  120  disciples, 
 but  the  whole  multitude  of  many  thousands,  are  in 
 this  case  the  subjects  of  it.  The  gift  no  longer 
 connects  itself  with  the  work  of  the  L)iviMe  Spirit, 
 following  on  intense  faith  and  earnest  prayer,  but 
 is  a  mere  pliysical  prodigy  wrought  upon  men  who 
 are  altogether  wanting  in  the  conditions  of  cajjacity 
 for  such  a  supernatural  power  (Mark  xvi.  17).  (3.) 
 It  involves  an  element  of  falsehood.  The  miracle, 
 on  this  view,  was  wrought  to  make  men  believe 
 what  was  not  actually  the  fact.  (4. )  It  is  altogether 
 inapplicable  to  the  phenomena  of  1  Cor.  xiv. 
 
 (3.)  Critics  of  a  negative  school  have,  as  might 
 be  expected,  adopted  the  easier  course  of  rejecting 
 the  narrative  either  altogether  or  in  part.  The 
 statements  do  not  come  from  an  eye-witness,  and 
 may  be  an  exaggerated  report  of  what  actually  took 
 place  —  a  legend  with  or  without  a  historical  foun- 
 dation. Those  who  recognize  such  a  groundwork 
 see  in  "the  rushing  mighty  wind,"  the  hurricane 
 of  a  thunderstorm,  the  fresh  breeze  of  morning;  in 
 the  "tongues  like  as  of  fire,"  the  flashings  of  the 
 electric  fluid;  in  the  "speaking  with  tongues,"  the 
 loud  screams  of  men,  not  all  Galileans,  but  coming 
 from  many  lands,  overpowered  by  strong  excite- 
 ment, speaking  in  mystical,  figurative,  abrupt  ex- 
 clamations. They  see  in  this  "  the  cry  of  the  new- 
 born Christendom."  (Bunsen,  Hijipolijtiis,  ii.  12; 
 Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.  vi.  110;  Bleek,  I.  c. ;  Herder,  /.  c. ) 
 From  the  position  occupied  by  these  writers,  such 
 a  view  was  perhaps  natural  enough.  It  does  not 
 fall  within  the  scope  of  this  article  to  discuss  in 
 detail  a  theory  which  postulates  the  incredibility 
 of  any  fact  beyond  the  phenomenal  laws  of  nature, 
 and  tlie  fiilsehood  of  St.  Luke  as  a  narrator. 
 
 V.  What,  then,  are  the  facts  actually  lirought 
 before  us?  What  inferences  may  be  legitimately 
 drawn  from  them? 
 
 (1.)  The  utterance  of  words  by  the  disciples,  in 
 other  languages  than  their  own  Galilean  Aramaic, 
 is,  as  has  been  said,  distinctly  asserted. 
 
 (2.)  The  words  spoken  appear  to  have  been  de- 
 termined, not  by  the  will  of  the  speakers,  but  by 
 the  spirit  which  "  gave  them  utterance."  The  out- 
 ward tongue  of  flame  was  the  symbol  of  the  "  burn- 
 ing fire  "  within,  which,  as  in  the  case  of  the  older 
 prophets,  could  not  be  repressed  (.Ter.  xx.  9). 
 
 (3.)  The  word  used,  airocpdeyyeaOat,  not  merely 
 \a\e7v,  has  in  the  LXX.  a  special  though  not  an 
 exclusive  association  with  the  oracular  speech  of 
 true  or  false  prophets,  and  appears  to  imply  some 
 peculiar,  perhaps  musical,  solemn  intonation  (comp. 
 1  Chr.  XXV.  1;  Ez.  xiii.  9;  Trommii  Concordant. 
 B.  v.;  Grotius  and  Wetstein,  in  loc;  Andrewes, 
 Wliitsunday  Sermons,  i. ). 
 
 (4.)  The  "  tongues"  were  used  as  an  instrument, 
 jot  of  teaching  but  of  praise.    At  first,  indeed,  there 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF         3307 
 
 were  none  present  to  be  taught.  The  disciples  were 
 by  themselves,  all  sharing  equally  in  the  Soirit's 
 gifts.  When  they  were  heard  by  others,  it  was  as 
 proclaiming  the  praise,  the  miglity  and  great  works, 
 of  God  (fxeya\e7u.)-  What  they  uttered  was  not  a 
 warning,  or  reproof,  or  exhortation,  but  a  doxology 
 (Stanlej',  I.  c.  ;  Baumgarten,  Apostelyesch.  §  3). 
 When  the  work  of  teaching  began,  it  was  in  the 
 language  of  the  Jews,  and  the  utterance  of  tongues 
 ceased. 
 
 (5.)  Those  who  spoke  them  seemed  to  others  to 
 be  under  the  influence  of  some  strong  excitement, 
 "  full  of  new  wine."  They  were  not  as  other  men, 
 or  as  they  themselves  had  been  before.  Some  rec- 
 ognized, indeed,  that  they  were  in  a  higher  state, 
 but  it  was  one  which,  in  some  of  its  outward 
 features,  had  a  counterfeit  likeness  in  the  lower. 
 When  St.  Paul  uses  —  in  Eph.  v.  18, 19  (,Tr\7)povff9e 
 
 ■KViVjjLaros) 
 
 the  all  but  self-same  word  which  St. 
 
 Luke  uses  here  to  describe  the  state  of  the  disciples 
 {ew\T)adri(Tav  Trvev/xaTOS  ayiov),  it  is  to  contrast 
 it  with  "  being  drunk  with  wine,"  to  associate  it 
 with  "  psalms  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs." 
 
 (6.)  Questions  as  to  the  mode  of  operation  of  a 
 power  above  the  common  laws  of  bodily  or  mental 
 life  lead  us  to  a  region  where  our  words  should  be 
 "  wary  and  few."  There  is  the  risk  of  seeming  to 
 reduce  to  the  known  order  of  nature  that  which  is 
 by  confession  above  and  beyond  it.  In  this  and 
 in  other  cases,  however,  it  may  be  possible,  with- 
 out irreverence  or  doubt  —  following  the  guidance 
 which  Scripture  itself  gives  us  —  to  trace  in  what 
 way  the  new  power  did  its  work,  and  brought  about 
 such  wonderful  results.  It  must  be  remembered, 
 then,  that  in  all  likelihood  such  words  as  they  then 
 uttered  had  been  heard  by  the  disciples  before.  At 
 every  feast  which  they  had  ever  attended  from 
 their  youth  up,  they  must  have  been  brought  into 
 contact  with  a  crowd  as  varied  as  that  which  was 
 present  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  pilgrims  of 
 each  nation  uttering  their  praises  and  doxologies. 
 The  difference  was,  that,  before,  the  Galilean  peas- 
 ants had  stood  in  that  crowd,  neither  heeding,  nor 
 understanding,  nor  remembering  what  they  heard, 
 still  less  aljle  to  reproduce  it;  now  they  had  the 
 power  of  speaking  it  clearly  and  freely.  The  Divine 
 work  would  in  this  case  take  the  form  of  a  super- 
 natural exaltation  of  the  memory,  not  of  imparting 
 a  miraculous  knowledge  of  words  never  heard  be- 
 fore. We  have  the  authority  of  John  xiv.  20  for 
 seeing  in  such  an  exaltation  one  of  the  special 
 works  of  the  Divine  Comforter. 
 
 (7.)  The  gift  of  tongues,  the  ecstatic  burst  of 
 praise,  is  definitely  asserted  to  be  a  fulfillment  of  the 
 prediction  of  Joel  ii.  28.  The  twice-repeated  burden 
 of  that  prediction  is,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit," 
 and  the  effect  on  those  who  receive  it  is  that  "  they 
 shall  prophesy."  We  may  see  therefore  in  this 
 special  gift  that  which  is  analogous  to  one  element 
 at  least  of  the  wpocpriTeia  of  the  O.  T. ;  but  the 
 element  of  teaching  is,  as  we  have  seen,  excluded. 
 In  1  Cor.  xiv.  the  gift  of  tongues  and  ■irpo(p7]Tiia 
 (in  this,  the  N.  T.  sense  of  the  word)  are  placed  in 
 direct  contrast.  We  are  led,  tlierefore,  to  look  for 
 that  which  answers  to  the  Gift  of  I'ongues  in  the 
 other  element  of  prophecy  which  is  included  in 
 the  O.  T.  use  of  the  word ;  and  this  is  found  in  the 
 ecstatic  praise,  the  burst  of  song,  which  appears 
 under  that  name  in  the  two  histories  of  Saul 
 (1  Sam.  X.  5-13,  xix.  20-24),  and  in  the  services 
 of  the  Temple  (1  Chr.  xxv.  3). 
 
 (8.)  The  other  instances  in  the  Acts  offer  essen- 
 
3308        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 tially  tlie  same  phenomena.  By  implication  in  xiv. 
 15-19,  by  express  statement  in  x.  47,  xi.  15,  17, 
 six.  6,  it  belongs  to  special  critical  epochs,  at  whicli 
 faith  is  at  its  highest,  and  the  imposition  of  the 
 Apostles'  hands  brought  men  into  the  same  state, 
 imparted  to  them  the  same  gift,  as  tliey  had  them- 
 selves experienced.  In  this  case,  too,  the  exercise 
 of  the  gift  is  at  once  connected  with  and  distin- 
 guished from  "  prophecy  "  in  its  N.  T.  sense. 
 
 VI.  The  First  I'4)istle  to  the  Corinthians  supplies 
 fuller  data.  The  spiritual  gifts  are  classified  and 
 compared,  arranged,  apparently,  according  to  their 
 worth,  placed  under  regulation.  Tliis  fact  is  in 
 itself  significant.  Though  recognized  as  coming 
 from  the  one  Divine  Spirit,  they  are  not  therefore 
 exempted  from  the  control  of  man's  reason  and 
 conscience.  The  Spirit  acts  through  tiie  calm 
 judgment  of  the  Apostle  or  the  Church,  not  less 
 but  more  authoritatively  than  in  the  most  rapturous 
 and  wonderful  utterances.  The  facts  which  may 
 be  gathered  are  briefly  these :  — 
 
 (1.)  The  phenomena  of  the  gift  of  tongues  were 
 not  confined  to  one  church  or  section  of  a  church. 
 If  we  find  them  at  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  Corinth,  by 
 implication  at  Thessalonica  also  (1  Thess.  v.  19), 
 we  may  well  believe  that  they  were  frequently  re- 
 curring wherever  the  spirits  of  men  were  passing 
 thi'ough  the  same  stages  of  experience. 
 
 (2.)  The  comparison  of  gifts,  in  both  the  lists 
 given  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xii.  8-10,  28-30),  places 
 that  of  tongues,  and  the  interpretation  of  tongues, 
 lowest  in  the  scale.  They  are  not  among  the 
 greater  gifts  which  men  are  to  "  covet  earnestly  " 
 (1  Cor.  xii.  31,  xiv.  5).  As  signs  of  a  life  quick- 
 ened into  expression  where  before  it  had  been  dead 
 and  dumb,  tlie  Apostle  could  wish  that  "  they  all 
 spake  with  tongues"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  5),  could  rejoice 
 that  he  himself  "  spake  with  tongues  more  than 
 they  all"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  18).  It  was  good  to  have 
 known  the  working  of  a  power  raising  them  above 
 the  common  level  of  their  consciousness.  They  be- 
 longed, however,  to  the  childhood  of  the  Christian 
 life,  not  to  its  maturity  (I  Cor.  xiv.  20).  They 
 brought  with  them  the  risk  of  disturbance  {ibid. 
 23).  The  only  safe  rule  for  the  Church  was  not  to 
 "  forbid  them  "  {ibid.  39),  not  to  "  quench  "  them 
 (1  Thess.  V.  ]9),  lest  in  so  doing  the  spiritual  life 
 of  which  this  was  the  first  utterance  should  be 
 crushed  and  extinguished  too,  but  not  in  any  way 
 to  covet  or  excite  them.  This  language,  as  has 
 been  stated,  leaves  it  hardly  possible  to  look  on  the 
 gift  as  that  of  a  linguistic  knowledge  bestowed  for 
 the  purjiose  of  evangelizing. 
 
 (3.)  Tlie  main  characteristic  of  the  "tongue" 
 (now  used,  as  it  were,  technically,  without  the 
 epithet  "new"  or  "  other  ")«  is  that  it  is  unin- 
 telligible. The  man  "  speaks  mysteries,"  prays, 
 blesses,  gives  thanks,  in  the  tongue  {iv  TTvivuLaTi 
 as  equivalent  to  eV  yAcoaiTT},  1  Cor.  xiv.  15,  16), 
 but  no  one  understands  him  (aKovei).  He  can 
 hardly  be  said,  indeed,  to  understand  himself.  The 
 irvev/jLa  in  him  is  acting  without  the  cooperation 
 of  the  yovs  (1  Cor.  xiv.  14).  He  speaks  not  to 
 men,  but  to  himself  and  to  God  (couip.  Chrysost. 
 Horn.  35,  in  1  Cor.).  In  spite  of  this,  however, 
 the  gift  might  and  did  contribute  to  the  building 
 up  of  a  man's  own  life  (1  Cor.  xiv.  4).  This  miglit 
 be  the  only  way  in  which  some  natures  could  lie 
 roused  out  of  the  apathy  of  a  sensual  life,  or  the 
 
 a  The  reader  will  hardly  need  to  be  reminded  that 
 unknown  "  is  au  interpolation  of  the  A.  V. 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 dullness  of  a  formal  ritual.  The  ecstasy  of  adora^ 
 tion  which  seemed  to  men  madness,  might  be  a 
 rei'reshment  unspeakable  to  one  who  was  weary  with 
 the  subtle  questionings  of  the  intellect,  to  whom  all 
 familiar  and  intelligiljle  words  were  fraught  with 
 recollections  of  controversial  bitterness  or  the  wan- 
 derings of  doubt  (conip.  a  passage  of  wonderful 
 power  as  to  this  use  of  the  gift  by  Edw.  Irving, 
 Murniiifi   Watch,  v.  p.  78). 
 
 (4.)  The  peculiar  nature  of  the  gift  leads  the 
 Apostle  into  what  appears,  at  first,  a  contradiction. 
 "  Tongues  are  for  a  sign,"  not  to  believers,  but  to 
 those  who  do  not  believe;  yet  the  effect  on  unbe- 
 lievers is  not  that  of  attracting  but  repelling.  A 
 meetuig  in  which  the  gift  of  tongues  was  exercised 
 without  restraint,  would  seem  to  a  heathen  visitor, 
 or  even  to  the  jjlain  common-sense  Christian  (the 
 iSidoTTis,  the  man  without  a  -x^dpLfffxa),  to  be  an 
 assembly  of  madmen.  Tlie  histor)  of  the  day  of 
 Pentecost  may  help  us  to  explain  the  paradox 
 The  tongues  are  a  sign.  They  witness  that  the 
 daily  experience  of  men  is  not  the  limit  of  their 
 spiritual  powers.  They  disturb,  startle,  awaken, 
 are  given  els  rh  fKTrAyjTrfffdat  (Chrysost.  I/om. 
 30, 2ft  1  Car.),  but  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  the 
 grounds  of  conviction  and  belief  (so  Ctmst.  Apost. 
 viii.).  They  involve  of  necessity  a  disturbance  of 
 the  equilibrium  between  the  understanding  and  the 
 feelings.  Therefore  it  is  that,  for  those  who  believe 
 already,  prophecy  is  the  greater  gift.  Five  clear 
 words  spoken  from  the  mind  of  one  man  to  the 
 mind  and  conscience  of  another,  are  better  than 
 ten  thousand  of  these  more  startling  and  wonderful 
 phenomena. 
 
 (5.)  There  remains  the  question  whether  these 
 also  were  "  tongues "  in  tlie  sense  of  being  lan- 
 guages, of  which  the  speakers  had  little  or  no 
 previous  knowledge,  or  whether  we  are  to  admit 
 here,  though  not  in  Acts  ii.,  the  theories  which  see 
 in  them  only  unusual  forms  of  speech  (Bleek),  or 
 inarticulate  cries  (Bunsen),  or  all  but  inaudible 
 whisperings  (Wieseler,  in  Olshausen,  in  foe).  The 
 question  is  not  one  for  a  dogmatic  assertion,  but 
 it  is  believed  that  there  is  a  preponderance  of  evi- 
 dence leading  us  to  look  on  the  phenomena  of 
 Pentecost  as  representative.  It  must  have  been 
 from  them  that  the  word  tongue  derived  its  new 
 and  special  meaning.  The  companion  of  St.  Paul, 
 and  St.  Paul  himself,  were  likely  to  use  the  same 
 word  in  the  same  sense.  In  the  absence  of  a  dis- 
 tinct notice  to  the  contrary,  it  is  probable  that  the 
 gift  would  manifest  itself  in  the  same  form  at 
 Corinth  as  at  Jerusalem.  The  "  divers  kinds  of 
 tongues"  (1  Cor.  xii.  28),  the  '■'■tonyues  of  men" 
 (1  Cor.  xiii.  1),  point  to  differences  of  some  kind, 
 and  it  is  at  least  easier  to  conceive  of  these  as 
 differences  of  language  than  as  belonging  to  utter- 
 ances all  equally  wild  and  inarticulate.  The  posi- 
 tion maintained  by  Lightfoot  {Harm,  of  Gosp.  on 
 Acts  ii.),  that  the  gift  of  tongues  consisted  in  the 
 power  of  speaking  and  understanding  the  true  He- 
 brew of  the  0.  T.,  may  seem  somewhat  extrav- 
 agant, but  there  seems  ground  for  believing  that 
 Hebrew  and  Aramaic  words  had  over  the  minds 
 of  Greek  converts  at  Corinth  a  power  which  they 
 failed  to  exercise  when  translated,  and  that  there 
 the  utterances  of  the  tongues  were  probably  in 
 whole,  or  in  part,  in  that  language.  Thus,  the 
 "Maranatha"  of  1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  compared  with 
 xii.  3,  leads  to  the  inference  that  that  word  had 
 been  spoken  under  a  real  or  counterfeit  inspiration. 
 It  was  the  Spirit  that  led  men  to  cry  Abbn,  as  ihej 
 
TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 recognition  of  tlie  fatherhood  of  God  (Rom.  viii. 
 15;  Gal.  iv.  G).  If  we  are  to  attach  any  definite 
 meaning  to  the  "tongues  of  angels  "  in  1  Cor.  xiii. 
 1,  it  must  be  by  connecting  it  with  the  words  sur- 
 passing Innnan  utterance,  which  St.  Paul  heard  as 
 in  Paradise  (2  Cor.  xii.  4),  and  these  again  with 
 the  great  Hallelujah  hymns  of  which  we  read  in 
 the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  xix.  1-6;  Stanley,  /.  c. ; 
 Kwald,  (jfsch.  /sr.  vi.  117).  The  retention  of 
 other  words  like  Hosanna  and  Sabaoth  in  the  wor- 
 ship of  the  Church,  of  the  Greek  formula  of  the 
 Kyrie  Kleison  in  that  of  the  nations  of  the  West, 
 is  an  exen][)lification  of  the  same  feeling  operat- 
 ing in  other  ways  after  the  special  power  had 
 ceased. 
 
 (6.)  Here,  also,  as  in  Acts  ii.,  we  have  to  think 
 of  some  peculiar  intonation  as  frequently  charac- 
 terizing the  exercise  of  the  "  tongues."'.  The  anal- 
 ogies which  sugi^est  themselves  to  St.' Paul's  mind 
 are  those  of  the  pipe,  the  harp,  the  trumpet  (I  Cor. 
 xiv.  7,  8).  In  the  case  of  one  "singing  in  the 
 spirit"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  15),  but  not  with  the  under- 
 standing also,  the  strain  of  ecstatic  melody  must 
 have  been  all  that  the  listeners  could  perceive. 
 To  "sing  and  make  melody  "  is  specially  charac- 
 teristic of  those  who  are  filled  with  the  Spirit 
 (Eph.  V.  19).  Other  forms  of  utterance  less  dis- 
 tinctly musical,  yet  not  less  mighty  to  stir  the 
 minds  of  men,  we  may  trace  in  the  "cry"  (Rom. 
 viii.  15;  Gal.  iv.  6)  and  the  "ineffable  groanings  " 
 (Rom.  viii.  20)  which  are  distinctly  ascribed  to  the 
 work  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  To  those  who  know 
 the  wonderful  power  of  man's  voice,  as  the  organ 
 of  his  spirit,  the  strange,  unearthly  charm  which 
 belongs  to  some  of  its  less  normal  states,  the  in- 
 fluence even  of  individual  words  thus  uttered,  es- 
 pecially of  words  belonging  to  a  language  which  is 
 not  that  of  our  common  life  (comp.  Hilar.  Uiac. 
 Comin.  in  1  Cor.  xiv.),  it  will  not  seem  strange 
 that,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  distinct  intellectual 
 consciousness,  the  gift  should  take  its  place  among 
 the  means  by  which  a  man  "built  up"  his  own 
 life,  and  might  contribute,  if  one  were  present  to 
 expound  his  utterances,  to  "edify"  others  also." 
 
 (7.)  Connected  with  the  "tongues,"  there  was, 
 as  the  words  just  used  remind  us,  the  correspond- 
 ing power  of  interpretation.  It  might  belong  to 
 any  listener  (1  Cor.  xiv.  27).  It  might  belong  to 
 the  speaker  himself  when  he  returned  to  the  ordi- 
 nary level  of  conscious  thought  (1  Cor.  xiv.  V-i). 
 Its  function,  according  to  the  view  that  has  been 
 here  taken,  must  have  been  twofold.  The  inter- 
 preter had  first  to  catch  the  foreign  words,  Ara- 
 maic or  otiiers,  which  had  mingled  more  or  less 
 largely  with  wiiat  was  uttered,  and  then  to  find  a 
 meaning  and  an  order  in  what  seemed  at  first  to 
 be  witliout  eitiier,  to  follow  the  loftiest  flights  and 
 most  intricate  windings  of  the  enraptured  spirit, 
 to  trace  the  subtle  associations  which  linked  to- 
 getiier  words  and  thoughts  that  seemed  at  first  to 
 have  no  point  of  contact.  Under  the  action  of 
 one  with  this  insigiit  the  wild  utterances  of  the 
 "tongues"  might  become  a  treasure-house  of  deep 
 trutlis.  Sometimes,  it  would  appear,  not  even  this 
 was  possilile.  I'iie  power  might  be  simply  that  of 
 sound.     As  the  pipe  or  harp,  played  boldly,  the 
 
 a  Neander  {Pflanz.  u.  Lett.  i.  15)  refers  to  the  effect 
 produced  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Bernard  upon  hear- 
 ;rs  who  did  not  understand  one  word  of  the  Latin  in 
 which  he  preached  (Opji.  ii.  119,  ed.  Mabillon)  a.s  an 
 .nstuuce  of  this.     Like  pheuomeua  are  related  of  St. 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF        3309 
 
 hand  struck  at  random  over  the  strings,  but  with 
 no  Sia(TTo\7],  no  musical  interval,  wanted  the  con- 
 dition of  distinguishable  melody,  so  the  "  tongues,'' 
 in  their  extremest  form,  passed  beyond  the  limits 
 of  interpretation.  There  might  be  a  strange  avvful- 
 ness,  or  a  strange  sweetness  as  of  "  the  tongues  of 
 angels,"  but  what  it  meant  was  known  only  to 
 God  (1  Cor.  xiv.  7-11). 
 
 VII.  (1.)  Traces  of  the  gift  are  found,  as  has 
 been  said,  in  the  epistles  to  the  Romans,  the  Gala- 
 tians,  the  Ephesians.  From  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
 from  those  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  .John,  tliey  are 
 altogether  ali.sent,  and  this  is  in  itself  significant. 
 The  life  of  the  Apostle  and  of  the  Church  has 
 passed  into  a  calmer,  more  normal  state.  Wide 
 truths,  aljiding  graces,  these  are  what  he  himself 
 lives  in  and  exhorts  others  to  rest  on,  rather  than 
 exceptional  ^apiafxara,  however  marvelous.  The 
 "tongues"  are  already  "ceasing"  (1  Cor.  xiii.  8), 
 as  a  thing  belonging  to  the  past.  Love,  which 
 even  when  "  totigues  "  were  mightiest,  he  had  seen 
 to  lie  above  all  gifts,  has  become  more  and  more, 
 all  in  all,  to  him. 
 
 (2.)  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  disappear- 
 ance of  tlie  "  tongues  "  was  gradual.  As  it  would 
 have  been  impossible  to  draw  the  precise  line  of 
 demarcation  when  the  TrpocfTjreia  of  the  Apostolic 
 age  passed  into  the  SidaarKaXia  that  remained  per- 
 manently in  the  Church,  so  there  must  have  been 
 a  time  when  "tongues"  were  still  heard,  though 
 less  frequently,  and  with  less  striking  results.  The 
 testimony  of  Irenaius  {Adv.  [her.  v.  G)  that  there 
 were  brethren  in  his  time  "  who  had  prophetic 
 gifts,  and  spoke  through  the  Spirit  in  all  kinds  of 
 tongues,"  though  it  does  not  prove,  what  it  has 
 sometimes  been  alleged  to  prove,  the  permanence 
 of  the  gift  in  the  individual,  or  its  use  in  the  work 
 of  evangelizing  (Wordsworth  on  Acts  ii.),  must  be 
 admitted  as  evidence  of  the  existence  of  plieiioniena 
 like  those  which  we  have  met  with  in  the  church 
 of  Corinth.  For  the  most  part,  however,  the  part 
 which  they  had  filled  in  the  worship  of  the  Church 
 was  supplied  liy  tlie  "  hynms  and  spiritual  songs  " 
 of  the  succeeding  age.  In  the  earliest  of  these, 
 distinct  in  character  from  either  the  Hebrew  psalms 
 or  the  later  hymns  of  the  Church,  marked  by  a 
 strange  mixture  of  mystic  names,  and  half-coherent 
 thoughts  (such,  e.  y.,  as  the  hymn  with  which 
 Clement  of  Alexandria  ends  his  naiSayojyds,  and 
 the  earliest  Sibylline  verses),  some  have  seen  the 
 influence  of  the  ecstatic  utterances  in  which  the 
 strong  feelings  of  adoration  had  originally  shown 
 themselves  (Nitzsch,  Christl.  Lehre,  ii.  p.  2G8). 
 
 After  this,  within  the  Church  we  lose  nearly  all 
 traces  of  them.  The  mention  of  them  by  Euse- 
 liius  (Coniiii.  in  Ps.  xlvi.)  is  vague  and  uncertain. 
 The  tone  in  which  Chrysostom  speaks  of  them 
 (Coinm.  in  1  Cor.  xiv.)  is  that  of  one  who  feels 
 the  whole  subject  to  be  obscure,  because  there  are 
 no  phenomena  within  his  own  experience  at  all 
 answering  to  it.  'J'he  whole  tendency  of  the  Church 
 was  to  maintain  reverence  and  order,  and  to  repress 
 all  approaches  to  the  ecstatic  state.  Those  who 
 yielded  to  it  took  refuge,  as  in  the  case  of  Tertul- 
 lian  {infra),  in  sets  outside  the  Church.  Symp- 
 toms of  what  was  then  looked  on  as  an  evil,  showed 
 
 Antony  of  Padua  and  St.  Vincent  Ferrer  (Acta  Sanc- 
 torum, June  24  and  April  5),  of  which  this  is  prob- 
 ably the  explanation.  (Couip.  also  Wolf,  Curte  Phil- 
 olog.  in  N.  T.  Acts  ii.) 
 
3310        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 Lheniselves  in  the  4th  century  at  Constantinople  — 
 wild,  inarticulate  cries,  words  passionate  but  of 
 little  meaning,  almost  convulsive  gestures  —  and 
 were  met  by  Chrysostom  with  the  sternest  possi- 
 ble reproof  (Horn,  in  Is.  vi.  2,  ed.  Migne,  vi. 
 100). 
 
 VIII.  (1.)  A  wider  question  of  deep  interest 
 presents  itself.  Can  we  find  in  the  religious  his- 
 tory of  mankind  any  facts  analogous  to  the  man- 
 ifestation of  the  "  tongues?  "  Recognizing,  as  we 
 do,  tlie  great  gap  which  separates  the  work  of  the 
 Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  fi-oni  all  others, 
 both  in  its  origin  and  its  fruits,  there  is,  it  is  be- 
 lieved, no  reason  for  rejecting  the  thought  that 
 there  might  be  like  phenomena  standing  to  it  in 
 the  relation  of  foreshadowings,  approximations, 
 counterfeits.  Other  xapic/xara  of  the  Spirit,  wis- 
 dom, prophecy,  helps,  go\ernments,  had  or  have 
 analogies,  in  special  states  of  men's  spiritual  life, 
 at  other  times  and  under  other  conditions,  and  so 
 may  these.  The  three  characteristic  phenomena 
 are,  as  has  been  seen,  (1)  an  ecstatic  state  of  par- 
 tial or  entire  unconsciousness,  the  human  will 
 being,  as  it  were,  swayed  by  a  power  above  itself; 
 (2)  the  utterance  of  words  in  tones  startling  and 
 impressive,  but  often  conveying  no  distinct  mean- 
 ing; (3)  the  use  of  languages  which  the  speaker  at 
 other  times  was  unable  to  converse  in. 
 
 (2.)  The  history  of  the  0.  T.  presents  us  with 
 some  instances  in  which  the  gift  of  prophecy  has 
 accompaniments  of  this  nature.  Tlie  word  in- 
 cludes something  more  than  tlie  utterance  of  a 
 distinct  message  of  God.  Saul  and  his  messengers 
 come  under  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  lies  on 
 the  ground  all  night,  stripped  of  his  kingly  armor, 
 and  joining  in  the  wild  chant  of  the  company  of 
 prophets,  or  pouring  out  his  own  utterances  to  the 
 sound  of  their  music  (1  Sam.  xix.  24;  comp.  Stan- 
 ley, /.  c). 
 
 (3.)  We  cannot  exclude  the  false  prophets  and 
 diviners  of  Israel  from  the  range  of  our  inquiry. 
 As  they,  in  their  work,  dress,  pretensions,  were 
 counterfeits  of  tliose  who  truly  bore  the  name,  so 
 we  niaj'  venture  to  trace  in  other  things  that  which 
 resembled,  more  or  less  closely,  what  had  accom- 
 panied the  exercise  of  the  Divine  gift.  And  here 
 we  have  distinct  records  of  strange,  mysterious  in- 
 tonations. The  ventriloquist  wizards  (oi  iyyaa- 
 rpifj-vdoi,  o'i  fK  T7)s  KoiAi'as  (poivovcriv)  "peep" 
 and  mutter"  (Is.  viii.  19).  The  "voice  of  one 
 who  has  a  familiar  spirit,"  comes  low  out  of  the 
 ground  (Is.  xxix.  4).  The  false  prophets  simulate 
 with  their  tongues  ifK0d\\ovTas  vpocpTtTeias 
 yKiiiaaris,  LXX.)  the  low  voice  with  which  the 
 true  prophets  announced  that  the  Lord  had  spoken 
 
 (Jer.  xxiii.  31;  comp.  Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.  CIS3). 
 
 (4.)  The  quotation  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xiv.  21) 
 from  Is.  xxviii.  11  ("  With  men  of  other  tongues 
 (eV  eTepo-yKdocTffois)  and  otlier  lips  will  I  speak 
 unto  this  people"),  has  a  significance  of  which  we 
 ought  not  to  lose  sight.  The  common  interpreta- 
 tion sees  in  that  passage  only  a  declaration  that 
 those  who  had  refused  to  listen  to  the  prophets 
 ihould  be  taught  a  sharp  lesson  by  the  lips  of  alien 
 
 a  Peep.     The  word,  omitted  in  its  place,  deserves  a 
 separate  notice.     It  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  of  Is.  viii.  19, 
 
 X.  14,  as  the  equivalent  of  r|^p^,  "  to  chirp  "  or 
 "cry."  The  Latin  pipio,  from  which  it  comes,  is, 
 like  the  Hebrew,  ouomatopoetic,  and  is  used  to  express 
 the  wailing  cry  of  young  chickens  or  infant  children 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 conquerors.  Ewald  {Prophet  in  loc),  dissatisfied 
 with  this,  sees  in  the  new  teaching  the  voice  of 
 thunder  striking  terror  into  men's  mhids.  St. 
 Paul,  with  the  phenomena  of  the  "  tongues  "  pres- 
 ent to  liis  mind,  saw  in  them  the  fulfillment  of  the 
 prophet's  worils.  Those  who  turned  aside  from 
 the  true  prophetic  message  should  be  left  to  the 
 darker,  "  stannnering,"  more  mysterious  utterances, 
 which  were  in  the  older,  what  the  "  tongues  "  were 
 in  the  later  Ecclesia.  A  remarlcable  parallel  to 
 the  text  thus  interpreted  is  found  in  Hos.  ix.  7. 
 There  also  the  people  are  threatened  with  tlie  with- 
 drawal of  the  true  prophetic  insight,  and  in  its 
 stead  there  is  to  be  the  wild  delirium,  the  ecstatic 
 madness  of  the  counterfeit   (comp.   especially  the 
 
 LXX.,  &  TZpO(pi\rT\S  6  ■Kapi(TT7]K(ilS,  il/dpCDKOS  6 
 TTViVfXaTO(p6pOs)' 
 
 (5.)  The  history  of  heathen  oracles  presents,  it 
 need  hardly  be  said,  examples  of  the  orgiastic  state, 
 the  condition  of  the  jxavris  as  distinct  from  the 
 ■Kpo<piiT7is,  in  which  the  wisest  of  Greek  thinkers 
 recognized  the  lower  type  of  inspiration  (Plato, 
 Timceus,  72  li;  Bleek,  1.  c).  The  Pythoness  and 
 the  Sibyl  are  as  if  possessed  by  a  power  wliich  they 
 cannot  resist.  They  labor  under  the  ajfintus  of 
 the  god.  Tlie  wild,  unearthly  sounds  ("  nee  nior- 
 tale  .sonaus"),  often  hardly  coherent,  burst  from 
 their  lips.  It  remains  for  interpreters  to  collect  the 
 scattered  utterances,  and  to  gi\e  them  shape  and 
 meaning  (Virg.  yEn.  vi.  45,  98  if.). 
 
 (6.)  More  distinct  parallels  are  found  in  the  ac- 
 counts of  the  wilder,  more  excited  sects  which  have, 
 from  time  to  time,  appeared  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
 tendom. Tertullian  {de  Aniin.  c.  9),  as  a  Montanisfc, 
 claims  the  "  re\elationuni  charismata "  as  given  to 
 a  sister  of  that  sect.  They  came  to  her  "  inter 
 douiinica  solemnia;"  she  was,  "per  ecstasin,  in 
 spiritu,"  conversing  with  angels,  and  with  the 
 Lord  himself,  seeing  and  hearing  mysteries  ("  sacra- 
 inenta  "),  reading  the  hearts  of  men,  prescribing 
 remedies  for  those  who  needed  them.  The  move- 
 ment of  the  Mendicant  orders  of  the  13th  century, 
 the  prophesyings  of  the  IGth  in  England,  the  early 
 history  of  the  disciples  of  George  Fox,  that  of  the 
 Janseiiists  in  France,  the  revivals  under  Wesley  and 
 Whitefield,  those  of  a  later  date  in  Sweden,  Amer- 
 ica, and  Ireland  have,  in  like  manner,  been  fruitful 
 in  ecstatic  phenomena  more  or  less  closely  resem- 
 bling those  which  we  are  now  considering. 
 
 (7.)  Tlie  history  of  the  Frencli  prophets  at  the 
 commencement  of  the  18th  century  presents  some 
 facts  of  special  interest.  The  terrible  sutterings 
 caused  by  the  Revocation  of  the  I'^dict  of  Nantes 
 were  pressing  with  intolerable  severity  on  the  Hu- 
 guenots of  the  Cevennes.  The  persecuted  flocks  met 
 together  with  every  feeling  of  faith  and  hope  strung 
 to  its  higliest  pitch.  The  accustomed  order  of 
 worship  was  liroken,  and  laboring  men,  children, 
 and  female  servants,  spoke  with  rapturous  eloquence 
 as  the  messengers  of  God.  Beginning  in  168t),  then 
 cruslied  for  a  time,  bursting  forth  with  fresli  vio- 
 lence in  1700,  it  soon  became  a  matter  of  almost 
 European  celebrity.  Refugees  arrived  in  London 
 in  1706,  claiming  the  character  of  prophets  (Lacy, 
 Cry  from  the  Desert ;  N.  Peyrat,  Pastors  in  the 
 
 In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  the  first  of  these  passages 
 for  the  low  cry  of  the  false  soothsayers,  in  the  second 
 for  that  of  birds  whom  the  hand  of  the  spoiler  snatches 
 from  their  nests.  In  Is.  xxxviii.  14,  where  the  same 
 word  is  used  in  the  Hebrew,  the  A.  V.  gives,  "  Like  a 
 crane  or  a  swallow,  so  did  I  chatter." 
 
TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 WiMerness).  An  Englishman,  John  Lacy,  became 
 first  a  convert  and  then  a  leader.  The  convulsi\'e 
 ecstatic  utterances  of  the  sect  drew  down  the  ridicule 
 of  Shaftesbury  {On  EnihusMsm).  Calanij  thought 
 it  necessary  to  enter  the  hsts  against  their  preten- 
 sions (CV(t'ert<  ayainsl  tilt  New  Prophefs).  They 
 gained  a  distinguished  proselyte  in  Sir  K.  Bnlkley, 
 a  pupil  of  Lishop  Fell's,  with  no  inconsiderable 
 learning,  who  occupied  in  their  proceedings  a  position 
 which  reminds  us  of  that  of  Henry  Druinmond 
 among  the  followers  of  Irving  (Hulkley's  De/tuse 
 of  the  Prophets).  Here  also  there  was  a  strong 
 contagious  excitement.  Nicholson,  tiie  Baxter  of 
 the  sect,  published  a  confession  that  he  had  found 
 himself  unable  to  resist  it  {Falsehood  of  the  New 
 Prophets),  though  he  afterwards  came  to  look  upon 
 his  companions  as  "enthusiastick  impostors."  What 
 is  specially  noticeable  is,  that  the  gift  of  tongues 
 was  claimed  by  them.  Sir  R.  Bulkley  declares 
 that  he  had  heard  Lacy  repeat  long  sentences  in 
 Latin,  and  another  speak  Hebrew,  though,  when  not 
 in  the  Spirit,  they  were  quite  incapalile  of  it  {Nar- 
 raiivt,  p.  92).  The  characteristic  thought  of  all 
 the  revelations  was,  that  they  were  the  true  chil- 
 dren of  God.  Almost  every  oracle  began  with 
 "  My  child!  "  as  its  characteristic  word  (Peyrat,  i. 
 2o5-313).  It  is  remarkable  that  a  strange  lievi- 
 valist  movement  was  spreading,  nearly  at  the  same 
 time,  through  Silesia,  the  chief  feature  of  which  was 
 that  boys  and  girls  of  tender  age  were  almost  the 
 oidy  subjects  ol  it,  and  that  they  too  spoke  and 
 prayed  with  a  \vonderful  power  (Lacy,  lielntiun, 
 etc.,  p.  31;   Bulkley,  Nurratke,  p.  46). 
 
 (8. )  The  so  -  called  Unknown  Tongues,  which 
 manifested  themselves  first  hi  the  west  of  Scotland, 
 and  afterwards  in  the  Caledonian  Church  in  Regent 
 Square,  present  a  more  striking  phenomenon,  and 
 the  data  for  judging  of  its  nature  are  more  copious. 
 Here,  more  than  in  most  other  cases,  there  were 
 the  conditions  of  long,  eager  expectation,  fixed 
 brooding  over  one  central  thought,  the  mind  strained 
 to  a  preternatural  tension.  Suddenly,  now  from 
 one,  now  from  another,  chiefly  from  women,  devout 
 but  illiterate,  mysterious  sounds  were  heard. 
 Voices,  which  at  other  times  were  harsh  and  un- 
 pleasing,  became,  when  "  singing  in  the  Spirit," 
 perfectly  harmonious "  (Cardale,  Norrat'we,  in 
 Morniny  IVntch,  ii.  871,  872).  Those  who  spoke, 
 men  of  known  tlevotion  and  acuteness,  bore  witness 
 to  their  inability  to  control  themselves  (Baxter, 
 Narratioe,  pp.  5,  9,  12),  to  their  being  led,  they 
 knew  not  how,  to  speak  in  a  "  triumphant  chant  " 
 {ibid.  pp.  40,  81).  The  man  over  whom  they 
 exercised  so  strange  a  power,  has  left  on  record  his 
 testimony,  that  to  him  they  seemed  to  embody  a 
 more  than  earthly  music,  leading  to  the  belief  that 
 the  "  tongues  "  of  the  Apostolic  age  had  been  as  the 
 archetypal  melody  of  which  all  the  Church's  chants 
 and  hynms  were  but  faint,  poor  echoes  (Oliphant's 
 Life  of  Irviixj,  ii.  208).  To  those  who  were 
 without,  on  the  other  hand,  they  seemed  but  an 
 unintelligible  gibberish,  the  yells  and  groans  of 
 madmen  (Newspapers  of  1831,  j^nssiin).  Some- 
 times it  was  asserted  that  fragments  of  known 
 languages,  Spanish,  Italian,  Greek,  Hebrew,  were 
 mingled  together  in  the  utterances  of  those  who 
 spoke  in  the  power  (Baxter,  Narrative,  pp.  133, 134). 
 Sometimes  it  was  but  a  jargon  of  mere  sounds 
 
 «  Comp.  the  independent  testimony  of  Archdeacon 
 Btopford.  He  had  listened  to  the  "  unlcnown  tongue," 
 InJ  had  found   *  "  a  sound  such  as  I  never  heard  be- 
 
 TONGUES,  GIFT  OF        3311 
 
 {ibid.).  The  speaker  was  commoidy  unable  to  in- 
 terpret what  he  uttered.  Sometimes  the  otiice  was 
 undertaken  by  another.  A  clear  and  interesting 
 sunnnary  of  the  history  of  the  whole  movement  is 
 given  in  Mrs.  Oliphant's  Life  of  Irviny,  vol.  ii. 
 Those  who  wish  to  trace  it  through  all  its  stages 
 must  be  referred  to  the  seven  volumes  of  the 
 Hominy  Watch,  and  especially  to  Irving's  series 
 of  papers  on  the  Gifts  of  the  Spirit,  in  vols,  iii., 
 iv.,  and  v.  Whatever  other  explanation  may  be 
 given  of  the  facts,  there  exists  no  ground  for  im- 
 puting a  deliberate  imposture  to  any  of  the  persons 
 who  were  most  conspicuous  in  the  movement. 
 
 (9.)  In  certain  exceptional  states  of  mind  and 
 body  the  powers  of  memory  are  known  to  receive  a 
 wonderful  and  abnormal  strength.  In  the  delirium 
 of  fever,  in  the  ecstasy  of  a  trance,  men  speak  in 
 their  old  age  languages  which  they  have  never  heard 
 or  spoken  since  their  earliest  youth.  The  accent  of 
 their  common  speech  is  altered.  Women,  ignorant 
 and  untaught,  repeat  long  sentences  in  Greek,  Latin, 
 Hebrew,  which  they  had  once  heard,  without  in 
 any  degree,  understanding  or  intending  to  remember 
 them.  In  all  such  cases  the  marvelous  jwwer  is 
 the  accompaniment  of  disease,  and  passes  away 
 when  the  patient  returns  to  his  usual  state,  to  the 
 healthy  equilibrium  and  interdependence  of  the  life  of 
 sensation  and  of  thought  (Abercrombie,  Intellectual 
 Powers,  pp.  140-143;  Winslow,  Obscure  Diseases 
 of  the  Brain,  pp.  337,  360,  374;  Watson, 
 Principles  and  Practice  (f  Physic,  i.  128).  The 
 mediaeval  belief  that  this  power  of  speaking  in 
 tongues  belonged  to  those  who  were  possessed  by 
 evil  spirits  rests,  obviously,  upon  like  psychological 
 phenomena  (I'eter  Martyr,  Loci  Communes,  i.  c.  10; 
 Bayle,  Diciionn.  s.  v.  "Grandier"). 
 
 IX.  These  phenomena  have  been  brought  to- 
 gether in  order  that  we  may  see  how  far  they  re- 
 semble, how  fiir  they  differ  from,  those  which  we 
 have  seen  reason  to  believe  constituted  the  outward 
 signs  of  the  Gift  of  Tongues.  It  need  not  startle  or 
 "  offend  "  us  if  we  find  the  likeness  between  the  true 
 and  the  counterfeit  greater,  at  first  sight,  than  we 
 expected.  So  it  was  at  the  churches  of  Corinth  and 
 of  Asia.  There  also  the  two  existed  in  the  closest 
 approximation;  and  it  was  to  no  outward  sign,  to  nc 
 speaking  with  languages,  or  prediction  of  the  future, 
 that  St.  Paul  and  St.  .John  pointed  as  the  crucial 
 test  by  which  men  were  to  distinguish  between 
 them,  but  to  the  confession  on  the  one  side,  the 
 denial  on  the  other,  that  .Jesus  was  the  Lord 
 (1  Cor.  xii.  3;  1  John  iv.  2,  3).  What  maybe 
 legitiiiiately  inferred  from  such  facts  is  the  existence, 
 in  the  mysterious  constitution  of  man's  nature,  of 
 powers  which  are,  lor  the  most  part,  latent,  but 
 which,  under  given  conditions,  may  be  roused  into 
 activity.  Memory,  imagination,  speech,  may  all  be 
 intensified,  transfigured,  as  it  were,  with  a  new 
 glory,  acting  independently  of  any  conscious  or 
 deliberate  volition.  The  exciting  causes  may  be 
 disea.se,  or  the  fixed  concentration  of  t^e  senses  or 
 of  thought  on  one  object,  or  the  power  of  sympathy 
 with  those  who  have  already  passed  into  the 
 abnormal  state.  The  hfe  thus  produced  is  at  the 
 furthest  pole  from  the  common  life  of  sensation, 
 haijit,  forethought.  It  sees  what  others  do  not  see, 
 hears  what  they  do  not  hear.  If  there  be  a  spiritual 
 power  acting  upon  man,  we  might  expect  this  phase 
 
 fore,  unearthly  and  unaccountable."  He  recognized 
 precisely  the  same  sounds  in  the  Irish  Revivals  of  1859 
 (  Work  and  Counter-wort::,  p.  11). 
 
3312        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 
 
 of  the  life  of  the  human  soul  to  manifest  i(s  opera- 
 tions most  clearly.  Precisely  because  we  Ijelieve 
 in  the  reality  of  the  Divine  work  on  the  day  of 
 Pentecost,  we  may  conceive  of  it  as  using  this  state 
 as  its  instrument,  not  as  introducing  phenomena, 
 in  all  respects  without  parallel,  but  as  carrying  to 
 its  highest  point,  what,  if  good,  had  been  a  fore- 
 shadowing of  it,  presenting  the  reality  of  what,  if 
 evil,  had  been  the  mimicry  and  counterfeit  of  good. 
 And  whatever  resemblances  there  may  be,  the  points 
 of  difference  are  yet  greater.  The  phenomena 
 which  have  been  described  are,  witli  hardly  an  ex- 
 ception, morbid ;  the  precursors  or  the  consequences 
 of  clearly  recognizable  disease.  The  Gift  of  Tongues 
 was  bestowed  on  men  in  full  vigor  and  activity, 
 preceded  by  no  frenzy,  followed  by  no  exhaustion. 
 The  Apostles  went  on  with  their  daily  work  of 
 teaching  and  organizing  the  Church.  The  form 
 which  the  new  power  assumed  was  determined 
 partly,  it  may  be,  by  deep-lying  conditions  of  man's 
 mental  and  spiritual  being,  within  which,  as  self- 
 imposed  limits,  the  Spirit  poured  fi'om  on  high  was 
 pleased  to  work,  partly  by  the  character  of  the 
 people  for  whom  this  special  manifestation  was 
 given  as  a  sign.  New  powers  of  knowledge, 
 memory,  utterance,  for  which  education  and  habit 
 could  not  at  all  account,  served  to  waken  men  to 
 the  sense  of  a  power  which  they  could  not  measure, 
 a  Kingdom  of  God  into  which  they  were  called  to 
 enter.  Lastly,  let  us  remember  the  old  rule  holds 
 good,  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  Other 
 phenomena,  presenting  approximate  resemblances, 
 have  ended  in  a  sick  man's  dreams,  in  a  fevered 
 frenzy,  in  the  narrowness  of  a  sect.  They  grew 
 out  of  a  passionate  brooding  over  a  single  thought, 
 ofteii  over  a  single  word ;  «  and  the  end  has  shown 
 that  it  was  not  well  to  seek  to  turn  back  God's 
 order  and  to  revive  the  long-buried  past.  The 
 gift  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  the  starting-point 
 of  the  long  history  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  the 
 witness,  in  its  very  form,  of  a  universal  family 
 gathered  out  of  all  nations. 
 
 But  it  was  the  starting-point  only.  The  new- 
 ness of  the  truth  then  presented  to  the  world,  the 
 power  of  the  first  experience  of  a  higher  life,  the 
 longing  expectation  in  men's  minds  of  the  Divine 
 kingdom,  may  have  made  this  special  manifestation, 
 at  the  time,  at  once  inevitable  and  fitting.  It 
 belonged,  however,  to  a  critical  epoch,  not  to  the 
 continuous  life  of  the  Church.  It  implied  a  dis 
 turbance  of  the  equilibrium  of  man's  normal  state. 
 The  high-wrought  ecstasy  could  not  continue,  might 
 be  glorious  and  blessed  for  him  who  had  it,  a  sii/n, 
 as  has  been  said,  for  those  who  had  it  not;  but  it 
 was  not  the  instrument  for  building  up  the  church. 
 That  was  the  work  of  another  gift,  the  prophecy 
 which  came  from  God,  yet  was  addressed  Irom  the 
 mind  and  heart  of  one  man  to  the  minds  and  hearts 
 of  his  brethren.  When  the  overflowing  fullness  of 
 life  had  passed  away,  wlien  "  tongues  "  had  "  ceased," 
 and  prophecy  itself,  in  its  irresistible  power,  had 
 "  failed,"  Ihey  left  behind  them  tlie  lesson  they 
 were  meant  to  teach.  They  had  borne  their  wit- 
 ness, and  had  done  their  work.  They  had  taught 
 men  to  believe  in  one  Divine  Spirit,  the  giver  of  all 
 good  gifts,  "  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  He 
 will;  "  to  recognize  his  inspiration,  not  only  in  the 
 marvel  of  the  "  tongues,"  or  in  the  burning  words 
 of  prophets,  but  in  all  good  thoughts,  in  the  right 
 
 TOPAZ 
 
 judgment  in  all  things,  in   the  excellent  gift   of 
 Charity.  E.  H.  P. 
 
 TOPARCHY  (ToTTapx'ta).  A  term  applied  in 
 one  passage  of  the  Septuagint  (1  Mace.  xi.  28)  to 
 indicate  three  districts  to  which  elsewhere  (x.  30,  ' 
 xi.  34)  the  name  i>ofj.6s  is  given.  In  all  these 
 passages  the  English  Version  employs  the  terra 
 "governments."  The  three  "  toparchies  "  in  ques- 
 tion were  Apherema  ('At^ai'pe/io),  Lydda,  and 
 Kamath.  They  had  been  detached  from  Samaria, 
 Perjea,  and  Galilee  respectively,  some  time  befort 
 the  war  between  Demetrius  Soter  and  Alexander 
 Bala.  Each  of  the  two  belligerents  endeavored  to 
 win  over  Jonathan,  the  .Jewish  High-Priest,  to  their 
 side,  by  allowing  him,  among  other  privileges,  the 
 sovereign  power  over  these  districts  without  any 
 payment  of  land-tax.  The  situation  of  Lydda  is 
 doulitful;  for  the  topurchy  Lydda,  of  which  Pliny 
 speaks  (v.  14),  is  situated  not  in  Persea,  but  on  the 
 western  side  of  the  Jordan.  Apheiema  is  con- 
 sidered by  Grotius  to  denote  tlie  region  about 
 Bethel,  captiued  by  Aljijah  from  Jeroboam  (2  Chr. 
 xiii.  19).  Kamath  is  probably  the  famous  strong- 
 hold, the  desire  of  obtaining  which  led  to  the  un- 
 fortunate expedition  of  the  allied  sovereigns,  Ahab 
 and  Jehoshaphat  (1  K.  xxii.). 
 
 The  "toparchies"  seem  to  have  been  of  the 
 nature  of  ayaliks,  and  the  passages  in  which  the 
 word  roirdpx']^  occurs,  all  harmonize  with  the 
 view  of  that  lunctionary  as  the  "/y",  whose  duty 
 would  be  to  collect  the  taxes  and  administer  justice 
 in  all  cases  affecting  the  revenue,  and  who,  for  the 
 purpose  of  enforcing  payment,  would  have  the  com- 
 mand of  a  small  military  force.  He  would  thus  be 
 the  lowest  in  the  hierarchy  of  a  despotic  administra- 
 tion to  whom  troops  would  be  entrusted;  and  hence 
 the  taunt  in  2  K.  xviii.  24,  and  Is.  xxxvi.  9:  Trcis 
 airoffTpe^eis  rb  npicrcinrov  roirdpxou  fv6s,  ruiv 
 SovKoov  rod  Kvpiov  /xov  toov  eKax^o^TOJv'-  "  How 
 wilt  thou  resist  a  single  toparch,  one  of  the  very 
 least  of  my  lord's  slaves  'f  "  But  the  essential  charac- 
 ter of  the  toparch  is  that  of  a  fiscal  officer,  and  his 
 military  character  is  altogether  subordinate  to  his 
 civil.  Hence  the  word  is  employed  in  Gen.  xli.  34, 
 for  the  "  othcersover  the  land,"  who  were  instructed 
 to  buy  up  the  fifth  part  of  the  produce  of  the  soil 
 during  the  seven  years  of  abundance.  In  Dan.  iii. 
 3,  Theodotion  uses  the  word  in  a  much  more  exten- 
 sive sense,  making  it  equivalent  to  "  satraps,"  and 
 the  Eiig.  Version  renders  the  original  liy  "  princes;" 
 but  the  original  word  here  is  not  the  same  as  in  Dan. 
 iii.  2,  27,  and  vi.  7,  in  every  one  of  which  cases  a 
 subordinate  functionary  is  contemplated. 
 
 J.  W.  B. 
 
 TOPAZ  (nitliQ,  pitdnh:  roTrdCioi^:  topnzius). 
 The  topaz  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  K'onians  is 
 generally  allowed  to  be  our  chrysolite,  while  their 
 chrysolite  is  our  topaz,  [(^hhysohtf:.]  Beller- 
 mann,  however,  (I'/e  Urim  und  Tliiimmun,p.  39), 
 contends  that  the  topaz  and  the  chrysolite  of  the 
 ancients  are  identical  with  the  stones  denoted  by 
 these  terms  at  the  present  day.  The  account  which 
 Pliny  (//.  A'^.  xxxvii.  8)  gives  of  the  fopazos  evi- 
 dently leads  to  the  conclusion  that  that  stone  is  our 
 chrysolite;  "  the  topazos."  he  says,  "is  still  held  in 
 high  estimation  for  its  (j7-een  tints."  According  to 
 the  authority  of  Juba,  cited  by  Pliny,  the  topaz  is 
 derived  from   an   island    in    the   Ked    Sea  called 
 
 "  It  can  hardly  be  doubted   that  the  interpolated 
 Tord  "  unknown,"  in  the  A.  V.  of  1  Cor.  xiv.,  was  the 
 
 starting-point  of  the  peculiarly  unintelligible  chaiactet 
 of  most  of  the  Irvingite  utterances. 
 
TOPHEL 
 
 *T<jpazos;  "  it  is  said  that  this  island,  where  these 
 [)recious  stones  were  prociuefl,  was  surroundeil  by 
 logs,  and  was,  in  conse(iuence,  often  sought  for  by 
 navigators,  and  that  hence  it  received  its  name,  the 
 
 term  "topazin"  signifying,  in  the  Troglodyte 
 tongue,  "to  seek"  (?).  The  pitJdIi,  which,  as 
 has  alread}'  been  stated,  probably  denotes  the  mod- 
 ern chrysolite,  was  the  second  stone  in  the  first 
 row  of  the  high-priest's  breast-plate  (Ex.  xxviii.  17, 
 xxxix.  10);  it  was  one  of  the  jewels  that  adorned 
 the  apparel  of  the  king  of  Tyre  {Kz.  xxviii.  13);  it 
 was  the  bright  stone  that  garnished  the  ninth 
 foundation  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  (liev.  xxi. 
 20);  in  .lob  xxviii.  19,  where  wisdom  is  contrasted 
 with  precious  articles,  it  is  said  that  "  the  pit- 
 ddli  of  Ethiopia  shall  not  equal  it."  Chrysolite, 
 which  is  also  known  by  the  name  of  olivine  and 
 peridot,  is  a  silicate  of  magnesia  and  iron ;  it  is  so 
 soft  as  to  lose  its  polish  unless  worn  with  care 
 {Miiivrulofjy  and  Cryslallof/rdpl/y,  by  IMitchell  and 
 Tenuant,  p.  512).     The  identity  of  the   T07ra{,'ioi/ 
 
 with  the  nitSS  of  the  lleh.  liible  is  sufHciently 
 established  by  the  combined  authorities  of  the 
 LXX.,  the  Vulg.,  and  .Josephus,  while  that  of  the 
 Toird^iov  vvith  our  chrysolite  is,  it  appears  to  us, 
 proved  beyond  a  doubt  by  those  writers  who  have 
 paid  most  attention  to  this  question.  See  Braun, 
 De  Fei-C.  tiac.  JJeb.  p.  641,  ed.  1G80.  W.  H. 
 
 TOTHEL  (bpri  [Ume]:  TocpSx:  Thojyhd). 
 A  place  mentioned  Ueut.  i.  1,  which  has  been  prob- 
 ably identified  with  Tujileh  on  a  wady  of  the  same 
 name  running  north  of  Bozra  towards  the  N.  W. 
 into  the  Ghor  and  S.  E.  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea 
 (Robinson,  ii.  570).  This  latter  is* a  most  fertile 
 region,  having  many  springs  and  rivulets  flowing 
 into  the  tihor,  and  large  plantations  of  fruit-trees, 
 whence  figs  are  exported.  The  bird  kdtta,  a  kind 
 of  partridge,  is  found  there  in  great  numbers,  and 
 the  steinbock  pastures  in  herds  of  forty  or  fifty 
 together  (Burckhardt,  Buly  Land,  405,  406). 
 
 H.  H. 
 
 TOTHETH,  and  once  TO'PHET  (HDh 
 [perh.  abomiiiathin.  n.  place  abhorred,  Dietr.]). 
 Generally  with  the  article  (2  K.  xxiii.  10;  .Jer.  vii. 
 31,  32,  xix.  6,  13-  14).  Three  times  without  it 
 (Jer.  vii.  32,  xix.  11,  12).     Once  not  only  without 
 
 it,  but  with  an  affix,  nriDD,  Topldeh  (Is.  xxx. 
 33).  In  Greek,  [Rom.  amrVat.  2  K.  and  Jer. 
 vii.]  Ta(j>€0,  [Gomp.  in  Jer.  xix.  11]  ToKpeO,  and 
 [Alex,  in  2  K.]  QocfOd  (Steph.  Lex.  Vuc.  Pere- 
 grin.; Biel,  Thes.);  [for  the  LXX.  in  Is.  xxx.  33 
 and  Jer.  xix.  see  below.]  In  the  Vulgate,  [  Tophel,] 
 Toplieih.  In  .lerome,  Tophet.  It  is  not  mentioned 
 by  Josephus. 
 
 It  lay  somewhere  east  or  southeast  of  Jerusalem, 
 for  Jeremiah  went  out  by  the  Sun  Gate,  or  East 
 Gate,  to  go  to  it  (Jer.  xix.  2).  It  was  in  "  the 
 Valley  of  the  Son  of  Hinnom  "  (vii.  31),  which  is 
 "  by  the  entry  of  the  east  gate  "  (xix.  2).  Thus  it 
 was  not  identical  with  Himiom,  as  some  have  writ- 
 ten, except  in  tiie  sense  in  which  I'aradise  is  iden- 
 tical with  ICden,  the  one  behig  part  of  the  other.  It 
 was  in  Hinnom,  and  was  perhaps  one  of  its  chief 
 groves  or  garrlens.  It  seems  also  to  have  been  part 
 of  the  king's  gardens,  and  watered  by  Siloani,  per- 
 aaps  a  little  to  the  south  of  the  present  Birktl  el- 
 
 TOPHETH 
 
 1313 
 
 a  Of  the  literal  Tophet  it  is  said,  "  They  shall  bury 
 iu  Tophet,  till  there  be  no  place  "  (Jer.  vii.  32).     Of  the 
 
 Homra.  The  name  Tophet  occurs  only  in  the  Old 
 Testament  (2  K.  xxiii.  10;  Is.  xxx.  33;  Jer.  vii. 
 31,  32,  xix.  6,  11,  12,  13,  14).  The  New  does  not 
 refer  to  it,  nor  the  Apocrypha.  Jerome  is  the  first 
 who  notices  it ;  but  we  can  see  that  by  his  time  the 
 name  had  disappeared,  for  he  discusses  it  very  much 
 as  a  modern  connnentator  would  do,  only  mention- 
 ing a  green  and  fruitful  spot  in  Hinnom,  watei'ed 
 I )y  Siloani,  where  he  assumes  it  was:  "  Delubrum 
 Baal,  nemus  ac  lucus,  Siloe  fontibus  irrigatus  "  {hi 
 Jer.  vii.).  If  this  be  the  case,  we  must  conclude 
 that  the  valley  or  gorge  south  of  Jerusalem,  which 
 usually  goes  by  the  name  of  Hinnom,  is  not  the  Ge 
 Ben-Hinnom  of  the  Bible.  Indeed,  until  compara- 
 tively modern  times,  that  southern  ravine  was  never 
 so  named.  Hinnom  by  old  writers,  western  and 
 eastern,  is  always  placed  east  of  the  city,  and  cor- 
 responds to  what  we  call  the  "  ^louth  of  the  Ty- 
 ropoeon,"  along  the  southern  bed  and  banks  of  the 
 Kedron  (Jerome,  De  Locts  Hebr.  and  Cumni.  in 
 .Uatt.x.28;  Ibn  Batutah,  T/YU'e/s  ;  Jalal  Addin's 
 History  of  the  Temple ;  Eelix  Eabri),  and  was 
 reckoned  to  he  somewhere  between  the  Potter's 
 Field  and  the  Fuller's  Pool. 
 
 Tophet  has  been  variously  translated.  Jerome 
 says  lalitwki ;  others  (/arden  ;  others  drum  ;  others 
 place  of  burninij  or  burying ;  others  abomination 
 (.lerome,  Noldius,  Gesenius,  Bochart,  Simonis, 
 Onom.).  The  most  natural  seems  that  suggested 
 by  the  occurrence  of  the  word  in  two  consecutive 
 verses,  in  the  one  of  which  it  is  a  tabret,  and  in  the 
 other  roy^/u'^  (Is.  xxx.  32,  33).  The  Hebrew  words 
 are  nearly  identical;  and  Tophet  was  probably  the 
 king's  "music-grove"  or  garden,  denoting  origi- 
 nally nothing  evil  or  hateful.  Certainly  there  is 
 no  proof  that  it  took  its  name  from  tlie  drums 
 ijeaten  to  drown  the  cries  of  the  burning  victims 
 that  passed  through  the  fire  to  Moloch.  As  Chin- 
 neroth  is  the  harp-sea,  so  Tophet  is  the  tabmt-f/rove 
 or  valley.  This  might  be  at  first  part  of  the  royal 
 garden,  a  spot  of  special  beauty,  with  a  royal  villa 
 in  the  midst,  like  the  Pasha's  palace  at  Shubra, 
 near  Cairo.  Afterwards  it  was  defiled  by  idols, 
 and  polluted  by  the  sacrifices  of  Baal  and  the  fires 
 of  Moloch.  Then  it  became  the  place  of  abomina- 
 tion, the  very  gate  or  pit  of  hell.  The  pious  kings 
 defiled  it,  and  threw  down  its  altars  and  high 
 places,  pouring  into  it  all  the  filth  of  the  city,  till 
 it  became  the  "abhorrence  "  of  Jerusalem;  for  to 
 it  primarily,  though  not  exhaustively,  the  prophet 
 refers :  — 
 
 They  shall  go  forth  and  g.aze 
 On  the  carcases  of  the  traus;;ressors  against  me  : 
 For  their  worm  shall  not  die, 
 And  their  fire  shall  not  he  quenched, 
 And  they  shall  be  an  abhorrence  to  all  flesh. 
 (Is.  Ixvi.  24.) 
 
 In  Kings  and  Jeremiah  the  name  is  "  the  To- 
 phet," but  in  Isaiah  (xxx.  33)  it  is  Tophteh ;  yet 
 the  places  are  probably  the  same  so  far,  only  in 
 Isaiah's  time  the  grove  might  be  changing  its  name 
 somewhat,  and  with  that  change  taking  on  the 
 symbolic  meaning  which  it  manifestly  possesses  in 
 the  prophet's  prediction :  — 
 
 Set  in  order  in  days  past  has  been  Tophteh  ; 
 Surely  for  the  king  it  has  been  made  ready. 
 He  hath  deepened,  he  hath  widened  it ;  « 
 The  pile  thereof,  fire  and  wood,  he  hath  multiplied. 
 
 symbolical  Tophet  it  is  said  above, 
 and  widened  il." 
 
 He  hath  deepened 
 
3314 
 
 TOPHETH 
 
 .  The  breath  of  Jehovah,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone, 
 Doth  set  it  on  fire. 
 
 It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  LXX.  translate  the 
 above  passage  in  a  peculiar  way:  Trph  rijxepwv 
 airaiTrjOriav-i  "  tl'ou  shalt  be  required  from  of 
 old,"  or  perhaps  "before  thy  time;  "  liut  Jerome 
 translates  the  LXX.  as  if  their  word  had  been 
 e^airardw  (or  aderfco,  as  Procopius  reads  it),  and 
 not  oTToiTeco,  "  tu  ante  dies  ckcipieris,"  addini; 
 this  comment:  "  Dicitur  ad  ilium  quod  ab  initio 
 seip.se  deceperit,  regnum  suuni  arbitrans  sempiter- 
 num,  cum  preparata  siiit  Gehenni  et  a;tenia  sup- 
 plicia."     In  that  case  the  Alexandrian  translators 
 
 perhaps  took  n/^D/^  for  the  second  person  sin- 
 gular masculine  of  the  future  Piel  of  nHQ,  to 
 persuade  or  deceive.  It  may  be  noticed  that 
 Michaelis  renders  it  thus:  "  Tophet  ejus,  q.  d. 
 rogus  ejus."  In  Jer.  xix.  6,  13,  the  LXX.  trans- 
 late Tophet  by  Sid.-KTW(ris-  Siair'nrrwv,  which  is  not 
 easily  explained,  except  on  the  supposition  of  a 
 marginal  gloss  having  crept  into  the  text  instead 
 of  the  proper  name  (see  Jerome;  and  also  Spohn 
 on  the  Greek  version  of  Jer.  Pre/',  p.  18,  and  Nutes 
 ou  chaps,  xix.,  xiii.). 
 
 In  Jer.  (vii.  32,  xix.  6)  there  is  an  intimation 
 that  both  Tophet  and  Gehinnom  were  to  lose  their 
 names,  and  to  be  called  "  the  valley  of  slaughter  " 
 
 (^^'!?Lir7  ^"'S)  Ge-ha-IIdrcf/ah").  Without  ven- 
 turing on  the  conjecture  that  the  modern  Deraj 
 can  be  a  relic  of  ilCire'jdh^  we  may  yet  say  that 
 this  lower  part  of  the  Kedron  is  "  the  valley  of 
 slaughter,"  whether  it  ever  actually  bore  this  name 
 or  not.  It  was  not  here,  as  some  have  thought, 
 that  the  Assyrian  was  slain  by  the  sword  of  the 
 destroying  angel.  That  slaughter  seems  to  have 
 taken  place  to  the  west  of  the  city,  probably  on  the 
 spot  afterwards  called  from  the  event,  "  the  valley 
 of  the  dead  bodies  "  (Jer.  xxxi.  40).  The  slaughter 
 from  which  Tophet  was  to  get  its  new  name  was 
 not  till  afterwards.  In  all  succeeding  ages,  blood 
 has  flowed  there  in  streams;  corpses,  buried  and 
 unburied,  have  filled  up  the  hollows;  and  it  njay 
 be  that  underneath  the  modern  gardens  and  ter- 
 races there  lie  not  only  the  debris  of  the  city,  but 
 the  bones  and  dust  of  millions,  — Romans,  Persians, 
 Jews,  Greeks,  Crusaders,  Moslems.  ^Vhat  future 
 days  and  events  may  bring  is  not  for  us  to  say. 
 Perhaps  the  prophet's  words  are  not  yet  exhausted. 
 Strange  contrast  between  Tophefs  first  and  last ! 
 Once  the  choice  grove  of  Jerusalem's  choicest  val- 
 ley; then  the  place  of  defilement  and  death  an<l 
 fire;  then  the  "valley  of  slaughter  " !  Once  the 
 royal  music-grove,  where  Solomon's  singei's,  with 
 voice  and  instrument,  regaled  the  king,  the  cotut, 
 and  the  city;  then  the  temple  of  liaal,  the  high 
 place  of  Moloch,  resounding  with  the  cries  of  burn- 
 ing infants;  then  (in  symbol)  the  place  where  is 
 the  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  Once  prepared 
 for  Israel's  king,  as  one  of  his  choicest  villas ;  then 
 degraded  and  defiled,  till  it  becomes  the  place  i>re- 
 pared  for  "  the  King  "  at  the  sound  of  whose  fall 
 the  nations  are  to  shake  (Ez.  xxxi.  16);  and  as 
 Paradise  and  Eden  passed  into  Paliylon,  so  Toiihet 
 and  Ben  Hinnom  pass  into  Gehenna  and  the  lake 
 of  fire.  These  scenes  seem  to  have  taken  hold  of 
 Milton's  mind;  for  three  times  over,  within  fifty 
 lines,  he  refers  to  "  the  opprobrious  hill,"  the  "  hill 
 
 «  Can  the  Eroi^ft  of  Jospphus  {Ant.  ix.  10,  §  4)  have 
 »ny  coinii.ction  with  the  Hdrcgah  of  Jeremiah  ? 
 
 TOtJ 
 
 of  scandal,"  the  "ofTensive  awntain,"  and  sjxjaka 
 of  Solomon  making  his  grove  in 
 
 '■  The  pleasant  valley  of  Hinnom,  Tophet  thence 
 And  black  Gehenna  culled,  the  t.\  pe  of  hell."' 
 
 Jlany  of  the  old  travellers  (see  Felix  Eabri,  vol.  i. 
 p.  391)  refer  to  Tvpliei,  or  Tujth  as  they  call  it,  but 
 they  give  no  information  as  to  the  locality.  Every 
 vestige  of  Tophet  —  name  and  grove  —  is  gone,  and 
 we  can  only  guess  at  the  spot ;  yet  the  references 
 of  Scripture  and  the  present  features  of  the  locality 
 enable  us  to  make  the  guess  with  the  same  tolerable 
 nearness  as  we  do  in  the  case  of  Gethsensane  or 
 Scopus.  H.  B. 
 
 *  TORCH.     [Lamp;  Laktern;  Steel.] 
 
 TOK'MAH  (nanri  [fraud,  deceit]:  iv 
 KpvtpTj;  Alex,  fifra  Soipoov'-  dum)  occurs  only  in 
 the  margin  of  Judg.  ix.  31,  as  the  alternative  ren- 
 dering of  the  Hebrew  word  which  in  the  text  is 
 given  as  "  privily."  By  a  lew  commentators  it  has 
 lieen  conjectured  that  the  word  was  originally  the 
 same  with  AnuJiAH  in  ver.  41,  — one  or  the  other 
 having  been  corrupted  by  the  copyists.  This  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  first  started  by  Kimchi.  It  is 
 adopted  by  Junius  and  Tremellius;  but  there  is 
 little  to  be  said  either  for  or  against  it,  and  it  will 
 probably  alwa3S  remain  a  mere  conjecture.        G. 
 
 TORTOISE  {"H"^,  tsah:  6  KpoKiSuKos  6  x^p- 
 (Taios  '■  crocodihs).  The  isdb  occurs  only  in  Lev.  xi. 
 •29,  as  the  name  of  some  unclean  animal.  Bochart 
 (Nieroz.  ii.  4G3)  with  much  rea.son  refers  the  Heb. 
 
 term  to  the  kindred  Arabic  dliab  (i_^^).  a  "large 
 kind  of  lizard,"  which,  from  the  description  of  it 
 as  given  by  Damir,  appears  to  be  the  Psiimmo- 
 siiarus  i^citicus,  or  Monitor  ierrestris  oi  (1v.\'kt  (R. 
 
 .\.  ii.  20).  This  lizard  is  ihe  n-aran  el-hnrd  of  the 
 Arabs,  i.  e.  the  land-waran,  in  contradistinction  to 
 the  irariin  el-bnhr,  i.  e.  the  water-lizard  (Monitoi- 
 Nilnlicus).  It  is  common  enough  in  the  deserts  of 
 Palestine  and  N.  Africa.  It  is  no  doubt  the  KpoK6- 
 SeiAos  -xepaatos  of  Herodotus  (iv.  192).  See  also 
 Dioscorides  (ii.  71),  who  mentions  it,  or  perhaps 
 the  Scincus  ojjicinalis,  under  the  name  of  a-KiyKos. 
 
 Gesenius  derives  the  Heb.  word  from  2?^?  "  to 
 move  slowly."  W.  H. 
 
 TO'iJ  i^Vh:  eoici;  A\ex.  Qcoov-  Thoil).   Toi, 
 king  of  Ilamath  (1  Chr.  xviii.  9,  10). 
 
TOW 
 
 *  TOW.     [Linen;  Flax.] 
 
 TOWER."  For  towers  as  parts  of  city-walls, 
 or  as  strongholds  of  refuge  for  villages,  see  Fenced 
 Cities,  Jerusalem,  ii.  1315-1322,  and  Hana- 
 NEEL.  NV^atch-towers  or  fortified  posts  in  frontier 
 or  exposed  situations  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
 as  the  tower  of  Edak,  etc.  (Gen.  xxxv.  21;  Mic. 
 iv.  8;  Is.  xxi.  5,  8,  11;  Hab.  ii.  1;  Jer.  vi.  27; 
 Cant.  vii.  4);  the  tower  of  Lebanon,  perhaps  one 
 of  David's  "  garrisons,"  nelsib  (2  Sam.  viii.  G  ; 
 Raumer,  Pal.  p.  29).  Such  towers  or  outposts  for 
 the  defense  of  wells,  and  the  protection  of  floclis 
 and  of  commerce,  were  built  by  Uzziah  in  tlie 
 pasture-grounds  {Midbar)  [Desert],  and  by  his 
 son  Jotham  in  the  forests  (C/wreslii/ii)  of  Judah 
 (2  Chr.  xxvi.  10,  xxvii.  4).  Kemains  of  such  forti- 
 fications may  still  be  seen,  which,  though  not 
 perhaps  themselves  of  remote  antiquity,  yet  very 
 probably  have  succeeded  to  more  ancient  structures 
 built  in  the  same  places  for  like  purposes  (Robinson, 
 ii.  81,  85,  180;  Roberts,  Sketches,  pi.  93).  Besides 
 these  military  structures,  we  read  in  Scripture  of 
 towers  built  in  vineyards  as  an  almost  necessary 
 appendage  to  tiiein  (Is.  v.  2 ;  Matt.  xxi.  33 ;  Mark 
 xii.  1).  Sueli  towers  are  still  in  use  in  Palestine 
 in  vineyards,  especially  near  Hebron,  and  are  used 
 as  lodges  for  the  keepers  of  the  vineyards.''  During 
 the  vintage  tliey  are  filled  witli  the  persons  em- 
 ployed in  the  work  of  gathering  the  grapes  (Robin- 
 son, i.  213,  ii.  81;  Martineau,  £ast.  Life,  p.  434:; 
 De  Saulcy,  Trav.  i.  546).  H.  W.  P. 
 
 *  TOWER  OF  BABEL.  [Tongues,  Con- 
 fusion OF.] 
 
 TOWN-CLERK  (ypan/j.aT€{is ■■  scriba).  The 
 title  ascribed  in  our  Version  to  the  magistrate  at 
 Ephesus  who  appeased  tlie  mob  in  the  theatre  at 
 the  time  of  the  tumult  excited  by  Demetrius  and 
 his  fellow-craftsmen  (Acts  xix.  35).  The  other 
 primary  English  versions  translate  in  the  same 
 way,  except  those  from  the  Vulgate  (Wyclifl^e,  the 
 Rhemish),  which  render  "scribe."  A  digest  of 
 Boeckh's  views,  in  his  SldiitslinusliuUun^,  respecting 
 the  functions  of  this  officer  at  Athens  (there  were 
 three  grades  of  the  order  there),  will  be  found  in 
 Diet,  of  Ant.  p.  459  if.  The  ypafxfj.aTeds  or  "  town- 
 clerk  "  at  Ephesus  was  no  doubt  a  more  important 
 person  in  that  city  than  any  of  the  public  officers 
 designated  by  that  term  in  Greece  (see  Greswell's 
 DisscrOdions,  iv.  152).  The  title  is  preserved  on 
 various  ancient  coins  (Wetstein,  Nov.  Test.  ii.  586 ; 
 Akermann's  Numismatic  Illustrations,  p.  53), 
 which  illustrate  fully  the  rank  and  dignity  of  the 
 office.  It  would  appear  that  what  may  have  been 
 the  original  service  of  this  class  of  men,  namely, 
 to  record  the  laws  and  decrees  of  tlie  state,  and  to 
 read  them  in  public,  embraced  at  length,  especially 
 
 «  1.   7n2,   Vina,  and  ^^nSl  :  iTraX^s :  from 
 
 ^n3,  "search,"  "explore,"  a  searcher  or  watcher ; 
 and  hence  the  notion  of  a  watch-tower.  In  Is.  xxxii. 
 14,  the  tower  of  Ophel  is  probably  meant  (Neh.  iii.  26  ; 
 Ges.  198). 
 
 2.  'hiyO,  and  V'^aip  or  VtI?^  :  TTv'pyos :  tur- 
 ris ;  from  7"13,  "become  great"  (Ges.  265),  used 
 sometimes  as  a  proper  name.     [Migdol.] 
 
 3.  "11^^  ;  Tre'rpa  ;  inunitio  ;  only  one*  "  tower," 
 Hab.  ii.  1.  ^ 
 
 TRACHONITIS  3316 
 
 under  the  ascendency  of  the  Romans  in  Asia  Minor, 
 a  much  wider  sphere  of  duty,  so  as  to  make  them, 
 in  some  instances,  in  efl'ect  the  heads  or  chiefs  of 
 the  municipal  government  (Winer,  Jiealw.  i.  649). 
 They  were  authorized  to  preside  over  the  popular 
 assemblies  and  submit  votes  to  tRem,  and  are  men- 
 tioned on  marbles  as  acting  in  that  capacity.  In 
 cases  where  they  were  associated  with  a  superior 
 magistrate,  they  suc'ceeded  to  his  place  and  dis- 
 charged his  functions  when  the  latter  wag  absent 
 or  had  died.  "  On  the  subjugation  of  Asia  by  the 
 Romans,"  says  Baumstark  (Pauly's  Encyclojicidie, 
 iii.  949),  '■'■  ypafifxarfis  were  appointed  there  in  the 
 character  of  governors  of  single  cities  and  districts, 
 who  even  placed  their  names  on  the  coins  of  their 
 cities,  caused  the  year  to  be  named  from  them,  and 
 sometimes  were  allowed  to  assume  the  dignity,  or 
 at  least  the  name,  of  'Apxi-^P^^^"  '^'^'^  writer 
 refers  as  his  autliorities  to  Schwartz,  Dissertatio  de 
 ypa^fxaTiiiffi,  Mnijistratu  Civitatum  Asice  Procon- 
 sidaris  (Altorf,  1735);  Van  Dale,  Dissertal.  v.  425; 
 Spanheim,  Be  Usu  et  Prcest.  Nuinm.  i.  704.  A 
 good  note  on  this  topic  will  be  found  in  the  New 
 Eiiijlander  (U.  S.  A.),  x.  144. 
 
 It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  Luke's  account,  as 
 illustrated  by  ancient  records,  that  the  Ephesiaa 
 town-clerk  acted  a  part  entirely  appropriate  to  the 
 character  in  which  he  appears.  The  speech  deliv- 
 ered by  him,  it  may  be  remarked,  is  the  model  of 
 a  popular  harangue.  He  argues  that  such  excite- 
 ment as  the  Ephesians  evinced  was  undignified, 
 inasmuch  as  they  stood  above  all  suspicion  in  re- 
 ligious matters  (Acts  xix.  35,  36)  ;  that  it  was 
 unjustifiable,  since  they  could  establish  nothing 
 against  the  men  wliom  they  accused  (ver.  37);  that 
 it  was  ntmecessary,  since  other  means  of  redress 
 were  open  to  them  (vv.  38,  39);  and,  finally,  if 
 neither  pride  nor  a  sense  of  justice  availed  any- 
 tliing,  fear  of  the  Roman  power  should  restrain 
 them  from  such  illegal  proceedings  (ver.  40). 
 
 H.  B.  II. 
 
 TRACHONI'TIS  (Tpax^v'^rLS  ■  Traclwni- 
 tis).  This  place  is  mentioned  only  once  in  the 
 Bible.  In  Luke  iii.  1  we  read  that  Philip  "  was 
 tetrarch  of  Itursea,  koI  TpaxovWi^os  X'^P"-^'''" 
 and  it  appears  that  this  "  Trachonite  region,"  in 
 addition  to  the  little  province  of  Trachonitis,  in- 
 cluded parts  of  Auranitis,  Gaulanitis,  and  Batanaia 
 (.Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1,  and  11,  §  4). 
 
 Trachonitis  is,  in  all  probability,  the  Greek  equiv- 
 alent for  the  Aramaic  Anjob.  The  Targumists  ren- 
 der the  word  H'a^lH,  in  Deut.  iii.  14,  by  ND13~)U. 
 According  to  Geseuius,  D!l~lS  signifies  "  a  heap 
 of  stones,"  from  the  root  3!l~l,  "  to  pile  up  stones.'' 
 So  Tpax£««''T4s  or  Tpax'^v  is  a  "rugged  or  stony 
 
 4.  V237  :  oiKos :  domus ;  only  in  2  K.  v.  24. 
 [Ophel.]' 
 
 5-  n^S,  usually  "corner,"  twice  only  "tower," 
 Zeph.  i.  16,  iii.  6 :  yuivia  :  anguliis. 
 
 6.  ni3!itt  :    o-KOTTict :    specula ;     "  watch-tower." 
 
 [MlZPAH.j 
 
 7.  iSP^  :     oxvpw^ta :    robiir ;    only    in    poetry 
 
 [MiSGAB.]  " 
 
 b  *  Such  towers  are  numerous  also  at  Bethlehem, 
 and  form  a  striking  feature  of  the  landscape  (llackett's 
 lllu strut io an  of  Scripture,  p.  171  f.).  U. 
 
3316 
 
 TRACHONITIS 
 
 tract."  William  of  Tyre  gives  a  ciiriotis  etymologj' 
 of  the  word  Trachonitis :  "  Videtur  autem  nol)is  a 
 trciconibus  dicta.  Traeones  enini  diciiiitur  occulti 
 et  subterranei  meatus,  quibus  ista  regio  aliuiidat  " 
 {Gest.  Dti  per  Francos,  p.  8U5).  Be  this  as  it 
 may,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  whole  region 
 abounds  in  caverns,  some  of  which  are  of  vast  ex- 
 tent. Strabo  refers  to  the  caves  in  tlie  mountains 
 beyond  'I'rachon  {Ge«</.  xvi.),  and  he  aflirms  that 
 one  of  them  is  so  large  that  it  would  contain  4000 
 men.  The  writer  has  visited  some  spacious  caves 
 in  Jcbel  llininin,  and  in  the  interior  of  t!ie  Lcjali. 
 
 The  situation  and  boundaries  of  Trachonitis  can 
 be  defiTied  with  tolerable  accuracy  from  the  notices 
 in  Josephus,  Strabo,  and  other  writers.  From 
 Josephus  we  gather  that  it  lay  south  of  Damascus, 
 and  east  of  Gaulanitis,  and  that  it  bordered  on 
 Auninitis  and  Batanaea  (B.  J.  iv.  1,  §  1,  i.  20,  §  4, 
 iii.  10,  §  7).  Strabo  says  there  were  Svo  Tpax&Ji'ey 
 (Geof/.  xvi.).  From  Ptolemy  we  learn  that  it  bor- 
 dered on  Batana;a,  near  the  town  of  Saccwa  {Gtcfj. 
 XV.).  In  the  Jerusalem  Gemara  it  is  made  to  ex- 
 tend as  far  south  as  Bostra  (Lightfoot,  Oi>p.  ii. 
 473).  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  though  they  err  in 
 confounding  it  with  Itursea,  yet  the  latter  rightly 
 defines  its  position,  as  lying  between  Bostra  and 
 Damascus  {Oiium.  s.  v.).  Jerome  also  states  that 
 Kenath  was  one  of  its  chief  towns  {Oiiotn.  s.  v. 
 "  Canath  "). 
 
 From  these  data  we  have  no  difficulty  in  fixing 
 the  position  of  Trachonitis.     It  included  the  whole 
 
 of  the  modern  province  called  el-Lejdh  (sLiS\AJi), 
 
 with  a  section  of  the  plain  southw;ird,  and  also  a 
 part  of  the  w-esteru  declivities  of  Je6tl  Hauian. 
 This  may  explain  Strabo's  two  Trachons.  The 
 identity  of  the  Lejah  and  Trachonitis  does  not  rest 
 merely  on  presumptive  evidence.  On  the  nortliern 
 border  of  the  province  are  the  extensive  ruins  of 
 Musiiieili,  where,  on  the  door  of  a  beautiful  temple, 
 Burckhardt  discovered  an  inscription,  from  which 
 it  appeals  that  tliis  is  the  old  city  of  /'/locus,  and 
 the  capital  of  Trachonitis  (/i-riTpoKW/jLia  Tpax'>>vos, 
 Trav.  ill  Syr.  117).  The  Lejuh  is  bounded  on  the 
 east  by  the  mountains  of  Batana?a  (now  Jubel 
 Ilauran),  on  whose  slopes  are  the  ruins  of  Sacctea 
 and  Kenath  ;  on  the  south  by  Auranitis  (now 
 Jl(iiiran),  in  which  are  the  extensive  ruins  of  Bostra; 
 on  the  west  by  Gaulanitis  (}iov/  J  a  iddn);  and  on 
 the  north  by  Iturai'a  (now  Jediir)  and  Damascus. 
 If  all  otlier  proofs  were  wanting,  a  comparison  of 
 the  features  of  the  Lejah  witli  the  graphic  de- 
 scription Josephus  gives  of  Trachonitis  would  be 
 sufficient  to  establisli  the  identity.  The  inlialjitants, 
 he  says,  "  had  neither  towns  nor  fields,  but  dwelt 
 in  caves  that  served  as  a  refuge  both  for  themselves 
 and  their  flocks.  They  had,  besides,  cisterns  of 
 water  and  well-stored  granaries,  and  were  thus  able 
 to  remain  long  in  obscurity  and  to  defy  their 
 enemies.  The  doors  of  tlieir  ca\es  are  so  narrow 
 that  but  one  man  can  enter  at  a  time,  while  within 
 they  are  incredibly  large.  The  ground  above  is 
 almost  a  plain,  but  it  is  covered  with  rugged  rocks, 
 and  is  diffiodt  of  access,  except  wiiere  a  guide 
 points  out  the  paths.  These  paths  do  not  run  in 
 a  straight  course,  but  have  many  windings  and 
 turns"  {Ant.  xv.  10,  §  1).  A  description  of  the 
 Lejah  has  been  given  above  [Argob],  with  which 
 this  may  be  compared. 
 
 The  notices  of  Trachonitis  in  history  are  few  and 
 brief.  Josephus  affirms  that  it  was  colonized  iiy 
 Vz  the  son  of  Aram  {Anl.  i.  6,  §  4).      His  next 
 
 TRADITION 
 
 reference  to  it  is  when  it  was  held  by  Zenodorus, 
 the  bandit-chief.  Then  its  inliabitants  made  fre- 
 quent raids,  as  their  successors  do  still,  upon  the 
 territories  of  Damascus  {Aid.  xv.  10,  §  1 ).  Augustus 
 took  it  from  Zenodorus,  and  gave  it  to  tlerod  the 
 Great,  on  condition  that  he  should  repress  the  rob- 
 bers {Aid.  xvi.  9,  §  1).  Herod  liequeathed  it  to 
 his  son  Philip,  and  his  will  was  confirmed  liy  Caesar 
 {B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3).  This  is  tlie  Philip  referred  to 
 in  Luke  iii.  1.  At  a  later  period  it  passed  into  the 
 hands  of  Herod  Agrippa  {B.  .1 .  iii.  3,  §  5).  After 
 the  conquest  of  this  part  of  Syria  liy  Cornelius 
 Palma,  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  centuiy,  we 
 hear  no  more  of  Trachonitis  (Burckhardt,  Trav.  in 
 Syr.  110  ff. ;  Porter,  Damascus,  ii.  240-275;  Jnurn. 
 Geor/.  Sac.  xxviii.  250-2.52).  [Also,  Porter,  Gimd 
 Cities  of  Bdsltun,  pp.  15,  93;  and  J.  (i.  Wetzstein, 
 lieisebericht  iib.  Hauran  «.  die  Trachonen,  p. 
 36  fF.  —  H.]  J.  h.   P. 
 
 *  TRADITION  {ivapd^offts,  rendered  once, 
 in  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  "ordinances").  Primarily  it  de- 
 notes the  act  of  delivering  or  transmitting,  then  the 
 thing  delivered;  in  the  N.  T.  it  has  only  the  latter 
 sense.  It  refers  generally,  if  not  always,  to  pre- 
 ceptive rather  than  to  historical  matters.  Tradi- 
 tions may  be  either  written  or  oral  (2  I'hess.  ii.  15); 
 and  the  term  is  perhaps  used  in  Gal.  i.  14,  so  as  to 
 include  even  precepts  of  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
 liut  the  traditions  alluded  to  by  Christ  in  Matl.  xv. 
 and  jMark  vii.  were  probably  for  the  most  part  oral; 
 Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  6)  seems  to  iniply  this, 
 and  he  furthermore  distinguishes  them  from  the 
 Scriptures  as  being  additions  to,  or  explanations  of 
 them,  handed  down  from  the  fathers.  These  were 
 afterwards  written  in  the  Talnmd.  On  the  char- 
 acter of  them,  cf.  Wetstein,  Lightfoot  and  Schrttgen 
 on  Matt.  vi.  2,  5,  xv.  2.  [Washing  the  Hands 
 AND  Feet:  Phakisees;  ScninEs.] 
 
 The  authoritativeness  of  traditions,  according  to 
 the  N.  T.,  depends  on  their  source.  If  they  orig- 
 inated strictly  with  uninspired  men,  they  were  not 
 authoritative,  and  might  even  be  directly  opposed 
 to  Divine  commandments  (Matt.  xv.  6,  Col  ii.  8). 
 On  the  other  hand  irapa^6(ms  which  were  derived 
 from  Christ  or  his  apostles,  were  authoritative 
 (1  Cor.  xi.  2;  2  The.ss.  ii.  15).  Here  we  may  note 
 also  the  frequent  use  of  TrapaS'iSui/ai,  said  of  injunc- 
 tions or  important  communications  delivered  to  the 
 Christians  (1  Cor.  xi.  23,  xv.  3;  Acts  xvi.  4;  Horn, 
 vi.  17;  2  Pet.  ii.  21).  In  some  of  these  cases  the 
 whole  substance  of  the  Gospel  is  spoken  of  as  thus 
 delivered.  And  oral  transmission  is  probably  meant 
 in  most  cases. 
 
 This  suggests  the  inquiry,  what  traditional  ele- 
 ments there  are  in  the  Bible  itself.  As  regards  the 
 O.  T.,  since  the  names  of  the  authors  of  the  his- 
 torical books  are  not  given  and  many  of  the  histories 
 cover  a  long  period  of  time,  there  is  room  ior  un- 
 bounded license  in  conjecturing  how  far  the  nar- 
 ratives are  traditions  reduced  to  writing  a  greater 
 or  less  time  after  the  occurrence  of  the  events  re- 
 corded. But  the  mention  of  histories  now  lost, 
 made  as  early  as  Num.  xxi.  14  ("the  book  of  the 
 wars  of  the  Lord");  and  especially  in  the  books 
 of  Kings  and  Chronicles  [Kings]  of  annals  of  the 
 several  reigns,  diminishes  very  much  the  proiability 
 of  extensive  resort  to  old  traditions  in  the  conipilar- 
 tion  of  the  histories.  AVhere  reference  is  made  in 
 one  part  of  the  0.  T.  to  former  events  in  the  his- 
 tory of  the  people,  we  can  generally  find  the  events 
 recorded  in  the  earlier  books.  Cf.  e.  g.  Jephthah's 
 message  to  the  Ammonites   (Judg.   xi.)    with    the 
 
TRADITION 
 
 narrative  in  Num-  xx.  and  xxi.,  or  Ps.  Ixxviii.  with 
 tlie  history  of  tlie  Exodus.  It  is  more  tiian  doubt- 
 ful whether  we  are  to  understand  Mic.  vi.  5--8  as 
 containing  a  dialogue  between  Balak  and  Balaam, 
 preserved  by  tradition.  This  view,  thougli  advanced 
 by  Bishop  Butler  {Sennun  on  Balaam),  and  adopted 
 in  the  article  on  Moab  and  by  Stanley  (Jewish 
 Church,  i.  212),  is  not  genei-ally  accepted,  and 
 hardly  seems  to  be  suggested  by  the  passage  in 
 Micah. 
 
 The  time  embraced  in  the  N.  T.  histories  does 
 not  allow  much  scope  to  tradition  in  the  ordinary 
 sense  of  the  term.  But  if  we  take  TrapdSoais  in 
 the  narrower  sense  in  which  the  N.  T.  uses  it,  then 
 it  may  be  said  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  his- 
 torical books  of  the  X.  T.  may  be  composed  of  tra- 
 ditions. The  Gospel  was  at  first  preached,  not 
 written.  What  the  apostles  thus  handed  down 
 was  afterwards  recorded  by  them  or  others.  See 
 Gospels  ;  Westcott,  Jniroduc/ion,  p.  212  ;  and 
 especially  Luke  i.  1  fF.  Accordingly,  the  familiar 
 passage  Acts  xx.  3.5,  where  Paul  quotes  a  saying  of 
 Christ  not  elsewhere  recorded,  is  strictly  speaking 
 no  more  a  tradition  than  the  other  sayings  of  Christ 
 which  ai-e  found  in  the  Gospels;  for  at  the  time 
 when  Paul  used  this  language  perhaps  none,  or  not 
 more  than  one,  of  the  Gospels  was  written.  See 
 Hackett,  Acts,  p.  .34.3,  and  Introduction  to  Acts, 
 p.  29.  The  .same  may  be  said  of  .John  viii.  1-11. 
 This  narrative,  tliough  belonging  orinjinally  to  none 
 of  the  Gospels,  was  probably  preserved  in  the  recol- 
 lection of  the  disciples  and  early  incorporated  into 
 the  text  of  John.  See  Meyer  on  this  passage. 
 Somewhat  different  is  the  case  with  the  interpola- 
 tion in  John  v.  3  b,  4,  which  seems  to  be  a  tradition 
 reflecting  a  popular  belief,  but  for  which  John  can- 
 not be  regarded  as  vouching.  Still  different  is  the 
 tradition  (John  xxi.  23)  respecting  John's  death, 
 which  is  mentioned,  only  to  be  pronounced  false. 
 
 There  are  however  a  few  instances  of  what  seem 
 to  be  traditions  of  longer  standing.  On  2  Tim. 
 iii.  8  see  J.\nnes  and  Jambkes,  and  VVetstein 
 ill  loc.  The  phrase  "sawn  asunder"  in  Ileb.  xi. 
 37  is  doubtless  founded  on  the  tradition  tliat  Isaiah 
 was  thus  put  to  death.  On  the  dispute  between 
 Michael  and  the  Devil,  Jude  9,  see  Michael,;  also 
 De  VVette  and  Huther  in  loc.  Of  a  similar  charac- 
 ter is  the  quotation,  in  Jude  14, 1.5,  from  "  Enoch, 
 the  seventh  from  Adam."  On  this  see  Enoch, 
 Book  ob'.  The  allusion  in  Jude  6  to  the  angels 
 who  kept  not  their  first  estate  may  also  have  been 
 derived  from  the  book  of  Enoch  (xii.  4),  though 
 this  again  is  probably  derived  from  Gen.  vi.  1-4 
 (on  which  see,  besides  the  commentaries,  especially 
 Kurtz,  Die  Ehen  der  Saline  Gottes,  etc.,  in  his 
 Geschichte  des  Allen  Bundes).  2  Pet.  ii.  4  prob- 
 ably refers  to  the  same  thing.  According  to  some, 
 the  expression  in  1  Cor.  x.  4  is  derived  from  a 
 Jewish  tradition  that  the  rock  from  which  water 
 sprang  forth  did  actually  follow  the  Israelites  in 
 their  wanderings.  But  this,  though  a  real  Jewish 
 tradition,  cannot  be  proved  to  have  existed  before 
 the  time  of  Paul;  and  if  it  did,  Paul  does  not  in- 
 dorse it,  —  at  the  most  he  only  alludes  to  it.  Cf- 
 Neander  and  Meyer  in  loc.  A  more  important  in- 
 stance of  tradition  is  that  respecting  the  mediation 
 of  angels  in  the  giving  of  the  Law.     This  is  men- 
 
 TRANCE  ool7 
 
 tioned  as  something  generally  understood,  in  Acts 
 vii.  53,  Gal.  iii.  19,  and  Heb.  ii.  2.  The  repre- 
 sentation cannot  be  derived  directly  from  the  O.  T. ; 
 but  the  LXX.  in  its  translation  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  2 
 suggests  it,  and  Josephus  indorses  it  (Ant.  xv.  5, 
 §  3). 
 
 On  the  subject  of  tradition  in  the  ecclesiastical 
 sense,  see  especially  Holtzmann,  Kaiion  mid  Tra- 
 dition, and  Jacobi,  Kircidiclie  Lehi'e  von  der  Tra- 
 ditiun.  C.  M.  M. 
 
 *  TRAFFICKERS.     [Commerce;   Maji- 
 
 KET.] 
 
 TRANCE  {iKffTaffis-  excessus).  (1.)  In  the 
 only  passage  (Num.  xxiv.  4,  16)  in  which  this  word 
 occurs  in  the  English  of  the  0.  T.  there  is,  as  the 
 italics  show,   no   corresponding  word   in   Hebrew, 
 
 simply  7pD,  "falling,"  for  which  the  LXX.  gives 
 ii/  V17VW,  and  the  Vulg.  more  literally  qui  cadit. 
 The  Greek  iKcnacns  is,  however,  used  as  the  equiv- 
 alent for  many  Hebrew  words,  signifying  dread, 
 fear,  astonishment  (Trommii  Concordant.).  In  the 
 N.  T.  we  meet  with  the  word  three  times  (Acts  x. 
 10,  xi.  5,  xxii.  17),  the  Vulgate  giving  "excessus'" 
 in  the  two  former,  "stupor  mentis  "  in  the  latter. 
 Luther  uses  "  entziickt "  in  all  three  cases.  The 
 meaning  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  words  is  obvious 
 enough.  The  eKaraats  is  the  state  in  which  a 
 man  has  passed  out  of  the  usual  order  of  his  life, 
 beyond  the  usual  limits  of  consciousness  and  voli- 
 tion. "  Excessus,"  in  like  manner,  though  in  cla? 
 sical  Latin  chiefly  used  as  an  euphemism  for  death, 
 became,  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  a  synonym  for 
 the  condition  of  seeming  death  to  the  outer  world, 
 which  we  .speak  of  as  a  trance.  "  Hanc  vim  ecstasin 
 dicimus,  excessum  sensus,  et  amentife  instar" 
 (Tertull.  de  An.  c.  45).  The  history  of  the  Eng- 
 lish word  presents  an  interesting  parallel.  The 
 Latin  "  transitus  "  took  its  place  also  among  the 
 euphemisms  for  death.  In  early  Italian  "  essere  in 
 transito,"  was  to  be  as  at  the  point  of  death,  the 
 passage  to  another  world.  Passing  into  French,  it 
 also,  abbreviated  into  "transe,"  was  applied,  not 
 to  death  itself,  but  to  that  which  more  or  less 
 resembled  it  (Diez,  Roman.  Worterbuch,  s.  v. 
 "  transito  "). 
 
 (2.)  Used  as  the  word  is  by  Luke,"  "  the  physi- 
 cian," and,  in  this  special  sense,  by  him  only,  in 
 the  N.  T.,  it  would  be  interesting  to  inquire  what 
 precise  meaning  it  had  in  the  medical  terminology 
 of  the  time.  From  the  time  of  Hippocrates,  who 
 uses  it  to  describe  the  loss  of  conscious  perception,'' 
 it  had  probably  borne  the  connotation  which  it  has 
 had,  with  shades  of  meaning  for  good  or  evil,  ever 
 since.  Thus,  Hesychius  gives  as  the  account  of  a 
 man  in  an  ecstasy,  that  he  is  6  ih  kavrhv  /xri  iov 
 Apuleius  {Apoloi/ia.)  speaks  of  it  as  "a  change  from 
 the  earthly  mind  {airh  rov  yrfivov  (ppoi/ij/xaTos)  to 
 a  divine  and  spiritual  condition  both  of  character 
 and  life."  Tertullian  (I.  c.)  compares  it  to  the  dream- 
 state  in  which  the  soul  acts,  but  not  through  its 
 usual  instruments.  Augustine  {Confess,  ix.  11) 
 describes  his  mother  in  this  state  as  "  abstracta  a 
 prassentibus,"  and  gives  a  description  of  like  phe- 
 nomena in  the  case  of  a  certain  Restitutus  {de  Civ. 
 Dei,  xiv.  24). 
 
 (3. )  We  may  compare  with  these  statements  the 
 
 a  In  Mark  v.  42  and  xvi.  8  it  is  used  simply  for 
 astonishment  mingled  with  awe,  not  for  the  trance 
 itate. 
 
 b  The  distinction  drawn  by  Hippocrates  and  Galen 
 
 between  6K<rTd(ret.!  triywcroi  and  exa-r.  fieAayx"^"""-' 
 answers  obviously  to  that  of  later  writers  between  pure 
 and  ecstatic  catalepsy  (comp.  Foesius,  CEconom.  Hip- 
 pocrat.  s.  V.  eKCTTacns). 
 
3318 
 
 TRANCE 
 
 more  precise  definitions  of  modern  medical  science. 
 There  the  ecstatic  state  appears  as  one  form  of  cat- 
 alepsy. In  catalepsy  pure  and  sinijile,  there  is  "  a 
 sudden  suspension  of  tiiought,  of  sensil)ility,  of  vol- 
 untary motion."  "  The  body  continues  in  any 
 attitude  in  which  it  may  be  placed;  "  there  are  no 
 signs  of  any  proce.ss  of  thought;  the  patient  con- 
 tinues silent.  In  tlie  ecstatic  form  of  catalepsy,  on 
 the  other  hand,  "  the  patient  is  lost  to  all  external 
 impressions,  but  wrapped  and  absorljed  in  some 
 object  of  the  imagination."  The  man  is  "as  if 
 out  of  the  body."  "  Nervous  and  susceptible  per- 
 sons are  apt  to  be  thrown  into  the.se  trances  under 
 the  influence  of  what  is  called  mesmerism.  There 
 is,  for  the  most  part,  a  high  degree  of  mental  ex- 
 citement. The  patient  utters  the  most  enthusiastic 
 and  fervid  expressions  or  tiie  most  earnest  warn- 
 ings. The  character  of  the  whole  frame  is  tliat  of 
 intense  contemplative  excitement.  He  believes 
 that  he  has  seen  wonderful  visions  and  heard  sin- 
 gular revelations"  (Watson,  frinciples  and  Prac- 
 tice, Lect.  xxxix.  ;  Copland,  Diet,  of  Medicine,  s. 
 V.  "Catalepsy").  The  causes  of  this  state  are  to 
 be  traced  commonly  to  strong  religious  impressions; 
 but  some,  though,  for  the  most  part,  not  tlie  ec- 
 static, phenomena  of  catalepsy  are  producible  by  the 
 concentration  of  thouglit  on  one  object,  or  of  the 
 vision  upon  one  fixed  point  ( Quart.  Rev.  xciii.  pp. 
 510-522,  by  Dr.  W.  1!.  Carpenter;  comp.  Urui 
 AKD  Tiiummim),  and,  in  some  more  exceptional 
 cases,  like  that  mentioned  liy  Augustine  (there, 
 however,  under  the  influence  of  sound,  "  ad  imita- 
 tas  quasi  lamentantis  cujuslibet  hominis  voces  "), 
 and  that  of  Jerome  Cardan  {Vnr.  Her.  viii.  43), 
 men  liave  been  able  to  tiirow  themselves  into  a  cat- 
 aleptic state  at  will.  [See  Dr.  W.  A.  Hammond 
 on  the  Pliysics  and  PlirfdoJoiiy  of  Sjnrilunlism, 
 in  the  N.  A.  Rev.  for  April  1870;  "ex.  233-260.— 
 A.] 
 
 (4.)  Whatever  explanation  may  be  given  of  it,  it 
 is  true  of  many,  if  not  of  most,  of  those  who  have 
 left  the  stamp  of  their  own  character  on  the  relig- 
 ious history  of  manl<ind,  that  they  have  been  lia- 
 ble to  pass  at  times  into  this  abnormal  state.  The 
 luiion  of  intense  feeling,  strong  volition,  long-con- 
 tinued thought  (the  conditions  of  all  wide  and  last- 
 ing influence),  aided  in  many  cases  by  the  with- 
 drawal from  the  lower  life  of  the  support  which  is 
 needed  to  maintain  a  healthy  equilibrium,  appears 
 to  have  been  more  than  the  "earthen  vessel  "  will 
 bear.  The  words  which  speak  of  "  an  ecstasy  of 
 adoration  "  are  often  literally  true.  The  many 
 visions,  the  journey  througli  the  heavens,  the  so- 
 called  epilepsy  of  Moliammed,  were  plienomena  of 
 this  nature.  Of  three  great  mediieval  teachers,  St. 
 Francis  of  Assisi,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Joan- 
 nes Scotus,  it  is  recorded  that  they  would  fall  into 
 the  ecstatic  state,  remain  motionless,  seem  as  if 
 dead,  sometimes  for  a  whole  day,  and  then,  return- 
 ing to  consciousness,  speak  as  if  they  had  drunk 
 deep  of  divine  mysteries  (Gualtperiiis,  Crit.  Sac.  on 
 Acts  X.  10).  The  old  traditions  of  Aristeas  and 
 Epimenides,  the  conflicts  of  Dunstan  and  Luther 
 with  the  powers  of  darkness,  the  visions  of  Savona- 
 rola, and  George  Fox,  and  Swedenborg,  and  Bcili- 
 men,  are  generically  analogous.  Where  there  has 
 been  no  extraordinary  power  to  influence   others. 
 
 a  Analogous  to  this  is  the  statement  of  Aristotle 
 {Prol.  c.  30)  that  the  neKayxoMicoL  speak  often  in  wild 
 bursts  of  poetry,  and  as  the  Sibyls  and  others  who  are 
 inspired  (eVSeoi) 
 
 TRANCE 
 
 other  conditions  remaining  the  same,  the  phenom- 
 ena have  appeared  among  whole  classes  of  men  and 
 women  in  proportion  as  the  circumstances  of  their 
 lives  tended  to  produce  an  excessive  susceptibility 
 to  religious  or  imaginative  emotion.  The  history 
 of  monastic  orders,  of  American  and  Irish  revivals, 
 gives  coutitless  examples.  Still  more  noticeable  is 
 the  fact  that  many  of  the  imjirovisatori  of  Italy 
 are  "  only  able  to  exercise  their  gift  when  they  are 
 in  a  state  of  ecstatic  trance,  and  speak  of  the  gift 
 itself  as  sometliing  morbid""  (Copland,  /.  c); 
 while  in  strange  contrast  with  their  earlier  historj', 
 and  pointing  perhaps  to  a  national  character  that 
 has  become  harder  and  less  emotional,  there  is  the 
 testimony  of  a  German  jDhysician  (Frank),  who  had 
 made  catalepsy  a  special  study,  that  he  had  never 
 met  with  a  single  case  of  it  among  the  Jews  (Cop- 
 land, /.  c.}.t> 
 
 (.5.)  We  are  now  able  to  take  a  true  estimate  of 
 the  trances  of  Biblical  history.  As  in  other  things, 
 so  also  here,  the  phenomena  are  common  to  higher 
 and  lower,  to  true  and  false  systems.  The  nature 
 of  man  continuing  the  same,  it  could  hardly  be 
 that  the  awfulness  of  the  Divine  presence,  the  ter- 
 rors of  Divine  judgment,  should  leave  it  in  the 
 calm  eqidlibrium  of  its  normal  state.  Whatever 
 made  the  impress  of  a  truth  more  indelible,  what- 
 ever gave  him  to  whom  it  was  revealed  more  power 
 over  the  hearts  of  others,  might  well  take  its  place 
 in  the  Divine  education  of  nations  and  individual 
 men.  We  may  not  point  to  trances  and  ecstasies 
 as  proofs  of  a  true  Kevelation,  but  still  less  may  we 
 thuik  of  them  as  at  all  inconsistent  with  it.  Thus, 
 tliough  we  have  not  the  word,  we  have  the  thing 
 in  the  "  deep  sleep  "  (fKo-Tacris,  LXX.),  the  "  hor- 
 ror of  great  darkness,"  that  fell  on  Abraham  (Gen. 
 XV.  12).  Balaam,  as  if  overcome  by  the  constrain- 
 ing power  of  a  Spirit  mightier  than  his  own,  "  sees 
 tlie  vision  of  God,  falling,  but  with  opened  eyes  " 
 (Num.  xxiv.  4).  Saul,  in  like  manner,  when  the 
 wild  chant  of  the  prophets  stiired  the  old  depths 
 of  feeling,  himself  also  "  prophesied  "  and  "  fell 
 down  "  (most,  if  not  all,  of  his  kingly  clothing  be- 
 ing thrown  ofl!"  in  the  ecstasy  of  the  moment),  "  all 
 that  day  and  all  that  night "  (1  Sam.  xix.  24). 
 Something  there  was  in  Jeremiah  that  made  men 
 say  of  him  that  he  was  as  one  that  "  is  mad  and 
 maketh  himself  a  prophet  "  (Jer.  xxix.  26).  In 
 Ezekiel  the  phenomena  appear  in  more  wonderful 
 and  awful  forms.  He  sits  motionless  for  seven 
 days  in  the  stupor  of  astonishment,  till  the  word 
 of  the  Lord  comes  to  him  (Ez.  iii.  15).  The  "  hand 
 of  the  Lord  "  falls  on  him,  and  he  too  sees  the 
 "  visions  of  God,"  and  hears  the  voice  of  the  Al- 
 mighty, is  "  lifted  up  between  the  earth  and  heaven," 
 and  passes  from  the  river  of  Chebar  to  the  Lord's 
 house  in  Jerusalem  (Ez.  viii.  3). 
 
 (6.)  As  other  elements  and  forms  of  the  pro- 
 phetic work  were  revived  in  "  the  Apostles  and 
 Prophets  "  of  the  N.  T.,  so  also  was  this.  More 
 distinctly  even  than  in  the  0.  T.  it  becomes  the 
 medium  through  which  men  rise  to  see  clearly 
 what  before  was  dim  and  doubtful,  in  which  the 
 mingled  hopes  and  fears  and  perplexities  of  the 
 waking  state  are  dissipated  at  once.  Though  dif- 
 ferent in  form,  it  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  phe- 
 nomena as  the  Gift  of  Tongues,  and  is  connected 
 
 6  A  fuller  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  than  can 
 be  entered  on  here  may  be  found  in  the  chapter  on 
 Les  Mystiques  in  Maury,  La  Magie  et  I'Astrologit. 
 
TRANSFIGURATION 
 
 with  "  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord."  In 
 some  cases,  indeed,  it  is  the  chosen  channel  for  such 
 revelations.  To  tlie  "  trance  "  of  Peter  in  the  city, 
 where  all  outward  circumstances  tended  to  bring 
 tlie  thought  of  an  expansion  of  the  Divine  kingdom 
 more  distinctly  before  him  than  it  had  ever  been 
 brought  before,  we  owe  the  indelible  truth  stamped 
 upon  the  heart  of  Christendom,  that  God  "  is  no 
 respecter  of  persons,"  that  we  may  not  call  any 
 man  "  common  or  unclean  "  (Acts  x.,  xi.).  To  the 
 "trance"  of  Paul,  wlien  his  work  for  his  own  peo- 
 ple seemed  utterly  fruitless,  we  owe  the  mission 
 which  was  the  starting-point  of  the  history  of  the 
 Universal  Church,  the  command  which  bade  him 
 "  depart  ....  far  hence  unto  the  Gentiles  " 
 (Acts  xxii.  17-21).  Wisely  for  the  most  part  did 
 that  Apostle  draw  a  veil  over  these  more  mysteri- 
 ous experiences.  He  would  not  sacrifice  to  them, 
 as  others  have  often  sacrificed,  the  higher  life  of 
 activity,  love,  prudence.  He  could  not  explain 
 them  to  himself.  "  In  the  body  or  out  of  the 
 body  "  he  could  not  tell,  but  the  outer  world  of 
 perception  had  passed  away,  and  he  had  passed 
 in  spirit  into  •'  paradise,"  into  "  the  third  heaven," 
 and  had  heard  "  unspeakable  words  "  (2  Cor.  xii. 
 1-4).  Those  trances  too,  we  may  believe,  were 
 not  without  their  share  in  fashioning  his  character 
 and  life,  though  no  special  truth  came  distinctly 
 out  of  them.  United  as  they  then  were,  but  as 
 they  have  seldom  been  since,  with  clear  perceptions 
 of  the  truth  of  God,  with  love  wonderful  in  its 
 depth  and  tenderness,  with  energy  unresting,  and 
 subtle  tact  almost  passing  into  "  guile,"  they 
 made  him  what  he  was,  the  leader  of  the  .\postolic 
 band,  emphatically  the  "  master  builder  "  of  the 
 Church  of  God  (comp.  Jowett,  Fragment  on  the 
 Character  of  St.  Paul).  E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  TRANSFIGURATION.  The  event  in 
 the  earthly  life  of  Christ  which  marks  the  culmi- 
 nating point  in  his  public  ministry,  and  stands  mid- 
 way between  tlie  temptation  in  the  wilderness  and 
 the  agony  in  Gethsemane.  It  is  recorded,  with  very 
 slight  variations,  by  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  xvii.  1- 
 1-3;  aiark  ix.  2-13;  Luke  ix.  28-3G),  but  is  omitted 
 by  John,  like  many  other  events  and  miracles,  as 
 being- already  known  from  the  gospel  tradition. 
 
 1.  The  place  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists  is 
 "an  high  mountain,"  probably  in  Galilee,  where 
 the  synoptical  Gospels  mainly  move,  and  where  the 
 events  immediately  preceding  and  succeeding  oc- 
 curred. The  Lord  was  wont  to  withdraw  to  a 
 mountain  for  prayer  (Matt.  xiv.  23;  Luke  xxi.  37; 
 Joiin  vi.  15),  and  several  of  the  greatest  events  in 
 tlie  history  of  revelation,  from  the  legislation  on 
 Mount  Sinai  to  the  ascension  from  Jlount  Olivet, 
 took  place  on  mountains.  An  ancient  tradition, 
 first  mentioned  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  ( Catech.  xii. 
 16)  aliout  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  locates 
 the  Transfiguration  on  Mount  Tabor,  the  highest 
 in  Galilee,  which  rises,  like  a  truncated  cone,  1310 
 Paris  feet  from  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  two  hours 
 and  a  quarter  south  of  Nazareth,  with  an  unbroken 
 view  to  the  surrounding  country,  and  is  often  men- 
 tioned in  the  Old  Testament  (Judges  iv.  6,  14,  viii. 
 18;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  12;  Jer.  xlvi.  18),  though  nowhere 
 in  the  New.  This  tradition  gained  soon  almost 
 universal  acceptance,  while  an  earlier  tradition, 
 which  places  the  event  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  near 
 Jerusalem,  stands  isolated.  It  gave  rise  to  the 
 ouilding  of  churches  and  monasteries  on  the  sum- 
 mit of  Tabor  ("  to  correspond  to  the  three  taberna- 
 
 TRANSFIGURATION       3319 
 
 cles  which  Peter  was  not  permitted  to  build"), 
 and  to  the  designation  of  the  festival  of  the  Trans- 
 figuration in  the  Greek  Church,  as  Th  Qa^wpiov. 
 Ihere  is  no  evidence  in  favor  of  this  tradition,  but 
 strong  and  decisive  evidence  against  it ;  for  the 
 summit  of  Talior  was  employed  without  intermis- 
 sion between  the  times  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  218 
 B.  c,  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  A.  d.  70,  as 
 a  fortification,  and  hence  unfit  for  quiet  seclusion 
 and  meditation  (Polybius  v.  70,  6  ;  Josephus,  Ant. 
 .\iv.  6,  3;  S.  J.  i.  8,  7,  ii.  20,  G,  iv.  18;  comp. 
 Ritter,  Coiiiparatire  Geography  (if  Paksliiie,  ii. 
 313,  Eng.  trans.;  Robinson,  BM.  Bes.  iii.  220- 
 225;  Herzog,  I'Mcykl.  art.  T/iabor;  Trench,  Slud- 
 us  in  the  (iosjiels,  p.  192).  Modern  commentators 
 and  critics  favor  Mount  Hermon,  the  highest 
 mountain-top  in  Gaulonitis,  or  one  of  the  spurs  of 
 the  Anti-Libanus.  Hermon  is  the  highest  of  all  the 
 Lebanon  mountains,  and  is  called  JeOel  es-Sheikh, 
 or  the  Sheikh's  mountain. 
 
 2.  As  to  the  time,  the  Transfiguration  probably 
 took  place  in  the  night,  because  it  could  be  seen 
 to  better  advantage  than  in  daylight,  and  Jesus 
 usually  went  to  mountains  to  spend  there  the  night 
 in  prayer  (Luke  vi.  12,  xxi.  37,  xxii.  39;  Matt, 
 xiv.  23,  24).  The  apostles  were  asleep,  and  are 
 described  as  having  kept  themselves  awake  through 
 the  art  of  Transfiguration  {Siaypriyofiy^aauTis, 
 Luke  ix.  32),  and  they  did  not  descend  till  the 
 next  day  (Luke  ix.  37). 
 
 3.  The  actors  and  witnesses.  Christ  was  the 
 central  figure,  the  subject  of  the  Transfiguration. 
 Moses  and  Elijah  appeared  from  the  heavenly 
 world,  as  the  representatives  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 the  one  of  the  Law,  the  other  of  Prophecy,  to  do 
 homage  to  Him  who  was  the  fulfillment  of  both. 
 They  were  the  fittest  persons  to  witness  this  an- 
 ticipation of  the  heavenly  glory,  not  only  on  account 
 of  their  representative  character,  but  also  on  ac- 
 count of  their  mysterious  departure  from  this  world  ; 
 Moses  having  died  on  the  mountain,  as  the  rabliin- 
 ical  tradition  has  it,  "  of  the  kisses  of  Jehovah,"  in 
 sight  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  out  of  sight  of  the 
 world ;  Elyah  having  been  translated  alive  from 
 earth  to  heaven  on  chariots  of  fire.  Both  had  en- 
 dured, like  Christ,  a  forty  days'  fast,  both  had  been 
 on  the  holy  mount  in  the  visions  of  God,  and  now 
 they  reappeared  on  earth  with  glorified  bodies 
 "  solemnly  to  consign  into  his  hands,  once  and  for 
 all,  in  a  symbolical  and  glorious  representation, 
 their  delegated  and  expiring  power "  (Alford). 
 The  recognition  of  the  heavenly  visitors  by  the  dis- 
 ciples was  probably  by  immediate  intuition,  and 
 not  by  subsequent  information. 
 
 Among  the  apostles,  the  three  favorite  disciples, 
 Peter,  James,  and  John,  were  the  sole  witnesses  of 
 the  scene,  as  they  were  also  of  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
 daughter  and  of  the  agony  in  Gethsemane.  Peter 
 alludes  to  the  event,  in  his  second  epistle  (i.  16-18), 
 wliere  he  speaks  of  having  been  an  eye-witness  of 
 the  majesty  of  the  Lord  Jesus  wlien  he  was  with 
 Him  on  the  holy  mount  and  heard  the  heavenly 
 voice  of  the  Father  declaring  Him  to  be  his  beloved 
 Son.  John,  the  bosom  friend  of  .lesus,  probalily 
 had  in  view  this  among  other  manifestations  of  his 
 glory  when  he  testified:  "  We  beheld  his  glory,  the 
 glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  full  of 
 grace  and  truth  "  (John  i.  14).  And  his  brother 
 James,  as  the  protomartyr  among  the  apostles,  was 
 the  first  to  follow  Him  into  that  glory,  of  which  the 
 Transfiguration  was  a  foretaste  and  a  sure  pledge. 
 
 4.  The    event    itself.      The    Transfiguration  or 
 
3320        TRANSFIGURATION 
 
 trtinsfurmafion,  or,  as  the  German  divines  call  it, 
 the  (/lofificfdmi  {Vei'kldrun(/)  consisted  in  a  visi- 
 ble manifestation  and  eft'ulgence  of  tlie  inner  glory 
 of  Christ's  person,  acconipanietl  by  an  audible  voice 
 from  heaven  declaring  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
 in  whom  the  leather  is  well  pleased.  The  exjires- 
 sion  used  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  that  the  Lord 
 was  melaiiwrj)/iosed  (ixeT6fj.op(pol>Ori)-  Luke,  who 
 wrote  for  Gentile  readers,  avoids  this  expression, 
 perhaps  (as  Trench  suggests),  on  account  of  the 
 possible  associations  of  the  heathen  mythology 
 which  would  so  easily  attach  themselves  to  it  in 
 the  imagination  of  the  Greeks,  and  he  simply  tells 
 us  "  that  the  fashion  of  his  countenance  was  altered 
 as  He  prayed  "  (e-yeVero  rh  flSoi  rod  Tzpoadnrov 
 avTOv  erepov)-  But  it  was  not  only  his  counte- 
 nance which  shone  in  supernatural  splendor,  even 
 "his  raiment  was  white  and  glistering,"  or  as 
 Mark,  with  his  characteristic  fondness  for  pictur- 
 esque details,  and  borrowing  one  image  from  na- 
 ture, and  another  from  man's  art,  says,  it  "  became 
 shining,  exceeding  white  as  snow,  such  as  no  fuller 
 on  earth  can  whiten  them."  We  have  analogies 
 in  Scripture  which  may  be  used  as  illustrations. 
 When  Moses  returned  from  the  presence  of  Jeho- 
 vah on  Mount  Sinai,  the  skin  of  his  face  shone  (Lx. 
 xxxiv.  29-35),  which  circumstance  Hilary  calls  a 
 figure  of  the  Transfiguration.  Stephen's  face  in 
 view  of  his  martyrdom  shone  like  the  face  of  an 
 angel  (Acts  vi.  15).  The  human  countenance  is 
 often  lit  up  Iiy  joy,  and  the  peace  and  blessedness 
 of  the  soul,  in  moments  of  festive  elevation,  shine 
 through  it  as  through  a  mirror.  In  the  case  of 
 Christ,  the  Transfiguration  was  the  revelation  and 
 anticipation  of  his  future  state  of  glory  which  was 
 concealed  under  the  veil  of  his  humanity  in  the 
 state  of  humiliation.  The  cloud  which  overshad- 
 owed them  was  bright,  or  light-like,  luminous  (<^ai- 
 TSiVTi),  of  the  same  kind  as  the  cloud  at  the  ascen- 
 sion, or  the  clouds  of  heaven  at  the  second  advent 
 of  Christ  (Matt.  xxiv.  30;  Mark  xiii.  26;  Luke 
 xxi.  27),  and  symbolized  the  presence  of  God  (Ex. 
 xiv.  19,  xix.  Itj;  Is.  xix.  1;  Dan.  vii.  13). 
 
 5.  Different  Exjdanatiuns.  —  The  event  is  de- 
 scribed as  a  vision  {opufia,  Matt.  xvii.  9).  But  this 
 does  not  exclude  its  objective  reality.  It  only 
 places  it  above  the  sphere  of  sense  and  ordinary 
 consciousness.  It  was  partly  an  objective  appear- 
 ance, partly  a  spiritual  vision.  The  apostles  saw 
 the  scene  "in  .spirit"  (comp.  Acts  x.  10;  1  Cor. 
 xiv.  15;  Rev.  i.  10).  They  were  in  an  ecstatic 
 "  state  of  supernatural  clairvoyance,"  so  to  speak, 
 "heavy  with  sleep,"  yet  "keeping  themselves 
 awake  throughout;"  and  Peter  did  "not  know 
 what  he  said,"  being  only  half  conscious,  overawed 
 with  fear  and  wonder,  delighted  so  as  to  desire  to 
 hold  fast  this  goodly  state,  yet  "  sore  afraid."  (a.) 
 The  older  orthodox  writers  describe  it  as  a  visiljle 
 manifestation ;  some  suppose  that  Moses  and  Elijah 
 appeared  in  their  own  bodies;  others  that  Moses, 
 not  yet  having  risen,  assumed  a  foreign  body  re- 
 sembling his  former  body  (so  Thomas  Aquinas). 
 (b.)  The  rationalists  resolve  the  transfiguration  into 
 a  dream,  or  a  meeting  of  Jesus  with  two  secret  dis- 
 ciples, (c.)  Strauss  represents  it  as  a  pure  myth, 
 i  poetic  imitation  of  the  transfiguration  of  Moses, 
 Ex.  xxiv.  1,  xxxiv.  29  flf.  (Renan,  in  his  T7e  (Je 
 Jesus,  ignores  the  Transfiguration.)     (d.)    Ewald 
 
 :  Gregory  1.  {Mornt.  xxxii.  6):  "In  fransfigura- 
 tione  quid  iiliud  quam  resurrectionis  ultima  gloria 
 uunciatur." 
 
 TRANSFIGURATION 
 
 regards  it  as  a  rare  occurrence,  but  with  mythical 
 embellishments.  But  the  circumstantial  agree- 
 ment of  the  three  Evangelists  who  narrate  the 
 event,  its  definite  chronological  date,  its  connection 
 with  what  follows,  and  the  reference  to  it  by  I'eter, 
 one  of  its  witnesses  (2  Pet.  i.  lG-18),  as  well  as 
 the  many  peculiar  traits  to  which  no  parallel  can 
 be  found  in  the  transfiguration  of  Moses,  refute  the 
 mythical  hypothesis,  and  confirm  the  historical 
 character  of  the  scene. 
 
 6.  The  significance  of  the  Transfiguration.  It 
 was,  as  already  remarked,  a  visible  revelation  of  the 
 hidden  glory  of  the  person  of  Christ  in  anticipation 
 of  his  future  state  of  exaltation,  and  at  the  same 
 time  a  prophecy  of  the  future  glory  of  his  people 
 after  the  resurrection,  when  our  mortal  bodies  shall 
 be  conformed  to  his  glorious  body  (Phil.  iii.  21)." 
 It  served  as  a  solemn  inauguration  of  the  history  of 
 the  passion  and  final  consummation  of  his  work  on 
 earth.  For,  according  to  Luke's  account,  the  e|o- 
 5oj,  the  excessus  of  Christ,  i.  e.  especially  his  death, 
 the  great  mystery  of  the  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
 the  world,  and  the  following  resurrection  and  re- 
 turn to  the  Father,  was  the  topic  of  conversation 
 between  the  two  visitors  from  the  other  world  and 
 Jesus.  The  event  bears  a  relation  to  the  history 
 of  Christ's  suffering,  like  that  of  his  baptism  in 
 the  river  Jordan  to  his  active  ministry.  On  both 
 occasions  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  repre- 
 sentatives of  the  Old  Testament,  and  strengthened 
 for  his  course  by  the  solemn  approval  of  the  voice 
 from  heaven  declaring  him  to  be  the  well-beloved 
 Son  of  the  Father.  The  Transfiguration  no  doubt 
 confirmed  the  faith  of  the  three  favorite  disciples, 
 and  prepared  them  for  the  great  trial  which  was  ap- 
 proaching. It  took  away  from  them,  as  Leo  the 
 Great  says  (Semi.  xciv. ),  the  scandal  of  the  cross. 
 It  furnislies  also,  to  us  all,  a  striking  proof  for 
 tlie  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaniente,  for  per- 
 sonal innnortality,  and  the  mysterious  intercom- 
 munion of  the  visible  and  invisible  worlds.  Both 
 meet  in  Jesus  Christ;. he  is  the  connecting  link  be- 
 tween the  O.  and  N  T.,  between  heaven  and  earth, 
 between  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  the  kingdom  of 
 glory.  It  is  very  significant  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
 scene,  the  disciples  saw  no  man  save  Jesus  alone. 
 JNIoses  and  Elyah,  the  law  and  the  promise,  types 
 and  shadows  pass  away ;  the  gospel,  the  fulfillment, 
 the  sulistance,  Christ  remains,  the  only  one  who 
 can  relieve  the  misery  of  earth  and  glorify  our  na- 
 ture, Christ  all  in  all. 
 
 Tlie  Transfiguration  has  given  rise  to  one  of  the 
 greatest  works  of  art  ever  conceived  by  the  genius 
 of  man,  which  is  the  best  comment  on  this  super- 
 natural event.  The  picture  under  that  name  was 
 the  last  work  of  Raphael,  and  was  cairied  to  his 
 grave  at  his  burial.  He  died  of  the  Transfiguration 
 in  his  early  manhood.  The  original  is  in  St.  Pe- 
 ter's at  Rome,  and  has  been  multiplied  in  innumer- 
 able copies.  It  represents  Christ  soaring  above  the 
 earth  and  swimming  in  glory,  Moses  with  the  tables 
 of  the  Law  on  one  hand,  Elijah  on  the  other,  the 
 three  disciples  with  their  characteristic  features  at 
 their  feet,  gazing  in  a  half-dreamy  state  at  the 
 dazzling  light;  and  beneath  this  scene  of  celestial 
 peace,  the  painter  represents  in  startling  contrast 
 the  scene  of  the  lunatic  whose  healing  follows  in 
 the  gospel  narrative.  So  in  our  Christian  experi- 
 ence we  must  ever  descend  from  the  heights  of  fes- 
 tive joy,  and  the  foretast*  of  heaven  which  is  granted 
 us  from  time  to  time,  to  the  hard  work  and  misery 
 of  daily  life,  until  we  attain  to  final  rest  and  to  that 
 
TRAP 
 
 plory  of  the  resurrection  of  which  the  Transfigura- 
 tion is  a  sure  pled<;e. 
 
 Literature.  —  Conip.  the  Commentaries  on  Matt, 
 xvii.  1-13,  and  the  parallel  passages,  especially 
 Lange,  and  an  article  on  the  Transfiguration  in 
 Archbishop  Trench's  Studies  in  the  Gospels,  1867. 
 The  Transfiguration  is  the  subject  of  three  of  Bishop 
 Hall's  Cvnteiitjjlations,  bk.  iv.  12,  13,  14.     P.  S. 
 
 *  TRAP.     [Hunting.] 
 
 *  TREASURE-CITIES.  [Store-cities, 
 Amer.  ed.] 
 
 *  TREASURY.  In  Mark  xii.  41  (comp. 
 Luke  xxi.  1)  it  is  related  that,  as  Jesus  "  sat  over 
 against  the /»'e"S!«r»/ "  (KarfvavTi  tov  ya^o<pvXa- 
 Kiov)  he  saw  a  certain  poor  widow  who  came  and 
 threw  in  two  mites;  and  in  John  viii.  '20  we  read, 
 "  These  words  spake  Jesus  in  the  treasury  {4v  r<S 
 ya(o(pv\aKiQ>)  as  he  taught  in  the  Temple."  Ac- 
 cording to  the  Mishna  {Slieknliin,  vi.  1  §  5)  there 
 were  in  the  Temple  13  treasure-chests  for  the  re- 
 ception of  gifts  of  money  to  be  devoted  to  so  many 
 special  purposes,  designated  by  the  inscriptions 
 upon    them.       These    were    called    "  trumpets " 
 
 (mnSltL"')  either  from  their  shape  or  from  the 
 shape  of  the  opening  hito  which  the  contributions 
 were  dropped.  They  are  generally  identified  with 
 the  yaCocpvAaKia  mentioned  by  Josephus  (B.  ./.  v. 
 .5,  §  2),  who  speaks  of  the  cloisters  which  sur- 
 rounded the  Court  of  the  Women  [Teju'LE,  p. 
 3205  li],  on  the  inside  of  its  wall,  as  placed  be- 
 fore them  (ai  (TTOal  Se  iJ.€Ta^v  riav  irvKuv  airh  rov 
 reixovs  evSov  iaTpa/xfJLfvaL  Trph  tuv  ya^ocj>v\a- 
 Kioov),  and  tliey  may  jierhaps  have  been  collectively 
 called  "the  treasury"  in  the  passages  of  j\Iark 
 and  Luke  above  referred  to.  In  John  viii.  20  it 
 would  seem  probable  that  the  Court  of  the  ^Vomen 
 is  itself  called  "the  treasury  "  because  it  contained 
 these  repositories.  Some,  however  (as  Meyer, 
 Ewald,  Holtzniann,  Grimm,  Lex.),  understand  ev 
 in  this  passage  to  mean  simply  at,  near.  .lose- 
 phus  uses  ya^o(pv\a.Kiov  in  the  singular,  in  refer- 
 ence to  a  treasury  in  the  Temple,  Ant.  xix.  0,  §  1. 
 The  whole  subject  presents  various  questions  which 
 we  cannot  here  discuss.  See  especially  Lightfbot, 
 Prospect  of  the  Temple,  ch.  xix.,  and  Chorog. 
 Decad,  ch.  iii.  §§  1-4  ( Wo7-l:<i,  I'itman's  ed.,  ix. 
 313  fl:'.,  X.  208  ft".");  Keland,  Antiq.  i.  8,  §§  14-16; 
 Winer,  Realicorterb,  art.  Tempel,  ii.  583 ;  Ebrard, 
 ]Viss.  Krit.d.ev.  Gesch.  p.  GOO  f.  (3e  Aufl.,  1808); 
 with  the  notes  of  Ue  Wette  on  Luke  xxi.  1,  and 
 IJicke  and  Godet  on  John  viii.  20.  A. 
 
 *  TREE,  like  treoio  in  Anglo-Saxon,  was  often 
 used  in  early  P^nglish  in  the  sense  of  "  wood  "  in 
 general,  as  "  vessells  of  ^?'e  "  (Chaucer),  "  cuppe  of 
 tre  ;  "  and  also  specifically  to  denote  something 
 made  of  wood,  particularly  a  bar  or  beam,  a  mean- 
 ing still  preserved  in  the  compounds  axle-tree, 
 c—jss-tree,  whipple-tree.  It  has  the  latter  meaning, 
 with  a  special  application,  in  several  i)assages  of  the 
 A.  v.,  e.  g.  Acts  v.  30,  "  whom  j'e  slew  and  hanged 
 on  a  tree,'''  rather,  "  whom  ye  slew  by  hanging  him 
 on  a  cross,"  literally,"  on  a  beam  of  wood  "  (eVl  |u- 
 \ov);  so  Acts  X.  39,  xiii.29;  Gal.  iii.  13.  (See  Dr. 
 Noyes's  note  on  Acts  v.  30  in  his  Translation  of 
 the  N.  T.)  In  like  manner  the  Genevan  version 
 reads,  in  reference  to  the  proposed  hanging  of  Mor- 
 decai,  "  Let  them  make  a  tree  of  fifty  cubits  high  " 
 (Esth.  V.  14,  comp.  vi.  4,  vii.  9,  10);  and  the  cross 
 in  early  English  poetry  is  often  called  "  Cristes 
 trfe  "  (Chaucer),  "  Godys  tre,"  "  the  holy  rode  tre," 
 209 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 3821 
 
 or  simply  "  the  tree,"  as  in  the  A.  V.,  1  Pet.  ii. 
 24.  Noah's  ark  is  called  in  Wycliffe's  version  of 
 Wisd.  X.  4,  "a  dispisable  tree,"  where  the  A.  V. 
 reads  "  a  piece  of  wood  of  small  value  "  (LXX.  ev- 
 reAes  ^iiAof).  A. 
 
 TRESPASS-OFFERING.  [Sin-offer- 
 ing.] 
 
 TRIAL.  Information  on  the  subject  of  trials 
 under  the  Jewish  law  will  be  found  in  the  articles 
 on  Judges  and  Sanhediuji,  and  also  in  Jesus 
 Cni!i.sT.  A  few  remaiks,  however,  may  here  be 
 added  on  judicial  proceedings  nientio)ied  in  Scrip- 
 ture, especially  such  as  were  conducted  before  for- 
 eigners. 
 
 1.  The  trial  of  our  Lord  before  Pilate  was,  in  a 
 legal  sense,  a  trial  for  the  offense  Ixsie  majest'itis ; 
 one  which,  under  the  Julian  Law,  following  out 
 that  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  would  be  punishable 
 with  death  (Luke  xxiii.  2,  38 ;  John  xix.  12,  15 ; 
 Dig.  iv.  1,  3). 
 
 2.  The  trials  of  the  Apostles,  of  St.  Stephen, 
 and  of  St.  Paul  before  the  high-priest,  were  con- 
 ducted according  to  Jewish  rules  (Acts  iv.,  v.  27, 
 vi.  12,  xxii.  30,  xxiii.  1). 
 
 3.  The  trial,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  of  St.  Paul 
 and  Silas  at  Philippi,  was  held  before  the  duumviri, 
 or,  as  they  are  called,  crrpaTTiyoi,  praitors,  on  the 
 charge  of  innovation  in  religion  —  a  crime  punish- 
 able with  banishment  or  death  (Acts  xvi.  19,  22; 
 Diet,  of  Aiitiq.  "  Colonia,"  p.  318;  Conybeare  and 
 Howson,  i.  345,  355,  356). 
 
 4.  The  interrupted  trial  of  St.  Paul  before  the 
 proconsul  Gallio,  was  an  attempt  made  by  the  Jews 
 to  establish  a  charge  of  the  same  kind  (Acts  xviii. 
 12-17;  Conylieare  and  Howson,  i.  492-496). 
 
 5.  The  trials  of  St.  Paul  at  Casarea  (Acts  xxiv., 
 XXV.,  xxvi.)  were  conducted  according  to  Roman 
 rules  of  judicature,  of  which  the  procurators  Felix 
 and  Festus  were  the  recognized  administrators, 
 (a.)  In  the  first  of  these,  before  Felix,  we  oliserve 
 the  employment,  by  the  plaintiffs,  of  a  Roman 
 advocate  to  plead  in  Latin.  [Ok.vtok.]  (6.)  The 
 postponement  {ampdiatio)  of  the  trial  after  St 
 Paul's  reply  {Did.  of  Antiq.  "  Judex,"  p.  647; 
 (c.)  The  free  custody  in  which  the  accused  was 
 kept,  pending  the  decision  of  the  judge  (Acts  xxiv. 
 23-26).  The  second  ibrmal  trial,  before  Festus, 
 was,  probably,  conducted  in  the  same  maimer  as  the 
 former  one  Viefore  Felix  (Acts  xxv.  7,  8),  but  it  pre- 
 sents two  new  features :  {a. )  the  appeal,  appeUntio 
 or  provocatio,  to  Caesar,  by  St.  Paul  as  a  Roman 
 citizen.  The  right  of  appeal  ad populum,  or  to  the 
 tribunes,  became,  under  the  Empire,  transferred 
 to  the  emperor,  and,  as  a  citizen,  St.  Paul  availed 
 himself  of  the  right  to  which  he  was  entitled,  even 
 in  the  case  of  a  provincial  governor.  The  efifect 
 of  the  appeal  was  to  remove  the  ease  at  once  to  the 
 jurisdiction  of  the  emperor  (Conybeare  and  How- 
 son, ii.  360;  Did.  of  Antiq.  "  Appellatio,"  p.  107; 
 Dig.  xlix.  1,  4).  (b.)  The  conference  of  the  proc- 
 urator with  ''the  council"  (Acts  xxv.  12).  This 
 council  is  usually  explained  to  have  consisted  of  the 
 assessors,  who  sat  on  the  bench  with  the  prtetor  as 
 consiliarii  (Suet.  Tib.  33;  Bid.  of  Antiq.  "Asses- 
 sor," p.  143  ;  Grotius,  On  Acts  xxv.;  Conybeare 
 and  Howson,  ii.  358,  361).  But  besides  the  ab- 
 sence of  any  previous  mention  of  any  asses.sors  (see 
 below),  the  mode  of  expression  ffuA\a\riaas  /xeri 
 Tou  avij.l3ov\lov  seems  to  admit  the  explanation  of 
 conference  with  the  deimtics  from  the  Sanhedrim 
 (rh  (jvjx^.).     St.  Paul's  appeal  would  proliably  be 
 
3322 
 
 TRIBUTE 
 
 in  the  Latin  language,  and  would  require  explana- 
 tion on  the  part  of  the  judge  to  the  deputation  of 
 accusers,  before  he  carried  into  effect  the  inevitable 
 result  of  the  appeal,  namely,  the  dismissal  of  the 
 case  so  far  as  they  were  concerned.  [Api'KAL, 
 Anier.  ed.] 
 
 6.  We  have,  lastly,  the  mention  (Acts  xix.  38) 
 of  a  judicial  assembly  which  held  its  session  at  Eph- 
 esus,  in  which  occur  the  terms  ayopaioi  (i-  e.  riue- 
 pat)  ayovrai,  and  avOv-Kwroi.  The  former  denotes 
 the  assembly,  then  sitting,  of  provincial  citizens 
 forming  the  conventus,  out  of  which  the  proconsul, 
 avQvTTaTos,  selected  '-judices"  to  sit  as  his  asses- 
 sors. Tlie  avQinraToi  would  thus  be  the  judicial 
 tribunal  composed  of  the  proconsul  and  his  asses- 
 sors. In  the  former  case,  at  Ca^sarea,  it  is  difficult 
 to  imagine  that  there  could  be  any  conventus  and 
 any  provincial  assessors.  There  the  only  class  of 
 njen  qualified  for  such  a  function  would  be  the 
 lioman  officials  attached  to  the  procurator;  but  in 
 Proconsular  Asia  such  assemblies  are  well  known  to 
 have  existed  {Diet,  of  Antiq.  "  Provincia,"  pp.  905, 
 966,  967). 
 
 Early  Christian  practice  discouraged  resort  to 
 heathen  tribunals  in  civil  matters  (1  Cor.  vi.  1). 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 TRIBUTE  (to  SiSpaXM-a:  didrachma,  Matt, 
 xvii.  2-t;   Krivaos'  census,  ibid.  25). 
 
 1.  The  chief  P)iblical  facts  coimected  with  the 
 payment  of  tribute  have  been  already  given  under 
 Taxes.  A  few  remain  to  be  added  in  connection 
 with  the  word  which  in  the  above  passage  is  thus 
 rendered,  inaccurately  enough,  in  the  A.  V.  The 
 payment  of  the  half-shekel  (=  ha\(-si(iler  =^  two 
 drachma'.)  was  (as  has  been  said)  [Taxes],  though 
 resting  on  an  ancient  precedent  (Ex.  xxx.  1.3),  yet, 
 in  its  character  as  a  fixed  annual  rate,  of  late  ori- 
 gin. It  was  proclaimed  according  to  Rabbinic 
 rules  on  the  first  of  Adar,  began  to  be  collected  on 
 the  15th,  and  was  due,  at  latest,  on  the  first  of  Ni- 
 san  (jMishna,  Sliekutii/i,  i.  f.  7;  Surenhusius,  pp. 
 260,  261).  It  was  applied  to  defray  the  general 
 expenses  of  the  Temple,  the  morning  and  evening 
 sacrifice,  the  incense,  wood,  shew-bread,  the  red 
 heifers,  the  scape-goat,  etc.  (Shekal.  I.  c.  in  Light- 
 foot,  lIo7\  Htb.  on  Matt.  xvii.  24).  After  the  de- 
 struction of  the  Temple  it  was  sequestrated  by 
 Vespasiati  and  his  successors,  and  transferred  to 
 the  Temple  of  the  Capitoline  Jupiter  (Joseph.  B. 
 J.  vii.  6,  §  6;. 
 
 2.  The  explanation  thus  given  of  the  "tribute" 
 of  Matt.  xvii.  24,  is  beyond  all  doubt  the  true  one. 
 To  suppose  with  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Maldo- 
 natus,  and  others,  that  it  was  the  same  as  the 
 tribute  {Krivffos)  JJaid  to  the  lioman  emperor  (Matt. 
 xxii.  17),  is  at  variance  with  the  distinct  statements 
 of  Josei)hus  and  the  IMishna,  and  takes  away  the 
 whole  significance  of  our  Lord's  words.  It  may  be 
 questioned,  however,  whether  the  fuU  significance 
 of  those  words  is  adequately  brought  out  in  the 
 popular  interpretation  of  them.  As  explained  by 
 most  commentators,  they  are  simply  an  assertion 
 by  our  Lord  of  his  Divine  Sonship,  an  implied 
 rebuke  of  Peter  for  forgetting  the  truth  which  he 
 had  so  recently  confessed  (conip.  Wordsworth,  Al- 
 ford,  and  others):  "Then  are  the  childreti  [vloi] 
 free;"  Thou  hast  owned  me  as  the  Son  of  the 
 Living  (Jod,  the  Son  of  the  Great  King,  of  the 
 Ix)rd  of  the  Temple,  in  whose  honor  men  pay  the 
 Temple-tribute;  why,  forgetting  this,  dost  thou  so 
 hastily  make  answer  as  if  I  were  an  alien  and  a 
 stranger  ;     True  as  this  exegesis  is  in  part,  it  fails 
 
 TRIBUTE 
 
 to  account  for  some  striking  facts.  (1.)  The  plural, 
 not  the  singular  is  used  —  "  then  arc  the  cliUdren 
 free."  The  words  inii)ly  a  class  of  "sons"  as 
 contrasted  with  a  class  of  aliens.  (2.)  The  words 
 of  our  Lord  here  must  be  interpreted  by  his  lan- 
 guage elsewhere.  The  "  sons  of  the  kingdom  " 
 are,  as  in  the  Helirew  speech  of  the  0.  T.,  those 
 who  belong  to  it,  in  the  apostolic  language  "heirs 
 of  the  kingdom  "  (Matt.  viii.  12,  xiii.  38;  Jam.  ii. 
 5;  Rom.  viii.  17),  "sons  of  God,"  "children  of 
 their  Father  in  heaven."  (3.)  The  words  that 
 follow,  "  Give  unto  them  for  me  and  thee"  place 
 the  disciple  as  standing,  at  least  in  some  degree,  on 
 the  same  ground  as  his  iMaster.  The  principle  in- 
 volved in  the  words  "  then  are  the  children  free  " 
 extends  to  him  also.  Payment  is  made  for  both, 
 not  on  different,  but  on  the  same  grounds. 
 
 3.  A  fuller  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  case 
 may  help  us  to  escape  out  of  the  trite  routine  of 
 conunentators,  and  to  rise  to  the  hii;her  and  broader 
 truth  implied  in  our  Lord's  teaching.  The  Tem- 
 ple-rate, as  abo\e  stated,  was  of  comparatively  late 
 origin.  The  question  whether  the  costs  of  the 
 morning  and  evening  sacrifice  ought  to  be  defrayed 
 by  such  a  fixed  compulsory  payment,  or  left  to  the 
 free-will  offeiings  of  the  people,  had  been  a  con- 
 tested point  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
 and  the  former  had  carried  the  day  after  a  long 
 struggle  and  debate,  lasting  from  the  1st  to  the 
 8th  day  of  Nisan.  So  great  was  the  triumph  in 
 the  eyes  of  the  whole  Jiarty,  that  they  kept  the  an- 
 niversary as  a  kind  of  half  festival.  The  Temple- 
 rate  question  was  to  them  what  the  Church-rate 
 question  has  been  to  later  Conservatives  (Jost,  Ge- 
 scldchte  des  JuJentliumg,  i.  218).  We  have  to 
 remember  this  when  we  come  to  the  narrative  of 
 St.  Matthew.  In  a  hundred  different  ways,  on  the 
 questions  of  the  Sabbath,  of  fasting,  of  unwashed 
 hands  and  the  like,  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  had 
 l)een  in  direct  antagonism  to  that  of  the  Pharisees. 
 The  collectors  of  the  rate,  probably,  from  the  nature 
 of  their  functions,  adhferents  of  the  Pharisee  party, 
 now  come,  half-expecting  opposition  on  this  point 
 also.  Their  words  imply  that  he  had  not  as  yet 
 paid  the  rate  for  the  current  year.  His  life  of  con- 
 stant wandering,  without  a  home,  might  seem  like 
 an  evasion  of  it.  They  ask  tauntingly,  "  Will  he 
 side,  on  this  point,  with  their  Saddncee  opponents 
 and  refuse  to  pay  it  altogether?  "  The  answer  of 
 Peter  is  that  of  a  man  who  looks  on  the  payment 
 as  most  other  Jews  looked  on  it.  With  no  thought 
 of  any  higher  principle,  of  any  deeper  truth,  he 
 answers  at  once,  "  His  IMaster  will  of  course  pay 
 what  no  other  religious  Israelite  would  refuse." 
 The  words  of  his  Lord  led  him  to  the  truth  of 
 which  the  Pharisees  were  losing  sight.  The  offer- 
 ings of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  should  be  free, 
 and  not  compulsory.  The  Sanhedrim,  by  making 
 the  Temple-oflering  a  fixed  annual  tax,  collecting 
 it  as  men  collected  tribute  to  Caesar,  were  lowering, 
 not  raising  the  religious  condition  and  character 
 of  the  people.  They  were  placing  every  Israelite 
 on  the  footing  of  a  "  stranger,"  not  on  that  of  a 
 "  son."  The  true  principle  for  all  such  offerings 
 was  that  which  St.  Paul  afterwards  asserted,  fol- 
 lowing in  his  Master's  footsteps,  "  not  grudgingly, 
 or  of  necessity,  for  (iod  loveth  a  cheerful  giver." 
 In  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  any  man 
 could  claim  the  title  of  a  Son  of  God,  in  that 
 proportion  was  he  "free"  from  this  forced  exac- 
 tion. Peter,  therefore,  ought  to  hav€  remembered 
 that  here  at  least,  was  one  who,  by  his  own  con- 
 
TRIBUTE-MONEY 
 
 fession  as  the  Son  of  the  Living  God,  was  ipso 
 facto  exempted. 
 
 4.  Tlie  interpretation  which  has  now  been  given 
 leads  us  to  see,  in  tliese  words,  a  precept  as  wide 
 and  far-reaching  as  the  jet  more  memoi-ahle  one, 
 "  Render  unto  Cajsar  the  things  that  be  CVsar's, 
 and  unto  God  tlie  things  that  be  God'.s."  Tlie^' 
 coudemii,  instead  of  sanctioning,  the  compulsory 
 payments  wliich  human  policy  has  so  often  substi- 
 tuted for  tlie  "cheerful  gifts"  which  alone  God 
 loves.  But  the  words  which  follow  coiulemn  also 
 the  perversity  which  leads  men  to  a  spurious  mar- 
 tyrdom in  resisting  such  payments.  "  Lest  we 
 should  offend  them  ....  give  unto  tliem  for  me 
 and  thee.'"  It  is  better  to  comply  with  the  pay- 
 ment than  to  startle  the  weak  brethren,  or  run 
 counter  to  feelings  that  deserve  respect,  or  lay  an 
 undue  stress  on  a  matter  of  little  moment.  In 
 such  quarrels,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  both 
 parties  are  equally  in  the  wrong.  If  the  quarrel 
 is  to  find  a  solution,  it  must  be  by  a  mutual  ac- 
 knowledgment that  both  have  been  niistaken. 
 
 5.  It  is  satisfactory  to  find  that  some  interpret- 
 ers at  least,  have  drawn  near  to  the  true  meaning 
 of  one  oL  tlie  most  characteristic  and  pregnant 
 sayings  in  the  whole  cycle  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 
 Augustine  ( Qucesiiones  Evangel.  Ixxv.),  thougli 
 missing  the  main  point,  saw  that  what  was  true  of 
 the  Lord  and  of  Peter  was  true  of  all  (''  Salvator 
 autem,  cum  pro  se  et  Petro  dari  jiibet,  pro  omnibus 
 exsolvisse  videtur").  Jerome  {ad  he.)  sees  in  the 
 words  a  principle  extending  in  some  form  or  other 
 to  all  believers  ("  Nos  pro  illius  honore  tributa  non 
 reddimus,  et  quasi  Jilll  Jie'yis  a  vectigalibus  im- 
 niunes  sunnis " ),  though  his  words  claim  an  ex- 
 emption which,  if  true  at  times  of  the  Christian 
 clergy,  has  never  been  extended  to  the  body  of 
 Christian  laity.  Calvin,  though  adhering  to  the 
 common  explanation,  is  apparently  determined 
 chiefly  by  his  dislike  of  the  inferences  drawn  from 
 the  other  explanation  by  Papists  on  the  one  side, 
 and  Anabaptists  on  the  other,  as  claiming  an  ex- 
 emption from  obedience  in  matters  of  taxation  to 
 the  civil  magistrate.  Luther  (Aiinot.  in  Matt,  xvii.) 
 more  boldly,  while  dwelling  chiefly  on  the  friendly 
 pleasantry  which  the  story  represents  as  passing 
 between  the  Master  and  the  disciple,"  seizes,  with 
 his  usual  acuteness,  the  true  point.  "  Qui  fit  (this 
 is  his  paraphrase  of  the  words  of  Christ)  mi  Petre, 
 
 ut  a  te  petant,  cum  sis  Regis  filius Vade 
 
 et  scito  nos  esse  in  alio  regno  reges  et  Jilios  regis. 
 Sinito  illis  suum  regnura,  in  quo  sumus  hospites. 
 ....  Filii  regni  sumus,  sed  non  hujus  regni 
 mundani."  Tindal  {Marg.  Note  on  Matt.  xvii. 
 2G)  in  like  manner,  extends  the  principle,  "  So  is  a 
 Christian  man  free  in  all  things  ....  yet  payeth 
 he  tribute,  and  submitteth  himself  to  all  men  for 
 his  brother's  sake."  E.  H.  P. 
 
 TRIBUTE-MONEY.  [Taxes;  Tribute.] 
 TRIP'OLIS  (^  TpliroMs)-  The  Greek  name 
 of  a  city  of  great  commercial  importance,  which 
 served  at  one  time  as  a  point  of  federal  union  for 
 Aradus,  Sidon,  and  Tyre.  What  its  Phoenician 
 name  was  is  unknown;  but  it  seems  not  impossible 
 that  it  was  Kadytis,  and  that  this  was  really  the 
 place  captured  by  Neco  of  which  Herodotus  speaks 
 (ii.  159,  iii.  5).  Kadytis  is  the  Greek  form  of  the 
 Syrian  Kedut/ia,  "the  holy,"  a  name  of  which  a 
 
 «  "  Es  muss  ja  ein  fein,  freundlich  lieblich  Gesell- 
 Schaft  sein  gewest  inter  Christum  et  discipiilos  suos." 
 
 TRIPOLIS 
 
 3323 
 
 relic  still  seems  to  survive  in  the  NaJir-Kailish,  a 
 river  which  runs  through  Tarablous,  the  modern 
 representative  of  Tripolis.  All  ancient  federations 
 had  for  their  place  of  meeting  some  spot  conse- 
 crated to  a  coumion  deity,  and  just  to  the  south 
 of  Tripolis  was  a  promontory  which  went  by 
 the  name  of  &eov  wpSaanrou.  [Peniel,  iii. 
 2407  b.] 
 
 It  was  at  Tripolis  that,  in  the  year  .351  b.  c, 
 the  plan  was  concocted  for  the  simultaneous  revolt 
 of  the  Phoenician   cities  and  the  Persian  depend- 
 encies in  Cyprus  against  the  Persian  king  Ochus. 
 Although  aided  by  a  league  with  Nectanebus  king 
 of  Egypt,   this  attempt  failed,  and  in  the   sequel 
 great  part  of  Sidon  was  burnt  and  the  chief  citi- 
 zens destroyed.     Perhaps  the  importance  of  Trip- 
 olis was  increased  by  this  misfortune  of  its  neigh- 
 bor, for  soon  after,  when  Alexander  invaded  Asia, 
 it  appears  as  a  port  of  the  first  order.     After  the 
 battle  of  Issus  some  of  the  Greek  officers  in  Da- 
 rius's  service  retreated  thither,  and  not  only  foimd 
 ships  enough  to  carry  themselves  and  8,000  soldiers 
 away,  but  a  number  over  and  above,  which  they 
 burnt  in  order  to  preclude  the  victor  from  an  im- 
 mediate pursuit  of   them    (Arrian,  ii.   13).     The 
 destruction   of   Tjre  by  Alexander,  like   that  of 
 Sidon  by  Ochus,  would  naturally  tend  rather  to 
 increase  than  diminish  the  importance  of  Tripolis 
 as  a  commercial  port.     When  Demetrius  Soter,  the 
 son  of  Seleucus,  succeeded  in  wresting  Syria  from 
 the  young  son  of  Antiochus  (b.  c.  161),  he  landed 
 there,  and  made  the  place  the  base  of  his  opera- 
 tions.    It  is  this  circumstance  to  which  allusion  is 
 made  in  the  only  passage  in  which  Tripolis  is  men- 
 tioned in  the  IJible  (2  Mace.  xiv.  1 ).     The  pros- 
 perity of  the  city,   so   far  as  appears,  continued 
 dov\'n   to  the  middle   of  the  Gth   century  of   the 
 Christian  era.     Dionysius  Periegetes  applies  to  it 
 the  epithet  Miraprtv   in  the  3d  century.     In  the 
 Peutinger  Table  (which  probalily  was  compiled  in 
 the  reign  of  the  I^mperor  Theodosius)  it  appears  on 
 the  great  road  along  the  coast  of  Phoenicia;  and  at 
 Orthosia  (the  next  station  to  it  northwards)  the 
 roads  which  led  respectively  into  Mesopotamia  and 
 Cilicia  branched  oft'  from  one  another.     The  pos- 
 session of  a  good  harbor  in  so  important  a  point 
 for  land-traffic,  doubtless  combined  with  the  I'ich- 
 ness  of  the  neighboring  mountains  in  determining 
 the  original  choice  of  the  site,  ^vhich  seems  to  have 
 been  a  factory  for  the  purposes  of  trade  established 
 by  the  three  great  Phoenician  cities.    Each  of  these 
 held  a  portion  of  Tripolis  surrounded  by  a  fortified 
 wall,  like  the  western  nations  at  the  Chinese  pcjrts. 
 But  in  A.  D.  543  it  was  laid  in  ruins  by  the  ter- 
 rilile  earthquake  which    happened    in    the   month 
 of  .July  of  that   year,  and  overthrew  Tyre,  Sidon, 
 Berytus,  and  Byblus  as  well.     On  this  occasion  the 
 appearance  of  the  coast  was  much  altered.    A  large 
 portion  of  the  promontory  Theuprosopon  (which  in 
 the  Christian  times  had  its  name,  from  motives  of 
 piety,  changed  to  Lithoprosopoii)  fell  into  the  sea, 
 and,    by   the    natural    breakwater    it    constituted, 
 created  a  new  port,  able  to  contain  a  considerable 
 number  of  large  vessels.     The  ancient  Tripolis  was 
 finally  destroyed  by  the  Sultan  El  Mansour  in  the 
 year  1-289   A.  D.;  and  the  modern    Tarablous  is 
 situated  a  couple  of  miles  distant  to  the  east,  and 
 is  no  longer  a  port.     El-Myna,  which  is  perhaps 
 on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Tripolis,  is  a  small  fish- 
 ing village.     Tarablous  contains  a  population  of 
 15,000  or  16,000  inhabitants,  and  is  the  centre  of 
 one  of  the  four  pashalics  of  Syria.     It  exports  silk, 
 
3324:  TROAS 
 
 tobacco,  galls,  and  oil,  grown  in  the  lower  parts 
 of  the  mountain  at  the  foot  of  which  it  stands; 
 and  performs,  on  a  smaller  scale,  tlie  part  which 
 was  formerly  taken  by  Tripolis  as  the  entrepot  for 
 the  productions  of  a  most  fertile  region  (Diod.  Sic. 
 xvi.  41;  Strabo,  xvi.  c.  2;  Vossius  ad  Melam,  i. 
 12;  Theophaiies,  Chronof/rajAia,  sub  (in/io  6043). 
 
 J.  W.  B. 
 
 TRO'AS  (Tpwds)-  The  city  from  which  St. 
 Paul  first  sailed,  in  consequence  of  a  Divine  inti- 
 mation, to  carry  the  Gospel  Irom  Asia  to  Europe 
 (Acts  xvi.  8,  11) —  where  he  rested  for  a  short  time 
 on  the  northward  road  from  Epiiesus  (during  the 
 next  missionary  jouruey),  in  the  expectation  of 
 meeting  Titus  (2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13)  —  wliere  on  the 
 return  southwards  (during  the  same  missionary 
 journey)  he  met  those  who  had  preceded  him  from 
 Philippi  (Acts  xx.  5,  6),  and  remained  a  week,  the 
 close  of  which  (before  the  journey  to  Assos)  was 
 marked  by  the  raising  of  Eutychus  from  the  dead 
 during  the  protracted  midnight  discourse  —  and 
 where,  after  an  interval  of  many  years,  the  Apostle 
 left  (during  a  journey  the  details  of  which  are 
 unknown)  a  cloak  and  some  hooks  and  parchments 
 in  the  house  of  Carpus  (2  Tim.  iv.  13)  —  deserves 
 the  careful  attention  of  the  student  of  the  New 
 Testament. 
 
 The  full  name  of  the  city  was  Alexandreia  Troas 
 (Liv.  xxxv.  42),  and  sometimes  it  was  called  simply 
 Alexandreia,  as  by  Pliny  (//.  N.  v.  33)  and  Strabo 
 (xiii.  p.  593),  sometimes  simply  Troas  (as  in  the 
 N.  T.  and  the  Ant.  Itin.  See  Wesselinsr,  p.  334). 
 The  former  part  of  the  name  indicates  the  period 
 at  which  it  was  founded.  It  was  first  built  by 
 Antigomis,  under  the  name  of  Antigoneia  Troas, 
 and  peopled  with  the  inhabitants  of  some  neigh- 
 boring cities.  Afterwards  it  was  embellished  by 
 Lysimachus,  and  named  Alexandreia  Troas.  Its 
 situation  was  on  the  coast  of  Mysia,  opposite  the 
 S.  E.  extremity  of  the  island  of  Tenedos. 
 
 Under  the  Romans  it  was  one  of  the  most  im- 
 portant towns  of  the  province  of  Asia.  It  was  the 
 chief  point  of  arrival  and  departure  for  those  who 
 went  by  sea  between  jMacedonia  and  the  western 
 Asiatic  districts;  and  it  was  connected  by  good 
 roads  with  other  places  on  the  coast  and  in  the  in- 
 terior. For  the  latter  see  the  map  in  Leake's  A»ia 
 Minor.  The  former  cannot  l)e  better  illustrated 
 than  by  St.  Paul's  two  voyages  between  Troas  and 
 Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  11,  12,  xx.  6),  one  of  which 
 was  accomplished  in  two  days,  the  other  in  five. 
 At  this  time  Alexandreia  I'roas  was  a  colonia  with 
 the  .1  us  /lidicum.  This  strong  Roman  connection 
 can  be  read  on  its  coins.  The  Romans  had  a  pe- 
 culiar leeling  connected  with  the  place,  in  conse- 
 quence of  the  legend  of  their  origin  from  Troy. 
 Suetonius  tells  us  that  Julius  Cassar  had  a  plan  of 
 making  Troas  the  seat  of  empire  (Ccbs.  79).  It 
 may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Horace 
 {Ciirm..  iii.  3,  .57)  that  Augustus  had  some  sucli 
 dreams.  And  e\'en  the  modern  name  liski-Stamhuul 
 (or  "  Old  Constantinople/')  seems  to  commemorate 
 the  thought  which  was  once  in  Coiistaiitine's  mind 
 (Zosim.  ii.  30;  Zonar.  xiii.  3),  who,  to  use  Gibbon's 
 words,  "  before  he  gave  a  just  preference  to  the 
 situation  of  Byzantium,  had  conceived  the  design 
 
 a  *  An  island  called  Trogyllium  lay  off  the  coa.<t 
 of  the  promontory  of  that  name  (Strabo,  xiv.  p.  636), 
 and  some  think  this  to  be  meant  iu  Acts  xx.  6  (See 
 Povhiger^s  Haiidb.  der  alien  Geogmphie,  \i.  l~0.)  The 
 Vpostle  would  have  been  nearer  to  Ephesus  at  Trogyl- 
 
 TEOPHIMUS 
 
 of  erecting  the  seat  of  enjpire  on  this  celebrated 
 spot,  from  which  the  Romans  derived  their  fabulous 
 origin." 
 
 The  ruins  at  EsLi-Stmnboul  are  considerable. 
 The  most  conspicuous,  however,  especially  the  re- 
 mains of  the  aqueduct  of  Herodes  Atticus,  did  not 
 exist  when  St.  Paul  was  tliere.  Tl  e  walls,  which 
 may  represent  the  extent  of  the  city  in  the  Apostle's 
 time,  inclose  a  rectangular  sp.ace,  extending  above 
 a  mile  from  east  to  west,  and  nearly  a  mile  from 
 north  to  south.  That  which  possesses  most  interest 
 for  us  is  the  harbor,  which  is  still  distinctly  trace- 
 able in  a  basin  about  400  feet  long  and  20()  broad. 
 Descriptions  in  greater  or  less  detail  are  given  by 
 Pococke,  Chandler,  Hunt  (in  Walpole"s  Mumoirs), 
 Clarke,  Prokesch,  and  Fellows.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 TROGYL'LIUM.  Samos  [which  see]  is  ex- 
 actly opposite  the  rocky  extremity  of  the  ridge  of 
 Mycale,  which  is  called  TpwyvAKtof  in  the  N.  T. 
 (Acts  XX.  1.5)  and  by  Ptolemy  (v.  2),  and  Tpoi- 
 y'lKiov  by  Strabo  (xiv.  p.  636).  The  channel  is 
 extremely  narrow.  Strabo  (/.  c.)  makes  it  about  a 
 mile  broad,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  our  Admiralty 
 Charts  (1530  and  1555).  St.  Paul  sailed  through 
 this  channel  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  at  the  close  of 
 his  third  missionary  journey  (Acts,  /.  c).  The 
 navigation  of  this  coast  is  intricate;  and  it  can  be 
 gathered  from  Acts  xx.  6,  with  subsequent  notices 
 of  the  days  spent  on  the  voyage,  that  it  was  the 
 time  of  dark  moon.  Thus  the  night  was  spent  at 
 Trogyllium."  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  a 
 little  to  the  east  of  the  extreme  point  there  is  au 
 anchorage,  which  is  still  called  St.  Paul's  Port. 
 
 J.  S.  H. 
 
 TROOP,  BAND.  These  words  have  a  peculiar 
 signification  in  many  p.Tssajies  of  the  0.  T.,  which 
 is  apt  to  be  overlooked,  and  the  knowledge  of  which 
 throws  a  brighter  light  upon  them.  I'hey  are  em- 
 ployed to  represent  the  Hebrew  word  "T^^3,  (jeilml, 
 which  has  invariably  the  force  of  an  irregidar  body 
 of  people,  large  or  small,  united  not  for  the  purpose 
 of  defense  or  regular  aggression,  like  an  army,  but 
 with  the  object  of  m.ai'auding  and  plunder.  (See 
 MoAn,  vol.  iii.  p.  1983,  note,  where  the  term  yediid  is 
 examined.)  In  addition  to  the  instances  of  its  use 
 there  named,  it  may  be  observed  that  our  transla- 
 tors have  in  a  few  cases  tried  to  bring  out  its  mean- 
 ing more  strongly;  as  in  1  Chr.  xii.  21,  "  band-of- 
 the-rovers;"  Hos.  vi.  9,  and  vii.  1,  "  troop-of-rob- 
 bers."  G. 
 
 TROPH'IMUS  {'Vp6<piixos  [foster-clnld]). 
 Of  the  three  passages  where  this  companion  of  St. 
 Paul  is  mentioned,  the  first  associates  him  very 
 closely  with  Tychicus  (.-Vets  xx.  4),  and  the  last 
 seems  in  some  degree  to  renew  the  association,  and 
 in  reference  to  the  same  geogr.nphical  district  (2 
 Tim.  iv.  20;  see  ver.  12,),  while  the  intermediate 
 one  separates  him  entirely  from  this  connection 
 (Acts  xxi.  29). 
 
 From  the  first  of  these  passages  we  learn  that 
 Tychicus,  like  Trophimus,  was  a  native  of  Asia 
 CAatavoi),  and  that  the  two  were  among  those 
 companions  who  travelled  with  the  .Apostle  in  the 
 course  of  the  third  missionary  journey,  and  during 
 part  of  the  route  which  he  took  in  returning  from 
 
 Hum  on  the  mainland  than  he  was  at  Miletus.  A 
 better  harbor,  however,  or  gi-eater  fecility  of  inter- 
 course may  have  led  him  to  prefer  the  more  distant 
 pUn^e  for  his  interview  with  the  Ephesian  elders. 
 
 H. 
 
TROUGHS 
 
 Macedonia  toward  Syria.  From  wliat  we  know 
 2<M)ceriiii]g  tlie  collection  which  was  going  on  at 
 this  time  for  the  poor  Christians  in  Judaja,  we  are 
 disposed  to  coiHiect  these  two  men  with  the  business 
 of  tliat  contribution.  This,  as  we  shall  see,  sug- 
 gests a  probable  connection  of  Trophinius  with  an- 
 other circumstance. 
 
 Both  he  and  Tychicus  accompanied  St.  Paul 
 from  iMacedonia  as  far  as  Asia  ('dxpi  ttjs  'Acrias 
 /.  c. ),  l)ut  Tychicus  seems  to  have  remained  there 
 wiiile  Trophinuis  proceeded  with  the  Apostle  to 
 Jerusalem.  'I'here  he  was  the  innocent  cause  of  the 
 tumult  in  which  St.  I'aul  was  apprehended,  aud 
 from  which  the  voyage  to  Home  ultimately  resulted. 
 Certain  Jews  frrm  the  district  of  Asia  saw  the  two 
 Christi.in  missionaries  together,  and  supposed  that 
 Paul  had  takfu  Trophinius  into  the  Temple  (Acts 
 xxi.  27-29).  From  this  passage  we  learn  two  new 
 facts,  namely,  that  Trophimus  was  a  Gentile,  and 
 that  he  was  a  native,  not  simply  of  Asia,  liut  of 
 Ephksus. 
 
 A  considerable  interval  now  elapses,  during 
 which  we  have  no  trace  of  either  Tychicus  or 
 Trophimus;  but  in  the  last  letter  written  by  St. 
 Paul,  shortly  lietore  his  martyrdom,  from  Kome, 
 he  mentions  them  both  (Tuxncui'  airea-TeiAa  iis 
 'Etpeaof,  2  I'im.  iv.  12;  Ti.>6(pifioy  aireAnrov  iv 
 Mi\-fiTQ>  acrOivovvTa-,  Hjid.  20).  From  the  last  of 
 tlie  phrases  we  gather  simply  that  the  Apostle  had 
 no  long  time  before  been  in  the  Levant,  that 
 Trophimus  had  been  with  him,  and  that  he  had 
 been  left  in  infirm  health  at  Miletus.  Of  the 
 further  details  we  are  ignorant;  but  this  we  may 
 say  here,  that  while  there  would  be  considerable 
 difficulty  in  accommodating  this  passage  to  any 
 part  of  the  recorded  narrative  previous  to  tlie  voy- 
 age to  Kome,"  all  difficulty  vanishes  on  the  sup- 
 position of  two  imprisonments,  and  a  journey  in 
 the  Levant  lietween  them. 
 
 What  was  alhuled  to  above  as  probalJe,  is  that 
 Trophimus  was  one  of  tiie  two  brethren  who,  with 
 Titus,  conveyed  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
 thians (2  Cor.  viii.  lU-2-t).  The  argument  is  so 
 well  stated  by  I'roiessor  Stanley,  that  we  give  it  in 
 his  words:  "Trophinuis  was,  like  Titus,  one  of 
 the  few  Gentiles  who  accompanied  the  Apostle;  an 
 Fphesian,  and  therefore  likely  to  have  been  sent 
 by  the  Apostle  Ironi  Ephesus  with  the  first  epistle, 
 or  to  liave  accoui|)anied  him  from  Ephesus  now;  he 
 was,  as  is  implied  of  '  this  brother,'  '  whose  praise 
 was  in  all  the  churches,'  well  known ;  so  well 
 known  that  the  Jews  of  Asia  Minor  at  Jeru- 
 salem immediately  recognized  him;  he  was  also 
 especially  cormected  with  the  Apostle  on  this  very 
 mission  of  the  collection  for  the  poor  in  Judaea. 
 Thus  far  would  appear  from  the  description  of  him 
 in  Acts  xxi.  29.  From  Acts  xx.  4  it  also  appears 
 that  lie  was  with  St.  Paul  on  his  return  from  this 
 very  visit  to  Corinth"  (Stanley's  Corinlhinns,  2d 
 edit.  p.  4'.I2). 
 
 J'he  story  in  the  Greek  Menology  that  Trophimus 
 was  one  ot  the  seventy  disciples  is  evidently  wrong: 
 the  legend  tiiat  he  was  beheaded  by  Nero's  orders 
 is  possibly  true.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 *  TROUGHS.     [Fountain;  Well.] 
 
 *TROW  (Luke  xvii.  9)  belongs  to  the  period  of 
 
 a  Trophimus  was  no  doubt  at  Miletus  on  the  occa- 
 BJon  recorJed  in  Acts  xx.  15-38,  but  it  is  most  certain 
 that  he  was  not  left  there.  The  theory  also  that  he 
 ivas  left  tliere  on  the  voyage  to  Rome  is  preposterous ; 
 for  the  wiud  lorced  St.  Paul's  vessel  to  run  dii'cct  from 
 
 TRUMPETS,  FEAST  OF       3325 
 
 our  English  version,  as  synonymous  with  "think,"' 
 "  believe."  It  is  from  the  A.-S.  tnowian,  to  trustj 
 altered  of  course  to  truutii  in  German.  H. 
 
 *  TRUCE -BREAKERS.  The  Greek  so 
 rendered  {acrwov^oi)  both  in  2  Tim.  iii.  3  and  Rom. 
 i.  31,  means  literally  "  without  hbations,"  and  as 
 libations  accompanied  truces  or  treaties,  "  with- 
 out truces,"  i.  t.  making  no  truces,  and  hence  hi\n 
 placable.  11.  D.  C.  11. 
 
 TRUMPET.     [CoKNET.] 
 
 TRUMPETS,  FEAST  OF  (n^^-lljl  DT, 
 Num.  xxix.  1:  r/yue'/ja  a-nnaaias'-  dies  clanyoi-is  et 
 tubarum;  ni?-"1~iri  P~1DT,  Lev.  xxiii.  24:  /jivn/x6- 
 (Tvvov  aaXTriyyoii/:  S'ibbatum  memoriale  chingen- 
 tibus  tubis;  in  the  Mishna  H^ttTl  tTS"',  "the 
 liegiiniing  of  the  year  "),  the  feast  of  the  new  moon, 
 which  fell  on  the  first  of  Tisri.  It  differed  from 
 the  ordinary  festivals  of  the  new  moon  in  several 
 import;int  particulars.  It  was  one  of  the  seven 
 days  of  Holy  Convocation.  [Feasts.]  Instead  of 
 the  mere  blowing  of  the  trumpets  of  the  Temple  at 
 the  time  of  the  offering  of  the  sacrifices,  it  was  "  a 
 day  of  blowing  of  trumpets."  In  addition  to  the 
 daily  sacrifices  and  the  eleven  victims  offered  on  the 
 first  of  every  month  [New  Moon],  there  were 
 ottt^red  a  young  bullock,  a  ram,  and  seven  kunbs  of 
 the  first  year,  with  the  accustomed  meat-ofterings, 
 and  a  kid  for  a  sin-oflering  (Num.  xxix.  1-6).  The 
 regular  monthly  offering  was  thus  repeated,  with 
 the  exception  of  one  young  bullock. 
 
 It  is  said  that  both  kinds  of  trumpet  were  blown 
 in  the  Temple  ou  this  day,  the  straight  trumpet 
 
 (nn^ijq)  and  the  cornet  ("IS'l^i'and  "J^P.),  and 
 that  elsewhere  any  one,  even  a  child,  might  blow  a 
 cornet  (Keland,  iv.  7,  2;  Carpzov,  p.  42,5;  Eosh 
 Hush.  i.  2;  Juiulee,  vol.  ii.  p.  1483,  note  c;  Cou- 
 NET).  When  the  festival  fell  upon  a  Sabbath,  the 
 tnmipets  were  blown  in  the  Temple,  but  not  out  of 
 it  {Rosh  Hash.  iv.  1). 
 
 It  has  been  conjectured  that  Ps.  Ixxxi.,  one  of 
 the  songs  of  Asaph,  was  composed  expressly  ibr  the 
 Feast  of  Trumpets.  The  Psalm  is  used  in  the  ser- 
 vice for  the  day  by  the  modern  .lews.  As  the  third 
 verse  is  rendered  in  the  LXX.,  the  Vulgate,  and  the 
 A.  v.,  this  would  seem  highly  probable,  '•  Blow 
 up  the  trumpet  in  the  new  moon,  the  time  ap- 
 pointed, on  our  solemn  feast  day.!'  But  the  best 
 authorities    understand    the  word  translated    neio 
 
 moiin  (npjD)  to  mean  full  moon.  Hence  the 
 psalm  would  more  properly  belong  to  the  service 
 for  one  of  the  festivals  which  take  place  at  the  full 
 moon,  the  Passover,  or  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
 (Gesen.  T/ies.  s.  v.;  Eosenmiiller  and  Hengsten- 
 berg  on  Ps.  Ixxxi.). 
 
 Various  meanings  have  been  assigned  to  the 
 Feast  of  Trumpets.  Maimonides  considered  that 
 its  purpose  was  to  awaken  the  people  from  their 
 spiritual  slumber  to  prepare  for  the  solenni  humili- 
 ation of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  which  followed  it 
 within  ten  days.  This  may  receive  some  counte- 
 nance fr^m  Joel  ii.  15,  "  Blow  the  trumpet  ("l^ltt?) 
 in  Zion,  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a  solemn  assembly." 
 
 the  S.  W.  corner  of  Asia  Minor  to  the  K.  end  of  Crete 
 (Acts  xxvii.  7).  We  may  add  that  when  Trophimus 
 was  left  in  sickness  at  Miletus,  whenever  that  might 
 be.  he  was  within  easy  reach  of  his  home-frieuds  at 
 Ephesus,  as  we  see  from  Acts  xx.  17. 
 
3326  TRYPHENA 
 
 Some  have  supposed  that  it  was  intended  to  intro- 
 duce the  seventh  or  Sahbatical  month  of  the  year, 
 which  was  especially  holy  because  it  was  the  seventh, 
 and  because  it  contained  the  Day  of  Atonement 
 and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Fagius  in  Ltv.  xxiii. 
 24;  Buxt.  Syn.  Jud.  c.  xxiv.)-  Philo  and  some 
 early  Christian  writers  regarded  it  as  a  memorial 
 of  the  giving  of  the  Law  on  Sinai  (I'hilo,  vol.  v.  p. 
 46,  ed.  Tauch. ;  Basil,  in  Ps.  Ixxxi. ;  Theod.  Qucesi. 
 aaxii.  in  Lev.).  But  there  seems  to  be  no  sufHcient 
 reason  to  call  in  question  the  common  opinion  of 
 Jews  and  Christians,  that  it  was  the  festival  of  the 
 New  Year's  Day  of  the  civil  year,  the  First  of  Tisri, 
 ^he  month  which  commenced  the  Sal)batical  year 
 and  the  year  of  Jubilee.  [.Iuiulee,  ii.  1485  6.]  If 
 the  New  Moon  Festival  was  taken  as  the  consecra- 
 tion of  a  natural  division  of  tinje,  the  month  in 
 which  the  earth  yielded  the  last  rijje  produce  of 
 the  season,  and  began  again  to  foster  seed  for  the 
 supply  of  the  future,  might  well  be  regarded  as  the 
 first  month  of  the  year.  The  fact  that  Tisri  was 
 the  great  month  for  sowing  might  thus  easily  have 
 suggested  the  thought  of  commemorating  on  this 
 day  the  finished  work  of  Creation,  when  the  sons 
 of  God  shouted  for  joy  (Job  xxxviii.  7).  The  Feast 
 of  Trumpets  thus  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  anni- 
 versary of  the  l>irthday  of  the  world  (Mishna,  liusli 
 Hcish'i.  1;  Hupfeld,  7)e  Fest.  Heb.  ii.  13;  Buxt. 
 Syn.  JwL  c.  xxiv.). 
 
 It  was  an  odd  fancy  of  the  Rabbis  that  on  this 
 day,  every  year,  God  judges  all  men,  and  that  they 
 pass  before  Him  as  a  flock  of  sheep  pass  befor.^  a 
 shepherd  {liosh  Hash.  i.  2).  S.  C. 
 
 TRYPHE'NA  and  TRYPHO'SA  (Tpi^i^afi/a 
 Kal  Tpv<pi>(ra  [liixuriaus :  Vulg.  Tryphcemi  and 
 Tryplnisn] ).  Tvvo  Christian  women  at  Rome,  who. 
 among  those  that  are  enumerated  in  the  conclusion 
 of  St.  Paul's  letter  to  that  city,  receive  a  special 
 salutation,  and  on  the  special  ground  that  they  are 
 engaged  there  in  "laboring  in  the  Lord  "  (Kom. 
 xvi.  12).  They  may  have  been  sisters,  but  it  is 
 more  likely  that  they  were  fellow-deaconesses,  and 
 among  the  predecessors  of  that  large  numlier  of 
 official  women  who  mhiisteved  in  the  Church  of 
 Rome  at  a  later  period  (Euseb.  Hisl.  Keel.  vi.  43); 
 for  it  is  to  be  ol)served  that  they  are  spoken  of  as 
 at  that  time  occupied  in  Christian  service  (tos 
 Komdiaas),  while  the  salutation  to  Persis,  in  the 
 same  verse,  is  connected  with  past  service  (tjtij 
 eKOTriacef  )• 
 
 A\'e  know  nothing  more  of  these  two  sister- 
 workers  of  the  apostolic  time;  but  the  name  of 
 one  of  them  occurs  curiously,  with  other  names 
 familiar  to  us  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  the  apoc- 
 ryphal Acts  of  Paul  and  T/tecUi.  There  Try- 
 phena  appears  as  a  rich  Christian  widow  of  Anti- 
 och,  who  gives  Thecla  a  refuge  in  her  house,  and 
 sends  money  to  Paul  for  the  relief  of  the  poor.  (See 
 Jones,  On  the  C'unon,  ii.  .371,  .'58(1.)  It  is  impos- 
 sible to  discern  any  trace  of  probability  in  this  part 
 of  the  legend. 
 
 It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  columbaria  of 
 "  Csesar's  houseliold "'  in  the  Viymi  Cadini,  near 
 Pcntii  S.  Seb'isliiiiio,  contain  the  name  Tryphena, 
 as  well  as  other  names  mentioned  in  this  chapter, 
 Philologus  and  Julia  (ver.  15),  and  also  Amplias 
 (ver.  8).  Wordsworth's  Tour  in  Italy  (18G2),  ii. 
 "73.  J.  S.  H. 
 
 TE.Y'PHON  (Tpixpuv  [hixurious'] ).  A  usurper 
 of  the  Syrian  tiirone.  His  proper  name  was  Diod- 
 Dtus  (Slrab.  xvi.  2,  10;  App.  Syr.  c.  68),  and  the 
 
 TSEBAOTH,  LORD  K)¥ 
 
 surname  Tryphon  was  given  to  him,  or,  according 
 to  Appian,  adopted  by  him,  after  his  accession  to 
 power.  He  was  a  native  of  Cariana,  a  fortified 
 place  in  the  district  of  Apamea,  where  he  wa8 
 brought  up  (Strab.  /.  c).  In  the  time  of  Alex- 
 ander Balas  he  was  attached  to  the  court  (App. 
 I.  c.  SoGAos  twv  ^aaiXioiV-  Diod.  fr.  xxi.  ap. 
 Miill.  Hist.  Gr.  fraipn.  ii.  17,  (rrpaTfjyoSi  1  Mace, 
 xi.  39,  tSju  Trapa  'AAe|.);  but  towards  the  close 
 of  his  reign  he  seems  to  have  joined  in  the  con- 
 spiracy which  was  set  on  foot  to  transfer  the  crown 
 of  Syria  to  Ptol.  Philonietor  (1  Mace.  xi.  13;  Diod. 
 I.  c. ).  After  the  death  of  Alexander  Balas  he  took 
 advantage  of  the  unpopularity  of  Demetrius  II. 
 to  put  forward  the  claims  of  Antiochus  VI.,  the 
 young  son  of  Alexander  (1  Mace.  xi.  39;  b.  c. 
 145).  After  a  time  he  obtained  the  support  of 
 Jonathan,  who  had  been  alienated  from  Demetrius 
 by  his  ingratitude,  and  the  young  king  was  crowned 
 (K.  c.  144).  Tryphon,  however,  soon  revealed  his 
 real  designs  on  the  kingdom,  and,  fearing  the  oppo- 
 sition of  Jonathan,  he  gained  possession  of  his  per- 
 son by  treachery  (1  Mace.  xii.  39-50),  and  after  a 
 short  time  put  him  to  death  (1  Mace.  xiii.  23). 
 As  the  way  seemed  now  clear,  he  murdered  Anti- 
 ochus and  seized  the  supreme  power  (1  Mace.  xiii. 
 31,  32),  which  he  exercised,  as  far  as  he  was  able, 
 with  violence  and  rapacity  (1  Mace.  xiii.  34).  Hi3 
 tyranny  again  encouraged  the  hopes  of  Demetrius, 
 who  was  engaged  in  preparing  an  expedition  against 
 him  (B.  c.  141),  when  he  was  taken  prisoner  (1 
 Mace.  xiv.  1-3),  and  Tryphon  retained  the  tlnone 
 (Just,  xxxvi.  1;  Diod.  Leg.  xxxi.)  till  Antiochus 
 VII.,  the  brother  of  Demetrius,  drove  him  to  Dora, 
 from  which  he  escaped  to  Orthosia  in  Phoenicia 
 (1  Mace.  XV.  10-14,  37-39;  b.  c.  139).  Not  long 
 afterwards,  being  hard  pressed  by  Antiochus,  he 
 committed  suicide,  or,  according  to  other  accounts, 
 was  put  to  death  by  Antiochus  (.Strab.  xiv.  5,  2; 
 App.  Syr.  c.  08,  'Avrioxos  —  (creiVej  ....  avv 
 ir6va>  iroWw).  -loseplius  {Ant.  xiii.  7,  §  2)  adds 
 that  he  was  killed  at  Apamea,  the  i)l:ice  which  he 
 made  his  headquarters  (Strab.  x\i.  2,  10).  The 
 authority  of  'I'ryphon  was  evidently  very  partial, 
 as  appears  from  the  growth  of  Jewish  independence 
 under  Simon  Maccabeus;  and  Strabo  describes  him 
 as  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  Cilician  piracy  (xiv. 
 3,  2).  His  name  occurs  on  the  coins  of  Anti- 
 ochus VI.  [vol.  i.  p.  118j,  and  he  also  struck  coins 
 in  his  own  name.     [Antiochus;  Dk.mkthius.J 
 
 B.  V.  W. 
 
 Coin  of  Tryphon. 
 TRYPHO'SA.  [TiiYPMENAand  Tryphosa.] 
 *  TSEBAOTH,  LORD  OF.  is  a  more 
 exact  orthography  than  Sabaoth,  adopted  in  Rom. 
 ix.  29  and  Jas.  v.  4  from  the  Greek  (cra^awd), 
 the  form  under  which  this  title  of  Jehovah  has 
 been  already  noticed  in  this  Dictionary.  We  re- 
 call tiie  suliject  here  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying 
 the  explanation  given  under  the  other  head.  It  is 
 said  there  to  be  applied  to  Jehovah  simply  as  "  the 
 leader  and  commander  of  the  armies  of  the  nation, 
 who  'went  forth  with  them  '  (Ps.  xliv.  9),  and  led 
 them  to  certain  victory  over  the  worshippers  "  of 
 
TUBAL 
 
 false  gods.  It  is  undeniable  that  tsebaoth  often 
 denotes  the  national  armies  of  Israel,  and  may  some- 
 times in  connection  with  Jeiiovah  (Lord  of  hosts) 
 desijfnate  this  army  as  God's  host,  which  He  leads 
 fortli  to  victory  ai^ainst  tiie  enemies  of  his  people 
 (see  1  Sam.  xvii.  45).  But  such  an  application  by 
 no  njeans  exhausts  the  meaning  of  the  temn.  It  is 
 used  also  of  the  sun,  and  moon,  and  stars,  which 
 are  called  Jehovali's  "host,"  because  they,  too, 
 execute  his  will,  and  represent  so  impressively  his 
 majesty  and  power.  Thus  in  Gen.  ii.  1  it  is  said : 
 "  The  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finislied,  and  all 
 the  host  of  them."  In  Deut.  iv.  1!)  the  Israelites 
 are  warned  a;^ainst  idolatry :  "  Lest  thou  lift  up 
 thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the 
 sun,  and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  all  the  host 
 of  heaven,"  thou  "  shouldest  be  driven  to  serve 
 them,"  etc.  (see  also  xvii.  3).  In  various  other 
 passages  (2  K.  xvii.  16,  xxi.  3;  2  Ohr.  xxxiii.  3,  5; 
 Jer.  xix.  13)  the  Chaldsean  worship  of  tlie  stars  is 
 described  as  that  of  bowing  down  or  offering  in- 
 cense to  "the  liost  of  heaven."  It  is  not  sur- 
 prising, therefore,  that  we  should  find  the  same 
 term  applied  to  the  heavenly  inhabitants,  angels, 
 seraphim,  and  other  superhuman  orders  that  sur- 
 round the  throne  of  God,  and  are  sent  forth  to  do 
 his  pleasure  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Thus  in  1 
 K.  xxii.  19  the  prophet  Micaiah  says:  "Hear  thou 
 therefore  the  word  of  the  Lord :  I  saw  the  Lord 
 (Jehovah)  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host 
 of  heaven  standing  by  him;  "  and  ver.  21:  "And 
 there  came  forth  a  spirit  (one  of  the  host),  and 
 stood  before  the  Lord  and  said,"  etc.  Tliat  Jeho- 
 vah is  styled  "  the  Lord  of  hosts  "  with  reference 
 to  his  supremacy  as  tlie  sovereign  of  myriads  of 
 angels  as  well  as  of  men,  is  evident  from  the  paral- 
 lelism of  various  passages.  Thus  in  Fs.  ciii.  20, 
 21:  "Bless  Jehovah,  ye  his  angels,  that  excel  iu 
 strength.  Bless  Jehovali,  all  ye  his  hosts;  ye  min- 
 isters of  Ills,  that  do  his  pleasure."  Assuredly  the 
 armies  of  Israel  cannot  be  intended  here,  or  the 
 stars  which  appear  on  the  face  of  the  heavens. 
 So  in  Ps.  cxlviii.  2:  "  Praise  ye  him,  all  his  angels; 
 praise  ye  him,  all  his  hos/s."  As  to  the  existence 
 of  such  orders  of  superhuman  beings,  the  angel- 
 ologv  of  the  O.  T.  agrees  precisely  with  that  of  the 
 N.  T.  (see  Luke  ii.  13;  Matt.  xxvi.  53;  Kev.  xix. 
 14).     [Angkls.] 
 
 It  is  said  under  Sabaoth  that  the  name  is 
 found  in  the  English  Bible  only  in  Koni.  ix.  29  and 
 James  v.  4.  It  is  found  in  tliose  passages  because 
 the  Greek  is  Kvptos  'S.a^aiid.  It  may  be  added 
 that  in  the  Sept.  translation  of  1  Samuel  and 
 Isaiah  the  expression  is  generally,  "  The  Lord  of 
 Sabaoth;"  while  always  in  2  Samuel,  frequently 
 in  Jeremiah  and  throughout  the  JMinor  Propiiets, 
 it  is  Paiitoknttor,  "  the  Almighty  "  or  "all-ruling." 
 In  the  Latin  Vulgate  "  Sabaoth  "  appears  in  the 
 O.  T.  only  in  Jer.  xi.  20,  wliile  in  the  prophets  tiie 
 usual  equivalent  is  Dominus  exe.rcituuin  and  Dom- 
 inus  or  JJeiis  virtuluin  in  tlie  Psalms.  In  Bom.  ix. 
 29  and  James  v.  4,  the  Vulgate  follows  the  Greek 
 text.  (On  this  topic  see  Prof.  Plumptre  in  ISwii- 
 diiy  Magazine,  Dec.  18G8;  and  Qihler  in  Herzog's 
 Rml-Kncyk.  viii.  400-404.)  H. 
 
 TU'BAL  (bll^n  [see  below] ;  b^n  in  Gen. 
 X.  2;  Ez.  xxxii.  20,  xxxix.  1:  ©o^eA,  excejjt  in 
 Ez.  xxxix.  1,  where  Alex.  0o/3sp    [and   xxvii.  13, 
 
 «  Knobel  connects  the.<!e  Iberians  of  the  east  and 
 west,  and  considers  the  Tibareui  to  have  been  a  branch 
 
 TUBAL  3327 
 
 where  Eom.  ■^  a-iifxiraaa,  Alex,  ra  au/inrai'Ta.]  ■ 
 T/iubnl,  but  in  Is.  Ixvi.  19,  Italia).  In  the  an- 
 cient ethnological  tables  of  Genesis  and  1  Chr. 
 Tubal  is  reckoned  with  Javau  and  Mesliech 
 among  the  sons  of  Japheth  (Gen.  x.  2;  1  Chr. 
 i.  5).  The  three  are  again  associated  in  the  enu- 
 meration of  the  sources  of  the  wealth  of  Tyre; 
 Javan,  Tubal,  and  Meshech,  brought  slaves  and 
 copper  vessels  to  the  Phoenician  markets  (Ez.  xxvii. 
 13).  Tubal  and  Javan  (Is.  Ixvi.  19),  Meshech  and 
 Tuljal  (Ez.  xxxii.  26,  xxxviii.  2,  3,  xxxix.  1),  are 
 nations  of  the  north  (Ez.  xxxviii.  15,  xxxix.  2). 
 Josephus  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  1)  identifies  the  descendants 
 of  Tubal  with  the  Iberians,  that  is  —  not,  as  Je- 
 rome would  understand  it,  Spaniards,  but  —  tlie 
 inlial)itants  of  a  tract  of  country,  between  the  Cas- 
 pian and  Euxine  Seas,  which  nearly  corresponded 
 to  the  modem  Georgia."  This  approximates  to 
 the  view  of  Bochart  {Phaleg,  iii.  12),  who  makes 
 the  Moschi  and  Tibareni  represent  Mesliech  and 
 Tubal.  These  two  Colchian  tribes  are  mentioned 
 together  in  Herodotus  on  two  occasions;  first,  as 
 forming  part  of  the  19th  satrapy  of  the  Persian 
 empire  (iii.  94),  and  again  as  being  in  the  army 
 of  Xerxes  under  the  command  of  Ariomardus  the 
 son  of  Darius  (vii.  78).  The  Moschi  and  Tibareni, 
 moreover,  are  "  constantly  associated,  under  the 
 names  of  ^fuskai  and  Tuplai,  in  the  Assyrian  in- 
 scriptions "  (Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  Rawliiison's  Her, 
 i.  535).  The  Tibareni  are  said  Ijy  the  Scholiast 
 on  Apollonius  Bhodius  (ii.  1010)  to  have  been  a 
 Scythian  tribe,  and  they  as  well  as  the  Moschi  are 
 probably  to  be  referred  to  that  Turanian  people, 
 who  in  very  early  times  spread  themselves  over  the 
 entire  region  between  the  JM^editerraneaii  and  India, 
 the  Persian  Gulf  and  the  Caucasus  (Rawlinson, 
 Her.  i.  535).  In  the  time  of  Sargon,  according 
 to  the  inscriptions,  Ambris,  the  son  of  Khuliya, 
 was  hereditary  chief  of  Tul)al  (the  southern  slopes 
 of  Taurus).  He  "had  cultivated  relations  with 
 the  kings  of  Musak  and  Vararat  (Mesliech  and 
 Ararat,  or  the  Moschi  and  Armenia)  who  were  in 
 revolt  against  Assyria,  and  thus  drew  upon  himself 
 the  hostility  of  the  great  king "  {ibid.  i.  169, 
 note  3).  In  former  times  the  Tibareni  were  prob- 
 ably more  important,  and  tiie  Moschi  and  Tibareni, 
 Mesliech  and  Tubal,  ni.ay  have  been  names  by 
 whicli  powerful  hordes  of  Scythians  were  known  to 
 the  Hebrews.  But  in  history  we  only  hear  of 
 them  as  pushed  to  the  furthest  limits  of  tlieir  an- 
 cient settlements,  and  occupying  merely  a  strip  of 
 coast  along  the  Euxine.  Their  neighbors  the 
 Chaldeans  were  in  the  same  condition.  In  the 
 time  of  Herodotus  the  Moschi  and  Tibareni  were 
 even  more  closely  connected  than  at  a  later  period, 
 for  in  Xenophon  we  find  tliem  separated  liy  the 
 Macrones  and  Mossynoeci  (Aiiab.  v.  5,  §  1;  Plin.  vi. 
 4,  &c.).  The  limits  of  the  territory  of  tiie  Tiliareni 
 are  extremely  diflncult  to  determine  with  any  degree 
 of  accuracy.  After  a  part  of  the  10,000  (ireeks 
 on  their  retreat  with  Xenoplion  had  embarked  at 
 Cerasus  (perhaps  near  the  modern  Kerasoun  Here 
 Su.),. the  rest  marched  along  tlie  coast,  and  soon 
 came  to  the  boundaries  of  the  Mossynoeci  {Annb. 
 V.  4,  §  2).  They  traversed  the  country  occupied 
 by  this  people  in  eight  days,  and  then  came  to  the 
 Chalybes,  and  after  tiieni  to  tiie  Tibureni.  The 
 eastern  limit  of  tlie  Tibareni  was  therefore  about 
 80  or  90   miles   along  the  coast  W.  of  Cerasus. 
 
 of  this  widely-spread  Turanian  family,  known  to  thf 
 Hebrews  as  Tubal  (  Klktrlafd  d.  Gen.  §  13). 
 
3328 
 
 TUBAL-CAIN 
 
 Two  days'  march  through  Tibarene  brought  the 
 Greeks  to  Cotyora  {AnaO.  v.  5,  §  -i),  atid  tliey  were 
 altogether  three  days  in  passing  through  tlie  coun- 
 try (Diod.  Sic.  xiv.  30).  Now  from  C  .Jasoniuin 
 to  Boon,  according  to  Arrian  (Peripl.  16),  tlie 
 distance  was  90  stadia,  90  more  to  Cot3ora,  and  GO 
 from  Cotyora  to  tlie  river  Melaiithius,  making  in 
 all  a  coast  line  of  240  stadia,  or  three  days'  march. 
 Professor  Itawlinson  {/itr.  iv.  181)  conjectures  tliat 
 the  Tibareni  occupied  the  coast  between  Cape  Ya- 
 soun  (Jasonium)  and  the  Kiver  Melanthius  (MeUt 
 Irmiilc),  but  if  we  follow  Xenophon,  we  must  place 
 Boon  w  their  western  boundary,  one  day's  march 
 from  Cotyora,  and  their  eastern  limit  must  be 
 sought  some  10  miles  east  of  the  Mtlet  /rmnk; 
 perhaps  not  far  from  the  modem  Aptar,  wliich  is 
 3^  hours  from  that  river.  The  anonymous  author 
 of  the  Peiiplus  of  tlie  Euxine  says  (33)  that  tlie 
 Tibareni  Ibrmerly  dwelt  west  of  Cotyora  as  far  as 
 Polemonium,  at  the  mouth  of  the  J'oideiiian  c/iai, 
 1^  miles  e;ist  of  Faisdii. 
 
 Ill  the  time  of  Xenophon  the  Tibareni  were  an 
 independent  tribe  {Atmb.  vii.  8,  §  2.5).  Long  be- 
 fore this  they  were  subject  to  a  number  of  petty 
 chiefs,  which  was  a  principal  element  of  their  weak- 
 ness, and  rendered  their  subjugation  by  Assyria 
 more  easy.  Dr.  Hiiicks  (quoted  by  Kawlinsoii, 
 Herod,  i.  380,  note  1)  has  found  as  many  as  twenty- 
 four  kings  of  the  Tuplti  mentioned  in  the  inscrip- 
 tions. They  are  said  by  ApoUonius  Ehodius  to 
 have  been  rich  in  flocks  {Arg.  ii.  377).  The  traffic 
 in  slaves  and  vessels  of  copper  with  which  the  peo- 
 ple of  Tubal  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  (Ez. 
 xxvii.  13)  still  furtlier  connects  tliem  with  the 
 Tibareni.  It  is  well  known  that  the  regions  bor- 
 dering on  the  Pontus  Euxinus  furnished  the  most 
 beautiful  slaves,  and  that  the  slave  tr.affic  was  an 
 extensive  branch  of  trade  among  the  Cappadocians 
 (Polyb.  iv.  38,  §  4;  Hor.  A>.  i.  6,  39;  Pers.  Sat. 
 vi.  77;  Mart.  Kp.  vi.  77,  x.  76,  &c.).  The  copper 
 of  the  Mossynoeci,  the  neighbors  of  the  Til)areni, 
 was  celebrated  as  being  extremely  briglit,  and  with- 
 out any  admixture  of  tin  (Arist.  Be  Mir.  Auscult. 
 p.  62);  and  the  Chalybes,  who  lived  between  these 
 tribes,  were  long  femous  for  their  craft  as  metal- 
 smiths.  We  must  not  forget,  too,  the  copper-mines 
 of  Chalvar  in  Armenia  (Hamilton,  As.  Min.  i.  173). 
 
 The  Arabic  Version  of  Gen.  x.  2  gives  Chorasan 
 and  China  for  Meshech  and  Tubal;  in  Eusebius 
 (see  Bochart)  they  are  lUyria  and  Thessaly.  The 
 Talmudists  (I'owrt,  fol.  10,  2),  according  to  Bo- 
 chart, define  Tubal  as  "  the  home  of  the  Uninci 
 
 (^p^''3"lS),"  whom  he  is  inclined  to  identify  with 
 the  Huns  (Plialeg,  iii.  12).  They  may  perhaps 
 take  their  name  from  Oenoe,  the  modern  Unidi,  a 
 town  on  the  south  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  not  far 
 from  ("ape  Yasouu  (.Jasonium),  and  so  in  the  im- 
 mediate neighborhood  of  the  Tiljareni.  In  the 
 Taigum  of  R.  Joseph   on   1   Chr.    (ed.   Wilkins) 
 
 S^^D'^iT'T  is  given  as  the  equivalent  of  Tubal,  and 
 Wilkins  renders  it  by  Bithynia.  But  the  reading 
 in  this  passage,  as  well  as  in  the  Targums  of  .leru- 
 salem  and  of  Jonathan  on  Gen.  x.,  is  too  doubtful 
 to  be  followed  as  even  a  traditional  authority. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 TU'BAL-CA'IN  {TP.  ^?^^  [see  below] : 
 i  ®6Pc\.  TubaUcmn).  The  son  of  Lamech  the 
 Oaiiiiie  by  his  wife  Zillah  (Gen.  iv.  22).  He  is 
 called  "  a  furbisher  of  every  cutting  instrument  of 
 copper  and  iron."     The  Jewish  legend  of  later  times 
 
 TURPENTINE-TREE 
 
 associates  him  with  his  father's  song.  "Lamech 
 w'as  blind,"  says  the  story  as  told  by  Rashi,  "and 
 Tul)al-Cain  was  leading  him;  and  he  saw  Cain, 
 and  be  appeared  to  him  like  a  wild  beast,  so  he 
 told  his  father  to  draw  his  Ijow,  and  he  slew  him. 
 And  when  he  knew  that  it  was  Cain  his  ancestor 
 he  smote  his  hands  together  and  struck  his  son 
 Ijetween  them.  So  he  slew  him,  and  his  wives 
 wiMidraw  from  him,  ami  he  conciliates  them." 
 In  this  story  Tubal-C 'aiii  is  the  "young  man"  of 
 the  song.  Rashi  apparently  considers  the  name 
 of  Tubal-Cain  as  an  appellative,  for  he  makes  him 
 director  of  the  works  of  Cain  for  making  weapons 
 
 of  war,  and  connects  "Tubal"  with  V3i^,  tabbel, 
 to  season,  and  so  to  prepare  skillfully.    He  appears 
 
 moreover  to  have  pointed  it  75"^J^)  tub.'!,  which 
 seems  to  have  been  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  and 
 Josephus.  According  to  the  writer  last  mentioned 
 {Ant.  I.  2,  §  2),  Tubal-Cain  was  distinguished  for 
 his  prodigious  strength  and  his  success  in  war. 
 
 The  derivation  of  the  name  is  extremely  obscure. 
 Hasse  {EnUkckuiujen,  ii.  37,  quoted  liy  Knobel  on 
 Gen.  iv.  22)  identifies  Tubal-Cain  with  Vulcan; 
 and  Buttmann  [Mythol.  i.  16-t)  not  only  compares 
 these  names,  but  adds  to  the  comparison  the  TeA- 
 X}ves  of  Rhodes,  the  first  workers  in  copper  and 
 iron  (Strabo,  xiv.  6.5-1),  and  Dwalinn,  the  demon 
 smith  of  the  Scandinavian  mythology.  Gesenius 
 proposed  to  consider  it  a  hybrid  word,  compounded 
 
 of    the  Pers.   ;^a3,   tiiprd,  iron  slag,  or  scoria, 
 
 and  the  Arab.  .,y\!i,  knin,  a  smith;  but  this 
 etymology  is  more  than  doubtful.  The  Scythian 
 race  Tubal,  who  were  coppersmiths  (Ez.  xxvii.  13), 
 naturally  suggest  themselves  in  connection  with 
 Tubal-Cain.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 TUBIE'NI  (Tovl3trii'ot\  Alex.  TovlSeivoi:  Tu- 
 
 biancei)'.  The  "  .lews  called  Tubieni  "  lived  about 
 Cliarax,  750  stadia  from  a  strongly-fortified  city 
 called  Caspis  (2  Mace.  xii.  17).  They  were  doubt- 
 less the  same  who  are  elsewhere  mentioned  as  living 
 in  the  towns  of  Toubion  (A.  V.  ToniK),  which 
 again  is  probably  the  same  with  the  Ton  of  the 
 Old  Testament.  G. 
 
 *  TUMULT,  Mark  v.  38.     [Moukning.] 
 
 *  TURBANS.     [Bonnets.] 
 
 TURPENTINE-TREE  iT(p(fj.iveos,  repe- 
 ^LvOos'-  lerebiiillni.-;)  occurs  only  once,  namely,  in 
 the  Apocrypha  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  16),  where  wisdom  is 
 compared  with  the  "  turpentine-tree  that  streteheth 
 forth  her  branches."  The  repeffii/dos  or  ripfxii/Qos 
 of  the  Greeks  is  the  PisUtcia  tcrtbinl/ius,  terebinth- 
 tree,  common  in  Palestine  and  the  East,  supposed 
 
 by  some  writers  to  represent  the  cla/i  (H^S)  of 
 the  Hebrew  Bible.  [Oak.]  The  terebintli,  though 
 not  generally  so  conspicuous  a  tree  in  Palestine  as 
 some  of  the  oaks,  occasionally  grows  to  a  large 
 size.  See  Robinson  (B.  Ii.  ii.  222,  223),  who  thus 
 speaks  of  it.  "  The  Butm  "  (the  Arabic  name  of 
 the  terebinth)  "is  not  an  evergreen,  as  often  repre- 
 sented, but  its  small  lancet-shaped  leaves  fall  in 
 the  autumn,  and  are  renewed  in  the  spring.  The 
 flowers  are  small,  and  followed  by  small  o\al  berries, 
 hanging  in  clusters  from  two  to  five  inches  long, 
 resembling  much  those  of  the  \\\\e  when  the  grapes 
 are  just  set.  From  incisions  in  the  trunk  there  is 
 said  to  flow  a  sort  of  transparent  l)alsam,  consti- 
 tuting a  very  pure  and  fine  species  of  turpentine, 
 
TURTLE 
 
 with  di.  fiwreealile  odor  like  citron  or  jessamine, 
 and  a  niikl  taste,  and  liardening  gradually  into  a 
 transparent  gum.  In  Palestine  nothino;  seems  to 
 be  known  of  this  product  of  the  butni!"  The 
 terebinth  l]eloiio;s  to  the  Nat.  Order  Aiinc/n-cHKcea, 
 the  plants  of  which  order  generally  contain  resinous 
 secretions.  W.  U. 
 
 TURTLE 
 
 3329 
 
 Pistaria  lerebiiUhus. 
 
 TURTLE,  TURTLE-DOVE  ("I'ln,  tw- : 
 TDvyciv :    tuiiiir :    generally   in    connection    with 
 
 1^3^"*,  »/»««//,"  dove  ").  [Dove.]  The  name  is 
 phonetic,  evidently  derived  from  the  plaintive  cooing 
 of  the  bird.  The  turtle-dove  occurs  first  in  Scrip- 
 ture in  Gen.  xv.  'J,  where  Ahram  is  commanded  to 
 ofTer  it  along  with  other  sacrifices,  and  with  a  young 
 
 pigeon'  (7^13,  (jozdl).  Iti  the  Levitical  law  a  pair 
 of  turtle-doves,  or  of  young  pigeons,  are  constantly 
 prescribed  as  a  substitute  for  those  who  were  too 
 poor  to  provide  a  lamb  or  a  kid,  and  these  birds 
 were  admissible  eitlier  as  trespass,  sin,  or  burnt- 
 offering.  Ill  one  instance,  the  case  of  a  Nazarite 
 having  been  accidentally  defiled  by  a  dead  body,  a 
 pair  of  turtle-doves  or  young  pigeons  were  specially 
 enjoined  (Num.  vi.  10).  It  was  in  accordance  with 
 the  provision  in  Lev.  xii.  6  that  the  mother  of  our 
 Lord  m.ade  the  ottering  for  her  purification  (Luke 
 ii.  2-t:).  During  the  early  period  of  Jewi-sh  history, 
 there  is  no  eviileiice  of  any  other  bird  except  the 
 pigeon  having  been  domesticated,  and  up  to  the 
 time  of  Sokimoii,  who  may,  with  the  peacock,  have 
 introduced  other  gallinaceous  birds  irom  India,  it 
 was  probably  the  only  poultry  known  to  the  Israel- 
 ites. To  this  day  enormous  quantities  of  piixeons 
 are  kept  in  dove  cots  in  all  the  towns  and  villages 
 of  Palestine,  and  several  of  the  fancy  races  so  famil- 
 iar in  this  cuiintry  have  been  traced  to  be  of  Syrian 
 origin.  The  otfering  of  two  young  pigeons  must 
 have  been  one  easily  within  the  reach  of  the  poorest, 
 and  the  offerer  was  accepted  according  to  that  he 
 had,  and  not  according  to  that  he  had  not.  The 
 admission  of  a  pair  of  turtle-doves  was  perhaps 
 a  yet  further  concession  to  extreme  poverty;  for, 
 unlike  tlie  pigeon,  the  turtle,  from  its  migratory 
 nature  and  timid  disposition,  has  never  yet  been 
 
 kept  in  a  state  of  free  domestication ;  but  being 
 extremely  numerous,  and  resorting  especially  to 
 gardens  for  nidification,  its  young  might  easily  be 
 found  and  captured  by  those  who  did  not  even  pos- 
 sess pigeons. 
 
 It  is  not  improbable  that  the  palm-dove  ( Turtiir 
 yEi/ijptiiicus,  Temm.)  may  in  some  measure  have 
 supplied  the  sacrifices  in  the  wilderness,  for  it  is 
 found  in  amazing  numbers  w]iere\er  the  palm-tree 
 occurs,  whether  wild  or  cultivated.  In  most  of 
 the  oases  of  North  Africa  ami  Arabia  every  tree  is 
 the  home  of  two  or  three  pairs  of  these  tame  and 
 elegant  liirds.  In  the  crown  of  many  of  the  date- 
 trees  five  or  six  nests  are  placed  together;  and  the 
 writer  has  frequently,  in  a  palin-grove,  brought 
 down  ten  brace  or  more  without  moving  from  his 
 post.  In  such  camps  as  Elim  a  considerable  supply 
 of  these  doves  may  have  been  obtained. 
 
 From  its  habit  of  pairing  for  life,  and  its  fidelity 
 for  its  mate,  it  was  a  symbol  of  jinrity  and  an  ap- 
 propriate offering  (comp.  Plin.  Na/.  Ili^t.  x.  .52). 
 The  regular  migration  of  the  turtle-dove  and  its. 
 return  in  spring  are  alluded  to  in  Jer.  viii.  7,  "The 
 turtle  and  the  crane  and  the  swallow  observe  the 
 time  of  their  coming;  "  and  Cant.  ii.  11,  12,  "  The 
 winter  is  past  .  .  .  and  the  voice  of  the  turtle  is 
 heard  in  our  land."  So  Pliny,  "  Ilyeme  mutis, 
 a  vere  vocalibus;"  and  Arist.  Hist.  An.  ix.  8, 
 "Turtle-doves  spend  the  summer  in  cold  countries, 
 the  winter  in  warm  ones."  Although  elsewhere 
 (viii.  5)  he  makes  it  hibernate  (<poo\e7)-  There  is, 
 indeed,  no  more  grateful  proof  of  the  return  of 
 spring  in  .Mediterranean  countries  than  the  voice 
 of  the  turtle.  One  of  the  first  birds  to  migrate 
 northwards,  the  turtle,  while  other  songsters  are 
 heard  chiefly  in  the  morning,  or  only  at  intervals, 
 immediately  on  its  arrival  pours  forth  from  every 
 garden,  grove,  and  wooded  hill  its  melancholy  yet 
 soothing  ditty,  unceasingly  from  early  dawn  tiE 
 sunset.  It  is  from  its  ])laintive  note  doubtless  that 
 David  in  Ps.  Ixxiv.  lit,  pouring  forth  his  lament  to 
 God,  compares  himself  to  a  turtle-dove. 
 
 From  the  abundance  of  the  dove  trilie  and  their 
 importance  as  an  article  of  food,  the  ancients  dis- 
 criminated the  species  of  ColuiiMike  more  accu- 
 rately than  of  many  others.  Aristotle  enumerates 
 five  species,  which  are  not  all  easy  of  identification, 
 as  but  four  species  are  now  known  commonly  to 
 inhabit  (ireece.  In  Palestine  the  number  of  species 
 is  jM-obably  greater.  Besides  the  rook-dove  ( Co- 
 luiiiba  Ucia,  L.),  very  common  on  all  the  rocky 
 parts  of  the  coast  and  in  the  inland  ravines,  where 
 it  remains  throughout  the  year,  and  from  which 
 all  the  varieties  of  the  domestic  pigeon  are  derived, 
 the  ring-dove  (Coliunba  paliiinbu.'i,  L.)  frequents  all 
 the  wooded  districts  of  the  country.  The  stock- 
 dove (Coiinnha  rpjias,  L.)  is  as  generally,  liut  more 
 sparingly  distributed.  Another  species,  allied  either 
 to  this  or  to  Columha  licin,  has  been  observed  in 
 the  valley  of  the  .Jordan,  perhaps  Col  kumnota, 
 Vig.  See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  35.  The  turtle-dove  (  Turtur 
 (iuritus,  L.)  is,  as  has  been  stated,  most  alumdant, 
 and  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  an  allied  species, 
 the  palm-dove,  or  Egyptian  turtle  ( Turiiir  yEf/yp- 
 liitcns,  Temm.),  is  by  no  means  uncommon.  This 
 bird,  most  abundant  among  the  pahii-trees  in  Egypt 
 and  North  Africa,  is  distinguished  from  the  com- 
 mon turtle-dove  by  its  ruddy  chestnut  color,  its  long 
 tail,  smaller  size,  and  the  al)sence  of  the  collar  ou 
 the  neck.  It  does  not  migrate,  but  Irom  the  sim- 
 ilarity of  its  note  and  habits,  it  is  not  probable  that 
 it  was  distinguished   by  the  ancients.     The  large 
 
3330 
 
 TUTORS 
 
 Indian  turtle  (Turtur  r/eliistes,  Temm.)  has  also 
 been  stated,  though  witliout  authority,  to  occur  in 
 PalestiTie.  Otiier  species,  as  the  well  known  col- 
 lared dove  (Turtur  risoria,  L. )  have  lieeii  incor- 
 rectly included  as  natives  of  Syria.  H.  B.  T. 
 
 *  TUTOllS,  only  in  Gal.  iv.  2,  the  translation 
 of  cTTiTporroi,  more  properly  rendered  "guardians." 
 It  denotes  those  to  vvlioni  a  charge  is  coniniitted, 
 in  this  instance  that  of  guardian  or  overseer  of 
 children  who  are  the  heirs  of  property,  while  the 
 associated  term  oikoi/S/xoi  singles  out  those  among 
 the  overseers  who  regulate  the  pecuniary  affairs  of 
 the  estate.  The  better  sense  of  the  latter  term  is 
 "stewards"  and  not  "governors"  (A.  V.).  See 
 especially  \A'ieseler,  Ui'her  den  Br.  an  die  Gahiter, 
 p.  -S'iS.  The  A.  V.  follows  the  antecedent  English 
 versions,  except  ^^'yclif^e's.  See  Kemnrks  on  Rtn- 
 deiinys,  etc.,  BM.  Sacra,  xxii.  139.  H. 
 
 TYCH'ICUS  (Ti^x'foy  [fortuitous']).  A  com- 
 panion of  St.  Paul  on  some  of  his  journeys,  and  one 
 of  his  fellow-laborers  in  the  work  of  the  Gosjiel. 
 He  is  mentioned  in  five  separate  books  of  the  New 
 Testament,  and  in  four  cases  explicitly,  in  the  fifth 
 very  probably,  he  is  coTuiected  with  the  district  of 
 Asia.  (1.)  In  Acts  XX.  4,  he  appe.irs  as  one  of  those 
 who  accompanied  the  Apostle  through  a  longer  or 
 shorter  portion  of  his  return-journey  from  the  third 
 missionary  circuit.  Here  he  is  expressly  called 
 (witli  Trophinuis)  " h(Tiav6s;  lint  while  Trophimus 
 «'ent  with  St.  I'aul  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  29), 
 Tvchicus  was  left  behind  in  Asia,  probably  at 
 Miletus  (Acts  xx.  15,  38).  (2.)  How  Tychicns  was 
 employed  in  the  interval  before  St.  Paul's  first  im- 
 prisonment we  cannot  tell:  but  in  that  imprison- 
 ment he  was  with  the  Apostle  again,  as  we  see  from 
 Col.  iv.  7,  8.  I  lere  he  is  spoken  of,  not  only  as 
 "  a  beloved  brother,"  but  as  "  a  f;iithful  minister 
 and  fellow- servant  Iti  the  Lord;  "  and  he  is  to  make 
 known  to  the  Colossians  the  present  circumstances 
 of  the  Apostle  (ra  kot'  tjue  iravra  ■yvwpiaei),  and 
 to  bring  comfort  to  tlie  Colossians  themselves  {'iva 
 TapaKaXeay  rots  KapSias  vfxaiv)-  From  this  we 
 gather  that  diligent  service   and    warm    Christian 
 
 TYRANIS^US 
 
 sympathy  were  two  features  of  l-ie  life  and  char- 
 acter of  Tychicus.  Colossse  was  in  Asia ;  but  from 
 the  fact  that  of  Onesimus,  who  is  mentioned  im- 
 mediately afterwards,  it  is  said,  os  (amy  e|  vfxwv, 
 whereas  Tychicus  is  not  so  styled,  we  naturally  in- 
 fer that  the  latter  was  not  a  native  of  that  city. 
 These  two  men  were  doubtless  the  bearers  both  of 
 this  letter  and  the  following,  as  well  as  that  to 
 Philemon.  (3.)  The  language  concerning  Tychicus 
 in  Kph.  v.  21,  22,  is  very  similar,  though  not  ex- 
 actly in  the  same  words.  And  it  is  the  more  im- 
 portant to  notice  this  passage  carefully,  Ijecause  it 
 is  the  only  personal  allusion  in  the  epistle,  and  is 
 of  some  considerable  value  as  a  subsidiary  argumei  t 
 for  its  authenticity.  If  this  was  a  circular  letter, 
 Tychicns,  who  bore  a  eonmiission  to  Colossse,  and 
 vvlio  was  probably  well  known  in  various  paits  of 
 the  pro\ince  of  Asia,  would  be  a  very  proper  person 
 to  see  the  letter  duly  delivered  and  read.  (4.)  The 
 next  references  are  in  the  Pastoral  l<>pistles,  the  first 
 in  chronological  order  being  Tit.  iii.  12.  Here  St. 
 I'aul  (writing  possibly  from  Ephesus)  says  that  it 
 is  probable  he  may  send  Tychicus  to  Ciete,  about 
 the  time  when  he  himself  goes  to  Nicopolis.  (5.)  In 
 2  Tim.  iv.  12  (written  at  Rome  during  the  second 
 imprisonment)  he  says,  "  I  am  herewith  sending 
 Tychicus  to  Ephesus."  At  least  it  seems  natural, 
 with  Dr.  Wordsworth,  so  to  render  aTrfVreiAa, 
 though  B]).  Ellicott's  suggestion  is  also  worth  con- 
 sideriTig,  that  this  mission  may  have  been  connected 
 with  the  carrying  of  the  Jirsi  ejnstle.  (See  their 
 notes  on  the  passage.)  However  this  may  be,  we 
 see  this  disciple  at  the  end,  as  we  saw  him  at  the 
 l>eginning,  connected  locally  with  Asia,  while  also 
 cooperating  with  St.  Paul.  We  have  no  authentic 
 information  concerning  Tychicus  in  any  period 
 previous  to  or  subsequent  to  these  five  Scriptural 
 notices.  The  tradition  which  places  him  afterwards 
 as  bishop  of  Chalcedon  in  Bithynia  is  apparently 
 of  no  value.  But  there  is  much  probability  in  the 
 conjecture  (Stanley's  Corintlihms,  2d  ed.  p.  493) 
 that  Tychicus  was  one  of  the  two  "  brethren " 
 (Trophimus  being  the  other)  who  were  associated 
 with  Titus  (2  Cor.  viii.  16-24)  in  conducting  the 
 business  of  the  collection  for  the  poor  Christians  in 
 .Tudsea.  As  arguments  for  this  view  we  may  men- 
 tion the  association  with  Tro])himus,  the  probability 
 that  both  were  Ephesians,  the  occurrence  of  both 
 names  in  the  Second  Kpistle  to  Timothy  (see  2  Tim. 
 iv.  20),  the  chronological  and  geographical  agree- 
 ment with  the  circumstances  of  the  third  missionary 
 journey,  and  the  general  languaire  used  concerning 
 Tychicus  in  Colossians  and  Ephesians.  [Asia  ; 
 Epiiesus;  Trophimus.]  J.  S.  H. 
 
 TYRAN'NUS  {Tvpawos  [deapot,  tyrant]). 
 The  name  of  a  ninii  in  whose  school  or  place  of 
 audience  Paul  taught  the  (ios]ifl  for  two  years, 
 during  his  sojourn  at  Ephesus  (see  Acts  xix.  9). 
 The  halls  or  rooms  of  the  philost>|ihers  were  called 
 crXoAai  among  the  later  (ireeks  (Liddell  and  Scott, 
 s.  r. );  and  as  Luke  applies  that  term  to  the  mi- 
 ditorium  in  this  in.stance,  the  presumption  is  that 
 Tyrannus  himself  was  a  Greek,  and  a  jiublic  teacher 
 of  philo.sophy  or  rhetoric.  He  and  Paul  must  have 
 occupied  the  room  at  different  hours;  but  whether 
 he  hired  it  out  to  the  Christians  or  gave  to  then 
 the  use  of  it  (in  either  case  he  must  have  iteen 
 friendly  to  them)  is  left  uncertain.  Meyer  is  dis- 
 posed to  consider  that  Tyraimus  was  a  .lewisli  rabbi, 
 and  the  owner  of  a  private  synagogue  or  house  for 
 
 teaching  Cr^l^  n"^5).     But,  in  the  fl<-^t  place, 
 
TYRE 
 
 his  Greek  name,  and  the  ftict  that  he  is  not  men-  , 
 tioned  as  a  Jew  or  proselyte,  disagree  with  that ; 
 supposition ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  as  Paul  re- 
 paired to  this  man's  school  after  having  been  com- 
 pelled to  leave  the  Jewish  synagogue  (Acts  six.  9), 
 it  is  evident  that  he  took  this  course  as  a  means 
 of  gaining  access  to  the  heathen  ;  an  object  which 
 be  would  naturally  seek  through  the  cooperation  of 
 one  of  their  own   number,  and  not  by  associating  i 
 himself  with   a  Jew  or  a  Gentile  adherent  of  the 
 Jewish  faith.     In  speaking  of  him  merely  as  a  cer-  I 
 tain    Tyrannus   {Tupdyyov  Tiro's),   Luke  indicates 
 certainly  that  he  was  not  a  believer  at  first;  though 
 it  is  natural  enough  to  think  that  he  may  have 
 become  such  as  the  result  of  his  acquaintance  with 
 tlie  Apostle.    Hemsen  (Der  Apostcl  Paulus,  p.  218) 
 throws  out  the  idea  that  the  hall  may  have  be- 
 longed  to   the  authorities  of  the  city,   and   have 
 derived  its  name  from  the  original  proprietor. 
 
 H.  B.  II. 
 
 TYRE  ("l""^^,  'TI,  i.e.  Tzor:  Tvpos'-  Tyrus : 
 Josh.  xix.  '29  [olTiipioi]  ;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  7 ;  Is.  xxiii.  1 ; 
 Ez.  xxvi.  15,  xxvii.  2,  &c.).  A  celebrated  commercial 
 city  of  antiquity,  situated  in  Phcenicia,  on  the  east- 
 ern coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  latitude  33° 
 17'  N.  (.Admiral  Smythe"s  J\faUteri-aneiin,  p.  4G9). 
 Its  Helirew  name  "Tzor"  signifies  a  rock;  which 
 well  agrees  vvitli  the  site  of  Siii\  the  modern  town, 
 on  a  rocky  peninsula,  formerly  an  island.  From 
 the  word  "Tzor"  were  derived  two  names  of  tlie 
 city,  in  which  the  first  letters  differed  from  each 
 other,  though  both  had  a  feature  of  their  common 
 parent:  1st,  the  Aramaic  word  Tura,  whence  the 
 Greek  word  Turos,  proliably  pronouncerl  Tyros, 
 which  finally  prevailed  in  Latin,  and  with  slight 
 changes,  in  the  modern  languages  of  the  West; 
 and,  2<lly,  Sara,  or  Sarra,  which  occurs  in  Plautus 
 {True.  ii.  6,  58,  "  purpuram  ex  Sara  tilii  attuli  "), 
 and  which  is  familiar  to  scholars  through  the  well- 
 known  line  of  Viriiil,  "  Ut  gemma  bibat,  et  Sarrano 
 dormiat  ostro  "  {Georg.  ii.  50G;  comp.  Aul.  Gell. 
 xiv.  6;  Silius  Italicus,  xv.  203;  Juvenal,  x.  30). 
 According  to  a  passage  of  I'robus  (ad  Virg.  Georg. 
 ii.  115),  as  quoted  liy  ;\Ir.  Grote  (f/iston/  of  Greece, 
 iii.  353),  the  form  ".Sara"  would  seem  to  have 
 occurred  in  one  of  the  tireek  epics  now  lost,  which 
 passed  under  the  name  of  Homer.  Certainly,  this 
 form  accords  best  with  the  modern  Arabic  name 
 of  Snr. 
 
 Pal.etyrus,  or  Old  Tyre.  There  is  no  doulit 
 that,  previous  to  the  siege  of  the  city  by  Alexander 
 the  (ireat,  Tyre  was  situated  on  aii  island:  but, 
 according  to  the  tradition  of  the  inhabitants,  if  we 
 may  believe  Justin  (xi.  10),  there  was  a  city  on  the 
 mainland  before  there  was  a  city  on  the  island; 
 and  the  tradition  receives  some  color  from  the  name 
 of  Palaetyrus,  or  Old  Tyre,  which  was  borne  in 
 Greek  times  by  a  city  on  the  continent,  30  stadia 
 to  the  south  (Strabo,  xii.  11,  24).  But  a  difficulty 
 arises  in  supposing  that  PaLttyrus  was  built  before 
 Tyre,  as  the  word  Tyre  evidently  means  "  a  rock," 
 and  few  persons  who  have  visited  the  site  of 
 PaUetyrus  can  seriously  suppose  that  any  rock  on 
 the  surface  tiiere  can  have  given  rise  to  the  name. 
 To  escape  this  difficulty,  Hengstenberg  makes  the 
 
 TYRE  3331 
 
 suggestion  that  Palsetyrus  meant  Tyre  that  formerly 
 existed;  "  quoe  quondam  fuit;"  and  that  the  name 
 was  introduced  after  the  destruction  of  the  greater 
 part  of  it  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  distinguish  it  from 
 that  part  of  Tyre  which  continued  to  be  in  exist- 
 ence (De  rebus  Tyrioruiii,  p.  2G).  jMovers,  justly 
 deeming  this  explanation  unlikely,  suggests  that  the 
 original  inhabitants  of  the  city  on  the  mainland 
 possessed  the  island  as  part  of  their  territory,  and 
 named  tiieir  city  from  the  cliaracteristic  features  of 
 the  island,  thounh  the  island  itself  was  not  then 
 inhabited  {Dus  Flwi/izische  Aller/kun,  vol.  ii.  pt. 
 i.  p.  173).  This  explanation  is  possible;  but  other 
 explanations  are  equally  possible.  For  example,  the 
 Phcenieiau  name  of  it  may  have  been  the  Old  City ; 
 and  this  may  have  been  translated  "  Patetyrus  " 
 in  Greek.  Or,  if  the  inhabitants  of  the  mainland 
 migrated  to  the  island,  they  may  afterwards,  at 
 some  time  or  other,  have  given  to  the  city  which 
 they  left  the  name  of  Old  Tyre,  without  its  being 
 necessarily  implied  that  the  city  had  ever  borne 
 simply  the  name  of  Tyre.  Or  some  accidental  cir- 
 cumstance, now  beyond  the  reach  of  conjecture, 
 may  have  led  to  the  name;  just  as  for  souje  unac- 
 countable reason  Koma  Vecchia,  or  Old  Rome,  is 
 the  name  given  in  tlie  Roman  Campagna  (as  is 
 stated  on  the  high  authority  of  Mr.  H.  E.  Bun- 
 bury)  to  ruins  of  the  age  of  Caracalla  situated  be- 
 tween the  roads  leading  to  Frascati  and  Albano, 
 although  there  are  no  traces  there  of  any  Old  Town, 
 and  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose 
 that  there  is  any  historical  foundation'  whatever  for 
 the  name.  And  this  again  would  tally  with  Mr. 
 Grote's  remark,  who  observes  {l.  c.)  that  perhaps 
 the  Phoenician  name  which  the  city  on  the  main- 
 land liore  may  have  been  something  resembling 
 PaliB-Tyrus  in  sound  but  not  coincident  in  mean- 
 ing. It  is  important,  however,  to  bear  in  mind 
 that  this  question  regarding  Palajtyrus  is  merely 
 archa?ological,  and  that  nothing  in  Biblical  history 
 is  affected  liy  it.  Nebuchadnezzar  necessarily  be- 
 sieged the  portion  of  the  city  on  the  mainland,  as 
 he  had  no  vessels  with  which  to  attack  the  island ; 
 but  it  is  reasonably  certain  that,  in  the  time  of 
 Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  heart  or  core  of  the  city  was 
 on  the  island.  The  city  of  Tyre  was  consecrated 
 to  Hercules  (Melkarth)  who  was  the  principal  object 
 of  worship  to  the  inhabitants  (Quintus  Curtins,  iv. 
 2;  Stral)0,  xvi.  p.  757);  and  Arrian  in  his  History 
 says  that  the  temple  on  the  island  was  the  most 
 ancient  of  all  temples  within  the  memory  of  man- 
 kind (ii.  16).  It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that 
 the  island  had  long  been  inhabited.  ,\nd  with  this 
 :\'j,ree  the  expressions  as  to  Tyre  being  "  in  the 
 \nidst  of  the  seas"  (Ez.  xxvii.  25,  26);  and  even 
 the  threat  against  it  that  it  should  be  made  like 
 the  to])  of  a  rock  to  spread  nets  upon  (see  Des 
 ^'ignoles'  Chronologie  de  V  [Jistoire  Suhile,  Berlin, 
 1738,  vol.  ii.  p.  25).  As,  however,  the  space  on 
 the  island  was  limited,  it  is  very  possible  tliat  the 
 population  on  the  mainland  may  have  exceeded  the 
 po])ulation  on  the  island  (see  Movers,  /.  c.  p.  81). 
 
 Whether  built  before  or  later  than  Palft'tyrus, 
 the  renowned  city  of  Tyre,  though  it  laid  claims  to 
 a  very  high  antiquity «  (Is.  xxiii.  7;  Ilerodot.  ii. 
 14;  Quintus  Curtius,  iv.  4),  is  not  mentioned  either 
 
 «  AccorJing  to  Herodotus,  the  priests  at  Tyre  told 
 him  that  ttieir  city  had  been  founded  2,300  years  be- 
 fore his  visit.  Supposing  he  was  at  Tyre  in  4-50  B.  c, 
 this  would  make  the  date  of  its  foundation  2,750  B.  c. 
 'Josephus  makes   the   more  sober  statement,  probably 
 
 founded  on  Menander's  history,  that  it  was  founded 
 2.30  years  before  the  commencement  of  the  building 
 of  Solomon's  temple.  Under  any  circumstances,  Jo- 
 sephus could  not,  with  his  ideas  and  chronology,  have 
 accepted  the  date  of  the  Tyrian  priests ;  for  then  Tyre 
 
3332 
 
 TYRE 
 
 in  the  Iliad  or  in  tlie  Odj'ssey;  but  no  inference 
 can  be  legitimately  drawn  from  this  fact  as  to  the 
 existence  or  non-existence  of  the  city  at  the  time 
 when  those  poems  were  composed.  The  tribe  of 
 Canaanites  which  inhabited  tlie  small  tract  of  comi- 
 try  which  may  be  called  Phoenicia  Proper  [I'ike- 
 nicia]  was  known  by  the  generic  name  of  Sidoniaiis 
 (Judg.  xviii.  7;  Is.  xxiii.  2,  4,  12;  Josh.  xiii.  G; 
 Ez.  xxxii.  30);  and  this  name  undoubtedly  included 
 Tyrians,  the  inhabitants  being  of  the  same  race, 
 and  the  two  cities  being  less  than  20  English  miles 
 distant  from  each  other.  Hence  whe!i  Solomon 
 sent  to  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  for  cedar-trees  out  of 
 Lebanon  to  be  hewn  by  Hiram's  subjects,  he  re- 
 minds Hiram  that  "  there  is  not  among  us  any 
 that  can  skill  to  hew  timber  like  the  Sidonians  " 
 (1  K.  V.  6).  Hence  Virgil,  who,  in  his  very  first 
 mention  of  Carthage,  expressly  states  that  it  was 
 founded  by  colonists  from  Tyre  (.<En.  i.  12),  after- 
 wards, with  perfect  propriety  and  consistency,  calls 
 it  the  Sidonian  city  {^n.  i.  077,  078,  iv.  545.  See 
 Des  Vignoles,  l.  c.  p.  25).  And  in  like  manner, 
 when  Sidonians  are  spoken  of  in  the  Homeric 
 Poems  (//.  vi.  290,  xxiii.  743;  Od.  iv.  84,  xvii.  424), 
 this  might  comprehend  Tyrians;  and  the  mention 
 of  the  city  Sidon,  while  there  is  no  similar  mention 
 of  Tyre,  would  be  fully  accounted  for  —  if  it  were 
 necessary  to  account  for  such  a  circumstance  at  all 
 in  a  poem  —  by  Sidon 's  having  been  in  early  times 
 more  flourishing  than  Tyre.  It  is  worthy,  likewise, 
 of  being  noted,  that  Tyre  is  not  mentioned  iii  tlie 
 Pentateuch;  but  here,  again,  though  an  inference 
 may  be  drawn  against  the  importance,  no  inference 
 can  be  legitimately  drawn  against  the  existence,  of 
 Tyre  in  the  times  to  which  the  Pentateuch  refers. 
 
 In  the  Biljle,  Tyre  is  named  for  the  first  time  in 
 the  hook  of  Joshua  (xix.  29),  where  it  is  adveited 
 to  as  a  fortified  city  (in  the  A.  V.  "  the  strong 
 city'),  in  reference  to  the  boundaries  of  the  trilie 
 of  Asher.  Nothing  historical,  however,  turns  upon 
 this  mention  of  Tyre;  for  it  is  indisputable  that  the 
 tribe  of  Asher  ne\er  possessed  the  Tyrian  territory. 
 According  to  the  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
 indeed,  all  the  Canaanitish  nations  ought  to  have 
 been  exterminated;  but,  instead  of  this,  the  Israel- 
 ites dwelt  among  the  Sidonians  or  Phceniciar's,  who 
 were  inhabitants  of  the  land  (Judg.  i.  31,  32),  and 
 never  seem  to  have  had  any  war  with  that  intel- 
 ligent race.  Subsequently,  in  a  pa.ssage  of  Samuel 
 (2  Sam.  xxiv.  7),  it  is  stated  that  the  enumerators 
 of  the  census  in  the  reign  of  David  went  in  pur- 
 suance of  their  mission  to  Tyre,  amongst  other 
 cities,  which  must  be  understood  as  implying,  not 
 that  Tyre  was  suliject  to  David's  authority,  but 
 merely  that  a  census  was  thus  taken  of  the  Jews 
 resident  there.  But  the  first  passaices  in  the  He- 
 brew historical  writings,  or  in  ancient  history  gen- 
 erall}^,  which  afford  glimpses  of  the  actual  condition 
 of  Tyre,  are  in  the  book  of  Samuel  (2  Sam.  v.  11), 
 in  connection  with  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  sending 
 cedar-wood  and  w-orkmen  to  David,  ibr  building 
 him  a  palace;  and  subsequently  in  the  book  of 
 Kings,  in  connection  witli  the  building  of  Solomon's 
 temple.     One  point  at  this  period  is  particularly 
 
 would  have  been  founded  before  the  era  of  the  Deluge. 
 See  au  instructive  passage  as  to  the  chronology  of 
 Josephus  in  Ant.  viii.  3,  §  1. 
 
 «  It  may  be  interesting  to  compare  the  distance 
 from  which  the  limestone  was  brought  with  which  St. 
 Paul's  Cathedral  was  built.  It  was  hewn  from  qniir- 
 ties  in  the  Isle  of  Portland,  and  was  sent  to  Loudon 
 
 TYRE  • 
 
 worthy  of  attention.  In  contradistinction  from  all 
 the  other  most  celebrated  independent  commercial 
 cities  out  of  Phceiucia  in  the  ancient  and  modern 
 world,  lyre  was  a  monarchy  and  not  a  republic; 
 and,  notwithstanding  its  merchant  princes,  who 
 might  have  been  deemed  likely  to  favor  the  estab- 
 lishment of  an  aristocratical  common  vvealtli,  it  con- 
 tinued to  preserve  the  monarchical  form  of  govern- 
 ment until  its  final  loss  of  independence.  Another 
 point  is  the  skill  in  the  mechanical  arts  which  seems 
 to  have  been  already  attained  by  tlie  Tyrians. 
 Under  this  head,  allusion  is  not  specially  made  to 
 the  excellence  of  the  Tyrians  in  telling  trees;  for, 
 through  vicinity  to  the  forests  of  Lebanon,  they 
 would  as  naturally  have  become  skilled  in  that  art 
 as  the  backwoodsmen  of  America.  But  what  is 
 peculiarly  noteworthy  is  that  Tyrians  had  become 
 woikers  in  brass  or  copper  to  an  extent  which 
 imi)lies  considerable  advancenient  in  art.  In  the 
 enumeration  of  the  various  worl<s  in  brass  executed 
 by  the  Tyrian  artists  whom  Solomon  sent  for,  there 
 are  lilies,  palm-trees,  oxen,  lions,  and  cherubim 
 (1  K.  vii.  13-45).  The  manner  in  whicii  the  cedar- 
 wood  and  fir-wood  was  conveyed  to  Jerusalem  is 
 likewise  interesting,  partly  from  the  similarity  of 
 the  sea  voyage  to  what  may  commonly  lie  seen  on 
 the  lihine  at  the  present  day,  and  jiartly  as  giving 
 a  vivid  idea  of  the  really  sliort  distance  between 
 Tyre  and  .lerusalem.  The  wood  was  taken  in  floats 
 to  Joppa  (2  Chr.  ii.  10;  1  K.  v.  0).  a  distance  of 
 less  tiian  74  geographical  miles.  In  the  Mediter- 
 ranean during  summer  there  are  times  when  this 
 voyage  along  the  coast  would  ha\e  been  peifectly 
 safe,  and  when  the  Tyrians  might  have  reckoned 
 confidently,  especially  at  night,  on  light  winds  to 
 fill  the  sails  which  were  probably  used  on  such 
 occasions.  From  Joppa  to  Jerusalem  the  distance 
 was  aliout  32  miles;  and  it  is  certain  tliat  by  this 
 route  the  whole  distance  between  the  two  celebrated 
 cities  of  Jerusalem  and  Tyre  was  not  more  than 
 100"  geographical,  or  about  122  luiglish  miles. 
 Within  such  a  comparatively  .short  distance  (which 
 by  land,  in  a  straight  line,  was  about  20  miles 
 shorter)  it  would  be  easy  for  two  soveieigns  to 
 establish  personal  relations  with  each  other;  more 
 especially  as  the  northern  boundary  of  Solomon's 
 kingdom,  in  one  direction,  was  the  southern  bound- 
 ary of  Phoenicia.  Solomon  and  Hiram  may  fre- 
 quently have  met,  and  thus  laid  the  foundations  of 
 a  political  alliance  in  personal  friendship.  If  by 
 messengers  they  sent  riddles  and  problems  for  each 
 other  to  solve  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  5,  §  3;  c.  Apion. 
 i.  17),  they  may  previously  have  had,  on  several 
 occasions,  a  keen  encounter  of  wits  in  convivial  in- 
 tercourse. In  this  way,  likewise,  Solomon  may  have 
 Ijecome  acquainted  with  the  Sidonian  women  who. 
 with  those  of  other  nations,  seduced  him  to  Poly- 
 theism and  the  worship  of  Astarte  in  his  old  age. 
 Siuiilar  remarks  apply  to  the  circumstances  which 
 may  have  occasioned  previously  the  strong  afli^ction 
 of  Hiram  for  David  (1  K.  v.  1). 
 
 However  this  may  be,  it  is  evident  tli.at  under 
 Solomon  there  was  a  close  alliance  between  the  He- 
 brews and  the  Tyrians.     Hiram  supjilied  Solomon 
 
 round  the  North  Foreland  up  the  river  Thames.  The 
 distance  to  London  in  a  strait;ht  line  from  the  North 
 Foreland  .nlone  is  of  itself  about  twelve  miles  greater 
 than  from  Tyre  to  .Toppa ;  while  the  di.«tance  from  the 
 Isle  of  Portland  to  the  North  Foreland  is  actually 
 three  times  as  great. 
 
TYRE 
 
 nitli  cedar  wood,  precious  metals,  and  workmen, 
 and  yave  him  sailors  for  the  voyage  to  Ophir  and 
 India,  while  on  the  other  hand  Solomon  gave  Hiram 
 supplies  of  corn  and  oil,  ceded  to  him  some  cities, 
 and  perniitted  him  to  make  use  of  some  havens  on 
 the  Red  Sea  (1  K.  ix.  11-14,  26-28,  x.  22).  These 
 friendly  relations  survived  for  a  time  the  disastrous 
 secession  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and  a  century  later 
 Ahab  married  a  daughter  of  Ethbaal,  king  of  the 
 Sidonians  (1  K.  xvi.  31),  who,  according  to  Menan- 
 der  (Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  13,  §  2),  was  daughter  of 
 Ithobal,  king  of  Tyre.  As  she  was  zealous  for  her 
 national  religion,  she  seems  to  have  been  regarded 
 as  an  abomination  by  the  pious  worshippers  of 
 Jehovah,;  but  this  led  to  no  special  prophetical 
 denunciations  against  Tyre.  The  case  became  dif- 
 ferent, however,  when  mercantile  cupidity  induced 
 the  Tyrians  and  the  neighboring  Phoenicians  to  buy 
 Hebrew  captives  from  their  enemies  and  to  sell 
 them  as  slaves  to  the  Greeks  [PiitENiciANs,  iii. 
 2518  b]  and  Edomites.  From  this  time  commenced 
 denunciations,  and,  at  first,  threats  of  retaliation 
 (Joel  iii.  4-8;  Amos  i.  9,  10);  and  indeed,  though 
 there  might  be  peace,  there  could  not  be  sincere 
 friendship  between  the  two  nations.  But  the  like- 
 lihood of  the  denunciations  being  fulfilled  first  arose 
 from  tlie  progressive  conquests  of  the  Assyrian 
 monarchs.  It  was  not  probable  that  a  powerful, 
 victorious,  and  ambitious  neighbor  could  resist  the 
 temptation  of  endeavoring  to  subjugate  the  small 
 strip  of  land  l)etween  the  Lebanon  and  the  sea,  so 
 insignificant  in  extent,  but  overflowing  witli  so  much 
 wealth,  which  by  the  Greeks  was  called  Phoenicia. 
 [Phcenicia.]  Accordingly,  when  Shalmaneser, 
 king  of  Assyria,  had  taken  the  city  of  Samaria, 
 had  conquered  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  carried 
 its  inhabitants  into  captivity,  he  tiu'ned  his  arms 
 against  the  Phoenician  cities.  At  this  time.  Tyre 
 had  readied  a  high  point  of  prosperity.  Since  the 
 reign  of  Hiram,  it  had  planted  the  splendid  colony 
 of  Carthage  (143  years  and  eight  months,  Josephus 
 says,  after  the  building  of  Solomon's  Temple,  c. 
 Apion.  i.  18);  it  possessed  the  island  of  Cyprus, 
 with  the  valuable  mines  of  the  metal  "copper"  (so 
 named  from  the  island);  and,  apparently,  the  city 
 of  Sidon  was  subject  to  its  sway.  But  Shalmaneser 
 seems  to  have  taken  advantage  of  a  revolt  of  the 
 Cyprians ;  and  what  ensued  is  thus  related  by 
 IMenander,  who  translated  the  archives  of  Tyre  into 
 tlie  Greek  language  (see  Josephus,  Ant.  ix.  14,  §  2): 
 "  Elulaeus  reigned  3G  years  (over  Tyre).  This  king, 
 upon  tlie  revolt  of  the  Kittaeans  (Cyprians),  sailed 
 with  a  fleet  against  them,  and  reduced  them  to 
 sutjmission.  On  the  other  hand,  the  king  of  tlie 
 Assyrians  attacked  in  war  the  whole  of  Phcenicia, 
 but  soon  made  peace  with  all,  and  turned  back. 
 On  this,  Sidon  and  Ace  (L  e.  Akko  or  Acre)  and 
 Palaityrus  revolted  from  the  Tyrians,  with  many 
 other  cities  which  delivered  themselves  up  to  the 
 king  of  Assyria.  Accordingly,  when  the  Tyrians 
 would  r'ot  submit  to  him,  tlie  king  returned  and 
 fell  upon  them  again,  the  Phoenicians  having  fur- 
 nished him  with  60  ships  and  800  rowers.  Against 
 these  the  Tyrians  sailed  with  12  ships,  and,  dis- 
 persing the  fleet  opposed  to  them,  they  took  five 
 hundred  men  prisoners.  The  reputation  of  all  the 
 citizens  in  Tyre  was  hence  increased.  Upon  this 
 the  king  of  the  Assyrians,  moving  off  his  army, 
 placed  guards  at  their  river  and  aqueducts  to  pre- 
 vent the  Tyrians  from  drawing  water.  This  con- 
 tinued for  five  years,  and  still  the  Tyrians  held  out, 
 supplying  themselves  with  water  from  wells."     It  is 
 
 TYRE 
 
 3333 
 
 in  reference  to  this  siege  that  the  prophecy  against 
 Tyre  in  the  writings  entitled  Isaiah,  chap,  xxiii., 
 was  uttered,  if  it  proceeded  from  the  Prophet  Isaiah 
 himself:  but  this  point  will  be  again  noticed. 
 
 After  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  Shalmaneser  (which 
 must  have  taken  place  not  long  after  721  p..  c). 
 Tyre  remained  a  powerful  state  with  its  own  kings 
 (Jer.  xxv.  22,  xxvii.  3;  Ez.  xxviii.  2-12),  remark- 
 aide  for  its  wealth,  with  territory  on  the  mainland, 
 and  protected  by  strong  fortifications  (Ez.  xxviii.  5, 
 xxvi.  4,  G,  8,  10,  12,  xxvii.  11;  Zech.  ix.  3).  Our 
 knowledge  of  its  condition  thenceforward  until  the 
 siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar  depends  entirely  on  va- 
 rious notices  of  it  ])y  the  Hebrew  prophets;  but 
 some  of  those  notices  are  singularly  full,  and,  espe- 
 cially, the  twenty-seventh  chapter  of  Ezekiel  fur- 
 nishes us,  on  some  points,  with  details  such  as  have 
 scarcely  come  down  to  us  respecting  any  one  city  of 
 antiquity,  excepting  lionie  and  Athens.  One  point 
 especially  arrests  the  attention,  that  Tyre,  like  its 
 splendid  daughter  Carthage,  employed  mercenary 
 soldiers  (Ez.  xxvii.  10,  11).  This  has  been  the 
 general  tendency  in  commercial  cities  on  account  of 
 the  high  wages  which  may  be  obtained  by  artisans 
 in  a  thriving  community,  compared  with  the  ordi- 
 nary pay  of  a  soldier;  and  Tyre  had  been  unable  to 
 resist  the  demoralizing  temptation.  In  its  service 
 there  were  Phoenicians  from  Arvad,  Ethiopians 
 obtained  through  tlie  commerce  of  Egypt,  and 
 hardy  mountaineers  from  Persia.  This  is  the  first 
 time  that  the  name  of  Persia  occurs  in  the  remains 
 of  ancient  literature,  before  its  sons  founded  a  great 
 monarchy  on  the  ruins  of  the  Chaldfean  empire. 
 We  may  conceive  them  hke  the  Swiss,  who,  poor, 
 faithful,  and  brave,  have  during  many  centuries, 
 until  the  last  few  years,  deemed  enlistment  in 
 foreign  service  a  legitimate  source  of  gain.  Inde- 
 pendently, however,  of  this  fact  respecting  Tyrian 
 mercenary'soldiers,  Ezekiel  gives  interesting  details 
 respecting  the  trade  of  Tyre.  On  this  head,'  with- 
 out attempting  to  exhaust  the  subject,  a  few  lead 
 ing  points  may  be  noticed.  The  first  question  is 
 as  to  the  countries  from  which  Tyre  obtained  the 
 precious  metals ;  and  it  appears  that  its  gold  came 
 from  Arabia  by  the  Persian  Gulf  (v.  22),  just  as  in 
 the  time  of  Solomon  it  came  from  Arabia  by  the 
 Red  Sea  [Ophik].  Whether  the  Arabian  mer- 
 chants, whose  wealth  was  proverbial  in  Roman 
 classical  times  (Horace,  Od.  i.  29,  1),  obtained  their 
 gold  by  traffic  with  Africa  or  India,  or  whether  it 
 was  the  product  of  their  own  country,  is  uncer- 
 tain ;  but  as  far  as  the  latter  alternative  is  con- 
 cerned, the  point  will  probably  be  cleared  up  in  the 
 progress  of  geological  knowledge.  On  the  other 
 hand,  the  silver,  iron,  lead,  and  tin  of  Tyre  came 
 from  a  very  difterent  quarter  of  the  world,  namely, 
 from  the  south  of  Spain,  where  the  Phoenicians 
 had  established  their  settlement  of  Tarshish,  or  Tar- 
 tessus.  As  to  copper,  we  should  have  presumed 
 tliat  it  was  obtained  from  the  \'aluable  mines  in 
 Cyprus;  but  it  is  mentioned  here  in  conjunction 
 with  .lavan,  Tubal,  and  Meshech,  which  points  to 
 the  districts  on  the  south  of  tlie  Black  Sea,  in  the 
 neighborhood  of  Armenia,  in  the  southern  line  of 
 the  Caucasus,  between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Cas- 
 pian. The  country  whence  Tyre  was  supplied  with 
 wheat  was  Palestine.  This  point  has  been  already 
 noticed  elsewhere  [Phckxicians,  iii.  2519]  as  help- 
 ing to  explain  why  there  is  no  instance  on  record 
 of  war  between  Tyre  and  the  Israelites.  It  may 
 be  added  that  the  value  of  Palestine  as  a  wheat- 
 country  to  Tyre  was  greatly  enhanced  by  its  proX' 
 
8334 
 
 TYRE 
 
 imity,  as  there  was  scarcely  a  part  of  the  kingdom 
 of  Israel  on  the  west  of  the  river  Jordan  which  was 
 distant  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from  that  great 
 commercial  citj-.  The  extreme  points  in  the  king- 
 dom of  Judah  would  be  souiewiiat  more  distant; 
 but  the  wlieat  probably  came  from  the  northern 
 part  of  Palestine.  Tyre  likewise  obtained  from 
 Palestine  oil,  honey,  and  balm,  but  not  wine  appar- 
 ently, notwithstanding  the  abundance  of  grapes  and 
 wine  in  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  11).  The  wine  was  im- 
 ported from  Damascus,  and  was  called  wine  of  Hel- 
 bon,  whicii  was  probably  not  the  product  of  the 
 country  adjoining  the  celebrated  city  of  that  name, 
 but  came  i'rom  the  neighborhood  of  Damascus  it- 
 self (see  Porter's  Handbook  for  Syriu^  vol.  ii.  p.  49.5; 
 compare  Athenagus,  i.  51).  The  Bedawin  Arabs 
 supplied  Tyre  with  lambs  and  rams  and  goats,  for 
 the  rearing  of  which  their  mode  of  life  was  so  well 
 adapted.  Kgypt  furnished  linen  for  sails,  and  doubt- 
 less for  other  purposes,  and  the  dyes  from  shell- fish, 
 which  afterwards  became  such  a  source  of  profit  to 
 the  Tyrians,  were  imported  from  the  Peloponnesus 
 (compare  the  "  Laconicas  purpuras  "  of  Horace,  Od. 
 ii.  18,  7,  and  Pliny,  ix.  4(1).  Lastly  from  Dedan  in 
 the  Persian  Gulf,  an  island  occupied  possibly  by  a 
 I'hcenician  colony,  horns  of  ivory  and  ebony  were 
 imported,  which  must  originally  have  been  obtained 
 from  India  (Ez.  xxvii.  10,  11,  22,  12,  1-3,  17,  18,  21, 
 7,  15). 
 
 In  the  midst  of  great  prosperity  and  wealth, 
 which  was  the  natural  result  of  such  an  extensive 
 trade  (Ez.  xxviii.  4),  Nebuchadnezzar,  at  the  head 
 of  an  army  of  the  Chaldees,  invaded  Judaea,  and 
 captured  Jerusalem.  As  Tyre  was  so  near  to  Jeru- 
 salem, and  as  the  conquerors  were  a  fierce  and  for- 
 midable race  (Hab.  i.  (!),  led  by  a  general  of  un- 
 doubted capacity,  who  had  not  long  before  hundjled 
 the  power  of  the  Egyptians,  it  would  naturally  be 
 supposed  that  this  event  would  have  excited  alarm 
 and  terror  amongst  the  Tyrians.  Instead  of  this 
 we  may  infer  from  Ezekiel's  statement  (xxvi.  2) 
 that  their  predominant  feeling  was  one  of  exulta- 
 tion. At  first  sight  this  appears  strange  and  al- 
 most inconceivable;  but  it  is  rendered  intelligible 
 by  some  previous  events  in  Jewish  historj-.  Only 
 34  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  com- 
 menced the  celebrated  Keformation  of  Josiah,  b.  c. 
 G22.  This  momentous  religious  revolution,  of 
 which  a  detailed  account  is  given  in  two  chapters 
 of  the  book  of  Kings  (2  K.  xxii.,  xxiii.),  and  which 
 cannot  be  too  closely  studied  by  any  one  who  wishes 
 to  understand  the  Jewish  Annals,  fully  explains  the 
 exultation  and  malevolence  of  the  Tyrians.  In 
 that  Reformation,  Josiah  had  heaped  insults  on  the 
 gods  who  were  the  objects  of  Tyrian  veneration  and 
 love,  he  had  consumed  with  fire  the  sacred  vessels 
 used  in  their  worship,  he  had  burnt  their  images 
 and  defiled  their  high  places  —  not  excepting  even 
 the  high  place  near  Jerusalem,  which  Solomon  the 
 friend  of  Hiram  had  built  to  Ashtoreth  the  Queen 
 of  Heaven,  and  which  for  more  than  350  years  had 
 been  a  striking  memorial  of  the  reciprocal  good-will 
 which  once  united  the  two  monarclis  and  the  two 
 nations.  Indeed,  he  seemed  to  have  endeavored  to 
 exterminate  their  religion,  for  in  Samaria  (2  K. 
 xxiii.  20)  he  had  slain  upon  the  altars  of  the  high 
 places  all  their  priests.  These  acts,  although  in 
 their  ultimate  results    they  may  have  contributed 
 
 o  It  was  owing  to  this  Reformation  of  .losiah  that 
 when  the  Jews  were  carried  into  captivity  by  Nebu- 
 .hadnezzar  a  generation  had  arisen  untainted  by  idola- 
 
 TYRE 
 
 powerfully  to  the  «  diffusion  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
 must  have  been  regarded  Ijy  the  Tyrians  as  a  series 
 of  sacrilegious  and  abominable  outrages ;  and  we 
 can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  death  in  battle  of 
 Josiah  at  Megiddo,  and  the  subsequent  destruction 
 of  the  city  and  Temple  of  Jerusalem  were  hailed  by 
 them  with  triumphant  joy,  as  instances  of  Divine 
 retribution  in  human  affairs. 
 
 This  joy,  however,  must  soon  have  given  way 
 to  other  feelings,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded 
 Phoenicia,  and  laid  siege  to  Tyre.  That  siege 
 lasted  thirteen  years  (Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  21),  and 
 it  is  still  a  disputed  point,  which  will  be  noticed 
 separately  in  this  article,  whether  Tyre  was  actually 
 taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  on  this  occasion.  How- 
 ever this  may  be,  it  is  probable  that,  on  some  terms 
 or  other.  Tyre  submitted  to  the  Chaldees.  This 
 would  explain,  amongst  other  points,  an  expedition 
 of  Apries,  the  Pharaoh-Hophra  of  Scripture,  against 
 Tyre,  which  probably  happened  not  long  after,  and 
 which  may  have  been  dictated  by  obvious  moti\es 
 of  self-defense  in  order  to  prevent  the  naval  power 
 of  Tyre  becoming  a  powerful  instrument  of  attack- 
 ing Egypt  in  the  hands  of  the  Chaldees.  In  this 
 expedition  Apries  besieged  Sidon,  fought  a  naval 
 battle  with  Tyre,  and  reduced  the  whole  of  the 
 coast  of  Phoenicia,  though  this  could  not  have  had 
 lasting  effects  (Herod,  ii.  161;  Diod.  i.  G8;  Movers, 
 Dns  Phonizische  Alterilnim,  vol.  ii.  p.  451).  The 
 rule  of  Nebuchadnezzar  over  Tyi-e,  though  real, 
 may  have  been  light,  and  in  the  natm-e  of  an  alli- 
 ance; and  it  may  have  been  in  this  sense  that  Mer- 
 bal,  a  subsequent  Tyrian  king,  was  sent  for  to 
 Baliylon  (.Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  21).  During  the 
 Persian  domination  the  Tyrians  were  subject  in 
 name  to  tiie  Persian  king,  and  may  have  given  him 
 tribute.  With  the  rest  of  Phoenicia,  they  had  sub- 
 mitted to  the  Persians,  without  striking  a  blow; 
 perhaps,  through  hatred  of  the  Chaldees;  perhaps, 
 solely  from  prudential  motives.  But  their  connec- 
 tion with  the  Persian  king  was  not  slavish.  Thus, 
 when  Cambyses  ordered  them  to  join  in  an  expe- 
 dition against  Carthage,  they  refused  compliance, 
 on  account  of  their  solemn  engagements  and  pa- 
 rental relation  to  that  colony:  and  Cambyses  did 
 not  deem  it  right  to  use  force  toward  them  (Herod, 
 iii.  19).  Afterwards  they  fought  with  Persia 
 against  Greece,  and  furnished  vessels  of  war  in  the 
 expedition  of  Xerxes  against  Greece  (Herod,  vii. 
 98):  and  Mapen,  the  son  of  Sirom  the  Tyrian,  is 
 mentioned  amongst  those  who,  next  to  the  com- 
 manders, were  tiie  most  renowned  in  the  fleet.  It 
 is  worthy  of  notice  that  at  this  time  Tyre  seems  to 
 have  been  inferior  in  power  to  Sidon.  These  two 
 cities  were  less  than  twenty  English  miles  distant 
 from  each  other;  and  it  is  easy  to  conceive  that  in 
 the  course  of  centuries  their  relative  importance 
 nn'ght  fluctuate,  as  would  lie  very  possible  in  our 
 own  country  with  two  neighboring  cities,  such  for 
 example,  as  Liverpool  and  Manchester.  It  is  possi- 
 ble also  that  Tyre  may  have  been  seriously  weakened 
 liy  its  long  struggle  against  Nebuchadnezzar.  Un- 
 der the  Persian  dominion.  Tyre  and  Sidon  sup- 
 plied cedar  wood  again  to  the  Jews  for  the  build- 
 ing of  the  second  Temple;  and  this  wood  was  sent 
 by  sea  to  Joppa,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem,  as  had 
 been  the  case  with  the  materials  for  the  first  Tem- 
 ple in  the  time   of   Solomon  (Ezra,  iii.  7).     Un- 
 
 try,  and  yet  many  of  them  probably  free  from  the  in- 
 tense scrupulousness  in  ceremonial  observances  whicfc 
 prevailed  subsequently. 
 
I 
 
 TYRE 
 
 der  the  Persians  likewise  Tyi'e  was  visited  by  an 
 historian,  from  wlioin  we  nii^ht  liave  derived  val- 
 uable information  respecting  its  condition  (Herod, 
 ii.  44).  But  tlie  information  actually  supplied  by 
 him  is  scanty,  as  the  motive  of  his  voyage  seems  to 
 have  been  solely  to  visit  the  celebrated  temple  of 
 Melkarth  (the  I'hcenician  Hercules),  which  was  sit- 
 uated in  the  island,  and  was  highly  \eiierated.  He 
 gives  no  details  as  to  the  city,  and  merely  specifies 
 two  colunuis  which  he  observed  in  the  temple,  one 
 of  gold,  and  the  otlier  of  emerald ;  or  ratiier,  as  is 
 reasonably  conjectured  by  Sir  Gardiner  Wilkinson, 
 of  green  glass  (Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  ii.  81,  82). 
 Towards  the  close  of  the  following  century,  b.  c. 
 332,  Tyre  was  assailed  for  the  third  time  by  a  great 
 conqueror:  and  if  some  uncertainty  hangs  over  the 
 siege  Ijy  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  results  of  the  siege 
 by  Alexander  were  clear  and  undeniable.  It  was 
 essential  to  tlie  success  of  his  military  plans  that 
 the  Phcenician  fleet  should  be  at  his  command,  and 
 that  he  should  not  be  lialile  throuifji  tlieir  hostility 
 to  have  his  communications  by  sea  with  Greece  and 
 Macedonia  suddeidy  cut  off;  and  he  accordingly 
 summoned  all  the  Phoenician  cities  to  submit  to 
 his  rule.  All  the  rest  of  them,  including  Aradus, 
 Byblus,  and  Sidon,  complied  with  his  demands,  and 
 the  seamen  of  those  cities  in  the  Persian  fleet 
 brought  away  their  sliips  to  join  him.  Tyre  alone, 
 calculating  probably  at  first  on  the  supporc  of  those 
 seamen,  refused  to  admit  him  witiiin  its  walls  — 
 and  then  ensued  a  memorable  siege  which  lasted 
 seven  months,  and  the  success  of  which  was  the 
 greatest  of  all  the  achievements  whicli  Alexander 
 up  to  that  time  had  attempted.  It  is  not  necessary 
 to  give  here  the  details  of  that  siege,  which  may  be 
 found  in  Arrian  and  Quintus  Curtius,  and  in  all 
 good  Grecian  historieSj  such  as  tliose  of  Bisliop 
 Thirlwall  and  ]\Ir.  (irote.  It  may  be  sufficient  to 
 say,  tluit  at  tliat  time  Tyre  was  situated  on  an 
 island  nearly  lialf  a  mile  from  the  mainland  —  that 
 "  it  was  completely  surrounded  by  prodigious  walls, 
 the  loftiest  portion  of  which  on  the  side  fronting 
 the  mainland  reached  a  height  not  less  than  150 
 feet;  "and  that  notwithstanding  his  persevering 
 efforts,  he  could  not  have  succeeded  in  his  attempt, 
 if  the  harbor  of  Tyre  to  tlie  north  had  not  been 
 blockaded  by  tlie  Cyprians,  and  that  to  the  south 
 by  the  Phoenicians,  thus  affording  an  opportunity 
 to  Alexander  for  uniting  the  island  to  the  mainland 
 by  an  enormous  artificial  «  mole.  Moreover,  owing 
 to  internal  disturbances,  Carthage  was  unable  to 
 afford  any  assistance  to  its  parent  state. 
 
 The  immediate  results  of  the  capture  by  Alex- 
 ander were  most  disastrous  to  it,  as  its  brave  de- 
 fenders were  put  to  death ;  and,  in  accordance  with 
 the  barbarous  policy  .of  ancient  times,  30,000  of  its 
 inhabitants,  including  slaves,  free  females  and  free 
 children  were  sold  as  slaves  (Arrian,  iv.  24,  §  9 ; 
 Diodorus,  xvii.  46).  It  gradually,  however,  recov- 
 ered its  prosperity  through  the  immigration  of  fresh 
 
 TYRE 
 
 5335 
 
 o  That  Tyre  was  ou  an  island,  previous  to  its  siege 
 by  Alexander,  is  one  of  the  most  certain  facts  of  his- 
 tory ;  but  on  examining  the  locality  at  the  present  day 
 few  persons  would  suspect  from  existing  appearances 
 that  there  was  anything  artificial  in  the  formation  of 
 the  present  peninsula. 
 
 t>  Pliny  the  elder  gives  an  account  of  the  Phoeni- 
 cian shell-fish  (ix.  60,  61),  and  states  that  from  the 
 larger  ones  the  dye  was  extracted,  after  taking  off  the 
 shell  :  but  that  the  small  fish  were  crushed  alive 
 together  with  the  .shells.  Mr.  AVilde,  an  intelligent 
 modern  traveller,  observed  at  Tyro  numerous  round 
 
 settlers,  though  its  trade  is  said  to  have  suffered  by 
 the  vicinity  and  rivalry  of  Alexandria.  Under  the 
 Macedonian  succes.sors  of  Alexander,  it  sliared  the 
 fortunes  of  the  Seleucidse,  wlio  Iiestowed  on  it  many 
 privileges;  and  there  are  .still  in  existence  coins  of 
 tliat  epoch  with  a  Phoenician  and  Greek  inscrip- 
 tion (Kckhel,  Doclv.  Nummorum  Vet.  vol.  iii.  p. 
 37!t,  &c. ;  Gesenius,  i\foimmenta  P/icenicixe,  pp. 
 2G2-264,  and  Tab.  34).  Under  the  Ptomans,  at 
 first  it  continued  to  enjoy  a  kind  of  freedom;  for 
 .losephus  mentions  that  when  Cleopatra  pressed 
 Antony  to  include  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  a  gift  of 
 Phoenician  and  Jewish  territory  which  he  made  to 
 iier,  he  steadily  refused,  knowing  them  to  have 
 lieen  "  free  cities  from  their  ancestors  "  {Ant.  xv. 
 4,  §  1).  Subsequently,  however,  on  the  arrival  of 
 Augustus  in  the  East,  he  is  said  to  have  deprived 
 the  two  cities  of  their  liberties  for  seditious  conduct 
 (eSouAojcraTo,  I>ion  Cassius,  Ixiv.  7).  Still  the 
 prosperity  of  Tyre  in  the  time  of  Augustus  was 
 undeniably  great.  Strabo  gives  an  account  of  it 
 at  that  period  (xvi.  2,  23),  and  speaks  of  the  great 
 wealtli  which  it  derived  from  the  dyes  of  the  cele- 
 brated Tyrian  purple,  which,  as  is  well  known, 
 were  extracted  from  shell-fish  found  on  the  coast, 
 belonging  to  a  species  of  the  genus  INIurex.  In  the 
 days  of  I'^zekiel,  the  Tyrians  had  imported  purple 
 from  the  Peloponnesus;  but  they  had  since  learned 
 to  extract  the  dye  for  themselves ;  and  they  had  the 
 advantage  of  having  shell-fish  on  their  coast  better 
 adapted  for  this  purpose  even  than  those  on  the 
 Lacedfenionian  coast  (Pausanias,  iii.  21,  §  6).  Strabo 
 adds,  that  the  great  number  of  dyeing  works  ren- 
 dered the  city  unpleasant  as  a  place  of  residence.* 
 He  further  speaks  of  the  houses  as  consisting  of 
 many  stories,  even  of  more  than  in  the  houses  at 
 Pome  —  which  is  precisely  what  might  be  expected 
 in  a  prosperous  fortified  city  of  limited  area,  in 
 which  ground-rent  would  lie  high.  Pliny  the  Elder 
 gives  additional  information  respecting  the  city,  for 
 in  de.scribing  it  he  says  that  the  circumference  of 
 the  city  proper  (i.  e.  the  city  on  the  peninsula)  was 
 22  stadia,  while  that  of  the  whole  city,  including 
 PaliBtyrus,  was  19  Koman  miles  {IVat.  Hist.  v.  17). 
 The  accounts  of  Strabo  and  Pliny  have  a  peculiar 
 interest  in  this  respect,  that  they  tend  to  convey 
 an  idea  of  what  the  city  must  have  been,  when 
 visited  by  Christ  (Matt.  xv.  21;  Mark  vii.  24). 
 It  was  perhaps  more  populous  than  .Jerusalem 
 [.Jerusalem,  ii.  1320],  and  if  so,  it  was  undoubt- 
 edly the  largest  city  which  he  is  known  to  have 
 visited.  It  was  not  much  more  than  thirty  miles 
 distant  from  Nazareth,  where  Christ  mainly  lived 
 as  a  carpenter's  son  during  the  greater  part  of  his 
 life  (Matt.  ii.  23,  iv.  12,  13,  18;  Mark  vi.  3).  We 
 may  readily  conceive  that  He  may  often  have  gone 
 to  Tyre,  while  yet  unknown  to  the  world;  and 
 whatever  uncertainty  there  may  be  as  to  the  extent 
 to  which  the  Greek  language  was  likely  to  be 
 spoken  at  Nazareth,  at  Tyre,  and  in  its  neighbor- 
 
 holes  cut  in  the  solid  sandstone  rock,  in  which  shells 
 seem  to  have  been  crushed.  They  were  perfectly 
 smooth  on  the  inside  ;  and  many  of  them  were  shaped 
 exactly  like  a  modern  iron  pot,  broad  and  flat  at  the 
 bottom,  and  narrowing  toward  the  top.  Many  of 
 these  were  filled  with  a  breccia  of  shells  ;  in  other 
 places  this  breccia  lay  in  heaps  in  the  neighborhood. 
 All  the  shells  were  of  one  species,  and  were  undoubt- 
 edly the  Murex  Triincidus.  ^en  Narrative  of  a  Voyage 
 to  Madeira,  Teneriffe,  and  along  tlie  Shores  of  tht 
 Mediterranean.     Dublin,  1844. 
 
8336  TYRE 
 
 hood,  there  must  have  been  excellent  opportunities 
 for  conversation  in  that  language,  with  which  lie 
 seems  to  have  been  acquainted  (Mark  vii.  20). 
 From  the  time  of  Christ  to  the  beginning  of  the 
 5th  century,  there  is  no  reason  to  douljt  that,  as 
 far  as  was  compatible  with  the  irreparable  loss  of 
 independence,  Tyre  continued  in  uninterrupted 
 prosperity;  and  about  that  period  Jerome  has  on 
 record  very  striking  testimony  on  the  subject, 
 which  lias  been  often  quoted,  and  is  a  landmark  in 
 Tyrian  history  (see  Gesenius's  Jesaia,  voh  i.  p. 
 714).  Jerome,  in  his  Commentaries  on  Ezekiel, 
 conies  to  the  passage  in  wliicli  tlie  propliet  threatens 
 Tyre  with  the  approach  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
 of  Babylon  (Ez.  xxvi.  7) ;  and  he  then,  amongst 
 otlier  points,  refers  to  the  verse  in  which  tlie 
 prophet  predicts  of  Tyre,  "  Thou  shalt  lie  liuilt  no 
 more,"  saying  that  this  raises  a  question  as  to  liow 
 a  city  can  be  said  not  to  be  built  any  more,  which 
 we  see  at  the  present  day  tlie  most  noble  and  the 
 most  beautiful  city  of  Phoenicia.  "  Quodque  se- 
 quitur:  nee  fedificaberis  ultra,  videtnr  facere  quws- 
 tionem  quoniodo  non  sit  sedificata,  quani  lidflie 
 cernimiis  Plimnices  nohilissimam  et  pulcJi  err  imam 
 civitaiem."  He  afterwards,  in  his  remarks  on  the 
 -3d  verse  of  the  27th  cliapter,  in  which  Tyre  is 
 called  "a  merchant  of  the  people  for  many  isles," 
 says  that  this  continues  down  to  his  time,  so  that 
 commercial  dealings  of  almost  all  nations  are  car- 
 ried on  in  that  city  —  "  quod  quidem  usque  Itodie 
 perseverat,  ut  omnium  propeirwdo  gentium  in  ilia 
 exerceantur  commercia.'"  Jerome's  Commentaries 
 on  Ezekiel  are  supposed  to  have  been  written  about 
 the  years  411—114  a.  d.  (see  Smith's  Dictionarij 
 of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography,  vol.  ii.  p.  40.5), 
 so  that  his  testimony  respecting  the  prosperity  of 
 Tyre  bears  date  almost  precisely  a  thousand  years 
 after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 B.  c.  .588.  As  to  the  passage  in  which  Ezekiel 
 states  that  TjTe  shall  be  built  no  more,  Jerome 
 says  the  meaning  is,  that  "  Tyre  will  be  no  more 
 the  Queen  of  Nations,  having  its  own  king,  as  was 
 'the  case  under  Hiram  and  other  kings,  but  that  it 
 was  destined  to  be  alwajs  subject,  either  to  the 
 Chaldeans,  or  to  the  jMacedonians,  or  to  the  Ptole- 
 mies, or  at  last  to  the  Konians."  At  the  same 
 time  Jerome  notices  a  meaning  given  to  the  pas- 
 sage by  some  interpreters,  that  Tyre  would  not  be 
 built  in  the  last  days ;  but  he  asks  of  such  inter- 
 preters, "  How  they  will  be  able  to  preserve  the 
 part  attributed  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  especially  as  we 
 read  in  what  follows,  that  Nebucliadnezzar  besieged 
 Tyre,  but  had  no  reward  of  his  labor  (xxix.  18), 
 and  that  Egypt  was  given  over  to  him  because  in 
 besieging  Tyre  he  had  served  the  purpose  of  God." 
 When  .Jerome  spoke  of  Tyre's  suVijection  to  tlie 
 Romans,  which  had  then  lasted  more  than  four 
 hundred  years,  he  could  scarcely  have  anticipated 
 that  another  sulijugation  of  the  country  was  re- 
 served for  it  from  a  new  conquering  power,  coming 
 not  from  the  north,  but  from  the  south.  In  the 
 7th  century  a.  d.  took  place  the  extraordinary 
 Arabian  revolution  under  Mohammed,  which  has 
 given  a  new  religion  to  so  many  millions  of  man- 
 kind. In  the  years  0.3-3-038  A.  D.  all  Syria  and 
 Palestine,  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  Antioch,  was  con- 
 quered by  the  Khalif  Omar.  This  conquest  was 
 so  complete,  that  in  both  those  countries  the  Lan- 
 guage of  Mohammed  has  almost  totally  supplanted 
 the  language  of  Christ.  In  Syria,  there  are  only 
 three  villages  where  Syriac  (or  Aramaic)  is  the 
 'ernacular  language.     In   Palestine,  it  is  not  the 
 
 TYRE 
 
 language  of  a  single  native;  and  in  Jerusalem,  to  a 
 stranger  who  understands  what  is  involved  in  this 
 momentous  revolution,  it  is  one  of  the  most  sug- 
 gestive of  all  sounds  to  hear  the  Muezzin  daily  call 
 Jloliammedans  to  prayers  in  the  Arabic  language  of 
 Mohammed,  within  the  sacred  precincts  where  once 
 stood  the  Temple,  in  which  Christ  worshipped  in 
 Hebrew,  or  in  Aramaic.  (As  to  the  Syriac  lan- 
 guage, see  Porter's  Handhnok  fur  Syria  and  Pal. 
 estine,  vol.  ii.  p.  551.)  But  even  this  conquest  did 
 not  cause  the  overthrow  of  Tyre.  The  most  essen- 
 tial conditions  on  which  peace  was  granted  to  Tyre, 
 as  to  other  Syrian  cities,  were  the  payment  of  a 
 poll-tax,  the  obligation  to  give  board  and  lodging 
 for  three  days  to  every  Musleni  traveller,  the  wear- 
 ing a  peculiar  dress,  the  admission  of  Muslems  into 
 the  churches,  the  doing  away  with  all  crosses  and 
 all  sounds  of  bells,  the  avoiding  of  all  insulting 
 expressions  towards  the  Mohammedan  religion,  and 
 the  prohibition  to  ride  on  horseback  or  to  build 
 new  churches.  (See  Weil's  Ueschichte  der  Chal- 
 ifer,  bd.  i.  81,  82.)  Some  of  these  conditions  were 
 humiliating,  and  nearly  heart-breaking;  but  if  sub- 
 mitted to,  the  lives  and  private  property  of  the 
 inhabitants  remained  untouched.  Accordingly,  at 
 the  time  of  the  Crusades  Tyre  was  still  a  flourish- 
 ing city,  when  it  surrendered  to  the  Christians  on 
 the  27th  of  June,  1124.  It  had  early  been  the 
 seat  of  a  Christian  bishopric,  and  Cassius,  bishop 
 of  Tyre,  is  named  as  having  been  present  at  the 
 Council  of  Caesarea  towards  the  close  of  the  2d 
 century  (Eeland,  Palestine,  1054) ;  and  now,  in 
 the  year  after  its  capture  by  the  Crusaders,  Wil- 
 liam, a  Frenchman,  was  made  its  archbishop. 
 This  archbishop  has  left  on  record  an  account  of 
 the  city,  which  gives  a  high  idea  of  its  wealth  and 
 great  military  strength.  (See  Wilhelmi  Tyrensis 
 flistoria,  lib.  xiii.  cap.  5.)  And  his  statements 
 are  confirmed  by  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who  visited 
 it  in  the  same  century.  (See  Purchas's  Pilgrims, 
 ii.  1443.)  The  latter  writer,  who  died  in  1173, 
 says :  "  Nor  do  I  think  any  haven  in  the  world  to 
 be  like  unto  this.  The  city  itself,  as  I  have  said, 
 is  goodly,  and  in  it  there  are  about  four  hundred 
 .lews,  among  whom  some  are  very  skillful  in  disci- 
 plinary readings,  and  especially  Ephraim  the  Egyp- 
 tian judge,  and  Jlair,  and  (/archesona,  and  Abra- 
 ham, the  head  of  the  university.  Some  of  the 
 Jews  there  have  ships  at  sea  for  the  cause  of  gain. 
 There  are  artificial  workmen  in  glass  there,  who 
 make  glass,  called  Tyrian  glass,  the  most  excellent, 
 and  of  the  greatest  estimation  in  all  countries. 
 The  best  and  most  approved  sugar  is  also  found 
 there."  In  fact,  at  this  period,  and  down  to  the 
 close  of  the  13th  century,  there  was  perhaps  no 
 city  in  the  known  world  which  had  stronger  claims 
 than  Tyre  to  the  title  of  the  "  Eternal  City,"  if 
 experience  had  not  shown  that  cities  as  well  as  in- 
 dividuals were  subject  to  decay  and  dissolution. 
 Tyre  had  been  the  [)arent  of  colonies,  which  at  a 
 distant  period  had  enjoyed  a  long  life  and  had 
 died ;  and  it  had  survived  more  than  fifteen  hun- 
 dred years  its  greatest  colony,  Carthage.  It  had 
 outlived  yEgyptian  Thelies,  and  Babylon,  and  an- 
 cient .Jerusalem.  It  had  seen  Grecian  cities  rise 
 and  fall;  and  although  older  than  them  all,  it  was 
 in  a  state  of  great  prosperity  when  an  illustrious 
 Ivoman,  who  had  been  sailing  from  yEgina  to 
 Megara,  told  Cicero,  in  imperishable  words,  of  the 
 corpses  or  carcases  of  cities,  the  oppidorum  cndav- 
 era,  by  which  in  that  voyage  he  had  been  in 
 every  direction  encompassed  ( Ep.  ad  FamiUnr.  iv. 
 
TYRE 
 
 5.)  Rome,  it  is  true,  was  still  in  existence  in  the 
 ]3tli  century;  but,  in  comparison  witli  Tyre,  Rome 
 itself  was  of  recent  date,  its  now  twice  consecrated 
 soil  having  been  merely  the  haunt  of  sheplierds  or 
 robbers  for  some  hundred  years  after  Tyre  was 
 wealthy  and  strong.  At  length,  however,  the  evil 
 day  of  Tyre  undoubtedly  arrived.  It  had  been 
 more  than  a  century  and  a  half  in  tlie  hands  of 
 Christians,  when  in  March,  A.  d.  1291,  the  Sul- 
 tan of  Egypt  and  Damascus  invested  Acre,  then 
 known  to  Europe  by  the  name  of  Ptolemais,  and 
 took  it  by  storm  after  a  siege  of  two  months.  The 
 result  was  t«ld  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  cen- 
 tury by  Mariims  Sanutus,  a  Venetian,  in  the  fol- 
 lowing words:  "On  the  same  day  on  which  Ptole- 
 mais was  taken,  the  Tyrians,  at  vespers,  leaving 
 the  citj  empty,  without  the  stroke  of  a  sword, 
 without  the  tumult  of  war,  embarked  on  board 
 their  vessels,  and  abandoned  the  city  to  be  occu- 
 pied freely  by  their  conquerors.  On  the  morrow 
 the  Sar'iceiis  entered,  no  one  attempting  to  prevent 
 
 TYRE  3337 
 
 them,  and   they  did  what  they  pleased.''      (LiheT 
 Stcretorum Jjiklium  Crucis.  lib.  iii.  cap.  22.") 
 
 This  was  the  turning-point  in  the  history  of  Tyre 
 1879  years  after  the  capture  of  .lerusalem  by  Neb- 
 uchadnezzar; and  Tyre  has  not  yet  recovered  from 
 the  blow.  In  the  first  half  of  the  14th  century  it 
 was  visited  by  Sir  .John  Maundeville,  who  says, 
 I  speaking  of  "  Tyre,  which  is  now  called  Sur,  here 
 j  was  once  a  great  and  goodly  city  of  the  Christians: 
 ;  but  the  Saracens  have  destroyed  it  in  gin^at  part; 
 and  they  guard  that  haven  carefully  for  tear  of  the 
 Christians  "  (Wright's  Eiiiiy  Travels  in  PaUstine, 
 p.  141).  About  A.  n.  1610-11  it  was  visited  by 
 Sandys,  who  said  of  it:  "  But  this  once  famous 
 Tyre  is  now  no  other  than  a  heap  of  ruins  j  yet 
 have  they  a  reverent  aspect,  and  do  instruct  the 
 pensive  beholder  with  their  exemplary  frailty.  It 
 hath  tv\-o  harbors,  that  on  the  north  side  the  fairest 
 and  best  tliroiighout  all  the  Levant  (which  the  cur- 
 sours  enter  at  their  pleasure) ;  the  other  choked  with 
 the  decayes  of  the  city  "     (Purchas's  I'ilij/  ima,  ii. 
 
 "^^'■li'Xe&i 
 
 w^i;m: 
 
 KiUDS  of  Tyre. 
 
 1393.)  Towards  the  close  of  tlie  same  century,  in 
 1697  A.  ]>.,  Maundrell  says  of  it,  "  (Jn  the  north 
 side  it  has  an  old  Turkish  castle,  besides  wliich 
 there  is  nothing  here  but  a  mere  Babel  of  broken 
 walls,  j)illars,  vaults,  etc.,  there  being  not  so  much 
 as  an  entire  house  left.  Its  present  inhaliitants  are 
 only  a  few  poor  \\retches  that  harbor  in  vaults  and 
 subsist  upon  tishing."  (See  Harris,  Voyayts  and 
 Travels,  ii.  846.)  Lastly,  without  quoting  at 
 length  Dr.  Richard  Pococke,  who  in  1737-40  a.  d. 
 stated  (see  vol.  x.  of  Pinkerton's  Voyages  anil 
 Travels,  p.  470)  that,  except  .some  janizaries,  there 
 were  few  other  inhabitants  in  the  city  than  two  or 
 three  Christian  laniilies,  the  words  of  Hasselquist, 
 the  Sv\'edish  natm-alist,  may  be  recorded,  as  they 
 mark  the  lowest  point  of  depression  which  Tyre 
 seems  to  have  reached.  He  was  there  in  May, 
 1751  A.  I).,  and  he  tiius  speaks  of  his  visit:  "  We 
 followed  the  sea-shore  ....  and  came  to  T3re, 
 now  called  Zur,  where  we  lay  all  night.     None  of 
 
 «  A  copy  of  this  work  is  in  Gesla  Dei  per  Francos, 
 Hanovije,  ICll. 
 
 b  M.  Ernest  Renan  says  there  has  been  7io  aubsirl- 
 
 ence  of  the  land,  owiug  to  earthquakes  or  other  causes  ; 
 
 and  that  the  wast  of  the  island  has  the  san:e  level  as 
 
 in  ancient  times.     Mr.  Wilde  had  spoken  with  great 
 
 210 
 
 these  cities,  which  formerly  were  famous,  are  so 
 totally  ruined  as  tliis.  except  Troy.  Zar  now 
 scarcely  can  be  called  a  miscralde  village,  though  it 
 was  formerly  Tyre,  the  queen  of  the  sea.  Here 
 are  ((bout  ten  inhabitants,  T((rks  and  t'l(r(s/i'(ns, 
 who  live  by  Jtsliinff.'"  (See  Hasselquist,  I'oyaijes 
 and  Tr((vels  in  the  Levant,  London,  17tJ6.)  .\ 
 slight  change  for  the  better  began  soon  alter.  Vol- 
 ney  states  that  in  1766  \.  d.  the  Metilwileh  took 
 possession  of  the  place,  and  built  a  wall  round  it 
 twenty  feet  high,  which  existed  when  he  visited 
 Tyre  nearly  twenty  years  afterward.  At  that  time 
 Volney  estimated  the  population  at  fifty  or  sixty 
 poor  families.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  present 
 century  there  has  been  a  pai'tial  re\ival  of  prosper-  , 
 ity.  lint  it  has  been  visited  at  different  times  dur- 
 ing the  last  thirty  years  by  Biiilical  scholars,  such 
 as  Professor  Robinson  {Bihl.  Res.  ii.  463-471), 
 (!anon  Stanley  {Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  270),  and 
 M.  Ernest  Renan*  {Letter  in  the  Moniteur,  July 
 
 caution  on  this  point,  pp.  383-3S5.  It  is  still  very  de- 
 sirable that  the  peninsula  and  the  adjoiniu};  coajit  should 
 be  minutely  examined  by  an  experienced  practical  ge- 
 ologist. There  seems  to  h"  no  douljt  that  t.lu-  city  has 
 sutfered   from    enrthiiuakc«.     See    I'orter,  t.    i:.  j  and 
 
3338  TYRE 
 
 11,  1801),  who  all  concur  ill  the  account  of  its  gen- 
 eral aspect  of  desolation.  Mr.  Porter,  who  resided 
 geveral  years  at  Damascus,  and  had  means  of  oli- 
 tp,ining  correct  information,  states  in  1858  that 
 "the  modern  town,  or  rather  village,  contains  from 
 3,000  to  4,000  inhabitants,  about  one  half  being 
 Metawileh,  and  the  other  Christians"  {llimdhodk 
 for  Trtivelkrs  in  Syria  and  Pdhstine,  p.  391). 
 Its  great  inferiority  to  Beyrout  for  receiving  vessels 
 suited  to  the  requirements  of  modern  navigation 
 will  always  prevent  Tyre  from  becoming  again  the 
 tnost  important  commercial  city  on  the  Syrian  coast. 
 It  is  reserved  to  the  future  to  determine  whether 
 with  a  good  government,  and  with  peace  in  the 
 Lebanon,  it  may  not  increase  in  population,  and 
 become  again  comparatively  wealthy. 
 
 In  conclusion,  it  is  proper  to  con.sider  two  ques- 
 tions of  much  interest  to  the  Bililical  student,  which 
 have  been  already  noticed  in  this  article,  but  which 
 could  not  then  be  conveniently  discussed  fully.  (1) 
 The  date  and  authorship  of  the  prophecy  against 
 Tyre  in  Isaiah,  chap,  xxiii. ;  and  (2),  the  question 
 of  whether  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  his  long  siege 
 of  Tyre,  may  be  supposed  to  have  actually  taken 
 it. 
 
 On  the  first  point  it  is  to  be  observed,  that,  as 
 there  were  two  sieges  of  Tyre  contemporaneous 
 with  events  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 namely,  that  by  Shalnianeser,  king  of  Assyria,  in 
 the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  siege  by  Nelnichad- 
 nezzar,  king  of  the  Clialdees,  after  the  capture  of 
 Jerusalem  in  588  b.  c,  and  as  Isaiah  was  living 
 during  the  former  siege,  but  must  have  been  dead 
 considerably  more  than  a  hundred  years  at  the  time 
 of  the  latter  siege,  it  is  probable,  without  denying 
 predictive  prophecy,  that  the  prophecy  relates  to 
 the  first  siege,  if  it  was  written  by  Isaiah.  As  the 
 prophecy  is  in  the  collection  of  writings  entitled 
 "Isaiah,"  there  would  formerly  not  have  been  any 
 doubt  that  it  was  written  by  that  prophet.  But  it 
 has  been  maintained  by  eminent  Biljlical  critics 
 that  many  of  the  writings  luider  the  title  of  his 
 name  were  written  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
 Captivity.  This  seems  to  be  the  least  open  to  dis- 
 pute in  reference  to  the  prophecies  conniiencing 
 with  "  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people,"  in  the 
 1st  verse  of  the  40th  chapter,  concerm'ng  which  the 
 following  facts  seem  to  the  writer  of  the  present 
 article  to  be  well  established. «  (1.)  These  prophe- 
 cies are  different  in  style  from  the  undisputed  writ- 
 ings of  Isaiah.  (2.)  They  do  not  j/;r('f/RV  that  the 
 Jews  will  be  carried  away  into  captivity  at  Babylon, 
 but  they  presuppose  that  the  Jews  are  already  in 
 captivity  there  at  the  time  when  the  prophecies  are 
 uttered;  that  Jerusalem  is  desolate,  and  that  the 
 Temple  is  burnt  (Is.  Ixiv.  10,  11,  xliv.  26,  28,  xlv. 
 13,  xlvii.  5,  6,  lii.  2,  9,  li.  3,  11,  17-23).  (3.)  The 
 name  of  Cyrus,  who  conquered  Babylon  probably 
 at  least  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  death  of 
 
 compare  Seneca,  Nat.  QiicBst.  vi.  1-11,  Strabo,  xv.  p. 
 757,  and  Justin,  xl.  2,  1. 
 
 «  Doubts  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  chapters 
 were  tirst  suggested  by  Dtiderlein  in  1781,  in  a  review 
 of  Koppe's  ti'anslation  of  Lowth's  Isaiah.  Since  1781 
 their  later  date  has  been  accepted  by  Eichhoru,  Rosen- 
 mliller,  De  Wette,  Gesenius,  Winer,  Ewald,  Ilitzig, 
 Knobel,  Ilerzfeld,  Bleek,  Geiger,  and  Davidson,  and 
 Sy  numerous  other  Hebrew  scholars.  Tlie  evidence 
 has  been  nowhere  stated  more  clearly  than  by  Gese- 
 nius in  his  Jesaia  (part  ii.  pp.  18-35,  Leipzig,  1821). 
 Oa  the  other  hand,  the  writer  of  the  article  Isaiah 
 
 TYRE 
 
 Isaiah  is  mentioned  in  them  twice  (xliv.  28,  xlv. 
 1):  and  (4),  there  is  no  external  contemporary  evi- 
 dence between  the  time  of  Isaiah  and  the  time  of 
 Cyrus  to  prove  that  these  prophecies  were  then  in 
 existence.  But,  although  in  this  way  the  evidence 
 of  a  later  date  is  peculiarly  cogent  in  reference  to 
 the  40th  and  following  chapters,  there  is  also  reason- 
 able evidence  of  the  later  date  of  several  other  chap- 
 ters, such,  for  example,  as  the  13tli  and  14th  (on 
 which  observe  particularly  the  first  four  verses  of 
 the  14th  chapter)  and  chapters  xxiv.-xxvii.  Mence 
 there  is  no  n  priori  difficulty  in  admitting  that  the 
 23d  chapter,  respecting  Tyre,  may  likewise  have 
 been  written  at  tlie  time  of  the  Chaldsean  invasion. 
 Yet  this  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  something 
 in  the  nature  of  probable  proof,  and  the  real  point 
 is  whether  any  such  proof  can  be  adduced  on  this 
 subject.  Now  although  Hitzig  (iJir  Pripliet 
 Jts'iJ",  Heidelberg,  1833,  p.  272)  undertakes  to 
 show  that  there  is  a  difference  of  language  between 
 Isaiah's  genuine  prophecies  and  the  23d  chapter, 
 and  although  Ewald  (Die  Proplieten  des  Allen 
 Bundes,  vol.  i.  p.  238),  who  refers  it  to  the  siege  of 
 Tyre  by  Shalnianeser,  believes  the  23d  chapter,  on 
 the  grounds  of  style  and  language,  to  have  been 
 written  by  a  younger  contemporary  and  scholar  of 
 Isaiah,  not  by  Isaiah  himself,  it  is  probable  that 
 the  majority  of  scholars  will  be  mainly  influenced 
 in  their  opinions  as  to  the  date  of  that  chapter  by 
 their  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  13th  verse.  In 
 the  A.  V.  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  tran.slated 
 thus:  "Behold  the  laud  of  the  Chaldseans,  this 
 people  was  not  till  the  Assyrian  founded  it  for  them 
 that  dwell  in  the  wilderness" — and  this  has  been 
 supposed  by  some  able  commentators,  such  as  Ro- 
 senmiiller  and  Hitzig  ((«/ Aic. ),  to  imply  that  the 
 enemies  with  which  the  Tyrians  were  threatened 
 were  the  Clialdees  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  not 
 the  Assyrians  under  Shalnianeser.  If  this  is  the 
 meaning,  very  few  critics  would  now  doubt  that  the 
 prophecy  was  composed  in  the  time  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar; and  there  is  certainly  something  remarka- 
 ble in  a  supposed  mention  of  the  Clialdees  by  such 
 an  early  writer  as  Isaiah,  inasmuch  as,  with  the 
 possible  exce|itions  in  the  mention  of  Abraham  and 
 Aliraham's  family  as  having  belonged  to  "  Ur  of 
 the  Chaldees  "  (Gen.  xi.  28,  31,  xv.  7),  the  men- 
 tion of  the  Clialdees  by  Isaiah  would  be  the  earliest 
 in  the  Bible.  The  only  other  pass.age  respecting 
 which  a  doubt  might  be  raised  is  in  the  book  of 
 Job  (i.  17)  —  a  work,  howevei',  which  seems  to  the 
 author  of  this  article  to  have  been  proliably  written 
 later  than  Isaiah.''  But  the  13th  verse  of  the 
 chapter  attributed  to  Isaiah  by  no  means  necessa 
 rily  implies  that  the  Chaldees  under  Nebuchidnez 
 zar  were  attacking  Tyre,  or  were  about  to  attack 
 it.  Accepting  the  ordinary  version,  it  would  be 
 amply  sutticient  that  Chaldees  should  be  formidable 
 mercenaries  in  the  Assyrian  army.     This  is  the  in- 
 
 in  the  present  work  maintains  the  unity  of  the  book. 
 —  Ed.] 
 
 h  In  the  total  absence  of  external  evidence  nothing 
 in  favor  of  an  earlier  date  can  be  adduced  to  outweigli 
 one  circumstance  long  since  noticed  among  numerous 
 others  by  Gesenius  ( GescliichU  der  Htbraischen  S/iradie 
 
 und  Sclirifl),  that  the  Aramaic  plural  "j"*yP  occurs 
 twelve  times  in  the  book  (iv.  2 ;  xii.  11 ;  xv.  13 ; 
 xviii.  2;  xxvi.  4;  xxxii.  11,  14;  xxxiii.  8,  32;  xxxiv. 
 3  ;  xxxv.  16  ;  xxxviii.  2).  [But  there  are  strong  rea- 
 sons for  assigning  an  earlier  date  to  tlie  book  :  iiee 
 Job,  ii.  p.  14U8  ff.  —  Ed.] 
 
TYRE 
 
 terpretatioii  of  Gesenius  ( Coinmenlar  iiber  den  Je- 
 saia,  ad  loc),  who  goes  still  farther.  FouiifliiiE;  his 
 reasoning  on  the  frequent  mention  by  Xenophon  of 
 Uhaldees,  as  a  bold,  warlike,  and  predatory  tribe  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Armenia,  and  collecting  scat- 
 tered notices  round  this  fundamental  fact,  he  con- 
 jectures that  bands  of  them,  having  served  either  as 
 mercenaries  or  as  volunteers  in  the  Assyrian  army, 
 had  rfceived  lands  for  their  permanent  settlement 
 on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  not  long  before  the 
 invasion  of  Shahnaneser  (see  Xenophon,  CympmL 
 iii.  2,  §§  7,  12;  Aimb.  iv  .'5,  §  4,  v.  5,  §  9,  vii.  8, 
 §  1-i).  So  great  is  our  ignorance  of  the  Chaldees 
 previous  to  their  mention  in  the  Bible,  that  this 
 conjecture  of  Gesenius  cannot  be  disproved.  There 
 is  not  indeed  sufficient  positive  evidence  for  it  to 
 justify  its  adoption  by  an  historian  of  the  Chaldees; 
 but  the  possibility  of  its  being  true  should  make  us 
 hesitate  to  assume  that  the  l-3th  verse  is  incompat- 
 ible with  the  date  ordinarily  assigned  to  the  proph- 
 ecy in  which  it  occurs.  But,  independently  of 
 these  considerations,  the  beginning  of  the  ]3th 
 verse  is.  capable  of  a  totally  different  translation 
 from  that  in  the  A.  V.  It  may  be  translated  thus : 
 "  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldees,  the  people  is  no 
 more,  Assyria  has  given  it  [the  land]  to  the  dwell- 
 ers in  the  wilderness."  This  is  partly  in  accord- 
 ance with  ICwald's  translation,  not  following  him 
 in  the  sul)stitutiun  of  "  Canaanites  "  (which  he 
 deems  the  correct  reading)  for  -'Chaldees" — and 
 then  the  passage  might  refer  to  an  unsuccessful  re- 
 bellion of  the  Chaldees  against  Assyria,  and  to  a 
 consequent  desolation  of  the  land  of  the  Chaldees 
 by  their  victorious  rulers.  One  point  may  be  men- 
 tioned in  favor  of  this  view,  that  the  Tyrians  are 
 not  warned  to  look  at  the  Chaldees  in  the  way  that 
 Habakkuk  threatens  his  contemporaries  with  the 
 hostility  of  that  "  terrible  and  dreadful  nation," 
 but  the  Tyrians  are  warned  to  look  at  the  Imid  of 
 the  Chaldees.  Here,  agalii,  we  know  so  little  of 
 the  history  of  the  Chaldees,  that  this  interpretation, 
 likewise,  cannot  be  disproved.  And,  on  the  whole, 
 as  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  any  one  who  de- 
 nies Isaiah  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  23d  chap- 
 ter, as  the  13th  verse  is  a  very  obscure  passage,  and 
 as  it  cannot  be  proved  incompatible  with  Isaiah's 
 authorship,  it  is  permissil)le  to  acquiesce  in  the  Jew- 
 ish tradition  on  the  subject. 
 
 2dly.  The  question  of  whether  Tyre  was  actually 
 taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  after  his  thirteen  years' 
 siege,  has  been  keenly  discussed.  Gesenius,  Winer, 
 and  Hitzig  decide  it  in  the  negative,  while  lleng- 
 stenberg  has  argued  most  fully  on  the  other  side. 
 Without  attempting  to  exhaust  the  subject,  and 
 assuming,  in  accordance  with  Movers,  that  Tyre,  as 
 well  as  the  rest  of  Phcenicia,  submitted  at  last  to 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  the  following  points  may  be  ol)- 
 served  respecting  the  supposed  capture:  (1.)  The 
 evidence  of  Ezekiel,  a  contemporary,  seems  to  be 
 against  it.  He  says  (xxix.  18)  that  "Nebuchad- 
 nezzar king  of  Babylon  caused  his  army  to  serve  a 
 great  service  against  Tyre;  "  that  "every  head  was 
 made  bald,  and  every  shoulder  was  peeled,  yet  had 
 he  no  wages,  nor  his  army  for  Tyrus,  for  the  service 
 that  he  served  against  it;  "  and  the  obvious  infer- 
 ence is  that,  however  great  the  exertions  of  the 
 army  may  have  been  in  digging  iutrenchmeuts  or 
 
 TYRE 
 
 3339 
 
 n  Ilengstenberg  (De  Rebus  Tyriorum,  p.  75)  say.s 
 that  this  silence  of  the  Greek  and  Phoenician  histo- 
 rians proves  too  much,  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
 lity  wa?  besiej^ed  by  Nebuchadnezzar.     To  this  Hitzig 
 
 in  casting  up  earthworks,  the  seige  was  unsuccess- 
 ful. This  is  confirmed  by  tlie  following  verses  (19, 
 20),  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  land  of  Egypt 
 will  be  given  to  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  compensation, 
 or  wages,  to  him  and  his  army  for  their  having 
 served  against  Tyre.  Movers,  indeed,  asserts  that 
 the  only  meaning  of  the  expression  that  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar and  his  army  had  no  wages  for  their  service 
 against  Tyre  is,  that  they  did  not  plunder  the  city. 
 But  to  a  virtuous  commander  the  best  reward  of 
 besieging  a  city  is  to  capture  it;  and  it  is  a  strange 
 sentiment  to  attribute  to  the  Supreme  Being,  or  to 
 a  prophet,  that  a  general  and  his  ai'my  received  no 
 wages  for  capturing  a  city,  because  they  did  not 
 plunder  it.  (2.)  Josephus,  who  had  access  to  his- 
 torical writings  on  this  subject  which  have  not 
 reached  our  tinies,  although  he  quotes  Phojnician 
 writers  who  show  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
 Tyre  {Ant.  x.  11,  §  1;  c.  Apktn.  23),  neither  states 
 on  his  own  authority,  nor  quotes  any  one  else  as 
 stating  that  Nebuchadnezzar  took  it.  (3.)  The 
 capture  of  Tyre  on  this  occasion  is  not  mentioned 
 by  any  Greek  or  lioman  author  whose  writings  are 
 now  in  existence.  (4.)  In  the  time  of  Jerome  it 
 was  distinctly  stated  by  some  of  his  contemporaries 
 that  they  had  read,  amongst  other  histories  on  this 
 point,  histories  of  Greeks  and  Phoenicians,  and  es- 
 pecially of  Nicolaus  Damascenus,  in  which  nothing 
 was  said  of  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  the  Chaldees ;"  and 
 .lerome,  in  noticing  this  fact,  does  not  quote  any 
 authority  of  any  kind  for  a  counter-statement,  but 
 contents  himself  with  a  general  allegation  that  )nany 
 facts  are  related  in  the  Scriptures  which  are  not 
 found  in  Greek  works,  and  that  "  we  ought  not  to 
 acquiesce  in  the  authority  of  those  whose  perfidy 
 and  falsehood  we  detest  "  (see  Comment,  ad  Eze- 
 cliieh'm,  xxvi.  7).  On  this  view  of  the  question 
 there  would  seem  to  be  small  reason  for  believing 
 that  the  city  was  actually  captured,  were  it  not  for 
 another  passage  of  Jerome  in  his  Commentaries  on 
 the  passage  of  Ezekiel  already  quoted  (xxix.  18),  in 
 which  he  explains  that  the  meaning  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's having  received  no  wages  for  his  warfare 
 against  Tyre  is,  not  that  he  failed  to  take  the  city, 
 but  that  the  Tyrians  had  previously  removed  every- 
 thing precious  from  it  in  ships,  so  that  when  Neb- 
 uchadnezzar entered  the  city  he  found  nothing 
 there.  This  interpretation  has  lieen  admitted  by 
 one  of  the  most  distinguished  critics  of  our  own  day 
 (Ewald,  Die  Prophefen  des  Alten  Bundts,  ad  loc), 
 who,  deeming  it  probable  that  Jerome  had  obtained 
 the  information  from  some  historian  whose  name  is 
 not  given,  accepts  as  historical  this  account  of  the 
 termination  of  the  siege.  This  account,  tlierefore, 
 as  far  as  inquirers  of  the  present  day  are  concerned, 
 rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  Jerome;  and  it  thus 
 becomes  important  to  ascertain  the  principles  and 
 method  which  Jerome  adopted  in  writing  his  Com- 
 mentaries. It  is  peculiarly  fortunate  that  Jerome 
 himself  has  left  on  record  some  valuable  informa- 
 tion on  this  point  in  a  letter  to  Augustine,  for  the 
 understanding  of  which  the  following  brief  prelim- 
 inary explanation  will  be  sufficient:  In  Jerome's 
 Commentaries  on  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Galatians,  when  adverting  to  the  passage 
 (vv.  11-14)  in  which  St.  Paul  states  that  he  had 
 withstood  Peter  to  the  face,  "  because  he  was  to  be 
 
 replies,  that  the  historians  could  only  have  omitted  to 
 mention  the  siege,  because  the  sicije  had  not  been  fol- 
 lowed by  the  capture  of  the  city  {Der  Piopltet  Jesaja, 
 p.  278). 
 
3340 
 
 TYRE 
 
 blamed" '  for  requiring  Christians  to  comply  with 
 the  observances  of  the  Jewish  ritual  law,  Jerome 
 denies  that  tliere  was  any  real  difference  ol'  oiiinion 
 between  the  two  Apostles,  asserts  that  they  had 
 merely  made  a  preconcerted  arrangement  of  tippar- 
 ent  difference,  in  order  tliat  those  who  apjiroved  of 
 circumcision  niiglit  plead  the  example  of  Peter,  and 
 that  those  who  were  unwilling  to  be  circumcised 
 might  extol  the  religious  lilierty  of  Paul.  .lerome 
 then  goes  on  to  say  that  "  the  fact  of  simulation 
 being  useful,  and  occasionally  permissible,  is  taught 
 by  the  example  of  Jehu  king  of  Israel,  who  never 
 would  have  been  able  to  put  the  priests  of  Baal  to 
 death  unless  he  had  feigned  willingness  to  worship 
 an  idol,  saying,  '  Ahab  served  Baal  a  little,  but 
 Jehu  shall  serve  him  much.'  "  On  this  Augustine 
 strongly  remonstrated  with  Jerome  in  two  letters 
 which  are  marked  56  and  67  in  Jerome's  Corre- 
 spondence. To  these  Jerome  returned  an  answer 
 in  a  letter  marked  112,  in  which  he  repudiates  the 
 idea  that  he  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  all  that  is 
 contained  in  his  Commentaries,  and  then  frankly 
 confesses  how  he  composed  them.  Beginning  with 
 Origen,  he  enumerates  several  writers  whose  (.'om- 
 mentaries  he  had  read,  specifying  amongst  others, 
 Laodicenus,  who  had  lately  left  the  Church,  and 
 Alexander,  an  old  heretic.  He  then  avows  that 
 having  read  them  all  he  sent  for  an  amanuensis,  to 
 whom  he  dictated  sometimes  his  own  remarks, 
 sometimes  those  of  others,  without  paying  strict  at- 
 tention either  to  the  order  or  the  words,  and  some- 
 times not  even  to  the  meaning.  "  Itaque  ut  sim- 
 pliciter  fatear,  legi  hcec  omnia,  et  in  mente  meil 
 plurima  coacervans,  accito  notario,  vel  mea,  vel 
 aliena  dictavi,  nee  ordinis,  nee  verborum,  interdum 
 nee  sensuum  memor  "  (see  Wigne's  Edition  of  Je- 
 rome, vol.  i.  p.  918).  Now  if  ""the  bearing  of  the 
 remarks  concerning  simulation  for  a  pious  purpose, 
 and  of  the  method  which  Jerome  followed  in  the 
 composition  of  his  Commentaries  is  seriously  con- 
 sidered, it  cannot  but  throw  doul)t  on  his  uncorrol)- 
 orated  statements  in  any  case  wherein  a  religious  or 
 theological  interest  may  have  appeared  to  him  to 
 be  at  stake. 
 
 Jerome  was  a  very  learned  man,  perhaps  the 
 most  learned  of  all  the  Fathers.  He  was  also  one 
 of  the  very  lew  among  them  who  made  themselves 
 acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  language,  and  in  this, 
 as  well  as  in  other  points,  he  deserves  gratitude  for 
 the  services  which  he  has  rendered  to  Biblical  liter- 
 ature. He  is,  moreover,  a  valuable  witness  to  fiicts, 
 when  he  can  be  suspected  of  no  bias  concerning 
 them,  and  especially  when  they  seem  contrary  to 
 his  religious  piepossessions.  But  it  is  evident,  from 
 the  passages  in  his  writings  above  quoted,  that  he 
 had  not  a  critical  mind,  and  that  he  can  scarcely 
 be  regarded  as  one  of  those  noble  spirits  who  prefer 
 truth  to  supposed  pious  ends  which  may  be  attained 
 by  its  violation.  Hence,  contrary  to  the  most  nat- 
 ural meaning  of  the  prophet  Ezekiels  words  (xxix. 
 18),  it  would  be  unsafe  to  rely  on  Jerome's  sole 
 authority  for  the  statement  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
 and  his  army  eventually  captured  Tyre. 
 
 Literature.  —  For  information  on  this  head,  see 
 Phcenician.s,  vol.  iii.  p.  2522.  In  addition  to  the 
 works  there  mentioned,  see  Kobinson's  Bibl.  lias. 
 ii.  461-471;  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  204- 
 268;  Porter's  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Palestine, 
 
 "■  *  We  state  the  point  in  this  manner  because 
 there  is  room  for  the  que.ition,  whether  the  Hebrews 
 had  a  distinct  written  character  thus  early   aud  may 
 
 TYJIE 
 
 pp.  .390-396;  Hengstenberg,  Di  Rebus  Tyrim-mn, 
 Berlin,  1832;  and  Hitter's  Erdkmu/e,  vol.  xvii.  ist 
 part,  3d  liook,  pp.  320-379.  Professor  Kobinsoii, 
 in  addition  to  his  instructive  history  of  'lyre,  haa 
 published,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  third  volume,  a 
 detailed  list,  which  is  useful  for  the  knowledge  of 
 Tyre,  of  works  by  authors  who  had  themselves 
 travelled  or  resided  in  Palestine.  See  likewise  an 
 excellent  account  of  Tyre  Ijy  Gesenius  in  his  Jfsaia, 
 i.  707-719,  and  by  Winer,  s.  v.,  in  his  Bibl.  Reni- 
 ivort.     [Tykians;  Tyeus.]  E.  T. 
 
 Coin  of  Tjre. 
 
 *  In  2  Sam.  v.  11,  and  1  Chr.  xiv.  1,  we  are 
 told  that  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  sent  cedar  wood,  and 
 carpenters,  and  masons  to  David,  to  build  him  a 
 palace;  and,  subsequently,  that  he  sent  materials 
 and  workmen  to  Solomon  to  build  the  I'emple 
 (1  K.  V.  10;  2  Chr.  ii.  14,  16).  A  striking  con- 
 firmation of  this  amity  between  Hiram  and  the 
 Hel)rew  kings  has  lately  been  brought  to  light. 
 Certain  writings  or  marks  have  been  found  on  the 
 bottom  rows  of  the  wall  at  the  southeast  angle  of 
 the  Haram  area,  near  where  the  ancient  Temple 
 must  have  stood,  at  the  depth  of  about  00  feet, 
 where  the  foundations  lie  on  the  limerock  itself. 
 Mr.  E.  Deutseh,  of  the  British  Museum,  who  has 
 examined  these  stones  on  the  ground,  decides  (1) 
 that  these  signs  were  cut  or  painted  on  the  stones 
 when  they  were  laid  in  their  present  places;  (2)  that 
 they  do  not  represent  any  inscription;  and  (3)  that 
 that  they  are  certainly  Phoenician.  That  they  are 
 Phoenician  marks  is  beyond  question,  because  they 
 agree  with  those  found  on  primitive  substructions 
 in  the  harbor  of  Sidon.  It  is  certainly  remarkable 
 that  Phoenician  letters  or  etchings  should  be  found 
 on  these  stones  at  Jerusalem,  thus  suddenly  brought 
 to  liirht;  and  the  best  explanation  of  the  fact  is 
 that  they  were  placed  there  by  the  Tyrian  archi- 
 tects whom  Hiram  sent  to  Jerusalem  jto  assist  in 
 the  erection  of  the  Temple."  The  precise  value  of 
 the  characters  is  not  yet  determined,  but  no  doubt 
 they  were  designed  to  guide  the  workmen  in  placing 
 the  stones  in  their  proper  position,  or  in  cutting 
 and  shaping  them  so  as  to  have  them  properly  ad- 
 justed to  each  other  (See  Quart.  Statem.  of  Pal. 
 A'xplor.  Fund,  No.  ii.  1869). 
 
 The  N.  T.  references  to  Tyre  are  few,  but  inter- 
 esting. The  Saviour  performed  some  of  his  mira- 
 cles in  the  vicinity  (Matt.  xv.  21;  Mark  vii.  24). 
 The  Saviour's  apostrophe  to  Chorazin  and  Beth- 
 saida  represents  the  inhabitants  of  these  cities  as 
 more  wicked  than  those  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  on  ac- 
 count of  the  misuse  of  opportunities  which  the 
 latter  did  not  enjoy  (iSIatt.  xi.  20;  Luke  x.  13). 
 The  disciples  who  went  to  Phoenice  after  the  death 
 of  Steprten  undoubtedly  made  known  the  Gospel 
 there  (Acts  xi.  19).     Paul,  on  bis  last  journey  to 
 
 not  have  used  at  that  period   one   common   to    them- 
 selves and  the  Phoenicians   and  other  kindred  tribes 
 
 11. 
 
TYRIANS 
 
 Jerusalem,  went  on  shore  at  Tyre  and  sought  out 
 (avevpovTes)  the  disciples  in  that  city.  The  proph- 
 ets there  attempted,  iu  vain,  to  dissuade  liiin  from 
 goiniT  up  to  Jerusalem.  The  touching  scene  of 
 the  farewell  on  the  beach  (Acts  xxi.  5)  forms  a 
 memorable  passage  in  Paul's  history.  Luke  de- 
 scribes the  occurrence  with  autoptic  precision.  His 
 word  aijiaXos  (a  smooth  shore,  —  cf.  Acts  xxvii. 
 3'J,  as  distinguished  from  one  rocky,  precipitous,  — 
 on  wliich  they  kneeled  down),  is  the  proper  one  for 
 the  level,  sandy  lieach  on  both  the  northern  and 
 Boutiiern  sides  of  Tyre.  Paul's  company  retjni- 
 barked  at  this  point,  and  sailed  thence  to  Ptolemais 
 where  they  finished  the  voyage  (Acts  xxi.  7).     H. 
 
 *  TYR'IANS  (TvpiOLi  Tyrii),  inhabitants  of 
 Tyre,  Ecclus.  xlvi.  18.  The  Heb.  "^"1!J,  Q^"^!J, 
 LXX.  Tvpios,  Tupioi,  variously  rendered  "  of  Tyre,'' 
 '■  men  of  Tyre,"  and  "  they  of  Tyre  "  or  "  Tyrus," 
 also  occur  !•.  vii.  14;  1  Chr.  xxii.  4;  2  Chr.  ii. 
 14;  Ezr.  iii.  7;  Neh.  xiii.  16;  1  Esdr.  v.  55;  2 
 Mace.  iv.  49.     [Tvkk.]  A. 
 
 *  TYROPCE'ON,  THE  (^  rHu  Tvpoirowu 
 (pdpay^^=  ili6  Valley  of  the  C/ieeseimwr/ers).  This 
 valley  was  an  important  feature  in  the  ancient  to- 
 pograpliy  of  Jerusalem,  running  from  the  plateau 
 on  tlie  north  to  the  fountain  of  Siloam,  dividing 
 tlie  southern  part  of  the  city  into  two  high  and 
 Bteep  ridges,  making  it  a  double  promontory.  Al- 
 though innnense  quantities  of  rubbish  had  accumu- 
 lated in  it,  almost  filling  its  up|)er  part.  Professor 
 Robinson  was  able  to  point  out  its  general  course. 
 His  theory,  demanded  by  the  specifications  of  Jose- 
 pluis,  that  it  curved  around  the  northern  brow  of 
 the  southwest  hill,  was  warmly  disputed  by  some 
 writers ;  but  subsequent  investigations  have  estab- 
 lished its  correctness.  It  has  long  been  known 
 that  the  most  interesting  part  of  Jerusalem  was 
 subterranean,  and  some  of  Capt.  Warren's  most 
 valuable  recent  explorations  have  been  in  this  valley 
 He  has  sunk  shafts  in  it  to  depths  of  between  50 
 and  80  feet,  going  down  to  its  rocky  bed,  in  which 
 he  found  drains  and  reservoirs  cut,  and  tracing  the 
 foundations  of  the  west  Haram  wall  for  several 
 hundred  feet.  Opposite  Kobinson's  Arch,  on  the 
 other  side  of  the  valley,  he  found  the  other  pier  of 
 the  massive  bridge  which  once  spanned  it,  leading 
 from  the  Temple  to  the  upper  city;  and  sixty  feet 
 below  the  present  surface  he  found  some  of  the 
 ruins  of  the  bridge  itself.  Further  north  he  dis- 
 covered the  ruins  of  another  similar  bridge,  built 
 later,  as  he  thinks,  and,  also,  an  ancient  gateway 
 in  the  western  Haram  wall  —  all  now  covered  with 
 '•  the '/t7>/7'.s  of  thousands  of  years."  S.  W. 
 
 TY'RUS  [~ir2,  -12  :  Tvpos,  exc.  E-^.  xxvi., 
 xxvii.,  2op,  2  Mace.  iv.  49,  Ttypioi:  Tyrus,  Tyrii]. 
 This  form  is  employed  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  books 
 of  .leremiah,  Ezekiel,  Hosea  (.loel  has  "Tyre"), 
 Amos,  Zecliariah,  2  Esdras,  Judith,  and  the  Macca- 
 bees, as  follows:  Jer.  xxv.  22,  xxvii.  3,  xivii.  4; 
 Ez.  xxvi.  2,  .3,  4,  7.  15,  xxvii.  2,  3,  8,  32,  xxviii.  2, 
 12,  xxix.  18;  Hos.  ix.  13;  Am.  i.  9,  10:  Zech.  ix. 
 2,  3;  2  Esdr.  i.  11;  Jud.  ii.  28;  1  Mace.  v.  15;  2 
 Mace.  iv.  18,  32,  44,  49. 
 
 *  TY'RUS,  THE  LADDER  OF  {^  K\iiu.a^ 
 Tvpov;  Joseph.  K\i,ua^Tupioi>v'-  tvriiuiii  Tyri),  1 
 Mace.  xi.  59,  is  described  by  .losephus  {B.  J.  ii. 
 10,  §  2)  as  a  high  mountain  on  the  coast  of  Pales- 
 
 a  *  Stanley  su<;i,'ests  (S.  S;    P.    p.   26(5,   note)   that 
 both  this  promontory  aiul  the  Ras  el-Ahi/ad,  or  White 
 
 UCAL  3341 
 
 tine,  100  stadia  north  of  Ptolemais  (Accho,  Acre, 
 Alckrt).  It  is  the  modern  Rcis  en-Nakurali,  a 
 bliifF  promontory,  about  half-way  between  Ptole- 
 mais and  Tyre,  forming  the  northern  limit  of  the 
 Plain  of  Acre,  as  Carmel  is  the  southern,  but,  as 
 Dean  Stanley  remarks  (<S.  (f  P.  p.  264,  3d  ed.),  it 
 "  differs  from  Carmel  in  that  it  leaves  no  beach  be- 
 tween itself  and  the  sea,  an<ithus,  by  cutting  off  all 
 communication  round  its  base,  acts  as  the  natural 
 barrier  between  the  bay  of  Acre  and  the  maritime 
 plain  to  the  north  —  in  other  words,  between  Pal- 
 estine and  Phoenicia."  "  See  also  liitter,  Erdk. 
 xvi.  809,  813,815;  I!ob.  Phys.  Geoy.  p.  21;  Neu- 
 bauer,  Geoy.  ilu  Talmud,  p.  39.  A. 
 
 *  TZADDI,  one  of  the  llebsew  letters. 
 [Wbiting.]  H. 
 
 u. 
 
 U'CAL  (73S,  and  in  some  copies  v3N  [see 
 below] ).  According  to  the  received  text  of  Prov. 
 XXX.  1.  Ithiel  and  Deal  must  be  regarded  as  proper 
 names,  and  if  so,  they  must  be  the  names  of  disci- 
 ples or  sons  of  Agur  the  son  of  Jakeh,  an  unknown 
 sage  among  the  Hebrews.  But  there  is  great  ob- 
 scurity about  the  passage.  The  LXX.  translate 
 Tols  iritTTfiiovcn  6ec^  Kal  iravofxai'  the  Vulgate, 
 cum  quo  est  Deus,  et  qui  Deo  secum  ■mm'ante  con- 
 fvrt'itus.  The  Arabic  follows  tlie  LXX.  to  some 
 extent;  the  Targum  reproduces  Ithiel  and  Ucal  as 
 proper  names,  and  the  Syriac  is  corrupt,  Ucal  be- 
 ing omitted  altogether.  Luther  represents  the 
 names  as  Leilliiel  and  Uch(d.  De  Wette  regards 
 them  as  proper  names,  as  do  most  translators  and 
 commentators.     Junius  explains  both  as  referring 
 
 to  Christ.     The  LXX.    probably  read  "^P.^l^sb. 
 
 v5^T.  7S.     The  Veneto-Greek  has  koX   (iuvr]cro- 
 
 fjML  =  )  ZZS"),     Gocceius   must  have  pointed  the 
 
 words  thus,    v3Sl  7S  "^H^S^,  "  I  have  labored 
 
 '         -••.  T        ••        .        •  t' 
 
 for  Cod  and  have  obtained,"  and  this,  with  regard 
 to  the  first  two  words  must  have  been  the  reading 
 of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  renders,  "  I  have  wearied 
 myself  for  (Jod,  and  have  given  up  the  investiga- 
 tion," applying  the  words  to  a  man  who  had  lie- 
 wildered  himself  with  philosophical  speculations 
 about  the  Ueity,  and  had  been  compelled  to  give 
 up  the  search.  Bertheau  also  (Die  Spriic/ie  Sid. 
 l*>inl.  xvii.)  sees  in  the  words,  "  I  ha\e  vvearied  my- 
 self for  God,  I   have  wearied  myself  for   God,  and 
 
 have  fainted  "  (73S1),  an  appropriate  commence- 
 ment to  the  series  of  proverbs  which  follow.  Hit- 
 zig's  view  is  substantially  the  same,  except  that  he 
 
 points  the  last  word  v3S"l  and  renders,  "  and  I 
 became  dull;"  applying  it  to  the  dinniess  which 
 the  investigation  produced  upon  the  eye  of  the 
 mind  {Die  Spr.  Sid.  i).  Sll')).  Hunsen  {Bibelwerk, 
 i.   p.   clxxx.)    follows   Bertheau's   punctuation,   but 
 
 regards   7M  "'iT'N^  on  its  first  occurrence  as   a 
 
 ^  ••         •    •   T 
 
 symbolical  name  of  the  speaker.  "  The  saying  of 
 the  nuin  '  I-have-wearied-myself-for-(iod ;  '  I  have 
 wearied  myself  for  (jod,  and  have  fainted  away." 
 I'here  is,  however,  one  fatal  objection  to  this  view, 
 if  there  were  no  others,  and  that  is,  that  the  verb 
 
 nS^,  "  to  be  wearied,"  nowhere  takes  after  it  the 
 
 Cape,  are  comprised  under  the  name  of  "  Scala  Tyrio- 
 rum."  A. 
 
3342 
 
 UEL 
 
 accusative  of  the  oliject  of  weariness.  On  this  ac- 
 count alone,  therefore,  we  must  reject  all  the  above 
 explanations.  If  Bertheau's  [jointing  be  adopted, 
 the  only  legitimate  translation  of  the  words  is  that 
 given  by  Ur.  Davidson  {Introd.  ii.  3-38),  "I  am 
 weary,  O  God,  I  am  weary,  O  (iod,  and  am  become 
 weak."  Ewald  considers  both  Ithiel  and  Ucal  as 
 symbolical  names,  employed  by  the  poet  to  desig- 
 nate two  classes  of  thinkers  to  whom  he  addresses 
 himself,  or  rather  he  combines  both  names  in  one, 
 •' God-withnie-and-I-am-strong,"  and  bestows  it 
 upon  an  imaginary  character,  whom  he  introduces 
 to  take  part  in  the  dialogue.  The  name  '  God-with- 
 me,' says  Keil  (Hiiveriiick,  Kinl.  iii.  412),  "de- 
 notes such  as  gloried  in  a  more  intimate  communion 
 with  God,  and  a  higher  insight  and  wisdom  ob- 
 tained thereby,"  while  '■  I-am-strong "  indicates 
 "  the  so-called  strong  spirits  who  boast  of  their 
 wisdom  and  might,  and  deny  the  holy  God,  so 
 that  both  names  most  probalily  represent  a  class  of 
 freethinkers,  who  thought  themselves  superior  to 
 the  revealed  law,  and  in  practical  atheism  indulged 
 the  lusts  of  the  flesh."  It  is  to  be  wished  that  in 
 this  case,  as  in  many  others,  connnentators  had 
 observed  the  precept  of  the  Talmud,  "  Teach  thy 
 tongue  to  say,  '  I  do  not  know."  "        \Y.  A.  W. 
 
 XJ'EL  (bS^S  Iwillof  God,  Ges.]  :  OurjA;  [Vat. 
 ©ut;A.,  and  so  FA.,  joined  with  preceding  word:] 
 Ud).  One  of  the  family  of  Bani,  who  during  the 
 Captivity  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (l'2zr.  x.  3-t). 
 Called  Joel  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
 
 U'KNAZ  (Ti)"?^  [prob.  chase,  hunting']  :  Kei/e^: 
 Cenez).  In  the  margin  of  1  Chr.  iv.  15  the  words 
 "even  Kenaz  "  in  the  text  are  rendered  "  Uknaz," 
 as  a  proper  name.  Apparently  some  name  has 
 been  omitted  before  Kenaz,  for  the  clause  begins 
 "  and  the  sons  of  Elah,"  and  then  only  Kenaz  is 
 given.  Both  the  LXX.  and  Yulg.  omit  the  con- 
 junction. In  thePeshito-Syriac,  which  is  evidently 
 corrupt,  Kenaz  is  the  third  son  of  Caleb  the  son  of 
 Jephunneh.  [He  may  have  been  at  least  a  de- 
 scendant of  Caleb's,  according  to  1  Chr.  iv.  15.] 
 
 U'LAI    [2  syl.]    C^JIN  [Pehlvi,  pure  water, 
 
 Fiirst]:  [Tbeodot.]  Ou^aA.!  [LXX.  OuAa/':]  Ului) 
 is  mentioned  by  Daniel  (viii.  2,  16)  as  a  river  near 
 to  Susa,  where  he  saw  his  vision  of  the  ram  and 
 the  he-goat.  It  has  been  generally  identified  with 
 the  Eulpeus  of  the  (ireek  and  Koman  geographers 
 (Marc.  Heracl.  p.  18;  Arr.  Exp.  Al.  vii.  7;  Strab. 
 XV.  3,  §  22;  Ptol.  vi.  3;  Pliny,  //.  N.  vi.  31),  a 
 large  stream  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of 
 that  city.  This  identification  may  be  safely  allowed, 
 resting  as  it  does  on  the  double  ground  of  close 
 verbal  resemblance  in  the  two  names,  and  complete 
 agreement  as  to  the  situation. 
 
 Can  we,  then,  identify  the  Eulwus  with  any 
 existing  stream  ?  Not  without  opening  a  contro- 
 versy, since  there  is  no  point  more  disputed  among 
 comparative  geographers.  The  Eukeus  has  been 
 by  many  identified  with  the  (Jhoaspes,  which  is 
 undoubtedly  the  modern  Kerkhah,  an  affluent  of 
 the  Tigris,  flowing  into  it  a  little  below  Kurnah. 
 By  others  it  has  lieen  regarded  as  the  Kuran,  a 
 large  river,  consideralily  further  to  the  eastward, 
 ;vhich  enters  the  Klior  Bumishir  near  Moliiimnie- 
 rnh.  Some  have  even  suggested  that  it  may  have 
 been  the  iShapur  or  Sl/a'ttr,  a  small  stream  which 
 rises  a  few  miles  N.  W.  of  Susa,  and  flows  by  the 
 ruins  into  the  DizJ'ul  stream,  an  afHuent  of  the 
 Kuran. 
 
 ULAI 
 
 The  general  grounds  on  which  the  Eula;us  li.as 
 been  identified  with  the  Choaspes,  and  so  with  the 
 Kerkhah  (Salmasius,  Rosenmiiller,  Wahl.  Kitto, 
 etc. )  are,  the  mention  of  each  separately  by  ancient 
 writers  as  "  the  river  of  Susa,"  and  (more  espe- 
 cially) the  statements  made  liy  some  (Strabo,  Plin.) 
 that  the  water  of  tlie  Eul»us,  by  others  (Herod., 
 Athen.,  Plut.,  Q.  Curtius)  that  that  of  the  Cho- 
 aspes was  the  only  water  tasted  by  the  i'ersian 
 kings.  Against  the  identification  it  must  be  no- 
 ticed that  Strabo,  Pliny,  Solinus,  and  Polyclitus 
 (ap.  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4)  regard  the  rivers  as  distinct, 
 and  that  the  lower  course  of  the  Euteus,  as  de- 
 scribed by  Arrian  {Exp.  Al.  vii.  7)  and  Pliny  (//. 
 N.  vi.  26),  is  such  as  cannot  possibly  be  reconciled 
 with  that  of  the  Kerkhah  river. 
 
 The  grounds  for  regarding  the  Euloeus  as  the 
 Kuran  are  decidedly  stroniier  than  those  for  iden- 
 tifying it  with  the  Ktrkhali  or  Choaspes.  No  one 
 can  compare  the  voyage  of  Nearclii^in  Arrian's 
 Jndica  with  Arrian's  own  account  of  Alexander's 
 descent  of  the  EuLtus  (vii.  7)  without  seeing  that 
 the  Eulaeus  of  the  one  narrative  is  the  Pasitigris 
 of  the  other;  and  th.at  the  Pasitigris  is  the  Kuran 
 is  almost  univtrsally  admitted.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
 said  that  all  accounts  of  the  lower  Eulceus  —  those 
 of  Arrian,  Pliny,  Polyclitus,  and  Ptolemy  —  iden- 
 tify it,  beyond  the  possibility  of  mistake,  with  the 
 lower  Kuran,  and  that  so  far  there  ought  to  be  no 
 controversy.  The  difficulty  is  with  respect  to  the 
 iijiper  Euloeus.  The  EuLxnis,  according  to  Pliny, 
 surrounded  the  citadel  of  Susa  (vi.  27),  whereas 
 even  the  BizJ'ul  branch  of  the  Kuran  does  not 
 come  within  six  miles  of  the  ruins.  It  lay  to  the 
 west,  not  only  of  the  Pasitigris  (Kuran),  but  also 
 of  the  Coprates  (river  of  Diz/'ul),  according  to 
 Diodorus  (xix.  18,  I'J).  So  far,  it  might  l)e  the 
 Sh((pur,  but  for  two  oljections.  The  Shapur  is 
 too  small  a  stream  to  have  attracted  the  general 
 notice  of  geographers,  and  its  water  is  of  so  bad  a 
 character  that  it  can  never  have  been  chosen  for  the 
 royal  table  {Geoyraph.  Journ.  ix.  70).  There  is 
 also  an  in)portant  notice  in  Pliny  entirely  incom- 
 patible with  the  notion  that  the  short  stream  of  the 
 iihapur,  which  rises  in  the  plain  about  five  miles 
 to  the  N.  N.  W.  of  Susa,  can  be  the  true  Eula;us. 
 Pliny  says  (vi.  31)  the  Eulasus  rose  in  Media,  and 
 flowed  through  j\Iesol)atene.  Now  this  is  e.xactly 
 true  of  the  upper  Kerkhah,  which  rises  near  Ilam- 
 adnn  (Ecbatana),  and  flows  down  the  district  of 
 Mahsnbadan  (Mesolxitefie). 
 
 The  result  is  that  the  various  notices  of  ancient 
 writers  appear  to  identify  the  upper  Euteus  with 
 the  upper  Kerkhali,  and  the  lower  Eulseus  (quite 
 unmistakably)  with  the  lower  Kuran.  Does  this 
 apparent  confusion  and  contradiction  admit  of  ex- 
 planation and  reconcilement"? 
 
 A  receiH  suivey  of  the  ground  has  suggested  a 
 .satisfactory  explanation.  It  appears  that  the  Ker- 
 khah once  bifurcated  at  Pai  Pul,  about  20  miles 
 N.  \V.  of  Susa,  sending  out  a  branch  which  passed 
 east  of  the  ruins,  absorbing  into  it  the  Sh((pur,  and 
 flowing  on  across  the  plain  in  a  S.  S.  E.  direction 
 till  it  fell  into  the  Kuran  at  Aliwuz  (Loftus,  (Jhai- 
 diea  and  Susiana,  pp.  424,  425).  Thus,  the  upper 
 Kerkhah  and  the  lower  Kuran  were  in  old  times 
 united,  and  might  be  viewed  as  forming  a  single 
 stream.  The  name  Eulajus  ( Ulai)  seems  to  have 
 ap[)lied  most  properly  to  the  eastern  branch  stream 
 from  /-"((/  Pul  to  Ahwaz  ;  the  stream  above  Pai 
 Pul  was  sometimes  called  the  l^ukeus,  but  was 
 more   properly  the  Choaspes,  which  was  also  the 
 
ULAM 
 
 sdle  name  of  the  western  branch  (or  present  course) 
 A'  the  Kevkholi  I'roni  Pai  Pul  to  the  Tigris.  The 
 name  Pasitif^ris  was  proper  to  the  upper  Kuniu 
 Ironi  its  source  to  its  junction  witli  the  Eulo^us, 
 alter  wliich  the  two  names  were  equally  applied  to 
 the  lower  river.  The  Dizfui  stream,  which  was 
 not  very  generally  known,  was  called  the  Coprates. 
 It  is  helieved  tliat  this  view  of  the  river  names  will 
 roeoncile  and  make  intellii^ihle  all  the  notices  of 
 them  contained  in  the  ancient  writers. 
 
 It  follows  from  this  that  the  water  which  the 
 Persian  kint?s  drank,  hoth  at  the  court,  and  when 
 they  travelled  ahroad,  was  that  of  the  Kerkliali, 
 taken  prohaldy  from  the  eastern  hranch,  or  proper 
 EuIkus,  which  washed  the  walls  of  .Susa,  and  (ac- 
 cording^ to  I'liny)  was  used  to  streni;then  its  de- 
 fenses. This  water  was,  and  still  is,  helieved  to 
 possess  peculiar  lif/hfiiess  (Strah.  xv.  3,  §  22 ;  Gto- 
 fjriiph.  Jaurn.  ix.  70),  and  is  thought  to  he  at 
 once  more  mliolesome  and  more  pleasant  to  the 
 taste  than  at.nost  any  other.  (On  the  controversy 
 concerniui^  this  stream  the  reader  may  consult  Kin- 
 neir,  P^'i-sitii  Junjnre,  pp.  lOU-lOli ;  Sir  H.  Kaw- 
 linson,  in  Gtoyraph.  Journ.  ix.  84-9-3;  Layard, 
 in  the  .same,  xvi.  91-94;  and  Loftus,  C/taldceii  and 
 SusiiuKi,  pp.  424-4.31.)  G.  K. 
 
 U'LAM  (2>"1W  [porch,  veslihde]:  OuXd/j.-- 
 Uldiii).  1.  A  descendant  of  Gilead  the  grandson 
 of  Manasseh,  and  father  of  Bedan  (1  Chr.  vii.  17). 
 
 2.  (AiAa^;  [Vat.  hi  ver.  40,  AjAei^u;]  Alex. 
 OvXafjL- )  Tlie  lir.st-horn  of  Eshek,  the  brother  of 
 Azel,  a  descendant  of  the  house  of  Saul.  His  sons 
 were  among  the  famous  archers  of  Benjamin,  and 
 witli  their  sons  and  grandsons  made  up  the  goodly 
 family  of  150  (1  Chr.  viii.  39,  40). 
 
 UL'LA  (Sv>37  [ijokt\:  'OAa;  Alex.  O.Ka- 
 Ollii).  An  Asherite,  head  of  a  family  in  his  tribe, 
 a  niigiity  man  of  valor,  1)ut  how  descended  does 
 not  appear  (1  Chr.  vii.  39).  Perhaps,  as  Junius 
 suggests,  he  may  he  a  son  of  Ithran  or  Jether;  and 
 
 n  Tliis  looks  at  first  siglit  like  a  niisplacemenr.  of 
 the  name  Recliob  from  its  proper  position  further  on 
 ill  tbe  verse,      llechob,  however,  is  usually  'PaajS. 
 
 b  Lev.  xi.  29-30  forbids  eating  the  wea.^el,  the 
 niou.se,  the  tortoise,  the  ferret,  the  chameleon,  the 
 lizard,  the  snail,  and  the  mole.  The  LXX.  has,  in 
 place  of  the  tortoise,  the  KpOKoSeiKos  6  xeperaios,  and 
 instead  of  the  snail  (put  before  the  lizard,  traupa),  the 
 XaAa/3wTr)S. 
 
 '■  In  the  LXX.  of  Lev.  xi.  14,  two  birds  only  are 
 mentioned,  toi/  yvwa  xaX  toc  Iktivov,  and  in  the  par- 
 allel passage  of  Deut.  .\iv.  13  the  same  two  ;  but  in 
 the  lleb.  of  the  latter  passage  only  our  present  text 
 has  three  birds'  names.     It  is  therefore  probable  that 
 
 one  of  these,  rTS"n,  rendered  "  glede  "  by  the  A.  V., 
 
 is  a  mere  corruption  of  nS'^.  found  both  in  Deut. 
 
 T  t' 
 and  in  Lev.,  for  which  the  LXX.  gives  yui^i.  and  the 
 Vulgate  31iU-iiis.  So  Maimon.  took  it  (Bochart, 
 Hieroz.  ii.  33,  3.53).  Thus  we  have  twenty  birds 
 named  as  unclean,  alike  in  the  Heb.  and  in  the  LXX. 
 of  Lev.  xi.  13-19,  and  of  many  of  these  the  identifica- 
 tion is  very  doubtful.  Bochart  says  (p.  354),  "  nom- 
 ina  avium  immund.iruui  recenset  Maiuiou.,  iuterpre- 
 tari  ne  conatus  quidem  est.  In  the  Heb.  of  Deut. 
 xiv.  we  have,  allowing  for  the  probable  corruption  of 
 mie  name,  the  same  twenty,  but  in  the  LXX.  only 
 nineteen  ;  "  every  raven  after  his  kind  "  (wavTa  KopaKa 
 Ka'i  Tri.  oiaoia  a-JTui),  of  Lev  being  omitted,  and  the 
 other  names,  although  the  same  as  those  of  Lev.,  yet 
 baviuj;  a  dilfTent  order  and  grouping  after  the  first 
 
 UNCLEAN  MEATS 
 
 3343 
 
 we  may  further  conjecture  that  his  name  may  be  -i 
 corruption  of  Ara. 
 
 UM'MAH  (n^l7  [(/fithermff] :  [Rom.  'A/>- 
 Xo'yS;  Vat.]  Apxo^^'i"  [Alex.]  A/x/j.a'-  Aiiuiia). 
 One  of  the  cities  of  the  allotment  of  Asher  (Josh. 
 xix.  30  only).  It  occurs  in  company  with  Aphek 
 and  Keholi;  but  as  neither  of  these  have  been  iden- 
 tified, no  clew  to  the  situation  of  Ummah  is  gained 
 thereby.  Dr.  Thomson  {Bibl.  Sdci-a,  1855,  p. 
 822,  quoted  by  Van  de  Velde)  was  shown  a  place 
 called  'Alma  in  the  highlands  on  the  coast,  about 
 five  miles  N.  N.  E.  of  lias  eii-Nakliura,  which  is 
 not  dissimilar  in  name,  and  which  he  conjectures 
 may  be  identical  with  Ummah.  But  it  is  quite 
 uncertain.  'Alma  is  described  in  Lamt  and  Book, 
 chap.  XX.  G. 
 
 *    UNCIRCUMCISION.        [CoxNCIsion  ; 
 
 ClKCUMClSION.] 
 
 UNCLEAN  MEATS.  These  were  things 
 strangled,  or  dead  of  themselves,  or  through  beasts 
 or  birds  of  prey;  whatever  beast  did  not  both  part 
 the  hoof  and  chew  the  cud ;  and  certain  other 
 smaller    animals   rated   as    "  creeping    things "  * 
 
 (\^'71tt;') ;  certain  classes  of  birds  '^  mentioned  in 
 Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.  twenty  or  twenty-one  in 
 all;  whatever  in  the  waters  had  not  both  fiiis  and 
 scales ;  whatever  winged  insect  had  not  besides  four 
 legs  the  two  hind-legs  for  leaping;  ''  besides  things 
 offi^red  in  sacrifice  to  idols;  and  all  blood  or  what- 
 ever contained  it  (save  perhaps  the  blood  of  fish,  as 
 would  appear  from  that  only  of  beast  and  liird  being 
 forbidden,  Lev.  vii.  2G),  and  therefore  flesh  cut 
 from  the  live  animal;  as  also  all  fat,  at  any  rate 
 that  disposed  in  masses  among  the  iiitesthies,  and 
 probably  wherever  discernible  and  separable  among 
 the  flesh  (Lev.  iii.  14-17,  vii.  23).  The  eating  of 
 blootl  was  prohibited  even  to  "  the  stranger  that 
 sojourneth  among  you  "  (Lev.  xvii.  10,  12,  13, 14), 
 an  extension  which  we  do  not  trace  in  other  dietary 
 precepts;  e.  (j.  the  thing  which  died  of  itself  was 
 
 eight.  Thus  Lev.  xi.  17,  consists  of  the  .  three,  xal 
 vvKTKopaKo.,  Kttl  KaTapaKTr/i',  koX  l^iv  ;  whereas  Deut. 
 xiv.  llj,  which  should  correspond,  contains  Ka'i, 
 ipui&iov,KaLKvKvov^KaL'i^LV.  Also  the  eiroi/',  "hoopoe.'' 
 and  the  ■nop4>vpiijiv-,  "coot,"  figure  in  both  the  LXX. 
 lists. 
 
 '/  In  Lev.  xi.  21  the  Keri  has  ""l7""nK7W,   agaiast 
 
 the  S  V"~1K''S  of  the  Cetliib.  It  is  best  to  adopt  the 
 former  and  view  the  last  part  of  the  verse  as  consti 
 tuting  a  class  that  may  be  eaten  from  among  a  larger 
 doubtful  class  of  "flying  creeping-things,"  the  diffe.r- 
 entia  consisting  in  their  having  four  feet,  and  a  pair 
 of  hind  legs  to  spring  with.  The  A.  V.  is  here  ob- 
 scure. "AH  fowls  that  creep,"  and  "every  flying 
 creeping  thing,"  standing  in  Lev  xi.  20,  21  for  pre- 
 cisely the  same  Heb.  phrase,  rendered  by  the  LXX. 
 TO.  epTrcTo.  Tcii'  nereivCiv  ;  and  "  legs  above  their  feet 
 to  leap,"  not  showing  that  the  distinct  larger  spring- 
 ing legs  of  the  locust  or  cicada  are  meant ;  where  the 
 
 Heb.  727Stt,  and  LXX.  kvuirepov  seem  to  express 
 the  upward  projection  of  these  legs  above  the  crea- 
 ture's back.     So  Bochart  takes  it  (p.  452),  who  also 
 
 prefers  Tv  in  the  reading  above  given;  "ita  enim 
 Hebrsei  omnes ;  "  auu  so,  he  adds,  the  Samar.  Pent. 
 He  states  that  locusts  are  salted  for  food  in  Egypt 
 (iv.  7,  491,  492  ;  eomp.  Hasselquist,  231-233).  The 
 edible  class  is  enumerated  in  four  species.  No  precept 
 is  found  in  Deut.  relating  to  these. 
 
3344 
 
 UNCLEAN   MEATS 
 
 to  be  given  "  unto  the  stranger  tliat  is  in  thy 
 gates  "  (l)eut.  xix.  21 ).  As  reirarils  blood,  the  pro- 
 hibition indeed  dates  from  the  declaration  to  Noah 
 against  "  flesh  with  tlie  life  thereof  which  is  tlie 
 blood  thereof,"  in  Gen.  ix.  4,  wliicli  was  perhaps 
 regarded  by  Moses  as  still  liiiidiiig  upon  all  Noah's 
 descendants.  The  grounds,  however,  on  which  the 
 similar  precept  of  the  Apostolic  Council,  in  Acts 
 XV.  20,  21,  appears  based,  relate  not  to  any  obliga- 
 tion resting  still  unbroken  on  the  Gentile  world, 
 but  to  the  risk  of  promiscuous  offense  to  the  Jews 
 and  Jewish  Christians,  ",/<"'  Closes  of  old  time 
 hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him."  Hence 
 this  abstinence  is  reckoned  amongst  "  necessary 
 tilings"  (to.  iirdvayKes),  and  "things  offered  to 
 idols,"  although  not  solely,  it  may  be  presumed,  on 
 the  same  grounds,  are  placed  in  the  same  class  with 
 "blood  and  things  strangled  "  {ait€xe<T6ai  eiSwKo- 
 BvTCCv  Kal  aijuaros  Kol  ttviktov,  vv.  28,  29).  He- 
 sides  these,  we  find  the  prohibition  twice  recurring 
 against  "  seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk."  It 
 is  added,  as  a  final  injunction  to  the  code  of  dietary 
 precepts  in  Deut.  xiv.,  after  the  crowning  declara- 
 tion of  ver.  21,  "/'or  thou  art  an  holy  people  unto 
 the  Lord  thy  God;  "  liut  in  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv. 
 26,  the  context  relates  to  the  bringing  first-fruits  to 
 the  altar,  and  to  the  "Angel"  who  was  to  "go 
 before  "  the  people.  To  this  precept  we  shall  have 
 occasion  further  to  return. 
 
 The  general  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  is 
 rightly  observed  by  JNIichaelis  (^'/H^7//'s  TransliUiiin, 
 Art.  ccii.  etc.)  to  have  its  parallel  amongst  all 
 nations,  there  being  universally  certain  creatures 
 regarded  as  clean,  i.  e.  fit  for  food,  and  the  rest  as 
 the  opposite  (comp.  Lev.  xi.  47).  With  the  greater 
 number  of  nations,  however,  this  is  only  a  tradi- 
 tional usage  based  merely  perhaps  either  on  an  in- 
 stinct relating  to  health,  or  on  a  repugnance  which 
 is  to  be  regarded  as  an  ultimate  fact  in  itself,  and 
 of  which  no  further  account  is  to  be  given.  Thus 
 Michaelis  (as  above)  remarks  that  in  a  certain  part 
 of  Germany  rabbits  are  viewed  as  unclean,  i.  e.  are 
 advisedly  excluded  from  diet.  f)ur  feelings  as  re- 
 gards the  frog  and  the  snail,  contrasted  with  tlio.se 
 of  continentals,  supply  another  close  parallel.  Now, 
 it  is  not  unlikely  that  nothing  more  than  this  is 
 intended  in  the  distinction  between  "  clean  "  and 
 "  unclean  "  in  the  directions  given  to  Noah.  The 
 intention  seems  to  have  been  that  creatures  recog- 
 nized, on  whatever  ground,  as  unfit  for  human  food, 
 should  not  be  preserved  in  so  large  a  proportion  as 
 those  whose  number  might  be  diminished  by  that 
 consumption.  The  dietary  code  of  the  Egyptians, 
 and  the  traditions  vvhich  have  descended  amongst 
 the  Arabs,  unfortified,  certainly  down  to  the  time  of 
 IMohammed,  and  in  some  cases  later,  by  any  legis- 
 lation whatever,  so  far  as  we  know,  may  illustrate 
 the  probable  state  of  the  Israelites.  If  the  Law 
 seized  upon  such  habits  as  were  current  among  the 
 people,  perhaps  enlariring  their  scope  and  range,  the 
 whole  scheme  of  tradition,  instinct,  and  usat;e  so 
 enlarged  might  become  a  ceremonial  barrier,  having 
 a  relation  at  once  to  the  theocratic  idea,  to  the 
 general  health  of  the  people,  and  to  their  separate- 
 ne«s  as  a  nation. 
 
 The  same  personal  interest  taken  by  Jehovah  in 
 his  subjects,  which  is  expressed  by  the  demand  for 
 i  ceremonially  pure  state  on  the  part  of  every 
 Israelite  as  in  covenant  with  Him,  regarded  also 
 
 n  The  camel,  it  may  be  observed,  is  the  creature 
 most  near  the  line  of  bBijaratioii,  for  the  foot  is  par- 
 
 UNCIiEAN    MEATS 
 
 this  particular  detail  of  that  purity,  namely,  diet. 
 Thus  the  prophet  (Is.  Ixvi.  17),  speaking  in  His 
 name,  denounces  those  that  "  sanctify  themselves 
 (consecrate  themselves  to  idolatry),  eating  swine's 
 flesh,  and  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse,"  and 
 those  "  which  remain  among  the  graves  and  lodge 
 in  the  monuments,  which  eat  swine's  flesh,  and 
 broth  of  abominable  things  is  in  their  vessels" 
 (Ixv.  4).  It  remained  for  a  higher  Lawgiver  to 
 aimounce  that  "  there  is  notiiing  from  without  a 
 man  that  entering  into  him  can  defile  him  "  (iMark 
 vii.  15).  The  fat  was  claimed  as  a  burnt-oflering 
 and  the  blood  enjoyed  the  highest  sacrificial  esteem. 
 In  the  two  cond^ined  the  entire  victim  was  l)y  rep- 
 resentation offered,  and  to  transfer  either  to  human 
 use  was  to  deal  presumptuously  with  the  most  holy 
 things.  Hut,  liesides  this,  the  blood  was  esteemed 
 as  "  the  life  "  of  the  creature,  and  a  mysterious 
 sanctity  beyond  the  sacrificial  relation  thereby 
 attached  to  it.  Hence  we  read,  '■  whatsoever  soul 
 it  be  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood,  even  that 
 soul  shall  be  cut  oft' from  his  people  "  (Lev.  vii.  27, 
 comp.  xvii.  10,  14).  Whereas  the  offender  in  other 
 dietary  respects  was  merely  "  unclean  until  even  " 
 (xi.  40,  xvii.  15). 
 
 Blood  was  certainly  drunk  in  certain  heathea 
 rituals,  especially  those  which  related  to  the  solem- 
 nization of  a  covenant,  but  also  as  a  pledge  of  idol- 
 atrous worship  (I's.  xvi.  4;  Ez.  xxxiii.  25).  Still 
 there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  blood  has  ever  been 
 a  common  article  of  food,  and  any  lawgiver  might 
 prolialily  reckon  on  a  natural  aversion  effectually 
 Ibrtifying  his  prohibition  in  this  respect,  unless 
 under  some  bewildering  influence  of  superstition. 
 Whether  animal  qualities,  grosser  appetites,  and 
 inhuman  tendencies  might  be  supposed  by  the  He- 
 brews transmitted  into  the  partaker  of  the  IJood 
 of  animals,  we  have  nothing  to  show:  see,  however, 
 Josephus,  Ant.  iii.  11,  §  2. 
 
 It  is  noteworthy  that  the  practical  eff'ect  of  the 
 rule  laid  down  is  to  exclude  all  the  cavnivora 
 among  quadrupeds,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  interpret 
 the  nomenclature,  the  rup/ores  among  birds.  This 
 suggests  the  question  whether  they  were  excluded 
 as  being  not  averse  to  human  carcases,  and  in  most 
 eastern  countries  acting  as  the  servitors  of  the 
 battle-field  and  the  gilibet.  Even  swine  have' been 
 known  so  to  feed ;  and,  further,  by  their  constant 
 runcation  among  whatever  lies  on  the  ground,  sug- 
 gest impurity,  even  if  they  were  not  generally  foul 
 feeders.  Amongst  fish  those  which  were  allowed 
 contain  unquestionably  the  most  wholesome  varie- 
 ties, save  that  they  exclude  the  oyster.  Probably, 
 however,  sea-fishing  was  little  practiced  by  the 
 Israelites;  and  the  Levitical  rules  must  be  under- 
 stood as  referring  liackwards  to  their  experience  of 
 the  produce  of  the  Nile,  and  forwards  to  their 
 enjoyment  of  the  Jordan  and  its  ujiper  lakes. 
 The  exclusion  of  the  camel  and  the  hare  from 
 allowable  meats  is  less  easy  to  account  for,  save 
 that  the  former  never  was  in  common  use,  and  is 
 generally  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  semi-bar- 
 barous desert  trilies  on  the  eastern  or  southern 
 border  land,  some  of  whom  certainly  had  no  in- 
 superable repugnance  to  his  flesh ;  "  although  it  is 
 so  impossilile  to  substitute  any  other  creature  for 
 the  camel  as  the  "  ship  of  the  desert,"  that  to  eat 
 him,  especially  where  so  many  other  creatures  give 
 meat  so  much  prei'erable,  would  be  the  worst  econ- 
 
 tially  cloven   but  iuoompletely  so,  aud  he  is   also  a 
 ruminant. 
 
UNCLEAN   MEATS 
 
 jniy  possible  in  an  eastern  commissariat  —  that  of 
 :iiestroyin!;  the  best,  or  ratlier  the  only  conveyance, 
 in  order  to  obtain  the  most  indifferent  food.  The 
 Inire  «  was  long  supposed,  even  by  eminent  natural- 
 ists,'' to  ruminate,  and  certainly  was  eaten  by  the 
 Egyptians.  The  horse  and  ass  would  be  generally 
 spared,  from  similar  reasons  to  those  which  ex- 
 eni[)ted  the  camel.  As  regards  other  cattle,  the 
 young  males  would  be  those  universally  preferred 
 for  food,  no  more  of  that  sex  reaching  maturity 
 than  were  needful  for  breeding,  whilst  the  supply 
 of  milk  suirgested  the  copious  preservation  of  the 
 female.  The  duties  of  draught  would  require 
 another  rule  in  rearing  neat-cattle.  The  laboring 
 steer,  man's  fellow  in  the  field,  had  a  life  somewhat 
 ennobled  and  sanctified  by  that  comradeship.  Thus 
 it  seems  to  have  been  quite  unusual  to  slay  for 
 sacrifice  or  food,  as  in  J.  K.  xi.x.  21,  the  ox  accus- 
 tomed to  the  yoke.  And  perhaps  in  this  case,  as 
 being  tougher,  the  Hesh  was  not  roasted  but  boiled. 
 The  case  of  Araunah's  oxen  is  not  similar,  as  cat- 
 tle of  all  ages  were  useful  in  the  threshing-floor 
 (2  Sam.  xxiv.  22).  Many  of  these  restrictions  must 
 be  esteemed  as  merely  based  on  usage,  or  arbitrary. 
 Practically  the  law  left  among  the  allowed  meats 
 an  ample  variety,  and  no  inconvenience  was  likely 
 to  arise  from  a  prohibition  to  eat  camels,  horses, 
 and  asses.  Swine,  hares,  etc.,  would  probably  as 
 nearly  as  possible  be  exterminated  in  proportion  as 
 the  law  was  observed,  and  their  economic  room 
 filled  by  other  creatures.  Wunderliar  {Blblisch- 
 Tiilm.  }[tdlcin,  part  ii.  p.  50)  refers  to  a  notion 
 that  "  tiie  animal  element  might  only  with  great 
 circumspection  and  discretion  be  taken  up  into  the 
 life  of  man,  in  order  to  avoid  del)asing  that  human 
 life  by  assimilation  to  a  brutal  level,  so  that  thereby 
 the  soul  might  become  degraded,  profaned,  filled 
 with  animal  attections,  and  disqualified  for  drawing 
 near  to  God."  He  thinks  also  that  we  may  notice 
 a  meaning  in  "  the  distinction  between  creatures 
 of  a  higher,  noliler,  and  less  intemsely  animal  or- 
 ganization as  clean,  and  those  of  a  lower  and  in- 
 complete organization  as  unclean,"  and  that  the 
 insects  provided  with  four  legs  and  two  others  for 
 leaping  are  of  a  higher  or  more  complete  type  than 
 others,  and  relatively  nearer  to  man.  Tliis  seems 
 fanciful,  but  may  nevertheless  have  been  a  view 
 current  among  Rabbinical  authorities.  As  regards 
 birds,  the  rajdores  have  conunonly  tough  and  in- 
 digestilile  flesh,  and  some  of  them  are  in  all  warm 
 countries  the  natural  scavengers  of  all  sorts  of 
 carrion  and  oftal.  This  alone  begets  an  instinctive 
 repugnance  tov^'ards  them,  and  associates  them 
 witli  what  was  lieforehand  a  defilement.  Thus  to 
 kill  them  for  food  would  tend  to  multiply  various 
 sources   of    uncleanness.''     Porphyry    (Abstin.   iv. 
 
 a  The  TStt\  "coney,"  A.  V.,  Lev.  xi.  5;  Deut. 
 xiv.  7 ;  Ps.  civ.  18  J  Prov.  xxx.  26,  is  probably  the 
 jerboa. 
 
 b  See  a  conespomlence  on  the  question  in  Tfie 
 Standard  and  most  other  London  newspapers,  April 
 2d,  1863. 
 
 t  Bochart  (Hieroz.  ii.  33,  355,  1.  43)  uieiitions  vai-i- 
 ous  symbolical  meanings  as  conveyed  by  the  precepts 
 regarding  birds:  "Aves  rapaces  prohibuit  ut  a  rapiiiil 
 averteret,  nocturnas,  ut  abjicereut  opera  tenebraruni 
 et  se  prodereut  lucis  filios,  lacustres  et  ripaiias,  qua- 
 rum  victus  est  inipurissimus,  ut  ab  omni  immuuditii 
 eo3  arceret.  Strutiiionem  deriique,  qui  a  terrii  nou 
 ittoUitur,  ut  terrenis  relictis  ad  ea  tenderent  quic  sur- 
 <uiii  aiuit.  Quic  iiiterpretatio  non  nostra  est  sed  vete- 
 uui.''     Ilf   refers   to   Barnabas,    Epist.  x. ;  Clemens 
 
 UNCLEAN   MEATS  8845 
 
 7,  quoted  by  Winer)  says  that  the  Egyptian  priests 
 abstained  from  all  fish,  from  all  quadrupeds  with 
 solid  hoofs,  or  having  claws,  or  which  were  not 
 horned,  and  from  all  carnivorous  liirds.  Other 
 curious  parallels  have  been  found  amongst  more 
 di.staut  nations. '^' 
 
 But  as  Orientals  have  minds  sensitive  to  teach- 
 ing by  types,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  such 
 ceremonial  distinctions  not  only  tended  to  keep 
 .lew  and  Uentile  apart,  but  were  a  perpetual  re- 
 minder to  the  former  that  he  and  the  latter  were 
 not  on  one  level  before  God.  Hence,  when  that 
 economy  was  changed,  we  find  that  this  was  the 
 very  symliol  selected  to  instruct  St.  Peter  in  the 
 truth  that  God  was  not  a  "respecter  of  persons." 
 The  ves.sel  filled  with  "  fourfooted  beasts  of  the 
 earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and 
 fovNls  of  the  air,"  was  expressive  of  the  Gentile 
 world,  to  be  put  now  on  a  level  with  the  Israelite, 
 through  God's  "  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith." 
 A  sense  of  this  their  prerogative,  however  dimly 
 field,  may  have  fortified  the  members  of  the  priv- 
 ileged nation  in  their  struggle  with  the  persecu- 
 tions of  the  Gentiles  on  this  very  point.  It  was 
 no  mere  question  of  which  among  several  means 
 of  supporting  life  a  man  chose  to  adopt,  when  the 
 persecutor  dictated  the  alternative  of  swine's  flesh 
 or  the  loss  of  life  itself,  but  whether  he  should 
 surrender  the  badge  and  type  of  that  privilege  by 
 which  Israel  stood  as  the  favored  nation  before 
 God  (1  Mace.  i.  63,  G4;  2  Mace.  vi.  18,  vii.  1). 
 The  same  feeling  led  to  the  exaggeration  of  the 
 Alosaic  regulations,  until  it  was  "unlawful  for  a 
 man  that  was  a  .Jew  to  keep  company  with  or  come 
 unto  one  of  another  nation"  (.\cts  x.  28);  and 
 with  such  intensity  were  badges  of  distinction 
 cherished,  that  the  wine,  bread,  oil,  cheese,  or  any- 
 thing cooked  by  a  heathen,''  were  declnred  unlaw- 
 ful for  a  .Jew  to  eat.  Nor  was  this  strictness,  how- 
 ever it  might  at  times  be  pushed  to  an  absurdity, 
 without  foundation  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  The 
 .Jews,  as,  during  and  after  the  return  from  Cap- 
 tivity, they  found  the  avenues  of  the  world  opening 
 around  them,  would  find  their  intercourse  with 
 Geiitiles  unavoidably  increased,  and  their  only  way 
 to  avoid  an  utter  relaxatioii  of  their  code  would  lie 
 in  somewhat  overstraining  the  precepts  of  prohibi- 
 tion. Nor  should  we  omit  the  tendency  of  those 
 who  have  no  scruples  to  "des[)ise"  those  who  have, 
 and  to  parade  their  liberty  at  the  expense  of  these 
 latter,  and  give  piquancy  to  the  contrast  by  wanton 
 tricks,  designed  to  beguile  the  .Jew  from  his  strict- 
 ness of  observance,  and  make  him  unguardedly 
 partake  of  what  he  abhorred,  in  order  to  heighten 
 his  confusion  l)y  derision.  One  or  two  instances 
 of  such  anmsement  at  the  Jew's  e.xpense  would 
 
 Alex.  Strom,  v.  ;  Origen,  Homil.  in  Levit  ,  Novatiau, 
 De  Cibis  Jutlnic.  cap.  iii.  ;  Cyril,  contra  JiiO'an.  lib.  ix. 
 
 d  Winer  refers  to  Von  Bohlen  (Genesis,  p.  88)  as 
 finding  the  origin  of  the  clean  and  unclean  animals 
 in  the  Zeudavesta,  in  that  the  latter  are  the  creation 
 of  Ahrinian,  whereas  man  is  ascribed  to  that  of  Or- 
 urnzd.  He  rejects,  however,  and  quite  rightly,  tlie 
 notion  that  Persian  institutions  exercised  any  influ- 
 ence over  Hebrew  ones  at  the  earliest  period  of  the 
 latter,  and  connects  it  with  the  efforts  of  some  "  den 
 Pentateuch  recht  jung  und  die  Ideen  des  Zendavesta 
 reeht  alt  zu  machen."'  See  Uncleakness  for  other  re- 
 semblances between  Persian  and  Hebrew  ritual. 
 
 e  Winer  also  refers  to  Ahnda  Zara,  ii.  2-6,  V.  2; 
 Uottinger,  Lf-.  Hcbr.,  pp.  117,  141. 
 
3346 
 
 UNCLEAN   MEATS 
 
 drive  the  latter  within  the  entreiiclimeiits  of  an 
 universal  repugnance  and  avoidance,  and  make  hini 
 seek  the  sale  side  at  the  cost  of  being  counted  a 
 churl  and  a  bigot.  Thus  we  may  account  (or  the 
 refusal  of  the  "  king's  meat "  by  the  religious 
 captives  (Dan.  i.  8),  and  for  the  similar  conduct 
 recorded  of  Judith  (xii.  2)  and  Tobit  (Tob.  i.  11); 
 and  in  a  similar  spirit  .Shakesjjeare  .makes  Shjlock 
 say,  "  1  will  not  eat  with  you,  drink  with  you,  nor 
 pray  with  you"  (Merc/imU  of  I'cnice,  .\ct  i.  Sc. 
 iii.).  As  regards  things  ottered  to  idols,  all  wlio 
 own  one  God  meet  on  common  ground;  but  the 
 Jew  viewed  the  precept  as  demanding  a  literal  ob- 
 jective obedience,  and  had  a  holy  horror  of  even 
 an  unconscious  infraction  of  the  Law :  hence,  as 
 he  could  never  know  what  had  received  idolatrous 
 con.secration,  his  only  safety  lay  in  total  abstinence; 
 whereas  St.  Paul  admonishes  the  Christian  to  alj- 
 stain,  "  for  his  .sake  that  showed  it  and  for  con- 
 science' sake,"  from  a  thing  said  to  have  been 
 consecrated  to  a  false  god,  but  not  to  parade  his 
 conscientious  scruples  by  interrogating  the  butcher 
 at  his  stall  or  the  host  in  his  guest-chaml)er  (1  Cor. 
 X.  25-29),  and  to  give  opposite  injunctions  would 
 doubtless  in  his  view  have  been  "  compelling  the 
 Gentiles  to  live  as  did  the  Jews"  (iovSai^etv,  Gal. 
 ii.  U). 
 
 The  prohibition  to  "  seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's 
 milk"  has  caused  considerable  ditterenee  of  opin- 
 ion amongst  conunentators.  ^lichaelis  (Art.  ccx.) 
 thought  it  was  meant  merely  to  encourage  the  use 
 of  olive  oil  instead  of  the  milk  or  butter  of  an 
 animal,  which  we  commonly  use  in  cookery,  where 
 the  Orientals  use  the  former.  This  will  not  sat- 
 isfy any  mind  l)y  which  the  clew  of  symbolism,  so 
 blindly  held  by  the  eastern  devotee,  and  so  deeply 
 interwoven  in  Jewish  ritual,  has  been  once  duly 
 seized.  Mercy  to  the  beasts  is  one  of  the  under- 
 currents which  permeate  that  Law.  To  soften  the 
 feelings  and  humanize  the  character  was  the  higher 
 and  more  general  aim.  When  St.  Paul,  comment- 
 ing on  a  somewhat  similar  precept,  says,  "  Doth 
 God  care  for  oxen,  or  saith  He  it  altogether  for  uur 
 sakes?  "  he  does  not  mean  to  deny  God's  care  for 
 oxen,  but  to  insist  the  rather  on  the  more  elevated 
 and  more  human  lesson.  The  milk  was  the  des- 
 tined support  of  the  young  creature:  viewed  in 
 reference  to  it,  the  milk  was  its  "life,"  and  had  a 
 relative  sanctity  resenilding  that  of  the  forbidden 
 blood  (comp.  Juv.  xi.  G8,  "qui  plus  lactis  liabet 
 quam  sanguinis,"  speaking  of  a  kid  destined  for 
 the  knife).  No  doubt  the  abstinence  from  the 
 forbidden  action,  in  the  case  of  a  young  creature 
 already  dead,  and  a  dam  unconscious  probably  of 
 its  loss,  or  whose  consciousness  such  an  use  of  her 
 nulk  could  in  nowise  quicken,  was  based  on  a  senti- 
 ment merely.  But  the  practical  consequence,  that 
 milk  must  be  foregone  or  elsewhere  obtained,  would 
 prevent  the  sympathy  from  being  an  empty  one. 
 It  would  not  lie  the  passive  emotion  which  becomes 
 weaker  by  repetition,  for  want  of  an  active  haldt 
 with  which  to  ally  itself.  And  thus  its  operation 
 would  lie  in  indirectly  quickening  sympathies  for 
 the  lirute  creation  at  all  other  times.  The  Tal- 
 mudists  took  an  extreme  view  of  the  precept,  as 
 forliidding  generally  the  cooking  of  flesh  in  milk 
 (JNIishna,  C/iollln,  viii. ;  Hottinger,  Leg.  llebv.  pp. 
 117,  ]41,  quoted  t)y  Winer). 
 
 It  remains  to  mention  the  sanitary  aspect  of  the 
 case.  Swine  are  said  to  be  peculiarly  liable  to  dis- 
 ease in  their  own  liodies.  This  probably  means 
 hai  they  are  more  easily  led  than  other  creatures 
 
 UNCLEAN    MEATS 
 
 to  the  foul  feeding  which  produces  it;  and  where 
 the  average  heat  is  great,  deconqjosition  rapid,  and 
 malaria  easily  excited,  this  tendency  in  the  animal 
 is  more  mischievous  than  elsewhere.  A  mmiztl  or 
 inczd,  from  whence  we  have  "  measled  pork,"  is 
 the  old  English  word  for  a  "leper,"  and  it  is  as- 
 serted that  eating  swine's  flesh  in  Syria  and  Egypt 
 tends  to  produce  that  disorder  (Bartholin),  JJe 
 Morbis  B'ibl.  viii.;  Wunderbar,  p.  51).  But  there 
 is  an  indefiniteness  about  these  assertions  which 
 prevents  our  dealing  with  them  scientilically.  J/ea- 
 zA  or  meztl  may  well  indeed  represent  '•  leper," 
 but  which  of  all  the  morbid  symptoms  classed 
 under  that  head  it  is  to  stand  for,  and  whether  it 
 means  the  same,  or  at  least  a  jiarallel  diso)-der,  in 
 man  and  in  pig,  are  indeterminate  questions. 
 [Lkpeh.]  The  prohibition  on  eating  fat  was  salu- 
 brious in  a  region  where  slyn  diseases  are  irequent 
 and  virulent,  and  that  on  blood  had,  no  doubt,  a 
 similar  tendency.  The  case  of  animals  dying  of 
 themselves  needs  no  remark:  the  mere  wisli  to 
 insure  avoiding-  disease,  in  case  they  had  died  in 
 such  a  state,  would  dictate  the  rule.  Yet  the 
 beneficial  tendency  is  veiled  under  a  ceremonial 
 dittiirence,  for  the  "sk'anger"  dwelling  by  the 
 Israelite  was  allowed  it,  although  the  latter  was 
 forbidden.  Thus  is  their  distinctness  before  God, 
 as  a  nation,  ever  put  prominently  forward,  even 
 where  more  common  motives  ajjpear  to  have  their 
 turn.  As  regards  the  animals  allowed  for  ibod, 
 comparing  them  with  those  forbidden,  there  can 
 be  no  doubt  on  which  side  the  balance  of  whole- 
 someness  lies.  Nor  would  any  dietetic  economist 
 fail  to  pronounce  in  favor  of  the  Levitical  dietary 
 code  as  a  whole,  as  insuring  the  maximum  of  pub- 
 lic health,  and  yet  of  national  distinctness,  pro- 
 cured, however,  by  a  minimum  of  the  inconvenience 
 arising  from  restriction. 
 
 r>ochart's  Hierozolcon ;  Forskal's  Descriptianes 
 Aniiii  iliuii),!  etc.,  quce  in  liinere  Orientnli  nbsei'Vfi- 
 vit,  with  his  Icones  Rerum  Natiiralhim,  and  Kosen- 
 niiiller's  Ilimdbuck  der  Bibl.  Al/ert/nimskun(le,\o\. 
 iv.,  Ndtuml  History,  may  be  consulted  on  some 
 of  the  questions  connected  witii  this  sulject;  also 
 more  generally,  j\Ioses  jNIaimonides,  Lh  Cibis  Vetilis  ; 
 Iteiidiard,  JJe  Cibis  Ilebrmorum  Proliibilis. 
 
 H.  II. 
 
 *  The  distinction  lietween  clean  and  unclean 
 animals  was  divinely  recognized,  apparently  as  al- 
 ready familiar  among  men,  before  the  Flood  (Gen. 
 vii.  2).  Animal  food,  on  the  other  hand,  was  first 
 pernutted  to  man  after  the  Flood  (Gen.  ix.  3,  cf.  i. 
 29  and  vi.  21);  and  that  permission  was  couched 
 in  the  most  general  terms  without  reference  to  clean 
 or  unclean.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  basis  of 
 the  distinction  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in 
 the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  the  various  animals  to  be 
 used  for  food.  Indeed  some  njore  satisfactory  way 
 of  accounting  for  human  customs  in  regard  to  this 
 use  itself  seems  desirable  than  merely  ti-adition,  or 
 sanitary  instinct,  or  sentiment.  Such  a  basis  both 
 for  the  original  distinction,  and  also  for  the  dif- 
 ference in  regard  to  the  use  of  animals  for  food 
 seems  to  be  furnished  by  the  fact  that  immediately 
 after  the  Flood  Noah  oiTered  in  sacrifice  "  of  every 
 clean  beast  and  of  every  clean  fowl"  ((ien.  viii.  20). 
 1  here  must  then  have  already  existed  a  recognized 
 distinction  among  animals  of  clean  and  miclean  ac- 
 cording to  their  fitness  or  unfitness  to  be  offered  in 
 sacrifice, — a  point  probably  determined  by  Divine 
 direction   in  the  earliest  ages.     This  seems  a.lso  to 
 
UNCLEANNESS 
 
 te  the  fundamental  idea  in  the  word  "inW  used 
 to  desiijnate  the  clean  animal.  The  distinction 
 having  once  been  established  for  purposes  of  sacri- 
 fice, wonld  naturally  have  passed  on  to  food,  since 
 the  eating  of  animal  food  was  everywhere  so  closely 
 connected  with  the  previous  offering  of  a  part  of 
 the  animal  in  sacrifice.  When  it  became  necessary 
 or  expedient  to  extend  the  classes  allowable  for  food 
 beyond  the  very  small  number  used  for  sacrifice, 
 it  was  readily  done  by  following  the  principle  of 
 similarity,  and  recognizing  as  suitable  for  food  those 
 animals  possessing  the  same  general  characteristics 
 as  were  required  in  victims  for  sacrifice. 
 
 When  by  the  Great  Sacrifice  on  Calvary  animal 
 sacrifices  were  done  away,  the  basis  for  the  distinc- 
 tion in  animals  for  food  at  once  ceased,  and  man 
 recurred  again  to  the  broad  permission  of  Gen.  ix. 
 3,  "Every  moving  thing' that  liveth  shall  be  meat 
 for  you;  even  as  the  green  herb  have  I  gi^■en  you 
 all  things."  F.  G. 
 
 UNCLEANNESS.  The  distinctive  idea  at- 
 tached to  ceremonial  uncleanness  among  the  He- 
 brews was,  that  it  cut  a  person  off  for  the  time  from 
 social  privileges,  and  left  his  citizenship  anjona; 
 God's  people  for  the  while  in  abeyance.  It  did  not 
 merely  require  by  law  a  certain  ritual  of  purifica- 
 tion, in  order  to  enhance  the  importance  of  the 
 priesthood,  but  it  placed  him  who  had  contracted 
 an  uncleaimess  in  a  ]iosition  of  disadvantage,  from 
 which  certain  ritualistic  acts  alone  could  free  him. 
 These  ritualistic  acts  were  primarily  the  means  of 
 recalhng  tlie  people  to  a  sense  of  the  personality 
 of  God,  and  of  the  reality  of  the  bond  in  which  the 
 Covenant  liad  placed  them  with  Him.  As  regards 
 the  nature  of  the  acts  themselves,  they  were  in  part 
 purely  ceremonial,  and  in  part  had  a  sanitary  ten- 
 dency; as  also  had  the  personal  isolation  in  which 
 the  unclean  were  placed,  acting  to  some  extent  as 
 a  quarantine,  under  circumstances  where  infection 
 was  possible  or  supposable.  It  is  remarkable  tliat, 
 although  many  acts  having  no  connection  specially 
 with  cleansing  entered  into  the  ritual,  the  most 
 frequently  enjoined  method  of  removing  ceremonial 
 pollution  was  that  same  washing  which  produces 
 physical  cleanliness.  Nor  can  we  adequately  com- 
 prehend the  purpart  and  spirit  of  the  lawgiver, 
 unless  we  recognize  on  either  side  of  the  merely 
 ceremonial  acts,  often  apparently  enjoined  for  the 
 sake  of  solemnity  alone,  the  spiritual  and  moral 
 benefits  on  tlie  one  side,  of  which  they  .spake  in 
 shadow  only,  and  the  physical  correctives  or  pre- 
 ventives on  the  other,  which  they  often  in  substance 
 conveyed.  Maimonides  and  some  other  expositors, 
 whilst  they  apparently  forljid,  in  reality  jiractice  the 
 rationalizing  of  many  ceremonial  precepts  (\Vunder- 
 bar,  BMscli-Titlmiidisdie  Mtdicin,  2e«  Heft,  4). 
 
 There  is  an  intense  reality  in  the  fact  of  the 
 Divine  Law  taking  hold  of  a  man  by  the  ordinary 
 infirmities  of  flesh,  and  setting  its  stamp,  as  it  were, 
 in  tlie  lowest  clay  of  which  he  is  moulded.  And 
 indeed,  things  which  would  be  unsuited  to  the 
 spiritual  dispensation  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
 which  might  even  sink  into  the  ridiculous  by  too 
 close  a  contact  with  its  su1)limity,  have  their  proper 
 place  in  a  law  of  temporal  sanctions,  directly  affect- 
 ing man's  life  in  this  world  chiefly  or  solely.  The 
 sacredness  attached  to  the  human  body  is  parallel 
 
 UNCLEANNESS 
 
 Vil 
 
 o  Compare  the  view  of  the  modern  Pei'sians  in  this 
 •espect.  Clianlin's  Voi/nses,  vol.  ii.  p.  343,  chap.  iv. 
 '  Le  corps  se  presente   devant  Dieu   comme  rilme  ;  ii 
 
 to  that  which  invested  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
 itself.  It  is  as  tliough  Jehovah  thereby  would  teach 
 them  tliat  the  "  very  hairs  of  their  head  were  all 
 numbered  "  before  Him,  and  that  "  in  his  book 
 were  all  their  members  written."  Thus  was  incul- 
 cated, so  to  speak,  a  bodily  holiness."  And  it  is 
 remarkable  indeed,  that  the  solemn  precept,  "  Ye 
 shall  be  holy;  for  I  am  holy,"  is  used  not  only 
 where  moral  duties  are  enjoined,  as  in  Lev.  xix.  2, 
 but  equally  so  where  purely  ceremonial  precepts  are 
 delivered,  as  in  xi.  44,  45.  So  the  emphatic  and 
 recurring  period,  "  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,"  is 
 found  added  to  the  clauses  of  positi\'e  observance 
 as  well  as  to  those  relating  to  the  grandest  ethical 
 barriers  of  duty.  The  same  weight  of  veto  or  in- 
 junction seems  laid  on  all  alike:  e.  y.  "Ye  shall 
 not  make  any  cuttings  in  your  flesh  for  the  dead, 
 nor  print  any  marks  upon  you :  I  am  the  Lord," 
 and  "  Thou  slialt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head, 
 and  honor  the  face  of  the  old  man,  and  fear  thy 
 God:  r  am  the  Lord"  (.xix.  28,  32).  They  had 
 his  mark  set  in  their  flesh,  and  all  flesh  on  which 
 that  had  passed  had  received,  as  it  were,  the  broad 
 arrow  of  the  king,  ami  was  really  owned  l)y  him. 
 riiey  were  preoccupied  by  that  mark  of  ownership 
 in  all  the  leading  relations  of  life,  so  as  to  exclude 
 the  adn)ission  of  any  rival  badge. 
 
 Nor  were  they  to  be  only  "  separated  from  other 
 people,"  but  they  were  to  be  "holy  unto  (JoiC^  (xx. 
 24,  26),  "  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation.'' 
 Hence  a  numlser  of  such  ordinances  regarding  out- 
 ward purity,  which  in  Rgypt  they  hail  seen  used 
 only  by  the  priests,  were  made  publicly  obligatory 
 on  the  Hebrew  nation. 
 
 The  importance  to  physical  well-being  of  the  in- 
 junctions which  required  frequent  ablution,  under 
 whatever  special  pretexts,  can  be  but  feeblj'  appre- 
 ciated in  our  cooler  and  damper  climate,  where 
 there  seems  to  be  a  less  rapid  action  of  the  atmos- 
 phere, as  well  as  a  state  of  the  frame  less  disposed 
 towards  the  generation  of  contagion,  and  towards 
 morbid  action  generally.  Hence  the  obvious  utility 
 of  reinforcing,  by  the  sanction  of  religion,  obser- 
 vances tending  in  the  main  to  that  healthy  state 
 which  is  the  only  solid  basis  of  comfort,  even  though 
 in  certain  points  of  detail  they  were  burdensome. 
 The  custom  of  using  the  bath  also  on  occasions  of 
 ceremonious  introduction  to  persons  of  rank  or  im- 
 jjortance  (Kuth  iii.  3;  Judith  x.  3),  well  explains 
 the  special  use  of  it  on  occa.sions  of  religious  minis- 
 tration, viewed  as  a  jjersonal  appearing  before  God; 
 whence  we  understand  the  office  of  the  lavers  among 
 the  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary  (Kx  xxx.  18- 
 21;  1  K.  vii.  38,  39;  comp.  Ex.  xix.  10,  14;  1  Sam. 
 xvi.  5;  Josh.  iii.  5;  2  Chr.  xxx.  17).  The  exauiples 
 of  parallel  observances  among  the  nations  of  an- 
 tiquity, will  suggest  theuLselves  easily  to  the  classical 
 student  without  special  references.  The  closest  ap- 
 proximation, however,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  in  this 
 resjject,  is  said  to  be  found  in  the  code  of  Menu 
 (Winer,  "  Keinigkeit,"  313,  note). 
 
 To  the  priests  was  ordinarily  referird  the  exposi- 
 tion of  the  law  of  uncleanness,  as  may  be  gathered 
 i'rom  Hag.  ii.  11.  Uncleanness,  as  referred  to  man, 
 may  lie  arranged  in  three  degrees;  (1)  that  which 
 defiled  merely  "  until  even,''  and  was  removed  by 
 bathing  and  washing  the  clotl»es  at  the  end  of  it  — 
 such  were  all  contacts  with  dead  animals;   (2)  that 
 
 faut  done  qu'il  soit  pur,  taut  pour  parlor  a  Dieu,  que 
 pour  eutrer  dans  le  lieu  consacre  a  son  cult<!." 
 
8348 
 
 UNCLEANNESS 
 
 graver  sort  which  defiled  for  seven  days,  and  was 
 removed  by  the  use  of  the  "  water  of  separation  "  — 
 such  were  all  defilements  connected  with  the  human 
 corpse;  (.3)  uncleanness  from  the  morbid,  puerperal, 
 or  menstrual  state,  lasting  as  lonir  as  that  morbid 
 state  lasted  —  l)ut  see  further  below;  and  in  the 
 case  of  leprosy  lasting  often  for  life. 
 
 It  suffices  barely  to  notice  th6  spiritual  signif- 
 icance which  the  law  of  carnal  ordinances  veiled. 
 This  seems  sometimes  apparent,  as  in  Deut.  xxi.  (J-8 
 (comp.  I's.  xxvi  G,  Ixxiii.  1-3),  yet  calling  for  a 
 spiritual  discernment  in  the  student;  and  this  is 
 tlie  point  of  relation  between  these  "  divers  wash- 
 ings" and  Christian  Baptism  (1  Pet.  iii.  21).  Those 
 who  laclied  tliat  gift  were  likely  to  confound  the 
 inward  with  the  outward  purification,  or  to  fix  their 
 regards  exclusively  on  the  latter. 
 
 As  the  human  person  was  itself  the  seat  of  a 
 covenant-token,  so  male  and  female  had  each  their 
 ceremonial  obligations  in  proportion  to  their  sexual 
 differences.  Further  than  this  the  increase  of  the 
 nation  was  a  special  point  of  the  promi.se  to  Abraham 
 and  Jacob,  and  therefore  their  fecundity  as  parents 
 was  under  tiie  Divine  tutelage,  beyond  the  general 
 notion  of  a  curse,  or  at  least  of  God's  disfavor,  as 
 implied  in  barrenness.  The  •'  blessings  of  tlie  breasts 
 and  of  the  womb"  were  his  (Gen.  xlix.  25),  and 
 the  Law  takes  accordingly  grave  and  as  it  were 
 paternal  cognizance  of  the  organic  functions  con- 
 nected with  propagation.  Thus  David  could  feel 
 "  Tliou  has  possessed  my  reins:  thou  hast  covered 
 nie  in  my  mother's  womb"  (Ps  cxxxix.  I'-i):  and 
 St.  Paul  found  a  spiritual  analogy  in  the  fact  that 
 "  God  had  tempered  the  body  together,  havinir 
 given  more  abundant  honor  to  that  part  which 
 lacked"  (1  Cor.  xii.  24).  The  changes  of  habit  in- 
 cident to  the  female,  and  certain  almormal  states  of 
 either  sex  in  regard  to  such  functions,  are  touched 
 on  reverently,  and  with  none  of  the  ^Esculapian 
 coldness  of  science — for  the  point  of  view  is  tlnough- 
 out  from  the  sanctuary  (Lev.  xv.  31)  ;  and  tlie 
 purity  of  the  individual,  both  moral  and  physical, 
 as  well  as  the  |ireservation  of  the  race,  seems  in- 
 cluded in  it.  Tiiere  is  an  emphatic  reminder  of 
 human  weakness  in  the  fact  of  birth  and  death  — 
 man's  passage  alike  into  and  out  of  his  mortal  state 
 —  being  marked  with  a  stated  pollution.  Thus  the 
 birth  of  the  infiint  brought  defilement  on  its  mother, 
 which  she,  except  so  far  as  necessarily  isolated  by 
 the  nature  of  the  circumstances,  propairated  around 
 her.  Nay,  the  conjugal  act  itself"  or  ,any  act  re- 
 seml)ling  it,  though  done  involuntarily  (vv.  16-18), 
 entailed  uncleanness  for  a  day.  The  corpse,  on  the 
 other  hand,  bequeathed  a  defilement  of  seven  days 
 
 n  Comp.  Herod,  ii.  64-,  where  it  appears  that  after 
 such  iutercour.se  an  Eg.vptian  could  not  eater  a  ."ianc- 
 tuary  without  tirst  bathing. 
 
 b  Ancient  Greek  ph.ysioians  assert  that,  in  southern 
 countries,  the  symptoms  of  the  puerperal  state  con- 
 tinue longer  when  a  woman  has  borne  a  daughter  than 
 when  a  son.  Michaelis  {Smith's  Translation),  Art. 
 214. 
 
 e  Winer  quotes  a  remarkable  passage  from  Pliny, 
 JV.  H.  vii.  13,  specifying  the  mysteriously  nii.«chievous 
 properties  ascribed  in  popular  .superstition  to  the  men- 
 strual flux  ;  e.  g.  buds  and  fruits  being  blighted,  steel 
 blunted,  dogs  driven  mad  by  it,  and  the  like.  But 
 Pliny  has  evidently  raked  together  all  sorts  of  "  old 
 wives'  fables,'"  without  any  attempt  at  testing  their 
 truth,  and  is  therefore  utterly  untrustworthy.  More 
 to  the  purpose  is  his  quotation  of  Ilaller.  Ti'i-m. 
 P/it/siol.  vii.  148,  to  the  effect  that  this  opinion  of  the 
 
 UNCLEANNESS 
 
 to  all  who  handled  it,  to  the  "tent"  or  chamber 
 of  death,  and  to  sundry  things  within  it.  Nay, 
 contact  with  one  slain  in  the  field  of  battle,  or  with 
 even  a  human  bone  or  grave,  was  no  le.ss  effectual 
 to  pollute,  than  that  with  a  cor|ise  dead  by  the 
 course  of  nature  (Num.  xix  11-18).  'J'his  shows 
 that  the  source  of  pollution  lay  in  tlie  mere  fact  of 
 death,  and  seems  to  mark  an  anxiety  to  fix  a  sense 
 of  the  connection  of  death,  even  as  of  birth,  with 
 sin,  deep  in  the  heart  of  the  nation,  by  a  wide 
 pathology,  if  we  may  so  call  it,  of  defilement.  It  is 
 as  though  the  pool  of  human  corruption  was  stirred 
 anew  by  whatever  passed  into  or  out  of  it.  For  the 
 special  cases  of  male,  female,  and  intersexual  defile- 
 ment, see  Lev.  xii.,  xv.  Wunderbar,  Bildiscli-TdL 
 nmdkche  Med'uin,  pt.  iii.  19-20,  refers  to  Mishna, 
 Znbiiu,  ii.  2,  Nuzir.  ix.  4,  as  understanding  by  the 
 symptoms  mentioned  in  Lev.  xv.  2-8  ///e  i/onorrlicRn 
 bi'iiifjitii.  The  same  anthority  tiiinks  that  the  plague 
 "  for  Peor's  sake  "  (Num.  xxv.  1,  8,  9;  Deut.  iv.  ii; 
 .Josh.  xxii.  17)  was  possibly  a  sypliilitic  affection 
 derived  from  the  Moabites.  [Issuii;  JMiiDiciNii.] 
 The  duration  of  defilement  caused  by  the  birth 
 of  a  female  infant,  being  donlile  that  due  to  a  male. 
 extending  respectively  to  eighty ''  and  forty  days 
 in  all  (Lev.  xii.  2-5),  may  perhaps  represent  the 
 woman's  heavier  share  in  the  first  sin  and  first 
 curse  (Gen.  iii.  16;  1  Tim.  ii.  14).  For  a  man's 
 "  issue,"  besides  the  uncleanness  while  it  la.sted,  a 
 probation  of  seven  days,  including  a  washing  on 
 the  third  day,  is  prescribed.  Similar  was  the  period 
 in  the  case  of  the  woman,  and  in  that  of  intercourse 
 with  a  woman  so  affected  (Lev.  xv.  13,  24,  28). 
 Such  an  act  during  her  menstrual  .separation  "^  was 
 regarded  as  incurring,  beyond  uncleanness,  the 
 penalty  of  both  the  persons  being  cut  off  from 
 among  their  people  (xx.  18).  We  may  gather  from 
 Gen.  xxxi.  35,  that  such  injunctions  were  agreeable 
 to  established  traditional  notions.  The  propaga- 
 tion of  uncleanness  from  the  person  to  the  bed, 
 saddle,  clothes,  etc.,  and  tln-oui;h  them  to  other 
 persons,  is  apt  to  impress  the  iinaginatioii  with  an 
 idea  of  the  loathsomeness  of  such  a  state  or  the 
 heinonsness  of  such  acts,  more  forcibly  by  far  than 
 if  the  defilement  clove  to  the  first  person  merely 
 (Lev.  XV.  5,  6,  9,  12,  17,  20,  22-24,  2(i,  27).  It 
 tin-ew  a  broad  margin  around  them,  and  warned 
 all  off  by  amply  defined  boundaries.  One  expres- 
 sion in  ver.  8,  seems  to  have  misled  Winer  into 
 supiiosinir  that  an  issue  of  rheum  (Scliliinijliiss) 
 was  perhaps  intended.  That  "  spittini;,"'  in  some 
 ca.ses  wiiere  there  was  no  disease  in  question,  con- 
 veyed defilement,  seems  imjilied  in  Num.  xii.  14, 
 and  much  more  might  such  an  act  so  operate,  from 
 
 virulent  and  baneful  effects  of  this  secretion  proceeded 
 from  Asia,  and  was  imported  into  Europe  by  the 
 .\rabians  ;  which,  however,  lacks  due  foundation,  and 
 which  Pliny's  language  so  far  contradicts.  The  laws 
 of  Menu  are  said  to  be  more  stringent  on  this  head 
 than  the  Mosaic.  The  menstrual  affection  begins  at 
 an  earlier  age,  and  has  periods  of  longer  duration  with 
 Oriental  women  than  with  those  of  our  owu  climate. 
 I'hat  Greek  religion  recognized  some  of  the  Levitical 
 pollutions  is  plain  from  Eurip.  Ijiliig.  Tain.  380  foil., 
 where  we  read  of  a  goddess,  —  rins,  fiporiav  ixiv  Tf)V  ns 
 ai//>jTat  </>6i'0u,  71  Kai  ko\eia.<;,  7)  v^Kpov  6Cyr)  \epoiv, 
 Pw|uu>i'  (XTre ipyei,  nivcrapbi/  o)?  -riyovtiei'r).  A  fragment 
 of  tlie  same  poet,  adduced  by  Mr.  Paley  ri'/.  loc.  cit., 
 is  even  more  closely  in  point.  It  is,  wakKevKa  S'  exuiv 
 eijuara  (pevyco  yeVeatV  re  ^poTUiv  KaX  v€Kpo0r\K  rj^  ov 
 XpLfXTTTQfjL^i'Os ,  TTji'  T  etx\l/v\(i)v  /SpuxTti'  e&eaTuiv  rTe<f)i^ 
 Aayfiai.     Comp.  also  Theophr.  C/tar.  17- 
 
UNCLEANNESS 
 
 one  whosi!  malady  made  him  a  source  of  pollution 
 even  to  tlie  touch. 
 
 As  regards  the  propagation  of  uncleanness  the 
 Law  of  Moses  is  not  quite  clear.  We  read  (Num. 
 six.  22),  "  Whatsoever  the  imclean  person  toucheth 
 shall  1)6  unclean  ;  "  but  there  uncleanness  from  con- 
 tact with  the  corpse,  grave,  etc.,  is  the  subject  of 
 the  chapter  which  the  injunction  closes;  and  this  is 
 confirmed  by  Hag.  ii.  13,  where  "  one  that  is  un- 
 clean by  a  dead  body"'  is  similarly  expressly  men- 
 tioned. Also  from  the  command  (Num.  v.  2-4)  to 
 "put  the  unclean  out  of  the  camp;"  where  the 
 "leper,"  the  one  "that  hatli  an  issue,"  and  the 
 one  "defiled  by  the  dead,"  are  particularized,  we 
 may  assume  that  the  minor  pollution  for  one  day 
 only  was  not  communicable,  and  so  needed  not  to 
 be  "  put  forth."  It  is  observable  also  that  tiie 
 innjor  pollution  of  the  "  issue  "  communicated  by 
 contact  the  /rtirto/' pollution  only  (Lev.  xv.  .5-11). 
 Hence  may  perhaps  be  deduced  a  tendency  in  the 
 contagiousness  to  exliaust  itself;  the  minor  pollu- 
 tion, whether  engendered  by  the  major  or  arising 
 directly,  being  non-conimuiiicable.  Thus  the  major 
 itself  vi'ould  expire  after  one  remove  from  its 
 original  subject.  To  this  pertains  the  distinction 
 mentioned   by  Lightfoot  (//or.  ITebr.  on  Matt.  xv. 
 
 2),  namely,  that  between   S!2I2,  "  unclean,"  and 
 
 VlOD,  "  profane  "  or  "  polluted,"  in  that  the  latter 
 does  not  pollute  another  beside  itself  nor  pro])agate 
 pollution.  In  the  ancient  commentary  on  Num. 
 known  as  "  Siphri "  «  {fq).  Ugol.  Thcs.  xv.  340),  a 
 greater  transmissiliility  of  polluting  power  .seems 
 assumed,  the  defilement  being  there  traced  through 
 three  removes  from  the  original  subject  of  it;  but 
 this  is  no  doubt  a  Rabbinical  extension  of  the 
 original  Levitical  view. 
 
 Michaelis  notices  a  medical  tendency  in  the  re- 
 striction laid  on  coition,  whereby  both  parties  were 
 unclean  until  even ;  he  thinks,  and  witb  some  rea- 
 son, that  the  law  would  operate  to  discourage  polyg- 
 amy, and,  in  monogamy,  would  tend  to  preserve 
 the  health  of  the  parents  and  to  provide  for  the 
 healthiness  of  the  offspring.  The  uncleanness  sim- 
 ilarly imposed  upon  self-pollution  (Lev.  xv.  IG; 
 Deut.  xxiii.  10),  even  if  involuntary,  would  equally 
 exercise  a  restraint  both  moral  and  salutary  to 
 health,  and  suggest  to  parents  the  duty  of  vigilance 
 over  their  male  children  (Michaelis,  Art.  ccxiv.- 
 ccxvii.). 
 
 With  regard  to  uncleanness  arising  from  the 
 lower  animals,  Lightfoot  {Hor.  Ilebr.  on  Lev.  xi.- 
 XV.)  remarks,  that  all  wbicli  were  unclean  to  touch 
 when  dead  were  unclean  to  eat,  but  not  conversely ; 
 and  that  all  which  were  unclean  to  eat  were  un- 
 clean to  sacrifice,  but  not  conversely;  since  "  multa 
 edere  licet  quae  non  sacrificari,  et  multa  tangere 
 licet  qua;  non  edere."  For  uncleanness  in  matters 
 of  food,  see  Uncf.kan  Meats.  All  animals,  how- 
 ever, if  dying  of  themselves,  or  eaten  with  the 
 l)lood,  were  unclean  to  eat.  [Hr.ooD.]  The  carcase 
 also  of  any  animal  unclean  as  regards  diet,  however 
 dying,  defiled  whatever  person  it,  or  any  part  of  it 
 touched.  By  the  same  touch  any  garment,  sack, 
 skin,  or  vessel,  together  with  its  contents,  became 
 unclean,  and  was  to  be  purified  by  washing  or  scour- 
 ing; or  if  an  earthen  vessel,  was  to  be  broken,  just 
 
 UNCLEANNESS 
 
 3349 
 
 «  The  passage  in  the  Latin  version  is,  •'  Si  va.'a 
 ^use  tangunt  hominem  qui  tangat  vasa,  quje  tangant 
 mortuum,  sunt  iinmunda,"  etc. 
 
 ')  Bishop  Colenso  appears  to  have  misapplied  this, 
 
 as  the  Brahmins  break  a  vessel  out  of  which  a 
 Christian  has  drunk.  Further,  the  water  in  which 
 such  things  had  been  purified  comninnicated  their 
 uncleanness;  and  even  seed  for  sowing,  if  wetted 
 with  water,  became  unclean  by  touch  of  any  carrion, 
 or  unclean  animal  when  dead.  All  the.se  defile- 
 ments were  "  until  even  "  only,  save  the  eating 
 "  with  the  blood,"  the  offender  in  which  respect 
 was  to  "be  cut  off"  (Lev.  xi.,  xvii.  14). 
 
 It  should  further  be  added,  that  tiie  same  sen- 
 tence "of  cutting  off,"  was  denounced  against  all 
 who  should  "  do  presumptuously  "  in  respect  even 
 of  minor  defilements;  by  which  we  may  understand 
 .all  contempt  of  the  legal  provisions  regarding  them 
 The  comprehensive  term  "defilement"  also  in 
 eludes  the  contraction  of  the  unlawful  marriages 
 and  the  indulgence  of  uidawful  lusts,  as  denounced 
 in  Lev.  xviii.  Even  the  sowing  heteroneneous 
 seeds  in  the  same  plot,  the  mixture  of  materials  in 
 one  garment,  the  sexual  admixture  of  cattle  with 
 a  diverse  kind,  the  ploughing  with  diverse  ani- 
 mals in  one  team,  although  not  formally  so  classed, 
 yet  seem  to  fall  under  the  same  general  notion, 
 save  in  so  far  as  no  specified  term  of  defilement  or 
 mode  of  purification  is  prescribed  (Lev.  xix.  19; 
 Deut.  xxii.  9-11;  conip.  Michaelis,  as  above,  ccxx.). 
 In  the  first  of  these  cases  the  fruit  is  pronounced 
 "  defiled,"  which  Michaelis  interpets  as  a  consecra- 
 tion, I.  e.  confiscation  of  the  crop  for  the  uses  of  the 
 priests. 
 
 The  fruit  of  trees  was  to  be  counted  "  as  uncir- 
 cumcised,"  /.  e.  unclean  for  the  first  three  years;  in 
 the  fourth  it  was  to  be  set  apart  as  "  holy  to  praise 
 the  Lord  withal,"  and  eaten  connnonly  not  till  the 
 fifth.  Mich.aelis  traces  an  economic  effect  in  this 
 regulation,  it  being  best  to  pluck  off  the  blossom  in 
 the  early  years,  and  not  allow  the  tree  to  bear  fruit 
 till  it  had  attained  to  some  maturity  {ibid,  ccxxii. ). 
 
 The  directions  in  Deut.  xxiii.  10-13,  relate  to 
 the  avoidance  of  impurities  in  the  case  of  a  host  en- 
 camped,* as  shown  in  ver.  9,  and  from  the  mention 
 of  "enemies  "  in  ver.  14.  The  health  of  the  army 
 would  of  course  suffer  from  the  neglect  of  such 
 rules;  but  they  are  based  on  no  such  ground  of  ex- 
 pediency, but  on  the  scrupulous  ceremonial  purity 
 demanded  by  the  Ood  whose  presence  was  in  the 
 midst  of  them.  We  must  suppose  that  the  rule 
 which  expelled  soldiers  under  certain  circumstances 
 of  pollution  from  the  camp  for  a  whole  day,  was 
 relaxed  in  the  presence  of  an  enemy,  as  otherwise 
 it  woidd  have  placed  them  beyond  the  protection 
 of  their  comrades,  and  at  the  mercy  of  the  hostile 
 host.  As  regards  the  other  regulation,  it  is  part 
 of  the  teaching  of  nature  herself  that  an  as.sembled 
 community  should  i-eject  whatever  the  human  body 
 itself  expels.  And  on  this  ground  the  Levitical 
 Law  seems  content  to  let  such  a  matter  rest,  for  it 
 annexes  no  stated  defilement,  nor  prescribes  any 
 purification. 
 
 Amongst  causes  of  defilement  should  be  noticed 
 the  fact  that  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  burnt 
 whole,  which  were  mixed  with  water  and  became 
 the  standing  resource  for  purifying  uncleanness  in 
 the  second  degree,  themselves  liecame  a  source  of 
 defilement  to  all  who  were  clean,  even  as  of  purifi- 
 cation to  the  unclean,  and  .so  the  water.  Thus  the 
 priest  and  Levite,  who  administered  this  puritica- 
 
 as  though  it  were  required  of  the  host  of  Israel,  i.  e. 
 the  whole  body  of  the  people,  throughout  the  whole 
 of  their  wandering  in  the  wilderness.  Tke  Peiitnteuck 
 etc.,  ch.  vi.  39. 
 
330  0  UNCLEANNESS 
 
 tion  in  their  respective  degrees,  were  tlieniselves 
 made  unclean  tliereby,  but  in  the  first  or  lightest 
 degree  only  (Num.  xix.  7,  foil.)-  Somewhat  simi- 
 larly the  sca])e-goat,  who  I)ore  away  the  sins  of  the 
 people,  defiled  him  who  led  him  into  the  wilderness, 
 and  the  bringing  forth  and  burning  the  sacrifice 
 on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  had  a  similar 
 power.  This  lightest  form  of  uncleanness  was  ex- 
 piated by  bathing  the  Ijody  and  washing  the  clothes. 
 Besides  the  water  of  ptn-ification  m.ade  as  aforesaid, 
 men  and  women  in  their  "  issues,"  were,  after  seven 
 days,  reckoned  from  the  cessation  of  the  disorder, 
 to  bring  two  turtle-doves  or  young  pigeons  to  be 
 killed  by  the  priests.  The  purification  after  child- 
 bed is  well  known  from  the  N.  T. ;  the  Law,  how- 
 ever, primarily  required  a  lamb  and  a  bird,  and  al- 
 lowed the  poor  to  commute  for  a  pair  of  birds  as 
 before.  That  for  the  leper  declared  clean  consisted 
 of  two  stages:  the  first,  not  properly  sacrificial, 
 though  involving  the  shedding  of  blood,  consisted 
 in  bringing  two  such  birds,  the  one  of  which  the 
 priest  killed  over  spring- water  with  which  its  blood 
 was  mingled,  and  the  mixture  sprinkled  seven  times 
 on  the  late  leper,  with  an  instrument  made  of  cedar- 
 wood,  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop;  the  living  bird  was 
 then  dipped  in  it,  and  let  fly  away,  symbolizing  « 
 probably  the  liberty  to  which  the  leper  would  be 
 entitled  when  his  probation  and  sacrifice  were  com- 
 plete, even  as  the  slaugiitered  bird  signified  the 
 discharge  of  the  impurities  which  his  blood  had 
 contained  during  the  diseased  state.  The  leper 
 might  now  bathe,  shave  himself,  and  wash  his 
 clothes,  and  come  within  the  town  or  camp,  nor 
 was  every  place  which  he  entered  any  longer  pol- 
 luted by  him  (JMishna,  Nef/aim,  xiii.  11;  Celim,  i. 
 4),  he  was,  however,  relegated  to  his  own  house  or 
 tent  for  seven  days.  At  the  end  of  that  time  he 
 was  scrupulously  to  shave  his  whole  body,  even  to 
 his  eyebrows,  and  wash  and  bathe  as  before.  The 
 final  sacrifice  consisted  of  two  lambs,  and  an  ewe 
 sheep  of  the  first  year  witli  flour  and  oil,  the  poor 
 being  allowed  to  Ijring  one  lamb  and  two  liirds  as 
 before,  with  smaller  quantities  of  flour  and  oil.  For 
 the  detail  of  the  ceremonial,  some  of  the  features 
 of  which  are  rather  singular,  see  Lev.  xiv.  Lepers 
 were  allowed  to  attend  the  synagogue  worship, 
 where  separate  seats  were  assigned  them  {Neytiini, 
 xiii.  12). 
 
 All  these  kind  of  uncleanness  disqualified  for 
 holy  functions :  as  the  layman  so  affected  might  not 
 approach  the  congregation  and  the  sanctuary,  so  any 
 priest  who  incurred  defilement  must  abstain  fron) 
 the  holy  things  (Lev.  xxii.  2-8).  The  high-priest 
 was  forbidden  the  customary  signs  of  mourning 
 for  father  or  mother,  "  for  the  crown  of  the  anoint- 
 ing oil  of  his  (iod  is  upon  him  "  (Lev.  xxi.  10-12), 
 and  beside  his  case  the  same  prohibition  seems  to 
 have  been  extended  to  the  ordinary  priests.  At 
 least  we  have  an  example  of  it  in  the  charge  given 
 to  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  on  their  brethren's  death 
 (Lev.  X.  6).  From  the  specification  of  "  father  or 
 mother,"  we  may  infer  that  he  was  permitted  to 
 mourn  for  his  wife,  and  so  IMaimonides  {tie  Liidti, 
 cap.  ii.,  iv.,  v.)  explains    the    text.     Further,  from 
 
 a  I.  e.  conveying  in  symbol  only  a  release  from  the 
 state  to  which  the  leper,  whilst  such,  was  seutenceil. 
 It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  duality  of  the  symbol 
 arose  from  the  natural  impossibility  of  representing  life 
 and  death  in  the  same  creature,  and  that  both  the 
 birds  involve  a  complete  representation  of  the  Death, 
 Resurrection,  and  Ascension  which  procure  the  Chris- 
 
 UMOLEANKESS 
 
 the  special  prohibition  of  F'zekiel,  who  was  a  priest, 
 to  mourn  for  his  wife  (Ez.  xxiv.  15,  fell.),  we  k.iow 
 that  to  mourn  for  a  wife  was  generally  permitted 
 to  the  priests.  Among  ordinary  Israelites,  the  man 
 or  woman  who  had  an  issue,  or  the  latter  while  in 
 the  menstrual  or  puerperal  state,  n)ight  not,  ac- 
 cording to  the  Rabbins,  enter  even  the  mount  on 
 which  the  Temple  stood ;  nor  might  the  intra-mural 
 space  be  entered  by  any  Israelite  in  mourning.  In 
 .lerusalem  itself,  according  to  the  same  autliorities, 
 a  dead  liody  might  not  be  allowed  to  pass  the  night, 
 nor  even  the  bones  of  one  be  carried  through  its 
 streets:  neither  was  any  cultivation  allowed  there, 
 for  fear  of  the  dung,  etc.,  to  which  it  might  give 
 rise  (Maimonides  Coiislit.  de  Temp.  cap.  vii.  xiv.- 
 xvi.).  No  bodies  were  to  be  interred  within  towns, 
 unless  seven  chief  men,  or  the  public  voice,  hade 
 the  interment  there;  and  every  tomb  within  a  town 
 was  to  lie  carefully  walled  in  {ibid.  xiii.).  If  a  man 
 in  a  state  of  pollution  presumed  to  enter  the  sanc- 
 tuary, he  was  obliged  to  ofter  a  sacrifice  as  well  as 
 sutitir  ]mnishment.  The  sacrifice  was  due  under 
 the  notion  that  the  pollution  of  the  sanctuary 
 needed  expiation,  and  the  punishment  was  either 
 whipping,  the  "  rebel's  beating,"  which  meant  leav- 
 ing the  oHiender  to  the  mercies  of  the  mob,  "  cutting 
 off  from  the  congregation,"  or  death  "  by  the  hand 
 of  heaven"  (Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr.  on  Lev.  xv. ; 
 Ugolini,  Thes.  xvi.  126). 
 
 As  regards  the  special  case  of  the  lejier,  see 
 Lkprosy.  To  the  remarks  there  made,  it  may  be 
 added  that  the  priests,  in  their  contact  with  the 
 leper  to  be  adjudged,  were  exempted  fiom  the  law 
 of  defilement;  that  the  garb  and  treatment  of  the 
 leper  seems  to  be  tiiat  of  one  dead  in  the  eye  of  the 
 Law,  or  rather  a  perpetual  mourner  for  his  own 
 estate  of  death  with  "  clothes  rent  and  head  bare," 
 the  latter  being  a  token  of  profound  affliction  and 
 prostration  of  spirit  among  an  oriental  people, 
 which  no  conventional  token  among  ourselves  can 
 
 adequately  parallel.  The  fatal  cry  N^tO,  h'^tS, 
 "  Unclean,  unclean !  "  was  uttered  not  only  by  the 
 leper,  but  liy  all  for  whose  uncleanness  no  remedy 
 could  be  found  {Pesichtha,  §  2;  Ugol.  Thvs.  xvi. 
 40).  When  we  consider  the  aversion  to  leprous 
 contact  which  prevailed  in  Jewish  society,  and  that 
 whatever  the  lejier  touched  was,  as  if  touched  by  a 
 corpse,  defiled  se\en  days,  we  see  the  happy  signifi- 
 cance of  our  Lord's  selecting  the  touch  as  his  means 
 of  healing  the  leper  (Lightfoot,  Hor.  Ihbf.  on 
 Matt.  viii.  2);  as  we  also  appreciate  better  the  bold 
 faith  of  the  woman,  and  how  daringly  she  over- 
 stepped conventional  usage  based  on  the  letter  of 
 the  Law,  who  having  the  "  issue  of  l)lood,"  hitherto 
 incurable,  "came  behind  him  and  touclied  the  hem 
 of  his  garment,"  confident  that  not  pollution  to  Ilim 
 but  cleansing  to  herself  would  be  the  result  of  that 
 touch  (Luke  viii.  4-'3,  foil.). 
 
 As  regards  the  analogies  which  the  ceremonial 
 of  other  oriental  nations  ofTers,  it  may  be  men- 
 tioned that  amongst  the  Araljs  the  touching  a  corpse 
 still  defiles  (Burckhardt,  p.  80).  Beyond  this,  M. 
 Chardin  in  his  account  of  the  religion  of  the  Per- 
 sians (  \'oi/(((jes  en  Perse,  vol.  ii.  348,  foil.)   enters 
 
 tiau  Atonement.  Tiiis  woixld  of  course^  however,  es- 
 cape the  notice  of  the  wonshipper.  Christ,  with  his 
 own  blood,  "  entered  the  holy  places  not  made  with 
 hands,"  as  the  living  bird  soared  up  to  the  visible 
 firmament  with  the  blood  of  its  fellow.  We  may  com- 
 pare the  two  goats  completing  apparently  one  similar 
 joint-symbol  on  the  day  of  Atonement. 
 
UNCTION 
 
 into  particulars  which  show  a  singularly  close  cor- 
 resi)Oiicleiic&  with  the  Levilical  code.  Tliis  will  lie 
 seen  l)y  quotin,'  merely  the  headings  of  gome  of  his 
 chapters  and  sections.  'J'hus  we  find  under  "  chap. 
 iv.  lere-  partie,  I)es  purifications  qui  se  font  avec 
 d'eau;  2^^  partie,  De  rimmondicite;  !'=''<' .section, 
 l)e  Timpurete  qui  se  contracte  semitie  coitus  ;  '2'le 
 section,  De  Tinqjurete  qui  arrive  aux  femmes  par 
 les  pertes  de  saii'4,  De  I'impuretci  des  pertes  de  sang 
 ordinaire^,  De  I'impureti^  des  pertes  de  sang  extraor- 
 dinaires,  De  Tiinpurete  des  pertes  de  sang  des 
 couches.  3e»K!  partie,  De  la  purification  des  corps 
 niorts."  We  may  compare  also  with  certain  Levit- 
 ical  precepts  the  following:  "Si  un  chien  boit 
 dans  un  vase  ou  leche  quelque  plat,  il  faut  ('curer 
 le  vase  a\ec  de  la  terre  nette,  et  puis  le  laver  deux 
 fois  d'eau  nette,  et  il  sera  net."  It  is  remarkalile 
 also  that  these  precepts  apply  to  the  people  not  qua 
 tliey  are  Mohammedans,  but  qua  they  are  Persians, 
 as  they  are  said  to  shun  even  Moliammedans  who  are 
 not  of  the  same  ritual  in  regard  to  these  observances. 
 For  certain  branches  of  this  sulject  the  reader 
 may  be  referred  to  the  treatises  in  the  Mishna 
 named  Nhhlnh  (menslruata),  Parah  (vncca  rufu), 
 Tehvivth  {PuriUttes),  Zithbini  {jiuxu  laborantes), 
 Cellin  {vasn),  Miscath  Arlith  {avborum  pneputia) ; 
 also  to  Maimon.  lib.  v.  Jssure  Bluli  { 2orohibitce 
 coilkmes),  Nuklah  {ui  sup.),  Maccaloth  Assurolh 
 {cibi proliibit).  H.  H. 
 
 *  UNCTION.  [Anoint;  Spiiut, The  Holy.] 
 
 UNDERGIUDING,  Acts  xxvii.  17.  [Ship 
 (4),  p.  30U5.] 
 
 *  UNDERSETTERS,  1  K.  vii.  30,  34,  are 
 props,  supports.  H. 
 
 *  UNGRACIOUS,?,  e.  "graceless,"  "wicked," 
 the  translation  (A.  V.)  in  2  Mace.  iv.  19,  viii.  34, 
 XV.  3  of  fjLiapSs  and  rjiiaaKirnpios,  epithets  applied 
 to  Jason  and  Nicanor.  A. 
 
 UNICORN  (DS~I,  reJ/» ;  D''S~1,  reeym;  or 
 
 D'^n,  reym:  fxovoKfpws,  a^p6s-  rhinoceros,  uni- 
 cornis).  the  unhappy  rendering  by  the  A.  V.,  fol- 
 lowing the  LXX.,  of  the  Hebrew  Jieem,  a  word 
 which  occurs  seven  times  in  the  O.  T.  as  the  name 
 of  some  large  wild  animal.  More,  perhaps,  has 
 been  written  on  the  subject  of  the  unicorn  of  the 
 ancients  than  on  any  other  animal,  and  various  are 
 the  opinions  which  ha\e  been  given  as  to  the  crea- 
 ture intended.  The  reem  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
 however,  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  one- 
 horned  animal  mentioned  by  Ctesias  {Jndlcu,  iv. 
 25-27),  /Elian  {Nat.  An'uii.  xvi.  20),  Aristotle 
 {Hist.  Aniiii.  ii.  2,  §  8),  Pliny  (//.  N.  viii.  21),  and 
 other  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  as  is  evident  from 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  17,  where,  in  the  blessing  of  Joseph, 
 it  is  said,  "  His  glory  is  like  the  firstling  of  his 
 bullock,  and  his  horns  are  like  the  horns  of  a  uni- 
 
 coi-n  "  (DW")  "^pnii),  not,  as  the  text  of  the  A.  V. 
 renders  it,  "the  horns  of  unicorns.''^  The  two 
 horns  of  the  Reeui  are  "  the  ten  thousands  of 
 Ephraim  and  the  thousands  of  Manasseh  "  —  the 
 two  tribes  which  sprang  from  one,  i.  e.  Joseph,  as 
 two  horns  from  one  head.  This  text,  most  appro- 
 priately referred  to  by  Schultens  ( Commenl..  in  .Job. 
 xxxix.  9),  puts  a  one-horned  animal  entirely  out  of 
 the  question,  and  in  consequence  disposes  of  the 
 opinion  held  by  Bruce  {Tnw.  v.  89)  and  others, 
 that  some  species  of  rhinoceros  is  denoted,  or  that 
 maintained  ijy  some  writers,  that  the  reinn  is  iden- 
 tical with  some  one-horned  animal  s  dd  to  have 
 
 UNICORN 
 
 3351 
 
 been  seen  hy  travellers  in  South  Africa  and  in  Tlii- 
 bet  (see  Barrow's  Travels  in  S.  Africa,  i.  312- 
 318,  and  Asiatic  Journal,  xi.  154),  and  identical 
 with  the  veritable  unicorn  of  Greek  and  Latin 
 writers!  Bochart  {flieroz.  ii.  335)  contends  that 
 the  Hebrew  reem  is  identical  with  the  Arabic  rim 
 
 ((^\)    which    is    usually    referred    to    the    Oryx 
 
 leucoryx,  the  white  antelope  of  JiTorth  Africa,  and 
 at  one  time  perh.aps  an  inhabitant  of  Palestuie. 
 Bochart  has  been  followed  by  itosennniller,  Winer, 
 and  others.  Arnold  Boot  {Aniinad.  Sacr.  iii.  8, 
 Lond.  1644),  with  much  better  reason,  conjectures 
 that  some  species  of  iirus  or  wild  ox  is  the  licem 
 of  tlie  Hebrew  Scriptures,  lie  has  been  followed 
 by  Schultens  {Coinuitnt.  in  .lobuui  xxxix.  9,  who 
 translates  the  term  by  Bos  sylcestris :  this  learned 
 writer  has  a  long  and  most  valuable  note  on  this 
 
 question),  by  Parkhurst  {Ikb.  Lex.  s.  v.  DS~1), 
 Maurer  {Comment,  in  ./ob.  1  c),  Dr.  Harris  {Nai, 
 Hist,  of  the  Bible),  and  by  Clary  {Notes  on  Joe. 
 1.  c).  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  412)  and  Gesenius 
 {Thes.  s.  v.)  have  little  doubt  that  the  buffalo 
 {Bubnlus  buffalus)  is  the  riicm  of  the  Bible.  Be- 
 fore we  proceed  to  discuss  tiiese  several  claimants 
 to  represent  the  reem,  it  will  be  well  to  note  the 
 Scriptural  allusions  in  the  passages  where  the  term 
 occurs.  The  great  strength  of  the  reem  is  men- 
 tioned in  Num.  xxiii.  22,  Job  xxxix.  11;  his  hav- 
 ing two  horns  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  17 ;  his  fierce  nature 
 in  Ps.  xxii.  21;  his  indomitalile  disposition  in  Job 
 xxxix.  9-1 1 ;  the  active  and  playful  habits  of  the 
 young  animal  are  alluded  to  in  Ps.  xxix.  6;  while 
 in  Is.  xxxiv.  6,  7,  where  Jehovah  is  said  to  be  pre- 
 paring "a  sacrifice  in  Bozrah,"  it  is  added,  "the 
 reemim  shall  come  down,  and  the  bullocks  with 
 the  liuUs." 
 
 The  claim  of  any  animal  possessed  of  a  single 
 horn  to  be  the  reijm  has  already  been  settled,  for 
 it  is  manifestly  too  much  to  assume,  as  some 
 writers  have  done,  that  the  Helirew  term  does  not 
 always  denote  the  same  animal.  Little  can  be 
 urged  in  favor  of  the  rhinoceros,  for  even  allowing 
 that  the  two-horned  species  of  Abyssinia  {Ji.  bicor- 
 nis)  may  have  been  an  iidiabitant  of  the  woody 
 districts  near  the  Jordan  in  Biblical  times,  this 
 piichyderm  must  be  out  of  the  question,  as  one 
 which  would  have  been  forbidden  to  lie  sacrificed 
 by  the  Law  of  Moses,  whereas  the  rci'm  is  men- 
 tioned by  Isaiah  as  coming  down  with  bullocks 
 and  rams  to  the  Lord's  sacrifice.  "  Omnia  ani- 
 malia,"  says  Rosenraiiller  {Schol.  in  Is.  1.  c),  "  ad 
 sacrificia  idonea  in  unum  congregantur."  Again, 
 the  skipping  of  the  young  reem  (Ps.  xxix.  6)  is 
 scarcely  compatilile  with  tiie  habits  of  a  rhinoceros. 
 Moreover  this  animal,  when  unmolested,  is  not  gen- 
 erally an  oliject  of  much  dread,  nor  can  we  believe 
 that  it  ever  existed  so  plentifully  in  tlie  Bible  lands, 
 or  even  would  have  allowed  itself  to  have  been 
 sufficiently  often  seen  so  as  to  be  the  suliject  of  fre- 
 quent attention,  the  rhinoceros  being  an  animal  of 
 retired  habits. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  claims  of  the  Oryx  leucoryx, 
 it  must  be  observed  that  this  antelope,  like  the  rest 
 of  the  family,  is  harmless  unless  wounded  or  hard 
 pressed  by  the  hunter,  nor  is  it  remarkable  for  the 
 possession  of  any  extraordinary  strength.  Figures 
 of  the  oryx  occur  frequently  on  tlie  Egyptian 
 sculptures,  "  being  among  the  animals  tamed  by 
 the  Egyptians  and  kept  in  great  numl)ers  in  their 
 preserves  "  (Wilkinson's  Anc.   l-^ijijpl-  i-  227,  ed 
 
3352 
 
 UNKNOWN  GOD 
 
 1854).  Certaiiilj'  this  antelope  can  never  be  the 
 fierce  indomitable  reein  mentioned  in  the  book 
 of  Job. 
 
 Considerin>?,  therefore,  that  the  reeni  is  spoken 
 of  as  a  two-horned  animal  of  great  strength  and 
 ferocity,  that  it  was  evidently  well  known  and  often 
 seen  by  the  Jews,  that  it  is  mentioned  as  an  animal 
 fit  for  sacrificial  purposes,  and  that  it  is  frequently 
 associated  with  bulls  and  oxen,  we  think  there  can 
 he  no  doubt  that  some  species  of  wild  ox  is  intended. 
 The  alhision  in  I's.  xcii.  10,  "  But  thou  shalt  lift 
 up,  as  a  rei'ijiii,  my  horn,"  seems  to  point  to  the 
 mode  in  whicii  the  Boviihe.  use  their  horns,  lower- 
 ing the  head  and  then  tossing  it  up.  But  it  is 
 impossible  to  determine  what  particular  species  of 
 wild  ox  is  signified.  At  present  there  is  no  exist- 
 ing example  of  any  wild  bovine  animal  found  in 
 Palestine;  but  negative  evidence  in  this  respect 
 must  not  be  interpreted  as  affording  testimony 
 against  the  supposition  that  wild  cattle  formerly 
 existed  in  the  Bible  lands.  The  lion,  for  instance, 
 v,as  once  not  unfrequently  met  with  in  Palestine, 
 as  is  evident  from  Biblical  allusions,  but  no  traces 
 of  living  specimens  exist  now.  Dr.  Roth  found 
 lions'  bones  in  a  gravel  l^ed  of  the  Jordan  some  few 
 years  ago,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  some  future 
 explorer  may  succeed  in  discovering  bones  and 
 skulls  of  some  huge  extinct  Urns,  allied  perhaps  to 
 that  gigantic  ox  of  the  Hercynian  forests  which 
 Csesar  {Btll.  Gall.  vi.  20)  describes  as  being  of  a 
 stature  scarcely  below  tliat  of  an  elephant,  and  so 
 fierce  as  to  .spare  neither  man  nor  beast  should  it 
 meet  with  either.  "  Notwithstanding  assertions 
 to  the  contrary,''  says  Col.  Hamilton  Smith  (Kitto's 
 Cycl.  art.  "lieem"),  "the  urus  and  the  bison 
 were  spread  anciently  from  the  Rhine  to  China, 
 and  existed  in  Thrace  and  .\sia  Minor;  while  they, 
 or  allied  species,  are  still  found  in  Siberia  and  the 
 Ibrests  lioth  of  Nortiiern  and  Southern  Persia. 
 Finally,  though  the  buffido  was  not  found  anciently 
 further  west  than  Aracoria,  the  gigantic  (jiinr 
 ■  (Bibus  gaurus)  and  several  congeners  are  spread 
 over  all  the  mountain  wildernesses  of  India  and 
 the  Ulitriff-dl-  Wadij  ;  and  a  further  colossal  species 
 roams  with  other  wild  bulls  in  the  valleys  of 
 Atlas." 
 
 Some  have  conjectured  that  the  reem  denotes 
 the  wild  buffalo.  Although  the  chrrinsa,  or  tame 
 buffalo,  was  not  introduced  into  Western  Asia 
 tnitil  the  Araliian  conquest  of  Persia,  it  is  possi- 
 ble that  some  wild  species,  Biibalus  arnee,  or  B. 
 bruchycerus,  may  have  existed  formerly  in  Pales- 
 tine. W^e  are,  liowever,  more  in  fa\or  of  some 
 gigantic  Urus." 
 
 Numerous  references  as  to  the  /xovoKepw?  of  the 
 ancients  will  be  found  in  Bochart  {/Jieroz.  iii. 
 cap.  27),  Winer  (Z)'/6^.  Jieiilw.  "Einhorn";)  but 
 no  furtiier  notice  of  this  point  is  taken  here  except 
 to  observe  that  the  more  we  study  it  the  more  con- 
 vinced we  are  that  tlie  animal  is  fabulous.  The 
 supposed  unicorns  of  which  some  modern  travellers 
 speak  have  never  been  seen  liy  trustworthy  wit- 
 nesses.'' ^^'.  H. 
 
 *  UNKNOWN  GOD.  [Altar,  Amer.  ed. ; 
 Mai;8'  Hill.] 
 
 UR 
 
 *  UNLEAVENED.  [Bhead;  Lkavkn  ; 
 Passovek.] 
 
 UN'NI.  1.  03;S7  [rkjn-essed]:  'E.\icvn\,'nvi 
 [Vat.  FA.  in  ver.  20,  with  part  of  preceding  word, 
 HAcoj/ej;  FA.  in  ver.  18,  IoitjA;  Alex.  Aff,  A>'o«'i:J 
 AiiL)  One  of  the  Levite  doorkeepers  (A.  V. 
 "porters")  appointed  to  play  the  psaltery  "on 
 alamoth  "  in  the  service  of  the  sacred  Tent,  as 
 settled  by  David  (1  Clir.  xv.  18,  20). 
 
 2.  (1327,  but  in  Keri  "^ilV  :  [Rom.]  Vat.  and 
 Alex,  omit;  FA.^  lava'i'  Hanni.)  A  second  Le- 
 vite (unless  the  family  of  the  foregoing  be  intended) 
 concerned  in  the  sacred  office  after  the  Return  from 
 Babylon  (Neh.  xii.  !J). 
 
 *  UNTOWARD,  Acts  ii.  40,  in  the  sense  of 
 "perverse,"  "intractable."  "Toward"  in  parts 
 of  luigland  at  present  is  applied'  to  animals  as 
 meaning  "  tame,"  "  tractable."  Bacon  {Ksstiy  yi\\.) 
 uses  "  towardness  "  for  docility.  (Eastwood  and 
 ^^'right•s  Biblti  Word  Book,  p.  50-3.)  H. 
 
 *  UPHARSIN.     [Mkne,  etc.] 
 
 U'PHAZ  (T^^S:  Moj^oC,  '0.<piC-  Oplmz, 
 obryzum),  Jer.  x.  9;  Dan.  x.  5.  [Ophiu,  iii. 
 22.j'8  b.] 
 
 *  UPPER-CHAMBER.   [House,  ii.  1105.] 
 
 *  UPPER  COASTS  or  properly  Parts  {i.vai- 
 repiKo.  jxeprj).  Acts  xix.  1,  are  the  intermediate 
 regions  through  wliich  Paul  passed  {SieXOcou).,  on 
 his  way  from  Antioch  to  Ephesus,  at  the  beginning 
 of  his  third  missionary  tour.  The  lands  more 
 especially  meant  are  Galatia  and  Phrygia  (see 
 xix.  23).  The  term  dj/coTepiKia,  as  illustrated  by 
 Kypke  {Observnt.  SacrcB,  ii.  95),  implies  a  twofold 
 geographical  relation ;  first,  elevated,  as  compared 
 with  the  sea-coast  where  Ephesus  was;  and,  sec- 
 ondly, inland  or  eastern,  with  reference  to  the  rela- 
 tive position  of  the  places.  Xenophon's  familiar 
 use  of  ava^alvui  and  avd^aais  is  another  example 
 of  a  similar  application  of  kindred  words.       H. 
 
 UR  (~1^M  [see  below] :  Xiipa-  C^r)  occurs  in 
 Genesis  only,  and  is  there  mentioned  as  the  land 
 of  Haran's  nativity  (Gen.  xi.  28),  the  place  from 
 which  Terah  and  Abraham  started  "  to  go  into  the 
 land  of  Canaan  "  (xi.  31).     It  is  called  in  Genesis 
 
 "Urr/rte  C/mWcB««s"  (n^bS  "l^S),  while 
 in  the  Acts  St.  Stephen  places  it,  by  implication, 
 in  Mesopotamia  (vii.  2,  4).  These  are  all  the  indi- 
 cations which  Scripture  furnishes  as  to  its  locality. 
 As  they  are  clearly  insufficient  fo  fix  its  site,  the 
 chief  traditions  and  opinions  on  the  subject  will  be 
 first  considered,  and  then  an  attempt  will  be 
 made  to  decide,  by  the  help  of  the  Scriptural 
 notices,  between  them. 
 
 One  tradition  identifies  Ur  with  the  modem 
 Orfiih.  There  is  some  groimd  for  believing  that 
 this  city,  called  by  tiie  Greeks  Edessa,  had  also  the 
 name  of  Orrha  as  early  as  the  time  of  Isidore  (ab. 
 n.  c.  150);  and  the  tradition  connecting  it  with 
 Abraham  is  perhaps  not  later  than  St.  Ephraem 
 (A.  l>.  330-370),  wlio  makes  Nimrod  king  of 
 lulessa,  among  otiier  places  {Comment,  in  Gtn.  Op. 
 vol.  i.  p.  58,  B.).     According  to  Pocock  {Descri}!- 
 
 «  There  appears  to  be  no  Joubt  that  the  aucient 
 lake-inhabitants  of  Switzerland  towards  the  close  of 
 the  stone  period  succeeded  in  taming  the  urus.  "  ]n 
 a  tame  state,"  says  Sir  C.  Lyell  {Anii^/iiily  nf  !\lan,  p. 
 24),    ''its    bon«^'    wore    somewhat    less    massive    luul 
 
 heavy,  and  its  horns  were  somewhat  smaller  than  in 
 wild  individuals." 
 
 '>  The  reader  will  find  a  full  discussion  of  the 
 "  Unicorn  of  the  Ancients  "  in  the  writer's  article  in 
 tlie  Ann.  aivl  Ma'^.  nf  Nat.  Hist.  November,  18C2. 
 
UR 
 
 Hon  of  the  East,  vol.  i.  p.  159),  that  Ur  is  Edessa 
 or  Orfoh  is  "the  imiversid  opinion  of  the  Jews;  " 
 and  it  is  also  the  local  belief,  as  is  indicated  by  the 
 title,  "  Mosque  of  Abraham,"  borne  by  the  chief 
 religious  edifice  of  tlie  place,  and  the  designation, 
 "  Lake  of  Abraham  the  Beloved,"  attached  to  the 
 pond  in  which  are  kept  the  sacred  fish  (Ains- 
 worth,  Travels  in  the  Track,  etc.,  p.  64;  comp. 
 Pocock,  i.  159,  and  Niebuhr,  Voyage  en  Arable, 
 p.  330). 
 
 A  second  tradition,  which  appears  in  the  Tal- 
 mud, and  in  some  of  the  early  Arabian  writers, 
 finds  Ur  in  Warka,  the  'Opxiiv  of  the  Greeks,  and 
 probably  the  Erech  of  Holy  Scripture  (called  'Ops'x 
 by  the  LXX.).  This  place  bears  the  name  of 
 Huru/c  in  the  native  inscriptions,  and  was  in  the 
 country  known  to  the  Jews  as  "the  land  of  the 
 Chaldseans." 
 
 A  third  tradition,  less  distinct  than  either  of 
 these,  but  entitled  to  at  least  equal  attention,  dis- 
 tinguishes Ur  from  Warka,  while  still  placing  it  in 
 the  same  region,  (see  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society, 
 vol.  xii.  p.  481,  note  2).  There  can  be  little  douljt 
 that  the  city  whereto  this  tradition  points  is  that 
 which  appears  by  its  bricks  to  have  been  called 
 Hiir  by  the  natives,  and  which  is  now  represented 
 by  the  ruins  at  Mufjheir,  or  Umglieir,  on  the 
 right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  nearly  ojiposite  to  its 
 junction  with  the  Slial-el-Hie.  The  oldest  Jewish 
 tradition  which  we  possess,  that  quoted  by  Euse- 
 bius  from  Eupolenius «  {Pra'p.  Ev.  i.K.  17),  who 
 lived  about  I5.  c.  150,  may  be  fairly  said  to  intend 
 this  place;  for  by  identifying  Ur  (Uria)  with  the 
 Babylonian  city,  known  also  as  Caraarina  and 
 Chaldseopolis,  it  points  to  a  city  of  the  Moon, 
 which //(«•  was  —  Kaniar  hemg  "the  Moon"  in 
 Arabic,  and  Khuldl  the  same  luminary  in  the  Old 
 Armenian. 
 
 An  opinion,  unsupported  by  any  tradition,  re- 
 mains to  be  noticed.  Bochart,  Calmet,  Bunsen, 
 and  others,  identify  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  with 
 a  place  of  the  name,  mentioned  by  a  single  late 
 writer  —  Ammianus  Marcellinus  —  as  "  a  castle  " 
 existing  in  his  day  in  Eastern  INIesopotamia,  be- 
 tween Hatra  {el-lladhr)  and  Nisibis  (Amm.Marc. 
 XXV.  8).  The  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  this  site 
 seem  to  be  the  identity  of  name  and  the  position  of 
 the  place  between  Arrapachitis,  which  is  thought  to 
 have  been  tlie  dwelling-place  of  Abraham's  ances- 
 tors in  the  time  of  Arphaxad,  and  Haran  {Harran), 
 whither  he  went  from  Ur. 
 
 It  will  be  seen,  that  of  the  four  localities  thought 
 to  have  a  claim  to  be  regarded  as  Abraham's  city, 
 two  are  situated  in  Upper  Mesopotamia,  between 
 the  Mons  Masius  and  the  Sinjar  range,  while  the 
 other  two  are  in  the  alluvial  tract  near  the  sea,  at 
 least  400  miles  further  south.  Let  us  endeavor 
 first  to  decide  in  which  of  these  two  regions  Ur  is 
 more  probably  to  be  sought. 
 
 That  Chaldsea  was,  properly  speaking,  the  south- 
 ern part  of  Babylonia,  the  region  bordering  upon 
 the  gulf,  will  be  admitted  by  all.  Those  who  main- 
 tain the  northern  emplacement  of  Ur  argue,  that 
 with  the  extension  of  Chaldiean  power  the  name 
 travelled  northward,  and  became  coextensive  with 
 Mesopotamia;  but,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no 
 
 UR 
 
 3353 
 
 a  The  words  of  Eusebiua  are  :  Ae/caTTj  yevea  (l>r]criv 
 [EuTToAefiO?],  ev  iroAei  Trj;  BoPuAwvt'as  Ka/iopiVT|,  rjf 
 Ttfe?  \ey€LV  tt6\iv  Ovpiiqu,  elvat  6e  iJ.€Oepixr}yevoiJ.€vrjv 
 XaASai'wj'     TrdAiv,    eV    ToCvvf    ^eKarr)     yevea    yevicrdai 
 
 proof  that  the  name  Chaldaea  was  ever  extended  to 
 the  region  above  the  Sinjar;  and  secondly,  if  it 
 was,  the  Jews  at  any  rate  mean  by  Chaldsea  ex- 
 clusively the  lower  country,  and  call  the  upper 
 Mesopotamia  or  Padan-Aram  (see  Job  i.  17;  Is. 
 xiii.  19,  xliii.  14,  &c.).  .Vgain,  there  is  no  reason 
 to  believe  that  Babylonian  power  was  established 
 beyond  the  Sinjar  in  these  early  times.  On  the 
 contrary,  it  seems  to  have  been  confined  to  Baby- 
 lonia proper,  or  the  alluvial  tract  below  Hit  and 
 Tekrit,  until  the  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer,  which 
 was  later  than  the  migration  of  Abraham.  The 
 conjectures  of  Ephraem  Syrus  and  Jerome,  who 
 identify  the  cities  of  Nimrod  with  places  in  the 
 upper  Jlesopotamiau  country,  deserve  no  credit. 
 The  names  all  really  belong  to  Chaldoea  proper. 
 Moreover,  the  best  and  earliest  Jewish  authorities 
 place  Ur  in  the  low  region.  Eupolenius  has  been 
 already  quoted  to  this  effect.  Josephus,  though 
 less  distinct  upon  the  point,  seems  to  have  held 
 the  same  view  {Ant.  i.  0).  The  Talnnidists  also 
 are  on  this  side  of  the  question ;  and  local  tra- 
 ditions, which  may  be  traced  back  nearly  to  the 
 Hegira,  make  the  lower  country  the  place  of  Abra- 
 ham's birth  and  early  life.  If  Orfah  has  a  Mosque 
 and  a  Lake  of  Abraham,  Cutha  near  Babylon  goes 
 by  Abraham's  name,  as  the  traditional  scene  of  all 
 his  legendary  miracles. 
 
 Again,  it  is  really  in  the  lower  country  only 
 that  a  name  closely  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
 
 ^•IS   is  found.     The   cuneiform    Hur  represents 
 
 'n'lS  letter  for  letter,  and  only  differs  from  it  in 
 the  greater  strength  of  the  aspirate.  Isidore's 
 Orrha  ("Oppa)  differs  from  'Ur  considerably,  and 
 the  supposed  Ur  of  Ammianus  is  probably  not  Ur, 
 but  Adur." 
 
 The  argument  that  Ur  should  be  sought  in  the 
 neighborhood  of  Arrapachitis  and  Seruj,  because 
 the  names  Arphaxad  and  Serug  occur  in  the  gene- 
 alogy of  Abraham  (Bunsen,  KyypVs  Place,  etc., 
 iii.  366,  367),  has  no  weight  till  it  is  shown  that 
 the  human  names  in  question  are  really  connected 
 with  the  places,  which  is  at  present  assumed  some- 
 what boldly.  Arrapachitis  comes  probably  from 
 Araphha,  an  old  Assyrian  town  of  no  great  conse- 
 quence on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris,  aljove  Nine- 
 veh, which  has  only  three  letters  in  common  with 
 
 Arphaxad  ("Tffi'DQ'IS) ;  and  Seruj  is  a  name  which 
 
 does  not  appear  in  Mesopotamia  till  long  after  the 
 Christian  era.  It  is  rarely,  if  ever,  that  we  can 
 extract  geographical  information  from  the  names  in 
 a  historical  genealogy;  and  certainly  in  the  pres- 
 ent case  nothing  seems  to  have  been  gained  by  the 
 attempt  to  do  so. 
 
 On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  may  regard  it  as 
 tolerably  certain  that  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees"  was  a 
 place  situated  in  the  real  Chaldcea  —  the  low  coun- 
 try near  the  Persian  Gulf  The  only  question  that 
 remains  in  any  degree  doubtful  is,  whether  Warka 
 or  Mu/jheir  is  the  true  locality.  These  places  are 
 not  far  apart;  and  either  of  them  is  sufficiently 
 suitable.  Both  are  ancient  cities,  probably  long 
 anterior  to  Abraham.  Traditions  attach  to  both, 
 but  perhaps  more  distinctly  to  Warka.     On  the 
 
 a  The  MS.  reading  is  "  Adur  venere  ;  "  "  ad  Ur ''  is 
 an  emendation  of  the  commentators.  The  former  ia 
 to  be  preferred,  since  Ammianus  does  not  use  "  ad  " 
 after  "  venio." 
 
3354 
 
 UR 
 
 other  hand,  it  seems  certain  that  Warka,  the  native 
 name  of  which  was  Huruk,  represents  the  lu-ecli 
 of  Genesis,  which  cannot  possibly  be  the  Ur  of  the 
 same  book.  Muijlitir,  therefore,  which  bore  the 
 exact  name  of  '  Ur  or  //«;-,  remains  with  the  best 
 claim,  and  is  entitled  to  be  (at  least  provisionally) 
 regarded  as  the  city  of  Abraham. 
 
 If  it  be  objected  to  this  theory  that  Abraham, 
 having  to  go  from  I'ifurjheir  to  Palestine,  would  not 
 be  likely  to  take  Ilaraii  {llnrrmi)  on  his  way,  more 
 particularly  as  he  must  then  have  crossed  the  Eu- 
 phrates twice,  -the  answer  would  seem  to  be,  that 
 the  movement  was  not  that  of  an  individual  but 
 of  a  tribe,  travelling  with  large  flocks  and  herds, 
 whose  line  of  migration  would  have  to  be  deter- 
 mined by  necessities  of  pasturage,  and  by  the 
 friendlv  or  hostile  disposition,  the  weakness  or 
 strength  of  the  tribes  already  in  possession  of  the 
 recions  which  had  to  be  traversed.     Fear  of  Arab 
 
 UR 
 
 plunderers  (Job  i.  15)  may  very  probably  have 
 caused  the  emigrants  to  cross  the  Euphrates  before 
 quitting  Babylonia,  and  having  done  so,  they  might 
 naturally  ibllow  the  left  bank  of  the  stream  to  the 
 Belik,  up  which  they  might  then  proceed,  attracted 
 by  its  excellent  pastures,  till  they  reached  Harran. 
 As  a  pastoral  tribe  jiroceediiig  from  Lower  Baby- 
 lonia to  Palestine  vnisl  ascend  the  Euphrates  aa 
 high  as  the  latitude  of  Aleppo,  and  perhaps  would 
 find  it  best  to  ascend  nearly  to  />(';•,  Harran  was 
 but  a  little  out  of  the  proper  route.  Besides,  the 
 whole  tribe  which  accompanied  Abraham  was  not 
 going  to  Palestine.  Half  the  tribe  were  bent  on  a 
 less  distant  journey ;  and  with  them  the  question 
 must  have  been,  where  could  they,  on  or  near  the 
 line  of  route,  obtain  an  unoccupied  territory. 
 
 If  upon  the  grounds  above  indicated  Mitghdr 
 may  be  regarded  as  the  true  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees," 
 from  which  Abraham  and  his  family  set  out,  some 
 
 Uuias  of  Temple  at  Mugheir  (Loftus). 
 
 account  of  its  situation  and  history  would  seem  to 
 be  appropriate  in  this  place.  Its  remains  have 
 been  very  carefully  examined,  both  by  Mr.  Loftus 
 and  Mr.  Taylor,  while  its  inscriptions  have  been 
 deciphered  and  translated  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson. 
 'Ur  or  Hur,  now  Miif/lieir,  or  Uin-Muf/ln-ir, 
 "the  bituniened,"  or  "the  mother  of  bitumen," 
 is  one  of  the  most  ancient,  if  not  the  most  ancient, 
 of  the  Chaldean  sites  hitiierto  discovered.  It  lies 
 on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  at  the  distance 
 of  about  six  miles  from  the  present  course  of  the 
 stream,  nearly  opposite  the  point  where  tlie  lui- 
 phrates  receives  the  Shat-el-IIia  from  the  Tigris. 
 It  is  now  not  less  than  125  miles  from  the  sea; 
 hut  there  are  grounds  for  believing  that  it  was  an- 
 ciently a  maritime  town,  and  that  its  present  inland 
 position  has  been  caused  by  the  rapid  growth  of 
 the  alluvium.  The  remains  of  buildings  are  gen- 
 erally of  the  most  archaic  character.  They  cover 
 an  oval  space,  1,000  yards  long  by  800  broad,  and 
 consist  principally  of  a  number  of  low  mounds 
 inclosed  within  an  cnceinfe,  which  on  most  sides 
 is  nearly  perfect.      The  most   remarkable  building 
 
 is  near  the  northern  end  of  the  ruins.  It  is  a 
 temple  of  the  true  Chaldisean  type,  built  in  stages, 
 of  which  two  remain,  and  composed  of  brick,  ])artly 
 sun-burnt  and  partly  baked,  laid  chiefly  in  a  cement 
 of  bitumen.  The  bricks  of  this  building  bear  the 
 name  of  a  certain  Uru/cli,  who  is  regarded  as  the 
 earliest  of  the  Chaldoean  monumental  kings,  and 
 the  name  may  possibly  be  the  same  as  that  of 
 Orchamus  of  Ovid  {Meiaph.  iv.  212).  His  sup- 
 posed date  is  b.  c.  2000,  or  a  little  earlier.  'Ur 
 was  the  capital  of  this  monarch,  who  had  a  domin- 
 ion extending  at  least  as  far  north  as  NifTer,  and 
 who,  by  the  grandeur  of  his  cons'.ructions,  is  proved 
 to  have  been  a  wealthy  and  powerful  prince.  The 
 great  temple  appears  to  have  been  founded  by  this 
 king,  who  dedicated  it  to  the  Moon-god,  Hurki, 
 from  whom  the  town  itself  seems  to  have  derived 
 its  name.  /If/i,  son  of  UrukI/,  comjileted  the  tem- 
 ple, as  well  as  certain  other  of  his  father's  build- 
 ings, and  the  kings  who  followed  upon  these  con- 
 tinued for  several  generations  to  adorn  and  beautify 
 the  city.  'Ur  retained  its  metropolitan  character 
 for  above  two  centuries,  and  even  after  it  became 
 
UR 
 
 second  to  Babylon,  was  a  great  city,  with  an  espe- 
 cially sacred  character.  The  notions  entertained 
 of  its  superior  sanctity  led  to  its  Ijeing  used  as  a 
 cemetery  city,  not  only  during  the  time  of  tlie 
 early  Chaldaean  supremacy,  but  throughout  the 
 Assyrian  and  even  the  later  Babylonian  period. 
 It  is  in  the  main  a  city  of  tombs.  By  far  the 
 greater  portion  of  the  space  within  the  eiiceinle  is 
 occupied  by  gra\es  of  one  Ivind  or  another,  while 
 outside  the  inclosure,  the  whole  space  for  a  dis- 
 tance of  several  hundred  yards  is  a  thickly-occu- 
 pied burial-ground.  It  is  believed  that  'Ur  was 
 for  1,800  years  a  site  to  which  tlie  dead  were 
 brought  from  vast  distances,  thus  resembling  such 
 places  as  Kvrbeia  and  Nedjif,  or  Meshed  AH,  at 
 the  present  day.  The  latest  mention  that  we  find 
 of  'Ur  as  an  existing  place  is  in  the  passage  of 
 Eupolenius  already  quoted,  where  we  learn  that  it 
 had  changed  its  name,  and  was  called  Camarina. 
 It  probably  fell  into  decay  under  the  Persians,  and 
 was  a  mere  ruin  at  the  time  of  Alexander's  con- 
 quests. Perhaps  it  was  the  place  to  which  Alex- 
 ander's informants  alluded  when  they  told  him 
 that  the  tombs  of  the  old  Assyrian  kings  were 
 chiefly  in  the  great  marshes  of  the  lower  country 
 (Arrian,  Exp.  Alex.  vii.  22).  G.  R. 
 
 *  UR  ("l^i^,  Uyht:  Rom.,  with  next  word, 
 ©vpocpdp;  Vat.  ^dvpo(pap~  Alex,  f^pa;  FA.  2oup: 
 Ur),  fother  of  Eliphal  or  Eliphelet,  one  of  David's 
 valiant  men  (1  Chr.  xi.  35).  A. 
 
 UR'BANE  [2  syl.]  {Obp^au6s  [Lat.  urhamis, 
 i.  e.  "  urljane,"  "refined"]:  Urhaims).  It  would 
 have  been  better  if  the  word  had  been  written 
 UiusAN  in  the  Authorized  Version.  For  unlearned 
 readers  sometimes  mistake  the  sex  of  tliis  Christian 
 disciple,  who  is  in  the  long  list  of  those  whom  St. 
 Paul  salutes  in  writing  to  Rome  (Rom.  xvi.  9). 
 We  have  no  means,  however,  of  knowing  more 
 about  Urbanus,  except,  indeed,  that  we  may  rea- 
 sonably conjecture  from  the  words  that  follow  (rhv 
 avv^pyhv  7)ixicv  iv  Xpiarci)  that  he  had  l)een  at 
 some  time  in  active  religious  coiiperation  with  the 
 Apostle.  Each  of  those  who  are  saluted  just  be- 
 fore and  just  after  is  simply  called  rhy  kyaTrr\T6v 
 /xov.     The  name  is  Latin.  J.  S.  II. 
 
 U'RI  ('^"]^W  [fery,  buniinf/] :  Ovpeias,  Ex. 
 xxxi.  2,  [xxxviii.  22;]  Oiipias  [Vat.  -pei-],  Ex. 
 XX.XV.  30;  2  Chr.  i.  5;  Oupi  [Vat.  -pei],  1  Chr.  ii. 
 20;  Alex.  Oupi,  except  in  2  Chr. :  Uri).  1.  Tlie 
 father  of  Bezaleel  one  of  the  architects  of  the 
 Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxi.  2,  xxxv.  30,  xxxviii.  22;  1 
 Chr.  ii.  20;  2  Chr.  i.  5).  He  was  of  the  tribe 
 of  Judah,  and  grandson  of  Caleb  ben-Hezron,  his 
 father  being  Hur,  who,  according  to  tradition,  was 
 the  husband  of  Miriam. 
 
 2.  ('ASa't.)  The  father  of  Geber,  Solomon's 
 commissariat  officer  in  Gilead  (1  K.  iv.  19). 
 
 3.  i'nSoid;  Alex.  nSove.)  One  of  the  gate- 
 keepers of  the  Temple,  who  had  married  a  foreign 
 wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  24). 
 
 URI'AH  (n^'H^S,  light  of  Jehovah  :  Ovpias 
 [Vat.  -p€i;  in  1  Chr.  xi.  41,  Oupia,  Alex.  Oupias, 
 Vat.  l''A.  Ovpei-]  Urins).  1.  One  of  the  thirty 
 commanders  of  the  thirty  bands  into  which  the 
 Israelite  army  of  David  was  divided  (1  Chr.  xi.  41 ; 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.  39).  Like  others  of  David's  officers 
 (Ittai  of  Gath;  Ishbosheth  the  Canaanite,  2  Sam. 
 xxiii.  8,  LXX. ;  Zelek  the  Ammonite,  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
 ^7)  he  was  a  foreigner  —  a  Hittite.  His  name, 
 however,  and  his  manner  of  speech  (2  Sam.  xi.  11) 
 
 URIAH 
 
 3355 
 
 indicate  that  he  had  adopted  the  Jewish  religion. 
 He  married  Bathsheba,  a  woman  of  extraordinary 
 beauty,  the  daughter  of  Eliani  —  possibly  the  same 
 as  the  son  of  Ahithophel,  and  one  of  his  brother 
 officers  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  34);  and  hence,  perhaps,  as 
 Professor  Blunt  conjectures  (Coincidences,  ii.  x.), 
 Uriah's  first  acquaintance  with  Bathsheba.  It  may 
 be  inferred  from  Nathan's  parable  (2  Sam.  xii.  3) 
 that  he  was  passionately- devoted  to  his  wife,  and 
 that  their  union  was  celebrated  in  Jerusalem  as  one 
 of  peculiar  tenderness.  He  had  a  house  at  Jeru- 
 salem underneath  the  palace  (2  Sam.  xi.  2).  In 
 the  first  war  with  Annnon  he  followed  Joab  to  the 
 siege,  and  with  him  remained  encamped  in  the 
 open  field  (ibid.  11).  He  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
 at  an  order  from  the  king,  on  the  pretext  of  asking 
 news  of  the  war,  —  really  in  the  hope  that  his  re- 
 turn to  his  wife  might  cover  the  shame  of  his  own 
 crime.  The  king  met  with  an  unexpected  obstacle 
 in  the  austere,  soldier-like  spirit  which  guided  all 
 Uriah's  conduct,  and  which  gives  us  a  high  notion 
 of  the  character  and  discipline  of  David's  officers. 
 He  steadily  refused  to  go  home,  or  partake  of  any 
 of  the  indulgences  of  domestic  life,  whilst  the  Ark 
 and  the  host  were  in  booths  and  his  comrades  lying 
 in  the  open  air.  He  partook  of  tlie  royal  hospitality, 
 but  slept  always  at  the  gate  of  the  palace  till  the 
 last  night,  when  the  king  at  a  feast  vainly  en- 
 deavored to  entrap  him  by  intoxication.  The  sol- 
 dier was  overcome  by  the  debauch,  but  still  retained 
 his  sense  of  duty  sufficiently  to  insist  on  sleeping 
 at  the  palace.  On  the  morning  of  the  tliird  day, 
 David  sent  him  back  to  the  camp  with  a  letter  (as 
 in  the  story  of  Bellerophon),  containing  the  com- 
 mand to  Joab  to  cause  his  destruction  in  the  battle. 
 Josephus  (Ani.  vii.  7,  §  1)  adds,  that  he  gave  as  a 
 reason  an  imaginary  offense  of  Uriah.  None  such 
 appears  in  the  actual  letter.  Probably  to  an  un- 
 scrupulous soldier  like  Joab  the  absolute  will  of  the 
 king  was  sufficient. 
 
 The  device  of  Joab  was,  to  observe  the  part  of 
 the  wall  of  Rabbath-Ammon,  where  the  greatest 
 force  of  the  besieged  was  congregated,  and  thither, 
 as  a  kind  of  forlorn  hope,  to  send  Uriah.  A  sally 
 took  place.  Uriah  and  the  officers  with  him  ad- 
 vanced as  far  as  the  gate  of  the  city,  and  were  there 
 shot  down  by  the  archers  on  tlie  wall.  It  seems 
 as  if  it  had  been  an  established  maxim  of  Israelitish 
 warfare  not  to  approach  the  wall  of  a  besieged  city ; 
 and  one  instance  of  the  fatal  result  was  always 
 quoted,  as  if  proverbially,  against  it  —  the  sudden 
 and  ignominious  death  of  Abimelech  at  Thebez, 
 whicli  cut  short  the  hopes  of  the  tlien  rising  mon- 
 archy. This  appears  from  the  fact  (as  given  in  the 
 LXX.)  that  Joab  exactly  anticipates  what  the  king 
 will  say  when  he  hears  of  the  disaster. 
 
 Just  as  Joab  had  forewarned  the  messenger,  the 
 king  broke  into  a  furious  passion  on  hearing  of  the 
 loss,  and  cited,  almost  in  the  very  words  which 
 Joab  had  predicted,  the  case  of  Abimelecli.  (The 
 only  variation  is  the  omission  of  the  name  of  the 
 grandfather  of  Abimelech,  which,  in  the  LXX.,  is 
 Ner  instead  of  Joash.)  The  messenger,  as  instructed 
 liy  Joab,  calmly  continued,  and  ended  the  story  with 
 the  words:  "  Thy  servant  also,  Uriah  the  Hittite, 
 is  dead."  In  a  moment  David's  anger  is  appeased. 
 He  sends  an  encouraging  message  to  Joab  on  the 
 unavoidable  chances  of  war,  and  urges  him  to  con- 
 tinue the  siege.  It  is  one  of  the  touching  parts  of 
 the  story  that  Uriah  falls  unconscious  of  his  wife's 
 dishonor.  She  hears  of  her  husband's  death.  The 
 narrative  gives  no  hint  as  to  her  shame  or  remorse. 
 
3356 
 
 URIAS 
 
 She  "  mourned  "  with  the  usual  signs  of  griif  as  a 
 widow;  and  then  became  the  wife  of  David  (2  Sara. 
 xi.  27). 
 
 Uriah  remains  to  us,  preserved  by  this  tragical 
 incident,  an  example  of  the  chivahous  and  devoted 
 characters  that  were  to  be  found  amongst  the  Ca- 
 naanites  serving  in  the  Hebrew  army.     A.  P.  S. 
 
 2.  [Ovpias;  Vat.  Ovpetas.]  High-priest  in  the 
 reign  of  Ahaz  (Is.  viii.  2;  2  K.  xvi.  10-lG).  We 
 first  hear  of  him  as  a  witness  to  Isaiah's  prophecy 
 concerning  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,  with  Zechariah, 
 the  son  of  Jeberechiah.  He  is  probably  the  same 
 as  IJrijah  the  priest,  who  built  the  altar  for  Ahaz 
 (2  K.  xvi.  10).  If  this  be  so,  the  prophet  sum- 
 moned him  as  a  witness  probably  on  account  of  his 
 position  as  high-priest,  not  on  account  of  his  per- 
 sonal qualities;  though,  as  the  incident  occurred 
 at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  Uriah's 
 irreligious  subserviency  may  not  yet  have  manifested 
 itself.  When  Ahaz,  after  his  deliverance  from 
 Rezin  and  Pekah  by  Tiglath-Pileser,  went  to  wait 
 upon  his  new  master  at  Damascus,  he  saw  there  an 
 altar  which  pleased  him,  and  sent  the  pattern  of  it 
 to  Uriah  at  Jerusalem,  with  orders  to  have  one 
 made  like  it  against  the  king's  return.  Uriah  zeal- 
 ously executed  the  idolatrous  command,  and  when 
 Ahaz  returned,  not  only  allowed  him  to  offer  sacri- 
 fices upon  it,  but  basely  complied  with  all  his  im- 
 pious directions.  The  new  altar  was  accordinsily 
 set  in  the  court  of  the  Tem]jle,  to  the  east  of  where 
 the  brazen  altar  used  to  stand ;  and  the  daily  sacri- 
 fices, and  the  burnt-offerings  of  the  king  and  people, 
 were  offered  upon  it;  while  the  brazen  altar,  having 
 been  removed  from  its  place,  and  set  to  the  north 
 of  the  Syrian  altar,  was  reserved  as  a  private  altar 
 for  the  king  to  inquire  by.  It  is  likely,  too,  that 
 Ui'iah's  compliances  did  not  end  here,  but  that  be 
 was  a  consenting  party  to  the  other  idolatrous  and 
 sacrilegious  acts  of  .-Vhaz  (2  K.  xvi.  17,  18,  xxiii.  5, 
 11,  12;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  2-3-2.5). 
 
 Of  the  parentage  of  Uriah  we  know  nothing.  He 
 probably  succeeded  Azariah,  who  was  high-priest  in 
 the  reign  of  Uzziah,  and  was  succeeded  by  that 
 Azariah  who  was  high-priest  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
 kiah.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  he  was  son  of  the 
 former  and  father  of  the  latter,  it  being  by  no  means 
 uncommon  among  the  Helirews,  as  among  the 
 Greeks,  for  the  grandciiild  to  have  the  grandfather's 
 name.  Probaldy,  too,  he  may  have  been  descended 
 from  that  Azariah  who  nnist  have  been  high-priest 
 in  the  reign  of  Asa.  But  he  has  no  place  in  the 
 sacerdotal  genealogy  (1  (Jhr.  vi.  4-15),  in  which 
 there  is  a  great  ga])  between  Amariah  in  ver.  11, 
 and  Shallum  the  father  of  Hilkiah  in  ver.  13. 
 [HiGH-PEiEST,  ii.  1071  b.]  It  is  perhaps  a  legiti- 
 mate inference  that  Uriah's  line  terminated  in  his 
 successor,  Azariah,  and  that  Hilkiah  was  descended 
 through  another  branch  from  Amariah,  who  was 
 priest  in  Jehoshaphat's  reign. 
 
 3.  [Oupia,  gen.]  A  priest  of  the  family  of  Hak- 
 koz  (in  A.  V.  wrongly  Koz),  the  head  of  the  seventh 
 course  of  priests.  (See  1  Chr.  xxiv.  10. )  It  does 
 not  appear  when  this  Urijah  lived,  as  he  is  only 
 named  as  the  father  or  ancestor  of  Meremoth  in 
 the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Ezr.  viii.  33; 
 Neh.  iii.  4,  21).     In  Neh.  his  name  is  Umj.\H. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 UKFAS  (Ovpias  ■  Urias).  1.  Uriah,  the 
 husband  of  Bathsheba  (Matt.  i.  6). 
 
 2.  [Vat.  Ovpfias.]  Ukijah,  3  (1  Esdr.  ix.  43; 
 eomp.  Neh.  vii.  4). 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 U'RIEL,  Jire  of  God,  an  angel  named  only  in 
 2  Esdr.  iv.  1,  36,  v.  20,  x.  28.  In  the  second  of 
 these  passages  he  is  called   "  the  archangel." 
 
 *  In  the  book  of  Enoch,  Uriel  is  described  as 
 "  the  angel  of  thunder  and  trembling"  (c.  20),  and 
 the  angel  "  placed  over  all  the  lights  of  heaven  " 
 (c.  75,  §  3).  Milton  makes  him  "  regent  of  the 
 sun."  A. 
 
 U'RIEL  (bW"*"1^S  [Jire  of  Gorf] :  OupiVJA  ; 
 [Vat.  Opi??A:]  Uriel).  1.  A  Kohathite  Levite,  son 
 of  Tahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  24  [9]).  If  the  genealogies 
 were  reckoned  in  this  chapter  from  father  to  son, 
 Uriel  would  be  the  same  as  Zephaniah  in  ver.  36 ; 
 but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  is  the 
 case. 
 
 2.  [In  ver.  11,  Vat.  FA.  Apir,\.]  Chief  of  the 
 Kohathites  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xv.  5,  11). 
 In  this  capacity  he  assisted,  together  with  120  of 
 his  brethren,  in  bringing  up  the  ark  from  the  house 
 of  Obed-edom. 
 
 3.  Uriel  of  Gibeah  was  the  father  of  Maachah, 
 or  Michaiah,  the  favorite  wife  of  Rehoboam,  and 
 mother  of  Abijah  (2  Chr.  xiii.  2).  In  2  Chr.  xi.  20 
 she  is  called  "  Maachah  the  daughter  of  Absalom;  " 
 and  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  10,  §  1)  explains  this  by 
 saying  that  her  mother  was  Tamar,  Absalom's 
 daughter.  Rashi  gives  a  long  note  to  the  effect 
 that  IMichaiah  was  called  Maachah  after  the  name 
 of  her  daughter-in-law  the  mother  of  Asa,  who  was 
 a  woman  of  renown,  and  that  her  father's  name 
 was  Uriel  Abishalom.  There  is  no  indication,  how- 
 ever, that  Absalom,  like  Solomon,  had  another 
 name,  although  in  the  Targmn  of  R.  Joseph  on 
 Chronicles  it  is  said  that  the  father  of  Maachah 
 was  called  Uriel  that  the  name  of  Absalom  might 
 not  be  mentioned. 
 
 URI'JAH  (n^n^S  [flame  of  Jehovah]  : 
 Oupi'ay  [Vat.  -pei-]  ■  Urias).  1.  Urijah  the  priest 
 in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (2  K.  xvi.  10),  probably  the 
 same  as  Umah,  2. 
 
 2.  (Oupia.)  A  priest  of  the  family  of  Koz,  or 
 hak-Koz  [Neh.  iii.  4,  21],  the  same  as  Umah,  3. 
 
 3.  {Oupias;  [Vat.  Oupeia:]  Urin.)  One  of  the 
 priests  who  stood  at  Ezra's  right-hand  when  he 
 read  the  Law  to  the  people  (Neh.  viii.  4). 
 
 4.  (^rT*"i:iS:  [Oiipias;  Vat.  -pei-:]  Urias.) 
 The  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kirjath-jearim.  He  proph- 
 esied in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim  concerning  the  land 
 and  the  city,  just  as  Jeremiah  had  done,  and  the 
 king  sought  to  put  him  to  death;  but  he  escaped, 
 and  fled  into  Egypt.  His  retreat  was  soon  dis- 
 covered :  Elnathan  and  his  men  brought  him  up 
 out  of  Egypt,  and  Jehoiakim  slew  him  with  the 
 sword,  and  cast  his  body  forth  among  the  graves 
 of  the  common  people  (Jer.  xxvi.  20-23).  The 
 story  of  Shemaiah  appears  to  be  quoted  by  the 
 enemies  of  Jeremiah  as  a  reason  for  putting  him 
 to  death;  and,  as  a  reply  to  the  instance  of  Micah 
 the  Morasthite,  which  Jeremiah's  friend  gave  as  a 
 reason  why  his  words  should  be  listened  to  and  his 
 life  spared.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  view  adopted  by 
 Rashi.  W.  A.   W. 
 
 U'RIM     AND    THUM'ailM     (a'^^^lM, 
 
 D'^TSri  :     SriAooffis    Kul    aAT/eem  :    doctrina    et 
 Veritas). 
 
 I.  (1.)  When  the  Jewish  exiles  were  met  on 
 their  return  from  Babylon  by  a  question  which  they 
 had  no  data  for  answering,  they  agreed  to  postpone 
 the  settlement  of  the  difficulty  till  there  should  rise 
 
URIM  AND   THUMMIM 
 
 np  "  a  priest  with  Uriui  and  Tbumniini  "  (Ezr.  ii. 
 33;  Neh.  vii.  65).  The  inquiry,  what  those  Urim 
 and  Thunimiui  themselves  were,  seems  liicely  to 
 wait  as  long  for  a  final  and  satisfying  answer.  On 
 every  side  we  meet  with  confessions  of  ignorance  — 
 '•  Non  constat"  (Kimchi),  "  Nescimus  "  (Aben- 
 Ezra),  "  Difficile  est  invenire  "  (Augustine)  —  va- 
 ried only  by  wild  and  conflicting  conjectures.  It 
 would  be  comparatively  an  easy  task  to  give  a  cata- 
 logue of  these  hypotheses,  and  transcribe  to  any  ex- 
 tent the  learning  which  has  gathered  round  them. 
 To  attempt  to  follow  a  true  historical  method,  and 
 so  to  construct  a  theory  which  shall,  at  least,  in- 
 clude all  the  phenomena,  is  a  more  arduous,  but 
 may  be  a  more  profitable  task. 
 
 (2.)  The  starting-point  of  such  an  inquiry  must 
 be  from  the  words  which  the  A.  V.  has  left  un- 
 translated. It  will  be  well  to  deal  with  each  sep- 
 arately. 
 
 (A.)  In  Urim,  Hebrew  scholars,  with  hardly  an 
 
 exception,  have  seen  the  plural  of  "l^S  ( =  light, 
 or  fire).  The  LXX.  translators,  however,  appear  to 
 have  had  reasons  which  led  them  to  another  ren- 
 deritig  than  that  of  (pus,  or  its  cognates.  They 
 give  Tj  SriAwats  (Ex.  xxviii.  30;  Ecclus.  xlv.  10), 
 and  SrjXot  (Num.  xxvii.  21;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8;  1  Sam. 
 xxviii.  6),  while  in  Ezr.  ii.  03,  and  Neh.  vii.  65,  we 
 have  respectively  plural  and  singular  participles  of 
 <P<ot[(^oo.  In  Aquila  and  Tlieodotion  we  find  the 
 more  literal  (pomcrixoi.  The  Vulg.,  following  the 
 lead  of  the  LXX.,  but  going  further  astray,  gives 
 doctrina  in  Ex.  xxviii.  30  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  omits 
 the  word  in  Num.  xxvii.  21,  paraphrases  it  by  "/;e?' 
 sacerdoles"  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6,  and  gives  ^^ judi- 
 cium "  in  Ecclus.  xlv.  10,  as  the  rendering  of 
 SiiKoiffLS.  Luther  gives  Licht.  The  literal  English 
 equivalent  would  of  course  be  "lights;"  but  the 
 renderings  in  the  LXX.  and  V^ulg.  indicate,  at  least, 
 a  traditional  belief  among  the  Jews  that  the  plural 
 form,  as  in  Elohim  and  other  like  words,  did  not 
 involve  numerical  plurality. 
 
 (B.)    TImmmim.    Here  also  there  is   almost  a 
 
 consensus  "  as  to  the  derivation  from  Dn  (  =  per- 
 fection, completeness);  but  the  LXX.,  as  before, 
 uses  the  closer  Greek  equivalent  TiKeios  but  once 
 (Ezr.  ii.  03),  and  adheres  elsewhere  to  aXrjGeia'-,  and 
 the  Vulg.,  giving  "perfec/us  "  there,  in  like  man- 
 ner gives  "  Veritas  "  in  all  other  passages.  Aquila 
 more  accurately  chooses  rfKnuxreis.  Luther,  in 
 his  first  edition,  gave  VoUiykeit,  but  afterwards 
 rested  in  Recht.  What  has  been  said  as  to  the 
 plural  of  Urim  applies  here  also.  "  Light  and  Per- 
 fection "  would  probably  be  the  best  English  equiv- 
 alent. The  assumption  of  a  hendiadijs^  so  that  the 
 two  words  =  "  perfect  illumination  "  (Uarpzov,  App. 
 Grit.  i.  5;  Biihr,  Symbol!/:,  ii.  135),  is  unneces- 
 sary and,  it  is  believed,  unsound.  The  mere  phrase, 
 as  such,  leaves  it  therefore  uncertain  whether  each 
 word  by  itself  denoted  many  things  of  a  given  kind. 
 
 a  The  exceptions  to  the  consensus  are  just  worth 
 noticing.  (1.)  Bellarmine  wishing  to  defend  the  Vulg. 
 translation,  suggested    the    derivation  of  Urim   from 
 
 rrr*  =  "  to  teach  ;  "  and  Thummim  from  1Z3S,  "  to 
 be  true."  (Buxtorf,  Diss,  de  Ur.  et  Th.)  (2.)  Thum- 
 mim has  been  derived  from  DN^  contr.  DJ^  =  "  a 
 twin,'"  on  the  theory  that  the  two  groups  of  gems,  six 
 on  each  side  the  breast-plate,  were  what  constituted 
 the  Urim  and  Thummim.  (K.  Azarias,  in  Buxtorf, 
 l.c.) 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM     3357 
 
 or  whether  the  two  taken  together  might  be  re- 
 ferred to  two  distinct  objects,  or  to  one  and  the 
 
 same  object.     The  presence  of  the  article  H,  and 
 
 yet  more  of  the  demonstrative  nS  before  each,  is 
 rather  in  favor  of  distinctness.  In  Deut.  xxxiii.  8, 
 we  have  separately,  "  Thy  Thummim  and  thy 
 Urim,"  the  first  order  being  inverted.  Urim  is 
 found  alone  in  Num.  xxvii.  21;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  0; 
 Thummim  never  by  itself,  unless  with  Ziillig  we 
 find  it  in  Ps.  xvi.  5. 
 
 II.  (1.)  Scriptural  Statements.  —  The  mysteri- 
 ous words  meet  us  for  the  firel  time,  as  if  they 
 needed  no  explanation,  in  the  description  of  the 
 high-priest's  apparel.     Over  the  Ephod  there  is  to 
 
 be  a  "breastplate  of  judgment"  (iSSiypn  "Jtiirj) 
 Xoyiiov  Kpifffws'-''  rationale  judicii),  of  gold,  .scar- 
 let, purple,  and  fine  linen,  folded  square  and  doub- 
 led, a  "span"  in  length  and  width.  In  it  are  to 
 be  set  four  rows  of  precious  stones,  each  stone  with 
 the  name  of  a  tribe  of  Israel  engraved  on  it,  that 
 Aaron  may -'bear  them  upon  his  heart."  Then 
 comes  a  further  order.  Inside  the  breastplate,  as 
 the  tables  of  the  Covenant  were  placed  inside  the 
 
 Ark  (the  preposition  VN  is  used  in  both  cases,  Ex. 
 XXV.  16,  xxviii.  30),  are  to  be  placed  "the  Urim 
 and  the  Thummim,"  the  Light  and  the  Perfection; 
 and  they,  too,  are  to  be  on  Aaron's  heart,  when  he 
 goes  in  before  the  Ixird  (Ex.  xxviii.  15-30).  Not 
 a  word  describes  them.  They  are  mentioned  as 
 things  already  familiar  both  to  Moses  and  the 
 people,  connected  naturally  with  the  functions  of 
 the  high-priest,  as  mediating  between  .Jehovah  and 
 his  people.  The  command  is  fulfilled  (Lev.  viii.  8). 
 They  pass  from  Aaron  to  Eleazar  with  the  sacred 
 ephod,  and  other  pontificalia  (Num.  xx.  28). 
 When  Joshua  is  solemnly  appointed  to  succeed  the 
 great  hero  lawgiver,  he  is  bidden  to  stand  before 
 Eleazar  the  priest,  "  who  shall  ask  counsel  for  him 
 after  the  judgment  of  Urim,"  and  this  counsel  is  to 
 determine  the  movements  of  the  host  of  Israel 
 (Num.  xxvii.  21).  In  the  blessings  of  Moses,  they 
 appear  as  the  crowning  glory  of  the  tribe  of  I^vi 
 ("  Thy  Thummim  and  thy  Urim  are  with  thy  Holy 
 One  " ),  the  reward  of  the  zeal  which  led  them  to 
 close  their  eyes  to  everything  iiut  "the  Law  and 
 the  Covenant"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  9).  Once,  and 
 once  only,  are  they  mentioned  by  name  in  the  his- 
 tory of  the  Judges  and  the  monarchy.  Saul,  left 
 to  his  self-chosen  darkness,  is  answered  "  neither 
 by  dreams,  nor  by  Urim,  nor  by  prophet  "  (1  Sam. 
 xxviii.  0).  There  is  no  longer  a  priest  with  Urim 
 and  Thummim  (toTs  (poiri^ovai  koI  toIs  reXeiois, 
 Ezr.  ii.  03;  6  (pwriaroov,  Neh.  vii.  65)  to  answer 
 hard  questions.  When  will  one  appear  again? 
 The  Son  of  Sirach  copies  the  Greek  names  (SrjAoi, 
 a\7i0(ia)  in  his  description  of  Aaron's  garments, 
 but  throws  no  light  upon  their  meaning  or  their 
 use  (Ecclus.  xlv.  lO)."-' 
 
 b  The  LXX.  rendering,  so  different  from  the  literal 
 meaning,  must  have  originated  either  (1)  from  a  false 
 
 etymology,  as  if  the  word  was  derived  from  tyHS 
 
 =  "  to  divine  "  (Gen.  xliv.  15) ;  or  (2)  from  the  orac- 
 ular use  made  of  the  breastplate  ;  or  (3)  from  other 
 associations  connected  with  the  former  {infra).  Th© 
 Vulg.  simply  follows  the  LXX.  Seb.  Schmidt  gives  the 
 more  literal  "  pectorate."  "  BTea.st-plate  "  is,  perhaps, 
 somewhat  misleading. 
 
 e  The  A.  V.,  singularly  enough,  retranslates  the 
 
3358     URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 (2.)  Besides  these  direct  statements,  there  are 
 others  in  which  we  may,  without  violence,  trace  a 
 reference,  if  not  to  both,  at  least  to  the  Uriui. 
 When  questions  precisely  of  the  nature  of  those 
 described  in  Num.  xxvii.  21  are  asked  by  the 
 leader  of  the  people,  and  answered  by  Jehovah 
 (Judg.  i.  1,  XX.  18)  —  when  like  questions  are 
 asked  by  Saul  of  the  high-priest  Ahiah,  "  wearing 
 an  ephod  "  (1  Sam.  xiv.  3, 18)  —  by  David,  as  soon 
 as  he  has  with  him  the  presence  of  a  high-priest 
 ■with  his  ephod  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  2,  12,  xxx.  7,  8)  — 
 we  may  legitimately  infer  that  the  treasures  which 
 the  ephod  contained  were  the  conditions  and  media 
 of  his  answer.  The  questions  are  in  almost  all 
 cases  strategical,"  "  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  against 
 the  Canaanites  first?"  (Judg.  i.  1,  so  xx.  18), 
 "  Will  the  men  of  Keilah  deliver  me  and  my  men 
 into  the  hand  of  Saul?  "  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  12),  or,  at 
 least,  national  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1).  The  answer  is,  in 
 all  cases,  very  brief,  but  more  in  form  than  a  sim- 
 ple Yes  or  No.  One  question  only  is  answered  at 
 a  time. 
 
 (3.)  It  deserves  notice  before  we  pass  beyond  the 
 range  of  Sci'iptural  data,  that  in  some  cases  of  de- 
 flection from  the  established  religious  order,  we  find 
 the  ephod  connected  not  with  the  Urim  but  with 
 the  Teraphim,  wliich,  in  the  days  of  Laban,  if  not 
 earlier,  had  been  conspicuous  in  Aramaic  worship. 
 Micah,  first  consecrating  one  of  his  own  sons,  and 
 then  getting  a  Levite  as  his  priest,  makes  for  him 
 "an  ephod  and  teraphim  "  (Judg.  xvii.  5,  xviii.  14, 
 20).  Throughout  the  history  of  the  northern 
 kingdom  their  presence  at  Dan  made  it  a  sacred 
 place  (Judg.  xviii.  30),  and  apparently  determined 
 Jeroboam's  choice  of  it  as  a  sanctuary.  When  the 
 prophet  Hosea  foretells  the  entire  sweeping  away  of 
 the  system  which  the  Ten  Tribes  had  cherished,  the 
 point  of  extremest  destitution  is,  that  "  they  shall 
 be  many  days  ....  without  an  ephod,  and  with- 
 out teraphim"  (Hos.  iii.  4),  deprived  of  all  coun- 
 terfeit oracles,  in  order  that  they  may  in  the  end 
 "  return  and  seek  the  Lord."  *  It  seems  natural 
 to  infer  that  the  teraphim  were,  in  these  instances, 
 the  unauthorized  substitutes  for  the  Urim.  The 
 inference  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  LXX. 
 uses  here,  instead  of  teraphim,  the  same  word  (5?)- 
 Aojc)  which  it  usually  gives  for  Urim.  That  the 
 teraphim  were  thus  used  through  the  whole  history 
 of  Israel  may  be  inferred  from  their  frequent  occur- 
 rence in  conjunction  with  other  forms  of  divination. 
 Thus  we  have  in  1  Sam.  xv.  23,  "  witchcraft  "  and 
 •'  teraphim  "  (A.  V.  "  idolatry  "),  in  2  K.  xxiii.  24, 
 "familiar  spirits,"  "wizards,  and  teraphim"  (A. 
 V.  "images").  The  kujg  of  Bal>ylon,  when  he 
 uses  divination,  consults  them  (Ez.  xxi.  21).  They 
 speak  vanity  (Zech.  x.  2). 
 
 III.  Theories.  —  (1.)  For  the  most  part  we  have 
 to  deal  with  independent  conjectures  rather  than 
 with  inferences  from  these  duta.  Among  the  hitter, 
 however,  may  be  noticed  the  notion  that,  as  Moses 
 is  not  directed  to  make  the  Urim  and  Thummim, 
 they  must  have  had  a  supernatural  origin,  specially 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 created,  unlike  anything  upon  earth  (R.  ben  Nach- 
 raan  and  Ilottinger  in  Buxtorf,  Diss,  de  U.  et  T. 
 in  Ugolini,  xii.).  It  would  be  profitless  to  discuss 
 so  arbitrary  an  hypothesis. 
 
 (2.)  A  favorite  view  of  Jewish  and  of  some 
 Christian  writers  has  been,  that  the  Urim  and 
 Thummim  vfere  identical  with  the  twelve  stones 
 on  which  the  names  of  tlie  tribes  of  Israel  were 
 engraved,  and  the  mode  in  which  an  oracle  was 
 given  was  by  the  illumination,  simultaneous  or  suc- 
 cessive, of  the  letters  which  were  to  make  up  the 
 answer  (Jalkut  Siire,  Zohar  in  Exod.  f.  105;  Mai- 
 monides,  \l.  ben  Nachman,  in  Buxtorf,  I.  e. :  Drusius, 
 in  Crit.  Sac.  on  Ex.  xxviii. ;  Chrysostom,  Grotius, 
 ei  al.).  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  5)  adopts  another 
 form  of  the  same  story,  and,  apparently  identifying 
 the  Urim  and  Thunmiim  with  the  sardonyxes  on 
 the  shoulders  of  the  ephod,  says  that  they  were 
 bright  before  a  victory,  or  when  the  sacrifice  was 
 acceptable,  dark  when  any  disaster  was  impending. 
 Epiphanius  {de  xii.  f/emm.),  and  the  writer  quoted 
 by  Suidas  {s.  v.  'EcpovS),  present  the  same  thought 
 in  yet  another  form.  A  single  diamond  (aSd/xas) 
 placed  in  the  centre  of  the  breastplate  prognosti- 
 cated peace  when  it  was  bright,  war  when  it  was 
 red,  death  when  it  was  dusky.  It  is  conclusive 
 against  such  views  (1)  that,  without  any  evidence, 
 without  even  an  analogy,  they  make  unauthorized 
 additions  to  the  miracles  of  Scripture;  (2)  that 
 the  former  identify  two  things  which,  in  Ex. 
 xxviii.,  are  clearly  distinguished;  (3)  that  the 
 latter  makes  no  distinction  between  the  Urim  and 
 the  Thunnnim,  such  as  the  repeated  article  leads 
 us  to  infer. 
 
 (3.)  A  theory,  involving  fewer  gratuitous  as- 
 sumptions, is  that  in  the  middle  of  the  ephod,  or 
 within  its  folds,  there  was  a  stone  or  plate  of  gold 
 on  which  was  engraved  the  sacred  name  of  Jehovah, 
 the  Sliem-hammephorash  of  Jewish  cabbalists,"  and 
 that  by  virtue  of  this,  fixing  his  gaze  on  it,  or 
 reading  an  invocation  which  was  also  engraved  with 
 the  name,  or  standing  in  his  ephod  before  the 
 mercy-seat,  or  at  least  before  the  veil  of  the  sanc- 
 tuary, he  became  capable  of  prophesying,  hearing 
 the  Divine  voice  within,  or  listening  to  it  as  it  pro- 
 ceeded, in  articulate  sounds,  Irom  the  glory  of  the 
 Shechinah  (Buxtorf,  l.  c.  7;  Lightfoot,  vi.  278; 
 Braunius,  de  Veslitu  Hebr.  ii. ;  Saalschiitz,  Archii- 
 olofj.  ii.  363).  Another  form  of  the  same  thought 
 is  found  in  the  statement  of  Jewish  writers,  that 
 the  Holy  Spirit  spake  sometimes  by  Urim,  some- 
 times by  prophecy,  sometimes  by  the  Bath-Kol 
 (Seder  01am,  c.  xiv.  in  Braunius,  /.  c),  or  that  the 
 whole  purpose  of  the  unknown  symbols  was  "  ad 
 excitandam  prophetiam  "  (R.  Levi  ben  Gershon,  in 
 Buxtorf,  /.  c. ;  Kimchi,  in  Spencer,  I.  c).  A  more 
 eccentric  form  of  the  "  writing  "  theory  was  pro- 
 pounded by  the  elder  Carpzov,  who  maintained  that 
 the  Urim  and  Thummim  were  two  confessions  of 
 faith  in  the  Messiah  and  the  Holy  Spirit  (Carpzov, 
 App.  Crit.  i.  5). 
 
 (4.)  Spencer  (de  Ur.  et  Th.)  presents  a  singular 
 
 Greek  words  back  into  the  Hebrew,  and  gives  "  Urim 
 and  Thummim  "  as  if  they  were  proper  names. 
 
 «  On  this  account,  probably,  the  high-priest  was  to 
 go  out  to  battle  (Num.  xxxi.  6),  as,  in  his  absence, 
 there  was  to  be  a  Siicerdos  Castrensis.     [Priests.] 
 
 b  The  writer  cannot  bring  himself,  with  Pusey 
 (Cojnm.  in  loc),  to  refer  the  thiugs  named  by  the 
 prophet,  partly  to  the  true,  partly  to  the  false  ritual ; 
 still  less,  with  Spencer  {Diss,  de  Ur.  et  Th.),  to  see  in 
 »11  of  them  things  which  the  prophet  recognizes  as 
 
 right  and  good.  It  is  simpler  to  take  them  as  de- 
 scribing the  actual  polity  and  ritual  in  which  the 
 northern  kingdom  had  gloried,  and  of  which  it  was  to 
 be  deprived. 
 
 c  A  wilder  form  of  this  belief  is  found  in  the  cab- 
 balistic book  Zohar.  There  the  Urim  is  said  to  have 
 had  the  Divine  name  in  42,  the  Thummim  in  72  let- 
 ters. The  notion  was  probably  derived  from  the  Jew- 
 ish invocations  of  books  like  the  Clavicula  Satomonis. 
 [Solomon.] 
 
URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 anion  of  acuteness  and  extravagance.  He  rightly 
 recognizes  the  distinctness  of  the  two  tliini^s  which 
 others  had  confounded.  VVh;itever  the  Urini  and 
 Thunnuiui  were,  they  were  not  the  twelve  stunos, 
 and  they  were  distinguishable  one  from  tlie  other. 
 Tiiey  were  [jlaeed  inside  the  folds  of  the  doubled 
 Clioshi^H.  Kesting  on  the  facts  referred  to,  he  in- 
 ferred the  identity  of  tlie  Urini  and  the  Teraphiui." 
 This  was  an  instance  in  which  the  Divine  wisdom 
 accommodated  itself  to  niaii"s  weakness,  and  al- 
 lowed the  debased  superstitious  Israelites  to  retain 
 a  fragment  of  the  idolatrous  system  of  their  fathers, 
 iu  order  to  wean  them  gradually  fi'om  the  system 
 as  a  whole.  The  obno.xious  name  of  Teraphim  was 
 dropped.  The  thing  itself  was  retained.  The  very 
 name  Urim  was,  he  argned,  identical  in  meaning 
 with  Teraphim.*  It  was,  therefore,  a  small  image 
 [irobably  in  human  form.  So  far  the  hypothesis 
 has,  at  least,  the  merit  of  being  inductive  and  his- 
 torical; but  when  he  comes  to  the  question  how  it 
 was  instrumental  oracularly,  he  passes  into  the  most 
 extravagant  of  all  assumptions.  The  image,  when 
 the  high-priest  questioned  it,  spoke  by  the  media- 
 tion of  an  angel,  with  an  articulate  human  voice, 
 just  as  the  Teraphim  spoke,  in  like  manner,  by  the 
 intervention  of  a  demon !  In  deahng  with  the 
 Thuraniini,  which  ho  excludes  altogether  from  the 
 oracular  functions  of  the  Urim,  Spencer  adopts 
 the  notion  of  an  Egyptian  archetype,  which  will  be 
 noticed  further  on. 
 
 (5.)  Michaelis  {L'lics  of  Moses,  v.  §  52)  gives 
 his  own  opinion  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were 
 three  stones,  on  one  of  which  was  written  Yes,  on 
 another  No,  while  the  third  was  left  blank  or  neu- 
 tral. The  three  were  used  as  lots,  and  the  high- 
 priest  decided  according  as  the  one  or  the  other 
 was  drawn  out.  He  does  not  think  it  worth  while 
 to  give  one  iota  of  evidence;  and  the  notion  docs 
 not  appear  to  have  been  more  than  a  passing  ca- 
 price. It  obviously  fails  to  meet  the  phenomena. 
 Lots  were  familiar  enough  among  the  Israelites 
 (Num.  xxvi.  55;  Josh.  xiii.  6,  et  al. ;  1  Sam.  xiv. 
 41;  Prov.  xvi.  o'-i),  but  the  Urim  was  something 
 si^leum  and  peculiar.  In  the  cases  where  the  Urim 
 was  consulted,  the  answers  were  always  more  than 
 a  mere  negative  or  affirmative. 
 
 (6.)  The  conjecture  of  Ziillig  {Comm.  in  Apoc. 
 Exc.  ii.),  though  adopted  by  Winer  (Realivb.),  can 
 hardly  be  looked  on  as  more  satisfying.  With  him 
 the  Urim  are  bright,  i.  e.  cut  and  polished,  dia- 
 monds, in  form  like  dice;  the  Thummim  perfect, 
 i.  €.  whole,  rough,  uncut  ones,  each  class  with  in- 
 scriptions of  some  kind  engraved  on  it.  He  sup- 
 poses a  handful  of  these  to  have  been  carried  in  the 
 pouch  of  the  high-priest's  Chushen,  and  when  he 
 wished  for  an  oracle,  to  have  been  taken  out  liy 
 him  and  thrown  on  a  table,  or,  more  ]iroliably,  on 
 the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.  As  they  fell  their  posi- 
 tion, according  to  traditional  rules  known  only  to 
 the  high-priestly  families,  indicated  the  answer. 
 He  compares  it  with  fortune-telling  by  cards  or 
 coffee-grounds.  The  whole  scheme,  it  need  hardly 
 be  said,  is  one  of  pure  invention,  at  once  arl)itrary 
 and  offensive.  It  is  at  least  questionable  whether 
 the  Egyptians  had  access  to  diamonds,  or  knew  the 
 »rt  of  polishuig  or  engraving  them.      [Diamond.] 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM       3359 
 
 A  handful  of  diamond  cubes,  large  enough  to  have 
 words  or  monograms  engraved  on  them,  is  a  thing 
 which  has  no  parallel  in  Egyptian  archajology,  nor, 
 indeed,  anywhere  else. 
 
 (7.)  The  latest  .Jewish  interpreter  of  eminence 
 (Kalisch,  on  Ex.  xxviii.  31),  combining  parts  of 
 the  views  (2)  and  (3),  identifies  the  Urim  and 
 Tiiummim  with  the  twelve  tribal  gems,  looks  on 
 the  name  as  one  to  he  explained  by  a  hendiadys 
 (Light  and  Perfection  ^Perfect  iOumination),  and 
 believes  the  high-priest,  by  concentrating  his 
 thoughts  on  the  attrilnites  they  represented,  to 
 have  divested  himself  of  all  selfishness  and  preju- 
 dice, and  so  to  have  passed  into  a  true  pi-ophetic 
 state.  In  what  he  says  on  tliis  point  there  is  much 
 that  is  both  beautiful  and  true.  Lightfoot,  it  may 
 be  added,  had  taken  the  same  view  (ii.  407,  vi. 
 278),  and  that  given  above  in  (3)  converges  to  the 
 same  result. 
 
 IV.  One  more  Theory.  —  (1.)  It  may  seem 
 venturesome,  alter  so  many  wild  and  conflicting 
 conjectures,  to  add  yet  another.  If  it  is  lielieved 
 that  the  risk  of  falling  into  one  as  wild  and  baseless 
 need  not  deter  us,  it  is  because  tliere  are  materials 
 within  our  reach,  drawn  from  our  larger  knowledge 
 of  antiquity,  and  not  less  from  our  fuller  insight 
 into  the  less  common  phenomena  of  consciousness, 
 which  were  not,  to  the-  same  extent,  within  the 
 reach  of  our  fiithers. 
 
 (2.)  The  starting  point  of  our  inquiry  may  be 
 found  in  adhering  to  the  conclusions  to  which  the 
 Scriptural  statements  lead  us.  The  Urim  were  not 
 identical  with  the  Thununim,  neither  of  them 
 identical  with  the  tribal  gems.  The  notion  of  a 
 hendiadys  (almost  always  the  weak  prop  of  a  weak 
 theory)  may  be  di-scarded.  And,  seeing  that  they 
 are  mentioned  with  no  description,  we  must  infer 
 that  they  and  their  meaning  were  already  known, 
 if  not  to  the  other  Israelites,  at  least  to  Mo.ses.  If 
 we  are  to  look  for  their  origin  anywhere,  it  must  be 
 in  the  customs  and  the  symbolism  of  Egypt. 
 
 (3.)  We  may  start  with  the  Thummim,  as  pre- 
 senting the  easier  problem  of  the  two.  Here  there 
 is  at  once  a  patent  and  striking  analogy.  The 
 priestly  judges  of  Egypt,  with  whose  presence  and 
 garb  Moses  must  have  been  familiar,  wore,  each  of 
 them,  hanging  on  his  neck,  suspended  on  a  golden 
 chain,  a  figure  which  Greek  writers  describe  as  an 
 image  of  Truth  {'\Ki]Qiia,  as  in  the  LXX.)  often 
 with  closed  eyes,  made  sometimes  of  a  sapphire  or 
 other  j>recious  stones,  and,  therefore  necessarily 
 small.  They  were  to  see  in  this  a  symbol  of  the 
 purity  of  motive,  without  which  they  would  be 
 unworthy  of  their  office.  With  it  they  touched 
 the  lips  of  the  litigant  as  they  bade  him  speak  the 
 truth,  the  whole,  the  perfect  truth  (Diod.  Sic.  i. 
 48,  75;  /Elian,  Vm:  Ilisl.  xiv.  34).  That  this 
 parallelism  couunended'  itself  to  the  most  learned  of 
 the  Alexandrian  Jews  we  may  infer  (1)  from  the 
 deliberate  but  not  obvious  use  by  the  LXX.  of  the 
 word  aX-fjOeia.  as  the  translation  of  Thummim; 
 (2)  from  a  remarkable  passage  in  Philo  (</e  Vit. 
 Mos.  iii.  11),  in  which  he  says  that  the  breastplate 
 (\6yiou)  of  the  high-priest  was  made  strong  that 
 he  might  wear  as  an  image  (jVa  aya\/j.aTO(poprj) 
 the  two  virtues  which  were  so  needful  for  his  office. 
 
 a  He  had  been  preceded  in  this  view  by  Joseph 
 Mede  (D/ss.  I.  c.  35),  who  pointed  out  the  strong  re- 
 semblance, if  not  the  identity  of  the  two. 
 
 h  The  process  of  proof  is  ingenious,  but  hardly  eon- 
 fincing       Urim    =    ''lights,    tires;"'    Seraphim  = 
 
 "  the  buroing,  or  fiery  ones  ;  "  and  Teraphim  is  but 
 the  same  word,  with  an  Aramaic  substitution  of  H 
 for  W. 
 
3360      URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 The  connection  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Egyp- 
 tian symbol  was  first  noticed,  it  is  believed,  \>y 
 Spencer  (/.  c).  It  was  met  witli  cries  of  alarm. 
 No  single  custom,  rite,  or  symbol,  could  possibly 
 have  been  transferred  from  an  idolatrous  system 
 into  that  of  Israel.  There  was  no  evidence  of  the 
 antiquit}-  of  the  I'^sryptian  practice.  It  was  prob- 
 ably copied  from  the  Hebrew  (Witsius,  yEjiypliaca, 
 ii.  10,  11,  12,  in  Ugolini,  i. ;  liiboudealdus,  f/e 
 Urim  et  Th.  in  Ugolini,  xii. ;  Patrick,  Conim.  in 
 Ex.  xxviii.).  The  discussion  of  the  principle  in- 
 volved need  not  be  entered  on  here.  Spencer's 
 way  of  putting  the  case,  assuming  that  a  debased 
 form  of  religion  was  given  in  condescension  to  the 
 superstitions  of  a  debased  people,  made  it,  indeed, 
 needlessly  ofTensive,  but  it  remains  true,  that  a  rev- 
 elation of  any  kind  must,  to  be  intelligible,  use 
 preexistent  words,  and  that  those  words,  whether 
 spoken  or  symbolic,  may  therefore  be  taken  from 
 any  language  with  which  the  recipients  of  the  rev- 
 elation are  familiar."  In  this  instatice  the  prej- 
 udice has  worn  away.  The  most  orthodox  of  Ger- 
 man theologians  accept  the  once  startling  theory, 
 and  find  in  it  a  proof  of  the  veracity  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch (Hengstenberg,  Egypt  and  the  Five  Books  of 
 Moses,  c.  vi.).  It  is  admitted,  partially  at  least, 
 by  a  devout  Jew  (Kalisch,  on  Ex.  xxviii.  31).'' 
 And  the  missing  link  of  evidence  has  been  found. 
 The  custom  was  not,  as  had  been  said,  of  late 
 origin,  but  is  found  on  the  older  monuments  of 
 Egypt.  There,  round  the  neck  of  the  judge,  are 
 seen  the  two  figures  of  Thmei,  the  representative 
 of  Themis,  Truth,  Justice  (Wilkinson,  Ancient 
 E(/yptians,  v.  28).  The  coincidence  of  sound  may, 
 it  is  true,  be  accidental,  but  it  is  at  least  striking. 
 In  the  words  which  tell  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  in  close 
 connection  with  the  I'hummim  as  its  chief  glory, 
 that  it  did  the  stern  task  of  duty,  blind  to  all 
 that  could  turn  it  aside  to  evil,  "  saying  to  his 
 father  and  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  "  (Deut. 
 xxxiii.  0),  we  may  perhaps  trace  a  reference  to  the 
 closed  eyes  of  the  Egyptian  Thmei. 
 
 (4.)  The  way  is  now  open  for  a  further  inquiry. 
 We  may  legitimately  ask  whether  there  was  any 
 symbol  of  Light  standing  to  the  Urim  in  the  same 
 relation  as  the  symbolic  figure  of  Truth  stood  to  the 
 Thummim.  And  the  answer  to  that  question  is  as 
 follows.  On  the  breast  of  well-nigh  every  member 
 of  the  priestly  caste  of  Egypt  there  hung  a  pectoral 
 plate,  corresponding  in  position  and  in  size  to  the 
 Clioshta  of  the  high-priest  of  Israel.  And  in 
 many  of  these  we  find,  in  the  centre  of  the  ^jec/ortf/e, 
 right  over  the  heart  of  the  priestly  nmmmy,  as  the 
 Urim  was  to  be  "on  the  heart  "  of  Aaron,  what 
 was  a  known  symbol  of  Light  (see  British  Museum, 
 First  Eyyptian  Room,  Cases  67,  69,  70,  88,  89. 
 Second  ditto,  Cases  68,  69,  74).  In  that  symbol 
 were  united  and  embodied  the  highest  religious 
 thoughts  to  which  man  had  then  risen.  It  repre- 
 sented the  Sun  and  the  Universe,  Light  and  Life, 
 
 a  It  may  be  reasonably  urged  indeed  that  in  such 
 Eases  the  previous  conuection  with  a  false  system  is  a 
 reason  for,  and  not  against  the  use  ot  a  symbol  in  it- 
 Belf  expressive.  The  priests  of  Israel  were  taui;ht  that 
 they  were  not  to  have  lower  thoughts  of  the  light  and 
 perfection  which  thoy  needed  than  the  priests  of  lla. 
 
 b  It  is  right  to  add  that  the  Egyptian  origin  is  re- 
 jected both  by  Biihr  (Sijmbolih,  ii.  164)  and  Ewald  (Al- 
 terlhiim.  pp.  307-309),  but  without  sufficient  grounds. 
 Ewald's  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  is,  indeed,  at 
 tnee  superficial  and  inconsistent,  lu  tlie  Alterlhibiifr 
 ,1.  c.)  he  speaks  of  the  Urim  and  I'hummiui  as  lots, 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 Creation  and  Resurrection.  The  material  of  the 
 symbol  varied  according  to  the  rank  of  the  wearer. 
 It  might  be  of  blue  porcelain,  or  jasper,  or  corne- 
 lian, or  lapis  lazuli,  or  amethyst.  Prior  to  our 
 knowing  what  the  symbol  was,  we  should  probably 
 think  it  natural  and  fitting  that  this,  like  the  other, 
 should  have  been  transferred  from  the  lower  worship 
 to  the  higher,  from  contact  with  falsehood  to  fellow- 
 ship with  truth.  Position,  size,  material,  meaning, 
 everything  answers  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 
 
 (5.)  But  the  symbol  in  this  case  was  the  mystic 
 Scarabasus;  and  it  may  seem  to  some  startling  and 
 incredible  to  suggest  that  such  an  emblem  could 
 have  been  borrowed  for  such  a  purpose.  It  is  per- 
 haps quite  as  difficult  for  us  to  understand  how  it 
 could  ever  have  come  to  be  associated  with  such 
 ideas.  We  have  to  throw  ourselves  back  into  a 
 stage  of  human  progress,  a  phase  of  human  thought, 
 the  most  utterly  unlike  any  that  comes  within  our 
 experience.  Out  of  the  mud  which  the  Nile  left 
 in  its  flooding,  men  saw  myriad  forms  of  life  issue. 
 That  of  the  Scaraba^us  was  the  most  conspicuous. 
 It  seemed  to  them  self-generated,  called  into  being 
 by  the  light,  the  child  only  of  the  sun.  Its  glossy 
 wing-cases  reflecting  the  bright  rays  made  it  seem 
 like  the  sun  in  miniature.  It  became  at  once  the 
 emblem  of  Ha,  the  sun,  and  its  creative  power 
 (Clem.  Alex.  Ulrom.  v.  4,  §  21 ;  Euseb.  Prcep. 
 Evanfj.  iii.  4;  Brugsch,  Liber  Metemjjsychoseos,  p. 
 33 ;  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  iv.  295,  v.  26, 
 476).  But  it  came  also  out  of  the  dark  earth,  after 
 the  flood  of  waters,  and  was  therefore  the  symbol 
 of  life  rising  out  of  death  in  new  forms;  of  a  resur- 
 rection and  a  metempsychosis  (Brugsch,  /.  c.  and 
 vEgypt.  Alterth.  p.  32).  So  it  was  that  not  in 
 Egypt  only,  but  in  Etruria  and  Assyria  and  other 
 countries,  the  same  strange  emblems  reappeared 
 (Dennis,  Cities  and  Sepidciires  of  Etruria,  Introd. 
 Ixxiii. ;  Layard,  Nineveh,  ii.  214).  So  it  was  that 
 men,  forgetting  the  actual  in  the  ideal,  invested  it 
 with  the  title  of  Moi'o'yivr)s  (Horapollo,  Hierogl. 
 1.  c.  10),  that  the  more  mystic,  dreamy,  Gnostic 
 sects  adopted  it  into  their  symbolic  language,  and 
 that  semi-Christian  Scarabrei  are  found  with  the 
 sacred  words  Jao,  Sahaoth,  or  the  names  of  angels 
 engraved  on  them  (I'ellermann,  Ueber  die  Scara- 
 bden-Geminen,  i.  10),  just  as  the  mystic  Tciu,  or 
 Crux  ans:iia,  appears,  in  spite  of  its  original  mean- 
 ing, on  the  monuments  of  Christian  Egypt  (Wil- 
 kinson, Anc.  Egypt,  v.  283).  In  older  Egypt  it 
 was,  at  any  rate,  connected  with  the  thought  of 
 Divine  illumination,  found  in  frequent  union  with 
 the  symbolic  eye,  the  emblem  of  the  providence  of 
 God,  and  with  the  hieroglyphic  invocation,  "  Tu 
 radians  das  vitam  puris  hominibus "  (Brugsch's 
 translation,  Liber  Metemps.  p.  33).  It  is  obvious 
 that  in  such  a  case,  as  with  the  Crux  ansata,  the 
 Scarabajus  is  neither  an  idol,  nor  identified  with 
 idolatry.'^  It  is  simply  a  icord,  as  much  the  mere 
 exponent   of  a  thought  as  if  it  were  spoken  with 
 
 adopting  Michaelis's  view.  In  his  Prop/ieten  (i.  15)  he 
 speaks  of  the  high-priest  fixing  his  gaze  on  them  to 
 bring  himself  into  the  prophetic  state. 
 
 c  The  symbolic  language  of  one  nation  or  age  will, 
 of  course,  often  be  unintelligible,  and  even  seem  lu- 
 dicrous to  another.  They  will  fcike  for  granted  that 
 men  have  worshipped  what  they  manifestly  respected. 
 Would  it  be  easy  to  make  a  Mohammedan  understiind 
 clearly  the  meaning  of  the  symbols  of  the  four  Evan- 
 gelists as  used  in  the  ornamentations  of  English, 
 churches  ?  Would  an  English  congregation,  not 
 archaeologists,  bear  to  be  told  that  they  were  to  en 
 
URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 the  lips,  or  written  in  phonetic  characters.  There 
 is  nothing  in  its  Egyptian  origin  or  its  animal  form 
 which  need  startle  us  any  more  than  the  like  origin 
 of  the  Ark  or  the  Thummim,  or  the  like  form  in 
 the  BuAZEN  Sekpknt,  or  the  fourfold  symbolic 
 figures  of  the  Cherubim.  It  is  to  be  added,  that 
 Joseph  by  his  marriage  with  the  daughter  of  the 
 priest  of  On,  the  priest  of  the  sun-god  l!a,  and 
 Moses,  as  ha\ing  been  trained  in  the  learning  of 
 the  Egyptians,  and  probably  among  the  priests  of 
 the  same  ritual,  and  in  the  same  city,  were  certain 
 to  be  acquainted  with  the  sculptured  icord,  and 
 with  its  meaning.  For  the  latter,  at  any  rate,  it 
 would  need  no  description,  no  interpretation.  Deep 
 set  in  the  Chaslttn,  between  the  gems  that  repre- 
 sented Israel,  it  would  set  forth  that  Light  and 
 Truth  were  the  centre  of  the  nation's  life.  Belong- 
 ing to  the  breastplate  of  judgment,  it  would  bear 
 witness 'that  the  high-priest,  in  his  oracular  acts, 
 needed  above  all  things  spotless  integrity  and  Di- 
 vhie  illumination.  It  fulHUed  all  the  conditions 
 and  taught  all  the  lessons  which  Jewish  or  Chris- 
 tian writers  have  connected  with  the  Urini. 
 
 (6.)  (A.)  Have  we  any  data  for  determining 
 the  material  of  the  symbol?  The  following  tend 
 at  least  to  a  definite  conclusion:  (1.)  If  the  stone 
 was  to  represent  light,  it  would  probably  be  one  in 
 which  light  was,  as  it  w'ere,  embodied  in  its  purest 
 form,  colorless  and  clear,  diamond  or  rock  crystal. 
 (2.)  The  traditions  quoted  above  from  Suidas  and 
 Epiphanius  confirm  this  inference."  (.3.)  It  is  ac- 
 cepted as  part  of  ZuUig's  theory,  by  Uean  Trench 
 {Epistles  to  titVKih  Churches,  p.  125).''  The 
 •'  white  stone  "  of  liev.  ii.  17,  like  the  other  rewards 
 of  him  that  overcometh,  declared  the  truth  of  the 
 Universal  Priesthood.  ^Vhat  had  been  the  peculiar 
 treasure  of  the  house  of  Aaron  should  be  bestowed 
 freely  on  all  believers. 
 
 (13.)  Another  fact  connected  with  the  symbol 
 enables  us  to  include  one  of  the  best  supported  of 
 the  Jewish  conjectures.  As  seen  on  the  liodies  of 
 Egyptian  priests  and  others  it  almost  always  bore 
 an  inscription,  the  name  of  the  god  whom  the  priest 
 served,  or,  more  commonly,  an  invocation,  from  the 
 Book  of  the  Dead,  or  some  other  Egyptian  liturgy 
 (Brugsch,  Lib.  Mtieinps.  1.  c).  There  would  here, 
 also,  be  an  analogy.  Upon  the  old  emblem,  ceas- 
 ing, it  may  be,  to  bear  its  old  distinctive  form,"-' 
 there  might  be  the  "new  name  written,"  the  Tet- 
 ragrammaton,  the  Sheiii-haiamcplioi-ash  of  later 
 Judaism,  directing  the  thoughts  of  the  priest  to  the 
 true  Lord  of  Life  and  Light,  of  whom,  unlike  the 
 Lord  of  Life  in  the  temples  of  Egypt,  there  was  no 
 form  or  similitude,  a  Spirit,  to  be  worshipped  there- 
 fore in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
 
 (7.)  We  are  now  alile  to  approach  the  question, 
 "  In  what  way  was  the  Urim  instrumental  in  en- 
 abling the  high-priest  to  give  a  true  oracular 
 response?  "  We  may  dismiss,  with  the  more 
 thoughtful  writers  already  mentioned   (Kimchi,  on 
 
 grave  on  their  seals  a  pelicau  or  a  fish,  as  a  type  of 
 Christ?  (Clem.  Alex.  Pcedatx.  ill.  11,  §  59.) 
 
 a  The  words  of  Epiphanius  are  remarkable,  t;  Sij- 
 XttxTt;,  OS  i\v  6  aSa/iAaj. 
 
 b  For  the  reasons  stated  above,  in  discussing 
 Ziillig's  theory,  the  writer  finds  himself  unable  to 
 =igree  with  Dean  Trench  as  to  the  diamond  being  cer- 
 tainly the  stone  in  question.  So  far  as  he  knows,  no 
 liamonds  have  as  yet  been  found  among  the  jewels  of 
 Egypt.  Rock  crystal  seems  therefore  the  more  prob- 
 able of  the  two. 
 
 c  Changes  in  the  form  of  an  emblem  till  it  ceases  to 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM     3361 
 
 2  Sam.  XXV.,  may  be  added),  the  gratuitous  prod- 
 igies which  have  no  existence  but  in  the  fancies  of 
 Jewish  or  Christian  dreamers,  the  articulate  voice 
 and  the  illumined  letters.  There  remains  the  con- 
 clusion that,  in  some  way,  they  helped  him  to  rise 
 out  of  all  selfishness  and  hypocrisy,  out  of  all  cere- 
 monial routine,  and  to  pass  into  a  state  analogous 
 to  that  of  the  later  prophets,  and  so  to  become 
 capable  of  a  new  spiritual  illumination.  The  modus 
 (perandi  in  this  case  may,  it  is  believed,  be  at  least 
 illustrated  by  some  lower  airalugies  in  the  less  com- 
 mon phenomena  of  consciousness.  Among  the 
 most  remarkable  of  such  phenomena  is  the  change 
 produced  by  concentrating  the  thoughts  on  a  single 
 idea,  by  gazing  steadfastly  on  a  single  fixed  point. 
 The  brighter  and  more  dazzling  the  point  upon 
 which  the  eyes  are  turned  the  more  rapidly  is  the 
 change  produced.  The  life  of  perception  is  inter- 
 rupted. Sight  and  hearing  fail  to  fulfill  their 
 usual  functions.  The  mind  passes  into  a  state  of 
 profound  abstraction,  and  loses  all  distinct  per- 
 sonal consciousness.  Though  not  asleep  it  may 
 see  visions  and  dream  dreams.  Under  the  sug- 
 gestions of  a  will  for  the  time  stronger  than  itself, 
 it  may  be  played  on  like  "  a  thinking  automaton."  '' 
 When  not  so  played  on,  its  mental  state  is  deter- 
 mined by  the  "dominant  ideas"  which  were  im- 
 pressed upon  it  at  the  moment  when,  by  its  own 
 act,  it  brought  about  the  abnormal  change  (Dr. 
 W.  B.  Carpenter  in  QunrlerUi  Rev.  xciii.  510,  522). 
 (8.)  We  are  familiar  with  these  phenomena 
 chiefly  as  they  connect  themselves  with  the  lower 
 forms  of  mysticism,  with  the  tricks  of  electro-biolo- 
 gists, and  other  charlatans.  Even  as  such  they 
 present  pohits  of  contact  with  many  facts  of  inter- 
 est in  Scriptural  or  Ecclesiastical  History.  Inde- 
 pendent of  many  facts  in  monastic  legends  of  which 
 this  is  the  most  natural  explanation,  we  may  see  in. 
 the  last  great  controversy  of  the  Greek  Church  a 
 startling  proof  how  terrible  may  be  the  influence  of 
 these  morbid  states  when  there  is  no  healthy  moral 
 or  intellectual  activity  to  counteract  them.  For 
 three  hundred  years  or  more  the  rule  of  the  Abbot 
 Simeon  of  Xerocercos,  prescribing  a  process  precisely 
 analogous  to  that  described  above,  was  adopted  by 
 myriads  of  monks  in  Mount  Athos  and  elsewhere. 
 The  Christianity  of  the  East  seemed  in  danger  of 
 giving  its  sanction  to  a  spiritual  suicide  like  that  of 
 a  Buddhist  seeking,  as  his  highest  blessedness,  the 
 annihilation  of  the  Nirwfina.  Plunged  in  profound 
 abstraction,  their  eyes  fixed  on  the  centre  of  their 
 own  bodies,  the  Quietists  of  the  14th  century  {r\ffv 
 Xao-Toi,  oficpaKo^vxoi)  enjoyed  an  unspeakable 
 tranquillity,  believetl  themselves  to  be  radiant  with 
 a  Divine  glory,  and  saw  visions  of  the  uncreated 
 light  which  had  shone  on  Tabor.  Degrading  as 
 the  whole  matter  seems  to  us,  it  was  a  serious  dan- 
 ger then.  Tlie  mania  spread  like  an  epidemic,  even 
 among  the  laity.  Husbands,  fathers,  men  of  letters, 
 and  artisans  gave  themselves  up  to  it.     It  was  im- 
 
 bear  any  actual  resemblance  to  its  original  prototype, 
 are  familiar  to  all  students  of  symbolism.  The  Crux 
 ansata,  the  Tau,  which  was  the  sign  of  life,  is,  perhaps, 
 the  most  striking  instance  (\V'ilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  v. 
 283).  Gesenius,  in  like  manner,  in  his  Monumenta 
 Pliceiiicia,  ii.  68,  69,  70),  gives  engravings  of  Scarabaei 
 in  which  nothing  but  the  oval  form  is  left. 
 
 f/  The  word  is  used,  of  course,  in  its  popular  sense, 
 as  a  toy  moving  by  machinery.  Strictly  speaking, 
 automatic  force  is  just  the  element  which  has,  for  the 
 time,  disappeared. 
 
3362    URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 portant  enough  to  be  the  occasion  of  repeated  Syn- 
 ods, in  which  empercjrs,  patriarchs,  bishops  were 
 sager  to  talve  part,  and  mostly  in  favor  of  tlie  prac- 
 tice, and  the  corollaries  deduced  from  it  (i'leury, 
 J  list.  Ecchs.  xcv.  9;  Gieseler,  Cli.  Hist.  §  121); 
 Maury,  La  Mtujie  et  I'Astmlot/ie,  pp.  423,  430). 
 
 (9.)  It  is  at  least  conceivable,  however,  that, 
 within  given  limits,  and  in  a  given  stage  of  human 
 progress,  tlie  state  wliicli  seems  so  abnormal  miglit 
 have  a  use  as  well  as  an  abuse.  In  the  opinion  of 
 one  of  the  foremost  among  modern  physiologists, 
 the  processes  of  hypnotism  would  have  their  place 
 in  a  perfect  .system  of  therapeutics  (  QiKirf.  Jitview, 
 1.  c).  It  is  open  to  us  to  believe  that  they  may, 
 in  the  less  perfect  stages  of  the  spiritual  history  of 
 mankind,  have  helped  instead  of  hindering.  In  this 
 way  only,  it  may  be,  the  sense-bound  spirit  could 
 abstract  itself  from  the  outer  world,  and  take  up 
 the  attitude  of  an  e.xpectant  tranquillity.  The  e)i- 
 tire  suppression  of  human  consciousness,  as  in  tlie 
 analogous  phenomena  of  an  ecstatic  state  [comp. 
 Tuance],  the  surrender  of  the  entire  man  to  be 
 played  upon,  as  the  hand  plays  upon  the  harp,  niay, 
 at  one  time,  have  been  an  actual  condition  of  the 
 inspired  state,  just  as  even  now  it  is  the  only  con- 
 ception wliich  some  minds  are  capable  of  forming 
 of  the  fact  of  inspiration  in  any  form  or  at  any  time. 
 Bearing  tliis  in  mind,  we  may  represent  to  our- 
 selves the  process  of  seeking  counsel  "  by  Urim." 
 The  question  lirought  was  one  affecting  the  well- 
 being  of  the  nation,  or  its  army,  or  its  king.  The 
 inquirer  spoke  in  a  low  whisper,  asking  one  ques- 
 tion only  at  a  time  (Gem.  Hab.  Joina,  in  Mede, 
 I.  c).  The  high-priest,  fixing  his  gaze  on  the 
 "gems  oracular"  that  lay  '-on  his  heart,"  fixed 
 his  thoughts  on  the  Light  and  the  Perfection  which 
 they  symbolized,  on  the  Holy  Name  inscribed  on 
 them.  The  act  was  itself  a  prayer,  and,  like  otlier 
 prayers,  it  might  be  answered. «  After  a  time,  he 
 passed  into  the  new,  mysterious  half-ecstatic  state.'' 
 All  disturbing  elements  —  selfishness,  prejudice, 
 the  fear  of  man  —  were  eliminated.  He  received 
 the  insight  which  he  craved.  ]\Ien  trusted  in  his 
 decisions  as  with  us  men  trust  the  judgment  which 
 has  been  purified  by  prayer  for  the  help  of  the 
 Eternal  Spirit,  more  than  that  which  grows  only 
 out  of  debate,  and  policy,  and  calculation. 
 
 (10.)  It  is  at  least  interesting  to  think  that  a 
 like  method  of  passing  into  this  state  of  insight 
 was  practiced  unljlanied  in  the  country  to  which  we 
 have  traced  the  Urim,  and  among  the  people  for 
 whose  education  this  process  was  adapted.  We 
 need  not  think  of  Joseph,  the  pure,  the  heaven- 
 taught,  the  blameless  one,  as  adopting,  still  less  as 
 falsely  pretending  to  adopt,  the  dark  arts  of  a  sys- 
 tem of  imposture  (Gen.  xliv.  5,  15).  For  one  into 
 whose  character  the  dream-element  of  prevision  en- 
 tered so  largely,  there  would  be  nothing  strange  in 
 the  use  of  meilia  by  whicli  he  might  superinduce 
 at  will  the  dream-state  wliich  had  come  to  him  in 
 his  youth  unbidden,  with  no  outward  stimulus ;  and 
 the  use  of  the  cup  by  which  Joseph  "divined  "  was 
 
 a  The  prayer  of  Ps.  xliii.  3,  "  Send  out  thy  light 
 and  tby  truth,''  though  it  does  not  contain  the  words 
 Urim  and  Thummim,  speaks  obviously  of  that  wliich 
 they  symbolized,  and  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  echo 
 of  the  high-priest"s  prayer  in  a  form  in  which  it  might 
 te  used  by  any  devout  worshipper. 
 
 6  The  striking  exclamation  of  Saul,  "  Withdraw  thy 
 .aand  1  "  when  it  seemed  to  him  that  the  Urim  was  no 
 longer  needed,  was  clearly  an  interruption  of  this  pro- 
 cess (1  Sam   xiv.  19). 
 
 URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 precisely  analogous  to  that  which  has  been  now  de- 
 scribed. To  fill  the  cup  with  water,  to  fix  the  eye  on 
 a  gold  or  silver  coin  in  it,  or,  more  frequently,  on 
 the  dazzling  reflection  of  tlie  sun's  rays  from  it,  was 
 an  essential  part  of  tlie  KuAiKo/xavreia,  the  Aereai/o- 
 fxavTiia  of  ancient  systems  of  divination  (JIaury, 
 L(t  Miujk  et  I'A.strvloi/U',  pp.  420-428;  Kalisch, 
 Genesis,  in  loc).  In  tlie  most  modern  form  of  it. 
 among  the  magicians  of  Cairo,  the  boy's  fixed  gaze 
 upon  tlie  few  drops  of  ink  in  tlie  palm  of  his  hand 
 answers  the  same  purpose  and  produces  the  .same 
 result  (Lane,  Alud.  Eijypt.  i.  c.  xii.).  The  differ- 
 ence between  the  true  and  the  false  in  these  cases 
 is,  however,  far  greater  tlian  the  superficial  resem- 
 blance. To  enter  upon  that  e.xceptional  state  with 
 vague,  stupid  curiosity,  may  lead  to  an  imbecility 
 wliich  is  tlie  sport  of  every  casual  suggestion.  To 
 pass  into  it  with  feelings  of  hatred,  passion,  lust, 
 m:iy  add  to  their  power  a  fearful  intensity  for  evil, 
 till  the  state  of  the  soul  is  demoniac  rather  than 
 human.  To  enter  upon  it  as  the  liigh-])riest  en- 
 tered, with  the  prayer  of  faith,  might  in  like  man- 
 ner intensify  wliat  was  noblest  and  truest  in  him, 
 and  fit  him  to  be  for  the  time  a  vessel  of  the  Truth. 
 
 (11.)  It  may  startle  us  at  first  to  think  that  any 
 physical  media  should  be  used  in  a  divine  order  to 
 bring  about  a  spiritual  result,  still  more  that  those 
 media  should  be  the  same  as  are  found  elsewhore 
 in  systems  in  wliich  evil  is  at  least  preponderanv. ; 
 yet  here  too  Scripture  and  History  present  us  with 
 very  striking  analogies.  In  other  forms  of  worship, 
 in  the  mysteries  of  Isis,  in  Orpliic  and  Corybantian 
 revels,  music  was  used  to  work  the  worshippers  into 
 a  state  of  orgiastic  frenzy.  In  the  mystic  frater- 
 nity of  Pythagoras  it  was  employed  before  sleep, 
 that  their  visions  might  be  serene  and  pure  (Plu- 
 tarch, De  Is.  et  Osir.  ad  fin.).  Yet  tlie  same  in- 
 strumentality bringing  aliout  a  result  analogous  at 
 least  to  the  latter,  probaldy  embracing  elements  of 
 both,  was  used  from  the  first  in  the  gatherings  of 
 the  prophets  (1  Sam.  x.  5).  It  soothed  the  vexed 
 spirit  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xvi.  23);  it  wrought  on  him, 
 when  it  came  in  its  choral  power,  till  lie  too  burst 
 into  the  ecstatic  song  (1  Sam.  xix.  20-24).  With 
 one  at  least  of  the  greatest  of  the  [irophets  it  was 
 as  much  the  preparation  for  his  receiving  light  and 
 guidance  from  above  as  the  gaze  at  the  Urim  had 
 been  to  the  high-priest.  "  Elisha  said  .... 
 '  Now  bring  me  a  minstrel.'  And  it  came  to  pass, 
 when  the  minstrel  played,  that  the  hand  of  the 
 Lord  came  upon  him"  (2  K.  iii.  15).=  - 
 
 (12.)  Tlie  facts  just  noticed  point  to  the  right 
 answer  to  the  question  which  yet  remains,  as  to 
 the  duration  of  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim,  and 
 the  reasons  of  their  withdrawal.  The  statement  of 
 Josephus  [Ant.  iii.  7,  §§  5-7)  that  they  had  con- 
 tinued to  shine  with  supernatural  lustre  till  within 
 two  hundred  years  of  his  own  time  is  simply  a 
 Jewisli  faille,  at  variance  with  the  direct  confession 
 of  their  absence  on  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
 (Lzr.  ii.  03),  and  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees 
 (1  Mace.  iv.  40,  xiv.  41).     As  little  reliance  is  to 
 
 c  That  "  the  hand  of  the  Lord  "  was  the  recognized 
 expression  for  this  awful  consciousness  of  the  Divine 
 presence  we  find  from  the  visions  of  Ezekiel  (i.  3,  iii. 
 14,  et  at.),  and  1  K.  xviii.  46.  It  helps  us  obviously 
 to  determine  the  sense  of  the  corresponding  phrase, 
 "  with  the  linger  of  God,"  in  Ex.  xxxi.  18.  Comp. 
 too,  the  equivalence,  in  our  Lord's  teaching,  of  the  two 
 forms.  "  If  I  with  the  finger  of  God  (Luke  xi.  20  = 
 '  by  the  Spirit  of  God,'  Matt.  xii.  28)  cast  out  devils  '' 
 
URIM  AND  THUMMIM 
 
 be  placed  on  the  assertion  of  other  Jewish  writers, 
 that  they  continued  in  activity  till  the  time  of  the 
 Babylonian  Exile  {Sota,  p.  43;  Midrash  on  Sony 
 of  Sol.  in  Buxtorf,  I.  c).  It  is  quite  inconceiva- 
 ble, had  it  been  so,  that  tliere  shoukl  have  been  no 
 single  instance  of  an  oracle  thus  obtained  during 
 the  whole  liistory  of  the  monarchy  of  Judah.  The 
 facts  of  the  case  are  few,  but  they  are  decisive. 
 Never,  after  the  days  of  David,  is  the  ephod,  with 
 its  appendages,  connected  with  counsel  from  Jeho- 
 vah (so  Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  i.  5).  Abiathar  is  tlie 
 last  priest  who  habitually  uses  it  for  that  purpose 
 (1  Sam.  xxiii.  G,  9,  xxviii.  G;  probably  also  2  Sam. 
 xxi.  1).  His  name  is  identified  in  a  strange  tradi- 
 tion embodied  in  the  Talmud  {Sunliadr.  f.  19,  1, 
 in  Lightfoot,  xi.  380)  with  the  departed  glory  of 
 the  Urim  and  tiie  Thummim.  And  the  explana- 
 tion of  these  facts  is  not  far  to  seek.  Men  had  been 
 taught  by  this  time  another  pi'ocess  by  which  the 
 spiritual  might  at  once  assert  its  independence  of 
 the  sensuous  life,  and  yet  retain  its  distinct  per- 
 sonal consciousness  —  a  ])rocess  less  liable  to  per- 
 version, leading  to  higher  and  more  continuous 
 illumination.  Through  the  sense  of  hearing,  not 
 through  that  of  sight,  was  to  be  wrought  the 
 subtle  and  mysterious  change.  Music  —  in  its 
 marvelous  variety,  its  subtle  sweetness,  its  spirit- 
 stirring  power  —  was  to  be,  for  all  time  to  come, 
 the  lawful  help  to  the  ecstasy  of  praise  and  prayer, 
 opening  heart  and  soul  to  new  and  higher  thoughts. 
 The  utterances  of  the  prophets,  speaking  by  the 
 word  of  the  Lord,  were  to  supersede  the  oracles  of 
 the  Urim.  The  change  which  aljout  this  period 
 passed  over  the  speech  of  Israel  was  a  witness  of 
 the  moral  eleviltion  which  that  other  change  in- 
 volved. "  He  that  is  now  called  a  prophet  was 
 beforetime  called  a  seer"  (1  Sam.  ix.  9).  To  be 
 the  mouth-piece,  the  spokesman  of  Jehovah  was 
 higher  than  to  see  visions  of  the  future,  however 
 clear,  whether  of  the  armies  of  Israel  or  the  lost 
 asses  of  Kish. 
 
 (13.)  The  transition  was  probably  not  made 
 witliout  a  struggle.  It  was  accompanied  by,  even 
 if  it  did  not  in  part  cause  the  transfer  of  the  Pon- 
 tificate from  one  branch  of  the  priestly  family  to 
 another.  The  strange  opposition  of  Abiathar  to 
 the  will  of  David,  at  the  close  of  his  reign,  is  intel- 
 ligible on  the  hypothesis  that  he,  long  accustomed, 
 as  holding  the  Ephod  and  the  Urim,  to  guide  the 
 king's  councils  by  his  oracular  answers,  viewed, 
 with  some  approach  to  jealousy,  the  growing  influ- 
 ence of  the  prophets,  and  the  accession  of  a  prince 
 who  had  grown  up  under  their  training.  With  him 
 at  any  rate,  so  far  as  we  have  any  knowledge,  the 
 Urim  and  the  Thummim  passed  out  of  sight.  It 
 was  well,  we  may  believe,  that  they  did  so.  To 
 have  the  voices  of  the  prophets  in  their  stead  was 
 to  gain  and  not  to  lose.  So  the  old  order  changed, 
 giving  place  to  the  new.  If  the  fond  yearning  of 
 the  Israelites  of  the  Captivity  had  lieen  fulfilled, 
 and  a  priest  had  once  again  risen  with  Urim  and 
 with  Thunnnim,  they  would  but  have  taken  their 
 place  among  the  "  weak  and  beggarly  elements'' 
 which  were  to  pass  away.  All  attempts,  from  the 
 Jiule  of  Simeon  to  the  Spirilunl  Exercises  of  Loy- 
 ola, to  invert  the  Divine  order,  to  purchase  spiritual 
 ecstasies  by  the  sacrifice  of  intellect  and  of  con- 
 
 «  In  adilition  to  the  authorities  cited  in  the  text, 
 one  has  to  be  named  to  which  the  writer  has  not  been 
 able  to  get  access,  and  which  he  Icuows  only  through 
 the  Thesaurus  oi  Qesmins.     Bellermanu,  whose  treat- 
 
 USURY 
 
 5363 
 
 science,  have  been  steps  backward  into  darkness, 
 not  forward  into  light.  So  it  was  tiiat  God,  in 
 many  diftijrent  measures  and  many  different  f.isli- 
 ions  (TToAujuepiis  Kal  iroAvrpoTrcos),  spake  in  time 
 past  unto  the  Fathers  (Heb.  i.  1).  So  it  is,  ui 
 words  that  embody  the  same  thought,  and  draw 
 from  it  a  needful  lesson,  that 
 
 "  God  fulfills  himself  in  many  ways, 
 Lest  one  good  custom  should  coiTupt  the  world."  a 
 
 E.  H.  P. 
 
 >    o  i- 
 
 *■  USDUM  (*Jk.*wt:    Usduin).     This  is  the 
 
 name  of  the  remarkable  mountain  of  rock-salt  near 
 the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  called  by  the 
 natives  Hajr  Usduin,  Kltaslim  Usduin,  and  Jebel 
 Usduin.  The  name  is  generally  accepted  as  a  tra- 
 dition of  Sodom.  It  has  been  fully  described  by 
 Kobinson  and  Tristram,  and  its  probable  connec- 
 tion with  the  saltness  and  volume  of  the  sea,  and 
 with  the  site  of  Sodom,  has  been  discussed  in  pre- 
 ceding articles.  Tra\ellers  refer  particularly  to  the 
 fantastic  shapes  into  which  some  of  its  pinnacles 
 and  angles  are  worn  by  the  action  of  the  elements. 
 The  latest  visitor.  Captain  Warren,  collected  "  most 
 l)eautiful  specimens  of  salt  crystals,  like  icicles,  only 
 pointing  towards  the  sky,  which  melted  away  at 
 Jerusalem."  Captain  W.  has  been  the  first,  in 
 modern  times,  to  accomplish  the  ascent  of  the  cliff 
 SMtli  (Masada)  on  the  east  (  Quart.  Stutem.  Pal. 
 Ex.  Fund,  No.  iv.  pp.  141-150).  [Masaua; 
 SiDDiJi,  Vale  of;  Sodoji.]  S.  W. 
 
 USUK-Y.  Information  on  the  subject  of  lend- 
 ing and  borrowing  will  be  found  under  Loan.  It 
 need  only  be  remarked  here  that  the  practice  of 
 mortgaging  land,  sometimes  at  exorbitant  interest, 
 grew  up  among  the  Jews  during  the  Captivity,  in 
 direct  violation  of  the  Law  (Lev.  xxv.  36,  37;  Ez. 
 xviii.  8,  13,  17).  We  find  the  rate  reaching  1  in 
 100  per  month,  corresponding  to  the  Koman  cen- 
 tesinue  usurce,  or  12  per  cent,  per  aimum —  a  rate 
 which  Niebuhr  considers  to  have  been  borrowed 
 from  abroad,  and  which  is,  or  has  been  till  quite 
 lately,  a  very  usual  or  even  a  minimum  rate  in  the 
 East  (Nieb.  Hist,  of  Rome,  iii.  57,  Engl.  Tr.; 
 Volney,  Tntv.  ii.  254,  note  ;  Chardin,  Voy.  vi. 
 122).  Yet  the  law  of  the  Kunin,  like  the  Jewish, 
 forbids  all  usury  (Lane,  M.  E.  i.  132;  Sale,  Kurdn, 
 c.  30).  The  laws  of  Menu  allow  18  and  even  24 
 per  cent,  as  an  interest  rate;  but,  as  was  the  law 
 in  Egypt,  accumulated  interest  was  not  to  exceed 
 twice  the  original  sum  lent  {L'ltvs  of  Menu,  c.  viii. 
 140,  141,  15f ;  Sir  W.  Jones,  Woks,  vol.  iii.  p. 
 295;  Diod.  i.  9,  79).  This  Jewish  practice  was 
 annulled  by  Nehemiah,  and  an  oath  exacted  to  in- 
 sure its  discontinuance  (Neh.  v.  3-13 ;  Selden,  Be 
 Jur.  Nat.  vi.  10;   Hofmann,  Lex.  "Usura"). 
 
 H.  W.  P- 
 
 *  The  word  usury  has  come  in  modern  English 
 to  mean  excessive  interest  upon  money  loaned, 
 either  formally  illegal,  or  at  least  oppressive.  At 
 the  time  of  the  Anglican  version,  however,  the 
 word  did  not  bear  this  sense,  but  meant  simply 
 interest  of  any  kind  upon  money,  thus  strictly  cor- 
 responding to  the  Hebrew  TI^5  (and  also  St^D 
 which  is  used  in  Neh.  v.  7).     It  is  to  be  remem- 
 
 ises  on  the  Scaraboei  are  quoted  above,  has  also  writ 
 ten,  Die  Urim  unit  Thummim,  die  ciUesten  Gemmen. 
 He  apparently  identifies  the  Urim  and  Thummim  with 
 the  gems  of  the  breastplate. 
 
3364 
 
 UTA 
 
 bered  that  tlie  Jewish  law  prohibiting  usury,  for- 
 bade the  taking  of  any  interest  wliatever  for  money 
 lent,  without  regard  to  the  rate  of  interest;  but 
 this  prohibition  related  only  to  the  Jews,  their 
 brethren,  and  there  was  no  command  regulating 
 either  the  taking  of  interest,  or  its  amount,  from 
 foreigners.  F.  G. 
 
 U'TA  (OuTct:  Utha),  1  Esdr.  v.  30.  It  appears 
 to  be  a  corruption  of  Akkuis  (Ezr.  ii.  45). 
 
 U'THAI  [2  syl]  ("^0^27  [Jehovah  succors] : 
 Tvwel:  [Vat.  T(a>iii\]  Alex.  rtoSi:  Othei).  1. 
 The  son  of  Aiuniihud,  of  the  children  of  I'harez, 
 the  son  of  Judah  (1  C'hr.  ix.  4).  He  appears  to 
 have  been  one  of  tliose  who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem 
 after  the  Captivity.  In  Neh.  xi.  4  he  is  called 
 "  Athaiah  the  son  of  Uzziah." 
 
 2.  (Ouflai;  [Vat.  Ovdi']  Uthai.)  One  of  the 
 sons  of  Bigvai,  who  returned  in  the  second  cara- 
 van with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  14). 
 
 U'THI  {ohe'i),  1  Esdr.  viii.  40.  [Uthai,  2.] 
 *  UTTER,  Lev.  v.  1,  where  he  who  does  not 
 "utter"  iniquity  is  said  to  commit  iniquity,  i.  e. 
 if  he  does  not  make  it  known  or  disclo.se  it.  This 
 sense  of  the  word  now  seldom  occurs  except  in 
 speaking  of  the  "  utterance  "  or  circulation  of 
 money  and  stocks.  H. 
 
 UZ  (V^^  [./■'■'"■'/"^  in  frees,  Dietr.] :  Oi/'C; 
 [Rom.  Vat.  om.  in  1  Chr.;  Alex.]  fly:  Us,  Has). 
 This  name  is  applied  to  —  1.  A  son  of  Aram 
 (Gen.  X.  23),  and  consequently  a  grandson  of  Shem, 
 to  whom  he  is  immediately  referred  in  the  more 
 concise  genealogy  o(  the  Chronicles,  the  name  of 
 Aram  being  omitted «  (1  Chr.  i.  17).  2.  A  son 
 of  Nahor  by  Milcah  (Gen.  xxii.  21;  A.  V.  Huz). 
 
 3.  l^ris,  ""ris-  IIus.]  A  son  of  Dishan,  and 
 grandson  of  Seir  (Gen.  xxxvi.  28 ;   [1  Chr.  i.  42] ). 
 
 4.  [f]  'AutTiTis;  Sin.  n  AvatiTis-  Hus.]  Tlie 
 country  in  which  Job  lived  (Job  i.  1).  As  the 
 genealogical  statements  of  the  book  of  Genesis  are 
 undoubtedly  ethnological,  and  in  many  instances 
 also  geographical,  it  may  be  fairly  surmised  that 
 the  coincidence  of  names  in  the  above  cases  is 
 not  accidental,  l)ut  points  to  a  fusion  of  various 
 branches  of  the  Shemitic  race  in  a  certain  locality. 
 This  surmise  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance  that 
 other  connecting  links  may  be  discovered  between 
 the  same  branches.  For  instance,  Nos.  1  and  2 
 have  in  common  the  names  Aram  (comp.  Gen.  x. 
 2-3,  xxii.  21)  and  Maachah  as  a  geographical  desig- 
 nation in  connection  with  the  former  (1  Chr.  xix. 
 6),  and  a  personal  one  in  connection  with  the  lat- 
 ter (Gen.  xxii.  24).  Nos.  2  and  4  have  in  common 
 the  names  Buz  and  Buzite  (Gen.  xxii.  21;  Joli 
 xxxii.  2),  Chesed  and  Chasdim  (Gen.  xxii.  22; 
 Job  i.  17,  A.  V.  "  Chakteans  ").  Sluiah,  a 
 nephew  of  Nahor,  and  Shuhite  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  Job 
 ii.  11),  and  Kedem,  as  the  country  whither  Abra- 
 ham sent  Shuah,  together  with  his  other  children 
 by  Keturah,  and  also  as  the  country  where  .lob 
 lived  (Gen.  xxv.  6;  Job  i.  3).  Nos.  3  and  4, 
 again,  have  in  common  Eliphaz  (Gen.  xxxvi.  10; 
 Job  ii.  11),  and  Teman  and  Temanite  (Gen.  xxxvi. 
 11;  Job.  ii.  11).  The  ethnological  fact  embodied 
 in  the  above  coincidences  of  names  appears  to  be  as 
 
 «  The  LXX.  inserts  the  words  kcu  viol  'Apaiu.  before 
 the  notice  of  Uz  and  his  brothers  :  but  for  this  there 
 Is  no  authority  in  the  Hebrew.  For  a  parallel  instance 
 Df  conciseness,  see  ver.  4. 
 
 b  The   printed   edition  of  the  Mardxid  writes  the 
 
 UZAL 
 
 follows :  Certain  branches  of  the  Aramaic  family 
 being  both  more  ancient  and  occupying  a  more 
 northerly  position  than  the  others,  coalesced  with 
 branches  of  the  later  Abrahamids,  holding  a  some- 
 what central  position  in  Mesopotamia  and  Pales- 
 tine, and  again  with  branches  of  the  still  later 
 Edomites  of  the  south,  after  they  had  become  a 
 distinct  race  from  the  Abrahamids.  This  conclu- 
 sion would  receive  confirmation  if  the  geographical 
 position  of  Uz,  as  described  in  the  book  of  Job, 
 harmonized  with  the  probability  of  such  an  amal- 
 gamation. As  far  as  we  can  gather,  it  lay  either 
 east  or  southeast  of  Palestine  (Job  i.  3;  see 
 Bene-Kedem);  adjacent  to  the  Saba;ans  ind  the 
 Chaldaeans  (Job  i.  15,  17),  consequently  niithwaid 
 of  the  southern  Arabians,  and  westward  of  the 
 Euphrates;  and,  lastly,  adjacent  to  the  Edomites 
 of  Mount  Seir,  who  at  one  period  occupied  Uz, 
 probably  as  conquerors  (Lam.  iv.  21),  and  whose 
 troglodyte  habits  are  probably  described  in  Job 
 XXX.  (),  7.  The  position  of  the  country  may  further 
 be  deduced  from  the  native  lands  of  Job's  friends, 
 Eliphaz  the  Temanite  being  an  Idumaan,  Elihu 
 the  Buzite  being  probably  a  neighbor  of  the  Chal- 
 dseans,  for  Buz  and  Chesed  were  brothers  (Gen. 
 xxii.  21,  22),  and  Bildad  the  Shuhite  being  one  of 
 the  Bene-Kedem.  Whether  Zophar  the  Naamathite 
 is  to  be  connected  with  Naamah  in  the  trilie  of 
 Judah  (Josh.  xv.  41)  may  be  regarded  as  prob- 
 lematical: if  he  were,  the  conclusion  would  be 
 further  established.  From  the  above  data  we  infer 
 that  the  land  of  Uz  corresponds  to  the  Ar tibia 
 Deserla  of  classical  geography,  at  all  events  to  so 
 much  of  it  as  lies  north  of  the  30th  parallel  of  lati- 
 tude. This  district  has  in  all  ages  been  occupied 
 by  nomadic  tribes,  who  roam  from  the  borders  of 
 Palestine  to  the  Euphrates,  and  northward  to  the 
 confines  of  Syria.  Whether  the  name  Uz  sur- 
 vived to  classical  times  is  uncertain:  a  tribe  named 
 ^sitse  (AiVrrai)  is  mentioned  by  Ptolemy  (v.  19, 
 §  2);  this  Bochart  identifies  with  the  Uz  of  Scrip- 
 ture by  altering  the  reading  into  Kvairai  {Phtdey, 
 ii.  8);  but,  with  the  exception  of  the  rendering  in 
 tlie  LXX.  {iv  x'^P"'  '''V  AvcririSi,  Job  i.  1;  comp. 
 xxxii.  2),  there  is  nothing  to  justify  such  a  change. 
 Gesenius  {Tlies.  p.  1003)  is  satisfied  with  the  form 
 .^Esitse  as  sufficiently  corresponding  to  Uz. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 U'ZAI  [2  syl.]  ("'T^S  [robusq :  EvCdi;  [Vat.] 
 FA.  Evei'  Ozi).  The  father  of  Palal,  who  as- 
 sisted Nehemiah  in  rebuilding  the  city  wall  (Neh. 
 iii.  25). 
 
 U'ZAL  (bnS  [see  TWte]  ;  Samar.  bt^'W: 
 [Rom.  in  Gen.  A^/StjA;  in  1  Chr.  omits;  Alex.] 
 A<(7)A,  Ai^rii/'-  Uznl,  Huzal).  The  sixth  son  of 
 Joktan  (Gen.  X.  27;  1  Chr.  i.  21),  whose  settle- 
 ments are  clearly  traced  in  the  ancient  name  of 
 San'a,   the  capital  city  of  the  Yemen,  which  was 
 
 originally    Awzal,     U'Sj'     (Ibn-Khaldoon,    ap. 
 
 Caussin,  Essai,  i.  40,  foot-note ;  Mardsid,  s.  v. ; 
 Gesen.  Lex.  s.  v.;  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  etc.).*  It 
 has  disputed  the  right  to  be  the  chief  city  of  the 
 kingdom  of  Sheba  from  the  earUest  ages  of  which 
 
 name  Oozal,  and  says,  "It  is  said  that  its  name  was 
 Oozal ;  and  when  the  Abyssinians  arrived  at  it,  and 
 saw  it  to  be  beautiful,  they  said  '  San'a,'  which  means 
 beautiful :   therefore  it  was  called  Stn'a." 
 
CJZZA 
 
 wiy  traditions  have  come  down  to  us;  the   rival 
 
 Dities  being  Sheba  (the  Arabic  Seba),  and 
 Sephak  (or  Zatiir).  UnUke  one  or  both  of 
 these  cities  which  passed  occasionally  into  the 
 hands  of  tlie  people  of  Hazakmaveth  (Had- 
 raniiiwt),  it  seems  to  have  always  belonged  to  the 
 people  of  Sheba ;  and  from  its  position  in  the  cen- 
 tre of  the  best  portion  of  that  kingdom,  it  must 
 always  have  been  an  important  city,  though  prob- 
 ably of  less  importance  than  Seba  itself  Niebuhr 
 {Ih'scr.  p.  201  fF. )  says  that  it  is  a  walled  town, 
 situate  in  an  elevated  country,  in  lat.  15°  2',  and 
 with  a  stream  (after  heavy  rains)  running  through 
 it  (from  the  mountain  of  Sawafee,  El-Idreesee,  i. 
 50),  and  another  larger  stream  a  little  to  the  west, 
 and  country-houses  and  villages  on  its  banks.  It 
 has  a  citadel  on  the  site  of  a  famous  temple,  called 
 Beyt-Ghumdan,  said  to  have  been  founded  by 
 Shoorabeel;  which  was  razed  by  order  of  Othman. 
 The  houses  and  palaces  of  San'ii,  Niebuhr  says, 
 are  finer  than  those  of  any  other  town  of  Arabia; 
 and  it  possesses  many  mosques,  public  baths,  and 
 caravanserais.  El-Idreesee's  account  of  its  situa- 
 tion and  flourishing  state  (i.  ■  50,  quoted  also  by 
 l]ocha,rt,  Phaleg,  xxi.)  agrees  with  that  of  Niebuhr. 
 Yakout  says,  "  San'a  is  the  greatest  city  in  the 
 Yemen,  and  the  most  beautiful  of  them.  It  re- 
 sembles Damascus,  on  account  of  the  abundance 
 of  its  trees  (or  gardens),  and  the  rippling  of  its 
 waters"  {.Uushtai-uk,  s.  v,  comp.  Ibn-Kl-Wardee 
 M.S.);  and  the  author  of  the  Murdsid  (said  to  be 
 Yakoot)  says,  "  It  is  the  capital  of  the  Yemen 
 and  tlie  best  of  its  cities;  it  resembles  Damascus, 
 on  account  of  the  abundance  of  its  fruits  "  (s.  v. 
 San'a). 
 
 Uzal,  or  Awzal,  is  most  probably  the  same  as 
 the  Auzara  (Av^apa),  or  Ausara  (Aucapa)  of  the 
 classics,  by  the  conunon  permutation  of  /  and  r. 
 Pliny  (H.  A^  xii.  16)  speaks  of  this  as  belonging 
 to  the  Gebanitffi;  and  it  is  curious  that  the  ancient 
 division  (or  "  mikhhif  ")  of  the  Yemen  in  which  it 
 is  situate,  and  whicli  is  called  Sinhan,  belonged  to 
 a  very  old  confederacy  of  tribes  named  Jenb,  or 
 Genb,  whence  the  Gebanitie  of  the  classics;  another 
 division  lieing  also  called  Mikhlaf  Jenb  {Mitrdsid, 
 s.  vv.  mikhlaf  and  jenb,  and  Mus/iiarak,3.  v.  jenb). 
 Bochart  accepts  Ausara  as  the  classical  form  of 
 Uzal  (Plxdeg,  1.  c),  but  his  derivation  of  the  name 
 of  the  Gebanitse  is  purely  fanciful. 
 
 Uzal  is  perhaps  referred  to  by  Ez.  (xxvii.  19), 
 translated  in  the  A.  V.  "  Javan,"  going  to  and  fro, 
 
 Heb.  ^TISJD.  A  city  named  Yiiwan,  or  Yiiwan, 
 in  the  Yemen,  is  mentioned  in  the  Kdnioos  (see 
 Gesenius,  Lt^x.  and  Ijochart,  I.  c).  Commentators 
 are  divided  in  opinion  respecting  the  correct  read- 
 ing of  this  passage ;  but  the  most  part  are  in  favor 
 of  the  reference  to  Uzal.     See  also  Javan. 
 
 E.  S.  P. 
 
 UZ'ZA  (S-T17  [strength]:' h(i;  [Vat.NaamO 
 Ozii).  1.  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of  Eiiud  (1 
 Chr.  vLii.  7).  The  Targum  on  Esther  makes  him 
 one  of  the  ancestors  of  Mordecai. 
 
 2.  CoCa-)  Elsewhere  called  UzzAii  (1  Chr. 
 xiii.  7,  0,  10,  11). 
 
 3.  i'hCd}  [Vat.  Ouo-a],  '0^1  [Vat.  FA.  OCei]  ! 
 [Alex.]  A^a,  O^t:  Aza.)  The  children  of  Uzza 
 were  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  returned  with 
 Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  49;  Neh.  vii.  51). 
 
 4.  (n-|17:  'ofa;  Alex.  Afa:    Oza).     Properly 
 '  Uzzah."     As  the  text  now  stands,  Uzzah  is  a 
 
 uzzAH  3365 
 
 descendant  of  Merari  (1  Chr.  vi.  29  [14]);  but 
 there  appears  to  be  a  gap  in  the  verse  by  which 
 the  sons  of  Gershom  are  omitted,  for  Libni  and 
 Sliimei  are  elsewhere  descendants  of  Gershom,  and 
 not  of  Merari.     Perhaps  he  is  the  same  as  Zina 
 
 (713"^^),  or  Zizah  (HrT),  the  son  of  Shimei  (1 
 Chr.  xxiii.  10,  11);  for  these  names  evidently  de- 
 note the  same  person,  and,  in  Hebrew  character. 
 are  not  unlike  Uzzah. 
 
 UZ'ZA,  THE  GARDEN  OF  (S|3:  "J3  : 
 KTjTTOs  '0{,a-  hortus  Aza).  The  spot  in  which 
 Manasseh  king  of  Judah,  and  his  son  Amon,  were 
 both  buried  (2  K.  xxi.  18,  2(J).  It  was  the  garden 
 attached  to  Manasseh's  palace  (ver.  18,  and  2  Chr. 
 xxxiii.  20),  and  therefore  presumably  was  in  Jeru- 
 salem. The  fact  of  its  mention  shows  that  it  was 
 not  where  the  usual  sepulchres  of  the  kings  were. 
 No  clew,  however,  is  afforded  to  its  position.  Jose- 
 phus  {Ant.  X.  3,  §  2)  simply  reiterates  the  state- 
 ment of  the  Bible.  It  is  ingeniously  suggested  by 
 Cornelius  a  Lapide,  that  the  garden  was  so  called 
 from  being  on  the  spot  at  which  Uzza  died  during 
 the  removal  of  the  Ark  from  Kirjath-jearim  to 
 Jerusalem,  and  which  is  known  to  have  retained 
 his  name  for  long  after  the  event  (2  Sam.  vi.  8). 
 There  are  some  grounds  for  placing  this  in  Jerusa- 
 lem, and  possibly  at  or  near  the  threshing-floor  of 
 Araunah.      [Naciion,  vol.  iii.  p.  2(151,  and  note.] 
 
 The  scene  of  Uzza's  death  was  itself  a  threshing- 
 floor  (2  Sam.  vi.  6),  and  the  change  of  the  word 
 
 from  this,  goren,  "jT?2)  into  gan,  ]|l  garden,  would 
 not  be  difficult  or  improbable.  But  nothing  cer- 
 tain can  be  said  on  the  point. 
 
 Bunsen  {Bibelicerk,  note  on  2  K.  xxi.  18)  on  the 
 strength  of  the  mention  of  "  palaces  "  in  the  same 
 paragraph  with  Ophel  (A.  V.  "  forts  ")  in  a  denun- 
 ciation of  Isaiah  (xxxii.  14),  asserts  that  a  palace 
 was  situated  in  the  Tyropoeon  valley  at  the  foot  of 
 the  Temple  mount,  and  that  this  was  in  all  proba- 
 bility the  i)alace  of  Manasseh  and  the  site  of  the 
 Garden  of  Uzza.  Surely  a  slender  foundation  for 
 such  a  superstructure  !  G 
 
 UZ'ZAH  (W-tl7  in   2    Sam.  vi.   3,    elsewhere 
 
 n-Ty  Istrength]:  '0(d.\  Alex.  A(a,  \C(a:  Oza). 
 One  of  the  sons  of  Abinadab,  in  whose  house  at 
 Kirjath-jearim  the  Ark  rested  for  20  years.  The 
 eldest  son  of  Abinadab  (1  Sam.  vii.  1)  seems  to 
 have  been  Eleazar,  who  was  consecrated  to  look 
 after  the  Ark.  Uzzah  probably  was  the  second, 
 and  Ahio"  the  third.  They  both  accompanied  its 
 removal,  when  David  first  undertook  to  carry  it  to 
 Jerusalem.  Ahio  apparently  went  before  the  cart 
 —  the  new  cart  (1  Chr.  xiii.  7)  —  on  which  it 
 was  placed,  and  Uzzah  walked  by  the  side  of  the 
 cart.  The  procession,  with  all  manner  of  music, 
 advanced  as  far  as  a  spot  variously  called  "  the 
 threshing-floor"  (1  Chr.  xiii.  9),  "the  threshing- 
 floor  of  Chidon  "  {ibid.  Heb.  LXX.;  Jos.  Ant.  vii. 
 4,  §  2),  "the  threshing-floor  of  Nachor  "  (2  Sam. 
 vi.  6,  LXX.),  "the  threshing-floor  of  Nachon " 
 {ibid.  Heb. ).  At  this  point  —  perhaps  slipping  over 
 the  smooth  rock  —  the  oxen  (or,  LXX.,  "the 
 calf")  stumbled  (Heb.)  or  "overturned  the  Ark  " 
 (LXX.).     Uzzah  caught  it  to  prevent  its  falling. 
 
 He  died  immediately,  by  the  side  of  the  Ark. 
 His  death,  by  whatever  means  it  was  accomplished, 
 was  so  sudden  and  awful  that,  in  the  sacred  lan- 
 
 a  The  LXJf  for  "  Ahio,"  read  "  his  brethren." 
 
3366 
 
 TJZZEN-SHERAH 
 
 guage  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  ascribed  directly 
 to  the  Uivine  anger.  "  The  anger  of  the  Loi'd  was 
 kindled  against  IJzzah,  and  God  smote  him  there." 
 
 "  For  his  error,''  ^^I'n'^P,  adds  the  present 
 Hebrew  text,  not  the  LXX. ;  "  because  he  pnt  his 
 hand  to  the  Ark  "  (1  Chr.  xiii.  10).  The  error  or 
 sin  is  not  explained.  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  4,  §  2) 
 makes  it  to  be  because  he  touched  the  Ark  not  being 
 a  priest.  Some  have  supposed  that  it  was  because 
 the  Ark  was  in  a  cart,  and  not  (Ex.  xxv.  14)  carried 
 on  the  shoulders  of  the  Levites.  But  the  narrative 
 seems  to  imply  that  it  was  simply  the  rough,  hasty 
 handling  of  llui  sacred  coffer.  The  event  produced 
 a  deep  sensation.  David,  with  a  mixture  of  awe 
 and  resentment,  was  afraid  to  carry  the  Ark  fur- 
 ther; and  the  place,  apparently  changing  its  ancient 
 name,"  was  henceforth  called  "  Perez-Uzzah,"  the 
 "  breaking,"  or  '"  disaster  "  of  Uzzah  (2  Sam.  vi. 
 8;  1  Chr^  xiii.  11;  Jos.  Ant.  vii.  4,  §  2). 
 
 There  is  no  proof  for  the  assertion  that  Uzzah 
 was  a  Levite.  A.  P.  S. 
 
 UZ'ZEN-SHE'RAH  (nntl^t??  ^.W  [perh. 
 ear  or  cor7iei-  of  Slienili]  :  koI  viol  '0(d.v,  l.fnpa,-- 
 Ozensnra).  A  town  founded  or  reliuilt  by  Sberah, 
 an  Kphraimite  woman,  the  daughter  either  of 
 Iiphraim  himself  or  of  Beriah.  It  is  named  only 
 in  1  Chr.  vii.  24,  in  connection  with  the  two  Beth- 
 horons.  The.se  latter  still  remain  probably  in  pre- 
 cisely their  aiicient  position,  and  called  by  almost 
 exactly  their  ancient  names;  but  no  trace  of  Uzzen- 
 Sherah  appears  to  have  been  yet  discovered,  unless 
 it  be  in  Beit  Sim.  which  is  sliown  in  the  maps  of 
 Van  de  Velde  and  Tobler  as  on  the  N.  side  of  the 
 Wady  Suleimnn,  ahout  three  miles  S.  W.  of 
 Beitiir  et-tahta.  It  is  mentioned  by  Robinson  (in 
 the  lists  in  Appendix  to  vol.  iii.  of  Bibl.  lies.,  1st 
 ed.,  p.  120);  and  also  by  Tobler  (3tte  Wanderung, 
 
 p.  188).        [SlIEKAH.] 
 
 The  word  ozeti  in  Hebrew  signifies  an  "ear;" 
 and  assuming  that  vzzen  is  not  merely  a  modifi- 
 cation of  some  unintelligible  Canaanite  word,  it 
 may  point  to  an  earlike  projection  or  other  natural 
 feature  of  the  ground,  'i'he  same  may  be  said  of 
 Aznoth-Tabor,  in  which  aznoth  is  perhaps  related 
 to  the  same  root. 
 
 It  has  been  proposed  to  identify  Uzzen-Sherah 
 with  Timnath-Serah ;  but  the  resemblance  between 
 
 the  two  names  exists  only  in  English  (rTHMti?  and 
 
 n"lD),  and  the  identification,  tempting  as  it  is 
 from  the  fact  of  Sherah  being  an  ancestress  of 
 Joshua,  camiot  lie  entertained. 
 
 It  will  be  obserxed  that  the  LXX.  (in  both 
 MSS.)  give  a  diflTerent  turn  to  the  passage,  by  the 
 
 addition  of  the  word  "'S^T  before  Uzzen.  Sherah, 
 in  the  former  part  of  the  verse,  is  altogether  omit- 
 ted in  the  Vat.  MS.  (Mai),  and  in  the  Alex,  given 
 as  Saapo.  Cj. 
 
 UZ'ZI  C'-Tl?,  short  for  n*;T;y,  .hhovah  is  my 
 stren<]1h.  Compare  Uzziah,  Uzziel).  1.  ('O^'i; 
 [Vat.  O^ef,  in  Ezr.,  'O^'Oi;,  i/en. ;  Vat.  Saouia; 
 Alex.  oCii/i:]  Ozi.)  Son  of  Bukki.  and  father  of 
 Zerahiali,  in  the  line  of  the  high-priests  (1  Chr.  vi. 
 5,  6,  51;  Ezr.  vii.  4).  Thougli  Uzzi  was  the  lineal 
 ancestor  of  Zadok,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  was 
 
 a  For  the  conjecture  that  this  was  the  Garden  of 
 DzzA  mentioned  in  the  later  history,  see  the  preceding 
 Wticle. 
 
 UZZIAH 
 
 ever  high-priest.  Indeed,  he  is  included  in  those 
 descendants  of  Phinehas  between  the  high-priest 
 Abishua  {^\w<Tr)iTos)  and  Zadok,  who,  according  to 
 Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  1),  were  private  persons.  He 
 must  have  been  contemporary  with,  but  rather 
 earlier  than  Eli.  In  Josephus's  list  Uzzi  is  un- 
 accountably transformed  into  Jo^'ATHA^^ 
 
 2.  [Vat.  corrupt.]  Son  of  Tola  the  son  of 
 Issachar,  and  father  of  five  sons,  who  were  all  chief 
 men  (1  Chr.  vii.  2,  3). 
 
 3.  ['oCf:  Vat.  oCfi.]  Son  of  Bela,  of  the  tribe 
 of  Benjamin  (I  Chr.  vii.  7). 
 
 4.  Another,  or  the  same,  from  whom  descended 
 some  Benjamite  houses,  which  were  settled  at 
 Jerusalem  after  the  return  from  Captivity  (1  Chr. 
 ix.  8). 
 
 5.  [Vat.  FA.  O^ei:  Azzi.']  A  Levite,  son  of 
 Bani,  and  overseer  of  the  Levites  dwelhng  at  Jeru- 
 salem, in  the  time  of  Neheniiah  (Neh.  xi.  22). 
 
 6.  [Vat.  FA.i  Alex,  omit;  Kom.  FA.3  '0^': 
 Azzi.'\  A  priest,  chief  of  the  father's-house  of 
 Jedaiah,  in  the  time  of  Joiakim  the  high-priest 
 (Neh.  xii.  19). 
 
 7.  [i;om.  Vat.  FA.i  Alex,  omit;  FA.s  '0^1  = 
 Azzi.]  One  of  the  priests  who  assisted  Ezra  in 
 the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  xii. 
 42).     Perhaps  the  same  as  the  preceding. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 UZZI'A  (N*-T]?^  [strength  of  Jehovah]:  'oCia; 
 [Vat.  FA.]  Alex.  b(eia:  Ozia).  One  of  David's 
 guard,  and  apparently,  from  his  appellation  "  the 
 Ashterathite,"  a  native  of  Ashtaroth  beyond  Jor- 
 dan (1  Chr.  xi.  44). 
 
 UZZI'AH  (n*-T27  [see  above]:  ' K^apias  in 
 Kings  [Vat.  in  2  K.  xv.  30,  A;x;as,  34,  ©{"eias], 
 'OQas  [Vat.  O^'eias,  exc.  2  Chr.  xxvi.  1,  OxoC«"w; 
 Kom.  "O^'fi'as,  Is.  i.  1,  vi.  1,  and  so  Sin.  i.  1  and 
 vii.  1]  elsewhere;  Alex.  OxoC"**  in  2  K.  xv.  13: 
 Ozias,  but  Azarias  in  2  K.  xv.  13). 
 1.  Uzziah  king   of  Judah.     In   some  passages 
 
 his  name  appears  in  the  lengthened  form  -in^-Tl? 
 (2  K.  XV.  32,  34;  2  Chr.  xxvi.,  xxvii.  2;  Is.  i.  1, 
 vi.  1,  vii.  1),  which  Gesenius  attributes  to  an  error 
 
 of  the  copyists,  iT'Tl?  and  iT^Tr^?  being  nearly 
 identical,  or  "  to.  an  exchange  of  the  names  as 
 spoken  by  the  common  people,  ss  being  pronounced 
 for  sc."  This  is  possible,  but  there  are  other  in- 
 stances of  the  princes  of  Judah  (not  of  Israel) 
 changing  their  names  on  succeeding  to  the  throne, 
 undoubtedly  iri  the  latter  history,  and  perhaps  in 
 the  earlier,  as  Jehoahaz  to  Ahaziah  (2  Chr.  xxi. 
 17),  though  this  example  is  not  quite  certain. 
 [Ahaziah,  2.]  After  the  murder  of  Amaziah, 
 his  son  Uzziah  was  chosen  by  the  people  to  occupy 
 the  vacant  throne,  at  the  age  of  16 ;  and  for  the 
 greater  part  of  his  long  reign  of  52  years  he  lived 
 in  the  fear  of  God,  and  showed  himself  a  wise, 
 active,  and  pious  ruler.  He  began  his  reign  by  a 
 successful  expedition  against  his  father's  enemies, 
 the  Edomites,  who  had  revolted  from  Judah  in  Je- 
 horam's  time,  80  years  before,  and  penetrated  as 
 far  as  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akalia,  where  he 
 took  the  important  place  of  Elath,  fortified  it,  and 
 probably  established  it  as  a  mart  for  foreign  com- 
 merce, which  Jehoshaphat  had  failed  to  do.  This 
 success  is  recorded  in  the  Second  Book  of  Kings 
 (xiv.  22),  Init  from  tiie  Second  Book  of  ChroniclcB 
 (xxvi,  1,  &c.)  we  learn  much  more.  Uzziah  waged 
 I  other  victorious  wars  in  the  south,  especially  against 
 
UZZIAH 
 
 Lhe  Meliutiim,  oi  people  of  Maan,  and  the  Arabs 
 of  Gurbiuil.  A  Ibrtified  town  named  Maan  still 
 exists  ill  Arabia  I'etrica,  south  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
 The  situation  of  Gurbaal  is  unknown.  (For  con- 
 jectures, more  or  less  probable,  see  Ewald,  Gescli. 
 i.  321;  JNlKiiumM;  Gurbaal.)  Such  enemies 
 would  hardly  maintain  a  long  resistance  after  the 
 defeat  of  so  formidable  a  tribe  as  the  Edomites. 
 Towards  the  west,  Uzziah  fought  with  equal  suc- 
 cess against  the  Philistines,  leveled  to  the  ground 
 the  walls  of  Gath,  Jabneh,  and  Ashdod,  and 
 founded  new  fortified  cities  in  the  Philistine  terri- 
 torj'.  Nor  was  he  less  vigorous  in  defensive  than 
 offensive  operations.  He  strengthened  the  walls 
 of -lerusalem  at  their  weakest  points,  furnished  them 
 with  formidalile  engines  of  war,  and  equipped  an 
 army  of  307, -500  men  with  the  best  inventions  of 
 military  art.  Hi  was  also  a  great  patron  of  agri- 
 culture, dug  wells,  built  towers  in  the  wilderness 
 for  the  protection  of  the  flocks,  and  cultivated  rich 
 vineyards  and  arable  land  on  his  own  account. 
 He  never  deserted  the  worship  of  the  true  God, 
 and  was  much  inflnenced  by  Zechariah,  a  pvopliet 
 who  is  only  mentioned  in  connection  with  him  (2 
 Chr.  xxvi.  5);  for,  as  he  must  have  died  before 
 Uzziah,  he  cannot  be  the  same  as  the  Zechariah 
 of  Is.  viii.  2.  So  the  southern  kingdom  was  raised 
 to  a  condition  of  prosperity  which  it  had  not  known 
 since  the  death  of  Solomon ;  and  as  the  power  of 
 Israel  was  gradually  falling  away  in  the  latter 
 period  of  .Jehu's  dynasty,  that  of  .ludah  extended 
 itself  over  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  and  other 
 tribes  beyond  Jordan,  from  whom  Uzziali  exacted 
 tribute.  See  2  Chr.  xxvi.  S,  and  Is.  xvi.  1-5,  fmni 
 which  it  would  appear  that  the  annual  triliute  of 
 sheep  (2  K.  iii.  4)  was  revived  either  during  this 
 reign  or  soon  after.  The  end  of  Uzziah  was  less 
 prosperous  than  his  beginning.  Elated  with  his 
 splendid  career,  he  determined  to  burn  incense  on 
 the  altar  of  God,  but  was  opposed  by  the  high- 
 priest  Azariah  and  eighty  others.  (See  Ex.  xxx. 
 7,  8;  Num.  xvi.  40,  xviii.  7.)  The  king  was  en 
 raged  at  their  resistance,  and,  as  be  pressed  forward 
 with  his  censer,  was  suddenly  smitten  with  lepros\ , 
 a  disease  which,  according  to  Gerkich  {in  lucn),  is 
 often  brought  out  by  violent  excitement.  In  2  K. 
 XV.  5  we  are  merely  told  that  "  the  Lord  smote 
 the  king,  so  that  he  was  a  leper  unto  the  day  of 
 his  death,  and  dwelt  in  a  several  house;  "  but  his 
 inv.asion  of  the  priestly  office  is  not  specified.  This 
 catastrophe  compelled  Uzziah  to  reside  outside  the 
 city,  so  that  the  kingdom  was  administered  till  his 
 death  by  his  son  Jothani  as  regent.  Uzziah  was 
 buried  "with  his  fathers,"  yet  a[)pareiitly  not  act- 
 ually in  the  royal  sepulchres  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  23). 
 During  his  reign  an  earthquake  occurred,  which, 
 though  not  mentioned  in  the  historical  hooks,  was 
 apparently  very  serious  in  its  consequences,  for  it 
 is  alluded  to  as  a  chronological  epoch  l)y  .\inos 
 (i.  1),  and  mentioned  in  Zech.  xiv.  5,  as  a  con- 
 vulsion from  which  the  people  "fled."'  [Kahtii- 
 QUAKE.}  Joseiihus  {Ant.  ix.  10,  §  4)  connects  it 
 witli  Uzziah's  sacrilefrious  attempt  to  offer  incense, 
 but  this  is  very  unlikely,  as  it  cannot  have  occurred 
 later  than  tlie  17th  year  of  his  reign  [Amos], 
 The  fir-it  six  chapters  of  Isniali's  prophecies  belong 
 to  tills  reign,  and  we  are  told  (2  t'hr.  xxvi.  22) 
 that  a  full  account  of  it  was  written  by  that  prophet. 
 Some  notices  of  the  state  of  Judali  at  this  time 
 may  also  be  obtained  from  the  contemporary  proph- 
 ets Hosea  and  .\mos,  though  botli  of  these  labored 
 more  particularly  in  Israel.     We  gather  from  their 
 
 uzziEL  3367 
 
 writings  (Hos.  iv.  15,  vi.  11:  Am.  vi.  1),  as  well 
 as  from  the  early  chapters  of  Isaiah,  that  though 
 the  condition  of  the  southern  kingdom  was  far 
 superior,  morally  and  religiously,  to  that  of  the 
 northern,  3'et  that  it  was  by  no  means  free  from 
 the  vices  which  are  apt  to  accompany  wealth  and 
 prosperity.  At  the  same  time  Hosea  conceives 
 bright  hopes  of  the  blessings  which  were  to  arise 
 from  it;  and  though  doubtless  these  hopes  pointed 
 to  something  far  higher  than  the  brilliancy  of 
 Uzziah's  administration,  and  though  the  return  of 
 the  Israelites  to  "  David  their  king"  can  only  be 
 adequately  explained  of  Christ's  kingdom,  yet  the 
 prophet,  in  contemplating  the  condition  of  Judah 
 at  this  time,  was  plainly  cheered  by  the  thought 
 that  there  God  was  really  honored,  and  his  wor- 
 sliip  visibly  maintained,  and  that  therefore  with  it 
 was  bound  up  every  hope  that  his  promises  to  his 
 people  would  be  at  last  fulfilled  (Hos.  i.  7,  iii.  3). 
 It  is  to  be  observed,  with  reference  to  the  general 
 ch.aracter  of  Uzziah's  I'eign,  that  the  writer  of  the 
 Second  Book  of  Chronicles  distinctly  states  that 
 his  lawless  attempt  to  burn  incense  was  the  only 
 exception  to  the  excellence  of  liis  administration 
 (2  Chr.  xxvii.  2).  His  reign  lasted  from  B.  c. 
 808-9  to  7.J0-7.  G.  E.  L.  C. 
 
 2.  CoCia;  [Vat.  O^eiaO  Ozi"S-)  A  Kohathite 
 Levite,  and  ancestor  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi.  24  [9]). 
 
 3.  [Vat.  FA.  O^'eia.]  A  priest  of  the  sons  of 
 Ilarini,  who  had  taken  a  foreign  wife  in  the  days 
 of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  21). 
 
 4.  ('A0'a;  [Vat.  A^fS;  FA.  K^^^va;  Alex. 
 O^ia'.]  Aziam.)  Father  of  Athaiah,  or  Uthai 
 (Xeh.  xi.  4). 
 
 5.  (^n*-T27  :  'o^/as  [Vat.  -^^i-]  :  Ozins.) 
 F'ather  of  Jehonathan,  one  of  David's  overseers  (1 
 Chr.  xxvii.  25). 
 
 UZ'ZIEL  PS''-T3?:  -op^A;  [Vat.  oC^'tjA, 
 exc.  Num.  iii.  19,  1  Chr.  xxiii.  20,  0(,'i7;A,  Lev.  x. 
 4,  A^iTjA;  Alex.  O^^eirjA  in  Ex.  vi.  18:]  Ozid: 
 "God  is  my  strengtli'').  1.  Fourth  son  of  Ko- 
 hath,  father  of  Jlisliael,  Elzaphan  or  Elizaphan, 
 and  Zithri,  and  uncle  to  Aaron  (Ex.  vi.  18,  22; 
 Lev.  X.  4).  The  fiimily  descended  from  him  were 
 called  Uzzielites,  and  F.lizaphan,  the  chief  of  this 
 family,  was  also  the  chief  father  of  the  Kohathites, 
 by  Divine  direction,  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Num. 
 iii.  19,  27,  30),  although  he  seems  to  have  been 
 the  youngest  of  Kohath's  .sons  (1  Chr.  vi.  2,  18). 
 The  house  of  Uzziel  numbered  112  adults,  under 
 Animinadab  their  chief,  at  the  time  of  the  bring- 
 ing up  of  the  Ark  to  Jerusalem  by  King  David  (1 
 Chr.  XV.  10). 
 
 2.  [Vat.  0^€i7)A.]  A  Simeonite  captain,  son 
 of  Ishi,  who,  after  the  successful  expedition  of  his 
 tribe  to  the  valley  of  (Jedor,  went  with  his  three 
 lirethrcn,  at  the  he.ad  of  five  hundred  men  in  the 
 days  of  Hezekiah,  to  Mount  Seir,  and  smote  the 
 remnant  of  the  Amalekites,  who  had  survived  the 
 previous  slaughter  of  Saul  and  David,  and  took 
 possession  of  their  country,  anrl  dwelt  there  "  unto 
 this  day"  (1  Chr.  iv.  42;  see  BL-rtheau). 
 
 3.  Head  of  a  Benjamite  house,  of  the  sons  of 
 Bela  (1  Chr.  vii.  7). 
 
 4.  [Vat.  A(,apar)A.]  A  musician,  of  the  sons 
 of  Ileman,  in  David's  reign  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4),  else- 
 where called  Azareel  (ver.  18).  Compare  Uzziah 
 and  Azariah. 
 
 5.  [Vat.  0^ei')7A.]  A  Levite,  of  the  .sons  of 
 Jeduthun,  who  in  the  days  of  King  Hezekiah   ook 
 
3368 
 
 UZZIELITES,  THE 
 
 ftn  active  part  in  cleansing  and  sanctifying  the 
 Temple,  after  all  the  pollutions  introduced  by  Ahaz 
 (2  Chr.  xxix.  14,  I'J). 
 
 6.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit.]  Son  of  Harhaiah, 
 probably  a  priest  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah,  who 
 took  part  in  repairing  the  wall  (Neh.  iii.  8).  He 
 is  described  as  "  of  the  goldsmiths,"  i.  e.  of  those 
 priests  whose  hereditary  office  it  was  to  repair  or 
 make  the  sacred  vessels,  as  may  be  gathered  from 
 the  analogy  of  the  apothecaries,  mentioned  in  the 
 same  verse,  who  are  defined  (1  Chr.  ix.  30).  The 
 goldsmiths  are  also  mentioned  (Neh.  iii.  31,  32). 
 That  this  Uzziel  was  a  priest  is  also  probable  from 
 his  name  (No.  1),  and  from  the  circumstance  that 
 Malchiah,  the  goldsmith's  son,  was  so. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 UZ'ZIELITES,  THE  C'bH''-Tl"'rr  [patr.]: 
 6  'OCir}\,  '0C")A;  [Vat.  O^eirjA.:]  Oziclike,  Ozi- 
 helihe).  The  descendants  of  Uzziel,  and  one  of  the 
 four  great  families  into  which  the  Kohathites  were 
 divided  (Num.  iii.  27;  1  Chr.  xxvi.  23). 
 
 V. 
 
 *  VAGABOND  at  first  meant  only  »  wan- 
 derer," "fugitive."  It  is  applied  thus  to  Cain 
 (Gen.  iv.  12),  and  to  the  sons  of  persecutors  (Ps. 
 cix.  10),  as  being  doomed  to  rove  from  place  to 
 place.  The  exorcists  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  13)  are 
 so  called,  not  opprobriously  per  se,  but  as  going 
 about  (irepiepxifj-^poi)  from  one  city  to  another  in 
 the  practice  of  tlieir  arts.  H. 
 
 VAJEZA'THA  (SH^T  [see  below]  :  Za.l3ov- 
 6aios  \  [Alex.  Za^ouyada  ■■,]  FA.  Za^ovSedaV. 
 Jezatlin).  One  of  the  ten  sons  of  Haman  whom 
 the  Jews  slew  in  Shushan  (Esth.  ix.  9).     Gesenius 
 
 derives  his  name  from  the  Pers.  S'«.^>,  "white," 
 
 Germ,  weiss ;  but  Flirst  suggests  as  more  proI)able 
 that  it  is  a  compound  of  the  Zend  vahja.  "better," 
 an  epithet  of  the  Ized  haoma,  and  znta,  "born," 
 and  so  "  born  of  the  Ized  haoma."  But  such  ety- 
 mologies are  little  to  be  trusted. 
 
 VALE,  VALLEY.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to 
 state  that  these  words  signify  a  hollow  swell  of 
 ground  Itetween  two  more  or  less  parallel  ridges  of 
 high  land.  Vale  is  the  poetical  or  provincial  form. 
 It  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  centre  of  a 
 valley  should  usually  be  occupied  by  the  stream 
 which  forms  the  drain  of  the  high  land  on  either 
 side,  and  from  this  it  commonly  receives  its  name; 
 as,  the  Valley  of  the  Tiiames,  of  the  Colne,  of  the 
 Nile.  It  is  also,  though  comparatively  seldom, 
 called  after  some  town  or  remarkable  object  which 
 it  contains;  as,  the  Vale  of  Evesham,  the  Vale  of 
 White-horse. 
 
 Valley  is  distinguished  from  other  terms  more  or 
 less  closely  related;  on  the  one  hand,  from  "  glen," 
 "  ravine,"  "  gorge,"  or  "  deli,"  which  all  express  a 
 depression  at  once  more  abrupt  and  smaller  than 
 a  valley;  on  the  other  hand,  from  "plain,"  which, 
 though  it  may  be  used  of  a  wide  valley,  is  not 
 ordinarily  or  necessarily  so. 
 
 It  is  to  be  regretted  that  with  this  quasi-precision 
 of  meaning  the  term  should  not  have  been  employed 
 with  more  restriction  in  the  Authorized  Version  of 
 the  Bible. 
 
 The  structure  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Holy 
 Land  do"?  not  lend  itself  to  the  formation  of  valleys 
 
 VALE,  VALLEY 
 
 in  our  sense  of  the  word.  The  abrupt  transitions 
 of  its  crowded  rocky  hills  preclude  the  existence  of 
 any  extended  sweep  of  valley ;  and  where  one  such 
 does  occur,  as  at  Hebron,  or  on  the  southeast  of 
 Gerizim,  the  irregular  and  unsymmetrical  positions 
 of  the  inclosing  hills  rob  it  of  the  character  of  a 
 valley.  The  nearest  approach  is  found  in  the  space 
 between  the  njountains  of  (ierizim  ai]d  Ebal,  which 
 contains  the  town  of  Nablus,  the  ancient  Shechem. 
 This,  however,  by  a  singular  chance,  is  not  men- 
 tioned in  the  Bible.  Another  is  the  "  Valley  of 
 .lezreel  "  —  the  undulating  hollow  which  intervenes 
 between  Gilboa  {Jebel  Fulcua),  and  the  so-called 
 Little  Hermon  (Jebel  Dulnj). 
 
 Valley  is  employed  in  the  Authorized  Version  to 
 render  five  distinct  Hebrew  words. 
 
 1.  'Emek  (p^^  :  (papayl,  KoiXds,  also  very 
 rarely  Tre^iov,  auKwv,  and  E^e/c  or  AjxtK)-  This 
 appears  to  approach  more  nearly  to  the  general 
 sense  of  the  English  word  than  any  other,  and  it  is 
 satisfactory  to  find  that  our  translators  have  in- 
 variably, without  a  single  exception,  rendered  it  by 
 "  valley."  Its  root  is  said  to  have  the  force  of 
 deepness  or  seclusion,  which  Professor  Stanley  has 
 ingeniously  urged  may  be  accepted  in  the  sense  of 
 lateral  rather  than  of  vertical  extension,  as  in  the 
 modern  expression, — a  deep  house,  a  deep  recess. 
 It  is  connected  with  several  places;  but  the  only 
 one  which  can  be  identified  with  any  certainty  is 
 the  Einek  of  Jezreel,  already  mentioned  as  one  of 
 the  nearest  approaches  to  an  English  valley.  The 
 other  Kineks  are:  Achor.  Ajalon,  Baca,  Berachah, 
 Bethrehob,  Elah,  Gibeon,  Hebron,  Jehoshaphat, 
 Keziz,  Kephaim,  Shaveh,  Siddini,  Succoth,  and  of 
 ha-Charuts  or  "  the  decision  "  (Joel  iii.  14). 
 
 2.  Gai  or  Ge  (S^2  or  M\2  :  (papayi)-  Of  this 
 natural  featui'e  there  is  fortunately  one  example 
 remaining  which  can  be  identified  with  certainty  — 
 the  deep  hollow  which  encompasses  the  S.  W.  and 
 S.  of  Jerusalem,  and  which  is  without  doubt  identi- 
 cal with  the  Ge-hinnom  or  Ge-ben-hinnom  of  the 
 0.  T.  This  identification  appears  to  establish  the 
 Ge  as  a  deep  and  abrupt  ravine,  with  steep  sides 
 and  narrow  bottom.  The  term  is  derived  by  the 
 lexicographers  from  a  root  signifying  to  flow  to- 
 gether; but  Professor  Stanley,  influenced  probably 
 by  the  aspect  of  the  ravine  of  Hinnom,  proposes  to 
 
 connect  it  with  a  somewhat  similar  root  (n"'3), 
 which  has  the  force  of  rending  or  bursting,  and 
 which  perhaps  gave  rise  to  the  name  Gihon,  the 
 famous  spring  at  Jerusalem. 
 
 Other  Ges  mentioned  in  the  Bible  are  those  of 
 Gedor,  Jiphthah-el,  Zel)oim,  Zephathah,  that  of  salt, 
 that  of  the  craftsmen,  that  on  the  north  side  of  Ai, 
 and  that  opposite  Beth  Peor  in  Moab. 
 
 3.  Nachal  (7^1?  :  (pdpay^,  x^t/J-appovi)-  This 
 is  the  word  which  exactly  answers  to  the  Arabic 
 wndij,  and  has  lieen  already  alluded  to  in  that  con- 
 nection. [Palesti^'e,  iii.  2300  a ;  P>iver,  p.  2735.] 
 It  expresses,  as  no  single  English  word  can,  the  bed 
 of  a  stream  (often  wide  and  shelving,  and  like  a 
 "valley"  in  character,  which  in  the  rainy  season 
 may  be  nearly  filled  by  a  foaming  torrent,  though 
 for  the  greater  part  of  the  year  dry ),  and  the  stream 
 itself,  which  after  the  sulisidence  of  the  rains  has 
 shrunk  to  insignificant  dimensions.  To  autumn  trav- 
 ellers in  the  south  of  France  such  appearances  are 
 familiar;  the  wide  shallow  bed  strewed  with  water 
 worn  stones  of  all  sizes,  amongst  which  shrubs  are 
 
VALLEY  OF  BACA 
 
 growing  promiscuously,  perhaps  crossed  by  a  bridge 
 of  four  or  five  arches,  under  the  centre  one  of  whicli 
 brawls  along  a  tiny  stream,  the  sole  remnant  of  the 
 broad  and  rapid  river  which  a  few  months  before 
 might  ha\-e  carried  away  the  structure  of  the  bridge. 
 Such  is  the  nearest  likeness  to  the  wadies  of  Syria, 
 excepting  that  — ■  owing  to  the  demolition  of  the 
 wood  which  formerly  shaded  the  country,  and  pre- 
 vented too  rapid  e\aporation  after  rain  —  many  of 
 the  latter  are  now  entirely  and  constantly  dry.  To 
 these  last  it  is  obvious  that  the  word  "  valley  "  is 
 not  inapplicable.  It  is  employed  in  the  A.  V.  to 
 translate ?i((c/i«Z, alternating  with  "brook,"  "river," 
 and  "stream."  For  a  list  of  the  occurrences  of 
 each,  see  Sinai  and  Pal.  App.  §  38. 
 
 4.  Bik'fi/i  (ni^pS  :  TreSiov)-  This  term  ap- 
 pears to  mean  rather  a  plain  than  a  valley,  wider 
 than  the  latter,  though  so  far  reseml)ling  it  as  to 
 be  inclosed  by  mountains,  like  the  wide  district  be- 
 tween Lebanon  and  Anti-Lelianon,  wliich  is  still 
 called  the  Bc/ca'a,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Amos. 
 [Plain,  iii.  2546  6.]  It  is  rendered  liy  "valley" 
 in  Deut.  xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xi.  8,  17,  xii.  7;  2  Chr. 
 xxsv.  22;  Zech.  xii.  11. 
 
 5.  Has-Shefildh  {r^h^XST}  \  rh  ireSiov,  ri 
 TreStvri)-  This  is  the  oidy  case  in  which  the  em- 
 ployment of  the  term  "  valley"  is  really  unfortunate. 
 The  district  to  which  alone  the  name  luis-Slti'JT'lali 
 is  applied  in  the  Hilile  has  no  resemblance  whatever 
 to  a  valley,  but  is  a  broad  swelling  tract  of  many 
 hundred  miles  in  area,  which  sweeps  gently  down 
 from  the  mountains  of  Judah 
 
 "  To  mingle  with  the  bounding  main  " 
 
 of  the  Mediterranean.  [See  Palestine,  iii.  229G ; 
 Plains,  iii.  2547  h;  Sephela,  p.  2911,  &c.]  It 
 is  rendered  "  the  vale  "  in  Deut.  i.  7:  Josh.  x.  40; 
 1  K.  X.  27;  2  Clir.  i.  15;  Jer.  xxxiii.  13;  and  "  the 
 valley"  or  "valleys"  in  Josh.  ix.  1,  xi.  2,  10,  xii. 
 8,  XV.  33 ;  Judg.  i.  9 ;  Jer.  xxxii.  44.  G. 
 
 *  VALLEY  OF  BACA.  [Baca,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 *  VALLEY  OF  DECISION.  [Jeiiosh- 
 APiiAT,  Valley  of.] 
 
 *  VALLEY  OF  SOREK.  [Sorek,  Vai^ 
 ley  of.] 
 
 *  VALLEY-GATE,  2  Chr.  xxvii.  9;  Neh. 
 iii.  13.     [Jehusalem,  ii.  1322.] 
 
 VANFAH  (n;31:  Ohovavia;  [Vat.  Ouie- 
 Xiwa;]  Alex.  Ovowm\  FA.  Ovupi-  Vania).  One 
 of  the  sons  of  Bani,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife 
 at  Ezra's  conmiand  (Ezr.  x.  30). 
 
 *  VANITIES,  a  frequent  designation,  in  the 
 Bible,  of  the  false  gods  of  the  heathen,  characterized 
 as  having  no  actual  existence.     The  usual  Hebrew 
 
 terms  so  rendered  are  D^^-^lT'  a"d  C^SIS,  in 
 which  the  non-reality  of  the  olyects  naturally  sets 
 forth  at  the  same  time  the  folly  and  wickedness  of 
 such  worship  (cf.  1  Cor.  viii.  4  ff. ). 
 
 Iti  Acts  xiv.  15,  Paul  places  Jujiiter  and  Mercury 
 in  this  class  of  nonentities  (tovtcov  ra>v  jxaTaiaiv)- 
 Some,  indeed,  explain  the  term  there  of  the  vain 
 practices    of  heathenism  ;    but   that  destroys   the 
 
 "  VafxioviTi  S'  e/catrTO!  avTiav  TToAAott  fxiv  KOvpiSCa'S 
 yi'vatKas,  ttoAAu)  S'  eVi  TrAeOvas  TraAAaxas  KTOivrai 
 (Herod,  i.  1.35). 
 
 J»  '■  It  is  tlie  custom  of  us  Persiaos.  wiicu  we  make 
 212 
 
 VEIL  3369 
 
 evident  opposition  between  the  word  and  rhv  dehv 
 rhu  ^asvra  in  the  context.      [Idols  ;  Idulatky.] 
 
 H. 
 
 VASH'NI  ('3';'T  \Jah  is  praise,  Fiirst]:  . 
 'S.avi;  [Vat.  2a(/ei:]  Vassmi).  The  first-born  of 
 Samuel  as  the  text  now  stands  (1  Chr.  vi.  2S  [13] ). 
 But  in  1  Sam.  viii.  2  the  name  of  his  first-born  is 
 Joel.  Most  probably  in  the  Chronicles  tlie  name 
 of  Joel  has  dropped  out,  and  "  Vashni"  is  a  cor- 
 ruption of  "'3tt'"'1,  "  and  (the)  second."  The  Peshito 
 Syriac  has  amended  the  text,  and  rendered  "  The 
 sons  of  Samuel,  his  first-born  Joel,  and  the  name 
 of  his  second  son  Abiah."  In  this  it  is  followed 
 by  the  Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglott. 
 
 VASH'TI  (""^.K'!! :  'Ao-TiV;  Ovdar-n,  Joseph.: 
 Vasthi :  "  a  beautiful  woman,"  Pers.).  The 
 "queen"  (HSv^l')  of  Aliasuertis,  who,  for  re- 
 fusing to  show  herself  to  the  king's  guests  at  the 
 royal  banquet,  when  sent  for  by  the  king,  incurred 
 his  wrath,  and  was  repudiated  and  deposed  (['"sth. 
 i.);  when  Esther  was  sulistituted  in  her  place. 
 Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  identify  her  with 
 historical  personages;  as  by  Ussher  with  Atossa, 
 the  wife  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  by  J.  Capellus 
 with  Parysatis,  the  mother  of  Ochus;  but,  as  was 
 said  of  Esther  (like  the  "  threescore  queens "  in 
 Cant.  vi.  8,  9"),  it  is  far  more  probalile  that  she 
 was  oiily  one  of  the  inferior  wives,  dignified  with 
 the  title  of  queen,  whose  name  has  utterly  disap- 
 peared from  history.  [Esther.]  This  view  of 
 A'ashti's  position  seems  further  to  tally  exactly  with 
 the  narrative  of  Ahasuerus'  order,  and  Vashti's 
 refusal,  considered  with  reference  to  the  national 
 manners  of  the  Persians.  For  Plutarch  ( Cmijue/. 
 pi'cecept.  c.  10)  tells  us,  in  agreement  with  Herod. 
 V.  18,  that  the  kings  of  Persia  have  their  legitimate 
 wives  to  sit  at  table  with  them  at  their  banquets, 
 but  that,  when  they  choose  to  riot  and  drink,  they 
 send  their  wives  away  and  call  in  the  concubines 
 and  singing-girls.  Hence,  when  the  heart  of 
 Ahasuerus  "was  merry  with  wine,"  he  sent  for 
 Vashti,  looking  upon  her  only  as  a  concubine;  she, 
 on  the  other  hand,  considering  herself  as  one  of  the 
 KovpiSiai  ywaiKis,  or  legitimate  wives,  refused  to 
 come.  See  Winer,  Reahofj.  Josephus's  statement 
 {Alii.  xi.  6,  §  1),  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  customs 
 of  the  Persians  for  their  wives  to  be  seen  by  any 
 men  but  their  own  husbands,  is  evidently  inac- 
 curate, being  equally  contradicted  by  Herodotus, 
 V.  18,*  and  by  the  book  of  Esther  itself  (v.  4,  8, 
 12,  &c.).  A.  C.  H. 
 
 *  VAT.  [Fat  ;  Oil,  2  ;  Olive  ;  Wine- 
 press.] 
 
 VEIL.  Under  the  head  of  Dress  we  have 
 already  disposed  of  various  terms  improperly  ren- 
 dered "veil"  in  the  A.  V.,  such  as  mitpachath 
 (Kuth  iii.  15),  tsaiph  (Gen.  xxiv.  05,  xxxviii.  14, 
 19),  and  radid  (Cant.  v.  7;  Is.  iii.  23).  These  have 
 been  explained  to  be  rather  shawls,  or  mantles, 
 which  might  at  pleasure  be  drawn  o\-er  the  face, 
 but  which  were  not  designed  for  the  special  purpose 
 of  veils.  It  remains  for  us  to  notice  the  following, 
 terms  which  describe  the  veil  proper:  (1.)  Masveli,<^ 
 
 a  great  feast,  to  invite  botli  our  ooucubines  and  our 
 wives  to  sit  down  with  us." 
 
B3T0  VEIL 
 
 used  of  the  veil,  which  Moses  assumed  when  he 
 came  down  from  the  mount  (Ex.  xxxiv.  33-35).  A 
 cognate  word  suth  «  occurs  in  Gen.  xlix.  11  as  a 
 general  term  for  a  man's  raiment,  leading  to  the 
 inference  that  the  masveh  also  was  an  ample  outer 
 robe  which  might  be  drawn  over  the  face  when 
 required.  The  context,  however,  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  is 
 conclusive  as  to  the  object  fur  which  the  robe  was 
 assumed,  and,  whatever  maj  have  been  its  size  or 
 form,  it  must  have  been  used  as  a  veil.  (2.)  Mis- 
 pachuik*'  used  of  the  veils  which  the  false  prophet.s 
 placed  upon  their  heads  (Ez.  xiii.  18,  21:  A.  V. 
 "  kerchiefs  ").  The  word  is  understood  by  Gesenius 
 {Thes.  p.  905)  of  cushions  or  mattresses,  but  the 
 etymology  {saphacli,  to  pour)  is  equally,  if  not  more 
 favorable,  to  the  sense  of  a  Jlowing  veil,  and  this 
 accords  better  with  the  notice  that  they  were  to  be 
 placed  "  upon  the  head  of  every  statm-e,"  implying 
 that  the  length  of  the  veil  was  proportioned  to  the 
 height  of  the  wearer  (Fiirst,  Ltx.  s.  v. ;  Hitzig  in 
 Ez.  1.  c).  (3.)  lie'dluth,'^  used  of  the  light  veils 
 worn  by  females  (Is.  iii.  19;  A.  V.  ''mufflers"), 
 which  were  so  called  from  their  rustling  motion. 
 The  same  term  is  applied  in  the  Mishna  {Sab.  G, 
 §  6)  to  the  veils  worn  by  Arabian  women.  (4.) 
 Tsammdh,'^  understood  by  the  A.  V.  of  "  locks  " 
 of  hair  (Cant.  iv.  1,  3,  vi.  7;  Is.  xlvii.  2),  and  so 
 by  Winer  {liealwb.  "  Schleier");  but  the  contents 
 of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  used  favor  tlie  sense 
 of  veil,  the  wearers  of  the  article  being  in  each  case 
 highly  born  and  handsomely  dressed.  ,  A  cognate 
 word  is  used  in  the  Targum  ((ien.  xxiv.  G5)  of  the 
 robe  in  which  Rebecca  enveloped  herself. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  use  of  the  veil,  it  is  important 
 to  observe  that  it  was  by  no  means  so  general  in 
 ancient  as  in  modern  times.  At  present,  females 
 are  rarely  seen  without  it  in  oriental  countries,  so 
 much  so  that  in  Egypt  it  is  deemed  more  requisite 
 to  conceal  the  face,  including  the  top  and  back  of 
 the  head,  than  other  parts  of  the  person  (Lane,  i. 
 72).  Women  are  even  delicate  about  exposing  their 
 heads  to  a  physician  for  medical  treatment  (Russell's 
 Aleppo.^  i.  24(J).  In  remote  districts,  and  among 
 the  lower  classes,  the  practice  is  not  so  rigidly  en- 
 forced (Lane,  i.  72).  Much  of  the  scrupulousness 
 in  respect  to  the  use  of  the  veil  dates  from  the 
 promulgation  of  the  Koran,  which  f(^rbade  women 
 appearing  unveiled  except  in  the  presence  of  their 
 nearest  relatives  {Kor.  xxxiii.  55,  59).  In  ancient 
 times,  the  veil  was  adopted  only  in  exceptional  cases, 
 either  as  an  article  of  ornamental  dress  (Cant.  iv. 
 1,  3,  vi.  7),  or  liy  betrothed  maidens  in  the  presence 
 of  their  future  husbands,  especially  at  the  time  of 
 the  wedding  (Gen.  xxiv.  65,  xxix.  25  [Mai:kiage]  ), 
 or  lastly,  by  women  of  loose  character  for  purposes 
 of  concealment  (Gen.  xxxviii.  14).  But,  generally 
 speaking,  women  both  married  and  unmarried  ap- 
 peared in  pulilic  with  their  faces  exposed,  both 
 among  the  Jews  (Gen.  xii.  14,  xxiv.  l(j,  xxix.  10; 
 1  Sam.  i.  12),  and  among  the  Egyptians  and  As- 
 syrians, as  proved  by  the  invariable  absence  of  the 
 veil   in    the   sculptures    and    paintings   of    these 
 
 Among  the  Jews  of  the  New  Testament  age  it 
 appears  to  have  been  customary  for  the  women  to 
 cover  *heir  heads  (not  necessarily  their  faces)  when 
 engaged  iu  public  worship.     For,  St.  Paul  repro- 
 
 6  mnsDa. 
 
 T  :    • 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT 
 
 bates  the  disuse  of  the  veil  by  the  Corinthian  women, 
 as  impljing  an  assumption  of  equality  with  the 
 other  sex,  and  enforces  the  covering  of  the  head  as 
 a  sign  «  of  subordination  to  the  authority  of  the 
 men  (1  Cor.  xi.  5-15).  The  same  pa.ssage  leads 
 to  the  conclusion  that  the  use  of  the  iali//t,  with 
 which  the  Jewish  males  cover  their  heads  in  prayer, 
 is  a  comparatively  modern  practice;  inasmuch  as 
 the  Apostle,  putting  a  hypothetical  case,  states  that 
 e\ery  man  having  anything  on  his  head  dishonors 
 his  head,  i.  e.  Christ,  inasmuch  as  the  use  of  the 
 veil  would  imply  suljection  to  his  fellow-men  rather 
 than  to  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  xi.  4).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 VEIL  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  AND 
 TEMPLE.     [Tabki!nacle;  Templk.] 
 
 *  VEIL,  RENDING  OF  THE.     [Jesus 
 Chhi.st,  ii.  1379  ii.] 
 
 *  VERMILION.     [Colors,  4.] 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT,  OF  THE  OLD 
 
 AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS.  On  the  an- 
 cient versions  in  general,  see  Walton's  Pivleyom- 
 liiia :  Simon,  Histoire  Critiqut ;  jMarsh's  Jlicha- 
 elis ;  Eichhorn's  Einleituny  ;  Hug's  Einhiiung  ; 
 De  Wette's  Einleitung ;  Hiivernick's  Einkitung  ; 
 Davidson's  Introduction  [^Biblical  Criticism']  ;  Reuss, 
 tieschiclite  des  Ntuen  Testaments  ;  Home's  Inlro- 
 ductiun  by  Ayre  (vol.  ii. ),  [or  by  Davidson  (vol.  ii., 
 ed.  1850)],  and  Tregelles  (vol.  iv.);  Scrivener's 
 rinin  Introduction ;  Bleek's  Einhitwig ;  [Keil's 
 Eiidcitmvj.  Of  Hug,  De  \Vette,  Hiivernick,  Bleek, 
 and  Keil  there  are  English  translations.  On  the 
 versions  of  the  N.  T.  Hug  is  particularly  full.  — 
 A.] 
 
 There  were  two  things  which,  in  the  early  cen- 
 turies after  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
 were  closely  connected :  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
 pel, leading  to  the  diffused  profession  of  the  Chris- 
 tian faith  amongst  nations  of  varied  languages;  and 
 the  formation  of  versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for 
 the  use  of  the  Churches  thus  gathered  in  varied 
 countries.  In  fact,  for  many  ages  the  spread  of 
 Christianity  and  the  appearance  of  vernacular 
 translations  seem  to  have  gone  almost  continually 
 hand  in  hand.  The  only  exceptions,  perhaps,  were 
 those  regions  in  which  the  Christian  profession  did 
 not  extend  beyond  what  might  be  called  the  civil- 
 ized portion  of  the  community,  and  in  which  also 
 the  Greek  language,  diffused  through  the  conquests 
 of  Alexander,  or  the  Latin,  the  concomitant  of  the 
 dominion  of  Rome,  had  taken  a  deeply-rooted  and 
 widely-extended  hold.  Before  the  Christian  era, 
 the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  conmionly 
 termed  the  Septuagint,  and  the  earlier  Targums 
 (if,  indeed,  any  were  tvritien  so  early)  supplied  every 
 want  of  the  Jews,  so  far  as  we  can  at  all  discover. 
 And  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Greek  transla- 
 tion of  the.Old  Testament  had  produced  some  con- 
 siderable effect  beyond  the  mere  Jewish  pale :  for 
 thus  the  comparatively  large  class  of  proselytes 
 which  we  find  existing  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  and 
 his  Apostles  nmst  apparently  have  been  led  to  em- 
 brace a  religion,  not  then  commended  by  the  holi 
 ness  of  its  professors  or  by  external  advantages,  but 
 oidy  accredited  by  its  doctrines,  which  professed  to 
 be  given  by  the  revelation  of  God  (as,  indeed,  they 
 were);  and  which,  in  setting  forth  the  unity  of 
 
 c  The  term  efouai'a  in  1  Cor.  xi.  10  =  lign  of  au- 
 thority, just  as  pa<riAci'a  in  0iod.  Sic.  i.  47  =  sign  of 
 royalty. 
 
VERSION,  ANCIENT  (^THIOPIC) 
 
 3371 
 
 Rod,  and  in  the  condemnation  of  all  idolatry, 
 lupplied  a  need,  not  furnished  by  an}  thing  which 
 prolessed  to  1)6  a  system  of  positive  reli;fioii  as  held 
 by  the  Greek,  Latin,  or  Egyptian  priests. 
 
 In  making  inquiry  ai?  to  the  versions  formed 
 after  the  spread  of  Christianity,  we  rarely  find  any 
 indication  as  to  the  translators,  or  the  particular 
 circumstances  under  which  they  were  executed. 
 All  we  can  say  is,  that  those  who  had  learned  that 
 the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  — ■  namely,  that  in  the 
 name  of  .lesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God  there  is  for- 
 giveness of  sins  and  eternal  life  through  faith  in  his 
 propitiatory  sacrifice,  —  are  indeed  the  truth  of 
 God ;  and  who  knew  that  the  New  Testament  con- 
 tains the  records  of  this  religion,  and  the  Old  the 
 preparation  of  God  for  its  introduction  through 
 promises,  types,  and  prophecies,  did  not  long  remain 
 without  possessing  these  Scriptures  in  languages 
 which  they  understood.  The  appearance  of  ver- 
 nacular translations  was  a  kind  of  natural  conse- 
 quence of  the  formation  of  Churches. 
 
 We  have  also  some  indications  that  parts  of  the 
 New  Testament  were  translated,  not  by  those  who 
 received  the  doctrines,  but  bj'  those  who  opposed 
 them ;  this  was  probably  done  in  order  the  more 
 successfully  to  guard  Jews  and  proselytes  to  .hula- 
 ism  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Cross  of  Christ, 
 "to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block." 
 
 Translations  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts 
 of  the  Apostles  into  the  Hebrew  dialect  are  men- 
 tioned in  the  very  curious  narration  given  by  I<"pi- 
 phanius  (i.  xxx.  3,  12)  respecting  Jo.seph  of  Tibe- 
 rias ;  he  speaks  of  their  lieing  secretly  preserved  by 
 the  Jewish  teachers  of  that  city.  But  these  or  any 
 similar  versions  do  not  appear  to  have  been  exam- 
 ined, much  less  used  by  any  Christians.  They  de- 
 serve a  mention  here,  however,  as  being  translations 
 of  parts  of  tlie  New  Testament,  the  former  existence 
 of  which  is  recorded. 
 
 In  treating  of  the  ancient  versions  that  have 
 come  down  to  us,  in  whole  or  in  part,  they  will  be 
 described  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  languages. 
 It  may  be  premised  that  in  most  of  them  the  Old 
 Test,  is  not  a  version  from  the  Hebrew,  but  merely 
 a  secondary  translation  from  the  Septuagint  in 
 some  one  of  its  early  forms.  The  value  of  these 
 secondary  versions  is  but  little,  except  as  bearing 
 on  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  a  depart- 
 ment of  Biljlical  learning  in  which  they  will  be 
 found  of  much  use,  whenever  a  competent  scholar 
 shall  earnestly  engage  in  the  revision  of  that  Greek 
 version  of  the  Old  Test.,  pointing  out  the  correc- 
 tions introduced  through  the  labors  of  Origen. 
 
 S.  P.  T. 
 
 iETHlOPIC  VERSION.  —  Christianity  was 
 introduced  into  Jithiopia  in  the  4th  centin\y, 
 through  the  laljors  of  Frumentius  and  ^Edesius  of 
 Tyre,  who  had  been  made  slaves  and  sent  to  the 
 king  (Theodoret,  Ukt.  Ecd.  i.  2-3;  Socr.  i.  19; 
 Sozomen,  ii.  24).  Hence  arose  the  episcopal  see 
 of  Axum,  to  which  Frumentius  w.as  appointed  liy 
 Athanasius.  The  iEthiopic  version  which  we  pos- 
 sess is  in  the  ancient  dialect  of  Axum ;  hence  some 
 have  ascribed  it  to  the  age  of  the  earliest  mission- 
 aries ;  but  from  the  general  character  of  the  ver- 
 sion it.self,  this  is  improbable;  and  the  Abyssin- 
 ians  themselves  attribute  it  to  a  later  period; 
 though  their  testimony  is  of  but  little  value  by 
 itself;  for  tlieir  accounts  are  very  contradictory, 
 and  some  of  them  even  speak  of  its  having  been 
 translated  from  the  Arabic;  which  is  certainly  in- 
 correct. 
 
 The  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  the  New.  was  ex- 
 ecuted from  the  (ireek. 
 
 In  1513  Potken  published  the  yEthiopic  Psalter 
 at  Rome:  he  received  this  portion  of  the  Scriptures 
 from  some  Abyssinians  with  whom  he  had  met; 
 whom,  however,  he  called  Chaldaeans,  and  their 
 language  Chaldee. 
 
 In  1548-40,  the  iEthiopic  New  Test,  was  also 
 printed  at  Rome,  edited  by  three  Abyssinians:  they 
 sadly  complained  of  the  difficulties  under  which 
 they  labored,  from  the  printers  having  been  occu- 
 pied on  what  they  were  unable  to  read.  They 
 speak  of  having  bad  to  fill  up  a  considerable  portion 
 of  the  Ijook  of  Acts  by  translating  from  the  Latin 
 and  Greek:  in  this,  however,  there  seems  to  be 
 some  overstatement.  The  Roman  edition  was  re- 
 printed in  Walton's  Polyglott;  but  (according  to 
 Ludolf)  all  the  former  errors  were  retained,  and 
 new  ones  introduced.  When  Bode  in  1153  pub- 
 lished a  careful  I^atin  translation  of  the  ^thiopic 
 text  of  Walton,  he  supplied  Biblical  scholars  in 
 general  with  the  means  of  forming  a  judgment  as 
 to  this  version,  which  had  been  previously  impos- 
 sible, except  to  the  few  who  were  acquainted  with 
 the  language. 
 
 In  1820-30,  a  new  edition,  formed  by  a  collation 
 of  MSS.,  was  published  inider  the  care  of  Mr. 
 Thomas  Pell  Piatt  (formerl}'  Fellow  of  Trinity 
 College,  Cambridge),  whose  oliject  was  not  strictly 
 critical,  but  rather  to  give  to  the  Abyssinians  their 
 Scriptures  for  ecclesiastical  use  in  as  good  a  form 
 as  he  conveniently  could,  consistently  with  JIS. 
 authority.  From  the  notes  made  by  j\Ir.  Piatt  in 
 the  course  of  his  collations,  it  is  evident  that  the 
 translation  had  been  variously  revised.  The  difi'er- 
 ences  of  MSS.  had  appeared  so  marked  to  Ludolf 
 that  he  supposed  that  there  must  have  been  two 
 ancient  versions.  But  Mr.  Piatt  found,  in  the 
 course  of  his  examination,  that  where  certain  MSS. 
 differ  widely  in  their  readings,  .some  other  copy 
 would  introduce  both  readings,  either  in  a  conflate 
 form,  or  simply  in  the  way  of  repetition.  The 
 probability  appears  to  be  that  there  was  originally 
 one  version  of  the  Gospels;  but  that  this  was  after- 
 ward revised  with  Greek  MSS.  of  a  different  com- 
 plexion of  text ;  and  that  succeeding  copyists  either 
 adopted  one  or  the  other  form  in  passages;  or  else, 
 by  omitting  nothing  from  text  or  margin,  they 
 formed  a  confused  comliination  of  readings.  It 
 appears  probable  that  all  the  portion  of  the  New 
 Test,  after  the  Gospels  originated  from  some  of 
 the  later  revisers  of  the  former  part;  its  para- 
 phrastic tone  accords  with  this  opinioti.  ^Ve  can 
 only  form  a  judgment  from  the  printed  texts  of 
 this  version,  until  a  collation  of  the  MSS.  now 
 known  shall  be  so  executed  as  to  be  available  for 
 critical  use. 
 
 As  it  is,  we  find  in  the  copies  of  the  version, 
 readings  which  show  an  affinity  with  the  older 
 class  of  Greek  MSS.,  interminsled  with  others 
 decidedly  Byzantine.  Some  of  tiie  copies  known 
 show  a  stronger  leaning  to  the  one  side  or  the 
 other;  and  this  gives  a  considerable  degree  of 
 certainty  to  the  conclusion  on  the  subject  of  re- 
 vision. 
 
 An  examination  of  the  version  jiroves  both  that 
 it  was  executed  from  the  Greek,  and  also  that  the 
 translator  made  such  mistakes  that  he  could  hardly 
 have  been  a  person  to  whom  Greek  was  the  native 
 tongue.  The  following  instances  (mostly  taken 
 from  C.  B.  Michaelis)  prove  this:  opia  is  con- 
 founded   with  of)ia   (or  oprj);  Matt.   iv.   13,  "  in 
 
3372 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (ARABIC) 
 
 monte  Zabulon;  "  xix.  1,  "  in  monies  Judsese  trans 
 Jordanem."  Acts  iii.  W,  TrpoKexf'pi<TfJ-fvou  is  ren- 
 dered as  "queni  prwinixit  "  (TrpoKsxp'0-/j.ei'oy);  ii- 
 S7,  KarevuyT](Tav  "  (ijJerfi  sutil  quoad  cur  eorum  " 
 (KarrivoiyTiffav) ;  xvi.  25,  iirriKpocivTO  avrcov  ol 
 Seajiiioi,  "  (lercussa  sunt  vinciila  eoruni  "  {firiicpoii- 
 ovro  avTwv  ol  Scfffioi)-  JIatt.  v.  25,  fvvowv  is 
 rendered  as  iitUliii/cns  (ivvowv)',  Luke  viii.  29, 
 Koi  TreSais  (pv\affff6iJ.ei/os,  "  a  jmrmlia  custodi- 
 tus,"  as  if  xatSiois.  Kom.  vii.  11,  i^rj-KaTricrtv, 
 '•  conculcavit,"  as  if  e^fTrdT7)(rev.  Rev.  iv.  3,  Ipis, 
 "  sacerdotes,"  as  if  lepeis.  The  meaning  of  words 
 alike  in  spelling  is  confounded:  thus,  1  Cor.  xii. 
 28,  "  Posuit  Dominus  aurem  ecclesia?,"  from  the 
 differing  meanings  of  OT2.  Also  wrong  render- 
 ings sometimes  seem  to  have  originated  with  false 
 etymology:  thus,  jMatt.  v.  22,  "Qui  autem  dixerit 
 fratrem  suuni  pannosum,"  paKO.  having  been  con- 
 nected with  paKos. 
 
 Bode's  Latin  \ersion,  to  which  reference  has  al- 
 ready been  made,  enabled  critical  scholars  to  use 
 the  Roman  text  with  much  confidence.  The  late 
 Mr.  L.  A.  I're\ost,  of  the  British  Museum,  exe- 
 cuted for  Dr.  Tregelles  a  comparison  of  the  text  of 
 Mr.  Piatt  with  the  Roman,  as  reprinted  in  Walton, 
 together  with  a  literal  rendering  of  the  variations; 
 this  gave  him  the  critical  use  of  both  texts.  The 
 present  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  Dr.  Ellicott,  speaking 
 with  the  personal  advantage  possessed  bj'  a  scholar 
 himself  able  to  use  both  yEthiopic  texts  of  the 
 New  Test.,  draws  attention  to  the  superiority  of 
 that  edited  l)y  Mr.  Piatt:  after  speaking  (Aids  ta 
 Faith,  p.  381)  of  the  non-paraphrastic  character 
 of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Test,  in  gen- 
 eral, Dr.  Ellicott  adds  in  a  note:  "It  may  be  no- 
 ticed that  we  have  specified  the  ^Ethiopic  vei-sion 
 as  that  edited  by  Mr.  Pell  Piatt.  The  vEthiopic 
 version  found  in  Walton's  Polyglott  often  degen- 
 erates into  a  paraphrase,  especially  in  difficult  pas- 
 sages." 
 
 The  Old  Test,  of  this  version,  made  from  the 
 LXX.  (as  has  been  already  specified),  has  been 
 sulijected  apparently  (with  the  exception  of  the 
 Psalms)  to  very  little  critical  examination.  A  com- 
 plete edition  of  the  j-Ethiopic  Old  Test,  has  been 
 commenced  by  Dillmaim;  the  first  portion  of  which 
 appeared  in  1853.  [Tom.  i.  Octateuch,  1853-55; 
 torn,  ii.,  1  Sam.-Esther,  18G1  fF.  For  editions  of 
 some  other  parts  of  the  0.  T.  see  De  Wette,  Jiinl. 
 §  61,  8e  Ausg.  —  A.] 
 
 Literature.  —  Potken,  Preface  to  the  ^Ethiopic 
 Psalter,  Rome,  1513;  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Preface 
 to  Bode's  Collation  of  St.  Matthew,  Halle,  1749; 
 Bode,  Latin  Translation  of  the  ^thiojn'c  New 
 Test.  Brunswick,  1753;  T.  P.  I'htt,  MS.  Notes 
 made  in  the  CoUat'um  of  jEtlnopic  MSS.,  and 
 Private  Letters  sent  to  Treijelles ;  L.  A.  Prevost, 
 MS.  Collation  of  the  Text  of  Piatt  icith  the  Ro- 
 man, and  Translation  of  Variations,  executed  for 
 Tregelles;  A.  \y\\\m&n\\,  yEthiopisihe  Bibeliiber- 
 setziing  in  Herzog's  Real-Encijklopadie. 
 
 S.  P.  T. 
 
 ARABIC  VERSIONS.  —  To  give  a  detailed 
 account  of  the  Arabic  versions  would  be  impossible, 
 without  devoting  a  much  larger  space  to  the  sub- 
 ject than  would  be  altogether  in  its  place  in  a  Dic- 
 tionary of  the   Bible:  for  the  versions  themsehes 
 
 «  Cardinal  Wiseman  {On  the  Miracles  of  the  Nfw 
 res«.,Essa.ys  i.  172-176,  240-244)  give.*!  a  curious  invos- 
 ligation  of  tlie  origin   aud  translation  of  tLiis  .\rabic 
 
 do  not,  owing  to  their  comparatively  late  date,  pos- 
 sess any  primary  imjx)rtance,  even  for  critical 
 studies;  and  thus  many  points  connected  with 
 these  translations  are  rather  of  literary  than 
 strictly  Biblical  interest.  The  versions  of  the 
 Old  Test,  must  be  considered  separately  from 
 those  of  the  New;  and  those  from  the  Hebrew  text 
 must  be  treated  apart  from  those  fornied  from  the 
 LXX. 
 
 I.  Arabic  versions  of  the  Old  Test. 
 
 A.  Blade  from  the  Hebrew  text. 
 
 l!abl)i  Saadiah  Haggaon,  the  Hebrew  commen- 
 tator of  the  10th  century,  translated  portions  (some 
 think  the  whole)  of  the  O.  T.  into  Arabic.  His 
 version  of  the  Pentateuch  was  printed  at  Constan- 
 tinople, in  1546.  The  Paris  I'olyglott  contains  the 
 same  version  from  a  MS-  differintr  in  many  of  its 
 readings:  this  was  reprinted  by  Walton.  It  seems 
 as  if  copyists  had  in  parts  altered  the  version  con- 
 siderably. The  version  of  Isaiah  by  Saadiah  was 
 printed  by  Paulus,  at  Jena,  in  1791,  from  a  Bod- 
 leian MS. ;  the  same  library  contains  a  MS.  of  his 
 version  of  Job  and  of  the  Psalms.  Kimchi  quotes 
 his  version  of  Hosea. 
 
 The  book  of  Joshua  in  the  Paris  and  Walton's 
 Polyglotts  is  also  from  the  llel)rew;  and  this  Rij- 
 diger  states  to  be  the  fact  in  the  case  of  the  Poly- 
 glott text  of  1  K.  xii. ;  2  K.  xii.  16 ;  and  of  Neh. 
 i.-ix.  27. 
 
 Other  portions,  translated  from  Hebrew  in  later 
 times,  do  not  require  to  be  even  specified  here. 
 
 But  it  was  not  the  Jews  only  who  translated  into 
 Arabic  from  the  original.  There  is  also  a  version 
 of  the  Pentateuch  of  the  Samaritans,  made  by  .\bu 
 Said.  He  is  stated  to  have  clearly  had  the  trans- 
 lation of  Saadiah  before  him,  the  phraseology  of 
 which  he  often  follows,  and  at  times  he  must  have 
 used  the  Samaritan  rei'sion.  It  is  considered  that 
 this  work  of  Abu  Said  (of  which  a  portion  has 
 been  printed)  is  of  considerable  use  in  connection 
 with  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
 tateuch.    [See  Samaritan  Pentatkuch,  ii.  3.] 
 
 B.  Made  from  the  Peshito  Syriac. 
 
 This  is  the  base  of  the  Arabic  text  contained  in 
 the  Polyglotts  of  the  books  of  Judges,  Ruth,  Sam- 
 uel, Kings,  and  Nebemiah  (with  the  exception 
 mentioned  aliove  in  these  last-named  books). 
 
 In  some  MSS.  there  is  contained  a  translation 
 from  the  HexaplarSyria^  text,  which  (though  a 
 recent  version)  is  of  some  importance  for  the  criti- 
 cism of  that  translation. 
 
 C.  Made  from  the  LXX. 
 
 The  version  in  the  Polyglotts  of  the  books  not 
 specified  above." 
 
 Another  text  of  the  Psalter  in  Justiniani  Psalter- 
 ium  Octuplum,  Genoa,  1516. 
 
 The  Ara1)ic  versions  existing  in  IMS.  exhibit  very 
 various  forms:  it  appears  as  if  alterations  had  been 
 made  in  the  different  countries  in  which  they  had 
 been  used;  hence  it  is  almost  an  endless  task  to 
 discriminate  amongst  them  precisely. 
 
 II.  Arabic  versions  of  the  New  Test. 
 
 The  printed  editions  of  the  Arabic ,  New  Test, 
 must  first  be  specified  before  their  text  can  be  de- 
 scrilied. 
 
 1.  The  Roman  editio  princeps  of  the  four  Gos- 
 pels, 1590-91   (issued  both  with  and  without  an 
 
 Psalter,  and  of  the  occasional  use  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
 aud  sometimes  of  the  Syriac  version. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (ARMENIAN) 
 
 3  b  I 
 
 nterlinear  Latin  version.  Reissued,  with  a  new 
 title,  Itil'J;  and  again,  with  a  bibliographical  pref- 
 ace, mi). 
 
 2.  The  Erpenian  Arabic.  The  whole  New  Test. 
 edited  by  Erpeniiis,  1616,  at  Lejden,  from  a  MS. 
 of  the  l-3th  or  14th  century. 
 
 3.  The  Arabic  of  the  Paris  Polyglott,  1645.  In 
 the  Gospels  this  follows  mostly  the  Roman  text;  in 
 the  Epistles  a  MS.  from  Aleppo  was  used.  The 
 Arabic  in  Walton's  Polyglott  appears  to  be  simply 
 taken  from  the  Paris  te.'ct. 
 
 4.  The  Ciirshiuii  Aral)ic  text  (;.  e.  in  Syriac  let- 
 ters), the  Syriac  and  Arabic  New  Test.,  published 
 at  Home,  in  1703.  For  this  a  MS.  brought  from 
 Cyprus  was  used. 
 
 Storr  proved,  that  in  all  these  editions  the  Gos- 
 pels are  really  the  same  translation,  however  it  may 
 have  l)een  moditied  by  copyists;  especially  when  the 
 Syriac,  or  Memphitio,  stand  by  the  side. 
 
 JuynboU,  in  liis  description  of  an  Arabic  Codex 
 at  Fraiiel<er  (18-J8),  threw  new  light  on  the  origin 
 of  the  Arabic  Gospels.  He  proves  tiiat  the  Kraiie- 
 ker  Codex  coincides  in  its  general  text  with  the 
 Koaian  editio  princeps,  and  tliat  both  follow  the 
 Latin  Vulgate,  so  that  Raymuiidi,  the  Koman  edi- 
 tor, must  not  be  accused  of  having  Latinized  the 
 text.  The  greater  agreement  of  the  Polyglott  text 
 with  the  Greek  he  ascrilies  to  the  influence  of  an 
 Aleppo  MS.,  which  the  Paris  editor  used.  .Juyn- 
 boU then  identifies  the  text  of  the  Franeker  MS. 
 (and  of  the  Homan  edition)  with  the  version  made 
 in  the  8th  century  by  John,  liishop  of  Seville. 
 The  question  to  be  considered  thus  becomes.  Was 
 the  Latin  the  basis  of  the  version  of  the  (jospels  V 
 and  did  some  afterwards  revise  it  with  the  Greek? 
 or,  was  it  taken  from  the  Greek?  and  was  the 
 alteration  to  suit  the  Latin  a  later  work?  If  the 
 former  su|)position  be  correct,  then  the  version  of 
 John  of  Seville  may  have  been  the  Jirst ;  if  the 
 latter,  then  all  that  was  done  by  the  Spanish  hishop 
 must  ha\e  been  to  adapt  an  existing  Arabic  version 
 to  the  Latin. 
 
 (iildemeister,  in  his  communications  to  Tischen- 
 dorf  (6'r.  Test.  18.5.9,  Prolegg.  p.  ccxxxix.),  en- 
 deavors to  prove,  that  all  the  supposed  coimection 
 of  this  (or  apparently  of  any)  version  with  John 
 of  Seville  is  a  mistake.  The  words,  however,  of 
 Mariana,  the  .Spanish  historian,  are  express.  He 
 says,  under  the  year  737,  "  His  sequalis  Joannes 
 Hispalensis  Prresul  divinos  libros  lingua  Arabica 
 donabat  utriusque  nationis  saluti  consulens;  quo- 
 niam  .\r.d)ic8e  linguae  multus  usus  erat  Christianis 
 teque  atque  ilauris;  Latina  passim  ignorabatur. 
 Ejus  interpretationis  exempla  ad  nostrain  retatem 
 (/.  e.  A.  I).  1600)  conservata  sunt,  extantque  non 
 uno  in  loco  in  Hispania."  «  Gildemeister  says, 
 indeed,  that  this  was  entirely  caused  from  a  mis- 
 understanding of  what  had  been  stated  by  Koderic 
 of  Toledo,  the  first  who  says  anything  on  the  sub- 
 ject.    He  adds  that  John  of  Seville  lived  really  in 
 
 a  Adler  {Relse  nach  Rom,  p.  184)  gives  a  citation 
 from  D.  Vincenzio  Juan  de  Lastauosa,  who  says  in 
 his  Mii-tco  (h  lax  Met/alias  iJesconocidai,  Iluesca,  1645, 
 p.  115,  "  El  santo  Ar^obispo  Don  Juan  traduxo  la 
 jagraja  escrituni  eu  Arabigo,  par cuya  intercessiva  hizo 
 Dios  uiU(-hos  iiiilagros  i  los  Moros  le  llamavau  Caid 
 atiiiatemii."     Adler  conjectures  tliis  designation  to  be 
 
 ^LkJl    cXjLs  or    XJ>Lk*Jf. 
 
 ''  *  Some  notice  should  perhaps  be  taken  of  an 
 Arabic  version  of  tlie  whole  N.  T.  (except  the  Apoca-  i 
 
 the  10th  century,  and  not  in  the  8th:  if  so,  he 
 must  be  a  different  person,  apparently,  from  the 
 Bishop,  of  the  same  name,  about  whom  Mariana 
 could  hardly  have  been  misinformed.  It  does  not 
 appear  as  if  JuynboU's  details  and  arguments  were 
 likely  to  be  set  aside  through  the  brief  fragments 
 of  Gildemeister's  letters  to  Tischendorf,  which' the 
 latter  has  pnlilished. 
 
 In  the  Erpenian  Arabic  the  latter  part  is  a  trans- 
 lation from  the  Peshito- Syriac;  the  Epistles  not 
 found  in  that  version  and  the  Apocalypse  are  said 
 to  be  from  the  Memphitic. 
 
 The. latter  part  of  tlie  text  in  the  Polyglotts  is 
 from  the  Greek.  Various  Araliic  translations  of 
 portions  of  the  New  Test,  exist  in  M.S. :  they  do  not 
 require  any  especial  enumeration  here.* 
 
 Lilernture.  —  Malanimeus,  Preface  to  the  re-is- 
 sue, in  1774,  of  tlie  Romun  edition  of  tlie  Arabic 
 Gospels  ;  Storr,  JJisserifUio  inaugiiralls  critica  de 
 Evanyeliis  Arahicis,  Tubingen,  1775:  Juynboll, 
 Letterkundiye  Bijdragen  ( Tweede  Slukje.  Be- 
 srlirijving  van  een  Arabischen  Codex  der  Franeker 
 BiOUolheek,  bevatlende  de  vier  Evungelien,  gevolf/d 
 van  eeniye  opmerkingen,  toeike  de  leilerkundige 
 Geschiedenis  van  de  Arabische  Verlaling  der 
 Kcangelien  betreffen),  Leyden,  18.38;  Wiseman, 
 On  the  Miracles  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 S.  P.  T. 
 
 AR:\rENIAN  VERSION.  —  Before  the  5th 
 centuiy  the  Armenians  are  said  to  have  used  the 
 Syriac  alphabet;  but  at  that  time  Miesrob  is  stated 
 to  have  invented  the  Armenian  letters.  Soon  after 
 this  it  is  .said  that  translations  into  the  Armenian 
 language  commenced,  at  first  from  the  Syriac. 
 Miesrob,  with  his  companions,  Joseph  and  Eznak, 
 began  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  with  the  book  of 
 Proverbs,  and  completed  all  the  Old  Test. ;  and  in 
 the  New,  they  used  the  Syriac  as  their  basis,  from 
 their  inability  to  ol)tain  any  Greek  books.  But 
 when,  in  the  year  431,  Joseph  and  Eznak  returned 
 from  the  council  of  I'^phesus,  bringing  with  them  a 
 (ireek  copy  of  the  Scriptures,  Isaac,  the  Armenian 
 Patriarch,  and  Miesrob,  threw  aside  what  they  had 
 already  done,  in  order  that  they  might  execute  a 
 version  from  the  Greek.  But  now  arose  the  diffi- 
 culty of  their  want  of  a  competent  acquaintance 
 with  that  language:  to  remedy  this,  Eznak  and 
 Joseph  were  sent  with  Moses  Chorenensis  (who  is 
 himself  the  narrator  of  these  details)  to  study  that 
 language  at  Alexandria.  There  they  made  what 
 Moses  calls  their  <////■(/  translation;  the  first  being 
 that  from  the  Syriac,  and  the  second  that  which 
 had  been  attempted  without  sufficient  acquaintance 
 with  the  Greek  tongue.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that 
 the  former  attempts  were  used  as  far  as  they  could 
 be,  and  that  the  whole  was  remodeled  so  as  to  suit 
 the  Greek. 
 
 The  first  printed  edition  of  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments  in  Armenian  appeared  at  Amsterdam 
 in    1666,   under  the  care  of   a  person  commonly 
 
 lypse)  found  in  a  MS.  in  the  Vatican  Library  (Cod. 
 Vat.  Arab.  13),  and  described  by  Scholz  in  bis  Bib- 
 lisr.h-KriHsche  Rtise  (1823),  pp.  117-126;  coiiip.  Hug, 
 §  107.  It  appears  by  the  Greek  sub.scriptiou  to  have 
 been  made  at  Emesa  (Hinini)  in  Syria  by  one  Daniel 
 Philentolos.  Though  our  knowledge  of  it  is  very 
 imperfect,  the  agreement  of  many  of  its  readings  with 
 the  oldest  Greek  MSS.  in  the  specimens  given  by 
 Scholz  is  remarkable.  It  wants,  for  example,  the  last 
 eleven  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  supports  the 
 reading  os  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  A. 
 
3374 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (ARMENIAN) 
 
 termed  Oscan,  or  Uscan,  and  described  as  being  an 
 Armenian  bishop  (Hug,  however,  denies  that  Uscan 
 was  his  name,  and  luchhorn  denies  that  he  was  a 
 bishop).  From  tliis  edilio  j^rinceps  others  were 
 printed,  in  which  no  attempt  was  made  to  do  more 
 than  to  follow  its  text:  although  it  was  more  than 
 susi)ected  that  Uscan  had  by  no  means  faithfully 
 adhered  to  IIS.  authority.  Zohrab,  in  1789,  pub- 
 lished at  Venice  an  improved  text  of  the  Armenian 
 New  'I'est.;  and  in  1805  he  and  his  coadjutors 
 completed  an  edition  of  the  entire  Armenian  Scrip- 
 tures, for  which  not  only  MS.  authority  was  used 
 throughout,  but  also  the  results  of  collations  of 
 MSS.  were  sul  joined  at  the  foot  of  the  pages.  Tlie 
 basis  was  a  MS.  written  in  the  14th  century,  in 
 Cilicia  ;  the  whole  numlier  employed  is  said  to 
 have  been  eight  of  the  entire  Bible,  twenty  of  the 
 New  Test.,  with  several  more  of  particular  por- 
 tions, such  as  the  Psalms.  Tischendorf  states  that 
 Aucher,  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Lazarus  at  Venice, 
 informed  him  that  he  and  some  of  his  fellow- 
 monks  had  undertaken  a  new  critical  edition :  this 
 probably  would  contain  a  repetition  of  the  various 
 collations  of  Zohrab,  together  with  those  of  other 
 MSS. 
 
 The  critical  editors  of  the  New  Test,  appear  all 
 of  them  to  have  been  unacquainted  with  the  Arme- 
 nian language;  the  want  of  a  Latin  translation  of 
 this  version  has  made  it  thus  impossible  for  them 
 to  use  it  as  a  critical  authority,  except  by  the  aid 
 of  others.  Some  readings  were  thus  communicated 
 to  Mill  by  Louis  Piques;  Wetstein  received  still 
 more  from  La  Croze;  Griesbach  was  aided  I>y  a 
 collation  of  the  New  Test,  of  1789,  made  by  lire- 
 denkamp  of  Hamburg.  Scholz  speaks  of  having 
 been  furnished  with  a  collation  of  the  text  of  1805; 
 but  either  this  was  done  very  partially  and  incor- 
 rectly, or  else  Scholz  made  but  little  u,se  (and  that 
 without  real  accuracy)  of  the  collation.  These 
 partial  collations,  however,  were  by  no  means  such 
 as  to  svipply  what  was  needed  for  the  real  critical 
 use  of  the  version ;  and  as  it  was  known  that  Uscan's 
 text  was  thoroughly  uritrustworthy  for  critical  pur- 
 poses, an  exact  collation  of  the  Venice  text  of  1805 
 became  a  desideratum;  Dr.  Charles  Kieu  of  the 
 British  Museum  undertook  the  task  for  Tregelles, 
 thus  sujjplying  him  with  a  valuable  portion  of  the 
 materials  for  his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
 tament. By  marking  the  words,  and  noting  the 
 import  of  the  various  readings,  and  the  discrepan- 
 cies of  [/scan's  text,  Hieu  did  all  that  was  practi- 
 cable to  make  the  whole  of  the  labor  of  Zohrab 
 available  for  those  not  like  himself  Armenian  schol- 
 ars. 
 
 It  had  been  long  noticed  that  in  the  Armenian 
 New  Test,  as  printed  by  Uscan  1  John  v.  7  is 
 found :  those  who  are  oidy  moderately  acquainted 
 with  criticism  would  feel  assured  that  this  must  be 
 an  addition,  and  that  it  could  not  be  part  of  the 
 original  translation.  Did  Uscan  then  introduce  it 
 from  the  Vulgate?  he  seems  to  have  admitted  that 
 in  some  things  he  supplied  defects  in  his  MS.  by 
 translations  from  the  Latin.  It  was,  however,  said 
 that  Ilaitho  king  of  Armenia  (1224-70),  had  in- 
 serted this  verse:  that  he  revised  the  Armenian 
 version  by  means  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  that  he 
 translated  the  prefaces  of  Jerome  (and  also  those 
 which  are  spurious)  into  Armenian.  Hence  a  kind 
 of  suspicion  attached  itself  to  the  Armenian  \ersion, 
 and  its  use  was  accompanied  by  a  kind  of  doubt 
 whether  or  not  it  was  a  critical  authority  which 
 lould  be  safely  used,     'i'he  known  fact  that  Zohrab 
 
 had  omitted  1  John  v.  7,  was  felt  to  be  so  far  satis- 
 factory that  it  showed  that  he  had  not  found  it  in 
 his  iMSS.,  which  were  thus  seen  to  be  earlier  than 
 the  introduction  of  this  corruption.  But  the  col- 
 lation of  Dr.  Kieu,  and  his  statement  of  the  Arme- 
 nian authorities,  set  forth  the  character  of  the 
 version  distinctly  in  this  place  as  well  as  in  the 
 text  in  general.  Dr.  Eieu  says  of  1  John  v.  7, 
 that  out  of  eighteen  MSS.  used  by  Zohrab,  one 
 only,  and  that  written  A.  i>.  1650,  has  the  passage 
 as  in  the  Stephanie  Greek  text.  In  one  ancient 
 MS.  the  reading  is  found  from  a  recent  correction. 
 Thus  there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  it  was 
 inserted  by  Ilaitho,  or  by  any  one  till  the  time 
 wiien  Uscan  lived.  The  wording,  however,  of 
 Uscan  in  this  place,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
 MS.  of  1G5G :  so  that  each  seems  to  have  been 
 independently  borrowed  from  the  Latin.  That 
 Uscan  did  this,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt; 
 for  in  the  immediate  context  Uscan  accords  with 
 the  Latin  in  opposition  to  all  collated  Armenian 
 MSS.:  thus  in  ver.  G,  he  follows  the  Latin  ^^ Chris- 
 ins  est  Veritas;"  in  ver.  20  he  has,  instead  of 
 ea/xev,  the  sul  junctive  answering  to  siinus  :  even 
 in  this  minute  point  the  Armenian  MSS.  definitely 
 vary  from  Uscan.  In  iii.  11,  for  a7a7rctj/x€j',  Uscan 
 stands  alone  in  agreeing  with  the  A'ldgate  dillyatis. 
 I'hese  are  proofs  of  the  employment  of  the  'S'ulgate 
 either  by  Uscan,  or  by  some  one  else  who  prepared 
 the  MS.  from  which  he  printed.  There  are  many 
 other  passages  in  which  alterations  or  considerable 
 additions  (see  for  instance  JNIatt.  xvi.  2,  3,  xxiii. 
 14;  John  viii.  1-11;  Acts  xv.  34,  xxiii.  24,  xxviii. 
 25)  are  proofs  that  Uscan  agrees  with  the  Vulgate 
 against  all  known  MSS.  ('i'hese  variations  in  the 
 two  texts  of  Uscan  and  Zohrali,.  as  well  as  the 
 material  readings  of  Armenian  MSS.  are  inserted 
 in  Tregelles'  Greek  Test,  on  Dr.  Kieu's  authority.) 
 
 But  systematic  revision  with  the  Vulgate  is  not 
 to  be  i'ound  even  in  Uscan's  text:  they  differ  greatly 
 in  characteristic  readings;  though  here  and  there 
 throughout  there  is  some  mark  of  an  influence 
 drawn  from  the  Vulgate.  And  as  to  accordances 
 with  the  Latin,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
 there  is  any  proof  of  alterations  having  been  made 
 in  the  days  of  King  Ilaitho. 
 
 Some  have  spoken  of  this  version  as  though  it 
 had  been  made  from  the  Peshito  Syriac,  and  not 
 from  the  Greek;  the  only  grounds  for  such  a  notion 
 can  be  the  focts  connected  with  part  of  the  history 
 of  its  execution.  There  are,  no  doulit,  a  few  read- 
 ings which  show  that  the  translators  had  made 
 some  use  of  the  Syriac;  but  these  are  only  excep- 
 tions to  the  general  texture  of  the  version  ;  an  addi- 
 tion from  John  xx.  21,  brought  into  Matt,  xxviii. 
 18,  in  both  the  Armenian  and  the  Peshito,  is  prob- 
 ably the  most  marked. 
 
 The  collations  of  MSS.  show  that  son)e  amongst 
 them  differ  greatly  from  the  rest:  it  seems  as  if  the 
 variations  did  not  in  such  cases  originate  in  Arme- 
 nian, but  they  must  have  sprung  Irom  some  recast- 
 ing of  the  text  and  its  revision  by  Greek  copies. 
 There  may  perhajis  be  proofs  of  the  diftt^rence  be- 
 tween the  AIS.  brought  from  Ephesus,  and  the 
 cojiies  afterwards  used  at  Alexandria;  but  thus 
 much  at  least  is  a  certain  conclusion,  that  compar- 
 ison with  Greek  copies  of  difterent  kinds  nuist  at 
 some  period  have  taken  place.  The  omission  of 
 the  last  twelve  verses  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  in  the 
 older  Armenian  copies,  and  their  insertion  in  the 
 later,  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  some  effective  ru- 
 visioft. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (EGYPTIAN; 
 
 8375 
 
 The  Armenian  version  in  its  general  texture  is  a 
 raliiable  aid  to  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  New 
 Test. :  it  was  a  worthy  service  to  rehabilitate  it  as 
 a  critical  witness  as  to  the  general  reading  of  cer- 
 tain Greelc  copies  existing  in  the  former  half  of  the 
 5th  century. 
 
 Literature.  —  Moses  Chorenensis,  Hislorice  Ar- 
 meniuae  Libri  iii.,  ed.  Guliel.  et  Cieorg.  Whiston, 
 173G;  Rieu  (Dr.  Charles),  ,1/^'.  cdlntion  of  the 
 Armenian  text  of  Zohrab.,  and  translation  of  the 
 various  readings  made  for  Tregelles.     S.  P.  T. 
 
 CHALDEE  VERSIONS.   [Targums,  below.] 
 
 EGYP  riAN  VERSIONS.  —  I.  The  Mem- 
 WFiTic  Versiox.  —  The  version  thus  designated 
 was  lor  a  considerable  time  the  only  Egyptian  trans- 
 lation known  to  scholars;  Coptic  was  then  regarded 
 as  a  sufficiently  accurate  and  definite  appellation. 
 But  when  the  fact  was  estalilished  that  there  were 
 at  least  two  Egyjitian  versions,  the  name  Coptic 
 was  found  to  be  indefinite,  and  even  unsuitable  for 
 the  ti-anslation  then  so  termed :  for  in  the  dialect 
 of  Upper  Egypt  there  was  another;  and  it  is  from 
 the  ancient  Coptos  in  Upper  Egypt  that  the  term 
 Coptic  is  taken.  Thus  Copto-Memphitie,  or  more 
 simply  Meniphitic,  is  the  better  name  for  the  ver- 
 sion in  the  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt. 
 
 When  Egyptian  translations  were  made  we  do 
 not  know:  we  find,  however,  that  in  the  middle  of 
 the  4th  century  the  Egyptian  language  was  in 
 great  use  amongst  the  Christian  inhabitants  of  that 
 country;  for  the  rule  of  Pachomius  for  the  monks  is 
 stated  to  have  been  drawn  up  in  Egyptian,  and  to 
 have  been  afterwards  translated  into  (jreek.  It  was 
 preserilied  that  every  one  of  the  monks  (estimated 
 at  seven  thousand)  for  whom  this  rule  in  Egyptian 
 was  drawn  up,  was  to  learn  to  read  (whether  so 
 disposed  or  not),  so  as  to  be  able  at  least  to  read 
 the  New  Test,  and  the  Psalms.  The  whole  narra- 
 tion presupposes  that  there  was  in  Upper  Egypt  a 
 translation. 
 
 So,  too,  also  in  Lower  Egypt  in  the  same  century. 
 For  Palladiiis  found  at  Nitria  the  abbot  .John  of 
 Lycopolis,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  New 
 Test.,  but  who  was  ignorant  of  Greek;  so  that  he 
 could  only  con^■erse  with  him  through  an  inter- 
 preter. There  seems  to  be  proof  of  the  ecclesias- 
 tical use  of  the  Egyptian  language  even  before  this 
 time.  Those  who  know  what  the  early  Christian 
 worship  was,  will  feel  how  cogent  is  tlie  proof  that 
 the  Scriptures  had  then  been  translated. 
 
 When  the  attention  of  European  scholars  was  di- 
 rected to  the  language  and  races  of  modern  Egypt, 
 it  was  found  that  while  the  native  Christians  use 
 only  Arabic  vernacularly,  yet  in  their  services  and 
 in  the  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  they  employ 
 a  dialect  of  the  Coptic.  This  is  the  version  new 
 termed  Meniphitic.  When  MSS.  had  been  brought 
 from  I'.gypt,  Tiiomas  Marshall,  an  Englishman, 
 prepared  in  the  latter  part  of  the  16th  century  an 
 edition  of  the  Gospels;  the  publication  of  which 
 ■was  prevented  by  his  death.  I'rom  some  of  the 
 readings  having  been  noted  by  him  Mill  was  able 
 to  use  them  for  insertion  in  his  Greek  Test. ;  they 
 often  differ  (sometimes  for  the  better)  from  the  text 
 published  by  Wilkins.  Wilkins  was  a  Prussian  by 
 birth;  in  1716  he  published  at  Oxford  the  first 
 Memphitic   New  Test.,  founded  on  MSS.  in  the 
 
 a  *  It  may  be  noted  here  that  the  later  writings  of 
 Boetticher  have  been  published  under  the  name  of 
 Paul  or  Paul  Anton  de  Lagarde.     Among  these  is  an 
 
 Bodleian,  and  compared  with  some  al  Rome  and 
 Paris.  That  he  did  not  execute  the  woik  in  a  very 
 satisfactory  manner  would  proliably  now  be  owned 
 by  every  one;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  no 
 one  else  did  it  at  all.  Wilkins  gave  no  proper  ac- 
 connt  of  the  MSS.  which  he  used,  nor  of  the  vari- 
 ations which  he  found  in  them :  his  text  seems  to 
 be  in  many  places  a  confused  combination  of  what 
 he  took  from  various  MSS. ;  so  that  the  sentences 
 do  not  properly  connect  themselves,  even  (it  is  said) 
 in  grammatical  construction.  And  yet  for  130 
 years  this  w.as  the  the  only  Memphitic  edition. 
 
 In  1846-4:8,  Schwartze  published  at  Berlin  an 
 edition  of  the  Memphitic  Gospels,  in  which  he  em- 
 ployed MSS.  in  the  Royal  Library  there.  These 
 were  almost  entirely  modern  transcripts ;  but  with 
 these  limited  materials  he  produced  a  far  more  sat- 
 isfactory work  than  that  of  Wilkins.  At  the  foot 
 of  tiie  page  he  gave  the  variations  which  he  found 
 in  his  copies;  and  subjoined  there  was  a  collation 
 of  the  Jlemphitic  and  Thebaic  versions  with  Lach- 
 mann's  Greek  Test.  (1842),  and  the  first  of  Tisch- 
 endorf  (1841).  There  are  also  siich  references  to 
 the  Latin  version  of  Wilkins,  that  it  almost  seems 
 as  if  he  supposed  that  all  who  used  his  edition 
 would  also  have  that  of  Wilkins  before  them. 
 
 The  death  of  Schwartze  prevented  the  continua- 
 tion of  his  labors.  Since  then  Boetticher's  editions, 
 first  of  the  Acts  and  then  of  the  Ejjistles,  have  ap- 
 peared ;  these  are  not  in  a  form  wliicli  is  available 
 for  the  use  of  those  who  are  themselves  unacquainted 
 with  Egyptian :  the  editor  gives  as  his  reason  for 
 issuing  a  bare  text,  that  he  intended  soon  to  pulilish 
 a  work  of  his  own  in  which  he  would  fnlly  employ 
 the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions.  Several  years 
 have  since  passed,  and  Boetticher  does  not  seem  to 
 give  any  further  prospect  of  the  issue  of  such  volume 
 on  the  ancient  versions." 
 
 In  1848-52  a  magnificent  edition  of  the  Mem- 
 phitic New  Test,  was  pui)lished  liy  the  Society  for 
 promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  under  the  editorial 
 care  of  the  Rev.  R.  T.  Lieder  of  Cairo.  In  its  prep- 
 aration he  followed  MSS.  without  depending  on 
 the  text  of  Wilkins.  There  is  no  statement  of  the 
 variations  of  the  authorities,  which  would  have 
 hardly  been  a  suitable  accompaniment  of  an  edition 
 intended  solely  for  the  use  of  the  Coptic  churches, 
 and  in  which,  while  the  Egyptian  text  which  is  read 
 aloud  is  printed  in  large  characters,  there  is  at  the 
 side  a  small  column  in  Arabic  in  order  that  the 
 readers  may  themselves  be  able  to  understand  some- 
 thing of  what  they  read  aloud. 
 
 It  is  thus  impossible  to  give  a  history  of  this 
 version :  we  find  proof  that  such  a  translation  ex- 
 isted in  early  times,  we  find  this  now  (and  from 
 time  immemorial)  in  church  use  in  I'gypt;  when 
 speaking  of  its  internal  character  and  its  value  as 
 to  textual  criticism  (after  the  other  Egyptian  ver- 
 sions have  been  described),  it  will  be  found  that 
 there  are  many  considerations  which  go  far  to  prove 
 the  identity  of  what  we  now  have,  with  that  which 
 must  have  existed  at  an  early  period. 
 
 The  Old  Testament  of  this  version  was  made 
 from  the  LXX.  Of  this,  Wilkins  edited  the  Penta- 
 teuch in  1731 ;  the  Psalter  was  published  at  Rome 
 in  1744.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Tattam  edited  the  Minor 
 Prophets  in  1836,  Job  in  1846,  and  the  Major 
 Prophets   in  1852.     Bardelli  published  Daniel  in 
 
 essay  De  Novo  Testamtnto  ad  Versionmn  Orientalium 
 ftclem  edendo,  Berl.  1857,  4to.  A. 
 
3376 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (EGYPTIAN) 
 
 i849.  [A.  Pallet,  La  version  cophte  du  Pent., 
 Livr.  1,2,  Par.  1854.  P.  de  Lagarde,  Der  Petit., 
 koptisch,  Leipz.  18G7.  —  J.  L.  Ideler,  Psalleriiiin 
 Coptice,  Berol.  1837.  M.  G.  Schwartze,  Psal/e- 
 rium  in  Dial.  Copt.  Ling,  ^femp/lit.  tranal.  edhlil, 
 Notisque  crit.  et  gram,  instruxit,  Lips.  1843,  4to. 
 -A.] 
 
 I[.  The  Thkbaic  Version.  —  The  examina- 
 tion of  Egyptian  MSS.  in  the  last  century  showed 
 that  besides  the  Meniphitic  tlieie  is  also  another 
 version  in  a  cognate  Egyptian  dialect.  To  this  the 
 name  Salndic  was  a]iplied  liy  some,  from  an  Arabic 
 designation  for  Upper  Egypt  and  its  ancient  lan- 
 guage. It  is,  however,  far  better  to  assign  to  this 
 version  a  name  not  derived  from  the  language  of  the 
 Arabian  occupants  of  that  land :  thus  Copto-The- 
 baic  (as  styled  by  Giorgi),  or  simply  Thebaic,  is 
 far  preferable.  The  first  who  attended  much  to 
 the  subject  of  this  version  was  Woide,  who  collected 
 readings  from  MSS.  which  he  connnunicated  to 
 Cramer  in  1779.  In  1785  Mingarelli  published  a 
 few  portions  of  this  version  of  the  New  Test,  from 
 the  Nanian  MSS.  In  1789  Giorgi  edited  very 
 valuable  Greek  and  Thebaic  fragments  of  St.  John's 
 Gospel,  which  appear  to  belong  to  ihefflli  century. 
 Miinter,  in  1787,  had  pulilished  a  fragment  of 
 Daniel  in  this  version;  and  in  1781)  he  brought  out 
 portions  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  together  with 
 readings  which  he  had  collected  from  MSS.  in 
 other  parts  of  the  New  Test.  In  the  following  year 
 Mignarelli /;/'/'«?e(/ Mark  xi.  29-xv.  22,  from  MSS. 
 which  had  recently  been  obtained  by  Nani;  but 
 owing  to  the  editor's  death  the  unfinished  sheets 
 were  never,  properly  speaking,  publislud.  A  few 
 copies  only  seem  to  have  been  circulated ;  they  are 
 the  more  valuable  ftom  the  fact  of  the  MSS.  hav- 
 ing been  destroyed  by  the  persons  into  whose  hands 
 they  fell,  and  from  their  containing  a  portion  of  tlie 
 New  Test,  not  found,  it  ajipears,  in  any  known  JIS. 
 Woide  was  now  busily  engaged  in  the  collection  of 
 portions  of  the  Thebaic  Scriptures:  he  had  even 
 issued  a  Prospectus  of  such  an  edition  in  1778. 
 Woide's  death  took  place  before  his  edition  was 
 comi)leted.  In  1799,  however,  it  appeared  under 
 the  editorial  care  of  Ford.  In  this  work  all  the 
 portions  found  by  Woide  himself  were  given,  as 
 well  as  those  published  by  Mingarelli  in  his  life- 
 time: but  not  only  were  Mingarelli's  posthumous 
 sheets  passed  by,  but  also  all  that  had  been  pub- 
 lished by  Miinter  and  Giorgi,  as  well  as  the  tran- 
 script of  Miinter  from  the  Borgian  MSS.,  which 
 Ford  might  have  used  for  his  edition.  This  col- 
 lection of  fragments  contains  the  greater  part  of  the 
 Thebaic  New  Test.  They  might,  however,  be 
 greatly  amplified  out  of  what  are  mentioned  by 
 Zoega,  as  found  in  the  Borgian  MSS.  (now  in  the 
 Propaganda),  in  his  catalogue  published  in  1810 
 after  his  death.  It  could  hardly  have  been  thought 
 that  this  defi?iite  account  of  existing  Thebaic  frag- 
 ments would  have  remained  more  than  half  a  cen- 
 tury without  some  Egyptian  scholar  having  rescued 
 the  inedited  portions  of  this  version  from  their  ob- 
 scurity ;  and  surely  this  would  not  have  been  the 
 case  if  Biblical  critics  had  been  found  who  possess 
 Egyptian  learning. 
 
 In  the  j\[eniphitic  Gospels  of  Schwartze  there  is 
 not  only,  as  has  been  ah'eady  mentioned,  a  collation 
 subjoined  of  the  Thebaic  text,  but  also  the  criticisms 
 of  that  learned  editor  on  both  Eord  and  Woide, 
 neither  of  whom,  in  his  judgment,  possessed  sutti- 
 cient  editorial  competency.  In  this  opinion  he  was 
 perhaps  correct;  but  still  let  it  be  observed,  that  if 
 
 it  had  not  been  for  the  labors  of  Woide  (of  which 
 Ford  was  simply  the  continuer),  there  is  no  reason 
 to  suppose  but  that  the  Thebaic  New  Test,  would 
 remain  unprinted  still.  Had  this  been  the  case  the 
 loss  to  textual  criticism  would  have  been  great. 
 
 III.  A  Tiiiiti)  Egyptian  Veksion.  —  Some 
 Egyptian  fragments  were  noticed  by  both  Miinter 
 and  Giorgi  amongst  the  Borgian  MSS.,  which  in 
 dialect  difii^r  both  from  the  Meniphitic  and  Thebaic. 
 These  fragments,  of  a  third  Egyptian  translation, 
 were  edited  by  both  these  scholars  independently  in 
 the  same  year  (1789).  In  what  part  of  l'>gypt  this 
 third  dialect  was  used,  .-fud  what  should  be  its 
 distinctive  name,  has  been  a  good  deal  discussed. 
 Arabian  writers  mention  a  third  Egyptian  dialect 
 under  the  name  of  Baslimuric,  and  this  has  by 
 some  been  agsiimed  as  the  appellation  for  this  ver- 
 sion. Giorgi  supposed  that  tliis  was  the  dialect  of » 
 the  Anmionian  Oasis;  in  this  INIiinter  agreed  with 
 him;  and  thus  they  called  the  version  the  ^l)/(//(0- 
 9iian.  There  is  in  fact  no  certainty  on  the  subject: 
 but  as  the  affinities  of  the  dialect  are  closely  allied 
 to  the  Thebaic,  and  as  it  has  been  shown  that 
 Bdshtmir  is  the  district  of  Lower  Egypt  to  the  east 
 of  the  Delta,  it  seems  by  no  means  likely  that  it 
 can  belong  to  a  region  so  far  from  the  Thebaid. 
 Indeed  it  has  been  reasonably  doubted  whether  the 
 slight  differences  (mostly  those  of  orthography)  en- 
 title this  to  be  considered  to  be  a  really  different 
 dialect  from  the  Thel)aic  itself. 
 
 After  the  first  ]iortions  of  this  version,  others 
 were  transcribed  independently  by  Zoega  and  En- 
 gelbreth,  and  their  transcrij)ts  appeared  respectively 
 ill  1810  and  1811.  The  latter  of  these  scholara 
 accompanied  his  edition  with  critical  remarks,  and 
 the  text  of  the  other  I'^gyptiaii  versions  on  the  same 
 page  for  purposes  of  comparison. 
 
 The,  Churucler  and  Critical  Use  oftJie  /\//yplian 
 Versions.  —  It  appears  that  the  Thebaic  version 
 may  reasonably  claim  a  higher  antiquity  than  the 
 Meniphitic.  The  two  translations  are  independent 
 of  each  other,  and  both  spring  from  Greek  copies. 
 The  Thebaic  has  been  considered  to  be  the  older  of 
 the  two,  partly  from  it  having  been  thought  that  a 
 book  in  the  Thebaic  dialect  quotes  this  version,  and 
 from  what  was  judged  to  be  the  antiquity  of  the 
 book  so  referred  to.  There  are  other  grounds  less 
 precarious.  If  the  Meniphitic  version  exhibits  a 
 general  agreement  with  the  text  current  at  Alex- 
 andria in  the  third  century,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
 to  suppose  that  it  either  belongs  to  that  age,  or  at 
 least  to  one  not  \ery  remote.  Now  while  this  is 
 the  case  it  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  Thebaic 
 seems  to  have  been  framed  from  a  text  in  which 
 there  was  a  much  greater  admixture,  and  that  not 
 irising  from  the  later  revisions  which  moulded  it 
 into  the  transition  text  of  the  fourth  century  (com- 
 mencing prolialily  at  Antioch),  but  exactly  in  the 
 opposite  direction:  so  that  the  contents  of  the  two 
 versions  would  seem  to  show  that  the  antiquity  of 
 the  Thebaic  is  most  to  be  regarded,  but  that  the 
 Meniphitic  is  often  preferable  as  to  the  goodness  of 
 its  readings,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  dialect. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  the  more  Hellenized  region  of 
 Lower  ligypt  would  not  require  a  vernacular  ver- 
 sion at  so  early  a  period  as  would  the  more  thor- 
 oughly Egyptian  region  of  the  Thebaid.  There 
 are  some  marks  of  want  of  polish  in  the  Thebaic; 
 the  Greek  words  which  are  introduced  are  changed 
 into  a  barbarous  form ;  the  habitual  introduction  of 
 an  aspirate  shows  either  an  ignorance  of  the  true 
 Greek  sounds,  or  else  it  seems  like  a  want  of  polish 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GOTHIC) 
 
 ji  the  dialect  itself.  That  such  a  mode  of  express- 
 ing (jreek  words  in  E^cyptian  is  not  needed,  we  can 
 6ee  from  its  non-existence  in  the  Meniphitic. 
 
 The  probable  conclusions  seem  to  be  these:  that 
 the  Thebaic  \er.sion  was  made  in  the  early  part  of 
 the  third  century,  for  tlie  use  of  the  common  people 
 anions,'  the  Christians  in  Upper  I'^ypt ;  that  it  was 
 formed  from  MSS.  such  as  were  then  current  in 
 the  regions  of  ICijypt  which  were  distant  from  Alex- 
 andria; that  afterwards  the  Memphitic  version  was 
 executed  in  what  was  the  more  polished  dialect, 
 from  the  Greek  copies  of  Alexandria;  and  that  thus 
 in  process  of  time  the  Meniphitic  remained  alone  in 
 ecclesiastical  use.  Possibly  the  disuse  of  the  The- 
 baic in  the  Egyptian  churches  did  not  take  place 
 until  Arabic  was  fast  lieconiing  the  vernacular 
 tongue  of  that  land.  It  will  be  well  for  those  whose 
 suidies  enable  them  personally  to  enter  on  the  do- 
 main of  Egyptian  literature,  to  communicate  to 
 Biblical  scholars  the  results  of  new  researches. 
 
 The  value  of  these  versions  in  textual  criticism, 
 even  though  they  are  known  only  through  defective 
 channels,  is  very  high.  In  some  respects  they  af- 
 ford the  same  kind  of  evidence  relative  to  tlie  text 
 current  in  Egypt  in  the  early  centuries,  as  do  the 
 Old  Latin  and  the  version  of  Jerome  for  that  in 
 use  in  the  \Vest.     [Vulgate.] 
 
 A  few  remarks  only  need  be  made  respecting  the 
 third  Egyptian  version.  The  fragments  of  this  fol- 
 low the  Tliebaic  so  closely  as  to  have  no  independ- 
 ent character.  This  version  does  however  possess 
 critical  value,  as  furnishing  evidence  in  a  small 
 portion  not  known  in  the  Thebaic.  The  existence 
 of  the  <//«/■(/ version  is  a  further  argument  as  to  the 
 early  existence  and  use  of  the  Thebaic,  for  this 
 seems  to  be  formed  from  it  by  moulding  it  into  the 
 colloquial  dialect  of  some  locality. 
 
 Jjilcrdlure.  —  Schwartze.  Qwitunr  F.vant/tll'i  in 
 Diiiltcto  Linyuce  C'opdcce  Memphitica,  184-G— 17 ; 
 Woide,  Noci  Ti'staiiienti  Frayiiitntii  Siilii'licn. 
 (i.  e.  Thebaica)  [Appendix  ad  Cod.  Alex.j,  17'Ji(; 
 Mingarelli,  ^'E(/i/plioriiiii  Codicum  E(^tiqui(e,  1785, 
 &c. ;  Milliter,  ConuiiciUntio  de  indole  Vergiiinis  N. 
 T.  Siihidiae,  1781) ;  Giorgi,  FriH/mcntitiii  Ev.  S. 
 Juan.  Grceco-C'ojjio-T/ieljaicum,  1781);  Zoega,  OU- 
 aloyus  Codicum  (Jopticovum  AlanuscripUirum  qui 
 in  Miiseo  Burc/iauo  Veiiiris  adservantur,  18 10; 
 Engelbreth,  Frayiiienta  Basmurico-Coptica  Vettris 
 et  Noci  Testntnenti,  1811.  S.  P.  T. 
 
 GOTHIC  VEKSION.  —  In  the  year  318  the 
 Gothic  bishop  and  translator  of  Scripture,  Ulphilas, 
 was  born.  He  succeeded  Theopliilus  as  bishop  of 
 the  Goths  in  348,  when  he  suliscribed  a  confession 
 rejecting  the  orthodox  creed  of  Nicoea  ;  through 
 him  it  is  said  that  the  Goths  in  general  adopted 
 Arianism;  it  may  be,  however,  more  correct  to 
 consider  that  Arianism  (or  Senii-Arianism)  had  al- 
 ready spread  amongst  the  Goths  inhabiting  within 
 the  Koman  Empire,  as' well  as  amongst  the  (ireeks 
 and  l^atins.  Tlieophilus,  the  predecessor  of  Ulphi- 
 las, had  been  present  at  the  council  of  Nic«a,  and 
 had  suliscribed  the  Monioousian  confession.  The 
 great  work  of  L;i[)liilas  was  his  version  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures, a  translation  in  which  few  traces,  if  any  (ex- 
 cept in  I'hil.  ii.  6),  can  be  found  of  his  peculiar  and 
 |n-oneous  dogmas.  .In  .388  Ulphilas  visited  Con- 
 stantinople to  defend  his  heterodox  creed,  and  while 
 there  he  died. 
 
 In  the  5th  century  the  Eastern  Goths  occupied 
 and  governed  Italy,  while  the  Western  Goths  took 
 possession  of  Spain,  where  they  ruled  till   the  be- 
 
 ginning of  the  8th  century.  Amongst  the  Goths 
 in  both  the.se  countries  can  the  use  of  this  versioB 
 lie  traced.  It  must  in  fiict  have  at  one  time  been 
 the  vernacular  translation  of  a  large  portion  ot 
 luirope. 
 
 In  the  latter  part  of  the  16th  century  the  exist- 
 ence of  a  AIS.  of  this  version  was  known,  through 
 Morillon  having  mentioned  that  he  had  observed 
 one  in  the  library  of  the  monastery  of  Werdeii  on 
 the  Ruhr  in  Westphalia.  Me  transcribed  the  Lord's 
 Prayer  and  some  other  parts,  which  were  after- 
 wards published,  as  were  other  verses  copied  soon 
 after  liy  Arnold  Mercator. 
 
 In  1048,  almost  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Thirty 
 Years'  War,  the  Swedes  took  that  part  of  Prague 
 on  the  left  of  the  Moldau  (Kleine  Seite),  and 
 amongst  the  spoils  was  sent  to  Stockholm  a  copy  of 
 the  (jothic  Gospels,  known  as  the  Codex  Ari/enle^ts. 
 This  .M.S.  is  generally  supposed  to  be  tlie  .same  that 
 Morillon  had  seen  at  Werden ;  but  whether  the 
 same  or  not,  it  had  been  long  at  Prague  when  found 
 there  by  the  Swedes,  for  Strenius,  who  died  in  1601, 
 mentions  it  as  being  there.  The  Codex  Arr/cnteus 
 was  taken  by  the  Swedes  to  Stockholm  ;  but  on  the 
 alidication  of  Queen  Cliristina  of  Sweden,  a  few 
 years  later,  it  disappeared.  In  16.55  it  was  in  the 
 possession  of  Isaac  Vossius  in  Holland,  who  had 
 been  the  queen's  librarian ;  to  him  therefore  it  is 
 probable  tliat  it  had  lieen  given,  and  not  to  the 
 (pieen  herself,  by  the  general  who  brought  it  from 
 Prague.  In  1062  it  was  repurchased  for  Sweden 
 liy  Count  Magnus  Gabriel  de  la  Gardie,  who  caused 
 it  to  be  splendidly  liound,  and  placed  it  in  the 
 library  of  the  University  of  Upsal,  where  it  now 
 remains. 
 
 Wliile  the  book  was  in  the  hands  of  Vossius  a 
 transcript  was  made  of  its  text,  from  wliicii  Junius, 
 his  uncle,  edited  the  first  edition  of  the  Gothic 
 Gospels  at  Dortin  1665:  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels, 
 edited  by  jMarshall,  accompanied  the  Gothic  te.xt. 
 'The  labors  of  other  editors  succeeded :  Stiern- 
 hielin,  1671;  Benzel  and  Lye,  1750;  and  others 
 comparatively  recent.  The  AIS.  is  written  on  vel- 
 lum that  was  once  purple,  in  silver  letters,  except 
 those  at  the  beginning  of  sections,  which  are  golden. 
 The  Gospels  have  many  htcume :  it  is  calculated 
 that  wlien  entire  it  consisted  of  320  folios;  there 
 are  now  but  188.  The  uniformity  of  the  writing  is 
 wonderful:  so  that  it  has  been  thought  whether 
 each  letter  was  not  formed  liy  a  hot  iron  imjiress- 
 ing  the  gold  or  silver,  used  just  as  lioukbinders  put 
 on  the  lettering  to  the  back  of  a  book.  It  is  pretty 
 certain  that  this  beautiful  and  elaborate  M.S.  must 
 have  been  written  in  the  6th  century,  probably  in 
 Upper  Italy  when  under  the  Gothic  sovereignty. 
 Some  in  the  last  century  supposed  that  the  language 
 of  this  document  is  not  Gotliic,  but  Frankish  —  an 
 opinion  which  was  set  at  rest  by  the  discovery  in 
 Italy  of  Ostro-Gothic  writings,  about  which  there 
 could  be  no  question  raised.  Some  Visi-Gothic 
 monuments  in  Spain  were  e\idence  on  the  same 
 side. 
 
 Knittel,  in  1762,  edited  from  a  Wolfenbiittel 
 palimpsest  some  portions  of  the  I'.pistle  to  the  Ro- 
 mans in  Gothic,  in  whicii  the  Latin  stood  by  the 
 side  of  the  version  of  Ulphilas.  This  discovery 
 first  made  known  the  existence  of  any  part  of  a 
 version  of  the  Epistles.  The  portions  broui;ht  to 
 liglit  were  soon  afterwards  used  l)y  Hire  in  the  col- 
 lection of  remarks  on  Ulphilas  edited  in  1773  by 
 Hiisehing. 
 
 But  as  it  was  certain  that  in  obscure  places  the 
 
3378 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 
 
 Coaex  Argenieus  had  been  not  very  correctly  read, 
 Ihre  labored  to  copy  it  with  exactitude,  and  to  iunii 
 a  Latin  version :  what  be  had  thus  prepared  was 
 edited  by  Zahn  in  1805. 
 
 New  liirbt  dawned  on  Ulpbilas  and  his  version  in 
 1817.  VVhile  the  late  Cardinal  Mai  was  euija^ed 
 in  the  examination  of  palimpsests  in  the  Anibrusian 
 Library  at  Milan,  of  wbicli  be  was  at  that  time  a 
 librarian,  be  noticed  traces  of  some  Gutliic  writing 
 under  that  of  one  of  the  codices.  This  was  found 
 to  be  part  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nebemiah.  In 
 niakinsj  further  examination,  four  other  pahn.psests 
 were  found  which  contained  portions  of  the  Gothic 
 Version.  Mai  deciphered  these  MSS.  in  conjunc- 
 tion with  Count  Carlo  Ottavio  Castiglione,  and  their 
 labors  resulted  in  the  recovery,  besides  a  few  por- 
 tions of  the  Old  Test.,  of  almost  the  whole  of  the 
 thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  some  parts  of  the 
 Gospels. 
 
 The  edition  of  Gabelentz  and  Loebe  (18-36-40) 
 contains  all  that  has  been  discovered  of  the  Gothic 
 V^ersion,  with  a  Latin  translation,  notes,  and  a 
 Gothic  Dictionary  and  Gramm.ar.  These  editors 
 were  at  the  pains  to  reiixamine,  at  Upsal  and  Milan, 
 the  MSS.  themselves.  Tbey  have  thus,  it  appears, 
 succeeded  in  a\oiding  the  repetition  of  errors  made 
 by  their  predecessors.  The  Milan  palimpsests  were 
 chemically  restored  when  the  mode  of  doing  this 
 was  not  as  well  known  as  it  is  at  present;  the 
 ■whole  texture  of  the  vellum  seems  stained  and 
 spoiled,  and  thus  it  is  not  an  easy  task  to  read  the 
 ancient  writing  correctly.  Those  who  have  tlicm- 
 sehes  looked  at  the  Wolfenbiittel  palimpsest  from 
 •which  Knittel  edited  the  portions  of  Komajis,  and 
 who  have  also  exaniined  the  Gothic  palimpsests  at 
 Milan,  will  prolably  agree  that  it  is  less  ditticult  to 
 read  the  nnrestored  MS.  at  Wolfenbiittel  than  the 
 restored  ]\ISS.  at  i\Iilan.«  This  must  be  borne  in 
 mind  if  we  would  appreciate  the  labors  of  Gabe- 
 lentz and  Loebe. 
 
 In  1854:  Uppstrijm  published  an  excellent  edition 
 of  the  text  of  the  Codex  Argenieus,  with  a  beauti- 
 ful fac-simile.  Ten  leaves  of  the  MS.  were  then 
 missing,  and  Uppstrijm  tells  a  rather  ungratifying 
 story  that  tbey  had  been  stolen  by  some  English 
 traveller.  It  is  a  satisfaction,  bovve^■er,  that  a  iew 
 years  afterwards  the  real  thief  on  his  death-bed  re- 
 stored the  missing  leaves;  and,  though  stolen,  it 
 was  not  by  any  one  out  of  Sweden.  Uppstriim  ed- 
 ited them  as  a  supplement  in  1857. 
 
 In  1855-50  Massmann  issued  an  excellent  small 
 edition  of  all  the  Gothic  portions  of  the  Scriptures 
 known  to  be  extant.  He  accompanies  the  Gothic 
 text  with  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  and  tliere  are  a 
 Grammar  and  Vocabulary  subjoined.  This  edition 
 is  said  to  be  more  correct  than  that  of  Gabelentz 
 and  Loebe.  Another  edition  of  Ulpbilas  ["  Text, 
 Gram.,  u.  Wiirterbuch  "]  by  F.  L.  Stamm  aj^peared 
 at  Paderborn  in  1858  [4^  Ausg.,  von  M.  Heyne, 
 1869]. 
 
 As  an  ancient  momnnent  of  the  Gothic  language 
 the  version  of  Ulpbilas  possesses  great  interest;  as 
 a  version  the  use  of  which  was  once  extended 
 widely  through  Europe,  it  is  a  monument  of  the 
 Christianization  of  the  Goths;  and  as  a  version 
 known  to  have  Ijeen  made  in  the  4th  century,  and 
 transmitted  to  us  in  ancient  MSS.,  it  has  its  value 
 in  textual  criticism,  being  thus  a  witness  to  read- 
 ings which  were  current  in  that  age.     In   certain 
 
 «  Such  is  the  writer's  judgment  from  his  own  ex- 
 ftminatioD  of  the  palimpsest  at  Wolfenbuttel,  and   of 
 
 passages  it  has  been  thought  that  there  is  some 
 proof  of  the  influence  of  the  Latin ;  and  this  has 
 been  regarded  as  confirmed  by  the  order  of  the  (Jos- 
 pels  in  the  Codex  Aryenteus,  being  that  of  some  of 
 the  Old  Latin  MSS.,  Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark. 
 But  if  the  peculiarities  pointed  out  were  borrowed 
 in  the  Gothic  from  the  Latin,  they  must  be  consid- 
 ered r.atber  as  exceptional  points,  and  not  such  as 
 atlect  the  general  texture  of  the  version,  for  its 
 Greek  origin  is  not  to  be  mistaken.  This  is  cer- 
 tain from  the  manner  in  which  the  Greek  construc- 
 tions and  the  forms  of  compound  words  are  imitated. 
 The  very  mistakes  of  rendering  are  proofs  of  Greek 
 and  not  Latin  origin.  The  marks  of  conformity  to 
 the  Latin  may  have  been  introduced  ivito  the  ver- 
 sion in  the  case  of  MSS.  copied  in  Italy  during  the 
 rule  in  that  land  of  the  Gothic  sovereigns.  The 
 \\'olfenl)iittel  palimpsest  has  Latin  by  the  side  of 
 the  Gothic. 
 
 The  Greek  from  which  the  version  wa,s  made 
 must  in  many  respects  have  been  what  has  been 
 termed  the  transition  text  of  the  4th  century; 
 another  witness  to  which  is  the  revised  form  of 
 the  Old  Latin,  such  as  is  found  in  the  Codex 
 Brixianus  (this  revision  being  in  fact  the  Italu). 
 [Vulgate.] 
 
 In  all  cases  in  which  the  readings  of  the  Gothic 
 confirm  those  of  the  most  ancient  authorities,  the 
 united  testimony  must  be  allowed  to  possess  espe- 
 cial weight. 
 
 Literature. —  Waltz,  Ueher  das  Leben  und  die 
 Lein-e  des  Ulphila,  1840;  Gabelentz  and  Loebe, 
 [/If Has  (Prulegomena),  18-30-43;  Uppstrom,  Co- 
 dex Argenieus,  1854  (Decern  Codicis  Avgentei 
 rediviva  folia,  1857);  Massmann,  Ulflas,  1857. 
 [W.  Bessell,  Ueher  das  Leben  des  Ulflas,  etc., 
 Gott.  1800;  W.  Krafft,  art.  "  Ulfila  "  in  Herzog's 
 Real-EncyU.  xvi.  610-024  (18(52),  comp.  his  Die 
 Anfiinye  d.  chrisil.  Kirche  bei  d.  germ.  Vblkern, 
 Bd.  i.  Abth.  i.  (1854);  E.  Bernhardt,  Krit.  Urt- 
 lerss.  idler  die  got//.  Bibeldberselzung,  2  Hefte, 
 Meiningen,  Elber'f.,  1864-60.  — A.]       S.  P.  T. 
 
 GREEK  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
 MENT. —  1.  Septuagikt.  —  In  addition  to  the 
 special  article  on  this  version  [Septuagint]  a  few 
 points  may  be  noted  here. 
 
 I.  JVame.  —  In  all  discussions  I'elative  to  the 
 name  of  Sepinagint,  so  universally  appropriated  to 
 the  Greek  version  of  Alexandria,  the  scholion  dis- 
 covered by  Osann  and  published  by  Ritschl  ought 
 to  be  considered.  The  origin  of  this  Latin  scholion 
 is  curious.  The  substance  of  it  is  stated  to  have 
 been  extracted  from  Callimacbus  and  Eratosthenes, 
 the  Alexandrian  librarians,  by  Tzetzes,  and  from 
 his  Greek  note  an  Italian  of  the  15th  century  has 
 formed  the  Latin  scholion  in  question.  The  writer 
 has  been  speaking  of  the  collecting  of  ancient  Greek 
 poems  carried  on  at  Alexandria  under  Ptolemy 
 Philadelpbus,  and  then  be  thus  continues:  "Nam 
 rex  ille  pbilosopbis  aflertissinnis  (corr.  '  difTertissi- 
 nuis,'  Ritschl,  '  aflectissiuuis,'  Thiersch)  et  cfeteris 
 omnil)US  auctoribus  Claris,  disquLsitis  impensa  regia; 
 numificentise  uliique  terrarum  quantum  valuit  vo- 
 luniinibus  opera  Demetrii  Pbalerei  p  h  z  x  a  senum 
 duas  bililiothecas  fecit,  alteram  extra  regiam  alteram 
 autem  in  regia."  The  scholion  then  goes  on  to 
 speak  of  books  in  many  languages:  "qua;  summa 
 
 those  at  Milan  ;  but  of  course  he  never  saw  the  latter 
 prior  to  their  restoration. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIEJST  (GREEK) 
 
 3379 
 
 diligentia  rex  ille  in  suam  linguam  fecit  ab  optiniis 
 interpretibus  converti."  «  Benihardy  reads  instead 
 of  "phzxa  senum,"  "  et  Ixx  senum,"  and  this 
 correction  is  agreed  to  by  Thiersch,  as  it  well  may 
 be:  some  correction  is  manifestly  needed,  and  tliis 
 appears  to  bo  right.  This  gives  ns  seventy  elders 
 associated  in  the  formation  of  the  library.  The  tes- 
 timony comes  to  us  from  Alexandrian  authority; 
 and  this,  if  true  (or  even  if  belie\ed  to  be  true), 
 would  connect  the  Sepluagint  with  the  library;  a 
 designation  which  might  most  easily  be  applied  to 
 a  version  of  the  Scriptures  there  deposited;  and, 
 let  the  translation  be  once  known  by  such  a  name, 
 tjien  nothing  would  be  more  probable  than  that  the 
 designation  should  be  applied  to  the  translators. 
 This  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  step  in  the  ibrma- 
 tioii  of  the  fables.  Let  the  Seplaayinl  be  first 
 known  as  applying  to  the  associates  in  the  collec- 
 tion of  the  library,  then  to  the  library  itself,  and 
 then  to  that  particular  book  in  the  library  which 
 to  so  many  had  a  far  greater  value  than  all  its 
 other  contents.  Whether  more  than  the  I'enta- 
 teuch  was  thus  translated  and  then  deposited  in 
 the  Koyal  Library  is  a  separate  question. 
 
 li.  The  Connection  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
 LXX.  with  tlie  Samaritan  Text.  —  It  was  long  ago 
 remarked  that  in  the  Pentateuch  the  Sanjaritan 
 copy  and  the  LXX.  agree  in  readings  which  ditier 
 from  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  .Jews.  This  has  been 
 pointed  out  as  occurring  in  perhaps  two  thousand 
 places.  The  conclusion  to  which  some  thus  came 
 was  that  the  LXX.  must  have  been  translated  from 
 a  Samaritan  copy. 
 
 But,  on  many  grounds,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
 admit  this,  even  if  it  were  found  impossible  to  ex- 
 plain the  coincidences.  For  (i.)  it  must  be  taken 
 into  account  that  if  the  discrepancies  of  the  Sa- 
 maritan and  .Jewish  copies  be  estimated  numer- 
 ically, the  LXX.  will  be  found  to  agree  far  more 
 frequentlij  with  the  latter  than  the  former,  (ii.) 
 In  the  cases  of  considerable  and  marked  passages 
 occurring  in  the  Samaritan  which  are  not  in  the 
 Jewish,  the  LXX.  does  not  contain  them.  (iii. )  In 
 the  passages  in  which  slight  variations  are  found, 
 both  in  the  Samaritan  and  LXX.,  from  the  Jewish 
 text,  they  often  ditter  amongst  themselves,  and  the 
 amplification  of  the  LXX.  is  less  than  that  of  the 
 Samaritan,  (iv.)  Some  of  the  small  amplifications 
 in  which  the  Samaritan  seems  to  accord  with  the 
 LXX.  are  in  such  incoirect  and  non-idiomatic  He- 
 brew that  it  is  suggested  that  these  must  be  trans- 
 lations, and,  if  so,  probably  from  the  LXX.  (v.)  The 
 amplifications  of  the  LXX.  and  Samaritan  often  re- 
 semble each  other  greatly  in  character,  as  if  similar 
 false  criticism  had  been  applied  to  the  text  in  each 
 case.  But  as,  in  spite  of  all  similarities  such  as 
 these,  the  Pentateuch  of  the  LXX.  is  more  .lewish 
 than  .Samaritan,  we  need  not  adopt  the  notion  of 
 translation  from  a  Samaritan  Codex,  which  would 
 involve  the  suliject  in  greater  difficulties,  and  leave 
 more  points  to  be  explained.  (On  some  of  the  sup- 
 posed agreements  of  the  LXX.  with  the  .Samaritan, 
 see  Bishop  Fitzgerald  in  YLxiM^  .fournal  of  Sacred 
 Literature,  Oct.  J848,  pp.  32-i-.3:J2. ) 
 
 in.  The  Liluryical  Oriyin  of  Portions  of  the 
 LXX. —  Tills  is  a  subject  for  inquiry  which  has 
 'eceived  but  little  attention,  not  so  much,  probal)ly, 
 as  its    importance   deserves.     It  was    noticed   by 
 
 a  See    Thiersch,   De   Pentatenrlii    versione  Alexan- 
 drina,  pp.  8,  9.     Erlangi-n,  1841. 
 
 b  Eichlioru  and  those  who  liave  followed  him  state 
 
 Tregelles  many  years  ago  that  the  headings  of  cer- 
 tain psalms  in  the  LXX.  coincide  witli  the  litur- 
 gical directions  in  the  Jewish  Prajer-book  :  the 
 results  were  at  a  later  period  comnumicated  in 
 Kitto's  .Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  April,  1852,  - 
 pp.  207-209.  The  results  may  be  briefly  stated : 
 The  23d  Psalm,  LXX.  (2-tth,  Hebrew),  is  headed 
 in  the  LXX.,  rr\s  fxias  ira^pdTov;  so  too  in  He- 
 brew,  in    De    Sola's   Prayers   of  the    Sephardiin, 
 
 lltrWin  DV2:  Ps.  xlvii.,  LXX.  (Heb.  xlviii.), 
 SfVTfpa  <Ta0l3dTov,  "^311?  DV7  :  Ps.  xciii.,  LXX. 
 
 (Heb.  xciv.),  rerpdBi  o-a/S/Sarou,  "'l'"'3~)  CVb  : 
 Ps.  xcii.,  LXX.  (Heb.  xciii.),  els  tV  VM-^pf-f  tov 
 irpo(Ta$0dTov,  ^WW  DVv.  There  appear  to  be 
 no  Greek  copies  extant  which  contain  similar  head- 
 ings for  Psalms  Ixxxi.  and  Ixxx.  (Heb.  Ixxxii.  and 
 Ixxxi.),  which  the  Jewish  Prayer-book  appropriates 
 to  the  third  and  fflh  days;  but  that  such  once 
 existed  in  the  case  of  the  latter  psalm  seems  to  be 
 shown  from  the  Latin  Psfdleriuni  ]'elus  having  the 
 
 prefixed  gidntn  sabbati,  "'W^T^'H  CVb.  Prof. 
 Delitzseh,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  has 
 recently  pointed  out  that  the  notation  of  these 
 psalms  in  the  LXX.  is  in  accordance  with  certain 
 passages  in  the  Talmud. 
 
 It  is  worthy  of  inquiry  whether  variations  in 
 other  passages  of  the  LXX.  from  the  Hebi-ew  text 
 caimot  at  times  be  connected  with  liturgical  use, 
 and  whether  they  do  not  originate  in  part  from 
 rubrical  directions.  It  seems  to  be  at  least  plain 
 that  the  psalms  were  translated  from  a  copy  pre- 
 pared for  synagogue  worship. 
 
 2.  AQUiL.i.  —  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  in 
 the  second  century  there  were  three  versions  ej?- 
 ecuted  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  into  (ireek. 
 The  first  of  these  was  made  by  Aquila,  a  native  of 
 Sinope  in  Pontus,  who  had  become  a  proselyte  to 
 Judaism.  The  Jerusalem  Tabnud  (see  Bartolocci, 
 Bibliolheca  Ribb.  iv.  281)''  describes  him  as  a  dis- 
 ciple of  Rabbi  Akiba;  and  this  would  place  him  in 
 some  part  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian 
 (a.  D.  117-138).  It  is  supposed  that,  the  olject 
 of  his  version  was  to  aid  the  Jews  in  their  contro- 
 versies with  the  Christians:  and  that  as  the  latter 
 were  in  the  habit  of  employing  the  LXX.,  they 
 wished  to  have  a  version  of  their  own  on  which 
 they  could  rely.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  Jews 
 in  m.any  Greek-speaking  countries  were  not  suffi- 
 ciently acquainted  with  Hebrew  to  refer  for  them- 
 selves to  the  original,  and  thus  they  wished  to  have 
 such  a  tireek  translation  as  they  might  use  with 
 confidence  in  their  discussions.  Such  controversies 
 were  (it  must  be  remembered)  a  new  thing.  Prior 
 to  the  pi'eaching  of  the  gospel,  there  were  none  be- 
 sides the  Jews  who  used  the  Jewish  Scriptures  as  a 
 means- of  learning  God's  revealed  truth,  except  those 
 who  either  partially  or  wholly  became  proselytes  to 
 Judaism.  But  now  the  Jews  saw  to  their  grief, 
 that  their  Scriptures  were  made  the  instruments 
 for  teaching  the  principles  of  a  religion  which  they 
 regarded  as  nothing  less  than  an  apostasy  from 
 Moses. 
 
 This,  then,  is  a  probable  account  of  the  origin 
 of  this  version.  Extreme  literality  and  an  occasional 
 polemical  bias  appear  to  be  its  chief  characteristics. 
 
 this  on  the  authority  of  Irenreus,  instead  of  that  of 
 the  Jerusalerii  Talmud,  a  confusion  which  needs  to  be 
 explicitly,  and  not  merely  tacitly  corrected. 
 
8380 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 
 
 The  idiom  of  tlie  Greek  language  is  very  often 
 violated  in  order  to  produce  what  was  intended 
 should  be  a  very  literal  version;  and  thus,  not  only 
 sense  but  grammar  even  was  disregarded:  a  sufH- 
 cient  instance  of  this  is  found  in  his  rendering  the 
 
 Hebrew  particle  ilW  by  crw;  as  in  Gen.  i.  1,  crvv 
 
 rhv  ohpavhv  Kol  avv  t))v  yriv,  "  quod  Grseca  et 
 Latina  lingua  onniino  non  recipit,"  as  Jerome  says. 
 Anotlier  instance  is  furnished  by  Gen.  v.  5,  /col 
 e^rjcrev  'A5a/i  rpiaKovTo.  eras  Kol  ivvaKoaia  eros. 
 it  is  sutticientiy  attested  that  this  version  was 
 formed  for  controversial  purposes:  a  proof  of  which 
 may  be  found  in  the  rendering  of  particular  pas- 
 sages, such  as  Is.  vii.  14,  where  ni3^3?,  in  the 
 
 LXX.  irapdivos,  is  by  Aquila  translated  vea.vis\ 
 such  renderings  might  be  regarded  perliaps  rather 
 as  modes  of  avoiding  an  argument  tlian  as  direct 
 falsification.  There  certainly  was  room  for  a  version 
 which  shoidd  express  the  Hebrew  more  accurately 
 than  was  done  by  the  LXX. ;  but  if  this  had  been 
 thoroughly  carried  out  it  would  have  been  found 
 that  in  many  important  points  of  doctrine — such, 
 for  instance,  as  in  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah  and 
 the  rejection  of  Israel,  the  true  rendering  of  tlie 
 Hebrew  text  would  have  been  in  far  closer  con- 
 formity with  the  teacliing  of  the  New  Testament 
 than  was  the  LXX.  itself.'  It  is  probable,  therefore, 
 that  one  polemical  olject  was  to  make  tlie  citations 
 in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  appear  to  lie 
 inconclusive,  by  producing  other  renderings  (often 
 prolialjly  more  literiilhj  exact)  difTering  from  the 
 LXX.,  or  even  contradicting  it.  Thus  <  hristianity 
 miglit  seem  to  the  Jewish  mind  to  rest  on  a  false 
 basis.  But  in  many  cases  a  really  critical  examiner 
 jvoiild  have  found  that  in  points  of  important  doc- 
 trine the  New  Testament  definitely  rejects  the  read- 
 ing of  the  LXX.  (when  utterly  unsuited  to  the 
 matter  in  hand),  and  adopts  the  reading  of  the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 It  is  mentioned  that  Aquila  put  forth  a  second 
 edition  (i.  e.  revision)  of  his  version,  in  which  the 
 Hebrew  v.-as  yet  more  servilely  followed,  but  it  is 
 not  known  if  tiiis  extended  to  the  whole,  or  only  to 
 three  liooks,  namely,  Jeremiah,  Kzekiel,  and  Daniel, 
 of  which  tliere  are  fragments. 
 
 Aquila  often  appears  to  have  so  closely  sought 
 to  follow  the  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  words,  that 
 not  oidy  does  his  version  produce  no  definite  idea, 
 but  it  does  not  even  suirgest  any  meaning  at  all. 
 If  we  possessed  it  perfect  it  would  have  been  of 
 great  value  as  to  tlie  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
 thoui;h  often  it  would  be  of  no  ser\ice  as  to  its  real 
 understanding. 
 
 'J'liat  this  version  was  employed  for  centuries  liy 
 the  .lews  themselves  is  proved  indirectly  liy  tlie 
 ]4Gtli  Novella  of  Justinian :  izKriv  oi  Sia  rfjs  'EA- 
 A.Tjz'i'Sor  a.vayivdiiTKOvri'i  rfj  twv  k^SofiiiKovTa 
 XPVCOVTaL  TrapaSoffei  .  .  .  ttA?;;/  a\\'  uis  av  /iii 
 ras  Aonras  avTols  aTroK\fieiv  i>oiu.iadeirj/j.(i/  (pfj-ri- 
 veias,  adfiav  SiSo/xeu  Kal  tj7  'AkvKov  /cexp/icf^ai, 
 Kav  (I  a\\6<l)v\os    iKelvos    Koi   ov  fXiTpio.v   iirl 
 
 TIPWU    Xi^iUV    %XV    '"■P^J    TOVS    i^So/jL-qKOVTa    t)^v 
 
 Siafpooyiav. 
 
 3.  TiiEonoTiON.  —  The  second  version,  of  which 
 we  have  information  as  executed  in  tlie  second  cen- 
 tury, is  that  of  Theodotion.  He  is  stated  to  have 
 been  an  Ephesian,  and  he  seems  to  be  most  gen- 
 erally described  as  an  Ebionite:  if  this  is  correct, 
 .lis  work  was  pi"obably  intended  for  those  semi- 
 Christians  who  may  have  desired  to  use  a  version 
 
 of  their  own  instead  of  employing  the  LXX.  with 
 the  Christians,  or  that  of  Aquila  with  the  Jews. 
 
 But  it  may  be  doubted  if  the  name  of  translntion 
 can  be  rightly  applied  to  the  work  of  Theodotion : 
 it  is  rather  a  revision  of  the  LXX.  with  tiie  Hebrew 
 text,  so  as  to  bring  some  of  the  copies  then  in  use 
 into  more  conformity  with  the  original.  This  he 
 was  able  to  do  (with  the  'av\  prolialily  of  some  in- 
 structors) so  as  to  eliminate  portions  wliicli  had 
 been  introduced  into  the  LXX.,  without  really  being 
 an  integral  part  of  the  version ;  and  also  so  as  to 
 bring  much  into  accordance  with  the  llelirew  in 
 other  respects.  But  his  own  knowledge  of  Hebrew 
 was  evidently  very  limited;  and  thus  words  and 
 parts  of  sentences  were  left  untranslated;  the  He- 
 brew being  merely  written  with  Greek  letters. 
 
 Theodotion  as  well  as  Aquila  was  quoted  by 
 Ireiia;us;  and  against  both  there  is  the  common 
 charge  laid  of  corrupting  texts  wjiicli  relate  to  tiie 
 Messiah:  some  polemical  intention  in  such  passages 
 can  hardly  be  doubted.  The  statement  of  Epi- 
 phanius  that  he  made  his  translation  in  tlie  reign  of 
 Comniodus  accords  well  with  its  having  lieen  quoted 
 by  Irenseiis;  but  it  cannot  be  correct  if  it  is  one 
 of  the  translations  referred  to  by  Justin  iMartyr  as 
 giving  interpretations  contrary  to  the  Christian 
 doctrine  of  tiie  New  Test. 
 
 Tliere  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  version  was 
 much  used  by  Christians:  probably  many  changes 
 in  the  text  of  the  T^XX.  were  adopted  from  'i'heo- 
 dotion :  this  may  have  begun  lief'ore  the  Biblical 
 laliors  of  Origen  brought  the  various  versions  into 
 one  conspectus.  The  translation  of  the  1/ook  of 
 Daniel  by  Theodotion  was  substituted  for  tliat  of  the 
 LXX.  in  ecclesiastical  use  as  early  at  least  as  part 
 of  the  third  century.  Hence  Daniel,  as  rendered 
 or  revised  by  Theodotion,  has  so  long  taketi  the 
 place  of  the  true  LXX.,  that  tlieir  version  of  this 
 book  was  supposed  not  to  be  extant;  and  it  has 
 only  been  found  in  one  MS.  In  most  editions  of 
 the  LXX.  Theodotion's  version  of  Daniel  is  still 
 substituted  for  that  which  really  belongs  to  that 
 translation. 
 
 4.  Symmaciius  is  stated  by  Eusebius  and 
 Jerome  to  have  been  an  libionite:  so  too  in  the 
 Syrian  accounts  given  liyAssemani;  Epiphaiiius, 
 however,  and  others  style  him  a  Samaritan.  There 
 may  have  been  Eliionites  from  amongst  tlie  Samari- 
 tans, who  constituted  a  kind  of  separate  sect;  and 
 these  may  have  desired  a  version  of  their  own ;  or 
 it  may  be  that  as  a  Samaritan  he  made  this  version 
 for  some  of  that  people  who  employed  (ireek,  and 
 who  had  learned  to  receive  more  than  tlie  I'eiita- 
 teuch.  But  perhaps  to  sucli  iiiotives  was  added  (if 
 indeed  this  were  not  the  only  cause  of  the  version) 
 a  desire  for  a  Greek  translation  not  so  unintelligibly 
 liald  as  that  of  Aquila,  and  not  displaying  such  a 
 want  of  Helirew  learning  as  that  of  Tlieodotion.  It 
 is  probable  that  if  this  translation  of  Synimachus 
 had  apjieared  prior  to  the  time  of  lre!ia:us,  it  would 
 have, been  mentioned  by  him  ;  and  this  agrees  with 
 what  ICpiphanius  .says,  namely,  tliat  be  li\'ed  under 
 the  ICmperor  Severus. 
 
 The  translation  wliich  he  produced  was  probably 
 better  than  the  others  as  to  sense  and  general 
 jiliraseology.  When  Jerome  siieaks  of  a  si:cond 
 edition  he  may  probably  mean  some  revision,  more 
 or  less  eomiilete,  which  he  executed  after  his  trans- 
 lation was  first  made:  it  could  hardly  be  a  retrans- 
 lation,  or  anything  at  all  taiitanidunt  thereto. 
 
 5.  The  Fifth,  Sixth,  and  Skvknth  Ver- 
 sions. —  Besides  the  translations  of  Aquila,  S;  in- 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 
 
 3381 
 
 machus,  and  Theodotion,  the  great  critical  work  of 
 Origeu  comprised  as  to  portions  of  the  Old  Test, 
 three  other  versions,  placed  for  coniparisoii  with 
 the  LXX. ;  which,  from  their  being  anonymous, 
 are  only  known  as  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh ; 
 designations  taken  from  the  places  which  they  re- 
 spectively occupied  in  Origen's  colunuiar  an-ange- 
 ment.  Ancient  writers  seem  not  to  have  heen  uni- 
 form in  the  notation  which  they  applied  to  these 
 versions;  and  thus  what  is  cited  from  one  by  its 
 number  of  reference  is  quoted  by  others  under  a 
 different  numeral. 
 
 These  three  partial  translations  were  discovered 
 by  Origen  in  the  course  of  his  travels  in  connection 
 with  his  great  work  of  Biblical  criticism.  Euse- 
 bius  says  that  two  of  these  versions  (but  without 
 designating  jjrecisely  which)  were  found,  the  one 
 at  Jericho,  and  the  other  at  Nicopolis  on  the  Gulf 
 of  Actium.  Kpiphanius  says,  that  what  he  terms 
 the  fifth,  was  found  at  Jericho,  and  the  sixth  at 
 Nicopolis;  while  Jerome  speaks  of  the  fifth  as  hav- 
 ing Ijeen  found  at  the  latter  place. 
 
 The  contents  of  the  Jiftli  version  appear  to  have 
 been  the  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  Canticles,  and  the 
 minor  prophets:  it  seems  also  to  be  referred  to  in 
 the  Syro-Iiexaplar  text  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings : 
 it  may  be  doubted  if  in  all  these  books  it  was  com- 
 plete, or  at  least  if  so  much  were  adopted  by 
 Origen.  The  existing  fragments  prove  that  the 
 translator  used  the  Hebrew  original ;  but  it  is  also 
 certain  that  he  was  aided  by  the  work  of  former 
 translators. 
 
 The  sixth  version  seems  to  have  been  just  the 
 same  in  its  contents  as  the  fifth  (except  2  Kings): 
 and  thus  the  two  may  have  been  confused :  this 
 translator  also  seems  to  have  had  the  other  versions 
 before  him.  Jerome  calls  the  authors  of  the  fifth 
 and  sixth  "Judaicos  translatores  "  ;  but  the  trans- 
 lator of  this  must  have  been  a  Christian  when  he 
 executed  his  work,  or  else  the  hand  of  a  Chris- 
 tian reviser  must  have  meddled  with  it  before  it 
 was  employed  by  Origen;  which  seems  from  the 
 small  interval  of  time  to  be  hardly  probable. 
 For  in  Hal),  iii.  1.5  the  translation  runs,  i^i]\9es 
 Tou  (Tuaai  rhv  \a6v  aov  Sia  'l7](Tov  rod  xP'O'toD 
 
 (TOV. 
 
 Of  the  seventh  version  very  few  fragments  re- 
 main. It  seems  to  have  contained  the  Psalms  and 
 minor  prophets ;  and  the  translator  was  probably  a 
 Jew. 
 
 From  the  references  given  by  Origen,  or  by  those 
 who  copied  from  his  columnar  arrangement  and  its 
 results  (or  who  added  to  such  extracts),  it  has 
 been  thought  that  other  Greek  versions  were 
 spoken  of.  Of  these  6  'Efipaio^  probably  refers  to 
 the  Hebrew  text  or  to  something  drawn  from  it: 
 6  Swpoy  to  the  Old  SjTiac  version:  rh  'Za/napeiri- 
 k6v  probably  a  reference  to  the  Samaritan  text, 
 or  some  Samaritan  gloss:  b  'Y.\K-r)viK6s,  6  "AA- 
 Kos,  6  av€Triypa<pos  some  unspecified  version  or 
 versions. 
 
 The  existing  fragments  of  these  varied  versions 
 are  mostly  to  be  found  in  the  editions  of  the  relics 
 of  Origen's  Hexapla,  l)y  Blontfaucon  and  by  Bahrdt, 
 [and  later,  by  F.  Field,  Oxford,  1807-70.  See  also 
 below,  SviiiAC  Veksk^ns,  I.  (B.),  on  the  editions 
 of  the  Syriac  from  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text.  —  A.] 
 
 (For  an  account  of  the  use  made  of  these  ver- 
 sions by  Origen,  and  its  results,  see  Septuagint.) 
 
 6.  The  Ve.ne ro-GREEic  Version.  —  A  MS.  of 
 the  fourteenth  century,  in  the  library  of  St.  Marli 
 at  Venice,  contains  a  peculiar  version  of  the  Pen- 
 
 tateuch, Proverljs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Ruth, 
 Lamentations,  and  Daniel.  All  of  these  books,  ex- 
 cept the  Pentateuch,  were  published  I)y  Villoison 
 at  Strasbourg  in  178-t;  the  Pe)itateuch  was  edited 
 by  Amnion  at  Krlangen  in  1700-91.  The  version 
 itself  is  thought  to  be  four  or  five  hundred  years 
 older  than  the  one  JIS.  in  which  it  has  been  trans- 
 mitted ;  this,  however,  is  so  thoroughly  a  matter 
 of  opinion,  that  there  seems  no  absolute  reason  for 
 determining  that  this  one  MS.  may  not  be  the 
 original  as  well  as  the  only  one  in  existence.  It  is 
 written  in  one  very  narrow  colunm  on  e.ach  page; 
 the  leaves  follow  each  other  in  the  Hebrew  order, 
 so  that  the  book  begins  at  what  we  should  call  the 
 end.  An  examination  of  the  MS.  suggested  the 
 opinion  that  it  may  have  been  written  on  the 
 broad  inner  margin  of  a  Hebrew  MS. :  and  that 
 for  some  reason  the  Hebrew  portion  had  been  cat 
 away,  leaving  thus  a  Greek  i\lS.  probably  unique 
 as  to  its  form  and  arrangement.  As  to  the  trans- 
 lation itself,  it  is  on  any  supposition  too  recent  to 
 be  of  consequence  in  criticism.  It  may  be  said 
 briefly  that  the  translation  was  made  from  the  He- 
 brew, although  the  present  punctuation  and  accent- 
 uation is  often  not  followed,  and  the  translator  was 
 no  doubt  acquainted  with  some  other  Greek  ver- 
 sions. The  language  of  the  translation  is  a  most 
 strange  mixture  of  astonishing  and  cacophonous 
 barbarism  with  attempts  at  Attic  elegance  and  re- 
 finement. The  Doric,  which  is  employed  to  an- 
 swer to  the  Chaldsean  portions  of  Daniel,  seems  to 
 be  an  indication  of  remarkable  aflPectation. 
 
 The  Greek  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  — 
 Any  account  of  the  Greek  versions  of  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture would  be  incomplete  without  some  allusion 
 to  the  fact,  that  if  early  testimonies  and  ancient 
 opinion  unitedly  are  to  ha\'e  some  weight  when 
 wholly  uncontradicted,  then  it  must  be  admitted 
 that  the  original  language  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
 Matthew  was  Ihbrew,  and  that  the  text  which  has 
 been  transmitted  to  us  is  really  a  Greek  trans- 
 lation. 
 
 It  may  be  briefly  stated  that  every  early  writer 
 who  mentions  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  at 
 all  says  that  he  wrote  in  Hebrew  (that  is,  in  the 
 Syro-Chaldaic),and  in  Palestine  in  the  first  century; 
 so  that  if  it  be  assumed  that  he  did  not  write  in 
 Hebrew  but  in  Greek,  then  it  may  well  be  asked, 
 what  ground  is  there  to  believe  that  he  wrote  any 
 narrative  of  our  Lord's  life  on  earth  ? 
 
 Every  early  writer  that  has  come  down  to  us 
 uses  the  Greek  of  St.  Matthew,  and  this  with  the 
 definite  recognition  that  it  is  a  translation ;  hence 
 we  may  be  sure  that  the  Greek  copy  belongs  to  the 
 Apostolic  age,  having  been  thus  authoritatively 
 used  from  and  up  to  that  time.  Thus  the  ques- 
 tion is  not  the  autliority  of  the  Greek  translation, 
 which  comes  from  the  time  when  the  churches  en- 
 joyed Apostolic  guidance,  but  whether  there  was  a 
 Helirew  original  from  which  it  had  been  translated. 
 
 The  witnesses  to  the  Hebrew  original  were  men 
 .sufficiently  competent  to  attest  so  simple  a  fact,  es- 
 pecially seeing  that  they  are  relied  on  in  what  is  far 
 more  important,  —  that  St.  JIatthew  wrote  a  Gos- 
 pel at  all.  Papias,  in  the'  beginning  of  the  second 
 century,  repeats  apparently  the  words  of  John  the 
 Presbyter,  an  innnediate  disciple  of  our  Lord,  that 
 "  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles  in  the  Hebrew  dia- 
 lect.'" IrenteuB,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  cen- 
 tury, is  equally  explicit;  in  connection  with  the 
 Indian  mission  of  Pantajnus  in  the  same  age,  we 
 learn  that  he  found  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  the 
 
3382 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SLAVONIC) 
 
 very  Hebrew  letters.  In  the  next  century  Orij^en, 
 the  laliorious  hivestigator  and  diligent  inquirer, 
 oays,  that  tlie  received  account  was  that  St.  Jlat- 
 thew  had  written  tiie  first  Gospel,  and  tliat  it  was 
 in  Hebrew.  So  too  in  the  next  century,  Kpiplia- 
 nius  and  Jerome,  both  of  wlioni,  lilie  Origen,  were 
 acquainted  with  Hebrew.  Jerome  also  mentions 
 the  very  copies  of  this  Hebrew  original  which  were 
 extant  in  his  time,  and  whicli  he  transcribed,  lie 
 shows  indeed  that  the  copies  then  circulated  amongst 
 tlie  Xazarenes  had  been  variously  interpolated :  l)ut 
 this  would  not  aftect  the  antecedent  fact.  So  too 
 Epiphanius  shows  that  the  document  had  been  va- 
 riously depraved :  but  this  does  not  set  aside  what 
 it  originally  was. 
 
 To  follow  the  inianimous  agreement  of  later  writ- 
 ers is  needless;  but  what  can  Ije  said  on  the  otlier 
 side  ?  AVliat  evidence  is  adduced  that  St.  jMatthew 
 wrote  in  Greek?  None  whatever :  but  sinijily  some 
 a  priori  notions  that  he  ought  to  have  done  so  are 
 advanced:  then  it  is  truly  stated  that  the  Greek 
 Gospel  does  not  read  as  though  it  had  about  it  tiie 
 constraint  of  a  translation;  and  then  it  is  said  tliat 
 perhaps  the  witnesses  for  tlie  Heljrew  original  were 
 mistaken."  "But  (says  Principal  Campbell)  is  the 
 positive  testimony  of  witnesses,  delivered  as  of  a 
 well-known  fact,  to  be  overturned  by  a  mere  suppo- 
 sition, a  perhajjs  ?  for  that  the  case  is  really  as 
 they  suppose  no  shadow  of  evidence  is  pretended  " 
 {Worh,  ii.  171). 
 
 For  another  theory,  that  St.  Blatthew  wrote 
 both  in  Hebrew  and  also  in  Greek,  there  is  no  evi- 
 dence: the  notion  is  even  contradicted  by  the 
 avowed  ignorance  of  the  early  Christian  winters  as 
 to  whose  hand  formed  the  Greek  version  which 
 they  accepted  as  authoritative.  To  them  there  was 
 nothing  self-contradictory  (as  some  have  said)  in 
 the  notion  of  an  authoritative  translation.  As  it 
 can  be  shown  that  the  public  use  of  the  /'our  Gos- 
 pels in  Greek  was  universal  in  the  churches  from 
 the  Apostolic  age,  it  proves  to  us  that  Apostolic 
 sanction  must  have  been  the  ground  of  this  usage; 
 this  surely  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  Greek  Gos- 
 pel that  we  have. 
 
 Erasmus  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  suggest 
 that  the  Greek  is  the  original  of  the  Apostle:  at 
 least  no  writer  earlier  than  Erasmus  has  been 
 brought  forward  as  holding  the  opinion :  in  this 
 many  have  followed  him  on  what  may  be  called 
 very  sulijective  grounds.  Erasmus  also  advanced 
 the  opinion  that  Irena?us  Ar/ainst  Heresies  was 
 written  by  him  in  Latin.     For  this  he  had  just  as 
 
 good  grounds  as  for  the  Greek  original  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew. As  to  Irenffius,  no  one  appears  to  follow 
 Erasmus;  why  should  so  many  adhere  to  his  bold 
 opinion  (opposed  by  so  much  evidence  and  sup- 
 ported by  none)  relative  to  St.  ^Matthew?  On  the 
 revival  of  letters  there  was  much  curiosity  ex- 
 pressed for  the  recovery  of  a  copy  of  St.  Matthew's 
 Hebrew  original.  Pope  Nicholas  V.  is  said  to 
 have  offered  five  thousand  ducats  for  a  copy:  this 
 probably  suggested  the  retranslations  into  Hebrew 
 of  tliis  Gospel  published  in  the  following  century 
 by  Sebastian  Miinster  and  others.  S.  P.  T. 
 
 LATIN  VERSIONS.     [Vulgate.] 
 SAMARITAN    VERSIONS.       [Samaiutan 
 Pentateuch,  p.  2812  a.] 
 
 SLAVONIC  VERSION.  In  the  year  8G2 
 there  was  a  desire  expressed,  or  an  inquiry  made, 
 for  Christian  teachers  in  Moravia,  and  in  the  fol- 
 lowing 3-ear  the  labors  of  missionaries  began 
 amongst  them.  We  need  not  consider  the  IMorar^ 
 via  in  which  these  services  were  commenced  to  be 
 precisely  restricted  to  or  identified  with  the  region 
 which  now  bears  that  name,  for  in  the  ninth  cen- 
 tury Grent  Moravia  was  of  far  wider  extent;  and 
 it  was  amongst  the  Slavonic  people  then  occupying 
 this  whole  region,  that  the  effort  for  Christianiza- 
 tion  was  put  forth.  But  while  this  further  extent 
 of  jNloravia  is  admitted,  it  is  also  to  be  recollected 
 that  the  province  of  xMoravia,  of  which  Briinn  is 
 the  metropolis,  is  not  only  the  nucleus  of  Moravia, 
 but  that  also  the  inhal)itants  of  that  country,  still 
 retaining  as  they  do  their  Slavonian  tongue,  rightly 
 consider  themselves  as  the  descendants  and  succes- 
 sors of  those  who  were  then  Christianized.  Thus, 
 in  18tJ2  they  commemorated  tiie  thousnndth  anni- 
 versary of  their  having  taken  tliis  step,  nnd  in  18G3 
 they  celebrated  the  thousandth  from  the  actual  ar- 
 rival of  missionaries  amongst  them.  These  mission- 
 aries were  Cyrillus  and  Methodius,  two  brothers 
 from  Thessalonica :  to  Cyrillus  is  ascribed  the  in- 
 vention of  the  Slavonian  alphabet,  and  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures. 
 Xeander  truly  says  that  he  was  honorably  distin- 
 guished from  all  other  missionaries  of  that  period 
 in  not  having  yielded  to  the  prejudice  which  repre- 
 sented the  languages  of  rude  nations  as  too  jirofane 
 for  sacred  uses;  and  by  not  having  shrunk  from 
 any  toil  which  was  necessary  in  order  to  become 
 accurately  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the 
 people  amongst  whom  he  labored.  Cyrillus  ap- 
 pears to  have  died  at  Rome  in  8G8,  while  JNIetho- 
 
 a  The  manner  In  which  the  testimony  of  competent 
 witnesses  has  heea  not  only  called  in  question,  but 
 got  aside,  is  such  as  would  oast  doubt  on  any  histor- 
 ical fact  competently  attested  ;  and  the  terms  applied 
 to  the  witnesses  themselves  are  such  as  seem  to  show 
 that  argument  being  vain,  it  is  needful  to  have  re- 
 course to  something  else ;  not  mere  assertion  as  op- 
 posed to  the  definite  evidence,  but  a  mode  of  speaking 
 of  the  witnesses  themselves  and  of  misrepresenting 
 their  words,  which  would  not  be  ventured  on  in  com- 
 mon matters.  Thus  a  writer  who  is  well  and  justly 
 esteemed  on  other  subjects,  the  Ilev.  Dr.  Wm.  Alex- 
 ander, sets  aside  the  evidence  and  the  statements  of 
 Jerome  in  this  manner  :  "  The  one  who  says  he  had 
 seen  the  [Hebrew]  gospel  is  Jerome  ;  but  his  evidence 
 about  it  is  so  conflicting  that  it  is  not  worth  a  rush. 
 First  he  says  he  has  seen  it,  and  is  sure  that  it  is  the 
 original  of  the  Greek  gospel  ;  then  he  softens  down 
 with  '  it  is  caUeU  by  most  people  Matthew's  authentic," 
 '  as  most  believe,'  and  so  on.     Now  he  says,  '  Who 
 
 translated  it  into  Greek  is  unknown  ; '  and  presently, 
 with  amusing  self-complacency  and  obliviousness,  he 
 tells  us,  '  I  myself  translated  it  into  Greek  and  Latin  ! ' 
 Why  there  is  not  a  small-debt  court  in  the  country 
 where  such  a  witness  would  not  be  hooted  to  the 
 door."  Would  such  modes  of  reasoning  be  adopted  if 
 it  were  not  desired  to  mystify  the  subject?  Who 
 cannot  see  that  Jerome  says  that  it  is  unknown  who 
 had  made  the  Greek  translation  then  current  for  cen- 
 turies ?  And  who  imagines  that  he  identified  with 
 that  version  the  one  which  he  had  recently  made  from 
 the  document  found  at  Beroea?  But  thus  it  is  that 
 this  is  substituted  for  argument  on  this  subject.  Dr. 
 Land,  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  October, 
 1858,  boldly  asserts,  "  We  may  safely  say  that  there  is, 
 in  probability  as  well  as  in  direct  testimonj',  a  weight 
 as  heavy  in  the  scale  of  the  Greek  text  as  in  that  of 
 the  Hebrew,  not  to  go  further."  But,  in  fact,  there  is 
 no  testimony,  direct  or  indirect,  for  a  Greek  original 
 of  St.  Matthew. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 3383 
 
 Jius  continued  for  many  years  to  be  bishop  of  tlie 
 kijlavonians.  He  is  stated  to  have  continued  his 
 lirother's  translation,  altliough  Imo  much  tliey 
 themselves  actually  executed  is  quite  uncertain; 
 perhaps  much  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  trans- 
 lated at  all  in  that  age,  possibly  not  for  many  cen- 
 turies after. 
 
 The  Old  Testament  is,  as  might  be  supposed,  a 
 version  from  the  LXX.,  but  what  measure  of  re- 
 vision it  may  since  have  received  seems  to  be  by  no 
 means  certain.  As  the  oldest  known  !MS.  of  the 
 whole  Bible  is  of  the  year  149iJ,  it  may  reason- 
 al)ly  be  questioned  whether  this  version  may  not  in 
 large  portions  be  comparatively  modern.  This 
 could  only  be  set  at  rest  by  a  more  full  and  accu- 
 rate knowledge  being  obtained  of  Slavonic  biblical 
 ]\[S.S.  Dobrowsky,  however,  mentions  (Oriesbach's 
 Or.  Ti-xt.  ii.,  xxxiii.)  that  this  JMS.  (his  1),  and 
 two  others  copied  from  it,  are  the  only  Slavonic 
 JNISS.  of  the  entire  Bible  existing  in  Russia.  If 
 it  be  correct  that  the  MSS.  which  he  terms  2  and 
 3  are  copied  from  this,  there  are  strong  reasons  for 
 believing  that  it  was  not  completed  for  some  years 
 subsequently  to  14'J9.  The  oldest  MSS.  of  any 
 part  of  this  version  is  an  Evangeliarium,  in  Cyril- 
 lic cliaracters,  of  the  year  lU5tJ ;  that  at  Rheims 
 (containing  the  Gospels)  on  which  the  kings  of 
 France  used  to  take  their  coronation  oath,  is  nearly 
 as  old.  One,  containhig  the  Gospels,  at  Moscow, 
 is  of  the  year  1144. 
 
 The  first  printed  portion  was  an  edition  of  the 
 Gospels  in  Wallachia,  in  1512;  in  1575  the  same 
 portion  was  printed  at  Wilna;  and  in  1581  the 
 whole  Bible  was  printed  at  Ostrog  in  Volhynia; 
 from  this  was  taken  the  Moscow  edition  of  1063, 
 in  which,  however,  there  was  some  revision,  at  least 
 so  far  as  the  insertion  of  1  .John  v.  7  is  concerned. 
 Wetstein  cited  a  few  readings  from  this  version ; 
 Alter  made  more  extracts,  which  were  used  by 
 Griesbach,  together  with  the  collations  sent  to  him 
 by  Dobrowsky,  both  from  MSS.  and  printed  edi- 
 tions. We  thus  can  say,  with  some  confidence, 
 that  the  general  text  is  such  as  would  have  been 
 expected  in  the  ninth  century:  some  readings  from 
 the  Latin  have,  it  appears,  been  introduced  in 
 places:  this  arises  probably  from  the  early  Slavo- 
 nian custom  of  reading  the  Gospel  in  Latin  before 
 they  did  it  in  their  own  tongue. 
 
 Dobrowsky  paid  particular  attention  in  his  col- 
 lations to  the  copies  of  the  Apocalypse:  it  has  been, 
 however,  long  suspected  that  that  book  formed  no 
 portion  of  this  version  as  originally  made.  We  can 
 now  go  further  and  say  definitely  that  the  Apoc- 
 alypse, as  found  in  some  at  least  of  the  Slavonic 
 copies,  could  not  be  anterior  to  the  appearance  of 
 the  first  edition  of  the  Gr.  Test,  of  ICrasnuis  in 
 1516.     For  there  are  readings  in  the  Apocalypse 
 
 of  Erasnms  which  are  entirely  devoid  of  any  sup- 
 port from  Greek  MSS.  This  can  be  said  confi- 
 dently, since  the  one  Greek  copy  used  by  Erasmus 
 has  been  identified  and  described  by  Pruf.  De- 
 litzsch."  It  is  now  therefore  known  that  peculiari- 
 ties as  to  error  in  Erasnuis's  text  of  the  Apocalypse, 
 as  it  first  appeared,  are  in  several  places  due  not  tc 
 the  JIS.  from  which  he  drew,  but  to  the  want  of 
 care  in  his  edition.  And  thus,  whatever  agrees 
 with  such  peculiarities  must  depend  on,  and  thus 
 be  subsequent  to  the  Erasmian  text.  In  Rev.  ii. 
 13,  the  Erasmian  text  has  the  peculiar  reading,  eV 
 Tttis  T]iJ.epais  i/xals;  for  this  no  MS.  was  cit«d 
 by  Griesbach,  and  all  his  authority,  besides  the 
 Erasmian  edition,  was  in  fact  "  Slav.  3,  4,"  i.  e. 
 two  MSS.  collated  by  Dobrowsky;  one  of  these  is 
 said  by  him  to  be  copied  I'rom  the  oldest  Slavonic 
 MS.  of  the  whole  Bible:  if,  therefore,  it  agrees 
 with  it  in  this  place,  it  shows  that  the  Slavonic 
 MS.  must,  in  that  part  at  least,  be  later  than  the 
 year  1516.  The  only  Greek  authority  fur  this 
 reading,  4fxa7s,  is  the  inarijln  of  02,  the  Dublin 
 MS.,  famous  as  containing  1  .lohn  v.  7 :  in  which 
 the  Gospels  belong  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
 tury; the  Acts  and  Epistles  are  somewhat  later, 
 and  the  Apocalypse  was  added  about  the  year 
 1580.*  There  seems  to  be  another  Slavonic  text 
 of  the  Apocalypse  contained  in  Dobrowsky's  10,  but 
 whether  it  is  older  than  the  one  already  mentioned 
 is  doubtful.  S.  P.  T. 
 
 SYRIAC  VERSIONS.  I.  Of  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 A.  From  the  Ilebrent.  —  In  the  early  times  of 
 Syrian  Christianity  there  was  executed  a  version 
 of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  original  Hebrew, 
 the  use  of  which  must  have  been  as  widely  extended 
 as  was  the  Christian  profession  amongst  that  peo- 
 ple. Ephraem  the  Syrian,  in  the  latter  half  of 
 the  4th  century,  gives  abundant  proof  of  its  use 
 in  general  by  his  countrymen.     When  he  calls  it 
 
 oon  VERSION,  .  ^;-Q-^iO,  it  does  not  appear  to 
 be  in  opposition  to  any  other  Syriac  tratislation 
 (for  no  other  can  be  proved  to  have  then  existed), 
 but  in  contrast  to  the  original  Hebrew  text,  or 
 to  those  in  other  languages.'^  At  a  later  period 
 this   Syriac    translation    was    designated   Ptshito, 
 
 y^^-^-^  [Simple];  or,  as  in  the  preface  of  Bar- 
 
 HebriKus  to  his  Thesaurus  Arcanorum, }  ^■O'^X^ 
 
 j  ^^J>vj»^  (Sim^Ae  version).  It  is  probable  that 
 this  name  was  applied  to  the  version  after  aTiother 
 had  been  formed  from  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text. 
 In  the  translation  made  from  Origen's  revision  of 
 the  LXX.,  the  critical  marks  introduced  by  him 
 were  retained,  and  thus  every  page  and  every  part 
 
 a  Handschriftliche  Funde  von  Franz  Delitzsch. 
 Erstes  Ileft,  Die  Erasmischea  Eutstellungen  des  Testes 
 der  Apocalypse,  nachgewiesen  aus  dem  verloreu  ge- 
 glaubteu  Oodex  KeuctiliQi,  1861. 
 
 IlaudschriftlicUe  Fuude  vou  Franz  Delitzsch,  mit 
 Beitrageu  vou  S.  P.  Tregelles.  Zweites  Heft,  ueue  Stu- 
 dien  iiber  den  Codex  Reuchlini,  etc.,  1802.  [Also  with 
 the  English  title,  ''  Manuscript  Discoveries  by  Francis 
 Delitzsch,  with  additions  by  S.  P.  Tregelles.  Part  II., 
 New  Studies  on  the  Codex  Reuchlini,  and  new  results 
 iu  the  textual  history  of  the  Apocalypse,  drawn  from 
 the  libraries  of  Munich,  Vienna,  Rome,  etc.,  18lj2.''J 
 
 *  See  further  an  article  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Conant  on  the 
 Greek  Text  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Baptist  Qiiar- 
 Urly  for  April,  1870.  A. 
 
 f>  This  Greek  authority  is  the  one  denoted  by  92. 
 Tischendorf  (following  a  misprint  in  Tregelles"  Gri-elc 
 and  English  Revelation,  1844)  gives  it  91**.  That 
 would  signify  a  correction  in  a  later  hand  in  91 ;  which 
 is  the  modern  supplement  to  the  Vatican  MS.,  in  which 
 such  a  correction  has  been  sought  in  vain. 
 
 c  Ephraemi  Opera  Syr.  i.  380  (on  1  Sam.  xxiv.  4). 
 He  is  simply  comparing  the  Hebrew  phrase  aud  the 
 
 Syriac    version:      jL>4-^^      '-f-^l       ^■'?        ^^-^ 
 
3384 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 w;is  marked  with  aste7'isks  and  obeli,  from  Avhicl. 
 the  translation  from  the  Hebrew  was  free.  I- 
 niiglit,  therefore,  be  but  natural  for  a  bare  text  to 
 be  thus  designated,  in  contrast  to  the  marks  and 
 the  citations  of  the  different  Greek  translators 
 found  in  tlie  version  from  the  Ilexaplar  Greek. 
 This  translation  from  the  Hebrew  has  alwa.ys  been 
 the  ecclesiastical  version  of  the  Syrians ;  and  when 
 it  is  remembered  how  in  the  5th  century  dissen- 
 sions and  divisions  were  introduced  into  the  Syrian 
 churches,  and  how  from  that  time  the  Monophy- 
 sites  and  those  termed  Nestorians  have  been  in  a 
 state  of  unhealed  opposition,  it  shows  not  only  the 
 antiquity  of  this  version,  but  also  the  deep  and 
 abiding  hold  which  it  nmst  have  taken  on  the 
 mind  of  the  people,  that  this  version  was  iirndy 
 held  fast  by  both  of  these  opposed  parties,  as  well 
 as  by  those  w  ho  adhere  to  the  Greek  Church,  and 
 by  tbe  Maronites.  Its  existence  and  use  prior  to 
 their  divisions  is  sufficiently  proved  by  Ephraem 
 alone.  But  how  much  older  it  is  than  that  deacon 
 of  Edessa  we  have  no  evidence.  From  15ar-IIe- 
 braeus  (in  the  1.3th  century)  we  learn  that  there 
 were  three  opinions  as  to  its  age;  some  saying  that 
 the  version  was  made  in  the  reigns  of  Solomon  and 
 Hiram,  some  that  it  was  translated  by  Asa,  the 
 priest  who  was  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to 
 Samaria,  and  some  that  the  version  was  made  in 
 the  days  of  Adai  the  apostle  and  of  Abgarus,  king 
 of  Osrhoene  (at  which  time,  he  adds,  the  Simple 
 version  of  the  New  lest,  was  also  n)ade)."  The 
 first  of  these  opinions  of  course  imjilies  that  the 
 books  written  before  that  time  were  then  trans- 
 lated; indeed,  a  limitation  of  somewhat  the  same 
 kind  would  apply  to  the  second.  The  ground  of 
 the  first  opinion  seems  to  have  been  the  belief  that 
 the  'I'yrian  king  was  a  convert  to  the  profession  of 
 the  true  and  revealed  faith  held  by  the  Israelites; 
 and  that  the  possession  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the 
 Syriac  tongue  (which  they  identified  with  his  own) 
 was  a  necessary  consequence  of  this  adoption  of 
 the  true  belief:  this  opinion  is  mentioned  as  having 
 been  held  by  some  of  the  Syrians  in  the  'Jth  cen- 
 tury. The  second  opinion  (which  does  not  appear 
 to  have  been  cited  from  any  Syriac  writer  prior  to 
 Bar-Hebrseus)  seems  to  have  some  connection  with 
 the  formation  of  the  Samaritan  version  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, As  that  version  is  in  an  Aramaean  dia- 
 lect, any  one  who  supposed  that  it  was  made 
 inmiediately  after  the  mission  of  the  priest  from 
 Assyria  might  say  that  it  was  then  first  that  an 
 Aramaean  translation  was  executed;  and  this  might 
 afterwards,  in  a  sort  of  indefinite  manner,  have 
 been  connected  with  what  the  Syrians  themselves 
 used.  James  of  Ede.ssa  (in  the  latter  half  of  the 
 7th  century)  had  held  the  tliiril  of  the  opinions 
 mentioned  by  Bar-Hebraeus,  who  cites  him  in  sup- 
 port of  it,  and  accords  with  it. 
 
 It  is  highly  improbable  that  any  part  of  the 
 Syriac  version  is  older  than  the  advent  of  our  Lord ; 
 those  who  placed  it  under  Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa, 
 seem  to  have  argued  on  the  account  that  the  Syrian 
 people  then  received  Christianity;  and  thus  they 
 supposed  that  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  was  a 
 necessary  accompaniment  of  such  con\ersion.  All 
 that  the  account  shows  clearly  is,  then,  that  it  was 
 believed  to  belong  to  the  earliest  period  of  the 
 Christian  faith  among  them:  an  opinion  with 
 which  all  that  we  know  on  the  subject  acc^ords 
 .veil.     Thus  liphraem,  in  the  4th  century,  not  only 
 
 a   Wiseman,  Harm  Syriaca-,  p.  90. 
 
 I  shows  tha't  it  was  then  current,  but  also  gives  the 
 .  impression  that  this  had  even  tlien  been  km;/  the 
 case.  For  in  his  commentaries  he  gives  explana- 
 tions of  terms  which  were  e^ell  then  obscure.  This 
 might  have  been  from  age:  if  so,  the  version  was 
 made  comparatively  long  before  his  days:  or  it 
 might  be  from  its  having  been  in  a  dialect  different 
 from  that  to  which  he  was  accustomed  at  lulessa. 
 In  this  case,  then,  the  translation  was  made  in 
 some  other  part  of  Syria;  which  would  hardly 
 have  been  done,  unless  Christianity  had  at  such  a 
 time  been  more  diffused  there  than  it  was  at 
 lulessa.  The  dialect  of  that  city  is  stated  to  have 
 been  the  purest  Syriac;  if,  then,  the  version  was 
 made  for  that  place,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been 
 a  monument  of  such  purer  dialect.  rrobai]ly  the 
 origin  of  the  Old  Syriac  version  is  to  be  compared 
 with  that  of  the  Old  Latin  [see  Vulgatk]  ;  and 
 that  it  differed  as  much  from  the  jiolished  lan- 
 guage of  Edessa  as  did  the  Old  Latin,  made  in  the 
 African  Province,  from  the  contemporary  writers 
 of  Kome,  such  as  Tacitus. 
 
 E\en  though  the  traces  of  the  origin  of  this 
 version  of  the  Old  Test,  be  but  few,  yet  it  is  of 
 importance  that  they  should  be  marked;  for  the 
 Old  Syriac  has  the  peculiar  value  of  being  the  first 
 version  from  the  Hebrew  original  made  for  Chris- 
 tian use;  and,  indeed,  the  only  translation  of  the 
 kind  before  that  of  Jerome,  which  was  made  sub- 
 sequently to  the  time  when  Ephraem  wrote.  This 
 Syriac  commentator  may  have  termed  it  "  OUK  ver- 
 sion," in  contrast  to  all  others  then  current  (for 
 the  Targiims  were  hardly  versions),  which  were 
 merely  reflections  of  the  Greek  and  not  of  the 
 Helirew  original. 
 
 The  proof  that  this  version  wa.^  made  from  the 
 Hebrew  is  twofold:  we  have  the  direct  statements 
 of  Ephraem,  who  compares  it  in  places  with  the 
 Hebrew,  and  speaks  of  this  origin  as  a  fact;  and 
 and  who  is  confirmed  (if  that  had  been  needful) 
 by  later  Syrian  writers;  we  find  the  same  thing  as 
 evident  from  the  internal  examination  of  the  ver- 
 sion itself.  Whatever  internal  change  or  revision 
 it  may  have  received,  the  Hebrew  groundwoik  of 
 the  translation  is  unmistakalile.  Such  indications 
 of  revision  must  be  afterwards  briefly  sjjecified. 
 
 The  first  printed  edition  of  this  version  was  that 
 which  appeared  in  the  Paris  Polyglott  of  Le  Jay  in 
 104.5;  it  is  said  that  the  editor,  Gabriel  Sionita,  a 
 Maronite,  had  only  an  imperfect  MS.,  and  that, 
 besides  errors,  it  was  defecti\-e  as  to  wIkjIb  passages, 
 and  even  as  to  entiie  books.  This  last  charge  seems 
 to  be  so  made  as  if  it  were  to  imply  that  books 
 were  omitted  besides  those  of  the  Apocrypha,  a 
 part  which  Sionita  confessedly  had  not.  He  is 
 stated  to  have  supplied  the  deficiencies  by  trans- 
 lating into  Syriac  from  the  Vulgate.  It  can  hardly 
 l)e  supposed  but  that  there  is  some  exaggeration  in 
 these  statements.  Sionita  may  have  filled  up  an  occa- 
 sional hiatus  in  his  MS. ;  but  it  requires  very  defi- 
 nite examination  before  we  can  fully  credit  that  he 
 thus  supplied  whole  books.  It  seems  needful  to 
 believe  that  the  defective  books  were  simply  those 
 in  the  Apocrypha,  which  he  did  not  supply.  The 
 result,  however,  is,  that  the  Paris  edition  is  but  an 
 infirm  groundwork  for  our  speaking  with  confidence 
 of  the  text  of  this  version. 
 
 In  Walton's  Polyglott,  1657,  the  Paris  text  is 
 reprinted,  but  with  the  addition  of  the  Apocryphal 
 books  which  had  been  wanting.  It  was  generally 
 said  that  Walton  had  done  much  to  amend  the 
 texts  upon  MS.  authority;  but  the  late  Prof.  Lei" 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 3385 
 
 [ 
 
 denies  this,  stating  that  "  the  only  addition  made 
 by  Walton  was  some  Apocryphal  books."  From 
 Walton's  Polyglott,  Kirsch,  in  1787,  published  a 
 separate  edition  of  the  Pentateuch.  Of  the  Syriac 
 Psalter  there  ha\e  been  many  editions.  The  first 
 of  these,  as  mentioned  by  Eichhorn,  appeared  in 
 .1610;  it  has  by  the  side  an  Arabic  version.  In 
 1625  there  were  two  editions;  the  one  at  Paris 
 edited  by  Gabriel  Sionita,  and  one  at  Leyden  by 
 Erpenius  from  two  MSS."  These  have  since  been 
 repeated;  but  anterior  to  them  all,  it  is  mentioned 
 that  the  seven  penitential  psalms  appeared  at  Kome 
 in  158-t. 
 
 In  the  punctuation  given  in  the  Polyglotts,  a 
 system  was  introduced  which  was  in  part  a  pecul- 
 iarity of  Gabriel  Sionita  himself.  This  has  to  lie 
 borne  in  mind  by  those  who  use  either  the  Paris 
 Polyglott  or  that  of  Walton ;  for  in  many  words 
 there  is  a  redundancy  of  vowels,  and  the  form  of 
 some  is  thus  exceedingly  changed. 
 
 When  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  pro- 
 posed more  than  forty  years  ago  to  issue  the  Syriac 
 Old  Testament  for  the  first  time  in  a  separate  vol- 
 ume, the  late  Prof.  Lee  was  employed  to  make  such 
 editorial  preparations  as  could  be  connected  with  a 
 mere  revision  of  the  text,  without  any  specification 
 of  the  authorities.  Dr.  Lee  collated  for  the  purpose 
 six  Sj'riac  MSS.  of  the  Old  Test,  in  general,  and  a 
 very  ancient  copy  of  the  Pentateuch :  he  also  used 
 in  part  the  commentaries  of  Ephraem  and  of  Bar- 
 Ilebroeus.  From  these  various  sources  he  con- 
 structed his  text,  with  the  aid  of  that  found  already 
 in  the  Polj'glotts.  Of  course  the  corrections  de- 
 pended on  the  editor's  own  judgment;  and  tlie 
 want  of  a  .specification  of  the  results  of  collations 
 leaves  the  reader  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  evidence 
 may  be  in  those  places  in  which  there  is  a  depart- 
 ure from  the  Polyglott  text.  But  though  more  in- 
 formation might  be  desired,  we  have  in  the  edition 
 of  Lee  a  veritable  Syriac  text,  from  Syriac  authori- 
 ties, and  free  from  the  suspicion  of  having  been 
 foriued  in  modern  times,  by  Gabriel  Sionita's  trans- 
 lating portions  from  the  Latin.  [Prof.  Lee's  edi- 
 tion was  published  at  London  in  182-3.  —  A.] 
 
 But  we  have  now  in  this  country,  in  the  MS. 
 treasures  brought  from  the  Nitrian  valleys,  the 
 means  of  far  more  accurately  editing  this  version. 
 Even  if  the  results  should  not  appear  to  be  strik- 
 ing, a  thorough  use  of  these  MSS.  would  place  this 
 version  on  such  a  basis  of  diplomatic  evidence  as 
 would  show  positively  how  this  earliest  Christian 
 translation  from  the  Hebrew  was  read  in  the  Gth 
 or  7th  century,  or  possibly  still  earlier:*  we  thus 
 could  use  the  Syriac  with  a  fuller  degree  of  confi- 
 dence in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  just  as 
 we  can  the  more  ancient  versions  of  the  New  for 
 the  criticism  of  the  Greek. 
 
 In  the  beginning  of  1849,  the  late  excellent 
 Bililical  scholar,  the  Kev.  John  Rogers,  Canon  of 
 Exeter,  published  lieii^ons  why  a  New  Edition  of 
 the  Pegcliilo,  or  Aiicieii/  Syriac  Version  of  the  Ohl 
 Teiiiunent,  d(Ouhl  he  published.  In  this  interest- 
 ing pamphlet,  addressed  to  the  late  Archbishop  of 
 Cantei'liury,  Canon  Rogers  speaks  of  the  value  of 
 the  version  itself,  its  importance  in  criticism,  the 
 existing  editions,  their  defects,  the  sources  of 
 emendation  now  possessed  by  this  country,  in  the 
 
 «  *  Dathe  also  published  an  edition  of  the  text  of 
 
 Erpenius  at  Ilalle  in  1768,  adding  the  vowel-poiuts, 
 
 and   notes.     There  is  an  English  Translation   of  the 
 
 Syriac  Peshito  Version  of  the  Psalms  of  David^  with 
 
 213 
 
 Nitrian  MSS.  especially,  "  now  [1849]   under  the 
 care  of  the  Rev.   Wm.   Cureton,   who  is  making 
 known  to  the  public  the  treasures  of  the  library  of 
 the  Blonastery  of  St.  ilary  Deipara,  in  the  Nitrian 
 desert  in  Egypt,  thus  happily  obtained."     He  ad- 
 verts to  the  facility  which  would  be  afforded  for  the 
 proper   publication  of  the  proposed  edition,  from 
 type  having  been  of  late  prepared  representing  the 
 proper   Estrangelo  Syriac   character,  of  which  Dr. 
 Cureton  was  even  then  making  use  in  printing  his 
 text  of  the  Syriac  Gospels,  etc.     If  it  had  been  an 
 honor  to  this  country  to  issue  the  collations  of  Keii- 
 nicott  for  the  Hebrew  Old  Test.,  and  of  Holmes  for 
 the  LXX.,  might  not  this  proposed  Syriac  edition 
 be  a  worthy  successor  to  such  works?     The  ^jfart 
 proposed  by  Canon  Rogers  for  its  execution  was 
 this:  to  take  the  Syriac  MS.  which  appeared  to  be 
 the  best  in  each  portion  of  the  Old  I'est.,  both  on 
 the  ground  of  goodness  and  antiquity:  let  this  be 
 printed,  and  then  let  collations  be  made  by  various 
 scholars  in  interleaved  copies;  the  whole  of  the  re- 
 sults might  then  be  published  in  the  same  form  as 
 De  Rossi's  Vttrim  Lectioiies  to  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
 Canon   Rogers  gives   a  few  hints   as   to  what  he 
 thought  would  be  probable  results  from  such  a  col- 
 lation.    He  did  not  expect  that  the  difterences  from 
 tiie  printed   Syriac  would   be  very  great ;  but  still 
 there  would  be  a  far  greater  satisfaction  as  to  the 
 confidence  with  which  this  version  might  be  quoted, 
 especially  in  connection  with  the  criticism  of  the 
 Hebrew  original.    By  way  of  illustration  he  pointed 
 out  a  good  many  passages,  in  which  it  can  hardly 
 be  doubted  that  the  defects  in  the  printed  Syriac 
 arise  from  the  defectiveness  of  the  copy  or  copies  on 
 which  it  was  based.     He  also  showed  it  to  be  a 
 point  of  important  inquiry,  whether  in  places  in 
 which  the  printed  Syriac  agrees  with   the   I^XX., 
 the  Syriac  has  been  altered;  or  whether  both  may 
 preserve  the  more  ancient  reading  of  Heljrew  copies 
 once  extant.     The  reasons  why  such  a  Syriac  text 
 sliould  be  prepared  and   published,  and  why  such 
 collations  should  be  made,  are  thus  summed  up  by 
 Canon  Rogers:  "1st.   Because  we  have  no  printed 
 text  from  ancient  and  approved    MSS.     2d.  Be- 
 cause the  Latin  version  in  Walton's  Polyglott  often 
 fliils  to  convey  the  sense  of  the  Syriac.     od.  Be- 
 cause there  are  many  omissions  in  the  printed  text 
 which   may  perhaps  be  supplied  in  a  collation  ot 
 early  MSS.     4th.  Because  the  facilities  now  given 
 to  the  study  of  Hebrew  make  it  desirable  that  new 
 facilities  should  also  be  gi\'en  to  the  study  of  the 
 cognate  languages.     5th.  Because  it  is  useless  to 
 accumulate  ancient  and  valuable  Biblical  MSS.  at 
 the  British  Museum,  if  those  MSS.  are  not  applied 
 to  the  purposes  of  sacred  criticism.     6th.  Because 
 in  comparing  the  Syriac  with  the  Hebrew  original, 
 many  points  of  important  and  interesting  investi- 
 gation will   arise.     Finally,  Because  it  is  neither 
 creditable  to  the  literary  character  of  the  age,  nor 
 to  the  theological  position  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land, that  one  of  our  most  ancient  versions  of  the 
 Bible   shoidd    continue    in    its    present   neglected 
 state."     These  considerations   of  the  late  Canon 
 Rogers  are  worthy  of  being  thus  repeated,  not  only 
 as  being  the  deliberate  judgment  of  a  good  Biblical 
 scholar,   but  as   also  pointing  out  practically  the 
 objects  to  be    sought    in    making   proper  use   of 
 
 Notes  Critical  and  Explanatory,  by  the  Rev.  Andrew 
 Oliver,  Boston,  1861.  A. 
 
 b  The  Pentateuch   could  probably  be  given  on  a 
 basis  of  the  fflh  century. 
 
8386 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 •^ 
 > 
 
 the  Biblical  materials  which  are  at  our  hands,  and 
 of  which  the  scholars  of  former  ages  had  not  the 
 benefit. 
 
 There  was  a  strong  hope  expressed  soon  after 
 the  issue  of  Canon  Kogers's  appeal,  that  the  work 
 would  have  been  formally  placed  in  a  proper  man- 
 ner in  the  hands  of  the  l!ev.  Wni.  Curetoii,  and 
 that  thus  it  would  ha^e  been  accomplished  under 
 his  superintendence,  at  the  Oxford  University 
 Press.  Canon  liogers  announced  this  in  an  ap- 
 pendix to  his  pamphlet.  But  this  has  not  been  ef- 
 fected. It  may  still  be  hoped  that  Dr.  Cureton 
 will  edit  at  least  (he  Pentateuch  from  a  ver}'  an- 
 cient copy:  but  there  is  not  now  in  this  country 
 the  2)>'(tclical  encouragement  to  such  Biblical  stud- 
 ies as  require  the  devotion  of  time,  labor,  and  at- 
 tention (as  well  as  pecuniary  expense),  which  in 
 the  last  century  Kennicott  and  Holmes  received. 
 
 But  if  the  printed  Syriac  text  rests  on  by  no 
 means  a  really  satisfactory  basis,  it  may  be  asked, 
 How  can  it  be  said  positively  that  what  we  have  is 
 the  same  version  substantially  that  was  used  by 
 Ephraem  in  the  4th  century  V  Happily,  we  have 
 the  same  means  of  identifying  the  Syriac  with  that 
 anciently  used,  as  we  have  of  showing  that  the 
 modern  Latin  Vulgate  is  substantially  the  \ersion 
 executed  by  .Jerome.  We  admit  that  the  common 
 printed  Latin  has  suffered  in  various  ways,  and  yet 
 at  the  bottom  and  in  its  general  texture  it  is  im- 
 doubtedly  the  work  of  Jerome:  so  with  the  Peshito 
 of  the  Old  Test.,  whatever  errors  of  judgment  were 
 committed  liy  Gabriel  Sionita,  the  fii-st  editor,  and 
 however  little  has  been  done  by  those  who  should 
 have  corrected  these  things  on  MS.  authority,  the 
 identity  of  the  version  is  too  certain  for  it  to  be 
 thus  destroyed,  or  even  (it  may  be  said)  materially 
 obscured. 
 
 From  the  citations  of  Ephraem,  and  the  single 
 words  on  which  he  makes  remarks,  we  have  suffi- 
 cient proof  of  the  identit}'  of  the  version :  even 
 though  at  times  he  also  furnishes  proof  that  the 
 copies  as  printed  are  not  exactly  as  he  read.  The 
 following  may  be  taken  as  instances  of  accordance: 
 they  are  mostly  from  the  ])laces  (see  Wiseman,  H. 
 Syr.  p.  122,  &c.)  in  which  Ephraem  thinks  it  need- 
 ful to  explain  a  Syrian  word  in  this  version,  or  to 
 discuss  its  meaning,  cither  from  its  having  become 
 antiquated  in  his  time,  or  from  its  being  unused  in 
 the  same  sense  by  the  Syrians  of  Edessa.     Thus, 
 
 Gen.  i.  1,   ■^■^    is  used  in  Syriac  as  answering  to 
 
 the   Hebrew  ^W.     The  occurrence  of  this  word 
 
 Ephraem    mentions,  giving  his   own  explanation: 
 
 i.  2,  CnO-aO  CnoL;  x.  9,  for  T^*  "1122,  the 
 
 Syriac  has  M'-*-^-*"**-',  which  Ephraem  men- 
 tions as  being  a  term  which  the  Persians  also  use. 
 
 Gen.  XXX.  14,  for  CNl^'^  there  is  )-ii6;i3!i, 
 a  word  which  Ephraem  mentions  as  being  there, 
 and  the  possible  meaning  of  which  he  discusses. 
 Ex.  xxviii.  4,  Jb^OJ;_2>  stands  for  the  Hebrew 
 "JttJn;  Ephraem  reads  it  >.^Op;.23,  and  ex- 
 plains the  meaning :  sxxviii.  4,  ^^i..O  ("12  p^) ; 
 xxxviii.  16,  1^^;^  (Vn*'!"!^;?);  xxviii.  40, 
 j6!So(n'U'23rp);  Num.  xi.  7,  for  12  there  is 
 
 J  L^ "^  Pr)Q..3^  a  word  equally,  it  seems,  meaning 
 coriander ;  which  was,  however,  unknown  to 
 Ephraem,  who   expounds  it  as    though  it  meant 
 
 food  of  all  kinds,  as  if  JLiJUxCD   ^^O.     1  Sam. 
 
 xxiii.    28,  iQ..>>a.££3  for    V^D;  2  Sam.  viii.  7, 
 
 f-.ji.^-»,    merely    retaining    the    Hebrew    word 
 
 ^y;ihW  in  a  Syriac  form.     1  K.  x.  11,  JLOXXJ^ 
 
 (D^2pbS!);    xii.    11,     UsU-^     (0^2^17^). 
 
 2   K.    iii.    4,    Ji-ii-1    ("rr/'^^);    Job    xxxix.    23, 
 
 J.i);.x^JD  (n5tt"S);    xli.  13,    c^CT^L,    the 
 
 Heb.  t^nbi?.      Is.    iii.    22,    J  J^.1Jl2C^^:0 
 
 (nnnsipTp);  jer.  ii.  41,  );^Aii-«j)  cntrJtt?). 
 
 Zech.  V.  7,  I  ^^■^■3  (HD'^W).  In  these  pas- 
 sages, and  in  several  others,  the  words  of  the 
 Peshito  are  cited  by  Ephraem  because  of  their 
 obscurity,  and  of  the  need  that  they  had  of  ex- 
 planation. 
 
 The  proof  that  the  version  which  has  come  down 
 to  us  is  substantially  that  used  by  the  Syrians  in 
 the  4th  century,  is  perhaps  more  definite  from  the 
 comparison  of  words  than  it  would  have  been  from 
 the  comparison  of  passages  of  greater  length;  be- 
 cause in  longer  citations  there  always  might  be 
 some  ground  for  thinking  that  perhaps  the  IMS.  of 
 Ephraem  might  have  been  conformed  to  later  Syr- 
 iac copies  of  the  Sacred  Text ;  while,  with  regard 
 to  peculiar  words,  no  such  suspicion  can  have  any 
 place,  since  it  is  on  such  words  still  found  in  the 
 Peshito  that  the  remarks  of  Ephraem  are  based. 
 The  fact  that  he  sometimes  cites  it  differently  from 
 what  we  now  read,  only  shows  a  variation  of  copies, 
 perhaps  ancient,  or  perhaps  such  as  is  found  merely 
 in  the  printed  text  that  we  have. 
 
 From  Ephraem  having  mentioned  iransluiors  of 
 this  version,  it  has  been  concluded  that  it  was  the 
 work  of  several:  a  thing  probable  enough  in  itself, 
 but  which  could  hardly  be  proved  from  the  occur- 
 rence of  a  casual  phrase,  nor  yet  from  variations  in 
 the  rendering  of  the  same  Hebrew  word ;  such  va- 
 riations being  found  in  almost  all  translations,  even 
 when  made  by  one  person— -that  of  Jerome,  for  in- 
 stance ;  and  which  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to 
 avoid,  especially  before  the  time  when  concordances 
 and  lexicons  were  at  hand.  Variations  in  phrase- 
 ology give  a  far  surer  ground  for  supposing  several 
 translators. 
 
 It  has  been  much  discussed  whether  this  trans- 
 lation were  a  Jewish  or  a  Christian  work.  Some, 
 who  have  maintained  that  the  translator  was  a  Jew, 
 have  argued  from  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and 
 his  mode  of  rendering.  But  these  considerations 
 prove  nothing.  Indeed,  it  might  well  be  doubted 
 if  in  that  age  a  Jew  would  have  formed  anything 
 except  a  Chaldee  Targum ;  and  thus  diffuseness  of 
 paraphrase  might  be  expected  instead  of  closeness 
 of  translation.  There  need  be  no  reasonable  objec- 
 tion made  to  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  Christian  work. 
 Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  suppose,  that  before  the  dif- 
 fusion of  Christianity  in  Syria,  the  version  could 
 have  been  needed. 
 
 It  may  be  said  that  the  Syriac  in  general  sup 
 ports  the  Hebrew  text  that  we  have :  how  far  argu 
 ments  may  be  raised  upon  minute  coincidences  or 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 5381 
 
 variations  cannot  be  certainly  known  until  the 
 ancient  text  of  the  ^rsion  is  better  established. 
 Occasionally,  however,  it  is  clear  that  the  Syriac 
 translator  read  one  consonant  for  another  in  the 
 Hebrew,  and  translated  accordingly;  at  times  an- 
 other vocalization  of  the  Hebrew  was  followed. 
 
 A  resemblance  has  been  pointed  out  between  the 
 Syriac  and  the  reading  of  some  of  the  Chaldee 
 Targunis :  if  the  Targum  is  the  older,  it  is  not  un- 
 likely that  the  Syriac  translator,  using  every  aid  in 
 his  power  to  obtain  an  accurate  knowledge  of  what 
 he  was  rendering,  examined  the  Taigunis  in  diffi- 
 cult passages.  This  is  not  the  place  for  formally 
 discussing  the  date  and  origin  of  the  Targums 
 [see  below,  Takgums]  ;  but  if  (as  seems  almost 
 certain)  the  Targums  which  have  come  down  to 
 us  are  almost  without  exception  more  recent  than 
 the  Syriac  version,  still  they  are  probably  the  suc- 
 cessors of  earlier  Targums,  which  by  amplification 
 have  reached  their  present  shape.  Thus,  if  existing 
 Targums  are  more  recent  than  the  Syriac,  it  may 
 happen  that  their  coincidences  arise  from  the  use  of 
 a  common  source  —  an  earlier  Targum. 
 
 But  there  is  another  point  of  inquiry  of  more 
 importance:  it  is,  how  far  has  this  version  been 
 afi'ected  by  the  LXX.V  and  to  what  are  we  to 
 attribute  this  influence?  It  is  possible  that  the 
 influence  of  the  LXX.  is  partly  to  be  ascribed  to 
 copyists  and  revisers ;  while  in  part  this  belonged 
 to  the  version  as  originally  made.  For,  if  a  trans- 
 lator had  access  to  another  version  while  occupied 
 in  making  his  own,  he  might  consult  it  in  cases  of 
 difficulty;  and  thus  he  might  unconsciously  follow 
 it  in  other  parts.  Even  knowing  the  words  of  a 
 particular  translation  may  aflect  the  mode  of  ren- 
 dering in  another  translation  or  revision.  And 
 thus  a  tinge  from  the  LXX.  may  have  easily  existed 
 in  this  version  from  the  first,  e\'en  though  in  whole 
 books  it  may  not  be  found  at  all.  But  when  the 
 extensive  use  of  the  LXX.  is  remembered,  and  how 
 soon  it  was  superstitiously  imagined  to  have  been 
 made  by  direct  inspiration,  so  that  it  was  deemed 
 canonically  authoritative,  we  cannot  feel  wonder 
 that  readings  from  the  LXX.  should  have  been 
 from  time  to  time  introduced;  this  may  have  com- 
 menced probably  before  a  Syriac  version  had  been 
 made  from  the  Hexaplar  Tireek  text;  because  in 
 such  revised  text  of  the  LXX.  the  additions,  etc., 
 in  which  that  version  differed  from  the  Hebrew, 
 would  be  so  marked  that  they  would  hardly  seem 
 to  be  the  authoritative  and  genuine  text. 
 
 Some  comparison  with  the  Greek  is  probable 
 even  before  the  time  of  Ephraem ;  for,  as  to  the 
 Apocryphal  books,  while  he  cites  some  of  them 
 (though  not  as  Scripture),  the  Apocryphal  addi- 
 tions to  l)aniel  and  the  books  of  Blaccabees  were 
 not  yet  found  in  Syriac.  Whoever  translated  any 
 of  these  books  from  the  Greek,  may  easily  have 
 also  compared  with  it  in  some  places  the  books  pre- 
 viously translated  from  the  Hebrew. 
 
 In  the  book  of  Psalms  this  version  exhibits  many 
 peculiarities.  Either  the  translation  of  the  Psalter 
 must  be  a  work  independent  of  the  Peshito  in 
 general,  or  else  it  has  been  strangely  revised  and 
 altered,  not  only  from  the  Greek,"  but  also  from 
 
 o  Perhaps  as  to  this  the  version  of  the  Psalms  from 
 khe  Greelv  made  by  Polycarp  (to  be  mentioned  pres- 
 ently) has  not  been  sufficiently  taken  into  account. 
 Indeed,  remarkably  little  attention  appears  to  have 
 been  paid  to  the  evidence  that  such  a  version  ex- 
 isted. 
 
 liturgical  use.  Perhaps,  indeed,  the  Psalms  are  a 
 different  version ;  and  that  in  this  espect  the  prac- 
 tice of  the  Syrian  churches  is  like  that  of  the 
 Roman  Catholic  Church  and  the  Church  of  England 
 in  using  liturgically  a  different  version  of  the  book 
 so  much  read  ecclesiastically. 
 
 It  is  stated  that,  after  the  divisions  of  the  Syrian 
 Church,  there  were  revisions  of  this  one  version  by 
 "fire  Monophysites  and  by  the  Nestorians:  probably 
 it  would  be  found,  if  the  iflibject  could  be  fully 
 investigated,  that  there  were  in  the  hands  of  differ- 
 ent parties  copies  in  which  the  ordinary  accidents 
 of  transcription  had  introduced  variations. 
 
 The  Karkaphcnsian  recension  mentioned  by 
 Bar-Hebr£eus  was  only  known  by  name  prior  to 
 the  investigations  of  AViseman;  it  is  found  in  two 
 MSS.  in  the  Vatican;  it  was  formed  for  the  use 
 of  IVIonophysites  ;  there  is  peculiarity  in  the 
 punctuation  introduced,  by  a  leaning  towards  the 
 Greek ;  but  it  is,  as  to  its  substance,  the  Peshito 
 version. 
 
 B.  The  Syriac  version  from  the  Hexaplar 
 Greek  Text.  —  The  only  Syriac  version  of  the  Old 
 Test,  up  to  the  Gth  century  was  apparently  the 
 Peshito.  The  first  definite  intimation  of  a  portion 
 of  the  Old  Testament  translated  from  the  Greek  is 
 through  IMoses  Aghelreus.  This  Syriac  writer 
 hved  in  the  middle  of  the  Gth  century.  He  made 
 a  translation  of  the  Glaphyra  of  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
 dria from  Greek  into  Syriac ;  and,  in  the  prefixed 
 Epistle,  he  speaks  of  the  versions  of  the  New  Test, 
 and  the  Psalter,  "  which  Polycarp  (rest  his  soul!), 
 the  Chorepiscopus,  made  in  Syriac  for  the  faithful 
 Xeiiaias,  the  teacher  of  Mabug,  worthy  of  the  mem- 
 ory of  the  good."  ''  We  thus  see  that  a  Syriac 
 version  of  the  Psalms  had  a  similar  origin  to  the 
 Philoxenian  Syriac  New  Test.  We  know  that  the 
 date  of  the  latter  was  A.  n.  508 ;  the  Psalter  was 
 probably  a  contemporaneous  woi-k.  It  is  said  that 
 the  Nestorian  patriarch,  jNIarabba,  A.  d.  552,  made 
 a  version  from  the  Greek;  it  does  not  appear  to  be 
 in  existence,  so  that,  if  ever  it  was  completely  exe- 
 cuted, it  was  probably  superseded  by  the  Hexaplar 
 version  of  Paul  of  Tela;  indeed  Paul  may  have 
 used  it  as  the  basis  of  his  work,  adding  marks  of 
 reference,  etc. 
 
 The  version  by  Paul  of  Tela,  a  Monophysite,  was 
 made!  in  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century;  for  its 
 basis  he  used  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text  —  that  is, 
 the  LXX.,  with  the  corrections  of  Origen,  the 
 asterisks,  obeli,  etc.,  and  with  the  references  to  the 
 other  Greek  versions. 
 
 The  Syro-Hexaplar  version  was  made  on  the 
 principle  of  following  the  Greek,  word  for  word,  as 
 exactly  as  possible.  It  contains  the  marks  intro- 
 duced by  Origen ;  and  the  references  to  the  versions 
 of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  Theodotion,  etc.  In  fact, 
 it  is  from  this  Syriac  version  that  we  obtain  our 
 most  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  results  of  the 
 critical  labors  of  Origen. 
 
 Andreas  Masius,  in  his  edition  of  the  boolc  of 
 Joshua,"^  first  used  the  results  of  this  Syro-Hexa- 
 plar text;  for,  on  the  authority  of  a  MS.  in  his 
 possession,  he  revised  the  Greek,  introducing  aster- 
 isks and  obeli,  thus  showing  what  Origen  had  done, 
 
 b  Assemani,  BibUotheca  Orientalis,  ii.  83  ;  where, 
 however,  the  obscure  Syriac  is  turned  into  still  more 
 obscure  Latin. 
 
 c  Josuae  imperatoris  historia  illustrata  atque  expli< 
 cata  ab  Andrea  Masio.     Antwerp,  Ibli. 
 
1388 
 
 VERSIONS.  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 how  much  he  had  inserted  in  the  text,  and  what 
 he  had  marked  as  not  found  in  the  Hebrew.  The 
 Syriac  JNIS.  used  by  Masius  has  been  long  lost; 
 though  in  this  day,  after  the  recovery  of  the  Codex 
 Reuchlini  of  the  Apocalypse  (from  which  Erasmus 
 first  edited  that  book)  by  Prof.  Delitzsch,  it  could 
 hardly  be  a  cause  for  surprise  if  this  Syriac  Codex 
 were  again  found. 
 
 It  is  from  a  MS.  in  the  Anibrosian  Library  at 
 Milan  that  we  possess  accurate  means  of  knowing 
 this  Syriac  version.  The  MS.  in  question  contains 
 the  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles, 
 W^isdom,  I'xclesiasticus,  Minor  Prophets,  Jeremiah, 
 Baruch,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  and  Isaiah.  Norberg  pub- 
 lished, at  Lund  in  1787,  the  books  of  Jeremiah 
 and  Ezekiel,  from  a  transcript  which  he  had  made 
 of  the  MS.  at  Milan.  In  1788,  Bugati  published 
 at  Jlilan  the  book  of  Daniel;  he  also  edited  the 
 Psalms,  the  printing  of  which  had  been  completed 
 before  his  death  in  1816 ;  it  was  published  in 
 1820.  The  rest  of  the  contents  of  the  iMilan  Codex 
 (with  the  exception  of  the  Apocryphal  books)  was 
 published  at  Berlin  in  1835,  by  Middeldorpf,  from 
 the  transcript  made  by  Norberg ;  Middeldorpf  also 
 added  the  4th  (2d)  book  of  Kings  from  a  ilS.  at 
 Paris. 
 
 Besides  these  portions  of  this  Syriac  version,  the 
 MSS.  from  the  Nitrian  monasteries  now  in  the 
 British  Museum  would  add  a  good  deal  more  : 
 amongst  these  there  are  six,  from  which  much 
 might  be  drawn,  so  that  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
 and  other  books  may  be  recovered."  These  MSS. 
 are  like  that  at  Milan,  in  having  the  marks  of  Ori- 
 gen  in  the  text ;  the  references  to  readings  in  the 
 margin ;  and  occasionally  the  Greek  word  itself  is 
 thus  cited  in  Greek. 
 
 Dr.  Antonio  Ceriani,  of  the  Ambrosian  Library 
 at  Milan,  after  having  for  a  considerable  time  pro- 
 posed to  edit  the  portions  of  the  Syro-Hexaplar 
 Codex  of  Milan  which  had  hitherto  remained  in 
 MS.,  commenced  such  a  work  in  18G1  {Monunienta 
 Sacra  et  Pi-ofana,  Opera  Colk'f/ii  Blbliothecce 
 AmbrosiaruB),  the  first  part  of  the  Syriac  text 
 being  Baruch,  Lamentations,  and  the  Epistle  of 
 Jeremiah.  To  this  work  Ceriani  subjoined  a  colla- 
 tion of  some  of  the  more  important  texts,  and  crit- 
 ical notes.  A  second  i)art  has  since  appeared.  It 
 is  to  be  hoped  that  lie  may  thus  edit  the  whole 
 MS.,  and  that  the  other  portions  of  this  version 
 known  to  be  extant  may  soon  appear  in  print. 
 
 The  value  of  this  version  for  the  criticism  of  the 
 LXX.  is  very  great.  It  supplies,  as  far  as  a  ver- 
 sion can,  the  lost  work  of  C)rigen. 
 
 The  list  of  versions  of  the  Old  Test,  into  Syriac 
 often  appears  to  be  very  numerous ;  but  on  exam- 
 ination   it  is  found   that   many    translations,  the 
 
 a  The  following  is  the  notation  of  these  MSS.,  and 
 their  contents  and  dates  :  — 
 12,13.3  (besides  the  Peshito  Exodus) ;  Jos/ma  (defective), 
 
 cent.  vii.     "  Translated   from    a  Greek  MS.  of  the 
 
 Ilexapla,  collated  with  one  of  the  Tetraplu.'' 
 12,134.  Exodus.     A.  D.  697. 
 14,434,  Psalms  loniieU  from  two  MSS.  cent.  viii.  (with 
 
 the  Song  of  the  Three  Children   subjoined  to  the 
 
 second).     Both  MSS.  are   defective.     Subscription, 
 
 "  According  to  the  LXX." 
 14,437,  Numbers   and  1  Kings,  defective  (cent.  vii.  or 
 
 viii.).     The  subscription  to  1  Kings  .says  that  it  was 
 
 translated  into  Syriac  at  Alexandria  in  the  year  927 
 
 (A.  D.  616). 
 14,442,    Genesis,    defective    (with    1    Sam.    Peshito). 
 
 "  According  to  the  LXX.''  (cent   vi.). 
 
 names  of  which  appear  in  a  catalogue,  aie  really 
 either  such  as  never  had  an  actual  existence,  or 
 else  that  they  are  either  the  version  from  the 
 Hebrew,  or  else  that  from  the  Hexaplar  text  of  the 
 LXX.,  under  different  names,  or  with  some  shght 
 I'evision.  To  enumerate  the  supposed  versions  is 
 needless.  It  is  only  requisite  to  mention  that 
 Thomas  of  Harkel,  who,se  work  in  the  revision  of  a 
 translation  of  the  New  Test,  will  have  to  be  men- 
 tioned, seems  also  to  have  made  a  translation  from 
 the  Greek  into  Syriac  of  some  of  the  Apocryphal 
 books  —  at  least,  the  subscriptions  in  certain  MSS. 
 state  this. 
 
 II.  The  Syriac  Nkw  Testament  Ver- 
 sions. 
 
 A.  The  PeshUo-Sijriiic  N.  T.  (Text  of  Wid- 
 manstadt,  and  Cureton's  Gospels.) 
 
 In  whatever  forms  the  Syriac  New  Test,  may 
 have  existed  prior  to  the  time  of  Philoxenus  (-the 
 beginning  of  the  sixth  century),  who  caused  a  new 
 translation  to  be  made,  it  will  be  more  convenient 
 to  consider  all  such  most  ancient  translations  or 
 revisions  together;  even  though  there  may  be  rea- 
 .sons  afterwards  assigned  for  not  regarding  the  ver- 
 sion of  the  earlier  ages  of  Christianity  as  absolutely 
 one. 
 
 It  may  stand  as  an  admitted  fact  that  a  version 
 of  the  New  Test,  in  Syriac  existed  in  the  2d  cen- 
 tury; and  to  this  we  may  refer  the  statement  of 
 Eusebius  respecting  Hegesippus,  that  he  "  made 
 quotations  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
 brews and  the  Syriac,"  e/c  re  rov  Kad'  'E^paious 
 euay-yeAioi/  koI  rod  'SvpiaKou  (/list.  Eccl.  iv.  22). 
 It  sccnis  equally  certain  that  in  the  4th  century 
 such  a  version  w.as  as  well  known  of  the  New 
 Test,  as  of  the  Old.  It  was  the  companion  of 
 the  Old  Test,  translation  made  from  the  Hebrew, 
 and  as  such  was  in  habitual  use  in  the  Syriac 
 churches.  To  the  translation  in  common  use 
 amongst  the  Syrians,  orthodox,  Monophysite,  or 
 Nestorian,  from  the  5th  century  and  onward,  the 
 name  of  Peshito  has  been  as  commonly  applied  in 
 the  New  Test,  as  the  Old.  In  the  7th  century  at 
 least  the  version  so  current  acquired  the  name  of 
 
 r^*-^,  old,  in  contrast  to  that  which  was  then 
 formed  and  revised  by  the  Monophysites. 
 
 Though  we  have  no  certain  data  as  to  the  origin 
 of  this  version,  it  is  probable  on  every  ground  that 
 a  Syriac  translation  of  the  New  Te.5t.  was  an  ac- 
 companiment of  that  of  the  Old;  whatever  there- 
 fore bears  on  the  one,  bears  on  the  other  also. 
 
 There  seem  to  be  but  few  notices  of  the  old 
 Syriac  version  in  early  writers.  Cosmas  Indico- 
 pleustes,  in  the  former  half  of.  the  6th  century, 
 incidentally  informs  us  that  the  Syriac  translation 
 
 17,103,  Judges  and  Ruth,  defective  (cent.  vii.  or  viii.). 
 
 Subscription  to  Judges,  "According  to  the  LXX.  ;  " 
 
 to  Ruth.  "  From  the  Tetrapla  of  the  LXX." 
 
 The  notes  on  these  MSS.  made  by  the  present  writer 
 
 in  1857,  have  been  kindly  compared  and  amplified  by 
 
 Mr.  William  Wright  of  the  British  Museum. 
 
 Rordam  issued  at  Copenhagen  iu  1859  the  first  por- 
 tion of  an  edition  of  the  MS.  17,103  :  another  part  has 
 since  been  published.  [Title  :  Lihri  Judicum  et 
 Rulti  serundum  Versionem  Syriac.o-Hexnplarem,  etc. 
 2  fasc.  Uavnia;,  1859-61.]  Some  of  these  MSS.  were 
 written  in  the  same  century  in  whicli  the  version  was 
 made.  They  may  probably  be  depended  or  as  giving 
 the  text  with  general  accuracy. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 338G 
 
 does  not  contain  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  2  and 
 3  Jolin,  and  Jude.  This  was  found  to  be  correct 
 when  a  thousand  years  afterwards  this  ancient 
 translation  became  again  known  to  Western  schol- 
 ars. In  1552,  Moses  of  Mardin  came  to  Kome  to 
 Pope  Julius  III.,  commissioned  by  Ignatius  the 
 Jacobite  (Monophysite)  patriarch,  to  state  his  relig- 
 ious opinions,  to  efttict  (it  is  said)  a  union  with 
 the  Komish  Church,  and  to  ynt  the  Syr'utc  New 
 Test,  printed.  In  this  last  object  Moses  failed  both 
 at  Rome  and  Venice.  At  Vienna  he  was,  however, 
 successful.  Widmanstadt,  the  chancellor  of  the 
 Emperor  Ferdinand  I.,  had  himself  learned  Syriac 
 from  Theseus  Ambrosius  many  years  previously; 
 and  through  his  influence  the  emperor  undertook 
 the  charge  of  an  edition,  which  appeared  in  1555, 
 through  the  joint  labors  of  Widmanstadt.  Moses, 
 and  Postell.  Some  copies  were  afterwards  issued 
 with  the  date  of  1562  on  the  back  of  the  title." 
 
 In  having  only  thren  Catholic  epistles,  this  Syriac 
 New  Test,  agreed  with  the  description  of  Cosmas; 
 the  Apocalypse  was  also  wanting,  as  well  as  the 
 section  John  viii.  1-11;  this  last  omission,  and 
 some  other  points,  were  noticed  in  the  list  of  errata. 
 The  editors  appear  to  have  followed  their  MSS. 
 with  great  fidelity,  so  that  the  edition  is  justly 
 valued.  In  subsequent  editions  endeavors  were 
 made  conjecturally  to  amend  the  text  by  introduc- 
 ing 1  John  V.  7  and  other  portions  which  do  not 
 belong  to  this  translation.  One  of  the  principal 
 editions  is  that  of  Leusden  and  Schaaf ;  in  this  the 
 text  is  made  as  full  as  possible  by  supplying  every 
 lacuna  from  any  source;  in  the  punctuation  there 
 is  a  strange  peculiarity,  that  in  the  ibriner  part 
 Leusden  chose  to  ibllovv  a  sort  of  Chaldee  analogy, 
 while  on  his  death  Schaaf  introduced  a  regular  sys- 
 tem of  Syviac  vocalization  through  all  the  rest  of 
 the  volume.  The  Lexicon  which  accompanies  this 
 edition  is  of  great  value.  This  edition  was  first 
 issued  in  1708:  more  copies,  however,  have  the 
 date  1709 ;  while  some  have  the  fiilse  and  dishonest 
 statement  on  the  title  page,  "  Secunda  editio  a 
 niendis  purgata,"  and  the  date  1717.  The  late 
 Professor  Lee  published  an  edition  in  1816,  in 
 which  he  corrected  or  altered  the  text  on  the  au- 
 thority of  a  few  MSS.  This  is  so  far  independent 
 of  that  of  ^Vidmanstadt.  It  is,  however,  very  far 
 short  of  being  really  a  critical  edition.  In  1828, 
 the  edition  of  Mr.  William  Greenfield  (often  re- 
 printed from  the  stereotype  plates)  was  pul)lished 
 by  JMessrs.  Bagster:  in  this  the  text  of  Widman- 
 stadt was  followed  (with  the  vowels  fully  expressed), 
 and  with  certain  supplements  within  brackets  from 
 Ixe's  edition.  For  the  collation  with  Lee's  text 
 Greenfield  was  not  responsible.  There  are  now  in 
 this  country  excellent  materials  for  the  formation 
 of  a  critical  edition  of  this  version ;  it  niay,  however, 
 be  said,  that  as  in  its  first  publication  the  MSS. 
 employed  were  honestly  used,  it  is  in  the  text  of 
 Widmanstadt  in  a  far  better  condition  than  is  the 
 Peshito  Old  Testament. 
 
 a  The  date  of  1555  appears  repeatedly  in  tlie  body 
 of  the  volume ;  at  the  end  of  the  Gospels,  May  18, 
 1555  ;  St.  Paul's  Epp..  July  18,  1555  ;  Acts,  Aug.  14, 
 1555  ;  Cath.  Kpp.  and  the  conclusion,  Sept.  27,  1555. 
 The  volume  is  dedicated  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand, 
 and  the  cod  tents  mention  three  other  dedications  to 
 other  members  of  the  imperial  house.  All  of  these 
 three  are  often  wanting,  and  two  of  them,  addressed 
 to  the  Archdukes  Ferdinand  and  Charles,  are  not  only 
 generally  wanting,  but  it  is  even  said  that  no  copy  is 
 known  in  which  they  are  found. 
 
 This  Syriac  Version  has  been  variously  esti- 
 mated :  some  have  thought  that  in  it  they  had  a 
 genuine  and  unaltered  monument  of  the  second,  or 
 perhaps  even  of  the  frst  century.  They  thus  nat- 
 urally upheld  it  as  almost  coirdinate  in  authority 
 with  the  Greek  text,  and  as  being  of  a  period  ante- 
 rior to  any  Greek  copy  extant.  Others  finding  in 
 it  indubitable  njarks  of  a  later  age,  were  inclined 
 to  deny  that  it  had  any  claim  to  a  very  remote  an- 
 tiquity; thus  La  Croze  thought  that  the  commonly 
 printed  Syriac  New  Test,  is  not  the  Peshito  at  all, 
 but  the  Philoxenian  executed  in  the  beginning  of 
 the  6th  century.  The  fact  is,  that  this  version  as 
 transmitted  to  us  contains  marks  of  antiquity,  and 
 also  traces  of  a  later  age.  The  two  things  are  so 
 blended,  that  if  either  class  of  phenomena  alone 
 were  regarded,  the  most  opposite  opinions  might  be 
 formed.  The  o|)inion  of  Wetstein  was  one  of  the 
 most  perverse  that  could  be  de\ised :  he  found  in 
 this  version  readings  which  accord  with  the  Latin ; 
 and  tlien,  acting  on  the  strange  system  of  criticism 
 which  he  adopted  in  his  later  3ears,  he  asserted 
 that  any  such  accordance  with  the  Latin  was  a 
 proof  of  corruption  from  that  version  :  so  that  with 
 him  the  proofs  of  antiquity  became  the  tokens  of 
 later  origin,  and  he  thus  assigned  the  translation  to 
 the  seventh  century.  With  him  the  real  indica- 
 tions of  later  readings  were  only  the  marks  of  the 
 very  reverse.  Michaelis  took  very  opposite  ground 
 to  that  of  Wetstein ;  he  upheld  its  antiquity  and 
 authority  very  strenuously.  The  former  point 
 could  be  easily  prored,  if  one  class  of  readings  alone 
 were  considered;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  con- 
 tents of  the  version  itself.  But  on  the  other  hand 
 there  are  difficulties,  for  very  often  readings  of  a 
 nnich  more  recent  kind  appear;  it  was  thus  thought 
 that  it  might  lie  compared  with  the  Latin  as  lound 
 in  the  Codex  Brixianus,  in  which  there  is  an  ancient 
 groundwork,  but  also  the  work  of  a  reviser  is  mani- 
 fest. Thus  the  judgment  formed  by  Griesbach 
 seems  to  be  certainly  the  correct  one  as  to  the  pe- 
 culiarity of  the  text  of  this  version ;  he  says  (using 
 the  terms  proper  to  his  system  of  recensions): 
 "  Nnlli  harum  recensionum  Syriaca  versio,  prout 
 quidem  typis  excusa  est,  similis,  ^•erun^  nee  ulli 
 prorsus  dissimilis  est.  In  multis  concuiit  cum  Al- 
 exandrina  recensione,  in  pluribus  cum  Occidentali, 
 in  uonnuUis  etiani  cum  Constantinopolitana,  ita 
 tamen  ut  quie  in  hanc  posterioribus  demum  seculis 
 invecta  sunt,  pleraque  repudiet.  Diversis  ergo  tem- 
 poribus  ad  Grcecos  codices  plane  dirersos  iteruni  iter- 
 umque  recognita  esse  videtur^'  {Nov.  Test.  Proleg. 
 Ixxv.}.  In  a  note  Griesbach  introduced  the  com- 
 parison of  the  Codex  Brixiatms,  ' '  Illustrari  hoc 
 potest  codicum  nonnullorum  Latinorum  e.xemplo, 
 qui  priscam  quidem  versionem  ad  Occidentalem  re- 
 censionem  accommodatani  representant,  sed  passim 
 ad  juniores  libros  Griecos  refictam.  Ex  hoc genere 
 est  Brixianus  Codex  Laiinus,  qui  non  raro  a 
 Grisco-Latinis  et  vetustioribus  Latinis  omnibus 
 solus  discedit,  et  in  Grsecorum  partes   transit."  * 
 
 b  Griesbach's  most  matured  judgment  on  this  sub- 
 ject was  thus  given:  "  Interpolationes  autem  e  locis 
 Evangeliorum  parallelis,  quales  apud  Syrum.  Matt, 
 xxviii.  18,  Luc.  ix.  39,  item  Matt.  xxii.  22,  23,  Mar.  vi. 
 11,  xiii.  14,  Luc.  iv.  18,  depreheuduntur,  non  magis 
 quam  additamenta  e  lectionariis  libris  in  sacrum  con- 
 textum  traducta,  velut  Luc.  xv.  11,  aut  liturgicum 
 illud    assumentum  Matt.   vi.   13,  vitia  sunt    rrj   kolvtj 
 
 pnipria Quin  plerasque  interpolationes  mode 
 
 enumeratas,  cum   aliis  ejusmodi  generis  multis,   quas 
 nunc  in  versione  Syriaca  extant,  primitus  ab  ea  ab- 
 
3390 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 Some  proof  that  the  text  of  the  common  printed 
 Peshilo  has  been  rein-owjht,  will  appear  when  it 
 is  compared  with  the  Curetonian  Syriac  Gospels. 
 
 Let  it  be  distinctly  remembered  that  this  is  no 
 new  opinion ;  that  it  is  not  the  pcnillnr  notion  of 
 Tregelles.  or  of  any  one  individual;  for  as  the 
 question  has  been  reopened,  it  has  been  treated  as 
 if  this  were  some  theory  newly  invented  to  serve  a 
 purpose.  The  Rev.  F.  H.  Scrivener,  whose  labors 
 in  the  collation  of  (ireelc  MSS.,  and  whose  care  in 
 editing  Codex  Augiensis  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  de- 
 ger\e  very  high  commendation,  a\ONved  himself 
 many  years  a.;o  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  Peshito- 
 Syriao.  Hut  even  then  he  set  aside  its  authority 
 very  often  when  it  happened  to  adhere  tb  the 
 (indent  Greek  text,  to  the  other  ancient  versions, 
 and  to  the  eaily  Fathers,  in  opposition  to  tlie  later 
 copies.  But  when  the  judgment  of  Griesbach  re- 
 specting tlie  common  printeil  Syriac  had  been  re- 
 peated and  enforced  by  Tregelles  (Home's  Introd. 
 vol.  iv.  p.  26.5),  Scrivener  came  forward  as  its  cliam- 
 pion.  In  his  Introduction  to  Codex  Augiensis,  Mr. 
 Scrivener  says,  "  How  is  this  divergency  of  the 
 Peshito  version  from  the  text  of  Codex  B  explained 
 by  Tregelles  ?  He  feels  of  course  the  pressure  of 
 the  argument  against  him,  and  meets  it,  if  not  suc- 
 cessfully, with  even  more  than  his  wonted  boldness. 
 The  translation  degenerates  in  his  hands  into  '  ilia 
 version  commonly  prmted  as  the  Pesliiio.'  Now 
 let  us  mark  the  precise  nature  of  tlie  demand  here 
 made  on  our  faith  by  Dr.  Tregelles.  He  would 
 persuade  us  that  the  whole  Eastern  Church,  dis- 
 tracted as  it  has  been,  and  split  into  hostile  sections 
 for  the  space  of  1,400  years,  orthodox  and  Jacobite, 
 Nestorian  and  Maronite  alike,  those  who  could 
 agree  in  nothing  else,  have  laid  aside  their  bitter 
 jealousies  in  order  to  substitute  in  their  monastic 
 libraries  and  liturgical  services,  another  and  a  spu- 
 rious version  in  the  room  of  the  Peshito,  that  sole 
 surviving  monument  of  the  first  ages  of  the  Gospel 
 in  Syria!  Nay,  more,  that  this  wretched  forgery 
 has  deceived  Orientalists  profound  as  Jlichaelis  " 
 and  Lowth,  has  passed  without  suspicion  through 
 the  ordeal  of  searching  criticism  to  which  every 
 branch  of  sacred  literature  has  been  subjected  dur- 
 ing the  last  half  century !  We  will  require  solid 
 reasons,  indeed,  before  we  surrender  ourselves  to  an 
 hypothesis  as  novel  as  it  appears  violently  improb- 
 able "  (pp.  xiv.,  XV.).  Mr.  Scrivener's  warmth  of 
 declamation  might  have  been  spared :  no  one  calls 
 the  Peshito  "a  spurious  version,"  "wretched 
 forgery,"  etc.,  it  is  not  suggested  that  the  Syrian 
 churches  agreed  in  some  strange  substitution :  all 
 that  is  suggested  is,  that  at  the  time  of  the  tran- 
 sition Greek  text,  before  the  disruption  of  the  Syrian 
 churches,  the  then  existing  Syriac  version  was  re- 
 vised and  modernized  in  a  way  analogous  to  that  in 
 which  the  Latin  was  treated  in  Cod.  Brixianus. 
 On  part  of  Mr.  Scrivener's  statements  the  Rev.  F. 
 J.   A.  Hort    has  well  remarked:   "The  text  may 
 
 fuisse  et  seriori  demum  tempore  in  earn  irrepsissc, 
 plane  mihi  persuasum  est.  Verissime  enim  clar.  Hu- 
 gius  (  .  .  .  .  coll.  prolej^omenis  iu  majorem  meaui  N. 
 T.  editionem,  Hal.  1796,  vol.i.  p.  Ixxv.)  auimadvertit, 
 versionem  banc  a  Diorthote  quodam  vidcii  recoguitaui 
 fuisse  ac  castigatam.  Id  quod  quinto  seculo  iueunte, 
 antequam  ecclesias  orientales  Nestorianis  et  Monophy- 
 liticis  rixis  discinderentur,  evenisse  suspicor,  et  in 
 spistolLs  magis  adhuc  quam  in  Evangeliis  locum  ha- 
 bui.^so  autumo."  Comiiifntarius  Criticus,  ii.  MeUte- 
 maia,  li.,  lii.  181L 
 
 have  been  altered  and  corrupted  between  the  first 
 or  second,  and  fifth  centuries.  This  is  all  that  Dr. 
 Tregelles  has  supposed,  tliough  Mr.  Scrivener  as- 
 sails him  with  unseemly  violence,  as  if  he  had  rep- 
 resented the  vulgar  text  as  '  a  wretched  forgery.' 
 Mr.  Scrivener's  rashness  is  no  less  remarkable  iu 
 calling  this  a  '  novel  hypothesis,'  when  in  fact  it  is 
 at  least  as  old  as  Griesbach.  .  .  .  There  is  neither 
 evidence  nor  internal  probability  against  the  sup- 
 position that  the  Old  S3  riac  version  was  revised 
 into  its  present  form  ....  in  the  4th  or  even  3d 
 century,  to  make  it  accord  with  Greek  MSS.  then 
 current  at  Antioch,  Edessa,  or  Nisibis:  and  without 
 some  such  supposition  the  Syriac  text  must  remain 
 an  inexplicable  plienomenon,  unless  we  bring  the 
 Greek  and  Latin  texts  into  confirmity  with  it  by 
 contradicting  the  full  and  clear  evidence  which  we 
 do  possess  respecting  them.  All  that  we  have 
 now  said  might  have  been  alleged  before  the  Cure- 
 tonian Syriac  was  discovered :  the  case  is  surely 
 strengthened  in  a  high  degree  by  the  appeaiance 
 (in  a  MS.  assigned  to  the  5th  century)  of  a  Syriac 
 version  of  the  Gospels,  bearing  clear  marks  of  the 
 highest  antiquity  in  its  manifest  errors  as  well  as 
 in  its  choicest  readings.  The  appropriation  of  the 
 name  '  Peshito,'  appears  to  us  wholly  unimportant, 
 except  for  rhetorical  purposes."  '' 
 
 These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hort  will  suffice  in  rescu- 
 ing the  opinion  stated  by  Tregelles  from  the  charge 
 of  novelty  or  rashness:  indeed,  the  supposition  as 
 stated  by  Griesbach,  is  a  simple  solution  of  various 
 difficulties;  for  if  this  be  not  the  fact,  then  every 
 other  most  ancient  document  or  monument  of  the 
 New  Test,  must  have  been  strangely  altered  in  its 
 text.  The  number  of  difficulties  (otherwise  inex- 
 plicable), thus  solved,  is  about  a  demonstration  of 
 its  truth.  Mr.  Scrivener,  however,  seems  incapable 
 of  apprehending  that  the  revision  of  the  Peshito  is 
 an  opinion  long  ago  held :  he  says  since,  "  I  know 
 no  other  cause  lor  suspecting  the  Peshito,  than  that 
 its  readings  do  not  suit  Dr.  Tregelles,  and  if  this 
 fiict  be  enough  to  convict  it  of  corruption,  I  am 
 quite  unable  to  vindicate  it."  <^  Why,  then,  do 
 not  the  readings  "suit"  Dr.  Tregelles?  Because, 
 if  they  were  considered  genuine,  we  should  have  (to 
 use  Mr.  Hort's  words)  to  "  bring  the  Greek  and 
 Latin  texts  into  conformity  with  it,  by  contradict- 
 ing the  full  and  clear  evidence  which  we  do  posses.s 
 respecting  them." 
 
 \\'hether  the  whole  of  this  version  proceeded 
 from  the  same  translator  has  been  questioned.  It 
 appears  to  the  present  writer  probable  that  the 
 New  Test,  of  the  Peshito  is  not  from  the  same  hand 
 as  the  Old.  Not  only  may  Michaelis  be  right  in 
 supposing  a  peculiar  translator  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  but  also  other  [jarts  may  be  from  difii;rent 
 hands;  this  opinion  will  become  more  general  the 
 more  the  version  is  studied.  The  revisions  to 
 which  the  version  was  subjected  may  have  suc- 
 ceeded in  part,  but  not  wholly,  in  eftacing  the  in 
 
 a  Even  Michaelis  did  not  think  it  needful  to  assume 
 that  the  Peshito  had  been  transmitted  without  any 
 change.  "  In  using  the  Syriac  version,  we  must  never 
 forget  that  our  pi-esent  editions  are  very  imperfect,  and 
 not  conclude  that  every  reading  of  the  Syriac  printed 
 text  was  the  reading  of  the  Greek  MS.  of  the  first  cen- 
 tury."    Marsh's  Michaelis,  ii.  46. 
 
 b  Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred  Philology  (Cain« 
 bridge),  Feb.  i860,  pp.  378,  379. 
 
 f  "  Plain  Introduction,"  p.  42-4,  foot-note. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 3391 
 
 dications  of  a  plurality  of  translators.  The  Acts 
 and  Epistles  seem  to  be  either  more  recent  than  the 
 Gospels,  though  far  less  revised ;  or  else,  if  coeval, 
 far  more  corrected  by  later  Greek  JISS. 
 
 There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  supposing  that 
 this  version  ever  contained  the  four  Catholic 
 Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,  now  absent  from  it, 
 not  only  in  the  printed  editions  but  also  in  the 
 MSS. 
 
 Some  variations  in  copies  of  the  Peshito  have 
 been  regarded  as  if  they  might  be  styled  Monophy- 
 site  and  Nestorian  recensions :  but  the  designation 
 would  be  fiir  too  definite;  for  the  differences  are 
 not  sufficient  to  warrant  the  classification. 
 
 The  MSS.  of  the  Karkajjhensiun  recension  (as 
 it  has  been  termed)  of  the  Peshito  Old  Test,  con- 
 tain also  the  New  with  a  similar  character  of  text. 
 
 *  The  Peshito  version  of  the  N.  T.  has  been 
 translated  into  English  by  Dr.  J.  W.  Etheridge,  2 
 vols.  Lond.  1840-49,  and  by  Dr.  .James  Murdock, 
 N.  Y.  1851.  A. 
 
 The  Cureton'uvn  Syriac  Gospels.  —  "  Compara- 
 tive criticism  "  shows  the  true  character  of  e\'ery 
 document,  whether  previously  known  or  newly 
 brought  to  light,  which  professes  to  contain  the 
 early  text  of  the  New  Test.  By  comparative  crit- 
 icism is  not  meant  such  a  mode  of  examining  au- 
 thorities as  that  to  which  Mr.  Scrivener  has  applied 
 this  term,  but  such  a  use  of  combined  evidence 
 as  was  intended  and  defined  by  the  critic  by  wliom 
 the  expression  was  (for  con\enience'  sake)  intro- 
 duced :  that  is,  the  ascertainment  that  readings 
 are  in  ancient  documents,  or  rest  on  ancient  evi- 
 dence (whether  early  citations,  versions,  or  MSS.), 
 and  then  the  examination  of  what  documents  con- 
 tain such  readings,  and  thus  within  vi'hat  limits 
 the  inquiry  for  the  ancient  text  may  be  bounded. 
 Thus  a  document,  in  itself  modern,  may  be  proved 
 to  be  ancient  in  testimony :  a  version,  previously  un- 
 known, may  be  shown  to  uphold  a  very  early  text. 
 For  purposes  of  comparative  criticism  early  read- 
 ings, known  to  be  false,  have  often  as  definite  a 
 value  in  the  chain  of  proof  as  those  which  are  true. 
 In  the  process  of  comparative  criticism  nothing  is 
 assumed,  but  point  after  point  is  established  by  in- 
 dependent testimony:  and  thus  the  character  of  the 
 text  of  MSS.,  of  ancient  versions,  and  of  patristic 
 citations,  is  upheld  by  their  accordance  with  facts 
 attested  liy  other  witnesses,  of  known  age  and  cer- 
 tain transmission. 
 
 It  was  reasonable  to  suppose  with  Griesbach  that 
 the  Syriac  version  must  at  one  time  have  existed  in 
 a  form  different  from  that  in  the  common  printed 
 text:  it  was  felt  by  Biblical  scholars  to  be  a  mei'e 
 assumption  that  the  name  Peshitu  carried  with  it 
 some  hallowed  prestige  ;  it  was  established  that 
 it  was  a  groundless  imagination  that  this  version. 
 
 «  It  is  very  certain  that  many  who  profess  a  peculiar 
 admiration  for  the  Peshito  do  this  ratlier  from  some 
 traditional  notion  than  from  minute  personal  acquaint- 
 ance They  suppose  that  it  has  some  prescriptive 
 right  to  the  first  rank  amongst  versions,  they  praise 
 ts  excellences,  which  they  have  not  personally  iu- 
 •estigated,  and  they  do  not  cai-e  to  know  wherein  it 
 in  defective.  Every  error  in  translation,  every  doubt- 
 ful reading,  every  supposed  defect  in  the  one  known 
 MS.  of  the  Curetonian  Gospels,  has  been  enumerated 
 by  those  who  wish  to  depreciate  that  version,  and  to 
 detract  from  the  critical  merits  of  its  di.scoverer  and 
 editor.  But  many  of  the  supposed  defects  are  really 
 the  very  opposite  ;  and  if  th?y  similarly  examined  the 
 Peshito,  they  might  find  more  fault  with  it  and  with 
 
 as  edited,  had,  been  known  from  the  earliest  ages  as 
 the  original  monument  of  Syrian  Christianity. 
 Hence  if  it  could  be  shown  that  an  earlier  version 
 (or  earlier  basis  of  the  same  version)  had  existed, 
 there  was  not  only  no  a  priori  objection,  but  even 
 a  demonstrated  probability  (almost  certainty)  that- 
 this  had  been  the  case.  When  it  is  remembered 
 how  little  we  know  historically  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
 sions, it  must  be  felt  as  an  assumption  that  the 
 form  of  text  conmion  from  the  fifth  century  and 
 onward  was  the  original  version.  In  1848  Tregelles 
 (see  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  New  Test. 
 vol.  i.  p.  429)  suggested  that  "the  Nitrian  MSS. 
 when  collated  may  exhibit  perhaps  an  earlier  text." 
 This  was  written  without  any  notion  tliat  it  was 
 an  ascertained  fiict  that  such  a  MS.  of  the  Gospels 
 existed,  and  that  the  full  attention  of  a  thorough 
 Syriac  scholar  had  been  devoted  to  its  illustration 
 and  publication. 
 
 Among  the  MSS.  brought  from  the  Nitrian 
 monasteries  in  1842,  Dr.  Cureton  noticed  a  copy 
 of  the  Gospels,  dift'ering  greatly  from  the  common 
 text:  and  this  is  the  form  of  text  to  which  the 
 name  of  Curetonian  Syriac  has  been  rightly  ap- 
 plied. Every  criterion  wliich  proves  the  common 
 Peshito  not  to  exhibit  a  text  of  extreme  antiquity, 
 equally  proves  the  early  origin  of  this.  The  discov- 
 ery is  in  fact  that  of  the  object  which  was  wanted, 
 the  want  of  which  had  been  previously  ascertained. 
 Dr.  Cureton  considers  that  the  MS.  of  the  Gospels 
 is  of  the  fifth  century,  a  point  in  which  all  com- 
 petent judges  are  probably  agreed.  Some  persons 
 indeed  have  sought  to  depreciate  the  text,  to  point 
 out  its  differences  from  the  Peshito,  to  regard  all 
 such  variations  as  corruptions,  and  thus  to  stig- 
 matize tlie  Curetonian  Syriac  as  a  corrupt  revision 
 of  the  Peshito,  barbarous  in  language  and  false  in 
 readings."  This  peremptory  judgment  is  as  reason- 
 able as  if  the  old  Ijatin  in  the  Codex  Vercellensis 
 were  called  an  ignorant  revision  of  the  version  of 
 .Jerome.  The  judgment  that  the  Curetonian  Syriac 
 is  older  than  the  Peshito  is  not  the  peculiar  opinion 
 of  Cureton,  Alford,''  Tregelles,  or  Biljlical  scholars 
 of  the  school  of  ancient  evidence  in  this  country, 
 but  it  is  also  that  of  continental  scholars,  such  as 
 Ewald,  and  apparently  of  the  late  Prof.  Bleek.o 
 
 The  MS.  contains  Matt,  i.-viii.  22,  x.  .31-xxiii. 
 25.  Mark,  the  four  last  verses  onlv.  John  i.  1-42, 
 iii.  6-vii.  -37,  xiv.  11-29;  Luke  ii.  48-iii.  16,  vii. 
 •33-xv.  21,  xvii.  24-xxiv.  41.  It  would  have  been 
 a  thing  of  much  value  if  a  perfect  copy  of  this  ver- 
 sion had  come  down  to  us ;  but  as  it  is,  we  have 
 reason  greatly  to  value  the  discovery  of  Dr.  Cureton, 
 which  shows  how  truly  those  critics  have  argued 
 who  concluded  that  such  a  version  must  have  ex- 
 isted ;  and  who  regarded  this  as  a  proved  fdct,  even 
 when  not  only  no  portion  of  the  version  was  known 
 
 its  translator.  The  last  fourteen  chapters  of  the  boolc 
 of  Acts,  as  they  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  Peshito, 
 present  far  more  grounds  for  comment  than  an  equal 
 portion  of  the  Curetonian.  The  Peshito  is  a  very 
 valuable  version,  although  overpraised  by  some  inju- 
 dicious admirers,  who  (even  if  they  have  rend  it)  have 
 never  closely  and  verbally  examined  it.  Many  have 
 evidently  never  looked  further  than  the  Gospels,  even 
 though  aided  by  Sehaafs  Latin  interpretation. 
 
 b  "  Perhaps  the  earliest  and  most  important  of  all 
 the  versions."  Alford's  Gr.  Test.  Proleg.  vol.  i.  p.  114, 
 ed.  4. 
 
 c  See  Bleek's  Eiiileitung  in  das  N.  Test,  p  723, /oo«- 
 note. 
 
3392 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 to  be  extant,  but  also  when  even  the  record  of  its 
 existence  was  uinioticed.  For  there  is  a  record 
 showing  an  acquaintance  with  this  version,  to  wliich, 
 as  well  as  to  the  version  itself,  attention  lias  l)een 
 directed  by  Dr.  t'ureton.  Bar  Salibi,  bishop  of 
 Amida  in  the  12tli  century,  in  a  jMssage  translated 
 by  Dr.  C.  (in  discussing  the  omission  of  three  kings 
 in  the  genealogy  in  St.  Matthew)  says:  "  There  is 
 found  occasionally  a  Syriac  copy,  made  out  of  the 
 Hebrew,  which  inserts  these  three  kings  in  the 
 genealogy ;  but  that  afterwards  it  speaks  of  four- 
 teen and  not  of  seventeen  generations,  because 
 fourteen  generations  has  been  substituted  for  seven- 
 teen by  the  Hebrews  on  account  of  their  holding 
 to  the  septenary  nuni)ier,"  etc." 
 
 It  shows  then  that  Bar  Salibi  knew  of  a  Syriac 
 text  of  the  Gospels  in  which  Ahaziah,  Joash,  and 
 Amaziah  were  inserted  in  Matt.  i.  8;  there  is  the 
 same  reading  in  the  Curetonian  Syriac :  but  this 
 might  have  been  a  coincidence.  But  in  ver.  17  the 
 Curetonian  text  has,  in  contradiction  to  ver.  8, 
 fourteen  generations  and  not  seventeen :  and  so 
 had  the  copy  mentioned  by  Bar  Salibi :  the  former 
 point  might  be  a  mere  coincidence;  the  latter,  how- 
 ever, shows  such  a  kind  of  union  in  contradiction 
 as  proves  the  identity  very  convincingly.  Thus, 
 though  this  version  was  unknown  iw  Europe  prior 
 to  its  discovery  by  Dr.  Cureton,  it  must  in  the 
 12th  century  have  been  known  as  a  text  some- 
 times found,  and  as  mentioned  by  the  Monophysite 
 bishop,  it  might  be  more  in  use  amongst  his  co- 
 religionists than  amongst  others.  Perhaps,  as  its 
 existence  and  use  is  thus  recorded  in  the  12th  cen- 
 tury, some  further  discovery  of  Syriac  JISS.  may 
 furnish  us  with  another  copy  so  as  to  supply  the 
 defects  of  the  one  happily  recovered. 
 
 In  examining  the  Curetonian  text  with  the  com- 
 mon printed  Peshito,  we  often  find  such  identity 
 of  phrase  and  rendering  as  to  show  that  they  are 
 not  wholly  independent  translations:  then,  again, 
 we  meet  with  such  variety  in  the  forms  of  words, 
 etc.,  as  seems  to  indicate  that  in  the  Peshito  the 
 phraseology  bad  been  revised  and  refined.''  But 
 the  great  (it  might  be  said  characteristic)  difference 
 between  the  Curetonian  and  the  Peshito  Gospels  is 
 in  their  readings;  for  while  the  latter  cannot  in  its 
 present  state  be  deemed  an  unchanged  production 
 of  the  second  century,  the  former  bears  all  the 
 marks  of  extreme  antiquity,  even  though  in  places 
 it  may  have  suffered  from  the  introduction  of  read- 
 ings current  in  very  early  times. 
 
 The  following  are  a  few  of  the  very  many  cases 
 in  which  the  ancient  reading  is  found  in  the  Cure- 
 tonian, and  the  later  or  transition  reading  in  the 
 Peshito.  For  the  general  aut/iorities  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  ^ch  passage,  reference  must  be  made  to 
 the  notes  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  New 
 Test. 
 
 Matt.  xix.  17,  Ti  yue  ipwras  irep]  rod  ayaOov; 
 the  ancient  reading,  as  we  fiild  in  tiie  best  authori- 
 ties, and  as  we  know  from  Origen;  so  the  Cure- 
 tonian: Ti  /ue  Xiyeis  ayadSv'-,  the  common  text 
 with  the  Peshito.  Matt.  xx.  22,  the  clause  of  the 
 common  text,  koI  rh  0a.TrTt(rij.a  o  iyw  BaTTri(ofxai 
 (and  the  corresponding  part  of  the  following  verse) 
 are  in  the  Peshito;  while  we  know  from  Origen 
 
 a  For  the  Syriac  of  this  part  of  the  passage  from 
 Bar  Salibi,  see  Assemani,  BMiotheca  Orientaiis,  ii 
 160. 
 
 6  A  collation  of  an  ancient  Syriac  MS.  of  the  Gospels 
 (Eich,  7,157  in  the  British  Museum)  showed  that  the 
 
 that  they  were  in  his  day  a  peculiarity  of  St.  Mark : 
 omitted  in  the  Curetonian  with  the  other  best  au- 
 thorities. In  fact,  except  the  Peshito  and  some 
 revised  Latin  copies,  there  is  no  evidence  at  all 
 extant  for  these  words  prior  to  the  fifth  century. 
 JIatt.  V.  4,  5 :  here  the  ancient  order  of  the  beati- 
 tudes, as  supported  by  Origen,  Tertullian,  the 
 canons  of  Eusebius,  and  Hilary,  is  that  of  placing 
 fiaKapioi  ol  Trpae7s,  k.  t.  A.  before  fxandpiOL  oi 
 Trev0odvTfs,  k.  t.  A.;  here  the  Curetonian  agrees 
 with  the  distinct  testimonies  for  this  order  against 
 the  Peshito.  In  Matt.  i.  18,  we  know  from  Irenseus 
 that  the  name  "Jesus  "  was  not  read;  and  this  is 
 confirmed  by  the  Curetonian:  in  fact,  the  common 
 reading,  however  widely  supported,  could  not  have 
 originated  until  'Ir/coCj  xp'"'"'"^^  ^^^^  treated  as  a 
 combined  proper  name,  otherwise  the  meaning  of 
 rod  Sh  ''Iriaov  xp^f^Tov  7]  yiveats  would  not  be 
 "  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ,"  but  "  the  birth  of 
 Jesus  as  the  Christ."  Here  the  Curetonian  read- 
 ing is  in  full  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the 
 second  century  in  opposition  to  the  Peshito.  In 
 Matt.  vi.  4  the  Curetonian  omits  avrosi  in  the 
 same  ver.  and  in  ver.  6  it  omits  eV  tw  (pavepio-  in 
 each  case  with  the  best  authorities,  but  against  the 
 Peshito.  Matt.  v.  44,  has  been  amplified  by  copy- 
 ists in  any  extraordinary  manner:  the  words  in 
 brackets  show  the  amplifications,  and  the  place 
 from  which  each  was  taken:  iyw  5e  Xiyw  ufxiv, 
 AyaTTUTe  tovs  ix^povi  ufj.wy  [eiiAo-yeTre  roiis 
 Karapcofxevovs  ii/xas,  Luke  vi.  28,  Ka\ws  7roie?T6 
 roils  ixicrovvras  vfias,  ibid.  27],  koL  wpocreiixecrde 
 vTTfp  rSiu  [^iTTtjpia^ovroiv  u/xas  Koi,  ibid.  35] 
 SiwKSvrccu  vfxus.  Ihe  briefer  form  is  attested  by 
 Irenajus,  Clement,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Eusebius,  etc. ; 
 and  though  the  inserted  words  and  clauses  are 
 found  in  almost  all  Greek  MSS.  (except  Codices 
 Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus),  and  in  many  versions 
 including  the  Peshito,  they  are  not  in  the  Cnrelonian 
 Syriac.  Of  a  similar  kind  are  Matt,  xviii.  35,  ra 
 TvapaTrrwixara  avrSiv;  Luke  viii.  54,  iK^aXwv  e|co 
 ■KOLvras  Ka\\  Luke  ix.  7.  vir'  avrov',  ix.  54,  d)j  Kal 
 'HAias  iTToirjaiV.  xi.  2,  yevriB-nrui  rh  OfXitfid  crov 
 ws  iv  ovpavcf  Kal  inl  rrjs  yrji',  xi.  29,  rod  irpo- 
 (prjrov,  xi.  44,  ypa^/xarils  kclI  (paptaaiot  viroKpi- 
 rai;  John  iv.  43,  Kal  dTr^Aee:/;  v.  16,  Kal  i^y)rovp 
 avrhv  airoKruvat;  vi.  51,  ^v  iyai  Sdcrw;  vi.  69, 
 rov  i^wfros. 
 
 These  are  but  a  few  samples  of  the  variations 
 which  exist  between  the  Curetonian  Syriac  and  the 
 Peshito  as  to  the  kind  of  text:  the  instances  of 
 this  might  be  increased  almost  indefinitely.  Those 
 acquainted  with  critical  results  will  know  that  some 
 of  those  here  specified  are  crucial  texts  in  points  of 
 comparative  criticism.  Such  a  comparison  not  only 
 shows  the  antiquity  of  the  text  of  the  Curetonian 
 Syriac,  but  it  also  affords  abundant  proof  that  the 
 Peshito  must  have  been  modernized  and  revised. 
 
 The  antiquity  of  the  Curetonian  text  is  also 
 shown  by  the  occurrence  of  readings  which  were, 
 as  we  know,  early  current,  even  though  rightly  re- 
 pudiated as  erroneous:  several  of  the.se  are  in  the 
 Curetonian  Syriac;  it  may  suffice  to  refer  to  the 
 long  addition  after  Matt.  xx.  28. 
 
 The  Curetonian  Syriac  presents  such  a  text  as 
 we  might  have  concluded  would  be  current  in  the 
 
 Syrians  were  in  the  habit  of  reforming  their  copies  in 
 some  respects.  The  grammatical  forms,  etc.,  of  this 
 MS.  are  much  more  ancient  than  those  of  the  text  of 
 Widmanstadt,  who  has  been  followed  by  successive 
 editors. 
 
VEIiSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 3393 
 
 jecond  century  :  the  Peshito  lias  many  features 
 which  could  not  belong  to  that  age;  unless,  indeed, 
 we  are  ready  to  reject  established  facts,  and  those 
 of  a  very  numerous  kind :  probably,  at  least,  two 
 thousand. 
 
 It  is  not  needful  for  very  great  attention  to  be 
 paid  to  the  phraseology  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac  in 
 order  to  see  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  differs 
 in  mode  of  expression  and  various  other  particulars 
 from  what  we  find  in  the  rest.  This  may  lead  us 
 again  to  look  at  the  testimony  of  Bar  Salibi ;  he 
 tells  us,  when  speaking  of  this  version  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew, "  there  is  found  occasionally  a  Syriac  copy 
 made  out  of  the  Hebrew : ''  we  thus  know  that  the 
 opinion  of  the  Syrians  themselves  in  the  12th  cen- 
 tury was  that  this  translation  of  St.  Matthew  was 
 not  made  from  the  Greek,  but  from  the  Hebrew 
 original  of  the  Kvangelist:  such,  too,  is  the  judg- 
 ment of  Dr.  Cureton :  "  this  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
 appears  at  least  to  be  built  upon  the  original  Ara- 
 maic text,  which  was  the  work  of  the  Apostle  him- 
 self."    (Preface  to  Syriac  Gospels,  p.  vi.) 
 
 Dr.  Cureton  rightly  draws  attention  to  the  pe- 
 culiar title  prefi.Ked  to  the  Gospel  by  St.  Matthew, 
 
 c-»>L.iO»    |.a;.2i::0)     ^a^^wjoj.     Now 
 
 whatever  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  dampharsho 
 here  brought  in  —  whether  it  signifies  "  the  dis- 
 tinct Gospel  of  Matthew,"  as  rendered  by  Cureton, 
 or  "  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  set  forth  "  [i.  e.  for 
 lessons  throughout  the  ecclesiastical  year],  as  Bern- 
 stein advances,  supporting  his  opinion  by  a  passage 
 in  Assemani  (which  can  hardly  here  apply,  as  this 
 copy  is  not  so  "set  forth"),  or,  if  it  means  (as 
 some  have  objected),  "  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  ex- 
 plained "  —  still  there  must  be  some  reason  why 
 the ^first  Gospel  should  be  thus  designated,  and  not 
 the  others.  But  the  •  use  of  the  cognate  Hebrew 
 verb  in  the  Old  Testament  may  afford  us  some  aid 
 as  to  ivhat  kind  of  explanation  is  meant,  if  indeed 
 that  is  the  meaning  of  the  terra  here  used.  In  the 
 description  of  the  reading  of  the  law  in  Neh.  viii.  8, 
 we  are  told,  "  So  tliey  read  in  the  book  of  the  law 
 
 distinctly  (tt7"irj?),  and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused 
 the  people  to  understand  the  reading."  The  word 
 here  used  has  been  regarded  by  able  scholars  as 
 implying  an  interpretation  from  the  ancient  He- 
 brew into  the  form  of  Aramiean  then  current.  Such 
 a  Mepltorash,  when  written,  would  be  the  germ  of 
 the  Targum  of  after  ages.  (See  below,  p.  3396  a.) 
 The  same  word  may  be  used  in  the  heading  of  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel  in  the  same  sense  —  as  being  an 
 explanation  from  one  Shemitic  tongue  or  dialect 
 into  another,  just  as  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  turned 
 from  one  form  of  Hebrew  into  pure  Syriac  would 
 be. 
 
 But  it  may.  be  asked,  if  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew 
 (or  Chaldaic)  Gospel  was  before  the  translator,  why 
 should  he  have  done  more  than  copy  into  Sjriac 
 letters'?  Why  translate  aX  nW^  It  is  sufficient,  in 
 reply,  to  refer  to  the  Chaldaic  portions  of  Daniel 
 and  Ezra,  and  to  the  Syriac  version  made  from 
 them.  In  varying  dialects  it  sometimes  happens 
 that  the  vocabulary  in  use  differs  more  than  the 
 grammatical  forms.  The  verbal  identity  may  often 
 be  striking  even  though  accompanied  with  frequent 
 variation  of  terms. 
 
 «■  See  Moses  Aghelaeus  in  Assemani,  Biblioth.  Orient. 
 .83. 
 b  Preface  to  the  Syriac  edition  of  2  Pet.  etc. 
 
 We  know  from  Jerome  that  the  Hebrew  St. 
 Matthew  had  "inO  where  the  Greek  has  4inov(Tioy 
 We  do  not  find  that  word  here,  but  we  read  for 
 both  iTnovaiov  and  iTy]fXipov  at  the  end  of  the 
 verse,  J-^Q../?  jwixiOl^  "  co;?s/-(nZ  of  the  day." 
 This  might  have  sprung  from  the  interpretation, 
 "  morrow  by  morrow,"  given  to  "IH^  ;  and  it  may 
 be  illustrated  by  Old  Test,  passages,  e.  y.  Num .  iv. 
 
 7,  where  l^'fij^n  Qnb  is  rendered  by  ).^aa]S 
 
 Kr)LX-<wX>).  Those  who  think  that  if  this  Syriac 
 version  had  been  made  from  St.  jMatthew's  He- 
 brew, we  ought  to  find  "IR^  here,  forget  that  a 
 translation  is  not  a  verbal  transfusion. 
 
 We  know  from  Eusebius  that  Hegesippus  cited 
 from  the  (iospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
 from  the  Syriac.  Now  in  a  fragment  of  Hegesip- 
 pus (llouth,  i.  219),  there  is  the  quotation,  fiaKoi- 
 pioL  ol  d(pda\ij.ol  vfjLWV  ol  ^K^w6vTis  Kal  to,  Sira 
 vfxwv  ra  aKovovra,  words  which  might  be  a  Greek 
 rendering  from  Matt.  xiii.  16,  as  it  stands  in  this 
 Syriac  Gospel  as  we  have  it,  or  probably  also  in  the 
 Hebrew  work  of  the  Apostle  himself.  Every  notice 
 of  the  kind  is  important;  and  Dr.  Cureton,  in 
 pointing  it  out,  has  furnished  students  with  one  of 
 the  varied  data  through  which  a  right  conclusion 
 may  be  reached. 
 
 Every  successive  investigation,  on  the  part  of 
 competent  scholars,  aids  in  the  proof  that  the 
 Curetonian  Gospels  are  an  older  form  than  those  in 
 the  Peshito ;  that  the  Peshito  is  a  revision  replete 
 with  readings  unknown  in  the  2d  century  (and 
 often  long  after)  ;  and  that  the  Curetonian  text 
 possesses  the  highest  critical  as  well  as  historical 
 value. 
 
 The  more  the  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  is . 
 weighed,  the  more  established  it  appears  will  be 
 the  judgment  that  the  Curetonian  Syriac  of  St. 
 Matthew's  Gospel  was  translated  from  the  Apostle's 
 Hebrew  (Syro-Chaldaic)  original,  although  injm'ed 
 since  liy  copyists  or  revisers. 
 
 B.  The  Philoxenian  Syriac  Version,  and  its 
 Revision  by  Thomas  of  Harkel.  —  Philoxenus,  or 
 Xenaias,  Bp.  of  Hierapolis  or  Mabug  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  6th  century  (who  was  one  of  those 
 Monophysites  who  subscribed  the  Henoticon  of  the 
 Emperor  Zeno),  caused  Polycarp,  his  Chorepiscopus, 
 to  make  a  new  translation  of  the  New  Test,  into 
 Syriac.  This  was  executed  in  a.  d.  508,  and  it  is 
 generally  termed  Philoxenian  from  its  promoter." 
 
 This  version  has  not  been  transmitted  to  us  in 
 the  form  in  which  it  was  first  made;  we  only  pos- 
 sess a  revision  of  it,  executed  by  Thomas  of  Harkel 
 in  the  following  century  (The  Gospels,  A.  D.  616). 
 Pococke,  in  1630,''  gives  an  extract  from  Bar  Salibi, 
 in  which  the  version  of  Thomas  of  Harkel  is  men- 
 tioned; and  though  Pococke  did  not  know  what 
 version  Thomas  had  made,  he  speaks  of  a  Syriac 
 translation  of  the  Gospels  communicated  to  him  by 
 some  learned  man  whom  he  does  not  name,  which 
 from  its  servile  adherence  to  the  (Jreek  was  no 
 doubt  the  Harklean  text.  In  the  DibUotheca  Ori- 
 entalis  of  Assemani  there  were  further  notices  of 
 the  work  of  Thomas;  and  in  1730  Samuel  Palmer 
 sent  from  the  ancient  Amida  (now  Diarbekr)  Syriac 
 MSS.  to  Dr.  Gloucester  Kidley,  in  which  the  ver- 
 sion is  contained,  'i'hus  he  had  two  copies  of  the 
 Gospels,  and  one  of  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Test, 
 except  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
 
3394 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 
 
 the  Apocalj'pse.  No  other  MSS.  appear  to  have 
 yet  come  to  light  wliich  contain  any  of  this  version 
 beyond  the  Gospels.  From  the  subscriptions  vce 
 learn  that  the  text  was  revised  by  Tlionias  with 
 three  (some  copies  say  two)  Greek  JMSS.  One 
 Greek  copy  is  similarly  mentioned  at  the  close  of 
 the  catholic  epistles. 
 
 Eidley  published,  in  1761,  an  account  of  the 
 MSS.  in  his  possession,  and  a  notice  of  this  version. 
 He  had  intended  to  have  edited  the  te.\t :  this  was 
 however  done  by  White,  at  different  times  from 
 1778  to  1803.  After  the  publication  of  the  Gospels, 
 the  researches  of  Adler  brought  moi'e  copies  into 
 notice  of  that  part  of  the  Harklean  text.  From 
 one  of  the  MSS.  in  the  Vatican,  St.  John's  Gospel 
 was  edited  by  Bernstein  in  1851.  It  will  be  noticed 
 that  this  version  differs  from  the  Peshito,  in  con- 
 taining all  the  seven  catholic  epistles. 
 
 In  describing  this  version  as  it  has  come  down  to 
 us,  the  text  is  the  first  thing  to  be  considered.  'I'his 
 is  characterized  by  extreme  literality:  the  Syriac 
 idiom  is  constantly  bent  to  suit  the  Greek,  and 
 everything  is  in  some  manner  expressed  in  the 
 Greek  phrase  and  order.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
 that  it  could  have  been  intended  for  ecclesiastical 
 reading.  It  is  not  independent  of  the  Peshito,  the 
 words,  etc.,  of  which  are  often  employed.  As  to 
 the  kind  of  Greek  text  that  it  represents,  it  is  just 
 what  might  have  been  expected  in  the  6th  century. 
 The  work  of  Thomas  in  the  text  itself  is  seen  in  the 
 introduction  of  obeli,  by  which  passages  which 
 he  rejected  were  condemned;  and  of  asterhk.t,  with 
 which  his  insertions  were  distinguished.  His  model 
 in  all  this  was  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text.  The 
 MSS.  which  were  used  by  Thomas  were  of  a  differ- 
 ent kind  from  those  employed  in  making  the  ver- 
 sion ;  they  represented  in  general  a  much  older  and 
 purer  text.  The  margin  of  the  Harklean  recension 
 contains  (like  the  Hexaplar  text  of  the  LXX.)  read- 
 ings, mostly  apparently  from  the  Greek  MSS.  used. 
 It  has  been  questioned  whether  these  readings  are 
 not  a  comparison  with  the  Peshito;  if  any  of  them 
 are  so,  they  have  probably  been  introduced  since 
 the  time  of  Thomas.  It  is  probable  that  the  Phi- 
 loxenian  version  was  very  literal,  but  that  the  slav- 
 ish adaptation  to  the  Greek  is  the  work  of  Thomas ; 
 and  tliat  his  text  thus  bore  about  the  same  relation 
 to  that  of  Philoxenus  as  the  Latin  Bible  of  Arias 
 Montanus  does  to  that  of  his  predecessor  Pagninus. 
 l"or  textual  criticism  this  version  is  a  good  author- 
 ity as  to  the  text  of  its  own  time,  at  least  where  it 
 does  not  merely  follow  the  Peshito.  The  amplifi- 
 cations in  the  margin  of  the  book  of  Acts  bring  a 
 MS.  used  Ijy  Thomas  into  close  comparison  with 
 the  Codex  Bezse.  One  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Gospels 
 sent  to  Ridley  contains  the  Harklean  text,  with 
 some  revision  by  Bar  Salibi. 
 
 C.  Syriac  Versions  of  Portions  ivcmtinff  in  tiie 
 
 a  The  Rev.  B.  Harris  Cowper  has  courteously  com- 
 municated the  following  notice  relative  to  the  Syriac 
 Apocalypse  iu  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum :  "  The 
 MS.  No.  7,185  of  the  14th  century  does  not  contain  the 
 actual  text  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  a  brief  commentary 
 upon  it  —  upon  paper,  and  not  quite  perfect ;  the  text 
 seeming  to  be  that  of  our  printed  books.  The  text  of 
 the  Apocalypse  is  apparently  all  found  in  No.  17,127, 
 a  commentary  upon  the  book  of  the  11th  century. 
 This  also  seems  to  be  of  the  same  text  as  the  printed 
 edition." 
 
 ^  De  Dieu  says  that  this  Syriac  MS.  contained 
 "  omnia  N.  T.  Syriaci,  quae  in  prioribus  deerant  edi- 
 tionibus."     Does  this  mean   that  it  merely  contained 
 
 Peshito.  —  I.  The  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  sec- 
 ond and  third  of  John,  and  that  of  Jude.  The  fact 
 has  been  already  noticed,  that  the  Old  Syriac  Ver- 
 sion did  not  contain  these  epistles.  They  were 
 published  by  Pococke  in  1030,  from  a  MS.  in  the 
 Bodleian.  The  version  of  these  epistles  so  often 
 agrees  with  what  we  have  in  the  Harkle.in  recen- 
 sion, that  the  one  is  at  least  dependent  on  the  other. 
 The  suggestion  of  Dr.  Davidson  {Biblical  Criticism, 
 ii.  190),  that  the  text  of  Pococke  is  that  of  Philox- 
 enus before  it  was  revised  by  Thonjas,  seems  most 
 probable.  But  if  it  is  objected,  that  the  translation 
 does  not  show  as  great  a  knowledge  of  Greek  as 
 might  have  been  expected  in  the  translation  of 
 the  rest  of  the  Philoxenian,  it  must  be  remembered 
 that  here  he  had  not  the  Peshito  to  aid  him.  In 
 the  Pai-is  Polyglott  these  epistles  were  added  to  the 
 Peshito,  with  which  they  have  since  been  commonly 
 printed,  although  they  have  not  the  slightest  rela- 
 tion to  that  version. 
 
 II.  T/ie  Apocalypse.  — In  1627  De  Dieu  edited 
 a  Syriac  version  of  the  Apocalypse,  from  a  MS.  in 
 the  Leyden  Library,  written  by  one  "  Caspar  from 
 the.  land  of  the  Indians,"  who  lived  in  the  latter 
 part  of  the  IGth  century.  A  MS.  at  Florence,  also 
 written  by  this  Caspar,  has  a  subscription  stating 
 that  it  was  copied  in  1.582  from  a  JNIS.  in  the  writ- 
 ing of  Thomas  of  Harkel,  in  A.  D.  622.  If  this  is 
 correct  it  shows  that  Thomas  by  himself  would 
 have  been  but  a  poor  translator  of  the  N.  T.  But 
 the  subscription  seems  to  be  of  doubtful  authority; 
 and  until  the  Kev.  B.  Harris  Cowper  drew  atten- 
 tion to  a  more  ancient  copy  of  the  version,  we 
 might  well  be  somewhat  uncertain  if  this  were  really 
 an  ancient  work."  It  is  of  small  critical  value,  and 
 the  MS.  from  which  it  was  edited  is  incorrectly 
 written.  It  was  in  the  MS.  which  Archbishop 
 Ussher  sent  as  a  present  to  De  Dieu  in  1631,  in 
 which  the  whole  of  the  Syriac  N.  T.  is  said  to  have 
 been  contained  (of  what  version  is  unknown),  that 
 having  been  the  only  comiilete  MS.  of  the  kind 
 described ;  'j  and  of  this  MS.,  in  comparison  with 
 the  text  of  the  Ajjocalypse  printed  by  De  Dieu, 
 Ussher  says,  "  the  Syriac  lately  set  out  at  Leyden 
 may  be  amended  by  ray  MS.  copy  "  (Todd's  Wal- 
 ton, i.  196,  7Wte).  This  book  from  the  Paris  Poly- 
 glott and  onward,  has  been  added  to  the  Peshito 
 in  this  translation.  Some  ha\e  erroneously  called 
 this  Syriac  Apocalyse  the  Philoxenian,  a  name  to 
 which  it  has  no  title:  the  error  seems  to  have  origi- 
 nated from  a  verbal  mistake  in  an  old  advertise- 
 ment of  Greenfield's  edition  (for  which  he  was  not 
 responsible),  which  said  "  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
 J£pistles  not  found  in  the  Peshito,  are  given  from 
 the  Philoxenian  version." 
 
 III.  The  Syriac  Version  of  .fohn  viii.  1-11.  — 
 From  the  MS.  sent  by  Archbishop  Ussher  to  De 
 Dieu,  the  latter  published   this  section   in   1631. 
 
 what  was  previously  wanting,  or  the  ivhole,  including 
 such  parts  ?  It  seems  strange  if  this  section  of  St. 
 John  stood  in  it  alone.  This  makes  it  seem  as  if  the 
 interpretation  given  above  were  the  true  one.  Ussher's 
 own  description  is  this  :  '■  1  have  received  the  parcels 
 of  the  N.  Test,  [in  Syriac]  which  hitherto  we  have 
 wanted  in  that  language,  namely,  the  history  of  the 
 adulterous  woman,  the  2d  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  2d  and 
 3d  Epistles  of  St.  John,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the 
 Revelation  ;  as  also  a  small  tractate  of  Ephrem  Syrus 
 in  his  own  language."  Archbishop  Ussher  to  Dr. 
 Samuel  Ward,  June  23,  1626  (Todd's  Life  of  WaUon, 
 i.  194). 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3395 
 
 From  De  Dieu  it  was  inserted  in  the  London  P0I3- 
 ijlott,  with  a  reference  to  Ussher's  MS.,  and  hence 
 it  has  passed  with  the  otlier  editions  of  the  Peshito, 
 where  it  is  a  mere  interpolatio'.i. 
 
 A  copy  of  the  same  version  (essentially)  is  found 
 in  liidley's  Codex  Barsnlibml,  where  it  is  attributed 
 to  i\Iaras,  A.  D.  622:  Adler  found  it  also  in  a  Paris 
 MS.  ascribed  to  Abbas  Mar  Paul. 
 
 Bar  Salibi  cites  a  different  version,  out  of  Maras, 
 Bisliop  of  Aniida,  through  the  chronicle  of  Zach- 
 arias  of  Melitina.  See  Assemani  {BibUoth.  Orient. 
 ii.  53,  170),  who  gives  the  introductory  words. 
 Probably  the  version  edited  is  that  of  I'aul  (as 
 stated  in  the  Paris  MS.)  and  that  of  jNIaras  the 
 one  cited  by  Bar  Salibi;  while  in  Ridley's  MS.  the 
 two  are  confounded.  The  Paul  mentioned  is  ap- 
 parently Paul  of  Tela,  the  translator  of  the  Hexa- 
 plar  Greek  text  into  Syriac. 
 
 D.  The  Jekusalk.m  Syijiac  Lectionaky.  — 
 The  MS.  in  the  Vatican  containing  this  version 
 was  pretty  fully  described  by  S.  E.  Assemani  in 
 175G,  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  MSS.  belonging  to 
 that  Library;  but  so  few  copies  of  that  work  es- 
 caped destruction  by  fire,  that  it  was  virtually  un- 
 published, and  its  contents  almost  UTiknown.  Adler, 
 who  at  Copenhagen  had  the  advantage  of  studying 
 one  of  the  few  copies  of  this  Catalogue,  drew  pulilic 
 attention  to  this  peculiar  document  in  his  Kurze 
 Utbersicht  seiner  biblischkvitisciien  Jieise  nich 
 Eoiii,  pp.  118-127  (Altona,  178-3),  and  still  further, 
 in  1789,  in  his  valuable  examination  of  the  Syriac 
 versions.  The  MS.  was  written  in  a.  d.  1031,  in 
 peculiar  Syriac  writing;  the  portions  are  of  course 
 those  for  the  different  festivals,  some  parts  of  the 
 Gospels  not  being  there  at  all.  The  dialect  is  not 
 common  Syriac  ;  it  was  termed  the  Jerusuleiii 
 Syriac,  from  its  being  supposed  to  resemble  the 
 Jerusalem  'I'almud  in  language  ^nd  other  points. 
 The  grammar  is  peculiar;  the  forms  almost  Chal- 
 dee  rather  than  .Syriac ;  two  characters  are  used  for 
 expressing  F  and  P. 
 
 For  critical  purposes  this  Lectionary  has  a  far 
 higher  value  than  it  has  for  any  other:  its  readings 
 often  coincide  with  the  oldest  and  best  authorities. 
 It  is  not  yet  known  as  to  its  entire  text;  for  except 
 a  small  specimen,  no  part  has  been  printed;  Adler, 
 however,  selected  large  numbers  of  readings,  which 
 have  been  commonly  used  by  critics  from  that  time 
 and  onward.  In  Adler's  opmion  its  date  as  a  ver- 
 sion would  be  from  the  4th  to  the  Gth  century; 
 but  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  it  is  of  so  early 
 an  age,  or  that  any  Syrians  then  could  have  used 
 so  corrupt  a  dialect.  It  may  rather  be  supposed 
 to  be  a  translation  made  fronr  a  Greek  Lectionary, 
 never  having  existed  as  a  substantive  translation: 
 to  what  age  its  execution  should  be  assigned  seems 
 wholly  uncertain.  (A  further  account  of  the  MS. 
 of  this  version,  drawn  up  from  a  comparison  of 
 Assemani's  description  in  the  Vatican  Catalogue, 
 and  that  of  Adler,  with  the  MS.  itself  in  the 
 Vatican  Library,  made  by  the  present  writer,  is 
 given  in  Home's  Jntrod.  iv.  284-287,  where,  how- 
 ever, "  Jerusalem  Turguin  "  twice  stands  for  Tnl- 
 iimd. ) 
 
 It  appears,  from  the  statement  of  Dr.  Ceriani  of 
 Milan,  that  Count  Marescalchi  [Miniscalchi]  has 
 met  with  a  MS.  of  this  Lectionary,  and  that  he 
 has  long  had  the  intention  of  publishing  it.  [It 
 was  published  at  Verona  in  18G1-04  by  Count 
 Miniscalchi-Erizzo.  in  2  vols.  4to,  the  first  contain- 
 ing the  text,  with  a  Latin  translation ;  the  second 
 prolegomena  and  glossary.    According  to  Davidson 
 
 (art.  Syriac  Versions  in  Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl. 
 Lit.,  3d  ed.)  the  prolegomena  are  disappointing.  — 
 
 On  ilie  Syriac  ]  ersions.  —  Adler,  N.  T.  Ver- 
 sianes  Syriacce,  Simplex,  Philoxeiiiana  et  Hiero- 
 solymitana  denuo  examinntce,  178IJ  ;  Wiseman, . 
 llorm  Syrincw,  1827;  Ridley,  De  Syriacarum  iV. 
 Faderis  versionum  indole  atque  usu,  etc.,  1761; 
 Winer,  Commentatio  de  versionis  N.  T.  Syriacce 
 usu  criiico  cnute  instituendo,  1823;  Wichelhaus, 
 De  Novi  Test,  versions  Syriaca  anliqua  quam 
 Peschitho  vocant,  1850;  Bernstein,  De  Charklensi 
 N.  T.  translatione  Syriaca  commentatio,  1857; 
 Cureton,  Aniient  Recension  of  the  Syriac  Gospels 
 (Preface,  etc.),  1858.  S.  P.  T. 
 
 TAKGUM     (D^l^iri,     from  D3"irn  ;    Arab. 
 
 f^Ci^y'S,  to  translate,  explain);  a  Chaldee  word 
 
 of   uncertain   origin,   variously  derived   from    the 
 
 roots    D2~l,   Dp~     (comp.  Arab,    i^i'))     (*^')' 
 
 etc.),  and  even  identified  with  the  Greek  TpdyriiJia, 
 dessert  (Fr.  drawees),  (trop.  rpayri/j.aTa  raiv 
 A6yo}V,   Dion.   Hal.   li/iet.    10,  18),  which  occurs 
 
 often    in    the    Talmud   as    WIID'^^II^    "'3''a,    or 
 
 SD'^rnn  ("  such  as  dates,  almonds,  nuts,"  etc. 
 Pes.  119  b):  the  general  term  for  the  CHAI^ 
 DEE,  or,  more  accurately  ARAMAIC  VERSIONS 
 of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 The  injunction  to  ''  read  the  Book  of  the  Law 
 before  all  Israel  ....  the  men,  and  women,  and 
 children,  and  the  strangers,"  on  the  Feast  of  Tab- 
 ernacles of  every  Sabbatical  year,  as  a  means  of 
 solemn  instruction  and  edification,  is  first  found  in 
 Deut.  xxxi.  .10-13.  How  far  the  ordinance  was 
 observed  in  early  times  we  have  no  Ineans  of  judg- 
 ing. It  would  appear,  however,  that  such  readings 
 did  take  place  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  Certain  it 
 is  that  among  the  first  acts  undertaken  by  Ezra 
 towards  the  restoration  of  the  primitive  religion 
 and  public  worship  is  reported  his  reading  "before 
 the  congregation,  both  of  men  and  women  "  of  the 
 returned  exiles,  "in  the  Book  in  the  Law  of  God" 
 (Neh.  viii.  2,  8).  Aided  by  those  men  of  learning 
 and' eminence  with  whom,  according  to  tradition, 
 he  founded  that  most  important  religious  and  polit- 
 ical body  called  the  Great  Synagogue,  or  Men  of 
 
 the  Great  Assembly  (nblllH  HD^'D  ''ti73S, 
 536-167),  he  appears  to  have  succeeded  in  so  firmly 
 establishing  regular  and  frequent  public  readings 
 in  the  Sacred  Records,  that  later  authorities  almost 
 unanimously  trace  this  hallowed  custom  to  times 
 immemorial  —  nay  to  the  time  of  Closes  himself. 
 Such  is  the  statement  of  Josephus  (c.  Ap.  ii.  17); 
 and  we  read  in  the  Acts,  xv.  21,  "  For  Moses  of  old 
 time  hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him, 
 being  read  iu  the  synagogue  every  sabbath-day." 
 So  also  Jer.  Meg.  i.  1 :  "  I>zra  has  instituted  for 
 Israel  that  the  maledictions  in  the  Pentateuch 
 should  also  be  read  in  iniblic,"  etc.  F'urther,  Meg. 
 31  b,  "  Ezra  instituted  ten  things,  namely,  that 
 there  should  be  readings  in  the  Law  also  in  the 
 afternoon  service  of  Sabbath,  on  the  Monday,  and 
 
 on    the    Thursday,  etc But  was  not  this 
 
 instituted  before  in  the  desert,  as  we  find  '  they 
 went  for  three  days  and  found  no  water  '  (water 
 meaning  the  Law,  as  Is.  Iv.  1  is  fancifully  explained 
 by  the  Haggada),  until  the  '  prophets  among  them  ' 
 arranged  The  three  weekly  readings'?      Hut   Ezra 
 
3396 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUMI 
 
 »nly  reinstituted  them,"  comp.  also  B.  Kama,  82 
 :(,  etc.  To  these  ancient  readings  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch were  atkled,  in  tiie  course  of  tiuie,  readings 
 in  the  prophets  (in  some  Babylonian  cities  even  in 
 
 the  Hagiographa),  which  were  called  m"1t2Dn, 
 Udjlaroth  ;  but  when  and  how  these  wei-e  intro- 
 duced is  still  matter  of  speculation.  Former  inves- 
 tigators (Abudraham,  Ehas  Levita,  Vitringa,  etc.) 
 almost  unanimously  trace  tlieir  origin  to  the 
 Syrian  persecutions,  during  which  all  attention  to 
 the  Law  was  strictly  prohibited,  and  even  all  the 
 co[iies  of  it  that  were  found  were  ruthlessly  de- 
 stroyed ;  so  that,  as  a  substitute  for  the  Penta- 
 teuchical  Parasha,  a  somewhat  corresponding  por- 
 tion of  the  Prophets  was  read  in  the  .synagogue, 
 and  the  custom,  once  introduced,  remained  fi.\ed. 
 liecent  scholars  on  the  other  hand,  without  much 
 show  of  reason,  as  it  would  appear,  variously  hold 
 the  HafUiriili  to  have  sprung  from  the  sermon  or 
 honiiletic  exercise  which  accompanied  the  reading 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  and  took  its  exordiuiii  (as  Haf- 
 tarah,  by  an  extraordinary  linguistic  stretch,  is 
 explained  by  Frankel)  from  a  prophetic  passage, 
 adapted  in  a  manner  to  the  Mosaic  text  under  con- 
 sideration ;  or,  again,  they  imagine  the  Ihtftarah 
 to  have  taken  its  rise  spontaneously  during  the 
 exile  itself,  and  that  Ezra  retained  and  enforced  it 
 in  Palestine. 
 
 If,  however,  the  primitive  religion  was  reestab- 
 lished, together  with  the  second  Temple,  in  more 
 than  its  former  vigor,  thus  enabling  the  small 
 number  of  the  returned  exiles  —  and  these,  accord- 
 ing to  tradition,  the  lowest  of  the  low,  the  poor  in 
 wealth,  in  knowledge,  and  in  ancestry,"  the  very 
 outcasts  and  refuse  of  the  nation  as  it  were* — rto 
 found  upon  tlie  ruins  of  Zion  one  of  the  most 
 important  and  lasting  spiritual  commonwealths 
 that  has  ever  been  known,  there  was  yet  one  thing 
 which  neither  authority  nor  [liety,  neither  academy 
 nor  .synagogue,  could  restore  to  its  original  power 
 and  glory — the  Hebrew  language.  Ere  long  it 
 was  found  necessary  to  translate  the  national  books, 
 in  order  that  tiie  nation  from  whose  midst  they 
 had  sprung  might  be  aljle  to  understand  them. 
 And  if  for  the  Alexandrine,  or  rather  the  whole 
 body  of  Hellenistic  Jews,  Greek  translations  had 
 to  be  composed,  those  who  dwelt  on  the  hallowed 
 soil  of  their  tbrefathers  had  to  receive  the  Sacred 
 Word  through  an  Aramaic  medium.     The  word 
 
 ti7"11DD,  Mephorash,  "  explanatory,"  "  clearly," 
 or,  as  the  A.  V.  has  it,  "  distinctly,"  used  in  the 
 above-quoted  passage  of  Neh.  viii.  8,  is  in  the  Tal- 
 mud explained  by  "  Targum."  «■  Thus  to  Ezra 
 himself  is  traced  the  custom  of  adding  translations 
 in  the  then  popular  idiom  —  the  Aramaic  —  to  the 
 periodical  readings  (.ler.  lleg.  28  h\  J.  Ned.  iv., 
 Bab.  Ned.  i.;  Maim.  Hilch.  Teph.  xii.  §  10,  etc.), 
 
 a  "  Ten  kinds  of  families  went  up  from  Babylon  : 
 Priests,  Levites,  Israelites,  profaned  ('^v'^7rT,  those 
 whose  fathers  are  priest.s,  but  who?e  mothers  are  not 
 fit  for  priestly  marriage ) ;  proselytes,  freedmen,  bas- 
 tards (or  rather  those  born  in   illegal  wedlock)  ;   Ne- 
 
 thlnim  (lowest  menials  of  the  Temple) ;  "'plilU? 
 ('  about  whose  lineage  there  is  silence,'  —  of  unknown 
 fathers) ;  and  ''DIDS,  '  foundUnga,  of  unknown 
 father  and  mother  '  "  (Kidd.  4,  1) 
 
 b  "  Ezra,  on   leaving  Babylon,  made  it  like   unto 
 
 pure  flour  "  H'^'^pJ   ilblDD  (*.). 
 
 for  which  he  is  also  reuorted  to  have  fixed  the 
 Sabbaths,  the  Mondays  and  Thursdays  —  the  two 
 latter  the  market  and  law-days,  when  tlie  villagers 
 came  to  town  —  of  every  week  (.Jer.  JMeg.  i.  1 ; 
 Baba  Kama,  82  a).  The  gradual  decay  of  the 
 pure  Hebrew  vernacular,  among  the  multitude  at 
 least,  may  be  accounted  for  in  many  way.s.  The 
 Midrash  very  strikingly  points  out,  among  the 
 characteristics  of  the  long  sojourn  of  Israel  in 
 Egypt,  that  they  neitlier  changed  their  language, 
 nor  their  names,  nur  the  shape  of  their  garments, 
 during  all  that  time.  The  bulk  of  'their  com- 
 munity —  shut  up,  as  it  were,  in  the  small  province 
 of  Goshen,  almost  exclusively  reduced  to  inter- 
 course with  their  own  race  and  tribes,  devoted  only 
 to  the  pasture  of  their  flocks,  and  jierbaps  to  the 
 tilling  of  their  soil  —  were  in  a  condition  infinitely 
 more  favorable  for  the  retention  of  all  the  signs  and 
 tokens  of  their  nationality  than  were  the  Babylo- 
 nian captives.  The  latter,  scattered  up  and  dowti 
 the  vast  empire,  seem  to  have  enjoyed  everywhere 
 full  liberty  of  intercommunication  with  the  natives 
 —  very  similar  in  many  respects  to  themselves  — 
 to  have  been  utterlj'  unrestrained  in  the  exercise 
 of  every  profession  and  trade,  and  even  to  have 
 risen  to  the  highest  offices  of  state;  and  thus, 
 during  the  comparatively  short  space,  they  struck 
 root  so  firmly  in  the  land  of  their  exile,  that  when 
 opportunity  served,  they  were,  on  the  whole,  loth 
 to  return  to  the  Land  of  Promise.  What  more 
 natural  than  that  the  immigrants  under  Zerubba- 
 bel,  and  still  more  those  who  came  with  Ezra  — 
 several  generations  of  who.se  ancestors  had  been 
 settled  in  Babel  —  should  have  brought  back  with 
 them  the  Aramaic,  if  not  as  their  vernacular,  at  all 
 events  as  an  idiom  with  which  they  were  petfectly 
 familiar,  and  which  they  may  partly  have  con- 
 tinued to  use  as  their  colloquial  language  in  Pales- 
 tine, as,  in  fact,  they  had  had  to  use  it  in  Babylon  ? 
 Continuous  later  immigrations  from  the  "  Cap- 
 tivity "  did  not  fail  to  reinforce  and  further  to 
 spread  the  use  of  the  same  tongue.  All  the  de- 
 crees and  official  commimications  addressed  to  the 
 .Jews  by  their  Persian  masters  were  in  Aramaic 
 (Ezr.  Neh.  passim),  Judiea  being  considered  only 
 as  part  of  the  Syrian  satrapy.  Nor  must  it  be 
 forgotten  that  the  old  colonists  in  Palestine  (2  K. 
 xvii.  24)  were  Samaritans,  who  had  come  from 
 "Aram  and  Babel,"  and  who  spoke  Chaldee;  that 
 intermarriages  with  women  from  Ashdod,  Amnion, 
 and  Moab  had  been  common  (Neh.  xiii.  2.3);  that 
 Phoenicia,  who.se  merchants  (Tyrians,  Neh.  xiii.  16) 
 appear  to  have  settled  in  Palestine,  and  to  have 
 established  commercial  relations  with  Judasa  and 
 Galilee,  contains  large  elements  of  Chaldee  in  its 
 own  idiom.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  we  find  in 
 the  book  of  Daniel,  for  instance,  a  somewhat  forced 
 Hebrew,  from  which,  as  it  would  seem,  the  author 
 
 c  " '  And  they  read  in  the  book  of  the  I.aw  of  God 
 clearly  (ti7"1TDtt),  and  gave  the  understanding,  so 
 that  they  understood  the  reading  :  '  —  'in  the  book 
 of  tlie  Law  '  —  this  is  Mikra,  the  original  reading  in 
 
 the  Pentateuch  ;  '  t£7"nDQ,  clearly  '  —  this  is  Tar- 
 gum "  (Meg.  8  n;  Ned.  37  b).  To  this  tradition  also 
 might  be  referred  the  otherwi.se  rather  euigniatical 
 passage  (Sanh.  21  6)  :  "Originally,"  says  Mar  Sutra, 
 "  the  Law  was  given  to  Israel  in  Ibri  writing  and  the 
 holy  (Hebrew)  language.  It  was  again  given  to  them 
 in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Ashurith  writing  and  the 
 Aramaic  language,"  etc. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 339T 
 
 gladlj'  lapses  into  the  more  familiar  Aramaic  (comp. 
 ii.  i,  etc.);  tliat  oracles  were  received  by  the  high- 
 priests  Johaiiaii  "  and  Simon  the  Just''  in  the  Holy 
 of  Holies  (during  the  Syrian  wars)  in  Aramaic 
 (Sotah,  33,  a)  ;  and  that,  in  short,  some  time 
 before  the  Hasmonean  period,  this  was  the  lan- 
 guage iu  whjch  were  couched    not    only  popular 
 
 sayings,  proverbs,  and  the  like  (tDVm  ,-lD72, 
 Beresh.  R.  107  d;  Tanch.  17  ft;  Midr.  Tehill.  23 
 (/,-  51/,  etc.,  etc.),  but  official  and  legal  documents 
 (Mishna  Ketub.  4,  8;  ToseftahSabl".  c,  8;  Edu- 
 ioth,  8,  4, 1— c.  130  B.  c),  even  certain  prayers'' 
 —  of  Babylonian  origin  probably — and  in  wliich 
 books  destined  for  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
 were  written.''  That,  indeed,  the  Heltrew  Lan- 
 guage—  the  "language  of  Kenaan  "  (Is.  xix.  18), 
 or  "  Jehudith  "  (2  K.  xviii.  2G,  28;  Is.  xxxvi.  11) 
 of  the  Bible  —  became  more  and  more  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  few,  the  learned,  the  Holy  Luiujiutrje, 
 
 W~\'pr\   ywh,    or,  still    more    exactly,  '\W'h 
 
 Sii7~Tlp  n"'^,  "  Language  of  the  Temple,"  set 
 aside  almost  exclusively  for  the  holy  service  of  relig- 
 ion :  be  it  the  Divine  Law  and  the  works  in  which 
 this  was  contained  (like  the  Mishna,  the  Boraithot, 
 ftlechilta,  Sifri,  Sifra,  the  older  Midrashim,  and 
 very  many  portions  of  the  Talmud),  or  the  corre- 
 spondence between  the  different  academies  (witness 
 the  Hebrew  letter  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  Alex- 
 andria about  100  B.  c,  Chag.  Jer.  ii.  2),  or  be 
 it  the  sacred  worship  itself  in  Temple  and  syna- 
 gogue, which  was  almost  entirely  carried  on  in  pure 
 Hebrew. 
 
 If  the  common  people  thus  gradually  had  lost  all 
 knowledge  of  the  tongue  in  which  were  written  the 
 books  to  be  read  to  them,  it  naturally  followed  (in 
 order  "  that  they  might  understand  them  ")  that 
 recourse  must  be  had  to  a  translation  into  the  idiom 
 with  which  they  were  familiar  —  the  Aramaic. 
 That  further,  since  a  bare  translation  could  not  in 
 all  cases  suffice,  it  was  necessary  to  add  to  the  trans- 
 lation an  explanation,  more  particularly  of  the  more 
 difficult  and  obscure  passages.  Both  translation 
 and  explanation  were  designated  by  the  term  Tar- 
 (jum.  In  the  course  of  time  there  sprang  up  a 
 guild,  whose  special  office  it  was  to  act  as  inter- 
 preters in  both  senses  {Mcturgeinan  «),  while  for- 
 merly the  learned  alone  volunteered  their  services. 
 These  interpreters  were  subjected  to  certain  bonds 
 and  regulations  as  to  the  form  and  substance  of 
 their  renderings.  Thus  (comp.  Mishna  Meg.  pas- 
 sim ;  Mass.  Sofer.  xi.  1;  Maimon.  Hilch.  Tephill. 
 12,  §  11  fF.;  Orach  Chaj.  145,  1,  2),  "neither  the 
 reader  nor  the  interpreter  are  to  raise  their  voices 
 one  above  the  other;  "   "  they  have  to  wait  for  each 
 
 «  "  Tiie  youths  who  went  to  combat  at  Autiochia 
 have  been  victorious." 
 
 b  "  Perished  has  the  army  which  the  enemy  thought 
 to  iead  agaiast  the  Temple." 
 
 c  Introduction    to  the  Haggadah    for    the   Pesach 
 
 (Sttn7  NHD)  :  "Such  was  the  bread  of  misery 
 whicli  our  fathers  ate  in  the  land  of  Mizrajim.  Who- 
 ever is  needy,  he  come  and  eat  with  us  ;  whoever  is 
 in  want,  he  come  and  celebrate  the  Pesach.  This 
 year  here,  next  year  in  the  land  of  Israel ;  this  year 
 slaves,  next  year  free  men."  The  Kaddish,  to  which 
 afterwards  a  certain  signification  as  a  prayer  for  the 
 dead  was  given,  and  which  begins  as  follows:  "Let 
 there  be  magnified  and  sanctified  the  Great  Name  iu 
 the  world  wliich  He  has  created  according  to  His 
 will,  and  which  He  rules  as  His  kingdom,  during  your 
 
 other  until  each  have  finished  his  verse;"  "the 
 Meturgeman  is  not  to  lean  against  a  pillar  or  a 
 beam,  but  to  stand  with  fear  and  with  reverence; '" 
 "  he  is  not  to  use  n  written  Turfjum,  but  he  is  to 
 deliver  his  translation  iv'm  voce^^  —  le.st  it  might 
 appear  that  he  was  reading  out  of  the  Torah  itself, 
 and  thus  the  Scriptures  be  held  responsil)le  for 
 what  are  AJs  ()i«(8  dicta;  "no  more  than  onever.se 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  and  three  in  the  Prophets  [a 
 greater  license  is  given  for  the  book  of  Esther] 
 shall  be  read  and  translated  at  a  time;"  "that 
 there  should  be  not  more  than  one  reader  and  one 
 interpreter  for  the  Law,  while  for  the  Prophets  one 
 reader  and  one  interpreter,  or  two  interpreters,  are 
 allowed,"  etc.  (comp.  1  Cor.  xiv.  21  ff. ;  xii.  30;  27, 
 28).  Again  (Mishna  Meg.- and  Tosiftah,  ad  loc), 
 certain  passages  liable  to  give  offense  to  the  multi- 
 tude are  specified,  which  may  be  read  in  the  syna- 
 gogue and  translated ;  others,  which  may  be  read 
 but  not  translated  ;  others,  again,  which  may 
 neither  be  read  nor  translated.  To  the  first  class./ 
 belong  the  account  of  the  Creation  —  a  subject  not 
 to  be  discussed  publicly,  on  account  of  its  most 
 vital  bearing  upon  the  relation  between  the  Creator 
 and  the  Kosmos,  and  the  nature  of  both:  the  deed 
 of  Lot  and  his  two  daughters  (Gen.  xix.  31);  of 
 Judah  and  Tamar  (Gen.  xxxviii.);  the  first  account 
 of  the  making  of  the  golden  calf  (Ex.  xxxii.):  all 
 the  curses* in  the  Law;  the  deed  of  Aninon  and 
 Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiii. ) ;  of  Absalom  with  ^lis  fiither's 
 concubines  (2  Sam.  xvi.  22);  the  story  of  the 
 woman  of  Gibeah  (Judg.  xix.).  These  are  to  be 
 read  and  translated  —  being  mostly  deeds  which 
 carried  their  own  punishments  with  them.  To  be 
 read  but  not  translated  are  o  the  deed  of  Reuben 
 with  his  father's  concubine  (Gen.  xxxv.  22);  the 
 latter  portion  of  the  story  of  the  golden  calf  (Ex. 
 xxxii.);  the  benediction  of  the  priests  (on  account 
 of  its  awful  nature).  And  neither  to  be  read 
 nor  translated  are  the  deed  of  David  and  Bath- 
 sheba  (2  Sam.  xi.  and  xii.),  and  according  to  one 
 the  story  of  Amnon  and  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiii.). 
 (Both  the  latter  stories,  however,  are,  in  Mishna 
 Meg.  iv.  10,  enumerated  among  those  of  the  sec- 
 ond class,  whicli  are  to  be  read  but  not  translated.) 
 
 Altogether  these  Meturr/emanim  do  not  seem  to 
 have  been  held  generally  in  very  high  respect;  one 
 of  the  reasons  being  probably  that  they  were  paid 
 (two  Selaim  at  one  time,  according  to  Midr.  R. 
 Gen.  98),  and  thus  made  (what  P.  Aboth  especially 
 inveighs  against)  the  Torah  "  a  spade  to  dig  with 
 it."  "  No  sign  of  blessing,"  it  was  said,  moreover, 
 "  could  rest  upon  the  profit  they  made  by  their 
 calling,  since  it  was  money  earned  on  the  Sabbath  " 
 ( Pes.  4  i).     Persons  unfit  to  be  readers,  as  those 
 
 life  and  your  days,  and  the  life  of  the  whole  house  of 
 Israel,  speedily  and  iu  a  near  time,  and  say  ye, 
 '  Amen :  Be  the  Great  Name  praised  for  ever  and 
 evermore.'  "  etc. 
 
 ''  Megillath  Taanith,  etc. 
 
 e  )T2D^ni2,  p3-Tin,  sa^aun^n  (Ar. 
 
 .L4,2>vJ-  Arm.  SargmaniH ;  Ital.  Turcimanno  ; 
 Fr.  Tnichement ;  Engl.  Drcii^omnn,  eta.). 
 
 /t^omprised  in  the  mnemonic  formula,  "jpl?  n73 
 r\hwi  (Meg.  25  a). 
 
 0   n'nyn,   ibid. 
 
3398 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 whose  clothes  were  so  torn  and  ragged  that  their  I  to  him  and  to  God,  since  the  mother  will  in  the 
 
 limbs  became  visible  throiigli  the  rents  (nmS), 
 their  appearance  thus  not  correspondmg  to  the  rev- 
 erence due  to  the  Sacred  Word  itself,  or  blind  men, 
 were  admitted  to  the  office  of  a  Meturgeman;  and, 
 apart  from  there  not  being  the  slightest  authority 
 attached  to  their  interpretations,  they  were  liable 
 to  be  stopped  and  silenced,  publicly  and  ignomin- 
 iously,  whenever  they  seemed  to  overstep  the  bounds 
 of  discretion.  At  what  time  the  regulation  that 
 they  should  not  be  under  fifty  years  of  age  (in  odd 
 reference  to  the  "  men  of  fifty,"  Is.  iii.  2,  men- 
 tioned in  Juchas.  44,  2)  came  into  use,  we  are  not 
 able  to  decide.  The  Mishna  certainly  speaks  even 
 of  a  minor  (under  thirteen  years)  as  being  allowed 
 both  to  read  and  to  act  as  a  IMeturgeman  (comp. 
 Mishna  Meg.  passim).  Altogether  they  appear  to 
 have  borne  the  character  of  empty-headed,  bom- 
 bastic fools.  Thus  Midr.  Koh.  has  to  Eccl.  vii.  5 : 
 "  '  It  is  better  to  hear  the  reinike  of  the  wise: '  — 
 these  are  the  preachers  (Darshanim)  —  '  than  for 
 a  man  to  hear  the  song  of  fools : '  —  these  are  the 
 Meturgemanim,  who  raise  their  voices  in  sing-song, 
 (-)>ti73^  or  with  empty  fancies) :  — '  that  the  people 
 may  hear.'"  And  to  ix.  17:  '"The  words  of 
 wise  men  are  heard  in  quiet '  —  these  are  the 
 preachers  (Darshanim)  —  'more  than  tlie  cry  of 
 him  that  ruleth  among  fools '  —  these  are  the 
 Meturgemaliim  who  stand  above  the  congregation." 
 And  though  both  passages  may  refer  more  especially 
 to  those  Meturgemanim  (Emoras.  speakers,  ex- 
 pounders) who  at  a  later  period  stood  by  the  side 
 of  the  Chachnm,  or  president  of  the  Academy,  the 
 preacher  Kar  i^oxvf  (himself  seated  on  a  raised 
 dais),  and  repeated  with  a  loud  voice,  and  enlarged 
 upon  what  the  latter  had  whispered  into  their  ear 
 
 in  Hebrew  {H^^^V  ^Itt^b  lb  WH^h  D^H, 
 comp.  ]\Iatt.  X.  27,  "  What  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  that 
 preach  ye  upon  the  housetops"),  yet  there  is  an 
 abundance  of  instances  to  show  that  the  Meturge- 
 man at  the  side  of  the  retider  was  exposed  to  re- 
 bul<es  of  a  nature,  and  is  spoken  of  in  a  manner, 
 not  likely  to  be  emijloyed  towards  any  but  men  I  ben  Levi  enjoins  it  as  a  special  duty  upon  his  sons 
 
 end  carry  his  children  over  to  idolatrous  worship], 
 as  also  he  who  enlarges  upon  (or  figuratively  ex- 
 plains) the  sections  relative  to  incest  (Lev.  xviii.)  — 
 he  shall  forthwith  be  silenced  and  publicly  rebuked." 
 Again  (comp.  Jer.  Ber.  v.  1;  Meg.  iv.  10),  "Those 
 who  translate  '  O  my  people,  children  of  Israel,  as 
 I  am  merciful  in  heaven,  so  shall  ye  be  merciful 
 on  earth : '  —  '  Cow  or  ewe,  it  and  her  young  ye 
 shall  not  kill  in  one  day'  (Lev.  xxii.  28) — they 
 do  not  well,  for  they  represent  the  Laws  of  God 
 [whose  reasons  no  man  dare  try  to  fathom]  as  mere 
 axioms  of  mercy;"  and,  it  is  added,  "the  short- 
 sighted and  the  frivolous  will  say,  '  Lo !  to  a  bird's- 
 nest  He  extends  his  mercy,  but  not  to  yonder  mis- 
 erable man  .  .  .'  " 
 
 The  same  causes  which,  in  the  course  of  time, 
 led  to  the  writing  down  —  after  many  centui'ies  of 
 oral  transmission  —  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Tra- 
 ditional Law,  the  very  name  of  which  (TlTin 
 TID    V373ti?,  "  oral  law,"  in  contradistinction  to 
 
 2n3!2ti7  min,  or  "  written  law  ")  seemed  to 
 imply  that  it  should  never  become  a  fixed,  im- 
 mutable code,  engendered  also,  and  about  tlie  same 
 period,  as  it  would  appear,  written  Targums:  for 
 certain  portions  of  the  liiliie,  at  least." 
 
 The  fear  of  the  adulterations  and  mutilations 
 which  the  Divine  Word  —  amid  the  troubles  within 
 and  without  the  connuonwcalth  —  must  undergo 
 at  the  hands  of  incompetent  or  impious  exponents, 
 broke  through  the  rule,  that  the  Targum  should 
 only  be  oral,  lest  it  might  acquire  undue  authority 
 (comp.  Mishna  Meg.  iv.  5,  10;  Tosifta,  ibid.  3; 
 Jer.  aieg.  4,  1 ;  Bab.  Jleg.  24  a ;  Sota,  39  b). 
 Thus,  if  a  Targum  of  Job  is  mentioned  (Sab.  115  n  ; 
 Tr.  Soferim,  5,  15;  Tosifta  Sab.  c.  14;  Jer.  Sabb. 
 IG,  1)  as  having  been  highly  disapproved  by  Ga- 
 maliel the  Elder  (middle  of  first  century,  a.  d.),  who 
 caused  it  to  be  hidden  and  buried  out  of  sight :  we 
 find,  on  the  other  hand,  at  the  end  of  the  second 
 century,  the  practice  of  reading  the  Targum  gen- 
 erally commended,   and  somewhat  later  Jehoshua 
 
 low  in  the  social  scale. 
 
 A  fair  notion  of  what  was  considered  a  proper 
 Targum  may  be  gathered  from  the  maxim  pre- 
 served in  the  Talnmd  (Kidd.  4!)  a) :  "  Whosoever 
 translates  [as  Meturgeman]  a  verse  in  its  closely 
 exact  form  [without  proper  regard  to  its  real  mean- 
 ing] is  a  liar,  and  whosoever  adds  to  it  is  impious 
 and  n  blasphemer,  e.  g.,  the  literal  rendering  into 
 Chaldee  of  the  verse,  '  They  saw  the  God  of  Israel ' 
 (Ex.  xxiv.  10),  is  as  wrong  a  translation  as  'They 
 saw  the  anrjetof  God; '  the  proper  rendering  being, 
 '  They  saw  the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel.' " 
 [Conip.  Sam.vr.  Pent.  p.  2812  b.]  Other  in- 
 stances are  found  in  the  Mishna  (Meg.  iv.  8); 
 "  Whosoever  renders  the  text  (Lev.  xviii.  21)  '  And 
 thou  shalt  not  let  any  of  thy  seed  pass  through  the 
 fire  to  Molech,'  by  '  Thou  shalt  not  give  thy  seed 
 to  be  carried  over  to  heathenism  (or  to  an  Aramite 
 woman)  '  [i.  e.  as  the  Gemara,  ad  foe;  Jer.  Sanh. 
 9,  and  Sifri  on  Deut.  xviii.  10,  explain  it,  one  who 
 marries  an  Aramaic  woman ;  for  although  she  may 
 become  a  proselyte,  she  is  yet  sure  to  bear  enemies 
 
 a  A.S,  according  to  Frankel,  the  LXX.  was  only  a 
 partial  translation  at  first.  Witness  the  confusion  In 
 the  last  chapters  of  Exodus,  which,  as  mere  repetitious 
 
 The  Jlishna  even  contains  regulations  about  the 
 maimer  (Jad.  iv.  5)  in  which  the  Targum  is  to  be 
 written.  But  even  in  their  written,  and,  as  we  may 
 presume,  authoritatively  approved  form,  the  Tar- 
 gums were  of  comparatively  small  weight,  and  of 
 no  canonical  \a]ue  whatsoever.  The  Sabbath  was 
 not  to  be  broken  for  their  sake  as  it  was  lawful  to 
 do  for  the  Scripture  in  the  original  Hebrew  (Sab. 
 115  rt).  The  Targum  does  not  defile  the  hands 
 (for  the  ]Hirpose  of  touching  consecrated  food)  as 
 do  the  Chaldee  portions  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
 (Yad.  iv.  5). 
 
 The  gradual  growth  of  the  Code  of  the  written 
 Targum,  such  as  now  embraces  almost  the  whole 
 of  the  0.  T.,  and  contains,  we  may  presume,  but 
 few  snatches  of  the  primitive  Targums,  is  shrouded 
 in  deep  obscurity.  We  shall  not  fail  to  indicate 
 the  opinions  arrived  at  as  to  the  date  and  author- 
 sliip  of  the  individual  versions  in  their  due  places; 
 but  we  must  warn  the  reader  beforehand,  that  no 
 positive  results  have  been  attained  as  yet,  save  that 
 nearly  all  the.  names  and  dates  hitherto  commonly 
 
 (of  chaps.  XXV.  and  xxix.),  were  originally  left  untrans- 
 lated.    Saadia  in  a  similar  manner  uses  the  formula* 
 
 ^iJUt^.>    or   viU6    JCi^   in  repetitions. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3399 
 
 alt'iched  to  them  must  he  rejected.  And  we  fear 
 that,  as  long  at  least  as  the  Targiim  shares  the 
 fete  of  the  LXX.,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the 
 Midrash,  the  Talmud,  etc. :  namely,  that  a  really 
 critical  edition  remains  a  thing  occasionally  dreamt 
 of,  hut  never  attempted,  —  so  long  must  we  aliaudon 
 the  hope  of  getting  any  nearer  a  final  solution  of 
 this  and  many  other  still  more  important  questions. 
 The  utter  corruption,  moreover,  of  the  Targum, 
 bitterly  complained  of  already  by  Elias  Levita 
 (an  author,  be  it  observed,  of  very  moderate  at- 
 taimnents,  but  absurdly  overrated  by  certain  of  his 
 contemporaries,  and  by  those  who  copied  his  usually 
 shallow  dicta  without  previous  examination),  de- 
 bars us  from  more  than  half  its  use.  And  jet  how 
 fertile  its  study  could  be  made;  what  light  it  might 
 be  made  capaljle  of  throwing  upon  the  Bible  itself, 
 upon  the  history  of  the  earliest  development  of 
 Biblical  studies,  versions,  and  upon  the  Midrash  — 
 both  the  Halachah  and  Haggadah  —  snatches  of 
 which,  in  their,  as  it  were,  liquid  stages,  lie  em- 
 bedded in  the  Targums:  all  tliis  we  need  not  urge 
 here  at  lengtli. 
 
 Belbre,  however,  entering  into  a  more  detailed 
 account,  we  must  first  dwell  for  a  short  time  on 
 the  Midrash «  itself,  of  which  the  Targum  forms 
 part. 
 
 The  centre  of  all  mental  activity  and   religious 
 action  among  the  Jewish  community,  after  the  re- 
 turn from  Babylon,  was  the  Scriptural  Canon  col- 
 lected by  the  Soferim,  or  men  of  the  Great  Syn- 
 agogue.    These  formed  the  chief  authority  on  the 
 civil  and  religious  law,  and  their  authority  was  the 
 Pentateuch.     Theii*  office  as  expounders  and  com- 
 mentators   of    the    Sacred    Records    was    twofold. 
 They  had,  firstly,  to  explain  the  exact  meaning  of 
 such  prohibitions  and  ordinances  contained  in  the 
 Mosaic  Books  as   seemed   not  explicit  enough  for 
 the  multitude,  and  the  precise  application  of  which 
 in  former  days  had  been  forgotten  during  the  Cap- 
 tivity.   Thus,  e.  g.,  general  terms,  like  the  "  work  " 
 forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  were  l)y  them  specified 
 and   particularized;  not  indeed  according  to  their 
 own  arbitrary  and  individual  views,  but  according 
 to  tradition  traced  back  to  Sinai  itself.     Secondly, 
 laws  neither  specially  contained  nor  even  indicated 
 in  the  Pentateuch  were  inaugurated  by  them  ac- 
 cording to  the  new  wants  of  the  times  and  the  ever- 
 shifting  necessities  of  the  growing  connnonwealth 
 {Geserotli,  Tekanoth).     Nor  were  the  latter  in  all 
 cases  given  on  the  sole  authority  of  the  Synod ;  but 
 they  were  in  most  cases   traditional,  and  certain 
 special  letters  or  signs  in  the  Scriptures,  seemingly 
 superfluous  or  out  of  place  where  they  stood,  were, 
 according  to  fixed  hermeneutical  rules,  understood 
 to  indicate  the  inhibitions  and   prohibitions  {<''e- 
 dnrim,  "Fences"),  newly  issued  and  fixed.     But 
 Scripture,  which  had  for  this  purpose  to  be  studied 
 most  minutely  and  unremittingly  —  the  most  care- 
 ful and  scrutinizing  attention   being  paid  even  to 
 its  outward  form  and  semblance  —  was  also  used, 
 and  more  especially  in   its   non-legal,   prophetical 
 parts,  for   honiiletic   purposes,  as  a  wide  field  of 
 themes  for  lectures,   sermons,   and    religious   dis- 
 courses, both  in  and  out  of  the  synagogue :  at  every 
 solemnity  in  public  and  private  life.    'I'his  juridical 
 
 and  homiletical  expounding  and  interpreting  of 
 Scripture  —  the  germs  of  both  of  which  are  founa 
 still  closely  intertwined  and  i)ound  up  with  each 
 other  in  the  Targum  —  is  called  darash,  and  tlje 
 avalanche  of  Jewish  literature  which  began  silently 
 to  gather  from  the  time  of  the  return  from  the 
 exile  and  went  on  rolling  uninterruptedly  —  how- 
 ever dread  the  events  which  befell  the  nation  — 
 until  about  a  thousand  years  after  the  destruction 
 of  the  second  Temple,  may  be  comprised  under  the 
 general  name  Midrash  —  "  expounding."    The  two 
 
 chief  branches    indicated  are,   Hcduchah    \^/T^, 
 "to  go"),  the  rule  by  which  to  go,  =  binding, 
 authoritative   law ;    and    Ilagyadah    (Trin,    "  to 
 say  ")  =  saying,  legend,  —  flights  of  fancy,  darting 
 up  from  the  Divine  Word.  The  Halachah,  treating 
 more  especially  the  Pentateuch  as  the  legal  part  of 
 the  O.  T.,  bears  towards  this  l)ook  the  relation  of 
 an  amplified  and  annotated  code;  these  amplifica- 
 tions and   annotations,  be   it  well  understood,  not 
 being  new  laws,  formerly  imheard  of,  deduced  in 
 an  arbitrary  and  ■  fanciful  manner  from  Scripture, 
 but  supposed  to  be  sinndtaneous  oral  revelations 
 hi  riled  at  in  the  Scripture:   in  any  case  represent- 
 ing not  the  human  but  the  Divine  interpretation, 
 hrnded  down  through  a  named  authority  {KaObala, 
 Shematn  —  "  something  received,  heard  ").      The 
 IJac/gadah,  on  the  other  hand,  held  especial  sway 
 over  the  wide  field  of  ethical,  poetical,  prophetical, 
 and  historical  elements  of  the  O.  T.,  but  was  free 
 even  to  interpret  its   legal  and  historical  passages 
 fancifully  and  allegoi-ically.    The  whole  Bible,  with 
 all  its  tones  and  colors,  belonged  to  the  Hagi/ndah, 
 and  this  whole  Bible  she  transformed  into  an  end- 
 less series  of  themes  for  her  most  wonderful  and 
 capricious  variations.     "  Prophetess  of  the  exile," 
 she  took  up  the  hallowed  verse,  word,  or  letter,  and, 
 as  the  f/alachah  pointed  out  in  it  a   special  ordi- 
 nance, she,  by  a  most  ingenious  exegetical  process 
 of  her  own,  showed  to  the  wonder-struck  tnultitude 
 how  the    woful    events    under   which    they    then 
 groaned  were  hinted  at  in  it,  and  how  in  a  manner 
 it  predicted  even  their  future  issue.     The   aim  of 
 the  Haggadah  being  the  purely  momentary  one 
 of  elevating,  comforting,  edifying  its  audioice'^for 
 the  time  being,  it  did  mil  pretend  to  possess  the 
 slightest  authority.     As  its  method  was  capricious 
 and  arbitrary,  so  its  cultivation  was  open  to  every 
 one  whose  heart  prompted  him.     It  is   saga,  tale, 
 gnome,  parable,  allegory,  —  poetry,  in  short,  of  its 
 own   most  strange  kind,    springing   up   from   the 
 sacred  soil  of  Scripture,  wild,  luxuriant,  and  tangled, 
 like  a  primeval  tropical  forest.     If  the  Halachah 
 used  the  Scriptural  word  as  a  last  and  most  awful 
 resort,  against  which  there  was  no  further  appeal, 
 the  Haggadah  used  it  as  the  golden  nail  on  which 
 to    hang    its  gorgeous   tapestry:    as  introduction, 
 refrain,  text,   or  fundamental  stanza  for  a  gloss; 
 and  if  the  former  was  the  iron  bulwark  around  the 
 nationality  of  Israel,  which  every  one  was  ready  at 
 every  moment  to  defend  to  his   last  breath,   the 
 latter  was  a  maze  of  flowery  walks  within  those 
 fortress-walls.     That  gradually  the  Haggadah  pre- 
 ponderated and  became  the  Midrash  kolt   ii,oxflv 
 of  the  people,  is  not  surprising.     We  shall  notice 
 
 a   li^TlQ  (Arab.  .  l/j^^Xjo),  first  used  in  2  Chr. 
 
 xiii.  22,  xxiv.  27  ;  "  Commentary,"  in  the  sense  of  Cse- 
 lar's  "  Commentaries,"  enlargement,  embellishment, 
 
 complement,  etc.  (A.  V.  story  .')■  The  compilers  of 
 Chroaicles  seem  to  have  used  such  promiscuous  works 
 treating  of  Biblical  personages  and  events,  provided  they 
 contained  aught  that  served  the  tendency  of  the  book. 
 
3400 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 how  each  successive  Targuni  became  more  and 
 more  impregnated  with  its  essence,  and  from  a 
 version  became  a  succession  of  short  honiiletics. 
 This  (liflTereuce  between  the  two  branches  of  Midrash 
 it  strikingly  pointed  in  the  following  Talmudical 
 story:  '•  K.  Chia  b.  Abba,  a  Ilalachist.  and  It. 
 Abbuhu,  a  Haggadist,  once  came  together  into  a 
 city  and  preached.  I'he  people  flocked  to  the  latter, 
 while  the  former's  discourses  remained  without  a 
 hearer.  Thereupon  the  Haggadist  con]fort«d  the 
 Halachist  with  a  parable.  Two  merchants  come 
 into  a  city  and  spread  their  wares,  —  the  one  rare 
 pearls  and  precious  stones;  the  other  a  rilibon,  a 
 ring,  glittering  trinkets:  around  whom  will  the 
 multitude  throng?  .  .  .  Formerly,  when  life  was 
 not  yet  bitter  labor,  the  people  had  leisure  for  the 
 deep  word  of  the  Law;  now  it  stands  in  need  of 
 comfortings  and  blessings." 
 
 The  first  collections  of  the  Tlalnchah  —  embrac- 
 ing the  whole  field  of  juridico-political,  religious, 
 and  practical  life,  both  of  the  individual  and  of 
 the  nation:  the  human  and  Divine  law  to  its  most 
 minute  and  insignificant  details  —  were  instituted 
 by  Hillel,  Akiba,  and  Simon  B.  Gamaliel;  but  the 
 final  redaction  of  the  general  code,  Mishna,"  to 
 which  the  later  Toseftahs  and  Boraithas  form  sup- 
 plements, is  due  to  Jehudah  Hannassi  in  220  A.  d. 
 Of  an  earlier  date  with  respect  to  the  contents, 
 but  committed  to  writing  in  later  times,  are  the 
 three  books:  SiJ'ra,  or  Turnth  Kohanim  (an  am- 
 plification of  Leviticus),  Sifri  (of  Numbers  and 
 Deuteronomy),  and  MecldlUid  (of  a  portion  of 
 Exodus).  The  masters  of  the  Mishnaic  period, 
 after  the  Soferim,  are  the  Taimaim,  who  were  fol- 
 lowed by  the  Amoraim.  The  discussions  and 
 further  amplifications  of  the  Mishna  by  the  latter, 
 form  the  Gemarn  (Comple)uent),  a  work  extant  in 
 two  redactions,  namely,  that  of  Palestine  or  Jeru- 
 salem (middle  of  4th  century),  and  of  Babylon 
 (5th  century  A.  D.),  which,  together  with  the 
 iNIishna,  are  comprised  under  the  name  Talmud. 
 Here,  however,  though  the  work  is  ostensibly  de- 
 voted to  Ilal(ic/i(ili,  an  almost  equal  share  is  allowed 
 to  Hayijadah.  The  Haggadistic  mode  of  treatment 
 was  threefold :  either  the  simple  understanding  of 
 wofds  and  things  {Peshal)  or  the  homiletic  appli- 
 cation, holding  up  the  mirror  of  Scripture  to  the 
 present  (Dtfrusli),  or  a  mystic  interpretation  (Sud), 
 the  second  of  which  chiefly  found  its  way  into  the 
 Targuni.  On  its  minute  division  into  special  and 
 general,  ethical,  historical,  esoteric,  etc.,  Haggadah, 
 we  cannot  enter  here.  Suffice  it  to  add  that  the 
 most  extensive  collections  of  it  which  have  sur- 
 vived are  Midrash  Rabbah  (commenced  about  700, 
 concluded  about  1100  A.  d.),  comprising  the  Pen- 
 tateuch and  the  five  Megilloth,  and  the  Pesikta 
 (aljout  700  A.  I).),  which  contains  the  most  com- 
 plete cycle  of  Pericopes,  but  the  very  existence  of 
 which  had  until  lately  been  forgotten,  surprisingly 
 enough,  through  the  very  extracts  made  from  it 
 (Jalkut,  Pesikta  Eabbathi,  Sutarta,  etc.). 
 
 From  this  indispensable  digression  we  return  to 
 the  suliject  of  Targum.  The  Targums  now  extant 
 are  as  follows  : — 
 
 L  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  known  as  that  of 
 Onkelos. 
 
 XL  Targum  on  the  first  and  last  prophets,  known 
 as  that  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel. 
 
 a  Mishna,  from  s/mna,  "  to  learn,"  "  learning,"'  not, 
 as  erroneously  translated  of  eld,  and  rejx'ated  ever 
 since,   Aeurepuxris,   ''  repetition  ; ''   but  corresponding 
 
 in.  Targuni  on  the  Pentateuch,  likewise  known 
 as  that  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel. 
 
 IV.  Targum  on  portions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
 known  as  Targuni  Jerushalmi. 
 
 V.  Targums  on  the  Magiographa,  ascribed  to 
 Joseph  the  Blind,  namely:  — 
 
 1.  Targum  on  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs. 
 
 2.  Targuni  on  the  five  Megilloth  (Song  of  Songs, 
 Ruth,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes). 
 
 3.  Two  (not  three,  as  commonly  stated)  other 
 Targums  to  Esthe;j-:  a  smaller  and  a  larger,  the 
 latter  known  as  Targum  Sheni,  or  Second  Tar- 
 gum. 
 
 VI.  Targuni  to  Chronicles. 
 
 VII.  Targuni  to  Daniel,  known  from  an  unpub- 
 lished Persian  extract,  and  hitherto  not  received 
 among  the  number. 
 
 VIII.  Targum  on  the  Apocryphal  pieces  of 
 Esther. 
 
 We  have  hinted  before  that  neither  any  of  the 
 names  under  which  the  Targums  hitherto  went, 
 nor  any  of  the  dates  handed  down  with  them, 
 have  stood  the  test  of  recent  scrutiny.  Let  it, 
 however,  not  for  a  moment  be  supposed  that  a 
 skeptic  Wolfian  school  has  been  at  work,  and  with 
 hypercritical  and  wanton  malice  has  tried  to  annihi- 
 late the  hallowed  names  of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  and 
 Joseph  the  Blind.  It  will  be  seen  from  what  fol- 
 lows that  most  of  these  names  have  or  may  have 
 a  true  historical  foundation  and  meaning;  but  un- 
 critical ages  and  ignorant  scribes  have  perverted 
 this  meaning,  and  a  succession  of  most  extraordi- 
 nary misieadings  and  strangest  uarepa  irpSrepa  — 
 some  even  of  a  very  modern  date  —  liave  produced 
 rare  confusion,  and  a  chain  of  assertions  which  dis- 
 solve before  the  first  steady  gaze.  That,  notwith- 
 standing all  this,  the  implicit  belief  in  the  old 
 names  and  dates  still  reigns  supreme  will  surprise 
 no  one  who  has  been  accustomed  to  see  the  most 
 striking  and  undeniable  results  of  investigation  and 
 criticism  quietly  ignored  by  contemporaries,  and 
 forgotten  by  generations  which  followed,  so  that 
 the  same  work  had  to  be  done  very  many  times 
 over  again  before  a  certain  fact  was  allowed  to  be 
 such. 
 
 We  shall  follow  the  order  indicated  above :  — 
 
 I.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos. 
 
 It  will  be  necessary,  before  we  discuss  this  work 
 itself,  to  speak  of  the  person  of  its  reputed  author 
 as  far  as  it  concerns  us  here.  There  are  few  more 
 contested  questions  in  the  whole  province  of  Bibli- 
 cal, nay  general  literature,  than  those  raised  on 
 this  head.  Did  an  Onkelos  ever  exist?  Was  there 
 more  than  one  Onkelos?  Was  Onkelos  the  real 
 form  of  his  name?  Did  he  translate  the  Bible 
 at  all,  or  part  of  it?  And  is  this  Targum  the 
 translation  he  made?  Do  the  dates  of  his  life 
 and  this  Targum  tally?  etc.,  etc.  The  ancient 
 accounts  of  Onkelos  are  avowedly  of  the  most  cor- 
 rupted and  confused  kind :  so  much  so  that  both 
 ancient  and  modern  investigators  have  failed  to 
 reconcile  and  amend  them  so  as  to  gain  general 
 satisfaction,  and  opinions  remain  widely  divergent. 
 This  being  the  case,  we  thiidc  it  our  duty  to  lay 
 the  whole  —  not  very  voluminous  —  evidence,  col- 
 lected both  from  the  body  of  Talmudical  and  post- 
 Talmudical    (so-called    Rabbinical)    and    patristic 
 
 exactly  with  Talmud  (from  tamad,  "to  learn"),  and 
 Torah  (from  lioreh,  "to  teach"):  all  three  terms  mean* 
 ing  "  the  sludy,''  by  way  of  eminence. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3401 
 
 writings  before  the  reader,  in  order  that  he  may 
 judge  for  himself  how  far  the  conclusions  to  which 
 we  shall  point  may  be  right. 
 
 The  first  mention  of  "  Onkelos  "  —  a  name  vari- 
 ously derived  from  Nicolaus  (Geiger),  "Oi'o/xa  KaAos 
 [sic]  (Kenan),  Homunculus,  Avunculus,  etc.  —  more 
 fully  "  Onkelos  the  Proselyte,"  is  found  in  the  To- 
 siftah,  a  work  drawn  up  shortly  after  the  Mishna. 
 Here  we  learn  (1)  that  "Onkelos  the  Proselyte" 
 was  so  serious  in  his  adherence  to  the  newly-adopted 
 (Jewish)  faith,  that  he  threw  his  share  in  his  pa- 
 ternal inheritance  into  the  Dead  Sea  (I'os.  L'emai, 
 vi.  9).  (2.)  At  the  funeral  of  Gamaliel  tlie  elder 
 (1st  century  a.  d.)  he  burnt  more  than  70  minffi 
 worth  of  spices  in  his  honor  (Tos.  Shabb.  8).  (3.) 
 This  same  story  is  repeated,  with  variations  (Tos. 
 Semach.  8).  (4.)  He  is  finally  mentioned,  by  way 
 of  corroboration  to  ditt'erent  Halachas,  in  connec- 
 tion with  Gamaliel,  in  three  more  places,  which 
 complete  our  references  from  the  Tosiftah  (Tos. 
 Mikv.  0,  1;  Kelim,  iii.  2,  2;  Chag.  3,  1).  The 
 Babylonian  Talmud,  the  soiu'ce  to  which  we  turn 
 our  attention  next,  mentions  the  name  Onkelos 
 four  times:  (1.)  As  "Onkelos  the  Proselyte,  the 
 son  of  Kalonikos  "  (CallinicusV  Cleonicus?),  the 
 son  of  Titus'  sister,  who,  intending  to  become  a 
 convert,  conjured  up  the  ghosts  of  Titus,  Balaam, 
 and  Christ  [the  latter  name  is  doubtful],  in  order 
 to  ask  them  what  nation  was  considered  the  first 
 in  the  other  world.  Their  answer  that  Israel  was 
 the  favored  one  decided  him  (Gift.  5G).  (2.)  As 
 "Onkelos  the  son  of  Kalonymus ''  (GleonyniusV) 
 (.A.boda  Sar.  11  a).  It  is  there  related  of  him 
 that  (Ite  emperor  (Kaisnr)  sent  three  lloman 
 cohorts  to  capture  him,  and  that  he  converted 
 them  all.  (3.)  In  Baba  Bathra  99  ii  (lioraitha), 
 "Onkelos  the  Proselyte"  is  quoted  as  an  authority 
 on  the  question  of  the  form  of  the  Cherubim.  And 
 (i.)  The  most  important  passage  —  because  on  it 
 and  it  alone,  in  the  wide  realm  of  ancient  litera- 
 ture, has  been  founded  the  general  belief  that 
 Onkelos  i»  the  author  of  the  Targum  now  current 
 under  this  name  —  is  found  in  Meg.  3  n.  It  reads 
 as  follows:  "K.  Jeremiah,  and,  according  to  others, 
 K.  Chia  bar  Abba,  said :  The  Targum  to  the  Pen- 
 tateuch was  made  by  the  '  Proselyte  Onkelos,'  from 
 the  mouth  of  E.  Eliezer  and  11.  Jehoshua;  the 
 Targum  to  the  Prophets  was  made  by  Jonathan 
 ben  Uzziel  from  the  mouth  of  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
 
 and  JNIalachi But  have  we  not  been  taught 
 
 that  the  Targum  existed  from  the  time  of  lizra? 
 ....  Only  that  it  was  forgotten,  and  Onkelos 
 restored  it."  No  mention  whatever  is  to  be  found 
 of  Onkelos  either  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  re- 
 dacted about  a  hundred  years  before  the  Baliy- 
 lonian,  nor  in  the  Church  fathers  —  an  item  of  neg- 
 ative evidence  to  which  we  shall  presently  draw 
 further  attention.  In  a  Midrash  collection,  com- 
 pleted about  the  middle  of  the  12th  century,  we 
 find  again  "  Onkelos  the  Proselyte"  asking  an  old 
 man,  "  Whether  that  was  all  the  love  God  bore 
 towards  a  proselyte,  that  He  promised  to  give  him 
 bread  and  a  garment?  Whereupon  the  old  man 
 replied  that  this  was  all  for  which  the  Patriarch 
 Jacob  prayed"  (Gen.  xxviii.  20).  'i'he  book  Zohar, 
 of  late  and  very  uncertain  date,  makes  "Onkelos  " 
 a  disciple  of  Hillel  and  Shanimai.  Finally,  a  MS., 
 also  of  a  very  late  and  uncertain  date,  in  the 
 library  of  the  Leipzig  Senate  (15.  II.  17),  relates 
 of  "  Onkelos,  the  nephew  of  Titus  "  that  he  asked 
 the  emperor's  advice  as  to  what  merchandise  he 
 thought  it  was  profitable  to  trade  in.  The  em- 
 214 
 
 peror  told  him  that  that  snould  be  bought  which 
 was  cheap  in  the  market,  since  it  was  sure  to  rise 
 in  price.  Whereupon  Onkelos  went  on  his  way. 
 He  repaired  to  Jerusalem,  and  studied  the  Law 
 under  K.  Eleazar  and  R.  Jehoshua,  and  his  face 
 liecame  wan.  When  he  returned  to  the  court,  one 
 of  the  courtiei's  observed  the  pallor  of  his  coun- 
 tenance, and  said  to  Titus,  "  Onkelos  appears  to 
 have  studied  the  Law."  Interrogated  by  Titus,  he 
 admitted  the  fact,  adding  that  he  had  done  it  by 
 his  advice.  No  nation  had  ever  been  so  exalted, 
 and  none  was  now  held  cheaper  among  the  nations 
 than  Israel:  "therefore,"  he  said,  "I  concluded 
 that  in  the  end  none  would  be  of  higher  price." 
 
 This  is  all  the  information  to  be  found  in  ancient 
 authorities  about  Onkelos  and  the  Targum  which 
 bears  his  name.  Surprisingly  enough,  the  latter  is 
 well  known  to  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (whether  to 
 the  Jerusalem  Talnuul  is  questionable)  and  the 
 Midrashim,  and  is  often  quoted,  but  nevei-  once  as 
 T(H'(jum  Onkelos.  The  quotations  from  it  are  in- 
 variably introduced  with  p^tti~inttT3,  "  As  we 
 [Babylonians]  translate;  "  and  the  version  itself  is 
 called  (e.  </.  Kiddush.  49  a)  pi  D13~in,  "  Our 
 Targum,"  exactly  as  Ephraini  Syrus  {O^tp.  i.  380) 
 speaks  of  the  Peshito  as  "Our  translation." 
 
 Yet  we  find  on  the  other  hand  another  current 
 version  imariably  quoted    in  the  Tahuud    by  the 
 
 name  of  its  known  author,  namely,  D7''p37  D3~1in, 
 "the  [Greek]  Version  of  Akilas:  "  a  circumstance 
 which,  by  showing  that  it  was  customary  to  quote 
 the  author  by  name,  excites  suspicion  as  to  the  re- 
 lation of  Onkelos  to  the  Targum  Onkelos.  Still 
 more  surprising,  however,  is,  as  i'ar  as  the  person 
 of  Onkelos  is  concerned  (whatever  be  the  discrep- 
 ancies in  the  above  accounts),  tlie  similarity  be- 
 tween the  incidents  related  of  him  and  those  re- 
 lated of  Akilas.  The  latter  (Db*'p37,  Ob'^pS) 
 is  said,  both  in  Sifra  (Lev.  xxv.  7)  and  the  Jeru- 
 salem Talmud  (Demai,  xxvii.  (/),  to  have  been  born 
 in  Pontus,  to  have  been  a  proselyte,  to  have  thrown 
 his  paternal  inheritance  into  an  asphalt  lake  (T. 
 Jer.  Demai,  25  (/),  to  have  translated  the  Torah 
 before  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua,  who  praised  him 
 
 (TO/p,  in  allusion  perhaps  to  his  name,  Dv^pl?)  ' 
 or,  according  to  other  accounts,  before  R.  Akiba 
 (comp.  Jer.  Kidd.  1,  1,  2,  etc.,;  Jer.  Meg.  1,  11; 
 Habli  Meg.  'i(t).  We  learn  further  that  he  lived 
 in  the  time  of  Hadrian  (Chag.  2,  1),  that  he  was 
 the  son  of  the  Emperor's  sister  (Tanch.  28,  1),  that 
 he  became  a  convert  against  the  Emperor's  will  {ib. 
 and  Shem.  Rabba,  140  c),  and  that  he  consulted.- 
 Eliezer  and  Jehoshua  about  his  conversion  (Ber.  R. 
 78  d;  comp.  Midr.  Koh.  102 1>).  First  he  is  said  to 
 have  gone  to  the  former,  and  to  have  asked  him 
 whether  that  was  all  the  love  God  bore  a  proselyte, 
 that  He  promised  him  bread  and  a  garment  ((ien. 
 xxviii.  20).  "  See,"  he  said,  "  what  exquisite  birds 
 and  other  delicacies  I  now  have:  even  my  slaves 
 do  not  care  for  them  any  longer."  Whereupon  H. 
 Eliezer  became  wroth,  and  said,  "  Is  that  foi 
 which  Jacob  prayed,  '  And  give  me  bread  to  eat 
 and  a  garment  to  wear,'  so  small  in  thine  eyes?  — 
 Comes  he,  the  proselyte,  and  receives  these  things 
 without  any  trouble!  "  —And  Akilas,  dissatisfied, 
 left  the  irate  Master  and  went  to  R.  Joshua,  lie 
 pacified  him,  and  explained  to  him  that  "  Bread  " 
 meant  the  Divine  Law,  and  "  Garment,"  the  Talitli, 
 or  sacred  garment  to  he  worn  during  prayer.   "  .\.nd 
 
3402 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 not  this  alone,  he  continued,  but  the  Proselyte  may 
 marry  his  daughter  to  a  priest,  and  his  offspring  may 
 become  a  high-priest,  and  offer  burnt-offerings  in 
 the  Sanctuary."  More  strilcing  still  is  a  Greek  quo- 
 tation from  Onkelos,  the  Chaldee  translator  (JNIidr. 
 Echa,  58  c),  which  in  reality  is  found  in  and  quoted 
 (Midr.  Shir  hashir.  27  d)  from  Akilas,  the  Greek 
 translator. 
 
 That  Akilas  is  no  other  than  Aquila  ('A/ci'^  hi), 
 the  well-known  Greek  translator  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, we  need  hardly  add.  He  is  a  native  of 
 Pontus  (Iren.  adv.  Ucer.  3,  24;  Jer.  De  Vir.  111. 
 c.  5-i;  Philastr.  De  Ucer.  §  90).  He  lived  under 
 Hadrian  (Kpiph.  De  Pond,  et  Mens.  §  12).  He  is 
 called  the  nevdepi5ri<!  (Chron.  Alex.  Trei/6ep6s)  of 
 the  iMnperor  (il>.  §  14),  iiecomes  a  c(jn\ert  to  Ju- 
 daism (§  15),  whence  he  is  called  the  Proselyte 
 (Iren.  ib.  ;  Jerome  to  Is.  viii.  14.  etc.),  and  receives 
 instructions  from  Akiba  (Jer.  ib.).  He  translated 
 the  O.  T.,  and  his  Version  was  considered  of  the 
 highest  import  and  authority  among  the  Jews,  es- 
 pecially those  unacquainted  with  the  Hebrew  lan- 
 guage (Euseb.  Prop.  Ev.  I.e.;  Augustin,  Cic.  D. 
 XV.  23;  Philastr.  Urn:  90;  Justin,  NmeU.  14G). 
 Thirteen  dhllnct  quotations  "  from  this  Version  are 
 preserved  in  Talmud  and  INIidrash,  and  they  tally, 
 for  the  most  part,  with  the  corresponding  passages 
 preserved  in  the  Hexapla ;  and  for  those  even  which 
 do  not  agree,  there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse  to 
 corruptions.  We  know  from  Jerome  (on  Ezek.  iii. 
 15)  that  Aquila  prepared  a  further  edition  of  his 
 Version,  called  by  the  Jews  kot  aKpl^eiav,  and 
 there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  assume, 
 cmterls  pciribus,  that  the  different  passages  belong 
 to  the  different  editions. 
 
 If  then  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to 
 the  identity  of  Aquila  and  Akilas,  we  may  well  now 
 go  a  step  further,  and  from  the  threefold  accounts 
 adduced,  —  so  strikingly  parallel  even  in  their 
 anachronisms  and  contortions  —  safely  argue  the 
 identity,  as  of  Akilas  and  Aqiiila,  so  of  Onkelos 
 "  the  translator,'"  with  Akilas  or  Aquila.  Whether 
 in  reality  a  proselyte  of  that  name  had  been  in  ex- 
 istence at  an  earlier  date  —  a  circumstance  which 
 might  explain  part  of  the  contradictory  statements; 
 and  whether  the  difference  of  the  forms  is  produced 
 
 through  the  27  (ng,  nk),  with  which  we  find  the 
 name  sometimes  spelt,  or  the  Babylonian  manner, 
 occasionally  to  insert  an  n,  like  in  Adrianus,  which 
 we  always  find  spelt  Axdrianus  in  the  Babylonian 
 Talmud;  or  whether  we  are  to  read  Gamaliel  II. 
 for  Gamaliel  the  Elder,  we  cannot  here  examine; 
 anything  connected  with  the  person  of  an  Onkelos 
 no  longer  concerns  us,  since  he  is  not  the  author  of 
 the  Targum;  indeed,  as  we  saw,  only  once  ascribed 
 to  him  in  the  passage  of  ilie  Babylonian  Talmud 
 (Meg.  3«)i  palpably  corrupted  from  the  Jerusalem 
 Talmud  (Meg.  i.  9).  And  not  before  the  'Jth  cen- 
 tury (Pirke  der.  Eliezer  to  Gen.  xlv.  27)  does  this 
 mischievous  mistake  seem  to'have  struck  root,  and 
 even  from  that  time  three  centuries  elapsed,  during 
 which  the  Version  was  quoted  often  enough,  but 
 without  its  authorship  being  ascribed  to  Onkelos. 
 From  all  this  it  follows  that  those  who,  in  the 
 
 a  Greek  quotations:  Gen.  xvii.  1,  in  Beresh.  Rab. 
 61  b ;  Lev.  xxiii.  40,  Jer.  Succah,  3,  5,  I'd  53  d 
 (comp.  Vaj.  Rab.  2(K)(/);  Is.  iii.  20,  Jer.  Shabb.  6,  4, 
 fol.  8  6,-  Ez.  xvi.  10,  Midr.  Thren.  58  c ;  Ez.  xxiii.  43, 
 Vaj.  Rab.  203  rf;  Ps.  xlviii.  15  (Masor  T..  xlvii.  accord- 
 ing to  LXX.),  Jer.  Meg.  2,  3,  fol.  736  ,■  Prov.  xviii.  21, 
 
 face  of  this  overwhelming  mass  of  evidence,  would 
 fain  retain  Onkelos  in  the  false  position  of  trans- 
 lator of  our  Targum,  must  be  ready  to  admit  that 
 there  were  two  men  living  simultaneously  of  most 
 astoundingly  similar  names;  both  proselytes  to  Ju- 
 daism, both  translators  of  the  Bible,  both  disciples 
 of  K.  Eliezer  and  K.  Jehoshua;  it  being  of  both 
 reported  by  the  same  authorities  that  they  trans- 
 lated the  Bible,  and  that  they  were  disciples  of  the 
 two  last-mentioned  Doctors;  both  supposed  to  be 
 nephews  of  the  reigning  emperor,  who  disapproved 
 of  their  conversion  (for  this  account  comp.  Dion 
 Cass.  Ixvii.  14,  and  Deb.  Rab.  2,  where  Domitian 
 is  related  to  have  had  a  near  relative  executed  for 
 his  inclining  towards  .ludaism);  and  very  many 
 more  palpable  improbabilities  of  the  same  descrip- 
 tion. 
 
 The  question  now  remains,  why  was  this  Targum 
 called  that  of  Onkelos  or  Akilas  ?  It  is  neither  a 
 translation  of  it,  nor  is  it  at  all  done  in  the  same 
 spirit.  All  that  we  learn  about  the  Greek  Vei*sion 
 shows  us  that  its  chief  aim  and  purpose  was,  to 
 counteract  the  LXX.  The  latter  had  at  that  time 
 become  a  mass  of  arbitrary  corruptions  —  especially 
 with  respect  to  the  jNIessianic  passages  —  as  well 
 on  the  Christian  as  on  the  Jewish  side.  It  was 
 requisite  that  a  translation,  scrupulously  literal, 
 should  be  given  into  the  hands  of  those  who  were 
 unable  to  read  the  original.  Aquila,  the  disciple, 
 according  to  one  account,  of  Akiba— the  same  Akiba 
 who  expounded  (darasJi)  for  halachistic  purposes 
 the  seemingly  most  insignificant   particles   in   the 
 
 Scripture  (e.  (/.  the  iHW,  sign  of  accusative;  Gen. 
 R.  1;  Tos.  Sheb.  1;  Talm.  Sheb.  26  «)  — fulfilled 
 his  task  according  to  his  master's  method.  "  Non 
 solum  verba  sed  et  etymologias  verborum  transfen-e 
 
 conatus  est Quod  Hebrsei  non  solum  habent 
 
 apdpa  sed  et  wpoapOpa,  ille  KaKo(r]Aws  et  syllabas 
 interpretetur  et  litteras,  dictatque  a-  v  v  rhv  ovpavhv 
 Kal  avv  t)]v  77)1'  quod  graeca  et  latina  lingua  non 
 recipit  "  (Jer.  de  Opt.  Gen.  interpret.).  Targum 
 Onkelos,  on  the  other  hand,  is,  if  not  quite  a  para- 
 phrase, yet  one  of  the  very  freest  versions.  Nor  do 
 the  two  translations,  with  rare  exceptions,  agree 
 even  as  to  the  renderings  of  proper  nouns,  which 
 each  occasionally  likes  to  transform  into  something 
 else.  But  there  is  a  reason.  The  Jews  in  posses- 
 sion of  this  most  slavishly  accurate  Greek  Bible- 
 text,  could  now  on  the  one  hand  successfully  com- 
 bat arguments,  brought  against  them  from  inter- 
 polated LXX.  passages,  and  on  the  other  follow 
 the  expoundings  of  the  School  and  the  Halachah, 
 based  upon  the  letter  of  the  Law,  as  closely  as  if 
 they  had  understood  the  original  itself.  That  a 
 version  of  this  description  often  marred  the  sense, 
 mattered  less  in  times  anything  but  favorable  to 
 the  literal  meaning  of  the  Bible.  It  thus  gradually 
 became  such  a  favorite  with  the  people,  that  its 
 renderings  were  hou.sehold  words.  If  the  day  when 
 the  LXX.  was  made  was  considered  a  day  of  dis- 
 tress like  the  one  on  which  the  golden  calf  was  cast, 
 and  was  actually  entered  among  the  fast  days  (8th 
 Tebeth;  Meg.  Taanith), — this  new  version,  which 
 was  to  dispel  the  mischievous  influences  of  the  older. 
 
 Vaj.  Rab.  fol.  2036;  Esth.  i.  6,  MiUr.  Esth.  120 d; 
 Dan.  V.  5,  Jer.  Joma,  3,  8,  fol.  41  a.  —  Hebrew  quota- 
 tions, re-translated  from  the  Greek :  Lev.  xix.  20, 
 Jer.  Kid.  i.  1,  fol.  59  a  ;  Dan.  viii.  13,  Ber.  Rab.  24  c.  — 
 Chaldee  quotations :  Prov.  xxv.  11 ;  Beresh.  Rab.  104 
 6  /  Is.  V.  6,  Midr.  Koh.  113  c,  d. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3403 
 
 larned  for  its  author  one  of  the  most  delicate  com- 
 pliments in  the  manner  of  the  time.  The  verse  of 
 the  Scripture  (Ps.  xlv.  2),  "  Thou  art  more  beauti- 
 ful ijiyfjefila)  than  the  sons  of  men,"  was  applied 
 to  him  —  ill  allusion  to  Gen.  ix.  27,  where  it  is  said 
 that  Japhet  (t.  e.  tlie  Greek  language)  should  one 
 day  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Sheni  (/.  e.  Israel),  Meg. 
 1,  11,  71  b  and  c ;  'J  i,  Ber.  Kab.  iO  b.  —  Outo)  yap 
 'A/ct^Aas  dovKivoiv  rrj  e^paiKfj  Ae'|ei  e/fSeSaiKec 
 eiVoii'  ....  (pi\oTifx.6Tepov  Tmricmvixivos  izapa, 
 ^lovSaiois,  r]pfji,7]vevK4vai  rrjy  •Ypa(()7}V,  etc.  (Orig. 
 ad  Afric.  2). 
 
 What,  under  these  circumstances,  is  more  nat- 
 ural than  to  suppose  that  the  new  Chaldee  Version 
 —  at  least  as  excellent  in  its  way  as  the  Greek  — 
 was  started  under  the  name  which  had  become  ex- 
 pressive of  the  type  and  ideal  of  a  Bible- translation; 
 that,  in  fact,  it  should  be  called  a  Targum  done  in 
 the  manner  of  Aquila —  Aquila-Turijiiin.  Wheth- 
 er the  title  of  reconnuendation  was,  in  considera- 
 tion of  the  merits  of  the  work  upon  which  it  was 
 bestowed,  gladly  indorsed  and  retained  —  or  for 
 aught  we  know,  was  not  bestowed  upon  it  uniil  it 
 was  generally  found  to  be  of  such  surpassing  merit, 
 we  need  not  stop  to  argue. 
 
 Being  thus  deprived  of  the  dates  which  a  close 
 examination  into  the  accounts  of  a  translator's  life 
 might  have  furnished  us,  we  must  needs  try  to  fix 
 the  time  of  our  Targum  as  approximately  as  we  can 
 by  the  circumstances  under  which  it  took  its  rise, 
 and  by  the  quotations  from  it  which  we  meet  in 
 early  works.  Without  unnecessarily  going  into  de- 
 tail, we  shall  briefly  record,  wliat  we  said  in  the  in- 
 troduction, that  the  Targum  was  begun  to  be  com- 
 mitted to  writing  about  the  end  of  the  2d  century, 
 A.  D.  So  far,  however,  from  its  superseding  the 
 oral  Targum  at  once,  it  was  on  the  contrary  strictly 
 forbidden  to  read  it  in  public  (Jer.  Meg.  4,  1). 
 Nor  was  there  any  uniformity  in  the  version. 
 Down  to  the  middle  of  the  2d  century  we  find  the 
 masters  most  materially  ditfering  from  each  other 
 with  respect  to  the  Targum  of  certain  passages, 
 (Seb.  54  a)  and  translations  quoted  not  to  be  found 
 in  any  of  our  Targums.  The  necessity  must  thus 
 have  pressed  itself  upon  the  attention  of  the  spiritual 
 leaders  of  the  people  to  put  a  stop  to  the  fluctuating 
 state  of  a  version,  which  in  the  course  of  time 
 must  needs  have  liecome  naturally  surrounded  with 
 a  halo  of  authority  little  short  of  that  of  the  orig- 
 inal itself.  We  shall  thus  not  bs  far  wrong  in 
 placing  the  work  of  collecting  the  different  frag- 
 ments with  their  variants,  and  reducing  them  into 
 one  —  finally  authorized  Version  —  about  the  end 
 of  the  3d,  or  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century,  and 
 in  assigning  Babylon  to  it  as  the  birthplace.  It 
 was  at  Babylon  that  about  this  time  the  light  of 
 learning,  extinguished  in  the  blood-stained  fields  of 
 Palestine,  shone  with  threefold  vigor.  The  Acad- 
 emy at  Nahardea,  founded  according  to  legend  dur- 
 ing the  Babylonian  exile  itself,  had  gathered 
 strength  in  the  same  degree  as  the  numerous  Pal- 
 estinian schools  began  to  decline,  and  when  in  259 
 A.  D.  that  most  ancient  school  was  destroyed,  there 
 were  three  others  simultaneously  flourishing  in  its 
 stead,  —  Tiberias,  whither  the  college  of  Palestinian 
 Jabneh  had  been  transferred  in  the  time  of  Gama- 
 liel III.  (200);  Sora,  founded  by  Chasda  of  Kafri 
 (293);  and  Pumbadita,  founded  by  K.  Jehudah  b. 
 Jecheskeel  (297).  And  in  Babylon  for  well-nigh  a 
 thousand  years  "  the  crown  of  the  Law  "  remained, 
 and  to  Babylon,  the  seat  of  the  "  Head  of  the 
 Golah  "   (Dispersion),  all  Israel,  scattered   to  the 
 
 ends  of  the  earth,  looked  for  its  spiritual  guidance 
 That  one  of  the  first  deeds  of  these  Schools  musi 
 have  been  the  fixing  of  the  Targum,  as  soon  as  the 
 fixing  of  it  became  indispensable,  we  may  well  pre- 
 sume; and  as  we  see  the  text  fluctuating  down  to 
 the  middle  of  the  2d  century,  we  nuist  needs  assume 
 that  the  redaction  took  place  as  soon  afterwards  as 
 may  reasonably  be  supposed.  Further  corrobora- 
 tive arguments  are  fouml  for  Babylon  as  the  place 
 of  its  final  redaction,  although  Palestine  was  the 
 country  where  it  grew  and  developed  itself.  Many 
 grammatical  and  idiomatical  signs  —  the  substance 
 itself,  i.  e.  the  words,  being  Palestinian  —  point,  as 
 far  as  the  scanty  materials  in  our  hands  permit  us 
 to  draw  conclusions  as  to  the  true  state  of  language 
 in  Babylon,  to  that  country.  The  Targum  further 
 exhibits  a  greater  Unguistic  similarity  with  the 
 Babylonian,  thati  with  the  Palestinian  Gemara. 
 Again,  terras  are  found  in  it  which  the  Talmud 
 distinctly  mentions  as  peculiar  to  Babylon,"  not  to 
 mention  Persian  words,  which  on  Babylonian  soil 
 easily  found  their  way  into  our  work.  One  of  the 
 most  striking  hints  is  the  unvarying  translation  of 
 
 the  Targum  of  the  word  ~in3,  "  River,"  by  Eu- 
 phrates, the  River  of  Babylon.  Need  we  further 
 point  to  the  terms  above  mentioned,  under  which 
 the  Targum  is  exclusively  quoted  in  the  Talmud 
 and  the  Midrashim  of  Babylon,  namely,  "  Our 
 Targum,"  "  As  tve  translate,"  or  its  later  designa- 
 tion (Aruch,  Rasbi,  Tusaf'oth,  etc.)  as  the  "  Targum 
 of  Babel  "  V  'Were  a  further  proof  needed,  it  might 
 be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  two  Babylonian 
 Schools,  which,  holding  different  readings  in  vari- 
 ous places  of  the  Scripture,  as  individual  traditions 
 of  their  own,  consequently  held  different  readings 
 in  the  Targum  ever  since  the  time  of  its  redaction. 
 The  opinions  developed  here  are  shared  more  or 
 less  by  some  of  the  most  competent  scholars  of  our 
 day:  for  instance,  Zunz  (who  now  repudiates  the 
 dictum  laid  down  in  his  Goltesdienstl.  Vurtr.,  that 
 tlie  translation  of  Onkelos  dates  from  about  the 
 middle  of  the  first  century,  a.  d.  ;  comp.  Geiger, 
 Zeitscia:  184-3,  p.  179,  note  3),  Gratz,  Levy,  Herz- 
 feld,  Geiger,  Frankel,  etc.  The  history  of  the  in- 
 vestigation of  the  Targums,  more  especially  that  of 
 Onkelos,  presents  the  usual  spectacle  of  vague  spec- 
 ulations and  widely  contradictory  notions,  held  by 
 different  investigators  at  different  times.  Suffice  it 
 to  mention  that'of  old  authorities,  Reuchlin  puts  the 
 date  of  the  Targum  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Isaiah 
 —  notwithstanding  that  the  people,  as  we  are  dis- 
 tinctly told,  did  not  understand  even  a  few  Ara- 
 maic words  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  Following 
 Asaria  de  Rossi  and  Eliah  Levita  (who,  for  reasons 
 now  completely  disposed  of,  assumed  the  Targum  to 
 have  first  taken  its  rise  in  Babylon  during  the  Cap- 
 tivity), Bellarrain,  Si.xtus  Senensis,  Aldret,  Barto- 
 locci.  Rich.  Simon,  Hottinger,  W'alton,  Thos.  Smith, 
 Pearson,  Allix,  Wharton,  Prideaux,  Schickard, 
 take  the  same  view  with  individual  modifications. 
 PfeiflTer,  B.  Meyer,  Steph.  Morinus,  on  the  other 
 hand,  place  its  date  at  an  extremely  late  period, 
 and  assign  it  to  Palestine.  Another  school  held 
 that  the  Targum  was  not  written  until  after  the 
 time  of  the  Talmud  —  so  Wolf,  Havermann,  partly 
 Rich.   Simon,  Hornbeck,  Job.  Morimis,  etc. :  and 
 
 a  rni73,  "  a  girl,"  is  rendered  by  S"*!!") ;  "  t'oi 
 thus  they  call  in  Babylon  a  young  girl,"  ]DtC 
 S'^m  Spi^^b  bnaa  V~11p  (Chag.  13  a). 
 
3404 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 their  reasons  are  both  the  occun'ence  of  "  Tahmid- 
 ical  Fables"  in  tlie  Tarsiutn  and  the  silence  of  the 
 Fathers.  The  former  is  an  argument  to  wliicli  no 
 reply  is  needed,  since  we  do  not  see  what  it  can  1)6 
 meant  to  prove,  uidess  the  "  Rabbinus  Tahnud  " 
 has  floated  before  their  eyes,  who,  according  to 
 "Henricus  iSeyuensis  Capucinus  "  {Ann.  L'ccL  torn, 
 i.  261),  must  have  written  all  this  gigantic  litera- 
 ture, ranging  over  a  thousand  .years,  out  of  his 
 own  head,  in  which  case,  indeed,  every  dictum  on 
 record,  dating  before  or  after  the  compilation  of  the 
 Talmud,  and  in  the  least  resembling  a  passage  or 
 story  contained  therein,  nuist  be  a  plagiarism  from 
 its  sole  venerable  author.  The  latter  argument, 
 namely,  the  silence  of  the  Fathers,  more  especially 
 of  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Epiphanius,  has  been  an- 
 swered by  Walton ;  and  what  we  have  said  will 
 further  corroborate  his  arguments  to  the  effect,  that 
 they  did  not  mention  it,  not  because  it  did  not  ex- 
 ist in  their  days,  but  because  they  either  knew  noth- 
 ing of  it,  or  did  not  understand  it.  In  the  person 
 of  an  Onkelos,  a  tJhaldee  translator,  the  belief  has 
 been  general,  and  will  remain  so,  as  long  as  the  or- 
 dinary handbooks  —  with  rare  exceptions  —  do  not 
 care  to  notice  the  uncontested  results  of  contempo- 
 rary in\estigation.  How  scholars  within  the  last 
 century  have  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  contradic- 
 tory accounts  about  Onkelos,  more  particularly  how 
 they  have  striven  to  smooth  over  the  difficulty  of 
 their  tallying  with  those  of  Akilas  —  as  far  as  either 
 had  come  under  their  notice  —  for  this  and  other 
 minor  points  we  must  refer  the  reader  to  Eichhorn, 
 Jahn,  Bertholdt,  Hiivernick,  etc. 
 
 We  now  turn  to  the  Targum  itself. 
 
 Its  language  is  Chaldee,  closely  approaching  in 
 purity  of  idiom  to  that  of  Ezra  and  Daniel.  It  fol- 
 lows a  sober  and  clear,  though  not  a  slavish  exege- 
 sis, and  keeps  as  closely  and  minutely  to  the  text 
 as  is  at  all  consistent  with  its  purpose,  namely,  to 
 be  chiefly,  and  above  all,  a  version  for  the  people. 
 Its  explanations  of  difficult  and  obscure  passages 
 bear  ample  witness  to  the  competence  of  those  who 
 gave  it  its  final  shape,  and  infused  into  it  a  rare 
 unity.  Even  where  foreign  matter  is  introduced, 
 or,  as  Berkowitz  in  his  Hebrew  work  Oteh  Or 
 keenly  observes,  where  it  most  artistically  blends 
 two  translations:  one  literal,  and  one  figurative, 
 into  one;  it  steadily  keeps  in  view  the  real  sense  of 
 the  passage  in  hand.  It  is  always  uoncise  and  clear 
 and  dignified,  worthy  of  the  grandeur  of  its  subject. 
 It  avoids  the  legendary  character  with  which  all  the 
 later  Targums  entwine  the  Biblical  word,  as  far  as 
 ever  circumstances  would  allow.  Only  in  the  po- 
 etical passages  it  was  compelled  to  yield  —  though 
 reluctantly  —  to  the  popular  craving  for  Haggadah  ; 
 but  even  here  it  chooses  and  selects  with  rare  taste 
 and  tact. 
 
 Generally  and  broadly  it  may  be  stated  that 
 alterations  are  never  attempted,  save  for  the  sake  of 
 clearness;  tropical  terms  are  dissolved  by  judicious 
 circumlocutions,  for  the  correctness  of  which  the 
 authors  and  editors —  in  possession  of  the  living 
 tradition  of  a  language  still  written,  if  not  spoken 
 in  their  day  —  certainly  seem  better  judges  than 
 some  modern  critics,  who,  through  their  own  incom- 
 plete acquaintance  with  the  idiom,  injudiciously 
 blame  Onkelos.  Highly  characteristic  is  the  aver- 
 sion of  the  Targum  to  anthropopathies  and  anthro- 
 pomorphisms ;  in  fact,  to  any  term  which  could  in 
 the  eyes  of  the  multitude  lower  the  idea  of'the  High- 
 est Being.  Yet  there  are  many  passages  retained  in 
 which  humau  affections  and  qualities  are  attributed 
 
 to  Him.  He  speaks,  He  sees.  He  hears,  lie  smells 
 the  odor  of  sacrifice,  is  angry,  repents,  etc  :  —  the 
 Tai-gum  thus  showing  itself  entirely  ojiposed  to  the 
 allegorizing  and  symbolizing  tendencies,  which  in 
 those,  and  still  more  in  later  days,  were  prone  to 
 transform  Biblical  history  itself  into  the  most  ex- 
 traordin.ary  legends  and  fairy  tales  with  or  without 
 a  moral.  The  Targum,  however,  while  retaiinng 
 terms  like  "the  arm  of  (Jod,"  "  the  right  hand  of 
 God,"  "the  finger  of  God"  —  for  Power,  Provi- 
 dence, etc.  —  replaces  terms  like  "foot,''  "front," 
 "back  of  God,"  by  the  fitting  figurative  meaning. 
 We  nuist  notice  further  its  repugnance  to  bring  the 
 Divine  Being  into  too  close  contact,  as  it  were,  with 
 man.  It  erects  a  kind  of  reverential  barrier,  a  sort 
 of  invisible  medium  of  awful  reverence  between 
 the  Creator  and  the  creature.  Thus  terms  like 
 "  the  Word  "  {Logng  =  Sansk.  Om),  "the  Shechi- 
 iiah "  (Holy  Presence  of  God's  Majesty,  "  the 
 Glory'"),  further,  human  beings  talking  not  to,  but 
 "before"  God,  are  frequent.  The  same  care,  in  a 
 minor  degree,  is  taken  of  the  dignity  of  the  persons 
 of  the  patriarchs,  who,  though  the  Scripture  may 
 expose  their  weaknesses,  were  not  to  be  held  up  in 
 their  iniquities  before  the  multitude  whose  ances- 
 tors and  ideals  they  were.  That  the  most  curious 
 vcrrepa  wporfpa  and  anachronisms  occur,  such  as 
 Jacob  studying  the  Torah  in  the  Academy  of  Shem, 
 etc.,  is  due  to  the  then  current  typifying  tendencies 
 of  the  Haggadah.  Some  extremely  cautious,  withal 
 poetical  alterations  also  occur  when  the  patriarchs 
 speak  of  having  acquired  something  by  violent 
 means:  as  Jacob  (Gen.  xlviii.  22),  by  his  "sword 
 and  bow,"  which  two  words  become  in  the  Tar- 
 gum "  prayers  and  supplications."  But  the  points 
 which  will  have  to  be  considered  chiefly  when  the  ' 
 Targum  becomes  a  serious  study  —  as  throwing 
 the  clearest  light  upon  its  time,  and  the  ideas  then 
 in  vogue  about  matters  connected  with  religious 
 lielief  and  exercises  —  are  those  which  treat  of 
 prayer,  study  of  the  Law,  prophecy,  angelology, 
 and  the  Messiah. 
 
 The  only  competent  investigator  who,  after  Wi- 
 ner (De  Onkaloso,  1820),  but  with  infinitely  more 
 minuteness  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
 has  gone  fully  into  this  matter,  is  Luzzatto.  Con- 
 sidering the  vast  importance  of  this,  the  oldest 
 Targum,  for  Biblical  as  well  as  for  linguistic  studies 
 in  general,  —  not  to  mention  the  advantages  that 
 might  accrue  from  it  to  other  branches  of  learning, 
 such  as  geography,  history,  etc. :  we  think  it  ad- 
 visable to  give,  for  the  first  time,  a  brief  sketch  of 
 the  results  of  this  eminent  scholar.  His  classical, 
 though  not  rigorously  methodical,  Olieb  Ger 
 (18U0)  is,  it  is  true,  quoted  by  every  one,  but  in 
 reality  known  to  but  an  infinitely  small  numlier, 
 although  it  is  written  in  the  most  lucid  modern 
 Helirew. 
 
 He  divides  the  discrepancies  between  Text  and 
 Targum  into  four  principal  classes. 
 
 A.  Where  the  language  of  the  Text  has  been 
 changed  in  the  Targum,  but  the  meaning  of  the 
 former  retained. 
 
 B.  Where  both  language  and  meaning  were 
 changed. 
 
 C.  AVhere  the  meaning  was  retained,  but  addi- 
 tions were  introduced. 
 
 D.  Where  the  meaning  was  changed,  and  addi- 
 tions were  introduced. 
 
 He  further  subdivides  these  four  into  thirty-two 
 classes,  to  all  of  which  he  adds,  in  a  most  thorough 
 and  accurate  manner,  some  telling  specimens     Not- 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3405 
 
 withstanding  the  apparent  pedantry  of  his  method, 
 and  tlie  undeniable  identity  which  necessarily  must 
 exist  between  some  of  his  classes,  a  glance  over 
 their  whole  body,  aided  by  one  or  two  examples  in 
 each  case,  will  enable  us  to  gain  as  clear  an  insight 
 into  the  manner  and  "genius"  of  tlie  Onkelos- 
 Targuni  as  is  possible  without  the  study  of  the 
 worlc  itself. 
 
 (A.)  Discrepancies  where  the  language  of  the  text 
 has  been  changed  in  the  Targum,  but  the  meaning 
 of  the  former  has  been  retained. 
 
 1.  Alterations  owing  to  tlie  idiom:  e.  y.  the  sin- 
 gular,«  "Let  there  be  [sit]  lights"  (Gen.  i.  14),  is 
 transformed  into  the  plural ''  [sinl\  in  the  Targum ; 
 "  man  and  woman,"  '•  as  ai)plied  to  the  animals 
 (Gen.  vii.  2),  becomes,  as  unsuitable  in  the  Ara- 
 maic, "  male  and  female."  '' 
 
 2.  Alterations  out  of  reverence  towards  God, 
 more  especially  for  the  purpose  of  doing  away  with 
 all  ideas  of  a  plurality  of  the  Godhead :  e.  y.  the 
 terms  Adonai,  Elohini,  are  replaced  by  Jehovah, 
 lest  these  might  appear  to  imply  more  than  one 
 God.  Where  Elohim  is  applied  to  idolatry  it  is 
 rendered  "  Error."  « 
 
 3.  Anthropomorphisms,  where  they  could  be 
 misunderstood  and  construed  into  a  disparagement 
 or  a  lowering  of  the  dignity  of  the  Godiiead  among 
 the  common  people,  are  expunged :  e.  y.  for  "  And 
 God  smelled  a  sweet  smell"  (Gen.  viii.  21),  Onke- 
 los  has,  "  And  Jehovaii  received  the  sacrifice  with 
 grace;  "  for  '•  And  Jehovah  went/ down  to  see  the 
 city  "  (Gen.  xi.  5),  "  And  Jehovah  reveidedfi  Him- 
 self," a  term  of  frequent  use  in  the  Targum  for 
 verbs  of  motion,  such  as  "to  go  down,"  "to  go 
 through,"  etc.,  applied  to  God.  "  I  shall  pass  over'' 
 you  "  (Ex.  xii.  13),  the  Targum  renders,  "I  shall 
 protect  3'ou."  J  Yet  only  anthro(X)morphisms  which 
 clearly  stand  figuratively  and  might  give  offense, 
 are  expunged,  not  as  Maimonides,  followed  by  nearly 
 all  commentators,  holds,  all  anthropomorphisms, 
 for  words  like  "hand,  finger,  to  speak,  see,"  etc. 
 (see  above),  are  retained.  But  where  the  words 
 remember,  think  of,  '^'  etc.,  are  used  of  God,  they 
 always,  whatever  their  tense  in  the  text,  stand  in 
 the  Targum  in  the  present;  since  a  past  or  future 
 would  imply  a  temporary  forgetting  on  the  part  of 
 the  Omniscient.'     A  keen  distinction  is  here  also 
 
 established  by  Luzzatto  between  '^TH  and  ^73,  the 
 former  used  of  a  real,  external  seeing,  the  latter  of 
 a  seeing  "  into  the  heart." 
 
 4.  Expressions  used  of  and  to  God  by  men  are 
 brought  more  into  harmony  with  the  idea  of  his 
 dignity.     Thus  Abraham's  question,  "  The  Judge 
 
 of  the  whole  earth,  should  he  not  (Wv)  do  jus- 
 tice? "  (Gen.  xviii.  25)  is  altered  into  the  affirma- 
 tive; "The  Judge  ....  verily   He  will  do  jus- 
 
 M> 
 
 p-T' 
 
 f  in-'i      "  ^bansT        ''  \nnDD 
 '  Dinw  ''  -IDT,  "rpD 
 
 I  Comp.  Prayer  for  Rosh  hasliana,  nHDIi?  ]'^S1 
 
 M 
 
 TDT,  "  And  there  is  no  forgetting  before  the  throne 
 of  Thy  glory."' 
 
 "'  cMbs       "  \-ibm    "  3123m 
 ^  na'^DDT       "^  n-nn       '"  bns 
 
 tice."  Laban,  who  speaks  of  his  gods  "» in  the  text, 
 is  made  to  speak  of  his  religion «  only  in  the 
 Targum. 
 
 5.  Alterations  in  honor  of  Israel  and  their  an- 
 cestors. Rachel  "stole"  "  the  teraphim  (xxxi.  19) 
 is  softened  into  Eachel  "took  ";/'  Jacob  "fled"  <i 
 from  Laban  {ibid.  22),  into  "  went";''  "The  sons 
 of  Jacob  answered  iSheciieni  with  craftiness " 
 (xxxiv.  13),  into  "with  wisdom."  ' 
 
 6.  Short  glosses  introduced  for  the  better  under- 
 standing of  the  text:  "  tor  it  is  my  mouth  that 
 speaks  to  you  "  (xlv.  12),  Joseph  said  to  his  breth- 
 ren: Targum,  "in  your  tongue,"  "  i.  e.  without  an 
 interpreter.  "The  people  who  had  made  the  calf  " 
 (Ex.  xxxii.  35);  Targum,  "worshipped,"  "  since  not 
 they,  but  Aaron  made  it. 
 
 7.  Explanation  of  tropical  and  allegorical  expres- 
 sions: "  J3e  fruitful  (lit.  '  creep,' from  '^"1127)  and 
 multiply"  (Gen.  i.  28),  is  altered  into  "bear 
 children  ;  "  »  "  thy  brother  Aaron  shall  be  thy 
 prophet'"^  (Ex.  vii.  1),  into  "  thy  interpreter  "  J' 
 (Meturgeman);  "  I  made  thee  a  god  (Elohim)  to 
 I'haraoh  "  (Ex.  vii.  1),  into  "  a  master;  "  ^  "  to  a 
 head  and  not  to  a  tail  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  13),  into 
 "to  a  strong  man  and  not  to  a  weak;""'  and 
 finally,  "  Whoever  says  of  his  father  and  his 
 mother,  I  saw  them  not  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  9),  into 
 "  ^Vlloever  is  not  merciful '''  towards  his  father  and 
 his  mother." 
 
 8.  Tending  to  ennoble  the  language:  the  "  wash- 
 ing" of  Aaron  and  his  sons  is  altered  into  "  sanc- 
 tifying C;  "  the  "  carcasses  "  d'  of  the  animals  of 
 Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  11)  become  "  pieces  ; "  «' 
 "anointing"/'  becomes  "elevating,  raising;  "»' 
 "  the  vvife  of  the  bosom,"  '«'  "  wife  of  the  cov- 
 enant."'' 
 
 9.  The  last  of  the  classes  where  the  terms  are 
 altered,  but  the  sense  is  retained,  is  that  in  which 
 a  change  of  language  takes  place  in  order  to  intro- 
 duce the  explanations  of  the  oral  Law  and  the  tra- 
 ditions: e.  //.  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  "On  the  morrow  after 
 the  Sabbath  k'  (j.  e.  the  feast  of  the  unleavened 
 bread)  the  priest  shall  wave  it  (the  sheaf),"  Onkelos 
 for  Sabbath,  ye«s/-c?(/^.''  For  frontlets '"'  (Deut.  vi. 
 8),  TefiJlin  (phylacteries)."' 
 
 (B.)  Change  of  both  the  terms  and  the  mean- 
 ing. 
 
 10.  To  avoid  phrases  apparently  derogatory  to 
 the  dignity  of  the  Divine  Being:  "  Am  I  in  God's 
 stead'?""'  becomes  in  Onkelos,  "Dost  thou  ask 
 [children]  from  me?P'  from  before  God  thou 
 sliouldst  ask  them  "  (Gen.  xxx.  2). 
 
 11.  In  order  to  a\'oid  anthropomorphisms  of  an 
 objectionable  kind.  "  With  the  breath  of  thy 
 nose  "  «'  ("  blast  of  thy  nostrils,"  A.  V.,  Ex.  xv.  8), 
 becomes  "  With  the  word  of  thy  moutli."  ''  "  And 
 
 •'''  ~F?:2"'^p  rm7''K         '-'  n^w 
 
 "'  r^^sn  "'  ^32S  'bw  nnnn 
 
 "'  '131  s-'iJ^  ns  ''acrr 
 
3406 
 
 VfiRSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 I  shall  spread  my  hand  over  thee"«  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
 22),  is  transformed  into  "I  shall  with  my  word 
 protect  thee."  *  "  And  thou  shult  see  my  back 
 partSjf^  but  my  face  f'  shall  not  be  seen  "  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
 23):  "  And  thou  shalt  see  what  is  behind  me,«  but 
 that  which  is  before  me/ shall  not  be  seen  "  (Deut. 
 xxxiii.  12). 
 
 12.  For  the  sake  of  religious  euphemisms:  e.  g. 
 "  And  ye  shall  be  like  God  "  a  (Gen.  iii.  5),  is 
 altered  into  "like  princes."''  "  A  laughter^'  has 
 (jod  made  me"  (Gen.  xxi.  6),  into  "  A  joy  ^"  he 
 gives  me  "  —  "  God  "  being  entirely  omitted. 
 
 13.  Ill  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors: 
 c.  (/.  •'  .lacob  was  an  upright  man,  a  dweller  in 
 tents  "  I  (Gen.  xxv.  27),  becomes  "  an  upright  man. 
 frequenting  the  house  of  learning."  '»  "  One  of  the 
 people «  might  have  lain  with  thy  wife "  (Gen. 
 xxvi.  10)  —  "  One  singled  out  among  the  people,"  o 
 i.  e.  the  king.  "  Thy  brother  came  and  took  my 
 blessing  with  deceit  "i' (Gen.  xxvii.  35),  becomes 
 "  with  wisdom."  9 
 
 14.  In  order  to  avoid  similes  objectionable  on 
 ."Bsthetical  grounds.  "  And  he  will  bathe  his  foot 
 in  oil"''  —  "And  he  will  have  many  delicacies  s 
 of  a  king  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  24). 
 
 15.  In  order  to  ennoble  the  language.  "  And 
 man  became  a  living  being  "  '  ((ien.  ii.  7)  —  "  And 
 it  became  in  man  a  speakincj  spirit."  "  "  How 
 good  are  thy  tents,  ^  O  Jacob  "  —  "  How  good  are 
 thy  lands,'"  O  Jacob"  (Num.  xxiv.  5). 
 
 16.  In  favor  of  the  oral  Law  and  the  Ralibinical 
 explanations.  "  And  go  into  the  land  of  Moriah  "  ^ 
 (Gen.  xxii.  2),  becomes  "  into  the  land  of  worship  " 
 (the  future  place  of  the  Temple).  "  Isaac  went  to 
 walky  in  the  field"  (Gen.  xxiv.  G3),  is  rendered 
 "  to  2»'('iJ-"  ~  [Comp.  Sam.  Pent.,  p.  2812  6] 
 "  Thou  shalt  not  boil  a  kid  «'  in  the  milk  of  its 
 mother"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  26)  —  as  meat  and  milk,^'  ac- 
 cording to  the  Halachah. 
 
 (C.)  Alterations  of  words  (circumlocutions,  ad- 
 ditions, etc.)  without  change  of  meaning. 
 
 17.  On  account  of  the  difference  of  idiom  :  e.  //. 
 "  Her  father's  brother  " '^'  (;=  relation.  Gen.  xxix. 
 12),  is  rendered  "  The  son  of  her  father's  sister."  rf' 
 "  What  God  does^'  (future)  he  has  told  Pharaoh  " 
 (Gen.  xli.  28)  —  "  What  God  will  do,"/'  etc. 
 
 18.  Additions  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  expres- 
 sions apparently  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the 
 Divine  Being,  by  implying  polytheism  and  the  like : 
 "  Who  is  like  unto  Thee. 9'  among  the  gods?  "  is 
 rendered,  "  There  is  none  like  unto  Thee,'''  Thou 
 art  God  "   (Ex.  xv.  11).     "And   they  sacrifice  to 
 
 "  Di:n  ins      °  «^i7n  in'^ai  m 
 ^.nmnn         « sn^inn      *■  pa? 
 
 "  sbbaa  m-ib  cis^  mm 
 
 z  SDHvTD.     [Abraham  instituted,  according  to 
 the   Midrash,    the   morning-   (Shaharith),   Isaac    the 
 
 demons  who  are  no  gods"/  —  "of  no  use"* 
 (Deut.  xxxii.  17). 
 
 19.  In  order  to  avoid  erroneous  notions  impliec. 
 in  certain  verbs  and  epithets  used  of  the  Divine 
 Being:  e.g.  "And  the  Spirit  of  God '' moved  " 
 (Gen.  i.  2)  —  "  A  wind  from  before  the  Lord."  ">' 
 "  And  Noah  built  God  an  altar  "  "'  (Gen.  viii.  20) 
 
 —  "  an  altar  before  »'  the  Lord."  "  And  God  ;>'  was 
 with  the  boy"  (Gen.  r.xi.  20)  —  "  And  the  word 
 of  God  <i'  was  in  the  aid  of  the  boy."  "  The  moun- 
 tain of  God  "  (Ex.  iii.  1)  —  "The  mountain  upon 
 which  was  revealed  the  glory  »•'  of  God."  "  The 
 staff  of  God  "  (Ex.  iv.  20)  —  "  The  staff  with  which 
 thou  hast  done  the  miracles  before*'  God."  "  And 
 I  shall  see  ''  what  will  be  their  end  "  —  "  It  is  open 
 (revealed)  before  me,"  «'  etc.  The  Divine  Being  is 
 ill  fact  very  rarely  spoken  of  without  that  spiritual 
 medium  mentioned  before;  it  being  considered,  as 
 it  were,  a  want  of  proper  reverence  to  speak  to  or 
 
 of  Him  directly.     The  terms   "  Before  "   (mp), 
 
 "Word"  {K6'yos,   Sn^'^a),  "Glory"  (Slp"^), 
 
 "  Majesty  ''  (n^n3Dli7),  are  also  constantly  used 
 
 instead  of  the  Divine  name:  e.  g.  "  The  voice  of 
 the  Lord  God  was  heard"  (Gen.  iii.  8)  —  "The 
 voice  of  the  Word."  "And  he  will  dwell  in  the 
 tents  of  Shem  "  (ix.  27)  —  "And  the  Shechinah 
 [Divine  Presence]  will  dwell."  "And  the  Lord 
 went  up  from  Abraham  "  (Gen.  xvii.  22)  —  "  And 
 the  glory  of  God  went  up."  "  And  God  came  to 
 Abimelech  "  (Gen.  xx.  3)  —  "And  the  word  from 
 [before]  God  came  to  Abimelech." 
 
 20.  For  the  sake  of  improving  seemingly  irrever- 
 ential  phrases  in  Scripture.  "  AVho  is  God  that 
 I  should  Msten  unto  his  voice?  "  (Ex.  v.  2)  —  "  The 
 name  of  God  has  not  been  revealed  to  me,  that  I 
 should  receive  his  word."  '»' 
 
 21.  In  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors. 
 "  And  Israel  said  to  JosejA,  Now  I  shall  gladly 
 die  '' ""'  (Gen.  xlvi.  30),  which  might  appear  frivolous 
 in  the  mouth  of  the  patriarch,  becomes  "  I  shall 
 be  comforted  a:'  now."  "  And  he  led  his  flock  to- 
 wards .'/  the  desert"  (Ex.  iii.  1)  —  "  towards  a  good 
 spot  of  pasture  2'  in  the  desert." 
 
 22.  In  honor  of  the  Law  and  the  explanation  of 
 its  obscurities.     "  To  days  and  years  "  (Gen.  i.  14) 
 
 —  "  that  days  and  years  should  be  counted  by 
 them."  a"  "  A  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil " 
 
 —  "  A  tree,  and  those  who  eat  its  fruits  *"  will  dis- 
 tinguish between  good  and  evil."  "I  shall  not 
 further  curse  for  the  sake  of  c"  man  "  (viii.  21)  — • 
 
 afternoon-    (Minha),    and   Jacob    the    evening-prayet 
 
 (Maarib).] 
 
 "'  nbnn  ^^y   *'  nbm  -W2.     '^  ts 
 ^'  nns  -12  ^  r^w^'2  ^'  -r2i7ab  i\-ir 
 
 •''  ''nbs  sb     *'  im^  p2  n>b 
 ''  a^nbs  mn  ""  a-^nbs  mp  p  m-i 
 '"  'nb  "'  'n  mp       ^  bs 
 
 '''  'm  w-ia>»  ^  snp>    *'  'rr  mp  p 
 ''  \ni7i^         "'  "'fiip  ^bn 
 '■"  n'^-ia'^rin  bspsn  •'b  ^b^ns  sb 
 «"  nmaw     ""  nanas    y'  'jsn  nns 
 ^  3  n'^r-i  -TLv:!      ""  "jinn  •'jTsnb 
 ""  -^mn^s  r^3ST  pVwi    '^'  mni73 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3407 
 
 "  tbrough  the  sin  «  of  man."  "  To  the  ground 
 shall  not  be  forgiven  the  blood  f>  shed  upon  it " 
 (Num.  XXXV.  33)  —  "  the  innocent '^  blood." 
 
 23.  For  the  sake  of  avoiding  similes,  metonym- 
 ical  and  allegorical  passages,  too  difficult  for  the 
 comprehension  of  the  multitude:  e.  (j.  "  Thy  seed 
 like  the  dust  of  the  earth"  (Gen.  xiii.  16)  — 
 "  mighty  ''  as  the  dust  of  the  earth."  "  I  am  too 
 small  for  all  the  benefits  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  10)  —  "  My 
 good  deeds  <^  are  small."  "  And  the  Lord  thy  God 
 will  circumcise  thy  heart "  —  "  the  folly  of  thy 
 heart."/ 
 
 24.  For  the  sake  of  elucidating  apparent  obscuri- 
 ties, etc.,  in  the  written  I-aw.  "  I'lierefore  shall  a 
 man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother"  (Gen.  ii.  24) 
 
 —  "  the  home  "  »  (not  re.ally  his  parents).  "  The 
 will  of  Him  who  dwelleth  in  the  bush  "  —  "  of  Him 
 that  dvvellelh  in  heaven ''  [whose  Shechinah  is  in 
 heaven],  and  who  revealed  Himself  in  the  bush  to 
 Moses." 
 
 25.  fn  favor  of  the  oral  Law  and  the  traditional 
 explanations  generally.  "  He  punishes  the  sins  of 
 the  parents  on  their  children  "  (Ex.  xx.  5),  has  the 
 addition,  "  when  the  children  follow  the  sins  of 
 their  parents  "  (corap.  Ez.  xviii.  19).  "  The  right- 
 eous and  the  just  ye  shall  not  kill"  (Ex.  xxiii.  7) 
 
 —  "  He  who  has  left  the  tribunal  as  innocent,  thou 
 shalt  not  kill  him,"  i.  e.,  according  to  the  Halacha, 
 he  is  not  to  be  arraigned  again  for  the  same  crime. 
 "  Doorposts  "  (mcsusolk)  (Dent.  vi.  9)  —  "  And 
 thou  shalt  write  them  .  .  .  and  affix  them  upon 
 the  posts,"  etc. 
 
 (D.)  Alteration  of  language  and  meaning. 
 
 26.  In  honor  of  the  Divine  Being,  to  avoid 
 apparent  nmltiplicity  or  a  likeness.  "  Behold  man 
 will  be  like  one  of  us,  knowing  good  and  evil  " 
 (Gen.  iii.  22)  —  "  He  will  be  the  only  one  in  the 
 world  i  to  know  good  and  evil."  "  For  who  is  a 
 God  in  heaven  and  on  earth  who  could  do  like  thy 
 deeds  and  powers'?  "  (Deut.  iii.  24)  —  "  Thou  art 
 God,  thy  Divine  Presence  (Shechinah)  is  in  heaven^' 
 above,  and  reigns  on  earth  below,  and  there  is  none 
 who  does  like  unto  thy  deeds,"  etc. 
 
 27.  Alteration  of  epithets  employed  of  God. 
 "And  before  thee  shall  I  hide  myself"  '  (Gen.  iv. 
 14)  —  "  And  before  thee  it  is  not  possible  to  hide."  "' 
 "  This  is  my  God  and  I  will  praise  "  Him,  the  God 
 of  my  father  and  I  will  extol"  Him  "  (Ex.  xv.  2) 
 
 —  "  This  is  my  God,  and  1  will  build  Him  a  sanc- 
 tuary;  ^^  the  God  of  my  fathers,  and  I  will  pray 
 before  Him."  1  "  In  one  moment  I  shall  go  up  in 
 thy  midst  and  annihilate  thee  "  —  "  For  one  hour 
 will  I  take  away  my  majesty  from  among  thee" 
 (since  no  evil  can  come  from  above). 
 
 28.  For  the  ennobling  of  the  sense.  "  Great  is 
 Jehovah  above  all  gods  "  —  "  Great  is  God,  and 
 there  is  no  other  god  beside  Him."  "Send  through 
 him  whom  thou  wilt  send  "  (Ex.  iv.  13)  —  "  through 
 him  who  is  worthy  to  be  sent." 
 
 29.  In  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors. 
 "  And  the  souls  they  made  ^  in  Haran  "  (Gen.  xii. 
 5)  —  "the  souls  they  made  subject  to  the  Divine 
 
 0 
 
 Law '  in  Haran."  "  And  Isaac  brought  her  into 
 the  tent  of  his  mother  Sarah  "  (Gen.  xxiv.  67)  — 
 "  And  lo  righteous  were  her  works,"  like  the  works 
 of  his  mother  Sarah."  "  And  he  bent  his  slioulder 
 to  bear,  and  he  became  a  tributary  servant "  (Gen 
 xlix.  15)  —  "  And  he  will  conquer  the  cities  of  the 
 nations  and  destroy  their  dwelling-places,  and  those 
 that  will  remain  there  will  serve  him  and  pay 
 tribute  to  him."  "People,  foolish  and  not  wise" 
 (Deut.  xxxii.  0)  —  "  People  who  has  received  the 
 Law  and  has  not  become  wise."  " 
 
 30.  Explanatory  of  tropical  and  metonymical 
 phrases.  "  And  besides  thee  no  man  shall  raise  his 
 band  and  his  foot  in  the  whole  land  of  Egypt " 
 (Gen.  xli.  44)  —  "  There  shall  not  a  man  raise  his 
 hand  to  seize  a  weapon,  and  his  foot  to  ride  on  a 
 horse." 
 
 31.  To  ennoble  or  improve  the  language.  "Coats 
 of  skin"  (Gen.  iii.  21)  —  "  Garments  of  honor*" 
 on  the  skin  of  their  flesh."  "  Thy  two  daughters 
 who  are  found  with  thee  "  (Gen.  xix.  15)  —  "  who 
 were  found  faithful  with  thee."  "  May  Reuben 
 live  and  not  die  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  G)  —  "  May  Reuben 
 live  in  the  everlasting  life." 
 
 The  foregoing  examples  will,  we  trust,  be  found 
 to  bear  out  sufficiently  the  judgment  given  above 
 on  this  Targum.  In  spite  of  its  many  and  im- 
 portant discrepancies,  it  never  for  one  moment 
 forgets  its  aim  of  being  a  clear,  though  free,  trans- 
 lation J'or  the  people,  and  nothing  more.  Wher- 
 ever it  deviates  from  the  literalness  of  the  text, 
 such  a  course,  in  its  case,  is  fully  justified  —  nay, 
 necessitated  —  either  by  the  obscurity  of  the  pas- 
 sage, or  the  wrong  construction  that  naturally 
 would  be  put  upon  its  wording  by  the  multitude. 
 The  explanations  given  agree  either  with  the  real 
 sense,  or  develop  the  current  tradition  supi)osed  to 
 underlie  it.  The  specimens  adduced  by  other  in- 
 vestigators, however  differently  classified  or  ex- 
 plained, are  easily  brought  under  the  foregoing 
 heads.  They  one  and  all  tend  to  prove  that 
 Onkelos,  whatever  the  objections  against  single 
 instances,  is  one  of  the  most  excellent  and  thor- 
 oughly competent  interpreters.  A  few  instances 
 only  —  and  they  are  very  few  indeed  —  may  be 
 adduced,  where  even  Onkelos,  as  it  would  appear, 
 "dormitat."  Far  be  it  from  us  for  one  moment 
 to  depreciate,  as  has  been  done,  the  infinitely  supe- 
 rior knowledge  both  of  the  Hebi-ew  and  Chaldee 
 idioms  on  the  part  of  the  writers  and  editors  of 
 our  document,  or  to  attribute  their  discrepancies 
 from  modern  translations  to  ignorance.  They 
 drank  from  the  fullness  of  a  highly  valuable  tra- 
 ditional exegesis,  as  fresh  and  vigorous  in  their 
 days  as  the  Hebrew  language  itself  still  was  in  the 
 circles  of  the  wise,  the  academies  and  schools. 
 But  we  have  this  advantage,  that  words  which 
 then  were  obsolete,  and  whose  meaning  was  known 
 no  longer  —  only  guessed  at  —  are  to  us  familiar 
 by  the  numerous  progeny  they  have  produced  in 
 cognate  idioms,  known  to  us  through  the  mighty 
 spread  of  linguistic  science  in  our  days ;  and  if  we 
 
 "  sm^ii;  ^^2pm 
 
3408 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 are  not  aided  by  a  traditional  exegesis  handed 
 down  within  and  without  the  schools,  perhaps  ever 
 since  the  days  of  the  framing  of  the  docunient 
 itself,  neither  are  we  prejudiced  and  fettered  by  it. 
 Whatever  rnay  be  implied  and  hidden  in  a  verse 
 or  word,  we  liave  no  reason  to  translate  it  accord- 
 ingly, and,  for  the  attaining  of  this  purpose,  to 
 overstrain  tlie  powers  of  tlie  roots.  Among  such 
 small  shortcomings  of  our  translator  may  he  men- 
 tioned that  he  appears  to  liave  erroneously  derived 
 
 nStt7    (Gen.  iv.  7)  from    Stt?3;  tliat    nnD13 
 
 (xx.  6)   is   by  him   rendered     ilPIDIS;    "^"ISS 
 
 (Gen.  xh.  43)  by  SD^nb  SiW;  "l^'S  (Deut. 
 
 xxiv.  5;  *T2i^;  and  the  like.  Corap.  however  the 
 Commentators  on  these  passages. 
 
 The  bulk  of  the  passages  generally  adduced  as 
 proofs  of  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Onkelos 
 have  to  a  great  part  been  shown  in  the  course  of 
 the  foregoing  specimens  to  be  intentional  devia- 
 tions; many  other  passages  not  mentioned  merely 
 instance  the  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  his 
 critics. 
 
 Some  places,  again,  exhil)it  that  blending  of  two 
 distinct  translations,  of  which  we  have  spoken  ;  the 
 catchword  being  apparently  taken  in  two  difterent 
 senses.  Thus  tien.  xxii.  1-3,  where  he  translates: 
 "  And  Abraham  lifted  up  his  eyes  after  these,  and 
 behold  there  was  a  ram;  "  he  has  not  "in  his  per- 
 plexity "  mistranslated  ^^S  for  THS,  but  he  has 
 
 only  placed  for  the  sake  of  clearness  the  "inS 
 after  the  verb  (he  saw),  instead  of  the  noun  (ram); 
 
 and  the  WTH,  which  is  moreover  wanting  in  some 
 
 texts,  has  been  added,  not  as  a  translation  of  "IHS 
 
 or  TnS,  but  in  order  to  make  the  passage  more 
 lucid  still.  A  similar  instance  of  a  double  trans- 
 lation is  found  in  Gen.  ix.  G:  "  Whosoever  sheds  a 
 man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  "  — 
 rendered  "  Whosoever  sheds  the  blood  of  man,  by 
 witnesses  through  the  sentence  of  the  judges  shall 
 
 his  blood  be  shed;  "  Q^S^,  by  man,  being  taken 
 first  as  "  witness,"  and  then  as  "judges." 
 
 We  may  further  notice  tlie  occurrence  of  two 
 Messianic  passages  in  this  Targum :  the  one,  Gen. 
 xlix.  10,  Shiloh;  the  other.  Num.  xxiv.  17,  "scep- 
 tre: "  both  rendered  "  Messiah." 
 
 A  fuller  idea  of  the  "genius"  of  Onkelos  as 
 translator  and  as  paraphrast,  may  be  arrived  at 
 from  the  specimens  sul  joined  in  pp.  3418-3420. 
 
 We  cannot  here  enter  into  anything  like  a  mi- 
 nute account  of  tiie  dialect  of  Onkelos  or  of  any 
 other  Targum.  Kegarding  the  linguistic  shades 
 of  the  difterent  Targums,  we  nuist  confine  ourselves 
 to  the  general  remark,  that  the  later  tlie  \ersion, 
 the  more  corrupt  and  adulterated  its  language. 
 Three  dialects,  however,  are  chiefly  to  be  distin- 
 guished :  as  in  the  Aramaic  idiom  in  general, 
 which  in  contradistinction  to  tlie  Syriac,  or  Chris- 
 tian Aramaic,  may  be  called  Judieo-Aramaic,  so 
 also  in  the  different  Targums ;  and  their  recogni- 
 tion is  a  material  aid  towards  fixing  the  place  of 
 
 '  «t2?-r  for  S22 
 '  -ID1D  for  -liS 
 
 •^  "^r^n^  for  >2-)W 
 
 their  origin;  although  we  must  warn  the  readet 
 that  this  guidance  is  not  always  to  be  relied  upon. 
 
 1.  The  Galilean  dialect,  known  and  spoken  of 
 already  in  the  Talmud  as  tlie  one  which  most 
 carelessly  confounds  its  sounds,  vowels  as  well  as 
 consonants.  "  The  Galileans  are  negligent  with 
 respect  to  their  language,"  and  care  not  for  gram- 
 matical forms  "  '^  is  a  common  saying  in  the  Ge- 
 mara.     We  learn  that   they   did  not  distinguish 
 
 properly  between  B  and   P  {D.,  D),  saying  Tapula 
 
 instead  of  Tabula,  between  Cli  and  K  (3  and  p), 
 saying  ^^ipios  for  Kvpws.  tar  less  could  they 
 distinguish  between  the  various  gutturals,  as  is 
 cleverly  exemplified  in  the  story  where  a  Judoeau 
 asked  a  Galilean,  when  the  latter  wanted  to  buy  an 
 
 ~IQS,  whether  he  meant  "1^27    (wool),  or  "^^M 
 
 (a  lamb),  or  "^^lT  (wine),  or  "I^H  (an  ass). 
 The  next  consequence  of  this  their  disregard  of 
 the  gutturals  was,  that  they  otten  threw  them  off 
 entirely  at  the  beginning  of  a  word  j)e7'  (iphcei'esin. 
 Again  they  contracted,  or  rather  wedged  together, 
 words  of  the  tnost  dissimilar  terminations  and  be- 
 ginnings, liy  confounding  the  vowels  like  the  con- 
 sonants, they  often  created  entirely  new  words  and 
 
 forms.  The  Mappik  H  (i^)  became  Ch  (somewhat 
 similar  to  the  Scotch  pronunciation  of  the  initial 
 H).  As  the  chief  reason  for  this  Galilean  confu- 
 sion of  tongues  (for  which  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  73; 
 Mark  xiv.  70)  may  be  assigned  tlie  increased  fa- 
 cility of  intercourse  with  the  neighboring  nations 
 owing  to  their  northern  situation. 
 
 2.  The  Samaritan  dialect,  a  mixture  of  vulgar 
 Hebrew  and  Aramaian,  in  accordance  with  the  origin 
 of  the  people  itself.  Its  chief  characteristics  are 
 the  frequent  use  of  the  Aiii  (which  not  only  stands 
 for  other  gutturals,  but  is  even  used  as  mater 
 lectionis),  the  commutation  of  the  gutturals  in 
 general,   and  the  indiscriminate  use  of  the  mute 
 
 consonants  ^  for  *1,   p  for  3,   H  for  p,  etc. 
 
 3.  The  Judfean  or  Jerusalem  dialect  (comp. 
 Ned.  G6  b)  scarcely  ever  pronounces  the  gutturals 
 at  tlie  end  properly,  often  throws  them  off  entirely. 
 .Jesliua,  becomes  Jeshu  ;  Sheba  —  Shib.  Many 
 words  are  peculiar  to  this  dialect  alone.  The  ap- 
 pellations of  "door,"<^  "light,"''  "  reward,"  «  etc., 
 are  totally  ditterent  from  tliose  used  in  the  other 
 dialects.  Altogether  all  the  peculiarities  of  pro- 
 vincialism, shortening  and  lengthening  of  vowels, 
 idiomatic  phrases  and  words,  also  an  orthography 
 of  its  own,  generally  with  a  fuller  and  broader 
 vocalization,  are  noticeable  throughout  both  the 
 Targums  and  the  Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  which,  for 
 the  further  elucidation  of  this  point,  as  of  many 
 others,  have  as  yet  not  found  an  investigator. 
 
 Tlie  following  recognized  Greek  words,  the  greater 
 part  of  which  also  occur  in  the  Talmud  and  Mid- 
 rash,  are  found  in  Onkelos;  Ex.  xxviii.  25,  jSiijpuA- 
 \os;-^  Ex.  xxviii.  11,  y\v<pi]\y  Gen.  x.xviii.  17, 
 iSicoTTjs;''  Lev.  xi.  30,  kq}\wttjs;J  Ex.  xxviii.  19, 
 GpdKias^  (Plin.  xxxvii.  68);  Ex..  xxxix.  11,  Kap- 
 XV^^fioi,  '  comp.  Pes.  der.  Kah.  xxxii.  (Carljun- 
 culi);  Deut.  xx.  20,  xapaKS^M"'"  (^^^-  ^"  ^cviii.); 
 
 K'-p-ia 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 Ex.  xxviii.  20,  ;;^pajjua;"  Num.  xv.  38,  Deut.  xxii. 
 12,  Kpda-ireSov  ;  ''  Ex.  xxx.  34,  k'kttos  ;  *=  (ien. 
 xxxvii.  28,  ArjSoy;''  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  cl)dp(ros;^  Ex. 
 xxvi.  6,  TrJpTTi) ;  /  Gen.  vi.  14,  KiSpos\'J  Ex.  xxviii. 
 19,  Keyxpos''  (Plin.  xxxvii.  4).  I'o  these  may  be 
 acUled  the  unrecognized  nepa/j.is''  (Ex.  xxi.  18), 
 Xt^povxv,'^  or  \f^p6xv  (Gen.  xxx.  14),  &c. 
 
 The  following  short  rules  on  the  general  mode 
 of  transcribing  the  Greek  letters  in  Aramaic  and 
 Syriac  (Targuni,  Talmud,  IMidrash,  etc.),  may  not 
 be  out  of  place :  — 
 
 r  before  palatals,  pronounced  like  y^  becomes  3. 
 
 7.  is  rendered  by  T. 
 
 H  appears  to  have  occasionally  assumed  the  pro- 
 nunciation of  a  consonant  (Digamnia);  and  a  1 
 is  inserted. 
 
 ©  is  n,  T  ^'  But  this  rule,  even  making  al- 
 lovifances  for  corruptions,  does  not  always  seem  to 
 have  been  strictly  observed. 
 
 K  is  p,  sometimes  3. 
 
 M,  which  before  labials  stands  in  lieu  of  a  j/, 
 
 becomes  3  :  occasionally  a  3  is  inserted  before 
 labials  where  it  is  not  found  in  the  Greek  word. 
 
 H,  generally  D3,  sometimes,    however,    t3  or 
 
 n    is    D,   sometimes,    however,    it    is    softened 
 
 into  2. 
 
 P  is  sometimes  altered  into    V  or  3. 
 
 'P  becomes  either  Til  or  "IH  at  the  beginning 
 of  a  word. 
 
 2  either  D  or  T. 
 
 The  spiritKs  rrti/;ey,  which  in  Greek  is  dropped  in 
 the  middle  of  a  word,  reappears  again  sometimes 
 {<xvv4bpoi —  San/iedrin).  Even  the  lenis  is  repre- 
 sented sometimes  by  a  T\  at  the  beginning  of  a 
 word  ;  sometimes,  however,  even  the  agper  is 
 dropped. 
 
 As  to  the  vowels  no  distinct  rule  is  to  be  laid 
 down,  owing  principally  to  the  original  want  of 
 vowel-points  in  our  texts. 
 
 Before  double  consonants  at  the  beginning  of  a 
 
 word  an  M  j^'osthetictan  is  placed,  so  as  to  render 
 the  pronunciation  easier.  The  terminations  are  fre- 
 quently Hebraized :  thus  oi  is  sometimes  rendered 
 
 by  the  termination  of  the  Masc.  PI.  C^,  etc. 
 
 A  curious  and  instructive  comparison  may  be 
 instituted,  between  this  mode  of  transcription  of 
 the  Greek  letters  into  Hebrew,  and  that  of  the 
 Hebrew  letters  into  Greek,  as  found  chiefly  in  the 
 LXX. 
 
 S  sometimes  inaudible  {spirit,  fen.),  ' hapdv, 
 'EA/cara;  sometimes  audible  (as  spirit,  asper),  'A/8- 
 pad/x,  'HAias. 
 
 2  =;8:  'Pe^fKKa;  sometimes  (p:  'laKe0(7}(p, 
 sometimes  v-  'Pauv,  sometimes  fj,0:  Zepovfj.0a- 
 jSeA,  sometimes  it  is  completely  changed  into  /x: 
 'la/Mffia  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  6). 
 
 «  (S!3"^)  DTn3  (Mich.  Lex.  Syr.  436,  makes  it 
 Persian . ) 
 
 W1DD1-13 
 
 n^73 
 
 citob 
 
 3409 
 
 3=7:  r6ixep,  sometimes  « :  AcoVjic,  sometimes 
 
 1  ^  S:  once  =  t  MaTpaid  (Gen.  xxxvi.  39). 
 
 n  =  M,  either  spirit,  asp.  like  'OSoppd,  ot 
 spir.  ten.  like  'A/SeA. 
 
 T  =  u,  not  the  vowel,  but  our  v.  ''Eva,  Aeui': 
 thus  also  ov  (as  the  Greek  writers  often  express 
 the  Latin  v  by  ov)-  'Uaaovd-  sometimes  = /3: 
 'Za^v  (Gen.  xiv.  5);  sometimes  it  is  entirely  left 
 out,  'AfTTt  for  Vashti. 
 
 T  =  C,  sometimes  a:  Za&ovXdiv,  Xaa^i,  rarely 
 |:  Boy|  (Gen.  xxii.  21). 
 
 n,  often  entirely  omitted,  or  represented  by  a 
 *■/;/)•.  len.  in  the  beginning,  or  the  reduplication  of 
 the  vowel  in  the  middle  or  at  the  end  of  the  word, 
 sometimes  ^  X:  Xa/x  ;  sometimes  =  «:  TajSs/c 
 (Gen.  xxii.  24). 
 
 ti  =  T :  2a(^aT :  sometimes  :=  5 :  *ou5  (Gen. 
 X.  G);  or  0:  'E\t(pa\d9  (2  Sam.  v.  16). 
 
 "^  =  I:  'laKcifi,  or  i  before  p  ("1):  'lepe/xias. 
 Between  several  vowels  it  is  sometimes  entirely 
 omitted:  'IcoaSa. 
 
 3  =  X  =  Xaj/aai/  ;  sometimes  k  :  ^a/SadaKa 
 (Gen.  X.  7);  rarely  =  y.  ratpdcepei/x. 
 
 7,  3,  1  =  A.,  J-,  p  ;  but  they  are  often  found 
 interchanged .  owing  perhaps  to  the  similarity  of 
 
 the  Greek  letters.     3  is  sometimes  also  rendered  fx 
 (see  above). 
 
 1^  =  ;U,  sometimes  p:  Ne/8pc6o,  SejSAci  (1  Chr. 
 i.  47). 
 
 W  and  D  =  (t:  'Svfj.euu,  'Zrielp,  2iV. 
 
 V  =  spir.  len.:  'E(ppwv'-  sometimes  = -y  (c) 
 
 Topoppa\  sometimes  k-  'Ap06K  (Gen.  xxiii.  2). 
 
 2  =  (^:  #aAe'7,  or  rr'  2aATraa5. 
 
 ^  =  0-:  SiScov;  sometimes  ^:  Oij^  (Gen.  x.  23; 
 Cod.  Alex.  ■'Xls;  xxii.  21,  "n^). 
 
 'p  =  Ki  BaActK ;  sometimes  x '■  Xerrovpd ;  also 
 a:  XeAeA. 
 
 n  =  0:  'lacked;  sometimes  t:  Toxiis. 
 
 As  to  the  Bible  Text  from  which  the  Targuni 
 was  prepared,  we  can  only  reiterate  that  we  have 
 no  certainty  whatever  on  this  head,  owing  to  the 
 extraordinarily  corrupt  state  of  our  Targum  texts. 
 Pages  upon  pages  of  Variants  have  been  gathered 
 by  Cappellus,  Kennicott,  Buxtorf,  De  Kossi,  Cler- 
 icus,  Luzzatto,  and  others,  by  a  supei-ficial  com- 
 parison of  a  few  copies  only,  and  those  chiefly 
 printed  ones.  Whenever  the  very  numerous  MSS. 
 shall  be  collated,  then  the  learned  world  may  pos- 
 sibly come  to  certain  probable  conclusions  on  it. 
 It  would  appear,  however,  that  broadly  speaking, 
 our  present  Masoretic  text  has  lieen  the  one  from 
 which  the  Onk.  Version  was,  if  not  made,  yet 
 edited,  at  all  events;  unless  we  assume  that  late 
 hands  have  been  intentionally  busy  in  mutually 
 assimilating  text  and    translation.     Many  of  the 
 
 /w>: 
 
 sD-nD        "  Di-np 
 
3410 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 inferences  drawn  by  De  Rossi  and  others  from  the 
 discrepancies  of  the  version  to  discrepancies  of  the 
 original  from  the  Masor.  text,  must  needs  be  re- 
 jected if  Onkelos'  method  and  phraseology,  as  we 
 liave  exhibited  it,  are  taken  into  consideration. 
 Thus,  when  (Kx.  xxiv.  7)  "before  the  people"  is 
 found  in  Onkelos,  while  our  Hebrew  text  reads 
 "  in  the  ears,"  it  by  no  means  follows  that  Onkelos 
 
 read  "'STSS  :  it  is  simply  his  way  of  explaining 
 the  unusual  phrase,  to  which  he  remains  faithful 
 throughout.  Or,  '•  Lead  the  people  unto  the  place 
 (A.  V.)  of  which  I  have  spoken  (Kx.  xxxii.  34),  is 
 
 solely  Onkelos'  translation  of  "Ili^S  vS,  soil,  the 
 
 place,  and  no  mpi2  need  be  conjectured  as  hav- 
 ing stood  in  Onkelos'  copy;  as  also  (Ex.  ix.  7) 
 his  addition  "  From  the  cattle  of  '  the  children  of 
 
 Israel "  does  not  prove  a  *^2'D.  to  have  stood  in 
 his  Codex. 
 
 And  this  also  settles  (or  rather  leaves  unsettled), 
 the  question  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  targumic 
 texts,  such  as  we  have  them.  Considering  that 
 no  JMS.  has  as  yet  been  found  older  than  at  most 
 GOO  years,  even  the  careful  comparison  of  all  those 
 that  do  exist  would  not  much  further  our  knowl- 
 edge. As  far  as  those  existing  are  concerned,  they 
 teem  with  the  most  palpable  blunders,  —  not  to 
 speak  of  variants,  owing  to  sheer  carelessness  on  the 
 part  of  the  copyists ;  —  but  few  are  of  a  nature  dam- 
 aging the  sense  materially.  The  circumstance 
 that  text  and  Targum  were  often  placed  side  by 
 side,  column  by  column,  must  have  had  no  little 
 share  in  the  incorrectness,  since  it  was  but  natural 
 to  make  the  Targum  resemble  the  text  as  closely 
 as  possible,  while  the  nature  of  its  material  differ- 
 ences was  often  unknown  to  the  scribe.  In  fact, 
 the  accent  itself  was  made  to  fit  both  the  Hebrew 
 and  the  Chaldee  wherever  a  larger  addition  did  not 
 render  it  utterly  impossible.  Thus  letters  are  in- 
 serted, omitted,  thrust  in,  blotted  out,  erased,  in  an 
 infinite  number  of  places.  But  the  difference  goes 
 still  further.  In  some  Codices  synonymous  terms 
 are    us  d    most   arbitrarily   as    it    would    appear: 
 
 nyiW  and  SnmS  earth,  mS  and  S'lT'^S 
 
 man,    HIIS    and    "[bnn    path,     mH"^    and 
 
 D'n^S,  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  are  found  to  re- 
 place each  other  indiscriminately.  In  some  in- 
 stances, the  Hebrew  Coc^ex  itself  has,  'to  add  to  the 
 confusion,  been  emendated  from  the  Targum. 
 
 A  Masorah  has  been  written  on  Onkelos,  with- 
 out, however,  any  authority  being  inherent  in  it, 
 and  without,  we  should  say,  much  value.  It  has 
 never  been  printed,  nor,  as  far  as  we  have  been 
 able  to  ascertain,  is  there  any  MS.  now  to  be  found 
 in  this  country,  or  in  any  of  the  public  libraries 
 abroad.  What  has  become  of  Buxtorf's  copy, 
 which  he  intended  to  add  to  his  never  printed 
 "  Babylonia"  —  a  book  devoted  to  this  same  subject 
 —  we  do  not  know.  Luzzatto  has  lately  found  such 
 a  "  Masorah  "  in  a  Pentateuch  MS.,  but  he  only 
 mentions  some  variants  contained  in  it.  Its  title 
 must  not  mislead  the  reader;  it  has  nothing  what- 
 ever to  do  with  the  Masorah  of  the  Bible,  but  is  a  re- 
 cent work,  like  the  Masorah  of  the  Talmud,  which 
 has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  Talmud  text. 
 
 The  MSS.  of  Onkelos  are  extant  in  great  num- 
 bers —  a  circumstance  easily  explained  by  the  in- 
 junction that  it  should  be  read  every  Sal)bath  at 
 home,  if  not  in  the  synagogue.     The  Bodleian  has 
 
 5,  the  British  Museum  2,  Vienna  6,  Augsburg  1, 
 Nuremberg  2,  Altdorf  1,  Carlsruhe  3,  Stuttgart  2. 
 Erfurt  3,  Dresden  1,  Leipsic  1,  Jena  1,  Dessau  1, 
 Helmstadt  2,  Berlin  4,  Breslau  1,  Brieg  ],  Hegens- 
 burg  1,  Hamburg  7,  Copenhagen  2,  Upsala  1 
 Amsterdam  1,  Paris  8,  Molsheim  1,  Venice  6, 
 Turin  2,  Milan  4,  Leghorn  1,  Sienna  1,  Genoa  1, 
 Florence  5,  Bologna  2,  Padua  1,  Trieste  2,  Parma 
 about  40,  Kome  18  more  or  less  complete  Codd. 
 containing  Onkelos. 
 
 Editio  Frinceps,  Bologna  1482,  foL  (Abr.  b. 
 Chajjim)  with  Hebr.  Text  and  Rashi.  Later  Edd. 
 Soria  1490,  Lisbon  1491,  Constantinople  1505: 
 from  these  were  taken  the  texts  in  the  Compluten- 
 sian  (1517)  and  the  Venice  (Bomberg)  Polyglotts 
 (1518,  1526,  1547-49),  and  Buxtorf's  Rabltinical 
 Bible  (1619).  This  was  followed  by  the  Paris 
 Polyglott  (1045),  and  Walton's  (1657).  A  recent 
 and  much  emendated  edition  dates  Wilna  1852. 
 
 Of  the  extraordinary  similarity  between  Onkelbs 
 and  the  Samaritan  version  we  have  spoken  under 
 Samai!It.\n  Pentateuch  [p.  2813].  There  also 
 will  be  found  a  specimen  of  both,  taken  from  the 
 Barberini  Codex.  Many  more  points  connected 
 with  Onkelos  and  his  influence  upon  later  herme- 
 neutics  and  exegesis,  as  well  as  his  relation  to  ear- 
 lier or  later  versions,  we  have  no  space  to  enlarge 
 upon,  desirable  as  an  investigation  of  these  points 
 might  be.  We  have,  indeed,  only  been  induced  to 
 dwell  so  long  upon  this  siuL'le  Targum,  because  in 
 the  first  instance  a  great  deal  that  has  been  said 
 here  will,  Jiiutatis  mutandh,  hold  good  also  for  the 
 oilier  Targums  ;  and  further,  because  Onkelos  is 
 THE  Chaldee  version  kot'  4foxvv,  while,  from 
 Jonathan  downwards,  we  more  and  more  leave  the 
 province  of  Version  and  gradually  arrive  from  Para- 
 phrase to  Midrash-Haggadah.  We  shall  therefore 
 not  enter  at  any  length  into  these,  but  confine  our- 
 selves chiefly  to  main  results. 
 
 II.  Targum  on  the  Prophets, 
 Namely,   Joshua,  Judges,   Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  Minor  J'rophets, 
 —  called  Targum  of  Jonathan  hen  Uzziel. 
 
 Next  in  time  and  importance  to  Onkelos  on  the 
 Pentateuch  stands  the  Targum  on  the  Prophets, 
 which  in  our  printed  Edd.  and  M.SS.  —  none  older, 
 we  repeat  it,  than  about  600  years  —  is  ascribed  to 
 Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  of  whom  the  Talmud  contains 
 the  following  statements  :  (1.)  "  Eighty  disciples 
 had  Hillel  the  Elder,  thirty  of  wliom  were  worthy 
 that  the  Shechinah  (Divine  JNIajesty)  should  rest 
 upon  them,  as  it  did  upon  Moses  our  Lord;  peace 
 be  upon  him.  Thirty  of  them  were  worthy  that 
 the  sun  should  stand  still  at  their  bidding  as  it  did 
 at  that  of  Joshua  ben  Nun.  Twenty  were  of  in- 
 termediate worth.  The  greatest  of  them  all  was 
 Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the  least  R.  Johanan  ben 
 Saccai;  and  it  was  said  of  R.  Johanan  b.  Saccai, 
 that  he  left  not  (uninvestig.ited )  the  Bible,  the 
 Mishna,  the  Gemara,  the  Ilalachahs,  the  Hagga- 
 dahs,  the  subtleties  of  the  Law,  and  the  subtleties 
 of  the  Soferim  .  .  .  .  ;  the  easy  things  and  the 
 difficult  things  [from  the  most  awful  Divine  mys- 
 teries to  the  common  popular  proverbs]  ....  If 
 this  is  said  of  the  least  of  them,  what  is  to  be  said 
 of  the  greatest,  i.  e.  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel?  "  (Bab. 
 Bath.  134  n;  comp.  Succ.  28  a.)  (2.)  A  second 
 passage  (see  Onkelos)  referring  more  especially  to 
 our  present  subject,  reads  as  follows:  "The  Tar- 
 gum of  Onkelos  was  made  by  Onkelos  the  Prose- 
 lyte from  the  mouth  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Jehosbua 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3411 
 
 and  that  of  the  Prophets  by  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel 
 from  the  mouth  of  Ilaggai,  Zecliariah,  and  Mala- 
 chi.     And  in   that   hour   was    the  land  of  Israel 
 
 shaken  three  hundred  parasaiigs And  a 
 
 voice  was  heard,  saying,  '  Who  is  this  who  has  re- 
 vealed my  secrets  unto  the  sons  of  man  ?  '  Up 
 rose  Jonathan  lieu  Uzziel  and  said  :  '  It  is  I  who 
 have  revealed  thy  secrets  to  tlie  sons  of  man.  .  .  . 
 But  it  is  known  and  revealed  before  Thee,  that  not 
 for  my  honor  have  I  done  it,  nor  for  the  honor  of 
 my  father's  liouse,  but  for  thine  honor;  that  the 
 disputes  may  cease  in  Israel.'  ....  And  he  fur- 
 ther desired  to  reveal  the  Targum  to  the  Hagiog- 
 raplia,  when  a  voice  was  heard :  '  Enough.'  And 
 why  '^  —  because  the  day  of  the  Messiah  is  revealed 
 therein  (Meg.  3  a)."  Wonderful  to  relate,  the  sole 
 and  exclusive  authority  for  the  general  belief  in  the 
 authorship  of  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel,  is  this  second 
 Haggadistic  passage  exclusively;  which,  if  it  does 
 mean  anything,  does  at  all  events  not  mean  our 
 Targum,  which  is  found  mourning  over  the  "  Tem- 
 ple in  ruins,"  full  of  invectives  against  Rome  (Sam. 
 xi.  5;  Is.  xxxiv.  9,  <fec.,  &c.),  mentioning  Armillus 
 (Is.  X.  4)  (the  Antichrist),  Germania  (i'lz.  xxxviii. 
 6):  not  to  dwell  upon  the  thousand  and  one  other 
 internal  and  external  evidences  against  a  date  ante- 
 rior to  the  Christian  era.  If  interpolations  iiuist 
 be  assumed,  —  and  indeed  Kashi  speaks  already  of 
 corru[)tions  in  his  MSS.  —  such  solitary  additions 
 are  at  all  events  a  very  different  thing  from  a 
 wholesale  system  of  intentional  and  minute  inter- 
 polation throughout  the  bulky  work.  But  wliat 
 is  still  more  extraordinary,  this  belief — long  and 
 partly  still  upheld  most  reverentially  against  all 
 difficulties  —  is  completely  modern :  that  is,  not 
 older  than  at  most  600  years  (the  date  of  our  old- 
 est Targum  MSS.),  and  is  utterly  at  variance  with 
 the  real  and  genuine  sources:  the  Talmud,  the 
 Midrash,  the  Babylonian  Schools,  and  every  au- 
 thority down  to  Hai  Gaou  (12th  cent.)-  F'e- 
 quently  quoted  as  this  Targum  is  in  the  ancient 
 works,  it  is  never  once  quoted  as  the  Targum  of 
 .Tonathan.  But  it  is  invariably  introduced  with 
 the  formula  :  "  I!.  Joseph  «  (bar  Chama,  tlie 
 Blind,  euphemistically  called  the  clear-sighted,  the 
 well-known  President  of  Pumbaditha  in  Babylonia, 
 who  succeeded  Rabba  in  319  A.  D)  says,"  etc. 
 (Moed  Katon  20  a,  Pesach.  68  a,  Sanh.  94  b). 
 Twice  even  it  is  quoted  in  Joseph's  name,  and  with 
 the  addition,  "  Without  the  Targum  to  this  verse 
 (due  to  liim)  we  could  not  understand  it."  This 
 is  the  simple  state  of  the  case:  and  for  more  than 
 two  hundred  years  critics  have  lavished  all  their 
 acumen  to  defend  what  never  had  any  real  exist- 
 ence, or  at  best  owed  its  apparent  existence  to  a 
 heading  added  by  a  superficial  scribe. 
 
 The  date  which  the  Talmud  thus  in  reality 
 assigns  to  our  Targum  fully  coincides  with  our 
 former  conclusions  as  to  the  date  of  written  Tar- 
 gums  in  general.  And  if  we  may  gather  thus 
 much  from  the  legend  that  to  write  down  the  Tar- 
 gum to  the  Prophets  was  considered  a  much  Iwlder 
 undertaking  —  and  one  to  which  still  more  reluct- 
 antly leave  was  given  —  than  a  Targum  on  the 
 Pentateuch,  we  shall  not  be  far  wrong  in  placing 
 this  Targum  some  time,  although  not  long,  after 
 Onkelos,  or  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century; 
 —  the  latter  years  of  R.  Joseph,  who  it  is  said, 
 occupied  himself  chiefly  with  the  Targum  when  he 
 
 a  "  Sinai,''  "  Possessor  of  Wheat,"  in  allusion  to  his 
 last  mastery  over  the  traditions. 
 
 had  become  blind.  The  reason  given  for  that  re- 
 luctance is,  although  hyperbolically  expressed,  jier- 
 fectly  clear:  "  The  Targum  on  the  I'rophets  revealed 
 the  secrets  "  —  that  is,  it  allowed  free  scope  to  the 
 wildest  fantasy  to  run  riot  upon  the  prophetic  pas- 
 sages —  tempting  through  their  sery  obscurity,  — 
 and  to  utter  explanations  and  interpretations  rela- 
 tive to  present  events,  and  oracles  of  its  own  for 
 future  times,  which  might  be  fraught  with  grave 
 dangers  in  more  than  one  respect.  The  Targum 
 on  the  Pentateuch  (permitted  to  lie  committed  to 
 writing,  Meg.  3  «  ,■  Kidd.  69  a)  could  not  but  be, 
 even  in  its  written  form,  more  sober,  more  dignified, 
 more  within  the  bounds  of  iixed  and  well-known 
 traditions,  than  any  other  Targum ;  since  it  had 
 originally  been  read  publicly,  and  been  checked  by 
 the  congregation  as  well  as  the  authorities  present; 
 —  as  we  have  endeavored  to  explain  in  the  iTitro- 
 duction.  There  is  no  proof,  on  the  other  hand,  of 
 more  than  fragments  from  the  Prophets  having 
 ever  been  read  and  translated  in  the  synagogue. 
 Whether,  however,  R.  Joseph  was  more  than  the 
 redactor  of  this  the  second  part  of  the  Bible- 
 Targuni,  whicli  was  originated  in  Palestine,  and 
 was  reduced  to  its  final  shape  in  Baliylon,  we  can- 
 not determine.  He  may  perhaps  have  made  con- 
 siderable additions  of  his  own,  by  filling  up  gaps 
 or  rejecting  wrong  versions  of  some  parts.  So 
 much  seems  certain,  that  the  schoolmen  of  his 
 Academy  were  the  collectors  and  revisers,  and  he 
 gave  it  that  stamp  of  unity  which  it  now  possesses, 
 spite  of  the  occasional  difference  of  style:  adapted 
 simply  to  the  variegated  hues  and  dictions  of  its 
 manifold  Biblical  originals. 
 
 But  we  do  not  mean  to  reject  in  the  main  either 
 of  the  Tahnudical  passages  quoted.  We  believe 
 that  there  was  such  a  man  as  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel, 
 that  he  was  one  of  the  foremost  pupils  of  Hillel, 
 and  also  that  he  did  translate,  either  privately  or 
 publicly,  parts  of  the  prophetical  books ;  chiefly,  we 
 should  s.ay,  in  a  mystical  manner.  And  so  start- 
 ling were  his  interpretations — borne  aloft  by  his 
 high  fame — that  who  but  prophets  themselves 
 could  have  revealed  them  to  him  ?  And,  going  a 
 step  further,  who  could  reveal  prophetic  allegories 
 and  mysteries  of  nil  the  prophetic  books,  but  those 
 who,  themselves  the  last  in  the  list,  had  the  whole 
 body  of  sacred  oracles  before  them  ?  This  appears 
 to  us  the  only  rational  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
 the  facts:  as  they  stand,  not  as  they  are  imagined. 
 That  nothing  save  a  fevi'  snatches  of  this  original 
 paraphrase  or  Midrash  could  be  embodied  in  our 
 Targum,  we  need  not  urge.  Yet  fo^  these  even  we 
 have  no  proof.  Zunz,  the  facile,  princeps  of  Tar- 
 gumic  as  well  as  Midrashic  investigation,  who.  as 
 late  as  1830  (Gottesd.  Vortr.),  still  believed  him- 
 self in  the  modern  notion  of  Jonathan's  authorship 
 ("  first  half  of  first  century,  A.  d."),  now  utterly 
 rejects  the  notion  of  "  our  possessing  anything  of 
 Jonathan  ben  Uzziel "  (Geiger's  Zeitschr.  1837, 
 p.  2.50). 
 
 Less  conservative  than  our  view,  however,  are 
 the  views  of  the  modern  school  (Rappoport,  Luz- 
 zatto,  Frankel,  Geiger,  Levy,  Bauer,  Jahn,  Ber- 
 tlioidt,  Levysohn,  etc.),  who  not  only  reject  the  au- 
 thorship of  Jonathan,  but  also  utterly  deny  that 
 there  was  any  ground  whatsoever  for  assigning  a 
 Targum  to  him,  as  is  done  in  the  Talmud.  The 
 passage,  they  say,  is  not  older,  but  yoiniger  than 
 our  Targum,  and  in  fact  does  apply,  erroneously  of 
 course,  to  this,  and  to  no  other  work  of  a  similar 
 kind.     The  popular  cry  for  a  great  "  name,  upon 
 
3412 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 which  to  hang  "  —  in  Talmudical  phraseology  — 
 all  that  is  cherished  and  venerated,  and  the  wish  of 
 those  eager  to  impart  to  this  Version  a  lasting  au- 
 thority, found  in  Jonathan  the  most  fitting  person 
 to  father  it  upon.  Was  he  not  the  greatest  of  the 
 great,  "  who  had  been  dusted  with  tlie  dust  of  Hil- 
 iePs  feetV"  He  was  the  wisest  of  the  wise,  the 
 one  most  inihued  with  knowledge  human  and  di- 
 vine, of  all  those  eighty,  the  least  of  whom  was 
 worthy  that  the  sun  should  stay  its  course  at  his 
 bidding.  Nay,  such  were  the  flames  "  that  arose 
 from  his  glowing  spirit,  says  the  hyperbolic  Ilag- 
 gadah,  that  "  when  he  studied  in  the  Law,  the  very 
 birds  that  flew  over  him  in  the  air,  were  consumed 
 by  fire"  {nis7-ephu>> — not,  as  Landau,  in  the 
 preface  to  his  Aruch,  apologetically  translates,  be- 
 came Sti'oplis).  At  the  same  time  we  readily 
 grant  that  we  see  no  reason  why  the  great  Hillel 
 himself,  or  any  other  much  earlier  and  equally  emi 
 nent  JLaster  of  the  Law,  one  of  the  Soferim  perhaps, 
 should  not  have  been  fixed  upon. 
 
 Another  suggestion,  first  broached  by  Drusius, 
 and  long  exploded,  has  recently  been  revived  under 
 a  somewhat  modified  form.  Jonathan  (Godgiven), 
 Drusius  said,  was  none  else  but  Theodotion  (God- 
 given),  the  second  Greek  translator  of  the  Bible 
 after  the  LXX.,  who  had  become  a  Jewish  pros- 
 elyte. Considering  that  the  latter  lived  under 
 Commodus  IL,  and  the  former  at  the  time  of 
 Christ;  that  the  latter  is  said  to  have  translated 
 the  Prophets  only  (neither  the  Pentateuch,  nor 
 the  Has;iogra[)ha),  while  the  former  translated  the 
 whole  Bilile;  that  Jonathan  translated  into  Ara- 
 maic and  Theodotion  into  Greek,  — not  to  mention 
 the  fact  that  Theodotion  was,  to  say  the  least,  a 
 not  very  competent  translator,  since  "  ignorance 
 or  negligence  "  (Jlontfaucon,  Fref.  to  liexajda), 
 or  both,  must  needs  be  laid  at  the  door  of  a  trans- 
 lator, who,  w-hen  in  difficulties,  simply  transcribes 
 the  hard  Hebrew  words  into  Greek  characters, 
 without  troubling  himself  any  further; 5  wliile  the 
 mastery  over  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic 
 displayed  in  the  Jonathanic  Version  are  astound- 
 ing: —  considering  all  this,  we  need  not  Uke  Wal- 
 ton ask  caustically,  why  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel 
 should  not  rather  be  identified  with  the  Emperor 
 Theodosius,  whose  name  also  is  "Godgiven;"  — 
 but  dismiss  the  suggestion  as  Carpzov  long  since 
 dismissed  it.  We  are,  however,  told  now  (Luzzatto, 
 Geiger,  etc.),  that  as  the  Babylonian  Targum  on 
 the  Pentateuch  was  called  a  Targum  "  in  the 
 manner  of  Aquila  or  Onkelos,"  i.  e.  of  sterling 
 value,  so  also  the  continuation  of  the  Babylonian 
 Targum,  which  embraced  the  Prophets,  was  called 
 a  Targum  "in  the  manner  of  Theodotion  "  = 
 Jonathan;  and  by  a  further  stretch,  Jonathan- 
 Theodotion  became  the  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel.  ^^'e 
 cannot  but  disagree  with  this  hypothesis  also  — 
 based  on  next  to  nothing,  and  carried  to, more 
 than  the  usual  length  of  speculation.  While  Akyla 
 is  quoted  continually  in  the  Talmud,  and  is  de- 
 servedly one  of  the  best  known  and  best  beloved 
 characters,  every  trait  and  incident  of  whose  per- 
 sonal history  is  told  even  twice  over,  not  the  slight- 
 est  trace   of  §uch  a  person  as  Theodotion  is  to 
 
 «  The  simile  of  the  fire  —  "  as  tlie  Law  was  given 
 in  fire  on  Sinai  "  —  is  a  very  favorite  one  in  tlie  MiU- 
 rash. 
 
 c  B-  g;  Lev.  vii  18,  7132,  T.  *eyy(oA.  or  *eyyouA, 
 
 be  found  anywhere  in  the  Talmudical  literature. 
 What,  again,  was  it  that  could  hjive  acquired  so 
 transcendent  a  fame  for  his  translation  and  himself, 
 that  a  Version  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  verj 
 prophets  should  be  called  after  him,  "  in  order 
 that  the  people  should  like  it  "  ?  —  a  translation 
 which  was,  in  fact,  deservedly  unknown,  and,  prop- 
 erly speaking,  no  translation  at  all.  It  was,  as 
 we  learn,  a  kind  of  private  emendation  of  some 
 LXX.  passages,  objectionable  to  the  pious  proselyte 
 in  their  then  corrupted  state.  It  was  only  the 
 book  of  Daniel  which  was  retained  from  Theo- 
 dotion's  pen,  because  in  this  book  the  LXX.  had 
 become  past  correction.  If,  moreover,  the  inten- 
 tion was  "  to  gi\e  the  people  a  Hebrew  for  a  (jreek 
 name,  because  the  latter  might  sound  too  foreign," 
 it  was  an  entirely  gratuitous  one.  Greek  names 
 abound  in  the  Talmud,  and  even  names  begin- 
 ning with  Theo  like  Theodorus  are  to  be  found 
 there. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  opinion  has  been  broached 
 that  this  Targum  was  a  post-Talmudical  produc- 
 tion, belonging  to  the  7tli  or  8th  cent.  A.  D.  For 
 this  point  we  need  only  refer  to  the  Talmudical 
 quotations  from  it.  And  when  we  further  add, 
 that  Jo.  IMorinus,  a  man  as  conspicuous  by  his 
 want  of  knowledge  as  by  his  most  ludicrous  attacks 
 upon  all  that  was  "Jewish"  or  "Protestant"  (it 
 was  he,  e.  r/,  who  wished  to  see  the  "forged" 
 Masoretic  Code  corrected  from  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
 tateuch, q.  v.),  is  the  chief,  and  almost  only,  de- 
 fender of  this  theory,  we  have  said  enough.  On 
 the  other  theory  of  there  being  more  than  one 
 author  to  our  Targum  (luchhorn,  Bertholdt,  De 
 Wette),  combated  fiercely  by  Gesenius,  Hjivernick, 
 and  others,  we  need  not  further  enlarge,  after  what 
 we  have  already  said.  It  certainly  is  the  work, 
 not  of  one,  or  of  two,  but  of  twenty,  of  fifty  and 
 more  Meturgemanim,  Haggadists,  and  Halachi.sts. 
 The  edition,  however,  we  repeat  it  advisedly,  has 
 the  undeniable  stamp  of  one  master-mind ;  and  its 
 individual  workings,  its  manner  and  peculiarity  are 
 indelibly  impressed  upon  tlie  whole  labor  from  the 
 first  page  to  the  last.  Such,  we  hold,  nnist  be  the 
 impression  upon  every  attentive  reader;  more  espe- 
 cially, if  he  judiciously  distinguishes  between  the 
 first  and  the  last  pi-ophets.  That  in  the  historical 
 relations  of  the  former,  the  Version  must  be,  on 
 the  whole,  more  accurate  and  close  (although  here 
 too,  as  we  shall  show,  Haggadah  often  takes  the 
 reins  out  of  the  Meturgeman's  or  editor's  hands), 
 wliile  in  the  obscurer  Oracles  of  the  latter  the 
 Alidrash  reigns  supreme — is  exactly  what  the  his- 
 tory of  Targumic  development  leads  us  to  expect. 
 
 And  with  this  we  have  pointed  out  the  general 
 character  of  the  Targum  under  consideration. 
 Gradually,  perceptibly  almost,  the  translation  be- 
 comes the  rpdyrifj.a,  a  frame,  so  to  speak,  of  alle- 
 gory, parable,  myth,  tale,  and  oddly  masked  his- 
 tory —  such  as  we  are  wont  to  see  in  Talmud  and 
 Midrash,  written  under  the  bloody  censorship  of 
 Esau-Kome;  interspersed  with  some  lyrical  pieces 
 of  rare  poetical  value.  It  becomes,  in  short,  like 
 the  Haggadah,  a  whole  system  of  eastern  phantas- 
 magorias whirling  round  the  sun  of  the  Holy  Word 
 
 by  way  of  emendation ;  Lev.  siii.  6,  nnDDXS, 
 Ma<r<!>da  ;  ibid.  ."IKlI/,  tr/O  ',  Lev.  xviii.  23,  VSH, 
 0a^e^  ;  Is.  Ixiv.  5,  CIS"',   ESoH*. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3413 
 
 Df  the  Seer.  Yet,  it  is  always  aware  of  being  a 
 translation.  It  returns  to  its  verse  after  long 
 excurses,  often  in  next  to  no  perceptible  connection 
 with  it.  Even  in  the  midst  of  tiie  full  swing  of 
 foiicy,  swayed  to  and  fro  liy  the  many  currents  of 
 thought  that  arise  out  of  a  single  w^ord,  snatches 
 of  the  verse  from  which  the  fliglit  was  taken  will 
 suddenly  appear  on  tlie  surface  like  a  refrain  or  a 
 keynote,  showing  that  in  reality  there  is  a  connec- 
 tion, though  hidden  to  the  uninitiated.  For  long 
 periods  again,  it  adheres  most  strictly  to  its  text 
 and  to  its  verse,  and  translates  most  conscientiously 
 and  closely.  It  may  thus  fairly  be  described  as 
 holding  in  point  of  int-erpretation  and  enlargement 
 of  the  text,  the  middle  ])lace  between  Cdikelos,  who 
 only  in  extreme  cases  deviates  into  paraphrase,  and 
 the  subsequent  Targums,  whose  connection  with 
 their  texts  is  frequently  of  the  most  flighty  charac- 
 ter. Sometimes  indeed  our  Targum  coincides  so 
 entirely  with  Onkelos,  —  being,  in  fact,  of  one  and 
 the  same  origin  and  growth,  and  a  mere  continua- 
 tion and  completion  as  it  were  of  the  former  work, 
 tiiat  this  similarity  has  misled  critics  into  specula- 
 tions of  the  priority  in  date  of  either  the  one  or 
 tile  other.  Hiiveniick,  e.  (j.  holds  —  against  Zunz 
 —  that  Onkelos  copied,  plagiarized  in  fact,  Jona- 
 than. We  do  not  see,  quite  a[)art  from  our  placing 
 Onkelos  first,  why  either  should  have  used  the 
 other.  Tlie,three  passages  (.ludg.  v.  2f)  ami  Deut. 
 xxii.  5;  2  K.  xiv.  0  and  Deut.  xxiv.  ]fj;  ,ler. 
 xlviii.  45,  46  and  Num.  xxi.  28,  20)  generally 
 adduced,  do  not  in  the  first  place  exhibit  that  lit- 
 eral closeness  which  we  are  led  to  expect,  and  which 
 alone  could  be  called  "copying;"  and  in  the 
 second  place,  the  two  last  passages  are  not,  as  we 
 also  thought  we  could  infer  from  the  words  of  the 
 writers  on  either  side,  extraneous  paraphrastic  addi- 
 tions, but  simply  the  similar  translations  of  similar 
 texts:  while  in  the  first  passage  Jonathan  only 
 refers  to  an  injunction  contained  in  the  I'enta- 
 teuch-\'erse  quoted.  But  even  had  we  found  such 
 paraphrastic  additions,  apparently  not  belonging  to 
 the  subject,  we  should  have  accounted  for  them  by 
 certain  traditions  —  the  common  property  of  the 
 whole  generation  —  being  recalled  by  a  certain 
 word  or  phrase  in  the  Pentateuch  to  the  memory 
 of  the  one  translator;  and  by  another  word  or 
 phrase  in  the  Prophets  to  the  memory  of  the  oi]nr 
 translator.  The  interpretation  of  Jonathan,  where 
 it  adheres  to  the  text,  is  mostly  very  correct  in  a 
 philosophical  and  exegetical  sense,  closely  literal 
 even,  provided  the  meaning  of  the  original  is  easily 
 to  be  understood  by  the  people.  When,  however, 
 similes  are  used,  unfamiliar  or  obscure  to  the  people, 
 it  unhesitatingly  dissolves  them  and  makes  them 
 easy  in  their  mouths  like  household  words,  by 
 adding  as  nmch  of  explanation  as  seems  fit;  some- 
 times, it  cannot  be  denied,  less  sagaciou.sly,  even 
 incorrectly,  comprehending  the  original  meaning, 
 ■^'et  we  must  lie  very  cautious  in  attributing  to  a 
 v'crsion  which  altogether  bears  the  stamp  of  tiior- 
 ougli  competence  and  carefulness  that  which  may 
 be  single  corruptions  or  interpolations,  as  we  find 
 them  sometimes  indicated  by  an  introductoi-)' 
 "  Says  the  Prophet  :  "  «  although,  as  stated  above, 
 we  do  not  hesitate  to  attribute  the  passages  dis- 
 playing an  acquaintance  with  works  written  down 
 
 h  1  Sam.  ii.  10  ;    2   Sam.  xxiii.  3  ;  IK.  iv.  33  :    Is. 
 It.  2,  ix.  6,  x.   27,  xi.  1,  6,  xv.  2,  xvi   1,  5,  xxviii   5, 
 
 to  the  4th  century,  and  exhibiting  popular  notions 
 current  at  that  time,  to  the  Targum  in  its  original 
 shape.  Generally  speaking,  and  holding  the  diflfer- 
 ence  between  the  nature  of  the  Pentateuch  (su2> 
 posed  to  contain  in  its  very  letters  and  signs  Ilala- 
 ciiistic  references,  and  therefore  only  to  be  handled 
 by  the  iletiirgeman  with  the  greatest  care)  and 
 that  of  the  Prophets  (freest  Ilomiletes  themselves) 
 steadily  in  view  —  the  rules  laid  down  above  with 
 respect  to  the  discrepancies  between  original  and 
 Tari;;um,  in  Onkelos,  hold  good  also  with  .Jonathan. 
 Anthropomorphisms  it  avoids  carefully.  Geo- 
 graphical names  are,  in  most  cases,  retained  as  in 
 the  original,  and  where  translated,  they  are  gen- 
 erally correct.  Its  partiality  for  Israel  never  goes 
 so  far  that  anything  derogatory  to  the  ciiaracterof 
 the  people  should  be  willingly  suppressed,  although 
 a  certain  reluctance  against  dwelling  upon  its  iniqui- 
 ties and  punishments  longer  than  necessary,  is  vis- 
 ilile.  Where,  however,  that  which  redounds  to  the 
 praise  of  the  individual  — more  especially  of  lieroes, 
 kings,  prophets  —  and  of  the  community,  is  con- 
 tained in  the  text,  there  the  paraphrase  lovingly 
 tarries.  Future  bliss,  in  this  world  and  the  world 
 to  come,  liberation  from  the  oppressor,  restoration 
 of  the  Sanctuary  on  Mount  Zion,  of  the  Kingdom 
 of  Jehovah  and  the  House  of  David,  tlie  reestab- 
 lishment  of  the  nation  and  of  its  full  and  entire 
 independence,  as  well  as  of  the  national  worship, 
 with  all  the  primitive  splendor  of  Priest  and  Levite, 
 singer  and  musician  and  prophet  —  these  are  the 
 favorite  dreams  of  the  people  and  of  Jonathan,  and 
 no  link  is  overlooked  by  which  those  strains  may 
 ije  drawn  in  as  variations  to  the  Biblical  theme. 
 Of  Messianic  passages,  Jonathan  has  pointed  out 
 tiiose  mentioned  below; ''  a  number  not  too  large, 
 if  we  consider  how,  with  the  increased  misery  of 
 the  people,  their  ardent  desire  to  see  their  Deli'.erer 
 appear  speedily  must  have  tried  to  find  as  many 
 places  in  the  Bible  as  possible,  warranting  his 
 arrival.  So  far  from  their  being  suppressed  (as,  by 
 one  of  those  unfortunate  accidents  that  befall  some- 
 times a  long  string  of  invesliydlors,  who  are  copy- 
 ing tlieir  information  at  third  and  fourth  hand, 
 has  been  unblushingly  asserted  by  almost  everybody 
 up  to  Gesenius,  who  found  its  source  in  a  ■misun- 
 derstood senltnce  of  Carpzov),  they  are  most  prom- 
 inently, often  almost  pointedly  brought  forward. 
 And  there  is  a  decided  polemical  animus  inherent 
 in  them  —  temperate  as  far  as  appearance  goes, 
 but  containing  many  an  unspoken  word:  such  as 
 a  fervent  human  mind  pressed  down  by  all  the 
 woes  and  terrors,  written  and  unwritten,  would 
 whisper  to  itself  in  the  depths  of  its  despair.  These 
 passaged  extol  most  rapturously  the  pomp  and  glory 
 of  the  Messiah  to  come  —  by  way  of  contrast  to 
 the  humble  appearance  of  Christ:  and  in  all  the 
 places  where  suffering  and  misery  appear  to  be  the 
 lot  forecast  to  the  Anointed,  it  is  Israel,  to  whom 
 the  passage  is  referred  by  the  Targum. 
 
 Of  further  dogmatical  and  theological  peculiari- 
 ties (and  this  Targum  will  one  day  prove  a  mine 
 of  instruction  chiefly  in  that  direction,  besides  the 
 other  vast  advantages  inherent  in  it,  as  in  the  older 
 Targums,  for  linguistic,  patristic,  geographical,  his« 
 torical,  and  other  studies)  we  may  mention  briefly 
 the  "  Stars  of  God  "  (Is.  xiv.  13;  comp.  Dan.  viii, 
 
 xlii.  1,  xliii.  10,  xiv.  1,  Hi.  13,  liii.  10;  Jer.  xxiii.  5, 
 XXX.  21,  xxxiii.  13,  15  ;  Hos.  iii.  5.  xiv.  8  ;  Mic.  iT 
 8,  V.  2,  18  ;  Zech.  iii.  8,  iv.  7,  vi.  12,  x.  4. 
 
3414 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 10 ;  2  Mace.  ix.  10,  being  referred  —  in  a  similar 
 manner —  to  "  the  people  of  Israel");  the  doctrine 
 of  the  second  death  (Is.  xxii.  14,  Ixv.  15),  etc. 
 As  to  the  general  nature  of  its  idiom,  what  we 
 have  said  above  holds  good  here.  Likewise  our 
 remarks  on  the  relation  between  the  text  of  the 
 original  of  Onkelos,  and  its  own  text,  may  stand 
 for  Jonathan,  who  never  appears  to  differ  from  the 
 Masoretic  text  without  a  very  cogent  reivson.  Yet, 
 since  .Jonathan's  IMSS.,  though  very  much  smaller 
 in  number,  are  in  a  still  worse  plight  than  those 
 of  Onkelos,  we  cannot  speak  with  great  certainty 
 on  this  point.  Respecting,  however,  the  individual 
 language  and  phraseology  of  the  translation,  it 
 lacks  to  a  certain,  though  small  degree,  the  clear- 
 ness and  transparency  of  Onkelos;  and  is  some- 
 what alloyed  with  foreign  words.  Not  to  such 
 a  degree,  however,  that  we  cannot  fully  indorse 
 Carpzov's  dictum :  "  Cujus  nitor  sermonis  Chaldwi 
 et  dictionis  laudatur  puritas,  ad  Onkelosum  proxime 
 accedens  et  paruni  deflectens  a  puro  tersoque  C'hal- 
 daisnio  biblico  "  {Crit.  /S'ftcr.  p.  401),  and  incline 
 to  the  belief  of  Wolf  {Ribl.  Hebr.  ii.  11G5):  "  Qufe 
 vero,  vel  quod  ad  voces  novas  et  barbaras,  vel  ad 
 res  setate  ejus  iiiferiores,  aut  futilia  nonnulla, 
 quamvis  pauca  triplicis  hujus  generis  exstent,  ilii 
 occurrunt,  ex  merito  falsarii  cujusdam  ingenio  ad- 
 scribuntur."  Of  the  manner  and  style  of  this 
 Targum,  the  few  subjoined  specimens  will  we  hope 
 give  an  approximate  idea. 
 
 In  conclusion,  we  may  notice  a  feature  of  our 
 Targum,  not  the  least  interesting  perhaps,  in  rela- 
 tion to  general  or  "human"  literature:  namely, 
 that  the  Shemitic  fairy  and  legendary  lore,  which 
 for  the  last  two  thousand  years  —  as  far  as  we  can 
 trace  it  —  has  grown  up  in  East  and  West  to  vast 
 glittering  mountain-ranges,  is  to  a  very  great  extent 
 to  be  found,  in  an  embryo  state,  so  to  say,  in  this 
 our  Targum.  When  the  literary  history  of  those 
 most  wonderful  circles  of  mediseval  sagas  —  the 
 sole  apparent  fruit  brought  home  by  the  crusaders 
 from  the  eastern  battle-fields  —  shall  come  to  be 
 written  by  a  competent  and  thorough  investigator, 
 he  will  have  to  extend  his  study  of  the  sources  to 
 this  despised  "  fabulosus  "  Targum  .Jonathan  lien 
 Uzziel.  And  the  entire  world  of  pious  Biljlical 
 legend,  which  Islam  has  said  and  sung  in  the  .\ra- 
 bic,  Persian,  Turkish,  and  all  its  other  tongues,  to 
 the  delight  of  the  wise  and  the  simple  for  twelve 
 centuries  now,  is  contained  almost  fully  developed, 
 from  beginning  to  end,  but  clearer,  purer,  and 
 incomparably  more  poetically  conceived,  in  our 
 Targu  ra  -  H  aggad  ah . 
 
 The  Editio  Princeps  dates  Leiria,  1494.  The 
 later  editions  are  embodied  in  the  Antwerp,  Paris, 
 and  London  Polyglotts.  Several  single  books  have 
 likewise  been  repeatedly  edited  (comp.  Wolf,  Le 
 Ix)ng,  Kosenmiiller,  etc.). 
 
 JUDGES   V. 
 
 Authorized 
 Version. 
 
 avenging  of  Is- 
 rael, when  the 
 people  willingly 
 offered  them- 
 
 selves. 
 
 Authorized 
 Version. 
 
 1  Then  sang 
 Deborah  and  Ba- 
 rak the  son  of 
 Abinoam  on  that 
 daj',  saying, 
 
 2  Praise  ye  the 
 Lord      for      the 
 
 Targum 
 
 [Jonathan-beu-Uzziel] 
 
 To  the  Prophets. 
 
 3  Hear,    0   ye 
 
 kings  ;   give   ear, 
 
 0  ye  princes  ;  I, 
 even  I,  will  sing 
 unto    the    Lord  ; 
 
 1  will  sing  praise 
 to  the  Lord  God 
 of  Israel. 
 
 4  Lord,  when 
 thou  wentest  out 
 of  Seir,  when 
 thou  uiarchedst 
 out  of  the  field 
 of  Kdom,  the 
 earth  trembled, 
 and  the  heavens 
 dropped,  the 
 
 clouds  also 
 
 dropped  water 
 
 5  The  moun- 
 tains melted  from 
 before  the  Lord 
 even  that  Sinai 
 from  before  the 
 Lord  God  of  Is- 
 rael. 
 
 Targom 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 To  THE  Prophets. 
 
 1  And  Deborah  and  Barak  the 
 son  of  Abinoam  gave  praise  for  the 
 miracle  and  the  salvation  which 
 were  wrought  for  Israel  on  that 
 day,  and  spake : 
 
 2  When  the  children  of  Israel 
 rebel    against    the    Law,    then    the 
 
 6  In  the  days 
 of  Siiamgar  the 
 son  of  Anath,  in 
 the  days  of  Jael, 
 the  highways 
 were  unoccupied, 
 and  the  travellers 
 walked  through 
 byways. 
 
 7  The  inhabit- 
 ants of  the  vil- 
 lages ceased, they 
 ceased  in  Israel, 
 until  that  I  Deb- 
 orah arose,  that  I 
 arose  a  mother  in 
 Israel. 
 
 8  They  chose 
 new  gods ;  then 
 ivns    war   in  the 
 
 nations  come  over  them  and  drive 
 them  out  of  their  cities  ;  but  when 
 they  return  to  do  the  Law,  then 
 they  are  mighty  over  their  enemies, 
 and  drive  them  out  from  the  wholi 
 territory  of  the  land  of  Israel.  Thus 
 has  been  broken  Sisera  and  all  his 
 armies  to  his  punishment,  and  to  a 
 miracle  and  a  salvation  for  Israel. 
 Then  the  wise  returned  to  sit  in  the 
 houses  of  the  synagogue  ....  and 
 to  teach  unto  the  people  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Law.  Therefore  praise  ye 
 and  bless  the  Lord. 
 
 3  Hear,  ye  kings  (ye  who  came 
 with  Sisra  to  the  battle-array),  lis- 
 ten, ye  rulers  [ye  who  were  with 
 Jabin  tlie  king  of  Kenaau  :  not  with 
 your  armies  nor  with  your  power 
 have  ye  conquered  and  become 
 mighty  over  the  house  of  Israel]  — 
 said  Deborah  In  prophecy  before 
 God  :  I  praise,  give  thanks  and 
 blessings  before  the  Lord,  the  God 
 of  Israel. 
 
 4  [0  Lord,  Thy  Law  which  Thou 
 gavest  to  Israel,  when  they  trans- 
 gre.ss  it,  then  the  nations  rule  over 
 them  :  but  when  they  return  to  it, 
 then  they  become  powerful  over 
 their  enemies.]  0  Lord,  on  the  day 
 when  Thou  didst  reveal  Thyself  to 
 give  it  unto  them  from  Seir,  Thou 
 becamest  manifest  unto  them  in  the 
 splendor  of  Thy  glory  over  the  terri- 
 tories of  Edom  :  the  earth  trembled, 
 the  heavens  showered  down,  the 
 clouds  dropped  rain. 
 
 5  Tlie  mountains  trembled  before 
 the  Lord,  the  mountains  of  Tabor, 
 the  mountains  of  Hernion,  and  the 
 mountain  of  Carmel,  spake  with 
 each  other,  and  said  one  to  the 
 other :  Upon  me  the  Shechinah 
 will  rest,  and  to  me  will  It  come. 
 But  the  Shechinah  rested  upon 
 Moimt  Sinai,  which  is  the  weakest 
 and  smallest  of  all  the  mountains. 
 
 .  This  Sinai  trembled  and 
 shook,  and  its  smoke  went  up  as  goes 
 up  the  smoke  of  an  oven:  because  of 
 the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel  which 
 had  m.anifested  itself  upon  it. 
 
 6  When  they  transgressed  in  the 
 days  of  Shamgar  the  son  of  Anath, 
 in  the  days  of  Jael,  ceased  the  way- 
 farers :  they  who  had  walked  in 
 well-prepared  ways  had  again  to 
 walk  in  furtive  paths. 
 
 7  Destroyed  were  the  open  cities 
 of  the  land  of  Israel  :  their  inhab- 
 itants were  shaken  off  and  driven 
 about,  until  I,  Deborah,  was  sent 
 to  prophesy  over  the  house  of  Is- 
 rael. 
 
 8  When  the  children  of  Israel 
 went  to  pray  unto  new  idols  [errors], 
 which    recently   had    come     to    b« 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 5415 
 
 AUTHOalZED 
 
 Version. 
 
 gates  :  was  there 
 a  shield  or  spear 
 seen  among  forty 
 thousand  in  Is- 
 rael? 
 
 Tarqum 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel  ] 
 
 To  THE  Prophets. 
 
 9  My  heart  is 
 toward  the  gov- 
 ernors of  Israel, 
 that  offered  them- 
 selves willingly 
 among  the  peo- 
 ple. Bless  ye  the 
 Lord. 
 
 10  Speak,  ye 
 that  ride  on  white 
 asses,  ye  tli.at  sit 
 in  judgment,  and 
 walk  by  the  way 
 
 worshipped,  with  which  their  fathers 
 did  not  concern  themselves,  there 
 came  over  them  the  nations  and 
 drove  them  out  of  their  cities  :  but 
 when  they  returned  to  the  Law, 
 they  could  not  prevail  against  them 
 until  they  made  themselves  strong, 
 aud  Sisra  went  up  against  them, 
 the  enemy  and  the  adversi\ry,  with 
 forty  thousand  chiefs  of  troops,  with 
 fifty  thousand  holders  of  the  sword, 
 with  sixty  thousand  holders  of  spears, 
 with  seventy  thousand  holders 
 of  shields,  with  eighty  thousand 
 throwers  of  arrows  and  slings,  be- 
 sides nine  hundred  iron  chariots 
 which  he  had  with  him,  and  his 
 own  chariots.  All  these  thousands 
 aud  all  these  hosts  could  not  stand 
 before  Barak  and  the  ten  thousand 
 men  he  had  with  him. 
 
 9  Spake  Deborah  in  prophecy  :  I 
 am  sent  to  praise  the  scribes  of  Is- 
 rael, who,  while  this  tribulation 
 lasted,  ceased  not  to  study  in  the 
 Law  :  aud  it  redounds  well  unto 
 them  who  sat  in  the  houses  of  con- 
 gregation, wide  open,  and  taught 
 the  people  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Law, 
 and  praised  aud  rendered  thanks 
 before  the  Lord. 
 
 10  Those  who  had  interrupted 
 their  occupations  are  riding  on 
 asses  covered  with  many-colored 
 caparisons,  aud  they  ride  about 
 freely  in  all  the  territory  of  Israel , 
 and  congregate  to  sit  in  judgQient 
 They  walk  in  their  old  ways,  and 
 are  speaking  of  the  power  Thou  hast 
 shown  in  the  land  of  Israel,  etc. 
 
 AnTHORIZED 
 
 Version. 
 
 Targum 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 To  THE  Prophets. 
 
 JUDGES    XI. 
 
 39  And  it  came 
 to  pass,  at  the 
 end  of  two 
 months,  that  she 
 returned  unto  her 
 father,  who  did 
 with  her  accord- 
 ins:  to  his  vow 
 which  he  had 
 vowed  :  and  she 
 knew  no  man. 
 And  it  was  a  cus- 
 tom in  Israel. 
 
 39  And  it  was  at  the  end  of  two 
 months,  and  she  returned  to  her 
 father,  and  he  did  unto  her  accord- 
 ing to  the  vow  which  he  liad  vowed  : 
 and  she  had  known  no  man.  And 
 it  became  a  statute  iu  Israel. 
 
 Addition  (n-OlD),  that  no 
 man  should  offer  up  his  son  or  his 
 daughter  as  a  burnt-offering,  as 
 Jephta  the  Gileadite  did,  who  asked 
 not  Phinehas  the  priest.  If  he  iiad 
 asked  Phinehas  the  priest,  then  he 
 would  have  dissolved  his  vow  with 
 money  [for  animal  sacrifices] . 
 
 2  There  is  none 
 holy  as  the  Lord  : 
 for  there  is  none 
 beside  thee,  nei- 
 ther is  there  any 
 rock  like  our  God 
 
 3  Talk  no  more 
 so  exceeding 
 proudly  ;  let  7iot 
 arrogancy  come 
 out  of  your 
 mouth  :  for  the 
 Lord  is  a  God  of 
 kuowledge,  and 
 by  him  actions 
 are  weighed. 
 
 4  The  bows  of 
 the  mighty  are 
 broken,  and  they 
 that  stumbled 
 are  girded  with 
 strength. 
 
 my  son  Samuel,  shall  arise,  he  and 
 his  fourteen  sons,  to  say  praise  with 
 nablia  (harps?)  and  cythers,  with 
 their  brethren  the  Levites,  to  sing 
 the  house  of  the  sanctuary  : 
 therefore]  Let  my  horu  be  exalted 
 in  the  gift  which  God  granted  unto 
 me.  [And  also  on  the  miraculous 
 punishment  that  would  befall  the 
 Philistines  who  would  bring  back 
 the  ark  of  the  Lord  in  anew  chaiiot, 
 together  with  a  sin-offering  :  there- 
 fore let  the  congregation  of  Israel 
 say]  I  will  open  my  mouth  to  speak 
 great  things  over  my  enemies  ;  be- 
 cause I  rejoice  in  thy  salvation. 
 
 2  [Over  Sanherib  the  king  of 
 Ashur  did  she  prophesy,  and  she 
 said  :  He  will  arise  with  all  his 
 armies  over  Jerusalem,  and  a  great 
 sign  will  be  done  with  him.  There 
 shall  fall  the  corpses  of  his  troops : 
 Therefore  praise  ye  all  the  peoples 
 and  nations  and  tongues,  and  cry]  : 
 There  is  none  holy  but  God  ;  there 
 is  not  beside  Tliee  ;  and  Thy  people 
 shall  say,  There  is  none  mighty  but 
 our  God. 
 
 3  [Over  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king 
 of  Babel  did  she  prophesy  and  say  : 
 Ye  Chaldeans,  and  all  nations  who 
 will  once  rule  over  Israel]  Do  not 
 speak  grandly  ;  let  no  blasphemy 
 go  out  from  your  mouth  :  for  God 
 knows  all,  and  over  all  his  servants 
 he  extends  his  judgment  ;  also  from 
 you  he  will  take  punishment  of 
 your  guilt. 
 
 4  [Over  the  kingdom  Javan  she 
 prophesied  and  said]  The  hows  of 
 the  mighty  ones  [of  the  Javanites] 
 will  be  broken  ;  [and  tho.se  of  the 
 house  of  the  Asmoneans]  wlio  are 
 weak,  to  them  will  be  done  miracles 
 and  mighty  deeds. 
 
 1    SAM.    XVII. 
 
 1   SAM.    II. 
 
 1  And  Hannah 
 prayed,  and  said. 
 My  heart  rejoiceth 
 in  the  Lord  ;  mine 
 horn  is  exalted 
 in  the  Lord  ;  my 
 mouth  is  enlarged 
 over  mine  ene- 
 mies ;  because  I 
 rejoice  in  thy  sal- 
 ration.  * 
 
 1  And  Hannah  prayed  in  the 
 spirit  of  prophecy,  and  said  :  [Lo, 
 my  son  Samuel  will  become  a  proph- 
 et over  Israel  ;  in  his  days  they 
 will  be  freed  from  the  hand  of  the 
 Pbilistines  ;  and  through  his  hands 
 shall  be  done  unto  them  wondrous 
 and  mighty  deeds :  therefore]  be 
 strong,  my  heart,  iu  the  portion 
 which  God  gave  me.  [And  also 
 Heman  the  son  of  Joel,  the  son  of 
 
 8  And  he  stood 
 and  cried  unto 
 the  armies  of  Is- 
 rael, and  said 
 unto  them.  Why 
 are  ye  come  out 
 to  set  your  battle 
 in  array  ?  Am 
 not  I  a  Philis- 
 tine, and  ye  ser- 
 vants to  Saul  ? 
 choose  you  a  man 
 for  you,  and  let 
 him  come  down 
 to  me. 
 
 8  And  he  arose,  and  he  cried 
 unto  the  armies  of  Israel,  and  said 
 unto  them :  Why  have  you  put 
 yourselves  in  battle  array  ?  Am  I 
 not  the  Philistine,  and  you  the  ser- 
 vants of  Saul  ?  [I  am  Goliath  the 
 Philistine  from  Gath,  who  have 
 killed  the  two  sous  of  Eli,  the  priests 
 Chofna  and  Pinehas,  and  carried 
 captive  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
 the  Lord,  I  who  have  carried  it  to 
 the  house  of  Dagon,  tn;/  Error,  and 
 it  has  been  there  in  the  cities  of  the 
 Philistines  seven  months.  And  in 
 every  battle  which  the  Philistines 
 have  had  I  went  at  the  head  of  the 
 army,  and  we  conquered  in  the  bat^ 
 tie,  and  we  strew  the  killed  like  the 
 dust  of  the  earth,  and  until  now 
 have  the  Philistines  not  thought 
 me  worthy  to  become  captain  of  a 
 thousand  over  them.  And  you,  0 
 children  of  Israel,  what  mighty  deed 
 has  Saul  tlie  son  of  Kish  from  Gibeah 
 
3416 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM1 
 
 Authorized 
 
 Version. 
 
 Targuji 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 To  THE  Prophets. 
 
 done  for  you  that  you  made  him 
 king  over  you  ?  If  he  i.s  a  Taliant 
 man,  let  him  come  out  and  do  bat- 
 tle with  me  ;  but  if  he  is  a  weak 
 man],  then  choose  for  yourselves  a 
 man,  and  let  bim  come  out  against 
 me,  etc. 
 
 1    KINGS   XIX. 
 
 11,  12  And  he 
 said,  Go  forth, 
 and  stand  upon 
 the  mount  before 
 ihe  Lord.  And, 
 behold,  the  Lord 
 passed  by,  and  a 
 great  and  strong 
 wind  rent  the 
 mountains,  and 
 brake  in  pieces 
 the  rocks,  before 
 the  Lord  ;  but  the 
 Lord  ^cas  not  in 
 the  wind :  and 
 after  the  wind  an 
 earthquake  ;  *"( 
 the  Lord  ivox  not 
 in  the  earth  ■ 
 quake  :  And  after 
 the  earthquake  a 
 fire  ;  but  the  Lord 
 loas  not  in  the 
 fire  :  and  after 
 the  fire  a  still 
 small  voice. 
 
 13  And  it  was 
 so.  when  Elijah 
 heard  it,  that  he 
 wrapped  his  face 
 in  his  mantle, 
 and  went  out,  and 
 stood  in  the  en- 
 tering in  of  the 
 cave  :  and,  be- 
 hold, there  came 
 a  voice  unto  him. 
 and  said,  What 
 doest  thou  here, 
 Elijah  ? 
 
 11,  12  And  he  said  [to  Elijah]. 
 Arise  and  stand  on  the  mountain 
 before  the  Lord.  And  God  revealed 
 himself:  and  before  him  a  host  of 
 mgels  of  the  wind,  cleaving  the 
 mountain  and  breaking  the  rocks 
 before  the  Lord  ;  but  not  in  the 
 host  of  angels  was  the  Shechinah. 
 And  after  the  host  of  the  angels  of 
 the  wind  came  a  host  of  angels  of 
 commotion  ;  but  not  in  the  host 
 of  the  angels  of  commotion  was  the 
 Shechinah  of  the  Lord.  And  after 
 the  host  of  the  angels  of  commotion 
 came  a  host  of  angels  of  fire;  but 
 not  in  the  host  of  the  angels  of  fire 
 was  the  Shechinah  of  the  Lord. 
 But  after  the  host  of  the  angels 
 of  the  fire  came  voices  singing  in 
 silence. 
 
 13  And  it  was  when  Elijah  lieard 
 this,  he  hid  his  face  in  his  mantle, 
 and  he  went  out  and  he  stood  at 
 the  door  of  the  cave  :  and,  lo  1  with 
 him  was  a  voice,  saying,  AVhat  doest 
 thou  here,  0  Elyah  I  etc. 
 
 ISAIAH  xxxin. 
 
 22  For  the 
 Lord  i>  our  judge, 
 the  Lord  i>  our 
 lawgiver,  the 
 Lord  is  our  king ; 
 he  will  save  us 
 
 22  For  the  Lord  is  our  judge, 
 who  delivered  us  with  his  power 
 from  Mizraim  ;  the  Lord  is  our 
 teacher,  for  He  has  given  us  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Toi'ah  from  Sinai ; 
 the  Lord  is  our  king  :  He  will  de- 
 liver us,  and  give  us  righteous  res- 
 titution from  the  army  of  Gog. 
 
 JEREM.    X. 
 
 11  Thus  shall 
 ye  say  unto  them. 
 The  gods  that 
 have  not  made 
 the  heavens  and 
 
 11  This  is  the  copy  of  the  letter 
 which  Jeremiah  the  prophet  sent  to 
 the  remaining  ancient  ones  of  the 
 captivity  in  Babel  :  "  And  if  the 
 nations  among  whom   you  are  will 
 
 Authorized 
 Version. 
 
 the  earth,  even 
 they  shall  perish 
 from  the  earth , 
 and  from  under 
 these  heavens. 
 
 Targum 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 To  THE  Prophets. 
 
 say  unto  you.  Pray  to  our  Errors . 
 —  0  house  of  Israel,  then  you  shall 
 answer  thus,  and  speak  in  this 
 wise  :  The  Errors  unto  which  you 
 pray  are  Errors  which  are  of  no 
 use  :  they  cannot  rain  from  heaven  ; 
 they  cannot  cause  fruit  to  grow 
 from  the  earth.  They  and  their 
 worshippers  will  perish  from  the 
 earth,  and  will  be  destroyed  from 
 under  these  heavens. 
 
 MICAH    VI. 
 
 4  For  I  brought 
 thee  up  out  of  the 
 land  of  Egypt, 
 and  redeemed 
 thee  out  of  the 
 house  of  serv.ants; 
 and  I  sent  be- 
 fore thee  Moses, 
 Aaron,  and  Mir- 
 iam. 
 
 4  For  I  have  taken  thee  out  from 
 the  land  of  Mizraim,  and  have  re- 
 leased thee  from  the  house  of  thy 
 bondage:  and  have  sent  before  thee 
 three  prophets  :  Moses,  to  teach 
 thee  the  tradition  of  the  ordinances  : 
 .\aron,  to  atone  for  the  people  ;  and 
 Miriam,  to  teach  the  women. 
 
 Iir.  and   IV.  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uz- 
 
 ZIEL    AND    JeRUSHALWI-TaKGUM     ON     TUB 
 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 Onl<elos  and  Jonathan  on  the  Pentateuch  and 
 Prophets,  whatever  be  their  e.xact  date,  place,  au- 
 thorship and  editorship,  are,  as  we  have  endeavored 
 to  show,  the  oldest  of  existing  'Jarj^ums,  and  be- 
 long, ill  their  present  shape,  to  Babylon  and  the 
 Babylonian  academies  flourishing  Vietweeii  the  3d 
 and  4th  centuries  a.  d.  But  precisely  as  two  par- 
 allel and  independent  developments  of  the  oral  Law 
 
 (S3iyn;  have  sprung  up  in  the  Palestinian  and 
 Babylonian  Talmuds  respectively,  so  also  recent  in- 
 vestigation has  proved  to  demonstration  the  exist- 
 ence of    two    distinct  cycles  of    Targunis    on  the 
 
 written  Law  (2nD3t£?i"l)  —  i.  e.  the  entire  body 
 of  the  Old  Testament.  Both  are  the  offspring  of 
 the  old,  primitive  institution  of  the  public  "  read- 
 ing and  translating  of  the  Torah."  which  for  many 
 hundred  years  had  its  place  in  the  Palestinian 
 synagogues.  The  one  first  collected,  revised,  and 
 edited  in  Babylon,  called  —  more  especially  that 
 part  of  it  which  emliraced  the  Pentateuch  (Onkelos) 
 —  the  Babylonian,  Ours,  by  way  of  eminence,  on 
 account  of  the  superior  authority  iiilierent  in  all  the 
 works  of  the  ALadinchae  (Babylonians,  in  contra- 
 distinction to  the  JIaarbae  or  Palestinians).  The 
 other,  continuing  its  oral  life,  so  to  say,  down  to  a 
 much  later  period,  was  written  and  edited  —  less 
 carefully,  or  rather  with  a  much  more  faithful  re- 
 tention of  the  oldest  and  youngest  fancies  of  Metur- 
 geinanim  and  Darshanini  —  on  the  soil  of  Juda-a 
 itself.  Of  this  entire  cycle,  however,  the  I'eiita- 
 teiich  and  a  few  other  books  and  fragmentary  ]iieces 
 only  have  survived  entire,  while  of  most  of  the  other 
 books  of  the  Bible  a  few  detacheil  fragments  are  all 
 that  is  known,  and  this  chiefly  from  quotatioii.si. 
 The  injunction  above  mentioned  respecting  the  sab- 
 batical reading  of  the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch  — 
 nothing  is  said  of  the  Prophets  —  e.xplains  the  fact, 
 to  a  certain  extent,  how  the  Pentateuch  •Targum 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3417 
 
 has  been  religiously  preserved,  while  the  others  have 
 perished,  'i'liis  circumstance,  also,  is  to  be  talven 
 into  consideration,  that  Palestine  was  in  later  cen- 
 turies well-nigh  cut  off  from  communication  with 
 the  Diaspora,  while  Babylon,  and  the  gigantic 
 literature  it  produced,  reigned  paramount  over  all 
 Judaism,  as,  indeed,  down  to  the  lOtli  century,  the 
 latter  continued  to  have  a  spiritual  leader  in  tlie 
 person  of  tlie  Kesh  Gelutha  (Head  of  the  (Jolah), 
 residing  in  Babylon.  As  not  the  least  cause  of  the 
 loss  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  Palestinian  Targum 
 may  also  be  considered  the  almost  uninterrupted 
 martyrdom  to  which  those  were  subjected  who  pre- 
 ferred, under  all  circumstances,  to  live  and  die  in 
 the  Land  of  Promise. 
 
 However  this  may  be,  the  Targum  on  the  Pen- 
 tateuch has  come  down  to  us:  and  not  in  one,  but 
 in  two  recensions.  More  surprising  still,  the  one 
 hitherto  considered  a  fragment,  because  of  its  em- 
 bracing portions  only  of  the  individual  books,  has 
 in  reality  never  been  intended  to  embrace  any 
 further  portion,  and  we  are  thus  in  the  possession 
 of  two  Palestinian  Targums,  preserved  in  their 
 original  forms.  The  one,  which  extends  from  the 
 first  verse  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Deuteronomy,  is 
 known  under  the  name  of  Targum  Jonathan  (ben 
 Uzziel)  or  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  the  Pentateuch. 
 The  other,  interpreting  single  verses,  often  single 
 words  only,  is  extant  in  the  following  proportions: 
 a  third  on  Genesis,  a  fourth  on  Deuteronomy,  a 
 fifth  on  Numbers,  three  twentieths  on  Kxodus,  and 
 about  one  fourteenth  on  Leviticus.  The  latter  is 
 generally  called  Targum  J erushalmi,  or,  down  to 
 the  11th  century  (Hal  Gaon,  Chananel),  Targum 
 Erets  Jsrael,  Targum  of  Jerusalem  or  of  the  land 
 of  Israel.  That  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the  same  to 
 whom  the  prophetical  Targum  is  ascribed,  and  who 
 is  reported  to  have  lived  either  in  the  5th-tth 
 century  b.  c,  or  about  the  time  of  Christ  himself 
 (see  above),  could  have  little  to  do  with  a  Targum 
 which  speaks  of  Constantinople  (Num.  xxiv.  19,  24), 
 describes  very  plainly  the  breaking-up  of  the  West- 
 Roman  Empire  (Num.  xxiv.  19-24),  mentions  the 
 Turks  (Gen.  x.  2),  and  even  Mohammed's  two 
 wives,  Chadidja  and  Fatime  (Gen.  xxi.  21),  and 
 which  exhibits  not  only  the  fullest  acquaintance 
 with  the  edited  body  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
 by  quoting  entire  passages  from  it,  but  adopts  its 
 peculiar  phraseology  —  not  to  mention  the  com- 
 plete disparity  between  the  style,  language,  and 
 general  manner  of  the  Jonatbanic  Targum  on  the 
 Prophets,  and  those  of  this  one  on  the  Pentateucli, 
 strikingly  palpable  at  first  sight,  —  was  recognized 
 by  early  investigators  (Morinus,  PfeifFer,  Walton, 
 etc.),  who  soon  overthrew  the  old  belief  in  .Jonathan 
 b.  Uzziel's  authorship,  as  upheld  by  Menahem  Re- 
 kanati,  Asariah  de  Rossi,  Gedaljah,  Galatin,  Fagius, 
 etc.  But  the  relation  in  which  the  two  Targums, 
 so  similar  and  yet  so  dissimilar,  stood  to  each  other, 
 how  they  arose,  and  where  and  when  —  all  these 
 questions  have  for  a  long  time,  in  the  terse  words 
 of  Zunz,  caused  many  of  the  learned  such  dire 
 misery,  that  whenever  the  "Targum  Hierosolymi- 
 taiuim"  comes  up,  they,  instead  of  information  on 
 it  and  its  twin-brother,  prefer  to  treat  tlie  reader 
 to  a  round  volley  of  abuse  of  them.  Not  before  the 
 first  half  of  this  century  did  the  fact  become  fully 
 and  iucontestably  established  (by  the  simple  process 
 of  an  investigation  o*'  the  sources),  that  both  Tar- 
 gums were  ii  rea^.ty  one  —  that  Ijoth  were  known 
 down  to  the  14th  century  under  no  other  name 
 than  Targum  Jerushalmi — and  that  some  forgetful 
 215 
 
 scribe  about  that  time  must  have  taken  the  abbre- 
 viation ^"ri-'T'.  J.'  over  one  of  the  two  docu- 
 ments, and,  instead  of  dissolving  it  into  Tarcum- 
 Jerushalmi,  dissolved  it  erroneously  into  what  iie 
 must  till  then  have  been  engaged  in  copying  — 
 namely,  Targum-Jonathan,  sc.  ben  Uzziel  (on  the 
 Prophets).  This  error,  fostered  by  the  natural 
 tendency  of  giving  a  well-known  and  far-famed 
 name  —  without  inquiring  too  closely  into  its  ac- 
 curacy —  to  a  hitherto  anonymous  and  compara- 
 tively little  known  version,  has  lieen  copied  again 
 and  again,  until  it  found  its  way,  a  hundred  years 
 later,  into  print.  Of  the  intermediate  stage,  when 
 only  a  few  MSS.  had  received  the  new  designation, 
 a  curious  fact,  which  Azariah  de  Rossi  (Cod.  37  6) 
 mentions,  gives  evidence.  "  I  saw,"  he  says,  "  two 
 complete  Targums  on  the  whole  Pentateuch,  word 
 for  word  alike;  one  in  Reggio,  which  was  described 
 in  the  margin,  'Targum  of  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel;' 
 the  other  in  Mantua,  described  at  the  margin  as 
 '  Targum  Jerushalmi.'  "  In  a  similar  manner 
 quotations  from  either  in  the  Arucli  confound  the 
 designation.  Benjamin  ^Mussaphia  (d.  1G74),  the 
 author  of  additions  and  corrections  to  the  Aruch, 
 has  indeed  pronounced  it  as  his  personal  conjecture 
 that  both  may  be  one  and  the  same,  and  Drusius, 
 Mendelssohn,  Rappoport,  and  others  shared  his 
 opinion.  Yet  the  difficulty  of  their  obvious  dissim- 
 ilarity, if  they  were  identical,  remained  to  be  ac- 
 counted for.  Zunz  tries  to  solve  it  by  assuming 
 that  Pseudo-Jonathan  is  the  original  Targum,  and 
 that  the  fragmentary  .lerushalmi  is  a  collection  of 
 variants  to  it.  The  circumstance  of  its  also  contain- 
 ing portions  identical  with  the  codex,  to  which  it  is 
 supposed  to  be  a  collection  of  readings,  he  explains 
 by  the  negligence  of  the  transcriber.  Frankel, 
 however,  followed  by  Traub  and  Levysohn,  has  gone 
 a  step  further.  From  the  very  identity  of  a  propor- 
 tionately large  numlier  of  places,  amounting  to 
 about  thirty  in  each  book,  and  from  certain  pal- 
 pable and  consistent  differences  which  run  through 
 both  recensions,  they  have  arrived  at  a  different 
 conclusion,  which  seems  to  carry  conviction  on  the 
 face  of  it,  namely,  that  Jerushalmi  is  a  collection 
 of  eniendations  and  additions  to  single  ]iortions, 
 phrases,  and  words  of  Onkelos,  and  Pseudo-Jona- 
 tlian  a  further  emendated  and  completed  edition 
 to  the  whole  Pentateuch  of  Jerushalmi-Onkelos. 
 The  chief  incentive  to  a  new  Targum  on  the  Penta- 
 teuch (that  of  Onkelos  being  well  known  in  Pales- 
 tine), was,  on  the  one  hand,  the  wish  to  explain 
 such  of  the  passages  as  seemed  either  obscure  in 
 themselves  or  capable  of  greater  adaptation  to  the 
 times ;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  great  and  para- 
 mount desire  for  legendary  lore,  and  ethical  and 
 homiletical  motives,  intertwined  with  the  very  letter 
 of  Scripture,  did  not  and  could  not  feel  satisfied 
 with  the  (generally)  strictly  literal  version  of  On- 
 kelos, as  soon  as  the  time  of  eccentric,  prolix,  oral 
 Targums  had  finally  ceased  in  Palestine  too,  and 
 written  Targums  of  Babylon  were  introduced  as  a 
 substitute,  once  for  all.  Hence  variants,  exactly  as 
 found  in  Jerushalmi,  not  to  the  whole  of  Onkelos, 
 but  to  such  portions  as  seemed  most  to  require 
 "  improvement  "  in  the  direction  indicated.  And 
 how  much  this  thoroughly  paraphrastic  version  was 
 preferred  to  the  literal  is,  among  other  signs,  plainly 
 visible  from  the  circumstance  that  it  is  still  joined, 
 for  instance,  to  the  reading  of  tlie  Decalogue  on  the 
 Feast  of  Weeks  in  the  synagogue.  At  a  later  period 
 the  gaps  were  filled  up,  and  the  whole  of  the  exist- 
 
8418 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 ing  Jerushalmi  was  recast,  as  far  again  as  seemed 
 fitting  and  requisite.  Tliis  is  the  Jonatlian,  so 
 called  for  the  last  four  hundred  years  only.  And 
 thus  the  identity  in  some,  and  the  divergence  in 
 other  places  finds  its  most  natural  solution. 
 
 The  Jerushalmi,  in  both  its  recensions,  is  writ- 
 ten in  the  Palestiuensian  dialect,  the  peculiarities  of 
 which  we  have  briefly  characterized  above.  It  is 
 older  than  thj  JMasoraand  the  conquest  of  Western 
 Asia  by  the  Arabs.  Syria  or  I'alestine  must  be 
 its  birthplace,  the  second  half  of  the  7th  century 
 its  date,  since  the  instances  above  given  will  not 
 allow  of  any  earlier  time.  Its  chief  aim  and  pur- 
 pose is,  especially  in  its  second  edition,  to  form  an 
 entertaining  compendium  of  all  the  Halachah  and 
 Ilaggadah,  which  refers  to  the  I'entateuch,  and 
 takes  its  stand  upon  it.  And  in  this  lies  its  chief 
 use  to  us.  There  is  hardly  a  single  allegory,  parable, 
 mystic  digression,  or  tale  in  it  which  is  not  found 
 in  the  other  Haggadistic  writings  —  Wishna,  Tal- 
 mud, Mechilta,  Sifra,  Sifri,  etc. ;  and  both  Winer 
 and  Petermann,  not  to  mention  the  older  author- 
 ities, have  wrongly  charged  it  with  inventing  its  in- 
 terpretations. Even  where  no  source  can  be  indi- 
 cated, the  author  has  surely  only  given  utterance 
 to  the  leading  notions  and  ideas  of  his  times,  ex- 
 travagant and  abstruse  as  they  may  oftentimes  ap- 
 pear to  our  modern  western  minds.  Little  value 
 is  inherent  in  its  critical  emendations  on  the  e.xe- 
 gesis  of  Onkelos.  It  sometimes  endeavors  either  to 
 find  an  entirely  new  signification  for  a  word,  and 
 then  it  often  falls  into  grave  errors,  or  it  restores  in- 
 terpretations rejected  by  Onkelos,  only  it  must  never 
 be  forgotten  that  translation  is  quite  a  secondary 
 object  with  Jerushalmi.  It  adheres,  however,  to 
 the  general  method  followed  by  Onkelos  and  Jona- 
 than. It  dissolves  similes  and  widens  too  concise 
 diction.  Geographical  names  it  alters  into  those 
 current  in  its  own  day.  It  avoids  anthropomor- 
 phisms as  well  as  anthropopathisms.  The  strict 
 distinction  between  the  Divine  Being  and   man  is 
 
 kept  up,  and  the  word  D"Tp  "  before  "  is  put  as  a 
 kind  of  medium  between  the  former  and  the  latter, 
 no  less  than  the  other —  "  Shechinah,"  "  Word," 
 "  Glory,"  etc.  It  never  uses  Klohim  where  the 
 Scripture  applies  it  to  man  or  idols.  The  same 
 care  is  taken  to  extol  the  good  deeds  of  the  people 
 and   its  ancestors,  and  to  slur  over  and  excuse  the 
 
 evil  ones,  etc. :  —  all  this,  however,  in  a  much  more 
 decided  and  exaggerated  form  than  either  in  Onkelos 
 or  .lonathan.  Its  language  and  grammar  are  very 
 corrupt;  it  abounds  —  chiefly  in  its  larger  edition, 
 the  Pseudo-Jonathan  —  in  Greek,  Latin,  Pei-sian, 
 and  Arabic  words ;  and  even  making  allowances  for 
 the  many  blunders  of  ignorant  scribes,  enough  will 
 reniain  to  pronounce  the  diction  ungrammatical  in 
 very  many  places. 
 
 Thus  much  briefly  of  the  Jerushalmi  as  one  and 
 the  same  work.  We  shall  now  endeavor  to  point 
 out  a  few  characteristics  belonging  to  its  two  re- 
 censions respecti\ely.  The  first,  Jerushalmi  kot' 
 i^oxr)v,  knows  very  little  of  angels;  Michael  is 
 the  only  one  ever  occurring:  in  Jonathan,  on  the 
 other  hand,  angelology  flourishes  in  great  vigor: 
 to  the  Biblical  Michael,  Gabriel,  Uriel,  are  added 
 the  Angel  of  Death,  Saniael,  Sagnugael,  Shachassai, 
 Usiel;  seventy  angels  descend  with  God  to  see  the 
 building  of  the  Babylonian  tower;  nine  hundred 
 millions  of  punishing  angels  go  through  Egypt 
 during  the  night  of  the  Exodus,  etc.  Jerushahui 
 makes  use  but  rarely  of  Halachah  and  Haggadah, 
 while  Jonathan  sees  the  text  as  it  were  only  through 
 the  medium  of  Haggadah:  to  him  the  chief  end. 
 Hence  Jonathan  has  many  Midrashim  not  foimd  in 
 Jerushalmi,  while  he  does  not  omit  a  single  one 
 contained  in  the  latter.  There  are  no  direct  his- 
 torical dates  in  Jerushalmi,  but  many  are  found  in 
 Jonathan,  and  since  all  other  signs  indicate  that 
 but  a  short  space  of  time  intervenes  between  the 
 two,  the  late  origin  of  either  is  to  a  great  extent 
 made  manifest  by  these  dates.  The  most  striking 
 ditterence  lietween  them,  however,  and  the  one 
 which  is  most  characteristic  of  either,  is  this,  that 
 while  Jerushalmi  adheres  more  closely  to  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  Mishna,  Jonathan  has  greater  aflinity 
 to  that  of  the  Talmud.  Of  either  we  subjoin  short 
 specimens,  which,  for  the  purpose  of  easier  compar- 
 ison, and  reference,  we  have  placed  side  by  side  with 
 Onkelos.  The  Targum  Jerushalmi  was  first  printed 
 in  Bomberg's  Bible,  Venice,  1518  ft".,  and  was  re- 
 printed in  Bomberg's  edd.,  and  in  Walton,  vol.  iv. 
 Jonathan  to  the  I'entateuch,  a  MS.  of  which  was 
 first  discovered  by  Ashur  Purinz  in  the  Library  of 
 the  family  of  the  Puahs  in  Venice,  was  printed  for 
 the  first  time  in  1.590,  as  "  Targum  Jonathan  ben 
 Uzziel,"  at  Venice,  reprinted  at  Hanau,  1618,  Am- 
 sterdam, 16i0,  Prague,  1646,  Walton,  vol.  iv.,  etc. 
 
 GENESIS   III.  17-24. 
 
 Authorized  Version. 
 
 17  And  UDto  Adam  he 
 said,  Because  thou  hast 
 hearkened  unto  the  voi<>e 
 of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten 
 of  the  tree,  of  which  1  com- 
 manded thee,  saying,  Thou 
 ehajt  not  eat  of  it :  cursed 
 is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ; 
 in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of 
 it  all  the  days  of  thy  life ; 
 
 18  Thorns  also  and  this 
 ties  shall  it  bring  forth  to 
 thee;  and  thou  shalt  eat 
 the  herb  of  the  field  ; 
 
 Onkelos. 
 
 17  And  to  Adam  he  said, 
 For  that  thou  hast  accepted 
 the  word  of  thy  wife,  and 
 hast  eaten  from  the  tree  of 
 which  I  have  conmianded 
 unto  thee,  and  said,  Thou 
 shalt  not  eat  from  it  : 
 cursed  shall  the  earth  be 
 for  tliy  sake  ;  with  trouble 
 shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the 
 days  of  thy  life  ; 
 
 18  And  thorns  and  tliis- 
 tles  it  shall  grow  for  thee  ; 
 and  thou  shalt  eat  the  grass 
 of  the  field  ; 
 
 Targum  Jerushalmi. 
 First  Recension. 
 
 18  And  thorns  and  this- 
 tles shall  it  multiply  for 
 thee ;  and  thou  shalt  eat 
 the  grass  that  is  on  the 
 face   of  the   earth      Then 
 
 Targum 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 Jerushalmi. 
 
 Second  Recension. 
 
 17  And  to  Adam  he  said. 
 Because  thou  hast  received 
 the  word  of  thy  wife,  and 
 hast  eaten  from  the  fruit  of 
 the  tree,  of  which  I  com- 
 manded thee.  Thou  shalt 
 not  eat  from  it :  cursed  be 
 the  earth,  because  it  has 
 not  shown  unto  thee  thy 
 fault ;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou 
 eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy 
 life: 
 
 18  And  thorns  and  this- 
 tles shall  grow  and  multi- 
 ply for  thy  sake  ;  and  thou 
 shalt  eat  the  grass  that  i» 
 on    the   face   of  the   field 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3419 
 
 Adthobized  Yersion. 
 
 Onkelos. 
 
 19  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
 face  Shalt  thou  eat  bread, 
 till  thou  return  unto  tbe 
 ground  ;  for  out  of  it  wast 
 thou  taken  :  for  dust  thou 
 art,  and  unto  dust  shalt 
 thou  return. 
 
 20  And  Adam  called  his 
 wife's  name  Eve  ;  because 
 she  was  the  mother  of  all 
 living. 
 
 21  Unto  Adam  also  and  to 
 his  wife  did  the  Lord  God 
 make  coats  of  skins,  and 
 clothed  them. 
 
 22  And  the  Lord  God 
 said,  Behold,  the  man  is 
 become  as  one  of  us,  to 
 know  good  and  evil :  and 
 now,  lest  he  put  forth  his 
 hand,  and  take  also  of  the 
 tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and 
 live  for  ever : 
 
 23  Therefore  the  Lord 
 God  sent  him  forth  from 
 the  garden  of  Eden,  to  till 
 the  ground  from  whence  he 
 tvas  taken. 
 
 24  So  he  drove  out  the 
 man  ;  and  he  placed  at  the 
 eaa*;  of  the  garden  of  Eden 
 
 19  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
 face  shalt  thou  eat  bread, 
 until  thou  returnest  unto 
 the  earth  from  which  thou 
 art  created :  for  dust  art 
 thou,  and  to  dust  shalt 
 thou  return. 
 
 20  And  Adam  called  the 
 name  of  his  wife  Chavah  ; 
 for  that  she  was  the  mother 
 of  all  sons  of  mdn. 
 
 21  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 made  unto  Adam  and  his 
 wife  garments  of  glory,  on 
 the  skin  of  their  flesh,  and 
 clothed  them. 
 
 22  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 said,  Behold  Adam  is  the 
 only  one  in  the  world 
 knowing  good  and  evil : 
 perchance  now  he  might 
 stretch  forth  his  hand  and 
 take  also  from  the  tree  of 
 life,  and  eat,  and  live  for 
 evermore. 
 
 23  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 sent  him  from  the  garden 
 of  Eden,  to  till  the  earth 
 whence  he  was  created. 
 
 24  And  he  drove  out 
 Adam  ;  and  he  placed  be- 
 fore the  garden  of  Eden  the 
 
 Targom  Jerushalmi. 
 First  Recension. 
 
 began  Adam  and  said,  I 
 pray,  through  the  Mercy 
 that  is  before  Thee,  Jeho- 
 vah, let  us  not  be  accounted 
 before  Thee  as  the  beasts 
 that  eat  the  grass  on  the 
 face  of  the  field  :  may  we 
 be  permitted  to  arise  and 
 toil  with  the  toil  of  our 
 hands,  and  eat  food  from 
 the  fruits  of  the  earth  ;  and 
 thus  may  there  be  a  differ- 
 ence before  Thee  between 
 the  sons  of  man  and  the 
 ofifepring  of  cattle. 
 
 22  And  the  Word  of  Je- 
 hovah Elohim  said,  Lo  I 
 man,  whom  I  created,  is 
 alone  in  this  world,  as  1 
 am  alone  in  the  highest 
 Heavens  ;  mighty  nations 
 will  spring  from  him  ;  from 
 him  also  will  arise  a  people 
 that  will  know  to  distin- 
 guish between  good  and 
 evil  :  now  it  is  better  to 
 expel  him  from  the  garden 
 of  Eden,  before  he  stretch 
 out  his  hand  and  take  also 
 from  the  fruits  of  the  tree 
 of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for 
 ever. 
 
 24  And  He  expelled 
 Adam,  and  caused  to  re- 
 side the  splendor  of  his  She- 
 
 Targum 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 Jerushalmi. 
 
 Second  Recension, 
 
 Adam  answered  and  said,  I 
 pray,  by  the  Mercy  that  is 
 before  Thee,  Jehovah,  that 
 we  may  not  be  deemed  like 
 unto  the  beasts,  that  we 
 should  eat  grass  that  is  on 
 the  face  of  the  field  ;  may 
 we  be  allowed  to  arise  and 
 toil  with  the  toiling  of  our 
 hands,  and  eat  food  from 
 the  food  of  the  earth,  and 
 thus  may  there  be  a  dis- 
 tinction now  before  Thee, 
 between  the  sons  of  men 
 and  the  offspring  of  cattle. 
 
 19  ....  In  the  toil  of 
 the  palm  of  thy  hand  shalt 
 thou  eat  food,  until  thou 
 returnest  unto  the  dust 
 from  which  thou  wert  cre- 
 ated :  for  dust  art  thou,  and 
 to  dust  shalt  thou  return  : 
 for  from  the  dust  thou  wilt 
 once  rise  to  give  judgment 
 and  account  for  all  that 
 thou  hast  done,  on  the  day 
 of  the  great  Judgment. 
 
 20  And  Adam  called  the 
 name  of  his  wife  Chavah ; 
 for  she  is  the  mother  of  all 
 the  sons  of  man. 
 
 21  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 made  unto  Adam  and  his 
 wife  garments  of  honor, 
 from  the  skin  of  the  ser- 
 pent which  he  had  cast  out 
 of  it,  on  the  skin  of  their 
 flesh,  instead  of  their  beauty 
 which  they  had  cast  off; 
 and  he  clothed  them. 
 
 22  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 said  to  the  angels  that  were 
 ministering  before  him,  Lo  I 
 there  is  Adam  alone  on  the 
 earth,  as  I  am  alone  in  the 
 highest  Heavens,  and  there 
 will  spring  from  him  those 
 who  know  to  distinguish 
 between  good  and  evil  :  if 
 he  had  kept  the  command- 
 ment I  commanded,  he 
 would  have  been  living 
 and  lasting,  like  the  tree 
 of  life,  for  evermore.  Now 
 since  he  has  not  kept  what 
 I  commanded.  We  decree 
 against  liim  and  expel  him 
 from  the  garden  of  Eden, 
 before  he  may  stretch  out 
 his  hand  and  take  from  the 
 fruits  of  the  tree  of  life  ; 
 for  if  he  ate  therefrom  he 
 would  live  and  remain  for 
 ever. 
 
 23  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
 expelled  him  from  the  gar- 
 den of  Eden,  and  he  went 
 and  he  settled  on  the  Mount 
 of  Moriah,  to  till  the  earth 
 of  which  he  was  created. 
 
 24  And  He  drcve  out 
 Adam  from  where  He  had 
 made  to  reside  the  glory  ot 
 
3420 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 Authorized 
 Version. 
 
 Oherubims,[!]anJ 
 a  flaming  sword 
 which  turned  ev- 
 ery way,  to  keep 
 the  way  of  the 
 tree  of  life. 
 
 Onkelos. 
 
 Cherubim  and  the 
 sharp  sword, 
 
 which  turns  to 
 guard  the  way  to 
 the  tree  of  life 
 
 Targdm  Jerushalmi. 
 First  Recension. 
 
 chinah  from  the  beginning  at  the  east 
 of  the  garden  of  Eden,  above  the  two 
 Cherubim.  Two  thousand  years  be- 
 fore the  world  was  created,  he  cre- 
 ated the  Law,  and  prepared  Gehin- 
 nom  [Hell]  and  Gau  Eden  [Paradise]  : 
 He  prepared  Gan  Eden  for  the  right- 
 eous, that  they  may  eat  and  delight 
 in  the  fruits  of  the  tree,  because 
 they  kept  the  commandments  of  the 
 Law  in  this  world,  and  prepared  Ge- 
 hinnom  for  the  wicked,  for  it  is  like 
 unto  a  sharp  sword  that  eats  from 
 both  sides  ;  He  has  prepared  within 
 it  sparks  of  light  and  coals  which 
 consume  the  wicked,  to  punish  them 
 in  the  future  world  for  their  not  hav 
 ing  kept  the  commandments  of  the 
 Law.  For  the  tree  of  life  that  is  the 
 Law  ;  whosoever  keeps  it  in  this 
 world,  he  will  live  and  last  like  the 
 tree  of  life :  good  is  the  Law  to 
 whomsoever  keeps  it  in  this  world 
 like  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  life  in  the 
 world  to  come. 
 
 Targom 
 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 .Jebcsh.\lmi. 
 
 Second  Recension. 
 
 his  Shechinah  from  the  beginning  be- 
 tween the  two  Cherubim.  Before  He 
 created  the  world  He  has  created  the 
 Law  :  He  has  prepared  the  garden  of 
 Eden  for  the  righteous,, that  they 
 shall  eat  and  delight  in  the  fruits  of 
 the  tree,  because  they  have  acted 
 during  their  life  according  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Law  in  this  world, 
 and  have  kept  its  commandments  : 
 He  has  prepared  the  Gehinnom  for 
 the  wicked,  which  is  likened  unto  a 
 sharp  sword  that  eats  from  two  sides  : 
 l£e  prepared  within  it  sparks  of  light 
 and  coals  of  fire  to  judge  with  them 
 the  wicked  who  rebelled  in  their 
 lives  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Law.  Better  is  this  Law  to  him  who 
 acts  according  to  it  than  the  fruits  of 
 the  tree  of  life,  for  the  AVord  of  Jeho- 
 vah has  prepared  for  him  who  keeps 
 it,  that  he  shall  live  and  walk  in  the 
 paths  of  the  way  of  the  life  of  the 
 future  world. 
 
 THE   LAST    CHAPTER   OF  DEUTERONOMY,    Verses  1-3. 
 
 Authorized  Version. 
 
 1  And  Moses  went  up 
 from  the  plains  of  Moab 
 unto  the  mountain  of 
 Nebo,  to  the  top  of  Pis- 
 gah,  that  is  over  against 
 Jericho.  And  the  Lord 
 shewed  him  all  the  land 
 of  Gilead,  unto  Dan, 
 
 2  And  all  Naphtali,  and 
 the  land  of  Ephraim,  and 
 Manasseh,  and  all  the 
 land  of  Judah,  unto  the 
 utmost  sea, 
 
 3  And  the  south,  and 
 the  plain  of  the  valley  of 
 Jericho,  the  city  of  palm 
 trees,  unto  Zoar. 
 
 Targum  Jerushalmi. 
 First  Recension. 
 
 1  And  Moses  ascended 
 from  the  encampment  of 
 Moab  to  the  mountain  of 
 Nebo  :  the  head  of  the 
 height  that  is  opposite 
 Jericho.  And  Jehovah 
 showed  him  all  the  laud 
 of  Gilead  unto  Dan. 
 
 2  And  all  Naphtali  and 
 the  land  of  Ephraim  and 
 Manasseh,  and  all  the 
 land  of  Judah  to  the 
 hindmost  sea, 
 
 3  And  the  west  and  the 
 plain  of  the  valley  of 
 Jericho  the  city  of  the 
 palms,  unto  Zoar. 
 
 Targum 
 [Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 
 
 Jerushalmi. 
 Second  Recension. 
 
 1  And  Moses  ascended 
 from  the  plain  of  Moab 
 to  the  mountain  of  Nebo, 
 the  summit  of  the  hill 
 which  is  opposite  Jeri- 
 cho. And  God  showed 
 him  the  whole  land  : 
 Gilead  unto  Dan  of  Caes- 
 area. 
 
 2  And  all  the  land  of 
 Naphtali,  and  the  land 
 of  Ephraim  and  Manas- 
 seh, and  the  whole  land 
 of  Judah,  to  the  hind- 
 most sea, 
 
 3  And  west,  and  the 
 plain  of  the  valley  of 
 Jericho  the  city  which 
 produces  the  palms,  that 
 is  Zeer. 
 
 1  And  Moses  ascended  from  the 
 plains  of  Moab  to  the  mountain  of 
 Nebo,  the  summit  of  the  height 
 which  is  over  against  Jericho,  and 
 the  word  of  Jehovah  showed  him 
 all  the  mighty  ones  of  the  land  : 
 the  powerful  deeds  which  Jephtha 
 from  Gilead  would  do,  and  the  vic- 
 tories of  Samson  the  son  of  Ma- 
 noah,  from  the  tribe  of  Dan. 
 
 2  And  the  thousand  princes  from 
 the  house  of  Naphtali  who  joined 
 issue  with  Balak,  and  the  kings 
 whom  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  from 
 the  tribe  of  Efraim,  would  kill,  and 
 the  power  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Jo- 
 ash  from  the  tribe  of  Manasseh, 
 and  all  the  kings  of  Israel,  and  the 
 kingdom  of  the  house  of  Judah 
 who  would  rule  in  the  land  until 
 the  second  Sanctuary  would  bo 
 laid  low. 
 
 3  And  the  king  of  the  south  who 
 would  join  the  king  of  the  north 
 to  destroy  the  inhabitants  of  the 
 land,  and  the  Ammonites,  and  the 
 Moabites,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
 valleys  who  would  oppress  Israel, 
 and  the  exile  of  the  disciples  of  Elija 
 who  would  be  driven  out  from  the 
 plain  of  Jericho,  and  the  exile  of 
 the  disciples  of  Elisha  who  would 
 be  driven  out  from  the  city  of 
 palms  by  their  brethren,  the  house 
 of  Israel  :  two  hundred  thousand 
 men.  And  the  woes  of  each  gener- 
 ation and  the  punishment  of  ^r- 
 \maigus  [Aruiillus]  the  evil  one  and 
 [the  battle-array  of  Gog.     And  in 
 
 this  great  misery  Michael  will  arise 
 Uvith  the  sword  :  to  save,  etc. 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3421 
 
 V.  Targums  of    "Joseph    the   Blind"   on 
 
 THE    HaGIOGRAPHA. 
 
 "  When  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  began  to  para- 
 phrase the  Cethubim  "  (Hagiographa),  we  read  in 
 the  Talnuidical  passage  before  quoted,  "  a  mysteri- 
 ous voice  was  lieard  saying:  It  is  enough.  Thou 
 hast  revealed  the  secrets  of  the  Prophets  —  why 
 wouldst  thou  also  reveal  those  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  " 
 —  It  would  thus  appear,  that  a  Targum  to  these 
 books  (Job  excepted)  was  entirely  unknown  up  to  a 
 very  late  period.  Those  Targums  on  the  Hagiog- 
 rapha which  we  now  possess  have  Ijeen  attriliuted 
 vaguely  to  different  authors,  it  being  assumed  in 
 the  first  instance  that  they  were  the  work  of  one 
 man.  Now  it  was  Akylas  the  Greek  translator, 
 mentioned  in  Bereshith  Rabba  (see  above) ;  now 
 Onkelos,  the  Chaklee  translator  of  the  Pentateuch, 
 his  mythical  double;  now  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel,  or 
 Joseph  (Jose)  the  Blind  (see  above).  But  the  di- 
 versity in  the  different  parts  of  the  work  warring 
 too  palpably  against  the  unity  of  authorship,  the 
 blindness  of  the  last-named  authority  seemed  to 
 show  the  easiest  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  Joseph 
 was  supposed  to  have  dictated  it  to  different  dis- 
 ciples at  different  periods,  and  somehow  every  one 
 of  the  amanuenses  infused  part  of  his  own  individ- 
 uality into  his  share  of  the  work.  Popular  belief 
 thus  fastened  upon  this  Joseph  the  BUiid,  suice  a 
 name  the  work  must  needs  have,  and  to  him  in 
 most  of  the  editions,  the  Targum  is  affiliated.  Yet, 
 if  ever  he  did  translate  the  Hagiographa,  certain  it 
 is  that  those  which  we  possess  are  not  by  his  or  his 
 disciples'  hands — that  is,  of  the  time  of  the  4th 
 century.  Writers  of  the  13th  century  already  re- 
 futed this  notion  of  Jo.sei)h's  authorship,  for  the  as- 
 sumption of  which  there  never  was  any  other  ground 
 than  that  he  was  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  like 
 Onkelos-Akylas  and  Jonathan,  in  connection  with 
 Targum;  and,  as  we  saw,  there  is  indeed  reason  to 
 believe  that  he  had  a  share  in  the  redaction  of 
 "Jonathan"  to  the  Prophets,  which  falls  in  his 
 time.  Between  him  and  our  hagiographical  Tar- 
 gums, however,  many  centuries  must  have  elapsed. 
 Yet  we  do  not  even  venture  to  assign  to  them  more 
 than  an  approximate  round  date,  about  1000  A.  i>. 
 Besides  the  Targums  to  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
 Prophets,  those  now  extant  range  over  Psalms, 
 Proverbs,  Job,  the  five  Megilloth,  i.  e.  Song  of 
 Songs,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes ; 
 the  Chronicles,  and  Daniel.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
 alone  are  left  without  a  Targum  at  present ;  yet  we 
 can  hardly  help  believing  that  ere  long  one  will  also 
 be  found  to  the  latter,  as  the  despaired- of  Chroni- 
 cles was  found  in  the  17th  century,  and  Daniel  — 
 a  sure  trace  of  it  at  least  —  so  recently,  that  as  yet 
 
 nobody  has  considered  it  worth  his  while  to  take 
 any  notice  of  it.  We  shall  divide  these  Targums 
 into  four  groups:  Proverbs,  Job,  Psalms;  —  Megil- 
 loth ;  —  Chronicles ;  —  and  Daniel. 
 
 1.  Targum  on  Psaljis,  Job,  Proverbs. 
 Certain  linguistic  and  other  characteristics"  ex- 
 hibited by  these  three  Targums,  lead  to  the  con- 
 clusion that  they  are  nearly  contemporaneous  pro- 
 ductions, and  that  their  l)irthplace  is,  most  likely, 
 Syria.  While  the  two  former,  however,  are  mere 
 paraphrases,  the  Targum  on  Pi'overbs  comes  nearer 
 to  our  idea  of  a  version  than  almost  any  Targum, 
 except  perhaps  that  of  Onkelos.  It  adheres  as 
 closely  to  the  original  text  as  possible.  The  most 
 remarkable  feature  about  it  howe\'er,  and  one  which 
 has  given  rise  to  endless  speculations  and  discus- 
 sions, is  its  extraordinary  similarity  to  the  Syriac 
 Version.  It  would  indeed  sometimes  seem  as  if 
 they  had  copied  each  other — an  opinion  warmly 
 advocated  by  Dathe,  who  endeavored  to  pro\e  that 
 the  Chaldee  had  copied  or  adajjted  the  Syrian, 
 there  being  passages  in  the  Targum  which  could, 
 he  assumed,  only  be  accounted  for  by  a  misunder- 
 standing of  the  Syriac  translation.''  It  has,  on  the 
 other  hand,  been  argued  that  there  are  a  greater 
 number  of  important  passages  which  distinctly  show 
 tiiat  the  Targumist  had  used  an  original  Hebrew 
 text,  varying  from  that  of  the  Syriac,  and  had  also 
 made  use  of  the  LXX.  against  the  latter.^'  The 
 Syriasms  would  easily  be  accounted  for  by  the  Ara- 
 maic idiom  itself,  the  forms  of  which  vary  but  little 
 from,  and  easily  merge  into,  the  sister  dialect  ot 
 Syria.  Indeed  nearly  all  of  them  are  found  in  the 
 Talmud,  a  strictly  Aramaic  work.  It  has  been 
 supposed  by  others  that  neither  of  these  versions,  as 
 they  are  now  in  our  hands,  exhibit  their  original 
 form.  A  late  editor,  as  it  were,  of  the  (mutilated) 
 Targum,  might  have  derived  his  emendations  from 
 that  version  which  came  nearest  to  it,  both  in  lan- 
 guage and  in  close  adherence  to  the  Hebrew  text  — 
 namely,  the  Syriac;  and  there  is  certainly  every 
 reason  to  conclude  from  the  wofuUy  faulty  state  in 
 which  this  Targum  is  found  (Luzzatto  counts  sev- 
 eral hundred  corrupt  readings  in  it),  that  many  and 
 clumsy  hands  must  have  been  at  work  upon  the 
 later  Codd.  The  most  likely  solution  of  the  diffi- 
 culty, however,  seems  to  be  that  indicated  by 
 Frankel  —  namely,  that  the  LXX.  is  the  common 
 source  of  both  versions,  but  in  such  a  manner  that 
 the  Aramaic  has  also  made  use  of  the  Hebrew  and 
 the  Greek  —  of  the  latter,  however,  through  the 
 Syriac  medium.  As  a  specimen  of  the  curious 
 similarity  of  both  versions,  the  following  two  verses 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  book  may  find  a  placo 
 here : — 
 
 «  E.  g.,  the  use  of  the  word  "'^iDS  for  angel  in 
 
 Targ.  Ps.  and  Job,  the   3,    atfixed  to  the  3d  p.  plur. 
 
 praef.  Peal,  the  infin.  with  prsef.  12,  besides  several 
 more  or  less  unusual  Greek  and  Syriac  words  common 
 to  all  three. 
 
 6  E.  £•.,  ch.  xxix.  5,  the  Heb.  word  rflP,  "  city," 
 '  T  :'  •' 
 
 is  rendered  \.Di.D^  "  city,"  in  Syr.  Targum  trans- 
 lates SZ2~T2,  "  a  lie,"  which  is  only  to  be  accounted  for 
 by  a  iiii-uadcrstanding  or  misreading  of  the  Syriac 
 )LJ3i..O  where  for  the  second  c  the  Chaldee  trans- 
 lator read  a  '',  )..^^.3. 
 
 c  Prov.  xxvi.  10,  the  Jlasoretic  text  reads :  3T 
 b'^D^  ~l3bl  b3  bbinn  ;  LXX.  ™AAa  x^fta^e- 
 Tai   crdipf    i<i>p6v<oi>  (=   b'^DD   "1Ii72)  ;    Targ.    ^2D 
 
 Sb^'^DT  H~m73  W^H;  thus  adopting  exactly 
 the  reading  of  the  LXX.  against  the  received  text 
 xxix.  21,  "'"T33?  "l^DQ  P^^^j  quoted  in  the  same 
 manner  in  Talm.  Suceah.  .52  b  ;  LXX.  os  Kwraa-naTok^ 
 U  Ti-aiibs  okeTT/s  eyrai  ;  evidently  reading  l^V 
 71'^'n'^=  Targ.  "*inD  ST^rb.  Comp.  also  xxvii 
 16,  XXX.  30,  &c. 
 
3422 
 
 VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 CHAP.  I.  2,  3. 
 
 Takgum  (Ver.  2). 
 Ver.  3. 
 
 sb^itz^-r  sm-n»  sbnpab 
 
 Compare  also  vers.  5,  6,  8,  10,  12,  13;  ch.  ii. 
 vers.  9,  10, 13-15;  iii.  2-9,  etc. 
 
 We  must  not  omit  to  observe  that  no  early  Jew- 
 ish commentator — Rashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  etc. — men- 
 tions the  Targuni  either  to  Proverbs,  or  to  Job  and 
 Psalms.  Nathan  ben  Jechiel  (12th  century)  is  the 
 tirst  who  quotes  it. 
 
 Respecting  the  two  latter  Targums  of  this  group, 
 Psalms  and  Job,  it  is  to  i)e  observed  that  they  are, 
 more  or  less,  mere  collections  of  fragments.  That 
 there  must  have  existed  paraphrases  to  Job  at  a 
 very  early  period  follows  from  the  Talmudical  pas- 
 sages which  we  quoted  in  the  introduction  —  nay, 
 we  almost  feel  inclined  to  assume  that  this  book, 
 considered  by  the  learned  as  a  mere  allegory  ("  Job 
 never  was,  and  never  was  created,"  is  the  dictum 
 found  in  the  Talnuid,  lialia  liathra,  15  a:  i.  e.  he 
 never  had  any  real  existence,  but  is  a  poetical, 
 though  sacred,  invention),  opened  the  list  of  writ- 
 ten paraphrases.  How  nuich  of  the  primitive  ver- 
 sion is  embodied  in  the  one  which  we  possess  it  is 
 of  course  next  to  impossible  to  determine,  more  es- 
 pecially in  the  state  of  infancy  in  which  the  inves- 
 tigation of  the  Targums  as  yet  remains.  So  much, 
 however,  is  paljiable,  that  the  Targums  of  both 
 Psalms  and  Job  in  their  present  shape  contain  relics 
 of  difterent  authors  in  different  times:  some  para- 
 phrasts,  some  strictly  translators.  Very  frequently 
 a  second  version  of  the  same  passage  is  introduced 
 
 by  the  formula  "inW  D12"in,  "another  Tar- 
 gum,"  and  varies  most  widely  from  its  predecessor; 
 while,  more  especially  in  the  Psalms,  a  long  series 
 of  chapters  translated  literally,  is  followed  by  an- 
 other series  translated  in  the  wildest  and  most 
 fanciful  character.  The  Cod.  Erpen.  still  exhibits 
 these  various  readings,  as  such,  side  by  side,  on  its 
 margin;  thence,  however,  they  have  in  our  printed 
 editions  found  their  way  into  the  text.  How  much 
 of  these  variants,  or  of  the  entire  text,  belongs  to 
 the  Palestinian  ('ycles,  which  may  well  have  em- 
 braced the  whole  Torah,  —  or  whether  they  are  to 
 be  considered  exclusively  the  growth  of  later  times, 
 and  have  thus  but  a  very  slender  connection  with 
 either  the  original  Babylonian  or  the  I'alestinian 
 Targum-works,  future  investigation  must  determine. 
 The  most  useful  in  this  group  is  naturally  the 
 Targum  on  Proverbs,  it  being  the  one  which  trans- 
 lates most  closely,  or  rather  tlie  only  one  which 
 does  trandale  at  all.  Besides  the  explanation  it 
 gives  of  difficult  passages  in  the  text,  its  peculiar 
 affinity  to  the  Syriac  Version  naturally  throws 
 some  light  upon  both,  and  allows  of  emendations 
 in  and  through  either.  As  to  Job  and  Psalms, 
 their  chief  use  lies  in  their  showing  the  gradual 
 dying  stages  of  the  idiom  in  which  they  are  writ- 
 ten, and  also  in  their  being  in  a  manner  guides  to 
 the  determination  of  the  date  of  certain  stages  of 
 Hairgadah. 
 
 Syr.  (Ver.  2). 
 Ver.  3. 
 
 .)lo_(»Lo  )j.^>o  j!.aja.»>)o 
 
 2,  3.  Targums  on  the  five  Megilloth. 
 
 These  Targums  are  likewise  not  mentioned  be- 
 fore the  12th  century,  when  the  Aruch  quotes  them 
 severally, — although  Esther  nnist  have  Ijeen  trans- 
 lated at  a  very  early  period,  since  the  Talmud  al- 
 ready mentions  a  Targum  on  it.  Of  this,  we  need 
 hardly  add,  no  trace  is  Ibund  in  our  present  Tar- 
 gum. The  freedom  of  a  "version"  can  go  no 
 further  than  it  does  in  these  Targums  on  the  Me- 
 gilloth. They  are,  in  fact,  mere  Haggadah,  and 
 bear  the  most  striking  resemblance  to  the  JNIidrash 
 on  the  respective  books.  Curiously  enough,  the 
 gradual  preponderance  of  the  Paraphrase  over  the 
 text  is  noticealile  in  the  following  order:  Ruth, 
 Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Song  of  Songs. 
 The  latter  is  fullest  to  overflowing  of  those  "  imgce 
 aiqtie  Jrivolitatea"  which  have  so  sorely  tried  the 
 temper  of  the  wise  and  grave.  Starting  from  the 
 almost  comical  notion  that  all  they  found  in  the 
 books  of  Mohammedanism  and  of  Judaism,  of 
 Rome  and  of  Greece,  if  it  seemed  to  have  any  ref- 
 erence to  "  Religio,"  however  unsupported,  and 
 however  plainly  bearing  the  stamp  of  poetry — good 
 or  bad  —  on  its  face,  must  needs  be  a  religious  creed, 
 and  the  creed  forced  upon  every  single  believer :  — 
 they  could  not  but  get  angry  with  mere  '  day- 
 dreams '  being  interspersed  with  the  sacred  litera- 
 ture of  the  Bible.  Delitzsch,  a  scholar  of  our 
 generation,  says  of  the  Targums  in  general  that 
 "  history  becomes  in  them  most  charming,  most  in- 
 structive poetry ;  but  this  poetry  is  not  the  inven- 
 tion, the  phantasma  of  the  writer,  but  the  old  and 
 popular  venerable  tradition  or  legend  ....  the 
 Targums  are  poetical,  both  as  to  their  contents  and 
 form  "  (Gescli.  d.  J  Lid.  Poesie,  p.  27):  and  further, 
 "  The  wealth  of  legend  in  its  gushing  fullness  did 
 not  suiter  any  formal  bounds;  legend  bursts  upon 
 legend,  like  wave  upon  wave,  not  to  be  dauuned  in 
 even  by  any  poetical  forms.  Thus  the  Jerusalem 
 Targum  in  its  double  Recensions  [to  the  Penta- 
 teuch], and  the  Targmns  on  the  five  Slegilloth  are 
 the  most  beautiful  national  works  of  art,  through 
 which  there  runs  the  golden  thread  of  Scripture, 
 and  which  are  held  together  only  by  the  unity  of 
 the  idea"  (p.  135).  Although  we  do  not  share 
 Delitzsch's  enthusiasm  to  the  full  extent,  yet  we 
 cannot  but  agree  with  him  that  there  are,  together 
 with  stones  and  dust,  many  pearls  of  precious  price 
 to  be  gathered  from  these  much  despised,  because 
 hardly  known,  books. 
 
 The  dialect  of  these  books  occupies  the  mean  be- 
 tween the  East  and  West  Aramsean,  and  there  is  a 
 certain  unity  of  style  and  design  about  all  the  live 
 books,  which  fully  justifies  the  supposition  that 
 they  are,  one  and  all,  the  work  of  one  author.  It 
 may  be  that,  taken  in  an  inverted  series,  they  mark 
 the  successive  stages  of  a  poet's  life;  glowing,  rap- 
 turous, overflowing  in  the  first;  stately,  sober, 
 prosy  in  the  last.     As  to  the  time  of  its  writing  or 
 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 
 
 3423 
 
 editing,  we  have  again  to  repeat,  that  it  is  most 
 uncertain,  but  unquestionably  belongs  to  a  period 
 uiucli  later  than  the  Taliuud.  The  book  of  Esther, 
 enjoying  both  through  its  story-like  form  and  the 
 early  injunction  of  its  being  read  or  heard  by  every 
 one  on  the  Feast  of  Purira,  a  great  circulation  and 
 popularity,  has  been  targuinized  many  times,  and 
 besides  the  one  embodied  in  the  live  Megilloth, 
 there  are  two  more  extant  (jnol  l/iree,  as  generally 
 stated :  the  so-called  third  being  only  an  abbrevia- 
 tion of  the  first),  which  are  called  respectively  the 
 first:  a  short  one  without  digressions,  and  the 
 second  —  [Turyum  sltmi):  a  larger  one,  belonging 
 to  the  Palestinian  Cycle.  The  latter  Targum  is  a 
 collection  of  eastern  romances,  broken  up  and  ar- 
 ranged to  the  single  verses:  of  gorgeous  hues  and 
 extravagant  imagination,  such  as  are  to  be  met  with 
 in  the  Adshaib  or  Chamis,  or  any  eastern  collec- 
 tion of  legends  and  tales. 
 
 VI.  Taegum  on  the  Book  of  Chronicles. 
 
 This  Targum  was  unknown,  as  we  said  before, 
 up  to  a  very  recent  period.  In  1G80,  it  was  eilited 
 for  the  first  time  from  an  Erfurt  MS.  by  M.  F. 
 Beck,  and  in  1710  from  a  more  complete  as  well  as 
 correct  MS.  at  Cambridge,  by  \).  \Vilkins.  The 
 name  of  Hungary  occurring  in  it,  and  its  frequent 
 use  of  the  Jerusalem-Targuni  to  the  Pentateuch, 
 amounting  sometimes  to  simple  copying  (comp.  the 
 Genealogical  Table  in  cliap.  i.-,  etc  )  show  sufficiently 
 that  its  author  is  neither  "  .Jonathan  b.  Uzziel  " 
 nor  "Joseph  the  Blind,"  as  h.as  been  suggested. 
 But  the  language,  style,  and  the  Haggadah,  with 
 which  it  abounds,  point  to  a  late  jjeriod  and  point 
 out  Palestine  as  the  place  where  it  was  written. 
 Its  use  must  be  limited  to  philological,  historical, 
 and  geographical  studies;  the  science  of  exegesis 
 will  profit  little  by  it.  The  first  edition  appeared 
 under  the  title  Paraph rasis  Clidldnica  libr.  CJiron- 
 icorum,  cura  M.  F\  Beckii,  2  torn.  Aug.  Vind. 
 1680-83,  4to;  the  second  by  D.  Wilkins,  Pnra- 
 phrasis  ....  auctore  R.  Jusep/to,  etc.  Anist., 
 1715,  4to.  The  first  edition  has  the  advantage  of 
 a  large  number  of  very  learned  notes,  the  second 
 that  of  a  comparatively  more  correct  and  complete 
 text. 
 
 VII.  The  Tauguai  to  D.vnikl. 
 
 It  is  for  the  first  time  that  this  Targum,  for  the 
 non-existence  of  which  many  and  weighty  reasons 
 were  given  (that  the  date  of  the  ^Messiah's  arrival 
 was  hidden  in  it,  among  others),  is  here  formally 
 introduced  into  the  regular  rank  and  file  of  Tar- 
 gums,  although  it  has  been  known  for  now  more 
 than  five  and  twenty  years.  Muiik  found  it  not 
 indeed  in  the  Original  Aramaic,  but  in  what  ap- 
 pears to  him  to  be  an  extract  of  it  written  in  Per- 
 sian. The  MS.  (Anc.  Fond,  No.  4.5,  Imp.  Library) 
 is  inscribed  ''  History  of  Daniel,"  and  has  retained 
 only  the  first  words  of  the  Original,  which  it  trans- 
 lates likewise  into  Persian.  This  language  is  then 
 retained  throughout. 
 
 Alter  several  legends  known  from  other  Targums, 
 follows  a  long  prophecy  of  Daniel,  from  which  the 
 Ixjok  is  shown  to  have  been  written  after  the  first 
 Crusade.  Alohammad  and  his  successors  are  men- 
 tioned,   also    a    king   who   coming    from    Europe 
 
 (]S^Z211  TS)  will  go  to  Damascus,  and  kill  the 
 Ishniaelitic  (Mohammedan)  kings  and  princes;  he 
 will  break  down  the  minarets  (n~lS3D),  destroy 
 the  mosques  (Nm^DD),  and  no   one  will  after 
 
 that  dare  to  pronounce  the  name  of  the  Profane 
 (vlDD  =  Mohammad).  The  Jews  will  also  have 
 to  suffer  great  misfortunes  (as  indeed  the  knightly 
 Crusaders  won  their  spurs  Ijy  dastardly  uuirderino 
 the  helpless  masses,  men,  women,  and  children,  in 
 the  Ghettos  along  the  Kliine  and  elsewhere,  before 
 they  stalled  to  deliver  the  Holy  Tomb).  By  a 
 sudden  transition  the  Prophet  then  passes  on  to  the 
 ''  Messiah,  son  of  Joseph,"  to  Gog  and  Magog,  and 
 to  the  •'  true  Messiah,  the  son  of  David."  Munk 
 rightly  concludes  that  the  book  must  have  lieen 
 coinijosed  in  the  12th  century,  w^hen  Christian 
 kings  reigned  for  a  brief  period  ovei-  Jerusalem 
 (Notice  siir  Siuidia,  Par.  1838). 
 
 VIII.  There  is  also  a  Clmldee  translation  extant 
 of  the  apocryphal  pieces  of  I^sther,  wliich,  entirely 
 lying  apart  from  our  task,  we  confine  ourselves  to 
 mention  without  further  entering  into  the  subject. 
 De  liossi  has  published  them  with  Notes  and  Dis- 
 sertations. Tubingen,  1783,  8vo. 
 Further  fragments  of  the  Palestinian  Taugum. 
 
 Besides  the  complete  l)Ooks  belonging  to  the  Pal- 
 estinian Cycle  of  Targimi  which  we  have  mentioned, 
 and  the  portions  of  it  intersected  as  "  Another 
 Keadiiig,"  "  Another  Targum,"  into  the  Babylo- 
 nian Versions,  there  are  extant  several  independent 
 fragments  of  it.  Nor  need  we  as  yet  desjiair  of 
 finding  still  further  portions,  perhaps  one  day  to 
 see  it  restored  entirely.  These  is  all  the  more  hope 
 for  this,  as  the  Targum  has  not  laeen  lost  very  long 
 yet.  Abudraham  quotes  the  Targum  Jerushalmi 
 to  Samuel  (i.  9,  13).  Kinichi  has  preserved  several 
 passages  from  it  to  Judyes  (xi.  1,  consisting  of  47 
 words);  to  Samuel  (i.  17,  18:  106  words);  and 
 Kinys  (i.  22,  21:  G8  words;  ii.  4,  1:  174  words; 
 iv.  6:  55  words;  iv.  7:  72  words;  xiii.  21:  9 
 words),  under  the  simple  name  of  Toseftah,  i.  e. 
 Addition,  or  Additional  Tari;uni.  Luzzatto  has 
 also  lately  found  fragments  of  tlie  same,  under  the 
 names  "  Targum  of  Palestine,"  •'  Targum  of  Jeru- 
 shalmi," "  Another  Beading,"  etc.,  in  an  Aft-ican 
 Codex  written  5247  A.  m.  =  1487  A.  n.,  namely, 
 to  1  Sam.  xviii.  19;  2  S.ani.  xii.  12;  1  Kings  v.  9, 
 v.  11,  v.  13,  X.  18,  X.  26,  xiv.  13;  to  Hosea  i.  1; 
 Obad.  i.  1.  —  To  Isaiah,  Hashi  {Jsnaki^  not  as  peo- 
 ple still  persist  in  calling  h\in,Jii}-clii),  Abudraham 
 and  Farissol  quote  it:  and  a  fragment  of  the  Tar- 
 gum to  his  prophet  is  extant  in  Cod.  Urbin.  Vat- 
 ican No.  1,  containing  about  120  words,  and  be- 
 ginning: "  Prophecy  of  Isaiah,  which  he  prophesied 
 at  the  end  of  his  prophecy  in  the  days  of  Manasseh 
 the  Son  of  Ilezekiah  the  King  of  the  Tribe  of  the 
 House  of  Judah  on  the  17th  of  Tanniz  in  the  hour 
 when  Manasseh  set  up  an  idol  in  the  Temple,"  etc. 
 Isaiah  predicts  in  this  his  own  \iolent  death.  Parts 
 of  this  Targum  are  also  found  in  Hebrew,  in  Pesik 
 tall  Kabbathi  6  a,  and  Yalkut  Isa.  58  d.  A  Jeru- 
 salem Targum  to  Jeremiah  is  mentioned  by  Kini- 
 chi; to  F'.zekiel  by  R.  Simeon,  Nathan  (Aruch), 
 and  likewise  by  Kimchi,  who  also  speaks  of  a 
 fnrther  additional  Targum  to  .Jonathan  for  this 
 book.  A  "  Targum-Jerushalmi "  to  Jlicah  is 
 known  to  Rashi,  and  of  Zeehariah  a  frai,'inent  has 
 been  puljlished  in  Bruns  (luchhorn's  Rtpert.  xv. 
 174)  from  a  Reuchlinian  MS.  (Cod.  354,  Kennic. 
 25),  written  1106.  The  passage,  found  as  a  mar« 
 ginal  gloss  to  Zech.  xii.  10,  reads  as  follows:  — 
 
 "  Targum  Jerushalmi.  And  I  shall  pour  out 
 upon  the  House  of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of 
 Jerusalem  the  spirit  of  prophecy  and  of  prayer  for 
 truth.     And  after  this  shall  go  forth  Messiah  the 
 
3424       VERSIONS,  ANCIENT 
 
 Son  of  Efraim  to  wage  war  against  Gog.  And 
 Gog  will  kill  him  before  the  city  of  Jerushalaim 
 They  will  look  up  to  nie  and  they  will  ask  me 
 wherefore  the  heathens  have  killed  Messiah  the  Son 
 of  Efraim.  They  will  then  mourn  over  him  as 
 mourn  father  and  mother  over  an  only  son,  and 
 they  will  wail  over  him  as  one  wails  over  a  firstborn." 
 
 —  A  Targum  Jerushalmi  to  the  third  chapter  of 
 Habakkuk,  quoted  by  liashi,  is  mentioned  by  De 
 Rossi  (Cod.  265  and  405,  both  13th  century).  It 
 has  been  suggested  that  a  Targum  Jerushalmi  on 
 the  Prophets  only  existed  to  the  Haftarahs,  which 
 had  at  one  time  been  translated  perhaps,  like  the 
 portion  from  the  Law,  in  public;  but  we  have  seen 
 that  entire  books,  not  to  mention  single  chapters, 
 possessed  a  Palestinian  Targum,  which  never  were 
 intended  or  used  for  the  purpose  of  Haftarah.  And 
 there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  origin  of  this 
 Targum  to  the  Prophets  is  precisely  similar  to,  and 
 perhaps  contemporaneous  with,  that  which  we 
 traced  to  that  portion  which  embraces  the  Penta- 
 teuch. The  Babylonian  Version,  the  "  Jonathan- '' 
 Targum,  though  paraphrastic,  did  not  satisfy  the 
 apparently  more  imaginative  Palestinian  public. 
 Thus  from  heaped-up  additions  and  marginal 
 glosses,  the  step  to  a  total  re-writing  of  the  entire 
 Codex  in  the  mannerand  taste  of  the  latter  times 
 and  the  different  locality,  was  easy  enough.  From 
 a  critique  of  the  work  as  such,  however,  we  must 
 naturally  keep  aloof,  as  long  as  we  have  only  the 
 few  specimens  named  to  judge  from.  But  its  gen- 
 eral spirit  and  tendency  are  clear  enough.  So  is 
 also  the  advantage  to  which  even  the  minimum 
 that  has  sur\ived  may  some  day  be  put  hy  the  stu- 
 dent of  Midrashic  literature,  as  we  have  briefly  in- 
 dicated above. 
 
 We  cannot  conclude  without  expressing  the  hope 
 
 —  probably  a  yain  one  —  that  linguistic  studies 
 may  soon  turn  in  the  direction  of  that  vast  and 
 most  interesting,  as  well  as  important,  Aramaic 
 literature,  of  which  the  Targums  form  but  a  small 
 item. 
 
 The  writer  finally  begs  to  oliserve  that  the  trans- 
 lations of  all  the  passages  quoted  from  Talmud  and 
 Midrash,  as  well  as  the  specimens  from  the  Targum, 
 have  been  made  by  him  directly  from  the  respective 
 originals. 
 
 N.  Pfeiffer,  Critica  Sncr. ;  Tho.  Smith,  J>in- 
 Iribe  ;  Gerhard,  De  Script.  8(icr. ;  Helvicus,  De 
 Cluihl.  Bibl.  Parcqili. ;  Varen,  De  Targ.  Onkel. ; 
 Wolf,  Bibl.  IJebr. ;  Carpzov,  Critica  Sacra  ;  Joh. 
 Morinus,  Exercitt.  Bibl. ;  Schickard,  Bechin.  Hap- 
 2)er.  ;  Jerar,  Proleg.  BibVue ;  Rivet,  Jsagoge  ad 
 S.  S. ;  AUix,  Judic.  Eccles.  Jud.  ;  Huet,  De 
 Claris  Jnterpp. ;  Leusden,  Philol.  Hebr.  ;  Pri- 
 deaux,  Connect. ;  Rambach,  Jnsl.  Ilerm.  Sacr.  ; 
 Elias  Levita,  Melurgeman ;  Tislibi ;  Luzzatto, 
 Oheb  Ger;  Perkovitz,  Oteh  Or;  Whier,  Oiikt- 
 los ;  Anger,  De  Onkeluso;  Vitringa,  Synagoga ; 
 Azariah  De  Rossi,  Meor  Knajiin ;  Peterniann,  De 
 dunbiis  Pent.  Paraph.  ;  Uathe,  De  ratione  con- 
 sensus vers.  Chald.  et  Syr.  Prov.  Sal.  ,-  Lovy,  in 
 Geiger's  Zeitschr. ;  Levysohn  and  Traub  in  Fran- 
 kel's  Monatsschr. ;  Znnz,  Gotlesdiensll.  Vortrage  ; 
 Geiger,  Uischrift;  Frankel,  Vorsliidien  zur  LXX. ; 
 Beitrdge  f.  Pal.  Exeg.^  Zeitschrifl ;  Monats- 
 schrij'l ;  Geiger,  ZeilschriJ't ;  Fiirst,  Orient ;  Ball. 
 Allg.  Liter.  Zeitg.  1821  and  1832;  Introductions 
 of  Walton,  Eichhorn,  Keil,  Hiivernick,  Jahn,  Herbst, 
 Bertheau,  Davidson,  etc. ;  Gesenius,  Jesaia ;  Home, 
 Arucli ;  Geschichten  of  Jost,  Herzfeld,  Griitz,  etc. ; 
 Delitzscb,  Gcsch.  d.  Jiid.  Poesie;  Sachs's  Beitrdge; 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 Furst,  Chald.  Gramm. ;  K.  Deutsch  in  Wesieifjt. 
 Monatschr.,  1859;  Zeitschrift  and  Verhandlungen 
 der  Deutschen  Morgenldnd.  Geselkch.,  etc.,  etc. 
 
 E.  D. 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED.  The  hLstory 
 of  the  English  translations  of  the  Bible  connects 
 itself  with  many  points  of  interest  in  that  of  the 
 nation  and  the  Church.  The  lives  of  the  individ- 
 ual translators,  the  long  struggle  with  the  indiffer- 
 ence or  opposition  of  men  in  power,  the  religious 
 condition  of  the  people  as  calling  for,  or  affected 
 by,  the  appearance  of  the  translation,  the  time  and 
 place  and  form  of  the  successive  editions  by  which 
 the  demand,  when  once  created,  was  supplied  —  ' 
 each  of  these  has  furnished,  and  might  again  fur- 
 nish, materials  for  a  volume.  It  is  obvious  that 
 the  work  now  to  be  done  must  lie  within  narrower 
 limits;  and  it  is  proposed,  therefore,  to  exclude  all 
 that  belongs  simply  to  the  personal  history  of  the 
 men,  or  the  general  history  of  the  time,  or  that 
 comes  within  the  special  province  of  bibliography. 
 What  win  be  aimed  at  will  be  to  give  an  account  of 
 the  several  versions  as  they  appeared ;  to  ascertain 
 the  qualifications  of  the  translators  for  the  work 
 which  they  undertook,  and  the  principles  on  which 
 they  acted ;  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  final  result 
 of  their  labors  in  the  received  version,  and,  as  con- 
 sequent on  this,  of  the  necessity  or  desirableness  of 
 a  new  or  revised  translation ;  and,  finally,  to  give 
 such  a  survey  of  the  literature  of  the  subject  as 
 may  help  the  reader  to  obtain  a  fuller  knowledge 
 for  himself. 
 
 I.  Eakly  Translations.  —  It  was  asserted  by 
 Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  anxiety  to  establish  a 
 point  against  Tyndal,  that  he  had  seen  English 
 translations  of  the  Bible,  which  had  been  made  be- 
 fore WyclifFe,  and  that  these  were  approved  by  the 
 Bishops,  and  were  allowed  by  them  to  be  read  by 
 laymen,  and  even  by  devout  women  (Dialogues,  ch. 
 viii.-xiv.  col.  82).  There  seem  good  grounds,  how- 
 ever, for  doubting  the  accuracy  of  this  statement. 
 No  such  translations  —  versions,  i.  e.  of  the  entire 
 Scriptures  —  are  now  extant.  No  traces  of  them 
 appear  in  any  contemporary  writer.  Wycliffe's 
 great  complaint  is.  that  there  is  no  translation 
 (Forshall  and  Madden,  Wycliffe's  Bible,  Pre/,  p. 
 xxi.  Prol.  p.  59).  The  Constitutions  of  Archbishop 
 Arundel  (a.  d.  1408)  mention  two  only,  and  these 
 are  Wycliffe's  own,  and  the  one  based  on  his  and 
 completed  after  his  death.  Blore's  statement  must 
 therefore  be  regarded  either  as  a  rhetorical  exagger- 
 ation of  the  fact  that  parts  of  the  Bible  had  been 
 previously  translated,  or  as  rising  out  of  a  mistake 
 as  to  the  date  of  jNISS.  of  the  Wycliffe  version.  The 
 history  of  the  English  Bilde  will  therefore  begin, 
 as  it  has  begun  hitherto,  with  the  work  of  the  first 
 great  reformer.  One  glance,  however,  we  may 
 give,  in  passing,  to  the  earlier  history  of  the  Eng- 
 lish t'hurch,  and  connect  some  of  its  most  honored 
 names  with  the  great  work  of  making  the  truths  of 
 Scripture,  or  parts  of  the  books  themselves,  if  not 
 the  Bible  as  a  whole,  accessible  to  the  people.  We 
 may  think  of  Caedmon  as  embodying  the  whole 
 history  of  the  Bible  in  the  alliterative  metre  of 
 Anglo-.Saxon  poetry  (Bede,  Ilisl.  Eccl.  iv.  24);  of 
 Aldhelm,  Bishop  of  Sherborne,  in  the  7th  century, 
 as  rendering  the  Psalter;  of  Bede,  as  translating  in 
 the  last  hours  of  his  hfe  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
 (Epist.  Culhberti) ;  of  Alfred,  setting  forth  in  his 
 mother-tongue  as  the  great  groundwork  of  his 
 leirislation,  the  four  chapters  of  Exodus  (xx.-xxiii.) 
 that  contained  the  first  code  of  the  laws  of  Israel 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3425 
 
 (Pauli's  Life  of  Alfred,  ch.  v.)-  The  wishes  of 
 the  great  king  extended  further.  He  desired  that 
 '■all  the  free-born  youth  of  his  kingdom  should 
 be  able  to  read  the  English  Scriptures""  {ibid.). 
 Portions  of  the  Bible,  some  of  the  Psalms,  and  ex- 
 tracts from  other  books,  were  translated  by  him  for 
 his  own  use  and  that  of  his  children.  The  tradi- 
 tions of  a  later  date,  seeing  in  him  the  representa- 
 tive of  all  that  was  good  in  the  old  Saxon  time, 
 made  him  the  translator  of  the  whole  Bible  {ibid. 
 Supp.  to  ch.  v.). 
 
 The  work  of  translating  was,  however,  carried  on 
 by  others.  One  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  four 
 'Gospels,  interlinear  with  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate, 
 known  as  the  Durham  Book,  is  found  in  the  Cot- 
 tonian  MSS.  of  the  British  Museum,  and  is  referred 
 to  the  9th  or  Kith  century.  Another,  known  as 
 the  liushworth  Gloss,  and  belonging  to  the  same 
 period,  is  in  the  Bodleian  Lilirary  at  Oxford.'' 
 Another,  of  a  somewhat  later  date,  is  in  the  same 
 collection,  and  in  the  library  of  G.  0.  College,  Cam- 
 bridge. The  name  of  Aldhelm,  Bishop  of  Sher- 
 borne, is  connected  with  a  version  of  the  Psalms: 
 that  of  ^Ifric,  with  an  Epitome  of  Scripture  His- 
 tory, including  a  translation  of  many  parts  of  the 
 historical  books  of  the  Bible  (Lewis,  lli^l.  of 
 Transl.  ch.  i. ;  Forshall  and  Madden,  Preface  ,• 
 Bagster's  Emjlis/i  Ihxapln,  Pref.).  The  influence 
 of  Norman  ecclesiastics,  in  the  reigns  that  preceded 
 or  followed  the  Conquest,  was  probal)ly  adverse  to 
 the  continuance  of  this  work.  They  were  too  far 
 removed  from  sympathy  with  the  sulijugated  race 
 to  care  to  educate  them  in  their  own  tongue.  The 
 spoken  dialects  of  the  English  of  that  period  would 
 naturally  seem  to  them  too  rude  and  uncouth  to 
 be  the  channel  of  Divine  truth.  Pictures,  mys- 
 teries, miracle-plays,  rather  than  books,  were  the 
 instruments  of  education  for  all  but  the  few  who, 
 in  monasteries  under  Norman  or  Italian  superin- 
 tendence, devoted  themselves  to  the  study  of  theol- 
 ogy or  law.  Ill  the  remoter  parts  of  England,  how- 
 ever, where  their  influence  was  less  felt,  or  the  na- 
 tional feeling  was  stronger,  there  were  those  who 
 carried  on  the  succession,  and  three  versions  of  the 
 Gospels,  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge, 
 iu  the  Bodleian,  and  in  the  British  Museum,  be- 
 longing to  the  11th  or  12th  century,  remain  as 
 attesting  their  labors.  The  metrical  paraphrase  of 
 the  Gospel  history,  known  as  the  Ornmlum,  in  al- 
 literative English  verse,  ascribed  to  the  latter  half 
 of  the  12th  century,  is  the  next  conspicuous  monu- 
 ment, and  may  be  looked  upon  as  indicating  a  de- 
 
 a  So  Pauli  (Eng.  transl.).  But  would  "Englisc  ge- 
 writ  "  mean  "  the  Scriptures  "  exclusively  ?  Do  not 
 Ihe  words  of  .\lfred  point  to  a  general  as  well  as  a  re- 
 ligious education? 
 
 h  One  interesting  fact  connected  with  this  version 
 is  that  its  text  agrees  with  that  of  the  Codex  I5eza3 
 where  that  MS.  differs  moat  from  the  textus  receptus  of 
 the  N.  T.  Another  is  its  publication  by  Foxe  the 
 Martyrologist  in  1571,  at  the  request  of  Archbishop 
 Parker.  It  was  subsequently  edited  by  Dr.  Marshall 
 in  1665. 
 
 It  may  be  noticed,  as  bearing  upon  a  question  after- 
 wards the  subject  of  much  discussion,  that  iu  this  and 
 the  other  Anglo-Saxon  versions  the  attempt  is  made  to 
 give  vernacular  equivalents  even  for  the  words  which, 
 as  belonging  to  a  systematic  theology,  or  for  other 
 reasons,  most  later  versions  have  left  practically  un- 
 translated. Thus  bapti.wia  is  "  fyllith  "  (washing) ; 
 laenitentia,  "  doed-bote  "  (redress  for  evil  deeds).  So 
 .'icribee  are  "  bocere '"  (bookmen).  Synagogues,  "  ges- 
 amnungum  "     (meetings) ;     amen,     "  sothlice  "     (in 
 
 sire  to  place  the  facts  of  the  Bible  within  reach  of 
 others  than  the  clergy.^  The  13th  century,  a  time 
 in  England,  as  throughout  Europe,  of  religious  re- 
 vival, witnessed  renewed  attempts.  A  prose  trans- 
 lation of  the  Bible  into  Norman-French,  cir.  a.  vi. 
 1260,  indicates  a  demand  for  devotional  reading 
 within  the  circle  of  the  Court,  or  of  the  wealthier 
 merchants,  or  of  convents  for  women  of  high  rank. 
 Further  signs  of  the  same  desire  are  found  in  three 
 English  versions  of  the  Psalms  —  one  towards  the 
 close  of  the  13th  century;  another  by  Schorham, 
 cir.  A.  D.  1320;  another — with  other  canticles 
 from  the  O.  T.  and  N.  T.  —  by  Richard  liolle  of 
 Hampole,  cir.  1349 ;  the  last  being  accompanied  by 
 a  devotional  exposition :  and  in  one  of  the  Gospels 
 of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  and  of  all  St.  Paul's 
 epistles  (the  list  includes  the  apocryphal  epistle  to 
 the  Laodiceans),  in  the  library  of  C.  C.  College, 
 Cambridge.  The  fact  stated  by  Archbishop  Arun- 
 del in  his  funeral  sermon  on  Anne  of  Bohemia,  wife 
 of  Richard  H.,  that  she  habitually  read  the  Gospels 
 in  the  vulgar  tongue,  with  divers  expositions,  was 
 probably  true-of  many  others  of  high  rank.''  It  is 
 interesting  to  note  these  facts,  not  as  detracting 
 from  the  glory  of  the  great  reformer  of  the  14th  cen- 
 tury, but  as  showing  that  for  him  also  there  had 
 been  a  preparation ;  that  what  he  supplied  met  a 
 demand  which  had  for  many  years  been  gathering 
 strength.  It  is  almost  needless  to  add  that  these 
 versions  started  from  nothing  better  than  the  copies 
 of  the  Vulgate,  more  or  less  accurate,  which  each 
 translator  had  before  him  (Lewis,  ch.  i. ;  Forshall 
 and  Madden,  Preface). 
 
 II.  Wyclilfe  (b.  1324;  d.  1384).  —  (1.)  It  is 
 singular,  and  not  without  significance,  that  the  first 
 translation  from  the  Bible  connected  with  the  name 
 of  WycliflTe  should  have  been  that  of  part  of  the 
 Apocalypse. <=  The  Last  Af/e  of  the  Church  (A.  d. 
 1350)  translates  and  expounds  the  vision  in  which 
 the  reformer  read  the  signs  of  his  own  times,  the 
 sins  and  the  destruction  of  "  Antichrist  and  his 
 meynee "  (^multitude).  Shortly  after  this  he 
 completed  a  version  of  the  Gospels,  accompanied  by 
 a  commentary  "  so  that  pore  Christen  men  may 
 some  dele  know  the  text  of  the  Gospel,  with  the 
 comyn  sentence  of  olde  holie  doctores  "  (Preface). 
 WyclifTe,  however,  though  the  chief,  was  not  the 
 only  laborer  in  the  cause.  The  circle  of  English 
 readers  was  becoming  wider,  and  they  were  not 
 content  to  have  the  Book  which  they  honored 
 abo\e  all  others  in  a  tongue  not  their  own./  An- 
 other translation  and  commentary  appear  to  have 
 
 sooth);  and  phylacteries,  "healsbec"  (ueck-books) 
 See  Lewis,  Hist,  of  Translations,  p.  9. 
 
 <-•  The  Ormulum,  edited  by  Dr.  White,  was  printed 
 at  the  Oxford  University  Press  in  1852. 
 
 <l  Chronologically,  of  course,  the  Gospels  thus  re- 
 ferred to  may  have  been  Wyclifle's  translation  ;  but 
 the  strong  opposition  of  Arundel  to  the  work  of  the 
 Reformer  makes  it  probable  that  those  which  the 
 queen  used  belonged  to  a  different  school,  like  that  ot 
 the  versions  just  mentioned. 
 
 e  The  authorship  of  this  book  has  however  been 
 disputed  (comp.  Todd's  Prfface). 
 
 f  "  One  comfort  is  of  knightes  ;  they  savcren  much 
 the  Gospelle,  and  have  wille  to  read  in  Englische  the 
 Gospelle  of  Christes  life"  (WyclifTe,  Prologue).  Com- 
 pare the  speech  ascribed  to  John  of  Gaunt  (13  Uic.  II.). 
 "  We  will  not  be  the  dregs  of  all,  seeing  other  nations 
 have  the  law  of  God,  which  is  the  law  of  our  faith, 
 written  in  their  own  language  "  (Foxe,  Pre/,  to  Saxon 
 Gospels;  Lewis,  p.  29). 
 
3426 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 been  made  about  the  same  time,  in  ignorance  of 
 WyclifFc's  work,  and  for  the  "  niaiiie  levvid  men 
 that  gladlie  would  kon  the  Gospelie,  if  it  were 
 draghen  into  the  Eiiglisch  tung."  The  flict  that 
 many  MSS.  of  tliis  period  are  extant,  containing 
 ill  English  a  Monotessaron,  or  Harmony  of  the 
 Gospels,  accompanied  by  portions  of  the  epistles,  or 
 portions  of  the  O.  T.,  or  an  epitome  of  Scripture 
 history,  or  the  substance  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  or 
 the  catholic  epistles  at  full  length,  with  indications 
 more  or  less  distinct  of  Wyclitfe's  influence,  shows 
 how  wide-spread  was  the  feeling  that  the  time  had 
 come  for  an  English  liible.  (Forshall  and  Mad- 
 den, /"'■<;/•  PP-  xiii.-xvii.)  These  preliminary  la- 
 bors were  followed  up  by  a  complete  translation 
 of  the  N.  T.  by  Wycliffe  himself.  The  0.  T. 
 was  undertaken  by  his  coadjutor,  Nicholas  de 
 Ilereforil,  but  was  interrupted  probably  by  a  cita- 
 tion to  appear  before  Archbishop  Arundel  in  138-2, 
 and  ends  abruptly  (following  so  far  the  order  of 
 the  Vulgate)  in  the  middle  of  Baruch.  Many  of 
 the  MSS.  of  this  version  now  extant  present  a 
 different  recension  of  the  text,  and  it  is  probable 
 that  the  work  of  \Vyclifte  and  Hereford  was  re- 
 vised by  Richard  Purvey,  cir.  A.  r>.  1388.  To 
 him  also  is  ascribed  the  interesting  Prologue,  in 
 whicli  the  translator  gives  an  account  both  of  his 
 purpose  and  his  method.  (Forshall  and  Madden, 
 Pref.  p.  XXV.) 
 
 (2.)  The  former  was,  as  that  of  Wycliffe  had 
 been,  to  give  an  English  Bible  to  the  English 
 people.  He  appeals  to  the  authority  of  Bede,  of 
 Alfred,  and  of  Grostete,  to  the  examples  of 
 "  Frenshe,  and  Beemers  (Bohemians),  and  Brit- 
 ons." He  answers  the  hypocritical  oljections 
 that  men  were  not  holy  enough  for  such  a  work: 
 that  it  was  wrong  for  "  idiots  "  to  do  what  the 
 great  doctors  of  the  Church  had  left  undone. 
 He  hopes  "  to  make  the  sentence  as  trewe  and 
 open  in  Englishe  as  it  is  in  Latine,  or  more  trewe 
 and  open." 
 
 It  need  hardly  be  said,  as  regards  the  method  of 
 the  translator,  that  the  version  was  based  entirely 
 upon  the  Vulgate."  If,  in  the  previous  century, 
 scholars  like  Grostete  and  Roger  Bacon,  seeking 
 knowledge  in  other  lands,  and  from  men  of  other 
 races,  had  acquired,  as  they  seem  to  have  done, 
 some  knowledge  both  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  the 
 succession  had,  at  all  events,  not  been  perpetuated. 
 The  war  to  be  waged  at  a  later  period  with  a 
 different  issue  between  Scholastic  Philosophy  and 
 "  Humanity  "  ended,  in  the  first  struggle,  in  the 
 triumph  of  the  former,  and  there  was  probably  no 
 one  at  Oxford  among  WyclifTe's  contemporaries 
 who  could  have  helped  him  or  Purvey  in  a  transla- 
 tion from  the  original.  It  is  something  to  find  at 
 such  a  time  the  complaint  that  "  learned  doctoris 
 taken  littel  heede  to  the  lettre,"  the  recognition 
 that  the  Vulgate  was  not  all  sufficient,  that  "  the 
 
 a  A  crucial  instance  is  tliat  of  Gen.  iii.  15:  "  She 
 shall  trade  thy  head." 
 
 b  This  knowledge  is,  however,  at  second  hand,  "  bi 
 witnesise  of  Jeroni,  of  Lire,  and  other  expositouris." 
 
 c  It  is  worth  while  to  give  his  own  account  of  this 
 process  :  "  First  this  simple  creature,"  his  usual  way 
 of  speaking  of  himself,  '■  hedde  myche  travaile,  with 
 diverse  telawis  and  helperis,  to  gedere  nianie  elde 
 bibles,  and  othere  doctoris,  and  comune  glosis,  and 
 to  make  oo  Latyn  bible  sunidel  trewe,  and  thanne  to 
 Btudie  it  of  the  new,  the  text  with  the  glose,  and 
 othere  doctoris,  as  he  mizte,  and  speciali  Lire  ou  the 
 
 texte  of  oure  bokis  "  (he  is  speaking  of  the  Psalter, 
 and  the  difficulty  of  understanding  it)  "diseordeth 
 much  from  the  Ebreu."  *  The  difficulty  which 
 was  thus  felt  was  increased  by  the  state  of  the 
 Vulgate  text.  The  tianslator  complains  that  what 
 the  Church  had  in  view  was  not  Jerome's  version, 
 but  a  later  and  corrupt  text;  that  "  the  comune 
 Latyne  Bibles  ban  more  neede  to  be  corrected  as 
 maiiie  as  I  have  seen  in  my  life,  than  hath  the 
 Englishe  Bible  late  translated."  To  remedy  this 
 he  had  recourse  to  collation.  Many  MSS.  were 
 compared,  arid  out  of  this  comparison,  the  true 
 reading  ascertained  as  far  as  possible.  The  next 
 step  was  to  consult  the  Glossa  Ordimirift,  the  com- 
 mentaries of  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  and  others,  as  to 
 the  meaning  of  any  difficult  passages.  After  this 
 (we  recognize  here,  perhaps,  a  dei)arture  from  the 
 right  order)  grammars  were  consulted.  'Then  came 
 the  actual  work  of  translating,  which  he  aimed  at 
 making  idiomatic  rather  than  literal.  As  he  went 
 on,  he  submitted  his  work  to  the  judgment  of 
 others,  and  accepted  their  suggestion.s.<^  It  is  in- 
 teresting to  trace  these  early  strivings  after  the 
 true  excellence  of  a  translator;  yet  more  interest- 
 ing to  take  note  of  the  spirit,  never  surpassed,  sel- 
 dom equaled,  in  later  translators,  in  which  the  work 
 was  done.  Nowhere  do  we  find  the  conditions  of 
 the  work,  intellectual  and  moral,  more  solemnly 
 asserted.  "  A  translator  hath  grete  nede  to  stndie 
 well  the  sentence,  both  before  and  after,"  so  that 
 no  equivocal  words  may  mislead  his  readers  or 
 himself,  and  then  also  "  he  hath  nede  to  lyve  a 
 clene  life,  and  be  ful  devout  in  preiers,  and  have 
 not  his  wit  occupied  about  worldli  things,  that  the 
 Holie  Spiryt,  author  of  all  wisedom,  and  cunnynge 
 ;ind  truthe,  dresse  (=  train)  him  in  his  work,  and 
 suffer  him  not  for  to  err  "  (Forshall  and  Madden, 
 PrvL  p.  60). 
 
 (3.)  The  extent  of  the  circulation  gained  by  this 
 version  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that,  in 
 spite  of  all  the  chances  of  time,  and  all  the  sys- 
 tematic eflbrts  for  its  destruction  made  by  Arch- 
 bishop Arundel  and  others,  not  less  than  150  copies 
 are  known  to  be  extant,  some  of  them  obviously 
 made  for  persons  of  wealth  and  rank,  others  ap- 
 parently for  humbler  readers.  It  is  significant  as 
 bearing,  either  on  the  date  of  the  two  'works,  or 
 on  the  position  of  the  writers,  that  while  the  quo- 
 tations from  Scripture  in  Langton's  [Langland's] 
 Vision  of  Piers  Plmcman  are  uniformly  given  in 
 Latin,  those  in  the  Persone's  Tale  of  Chaucer  are 
 given  in  English,  which  for  the  most  part  agrees 
 substantially  with  WycUfFe's  translation. 
 
 (4. )  The  following  characteristics  may  be  noticed 
 as  distinguishing  this  version:  (1.)  The  general 
 homeliness  of  its  style.  The  language  of  the  court 
 or  of  scholars  is  as  far  as  possible  avoided,  and  that 
 of  the  people  followed.  In  this  respect  the  prin- 
 ciple has  been  acted  on  by  later  translators.     The 
 
 elde  testament,  that  helpid  full  myche  in  this  werk, 
 the  thridde  time  to  counsel  with  elde  grammarians 
 and  elde  dy  vynis  of  harde  wordes  and  harde  sentences 
 how  those  mizte  best  be  understode  and  translated, 
 the  iiij**^  tyme  to  translate  as  clearlie  as  he  coude  to 
 the  sentence,  and  to  have  nianie  good  felawis  and 
 kunnynge  at  the  correcting  of  the  translacioun  "  ( Pref- 
 nce,  c.  XV.).  The  note  at  the  close  of  the  preface,  on 
 the  grammatical  idioms  of  different  languages,  the 
 many  English  equivalents,  e.  if.  for  the  Latin  ablative 
 absolute,  shows  considerable  discernment. 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED. 
 
 3427 
 
 style  of  Wyoliffe  is  to  that  of  Chaucer  as  Tyndars 
 is  to  Surrey's,  or  that  of  the  A  V.  to  Ben  Jon- 
 Bou's.  (2.)  The  substitution,  in  many  cases,  of 
 English  equivalents  for  quasi-technical  words.  Thus 
 we  find  "fy  "  or  "fogh  "  instead  of  ''  Raca  "  (Matt. 
 V.  22);  "they  were  wished"  in  JMatt.  iii.  0: 
 "  richesse  "  for  "  mammon  "  (Luke  xvi.  9,  11,  13) ; 
 "  bishop  ■' for '•  high-priest  "  (jJ'issim).  (3.)  The 
 extreme  literahiess  witli  which,  in  some  instances, 
 even  at  the  cost  of  being  unintelligible,  the  Vulgate 
 text  is  followed,  as  in  2  Cor.  i.  17-19. 
 
 III.  Tyndal — The  work  of  Wycliffe  stands 
 by  itself.  Whatever  power  it  exercised  in  pre- 
 paring the  way  for  the  Reformation  of  the  IGth 
 century,  it  had  no  perceptible  influence  on  later 
 translations.  By  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  its 
 English  was  already  obsolescent,  and  the  revival 
 of  classical  scholarship  led  men  to  feel  dissatisfied 
 with  a  version  which  had  avowedly  been  made  at 
 second-hand,  not  from  the  original.  With  Tyndal, 
 on  the  other  hand,  we  enter  on  a  continuous  suc- 
 cession. He  is  the  patriarch,  in  no  remote  ances- 
 try, of  the  Authorized  Version.  With  a  consistent, 
 unswerving  purpose,  he  devoted  his  whole  life  to 
 this  one  work;  and  through  dangers  and  ditficul- 
 ties,  amid  enemies  and  treacherous  friends,  in  exile 
 and  loneliness,  accomplished  it.  More  than  Cran- 
 mer  or  Hidley  he  is  the  true  hero  of  the  English 
 Reformation.  While  they  were  slowly  moving  on- 
 wards, halting  between  two  opinions,  watching  how 
 the  court-winds  blew,  or,  at  the  best,  making  the 
 most  of  opportunities,  he  set  himself  to  the  task 
 without  wliich,  he  felt  sure,  reform  would  be  im- 
 possible, which  once  accomplished,  would  render 
 it  inevitable.  "  Ere  many  years,"  he  said,  at  the 
 age  of  thirty-six  (a.  d.  1.520),  he  would  cause  "  a 
 boy  that  driveth  the  plough"  to  know  more  of 
 Scripture  than  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  then 
 knew  (Foxe,  in  Anderson's  Annals  of  Kiuilisli  BibU', 
 i.  36).  We  are  able  to  form  a  fairly  accurate  esti- 
 mate of  his  fitness  for  the  work  to  which  he  thus 
 gave  himself.  The  change  which  had  come  over 
 the  universities  of  continental  Europe  since  the 
 time  of  Wycliffe  had  affected  those  of  England. 
 Greek  had  been  taught  in  Paris  in  1458.  The  first 
 Greek  Grammar,  that  of  Constantine  Lascaris,  had 
 been  printed  in  1176.  It  was  followed  in  1480  by 
 Craston's  Lexicon.  The  more  enterprising  scholars 
 of  Oxford  visited  foreign  universities  for  the  sake 
 of  the  new  learning,  (irocyn  (d.  1519),  Linacre 
 (d.  1524),  Colet  (d.  1519),  liad,  in  this  way,  from 
 the  Greeks  whom  the  fall  of  Constantinople  had 
 scattered  over  Europe,  or  from  their  Italian  pupils, 
 learnt  enough  to  enter,  in  their  turn,  upon  the 
 work  of  teaching.  When  Erasmus  visited  ()xford 
 in  1497,  he  found  in  these  masters  a  scholarship 
 which  even  he  could  admire.  Tyndal,  who  went 
 to  Oxford  circ.  1500,  nuist  have  been  within  the 
 range  of  their  teaching.  His  two  great  opponents. 
 Sir  Thomas  JNIore  and  Bishop  Tonstal,  are  known  to 
 have  been  among  their  pupils.  It  is  significant 
 enough  that  after  some  years  of  study  Tyndal  left 
 Oxford  and  went  to  Cambridge.  Such  changes 
 were,  it  is  true,  common  enough.  The  fame  of 
 any  great  teacher  would  draw  round  him  men  from 
 other  universities,  from  many  lands.  In  this  in- 
 stance, the  reason  of  Tyndal's  choice  is  probably 
 
 a  *  The  MS.  on  which  this  statement  is  founded  is 
 pronounced  by  Mr.  Francis  Fry  of  Bristol  to  be  un- 
 questionably a  lorgery.  So  Mr.  Westcott  regards  it 
 '^Hist.  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  32,  note).  A. 
 
 not  far  to  seek  (Walter,  Biog.  Notice  to  Tyndal's 
 Doctrinal  Trentises).  Erasmus  was  in  Cambridge 
 from  1509  to  1514.  All  tliat  we  know  of  Tyndal's 
 character  and  life,  the  fact  especially  that  he  had 
 made  translations  of  portions  of  the  N.  T.  as  early 
 as  1502"  (OflTor,  Life  of  Tyndal,  p.  9),  leads  to 
 the  conclusion  that  he  resolved  to  make  the  most 
 of  the  presence  of  one  who  was  emphatically  the 
 scholar  and  philologist  of  ICurope.  It  must  l)e  re- 
 men)bered,  too,  that  the  great  scheme  of  Cardinal 
 Ximenes  was  just  then  beginning  to  interest  the 
 minds  of  all  scholars.  The  publication  of  the 
 Complutensian  Bible,  it  is  true,  did  not  take  place 
 till  1520;  but  the  collection  of  MSS.  and  other 
 preparations  for  it  began  as  early  as  1504.  In  the 
 mean  time  Erasmus  himself,  in  1516,  brought  out 
 the  first  pul)lished  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament; 
 and  it  was  thus  made  accessible  to  all  scholars.  Of 
 the  use  made  by  Tyndal  of  these  opportunities  we 
 iiave  evidence  in  his  coming  up  to  London  (1522), 
 in  the  vain  hope  of  persuading  Tonstal  'known  as 
 a  Greek  scholar,  an  enlightened  Humanist)  to 
 sanction  his  scheme  of  rendering  the  N.  T.  nito 
 English,  and  bringing  a  translation  of  one  of  the 
 orations  of  Isocrates  as  a  proof  of  his  capacity  for  the 
 work.  The  attempt  was  not  successful.  "  At  the 
 last  I  understood  not  only  that  there  was  no  room 
 in  my  Lord  of  London's  palace  to  translate  the  N. 
 T.,  but  also  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it  in  all 
 England"  [Pref.  to  Five  Books  of  Moses). 
 
 It  is  not  so  easy  to  say  how  far  at  this  time  any 
 knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  attainable  at  the  English 
 universities,  or  how  for  Tyndal  had  used  any  means 
 of  access  that  were  open  to  him.  It  is  proliable 
 that  it  may  have  lieen  known,  in  some  measure,  to 
 a  fevi'  bolder  than  their  fellows,  at  a  time  far  earlier 
 than  the  introduction  of  Greek.  The  large  body 
 of  .Tews  settled  in  the  cities  of  England  must  have 
 possessed  a  knowledge,  more  or  less  extensive,  of 
 tiieir  Hebrew  books.  On  their  banishment,  to  the 
 number  of  16,000,  by  Edward  I.,  these  books  fell 
 into  the  hands  of  the  monks,  superstitiously  rever- 
 enced or  feared  by  most,  yet  drawing  some  to  ex- 
 amination, and  then  to  study.  Grostete,  it  is  said, 
 knew  Hebrew  as  well  as  Greek.  Roger  Bacon 
 knew  enough  *  to  pass  judgment  on  the  Vulgate  as 
 incorrect  and  misleading.  Then,  however,  came  a 
 period  in  which  linguistic  studies  were  thrown  into 
 the  background,  and  Hebrew  became  an  unknown 
 speech  even  to  the  best-read  scholars.  The  first 
 signs  of  a  revival  meet  us  toward  the  close  of  the 
 15th  century.  The  remarkable  fact  that  a  Hebrew 
 Psalter  was  printed  at  Soncino  in  1477  (forty  years 
 before  Erasmus's  Greek  Testament),  the  Penta- 
 teuch in  1482,  the  Prophets  in  1486,  the  whole  of 
 the  O.  T.  in  1488,  that  by  1496  four  editions  had 
 been  published,  and  by  1596  not  fewer  than  eleven 
 (Whitaker,  Hist,  and  Crit.  Inquiry,  p.  22)  indi- 
 cates a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  stu- 
 dents of  Europe,  not  less  than  on  that  of  the  more 
 learned  Jews.  Here  also  the  jirogress  of  the  Com- 
 plutensian Bible  would  ha\e  attracted  the  notice 
 of  scholars.  The  cry  raised  by  the  "  Trojans  "  of 
 Oxford  in  1519  (chiefly  consisting  of  the  friars,  who 
 from  the  time  of  ^Vyclifl^e  had  all  but  swanii)ed  the 
 education  of  the  place)  against  the  first  Greek  lec- 
 tures—that to  study  that  language  would  make 
 
 b  The  boast  of  Bacon,  th.at  any  one  using  his 
 method  could  learn  Hebrew  and  Greek  within  a  week, 
 bold  as  it  is,  shows  that  he  knew  something  of  both 
 (De  Laude  Sac.  Script,  c.  28). 
 
3428 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED. 
 
 men  Pagans,  that  to  study  Hebrew  would  make 
 them  Jews  —  shows  that  the  latter  study  as  well  as 
 the  former  was  the  oliject  of  their  dislike  and  fear  « 
 (Anderson,  i.  24;   Haliam,  Lit.  of  Eur.  i.  403). 
 
 M'hether  'Jyndal  had  in  this  way  gained  any 
 knowledge  of  Hebrew  before  he  left  England  in 
 1524  may  be  uncertain.  The  fact  that  in  1.530-31 
 he  published  a  translation  of  Genesis,  Deuteronomy, 
 and  Jonah,''  may  be  looked  on  as  the  first-fruits  of 
 his  labors,  the  work  of  a  man  who  was  giving  this 
 proof  of  his  power  to  translate  from  the  original 
 (Anderson,  Aiiiwls,  i.  200-288).  "We  may  perhaps 
 trace,  among  other  motives  for  the  many  wander- 
 ings of  his  exile,  a  desii'e  to  visit  the  cities  Worms, 
 Cologne,  Hamburgh,  Antwerp  (Anderson,  pp.  48- 
 64),  where  the  Jews  lived  in  greatest  numbers,  and 
 some  of  which  were  famous  for  their  Hebrew  learn- 
 ing. Of  at  least  a  fair  acquaintance  with  that  lan- 
 guage we  have,  a  few  years  later,  abundant  evi- 
 dence in  the  table  of  Hebrew  words  prefixed  to  his 
 translation  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  in  casual 
 etymologies  scattered  through  his  other  works,  e.  y. 
 Mammon  {Parable  of  Wicked  Mammon,  p.  G8<^), 
 Cohen  {Obedience,  p.  255),  Abel  Mizraim  (p.  347), 
 Pesah  (p.  353).  A  remark  {Pre/ace  to  Obedience, 
 p.  148)  shows  how  well  he  had  entered  into  the 
 general  spirit  of  the  language.  "  The  properties 
 of  the  Hebrew  tongue  agreeth  a  thousand  times 
 more  with  the  Englishe  than  with  the  Latine.  The 
 manner  of  speaking  is  in  both  one,  so  that  in  a 
 thousand  places  thou  needest  not  but  to  translate 
 it  into  Englishe  word  for  word."  ^Vhen  Spalatiti 
 describes  him  in  1534  it  is  g.s  one  well-skilled  in 
 seven  languages,  and  one  of  these  is  Hebrew ''  (An- 
 derson, i.  397). 
 
 The  N.  T.  was,  however,  the  great  object  of  his 
 care.  First  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
 Mark  were  published  tentatively,  then  in  1525  the 
 whole  of  the  N.  T.  was  printed  in  4to  at  Cologne 
 and  in  small  8vo  at  Worms.''  The  work  was  the 
 fruit  of  a  self-sacrificing  zeal,  and  the  zeal  was  its 
 own  reward.  In  England  it  was  received  with 
 denunciations.  Tonstal,  Bishop  of  London,  preach- 
 ing at  Paul's  Cross,  asserted  that  there  were  at 
 least  2,000  errors  in  it,  and  ordered  all  copies  of  it 
 to  be  bought  up  and  burnt.  An  Act  of  Parlia- 
 ment (35  Hen.  VHI.  cap.  1)  forbade  the  use  of  all 
 copies  of  Tyndal's  "false  translation."  Sir  T. 
 More  {Dialogues,  1.  c.  Supplication  of  Souls,  Con- 
 
 a  As  indicating  progress,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
 the  first  Hebrew  professor,  Robert  Wakefield,  was  ap- 
 pointed at  Oxford  in  1530,  and  that  Henry  VIII. 's 
 Becretary,  Pace,  knew  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Chaldee. 
 
 b  The  existence  of  a  translation  of  Jonah  by  Tyudal, 
 previously  questioned  by  some  editors  and  biographers, 
 has  been  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  discovery  of 
 a  copy  (believed  to  be  unique)  in  the  possession  of  the 
 Ven.  Lord  Arthur  Hervey.  It  is  described  in  a  letter 
 by  him  to  the  Bunj  Post  of  Feb.  3,  1862,  transferred 
 shortly  afterwards  to  the  AlheruEum. 
 
 c  The  references  to  Tyndal  are  given  to  the  Parker 
 Society  edition. 
 
 d  Ilallam's  assertion  that  Tyndal's  version  "  was 
 avowedly  taken  from  Luther's,"  originated  probably 
 in  an  inaccurate  reminiscence  of  the  title-page  of 
 Coverdale's  {Lit.  of  Europe,  i.  526). 
 
 «  The  only  extant  copy  of  the  8vo  edition  is  in  the 
 Library  of  the  Baptist  College  at  Bristol.  It  was 
 reproduced  in  1862  in  far-simile  by  Mr.  Francis  Fry, 
 Bristol,  the  impression  being  limited  to  177  copies. 
 Mr.  Fry  proves,  by  a  careful  comparison  of  type,  size, 
 water-mark,  and  the  like,  with  tliose  of  other  books 
 from  the  same  press,  that   it  was  printed  by  Peter 
 
 futalion  of  TyndaVs  Answer)  er. tared  the  lists 
 against  it,  and  accused  the  translator  of  heresy, 
 bad  scholarship,  and  dishonesty,  of  "  corrupting 
 Scripture  after  Luther's  counsel."  The  treatment 
 which  it  received  from  professed  friends  was  hardly 
 less  annoying.  Piratical  editions  were  printed, 
 often  carelessly,  by  trading  publishers  at  Antwerp./ 
 A  scholar  of  his  own,  George  Joye,  undertook  (iu 
 1534)  to  improve  the  version  by  bringing  it  into 
 closer  conformity  with  the  Vulgate,  and  made  it 
 the  veJiicle  of  peculiar  opinions  of  his  own,  sub- 
 stituting "  life  after  this  life,"  or  "  verie  life,"  for 
 "  resurrection,"  as  the  translation  of  avaffTacrn. 
 (Conip.  Tyndal's  indignant  protest  in  Pref.  to  edi- 
 tion of  1534.)  Even  the  most  zealous  reformers  iu 
 England  seemed  disposed  to  throw  his  translation 
 overboard,  and  encouraged  Coverdale  {infra)  in 
 undertaking  another.  In  the  mean  time  the  work 
 went  on.  Editions  were  printed  one  alter  another.? 
 The  last  appeared  hi  1535,  just  before  his  death, 
 "diligently  compared  with  the  Greek,"  presenting 
 for  the  first  time  systematic  chapter-headings,  and 
 with  some  peculiarities  in  spelling  specially  intended 
 for  the  pronunciation  of  the  peasantry  (OfFor,  Life, 
 p.  82  '').  His  heroic  life  was  brought  to  a  close  in 
 1536.  We  may  cast  one  look  on  its  sad  end  —  the 
 treacherous  betrayal,  the  Judas-kiss  of  the  false 
 friend,  the  imprisonment  at  Vilvorden,  the  last 
 prayer,  as  the  axe  was  about  to  fall,  "  Lord,  open 
 the  King  of  England's  eyes."  ^ 
 
 The  work  to  which  a  life  was  thus  nobly  devoted 
 was  as  nobly  done.  To  Tyndal  belongs  the  honor 
 of  having  given  the  first  example  of  a  translation 
 based  on  true  principles,  and  the  excellence  of  later 
 versions  has  been  almost  in  exact  proportion  as  they 
 followed  his.  Believing  that  every  part  of  Scrip- 
 ture had  one  sen.se  and  one  only,  the  sense  in  the 
 mind  of  the  writer  {Obedience,  p.  304),  he  made  it 
 his  work,  using  all  philological  helps  that  were 
 accessible,  to  attain  that  sense.  Believing  that  the 
 duty  of  a  translator  «as  to  place  his  readers  as 
 nearly  as  possible  on  a  level  with  those  for  whom 
 the  books  were  originally  written,  he  looked  on  all 
 the  later  theological  associations  that  had  gathered 
 round  the  words  of  the  N.  T.  as  hindrances  rather 
 than  helps,  and  sought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  get 
 rid  of  them.  Not  "grace,"  but  "favor,"  even  in 
 John  i.  17  (in  edition  of  1525);  not  "charity," 
 but   "love;"    not   "confessing,"   but   "  acknowl- 
 
 Schoeffer  of  Worms.  By  a  like  process  Mr.  Anderson 
 (i.  63)  fixes  Cologne  as  the  place,  and  Peter  Quentel  as 
 the  printer  of  the  4to. 
 
 f  In  two  of  these  (1534  and  1535)  the  woi-ds,  "  This 
 cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  mj'  blood,"  in  1  Cor.  xi. 
 were  omitted  (.\nderson,  i.  415). 
 
 0  The  localities  of  the  editions  are  not  without 
 interest.  Hamburgh,  Cologne,  Worms,  in  1525  ; 
 Antwerp  in  1526-1528 ;  Marlborow  (=  Marburg)  in 
 1529;  Stra.sburg  (Joye's  edit.)  in  1531;  Bergen-op- 
 Zoom  in  1533  (Joye's) ;  John  c.  vi.  at  Nuremberg 
 in  1533  ;  Antwerp  in  1534  (Cotton,  Printed  Erlitions, 
 pp.  4-6). 
 
 ft  *  This  conjecture  of  Mr.  Offor  is  not  borne  out 
 by  an  examination  of  the  book  itself.  See  Westcott's 
 Hist,  of  Ike  English  Bible,  p.  64  f.  A. 
 
 i  Two  names  connect  themselves  sadly  with  this 
 version  A  copy  of  the  edition  of  1634  was  presented 
 specially  to  Anne  Boleyn,  and  is  now  extant  in  the 
 British  Museum.  Several  passages,  such  as  might  be 
 marked  for  devotional  use,  are  underscored  in  red  ink. 
 Another  reforming  Lady,  Joan  Bocher,  was  known  tc 
 have  been  active  in  circulating  Tyndal's  N.  T.  (Neal 
 i.  43  ;  Strype,  Mem.  i.  c.  26). 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3429 
 
 edging;"  not  "penance,"  but  "repentance;" 
 not  "priests,"  but  "  seniors "  or  "elders;"  not 
 "salvation,"  but  "health;"  not  "church,"  but 
 "  congregation,"  are  instances  of  the  changes 
 which  were  then-  looked  on  as  startling  and  heret- 
 ical innovations  (Sir  T.  More,  I.  c).  Some  of  them 
 we  are  now  familiar  with.  In  others  the  later  ver- 
 sions bear  traces  of  a  reaction  in  favor  of  the  older 
 phraseology.  In  this,  as  in  other  things,  Tyndal 
 was  in  advance,  not  only  of  his  own  age,  but  of  the 
 age  that  followed  him.  To  him,  however,  it  is 
 owing  that  the  versions  of  the  English  Church 
 have  throughout  been  popular,  and  not  scholastic. 
 All  the  exquisite  grace  and  simplicity  which  have 
 endeared  the  A.  V.  to  men  of  the  most  opposite 
 tempers  and  contrasted  opinions  — to  J.  H.  New- 
 man {Dublin  Review,  June,  1853)  and  J.  A. 
 Froude — is  due  mainly  to  his  clear-sighted  truth- 
 fulness." The  desire  to  make  the  Bible  a  people's 
 book  led  him  in  one  edition  to  something  like  a 
 provincial,  rather  than  a  national  translation,''  but 
 on  the  whole  it  kept  him  free  from  the  besetting 
 danger  of  the  time,  that  of  writing  for  scholars,  not 
 for  the  people;  of  aversion  full  of  "ink-horn" 
 j)hrases,  not  in  the  spoken  language  of  the  English 
 nation.  And  throughout  there  is  the  pervading 
 stamp,  so  often  wanting  in  other  like  works,  of  the 
 most  thorough  truthfulness.  No  word  has  been 
 altered  to  court  a  king's  favor,  or  please  bishops, 
 or  make  out  a  case  for  or  against  a  particular 
 opinion.  He  is  working  freely,  not  in  the  fetters 
 of  prescribed  rules.  With  the  most  entire  sin- 
 cerity he  could  say,  "  I  call  God  to  record,  against 
 the  day  we  shall  appear  before  our  Lord  Jesus  to 
 give  a  reckoning  of  our  doings,  that  I  never  altered 
 one  syllable  of  God's  word  against  my  conscience, 
 nor  would  this  day,  if  all  tliat  is  in  the  world, 
 whether  it  be  pleasure,  honor,  or  riches,  might  be 
 given  me  "  (Anderson,  i.  34!)). 
 
 IV.  CovEKDALE.  —  (1.)  A  complete  transla- 
 tion of  the  Bible,  different  from  Tyndal's,  bearing 
 the  name  of  Miles  Coverdale,  printed  probably  at 
 Zurich,  appeared  in  1.335.  The  undertaking  itself, 
 and  the  choice  of  Coverdale  as  tlie  translator,  were 
 probably  due  to  Cromwell.  Tyndal's  controversial 
 treatises,  and  the  polemical  character  of  his  prefaces 
 and  notes,  had  irritated  the  leading  ecclesiastics 
 and  emliittered  the  mind  of  the  king  himself  against 
 him.  All  that  he  had  written  was  publicly  con- 
 demned. There  was  no  hope  of  obtaining  the 
 king's  sanction  for  anything  that  bore  his  name. 
 But  the  idea  of  an  Eno;lish   translation  betran  to 
 
 «  The  testimony  of  a  Roman  Catholic  scholar  is 
 worth  quotiug :  "  In  point  of  pei-spicacity  and  noble 
 simplicity,  propriety  of  idiom  and  purity  of  style,  no 
 English  version  has  as  yet  surpassed  it  (Geddes,  Pro- 
 spectus for  a  new  Translation,  p.  89).  The  writer  can- 
 not forbear  adding  Mr.  Froude's  judgment  in  Uis  own 
 words  :  '■  The  peculiar  genius,  if  such  a  word  may  be 
 permitted,  which  breathes  through  it,  the  mingled 
 tenderness  and  majesty,  the  Saxon  simplicity,  the 
 preternatural  grandeur,  unequaled,  unapproached,  in 
 the  attempted  improvements  of  modern  s'cholars,  —  all 
 are  here,  and  bear  the  impress  of  the  mind  of  one 
 man,  and  that  man  William  Tyndal  "  (Hist,  of  Eng. 
 jii.  84). 
 
 b  *  Error  ;  see  p.  3428,  note  h.  A. 
 
 c  A  list  of  such  words,  99  in  number,  was  formally 
 laid  before  Convocation  by  Gardiner  in  1542,  with  the 
 proposal  that  they  should  be  left  untranslated,  or 
 Englished  with  as  little  change  as  possible  (Lewis, 
 Hist.  ch.  2  ;  \_Eiig.  Hexapla,  p.  105]). 
 
 d  It  is  uncertain  where  this  version  was  printed,  the 
 
 find  favor.  The  rupture  with  the  see  of  Rome,  the 
 marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  made  Henry  willinc 
 to  adopt  what  w.as  urged  upon  him  as  the  surest 
 way  of  breaking  forever  the  spell  of  the  Pope's  au- 
 thority, i'lie  bishops  even  began  to  think  of  the 
 thing  as  possible.  It  was  talked  of  in  Convocatioii. 
 They  would  take  it  in  hand  themselves.  The  work 
 did  not,  however,  make  much  progress.  The  great 
 preliminary  question  whether  "venerable"  words, 
 such  as  hostia,  penance,  pascha,  holocaust,  and  the 
 like,  should  be  retained,  was  still  unsettled  (Ander- 
 son, i.  iH}.<-'  Not  till  "  the  day  after  doomsday  " 
 (the  words  are  Cranmer's)  were  the  linglish  i)eople 
 likely  to  get  their  English  Bible  from  the  bishops 
 (ibiil.  i.  577).  Cromwell,  it  is  probable,  thought 
 it  better  to  lose  no  further  time,  and  to  strike  while 
 the  iron  was  hot.  A  divine  whom  he  had  patron- 
 ized, though  not,  like  Tyndal,  feeling  himself  called 
 to  tiiat  speci.'il  work  {Prcf.  to  Coverdale' s  Bible), 
 was  willing  to  undertake  it.  To  him  accordingly 
 it  was  intrusted.  There  was  no  stigma  attached 
 to  his  name,  and,  though  a  sincere  reformer,  neither 
 at  that  time  nor  afterwards  did  he  occupy  a  suffi- 
 ciently prominent  position  to  become  an  object  of 
 special  persecution.'' 
 
 (2.)  The  work  which  was  thus  executed  was 
 done,  as  might  be  expected,  in  a  very  different 
 fashion  from  Tyndal's.  Of  the  two  men,  one  had 
 made  this  the  great  object  of  his  life,  the  other,  in 
 his  own  language,  "  sought  it  not,  neither  desired 
 it,"  but  accepted  it  as  a  tusk  assigned  him.  One 
 prepared  himself  for  tlie  work  by  long  years  of  labor 
 in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  The  other  is  content  to 
 make  a  translation  at  second  hand  "  out  of  the 
 Douche  (Luther's  German  Version)  and  the  Lat- 
 ine."  <^  The  one  aims  at  a  rendering  which  shall 
 be  the  truest  and  most  exact  possible.  The  other 
 loses  himself  in  weak  commonplace  as  to  the  ad- 
 vantage of  using  many  English  words  for  one  and 
 the  same  word  in  the  original,  and  in  practice 
 oscillates  between  "penance"  and  "repentance," 
 "  love  "  and  "  charity,"  "  priests  "  and  "  elders,' 
 as  though  one  set  of  words  were  as  true  and  ade 
 quate  as  the  other  {Preface,  p.  19).  In  spite  of 
 these  weaknesses,  however,  there  is  much  to  like  in 
 the  spirit  and  temper  of  Coverdale.  He  is  a  sec- 
 ond-rate man,  laboring  as  such  contentedly,  not 
 ambitious  to  appear  other  than  he  is.  He  thinks 
 it  a  great  gain  that  there  should  be  a  diversity  of 
 translations.  He  acknowledges,  thongli  he  dare 
 not  name  it,  the  excellence  of  Tyndal's  version,/ 
 and  regrets  the  misfortune  which  left  it  incomplete. 
 
 title-page  being  silent  on  that  point.  Zurich,  Cologne, 
 and  I'raukfort  have  all  been  conjectured.  Coverdale 
 is  known  to  have  been  abroad,  and  may  have  come  in 
 contact  with  Luther. 
 
 e  There  seems  something  like  an  advertising  tact  in 
 this  title-page.  A  scholar  would  have  felt  that  there 
 was  no  value  in  any  translation  but  one  from  the 
 original.  But  the  "  Douche  "  would  serve  to  attract 
 the  Reforming  party,  who  held  Luther's  name  in 
 honor  ;  while  the  "  Latine  "  would  at  least  coueiliate 
 the  conservative  feeling  of  Gardiner  and  his  associates. 
 Whitaker,  however,  maintaius  that  Coverdale  knew 
 more  Hebrew  than  he  chose,  at  this  time,  to  acknowl- 
 edge, and  refers  to  his  translation  of  one  difficult 
 passage  ('<  Ye  take  youre  pleasure  under  the  okes  and 
 under  all  grene  trees,  the  children  beyinge  slaine  in 
 the  valleys,"  Is.  Ivii.  5)  as  proving  an  independent 
 judgment  against  the  authority  of  Luther  and  the 
 Vulgate  (Hist,  and  Crit.  Enquiry,  p.  52). 
 
 f  "  If  thou  [the  reader]  be  fervent  in  pr.ayer,  God 
 shall  not  only  send   thee  it  [the  Biblf]  in  a  better 
 
3430 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 He  states  frankly  that  he  had  clone  his  work  with 
 the  assistance  of  that  and  of  live  others."  If  the 
 language  of  his  dedication  to  the  king,  whom  he 
 compares  to  ]\Ioses,  David,  and  Josiah,  seems  to  be 
 somewhat  fulsome  in  its  flattery,  it  is,  at  least, 
 hardly  more  offensive  than  that  of  the  dedication 
 of  the  A.  v.,  and  there  was  more  to  palliate 
 it.'' 
 
 (3.)  An  inspection  of  Coverdale's  version  serves 
 to  show  the  influence  of  the  authorities  he  fol- 
 lowed.'^ The  proper  names  of  the  O.  T.  appear  for 
 the  most  part  in  their  Latin  form,  Elias,  Eliseus, 
 Ochozias;  sometimes,  as  in  Es.ay  and  Jeremy,  in 
 that  which  was  familiar  in  spoken  English.  Some 
 points  of  corre.spondence  with  Luther's  version  are 
 not  without  interest.  Thus  "  Cash,"  which  in 
 Wyclifte,  Tyndal,  and  the  A.  V.  is  uniformly  ren- 
 dered "  Ethiopia,"  is  in  Coverdale  "  jNIorians'  land" 
 (Ps.  Ixviii.  31;  Acts  viii.  27,  &c.),  after  the  "  Moh- 
 renlande"  of  Luther,  and  appears  in  this  form 
 accordingly  in  the  P.  B.  [Prayer  Book]  version  of 
 the  Psalms.  The  proper  name  Kabshakeh  passes, 
 as  in  Luther,  into  the  "  chief  butler  "  (2  K.  xviii. 
 17;  Is.  xxxvi.  11).  In  making  the  sons  of  David 
 "priests"  (2  Sam.  viii.  18),  he  followed  both  his 
 authorities.  'ETriV/coTroi  are  "  bishops  "  in  Acts 
 XX.  28  ("  overseers  "  in  A.  V.).  "  Shiloh,"  in  the 
 prophecy  of  Gen.  xlix.  10,  becomes  "  the  worthy," 
 after  Luther's  "  der  Held."  "  They  houghed 
 oxen "  takes  the  place  of  "  they  digged  down  a 
 wall,'"  in  Gen.  xlix.  6.  The  singular  word  "  Lamia  " 
 is  taken  from  the  Vulg.,  as  the  luiglish  rendering 
 of  Z/?OT  ("  wild  beasts,"  A.  V.)  in  Is.  xxxiv.  14. 
 The  "  tabernacle  of  witness,"'  where  the  A.  V.  has 
 "  congregation,"  shows  the  same  influence.  In 
 spite  of  Tyndal,  the  Vulg.  "  plena  gratia,"  in  Luke 
 i.  28,  leads  to  "full  of  grace;"  while  we  have, 
 on  the  other  hand,  "  congregation  "  throughout  the 
 N.  T.  for  iKKArjala-i  and  "  love  "  instead  of  "  char- 
 ity "  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  It  was  the  result  of  the  same 
 indecision  that  his  language  as  to  the  Apocrypha 
 lacks  the  sharpness  of  that  of  the  more  zealous 
 reformers.  "  Barucli  "  is  placed  with  the  canon- 
 ical books,  after  "  Lamentations."  Of  the  rest 
 he  says  that  they  are  "placed  apart,"  as  "not 
 held  by  ecclesiastical  doctors  in  the  same  repute  " 
 as  the  other  Scriptures,  but  this  is  only  because 
 there  are  "  dark  sayings "  which  seem  to  difter 
 from  the  "  open  Scripture."  He  has  no  wish 
 that  they  should  be  "  despised  or  little  set  by." 
 "  Patience  and  study  would  show  that  the  two 
 were  agreed." 
 
 (4. )  What  has  been  stated  practically  disposes  of 
 the  claim  which  has  sometimes  been  made  for  this 
 version  of  Coverdale's,  as  though  it  had  been  made 
 from  the  original  text  (Anderson,  i.  5G4;  Whita- 
 ker,  Hist,  and  Crit.  Enquiry,  p.  58).  It  is  not 
 improbable,  however,  that  as  time  went  on  he  added 
 
 [version]  by  the  ministratiou  of  those  that  began  it 
 before,  but  shall  also  move  the  hearts  of  those  that 
 before  meddled  not  withal." 
 
 «  The  five  were  probably  —  (1)  the  Vulgate,  (2) 
 Luther's,  (3)  the  German  Swiss  version  of  Zurich,  (4) 
 the  Latin  of  Pagninus,  (5)  Tyndal's.  Others,  how- 
 ever, have  coujectured  a  German  translation  of  the 
 Vulgate  earlier  than  Luther's,  and  a  Dutch  version 
 from  Luther  (Whitaker,  Hist,  and  Crit.  Enquiry, 
 p.  49). 
 
 b  lie  leaves  it  to  the  king,  e.  g.,  "  to  correct  his 
 translation,  to  amend  it,  to  improve  [=  condemn]  it. 
 
 to  his  knowledge.  The  letter  addressed  by  him  to 
 Cromwell  {Eemains,  p.  492,  Parker  Soc.)  obviously 
 asserts,  somewhat  ostentatiously,  an  acquaintance 
 "notoidy  with  the  standing  text  of  the  Hebrew, 
 with  the  interpretation  of  the  Chaldee  and  the 
 Greek,"  but  also  with  "  the  diversity  of  reading  of 
 all  texts."  He,  at  any  rate,  continued  his  work  as 
 a  painstaking  editor.  Fresh  editions  of  his  Bible 
 were  published,  keeping  their  ground  in  spite  of 
 rivals,  in  1537,  1539,  1550,  1553.  He  was  called 
 in  at  a  still  later  period  to  assist  in  the  Geneva  ver- 
 sion. Among  smaller  facts  connected  with  this 
 edition  may  be  mentioned  the  appearance  of  He- 
 brew letters  —  of  the  name  Jeho\ah  —  in  the  title- 
 page  (mrT^),  and  again  in  the  margin  of  the  alpha- 
 betic poetry  of  Lamentations,  though  not  of  Ps. 
 cxix.  The  plural  form  "  Biblia  "  is  retained  in  the 
 title-page,  possibly  however  in  its  later  use  as  a 
 singular  feminine  [comp.  Bible].  There  are  no 
 notes,  no  chapter  headings,  no  divisions  into  verses. 
 The  letters  A,  B,  C,  D,  in  the  margin,  as  in  the 
 early  editions  of  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  are  the 
 only  helps  for  finding  places.  Marginal  references 
 point  to  parallel  passages.  The  O.  T.  especially  in 
 Genesis,  has  the  attraction  of  wood-cuts.  Each  book 
 has  a  table  of  contents  prefixed  to  it."^ 
 
 V.  Matthkw.  —  (1.)  In  the  year  1537,  a  large 
 folio  Bible  appeared  as  edited  and  dedicated  to  the 
 king,  by  Thomas  Matthew.  No  one  of  that  name 
 appears  at  all  prominently  in  the  religious  history 
 of  Henry  VIII.,  and  this  suggests  the  inference  that 
 the  name  was  pseudonymous,  adopted  to  conceal  the 
 real  translator.  The  tradition  which  coiniects  this  ' 
 Matthew  with  John  Rogers,  the  proto-martyr  of 
 the  Marian  persecution,  is  all  but  undisputed.  It 
 rests  (1)  on  the  language  of  the  indictment  and 
 sentence  which  describe  him  (Eoxe,  Ads  and  Mon- 
 uments, pp.  1029,  1563;  Chester,  Life  (f  Rogers, 
 pp.  418-423)  as  Joannes  Rogers  alias  Matthew,  as 
 if  it  were  a  matter  of  notoriety;  (2)  the  testimony 
 of  Foxe  himself,  as  representing,  if  not  personal 
 knowledge,  the  current  belief  of  his  time;  (3)  the 
 occurrence,  at  the  close  of  a  short  exhortation  to  the 
 Study  of  Scripture  in  the  Preface,  of  the  initials 
 J.  R.  ;«  (4)  internal  evidence.  This  subdivides 
 itself.  («.)  Rogers,  who  had  graduated  at  Pem- 
 broke Coll.  Cambridge  in  1525,  and  had  sufficient 
 fame  to  be  invited  to  the  new  Cardinal's  College  at 
 Oxford,  accepted  the  office  of  chaplain  to  the  mer- 
 chant adventurers  of  Antwerp,  and  there  became 
 acquainted  with  Tyndal,  two  years  before  the  latter's 
 death.  Matthew's  Bil)le,  as  might  be  expected,  if 
 this  hypothesis  were  true,  reproduces  Tyndal's 
 work,  in  the  N.  T.  entirely,  in  the  0.  T.  as  far  as 
 2  Chr  ,  the  rest  being  taken  with  occasional  modifi- 
 cations from  Coverdale.  (6.)  The  language  of  the 
 dedication  is  that  of  one  who  has  mixed  much,  as 
 
 yea,  and  clean  to  reject  it,  if  your  godly  wisdom  shall 
 think  necessary." 
 
 c  Ginsburg  {App.  to  Colielelk)  has  shown  that, 
 with  regard  to  one  book  at  least  of  the  0.  T.,  Cover- 
 dale  followed  the  German-Swiss  version  printed  at 
 Zurich  iu  1531,  with  an  almost  servile  obsequious- 
 ness. 
 
 <l  A  careful  reprint,  though  not  a  fac-simile,  of  Cov- 
 erdale's version  has  been  published  by  Bagster  (1838). 
 
 e  These  ornamental  initials  aie  curiou.slv  selected. 
 H.  R.  for  the  king's  name,  W.  T.  (at  the  end  of  tho  0. 
 T.)  for  William  Tyndal,  K.  G.  for  Richard  Grafton  th« 
 printer. 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3431 
 
 Rogers  mixed,  with  foreign  reformers.  "  This  hope 
 have  the  godlie  even  in  strange  countries,  in  your 
 grace's  godUness." 
 
 (2. )  The  printing  of  the  book  was  begun  appar- 
 ently abroad,  and  was  carried  on  as  far  as  the  end 
 of  Isaiah.  At  that  point  a  new  pagination  begins, 
 and  tlie  names  of  the  London  printers,  Grafton  and 
 Whitechurch,  appear.  The  history  of  the  book  was 
 probably  something  like  this :  Coverdale's  transla- 
 tion had  not  given  satisfaction  —  least  of  all  were 
 the  more  zealous  and  scholar-like  reformers  con- 
 tented with  it.  As  the  only  complete  English 
 Bible,  it  was,  however,  as  yet,  in  possession  of  the 
 field.  Tyndal  and  Rogers,  therefore,  in  the  year 
 preceding  the  imprisonment  of  the  former,  deter- 
 mined on  another,  to  include  O.  T.,  N.  T..  and 
 Apocrypha,  but  based  tlu'oughout  on  the  original. 
 Left  to  himself,  Rogers  carried  on  the  work,  proba- 
 bly at  the  expense  of  the  same  Antwerp  merchant 
 who  had  assisted  Tyndal  (Poyntz),  and  thus  got  as 
 for  as  Isaiah.  The  enterprising  London  printers, 
 Grafton  and  Whitechurch,  then  came  in  (Chester, 
 Life  I'f  Rofjitrs,  p.  2S)).  It  would  be  a  good  spec- 
 ulation to  enter  the  market  with  this,  and  so  drive 
 out  Coverdale's,  in  which  they  had  no  interest, 
 'i'hey  accordingly  embarked  a  considerable  capital, 
 ^500,  and  then  came  a  stroke  of  policy  which  may 
 be  described  as  a  miracle  of  audacity.  Kogers's 
 name,  known  as  the  friend  of  Tyndal,  is  suppressed, 
 and  the  simulacrum  of  Thomas  Jlattiiew  disarms 
 suspicion.  The  book  is  sent  by  Grafton  to  Cran- 
 mer.  He  reads,  approves,  rejoices.  He  would 
 rather  have  the  news  of  its  being  licensed  than  a 
 thousand  pounds  (Chester,  pp.  425-427).  Appli- 
 cation is  then  made  both  by  Grafton  and  Crannier 
 to  Cromwell.  The  king's  license  is  granted,  but 
 the  publisher  wants  more.  Nothing  less  than  a 
 monopoly  for  five  years  will  give  him  a  fair  margin 
 of  profit.  Without  this,  he  is  sure  to  be  undersold 
 by  piratical,  inaccurate  editions,  badly  printed,  on 
 inferior  paper.  Failing  this,  he  trusts  that  the 
 king  will  order  one  copy  to  be  bought  by  every  in- 
 cumbent, and  six  by  every  abbey.  If  this  was  too 
 much,  the  king  might,  at  least,  impose  that  obliga- 
 tion on  all  the  popishly-inclined  clergy.  That  will 
 bring  in  something,  besides  the  good  it  may  possi- 
 bly do  them  (Chester,  p.  430).  The  application 
 ■was,  to  some  extent,  successful.  A  copy  was  or- 
 dered, by  royal  proclamation,  to  be  set  up  in  every 
 church,  the  cost  being  divided  between  the  clergy 
 and  the  parishioners.  This  was,  therefore,  the 
 first  Authorized  Version.  It  is  scarcely  conceiv- 
 able, however,  that  Henry  could  have  read  the 
 book  which  he  thus  sanctioned,  or  kiiown  that  it 
 Was  substantially  identical  with  what  had  been 
 publicly  stigmatized  in  his  Acts  of  Parliament  {ut 
 siiprd).  What  had  before  given  most  offense  had 
 been  the  polemic  character  of  Tyndal's  annotations, 
 and  here  were  notes  bolder  and  more  thorough  still. 
 Even  the  significant  W.  T.  does  not  appear  to  have 
 attracted  notice. 
 
 (3.)  What  has  been  said  of  Tyndal's  version 
 applies,  of  course,  to  this.  There  are,  however, 
 signs  of  a  more  advanced  knowledge  of  Hebrew. 
 All  the  technical  words  connected  with  the  Psalms, 
 Neginoth,  Shiggaion,  Sheminith,  etc.,  are  elabo- 
 rately explained.  Ps.  ii.  is  printed  as  a  dialogue. 
 The  names  of  the  Hebrew  letters  are  prefixed  to  the 
 verses  of  Lamentations.  Reference  is  made  to  the 
 Chaldee  Paraplu'ase  (.Job  vi.),  to  Rabbi  Abraham 
 (.lob  xix. ),  to  Kimchi  (Ps.  iii).  A  like  range  of 
 knowledge  is  shown  in  the  N.  T.     Strabo  is  quoted 
 
 to  show  that  the  Magi  were  not  kings,  Macrobius 
 as  testifying  to  Herod's  ferocity  (Matt,  ii.),  Eras- 
 mus's Paraphrase  on  .Matt,  xlii.,  xv.  The  popular 
 identification  of  Mary  Magdalene  with  "the woman 
 that  was  a  sinner"  is  discussed,  and  rejected 
 (Lukex.).  More  noticeable  even  than  in  Tyndal 
 is  the  boldness  and  fullness  of  the  exegetical  notes 
 scattered  throughout  the  book.  Strong  and  ear- 
 nest in  asserting  what  he  looked  on  as  the  central 
 truths  of  the  Gospel,  there  was  in  Rogers  a  Luther- 
 lilce  freedom  in  other  things  which  has  not  appeared 
 again  in  any  authorized  translation  or  popular  com- 
 mentary. He  guards  his  readers  against  looking 
 on  the  narrative  of  Job  i.  as  literally  true.  He 
 recognizes  a  definite  historical  starting-point  for 
 Ps.  xlv.  ("The  sons  of  Korah  praise  Solomon  for 
 the  beauty,  eloquence,  power,  and  nobleness,  both 
 of  himself  and  of  his  wife  "),  Ps.  xxii.  ("  David  de- 
 clareth  Christ's  dejection and  all,  under  fig- 
 ure of  himself ''),  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  (''  Sol- 
 omon made  this  balade  for  himself  and  his  wife,  the 
 daughter  of  Pharaoh,  under  the  shadow  of  himself, 
 figuring  Christ,"  etc.).  The  chief  duty  of  the 
 Sabbath  is  "  to  minister  the  fodder  of  the  Word  to 
 simple  souls,"  to  be  "  pitifid  over  the  weariness  of 
 such  neighbors  as  labored  sore  all  the  week  long." 
 ''  When  such  occasions  come  as  turn  our  rest  to 
 occupation  and  labor,  then  ought  we  to  remember 
 that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
 for  the  Sabbath"  (Jer.  xvii.).  He  sees  in  the 
 Prophets  of  the  N.  T.  simply  "  expounders  of  Holy 
 Scripture  "  (.Vets  xv.).  To  the  man  living  in  faith, 
 "  Peter's  fishing  after  the  resurrection,  and  all  deeds 
 of  matrimony  are  pure  spiritual;  "  to  those  who  are 
 not,  "  learning,  doctrine,  contemplation  of  high 
 things,  preaching,  study  of  Scripture,  founding  of 
 churches  and  abbeys,  are  works  of  the  flesh  "  (Pre/, 
 to  liumnns)."  "  Neither  is  outward  circumcision  or 
 outward  baptism  worth  a  pin  of  themselves,  save 
 that  they  put  us  in  remembrance  to  keep  the  cov- 
 enant" (1  Cor.  vii.).  "He  that  desiretlj  honor, 
 graspeth  after  lucre  ....  castles,  parks,  lordships 
 .  .  .  .  desireth  not  a  work,  much  less  a  good  work, 
 and  is  nothing  less  than  a  bishop"  (1  Tim.  iii.). 
 Ez.  xxiv.  is  said  to  be  "  against  bishops  and  curates 
 that  despise  the  flock  of  Christ.''  The  ayye\os 
 e/cKAT/crias  of  Rev.  ii.  and  iii.  appears  (as  in  Tyn- 
 dal) as  "  the  messenger  of  the  congregation." 
 Strong  protests  against  purgatory  are  found  in 
 notes  to  Ez.  xviii.  and  1  Cor.  iii.,  and  in  the  "  Ta- 
 ble of  Principal  Matters  '"it  is  significantly  stated 
 imder  the  word  Purgatory  that  "  it  is  not  in  the 
 Bible,  but  the  purgation  and  remission  of  our  sin 
 is  made  us  by  the  abundant  mercy  of  God."  The 
 preface  to  the  Apocrypha  explains  the  name,  and 
 distinctly  asserts  the  inferiority  of  the  l)ooks.  Na 
 notes  are  added,  and  the  translation  is  taken  from 
 Coverdale,  as  if  it  had  not  been  worth  while  to  give 
 umch  labor  to  it. 
 
 (4.)  A  few  points  of  detail  remain  to  be  noticed, 
 In  the  order  of  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  Rogers  fol- 
 lows Tyndal,  agreeing  with  the  A.  V.  as  far  as  the 
 Epistle  to  Philemon.  This  is  followed  by  the  Epis- 
 tles of  St.  John,  then  that  to  the  Hebrews,  then 
 those  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James,  and  St.  Jude. 
 Wood-cuts,  not  very  freely  introduced  elsewhere, 
 are  prefixed  to  every  chapter  in  the  Revelation. 
 The  introduction  of  the  "  Table  "  mentioned  above 
 
 «  The  long  preface  to  the  Romans  (seven  foHo  pages 
 was  substantially  identical  with  that  in  Tyndal's  edi 
 tion  of  1534. 
 
3432 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 gives  Rogers  a  claim  to  be  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
 cordances, the  "  father "  of  all  such  as  write  in 
 dictionaries  of  the  Bible.  Reverence  for  the  He- 
 brew text  is  shown  by  his  striking  out  the  three 
 verses  which  the  Vulgate  has  added  to  Ps.  xiv.  In 
 a  later  edition,  published  at  Paris,  not  by  Rogers 
 himself,  but  by  (jrafton,  under  Coverdale's  superin- 
 tendence, in  1539,  the  obnoxious  prologue  and 
 prefaces  were  suppressed,  and  the  notes  systemat- 
 ically expurgated  and  toned  down.  The  book  was 
 in  advance  of  the  age.  Neither  book-sellers  nor 
 bishops  were  prepared  to  be  responsible  for  it. 
 
 VI.  TAVEitNiiK  (1539).  — (1  )  The  boldness  of 
 the  pseudo-Matthew  had,  as  has  been  said,  fright- 
 ened the  ecclesiastical  world  from  its  propriety. 
 Coverdale's  version  was,  however,  too  inaccurate  to 
 keep  its  ground.  It  was  necessary  to  find  another 
 editor,  and  tiie  printers  applied  to  Richard  Taver- 
 ner.  But  little  is  known  of  his  life.  The  fact  that, 
 though  a  layman,  he  had  been  chosen  as  one  of  the 
 canons  of  the  Cardinal's  College  at  O.xford  indicates 
 a  reputation  for  scholarship,  and  this  is  confirmed 
 by  the  character  of  his  translation.  It  professes, 
 in  the  title-page, •  to  be  "newly  recognized,  with 
 great  diligence,  after  the  most  faithful  exemplars." 
 The  editor  acknowledges  "  the  labors  of  others  (i.  e. 
 Tyndal,  Coverdale,  and  Matthew,  though  he  does 
 not  name  them)  who  have  neither  undiligently  nor 
 unlearnedly  travelled,"  owns  that  the  work  is  not 
 one  which  can  be  done  '■  absolutely  "  {i.  e.  com- 
 pletely) by  one  or  two  persons,  but  requires  "a 
 deeper  conferring  of  many  learned  wittes  together, 
 and  alsoa  juster  time,  and  longer  leisure;  "  but  the 
 thing  had  to  be  done;  he  had  been  a.sked  to  do  it. 
 He  h.ad  "  used  his  talent  "  as  he  could. 
 
 (2.)  In  most  respects  this  may  be  described  as 
 an  expurgated  edition  of  Matthew's.  There  is  a 
 Table  of  Principal  Matters,  and  there  are  notes; 
 but  the  notes  are  briefer,  and  less  polemical.  The 
 passages  quoted  above  are,  e.  (/.  omitted  wholly  or 
 in  part.  The  epistles  follow  the  same  order  as 
 before. 
 
 VII.  Cranmee.  —  (1.)  In  the  same  year  as 
 Taverner's,  and  coming  from  the  same  press,  ap- 
 peared an  English  Bible,  in  a  more  stately  folio, 
 printed  with  a  more  costly  type,  bearing  a  higher 
 name  than  any  previous  edition.  The  title-page  is 
 an  elaborate  engraving,  the  spirit  and  power  of 
 which  indicate  the  hand  of  Holbein.  The  king, 
 seated  on  his  throne,  is  giving  the  Vei'bum  Dei  to 
 the  bishops  and  doctors,  and  they  distribute  it  to 
 the  people,  while  doctors  and  people  are  all  joining 
 in  cries  of  "  Vivat  Rex.''  It  declares  the  book  to 
 be  "  truly  translated  after  the  verity  of  the  Hebrew 
 and  Greek  texts "  by  ''  divers  excellent  learned 
 men,  expert  in  the  foresaid  tongues.''  A  preface, 
 in  April,  1.540,  with  the  initials  T.  C,  implies  the 
 archbishop's  sanction.  In  a  later  edition  (Nov. 
 1540),  his  name  appears  on  the  title-pacje,  and  the 
 names  of  his  coadjutors  are  given,  Cuthbert  (Ton- 
 stal)  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  Nicholas  (Heath) 
 Bishop  of  Rochester ;  but  this  does  not  exclude  tlie 
 possibility  of  others  having  been  employed  for  the 
 first  edition. 
 
 (•2.)  Cranmer's  version  presents,  as  might  be 
 expected,  many  points  of  interest.  The  prologue 
 gives  a  more  complete  ideal  of  what  a  translation 
 ought  to  be  than  we  have  as  yet  seen.  Words  not 
 in  the  original  are  to  be  printed  in  a  different  type. 
 They  are  added,  even  when  "not  wanted  by  the 
 sense,"  to  satisfy  those  who  have  "  missed  them  " 
 in    previous  translations,  i.  i".  they  represent  the 
 
 various  readings  of  the  Vulgate  where  it  differs 
 from  the  Hel)rew.  The  sign  *  indicates  diversity 
 in  the  Chaklee  and  Hebrew.  It  had  been  intended 
 to  give  all  these,  but  it  was  found  that  this  would 
 ha\e  taken  too  much  time  and  space,  and  the  ed- 
 itors purposed  therefore  to  print  tliem  in  a  little 
 volume  by  themselves.  The  frequent  hands  (iJ^^") 
 in  the  margin,  in  like  manner,  show  an  inten- 
 tion to  give  notes  at  the  end ;  but  Matthew's  Bible 
 had  made  men  cautious,  and,  as  there  had  not  been 
 time  for  "the  King's  Council  to  settle  them,"  they 
 were  omitted,  and  no  help  given  to  the  reader  be- 
 yond the  marginal  references.  In  absence  of  notes, 
 the  lay-reader  is  to  submit  himself  to  the  "  godly- 
 learned  in  Christ  Jesus."  There  is,  as  the  title- 
 page  might  lead  us  to  expect,  a  greater  display  of 
 Hebrew  than  in  any  previous  version.  The  books 
 of  the  Pentateuch  have  their  Hebrew  names  given, 
 Beresclddi  (Genesis),  Velle  Schemvlh  (Exodus), 
 and  so  on.  1  and  2  Chr.  in  like  manner  apjiear, 
 as  JJibre  Ilaiaviim.  In  the  edition  of  1541,  many 
 pro])er  names  in  the  0.  T.  appear  in  the  fuller  He- 
 brew Ibrm,  e.  g.  Amaziahu,  Jeremiahu.  In  spite 
 of  this  parade  of  learning,  however,  the  edition  of 
 1539  contains,  perhaps,  the  most  startling  blunder 
 that  ever  appearetl  under  the  sanction  of  an  arch- 
 liishop's  name.  The  editors  adopted  the  preface 
 which,  in  Matthew's  Bible,  had  been  prefixed  to 
 the  Apocrypha.  In  that  preface  the  common  tra- 
 ditional explanation  of  the  name  was  concisely 
 given.  They  appear,  however,  to  have  shrunk  from 
 offending  the  conservative  party  in  the  Church  by 
 applying  to  the  books  in  question  so  damnatory  an 
 epithet  as  Apocrypha.  They  looked  out  for  a  word 
 more  neutral  and  respectful,  and  (bund  one  tliat 
 apjieare'd  in  some  MSS.  of  Jerome  so  applied, 
 though  in  strictness  it  belonged  to  an  entirely  dif- 
 ferent set  of  books.  They  accordingly  substituted 
 that  word,  leaving  the  preface  in  all  other  respects 
 as  it  was  before,  and  the  result  is  the  somewhat 
 ludicrous  statement  that  the  "  books  were  called 
 llaguKjraphu"  because  "  they  were  read  in  secret 
 and  apart ' ' ! 
 
 (3.)  A  later  edition  in  1541  presents  a  few  modi- 
 fications worth  noticing.  It  appears  as  "  au- 
 thorized" to  be  "  used  and  frequented  "  in  "every 
 church  in  the  kingdom."  The  introduction,  with 
 all  its  elaborate  promise  of  a  future  perfection  dis- 
 appears, and,  in  its  place,  there  is  a  long  preface  by 
 Cranmer,  avoiding  as  much  as  possible  all  references 
 to  other  translations,  taking  a  safe  Via  Media  tone, 
 lilaming  those  who  "refuse  to  read,"  on  the  one 
 liand,  and  "inordinate  reading,"  on  the  other. 
 This  neutral  character,  so  characteristic  of  Cran- 
 mer's policy,  was  doubtless  that  which  enabled  it 
 to  keep  its  ground  during  the  changing  moods  of 
 Henry's  later  years.  It  was  reprinted  again  and 
 again,  and  was  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
 English  Church  till  15G8  —  the  interval  of  Mary's 
 reign  excepted.  From  it,  accordingly,  were  taken 
 most,  if  not  all,  the  portions  of  Scripture  in  the 
 Prayer  Books  of  1549  and  1552.  The  Psalms,  as 
 a  whole,  the  quotations  from  Scripture  in  the  Hom- 
 ilies, the  sentences  in  the  Communion  Services, 
 and  some  phrases  elsewhere,  «  still  preserve  the  re- 
 membrance of  it.  The  oscillating  character  of  the 
 book  is  shown  in  the  use  of  "love"  instead  of 
 charity"  in  1  Cor.  xiii. ;  and  "congregation" 
 instead  of  "  church  "  generally,  after  Tyndal;  while 
 in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  we  have  the  singular  rendering, 
 
 «  Such,  e.  g.,  as  "  worthy  fruits  of  penance." 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3433 
 
 as  if  to  gain  the  favor  of  liis  opponents,  "  with  au- 
 thority of  priesthood."  The  plan  of  indicating 
 doubtful  texts  by  a  smaller  type  was  adliered  to, 
 aud  was  applied,  among  other  passages,  to  Ps.  xiv. 
 5,  6,  7,  and  the  more  memorable  text  of  1  John  v. 
 7.  The  translation  of  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  "  -Vll  Scrip- 
 ture given  by  inspiration  of  God,  is  profitalile." 
 etc.,  anticipated  a  construction  of  that  text  wliich 
 has  sometimes  been  boasted  of,  and  sometimes  at- 
 taclved,  as  an  innovation.  In  this,  however,'  Tyndal 
 had  led  the  way. 
 
 Vlll.  GiCNEVA.  —  (1.)  The  experimental  trans- 
 lation of  the  Gospel  of  St.  JNIatthew  by  Sir  .lohn 
 Chelce  into  a  purer  English  than  before  (Strype, 
 Lift  of  Ckeke,  vii.  3),  had  so  little  influence  on  the 
 versions  that  followed  that  it  hardly  calls  for  more 
 than  a  passing  notice,  as  showing  that  scholars 
 were  as  yet  unsatisfied.  The  reaction  under  Mary 
 gave  a  checli  to  the  whole  work,  as  far  as  England 
 was  concerned;  but  the  exiles  who  fled  to  Geneva 
 entered  on  it  with  more  vigor  than  ever.  Cran- 
 mer's  version  did  not  come  up  to  tlieir  ideal.  Its 
 size  made  it  too  costly.  There  were  no  explana- 
 tory or  dogmatic  notes.  It  followed  Coverdale  too 
 closely ;  and  where  it  deviated,  did  so,  in  some  in- 
 stances, in  a  retrograde  direction.  The  Genevan 
 refugees  —  among  them  Whittingham,  Goodman, 
 PuUain,  Sampson,  and  Coverdale  himself — labored 
 "for  two  years  or  more,  day  and  night."  They 
 entered  on  their  "  great  and  wonderful  work  "  with 
 much  "  fear  and  trembling."  Their  translation  of 
 the  N.  T.  was  "  diligently  revised  bj-  tlie  most 
 approved  Greek  examples"  (MSS.  or  editions?) 
 (Preface).  The  N.  T.,  translated  by  Wiiitting- 
 ham,  was  printed  by  Conrad  iJadius  in  15-57,  the 
 whole  Bible  in  1560. 
 
 (2.)  Whatever  may  have  been  its  faults,  the 
 Geneva  Bible  was  unquestionably,  for  sixty  years, 
 the  most  popular  of  all  versions.  Largely  imported 
 in  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth,  it  was  printed  in 
 England  in  1561,  and  a  patent  of  monopoly  given 
 to  .James  Bodleigh.  This  was  transferred,  in  1576, 
 to  Barker,  in  whose  family  the  right  of  printing 
 Bibles  remained  for  upwards  of  a  century.  Not 
 less  than  eighty  editions,  some  of  tiie  whole  Bible, 
 were  printed  between  1558  and  1611."  It  kept  its 
 ground  for  some  time  even  against  tiie  A.  V.,  and 
 gave  way,  as  it  were,  slowly  and  under  protest.  The 
 causes  of  this  general  acceptance  are  not  difficult 
 to  ascertain.  The  volume  was,  in  all  its  editions, 
 cheaper  and  more  portable  —  a  small  quarto,  in- 
 stead of  the  large  folio  of  Cranmer's  "  Great  Bible." 
 It  was  the  fiist  Bible  which  laid  aside  the  obsoles- 
 cent black  letter,  and  appeared  in  Koman  type. 
 It  was  the  first  which,  following  the  Hebrew  ex- 
 ample, recognized  the  division  into  verses,  so  dear 
 to  the  preachers  or  hearers  of  sermons.  It  was  ac- 
 companied, in  most  of  the  editions  after  1578,  by  a 
 Bible  Dictionary  of  considerable  merit.  The  notes 
 were  often  really  helpful  in  dealing  with  the  diffi- 
 culties of  Scripture,  and  were  looked  on  as  spiritual 
 and  evangelical.  It  was  accordingly  the  version 
 specially    adopted    by    the  _  great    Puritan    party 
 
 a  *  Between  1558  and  1644,  according  to  the  Qicar. 
 Rev.  for  April,  1870,  about  150  editions  were  pub- 
 lisli  id  of  the  Bible  or  parts  thereof.  It  has  been  ob- 
 served that  in  the  SoiU/liers  Pochel  Bible,  published  in 
 1643  for  the  use  of  Cromwell's  army,  nearly  all  the 
 selections  of  Scripture  were  taken  from  the  Genera 
 version.  See  the  reprint  by  George  Livermore,  Cam- 
 bridge, 1861,  p.  vi.  A. 
 216 
 
 through  the  whole  reign  of  Elizaljeth,  and  far  into 
 that  of  James.  As  might  be  expected,  it  was  based 
 on  Tyndal's  version,  often  returning  to  it  where 
 the  intermediate  renderings  had  had  the  character 
 of  a  compromise. 
 
 (3.)  Some  peculiarities  are  worthy  of  special 
 notice:  (1.)  It  professes  a  desire  to  restore  the 
 "true  writing"  of  many  Hebrew  names,  and  we 
 meet  accordingly  with  forms  like  Izhak  (Isaac), 
 Jaacob,  and  the  like.  (2. )  It  omits  the  name  of  St. 
 Paul  from  the  title  of  the  I^pistle  to  the  Ileljrews; 
 and,  in  a  short  preface,  leaves  the  authorship  an 
 open  question.  (3.)  It  avows  the  principle  of  put- 
 ting all  words  not  in  the  original  in  Italics.  (4.) 
 It  presents,  in  a  calendar  prefixed  to  the  Bible, 
 something  like  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  es- 
 tablished order  of  the  Church's  lessons,  commemo- 
 rating Scripture  facts,  and  the  deaths  of  the  great 
 Reformers,  but  ignoring  saints'  days  altogether. 
 (5.)  It  was  the  first  English  Bible  which  entirely 
 omitted  the  Apocrypha.  (6.)  The  notes  were  char- 
 acteristically Swiss,  not  only  in  their  theology,  but 
 in  their  politics.  They  made  allegiance  to  king.s 
 dependent  upon  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  and  in 
 one  instance  (note  on  2  Chr.  xv.  16)  at  least 
 seemed,  to  the  easily  startled  James  I.,  to  favor 
 tyrannicide.* 
 
 (4.)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  introduction 
 of  the  Geneva  version  are  worth  mentioning,  if 
 only  as  showing  in  how  different  a  spirit  the  great 
 fathers  of  the  English  Reformation,  tlie  most  con- 
 servative of  Anglican  theolojj;ians,  acted  from  that 
 which  has  too  often  animated  their  successors 
 Men  talk  now  of  different  translations  and  various 
 readings  as  likely  to  inidermine  the  faith  of  the 
 people.  When  application  was  made  to  Archbishop 
 Parker,  in  1565,  to  support  Bodleigh's  application 
 for  a  license  to  reprint  the  Geneva  version  in 
 12mo,  he  wrote  to  Cecil  in  its  favor.  He  was  at 
 the  time  looking  forward  to  tiie  work  he  afterwards 
 accomphshed,  of  "  one  other  special  Bible  for  the 
 churches,  to  be  set  forth  as  convenient  time  and 
 leisure  should  permit;"  but  in  tlie  mean  time  it 
 would  "nothing  hinder,  but  rather  do  much  good, 
 to  have  diversity  of  translations  and  readings " 
 (Strype,  Life  of  Fftr/:er,  iii.  6).<-'  In  many  of  the 
 later  reprints  of  this  edition  the  N.  T.  purports  to 
 be  based  upon  Beza's  Latin  version;  and  the  notes 
 are  said  to  be  taken  from  [Beza,]  Joac.  Canierarius, 
 P.  Loseler  Villerius,  and  Fr.  Junius. 
 
 IX.  The  Bishops'  Bible.  —  (1.)  The  facts  just 
 stated  will  account  for  the  wish  of  Archbisliop 
 Parker,  in  spite  of  his  liberal  tolerance,  to  bring 
 out  another  version  which  might  estalilish  its 
 claims  against  that  of  Geneva.  Great  preparations 
 were  made.  The  correspondence  of  Parlcer  with 
 his  suffragans  presents  some  points  of  interest,  as 
 showing  how  little  agreement  there  was  as  to  the 
 true  theory  of  a  translation.  Tlius  wliile  Sandys, 
 15ishop  of  Worcester,  finds  fault  with  the  "  com- 
 mon translation  "  (Geneva?),  as  "following  Mun- 
 ster  too  much,"  and  so  "  swerving  much  from  the 
 Hebrew,"  Guest,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  who  took 
 
 b  The  note  "  Herein  he  showed  that  lie  lacked  zeal, 
 for  she  ought  to  have  died,"  was  probably  one  which 
 Scotch  fiinatics  had  handled  in  connection  with  the 
 name  of  James's  mother. 
 
 0  The  Geneva  version,  as  published  by  Parker,  is 
 that  popularly  known  as  the  BreecUes  Bible,  from  its 
 rendering  of  Gen.  iii.  7.  It  had  however  been  preceded 
 in  this  by  WycliU'e's 
 
3484 
 
 AVERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 the  Psalms,  acted  on  the  principle  of  translating 
 them  so  as  to  agree  witli  the  N.  T.  quotations, 
 "  for  tlie  avoiding  of  offense;  "  and  Cox,  Bisliop  of 
 Ely,  while  laying  down  the  sensiljle  rule  tiiat  "  ink- 
 horn  terms  were  to  be  avoided,"  also  went  on  to 
 add  "  that  the  usual  terms  w€re  to  be  retained  so 
 far  forth  as  the  llelirew  will  well  bear"  (Strype, 
 Parker,  iii.  6).  'i'lie  jjrinciple  of  pious  frauds,  of 
 distorting  the  truth  for  the  sal<e  of  edification,  has 
 perhaps  often  been  acted  on  by  other  translators. 
 It  has  not  often  been  so  explicitly  avowed  as  in 
 the  first  of  these  suggestions. 
 
 (2.)  The  bishops  thus  consulted,  eight  in  num- 
 ber, together  with  some  deans  and  professors, 
 brought  out  the  fruit  of  their  labors  in  a  magnifi- 
 cent folio  (1508  and  1572).  Everything  had  been 
 done  to  make  it  attractive.  A  long  erudite  preface 
 vindicated  the  right  of  the  people  to  read  the  Scrip- 
 tures, and  (quoting  the  authority  of  Bishop  Fisher) 
 admitted  the  position  which  later  divines  have  often 
 been  slow  to  admit  that  "  there  be  yet  in  the 
 Gospel  many  dark  places  whicli,  without  all  doubt, 
 to  the  posterity  shall  be  made  much  more  open." 
 Wood-engravings  of  a  much  higher  character  than 
 those  of  the  Geneva  Bible  were  scattered  profusely, 
 especially  in  Genesis.  Three  portraits  of  tlie  Queen, 
 the  Earl  of  Leicester,  and  Lord  Burleigh,  l)eautiful 
 specimens  of  copperplate  engraving,  appeared  on  tlie 
 title-pages  of  the  several  parts."  A  map  of  Bales- 
 tine  was  given,  with  degrees  of  latitude  and  lon- 
 gitude, in  the  edition  of  1572.  A  most  elaborate 
 series  of  genealogical  tables,  prepared  by  Hugh 
 Brougliton,  the  great  Kabbi  of  the  age  (of  whom 
 more  hereafter),  but  ostensibly  by  Speed  the  anti- 
 quary (Broughton's  name  being  in  disfavor  with 
 the  bishops),  was  prefixed  (Strype,  Parker,  iv.  20; 
 Lightfoot,  Life  of  BroiKjhton).  In  some  points  it 
 followed  previous  translations,  and  was  avowedly 
 based  on  Craiuner's.  "  A  new  edition  was  neces- 
 sary." "This  had  led  some  well-disposed  men  to 
 recognize  it  again,  not  as  condemning  the  former 
 translation,  which  has  been  followed  mostly  of  any 
 other  translation,  excepting  the  original  text " 
 {Pref.  of  1572).  Cranmer's  prologue  was  reprinted. 
 The  Geneva  division  into  verses  was  adopted 
 throughout. 
 
 (3.)  Some  peculiarities,  however,  appear  for  the 
 first  and  last  time.  (1.)  The  books  of  the  Bible 
 are  classified  as  legal,  historical,  sapiential,  and 
 prophetic.  This  was  easy  enough  for  the  O.  T., 
 but  the  application  of  the  same  idea  to  the  N.  T. 
 produced  some  ratlier  curious  combinations.  The 
 Gospels,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  those  to  Titus, 
 Philemon,  and  the  Hebrews,  are  grouped  together 
 as  legal,  St.  Paul's  other  epistles  as  sapiential;  the 
 Acts  appear  as  the  one  historical,  the  KeveJation 
 as  the  one  proplietic  book.  (2.)  It  is  the  only 
 Bible  in  which  many  passages,  sometimes  nearly 
 a  wiiole  chapter,  have  been  marked  for  the  express 
 purpose  of  l)eing  omitted  when  the  chapteis  were 
 read  in  the  public  service  of  the  Cluu'cli.  (o.)  One 
 edition  contained  the  older  version  of  the  Psalms 
 from  INIatthew's  Bible,   in    parallel   columns  with 
 
 a  The  fitness  of  these  illustrations  is  open  to  ques- 
 tion. Others  still  more  incongruous  found  their  way 
 into  the  text  of  the  edition  of  1572,  and  the  feclinf^s 
 of  the  Puritans  were  sliocked  by  seeing  a  wood-cut  of 
 Neptune  in  the  initial  letters  of  Jonah,  Mioah,  and 
 Nahum,  while  that  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  went  so 
 fiir  as  to  give  Leda  and  the  Swan.     There  must,  to 
 
 that  now  issued,  a  true  and  practical  acknowledg- 
 ment of  the  benefit  of  a  diversity  of  translations. 
 (4.)  The  initials  of  the  translators  were  attached  to 
 the  books  which  they  had  severally  undertaken. 
 The  work  was  done  on  the  plan  of  limited,  not  joint 
 liability.  (5.)  Here  as  in  the  Geneva,  there  is  the 
 attempt  to  give  the  Heljrew  proper  names  more  ac- 
 curately, as,  e.  (j.,  in  Heva,  Isahac,  Uziahu,  etc. 
 
 (4.)  Of  all  the  English  versions,  the  Bishops' 
 Bible  had  probably  the  least  success.  It  did  not 
 conmiand  the  respect  of  scholars,  and  its  size  and 
 cost  were  far  from  meeting  the  wants  of  the  people. 
 Its  circulation  appears  to  have  been  practically 
 limited  to  the  churches  which  were  ordered  to  be 
 supplied  with  it.  It  had  however,  at  any  rate,  the 
 riglit  to  boast  of  some  good  Hebrew  scholars  among 
 the  translators.  One  of  them.  Bishop  Alley,  had 
 written  a  Hebrew  Grammar;  and  though  vehe- 
 mently attacked  by  Broughton  (Townley,  Literary 
 Ilisiory  of  tlie  Bible,  iii.  190),  it  was  defended  as 
 vigorously  by  Fulke,  and,  together  with  the  A.  V. 
 received  from  Selden  the  praise  of  being  "  tlie  best 
 translation  in  the  world  "  ("  Table  Talk,"  Works, 
 iii.  2009). 
 
 X.  RiiEiMS  AND  DouAY.  —  (1.)  The  successive 
 changes  in  the  Protestant  versions  of  the  Scriptures 
 were,  as  miglit  lie  expected,  matter  of  triumph  to 
 the  controversialists  of  the  Latin  Church.  Some 
 saw  in  it  an  argument  against  any  translation  of 
 Scripture  into  the  spoken  language  of  the  people. 
 Others  pointed  derisively  to  the  want  of  unity 
 which  these  changes  displayed.  There  were  some, 
 however,  who  took  the  line  which  Sir  T.  JMore  and 
 Gardiner  had  taken  inider  Henry  YIII.  Tliey  did 
 not  object  to  the  principle  of  an  English  translation. 
 They  only  charged  all  the  versions  hitherto  made 
 with  being  ftilse,  corrupt,  heretical.  To  this  there 
 was  the  ready  retort,  that  they  had  done  nothing: 
 that  their  bishops  in  the  reign  of  Henry  had 
 promised,  but  had  not  performed.  It  was  felt  to 
 be  necessary  that  they  should  take  some  steps 
 which  might  enable  them  to  turn  the  edge  of  this 
 reproach,  and  the  English  refugees  who  were  settled 
 at  Rheims — Martin,  Allen  (afterwards  cardinal), 
 and  Bristow  —  undertook  the  work.  Gregory 
 Martin,  who  had  graduated  at  Cambridge,  had 
 signalized  himself  by  an  attack  on  the  existing 
 versions,*  and  had  been  answered  in  an  elaborate 
 treatise  by  Fulke,  Master  of  Catherine  Hall,  Cam- 
 bridge {A  Defence  of  t/ie  Sincere  ami  True 
 Translation,  etc.).  The  charges  are  mostly  of  the 
 same  kind  as  tliose  brought  liy  Sir  T.  More  against 
 Tyndal.  " '!"he  old  time-honored  words  were  dis- 
 carded. The  authority  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate 
 was  set  at  nought  when  the  translator's  view  of 
 the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  differed 
 from  what  he  found  in  them."  The  new  model 
 translation  was  to  avoid  these  faults.  It  was  to 
 command  the  respect  at  once  of  priests  and  people. 
 After  an  incui)ation  of  some  j'ears  it  was  published 
 at  Hheims  in  1582.  Though  IMartin  was  compe- 
 tent to  translate  from  the  Greek,  it  professed  to  be 
 based  on    "  the  authentic  text  of  the  Vulgate." 
 
 say  the  least,  have  been  very  slovenly  editorship  to 
 permit  this. 
 
 6  "  A  discovery  of  the  manifold  corruptions  of  Holy 
 Scriptures  by  the  Heretikes  of  our  days,  specially  of  the 
 English  sectaries."  The  language  of  tliis  and  other 
 like  books  was,  as  might  be  expected,  very  abusive. 
 The  Bible,  in  Protestant  translations,  was  "  not  God's 
 word,  but  the  devil's." 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 5435 
 
 Kotes  were  added,  as  strongly  dogmatic  as  those 
 Df  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  often  keenly  controversial. 
 The  work  of  translation  was  completed  somewhat 
 later  by  the  publication  of  the  0.  T.  at  Douay  in 
 1609.  The  language  was  precisely  what  might 
 have  been  expected  from  men  who  s»dopted  Gardi- 
 ner's ideal  of  what  a  translation  ought  to  be. 
 At  every  page  we  stunilile  on  "  strange  ink-horn 
 words,"  which  never  had  been  English,  and  never 
 could  be,  such,  e.  ;/.,  as  "  the  Pasche  and  the 
 Azymes "  (Mark  xvi.  1),  "the  arch-synagogue" 
 (Mark  v.  35),  "in  prepuce  "  (Rom.  iv.  "J),  "obdu- 
 rate with  the  fallacie  of  sin"  (Heb.  iii.  1-3),  "a 
 greater  hoste  "  (Heb.  xi.  4),  "  this  is  the  annuntia- 
 tion  "  (I.John  v.  5),  "  pre-ordinate  "  (Acts  xiii. 
 48),  "  the  justifications  of  our  Lord  "  (Luke  i.  G), 
 «<  what  is  to  me  and  thee"  (John  ii.  4),  "longa- 
 nimity "  (Rom.  ii.  4),  "  purge  the  old  leaven  that 
 you  may  be  a  new  paste,  as  you  are  azymes " 
 (1  Cor.  iv.  7),  "you  are  evacuated  from  Christ" 
 (Gal.  v.  4),  and  so  on.« 
 
 (2.)  A  style  such  as  this  had,  as  might  be  ex- 
 pected, but  few  admirers.  Among  those  few,  how- 
 ever, we  find  one  great  name.  Bacon,  who  leaves 
 the  great  work  of  the  reign  of  .James  unnoticed, 
 and  quotes  almost  uniformly  from  the  Vulgate, 
 goes  out  of  his  way  to  praise  the  Rhemish  version 
 for  having  restored  "  charity  "  to  the  place  from 
 which  Tyndal  had  expelled  it,  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  ( Of 
 the  Pacification  of  the  Church). 
 
 XL  AuTiroKizED  Vehsion.  —  (1.)  The  posi- 
 tion of  the  English  Church  in  relation  to  the  ver- 
 sions in  use  at  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of 
 James  was  hardly  satisfactory.  The  IJishops'  Bi- 
 ble was  sanctioned  by  authority.  That  of  Geneva 
 had  the  strongest  hold  on  the  affections  of  the 
 people.  Scholars,  Hebrew  scholars  in  particular, 
 found  grave  fiiult  with  both.  Hugh  Broughton, 
 who  spoke  Hebrew  as  if  it  had  been  his  mother- 
 tongue,  denounced  the  former  as  being  full  of 
 "  traps  and  pitfalls,"  "  overthrowing  all  religion," 
 and  proposed  a  new  revision  to  be  effected  by  an 
 Englis!i  Septuagint  (72),  with  power  to  consult 
 gardeners,  artists,  and  the  like,  about  the  words 
 connected  with  their  several  callings,  and  bound  to 
 submit  their  work  to  "  one  qualified  for  difficul- 
 ties." This  ultimate  referee  was,  of  course,  to  l)e 
 himself  (Strype,  WhiUfft,  iv.  19,  2-3).  Unhappily, 
 neither  his  temper  nor  his  manners  were  such  as  to 
 win  ftivor  for  this  suggestion.  \Vhitgift  disliked 
 him,  worried  him,  drove  him  into  exile.  His  feel- 
 ing was,  however,  shared  by  others;  and  among 
 the  demands  of  the  Puritan  representatives  at  the 
 Hampton  Court  Conference  in  1604  (Ur.  Reinolds 
 being  the  spokesman),  was  one  for  a  new,  or,  at 
 least,  a  revised  translation.  The  special  objections 
 which  they  urged  were  neither  numerous  (three 
 passages  only  —  Ps.  cv.  28,  cvi.  30,  Gal.  iv.  25, 
 were  referred  to)  nor  important,  and  we  must  con- 
 
 a  Even  Roman  Catholic  divines  have  felt  the  supe- 
 riority of  the  A.  v.,  and  Challoner,  in  his  editions 
 of  the  N.  T.  in  1748,  and  the  Bible",  1763,  often  fol- 
 lows it  in  preference  to  the  Rheims  and  Douay  trans- 
 lations. , 
 
 b  Only  forty-seven  names  appear  in  the  king's  list 
 (Burnet,  Reform.  Records).  Seven  may  have  died,  or 
 declined  to  act ;  or  it  may  have  been  intended  that 
 there  should  be  a  final  Committee  of  Revision.  A 
 full  list  is  given  by  Fuller  {Ck.  Hist,  x.)  ;  and  is 
 reproduced,  with  biographical  particulars,  by  Todd 
 and  Anderson. 
 
 elude  either  that  this  part  of  their  case  had  not 
 been  carefully  got  up,  or  that  the  bullying  to 
 wliich  they  were  exposed  had  had  the  desired 
 effect  of  throwing  them  into  some  confusion.  The 
 bishops  treated  the  difficulties  which  they  did  raise 
 with  supercilious  scorn.  They  were  "  trivial,  old, 
 and  often  answered."  Bancroft  raised  the  cry  of 
 alarm  which  a  tinud  Conservatism  has  so  often 
 raised  since.  "  If  every  man's  humor  were  to  be 
 followed,  there  would  be  no  end  of  translating  " 
 (Card well,  Co/^ere/ices,  p.  188).  Cranmer's  words 
 seemed  likely  to  be  fulfilled  again.  Had  it  been 
 left  to  the  bishops,  we  might  have  waited  for  the 
 A.  V.  "  till  the  day  after  doomsday."  Even  when 
 the  work  was  done,  and  the  translators  acknowl- 
 edged that  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  had 
 been  the  starting-point  of  it,  they  could  not  resist 
 the  temptation  of  a  fling  at  their  opponents.  The 
 oljections  to  the  Bishops'  Bible  had,  they  said, 
 been  nothing  more  than  a  shift  to  justify  the 
 refusal  of  the  Puritans  to  subscribe  to  the  Com- 
 munion Book  {Preface  to  A.  V.).  But  the  king 
 disliked  the  politics  of  the  Geneva  Bible.  Either 
 repeating  what  he  had  heard  from  others,  or  exer- 
 cising his  own  judgment,  he  declared  that  there 
 was  as  yet  no  good  translation,  and  that  that 
 was  the  worst  of  all.  Nothing,  however,  was 
 settled  at  the  Conference  beyond  the  hope  thus 
 held  out. 
 
 (2.)  But  the  king  was  not  forgetful  of  what  he 
 thought  likely  to  be  the  glory  of  his  reign.  The 
 work  of  organizing  and  superintending  the  arrange- 
 ments for  a  new  translation  was  one  specially  con- 
 genial to  him,  and  in  1606  tbe  task  was  accord- 
 ingly commenced.  The  selectioTi  of  the  fifty-four 
 scholars  *>  to  whom  it  was  entrusted,  seems,  on  the 
 whole,  to  have  been  a  wise  and  fair  one.  Andrews, 
 Saravia,  Overal,  Montague,  and  Barlow,  repre- 
 sented the  "higher"  party  in  the  Church;  Rei- 
 nolds, Chaderton,  and  Lively  that  of  the  Puritans." 
 Scholarship  unconnected  with  party  was  repre- 
 sented by  Henry  Savile  and  John  Boys.  One 
 name  is  indeed  conspicuous  by  its  absence.  The 
 greatest  Hebrew  scholar  of  the  age,  the  man 
 who  had,  in  a  letter  to  Cecil  (1595),  urged  this 
 very  plan  of  a  joint  translation,  who  had  already 
 translated  several  books  of  the  0.  T.  (Job,  Eccle- 
 siastes,  Daniel,  Lamentations)  was  ignominiously 
 excluded.  This  may  have  been,  in  part,  owJTig  to 
 the  dislike  with  which  Whitgift  and  Bancroft  had 
 all  along  regarded  him.  But  in  part,  also,  it  was 
 owing  to  Ifiroughton's  own  character.  An  unman- 
 ageable temper  showing  itself  in  violent  language, 
 and  the  habit  of  stigmatizing  those  who  differed 
 from  him,  even  on  such  questions  as  those  con- 
 nected with  names  and  dates,  as  heretical  and 
 atheistic,  must  have  made  him  thoroughly  imprac- 
 tical ile;  one  of  the  men  whose  presence  throws  a 
 committee  or  Conference  into  chaos.'' 
 
 c  This  side  was,  however,  weakened  by  tlie  death 
 of  Reinolds  and  Lively  during  the  progress  of  the 
 work.  The  loss  of  the  latter,  Hebrew  professor  at 
 Cambridge  for  thirty  years,  was  every  way  deplora- 
 ble. 
 
 d  It  deserves  notice  that  Broughton  is  the  only 
 Kuglish  translator  who  has  adopted  the  Eternal  as 
 the  equivalent  for  Jehovah,  as  in  the  French  version. 
 To  him  also  perhaps,  more  than  to  any  other  divine, 
 we  owe  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Descent  into 
 Hell. 
 
3436 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 (3. )  What  reward  other  than  that  of  their  own 
 eonscieiices  and  the  judgment  of  posterity  were  tiie 
 men  tlius  chosen  to  expect  for  their  long  and  labo- 
 rious task  V  The  king  was  not  disposed  to  pay 
 them  out  of  his  state  revenue.  Gold  and  silver 
 were  not  always  plentiful  in  the  household  of  the 
 English  Solomon,  and  from  him  they  received 
 nothing  (Heywood,  Stide  of  Auth.  Bihl.  Rci-is'wn). 
 There  remained,  however,  an  ingenious  form  of 
 liberality,  wiiich  had  the  merit  of  being  inexpen- 
 sive. A  king's  letter  was  sent  to  the  archbishops 
 and  bishops,  to  be  transmitted  by  them  to  tiieir 
 chapters,  commending  all  the  translators  to  their 
 favorable  notice.  I'hey  were  exhorted  to  contribute 
 in  all  1,000  marks,  and  the  king  was  to  be  informed 
 of  each  man's  liberality.  If  any  livings  in  their 
 gift,  or  in  the  gift  of  private  persons,  became 
 vacant,  the  king  was  to  be  informed  of  it,  that  he 
 might  nominate  some  of  the  translators  to  the 
 vacant  preferment.  Heads  of  colleges,  in  like 
 manner,  were  enjoined  to  give  free  board  and  lodg- 
 ing to  such  divines  as  were  summoned  from  the 
 country  to  labor  in  the  great  work  (Strype,  Whil- 
 gifl,  iv. ).  That  the  king  might  take  his  place  as 
 the  director  of  the  whole,  a  copy  of  fifteen  instruc- 
 tions was  sent  to  each  translator,  and  apparently 
 circulated  freely  in  both  Universities. 
 
 (4.)  The  instructions  thus  given  will  be  found 
 in  Fuller  {I.  c. ),  and  with  a  more  accurate  text  in 
 Burnet  {Ec/hnn.  Records).  It  will  not  be  neces- 
 sary to  give  tliein  here  in  full;  but  it  will  be  inter- 
 esting to  note  the  bearing  of  each  clause  upon  the 
 work  in  hand,  and  its  relation  to  previous  versions. 
 (1.)  The  Bishops'  Bible  was  to  be  followed,  and  as 
 little  altered  as  the  original  will  permit.  This 
 was  intended  probably  to  quiet  the  alarm  of  those 
 who  saw,  in  the  proposal  of  a  new  version,  a  con- 
 demnation of  that  ali'eady  existing.  (2.)  The  names 
 of  prophets  and  others  were  to  be  retained,  as 
 nearly  as  may  be  as  they  are  vulgarly  used.  This 
 was  to  guard  against  forms  like  Izhak,  Jeremiahu, 
 etc.,  which  had  been  introduced  in  some  versions, 
 and  wliich  some  Hebrew  scholars  were  willing  to 
 introduce  more  copiously.  To  it  we  owe  probalily 
 the  forms  Jeremy,  Elias,  Osee,  Core,  in  the  N.  T. 
 (3.)  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the 
 word  Church  not  to  be  translated  Congregation. 
 The  rule  was  apparently  given  for  the  sake  of  this 
 special  application.  "  Charity,"  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  was 
 probably  also  due  to  it.  The  earlier  versions,  it 
 will  be  rememliered,  had  gone  on  the  opposite  prin- 
 ciple. (4.)  When  any  word  hath  divers  significa- 
 tions, that  to  be  kept  which  hath  been  most  com- 
 monly used  by  the  most  eminent  fathers,  being 
 agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the 
 analogy  of  faith.  This,  like  the  former,  tends  to 
 confound  the  functions  of  the  preacher  and  the 
 translator,  and  substitutes  ecclesiastical  tradition 
 for  philological  accuracy.  (.5.)  The  division  of  the 
 chapters  to  be  altered  either  not  at  all,  or  as  little 
 as  possible.  Here,  again,  convenience  was  more  in 
 view  than  truth  and  accurac)-,  and  the  result  is 
 that  divisions  are  perpetuated  which  are  manifestly 
 arbitrary  and  misleading.  (C.)  No  marginal  notes 
 to  be  affixed  but  only  for  the  explanation  of  Hebrew 
 
 a  Miles  Smith,  himself  a  translator  and  the  writer 
 of  the  Preface,  complained  of  Bancroft  that  there  was 
 no  contradicting  him  (Beard,  Revised  En^;.  Bible). 
 
 b  Geirs  evidence,  as  having  been  chaplain  to  Arch- 
 bishop Abbot,  carries  some  weight  with  it.  His  works 
 »,re  to  be  found  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  Library,  Mr.  Scriv- 
 
 and  Greek  words.  This  was  obviously  directed 
 against  the  Geneva  notes,  as  the  special  objects  of 
 the  king's  aversion.  Practically,  however,  in  what- 
 ever feeling  it  originated,  we  may  be  thatikful  that 
 the  A.  V.  came  out  as  it  did,  without  ^ote  or  com- 
 ment. The  tpen  Bilile  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
 all  readers.  The  work  of  interpretation  was  left 
 free.  Had  an  opposite  course  been  adopted,  we 
 might  have  had  the  tremendous  evil  of  a  whole 
 body  of  exegesis  imposed  upon  the  C'hurch  by 
 authority,  reflecting  the  Calvinism  of  the  Synod 
 of  Uort,  the  absolutism  of  James,  the  high-flying 
 prelacy  of  Bancroft.  (7.)  Such  quotations  of  places 
 to  be  marginally  set  down  as  may  serve  for  fit 
 reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another.  The  prin- 
 ciple that  Scripture  is  its  own  best  interpreter  was 
 thus  recognized,  but  practically  the  marginal  refer- 
 ences of  the  A.  V.  of  1611  were  somewhat  scanty, 
 most  of  those  now  printed  having  been  added  in 
 later  editions.  (8  and  9.)  State  plan  of  translation. 
 Each  company  of  translators  is  to  take  its  own 
 books;  each  person  to  bring  his  own  corrections. 
 Tlie  company  to  discuss  them,  and  having  finished 
 their  work,  to  send  it  on  to  another  company,  and 
 so  on.  (10.)  Provides  for  differences  of  opinion 
 between  two  companies  by  referring  them  to  a 
 general  meeting.  (11.)  Gives  power,  in  cases  of 
 difficulty,  to  consult  any  scholars.  (12.)  Invites 
 suggestions  from  any  quarter.  (13.)  Names  the 
 directors  of  the  work:  Andrews,  Dean  of  West- 
 minster; Barlow,  Dean  of  Chester ;  and  the  IJegius 
 Professors  of  Helirew  and  Greek  at  both  Univer- 
 sities. (14.)  Names  translations  to  be  followed 
 when  they  agree  more  with  the  original  than  the 
 Bishops'  Bible,  sc.  Tyndal's,  Coverdale's,  Mat- 
 thew's, Whitchurch's  (Cranmer's),  and  Geneva. 
 (15.)  Authorizes  Universities  to  appoint  three  or 
 four  overseers  of  the  work. 
 
 (5.)  It  is  not  known  that  any  of  the  correspond- 
 ence connected  with  this  work,  or  any  minute  of 
 the  meetings  for  conference  is  still  extant.  Nothing 
 is  more  striking  than  the  silence  with  which  the 
 version  that  was  to  be  the  inheritance  of  the  Eng- 
 lish people  for  at  least  two  centuries  and  a  half  was 
 ushered  into  the  world.  Here  and  there  we  get 
 glimpses  of  scholars  coming  from  their  country 
 livings  to  their  old  college  haunts  to  work  diligently 
 at  the  task  assigned  them  (Peck,  Desiderata  Curi- 
 osn,  ii.  87).  We  see  the  meetings  of  translators, 
 one  man  reading  the  chapter  which  he  has  been  at 
 work  on,  while  the  others  listen,  with  the  original, 
 or  Latin,  or  German,  or  Italian,  or  Spanish  versions 
 in  their  hands  (Selden,  Tiilile  Talk).  We  may 
 represent  to  ourselves  the  differences  of  opinion, 
 settled  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  "odd  man,"  or 
 by  the  strong  overliearing  temper  of  a  man  like 
 Bancroft,"  the  minority  comforting  themselves  with 
 the  thought  that  it  was  no  new  tiling  for  the  truth 
 to  be  outvoted  (Gell,  J^ssay  towards  Amendment 
 if  lust  KtKj.  Transl.  of  Bible,  p.  321).*  Dogmatic 
 interests  were  in  some  cases  allowed  to  bias  the 
 translation,  and  the  Calvinism  of  one  party,  the  pre- 
 latic  views  of  another,  were  both  represented  at  the 
 expense  of  accuracy  (Gell,  /.  c.).<^ 
 
 (6.)  For  three  years  the  work  went  on,  the  sepa- 
 
 ener's  statement  to  the  contrary  being  apparently  an 
 oversight  {Supplement  to  A.  Y.  of  N.  T.  p.  101). 
 
 c  The  following  passages  are  those  commonly  re- 
 ferred to  in  support  of  this  charge  :  (1.)  The  rendering 
 "  sucli  as  should  be  saved,"  in  Acts  ii.  47.  (2  )  Tlie 
 insertion  of  the  words   "  any  man  "   in  Ileb    x.  38 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3437 
 
 rate  companies  couiparing  notes  as  directed.  When 
 the  work  drew  towards  its  completion  it  was  neces- 
 sary to  place  it  under  the  care  of  a  select  few. 
 Two  from  each  of  the  three  groups  were  accordingly 
 selected,  and  the  six  met  in  Loudon,  to  superintend 
 the  puhlication.  Now,  for  the  first  time,  we  find 
 any  more  defiuite  remuneration  than  the  shadowy 
 promise  held  out  in  the  king's  letter,  of  a  share  in 
 the  1,000  marks  which  Deans  and  Chapters  would 
 not  contrihute.  The  matter  had  now  reached  its 
 hiininess  stage,  and  the  Company  of  Stationers 
 thought  it  expedient  to  give  the  six  editors  thirty 
 pounds  each,  in  weekly  payments,  for  their  nine 
 months'  labor.  The  final  correction,  and  the  task 
 of  writing  the  arguments  of  the  several  books,  was 
 given  to  Bilson,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Dr. 
 Miles  Smith,  the  latter  of  whom  also  wrote  the 
 Dedication  and  the  Preface.  Of  these  two  docu- 
 ments the  first  is  unfortunately  fiimiliar  enough  to 
 us,  and  is  chiefly  conspicuous  for  its  servile  adula- 
 tion." James  I.  is  "that  sanctified  person,"  "en- 
 riched with  singular  and  extraordinary  graces," 
 that  had  appeared  "  as  the  sun  in  his  strength."' 
 To  him  they  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  those 
 whom  they  describe,  in  somewhat  peevish  accents, 
 as  "  Popish  persons  or  self-conceited  brethren." 
 The  Preface  to  the  Header  is  more  interesting,  as 
 throwing  light  upon  the  principles  on  which  the 
 translators  acted.  They  "  never  thought  that 
 they  should  need  to  make  a  new  translation,  nor 
 yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good  one."  "Their 
 endeavor  was  to  make  a  good  one  better,  or  out  of 
 many  good  ones  one  principal  good  one."  They 
 claim  credit  for  steering  a  middle  course  between 
 the  Puritans  who  "  left  the  old  ecclesiastical  words," 
 and  the  obscurity  of  the  Papists  "  retaining  foreign 
 words  of  purpose  to  darken  the  sense."  They  vin- 
 dicate the  (iractice,  in  which  they  indulge  very  freely, 
 of  translating  one  W(ird  in  the  original  by  many 
 English  words,  partly  on  the  intelligible  ground 
 that  it  is  not  always  possible  to  find  one  word  that 
 will  express  all  the  meanings  of  the  Greek  or  He- 
 brew, partly  on  the  somewhat  childish  plea  that  it 
 would  be  unfair  to  choose  some  words  for  the  high 
 honor  of  being  the  chamiels  of  God's  truth,  and  to 
 pass  over  others  as  unworthy. 
 
 (7.)  The  version  thus  published  did  not  all  at 
 once  supersede  those  already  in  possessioti.  The 
 fact  that  five  editions  were  published  in  three  years, 
 shows  that  there  was  a  good  demand,  but  the 
 Bishops'  Bible  probalily  remained  iu  many  churches 
 (Andrews  takes  his  texts  from  it  in  preaching  lie- 
 fore  the  king  as  late  as  1021),  and  the  popularity 
 of  the  Geneva  Version  is  shown  liy  not  less  than 
 thirteen  reprints,  in  whole  or  in  part,  between  1011 
 and  1617.  It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  impres- 
 sion which  the  A.  V.  made  at  the  time  of  its  ap- 
 pearance.    Probably,  as  in  most  like  cases,  it  was 
 
 ("  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,  but  if  aiii/  mem  draw 
 back,"  etc.)  to  avoid  an  iufereuce  unfavorable  to  the 
 doctrine  of  Final  Perseverance.  (3. )  The  use  of  ''  bish- 
 opric," in  Aot<  i.  20,  of  "  oversight,"  in  1  I'et.  v.  2,  of 
 "  bishop,''  in  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  &c.,  and  "  overseers,"  iu 
 Acts  x.\.  28,  in  order  to  avoid  the  identification  of 
 bishops  and  elders.  (4  )  The  chapter-heading  of  Ps. 
 cxlix.  in  1(511  (since  altered),  "  The  Prophet  exhorteth 
 to  praise  God  for  that  power  which  he  hath  given  the 
 Ctiurch  to  bind  the  consciences  of  men."  Blunt  (Du- 
 ties of  a  Parish  PrifSl,  Lect.  II.)  appears  in  this  ques- 
 tion on  the  side  of  the  prosecution  ;  Trench  ( On  tlif  A. 
 V.  of  the  N.  T.  c.  x. )  on  that  of  the  defense.  The  cliarge 
 of  an  undue  bias  against  Home  in  1  Cor.  xi   27,  Gal. 
 
 far  less  for  good  or  evp  than  friends  or  foes  expected. 
 The  Puritans,  and  the  religious  portion  of  the  mid- 
 dle classes  generally,  missed  the  notes  of  the  Ge- 
 neva book  (Fuller,  Ch.  Hist.  x.  50,  51).  The  Ko- 
 nianists  spoke  as  usual,  of  the  unsettling  eftect  of 
 these  frequent  changes,  and  of  the  marginal  read- 
 ings as  leaving  men  in  doubt  what  was  the  truth  of 
 Scripture  *  One  frantic  cry  was  heard  from  Hugh 
 Broughton  the  rejected  {Works,  p.  601),  who 
 "  would  rather  be  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  horses  than 
 impose  such  a  version  on  the  poor  churches  of  Eng- 
 land." Selden,  a  few  years  later,  gives  a  calmer 
 and  more  favorable  judgment.  It  is  "the  best  of 
 all  translations  as  giving  tlie  true  sense  of  the  orig- 
 inal." This,  however,  is  qualified  by  the  remark 
 that  "  no  book  in  the  world  is  translated  as  the 
 Bible  is,  word  for  word,  \\ith  no  regard  to  the  dif- 
 ference of  idioms.  This  is  well  enough  so  long  as 
 scholars  have  to  do  with  it,  but  when  it  comes 
 among  the  common  people.  Lord !  what  gear  do 
 they  make  of  it!"  [Table  Talk).  The"  feeling 
 of  which  this  was  the  expression,  led  even  in  the 
 midst  of  the  agitations  of  the  Connnonwealth  to 
 proposals  for  another  revision,  which,  after  being 
 lirought  forward  in  the  Grand  Committee  of  Relig- 
 ion in  the  House  of  Commons  in  Jan.  1050,  was 
 referred  to  a  sub-committee,  acting  under  W'hite- 
 locke,  with  power  to  consult  divines  and  report. 
 (Conferences  were  accordingly  held  frequently  at 
 Whitelocke's  house,  at  which  we  find,  mingled  with 
 less  illustrious  names,  those  of  Walton  and  Cud- 
 worth.  Nothing,  however  canie  of  it  (Whitelocke, 
 Memorials,  p.  564;  Collier,  C/i.  Hist.  ii.  9).  No 
 report  was  ever  made,  and  with  the  Pestoration  the 
 tide  of  conservative  feeling,  in  this  as  in  other  things, 
 checked  all  plans  of  further  alteration.  Many  had 
 ceased  to  care  for  the  Kihle  at  all.  Those  who  did 
 care  were  content  with  the  Bible  as  it  was.  Only 
 here  and  there  was  a  voice  raised,  like  K.  Cell's 
 {lit  supra),  declaring  that  it  had  defects,  that  it 
 bore  in  some  things  the  stamp  of  the  dogmatism  ot 
 a  party  (p.  321). 
 
 (8.)  The  highest  testimony  of  this  period  is  that 
 of  Walton.  From  the  editor  of  the  Polyglott,  the 
 few  words  "  inter  omnes  enunet  "  meant  a  good 
 deal  {Pref.).  With  the  reign  of  Anne  the  tide  of 
 glowing  panegyric  set  in.  It  would  be  easy  to  put 
 together  a  long  catena  of  praises  stretching  from 
 that  time  to  the  present.  With  many,  of  course, 
 this  has  been  only  the  routine  repetition  of  a  tradi- 
 tional boast.  "  Our  unrivaled  Translation,"  and 
 "our  incomparable  Liturgy,"  have  been,  equally, 
 jihrases  of  course.  But  there  have  iieen  witnesses 
 of  a  far  higher  weight.  In  proportion  as  the  Eng- 
 lish of  the  18th  century  was  infected  with  a  L.atin- 
 ized  or  Gallicized  style,  did  those  who  had  a  purer 
 taste  look  with  reverence  to  the  strength  and  jnirity 
 of  a  better  time  as  represented  in  the  A.  V.     Thus 
 
 V.  6,  Ileb.  xiii.  4,  is  one  on  which  an  acquittal  may  be 
 pronounced  with  little  or  no  hesitation. 
 
 «  It  may  be  at  least  pleaded,  in  mitigation,  that  the 
 flattery  of  the  translators  is  outdone  by  that  of  Francis 
 Bacon. 
 
 6  Whitaker's  answer,  by  anticipation,  to  the  charge 
 is  worth  quoting:  "No  inconvenience  will  follow  if 
 interpretations  or  versions  of  Scripture,  when  they 
 have  become  obsolete,  or  eea.sed  to  be  intelligible,  may 
 be  afterwards  changed  or  corrected "  (Dissert,  on 
 Script,  p.  232,  Parker  Soc.  ed.).  The  wiser  divines  of 
 the  English  Church  had  not  then  learned  to  raise  the 
 cry  of  tinality. 
 
8438 
 
 VERSIOJf,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 Addison  dwells  on  its  ennobling  the  coldness  of 
 modern  languages  with  the  glowing  phrases  of  lie- 
 brew  (Speclntor,  No.  405),  and  Swift  confesses  that 
 •'  the  translators  of  the  Biljle  were  masters  of  an 
 English  style  for  fitter  for  that  work  than  any  we 
 see  in  our  present  writings  "  {Letter  to  Lord  Ox- 
 ford). Each  half-century  has  naturally  added  to 
 the  prestige  of  these  merits.  The  language  of  the 
 A.  V.  has  intertwined  itself  with  the  controversies, 
 the  devotion,  the  literature  of  the  English  people. 
 It  has  gone,  wherever  they  have  gone,  over  the  face 
 of  the  whole  earth.  The  most  solemn  and  tender 
 of  individual  memories  are,  for  the  most  part,  asso- 
 ciated with  it.  Men  leaving  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land for  the  Church  of  liome  turn  regretfully  with 
 a  yearning  look  at  that  noble  "  well  of  English 
 undefiled,"  which  they  are  about  to  exchange  for 
 the  uncouth  monstrosities  of  liheims  and  Douay. 
 In  this  case  too,  as  in  so  many  others,  the  position 
 of  the  A.  V.  has  been  strengthened,  less  by  the 
 skill  of  its  defenders  than  by  the  weakness  of  its 
 assailants.  While  from  time  to  time,  scholars  and 
 divines  (Lowth,  Newcome,  Waterland,  Trench, 
 Ellicott),  have  admitted  the  necessity  of  a  revision, 
 those  who  have  attacked  the  present  version  and 
 produced  new  ones  have  been,  for  the  most  part, 
 men  of  narrow  knowledge  and  defective  taste  (Pur- 
 ver,  and  Ilarwood,  and  Bellamy,  and  Conquest), 
 just  able  to  pick  out  a  few  obvious  faults,  and  show- 
 ing their  competence  for  the  task  by  entering  on 
 the  work  of  translating  or  revising  the  whole  Bible 
 single-handed.  One  memorable  exception  must 
 not,  however,  be  passed  over.  Hallam  {Lit.  of 
 Europe,  iii.  ch.  2,  ad  fin.)  records  a  brief  but  em- 
 phatic protest  against  the  "enthusiastic  praise" 
 which  has  been  lavished  on  this  translation.  "  It 
 may,  in  the  eyes  of  many,  be  a  better  English,  l)ut 
 it  is  not  the  English  of  Daniel,  or  Raleigh,  or  Ba- 
 con, ....  It  abounds,  in  fact,  especially  in  the 
 0.  T.,  with  obsolete  phraseology,  and  with  si)igle 
 words  long  since  abandoned,  or  retajpied  only  in 
 provincial  use."  The  statement  may,  it  is  lielieved, 
 be  accepted  as  an  encomium.  If  it  had  been  the 
 English  of  the  men  of  letters  of  James's  reign, 
 would  it  have  retained  as  it  has  done,  for  two  cen- 
 turies and  a  half,  its  hold  on  the  mind,  the  mem- 
 ory, the  affections  of  tlie  English  people? 
 
 XII.  ScHKiMEs  I'OR  A  Ki'.visiON.  —  (1.)  A  no- 
 tice of  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  at 
 various  times  to  bring  about  a  revision  of  the  A.  V., 
 though  necessarily  brief  and  imperfect,  may  not  be 
 without  its  use  for  future  laborers.  The  first  half 
 of  the  18th  century  was  not  favorable  for  such  a 
 work.  An  almost  solitary  Essay  for  a  New 
 2'ransliifioH  by  H.  II.  (lioss),  1702,  attracted  httle 
 or  no  notice  (Todd,  LiJ'e  of  Walton,  i.  134).  A 
 Greek  Test,  with  an  ICnglish  translation,  singularly 
 vulgar  and  offensive,  [by  W.  Mace,]  was  published 
 in  1729,  of  which  extracts  are  given  by  Lewis  {Hht. 
 of  Transl.  ch.  v.)  With  the  slight  revival  of  learn- 
 ing among  the  scholars  of  the  latter  half  of  that 
 period  the  subject  was  again  mooted.  Lowth  in  a 
 Visitation  Sermon  (17.J8),  and  Seeker  in  a  Latin 
 Speech  intended  for  Convocation  (1761),  recom- 
 mended it.  Matt.  Pilkington  in  his  liemarks 
 (1759),  and  Dr.  Thomas  Brett,  in  an  L'ssay  on 
 Ancient  Versions  of  the  Bible  (1700),  dwelt  on  the 
 importance  of  consulting  them   with  reference  to 
 
 a  Whatever  be  the  demerits  of  Lowth's  Isaiah,  it 
 deeerveg  sometliing  better  than  the  sarcasm  of  Ilurd, 
 that  '■  its  only  use  was  to  show  how  httle  was  to  be 
 
 the  0.  T.  as  well  as  the  N.  T.,  with  a  view  to  a 
 more  accurate  text  than  that  of  the  Masoretic  He- 
 brew, the  former  insisting  also  on  the  obsolete 
 words  which  are  scattered  in  the  A.  V.  and  giving 
 a  useful  alphabetic  list  of  them.  A  folio  New  and 
 Literal  Translation  of  the  whole  Biijle  by  Anthony 
 Purver,  a  Quaker  (17C4),  was  a  more  ambitious 
 attempt.  He  dwells  at  some  length  on  the  "  ob- 
 solete, uncouth,  clownish "  expressions  which  dis- 
 figure the  A.  V.  He  includes  in  his  list  such 
 words  as  "joyous,"  "solace,"  "damsel,"  "day- 
 spring,"  "bereaved,"  "marvels,"  "bondmen." 
 He  sulistitutes  "  He  hearkened  to  what  he  said," 
 for  "  he  hearkened  to  his  voice;"  "eat  victuals," 
 for  "eat  bread"  (Gen.  iii.  19);  "was  in  favor 
 with,"  for  "found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  ;  "  "  was 
 angry,"  for  "  his  wrath  was  kindled."  In  spite  of 
 this  defective  taste,  however,  the  work  has  consid- 
 erable merit,  is  based  upon  a  careful  study  of  the 
 original,  and  of  many  of  the  best  connnentators, 
 and  may  be  contrasted  favorably  with  most  of  the 
 single-handed  translations  that  have  followed.  It 
 «as,  at  any  rate,  far  above  the  depth  of  degrada- 
 tion and  folly  which  was  reached  in  Harvvood's 
 Literal  Translation  of  the  N.  T.  "  with  freedom, 
 spirit,  and  elegance  "  (1768).  Here  again,  a  few 
 samples  are  enough  to  show  the  character  of  the 
 w^hole.  "  The  young  lady  is  not  dead  "  (Mark  v.  39). 
 "  A  gentleman  of  splendid  family  and  opulent  for- 
 tune had  two  sons  "  (Luke  xv.  11).  "  The  clergy- 
 man said.  You  have  given  him  the  only  right  and 
 proper  answer "  (Mark  xii.  32).  "We  shall  not 
 pay  the  connnon  debt  of  nature,  but  by  a  soft  tran- 
 sition," etc.  (1  Cor.  XV.  51). 
 
 (2.)  Biblical  revision  was  happily  not  left  en- 
 tirely in  such  hands  as  these.  A  translation  by 
 Worsley  "  according  to  the  present  idiom  of  the 
 English  tongue  "  (1770)  was,  at  least,  less  offen- 
 sive- Durell  {Preface  to  Job),  Lowth  {Preface  to 
 Jsaiiih),  Blayney  {Pref.  to  Jeremiah,  1784),  were 
 all  strongly  in  favor  of  a  new,  or  revised  transla- 
 tion. Durell  dwells  most  on  the  arbitrary  addi- 
 tions and  omi.ssions  in  the  A.  Y.  of  Job,  on  the 
 total  ab.sence  in  some  cases,  of  any  intelligilile 
 meaning.'  Lowth  speaks  chiefly  of  the  faulty  state 
 of  the  text  of  the  0.  T.,  and  urges  a  correction  of 
 it,  partly  from  various  readings,  partly  from  ancient 
 versions,  partly  from  conjecture.  Each  of  the  three 
 contributed,  in  the  best  way,  to  the  work  which 
 they  had  little  expectation  of  seeing  accomplished, 
 by  laboring  steadily  at  a  single  book  and  connnit- 
 ting  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church."  Kenni- 
 cott's  labors  in  collecting  MS.  of  the  O.  T.  issued 
 in  his  State  of  the  present  Hebrew  Text  (1753, 
 1759),  and  excited  expectations  that  there  might 
 before  long  be  something  like  a  basis  for  a  new 
 version  in  a  restored  original. 
 
 A  more  ambitious  scheme  was  started  by  the 
 Roman  Catholic  Dr.  (Jeddes,  in  his  Prospectus frr 
 a  New  Translation  (1786).  His  remarks  on  the 
 history  of  English  translations,  his  candid  acknowl- 
 edgment of  the  excellences  of  the  A.  V.,  and  espe- 
 cially of  Tyndal's  work  as  pervading  it,  his  critical 
 notes  on  the  true  principles  of  translation,  on  the 
 A.  V.  as  falling  short  of  them,  may  still  be  read 
 with  interest.  He  too,  like  Lowth,  finds  fault  with 
 tlie  superstitious  adherence  to  the  Masoretic  text, 
 with  the  undue  deference  to  lexicons,  and  disregard 
 
 expected  from  any  new  translation."  As  the  Boswell 
 of  Warburton,  Hurd  could  not  resist  the  teniptatiou 
 of  attacking  an  old  antagonist  of  his  master's. 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 3439 
 
 of  versions  shown  by  our  translators.  The  pro- 
 posal was  well  received  by  many  Biblical  scholars, 
 Lowth,  Kennicott,  and  Barrington  being  foremost 
 among  its  patrons.  The  work  was  issued  in  parts, 
 according  to  the  terms  of  the  prospectus,  but  did 
 not  get  further  than  2  Chron.  in  1792,  when  tiie 
 death  of  the  translator  put  a  stop  to  it.  Partly 
 perhaps  owing  to  its  incompleteness,  but  still  more 
 from  the  extreme  boldness  of  a  pieface,  anticipating 
 the  conclusions  of  a  later  criticism,"  Dr.  Geddes's 
 translation  fell  rapidly  into  disfavor.  A  Sermon 
 b}'  ^^'hite  (fomous  for  his  Bampton  Lectures)  in 
 1779,  and  two  Pamphlets  bj'  J.  A.  Symonds,  Pro- 
 fessor of  Modern  History  at  Cambridge,  the  first 
 on  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  in  1789 ;  the  second 
 on  the  Kpistles,  in  1794,  though  attacked  in  an 
 Apohxjy  for  the  Liturgy  and  C/nirch  of  England 
 (1795),  helped  to  keep  the  discussion  from  ob- 
 livion. 
 
 (3.)  The  revision  of  the  A.  V.,  like  many  other 
 salutary  reforms,  was  hindered  by  the  Frencli  Kev- 
 olution.  In  1792,  Archbishop  Newcome  had  pub- 
 lished an  elaborate  defense  of  such  a  scheme,  citing 
 a  host  of  authorities  (Doddridge,  Wesley,  Camp- 
 bell, in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned),  and 
 taking  the  same  line  as  Lowth.  lievised  transla- 
 tions of  the  X.  T.  were  published  by  Wakefield  in 
 1795,  by  Newcome  himself  in  179G,  by  Scarlett  in 
 1798.  Campbell's  version  of  the  Gospels  appeared 
 in  1788,  that  of  the  Epistles  by  Macknight  in 
 1795.  But  in  179G  the  note  of  alarm  was  sounded. 
 A  feeble  pamphlet  by  George  Burges  (Lttter  to  the 
 Lord  Bishop  of  Ely)  took  the  ground  that  "  the 
 present  period  was  unfit,"  and  from  tliat  time. 
 Conservatism,  pure  and  simple,  was  in  the  ascend- 
 ant. To  suggest  that  the  A.  V.  might  be  inaccu- 
 rate, was  almost  as  bad  as  holding  "  French  prin- 
 ciples." There  is  a  long  interval  before  the  question 
 again  comes  into  anything  like  prominence,  and 
 then  there  is  a  new  school  of  critics  in  the  Quar- 
 terly Review  and  elsewhere,  ready  to  do  battle 
 vigorously  for  things  as  they  are.  The  opening  of 
 the  next  campaign  was  an  article  in  the  Classical 
 Journal  (No.  3(j),  by  Dr.  John  Bellamy,  proposing 
 a  new  translation,  followed  soon  afterwards  by  its 
 publication  under  the  patronage  of  the  Prince  Re- 
 gent (1818).  The  work  was  poor  and  unsatisfac- 
 tory enough,  and  a  tremendous  battery  was  opened 
 upon  it  in  the  Quarterly  Beview  (Nos.  37  and  38), 
 as  afterwards  (No.  46)  upon  an  unhappy  critic,  Sir 
 J.  B.  Burges,  who  came  forward  with  a  pamphlet 
 in  its  defense  {-Reasons  in  Favor  of  a  New  Trans- 
 lation, 1819).  The  rash  assertion  of  both  Bellamy 
 and  Burges  that  the  A.  V.  had  been  made  almost 
 entirely  from  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate,  and  a  general 
 deficiency  in  all  accurate  scholarship,  made  them 
 easy  victims.  Tlie  personal  element  of  this  con- 
 troversy may  well  be  passed  over,  but  three  less 
 ephemeral  works  issued  from  it,  which  any  future 
 laborer  in  the  same  field  will  find  worth  consulting. 
 Whitaker's  Historical  and  Critical  Inquiry  was 
 chiefly  an  able  exposure  of  the  exaggerated  state- 
 ment just  montioned.     H.  J.  Todd,  in  his  Vindi- 
 
 a  "  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  it  [the  history  of 
 the  Pentateuch]  is  entirely  unmixed  with  the  leaven 
 of  the  heroic  ages.  Let  tlie  father  of  Hebrew  be  tried 
 by  the  same  rules  of  criticism  as  the  father  of  Greek 
 history." 
 
 b  A  short  epitome  of  this  portion  of  Todd's  boolt 
 has  been  published  by  the  S.  P.  C.  K.  as  a  tract,  and 
 will  be  found  useful. 
 
 cation  of  the  Autlm-ized  Translation  (ISID),  en- 
 tered more  fully  than  any  previous  writer  had  done 
 into  the  history  of  the  A.  V.,  and  gives  many  facts 
 as  to  the  lives  and  qualifications  of  the  translators 
 not  easily  to  be  met  with  elsewhere.''  The  most 
 masterly,  however,  of  the  manifestoes  against  all' 
 change,  was  a  pamphlet  (Remarks  on  the  Critical 
 Princijjles,  etc.,  Oxford,  1820),  published  anony- 
 mously, but  known  to  have  been  written  by  Arch- 
 bishop Laurence.  The  strength  of  the  argument 
 lies  chiefly  in  a  skillful  display  of  all  the  ditticulties 
 of  the  work,  the  impossibility  of  any  satisfactory 
 restoration  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  O.  T.,  or  any  set- 
 tlement of  the  Greek  of  the  N.  T.,  the  axpediency 
 therefore  of  adhering  to  a  Textus  reci-ptus  in  both. 
 The  argument  may  not  be  decisive,  but  the  schol- 
 arship and  acuteness  brought  to  bear  on  it  make 
 the  book  instructive,  and  any  one  entering  on  the 
 work  of  a  translator  ought  at  least  to  read  it, 
 that  he  may  know  what  dithculties  he  has  to 
 face.c 
 
 (4.)  A  correspondence  between  Herbert  Marsh, 
 bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  the  Rev.  H.  Walter, 
 in  1828,  is  the  next  huk  in  the  chain.  Marsh  had 
 spoken  {Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism,  p.  295) 
 with  some  contempt  of  the  A.  V.  as  based  on 
 Tyndal's,  Tyndal's  on  Luther's,  and  Luther's  on 
 Miinster's  Lexicon,  which  was  itself  based  on  the 
 Vulgate.  There  was,  therefore,  on  this  view,  no 
 real  tran.slation  from  the  Hebrew  in  any  one  of 
 these.  Substantially  this  was  what  Bellamy  had 
 said  before,  but  -Marsh  was  a  man  of  a  different 
 cnlibre,  and  made  out  a  stronger  case.  Walter,  in 
 his  answer,  proves  what  is  plain  enough,  that  Tyn- 
 dal  knew  some  Hebrew,  and  that  Luther  in  some 
 instances  followed  Rabbinical  authority  and  not  the 
 Vulgate ;  but  the  evidence  hardly  goes  to  the  extent 
 of  showing  that  Tyndal's  version  of  the  O.  T.  was 
 entirely  independent  of  Luther's,  or  Luther's  of  the 
 Latin. 
 
 (5.)  The  last  five-and-twenty  years  have  seen 
 the  question  of  a  revision  from  time  to  time  gain- 
 ing fresh  prominence.  If  men  of  second-rate  power 
 have  sometimes  thrown  it  back  by  meddling  with 
 it  in  wrong  ways,  others,  able  scholars  and  sound 
 theologians,  have  admitted  its  necessity,  and  helped 
 it  forward  by  their  work.  Dr.  Conquest's  Bible, 
 with  "  20,000  emendations  "  (1841),  has  not  com- 
 manded the  respect  of  critics,  and  is  almost  self- 
 condemned  by  the  silly  ostentation  of  its  title. 
 The  motions  which  have  from  time  to  time  been 
 made  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  Mr.  Heywood, 
 have  borne  little  fruit  beyond  the  display  of  feeble 
 Liberalism  and  yet  feebler  Conservatism  by  which 
 such  debates  are,  for  the  most  part,  characterized ; 
 nor  have  the  discussions  in  Convocation,  though 
 opened  by  a  scholar  of  high  repute  (Professor  Sel- 
 wyn),  been  much  more  productive.  Dr.  Beard's 
 A  lievised  Enytisli  Bible  the  \V<(nt  of  the  Chuvch 
 (1857),  though  tending  to  overstate  the  defects  of 
 the  A.  v.,  is  yet  valuable  as  containing  much 
 information,  and  representing  the  opinions  of  the 
 more  learned  Nonconformists.     Far  more  impor- 
 
 c  About  this  period  also  (1819)  a  new  edition  of 
 Neweome's  version  was  published  by  Belsham  and 
 other  Unitarian  ministers, and,  like  Bellamy's  attempt 
 on  the  0.  T.,  had  the  effect  of  stiffening  the  resistance 
 of  the  great  body  of  tlie  clergy  to  all  proposals  for  a 
 revision.  [The  so-called  bn/iroveri  Vrrsion,  here  re- 
 ferred to,  was  published  in  18u8  ;  reprinted  Boston, 
 1809.  —  A.] 
 
3440 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 taut,  every  way,  both  as  virtually  an  authority  in 
 favor  of  revision,  and  as  contributing  largely  to  it, 
 are  Professor  Scliolefield's  Hlnls  for  an  Jiiiprored 
 Trmisldt'um  of  the  N.  T.  (1832).  In  his  second 
 edition,  indeed,  he  disclaims  any  wish  for  a  new 
 translation,  but  the  jirinciple  which  he  lays  down 
 clearly  and  truly  in  iiis  preface,  that  if  tliere  is 
 "  any  adventitious  difficulty  resulting  from  a  de- 
 fective translation,  then  it  is  at  the  same  time  an 
 act  of  charity  and  of  duty  to  clear  away  the  diffi- 
 culty as  much  as  possil)le,"  leads  legitimately  to  at 
 least  a  revision ;  and  this  conclusion  Mr.  Selwyn 
 in  the  last  edition  of  the  Hiiiis  (1857)  has  delib- 
 erately adopted.  To  Bishop  IsUicott  also  l)elongs 
 the  credit  of  having  spoken  at  once  boldl}-  and 
 wisely  on  this  matter.  Putting  the  question 
 whether  it  would  be  right  to  join  those  who  oppose 
 
 all  revision,  his  answer  is,  "  God  forbid It 
 
 is  in  vain  to  cheat  our  own  souls  with  the  thought 
 that  these  errors  (in  A.  V.)  are  either  insignificant 
 or  imaginary.  There  are  errors,  there  are  inaccu- 
 racies, there  are  misconceptions,  tliere  are  obscuri- 
 ties ....  and  that  man  who,  after  being  in  any 
 degree  satisfied  of  tliis,  permits  himself  to  lean  to 
 the  counsels  of  a  timid  or  popular  obstruetiveness, 
 or  who,  intellectually  unalile  to  test  the  truth  of 
 these  allegations,  nevertheless  permits  himself  to 
 denounce  or  deny  them,  will  ....  have  to  sus- 
 tain the  tremendous  charge  of  having  dealt  deceit- 
 fully with  tlie  inviolable  word  of  God  "  [Pref.  to 
 Pastoral  Ephtles).  Tlie  translations  appended  by 
 Dr.  Ellicott  to  liis  editions  of  St.  Paul's  Kpistles, 
 proceed  on  the  true  principle  of  altering  the  A.  V. 
 "  only  where  it  appears  to  be  incorrect,  inexact, 
 insufficient,  or  obscure,"  uniting  a  profound  rever- 
 ence for  tlie  older  translators  with  a  bold  truthful- 
 ness in  judging  of  their  work.  The  copious  colla- 
 tion of  all  the  earlier  English  versions  makes  this 
 part  of  his  book  especially  interesting  and  valuable. 
 Dr.  Trench  {Oil  the  A.  V.  of  the  N.  T.,  18-58), 
 in  like  manner,  states  his  conviction  that  "  a  re- 
 vision ought  to  come,"  though  as  yet,  he  thinks, 
 "  the  Greek  and  the  English  necessary  to  bring  it 
 to  a  successful  issue  are  alike  wanting"  (p.  .3). 
 The  work  itself,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  the  fullest 
 contradiction  possible  of  tliis  somewhat  despondent 
 statement,  and  supplies  a  good  store  of  materials 
 for  use  when  the  revision  actually  comes.  The 
 Revision  of  the  A.  V.  by  Flee  Clergymen  (Dr. 
 Barrow,  Dr.  Moberly,  Dean  Alford,  i\Ir.  Humphry, 
 and  Dr.  Ellicott),  represents  the  same  school  of 
 conservative  progress,  has  the  merit  of  adhering  to 
 the  clear,  pure  English  of  the  A.  V.,  and  does  not 
 deserve  tlie  censure  which  Dr.  Beard  passes  on  it 
 as  "promising  little  and  performing  less."  As  yet, 
 this  series  includes  only  the  Gospel  of  St.  .John,  and 
 the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Corinthians."  The 
 publications  of  the  American  Bible  Union  are  signs 
 that  there  also  the  same  want  has  l)een  felt.  The 
 translations  given  res])ectively  by  Alford,  Stanley, 
 Jowett,  and  Conybeare  and  Howson,  in  their 
 respective  Commentaries,  are  in  like  manner,  at 
 once  admissions  of  the  necessity  of  the  work,  and 
 contributions  towards  it.  Mr.  Sharpe  (18-10)  and 
 Mr.  Highton   (1862)  have  ventured  on   the  wider 
 
 a  *  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Phil- 
 ippians  and  Colossians  have  since  appeared  A. 
 
 b  Mr.  Malan's  careful  translation  of  the  chief  Orien- 
 tal and  other  versions  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
 John,  and  Mr.  Scrivener's  notes  on  St.  Matthew, 
 ieserve  to  be   mentioned   as  valuable   contributions 
 
 work  of  translations  of  the  entire  N.  T.  Mr. 
 Cookesley  has  published  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
 as  Part  I.  of  a  like  undertaking.  It  might  almost 
 seem  as  if  at  last  there  was  something  like  a 
 consensus  of  scholars  and  divines  on  this  question. 
 That  assumption  would,  however,  be  too  hasty. 
 Partly  the  vis  inertite,  which  in  a  large  body  like 
 the  clergy  of  the  English  (Jluirch,  is  always  great, 
 partly  tlie  fear  of  ulterior  consequences,  partly  also 
 the  indifterence  of  the  majority  of  the  laity,  would 
 probably,  at  the  present  moment  give  at  least  a 
 numerical  m.ijority  to  the  opponents  of  a  revision. 
 Writers  on  this  side  are  naturally  less  numerous, 
 but  the  feeling  of  Conservatism,  pure  and  simple, 
 has  found  utterance  in  four  men  re])resentiiig  dif- 
 ferent sections,  and  of  different  call  lire, — Mr. 
 Scri\ener  {Siipp.  to  A.  Eng.  V.  of  N.  T.),  Dr. 
 M'C^aul  {Reasons  for  holding  fast  the  Avthmized 
 English  Version),  Mr.  S.  C.  Malan  (.4  Viwlication, 
 etc.),  and  Dr.  Cumming   (Recision   and   Transla- 
 
 ti0H)P 
 
 XIII.  Pkesknt  State  of  the  Question.  — 
 (1.)  To  take  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  extent  to 
 which  tlie  A.  V.  requires  revision  would  call  for 
 nothing  less  tlian  an  examination  of  each  single 
 book,  and  would  therefore  involve  an  amount  of 
 detail  incompatible  with  our  present  limits.  To 
 give  a  few  instances  only,  would  practically  fix 
 attention  on  a  part  only  of  the  evidence,  and  so 
 would  lead  to  a  false  rather  than  a  true  estimate. 
 No  attempt,  therefore,  will  be  made  to  bring 
 together  individual  passages  as  needing  correction. 
 A  few  remarks  on  the  chief  questions  wliicli  must 
 necessarily  come  before  those  who  undertake  a 
 revision  will  not,  perhaps,  be  out  of  place.  Exam- 
 ples, classified  under  corresponding  heads,  will  be 
 found  in  tlie  book  liy  Dr.  Trencii  already  men- 
 tioned, and,  scattered  in  the  form  of  annotations, 
 in  that  of  Professor  Scholefield. 
 
 (2.)  The  translation  of  the  N.  T.  is  from  a  text 
 confessedly  imperfect.  What  editions  vi'ere  used  is 
 a  matter  of  conjecture;  most  probably,  one  of  those 
 published  with  a  Latin  version  by  Beza  between 
 15G.5  and  1.598,  and  agreeing  substantially  with 
 the  textus  receptus  of  16;J.3.  It  is  clear,  on  prin- 
 ciple, that  no  revision  ought  to  ignore  the  results 
 of  the  textual  criticism  of  the  last  liundred  years. 
 To  shrink  from  noticing  any  variation,  to  go  on 
 printing  as  the  inspired  Word  that  which  there  is 
 a  preponderant  reason  for  believing  to  be  an  inter- 
 polation or  a  mistake,  is  neither  honest  nor  rever- 
 ential. To  do  so  for  the  sake  of  greater  edification 
 is  simply  to  offer  to  God  the  unclean  sacrifice  of  a 
 lie.  The  authority  of  the  A.  V.  is  at  any  rate  in 
 favor  of  the  practice  of  not  suppressing  facts.  In 
 Matt.  i.  11,  xxvi.  26;  Luke  xvii.  30;  John  ix.  6; 
 Acts  xiii.  18;   Eph.  vi.  9;  tieb.  ii.  4;  James  ii.  18; 
 
 1  John   ii.   23;  1  Pet.  ii.  21;  2  Pet.   ii.  11,  18; 
 
 2  John  8,  different  readings  are  given  in  the  mar- 
 gin, or,  as  in  1  John  ii.  23,  indicated  by  a  different 
 type.  In  earlier  versions,  as  has  been  mentioned, 
 1  John  v.  7  was  printed  in  smaller  letters.  The 
 degree  to  which  this  should  be  done  will,  of  course, 
 require  discernment.  An  apparatus  like  that  in 
 Tischendorf  or  Alford  would  obviously  be  out  of 
 
 towards  the  work  which  they  deprecate.  A  high 
 American  authority,  Mr.  George  P.  Marsh,  may  also 
 be  referred  to  as  throwing  the  weight  of  his  judgment 
 into  the  scale  against  any  revision  at  the  present 
 moment  {Lectures  on  the  English  Laiiguagf,  Lect 
 xxviii.). 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 8441 
 
 ,.lace.  Probably  the  useful  Greek  Testament  ed- 
 ited by  Mr.  Scri\ener  niiglit  serve  as  an  example  of 
 a  middle  course. 
 
 (3.)  Still  less  had  been  done  at  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  17th  century  for  the  text  of  the  0.  T. 
 Tlie  .lewish  teacliers,  from  whom  I'rotestant  divines 
 derived  tlieir  knovvleilt;e,  iiad  yiven  currency  to  the 
 belief  that  in  the  Masoretic  text  were  contained  tlie 
 ijjsissimd  vtrba  of  Revehition,  free  from  all  risks  of 
 error,  from  all  casualties  of  transcription.  The  con- 
 ventional phrases,  "  the  autiientic  Hebrew,"  "  the 
 Hebrew  verity,"  were  the  expression  of  this  undis- 
 cerning  reverence."  They  refused  to  apply  the  same 
 rules  of  jiidijment  here  which  they  ai)plied  to  the 
 text  of  the  N.  T.  They  assumed  that  the  Maso- 
 retes  were  infallible,  and  were  reluctant  to  acknowl- 
 edge that  there  had  been  any  variations  since. 
 Even  Walton  did  not  eseajie  being  attacked  as  ini- 
 soinid  by  the  i^ieat  Puritan  divine.  Dr.  John  Owen, 
 for  having  called  attention  to  tiie  fact  of  discrepan- 
 cies {Prolef/.axii.  vi.).  Tlie  materials  for  a  revised 
 text  are,  of  course,  scantier  than  with  the  N.  T. ; 
 but  the  labors  of  Kennicott,  De  Itossi,  J.  H.  Mi- 
 chaelis,  and  Davidson  have  not  been  fruitless,  and 
 here,  as  there,  the  older  versions  must  be  admitted 
 as  at  least  evidence  of  variations  which  once  existed, 
 but  which  were  suppressed  by  the  rigorous  uni- 
 formity of  the  later  Kabbis.  (  onjectural  emenda- 
 tions, such  as  Newcome,  Lowth,  and  Ewald  have 
 so  freely  suggested,  ought  to  be  ventured  on  in 
 such  places  only  as  are  quite  unintelligible  without 
 them. 
 
 (4.)  All  scholars  worthy  of  the  name  are  now 
 agreed  that  as  little  change  as  possilile  should  be 
 made  in  the  language  of  the  A.  V.  Happily  there 
 is  little  risk  of  an  emasculated  elegance  such  as 
 might  have  infected  a  new  version  in  the  last  cen- 
 tury. The  very  fact  of  the  admiration  felt  for  the 
 A.  v.,  and  the  general  revival  of  a  taste  for  the 
 literature  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  are  safeguards 
 against  any  like  tampering  now.  Some  words, 
 however,  absolutely  need  change,  as  being  alto- 
 gether obsolete ;  others,  more  numerous,  have  been 
 slowly  passing  into  a  different,  olten  into  a  lower 
 or  a  narrower  meaning,  and  are  therefore  no  longer 
 what  they  once  were,  adequate  renderings  of  the 
 original. 
 
 (5.)  The  self-imposed  law  of  fairness  which  led 
 the  A.  V.  translators  to  admit  as  many  Englisii 
 words  as  possible  to  the  honor  of  representing  one 
 in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text  has,  as  might  lie  ex- 
 pected, marred  the  perfection  of  their  work.  Some- 
 times the  effect  is  simply  the  loss  of  the  solenni 
 emphasis  of  the  repetition  of  the  same  word. 
 Sometimes  it  is  more  serious,  and  affects  the  mean- 
 ing. While  it  would  be  simple  pedantry  to  lay 
 down  unconditionally  that  l)ut  one  and  the  same 
 word  should  l>e  used  throughout  for  one  in  the 
 original,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a  limita- 
 tion is  the  true  principle  to  start  with,  and  that 
 instances  to  the  contrary  should  be  dealt  with  as 
 
 a  The  .Tudaizing  spirit  on  thi-s  matter  culminated 
 in  tlie  Formula  Helve tici.  Coiisensi/a,  which  pronounces 
 the  existing  0.  T.  text  to  be  "  turn  quoad  consonas, 
 turn  quoad  vocalia,  sive  puncta  ipsa,  sive  punctorum 
 potestatem,   turn   quoad   res,   turn   quoad  verba,  Oeo- 
 
 TTl/eUlTTO?. 
 
 b  The  Eiisili^hman's  Hebrew  Concordance  and  the 
 Enslisknum's  (Jrreek  ConcorJnnce,  published  by  Wal- 
 ton and  Maberl\ ,  deserve  mention  as  useful  helps  for 
 the  student  of  the  A.  V.  in  overcoming  this  difficulty. 
 
 exceptional  necessities.  Side  by  side  with  this 
 fault,  there  is  another  just  the  opposite  of  it.  One 
 English  word  appears  for  several  Greek  or  Hebrew 
 words,  and  thus  shades  of  meaning,  often  of  impor- 
 tance to  the  right  understanding  of  a  passage,  are 
 lost  sight  of.  Taken  together,  the  two  forms  of 
 error,  which  meet  us  in  well-nigh  every  chapter, 
 make  the  use  of  an  English  Concordance  absolutely 
 misleading.* 
 
 (0.)  Grammatical  inaccuracy  must  be  noted  as  a 
 defect  pervading,  more  or  less,  the  whole  extent  of 
 the  present  version  of  the  N.  T.  Instances  will  be 
 found  in  abundance  in  Trench  and  Scliolefield 
 { piissim),  and  in  any  of  the  better  Commentaries. 
 The  true  force  of  tenses,  cases,  prepositions,  arti- 
 cles, is  continually  lost,  sometimes  at  the  cost  of 
 the  finer  shades  which  give  vividness  and  emphasis, 
 but  sometimes  also  entailing  more  serious  errors. 
 In  justice  to  the  translators  of  the  X.  T.,  it  must 
 be  said  that,  situated  as  they  wei-e,  such  errors 
 were  almost  inevitaljle.  Tliey  learned  Greek 
 through  the  medium  of  Latin.  Lexicons'^  and 
 grammars  were  alike  in  the  universal  language  of 
 scholars;  and  that  language  was  poorer  and  less 
 inflected  than  the  Greek,  and  failed  utterly  to  rep- 
 resent, e.  g.  the  force  of  its  article,  or  the  difference 
 of  its  aori>t  and  perfect  tenses.  Such  books  of  this 
 nature  as  were  used  by  the  translators  were  necessa- 
 rily based  upon  a  far  scantier  induction,  and  were 
 therefore  more  meagre  and  inaccui-ate  than  those 
 which  have  been  the  fruits  of  the  labors  of  later 
 scholars,  liecent  scholarshij)  may  in  many  things 
 fiill  short  of  that  of  an  earlier  time,  but  the  in- 
 troduction of  Greek  lexicons  and  gramniars  in 
 English  has  been  beyond  all  doubt  a  change  for  the 
 better. 
 
 (7.)  The  field  of  the  0.  T.  has  been  far  less  ade- 
 quately worked  than  that  of  the  N.  T.,  and  Hebrew 
 scholarsliip  has  made  far  less  progress  than  (ireek. 
 Relatively,  indeed,  there  seems  good  ground  for  be- 
 lieving that  Hebrew  was  more  studied  in  the  early 
 part  of  the  17th  century  than  it  is  now.  It  was 
 newer  and  more  pojiular.  The  reverence  which 
 men  felt  for  the  perfection  of  the  '•  Hebrew  verity" 
 made  them  willing  to  labor  to  learn  a  language 
 which  they  looked  upon  as  half-divine.  But  here 
 also  there  was  the  same  source  of  error.  The  early 
 Hebrew  lexicons  represented  partly,  it  is  true,  a 
 .lewish  tradition ;  but  partly  also  were  based  upon 
 the  Vulgate  (Bishop  Marsh,  Lectures,  ii.  App.  61). 
 The  forms  of  cognate  Shemitic  languages  had  not 
 lieen  applied  as  a  means  for  ascertaining  the  pre- 
 cise value  of  Hebrew  words.  The  grammars,  also 
 in  Latin,  were  defective.  Little  as  Hebrew  pro- 
 fessors have,  for  the  most  part,  done  in  the  way 
 of  exegesis,  any  good  commentary  on  the  0.  T. 
 will  show  that  here  also  there  are  errors  as  seri- 
 ous as  in  the  N.  T.  In  one  memorable  case,  the 
 inattention,  real  or  apparent,  of  the  translators  to 
 the  force  of  the  Hipliil  form  of  the  verb  (Lev. 
 iv.  12)  has  led  to  a  serious  attack  on   the  truth- 
 
 c  Constantine's  and  Scapula's  were  the  two  princi- 
 pally used.  During  the  half  century  that  preceded 
 the  A.  V.  the  study  of  Greek  had  made  great  progress, 
 was  taught  at  all  the  great  schools  in  1580,  aud  made 
 part  of  the  system  of  new  ones  then  founded.  Now- 
 ell.  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  published  a  (ireek  version  of 
 the  Catechism.  The  Grammar  chiefly  in  use  was 
 probably  (Jolefs  (?). 
 
3442 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 fulness  of  the  whole  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch 
 (Coleuso,  Peiitiittuvh  CrUicaUy  Examined^  Part  I. 
 ch.  vii.)- 
 
 (8.)  The  division  into  chapters  and  verses  is  a 
 matter  that  ought  not  to  be  passed  over  in  any 
 future  revision.  The  former,  it  must  be  remem- 
 bered, does  not  go  further  back  than  the  10th  cen- 
 tury. The  latter,  though  ansviering,  as  far  as  the 
 0.  T.  is  concerned,  to  a  long-standing  Jewish  ar- 
 rangement, depends,  in  the  N.  T.,  upon  the  work 
 of  Eobert  Stephens.  [Hiule.]  Neither  in  the 
 O.  T.  nor  in  tiie  N.  T.  did  the  verse-division  ap- 
 pear in  any  earlier  English  edition  than  that  of 
 Geneva.  The  inconveniences  of  changing  both  are 
 probably  too  great  to  be  risked.  The  habit  of  re- 
 ferring to  chapter  and  verse  is  too  deeply'  rooted  to 
 be  got  rid  of.  Yet  the  division,  as  it  is,  is  not  sel- 
 dom artificial,  and  sometimes  is  absolutely  mislead- 
 ing. No  one  would  think  of  printing  any  other 
 book,  in  prose  or  poetry,  in  short  clauses  like  the 
 verses  of  our  Bibles,  and  the  tendency  of  such  a  di- 
 vision is  to  give  a  broken  and  discontinuous  knowl- 
 edge, to  make  men  good  textuaries  but  bad  divines. 
 An  arrangement  like  that  of  the  Paragraph  Hiljles 
 of  our  own  time,  with  tiie  verse  and  chapter  divis- 
 ions relegated  to  the  margin,  ought  to  form  part 
 of  any  authoritative  revision." 
 
 (9.)  Other  jioints  of  detail  remain  to  be  noticed 
 briefly:  (i.)  The  chapter  headings  of  the  A.  V.  often 
 go  beyond  their  proper  province.  If  it  is  intended 
 to  give  an  authoritative  commentary  to  the  lay 
 reader,  let  it  be  done  thoroughly.  But  if  that 
 attempt  is  abandoned,  as  it  was  deliberately  in 
 1611,  then  for  the  chapter-headings  to  enter,  as 
 they  do,  upon  the  work  of  interpretation,  giving, 
 as  in  Canticles,  I'salms,  and  Prophets,  ]>/issiiii, 
 mystical  meanings,  is  simply  an  inconsistency. 
 What  should  be  a  mere  table  of  contents  becomes 
 a  gloss  upon  the  text,  (ii.)  The  use  of  Italics  in 
 printing  tlie  A.  V.  is  at  least  open  to  some  risks. 
 At  first  they  seem  an  honest  confession  on  the  part 
 of  the  translators  of  what  is  or  is  not  in  the  origi- 
 nal. On  the  other  hand,  they  tempt  to  a  loose 
 translation.  Few  writers  would  thiidt  it  necessary 
 to  use  them  in  translating  other  books.  If  the 
 words  do  not  do  more  than  represent  the  sense  of 
 the  original,  then  there  is  no  reason  for  treating 
 them  as  if  they  were  added  at  the  discretion  of  the 
 translators.  If  they  go  beyond  that,  they  are  of 
 the  nature  of  a  gloss,  altering  the  force  of  the  oi-ig- 
 inal,  and  have  no  right  to  be  there  at  all,  while  the 
 fact  that  they  appear  as  additions  frees  the  trans- 
 lator from  the  sense  of  responsibility,  (iii.)  Good 
 as  the  principle  of  marginal  references  is,  the  mar- 
 gins of  the  A.  v.,  as  now  printed,  are  somewliat 
 inconveniently  crowded,  and  the  references,  being 
 often  merely  vei'bal,  tend  to  defeat  their  own  pur- 
 
 a  As  examples  of  what  may  be  said  ou  both  aides 
 on  this  point,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  an  article 
 on  Paragraph  Bibles  in  No.  208  of  the  Ed  in  bun: /i  Re- 
 view (subsequently  reprinted  by  the  Rev.  W.  Harness, 
 1855)  and  the  pamphlet  by  Dr.  M'Caul  (Rensoiis  for 
 holding  fast)  already  mentioned.  Reeves's  Bibles  and 
 Testaments  (1802)  and  Boothroyd's  translation  (1824) 
 should  be  mentioned  as  having  set  the  example  fol- 
 lowed by  the  Religious  Tract  Society  in  their  Para- 
 grapli  Bible. 
 
 b  In  all  these  points  there  has  been,  to  a  much 
 larger  extent  than  is  commonly  known,  a  work  of  un- 
 avithorized  revision.  Neither  Italics,  nor  references, 
 nor  readings,  nor  chapter-lieadings,  nor,  it  niny  be 
 added,  punctuation,  are  the  same  now  as  they  were  in 
 
 pose,  and  to  make  the  reader  weary  of  referring 
 They  need,  accordingly,  a  careful  sifting;  and 
 though  it  would  not  be  desirable  to  go  back  to 
 the  scanty  number  of  the  original  edition  of  1611, 
 something  intermediate  between  that  and  the  pres- 
 ent over-abundance  would  be  an  improvement,  (iv.) 
 Marginal  readings,  on  the  other  hand,  indicating 
 variations  in  the  text,  or  differences  in  the  judg- 
 ment of  translators,  might  be  profitably  increased 
 in  number.  The  results  of  the  labors  of  scholars 
 would  thus  be  placed  within  the  reach  of  all  intelli- 
 gent readers,  and  so  many  difficulties  and  stum- 
 bling-blocks might  be  removed.'' 
 
 (10  )  ^^'hat  has  been  said  will  serve  to  show  at 
 once  to  what  extent  a  new  revision  is  required,  and 
 what  are  the  chief  difficulties  to  be  encountered. 
 And  the  work,  it  is  believed,  ought  not  to  be  de- 
 layed much  longer.  Names  will  occur  to  every  one 
 of  men  competent  to  undertake  the  work  as  fiir  as 
 the  N.  T.  is  concerned ;  and  if  such  alterations 
 only  were  to  be  introduced  as  commanded  the  as- 
 sent of  at  least  two  thirds  of  a  chosen  body  of 
 twenty  or  thirty  scholars,  while  a  place  in  tjie  mar- 
 gin was  given  to  such  renderings  only  as  were 
 adopted  by  at  least  one  third,  there  woidd  be,  it  is 
 believed,  at  once  a  great  change  for  the  better,  and 
 without  any  shock  to  the  feelings  or  even  the  Jirej- 
 udices  of  the  great  mass  of  readers.  Men  fit  to 
 undertake  the  work  of  revising  the  translation  of 
 the  O.  T.  are  confessedly  fewer,  and,  for  the  most 
 part,  occupied  in  other  things.  The  knowledge 
 and  the  power,  however,  are  there,  though  in  less 
 measure,  and  even  though  the  will  be  for  the  time 
 absent,  a  summons  to  enter  on  the  task  from  those 
 whose  authority  they  are  bound  to  respect,  would, 
 we  cannot  doubt,  be  listened  to.  It  might  have 
 the  result  of  directing  to  their  proper  task  and  to 
 a  fruitful  issue  energies  which  are  too  often  with- 
 drawn to  ephemeral  and  unprofitable  controversies. 
 As  the  re\ised  Bible  would  be  for  the  use  of  the 
 I^nglish  people,  the  men  appointed  for  the  purpose 
 ought  not  to  be  taken  exclusi\ely  from  the  English 
 Church,  and  the  learning  of  Nonconformists  should, 
 at  least,  be  fairly  represented.  The  changes  rec- 
 ommended by  such  a  body  of  men,  under  condi- 
 tions such  as  those  suggested,  might  safely  be  al- 
 lowed to  circulate  experimentally  for  two  or  three 
 years.  When  they  had  stood  that  trial,  they  might 
 without  risk  be  printed  in  the  new  Authorized  Ver- 
 sion. Such  a  work  would  unite  reverence  for  the 
 jiast  with  duty  towards  the  future.  In  undertak- 
 ing it  we  should  be,  not  slighting  the  tr.anslators 
 on  whose  labors  we  have  entered,  but  following  in 
 their  footsteps.  It  is  the  wisdom  of  the  Church  to 
 bring  out  of  its  treasures  things  new  and  old. 
 
 E.  H.  P. 
 
 *  LiTEE.VTUKE.  —  (1.)  History  of  EiujUsh  Ver- 
 
 the  A.  V.  of  1611.  The  chief  alterations  appear  to 
 to  have  been  made  first  in  1683,  and  afterwards  in 
 1769,  by  Dr.  Blayney,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Ox- 
 ford Delegates  of  the  Press  {Gentleman's  Mas^nzine, 
 November,  1789).  A  like  work  was  done  about  the 
 same  time  by  Dr.  Paris  at  Cambridge.  There  had 
 however,  been  some  changes  previously.  The  edition 
 of  1838,  in  particular,  shows  con.siderable  augmenta- 
 tions in  the  Italics  (Turton,  Text  of  the  English  Bible, 
 1833,  pp.  91,  126).  To  Blayney  also  we  owe  most  of 
 the  notes  on  weights  and  measures,  and  coins,  and 
 the  explanation,  where  the  text  seems  to  require  it,  of 
 Hebrew  proper  names.  The  whole  question  of  the  use 
 of  Italics  is  discussed  elaborately  by  Turton  in  the 
 work  just  mentioned. 
 
VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 U4R 
 
 sions  of  the  Bible.  —  Anthony  Johnson,  Hist.  Ac- 
 count of  Kng.  Tranditlions  of  the  Bible,  Loud. 
 1730;  reprinted  in  Watson's  Tracts,  \o\.'m.  John 
 Lewis,  CoDiphte  Hist,  of  the  Translations  of  the 
 Holij  Bible  and  the  N.  T.  into  English  (2d  ed. 
 1739),  3d  ed.  Lond.  1818.  Abp.  Newconie,  Hist. 
 View  of  the  Eng.  Biblical  Translations  ;  the  Ea- 
 pedlencii  of  revising  our  present  Translition,  etc., 
 Duhl.  1792.  H.  j'.  Todd,  Auiheniic  Account  of 
 our  Auth.  Trans,  of  tlie  Bible  and  of  the  Trans- 
 lators, 2d  ed.,  Malton,  1834.  The  Eng.  Ihxapl,^ 
 exhibiting  the  Six  Important  Eng.  Translations  of 
 the  iV.  T.,  Wiclif  1380,  Tyndale  1534,  Cranmer 
 1539,  Genevan  1557,  Aitglo-Rhemish  1582,  Au- 
 thorized IGll;  tlie  Greek  Text  after  Scholz. 
 Preceded  by  an  Hist.  Account  of  the  Eng.  Trans- 
 lations. Lond.,  Bairster,  1841,  4to.  (The  anony- 
 mous ''Hist.  Account"  (pp.  160)  was  written  by 
 S.  P.  Tregelles.  It  is  valuable;  but,  for  some  rea- 
 son, in  tlie  later,  undated  impressions  of  the  Hex- 
 apla  a  different  and  nuich  briefer  account  has  lieen 
 substituted.  The  so-called  "  Wiclif ''  is  merely 
 Purvey's  revision  of  W3cliffe"s  version;  the  real 
 Wyclifte"s  N.  T.  was  first  published  by  Lea  Wilson 
 in  1848.  The  whole  Bible  as  translated  by  W.\c- 
 liffe  and  his  followers  was  first  printed  in  the  mag- 
 nificent edition  of  Forshall  and  Gladden  in  4  vols. 
 4to,  Oxford,  1850.)  C.  Anderson,  Tlie  Annals  if 
 the  Enij.  Bible,  2  vols.  Lond.  1845;  abridged  by 
 Dr.  S.  I.  Prime,  N.  Y.  1849.  A.  W.  iM'Chue,  The 
 Translators  revived ;  a  Biographical  Memoir,  etc., 
 N.  Y.  1853.  Mrs.  H.  C.  t'onant,  The  Eng.  Bible. 
 Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Translations,  etc.,  N.  Y.  185G. 
 (A  good  popular  account.)  McClintock  and 
 Strong's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Theol.  and  Eccles.  Lit., 
 vol.  1.  (N.  Y.  1867),  art.  Authorized  Version.  B. 
 F.  Westcott,  Gener<d  View  of  the  Hist,  of  the 
 English  Bible,  Lond.  1868.  Articles  in  the  Amer. 
 Bibl.  Repos.  Oct.  1835  (by  B.  B.  Edwards),  and  in 
 the  Quar.  Rev.  for  April  1870  (repr.  in  Littell's  Lir- 
 ing  Age,  No.  1,355).  —  Bibliographical:  Lea  Wil- 
 son, Bibles,  Testaments,  P.^alins,  etc.,  m  English 
 in  the  Collection  of  Lea  Wilson,  Lond.  1845,  4to. 
 H.  Cotton,  Editions  of  the  Bible  and  Parts  thereof 
 in  Eng.  from  1505  to  1850,  2d  ed.,  O.xford,  18.52. 
 Id.,  Rheines  and  Bon-ay.  An  Attempt  to  slieir 
 what  has  been  done  by  Rom.  Catholics  for  the  Dif- 
 fusion of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  English,  Oxford, 
 1855.  E.  B.  O'Callaghan,  List  of  Editions  if  the 
 Holy  Scriptures  and  Parts  thereof  prinivd  in 
 Atnerica  previous  to  18G0,  Albany,  1861,  large  8vo. 
 F.  Fry,  Description  if  the  Great  Bible,  1539,  the 
 six  Eds.  of  Cranmer'' s  Bible,  1540,  1541,  also  of 
 the  Eds.  in  folio  of  the  A.  V.  printed  in  1611, 1613, 
 1617,  1634*  1640",  Lond.  1860. 
 
 On  the  two  folio  editions  of  the  A.  V.  printed  in 
 1611,  and  on  the  changes  which  its  text,  headings, 
 niarK'inal  notes,  etc.,  have  undergone  since  that  date, 
 see  W.  Kilburn,  Dangerous  Errors  in  several  late 
 printed  Bibles,  Finsl)ury,  1659.  (Dr.  John  Lee,) 
 Memorial  firr  the  Bible  Societies  in  Scotland,  ICdin. 
 1824.  Report  from  Select  Com.  on  King^s 
 Printers'  Patents.  8  Aug.  1832,  pp.  55,  67  f.,  105, 
 119,  131,  ]52,  155  f.,  160,  339-341  (Pari.  Papers 
 1831-32,  vol.  xviii.).  Thos.  Curtis,  77/e  Exist- 
 ing Monopoly  an  Inadequate  Protection  of  the  A. 
 V.  of  the  Scriptures,  Lond.  1833.  E.  Cardvvell, 
 Oxford  Bibles.  Mr  Curti^'s  Misrepresentations 
 exposed,  Oxf.  1833.  (From  the  5/77.  Mag.  for 
 March,  1833.)  Thos.  Turton,  The  Text  of  the  Kng. 
 Bible  considered,  2d  ed.  Oxf.  1834.  (George  Liv- 
 ermore,)    Eng.    Versions    of    Scripture,    in   the  I 
 
 Christ.  Examiner  (Boston)  for  July,  1833.  Thos. 
 Curtis,  Received  ]'ersion  of  the  Bible,  in  Christ. 
 Rev.  for  March,  1838.  Amer.  Bible  Society,  Re- 
 port of  the  Com.  on  Versions,  N.  Y.  1851;  comp. 
 ■■iQ'h  Ann.  Report  of  the  Soc.  (N.  Y.  1852),  pp.  28- 
 37;  Report  on  the  Recent  CoUation  of  the  Eng. 
 Vers,  of  the  Bible,  N.  Y.  1857;  and  42(/  Ann.  Re- 
 port of  the  Soc.  (N.  Y.  1858),  pp.  31-41.  A.  C. 
 C(oxe),  Apol.  for  the  Common  Eng.  Bible;  and 
 Review  of  the  Extraordinary  Changes  made  in  it 
 by  Managers  of  the  Amer.  Bible  Sue,  3d  ed..  Bait. 
 1857.  Statements,  and  Documents,  concerninij  the 
 recent  Action  of  the  Boird  of  Managers  if  the 
 
 Amer.  Bible  Soc by  Members  of  the  Late 
 
 Com.  on  I'ersions,  N.  Y.  1858.  (I'he  history  of  the 
 "  standard  text  "  published  by  the  Amer.  Bible  Soe. 
 in  1851,  and  revoked  in  1858,  is  very  curious.  See 
 McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclop.,  i.'bGS  f.)  E.  W. 
 Gihnan,  Early  Eds.  of  the  A.  V.  of  the  Bible,  in 
 the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Jan.  1859.  (James  Lenox,) 
 Tlie  h'.arly  Eds.  of  King  James's  Bible  in  Folio,  N. 
 Y.  1861,  4fo.  Report  from  the  Select  Com.  on  the 
 Queens  Printers'  Patent  (4  Aug.  1859),  pp.  26  ff., 
 38,  51  ff.  (Pari.  Papers  1859,  Sess.  2,  vol.  v.). 
 The  Present  State  of  the  Text  of  our  Auth.  Eng. 
 Bible,  "in  the  Christian  Remembrancer  for  Oct. 
 1806.  C.  F.  Schaffer,  The  Eng.  Vers,  of  the  N. 
 T.  and  the  Marg.  Readings,  in  the  Bibl.  Sac7'n 
 for  July,  1869 ;  see  also  his  Exeget.  Punctuation 
 of  the  N.  T.,  WM.  Oct.  1868.  The  Rev.  F.  H. 
 Scrivener  has  lately  pulilished  Part.  I.  (Gen.  to 
 Solomon's  Song)  of  The  Cambridge  Paragraph 
 Bible  of  the  Auth.  Eng,  Version,  icith  the  Text 
 revised  by  a  Collation  of  its  Early  and  other 
 principal  Editions,  the  Use  of  the  Italic  Type  made 
 Uniform,  the  Marg.  Refs.  lemodelled,  and  a  Ci'it. 
 Introil.  prefixed,  Cambr.  1870,  4to.  The  "  exact 
 Reprint  of  the  Auth.  Version  of  1611,"  pulilished 
 at  Oxford,  1833,  4to,  is  from  the  second  of  the  edi- 
 tions issued  in  the  year  refen-ed  to. 
 
 (2.)  Essnyson  the  Revision  of  the  A.  V.  —  iMany 
 works  relating  to  this  sulject  have  been  mentioned 
 in  the  preceding  article,  p.  3438  f.  Of  the  writers 
 there  named,  Symonds,  Neweome,  Scholefield  and 
 Trench  are  particularly  worthy  of  notice.  We  may 
 add.  Rev.  \\m.  Harness,  The  State  if  the  Eng. 
 Bible.  Reprinted  from  the  Edinb.  Rev.  of  Oct. 
 1855,  Lond.  1856.  Rev.  Wm.  Selwyn,  Notes  on 
 the  Revision  of  the  A.  V,  Lond.  1806.  Dr.  Fred. 
 Iliff,  Plea  for  the  Revisal  of  the  Bible  Trans,  of 
 1611,  Lond.  1857.  Plea  for  a  New  Eng.  Vers, 
 if  the  ScriptuS-es,  by  a  Licentiate  of  the  Church 
 if  Scotland,  Lond.  1864.  Alford,  'flow  to  study 
 the  N.  T.,  3  vols.  Lond.  1865-68,  containing 
 numerous  corrections  of  the  A.  V.  A.  Dewes, 
 Plea  for  translating  the  Scripture.':,  Lond.  1866. 
 Bp.  Lllicott,  Consideration*  on  the  Revision  of  the 
 Eng.  Vers,  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1870.  Various 
 publications  of  Amer.  Bible  Union.  Arts,  in  New 
 Englander,  Feb.  1859  (E.  W.  Gilman),  Mav,  1859 
 (.1.  W.  (iibbs);  Ouar.  Rev.  .^ix\\.  1803;  Contemp. 
 Rev.  June,  1866  (T.  K.  Cheyne).  Feb-  1870  (W.  G. 
 Humphry)  ;   and   Brit.   Quar.  liev    .Ian.  1870. 
 
 On  the  obsolete  or  obsolescent  worfJ"  and  jihrases 
 of  the  A.  v.,  the  best  work  is  Ti,<  'Jible  Word- 
 Book,  by  J.  Eastwood  and  W.  A.  Wright,  Lond. 
 1866;  see  also  the  New  Englander  for  M'ly,  1859. 
 Tiie  Messrs.  Bagster  have  lately  pnnlished  (Lond. 
 1870)  A  Critical  English  New  Testament:  pre- 
 senting at  one  View  the  A.  V.  and  the  results  of 
 the  Criticism  of  the  Orig.  Text  ;  and  in  cniuiec- 
 tion  with  this  subject  we  may  notice  The  N.  T. : 
 
3444 
 
 VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 
 
 the  Auth.  Eng.  Vers. ;  with  various  Retidhu/s 
 from  the  three  most  celebrated  MSS.  [Sin.  Vat. 
 Alex.]  (if'the  Greek  Tea:/,  by  Constunline  Tischen- 
 dorf.  Tauchnitz  Ed.,  vol.  1,000.  Leipz.  18(i9.  It 
 is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  this  \ohime  is  not 
 very  carefully  edited:  e.  y.  in  Jude  24  tlie  reading 
 of  the  Vat.  MS.  is  falsely  given,  and  in  ver.  25  "  be- 
 fore all  the  world  "  is  a  bad  rendering  oittpb  iza.vTh'i 
 Toi)  alwi/09,  "  before  all  time." 
 
 (3.)  liecent  licvigions  ur  Neio  Translations. — 
 Of  the  Whole  Biule,  or  the  Old  Temt.,  we 
 may  mention:  Noah  Webster,  The  Holy  Bible 
 ....  in  the  Cominun  Version,  with  Amendmenls 
 of  the  Lanyuaye,  New  Haven,  183.3.  G.  li. 
 Noyes,  Nevi  Trans,  of  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the 
 Canticles,  loith  Iniroduclions  and  Notes  (1828, 
 184G),  3d  ed.,  Boston,  18G7;  Psalms  and  Proverbs 
 (1830, 18-16),  .3d  ed.,  Bost.  1867;  Hebrew  Prophets 
 (1833,  1837),  3d  ed.,  with  a  New  Introd.  and  Notes, 
 
 2  vols.  Bost.  1866.  Ebenezer  Henderson,  The  Book 
 of  Isidah  translated,  with  a  Commentary,  Lond 
 1810,  2d  ed.  1857;  Minor  Prophets,  1815,  and 
 Andover,  1864;  .Jeremiah  and  Lam.,  1851,  And. 
 1868;  Kzekiel,  1855,  And.  1870.  J.  A.  Alexander, 
 Tiie  Earlier  Prophecies  of  Jsaiah,  N.  Y.  1846; 
 the  Later,  1847;  Psalms  translated  and  expl/ lined, 
 
 3  vols.  N.  Y.,  18-^0.  Moses  Stuart,  Comm.  on 
 the  Book  of  Daniel  [with  a  New  Trans.],  Boston, 
 1850;  Ecclesiastes,  N.  Y.  1851;  Proverbs,  1852. 
 A.  Benisch,  The  .Teicish  School  and  Family  Bible, 
 3  vols.  Lond.  1852-56.  M.  Kalisch,  Hist,  and 
 Crit.  Commentary  on  the  0.  T.,  ivith  a  New 
 Trans.;  Genesis,  Lond.  1858;  Exodus,  1855; 
 Leviticus,  ch.  i.-x.,  1867.  Kobt.  Young,  The  Holy 
 Bible,  trans,  accordiny  to  the  Letter  ami  Idioms  of 
 the  Oriij.  Lanyuayes,  2d  ed.,  Edin.  1863.  (Ruth- 
 lessly sacrifices  the  English  idiom.)  Tlie  Holy 
 Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  in  a.  revised 
 Trans.,  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Wellbeloved,  the  Ree. 
 Geo.  Vance  Smith,  and  the  Rev.  John  Scott  Porter, 
 3  vols.  Lond.  1859-62.  Sam.  Sharpe,  The  He- 
 brew Scriptures  translated,  3  vols.  Lond.  1865. 
 The  .\iner.  Bible  L'nion  have  published  revised 
 translations,  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Conant,  of  Job  (N.  Y. 
 1856),  and  Genesis  (1868);  a  revised  version  of  the 
 Psalms  and  Proverbs  by  the  same  hand  is  now  in 
 press.  The  American  translation  of  Lange's 
 Commentary,  edited  by  Dr.  SchafF,  gives  throngli- 
 out  corrections  of  tlie  A.  V.,  and  in  the  poetical 
 and  prophetical  books  of  the  Old  I'est.,  new  trans- 
 lations. For  other  translations  of  particular  booiis 
 of  the  O.  T.,  among  whicli  Ginsburg's  Sony  of 
 Sonys  and  Ecclesiastes  deserve  particular  mention, 
 see  the  appropriate  heatis  in  the  Dictionary. 
 
 New  Testament.  —  Charles  Thomson,  Sec. 
 of  the  Continental  Congress,  The  New  Covenant, 
 trans,  from  the  Greek,  Phil.  1808  (vol.  iv.  of  his 
 IJoly  Bible,  trans,  from  the  Greek).  Granville 
 Penn,  The  Book  of  the  New  Covenant:  beiny  « 
 Crit.  Revision  of  the  Text  and  Trans,  af  the  Eng. 
 Vers,  of  the  N.  T.,  Ijoud.  1836,  followed  by 
 Annotations,  1837,  and  Supplemental  Annotations, 
 new  ed.,  1841.  (Edgar  Taylor,)  The  N.  T.  re- 
 vised from  tlie  A.  V.  and  made  conformable  to  the 
 Text  of  Griesbach,  Lond.,  Picivcring,  1840.  Sam. 
 Sharpe,  The  N.  T.  trans,  from  Griesbach''s  Text 
 (Ist  ed.  1840),  5th  ed.  Lond.  1802,  and  Crit. 
 Wm,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  1867.  Andrews  Norton, 
 Trans,  of  the  Gospels,  with  Notes,  2  vols.  Boston, 
 1855.  L.  A.  Sawyer,  The  N.  T.  translated,  with 
 Improved  Divisions  of  Chapters  and  Verses,  Bos- 
 ton, 1858.     Mr.  Sawyer  has  also  published  trans- 
 
 lations of  the  Ilc'jrew  Prophets  and  Poets,  Bust. 
 1861-62.  A  translation  of  the  N.  T.  has  been 
 published  anonymously  by  John  Nelson  Darby,  the 
 fiiunder  of  tlie  sect  of  the  Plymouth  Bretliren, 
 London,  [186-?]  each  book  issued  separately.  It 
 is  not  witiiout  merit.  The  "  second  revision  ''  of 
 the  N.  T.  by  the  Final  Committee  of  tlie  Amer. 
 Bible  Union  was  published  in  N.  Y.,  in  diflerent 
 forms,  ill  1866.  In  this  version,  "  immerse  "  is 
 substituted  for  "baptize,"  "  immersion  "  for  "  bap- 
 tism," etc.  Preliminary  revisions  of  most  of  the 
 books  of  the  N.  T.,  with  notes,  were  previously 
 issued  for  public  examination  and  criticism.  Among 
 tlie  authors  of  these  were  Dr.  T.  J.  Conant  (Mat- 
 thew), the  Rev.  N.  N.  Whiting  (.Mark,  Luke, 
 Ephesians,  Pastoral  Epistles),  Kev.  Alex.  Canip- 
 l)ell  (.-Vets),  Dr.  John  Lillie  (1  and  2  Thess.,  and 
 2d  Peter  to  Rev.  inclusive),  and  Dr.  H.  B.  Hackett 
 (Philemon).  A  very  large  sum  of  money  has 
 been  spent  by  the  American  Bible  Union  in  c;irry- 
 iiig  on  this  important  work;  and  some  of  our 
 ablest  scholars  have  been  eiiiraged  upon  it.  T.  S. 
 (jreen.  The  Twofold  N.  T.,  beiny  a  New  Trans. 
 accompanyiny  a  newly  formed  Text,  Lond., 
 Bagster,  [1865,]  4to;  comp.  his  Crit.  Notes  on 
 the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1867.  Henry  Alford,  The  N. 
 T.  after  the  A.  V.  newly  compared  with  the  Orig. 
 Greek  and  revised,  Lond.  1869:  comp.  his  N.  T. 
 for  Eny.  Readers,  with  corrections  of  the  A.  V. 
 and  notes,  2  vols,  in  4  pts.,  1863-66.  G.R.  Noyes, 
 Tite  N.  T. :  translated  from  the  Greek  Text  of 
 r/»r/(e«c/o//,  Boston,  1869;  4tli  ed.  1870.  Robt. 
 Ainslie,  The  N.  T.  trans,  from  the  Greek  Text 
 of  lischeiidorf  (8ro,  Lips.  1865),  Lond.  and 
 Brighton,  1869.  (The  title  and  also  the  preface 
 are  deceptive.  The  translation  is  not  from  the 
 text  of  I'iscbendorf,  but  from  his  edition  of  the 
 Ciide.j;  Sinaiticus,  which  has  many  readings  that 
 neither  he  nor  any  otlier  critic  would  ever  dream 
 of  regarding  as  genuine.)  N.  S.  F'olsom,  The 
 Four  Gospels:  trans,  [mtdnlyl  from  the  Greek 
 Text  of  Tischendorf,  with  various  Readinys  and 
 Notes,  Boston,  1869.  For  other  translations  of 
 parts  of  the  N.  T.,  see  the  literature  under  the 
 separate  books.  —The  translations  of  Abner  Knee- 
 land  (A'.  T.  in  Greek  and  Enylish,  Phil.  1822), 
 Rodoljihus  Dickinson  (Bost.  1833),  and  Benj.  >\'il- 
 son  (/Omphalic  Diaylotl,  N.  Y.  [(ieneva.  111.] 
 1864)  may  be  mentioned  as  literary  curiosities.  — 
 Among  the  versions  which  have  been  named,  both 
 of  the  O.  T.  and  the  New,  those  of  the  late  Dr. 
 Noyes  appear  to  the  present  writer  eminently  dis- 
 tinguished for  accuracy,  clearness,  good  taste, 
 natural,  idiomatic  luiglish,  and  the  attainment, 
 generally,  of  the  happy  medium  between  bald  liter- 
 alness  and  loose  paraphrase. 
 
 The  Convocation  of  Canterbury  has  already 
 (■Inly,  1870)  undertaken  a  revision  of  tlie  A.  V., 
 and  appointed  a  Committee  for  the  work,  under 
 tlie  chairmanship  of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester 
 (Willierforce).  They  have  divided  themselves  into 
 two  companies,  that  on  the  Old  Test,  consisting 
 of  the  Bishops  of  St.  David's,  Llandaff,  VAy,  Lin- 
 coln, Bath  and  Wells,  Archd.  Rose,  Can.  Selwyn, 
 Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay;  that  on  the  New,  of  tha 
 Bps.  of  Winchester,  Glouces'erand  Bristol  ^Ellicott), 
 and  Salisbury,  the  Prolocutor,  the  Deans  of  Can- 
 terbury (Alford),  Westminster  (Stanley),  and  Can. 
 Blakesley.  Many  other  distinguished  scholars  liave 
 been  invited,  some  of  them  not  members  of  the 
 Church  of  England.  The  Convocation  of  Y'ork, 
 and  the  British  Government  have  declined  to  par- 
 
VESTRY 
 
 ticipate.  The  Committee  on  the  N.  T.  were  to 
 hold  tlieir  first  meetiiij;  on  June  22  and  23,  1870. 
 We  h;ive  no  room  for  furtlier  details. 
 
 For  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  topic,  see 
 further  Darling's  Ciicl.  Bibl'uxjraplnca  (Subjects), 
 col.  82  ft'.,  and  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cydopai- 
 dia,  vol.  iii.,  art.  "  English  Versions,"  where  will  be 
 found  many  references  to  articles  in  periodical  pub- 
 lications. A. 
 
 *  VESTRY  (nnribx?),  a  house  or  depository 
 at  Samaria,  of  the  sacred  vestments  of  the  priests  of 
 Baal.  The  English  and  Hebrew  terms  occur  otdy 
 in  2  K.  X.  22.  The  garments  were  ])rubalily  of  tine 
 byssus  (Biihr,  SymboUk  des  Mosaiscli.  Cultus,  ii. 
 87),  and  were  worn  by  the  priests  only  in  religious 
 occupations.  It  was  not  the  royal  wardrobe,  ex- 
 cept as  it  may  have  been  under  the  monarch's  con- 
 trol. H. 
 
 *  VEX  is  very  often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  the 
 sense  of  "harass,"  "torment,"  "atilict,"  "op- 
 press "  (e.  g.  Num.  xx.  15;  1  Sam.  xiv.  47;  Job 
 xxvii.  2;  Matt.  xv.  22;  Acts  xii.  1).  It  has  now 
 become  a  much  weaker  word.  A  similar  remark 
 applies  to  "vexation;"  see  Deut.  xxviii.  20;  1 
 Chr.  XV.  5;  Is.  ix.  1.  A. 
 
 *  VIAL  in  the  A.  V.  Rev.  v.  9,  "  golden  vlnls 
 full  of  odors,"  and  xv.  7,  xvi.  1-17,  xvii.  1,  xxi.  9. 
 "  the  seven  vials  full  of  the  wrath  of  God,"  suggests 
 a  false  idea  to  the  common  reader.  I'he  (ireek 
 word  (pidXt),  which  is  here  used,  signifies  not  "  a 
 small  bottle,"  but  "a  broad,  shallow  bowl." 
 
 A. 
 VILLAGES."  It  is  evident  that  chatser,  "a 
 village,"  lit.,  an  inclosure,  a  collection  of  huts,  is 
 often  used,  especially  in  the  eiuuneration  of  towns 
 in  Josh,  xiii.,  xv.,  xix.,  to  imply  unwalled  suburbs 
 outside  the  walled  towns.  And  so  it  appears  to 
 mean  when  we  compare  Lev.  xxv.  -31  with  v.  34. 
 Mi(jrdsh,'>  A.  V.  "suburbs,"  i.  e.  a  place  thrust 
 out  from  the  city  (see  also  Gen.  xli.  48).  Arab 
 villages,  as  found  in  Arabia,  are  often  mere  collec- 
 tions of  stone  huts,  "long,  low,  rude  hovels,  roofed 
 only  with  the  stalks  of  palm-leaves,"  or  covered  for 
 a  time  with  tent-cloths,  which  are  removed  when 
 the  tribe  change  their  quarters.  Others  are  more 
 solidly  built,  as  are  most  of  the  modern  villages  of 
 Palestine,  though  in  some  the  dwellings  are  mere 
 mud  huts  (Robinson,  i.  167,  ii.  13,  14,  44,  .j87; 
 Hasselquist,  Trav.  p.  155;  Stanley,  S.  if  P.  p. 
 233,  App.  §  83,  p.  525).  Arab  villages  of  the  Hed- 
 jaz-and  Yemen  often  consist  of  huts  with  circular 
 roofs  of  leaves  or  grass,  resembling  the  description 
 given  by  Sallust  of  the  Numidian  maixdia,  namely. 
 
 VINE 
 
 3445 
 
 ships  with  the  keel  uppermost  (Sallust,  Jug.  18, 
 Shaw,  Trail,  p.  220;  Niebuhr,  JJtscr.  de  V Arab. 
 p.  54). 
 
 'I'here  is  little  in  the  O.  T.  to  enable  ns  more 
 precisely  to  define  a  village  of  I'alestiiie,  beyond  the 
 fact  that  it  was  destitute  of  walls  or  external  de- 
 fenses. Persian  villages  are  spoken  of  in  similar 
 terms  (Ez.  xxxviii.  11;  Esth.  ix.  19). 
 
 By  the  Talinudists  a  village  was  defined  as  a 
 place  destitute  of  a  synagogue  (Lightfoot,  Chnvogr. 
 Ceiiliinj,  ch.  xcviii.).  Galilee,  in  our  Lord's  time, 
 contniiied  many  villages  and  village-towns,<^  and 
 Josephus  says  that  in  his  time  there  were  in  Galilee 
 204  towns  and  villages,''  some  of  which  last  had 
 walls  (.Joseph.  Vit.  §  45).  At  present  the  country 
 is  almost  depopulated  (Raumer,  P(d.  p.  105;  Stan- 
 ley, S.  4'  p.  p.  384).  Most  modern  Turkish  and 
 I'ers'.an  villages  have  a  ManzM  or  Medlny'i:!).,  a 
 house  for  travellers  (Burckhardt,  %'''",  p.  295; 
 Robinson,  ii.  19;  Martyn,  Life^  p.  437). 
 
 I'he  places  to  which  in  the  O.  T.  the  term  cliaUer 
 is  applied  were  mostly  in  the  outskirts  of  the  coun- 
 try (Stanley,  p.  526).  In  the  N.  T.  the  term 
 KiiijxT)  is  a|)plied  to  Bethphage  (Matt.  xxi.  2),  Beth- 
 any (l^uke  X.  38;  .John  xi.  1),  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv. 
 13),  Bethlehem  (John  vii.  42).  A  distinction  be- 
 tween city  or  town  {tt6\is)  and  village  {kwixt])  is 
 pointed  out  (Luke  viii.  1).  On  the  other  hand, 
 Bethsaida  is  called  Tr6\is  (John  i.  44;  Luke  ix.  10) 
 and  also  /ni^Tj  (iNLark  viii.  23,  26),  unless  by  the 
 latter  word  we  are  to  iniderstand  the  suburbs  of 
 the  town,  which  meaning  seems  to  belong  to 
 "  country  "<^  (Mark  vi.  56).  The  relation  of  de- 
 pendence on  a  chief  town  of  a  district  appears  to  be 
 denoted  by  the  phrase  "villages  of  Cffisarea  Phi- 
 lippi  "  (Alark  viii.  27). 
 
 In  the  llelirew  language  the  prefix  Caphar  im- 
 plied a  regular  village,  as  Capernaum,  which  place, 
 however,  had  in  later  times  outgrown  the  limits 
 implied  by  its  original  designation  (Lightfoot,  I.  c; 
 Stanley,  pp.  521-527;  1  Mace.  vii.  31). 
 
 H.  \Y.  P. 
 
 VINE.  The  well-known  valuable  plant  (  Yhis 
 vinif'era)  very  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Old 
 and  New  Testaments,  and  cultivated  from  the 
 earliest  times.  The  first  mention  of  this  plant 
 occurs  in  Gen.  ix.  20,  21,  where  Noah  is  represented 
 as  having  lieen  its  first  cultivator.  The  Egyptians 
 say  that  Osiris  first  taught  men  the  use  of  the  vine. 
 That  it  was  abundantly  cultivated  in  Egypt  is  evi- 
 dent from  the  frequent  representations  on  the 
 monuments,  as  well  as  from  the  Scriptural  allu- 
 sions. See  Gen.  xl.  9-11,  Pharaoh's  dream;  and 
 Num.  XX.  5,  where  the  Israelites  complain  that  the 
 
 a  1.  Bath.     See  Daughter. 
 
 2.  *1^rT;  CTTavAis,  Kuifx-q:  villa,  castetliim,  oppi- 
 dum,  especially  desci'ibed  as  unwalled,  Lev.  xxv.  31. 
 (Stanley,  «.  ^  P.  App.  §  87.) 
 
 3.  (a.)  ~)D3,    from  "153?  "cover"  (Ges.  p.  706). 
 
 (cio/aTj:  villa-     (*.)  T'D3,  only  once,  Neh.  vi.2  :  Ku);aT): 
 
 viciilu.t.  (c.)  "123,  only  once,  1  Sam.  vi.  18:  xmixri: 
 villa. 
 
 4.  (a.\  f ~IQ.  from  T"l9  (Ges.  p.  1125,  "  to  separate," 
 
 '        T  T  '  -  T 
 
 also  "  to  juJ^e,"  like  xpiVaj ;  once  "  village,"  i.  e.  a 
 place  of  separated  dwellings,  Uab.  iii.  14) ;  fiufaaTTjs : 
 bellator.  See  Perizzite.  (p.)  ^1t"l9,  Judg.  v.  7,  11 ; 
 K.  V.  following  Targ.,  "  villages  ;  "  lit.,  rulers  or  war- 
 
 riors, (c.)  n'"lT"l5,  71-oAis  (unwalled)  Ez.  xxxviii.  11. 
 {'/.)  "^t'HD,  properly  a  dweller  in  the  country,  pa- 
 ^anus  :  c/jepe^aw  :   oppi'lum. 
 
 5.  Pi^n  :  eTravAis  :  vicus  :  Num.  xxxii.  41 ;  Deut. 
 iii.  14  ;  .T^idg.  x.  4  :  a  word  applied  by  modern  Bedouins 
 to  their  own  villages  (Stanley,  p.  527).  See  Havotk- 
 Jair. 
 
 6.  a''t!:7~15^:  Trepio-Trdpia :  suburbana:  lit.,  pa» 
 tares  for  flocks  (Ges.  pp.  306,  307). 
 
 In  N.  T.  the  word  Kciftij  is  also  rendered  "  town." 
 
 6  tt^l^^,  from  ^7^3,   "drive  out." 
 <•■   KcoMOTToAeis,  vkns  et  cifitates,  Mark  i.  39. 
 ''    IToAcis  Kal  Ktojuai. 
 <^   'AYpoi. 
 
3446 
 
 VINE 
 
 wilderness  was  "  no  place  of  figs  or  of  vines,"  evi- 
 dently regretting  that  they  had  left  the  vines  of 
 Egypt.  Comp.  also  Ps.  Ixxviii.  47 :  "  He  destroyed 
 their  vines  with  hail  "  (see  on  this  sulject,  Celsius, 
 Ilieroh.  ii.  412). 
 
 The  vines  of  Palestine  were  celebrated   both  for 
 luxuriant  growth  and  for  the  immense  clusters  of 
 grapes  which  they  produced.     When  the  spies  were 
 sent  forth  to  view  the  promised  land,  we  are  told 
 that  on  their  arrival  at  the  valley  of  Eshcol  they 
 cut  down  a  branch  with  one  cluster  of  grapes,  and 
 bare    it   between  two  on  a  staff  (Num.  xiii.  2-3). 
 This  they  did  no  doubt  for  convenience  of  carriage, 
 and  in  order  that    the   grapes   on    that    splendid 
 cluster  might  not  be  bruised.     Travellers  have  fre- 
 quently testified    to    the  large  size  of  the  grape- 
 clusters    of    Palestine.      Schulz    (Leilimf/en     des 
 llijrlnittn,  V.  285,  quoted  by  Rcsenm idler,  Blbl.  Bot. 
 p.  22o)  speaks  of  supping  at  Beitshin,  a   village 
 near  Ptoleniais,  inider  a  vine  whose  stem  was  about 
 a  foot  and  a  half  in   diameter,  and  whose    height 
 was  about  thirty  feet,  which  by  its  branches  formed 
 a  hut   upwards   of  thirty   feet    broad    and    long. 
 "  The  clusters    of   these  extraordinary  vines,"  he 
 adds,  "  are  so  large  that  they  weigh  ten  or  twelve 
 pounds,  and  the  berries  may  be  compared  with  our 
 small  plums."     See  also  Belon,  Observat.  ii.  340: 
 "  l.es  seps  des  vignes  sont  fort  gros  et  les  rameaux 
 fort     spacieux.     Les     habitants     entendent     bien 
 comme  il  la  faut  gouverner.     Car  ils  la  plantent  si 
 loing  I'une  de  I'autre,  qu'on  pourroit  mener  une 
 charrette  entre  deux.     Ce  n'est   pas  grande  mer 
 veille  si  les  raisins  sont  si  beaux  et  le  viu  si  puis 
 sant."      Strabo    states     that    it   is    recorded   that 
 there  are  vines  in  ISIargiana  whose  stems  are  such 
 as  would  require  two  men  to  span  round,  and  whose 
 clusters  are  two  cubits  long  {Geogrrijih.  i.  112,  ed. 
 Kramer).     Now  jNIargiana  is  the  modern  district 
 of  Cihilan  in  Persia,  southwest  of  the  Caspian  Sea, 
 and  the  very  country  on  whose  hills  the  vine  is  be- 
 lie\ed  to  be  indigenous.     Nothing  would  be  easier 
 than  to  multiply  testimonies  relative  to  the  large 
 size  of  the  gi'apes  of  Palestine,  from  the  published  ac- 
 counts of  travellers  such  as  Elliot,  Laborde,  Mariti, 
 Dandini  (who  expresses  his  surprise  at  the  extraor- 
 dinary size  of  the  grapes  of  Lebanon),  Kussell,  etc. 
 We  must  be  content  Vi'ith  quoting  the  following  ex- 
 tract from  Kitto's  Pliysiail  llisiory  of'  Palestine, 
 p.  o30,  which  is  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  spies' 
 mode  of  carrying  the  grapes  from  Eshcol:  "Even 
 in  our  own  country  a  bunch  of  grapes  was  produced 
 at  Welbeck,  and  sent  as  a  present  from   the  Duke 
 of  Kutland  to  the  Marquis  of  Ebckingham,  which 
 weighed  nineteen  pounds.     It  was  conveyed  to  its 
 destination  —  more  than  twenty  miles  distant  —  on 
 a  staff  by  four  laborers,  two  of  whom  bore  it  in  rota- 
 tion."    The  greatest  diameter  of  this  cluster  was 
 nineteen  inches  and  a  half,  its  circumference  four  feet 
 and  a  half,  and  its  length  nearly  twenty-three  inches. 
 Especial   mention  is  made  in  the  Bible  of  the 
 vines  of  Eshcol  (Num.  xiii.  24,  ptxxii.  9),  of  Sibmah. 
 Heshbon,  and  Elealeh  (Is.  xvi.  8,  9,  10 ;  Jer.  xlviii. 
 32),  and  En-gedi  (Cant.  i.  14).     Prof.  Stanley  thus 
 speaks   of  the  vineyards  of  Judah,  which  he  saw 
 along  the  slopes  of  Bethlehem :     "Here,  more  than 
 elsewhere  in  Palestine,  are  to  be  seen  on  the  sides 
 of  the  hills,  the  vineyards  marked  by  their  watch- 
 towers  and  walls,  seated  on  their  ancient  terraces 
 the  earliest  and  latest  symbol  of  Judah.     The  ele- 
 vation of  the  hills  and  table-lands  of  .ludah  is  the 
 true  climate  of  the  vine.      He  '  bound  his  foal  to 
 the  vine,  and  his  ass's  colt  to  the  choice  vine;  he 
 
 VINE 
 
 waslied  his  garments  in  wine,  and  his  clothes  in  the 
 blood  of  grapes.'  It  was  from  the  Judaan  valley 
 of  Eshcol.  'the  torrent  of  the  cluster,"  that  the  spies 
 cut  down  the  gigantic  cluster  of  grapes.  '  A  vine- 
 yard on  a  hill  of  olives,'  with  the  '  fence,'  and  '  the 
 stones  gathered  out,'  and  the  tower  in  the  midst  of 
 it,'  is  the  natural  figure  which,  both  in  the  (miphet^ 
 ical  and  evangelical  records,  represents  the  kingdom 
 of  Judah  "  (S.  cf-  P.  p.  164).  Erom  the  abun- 
 dance and  excellence  of  the  vines,  it  may  readily  be 
 under.stood  how  frequently  this  plant  is  the  subject 
 of  metaphor  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Thus  Israel 
 is  a  vine  brought  from  Egypt,  and  planted  Ijy  the 
 Lord's  hand  in  the  Land  of  Promise;  room  had 
 been  prepared  ibr  it  (compare  with  this  the  passage 
 from  l^elon  quoted  above);  and  where  it  took  root  it 
 filled  the  land,  it  covered  the  hills  with  its  shadow, 
 its  boughs  were  like  the  goodly  cedar-trees  (Ps. 
 Ixxx.  8,  10).  Comp.  Gnielin  {Travels  lliruiif/h 
 I'ussia  and  N.  Persia,  iii.  431),  who  thus  speaks 
 of  the  vines  of  Ghilan :  "  It  is  fond  of  forests, 
 ....  and  is  frequently  found  aliout  promontories, 
 and  their  lower  part  is  almost  entirely  covered  with 
 it.  There,  higher  than  the  eye  can  reach,  it  winds 
 itself  about  the  loftiest  trees;  and  its  tendrils,  which 
 here  have  an  arm's  thickness,  so  .spread  and  mutu- 
 ally entangle  themselves  far  and  wide,  that  in  places 
 where  it  grows  in  the  most  luxuriant  wildness  it  is 
 very  difficult  to  find  a  passage."  To  dwell  under 
 the  vine  and  fig-tree  is  an  emblem  of  domestic 
 happiness  and  peace  (1  K.  iv.  2.5;  Mic.  iv.  4;  Ps. 
 cxxviii.  3);  the  rebellious  people  of  Israel  are  com- 
 pared to  "wild  grapes,"  "an  empty  vine,"  "the 
 degenerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine,''  etc.  (Is.  v.  2, 
 4,  but  see  Cockle;  IIos.  x.  1;  Jer.  ii.  21).  It  is 
 a  vine  which  our  Lord  selects  to  show  the  spiritual 
 union  which  subsists  between  Himself  and  his 
 members  (John  xv.  1-G). 
 
 The  following  Hebrew  words  denote  the  vine :  — 
 
 1.  Gephcn  CJCS),   or,  more  definitely,    gepJien 
 
 /m?/!/^?/?*?;  (^1'*n  IpS),  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
 Bible,  and  used  in  a  general  sen.se.  Indeed  cjephen 
 sometimes  is  applied  to  a  plant  that  resembles  a 
 
 vine  in  some  particulars,  as  n]7ti7  ]52  (yep/ien 
 sddeh),  2  K.  iv.  39,   i.  e.  probalily  the  Colocynth 
 
 plant  [Gourd,  ii.  962],  or  Qlp  ]p3  (rjephen 
 Sedum),  the  vine  of  Sodom,  certainly  not  a  \'me. 
 (See  below.) 
 
 2.  Sorek  (p'^W),  or  surrMh  (ni^^CC),' is  a 
 term  expressive  of  some  choice  kind  of  vine  (Jer.  ii. 
 21;  Isv.  2;  Gen.  xlix.  11),  supposed  to  be  iden- 
 tical with  that  now  called  in  Morocco  scr/ci,  and  in 
 Persia  Icishmish,  with  small  round  dark  berries,  and 
 soft  stones.  (See  Niebuhr,  JJescript.  de  VArahie, 
 p.  147;  and  Oedmann,  Sammbing,  ii.  97.)  Erom 
 the  passage  in  Jeremiah,  it  is  clear  that  the  sorek 
 denotes  not  another  species  of  vine,  but  the  com- 
 mon vine  which  by  some  ]irocess  of  cultivation  at- 
 tained a  high  state  of  excellence. 
 
 3.  Nnzir  (T^T3),  originally  applied  to  a  Nazarite 
 who  did  not  shave  his  hair,  expresses  an  "  undressed 
 vine  "  (A.  V.),  i.  e.  one  which  every  seventh  and 
 every  fiftieth  year  was  not  pruned.  (See  Gesenius, 
 Thes.  s.  V.) 
 
 Grapes  are   designated  by  various  names:     (1.) 
 
 Eslicol  (v3Cl''S),  is  either  "a  cluster,"  ripe  or 
 unripe,  like  racemus,  or  a  "single  grape"  (as  in 
 
VINE 
 
 ts.  kv.  8;  Mic.  vii.  1).      (2.) 'Awa6  (Il2^  ;    Arab. 
 
 v_>/-£,  "a  cluster").  (3.)  Buser  (HpS),  sour, 
 t.  e.  unripe  grapes  (Is.  xviii.  5).  (4.)  Zemordh 
 (rtTl^T)    "  a  grape  cut  off."     "  The  blossom  "  of 
 
 the  vine  is  called  semddar  (TJ^D),  Cant.  ii.  13, 
 15.     "  Grape  stones  "  are  probably  meant  by  char- 
 
 tsannim  (D'^p^'^n);  A.  V.  "kernel,"  Num.  vi.  4. 
 "  The   cuticle "  of  the  grape  is  denominated  zag 
 
 (2^),    Num.    I.    c. ;    "the    tendrils"    by   sdriyim 
 
 (a^n^-1tZ7),  Joel  i.  7. 
 
 The  ancient  Hebrews  probably  allowed  tlic  vine 
 to  grow  trailiu;:;  on  the  ground,  or  upon  supports. 
 This  latter  mode  of  cultivation  appears  to  be  al- 
 luded to  by  Ezekiel  (xix.  11,  12):  "her  strong 
 rods  were  broken  and  withered."  Dr.  Robinson, 
 who  has  given  us  much  information  on  the  vines  of 
 Palestine,  thus  speaks  of  the  manner  in  which  he 
 saw  them  trained  near  Hebron  :  "  They  are 
 planted  singly  in  rows,  eight  or  ten  feet  apart  in 
 each  direction.  The  stock  is  suffered  to  grow  up 
 large  to  tlie  height  of  six  or  eight  feet,  and  is  then 
 fastened  in  a  sloping  position  to  a  strong  stake,  and 
 the  shoots  suffered  to  grow  and  extend  from  one 
 plant  to  another,  forming  a  line  of  festoons.  Some- 
 times two  rows  aie  made  to  slant  towards  each 
 other,  and  thus  form  by  their  shoots  a  sort  of  arch. 
 These  shoots  are  pruned  away  in  autumn"  {Bibl. 
 Res.  ii.  80,  81). 
 
 The  vintage,  batslr  ("T'^S),  which  formerly 
 was  a  season  of  general  festivity,  as  is  the  case 
 more  or  less  in  all  vine-growing  countries,  com- 
 menced in  September.     The  towns  are  deserted, 
 
 and  the  people  live  among  the  vineyards  (C^S) 
 in  the  lodges  and  tents  {Bibl.  Res.  1.  c;  comp. 
 Judg.  ix.  ~27;  Jer.  xxv.  30;  Is.  xvi.  10).  The 
 grapes  were  gathered  with  shouts  of  joy  by  the 
 
 "grape-gatherers"  (~1^S)  (Jer.  xxv.  30),  and  put 
 into  baskets  (see  Jer.  vi.  9).  They  were  then  car- 
 ried on  the  head  and  shoulders,  or  slung  upon  a 
 
 j-oke,  to  the  "  wine-press "  (HS).  [Wine.] 
 Those  intended  for  eating  were  perhaps  put  into 
 flat  open  baskets  of  wickervvork,  as  was  the  custom 
 in  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  i.  43).  In 
 Palestine  at  present  the  finest  grapes,   says   Dr. 
 
 Robinson,  are  dried  as  raisins,  tsimmuk  (p^HlJ), 
 and  the  juice  of  the  remainder,  after  having  been 
 trodden  and  pressed,  "is  boiled  down  to  a  syrup 
 
 which,  under  the  name  of  dibs  (tt''3'7),  is  much 
 used  by  all  classes,  wherever  vineyards  are  found, 
 as  a  condiment  with  their  food."  For  further  re- 
 marks on  the  modes  of  making  fermented  drinks, 
 etc.,  of  the  juice  of  the  grape,  see  under  Wine. 
 
 The  vineyard  (0^2),  which  was  generally  on  a 
 hill  (Is.  V.  1;  Jer.  xxxi.  5;  Amos  ix.  13),  was  sur- 
 rounded by  a  wall  or  hedge  in  order  to  keep  out 
 the  wild  I)oars  (Ps.  Ixxx.  13),  jackals,  and  foxes 
 (Num.  xxii.  24;  Cant.  ii.  15;  Neh.  iv.  3;  Ez.  xiii. 
 4,  5;  Matt.  xxi.  33),  which  commit  sad  havoc 
 amongst  the  vines,  both  by  treading  them  down 
 and  by  eating  the  grapes.  Within  the  vineyard 
 was  one  or  more  towers  of  stone  in  which  the  vine- 
 dressers, cOremim  (D''J2"]3),  lived  (Is.  i.  8,  v.  2; 
 
 VINE  OF  SODOM 
 
 3447 
 
 Jlatt.  xxi.  33;  see  also  Robinson,  Bibl.  Res.  i.  213 
 
 ii.  81).     The   press,   gath  (nS),    and   vat,   yekeb 
 
 (33^),  which  was  dug  (Matt.  xxi.  33)  or  hewn 
 out  uf  the  rocky  soil,  were  part  of  the  vineyard 
 furniture  (Is.  v.  2).  See  the  art.  Wine,  for  a 
 figure  of  a  large  foot-press  with  \'at,  represented  in 
 operation.  The  wine-press  of  the  llebrews  was 
 probably  of  the  form  there  depicted.  [Fat,  p. 
 814  <t.] 
 
 The  vine  in  the  Mosaic  ritual  was  subject  to 
 the  usual  restrictions  of  the  "seventh  year"  (Ex. 
 xxiii.  11),  and  the  jubilee  of  the  fiftieth  year  (Lev. 
 
 xxv.  11).  The  gleanings,  oleloth  (niT'^U),  were 
 to  be  left  for  the  poor  and  stranger  (Jer.  xlix.  9; 
 Deut.  xxiv.  21).  The  vineyard  was  not  to  be 
 sown  "with  divers  seeds"  (Deut.  xxii.  9),  but  fig- 
 trees  were  sometimes  planted  in  vineyards  (Luke 
 xiii.  6).  Comp.  1  K.  iv.  25:  "Every  man  under 
 his  vine  and  under  his  fig-tree."  Persons  passing 
 through  a  vineyard  were  allowed  to  eat  the  grapes 
 therein,  but  not  to  carry  any  away  (Deut.  xxiii. 
 24). 
 
 Besides  wild-boars,  jackals,  and  foxes,  other  ene- 
 mies, such  as  birds,  locusts,  and  caterpillars,  occa- 
 sionally damaged  the  vines. 
 
 Beth-haccerem,'  "  the  house  of  the  vine  "  (Jer. 
 vi.  1;  Neh.  iii.  14),  and  Abel-ceramim,  "the  plain 
 of  the  vineyards,"  took  their  respective  names  from 
 their  vicinity  to  vineyards.  Gophna  (now  JiJ'iia), 
 a  few  miles  N.  of  Jerusalem,  is  stated  by  Eusebius 
 (  Oiwm.  ^dpay^  ^drpvos)  to  have  derived  its  name 
 from  its  vines.     But  see  Ophni.  W.  H. 
 
 VINE  OF  SODOM  (DID  "JD3,  gej}hen 
 Scdoin:  aij.Tre\os  'ZoSS/xoou:  viiiea  Sudvmorum) 
 occurs  only  in  Deut.  xxxii.  32,  where  of  the  wicked 
 it  is  said  —  "  their  vine  is  of  the  vine  of  Sodom, 
 and  of  the  fields  of  Gomorrah."  It  is  generally 
 supposed  that  this  passage  alludes  to  the  celebrated 
 apples  of  Sodom,  of  which  Josephus  (Bell.  .lud. 
 iv.  8,  §  4)  speaks,  and  to  which  apparently  Tacitus 
 (flist.  V.  6)  alludes.  Much  has  been  written  on 
 this  curious  suliject,  and  various  trees  have  been 
 conjectured  to  be  that  which  produced  those 
 
 "  Dead  Sea  fruits  that  tempt  the  eye, 
 But  turn  to  ashes  on  the  lips," 
 
 of  which  Moore  and  Byron  sing. 
 
 The  following  is  the  account  of  these  fruits,  as 
 given  by  Josephus:  speaking  of  Sodom,  he  says: 
 "  It  was  of  old  a  happy  land,  both  in  respect  of  its 
 fruits,  and  the  abundance  of  its  cities.  But  now  it 
 is  all  burnt  up.  Men  say  that,  on  account  of  the 
 wickedness  of  its  inhabitants,  it  was  destroyed  by 
 ligiitning.  At  any  rate,  there  are  still  to  be  seen 
 remains  of  the  divine  fire  and  traces  of  fine  cities, 
 and  moreover  ashes  produced  in  the  fruits,  which 
 indeed  resemble  edible  fruit  in  color,  but,  on  being 
 plucked  by  the  hand,  are  dissolved  into  smoke  and 
 ashes."  Tacitus  5s  more  general,  and  speaks  of 
 all  the  herbs  and  flowers,  whether  growing  wild 
 or  planted,  turning  black,  and  crumbling  into 
 ashes. 
 
 Some  travellers,  as  Maundrell  (Early  Trav.  in 
 Pidesline,  p.  454,  Bohn,  1848),  regard  the  whole 
 story  as  a  fiction,  being  unable  either  to  see  or 
 liear  of  any  fruit  that  would  answer  the  required 
 description.  Pococke  supposed  the  apples  of  Sodom 
 to  be  pomegranates,  "  which,  having  a  tough,  hard 
 rind,  and  lieing  left  on  the  trees  two  or  three  years, 
 may  be  dried  to  dust  inside,  and  the  outside  may 
 
3448 
 
 VINE  OF  SODOM 
 
 remain  fair."  Hasselquist  {Truv.  p.  287)  seeks  to 
 ideiitify  the  apples  in  question  witli  the  e<;g-sha[)ecl 
 fruit  of  the  Sohtnum  intlvnijewi  wlien  attacked  by 
 some  species  of  teiil/iredo,  which  converts  tlie  whole 
 of  the  inside  into  dust,  while  the  rind  remains 
 entire  and  keeps  its  color.  Seetzen  in  his  letters 
 to  Baron  Zach  {Monat.  Correspond,  xviii.  442) 
 thought  he  had  discovered  the  apples  of  Sodom  in 
 the  fruit  of  a  kind  of  cotton-tree,  which  grew  in 
 the  plain  of  el-Ghor,  and  was  known  by  the  name 
 of  Amchar.  The  cotton  is  contained  in  the  fruit, 
 which  is  like  a  pomegranate,  but  has  no  pulp. 
 Chateaubriand  concludes  the  long-sought  fruit  to 
 be  tiiat  of  a  thorny  shrub  with  small  taper  leaves, 
 which  ill  size  and  color  is  exactly  like  the  little 
 Egyptian  lemon;  when  dried,  this  fruit  yields  a 
 blackish  seed,  which  may  be  compared  to  ashes, 
 and  which  in  taste  resembles  bitter  pepper.  Burck- 
 bardt  (Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  392)  and  Irby  and  Man- 
 gles believe  that  the  tree  which  produces  these 
 celebrated  apples  is  one  which  they  saw  abundantly 
 in  the  Ghor  to  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  known 
 by  the  vernacular  name  of  as/wyr  or  osli'ir.  This 
 tree  bears  a  fruit  of  a  reddish-yellow  color,  about 
 three  inches  in  diameter,  which  contains  a  white 
 substance  resembiiog  the  finest  silk,  and  enveloping 
 some  seeds.  This  silk  is  collepted  by  the  Arabs, 
 and  twisted  into  matches  for  their  firelocks.  Dr. 
 Robinson  {Bibl.  JRes.  i.  523),  when  at  'Ain  J  id;/, 
 without  knowing  at  the  moment  whether  it  had 
 been  observed  by  former  travellers  or  not,  instantly 
 pronounced  in  favo.r  of  the  'osher  fruit  being  the 
 apples  of  Sodom.  His  account  of  this  tree  is 
 minute,  and  may  well  be  quoted:  '■•The ''os/ier  of 
 the  Arabs,"  which  he  identifies  with  the  Asclepins 
 ( Cidotropis)  procera  of  botanists,  "  is  found  in 
 abundance  in  Upper  ICgypt  and  Nubia,  and  also 
 in  Arabia  Felix;  but  seeins  to  be  confined  in 
 Palestine  to  the  borders  of  the  Dead  Sea.  We 
 saw  it  only  at  Win  Jidy;  Hasselquist  found  it  in 
 the  desert  between  Jericho  and  the  northern  sliore; 
 and  Irby  and  Mangles  met  with  it  of  large  size  at 
 the  south  end  of  the  sea,  and  on  the  isthmus  of 
 the  peninsula.  We  saw  here  several  trees  of  the 
 kind,  the  trunks  of  which  were  six  or  eight  inches 
 in  diameter,  and  the  whole  height  from  ten  to  fif- 
 teen feet.  It  has  a  grayish  cork-like  bark,  with 
 long  oval  leaves  ....  it  discharges  copiously 
 from  its  broken  leaves  and  flowers  a  milky  fluid. 
 The  fruit  greatly  resembles  externally  a  large 
 smooth  apple  or  orange,  hangins;  in  clusters  of  three 
 or  lour  together,  and  when  ripe  is  of  a  yellow 
 color.  It  was  now  fair  and  delicious  to  the  eye, 
 and  soft  to  the  touch ;  but,  on  being  pressed  or 
 struck,  it  explodes  with  a  jiuft"  like  a  bladder  or 
 puff-ball,  leaving  in  the  hand  oidy  the  shreds  of 
 the  thin  rind  and  a  few  fibres.  It  is  indeed  filled 
 chiefly  with  air,  which  gives  it  the  round  form. 
 
 a  "  You  do  not  mention  the  Solmiiim  Soclowmim. 
 which  I  thought  had  been  quoted  as  one  apple 
 of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  which  is  the  plant  I  always 
 thought  to  be  as  probably  the  fruit  in  question  as  any 
 other.  The  objection  to  S.  melongena  is,  that  it  is  a 
 cultivated  plant ;  to  the  oak  gall,  that  it  is  wholly 
 absent  from  the  Dead  Sea  district,  though  it  answers 
 the  description  best,  so  far  as  its  beautiful  exterior 
 lud  powdery  bitter  interior  are  concerned. 
 
 "  The  Vine  of  Sodom,  again,  I  always  thought  might 
 refer  to  Cuciimis  colocynthis  [see  Gourd,  ii.  962],  which 
 is  bitter  and  powdery  inside  ;  the  term  x-iiie  would 
 Bcai-cely  be  given  to  any  but  a  trailing  or  other  plant 
 Df  the  habit  of  a  vine.     The  objection  to  the  Calo- 
 
 VINE  OF  SODOM 
 
 .  .  .  .  After  a  due  allowance  for  the  marvelous 
 in  all  popular  reports,  I  find  nothing  which  does 
 not  apply  almost  literally  to  the  fruit  of  the  'osfier, 
 as  we  saw  it.  It  must  be  plucked  and  handled 
 with  great  care,  in  order  to  preserve  it  from 
 bursting." 
 
 IMr.  Walter  Elliot,  in  an  article  "  on  the  Pomn 
 Sodoinitica,  or  Dead-Sea  apples"  {Trans,  o/' the 
 Knkimol.  Soc.  ii.  14,  1837-1840),  endeavors  to 
 show  that  the  apples  in  question  are  oak  galls, 
 which  he  found  growing  plentifully  on  dwarf  oaks 
 {Querctts  infectoria)  in  the  country  beyond  the 
 Jordan.  He  tells  us  that  the  Arabs  asked  him  to 
 bite  one  of  these  galls,  and  that  they  laughed  when 
 they  saw  his  mouth  full  of  dust.  '•  That  these 
 galls  are  the  true  Dead-Sea  apples,"  it  is  added, 
 "there  can  no  longer  be  a  question:  nothing  can 
 be  more  beautiful  than  their  rich,  glossy,  purplish- 
 red  exterior:  nothing  more  bitter  than  their  porous 
 and  easily  pulverized  interior"  (p.  10).  The  opin- 
 ion of  Pococke  may,  we  think,  be  dismissed  at 
 once  as  being  a  most  improbable  conjecture.  The 
 objection  to  the  Solanum  melunytna  is  that  the 
 plant  is  not  peculiar  to  the  shores  or  neighborhood 
 of  the  Sea  of  Sodom,  but  is  generally  distributed 
 throughout  Palestine,  besides  which  it  is  not  lil<ely 
 that  the  fruit  of  which  .losephus  speaks  should  be 
 represented  by  occasional  diseased  specimens  of  the 
 fruit  of  the  egg-apple;  we  must  look  tor  some 
 plant,  the  normal  character  of  whose  fruit  comes 
 .somewhere  nearer  to  the  required  conditions.  Seet- 
 zen's  plant  is  the  .same  as  that  mentioned  by 
 Burckhardt,  Irby  and  Mangles,  and  Robinson,  i.  e. 
 the  'osher.  Chateaubriand's  thorny  shrub,  with 
 fruit  like  small  lemons,  m((y  be  the  Zukkani  {Ba- 
 lanites ^Egyptiaca),  but  it  certainly  cannot  be  the 
 tree  intended.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the 
 oak-galls  of  which  Mr.  Elliot  speaks  should  be 
 tlie  fruit  in  question ;  because  these  being  formed 
 on  a  tree  so  generally  known  as  an  oak,  and  being 
 common  in  all  countries,  would  not  have  been  a 
 suliject  worthy  of  especial  remark,  or  have  been 
 noticed  as  something  peculiar  to  the  district  around 
 the  Sea  of  Sodom.  The  fruit  of  the  'osher  ai)pears 
 to  have  the  best  claim  to  represent  the  ajiples  of 
 Sodom;  the  Calotropis  procera  is  an  Indian  plant, 
 and  thrives  in  the  warm  valley  of  'Ain  Jidy,  but 
 is  scarcely  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  Palestine. 
 The  readiness  with  which  its  fruit,  "  fair  to  the 
 eye,"  bursts  when  pressed,  agrees  well  with  Jose- 
 phus's  account;  and  although  there  is  a  want  of 
 suitableness  between  ''  the  few  fibres  "  of  Robinson, 
 and  the  "smoke  and  ashes"  of  the  Jewish  his- 
 torian, yet,  according  to  a  note  by  the  editor  of 
 Seetzen's  Letters,  the  fruit  of  the  Calotropis  in 
 winter  contains  a  yellowish  dust,  in  appearance 
 resembling  certain  fungi,  but  of  pungent  quality." 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 tropis  procera  {Asclep.  i;i!;nntea,  Lin.)  is,  that  it  is  very 
 scarce  and  not  characteristic  of  the  district,  being 
 found  in  one  spot  only.  The  beautiful  silky  cotton 
 would  never  suggest  the  idea  of  anything  but  what 
 is  e.Kquisitely  lovely  —  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  any- 
 thing more  beautiful :  to  assume  that  a  diseased  state 
 of  it  was  intended,  is  arguing  ad  ifinotimi  ah  ignoto, 
 and  a  very  far-fetched  idea."  J.  D.  Hooker. 
 
 Dr.  Hooker's  remark,  that  the  term  vine  must  refer 
 to  some  plant  of  the  habit  of  a  vine,  is  conclusive 
 against  the  claims  of  all  the  plants  hitherto  identified 
 with  the  Vine  of  Sodom.  The  C.  cotoci/nt/iis  alone 
 possesses  the  required  condition  implied  in  tlie  name. 
 
 W.  H 
 
VINEGAR 
 
 VINEGAR  (Vpn :  i^os  :  acetum).  The 
 Hebrew  term  c/ioniets  was  applied  to  a  beverai;e, 
 eonsistiiii;  (generally  of  wine  or  strung  drink  turned 
 sour  (whence  its  use  was  proscrilied  to  the  Naz- 
 arite,  Num.  vi.  3),  iiut  sometimes  artificial!}'  made 
 by  an  admixture  of  barley  and  wine,  and  thus 
 liable  to  fermentation  (Mishn.  Pes.  3,  §  1).  It 
 was  acid  even  to  a  proverb  (I'rov.  x.  26),  and  V)y 
 itself  formed  a  nauseous  draught  (Ps.  Ixix.  21), 
 but  was  serviceable  for  the  ])urpose  of  sopping 
 bread,  as  used  by  laborers  (Kuth  ii.  14).  The 
 degree  of  its  acidity  may  be  inferred  from  Prov. 
 XXV.  20,  where  its  effect  on  nitre  is  noticed.  Sim- 
 ilar to  the  chomels  of  the  Heljrews  was  the  acetum 
 of  the  Romans,  — a  thin,  sour  wine,  consumed  by 
 soldiers  (Veget.  Re  Mil.  iv.  7),  either  in  a  pure 
 state,  or,  more  usually,  mixed  with  water,  when 
 it  was  termed  posca  (Plin.  xix.  2!) ;  Spart.  Ifiidi: 
 10).  This  was  the  beverage  of  which  the  Saviour 
 partook  in  his  dying  moments  (Matt,  xxvii.  48; 
 Mai'k  XV.  30;  .lohn  xix.  29,  30),  and  doubtless  it 
 was  refreshing  to  his  exhausted  frame,  though 
 offered  in  derision  either  on  that  occasion  or  pre- 
 viously (Luke  xxiii.  36).  The  same  liquid,  min- 
 gled with  gall  (as  St.  Matthew  states,  proliably 
 with  the  view  of  marking  the  fulfillment  of  the 
 prediction  in  Ps.  Ixix.  21),  or  with  myrrh  (as 
 St.  Mark  states  with  an  eye  to  the  exact  historical 
 fact"),  was  offered  to  the  Saviour  at  an  earlier  stage 
 of  his  sutlerings,  in  order  to  deaden  the  perception 
 of  pain  (ilatt.  xxvii.  34;  Mark  xv.  23). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 VINEYARDS,  PLAIN  OF  THE  (b^S 
 
 D'^^'^S  :  'EySeAxapyueiV;  Alex.  A/SeA  afxTrsXwvaiV- 
 Abel  quce  est  viiieis  amsita).  This  place,  men- 
 tioned oidy  in  Judg.  xi.  33,  has  been  already  no- 
 ticed under  Abel  (5:  .see  vol.  i.  p.  5  a).  To  what 
 he  has  there  said,  the  writer  has  only  to  call  atten- 
 tion to  the  fact  that  a  ruin  bearing  the  name  of 
 Beit  el-Ktrm,  —  "  house  of  the  vine,"  was  encoun- 
 tered by  De  Saulcy  to  the  north  of  Kernk  (Nun: 
 i.  353).  This  may  be  the  Abel  ceramiiii  of  Jeph- 
 thah,  if  the  Aroer  named  in  the  same  passage  is 
 the  [ilace  of  that  name  on  the  Arnon  (  W.  Mojeb). 
 It  is  however  by  no  means  certain;  and  indeed  the 
 probability  is  that  the  Ammonites,  with  the  instinct 
 of  a  nomadic  or  semi-nomadic  people,  betook  them- 
 selves, when  attacked,  not  to  the  civilized  and  cul- 
 tivated country  of  ^loab  (where  Beit  el-Kerm  is 
 situated),  but  to  the  spreading  deserts  towards  the 
 east,  where  they  could  disperse  themselves  after  the 
 usual  tactics  of  such  triltes.  G 
 
 VIOL.  For  an  explanation  of  the  Hebrew 
 word  translated  "viol"  see  P.s,\ltei:y.  The  old 
 English  viol,  like  the  Spanish  ri//uelii,  was  a  six- 
 stringed  guitar.  Mr.  Chappell  (Pop.  Mus.  i.  240) 
 says,  "  the  position  of  the  fingers  was  marked  on 
 the  finger-board  liy  frets,  as  in  guitars  of  the  present 
 day.  The  '  Chest  of  Viols  '  consisted  of  three,  four, 
 five,  or  six  of  different  sizes;  one  for  the  treble, 
 others  for  the  mean,  the  counter-tenor,  the  tenor, 
 and  perhaps  two  for  the  bass."  Etymologically 
 vi(jl  is  connected  with  the  Dan.^o^  and  the  A.-S. 
 ji^ele,  through  the  Fr.  viule,  Olil  Fr.  vitlle,  Med. 
 
 VOWS 
 
 3449 
 
 Lat.  vitell'i.  In  the  Prompturium.  Parvulorum  we 
 find  "  Fy3ele,  viella,  fidicina,  vitella."  Again,  in 
 North's  Plutarch  (Ai)t(>nius,i^.  980,  ed.  159.5)  there 
 is  a  description  of  ( 'leopatra's  barge,  '•  the  poope 
 whereof  was  of  gold,  the  sailes  of  purple,  and  the 
 owers  of  silver,  which  kept  stroke  in  rowing  after 
 the  sound  of  the  nnisicke  of  flutes,  howboyes, 
 cytherns,  ryol/s,  and  such  other  instruments  as 
 they  played  vpon  in  the  barge."  W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  VINTAGE.     [Harvest;  Vine;   Wihe.] 
 VIPER.     [Serpent.] 
 
 *  VOLUME.     [Book;  Roll;  Writing.] 
 
 VOPH'SI  C'D??!  :  2a;8i';  Alex.  Ia/3i:  Vapsi). 
 Father  of  Nahbi,  the  spy  selected  from  the  tribe 
 of  Naphtali  (Num.  xiii.  14). 
 
 *  VOTE.  This  is  the  proper  word  in  Acts 
 xxvi.  10,  instead  of  "  voice  "  of  the  A.  V.  Paul 
 says  there  that  when  Stephen  and  other  disciples 
 were  put  to  death  he  "gave  his  vote,"  KaT-fiveyKa 
 \pri(pov,  against  them.  Some  allege  this  as  proof 
 that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  at 
 the  time,  and  voted  for  the  sentence  of  death. 
 But  the  languaire  does  not  warrant  this  conclusion. 
 Like  our  "sufTratje,"  \pri(pos,  a  stone  used  as  a 
 ballot,  often  signified  opinion  merely,  assent  or  dis- 
 sent, with  only  a  figurative  allusion  to  the  act  of 
 voting.  Plato  often  uses  the  word  in  this  sense 
 (see  Kost  and  Palm's  (Jr.  ITawhmrterb.  iii.  p. 
 2575).  It  is  improbable  on  other  grounds  that 
 Paul  belonged  to  the  Saidiedrim  at  that  time. 
 His  age  would  hardly  have  allowed  him  to  attain 
 th.at  honor  so  early  (see  Acts  vii.  58),  and  his  being 
 unmarried  (as.  we  may  infer  from  1  Cor.  vii.  8)  was 
 a  disqualification  if,  as  the  later  Jews  maintain,  no 
 one  could  be  a  judge  unless  he  was  a  fatlier,  be- 
 cause a  parent  may  be  expected  to  be  merciful. 
 Lechler  gives  the  right  interpretation.  H. 
 
 VOWS.*  The  practice  of  making- vows,  i.  e. 
 incurring  voluntary  obligations  to  the  Deity,  on 
 fidfiUment  of  certain  conditions,  such  as  deliverance 
 from  death  or  danger,  success  in  enterprises,  and 
 the  like,  is  of  extremely  ancient  date,  and  common 
 in  all  systems  of  religion.  The  earliest  mention 
 of  a  vow  is  that  of  Jacob,  who,  after  his  vision  at 
 Bethel,  ])romised  that  in  case  of  his  safe  return  he 
 would  dedicate  to  Jeliovah  the  tenth  of  his  goods, 
 and  make  the  place  in  which  he  had  set  up  the 
 memorial-stone  a  place  of  worship  (Gen.  xxviii. 
 18-22,  xxxi.  13).  Vows  in  general  are  also  men- 
 tioned in  the  book  of  .lob  (xxii.  27). 
 
 Among  instances  of  heathen  usage  in  this  respect 
 the  following  passages  may  lie  cited :  Jer.  xliv.  25, 
 and  .lonah  i.  16;  Hom.  //.  i.  64,  93,  vi.  93,  308; 
 O'lijss.  iii.  382;  Xen.  Annb.  iii.  2,  §  12;  Virg. 
 (Jeorff.  i.  436;  ^n.  v.  234:  Hor.  Cnrm.  i.  5,  13, 
 iii.  29,  59;  Liv.  xxii.  9,  10;  Cic.  Alt.  viii.  10; 
 JustiTi,  xxi.  3;  a  passage  which  speaks  of  innuoral 
 vows;  Veil.  Pat.  ii.  48. 
 
 The  Law  therefore  did  not  introduce,  but  regu- 
 lated the  practice  of  vows.  Three  sorts  are  men- 
 tioned: I.  Vows  of  devotion,  Neder ;  H.  Vows 
 of  abstinence,  Esar  or  Isar ;  HI.  Vows  of  destruc- 
 tion, Cherem. 
 
 I.  As  to  vows  of  devotion,  the  following  rules 
 
 a  St.  Mark  terms  it  otvo?  etrfivpfio-MfVo;.  There  is 
 no  difficulty  in  the  application  of  oItos  and  6fo9  to 
 the  same  substiince  ;  but  whether  the  fxera.  xoArj; 
 \Ley.iyixivov  of  St.  Matthew  can  in  any  way  be  iileu- 
 ti&ed  with    the   icrnvpyiaiJiiyos    of  Mark,  is  doubtful. 
 
 The  term  xo\ri  m.ay  well  have  been  applied  to  some 
 soporific  substance. 
 
 b   D"'"1"TD.  from   "TT3,    "  to   make   vow "   CGos 
 .  T  : '  -  T 
 
 p.  855j.     See  also  An.wheju. 
 
3450  vows 
 
 are  laid  down :  A  man  might  devote  to  sacred  uses 
 possessions  or  persons,  but  not  the  first-born  either 
 of  man  or  beast,  which  was  devoted  ah-eady  (Lev. 
 xxvii.  26).      [FiiiST-noRN.] 
 
 (".)  If  he  vowed  land,  he  iniwht  either  redeem  it 
 or  not.  If  he  intended  to  redeem,  two  points  were 
 to  be  considered :  (1)  the  rate  of  redemption ;  (2) 
 tlie  distance,  prospectively  and  retrospectively,  from 
 the  year  of  jubilee.  The  price  of  redeni])tion  was 
 fixed  at  50  siiekels  of  silver  for  the  quantity  of  land 
 which  a  homer  of  b.arley  (eii^ht  bushels)  would  suf- 
 fice to  sow  (Lev.  xxvii.  1(J;  see  Knobel).  This 
 payment  might  be  aliated  under  the  direction  of 
 the  priest,  according  to  the  distance  of  time  from 
 the  jubilee-year.  13ut  at  whatever  time  it  was 
 redeemed,  he  was  required  to  add  to  the  redemp- 
 tion-price one  fifth  (20  per  cent.)  of  the  estimated 
 value.  If  he  sold  the  land  in  the  mean  time,  it 
 might  not  then  be  redeemed  at  all,  but  was  to  go 
 to  the  priests  in  the  jubilee-year  (ver.  20). 
 
 The  purchaser  of  land,  in  case  he  devoted  and 
 also  wished  to  redeem  it,  was  required  to  pay  a 
 redemption-price  according  to  the  priestly  valua- 
 tion first  mentioned,  but  without  the  additional 
 fifth.  In  this  case,  however,  the  land  was  to 
 revert  in  the  jubilee  to  its  original  owner  (Lev. 
 xxvii.  16,  24,  xxv.  27;  Keil,  Hehr.  Arch.  §§  66, 
 80). 
 
 The  valuation  here  laid  down  is  evidently  based 
 on  the  notion  of  annual  value.  Supposing  land  to 
 require  for  seed  about  3  bushels  of  barley  per 
 acre,  the  homer,  at  the  rate  of  32  pecks,  or  8 
 bushels,  would  Ije  sufficient  for  about  2^-  or  3 
 acres.  Fifty  shekels,  25  ounces  of  silver,  at  five 
 shillings  the  ounce,  would  give  ^6  5s.,  and  the 
 yearly  valuation  would  thus  amount  to  about  £2 
 per  acre. 
 
 The  owner  who  wished  to  redeem,  woidd  thus 
 be  required  to  pay  either  an  annual  rent  or  a 
 redemption-price  answering  to  the  number  of  j'ears 
 short  of  the  jubilee,  but  deducting  Sabbatical  years 
 (Lev.  xxv.  3,  15,  16),  and  adding  a  fifth,  or  20  per 
 tent.,  in  either  case.  Thus,  if  a  man  devoted  an 
 acre  of  land  in  the  jubilee  year,  and  redeemed  it  in 
 the  same  year,  he  would  pay  a  redemption-price  of 
 49 — 6  =43  years'  value,  +  20  per  cent.  =  ^103  4s., 
 or  an  amuial  rent  of  ,£2  8s. ;  a  rate  by  no  means 
 excessive  when  we  consider,  (1)  the  prospect  of 
 restoration  in  the  jubilee;  (2)  the  undoubted  fer- 
 tility of  the  soil,  which  even  now,  under  all  disad- 
 vantages, sometimes  yields  an  hundredfold  (Burck- 
 hardt^  Syria,  p.  297). 
 
 If  he  refused  or  was  unable  to  redeem,  either 
 the  next  of  kin  (Goel)  came  forward,  as  he  had 
 liberty  to  do,  or,  if  no  redemption  was  effected,  the 
 land  became  the  property  of  the  priests  (Lev.  xxv. 
 25,  xxvii.  21;   Ruth  iii.  12,  iv.  1,  etc.). 
 
 In  the  case  of  a  house  devoted,  its  value  was  to 
 be  assessed  by  the  priest,  and  a  fifth  added  to  the 
 redemjition  price  in  case  it  was  redeemed  (Lev. 
 xxvii.  15).  Whether  the  rule  held  good  regarding 
 houses  in  walled  cities,  namely,  that  the  liberty  of 
 redemption  lasted  oidy  for  one  year,  is  not  certain ; 
 but  as  it  does  not  appear  that  houses  devoted,  but 
 not  redeemed,  became  the  property  of  the  priests, 
 and  as  the  Levites  and  priests  had  special  towns 
 assigned  to  them,  it  seems  likely  that  the  price 
 only  of  the  house,  and  not  the  house  itself,  was 
 made  over  to  sacred  uses,  and  thus  that  the  act  of 
 consecranon  of  a  house  means,  in  fact,  the  conse- 
 cration of  its  value.  The  Mishna,  however,  says, 
 that  if  a  devoted  house  fell  down,  the  owner  was 
 
 VOWS 
 
 not  liable  to  payment,  but  that  he  was  liable  if 
 he  had  devoted  the  value  of  the  house  {Eracin, 
 V.  5). 
 
 (b.)  Animals  fit  for  sacrifice,  if  devoted,  were  not 
 to  be  redeemed  or  changed,  and  if  a  man  attempted 
 to  do  so,  he  was  required  to  bring  both  the  devotee 
 and  the  changeling  (Lev.  xxvii.  9,  10,  33).  'J'hey 
 were  to  be  free  from  blemish  (IMal.  1.  14).  An 
 animal  unfit  for  sacrifice  might  be  redeemed,  with 
 the  addition  to  the  priest's  valuation  of  a  fifth,  or 
 it  became  the  property  of  the  priests.  Lev.  xxvii. 
 
 12,  13.        [OFFElilNG.] 
 
 (c. )  The  case  of  persons  devoted  stood  thus:  A 
 man  might  devote  either  himself,  his  child  (not 
 the  first-born),  or  his  slave.  If  no  redemption  took 
 place,  the  devoted  person  became  a  slave  of  the 
 sanctuary  —  see  the  case  of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv. 
 8;  Michaelis,  §  124,  ii.  166,  ed.  Smitli).  [Naz- 
 ARiTr:.]  Otherwise  he  might  be  redeemed  at  a 
 valuation  according  to  age  and  sex,  on  the  follow- 
 ing scale  (Lev.  xxvii.  1-7):  — 
 
 A.  1.  A  male  from  one  month   to  5  years     £,    s.  d. 
 
 old,  5  shekels =  0  12     6 
 
 2.  From  5  .years  to  20  years,  20  shekels  =  2  10     0 
 
 3.  From  20  years  to  60  years,  50  shekels  =650 
 
 4.  Above  60  years,  15  shekels    .     .     .  =  1  17     6 
 
 B.  1.  Females  from  one  month  to  5  years, 
 
 3  shekels =076 
 
 2.  From  5  >ears  to  20  years,  10  shekels  =  15  0 
 8.  From  20  years  to  60  years,  30  shekels  =  3  15  0 
 4.  Above  60  years,  10  shekels     .      .     .=150 
 
 If  the  person  were  too  poor  to  pay  the  redemption 
 price,  his  value  was  to  be  estimated  by  the  priest, 
 not,  as  Michaelis  says,  the  civil  magistrate  (Lev. 
 xxvii.  8;  Deut.  xxi.  5:  Mich.  §  145,  ii.  283). 
 
 Among  general  regulations  affecting  vows,  the 
 following  may  be  mentioned:  — 
 
 1.  Vows  were  entirely  voluntary,  but  once  made 
 were  regarded  as  compulsory,  and  evasion  of  per- 
 formance of  them  was  held  to  be  contrary  to  true 
 religion  (Num.  xxx.  2;  Deut.  xxiii.  21;  Eccl. 
 v.  4). 
 
 2.  If  persons  in  a  dependent  condition  made 
 vows,  as  (rt)  an  unmarried  daughter  living  in  her 
 fathei-'s  house,  or  (6)  a  wife,  even  if  she  afterwards 
 became  a  widow,  the  vow,  if  («)  in  the  first  case 
 her  father,  or  {h)  in  the  second,  her  husband  heard 
 and  disallowed  it,  was  void ;  but  if  they  heard 
 without  disallowance,  it  was  to  remain  good  (Num. 
 xxx.  3-16).  Whether  this  principle  extended  to 
 all  children  and  to  slaves  is  vi'holly  uncertain,  as 
 no  mention  is  made  of  them  in  Scripture,  nor  by 
 Philo  when  he  discusses  the  question  (dt  Spec.  Leg. 
 6,  ii.  274,  ed.  Mangey).  Michaelis  thinks  the 
 omission  of  sons  implies  absence  of  power  to  con- 
 trol them  (§  83,  i.  447). 
 
 3.  Votive  offerings  arising  from  the  produce  of 
 any  impure  traffic  were  wholly  forbidden  (Deut. 
 xxiii.  18).  A  question  has  risen  on  this  part  of 
 the  subject  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  celeb, 
 dog,  which  is  understood  to  refer  either  to  immoral 
 intercourse  of  the  grossest  kind,  or  literally  and 
 simply  to  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word.  The 
 prohibition  against  dedication  to  sacred  uses  of 
 gain  obtained  by  female  prostitution  was  doubtless 
 directed  against  the  practice  which  prevailed  in 
 Phoenicia,  IJabylonia,  and  Syria,  of  which  men- 
 tion is  made  in  Lev.  xix.  29;  Baruch  vi.  43  [or 
 Epist.  of  Jer.  43];  Herod.  L  199;  Strabo,  p.  561; 
 August,  de  civ.  Dei,  iv.  10,  and  other  authorities 
 quoted  by  Spencer  {de  leg.  Ilebr.  ii.  35,  p.  566). 
 Following  out  this  view,  and  bearing  in  mind  the 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 mention  made  in  2  K.  xxiii.  7,  of  a  practice  evi- 
 dently connected  with  idolatrous  worship,  the  word 
 celeb  has  been  sometimes  rendered  ciiicei/m ;  some 
 have  understood  it  to  refer  to  the  first-born,  but 
 Spencer  himself,  ii.  35,  p.  572;  Josephus,  Ant.  iv. 
 8,  §  9;  Gesen.  ii.  085,  and  the  Mishna,  Teniiirah^ 
 vi.  3,  all  understand  dog  in  the  literal  sense. 
 [Dog.] 
 
 II.,  III.  For  vows  of  abstinence,  see  Corban; 
 and  lor  vows  of  extermination,  Anathema,  and 
 Ezr.x.8;  Mic.  iv.  1.3. 
 
 Vows  in  general  and  their  liinding  force  as  a  test 
 of  religion  are  mentioned  —  Job  xxii.  27 ;  Prov.  vii. 
 U;  I's.  xxii.  25,  1.  14,  Ivi.  12,  kvi.  13,  cxvi.  14: 
 Is.  xix.  21;  Nah.  i.  15. 
 
 Certain  refinements  on  votive  consecrations  are 
 noticed  in  the  Mishna,  e.  g. :  — 
 
 1.  No  evasion  of  a  vow  was  to  be  allowed  which 
 substituted  a  part  for  the  whole,  as,  "  I  vowed  a 
 sheep  but  not  the  bones"  (Nednr.  ii.  5). 
 
 2.  A  man  devotnig  an  ox  or  a  house,  was  not 
 liable  if  the  ox  was  lost,  or  the  house  fell  down ; 
 but  otherwise,  if  he  had  devoted  the  value  of  the 
 one  or  the  other  of  these. 
 
 3.  No  devotions  might  be  made  within  two 
 years  before  the  jubilee,  nor  redemptions  within 
 the  year  following  it.  If  a  son  redeemed  his 
 father's  land,  he  was  to  restore  it  to  him  in  the 
 jubilee  (Erac.  vii.  3). 
 
 4.  A  man  might  devote  some  of  his  flock, 
 herd,  and  heathen  slaves,  but  not  all  these  {ibid. 
 viii.  4). 
 
 5.  Devotions  by  priests  were  not  redeemable, 
 but  were  transferred  to  other  priests  {ibid.  6). 
 
 G.  A  man  who  vowed  not  to  sleep  on  a  bed, 
 might  sleep  on  a  skin  if  he  pleased  (Otho,  Lex. 
 Rabb.  p.  073). 
 
 7.  The  sums  of  money  arising  from  votive  con- 
 secrations were  divided  into  two  parts  —  sacred  (1) 
 to  the  altar;  (2)  to  the  repairs  of  the  Temple  (Re- 
 land,  Ant.  c.  X.  §  4). 
 
 It  seems  that  the  practice  of  shaving  the  head 
 at  the  expiration  of  a  votive  period  was  not  lim- 
 ited to  the  Nazaritic  vow  (Acts  xviii.  18,  xxi. 
 24). 
 
 The  practice  of  vows  in  the  Christian  Church, 
 though  evidently  not  forbidden,  as  the  instance  just 
 quoted  serves  to  show,  does  not  come  within  the 
 scope  of  the  present  article  (see  Bingham,  Antiq. 
 xvi.  7,  9,  and  Suicer,  evxh)-  H*  ^^-  ^• 
 
 VULGATE,  THE.  (Latin  Veksion.s  of 
 THE  HiBLK.)  The  influence  which  the  Latin  Ver- 
 sions of  the  Bible  have  exercised  upon  Western 
 Christianity  is  scarcely  less  than  that  of  the  LXX. 
 upon  the  Greek  churches.  But  Iwth  the  (jreek 
 and  the  Latin  Vulgates  have  been  long  neglected. 
 The  revival  of  letters,  bringing  with  it  the  study 
 of  the  original  texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  checked  for 
 a  time  the  study  of  these  two  great  bulwarks  of  the 
 Greek  and  Latin  churches,  for  the  LXX.  in  fact 
 belongs  rather  to  the  history  of  Christianity  than 
 to  the  history  of  Judaism,  and,  in  spite  of  recent 
 labors,  their  importance  is  even  now  hardly  recog- 
 nized. In  the  case  of  the  Vulgate,  ecclesiastical 
 controversies  have  still  further  impeded  all  efforts 
 of  lilieral  criticism.  The  Romanist  (till  lately) 
 regarded  the  (  lementine  text  as  fixed  beyond  ap- 
 peal; the  Protestant  shrank  from  examining  a  sub- 
 ject which  seemed  to  belong  peculiarly  to  the 
 Romanist.  Yet,  apart  from  all  polemical  ques- 
 tions, the  Vulgate  should  have  a  very  deep  interest 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3451 
 
 for  all  the  Western  churches.  For  many  centu- 
 ries it  was  the  only  Bible  generally  used ;  and, 
 directly  or  indirectly,  it  is  the  real  parent  of  all 
 the  vernacular  versions  of  Western  luu-ope.  The 
 Gothic  Version  of  Ulphilas  alone  is  independent  of 
 it,  for  the  Slavonic  and  modern  Russian  versions 
 are  necessarily  not  taken  into  account.  With 
 England  it  has  a  peculiarly  close  connection.  The 
 earliest  translations  made  from  it  were  the  (lost) 
 books  of  Bede,  and  the  Glosses  on  the  Psalms  and 
 Gospels  of  the  8th  and  9th  centuries  (ed.,  Thorpe, 
 Lond.  1835,  1842).  In  the  10th  century  .Elfric 
 translated  considerable  portions  of  the  O.  T.  {Hep- 
 tnteuclnis,  etc.,  ed.  Thwaites,  Oxon.  1098).  But 
 the  most  important  monument  of  its  influence  is 
 the  great  English  Version  of  Wycliffe  (1324-1384, 
 ed.  Forshall  and  Madden,  Oxfd.  1850),  which  is  a 
 literal  rendering  of  the  current  Vulgate  text.  In 
 the  age  of  the  Reformation  tlie  Vulgate  was  rather 
 the  guide  than  the  source  of  the  jwpular  versions. 
 The  Romanist  translations  into  German  (Michaelis, 
 ed.  Marsh,  ii.  107),  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish, 
 were  naturally  derived  from  the  Vulgate  (R.  Simon, 
 Hist.  Crit.  N.  T.  Cap.  28,  29,  40,41).  Of  others, 
 that  of  Luther  (N.  T.  in  1523)  was  the  most  im- 
 portant, and  in  this  the  Vulgate  had  great  weight, 
 though  it  was  made  with  such  use  of  the  originals 
 as  was  possible.  From  Luther  the  influence  of 
 the  Latin  passed  to  our  own  Authorized  Version. 
 Tyndal  had  spent  some  time  abroad,  and  was 
 acquainted  with  Lutiier  before  he  published  his 
 version  of  the  N.  T.  in  1520.  Tyndal's  version 
 of  the  0.  T.,  which  was  unfinished  at  the  time  of 
 bis  martyrdom  (1530),  was  completed  by  Cover- 
 dale,  and  in  this  the  influence  of  tiie  Latin  and 
 German  translations  was  predominant.  A  proof 
 of  this  remains  in  the  Psalter  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
 which  was  taken  from  the  "  Great  English  Bible" 
 (1539,  1540),  which  was  merely  a  new  edition  of 
 that  called  Jlatthew's,  which  was  itself  taken  from 
 Tyndal  and  Coverdale.  This  \  ersion  of  the  Psalms 
 follows  the  Galilean  Psalter,  a  revision  of  the  Old 
 Latin,  made  by  .Jerome,  and  afterwards  introduced 
 into  his  new  translation  (comp.  §  22),  and  ditfers 
 in  many  respects  from  the  Hebrew  text  {e.  y.  Ps. 
 xiv.).  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  follow  this 
 question  into  detail  here.  It  is  enough  to  reuiem- 
 lier  that  the  first  translators  of  our  Biiile  had  been 
 familiarized  with  the  Vulgate  from  their  youth, 
 and  could  not  have  cast  oft'  the  influence  of  early 
 association.  But  the  claims  of  the  Vulgate  to  the 
 attention  of  scholars  rest  on  wider  grounds.  It  is 
 not  only  the  source  of  our  current  theological 
 terminology,  but  it  is,  in  one  shajje  or  other,  the 
 most  important  early  witness  to  the  text  and 
 interpretation  of  the  whole  Bible.  The  materials 
 availalile  for  the  accurate  study  of  it  are  unfor- 
 tunately at  present  as  scanty  as  those  yet  unex- 
 amined are  rich  and  varied  (comp.  §  30).  The 
 chief  original  works  bearing  on  the  Vulgate  gener 
 ally  are  — 
 
 R.  Simon,  Tlistoire  Critique  du  V.  T.  1678- 
 1685:  N.  T.  1689-1093. 
 
 Hody,  De  Bibliorum  iextibus  oriyinalibus,  Oxon. 
 1705. 
 
 Martianay,  Hteron.  0pp.  (Paris,  1693,  with  the 
 prefaces  and  additions  of  Vallarsi,  Verona,  1734, 
 and  Mattel,  Venice,  1707). 
 
 Bianchini  {Blanchimis  not  Bhncliini),  Vindi- 
 cim  Canon.  SS.  Vuly.  Lat.  Edit.  Romse,  1740. 
 
 Bukentop,  Lux  de  Luce  ....  Bruxellis, 
 1710. 
 
3452  VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Fei-g.   Ant.,  Remis, 
 
 Sabatier,  BM.   SS.   Lat 
 1743. 
 
 Van  Ess,  Pragmntkch-hi  ilische  Gesch.  d.  Vulcj 
 Tiibingeii,  1824. 
 
 Vercelloiie,  Varioe  Lectiones  Vulg.  Lat.  Bibli- 
 intim,  torn,  i.,  Roniae,  18G0;  toni.  ii.  pars  prior, 
 18G2. 
 
 In  addition  to  these  tliere  are  the  controversial 
 works  of  Marifina,  15ellarniin,  Whitaker,  Fiilke, 
 etc.,  and  numerous  essays  by  Calraet,  I).  Schulz, 
 Fleck,  Kiegler,  etc.,  and  in  the  N.  T.  the  labors 
 of  Bentley,  Sanftl,  Griesbach,  Schulz,  Lachniaiin, 
 Tregelles,  and  Tisciiendorf,  have  collected  a  f;reat 
 amount  of  critical  materials.  But  it  is  not  too 
 much  to  say  tliat  the  noble  work  of  Vercellone  has 
 made  an  epoch  in  the  study  of  the  Vulgate,  and 
 the  chief  results  which  follow  from  tlie  first  install- 
 ment of  his  collations  are  here  for  the  first  time 
 incorporated  in  its  history.  The  subject  will  be 
 treated  under  the  following  heads:  — 
 
 I.  The  Okigin  and  History  of  the  name 
 Vulgate.     §§  1-3. 
 
 II.  The  Old  Latin  Versions.  §§  4-13. 
 Oriyin,  4,  5.  Character,  6.  Canon,  7.  Rtvis- 
 ions :  Itala,  8-11.     Remains,  12,  13. 
 
 III.  The  Labors  of  Jerome.  §§  14-20. 
 Occasion,  14.  Revision  of  Old  Latin  of  N.  T., 
 15-17.  Gospeh,  1.5,  16.  Acts,  Epistles,  etc.,  17. 
 Revision  of  O.  T.  from  the  LXX.,  18,  19.  Trans- 
 lation of  i).  T.  from  tlie  Hebrew,  20. 
 
 IV.  The  History  of  Jerome's  Transla- 
 tion to  the  Introduction  of  Printing. 
 §§  21-24.  Corrtiption  of  Jerome''s  text,  21,  22. 
 Revision  of  Alcuin,  23.  Later  revisions:  divisions 
 of  the  text,  24. 
 
 V.  The  History  of  the  Printed  Text. 
 §§  25-29.  /iarhj  editions,  25.  The  Sixtine  and 
 Clementine  Vulgates,  2(j.  Tlieir  relative  merits, 
 27.      Later  editions,  28,  29. 
 
 VI.  The  Materials  for  the  Revision  of 
 Jerome's  Text.  §§  30-32.  iMSS.  of  0.  T., 
 30,  31.      Of  jy.  T.,  32. 
 
 VII.  The  Critical  Value  of  the  Latin 
 Versions.  §§  33-39.  In  0.  T.,  33.  In  N.  T., 
 34-38.  Jerome's  Revision,  34-36.  The  Old  Latin, 
 37.      Intevpretdtion,  39. 
 
 VIII.  The  Language  of  the  L.vtin  Ver- 
 sions, §§  40-45.  Provincialisms,  41,  42.  Gne- 
 cisnis,  43.  Injlitence  on  Modern  Lanyuaye, 
 45. 
 
 I.  The  Origin  and  History  of  the  name 
 Vulgate.  —  1.  The  name  Vulyate,  which  is 
 equi\alent  to  Vulyata  editio  (the  current  text  of 
 Holy  Scripture),  has  necessarily  been  used  differ- 
 ently in  various  ages  of  the  Church.  There  can 
 be  no  dout;t  tliat  the  plu-ase  originally  answered  to 
 the  KoivT)  fKSoiTts  of  the  Greek  Scriptures.  In  this 
 sense  it  is  used  constantly  by  .lerome  in  his  Com- 
 mentaries, and  his  language  explains  sufficiently 
 the  origin  of  the  term :  "  Hoc  juxta  LXX.  inter- 
 pretes  dixiuius,  quorum  editio  loto  orbe  rnlyata 
 est"  (Hieron.  Comm.  in  Is.  Ixv.  20).  "  Multum 
 in  hoc  loco  LXX.  editio  Hebraioumque  discordant. 
 Primum  ergo  d<i  Vulyata  editione  tractabimus  et 
 postea  sequenuir  ordineni  veritatis  "  {id.  xxx.  22). 
 In  some  places  Jerome  distinctly  quotes  the  Greek 
 text:  "  Porro  in  editione  Vulgata  dupliciter  legi- 
 mus;  quidam  enim  codices  habent  5f)Aoi  tlaiu, 
 hoc  est  manifesti  sunt :  alii  SeiAcuol  eiaiv,  hoc  est 
 meticulosi  sive  miseri  sunt  "  (  Comm.  in  Osee,  vii. 
 13:  comp.  8-11,  etc.).  But  generally  he  regards 
 the  Old  Latin,  which  was  rendered  from  the  LXX., 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 as  substantiaOy  identical  with  it,  and  tlius  intro- 
 duces Latin  quotations  under  the  name  of  tliu 
 i>XX.  or  ]'ulyata  editio :  "  .  .  .  .  niiror  quomodo 
 vulyata  editio  ....  testimonium  alia  inter])reta- 
 tione   sub^•erterit  :     Conyreyabor    et   yloiif color 
 
 coram  Domino Illud  autem  quod  in  LXX. 
 
 legitur:  Congregabor  et  glorificabor  coram  non)ino 
 .  .  .  .  "  {Comm.  in  /s.  xlix.  5).  So  again:  '■  I'hil- 
 isthffios  ....  o/!e?u'^enf(s  Vulgata  scrihit  editio  " 
 {ibid.  xiv.  29).  "  .  .  .  .  Palsestinis,  quos  indif- 
 ferenter  LXX.  alieniyenas  vocant "  {in  Kzek.  svi. 
 27).  In  this  way  the  transference  of  the  name 
 from  the  current  Greek  text  to  the  current  Latin 
 text  liecame  easy  and  natural;  but  there  does  not 
 appear  to  be  any  instance  in  the  age  of  Jerome 
 of  the  application  of  the  term  to  the  Latin  Version 
 of  the  0.  T.  without  regard  to  its  derivation  from 
 the  LXX.,  or  to  that  of  the  N.  T. 
 
 2.  Yet  more:  as  the  phrase  koivt)  fKSocis  came 
 to  signify  an  uncorrected  (and  so  corrupt)  text,  the 
 same  secondary  meaning  was  attached  to  vulyata 
 editio.  Thus  in  some  places  the  vulyata  editio 
 stands  in  contrast  with  the  true  Hexaplaric  text 
 of  the  LXX.  One  passage  will  place  this  in  the 
 clearest  light:  "  .  .  .  .  breviter  admoneo  aliam 
 esse  editionem  quam  Origenes  et  Ctesariensis  Euse- 
 bius,  omne.sque  GriEciaj  translatores  koiv)}v,  id  est, 
 cominuneiii  appellant,  atque  vidyatam,  et  a  pleri.sque 
 nunc  hovKiavhs  dicitur;  aliam  LXX.  interpretum 
 quie  in  ki^airKoh  codicibus  reperitur,  et  a  nobis  in 
 Latinum  sermonem  fideliter  versa  est  ...  . 
 KoivT)  autem  ista,  hoc  est.  Communis  editio,  ipsa 
 est  quae  et  LXX.,  sed  hoc  interest  inter  utram- 
 que.  quod  koictj  pro  locis  et  temporilius  et  pro 
 voluntate  scriptorura  vetus  corrupta  editio  est; 
 ea  autem  quae  habetur  in  4^a-K\ots  et  quam  nos 
 vertimus,  ipsa  est  quae  in  eruditorum  lihris  in- 
 corrupta  et  iramaculata  LXX.  interpretum  trans- 
 latio    i-eservatur"     (Ep.    evi.   ad    Sun.    et    Fret. 
 
 §  2). 
 
 3.  This  use  of  the  phrase  Vulyata  editio  to 
 describe  the  LXX.  (and  the  Latin  Version  of  the 
 LXX.)  vpas  continued  to  later  times.  It  is  sup- 
 ported by  the  authority  of  Augustine,  Ado  of 
 Vienne  (a.  d.  860),  R.  Bacon,  etc.;  and  Bellarmin 
 distinctly  recognizes  the  application  of  the  term, 
 so  that  ^'an  Ess  is  justified  in  saying  that  the 
 Council  f'f  Trent  erred  in  a  point  of  history  when 
 they  described  Jerome's  Version  as  "  vetus  et 
 vulgata  editio,  quae  longo  tot  saeculorum  usu  in 
 ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est ''  (Van  Ess,  Gesch.  34). 
 As  a  general  rule,  the  Latin  Fathers  speak  of 
 Jerome's  Version  as  "our"  version  {nostra  editio, 
 nostri  codices) ;  but  it  was  not  unnatural  that  the 
 Tridentine  Fathers  (as  many  later  scholars)  should 
 be  misled  by  the  associations  of  their  own  time, 
 and  adapt  to  new  circumstances  terms  which  had 
 grown  obsolete  in  their  original  sense.  And  when 
 the  difference  of  the  (Greek)  "Vulgate"  of  the 
 early  Church,  and  tlie  (Latin)  "Vulgate"  of  the 
 modern  IJoman  Church  has  once  been  apprehended, 
 no  further  difficulty  need  arise  from  the  identity 
 of  name.  (Compare  Augustine,  AV/.  Benedict. 
 Paris,  1836,  tom.  V.  p.  xxxiii. ;  Sabatier,  i.  792; 
 Van  I'lss,  Gesch.  24-42,  who  gives  very  full  and 
 conclusive  references,  though  he  fails  to  perceive 
 tliat  the  Old  Latin  was  practically  identified  with 
 the  LXX.) 
 
 H.  The  Old  Latin  Versions. — 4.  The  his- 
 tory of  the  earliest  Latin  Version  of  the  Bilile  is 
 lost  in  complete  obscurity.  All  that  can  l>e 
 affirmed  with   certainty   is  that  it  was  made    in 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Africa."  Duriiiij;  tlie  first  two  centuries  the 
 Ulmreli  of  Koine,  to  which  we  naturally  look  for 
 the  source  of  the  versioa  now  identified  with  it, 
 was  essentially  Greek.  The  Koinan  bishops  bear 
 Greek  names;  the  earliest  Konian  litursiy  was 
 Greek;  the  few  remains  of  the  t'hristian  literature 
 of  Konie  are  Greek.''  The  same  remark  holds  true 
 of  Gaul  (comp.  Westcott,  llkl.  of  (Jmioii  of  N.  T. 
 pp.  269,270,  and  reft'.);  but  the  Church  of  N. 
 Africa  seems  to  have  been  Latin-speaking  from  tlie 
 first.  At  what  date  this  Church  was  founded  is 
 uncertain.  A  passage  of  Augustine  (c.  JJount. 
 Ep.  37)  seems  to  iniply  that  Africa  was  converted 
 late;  but  if  so,  the  Gospel  spread  there  with  re- 
 markable ra[)idity.  At  the  end  of  the  second 
 century  Christians  were  found  in  every  rank,  and 
 in  every  [ilace;  and  the  master-spirit  of  Tertullian, 
 the  first  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  was  then  raised  uj) 
 to  give  utterance  to  the  passionate  thouLthts  of 
 his  native  Cliurch.  It  is  therefore  from  Tertullian 
 that  we  must  seek  the  earliest  testimony  to  the 
 existence  and  character  of  the  Old  Latin  (  Wtus 
 Luiimi). 
 
 5.  On  the  first  point  the  evidence  of  Tkk- 
 TULi.iAN,  if  candidly  examined,  is  decisive.  He 
 distinctly  recognizes  the  general  currency  of  a 
 Latin  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  tiiough  not  necessarily 
 of  every  book  at  present  included  in  the  Canon, 
 which  even  in  his  time  had  been  al)le  to  mould  the 
 popular  language  (<iiIl\  Pi-ax.  .5:  In  usu  est  nos- 
 trorum  per  simplicitatem  interpretationis  .  .  .  . 
 De  Monocj.  II:  .Soiamus  plane  non  sic  esse  in 
 Grffico  authentico  quomodo  in  usum  exiit  per  dua- 
 rum  syllabarum  aut  callidam  aut  simplicem  ever- 
 sionem  ....).  This  was  characterized  by  a 
 "rudeness"  and  "  siniplieit},"  which  seems  to 
 point  to  the  nature  of  its  origin.  In  the  words 
 of  Augustine  {L)e  dvcli:  Christ,  ii.  16  (II)  ),  "any 
 one  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  who  gained 
 possession  of  a  Greek  MS.,  and  fancied  that  he  had 
 a  fair  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin,  ventured  to 
 translate  it."  (tiui  scripturas  ex  Hebraia  lingua 
 in  Grtecani  verterunt  nunierari  possunt;  Latini 
 auteni  interpretes  nullo  niodo.  Ut  enim  cuivis 
 primis  fidei  temporibus  in  maims  venit  Codex 
 Graicus,  et  aliquantulum  facultatis  sibi  utriusque 
 linguae  habere  videbatur,  ausus  est  interpretari. )  c' 
 Thus  the  \ersion  of  the  N.  T.  appears  to  ha\e 
 arisen  from  individual  and  successive  efforts ;  but  it 
 does  not  follow  l)y  any  means  that  numerous  ver- 
 sions were  simultaneously  circulated,  or  that  the 
 several  parts  of  the  version  were  made  indepen- 
 dently.'^ Even  if  it  had  been  so,  the  exigencies  of 
 the  public  service  must  soon  have  given  definiteness 
 and  substantial  unity  to  the  fragmentary  labors  of 
 individuals.  The  work  of  private  hands  would 
 necessarily  be  sulject  to  revision  for  ecclesiastic.il 
 use.  I'he  separate  books  would  be  united  in  a 
 volume;  and  thus  a  standard  text  of  the  whole 
 collection  would  lie  estalilished.  With  rci^^ard  to 
 the  0.  T.  the  case  is  less  clear.     It  is  probable  that 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3453 
 
 a  This  has  been  established  with  the  greatest  full- 
 ness by  Card.  Wiseman,  Two  Letters  on  1  Jnlin  v.  7, 
 addressed  to  the  editor  of  the  Cutholir.  Mi^uzine, 
 1832.  1833  ;  republished  with  additions,  Rome,  1835  ; 
 ♦lid  again  iu  his  coilected  Essniis,  vol.  i  1853.  Eich- 
 horn  and  llug  liad  maintained  the  same  opinion  ; 
 and  Lachuiann  has  further  contii-med  it  (N.  T.  i. 
 Praf.). 
 
 b  In  the  ab.senoe  of  all  evidence  it  is  impossible  to 
 say  liow  tUr  the  Chiistians  of  the  Italian  provinces 
 used  the  Greek  or  Latin  language  habitually. 
 
 the  Jews  who  were  settled  in  N.  Africa  were  con- 
 fined to  the  Greek  towns;  otherwise  it  might  be 
 supposed  that  the  Latin  Version  of  the  O.  T.  is  in 
 part  anterior  to  the  Christian  era,  and  that  (as  in 
 the  case  of  Greek)  a  preparation  for  a  Christian, 
 Latin  dialect  was  already  made  when  the  (iospel 
 was  introduced  into  Africa.  However  this  may 
 have  been,  the  substantial  similarity  of  the  dif- 
 ferent uarts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
 estalilislies  a  real  connection  between  them,  and 
 justifies  the  belief  that  there  was  one  popular  [>atin 
 Version  of  the  Bible  current  in  Africa  in  tiie  last 
 quarter  of  the  second  century.  Many  words  which 
 are  either  Greek  (macha^ra,  sophia,  perizoma,  po- 
 deris,  agoiiizo,  etc.)  or  literal  translations  of  Greek 
 forms  (vivifico,  justifico,  etc.)  abound  in  both,  and 
 explain  what  Tertullian  meant  when  he  spoke  of 
 the  "  simplicity "  of  the  translation  (compare 
 below  §  43). 
 
 6.  Tlie  exact  literality  of  the  Old  Version  was 
 not  confined  to  the  most  minute  oliservance  of  or- 
 der and  the  accurate  reflection  of  the  words  of  the 
 original:  in  many  cases  the  very  forms  of  (ireek 
 construction  were  retained  in  violation  of  Latin 
 usage.  A  few  examples  of  these  singular  anomalies 
 will  convey  a  better  idea  of  the  absolute  certainty 
 with  which  the  Latin  commonly  indicates  the  text 
 which  the  translator  had  before  him,  than  any  gen- 
 eral statements:  Matt.  iv.  13,  habitavit  in  Caphar- 
 naum  ninritimnm ;  id.  15,  terra  Neptalim  viam 
 maris ;  id.  25,  ab  Jerosolymis  .  .  .  .  et  trans  Jor- 
 daneni;  v.  22,  reus  erit  in  gehemimn  ignis;  vi.  19, 
 ubi  tinea  et  coinesturn  exterminat.  Mark  xii.  31, 
 mnjiis  lioruin  prceceptnrum  aliud  non  est.  Luke  x. 
 19,  nihil  vos  nocebit.  Acts  xix.  26,  non  solum 
 Kphesi  sed  ptene  totius  Asice,  Rom.  ii.  15,  inter  se 
 ciu/itiitionuin  acciisntitium  vel  etiam  defijndentium. 
 
 1  Cor.  vii.  32,  solicitus  est  quag  sunt  l)omini.  It 
 is  obvious  that  there  was  a  continual  tendency  to 
 alter  expressions  like  these,  and  in  the  first  age  of 
 the  version  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  continual 
 Gr.iecism  which  marks  the  Latin  texts  of  Uj  ( Cod. 
 Bezce),  and  E^  (Cod.  Laud.)  had  a  wider  currency 
 than  it  could  maintain  afterwards. 
 
 7.  With  regard  to  the  African  Canon  of  the  N. 
 T.  the  Old  Version  offers  important  evidence.  From 
 considerations  of  style  and  language  it  .seems  cer- 
 tain that  the  Kpistle  to  the  Hebrews,  James,  and 
 
 2  Peter,  did  not  form  part  of  the  original  African 
 Version,  a  conclusion  which  falls  in  with  that  which 
 is  derived  from  historical  testimony  (comp.  T/ie 
 Hist,  of  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.  p.  282  ff'.).  In 
 the  0.  T.,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Old  Latin  erred 
 by  excess  and  not  by  defect:  for  as  the  Version  was 
 made  from  the  current  copies  of  the  LXX.  it  in 
 eluded  the  Apocryph.al  books  which  are  commonly 
 contained  in  them,  and  to  these  2  Ksdras  was  early 
 added. 
 
 8.  After  the  translation  once  received  a  definite 
 shape  in  Africa,  which  could  not  have  been  long 
 after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  it  was  not 
 
 «  Card.  Wiseman  has  shown  (Essai/s,  i.  24,  25) 
 that  "  interpretor  "  and  "  verto  "  jnay  be  used  of  a 
 revision;  but  in  connection  with  primis  fi:lei  tem- 
 poriliiis  they  seem  certainly  to  describe  the  origin  of 
 the  Version. 
 
 'I  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  point  out  minute 
 ditferences  In  rendering  which  show  that  the  transla- 
 tion WHS  the  work  of  different  hands.  Mill  (Prnleg^. 
 521  ff.)  has  made  some  interesting  collections  to 
 establish  tliis  result,  but  he  places  too  much  reliance 
 on  the  version  of  Dj    (Cod.  Bezae). 
 
8454 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 public!}'  revised.  The  old  text  was  jealoiisl)'  guarded 
 Dy  ecclesiastical  use,  and  was  retained  there  at  a 
 time  when  Jerome's  Version  was  elsewhere  almost 
 universally  recei\ed.  The  well-known  story  of  the 
 disturbance  caused  by  the  attempt  of  an  African 
 bishop  to  introduce  Jerome's  "  cucurbttn  "  for  the 
 old  "  hedeva  "  in  the  history  of  Jonah  (August. 
 Ep.  civ.  ap.  Hieron.  Kpp.^  quoted  by  Tregelles,  In- 
 troduction, p.  242)  shows  how  carefully  intentional 
 changes  were  avoided.  ,  But  at  the  same  time  the 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 text  suffered  by  the  natural  corruptions  of  copying, 
 especially  by  interpolations,  a  form  of  error  to 
 which  the  Gospels  were  particularly  exposed  (comp. 
 §  15).  In  the  ().  T.  the  version  was  made  from 
 the  unrevised  edition  of  the  LXX.  and  thus  from 
 the  first  included  many  false  readings  of  which  Je- 
 rome often  notices  instances  (e.  fj.  Ep.  cvi.  nd 
 Sun.  et  Fret.),  [n  Table  A  two  texts  of  the  Old 
 Latin  are  placed  for  comparison  with  the  Vulgate 
 of  Jerome. 
 
 TABLE  A.     Dan.  ix.  4-8." 
 August.  Ep.  cxi.  ad  Victor. 
 Precatus   sum    Douiinum   Deum 
 
 meum, 
 et  confessits  sum  et  dixi  : 
 Domine  Deus,  magae  et  mirabilis, 
 
 et  qui  serva-s  testamentum  tuum, 
 et  misericorjiam  Jiligentibus  te, 
 et  servantibus  prascepta  tua  ■ 
 Peccavimus,  ar/versusle^em  fecimus, 
 impie   eginius    et  rtcessimus  et  de- 
 
 clinavimus 
 a  prKceptis  tuis  et  a  judiciis  tuis, 
 et  noil    exaudivimus    servos    tuos 
 
 prophetas, 
 qui  loquebantur  in  nomine  tuo  ad 
 
 reges  nostros, 
 
 et  ad  omnem  pnpulmn  terraa, 
 
 Xibi,  Domine,  justitia: 
 
 nobis  autem 
 
 confusio  faciei  ; 
 
 Sicut  dies  hie  viro  Juda, 
 
 et  hahilantibuK  Jerusalem, 
 
 et  omni  Israel, 
 
 qui  proxinii  sunt  et  qui  longe  sunt, 
 
 in  o?}tni  terra  in  qua  eos  dissemi- 
 
 nasti  ibi, 
 proptfr  contumaciam  eorum, 
 quia  improbaftriint  te,  Domine. 
 
 a  The  differences  in  the  two  first  columns  are  marked  by  Italics.  The 
 Italics  in  col.  3  mark  where  the  text  of  Jerome  differs  from  both  the  other 
 texts. 
 
 Cod.  Wirceb. 
 Precatus  sum  Dominum  Deum 
 
 meum  et  dixi : 
 
 Domiue  Deus,  magne  et  mirabilis, 
 
 qui  servas  testamentum  tuum, 
 et  niisericordiam  diligentibus  te, 
 et  servantibus  prsecepta  tua  : 
 Peccavimus.  fecimus  injiirias, 
 noruitnus  et  declinavimus 
 
 a  praeceptis  tuis  et  a  judiciis  tuis, 
 et  non  exaudivimus  servos  tuos  pro- 
 
 fetas, 
 qui  loquebantiur  ad  reges  nostros, 
 
 et  ad  omnes  populns  terrae. 
 
 Tibi,  Domine,  justitia  : 
 
 nobis  autem,  et  fralribus  nostris, 
 
 confusio  faciei ; 
 
 Sicut  dies  hie  viro  Jiidce 
 
 et  inhabitaniihus  Hierusalem, 
 
 et  oiiini  Israel, 
 
 qui  proximi  sunt  et  qui  longe  sunt, 
 
 in  qua  eos  disseminasti  ibi, 
 
 contumacia  eorum, 
 
 qua  exprobaveruiit  tibi,  Domine. 
 
 Vulgata  nova. 
 Oravi  Dominum  Deum  meum,l 
 
 et  confessus  sum  ^  et  dixi : 
 
 Ob.secro  Domine  Deus.  magne  et  ter- 
 ribitis, 
 
 ciistodiens  pactum, 
 
 et  niisericordiam  diligentibus  te, 
 
 et  custodieiitihus  maiidala  tua  : 
 
 Peccavimus,  iniquitatem  3  fecimus, 
 
 Impie  egimus,  et  recessimus  et  de- 
 clinavimus 
 
 a  mandatis  tuis  ac  judiciis. 
 
 Non  obedivimus  servis  tuis  prophe- 
 tis, 
 
 qui  locuti  sunt  in  nomine  tuo  regi- 
 bus  nostris, 
 
 principibus  nostris,  patribus  nostris, 
 
 oynnique  populo  terrae. 
 
 Tibi,  Domine,  justitia  : 
 
 nobis  autem  4 
 
 confusio  liiciei ; 
 
 Sicut  f.<(  Iwdit  viro  Juda  5 
 
 et  liabilaloribus  Jerusalem, 
 
 et  omui  Israel, 
 
 his  qui  prope  sunt,  et  his  qui  prortd, 
 
 in  universis  terris  ad  quas  ejecisti 
 eos 
 
 propter  iniquilates  eorum, 
 
 in  quibus  peccaverunt  in  te. 
 
 i  m.  om.  Tol. 
 '  iuique,  Tol. 
 5  Judae,Tol. 
 
 -  et  c.  s.  om.  Tol. 
 ■4  a.  om.  Tol. 
 
 9.  The  Latin  translator  of  Irenseus  was  prob- 
 ably contemporary  with  TertuUian,"  and  his  ren- 
 derings of  the  quotations  from  Scripture  confirin 
 the  conclusions  which  have  lieen  already  drawn  as 
 to  the  currency  of  (substantially)  one  Latin  version. 
 It  does  not  appear  that  lie  had  a  Latin  IMS.  before 
 him  during  the  execution  of  his  work,' but  he  was 
 so  familiar  with  the  common  translation  that  be  re- 
 produces continually  characteristic  phrases  which 
 he  cannot  lie  supposed  to  have  derived  from  any 
 other  source  (Lachmann,  N.  T.  i.  pp.  x.,  xi.). 
 Cyprian  (t  a.  d.  257)  carries  on  the  chain  of  tes- 
 timony far  through  the  next  century;  and  he  is 
 followed  by  Lactaiitius,  Juvenciis,  J.  Firmicns  Ma- 
 ternus,  Hilary  the  deacon  (Ambrosiaster),  Hil- 
 ary of  Poitiers  (t  a.  d.  449),  and  Lucifkr  of 
 Cati;liari  (f  A.  D.  370).  Ambrose  and  Augustine 
 exhibit  a  pecidiar  recension  of  the  same  text,  and 
 Jerome  offers  some  traces  of  it.  From  this  date 
 MSS.  of  pai'ts  of  the  African  text  have  been  pre- 
 served (§  12),  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  trace  the 
 history  of  its  transmission  to  a  later  time. 
 
 10.  But  while   the   earlie.st  Latin  Version  was 
 
 a  It  should  be  added  that  Dodwell  places  him  much 
 later,  at  the  close  of  the  4th  cent.  Couip.  Grabe,  Pro- 
 ^^g.  ad  ben.  ii.  §  3. 
 
 b  It  is  unnecessary  now  to  examine  the  conjectures 
 
 preser\ed  generally  unchanged  in  N.  Africa,  it  fared 
 differently  in  Italy.  There  the  provincial  rudeness 
 of  the  version  was  necessarily  more  offensive,  and 
 the  comparative  familiarity  of  the  leading  bishops 
 with  the  Greek  texts  made  a  revision  at  once  more 
 feasible  and  less  startling  to  their  coi)i;recations. 
 Thus  in  the  fourth  century  a  definite  ecclesiastical 
 recension  (of  the  Gospels  at  least)  appears  to  have 
 been  made  in  N.  Italy  liy  reference  to  the  Greek, 
 which  was  distinguished  by  the  name  of  Jtitla. 
 This  Augustine  recommends  on  the  ground  of  its 
 close  accuracy  and  its  perspicuity  (Aug.  De  Doctr. 
 Christ.  15,  "in  ipsis  interpretation ibus  Itala*  ca'teris 
 prteferatur,  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  per- 
 spicuitate  sententife  "),  and  the  text  of  the  Gospels 
 which  he  follows  is  marked  by  the  latter  charac- 
 teristic when  compared  with  the  African.  In  the 
 other  books  the  difference  cannot  be  traced  with 
 accuracy;  and  it  has  not  yet  been  accurately  deter- 
 mined whether  other  national  recensions  may  not 
 have  existed  (as  seems  certain  from  the  evidence 
 which  the  writer  has  collected)  in  Ireland  (Britain), 
 Gaul,  and  Spaui. 
 
 which  have  been  proposed,  usitati-quee,  iHn-qua.  Tliey 
 were  made  at  a  time  when  the  history  of  the  Old  Latin 
 was  unknown. 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 11.  The  lUda  appears  to  have  been  made  in 
 some  degree  with  authority:  other  revisions  were 
 made  for  private  use,  in  wiiich  such  changes  were 
 introduced  as  suited  the  taste  of  scribe  or  critic. 
 The  next  stage  in  the  deterioration  of  the  text  was 
 the  intermixture  of  these  various  revisions;  so  that 
 at  the  close  of  tlie  fourth  century  the  Gospels  were 
 in  such  a  state  as  to  call  for  tliat  final  recension 
 which  was  made  by  .lerome.  Wliat  was  the  nature 
 of  this  confusion  will  be  seen  from  the  accompany- 
 ing tables  (B  and  C,  on  next  page)  more  clearly 
 than  from  a  lengthened  description. 
 
 12.  The  MS.S.  of  the  Old  Latin  which  have  been 
 preserved  exliiljit  the  various  forms  of  that  version 
 which  have  lieen  already  noticed.  Those  of  the 
 Gospels,  for  the  reason  which  has  been  given,  pre- 
 sent the  dirtt'rent  types  of  text  with  unmi.stakable 
 clearness.  In  tiie  O.  T.  the  MS.  reiiuiiiis  are  too 
 scanty  to  allow  of  a  .satisfactory  classification. 
 
 i.   JISS.  of  the  Old  Latin  Version  of  the  0.   T. 
 
 1.  Fragments  of  Gen.  (xxxvii.,  xxxviii.,  xli., 
 xlvi.,  xlviii.-l.,  parts)  and  Ex.  (x.,  xi.,  xvi., 
 xvii.,  xxiii.-xxvii.,  parts)  from  Cod.  E.  (§  30) 
 of  the  Vulgate  :  Vercellone,  i.  pp.  183-84, 
 307-10. 
 
 2.  Fragments  (scattered  vei'ses)  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch: JMiinter,  Miscell.  Ilafii.  1821,  pp. 
 89-95. 
 
 3.  Fragments  (scattered  verses  of  1,  2  Sam. 
 and  1,  2  Kings,  and  the  Canticles),  given 
 by  Sabatier. 
 
 4.  Corbei.  7,  Saec.  xiii.  (Sabatier),  Esther. 
 
 5.  Pechiatuis  (Sabatier),  Fragm.  Esther. 
 
 6.  Orat.  (Sabatier),  Esther  i.-iii. 
 
 7.  Majoris  IMonast.  Soec.  xii.  (Martianay,  Sa- 
 batier), Job. 
 
 8.  Sangerm.  Psalt.  Ssec.  vii.  (Sabatier). 
 
 9.  Fragments  of  Jeremiah  (xiv.-xli.,  detached 
 verses),  E«el\iel  (xl.-xlviii.,  detached  frag- 
 ments). Daniel  (iii.  15-23,  3.3-.50,  viii.,  xi., 
 fragments),  Hosea  (ii.-vi.,  fragments),  from 
 i  palimpsest  BIS.  at  Wiirzburg  (Ssec.  vi., 
 vii.):  iMiinter,  Miscell.  llnfii.  1S21. 
 
 11.  Fragmenta   Hos.  Am.  Mich ed. 
 
 E.  Ranl<e,  1858,  &c.     (This  l-ook  the  writer 
 has  not  seen.) 
 
 12.  Bodl.  Auct.  F.  4,  32.  Fragments  of 
 Deuteronomy  and  the  Prophets,  "  Griece  et 
 Latine  litteris  Saxonicis,"  Soec.  viii.,  is." 
 
 ii.  MSS.  of  the  Apocryphal  books. 
 
 1.  Reg.  3564,  Ssec.  ix.  (Sabatier),  Tob.  and 
 Jud. 
 
 2,  3.  Sangerm.  4,  15,  Ssec.  ix.  (Sabatier), 
 Tob.  and  Jud. 
 
 4.  Vatic.   (Keg.  Suec),  Srec.  vii.,  Tob. 
 
 5.  Corbei.  7  (Sabatier),  Jud. 
 
 6.  Pechian.   (Sabatier),  Sajc.  x.,  Jud. 
 
 The  text  of  the  remaining  books  of  the  Vetus 
 Laiiiia  not  having  been  revised  by  Jerome 
 is  retained  in  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3455 
 
 «  To  these  must  probably  be  added  the  MSS.  of 
 Genesis  and  the  Psalter  in  the  possession  of  JjOrd  Ash- 
 burnhiim,  said  to  be  "  of  the  fourth  century." 
 
 The  text  of  the  Oxford  MS.  (No.  12)  is  extremely 
 interesting,  and  offers  many  coincidences  with  the  ear- 
 liest African  readings.  The  passages  contained  in  it 
 are  (a)  Deut.  xxxi.  7  ;  24-30  ;  xxxii  1-4.  (/3)  Hos.  ii. 
 18  a  ;  iv.  1-3  a  :  9  a  ;  vi.  1 6,  2  ;  16  ;  x.  12  a  \  xii  6  ;  viii. 
 3,  4.  Anns  iii.  8  ;  v.  3  ;  14.  Mich.  iii.  2 ;  iv.  1,  2  ; 
 5  (parti ;  V.  2  ;  vi.  8  ;  vii.  6,  7.  Joel  iii.  18.  Obad. 
 15.  .Ion.  i.  8  A,  9.  Nah.  iii.  13.  Ilab.  ii  4  6  ;  iii.  3. 
 Zephan.  i.  14-16  ;  18  (part).     Agg.  ii.  7,  8.     Zech.  i. 
 
 iii.  BISS.  of  the  N.  T. 
 (1.)  Of  the  Gospels. 
 
 African  (i.  e.  unrevised)  text. 
 
 a.  €"'1.  Vcrcellensis^  at  Vercelli,  vpi'itten 
 by  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Vercelli  in  the 
 4th  cent.  Published  by  Irici,  1748, 
 and  Bianchini,  Ev.  Quadr.  1749. 
 
 b.  Cod.  I'eronensis,  at  Verona,  of  the  4th 
 or  5th  cent.  Published  by  Bianchini 
 (as  above). 
 
 c.  Cod.  Colberlhms,  in  Bibl.  Imp.  at 
 Paris,  of  the  lUh  cent.  Published  by 
 Sabatier,   Versitmes  anilqiue. 
 
 d.  Cod.  Cliiromonlaiius,  in  the  Vatican 
 Libr.,  of  the  4th  or  5th  cent.  It  con- 
 tains a  great  part  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
 is  mainly  African  in  character.  Pub- 
 lished by  Mai,  Script,  vet.  twv.  Coll. 
 iii.  1828. 
 
 e.  Cod.  Vindobonensis,  at  Vienna,  of  5th 
 or  6tli  cent.  It  contains  fragments  of 
 St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  Edited  by 
 Alter  in  two  German  periodicals. 
 
 y.  Cod.  Boh/Aensis,  at  Turin,  of  the  5th 
 cent.  It  contains  parts  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew and  St.  Mark.  The  chief  parts 
 pul)lished  by  Tischendorf  in  the  Jalir- 
 biicher  d.  Literatur,  Vienna,  1847  ff. 
 The  text  is  a  remarkable  revision  of 
 the  African. 
 
 ff.  The  readings  of  a  Speculum,  published 
 by  Mai,  Patruni  nova  colkclio,  i.  2, 
 1852.  Comp.  Tregelles,  Introduction, 
 240. 
 
 h.  Cod.  Sangallensis,  of  the  5th  or  4th 
 cent.  It  contains  fragments  of  St. 
 jMatthew  and  St.  Mark.  Transcribed 
 by  Tischendorf. 
 
 t.  Cod.  Palat.,  at  Vienna,  of  the  5th 
 cent.  Published  by  Tischdf.  1847.  A 
 very  important  MS.,  containing  St. 
 John,  and  St.  Luke  nearly  entire,  and 
 considerable  parts  of  the  other  Gos- 
 pels. 
 
 To  these  must  be  added  a  very  remark- 
 able fragment  of  St.  Luke  published 
 by  A.  JI.  Ceriani,  from  a  MS.  of  the 
 6th  cent,  in  the  Ambrosian  Libr.  at 
 Milan:  Jfonum.  Sacra,  ....  1861; 
 and  a  purple  fr.agment  at  Dublin 
 (Ssec.  V.)  containing  Matt.  xii.  13-23, 
 published  by  Dr.  Todd  in  Proceed- 
 ings of  R.  I.  A.  iii.  374. 
 
 k.    Cod.  Corbeiensis,  St.  Matt.     Edited 
 by  l^Iartianay  and  Sabatier. 
 Italic  revision.* 
 
 I.  Cod.  Brixianus,  of  the  6th  cent.  The 
 best  type  of  the  Italic  text.  Published 
 by  Bianchini,  I.  c.  Comp.  Lachra. 
 N.  T.  i.  Pr«f.  xiv. 
 
 4  (part) ;  viii.  16,  17,  19  b  :  ix.  9  ;  xiii.  5  ;  7.  Mai.  i. 
 6  (part),  10  h,  11  ;  ii.  7 ;  iii.  1.  Zech.  ii.  8  *;  Mai.  iv 
 2,  13  ;  5,  6  a.  (y)  Gen.  i.  1-ii.  3  ;  Ex.  xiv.  24-xv.  3 ; 
 Is.  iv.  1-v.  7  ;  Iv.  1-5  ;  P.s.  xli   1-4  ;  Gen.  xxii.  1-19. 
 
 b  The  critical  value  of  these  revised  ante-Hiero- 
 nymian  texts  is  unduly  underrated.  Each  recension, 
 as  the  representative  of  a  revision  of  the  oldest  text 
 by  the  help  of  old  Greek  MSS.,  is  perhaps  not  infe- 
 rior to  the  recension  of  Jerome  ;  and  the  MSS.  in 
 which  they  are  severally  contained,  though  numer 
 ically  inferior  to  Vulgate  MSS.,  are  scarcely  inferior  il 
 real  authority. 
 
3456  VULGATE,  THE 
 
 11    1    11 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 «•       III 
 
 pi-till 
 
 gii    3-:ll 
 
 ■5  3  ^O 
 
 •2 
 
 S  a^     &5 
 
 ^' 
 
 is" 
 
 J^|3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 b 
 
 M 
 
 e 
 
 !; 
 
 J3 
 
 i%  -s   s 
 
 r 
 
 '■rt 
 
 g 
 
 i  •■§ 
 
 o 
 
 3-3     S     c 
 
 s 
 
 c. 
 
 ^  3 
 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 
 c  »  2    ■  fe  b 
 
 iiiiil 
 
 si    ~ 
 
 e 
 
 c: 
 
 1l"^«  gill  if  "^'lilP    I  ^|i  ^  -^n-i 
 
 n.   w   -  „(,  ^    -    ^    ^  J    ^-D   ^,   =     _      .        *i  -  ^    ^  y 
 
 <;  -£5.     .     a     ^-s  ;>  s  = 
 
 d  -js-2  >< 
 
 ■«  S  s  S.-2-C  c  ~  C  2'"  £  P  2     "^  =  S.'i  v'i  =■-  -  -  3   -2 
 
 B  3  = 
 
 _     ■  -  ^  3 
 
 Sli   l^^llcl   11   ""^?"    =^ 
 
 i  *s  '^  —  .2r  2  ^  c  «      S  >■*=■-  ^  ^  "  H  -  "^  — 
 
 B   - 
 
 .  e3       3 
 
 .2   .'3 
 
 --2  S  ?  ?     g  «    J=-  S  s-5  2 
 
 w      p-s    f>  .- 
 
 i-5    -2     «5S.35s     s';;     oSsa^s     =■  «■»    " 
 
 *  ^.-^  11   i &:■=  i § .. S-    i &■; r'i s s-^ §  =-  = 
 
 .nr^ 33 Ss ij^ 6''= '^ ^ s  --^^ ^ iz^-iz.^^  '^ 
 
 s —  ^ 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 ."2 
 
 3 
 
 § 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 i§? 
 
 xj» 
 
 i§ 
 
 §.■0  « 
 
 S 
 
 -a  =  g 
 
 o 
 
 ill 
 
 £ 
 
 5^  s 
 
 ■a 
 1^  ° 
 
 2  S  2> 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 ^1^' 
 
 s 
 
 rt  £  ; 
 
 2^g| 
 
 i^5 
 
 §1.1° 
 
 c- 
 
 ~i     3     ■=    |gh;;S     3        I     si 
 ■sic    ■S        c^     - 
 
 IXm        -P-aBV^S*-*^      —     -     '33? 
 
 i:  H   .£ 
 
 i"  ;  ^.c'.^  "^  P  £  ~"P     S^S^e    --l-S 
 
 .S33r  =  s-s^:gss-^  s-5-;g  -5 
 
 M^'gg'siss   $ui 
 
 S22     5.'c-e-2-eS  H  2        EC'S*!    <^^■s2.3T' 
 
 «5.a     S-Sss-Sfe^S^ 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 m.    Cod.   Monncensk,   of  the   6th  cent, 
 franscrilied  by  'Fischendorf. 
 Irish  (British)  revision." 
 
 (a.)  Cambridge  Univ.  Lihr.  Kk.  1,  24. 
 Skc.  viii.  y  St.  Luke,  i:  15-eiul,  and 
 St.  .Tohn,  i.  18-xx.  17.  Bentley's  X. 
 Capitula  wanting  in  St.  Luke;  xiy.  in 
 St.  Jolni.  No  Ammonian  Sections. 
 (Plate  ii.  fig.  1.) 
 
 (^.)  Cambridge  Unin.  Libr.  Ti.  G,  32. 
 Saec.  viii.-x.  Tiie  Book  of  Deer. 
 St.  Matt,  i.-vii.  2-3.  St.  Mark,  i.  1, 
 T.  36.  St.  Luke,  i.  1,  iv.  2.  St.  John, 
 entire.  Very  many  old  and  peculiar 
 readings.  Nearer  Vulg.  than  (a),  liut 
 very  carelessly  written.  No  Annnonian 
 Sections    or  Capitula.     Belonged    to 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3457 
 
 a  It  would  be  impossible  to  enter  in  detail  in  the 
 present  place  into  the  peculiarities  of  the  text  presented 
 by  this  group  of  MSS.  It  will  be  observed  that  copies 
 are  included  in  it  which  represent  historically  the 
 Irish  (rj,  e),  Scotch  (^),  Mercian  (f),  Northumbrian  (g), 
 and  —  if  we  may  trust  the  very  uncert;iiu  tradifion 
 which  represents  the  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  as  written  by 
 Gildas  (conip.  Lib.  Landav.  p.  61.5,  ed.  1840)  —  Welsh 
 churches.  Bentley.  who  had  collated  more  or  less 
 completely  four  of  them,  observed  their  coincidence 
 in  remarkable  readings,  but  the  individual  dilTerences 
 of  the  copies,  no  less  than  their  wide  range  both  in 
 place  and  age,  exclude  the  idea  that  all  were  derived 
 from  one  source.  They  stand  out  as  a  remarkable  mon- 
 ument of  the  independence,  the  antiquity,  and  the  in- 
 fluence of  British  (Irish)  Christianity. 
 
 For  the  present  it  must  suffice  to  give  a  few  special 
 readings  which  show  the  extent  and  chiiructer  of  the 
 variations  of  this  family  from  other  families  of  MSS. 
 The  notation  of  the  text  is  preserved  for  the  sake  of 
 brevity. 
 
 Matt.  viii.  24.  —  Fluctibus -}-era<  aulem.  (enim  y) 
 illis  ventua  contrarius  (contr.  vent.  ^)  (y  6  e  f ). 
 
 Matt.  X.  29.  —  *'(/if  voluntate  Dei  pnlris  restri  qui 
 in  cmtis  est  (sine  p.  vol.  q.  e.  in  c.  e).  Sine  p.  v.  vol. 
 qui  inc.  e.  ^**.  Sine  patre  vestro  voluutate,  etc.,  ^* 
 (y  e  ^).       _ 
 
 Matt.  xiv.  35.  —  Loci  iltius  venenmt  el  [om.  ven.  et, 
 S  ^]  adoraverunt  earn  et  (fi  e  Q. 
 
 Matt,  xxvii.  49.  —  Alius  autem  accepta  lancea  pupu- 
 git  (pupungit)  latus  ejus  et  exit  (-iit  -ivit)  aqua  et  san- 
 guis (y  5  e). 
 
 Mark  xiii.  18.  —  Ut  hieme  nnn  fiat  (-et)  fu^a  vestra 
 (y  S  e)  vl  sahbato  (5  e),  ut  non  fra  {s\q.)  fuga  vestra 
 hieme  vet  sabbnto  (^). 
 
 Luke  xxiii.  2.  —  Nostram  +  et  solventem  legem  (-)- 
 nostram  ^)  et  prophetns  (S  e  f). 
 
 Luke  xxiv.  1.  —  Ad  mon.  -)-  Maria  Magdalena  et 
 altera  Maria  et  qucedam  cum  eis  {S  e). 
 
 John  xix.  80. — Cum  aulem  expiravit  (asp.  e  trdiset 
 gpm  (sic)  ^)  velamentum  (velum  a  €  ^)  tejytpli  scissum 
 est  medium  a  summo  usque  (ad  a)  denrsum  (aye  f ). 
 
 John  xxi.  6.  —  Invenietis  -|-  Dixerunt  autem  Per  to- 
 tam  noctem  laborantes  nihil  cepimus  :  in  verhn  au,t/-rn 
 tuo  mittimus  (laxttemus  [sic  i.  e.  laxabimus]  rete  e, 
 mitemus  (sic)  f )  (y  e  ^). 
 
 Other  readings  more  or  less  characteristic  are  Matt. 
 ii.  14,  matrem  om  ejus ;  ii.  15,  est  om  a  Domino ;  iv.  9, 
 vade  -{-retro  ;  iv.  6,  de  te  -|-  "t  custodiant  te  in  om- 
 nibus viis  tuis ;  v.  5,  lugent  -\-  nunc ;  v.  48,  sicut 
 pater  ;  vi.  13,  paliaris  nos  indtiri,  etc. 
 
 As  a  more  continuous  specimen  the  following  read- 
 ings occur  in  one  chapter  in  tlie  Hereford  Gospels  in 
 which  this  Latin  t<xt,  with  a  few  others  only,  agrees 
 closely  with  the  Greek  :  Luke  xxiv.  6,  esset  in  Gal. 
 7,  tertia  die ;  16.  agnoscerent  eum ;  20,  tradiderunt 
 eum  ;  24,  viderunt ;  28,  finxit  longius  ire ;  38,  quare 
 rogitationes :  89.  prdes  meos ;  44,  hcsc  sunt  verba  mra 
 quee,  locutits  sum  ad  vos.     Other  remarkable  readings  in 
 
 monks  of  Deer  in  Al)erdeenshire 
 Comp.  Mr.  IL  Bradshaw  in  thf 
 Printed  Catuloyue.b    [See  p.  3482  «.] 
 
 (•y.)  Lichfield,  Book  of  St.  Chad.  Stec. 
 viii.  St.  Matt.,  St.  Mark,  and  St. 
 Luke,  i.-iii.  9.     Bentley's  |-) 
 
 (S.)  Oxford,  Bodl.  D.  24' (3946).  Sffic. 
 viii.  Tlie  Gospels  of  Mac  lieyol,  or 
 the  Rushworth  MS.  Bentley's  ^. 
 No  Capit.,  Sect.,  or  Prefaces.  A  col- 
 lation of  the  Latin  text  in  the  Lindis- 
 farne  text  of  St.  Matt,  and  St.  Mark 
 (comp.  p.  3475,  note  a),  together  with 
 the  Northumbrian  gloss,  has  been  jmb- 
 lished  by  Rev.  J.  Stevenson.  Defi- 
 cient Luke  iv.  29-viii.  38.<^ 
 
 (e.)  Oxford,   C.  C.  Coll.  122.     Skc.  x., 
 
 the  same  passage  are  8,  konim  verhorum  ;  18,  Respon 
 dens  iiiius  om.  et ;  21,  quo  lirf.c  omnia  ;  27,  et  erat  in 
 cipiens  :  29,  inclinata  est  dies  jam. 
 
 A  compari.son  of  the  few  readings  from  the  Gospels 
 given  in  the  Epistle  of  Gn,D.\s  according  to  the  Cam- 
 bridge MS.  ( £/;i(i'.  Libr.  Dd.  1,  17),  for  the  text  in 
 Stevenson's  edition  is  by  no  means  accurate,  shows 
 .some  interesting  coincidences  with  these  Irish  (Brit- 
 ish) MSS.  (For  the  explanation  of  the  additional  ref- 
 erences see  §  31.) 
 
 Matt.  v.  15.  —  Supra  y  5  e  ^  K  W  F  (6)  ;  v.  16,  mng- 
 nificent  S  (a,  b)  ;  v.  19,  qui  eiii)n  y  e  P  (a,  i)  ;  vii.  2, 
 jitdicabitur  de  vobis  e  («,  b)  ;  vii.  3.  non  cousideras{a); 
 vii.  4,  in  oculo  tuo  est  y ;  vii.  6,  mis--ritis  (a,  b)  ;  vii. 
 15,  attendite  -\-  vobis  y  5  <J>  C*) ;  vii.  17,  bonus  fructus 
 6  0  (a,  A);  id  el  inala  malos ;  vii.  23,  operarii  iniqui- 
 talis  {a);  vii.  27,  impigerunt  0;  x.  28,  ft  corpus  et 
 animaiii,  e,  c.  et  an.  y  S  ',  XV.  14,  ca-ci  duces smit ;  xvi. 
 18,  infirm  y  6  e  f  B  II  0  Z  K  (^  («)  ;  xvi.  19,  qutr.cun- 
 que  ;  id.  eriint  ligata  5  {b) ;  xxiii.  3,  vera  opera  5  ^</>  ; 
 id.,  et  ipsi  non  f.  5  e  ^{b)\  xxiii.  13,  qui  claud.  D.  id., 
 vos  autem  5  ^  11  0  </>. 
 
 Thus  of  twenty-one  readings  which  differ  from  Cod. 
 Am.  thirteen  are  given  in  one  or  other  of  those  MSS. 
 which  have  been  supposed  to  present  a  typical  Bi-itish 
 (Irish)  text,  anil^of  these  eleven  ai-e  found  in  the 
 Rusiiworth  MS.  alone.  While  on  the  other  hand  nine 
 readings  agree  with  Cod.  Veron.  and  seven  with  Cod. 
 VercelL,  and  every  reading  is  supported  by  some  old 
 authority.  Thus,  though  the  range  of  comparison  is 
 very  limited,  the  evidence  of  tlie.se  quotations,  as  far 
 as  it  goes,  supports  the  belief  in  a  distinct  British 
 text. 
 
 In  the  Evangelic  quotations  in  the  printed  text  ol 
 St.  Patrick,  out  of  sevenieen  variations,  eight  (as  far 
 as  I  can  find)  are  supported  by  no  known  Latiu  au 
 thority  :  the  remainder  are  found  in  y,  S,  e  or  0.  Ba- 
 CHiARius  I  have  not  been  able  to  examine,  though  his 
 writings  are  not  unlikely  to  offer  some  illustrations  of 
 the  early  text. 
 
 Sedulius  {Opus  Peischale),  SiS  might  have  been  ex- 
 pected from  his  foreign  training,  gives  in  tlie  main  a 
 pure  Vulgate  text  in  his  quotations  from  the  Vulgate. 
 When  he  differs  from  it  (e.  g.  Luke  x.  19,  20  ;  John 
 xi.  43,  prodi),  he  often  appears  to  quote  from  memory, 
 and  differs  from  all  MSS. 
 
 The  quotations  given  at  length  in  the  British  copy 
 of  Juveucus  (Camb.  Univ.  Libr.  Ff.  4,  42)  would  prob 
 ably  repay  a  careful  examination. 
 
 b  This  MS.,  in  common  with  many  Irish  MSS.  (e.g. 
 Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1802,  2795.  the  Book  of  MacDurnan, 
 and  some  others,  as  Harl.  1775,  Coilmi.  Tib.  A  ii.)  sepa- 
 rates the  genealogy  in  St.  Matt,  from  the  rest  of  the 
 Gospel,  closing  v.  17  with  the  words  Finit  Prologus, 
 and  then  adding  Inripll  Evangellum. 
 
 0  The  reading  of  this  MS.  in  Matt,  xxi,  28  ff.  is  very 
 remarkable  :  Homo  quidam  habebat  duos  filios  et  ac- 
 cedens  ad    primum  dixit  fill  vade  operare    in  viam  * 
 
 nieajn    ille  autem  respondens  dixit  eo  dne  et  non  iit 
 
3458  VULGATE,  THE 
 
 xi.  ?    Bentley's  C.     Has  Canons  and 
 Prefaces,  but  no  Sect,  or  Capit. 
 (^.)  Hereford  (/S(7avj?»)  Gospels.   Sfec.  viii. 
 (ix.).     The    four    Gospels,    with    two 
 small     lacuniB.     Without    "Prefaces, 
 Canons,     Capitula,     or    Sections.     A 
 very    important    copy,    and    probahly 
 British  in  origin."     (Plate  ii.  fig.  5.) 
 (,j.)    T/ie  Book  of  Armagh  (all  N.  T.), 
 Trin.  Coll.  Dublin :  written  A.  u.  807. 
 Conip.    Proceediiiys  of  R.    I.  A.  iii. 
 pp.  316,  356.     Sir  W.  Betham,  Irish 
 Antiq.  lieserirc/ies.  ii.* 
 (6.)   A    copy    found    in   the    Domhnach 
 Airrjid  (Royal  I.  Acad.),  Saec.  v.,  vi. 
 Comp.   Petrie,    Transnvlions  of  R.  1. 
 A.,  xviii.  1838.     O'Curry's  Lectures, 
 Dublin,  1861,  pp.  321  if.,  where  a  fac- 
 simile is  given, 
 (i.)  (k)  Two  copies  in  Trin.  Coll.  Dublin, 
 said  to  be  "  ante-Hieronymian,   Sffic. 
 vii."  '' 
 To  these  nnist  be  added  a  large  number  of  Irish, 
 Including  under   this    term    North  British   MSS., 
 which  exhibit  a  text  more  nearly  approaching   the 
 Vulgate,  but  3et  with  characteristic  old  readings. 
 Such  are:  — 
 
 Brit.  INIus.,  Harl.  1802.     Stec.  x.-xii.     A.  i>. 
 
 1138?     Prefaces  all  at  the  beginning.     No 
 
 Cupilula  or  Sections.    Bentley's  W.    (Plate 
 
 ii.  fig.  4.) 
 
 Brit.   i\Ius.,  Harl.  1023.     Skc.  x.-xii.  ?     No 
 
 Capilida  or  Sections.     (Plate  ii.  fig.  3.) 
 Lambeth.       T/ie    Book    of    Mac    Durnnn.'i 
 Sajc.  x.     Has  Sections,  but  no  Prefiices  or 
 Canons. 
 Dublin,  T.  C.  C.     The  Book  of  Kells.    Sa?c. 
 
 viii. 
 Dublin,  T.  C.  C.    The  Book  of  Durrmv.  Ssec. 
 
 viii. 
 Dublin,  T.  C.  C.   The  Book  of  Dimma.   Sac. 
 
 viii. 
 Dublin,    T.   C.    C.      The   Book   of  Moling. 
 Ssec.  viii.f 
 Gallicon  (?)  revision./ 
 
 Brit.  Mus.,  Eijerton,  609,  formerly  Mojoons 
 Moniislcrii ;  iv.  Gospp.  deficient  from 
 Mark  vi.  56  to  Luke  xi.  1.  This  MS.  is 
 called  mm,  and  classified  under  Vulgate 
 MSS.  in  the  editions  of  the  N.  T.,  but  it 
 has  lieen  used  only  after  Calmet's  very  im- 
 perfect collation,  and  offers  a  distinct  type 
 of  text.  I'lwf.  Con.     No  Capitula. 
 
 accedens  autem  ad  alterum  dixit  similiter  at  ille  re- 
 spondens  ait  nolo,  postea  autem  poenitentia  motus  abiit 
 in  viniam.*  quis  ex  duob  :  fecit  voluutatem  patris. 
 dicuQt  *  novissimus. 
 
 '«  For  the  opportunity  of  examining  this  MS.  the 
 writer  is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  J.  Jebb, 
 D.  D.,  Canon  of  Hereford. 
 
 b  This  MS.  contains  the  Ep.  to  the  Laodicenes,  with 
 the  note  Sed  Hiriinumus  ea»>  negat  ewe  Pat/li  : 
 Betham,  ii.  2C3.  The  stichonietry  is  as  follows  :  ]Ma- 
 tkeux  verxus  hahet  MMDCC,  Marcus  MDCC,  Lucas 
 MMDCCC,  Johaimis  MMCCC.    Id.  p.  318.* 
 
 c  Dr.  Reeves  undertook  to  publish  the  text  of  the 
 Book  of  Armagh,  with  collations  of  i,»c,and  other 
 MSS.  in  T.  C.  D.,  but  the  writer  has  been  unable  to 
 learn  whether  he  will  carry  out  his  design.  The  MSS. 
 1]  -K  the  writer  knows  only  by  description,  and  very 
 Im  perfectly. 
 
 ''  Kas-similes  of  many  of  these  "  Irish  '"  MSS.  are 
 given  in  \Vestwood"s   Palceograpliia  Sacra  and  in  0'- 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 (2.)  Of  the  Acts  and  Epistles. 
 
 n.  Cod.  Bohbiensis,  at  Vienna.  A  few 
 fragments  of  the  Acts  and  Cath.  Epp 
 Edited  by  Tischendorf,  Jahrbiicher  d 
 Lit.  1.  c. 
 
 0.  Cod.  Coi-bei.,  a  MS.  of  Ep.  of  St, 
 James.  Published  by  Martianay,  1695. 
 
 J).  (Of  St.  Paul's  ICpp.)  Cod.  Clarom.^ 
 the  Latin  text  of  D2.  Published  by 
 Tischendorf. 
 
 q.  (Of  St.  Paul's  Epp.)  Cod.  Saixjerm., 
 the  Latin  text  of  K5,  said  to  have  an 
 independent  value,  but  imperfectly 
 known. 
 
 r.  (Of  St.  Paul's  Epp.)  Cod.  Boern.,  the 
 Latin  text  of  G^,  is  in  the  main  an 
 old  co|)y,  adapted  in  some  points  to 
 the  Greek. 
 
 s.   (See  Gospels.) 
 
 t.  Fragments  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  tran- 
 scribed at  Munich  by  Tischendorf. 
 
 u,  V.  (Acts)  the  Latin  text  of  Di  and  E3 
 (trod,  lieza;  and  Cod.  Laud.). 
 To  these  must  be  added,  from  the  result  of  a 
 partial  collection  [collation?]:  — 
 
 xi.  Oxford,  Bodl.  3418  (Selden,  30), 
 Acts.  SiEC.  viii.,  vii.  An  uncial  MS. 
 of  the  highest  interest.  Deficient  xiv 
 26,  fdei — XV.  32,  cum  esserU.  Bentl. 
 ^2.  Among  its  characteristic  readings 
 may  be  noticed :  v.  34,  foras  modicum 
 apostolos  secedere:  ix.  40,  surge  in 
 nomine  Donani  Ihu  Xti.;  xi.  17,  ne 
 daret  illis  Spirituni  Sanctum  credenti- 
 bus  in  nomine  Ihu  Xti.;  xiii.  14, 
 Paulus  et  Barnabas;  xvi.  1,  et  cum 
 circuisset  has  nationes  pervenit  in 
 Deriien.     (Plate  i.  fig.  4.) 
 
 a-2.  Oxford,  Bodl.  Laud.  Lat.  108  (E, 
 67).  Ssec.  ix.  St.  Paul's  Epp.  in 
 Saxon  letters.  Ends  Hebr.  xi.  34, 
 aciem  (jladii.  Corrected  ap])arently 
 by  three  hands.  The  original  text 
 was  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin,  but  it 
 has  lieen  much  erased.  In  many  cases 
 it  agrees  with  d  almost  or  quite  alone: 
 e.fj.  Rom.  ii.  14,  16,  iii.  22,  26,  x.  20, 
 XV.  13,  23,  27,  30.  The  Epi.stles  to 
 Thess.  are  placed  before  the  I'.p.  to 
 Coloss.  This  arrangement,  which  is 
 given  by  Augustine  {L>e  Doclr.  Christ. 
 ii.  13),  appears  to  have  prevailed  in 
 early  English   MSS.,  and   occurs   in 
 
 Curry's  Lectures.  The  text  of  most  of  them  (even  of 
 those  collated  by  Bentley)  is  very  imperfectly  known, 
 and  it  passes  by  a  very  gradual  transition  into  the  or- 
 dinary type  of  Vulgate.  The  whole  question  of  the 
 general  character  and  the  specific  varieties  of  these 
 MSS.  requires  careful  investigation.  Tlie  Table  (F) 
 will  give  some  idea  of  their  variations  from  the  com- 
 mon text.  The  Stow  St.  John,  at  present  in  Lord 
 Ashburnham's  collection,  probably  belongs  to  this 
 family. 
 
 e  These  four  MSS  I  know  only  by  Mr.  AVestwood's 
 descriptions  in  his  Patcpogrnphia  Sacra ;  and  to  Mr. 
 Westwood  belongs  the  credit  of  first  directing  attention 
 to  Irish  MSS.  after  the  time  of  Bentley. 
 
 /  The  text  of  this  recension,  which  I  believe  to  be 
 contained  also  in  s  1,  and  Bentley's  p  (comp.  p.  3477, 
 note  c)  is  closely  allied  to  the  British  type.  As  to  the 
 Spanish  text  I  have  no  sufficient  materials  to  form  an 
 estimate  of  its  character. 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 the  Saxon  Cambridge  MS.,  and  sev- 
 eral other  JMSS.  of  the  Bible  quoted 
 by  Hody,  p.  664.  Comp.  §  31  (2)  8." 
 The  well-known  Harkian  MS.  1772 
 (§  32,  (2)  3)  ought  to  be  reckoned 
 rather  among  the  Old  than  the  Vul- 
 gate texts.  A  good  collection  of  its 
 more  striking  variations  is  given  in  tlie 
 Harleian  Catalogue.  In  the  Acts  and 
 Epistles  (no  less  than  in  the  Gospels) 
 there  are  indications  of  an  uin-evised 
 (African)  and  revised  texts,  but  the 
 materials  are  as  yet  too  imperfect  to 
 allow  of  an  exact  determination  of  the 
 different  types. 
 (3.)  In  the  Apocalypse  the  text  depends  on  m 
 and  early  quotations,  especially  in  Primasius. 
 
 13.  It  will  be  seen  that  for  the  chief  part  of  the 
 O.  T.,  and  for  considerable  parts  of  the  N.  T.  {e.g. 
 Apoc.  Acts),  the  Old  text  rests  upon  early  quota- 
 tions (principally  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Lucifer  of 
 Cagliari,  for  the  African  text,  Ambrose  and  Au- 
 gusthie  for  the  Italic).  These  were  collected  by 
 Sabatier  with  great  dilige)ice  up  to  the  date  of  his 
 work;  but  more  recent  discoveries  (c.  [/.  of  the 
 Konian  Speculum)  have  furnished  a  large  store  of 
 new  materials  which  have  not  yet  been  fully  em- 
 ployed. (The  great  work  of  Sabatier,  already  often 
 referred  to,  is  still  the  standard  work  on  the  Latin 
 Versions.  His  great  fault  is  his  neglect  to  distin- 
 guish the  different  types  of  text,  African,  Italic, 
 British,  Gallic ;  a  task  which  yet  remains  to  be 
 done.  The  earliest  work  on  the  subject  was  by 
 Flaminius  Nobilius,  Vttus  Test.  sec.  LXX.  Litt'ine 
 redditum  ....  Komse,  1588.  The  new  collations 
 made  by  Tischendorf,  Mai,  Miinter,  Ceriani,  have 
 been  noticed  separately.)  [See  also  the  addition  at 
 the  end  of  this  article.  —  A.] 
 
 III.  The  Labors  of  .Jekomk.  — 14.  It  has 
 been  seen  that  at  the  close  of  the  4th  centin-y  the 
 Latin  texts  of  the  Bible  current  in  the  Western 
 Church  had  fallen  into  the  greatest  corruption. 
 The  evil  was  yet  greater  in  prospect  than  at  the 
 time;  for  the  separation  of  the  East  and  West, 
 politically  and  ecclesiastically,  was  growing  immi- 
 nent, and  the  fear  of  the  perpetuation  of  false  and 
 conflicting  Latin  copies  proportionately  greater. 
 But  in  the  crisis  of  danger  the  great  scholar  was 
 raised  up  who  probably  alone  for  1,500  years  pos- 
 sessed the  qualifications  necessary  for  producing  an 
 original  version  of  the  Scriptures  for  the  use  of  the 
 Latin  churches.  Jerome  —  Eusebius  Ilieronynuis 
 —  was  born  in  329  a.  d.  at  Stridon  in  Dalmutia, 
 and  died  at  Bethlehem  in  420  A.  D.  From  his 
 early  youth  he  was  a  vigorous  student,  and  age  re- 
 moved nothing  from  his  zeal.  He  has  been  well 
 called  the  Western  Origen  (Hody,  p.  350),  and  if  he 
 wanted  the  largeness  of  heart  and  generous  sym- 
 pathies of  the  great  AlexaTidrine,  he  had  more 
 chastened  critical  skill  and  closer  concentration  of 
 potfer.  After  long  and  self-denyhig  studies  in  the 
 East  and  West,  Jerome  went  to  Rome  a.  d.  382, 
 probably  at  the  request  of  Damasus  the  I 'ope,  to 
 assist  in  an  important  .synod  {Kp.  cviii.  0),  where  he 
 seems  to  have  been  at  once  attached  to  the  sei'vice 
 of  the  Pope  (Ep.  cxxiii.  10).     His  active  Biblical 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3459 
 
 a  A  very  interesting  historical  notice  of  the  use  of 
 the  Old  Latin  in  tlie  North  of  England  is  given  by 
 Bede,  who  says  of  Ceolfrid,  a  contemporary  abbot, 
 "  Bibliothecam  utrius((Uo  Monasterii  [WearmoutU 
 and  .Tarrow]  magna   gemiuasse  iudustria.     Ita  ut  tres 
 
 labors  date  from  this  epoch,  and  in  examining  them 
 it  will  be  convenient  to  follow  the  order  of  time, 
 noticing  (1)  the  Revision  of  the  Old  Latin  Version 
 of  the  jSf.  T.;  (2)  the  Revision  of  the  Old  Latin 
 Version  tfrom  the  (Jreek)  of  the  O.  T. ;  (3)  the  New 
 Version  of  the  0.  T.  from  the  Hebrew. 
 
 (1.)  The  Jievlsion  of  the  Old  Lutiii  Version  of 
 the  N.  T.  — 15.  Jerome  had  not  been  long  at 
 Rome  (a.  d.  383)  when  Damasus  consulted  him  on 
 points  of  Scriptural  criticism  (A/».  xix.  "  Dilectionis 
 tuiE  est  ut  ardenti  illo  strenuitatis  ingenio  .... 
 vivo  sensu  scribas").  The  answers  which  he  re- 
 ceived U'PP-  XX.,  xxi.)  may  well  have  encouraged 
 him  to  seek  for  greater  services;  aud  apparently  in 
 the  same  year  he  applied  to  Jerome  for  a  revision 
 of  the  current  Latin  Version  of  the  N.  T.  by  the 
 help  of  the  Greek  original.  Jerome  was  fully  sensi- 
 ble of  the  prejudices  which  such  a  work  would  ex- 
 cite among  those  "  who  thought  that  ignorance 
 was  holiness  "  {I'Jp  ad  Afire,  xxvii.),  but  the  need 
 of  it  was  urgent.  "  There  were,"  he  says,  "  almost 
 as  many  ibrms  of  text  as  copies  "  ("  tot  sunt  ex- 
 emplaria  pene  quot  codices,"  Prcef.  in  Evi\).  Mis- 
 takes had  been  introduced  "  by  false  transcription^ 
 by  clumsy  corrections,  and  by  careless  interpola- 
 tion "  {id  ),  and  in  the  confusion  which  had  ensued 
 the  one  remedy  was  to  go  back  to  the  original 
 source  (Grseca  Veritas,  Grseca  origo).  The  Gospels 
 had  naturally  suffered  most.  Thoughtless  scribes 
 inserted  additional  details  in  the  narrative  from  the 
 ])arallels,  and  changed  the  forms  of  expre.ssion  to 
 those  with  which  they  had  been  originally  famil- 
 iarized (/'/.).  Jerome  therefore  applied  himself  to 
 these  first  ("  ha;c  prsesens  praefatiuncula  poUicetur 
 quatuur  tantum  Evangelia  ").  But  his  aim  was  to 
 revise  the  Old  Latin,  and  not  to  make  a  new  ver- 
 sion. ^^'hen  Augustine  expressed  to  him  his  grat- 
 itude for  "  his  translation  of  the  Go.spel  "  {Ep.  civ. 
 (i,  "  non  parvas  Ueo  gratias  aginnis  de  opere  tuo 
 (pio  Evangelium  ex  Grieco  inttrpretatus  es"),  he 
 tacitly  corrected  him  bj'  substituting  for  this 
 phrase  "  the  correction  of  the  N.  T."  {Kp.  cxii.  20, 
 "  Si  me,  ut  dicis,  in  N.  T.  einendatione  suscipis 
 .  ...  ").  I'or  this  pur])ose  he  collated  early 
 (ireek  MSS.,  and  preserved  the  current  rendering 
 wherever  the  sense  was  not  injured  by  it  ("  .  .  .  . 
 I'A'angelia  ....  codicum  Grtecoruni  emeudata 
 collatione  sed  veterum.  Quae  ne  nndtum  a  lectionis 
 LatiuiB  consuetudine  discrepareiit,  ita  calanio  tem- 
 peravimus  {all.  imperavimus)  ut  iiis  tantum  qune 
 sensum  videbantur  nuitare,  correctis,  reliqna  manere 
 pateremur  ut  fuerant;  "  Prwf.  ad  Dam.).  Yet 
 although  he  proposed  to  himself  this  limited  object, 
 the  various  forms  of  corruption  whicii  had  been  in- 
 troduced were,  as  he  desi;ribes,  so  numerous  that 
 the  difference  of  the  Old  and  Revised  (Hieronymianf 
 text  is  throughout  clear  and  striking.  Thus  in 
 Matt.  V.  we  have  the  following  variations :  — 
 
 Vetus  Latina.b 
 7  ipsis  miserebitur  JDeus. 
 
 11  dixerint  .... 
 
 —1  propter  _/».'!(/7jV(r«. 
 
 12  ante   vos  palres  eurttnt 
 
 (I.uke  vi.  26). 
 
 Pandeetas  novse  translatiouis,  ad  unum  vetustse  trans- 
 latiouis,  quern  de  Roma  attulerat,  ipse  superac^ungeret 
 .  .  .  .  "  (Hixt.  Ab'iot.Wiretnuth.  r.t  Girwiens.  Quoted 
 by  Hody,  De  Text.  p.  409). 
 
 b  In  givinir  the  readings  of  Vetus  Latiiia  the  writer 
 
 Viilgala  noL-a  (Hieron.). 
 7  ipsi  wisericordiam  con- 
 sei/iieiitiir. 
 
 11  di-^eriiit  ....  mentt- 
 
 elites. 
 propter  me. 
 
 12  ante  vos. 
 
3460 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Vulgata  nova  (Ilieron.). 
 
 17  non  veni  solvere. 
 
 18  fiant. 
 
 Vetus  Lotina. 
 
 17  non  veni  solvere  legem 
 
 aut  prop/telas. 
 
 18  fiaut  :    ccEliim    el    terra 
 
 transibunt.   verba  aii- 
 
 tem  mea  non  pro'ter- 
 
 ibunt. 
 22  fratri  suo  sine  causa. 
 25  es  cum  illo  in  ira. 
 
 29  eat  in  gehennam. 
 S7  (luod  autem  amplms. 
 
 41  a'Jhiic  alia  duo. 
 
 43  orf/V.v. 
 
 44  vestros,  ei  benedkile  qui 
 
 mafedicent    vobis     et 
 benefacite. 
 
 Of  these  variations  those  in  vers.  17,  44,  are  only 
 partially  supported  by  the  old  coiiies,  but  they 
 illustrate  the  character  of  the  interpolations  from 
 which  the  text  suffered.  In  St.  Jolin,  as  niiiiht  be 
 expected,  tiie  variations  are  less  frequent.  The  Gth 
 chapter  contains  only  the  following:  — 
 
 22  fratri  suo. 
 
 2-5  es  in  via  cum  eo   (and 
 
 often). 
 29  }>ii!tntiir  in  gehennam. 
 37  quod   autem  his  abun- 
 
 dan'ius. 
 41  et  alia  duo. 
 
 43  odio  hribebis. 
 
 44  vestros  benefacite. 
 
 2  sequebatur  autem. 
 21  (volebaut) 
 
 23  (queni  benedixerat 
 
 Dominus  (alii  aliter)  ). 
 39  hsec  est  enini. 
 39  (Patris  mei). 
 
 53  (manducare). 
 
 66  (a  patre). 
 
 67  ex  hoc  ergo. 
 
 2  et  sequebatur. 
 21  (volueruut). 
 23  (gratias    agente    Domi- 
 no). 
 39  lisec  est  aiitfjn. 
 39  (Patris    mei    qui   niisit 
 
 me). 
 53  (ad  manducandum). 
 
 66  (a  patre  meo). 
 
 67  ex  hoc. 
 
 16.  Some  of  the  changes  which  Jerome  intro- 
 duced were,  as  will  be  seen,  made  purely  on  lin- 
 guistic grounds,  but  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  on 
 what  principle  he  proceeded  in  this  respect  (conip. 
 §  35).  Others  involved  questions  of  interpretation 
 (Matt.  vi.  11,  siijiersii/jslitiilidlts  for  iiriovaios)- 
 But  the  greater  number  consisted  in  tlie  removal 
 of  the  interpolations  by  which  the  synojitic  Gospels 
 especially  were  disfigured.  These  interpolations, 
 unless  his  description  is  very  nuich  exa<rgerated, 
 must  have  lieen  far  more  numerous  than  are  found 
 in  existing  copies;  but  examples  still  oc'cnr  whicli 
 show  tlie  important  service  which  he  rendered  to 
 the  Church  by  checking  the  perpetuation  of  apoc- 
 ryphal glos.ses:  Matt.  iii.  3,  15  (v.  12);  (ix.  21); 
 XX.  28;  (xxiv.  36);  Mark  i.  3,  7,  8;  iv.  19; 
 xvi.  4;  Luke  (v.  10);  viii.  48;  ix.  4-3,  50;  xi. 
 30;  xii.  38;  xxiii.  48;  John  vi.  56.  As  a  cheek 
 upon  further  interpolation  he  inserted  in  his  text 
 the  notation  of  the  luisebian  Canons  [Nkw  Tes- 
 T.VMENT,  §  21]  ;  liut  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  he 
 included  in  his  revision  the  famous  pcricope,  .lohn 
 vii.  53-viii.  11,  which  is  not  included  in  that 
 analysis. 
 
 17.  The  prefiice  to  Daniasus  speaks  only  of  a 
 revision  of  the  Gospels,  and  a  question  has  been 
 raised  whether  .Jerome  really  revised  tlie  remaining 
 books  of  the  N.  T.  Augustine  (.v.  D.  403)  speaks 
 only  of  "  the  Gospel  "  (Ay;,  civ.  6,  quoted  above), 
 and  there  is  no  jireface  to  any  other  books,  such  as 
 is  elsewhere  found  before  all  .lerome's  versions  or 
 editions.  But  the  omission  is  probal)ly  due  to  the 
 comparatively  pure  state  in  which  the  text  of  tlie 
 rest  of  the  N.  T.  was  preserved.  Damasus  had 
 requested  {Prmf.  ad  Dam. )  a  revision  of  the  whole. 
 
 has  throughout  confined  himself  to  those  which  are 
 eupported  by  a  combination  of  authorities,  avoiding 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 and  when  Jerome  had  faced  the  more  invidious  and 
 difficult  part  of  his  work  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
 tliat  he  would  shrink  from  the  completion  of  it. 
 In  accordance  with  this  view  he  enumerates  (a.  d. 
 398)  among  his  works  "  the  restoration  of  the 
 (Latin  Version  of  the)  N.  T.  to  harmony  witli  the 
 original  tireek."  {Kp.  iid  Ludii.\\\{.  h:  "  N.  T. 
 GrtT'ca;  reddidi  auctoritati,  ut  enim  Veteruni  Li- 
 l)rornm  fides  de  Hebraeis  voluminibus  examinanda 
 est,  ita  novorum  Grtecoe  ( ?)  sermonis  normani  desid- 
 erat."  I>e  Vir.  III.  cxxxv. :  "  N.  T.  Gr*ca;  fidei 
 reddidi.  Vetus  juxta  Ilebraicam  transtuli.")  It 
 is  yet  more  directly  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  of  this 
 revision,  that  in  writing  to  Marcella  (cir.  a.  d.  385) 
 on  the  charges  which  had  been  brought  agi>inst 
 him  for  "introducing  changes  in  the  Gospels,"  he 
 quotes  three  passages  from  the  Lpistles  in  which 
 he  asserts  the  superiority  of  the  present  Vulgate 
 reading  to  that  of  the  Old  Latin  (liom.  xii.  11, 
 Dondiw  servientes,  for  itinpoii  servientes;  1  Tim. 
 v.  19,  add.  nisi  sub  duobus  aut  tribus  testibus; 
 1  Tim.  i.  15,  fidtlis  sermo,  for  humnnus  sermo). 
 .\n  examination  of  the  Vulgate  text,  with  the 
 quotations  of  ante-Hieronymian  fathers  and  the 
 imperfect  evidence  of  M.SS.,  is  itself  sufficient  to 
 estalilish  the  reality  and  character  of  the  revision. 
 This  will  be  apparent  from  a  collation  of  a  few 
 chapters  taken  from  several  of  the  later  books  of 
 the  N.  T. ;  but  it  will  also  be  obvious  that  the 
 revision  was  hasty  and  imperfect;  and  in  later 
 times  the  line  between  the  Ilieronymian  and  Old 
 texts  lieeanie  very  indistinct.  Old  readings  appear 
 in  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  and  on  the  other  hand  uq 
 -M.S.  represents  a  pure  African  text  of  the  Acts  and 
 K[)istles. 
 
 Acts  i.  4-25. 
 
 Vrrsio  Vetus.a 
 
 4  luin  conversaretur  ciitn 
 
 ill  is  ....  quod  au- 
 distis  a  me. 
 
 5  tingemini. 
 
 6  at  illi  convenientes. 
 
 7  at  i'le  rispnndeiis  dixit. 
 
 8  supervtnienle  S.  S. 
 
 10  intendcreut.  Comp.  iii. 
 (4),  12  ;  vi.  15  ;  X.  4  ; 
 (.xiii.  9). 
 
 13  ascenderunt     in    supe- 
 
 riora 
 erant  habitantes. 
 
 14  perseverautes  I(na7i(7nf5 
 
 oraiinni. 
 18   Hir  igilur  adquisivit. 
 21  qui  convenerunt   nobis- 
 
 cum  viris. 
 25  ire.     Comp.  xvii.  30. 
 
 Vulg. 
 
 4  coni-escens  ....  quam 
 
 audistis  per  os  meum. 
 
 5  baptizabimini. 
 
 6  lailurgui  conyenerdint. 
 
 7  Dixit  autem. 
 
 8  siipfrvenientis  S.  S. 
 10  intuerentur. 
 
 13  in  canaculum   ascend- 
 
 erunt. 
 —  tnaiitbant, 
 
 14  persev.    unanimiter   in 
 
 oratione. 
 
 15  El  hir,  quid  em  possedit. 
 21  viris  qui  nobiscum  sunt 
 
 congregati. 
 25  ut  abiret. 
 
 Acts  xvii.  16-34. 
 
 16  circa  simulacrum. 
 
 17  Juiljeis. 
 
 18  se/ninator. 
 
 22  siiperstiliosos. 
 
 23  perambidans. 
 
 culturas  vestras. 
 
 26  ex  uno  sanguine. 
 
 16  idolo/atricB  deditam. 
 
 17  cwin  Judseis. 
 
 18  .'.eminiverbius. 
 
 22  siiperstitiosiores. 
 
 23  prcEteriens. 
 
 —  simulacra  vestra. 
 1 26  ex  uno. 
 
 KoM.  i.  13-15. 
 13  iVo/i  autem  arbilrnr.       [13  nolo  autem. 
 15  nxwtWiwae  est  promptus\b  quod  in  me  proinptum 
 sum.  est. 
 
 the  peculiarities  of  single  MSS.,  and  (if  possible)  of  a 
 single  family. 
 
 «  See  note  6,  p.  3459. 
 
VULGATP],  THE 
 
 1  Cor.  X.  4-29. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3461 
 
 VoTsio  Vetiis. 
 4  sequent!   se    (sequent!, 
 q),  {Cnd.  Aug.  f)." 
 
 6  in  figuram. 
 
 7  idolorum     cultores     (g 
 
 corr.)  efficiamur. 
 12  putat  (g  corr.). 
 
 15  sicut    prudentes,  vobis 
 
 dico. 
 
 16  quern  (f,  g). 
 
 —  communicatio  (alt.)  (f, 
 
 g)- 
 21  participare  (f,  g). 
 29  infideli  (g). 
 
 Vulg. 
 4  consequente  eos. 
 
 6  in  figura  (f),  (g). 
 
 7  idololatrae  (idolatres,  f). 
 
 efficiamini  (f). 
 12  existiniat  (f). 
 
 15  ut(sicut,  f,  g)  prudenti- 
 
 bus  Ipquor  (dico,  f,  g). 
 
 16  cui. 
 
 —  participatio. 
 
 21  participco  esse. 
 29  (aliena) ;  alia  (f). 
 
 2  CoR.  iii.  11-18 
 14  dum  {quod  g  corr.)  non 
 
 revelatur  (g  corr.). 
 18  de  (a  g)  gloria  in  glori- 
 
 am  (g). 
 
 14  noH  revclatum  (f). 
 18  a 
 
 daritate 
 tatein. 
 
 Gal.  iii.  14-25. 
 
 14  bcnedictionem  (g).  '14  poUicilationem  (f). 
 
 15  irritiim  facit  (irritat,  g),\l5  speniit  (f). 
 
 25  veniente  auUm  fide  (g),  25  At  uhi  venit  fides  (f). 
 
 Phil.  ii.  2-30. 
 
 2  nnum  (g). 
 
 6  cum  ....  constitutus, 
 
 (g). 
 12  dikctissimi  (g). 
 26  soUicitus  {tadebatur,  g). 
 28  soUicitus  iiaque. 
 
 30  parabolalus    de   anima 
 sua  (g). 
 
 2  id  ipsum  (f ). 
 
 6  cum  ....  esset  (f ). 
 
 12  carissitni  (f ). 
 26  mcestus  (f ). 
 28  festinanlius  ergo   {/est. 
 ego,  f:fesl.  aulem.g). 
 30  tradens  animam  suatn 
 
 in- 
 
 1  Tm.  iii.  1-12. 
 
 1  Humanus  (g  corr.). 
 
 2  docibiiem  (g). 
 
 4  habeutem  in  obseqiiio. 
 a  turpilucros, 
 
 12  filios    bene    regentes    (g 
 corr.). 
 
 1  fidetrs  (f ). 
 
 2  doctorem  (f ). 
 
 4  habentemiK6rf(«os(f,  g). 
 8  turpe   lucrum    sectanles 
 
 (f )  (turpil.  s.  g). 
 12  quifiHis  suis  bene  prcz- 
 
 sinl  (f ). 
 
 (2.)  The  Revision  of  the  0.  T.  from  f/ie  LXX. 
 —  18.  About  tlie  same  time  (cir.  A.  d.  383)  at 
 which  he  was  entjaged  on  tlie  revision  of  the  N.  T., 
 Jerome  undertook  also  a  first  revision  of  the  Psal- 
 ter. This  he  made  by  the  help  of  the  Greek,  but 
 the  work  was  not  very  complete  or  careful,  and  the 
 words  in  which  he  describes  it  may,  perhaps,  lie 
 extended  without  injustice  to  the  revision  of  the 
 later  books  of  the  N.  T. :  "  Psalterium  liomas 
 ....  eniendaram  et  jnxta  LXX.  interpretes,  /irel 
 cursun  magna  illud  ex  parte  correxerani  "  (Prcef. 
 in  Lib.  Ps.).  This  revision  obtained  the  name  of 
 the  Roman  I'salter,  probably  because  it  was  made 
 for  the  use  of  the  Koman  Church  at  the  request 
 of  Damasus,  where  it  was  retained  till  the  pontifi- 
 cate of  Pius  V.  (a.  d.  1566),  who  introduced  the 
 Galilean  Psalter  generall)',  though  the  Roman 
 Psalter  was  still  retained  in  three  Italian  churches 
 (Hody,  p.  383,  "in  una  Rom£e  Vaiicana  ecdesia, 
 et  extra  urbem  in  Mediolanensi  et  in  ecclesia  S. 
 Mavci,  Venetiis").  In  a  short  time  "the  old 
 error  prevailed  over  the  new  correction,"  and  at 
 
 a  The  Latin  readings  of  Cod.  Aug.  have  been  added, 
 as  offering  an  interesting  example  of  the  admixture 
 of  a  few  old  readings  with  the  revised  text.  Those 
 -f  Cod.  Barn,  (g)  differ,  as  will  be  seen,  very  widely 
 from  them. 
 
 the  urgent  request  of  Paula  and  Eustochiuni  .Jerome 
 commenced  a  new  and  more  thorough  revision 
 {GiilUcnn  Psalter).*  The  exact  date  at  which  this 
 was  made  is  not  known,  but  it  may  be  fixed  with 
 threat  probability  very  shortly  after  A.  d.  387,  when 
 he  retired  to  Bethlehem,  and  certaiidy  before  391, 
 when  he  had  begun  his  new  translations  from  the 
 Hebrew.  In  the  new  revision  .lerome  attempted 
 to  represent  as  far  as  possible,  by  the  help  of  the 
 (ireek  Versions,  the  real  reading  of  the  Hebrew. 
 With  this  view  he  adopted  the  notation  of  Origeii 
 [ShPTUAGiNT;  compare  Prof,  in  Gen.,  etc.],  and 
 thus  indicated  all  the  additions  and  omissions  of 
 the  LXX.  text  reproduced  in  the  Latin.  The 
 additions  were  marked  by  an  obelus  (•<-);  the 
 omissions,  which  he  supplied,  by  an  asterisk  (  *  ). 
 The  omitted  ]iassages  he  supplied  by  a  version  of 
 the  Greek  of  Theodotion,  and  not  directly  from  the 
 Hebrew  ("  unusquisque  ....  ubicunque  viderit 
 virgulam  prsecedentem  (h— )  ab  ea  usque  ad  duo 
 l)uncta  (  "  )  qu£e  impressimus,  sciat  in  LXX. 
 interpretilius  plus  haberi.  Ubi  autem  stellre  (  *  ) 
 similitudinem  perspexerit,  de  Hebraeis  voluminibns 
 additum  noverit,  a^que  usque  ad  duo  puncta,  /«a;/a 
 T/ieo(/ut!onis  ditmtaxnt  edilionem,  qui  siniplicitate 
 sermonis  a  LXX.  inierpretibns  nun  discordat," 
 Prcef  ad  Ps.  ;  compare  Prceff.  in  .Job,  Paralip. 
 Libr.  Solom.  juxla  LXX.  Intl.,  Ep.  cvi.  ad  Sun. 
 ft  Fret.).  This  new  edition  soon  obtained  a  wide 
 popularity.  Gregory  of  Tours  is  said  to  have 
 introduced  it  from  Rome  into  the  public  services  in 
 France,  and  from  this  it  obtained  the  name  of  the 
 Gullican  Psalter.  The  comparison  of  one  or  two 
 passages  will  show  the  extent  and  nature  of  the 
 corrections  which  Jerome  introduced  into  this 
 second  work,  as  compared  with  the  Roman  Psalter. 
 (See  Table  D,  on  next  page.) 
 
 How  far  he  thought  change  really  necessary 
 will  appear  from  a  comi)arison  of  a  few  verses 
 of  his  translation  from  the  Hebrew  with  the  earlier 
 revised  Septuai;intal  translations.     (See  Table   E.) 
 
 Numerous  MSS.  remain  which  contain  the  Latin 
 Psalter  in  two  or  more  forms.  Thus  Bibl.  Bodl. 
 Laud.  35  (S*c.  x.  ?)  contains  a  triple  Psalter, 
 Galilean,  Roman,  and  Hebrew:  (JnU.  C.  C.  O.wn. 
 xii.  (Sec.  XV.)  (iallican,  Roman,  Hebrew:  Id.  x. 
 (S»c.  xiv.)  Galilean,  Hebrew,  Helir.  text  with 
 interlinear  Latin:  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  634,  a  double 
 Psalter,  Galilean  and  Hel)rew:  Brit.  Mus.  Arund. 
 155  (Sasc.  xi.)  a  Roman  Psalter  with  Gallican 
 corrections:  Coll.  SS.  Trin.  Cambr.,  R.  17,  1, 
 a  triple  Psalter,  Hebrew,  Gallican,  Roman  (Sa;c. 
 xii.):  Id.  R.  8,  6,  a  triple  Psalter,  the  Hebrew 
 text,  with  a  peculiar  interlinear  Latin  Version, 
 Jerome's  Hebrew,  Gallican.  An  example  of  the 
 unrevised  Latin,  which,  indeed,  is  not  very  satis- 
 factorily distinguished  from  the  Roman,  is  found 
 with  an  Anglo-Saxon  interlinear  version,  Univ. 
 Libr.  Cambr.  Ff.  i.  23  (Sa;c.  xi.).  H.  Stephens 
 published  a  "  Qidncuplex  Psidterium,  Galli- 
 cuni,  Rliomaicwm,  Hebraicum,  Vetus,  Conciliaium. 
 .  .  .  .  Paris,  1513,"  but  he  does  not  mention  the 
 MSS.  from  which  he  derived  his  texts. 
 
 19.  From  the  second  (Gallican)  revision  of  the 
 Psalms  Jerome  appears  to  have  proceeded  to  a 
 revision  of  the  other  books  of  the  O.  T.,  restoring 
 
 6  In  one  place  Jerome  seems  to  include  these  two 
 revisions  in  one  work:  "Psalterium  ....  certe 
 emendatissimum  juxta  LXX.  interpretes  nostro  labore 
 dudum  Roma  suscipit "  ....  {Apol.  adv.  (iuf.  ii. 
 30i. 
 
8462 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 TABLE    D. 
 
 In  Tables  D,  E,  and  P,  the  passages  are  taken  from  Martianay's  and  Sabatier's  texts,  without  any  reference  tt 
 MSS.,  so  that  the  variations  cannot  be  regarded  as  more  than  approximately  correct. 
 
 Tetus  Latina. 
 
 {Nisi  quod) 
 Nisi  quia  (quod) 
 Minorasti. 
 
 respexit  me. 
 deprecationem. 
 
 hi/mnum. 
 
 (Domino.) 
 jocundatum. 
 
 apud  inferos. 
 
 Ps.  viii.  4-6. 
 Fsalt.  Romanu?n. 
 Quoniam  yidebo  coelos,  opera  digitorum  tu- 
 
 orum  : 
 lunani  et  Stellas  quas  tu  fundasti. 
 Quid  est  homo,  quod  memor  es  ejus? 
 aut  filius  hominis,  quoniam  visitas  eum  ? 
 Minvisti  eum  paulo  minus  ab  angelis ; 
 gloria  et  hoiiorc  corouasti  eum  : 
 et  constituisti  eum  super  opera  manuum  tu- 
 
 arum. 
 
 Psalt.  Gnllicanum. 
 
 Quoniam  videbo  coelos  *  tuos  "  opera  digito- 
 rum tuorum  ; 
 
 lunam  et  Stellas  quae  t  tu  "  fundasti. 
 
 Quid  est  homo,  quod  memor  es  ejus  ? 
 
 aut  filius  hominis,  quoniam  visitas  eum? 
 
 Minultti  eum  paulo  minus  ab  angelis; 
 
 gloria  et  honore  coronasti  eum, 
 
 t  et  "  constituisti  eum  super  opera  manuum 
 tuarum. 
 
 Ps.  xxxix.  1-4. 
 
 Exspectans  exspectavi  Dominum : 
 
 et  resjKxit  me  ; 
 et  exaudivit  deirrecationem  meam  ; 
 et  eduxit  me  de  lacu  miseri», 
 et  de  luto  fiecis. 
 
 Et  statuit  super  petram  pedes  meos  ; 
 et  direxit  gressus  meos. 
 Et  immisit  in  os  meum  canticum  novum  : 
 
 hymnum  Deo  nostro. 
 
 Exspectans  exspectavi  Dominum  ; 
 
 et  intendit  inihi  ; 
 et  tex"audivit  preces  nieas  ; 
 et  eduxit  me  de  lacu  miseriae, 
 tet  "de  luto  fsecis. 
 
 Et  statuit  super  petram  pedes  meos  ; 
 tet"  direxit  gressus  meos. 
 Et  immisit  in  os  meum  canticum  novum : 
 
 r.arrnen  Deo  nostro. 
 
 Ps.  xvi.  (xv.)  8-11  (Acts  ii 
 Providebam    Dominum,   in   conspectu    nieo 
 
 semper, 
 quoniam  a  dextris  est  mihi,  ne  commovear. 
 Propter  hoc  delcctaiuni  est  cor  meum, 
 et  e.xsultavit  lingua  niea  : 
 insuper  et  caro  mea  requiescet  in  spe. 
 Quoniam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in 
 
 inferno  (-um) ; 
 nee  dabis  Sanctum  tuum  videre  corruptio- 
 
 nem. 
 Notas  mihi  fecisti  vias  vitae  : 
 adimplebis  me  Isetitia  cum  vultu  tuo  : 
 delectationes  in  dextra  tua,  usque  in  finem. 
 
 .  25-28). 
 
 Providebam    Dominum   in   conspectu   meo 
 
 semper, 
 quoniam  a  dextris  est  mihi,  ne  commovear. 
 Propter  hoc  IcpJnluni  est  cor  meum, 
 et  exsultavit  lingua  mea  : 
 t  insuper  "et  caro  mea  requiescet  in  spe. 
 Quoniam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in 
 
 inferno ; 
 nee   dabis  Sanctum  tuum  videre  corruptio- 
 
 nem. 
 Notas  mihi  fecisti  vias  vit«B  : 
 adimplebis  me  Isetitia  cum  vultu  tuo  : 
 delectationes   in   dextera   tua  t  usque  "  in 
 
 finem. 
 
 TABLE  E. 
 
 Vetus  Latina. 
 Quis  est  homo  qui  vult  vitam, 
 et  ciipit  videre  dies  bonos  ? 
 Cohibe  linguam  tuam  a  malo  : 
 et  labia  tua  ne  loquantur  dolum. 
 Devtrte  a  malo  et  fee  bonum  : 
 inquire  pacem  et  sequere  eam. 
 Oculi  Domini  super  justos 
 et  aures  ejus  ad  preces  eoruni. 
 Vultus  Domini  super  facientes  mala. 
 
 Ps.  xxxiii.  (xxxiv.)  12-10  (1  Pet.  iii 
 Vulgata. 
 Quis  est  homo  qui  vult  vitam, 
 dUlgit  dies  videre  bonos  ? 
 Prohibe  linguam  tuam  a  malo : 
 et  labia  tua  ne  loquautur  dolum. 
 Diverte  a  malo  et  fac  bonum  : 
 inquire  pacem,  et  persequere  eam. 
 Oculi  Domini  super  justos 
 et  aures  ejus  in  preces  eorum. 
 Yultus  aut(')n  Domini  super  facien- 
 tes mala. 
 
 10-12). 
 
 Jerome''s  Transl.  from  the  Hebr. 
 Quis  est  vir  qui  velit  vitam 
 diiigcns  dies  videre  bonos  ? 
 Custodi  linguam  tuam  a  malo, 
 et  labia  tua  ne  loquantur  dolum. 
 Recede  a  malo  et  t.ic  bonum  : 
 q'lare  pacem  et  persequere  eam. 
 Oculi  Domini  nrf  justos 
 et  aures  ejus  ad  clamores  eorum. 
 Vultus  Domini  super  facientes  ma- 
 lum. 
 
 Ps.  xxxix.  (xl.)  6-8  (Heb.  x.  5-10). 
 
 Sa«rificium  et  oblationem  noluisti : 
 aures  autem  perfecisti  mihi. 
 Holocausta  etiam   pro   delicto   non 
 
 postulasti. 
 Tunc  di.xi :  Ecce  venio 
 In  capite  Ubri  scriptum  est  de  me 
 
 vAfaciam  voluntatem  tuam. 
 
 In  omnem  terram  exilt  sonus  eo- 
 rum : 
 
 et  in  Jinibus  orbis  terrse  verba  eo- 
 rum. 
 
 Sacrificium  et  oblationem  noluisti :  ■  Victima  et  oUatione  non  indiges. 
 
 aures  autem  perfecisti  mihi.  i  SbUresfodisli  mihi. 
 
 Holocaustum    et   pro  peccato   non '  Holocaustum  et   pro    peccato   non 
 
 postulasti :  ]  petisti. 
 
 Tunc  dixi  :  Eece  venio.  |  Tunc  dixi :  Ecce  venio. 
 
 In  capite  libri  scriptum  est  de  me,  |  In  volumine  libri  scriptum  est  de 
 
 ui  facerem.  voluntatem  tuam.  ut  facerem  placitiim  tibi. 
 
 Ps.  xviii.  (xix.)  5  (Eom.  x.  18). 
 In  omnem  terram  exivit  sonus  eo- 
 rum. 
 et  in_^>ie5  orbis  terr^  verba  eorum. 
 
 In  vniversam  terram  exivit  sonui 
 
 eorum  : 
 et  in  Jinem  orbis  verba  eorum. 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 all,  by  the  help  of  the  Greek,  to  a  general  con- 
 formity with  the  Heljrew.  In  the  preface  to  the 
 Revision  of  Job,  he  notices  the  opposition  which  he 
 had  met  with,  and  contrasts  indignantly  his  own 
 labors  with  the  more  mechanical  occnpations  of 
 monks  which  excited  no  reproaches  ("  Si  ant  fiscel- 
 1am  j  unco  texerem  aut  palmarum  folia  coniplicareni 
 ....  nuUus  niorderet,  nemo  reprelienderet.  Nunc 
 autem  ....  corrector  vitiorum  falsarius  vocor"). 
 Similar  complaints,  but  less  strongly  expressed, 
 occur  in  the  preface  to  the  books  of  Chronicles,  in 
 which  he  had  recourse  to  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  '.o 
 the  Greek,  in  order  to  correct  the  innumerable 
 errors  in  the  names  by  which  both  texts  were  de- 
 formed. In  the  preface  to  the  three  books  of  Solo- 
 mon (Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles)  he  notices 
 no  attacks,  but  excuses  himself  for  neujlecting  to 
 revise  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  on  tlie  ground 
 that  "he  wished  only  to  amend  the  Canonical 
 Scriptures"  ("  tantumniodo  Canonicas  Scripturas 
 vobis  emendare  desiderans  ").  No  otii(ji'  prefaces 
 remain,  and  the  revised  texts  of  the  Psalter  and 
 Job  have  alone  been  preserved ;  but  there  is  no 
 reason  to  doubt  that  .Jerome  carried  out  his  design 
 of  revising  all  the  "  Canonical  Scriptures  "  (comp. 
 Ep.  cxii.  nd  Amjud.  (cir.  A.  d.  404),  "  Quod  au- 
 tem in  aliis  quseris  epistolis :  cur  prior  niea  in  U- 
 bris  Canonicis  interpretatio  asteriscos  habeat  et 
 virgulas  prtenotatas  .  .  .  .  ").  He  speaks  of  this 
 work  as  a  whole  in  several  places  (e.  g.  adv.  liuf- 
 ii.  '2-t,  "  Egone  contra  LXX.  interpretes  aliquid 
 sum  locutus,  quos  ante  annos  phirimos  diligentis- 
 sime  emendatos  mesB  lingua;  studiosis  dedi  ...  V" 
 Comp.  Jd.  iii.  25 ;  Ep-  Ixxi.  ad  Luciii.,  "  Septna- 
 ginta  interpretum  editioiiem  et  te  habere  non  du- 
 bito,  et  ante  annos  plurinios  (he  is  writing  A.  n. 
 398)  diligentissime  emendatam  studiosis  tradidi  "), 
 and  distinctly  represents  it  as  a  Latin  Version  of 
 Origen's  Hexaplar  text  (I-.j).  cvi.  ad  Sun.  el  Fret., 
 "  Ea  autem  qua;  habetur  in  'E^airAots  et  quam  non 
 vertinius"),  if,  indeed,  the  reference  is  not  to  be 
 confined  to  the  Psalter,  which  was  the  immediate 
 suliject  of  discussion.  But  though  it  seems  certain 
 that  the  revision  was  made,  there  is  very  great  dif- 
 ficulty in  tracing  its  history,  and  it  is  remarkable 
 that  no  allusion  to  the  revision  occurs  in  tiie  pref- 
 ace to  the  new  translation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
 Joshua  (Judges,  Ruth),  Kings,  the  Prophets,  in 
 which  .Jerome  touches  more  or  less  plainly  on  the 
 difficulties  of  his  task,  while  he  does  refer  to  his 
 former  labors  on  .Job,  the  Psalter,  and  the  books  of 
 Solomon  in  the  parallel  prefaces  to  those  books,  and 
 also  in  his  Apology  against  Rufinus  (ii.  27.  29,  30, 
 ol).  It  has,  indeed,  been  supposed  (V^allarsi, 
 Prmf.  ill  Hier.  x.)  that  these  six  books  only  were 
 published  by  .ferome  himself.  The  remainder  may 
 have  been  put  into  circulation  surreptitiously.  But 
 this  supposition  is  not  without  difficulties.  Au- 
 gustine, writing  to  Jerome  (cir.  A.  D.  405),  ear- 
 nestly begs  for  a  copy  of  the  revision  from  the 
 LXX.,  of  the  publication  of  which  he  was  then 
 only  lately  aware  (A/>.  xcvi.  34,  "Delude  nobis 
 niittas,  obsecro,  interpretationem  tuam  de  Septua- 
 ginta,  qiunn  ie  edidisse  nesciebain;  "  comp.  §  34). 
 It  does  not  appear  whether  tlie  request  was  granted 
 or  not,  but  at  a  much  later  period  (cir.  A.  d.  41G) 
 Jerome  says  that  he  cannot  furnish  him  with  "  a 
 copy  of  the  LXX.  (i.  e.  the  Latin  version  of  it) 
 furnished  with  asterisks  and  obeli,  as  he  had  lost 
 'uhe  chief  part  of  his  former  labor  by  some  person's 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3463 
 
 treachery"  (Ep.  cxxxiv.,  "Pleraque  prioris  laboris 
 fraude  cujusdam  araisimus").  However  this  may 
 have  been,  .Jerome  could  not  have  spent  more  than 
 four  (or  live)  years  on  the  work,  and  that  too  in  the 
 midst  of  otiier  labors,  for  in  491  he  was  already  en- 
 gaged on  tlie  versions  from  the  Hebrew  which  con- 
 stitute his  great  claim  on  the  lasting  gi-atitude  of 
 the  Church. 
 
 (3.)  Tlie  Translation  of  the  0.  T.  from  the 
 Hebreio.  —  20.  Jerome  commenced  the  study  of 
 Hebrew  when  he  was  already  advanced  in  middle 
 life  (cir.  A.  d.  374),  thinking  tliat  the  flifficulties 
 of  the  language,  as  he  quaintly  paints  them,  would 
 serve  to  sulidue  the  temptations  of  passion  to  which 
 he  was  exposed  J'yp.  cxxv.  §  12;  comp.  Privf.  in 
 Dan.).  Erom  this  time  he  continued  the  study 
 with  unabated  zeal,  and  availed  himself  of  every 
 help  to  perfect  his  knowledge  of  the  language.  His 
 first  teaclier  had  been  a  Jewish  convert;  l)ut  after- 
 wards he  did  not  scruple  to  seek  the  instruction  of 
 Jews,  whose  services  he  secured  with  great  difficulty 
 and  expense.  This  excessive  zeal  (as  it  seemed 
 exposed  him  to  the  misrepresentations  of  his  ene- 
 mies, and  Rufinus  indulges  in  a  silly  pun  on  the 
 name  of  one  of  his  teachers,  with  the  intention  of 
 showing  that  his  work  was  not  "  supported  by  the 
 authority  of  the  Church,  but  only  of  a  second  Ba- 
 r.abbas  "  (Ruf.  Apol.  ii.  12;  Hieron.  Aihil.  i.  1.3; 
 comp.  Ep.  Ixxxiv.  §  3,  and  Praf.  in  Panil.).  Je- 
 rome, however,  was  not  deterred  by  opposition  from 
 pursuing  his  oliject,  and  it  were  only  to  be  wished 
 that  he  hail  surpassed  his  critics  as  much  in  gen- 
 erous courtesy  as  lie  did  in  honest  labor.  He  soon 
 turned  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  to  use.  In  some 
 of  his  earliest  critical  letters  he  examines  the  force 
 of  Hebrew  words  {Epp.  xviii.,  xx.,  A.  d.  381,  383); 
 and  in  A.  d.  384,  he  had  been  engaged  for  some 
 time  in  comparing  the  version  of  Aquila  with  He- 
 brew JLSS.  {Ep.  xxxii.  §  1),  which  a  .lew  had  suc- 
 ceeded in  obtaining  for  him  from  the  synagogue 
 {Ep.  xxxvi.  §  1).  After  retiring  to  Bethlehem,  he 
 appears  to  have  devoted  himself  with  renewed  ar- 
 dor to  the  study  of  Hebrew,  and  he  published  sev- 
 eral works  on  the  subject  (cir.  A.  u.  389 ;  QiuKst. 
 Uebr.  ill  (/en.  etc.).  These  essays  served  as  a  pre- 
 lude to  his  New  Version,  which  he  now  commenced. 
 This  \ersion  was  not  undertaken  with  any  ecclesi- 
 astical sanction,  as  the  revision  of  the  Gospels  was, 
 but  at  the  urgent  request  of  private  friends,  or 
 from  his  own  sense  of  the  imperious  necessity  of 
 the  work.  Its  history  is  told  in  tlie  main  in  the 
 prefeces  to  the  several  installments  which  were  suc- 
 cessively published.  The  Books  of  Samuel  and 
 Kings  were  issued  first,  and  to  these  he  prefixed 
 the  famous  Prulof/vs  galeiitus,  addressed  to  Paula 
 and  Eustochium,  in  which  he  gives  an  account  of 
 the  Hebrew  Canon.  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
 why  he  selected  these  books  for  his  experiment,  for 
 it  does  not  appear  that  he  was  requested  Ijy  any 
 one  to  do  so.  The  work  itself  was  executed  with 
 the  greatest  care.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  transla- 
 tion a.?  the  result  of  constant  revision  {Prol.  Gal., 
 "  Lege  ergo  primum  Samuel  et  jMalaohim  meum : 
 meum,  inquam,  meum.  Quidquid  enim  crebrius 
 vertendo  et  emendando  sollicitius  et  didicimus  et 
 tenemus  nostrum  est").  At  the  time  when  this 
 was  published  (cir.  A.  D.  391,  392)  other  books 
 seem  to  have  been  already  translated  {Prol.  Gal., 
 "omnibus  libris  quos  de  Hebra-o  vertinius");  and 
 in  393  the  sixteen  prophets «  were  in  circulation, 
 
 a  A  question  has  been  raised  whether  Daniel  was    not  translated  at  a  later  time  (comp.  7i«.  Hieron.  xxi.), 
 
3464 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 and  Jol)  liad  latel}'  been  put  into  the  hands  of  his 
 most  intimate  friends  {l-'jy.  xlix.  ud  Pummach.). 
 Indeed,  it  would  appear  that  already  in  392  he  had 
 in  some  sense  completed  a  version  of  the  0.  T.  [De 
 Vir.  III.  cxxxv.,  "  Vetus  juxta  Ilebraicum  trans- 
 tuli."  This  treatise  was  written  in  that  year);" 
 but  many  books  were  not  completed  and  ]niblished 
 till  some  years  afterwards.  The  next  books  which 
 he  put  into  circulation,  yet  with  the  provision  that 
 they  should  be  confined  to  friends  {Praf.  in  Ezr.), 
 were  Ezra  and  Neheniiah,  which  he  translated  at 
 the  request  of  Dominica  and  Kogatianus,  who  had 
 urged  hiiu  to  the  task  for  three  years.  This  was 
 probably  in  the  year  -394  (  Vit.  Tlieron.  xxi.  4),  for 
 in  the  preface  he  alludes  to  his  intention  of  discuss- 
 ing a  question  which  he  treats  in  Ep.  Ivii.,  written 
 in  395  (De  optimo  Gen.  inlerpret.).  In  the  preface 
 to  the  Chronicles  (addressed  to  Chromatins),  he  al- 
 ludes to  the  same  epistle  as  "lately  written,"  and 
 these  bool<s  may  therefore  be  set  down  to  that  year. 
 The  three  books  of  Solomon  followed  in  398,''  having 
 been  "the  work  of  three  days"  when  he  had  just 
 recovered  from  a  severe  illness,  which  he  suffered  in 
 that  year  {Prcef.  "  Itaque  longa  ij grotatione  frac- 
 tus  ....  tridui  opus  nomini  vestro  [Chromatio 
 et  Heliodoro]  consecravi."  Comp.  Ep.  Ixxiii.  10). 
 The  Octateuch  now  alone  remained  {Ep.  Ixxi.  5, 
 i.  e.  Pentateuch,  .Joshua,  .Judges,  Ruth,  and  Es- 
 ther, Proff.  in  ./os.).  Of  this  the  Pentateuch  (in- 
 scribed to  Desiderius)  was  published  first,  but  it  is 
 uncertain  in  what  year.     The  preface,  however,  is 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 not  quoted  in  the  Apology  against  Rufinus  (a.  d. 
 400),  as  those  of  all  the  other  books  which  were 
 then  puldished,  and  it  may  therefore  be  set  down 
 to  a  later  date  (Hody,  p.  357).  The  remaining 
 books  were  completed  at  the  request  of  Eustochium, 
 shortly  after  the  death  of  Paula,  A.  D.  404  {Prcef. 
 in  .Jos.).  'J'hiis  the  whole  translation  was  spread 
 over  a  period  of  about  fourteen  years,  from  the  six- 
 tieth to  the  seventy-sixth  year  of  Jerome's  life.  But 
 still  parts  of  it  were  finished  in  great  haste  (e.  g. 
 the  books  of  Solomon).  A  single  day  was  suffi- 
 cient for  the  translation  of  Tobit  {Prcef.  in  Tub.):, 
 and  "  one  short  effort  "  (una  lucubratiuncula)  for 
 the  translation  of  Judith.  Thus  there  are  errors 
 in  the  work  which  a  more  careful  revision  might 
 have  remo\ed,  and  Jerome  himself  in  many  places 
 gives  renderings  which  he  prefers  to  those  which  he 
 had  adopted,  and  admits  from  time  to  time  that  he 
 had  fallen  into  error  (Hody,  p.  3G2).  Yet  such 
 defects  are  trifling  when  compared  with  what  he 
 accomplisUfd  successfully.  The  work  remained  for 
 eight  centuries  the  bulwark  of  western  Christianity ; 
 and  as  a  monument  of  ancient  linguistic  power 
 the  translation  of  the  0.  T.  stands  unrivaled  and 
 unique.  It  was  at  least  a  direct  rendering  of 
 the  original,  and  not  the  version  of  a  version. 
 The  Septuagintal  tradition  was  at  length  set  aside, 
 and  a  few  passages  will  show  the  extent  and  char- 
 acter of  the  differences  by  which  the  new  transla- 
 tion was  distinguished  from  the  Old  Latin  which 
 it  superseded. 
 
 TABLE  F. 
 
 Vetus  Latina. 
 Et  tu  Bethlehem  domus  Ephrata 
 neqiiaqunm  minima  es  Jit  sis  in  millibus  Judse : 
 ex  te  mihi  egredietur 
 ut  sit  in  principcm  Israel, 
 et  egressus  y'us  ab  initio, 
 ex  ditbiis  sceculi. 
 
 Mic.  V.  2  (Matt.  ii.  6). 
 
 Yidgata  nova. 
 Et  tu  Bethlehem  Ephrata, 
 pnrvnlus  es  in  millibus  Judse: 
 e.x  te  niihi  egredietur 
 gyi  sit  dominator  in  Israel, 
 et  egressus  ejus  ab  initio, 
 a  diebus  cEternilatis. 
 
 Jer.  xxxviii.  (xxxi. 
 
 Vox  in  Rhama  audita  est, 
 lamentatio  et  tletus  et  luctus, 
 Rachel  plorantis  filios  sues, 
 et  noluit  conquiescere, 
 quia  non  sunt. 
 
 15  (Matt.  ii.  18). 
 Vox  in  excelso  audita  est 
 lamentationis  luctus  et  fletus, 
 Rachel  plorantis  filios  sues  ; 
 et  nolentis  [noluit]  cnnsolari 
 super  eis  [s.  filiis  suis],  quia  non  sunt. 
 
 Hoc  jnirnvm  bibe  velociler  fac 
 regie  Zabulon,  terra  Neptalim; 
 et  reliqvi  c/ni  juxta  mare  estis 
 trans  Jordaneni  Galil£e<e  gentium. 
 Populus  qui  ambulabat  in  tenebris 
 
 vidit  lucem  magn.am : 
 qui  habitatis  in  regione  et  umbra  mortis 
 
 lux  orietur  vobis. 
 
 Is.  ix.  1,  2  (Matt.  iv.  15,  16). 
 
 Primo  tempore  alleviata  est 
 terra  Zabulon  et  terra  Ncphthali : 
 et  novissimo  aggravnta  est  rin  maris 
 trans  Jordanem  Galila?aJ  gentium. 
 Populus  qui  ambulabat  in  tenebris 
 
 vidit  lucem  maguam  ; 
 habitantibus  in  regione  umbrae  mortis 
 
 lux  orta  est  eis. 
 
 iBte  peccata  nostra  portat 
 et  pro  nobis  dolet. 
 
 Is.  liii.  4  (Matt.  viii.  17). 
 
 I      Vere  langvores  nostros  ipse  tulit 
 et  dolores  nostros  ipse  portavit. 
 
 as  Jerome  does  not  include  him  among  the  prophets  in 
 the  Frol.  Gal.  ;  but  in  a  letter  written  A.  D.  894  (Ep. 
 liii.  ad  Paul.)  he  places  him  distinctly  .among  the  four 
 greater  prophets.  The  preface  to  Daniel  contains  no 
 mark  of  time  :  it  appears  only  that  the  translation 
 was  made  after  that  of  Tobit,  when  Jerome  was  not 
 yet  familiar  with  Clialdee 
 
 a  Sophronius  (De  Vir.  111.  cxxxiv.)  had  also  then 
 translated  into  Greek  Jerome's  version  of  the  Psalms 
 and  Prophets. 
 
 b  The  date  given  by  Hody  (a.  d.  388)  rests  on  a 
 false  reference  (p.  356). 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3465 
 
 Vetiis  Latina. 
 Gaude  vehementer,  filia  Sion, 
 prcedica  filia  Jerusalem : 
 Ecce  Rex  tuus  veniet  tibi  Justus  et  salvans  : 
 ipse  matuuetus  et  ascendeus  super 
 subjugalem  et  piiUum  novum. 
 
 Zech.  ix.  9  (Matt.  xxi.  5). 
 
 Vulgata  nova. 
 Exsulta  satis,  filia  Sion, 
 jubila  filia  Jerusalem. 
 
 Ecce  Kex  tuus  veniet  tibi  Justus  et  salyator  : 
 ipse  pauper  et  ascendens  super 
 asinain  et  super  puUmn  filium  asincs. 
 
 Is.  Ixi.  1,  2  (Luke  iv.  18,  19). 
 
 Spiritus  Domini  super  me, 
 propter  quod  unxit  me  : 
 evangetizare  pauperibus  misit  me, 
 sanare  contritos  corde, 
 praedicare  captivis  remissionem, 
 et  coBcis  ut  videant : 
 vocare  annum  acceptabilem  Domino 
 
 et  diem  retributionis: 
 consolari  omnes  lugentcs. 
 
 Et  dicam  non  populo  meo : 
 
 Populus  meus  e.<!  tu. 
 
 Et  ipse  dicet : 
 
 Dominus  Deus  meus  es  tu. 
 
 Et  erit  in  loco  ubi  dictum  est  eis : 
 Noil  populus  meus  vos : 
 Vocabuntur  Filii  Dei  viventis. 
 
 I      Spiritus  Domini  (al.  add.  Dei)  super  me, 
 eo  quod  unxerit  Dominus  me  : 
 ad  minunciandum  mansuetis  misit  me, 
 ut  mederer  coutritis  corde, 
 et  praadicarem  captivis  indulgentiam, 
 et  c/ausis  apertionem  : 
 ut  praadicarem  (al.  et  annunciarem)  annum  placab- 
 
 ilem  Domino 
 et  diem  ultionis  Deo  nost.ro  : 
 ut  consolarer  omnes  lugentes. 
 
 Hos.  ii.  24  (Rom.  ix.  25). 
 
 Et  dicam  non  populo  meo : 
 Populus  meus  es  tu. 
 Et  ipse  dicet : 
 Deus  meus  es  tu. 
 
 Hos.  i.  10  (Rom.  ix.  26). 
 
 Et  erit  in  loco  ubi  dicetur  eis  : 
 Non  populus  meus  tos  : 
 Dicetur  eis:  Filii  Dei  viventis. 
 
 Is.  xxviii.  16  (Rom.  x.  11). 
 Ecce  ego  immittam  in  fundamenta  Sion  lapidem  .  .  •  |      Ecce  ego  mittam  in  fundamentis  Sion  lapidem 
 et  qui  crediderit  non  confundetur.  \      qui  crediderit  non  festinet. 
 
 De  morte  redimam  illos  : 
 
 ubi  est  causa  tua,moTs''. 
 
 ubi  est  aculeus  tuus,  Inferne? 
 
 Hos.  xiii.  14  (1  Coit.  xv.  55). 
 
 De  morte  redimam  eos : 
 ero  Triors  tua,  o  mors, 
 morsus  tuus  ero,  Inferne. 
 
 Job  iv.  15-21. 
 
 Et  spiritus  in  faciem  mihi  occurrit, 
 
 Horruerunt  capilli  mei  et  carnes. 
 
 Exsurrexi  et  non  cognovi. 
 
 Inspexi,  et  non  erat  figura  ante  faciem  meam  : 
 
 sed  auram  tantuni  et  vocem  audiebam. 
 
 Quid  enini  ?     Nunquid  liomo  coram  Domino  mun- 
 
 dus  erit, 
 aut  ab  operibus  suis  sine  macula  vir  ? 
 Si  contra  servos  suos  non  credit, 
 et  adversus  angelos  suos  pravum  quid  reperit. 
 Habitantes  autem  domos  luteas, 
 de  quibus  et  nos  ex  eodem  luto  sumus, 
 percussit  illos  tanquam  tinea, 
 et  a  mane  usque  ad  vespei'am  ultra  non  sunt ; 
 et  quod  non  posseut  sibi  ipsis  subvenire  perierunt. 
 Afflavit  enim  eos  et  aruerunt, 
 interiei'unt,  quia  non  habebant  sapientiam. 
 
 Et  cum  spiritus  me  praesente  transiret, 
 
 inhorruerunt  pili  carnis  meae 
 
 Stetit  quidam,  cujus  non  agnoscebam  vultum 
 
 imago  coram  oculis  meis, 
 
 et  vocem  quasi  aurse  lenis  audivi. 
 
 Nunquid  homo  Dei  comparatione  justificabitur, 
 
 aut  factore  suo  purior  erit  vir  ? 
 
 Ecce  qui  serviunt  ei  non  sunt  stabiles  : 
 
 et  in  angelis  suis  reperit  pravitatem. 
 
 Quanto  magis  hi  qui  habitant  domos  luteas, 
 
 qui  terrenum  habent  fundamentum, 
 
 cousumentur  velut  a  tinea? 
 
 De  mane  usque  ad  vesperam  succidentur : 
 
 et  quia  nuUus  intelligit  in  aetemum  peribunt. 
 
 Qui  autem  reliqui  fuerint  auferentur  ex  eis  : 
 
 Morientur,  et  non  in  sapientia. 
 
 IV.  The  Histoky  of  Jerome's  Tkaksla- 
 TiON  to  the  Inventiox  of  Printing.  —  21. 
 The  critical  labors  of  .Jerome  were  received,  as  such 
 labors  always  are  received  by  the  multitude,  with 
 a  loud  outcry  of  reproach.  He  was  accused  of 
 disturbing  the  repose  of  the  Church,  and  shaking 
 the  foundations  of  faith.  Acknowledged  errors,  as 
 he  complains,  were  looked  upon  as  hallowed  by 
 ancient  usage  (Prcef.  in  .Job  ii.);  and  few  had  the 
 wisdom  or  candor  to  acknowledge  the  importance 
 of  seeking  ibr  the  purest  possible  text  of  Holy 
 Scripture.  Even  Augustine  was  carried  away  by 
 the  popular  prejudice,  and  endeavored  to  discour- 
 218 
 
 age  Jerome  from  the  task  of  a  new  translation 
 (Ep.  civ.),  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  dangerous 
 and  almost  profane.  Jerome,  indeed,  did  little  to 
 smooth  the  way  for  the  reception  of  his  work. 
 The  violence  and  bitterness  of  his  language  is  more 
 like  that  of  the  rival  scholars  of  the  IGth  century 
 than  of  a  Christian  Father;  and  there  are  few 
 more  touching  instances  of  humility  than  that  of 
 the  young  Augustine  bending  himself  in  entire 
 submission  before  the  contemptuous  and  impatient 
 reproof  of  the  veteran  scliolar  {Ep.  cxii.  s.  /.). 
 But  even  Augustine  could  not  overcome  the  force 
 of  early  habit.     To  the  last  he  remained  faithful 
 
8466 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 to  the  Italic  text  which  he  had  first  iiseJ;  and 
 while  he  notices  in  his  Eetractationes  several  faulty 
 readings  which  he  had  formerly  embraced,  he  shows 
 no  tendency  to  substitute  generally  the  aSTew  Ver- 
 sion for  the  Old .«  In  such  cases  time  is  the  great 
 reformer,  t'lamor  based  upon  ignorance  soon  dies 
 away;  and  the  new  translation  gradually  came  into 
 use  "equally  with  the  old,  and  at  length  supplanted 
 it.  In  the  5th  century  it  was  adopted  in  Gaul  by 
 Eucherius  of  Lyons,  Vincent  of  Lerins,  Sedulius 
 and  Claudianus  Mamertus  (Hody,  p.  398);  but 
 the  Old  Latin  was  still  retained  in  Africa  and 
 Britain  (ibid.).  In  the  6th  century  the  use  of 
 Jerome's  Version  was  universal  among  scholars 
 except  in  Africa,  where  the  other  still  lingered 
 (Junilius);  and  at  the  close  of  it  Gregory  the 
 Great,  while  commenting  on  Jerome's  Version, 
 acknowledged  that  it  was  admitted  equally  with 
 the  Old  by  the  Apostolic  See  {Praf.  in  Job  ad 
 Leandrum),  "  Novam  translationem  dissero,  sed  ut 
 comprobationis  causa  exigit,  nunc  Novam,  nunc 
 Veterem,  per  testimonia  assume:  ut  quia  sedes 
 Apostolica  (cui  auctore  I')eo  prffisideo)  utraque 
 utitur  mei  quoque  labor  studii  ex  utraque  fulcia- 
 tur."  But  the  Old  Version  was  not  authorita- 
 tively displaced,  though  the  custom  of  the  Roman 
 Church  prevailed  also  in  the  other  churches  of  the 
 West.  Thus  Isidore  of  Seville  (Be  Offic.  Eccles. 
 i.  12),  after  affirming  the  inspiration  of  the  LXX., 
 goes  on  to  reconnnend  the  Version  of  Jerome, 
 "which,"  he  says,  "is  used  universally,  as  being 
 more  truthful  in  substance  and  more  perspicuous 
 in  language."  "  [Hieronymi]  editione  generaliter 
 omnes  ecciesiaj  usquequaque  utuntur,  pro  eo  quod 
 veracior  sit  in  sententiis  et  clarior  in  verliis:" 
 (Hody,  p.  402).  In  the  7th  century  the  traces  of 
 the  Old  Version  grow  rare.  Julianus  of  Toledo 
 (a.  d.  676)  affirms  with  a  special  polemical  pur- 
 pose the  authority  of  the  LXX.,  and  so  of  the 
 Old  Latin ;  but  still  he  himself  follows  Jerome 
 when  not  influenced  by  the  requirements  of  con- 
 troversy (Hody,  pp.  405,  406).  In  the  8th  cen- 
 tury Bede  speaks  of  Jerome's  Version  as  "  our 
 edition''  (Hody,  p.  408);  and  from  this  time  it  is 
 needless  to  trace  its  history,  though  the  Old  Latin 
 was  not  wholly  forgotten.*  Yet  throughout,  the 
 New  Version  made  its  way  without  any  direct 
 ecclesiastical  authority.  It  was  adopted  in  the 
 difierent  churches  gradually,  or  at  least  without 
 any  formal  command.  (Compare  Hody,  p.  411  ff. 
 for  detailed  quotations.) 
 
 22.  But  the  Latin  Bible  which  thus  passed  grad- 
 ually into  use  under  the  name  of  Jerome  was  a 
 strangely  composite  work.  The  books  of  the  O.  T., 
 with  one  €xee^)tion,  were  certainly  taken  from  his 
 version  from  the  Hebrew;  but  this  had  not  only 
 been  variously  corrupted,  but  was  itself  in   many 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 particulars  (especially  in  the  Pentateuch)  at  vari- 
 ance with  his  later  judgment.  Long  use,  nowever, 
 made  it  impossible  to  substitute  his  Psalter  from 
 tlie  Hebrew  for  the  Galilean  Psalter;  and  thus  this 
 book  was  retained  from  the  Old  Version,  as  Jerome 
 had  corrected  it  from  the  LXX.  Of  the  Apocry- 
 phal books  Jerome  hastily  revised  or  translated  two 
 only,  Judith  and  Tobit.  The  remainder  were  re- 
 tained from  the  Old  Version  against  his  judgment; 
 and  (he  Apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther, 
 which  he  had  carefully  marked  as  apocryphal  in  his 
 own  version,  were  treated  as  integral  parts  of  the 
 1  looks.  A  few  IMSS.  of  the  Bible  faithfully  pre- 
 served the  "  Hebrew  Canon,"  but  the  great  mass, 
 according  to  the  general  custom  of  copyists  to  omit 
 nothing,  included  everything  which  had  held  a 
 place  in  the  Old  Latin.  In  the  N.  T.  the  only 
 important  addition  which  was  frequently  interpo- 
 lated was  the  apocryphal  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans. 
 The  text  of  the  Gospels  was  in  the  main  Jerome's 
 revised  edition ;  that  of  the  remaining  books  his 
 very  incomplete  revision  of  the  Old  Latin.  Thus 
 the  present  Vulgate  contains  elements  which  belong 
 to  every  period  and  form  of  the  Latin  Version  — 
 (1.)  Unrevised  Old  Latin:  Wisdom,  Ecclus.,  1.  2 
 Mace,  Baruch.  (2.)  Old  Latin  revised  Jrom  f he 
 LXX.:  Psalter.  (3.)  Jerome's  free  translation 
 from  the  original  text:  Judith,  Tobit.  (4.)  Je- 
 rome's translation  from  the  Original:  0.  T.  ex- 
 cept Psalter.  (5.)  Old  Latin  revised  from  Greek 
 MSS.  :  Gospels.  (6.)  Old  Latin  cursorily  re- 
 vised :  the  remainder  of  N.  T. 
 
 The  Revision  of  Alcuin.  —  23.  Meanwhile  the 
 text  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Latin  Bible  was 
 rapidly  deteriorating.  The  simultaneous  use  of  the 
 Old  and  New  versions  necessarily  led  to  great  cor- 
 ruptions of  both  texts.  Mixed  texts  were  formed 
 according  to  the  taste  or  judgment  of  scribes,  and 
 the  confusion  was  further  increased  by  the  changes 
 which  were  sometimes  introduced  by  those  who  had 
 some  knowledge  of  (jreek.*;  Erom  this  cause 
 scarcely  any  Anglo-Saxon  Vulgate  MS.  of  the  8th 
 or  f)th  centuries  which  the  writer  has  examined  is 
 wholly  free  from  an  admixture  of  old  readings. 
 Several  remarkable  examples  are  noticed  below 
 (§  32);  and  in  rare  instances  it  is  difficult  to  de 
 cide  whether  the  text  is  not  rather  a  revised  ]'elus 
 than  a  corrupted  Vulrjata  nova  (e.  f/.  Brit.  Mus. 
 Puff.  i.  E.  vi.;  Addil.  5,463).  As  early  as  the  6th 
 century,  Cassiodorus  attempted  a  partial  revision 
 of  the  text  (Psalter,  Prophets,  Epistles)  by  a  colla- 
 tion of  old  MSS.  But  private  labor  was  unable  to 
 check  the  growing  corruption;  and  in  the  8th  cen- 
 tury this  had  arrived  at  such  a  height,  that  it  at- 
 tracted the  attention  of  Charlemagne.  Charle- 
 magne at  once  sought  a  remedy,  and  entrusted  tb 
 Alcuin   (cir.  A.  d.  802)   the  task  of  revising  the 
 
 a  When  he  quotes  it.  he  seems  to  consider  an  ex- 
 planation neceosary  (De  doctr.  Christ,  iv.  7,  15):  "Ex 
 iHlus  prophetse  libro  pofissimum  hoc  faciam  .... 
 non  autem  secundum  LXX.  interpretes,  qui  etiam 
 ipsi  divino  xpiritu  interpretali,  ob  hoc  aliter  videntur. 
 nonnidla  dixisse,  ut  ad  spiritualem  sensum  magis  ad- 
 monentm  lecloris  inlentio  ....  sed  sicut  ex  Hebrseo 
 in  Latinum  eloquium,  presbytero  Hieronymo  utrius- 
 que  linguae  perito  interpretante,  translata  sunt."  In 
 his  Retractationes  there  is  no  definite  reference,  as  far 
 as  I  have  observed,  to  Jerome's  critical  Labors.  He 
 iDOtices,  however,  some  false  readings :  Lib.  i.  vii. ;  Ps. 
 ^xliii.  22  (Rom.  viii.  C6) ;  Wisd.  viii.  7;  Eccles.  i.  2; 
 irf.  xix  4;  Matt.  v.  22,  oin.  sine  causa;  Lib  ii.,  xii. ; 
 Mstt.  XX.  17  (dtwdecim  for  duo). 
 
 b  Thus  Bede,  speaking  of  a  contemporary  abbot, 
 says  that  he  increased  the  library  of  two  monasteries 
 with  great  zeal,  "ita  ut  tres  Pandectas"  (the  name 
 for  the  collection  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  adopted  by 
 Alcuin,  in  place  of  Blbliotheca)  "novae  translatiu- 
 nis  ad  unum  vetustfe  translationis,  quam  de  Roma 
 attulerat,  ipse  superadjungeret  .  .  .  ."  (Hody,  p. 
 409). 
 
 c  Jerome  notices  this  fruitful  source  of  error :  "  Si 
 quid  pro  studio  ex  latere  additum  est  non  debet  poni 
 in  corpore,  ne  priorem  translationem  pro  scribentium 
 voluntate  conturbiit "  (Ep.  cvi.  ad  Sun.  et  Fret.). 
 Bede,  Walafrid  Strabo,  and  others,  complain  of  the 
 same  custom. 
 I 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Latin  text  for  public  use.  This  Alcuin  ap]iears  to 
 have  done  simply  by  the  use  of  MSS.  of  the  Vul- 
 gate, and  not  by  reference  to  the  original  texts 
 (Porson,  Letter  vi.  to  Travis,  p.  145).  The  pas- 
 sages which  are  adduced  by  Hody  to  pro\'e  his  fa- 
 miliarity with  Hebrew,  are  in  fact  only  quotations 
 from  Jerome,  and  he  certainly  left  the  text  unal- 
 tered, at  least  in  one  place  where  Jerome  points  out 
 its  inaccuracy  (Gen.  xxv.  8)."  The  patronafje  of 
 Charlemagne  gave  a  wide  currency  to  the  revision 
 of  Alcuin,  and  several  MSS.  remain  which  claim  to 
 date  immediately  from  his  time.''  According  to  a 
 very  remarkable  statement,  Charlemagne  was  more 
 than  a  patron  of  sacred  criticism,  and  himself  de- 
 voted the  last  year  of  his  life  to  the  correction  of 
 the  (jospels  "  with  the  help  of  Cireeks  and  Syr- 
 ians "  (Van  Ess,  p.  159,  quoting  Theganus,  Script. 
 Hist.  Franc,  ii.  277  ).= 
 
 24:.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  probable  that 
 Alcuin's  revision  contributed  much  towards  pre- 
 serving a  good  Vulgate  text.  The  best  MSS.  of 
 his  recension  do  not  dittiir  widely  from  the  jnn-e 
 Hieronymian  tgxt,  and  his  authority  must  have 
 done  much  to  check  the  spread  of  the  interpolations 
 which  reappear  afterwards,  and  which  were  derived 
 from  the  intermixture  of  the  Old  and  New  Versions. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3467 
 
 Examples  of  readings  which  seem  to  be  due  to  him 
 occur:  Deut.  i.  9,  add.  soliiudinem ;  i-eiiissemus, 
 for  -etis  ;  id.  4,  nscencKmus,  for  ascendemus ;  ii 
 24,  in  mnnu  iwi,  for  in  mnnus  iuus  ;  iv.  .3.3,  vidisti, 
 for  vixisli ;  vi.  1-i,  ipsi,  add.  soli ;  xv.  9,  ocidos,  om.  ' 
 tuos:  xvii.  20,  fiiiiis,  iorfilii:  xx.  6,  add.  venienl; 
 xxvi.  16,  at,  for  et.  But  the  new  revision  was 
 gradually  deformed,  though  later  attempts  at  cor- 
 rection were  made  by  Lanfranc  of  Canterbury  (a.  d. 
 1089,  Hody,  p.  41G),  Card.  Nicolaus  (.v.  d.  1150), 
 and  the  Cistercian  Abbot  Stephanus  (cir.  A.  d. 
 1150).  In  the  13th  century  Correcioria  were 
 drawn  up,  especially  in  France,  in  which  varieties 
 of  reading  were  discussed  ;  f'  and  Koger  Bacon  com- 
 plains loudly  of  the  confusion  which  was  introduced 
 into  the  "  Common,  that  is  the  Parisian  copy," 
 and  quotes  a  false  reading  fiom  Mark  viii.  38, 
 where  the  correctors  had  substituted  confesms  for 
 confusus  (Hody,  pp.  419  fT.).  Ijittle  more  was  done 
 for  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  till  the  invention  of 
 printing;  and  the  name  of  Laurentius  Vnlla  (cir. 
 1450)  alone  deserves  mention,  as  of  one  who  de- 
 voted the  highest  powers  to  the  criticism  of  Holy 
 Scripture,  at  a  time  when  such  studies  were  little 
 esteemed. 0 
 
 V.  The  History  of  the  Printed  Tk.xt. — 
 
 a  Hieron.  Qiieest.  in  Gen.  xxv.  8  ;  Cnmni.  in  Ec- 
 cles.  ix.  466  ;  ibid.  xii.  490. 
 
 6  Among  these  is  that  known  as  Charlemagne's  Bi- 
 ble, Brit.  Miis.  Add.  10,546,  which  has  been  described 
 by  Hug,  Einl.  §  123.  Another  is  in  tlie  library  of  the 
 Oratory  at  Rome  (comp.  §  30,  Cod.  D).  A  third  is  in 
 the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris.  All  of  these,  however, 
 are  later  than  the  age  of  Charlemagne,  and  date  prob- 
 ably from  tlie  time  of  Charles  the  Bald,  A.  D.  875. 
 
 <•  Mr.  II.  Bradshaw  suggests  that  this  statement  de- 
 rives some  confirmation  from  the  preface  which  Charle- 
 magne added  to  the  collection  of  Homilies  arranged 
 by  Paulus  Diacouus,  in  which  bespeaks  "  of  the  pains 
 which  he  had  taken  to  set  the  church  books  to 
 rights."  A  copy  of  this  collection,  with  the  Preface 
 (xith  cent.),  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of  St.  Peter's 
 Coll.  Caoibr. 
 
 <l  Vercellone  has  given  the  readings  of  three  Vati- 
 can Correctoria,  and  refers  to  his  own  essay  upon 
 them  in  Atti  delta  Pontif.  Acad.  Rom.  di  Ajclieologia, 
 xiv.  There  is  a  Corrtclorium  in  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  A, 
 viii. 
 
 e  The  divisions  of  the  Latin  Versions  into  capitula 
 were  very  various.  Cassiodorus  (t  560  a.  d.)  mentions 
 an  ancient  division  of  some  books  existing  in  his  time 
 ("  Octateuchi  [/.  e.  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth] 
 titulos  ,  ,  .  credidimus  imprimeudos  aniajoribus  nos- 
 tris  ordine  curreute  descriptos  "  De  Inst.  Div.  Litt. 
 i.),  and  in  other  books  (1,  2  Chron.,  the  books  of  Solo- 
 mon), he  himself  made  a  corresponding  division.  Je- 
 rome mentions  capitula,  but  the  sections  which  he  in- 
 dicates do  not  seem  to  establish  the  existence  of  any 
 generally  received  arrangement ;  and  the  variety  of 
 the  capitulation  in  the  best  existing  MSS.  of  his  ver- 
 sion proves  that  no  one  method  of  subdivision  could 
 claim  his  authority.  The  divisions  which  ai-e  given 
 in  MSS.  correspond  with  the  summary  of  contents  by 
 which  the  several  books  are  prefiiced,  and  vary  con- 
 siderably in  length.  They  are  called  indiscriminately 
 capitula,  brei-es,  tituli.  Martianay,  in  his  edition  of 
 the  Bibliothrra,  gives  a  threefold  arrangement,  and  as- 
 signs the  different  terms  to  the  three  .several  divisions ; 
 thus  Genesis  has  xxxviii  tituli,  xlvi  breves,  Ixxxii  (or 
 cliv)  capitula.  But  while  Jerome  does  not  appear  to 
 have  fixed  any  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters,  he 
 arranged  the  text  in  lines  {versus,  o-ti'xoi)  for  conven- 
 ience in  reading  and  interpretation  ;  and  the  lines 
 were  combined  in  marked  groups  {membra,  K<a\a).  In 
 the  poetical  books  a  further  arrangement  marked  the 
 
 parallelism  of  the  answering  clauses  (Martianay,  Pro- 
 legs;  iv.  All  Div.  Bibl.).  The  number  of  lines  (ce«i«) 
 is  variously  given  in  different  MSS.  (Comp.  Vercellone, 
 Var.  Led.  App.  ad  Jos.)  For  the  origin  of  the  present 
 division  of  the  Vulg:ite,  see  Bible,  i.  307  a. 
 
 An  abstract  of  the  capitula  and  versus  given  in  the 
 Alcuin  MS.,  known  as  "Charlemagne's  Bible"  (Brit. 
 Mus.  Addit.  10,546),  will  give  a  satisfactory  idea  of  the 
 contents,  nomenclature,  and  arrangement  of  the  best 
 copies  of  the  Latin  Bible. 
 
 Epistola  ad  Paulinum.  Praefatio. 
 
 Bresit,  i.  e.  Genesis,  capp.  Ixxxii.  habet  versos  m.  DCO. 
 Ellesmotli,  i.  e.  Exodus,  capp.  cxxxviiii.  v.  m. 
 Leviticus,  Hebraice 
 
 Vaiecra.   .     capp.  Ixxxviiii.  v-  ii-  ccc. 
 Numeri     .     .  capp.  Ixxviiii.     habet  vers.  numr.  m. 
 Addabarim,  Grece 
 
 Deuteronomimn     capp.  civ.  habet  vers.  il.  DC. 
 Praefatio  Jesu  Naue  et  Judicum. 
 Josue  Ben  Nun  .  capp.  xxxiii.  habet  vers.  T.  DCCL. 
 Softim,  i.  e.  Judicum, 
 
 (liber)  .     .     .     capp.  xviii.  habet  vers.  numr. 
 
 I.   DCCL. 
 
 Ruth        none,  habet  ver.  num.  CCL. 
 
 PrEefatio  (Prologus  galeatus). 
 Samuhel  {Regum),  lib. 
 
 prim.    .     .     .     capp.  xxvi.  habet  versus,  iI.  ccc. 
 Samuhel  {Regum),  lib. 
 
 sec.       .     .     .     capp.  xviii.  habet  versus,  n.  cc. 
 Malachim,  i.  e.  Regum, 
 
 lib.  tert.  capp,  xviiii. 
 
 (for  xviii.)  habet  vers.  u.  d. 
 
 Malachim,  i.  e.  Regum, 
 
 lib.  quart.     .       capp.  xvii.  habet  versus  ii.  ccl. 
 Prologus. 
 
 Isaias none,  habet  vers.  iil.  dlxxx. 
 
 Prologus. 
 
 Hieremias  (with  Lam.  and 
 
 Prayer)     ....     none,  habet  versus  IliT.  CCOOI 
 Prologus. 
 Hiezerheel  {-iel)       .     .     none.  none. 
 
 Danihel none,  habet  versus  i.  dccol. 
 
 Osec,  Johel,  Amos,  Abdias, 
 
 Jonas,   Michas,    Naum, 
 
 Abacuc,   Sophonias,  Ag- 
 
 geus,    Zacharias,    Mala- 
 
 chias none.  none. 
 
 Prologus. 
 
3468 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 25.  It  was  a  noble  omen  for  the  future  progress  of 
 printing  that  tlie  first  book  which  issued  from  the 
 press  was  tlie  Bible ;  and  the  splendid  pages  of  tlie 
 Mazariii  Vulgate  (Mainz,  Gutenburg  and  Fust) 
 stand  yet  unsurpassed  by  the  latest  efforts  of  typog- 
 raphy. This  work  is  referred  to  about  the  year 
 1455,  and  presents  the  common  text  of  the  15tli 
 century.  Other  editions  followed  in  rapid  succes- 
 sion (the  first  with  a  date,  JMainz,  1402,  Fust  and 
 Schoitfer),  but  they  ofter  nothing  of  critical  interest. 
 The  first  collection  of  various  readings  appears  in  a 
 Paris  edition  of  1504,  and  others  followed  at  Venice 
 and  Lyons  in  1511,  1513:  but  Cardinal  Ximenes 
 (1502-1517)  was  the  first  who  seriously  revised  the 
 Latin  text  ("....  contulinius  cum  quaniplu- 
 rimis  exemplaribus  venerandse  vetustatis;  sed  his 
 maxime,  quie  in  publica  Coniplutensis  nostrse 
 Universitatis  bibliotheca  reconduntur,  quae  supra 
 octingentesimum  abhiiic  annum  litteris  Gothicis 
 conscripta,  ea  sunt  sinceritate  ut  nee  apicis  lapsus 
 possit  in  eis  deprehendi,"  /";■«/'.) «,  to  which  he 
 assigtied  the  middle  place  of  honor  in  his  Polyglott 
 
 Job none.  v.  i.  DCC. 
 
 Origo  Proph.  David,         Prsefivtio. 
 Liber  Psalmorum  (Gallican) 
 
 none,  habet  vr.  v. 
 Epist.  ad  Chroni.  et  Heliod. 
 
 Liber  Proverbiorum    capp.  Ix.  habet  versus  I.  dccxl. 
 Ecc/esiastes  .     .     capp.  xxxi.  none. 
 Cantica  Canticorum  .     none,  habet  versus  CCLXXX. 
 Liber  SapienlicB     capp.  xlviii.  habet  versus  I.  DCC. 
 Ecclesiasticits  .     capp.  cxxvii.  habet  versus  u.  DCCC. 
 Prajfatio. 
 
 Dabreiamir),  lib.  prim.    none.  hab.  (sic) 
 Parali/pominon  (lib. 
 
 sec.) none.  none. 
 
 PrEelatio. 
 
 Liber  EzrcB  .... 
 
 Prologus. 
 
 Hester  (with  add.)       .     none,  habet  versus  v.  DCC. 
 
 Praeiatio. 
 
 Tobias none.  none. 
 
 Prologus. 
 
 habet  versus  i.  c. 
 
 Ixi.  none. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  [comp.  Nkw 
 Tkst.vment,  iii.  2129  b].  The  Complutensian  text 
 is  said  to  be  more  correct  than  those  which  pre- 
 ceded it,  but  still  it  is  very  far  from  being  pure. 
 This  was  followed  in  1528  (2d  edition  1532)  by  an 
 edition  of  R.  Stephens,  who  had  bestowed  great 
 pains  u|)on  the  work,  consulting  three  MSS.  of 
 high  character  and  the  earlier  editions,  but  as  yet 
 the  best  materials  were  not  open  for  use.  About 
 the  same  time  various  attempts  were  made  to  cor- 
 rect the  Latin  from  the  original  texts  (Erasmus, 
 1510;  b  Pagninus,  1518-28;  Card.  Cajetanus; 
 Steuchius,  1529;  Clarius,  1542),  or  even  to  make 
 a  new  Latin  version  (Jo.  Campensis,  1533).  A 
 more  important  edition  of  R.  Stephens  followed  in 
 1540,  in  which  he  made  use  of  twenty  MSS.  and 
 introduced  considerable  alterations  into  his  former 
 text.  Li  1541  another  edition  was  published  by 
 Jo.  Benedictus  at  Paris,  which  was  liased  on  the 
 collation  of  MSS.  and  editions,  and  was  often 
 reprinted  afterwards.  Vercellone  speaks  much 
 more  highly  of  the  Biblia  Ordinaria,  with  glosses, 
 
 Judith     .... 
 Liber  Machabr.  prim 
 
 Mac/iabr.  liber  sec.     .     .   Iv.  
 
 Prsef.  ad  Damasum. 
 
 Argumentum. 
 
 Canones. 
 
 Prologus. 
 
 Mattlieus     .     ■     capp.  Ixxxi.  habet  vers.  u.  dcc. 
 
 Marcus  .     .     .     capp.     xlvi.  habet  v.  i.  dcc 
 
 Lucas     .     .     ■     capp.  Ixxiii.  vers.  TTi.  BCCC. 
 
 Johannes     .     .     capp.  xxxv.  vers.  I.  dccc. 
 
 Lib.  Actuum  Apost.  capp.  Ixxiiii.  habet  vers.  HI.  DC 
 
 Prologus  septem  Epistolarum  Can. 
 
 Epistl.  Sci.  Jacobi    .     capp.  xx.  none. 
 
 Epistl.  Sci.  Petri  prim.  capp.  xx.  
 
 Epistl.  Set.  Petri  sec.        capp.  xi.  
 
 Epistl.  Sci.  Joh.  -prim.    capp.  xx.  
 
 capp.  V.  
 
 capp.  vi. 
 
 .    capp.  vii. 
 
 .     capp.  li.  habet  versus  Dccccxi. 
 capp.  Ixxii.  none. 
 
 Epla.  ail  Cor.  sec.     capp.  xxviii.  habet  vers,  ccxcn. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Galalhas    capp.  xxxvii.  habet  versus  ccxm. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Ephesios       capp.  xxxi.  habet  versus  cccxvn. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Philippenses  capp.  xviiii.  none. 
 
 Epla.  ad  T/iess.  prim.  capp.  xxv.  habet  versus  ccxni. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Thrss.  sec.     capp.  viiii.  none. 
 
 Epla.  arl  Colosenses    capp.  xxxi.  none. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Tim.  prim.  capp.  xxx.  vers,  ccxxs 
 
 Epla.  ad  Tim.  sec.       capp.  xxv.  none. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Tit.    .     .     .     capp.  x.  none. 
 
 Epistl.  Sci.  Joh.  sec. 
 Epistl.  Sci.  Joh.  tert. 
 Epistl.  Set.  Jud.    . 
 Epla.  ad  Romanos 
 Epla.  ad  Cor.  prim. 
 
 Epla.  ad  Philem.  .  capp.  iiii.  none. 
 Epla.  ad  Hebr.  capp.  xxxviiii.  none. 
 Epla.  ad  Laodieenscs  none.  none. 
 Apincalypsia  .     .     capp.  xxv.  habet  versus  i.  DCCC. 
 
 An  argiimenttan  is  given  before  each  of  the  books 
 of  the  N.  T.  except  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Epis- 
 tle to  the  Laodiceans,  and  the  whole  MS.  closes  with 
 sixty -eight  hexameter  Latin  verses. 
 
 The  divisions  agree  generally  with  Brit.  Miis.  Harl. 
 2805,  and  Lambeth  3,  4.  In  the  Vallicellian  Alcuin 
 MS.  (comp.  p.  3474  d)  the  apocryphal  Ep.  to  the  Lao- 
 diceans is  not  found  ;  but  it  occurs  in  the  same  posi- 
 tion in  the  great  Bible  in  the  King's  Library  (1  E.  vii. 
 viii.),  with  four  capitula. 
 
 Many  examples  of  the  various  divisions  into  capitula 
 are  given  at  length  by  Thomasius,  Opera,  i.  ed.  Vez- 
 zosi,  Rojtio',  1747.  The  divisions  of  the  principal 
 MSS.  which  the  writer  has  examined  are  given  be- 
 low, §  SO. 
 
 Bentley  gives  the  following  stichomctry  from  Cod. 
 Sangerm.  (g) :  — 
 
 Ep.  ad  Rom  ,    Scribta  de  Chorintho.      Versos  DCCCO. 
 (so  two  other  of  B.'s  MSS. ). 
 ad  Cor.  i.,  Scribta  de  Philipis.     Versus  DCCCLXX. 
 ad   Cor.    ii.,   Scribta    de     Macedonia.      Versus 
 
 DLXX.  (sic). 
 
 ad    Galat.,     Scribta    de    urbe    Roma.       Versi 
 
 CCLXIIIXC.  (.sic), 
 ad   Ephes.,    Scribta   de    urbe    Roma,      Versus 
 
 occxn, 
 ad  Philip.,  Scribta  de  urbe  Roma.      Versi  cccL. 
 ad  Coloss.,  Scribta  de  urbe  Roma.     Versi  ccvin. 
 ad  Thess.  i.,  Scripta  de  Athenis.      Versi  CLXim. 
 ad  Thess.  ii.,    Scripta  de  urbe   Roma.      Versus 
 
 cvm. 
 ad  Tim.  i.,  Scribta  de  Lauditia.     Versus  CCXXX. 
 ad  Tim.  ii.,  Scripta.  a  Roma.      Versus  olxxii. 
 ad  Tit.,  Scripta  de  Nicopolin.     Versus  Lxvn. 
 ad  Philem.,   Scribta    de    urbe    Roma.      Versus 
 
 xxxrm. 
 ad  Hebr.,  Scribta  de  Roma.      Versus  DCC. 
 No  verses  are  given  from  this  MS.  for  the  other 
 books. 
 
 a  The  copy  which  is  here  alluded  to  is  still  in  the 
 library  at  Alcala,  but  the  writer  is  not  aware  that  it 
 has  been  reexamined  by  any  scholar.  There  is  also  a 
 second  copy  of  the  Vulgate  of  the  12th  cent  A  list 
 of  Biblical  MSS.  at  Alcala  is  given  in  Dr.  Tregelles' 
 Printed  Text  of  N.  T.,  pp.  15-18. 
 
 ''  Erasmus  himself  wished  to  publish  the  Latin  text 
 as  he  found  it  in  MSS.  ;  but  he  was  dissuaded  by  the 
 advice  of  afriend,  "  urgent  rather  than  wise  "  ("  amici 
 consiliis  improbis  verius  quam  felicibus  "'). 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 etc.,  published  at  Lyons,  1545,  as  giving  readings 
 in  accordance  witli  the  oldest  MSS.,  though  the 
 sources  from  which  they  are  deri\ed  are  not  given 
 {Varice  Led.  xcix. )•  The  course  of  controversy 
 in  tlie  16th  century  exaggerated  the  importance  of 
 the  differences  in  tlie  text  and  interpretation  of  the 
 Vulgate,  and  tlia  confusion  called  for  some  remedy. 
 An  authorized  edition  became  a  necessity  for  the 
 Komish  Church,  and,  however  gravely  later  theo- 
 logians may  have  erred  in  explaining  the  policy  or 
 intentions  of  the  Tridentine  Fathers  on  this  point, 
 there  can  be  no  doubt  that  (setting  aside  all  refer- 
 ence to  the  original  texts)  the  principle  of  their 
 decision  —  tlie  preference,  that  is,  of  the  oldest 
 Latin  text  to  any  later  Latin  version  —  was  sub- 
 stantially rigiit." 
 
 The  Sixdne  ami  Ckmenline  Vulgates.  —  26. 
 The  first  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent  was  held 
 on  Dec.  13th,  15-15.  After  some  preliniinary 
 arrangements  the  Nicene  Creed  was  formally  pro- 
 mulgated as  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  faith 
 on  Feb.  4th,  1540,  and  then  the  Council  proceeded 
 to  the  question  of  the  authority,  text,  and  inter- 
 pretation of  Holy  Scripture.  A  committee  was 
 appointed  to  report  upon  the  subject,  which  held 
 private  meetings  from  Feb.  20th  to  March  17th. 
 ConsideraVile  varieties  of  opinion  existed  as  to  the 
 relative  value  of  the  original  and  Latin  texts,  and 
 the  final  decree  was  intended  to  ser\e  as  a  com- 
 promise.'' This  was  made  on  A|)ril  8th,  1540,  and 
 consisted  of  two  parts,  the  first  of  which  contains  the 
 list  of  the  canonical  books,  with  the  usual  anathema 
 on  those  who  refuse  to  receive  it;  while  the  second. 
 "On  the  Edition  and  Use  of  the  Sacred  Books," 
 contains  no  anathema,  so  that  its  contents  are  not 
 articles  of  faith. t^  The  wording  of  the  decree  itself 
 contains  several  marks  of  the  controversy  from 
 which  it  arose,  an<l  admits  of  a  far  more  liberal 
 construction  than  later  glosses  have  atfixed  to  it. 
 In  affirming  the  authority  of  the  '  Old  Vulgate '  it 
 contains  no  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  original 
 texts.  The  question  decided  is  simply  the  relative 
 merits  of  the  current  Latin  Aersions  ("  si  ex 
 omnibus  Latinis  versionibus  qua;  circumferuntur 
 ...."),  and  this  only  in  reference  to  public 
 exercises.  The  object  contemplated  is  the  advan- 
 tage (utilitas)  of  the  Church,  and  not  anything 
 essential  to  its  constitution.  It  was  further  en- 
 acted, as  a  check  to  the  license  of  printers,  that 
 "  Holy  Scripture,  but  especially  the  old  and  com- 
 mon (Vulgate)  edition  (evidently  without  excluduig 
 the  original  texts),  should  be  printed  as  correctly 
 as  possible."  In  spite,  however,  of  tlie  compara- 
 tive caution  of  the  decree,  and  the  interpretation 
 which  was  affixed  to  it  by  the  highest  authorities, 
 it  was  received  with  little  favor,  and  the  want  of  a 
 standard  text  of  the  Vulgate  practically  left  the 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3469 
 
 a  Bellarmiu  justly  insists  on  this  fact,  wliich  has 
 been  strangely  overlooked  in  later  controversies  ( De 
 Verba  Dei,  x.  ap.  Van  Ess,  §  27) :  "  Nee  enim  Patres 
 [Tridentini]  fontium  uUam  mentionem  feceruut.  Sed 
 solum  ex  tot  latinis  versionibus,  quaj  nunc  circum- 
 feruntur, unam  delegerunt,  quam  ceteris  ant«pouerent 
 ....  antiquam  novis,  probatam  longo  usu  receuti- 
 bus  adhuc,  ae  ut  sic  loquar.  crudis  .   .   .  .   " 
 
 i  The  original  authoi'ities  are  collected  and  given 
 it  length  by  Van  Ess,  §  17. 
 
 c  Insuper  eadem  Sacrosancta  Synodus  considerans 
 non  parum  utilitatis  accedere  posse  ecclesiae  Dei,  si  ex 
 omnibus  latinis  editionibus,  quae  circumferuntur 
 sacrorum  librorum,  quainam  pro  authentica  habenda 
 eit,  iunotescat,  statuit  et  declarat,  ut  haec  ipsa  vetus 
 
 question  as  unsettled  as  before.  The  decree  itself 
 was  made  by  men  little  fitted  to  anticipate  the 
 difficulties  of  textual  criticism,  but  afterwards  these 
 were  found  to  be  so  great  that  for  some  time  it 
 seemed  that  no  authorized  edition  would  appear.  - 
 The  theologians  of  Belgium  did  something  to  meet 
 the  want.  In  1547  the  first  edition  of  llentenius 
 appeared  at  Louvain,  which  had  very  considerable 
 influence  upon  later  copies.  It  was  based  upon 
 the  collation  of  Latin  MSS.  and  the  Stephanie 
 edition  of  1540.  In  the  Antwerp  Polyglott  of 
 1568-1572  the  Vulgate  was  borrowed  from  the 
 Complutensian  (Vercellone,  Var.  Led.  ci.);  but 
 in  the  Antwerp  edition  of  the  Vulgate  of  1573-74 
 the  text  of  llentenius  was  adopted  with  copious 
 additions  of  readings  by  Lucas  Urugensis.  This 
 last  was  designed  as  the  preparation  and  temporary 
 substitute  for  the  Papal  edition:  indeed  it  may  be 
 questioned  whether  it  was  not  put  forth  as  the 
 "  correct  edition  required  by  the  Tridentine  de- 
 cree"  (comp.  Lucas  Brug.  ap.  Vercellone,  cii.). 
 But  a  Papal  board  was  already  engaged,  however 
 desultorily,  upon  the  work  of  revision.  The  earliest 
 trace  of  an  attempt  to  realize  the  recommendations 
 of  the  Council  is  found  fifteen  years  after  it  was 
 made.  In  1501  Paulus  Manutius  (son  of  Aldus 
 Manutius)  was  invited  to  Rome  to  superintend  the 
 printing  of  Latin  and  Greek  Bibles  (Vercellone, 
 Var.  Lect.  etc.,  i.  Prol.  xix.  «.).  Luring  that 
 year  and  the  next  several  scholars  (with  Sirletus 
 at  their  head)  were  engaged  in  the  revision  of  the 
 text.  In  the  pontificate  of  Pius  V.  the  work  was 
 continued,  and  Sirletus  still  took  a  chief  part  in  it 
 (156!).  1570,  Vercellone,  /.  c.  xx.  /«. ),  but  it  was 
 currently  reported  that  the  difficulties  of  publishing 
 ay  authoritative  edition  were  insuperable.  Nothing 
 further  was  done  towards  the  revision  of  the  Vul- 
 gate under  Gregory  XIII.,  but  preparations  were 
 made  for  an  edition  of  the  LXX.  This  appeared 
 in  1587.  in  the  second  year  of  the  pontificate  of 
 Sixtus  v.,  who  had  been  one  of  the  chief  promoters 
 of  the  work.  After  the  publication  of  the  LXX., 
 Sixtus  immediately  devoted  himself  to  the  produc- 
 tion of  an  edition  of  the  Vulgate.  He  was  him- 
 self a  scholar,  and  his  imperious  genius  led  him  to 
 face  a  task  from  which  others  had  shrunk.  "  He 
 had  felt,"  he  says,  "  from  his  first  accession  to  the 
 papal  throne  (1585).  great  grief,  or  even  indigna- 
 tion (indigne  ferentes),  that  the  Tridentine  decree 
 was  still  unsatisfied;  "  and  a  board  was  appointed, 
 under  the  presidency  of  Card.  Carafa,  to  arrange 
 the  materials  and  offer  suggestions  for  an  edition. 
 Sixtus  himself  revised  the  text,  rejecting  or  con- 
 firming the  suggestions  of  the  board  by  his  absolute 
 judgment;  and  when  the  work  was  printed  he 
 examined  the  sheets  with  the  utmost  care,  and 
 corrected   the   errors   with   his  own  hand.''     The 
 
 et  vulgata  editio,  qu»  longo  tot  seculorum  usu  in  ipsa 
 ecclesia  probata  est,  in  piiblicis  lectionibus,  disputa- 
 tionibus,  prajdicafionibus  et  expositionibus  pro  au- 
 thentica  habeatur ;  et  ut  nemo  illam  it-jieere  quovig 
 
 prastextu  audeat  vel  pra;sumat Sed  et  inipres- 
 
 soribus  modum imponere  volcns de- 
 
 crevit  et  statuit  utposthiic  sucra.  scriptar-j,  pot is.-<imuni 
 vero  ha;c  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio  quam  emenda- 
 
 tissime  imprimatur 
 
 rf  The  original  words  are  both  interesting  and  im- 
 portant :  "  Nos  ....  jpsius  Apostolonnn  I'rinoipis 
 auctoritate  confisi  ....  haudquaquam  gravati 
 sumus  ....  hunc  quoque  non  mediocreni  acouratSR 
 lucubrationis  laborem  suscipere,  atque  ea  omnia 
 perlegere  quae   alii  coUegerant  aut  senserant,  diver- 
 
8470 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 edition  appeared  in  1590.  with  the  famous  consti- 
 tution yElernus  ille  (dated  March  1st,  1589)  pre- 
 fixed, in  which  Sixtus  affirmed  with  characteristic 
 decision  the  plenary  authority  of  the  edition  for  all 
 future  time.  "  15y  the  fullness  of  Apostolical 
 power  "  (such  are  his  words)  "  we  decree  and  de- 
 clare that  this  edition  ....  approved  by  the 
 authority  delivered  to  us  by  the  Lord,  is  to  be 
 received  and  held  as  true,  lawful,  authentic,  and 
 unquestioned,  in  all  public  (nid  private  discussion, 
 reading,  preaching,  and  explanation."  «  He  further 
 forbade  expressly  the  publication  of  various  read- 
 ings in  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  and  pronounced  that 
 all  readings  in  other  editions  and  MSS.  which  vary 
 i'rom  those  of  the  revised  text  "  are  to  have  no 
 credit  or  authority  for  the  future  "  (ea  in  iis  qu;e 
 huic  nostra^  editioni  non  consenserint,  nullam  in 
 posterum  fidem,  nullanique  auctoritateni  habitura 
 esse  decerniraus).  It  was  also  enacted  that- the 
 new  revision  shoidd  be  introduced  mto  all  missals 
 and  service-books;  and  the  greater  excommunica- 
 tion was  threatened  against  all  who  in  any  way 
 contravened  the  constitution.  Had  the  life  of  Sixtus 
 been  prolonged,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  his  iron 
 will  would  have  enforced  the  changes  which  he 
 thus  peremptorily  proclaimed;  but  he  died  in  Aug. 
 1590,  and  those  whom  he  had  alarmed  or  offended 
 took  immediate  measures  to  hinder  the  execution 
 of  his  designs.  Nor  was  this  without  good  reason. 
 He  had  changed  the  readings  of  those  whom  he 
 had  employed  to  report  upon  the  text  with  the  most 
 arbitrary  and  unskillful  hand ;  and  it  was  scarcely 
 an  exaggeration  to  say  that  his  precipitate  "  self- 
 reliance  had  brought  the  Church  into  the  most 
 serious  peril."  *  During  the  brief  pontificate  of 
 Urban  VII.  nothing  could  be  done;  but  the  reaction 
 was  not  long  delayed. 
 
 On  the  accession  of  Gregory  XIV.  some  went 
 so  far  as  to  propose  that  the  edition  of  Sixtus 
 should  be  absolutely  prohibited ;  but  Bellarmin 
 suggested   a  middle   course.      He   proposed    that 
 
 sarum  lectionum  rationes  perpendere.  sanctorum  doc- 
 torum  sententias  recognoscere :  quae  quibus  antefe- 
 renda  essent  dijudicave,  adeo  ut  in  hoc  laboriosissimse 
 emendationis  curriculo,  in  quo  operam  quotidianani, 
 eamque  pluribus  horis  coUocandam  duximus,  aliorum 
 quidem  labor  fuerit  in  consulendo,  noster  auteiu  in  eo 
 quod  ex  pluribus  esset  optimum  deligendo  ;  ita  tanien 
 ut  veterem  niultis  in  Ecclesia  abhinc  saeculis  receptaui 
 lectionem  omnino  retinuerimus.  Novam  intereaTypo- 
 graphiani  in  Apostolioo  Vaticano  Palatio  nostro  .  .  .  . 
 exstruximus  .  .  .  .  ut  in  ea  emendatum  jam  Biblio- 
 runi  volunien  excuderetur  ;  eaque  res  quo  magis 
 incorrupte  pei'ficeretur,  nostra  iios  ipsi  manu  correxi- 
 mus,  si  qua  praslo  vitia  obrepserant,  et  quas  confusa 
 aut  facile  confundi  posse  videbantur  ....  distinxi- 
 mus  "  (Hody,  p.  496  ;  Van  Ess,  p.  273). 
 
 a  "  ....  ex  certa  nostra  scientia,  deque  Apos- 
 tolicas  potestatis  plenitudine  statuinius  ac  declaramus, 
 earn  Vulgatam  sacrjB,  tam  veteris,  quam  novi  Testa- 
 nienti  paginse  Latinam  editionem,  quae  pro  authentica 
 a  Concilio  Tridentiuo  recepta  est,  sine  uUa  dubitatione, 
 aut  controversia  censendam  esse  banc  ipsam,  quam 
 nunc,  prout  optime  fieri  poterit,  eniendatam  et  in 
 Vaticana  Typographia  impressam  in  universa  Chris- 
 tiana Republica,  atque  in  omnibus  Christiani  orbis 
 Ecclesiislegendam  evulgamus,  decernentcseam  .  .  .  . 
 pro  vera,  legitima,  authentica  et  indubitata,  in  omni- 
 bus publicis  privatisque  disputationibus,  lectionibus, 
 praedioationibus,  et  explanationibus  recipiendam  et 
 tenendam  esse.'' 
 
 I'  Bellarmin  to  Clement  VIII.  :  '■  Novit  beatitude 
 ve.'^tra  cui  se  totamque  ecclesiam  discrimini  commiserit 
 Bixtus  V.  dum  juxta  proprioe  doctrina-  serisiis  sacrorum 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 the  erroneous  alterations  of  the  text  which  had 
 been  made  in  it  ("quae  mole  mulata  erant") 
 "  should  be  corrected  with  all  possible  speed  and 
 the  Bible  reprinted  under  the  name  of  Sixtus,  with 
 a  prefatory  note  to  the  effect  tliat  errors  (aliqua 
 eri-dta)  had  crept  into  the  former  edition  by  the 
 carelessness  of  the  printers."  <^  This  pious  fraud, 
 or  rather  daring  falsehood,''  for  it  can  be  called  by 
 no  other  name,  found  favor  with  those  in  power. 
 A  commission  was  appointed  to  revise  the  Sixtine 
 text,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Cardmal  Colonna 
 (Columna).  At  first  the  commissioners  made  but 
 slow  progress,  and  it  seemed  likely  that  a  year 
 would  elapse  before  the  revision  was  completed 
 (Ungarelli,  in  Vercellone,  Pioktj.  Iviii.).  The 
 mode  of  proceedings  was  therefore  changed,  and  the 
 commission  moved  to  Zagarolo,  the  country  seat 
 of  Colonna;  and,  if  we  may  believe  the  inscription 
 which  still  commemorates  tlie  event,  and  the  cur- 
 rent report  of  the  time,  the  work  was  completed  in 
 nineteen  days.  But  even  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
 the  work  extended  over  six  months,  it  is  obvious 
 that  there  was  no  time  for  the  examination  of  new 
 authorities,  but  only  for  making  a  rapid  revision 
 with  the  help  of  the  materials  already  collected. 
 The  task  was  hardly  finished  when  Gregory  died 
 (Oct.  1591 ),  and  the  publication  of  the  revised  text 
 was  again  delayed.  His  successor,  Innocent  IX., 
 died  within  the  same  year,  and  at  the  beginning 
 of  1592  Clement  VIII.  was  raised  to  the  popedom. 
 Clement  entrusted  the  final  revision  of  the  text  to 
 Toletus,  and  the  whole  was  printed  by  Aldus 
 Manutius  (the  grandson)  before  the  end  of  1592. 
 The  Preface,  which  is  moulded  upon  that  of  Sixtus, 
 was  written  by  Bellarmin,  and  is  favorably  distin- 
 guished from  that  of  Sixtus  by  its  temperance  and 
 even  modesty.  The  text,  it  is  said,  had  been  pre- 
 pared with  the  greatest  care,  and  though  not  abso- 
 lutely perfect  was  at  least  (what  is  no  idle  boast) 
 more  correct  than  that  of  any  former  edition. 
 Some  readings  indeed,  it  is  allowed,   had,  though 
 
 bibliorum  emendationem  aggressus  est ;  nee  satis  scio 
 an  gravius  unquam  periculum  oecurrerit  "  (Van  Ess, 
 p.  290). 
 
 c  The  following  is  the  original  passage  quoted  by 
 Van  Ess  from  the  first  edition  of  Bellarmiu's  Auto- 
 biography  (p.  291),  anno  1591 :  "  Cum  Gregorius  XIV. 
 cogitaret  quid  agendum  esset  de  bibliis  a  Sixto  V. 
 editis,  in  quibus  er&nt  permulta  perperm?!  mutata,  non 
 deerant  viri  graves,  qui  censerent  ea  biblia  esse  pub- 
 lice  prohibenda,  sed  N.  (Bellarminus)  coram  pontifice 
 demonstravit,  biblia  ilia  non  esse  prohibenda,  sed  esse 
 ita  corrigenda,  ut  salvo  bouore  Sixti  V.  poutifieis  biblia 
 ilia  emendata  proderentur,  quod  fieret  si  quam  celer- 
 rime  toUerentur  f/iia;  male  7/mtata  erant,  et  biblia 
 recuderentur  sub  nomine  ejusdem  Sixti,  et  addita 
 prsefatione  qua  significaretur  in  px-ima  editione  Sixti 
 prai  feslinatioite  irrepsisse  aliqva  errata,  vel  typogra- 
 phorum  vel  aliorum  incuria,  et  sic  N.  reddidit  Sixto 
 pontifici  bona  pro  nialis."'  The  last  words  refer  to 
 Sixtus'  condemnation  of  a  thesis  of  Bellarmin,  in  which 
 he  denied  "  Papani  esse  domiuum  directum  totius 
 orbis  ;  '■  and  it  was  this  whole  passage,  and  not  the 
 Preface  to  the  Clementine  Vulgate,  which  cost  Bellar- 
 min his  canonization  (Van  Ess,  from  the  original  doc- 
 uments, pp.  291-318).  It  will  be  observed  that  Bel- 
 larmin first  describes  the  errors  of  the  Sixtine  edition 
 really  as  deliberate  alterations,  and  then  proposes  to 
 represent  them  as  irrors. 
 
 d  The  evidence  collected  by  Van  Ess  (pp.  285  ft'-), 
 and  even  the  cautious  admissions  of  Ungarelli  and 
 Vercellone  (pp.  xxxix.-xliv.),  will  prove  that  this  lan- 
 guage is  not  too  strong. 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 wron<;,  Leen  left  unchanged,  to  avoid  popular 
 offense."  But  yet  even  liere  Bellarmin  did  not 
 scruple  to  repeat  the  fiction  of  the  intention  of 
 iSixtus  to  recall  his  edition,  which  still  disi^races 
 the  front  of  tlie  Roman  Vulgate  by  an  apology  no 
 less  needless  than  untrue.''  Another  edition  fol- 
 lowed in  159.3,  and  a  third  in  1.598,  with  a  triple 
 list  of  errata,  one  for  each  of  the  three  editions 
 Other  editions  were  afterwards  publislied  at  Rome 
 (comp.  Vercellone,  civ.),  but  with  tliese  corrections 
 the  history  of  tlie  authorized  text  properly  con- 
 cludes. 
 
 27.  The  respective  merits  of  the  Sixtine  and 
 Clementine  editions  have  been  often  debated.  In 
 point  of  mechanical  accuracy,  the  Sixtine  seems  to 
 be  clearly  superior  (Van  Ess,  3G5  ft".),  but  Van 
 liss  has  allowed  himself  to  be  misled  in  the  esti- 
 mate which  he  gives  of  the  critical  value  of  the 
 Sixtine  readings.  The  collections  lately  published 
 by  Vercellone  '■  place  in  the  clearest  light  the  strange 
 and  uncritical  mode  in  which  Sixtus  dealt  with  the 
 evidence  and  results  submitted  to  him.  The  rec- 
 ommendations of  the  Sixtine  correctors  are  marked 
 by  singular  wisdom  and  critical  tact,  and  in  almost 
 every  case  where  Sixtus  departs  from  them  he  is  in 
 error.  This  will  he  evident  from  a  collation  of 
 the  readings  in  a  few  chapters  as  given  by  Vercel- 
 lone. Thus  in  the  first  four  chapters  of  Genesis 
 the  Sixtine  correctors  are  right  against  Sixtus:  i. 
 2,  27,  31;  ii.  18,  20;  iii.  1,  11,  12,  17,  21,  22;  iv. 
 1,  5,  7,  8,  9,  15,  16,    19;  and  on  the  other  hand 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3471 
 
 a  This  fact  Bellarmin  puts  in  stronger  light  when 
 writing  to  Lucas  Brugeusis  (1603)  to  iiclinowledge  his 
 critical  collations  on  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  ;  "  De 
 libello  ad  me  misso  gratias  ago,  sed  scias  velim  biblia 
 vulgata  non  esse  a  nobis  accuratissime  castigata,  multa 
 enim  de  iadustria  justis  de  causis  pertransivimus,  qua; 
 oorrectione  indigere  videbantur." 
 
 b  The  original  text  of  the  passages  here  referred  to 
 
 is  full  of  interest:   "  Si.ttus  V opus  tandem 
 
 confectum  typis  mandari  jussit.  Quod  cum  jam  esset 
 exousum  et  ut  in  lucem  emitteretur,  idem  Pontifex 
 operam  daret  [implying  that  the  edition  was  not  pub- 
 lished], animadvei'teiis  nou  pauca  in  Sacra  Uiblia  preli 
 vitia  irrepsisse,  quae  iterata  diligentia  indigere  videren- 
 tur,  totum  opus  sub  iucudem  revocandum  censuit 
 atque  decrevit  [of  this  there  is  not  the  faintest  shadow 
 
 of    proof] Accipe    igitur,     Christiane     lector 
 
 ....  ex  Vaticana  typographia  veterem  ac  vulgatam 
 sacrae  soripturae  editionem,  quanta  fieri  potuit  dili- 
 gentia castigatam  ;  quam  quidem  sicut  omnibus 
 numeris  absolutam,  pro  humana  imbecillitate  affirmare 
 difficile  est,  ita  ceteris  omnibus  quae  ad  banc  usque 
 diem    prodierunt    emendatiorem,    purioremque    esse, 
 
 minime  dubitiindum In  hac  tamen  pervulgata 
 
 lectioue  sicut  nonnuUa  consulto  mutata,  ita  etiani 
 alia,  quae  mutanda  videbantur,  consulto  immutata 
 relicta  sunt,  turn  quod  ita  faciendum  esse  ad  oBensio- 
 nem  populorum  vitandam  S.  Hieronymus  non  semel 
 admonuit  turn  quod  .  .  .  ."  The  candor  of  these 
 words  contrasts  strangely  with  the  folly  of  later  cham- 
 pions of  the  edition. 
 
 In  consequence  of  a  very  amusing  mistranslation 
 of  a  phrase  of  Hug,  it  has  been  commonly  stated  iu 
 England  that  this  Preface  gaineil,  instead  of  cost, 
 Bellarmin  his  canonization  :  (Hug,  EM.  i.  490, 
 "  Welche  ihn  um  seine  Ueiligsprechung  gebracht 
 habeu  soil ").  The  real  offense  lay  in  the  words 
 quoted  above  (p.  3470,  note  c). 
 
 c  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  Codex  Cara- 
 fianus,  a  copy  of  the  Antwerp  edition  of  1.583,  with 
 (he  MS.  corrections  of  the  Sixtine  board.     This  was 
 
 Sixtus  is  right  against  the  correctors  in  i.  15.  The 
 Gregorian  correctors,  therefore  (whose  results  are 
 given  in  the  Clementine  edition),  in  the  main  sini" 
 ply  restored  readings  adopted  by  the  Sixtine  board 
 and  rejected  by  Sixtus.  In  the  book  of  Deuteron- 
 omy the  Clementine  edition  follows  the  Sixtine 
 correctors  where  it  differs  from  the  Sixtine  edition : 
 i.  4,  19,  31;  ii.  21;  iv.  6,  22,  28,  30,  33,  39;  v. 
 24;  vi.  4;  viii.  1 ;  ix.  9;  x.  3;  xi.  3;  xii.  11,  12, 15, 
 &c. ;  and  every  change  (except  probably  vi.  4 ;  xii.  11, 
 12)  is  right;  while  on  the  other  hand  in  the  same 
 chapters  there  are,  as  far  as  I  ha\e  observed,  only 
 two  instances  of  variation  without  the  authority  of 
 the  Sixtine  correctors  (xi.  10,  32).  But  in  point 
 of  fact  the  Clementine  edition  errs  liy  excess  of  cau- 
 tion. Withhi  the  same  limits  it  follows  Si.xtus 
 against  the  correctors  wrongly  in  ii.  33;  iii.  10,  12, 
 13,  1(3,  19,  20;  iv.  10,  11,  28,  42;  vi.  3;  xi.  28; 
 and  in  the  whole  book  admits  in  the  following  pas- 
 sages arbitrary  changes  of  Sixtus:  iv.  10;  v.  24; 
 vi.  13;  xii.  15,  32;  .xviii.  10,  11;  xxix.  23.''  In 
 the  N.  T.,  as  the  report  of  the  Sixtine  correctors 
 has  not  yet  been  published,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
 how  fiir  the  same  law  holds  good;  but  the  follow- 
 ing couipari.son  of  the  variations  of  the  two  editions 
 in  continuous  passages  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles 
 will  show  that  the  Clementine,  though  not  a  pure 
 text,  is  yet  very  far  purer  than  the  Sixtine,  which 
 often  gives  Old  Latin  readings,  and  sometimes 
 appears  to  depend  simply  on  patristic  authority  « 
 ((".  e.  pp.  11.):  — 
 
 found  by  Ungarelli  in  the  Library  of  the  Roman  Col- 
 lege of  SS.  Blaise  and  Charles.  Comp.  Vercellone, 
 Prrff.  xi. 
 
 d  The  common  statement  that  the  Clementine  edi- 
 tion follows  the  revision  of  Alcuin,  while  the  Sixtine 
 gives  the  true  text  of  Jerome,  is  apparently  a  mere 
 conjectural  assertion.  In  Deuteronomy,  Sixtus  gives 
 the  Alcuiuian  reading  in  the  following  passages  :  i.  19  ; 
 iv.  30,  33  ;  xxi.  0  ;  and  I  have  not  observed  one  pas- 
 sage where  the  Clementine  text  agrees  with  that  of 
 Alcuin  unless  tiiat  of  Sixtus  does  also. 
 
 Passages  have  been  taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  be- 
 cause iu  that  Vercellone  has  given  complete  and  trust- 
 worthy materials.  The  first  book  of  Samuel,  iu  which 
 the  later  corruptions  are  very  extensive,  gives  results 
 generally  of  the  same  character.  Great  and  obvious 
 interpolations  are  preserved  both  in  the  Sixtine  and 
 Clementine  editions:  iv.  1 ;  v.  6  ;  x.  1 ;  xiii.  15  ;  xiv. 
 22,  41 ;  XV.  3,  12  ;  xvii.  36  ;  xx.  15  (chiefly  from  the 
 LXX.).  The  Sixtine  text  gives  the  old  reading  dis- 
 placed from  the  Clementine  :  iii.  2,  3  ;  iv.  1,  4  ;  vii. 
 10  (?)  ;  ix.  1  (?),  25.  The  Clementine  restores  the  old 
 reading  against  Sixtus  :  i.  9,  19  ;  ii.  11, 17,  213,  30  ;  iv. 
 9  (?).  (21) ;  vi  9  ;  ix.  7  ;  X.  12  ;  xii.  6, 11,  15,  23 ;  xiii. 
 18  ;  xiv.  2  (?),  14,  15.  Thus  in  fifteen  chapters  Clem- 
 ent alone  gives  the  old  readings  sixteen  times,  Sixtus 
 alone  five  times.  Vercellone,  iu  the  second  part  of 
 his  Varia;  Lectiones,  which  was  published  after  this 
 article  was  printed,  promises  a  special  discussion  of  the 
 interpolations  of  1  Sam.,  which  were,  as  might  have 
 been  expected,  expunged  by  the  Sixtine  correctors. 
 Vercellone  ad  1  Reg.  iv.  1. 
 
 e  The  variations  between  the  Sixtine  and  Clemen- 
 tine editions  were  collated  by  T.  James,  Eelliim  papule, 
 s.  Concordia  discors  ....  Lond.  1600  ;  and  more  com- 
 pletely, with  a  collation  of  the  Clementine  editions, 
 by  H.  de  Bukentop,  Lu.c  de  luce,  lib.  iii.  pp.  315  S. 
 Vercellone,  correctiug  earlier  critics,  reckons  that  the 
 whole  number  of  variations  between  the  two  reTisions 
 is  about  3,000  {Prolegg.  xlviii.  nota). 
 
3472 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Sixtiiie. 
 
 Ciementine. 
 
 Matt.  i.  23,  vocabitur  (pp.  11.). 
 
 —  vocabunt. 
 
 ii.    5,  Juda  (gat.  mm.  etc.). 
 
 —  Judae. 
 
 13,  surge,  accipe  (?). 
 
 —  surge  et  accipe. 
 
 iii.  2,  appropiuquabit     (iv. 
 
 —  appropinquavit. 
 
 17),    (MSS.     Gallic. 
 
 pp.  11.). 
 
 3,  de    quo   dictum    est 
 
 —  qui  dictus  est. 
 
 (tol.  it). 
 
 10,  arboris  (Tert.). 
 
 —  arborum. 
 
 iv.  6,  ut  .  .  .  .  tollant  (it.) 
 
 —  et  .  .  .  .  tollent. 
 
 7,  Jesus  rursum. 
 
 —  Jesus ;  Kursum. 
 
 15,  G.alilseie  (it.  am.  etc.). 
 
 —  Galilaea. 
 
 16.  ambulabat  (?). 
 
 —  sedebat. 
 
 V.  11,  vobis   homines  (gat. 
 
 —  vobis. 
 
 mm.  etc.). 
 
 30,  abscinde  (?). 
 
 —  abscide. 
 
 40,  iu  judicio  (it.). 
 
 —  judicio. 
 
 vi.  7,  eth.  faciunt  (it.). 
 
 —  ethnici. 
 
 30,  enim  (it.). 
 
 —  autem. 
 
 vii.  1,  et  non  judicabimini. 
 
 —  ut  nou  judicemini. 
 
 nolite     condemnare 
 
 et   nOQ    coudemna- 
 
 bimini  (?). 
 
 4,  sine,   I'rater   (it.   pp. 
 
 —  sine. 
 
 11). 
 
 23,  a  me  omnes  (it.  pp 
 
 11.). 
 25,  supra    (pp.    11.    tol. 
 
 —  a  nie. 
 
 —  super. 
 
 etc.). 
 
 29,  scrihaj  (it. ). 
 
 —  scribfe  eorum. 
 
 viii.  9,  alio  (it.  am.  etc.). 
 
 —  alii. 
 
 12,  ubi  (pp.  11.). 
 
 —  ibi. 
 
 18,  jussit  diseipulos  (it.). 
 
 —  jussit. 
 
 20,  caput  suum  (it.  tol.)- 
 
 —  caput. 
 
 2S,  venisset  Jesus  (it.). 
 
 —  venisset. 
 
 32,  magno  impetu  (it.). 
 
 —  impetu. 
 
 33,  haBC  omnia  (.'). 
 
 —  omnia. 
 
 34,  rogabant  eum  ut  Je- 
 
 — rogabant  ut. 
 
 sus  (?). 
 
 EpUes.  1. 15,  in  Cliristo  J  (pp.  11. 
 
 —  in  Domino  J. 
 
 Bodl.). 
 
 21,  dominationem  (?). 
 
 —  et  dominationem. 
 
 ii.  1,  vos  convivificavit 
 
 —  vos. 
 
 (pp.  11.). 
 
 11,  vos    eratis    (pp.    11. 
 
 —  vos. 
 
 Bodl.  etc.). 
 
 — ,  dicebamlni  (pp.  11.). 
 
 —  dicimini. 
 
 12,  qui    (pp.    U.    Bodl. 
 
 —  qxiod. 
 
 etc.). 
 
 22,  Spiritu  Sancto  (pp. 
 
 —  Spiritu. 
 
 11.  Sang.  etc.). 
 
 iii.  8,  niihi  enim  (pp.  11.). 
 
 —  mihi. 
 
 16,  virtutem  (it.). 
 
 —  virtute. 
 
 — ,  in  interiore  homine 
 
 —  in  interiorem  hom- 
 
 (pp.  11.  Bodl.). 
 
 inem. 
 
 iv.  22,  deponite  (it.). 
 
 —  dcponere. 
 
 30,  in  die  (pp.  11.  Bodl. 
 
 —  in  diem. 
 
 etc.). 
 
 V.  26,  mundans  earn   (pp. 
 11.). 
 27,  in  gloriosam  (?). 
 
 —  mundans. 
 
 —  gloriosam. 
 
 vi.  15,  in    prreparationem 
 
 —  in  pra'paratione. 
 
 (it). 
 
 20,  in  catena  ista  (it.?). 
 
 —  in  catena  ita. 
 
 (Some   of   the  readings   of  B 
 
 odl.  (§  13,  (3)  So)  are 
 
 vdded.     It.  is  used,  as  is  commo 
 
 nly  done,  for  the  old 
 
 texts  generally  ;  and  the  uotatio 
 
 n  of  the  MSS.  is  that 
 
 usually  followed.) 
 
 a  The  materials  which  Bentley  collected  (see  p.  3174, 
 note  a)  are  an  invaluable  help  for  iuve.><tigation,  but 
 they  will  not  supersede  it.  It  is,  indeed,  iinpo-ssible 
 to  determine  on  wliat  principle  he  intserted  or  omitted 
 variations.  Sometime?  he  notes  with  the  greatest  care 
 discrepancies  of  orthography,  and  at  other  times  he 
 neglects  important  differences  of  text.  Thus  in  John 
 i.  18-51  he  gives  correctly  23  variations  of  the  Cam- 
 bridge MS.  (Kk.  1,  24)  and  omits  51 ;  and  in  Luke  i. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 28.  While  the  Clementine  edition  was  still  recent 
 some  thoughts  seem  to  have  been  entertained  of  re- 
 vising it.  Lucas  Brugensis  made  important  collec- 
 tions for  this  purpose,  but  the  practical  ditticulties 
 were  found  to  be  too  great,  and  the  study  of  varioua 
 readings  was  reserved  for  scholars  (Bellarmin.  ad 
 Lucam  Brug.  1606).  In  the  next  generation  use 
 and  controveisy  gave  a  sanctity  to  the  authorized 
 text.  Many,  especially  in  Spain,  pronotmced  it  to 
 have  a  value  superior  to  the  originals,  and  to  be. 
 inspired  in  every  detail  (comp.  Van  Ess,  401, 
 402;  Hody,  iii.  ii.  15);  but  it  is  useless  to  dwell 
 on  the  history  of  such  extravagancies,  from  which 
 the  Jesuits  at  least,  following  their  great  champion 
 Bellarmin,  wisely  kept  aloof.  It  was  a  more  serious 
 matter  that  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  papal 
 text  checked  the  critical  study  of  the  materials  on 
 which  it  was  professedly  based.  xVt  length,  how- 
 ever, in  1706,  Martianay  published  a  new,  and  in 
 the  main  better  text,  chiefly  from  original  MSS.,  in 
 his  edition  of  Jerome.  Yallarsi  added  fresh  colla- 
 tions in  his  revised  issue  of  Martianay's  work,  but 
 in  both  cases  the  collations  are  imperfect,  and  it  is 
 impossible  to  determine  with  accuracy  on  what  MS. 
 authority  the  text  which  is  given  depends.  Sa- 
 batier,  though  professing  only  to  deal  with  the 
 Old  Latin,  published  important  materials  for  the 
 criticism  of  Jerome's  Version,  and  gave  at  length 
 the  readings  of  Lucas  Brugensis  (1743).  More 
 than  a  century  elapsed  before  anything  more  of  im- 
 portance was  done  for  the  Text  of  the  Latin  version 
 of  the  O.  T.,  when  .it  length  the  fortunate  discovery 
 of  the  original  revision  of  the  Sixtine  correctors 
 again  directed  the  attention  of  lioraan  scholars  to 
 their  authorized  text.  The  first-fruits  of  tlieir 
 labors  are  given  in  the  volume  of  Vercellone 
 already  often  quoted,  which  has  thrown  more  light 
 upon  the  history  and  criticism  of  the  Vulgate  than 
 ail}'  previous  work.  There  are  some  defects  in  the 
 arrangement  of  the  materials,  and  it  is  unfortunate 
 that  the  editor  has  not  added  either  the  authorized 
 or  corrected  text;  but  still  the  work  is  such  that 
 every  student  of  the  Latin  text  nnist  wait  anxiously 
 for  its  completion. 
 
 29.  The  neglect  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  0.  T. 
 is  but  a  consequence  of  the  general  neglect  of  the 
 criticism  of  the  Ilelirew  text.  In  the  N.  T.  far 
 more  has  been  done  for  the  correction  of  the  Vul- 
 gate, though  even  here  no  critical  edition  has  yet 
 been  published.  Numerous  collations  of  MSS., 
 more  or  less  perfect,  have  been  made.  In  this,  as 
 in  many  other  jjoints,  Bentley  pointed  out  the  true 
 path  which  others  have  followed.  His  own  colla- 
 tion of  Latin  MSS.  was  extensive  and  important 
 (comp.  Ellis,  Bentltii  Critica  Sacra,  xxxv.  f}'.)." 
 Griesbach  added  new  collations,  and  arranged  those 
 which  others  had  made.  Lachmann  printed  the 
 Latin  text  in  his  larger  edition,  having  collated  the 
 Codex  Fuldensis  for  the  purpose.  Tischendorf  has 
 labored  among  Latin  MSS.  only  with  less  zeal  than 
 among  Greek.  And  Tregelles  has  given  in  his 
 edition  of  the  N.  T.  the  text  of  Cod.  Amiaiinus 
 from  his  own  collation  with  the  variations  of  the 
 
 1-39  he  gives  13  variations  of  St.  Chad's  Gospels  and 
 omits  30 ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  character  of 
 the  readings  recorded  which  can  have  determined  the 
 selection,  as  the  variations  which  are  neglected  are 
 sometimes  noted  from  other  MSS.,  and  are  in  them- 
 selves of  every  degree  of  importance.  A  specimen 
 from  each  of  the  volumes  which  contain  his  collations 
 will  show  the  great  amount  of  labor  which  he  be- 
 stowed upon  the  work  ;  and,  hitherto,  no  specimen 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Clementine  edition.  But  in  all  these  cases  the 
 study  of  the  Latin  was  merely  ancillary  to  that  of 
 the  Greek  text.  Probably  from  the  great  antiquity 
 and  purity  of  the  Codd.  Amiaiinvs  and  Fuldtnsk, 
 there  is  comparatively  little  scope  for  criticism  in 
 the  revision  of  Jerome's  Version ;  but  it  could  not 
 be  an  unprofitable  work  to  examine  more  in  detail 
 than  has  yet  been  done  the  several  piiases  through 
 which  it  has  passed,  and  the  eaust-s  which  led  to 
 its  gradual  corruption.  (A  full  account  of  the 
 editions  of  the  Vulgate  is  given  by  Masch  [Le 
 Long],  Bililiotheca  Sacra,  1778-9Q.  Copies  of  the 
 Sixtine  and  Clementine  editions  are  in  the  library 
 of  the  British  Museum.) 
 
 VI.  The  Materials  fok  the  Revision  of 
 Jerome's  Te.xt. —  30.  Very  few  Latin  MSS.  of 
 the  0.  T.  have  been  collated  with  critical  accuracy. 
 The  Pentateuch  of  Vercellone  {Ramce,  1860)  is  the 
 first  attempt  to  collect  and  arrange  the  materials 
 for  determining  the  Hieronymian  text  in  a  manner 
 at  all  corresponding  with  the  importance  of  the 
 subject.  Even  in  the  N.  T.  the  criticism  of  the 
 Vulgate  text  has  always  been  made  subsidiary  to 
 that  of  the  Greek,  and  most  of  the  MSS.  quoted 
 have  only  been  examined  cursorily.  In  tlie  follow- 
 ing list  of  MSS.,  which  is  necessarily  very  imper- 
 fect, the  notation  of  Vercellone  (from  wliom  most 
 of  the  details,  as  to  the  MSS.  which  he  has  ex- 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3473 
 
 amined,  are  derived)  has  been  followed  as  far  as 
 possible;  but  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  he 
 marks  the  readings  of  MSS.  Correctoria  and  edi- 
 tions in  the  same  manner. 
 
 (i. )   MSS.  of  Old  Test,  and  Apocrypha. 
 
 A  {Codex  Amiallnus,  Bibl.  Laurent.  Flor.),  at 
 Florence,  written  about  the  middle  of  tlie  6th  cent, 
 (cir.  541,  Tischdf.)  with  great  accuracy,  so  that 
 botli  in  age  and  worth  it  stands  first  among  the 
 authorities  for  the  Hieronymian  te.xt.  It  contains 
 Jerome's  Psalter  from  the  Hebrew,  and  the  whole 
 Latin  Bible,  with  tlie  exception  of  Baruch.  The 
 variations  from  the  Clementine  text  in  the  N.  T. 
 have  been  edited  by  F.  F.  Fleck  (18-10);  and 
 Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  separately  collated  the 
 N.  T.  in  1843  and  1846,  the  former  of  whom  pub- 
 lished a  complete  edition  (1850;  2d  ed.  1854)  of 
 this  part  of  the  MS.,  availing  himself  also  of  the 
 collation  of  Tregelles.  The  O.  T.  has  been  now 
 collated  by  Vercellone  and  Palmieri  for  Vercel- 
 lone's  Vnri(B  Leciiones  (Vercellone,  i.  p.  Ixxxiv.). 
 The  MS.  was  rightly  valued  by  the  Sixtine  cor- 
 rectors, who  in  many  places  follow  its  authority 
 alone,  or  when  only  feebly  supported  by  other  evi- 
 dence: e.  </.  Gen.  ii.  18,  v.  26,  vi.  21,  vii.  3,  5,  ix. 
 18,  19,  X.  1. 
 
 B  {Codex  Toletanus,  Bibl.  Eccles.  Tolet.),  at 
 Toledo,  written  in  Gothic  letters   about  the   8th 
 
 has  been  published.     The  student  may  find  it  iuter- 
 estiag  to  compare  the  variations  noted  with  those  iu 
 Table  B. 
 Coil.  SS.  Trin.  Cambr.,  Mark  ix.  45-49. 
 
 B.  17,  5. 
 
 24>      1 
 1  2  p  jix  ^  Et  si  pes  tuus  te  scandal- 
 
 </> 
 eum  fi.  Izat,  amputa  ilium :  bonum 
 
 2  (^TTjul         <f> 
 
 12opy>li  0  do  fx     est  tibi  ffa«dum  introire  in 
 
 vitam  aeternam,  quam  duos 
 
 pedes    habentem    mitti    in 
 
 gehennam  ignis  inextiugui- 
 
 [  ]  del.  T  bills  :     [ubi   vermis    eorum 
 
 ix4> 
 
 ne  p^yC     ^eorum  \j/  non  mori'tur,  et  ignis  j^  non 
 
 gue  opy  G  extin^mtur.  Quod  si  oculus 
 
 del.  aeon II.  4>        eie  p        tuus  scaudalizat   te   ei[i]ce 
 
 2n<|,l 
 
 1  2  p  C      cae  ^    eum  :  bonum  est  tibi  liiscnm 
 
 introire     iu    regnum    Dei, 
 
 quam  duos  oculos  habentem 
 
 mitti  in  gehennam  ignis :] 
 
 ubi  vermis  eorum  non  mori- 
 tur,  et  ignis  non  extingui- 
 
 rie  pixxv 
 Stin  u  gue  o  p  v 
 
 del.  f  A  oi  OTT  tur.      Omnia    [enim]    \gne 
 
 <i> 
 
 II  scUietKr,   et  omnis  victima 
 Ofx,  2 
 
 [  ]  del.  ewpcmjiifiMH^xCy    [sale]  salietur.     Bonum  est 
 
 1  2  C  sal :  quod  si  sal  insulsum  fu- 
 
 erit,  iu  quo  illud  coudietis  ? 
 (B.  17.  5.)  M/a 
 
 ^ter  X  •'"'  :  :  :  :  4)  sic  Habete    in  ^    vobis    sal,   et 
 
 salem  aeo7r<rTHfX        pacem  habete  inter  vos. 
 
 II  omnes  enim   igue  examin- 
 
 antur  fk 
 
 In  this  excerpt  a  —  ^  (except  y)  represent  French 
 
 MSS.  roUated  chiefly  by  T.  Walker ;  M,  I£,  the  MSS. 
 
 In  the  Brit.  Mus.  marked  Harl.  2788,  Harl.  2826  re- 
 
 spectivel}' ;  ^,  the  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  ;  x.  tbe  Gos- 
 pels of  Mac  Regol ;  -y.  the  Gospels  of  St.  John  C.  Oxon. 
 (comp.  the  lists  p.  8455,  f.). 
 
 Coll.  SS.  Trin.  Cambr.  Mark  ix.  45-49. 
 
 (B.  17,  14.) 
 
 2  EHOTD 1 
 i|)  1^  1  2  P  K  Et  si  pes  tuus  te  scaudal- 
 
 izat, amputa  ilium :  bonum 
 2       1       F 
 1  2  D  do  E  est  tibi  cteifdum  introire  in 
 
 vitam  aeternam,  quam  duos 
 pedes  habentem  mitti  in  ge- 
 5  K  T  P  B  (semper)  hennam  ignis  iuexstingui- 
 
 bilis :  ubi  vermis  eorum  non 
 rie  Z.  mon'tur,  et  ignis  nou  exstin- 
 
 P 
 gue  Z.     [  ]  del.  Z.  g-»(tur.   [Quod  si  oculus  tu- 
 
 us scaudalizat  te,  ejice  eum : 
 bonum  est  tibi  luscum  in- 
 troire iu  reguum  Dei,  quam 
 j^K  inextinguibilis  (erased)  duos  oculos  habentem  mitti 
 tie  Z  (erased)  em  Y  in    gehen?ia?n    igniSA,    nbi 
 gue  Z  (erased)  vermis  eorum  non  mor/tur, 
 
 ABorum  K  (erased)  et  ignisA  non  exstin^uitur.] 
 YED  EPBF 
 ni  0  alU  H  B  (sic)  Omnis  enim  igyie  soiietur,  et 
 
 E 
 D  </)  y  f  Z  F  del.  0  B  P  H  K  omnis  victima  [sale]  saKe- 
 tur.  Bonum  est  sal :  quod  si 
 lum  P  saZ  P  K  sal  Sxu^idsmn  fuerit,  in  quo 
 
 DZEHOY 
 dietur  (corr.  -is)  E.  Wlud  condietis?     Habete  in 
 
 THPDK|Y<^ 
 Z  R  salem  B  D  E        vobis  sat,  ct  pacem  habetn 
 inter  vos. 
 The  collations  in  this  volume  are,  as  will  be  seem 
 somewhat  confused.     Many    are    in   Bentley's   hand, 
 who  has  added  numerous  emendations  of  the  Latin 
 text  in  B.  17,  14.     Thus,  on  the  same  page  from  which 
 this  example  is  taken,  we  find :  Mark  ix.  20,  ab  in- 
 funtia.   fo.    leg.   ah   infaiili.  Trai5i60ei/.      x.   14,    Qiios 
 quum  videret.  forte  leg.     Quod  cil  videret  (sic  a  p.  ui. 
 0 :  a  later  note),     x.  38,  Et  haptismum  quo  ego.  leg. 
 Am  baptisma,  quod  ego.     For  the  MSS.  quoted,  see 
 the  lists  already  referred  to. 
 
$4:74 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 cent.  The  text  is  generally  pure,  and  closely  ap- 
 proaches to  that  of  A,  at  least  in  0.  T.  A  colla- 
 tion of  this  MiS.  with  a  Louvain  edition  of  the 
 Vulgate  (1569,  fol.)  was  made  by  Christoplier  Fa- 
 loniares  by  the  command  of  Sixtus  Y.,  and  the 
 Sixtine  correctors  set  a  high  value  upon  its  read- 
 ings: e.  (J.  Gen.  vi.  4.  The  collation  of  Palomares 
 was  published  by  Biauchini  {riiulicice,  p.  Iv.  flf.), 
 from  whom  it  has  been  reprinted  by  Jligne  {Hieron. 
 Oj)p.  X.  875  ff.).  Vercellone  has  made  use  of  the 
 original  collation  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library, 
 which  is  not  always  correctly  transcribed  by  Bian- 
 chuii;  and  at  the  same  time  he  had  noted  the  vari- 
 ous readings  which  have  been  neglected  owing  to 
 the  difference  between  the  Louvain  and  Clementine 
 texts.  'J'he  MS.  contains  all  the  Latin  Bible  (the 
 Psalter  from  the  Hebrew),  with  the  exception  of 
 Baruch.  A  new  collation  of  the  MS.  is  still  de- 
 sirable; and  for  the  N.  T.  at  least  the  work  is  one 
 which  might  easily  be  accomplished. 
 
 C  ( Codex  PauUimis,  v.  Caroimus,  Roma;,  Mon. 
 S.  Benedict,  ap.  Basil.  S.  PauUi  extr.  mcenia),  a 
 MS.  of  the  whole  Latin  Bible,  with  the  exception 
 of  Baruch.  Vercellone  assigns  it  to  the  9th  cen- 
 tury. It  follows  the  recension  of  Alcuin,  and  was 
 one  of  the  MSS.  used  by  the  original  board  ap- 
 pointed by  Pius  IV.  for  the  revision  of  the  Vulgate. 
 It  has  been  collated  by  Vercellone. 
 
 D  {Codex  VulUce lUanus  oWm  Statirnnis,  lionise, 
 Bibl.  Vallicell.  Orat.  B.  vi.),  an  Alcuinian  MS.  of 
 the  Bible  also  used  by  the  Roman  correctors,  of  tlie 
 same  date  (or  a  little  older)  and  character  as  C. 
 Comp.  Vallarsi,  Pnef.  ad  llleron.  ix.  15  (ed. 
 Migne),  and  note  ii,  p.  3467.  Collated  by  Ver- 
 cellone. 
 
 E  ( Codex  Otioboniamis  olim  Cervinimnis,  Vatic. 
 60),  a  M.S.  of  a  portion  of  the  0.  T.,  imperfect  at 
 the  beginning,  and  ending  with  Judg.  xiii.  20.  It 
 is  of  the  8th  century,  and  gives  a  text  older  than 
 Alcuiu's  recension.  It  contains  also  important 
 fragments  of  the  Old  Version  of  Genesis  and  Ex- 
 odus published  by  Vercellone  in  his  Varim  Lec- 
 iiojies,  i.     Coll.  by  Vercellone. 
 
 F  (Roma-,  Coll.  SS.  Blasii  et  Cav'oli),  a  MS.  of 
 the  entire  Latin  Bible  of  the  10th  century.  It 
 follows,  in  the  main,  the  recension  of  Alcuin,  with 
 some  variations,  and  contains  the  Roman  Psalter. 
 Coll.  by  Vercellone. 
 
 G  (Roma;,  Coll.  SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  a  MS.  of 
 the  13th  century,  of  the  common  late  type.  Coll. 
 by  Vercellone. 
 
 H,  L,  P,  Q,  are  used  by  Vercellone  to  mark  the 
 readings  given  by  Martianay,  Ilentenius,  Castel- 
 lanus,  and  R.  Stephanus,  in  editions  of  the  Vul- 
 gate. 
 
 I,  Soec.  xiii.  Collated  ii)  part  by  C.  J.  Bauer, 
 Eichhorn,  Repertoriam,  xvii. 
 
 K  (Monast.  SS.  Trin.  Cavse),  a  most  important 
 MS.  of  the  whole  Bible,  belonging  to  the  monas- 
 tery of  La  Cava,  near  Salerno.  An  exact  copy  of 
 it  was  made  for  the  Vatican  Library  (num.  8484) 
 by  the  command  of  Leo  XII.,  and  this  has  lieen 
 used  by  Vercellone  for  the  books  after  Leviticus. 
 
 a  Bentley  procured  collations  of  upwards  of  sixty 
 English  and  French  Latin  MSS.  of  the  N.  T  ,  which 
 are  still  preserved  among  his  papers  in  Trin.  Coll. 
 Cambridge,  B.  17,  6,  and  B.  17,  14.  A  list  of  these, 
 as  given  by  Bentley,  is  printed  in  Ellis's  Ben  tit  ii 
 Critica  Sacra,  pp.  xxxv.  ff.  I  have  identified  and 
 noticed  the  English  MSS.  below  (comp.  p.  3475  ff.). 
 Of  Bibles  Bentley  gives  more  or  less  complete  collations 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 For  the  three  first  books  of  the  Pentateuch  heliad 
 only  an  imperfect  collaticn.  The  MS.  belongs  to 
 the  6th  or  7th  century  (Mai,  Nova  Patvuni  Bibl. 
 i.  2,  7;  Hpic'd.  Rom.  ix.  Praf.  xxiii.),  and  presents 
 a  peculiar  text.  Tischendorf  has  quoted  it  on  ] 
 John  V.  7,  8. 
 
 ]\I,  N,  O,  are  Correctoria  in  the  Vatican  Library. 
 R,  S  (Ronije,  Coll.    SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  Stec. 
 xiv.,  of  the  common  late  type  gi\en  in  the  editions 
 of  the  15th  century. 
 
 T,  Srec.  X.,  xi. ;  U,  Sac.  xii.,  two  MSS.  of  the 
 type  of  the  recension  of  Alcuin. 
 
 V  (Romse,  Coll.  SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  Ssec.  xiii., 
 akin  to  F. 
 
 These  MSS.,  of  which  Vercellone  promises  com- 
 plete collations,  thus  represent  the  three  great  types 
 of  the  Hieronymian  text:  the  original  text  in  vari- 
 ous stages  of  decadence  (A,  B,  K);  the  recension 
 of  Alcuin  (C,  D,  F,  T,  U,  V);  and  the  current 
 later  text  (E,  G.  R,  S).  But  though  perhaps  no 
 MS.  will  ever  surpass  A  in  general  purity,  it  is  to 
 be  hoped  that  many  more  MSS.,  representing  tlie 
 ante- Alcuinian  text,  may  yet  be  examined. 
 
 31.  JSIartiiuiay,  in  his  edition  of  the  Divina 
 Biblioiheca,  quotes,  among  others,  the  following 
 MSS.,  but  he  uses  them  in  such  a  way  that  it  is 
 impossible  to  determine  throughout  the  readin'g  of 
 any  particular  MS. :  — 
 
 Codex  Memniianus,  Ssec.  x. 
 Codex  Carcassoitensis,  Ssec.  x. 
 Codex  Sanyermanensis  (1),  Ssec.  x. 
 Codex  Regius,  3563-64. 
 Codex  Sangennanensis  (2),  a  fragment. 
 Codex   Narbonensis,     {Index    MSS.    Codd. 
 Hieron.  ix.  pp.  135  ff.  ed.  JMigne/) 
 To  these,  Vallarsi,  in  his  revised  edition,  adds  a 
 collation,  more  or  less  complete,  of  other  JNISS.  for 
 the  Pentateuch  (Joshua,  Judges)  —  of 
 Cod.  Palatinus,  3. 
 Cod.  Urbinas. 
 For  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 
 
 Cod.   Veronensis,  a  M.S.  of  the  very  highest 
 value.     (Comp.  Vallarsi,   Prmf.  19  ftl  ed. 
 Migne. ) 
 For  the  Psahns. 
 
 Codd.  Reg.  Suec.  ii.  1286. 
 Cod.   Vulic.  154. 
 
 Cod.  S.  Cruets   (or  104,    Cisterciensis),  (the 
 most  valuable). 
 For  Daniel. 
 Cod.  Palat.  3. 
 Cod.   Vatic.  333. 
 For  Esther,  Tobit,  and  Judith. 
 Cod.  Req.  Suec.  7. 
 Cod.  Va'lic.  Palat.  24. 
 But  of  all  these  only  special  readings  are  known. 
 Other  MSS.  which  deserve  examination  are  :  — 
 
 1.  Brit.  Mas.  Addit.  10,  546.  Skc.  is. 
 (Charlemagne's  Bible),  an  Alcuinian  copy.  Comp. 
 p.  3467,  note  e. 
 
 2.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  E,  vii.,  viii.  Ssec.  ix.,  x. 
 (Bentley's  MS.  R).« 
 
 3.  Brit.    Mus.   Addit.    24,142.     Sa>c.    ix.,    x. 
 
 of  the  N.  T.  from  Paris.  Bibl.  Reg.  a562  (.A..  D.  876) ; 
 3561,  Sa?c.  ix.  ;  .3563-64,  Ssec.  ix.  ;  3564>,  Ssec.  Ix  ,  x. 
 All  appear  to  be  Alcuinian. 
 
 Sir  F.  Madden  has  given  a  list  of  the  chief  MSS.  of 
 the  Latin  Bible  (19  copies)  in  the  Gentleman'' s  Maga- 
 zine, 1886,  pp.  580  ff.  This  list,  however,  might  b« 
 increased. 
 
Tr-|     TJJ  1  Brit.  Mus.— Had.  1775.  p]    T 
 
 CO  ofSe 
 
 CTMOT^TBIT 
 
 Cj  CI  TsexDtioiBtrspeciTaLO 
 •  Lu  >i  TArerop  AnnR  rs 
 
 2. Brit.  Mils  — Addit.  546:^. 
 
 gtnottbtt 
 cjU7SG7coao:D']p:ec)Tcio 
 
 Ul^JT^TGcopXTR7  S 
 
 ojccr/vx  Moaissrcr>as 
 
 ■3.  Stonyhurst— ( St.  Cnthbert's,  St.  .lohn,  ) 
 
 MIS  I  ca^es^Rem 
 (uMceK^oTRiX^i^ireis  illuco 
 
 4  Oxon.  Bodl.— S48.  (Seld.  30.) 
 
 ^Robmer  BApTiZA«TT>pciTp?i7Lrpptif 
 
 ncKeoi^  e;cTOxocOR?>e licence         ^ 
 iTKesyyoi^eyi^  a^it    CKe?>oc>xpT.icr 
 
 5sse  iliab  ^V^  erria^  six  siAJKe 
 
 SPtCIMENS    OF    UNCtAL     ^ISS.    OF     THE    LATIN     BIBLE. 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 (Impoi'tant :  apparentlj'  taken  from  a  much  older 
 3opy.  The  Psalter  is  Jerome's  Version  of  the 
 Hebrew.  The  Apocrjphal  books  are  placed  after 
 the  Hagiographa,  with  the  heading :  Incipit  quarius 
 ordo  eorum  libi'oruin  qui  in  Vi:tefi  Teatamento 
 extra  Canonem  Hebraeorum  sunt.  The  MS.  be- 
 gins Gen.  xlix.  6.) 
 
 4.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  2,805  to  Psalms  with  some 
 lacunae.     Saec.  ix. 
 
 5.  Brit,  ^fus.  Egerton  1,046.  Ssec.  viii.  Prov. 
 Eccles.  Cant.  Sap.  Ecclus.  (with  some  lacunas). 
 Good  Vulgate. 
 
 6.  L(cinbe(/i,  3,  4.     Siec  xii. 
 32.  ii.  3ISS.  of  the  N.  T. 
 
 A,  B,  C,  D,  F,  etc.,  as  enumerated  before.  To 
 these  must  be  added  the  Codex  Fuldensis  of  the 
 whole  jSr.  T.,  which,  however,  contains  the  Gospels 
 in  the  form  of  a  Harmony.  Tlie  text  of  the  MS. 
 is  of  nearly  equaJ  value  witli  that  of  A,  and  both 
 seem  to  have  been  derived  from  the  same  source 
 (TitichdL  Froleg(/.  6W.  .4//*.  p.  xxui.).  The  MS. 
 has  been  collated  by  Lachmann  and  Buttmann, 
 and  a  complete  edition  is  in  preparation  by  E. 
 Ranke. 
 
 Other  Vulgate  MSS.  of  parts  of  the  N.  T.  have 
 been  exammed  more  or  less  carefully.  Of  the 
 Gospels,  Tischendorf  {Prole;/,  ccxlix.  ff.)  gives  a 
 list  of  a  considerable  number,  whicli  have  been  ex- 
 amined very  imperfectly.  Of  the  more  important 
 of  these  the  best  known  are :  — 
 
 For.  Prag.  (at  Prague  and  Venice).  Published 
 by  Bianchini,  in  part  after  Dobrowsky. 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 5475 
 
 Harl.  (Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,775).  Saec.  vii.  Coll. 
 in  part  by  Griesbach  {Sijmb.  Crit.  i.  305  ff. ). 
 
 Per.  Fragments  of  St.  Luke,  edited  by  Bian- 
 chuii. 
 
 Brit.  Mus.  Cotton.  Nero  D,  iv.  Ssec.  viii. 
 (Bentl.  Y).  The  Lmdisfarne  (St.  Cuthbert)  Gos- 
 pels with  interlinear  Northumbrian  gloss.  Ed.  by 
 Stevenson,  for  Surtees  Society  (St.  Matt. ;  St. 
 Mark).  The  Northumbrian  gloss  by  Bouterwek, 
 1857.  Stevenson  has  added  a  collation  of  the 
 Latin  of  the  Itushworth  Gospels "  (p.  3457,  No. 
 S). 
 
 The  following,  among  many  others  in  the  United 
 Kingdom,  deserve  examination :  f>  — 
 
 (1.)  Of  the  Gospels. 
 
 1.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,775,  Saec.  vii.  (Gries- 
 bach's  Harl.  Bentley's  Z).  A  new  and 
 complete  collation  of  this  most  precious 
 MS.  is  greatly  to  be  desired.  It  contains 
 the  Prefaces,  Canons,  and  Sections,  with 
 blank  places  for  the  Capitula.<'  (Plate  I., 
 tig.  1.) 
 
 2.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  E.  vi.  Saec.  vii.  (Bent- 
 ley's  P).  A  very  important  English  MS., 
 wiiii  many  old  readings,  Prcef.  Can.  (no 
 Sections),  Cap.  Mt.  xxviii.  jNIc.  xli  (?)  Lc. 
 XX.  Joh.  xiv.  Supposed  to  have  formed 
 part  of  the  Biblia  (Jreyoriana  :  Westwood, 
 Archaiol(igic(d  .Journal,  xl.  p.  292. 
 
 3.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  B.  vii.  Ssec.  viii.  (Bent- 
 ley's  H).  Another  very  important  MS., 
 preserving  an  old  text."'    Praf.  Cf(?«.  (Sect.) 
 
 a  For  all  critical  purposes  the  Latin  texts  of  this 
 edition  are  worthless.  In  one  chapter  taken  at  ran- 
 dom (Mark  viii.),  there  are  seventeen  errors  in  the  text 
 of  the  Linclisfarne  MS.,  including  the  omission  of  one 
 line  with  the  corresponding  gloss. 
 
 b  The  accompanying  Plates  will  give  a  good  idea 
 of  the  external  character  of  some  of  the  most  ancient 
 and  precious  Latin  MSS.  which  the  writer  has  exam- 
 ined. For  permission  to  take  the  tracings,  from 
 which  the  fac-similes  were  made,  his  sincere  thanks 
 are  due  to  the  various  Institutions  in  whose  charge 
 the  MSS.  are  placed. 
 
 PI.  i.fig.  1.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,775,  .Matt.  xxi.  30,  31, 
 Eo  domiiie  — et  nie\retrices].  This  MS.  (like  figs.  2,  3) 
 exhibits  the  arrangement  of  the  te.xt  in  lines  {vemus 
 o-n'xoi).  The  original  reading  novissimiis  has  been 
 changed  by  a  late  hand  into  primus.  A  characteristic 
 error  of  sound  will  be  noticed,  ibit  for  ivit  (6  for  v), 
 which  occurs  also  in  tig.  2. 
 
 Fig.  2.  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  5,463.  Matt.  xxi.  30,  31, 
 ait — ■  novissimus.  This  magnificent  MS.  sliows  the 
 beginning  of  contraction  {daob'')  and  punctuation. 
 
 Fig.^.  Slonykurst.  John  xix.  15-17,  «o«  Aa6fm(/5' 
 —  crucem.  This  MS  ,  unlike  the  former,  seems  to 
 have  been  prepared  for  private  use.  It  is  written 
 throughout  with  the  greatest  regularity  and  care. 
 The  large  capitals  probably  indicate  the  beginnings  of 
 membra  (xwAa).     The  words  are  here  separated. 
 
 Fig.  4.  Oxf.  Bodl.  3,418.  Acts  viii.  36,  37,  et  ait  — 
 stare. 
 
 PI.  ii.  Fig.  1.  C^mbr.  Univ.  Libr.  Kk.  i.  24.  John 
 V.  4,  satius  Jiebat  —  liomo  ibi.  This  MS.  offers  a  fine 
 example  of  the  semi-uncial  "  Irish  "  character,  with 
 the  characteristic  dotted  capitals,  which  seems  to  have 
 been  used  widely  in  the  8th  century  throughout  Ire- 
 land and  central  and  northern  England.  The  text 
 contains  a  most  remarkable  instance  of  the  incorpora- 
 tion of  a  marginal  gloss  into  the  body  of  the  book 
 (Iwc  in  Grecis  exemplarihus  non  hnbelur),  without  any 
 inark  of  separation  by  the  original  hand.  This  clause 
 also  offers  a  distinct  proof  of  the  revision  of  the  copy 
 from  which  the  MS.  was  derived  by  Greek  MSS.  The 
 contraction  for  aulem  is  worthy  of  notice. 
 
 Fig.  2.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  B.  vii.  Another  type  of 
 "  Saxon  "  writing. 
 
 Figs.  3,  4.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,023.  Matt,  xxvii.  49, 
 with  the  addition  Alius  autem  —  et  sanguis.  Ibid. 
 1802.  Matt.  xxi.  30,  31,  tt  non  iit  —  pupli[cani]. 
 Two  characteristic  specimens  of  later  Irish  writing. 
 The  contractions  for  'eum,  autem,  ejus,  et,  aqua,  in 
 fig.  3,  and  for  et,  non,  enim,  quia  in  fig.  4,  are  notice- 
 able. 
 
 Fig.  5.  Hereford  Gospels.  John  i.  3,  A,  factum  est 
 —  compraechenderunt.  Probably  a  British  type  of  the 
 "  Irish  "'  character.  The  symbol  for  est  (-i-),  and  the 
 cli  for  /(,  are  to  be  observed. 
 
 c  The  varying  divisions  into  capitula  probably  indi- 
 cate different  families  of  MSS  ,  and  deserve  attention 
 at  least  in  important  MSS.  The  terms  breviarium, 
 capitula,  breves,  appear  to  be  used  quite  indiscrim- 
 inately. One  term  is  often  given  at  the  beginning  and 
 another  at  the  end  of  the  list.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  9,381 
 gives  titidi  (a  division  into  stmalki  sections)  as  well  as 
 capitula. 
 
 d  This  MS.  contains  the  addition,  after  Matt.  xx. 
 28,  in  the  following  form  :  — 
 
 Vos  autem  quaeritis  de  modico 
 crescere  et  de  tnaximo  minui 
 Cu?n  autem  introieretis 
 
 ad  coenam  vocati 
 Nolite  recumbere  in  supe 
 
 rioribus  locis         [veniat 
 Ne  forte  digiiior  te  super 
 
 et  accedens  is  qui  te  invitavit 
 Dicat  tibi  adhuc  infirius 
 
 accede  et  confundaris 
 Si  autem  recubueris  in  in 
 
 feriori  loco  et  venerit  hu 
 
 milior  te 
 Dicet  tibi  qui  te  invitabit 
 Accede  adhuc  superius  et 
 
 erit  tibi  hoc  utiliua. 
 The  same  addition  is  given  in  the  first  hand  of  Oxford 
 Bodl.  857,  and  in  the  second  hand  of  B.M.  Add.  24,142, 
 with  the  following  variations  •  introieritis  cidvenerit, 
 
3476 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Cap.  Mt.  Ixxxvii.  (sic).  Mc.  xlvi.  Lc.  xciv. 
 Joh.  xlv.     (Plate  II.,  fit;.  2.) 
 
 4.  Brit.  Mus.  Cotton.  Otlio  C  V.  Ssec.  viii. 
 (Frat^nients  of  ]Matt.  and  Mark.  Bentley's 
 0).  Injured  by  fire:  restored  and  mounted, 
 184.8.     Tlie  complement  of  2i. 
 
 5.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  5,463.  Saic.  viii.  (Bent- 
 ley's  F).  A  magnificent  (Italian)  uncial 
 MS.  with  many  old  readings.  Prcpf.  dan. 
 (Sect.)  Cap.  Mt.  xxviii.  Mc.  xiii.  Lc.  xx. 
 Joh.  xiv.     (Plate  I.,  fig.  2.) 
 
 6.  Brit.  Mus.  llnrl.  2,788.  Ssec.  viii.,  ix. 
 (Codex  aureus  i.  Bentley's  Mo).  Good  Vul- 
 gate. 
 
 7.  Brit.  Mus.  Ilavl.  2,797.  Sffic.  viii.,  ix. 
 (Codex  aureus  ii.)     Vulgate  of  late  type. 
 
 8.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  2  A.  xx.  Soec.  viii.  (Lec- 
 tiones  qusedam  ex  Evangeliis.)  Good  Vul- 
 gate. 
 
 9.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  2,790,  cir.  850.  A  fine 
 copy,  with  some  old  readings. 
 
 10.  Brit.  Mus.  Ihn-l.  2,795.  Sffic.  ix.  (In  red 
 letters. )     Vulgate  of  late  type. 
 
 11.  Brit.  Mus.  Hurl.  2,823.  Ssec.  ix.  Good 
 Vulgate,  witli  versus. 
 
 12.  Brit.  Mus.  Hurl.  2,820.  Sa^c.  ix.,  viii. 
 (Bentley's  Hg)-     Good  Vulgate. 
 
 13.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  A,  xviii.  Seec.  ix.,  x. 
 (Cod.  Athelstani.  Bentley's  0).  JNIany  old 
 and  peculiar  readings. 
 
 14.  Brit.  Mus.  Rey.  1  D,  iii.  Ssec.  x.  Like 
 13,  but  most  carelessly  written. 
 
 15.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  11,848.  Sa;c.  ix.  Care- 
 fully written  and  corrected.  Closely  re- 
 sembling 20. 
 
 16.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  11,849.  Ssec.  ix.  Vul- 
 gate of  late  type. 
 
 17.  Brit.  Mus.  L't/eiion,  7G8.  Sa;c.  ix.  (St. 
 Luke  and  St.  John.)  .Some  important  read- 
 ings. 
 
 18.  Brit.  Mus.  Erjerion,  873.  Ssec.  ix.  Good 
 Vulgate.  Free/.  Cnn.  (Sect.)  Cup.  Matt, 
 xxviii.  Mc.  xiii.  Lc.  xxi.  Joh.  xiv. 
 
 19.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  9,381.  Ssec.  ix.  From 
 St.  Petroc's,  Bodmin.  Some  peculiar  read- 
 ings. Prmf.  Cun.  (Sect. )  Titidi.  Mt.  cclii. 
 {Cap.  Ixxxiv.  versus  liDCC).  Mc.  clxxxvi. 
 Lc.  cccxl.  Joh.  ccxxvi. 
 
 20.  Brit.  Mus.  Cotton.  Tib.  A,  ii.  Swc.  x. 
 (The  Coronation  Book.  Bentley's  E).  Many 
 old  readings  in  common  with  1,  3,  5,  but 
 witliout  great  interpolations. « 
 
 21.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  D.  ix.  Ssec.  xi.  (Ca- 
 nute's Book.  Bentley's  A).  Good  Vul- 
 gate. 
 
 invitavit.  In  B.  M.  neg.  A.  xviii.  the  variations  are 
 much  more  considerable  :  inisil.lo,majori  minoresesse, 
 introeuntes  aulem  et  rognli  ad  coe.nam,  locis  eminen- 
 tioribus,  clarior,  cm.  is,  ad  coenam  vacant,  deorsum,  in 
 I.  inf.  rec,  superi-enerit,  ad  coenam  vocavit,  adhiic 
 sursum  accede,  cm.  hoc. 
 
 a  Bentley  has  also  given  a  collation  of  another  Cot- 
 tonian  MS.  (Otho,  B  ix.)  very  similar  to  this,  which 
 almost  perished  in  the  fire  in  1731.  Mr.  E.  A.  Bond, 
 Deputy  Keeper  of  the  MSS.,  to  whose  kindness  the 
 writer  is  greatly  indebted  for  important  help  in  exam- 
 ining the  magnificent  collection  of  Latin  MSS.  in  the 
 Britrsh  Museum,  has  shown  him  fragments  of  a  few 
 leaves  of  this  MS.  which  were  recovered  from  the 
 wreck  of  the  fire.  By  a  singular  error  Bentley  culls 
 this  MS.,  and  not  Tib.  A.  ii.,  the  Coronation  Book. 
 Comp.  Smith,  Cottoti.  Cat. 
 
 VULGATE,  TILE 
 
 i2.  Cambridge  Univ.  Libv.  LI.  i.  10.  (Pajsio 
 et  liesurrectio  ex  iv.  l<>v.).  Sa>c.  viii. 
 Written  (apparently)  for  Ethelwald,  Bp.  of 
 Lindisfarne. 
 
 23.  Cambridge,  C.  C.  C.  Libr.  cclxxxvi.  (iv. 
 Gospels,  with  Eusebian  Canons.)  Senc.  vi., 
 vii.  Supposed  l)y  many  to  have  l)een  sent 
 i>y  Gregory  the  Great  to  Augustine.  Cup. 
 Matt,  xxviii.  Mark  xiii.  Luke  xx.  John  xiv. 
 Vulgate  witli  many  old  readings.  It  has 
 been  corrected  by  a  very  pure  Vulgate  text. 
 Described  and  some  readings  given  by  J. 
 Goodwin,  PuU.  of  Cambr.  Antiquarian 
 Society,  1847.* 
 
 24.  Cambridge,  C-  C.  C.  Libr.  cxcvii.  (Frag- 
 ments of  St.  John  and  St.  Luke,  extending 
 over  John  i.  1-x.  29,  and  Luke  iv.  5-xxiii. 
 26,  with  Eusebian  Canons.)  Soec.  viii. 
 The  fragments  of  St.  John  were  published 
 by  J.  (joodwin,  /.  c.  A  curiously  mixed 
 text,  forming  a  connecting  link  between  the 
 "  Irish  "  text  and  tlie  Vulgate,  but  with- 
 out any  great  interpolations.  See  No.  4, 
 Comp.  p.  3457. 
 
 25.  Cambridge,  Trin.  Coll.  B.  10,  4,  iv. 
 Gospels,  Ssec.  ix.  (  Cup. )  IMatt.  xxvii.  Mc. 
 xiii.  Lc  xxi.  Joli.  xiv.  Good  Vulgate,  with 
 some  old  readings.     (Bentley's  T.) 
 
 26.  Cambridge,  Coll.  D.  Joh.  C.  23.  The 
 Bendish  Gospels,  S»c.  ix.  Good  Vulgate, 
 very  carefully  written. 
 
 27.  Oxford,  Bodl.  857  (D.  2,  14).  Sajc.  vii. 
 Begins,  Matt.  iv.  14,  ut  adini.  —  ends  John 
 xxi.  15,  with  a  lacuna  from  Matt.  viii.  29, 
 dicentes  —  ix.  18,  defuncta  est.  Sect. 
 Prmf.  ( Cup. )  Mc.  xiii.  Lc.  xx.  Joh.  xiv. 
 Closely  akin  to  23. <^ 
 
 28.  l)urham,  "  Codex  Evangeliorum  plus 
 mille  annorum,  litteris  capitalilnis  ex  Bibli- 
 otiieca  Dunelmensi.''  (Bentley's  K.)  luids 
 John  i.  27. 
 
 29.  Durliani,  "  Codex  Evangeliorum  plus 
 miUe  annorum,  sed  iniperfectus."  (Bentley's 
 |.)  liegins  Mark  i.  12.  Two  very  impor- 
 tant jMSS.  Both  have  many  old  readings 
 in  connnon  witli  1,  3,  4,  5. 
 
 30.  Stonyhurst,  St.  Cuthberl's  St.  Jolin,  found 
 in  1105  at  the  head  of  St.  Cuthbert  when 
 his  tomb  was  opened.  Ssec.  vii.  Very  pure 
 Vulgate,  agreeing  with  Cod.  Am.  in  many 
 very  remarkable  readings :  e.  y.  i.  15,  dixi 
 vobis ;  ii.  4,  libi  et  vtihi ;  iv.  10,  respondit 
 Jesus  dixit ;  iv.  16,  et  veni,  om.  hue,  etc.'' 
 (Plate  I.  fig.  3.) 
 
 b  A  complete  edition  of  this  text,  with  collations  of 
 London  Brit.  Mm.  Ilarl.  1,775  >  Reg.  1  E.  vi.  1  B. 
 vii.  ;  Addit.  5,463  ;  Oxford,  Bodl.  857,  is,  I  believe,  in 
 preparation  by  the  Rev.  G.  Williams,  Fellow  of  King's 
 College,  Cambridge, 
 
 e  By  a  very  strange  mistake  Ti.^chendorf  describes 
 this  MS.  as  "  multorum  Ni.  Ti.  fragmentorum.'' 
 
 d  It  may  be  interesting  to  give  a  rough  classification 
 of  these  MSS.,  all  of  which  the  writer  has  examined 
 with  more  or  less  care.  Many  others  of  later  date 
 m.ay  be  of  equal  value  ;  and  there  are  several  early 
 copies  in  private  collections  (as  at  Middlehill)  and  at 
 Dublin  {e.  g.  the  (Vulgate)  Book  of  St.  Coluuiba,  Saec. 
 vii.  (Westwood)  Pal.  Sacra),  which  he  has  been  obliged 
 to  leave  unexamined. 
 
 Group  i.    Vulgate    text    approac/iing   closely   in    tht 
 
Vol.  m 
 
 PI.  n 
 
 CP 
 
 B  'II 
 
 s  a 
 
 V<5 
 
 -is-g 
 
 S 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 (2.)  Of  the  Acts  and  Epistles  and  Apoc. :  — 
 
 1.  Oxford,  Bodl.  AeW.  30  (Acts).  See  §12, 
 (2).     (Plate  I.  fijT.  4.) 
 
 2.  Oxford,  Bodl.  Lnud.  E,  67  (Epp.  Paul). 
 See  §  12,  (2). 
 
 3.  Brit.  Mas.,  Harl.  1,772.  (Epp.  Paul,  et 
 Cath.  (e.xcept  3  Jo.  Jud.).  Apoc.)  Srec. 
 viii.  Griesbacli,  Syinb.  Grit.  i.  326  fF.,  a 
 most  important  MS.  (Bentley's  M.)  See 
 §  12,  (2). 
 
 4.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  7,.551.  (Frasm.  of  Cath. 
 Epp.  and  St.  Luke.)  Sajc.  viii.  (Bentley's 
 a,  y.) 
 
 5.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  11,852.  Ssec.  ix.  Epp. 
 Paul.  Act.  Cath.  Epp.  Apoc.  Good  Vul- 
 gate.'* 
 
 6.  Brit.  Mus.  Iie<j.  1  A.  xvi.  Saec.  xi.  Good 
 Vulgate. 
 
 7.  Cambridge,  Coll.  SS.  Trin.  B.  10,  5. 
 Saec.  ix.  (Collated  by  F.  J.  A.  llort. 
 Bentley's  S.)    In  Saxon  letters:  akin  to  2.'' 
 
 8.  Cambridge,  Cull.  SS.  Trin.  Cod.  Au(j. 
 (Fj).  Published  by  F.  H.  Scrivener,  185^.= 
 
 9.  "  Codex  ecclesine  Lincolniensis  800  an- 
 norum."      (Bentley's  |,  Act.  Apoc.) 
 
 10  Brit.  Mus.  lie(j.  2  F.  i.     S»c.  xii.    (Bent- 
 ley's B.)    Paul.  Epp.  xiv.  cum  commentario. 
 Many  old  readings. 
 A    Lectionary  quoted    by  Sabatier  (Saec.  viii.), 
 and  the  Mozarabic  Liturgy,  are  also  of  great  criti- 
 3al  value. 
 
 In  addition  to  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  the  Anglo- 
 Saxon  Version  which  was  made  from  it  is  an  im- 
 portant help  towards  the  criticism  of  the  text.  Of 
 this  the  Hejtlnteuch  and  Job  were  published  by  E. 
 Thwaites,  Oxfd.  1G99;  the  (Latin-Saxon)  Psuller, 
 by  J.  Spelman,  1040,  and  B.  Thoq)e,1835;  the 
 Gospels,  by  Archbp.  Parker,  1571,  T.  Marshall, 
 1G65,  and  more  satisfactorily  by  B.  Thorpe,  1842, 
 and  St.  Matt,  by  J.  M.  Kenible  (and  C.  Ilardwick), 
 with  two  Anglo-Saxon  texts,  formed  on  a  collation 
 of  five  I\ISS.  and  the  Lindisfarne  text  and  gloss. 
 Comp.  also  the  Frankish  Version  of  the  Harmony 
 of  Amnionius,  ed.  Schmeller,  1841. 
 
 VII.  TiiK   CiuTicAL  Value  of  the  Latin 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 3477 
 
 whole  to  the  Cod.   Amiat. :  6,  8,  11,  12, 18,  21, 22, 
 25,  26,  30. 
 Group  11.    Vulgate  text  of  a  later  type  :  7,  10,  16. 
 Group  HI.  A   Vulgate  text  mainly  with  old  readings  : 
 
 1,  9,  17,  19,  23,  27. 
 Group  iv.  A  mixed  text,  in  which  the  old  readings 
 are  numerous  and  important :  2,  3,  4  (24),  5,  13, 
 14, 15,  20,  28,  29. 
 A.  more  complete  collation   might   modify  this  ar- 
 rangement, but  It  is  (I  believe)  approximately  true. 
 
 «  This  MS.  contains  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Laodiceues 
 after  that  to  the  Hebrews,  and  also  the  addition  IJoh. 
 V.  7,  in  the  following  form ;  Quia  tres  sunt  qui  testi- 
 monium dant  sps,  et  aqua,  et  sanguis,  et  tres  unum 
 
 sunt.  Sicut  in  caelo  tres  sunt,  pater  verbum  et  sps,  et 
 tres  unum  sunt.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  two  other 
 oldest  authorities  in  support  of  this  addition,  also  sup- 
 port the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceues  —  the  MS.  of  La 
 Cava,  and  the  Speculum  published  by  Mai. 
 
 b  A  fragment  containing  prefatory  excerpts  to  a 
 copy  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  written  in  a  hand  closely  re- 
 sembling this  is  found  B.  M.  Cotton.  Vitell.  C.  viii. 
 
 c  From  an  examination  of  Bentley's  unpublished 
 collations,  it  may  be  well  to  add  that  of  the  eighteen 
 French  MSS.,  which  he  caused  to  be  compared  with 
 the  Clementine  text  (Lutet.  Paris,  apud  C/aitdium 
 Sonnium,  jrooxxviu.     See  Trin.  Coll.  Camb.  B.  17,  5). 
 
 Versions.  —  33.  The  Latin  Version,  in  its  various 
 forms,  contributes,  as  has  been  already  seen,  more 
 or  less  important  materials  for  the  criticism  of  the 
 original  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and 
 of  the  Connnon  and  Hexaplaric  texts  of  the  LXX. 
 The  bearing  of  the  Vulgate  on  the  LXX.  will  not 
 be  noticed  here,  as  the  points  involved  in  the  in- 
 quiry more  properly  belong  to  the  history  of  the 
 LXX.  Little,  again,  need  be  said  on  the  value  of 
 the  translation  of  Jerome  for  the  textual  criticism 
 of  the  O.  T.  As  a  whole  his  work  is  a  remarkable 
 monument  of  the  substantial  identity  of  the  Hebrew 
 text  of  the  4th  century  with  the  present  Masoretic 
 text;  and  the  want  of  trustworthy  materials  for 
 the  exact  determination  of  the  Latin  text  itself,  has 
 made  all  detailed  investigation  of  his  readings  im- 
 possible or  unsatisfactory.  The  passages  which 
 were  quoted  in  the  premature  controversies  of  the 
 IGth  and  17th  centuries,  to  prove  the  corruption  of 
 the  Hebrew  or  Latin  text,  are  conmionly  of  little 
 importance  as  far  as  the  text  is  concerned.  It  will 
 be  enough  to  notice  those  only  which  are  quoted 
 by  Whitaker,  the  worthy  antagonist  of  Bellarmiu 
 {Dhputation  on  Scripture,  pp.  1G3  ff.,  ed.  Park. 
 Soc). 
 
 Gen.  i.  30,  om.  all  green  herbs  (in  Vet.  L.);  ill. 
 15,  Ipsa  conteret  caput  tuum.  There  seems  good 
 reason  to  believe  that  the  original  reading  was  ipse. 
 Comp.  Vercellone,  ad  loc.     See  also  Gen.  iv.  16. 
 
 iii.  17,  in  opere  tuo.     "JT^^S'::  for  "fTQ^n. 
 
 iv.  16,  om.  Nod,  which  is  specially  noticed  in 
 Jerome's  Qucest.  Hehr. 
 
 vi.  6,  add.  et  prsecavens  in  futurum.  The  words 
 are  a  gloss,  and  not  a  part  of  the  Vulgate  text. 
 
 viii.  4,  vicesimo  septimo,  J'or  septimo  decimo. 
 So  LXX. 
 
 Id.  7,  egrediebatur  et  non  revertebatur.  The 
 non  is  wanting  in  the  best  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate, 
 and  has  been  introduced  from  the  LXX. 
 
 xi.  13,  trecentis  tribus,  for  quadringentis  tribus. 
 So  LXX. 
 
 ix.   1,  fundetur  sanguis  iUius.      Om.  "  by  man." 
 
 xxxvii.  2.  Sedecim  for  septemdecim.  Probably 
 a  transcriptural  error. 
 
 the  following  are  the  most  important,  and  would  repay  a 
 complete  collation.  The  writer  has  retained  Bentley's 
 notation  :  some  of  the  MSS.  may  probably  have  passed 
 into  other  collections. 
 
 a.  S.  German i  a  Pratis.  Ssec.  yiii.  Gold  uncials  on 
 purple  vellum.  Matt.  vi.  2,  lit  —  to  end.  Mark 
 ix.  47,  eice  —  xi.  13,  Ludisset.  xii.  23,  resurrexerint 
 —  to  end.     Good  Vulgate. 
 
 II..  S.  Germani  a  Pratis.  (g'  of  Tischdf.  etc.)  A 
 very  important  MS.,  containing  part  of  0.  T.,  the 
 whole  of  N.  T.  (of  Gallicau  text  ?),  and  "  tria 
 folia  Pastoris."  Existing  collations  are  very 
 incomplete.  At  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  which  precedes  the  Shepherd,  the  MS. 
 has  (according  to  Bentley)  the  following  note ; 
 Explicit  ad  Hehraeos.  Lege  cum  pace.  Biblio- 
 theca  Hieronimi  Presbiteri  Bethleem  secundum 
 Graecum  ex  emendatis.  mis  exemplaribus  conlatus 
 (sic). 
 
 V.   S.    Germani  a  Pratis,  1,  2,  A.  D.  809. 
 
 o.  Bibl.  Regies,  Paris.  3,706.  4  Gosp.  Sa;c.  ix. 
 Many  old  readings. 
 
 n.  Bibl.  Regi(E,  Paris.  3,706  (2,  3).  4  Gosp.,  with 
 some  lacunffi.     Sa;c.  viii.    Many  old  readings. 
 
 p.  iS.  Martini  Turonensis.  Lit.  aureis.  Ssec.  viii. 
 An  important  MS.  (Gallican  ?).  Oorap.  p.  SISS, 
 note  /. 
 
3478 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 xxxix.  6,  07)1.     "  Wherefore  he  left  —  Joseph." 
 
 xl.  5,  om.   "  The  butler  —  prison." 
 
 xlix.  10.     Conip.  Vercelloiie  ad  he. 
 
 33,. om. 
 
 In  xxiv.  6,  xxvii.  5,  xxxiv.  29,  the  variation  is 
 probably  in  the  rendei-ing  only.  The  remaining 
 passages,  ii.  8;  iii.  G;  iv.  G,  13,  2G;  vi.  3;  xiv.  3; 
 xvii.  IG;  xi.\.  18;  xxi.  9;  xxiv.  22;  xxv.  S-i;  xxvii. 
 33;  xxxi.  32;  xxxviii.  5,  23;  xlix.  22,  contain  dif- 
 ferences of  interpretation ;  and  in  xxxvi.  2i,  xli.  45, 
 the  Vulgate  appears  to  have  preserved  importaut 
 traditional  renderings. 
 
 34.  The  examples  which  have  been  given  show 
 the  comparatively  narrow  limits  within  which  the 
 Vulgate  can  be  used  i'or  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew 
 text.  The  Version  was  made  at  a  time  when  the 
 present  re\  ision  was  already  established ;  and  the 
 freedom  which  Jerome  allowed  himself  in  rendering 
 the  sense  of  the  original,  often  leaves  it  douljtfiil 
 ■whether  in  reality  a  various  reading  is  represented 
 by  the  peculiar  form  which  he  gives  to  a  particular 
 passage.  In  the  N.  T.  the  case  is  far  different. 
 In  this  the  critical  evidence  of  the  Latin  is  separable 
 into  two  distinct  elements,  the  evidence  of  the  Old 
 Latin  and  that  of  the  Hieronymian  revision.  The 
 latter,  where  it  differs  from  the  former,  represents 
 the  received  Greek  text  of  the  4th  century,  and  so 
 far  claims  a  respect  (speaking  roughly)  equal  to 
 that  due  to  a  first-class  Greek  M.S. ;  and  it  may 
 be  foirly  concluded,  that  any  reading  opposed  to  the 
 combined  testimony  of  the  oldest  Greek  MSS.  and 
 the  true  Vulgate  text,  either  arose  later  than  the 
 4th  century,  or  was  previously  confined  within  a 
 very  narrow  range.  The  currections  of  Jerome  do 
 not  carry  us  back  beyond  the  age  of  existing  Greek 
 MSS.,  but,  at  the  same  time,  they  sup])lement  the 
 original  testimony  of  MSS.  by  an  independent  wit- 
 ness. The  substance  of  the  Vulgate,  and  the  copies 
 of  the  Old  Latin,  have  a  more  venerable  authority. 
 The  origin  of  the  Latin  Version  dates,  as  has  been 
 seen,  from  the  earliest  age  of  the  Christian  Church. 
 The  translation,  as  a  whole,  was  practically  fixed 
 and  current  more  than  a  century  before  the  tran- 
 scription of  the  oldest  Greek  MS.  Thus  it  is  a 
 witness  to  a  text  more  ancient,  and  therefore, 
 ccBkiis  parilitis,  more  valuable,  than  is  represented 
 by  any  other  authority,  unless  the  Peshito  in  its 
 present  form  be  excepted.  This  primitive  text  was 
 not,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  free  from  serious 
 corruptions  (at  least  in  the  synoptic  Gospels)  from 
 the  first,  and  was  variously  corrupted  afterwards. 
 But  the  corruptions  proceeded  in  a  different  direc- 
 tion and  by  a  difl'erent  law  from  those  of  Greek 
 MSS.,  and,  consequently,  the  two  authorities 
 mutually  correct  each  other.  What  is  the  nature 
 of  these  corruptions,  and  what  the  character  and 
 value  of  Jerome's  revision,  and  of  the  Old  Latin, 
 will  be  seen  from  some  examples  to  be  given  in 
 detail. 
 
 35.  Before  giving  these,  however,  one  prelimi- 
 nary remark  nmst  be  made.  In  estimating  the 
 critical  value  of  Jerome's  labors,  it  is  necessary  to 
 draw  a  distinction  between  his  different  works. 
 His  mode  of  proceeding  was  by  no  means  uniform; 
 and  the  importance  of  his  judgment  varies  with  the 
 object  at  which  he  aimed.  The  three  versions  of 
 the  Psalter  represent  con]pletely  the  three  diflferent 
 methods  which  he  followed.  At  first  he  was  con- 
 tented with  a  popular  revision  of  the  current  text 
 (the  Roman  Psalter);  then  he  instituted  an  ac- 
 curate comparison  between  the  current  text  and 
 the  original  (the  Galilean  Psalter);  and  in  the  next 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 place  he  translated  independently,  giving  a  direct 
 version  of  the  original  (the  Uebveiu  Psalter).  These 
 three  methods  follow  one  another  in  chronological 
 order,  and  answer  to  the  wider  views  which  Jerome 
 gradually  gained  of  the  functions  of  a  Biblical 
 scholar.  The  revision  of  the  N.  T.  belongs  unfor- 
 tunately to  the  first  period.  When  it  was  made, 
 Jerome  was  as  yet  unused  to  the  task,  and  he  was 
 anxious  not  to  arouse  popular  prejudice.  His  aim 
 was  little  more  than  to  remove  obvious  interpola- 
 tions and  blunders;  and  in  doing  this  he  likewise 
 introduced  some  changes  of  expression  which  soft- 
 ened the  roughness  of  the  Old  Version,  and  some 
 which  seemed  to  be  required  for  the  true  expression 
 of  the  sense  (e.  fj.  Matt.  vi.  11,  svperstibstanlinlein 
 for  quotidiammi).  But  while  he  accomplished 
 much,  he  failed  to  carry  out  even  this  limited  pur- 
 pose with  thorough  completeness.  A  rendering 
 which  he  conmionly  altered  was  still  suffered  to  re- 
 main in  some  places  without  any  obvious  reason 
 (e.  y.  jLLvar-ftpLOV,  5o|a(co,  acpaviC^),  and  the 
 textual  emendations  which  he  introduced  (apart 
 from  the  removal  of  glosses)  seem  to  have  been 
 made  after  only  a  partial  examination  of  Greek 
 copies,  and  those  pi-obably  few  in  number.  The 
 result  was  such  as  miglit  have  been  expected.  The 
 greater  corruptions  of  the  Old  Latin,  whether  by 
 addition  or  omission,  are  generally  corrected  in  the 
 Vulgate.  Sometimes,  also,  Jerome  gives  the  true 
 reading  in  details  which  had  been  lost  in  the  Old 
 Latin :  Matt.  i.  25,  coijnoscebat ;  ii.  23,  pi-ophetas ; 
 V.  22,  om.  6(«7j;  ix.  15,  liigeve  ;  John  iii.  8;  Luke 
 ii.  33,  6  warrip;  iv.  12:  but  not  rarely  he  leaves  a 
 false  reading  uncorrected  (Matt.  ix.  28,  vobis ;  x. 
 42),  or  adopts  a  false  reading  where  the  true  one 
 was  also  current;  Matt.  xvi.  6;  xviii.  29;  xix.  4; 
 John  i.  3,  16;  vi.  64.  Even  in  graver  variations 
 he  is  not  exempt  from  error.  The  famous  pcricope, 
 John  vii.  53-viii.  11,  which  had  gained  only  a 
 partial  entrance  into  the  Old  Latin,  is  certainly  es- 
 tablished in  the  Vulgate.  The  additions  in  ISIatt. 
 xxvii.  35,  Luke  iv.  ^9,  John  v.  4,  1  Pet.  iii.  22, 
 were  already  generally  or  widely  received  in  the 
 Latin  copies,  and  Jerome  left  them  undisturbed. 
 The  same  may  be  said  of  Mark  xvi.  9-20 ;  but  the 
 "  heavenly  testimony  "  (1  John  v.  7),  which  is 
 found  in  the  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  is,  beyond  all 
 doubt,  a  later  interpolation,  due  to  an  African  gloss; 
 and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  interpolations 
 in  Acts  viii.  37,  ix.  5,  were  really  erased  by  Jerome, 
 though  they  maintained  their  place  in  the  mass  of 
 Latin  copies. 
 
 36.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  Gospels  was  far 
 more  complete  than  that  of  the  remaining  parts  of 
 the  N.  T.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible,  except  in  the 
 Gospels,  to  determine  any  substantial  difference  in 
 the  Greek  texts  which  are  represented  by  the  Old 
 and  Hieronymian  Versions.  Elsewhere  the  differ- 
 ences, as  far  as  they  can  be  satisfactorily  estab- 
 lished, are  differences  of  expression  and  not  of  text; 
 and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  the 
 readings  which  exist  in  the  best  Vulgate  MSS. 
 when  they  are  at  variance  with  other  Latin  author- 
 ities, rest  upon  the  deliberate  judgment  of  Jerome. 
 On  the  contrary,  his  Commentaries  show  that  he 
 used  copies  differing  widely  from  the  recension 
 which  passes  under  his  name,  and  even  expressly 
 condemned  as  faulty  in  text  or  rendering  many 
 passages  which  are  undoubtedly  part  of  the  Vulgate. 
 Thus  in  his  Coumientary  on  the  Galatians  he  con- 
 demns the  additions,  iii.  1,  verilati  non  obedire  ; 
 V.  21,  homiddla;  and  the  tran.slations,  i.  16,  non 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 acquiei'i  carni  et  sanguini  (for  non  contuli  cum 
 came  et  sanguine);  v.  9,  modicum  J'ermentum  io- 
 ,tam  massani  corrU7i)pit  (for  modicum  fermentuiii 
 totam  conspersionemjermeiitat);  v.  11,  evacuatum 
 est  (for  cessavit);  vi.  3,  seipstim  (seipse)  seducit 
 (for  menteni  suam  decipit).  And  in  the  text  of 
 the  epistle  wliich  he  gives  there  are  upwards  of  fifty 
 readings  which  differ  from  the  best  Vulgate  text, 
 of  which  about  ten  are  improvements  (iv.  21 ;  v. 
 13,  23;  vi.  13,  15,  16,  &c.),  as  many  more  inferior 
 readings  (iv.  17,  26,  30,  &c.),  and  the  remainder 
 differences  of  expression :  vialo  for  neqiiam,  recto 
 pede  incedunt  for  rede  ambulant,  rursum  for 
 iterum.  The  same  differences  are  found  in  his 
 Commentaries  on  the  other  epistles:  ad  Kplies.  i. 
 6;  iii.  14;  iv.  ]9;  v.  22,  31;  ad  ra.  iii.  15.  From 
 this  it  will  be  evident  that  the  Vulgate  text  of  the 
 Acts  and  the  Epistles  does  not  repi'esent  the  crit- 
 ical opinion  of  .lerome,  even  in  the  restricted  sense 
 in  which  this  is  true  of  the  text  of  the  Gospels. 
 But  still  there  are  some  readings  which  may  with 
 probability  be  referred  to  his  revision:  Acts  xiii. 
 18,  mores  eorum  sustinuit  for  nutriit  {aluil)  eos. 
 Rom.  xii.  11,  Domino  for  tempori.  Eph.  iv.  19, 
 illaminabil  te  Chrislus  for  confinges  ChriUum. 
 Gal.  ii.  5,  neque  ad  horani  cessimus  for  ad  liornm 
 cessimus.  1  Tim.  v.  19,  add.  7iisi  sub  duobus  aut 
 iribus  tesiibtts. 
 
 37.  The  chief  corruptions  of  the  Old  Latin  con- 
 sist in  the  introduction  of  glosses.  These,  like  the 
 corresponding  additions  in  the  Codex  Bezce  (Dj), 
 are  sometimes  indications  of  the  venerable  antiq- 
 uity of  the  source  from  which  it  was  derived,  and 
 seem  to  carry  us  back  to  the  time  when  the  evan- 
 gelic tradition  had  not  yet  been  wholly  superseded 
 by  the  written  Gospels.  Such  are  the  interpola- 
 tions at  Matt.  iii.  15 ;  xx.  28 ;  Luke  iii.  22  (com- 
 pare also  Luke  i.  46;  xii.  38);  but  more  frequently 
 they  are  derived  from  parallel  passages,  either  by 
 direct  transference  of  the  words  of  another  evangel- 
 ist, or  by  the  reproduction  of  the  substance  of  them. 
 These  interpolations  are  frequent  in  the  synoptic 
 Gospels;  Matt.  iii.  3;  Mark  xvi.  4;  Luke  i.  29, 
 vi.  10;  ix.  43,  50,  54;  xi.  2;  and  occur  also  in 
 St.  John  vi.  56,  &e.  But  in  St.  John  the  Old 
 Latin  more  commonly  errs  by  defect  than  by  excess. 
 Thus  it  omits  clauses  certaitdy  or  probably  genuine : 
 iii.  31;  iv.  9;  v.  36;  vi.  23;  viii.  58,  &c.  Some- 
 times, again,  the  renderings  of  the  Greek  text  are 
 free:  Luke  i.  29;  ii.  15;  vi.  21.  Such  variations, 
 however,  are  rarely  likely  to  mislead.  Otherwise 
 the  Old  Latin  text  of  the  Gospels  is  of  the  highest 
 value.  There  are  cases  where  some  Latin  M8S. 
 combine  with  one  or  two  other  of  the  most  ai>cient 
 witnesses  to  support  a  reading  which  has  been  ob- 
 literated in  the  mass  of  authorities:  Luke  vi.  1; 
 Mark  xvi.  9  ff. ;  v.  3;  and  not  unfrequently  (comp. 
 §  35)  it  preserves  the  true  text  which  is  lost  in  the 
 Vulgate:   Luke  xiii.  19;  xiv.  5;  xv.  28. 
 
 38.  But  the  places  where  the  Old  Latin  and  the 
 Vulgate  have  separately  preserved  the  true  reading 
 are  rare,  when  compared  with  those  in  which  they 
 combine  with  other  ancient  witnesses  against  the 
 great  mass  of  authorities.  Every  chapter  of  the 
 Gospels  will  furnish  instances  of  this  agreement, 
 which  is  often  the  more  striking  because  it  exists 
 only  in  the  original  text  of  the  Vulgate,  while  the 
 later  copies  have  been  corru])ted  in  the  same  way  as 
 the  later  Greek  MSS.:  Mark  ii.  16;  iii.  25  (V); 
 viii.  13,  Ac. ;  Rom.  vi.  8 ;  xvi.  24,  &c.  In  the  first 
 few  chapters  of  St.  JIatthew,  the  following  may  be 
 noticed:  i.  18  (bis);  ii.  18  ;  iii.   10  ;  v.  4,  5,  11, 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 5479 
 
 30,  44,  47;  vi.  5,  13;  vii.  10,  14,  29;  viii.  32 
 (x.  8),  (fee.  It  is  useless  to  multiply  examples 
 which  occur  equally  in  every  part  of  the  N.  T. : 
 Luke  ii.  14,  40;  iv.  2,  &c.;  John  i.  52;  iv.  42, 
 51;  V.  16;  viii.  59;  xiv.  17,  &c.:  Acts  ii.  30,  31, 
 37,  &c. ;  1  Cor.  i.  1,  15,  22,  27,  &c.  On  the  other 
 hand,  there  are  passages  (comp.  §  35)  in  which 
 the  Latin  authorities  combine  in  giving  a  false  read- 
 ing: Matt.  vi.  15;  vii.  10-  viii.  28  (V),  &c.;  Luke 
 iv."l7;  xiii.  23,  27,  31,  &c. ;  Acts  iii.  20,  &c.;  1 
 Tim.  iii.  16,  &c.  But  these  are  comparatively  few, 
 and  commonly  marked  by  the  absence  of  all  East- 
 ern corroborative  evidence.  It  may  be  impossible 
 to  lay  down  definite  laws  for  the  separation  of  read- 
 ings which  are  due  to  free  rendering,  or  careless- 
 ness, or  glosses,  but  in  practice  there  is  little  difli- 
 culty  in  distinguishing  the  variations  which  are  due 
 to  the  idiosyncrasy  (so-  to  speak)  of  the  version 
 from  those  which  contain  real  traces  of  the  original 
 text.  And  when  every  allowance  has  been  made 
 for  the  rudeness  of  the  original  Latin,  and  the  haste 
 of  Jerome's  revision,  it  can  scarcely  be  denied  that 
 the  Vulgate  is  not  only  the  most  venerable  but  also 
 the  most  precious  monument  of  Latin  Christianity. 
 For  ten  centuries  it  preserved  in  Western  luirope 
 a  text  of  Holy  Scripture  far  purer  than  that  which 
 was  current  in  the  IJyzantine  Church ;  and  at  the 
 revival  of  Greek  learning,  guided  the  way  towards 
 a  revision  of  the  late  (ireek  text,  in  which  the  best 
 Biblical  critics  have  followed  the  steps  of  Bentley, 
 with  ever-deepening  conviction  of  the  supreme  im- 
 portance of  the  coincidence  of  the  earliest  Greek 
 and  Latin  authorities. 
 
 39.  Of  the  interpretative  value  of  the  Vulgate 
 little  need  be  said.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
 in  dealing  with  the  N.  T.,  at  least,  we  are  now 
 in  possession  of  means  infinitely  more  varied  and 
 better  suited  to  the  right  elucidation  of  the  text 
 than  could  have  been  enjoyed  by  the  original 
 African  translators.  It  is  a  false  humility  to  rate 
 as  nothing  the  inheritance  of  ages.  If  the  inves- 
 tigation of  the  laws  of  language,  the  clear  per- 
 ception of  principles  of  grammar,  the  accurate 
 investigation  of  words,  the  minute  comparison  of 
 ancient  texts,  the  wide  study  of  antiquity,  the 
 long  lessons  of  experience,  have  contributed  nothing 
 towards  a  fuller  understanding  of  Holy  Scripture, 
 all  trust  in  Divine  Providence  is  gone.  If  we  are 
 not  in  this  respect  far  in  advance  of  the  simple 
 peasant  or  half-trained  scholar  of  North  Africa,  or 
 even  of  the  laborious  .student  of  Bethlehem,  we 
 have  proved  false  to  their  example,  and  dishonor 
 them  by  our  indolence.  It  would  be  a  thankless 
 task  to  quote  instances  where  the  Latin  Version 
 renders  the  Greek  incorrectly.  Such  faults  arise 
 most  commonly  from  a  servile  adherence  to  the 
 exact  words  of  the  original,  and  thus  that  which 
 is  an  error  in  rendering  proves  a  fresh  evidence  of 
 the  scrupulous  care  with  which  the  translator 
 generally  followed  the  text  before  him.  But  while 
 the  interpreter  of  the  N.  T.  will  be  fully  justified 
 in  setting  aside  without  scruple  the  authority  of 
 early  versions,  there  are  sometimes  ambiguous 
 passages  in  which  a  version  may  preserve  the 
 traditional  sense  (John  i.  3,  9,  viii.  25,  &c.)  or 
 indicate  an  early  difference  of  translation ;  and  then 
 its  evidence  may  be  of  the  highest  value.  But 
 even  here  the  judgment  must  be  free.  Versions 
 supply  authority  for  the  text,  and  opinion  only  for 
 the  rendering. 
 
 VIII.  The  Language  of  the  Latin  Ver- 
 sions. —  40.    The    characteristics    of   Christian 
 
3480 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 Latinity  have  been  most  unaccountably  neglected 
 by  lexicographers  and  grammarians.  It  is,  uideed, 
 only  lately  tiiat  tlie  full  importance  of  pro\incial 
 dialects  in  the  history  of  languages  has  been  fully 
 recognized,  and  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  writings 
 of  Tertullian,  Arnobius,  and  tlie  African  Fathers 
 generally,  will  now  at  length  receive  the  attention 
 which  tliey  justly  claim.  But  it  is  necessary  to  go 
 back  one  step  further,  and  to  seeli  in  the  remains 
 of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  the  earliest  and  the  purest 
 traces  of  the  popular  idioms  of  African  Latin. 
 It  is  easy  to  trace  in  the  patristic  writings  tlie 
 powerful  influence  of  this  venerable  Version ;  and 
 on  the  other  hand,  the  Version  itself  exhibits  nu- 
 merous peculiarities  which  were  evidently  borrowed 
 from  the  current  dialect.  Generally  it  is  necessary 
 to  distinguish  two  distinct  elements  both  in  the 
 Latin  Version  and  in  subsequent  writings:  (1) 
 Provincialisms  and  (2)  Groecisms.  The  former 
 are  chiefly  of  interest  as  illustrating  the  history  of 
 the  Latin  language;  the  latter  as  marking,  in  some 
 degree,  its  power  of  expansion.  Only  a  few  re- 
 marks on  each  of  these  heads,  which  may  help  to 
 guide  inquiry,  can  be  offered  here;  but  the  care- 
 ful reading  of  some  chapters  of  the  Old  Version 
 (e.  g.  Psalms,  I'xclus.,  Wisdom,  in  the  modern 
 Vulgate)  will  supply  numerous  illustrations." 
 
 (1.)  Pruvincialisms.  — 41.  One  of  the  most  in- 
 teresting facts  in  regard  to  the  language  of  the 
 Latin  'N'ersion  is  the  reappearance  in  it  of  early 
 forms  which  are  found  in  Plautus  or  noted  as 
 archaisms  by  grammarians.  These  establish  in  a 
 signal  manner  the  vitality  of  the  popular  as  dis- 
 tinguished from  the  literary  idiom,  and,  from  the 
 great  scarcity  of  memorials  of  the  Italian  dialects, 
 possess  a  peculiar  value.  Examples  of  irunk,  forms, 
 and  constructions  will  show  the  extent  to  which  this 
 phenomenon  prevails. 
 
 (a)    Words : 
 
 StultUoquiiini,    muUlloquium,  vaniloquux 
 
 (Plautus);  stdbilimentum  (id.);  dniiis 
 
 (subst.  id.);  cnndi(/nns  (id.);  (initiun- 
 
 cidit  (id.);  versipellls  (id.);  saturltas 
 
 (id.);  s^((c?e  (id.);  cw(to^(S  (Ennius); 
 
 custoditio  (Festus)  ;    dec'qmht^  dejero 
 
 (Plautus);  cxenlero  iiA.);  s«i(s(Pac.); 
 
 nilno  (to  drive,  I'estus). 
 (Q)  Fo7'ms: 
 
 Deponents  as  Passive:  consolor,  hortor, 
 
 prvmercor  (Heb.  xiii.  16);  minislror. 
 Irregular  inflections:  partibor  absconsus  ; 
 
 conversely,  exies,  etc. 
 
 tapetin  (Plautus),  hcec  (fem.  pi.). 
 Unusual  forms:  pnscun  (fem.);  nmrmtir 
 
 (masc.)  ;  sal  (neut.)  ;    retia   (sing.); 
 
 certor,  odio,  coruum,  placor  (subst.), 
 
 didcor. 
 y)    Constructions : 
 
 Emi(/ro  with  ace.  (Ps.  Ixi.  7,  emigrabit  te 
 
 de  tabernaculo);    dominor  with   (/en.; 
 
 7ioceo -with  ace. ;  sid,  suns,  for  ejus,  etc. ; 
 
 non  for  ne  prohibitive;  cajnt  inipers. 
 
 42.  In  addition  to  these  tliere  are  many  other 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 peculiarities  which  evidently  belong  to  the  African 
 (or  common)  dialect,  and  not  merely  to  the  Chris- 
 tian form  of  it.  Such  are  the  words  minorare,  , 
 niinoratio,  improperiuin,  framed  (a  sword),  ablnc- 
 tatio.  annualis.  alleviare,  pectuscidum,  antemurale, 
 pnnifica,  paralura,  toriura,  iribulare  (met.),  trib- 
 ulatio,  valefacere,  veredurim,  viare,  tictualia,  vi- 
 rectuin  (viretuni),  vitulamen,  vohitUia  (subst.), 
 quiiternio,  reclinatorium,  scrutinium,  sponsare, 
 straloria  (subst.),  sufferentia,  sufficitntia,  siiper- 
 abundantia,  sustinentia,  carlallus,  casshlile,  collac- 
 tanevs,  condidcare,  (/enimen,  (/rossitudo,  refectio 
 (KardAv/xa),  exierminium,  dej'unctiv  (decease),  sub- 
 stantia (abs. ),  incoliiius. 
 
 New  verbs  are  formed  from  adjectives :  pessimare, 
 proximare,  opproximare,  assifluare,  pi(jrilari, 
 salxare  (salviitor,  salvatio),  obviare,  jucundare, 
 and  especially  a  large  class  in  -fico :  mortifico,  vivi- 
 Jico,  sand  iff  CO,  glorifico,  clarifico,  bealijico,  casti- 
 Jico,  fjratijico,  fructijico. 
 
 Other  verbs  worthy  of  notice  are:  appropriare, 
 appretiare,  ienebrescere,  indulcare,  implanare, 
 (planus),  inanicare. 
 
 In  this  class  may  be  reckoned  also  many 
 (1.)  New  substantives  derived   from   adjectives: 
 possibililiis,  prceclaritas,  palerrdtas,   prwscientia, 
 relif/iosit.as.  nativiias,  supervacuitas,  magnalia. 
 
 Or  verbs:  requietio,  respectio,  creatura,  subi- 
 iatio,  extollentid. 
 
 (2.)  New  verbals:  accensibiiis,  acceptabilis,  do- 
 cibilis,  produciilis,  passibilis,  recejytibilis,  reprehen- 
 sibilis,  suadibilis,  svhjectibilis,  arreptitius ;  and 
 participial  forms:  pudoratus,  anffusliatus,  timora- 
 tus,  sensatus,  disciplinatus,  magnatus,  linguaius. 
 
 (3.)  New  adjectives:  animmquus,  temporaneus, 
 nnigenitus,  querulosus  ;  and  adverbs,  terribiliter, 
 unanimiter,  spiritualiter,  cognoscibiliter,  fiducial 
 iter. 
 
 The  series  of  negative  compounds  is  peculiarly 
 worthy  of  notice:  iminemorniio,  incrediiio,  incon- 
 summalio  ;  inhonoi-are  ;  inauxiliatus,  itideficiens, 
 inconfusibilis,  impoii.abilis. 
 
 Among  the  characteristics  of  the  late  stage  of  a 
 langu.age  must  be  reckoned  the  excessive  frequency 
 of  compounds,  especially  formed  with  the  preposi- 
 tions. These  are  peculiarly  abundant  in  the  Latin 
 Version,  Imt  in  many  cases  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
 mine wliether  tliey  are  not  direct  translations  of 
 the  late  LXX.  forms,  and  not  independent  forms: 
 e.  g.  addecimare,  adinvenire  -ntio,  ndincrescere, 
 perejfluere,  permundare,  pi-opurgare,  superexal- 
 tare,  superinv(descere,  supererogare,  reinvitare, 
 rememoratio,  repropitiari,  subinferre.  Of  these 
 many  are  the  direct  representatives  of  Greek  words: 
 superaduUa  (1  Cor.  vii.  36),  superseminare  (Jlatt. 
 xiii.  25),  comparticipes,  concaptivus,  complinliitus, 
 etc.  {.lupersubstantirdis,  Matt.  vi.  11);  and  others 
 are  formed  to  express  distinct  ideas :  siibcinericius, 
 subnervare,  etc.*" 
 
 (2.)  Crcecisms.  —  43.  The  "  simplicity  "  of  the 
 Old  Version  necessarily  led  to  the  introduction  of 
 very  numerous  Septuagintal  or  N.  T.  forms,  many 
 of  which  have  now  passed  into  conmion  use.  In 
 this  respect  it  would  be  easy  to  point  out  the  dif- 
 
 a  Cardinal  Wiseman  (Two  Letters,  etc.,  republished 
 In  Esmi/s,  1.  pp.  46-64)  has  examined  this  subject  in 
 Bome  detail,  and  the  writer  has  fully  availed  himself 
 of  his  examples,  in  addition  to  those  which  he  had 
 himself  collected.  The  Tliesauriis  of  Faber  (ed.  1749) 
 Is  the  most  complete  for  Ecclesiastical  Latin  ;  and  Du- 
 
 tripon's  Concordance  is,  as  far  as   the  writer  has   ob- 
 served, complete  for  the  authorized  Clementine  text. 
 
 b  It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  the  many  strik- 
 ing parallelisms  between  the  Vulgate  and  the  African 
 Appuleius  (e.  g.  incre'tibilis  (act.)  infffii^ibilis,  moles- 
 tare,  etc.),  or  the  Spanish  Seneca  (e.  g.  iiiquietudo,  in- 
 2'unitiiis,  etc.). 
 
VULGATE,  THE 
 
 ference  which  exists  between  Jerome's  own  work 
 and  the  oria;inal  translation,  or  his  revision  of  it. 
 Examples  of  Greelc  words  are:  zelare,  perizomo, 
 python,  jjyilwnissfi,  ^;rose??/tes,  jn-oplu-ies  -tissa 
 -tizare  -tare,  podtris,  jwmpaiice,  thesmiriznre, 
 amilhemntizare,  ayonizare,  a(/onia,  aromntiz'ire, 
 an(/ehis  -icus,  ptribolus,  pisticus,  probatLca,  p  i- 
 pyrid,  pristoplioria,  teloniimi,  eucharis,  (icJiarh, 
 roiiiphcEii,  bravium,  dit/ial'issiis,  donvt  (llifonics), 
 fliymialoiium,  trhler/a,  scitnddum,  sitarcia,  blus- 
 phenare,  etc.,  besides  the  purely  technical  terms : 
 ixilriavchii,  Farasceve,  Pascha,  Paracletus.  Other 
 words  based  on  the  Greek  are:  apoiior,  anr/nrio, 
 apostntare,  apostoiitus,  acedior  (aK-qSia)- 
 
 Some  close  renderings  are  interesting:  ainodo 
 {airh  TOVTov),  propitiatoriuia  (i\aaT7)pioi/),  inid- 
 ipsiim  (e'jrl  t5  avTh)-,  rationale  {Koytiov,  Ex.  xxviii. 
 15,  &c.),  scenoj'aclorius  (Acts  xviii.  .3),  scmvniver- 
 biiis  (Acts  xvii.  18),  stibintroductus  ((ial.  ii.  4),  sn- 
 percL'rtnri  (Jiule  3),  civU'das  (Acts  xxii.  28),  iiiten- 
 tator  maluruiii  (.James  i.  13).  To  this  head  also 
 must  be  referred  such  constructions  as  zelare  with 
 accus.  {(n\ovv  Tiva);  facere  with  inf.  (iroielv 
 ....  yevecrdai);  potestas  with  //;/'.  {i^ovaia 
 acpievai);  the  use  of  the  inf.  to  express  an  end 
 (Acts  vii.  4-3,  iwoiriaaTe  TrpoffKwelv)  or  a  result 
 (Luke  i.  25,  eVerSei'  acpikuv,  respexil  anf-rre); 
 the  introduction  of  quia  for  on  in  the  sense  of  that 
 (Luke  i.  58,  audierunt  ....  qida),  or  for  otl 
 reciiativum  (Matt.  vii.  23,  Conftebor  illis  quit 
 ....);  the  dat.  with  asseqid  (Luke  i.  3,  irapavo- 
 Kovd^iv  V.  L.);  the  use  of  the  (jvn.  with  the 
 comparative  (John  i.  50,  viajora  horitni);  and 
 such  Hebraisms  as  vir  nwrtis  (1  K.  ii.  20).  Comp. 
 §0. 
 
 Generally  it  may  be  observed  that  the  Vulgate 
 Latin  bears  traces  of  a  threefold  influence  derived 
 from  the  original  text;  and  the  modifications  of 
 form  which  are  ca|jable  of  being  carried  Ijack  to 
 this  source  occur  yet  more  largely  in  modern  lan- 
 guages, whether  in  this  case  they  are  to  be  referred 
 to  the  plastic  [wwer  of  the  Vulgate  on  the  popular 
 dialect,  or,  as  is  more  likely,  we  must  suppose  that 
 the  Vulgate  has  preserved  a  distinct  record  of  pow- 
 ers which  were  widely  working  in  the  times  of  the 
 Eni|iire  on  the  common  Latin.  These  are  (1)  an 
 extension  of  the  use  of  prepositions  for  simple  cases, 
 e.  ;j.  in  the  renderings  of  eV,  Col.  iii.  17,  facere  in 
 verbo,  etc.;  (2)  an  assimilation  of  pronouns  to 
 the  meaning  of  the  Greek  article,  e.  y.  1  John  i. 
 2,  ipsa  vita;  Luke  xxiv.  9,  illis  undecim,  etc.; 
 and  (.3)  a  constant  employment  of  the  definitive 
 and  epithetic  genitive,  where  classical  usage 
 would  have  required  an  adjective,  c.  g.  Col.  i. 
 1-3,  tilius  caritatis  suce ;  iii.  12,  viscera  miseri- 
 cordice. 
 
 44.  The  peculiarities  which  have  been  enumer- 
 ated are  Ibund  in  greater  or  less  frequency  through- 
 out the  Vulgate.  It  is  natural  that  they  should  be 
 most  al)undant  and  striking  in  the  parts  which  have 
 been  preserved  least  changed  from  the  Old  Latin, 
 the  Apocrypha,  the  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse. 
 Jerome,  who,  as  he  often  says,  had  spent  many 
 years  in  the  schools  of  grammarians  and  rhetori- 
 cians, could  not  fail  to  soften  down  many  of  the  as- 
 perities of  the  earlier  version,  either  by  adopting 
 variations  already  in  partial  use,  or  by  correcting 
 
 VULGATE,  THE 
 
 5481 
 
 a  Probably  the  most  remarkable  example  of  the  in- 
 tluenoe  of  theology  upon  popular  language,  is  the  en- 
 tire suppres.sion  of  the  correlatives  of  i.-erbani  in  all  the 
 Romance  languages.    The  forms  occur  in  the  religious 
 219 
 
 faulty  expressions  himself  as  he  revised  the  te.xt. 
 An  examination  of  a  few  chapters  in  the  Old  and 
 New  Versions  of  the  Gospels  will  show  the  character 
 and  extent  of  the  changes  which  he  ventured  to  in- 
 troduce: Luke  i.  G(),  oiix'h  '*""i  ^'^•^t-  L  ,  nequa- 
 quam,  Vulg. ;  id.  05,  ii/  '6\r]  ri)  opeiurj,  in  onini 
 iiamt'ina,  Vet.  L.,  super  omnia  montana,  Vulg.; 
 ii.  1,  profleretur,  prufessio,  Vet.  L.,  describeretur, 
 descriptia,  Vulg. ;  /(/.  1.3,  exercitus  caslcslis,  Vet. 
 L.,  mililiue  cvelestis,  Vulg. ;  id.  34,  quod  conli-adice- 
 tur,  Vet.  L.,  cvi  contr.  Vulg.;  id.  49,  in  propria 
 Patris  inei,  Vet.  L.,  in  his  qius  patris  mei  sunt, 
 Vulg.  Some  words  he  seems  to  have  changed 
 constantly,  though  not  universally:  e.  g.  obaudilio, 
 obaudiu  (obedientia,  obedio);  mensurare  (metiri); 
 dilectio  (caritas);  sacramenlum  (mysterium),  etc. 
 And  many  of  tlie  most  remarkable  forms  are  con- 
 fined to  liooks  which  he  did  not  revise:  elucidare, 
 inaltare  (jucundari);  fwnigtibundus,  illamentatus, 
 indisctplinatus,  insuspicabilis ;  exsecramentum  (ex- 
 lermininm),  (jnuditnoniun ;  exlolkntia,  honorif- 
 cenlia:  horripilatio,  inhonoratio. 
 
 45.  Generally  it  may  be  said  that  the  Scriptural 
 idioms  of  our  common  language  have  come  to  us 
 maiidy  through  the  Latin ;  and  in  a  wider  view 
 the  Vulgate  is  the  coimecting  link  between  classi- 
 cal and  modern  languages.  It  contains  elements 
 which  belong  to  the  earliest  stage  of  Latin,  and  ex- 
 hibits (if  often  in  a  rude  form)  the  flexibility  of  the 
 popular  dialect.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  fur- 
 nished the  soiu-ce  and  the  model  for  a  large  portion 
 of  cui-rent  Latin  derivatives.  Even  a  cursory  ex- 
 amination of  the  chai'acteristic  words  which  have 
 been  given  will  show  how  many  of  them,  and  how 
 many  corresponding  forms,  have  passed  into  living 
 languages."  To  follow  out  this  question  in  detail 
 would  be  out  of  place  here;  but  it  would  furnish  a 
 cliapter  in  the  history  of  language  fruitful  in  results 
 and  hitherto  unwritten.  Within  a  more  limited 
 range,  tlie  authority  of  the  Latin  Versions  is  unde- 
 niable, though  its  extent  is  rarely  realized.  The 
 vast  power  which  they  have  had  in  determining  the 
 tlieological  terms  of  western  Christendom  can 
 hardly  be  overrated.  By  far  the  greater  part  of 
 the  current  doctrinal  terminology  is  basetl  on  the 
 Vulgate,  and,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  was 
 originated  in  the  Latin  Version.  Predestination, 
 justification,  supererogation  (supererogo),  sanctifi- 
 cation,  salvation,  mediator,  regenerntion,  revela- 
 tion, visitation  (met.),  propitiation,  first  appear  in 
 the  Old  Vulgate.  Grace,  redemption,  election, 
 reconciliation,  satisfaction,  inspiration,  scripture, 
 were  devoted  there  to  a  new  and  holy  use.  Sac- 
 rament {fxvcrT7)piov)  and  communion  are  from  the 
 same  source;  and  though  baptism  is  Greek,  it 
 comes  to  us  from  the  Latin.  It  would  l)e  easy  to 
 extend  the  list  by  the  addition  of  ordei-s,  penance, 
 congregation,  priest.  But  it  can  lie  seen  from  the 
 forms  already  brought  forward  that  the  Latin  Ver- 
 sions have  left  their  mark  both  upon  our  language 
 and  upon  our  thoughts;  and  if  the  right  method 
 of  controversy  is  based  upon  a  clear  historical  per- 
 ception of  the  force  of  words,  it  is  evident  that  the 
 study  of  the  Vulgate,  however  much  neglected,  can 
 never  be  neglected  with  iu)puuity.  It  was  the  Ver- 
 sion which  alone  they  knew  who  handed  down  to 
 the  Reformei-s  the  rich  stores  of  medimval  wisdom; 
 
 technical  sense  (the  Word),  but  otherwise  they  are  re- 
 placed by  the  representatives  of  parabola  (parola,  pa 
 role,  etc.).     Compare  Diez,  Elym.  Wiirib.  p.  253. 
 
3482 
 
 VULTURE 
 
 the  Version  with  which  the  greatest  of  the  Reform- 
 ers were  most  familiar,  and  from  which  they  had 
 drawn  their  earliest  Iviiowledge  of  Divine  truth. 
 
 B.  F.  W. 
 
 *  Recent  Literature.  —  First  of  all  should  be 
 named  the  excellent  article  Vulgata,  by  0.  F. 
 Fritzsche,  in  Herzog's  Renl-Encyk.  xvii.  422-460 
 (1863).  See  also  O.  Zockler,  Hieronymus,  sein 
 Leben  u.  IVirktn,  Gotha,  1865;  L.  Diestel,  Gescli. 
 d.  Alien  Test,  in  der  ckristl.  Kirc/ie,  Jena,  1869, 
 p.  94  fF. ;  F.  Kaulen,  Gesch.  der  Vulgata,  Mainz, 
 1869;  and  H.  Kiinsch,  /lala  u.  Vulgata.  Bus 
 Sprachidiom  ....  erldutert,  Marb.  1869.  See 
 also  Ronsch,  Die  lat.  BibeliXbersttzungen  ini 
 christl.  Afrika  zur  Zeit  des  Awgustinus,  in  the 
 Zeitschr.  f.  d.  hist.  Theoi,  1867,  pp.  606-634; 
 and  Beitriige  zur  patristischen  Bezeugung  d.  bibl. 
 
 Textgestalt  u.  Latinitdl,  I.  Aus  Ambrosius,  ibid. 
 1869,  pp.  434-479,  and  1870,  pp.  91-145.  Por- 
 tions of  the  Old  Latin  versions  have  been  published 
 by  F.  Mone,  De  libris  palimpsestis,  Carlsr.  1855, 
 p.  49  ff.  (Prov.);  E.  Raiike,  Fragmenta  Vers.  sac. 
 Script.  Lat.  Antehieronym.  e  Cud.  MS.  endt,  etc. 
 Ed.  Libfi  repelitii,  cui  accedit  Appendix.  VVien, 
 1868  (1st  ed.  1856-58);  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  Fro^w. 
 Interp.  vet.  Lat.  (.ludges),  appended  to  his  Liber 
 Jttdicum  sec.  LXX.,  Turici,  1867;  A.  Vogel,  Bei- 
 trage  zur  HersieUung  d.  alt.  lat.  Bibeliibersetzung, 
 Wien,  1868;  and  especially  Librwum  Levit.  el 
 Num.  Versio  antiqua  Itida  e  Cod.  perantiquo  in 
 Biblioth.  Ashburnham.  conservnto  nunc  primuin 
 typis  ediln,    Lond.    1808,  fol.  (privately   printed). 
 
 The  Book  of  Deer  (p.  3457,  0)  has  been  edited  by 
 John  Stuart,  Edin.  1869.  A. 
 
 VULTURE.     The  rendering  in  A.  V.  of  the 
 
 Heb.   n*'1[  (dayydh)  nnc\   ^^""l;  and  also  in  Job 
 
 xxviii.  7,  of  n*S,  ayynh  ;  elsewhere,  in  Lev.  xi. 
 14,  and  Deut.  xiv.  13,  more  correctly  rendered 
 "kite":  LXX.  yv\p  and  Iktivo^'  Vulg.  vuUur  : 
 except  in  Is.  xxxiv.  15,  where  LXX.  read  e\a<pos, 
 and  V^ulg.  correctly  inilrus. 
 
 There  seems  no  doubt  but  that  the  A.  V.  trans- 
 lation is  incorrect,  and  that  the  original  words  re- 
 fer to  some  of  the  smaller  species  of  raptorial  birds, 
 
 as  kites  or  buzzards.  H*"^  is  evidently  synony- 
 mous with  Arab.  iOtXiO,  h^dnyah,  the  vernacular 
 for  the  "kite"  in  North  Africa,  and,  without  the 
 epithet  "red,"  for  the  black  kite  especially.  Bo- 
 chart  {Flieroz.  ii.  2,  195)  explains  it  Vultur  niger. 
 The  Samaritan  and  all  other  Eastern  Versions  agree 
 
 in  rendering  it  "  kite."  n*M  (ayydh)  is  3'et  more 
 certainly  referable  to  this  bird,  which  in  other  pas- 
 sages it  is  taken  to  represent.  Bochart  (Hieroz.  ii. 
 b.  2,  0.  8,  p.  193)  says   it  is  the  same  bird  which 
 
 the  Arabs  call  LjLs  (yaya)  from  its  cry;  but  does 
 not  state  what  species  this  is,  supposing  it  appar- 
 ently to  be  the  magpie,  the  Arab  name  for  which, 
 
 however,  is  ,    wULPla.M,  el  aqaaq. 
 
 There  are  two  very  different  species  of  bird  com- 
 prised under  the  English  term  vulture:  the  griffon 
 
 {Gyps  Julvus,   Sav.),  Arab.  %ijwwO,  nesser :    Heb. 
 
 "ntC73,  nesher :  invariably  rendered  "  eagle  "  by  A. 
 V. ;  and  the  percnopter,  or  Egyptian  vulture  (Vc- 
 ephronpercnopterus,  Sav.),  Arab.  &4i^\,  rakhma: 
 
 VULTURE 
 
 Heb.  Dm,  rdchdm  :  rendered  '•  gier-eagle "  by 
 A.  V.    ^  ^ 
 
 The  identity  of  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  terms  in 
 these  cases  can  scarcely  be  questioned.  However 
 degrading  the  substitution  of  the  ignoble  vulture 
 for  the  royal  eagle  may  at  first  sight  appear  in 
 many  passages,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
 griffon  is  in  all  its  movements  and  characteristics  a 
 majestic  and  royal  bird,  the  largest  and  most  pow- 
 erful which  is  seen  on  the  wing  in  Palestine,  and 
 far  surpassing  the  eagle  in  size  and  power.  Its 
 oidy  rival  in  these  respects  is  the  bearded  vulture 
 or  lammergeyer,  a  more  uncommon  bird  every- 
 where, and  which,  since  it  is  not,  like  the  griffon, 
 bald  on  the  head  and  neck,  cannot  be  referred  to  as 
 nesher  (see  Mic.  i.  16).  Very  different  is  the  slov- 
 enly and  cowardly  Egyptian  vulture,  the  familiar 
 scavenger  of  all  oriental  towns  and  villages,  pro- 
 tected for  its  useful  habits,  but  loathed  and  de- 
 spised, till  its  name  has  become  a  term  of  reproach 
 like  that  of  the  dog  or  the  swine. 
 
 If  we  take  the  Heb.  ayydh  to  refer  to  the  red 
 kite  {milvus  regalis,  Tennn.),  and  dayydh  to  the 
 black  kite  (milvus  aier,  Temm.),  we  shall  find  the 
 piercing  sight  of  the  former  referred  to  by  Job 
 (xxviii.  7),  and  the  gregarious  habits  of  the  latter 
 by  Isaiah  (xxxiv.  15).  Both  species  are  inhabit- 
 ants of  Palestine,  the  red  kite  being  found  all  over 
 the  country,  as  formerly  in  England,  but  nowhere 
 in  great  numbers,  generally  soaring  at  a  great 
 height  over  the  plains,  according  to  Dr.  Roth,  and 
 apparently  Iea\ing  the  country  in  winter.  The 
 black  kite,  which  is  so  numerous  everywhere  as  to 
 be  gregarious,  may  be  seen  at  all  times  of  the  year, 
 hovering  over  the  villages  and  the  outskirts  of 
 towns,  on  the  lookout  for  offal  and  garbage,  which 
 are  its  favorite  food.  Vulture-like,  it  seldom,  un- 
 less pressed  by  hunger,  attacks  hving  animals.  It 
 is  tlierefore  never  molested  by  the  natives,  and 
 builds  its  nest  on  trees  in  their  neighborhood,  fan- 
 tastically decorating  it  with  as  many  rags  of  col- 
 ored cloth  as  it  can  collect. 
 
 There  are  three  species  of  vulture  known  to  in- 
 habit Palestine :  — 
 
 1.  The  Lammergeyer  (Gypaefos  barbatus,  Cuv.), 
 which  is  rare  everywhere,  and  only  found  in  deso- 
 late mountain  regions,  where  it  rears  its  young  in 
 the  depth  of  winter  among  inaccessible  precipices. 
 It  is  looked  upon  by  the  Arabs  as  an  eagle  rather 
 than  a  vulture. 
 
 2.  The  Griffon  ((lyps  Julvics,  Sav.),  mentioned 
 above,  remarkable  for  its  power  of  vision  and  the 
 great  height  at  which  it  soars.  Aristotle  (Anim. 
 Hist.  vi.  5)  notices  the  maimer  in  which  the  griffon 
 scents  its  prey  from  afar,  and  congregates  in  the 
 wake  of  an  army.  The  same  singular  instinct  was 
 remarked  in  the  Russian  War,  when  vast  numbers 
 of  this  vulture  were  collected  in  the  Crimea,  and 
 remained  till  the  end  of  the  campaign  in  the  neigh- 
 borhood of  the  camp,  although  previously  they  had 
 been  scarcely  known  in  the  country.  "  Whereso- 
 ever the  carcass  is  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered 
 together  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  28);  "  Where  the  slain  are, 
 there  is  she  "  (Job  xxxix.  30).  The  writer  observed 
 this  bird  universally  distributed  in  all  the  moun- 
 tainous and  rocky  districts  of  Palestine,  and  espe- 
 cially abundant  in  the  southeast.  Its  favorite 
 breeding-places  are  between  Jerusalem  and  Jericho, 
 and  all  round  the  Dead  Sea. 
 
 The  third  species  is  the  Egyptian  vulture  (Neo- 
 phron pei'cnopterus,  Sav. ),  often  called  Pharaoh'i 
 
WAGES 
 
 hen,  observed  in  Palestine  by  Hasselquist  and  all 
 subsequent,  travellers,  and"  very  numerous  every- 
 where. Two  other  species  of  \er3'  large  size,  the 
 eared  and  cinereous  vultures  (VuHur  nuhicus, 
 Smith,  and  Vultur  clnereus,  L.),  although  inhab- 
 itants of  the  neighboring  countries,  and  probably 
 also  of  the  southeast  of  Palestine,  have  not  yet 
 been  noted  in  collections  from  that  country. 
 
 H.  B.  T. 
 
 w. 
 
 WAGES."  The  earliest  mention  of  wages  is 
 of  a  recompense  not  in  money  but  in  kind,  to  Jacob 
 from  Laban  (Gen.  xxix.  15,  20,  xxx.  28,  xxxi.  7, 
 8,  41).  This  usage  was  only  natural  among  a 
 pastoral  and  changing  population  like  that  of  the 
 tent-dwellers  of  Syria.  In  Egypt,  money  payments 
 by  way  of  wages  were  in  use,  but  the  terms  cannot 
 now  be  ascertained  (Ex.  ii.  9).  The  only  mention 
 of  the  rate  of  wages  in  Scripture  is  found  in  the 
 parable  of  the  householder  and  vineyard  (JIatt.  xx. 
 2),  where  the  laborer's  wages  are  set  at  one  denai'ius 
 per  day,  probably  ^7|f/.,  a  rate  which  agrees  with 
 Tobit  V.  14,  where  a  drachma  is  mentioned  as  the 
 rate  per  day,  a  sum  which  may  be  fairly  taken  as 
 equivalent  to  the  denarius,  and  to  the  usual  pay  of 
 a  soldier  (ten  asses  per  diem)  in  the  later  days  of 
 the  Koman  republic  (Tac.  Ann.  i.  17 ;  Polyb.  vi. 
 39).  It  was  perhaps  the  traditional  remembrance 
 of  this  sum  as  a  day's  wages  that  suggested  the 
 mention  of  "  drachmas  wrung  from  the  hard  hands 
 of  peasants"  (Shakespeare,  Jul.  Ctcs.  iv.  3).  In 
 earlier  times  it  is  probable  that  the  rate  was  lower, 
 as  until  lately  it  was  throughout  India.  In  Scot- 
 land we  know  that  in  the  last  century  a  laborer's 
 daily  wages  did  not  exceed  sixpence  (Smiles,  Lives 
 of  Engineers,  ii.  96 ).  But  it  is  likely  that  labor- 
 ers, and  also  soldiers,  were  supplied  with  provisions 
 (Michaelis,  Laws  of  Moses,  §  130,  vol.  ii.  p.  190, 
 ed.  Smith),  as  is  intimated  by  the  word  ox^wvia, 
 used  in  Luke  iii.  14,  and  1  Cor.  ix.  7,  and  also  by 
 Pol}bius,  vi.  39.  The  Mishnah  (Baba  metzia, 
 vii.  1,  §  5),  speaks  of  victuals  being  allowed  or 
 not  according  to  the  custom  of  the  place,  up  to 
 the  value  of  a  denarius,  i.  e.  inclusive  of  the  pay. 
 
 The  law  was  very  strict  in  requiring  daily  pay- 
 ment of  wages  (Lev.  six.  13;  Deut.  xxiv.  14,  15); 
 and  the  Mishnah  applies  the  same  rule  to  the  use 
 (i  animals  {Baba  meizia,  ix.  12).  The  employer 
 who  refused  to  give  his  laborers  sufficient  victuals 
 is  censured  (Job  xxiv.  11),  and  the  iniquity  of 
 withholding  wages  is  denounced  (Jer.  xxii.  13; 
 Mai.  iii.  5;  James  v.  4). 
 
 Wages  in  general,  whether  of  soldiers  or  labor- 
 ers, are  mentioned  (Hag.  i.  6;  Ez.  xxix.  18,  19; 
 John  iv.  30).  Burckhardt  mentions  a  case  in 
 Syria  resembling  closely  that  of  Jacob  with  Laban 
 —  a  man  who  served  eight  years  for  his  food,  on 
 
 WALLS 
 
 3483 
 
 «  1.  "lDtt7,   n~l!Dti7^  :   ttto-eds  :  merces. 
 T  T  '         V        :    - 
 
 2.  n^l^S:   /u.i(r86s :  opus:  wages  for  work  done, 
 
 from    7^9,   "  work  "  (Ges.  p.  1117). 
 
 6  1.  n3"}tJ''S  :  x°P'T>"'<*:  wuri:  only  in  Ezra  v.  3. 
 
 2.    (a)    "1^2:      4>payix6^:     maceria.     (4)     'TIS: 
 
 ^payfioi:    maceria.     (c)  m^2  '.  Bi.a.<TniiJ.a,^pa.yit.6<;: 
 t*pes. 
 
 condition  of  obtaining  his  master's  daughter  in 
 marriage,  and  was  afterwards  compelled  by  his 
 fatiier-in-law  to  perform  acts  of  service  for  him 
 (Syria,  p.  297).  H.  W.  P. 
 
 WAGON.  [Cart  and  Chariot.]  The 
 oriental  wagon  or  arabah  is  a  vehicle  composed 
 of  two  or  three  planks  fixed  on  two  solid  circular 
 blocks  of  wood,  from  two  to  five  feet  in  diameter, 
 whicli  serve  as  wheels.  To  the  floor  are  sometimes 
 attached  wings,  which  splay  outwards  like  the  sides 
 of  a  wheelbarrow.  For  the  conveyance  of  passen- 
 gers, mattresses  or  clothes  are  laid  in  the  bottom, 
 and  the  vehicle  is  drawn  by  buflaloes  or  oxen 
 (Arundell,  Asia  Minor,  ii.  191,  235,  238;  Olearius, 
 Trav.  p.  309;  Ker  Porter,  Trav.  ii.  533.)  Egyp- 
 tian carts  or  wagons,  such  as  were  sent  to  con- 
 voy Jacob  (Gen.  xlv.  19,  21,  27),  are  described 
 under  Cart.  The  covered  wagons  for  conveying 
 the  materials  of  the  Tabernacle  were  probably  con- 
 structed on  Egyptian  models.  They  were  each 
 drawn  by  two  o.xen  (Num.  vii.  3,  8).  Herodotus 
 mentions  a  four-wheeled  Egyptian  vehicle  {&fj.a^a) 
 used  for  sacred  purposes  (Her.  ii.  63). 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 *  Under  this  head  belongs  "  litters  "  Is.  Ixvi. 
 20,  the  Hebrew  word  being  the  same  as  that  for 
 "  wagons  "  in  Num.  vii.  3,  8.  Litters  occurs 
 only  this  once  in  the  A.  V.  H. 
 
 *  WALL  OF  PARTITION.  [Partition 
 Wall.] 
 
 WALLS.''  Only  a  few  points  need  be  noticed 
 in  addition  to  what  has  been  said  elsewhere  on 
 wall-construction,  whether  in  brick,  stone,  or  wood. 
 [Bricks;  Handicraft;  Mortar.]  1.  The  prac- 
 tice common  in  Palestine  of  carrying  foundation? 
 down  to  the  solid  rock,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Temple, 
 and  in  the  present  day  with  structures  intended  to 
 be  permanent  (Joseph.  AnI.  xv.  11,  §  3;  Luke  vi. 
 48;  Robinson,  ii.  338;  Col.  Ch.  Citron.  (1857), 
 p.  459 ).  The  pains  taken  by  the  ancient  builders 
 to  make  good  the  foundations  of  their  work  may 
 still  be  seen,  both  in  tlie  existing  substructions 
 and  in  the  number  of  old  stones  used  in  more 
 modern  constructions.  Some  of  these  stones  — 
 ancient,  but  of  uncertain  date  —  are  from  20  feet 
 to  30  feet  10  inches  long,  3  feet  to  6  feet  6  inches 
 liroad,  and  5  feet  to  7  feet  0  inches  thick  (Rob.  i. 
 233,  282,  280,  iii.  228).  As  is  the  case  in  num- 
 berless instances  of  Syrian  buildings,  either  old  or 
 built  of  old  materials,  the  edges  and  sometimes  the 
 faces  of  these  stones  are  "  beveled  "  in  flat  grooves. 
 Tills  is  counnonly  supposed  to  indicate  work  at 
 least  as  old  as  the  Roman  period  (Rob.  i.  201,  286, 
 ii.  75,  76,  278,  353,  iii.  52,  58,  84,  229,  401,  493, 
 511;  Fergusson,  S(M.  of  Arch.  p.  288).  On 
 the  contrary  side,  see  Col.  Ch.  Chron.  (1858),  p. 
 350. 
 
 But  the  great  size  of  these  stones  is  far  exceeded 
 by  some  of  those  at  Baalbek,  three  of  which  ar« 
 
 3     nXSin  :  Tei^os :  mums. 
 
 4.  v'^n  :   6dVo(uis  :  z-i'rtM.5 :  also  TrpoTei'x'"''!'^*'   "^^ 
 
 5.  Y^n  and   YT' ■  Totxos:  paries. 
 
 6.  Y^'^^  :   jrepiTeix"?  '■  ^"ri :  only  in  Dan.  ix.  25. 
 
 7.  (a)  bnb.    (6)  bn3,    Chald. :    toIxos  :  paries 
 
 8.  "1^1?  :  Toixos :  paries. 
 
 9.  l^lJi?  :  Tfixos  :   murus. 
 
3484 
 
 WANDERING 
 
 each  about  63  feet  long;  and  one,  still  lying  in  the 
 quarry,  measures  G8  feet  4  inches  in  length,  17  feet 
 2  inches  broad,  and  14  feet  7  inches  tbick.  Its 
 weight  can  scarcely  be  less  tban  GOO  tons  (Rob.  iii. 
 505,  512;  Volney, 'jTrav.  ii.  241). 
 
 2.  A  feature  of  some  parts  of  Solomon's  build- 
 ings, as  described  by  Josephus,  corresponds  re- 
 markably to  the  method  adopted  at  Nineveh  of 
 encrusting  or  veneering  a  wall  of  brick  or  stone 
 with  slabs  of  a  more  costly  material,  as  marble  or 
 alabaster  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  5,  §  2;  Fergusson, 
 Ildbk.  202,  203). 
 
 3.  Another  use  of  walls  in  Palestine  is  to  sup- 
 port mountain  roads  or  terraces  formed  on  the 
 sides  of  bills  for  purposes  of  cultivation  (Rob.  ii. 
 493,  iii.  14,  45). 
 
 4.  The  ''  paths  of  the  vineyards  "  (Num.  xxii. 
 24)  is  illustrated  by  Kobinson  as  a  pathway  through 
 vineyards,  with  walls  on  each  side  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  80 ; 
 Stanley,  S.  and  P.  102,  420;  Lindsay,  Trnv.  p. 
 239;  Maundrell,  Early  Tmv.  p.  437).  [Win- 
 dow.] 11.  W.  P. 
 
 WANDERING  IN  THE  WILDER- 
 NESS.      [WiLDEKNESS   OF   WanDEKING.] 
 
 WAR.  The  most  important  topic  in  connec- 
 tion with  war  is  the  formation  of  the  army,  which 
 is  destined  to  carry  it  on.  This  has  been  already 
 described  under  the  head  of  Army,  and  we  shall 
 therefore  take  up  the  subject  from  the  point  where 
 that  article  leaves  it.  Before  entering  on  a  war 
 of  aggression  the  Hebrews  sougbt  for  the  Divine 
 sanction  by  consulting  either  the  Urim  and  Thum- 
 mim  (Judg.  i.  1,  xx.  27,  28; -1  Sam.xiv.  37,  xxiii. 
 2,  xxviii.  G,  xxx.  8),  or  some  acknowledged  prophet 
 (1  K.  xxii.  6;  2  Cbr.  xviii.  5).  The  heathens 
 betook  themselves  to  various  kinds  of  divination 
 for  the  same  purpose  (Ez.  xxi.  21).  Divine  aid 
 was  further  sought  in  actual  warfare  by  bringing 
 into  the  field  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  which  was 
 the  symbol  of  Jehovah  Himself  (1  Sam.  iv.  4-18, 
 xiv.  18),  a  custom  which  prevailed  certainly  down 
 to  David's  time  (2  Sam.  xi.  11;  comp.  Ps.  Ixviii. 
 1,  24).  During  the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness 
 the  signal  for  warlike  preparations  was  sounded  by 
 priests  with  the  silver  trumpets  of  the  sanctuary 
 (Num.  X.  9,  xxxi.  G).  Formal  proclamations  of 
 war  were  not  interchanged  between  the  belligerents  ; 
 but  occasionally  messages  either  deprecatory  or 
 defiant  were  sent,  as  in  the  cases  of  Jepbtbah  and 
 the  Ammonites  (Judg.  xi.  12-27),  Ben-badad  and 
 Ahab  (1  K.  xx.  2),  and  again  Amaziah  and  Jeboash 
 (2  K.  xiv.  8).  Before  entering  tbe  enemy's  dis- 
 trict .spies  were  sent  to  ascertain  tlie  cliaracter  of 
 the  country  and  tlie  preparations  of  its  inhabitants 
 for  resistance  (Num.  xiii.  17;  Josh.  ii.  1;  Judg. 
 vii.  10;  1  Sam.  xxvi.  4).     When   an   engagement 
 
 "  ~)*^^Q,  lit.  an  "  enclosing "'  or  "  be.<ieging,'' 
 and  hence  applied  to  tUe  wall  by  which  the  siege  was 
 effected. 
 
 nbbb. 
 
 Saalschutz  {Archdol.  ii.  504)  understands 
 
 this  term  of  the  scaling-ladder,  comparing  the  cognate 
 suUam  (Gen.  xxviii  12),  and  giving  the  verb  shnphnc. 
 which  accompanies  sollah,  the  sense  of  a  "liurried 
 advancing  "  of  the  ladder. 
 
 c  p*^.  Some  doubt  exists  as  to  the  meaning  of 
 this  term.  The  sense  of  "  turrets  '■  assigned  to  it  by 
 Geserius  (TAfS.  p.  3-30)  h.as  been  objected  to  on  the 
 ground  that  the  word  always  appears  in  the  singular 
 number,  and  in  connection  with  the  expression  "  round 
 
 WAR 
 
 was  imminent  a  sacrifice  was  ofTered  (1  Sam.  vii. 
 9,  xiii.  9),  and  an  inspiriting  address  delivered 
 either  by  the  commander  (2  Chr.  xx.  20)  or  by  a 
 priest  (Deut.  xx.  2).  Then  followed  the  battle- 
 signal,  sounded  forth  from  tlie  silver  trumpets  as 
 already  described,  to  which  the  host  responded  by 
 shouting  the  war-cry  (1  Sam.  xvii.  52;  Is.  xiii. 
 13;  Jer.  1.  42;  Ez.  xxi.  22;  Am.  i.  14).  The 
 coml)at  assumed  the  form  of  a  number  of  hand-to- 
 hand  contests,  depending  on  the  qualities  of  the 
 individual  soldier  rather  than  on  tbe  disposition  of 
 masses.  Hence  the  high  value  attached  to  fleet- 
 ness  of  foot  and  strength  of  arm  (2  Sam.  i.  23,  ii. 
 18;  1  Chr.  xii.  8).  At  the  same  time  various 
 strategic  devices  were  practiced,  such  as  the  am- 
 buscade (Josh.  viii.  2,  12;  Judg.  xx.  3G),  surprise 
 (Judg.  vii.  IG),  or  circumvention  (2  Sam.  v.  23). 
 Another  mode  of  settling  the  dispute  was  by  the 
 selection  of  champions  (1  Sam.  xvii. ;  2  Sam.  ii. 
 14),  who  were  spurred  on  to  exertion  by  the  offer 
 of  high  reward  (1  Sam.  xvii.  25,  xviii.  25;  2  Sam. 
 xviii.  11;  2  Chr.  xi.  G).  The  contest  having  been 
 decided,  the  conquerors  were  recalled  from  the  pur- 
 suit by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet  (2  Sam.  ii.  28, 
 xviii.  16,  XX.  22). 
 
 The  siege  of  a  town  or  fortress  was  conducted  in 
 the  following  manner:  A  line  of  circumvallation  <■ 
 was  drawn  round  the  place  (Ez.  iv.  2;  Mic.  v.  1), 
 constructed  out  of  the  trees  found  in  the  neighbor- 
 hood (Deut.  XX.  20),  together  with  earth  and  any 
 other  materials  at  hand.  This  line  not  only  cut 
 off  tbe  besieged  from  the  surrounding  country,  but 
 also  served  as  a  base  of  operations  for  the  besiegers. 
 The  next  step  was  to  throw  out  from  this  line  one 
 or  more  "  mounts  "  or  "  banks  "  *  in  the  direction 
 of  the  city  (2  Sam.  xx.  15;  2  K.  xix.  32;  Is.  xxxvii. 
 33),  which  was  gradually  increased  in  height  until 
 it  was  about  half  as  high  as  the  city  wall.  On 
 this  mound  or  bank  towers  '^  were  erected  (2  K. 
 XXV.  1;  Jer.  Iii.  4;  Ez.  iv.  2,  xvii.  17,  xxi.  22, 
 xxvi.  8),  whence  the  slingers  and  archers  might 
 attack  with  effect.  Battering-rams  '^  (Ez.  iv.  2,  xxi. 
 22)  were  lirought  up  to  the  walls  by  means  of  tbe 
 bank,  and  scaling-ladders  might  also  be  placed  on 
 it.  Underuiinuig  the  walls,  though  practiced  by 
 the  Assyrians  (Layard,  Nin.  ii.  371),  is  not  noticed 
 in  the  Bible;  the  reference  to  it  in  the  LXX.  and 
 Vulg.,  in  Jer.  Ii.  58,  is  not  warranted  by  tbe  orig- 
 inal text.  Sometimes,  however,  the  walls  were 
 attacked  near  the  foundation,  either  by  individual 
 warriors  who  protected  themselves  from  above  by 
 their  shields  (Ez.  xxvi.  8),  or  by  the  further  use  of 
 such  a  machine  as  the  Ildepolis^'^  referred  to  in 
 1  Mace.  xiii.  43.  Burning  the  gates  was  another 
 mode  of  obtaining  ingress  (Judg.  ix.  52).  The 
 water- supply  would  naturally  be  cut  off,  if  it  were 
 
 about '■  the  city.  Hence  the  sense  of  "  circumvalla- 
 tion  "  has  been  as.signed  to  it  by  Miehaelis,  Keil 
 (Archaol  ii.  303),  and  others.  .  It  is  difficult,  however, 
 in  tliis  case,  to  see  any  distinction  between  the  terms 
 (Jdyik  and  mdtzCr.  The  expression  "  round  about  " 
 may  refer  to  the  custom  of  casting  up  banks  at  differ- 
 ent points  ;  the  use  of  the  singular  in  a  collective 
 sense  forms  a  greater  difficulty. 
 
 •  T 
 
 e  This  is  described  by  Ammianus  Marcellinus  (xxiii. 
 4,  §  10)  as  a  combination  of  the  testudn  and  the  bat- 
 tering-ram, by  means  of  wliich  the  besiegers  broke 
 through  the  lower  part  of  the  wall,  and  thus  "  leaped 
 into  the  city,"  not  from  above,  as  the  words  prittH 
 facie  imply ,  but  from  below. 
 
WAR 
 
 possible  (Jud.  viii.  7).  The  besieged,  meanwhile, 
 strengthened  and  repaired  their  fortifications  (Is. 
 xxii.  10),  and  repelled  the  enemy  from  the  wall  by 
 missiles  (2  Sam.  xi.  24),  by  throwing  o\er  beams 
 and  heavy  stones  (-Judg.  ix.  53;  2  Sam.  xi.  21; 
 Joseph.  B.  J.  V.  3,  §  3,  6,  §  3),  by  pouring  down 
 boiling  oil  (B.  J.  iii.  7,  §  28),  or  lastly  by  erecting 
 fixed  engines  for  the  propulsion  of  stones  and  arrows 
 (2  Chr.  xxvi.  15).  [Engine.]  Sallies  were  also 
 made  lor  the  purpo.se  of  burning  the  besiegers' 
 works  (1  Mace.  vi.  31;  B.  J.  v.  11,  §  4),  and 
 driving  them  away  from  the  neighborhood.  The 
 foregoing  operations  receive  a  large  amount  of  illus- 
 tration ti-om  the  representations  of  such  scenes  on 
 the  Assyrian  slabs.  We  there  see  the  "bank" 
 thrown  up  in  the  form  of  an  inclined  plane,  with 
 the  battering-ram  hauled  up  on  it  assaulting  the 
 walls;  movable  towers  of  considerable  elevation 
 brought  up,  wlience  the  warriors  discharge  their 
 arrows  into  the  city;  the  walls  undermined,  or 
 attempts  made  to  destroy  them  by  picicing  to  pieces 
 the  lower  courses ;  the  defenders  actively  engaged 
 in  archery,  and  averting  the  force  of  the  battering- 
 ram  by  chains  and  ropes;  the  scaling-ladders  at 
 length  brought,  and  the  conflict  become  hand-to- 
 hand  (I.ayard's  ^'in.  ii.  3G6-374). 
 
 The  treatment  of  the  conquered  was  extremely 
 severe  in  ancient  times.  The  leaders  of  the  host 
 were  put  to  death  (Josh.  x.  26;  Judg.  vii.  25), 
 with  the  occasional  indignity  of  decapitation  after 
 death  (1  Sam.  xvii.  51;  2  Mace.  xv.  30;  Joseph. 
 B.  J.  i.  17,  §  2).  The  bodies  of  the  soldiers  killed 
 in  action  were  plundered  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  8;  2  Mace, 
 viii.  27);  tlie  survivors  were  either  killed  in  some 
 savage  manner  (Judg.  ix.  45;  2  Sam.  xii.  31;  2 
 Chr.  XXV.  12),  mutilated  (Judg.  i.  6;  1  Sam.  xi. 
 2),  or  carried  into  captivity  (Num.  xxxi.  2G;  Deut. 
 XX.  14).  Women  and  children  were  occasionally 
 put  to  death  with  the  greatest  barbarity  (2  K.  viii. 
 12,  XV.  16;  Is.  xiii.  16,  18;  Hos.  x.  14,  xiii.  10; 
 Am.  i.  13;  Nah.  iii.  10;  2  Mace.  v.  13):  but  it 
 was  more  usual  to  retain  the  maidens  as  concubines 
 or  servants  (Judg.  v.  30;  2  K.  v.  2).  Sometimes 
 the  bulk  of  the  population  of  the  conquered  coun- 
 try was  removed  to  a  distant  locality,  as  in  the 
 case  of  the  Israelites  when  subdued  by  the  As- 
 syrians (2  K.  xvii.  6).  and  of  the  Jews  by  the 
 Babylonians  (2  K.  xxiv.  14,  xxv.  11).  In  addition 
 to  these  measures,  the  towns  were  destroyed  (Judg. 
 ix.  45;  2  K.  iii.  25;  1  Mace.  v.  28,  51,  x.  84),  the 
 idols  and  shrines  were  carried  off  (Is.  xlvi.  1,2), 
 or  destroyed  (1  Mace.  v.  68,  x.  84);  the  fruit-trees 
 were  cut  down,  and  the  fields  spoiled  by  over- 
 spreading them  with  stones  (2  K.  iii.  19,  25);  and 
 the  horses  were  lamed  (2  Sam.  viii.  4;  Josh.  xi.  6, 
 9).  If  the  war  was  carried  on  simply  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  plunder  or  supremacy,  these  extreme  meas- 
 ures would  hardly  be  carried  into  execution ;  the 
 conqueror  would  restrict  himself  to  rifling  the  treas- 
 uries (1  K.  xiv.  20  ;  2  K  xiv.  14,  xxiv.  13),  or 
 levying  contributions  (2  K.  xviii.  14). 
 
 The  Mosaic  I^aw  mitigated  to  a  certain  extent 
 the  severity  of  the  ancient  usages  towards  the  con- 
 quered. \Vitli  the  exception  of  .the  Canaanites, 
 who  were  delivered  over  to  the  ban  of  extermina- 
 tion by  the  express  command  of  God,  it  was  for- 
 bidden to  the  Israelites  to  put  to  death  any  others 
 than  males  bearing  arms:  the  women  and  children 
 were  to  lie  kept  alive  (Deut.  xx.  13,  14).  In  a 
 similar  spirit  of  humanity  the  Jews  were  prohib- 
 ited from  felling  fruit-trees  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
 ing siege-works  (Deut.  xx.  19).     The  Law  further 
 
 WASHING  HANDS  AND  FEET     8485 
 
 restricted  the  power  of  the  conqueror  over  females, 
 and  secured  to  them  humane  treatment  (Deut.  xxi. 
 10-14).  The  majority  of  the  savage  acts  recorded 
 as  having  been  practiced  by  the  Jews  were  either 
 in  retaliation  for  some  gross  jirovocation,  as  in- 
 stanced in  the  cases  of  Adoni-bezek  (Judg.  i.  6, 
 7),  and  of  David's  treatment  of  the  Ammonites 
 (2  Sam.  X.  2-4,  xii.  31;  1  Chr.  xx.  3);  or  else 
 they  were  done  by  lawless  usurpers,  as  in  Mena- 
 hem's  treatment  of  the  women  of  Tiphsah  (2  K. 
 XV.  16).  The  Jewish  kings  generally  appear  to 
 have  obtained  credit  for  clemency  (1  K.  xx.  31). 
 
 The  conquerors  celebrated  their  success  by  the 
 erection  of  monumental  stones  (1  Sam.  vii.  12; 
 2  Sam.  viii.  13,  where,  instead  of  "gat  him  a 
 name,"  we  should  read  '■'■set  vp  a  7nemoriaP'),  by 
 hanging  up  trophies  in  their  public  buildings  (1 
 Sam.  xxi.  9,  xxxi.  10;  2  K.  xi.  10),  and  by,  tri- 
 umphal songs  and  dances,  in  which  the  whole 
 population  took  part  (Ex.  xv.  1-21;  Judg.  v. ;  1 
 Sam.  xviii.  6-8;  2  Sam.  xxii.;  Jud.  xvi.  2-17;  1 
 Mace.  iv.  24).  The  death  of  a  hero  was  com- 
 memorated by  a  dirge  (2  Sam.  i.  17-27;  2  Chr. 
 XXXV.  25),  or  by  a  national  mourning  (2  Sam.  iii. 
 31).  The  fallen  warriors  were  duly  buried  (1  K. 
 xi.  15),  their  arms  being  deposited  in  the  grave 
 beside  them  (Ez.  xxxii.  27),  while  the  enemies' 
 corpses  were  exposed  to  the  beasts  of  prey  (1  Sam. 
 x^i.  44;  Jer.  xxv.  33).  The  Israelites  were  di- 
 rected to  undergo  the  purification  imposed  on  those 
 who  had  touched  a  corpse,  before  they  entered  the 
 precincts  of  the  camp  or  the  sanctuary  (Num.  xxxi. 
 19).  Tlie  disposal  of  the  spoil  has  already  been 
 described  under  Booty.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  WARDROBE,  2  K.  xxii.  14,  where,  as 
 rendered  in  the  margin,  the  Hebrew  signifies  "gar- 
 ments." The  vestments  of  the  priests  are  prob- 
 ably meant,  said  there  to  have  been  under  the  care 
 of  Shallum.  The  same  notice  occurs  in  2  Chr. 
 xxxiv.  22.     [See  Vestky,  Amer.  ed.]  H. 
 
 *  WARES.     [Commerce;  Merchant.] 
 
 WASHING  THE  HANDS  AND  FEET. 
 
 The  particular  attention  paid  by  the  Jews  to  the 
 cleansing  of  the  hands  and  feet,  as  compared  with 
 other  parts  of  the  body,  originated  in  the  social 
 usages  of  the  East.  As  knives  and  forks  were  dis- 
 pensed with  in  eating,  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
 that  the  hand,  which  was  thrust  into  the  common 
 dish,  should  be  scrupulously  clean;  and  again,  as 
 sandals  were  ineffectual  against  the  dust  and  heat 
 of  an  eastern  climate,  washing  the  feet  on  enter- 
 ing a  house  was  an  act  both  of  respect  to  the  com- 
 pany and  of  refreshment  to  the  traveller.  The 
 former  of  these  usages  was  transformed  by  the 
 Pharisees  of  the  New  Testament  age  into  a  matter 
 of  ritual  observance  (Mark  vii.  3),  and  special  rules 
 were  laid  down  as  to  the  times  and  manner  of  its 
 performance.  The  neglect  of  these  rules  by  our 
 Lord  and  his  disciples  drew  down  upon  Him  the 
 hostility  of  that  sect  (Matt.  xv.  2;  Luke  xi.  38). 
 Whether  the  expression  irvynfj  used  by  St.  Mark 
 has  reference  to  any  special  regulation  may  per- 
 haps be  doubtful;  the  senses  "oft"  (A.  \.),  and 
 "diligently''  (Alford),  have  been  assigned  to  it, 
 but  it  may  po.ssibly  signify  "with  the  fist,"  as 
 though  it  were  necessary  to  close  the  one  band, 
 which  had  already  been  cleansed,  before  it  was 
 applied  to  the  unclean  one.  This  sense  appears 
 preferable  to  the  other  interpretations  of  a  similar 
 character,  such  as  "  up  to  the  wrist"  (Lightfoot); 
 "  up  to  the  elbow  "  (Theophylact) ;  "  having  closed 
 
3486 
 
 WASHPOT 
 
 the  hand  "  which  is  undergoing  the  washing  (Grot. ; 
 Scalig.).  The  Pharisaical  regulations  on  this  sub- 
 ject are  embodied  in  a  treatise  of  the  Mishnah, 
 entitled  Yadaim,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 
 ablution  was  confined  to  the  band  (-2,  §  3),  and  that 
 great  care  was  needed  to  secure  jjert'ect  purity  in 
 the  water  used.  The  ordinary,  as  distinct  from  the 
 ceremonial,  washing  of  hands  before  meals  is  still 
 universally  prevalent  in  eastern  countries  (Lane,  i. 
 190;  Burckhardfs  Noles,  i.  03). 
 
 Washing  the  feet  did  not  rise  to  the  dignity  of 
 a  ritual  observance,  except  in  connection  with  the 
 services  of  the  sanctuary  (Ex.  xxx.  19,  21).  It 
 held  a  high  place,  however,  among  the  rites  of 
 hospitality.  Immediately  that  a  guest  presented 
 himself  at  the  tent-door,  it  was  usual  to  offi?r  the 
 necessary  materials  for  washing  the  feet  (Gen.  xviii. 
 4,  six.  2,  xxiv.  32,  xliii.  24;  Judg.  xix.  21;  comp. 
 Horn.  Od.  iv.  49).  It  was  a  yet  more  compli- 
 mentary act,  betokening  equally  humility  and  affec- 
 tion, if  the  host  actually  performed  the  office  for 
 his  guest  (1  Sam.  xxv.  41;  Luke  vii.  38,  44;  .John 
 xiii.  5-14;  1  Tim.  v.  10).  Such  a  token  of  hos- 
 pitahty  is  still  occasionally  exhibited  in  the  East, 
 either  by  the  host,  or  by  his  deputy  (Robinson's 
 Bib.  Res.  ii.  229;  Jowett's  lies.  pp.  78,  79).  The 
 feet  were  again  washed  before  retiring  to  bed 
 (Cant,  V.  3).  A  symbolical  significance  is  attached 
 in  John  xiii.  10  to  washing  the  feet  as  compared 
 with  bathing  the  whole  body,  the  former  being 
 partial  (j/i'tttoi),  the  latter  complete  {\ova>),  the  for- 
 mer oft-repeated  in  the  course  of  the  day,  tlie  latter 
 done  once  for  all;  whence  they  are  adduced  to 
 illustrate  the  distinction  between  occasional  sin  and 
 a  general  state  of  sinfulness.  After  being  washed, 
 the  feet  were  on  festive  occasions  anointed  (Luke 
 vii.  38;  John  xii.  3).  The  indignity  attached  to 
 the  act  of  washing  another's  feet,  appears  to  have 
 been  extended  to  the  vessel  used  (Ps.  Ix.  8). 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 *  WASHPOT.  [See  the  article  above.] 
 WATCHES  OF  NIGHT  (n^tt^'S :  <^u- 
 \aK7)).  The  Jews,  like  the  Greeks  and  Romans, 
 divided  the  night  into  military  watches  instead  of 
 hours,  each  watch  representing  the  period  for 
 which  sentinels  or  pickets  remained  on  duty.  The 
 proper  Jewish  reckoning  recognized  only  three  such 
 watches,  entitled  the  first  or  "beginning  of  the 
 watches  "«  (Lam.  ii.  19),  the  middle  watch*  (Judg. 
 vii.  19),  and  the  morning  watch''  (Ex.  xiv.  24; 
 1  Sam.  xi.  11).  These  would  last  respectively  from 
 sunset  to  10  p.  m.  ;  from  10  P.  m.  to  2  A.  m.  ;  and 
 from  2  A.  M.  to  sunrise.  It  has  been  contended 
 by  Lightfoot  (flor.  lleh.  in  Matt.  xiv.  25)  that  the 
 Jews  really  reckoned  four  watches,  three  only  of 
 which  were  in  the  dead  of  the  night,  the  fourth 
 
 ''  -i|7.!2n  n^brrsi.         <i  -rf^t^. 
 
 *  Yet  being  an  offering  to  "  bring  iniquity  to  re 
 membrance "  (ver.  15),  it  is  ceremonially  rated  as  a 
 "  sin  offering  ;  "  hence  no  oil  is  to  be  mixed  with  the 
 meal  before  burning  it,  nor  any  frankincense  to  be 
 placed  upon  it  when  burnt,  which  same  rule  was  ap- 
 plied to  "sin  offerings"  generally  (Lev.  v.  11).  With 
 meat  offerings,  on  the  contrary,  the  mixture  of  oil  and 
 the  imposition  of  frankincense  were  prescribed  (ii.  1. 
 8.  7,  14,  15). 
 
 /  Probably  not  the  "  water  of  separation  "  for  puri- 
 
 WATER  OF  JEALOUSY 
 
 being  in  the  morning.  This,  however,  is  rendereU 
 improbable  by  the  use  of  the  term  "middle,"  and 
 is  opposed  to  Rabbinical  authority  (Mishnah,  Bc- 
 riicli.  c.  1,  §  1;  Kimchi,  on  Ps.  Ixiii.  7;  Rashi, 
 on  Judg.  vii.  19).  Subsequently  to  the  establish- 
 ment of  the  Roman  supremacy,  the  number  of 
 watches  was  increased  to  four,  which  were  described 
 either  according  to  their  numerical  order,  as  in  the 
 case  of  the  "fourth  watch"  (Matt.  xiv.  25;  comp. 
 Joseph.  Ant.  v.  6,  §  5),  or  by  the  terms  "even, 
 midnight,  cock-crowing,  and  moniing  "  (Mark  xiii. 
 35).  These  terminated  respectively  at  9  P.  M., 
 midnight,  3  A.  m.,  and  6  a.  m.  Conformably  to 
 this,  the  guard  of  soldiers  was  divided  into  four 
 relays  (Acts  xii.  4),  showing  that  the  Roman 
 regime  was  followed  in  Herod's  army.  Watchmen 
 appear  to  have  patrolled  the  streets  of  the  Jewish 
 towns  (Cant.  iii.  3,  v.  7 ;  Ps.  cxxvii.  l,f'  where  for 
 "waketh"  we  should  substitute  "watcheth;"  Ps. 
 cxxx.  6).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  WATCHMAN.    [Watches  of  Night.] 
 WATER     OF     JEALOUSY     (Num.    v. 
 11-31),      C^l^n   "^P,    "waters  of   bitterness,"' 
 sometin)es   with   D'^^'^SHH  added,  as  "  causing 
 
 a  curse"  {"^"^^j  i/'5&)p  toD  fAey/^oD;  Philo,  ii.  310, 
 TroTos  fAfjxou)-  The  ritual  prescribed  consisted 
 in  the  husband's  bringing  the  woman  before  the 
 priest,  and  the  essential  part  of  it  is  unquestion- 
 ably the  oath,  to  which  the  "water"  was  sub- 
 sidiary, symbolical,  and  ministerial.  With  her  he 
 was  to  bring  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  barley- 
 meal  as  an  offering.  Perhaps  the  whole  is  to  be 
 regarded  from  a  judicial  point  of  view,  and  this 
 "  offering  "  in  the  light  of  a  court-fee.«  God  him- 
 self was  suddenly  invoked  to  judge,  and  his  pres- 
 ence recognized  by  throwing  a  handful  of  the 
 barley-meal  on  the  blazing  altar  in  the  course  of 
 the  rite.  In  the  first  instance,  however,  the  priest 
 "set  her  before  the  Lord"  with  the  offering  in 
 her  hand.  The  Mishnah  (Soiah)  prescribes  that 
 she  be  clothed  in  black  with  a  rope  girdle  around 
 her  waist;  and  from  the  direction  that  the  priest 
 "  shall  uncover  her  head  "  (ver.  18),  it  would  seem 
 she  came  in  veiled,  probably  also  in  black.  As  she 
 stood  holding  the  offering,  so  the  priest  stood  hold- 
 ing an  earthen  vessel  of  holy  water/  mixed  with 
 the  dust  from  the  floor  of  the  sanctuary,  and  de- 
 claring her  free  from  ail  evil  consequences  if  inno- 
 cent, solemnly  devoted  her  in  the  name  of  Jehovah 
 to  be  "a  curse  and  an  oath  among  her  people,"  if 
 guilty,  further  describing  the  exact  consequences 
 ascribed  to  the  operation  of  the  water  in  the  "  mem- 
 bers "  which  she  had  "yielded  as  servants  to  un- 
 cleanness  "  o  (vv.  21,  22,  27 ;  comp.  Rom.  vi.  19 
 and   Theodoret,    Qucest.  x.  in  Num.).     He  then 
 
 fication,  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  for 
 as  its  ceremonial  property  was  to  defile  the  pure  and 
 to  purify  the  unclean  (Num.  xix.  21)  who  touched  it, 
 it  could  hardly  be  used  in  a  rite  the  object  of  which 
 was  to  establish  the  innocence  of  the  upright  or  dis- 
 cover the  guilt  of  the  sinner,  without  the  symbolism 
 jarring.  Perhaps  water  from  the  laver  of  the  sanc- 
 tuary is  intended. 
 
 9  The  words  n^QD,  b'^DSb,  nvDD,  rendered 
 in  the  A.  V.  by  the  word  "  rot,"  rather  indicate,  ac- 
 cording to  Gesen.  s.  v.  ^D3,  to  "  become  or  make 
 lean."  Michaelis  thought  ovarian  dropsy  was  intended 
 by  the   symptoms.     Josephus  says,    toO  re  cKeXovi 
 
WATER  OF  JEALOUSY 
 
 '•  wrote  these  curses  iu  a  book,  and  blotted  them 
 out  with  the  bitter  water,"  and,  having  thrown, 
 probably  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  the  hand- 
 ful of  meal  on  the  altar,  "  caused  the  woman  to 
 drink"  the  potion  thus  drugged,  she  moreover 
 answering  to  the  words  of  his  imprecation,  "  Amen, 
 Amen."  Josephus  adds,  if  the  suspicion  was  un- 
 founded, she  obtained  conception ;  if  true,  she  died 
 infamously.  This  accords  with  the  sacred  text,  if 
 she  "  be  clean,  then  shall  she  be  free  and  shall  con- 
 ceive seed"  (ver.  28),  words  which  seem  to  mean 
 that  when  restored  to  her  husliand's  affection  she 
 should  be  blessed  with  fruitfulness ;  or,  that  if  con- 
 ception had  taken  place  befure  her  appearance,  it 
 would  have  its  proper  issue  in  child-bearing,  which, 
 if  she  had  been  unfaithful,  would  be  intercepted  by 
 the  operation  of  the  curse.  It  may  be  supposed 
 that  a  husband  would  not  be  forward  to  publish 
 his  suspicions  of  his  own  injury,  unless  there  were 
 symptoms  of  apparent  conception,"  and  a  risk  of  a 
 child  by  another  being  presented  to  him  as  his 
 own.  In  this  case  the  woman's  natural  apprehen- 
 sions regarding  her  own  gestation  would  operate 
 very  strongly  to  make  her  shrink  from  the  potion, 
 if  guilty.  For  plainly,  the  effect  of  such  a  cere- 
 monial on  the  nervous  system  of  one  so  circum- 
 stanced, might  easily  go  far  to  imperil  her  life,  even 
 without  the  precise  symptoms  ascribed  to  the  water. 
 Meanwhile  the  rule  would  operate  beneficially  for 
 the  woman,  if  innocent,  who  would  be  during  this 
 interval  under  the  protection  of  the  court  to  which 
 the  husband  had  himself  appealed,  and  so  far  secure 
 against  any  violent  consequence  of  his  jealousy, 
 which  had  thus  found  a  vent  recognized  by  law. 
 Further,  by  thus  interposing  a  period  of  prolDation 
 the  fierceness  of  conjugal  jealousy  might  cool.  On 
 comparing  this  argument  with  the  further  restric- 
 tions laid  down  in  the  treatise  Sutah  tending  to 
 limit  the  application  of  this  rite,  there  seems  gra\e 
 reason  to  doubt  whether  recourse  was  ever  had  to 
 it  in  fact.  [Auultkky.]  The  custom  of  writing 
 on  a  parchment  woids  cabalistic  or  medical  relating 
 to  a  particular  case,  and  then  washing  them  off', 
 and  giving  the  patient  the  water  of  this  ablution 
 to  drink,  has  descended  among  oriental  supersti- 
 tions to  the  present  day,  and  a  sick  Arab  would 
 probably  thnik  tiiis  the  most  natural  way  of  "  tak- 
 ing "  a  prescription.  See,  on  the  general  subject, 
 Groddeck  de  vM.  Hehr.  jnn-gai.  caslitntis  in  Ugol. 
 Thcsaur.  (Winer).  The  custom  of  such  an  ordeal 
 was  probably  traditional  in  Moses'  time,  and  by 
 fencing  it  round  with  the  wholesome  awe  inspired 
 by  the  solemnity  of  the  prescribed  ritual,  the  law- 
 giver would  deprive  it  to  a  great  extent  of  its  bar- 
 barous tendency,  and  would  probably  restrain  the 
 husband  from  some  of  the  ferocious  extremities  to 
 which  he  might  otherwise  be  driven  liy  a  sudden 
 fit  of  jealousy,  so  powerful  in  the  oriental  mind. 
 On  the  whole  it  is  to  be  taken,  like  the  permission 
 to  divorce  by  a  written  instrument,  rather  as  the 
 
 WAVE-OFFERING 
 
 3487 
 
 eKTrecrot'TOS  aurrj,  Koi  ttji^  KOiKlav  vSepov  KaTakafx^dvov- 
 ro;  {Ant.  iii.  11,  §  6). 
 
 a  This  is  somewhat  supported  by  the  rendering  in 
 
 the  A.  V.  of  the  words   nb^HD  wb  SIHl  v.  1.3, 
 T  T    :•  •  :' 
 
 by  "  neither  she  be  ta'.en  ivith  the  manner,'"  the  ital- 
 icized word."  being  added  as  explanatory,  without  any 
 to  correspond  in  the  original,  and  pointing  to  the 
 sudden  cessation  of  "  the  manner "  or  "  custom  of 
 women  "  (Gen.  xviii.  11,  xxxi.  35),  ('.  e.  the  menstrual 
 flux,  suggesting,  in  the  case  of  a  woman  not  past  the 
 
 mitigation  of  a  custom  ordinarily  harsh,  and  as  a 
 barrier  placed  in  the  way  of  uncalculating  vindic- 
 tiveness.  Viewing  the  regulations  concerning  mat- 
 rimony as  a  wh'ile,  we  shall  find  the  same  principle 
 animating  tiiem  in  all  their  parts  —  that  of  pro- 
 viding a  legal  channel  fur  the  course  of  natural 
 feelings  where  irrepressible,  but  at  the  same  time 
 of  surrounding  their  outlet  with  institutions  apt  to 
 mitigate  their  intensity,  and  so  assisting  the  grad- 
 ual formation  of  a  gentler  temper  in  the  bosom  of 
 the  nation.  The  precept  was  given  "  liecause  of  the 
 hardness  of  their  hearts,"  but  with  the  design  and 
 the  tendency  of  softening  them.  (See  some  re- 
 marks in  Spencer,  dc  Le;/.  Hebr.)  H.  H. 
 WATER  OF  SEPARATION.    [Pukifi- 
 
 CATION.] 
 
 *  WATERCOURSE.     [Conduit.] 
 
 *  WATERING    WITH    THE    FOOT. 
 
 [Gaki^kn;  Foot,  Wateeixg  with  the.] 
 
 *  WATER -POT.  [Pot;  Weights  and 
 Measures.] 
 
 *  WATER-SPOUT.    [Gutter,  Amer.  ed.] 
 WAVE-OFFERING   (n212n,    "a   wav- 
 ing," from     ^1D,    "to  wave,"    ''^sb     nDIDH 
 
 mrr^,  "a  waving  before  Jehovah").  This  rite, 
 together  with  that  of  "heaving"  or  "raising"  the 
 offering,  was  an  inseparable  accompaniment  of 
 peace-otfefings.  In  such  the  right  shoulder,  con- 
 sidered the  choicest  part  of  the  victim,  was  to  be 
 "  heaved,"  and  viewed  as  holy  to  the  Lord,  only 
 eaten  therefore  by  the  priest ;  the  breast  was  to  be 
 "waved,"  and  eaten  by  the  worshipper.  On  the 
 second  day  of  the  Passover  a  sheaf  of  corn,  in  the 
 green  ear,  was  to  be  waved,  accompanied  by  the 
 sacrifice  of  an  unblemished  lamb  of  the  first  year, 
 from  the  performance  of  which  ceremony  the  days 
 till  Pentecost  were  to  be  counted.  When  the  feast 
 arrived,  two  loaves,  the  first-fruits  of  the  ripe  corn, 
 were  to  be  oflered  with  a  burnt-offi;ring,  a  sin-offer- 
 ing, and  two  lambs  of  the  first  year  for  a  peace- 
 offering.     These  likewise  were  to  be  waved. 
 
 The  Scriptural  notices  of  these  rites  are  to  be 
 found  in  Ex.  xxix.  2i,  27 ;  Lev.  vii.  30,  34,  viii.  27, 
 ix.  21,  X.  14,  15,  xxiii.  10,  15,  20;  Num.  vi.  20, 
 xviii.  11,  18,  26-29,  etc. 
 
 We  find  also  the  word  nDl^jl  applied  in  Ex. 
 xxxviii.  24  to  the  gold  offered  by  the  people  for  the 
 furniture   of    the    sanctuary.     It   is    there   called 
 
 nD13nn  ^nt.      it  may  have  been  waved  when 
 
 presented,  but  it  seems  not  impossible  that  HDI^n 
 had  acquired  a  secondary  sense  so  as  to  denote 
 "free-will  offering."  In  either  case  vve  must  sup- 
 pose the  ceremony  of  waving  to  have  been  known  to 
 and  practiced  by  the  Israelites  before  the  giving  of 
 the  Law. 
 
 age  of  child-bearing,  that  conception  had  taken  place. 
 If  this  be  the  sense  of  the  original,  the  suspicions  of 
 the  husband  would  be  so  far  based  upon  a  fact.  It 
 seems,  however,  also  possible  that  the  words  may 
 be  an   extension  of  the   sense  of  those  immediately 
 
 preceding,  7^3  'J^S  "T171,  when  the  connected  tenor 
 
 would  be,  "  and  there  be  no  witness  against  her,  and 
 she  be  not  taken,"  i.  e.  taken  in  the  fact  :  comp.  John 
 viii.  4,  ailnj  ri  yvvi]  KaTeiKri(f>0r)  eiravTO^iapta  jaoixevo- 
 
3488  WAY 
 
 It  seems  not  quite  certain  from  Fa.  xxix.  26,  27, 
 whether  the  waving  was  peribrmed  by  the  priest  or 
 by  the  worshijiper  with  the  fbnner's  assistance. 
 The  Rabbinical  tnulition  represents  it  as  clone  by 
 the  worshipper,  the  priest  supporting  his  hands 
 from  below. 
 
 In  conjecturing  the  meaning  of  this  rite,  regard 
 must  be  had,  in  tlie  first  instance,  to  the  kind  of 
 sacrifice  to  wliich  it  belonged.  It  was  the  accom- 
 paniment of  peace-offerings.  These  not  only,  like 
 the  other  sacrifices,  acknowledged  God's  greatness 
 and  his  right  over  the  creature,  but  they  witnessed 
 to  a  ratified  covenant,  an  established  comnuniion 
 between  God  and  man.  AMiile  the  sin-offering 
 merely  removed  defilement,  while  the  burnt-offer- 
 ing gave  entirely  over  to  God  of  his  own,  the 
 \ictim  being  wholly  consumed,  the  peaee-oflering, 
 as  establishing  relations  between  God  and  the  wor- 
 shipper, «as  participated  in  by  the  latter,  who  ate, 
 as  we  have  seen,  of  the  breast  that  was  waved. 
 The  Eabbis  explain  the  heaving  of  the  shoulder  as 
 an  acknowledgment  that  God  has  his  throne  in  the 
 heaven,  the  waving  of  the  breast  that  He  is  present 
 in  every  quarter  of  the  earth.  The  one  rite  testified 
 to  his  eternal  majesty  on  high,  the  other  to  his 
 being  among  and  with  his  people. 
 
 It  is  not  said  in  Lev.  xxiii.  10-14,  that  a  peace- 
 offering  accompanied  the  wave-sheaf  of  the  Pass- 
 over. On  the  contrary,  the  only  bloody  sacrifice 
 mentioned  in  coimection  with  it  is  styled  a  burnt- 
 oiFering.  When,  howe\er,  we  consider  that  every- 
 where else  the  rite  of  waving  belongs  to  a  peace- 
 oifering,  and  that  besides  a  sin  and  a  burnt-offering, 
 there  was  one  in  connection  with  the  wave-loaves 
 of  Pentecost  (Lev.  xxiii.  19),  we  shall  be  wary  of 
 concluding  that  there  was  none  in  the  present  case. 
 The  significance  of  these  rites  seems  considerable. 
 The  name  of  the  month  Abib,  in  which  the  Pass- 
 over was  kept,  means  the  month  of  the  green  ear 
 of  corn,  the  month  in  which  the  great  produce  of 
 the  earth  has  come  to  the  birth.  In  tliat  month 
 the  nation  of  Israel  came  to  the  birth ;  each  suc- 
 ceeding Passover  was  the  keeping  of  the  nation's 
 birthday.  Beautifully  and  naturally,  therefore, 
 were  the  two  births  —  that  of  the  people  into 
 national  life;  that  of  their  needful  sustenance  into 
 yearly  life  —  combined  in  the  Passover.  All  first- 
 fruits  were  holy  to  God  :  the  first-born  of  men,  the 
 first-produce  of  the  earth.  Both  principles  were 
 recognized  in  the  Passover.  When  six  weeks  after, 
 the  harvest  had  ripened,  the  first-fruits  of  its  ma- 
 tured produce  were  similarly  to  be  dedicated  to 
 God.  Both  were  waved,  the  rite  which  attested 
 the  Divine  presence  and  working  all  around  us 
 being  surely  most  appropriate  and  significant  in 
 their  case.  F.  G. 
 
 WAY.  This  word  has  now  in  ordinary  parlance 
 so  entirely  forsaken  its  original  sense  (except  in 
 combination,  as  in  "highway,"  "  causeway  ")  and 
 is  so  uniformly  employed  in  the  secondary  or  meta- 
 phorical sense  of  a  "  custom  "  or  "  manner,"  that 
 it  is  difficult  to  remember  that  in  the  ISible  it  most 
 frequently  signifies  an  actual  road  or  track.  Our 
 ■  translators  have  employed  it  as  the  equivalent  of 
 no  less  than  eighteen  distinct  Hebrew  terms.  Of 
 these,  several  had  the  same  secondary  sense  which 
 
 the  word  "  way  "  has  with  us.    Two  others  (H^S 
 
 a  This  is  more  obscure  in  the  A.  V.  even  than  the 
 tthers:  "  Come  along  by  the  plain  of  Meonenim," 
 
 WEASEL 
 
 and  U^ilS)  are  employed  only  by  the  poets,  and 
 are  commonly  rendered  "  path  "  in  the  A.  V.  But 
 the  term  which  most  frequently  occurs,  and  in  the 
 majority  of  cases  signifies  (though  it  also  is  now 
 and  then  used  metaphorically)  an  actual  road,  is 
 
 Tf^^,  derec,  connected  with  the  German  irelen 
 and  the  English  "  tread."  It  may  be  truly  said 
 that  there  is  hardly  a  single  passage  in  which  this 
 word  occurs  which  would  not  be  made  clearer  and 
 more  real  if  "  road  to  "  were  substituted  for  "  way 
 of."  Thus  Gen.  xvi.  7,  "  the  spring  on  the  road 
 to  Shur;  "  Num.  xiv.  25,  "the  road  to  the  lied 
 Sea;  "  1  Sam.  vi.  12,  "  the  road  to  Bethshemesli :  " 
 Judg.  ix.  37,  "  the  road  to  the  oak  "  of  Meonenim  ;  " 
 2  K.  xi.  19,  "the  road  to  the  gate."  It  turns  that 
 which  is  a  mere  general  expression  into  a  substan- 
 tial reality.  And  so  in  like  manner  with  the  word 
 dS6s  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  almost  in- 
 variably translated  "  way."  Mark  x.  32,  "  They 
 were  on  the  road  going  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  "  Matt.  xx. 
 17,  "and  Jesus  took  the  twelve  disciples  apart  in' 
 the  road  " — out  of  the  crowd  of  pilgrims  who, 
 like  themselves,  were  bound  for  the  Passover. 
 
 There  is  one  use  of  both  derec  and  dS6s  which 
 must  not  be  passed  over,  namely,  in  the  sense  of  a 
 religious  course.  In  the  Old  Test,  this  occurs  but 
 rarely,  perhaps  twice:  namely  in  Amos  viii.  14. 
 "the  maimer  of  Beersheba,"  where  the  prophet  is 
 probably  alluding  to  some  idolatrous  rites  then 
 practiced  there;  and  again  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  24,  "  look 
 if  there  be  any  evil  way,"  any  idolatrous  practices, 
 "  in  me,  and  lead  me  in  the  evei'lasting  way." 
 But  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  dS6s,  "the  way," 
 "the  road,"  is  the  received,  almost  technical,  term 
 for  the  new  religion  which  Paul  first  resisted  and 
 afterwards  supported.  See  Acts  ix.  2,  xix.  9,  23, 
 xxii.  4,  xxiv.  14,  22.  In  each  of  these  the  word 
 "  that "  is  an  interpolation  of  our  translators,  and 
 should  have  been  put  into  Italics,  as  it  is  in  xxiv.  22. 
 
 The  religion  of  Islam  is  spoken  of  in  the  Koran 
 as  "the  path  (et  tank,  iv.  06),  and  "  the  right 
 path  "  (i.  5;  iv.  174).  Gesenius  (  Thes.  p.  353)  has 
 collected  examples  of  the  same  expression  in  otlier 
 languages  and  religions.  G. 
 
 *  WEALTH  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  some 
 passages  (Ezr.  ix.  12;  Esth.  x.  3;  1  Cor.  x.  24)  in 
 its  old  sense  of  "  weal  "  or  "  welfare."  A. 
 
 *  WEALTHY  is  used  in  the  A.  V.,  Jer.  xlix. 
 31,  in  the  sense  of  "  prosperous,"  "  at  ease  ";  and 
 in  Ps.  Ixvi.  12  it  has  a  similar  meaning. 
 [Wealth.]  A. 
 
 WEANING.  [Abraham  ;  Banquei  , 
 Child.] 
 
 WEAPONS.     [Aems.] 
 
 WEASEL  (^!?^,  clwled:  -yaKr)-  musiela) 
 occurs  only  in  Lev.  xi.  29,  in  the  list  of  unclean 
 animals.  According  to  the  old  versions  and  the 
 Talmud,  the  Heb.  choled  denotes  "  a  weasel "  (sec 
 Lewysohn,  Zoul.  des  Talm.  p.  91,  and  Buxtorf,  Lex. 
 V.  Rub.  ei  Talm.  p.  756);  but  if  the  word  is  iden- 
 
 tical  with  the  Arabic  cJmld  {(XX^)  and  the  Syriac 
 cinddo  ()*-^Q-^),  as  Bochart  (Hieroz.  ii.  435) 
 and  others  have  endeavored  to  show,  there  is  no 
 doubt  that  "  a  mole  "  is  the  animal  indicated.  Ge- 
 senius (Thes.  p.  474),  however,  has  the  following 
 very  true  observation:  "  Satis  constat  animaliuni 
 nomina  persoepe  in  hac  lingua  hoc,  in  alia  cognata 
 
WEAVING 
 
 iliud,  id  vero  simile,  animal  significare."     He  pre- 
 fers to  render  the  term  b}'  "  Weasel." 
 
 Moles  are  common  enough  in  Palestine;  Hassel- 
 quist  {Trrw.  p.  120),  speaking  of  the  country  be- 
 tween Jafta  and  Rama,  says  he  had  never  seen  in 
 any  place  the  ground  so  cast  up  by  moles  as  in 
 these  plains.  There  was  scarce  a  yard's  length 
 between  each  mole-hill.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
 both  the  Talpa  europi-ea  and  the  T.  emeu,  the 
 blind  mole  of  which  Aristotle  speaks  {Hist.  Anini. 
 i.  8,  §  3),  occur  in  Palestine,  though  we  have  no 
 definite  information  on  this  point.  The  family  of 
 MusltUdcB  also  is  doubtless  well  represented.  Per- 
 haps it  is  better  to  give  to  the  Heb.  term  the  same 
 signification  which  the  cognate  Arabic  and  Syruic 
 have,  and  understand  a  "  mole  "  to  be  denoted  by 
 it.     [Mole.]  W.  H. 
 
 WEAVING  DTIW).  The  art  of  weaving  ap- 
 pears to  be  coeval  with  the  first  dawning  of  civil- 
 ization. In  what  country,  or  by  whom  it  was  in- 
 vented, we  know  not:  but  we  find  it  practiced  with 
 great  skill  by  the  Egyptians  at  a  very  early  period, 
 and  hence  the  invention  was  not  unnaturally  attribu- 
 ted to  them  (Plin.  vii.  57).  The  "vestures  of  fine 
 linen  "  such  as  .Joseph  wore  (Gen.  xli.  42),  were  tlie 
 product  of  Egyptian  looms,  and  their  quality,  as  at- 
 tested by  existing  specimens,  is  pronounced  to  be 
 not  inferior  to  the  finest  cambric  of  modern  times 
 (Wilkinson,  ii.  75).  The  Israelites  were  probably 
 acquainted  with  the  process  before  their  sojourn  in 
 Egypt;  but  it  was  undoubtedly  there  th.at  they  at- 
 tained the  proficiency  which  enabled  them  to  exe- 
 cute the  hangings  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxv.  35 ; 
 1  Chr.  iv.  21),  and  otlier  artistic  textures.  At  a 
 later  period  the  Egyptians  were  still  famed  for  their 
 manufactures  of  "  fine  '  {i.  e.  hackled)  flax  and  of 
 churl,'''-  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  jiet works,"  but 
 more  probably  a  luhite  material  either  of  linen  or 
 cotton  (Is.  xix.  9).  From  them  the  Tyrians  pro- 
 cured the  "  fine  linen  with  broidered  work  "  for  the 
 sails  of  their  vessels  (Ez.  xxvii.  7),  the  handsome 
 character  of  which  may  be  inferred  from  the  repre- 
 sentations of  similar  sails  in  the  Egyptian  paintings 
 (Wilkinson,  ii.  131,  167).  Weaving  was  carried  on 
 in  Egypt,  generally,  but  not  universally,  l)y  men 
 (Herod,  ii.  35;  comp.  Wilkinson,  ii.  84).  This  was 
 the  case  also  among  the  .Jews  about  the  time  of  the 
 Exodus  (1  Chr.  iv.  21),  but  in  later  times  it  usually 
 fell  to  the  lot  of  tlie  females  to  supply  the  household 
 with  clothing  (1  Sam.  ii.  19;  2  K.  xxiii.  7),  and  an 
 industrious  housewife  would  produce  a  surplus  for 
 sale  to  others  (Prov.  xxxi.  13,  19,  24). 
 
 The  character  of  the  loom  and  the  process  of 
 weaving  can  only  be  inferred  from  incidental  notices. 
 The  ligyptian  loom  was  usually  upriirht,  and  the 
 weaver  stood  at  his  work.  The  cloth  was  fixed 
 sometimes  at  the  top,  sometimes  at  the  bottom,  so 
 that  the  remark  of  Herodotus  (ii.  85),  that  the 
 Egyptians,  contrary  to  the  usual  practice,  pressed 
 the  woof  downwards,  must  be  recei\ed  with  reser- 
 vation (Wilkinson,  ii.  85).  That  a  similar  variety 
 of  usage  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  may  be  inferred 
 
 ''  "T^3K3  :    so   called    from    its    resemblance   to   a 
 
 T 
 
 plou^hmaa's  yoke. 
 
 c  ri33p.  This  term  is  otherwise  understood  of 
 fhe  warp,  as  in  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulgate  (Gesen. 
 Tkes.  p.  890). 
 
 WEAVING  3489 
 
 from  the  remark  of  St.  John  (xix.  23),  that  the 
 seamless  coat  was  woven  "  from  the  top"  {^k  tooi- 
 au'jiQev)-  Tunics  of  this  kind  were  designated  by 
 the  Roman  rectae,  impKing  that  they  were  made 
 at  an  upright  loom  at  which  the  weaver  stood  to 
 his  work,  thrusting  the  woof  upwards  (Plin.  viii. 
 74).  The  modern  Arabs  use  a  procumbent  loom, 
 raised  above  the  ground  by  short  legs  (Burckhardt's 
 Notes,  i.  67).  The  Bilile  does  not  notice  the  loom 
 itself,  but  speaks  of  the  beam  ^  to  which  the  warp 
 was  attached  (1  Sam.  xvii.  7;  2  Sam.  xxi.  19); 
 and  of  the  pin  '^  to  which  the  cloth  was  fixed,  and 
 on  which  it  was  rolled  (Judg.  xvi.  14).  We  have 
 also  notice  of  the  shuttle,''  which  is  described  by  a 
 term  significant  of  the  act  of  weaving  (Job  vii.  6); 
 the  thrum  «  or  threads  which  attached  the  web  to 
 the  beam  (Is.  xxxviii.  12,  margin);  and  the  web'' 
 itself  (Judg.  xvi.  14;  A.  V.  "beam  ").  Whether 
 the  two  terms  in  Lev.  xiii.  48,  rendered  "  warp  "/ 
 and  "  woof,"  a  really  mean  these,  admits  of  doulijt, 
 inasmuch  as  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  one  could 
 be  affected  with  leprosy  without  the  other:  perhaps 
 the  terms  refer  to  certain  kinds  of  texture  (Knobel, 
 in  he).  The  shuttle  is  occasionally  dispensed 
 with,  the  woof  lieing  passed  through  with  the  hand 
 (Robinson's  Bibl.  lies  i.  169).  The  speed  with 
 which  the  weaver  used  his  shuttle,  and  tlie  decisive 
 manner  in  which  he  separated  the  web  from  the 
 thrum  when  his  work  was  done,  supplied  vivid 
 images,  the  former  of  the  speedy  passage  of  life 
 (Job  vii.  6),  the  latter  of  sudden  death  (Is.  xxxviii. 
 12). 
 
 The  textures  produced  by  the  Jewish  weavers 
 were  very  various.  The  coarser  kinds,  such  as 
 tent-cloth,  sackcloth,  and  the  "  hairy  garments  " 
 of  the  poor  were  made  of  goat's  or  camel's  hair 
 (Ex.  xxvi.  7;  Matt.  iii.  4).  Wool  was  extensively 
 used  for  ordinary  clothing  (Lev.  xiii.  47;  Prov. 
 xxvii.  26,  xxxi.  13;  Ez.,  xxvii.  18),  while  for  finer 
 work  flax  was  used,  varying  in  quality,  and  pro- 
 ducing the  different  textures  described  in  the  Bible 
 as  "  linen  "  and  "fine  linen."  The  mixture  of 
 wool  and  flax  in  cloth  intended  for  a  garment  was 
 interdicted  (Lev.  xix.  19;  Deut.  xxii.  11).  With 
 regard  to  the  ornamental  kinds  of  work,  the  terms 
 rikinali,  "needlework,"  and  mn'aseh  c/wskeb,  "the 
 work  of  the  cunning  workman,'"  have  been  already 
 discussed  under  the  head  of  Embkoidekek,  to  the 
 effect  that  Ijoth  kinds  were  produced  in  the  loom, 
 and  that  the  distinction  between  them  lay  in  the 
 addition  of  a  device  or  pattern  in  the  latter,  the 
 rikmiih  consisting  simply  of  a  variegated  stuff 
 without  a  pattern.  We  may  further  notice  tlie 
 terms:  (1.)  shdbals^'  and  tashbets'  applied  to  the 
 robes  of  the  priest  (Ex.  xxviii.  4,  39),  and  signify- 
 ing iesselated  (A.  V.  "broidered"),  ^.  e.  with 
 depressions  probably  of  a  square  shape  worked  in 
 it,  similar  to  the  texture  described  by  the  Romans 
 under  the  term  scuiuliius  (Plin.  viii.  73 ;  Juv.  ii. 
 97 ) ;  this  was  produced  in  the  loom,  as  it  is  ex- 
 pressly said  to  be  the  work  of  the  weaver  (Ex. 
 xxxix.  27).  (2.)  Mos/izdr^  (A.  V.  "twined"), 
 applied  to  the  fine  linen  out  of  which  the  curtains 
 
 <^.3"lS.     The  same  word  describes  both    the  wet 
 and  the  shuttle. 
 
3490  WEB 
 
 of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  sacerdotal  vestments  were 
 made  (Ex.  xxvi.  1,  xxviii.  G,  etc.);  in  this  texture 
 each  thread  consisted  of  several  liner  threads  twisted 
 together,  as  is  described  to  ha\e  been  the  case  with 
 the  famed  corselet  of  Amasis  (Herod,  iii.  47).  (3.) 
 Mislibctsuth  zd/idb"  (A.  V.  "of  wrought  gold  "), 
 textures  in  which  gold  thread  was  interwoven  (Ps. 
 xlv.  13).  The  Babylonians  were  particularly  skill- 
 ful in  this  branch  of  weaving,  and  embroidered 
 groups  of  men  or  animals  on  the  robes  (I'lin.  viii. 
 74;  Layard,  Nin.  ii.  413);  the  "goodly  Baby- 
 lonish garment  "  secreted  by  Achan  was  probably 
 of  this  character  (Josh.  vii.  21).  The  sacerdotal 
 vestments  are  said  to  have  been  woven  in  one  piece 
 without  the  intervention  of  any  needlework  to  join 
 the  seams  (Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  7,  §  4).  The  "  coat 
 without  seam"  (xiTwv  appac^os),  worn  by  Jesus 
 at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion  (John  xix.  23),  was 
 probably  of  a  sacerdotal  character  in  this  respect, 
 but  made  of  a  less  costly  material  (Carpzov,  Appar. 
 p.  72).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  WEB.     [Weaving.] 
 
 *  WEDDING.  This  topic  has  been  ex- 
 haustively treated  under  the  head  of  Makriage 
 (iii.  1793-1807),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 
 In  this  relation,  the  Canticles  may  be  entitled  to 
 special  recognition,  as  a  sacred  book  portraying, 
 according  to  almost  every  theory  of  its  interpreta- 
 tion, the  sacredness  of  wedded  love  —  there  being  a 
 general  agi'eenient  that  its  two  principal  personages 
 were  wedded,  or  solemnly  betrothed,  and  that  the 
 theme  of  the  song  is  chaste,  connubial  love.  This 
 view  is  fatal  to  the  hypothesis  advanced  in  a  pre- 
 ceding article  [Shulamite,  iv.  p.  3021],  that 
 "the  object  of  Solomon's  passion"  was  a  lovely 
 Shunannnite  girl,  who  figured  in  the  history  of  the 
 royal  family  (1  K.  i.  3,  4,  ii.  17,  21),  one  of  the 
 court-beauties  of  his  day.  The  conjecture  is  fur- 
 ther discountenanced  by  the  allusions  (Cant.  iii. 
 6,  viii.  5)  to  the  bridal  procession   and  the  bride 
 
 coming  up  from  "  the  wilderness  "  ("1S"l^rT),  the 
 term  by  which  the  sacred  writers  generally  desig- 
 nate the  southern  desert.  It  is  still  further  dis- 
 credited by  her  allusions  to  her  foreign  extraction ; 
 and  the  deprecatory  appeal  to  the  daughters  of 
 Jerusalem  (Cant.  i.  5,  &),  quite  out  of  place  on 
 the  lips  of  a  native  Jewess,  of  the  court  circle, 
 would  well  befit  a  dark-skinned  daughter  of  Egypt, 
 or  of  one  of  the  desert  tribes.  S.  W. 
 
 *  WEDGE.     [Mines,  iii.  1939  b.] 
 WEEK     (27^ritt\    or    2721^,    from    i^'SU?, 
 
 "seven,"  a  heptad  of  anything,  but  particularly 
 used  for  a  period  of  seven  days :  t$5o/j.ds  ■  septi- 
 
 mann).    We  have  also,  and  much  oftener,  mj^tT, 
 
 or  D'^D'^  nvnw. 
 
 Whatever  controversies  exist  respecting  the  ori- 
 gin of  the  week,  there  can  be  none  about  the  great 
 antiquity,  on  particular  occasions  at  least,  among 
 ■  the  Shemitic  races,  of  measuring  time  by  a  period 
 of  seven  days.  This  has  been  thought  to  be  im- 
 plied in  the  phrase  respecting  the  sacrifices  of  Cain 
 and  Abel  (Gen.  iv.  3),  "  in  process  of  time,"  liter- 
 ally "  at  the  end  of  days."  It  is  to  be  traced  in 
 the  narrative  of  the  subsidence  of  the  Flood  (Gen. 
 viii.  10),  "  and  he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days;  " 
 and  we  find  it  recognized  by  the  Syrian   Laban 
 
 TT  :   ;    • 
 
 WEEK 
 
 (Gen.  xxix.  27),  "fulfill  her  week."  It  is  needless 
 to  say  that  this  division  of  time  is  a  marked  feature 
 of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  one  into  whicli  the  whole 
 year  was  parted,  the  Sabbath  sufficiently  sliowing 
 that.  The  week  of  seven  days  was  also  made  the 
 key  to  a  scale  of  seven,  running  through  the  Sab- 
 batical years  up  to  that  of  jubilee.  [See  Sab- 
 bath; Sabbatical  Year;  and  Jubilee,  Year 
 
 OF.] 
 
 The  origin  of  this  division  of  time  is  a  matter 
 which  has  given  birth  to  much  speculation.  Its 
 antiquity  is  so  great,  its  observance  so  wide-spread, 
 and  it  occupies  so  important  a  place  in  sacred 
 things,  that  it  has  been  very  generally  thrown  back 
 as  far  as  the  creation  of  man,  who  on  this  suppo- 
 sition was  told  from  the  very  first  to  divide  his 
 time  on  the  model  of  the  Creator's  order  of  working 
 and  resting.  The  week  and  the  Sabbath  are,  if 
 this  be  so,  as  old  as  man  himself;  and  we  need  not 
 seek  for  reasons  either  in  the  human  mind  or  the 
 facts  with  which  that  mind  comes  in  contact,  for 
 the  adoption  of  such  a  division  of  time,  since  it  is 
 to  be  referred  neither  to  man's  thoughts  nor  to 
 man's  will.  A  purely  theological  ground  is  thus 
 established  for  the  week  and  lor  the  sacredness  of 
 the  number  seven.  They  who  embrace  this  view 
 support  it  by  a  reference  to  the  six  days'  creation 
 and  the  Divine  rest  on  the  seventh,  which  they 
 consider  to  have  been  made  known  to  man  from 
 the  very  first,  and  by  an  appeal  to  the  exceeding 
 prevalence  of  the  hebdomadal  division  of  time  from 
 the  earliest  age  —  an  argument  the  force  of  which 
 is  considered  to  be  enhanced  by  the  alleged  absence 
 of  any  natural  ground  for  it. 
 
 To  all  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected  that  we 
 are  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  when  the  record  of  the 
 six  days'  creation  was  made  known,  that  as  human 
 language  is  used  and  human  apprehensions  are 
 addressed  in  that  record,  so  the  week  being  already 
 known,  the  perfection  of  the  Divine  work  and 
 Sabbath  may  well  have  been  set  forth  under  the 
 figure  of  one,  the  existing  division  of  time  mould- 
 ing the  ducunjeiit,  instead  of  the  document  giving 
 birth  to  the  division;  that  old  and  wide-spread  as 
 is  the  recognition  of  that  division,  it  is  not  uni- 
 versal; that  the  nations  which  knew  not  of  it 
 were  too  important  to  allow  the  argument  from 
 its  prevalency  to  stand;  and  that  so  far  from  its 
 being  without  ground  in  nature,  it  is  the  )nost 
 obvious  and  convenient  way  of  dividing  the  month. 
 Each  of  these  points  must  now  be  briefly  consid- 
 ered :  — 
 
 1st.  That  the  week  rests  on  a  theological  groun.d 
 may  be  cheerfully  acknowledged  by  both  sides;  bUt 
 nothing  is  determined  by  such  acknowledgment  as 
 to  the  original  cause  of  adopting  this  division  of 
 time.  The  records  of  creation  and  the  fourth  com- 
 mandment give  no  doubt  the  ultimate  and  there- 
 fore the  deepest  ground  of  the  weekly  division, 
 but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  was  not 
 adopted  for  lower  reasons  before  either  was  known. 
 Whether  the  week  gave  its  sacredness  to  the 
 number  seven,  or  whether  the  ascendency  of  that 
 number  helped  to  determine  the  dimensions  of  the 
 week,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  latter  fact,  the 
 ancient  ascendency  of  the  number  seven,  might 
 rest  on  divers  grounds.  The  planets,  according 
 to  the  astronomy  of  those  times,  were  seven  in 
 number;  so  are  the  notes  of  the  diatonic  scale; 
 so  also  many  other  things  naturally  attracting 
 observation. 
 
 2dly.  The  prevalence  of  the  weekly  division  wai 
 
WEEK 
 
 indeed  very  great,  but  a  nearer  approach  to  univer- 
 sality is  required  to  render  it  an  argument  fi)r  tlie 
 view  in  aid  of  wliicli  it  is  appealed  to.  It  was 
 adopted  by  all  the  Sheraitic  races,  and,  in  the  later 
 period  of  their  history  at  least,  by  the  Egyptians. 
 Across  tlie  Atlantic  we  find  it,  or  a  division  all  but 
 identical  with  it,  among  the  Peruvians.  It  also 
 obtains  now  with  the  Hindoos,  but  its  antiquity 
 among  them  is  matter  of  question.  It  is  possible 
 that  it  was  introduced  into  India  by  the  Arabs  and 
 Mohammedans.  So  in  China  we  find  it,  but  whether 
 universally  or  only  among  the  Buddhists  admits  of 
 doubt.  (See,  for  both,  Priauk's  Qucestiones  Mo- 
 snlcie,  a  work  with  many  of  the  results  of  which 
 we  may  be  well  expected  to  quarrel,  but  which 
 deserves,  in  respect  not  only  of  curious  learning,  but 
 of  the  vigorous  and  valuable  tlioiight  with  which  it 
 is  impregnated,  to  be  fiir  more  known  than  it  is.) 
 On  the  otiier  hand,  there  is  no  reason  for  tiiinking 
 the  week  known  till  a  later  period  either  to  Greeks 
 or  Romans. 
 
 3dly.  So  far  from  the  week  being  a  division  of 
 time  without  ground  in '  nature,  there  was  much 
 to  recommend  its  adoption.  Where  the  days  were 
 named  from  planetary  deities,  as  among  first  the 
 Assyrians  and  Uhaldees,  and  then  the  Egyptians, 
 there  of  course  each  period  of  seven  days  would 
 constitute  a  whole,  and  that  wliole  might  come  to 
 be  recognized  by  nations  that  disregarded  or 
 rejected  the  practice  which  had  shaped  and  deter- 
 mined it.  But  fnrther,  the  week  is  a  most  natural 
 and  nearly  an  exact  quadripartition  of  the  month, 
 so  that  the  quarters  of  the  moon  may  easily  have 
 suggested  it. 
 
 It  is  beside  the  purpose  of  this  article  to  trace 
 the  hebdomadal  division  among  other  nations  than 
 the  Heljrews.  The  week  of  the  Bible  is  that  with 
 which  we  have  to  do.  Even  if  it  were  proved  that 
 the  planetary  week  of  the  Egyptians,  as  sketched 
 by  Dion  Cassius  {flisf.  Rom.  xxxvii.  18),  existed 
 at  or  before  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  the  children 
 of  Israel  did  not  copy  that.  Tlieir  week  was 
 simply  determined  by  the  Sabbath ;  and  there  is 
 no  eviderice  of  any  other  day,  with  them,  having 
 either  had  a  name  assigned  to  it,  or  any  particular 
 associations  bound  up  with  it.  The  days  seemed 
 to  have  been  distinguished  merely  by  the  ordinal 
 numerals,  counted  from  the  Sabbath.  We  shall 
 have  indeed  to  return  to  the  Egyptian  planetary 
 week  at  a  later  stage  of  our  inquiry,  but  our  first 
 and  main  business,  as  we  have  already  said,  is  with 
 the  week  of  the  Bible. 
 
 We  have  seen  in  Gen.  xxix.  27,  that  it  was 
 known  to  the  ancient  Syrians,  and  the  injunction 
 to  Jacob,  "fulfill  her  week,"  indicates  that  it  was 
 in  use  as  a  fixed  term  for  great  festive  celelirations. 
 The  most  probable  exposition  of  the  passage  is,  that 
 Laban  tells  .Jacob  to  fulfill  Leah's  iceek,  the  proper 
 period  of  the  nuptial  festivities  in  connection  with 
 his  marriage  to  her,  and  then  he  may  have  Rachel 
 also  (comp.  Judg.  xiv.).  And  so  too  for  funeral 
 observance,  as  in  the  case  of  the  obsequies  of 
 Jacob,  Joseph  "  made  a  mourning  for  his  father 
 seven  days"  (Gen.  1.  10).  But  neither  of  these 
 instances,  any  more  than  Noah's  procedure  in  the 
 ark,  go  further  than  showing  the  custom  of  ob- 
 serving a  term  of  seven  d.ays  for  any  observance 
 of  importance.  They  do  not  prove  that  the 
 whole  year,  or  the  whole  month,  was  thus  divided 
 at  all  times,  and  without  regard  to  remarkable 
 events. 
 
 In  Exodus  of  course  the  week  comes  into  very 
 
 WEEK 
 
 3491 
 
 distinct  manifestation.  Two  of  the  great  feasts  — 
 the  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles — are 
 prolonged  ibr  seven  days  after  that  of  their  initiation 
 (Exod.  xii.  15-20,  etc.),  a  custom  which  remains 
 in  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  rituals  of  which  the 
 remembrances  and  topics  of  the  great  festivals  are 
 prolonged  till  what  is  technically  called  the  octnve. 
 Although  the  Feast  of  Pentecost  lasted  but  one  day, 
 yet  the  time  for  its  observance  was  to  be  counted 
 by  weeks  from  the  Passover,  whence  one  of  its 
 titles,  "the  Feast  of  Weeks." 
 
 The  division  by  seven  was,  as  we  have  seen,  ex- 
 panded so  as  to  make  the  seventh  month  and  the 
 seventh  year  Sabbatical.  To  whatever  extent  the 
 laws  enforcing  this  may  have  been  neglected  before 
 the  Captivity,  their  effect,  when  studied,  must  have 
 
 been  to  render  the  words  171I2ti7,  elSSofids,  week, 
 
 capable  of  meaning  a  seven  of  years  almost  as 
 naturally  as  a  seven  of  dajs.  Indeed  the  generality 
 of  the  word  would  have  this  effect  at  any  rate. 
 Hence  their  use  to  denote  the  latter  in  prophecy, 
 more  especially  in  that  of  iJaniel,  is  not  mere  arbi- 
 trary symbolism,  but  the  employment  of  a  not  un- 
 familiar and  easily  understood  language.  This  is  not 
 the  place  to  discuss  schemes  of  prophetic  interpre- 
 tation, nor  do  we  propose  giving  our  opinion  of  any 
 such,  but  it  is  connected  with  our  subject  to  re- 
 mark that,  whatever  be  the  merits  of  that  which  in 
 Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  understands  a  year  by  a 
 day,  it  cannot  be  set  aside  as  forced  and  unnatural. 
 Whether  days  were  or  were  not  intended  to  be  thus 
 understood  in  the  places  in  question,  their  being  so 
 would  have  been  a  congruous,  and  we  may  say 
 logical  attendant  on  the  scheme  which  counts  weeks 
 of  years,  and  both  would  have  been  a  natural  com- 
 putation to  minds  familiar  and  occupied  with  the 
 law  of  the  Sabbatical  year. 
 
 In  the  N.  'Y  we  of  course  find  such  clear  recog- 
 nition of  and  familiarity  with  the  week  as  needs 
 scarcely  be  dwelt  on.  Sacred  as  the  division  was, 
 and  stamped  deep  on  the  minds  and  customs  of 
 God's  people,  it  now  received  additional  solemnity 
 from  our  Lord's  last  earthly  Passover  gathering  up 
 his  work  of  life  into  a  week. 
 
 Hence  the  Christian  Church,  from  the  very  first, 
 was  familiar  with  the  week.  St.  Paul's  language 
 (1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  Kara  fxiau  aal30a.Tccv)  shows  this. 
 We  cannot  conclude  from  it  that  such  a  division  of 
 time  was  oI)served  by  the  inliabitants  of  Corinth 
 generally;  for  they  to  whom  he  was  writing, 
 though  doubtless  the  majority  of  them  were  Gen- 
 tiles, yet  knew  the  Lord's  day,  and  most  probably 
 the  Jewish  Sabbath.  But  though  we  can  infer  no 
 more  than  this  from  the  place  in  question,  it  is 
 clear  that  if  not  by  this  time  yet  very  soon  after, 
 the  whole  Roman  world  had  adopted  the  hebdom- 
 adal division.  Dion  Cassius,  who  wrote  in  the  2d 
 century,  speaks  of  it  as  both  universal  and  recent 
 in  his  time.  He  represents  it  as  coming  from 
 Egypt,  and  gives  two  schemes,  by  one  or  other  of 
 which  he  considers  that  the  planetary  names  of  the 
 different  days  were  fixed  (Dion  Cassius,  xxvii.  18). 
 "Those  names,  or  corresponding  ones,  have  perpetu- 
 ated themselves  over  Christendom,  though  no  asso- 
 ciations of  any  kind  are  now  comiected  with  them, 
 except  in  so  far  as  the  whimsical  conscience  of  some 
 has  quarrelled  with  their  Pagan  origin,  and  led  to 
 an  attempt  at  their  disuse.  It  would  be  interest- 
 ing, though  foreign  to  our  present  purpose,  to  in- 
 quire into  the  origin  of  this  planetary  week.  A 
 deeply-learned  paper  in  the  PIdlohgicul  Museum, 
 
3492        WEEKS,  FEAST  OF 
 
 by  tbe  late  Archdeacon  Hare,"  gives  the  credit  of 
 its  invention  to  tlie  Chaldees.  Dion  Cassius  was 
 however  pretty  sure  to  have  been  riglit  in  tracing 
 its  adoption  by  tlie  Roman  world  to  an  Egyptian 
 origin.  It  is  very  striking  to  reflect  that  while 
 Christendom  was  in  its  cradle,  the  law  by  which 
 she  was  to  divide  her  time  came  without  collusion 
 witii  her  into  universal  observance,  thus  making 
 things  ready  for  her  to  impose  on  mankind  that 
 week  on  which  all  Christian  life  has  been  shaped  — 
 that  week  grounded  on  no  worship  of  planetary 
 deities  nor  dictated  by  the  mere  wish  to  quadri- 
 partite the  montii,  but  based  on  the  earliest  lesson 
 of  revelation,  and  proposing  to  man  his  Maker's 
 model  as  that  whereby  to  regulate  his  working  and 
 his  rest — that  week  which  once  indeed  in  modern 
 times  it  has  been  attempted  to  abolish,  because  it 
 was  attempted  to  abolish  the  whole  Christian  faith, 
 but  which  has  kept,  as  we  are  sure  it  ever  will  keep, 
 its  ground,  being  bound  up  with  that  other,  and 
 sharing  therefore  in  that  other's  invincibility  and 
 perpetuity.  F.  G. 
 
 WEEKS,  FEAST  OF.     [Pentecost.] 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 
 
 I.  WEIGHTS. 
 
 Intvdduclion.  —  It  will  be  well  to  explain  briefly 
 the  method  of  inquiry  which  led  to  the  conclusions 
 stated  in  this  article,  the  sulject  being  intricate, 
 and  the  conclusions  in  many  main  particulars  dif- 
 ferent from  any  at  which  other  investigators  have 
 arrived.  The  disagreement  of  the  opinions  respect- 
 ing ancient  weights  that  have  been  formed  on  the 
 evidence  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers  shows  the 
 importance  of  giving  the  first  place  to  the  evidence 
 of  monuments.  The  evidence  of  the  Bible  is  clear, 
 except  in  the  case  of  one  passai^e,  but  it  requires  a 
 monumental  commentary.  The  general  principle 
 of  the  present  inquiry  was  to  give  the  evidence  of 
 the  monuments  the  preference  on  all  doubtful 
 points,  and  to  compare  it  with  that  of  literature, 
 so  as  to  ascertain  the  purport  of  statements  which 
 otherwise  appeared  to  be  explicable  in  two,  or  even 
 three,  different  ways.  Thus,  if  a  certain  talent  is 
 said  to  be  equal  to  so  many  Attic  drachms,  these 
 are  usually  explained  to  be  drachms  on  the  old,  or 
 Commercial  standard,  or  on  Solon's  reduced  stand- 
 ard, or  again  on  the  further  reduced  standard  equal 
 to  that  of  Roman denai'ii  of  the  early  emperors;  but 
 if  we  ascertain  from  weights  or  coins  the  weight  of 
 the  talent  in  question,  we  can  decide  with  what 
 standard  it  is  compared,  unless  the  text  is  hope- 
 lessly corrupt. 
 
 Besides  this  general  principle,  it  will  be  necessary 
 to  bear  in  mind  the  following  postulates. 
 
 1 .  All  ancient  Greek  systems  of  weight  were  de- 
 rived, either  directly  or  indirectly,  from  an  e;istern 
 source. 
 
 2.  All  the  older  systems  of  ancient  Greece  and 
 Persia,  the  ^ginetan,  the  Attic,  the  Babylonian, 
 and  the  Eubo'ic,  are  divisible  either  by  G,000,  or  by 
 3,600. 
 
 a.  The  6,000th  or  3,600th  part  of  the  talent  is  a 
 divisor  of  all  higher  weights  and  coins,  and  a  mul- 
 tiple of  all  lower  weights  and  coins,  except  its  two 
 thirds. 
 
 4.  Coins  are  always  somewhat  below  the  stand- 
 ard weight. 
 
 5.  The  statements  of  ancient  writers  as  to  the 
 
 a   Philolog.  Mus.  vol.  i. 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 j  relation  of  different  systems  are  to  be  taken  either 
 as  indicating  original  or  current  relation.  When  a 
 set  of  statements  shows  a  special  study  of  metrol- 
 ogy we  must  infer  original  relation;  isolated  state- 
 ments may  rather  be  thought  to  indicate  current 
 relation.  All  the  statements  of  a  writer,  which  are 
 not  Ijorrowed,  probably  indicate  either  the  one  or 
 the  other  kind  of  relation. 
 
 6.  The  statements  of  ancient  writers  are  to  be 
 taken  in  their  seeniin£cly  obvious  sense,  or  discarded 
 altogetber  as  incorrect  or  unintelligible. 
 
 7.  When  a  certain  number  of  drachms  or  other 
 denominations  of  one  metal  are  said  to  correspond 
 to  a  certain  number  of  drachms  or  other  denomina- 
 tions of  another  metal,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that 
 the  system  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 
 
 Some  of  these  postulates  may  seem  somewhat 
 strict,  but  it  must  be  recollected  that  some,  if  not 
 all,  of  the  systems  to  be  considered  have  a  mutual 
 relation  that  is  very  apt  to  lead  the  inquirer  to 
 visionary  results  if  he  does  not  use  great  caution  in 
 his  investigations. 
 
 The  information  respecting  the  Hebrew  weights 
 that  is  contained  in  direct  statements  necessitates 
 an  examination  of  the  systems  used  by,  or  known 
 to,  the  (ireeks  as  late  as  Alexander's  time.  We 
 liegin  with  such  an  examination,  then  state  the  di- 
 rect data  for  the  determination  of  the  Hebrew  sys- 
 tem or  systems,  and  finally  endeavor  to  effect  that 
 determination,  adding  a  comparative  view  of  all  our 
 main  results. 
 
 I.  A'firly  Greek  Talents.  —  Three  jtrincipal  sys- 
 tems were  used  by  tlie  Greeks  before  the  time  of 
 Alexander,  — those  of  the^ginetan,  the  Attic,  and 
 the  Euboic  talents. 
 
 1.  The  /Eginetan  talent  is  stated  to  have  con- 
 tained 00  minw,  and  6,000  drachms.  The  follow- 
 ing points  are  incontestably  established  on  the  evi- 
 dence of  ancient  writers.  Its  drachm  was  heavier 
 than  the  Attic,  by  which,  when  unqualified,  we 
 mean  the  drachm  of  the  full  monetary  standard, 
 weighing  about  67.5  grains  Troy.  Pollux  states 
 that  it  contained  10,000  Attic  drachms  and  100 
 Attic  minae.  Aldus  Gellius,  referring  to  the  time 
 of  Demosthenes,  speaks  of  a  talent  being  equal  to 
 10,000  drachms,  and,  to  leave  no  doubt,  says  they 
 would  be  the  same  number  of  denarii,  which  in  his 
 own  time  were  equal  to  current  reduced  Attic 
 drachms,  the  terms  drachms  and  denarii  being  then 
 used  interchangeably.  In  accordance  with  these 
 statements,  we  find  a  monetary  system  to  have 
 been  in  use  in  Macedonia  and  Thrace,  of  which  the 
 drachm  weighs  about  110  grs.,  in  very  nearly  the 
 proportion  required  to  the  Attic  (6:  10::  67.5: 
 112.5). 
 
 The  silver  coins  of  yEgina,  however,  and  of  many 
 ancient  Greek  cities,  follow  a  lower  standard,  of 
 which  the  drachm  has  an  average  maximum  weight 
 of  about  96  grs.  The  famous  Cjzicene  staters  of 
 electrum  appear  to  follow  the  same  standard  as  the 
 coins  of  /Egina,  for  they  weigh  about  2-10  grs.,  and 
 are  said  to  have  been  equal  in  value  to  28  Attic 
 drachms  of  silver,  a  daric,  of  129  grs.,  being  equal 
 to  20  such  drachms,  which  would  give  the  Cyzi- 
 cenes  (20:  129:  :28:180)  three  fourths  of  gold,  the 
 very  proportion  assigned  to  the  composition  of  elec- 
 trum by  Pliny.  If  we  may  infer  that  the  silver 
 was  not  counted  in  the  value,  the  Cyzicenes  would 
 be  equal  to  low  didrachms  of  .iEgina.  The  drachm 
 obtained  from  the  silver  coins  of  ^gina  has  very 
 nearly  tlie  weight,  92.3  grs.,  that  Boeckh  assigns 
 to  that  of  Athens  before  Solon's  reduction,  of  wliich 
 
WEIGHTS  AND- MEASURES 
 
 3493 
 
 the  system  continued  in  use  afterwards  as  the 
 Coniuierciiil  talent.  The  coins  of  Atliens  give  a 
 standard,  67.5  grs.,  for  the  Solonian  drachm,  that 
 does  not  allow,  taking  that  standard  for  the  basis 
 of  computation,  a  higher  weight  for  the  aute-So- 
 loniaii  drachm  than  about  that  computed  by 
 Ijoeckh. 
 
 An  examination  of  Mr.  Burgon's  weights  from 
 Atliens,  in  the  British  Museum,  has,  however,  in- 
 duced us  to  infer  a  higher  standard  in  both  cases. 
 These  weights  bear  inscriptions  which  prove  their 
 denominations,  and  that  they  follow  two  systems. 
 One  weighing  9,y80  grs.  troy  has  the  inscription 
 MNA  ArOP  (iJLva  ayopaios'i),  another  weighing 
 7,171,  simply  MNA.  \Ve  have  therefore  two  sys- 
 tems evidently  in  the  relation  of  tiie  Connnercial 
 Attic,  and  Solonian  Attic  (9,980:  7,171 ::  138.88; 
 09.7  instead  of  100),  a  conclusion  borne  out  liy  the 
 
 fuller  data  given  a  little  later  (§  I.  2).  The  lower 
 weight  is  distinguished  by  AEMO  on  a  weight  of 
 
 3,482  (X  2  =  0,964)  grs.,  and   by      ^4,     on  one 
 
 OA  no 
 
 of  884  (X  8  =  7,072) ;  its  mina  was  therefore  called 
 Sr]ij.o<ria.  The  identity  of  these  two  systems,  the 
 Market  and  the  Popular,  with  the  Connnercial  and 
 Solonian  of  Athens,  is  therefore  evident,  and  we 
 thus  obtain  a  higher  standard  for  both  Attic  tal- 
 ents. From  the  correct  relation  of  the  weights  of 
 the  two  niinai  given  above,  we  may  compute  the 
 drachms  of  the  two  talents  at  about  99.8  and  71.7 
 grs.  The  heavier  standard  of  the  two  Attic  sys- 
 tems afforded  by  these  weights  reduces  the  difficulty 
 that  is  occasioned  by  the  difference  of  the  two 
 /Ei^inetan  standards. 
 
 We  tluis  obtain  the  following  principal  standards 
 of  the  j-Eginetan  weight. 
 
 A.  — TABLE  OF  MB.  BURGOX'S  WEIGHTS  FllOM  ATHENS. 
 
 All  these  weights  are  of  lead,  e.Kcept  Nos.  1.5  and  38,  whicli  are  of  bronze. 
 
 No. 
 
 Weight, 
 Gra. 
 Troy. 
 
 Inscription. 
 
 Type. 
 
 Con- 
 dition.B 
 
 Value,  Attic 
 
 Com- 
 
 niercial.o 
 
 Excess 
 
 or 
 
 deficiency. 
 
 Value,  Attic 
 Solonian.' 
 
 Excess 
 
 or 
 
 deficiency. 
 
 1 
 
 9,980 
 
 MNA   ArOl' 
 
 Dolphin. 
 
 A 
 
 Mina 
 
 2 
 
 9,790 
 
 Id. 
 
 D 
 
 (Mina) 
 
 -190 
 
 3 
 
 7,171 
 
 MNA 
 
 Id. 
 
 A 
 
 Mina 
 
 i 
 
 7,048 
 
 Id. 
 
 d 
 
 (Mina) 
 
 -123 
 
 5 
 
 4,424 
 
 Diota 
 
 B 
 
 1  MINA  ? 
 
 -356.6 
 
 6 
 
 3,874 
 
 Tortoise 
 
 B 
 
 i  MINA  ? 
 
 +  288.5 
 
 7 
 
 3.482 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Id.i 
 
 B 
 
 A  Slina 
 
 -  103.5 
 
 8 
 
 3,461 
 
 Turtle 
 
 B 
 
 ^  Mina 
 
 -124.5 
 
 9 
 
 3,218 
 
 TETAPT 
 
 Tortoise 
 
 A  ?  or  D  ? 
 
 i  MINA 
 
 -  367.5 
 
 10 
 
 2,959 
 
 Half  diota 
 
 d 
 
 J-  MINA  ? 
 
 +  90.6 
 
 11 
 
 2.8ti5 
 
 MO 
 
 Turtle 
 
 B 
 
 1  MINA  ? 
 
 ~     3.4 
 
 12 
 
 2,210 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Half  diota 
 
 C 
 
 f  MINA 
 
 -  180.3 
 
 13 
 
 1,872 
 
 Half  turtle 
 
 I? 
 
 i  MINA 
 
 +  79.2 
 
 14 
 
 1770 
 
 EMITETAP 
 
 Half  tortoise 
 
 B 
 
 i  MINA 
 
 -   22.7 
 
 15 
 
 1,698 
 
 Crescent 
 
 B? 
 
 1  Mina? 
 
 -298 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 1,648 
 
 B 
 
 i  Mina? 
 
 -348 
 
 17 
 
 1,603 
 
 n    M 
 
 B?or  D? 
 
 i  Mina? 
 
 -393 
 
 18 
 
 1,348 
 
 B 
 
 A 
 
 2     deca- 
 drachms 
 
 -   86.2 
 
 19 
 
 1,231 
 
 MO 
 
 Quarter  diota  2 
 
 B 
 
 iV  MINA  ? 
 
 +  35.8 
 
 20 
 
 1,172 
 
 AH 
 
 Crescent 
 
 B 
 
 ji^  MINA  ? 
 
 -    23.1 
 
 21 
 
 1,171 
 
 Crescent 
 
 B 
 
 1^2  MIX  A? 
 
 -    24.1 
 
 22 
 
 1,082 
 
 Half  Turtle* 
 
 B 
 
 1  Mina  ? 
 
 +  84 
 
 i  Mina? 
 J.  Mina? 
 
 -1131 
 
 23 
 
 1,045 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Crescent 
 
 E 
 
 -  150.1 
 
 24 
 
 988 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Diota  in  wreath  '^ 
 
 B 
 
 i  Mina? 
 
 +  91.6 
 
 25 
 
 928.5 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Owl,  A.  in  fields 
 
 C 
 
 J.  Muia 
 
 +  32.1 
 
 26 
 
 924 
 
 Half  crescent  and 
 star 
 
 B 
 
 i  Mina 
 
 +  27.6 
 
 27 
 
 915.5 
 
 D? 
 
 I   Mina 
 
 +  19.1 
 
 2S 
 
 910.5 
 
 B 
 
 i  Mina 
 
 +  14.1 
 
 29 
 
 901 
 
 Quarter  diota 
 
 B 
 
 1  Mina 
 
 +     4.6 
 
 30 
 
 889 
 
 A   .   .  0 
 
 d 
 
 I   Mina 
 
 -     7.3 
 
 31 
 
 884 
 
 AE  OrAO 
 
 C? 
 
 -I  Mina 
 
 -    12,3 
 
 32 
 
 869 
 
 Rose 
 
 c? 
 
 ^  Mina 
 
 -    27.3 
 
 33 
 
 859 
 
 AEMO 
 
 Uncertain  obj.  in 
 wreath  * 
 
 d 
 
 1  Mina 
 
 -    37.3 
 
 34 
 
 845 
 
 Half  crescent 
 
 B 
 
 i  Mina  ? 
 
 -    51.3 
 
 35 
 
 756.5 
 
 A 
 
 D? 
 
 4  didrachins 
 
 -41.9 
 
 ' 
 
 36 
 
 541.5 
 
 B 
 
 8  drachms  ? 
 
 -    32.1 
 
 37 
 
 627.5 
 
 T 
 
 B 
 
 1  of  1  mina  ? 
 
 +  28.5 
 
 38 
 
 450 
 
 B? 
 
 5  drachms  ? 
 
 -49 
 
 6  drachms? 
 
 +  19.7 
 
 39 
 
 411 
 
 B 
 
 4  drachms  ? 
 
 +  11.8 
 
 6  drachms  ? 
 
 -    19.2 
 
 40 
 
 388 
 
 B? 
 
 4  drachms  ? 
 
 -11.2 
 
 5  drachms  ? 
 
 +  29.4 
 
 I  Countermark,  tripod.  2  Countermark,  prow.  3  Turtle,  headless  ?  *  Countermark. 
 
 6  Explanation  of  signs  :  A,  Scarcely  injured.  B,  A  little  weight  lost.  C,  More  than  a  little  lost.  D,  Much 
 weight  lost,  d,  Much  corroded.  E,  Very  much  weight  lost.  When  two  signs  are  given,  the  former  is  the 
 more  probable.  "  The  weight  of  the  Commercial  Attic  mina  is  here  assumed  to  be  about  9,980  grs.  ^  Ths 
 weight  of  the  Solonian  Attic  mina  is  here  assumed  to  be  about  7,171  grs.  The  heavier  talent  is  indicated  bj 
 capital  letters. 
 
3494 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 a.  The  JNIacedonian  talent,  or  ^ginetan  of  the 
 writers,  weighing  about  600,000  grs.,  containing  60 
 minse  and  6,000  drachms. 
 
 0.  I'he  Commercial  talent  of  Athens,  used  for 
 the  coins  of  yEgina,  weighing,  as  a  monetary  talent, 
 never  more  than  about  576,000  grs.,  reduced  from 
 a  weight-talent  of  about  508,800,  and  divided  into 
 the  same  principal  parts  as  the  preceding. 
 
 It  may  be  objected  to  this  opinion,  that  the  coins 
 of  JJgina  should  rather  give  us  the  true  JSginetan 
 standard  than  those  of  Macedonia,  but  it  may  be 
 replied,  that  we  know  from  literature  and  monu- 
 ments of  but  two  Greek  systems  heavier  than  the 
 ordinary  or  later  Attic,  and  that  the  heavier  of 
 these  systems  is  sometimes  called  ^ginetan,  the 
 lighter,  which  bears  two  other  names,  never. 
 
 2.  The  Attic  talent,  when  simply  thus  desig- 
 nated, is  the  standard  weight  introduced  by  Solon, 
 which  stood  to  the  older  or  Commercial  talent  in 
 the  relation  of  100  to  138  8-9.  Its  average  maxi- 
 mum weight,  as  derived  from  the  coins  of  Athens 
 and  the  evidence  of  ancient  writers,  gives  a  drachm 
 of  about  67.5  grs.;  but  Mr.  Burgon's  weights,  as 
 already  shown,  enable  us  to  raise  this  sum  to  71.7. 
 Those  weights  have  also  enabled  us  to  made  a  very 
 curious  disco\ery.  AVe  have  already  seen  that  two 
 minaj,  the  Market  and  the  Popular,  are  recognized 
 in  them,  one  weight,  having  the  inscription  MNA 
 ArOP  (fj-ua  ayopa7os'^),  weighing  9,980  grs.,  and 
 another,  inscribed  MNA  (/ii/atSTj/xoo-i'o]),  weighing 
 7,171  grs.,  these  being  in  ahnost  exactly  the  rela- 
 tion of  the  Commercial  and  ordinary  Attic  niinre 
 5riiii6(Tiai.  There  is  no  indication  of  anj'  third 
 system,  Ijut  certain  of  the  marks  of  value  prove 
 that  the  lower  system  had  two  talents,  the  heavier 
 of  which  was  double  the  weight  of  the  ordinary 
 talent.  No.  9  has  the  inscription  TETAPT,  "  the 
 quarter,''  and  weighs  3,218  grs.,  giving  a  unit  of 
 
 12,872  grs. ;  No.  14,  inscribed  ^^^L  the  "  half- 
 quarter,"  weighs  1,770  grs.,  giving  a  unit  of  14,- 
 160  grs.     We  thus  obtain  a  mina  twice  that  of 
 
 Solon's  reduction.  The  probable  reason  for  the 
 use  of  this  larger  Solonian  talent  will  be  shown  in 
 a  later  place  (§  IV.).  These  weights  are  of  about 
 the  date  of  the  Peloponnesian  War.  (See  Table 
 A.) 
 
 From  these  data  it  appears  that  the  Attic  talent 
 weighed  about  430,260  grs.  by  the  weights,  and 
 that  the  coins  give  a  talent  of  about  405,000  grs,, 
 the  latter  being  apparently  the  weight  to  which 
 the  talent  was  reduced  after  a  time,  and  the  maxi- 
 mum weight  at  which  it  is  reckoned  by  ancient 
 writers.  It  gradually  lost  weight  in  the  coinage, 
 until  the  drachm  fell  to  about  57  grs.  or  less,  thus 
 coming  to  be  equivalent  to,  or  a  little  lighter  than, 
 the  denarius  of  the  early  Cassars.  It  is  important, 
 when  examining  the  statements  of  ancient  writers, 
 to  consider  whether,  the  full  monetary  weight  of 
 the  drachm,  mina,  or  talent,  or  the  weight  after 
 this  last  reduction,  is  intended.  There  are  cases, 
 as  in  the  comparison  of  a  talent  fallen  into  disuse, 
 where  the  value  in  Attic  drachms  or  denarii  so  de- 
 scribed is  evidently  used  with  reference  to  the  full 
 Attic  monetary  weight. 
 
 3.  The  Kuboic  talent,  though  used  in  Greece,  is 
 also  said  to  have  been  used  in  Persia,  and  there 
 can  be  no  doubt  of  its  eastern  origin.  We  there- 
 fore reserve  the  discussion  of  it  for  the  next  section 
 (§11.,  2). 
 
 II.  Foreign  Talents  of  the  same  Period.  —  Two 
 foreign  systems  of  the  same  period,  besides  the  He- 
 brew, are  mentioned  by  ancient  writers,  the  Baby- 
 Ionian  talent  and  the  Kuboic,  which  Herodotus  re- 
 lates to  have  been  used  by  the  Persians  of  his  time 
 respectively  for  the  weighing  of  their  silver  and  gold 
 paid  in  tribute. 
 
 1.  The  Babylonian  talent  may  be  determined 
 from  existing  weights  found  by  Mr.  Layard  at 
 Nineveh.  These  are  in  the  forms  of  lions  ami  ducks, 
 and  are  all  upon  the  same  system,  although  the 
 same  denominations  sometimes  weigh  in  the  pro- 
 portion of  2  to  1.  On  account  of  their  great  im- 
 portance we  insert  a  table,  specifying  their  weights, 
 
 B.  — TABLE  OF  WEIGHTS  FROM  NINEVEH. 
 
 Two  weights  in  the  series  are  omitted  in  this  table :  one  is  a  large  duck  representing  the  same  weight  as 
 No.  1,  but  much  injured  ;  the  other  is  a  small  lion,  of  which  the  weight  is  doubtful,  as  it  cannot  be  decided 
 whether  it  was  adjusted  with  one  or  two  rings. 
 
 No. 
 
 Form  and 
 
 Phoenician 
 
 Cuneiform 
 
 Marks 
 
 Con- 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Computed 
 
 Division  of 
 
 Material. 
 
 Inscription. 
 
 Inscription. 
 
 of  Value. 
 
 dition.! 
 
 Grs.   Troy. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Gt.  T. 
 
 Lsr.   T 
 
 1 
 
 Duck  stone 
 
 XXX  Manehs 
 
 A 
 
 233,300 
 
 239,760 
 
 J 
 
 2 
 
 t(         tt 
 
 X  Manehs 
 
 B 
 
 77,500 
 
 79,920 
 
 .6. 
 
 3 
 
 !t               !t 
 
 B 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,984 
 
 4 
 
 Lion  bronze 
 
 XV  Manehs 
 
 B 
 
 230.460 
 
 239.760 
 
 i' 
 
 5 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 V  Manehs 
 
 V  Manehs 
 
 B 
 
 77,820 
 
 79,920 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 III  Manehs 
 
 III  Manehs 
 
 C 
 
 44,196 
 
 47,952 
 
 X 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 II  Manehs 
 
 II  Manehs 
 
 A 
 
 30,744 
 
 31,968 
 
 1 
 
 80 
 
 a 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 11  Manehs 
 
 II  Manehs 
 
 B 
 
 29,796 
 
 Id. 
 
 i 
 30 
 
 9 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 II  Manehs 
 
 B 
 
 14,604 
 
 15,984 
 
 1 
 
 31) 
 
 10 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 A 
 
 15,984 
 
 Id. 
 
 11 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 Maneh 
 
 Maneh 
 
 B 
 
 14,724 
 
 Id. 
 
 1 
 60 
 
 12 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 B 
 
 10,272 
 
 ? 
 
 13 
 
 t'         tt 
 
 Maneh 
 
 Maneh 
 
 B 
 
 7.224 
 
 7,992 
 
 X 
 60 
 
 14 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 Maneh 
 
 Maneh 
 
 B 
 
 7,404 
 
 Id. 
 
 1 
 60 
 
 15 
 
 It         tt 
 
 B 
 
 3,708 
 
 3,996 
 
 16 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 Fifth 
 
 B 
 
 3,060 
 
 3,196 
 
 iM 
 
 17 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 Quarter 
 
 B 
 
 3.648 
 
 3,996 
 
 JM 
 
 18 
 
 Duck  stone 
 
 mill 
 
 C 
 
 2,904 
 
 3,196 
 
 19 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 mill 
 
 B 
 
 2,748 
 
 Id. 
 
 20 
 
 tt         tt 
 
 iimin 
 
 B 
 
 1,968 
 
 2,131 
 
 ' 
 
 1  A,  Well  preserved.         B,  Somewhat  injured.         C,  Much  injured. 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 3495 
 
 inscriptions,  and  degree  of  preservation.      (See  Ta- 
 ble B,  previous  page.) 
 
 From  tiiese  data  we  may  safely  draw  the  follow- 
 ing inferences. 
 
 The  weights  represent  a  double  system,  of  which 
 the  heavier  talent  contained  two  of  the  lighter  tal- 
 ents. 
 
 The  heavier  talent  contained  60  manelis.  The 
 maneh  was  divided  into  thirtieths  and  sixtieths. 
 We  conclude  the  units  having  tliese  respective  re- 
 lations to  the  matieh  of  the  heavy  talent  to  be  divis- 
 ions of  it,  because  in  the  case  of  the  first  a  thirti- 
 eth is  a  more  likely  division  tlian  a  fifteenth,  which 
 it  would  be  if  assigned  to  tlie  ligliter  talent,  and 
 because,  in  the  case  of  the  second,  eight  sixtieths  is 
 a  more  likely  division  than  eiglit  thirtieths. 
 
 The  lighter  talent  contained  GO  nianehs.  Accord 
 ing  to  Dr.  Hincks,  the  maneli  of  the  ligliter  talent 
 was  divided  into  sixtieths,  and  these  again  into 
 thirtieths.  The  sixtieth  is  so  important  a  division 
 in  any  Babylonian  system,  that  there  can  be  no 
 doubt  that  Dr.  Hincks  is  riglit  in  assigning  it  to 
 this  talent,  and  moreover  its  weight  is  a  value  of 
 great  consequence  in  tlie  Babylonian  system  as  well 
 as  in  one  derived  from  it.  Besides,  the  sixtieth 
 bears  a  different  name  from  the  sixtieth  of  the 
 heavier  talent,  so  that  there  must  have  been  a  six- 
 tieth in  each,  unless,  but  this  we  have  shown  to  be 
 unlikely,  the  latter  belongs  to  the  lighter  talent, 
 which  would  then  have  had  a  sixtieth  and  thirtieth, 
 ■^he  following  table  exhibits  our  results. 
 
 Heavier  Talent.  q^^  Troy. 
 
 Jg-  Maneh  266.4 
 
 2                      gig  Maneh  532  8 
 
 60                      30       Maneh  15,984 
 3,600                  1,800           60        Talent  959,040 
 Lighter  Talent. 
 
 .JL.  of  Jg.  Maneh  4.44 
 
 30                 -gL  Maneh  133.2 
 
 1,800                     60     Maneh  7.992 
 
 108,000                3,600          60        Talent  479,520 
 
 Certain  low  subdivisions  of  the  lighter  talent  may 
 be  determined  from  smaller  weights,  in  the  British 
 Jluseum,  from  Babylonia  or  Assyria,  not  found 
 with  those  last  described.  These  are,  with  one  ex- 
 ception, ducks,  and  have  the  following  weights, 
 which  we  compare  with  the  multiples  of  the  small- 
 est subdivision  of  the  lighter  talent. 
 
 Smaller  Babylonian  or  Assyrian    Thirtieths  of  Sixtieth 
 Weights.  of  Maneli. 
 
 Grs.  Troy.    Unit,  4.44     Uniri'*"^ 
 
 1.  Duck,  marked  11,  wt.  329  80.  355  2         320 
 
 I       I  }l5  }      30.  133.2         120 
 
 4.  "  100         25.  Ill  100 
 
 5.  "  87-h     22.    97.6 
 
 6.  Weight   like   short 
 
 stopper. 
 
 7.  Duck.  80-1-    20.     88.8  80 
 
 8.  "  40-      10.     44.4  40 
 
 9.  "  34-       8.     35  5  32 
 10.       "                               19          6.     22.2  20 
 
 I    83         21.     93.2 
 
 84 
 
 Before  comparing  the  evidence  of  the  coins  which 
 we  may  suppose  to  have  been  struck  according  to 
 the  Babylonian  talent,  it  will  be  well  to  ascertain 
 whether  the  higher  or  lower  talent  was  in  use,  or 
 whether  both  were,  in  the  period  of  the  Persian 
 toins. 
 
 Herodotus  speaks  of  the  Babylonian  talent  as  not 
 greatly  exceeding  the  Euboic,  which  has  been  com- 
 
 puted to  be  equivalent  to  theConnnercial  Attic,  but 
 more  rea.sonably  as  nearly  the  same  as  the  ordinar  y 
 Attic.  Pollux  makes  the  Babylonian  talent  equal 
 to  7,000  Attic  drachms.  Taking  the  .4ttic  draclmi 
 at  07. 5  grs.,  the  standard  probably  used  by  Pollux, 
 tlie  Jiabylonian  talent  would  weigli  472,500,  which 
 is  very  near  the  weight  of  the  lighter  talent.  ^Elian 
 says  that  the  Babylonian  talent  was  equal  to  72 
 Attic  minse,  which,  on  the  standard  of  67.5  to  the 
 drachm,  gives  a  sum  of  486.000.  We  may  there- 
 fore suppose  that  the  lighter  talent  was  generally, 
 if  not  universally,  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  Persian 
 coins. 
 
 Herodotus  relates  that  the  king  of  Persia  received 
 the  silver  tribute  of  the  satrapies  according  to  the 
 Babylonian  talent,  but  the  gold,  according  to  the 
 Euboic.  We  may  therefore  infer  that  the  silver 
 coinage  of  the  Persian  monarchy  was  then  adjusted 
 to  tlie  former,  the  gold  coinage  to  the  latter,  if  there 
 was  a  coinage  in  both  metals  so  early.  The  oldest 
 coins,  both  gold  and  silver,  of  the  Persian  mon- 
 archy, are  of  the  time  of  Herodotus,  if  not  a  little 
 earlier;  and  there  are  still  more  ancient  pieces,  in 
 both  metals,  of  the  same  weights  as  Persian  gold 
 and  silver  coins,  which  are  found  at  or  near  Sardes, 
 and  can  scarcely  be  doubted  to  be  the  coinage  of 
 Croesus,  or  of  another  Lydiaii  king  of  the  6th  cen- 
 tury. The  larger  silver  coins  of  the  Persian  nion- 
 arcliy,  and  those  of  the  satraps,  are  of  the  following 
 denominations  and  weights :  — 
 
 Grs.  Troy. 
 
 Piece  of  three  sigli 253.5 
 
 Piece  of  two  sigli 169 
 
 Siglos        84.5 
 
 The  only  denomination  of  which  we  know  the 
 name  is  the  siglos,  which,  as  having  the  same  type 
 as  the  Daric,  appears  to  be  the  oldest  Persian  siher 
 coin.  It  is  the  ninetieth  part  of  the  maneh  of  the 
 lighter  talent,  and  the  5,400th  of  that  talent.  The 
 piece  of  three  sigli  is  the  thirtieth  part  of  that 
 maneh,  and  the  1,800th  of  the  talent.  If  there 
 were  any  doubt  as  to  these  coins  being  struck  upon 
 the  BaV)ylonian  standard,  it  would  be  removed  in 
 the  next  part  of  our  inquiry,  in  which  we  shall 
 show  that  the  relation  of  gold  and  silver  occasioned 
 these  divisions. 
 
 2.  The  Euboic  talent,  though  bearing  a  Greek 
 name,  is  rightly  held  to  have  been  originally  an 
 eastern  system.  As  it  was  used  to  weigh  the  gold 
 sent  as  tribute  to  the  king  of  Persia,  we  may  infer 
 that  it  was  the  standard  of  the  Persian  gold  money; 
 and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  coinage  of 
 Euboea  was  upon  its  standard.  If  our  result  as  to 
 the  talent,  when  tested  by  the  coins  of  Persia  and 
 Euboea,  confirms  this  inference  and  supposition,  it 
 may  be  considered  sound. 
 
 We  must  now  discuss  the  celebrated  passage  of 
 Herodotus  on  the  tribute  of  tlie  Persian  satrapies. 
 He  there  states  that  the  Babylonian  talent  con- 
 tained 70  Euboic  niinae  (iii.  89).  He  specifies  the 
 amount  of  silver  paid  in  Babylonian  talents  by  each 
 province,  and  then  gives  the  sum  of  the  silver  ac- 
 cording to  the  Euboic  standard,  reduces  the  gold 
 paid  to  its  equivalent  in  silver,  reckoning  the  former 
 at  thirteen  times  the  value  of  the  latter,  and  lastly 
 gives  the  sum  total.  His  statements  may  be  thus 
 tabulated  :  — 
 
 Sum  of  items,    Equivalent  in  E.  T.  Equivalent   Difference, 
 silver.  at  "0mina8  =  B.  T.       stated. 
 
 7,740  B.  T. 
 
 9,030  B.  T.         9,540  E,  T. 
 
 -t-510 
 
3496 
 
 Gold  tribute. 
 360  E.  T. 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 Equivalent  at  13  to  1. 
 4,680  E.  T.  Id. 
 
 Total  .     .     13,710  E.  T. 
 Total  stated  14,560 
 
 Difference  .    +850 
 
 14,220 
 14,560 
 
 +340 
 
 It  is  impossible  to  explain  this  double  error  in 
 any  satisfoctory  manner.  It  is,  however,  evident 
 that  in  the  time  of  Herodotus  there  was  some  such 
 relation  between  the  Babylonian  and  Euboic  talents 
 as  that  of  11.66  to  10.  This  is  so  near  12  to  10 
 that  it  may  be  inquired  whether  ancient  writers 
 speak  of  any  relative  value  of  gold  to  silver  about 
 this  time  that  would  make  talents  in  this  propor- 
 tion easy  for  exchange,  and  whether,  if  such  a  pro- 
 portion is  stated,  it  is  confirmed  by  the  Persian 
 CDins.  The  relative  value  of  13  to  1,  stated  by  Herod- 
 otus, is  very  nearly  12  to  1,  and  seems  as  though 
 it  had  heen  the  result  of  some  change,  such  as 
 might  have  been  occasioned  by  the  exhaustion  of 
 the  surface-gold  in  Asia  Minor,  or  a  more  carefid 
 working  of  the  Greek  silver  mines.  The  relative 
 value  12  to  1  is  mentioned  by  Plato  {Ilippiircli.). 
 About  Plato's  time  the  relation  was,  however,  10  to 
 1.  He  is  therefore  speakhig  of  an  earlier  period. 
 Supposing  that  the  proportion  of  the  Babylonian 
 and  Euboic  talents  was  12  to  10,  and  that  it  was 
 based  upon  a  relative  value  of  12  to  1,  what  light 
 do  the  Persian  coins  throw  upon  the  theory?  If 
 we  take  the  chief  or  only  Persian  gold  coin,  the 
 Daric,  assuming  its  weight  to  be  129  grs.,  and 
 multiply  it  by  12,  we  obtain  the  product  1.548.  If 
 we  divide  this  product  as  follows,  we  obtain  as 
 aliquot  parts  the  weights  of  all  the  principal  and 
 heavier  Persian  silver  coins :  — 
 
 1,548 
 
 ^    9 
 
 ^  18 
 
 258  three  sigli. 
 172  two  sigli. 
 86  sigll. 
 
 On  these  grounds  we  may  suppose  that  the 
 Euboic  talent  was  to  the  Babylonian  as  GO  to 
 72,  or  5  to  6.  Taking  the  Babylonian  maneh 
 at  7,992  grs.,  we  obtain  399,600  for  the  Euboic 
 talent. 
 
 This  result  is  most  remarkably  confirmed  by 
 an  ancient  bronze  weight  in  the  form  of  a  lion 
 discovered  at  Abydos  in  the  Troad,  and  bearing 
 in  Phoenician  characters  the  following  inscription : 
 
 S2DD  n  S"^-inD  bapb  ]nDDW,  "Approved," 
 or  "  found  correct  on  the  part  of  the  satrap  who  is 
 appointed  over  the  silver,"  or  "  money."  It  weighs 
 396,000  grs.,  and  is  supposed  to  have  lost  one  or 
 two  pounds'  weight.  It  has  been  thought  to  he  a 
 weight  of  50  Babylonian  minfe,  but  it  is  most  un- 
 likely that  there  should  have  been  such  a  division 
 of  tiie  talent,  and  still  more  that  a  weight  should 
 have  been  made  of  that  division  without  any  dis- 
 tinctive inscription.  If,  however,  the  Euboic  talent 
 was  to  the  Babylonian  in  the  proportion  of  5  to  0, 
 50  Babylonian  niinoe  would  correspond  to  a  Iuil)oic 
 talent,  and  this  weight  would  be  a  talent  of  that 
 standard.  We  have  calculated  the  Euboic  talent 
 at  399,000  grs.,  this  weight  is  396,000,  or  3,600 
 deficient,  but  this  is  explained  by  the  supposed 
 loss  of  one  (5,760)  or  two  (11,520)  pounds 
 weight." 
 
 We  have  now  to  test  our  result  by  the  Persian 
 gold  money,  and  the  coins  of  Eubcea. 
 
 The  principal,  if  not  the  only,  Persian  gold  coin 
 is  the  Daric,  weighing  about  129  grs.  This,  Wc 
 have  seen,  was  the  standard  coin,  according  to 
 which  the  silver  money  was  adjusted.  Its  double 
 in  actual  weight  is  found  in  the  silver  coinage,  but 
 its  equivalent  is  wanting,  as  th(jugh  for  the  sake  of 
 distinction.  The  double  is  the  thirtieth  of  the 
 maneh  of  the  lighter  or  monetary  Babylonian 
 talent,  of  which  the  Daric  is  the  sixtieth,  the  latter 
 being,  in  our  opinion,  a  known  division.  The 
 weight  of  the  sixtieth  is,  it  should  be  observed, 
 about  133.2  grs.,  somewhat  in  excess  of  the  weight 
 of  the  Daric,  but  ancient  coins  are  always  struck 
 below  their  nominal  weight.  The  Daric  was  thus 
 the  3,600th  part  of  the  Babylonian  talent.  It  is 
 nowhere  stated  how  the  Euboic  t;Uent  was  divided, 
 but  if  we  suppose  it  to  have  contained  50  minae, 
 then  the  Daric  would  have  been  the  sixtieth  of  the 
 mina,  but  if  100  minre,  the  thirtieth.  In  any  case 
 it  would  have  been  the  3,000th  part  of  the  talent. 
 As  the  6,000th  was  the  chief  division  of  the  JEgin- 
 etan  and  Attic  monetary  talents,  and  tlie  3,000th, 
 of  the  Hebrew  talent  according  to  which  the  sacred 
 tril)ute  was  paid,  and  as  an  Egyptian  talent  con- 
 tained 6,000  such  units,  no  other  princijial  division 
 of  the  chief  talents,  save  that  of  the  Babylonian 
 into  3,600,  being  known,  this  is  exactly  what  we 
 should  expect. 
 
 *rhe  coinage  of  Eubrea  has  hitherto  been  the 
 great  obstacle  to  the  discovery  of  the  Euboic  talent. 
 For  the  present  we  speak  only  of  the  silver  coins, 
 for  the  only  gold  coin  we  know  is  later  than  the 
 earliest  notices  of  the  talent,  and  it  must  therefore 
 have  Ijeen  in  Greece  originally,  as  far  as  money 
 was  concerned,  a  silver  talent.  The  coins  give  the 
 following  denominations,  of  which  we  state  the 
 average  highest  weights  and  the  assumed  true 
 weights,  compared  with  the  assumed  true  weights 
 of  the  coins  of  Athens:  — 
 
 COLNS    OF    EUB(EA. 
 
 Coins  of  Athens. 
 
 IliKliest 
 
 Assumed  true 
 
 A.ssumed  true 
 
 weiglit. 
 
 weiglit. 
 
 weiglit. 
 
 258 
 
 Tetradrachm  270 
 
 121 
 
 129 
 
 Didrachm       135 
 
 85 
 
 86 
 
 63 
 
 64.5 
 
 Drachm            67-5 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 Tetrobolon       45 
 
 It  must  be  remarked  that  the  first  Euboic 
 denomination  is  known  to  us  only  from  two  very 
 early  coins  of  Eretria,  in  the  British  ]Museuni, 
 which  may  possibly  be  Attic,  struck  during  a 
 time  of  Athenian  supremacy,  for  they  are  of 
 about  the  weight  of  very  heavy  Attic  tetra- 
 drachms. 
 
 It  will  be  perceived  that  though  the  weights  of 
 all  denominations,  except  the  third  in  the  Euboic 
 list,  are  very  near  the  Attic,  the  system  of  division 
 is  evidently  different.  The  third  Euboic  denomi- 
 nation is  identical  with  the  Persian  siglos,  and  indi- 
 cates the  Persian  origin  of  the  system.  The  second 
 piece  is,  however,  identical  with  the  Daric.  It 
 would  seem  that  the  Persian  gold  and  silver  systems 
 of  division  were  here  combined;  and  this  might 
 perfectly  have  been  done,  as  the  Daric,  though  a 
 division  of  the  gold  talent,  is  also  a  division  of  the 
 silver  talent.  As  we  have  noticed,  the  Daric  is 
 omitted  in  the  Persian  silver  coinage  for  some 
 special  reason.  The  relation  of  the  I^ersian  and 
 Greek  systems  may  be  thus  stated :  — 
 
 a  Since  this  was  written  we  have  ascertained  tliat    talent  (Revue  Arc/ieologigue,  n.  s.  Jan.  1862).  See  also 
 tt.  de  Vogii6  has  supposed  this  lion   to  be  a  Eubox    Archceological  Journal,  1860,  Sept.  pp.  199,  200. 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 3497 
 
 Persian  silver,       Persian  ^old,  Greek  Euboi'c. 
 
 Babylonian.  Euboic.         Actual  weight.    Assumed. 
 
 "253.5  258 
 
 1G9 
 
 84-5 
 
 129 
 
 121 
 
 43 
 
 129 
 
 86 
 
 43 
 
 The  standard  weights  of  Persian  silver  coins  are 
 here  assumed  from  the  highest  average  weight  of 
 the  siglos.  We  hold  that  the  coins  of  Corinth 
 probably  follow  the  Euboic  system. 
 
 The  only  gold  coin  of  Euboea  known  to  us  has 
 the  extraordinary  weight  of  49.4  grs.  It  is  of 
 Carystus,  and  probably  in  date  a  little  before  Alex- 
 ander's time.  It  may  be- upon  a  system  for  gold 
 money  derived  from  the  Euboic,  exactly  as  the 
 Euboic  was  derived  from  the  Babylonian,  but  it  is 
 not  safe  to  reason  upon  a  single  coin. 
 
 3.  The  talents  of  Egypt  have  hitherto  formed  a 
 most  unsatisfactory  subject.  We  commence  our 
 inquiry  by  stating  all  certain  data. 
 
 The  gold  and  silver  coins  of  the  Ptolemies  follow 
 the  same  standard  as  the  silver  coins  of  the  kings 
 of  Macedon  to  Philip  II.  inclusive,  which  are  on  the 
 full  .Eginetan  weight.  The  copper  coins  have  been 
 thought  to  follow  the  same  standard,  but  this  is  an 
 error. 
 
 The  ancient  Egyptians  are  known  to  have  had 
 two  weights,  the  MeN  or  UTeX,  containing  ten 
 smaller  weights  bearing  the  name  KeT,  as  M. 
 Chabas  has  proved.  The  former  name,  if  rightly 
 read  MeN,  is  a  maneh  or  mina,  the  latter,  accord- 
 ing   to   the    Copts,    was   a   drachm   or  didrachm 
 
 CKJ't'  '-  KJTe,  CKSTe,  S.  drachma,  di- 
 drachnia,  the  last  form  not  being  known  to  have 
 the  second  signification).  A  weight,  inscribed 
 "  Five  KeT,"  and  weighing  698  grs.,  has  been  dis- 
 covered. It  probably  originally  weighed  about  700 
 {Revue  Archeoluyiquc,  n.  s.).  We  can  thus  de- 
 termine the  KeT  to  have  weighed  about  140  grs., 
 and  the  MeN  or  UTeN  about  1,400.  An  exam- 
 ination of  the  copper  coins  of  the  Ptolemies  has  led 
 us  to  the  interesting  discovery  that  they  follow  this 
 standard  and  system.  The  following  are  all  the 
 heavier  denominations  of  the  copper  coins  of  the 
 earlier  Ptolemies,  aiid  the  coiTesponding  weights: 
 the  coins  vai-y  much  in  weight,  but  they  clearly  in- 
 dicate their  standard  and  their  denominations :  — 
 
 EoYPTLiN  Copper  Coins,  and  Weights. 
 
 Coins. 
 Grs. 
 A  cir.  1400. 
 B  cir.  700. 
 C  cir.  280. 
 Dcir.  140. 
 E  cir,      70. 
 
 Weights. 
 
 MeN,  or  UTeN  (Maneh?) 
 
 5  KeT. 
 
 (2  KeT). 
 
 KeT. 
 
 (i  KeT). 
 
 We  must  therefore  conclude  that  the  gold  and 
 silver  standard  of  the  Ptolemies  was  different  from 
 the  copper  standard,  the  latter  being  that  of  the 
 ancient  Egyptians.  The  two  talents,  if  calculated 
 from  the  coins,  which  in  the  gold  and  silver  are 
 below  the  full  weight,  are  in  the  proportion  of 
 about  10  (gold  and  silver)  to  13  (copper);  or,  if 
 calculated  from  the  higher  correct  standard  of  the 
 gold  and  silver  system,  in  the  proportion  of  about 
 10  to  12.7 :  we  shall  speak  as  to  the  exchange  in  a 
 later  place  (§  III.). 
 
 It  may  be  observed  that  the  difficulty  of  explain- 
 ing the  statements  of  ancient  writers  as  to  the 
 Egyptian.  Alexandrian,  or  Ptolemaic  talent  or  tal- 
 220 
 
 ents,  probably  arises  from  the  use  of  two  systems 
 which  could  be  easily  confounded,  at  least  in  their 
 lower  divisions. 
 
 4.  Tlie  Carthaginian  talent  may  not  be  as  old  as 
 the  period  before  Alexander,  to  which  we  hinit  our 
 inquiry,  yet  it  reaches  so  nearly  to  that  period  that 
 it  cannot  be  here  omitted.  Those  silver  coins  of 
 the  Carthaginians  which  do  not  follow  the  Attic 
 standard  seem  to  be  struck  upon  the  standard  of 
 the  Persian  coins,  the  Babylonian  talent.  The  only 
 clew  we  have,  however,  to  the  s\stem  is  aftbrded 
 
 by  a  bronze  weight   inscribed     713X2     7pti?tt, 
 
 and  weighing  321  grammes  =  4,950.5  grs.  (Dr. 
 Levy  in  Zeilschrifi  d.  Deutsch.  moryeid.  Gesellsch. 
 xiv.  p.  710).  This  sum  is  divisible  by  the  weights 
 of  all  the  chief  Carthaginian  silver  coins,  except  the 
 •' decadrachni,"  but  only  as  sevenths,  a  system 
 of  division  we  do  not  know  to  have  obtained  in 
 any  ancient  talent.  The  Carthaginian  gold  coins 
 seem  also  to  be  divisions  of  this  mina  on  a  different 
 principle. 
 
 III.  Tke  Hebreio  Talent  or  Talents  and  Divisions. 
 —  The  data  we  have  obtained  enable  us  to  examine 
 the  statements  respecting  the  Hebrew  weights 
 with  some  expectation  of  determining  this  diffi- 
 cult question.     The  evidence  may  be  thus  stated. 
 
 1.  A  talent  of  silver  is  mentioned  in  Exodus, 
 which  contained  3,000  shekels,  distinguished  as 
 •'  the  holy  shekel,"  or  "  shekel  of  the  sanctuary." 
 The  number  of  Israelite  men  who  paid  the  ransom 
 of  half  a  shekel  apiece  was  603,550,  and  the  sum 
 paid  was  100  talents  and  1,775  shekels  of  silver 
 (K\.  XXX.  13,  15,  xxxviii.  25-28),  whence  we  easily 
 discover  that  the  talent  of  silver  contained  3,000 
 shekels  (603,550  -^  2  =  301,775  shekels  — 1,775  = 
 300,000  -^  100  talents  =  3,000  shekels  to  the  tal- 
 ent). 
 
 2.  A  gold  maneh  is  spoken  of,  and,  in  a  parallel 
 passage,  shekels  are  mentioned,  three  manehs  being 
 represented  by  300  shekels,  a  maneh  therefore  con- 
 taining 100  shekels  of  gold. 
 
 3.  Josephus  states  that  the  Hebrew  talent  of  gold 
 contained  100  minse  {Xvxvia  ek  xpvo'ou  .... 
 (TTadfj-hu  exovcra  fxuas  tKarSv,  &s  'E0pa7oi  jxev 
 KaAovffi  KiyxO'PfS,  6ts  Se  r^iv  'EAAtj^ik^v  fie- 
 ra^a\X6jxivov  ■yXuxraav  iT7}fx.aivii  rd\avTov. 
 Ant.  iii.  6,  §  7). 
 
 4.  Josephus  states  that  the  Hebrew  mina  of 
 gold  was  equal  to  two  librae  and  a  half  {SoKhv 
 6\oa<pvpri\arov  xpinrrji/,  ere  fxvwv  rpiaKoaioou 
 TTfnofr\ixivTf]v-  t)  Se  /xca  irapi'  rjfuv  lax'^^i-  X'npas 
 hvo  real  '-ftiJ-iffv.  Ant.  xiv.  7,  §  1).  Taking  the 
 Roman  pound  at  5,050  grs.,  the  maneh  of  gold 
 would  weigh  about  12,625  grs. 
 
 5.  Epiphanius  estimates  the  Hebrew  talent  at 
 125  Roman  pounds,  which,  at  the  value  givea 
 above,  are  equal  to  about  631,250  grs. 
 
 6.  A  difficult  passage  in  Ezekiel  seems  to  speak 
 of  a  maneh  of  50  or  00  shekels:  "  And  the  shekel 
 [shall  be]  twenty  gerahs:  twenty  shekels,  five  and 
 twenty  shekels,  fifteen  shekels,  shall  be  your  maneh  " 
 (xiv.  12).  The  ordinary  text  of  the  LXX.  gives  a 
 series  of  small  sums  as  the  Hebrew,  though  differ- 
 ing in  the  numbers,  but  the  Alex,  and  Vat.  MSS. 
 have  50  for  15  (ejreocri  ojSoAoi,  TrfVre  (t'ikKoi, 
 irevre  real  (t'ikKol  Se'rea,  real  ■KfvTr]KovTa  (tIkXoi 
 71  fj.va  iarai  ii/juv).  'I'he  meaning  would  be, 
 either  that  there  were  to  be  three  manehs,  respect- 
 ively containing  20,  25,  and  15  shekels,  or  the 
 like,  or  else  that  a  sum  is  intended  by  these  num- 
 bers (20  -H  25  -h  15)  —  60,  or  possibly  50.     But  it 
 
3498 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 must  be  remembered  that  this  is  a  prophetical 
 passage. 
 
 7.  Josephus  makes  the  gold  shekel  a  Daric  (A7i(. 
 iii.  8,  §  10). 
 
 From  these  data  it  may  reasonably  be  inferred,  (1) 
 that  the  Hebrew  gold  talent  contained  100  manehs, 
 eacli  of  which  again  contained  100  shekels  of  gold, 
 and,  basing  the  calculation  on  the  stated  value 
 of  the  maneh,  weighed  about  1,202,500  grs.,  or, 
 basing  the  calculation  on  the  correspondence  of  the 
 gold  shekel  to  the  Dai-ic,  weighed  aliout  1,290,000 
 grs.  (129  X  100  X  100),  the  latter  being  probably 
 nearer  the  true  value,  as  the  2^  lilirse  may  be  sup- 
 posed to  be  a  round  sum;  and  (2)  that  the  silver 
 talent  contained  3,000  shekels,  and  is  probably  the 
 talent  spoken  of  by  Epiphanius  as  equal  to  125  Ro- 
 man pounds,  or  631,250  grs.,  which  would  give  a 
 shekel  of  210.4  grains.  It  is  to  be  observed  that, 
 taking  the  estimate  of  Josephus  as  the  basis  for  cal- 
 culating the  maneh  of  the  former  talent,  and  that 
 of  Epiphanius  for  calculating  the  latter,  their  rela- 
 tion is  exactly  2  to  1,  50  manehs  at  2}  pounds, 
 making  125  pounds.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to 
 suppose  that  two  talents  of  the  same  system  are 
 referred  to,  and  that  the  gold  talent  was  exactly 
 double  the  silver  talent. 
 
 Let  us  now  examine  the  Jewish  coins. 
 
 1.  The  shekels  and  half-shekels  of  silver,  if  we 
 take  an  average  of  the  heavier  specimens  of  the 
 Maccabean  issue,  give  the  weight  of  the  former  as 
 about  220  grs.  A  talent  of  3,000  such  shekels 
 would  weigh  about  660,000  grs.  This  result  agrees 
 very  nearly  with  the  weight  of  the  talent  given 
 by  Epiphanius. 
 
 2.  The  copper  coins  are  generally  without  any' 
 indications  of  value.  The  two  heaviest  denomina- 
 tions of  the  Maccabean  issue,   however,  bear  the 
 
 names  "half"  O^JH),  and  "  quarter  "  (^"^S"!). 
 M.  de  Saulcy  gives  the  weights  of  three  "halves  " 
 as,  respectively,  251. G  grs.  (16.3  grammes),  236.2 
 (15.3),  and  219.2  (14.2).  In  Mr.  Wigan's  collec- 
 tion are  two  "quarters,"  weighing,  respectively, 
 145.2  grs.  and  118.9  grs. ;  the  former  being,  appar- 
 ently, the  one  "quarter"  of  which  M.  de  Saulcy 
 gives  the  weight  as  142.  (9.2  grammes).  We  are 
 unable  to  add  the  weights  of  any  more  specimens. 
 There  is  a  smaller  coin  of  the  same  period,  which 
 has  an  average  weight,  according  to  M.  de  Saulcy, 
 of  81.8  grs.  (5.3  grammes).  If  this  be  the  third 
 of  the  "half,"  it  would  give  the  weight  of  the 
 latter  at  245.4  grs.  As  this  may  be  thought  to 
 be  slender  evidence,  especially  so  far  as  the  larger 
 coins  are  concerned,  it  is  important  to  observe 
 that  it  is  confirmed  by  the  later  coins.  From  the 
 copper  coins  mentioned  above,  we  can  draw  up  the 
 following  scheme,  comparing  them  with  the  silver 
 coins. 
 
 Copper  Coins.  Silver  Coins. 
 
 Average  Supposed  Average  Supposed 
 
 weight,     weight.  weight,     weight. 
 
 Half  236.4       250      Shekel  220         220 
 
 Quarter     132.0        125      Half-.shekel  110         110 
 (Sixth)        81.8        83.8  (Third)  73.3 
 
 It  is  evident  from  this  list  that  the  copper  "half" 
 and  "quarter"  are  half  and  quarter  shekels,  and 
 are  nearly  in  the  relation  to  the  silver  like  denomi- 
 nations of  2  to  1.  But  this  relation  is  not  exact, 
 and  it  is  therefore  necessai-y  to  ascertain  further, 
 whether  the  standaid  of  the  silver  talent  can  be 
 raised,  if  not,  whether  the  gold  talent  can  be  more 
 tbsn  twice  the  weight  of  the  silver,  and,  should 
 
 this  explanation  be  impossible,  whether  there  is  any 
 ground  for  supposing  a  third  talent  with  a  shekel 
 heavier  than  two  shekels  of  silver. 
 
 The  silver  shekel  of  220  grs.  gives  a  talent  of 
 060,000  grs. :  this  is  the  same  as  the  jEginetan, 
 which  appears  to  he  of  Phoenician  origin.  There 
 is  no  evidence  of  its  ever  having  had  a  higher  shekel 
 or  didrachm. 
 
 The  double  talent  of  1,320,000  grs.,  gives  a  Da- 
 ric of  132  grs.,  which  is  only  1  gr.  and  a  small 
 fraction  below  the  standard  obtained  from  the  Bab- 
 ylonian talent. 
 
 The  possiliility  of  a  separate  talent  for  copper  de- 
 pends upon  the  relations  of  the  three  metals. 
 
 The  relation  of  gold  to  silver  in  the  time  of  He- 
 rodotus was  1 :  13.  The  early  relation  upon  which 
 the  systems  of  weights  and  coins  used  by  the  Per- 
 sian state  were  founded  was  1 :  12.  Under  the 
 Ptolemies  it  was  1 :  12  5.  The  two  Hebrew  talents, 
 if  that  of  gold  were  exactly  double  that  of  silver, 
 would  have  been  easy  for  exchange  in  the  relation 
 of  1 :  12, 1  talent  of  gold  corresponding  to  24  talents 
 of  silver.  The  relation  of  silver  to  copper  can  be 
 best  conjectured  from  the  Ptolemaic  system.  If 
 the  Hebrews  derived  this  relation  from  any  neigh- 
 boring state,  Fg.ypt  is  as  likely  to  have  influenced 
 them  as  Syria;  for  the  silver  coinage  of  Egypt  was 
 essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
 that  of  Syria  was  different.  Besides,  the  relation 
 of  silver  and  copper  must  have  been  very  nearly  the 
 same  in  Syria  and  Palestine  as  in  Egypt  during  the 
 period  in  which  the  Jewish  coinage  had  its  origin, 
 on  account  of  the  large  commerce  between  those 
 countries.  It  has,  we  venture  to  think,  been  satis- 
 factorily shown  by  Letronne  that  the  relation  of 
 silver  to  copper  under  the  Ptolemies  was  1 :  60,  a 
 mina  of  silver  corresponding  to  a  talent  of  copper. 
 It  has,  however,  been  supposed  that  the  drachm  of 
 copper  was  of  the  same  weight  as  that  of  gold  and 
 silver,  an  opinion  which  we  have  proved  to  be  in- 
 correct in  an  earlier  part  of  this  article  (§  II.  3). 
 An  important  question  now  arises.  Is  the  talent 
 of  copper,  when  spoken  of  in  relation  to  that  of  sil- 
 ver, a  talent  of  weight  or  a  talent  of  account  ?  —  in 
 other  words.  Is  it  of  6,000  actual  drachms  of  140 
 grs.  each,  or  of  6,000  drachms  of  account  of  about 
 110  grs.  or  a  little  less?  This  question  seems  to 
 be  answered  in  fa\or  of  the  former  of  the  two  re- 
 plies by  the  facts.  (1)  that  the  copper  coins  being 
 struck  upon  the  old  Egyptian  weight,  it  is  incred- 
 ible that  so  jiolitic  a  prince  as  the  first  Ptolemy 
 should  have  introduced  a  double  system  of  reckon- 
 ing, which  would  ha\e  gi\en  offense  and  occasioned 
 confusion;  (2)  that  the  ancient  Egyptian  name  of 
 the  monetary  unit  became  that  of  the  drachm,  as  is 
 shown  by  its  lieing  retained  with  the  sense  drachm 
 and  didrachm  by  the  Copts  (§  II.  3);  and  had 
 there  been  two  didrachms  of  copper,  that  on  the 
 Egyptian  system  would  probably  have  retained  the 
 native  name.  We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that 
 the  Egyptian  copper  talent  was  of  6,000  copper 
 drachms  of  the  weight  of  140  grs.  each.  But  this 
 solution  still  leaves  a  difficulty.  "We  know  that  the 
 relation  of  silver  to  copper  was  1 :  60  in  drachms, 
 though  1:  78  or  80  in  weight.  In  a  modern  state 
 the  actual  relation  would  force  itself  into  the  posi- 
 tion of  the  official  relation,  and  1 :  60  would  become 
 1:  78  or  80;  but  this  was  not  necessarily  the  case 
 in  an  ancient  country  iu  so  peculiar  a  condition  as 
 Egypt.  Alexandria  and  a  few  other  towns  were 
 Greek,  the  rest  of  the  country  purely  Egyptian; 
 and  it  is  quite  possible  that,  while  the  gold  and 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 silver  coinage  was  current  in  tlie  Greek  towns,  the 
 Egyptians  may  have  refused  to  take  anything  but 
 copper  on  their  own  standard.  The  issue  of  copper 
 coins  above  their  value  would  have  been  a  sacrifice 
 to  the  exchequer,  if  given  in  exchange  for  gold  or 
 silver,  rough  or  coined ;  but  they  might  iiave  been 
 exclusively  paid  out  for  salaries  and  small  expendi- 
 ture, and  would  have  given  an  enormous  profit  to 
 the  government,  if  repaid  in  small  taxes.  Suppos- 
 ing that  a  village  paid  a  silver  mina  in  taxes  col- 
 lected from  small  proprietors,  if  they  had  only  cop- 
 per the  government  would  receive  in  excess  180,000 
 grs.,  or  not  much  less  tlian  a  fifth  of  the  whole 
 amount.  No  one  who  is  conversant  with  the 
 East  in  the  present  day  will  deny  the  possibility  of 
 such  a  state  of  things  in  Egypt  under  the  Ptole- 
 mies. Our  decision  may  be  aided  by  the  results 
 of  the  two  theories  upon  the  relations  of  the 
 metals. 
 
 Nominal  relation 
 
 Relation  in  weight 
 
 AI    1     =  Al  12.5   =  ^   60 
 
 (Stater)  (Mina)       (Talent) 
 
 AT  1    —  ^750 
 
 AT    1    =  Al  12.5  =  m\11 
 AT   1     = 
 
 ^  I  1,000 
 
 It  must  be  remembered  that,  in  endeavoring  to 
 determine  which  of  these  two  relations  is  the  cor- 
 rect one,  we  must  be  guided  by  the  evidence  of  an- 
 tiquity, not  by  the  mathematical  proportions  of  the 
 results,  for  we  are  now  not  dealing  with  coins,  but 
 with  relations  only  originally  in  direct  connection 
 with  systems  of  coinage. 
 
 Letronne  gives  the  relation  of  silver  to  copper 
 among  the  Komans,  at  the  end  of  the  Third  Punic 
 War,  as  1:  112,  reduced  from  1:  83.3,  both  much 
 higher  values  of  the  former  metal  than  1 :  60.  It 
 is  therefore  reasonable  to  suppose  that  tlie  relation 
 of  1 :  80  is  that  which  prevailed  in  Egypt  under 
 the  Ptolemies,  and  so  at  the  time  at  which  the 
 first  Jewish  coins  were  struck,  that  of  Simon  the 
 Maccabee. 
 
 We  may  therefore  suppose  that  the  Hebrew 
 talents  of  silver  and  copper  were  exchangeable  in 
 the  proportion  of  about  1:80,  and,  as  we  have 
 seen  that  the  coins  show  that  their  shekels  were  of 
 the  relative  weight  1  :  2-|-,  we  may  take  as  the 
 basis  of  our  computation  the  supposition  that  50 
 shekels  of  silver  were  equal  to  a  talent  of  copper, 
 or  100  =:  1  talent  double  the  former.  We  pre- 
 fer the  former  relation  as  that  of  the  Egyptian 
 system. 
 
 220X50=11.000  grs.  X60=660,000-i-1500=440-f-2=220 
 XTO    770,000  513  3    256  6 
 
 X72    792,000  528       264 
 
 X'/5    825,000  550       275 
 
 X80    880,000  586.6   293.3 
 
 Of  these  results,  the  first  is  tflo  low,  and  the 
 fourth  and  fifth  too  high,  the  second  and  third 
 agreeing  with  our  approximative  estimate  of  the 
 shekel  and  half-shekel  of  copper.  It  is,  however, 
 possible  that  the  fourth  result  may  be  the  true  one, 
 as  some  coins  give  very  nearly  this  standard. 
 Which  is  the  right  system  can  only  be  inferred 
 from  the  effect  on  the  exchange,  althougii  it  must 
 be  remembered  that  very  awkward  exchanges  of 
 silver  and  copper  may  have  obtained  wherever  cop 
 per  was  not  an  important  metal.  Thus  at  Athens 
 8  pieces  of  brass  went  to  the  obolus,  and  7  lepta 
 to  the  piece  of  brass.     The  former  relation  would 
 
 349£ 
 
 be  easy  of  computation,  the  latter  very  inconven- 
 ient. Among  the  Jews,  the  copper  coinage  was  of 
 more  importance:  at  first  of  accurate  fabric  and 
 not  very  varying  weight,  afterwards  the  only  coin- 
 age. Its  relation  to  the  silver  money,  and  after- 
 wards to  the  Egyptian  and  Phoenician  currency  of 
 the  same  weight,  must  therefore  have  been  correct. 
 On  this  ground,  we  should  prefer  the  relation  of 
 silver  to  copper  1 :  72,  giving  a  talent  of  792,000 
 grs.,  or  nearly  twice  the  Euboic.  The  agreement 
 is  remarkable,  but  may  be  fortuitous. 
 
 Our  theory  of  the  Hebrew  coinage  would  be  as 
 follows :  — 
 
 Gold   .   .  Shekel  or  Dane  (foreign)  129  grs. 
 Silver    .  Shekel  220.  Half-shekel  110. 
 Copper  .  Half    (-shekel)   264,  Quarter    (-shekel)  132, 
 (Sixth-shekel)  88. 
 
 We  can  now  consider  the  weights. 
 
 The  gold  talent  contained  10()  manehs,  and  10,- 
 000  shekels. 
 
 The  silver  talent  contained  3,000  shekels,  0,000 
 bekas,  and  00,000  gerahs. 
 
 The  copper  talent  •  probably  contained  1,500 
 shekels. 
 
 The  "  holy  shekel,"  or  "  shekel  of  the  sanctu- 
 ary "  (tr^pn  7|7.2;''),  is  spoken  of  both  of  the 
 gold  (Ex.  xxxviii.  24)  and  silver  (25)  talents  of  the 
 time  of  the  Exodus.      We  also  read  of  "  the  king's 
 
 weight"  (Tjban  p||j,  2  Sam.  xiv.  26).  But 
 there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  different  systems 
 to  be  meant. 
 
 The  significations  of  the  names  of  the  Hebrew 
 weights  must  be  here  stated. 
 
 The  talent  (133)  means  "  a  circle,"  or 
 "globe,"  probably  '•  an  aggregate  sum." 
 
 The  shekel  (V'^tL"')  signifies  simply  "a  weight." 
 
 The  beka  (^^f^S)  or  half-shekel,  signifies  "  a 
 division,"  or  "  half" 
 
 The  "  quarter-.shekel "  ( ''|2^  ^r^"?.)  is  once 
 mentioned  (1  Sam.  ix.  8). 
 
 The  gerah  (m_2)  signifies  "  a  grain,"  or 
 "  bean." 
 
 IV.  The  History  and  Relations  of  the  Princi- 
 pal Ancient  Talents.  —  It  is  necessary  to  add  a 
 view  of  the  history  and  relations  of  the  talents  we 
 have  discussed  in  order  to  show  what  light  our  the- 
 ories throw  upon  these  matters.  The  inquiry  must 
 be  prefaced  by  a  list  of  the  talents :  — 
 
 A.  E.4STERN  Talents. 
 Hebrew  gold   .   1,320,000     Hebrew  silver      .     660,000 
 Babylonian  )  .   .  qrq  aj a     Babylonian  lesser  )  A-ja  Mn 
 
 (silver)      j  .  .         '  (silver)  |         ' 
 
 Egyptian  .   ,  .  .  840,000 
 
 Persian  gold  399,600 
 
 Hebrew  copper  ?  792,000  ? 
 
 B.  Greek  Talents. 
 
 ^ginetan 660,000 
 
 Attic  Commercial 598,800 
 
 Attic  Commercial,  lowered      ....  558.900 
 
 Attic  Solouian,  double 860,520 
 
 Attic  Solonian,  ordinary 4.30,260 
 
 Attic  Solonian,  lowered 405,000 
 
 Euboic 387,000-t- 
 
 We  omit  the  talent  of  the  coins  of  iEgina,  as  a 
 mere  monetary  variety  of  the  ^ginetan,  through 
 the  Attic  Commercial. 
 
3500 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 We  take  the  Hebrew  to  be  the  oldest  system  of 
 weight.  Apart  from  tlie  evidence  from  its  relation 
 to  the  other  systems,  this  may  be  almost  proved  by 
 our  finding  it  to  obtain  in  Greece,  in  Phoenicia,  and 
 in  Judsea,  as  tlie  oldest  Greek  and  Phoenician 
 system,  and  as  the  Jewish  system.  As  the  Jewish 
 system,  it  must  have  been  of  far  greater  antiquity 
 than  the  date  of  the  earliest  coin  struck  upon  it. 
 The  weight  according  to  which  tlie  ransom  was  first 
 paid  must  have  been  retained  as  the  fixed  legal 
 standard.  It  may  seem  surprising,  when  we  re- 
 member the  general  tendency  of  money  to  depreci- 
 ate, of  which  such  instances  as  those  of  the  Athen- 
 ian silver  and  the  Knglish  gold  will  occur  to  the 
 reader,  that  this  system  should  have  been  ])reserved, 
 by  any  but  the  Hebrews,  at  its  full  weight,  from 
 the  time  of  the  Exodus  to  that  of  the  earliest  Greek 
 coins  upon  the  ^ginetan  standard,  a  period  proba- 
 bly of  not  much  less  tiian  a  thousand  years;  but  we 
 may  cite  the  case  of  the  solidus  of  the  lioman  and 
 Byzantine  emperors,  which  retained  its  weight  from 
 its  origination  under  Constantine  the  Great  until 
 the  fall  of  Constantinople,  and  its  purity  from  the 
 time  of  Constantine  until  that  of  Alexius  Comne- 
 nus;  and  again  the  long  celebrity  of  the  sequin  of 
 Venice  and  the  florin  of  Venice  for  their  exact 
 weight.  It  must  be  remembered,  moreover,  that 
 in  Phoenicia,  and  originally  in  Greece,  this  system 
 was  that  of  the  great  trading  nation  of  antiquity, 
 who  would  have  had  the  same  interest  as  the  Ve- 
 netians and  Florentines  in  maintaining  the  full 
 monetary  standard.  There  is  a  remarkable  evi- 
 dence in  favor  of  the  antiquity  of  this  weight  in 
 the  circumstance  that,  after  it  had  been  depreciated 
 in  the  coins  of  the  kings  and  cities  of  Macedon,  it 
 was  restored,  in  the  silver  money  of  Philip  II.,  to 
 its  full  monetary  standard. 
 
 The  Hel)rew  system  had  two  talents  for  the 
 precious  metals  in  the  relation  of  2:  1.  The  gold 
 talent,  apparently  not  used  elsewhere,  contained 
 100  nianehs,  each  of  which  contained  again  100 
 shekels,  there  being  thus  10,000  of  these  units, 
 weighing  about  132  grs.  each,  in  the  talent. 
 
 The  silver  talent  also  known  as  the  vEginetan 
 contained  3,000  shekels,  weighing  about  220  grs. 
 each.  One  gold  talent  appears  to  have  been  equal 
 to  24  of  these.  The  reason  for  making  the  talent 
 of  gold  twice  that  of  silver  was  probably  merely 
 for  the  sake  of  distinction. 
 
 The  Babylonian  talent,  like  the  Hebrew,  con- 
 sisted of  two  systems,  in  the  relation  of  2  to  1, 
 upon  one  standard.  It  appears  to  have  been  furmed 
 from  the  Hebrew  by  reducing  the  number  of  units 
 from  10,000  to  7,200.  The  system  was  altered  by 
 the  maneh  being  raised  so  as  to  contain  120  instead 
 of  100  units,  and  the  talent  lowered  so  as  to  con- 
 tain 60  uistead  of  100  manehs.  It  is  possible  that 
 this  talent  was  originally  of  silver,  as  the  exchange, 
 in  their  common  unit,  with  the  Hebrew  gold,  in 
 the  relation  of  1  :  12,  would  be  easy,  6  units  of 
 the  gold  talent  passing  for  72  of  the  silver,  so  that 
 10  gold  units  would  be  equal  to  a  silver  maneh, 
 whicli  may  explain  the  reason  of  the  change  in 
 the  division  of  the  talent. 
 
 The  derivation,  from  the  hghter  Babylonian  tal- 
 ent, of  the  Euboic  talent,  is  easily  ascertained. 
 Their  relation  is  that  of  6:  5,  so  that  the  whole 
 talents  could  be  readily  exchanged  in  the  relation 
 of  12  :  1;  and  the  units  lieing  common,  their  ex- 
 change would  be  even  more  easy. 
 
 The  Egyptian  talent  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
 other.     Either   it   is   an  independent  system,  or, 
 
 perhaps  it  is  the  oldest  talent  and  parent  o/  the 
 rest.  The  Hebrew  copper  talent  is  equally  ob- 
 scure. Perhaps  it  is  the  double  of  the  Persian 
 gold  talent. 
 
 The  ^ginetan  talent,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the 
 same  as  the  lesser  or  silver  Hebrew  talent.  Its  in- 
 troduction into  Greece  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
 Phoenicians.  The  Attic  Commercial  was  a  degra- 
 dation of  this  talent,  and  was  itself  further  de- 
 graded to  form  the  Attic  Solonian.  The  JLginetan 
 talent  thus  had  five  successive  standards  (1,  Orig- 
 inal ^ginetan;  2,  Attic  Commercial;  3,  Id.  low- 
 ered; 4,  Attic  Solonian;  5,  Id.  lowered)  in  the 
 following  relation :  — 
 
 n. 
 
 m. 
 
 IV. 
 
 6.  :  .5.44  :    5.  :  3.9  :  8.6 
 6.  :  4.3 
 
 6.  :  4.3 
 
 The  first  change  was  probably  simply  a  degra- 
 dation. The  second  may  have  been  due  to  the 
 influence  of  a  Graeco-Asiatic  talent  of  Cyzicus  or 
 Pliocfea,  of  which  the  stater  contained  about  180 
 grs.  of  gold,  although  weighing,  through  the  addi- 
 tion of  60  grs.  of  silver,  about  240  grs.,  thus  im- 
 plying a  talent  in  the  relation  to  the  .^Eginetan  of 
 aliout.5:  6.  Solon's  change  has  been  hitherto  an 
 unresolved  enigma.  The  relation  of  the  two  Attic 
 talents  is  so  awkward  that  scarcely  any  division  is 
 common  to  them  in  weight,  as  may  be  inferred 
 from  the  data  in  the  table  of  Athenian  weights 
 that  we  have  given.  Had  the  heavier  talent  been 
 divided  into  quarters,  and  the  lighter  into  thirds, 
 tliis  would  not  have  been  the  case.  The  reason  of 
 Solon's  change  is  tlierefore  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
 influence  of  some  other  talent.  It  has  been  sup- 
 posed that  this  talent  was  the  Euboic,  but  this 
 theory  is  destroyed  l)y  our  discovery  that  the  Attic 
 standard  of  the  oldest  coins  is  below  the  weight- 
 standard  of  about  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian 
 War,  and  tinis  that  the  reduction  of  Solon  did  not 
 bring  the  weights  down  to  the  Euboic  standard. 
 If  we  look  elsewhere  we  see  that  the  heavier  Solo- 
 nian weight  is  almo.st  the  same  in  standard  as  the 
 Egyptian,  the  didrachm  of  the  former  exceeding 
 the  unit  of  the  latter  by  no  more  than  uliout  3  grs. 
 This  explanation  is  almost  proved  to  he  the  true 
 one  by  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  Attic  Solonian 
 talent,  apparently  unlike  all  other  Greek  talents, 
 had  a  double  talent,  which  would  give  a  drachm 
 instead  of  a  didrachm,  equiv.alent  to  the  Egyptian 
 unit.  At  the  time  of  Solon  nothing  would  be  more 
 likely  than  such  an  Egyptian  influence  as  this  ex- 
 planation implies.  The  commercial  relations  of 
 Egypt  and  Greece,  through  Naucratis,  were  then 
 active;  and  the  tradition  or  myth  of  tlie  Egyptian 
 origin  of  the  Athenians  v^'as  probably  never  stronger. 
 The  degradation  of  the  Attic  Solonian  talent  was  no 
 doubt  eflTected  by  the  influence  of  the  Euboic,  with 
 the  standard  of  which  its  lower  standard  is  probably 
 identical. 
 
 The  principal  authorities  upon  this  subject  are  : 
 Boeckli's  Me/rohH/ische  Uniersuclnmyen  ;  Jlomm- 
 sen's  Gescliiclile  i/es  Rihnhchen  Miimwesvns  ;  and 
 Hussey's  Ancient  Weights.  Don  V.  Vazquez 
 Queipo's  Ess'ii  sw-  les  Systemes  Miiriquts  et  Mon. 
 c'Idires  des  Anciens  Peuplcs  also  contains  much 
 information.  The  writer  must  express  his  obliga- 
 tioiis  to  Mr.  de  Salis,  Mr.  Vaux,  and  jNIr.  E. 
 Wigaii,  and  more  especially  to  liis  colleagues  Mr 
 Madden  and  Mr.  Coxe,  for  valuable  assistance. 
 
 K.  S.  P. 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 3501 
 
 II.  MEASURES. 
 
 The  most  important  topic  to  be  discussed  in 
 connection  with  the  subject  of  the  Heljrew  measures 
 is  their  relative  and  absolute  valij^.  Another  topic, 
 of  secondary  importance  perhaps,  but  possessing  an 
 independent  interest  of  its  own,  demands  a  few 
 prefatory  remarks,  namely,  the  origin  of  these 
 measures,  and  their  relation  to  those  of  surround- 
 ing countries.  The  measures  of  length  are  cliiefly 
 derived  from  the  members  of  the  human  body, 
 which  are  happily  adapted  to  the  purpose  from  the 
 circumstance  that  they  exhibit  certain  definite  pro- 
 portions relatively  to  each  other.  It  is  unneces- 
 sary to  assume  that  a  system  founded  on  such  a 
 basis  was  the  invention  of  any  single  nation:  it 
 would  naturally  be  adopted  by  all  in  a  rude  state 
 of  society.  Nevertheless,  the  particular  parts  of 
 the  body  selected  for  the  purpose  may  form  more 
 or  less  a  connecting  link  between  the  systems  of 
 various  nations.  It  will  be  observed  in  the  sequel 
 that  the  Hebrews  restricted  themselves  to  the  fore- 
 arm, to  the  exclusion  of  the  foot  and  also  of  the 
 pace,  as  a  proper  measure  of  length.  The  adop- 
 tion of  foreign  names  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  as 
 showing  a  probability  that  the  measures  themselves 
 were  borrowed.  Hence  the  occurrence  of  words  of 
 Egyptian  extraction,  such  as  hin  and  epliah,  and 
 probably  ammah  (for  "culiit"),  inclines  us  to  seek 
 for  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  scales  both  of  length 
 and  capacity  in  that  quarter.  The  measures  of 
 capacity,  which  have  no  such  natural  standard  as 
 those  of  length,  would  more  prol)ably  be  settled  liy 
 conventional  usage,  and  the  existence  of  similar 
 measures,  or  of  a  similar  scale  of  measures  in  dif- 
 ferent nations;  would  furnish  a  strong  probability 
 of  their  having  been  derived  from  some  conunon 
 source.  Thus  the  coincidence  of  the  Helirew  l)ath 
 being  subdivided  into  72  logs,  and  the  Athenian 
 metnti's  into  72  xtslte,  can  hardly  be  the  result  of 
 chance;  and,  if  there  further  exists  a  correspond- 
 ence between  the  ratios  that  the  weights  bear  to 
 the  measures,  there  would  be  still  further  evidence 
 of  a  common  origin.  Boeckh,  who  lias  gone  fully 
 into  this  subject  in  his  Meti-olor/Uche  Unlersucli- 
 un(/en,  traces  back  the  wliole  system  of  weights 
 and  measures  prevalent  among  the  civilized  nations 
 of  antiquity  to  Baijyloii  (p.  -id).  The  scanty  in- 
 formation we  possess  relative  to  the  Hebrew  weights 
 and  measures  as  a  connected  system,  precludes  the 
 possibility  of  our  assigning  a  definite  place  to  it  in 
 ancient  metrology.  The  names  already  referred  to 
 lead  to  the  inference  that  Kgypt  rather  than  Bal)y- 
 lonia  was  the  quarter  whence  it  was  derived,  and  the 
 identity  of  the  Hebrew  with  the  Athenian  scales 
 for  liquids  furnishes  strong  evidence  that  these  had 
 a  comnmnity  of  origin.  It  is  important,  however, 
 to  oliserve  in  connection  with  this  subject,  that  an 
 identity  of  ratios  does  not  involve  an  identity  of 
 absolute  quantities,  a  distinction  which  very  possi- 
 bly escaped  the  notice  of  early  writers,  who  were 
 not  umiaturally  led  to  identify  the  measures  in 
 their  absolute  values,  because  they  held  the  same 
 relative  positions  in  the  several  scales. 
 
 «  rsrs. 
 
 ''  notD. 
 
 c  mf. 
 
 ''  nSS.  This  term  is  generally  referred  to  a 
 Coptic  origin,  being  derived  from  a  word,  make  or 
 'uahi,  signifviug  the  "  fore- arm,"  which  with  the  ar- 
 ticle prefixed  becomes  ammahi  (Boeckh,  p.  265).  Ge- 
 Benius,  however,  refers  it  to  fae  Hebrew  word  signify- 
 
 We  divide  the  Hebrew  measures  into  two  classes, 
 according  as  they  refer  to  length  or  capacity,  and 
 subdivide  each  of  these  classes  into  two,  the  former 
 into  measures  of  length  and  distance,  the  latter  into 
 liquid  and  dry  measures. 
 
 1.  Measures  of  length. 
 
 (1.)  The  denominations  referring  to  length  were 
 derived  for  the  most  part  from  the  arm  and  hand. 
 We  may  notice  the  following  tour  as  derived  from 
 this  source:  («.)  The  etslxi,"  or  finger's  breadth, 
 mentioned  only  in  Jer.  lii.  21.  (0.)  The  tcphachj' 
 or  hand  breadth  (Ex.  xxv.  25;  1  K.  vii.  20;  2 
 Chr.  iv.  5),  applied  metaphorically  to  a  short  period 
 of  time  in  Ps.  xxxix.  5.  {<:.)  The  zereth,"  or  span, 
 tiie  distance  between  the  extremities  of  the  thumlj 
 and  the  little  finger  in  the  extended  hand  ( Ex.  xxviii. 
 16;  1  Sam.  xvii.  4;  Ez.  xliii.  13),  applied  gener- 
 ally to  describe  any  small  measure  in  Is.  xl  12. 
 {(1.)  The  ammdh,''  or  cubit,  the  distance  from  the 
 elbow  to  the  extremity  of  the  middle  finger.  This 
 occurs  very  frequently  in  the  Bible  in  relation  to 
 buildings,  such  as  the  Ark  (Gen.  vi.  15),  the  Tab 
 ernacle  (lix.  xxvi.,  xxvii.),  and  the  Temple  (1  K. 
 vi.  2;  Ez.  xl.,  xli.),  as  well  as  in  relation  to  man's 
 stature  (1  Sam.  xvii.  4;  Matt.  vi.  27),  and  othei 
 olijects  (Esth.  V.  14;  Zech.  v.  2).  In  addition  to 
 the  above  we  may  notice:  (e.)  The  f/6ined,<^  lit.  a 
 rorf,  applied  to  Eglon's  dirk  (Judg.  iii.  16).  Its 
 length  is  uncertain,  but  it  probably  fell  below  the 
 cubit,  with  which  it  is  identified  in  the  X.  V.  (/.) 
 The  kdneli,f  or  reed  (compare  our  word  "cane") 
 for  measuring  buildings  on  a  large  scale  (Ez.  d 
 5-8,  xU.  8,  xlii.  16-11) ). 
 
 Little  information  is  furnished  by  the  Bible  itself 
 as  to  the  relative  or  absolute  lengths  described  under 
 the  above  terms.  With  the  exception  of  the  notice 
 that  the  reed  equals  six  cubits  (Ez.  xl.  5),  we  have 
 no  intimation  that  the  measures  were  combined  in 
 anything  like  a  scale.  We  should  indeed  infer 
 the  reverse,  from  the  circumstance  that  Jeremiah 
 speaks  of  "four  fingers,"  where  according  to  the 
 .scale,  he  would  have  said  "a  hand  breadth;  "  that 
 in  the  description  of  Goliath's  height  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
 4),  the  expression  "  six  cubits  and  a  span,"  is  used 
 instead  of  "  six  cubits  and  a  half;  "  and  that  Ezekiel 
 mentions  "span  "  and  "half  a  cubit"  in  close  jux- 
 taposition (xliii.  13, 17),  as  though  they  bore  no  re- 
 lation to  each  other  either  in  the  ordinary  or  the 
 long  cubit.  That  the  denominations  held  a  certain 
 ratio  to  each  other,  arising  out  of  the  proportions 
 of  the  members  in  the  body,  could  hardly  escape 
 notice ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  ever 
 worked  up  into  an  artificial  scale.  The  most  im- 
 portant conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  Biblical 
 notices,  is  to  the  effect  that  the  cubit,  which  may  be 
 regarded  as  the  standard  measure,  was  of  varying 
 length,  and  that,  in  order  to  secure  accuracy,  it 
 w;is  necessary  to  define  the  kind  of  culiit  intended, 
 the  result  being  that  the  other  denominations,  if 
 combined  in  a  scale,  would  vary  in  like  ratio.  Thus 
 in  Deut.  iii.  11,  the  cubit  is  specified  to  be  "  after 
 the  cubit  of  a  man ;  "  in  2  Chr.  iii.  3,  "  after  the 
 first,"  or  rather  "after  the  older f  measure;  "  and 
 in  Ez.  xli.  8,  "  a  great  cubit,"  or  literally  "  a  cubit 
 
 ing  "  mother,"  as  though  the  fore-arm  were  in  somn 
 sense  the  "  mother  of  the  arm  "  (T/ies.  p.  110). 
 
 v't 
 0  That  the  expression  H^^tTST  applies  to  priority 
 of  time,  as  well  as  of  order,  is  clear  from  many  pas  ■ 
 sages,  as  c.  g.,  2  K.  xvii.  34 ;  I^zr.  iii.  12  ;  Hag.  ii.  3. 
 
3502 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 to  the  joint,"  which  is  further  defined  in  xl.  5,  to 
 oe  "  a  cul)it  and  an  hand-breadth."  These  expres- 
 sions involve  one  of  the  most  knotty  points  of 
 Hebrew  arclia}olog}-,  namely,  the  number  and  the 
 respective  lengths  of  the  Scriptural  cubits.  That 
 there  was  more  than  one  cubit,  is  clear;  but  whether 
 there  were  three,  or  only  two,  is  not  so  clear.  We 
 shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  topic  again ; 
 for  the  present  we  siiall  confine  ourselves  to  the 
 consideration  of  the  expressions  themselves.  A 
 cubit  "after  the  cubit  of  a  man,"  implies  the  ex- 
 istence of  another  cubit,  which  was  either  longer  or 
 shorter  than  it,  and  from  analogy  it  may  be  taken 
 for  granted  that  this  second  cubit  would  be  the 
 longer  of  the  two.  But  what  is  meant  by  the 
 "  «)H7/if(A  of  a  man?"  Is  it  the  cubitus  in  the 
 anatomical  sense  of  the  term,  in  other  words, 
 the  bone  of  the  fore-arm  between  the  elbow  and 
 the  wrist?  or  is  it  the  full  culiit  in  the  ordinary 
 sense  of  the  term,  from  the  elbow  to  the  extremity 
 of  the  middle  finger?  What,  again,  are  we  to 
 understand  by  Ezekiel's  expre.ssion,  "cubit  to  the 
 joint?"  The  term  atstsil,"  is  explained  by  Gese- 
 nius  ( Thes.  p.  144)  of  the  knuckks,  and  not  of  the 
 "armholes,"  as  in  the  A.  V.  of  Jer.  xxxviii.  12, 
 where  our  translators  have  omitted  all  reference  to 
 the  word  ydtlecd,  which  follows  it.  A  "  cubit  to 
 the  knuckles  "  would  imply  the  space  from  the 
 elbow  to  the  knuckles,  and  as  this  cubit  exceeded 
 by  a  hand-breadth  the  ordinary  cubit,  we  should 
 infer  that  it  was  contradistinguished  from  the  cubit 
 that  reached  only  to  the  wrist.  The  meaning  of 
 the  word  is,  however,  contested  :  Hitzig  gives  it  the 
 sense  of  a  conneclmy  ivall  ( Coiiim.  on  Jer.).  Stur- 
 mius  (Sci.ai/r.  p.  94)  understands  it  of  the  eclye  of 
 the  walls,  and  others  in  the  sense  of  a  loinc/  of  a 
 building  (Rosenmiiller,  Schol.  in  Jer.).  Michaelis 
 on  the  other  hand  understands  it  of  the  knuckles 
 (Stipplem.  p.  119),  and  so  does  Saalschiitz  (Arcluiol. 
 ii.  165).  The  expressions  now  discussed,  taken 
 together,  certainly  fiivor  the  idea  that  the  cubit 
 of  the  Bible  did  not  come  up  to  the  full  length  of 
 the  cubit  of  other  countries.  A  further  question 
 remains  to  be  discussed,  namely,  whether  more  than 
 two  cubits  were  in  vogue  among  the  Hebrews.  It 
 is  generally  conceded  that  the  "former"  or  "  older" 
 measure  of  2  Chr.  iii.  3,  was  the  Mosaic  or  legal 
 cubit,  and  that  the  modern  measure,  the  existence 
 of  which  is  implied  in  that  designation,  was  some- 
 what larger.  Further,  the  cubit  "  after  the  cubit 
 of  a  man  "  of  Deut.  iii.  11,  is  held  to  be  a  com- 
 mon measure  in  contradistinction  to  the  Mosaic 
 one,  and  to  have  fallen  below  this  latter  in  point 
 of  length  In  this  case,  we  should  have  three 
 cubits  — the  common,  the  Mosaic  or  old  measure, 
 and  the  new  measure.  We  turn  to  Ezekiel  and 
 find  a  distinction  of  another  character,  namely,  a 
 long  and  a  short  cubit.  Now,  it  has  been  urged 
 by  many  writers,  and  we  think  with  good  reason, 
 that  Ezekiel  would  not  be  likely  to  adopt  any  other 
 than  the  old  orthodox  Mosaic  standard  for  the 
 measurements  of  his  ideal  temple.  If  so,  his  long 
 cubit  would  be  identified  with  the  old  measure, 
 and  his  short  cubit  with  the  one  "after  the  cubit 
 of  a  man,"  and  the  neiv  measure  of  2  Chr.  iii.  3 
 would  represent  a  still  longer  cubit  than  Ezekiel's 
 long  one.  Other  explanations  of  the  prophet's 
 language  have,  however,  been  offered .  it  has  been 
 
 6  Kuobel  assumes  that  there  were  steps,  and  that 
 
 .sometimes  assumed  that,  while  living  in  Chaldoea, 
 he  and  his  countrymen  had  adopted  the  long  Baby- 
 lonian cubit  (Jahn,  Archceol.  §  113);  but  in  this 
 case  his  short  cubit  could  not  have  belonged  to  the 
 same  country,  inaynuch  as  the  difference  between 
 these  two  amounted  to  only  three  fingers  (Herod, 
 i.  178).  Again,  it  has  been  explained  that  his 
 short  cubit  was  the  ordinary  Chaldsean  measure, 
 and  the  long  one  the  Rlosaic  measure  (RosenmiiUer, 
 in  Kz.  xl.  5);  but  this  is  unlikely  on  account  of  the 
 respective  lengths  of  the  Babylonian  and  the  Mosaic 
 cubits,  to  which  we  shall  hereafter  refer.  Inde- 
 pendently of  these  objections,  we  think  that  the 
 passages  previously  discussed  (Deut.  iii.  11;  2  Chr. 
 iii.  3)  imply  the  existence  of  three  cubits.  It  re- 
 mains to  be  inquired  whether  from  the  Bible  itself 
 we  can  extract  any  information  as  to  the  length 
 of  the  Mosaic  or  legal  cubit.  The  notices  of  the 
 height  of  the  altar  and  of  the  height  of  the  lavers 
 in  the  Temple  are  of  importance  in  this  respect. 
 In  the  former  case  three  cubits  is  specified  (Ex. 
 xxvii.  1),  with  a  direct  prohibition  against  the  use 
 of  steps  (Ex.  XX.  26);  in  the  latter,  the  height  of 
 the  base  on  which  the  laver  was  placed  was  three 
 cubits  (1  K.  vii.  27).  If  we  adopt  the  ordinary 
 length  of  the  cubit  (say  20  inches),  the  heights 
 of  the  altar  and  of  the  base  would  be  5  feet.  But 
 it  would  be  extremely  inconvenient,  if  not  im- 
 possible, to  minister  at  an  altar,  or  to  use  a  laver 
 placed  at  such  a  height.  In  order  to  meet  this 
 difficulty  without  any  alteration  of  the  length  of 
 the  cubit,  it  must  be  assumed  *  that  an  inclined 
 plane  led  up  to  it,  as  was  the  case  with  the  loftier 
 altar  of  the  Temple  (Mishn.  Midd.  3,  §§  1,  3). 
 But  such  a  contrivance  is  contrary  to  the  spirit,  of 
 the  text;  and,  even  if  suited  to  the  altar,  would  be 
 wholly  needless  for  the  lavers.  Hence  Saalschiitz 
 infers  that  the  cubit  did  not  exceed  a  Prussian  foot, 
 which  is  less  thau  an  English  foot  [Archdul.  ii. 
 167).  The  other  instances  adduced  by  him  are  not 
 so  much  to  the  point.  The  molten  sea  was  not 
 designed  for  the  purpose  of  bathing  (though  this 
 impression  is  conveyed  by  2  Chr.  iv.  6  as  given  in 
 the  A.  v.),  and  therefore  no  conclusion  can  be 
 drawn  fron)  the  depth  of  the  water  in  it.  The 
 height  of  Og,  as  inferred  from  the  length  of  his 
 bedstead  (9  cubits,  Deut.  iii.  11),  and  the  height 
 of  Uoliath  (6  cubits  and  a  span,  1  Sam.  xvii.  4), 
 are  not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  cubit  about 
 18  inches  long,  if  credit  can  be  given  to  other 
 recorded  instances  of  extraordinary  stature  (Plin. 
 vii.  2,  16;  Herod,  i.  68;  Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  4,  § 
 5).  At  the  same  time  the  rendering  of  the  LXX. 
 in  1  Sam.  xvii.  4,  which  is  followed  by  Josephus 
 {Ant.  vi.  9,  §  1),  and  which  reduces  the  number 
 of  cubits  to  four,  suggests  either  .an  error  in  the 
 Hebrew  text,  or  a  considerable  increase  in  the 
 length  of  the  cubit  in  later  times. 
 
 The  foregoing  examination  of  Biblical  notices 
 has  tended  to  the  conclusion  that  the  cubit  of  early 
 times  fell  far  below  the  length  usually  assigned  to 
 it ;  but  these  notices  are  so  scanty  and  ambiguous 
 that  this  conclusion  is  liy  no  means  decisive.  We 
 now  turn  to  collateral  sources  of  information,  which 
 we  will  follow  out  as  far  as  possible  in  chrono- 
 logical order.  The  earliest  and  most  reliable  testi- 
 mony as  to  the  length  of  the  cubit  is  supj)lied  by 
 the  existing  specimens  of  old  Egyptian  measures. 
 
 the  prohibition  in  Ex.  xx.  26  emanates  from  an  autboi 
 who  wrote  in  ignorance  of  the  previous  directions 
 {Comm.  on  Ex.  xxvii.  1). 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 3503 
 
 Several  of  these  have  been  discovered  in  lombs, 
 carrying  us  back  at  all  events  to  1700  i?.  C,  while 
 the  Nilonieter  at  Elephantine  exhiljits  the  len^tii 
 of  the  cubit  in  the  time  of  the  lioman  emperors. 
 No  great  difference  is  exhil)ited.iu  these  measures, 
 the  longest  being  estimated  at  about  21  inches, 
 and  the  shortest  at  about  20-i,  or  exactly  20.472!) 
 inches  (Wili<inson,  Anc.'Kg.  ii.  258).  They  are 
 divided  into  28  digits,  and  in  this  respect  contrast 
 with  the  Mosaic  cubit,  which,  according  to  Kal)- 
 binical  authorities,  was  divided  into  24:  digits. 
 There  is  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  this  dis- 
 crepancy with  the  almost  certain  fact  of  the  deri- 
 vation of  the  cubit  from  ]'"gypt.  It  has  been 
 generally  surmised  that  the  Egyptian  cubit  was  of 
 more  than  one  lengtli,  and  that  the  sepulchral 
 measures  exhibit  the  shorter  as  well  as  the  longer 
 by  special  marks.  Wilkinson  denies  the  existence 
 of  more  than  one  cubit  {Anc.  F.ij.  ii.  257-2.39), 
 apparently  on  the  ground  that  the  total  lengths  of 
 the  nieasures  do  not  materially  vary.  It  may  be 
 conceded  that  the  measures  are  intended  to  repre- 
 sent the  same  length,  the  variation  being  simply 
 the  result  of  mechanical  inaccuracy;  but  this  does 
 not  decide  the  question  of  the  doulile  cubit,  which 
 rather  turns  on  the  peculiarities  of  notation  ob- 
 servable on  tiiese  measures.  For  a  full  discussion 
 of  this  point  we  must  reler  the  reader  to  Thenius's 
 essay  in  the  TIteolughche  Stwlicn  und  Kritiken  for 
 184G,  pp.  297-342.  Our  limits  will  permit  only  a 
 brief  statement  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  of  the 
 views  expressed  in  reference  to  them.  The  most 
 perfect  of  the  ICgyptian  cubit  measures  are  tiiose 
 preserved  in  the  Turin  and  Louvre  Mu.seinns.  rhese 
 are  unequally  divided  into  two  parts,  the  one  on 
 the  right  hand  containing  15,  and  the  other  1.3 
 digits.  In  the  former  part  the  digits  are  sub- 
 divided into  aliquot  parts  from  1  to  _L,  reckoning 
 from  right  to  left.  In  the  latter  part  the  digits 
 are  marked  on  the  lower  edge  in  the  Turin,  and  cju 
 the  upper  edge  in  the  Louvre  measure.  In  the 
 Turin  measure  the  three  left-hand  digits  exceed  the 
 others  in  size,  and  have  marks  over  them  indicating 
 either  fingers  or  the  numerals  1,  2,  3.  The  four 
 left-hand  digits  are  also  marked  off  from  the  rest 
 by  a  double  stroke,  and  are  further  distinguished  by 
 hieroglyphic  marks  supposed  to  indicate  that  they 
 are  digits  of  the  old  measure.  There  are  also 
 special  marks  between  the  6th  and  7th,  and  be- 
 tween the  10th  and  11th  digits  of  the  left  hand 
 portion.  In  the  Louvre  cubit  two  digits  are  marked 
 off  on  the  lower  edge  hy  lines  running  in  a  slight- 
 ly trans\erse  direction,  thus  producing  a  greater 
 length  than  is  given  on  the  upper  side.  It  has 
 been  found  that  each  of  the  three  above  specified 
 digits  in  the  Turin  measure  =  J-p  of  the  whole 
 length,  less  these  three  digits;  or,  to  put  it  in 
 another  form,  the  four  left-hand  digits  =  1  of  the 
 25  right-hand  digits:  also  that  each  of  the  two 
 digits  in  the  Louvre  measure  ^  J-j-  of  the  whole 
 length,  less  these  two  digits;  and  further,  that 
 twice  the  left  half  of  either  measure  =  the  whole 
 length  of  the  Louvre  measure,  less  the  two  digits. 
 Most  writers  on  the  subject  agree  in  the  conclusion 
 that  the  measures  contain  a  combination  of  two,  if 
 not  three,  kinds  of  cubit.  Great  difference  of 
 opinion,  hovi'ever,  is  manifested  as  to  particulars. 
 
 «  Tlie  pi'ecise  amount  of  484.289  is  obtained  by 
 taking  the  mean  of  the  four  followiag  amounts  :  J-^ 
 of  523.52't,  the  total  length  of  the  Turin  measure,  = 
 486.130;    twice   the  left-hand  division   of  the  same 
 
 Thenius  makes  the  difference  between  the  royaJ 
 and  old  cubits  to  be  no  more  than  two  digits,  the 
 average  length  of  the  latter  lieing  484.289"  mil- 
 limetres, or  19.006  inches,  as  compared  with 
 523.524  millimetres,  or  20.611  inelies  and  523 
 millimetres,  or  20.591  inches,  the  lengths  of  the 
 Turin  and  Louvre  measures  respectively.  He  ac- 
 counts for  the  additional  two  digits  as  originating 
 in  the  practice  of  placing  the  two  fingers  crossways 
 at  the  end  of  the  arm  and  hand  used  in  measuring, 
 so  as  to  mark  the  spot  up  to  which  the  cloth  or 
 other  article  has  been  measured.  He  further  finds, 
 in  the  notation  of  the  Turin  measure,  indications 
 of  a  third  or  ordinary  cubit  23  digits  in  length. 
 Another  explanation  is  tiiat  the  old  cubit  consisted 
 of  24  old  or  25  new  digits,  and  that  its  length  was 
 4(j2  millimetres,  or  18.189  inches;  and  again, 
 otliers  put  the  old  cubit  at  24  new  digits,  as 
 marked  on  the  measures.  The  relative  proportions 
 of  the  two  would  be,  on  these  several  hypotheses, 
 as  28  :  20,  as  28  :  25,  and  as  28  :  24. 
 
 The  use  of  more  than  one  cuMt  appears  to  have 
 also  prevailed  in  Babylon,  for  Herodotus  states 
 that  the  "royal"  exceeded  the  '-moderate"  cubit 
 (Trrjxi'S  fxerptos)  l)y  tliree  digits  (i.  178).  The 
 appellation  "royal,"  if  liorrowed  from  the  Baby- 
 lonians, would  itself  imply  the  existence  of  another; 
 liiit  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  this  other  was 
 the  "moderate"  cubit  mentioned  in  the  text.  The 
 majority  of  critics  think  that  Herodotus  is  there 
 speaking  of  the  ordinary  Greek  cubit  (Boeckh,  p. 
 214),  though  the  opposite  view  is  attirmed  by 
 Grote  in  his  notice  of  Boeckh's  work  ( Cl'iss.  Mus. 
 i.  28).  Even  if  the  Greek  cubit  be  understood,  a 
 further  ditficulty  arises  out  of  the  uncertainty 
 whetiier  Herodotus  is  speaking  of  digits  as  they 
 stood  on  the  Greek  or  on  the  Babylonian  nieasure. 
 In  the  one  case  the  proportions  of  the  two  would 
 be  as  8:7,  in  the  other  case  as  9:8.  Boeckh 
 adopts  the  Babylonian  digits  (without  good  reason, 
 we  think),  and  estimates  the  Babylonian  royal  cubit 
 at  234.2743  Paris  lines,  or  20.806  inches  (p.  219). 
 A  greater  length  would  be  assigned  to  it  according 
 to  the  data  furnished  by  M.  Oppert,  as  stated  in 
 I!awlin.son's  Herod,  i.  315;  for  if  the  cubit  and 
 foot  stood  in  the  ratio  of  5  :  3,  and  if  the  latter 
 contained  15  digits,  and  had  a  length  of  315  milli- 
 metres, then  the  length  of  the  ordinary  cubit 
 would  be  525  millimetres,  and  of  the  royal  cubit, 
 assuming,  with  Mr.  Grote,  that  the  cubits  in  each 
 case  were  Babylonian,  588  millimetres,  or  23.149 
 inches. 
 
 Reverting  to  the  Hebrew  measures,  we  should  be 
 disposed  to  identify  the  neio  measure  implied  in 
 2  Chr.  iii.  3  with  the  full  Egyptian  cubit;  the 
 ''  old  "  measure  and  Ezekiel's  cubit  with  the  lesser 
 one,  either  of  26  or  24  digits;  and  the  "  cubit  of  a 
 man  "  with  the  third  one  of  which  Thenius  speaks. 
 Boeckh,  however,  identifies  the  Blosaic  measure 
 with  the  full  Egyptian  cuiiit,  and  accounts  for  the 
 difference  in  the  number  of  digits  '>n  the  hypothesis 
 that  the  Hebrews  substituted  a  di'"sion  into  24 
 for  that  into  28  digits,  the  size  of  the  dibits  being 
 of  coin-se  increased  (pp.  266,  267).  Witb  regard 
 to  the  Babylonian  measure,  it  seems  hich'y  im- 
 probable that  either  the  ordinary  or  the  royol  f-'ibit 
 could  be  identified  with  Ezekiel's  short  cubit-  (as 
 
 measure,  =  480.792 ;  the  length  of  the  26  digits  on 
 the  Louvre  measure,  =  486.375 ;  and  twice  the  left- 
 hand  division  of  the  same,  =  483.860. 
 
3504 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 Rosenmiiller  thinks),  seeing  that  its  length  on  either 
 of  the  computations  above  offered  exceeded  that  of 
 tlie  Egyptian  cubit. 
 
 In  the  Mishnah  the  Mosaic  cubit  is  defined  to  be 
 one  of  six  palms  {  Cclini,  p.  17,  §  10).  It  is  termed 
 the  moderate"  cubit,  and  is  distinguished  from  a 
 lesser  cubit  of  five  palms  on  the  one  side  ( Celim, 
 ibid.),  and  on  the  other  side  from  a  larger  one, 
 consisting,  according  to  Bartenora  (in  Cel.  17,  § 
 9),  of  six  palms  and  a  digit.  The  palm  consisted, 
 according  to  Maiinonides  (ibid.),  of  four  digits; 
 and  the  digit,  according  to  Arias  Montanus  (Ant. 
 p.  113),  of  four  barleycorns.  This  gives  14-lr  bar- 
 leycorns as  the  length  of  the  cubit,  which  accords 
 with  the  number  assigned  to  the  cubitus  Justus  et 
 mtdiocris  of  the  Arabians  (Hoeckh,  p.  246).  The 
 length  of  the  Mosaic  cubit,  as  computed  by  The- 
 nius  (after  several  trials  with  the  specified  number 
 of  barleycorns  of  middling  size,  placed  side  by 
 side),  is  214.512  Paris  lines,  or  19.0515  inches 
 (St.  u.  Kr.  p.  110).  It  seems  hardly  possible  to 
 arrive  at  any  very  exact  conclusion  by  this  mode 
 of  calculation.  Eisenschmid  estimated  144  barley- 
 corns as  equal  to  238.35  Paris  lines  (Boeckh,  p. 
 269),  perhaps  from  having  used  larger  grains  than 
 the  average.  The  writer  of  the  article  on  "  Weights 
 and  Measures "  in  the  Penny  Cyclopaxlia  (xviii. 
 198)  gives,  as  the  result  of  his  own  experience, 
 that  38  averacje  grains  make  np  5  inches,  in  which 
 case  144  =  18.947  inches;  while  the  length  of  the 
 Arabian  cubit  referred  to  is  computed  at  213.058 
 Paris  lines  (Boeckh,  p.  247).  The  Talmudists  state 
 that  the  Mosaic  cubit  was  used  for  the  edifice  of 
 the  Tabernacle  and  Temple,  and  the  lesser  cubit 
 for  the  vessels  thereof.''  This  was  probably  a  fic- 
 tion; for  the  authorities  were  not  agreed  among 
 themselves  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  lesser 
 cubit  was  used,  some  of  them  restricting  it  to  the 
 golden  altar,  and  parts  of  the  brazen  altar  (Mish- 
 nah, Cel.  p.  17,  §  10).  But  this  distinction,  ficti- 
 tious as  it  may  have  been,  shows  that  the  cubits 
 were  not  regarded  in  the  light  of  sacred  and  pi'o- 
 J'ane,  as  stated  in  works  on  Hebrew  archteology. 
 Another  distinction,  adopted  by  the  Rabbinists  in 
 reference  to  the  palm,  would  tend  to  show  that 
 they  did  not  rigidly  adhere  to  any  definite  length 
 of  cubit :  for  they  recognized  two  kinds  of  palms, 
 one  wherein  the  fingers  lay  loosely  open,  which 
 they  denominated  a  smiling  palm  ;  the  other 
 wherein  the  fingers  were  closely  compressed,  and 
 styled  the  (jritviny  pahn  (Carpzov,  Ap/jcir.  pp. 
 674,  676). 
 
 The  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the  foregoing 
 considerations  are  not  of  the  decisive  character  that 
 we  would  wish.  For  while  the  collateral  evidence 
 derived  from  the  practice  of  the  adjacent  countries 
 and  from  later  Jewish  authorities  favors  the  idea 
 that  the  Biblical  cubit  varied  but  little  from  the 
 length  usually  assigned  to  that  measure,  the  evi- 
 dence of  the  Bible  itself  is  in  favor  of  one  consider- 
 ably shorter.  This  evidence  is,  however,  of  so  un- 
 certain a  character,  turning  on  points  of  criticism 
 and  on  brief  notices,  that  we  can  hardly  venture  to 
 adopt  it  as  our  standard.     We  accept,  therefore, 
 
 b  Hence   they  were   denominated   ^''iSn  nttW, 
 1  If 
 
 "cubit  of  the  building,"  and  D^^SH    S,  "cubit 
 
 of  the  vessels." 
 
 c  The  term   "  acre "  occurs   in   the   A.  V.  as  the 
 
 with  reservation,  the  estimate  of  Thenius,  and  from 
 the  cubit  we  estimate  the  absolute  length  of  the 
 other  denominations  according  to  the  proportions 
 existing  between  the  members  of  the  body,  the  cubit 
 equaling  the  two  spans  (compare  Ex.  xxv.  3,  10, 
 with  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  6,  §§  5,  6),  the  span  three 
 palms,  and  the  palm  four  digits. 
 
 Digit 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 24 
 144 
 
 Inches. 
 
 7938 
 
 Palm 3.1752 
 
 Span 9.5257 
 
 2     1  Cubit    ....     19.0515 
 12  6      I  Keed       .   114.3090 
 
 Land  and  area  were  measured  either  by  the  cubit 
 (Num.  XXXV.  4,  5;  Ez.  xl.  27)  or  by  the  reed  (Ez. 
 xhi.  20,  xliii.  17,  xlv.  2,  xlviii.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  16). 
 Tliere  is  no  indication  in  the  Bible  of  the  use  of  a 
 square  measure  by  the  Jews.<'  "W^henever  they 
 wished  to  define  the  size  of  a  plot,  they  specified 
 its  length  and  breadth,  even  if  it  were  a  perfect 
 square,  as  in  Ez.  xlviii.  16.  The  difficulty  of  de- 
 fining an  area  by  these  means  is  experienced  in  the 
 interpretation  of  Num.  xxxv.  4,  5,  where  the 
 suburbs  of  the  Levitical  cities  are  described  as  reach- 
 ing outward  from  the  wall  of  the  city  1,000  cubits 
 round  aliout,  and  at  the  same  time  2,000  cubits  on 
 each  side  from  without  the  city.  We  can  hardly 
 understand  these  two  measurements  otherwise  than 
 as  applying,  the  one  to  the  width,  the  other  to  the 
 external  boundary  of  the  suburb,  the  measurements 
 being  taken  respectively  perpendicular  and  parallel 
 to  the  city  walls.  But  in  this  case  it  is  necessary 
 to  understand  the  words  rendered  "  from  without 
 the  city,"  in  ver.  5,  as  meaning  to  the  exclusion  of 
 the  city,  so  that  the  length  of  the  city  wall  shoidd 
 be  added  in  each  case  to  the  2,000  cubits.  The  re- 
 sult would  be  that  the  size  of  the  areas  would  vary, 
 and  that  where  the  city  walls  were  unequal  in 
 length,  the  sides  of  the  suburb  would  be  also  un- 
 equal. For  instance,  if  the  city  wall  was  500  cubits 
 long,  then  the  side  of  the  suburb  would  be  2,500 
 cul)its;  if  the  city  wall  were  1,000  cubits,  then  the 
 side  of  the  suburb  would  be  3,000  cubits.  Assum- 
 ing the  existence  of  two  towns,  500  and  1,000  cubits 
 square,  the  area  of  the  suburb  would  in  the  former 
 case  =  0,000,000  .square  cbits,  and  would  be  24 
 times  the  size  of  the  town  ;  while  in  the  latter  case 
 the  sulnirb  would  be  8,000,000  square  cubits,  and 
 only  8  times  the  size  of  the  t'^wn.  This  explana- 
 tion is  not  wholly  satisfactory,  on  account  of  the 
 disproportion  of  the  suburbs  as  compared  with  the 
 towns ;  nevertheless  any  other  exjilanation  only  ex- 
 aggerates this  disproportion.  Keil,  in  his  comment 
 on  Josh.  xiv.  4,  assumes  that  the  city  wall  was  in 
 all  cases  to  be  regarded  as  1,000  cubits  long,  which 
 with  the  1,000  cubits  outside  the  wall,  and  measured 
 in  the  same  direction  as  the  wall,  would  make  up 
 the  2,000  cubits,  and  would  give  to  the  side  of  the 
 suburb  in  every  case  a  length  of  3,000  cubits.  The 
 olijection  to  this  view  is  that  there  is  no  evidence  as 
 to  an  uniform  length  of  the  city  walls,  and  that  the 
 suburb  might  have  been  more  conveniently  de- 
 scribed as  3,000  cubits  on  each  side.    All  ambiguity 
 
 equivalent  for  maanah  (HS^.^)  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  14. 
 
 and  forZzfwJfd  (^P^)  in  Is.  v.  10.  The  latter  term 
 also  occurs  in  the  passage  first  quoted,  and  would  with 
 more  consistency  be  rendered  acre  instead  of  "yoke." 
 It  means  such  an  amount  of  land  as  a  yoke  of  oxen 
 would  plough  in  a  d.ay.     Maanah  mef  ns  a  furrow. 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 3501 
 
 Mould  have  been  avoided  if  the  size  of  the  suburb 
 had  been  decided  either  by  absolute  or  relative 
 acreaffe;  in  other  words,  if  it  were  to  consist  in  all 
 cases  of  a  certain  fixed  acreage  outside  tlie  walls,  or 
 if  it  were  made  to  vary  in  a  certain  ratio  to  tiie  size 
 of  the  town.  As  the  text  stands,  neither  of  these 
 methods  can  be  deduced  from  it. 
 
 (2.)  The  measui-es  of  distance  noticed  in  the  Old 
 Testament  are  the  three  following:  (a.)  The 
 isa''(i(l,"  or  pace  (2  Sam.  vi.  13),  answering  gener- 
 ally to  our  yard,  (b.)  The  Cibratk  liadreUfi  ren- 
 dered in  the  A.  V.  "  a  little  way  "  or  "  a  little  piece 
 of  ground  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  10,  xlviii.  7;  2  Iv.  v.  19). 
 The  expression  appears  to  indicate  some  definite 
 distance,  but  we  are  unable  to  state  with  precision 
 what  that  distance  was.  The  LXX.  retains  the 
 Hebrew  word  in  the  form  Xa0padd,  as  though  it 
 were  the  name  of  a  place,  adding  in  Gen.  xlviii.  7 
 the  words  Kara  rhv  iTnrSSpo/j.oi',  whicli  is  thus  a 
 second  translation  of  tiie  expression.  If  a  certain 
 distance  was  intended  by  this  translation,  it  would 
 be  either  the  ordinary  length  of  a  race-course,  or 
 such  a  distance  as  a  horse  could  travel  without  be- 
 ing over-fatigued,  in  other  words,  a  stage.  But  it 
 probably  means  a  locality,  either  a  race-course  itself, 
 as  in  3  Mace.  iv.  11,  or  the  space  outside  the  town 
 walls  where  the  race-course  was  usually  to  be  found. 
 The  LXX.  give  it  again  in  Gen.  xlviii.  7  as  the 
 equivalent  for  Ephrath.  The  Syriac  and  Persian 
 versions  render  cibrath  by  parasang,  a  well-known 
 Persian  measure,  generally  estimated  at  30  stades 
 (Herod,  ii.  6,  v.  53),  or  from  3^  to  4  English  miles, 
 but  sometimes  at  a  larger  amount,  even  up  to  GO 
 stades  (Strab.  xi.  518).  The  only  conclusion  to  be 
 drawn  from  the  Bible  is  that  the  cibrath  did  not 
 exceed  and  probably  equaled  the  distance  between 
 Bethlehem  and  Rachel's  burial-place,  which  is  tra- 
 ditionally identified  with  a  spot  1^  mile  north  of 
 the  town,  (c.)  The  derec  i/oiu,'^  or  nmhCdttc  yom,'' 
 a  day's  journey,  which  was  the  most  usual  method 
 of  calculating  distances  in  travelling  (Gen.  xxx.  36, 
 xxxi.  23;  Ex.  iii.  18,  v.  3;  Num.  x.  33,  xi.  31, 
 xxxiii.  8;  Deut.  i.  2;  1  K.  xix.  4;  2  K.  iii.  9;  .Jon. 
 iii.  3;  1  Mace.  v.  24,  vii.  45;  Tob.  vi.  1),  though 
 but  one  instance  of  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
 (Luke  ii.  44).  The  distance  indicated  by  it  was 
 naturally  fluctuating  according  to  the  circumstances 
 of  the  traveller  or  of  the  country  through  which  he 
 passed.  Herodotus  variously  estimates  it  at  200 
 and  150  stades  (iv.  101,  v.  53);  Marinus  {ap.  Ptol. 
 I.  11)  at  150  and  172  stades;  Pausanias  (x.  33, 
 §  2)  at  150  stades;  Strabo  (i.  35)  at  from  250  to 
 300  stades;  and  Vegetius  (/>e  Re  Mil.  i.  11)  at 
 from  20  to  24  miles  for  the  Roman  army.  The 
 ordinary  day's  journey  among  the  Jews  was  30 
 miles;  but  when  they  travelled  in  companies  only 
 10  miles;  Neapolis  formed  the  first  stage  out  of 
 Jerusalem,  according  to  the  former,  and  Beeroth 
 according  to  the  latter  computation  (Lightfoot, 
 Jixerc.  in  Luc.  ii.  44).  It  is  impossible  to  as- 
 sign any  distinct  length  to  the  day's  journey: 
 Jahn's  estimate  of  33  miles,  172  yards,  and  4  feet, 
 is  based  upon  the  false  assumption  that  it  bore  some 
 fixed  ratio  to  the  other  measures  of  length. 
 
 In  the  Apocrypha  and  New  Testament  we  meet 
 
 0  C-l. 
 
 /  SraSi.oi'. 
 A    MiAiof. 
 
 with  the  following  additional  measures:  (</.)  The 
 Sabbath-day's  journey,"  already  discussed  in  a 
 separate  article,  (e.)  The  s<((A'o«,/ or  "  furlong,'' 
 a  Greek  measure  introduced  into  Asia  subsequently 
 to  Alexander's  conquest,  and  hence  first  mentioned 
 in  the  Apocrypha  (2  Mace.  xi.  5,  xii.  9,  17,  29),  and 
 subsequently  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  xxiv. 
 13;  John  vi.  19,  xi.  18;  Rev.  xiv.  20,  xxi.  16). 
 Both  the  name  and  the  length  of  the  stade  were 
 borrowed  fiom  the  foot-race  course  at  Olympia.  It 
 equaled  600  Greek  feet  (Herod,  ii.  149),  or  125 
 Roman  paces  (I'lin.  ii.  23),  or  606|  feet  of  our 
 measure.  It  thus  falls  below  the  furling  by  53|. 
 feet.  The  distances  between  Jerusalem  and  the 
 places  Bethany,  .lainnia,  and  Scythopolis,  are  given 
 with  tolerable  exactness  at  15  stades  (John  xi.  18), 
 240  stades  (2  Mace.  xii.  9),  and  GOO  stades  (2  Mace, 
 xii.  29).  In  2  Mace.  xi.  5  there  is  an  evident  error, 
 either  of  the  author  or  of  the  text,  in  respect  to  the 
 po.sition  of  Bethsura,  wliicli  is  L^ven  as  only  5  stades 
 from  Jerusalem.  The  Talnuulists  describe  the  stade 
 under  the  term  rc's,f>  and  regarded  it  as  equal  to 
 625  feet  and  125  paces  (Carpzov,  Apptir.  p.  G79). 
 {f.)  The  Mile,''  a  Roman  measure,  equalling  1,000 
 Roman  paces,  8  stades,  and  1,018  English  yards 
 [Mile]. 
 
 2.  Measures  of  capacity. 
 
 The  measures  of  capacity  for  liquids  were:  (o.) 
 The  log'  (Lev.  xiv.  10,  etc.),  the  name  originally 
 signifying  a  "basin."  (b.)  The  hin,^  a  name  of 
 Egyptian  origin,  frequently  noticed  in  the  Bible 
 (Ex.  xxix.  40,  xxx.  24;  Num.  xv.  4,  7,  9;  Ez.  iv. 
 11,  etc.).  (c.)  The  bath,'  the  name  meaning 
 "measured,"  the  largest  of  the  liquid  measures  (1 
 K.  vii.  2G,  38;  2  Chr.  ii.  10;  Ezr.  vii.  22;  Is.  v. 
 10).  With  regard  to  the  relative  values  of  these 
 measures  we  learn  nothing  from  the  Bible,  but  we 
 gather  from  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  8,  §  3)  that  the 
 bath  contained  6  bins  (for  the  bath  equaled  72 
 xestoi  or  12  choes,  and  the  hin  2  choes),  and  from 
 the  Rabbinists  that  the  hin  contained  12  logs 
 (Carpzov,  Appro:  p.  685).  The  relative  values 
 therefore  stand  thus :  — 
 
 Log 
 12 
 72 
 
 Hin  I 
 6      Bath 
 
 The  dry  measure  contained  the  following  denom- 
 inations: («.)  The  cab,'"  mentioned  only  in  2  K. 
 vi.  25,  the  name  meaning  literally  hollow  or  con- 
 cave, (b.)  The  onier,"  mentioned  only  in  Ex.  xvi. 
 16-36.  The  same  measure  is  elsewhere  termed 
 issarono  as  being  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah 
 (comp.  Ex.  xvi.  36),  whence  in  the  A.  V.  "tenth 
 deal"  (Lev.  xiv.  10,  xxiii.  13;  Num.  xv.  4,  etc.). 
 The  word  omer  implies  a  heap,  and  secondarily  a 
 sheaf,  (c.)  The  «e(i/(,:f  or  "  measure,"  this  being 
 the  etymological  meaning  of  the  term,  and  appro- 
 priately applied  to  it,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  or- 
 dinary measure  for  household  purposes  (Gen.  xviii. 
 6;  1  Sam.  xxv.  18;  2  K.  vii.  1,  16).  The  Greek 
 equivalent  occurs  in  Matt.  xiii.  33;  Luke  xiii.  21. 
 The  seah  was  otherwise  termed  shdlish,^!  as  being 
 the  third  part  of  an  ephah  (Is.  xl.  12;  Ps.  Ixxx.  5). 
 ((/.)  The  ephah,'"  a  word  of  Egyptian  origin,  and 
 
 P  nSD  \   a-drov. 
 T  : 
 
 1  XD^\'W. 
 
3506 
 
 WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 of  frequent  recurrence  in  the  Bible  (Ex.  xvi.  36; 
 Lev.  V.  11,  vi.  20;  Num.  v.  15,  xxviii.  5;  Juda;.  vi. 
 19;  Kuth  ii.  17;  1  Sam.  i.  24,  xvii.  17;  Ez.  xlv. 
 11,  ly,  xlvi.  5,  7,  11,  14).  (e.)  The  lethecaov 
 't  half-homer,"  literally  meaning  what  is  paured 
 out :  it  occurs  only  in  Hos.  iii.  2.  ( f.)  The  homer,* 
 meaning  heap  (l-ev.  xxvii.  16;  Num.  xi.  32;  Is.  v. 
 10;  Ez.  xlv.  33).  It  is  elsewhere  termed  cor,'^ 
 from  the  circular  vessel  in  which  it  was  measured 
 (1  K.  iv.  22,  V.  11;  2  Chr.  ii.  10,  xxvii.  5;  Ezr. 
 vii.  22;  Ez.  xlv.  14).  The  Greek  equivalent  occurs 
 in  Luke  xvi.  7. 
 
 The  relative  proportions  of  the  dry  measures  are 
 to  a  certain  extent  expressed  in  the  names  issnron, 
 meaning  a  tenth,  and  shalish,  a  third.  In  addition 
 we  have  the  Biblical  statement  that  the  omer  is  the 
 tenth  part  of  the  ephah  (Ex.  xvi.  36),  and  that  the 
 ephah  was  the  tenth  part  of  a  homer,  and  corre- 
 sponded to  the  bath  in  liquid  measure  (Ez.  xlv.  11). 
 The  Kahl)inists  supplement  this  by  stating  that  the 
 ephah  contained  three  seahs,  and  the  seah  six  cabs 
 (Carpzov,  p.  683).  We  are  thus  enabled  to  draw 
 out  the  following  scale  of  relative  values :  — 
 
 Cab 
 
 18 
 180 
 
 Omer 
 
 3} 
 10 
 100 
 
 Seah 
 
 3     I  Ephah 
 30  10     I  Homer 
 
 The  aliove  scale  is  constructed,  it  will  be  ob- 
 served, on  a  combination  of  decimal  and  duodecimal 
 ratios,  the  former  prevailing  in  respect  to  the  omer, 
 ephah,  and  homer,  the  latter  in  respect  to  the  cab, 
 seah,  and  ephah.  In  the  liquid  measure  the  duo- 
 decimal ratio  alone  appears,  and  hence  there  is  a 
 fair  presumption  that  this  was  the  original,  as  it 
 was  undoubtedly  the  most  general,  principle  on 
 which  the  scales  of  antiquity  were  framed  (Boeckh, 
 p.  38).  Whether  the  decimal  division  was  intro- 
 duced from  some  other  system,  or  whether  it  was 
 the  result  of  local  usage,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
 show. 
 
 The  absolute  values  of  the  liquid  and  dry  meas- 
 ures form  the  subject  of  a  single  inquiry,  inasmuch 
 as  the  two  scales  have  a  measure  of  equal  value, 
 namely,  the  bath  and  the  ephah  (Ez.  xlv.  11);  if 
 either  of  these  can  be  fixed,  the  conversion  of  the 
 other  denominations  into  their  respective  values 
 readily  follows.  Unfortunately  the  data  for  deter- 
 mining the  value  of  the  bath  or  ephah  are  both 
 scanty  and  conflicting.  Attempts  have  been  made 
 to  deduce  the  value  of  the  bath  from  a  comparison 
 of  the  dimensions  and  the  contents  of  the  molten 
 sea  as  given  in  1  K.  vii.  23-26.  If  these  particu- 
 lars had  been  given  with  greater  accuracy  and  full- 
 ness, they  would  have  furnished  a  sound  basis  for 
 a  calculation ;  but,  as  the  matter  now  stands,  un- 
 certainty attends  every  statement.  The  diameter 
 is  given  as  10  cubits,  and  the  circumference  as  30 
 cubits,  the  diameter  being  stated  to  be  "  from  one 
 brim  to  the  other."  Assuming  that  the  vessel  was 
 circular,  the  proportions  of  the  diameter  and  cir- 
 cumference are  not  sufficiently  exact  for  mathemat- 
 ical i)urposes,  nor  are  we  aljle  to  decide  whether 
 the  diameter  was  measured  from  the  internal  or  the 
 external  edge  of  the  vessel.  The  shape  of  the  \es- 
 sel  has  been  variously  conceived  to  be  circular  and 
 polygonal,  cylindrical  and  hemispherical,  with  per- 
 pendicular and  with  bulging  sides.     The  contents 
 
 are  given  as  2,000  baths  in  1  K.  vii.  26,  and  3,000 
 baths  in  2  Chr.  iv.  5,  the  latter  being  probably  a 
 corrupt  text.  Lastly,  the  length  of  the  cubit  is 
 undefined,  and  hence  every  estimate  is  attended 
 with  suspicion.  The  conclusions  drav/n  have  been 
 widely  different,  as  might  be  expected.  If  it  be 
 assumed  that  the  form  of  the  vessel  was  cylindrical 
 (as  the  description  prima  J'ncic  seems  to  imply), 
 that  its  clear  diameter  was  10  cubits  of  the  value 
 of  19  0515  English  inches  each,  and  that  its  full 
 contents  were  2,000  baths,  then  the  value  of  the 
 bath  would  be  4.8965  gallons;  for  the  contents  of 
 the  vessel  would  equal  2,715,638  cubic  inches,  or 
 9,793  gallons.  If,  however,  the  statement  of  Jose- 
 phus  {Aril.  viii.  3,  §  5),  as  to  the  hemispherical 
 form  of  the  vessel,  be  adopted,  then  the  estimate 
 would  be  reduced.  Saigey,  as  quoted  by  Boeckh 
 (p.  261),  on  this  hypothesis  calculates  the  value 
 of  the  hath  at  18.086  Trench  litres,  or  3.9807 
 English  gallons.  If,  further,  we  adopt  Saalschiitz's 
 view  as  to  the  length  of  the  cubit,  which  he  puts 
 at  15  Dresden  inches  at  the  highest,  the  value  of 
 the  bath  will  be  further  reduced,  according  to  his 
 calculation,  to  10^  Prussian  quarts,  or  2.6057 
 English  gallons;  while  at  his  lower  estimate  of  the 
 cubit  at  12  inches,  its  value  would  be  little  more 
 than  one  half  of  this  amount  {Archdol.  ii.  171). 
 On  the  other  hand,  if  the  vessel  bulged,  and  if  the 
 diameter  and  circun)ference  were  measured  at  the 
 neck  or  narrowest  part  of  it,  space  might  be  found' 
 for  2,000  or  even  3,000  baths  of  greater  value  than 
 any  of  the  above  estimates.  It  is  therefore  hope- 
 less to  arrive  at  any  satisfactory  conclusion  from 
 this  source.  Nevertheless  we  think  the  calculations 
 are  not  without  their  use,  as  furnishing  a  certain 
 amount  of  presumptive  evidence.  Eor,  setting 
 aside  the  theory  that  the  vessel  bulged  consid- 
 erably, for  which  the  text  furnishes  no  evidence 
 whatever,  all  the  other  computations  agree  in  one 
 jjoint,  namely,  that  the  bath  fell  far  below  the  value 
 placed  on  it  by  Josephus,  and  by  modern  writers 
 on  Hebrew  archaeology  generally,  according  to 
 whom  the  bath  measures  between  8  and  9  English 
 gallons. 
 
 \\'e  turn  to  the  statements  of  Josephus  and 
 other  early  writers.  The  former  states  that  the 
 bath  equals  72  xestm  (Ant.  viii.  2,  §  9),  that  the 
 bin  equals  2  Attic  cliaes  (ibid.  iii.  8,  §§  3,  9,  §  4), 
 that  the  seah  equals  1^  Italian  modii  [ibid.  ix.  4, 
 §  5),  that  the  cor  equals  10  Attic  medinmi  (ibid. 
 XV.  9,  §  2),  and  that  the  issaron  or  omer  equals  7 
 Attic  cotyhe  (ibid.  iii.  6,  §  6).  It  may  further  be 
 implied  from  Atit.  ix.  4,  §  4,  as  compared  with  2 
 K.  vi.  25,  that  he  regarded  the  cab  as  equal  to  4 
 xestes.  Now,  in  order  to  reduce  these  statements 
 to  consistency,  it  must  be  assumed  that  in  Ant. 
 XV.  9,  §  2,  he  has  confused  the  medinnius  with  the 
 melretcs,  and  in  Ant.  iii.  6,  §  6,  the  cotyle  with 
 the  xestes.  Such  errors  throw  doubt  on  his  other 
 statements,  and  tend  to  the  conclusion  that  Jose- 
 phus was  not  really  familiar  with  the  Greek  meas- 
 ures. This  impression  is  supported  by  his  apparent 
 ignorance  of  the  term  metrcies,  which  he  should 
 have  used  not  only  in  the  passage  above  noticed, 
 but  also  in  viii.  2,  §  9,  where  he  would  naturally 
 have  substituted  it  for  72  xestw,  assuming  that 
 these  were  Attic  xestce.  Nevertheless  his  testimony 
 must  be  taken  as  decisively  in  favor  of  the  iden- 
 tity of  the  Hebrew  bath  with  the  Attic  metretes. 
 
 6  ~i?2n. 
 
 cHS; 
 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 
 
 Jerome  {in  Matt.  xiii.  33)  affirms  that  the  seah 
 equals  1^  modii,  and  {in  Ez.  xlv.  11)  that  the  o^r 
 equals  30  modii,  —  statements  that  are  gliirinffly 
 inconsistent,  inasmuch  as  there  were  30  seahs  in 
 the  cor.  The  statements  of  Epiphanius  in  his 
 treatise  De  Mensuris  are  equally  remarkable  for 
 inconsistency.  He  states  (ii.  177)  th.it  the  cor 
 equals  30  modii :  on  this  assumption  the  bath 
 would  equal  51  sextirii,  but  he  f;ives  only  50  (p. 
 178):  the  seah  would  equal  1  modins,  but  he  gives 
 li  modii  (p.  178),  or,  according  to  his  estimate  of 
 17  sexlarii  to  the  modivs,  21^  sexlarii,  though 
 elsewhere  he  assigns  56  sextarii  as  its  value  (p. 
 182):  the  onier  would  be  5J^  sexlarii,  but  he 
 gives  7^-  (p-  182),  implying  45  modii  to  the  cor: 
 and,  las"tly,  the  ephah  is  identified  with  the  Egyp- 
 tian artabe  (p.  182),  which  was  either  i^  or  3^ 
 modii,  according  as  it  was  in  the  old  or  the  new 
 measure,  though  according  to  his  estimate  of  the 
 cor  it  would  only  equal  3  modii.  Little  reliance 
 can  be  placed  on  statements  so  loosely  made,  and 
 the  question  arises  whether  the  identification  of  the 
 bath  with  the  meiretiis  did  not  arise  out  of  the  cir- 
 cumstance that  the  two  measures  held  the  same 
 relative  position  in  the  scales,  each  being  subdi- 
 vided into  72  parts,  and,  again,  whether  the  assign- 
 ment of  30  modii  to  the  cor  did  not  arise  out 
 of  there  being  30  seahs  in  it.  The  discrepancies 
 can  only  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  a 
 wide  margin  was  allowed  for  a  long  measure, 
 amounting  to  an  increase  of  50  per  cent.  This 
 appears  to  have  been  the  case  from  the  definitions 
 of  the  seah  or  aarou  given  by  Hesychius,  fj.6Stos 
 ytfiuv,  ijyovy,  ev  i')fjLiav  iJ.6diov  'lTa\iK6i',  and 
 again  by  Suidas,  fxSSiov  inr€pTreTr\ripajiJ.^uov,  dis 
 ehai  1J.6S10V  eVa  Kal  'n/uLLaw.  Assuming,  however, 
 that  .Josephus  was  right  in  identifying  the  bath 
 with  the  melri'tes,  its  value  would  be,  according  to 
 Boeckh's  estimate  of  the  latter  (pp.  261,  278), 
 1993.5  Paris  cubic  inches,  or  8.7053  English  gal- 
 lons, but  according  to  the  estimate  of  Bertheau 
 (Gtsch.  p.  73)  1,985.77  Paris  cubic  inches,  or 
 8.6696  English  gallons. 
 
 The  Rabbinists  furnish  data  of  a  diflferent  kind 
 for  calculating  the  value  of  the  Hebrew  measures. 
 They  estimated  the  log  to  be  equal  to  six  hen  eggs, 
 the  cubic  contents  of  which  were  ascertained  by 
 measuring  the  amount  of  water  they  displaced 
 (Maimonides,  in  Cd.  17,  §  10).  On  this  basis 
 Thenius  estimated  the  log  at  14.088  Paris  cubic 
 inches,  or  .06147  English  gallon,  and  the  bath  at 
 1,014.39  Paris  cubic  inches,  or  4.4286  gallons  {St. 
 u.  Kr.  pp.  101,  121).  Again,  the  log  of  water  is 
 said  to  have  weighed  108  Egyptian  drachmse,"  each 
 equalling  61  barleycorns  (Maimonides,  in  Beah,  3, 
 §  6,  ed.  Guisius.).  Thenius  finds  that  6,588  bar- 
 leycorns fill  about  the  same  space  as  6  hen  eggs 
 {St.  u.  Kr.  p.  112).  And  again,  a  log  is  said  to 
 fill  a  vessel  4  digits  long,  4  broad,  and  2,7^  high 
 (Maimonides,  in  Prief.  Me.nadiotli).  This  vessel 
 would  contain  21.6  cubic  inches,  or  .07754  gallon. 
 The  conclusion  arrived  at  from  these  data  would 
 agree  tolerably  well  with  the  first  estimate  formed 
 on  the  notices  of  the  molten  sea. 
 
 a  In  the  table  the  weight  of  the  log  is  given  as  104 
 drachms  ;  but  in  this  case  the  contents  of  the  log  are 
 supposed  to  be  wine.  The  relative  weights  of  water 
 and  wine  were  as  27 :  26. 
 
 6   MeTpyjnjs.  c  Xoinf. 
 
 <*  Ee'o-Trjs. 
 
 WELL  3507 
 
 As  we  are  unable  to  decide  between  Josephus 
 and  the  Rabbinists,  we  give  a  double  estimate  of 
 the  various  denominations,  adopting  Bertheau  s 
 estimate  of  the  metretes :  — 
 
 (Josephus.)       (Rabbinists.) 
 Gallons.  Gallons. 
 
 Homer  or  Cor      .     .    86.696       or     44.286 
 Ephah  or  Bath    .     .     8.6696     or       4.4286 
 
 Seah 2.8898     or       1.4762 
 
 Hin 1.4449     or         .7381 
 
 Omer 8669     or         .4428 
 
 Cab 4816     or         .246 
 
 Log 1204     or         .0615 
 
 In  the  Isew  Testament  we  have  notices  of  the 
 following  foreign  measures:  {a.)  The  metretes'' 
 (.John  ii.  6;  A.V.  "  firkin  "),for  liquids,  {b.)  The 
 clmnix<:  (Kev.  vi.  6;  A.  V.  "  measure  "),  for  dry 
 goods,  (c.)  The  xestes,^  applied,  however,  not  to 
 the  particular  measure  so  named  by  the  (ireeks, 
 but  to  any  small  vessel,  such  as  a  cup  (Mark  vii. 
 4,  8;  A.  V.  "pot"),  (d.)  The  modius,  similarly 
 applied  to  describe  any  vessel  of  moderate  dimen- 
 sions (Matt.  v.  15;  Mark  iv.  21;  Luke  xi.  33; 
 A.  V.  "bushel  ");  though  properly  meaning  a  Ro- 
 man measure,  amounting  to  about  a  peck. 
 
 The  value  of  the  Attic  metretes  has  been  ah-eady 
 stated  to  be  8.6696  gallons,  and  consequently  the 
 amount  of  liquid  in  six  stone  jars,  containing  on 
 the  average  2i  metretm  each,  would  exceed  110 
 gallons  (John  Ii.  6).  Very  possibly,  however,  the 
 Greek  term  represents  the  Hebrew  bath,  and  if  the 
 bath  be  taken  at  the  lower  estimate  assigned  to  it, 
 the  amount  would  be  reduced  to  about  60  gallons. 
 Even  this  amount  far  exceeds  the  requirements  for 
 the  purposes  of  legal  purification,  the  tendency  of 
 Pharisaical  refinement  being  to  reduce  the  amount 
 of  water  to  a  minimum,  so  that  a  quarter  of  a  log 
 would  suffice  for  a  person  (Mishnah,  Yad.  1,  §  1). 
 The  question  is  one  simply  of  arclueological  interest 
 as  illustrating  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  and  does 
 not  affect  the  character  of  the  miracle  with  which 
 it  is  connected.  The  chosnix  was  -^L  of  an  Attic 
 medimnus,  and  contained  nearly  a  quart.  It  rep- 
 resented the  usual  amount  of  corn  for  a  day's  food, 
 and  hence  a  chmnx  for  a  penny,  or  denarius, 
 which  usually  purchased  a  bushel  (Cic.  Verr.  iii. 
 81),  indicated  a  great  scarcity  (Rev.  vi.  6). 
 
 With  regard  to  the  use  of  Aiir  measures,  various 
 precepts  are  expressed  in  the  Mosaic  law  and  other 
 parts  of  the  Bible  (Lev.  xix.  35,  36;  Dent.  xxv. 
 14,  15;  Prov.  xx.  10;  Ez.  xlv.  10),  and  in  all 
 probability  standard  measures  were  kept  in  the 
 Temple,  as  was  usual  in  the  other  civilized  coun- 
 tries of  antiquity  (tJoeckh,  p.  12). 
 
 The  works  chiefly  referred  to  in  the  present 
 article  are  the  following:  Boeckh,  Metrologische 
 Untersuehungen,  1838;  Classical  Museum,  vol. 
 i. ;  Theoloyische  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1846; 
 Mishnah,  ed.  Surenhusius;  Wilkinson,  Ancient 
 Egyptians,  2  vols.  1854;  lilpiphanius,  Opera,  2 
 vols.,  ed.  Petavius.  W.   L.  B. 
 
 WELL.''  The  difference  between  a  well  {Beer) 
 and. a  cistern  {B6r)  [Cistehn],  consists  chiefly  in 
 
 e  1.  ~1W3  :   </>pe'ap  :  putcus ;  in  four  places  "  pit." 
 
 2.  "iSs  :  XaKKQ!  :  dslcrna ;  usually  "  pit."    [Prr. 
 
 3.  T^27^  :  usually  "fountain."     [Fountain.] 
 
 4.  "^"ipl^.     [Fountain;  Spring.] 
 
8508  WELL 
 
 the  use  of  the  former  word  to  denote  a  receptacle 
 for  water  springing  up  freshly  from  the  ground, 
 while  the  latter  usually  denotes  a  reservoir  for  rain- 
 water (Gen.  xxvi.  10,  32;  Prov.  v.  15;  John  iv. 
 14).« 
 
 The  special  necessity  of  a  supply  of  water  ('Tudg. 
 i.  15)  in  a  hot  climate  has  always  involved  among 
 Eastern  nations  questions  of  property  of  the  highest 
 importance,  and  sometimes  given  rise  to  serious 
 contention.  To  give  a  name  to  a  well  denoted  a 
 right  of  property,  and  to  stop  or  destroy  one  once 
 dug  was  a  military  expedient,  a  mark  of  conquest, 
 or  an  encroachment  on  territorial  right  claimed  or 
 existing  in  its  neighborhood.  Thus  the  well  Beer- 
 slieha  was  opened,  and  its  possession  attested  with 
 special  formality  by  Abraham  (Gen.  xxi.  30,  31). 
 In  the  hope  of  expelling  Isaac  from  their  neighljor- 
 hood,  the  Philistines  stopped  up  the  wells  which 
 had  been  dug  in  Abraham's  time  and  called  by  his 
 name,  an  encroachment  which  was  stoutly  resisted 
 by  the  followers  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  15-33;  see 
 also  2  K.  iii.  19;  2  Chr.  xxvi.  10;  Burckbardt, 
 Notes,  ii.  185,  194,  204,  276).  The  Kuran  notices 
 abandoned  wells  as  signs  of  desertion  (.Sur.  xxii.). 
 To  acquire  wells  which  they  had  not  themselves 
 dug,  was  one  of  the  marks  of  favor  foretold  to 
 the  Hebrews  on  their  entrance  into  Canaan  (Deut. 
 vi.  11).  To  possess  one  is  noticed  as  a  mark  of 
 independence  ( Prov.  v.  15 ),  and  to  abstain  from  the 
 use  of  wells  belonging  to  others,  a  disclaimer  of 
 interference  with  their  property  (Num.  xx.  17,  19. 
 xxi.  2^).  Similar  rights  of  possession,  actual  and 
 hereditary,  exist  among  the  Arabs  of  the  present 
 day.  Wells,  Burckbardt  says,  in  the  interior  of  the 
 Desert,  are  e.xclusive  property,  either  of  a  whole 
 tribe,  or  of  individu.ils  whose  ancestors  dug  the 
 wells.  If  a  well  be  the  property  of  a  tribe,  the 
 tents  are  pitched  near  it,  whenever  rain-water  be- 
 comes scarce  in  the  desert;  and  no  other  Arabs  are 
 then  permitted  to  water  their  camels.  But  if  the 
 well  belongs  to  an  individual,  he  receives  presents 
 from  all  strange  tribes  who  pass  or  encamp  at  the 
 well,  and  refresh  their  camels  with  the  water  of  it. 
 The  property  of  such  a  well  is  never  alienated ; 
 and  the  Arabs  say,  that  the  possessor  is  sure  to  be 
 fortunate,  as  all  who  drink  of  the  water  bestow  on 
 him  their  benedictions  (Notes  on  Bed.  i.  228,  229 ; 
 comp.  Num.  xxi.  17,  18,  and  Judg.  i.  15). 
 
 It  is  thus  easy  to  understand  how  wells  have 
 become  in  many  cases  links  in  the  history  and 
 landmarks  in  the  topography  both  of  Palestine  and 
 of  the  Aral)ian  Peninsula.  The  well  once  dug  in 
 the  rocky  soil  of  Palestine  might  be  filled  with  earth 
 or  stones,  but  with  difficulty  (Jestroyed,  and  thus 
 the  wells  of  Beer-sheba,  and  the  well  near  Ndbulus, 
 called  Jacob's  well,  are  among  the  most  undoubted 
 witnesses  of  those  transactions  of  sacred  history  in 
 which  they  have  borne,  so  to  speak,  a  prominent 
 part.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wells  dug  in  the 
 sandy  soil  of  the  Arabian  valleys,  easily  destroyed. 
 
 a  *  The  A.V.  does  not  always  observe  the  proper  dis- 
 tinction between  "  well "  and  "fountain  "  or  "  spring." 
 
 Thus  it  renders  the  same  word  (^'^V)  "  well "  in 
 Judg.  vii.  1;  Neh.  ii.  13,  etc.,  and  "  fountain  "  in 
 Gen.  xvi.  7  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  etc.  There  is  another 
 inconsistency  in  the  A.  V.,  which  is  a  source  of  con- 
 fusion. Our  translators  sometimes  transfer  the  first 
 part  of  the  compound  expression,  as  "  En-roiie\,'^ 
 "  En-sheniesh,"  "  jBn-tappuah,"  etc..  and  sometimes 
 translate  it,  as  "Well  of Harod,"  "Dragon  Well,"  etc. 
 
 H. 
 
 WELL 
 
 but  easily  renewed,  often  mark,  by  their  ready 
 supply,  the  stations  at  which  the  Hebrew  pilgrims 
 slaked  their  thirst,  or,  as  at  ]Marah,  were  disap- 
 pointed by  the  bitterness  of  the  water.  In  likr 
 manner  the  stations  of  the  Mohammedan  pilgrims 
 from  Cairo  and  Damascus  fo  Mecca  (the  Hadj 
 route)  are  marked  by  the  wells  (Robinson,  i.  66. 
 69,  204,  205,  ii.  283;  Burckbardt,  Syrin,  pp.  318, 
 472,  474;  App.  III.  656,  660:  Shaw,  Triiv.  314; 
 Niebuhr,  Descrip.  de  l\ii:,  pp.  347,  348;  Wellsted, 
 Trnv.  ii.  40,  43,  64,  457,  App. ). 
 
 Wells  in  Palestine  are  usually  excavated  from 
 the  solid  limestone  rock,  sometimes  with  steps  to 
 descend  into  them  (Gen.  xxiv.  16 ;  Burckbardt, 
 Syria,  p.  232;  CoL  Ch.  Cliion.  1858,  p.  470). 
 The  brims  are  furnished  with  a  curl)  or  low  wall 
 of  stone,  bearing  marks  of  hish  antiquity  in  the 
 furrows  worn  by  the  ropes  used  in  drawing  water 
 (Kob.  i.  204).  This  curb,  as  well  as  the  stone 
 cover,  which  is  also  very  usual,  agrees  with  the 
 directions  of  the  Law,  as  explained  by  Philo  and 
 Josephus,  namely,  as  a  protection  against  accident 
 (Ex.  xxi.  33;  Joseph.  A7it.  iv.  8,  §37;  Philo,  De 
 Spec.  Leg.  iii.  27,  ii.  324,  ed.  Mangey;  Maundrell, 
 in  A'.  Trav.  435).*  It  was  on  a  curb  of  this  sort 
 that  our  Lord  sat  when  He  conversed  with  the 
 woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv.  6),  and  it  was  this, 
 the  usual  stone  cover,  which  the  woman  placed  on 
 the  mouth  of  the  well  at  Bahurim  (2  Sam.  xvii. 
 19),  where  A.  V.  weakens  the  sense  by  omitting 
 the  article.*^  Sometimes  the  wells  are  covered 
 with  cupolas  raised  on  pillars  (Burckbardt,  App.  V. 
 p.  665). 
 
 The  usual  methods  for  raising  water  are  the  fol- 
 lowing: (1.)  The  rope  and  bucket,  or  water-skin 
 (Gen.  xxiv.  14-20;  John  iv.  11).  When  the  well 
 is  deep  the  rope  is  either  drawn  over  the  curb  by 
 the  man  or  woman,  who  pulls  it  out  to  the  dis- 
 tance of  its  full  length,  or  by  an  ass  or  ox  employed 
 in  the  same  way  for  the  same  purpose.  Sometimes 
 a  pulley  or  wheel  is  fixed  over  the  well  to  assist 
 the  work  (Robinson,  i.  204,  ii.  248;  Nielmhr, 
 Descr.  de  VAr.  137,  pi.  15;  Col.  Ch.  Chron.  1859, 
 p.  350;  Chardin,  Vtnj.'w.  98;  Wellsted,  Trav.  \. 
 280).  (2.)  The  sakiyeh,  or  Persian  wheel.  This 
 consists  of  a  vertical  wheel  furnished  with  a  set  of 
 buckets  or  earthen  jars,  attached  to  a  cord  passing 
 over  the  wheel,  which  descend  empty  and  return 
 full  as  the  wheel  revolves.  On  the  axis  of  the 
 wheel  revolves  a  second  wheel,  parallel  to  it,  with 
 cogs  which  turn  a  third  wheel  set  horizontally  at  a 
 sufficient  height  from  the  ground  to  allow  the 
 animal  used  in  turning  it  to  pass  under.  One  or 
 two  cows  or  bulls  are  yoked  to  a  pole  which  passes 
 through  the  axis  of  this  wheel,  and  as  they  travel 
 round  it  turn  the  whole  machine  (Num.  xxiv.  7; 
 Lane,  Mod.  Erj.  ii.  163;  Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  120; 
 Col.  Ch.  Chron.  1859,  p.  352;  Shaw,  pp.  291,  408). 
 (3.)  A  modification  of  the  last  method,  by  which 
 a  man,  sitting  opposite  to  a  wheel  furnished  with 
 
 b  *  Mr.  E.  H.  Palmer,  in  passing  from  Sinai  to 
 Nakhl,  went  up  the  Warjij  liiydr,  of  which  he  says  : 
 '■  This  wady  is  so  called  from  the  wells  (Bi-dr)  which 
 exist  near  its  head,  and  which,  in  their  form  and  use, 
 remarkably  illustrate  the  passage  in  Genesis  xxix. 
 7-9  :  '  Till  they  roll  the  stone  from  the  well's  mouth 
 then  we  water  the  sheep.'  "  (Quart.  Statem.  Pal.  Ex. 
 Fh?!(/,  No.  V.  p.  257.)  S.  W. 
 
 <^  TyD^H:    TO  cTTiKoAvfifia :  velamen. 
 
WELL  IS  HIM 
 
 buckets,  turns  it  by  drawing  with  his  hands  one 
 set  of  sjiokes  prolonged  beyond  its  circumference, 
 and  pushing  another  set  from  liini  with  his  feet 
 (Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  p.  120,  pi.  15;  Robinson,  ii.  22, 
 iii.  8l»).  (4.)  A  method  very  common,  both  in 
 ancient  and  modern  Egypt,  is  the  shadoof,  a  sim- 
 ])le  contrivance  consisting  of  a  lever  moving  on  a 
 pivot,  whicli  is  loaded  at  one  end  with  a  lump  of 
 clay  or  some  other  weight,  and  has  at  the  other  a 
 bowl  or  bucket.  This  is  let  down  into  the  water, 
 and,  when  raised,  emptied  into  a  receptacle  above 
 (Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  120;  Lane,  M.  E.  ii.  163;  Wil- 
 kinson, A.  K.  i.  ;J5,  72,  ii.  4). 
 
 Wells  are  usually  furnished  with  troughs  of  wood 
 or  stone,"  into  which  the  water  is  emptied  for  the 
 use  of  persons  or  animals  coming  to  the  wells.  In 
 modern  times  an  old  stone  sarcophagus  is  often 
 used  for  this  purpose.  The  bucket  is  very  com- 
 monly of  skin  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  63;  Robinson, 
 i.  204,  ii.  21,  315,  iii.  35,  89,  109,  134;  Lord 
 Lindsay,  Trav.  pp.  235,  237;  Wilkinson,  A.  E. 
 1.  c;   Gen.  xxiv.  20;  Ex.  ii.  16). 
 
 Ancient  Egyptian  machine  for  raising  water,  identical 
 with  the  sAadoo/ of  the  present  day.    (Wilkinson.) 
 
 Unless  machinery  is  used,  which  is  commonly 
 worked  by  men,  women  are  usually  the  water- 
 carriers.  They  carry  home  their  water-jars  on 
 their  heads  (Lindsay,  p.  236).  Great  contentions 
 often  occur  at  the  wells,  and  they  are  often,  among 
 Bedouins,  favorite  places  for  attack  by  enemies 
 (Ex.  ii.  16,  17;  Judg.  v.  11;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  15,  16; 
 Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  63;  Nvtes  on  Bed.  i.  228; 
 ('ol.  Ch.  Chron.  1859,  p.  473;  Lane,  M.  E.  i.  252; 
 Robinson,  iii.  153).  H.    W.  P. 
 
 *  WELL  IS  HIM,  Ecclus.  xxv.  8,  9  (.-V.  V.), 
 exhibits  a  curious  remnant  of  the  old  use  of  "  him  " 
 as  a  dative,  =  "  to  him."  Compare  "  Woe  is  me," 
 and  the  examples  from  Chaucer  (  Cant.  Tales,  2,111, 
 16,362)  cited  in  Eastwood  and  Wright's  Bible 
 Word  Book,  p.  524.  A. 
 
 *  WELL  OF  JACOB.  [Siiechem,  p. 
 2957  f.] 
 
 *  WELL-SPRING.    [Fountain:  Well.] 
 WHALE.     As  to  the  signification  of  the  He- 
 brew terms  tan  (]J^  or  ']P\  and  tannin,  ^"'Sj^I)? 
 variously  rendered  in  the  A.  V.   by   "  dragon," 
 
 "   j^ptZ?  :   n-OTto'T^pioi' :   canalis. 
 
 WHALE  350G 
 
 "  whale,"  "  serpent,"  "sea-monster,"  see  r)KAGON. 
 It  remains  for  us  in  this  article  to  consider  the 
 transaction  recorded  in  the  book  of  Jonah,  of  that 
 prophet   having   been  swallowed  by  some  "  great 
 
 fish "    (V"TT3  y^),    which   in    Matt.    xii.    40    is 
 
 called  /crjTOS,  rendered  in  our  version  by  "  whale." 
 Much  criticism  has  been  expended  on  the  Scrip- 
 tural account  of  Jonah  being  swallowed  by  a  large 
 fish :  it  has  been  variously  understood  as  a  literal 
 transaction,  as  an  entire  fiction  or  an  allegory,  as  a 
 poetical  mythus  or  a  parable.  With  regard  to  the 
 remarks  of  those  writers  who  ground  their  objec- 
 tions upon  the  denial  of  miracle,  it  is  obvious  that 
 this  is  not  the  place  for  discussion ;  the  question 
 of  Jonah  in  the  fish's  belly  will  share  the  same 
 fiite  as  any  other  miracle  recorded  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 The  reader  will  find  in  Rosenmiiller's  Prolegom- 
 ena several  attempts  by  various  writers  to  explain 
 the  Scriptural  narrative,  none  of  which,  however, 
 have  anything  to  recommend  them,  unless  it  be  in 
 soine  cases  the  ingenuity  of  the  anthers,  such  as 
 for  instance  that  of  Godfrey  Less,  who  supposed 
 that  the  "  fish  "  was  no  animal  at  all,  but  a  ship 
 with  the  figure  of  a  fish  painted  on  the  stern,  into 
 which  Jonah  was  received  after  he  had  been  cast 
 out  of  his  own  vessel !  Equally  curious  is  the  ex- 
 planation of  G.  C.  Anton,  who  endeavored  to  solve 
 the  difficulty,  by  supposing  that  just  as  the  prophet 
 was  thrown  into  the  water,  the  dead  carcase  of 
 some  large  fish  floated  by,  into  the  belly  of  which 
 he  contrived  to  get,  and  that  thus  he  was  drifted 
 to  the  shore!  The  opinion  of  Roseimiiiller,  that 
 the  whole  account  is  founded  on  the  Phoenician 
 fable  of  Hercules  devoured  by  a  sea-monster  sent 
 by  Neptune  (Lycophron,  Cassand.  33),  although 
 sanctioned  by  (iesenius,  Winer,  Ewald,  and  other 
 German  writers,  is  opposed  to  all  sound  principles 
 of  Biblical  exegesis.  It  will  be  our  purpose  to 
 consider  what  portion  of  the  occurrence  partakes 
 of  a  natural,  and  what  of  a  miraculous  nature. 
 
 In  the  first  place  then,  it  is  necessary  to  observe, 
 that  the  Greeek  word  KrjTos,  used  by  St.  Matthew, 
 is  not  restricted  in  its  meaning  to  "  a  whale,"  or 
 any  Cetacean  ;  like  the  Latin  cete  or  cetns,  it  may 
 denote  any  sea-monster,  either  "a  whale,"  or  "a 
 shark,"  or  "a  seal,"  or  "a  tunny  of  enormous 
 size"  (see  Athen.  p.  303  B,  ed.  Dindorf;  Odys. 
 xii.  97,  iv.  446,  452;  //.  xx.  147).  Although  two 
 or  three  species  of  whale  are  found  in  the  jNIediter- 
 ranean  Sea,  yet  the  "  great  fish  "  that  swallowed 
 the  prophet,  cannot  properly  be  identified  with  any 
 Cetacean,  for,  although  the  sperm  whale  ( Catodon 
 mncrocephalus)  has  a  gullet  sufficiently  large  to 
 admit  the  body  of  a  man,  yet  it  can  hardly  be  the 
 fish  intended;  as  the  natural  food  of  cetaceans 
 consists  of  small  animals,  such  as  medusse  and 
 Crustacea. 
 
 Nor,  again,  can  we  agree  with  Bishop  Jebb  {Sa- 
 cred Literature,  pp.  178,  179),  tiiat  the  KOi\ia  of 
 the  Greek  Testament  denotes  the  back  portion  of  a 
 wh.ale's  mouth,  in  the  cavity  of  which  the  prophet 
 was  concealed;  for  the  whole  passage  in  Jonah  is 
 clearly  opposed  to  such  an  interpretation. 
 
 The  only  fish,  then,  capable  of  swallowing  a 
 maTi  would  be  a  large  specimen  of  the  White  Shark 
 (Carcharias  vultjaris),  that  dreaded  enemy  of 
 sailors,  and  the  most  voracious  of  the  family  of 
 SqwiUdo}.  This  shark,  which  sometimes  attains 
 the  length  of  thirty  feet,  is  quite  able  to  swallow  a 
 man  whole.     Some  commentators  are  skeptical  on 
 
8510 
 
 WHEAT 
 
 this  point.  It  would,  however,  be  easy  to  quote 
 passages  "rom  the  writings  of  authors  and  travellers 
 in  proof  of  this  assertion ;  we  confine  ourselves  to 
 two  or  three  extracts.  The  shark  "  has  a  large 
 gullet,  and  in  the  bellj  of  it  are  sometimes  found 
 the  bodies  of  men  half  eaten,  sometimes  luliote  and 
 entire  "  (Nature  Displayed,  iii.  p.  1-iO).  But  lest 
 the  Abb^  Pluche  should  not  be  considered  sufficient 
 authority,  we  give  a  quotation  I'rom  Mr.  Couch's 
 recent  publication,  A  History  of  the  Fishes  of  the 
 British  Islands.  Speaking  of  white  sharks,  this 
 author,  who  has  paid  much  attention  to  the  haljits 
 of  fish,  states  that  "  they  usually  cut  asunder  any 
 object  of  considerable  size  and  thus  swallow  it; 
 but  if  they  find  a  difficulty  in  doing  this,  there  is  no 
 hesitation  in  passing  into  the  stomach  even  what  is 
 of  enormous  bulk ;  and  the  formation  of  the  jaws 
 and  throat  render  this  a  matter  of  but  little  diffi- 
 culty."' Kuysch  says  that  the  whole  body  of  a  man 
 in  armor  {loricaius),  has  been  found  in  the  stomach 
 of  a  white  shark ;  and  Captain  King,  in  his  Survey 
 of  Australia,  says  he  had  caught  one  which  could 
 have  swallowed  a  man  with  the  greatest  ease. 
 Blumenbach  mentions  that  a  whole  horse  has  been 
 found  in  a  shark,  and  Captain  Basil  Hall  reports 
 the  taking  of  one  in  which,  besides  other  things, 
 he  found  the  whole  skin  of  a  buffalo  wliich  a  short 
 time  before  had  been  thrown  overboard  from  his 
 ship  (i.  p.  27).  Dr.  Baird  of  the  British  Museum 
 (Cyclop,  of  Nat.  Sciences,  p.  514),  says  that  in 
 the  river  Hooghly  below  Calcutta,  he  had  seen  a 
 white  shark  swallow  a  bullock's  head  and  Iiorns 
 entire,  and  he  speaks  also  of  a  shark's  mouth  being 
 "  sufficiently  wide  to  receive  the  body  of  a  man." 
 Wherever  therefore  the  Tarshish,  to  which  Jonah's 
 ship  was  bound,  was  situated,  whether  in  Spain,  or 
 in  Cilicia,  or  in  Ceylon,  it  is  certain  that  the  com- 
 mon white  shark  might  have  been  seen  on  the 
 voyage.  The  C.  vuhjaris  is  not  uncommon  in  the 
 Mediterranean;  it  occurs,  as  Forskal  (Descript. 
 Animal,  p.  20)  assures  us,  in  the  Arabian  Gulf, 
 and  is  common  also  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  So  for 
 for  the  natural  portion  of  the  subject.  But  how 
 Jonah  could  have  been  swallowed  whole  unlnirt,  or 
 how  he  could  have  existed  for  any  time  in  the 
 shark's  belly,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  by  simply 
 natural  causes.  Certainly  the  preser\ation  of 
 Jonah  in  a  fish's  belly  is  not  more  remarkable 
 than  that  of  the  three  children  in  the  midst 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar's  "  burning  fiery  furnace." 
 [Jonah,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 Naturalists  have  recorded  that  sharks  have  the 
 habit  of  throwing  up  xignin  whole  and  alive  the 
 prey  they  have  seized  (see  Couch's  Hist,  of  Fishes, 
 i.  p.  33).  "  I  have  heard,"  says  Mr.  Darwin, 
 from  Dr.  Allen  of  Fonts,  that  he  has  frequently 
 found  a  diodon  floating  alive  and  distended  in  the 
 stomach  of  a  shark;  and  that  on  several  occa- 
 sions he  has  known  it  eat  its  way  out,  not  only 
 through  the  coats  of  the  stomach,  but  through  the 
 sides  of  the  monster  which  has  been  thus  killed." 
 
 W.  H. 
 WHEAT.     The  well-known    valuable    cereal, 
 cultivated  from  the  earliest  times,  and  frequently 
 mentioned  in  the  Bible.     In  the  A.  V.  the  Heb. 
 
 words  bar  ("IS   or  "^2),    daydn    (^H"^),    riphoth 
 
 (nlD^"]),  are  occasionally  translated  "wheat;" 
 but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  proper  name  of  this 
 cereal,  as  distinguished  from    "barley,"    "spelt," 
 
 etc.,  is  chitidh   (H^n  :  Chald.  T^^H'  chintin). 
 
 WHEAT 
 
 As  to  the  former  Hebrew  terms,  see  under  Corn 
 The  first  mention  of  wheat  occurs  in  Gen.  xxx.  14, 
 in  the  account  of  Jacob's  sojourn  with  Laban  in 
 Mesopotamia,  IMuch  has  been  written  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  the  origin  of  wheat,  and  the  question  appears 
 to  be  still  undecided.  It  is  said  that  the  Triticuni 
 ridf/are  has  been  found  wild  in  some  parts  of 
 Persia  and  Siiieria,  apparently  removed  from  the 
 influence  of  cultivation  (Englisli  Cyclop,  art.  "  Trit- 
 icuni ").  Again,  from  the  experiments  of  M.  Esprit 
 Fabre  of  Agde  it  would  .seem  that  the  numerous 
 varieties  of  cultivated  wheat  are  merely  improved 
 transformations  of  JSgilops  ovata  {Journal  of  tha 
 
 Egyptian  Wheat. 
 
 Royal  Agricult.  Soc,  No.  xxxiii.  pp.  167-180). 
 M.  Fabre's  experiments,  however,  have  not  been 
 deemed  conclusive  by  some  botanists  (see  an  inter- 
 esting paper  by  the  late  Prof.  Henfrey  in  No.  xli. 
 of  the  .Jmrnal  quoted  above).  Egypt  in  ancient 
 times  was  celebrated  for  the  growth  of  its  wheat; 
 the  best  quality,  accorduig  to  Pliny  (Nat.  Hist. 
 xviii.  7),  was  grown  in  the  Thebaid;  it  was  all 
 bearded,  and  the  same  varieties.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson 
 writes  (Am.  Egypt,  ii.  39,  ed.  1854),  "  existed 
 in  ancient  as  in  modern  times,  among  which  may 
 be  mentioned  the  seven-eared  quality  described  in 
 Pharaoh's  dream  "  (Gen.  xli.  22).  This  is  the  so- 
 called  mummy-wheat,  which,  it  has  been  said,  has 
 germinated  after  the  lapse  of  thousands  of  j'ears, 
 but  it  is  now  known  that  the  whole  thing  was  a 
 fraud.  Babylonia  was  also  noted  for  the  excellence 
 of  its  wheat  and  other  cereals.     «  In  grain,"  says 
 
WHEEL 
 
 Herodotus  (i.  193),  "  it  will  yield  commonly  two 
 nundred  fold,  and  at  its  greatest  production  as 
 much  as  three  hundred  fold.  The  blades  of  the 
 wheat  and  barley  plants  are  often  four  finders 
 broad."  But  this  is  a  great  exaggeration.  (See 
 also  Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant,  viii.  7.)  Modern 
 writers,  as  Chesney  and  Rich,  bear  testimony  to 
 the  great  fertility  of  Mesopotamia.  Syria  and 
 Palestine  prodi:ced  wheat  of  fine  quality  and  in 
 large  quantities  (Ps.  cxlvii.  14,  Ixxxi.  IG,  etc. ). 
 There  appear  to  be  two  or  three  kinds  of  wheat  at 
 present  grown  in  Palestine,  the  Triticum  vulynre 
 (var.  Iiyberimm),  the  T.  spelta  [see  RyeJ,  and 
 another  variety  of  bearded  wheat  which  appears  to 
 be  the  same  as  the  Ii^gyptian  kind,  the  T.  coiiipos- 
 itiiin.  In  the  pai'able  of  the  sower  our  Lord  alludes 
 to  grains  of  wheat  which  in  good  ground  produce  a 
 hundred  fold  (Matt.  xiii.  8).  "  The  return  of  a 
 hundred  for  one,"  says  Trench,  "  is  not  unheard 
 of  in  the  East,  though  always  mentioned  as  some- 
 thing extraordinary."  Laborde  says,  "  Tliere  is  to 
 be  found  at  Kerek  a  species  of  hundred  wheat  which 
 justifies  the  text  of  the  Bible  against  the  charges 
 of  exaggeration  of  which  it  has  been  the  object." 
 The  common  Triticum  culyure  will  sometimes 
 produce  one  hundred  grains  in  the  ear.  Wheat  is 
 reaped  towards  the  end  of  April,  in  Jlay,  and  in 
 June,  according  to  the  differences  of  soil  and  posi- 
 tion; it  was  sown  either  broadcast,  and  then 
 ploughed  in  or  trampled  in  by  cattle  (Is.  xxxii.  20), 
 or  in  rows,  if  we  rightly  understand  Is.  xxviii.  25, 
 which  seems  to  imply  that  the  seeds  were  plantvd 
 apart  in  order  to  insure  larger  and  fuller  ears. 
 The  wheat  was  put  into  the  ground  in  the  winter, 
 and  some  time  after  the  barley;  in  the  Egyptian 
 plague  of  hail,  consequently,  the  barley  suttered, 
 but  the  wheat  had  not  appeared,  and  so  escaped 
 injury.  Wheat  was  ground  into  flour;  the  finest 
 qualities  were  expressed  by  the  term  "  fiit  of  kid- 
 neys of  wheat,"  H^iH  DV^S  nbpi  (Deut. 
 xxxii.  1-4).  Unripe  ears  are  sometimes  cut  off  from 
 the  stalks,  roasted  in  an  oven,  mashed  and  boiled, 
 and  eaten  by  the  modern  Egyptians  (Sonniui, 
 True).  Rosenmiiller  {Botany  of  (he  Bible,  p. 
 80),  with  good  reason,  conjectures  that  this  dish, 
 which  the  Arabs  call  Ferik,  is   the  same  as  the 
 
 geres  carmel  (7P~13  Ci^^S)  of  Lev.  ii.  14  and 
 2  K.  iv.  42.     The  Heb.  word  Kali  C'bp,  Lev.  ii. 
 
 ^    •  't' 
 14)  denotes,  it  is  probable,  roasted  ears  of  corn, 
 still    used    as    food    in    the    East.     An    "  ear    of 
 
 corn  "  was  called  Shibboleth  {n/_1lW),  the  word 
 which  betrayed  the  Ephraimites  (Judg.  xii.  1,  6), 
 who  were  unaljle  to  give  the  sound  of  s/(.  Tiie  cu- 
 rious expression  in  Prov.  xxvii.  22,  "  though  thou 
 shouldest  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  among  wheat 
 with  a  pestle,  yet  will  not  his  foolishness  depart 
 from  him,"  appears  to  point  to  the  custom  of  mix- 
 ing the  grains  of  inferior  cereals  with  wlieat ;  the 
 meaning  will  then  be,  "  Let  a  fool  be  ever  so  much 
 in  the  company  of  wise  men,  yet  he  will  continue 
 a  fool."  Maurer  (Comment.  1.  c.)  simply  explains 
 the  passage  thus:  "  Quomodocunque  tr.actaveris 
 stultum  non  patietur  se  emendari."  [Compare 
 articles  Cokn;  Aghiculture;  B.vkley.J 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 *  WHEEL.     [Cart;  Laver;  Well.J 
 
 *  WHEN  AS,  Matt.  i.  18  (A.  V.),  is  simply 
 =  "  when,"  as  often  in  old  English  writers.     A. 
 
 -  *  WHIP.     [Cord  ;  Goad  ;  Scourging.] 
 
 WIDOW 
 
 3511 
 
 *  WHIRLPOOL,  as  the  marginal  rendering 
 of  "  leviathan  "  in  Job  xli.  1,  is  not  used  in  its  pres- 
 ent sense,  but  denotes  a  kind  of  whale.  See  the  quo- 
 tations from  Holland's  I'liny,  xi.  .37,  ix.  3,  4,  in  East- 
 wood and  Wright's  Bible  Wortl-Book,  p.  3-30.    A. 
 
 WHIKLWIND  (nC^D;  Hni^p).  The 
 Hebrew  terms  suphdh  and  se'ardh  convey  the 
 notion  of  a  violent  wind  or  hurricane,  the  former  be- 
 cause such  a  wind  sioeeps  away  every  oliject  it  en- 
 counters, the  latter  because  the  objects  so  swept 
 away  are  tossed  about  and  agitated.  In  addition  to 
 this,  Gesenius  gives  a  similar  sense  to  yalffal,"  in 
 Ps.  Ixxvii.  18  (A.  V.  "heaven  ")  and  Ez.  x.  13 
 (A.  V.  '-wheel").  Generally,  however,  this  last 
 term  expresses  one  of  the  effects  of  such  a  storm 
 in  rolling  aXong  chaff,  stubble,  or  such  light  articles 
 (Thes.  p.  288).  It  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the 
 above  terms  express  the  specific  notion  of  a  whirl- 
 wind,  i.  e.  a  gale  moving  violently  round  on  its  own 
 axis  —  and  there  is  no  warrant  for  the  use  of  the 
 word  in  the  A.  V.  of  2  K.  ii.  11.  The  most  vio- 
 lent winds  in  Palestine  come  from  the  east ;  and  the 
 passage  in  Job  xxxvii.  9,  which  in  the  A.  V.  reads, 
 "Out  of  the  south  cometh  the  whirlwind,"  should 
 rather  be  rendered,  "  Out  of  his  chamber,"  etc. 
 The  whirlwind  is  frequently  used  as  a  metaphor  of 
 violent  and  sweeping  destruction.  Cyrus's  invasion 
 of  Babylonia  is  compared  to  a  southerly  gale  coming 
 out  of  the  wilderness  of  Arabia  (Is.  xxi.  1;  comp. 
 Knobel,  in  foe),  the  effects  of  which  .are  most  prej- 
 udicial in  that  country.  Similar  allusions  occur 
 in  Ps.  Iviii.  9;  Prov.  i."27,  x.  25;  Is.  xl.  24;  Dan. 
 xi.  40.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  WHITE.     [CoLOKs,  1.] 
 
 *  WHITE  STONE.     [Stonks,  8.] 
 
 *  WHOT  (Deut.  ix.  19),  appears  in  the  edition 
 of  1611,  subsequently  changed  to  "  hot."  H. 
 
 WIDOW  (nnabS! :    y^i^pa.-.   vidua).     Under 
 
 the  Jlosaic  dispensation  no  legal  provision  was  made 
 for  the  maintenance  of  widows.  They  were  left  de- 
 pendent partly  on  the  affection  of  relations,  more 
 especially  of  the  eldest  son,  whose  birthright,  or 
 extra  share  of  the  property,  imposed  such  a  duty 
 upon  him,  and  partly  on  the  privileges  accorded  to 
 other  distressed  classes,  such  as  a  participation  in 
 the  triennial  third  tithe  (Deut.  xiv.  29,  xxvi.  12), 
 in  leasing  (Deut.  xxiv.  19-21),  and  in  religious 
 feasts  (Deut.  xvi.  11,  14).  In  the  spirit  of  these 
 regulations  a  portion  of  the  spoil  taken  in  war  was 
 assigned  to  them  (2  Mace.  viii.  28,  30).  A  special 
 prohibition  was  laid  against  taking  a  widow's  gar- 
 ments in  pledge  (Deut.  xxiv.  17),  and  this  was 
 practically  extended  to  other  necessaries  (Job  xxiv. 
 3).  In  addition  to  these  specific  regulations,  the 
 widow  was  commended  to  the  care  of  the  commu- 
 nity (Ex.  xxii.  22;  Deut.  xxvii.  19;  Is.  i.  17;  Jer. 
 vii.  6,  xxii.  3;  Zech.  vii.  10),  and  any  neglect  or 
 oppression  was  strongly  reprobated  (Job  xxii.  9, 
 xxiv.  21;  Ps.  xciv.  6;  Is.  x.  2;  Ez.  xxii.  7;  Mai. 
 iii.  5;  Ecclus.  xxxv.  14,  15;  Bar.  vi.  38  [or  Epist. 
 of  Jer.  38];  Matt,  xxiii.  14).  In  times  of  danger 
 widows  were  permitted  to  deposit  their  property  in 
 the  treasury  of  the  Temple  (2  Blacc.  iii.  10). 
 With  regard  to  the  remarriage  of  widows,  the  only 
 restriction  imposed  by  the  Mosaic  law  had  reference 
 to  the  contingency  of  one  being    left  childless,  ir. 
 
 b3b2. 
 
 k 
 
3512 
 
 WIDOW 
 
 which  case  the  brother  of  the  deceased  husband  had 
 a  right  to  marry  the  widow  (Deut.  xxv.  5,  6 ;  Matt. 
 xxii.  23—30).  [Marriage.]  The  high-priest  was 
 prohibited  from  marrying  a  widow,  and  in  the  ideal 
 polity  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  the  prohibition  is  ex- 
 tended to  the  ordinary  priests  (Kz.  xliv.  22). 
 
 In  the  Apostolic  Church  the  widows  were  sus- 
 tained at  the  public  expense,  the  relief  being  daily 
 administered  in  kind,  under  the  superintendence  of 
 officers  appointed  for  this  special  purpose  (Acts  vi. 
 1-6).  Particular  directions  are  given  by  St.  Paul  as 
 to  the  class  of  persons  entitled  to  such  public  main- 
 tenance (1  Tim.  V.  3-16).  He  would  confine  it  to 
 the  "  widow  indeed  "'  (^  ovtcos  x'OP^'li  whom  he 
 defines  to  be  one  who  is  left  alone  in  the  world 
 (fie/jLoyw/iievTi),  without  any  relations  or  Christian 
 friends  responsible  for  her  support  (vv.  3-5,  16). 
 Poverty  combined  with  friendlessness  thus  formed 
 the  main  criterion  of  eligibility  for  public  support ; 
 but  at  the  same  time  the  character  of  the  widow  — 
 her  piety  and  trustfulness  —  was  to  be  taken  into 
 account  (ver.  5).  Out  of  tlie  body  of  such  widows 
 a  certain  number  were  to  be  enrolled  (KaraKe- 
 yea-6oo;  A.  V.  "taken  into  the  number"),  the 
 qualifications  for  such  enrollment  being  (1)  that 
 they  were  not  under  sixty  years  of  age ;  (2 )  that 
 they  had  been  '•  the  wife  of  one  man,"  probaljly 
 meaning  but  once  married;  and  (3)  that  they  had 
 led  useful  and  charitable  lives  (vv.  9,  10).  The  ob- 
 ject of  the  enrollment  is  by  no  means  obvious.  If 
 we  were  to  form  our  opinion  solely  on  the  qualifi- 
 cations above  expressed,  we  should  conclude  that 
 the  enrolled  widows  formed  an  ecclesiastical  order, 
 having  duties  identical  with  or  analogous  to  tiiose 
 of  the  deaconesses  of  the  early  Church.  For  why, 
 if  the  object  were  of  an  eleemosynary  character, 
 should  the  younger  or  twice-mai'ried  widows  be  ex- 
 cluded ?  The  weight  of  modern  criticism  is  un- 
 doubtedly in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  enrolled 
 widows  held  such  an  official  position  in  the  Church 
 (Alford,  DeWette,  Lange,  etc.,  in  1  Tim.  v.  9,  10). 
 But  we  can  perceive  no  ground  for  isolating  the  pas- 
 sage relating  to  the  enrolled  widows  from  the  con- 
 text, or  for  distinguishing  tliese  from  the  "  widows 
 indeed  "  referred  to  in  the  preceding  and  succeed- 
 ing verses.  If  the  passage  be  read  as  a  whole,  then 
 the  impression  derived  from  it  will  Ije  that  the  en- 
 rollment was  for  an  eleemosynary  purpose,  and  that 
 the  main  condition  of  enrollment  was,  as  before, 
 poverty.  The  very  argument  which  has  been  ad- 
 duced in  fiivor  of  the  opposite  view,  in  reality 
 equally  favors  this  one;  for  why  should  unmarried 
 or  young  women  be  excluded  from  an  ecclesiastical 
 order?  The  practice  of  the  early  Church  proves 
 that  they  were  not  excluded.  The  author  of  the 
 ApiistoUcal  Constitutions  lays  down  the  rule  that 
 virgins  should  be  generally,  and  widows  only  excep- 
 tionally, appointed  to  the  office  of  deaconess  (vi. 
 17,  §  4);  and  though  the  directions  given  to  Tim- 
 othy were  frequently  taken  as  a  model  for  the  ap- 
 pointment of  deaconesses,  yet  there  was  great  di- 
 rersity  of  practice  in  this  respect  (liingham's  Ant.  ii. 
 .22,  §§  2-5).  On  the  other  hand,  the  restrictions 
 contained  in  the  Apostolic  directions  are  not  incon- 
 Bistent  with  the  eleemosynary  view,  if  we  asstmie, 
 as  is  very  possible,  that  the  ern'olled  widows  formed 
 1  permunent  charge  on  the  public  funds,  and  en- 
 joyed certain  privileges  by  reason  of  their  long  pre- 
 rious  services,  while  the  remainder,  who  were 
 younger,  and  might  very  possibly  remarry,  would 
 ie  regarded  in  the  light  of  temporary  and  casual 
 reciitients.     But  while  we   thus   believe  that   the 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 primary  object  of  the  enrollment  was  simply  to  en- 
 force a  more  methodical  administration  of  the 
 Church  funds,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the 
 order  of  widows  would  obtain  a  quasi -official  posi- 
 tion in  the  Church  Having  already  served  a  vol- 
 untary diaconate,  and  having  exhibited  their  self- 
 control  by  refraining  from  a  second  marriage,  they 
 would  naturally  be  looked  up  to  as  models  of  piety 
 to  their  sex,  and  would  belong  to  the  class  whence 
 deaconesses  would  be  chiefly  drawn.  Hence  we 
 find  the  term  "  widow "  (;ci7pa)  used  by  early 
 writers  in  an  extended  sense,  to  signify  the  adoption 
 of  the  conditions  by  which  widows,  enrolled  as 
 such,  were  bound  for  the  future.  Thus  Ignatius 
 speaks  of  "virgins  who  were  called  widows  "  (irop- 
 Qevovs  TO?  KiyoiMfvas  XTjpas;  Ep-  ad  Smyrn. 
 13):  and  TertuUian  records  the  case  of  a  virgin 
 who  was  placed  on  the  roll  of  widows  (in  liduatu) 
 v.'hile  yet  under  twenty  years  of  age  {De  Vel.  Viry. 
 9).  It  is  a  further  question  in  what  respect  these 
 \irgins  were  called  "widows."  The  annotations 
 on  Ignatius  regard  the  term  as  strictly  equivalent 
 to  "deaconess"  {Patres  Apos.  ii.  441,  ed.  Jacob- 
 son),  but  there  is  evidently  another  sense  in  which 
 it  may  be  used,  namely,  as  betokening  celibacy,  and 
 such  we  believe  to  have  been  its  meaning,  inasmuch 
 as  the  abstract  term  ■)(ripiia  is  used  in  the  sense  of 
 continence,  or  uniwtrried  state,  in  the  Apostolical 
 Constitutions  {irapBivos  /j.^  (pepovaa  t^v  iu  vf6- 
 Ti)Ti  x'flpf'iO'V'i  Satpou  exovaa  xrjpeiay,  iii.  1,  §§  1, 
 2).  We  are  not  therefore  disposed  to  identify  the 
 widows  of  the  Bible  either  with  the  deaconesses  or 
 witli  the  irpeff^vTiSes  of  the  early  Church,  from 
 each  of  which  classes  thej'  are  di.stinguished  in  the 
 work  last  quoted  (ii.  57,  §  8,  viii.  13,  §  4).  The 
 order  of  widows  (tJ»  xVP^kov)  existed  as  a  separate 
 institution,  contemporaneously  with  these  offices, 
 apparently  for  the  same  eleemosynary  purpose  for 
 which  it  was  originally  instituted  ( Const.  Ajms.  iii. 
 1,  §  1,  iv.  5,  §  1).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 WIFE.     [Divorce;  Marriage.] 
 
 WILD  BEASTS.     [Beasts.] 
 
 *  WILDERNESS  OF  SIN.  [Sin,  Wil- 
 derness OF.] 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDER- 
 ING. The  historical  magnitude  of  tlie  Exodus  as 
 an  event,  including  in  that  name  not  only  the  exit 
 from  Egypt,  but  tiie  passage  of  the  sea  and  desert, 
 and  the  entry  into  Cjjnaan,  and  the  strange  scenery 
 in  which  it  was  enacted,  no  less  than  the  miraculous 
 agency  sustained  thi'oughout  forty  years,  has  given 
 to  this  locality  an  interest  which  is  heightened,  if 
 possible,  by  the  constant  retrospect  taken  by  the 
 great  Teacher  of  the  New  Testament  and  his  Apos- 
 tles, of  this  portion  of  the  history  of  the  race  of 
 Israel,  as  full  of  spiritual  lessons  necessary  for  the 
 Christian  Church  throughout  all  ages.  Hence  this 
 region,  which  physically  is,  and  has  probably  been 
 for  three  thousand  years  or  more,  little  else  than  a 
 barren  waste,  has  derived  a  moral  grandeur  and  ob- 
 tained a  reverential  homage  which  has  spread  with 
 the  diffusion  of  Christianity.  Indeed,  to  Christian, 
 Jew,  and  Moslem  it  is  alike  holy  groimd.  The 
 mystery  which  hangs  over  by  far  the  greater  num- 
 ber of  localities,  assigned  to  events  even  of  first-rate 
 magnitude,  rather  inflames  than  allays  the  eager- 
 ness for  identification ;  and  the  result  has  been  a 
 larger  an-ay  of  tourists  than  has  probably  ever  pene- 
 trated any  other  country  of  equal  difficulty.  Burck- 
 hardt,  Niebuhr,  Seetzen,  Laborde  and  Linant, 
 Kiippell,  Raumer,  Russegger,    Lepsius,   Heuniker, 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3513 
 
 Wcllsfefl.  Fi)zakevley,  and  Miss  Martineau,  are  con- 
 spicuous amongst  those  who  have  coMtributed  since 
 the  close  of  the  last  century  to  deepen,  to  vivify, 
 and  to  correct  our  impressions,  besides  the  earlier 
 works  of  Moncoiiys  in  the  17th  century,  and  Has- 
 selquist  and  I'ococke  in  the  18th;  whilst  Wilson, 
 Stewart,  Hartlett,  Bonar,  Olin,  Bertou,  Koliinson, 
 and  Stanley  have  added  a  rich  detail  of  illustration, 
 reaching  to  the  present  day.  And  thus  it  is  at 
 length  "  possible  by  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
 country  itself  to  lay  down,  not  indeed  the  actual 
 route  of  the  Israelites  in  every  stage,  but  in  almost 
 all  cases  the  main  alternatives  between  which  we 
 must  choose,  and  in  some  cases  the  very  spots 
 themselves."  Yet  with  all  the  material  which  now 
 lies  at  the  disposal  of  the  topographical  critic,  there 
 is  often  a  real  poverty  of  evidence  where  there  seems 
 to  be  an  abundance;  and  the  single  lines  of  infor- 
 mation do  not  weave  up  into  a  fabric  of  clear  knowl- 
 edge. ''  Hitherto  no  one  traveller  has  traversed 
 more  than  one,  or  at  most  two  routes  of  the  Desert, 
 and  thus  the  deterniiTiation  of  these  questions  has 
 been  olisjured ;  first,  by  the  tendency  of  every  one 
 to  make  the  Israelites  follow  his  own  track ;  and 
 secondly,  by  his  inability  to  institute  a  just  com- 
 parison between  the  facilities  or  difficultiee  which 
 attend  the  routes  which  he  has  not  seen.  This  ob- 
 scurity will  always  exist  till  some  competent  traveller 
 has  e.\plored  the  whole  Peninsula.  When  this  has 
 been  fairly  done,  there  is  little  doubt  that  some  of 
 the  most  important  topographical  questions  now  at 
 issue  will  be  set  at  rest  "  (Stanley,  <S'.  tf-  P.  33). 
 
 I.  The  uncertainties  commence  from  the  very 
 starting-point  of  the  route  of  the  Wandering.  It 
 is  impossible  to  fi.x  the  point  at  which  in  "the 
 wilderness  of  Etham  "  (Num.  xxxiii.  6,  7)  Israel, 
 now  a  nation  of  freemen,  emerged  from  that  sea 
 into  which  they  had  passed  as  a  nation  of  slaves. 
 But,  slippery  as  is  the  physical  ground  for  any  fix- 
 ture of  the  miracle  to  a  particular  spot,  we  may 
 yet  admire  the  grandeur  and  vigor  of  the  image 
 of  baptism  which  Christianity  has  appropriated 
 from  those  waters.  There  their  freedom  was  won ; 
 "  not  of  themselves,  it  was  the  gift  of  God,"  whose 
 presence  visibly  preceded ;  and  therefore  St.  Paul 
 says,  "  they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud,"  and  not 
 only  "  in  the  sea."  The  fact  that  from  "  Ethani 
 in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  their  path  struck 
 across  the  sea  (Ex.  xiii.  20),  and  from  the  sea  into 
 the  same  wilderness  of  Etham,  seems  to  indicate 
 the  upper  end  of  the  furthest  tongue  of  the  Gulf 
 of  Suez  as  the  point  of  crossing,  lor  here,  as  is 
 probable,  rather  than  lower  down  the  same,  the 
 district  on  either  side  would  for  a  short  distance 
 on  both  shores  have  the  same  name.  There  seems 
 reason  also  to  think  that  this  gulf  had  then,  as 
 also  at  Ezion-Geber  [Ezion-geber],  a  further  ex- 
 tension northward  than  at  present,  owing  to  the 
 land  having  upheaved  its  level.     This  action  seems 
 
 a  See  a  pamphlet  by  Charles  T.  Beke,  Ph.  D.,  "  A 
 Few  Words  with  Bishop  Coleuso,"  pp.  4,  5. 
 
 ^  Compare  the  use  of  the  same  word,  of  a  multi- 
 tude of  men  or  cattle  (ia  .Joel  i.  18),  to  express  iv 
 anopia  eli/at,  without  reference  to  egress  or  direction 
 of  course,  merely  for  want  of  food. 
 
 '-•  Josephus  {Ant.  il.  1,5,  §  3)  speaks  of  the  obstruc- 
 tioa  of  precipitous  and  impassublo  mountains,  but 
 when  we  consider  his  extravagant  language  of  the 
 height  of  the  buildings  of  the  Temple,  it  is  likely  that 
 much  moi-e,  when  speaking  in  general  terms  of  a  spot 
 so  distant,  such  expressions  may  be  set  down  as  sim- 
 ply rhetorical. 
 
 221 
 
 to  have  been  from  early  times  the  predominant  one, 
 and  traces  of  it  have  recently  been  observed."  Thus 
 it  is  probable,  as  a  result  of  tiie  same  agency,  that 
 the  sea  was  even  then  shallow,  and  the  sudden 
 action  of  a  tidal  sea  in  the  ctd-de-sac  of  a  narrow 
 and  shallow  gulf  is  well  known.  Our  own  Solway 
 Firth  is  a  familiar  example  of  the  rise  and  rush  of 
 water,  surprising,  at  times,  especfally  when  com- 
 bined with  the  action  of  a  strong  wind,  even  those 
 habitually  cognizant  of  its  power.  Similarly  by 
 merely  venturing,  it  seems,  below  high-water  mark, 
 our  own  King  John  lost  his  baggage,  regalia,  and 
 treasures  in  the  estuary  of  The  Wash.     Pharaoh's 
 
 exclamation,  "  they  are  entangled  (Q'^pp?)''  in  the 
 
 land,"  merely  expresses  the  perplexity  in  which 
 such  a  multitude,  having,  from  whatever  cause,  no 
 way  of  escape,  would  find  themselves.  "  The  wil- 
 derness hath  shut  them  in,"  refers  merely,  it  is 
 probable,  to  his  security  in  the  belief  that,  having 
 reached  the  flat  of  the  waste,  they  were  comi)letely 
 at  the  mercy  of  a  chariot  force,  like  his,  and  rather 
 excludes  than  implies  the  notion  of  mountains.*' 
 The  direction  of  the  wind  is  "east"  in  the  He- 
 brew (D^IlJ  n^~l2),  but  in  the  LXX.  "  south  " 
 
 {voroi),  in  Ex.  xiv.  21.  On  a  local  question  the 
 probable  authority  of  the  latter,  executed  in  Egypt 
 near  the  spot,  is  somewhat  enhanced  al)ove  its  ordi- 
 nary value.  The  furthest  tongue  of  the  gulf,  now 
 supposed  dry,  narrows  to  a  strait  some  way  below, 
 i.  e.  south  of  its  northern  extremity,  as  given  in 
 Laborde's  map  {Coniiiuutury  on  Exoil.)  s.n(\  then 
 widens  again.''  In  such  a  narrow  pass  the  action 
 of  the  water  would  be  strongest  when  "  the  sea 
 returned,"  and  here  a  wind  anywhere  between  E. 
 and  S.  S.  E.,  to  judge  from  that  map,  would  pro- 
 duce nearly  the  same  efit»ct;  only  the  more  nearly 
 due  E.  the  more  it  would  meet  the  sea  at  right 
 angles."  The  probability  is  certainly  that  Phai'aoh, 
 seeing  his  bondmen,  now  all  but  within  his  clutch, 
 yet  escaping  from  it,  would  in  the  darkness  of 
 night,  especially  as  he  had  spurned  calmer  coun- 
 sels and  remonstrances  before,  pursue  with  head- 
 long rashness,  even  although,  to  a  sober  judgment 
 guided  by  experience,  the  risk  was  plain.  There 
 is  a  resemblance  in  the  names  Migdol  and  the 
 "  ancient  '  JMagdoluni,'  twelve  miles  S.  of  Pelu- 
 sium,  and  imdoubtedly  described  as  '  Jligdol '  by 
 .Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel "  (Jer.  xliv.  1,  xlvi.  14;  Ez. 
 xxix.  10,  XXX.  6;  S.  (.f  P.  p.  37),  also  between  the 
 same  and  the  modern  Bluktnhi,  "  a  gentle  slope 
 through  the  hills"  towards  Suez;  and  I'illahiroth 
 perhaps  is  \AjvM.  The  "  wilderness  of  I'^tham  " 
 probably  lay  on  either  side  adjacent  to  the  now 
 dry  trough  of  the  northern  end  of  the  gulf  Dr. 
 Stewart  {Tent  and  Khan,  p.  (54)  thinks  the  name 
 Etham  traceable  in  the  11''/'//;  Ahlhi,  on  tiie  Ara- 
 bian shore,  but  this  and  the  preceding  'Ajrud  are 
 
 d  Dr.  Stanley  (5.  ^  P.  p.  36)  thinks  that  this  sup- 
 posed extension  "  depends  on  arguments  which  have 
 not  yet  been  thoroughly  explored." 
 
 e  If  the  wind  were  direct  S.  it  would  at  some  points 
 favor  the  notion  that  "  the  passage  was  not  a  transit 
 but  a  short  circuit,  returning  again  to  the  Egyptian 
 shore,  and  then  pursuing  tlieir  way  round  tlie  head 
 of  the  gulf,"  an  explanation  favored  "  by  earlier  Chris- 
 tian conmieotators,  and  by  almost  all  the  Rabbinicai 
 writers"  (S.  §•  P.  p.  36).  The  landing-place  would 
 on  this  view  be  considerably  north  of  the  point  of 
 entering  the  sea. 
 
3514 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 of  doubtful  identity.  The  probability  seems  on 
 the  wiiole  to  ftivor  the  notion  that  the  crossing  lay 
 to  the  N.  of  the  Jehcl  'AtulcaU,  which  lies  on  the 
 Egyptian  side  S.  of  Suez,  and  tlierefore  neither 
 the  ' Ayun  Miisa,"  nor,  much  less,  the  Hummain 
 Pluiraun,  further  down  on  the  eastern  shore  — 
 each  of  which  places,  as  well  as  se^e^al  others, 
 claims  in  local  legend  to  be  the  spot  of  landing  — 
 will  suit.  Still,  these  places,  or  either  of  them, 
 may  be  the  region  where  "  Israel  saw  the  l']g3  ptians 
 dead  upon  the  sea-siiore "  (Kx.  xiv.  30).  The 
 crossing  place  from  the  Egyptian  Wady  Tawarik 
 to  the  \'\i)fm  Mi'isn  has  been  supported,  however, 
 by  Wilson,  Olin,  Dr.  Stewart  ( Tvitf,  ami  Khan,  p. 
 5G),  and  others.  The  notion  of  Mukful'i-  being 
 Jligdol  will  best  suit  the  previous  view  of  the  more 
 northerly  passage.  The  "wilderness  of  Shur," 
 into  which  the  Israelites  "went  out"  from  the 
 Red  Sea,  appears  to  be  the  eastern  and  southeastern 
 continuation  of  that  of  Etham,  for  both  in  K\.  xv. 
 22,  and  in  Num.  xxxiii.  8,  they  are  recorded  to 
 have  "  gone  three  days  in  the  wilderness,"  indicated 
 respectively  in  the  two  passages  as  that  of  Shur 
 and  that  of  I-tham.  From  the  expression  in  Ex. 
 xiii.  20,  "  Etham,  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  the 
 habitable  region  would  seem  to  have  ended  at  that 
 place.  Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  7,  §  3)  seems  to  identify 
 Pelusium  with  Shur  (comp.  1  Sam.  xv.  7);  but 
 probably  he  merely  uses  the  former  term  in  an 
 approximate  sense,  as  a  land-uiark  well  known  to 
 his  readers;  since  Shur  is  described  as  "over 
 against,  or  before  Egypt"  (Gen.  xxv.  18),  being 
 perhaps  the  same  as  Silior,  similarly  spoken  of  in 
 Josh.  xiii.  3;  .ler.  ii.  18.  When  so  described,  we 
 may  understand  "  Egypt  "  to  lie  taken  in  a  strict 
 sense  as  excluding  Goshen  and  the  Arabian  nome. 
 [Goshen.]  Shur  "before  Egypt,"  whatever  the 
 name  may  have  meant,  must  proltably  be  viewed 
 as  lying  eastward  of  a  line  drawn  from  Suez  to 
 Pelusium ;  and  the  wilderness  named  from  it  or 
 from  Etham,  extended  tin-ee  days'  journey  (for  the 
 Israelites)  from  the  head  of  the  gulf,  if  not  more. 
 It  is  evident  that,  viewed  from  Eg.ypt,  the  wilder- 
 ness migiit  easily  take  its  name  from  the  last  out- 
 post of  the  habitalile  region,  whether  town  or 
 village,  whereas  in  other  aspects  it  might  have  a 
 name  of  its  own,  from  some  land-mark  lying  in  it. 
 Thus  the  Egyptians  may  have  known  it  as  con- 
 nected with  Etham,  and  the  desert  inhabitants  as 
 belonging  to  Shur;  while  from  his  residence  in 
 Egypt  and  sojourn  with  Jetliro,  both  names  may 
 have  been  familiar  to  JMoses.     However  this  may 
 
 a  A  warm  spring,  the  temperature  of  wliich  is  given 
 by  Mr.  Hii.miltoii  (Sinai,  the  Heiljnz  and  SoiuJan,]).  1-i) 
 as  being  83°  Fahrenheit.  "  Robinson  found  the  water 
 liere  salt,  and  yielding  a  hard  deposit,  yet  the  Arabs 
 called  these  spring.s  '  sweet  :  '  there  are  several  of 
 them"  (Seetzen,  Reisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  431)  The  Hinn- 
 mam  ("  warm  baths  '')  Pharaun  are  similar  springs. 
 lying  a  little  Vf.  of  S.  from  W(uly  Useit,  on  the  coast 
 close  to  whose  edge  i-ises  the  precipitous  Jtbel  Hiim- 
 m&m,  so  called  from  them,  and  here  iutercepting  the 
 path  along  the  shore.  The  Rev.  R.  S.  Tyrwhitt,  who 
 made  the  desert  journey  in  February,  1863,  says  tliat 
 there  mai/  be  a  warm  spring  out  of  the  twelve  or 
 thirteen  which  form  the  ^Ai/tin  MUsn,  but  that  the 
 water  of  the  larger  well  is  cold,  and  that  he  drank 
 of  it. 
 
 b  North  of  this  limit  lies  the  most  southern  wady 
 which  has  been  fixed  upon  by  any  considerable  num- 
 lier  of  authorities  for  Elim,  from  which  the  departure 
 was  taken  into  the  wilderness  of  Sin.     Seetzen,  but 
 
 be,  from  Suez  eastward,  the  large  desert  tract, 
 stretclrfng  as  far  east  as  the  Ghor  and  JMonnt  Seir, 
 i.  e.  from  32°  40'  to  35°  10'  E.  long.,  begins. 
 The  31st  parallel  of  latitude,  nearly  traversing  el- 
 'Arish,  the  "  River  of  Kgypt,"  on  the  Mediterra- 
 nean, and  the  southermnosfr  extremity  of  the  Dead 
 Sea,  may  be  taken  roughly  to  represent  its  north- 
 ern limit,  where  it  really  merges  im percept il)ly  into 
 the  "  south  country  "  of  Judah.  It  is  scarcely 
 called  in  Scripture  by  any  one  general  name,  but 
 the  "  wilderness  of  I'aran  "  most  nearly  approxi- 
 mates to  such  a  designation,  though  lost,  short  of 
 the  Egyptian  or  western  limit,  in  the  wilderness 
 of  Shur,  and  perhaps,  although  not  certainly,  cur- 
 tailed eastward  by  that  of  Zin.  On  the  south  side 
 of  the  tt-Tih  range,  a  broad  angular  band  runs 
 across  the  peninsula  with  its  apex  turned  south- 
 ward, and  pointing  towards  the  central  lilock  of 
 granite  mountains.  This  is  a  tract  of  sand  known 
 as  the  Dtbbet  er-Rnndeh  or  Ramhili,  but  which 
 name  is  omitted  in  Kiepert's  map.  The  long  hor- 
 izontal range  and  the  sandy  plain  together  form 
 a  natural  feature  in  marked  contrast  with  the  py- 
 ramidal configuration  of  the  southern  or  Sinaitic 
 region.  The  "  wilderness  of  Sinai  "  lies  of  course 
 in  that  southern  region,  in  that  part  which,  al- 
 though generally  elevated,  is  overhung  by  higher 
 peaks.  How  far  this  wilderness  extended  is  un- 
 certain. The  Israelites  only  traversed  the  north- 
 western region  of  it.  The  "  wilderness  of  Sin  " 
 was  their  passage  into  it  from  the  more  pleasant 
 district  of  coast  wadies  with  water-springs,  which 
 succeeded  to  the  first-traversed  wilderness  of  Shur 
 or  Etham,  where  no  water  was  found.  Sin  may 
 probably  be  identified  with  the  coast  strip,  now 
 known  as  el-Kda,  reachhig  from  a  little  aV)Ove  the 
 Jehel  Feirdn,  or  as  nearly  as  possible  on  the  29th 
 parallel  of  latitude,''  down  to  and  beyond  Tiir  on 
 the  Ked  Sea.  They  seem  to  have  only  dipped  into 
 the  "  Sin  "  region  at  its  northern  extremity,  and 
 to  have  at  once  moved  from  the  coast  towards  the 
 N.  W.  upon  Sinai  (Ivx.  xv.  22-27,  xvi.  1;  Num. 
 xxxiii.  8-11).  It  is  often  impossible  to  assign  a 
 distinct  track  to  this  vast  body  —  a  nation  swarm- 
 ing on  the  m,arch.  The  fact  of  many,  perhaps 
 most,  of  the  ordinary  avenues  being  incapable  of 
 containing  more  than  a  fraction  of  them,  would 
 often  have  com|)elled  them  to  appropriate  all  or 
 several  of  the  modes  of  access  to  particular  points, 
 between  the  probabilities  of  which  the  judgment  of 
 travellers  is  balanced  .c  Down  the  coast,  however, 
 from  Etham  or   the   Suez  region  southwards,  the 
 
 he  alone,  suggests  that  Elim  is  to  be  found  in  a  warm 
 spring  in  a  northerly  direction  from  I'iir,  at  a  very 
 slight  distance,  which  waters  the  extensive  date-palm 
 plantations  there.  If  this  were  so,  Ttir  itself  would 
 have  certainly  been  included  in  the  I'adius  of  the 
 camp  ;  but  it  is  xmlikely  that  they  went  so  far  south. 
 c  It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  that  the  same 
 observations  apply  to  the  battle  in  Rephidim  with 
 Amalek  To  look  about  for  a  battle-field  large  enough 
 to  give  sufficient  space  for  two  hosts  worthy  of  repre- 
 senting Israel  and  Amalek,  and  to  reject  all  sites 
 where  this  possibility  is  not  obvious,  is  an  unsafe 
 method  of  criticism.  The  most  reticulated  mass  of 
 wadies  in  the  whole  peninsula,  if  deemed  worth  fight- 
 ing for,  would  form  a  battle-ground  for  all  practical 
 purposes,  though  not  properly  a  "  field  "  of  battle, 
 and  the  battle  might  decisively  settle  supremacy 
 within  certain  limits,  although  no  regular  method  of 
 warfare  might  be  applicable,  and  the  numbers  actually 
 engaged  might  be  inconsiderable.     It  would  perhaps 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3516 
 
 course  is  broad  and  open,  and  there  the  track  would 
 be  more  definite  and  united.  Before  going  into 
 the  further  details  of  this  question,  a  glance  may 
 be  taken  at  the  general  configuration  of  the  et-Tih 
 region,  computed  at  40  parasangs,  or  about  140 
 miles,  in  length,  and  the  same  in  breadth,  by  .lakiit, 
 the  famous  geographer  of  Hamah  (Seetzen,  Jit'isen, 
 iii.  47).  For  a  description  of  the  rock  desert  of 
 Sinai,  in  which  nature  has  cast,  as  it  were,  a  pyra- 
 mid of  granite,  culiniua'tiiig  at  Uin  Sluiumer, 
 9,300  feet  above  sea-level,  but  cloven  and  sulcated 
 in  every  direction  by  wadies  into  minor  blocks,  see 
 Sinai. 
 
 II.  The  twin  gulfs  of  Suez  and  'Akabah,  into 
 which  the  Red  Sea  separates,  embrace  the  Penin- 
 sula on  its  W.  and  E.  sides  respectively.  One  or 
 other  of  them  is  in  sight  from  almost  all  the  sum- 
 mits of  the  Sinaitic  cluster,  and  from  the  highest 
 points  both  branches.  The  eastern  coast  of  the 
 Gulf  of  Suez  is  strewn  with  shells,  and  with  the 
 forests  of  submarine  vegetation  which  possibly  gave 
 the  whole  sea  its  Helirew  appellation  of  the  "  Sea 
 of  Weeds."  The  "  huge  trunks  "  of  its  "  trees  of 
 coral  may  be  seen  even  on  the  dry  shore;  "  while 
 at  Tui\  cabins  are  formed  of  madrepores  gathered 
 from  it,  and  the  debris  of  conchylia  lie  thickly 
 heaped  on  the  beach."  Similar  "  coralline  forests  " 
 are  described  (S.  cf  P.  p.  83)  as  marking  the  coast 
 of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah.  The  nortliern  portion  of 
 the  whole  Peninsula  is  a  plateau  bounded  south- 
 wards by  the  range  of  et-Tih,  which  droops  across 
 it  on  the  map  with  a  curve  somewhat  like  that  of  a 
 slack  chain,  whose  points  of  suspension  are,  west- 
 wards, Suez,  and  eastward,  but  further  south,  some 
 "  sandstone  cliffs,  which  shut  off"  *  this  region 
 from  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah.  The  north  was  tern 
 member  of  this  chain  converges  with  the  shore  of 
 the  Gulf  of  Suez,  till  the  two  run  nearly  parallel. 
 Its  eastern  memljer  throws  off  several  fragments 
 of  long  and  short  ridges  towards  the  Gulf  of 
 'Akaljah  and  the  northern  plateau  called  from  it 
 et-Tih.  The  Jebel  Dilldl  (Burckhardt,  Dhelel)  is 
 the  most  southerlj'  of  the  continuations  of  this 
 eastern  member  (Seetzen,  lieiseii,  iii.  pt.  iii.  413). 
 The  greatest  elevation  in  tlie  et-Tih  range  is 
 attained  a  little  W.  of  the  meridian  34°,  near  its 
 most  southerly  point;  it  is  here  4,054  feet  above 
 the  Mediterranean.  From  this  point  the  watershed 
 of  the  plateau  runs  obliquely  between  N.  and  F. 
 towards  Hebron ;  westward  of  which  line,  and 
 northward  from  the  westerly  memlier  of  Jebel 
 et-Tih,  the  whole  wady-systera  is  drained  by  the 
 great  Wady  el-  Arish,  along  a  gradual  slope  to  the 
 Jlediterranean.  The  shorter  and  much  steeper 
 slope  eastward  partly  converges  into  the  large  ducts 
 of  wadies  Fikreh  and  el-Jelb,  entering  the  Dead 
 Sea's  southwestern  angle  through  the  southern 
 wall  of  the  Ghor,  and  partly  finds  an  outlet  nearly 
 parallel,  but  further  to  tiie  S.,  by  the  Wady  JeraJ'eh 
 into  the  'Arabah.  The  great  depression  of  the 
 Dead  Sea  (1,300  feet  below  the  JMediterranean ) 
 explains  the  greater  steepness  of  this  eastern  slope. 
 
 resemble  somewhat  more  closely  a  street  fight  for  the 
 mastery  of  a  town. 
 
 a  Stanley,  S.  ^  P.  p.  5  ;  Hamilton,  Sinai,  the  Hed- 
 jaz,  and  Soudan,  p.  14. 
 
 b  Stanley,  S.  Jf  P.  p.  8. 
 
 c  Seetzen,  who  crosseJ  this  route  6  hours  to  the  E. 
 of  this  station,  says  that  this  read,  and  not  the  range 
 of  el-Tih,  is  the  political  division  of  the  country,  all 
 the  country  to  the  S.  of  the   road  being  reckoned  as 
 
 In  crossing  this  plateau,  Seetzen  found  that  rain 
 and  wind  had  woi'ked  depressions  in  jjarts  of  iti. 
 flat,  which  contained  a  few  shrubs  or  isolated 
 bushes.  This  flat  rose  here  and  there  in  heights 
 steep  on  one  side,  composed  of  white  chalk  with 
 frequent  lumps  of  flint  embedded  (iii.  48).  The 
 plateau  has  a  central  point  in  the  station  f^  Klian 
 Nukid,  .so  named  from  the  date-trees  which  once 
 adorned  its  wady,  but  which  have  all  disappeared. 
 This  point  is  nearly  equidistant  from  Suez  west- 
 ward, 'Akabah  eastward,  el- Arish  northward,  and 
 the  foot  of  JeOel  Musn  southward.  It  lies  half  a 
 mile  N.  of  the  "  Hadj  route,"  between  Suez  and 
 'Akabah,  which  traverses  "  a  boundless  flat,  dreary 
 and  desolate"  {ibid.  56),  and  is  1,494''  feet  above 
 the  Mediterranean  —  nearly  on  the  same  meridian 
 as  the  highest  point  before  assigned  to  et-Tih.  On 
 this  meridian  also  lies  Um  Shaumer  farther  south, 
 the  highest  point  of  the  entire  Peninsula,  having 
 an  elevation  of  9,300  feet,  or  nearly  double  that  of 
 et-Tih.  A  little  to  the  W.  of  the  same  meridian 
 lies  eW Arish,  and  the  southern  cape,  Ras  Mo- 
 hammed, is  situated  about  34°  17'.  Thus  the 
 parallel  31°,  and  the  meridian  34°,  form  important 
 axes  of  the  whole  region  of  the  Peninsula.  A  full 
 description  of  the  wilderness  of  et-  Tih  is  given  by 
 Dr.  Robinson  (i.  177,  178,  199),  together  with  a 
 memorandum  of  the  travellers  who  e.xplored  it 
 previously  to  himself. 
 
 On  the  eastern  edge  of  the  plateau  to  the  N.  of 
 the  et-  Tih  range,  which  is  raised  terrace-wise  by  a 
 step  from  the  level  of  the  Ghor,  rises  a  singular 
 second,  or,  reckoning  that  level  itself,  a  third  pla- 
 teau, superimposed  on  the  general  surface  of  the 
 et-Tih  region.  These  Russegger  (Jfajy)  distin- 
 guishes as  three  terraces  in  the  chalk  ridges.  Dr. 
 Kruse,  in  his  Anmerkunyen  on  Seetzen's  travels 
 (iii.  pt.  iii.  410),  remarks  that  the  Jebel  el-Tih  is 
 the  monies  niyri,  or  fxeXave^  of  Ptolemy,  in  whose 
 view  that  range  descends  to  the  e.xtreme  southern 
 point  of  the  Peninsula,  thus  including  of  course  the 
 Sinaitic  region.  This  confusion  arose  from  a  want 
 of  distinct  conception  of  geographical  details.  The 
 name  seems  to  have  been  obtained  from  the  dark, 
 or  even  black  color,  which  is  observable  in  parts 
 (see  p.  3516,  note  d). 
 
 The  Hadj-route  from  Suez  to  'Akabah,  crossing 
 the  Peninsula  in  a  direction  a  little  S.  of  E.,  may 
 stand  for  the  chord  of  the  arc  of  the  et-  Tih  range, 
 the  length  of  which  latter  is  about  120  miles.  This 
 slope,  descending  northwards  upon  the  Mediterra- 
 nean, is  of  limestone  (S.  ()'•  P.  p.  7),  covered  with 
 coarse  gravel  interspersed  with  black  flints  and 
 drift  (Russegger's  Map).  But  its  desolation  has 
 not  always  been  so  extreme,  oxen,  asses,  and  sheep 
 having  once  grazed  in  parts  of  it  where  now 
 only  the  camel  is  found.  Three  passes  through 
 the  et- Till  range  aie  mentioned  by  Robinson  (i. 
 123;  comp.  561-563,  App.  xxii.)  —  er-Bdkineh, 
 the  western;  el-Mureikhy,  the  eastern;  and  el- 
 ]Viirsah,  between  the  two.  These  all  meet  S.  of 
 Ruhaibeh  (Rehoboth,  Gen.  xxvi.  22'?),  in  about  N. 
 
 the  Tftr,  and  that  northwards  as  appertaining  to 
 Syria  {Reisen,  iii.  410.  411,  comp.  p.  5S).  His  course 
 lay  between  the  route  from  Hebron  to  'Akabah,  and 
 that  from  Hebron  to  Suez.  He  went  straight  south- 
 wards to  Feiran ;  a  route  which  no  traveller  has 
 followed  since. 
 
 ''  This  measurement  is  a  mean  between  that  given 
 in  Stjiuley  (map,  S.  If  P.  p  5),  and  Ru.'i.segger's  esti- 
 mate, as  given  by  Seetzen  {-Reisen, iii.  pt.  iii.  411). 
 
3516 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 lat.  31°  5',  E.  luiif,'.  34°  42',  and  thence  diverge 
 towards  Hebron  and  Gaza.  The  eastern  «  is  noted 
 by  Russegger  as  4,85'5  feet ''  above  sea-level.  Seet- 
 zen  took  the  d-Tih  range  for  the  "  Mount ,Seir," 
 passed  on  the  way  from  Sinai  (Horeb,  UeuW'-i.  2) 
 to  Kadesh  Barnea  liy  the  Israelites  {litisen,  iii.  28; 
 comp.  i/jid.  Kruse's  Annurkuiii/en,  pt.  iii.  417). 
 It  would  form  a  conspicuous  object  on  the  left  to 
 the  Israelites,  g^ing  southeastwards  near  the  coast 
 of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Seetzen,  proceeding  towards 
 Suez,  /.  e.  in  the  opposite  direction,  mentions  a 
 high  sandy  plain  (Jx'eisen,  iii.  Ill),  apparently 
 near  IViidy  Ghurumltl,  whence  its  steep  southern 
 face  was  visible  in  a  white  streak  stretching  west- 
 wards and  eastwards.  Dr.  Stanley  (^'.  if  P.  p.  7) 
 says,  "  However  much  the  other  mountains  of  the 
 Peninsula  vary  in  form  or  height,  the  mountains 
 of  the  Till-  are  always  alike  —  always  faithful  to 
 their  tabular  outline  and  blanched  desolation."  <^ 
 They  appear  like  "  a  long  limestone  wall."  This 
 traveller  saw  them,  however,  only  "  from  a  dis- 
 tance "  {ibid,  and  note  2).  Seetzen,  who  crossed 
 them,  going  from  Heliron  to  Sinai,  says  of  the 
 view  from  the  highest  ridge  of  the  lower  mountain- 
 line:  '' What  a  landscape  was  that  I  looked  down 
 upon !  On  all  sides  the  most  frightful  wilderness 
 extended  out  of  sight  in  eveiy  direction,  without 
 tree,  shrub,  or  speck  of  green.  It  was  an  alterna- 
 tion of  flats  and  hills,  for  the  roost  part  black  as 
 night,  only  the  naked  rock  walls  on  the  hummocks 
 and  heights  showed  patches  of  dazzling  whiteness  <' 
 ....  a  striking  image  of  our  globe,  when,  through 
 Phaeton's  carelessness,  the  sun  came  too  near  to 
 it"  {Jitisen,  iii.  50).  Similarly,  describing  the 
 scenery  of  the  ]V<idij  eUBidra.  by  which  he  passed 
 the  el-Tih  range  (see  note  a  below),  he  says:  "  On 
 the  S.  side  rose  a  considerable  range,  desolate, 
 craggy,  and  naked.  All  was  limestone,  chalk,  and 
 flint.  The  chalk  cliffs  gave  the  steep  offset  of  the 
 Tih  range  on  its  S.  side  the  aspect  of  a  snow 
 mountain''''  (p.  62). 
 
 The  other  routes  which  traverse  the  Peninsula 
 are,  that  from  Hebron  to  Suez  along  the  maritime 
 plain,  at  a  distance  of  from  10  to  uO  miles  from 
 the  sea,  passing  el-  Arish  ;  that  from  Suez  to  Tur 
 along  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  through  the 
 Kaa  ,  and  that  from  'Akabah,  near  Ezion-geber, 
 ascending  the  western  wall  "of  the  'Arabah  through 
 the  Wady  el-Jeib,  bj'  several  passes,  not  far  from 
 the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  towards 
 Hebron,  in  a  course  here  nearly  N.  W.,  then  again 
 N."^  A  modern  mountain  road  has  been  partially 
 constructed  by  Abbas  Pasha  in  the  pass  of  the 
 Wddij  Ikhran,  leading  from  the  coast  of  the  Gulf 
 of  Suez  towards  the  convent  conmionly  called  St. 
 
 «  Seetzen  probably  took  this  eastern  pass,  which 
 leads  out  into  the  Wady  Bcrdk  (Seetzen,  El.  Bidra, 
 called  also  El  Schdide,  Heisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  411,  Kruse"s 
 Anmerkungen,  comp.  iii.  62).  He,  however,  shortly 
 before  crossing  the  range,  came  upon  "  a  flat  hill 
 yielding  wholesome  pasture  for  camels,  considerable 
 numbers  (Ilaufen)  of  which  are  met  with  here,  also 
 two  herds  of  goats  and  .some  sheep  "'  (iii.  60)  ;  not 
 strictly  contirmiug  the  previous  statement,  which  is 
 Dr.  Robinson's. 
 
 b  It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  this  statement  with  the 
 figure  (4,64.5  ft.)  given  by  Dr.  Stanley  (-S.  4'  P-,  niap, 
 p.  5)  apparently  as  the  extreme  height  of  the  moun- 
 tain El-Oiljme  (St.anley,  J.  Edime),  since  we  might 
 expect  that  the  pass  would  be  somewhat  lower  than 
 the  highest  point,  instead  of  higher.  On  this  moun- 
 tain, see  p.  3534,  note  a. 
 
 Catharine's.  The  ascent  from  the  trough  of  tlie 
 'Arabah  (which  is  steeper-sided  at  its  N.  W.  ex- 
 tremity than  elsewhere)  towards  the  general  pl.v 
 teau  is  by  the  pass  c/-A7<m/ d/-,  by  which  the  level 
 of  that  broad  surface  is  attained.  The  smaller 
 plateau  rests  oliliiiuely  upon  the  latter,  abutting  on 
 the  Dead  Sea  at  Masada,  where  its  side  and  that 
 of  the  lower  floor  converge,  and  is  reached  by 
 ascending  throuyh  the  biudier  Nukb  es-SuJ'it.  Its 
 face,  corresponding  to  the  southern  face  of  the  Tih 
 plateau,  looks  considerably  to  the  W.  of  S.,  owing 
 to  this  obliquity,  and  is  delineated  like  a  well- 
 defined  moimtain  wall  in  Kiepert's  map,  having  at 
 the  S.  E.  angle  a  bold  buttress  in  the  Jebtl  Mukh- 
 rCih,  and,  at  the  S.  W.  another  in  iheJihd  'Ardi/ 
 ai-Nakah,  which  stands  out  apparently  in  the 
 wilderness  like  a  promontory  at  sea.  J-'rom  the 
 former  mountain,  its  most  southerly  point,  at  about 
 •30°  20'  N.  L.,  this  plateau  extends  northward  a 
 little  east,  till  it  merges  in  the  sontbern  slope  of 
 Juda>a,  but  at  about  30°  50'  N.  lat.,  is  cut  nearly 
 through  by  the  Wady  Fikre/i,  trenching  its  area 
 eastward,  and  not  quite  meeting  the  Wady  Mur- 
 rdli,  which  has  its'  declivity  apparently  toward  the 
 Wady  el-'Arisli  westward.  The  face  of  moun- 
 tain wall  mentioned  above  may  proliably  be  "  the 
 mountain  of  the  Amorites,"  or  this  whole  higher 
 plateau  may  be  so  (Dent.  i.  7,  19,  20).  A  line 
 drawn  northwards  from  Bus  Mohammed  passes  a 
 little  to  the  W.  of  \-iraif  en-Nakah.  A  more 
 precise  description  of  some  parts  of  this  plateau  has 
 been  given  under  K.\di;sh. 
 
 On  the  whole,  except  in  the  Debhet  er-Ramleh, 
 sand  is  rare  in  the  Peninsula.  There  is  little  or 
 none  on  the  sea-shore,  and  the  plain  el-Kaa  on  the 
 S.  W.  coast  is  gi'avelly  rather  than  sandy  (S.  <f 
 ^'.  p.  8).  Of  sandstone  on  the  edges  of  the  granitic 
 centr.al  mass  there  is  no  lack../"  It  is  chiefly  found 
 between  the  chalk  and  limestone  of  et-Tih  and  the 
 southern  rocky  triangle  of  Sinai.  Thus  the  .Jebtl 
 DiUal  is  of  sandstone,  in  tall  vertical  clitfs,  forming 
 the  boundary  of  er-Ramlth  on  the  east  side,  and 
 similar  steep  sandstone  cliffs  are  visible  in  the  same 
 plain,  lying  on  its  N.  and  N.  W.  sides  (.Seetzen, 
 iii.  GO;  comp.  pt.  iii.  413).  In  the  Wady  ^[o- 
 kal/eb  "  the  soft  surface  of  these  sandstone  clifTs 
 offered  ready  tablets  "  to  the  unknown  wayfarers 
 who  wrote  the  "  Sinaitic  inscriptions."  This  stone 
 gives  in  some  parts  a  strong  red  hue  to  the  nearer 
 landscape,  and  softens  into  shades  of  the  subtlest 
 delicacy  in  the  distance.  Where  the  surface  has 
 been  broken  away,  or  fretted  and  eaten  by  the 
 action  of  water,  these  hues  are  most  vivid  (S.  (f-  P. 
 pp.  10-12).  It  has  been  su]iposed  that  the  Egyp- 
 tians worked  the  limestone  of  el-TVi,  and  that  that 
 
 c  Seetzen  (iii.  56)  remarks  that  "  the  slope  of  the 
 et-  Tdi  range  shows  an  equal  wildness  "  to  that  of  the 
 desert  on  its  northern  side. 
 
 rf  Comp.  Dr.  Stanley's  description  of  the  march 
 down  the  Wady  Tayiheh  "  between  vast  cliffs  white  on 
 the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  of  a  black  calcined 
 color  {S.  If  P.  p.  69). 
 
 e  Nearly  following  this  track  in  the  opposite  direc 
 tion,  i.  e.  to  the  S.  E  .  Seetzen  went  from  Hebron  to 
 M'idara  (al.  Madtirah^  or  Modrra),  passing  by  Maon, 
 el-Kirmel  (the  "  Carmel  "  of  Nabal's  pasture-ground  in 
 1  Sam.  XXV.  2).  and  Arur  (Rtisen,  iii.  10-18). 
 
 /  A  remarkable  .sandstone  mountain  on  the  S.  AV. 
 
 plain  near  the  sea  is  the  Jebel  Nak-fis  {"  bell  "'),  said  to 
 
 be  so  called  from  the  ringing  sound  made  by  the  sand 
 
 pouring  over  its  cliffs  (.Stewart,  T.  ^'  K.  p.  386,  eomp 
 
 I  Russegger,  Reisen.  iii.  277). 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3517 
 
 material,  as  found  in  the  pyramids,  was  there 
 quarried.  'J'lie  hardness  of  the  granite  in  the  Jehel 
 et-Tar  has  been  emphatically  noticed  by  travellers. 
 Thus,  ill  constructiiiif  recently  the  mountain  road 
 for  Ablias  Pasha,  "  the  rocks  "  were  found  "  obsti- 
 nately to  resist  even  the  gunpowder's  blast,"  and 
 the  sharp  glass-like  edges  of  the  granite  soon  wear 
 away  the  workmen's  shoes  and  cripple  their  feet 
 (Hamilton,  Himd,  the  Haljuz,  and  Soudan^  p.  17). 
 Similarly,  Laliorde  says  (Coinin.  on  Num.  xxxiii. 
 3G):  "In  my  journey  across  that  country  (from 
 Egypt,  through  Sinai  to  the  Giior),  I  had  carried 
 from  Cairo  two  pair  of  shoes;  they  were  cut,  and 
 my  feet  came  through;  when  I  arrived  at'Akabah, 
 luckily  I  found  in  the  magazines  of  that  fortress 
 two  other  pair  to  replace  tiiem.  On  my  return  to 
 Sinai,  I  was  barefoot  again.  Hussein  then  pro- 
 cured me  sandals  half  an  incii  thick,  which,  on  my 
 arrival  iu  Cairo,  tiiemselves  were  reduced  to  noth- 
 ing, though  they  had  well  preserved  my  feet." 
 Seetzeii  noticed  on  JMount  St.  Catherine  that  the 
 granite  was  "  fine-grained  and  very  firm  "  (iii.  90). 
 For  the  area  of  greatest  relief  in  the  surface  of  the 
 whole  I'eninsula,  see  .Sinai,  §§  1,  2,  3.  The  name 
 JeOel  et-Tur  includes  the  whole  cluster  of  moun- 
 tains from  d-Fureid  on  the  N.  to  Um  Slinwuer 
 on  tlie  S.,  and  from  MiUa  and  ed-Deir  on  the  E. 
 to  Hani' r  and  Strhdl  on  the  W.,  including  St. 
 Catlierine,  nearly  S.  W.  of  ^fusa.  By  "  Sinai  " 
 is  generally  unilerstood  the  Musn  plateau,  between 
 the  Wady  Ledja  (Stanley,  Map)  and  the  Wndij 
 Shueib  on  its  western  and  northeastern  flanks, 
 and  bounded  northwestward  by  the  Wady  er- 
 H'llieli,  and  southeastward  by  the  Wndy  Sebdyth 
 {Stb'iiyt/i,  Stanley,  ibid.).  The  Arabs  give  the 
 name  of  Titr  —  properly  meaning  a  higii  mountain 
 (Stanley,  S.  cf  /'.  p.  8) — to  the  whole  region 
 south  of  the  Iladj-route  from  Suez  to  ' Akahnk  as 
 far  as  lius-Moliu mined  (see  above,  p.  3515,  note  c). 
 The  name  of  Tur  is  also  emphatically  given  to  the 
 cultivable  region  lying  S.  W.  of  the  .Jtbd  et-Tur. 
 Its  tine  and  rich  date-palm  plantation  lies  a  good 
 way  southwards  down  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Here 
 opens  on  the  sea  the  most  fertile  wady  now  to  be 
 found  in  the  I'eninsula  (Burckhardt,  Arab.  ii.  362; 
 Wellsted,  ii.  9),  receiving  all  the  waters  which  flow 
 down  the  range  of  Sinai  westward «  (Stanley,  S. 
 4-  p.  p.  19). 
 
 HI.  A  most  important  general  question,  after 
 settling  the  outline  of  this  "  wilderness,"  is  tlie  ex- 
 tent to  which  it  capable  of  su[)porting  animal  and 
 human  life,  especially  when  taxeil  by  the  consump- 
 tion of  such  flocks  and  herds  as  the  Israelites  took 
 with  tliem  from  Egypt,  and  probably  —  though  we 
 know  not  to  what  extent  this  last  was  supplied  by 
 the  niamia  —  by  the  demand  made  on  its  resources 
 
 «  The  followiag  positions  by  East  longitude  from 
 Paris  are  given  in  Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii.,  Annurh.  414 ;  — 
 
 Suez,  293  57/  30//,  Berghaus. 
 
 'Akabali,  28=  45',  Niebulir  ;  but28o  55'  by  otliers. 
 
 Couvent  St.  Catlierine,  28*  3l3'  40'/  5'",  Seetzen 
 and  Ziich  ;  but  31^  37'  54"  by  llUppell. 
 
 Sinai,  28=  40'. 
 
 Hv*  Moliamnied,  27°  43'  24". 
 But  tliere  must  be  grave  eri-ors  in  the  figures,  since 
 Suez  is  placed  furtliest  to  the  east  of  all  the  places 
 named,  whereas  it  lies  furthest  to  the  west;  also  'Aka- 
 bali  lies  an  entire  degree,  by  Kiepert's  map,  to  the  east 
 of  the  Couvent,  whereas  it  is  here  put  at  less  than  9' ; 
 and  lias  Moluitiinieil.  which  lies  further  to  the  east 
 than  all  these  except  'Akabah,  is  placed  to  the  west 
 of  tl'.em  all 
 
 by  a  host  of  from  2,000,000  to  3,000,000  souls.' 
 In  answer  to  this  question,  "much,"  it  has  been 
 observed  {S.  ij-  P.  p.  24),  "may  be  allowed  for 
 the  spread  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  far  and  wide 
 through  the  whole  Peninsula,  and  also  for  the  con- 
 stant means  of  support  from  their  own  flocks  and 
 herds.  Something,  too,  might  be  elicited  from  the 
 undoubted  fact  that  a  population  nearly,  if  not 
 quite,  equal  to  the  whole  permanent  population  of 
 tiie  I'eninsula  does  actually  pass  through  the  desert, 
 in  the  caravan  of  the  5,000  African  pilgrims,  on 
 tiieir  way  to  Mecca.  But,  amongst  these  consid- 
 erations, it  is  important  to  ol)serve  what  indications 
 there  may  be  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai  having  ever 
 been  able  to  furnish  greater  resources  than  at  pres- 
 ent. These  indications  are  well  sununed  up  by 
 Hitter  {Sinai,  pp.  920,  927).  There  is  no  doubt 
 that  the  vegetation  of  the  wadies  has  considerably 
 decreased.  In  part,  this  would  be  an  inevitable 
 effect  of  the  violence  of  the  winter  torrents.  The 
 trunks  of  palm-trees  washed  up  on  the  shore  of  the 
 Dead  Sea,  from  which  the  living  tree  has  now  for 
 many  centuries  disappeared,  show  what  may  have 
 been  the  devastation  produced  among  those  moun- 
 tains where  the  floods,  especially  in  earlier  times, 
 must  have  been  violent  to  a  degree  unknown  in 
 Palestine;  whilst  the  peculiar  cause  —  the  impreg- 
 nation of  salt  —  which  has  preserved  the  vestiges 
 of  the  older  vegetation  there,  has  here,  of  course, 
 no  existence.  The  traces  of  such  a  destruction 
 were  pointed  out  to  Burckhardt  {Arab.  p.  538)  011 
 the  eastern  side  of  Mount  Sinai,  as  having  oc- 
 curred within  half  a  century  before  his  visit ;  also 
 to  Wellsted  (ii.  15),  as  having  occurred  near  Tui' 
 in  1832.  In  part,  the  same  result  has  followed 
 from  the  reckless  waste  of  the  IJedouin  tribes  — 
 reckless  in  destroying  and  careless  in  replenish- 
 ing. A  fire,  a  pipe,  lit  imder  a  grove  of  desert 
 trees,  may  clear  away  the  vegetation  of  a  whole 
 valley. 
 
 "  The  acacia-trees  '^  have  been  of  late  years  ruth- 
 lessly destroyed  by  the  Bedouins  for  the  sake  of 
 charcoal,"  which  forms  "the  chief,  perhaps  it  might 
 be  said  the  only  traffic  of  the  Peninsula''  (6'.  cf 
 P.  p.  24).  Thus,  the  clearance  of  this  tree  in  the 
 mountains  where  it  alioimded  once,  and  its  decrease 
 in  the  neighbor  groups  in  which  it  exists  still, 
 is  accounted  for,  since  the  monks  appear  to  have 
 aided  the  devastation,  ^'egetation,  where  main- 
 tained, nourishes  water  and  keeps  alive  its  own  life; 
 and  no  attempts  to  produce  vegetation  anywhere  in 
 this  desert  seem  to  have  failed.  "  The  gardens  at 
 the  wells  of  Moses,  under  the  French  and  English 
 agents  from  Suez,  and  the  gardens  in  the  valleys  of 
 Jebtl  .Uus((,  under  the  care  of  the  Greek  moid<s  of 
 the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine,"  ''  are  conspicuous 
 
 h  Dr.  Stanley  {S.  If  P.  p.  24,  note  1),  following 
 Ewald  {Gfschichte,  ii.  61,  253,  2.59,  2d  ed.).  .says,  "  the 
 most  recent  and  the  most  critical  investigation  of  this 
 (the  Israelitish)  history  inclines  to  adopt  the  numbers 
 of  GOO.OOO  (males  of  the  warlike  age)  as  authentic." 
 
 c  Dr.  Stanley  (p.  25)  thinks  the  ark  and  wooden 
 utensils  of  the  Tabernacle  were  of  this  timber.  Seet- 
 zen (iii.  109)  saw  no  trees  nearly  big  enough  for  such 
 service,  and  thinks  it  more  probable  that  the  material 
 was  obtained  by  purchase  from  travelling  caravans  ; 
 but  it  is  not  clear  whether  he  thinks  that  the  tree 
 {Mimosa  Nilotira)  is  in  this  wilderness  below  its  usual 
 size,  or  that  not  this  but  something  else  is  the  "  Shit- 
 tim-wood  "  of  the  A.  V. 
 
 (J-  So  called,  but  the  proper  name  appears  to  be  rfj^ 
 ayi'a?  nera/iopi/iuia-eio? ,  ('■  e.  the  Transfiguration  of  our 
 
3518 
 
 WILDEJRNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 examples  (ibid.  p.  20).  Besides,  a  traveller  in  the 
 16th  century  calls  the  Wady  er-Raheh  in  front  of 
 the  Convent,  now  entirely  bare,  "a  vast  yreen 
 plain."  "  In  this  wililerness,  too,  abode  Amalek, 
 "the  first  of  tlie  nations,"  powerful  enough  seri- 
 ously to  imperil  the  passage  of  the  Israelites 
 through  it,  and  importantly  contributing  to  subse- 
 quent history  under  the  monarchy.  Besides  whom 
 we  have  "king  Arad  the  Canaanite,  who  dwelt  in 
 the  south,"  i.  e.  aii)jarently  on  the  terrace  of  moun- 
 tain overhanging  the  Ghor  near  Maandn  on  the 
 Dead  Sea,  in  a  region  now  wholly  desolate.  If  his 
 people  were  identical  with  the  Amorites  or  Canaan- 
 ites  of  Num.  xiv.  43;  Deut.  i.  44,  then,  besides  the 
 Amalekites  of  Ex.  xvii.  8,  we  have  one  other  host 
 within  the  limits  of  what  is  now  desert,  who  fought 
 with  Israel  on  equal  or  superior  terms;  and,  if  they 
 are  not  identical,  we  have  two  such  (Num.  xiv.  40- 
 45,  xxi.  1,  xxxiii.  40;  Deut.  i.  43,  44).  These 
 must  have  been  "  something  more  than  a  mere 
 handful  of  Bedouins.  The  Egyptian  copper-mines, 
 monuments,  and  hieroglyphics  in  Siirdbii  el-Klia- 
 dhn  and  the  Wadij  Miiylidrn,  im])ly  a  degree  of 
 intercourse  between  Egypt  and  the  Peninsula  "  in  a 
 period  probably  older  than  the  I'^xodus,  "  of  which 
 all  other  traces  have  long  ceased.  The  ruined 
 cities  of  Edom  in  the  mountains  east  of  the  'Arn- 
 bah,  and  the  remains  and  history  of  Peira  itself, 
 indicate  a  traffic  and  a  population  in  these  remote 
 regions  which  now  is  almost  inconceivable"  (S. 
 (f  P.  p.  20).  Even  the  0th  and  7th  centuries 
 A.  D.  showed  traces  of  hal)itation,  some  of  which 
 still  remain  in  ruined  cells  and  gardens,  etc.,  far 
 exceeding  the  tale  told  by  present  facts.  Seetzen, 
 in  what  is  perhaps  as  arid  and  desolate  a  region  as 
 any  in  the  whole  desert,  asked  his  guide  to  men- 
 tion all  the  neighboring  places  whose  names  he 
 knew.  He  received  a  list  of  sixty-three  places  in 
 the  neighborhood  of  Madurali,  Pttra,  and  ',-U'((- 
 bah,  and  of  twelve  more  in  the  Ghor  es-Snphin,  of 
 which  total  of  seventy-five  all  save  twelve  are  now 
 abandoned  to  the  desert,  and  have  retained  noth- 
 ing save  their  names —  "  a  proof,"  he  remarks, 
 "that  in  very  earlj'  ages  this  region  was  extremely 
 populous,  and  that  the  furious  rage  with  which  the 
 Arabs,  both  before  and  after  the  age  of  Mohannned, 
 assailed  the  Greek  emperors,  was  able  to  convert 
 into  a  waste  this  blooming  region,  extending  from 
 the  limit  of  the  Hedjaz  to  the  neighborhood  of  Da- 
 mascus "   {Ecisen,  iii.  17,  18). 
 
 Thus  the  same  traveller  in  the  same  journey 
 (from  Hebron  to  Madurali)  entered  a  wady  called 
 el-Jemen,  where  was  no  trace  of  water  save  moist 
 spots  in  the  sand,  but  on  making  a  hole  with  the 
 hand  it  was  quickly  full  of  water,  good  and  drink- 
 able (ibid.  p.  13).  The  same,  if  saved  in  a  cistern, 
 and  served  out  by  sluices,  might  proliably  have 
 clothed  the  bare  wady  with  verdure.  This  is  con- 
 firmed by  his  remark  (ibid.  p.  83),  that  a  blooming 
 vegetation  shows  itself  in  this  climate  wherever 
 there  is  water;  as  well  as  by  the  example  of  the 
 tank  system  as  practiced  in  Hindostan.     He  also 
 
 notices  that  there  are  quicksands  in  many  spots  ol 
 the  Uebbet  er-Bamleli,  which  it  is  ditticult  to  un- 
 derstand, unless  as  caused  by  accumulations  of 
 water  (ibicL  p.  07).  Similarly  in  the  desert  Wudy 
 d-Kudds  between  Hebron  and  Sinai,  he  found  a 
 spot  of  quicksand  with  sparse  shrubs  growing  in  it 
 {ibid.  p.  48). 
 
 Now  the  question  is  surely  a  pertinent  one,  as 
 compared  with  that  of  the  subsistence  of  the  fiocks 
 and  herds  of  the  Israelites  during  their  wanderings, 
 how  the  sixty-three  perished  connnunities  named 
 by  Seetzen's  guide  can  have  supjiorted  themselves? 
 It  is  pretty  certain  that  fish  cannot  live  in  the 
 Dead  Sea,''  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  thinking 
 that  these  extinct  towns  or  villages  were  in  any 
 large  proportion  near  enough  to  its  waters  to  avail 
 themselves  of  its  resources,  even  if  such  existed. 
 To  supjiose  that  the  country  could  ever  ha\e  sup- 
 ported extensive  coverts  for  game  is  to  assume  the 
 most  difficult  of  all  solutions  of  the  question.  The 
 creatures  that  find  shelter  about  the  rocks,  as  liares, 
 antelopes,  gazelles,  jerboas,  and  the  lizards  that 
 burrow  in  the  sand  {el-Dsubb),  alluded  to  by  this 
 traveller  in  several  places  (iii.  07,  comp.  pt.  iii.  415- 
 442,  and  Laliorde,  Ormm.  on.  Num.  xxxiii.  42),  are 
 far  too  few,  to  judge  from  ajjpearances,  to  do  more 
 than  eke  out  a  subsistence,  the  staple  of  which  must 
 have  been  otherwise  supplied ;  and  the  same  remark 
 will  apply  to  such  casual  windfalls  as  swarms  of 
 edible  locusts,  or  fiiglits  of  quails.  Nor  can  the 
 memory  of  tliese  places  be  probably  connected  with 
 the  distant  period  when  Petra,  the  commercial  me- 
 tropolis of  the  Nabathseans,  enjoyed  the  carrying 
 trade  between  the  Levant  and  Egypt  westwards, 
 and  the  rich  communities  further  east.  There  is 
 least  of  all  reason  for  supposing  that  by  the  produce 
 of  mines,  or  by  asphalt  gathered  from  the  Dead 
 Sea,  or  by  any  other  native  connnodities,  they  can 
 ever  have  enjoyed  a  commerce  of  their  own.  We 
 are  thrown  back,  then,  upon  the  sup]iosition  that 
 they  must  in  some  way  have  su])ported  themselves 
 from  the  produce  of  the  soil.  And  the  produce  for 
 which  it  is  most  adapted  is  either  that  of  the  date- 
 p.alm,  or  that  to  which  earlier  parallels  point,  as 
 those  of  .letliro  and  the  Kenites,  and  of  the  various 
 communities  in  the  southern  border  of  Judah 
 (Num.  xxxiv.  4,  5;  Josh.  xv.  3,  4;  1  Sam.  xxx. 
 27-31),  namely,  that  of  pasturage  for  flocks  and 
 herds,  a  possibility  which  seems  solely  to  depend  on 
 adequately  husbanding  the  water  supplied  by  the 
 rains.       This    tallies    with    the  use   of  the    word 
 
 "12"T^,    for   "wilderness,"   /.   e.   "a  wide,   open 
 
 space,  with  or  without  actual  pasture,  the  country 
 of  the  nomads,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
 agricultural  and  settled  people"  {S.  <f  P.  p.  480, 
 Ajip.  §  9).<^  There  seems  however  to  be  implied 
 in  the  name  a  capacity  for  pasturage,  whether  ac- 
 tually realized  or  not.  This  corresponds,  too,  with 
 the  "thin,"  or  rather  "  transparent  coating  of  veg- 
 etation," seen  to  clothe  the  greater  part  of  the  Si- 
 naitic  wilderness  in  the  present  day  {ibid.  pp.  16, 
 
 Ijord.  represented  in  the  great  mosaic  of  Justinian,  in 
 the  ap?e  of  its  cliureh,  probably  of  liis  age.  as  is  also 
 the  name  (Tj  rwhitt).  The  transfer  of  the  body  of  St 
 Catherine  thither  from  Egypt  by  angels  is  only  one  of 
 the  local  legends  ;  but  its  association  appears  to  have 
 predominated  with  travellers  (Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  414, 
 415). 
 
 «  Monconys  quoted  by  Stanley,  S.  §"  P. 
 
 b   Seetnen  speaks  in  one  place  of  a  few  shell-fish  be- 1  nature 
 
 ing  seen  along  its  southern  shore.     Compare  Stanley, 
 6'.  ^  P.  p.  29.3.     LSea,  the  S.vlt.] 
 
 c  The  word  Midbar  has  been  examined  under  the 
 hnad  of  Desert  (vol.  i.  p.  591).  The  writer  of  that 
 article  has  nothing  to  add  to  it,  except  to  call  at- 
 tention to  the  use  of  the  term  in  Jer.  ii.  2,  where 
 the  prophet  in  two  words  gives  an  exact  definition 
 of  a  Midbar :  "  a  laud  not  sown  "  —  that  is,  left  to 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3519 
 
 221,  and  which  furnishes  an  initial  nuninium  from 
 whicli  human  fostering  hands  niiifht  extend  the 
 prospect  of  possible  resources  up  to  a  point  as  far 
 in  excess  of  present  facts  as  were  the  numbers  of 
 the  Israelitish  host  above  tlie  6,000  Bedouins  com- 
 puted now  to  form  the  population  of  the  desert. 
 As  regards  the  date-palm,  HassL'lquist  speaks  as 
 though  it  alone  afforded  the  means  of  life  to  some 
 existing  Arab  eonununities.  Hamilton  {Sinai,  etc, 
 p.  17)  says  that  in  his  path  by  the  W(t(ly  Ihhnhi, 
 towards  tiie  modern  .Sinai,  "  small  clumps  of  un- 
 cultivated date  trees  rise  between  the  granite  walls 
 of  the  pass,  wherever  the  winter  torrents  have  left 
 sufficient  detritus  for  their  nourishment."  And 
 again,  after  descriliing  the  pass  of  the  Convent,  he 
 continues,  "  beneath  lies  a  veritable  chaos,  through 
 wliich  now  trickles  a  slender  thread  of  water,  where 
 in  winter  rushes  down  a  boiling  torrent  "  «  {ibid. 
 p.  10).  It  is  hardly  too  much  to  afHrm  that  the 
 resources  of  the  desert,  under  a  careful  economy  of 
 nature's  bounty,  might  be,  to  its  present  means  of 
 subsistence,  as  that  winter  torrent's  volume  to  that 
 summer  streamlet's  slender  thread.  In  the  Wiidij 
 Ihbrdii  this  traveller  found  "a  natural  bath," 
 formed  in  the  granite  by  the  ^Ain  Jlebidn,  called 
 "the  Christians'  pool"  (ibid.  p.  17).  Two  thirds 
 of  the  way  up  the  Jtbd  Miisa  he  came  upon  "  a 
 frozen  streamlet"  {ibid.  p.  30);  and  Seetzen,  on 
 the  14th  of  April,  found  snow  lying  about  in  shel- 
 tered clefts  of  the  Jebd  Caihariii.^  where  the  rays 
 of  the  sun  could  not  penetrate  (iii.  92).  Hamilton 
 encountered  on  the  Jebel  Miisa  a  thunder-storm, 
 with  "heavy  rain"  {Sinai,  etc.,  p.  16).  There 
 seems  on  the  whole  no  deficiency  of  precipitation. 
 Indeed,  the  geographical  situation  woidd  rather  be- 
 speak a  copious  supply.  Any  southerly  wind  must 
 bring  a  fiiir  amount  of  watery  vapor  from  the  lied 
 Sea,  or  from  one  of  its  expanding  arms,  which  em- 
 brace the  peninsula  on  either  side,  like  the  blades 
 ofaforfex;  while  at  no  greater  distance  than  140 
 miles  northward  roll  the  waters  of  the  Mediterra- 
 nean, supplying,  we  may  suppose,  their  quota,  which 
 the  much  lower  ranges  of  the  7'(7i  and  Odjine  can- 
 not eftectually  intercept.  Nor  is  there  any  such 
 shelter  from  rain-clouds  on  either  of  the  Gulfs  of 
 Suez  and  'Akabah,  as  the  long  line  of  mountains 
 on  the  eastern  flank  of  Egypt,  which  screens  the 
 rain  supply  of  the  former  from  reaching  the  valley 
 of  the  Nile.  On  the  contrary,  the  conformation  of 
 the  Peninsula,  with  the  high  wedge  of  granitic 
 mountains  at  its  core,  would  rather  receive  and 
 condense  the  vapors  from  either  gulf,  and  precipi- 
 tate their  bounty  over  the  lower  faces  of  mountain 
 and  troughs  of  wady,  interposed  between  it  and  the 
 sea.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  low  intel- 
 lectual condition  of  the  monks  *  forbids  any  reason- 
 alile  hope  of  adequate  meteorological  observations  to 
 check  these  merely  probable  arguments  with  reli- 
 able statements  of  fact;  but  in  the  absence  of  any 
 
 «  There  is  no  mistaking  the  enormous  amount  of 
 rain  which  must  fall  on  the  desert  and  run  off  use- 
 lessly into  the  sea.  In  I'ebruary  all  the  wadies  had 
 evidently  had  strong  torrents  down,  and  all  across 
 them  from  hillside  to  hillside.  The  whole  surface  of 
 wide  valleys  was  marked  and  ribbed  like  the  bed  of  a 
 Btony  and  sandy  stream  lu  England.  The  great  plain 
 of  Miirhkati  was  intersected  in  aU  directions  by  these 
 torrents,  draininjf  tlie  mountains  about  Nnkh  Badera, 
 Bo  all  the  wadies,  wherever  there  was  a  decided  foil. 
 Major  Macdonn Id  (engaged  at  prosout  in  suporjntond' 
 ing  the  working  of  a  turquoise  bed  at  SilrabU  el-Klin- 
 dhn)  said  that  after  a  sudden  storm  in  the  hills  to  the 
 
 such  register,  it  seems  only  fair  to  take  reasonable 
 proliabilities  fully  into  view.  Yet  some  significant 
 facts  are  not  wanting  to  redeem  in  some  des^ree 
 these  probabilities  from  the  t^round  of  mere  hypoth- 
 esis. "In  two  of  the  great  wadies"  which  break 
 the  wilderness  on  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  -Suez, 
 "  Ghuriuidd,  and  Useit,  with  its  continuation  of  the 
 Wadij  Tayibc/i,  tracts  of  vegetation  are  to  be  found 
 in  considerable  luxuriance."  The  wadies  leading 
 down  from  the  Sinai  range  to  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah 
 '•  furnish  tiie  same  testimony,  in  a  still  greater  de- 
 gree," as  stated  by  Kiippell,  Miss  Martineau,  Dr. 
 Kobinson,  and  Burckhardt.  "  In  three  spots,  how- 
 ever, in  the  desert  ....  this  vegetation  is  brought 
 by  the  concurrence  of  the  general  configm-ation  of 
 the  country  to  a  still  higher  pitch.  By  far  the 
 most  remarkable  collection  of  springs  is  that  which 
 renders  the  clusters  of  the  Jebel  Musa  the  chief 
 resort  of  the  Bedouin  trilies  during  the  summer 
 heats.  Four  abundant  sources  in  the  mountains 
 immediately  above  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine 
 must  always  have  made  that  region  one  of  the  most 
 frequented  of  the  desert.  .  .  .  Oases  (analogous  to 
 that  of  Ammon  in  the  western  desert  of  the  Nile) 
 are  to  be  found  wherever  the  waters  from  the  dif- 
 ferent wadies  or  hills,  whether  from  winter  streams 
 or  from  such  living  springs  as  have  just  been  de- 
 scribed, converge  to  a  common  reservoir.  One  such 
 oasis  in  the  Sinaitic  desert  seems  to  l)e  the  palm- 
 grove  of  El-  IVddy  at  Tiir,  described  by  Burck- 
 hardt as  so  thick  that  he  could  hardly  find  his  way 
 through  it  {S.  <}  P-  P-  I'^i  note  1;  see  Burckh. 
 Arab.  ii.  362).  The  other  and  the  more  impor- 
 tant is  the  Wddij  Feirdn,  high  up  in  the  table- 
 land of  Sinai  itself  {S.  cf  P.  pp.  18,  19)."  Now, 
 what  nature  has  done  in  these  fiivored  spots  might 
 surely  be  seconded  <•'  in  others  by  an  ample  popula- 
 tion, familiarized,  to  some  extent,  by  their  sojourn 
 in  Kgypt  with  the  most  advanced  agricultural  ex- 
 perience of  the  then  world,  and  guided  by  an  able 
 le.ader  who  knew  the  country,  and  found  in  his 
 wife's  family  others  who  knew  it  even  better  than 
 he  (Num.  x.  31).  It  is  thus  supposable  that  the 
 language  of  Ps.  cvii.  35-38,  is  based  on  no  mere 
 pious  imagery,  but  on  actual  fact:  "He  turneth 
 the  wilderness  into  a  standing  water,  and  dry 
 ground  into  water-springs.  And  there  He  maketh 
 the  hungry  to  dwell,  that  they  may  prepare  a  city 
 for  habitation ;  and  sow  the  fields  and  plant  vine- 
 yards, which  may  yield  fruits  of  increase.  He 
 blesseth  them  so  that  they  are  multiplied  greatly; 
 and  suffereih  not  their  cattle  to  decrease."  And 
 thus  we  may  find  an  approximate  basis  of  reality 
 for  the  enhanced  poetic  ini,a<jes  of  Isaiah  (xli.  19, 
 Iv.  13).  Palestine  itself  affords  abundaTit  tokens  of 
 the  resources  of  nature  so  husbanded,  as  in  the  ar- 
 tificial "  terraces  of  which  there  are  still  traces  to 
 the  very  summits  "  of  the  mountains,  and  some  of 
 which  still,  in  the  Jordan  valley,  "  are  occupied  by 
 
 N.,  he  had  from  two  to  three  feet  of  water  running 
 furiously  through  his  tents  for  three  hours,  in  Wadi/ 
 Muf^/iara.  Common  industry  in  digging  tanks  would 
 make  all  the  wadies  "  blossom  as  the  rose  "  (Tyr- 
 whitt). 
 
 f>  See  Dr.  Stanley's  estimate  of  the  inmates  of  the 
 convent  {S.  if  P.  pp.  65,  66). 
 
 c  Nay,  it  is  possible  that  such  works  had  already 
 to  some  extent  been  undertaken  on  account  of  the 
 mining  colonies  which  certainly  then  existed  at  Wwli/ 
 M'lUkdra  and  S'imhit  fl-KlKvUm,  and  were  probably 
 supported  oa  the  produce  of  the  country,  not  sent  on 
 camels  from  Egypt  (Tyrwhitt;, 
 
3520 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 masses  of  vep;ctatioii  "  {S.  cf  P.  pp.  I'-iS,  297). 
 In  ikvored  spots  wild  luxuriance  testifies  to  the  ex- 
 tent of  the  national  resources,  as  in  the  wadies  of 
 the  coast,  and  in  the  plain  of  Jericho,  where  "  far 
 and  wide  extends  the  green  circle  of  tangled  thick- 
 ets, in  the  midst  of  which  are  the  hovels  of  the 
 modern  village,  beside  which  stood,  in  ancient  times, 
 the  great  city  of  Jericho"  {idid.  p.  306).  From 
 this  plain  alone,  a  correspondent  of  the  British 
 Consul  at  Jaffa  asserts  that  he  could  feed  the  whole 
 population  of  modern  Syria  ( Cotton  Supplij  lit- 
 2}ortei;  June  14,  18G2).  But  a  plantation  re- 
 deemed from  the  wilderness  is  ever  in  the  position 
 of  a  besieged  city ;  when  once  the  defense  of  the 
 human  garrison  is  withdrawn,  the  fertility  stimu- 
 lated by  its  agency  must  obviously  perish  by  the 
 invasion  of  the  wild.  And  thus  we  may  probably 
 suppose  that,  from  numljerless  tracts,  thus  tempo- 
 rarily rescued  from  barrenness,  in  situations  only 
 moderately  favorable,  the  traces  of  verdure  have 
 vanished,  and  the  desert  has  reclaimed  its  own;  or 
 that  there  the  soil  only  betrays  its  latent  capacity 
 by  an  unprofitable  dampness  of  the  sand. 
 
 Seetzeu,  on  the  route  from  Hebron  to  Sinai,  after 
 describing  an  "immense  flinty  plain,"  the  "drear- 
 iest and  most  desolate  solitude,"  observes  that,  "as 
 soon  as  the  rainy  season  is  over  and  the  warm 
 weather  sets  in,  the  pits  (of  rain-water)  dry  up,  and 
 it  becomes  uninhabitable,"  as  "  there  are  no  brooks 
 or  springs  here  "  (iii.  55,  50).  Dr.  Stewart  (  The 
 Tent  and  the  Khan,  pp.  14,  15)  says  of  the  Wady 
 Ahlhi,  which  he  would  identify  with  Etham  {\i\. 
 xiii.  20:  Num.  xxxiii.  6),  "sand-hills  of  consider- 
 able height  separate  it  from  the  sea,  and  prevent 
 the  winter  rains  from  running  off  rapidly.  A  con- 
 siderable deposit  of  rich  alluvial  loam  is  the  result, 
 averaging  from  2  to  4  inches  in  thickness,  by  sow- 
 ing upon  which  immediately  after  the  rains  the  Be- 
 douins could  certainly  reap  a  profitable  harvest;  but 
 
 they  affect  to  despise  all  agricultural  labor 
 
 Yet,"  he  adds,  "the  region  never  could  have  sup- 
 plied food  by  its  own  natural  vegetation  for  so  great 
 a  multitude  of  flocks  and   herbs  as  followed   in  the 
 train  of  the  Israelites."     This  seems  rather  a  pre- 
 cipitate sentence;  for  one  can  hardly  tell  what  its 
 improved  condition  under  ancient  civilization  may 
 have  yielded,  from  merely  seeing  what  it   now  is, 
 after  being  overrun  for  centm-ies  by  hordes  of  con- 
 temptuous Bedouins.     Still,  as  regards  the  general 
 question,  we  are  not  informed  wliat  numbers  of  cat- 
 tle followed  the  Israelites  out  of  Kgypt.      ^Ve  only 
 know  that  "  flocks    and    herds  "  went  with  them, 
 were   forbidden    to    graze  "before    the    mount" 
 (Sinai),  and  shared  the  fortunes  of  the  desert  with 
 their  owners.     It  further  appears  that,  at  the  end 
 of  the  forty  years'  wandering,  two  tribes  and  a  half 
 were  the  chief,  perhaps    the   only,    cattle-masters. 
 And,  when  we   consider  how  greatly  the  long  and 
 sore  bondage  of  Egypt  must  have  interfered  with 
 their  favorite    pursuit  during  the  eighty  years  of 
 Moses'  life  before  the  Exodus,  it  seems  reasonable 
 to  think  that  in  the  other  tribes  only  a  few  would 
 have  possessed  cattle  on  leaving  Egypt.    The  notion 
 of  a  people  "  scattered  abroad  throughout  all  the 
 land   of  Egypt"  (Ex.  v.  12)  in  pursuit  of  wholly 
 different  and  ahsorbhig  labor,  being  able  generally 
 to  maintain  their  wealth  as    sheep-masters  is  ob- 
 viously absurd.     It   is   therefore   supposable   that 
 Keuben,  Gad,  and  a  portion  of  Manasseh  had,  by 
 remoteness  of  local  position,  or  other  favorable  cir- 
 cumstances to  us  unknown,  escaped  the  oppressive 
 consequences  to  their  flocks  and  herds  wliioh  must 
 
 have  generally  i)revailed.     We  are  not  told  that  the 
 lambs  at  the  first  passover  were  obtained   from  the 
 Hock  of  each  family,  but  only  that  they  were  bidden 
 to  "  draw  out  and  take  a  land)  for  an  house  '"  —  a 
 direction  quite  consistent  in  many,  perhaps  in  most 
 cases,  with  purchase.      Hence  it    is  prolable  that 
 these  two  tribes  and  a  half  may  have  been  the  chief 
 cattle-masters    first  as  well   as  last.     If  they  had 
 enough  cattle  to  find  their  pursuit  in  tending  them, 
 and   the  others  had  not,  economy  would  dictate  a 
 transfer;   and  the  whole  njultitude  of  cattle  w^ould 
 prol)ably  fare  better  by  such  an  arrangement  than 
 by  one  which  lelt  a  few  head  scattered  up  and  down 
 in  the   fihnilies  of  different  tril)es.     Nor    is  there 
 any  reason    to  think   that  the  whole  of  the  forty 
 years"  sojourn  was    spent    in  such    locomotion    as 
 marks  the  more  continuous  portion  of  the  narrative. 
 The  great  gap  in  the  record  of  e\ents   lelt  by  the 
 statement  of   Deut.  i.  4(i,  "Ye  abode   in  Kadesh 
 many  days,"    may  be  filled  up  by  the  supposition 
 of  quarters  established  in  a  favorable  site,  and  the 
 great  bulk  of  the  whole  time  may  have  been  really 
 passed     in    such    stationary    encampments.     And 
 here,  if  two  triljes  and  a  half  only  were  occupied  in 
 tending  cattle,  some  resource  of  labor,  to  avoid  the 
 emliarrassing  temptations  of  idleness  in  a  host  so 
 large  and  so  disposed  to  murnun-,  would  be,  in  a 
 human  sense,  necessary.     Nor  can  any  so  probaide 
 an  occupation  be  assigned  to  the  remaining  nine 
 and  a  half  tribes,  as  that  of  drawing  from  the  wil- 
 derness whatever  contributions  it  nught  be  made 
 to  afford.     From  what  they  had  seen  in  l'"gypt,  the 
 work  of  irrigation  would  be  familiar  to  them,  and 
 from   the  prospect    before  them    in   Palestine    the 
 practice   would   at   some   time    become   necessary: 
 thus  there  were  on  the  whole  the  soundest  reasons 
 for   not  allowing    tlieir  experience,  if  possible,   to 
 lapse.     And,  irrigation    being    supposed,   there  is 
 little,  if  any,  difficulty  in  supposing  its  results;  to 
 the   spontaneousness    of  which    ample  testimony, 
 from  various   travellers,  has  been  citeil  above.     At 
 any  rate  it  is  unwise  to  decide  the  question  of  the 
 possible  resources  of  the  desert  from  the  condition 
 to  which  the  apathy  and   fastidiousness  of  the  Be- 
 douins have  reduced   it  in  modern  times.     On  this 
 view,  while  the  purely  pastoral  tribes  would   retain 
 their  habits  unimpaired,  the  remainder  would  ac- 
 quire some  slight  jirobation   in  those  works  of  the 
 field  which  were  to  form  the  staple  industry  of  their 
 future  country.     But,  if  any  one  still  insists  that 
 the  produce   of  the  desert,  liowever  supposably  im- 
 proved, could  never  have  yielded   support   for  all 
 "  the  flocks  and  herds  "  —  utterly  indefinite  as  their 
 number  is  —  which  were  carried  thither;  this  need 
 not  invalidate  the  present  argument,  much  less  be 
 deemed  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  narrative. 
 There  is  nothing  in  the  latter  to  forbid  our  suppos- 
 ing  that  the  cattle  perished  in  the  wilderness  by 
 hundreds  or  by  thousands.     Even  if  the  words  of 
 Ps.  cvii.  38  be  taken  in   a  sense  literally  historical, 
 they  need  mean   no  more  than  that,  by  tlie  time 
 they  reached  the  Iwrders  of  Palestine,  the  number 
 so  lost  had,  liy  a  change  of  favorable  circumstances, 
 been  replaced,  perhaps  even  by  captiu-e  from  the 
 enemy,  over  wlioui  God,  and  not  their  own  sword, 
 had  given  thorn  the  victory.     All  that  is  contended 
 for  is,   that   the  resources  of  the  wilderness  were 
 doubtless  utilized  to  the  utmost,  and  that  the  flocks 
 and  herds,  so  far  as   thoy  have  survived,  were  so 
 kept  alive.     What  those  resources   might  amount 
 to,  is  perhaps    nearly  as  indefinite  an    inquiry  as 
 what  was  the  number  of  the  cattle.     The  difficulty 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 5521 
 
 would  »  find  its  level  "  by  the  diminution  of  the 
 latter  till  it  fell  within  the  limits  of  the  former;  and 
 in  this  balanced  state  we  must  be  content  to  leave 
 the  question. 
 
 Nor  oui^ht  it  to  be  left  out  of  view,  in  consider- 
 ing anj-  arguments  regarding  the  possible  cliange 
 in  the  character  of  the  wilderness,  that  Egyptian 
 policy  certainly  lay,  on  the  wliole,  in  favor  of  ex- 
 tending tlie  desolation  to  their  own  frontier  on  the 
 Suez  side:  for  thus  they  would  gain  the  surest  pro- 
 tection against  invasion  on  tlieir  most  exposed 
 border;  and  as  Egypt  ratlier  aimed  at  tiie  develop- 
 ment of  a  high  internal  civilization  tlian  an  exten- 
 sion of  intinence  by  foreign  conquest,  such  a  desert 
 frontier  would  be  to  Ei;ypt  a  che:ip  defense.  Thus 
 we  may  assume  that  tlie  I'haraohs,  at  any  rate  after 
 the  rise  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  would  discern  their 
 interest  and  would  act  upon  it,  and  that  the  felling 
 of  W'Ood  and  stopping  of  wells,  and  the  obliteration, 
 wherever  possible,  of  oases,  would  systematically 
 make  tlie  Peninsula  untenalile  to  a  hostile  army  de- 
 scending fioni  the  X.  E.  or  the  N. 
 
 IV.  It  remains  to  trace,  so  far  as  possible,  the 
 track  pnrsuetl  by  tlie  host,  bearing  in  mind  the 
 limitation  l)efore  stated,  that  a  variety  of  converg- 
 ing or  parallel  routes  must  often  have  been  required 
 to  allow  of  the  passage  of  so  great  a  number.  As- 
 suming the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  to  have  been 
 effected  at  some  spot  N.  of  the  now  extreme  end  of 
 the  Gulf  of  Suez,  they  would  march  from  their 
 point  of  landing  a  little  to  the  E.  of  S.  Here  they 
 were  in  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  and  in  it  "  they 
 went  three  days  and  found  no  water."  Tiie  next 
 point  mentioned  is  Marah.  The  '  Ain  d-Hmcdra 
 has  lieen  thought  by  most  travellers  since  Burck- 
 hardt's  time  to  be  Marah.  Between  it  and  the 
 \-ii]uH  .\fusu  the  plain  is  alternately  gravelly,  stony, 
 and  sandy,  while  under  the  range  of  Jvhd  Wnv- 
 dCtn  (a  liranch  of  ct-T'ih)  chalk  and  flints  are  found. 
 There  is  no  water  on  the  direct  line  of  route 
 (Robinson,  i.  87-98).  Hawdra  stands  in  the  lime 
 and  gypsum  region  which  lines  the  eastern  sliore 
 of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  at  its  northern  extremity. 
 Seetzen  {lieistn.  iii.  117)  describes  the  water  as 
 salt,  with  purijatiA'e  qualities;  but  adds  that  his 
 Bedouins  and  their  camels  drank  of  it.  Lie  argues, 
 from  its  inconsiderable  size,  that  it  could  not  be  the 
 Maraii  of  Moses.  This,  however,  seems  an  incon- 
 clusive reason.  [Marah.]  It  would  not  be  too 
 near  the  point  of  landing  assumed,  as  above,  to  be 
 to  the  N.  of  the  'Aijun  Mum,  nor  even,  as  Ur. 
 Stewart  argues  (p.  55),  too  near  for  a  landing  at 
 the  'Ayuii  Musi  itself,"  when  we  consider  the  in- 
 cundiranees  which  would  delay  the  host,  and,  espe- 
 cially whilst  they  were  new  to  tiie  desert,  prevent 
 
 rapid  marches.     But  the  whole  region  appears  tc 
 aljoiiiid  in  brackish  or  bitter  springs  (Seetzen,  ibid 
 iii.  117,  &c. ;  Anmerk.  4-'30).     For  uistance,  about 
 1|  hour  nearer  Suez   tlian   the  IVuxli/    Gliuriindel 
 (which  Lepsiiis  took  for  Marah,  but  whicli  Niebuhr 
 and  Kobinson  regard  as  more  proliably  Elim ),  Seet- 
 zen (ibid.  iii.  113,  lU)  found  a   IVady''  Tal,  with 
 a  salt  spring  and  a  salt  crust  on  tlie  surfxce  of  its 
 bed,  the  same,  he  thinks,  as  the  spot  where  NieV)uhr 
 speaks  of  finding   rock-salt.     This  corresponds  in 
 general  proximity  with  Marah.     The  neighboring 
 reiiion  is  described  as  a  low  plain  girt  with  limestone 
 hills,  or  more  rarely  chalk.     For  the  consideration  o£ 
 the  miracle  of  sweetening  the  waters,  see  M,\itAi-r. 
 On  this  first  section  of  tlieir  desert-march,  Dr.  Stan- 
 ley (S.  cj'-  P.  p.  37)   remarks,   "  There  can  lie  no 
 dispute  as  to  the  general  track  of  the  Israelites  after 
 the  passage  (of  the  Ked    Ski).     If  they   were  to 
 enter  tlie  mountains  at  all,  they  must  continue  in 
 the  route  of  all  travellers,  between  the  sea  and  the 
 table-land  of  the  Till,  till  they  entered  the  low  liilk 
 of  GhiD-Hiukl.     According  to  the  view  taken  of  the 
 scene  of  the  passage,  JIarah  may  either  be  at  '  the 
 springs  of  Moses,'  or  else  at  Ihiwarn  or  Ghurun- 
 dtV'     He  adds  in  a  note,  "  Dr.  Graul,  however, 
 was  told  ....  of  a  spring  near  Tih  el-Amara, 
 right  (/.  e.  south)  of  flncdi-i,  so  l)itter  that  neither 
 men  nor  canitls  could  drink  of  it.     From   hence 
 the  road  goes  straight  to  Wndij  Gl/iinimhl."     Seet- 
 zen also  inclines  to  view  favoralily  the  identification 
 of  el-Aindr(i.  with  Jlarah.     He  gives  it  the  title  of 
 a  "  wady,"  and  precisely  on  this  ground  rejects  the 
 pretensions  of  c^/Za^mra  as  Ijeing  no  "wady,"  but 
 only  a  brook ;  <-'  whereas,  from  the  statemeni  "  they 
 encamped "   at   Marah,   Maraii   must,    he    argues, 
 have  been  a  wady.''     It  seems  certain,   however, 
 that  Witdjj  Ghtn-Hndel — wliether  it  l)e  Marah,  as 
 Lepsius  and  ('although  doulitfully)  Seetzen  thought, 
 or  Elim  as  Niel)uhr,  Kobinson,  and  Kruse  —  must 
 have  lain  on  the  line  of  march,  and  almost  equally 
 certain   that  it  furnished   a   camping  station.     In 
 this  wady   Seetzen  found   more  trees,  shrubs,  and 
 bushes  tlian  he  anywhere  else  saw  in  his  journey 
 from  Sinai  to  Suez.     He  particularizes  several  date- 
 palms   and  many  tamarisks,   and   notes   that  the 
 largest  quantity  of  the  vegetable  manna,  now  to  be 
 found  anywhere  in  the  reninsula,  is  gathered  here 
 (iii.  110)  from  the  leaves  of  the  last-named   tree, 
 wliich  here  grows  "  with  gnarled  boughs  and  hoary 
 head ;  the  wild  acacia,  tangled  by  its  desert  growth 
 into  a  thicket,  also  shoots  out  its  gray  foliage  and 
 white  blossoms  over   the  desert"   (Stanley,   *S.  cf 
 P.  p.  68).     The  "  scenery  "  in  this  region  becomes 
 "a  succession  of  watercourses"^  {ibiil.)\  and  the 
 Wady    Tayibeh,    connected    with    Giiumndd   by 
 
 a  Dr.  Aitoua,  quoted  by  Dr.  Stewart  {t.  c),  it  seems, 
 denies  tliis. 
 
 b  In  the  Waiiy  Till  were  found  date-palms,  wild 
 truiiUless  tamarisks,  and  tlie  wtiite-tiowering  broom; 
 also  a  small,  sappy  growth,  scarce  a  hand  high,  called 
 el  Szfmmlili  by  the  liojouins,  which,  when  dried,  is 
 pounded  bj'  them,  and  mi.xed  with  wheat  for  bread. 
 It  has  a  saltish-sour  tasto,  and  is  a  useful  salad  herb, 
 belonging  to  the  order  Mesembryanthtmuin,  Linn. 
 (Seetzen,  ibid.). 
 
 c  Yet  he  apparently  allows  as  possible  that  Marah 
 may  be  found  in  a  hrnnk  observed  by  Purer  a  little  to 
 the  N.  of  Gkurundd  (iii.  117). 
 
 d  There  is,  however,  a  remarkable  difference  between 
 the  indication  of  locality  given  by  Seetzen  to  this  wady, 
 and   the   position  ascribed  to  the   Tlk  el-Amara,  as 
 
 above.  For  Seetzen  (or  rather  Dr.  Kruse,  commenting 
 on  his  journal)  says,  Robinson  passed  the  wady  tu'O 
 hours  nearer  Suez  than  Han-ara,  and  therefore  so  far 
 to  the  north,  not  soiitli,  of  it  (lieistn,  iii.  pt.  iii.  430. 
 431).  Hence  it  is  po.ssible  that  the  T<h  and  the  Wady 
 el-Ainiira  may  be  distinct  localities,  and  the  common 
 name  result  from  the  commou  property  of  a  briny  or 
 bitter  spring.  Kiepert's  map  (in  Kobinson,  vol.  i.) 
 gives  the  two  names  Ama'a  and  Haivitrn  close  to- 
 gether, the  former  a  little,  but  less  than  a  mile,  to  the 
 north. 
 
 e  So  Dr.  Kruse  notices  that  Dr.  Robinson's  Arabs 
 who  camped  in  G/uiriiwIel  found,  at  half  an  hour's 
 distance  from  their  camping  ground,  a  Hnwing  brook 
 and  copious  fountains,  such  as  they  hitlierto  nowhere 
 found  in  the  Peninsula  (Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii-  430). 
 
3522 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 Usei.l,"  is  so  named  from  the  goodly  water  and 
 vegetation  which  it  contains.  These  tliree  wadies 
 encompass  on  three  sides  the  Jebel  Ilummain  ;  the 
 sea,  which  it  precipitously  overhangs,  being  on  the 
 fourth.  To  judge  Ironi  the  configuration  as  given 
 in  the  maps,  tliere  seems  no  reason  why  all  three 
 should  not  have  combined  to  form  Elim,  or  at  any 
 rate,  as  Dr.  Staidey  {ibid.)  sui^gests,  two  of  them. 
 Only,  from  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  10,  as  Elim  appears 
 not  to  have  iieen  on  the  sail,  we  must  suppose  that 
 the  eucauipment,  if  it  extended  into  tliree  wadies, 
 Stopped  short  of  their  seaward  extremities.  The 
 Israelitish  host  would  scarcely  find  in  all  tliree  more 
 than  adequate  ground  for  their  encampment.  Be- 
 yond (/.  e.  to  the  S.  E.  of  (jhiiruiukl),  the  ridges 
 and  spurs  of  limestone  mountain  push  down  to  the 
 sea,  across  the  path  along  the  plain  (Kobinson,  i. 
 70,  and  M'lp). 
 
 This  portion  of  the  question  may  be  sumrsed  up 
 by  presenting  in  a  tabular  form,  the  views  of  some 
 leading  travellers  or  annotators,  on  the  site  of 
 Elim :  — 
 
 Some  warm  springs 
 north  of  Ttir,  wliich 
 feed  the  rich  date- 
 plantations  of    the 
 
 Waily 
 Useit. 
 
 One  or      Laborde 
 both,    "  possibl.v,"  convent  there, 
 Stanley.    Robinson  Seetzen, 
 
 (i.  72). 
 
 Waily 
 Glmrundfl. 
 
 Niebuhr, 
 
 Robinson. 
 
 Kruse. 
 (By  Lepsius 
 
 identified 
 •with  Marah.) 
 
 Dr.  Kruse  {Anmerk.  p.  418)  singularly  takes  the 
 words  of  Ex.  xv.  27,  "  they  encamped  there  (in 
 Elim)  l/ij  tlie  wcilers"  as  meaning  "  by  the  sea;  " 
 whereas,  from  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  10,  it  appears  they 
 did  not  reach  the  sea  till  a  stage  further,  although 
 their  distance  from  it  previously  had  been  but 
 small. 
 
 From  Elim,  the  next  stage  brought  the  people 
 again  to  the  sea.  This  fact,  and  the  enviable  posi- 
 tion ill  respect  of  water  supply,  and  consequent 
 great  fertility,  enjoyed  by  Ti'tr  on  the  coast,  would 
 make  it  seem  probable  that  Tur  was  the  locality 
 intended;  but  as  it  lies  more  than  seventy  miles, 
 in  a  straight  line,  from  the  nearest  probably  assign- 
 able spot  for  Elim,  such  a  distance  makes  it  a 
 highly  improbable  site  for  the  next  encampment. 
 The  probable  view  is  that  their  seaside  camp  was 
 fixed  much  nearer  to  the  group  of  wadies  viewed  as 
 embracing  I'^lim,  perhaps  in  the  lower  j)art  of  the 
 Wnd/j  Tayibeli,  «hich  appears  to  have  a  point  of 
 juncture  with  the  coast  (Stanley,  S.  <f-  P.  p.  38). 
 The  account  in  Ex.  xvi.  knows  nothing  of  this  en- 
 campment by  the  sea,  but  brings  the  host  at  once 
 into  "the  wilderness  of  Sin:  "  but  we  must  bear 
 in  mind  the  general  purpose  of  recording,  not  the 
 people's  history  so  much  as  God's  dealings  with 
 them,  and  the  former  rather  as  illustrative  of  the 
 
 a  Robinson  (i.  69)  says  that  near  this  wady  hot  sul- 
 phureous springs  were  visited  by  Niebuhr,  and  are  de- 
 scribed by  Russegger. 
 
 b  He  calls  it  the  Wilderness  of  Sir,  but  this  is  plainly 
 a  misprint  for  Sin. 
 
 c  His  map,  however,  omits  the  name  el-Kaa.  Rob- 
 inson thinks  the  wilderness  of  Sin  is  the  maritime 
 plain  southeast  of  MurklMi,  but  not  certainly  includ- 
 ing the  latter. 
 
 d  Seetzen  thought  that  Dophkah  might  possibly  be 
 retraced  in  the  name  of  a  place  in  this  I'egion,  el-Tab- 
 barlia  (Kruse).     For  Alush  there  is  no  conjecture. 
 
 e  Seetzen  compares  it  to  the  round  beads  obtained 
 
 latter,  and  subordinate  thereto.  The  evident  de- 
 sign however,  in  Num.  xxxiii.  being,  to  place  or 
 record  their  itinerary,  this  latter  is  to  be  euteemed 
 as  the  locus  chisslctis  on  any  topographical  ques- 
 tions, as  compared  with  others  having  a  less  special 
 relation  to  the  track.  The  "  wilderness  of  Sin  "  is 
 an  ai)pellation  no  doubt  representing  some  natura 
 feature,  and  none  more  probalily  than  the  alluvial 
 plain,  which,  lying  at  the  edge  of  the  .sea,  about 
 the  spot  we  now  regard  them  as  having  reached, 
 begins  to  assume  a  significant  appearance.  The 
 modern  name  for  this  is  vl-Kun,  identified  by 
 Seetzen  ''  with  this  wilderness  (iii.  pt.  iii.  412). 
 Dr.  Stanley  <•'  calls  tl  Kdc,  at  its  initial  point,  "  the 
 plain  of  Murlcliali,^'  and  thinks  it  is  proliably  this 
 wilderness.  Lower  down  the  coast  this  plain  ex- 
 pands into  the  broadest  in  the  Peninsula,  and  some- 
 where in  the  still  northern  portion  of  it  we  must 
 doubtless  place  the  "  Dophkah  ' ''  and  "  Alush  "  of 
 Num.  xxxiii.  12-14. 
 
 In  the  wilderness  of  Sin  occurred  the  first  mur- 
 muring for  food,  and  the  first  fall  of  manna.  The 
 modern  confection  sold  under  that  name  is  the  ex- 
 udation collected  from  the  leaves  of  the  t4imarisk 
 tree  (  Tumarisk  Orieiddlis,  Linn.,  Arab,  tar/a,  Heb. 
 
 VtrS)  only  in  the  Sinaitic  valleys,  and  in  no  great 
 abundance."  If  it  results  from  the  punctures  made 
 in  the  leaf  by  an  insect  (the  Coccus  mnmnpams, 
 Ehrenberg)  in  the  course  of  June,  July,  and  Au- 
 gust, this  will  not  suit  the  time  of  the  people's 
 entering  the  region  "  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
 second  month  after  "  their  deiiarture  from  Egj-pt 
 (Ex.  xvi.  1-8).  It  is  said  to  keep  as  a  hardened 
 syrup  for  years  (Laborde,  Conuneiit.  Geoi/r.  on 
 Ex.  xvi.  13,  14),  and  thus  does  not  answer  to  the 
 more  striking  characteristics  described  in  Ex.  xvi. 
 14-26.  [Man.na.]  Seetzen  thought  that  the 
 gum  Arabic,  an  exudation  of  the  acacia,  was  the 
 real  manna  of  the  Israelites ;  i.  e.  Seetzen  regards 
 the  statement  of  "  bread  from  heaven  "  as  a  fic- 
 tion (Jitisen,  iii.  75-79).  A  caravan  of  a  thousand 
 persons  is  said  by  Ilasselquist  (  \'oynt/es,  etc.,  ^fn- 
 teria  Medicii,  p.  298,  transl.  ed.  1700)  to  have 
 subsisted  solely  on  this  substance  for  two  months. 
 In  the  same  passage  of  Ex.  (v.  13)  quails  are  first 
 mentioned. 
 
 In  most  portions  of  the  earlier  route  it  is  more 
 important  to  show  the  track  than  to  fix  the  sta- 
 tions; and  such  an  indication  only  can  be  looked 
 for  where  nothing  beyond  the  name  of  the  latter  is 
 recorded.  Supposing  now  that  the  alluvial  i)lain, 
 where  it  first  begins  to  broaden  to  a  significant  size, 
 is  "the  wilderness  of  Sin,"  all  further  questions, 
 till  we  come  to  Sinai,  turn  on  the  situation  assigned 
 to  Rephidim.  If,  as  .seems  most  likely,  Kephidim 
 be  found  at  Feirc'm  [Rkphidiji],  it  becomes  almost 
 certain  that  the  track  of  the'  host  lay  to  the  north 
 of    Utrbdl/  a  magnificent    five-peaked   mountain, 
 
 from  the  mastich  ;  and  says  it  is  used  as  a  purgative 
 in  Upper  Egypt,  and  that  it  is  supposed  to  be  brought 
 out  by  the  great  effect  of  heat  on  a  sandy  soil,  since 
 in  Syria  and  elsewliere  this  tree  has  not  the  product. 
 
 /  Dr.  Stanley  notices  that  pos.sibly,  viewing  Gkur- 
 Tindel  (or  Useit,  which  lies  beyond  it,  from  Suez)  as 
 Elim,  the  host  ma)'  have  gone  to  the  latter  (the  fur- 
 tlier  point),  and  then  have  turned  back  to  the  lower 
 part  of  G/iiiru ndel,  a.nd  there  pitched  by  the  "Red 
 Sea."  Then,  he  further  i-emarks,  it  was  open  to  them 
 to  take  a  northern  course  for  Sinai  {Jebel  MUsn), 
 avoiding  Serb'il  and  Feiran  altoijether  (S.  ^  P.  p.  38). 
 But  all  this,  he  adds,  seems  "  not  likely."    That  route 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3523 
 
 which  some  have  thought  to  be  Sinai,  and  which 
 becr»>iies  first  visible  at  the  plain  of  Murklidh. 
 [SixAi.]  The  Tabernacle  was  not  yet  set  up,  nor 
 the  order  of  march  organized,  as  sulisequently 
 (Num.  X.  13,  &c.),  hence  the  words  "track"  or 
 "route,"  as  indicating  a  line,  can  only  be  taken  in 
 the  most  wide  and  general  sense.  The  road  slowly 
 rises  between  the  coast  and  Feirdii,  which  has  an 
 elevation  of  just  half  the  highest  peak  of  the  whole 
 cluster.  Fiiran  must  ha\e  been  gained  by  some 
 road  striking  off  fi'om  the  sea-coast,  like  the  (!'«/// 
 Mokalleb,  which  is  now  the  usual  route  from  Cairo 
 thither,  perhaps  by  several  parallel  or  converginj^ 
 lines.  Those  who  reject  Fdvan.  for  Kephidim  will 
 have  the  onus  of  accoiniting  for  such  a  fruitful  and 
 blooming  spot  as,  from  its  position,  it  must  always 
 have  been,  being  left  out  of  the  route,  and  of  find- 
 ing some  other  site  for  Kephidim.  Possibly  Tiir 
 itself  might  be  Eephidim,  but  then  not  one  of  the 
 sites  generally  discussed  for  Sinai  will  suit.  It 
 seems  better  then  to  take  Feirdii,  or  the  adjacent 
 valley  of  es-S/ieykh  in  coimection  with  it,  for  Hephi- 
 dim.  The  water  may  have  been  produced  in  one, 
 and  the  battle  have  taken  place  in  the  other,  of 
 these  contiguous  localities ;  and  the  most  direct  way 
 of  reaching  them  from  el-Murkhdh  (the  "  wilder- 
 ness of  Sin  ")  will  be  through  the  wadies  SlwUdh 
 and  Mobititb.  Dr.  Stanley,  who  suggests  the  road 
 by  the  S.  of  Serbdl,  through  Wad//  lltbrdn « 
 (Kobinson,  i.  95),  as  also  a  possible  route  to  Sinai 
 (S.  cf  P.  p.  38,  4),  and  designates  it  "  the  south- 
 ern "  one,  omits  to  propose  any  alternative  station 
 for  Repbidim;  as  he  also  does  in  the  case  of  '-the 
 northern  "  route  being  accepted.  That  route  has 
 been  already  mentioned  (page  3522,  notey'),  but  is 
 of  too  remote  a  probability  to  require  being  here 
 taken  into  view.  The  Wady  Mokatlab,  the  "  writ- 
 ten," as  its  name  imports,  contains  the  lari;cst 
 number  of  inscriptions  known  as  the  Sinaitic.  They 
 are  scratched  on  the  friable  surface  of  the  sand- 
 stone masses  which  dot  the  valley  on  either  side, 
 some  so  high  as  to  have  plainly  not  been  e.xecuted 
 without  mechanical  aid  and  great  deliberation. 
 They  are  described  or  noticed  by^Dr.  Kobinson, 
 Burckhardt,  Laliorde,  Seetzen.  and  others,  but 
 especially  by  Dr.  Stanley  (S.  cj-  P.  pp.  57-G2).  [See 
 on  this  subject  Sin.vi,  p.  3053,  notes  c  and  d.'] 
 
 V.  Besides  the  various  suggestions  regarding 
 Horeb  and  Sinai  given  under  Sinai,  one  occurs  in 
 Dr.  Kruse's  Annwrkunyen  on  Seetzen,  which  is 
 worth  recording  here.  Seetzen  approached  the 
 Jebel  Musa  from  the  N.,  a  little  W.,  by  a  route 
 which  seems  to  have  brought  him  into  the  region 
 through  which  Dr.  Robinson  approached  it  from 
 the  N.  W.  On  this  Dr.  Kruse  remarks,  "  Horeb 
 lay  in  the  plain  of  Repbidim  ....  a  day's  march 
 short  of  {vor)  Sinai,  on  a  dry  plain,  which  was 
 extensive  enough  for  a  camping  ground,  with  a  rock 
 
 passes  by  S^iribit  el-Khadlm  to  the  Jebel  Miisa.  Rob- 
 inson, who  went  by  this  way,  coiijocturej  that  et-K/ia- 
 dim  was  a  place  of  pilgrimage  to  tlie  ancit'ut  Egyp- 
 tians, and  might  have  been  the  object  of  Moses' 
 propcsed  journey  of  '■  three  days  inio  the  wilderness  " 
 (i.  79).  The  hest  account  of  this  locality  by  far, 
 which  the  present  contributor  has  met  with,  is  that  in 
 the  M.S.  referred  to  at  the  end  of  this  article.  The 
 writer  dwells  especially  on  the  immense  remains  of 
 mining  operations,  refuse  of  fuel,  metal,  etc.,  to  be 
 seen  there  ;  also  on  the  entrenched  camp  at  M''ii;lmra, 
 discovered  recently  by  Major  Macdonald,  evidently  a 
 work  of  great  labor  and  of  capacity  for  a  large  garrison. 
 «  Through  the  wilderness  of  Kda  (from  its  north- 
 
 fountain  struck  by   JNIoses  from  the  rock.     This 
 distance  just  hits  the  plain   es-S/ieb  [Sehtb,  Kie- 
 pert's  JMap),  wliicli  Kobinson  entered  before  reach- 
 ing  the   foremost   ridge  of   Sinai,   and   suits  the 
 peaked  mountain  cl-0fj\  in   the  highest   point   of 
 this  plain.     That  this  plain,  too,  is  large  enough 
 for  fighting  in  (as  mentioned  Ex.  xvii.  0),  is  plain 
 from  Robinson's   statement   (i.  141)  of  a  combat 
 between   two  tribes  which  took  place  there  son-e 
 years  before  his  visit.     Kobin.son,  from  this  rocky 
 peak,  which  I  took  for  Horeb,  in  1^  hour  reached 
 the  .spring  Gurbc/i,  probably  the  one  the  opening 
 of  which   was   ascribed   to  Moses,   and  thence  in 
 another  hour  came  to  the  steep  pass  Nukb  Ildwy, 
 to  mount  which  he  took  2i-  hours,  and  in  2^  hours 
 more,  crossing  the  plain  cr-Jidlieh,  arrived  at  the 
 convent  at  the  foot  of  Sinai.     Seetzen's  Arabs  gave 
 the  name  of  Orribc  ''  to  a  mountain  reached  befote 
 ascending  tiie  pass,  no  doubt  the  same  as  Robin- 
 son's el- Orf  and  the  Horeb  of  Holy  Writ  "  (Reisen. 
 iii.  pt.  iii.  422;  conip.  414).     He  seeks  to  recon- 
 cile this   with   Ex.  xxxiii.  6,  which   describes  the 
 people,   penitent   after   their    disobedience   in    the 
 matter  of  the  golden  calf,  as  "  stripping  themselves 
 of  their  ornaments  by  the  Mount  JJojx'b,"  by  sup- 
 posing that  they  were  by  Moses  led  back  again  " 
 from  Sinai,  where  God  had  appeared  to  him,  and 
 innnediately  below  which  they  had  encamped,  to 
 Horeb  in  the  plain  of  Repbidim.     But  this  must 
 have  been  a  day's  journey  backward,  and  of  such  a 
 retrograde  movement  the  itinerary  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
 14,  15,  IG,  has  no  trace.     On  the  contrary,  it  says, 
 "  they  removed  from  the  desert  of  Sinai  and  pitched 
 in    Kibroth    Hattaavah."       Now,    altliough    they 
 stayed  a  year  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (Ex.  xix. 
 1;  Num.  X.  11,  12),  and  need  not  be  supposed  to 
 have  had  but  one  camping  station  all  the  time,  yet 
 Kephidim  clearly  appears  to  lie  without  the  limits 
 of  that  wilderness    (Ex.  xvii.  1,  xix.  1,  2;  Num. 
 xxxiii.  15),  and  a  return  thither,  being  a  departure 
 from  those  limits,  might  therefore,  we  should  ex- 
 pect, be  noticed,  if  it  took  place;   even  though   all 
 the  shirtings  of  the  camp  within  the  wilderness  of 
 Sinai    might   not    be   set  down   in  the  itinerary. 
 Under  Sinai  an  attempt  is  made  to  reconcile  the 
 •^  rock  in  Horeb"  at  Repbidim  with  a  '■'•Mount 
 Horeb  "  (the  same,  in  fiict,  as  Sinai,  though  with 
 a  relative  difference  of  view),  by  regarding  "  Horeb  " 
 as  a  designation  descriptive  of  tlie  ground,  applica- 
 lile,  through  similarity  of  local  features,  to  eitlier. 
 If  this  be  not  admitted,  we  may  perhaps  regard  the 
 Wady  es-Sheykh,  a  crescent  concave  southwards, 
 wh(jse  western  horn  joins  Wady  Fcirdii,  and  whose 
 eastern   finds   a  southeastern   contiiuiation  in  the 
 plain   erlidhch  (leading   up  to   Jebtl  Mi'isn,  the 
 probable  Sinai),  as  tiie  Horel)  proper.     This  con- 
 tains a  rock  called  traditionally  the  "  seat  of  Jloses  " 
 (Schubert,  Jieisen,  ii.  350).     And  this  is  to  some 
 
 ern  border)  to  the  opening  of  Wa/ly  Hibrdn  into  it  is 
 5',  hours'  journey.  The  manna  timiarisk  is  found 
 there  ;  and  some  birds,  called  by  Dr.  Kruse  "  Wi'isteu- 
 hiihneru,'  which  he  appears  to  think  might  be  the 
 quails  of  Scripture.  Seetzen  in  his  journal  plainly 
 sets  down  the  "  quails  "  as  being  wholly  a  mistake  for 
 locusts  (Reisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  413,  comp.  80). 
 
 b  '■  Two  iiardly  distinguishable  mountains  on  either 
 side  of  the  way  (from  the  Wdf/i/  Beitznrdn)  were 
 named  Orribe  and  Freiierh  "  (Reisen,  iii.  69). 
 
 c  He  thinks  the  reason  why  they  were  thus  coun- 
 termanded was  because  "  Horeb  "  was  better  supplied 
 with  water,  but  he  does  not  show  that  the  "  spring 
 Giirbeh  "  adequately  meets  this  condition  [ibid.  422). 
 
3524 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 extent  confirmed  !))■  the  fact  that  the  wady  which 
 continues  the  phiin  er-Ralith  to  the  N.  W.,  forin- 
 ing  witli  the  latter  a  slightly  obtuse  angle,  resumes 
 the  name  of  es-Slieykh.  If  we  may  suppose  the 
 name  "  Horeb,"  thouLch  properly  applied  to  the 
 crescent  Wady  es-S/ivykli,  which  joins  F<:iran,  to 
 have  had  such  an  extension  as  would  embrace 
 ei-Rdhcli,  then  the  "rock  in  Horeb"  misht  be  a 
 day's  journey  from  the  "  Mount  (of)  Horeb."  " 
 This  view,  it  may  be  observed,  does  not  exclude 
 that  just  referred  to  under  Simai,  but  merely 
 removes  it  I'roiu  resting  on  the  sense  there  proposed 
 
 for  "  Horeb  "   (3  jIFI),  as  a  local  appellative,  to 
 
 more  general  grounds. 
 
 But  whatever  may  be  the  case  with  other  sacred 
 localities,  the  identification  of  Sinai  itself  will 
 probably  never  be  free  from  oljscurity.  We  seem 
 to  have  adequate  information  rej^arding  all  the 
 eminent  mountains  within  the  narrow  compass  to 
 which  our  choice  is  reduced,  and  of  all  the  impor- 
 tant passes.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  any  IVesh  clew 
 of  trustworthy  local  tradition  will  be  unraveled,  or 
 any  new  light  thrown  on  the  text  of  the  Scriptural 
 statements.  Somewhere  in  the  granitic  nucleus 
 of  lofty  mountain  crests  the  answer,  doubtless,  lies.'' 
 For  the  grounds  on  which  a  slight  preponderance 
 of  probability  rests  in  favor  of  the  Jelnl  .Vusd,'^ 
 see  Sinai.  But  even  that  preponderance  mainly 
 rests  on  the  view  that  the  numbers  ascribed  in  our 
 present  text  to  the  host  of  Israel  are  trustworthy. 
 If  further  criticism  should  make  this  more  doubt- 
 ful than  it  now  is,  that  will  have  the  probable 
 effect  of  making  the  question  more  vague  rather 
 than  more  clear  than  it  is  at  present.  "  This 
 dei^ree  of  uncertainty  is  a  great  safeguard  for  the 
 real  reverence  due  to  the  place.  As  it  is,  you  may 
 rest  on  your  general  conviction  and  be  thankful  " 
 {S.  (f  P.  p.  7G).  The  tradition  which  has  conse- 
 crated the  Jthel  Miha  can,  we  know,  be  traced  to 
 its  source  in  a  late  year.  It  has  the  taint  of  mod- 
 ernism and  the  detective  witness  of  the  older  tra- 
 dition of  SerOdl.  Dr.  Stanley  thinks  it  "  doubtful 
 whether  the  scene  of  tlie  giving  of  the  Law,  as 
 we  now  conceive  it,  ever  entered  into  tlie  minds 
 of  those  who  fixed  the  traditional  site.  The  con- 
 secrated peak  of  the  JeOel  Mmi  was  probalily 
 re\'ered  simply  as  the  spot  where  ]\Ioses  saw  the 
 vision  of  God,  without  reference  to  any  more  gen- 
 eral event  "  (<S'.  cj'-  P.  p.  70),  and  this  is  likely  to 
 have  lieen  equally  true  of  Serbul  before  it.  The 
 Eastern  mind  seized  on  the  spot  as  one  of  devout 
 contem[)lation  by  the  one  retired  saint;  the  Western 
 searches  for  a  scene  which  will  bring  the  people 
 perceptibly  into  the  region  of  that  Presence  which 
 the  saint  beheld. 
 
 Certain  vivid  impressions  left  on  the  minds  of 
 
 travellers  seem  to  bespeak  such  remarkable  features 
 for  the  rocks  of  this  cluster,  and  they  are  generally 
 so  replete  with  interest,  that  a  few  leading  details  ot 
 the  aspect  of  tlie  principal  mountains  may  find  place 
 here.     Approaching  the  granitic  nucleus  from  the 
 N.  side,  Seetzen  found  himself  "  ever  between  two 
 high,  wild,  and  naked  clitfs  of  granite."      All  possi- 
 ble forms  of  mountains  blended  in  the  view  of  the 
 grou]),  conical  and  pointed,  truncated,  serrated,  and 
 rounded  {licistn,  iii.  09,  07).     Inunediately  previ- 
 ous to  this  he  had   been   upon   the  perpendicular 
 sandstone   cliffs,  which   in    cl-Dilldl   bounded  the 
 sandy  plain  er-Ramldi  o\\  the  eastern,  whilst  simi- 
 lar steep  sandstone  cliffs  lay  on  the  N.  and  N.  W. 
 On  a  nearer  view  small  bright  quartz-grit  ( Quarz- 
 k-iesel),   of    whitish-yellow   and   reddisii  hue,   was 
 observed    in    the   coarse-grained    sandstone.      Dr. 
 Stanley,  approaching  from  the  N.  W.,  from  Wady 
 ShtUil,  through  wadies  Sidvi  and  Ftir,'in,  found 
 the  rocks  of  various  orders    more  or   less    inter- 
 changed and  intermixed.     In  the  first,  •'  red  tops 
 resting  on  dark-green  bases  closed  the  jjrospect  in 
 front,"  doubtless  both  of  granite.     Contrast  with 
 this  the  description  of  Jtbel   Miisa,  as  seen  from 
 Mount  St.  Catherine  {ibid.  77).  "the  nddisli  gr&n- 
 ite  of  its   lower  mass,  ending  in   the  gray  (jreen 
 granite  of  the  peak  itself"        Wndy   Sidri    lies 
 "  between  red  granite   mountains  descending  pre- 
 cipitously on  the  sands,"  but  just  in  the  midst  of 
 it  the  granit«   is  exchanged  for  sandstone,  wiuch 
 last  forms  the  rocli-tablets  of  the  Wady  MvbiUtb, 
 lying   in  the  way  to   Wady  Ftiran.     This  last  is 
 full  of  "  endless  windings,"  and   here  "began  the 
 ciu'ious  sight  of  the  mountains,  streaked  from  head' 
 to  foot,  as  if  with  boiling  streams  of  dark  red  mat- 
 ter poured  over  them,  the  igneous   fluid  squirted 
 upwards  as  they  were  heaved   from    the  ground." 
 ....•'  The  colors  tell  their  own  story,  of  chalk 
 and  limestone  and  sandstone  and  granite."    Besides 
 these,  "  huge  cones  of  white  clay  and  sand  are  at 
 intervals  planted  along  these  mighty  watercourses 
 (the  now  dry  wadies),  apparently  the  original  allu- 
 vial deposit  of  some  treniendous  antediluvian  tor- 
 rent, left  there  to  stifitin  into  sandstone  "  (ib.  71). 
 The   Wady  Ftirdii  is  bounded  southwards  by  the 
 Jebd  Ntdiyeh  and  the  Jebd  Serbdl,  which  extend 
 westwards    to    the    maritime    plain,  and   eastward 
 to  the   Sinaitic  group,  and  on  whose  fnrther  or 
 southern  side  lies  the  widest  part  of  d-Kaa,  previ- 
 ously noticed  as  the  "  wilderness  of  Sin."     Seet- 
 zen remarks  that  Je^eZ  Fcirdnis  not  an  individual 
 mountain,    but,    like    Sinai,  a  conspicuous  group 
 (lieisen,  iii.  107;  comp.  pt.  iii.  41'i). 
 
 Serbdl  rises  from  a  lower  level  than  the  Sinaitic 
 irroup,  and  so  stands  out  more  fully.  Dr.  Stewart's 
 account  of  its  sununit  confirms  that  of  Burckliardt. 
 The  former  mounted   from    the    northern    side  a 
 
 a  The  expression   ^'mPT   "^Hlp    In  Ex.  xxxiii.  6 
 
 may  probably  be,  like  the  expression  D"*n  VSPf  "^IJ, 
 
 iii.  1,  and  that  of  m^n"^   ^712,  Josh.  xxi.  11,  etc., 
 
 T       :        -    :  ' 
 two  nouus  in  rtginien,  the  "mount  o/' Horeb."' 
 
 b  The  Tabula  Peiilingeriana  gives  in  the  interior 
 of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  a  wilderness  indicated  as 
 '■  (Jesertuui  nbi  xl.  anuos  erraverunt  filii  Israelis 
 duceute  Moyse,"  and  marks  therein  a  three-peakfd 
 mountain,  with  the  words,  "  hie  legem  accejierunt  in 
 monte  Syna."  Dr.  Kruse  thinks  the  ''three  peaks" 
 mean  Sinai  (<'.  e.  the  Jtbel  Mii$a),  As-  Episteme  and 
 the  Jebd  Hunfr  (Seetzen,  Reisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  421). 
 
 c  Dr.  Kruse  says,  "  This  highest  S.  E.  point  of  Sintii 
 
 is  indisputably  the  '  mount;iiu  of  the  Lord  '  of  Holy 
 Writ,  the  modern  Mount  St.  Catherine.  The  N.  W 
 part  of  Sinai  is,  however,  now  named  Oiorif  by  the 
 monks,  not  by  the  Arabs,  probably  in  order  to  com- 
 bine Horeb  with  Sinai,  by  which  name  they  denote 
 the  most  southeasterly  point.  The  '  plain  '  or  '  wil- 
 derness '  of  Sinai  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  high 
 plain  situated  on  the  northern  steep  declivity  sur- 
 rounded by  the  three  before-named  peaks  of  Sinai,  the 
 opi>osite  plateau  of  Jtbel  Fiireid,  and  E.  and  \V,  some 
 low  ridges.  It  is  now  called  the  plain  Rd/teh,  and  is, 
 according  to  Robinson's  measurement,  quite  large 
 enough  to  hold  two  millions  of  Israelite*,  who  here 
 encamped  together  "  {ibid.  422). 
 
WILDERNESS    OF   THE    WANDERING 
 
 3525 
 
 narrow  plateau  at  the  top  of  the  easternmost  peak. 
 A  block  of  gray  granite  crowns  it,  and  several  con- 
 tiguous blocks  form  one  or  two  grottoes,  and  a  cir- 
 cle of  loose  stones  rests  in  the  narrow  plateau  at  the 
 top  (  The  Tent  and  Hie  Khan,  pp.  1J7,  118).  The 
 "  five  peaks,"  to  which  '•  in  most  points  of  view  it 
 is  reducible,  at  first  sight  appear  inaccessible,  but 
 are  divided  by  steep  ravines  filled  with  fragments 
 of  fallen  granite.''  Dr.  Stanley  mounted  "over 
 smooth  l)locks  of  granite  to  the  top  of  the  third  or 
 central  peak,"  amid  which  "  innumerable  shrubs, 
 like  sage  or  thyme,  grew  to  the  very  summit." 
 Here,  too,  his  ascent  was  assisted  by  loose  stones 
 arranged  by  human  hands.  The  peak  divides  into 
 "  two  eminences,"  on  "  the  highest  of  which,  as  on 
 the  back  of  some  petrified  tortoise,  you  stand,  and 
 overlook  the  whole  Peninsula"  {8.  cj-  P.  pp.  71,  72). 
 Kussegger  says  "  the  stone  of  the  peak  of  Serbdl  is 
 porphyry"  {Reisen,  iii.  270).  Dr.  Stewart  men- 
 tions the  extensive  view  from  its  summit  of  the 
 mountains  "  which  arise  from  the  western  shore 
 of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah,"  seen  in  the  N.  E.,  and 
 of  the  Sinaitic  range,  "  closely  packed  "  with  the 
 intermediate  Jtbel  Wateiali,  "  forming  the  most 
 confused  mass  of  mountain  tops  that  can  be  imag- 
 ined" (pp.  114,  115).  His  description  of  the  ascent 
 of  the  eastern  peak  is  formidaljle.  He  felt  a  rarity 
 of  the  air,  and  often  had  to  climb  or  crawl  flat  on 
 the  breast.  It  was  like  "  the  ascent  of  a  glacier, 
 only  of  smooth  granite,  instead  of  ice."  At  a 
 quarter  of  an  hour  from  the  sunnnit  he  also  "  found 
 a  stair  of  blocks  of  granite,  laid  one  above  another 
 on  the  surface  of  the  smooth  slippery  rock"  (p. 
 113).  On  the  northern  summit  are  visil^le  the  re- 
 mains of  a  building,  "  granite  fragments  cemented 
 with  lime  and  mortar,"  and  "  close  beside  it  three 
 of  those  mysterious  inscriptions,"  implying  "tliat 
 this  summit  was  frequented  by  unknown  pilgrims 
 who  used  those  characters"  (<S'.  c/  P.  p.  72). 
 
 The  approach  to  Jebel  Musa  from  the  W.  is 
 only  practicable  on  foot.  It  lies  through  Wadij 
 Solani  and  the  Nukb  Ildivk,  "  Pass  of  the  Wind,"  " 
 whose  stair  of  rock  leads  to  the  second  or  higher 
 stage  of  the  great  mountain  labyrinth.  I'^lsevvhere 
 this  pass  would  be  a  roaring  torrent.  It  is  amidst 
 masses  of  rock  a  thread  of  a  stream  just  visible,  and 
 here  and  there  forming  clear  pools,  shrouded  in 
 palms,  or  leaving  its  clew  to  be  traced  only  by 
 rushes.  From  the  head  of  this  pass  the  clift-lront 
 of  Sinai  comes  in  sight  through  "  a  long  continued 
 plain  between  two  preciiiitous  mountain  ranges  of 
 black  and  yellow  granite."  This  is  the  often-men- 
 tioned plain  er-Rdheh.  Deep  gorges  enter  it  on 
 each  side,  and  the  convent  and  its  gardens  close 
 the  view.  The  ascent  of  Jebd  Musa,  which  con- 
 tains "high  valleys  with  abundant  springs,"  is  by 
 a  long  flight  of  rude  steps  winding  through  crags 
 of  granite.  The  cave  and  chapel  "of  Klias"  are 
 passed  on  the  slope  of  the  ascent,  and  the  summit  is 
 marked  by  the  ruins  of  a  mosque  and  of  a  Christian 
 church.     But    Strauss    adds,    '•  the    '  Mount    of 
 
 Moses '  rose  in  the  south  higher  and  higher  still," 
 and  the  point  of  tliis,  Jebel  Miha,  eighty  feet  in 
 diameter,  is  distant  two  hours  and  more  from  the 
 plain  below  {Sinai  and  Golrjotha,  p.  110).    The  Rds 
 Si'ijWifeh  seems  a  small,  steep,  and  high  mountain, 
 which  is  interposed  between  the  slope  of  Jebel  Musa 
 and  the  plain;  and,  from  its  position,  surveys  both 
 tlie  openings  of  es-Sliey/ch  N.  E.  and  of  er-Rdheh  ^ 
 N.  W.,  which  converge  at  its  foot.     Opposite  to  it, 
 across  the  plain,  is  tlie  Jebel  Pure  id,  whose  peak  is 
 cloven  asunder,  and  the  taller  summit  is  again  shat- 
 tered and  rent,  and   strewn,  as  by  an  earthquake, 
 with  its  own  fragments.     The  aspect  of  the  plain 
 between  Jebel  Fureid,  which  here  forms  a  salient 
 angle,  wedging  southwards,  and  the  Rds  SiifsdJ'eh, 
 is  described    as    being,  in  conjunction  with  these 
 mountains,    wonderfully    suggestive,    botli    by   its 
 grandeur  and  its  suitalileness  for  the   giving  and 
 the  receiving  of  the  Law.     "  That   such    a  plain 
 should  exist  at  all  in  front  of  such  a  clitf  is  so  re- 
 markable a  coincidence  with  the  sacred  narrative, 
 as  to  furnish  a  strong  internal  argument,  not  merely 
 of  its  identity  with  the  scene,  but  of  the  scene  itself 
 having  been  described  l)y  an  eye-witness"  {S.  <_f /*. 
 pp.  42,  4-3).     The  character  of  the  Sinaitic  granite 
 is  described  by  Seetzen   (Relsen,  iii.  80)  as  being 
 (1)  flesh-red  with  glass-colored    quartz  and   black 
 mica,  and  (2)  grayish-white  with  abundance  of  the 
 same  mica.     He  adds  that  the  first  kind  is  larger- 
 grained  and  handsomer  than  tlie  second.     Hamilton 
 speaks  of  "  long  ridges  of  arid  rock  surrounding  him 
 in  chaotic  confusion  on  every  side,"  and  "  the  sharp 
 broken  peaks  of  granite  far  and  near  as  all  equally 
 desolate  "  {Sinai,  the  lledjaz,  and  Soudan,  p.  31). 
 This  view  of  "  granite  peaks,"  so  thickly  and  wildly 
 set  as  to  form  "a  labyrinth  "  to  the  eye,  was  what 
 chiefly  impressed   Dr.  Stanley  in  the  view  from  the 
 top  of  Jebel  Musa  {S.  <j-  /'.  p.  77).     There  the 
 weather-beaten  rocks  are  full  of  curious  fissures  and 
 holes  (p.  46),  the  surface  being    "a  granite  mass 
 cloven  into  deep  gullies  and  basins"  (p.  70).     Over 
 the  whole  mountain  the  imagination  of  votaries  has 
 stamped    the  rock  with  tokens    of  miracle.     The 
 dendrites  '^  were  viewed  as  memorials  of  the  Burn- 
 ing Bush.     In  one  part  of  the  mountain  is  shown 
 tlie  impress  of  Moses'  back,  as  he  hid  himself  from 
 the  presence  of  God  {ib.  30) ;   in  another  the  hoof- 
 print  of  Mohammed's  mule;  in  the  jilain  below,  a 
 rude   hollow    between  contiguous  blocks  of    stone 
 passes  for  the  mould  of  the  head  of  the  Golden  Calf; 
 while  in  the  valley  of  the  Leja,  which  runs,  parallel 
 to  and   overhung    by  the  Jebel   Musa''s   greatest 
 length,  into  ei'-Rdheh,  close  to  Rds  Sufsdfelt,  the 
 famous  "  Stone  of  Moses "  is  shown  —  "a  detached 
 mass  from  ten  to  fifteen  feet  high,  intersected  with 
 wide  slits  or  cracks  ....  with  the  stone  between 
 them  worn  away,  as  if  by  the  dropping  of  water  from 
 the  crack  immediately  above."     This  distinctness 
 of  the  mass  of  the  stone  lends  itself  to  the  belief  of 
 the  Itabbis,  that  this  "rock  followed"  the  Israelites 
 through  the  wilderness,  which  would  not  be   the 
 
 «  By  this  pass  Dr.  Stanley  was  himself  conducted 
 thither,  sending  his  camels  round  by  the  Wady  es- 
 Hheykh  from  Feiran,  "  the  more  accessible  though  more 
 circuitous  route  into  the  central  upland."  By  this 
 latter  he  supposes  the  great  bulk  of  the  host  of  Israel 
 may  have  reached  er-Ralieh  and  Sinai,  while  "  the 
 chiefs  of  the  people  would  iiiouut  "  by  the  same  pass 
 which  he  took  (*•.  ^  P.  p.  42). 
 
 h  Dr.  Stewart  (ab.  sup.  122)  says,  ''  Ghebel  Musa,  the 
 Sinai  of  monkish  traditions,  is  neither  visible  from  the 
 Ghebel  (r.  e.  Ras)  Sfifsafeh,  nor  from  any  other  point 
 
 in  the  plain  of  er-Raheh."  This  seems  confirmed  by  the 
 argument  of  S.  ^  P.  pp.  43,  44,  that  Moses,  descend- 
 ing from  the  Jebel  BlUsa,  would  not  be  able  to  see  what 
 was  going  on  in  the  plain  till  he  emerged  upon  it,  the 
 height  of  Sa/ia/f/j  effectually  intercepting  the  view. 
 
 c  These  have  become  scarce  on  this  mountain  :  Seet- 
 zen {Reisen,  iii.  8(3)  expressly  mentions  that  he  observed 
 none.  They  are  now  found  abundantly  in  the  course 
 of  constructing  Abbas  Pasha's  mountain  road  (Stewart, 
 T.  ^-  K.  pp.  132,  134). 
 
3526 
 
 WILDERNESS   OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 case  with  the  noii-detached  ofF-set  of  some  larger 
 cliff.  The  Koran  also  contains  reference  to  "the 
 rock  with  the  twelve  mouths  for  the  twelve  tribes 
 of  Israel,"  i.  e.  the  aforesaid  cracks  in  the  stone, 
 into  which  the  Bedouins  thrust  grass  as  they  mut- 
 ter their  prayers  before  it.  Bisliop  Clayton  ac- 
 cepted it  as  genuine,  so  did  Whiston  the  translator 
 of  Josephus;  "  but  it  is  a  mere  lusus  mituras;  and 
 there  is  another  fragment,  "less  conspicuous,"  in 
 the  same  valley,  "  with  precisely  similar  marks." 
 In  the  pass  of  the  Wady  es-Sheylch  is  another 
 stone,  called  the  "  Seat  of  Jloses,"  described  by 
 Laljorde  {iS.  if  P.  pp.  45-48,  and  notes).  Seetzen 
 adds,  some  paces  beyond  the  "  Stone  of  Moses  " 
 several  springs,  copious  for  a  region  so  poor  in 
 water,  have  their  source  from  under  blocks  of 
 granite,  one  of  which  is  as  big  as  this  "  Stone  of 
 jMoses."  These  springs  gush  into  a  very  small 
 dike,  and  thence  are  conducted  by  a  canal  to  sup- 
 ply water    to  a    little   fruit-garden Their 
 
 water  is  pure  and  very  good.  On  tliis  canal,  sev- 
 eral paces  lielow  the  basin,  lies  a  considerably  bigger 
 block  of  granite  than  the  "  Stone  of  Moses,'-'  "and 
 the  canal  runs  round  so  close  to  its  side  as  to  be 
 half-concealed  by  it"  (Heisen,  iii.  9.5).  lie  seems 
 to  argue  that  this  appearance  and  half-concealment 
 may  have  been  made  use  of  by  Moses  to  procure 
 belief  in  his  having  produced  the  water  miracu- 
 lously, which  existed  before.  But  this  is  wholly 
 inconsistent,  as  indeed  is  any  view  of  this  being  the 
 actual  "  rock  in  Horeb,"  with  his  view  of  Iiephidim 
 as  situated  at  el-//<;ssut/i,  the  western  extremity  of 
 the  Wiuly  Ftiraii.  Equally  at  variance  with  the 
 Scriptural  narrative  is  the  claim  of  a  hole  in  er- 
 Ralich,  below  i^u.f  SiiJ'safch,  to  be  "the  Pit  of 
 Korah,  '  whose  story  belongs  to  another  and  for 
 later  stacce  of  the  march. 
 
 On  Mount  St.  Catherine  the  principal  interest 
 lies  in  the  p.anorama  of  the  whole  Peninsula  which 
 it  commands,  embraced  by  the  converging  horns  of 
 the  Eed  Sea,  and  the  complete  way  in  which  it 
 overlooks  the  Jehel  Musa,  which,  as  seen  from  it, 
 is  by  no  means  conspicuous,  being  about  1,000  feet 
 lower.  Seetzen  mounted  by  a  path  strewn  with 
 stones  and  blocks,  having  nowhere  any  steps,  like 
 those  mentioned  as  existing  at  t^erbdl,  and  remarks 
 that  jasper  and  porphyry  chiefly  constitute  the 
 mountain.  He  reached  the  highest  point  in  three 
 hours,  including  intervals  of  rest,  by  a  hard,  steep 
 path,  with  toilsome  clambering;  but  the  actual 
 time  of  ascending  was  only  1|  hours.  The  date- 
 palm  plantation  of  Tur  is  said  to  be  visible  from 
 the  top;  but  the  haze  prevailing  at  the  time  pre- 
 vented this  traveller  from  verifying  it  {Rei$en.  iii. 
 80-93).  "The  rock  of  the  highest  point  of  this 
 mountain  swells  into  the  form  of  a  human  body, 
 its  arms  swathed  like  that  of  a  numuny,  but  head- 
 less —  the  counterpart,  as  it  is  alleged,  of  the  corpse 
 of  the  beheaded  Egyptian  saint Not  im- 
 probably this  grotesque  figure  furnishes  not  merely 
 the  illustration,  but  the  origin,  of  the  story  "  of  St. 
 Catherine's  body  being  transported  to  the  spot,  after 
 martyrdom,  from  Egypt  by  angelic  hands  {S.  if 
 P.  p.  45). 
 
 The  remaining  principal  mountain  is  named  vari- 
 
 ously ed-Deir,  "the  Convent;"  "  Bestin,"  from 
 St.  Episteme,  the  first  abbess  of  the  nunnery 
 "  Solab,"  from  "  the  Cross,"  which  stands  on  it? 
 summit;  and  the  "  Mount  of  the  Burning  liush,'' 
 from  a  legend  that  a  simbeam  shoots  down,  sup- 
 posed miraculously,  on  one  day  in  the  jear,  through 
 the  mountain  into  the  chapel  of  the  "  Burning 
 Bush  " ''  (so  called)  in  the  convent  {ib.  p.  78).  la 
 the  pass  of  the  Convent  rocks  arise  on  every  side, 
 in  long  succession,  fantastically  colored,  gray,  red, 
 blue,  bright  yellow,  and  bronze,  sometimes  strangely 
 marked  with  white  lines  of  quartz  or  black  bands 
 of  basalt;  huge  blocks  worn  into  fantastic  shapes 
 ....  interrupt  the  narrow  track,  which  successive 
 ages  have  worn  along  the  face  of  the  precijiice,  or, 
 hanging  overhead,  threaten  to  overwhelm  the 
 traveller  in  their  fall.  The  wady  which  contains 
 this  pass  is  called  by  the  name  of  S/iu'eib  —  a  cor- 
 ruption of  Hobab,  the  name  of  the  lather-in-law  of 
 Moses  {i/j.  pp.  32,  33).  At  the  foot  of  a  mountain 
 near  the  convent  Seetzen  noticed  "  a  range  of  rocks 
 of  black  horn-porphyry,  of  horidilende,  and  black 
 jasper,  and  between  their  scrolls  or  volutes  white 
 quartz."  The  gardens,  as  has  been  noticed,  are  in 
 sight  from  the  approach  through  er-Pdlieh.  Seet- 
 zen enlarges  on  their  beauty,  enhanced,  of  course,  by 
 the  savage  wild  about  them ;  "  iiuleed  a  blooming 
 vegetation  appears  in  this  climate  wherever  there 
 is  water"  {Jielsen,  iii.  70,  73,  87).  These  proved 
 capabilities  of  the  soil  are  of  interest  in  reference  to 
 the  iMosaic  and  to  every  period.  As  regards  the 
 (,'onvent,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  Dr.  Stan- 
 ley's animated  description  of  its  character,  the 
 policy  of  its  founder,  and  the  quality  of  its  inmates 
 (iS.  (J-  P.  pp.  51-50).  This  traveller  took  three  hours 
 in  the  ascent.  "  In  the  recesses  between  the  [leaks 
 was  a  ruined  Bedouin  village.  On  the  highest  level 
 was  a  small  natural  basin,  thickly  covered  with 
 shrubs  of  myrrh  —  of  all  the  spots  of  the  kind  that 
 1  saw,  the  best  suited  for  the  feeding  of  Jethro's 
 flocks  in  the  seclusion  of  the  mountain  "  (ib.  p.  78). 
 He  thought  the  prospect,  however,  from  its  sunnuit 
 inferior  in  various  ways  to  any  of  the  other  views 
 from  the  neighboring  mountains,  Serbdl,  Si.  Cui/i- 
 eriiie,  Jebel  Musa  or  Ras  SufsaJ'cli. 
 
 The  rocks,  on  leaving  Sinai  on  the  east  for  'Aka- 
 bah,  are  curiously  intermingled,  somewhat  as  in  the 
 opposite  margin  of  the  wadies  Sidri  and  MokuUeb. 
 Wady  Svyal  contains  "hills  of  a  conical  shape, 
 curiously  slanting  across  each  other,  and  with  an 
 appearance  of  serpentine  and  basalt.  The  wady 
 ....  then  mounted  a  short  rocky  pass  —  of  hills 
 capped  with  sandstone  —  and  entered  on  a  plain  of 
 deep  sand  —  the  first  we  had  encountered  —  over 
 which  were  scattered  isolated  clumps  of  sandstone, 
 with  occasional  chalk  ....  At  the  close  of  this 
 plain,  an  isolated  rock,  its  high  tiers  rising  out  of 
 lower  tiers,  like  a  castle."  Here  "  the  level  ranges 
 of  et-Ti/t  rose  in  front.''  And  soon  after,  on  strik- 
 ing down,  apparently,  northeastwards,  "  a  sandy 
 desert,  amidst  fantastic  sandstone  rocks,  mixed 
 with  lilac  and  dull  green,  as  if  of  tufa,"  succeeded. 
 After  this  came  a  desert  strewn  with  "  fragments 
 of  the  Ti/i,"  i.  e.  limestone,  but  "  presently,"  in 
 the  "  Wady    Ch&sdk/i,'''  "    which    turns   at   first 
 
 a  See  his  note  on  Ant.  iii.  1,  §  7. 
 
 6  Dr.  Stanley  verified  the  possibility  of  the  fact,  and 
 disproved  its  nilraculous  character  by  examining  the 
 ravine  above  the  Convent,  through  which,  when  tlie 
 sun  gains  the  necessary  altitude,  a  ray  would  reach 
 the  chapel  {S.  ^  P.  p  46). 
 
 c  Here  Dr.  Stanley  quitted  the  track  pursued  by  Dr 
 Robinson,  which  from  the  Convent  he  had  hitherto 
 followed  ;  the  latter  continuing  in  a  N.  E.  direction 
 through  Wariij  Sumghy  to  the  western  shore  of  tlie 
 Gulf  of  'Akabah,  the  former  turning  northwards  by 
 
WILDERNESS    OF   THE   WANDERING 
 
 3527 
 
 nearly  clue  northward,  and  then  deflects  westward, 
 the  "high  granite  rocks  "  reappeared;  and  in  the 
 Wady  d-Aiii,  ''  the  rocks  rise,  red  granite  or  black 
 basalt,  occasionally  tipped  as  if  with  castles  of  sand- 
 stone to  the  height  of  about  1,000  feet  ....  and 
 finally  open  on  the  sea.  At  the  mouth  of  the  pass 
 are  many  traces  of  flood  —  trees  torn  down,  and 
 strewed  along  the  sand  "  {ib.  pp.  80,  81). 
 
 VI.  \\^  now  pass  on  to  resume  the  attempt  to 
 trace  the  progress  of  the  Israelites.  Their  sojourn 
 of  a  year  in  the  neighborhood  of  Mount  Sinai  was 
 an  eventful  one.  The  statements  of  the  Scriptural 
 narrative  which  relate  to  the  receiving  of  the  two 
 Tables,  the  Golden  Calf,  Moses'  vision  of  God,  and 
 the  visit  of  Jethro,  are  too  well  known  to  need 
 special  mention  here;  but  besides  these,  it  is  certain 
 from  Num.  iii.  4,  that  before  they  quitted  the  wil- 
 derness of  Sinai,  the  Israehtes  were  thrown  into 
 mourning  by  the  untimely  death  of  Aaron's  two 
 sons,  Nadab  and  Abihn.  This  event  is  proltably 
 connected  with  the  setting  up  of  the  Tabernacle  and 
 the  enkindling  of  that  holy  fire,  the  sanctity  of  ■ 
 which  their  death  avenged.  That  it  has  a  deter- 
 minate chronological  relation  with  the  promulga- 
 tions which  from  time  to  time  were  made  in  that 
 wilderness,  is  proved  by  an  edict  in  Lev.  xvi.,  being 
 fi.xed  as  subsequent  to  it  (Lev.  x.,  comp.  xvi.  1). 
 The  only  other  fact  of  history  contained  in  Levit- 
 icus is  the  punishment  of  the  son  of  mixed  parent- 
 age for  blasphemy  (xxiv.  10-14).  Of  course  the 
 consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  is  mentioned 
 early  in  the  book  in  connection  with  the  laws  re- 
 lating to  their  office  (viii.,  ix.).  In  the  same  wil- 
 derness region  the  people  were  numbered,  and  the 
 exchange  of  the  Levites  against  the  firstborn  was 
 effected;  these  last,  since  their  delivery  when  God 
 smote  those  of  Egypt,  having  incurred  the  obliga- 
 tion of  sanctity  to  him.  The  offerings  of  the  princes 
 of  Israel  were  here  also  received.  The  last  incident 
 mentioned  before  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  was  quitted 
 for  that  of  Paran  is  the  intended  departure  of 
 Hobab  the  Kenite,  which  it  seems  he  abandoned  at 
 Moses'  urgency.  They  now  quitted  the  Sinaitic 
 region  for  that  of  Paran,  in  which  they  went  three 
 days  without  finding  a  permanent  encampment,  al- 
 though temporary  halts  must  of  course  have  been 
 daily  made  (Num.  i.,  ix.  1.5-2-3;  x.  13,  33;  xi. 
 35 ;  xii.  16 ).  A  glance  at  Kiepert's,  or  any  map 
 showing  the  region  in  detail,  will  prove  that  here  a 
 choice  of  two  main  routes  begins,  in  order  to  cross 
 the  intervening  space  between  Sinai  and  Canaan, 
 which  they  certainly  approached  in  the  first  in- 
 stance on  the  southern,  and  not  on  the  eastern  side. 
 Here  the  higher  plateau  surmounting  the  Till 
 region  would  almost  certainly,  assuming  the  main 
 features  of  the  wilderness  to  have  been  then  as  they 
 are  now,  have  compelled  them  to  turn  its  western 
 side  nearly  by  the  route  by  which  Seetzen  came  in 
 the  opposite  direction  from  Hebron  to  Sinai,  or  to 
 turn  it  on  the  east  by  going  up  the  '.Araliah,  or  be- 
 tween tlie  'Arabah  and  the  higher  ]5latean.  Over 
 its  southern  fiice  there  is  no  pass,  and  hence  the 
 roads  from  Sinai,  and  those  from  Petra  towards 
 Gaza  and  Hebron,  all  converge  into  one   of  two 
 
 the  Wa'ty  Gkuzaleh,  as  above,  immediately  after  pass- 
 ing th&^Aiii  el-H'xdlierah. 
 
 «  Seeteea  supposes  that  what  are  called  quails  in 
 Scripture  were  really  locusts  {Reisen,  iii.  80)  ;  an 
 opinlou  which  Coquerel  (l.aborde,  Comni.  Geogr.  Ex. 
 xvi.  13)  appears  to  have  shared.  But  surely  locusts, 
 fts  edible,  are  too  well  known  in  Scripture  to  make  the 
 
 trunk-lines  of  route  (Robinson,  i.  147,  151,  152,  ii- 
 18(!).  Taberah  and  Kibrotli-ilattaavah,  both  seem 
 to  belong  to  the  same  encanqjment  where  Israel 
 aliode  for  at  least  a  month  (xi.  20),  being  names 
 given  to  it  from  tiie  two  events  which  happened  there. 
 
 [rAUEtiAII,     KlIUlOTlI  -  ll.VTTAAVAII,     QuAlLS.] 
 
 These  stations  seem  Irom  Num.  x.  11-13,  33-30,  to 
 have  lain  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran ;  but  possibly 
 the  passage  x.  11-13  should  come  after  that  33-33, 
 and  the  "  three  days'  journey  "  of  ver.  33  lie  still 
 in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai;  and  even  Taberah  and 
 Hazeroth,  reached  in  xi.,  xii.,  also  there.  Thus 
 they  would  reach  Paran  only  in  xii.  10,  and  x.  12 
 would  be  either  misplaced  or  mentioned'  by  antici- 
 pation only.  One  reason  for  thinking  that  they  did 
 not  strike  northwards  across  the  Tlh  range  from 
 Sinai,  is  Moses'  question  when  they  nuu-mur, 
 "  Shall  all  the  fish  of  the  sea  be*  gathered  together 
 for  them,  to  suflice  them?"  which  is  natural 
 enough  if  they  were  rapidly  nearing  the  Gulf  of 
 'Akahah,  but  strange  if  they  were  posting  towards 
 the  inland  heart  of  the  desert.  Again  the  quails  " 
 are  brought  by  "a  wind  from  the  sea  "  (Num.  xi. 
 22,  31);  and  various  travellers  (Burckhardt,  Schu- 
 liert,  Stanley)  testify  to  tlie  occurrence  of  vast 
 flights  of  birds  in  this  precise  region  between  Sinai 
 and  'Akabah.  Again,  H;izeroth,  the  next  station 
 after  these,  is  coupled  with  Dizahab,  which  last 
 seems  undoubtedly  tlie  Utliab  on  tlie  shore  of  that 
 gulf  (Dent.  i.  1,  and  liobinson,  ii.  187,  note).  This 
 makes  a  seaward  position  likely  for  Hazeroth.  And 
 as  Taberah,  previously  readied,  was  three  days' 
 journey  or  more  Irom  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  they 
 had  proljably  advanced  that  distance  towards  the  N. 
 E.  and  'Akabah;  and  the  distance  required  for  this 
 will  bring  us  so  near  tl-IIiuUicn'di  (the  spot  which 
 Dr.  Ivobinson  thought  represented  Hazeroth  in  fact 
 as  it  seems  to  do  in  name),  that  it  may  be  accepted 
 as  a  highly  probable  site.  I'hus  they  were  now  not 
 far  from  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah.  A  spot 
 which  seems  almost  certain  to  attract  their  course 
 was  the  Wiidy  d-  Am,  being  tht  water,  the  spring, 
 of  that  region  of  the  desert,  which  would  have 
 drawn  around  it  such  "  nomadic  settlements  as  are 
 implied  in  the  name  of  Hazeroth,  and  such  as  that 
 of  Israel  must  have  been"  {S.  cj'  P.  p.  82).  Dr. 
 Eobinson  remarks,  that  if  this  be  so,  this  settles  the 
 course  to  Kadesh  as  being  up  the  'Arabah,  and  not 
 across  the  plateau  of  et-  TiliP  Dr.  Stanley  thinks 
 this  identification  a  "faint  probability,"  and  the 
 more  uncertain  as  regards  identity,  "  as  the  name 
 Hazeroth  is  one  of  the  least  likely  to  be  attached 
 to  any  permanent  or  natural  feature  of  the  desert," 
 meaning  "simply  the  inclosures,  such  as  may  still 
 be  seen  in  the  Bedouin  villages,  hardly  less  transi- 
 tory th.an  tents"  (S.  (f  P.  pp.  81,82).  We  rely, 
 however,  rather  on  the  combination  of  the  various 
 circumstances  mentioned  abo\-e  than  on  tlie  name. 
 The  Wady  llwUwrali  and  Wady  tl-'Aiii  appear  to 
 run  nearly  parallel  to  each  other,  from  S.  W.  to 
 N.  E.,  nearly  from  the  eastern  extremity  of  the 
 Wady  ts-Sheykli,  and  their  N.  E.  extremity 'coines 
 nearly  to  the  coast,  marking  about  a  midway  dis- 
 tance between  the  Jtlid  JIusa  and  'Akabah.     In 
 
 confusion  possible.  Mr.  Tjrwhitt  says  that  quails,  or 
 small  partridges,  whicli  he  supposes  rather  meaut,  are, 
 as  far  as  he  saw,  more  common  in  che  desert  than  lo- 
 custs. 
 
 b  llobiuson,  lib.  sup-  ;  comp.   Stewart,    T.  and   K, 
 p.  115. 
 
3528 
 
 WILDERNESS   OF   THE  WANDERING 
 
 Hazeroth  the  people  tarried  seven  clays,  if  not  more 
 (Num.  xi.  35,  xii.),  duriiisi;  the  exclusion  of  Miriam 
 fi-om  the  camp  while  leprous.  The  next  permanent 
 encampment  brought  tlieui  into  the  wilderness  of 
 Paran,  and  here  the  local  conniientator's  greatest 
 difficulty  begins. 
 
 For  we  have  not  merely  to  contend  witli  the  fact 
 that  time  has  changed  the  desert's  face  in  many 
 parts,  and  obliterated  old  names  for  new ;  but  we 
 have  beyond  this,  great  obscurity  and  perplexity  in 
 the  narrative.  The  task  is,  first,  to  adjust  the  un- 
 certainties of  the  record  inter  se,  and  tlien  to  try 
 and  malce  the  resultant  probability  square  with  the 
 main  historical  and  physical  facts,  so  fur  as  tlie 
 latter  can  be  supposed  to  remain  unaltered.  Be- 
 sides the  more  or  less  discontinuous  form  in  which 
 the  sacred  narrative  meets  us  in  Exodus,  a  small 
 portion  of  Leviticus,  and  the  greater  part  of  Num- 
 bers, we  have  in  Num.  xxxiii.  what  purports  at 
 first  siglit  to  be  a  conjplete  skeleton  route  so  far  as 
 regards  nomenclature;  and  we  further  find  in 
 Deuteronomy  a  review  of  the  leading  events  of  tlie 
 wandering,  or  some  of  them,  witliout  following  tlie 
 order  of  occurrence,  and  chiefly  in  the  way  of  allu- 
 sion expanded  and  dwelt  upon.  Thus  the  authority 
 is  of  a  threefold  character.  And  as,  in  the  main 
 narrative,  whole  years  are  often  sunk  as  uneventful, 
 so  in  the  itinerary  of  Num.  xxxiii.,  on  a  near  view 
 great  chasms  occur,  which  require,  where  all  else 
 bespeaks  a  severe  uniformity  of  method,  to  be 
 somehow  accounted  for.  But,  beyond  the  ques- 
 tions opened  by  either  authority  in  itself,  we  have 
 difficulties  of  apparent  incongruity  between  them ; 
 such  as  the  omission  in  E.\odus  of  Dophka  and 
 Alush,  and  of  the  encampment  by  the  Bed  Sea; 
 and,  incomparably  greater,  that  of  the  fact  of  a  visit 
 to  Kadesh  being  recorded  in  Num.  xiii.  26,  and 
 again  in  xx.  1,  while  the  itinerary  mentions  the 
 name  of  Kadesh  only  once.  These  difficulties 
 resolve  themselves  into  two  main  questions.  Did 
 Israel  visit  Kadesh  once,  or  twice  ?  And  where  is 
 it  now  to  be  looked  for  ? 
 
 Before  attempting  these  difficulties  individually, 
 it  may  be  as  well  to  suggest  a  caution  against 
 certain  erroneous  general  views,  which  often  appear 
 to  govern  the  considerations  of  desert  topography. 
 One  is,  that  the  Israelites  journeyed,  wherever  they 
 could,  in  nearly  a  straight  line,  or  took  at  any  rate 
 the  shortest  cuts  between  point  and  point.  This 
 has  led  some  delineators  of  maps  to  simply  register 
 the  file  of  names  in  Num.  xxxiii.  10-36  from 
 Sinai  in  rectilinear  sequence  to  Kedesh,  wherever 
 they  may  happen  to  fix  its  site,  then  turn  the  line 
 backward  from  Kadesh  to  Ezion-geber,  and  then 
 either  to  Kadesh  again,  or  to  Mount  Ilor,  and 
 thence  again,  and  here  correctly,  down  the  'Arabah 
 southwards  and  round  the  southeastern  angle  of 
 Edom,  with  a  sweep  northwards  towards  Moab. 
 In  drawing  a  map  of  the  Wanderings,  we  should 
 mark  as  approximately  or  probably  ascertained  the 
 stations  from  Etham  to  Hazeroth,  alter  which  no 
 track  should  be  attempted,  but  the  end  of  the  line 
 should  lose  itself  in  the  blank  space;  and  out  of  the 
 same  blank  space  it  might  on  the  western  side  of 
 the  Arabah  be  similarly  resumed  and  traced  down 
 
 a  He  speaks  of  certain  stations  as  "  placees  entre 
 le  mont  Sinai  et  Cades,  espace  qui  ue  couiporte  pas 
 plus  de  on/,e  joumees  selou  raffirmation  bien  positive 
 de  Deuterouome  "  (i.  1).  Ue  then  proceeds  to  argue, 
 "  Ces  dix-sept  stations  rtSunies  aux  trois  que  nous 
 venons  d'examiaer,  en  ferment  ving't ;    il  y   a  done 
 
 the  Arabah,  etc.,  as  before  described.  All  the 
 sites  of  intervening  .stations,  as  being  either  plainly 
 conjectural  merely,  or  lacking  any  due  authority, 
 should  simply  be  marked  in  the  margin,  save  that 
 Moserah  may  be  put  close  to  Mount  Ilor,  and 
 Ezion-geber  further  S.  in  the  'Arabah  [Eziox- 
 GEiiiiii],  from  which  to  the  brook  Zered  and 
 onwanis  to  the  plains  of  Moab,  the  ambiguities  lie 
 in  narrow  ground,  and  a  probable  light  breaks  on 
 the  route  and  its  stations. 
 
 Another  common  error  is,  that  of  supposing  that 
 from  station  to  station,  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  always 
 reijreseuts  a  day's  march  merely,  whereas  it  is 
 plain  from  a  comparison  of  two  passages  in  Ex. 
 (XV.  22),  and  Num.  (x.  33),  that  on  two  occasions 
 three  days  formed  the  period  of  transition  between 
 station  and  station,  and  therefore,  that  not  day's 
 marches,  but  intervals  of  an  indefinite  number  of 
 days  between  permanent  encampments,  are  intended 
 by  tliat  itinerary ;  and  as  it  is  equally  clear  iioni 
 Num.  ix.  22,  that  the  ground  may  have  been 
 occupied  for  "  two  days,  or  a  month,  or  a  year," 
 we  may  suppose  that  the  occupations  of  a  longer 
 period  only  may  be  marked  in  the  itinerary.  And 
 thus  the  difficulty  of  apparent  chasms  in  its  enu- 
 meration, for  instance  the  greatest,  between  Ezion- 
 geber  and  Kadesh  (xxxiii.  35-37)  altogether  van- 
 ishes. 
 
 An  example  of  the  error,  consequent  on  neglect- 
 ing to  notice  this,  may  be  seen  in  Laborde's  map 
 of  the  Wanderings,  in  his  Commentary  on  ICxodus 
 and  Numbers,  in  which  the  stations  named  in 
 Num.  xxxiii.  18-34  are  closely  crowded,  but  be- 
 tween those  of  ver.  35  and  those  of  ver.  37  a  large 
 void  follows,  and  between  those  of  ver.  37  and  those 
 of  ver.  30  a  still  larger  one,  both  of  which,  since  on 
 referring  to  the  text  of  his  Connnentary  «  we  find 
 that  the  intervals  all  represent  day's  inarches,  are 
 plainly  impossible. 
 
 Omitting,  then,  for  the  present  all  consideration 
 of  the  previous  intervals  after  Hazeroth,  some  sug- 
 gestions concerning  the  nomenclature  and  possible 
 sites  of  which  will  be  found  in  articles  under  their 
 respective  names,  the  primary  question,  did  the 
 people  visit  Kadesh  twice,  or  once  only,  demands  to 
 be  considered. 
 
 We  read  in  Num.  x.  11,  12,  that  "  on  the 
 twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second 
 year  ....  the  children  of  Israel  took  their  jour- 
 neys out  of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  and  the  cloud 
 rested  in  the  ivilderness  of  Poran."  The  latter 
 statement  is  probably  to  be  viewed  as  made  by 
 anticipation;  as  we  find  that,  after  quitting  Kib- 
 roth-Uattaavah  and  Hazerotii,  "  the  people  pitched 
 in  the  wilderness  of  Paran  "  (Num.  xii.  16).  Here 
 the  grand  pause  was  made  while  the  spies,  "  sent," 
 it  is  again  impressed  upon  us  (xiii.  3),  "from  the 
 wilderness  of  Paran,"  searched  the  land  for  "  forty 
 days,"  and  returned  "  to  Moses  and  to  Aaron,  and 
 to  all  the  congregation  ....  %mtu  the  wilderness 
 of  Piiriin  to  Kadesh."  This  is  the  fii'st  mention 
 of  Kadesh  in  the  narrative  of  the  Wanderings 
 (vv.  25,  26).  It  may  here  be  observed  that  an 
 inaccuracy  occurs  in  the  rendering  of  Closes'  direc- 
 tions   to    the   spies    in    the    A.    V.    of    xiii.    17, 
 
 ueuf  stations  ....  dont  on  ne  sait  que  fiiir^."'  The 
 statement  quoted  from  Deuteronomy,  whether  genuine, 
 or  an  annotation  that  has  crept  into  tlie  text,  merely 
 states  the  distance  as  ordinarily  known  and  travelled, 
 and  need  not  indicate  that  the  Israelites  crossed  it  at 
 that  rate  of  progress. 
 
WILDERNESS   OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3529 
 
 "get  you  up  by  this  vf sty  southward "  (3.!l32), 
 where  "  by  fhe  South"  i.  e.  by  the  border  lyiiiif  in 
 that  direction  from  Palestine,  is  intended,  as  is  fur- 
 ther plain  from  ver.  22,  "  And  they  ;xscei)ded  by  the 
 south  and  came  to  Hebron,"  i.  e.  they  went  ntn-th- 
 tvarclA  From  considerations  adduced  under  Ka- 
 DESH,  it  seems  that  Kadesh  probably  means  firstly, 
 a  region  of  the  desert  spol<en  of  as  having  a  rela- 
 tion, sometimes  with  the  wilderness  of  I'aran,  and 
 sometimes  with  that  of  Zin  (conip.  vers.  21,  2G); 
 and  secondly,  a  distinct  city  within  that  desert 
 limit.  Now  all  the  conditions  of  the  narrative  of 
 the  departure  and  return  of  the  spies,  and  of  the 
 consequent  despondency,  murmuring,  and  penal 
 sentence  of  wandering,  will  be  satisfied  by  sup- 
 posing that  the  name  "  Kadesh  "  here  means  ilie 
 reyioii  merely.  It  is  observable,  also,  that  Kadesh 
 is  not  named  as  the  place  of  departure,  but  only  as 
 that  of  return.  From  Paran  is  the  start ;  but  from 
 Zin  (both  regions  in  the  desert)  the  search  com- 
 mences. And  this  agrees  with  the  political  geogra- 
 phy of  the  southern  border,  to  which  the  wilderness 
 of  Zin  is  always  reckoned  as  pertaining,''  whereas 
 that  of  Paran  always  lies  outside  the  promised 
 land.  Natural  features  of  elevation,  depression, 
 and  slope,'-'  are  the  only  tokens  to  which  we  can 
 reasonably  trust  in  deciding  where  the  Paran  wil- 
 derness ends,  and  that  of  Zin  begins.  It  has  been 
 proposed  under  Kadesh  to  regard  part  of  the 
 'Arabah,  including  all  the  low  ground  at  the  south- 
 ern and  southwestern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
 as  the  wilderness  of  Zin.  [Zin.]  Then  the  broad 
 lower  northeastern  plateau,  including  both  its 
 slopes  as  described  above,  will  be  defined  as  the 
 Paran  wilderness  proper.  If  we  assume  the  higher 
 superimposed  plateau,  described  above,  to  bear  the 
 name  of  "  Kadesh  "  as  a  desert  district,  and  its 
 southwestern  mountain  wall  to  be  "  the  mountain 
 of  the  Amorites,"  then  the  Paran  wilderness,  so 
 far  as  synonymous  with  Kadesh,  will  mean  most 
 naturally  the  region  where  that  mountain  wall  from 
 Jebel  'ArdiJ'  en-Nakah  to  Jebel  Muklirdli,  and 
 perhaps  thence  northward  along  the  other  side  of 
 the  angle  of  the  highest  plateau,  overhangs  the 
 lower  terrace  of  the  Tih.  iloses  identifies  the 
 coming  "  to  Kadesh  Barnea  "  ''  with  the  coming  to 
 "the  mountain  of  the  Amorites  "  (Deut.  i.  19,  20), 
 whence  the  spies  were  also  despatched  (vv.  22, 
 2-3),  whicli  is  said  to  have  been  from  "  Paran  "  in 
 Num.  xiii.  -3.  Suppose  the  spies'  actual  start  to 
 have  been  made  from  somewhere  on  the  watershed 
 of  the  two  slopes  of  et-T'ih,  the  spies'  best  way 
 then  would  have  been  by  the  IVady  el-J eraftli 
 into  and  so  up  the  'Arabah:  this  would  be  begin- 
 ning "  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin,"  as  is  said  in 
 Num.  xiii.  21.  Then,  most  naturally,  by  his 
 direction  to  them,  "go  up  into  the  mountain" 
 (Num.  xiii.  17),  which  he  represents  as  acted  on  in 
 
 Deut.  i.  24,  "  and  they  turned  and  went  up  into 
 the  mountain,"  he  meant  them  to  mount  the 
 higher  plateau,  supposed  the  region  Kadesh.  By 
 their  "  turning  "  in  order  to  do  so,  it  may  l;e  in- 
 ferred that  their  course  was  not  direct  to  their 
 object,  as  indeed  has  been  supposed  in  taking  them 
 along  the  'Arabah  and  again  up  its  western  side  by 
 tlie  passes  el-Khurar  and  es-SHfd  (Zephath).«  By 
 these  passes  they  must  have  left  Zin  or  the  'Arabah, 
 there  being  no  choice.  During  the  forty  days  of 
 their  absence,  we  may  suppose  the  host  to  have 
 moved  from  the  watershed  into  the  Kadesh-Paran 
 region,  and  not  at  this  period  of  their  wanderings 
 to  have  touched  the  city  Kadesh  at  all.  This  is 
 quite  consistent  with,  if  it  be  not  even  confirmed 
 by,  the  words  of  the  murmurers  in  xiv.  2,  3, 
 "Would  God  we  had  died  in  this  wilderness! 
 And  wherefore  hath  the  Lord  brought  us  unto 
 tliis  kind;"  and  throughout  the  denunciation 
 which  follows,  evidently  on  the  same  spot,  the 
 words  "  the  wilderness,"  and  "  this  wilderness," 
 often  recur,  but  from  first  to  last  there  is  no  men- 
 tion of  a  "  city." 
 
 Now,  in  Deut.  i.  19,  where  these  proceedings 
 pass  in  review  before  Jloses,  in  his  words  to  the 
 people,  there  is,  strictly  speaking,  no  need  to  men- 
 tion Kadesh  at  all,  for  the  people  were  all  the  time 
 in  the  wilderness  of  Paran.  Yet  this  last  is  so  wide 
 a  term,  reaching  almost  from  the  'Araljah  to  near 
 the  Egyptian  frontier,  that  Moses  miglit  naturally 
 use  some  more  precise  designation  of  the  quarter 
 he  meant.  He  accordingly  marks  it  by  the  prox- 
 imity of  Kadesh.  Thus,  the  spies'  return  to  "  the 
 wilderness  of  Paran  to  Kadesh  "  means  to  that  part 
 of  the  lower  plateau  where  it  is  adjacent  to  the 
 higher,  and  probably  the  eastern  side  of  it.  The 
 expression  "  from  Kadesh-barnea  even  unto  Gaza'" 
 is  decisive  of  an  eastern  site  for  the  former  (Josh. 
 X.  41). 
 
 Here,  as  is  plain  both  from  Num.  xiv.  40-45  and 
 from  Deut.  i.  41-44,  followed  the  wayward  attempt 
 of  the  host  to  win  their  way,  in  spite  of  their  sen- 
 tence of  prohibition,  to  the  "hill"  (Num.  xiv. 
 40-45,  Deut.  i.  41-44)  or  "  mountain  "  of  the 
 Amalekites  and  Canaanites,  or  Amorites,  and  their 
 liumiliating  defeat.  They  were  repulsed  in  trying 
 to  force  the  pass  at  Hormah  (or  Zephath,  Judg.  i. 
 17),  and  the  region  of  that  defeat  is  called  "  Seir," 
 showing  that  the  place  was  also  known  by  its  Horite 
 name;  and  here  perhaps  the  remnant  of  the  Horites 
 were  allowed  to  dwell  by  the  Edomites,  to  whose 
 border  this  territory,  in  the  message  of  Num.  xx. 
 16,  is  ascribed.  [Kauesh.]  Here,  from  the 
 notice  in  Num.  xiv.  25,  that  these  "Amalekites 
 and  Canaanites  dwelt  in  the  valley,"  we  may  sup- 
 pose that  their  dwelling  was  where  they  would  find 
 pasture  for  their  flocks,  in  the  Wady  el-Fi/creh  and 
 others  tributary  to  el-Jeib,  and  that  they  took  post 
 
 «  The  word  for   "  southward  "   would   be    71233, 
 
 T  :v' 
 as  found  in  Ez.  xl.  24  ;  Josh.  xvii.  9,  10.     The  word 
 
 233  appears  to  mean  the  "  dry  "  country,  and  hence 
 to  become  the  appellative  for  the  region  on  the  south 
 of  Judah  and  Simeon  where  springs  were  scarce  ;  see 
 The  Negeh  by  Rev.  E.  Wilton,  pref.  viii. 
 
 6  Num.  xxxiv.  4  ;  .(osh.  xv.  3. 
 
 c  Kor  some  good  remarks  on  the  level  of  the  desert 
 and  the  slope  between  the  south  country.  Dead  Sea, 
 and  the  'Arabah,  see  Robiuion,  i.  587. 
 
 <l  For  "  Barnea,"  as  perhaps  a  llorite  proper  name, 
 see  lCu)ESH,  note  b. 
 
 222 
 
 e  Mr.  Wilton  (Negeb,  pp.  12. 198-202),  following  Row- 
 lands (in  Williams),  makes  Zephath  es-Sebata  on  the 
 northern  side  of  the  high  broad  plateau,  supposed  here 
 to  be  the  "  mountain  of  the  Amorites."  On  this  view 
 the  Israelites  must  already  have  won  that  eminence 
 from  which  it  was  clearly  the  intention  of  the  Amorites 
 to  repel  them  ;  and  must,  when  defeated,  have  been 
 driven  up  hill  from  a  position  occupied  in  the  plain 
 below.  The  position  es-STifa  is  on  the  S.  side  of  the 
 high  ground,  and  has  probably  always  been  the  pass 
 by  which  to  mount  it.  For  all  this,  see  Mr.  Wilton's 
 own  map,  or  any  one  which  shows  both  es-Sebata  and 
 es-Sa/a. 
 
3530 
 
 WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 
 
 in  the  "  mountain  "  or  "  hill,"  as  barring  the  waj' 
 of  the  Israelites'  advance.  So  the  spies  had  gone 
 by  Moses' direction  "this  way,  by  the  South  (not 
 '  southward,'  as  shown  above),  up  into  the  moun- 
 tain;" and  this  same  way,  "the  way  of  the 
 spies," «  through  the  passes  of  el-Kliurdr  and 
 es-Sufd,  was  the  approach  to  the  cily  Kadesh 
 also. 
 
 Here,  then,  the  penal  portion  of  the  wanderings 
 commences,  and  the  great  bulk  of  it,  comprising  a 
 period  of  nearly  thirty-eight  years,  passes  over 
 between  this  defeat  in  Num.  xiv.,  and  the  resump- 
 tion of  local  notices  in  Num.  xx.,  where  again  the 
 names  of  "  Zin  "  and  "  Kadesh  "  are  the  first  that 
 meet  us. 
 
 The  only  events  recorded  during  this  period 
 (and  these  are  interspersed  with  sundry  promulga- 
 tions of  the  Ceremonial  Law),  are  the  execution 
 of  the  offender  who  gathered  sticks  on  the  Sab- 
 bath (Num.  XV.  32-36),  the  rebellion  of  Korah 
 (xvi.),  and,  closely  connected  with  it.  the  adjudg- 
 ment of  the  preeminence  to  Aaron's  house  with 
 their  kindred  tribe,  solemnly  confirmed  by  the 
 judicial  miracle  of  the  rod  that  blossomed.  This 
 seems  to  have  been  followed  by  a  more  rigid  separa- 
 tion between  Levi  and  the  other  tribes,  as  regards 
 the  approach  to  the  Tabernacle,  than  had  been 
 practically  recognized  before  (xvii.,  xviii.  22:  comp. 
 xvi.  40). 
 
 We  gather,  then,  from  Deut.  i.  46,  that  the 
 greater  part,  perhaps  the  whole,  of  this  period  of 
 nearly  thirty-eight  years,  if  so  we  may  interpret 
 the  "  many  days  "  there  spoken  of,  was  passed  in 
 Kadesh,  —  the  region,  that  is,  not  the  city ;  in 
 which,  of  course,  the  camp  may  ha\e  been  shifted 
 at  convenience,  under  direction,  any  number  of 
 times.  But  Num.  xx.  1  brings  us  to  a  new  point 
 of  departure.  The  people  have  grown  old,  or 
 rather  again  young,  in  their  wanderings.  Here, 
 then,  we  are  at  "  the  desert  of  Zin,  in  the  first 
 month,"  with  the  "people  abiding  in  Kadesh." 
 By  the  sequel,  "Miriam  died  there,  and  was  buried 
 there,"  a  more  precise  definition  of  locality  now 
 seems  intended;  which  is  further  confirmed  by  the 
 subsequent  message  from  the  same  place  to  the 
 king  of  Edom,  "  Behold,  we  are  in  Kadesh,  a  cifij 
 in  the  uttermost  of  thy  border  "  (v.  16).  This, 
 then,  must  be  supposed  to  coincide  with  the  en- 
 campment, recorded  as  taking  place  "  in  the  wil- 
 
 derness of  Zin,  which  is  Kadesh,"  registered  in  the 
 itinerary  (xxxiii.  36).  We  see  then  why,  in  that 
 register  of  specific  camping-spots,  there  was  no 
 necessity  for  any  previous  mention  of  "  Kadesh;" 
 Iiecanse  the  earlier  notice  in  the  narrative,  where 
 that  name  occurs,  introduces  it  not  as  an  individual 
 encampment,  but  only  as  a  region,  within  which 
 perpetual  changes  of  encampment  went  on  for  the 
 greater  part  of  thirty-eight  years.  We  also  see 
 that  they  came  twice  to  Kadesh  the  region,  if  the 
 city  Kadesh  lay  in  it.  and  once  to  Kadesh  the  city; 
 but  once  only  to  Kadesh  the  region,  if  the  city  lay 
 without  it.  We  are  not  told  how  the  Israelites 
 came  into  possession  of  the  city  Kadesh,  nor  who 
 were  its  previous  occupants.  The  piobability  is 
 that  these  last  were  a  remnant  of  the  Horites,  who 
 after  their  expulsion  by  Edom  from  Mount  Seir 
 [Edom]  may  have  here  retained  their  last  hold  on 
 the  territory  between  Edom  and  the  Canaanitish 
 Amorites  of  "  the  South."  Probably  Israel  took 
 it  by  force  of  arms,  which  may  have  induced  the 
 attack  of  "  Arad  the  Canaanite,"  ''  who  would  then 
 feel  his  border  immediately  threatened  (Num. 
 xxxiii.  40;  comp.  xxi.  1).  This  warlike  exploit  of 
 Israel  may,  perhaps,  be  alluded  to  in  Judges  v.  4 
 as  the  occasion  when  Jehovah  "  went  out  of  Seir  " 
 and  "  marched  out  of  the  field  of  Edom  "  to  give 
 his  people  victory.  The  attack  of  Arad,  however, 
 though  with  some  sliglit  success  at  fir.st,  only 
 brought  defeat  upon  himself  and  destruction  upon 
 his  cities  (xxi.  3).<^  We  learn  from  xxxiii.  36  only 
 that  Israel  marched  without  permanent  halt  from 
 I'.zion-geber  upon  Kadesh.  This  sudden  activity 
 alter  their  long  period  of  desultory  and  purposeless 
 wandering  may  have  alarmed  King  Arad.  The 
 itinerary  takes  here  another  stride  from  Kadesh  to 
 Mount  Hor.  There  their  being  engaged  with  the 
 burial  of  Aaron  may  have  given  Arad  his  fancied 
 opportunity  of  assaulting  the  rear  of  their  march, 
 he  descending  from  the  north  whilst  they  also  were 
 facing  southwards.  In  direct  connection  with  these 
 events  we  come  upon  a  singular  passage  in  Deuter- 
 onomy (x.  6,  7),  a  scrap  of  narrative  imbedded  in 
 Moses'  recital  of  events  at  Horeb  long  previous.'' 
 This  contains  a  short  list  of  names  of  localities,  on 
 comparing  which  with  the  itinerary,  we  get  some 
 clew  to  the  line  of  march  from  the  region  Kadesh 
 to  Ezion-geber  southwards. 
 
 We  find  at  the    part  of   their  route  in  which 
 
 a  Our  A.  V.  here  seems  to  have  viewed    D'^inSn 
 
 •  T  -;  T 
 
 as  if  derived  from  I^D,  "  to  spy."     Gesen.  renders  it 
 
 "  regions,"  and   the  LXX.  makes   it  a  proper  name, 
 
 'ABapeCv.     It  is  not  elsewhere  found.     Now  the  verb 
 
 '~\^p\   occurs  in  the  passage  where  the  spies  are  sent 
 
 forth,  Num.  xiii.,  xiv.,  which  gives  a  presumption  in 
 
 favor  of  the  A.  V. 
 
 ''   More  properly  "  the  Canaanitish  king  of  Arad." 
 c  He  "  took  some  of"    the  Israelites   "prisoners." 
 
 It  is  possible  the  name  Mosera,or  plur.  Moseroth,  may 
 
 recall  this  fact  ;  the  word  "1D"ltt  (found  only  in 
 the  plur.)  meaning  "  bonds  "  or  "  fetters."  This 
 would  accord  with  the  suggestion  of  the  text  that 
 Aaron's  burial  gave  Arad  the  opportunity  for  his  raid  ; 
 for  Mosera  must  have  been  near  Mount  Hor,  where 
 that  burial  took  place.  It  is  possible  that  the  destruc- 
 tion of  these  cities  may  not  have  really  taken  place 
 till  the  entry  into  Canaan  under  Joshua  (Josh.  xii.  14; 
 Judg.  i.  17)  and  may  be  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi.  2,  3, 
 by  anticipation  only  as  a  subsequent  fulfillment  of  the 
 TOW  recorded  as  then  made.     It  is  obvious  to  suggest 
 
 that  Modera  is  the  Mosera  of  Deut.  x.  6,  and  so  Mr. 
 Wilton  (The  Nes;eb,  p.  28,  etc.)  has  suggested,  wishing 
 to  identify  it  with  Mount  Hor.  But  the  received  site  for 
 Mount  Hor  is  the  least  doubtful  of  all  in  the  Exodus. 
 Josephus  clearly  identifies  it  as  we  do  ;  and  there  is  a 
 strong  improbability  in  a  Jewish  tradition  fixing  it  in 
 Edomitish  or  in  Nabathsean  territory,  unless  the  testi- 
 mony in  its  favor  had  been  overpowering.  Modera 
 might  perhaps  be  the  hill  called  "  Sin  "  (Zin?)  men- 
 tioned by  Josephus  as  that  in  which  Miriam  was 
 buried  (Ant.  iv.  4,  §§  6,  7). 
 
 cl  A  somewhat  similar  fragment  of  nai-rative,  but 
 relating  to  what  perhaps  took  place  during  the  time 
 of  the  allocution  to  the  people  between  the  paragraphs 
 of  which  it  occurs,  is  found  in  Deut.  iv.  41-43 ;  and 
 indeed  the  mention  of  Aaron's  death,  witli  the  date  and 
 his  age,  and  of  the  attack  of  Arad,  both  of  which  had 
 been  detailed  before,  is  hardly  less  of  a  deviation  from 
 the  dry  enumeration  of  stations  in  the  itinerary  itself 
 (Num.  xxxiii.  38,  39).  But  it  would  be  foreign  to  our 
 present  purpose  to  enter  on  the  critical  questions 
 which  these  passages  suggest.  We  assume  their  gen- 
 uineness, and  suppose  them  displaced. 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3531 
 
 Aaron's  death  took  place,  that  stations  named 
 "  Beeroth  of  the  children  of  Jaakan,  Mosera  (where 
 Aaron  died),  Gudgodah,  and  Jotbath,"  were  suc- 
 cessively passed  through;  and  from  Num.  xxxiii. 
 38,  we  find  that  "  Aaron  went  up  into  Mount 
 Hor  ....  and  died  there  in  the  fortieth  year 
 ....  in  the  first  day  of  the  fiith  month."  As- 
 suming for  Mount  Hor  the  traditional  site  over- 
 hanging the  'Arabah,  which   they  very  soon  after 
 
 this  quitted,  Mosera  must  have  been  close  to  it, 
 probably  in  the  'Arabah  itself.  Now  the  stations 
 which  in  the  itinerary  come  next  Ixfore  Kzion- 
 geber,  and  which  were  passed  in  the  strictly  penal 
 wandering  which  commenced  from  tlie  region  Ka- 
 desh,  have  names  so  closely  similar  that  we  cannot 
 doubt  we  are  here  on  the  same  ground.  Their 
 order  is,  however,  slightly  changed,  standing  in  the 
 two  passages  as  follows :  — 
 
 Conjectural  SrrE. 
 (a.)  'Ain  Hash,  N.  W.  in  the  'Arabah. 
 (1.)  Kusheibe/i,  mouth  of  the  Wady  Abu, 
 
 near  the  foot  of  Mount  Hor. 
 (2.)  'Jm  Ghurmidel. 
 (3.)    Wadij  el-Ghudliagidh. 
 (4.)  Confluence  of  Wady  el-Adhbeh  with 
 
 el-Jerafeh. 
 
 Num.  xxxiii.  30-35. 
 (a.)  (Hashmonah.) 
 (1.)  Moseroth. 
 
 (2.)  Bene-Jaakan.a 
 (3.)  Ilor-hagidgad. 
 (4.)  Jotbathah. 
 (Ebronah.) 
 (Ezion-geber. ) 
 
 Deux.  x.  6,  7. 
 
 (1.)  Beeroth  of  the  children 
 
 of  Jaalcan. 
 (2.)  Mosera. 
 (3.)  Gudgodah. 
 (4.)  Jotbath.i) 
 
 Now  in  Num.  xx.  14,  16,  22-29,  the  narrative 
 conducts  us  from  Kadesh  the  city,  reached  in  or 
 shortly  before  "  the  fortieth  year,"  to  Mount  Hor, 
 where  Aaron  died,  a  pcn-tion  of'  viliich  route  is 
 accordingly  that  given  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7;  whereas 
 the  parallel  column  from  Num.  xxxiii.  gives  sub- 
 stantially tlie  same  route  as  pursued  in  the  early 
 part  of  the  penal  wandering,  when  fulfilling  the 
 command  given  in  the  region  Kadesh,  "  turn  you, 
 get  you  into  the  wilderness  by  the  way  of  tlie  Ked 
 Sea"  (Num.  xiv.  25;  Deut.  i.  40),  which  com- 
 mand we  further  learn  from  Deut.  ii.  1  was  strictly 
 acted  on,  and  which  a  march  towards  Ezion-geber 
 would  exactly  fulfill. 
 
 These  half-obliterated  footsteps  in  the  desert  may 
 seem  to  indicate  a  direction  only  in  which  Kadesh 
 the  city  =  lay.  Widely  different  localities,  from 
 Petra  eastward  to  d-Khalesnh  on  the  nortliwest, 
 and  westward  to  near  the  Jcbel  Ilellak,  liave  been 
 assigned  by  different  writers.  The  best  way  is  to 
 acknowledge  that  our  research  has  not  yet  grasped 
 the  materials  for  a  decision,  and  to  be  content  with 
 some  such  attempt  as  that  under  Kadesh,  to  fix 
 it  approximately  only,  until  more  undoubted  tokens 
 are  obtained.  The  portion  of  the  arc  of  a  circle 
 with  es-Sufa  for  its  centre,  and  a  day's  journey  — 
 about  fifteen  miles  —  for  its  radius,  will  not  take 
 in  el-Klialesah,  nor  Petra,":'  ami  the  former  name 
 seems  to  be  traceable,  with  a  slight  metathesis, 
 much  more  probably  in  C/iesil''  than  in  Kadesh..'" 
 The  higliest  plateau  is  marked  with  the  ruins  of 
 Aboda,  and  on  the  inferior  one,  some  miles  S.  W. 
 of  the  defile  of  the  Wady  el-Fikreh  stands  a  round 
 conical  hill  of  limestone,  mixed  with  sand,  named 
 Madarah  (Modura,  or  Modera),  at  a  short  day's 
 Journey  from  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
 Seetzen,  who  visited  it,  had  had  his  curiosity  raised 
 by  a  Bedouhi  legend  of  a  village  having  been 
 destroyed  by  Allah  and  buried  under  that  hill  for 
 the  wickedness  of  its  people ;  and  that,  as  a  further 
 
 a  See  Ja.\k.\n  and  Bexe  Jaakan  for  the  name. 
 Jaakan  was  the  grandson  of  Seir  (1  Chr.  i.  42  ;  com  p. 
 Gen.  xiv.  G,  xxxvi.  27). 
 
 b  Dr.  Robinson,  judging  from  his  vi.'iit,  thinks  that 
 these  stations  could  not  have  lain  to  the  S.  of  Mount 
 Hor,  as  that  region  is  too  poor  in  water  to  cont.ain  any 
 such  place  as  Jotbath  in  Deut.  x.  7,  and  corresponds 
 rather  to  the  description  given  in  Num.  xxi.  4-6  (ii. 
 175).  He  thinks  that  ^Aiti  ct-Tayibe/iis  either  Beevoth, 
 Bene  Jaakan,  or  Moseroth,  and  Wady  el-Ghudkagidh 
 Jotbath  {ibid.). 
 
 c  Laborde  {Comment,  on  Num.  xxxiii.  36)  places 
 Kadesh  the  city  "  pres  des  sources  d'Embasch  au  fond 
 
 attestation,  human  skulls  were  found  on  the  ground 
 around  it.  This  statement  he  resolved  by  visiting 
 the  spot  into  a  simple  natural  phenomenon  of  some 
 curious  rounded  stones,  or  pebbles,  which  abound 
 in  the  neighborhood.  He  thought  it  a  legend  of 
 Sodom ;  and  it  might,  with  equal  likelihood,  have 
 been  referred  to  the  catastrophe  of  Korah  (Seetzen 
 Reisen,  iii.  13),  which,  if  our  sites  for  Kadesh  tht 
 region  and  Paran  are  correct,  should  have  occurred 
 in  the  neighborhood,  were  it  not  far  more  probable 
 that  the  physical  appearance  of  the  round  pebbles 
 having  once  given  rise  to  the  story  of  the  skulls, 
 the  legend  was  easily  generated  to  account  for 
 them. 
 
 The  mountains  on  the  west  of  the  'Arabah  must 
 have  been  always  poor  in  water;  and  form  a  dreary 
 contrast  to  the  rich  springs  of  the  eastern  side  in 
 Mount  Seir.  From  the  cliff"  front  of  this  last. 
 Mount  Hor  stands  out  prominently  (Robinson,  ii. 
 174-180).  It  has  been  suggested  [HoR  Hagid- 
 GAi>]  that  the  name  Ha-gidgad,  or  Gudgodah,  may 
 possibly  be  retraced  in  the  W<t(iy  el-Ghudhayhidh, 
 wliicli  has  a  confluence  with  the  Wady  el-Jerafeh. 
 Tliis  latter  runs  into  the  'Arabah  on  the  west  side. 
 That  point  of  confluence,  as  laid  down  in  Kiepert's 
 map  (Robinson,  Bihl.  Res.  i.),  is  about  fifteen  miles 
 from  the  'Arabah's  nearest  point,  and  about  forty 
 or  forty-five  from  the  top  of  Mount  Hor.  On  the 
 whole  it  seems  likely  enough  that  the  name  of  this 
 wady  may  really  represent  that  of  this  station, 
 although  the  latter  may  have  lain  nearer  the  'Ara- 
 bah than  tlie  wady  now  reaches,  and  this  conjectu- 
 ral identification  has  been  adopted  above.  Jotbath, 
 or  .Jotbatha,»  is  described  as  "  a  land  of  rivers  of 
 waters"  (Deut.  x.  7);  and  may  stand  for  any  con- 
 fluence of  wadies  in  sufficient  force  to  justify  that 
 character.  It  should  certainly  be  in  the  southern 
 portion  of  the  'Arabah,  or  a  little  to  the  west  of  the 
 same. 
 
 The  probabilities  of  the  whole  marcli  from  Sinai, 
 
 de  Ouadi  Djerafi  "  ( Wady  el- Jem/eh).  Dr.  Robinson 
 thought  Mirt  el-Weibeh  was  Kadesh,  the  city,  or,  as  he 
 calls  it.  Kadesh  Barnea  (see  Map,  vol.  i.,  end).     Dr. 
 
 Stanley  remarks  that  there  is  no  cliff  (V^D)  there. 
 See  bis  remarks  quoted  under  K.^desu. 
 
 d  Robinson  puts  es-Srifa  at  about  two  days'  journey 
 from  the  foot  of  Mount  Hor,  ii.  180,  181. 
 
 e  As  suggested  in  Williams's  Huiy  City,  i.  464. 
 
 ./'  The  northern  Kadesh,  or  Kedesh,  in  Naphtali 
 has  the  very  same  consonants  in  its  modern  Arabic 
 name  as  in  the  Hebrew. 
 
 0  A  writer  in  the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.  April,  1860, 
 
3532 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 then,  seem  to  stand  as  follows:  They  proceeded 
 towards  the  N.  E.  to  the  \-iin  d-TIwIherdh  (Haze- 
 roth),  and  thence  quitted  the  maritime  region, 
 striking  directly  northwards  to  el-'Ain,  and  thence 
 by  a  route  wholly  unknown,  perhaps  a  little  to 
 the  E.  of  N.  across  the  lower  eastern  spurs  of  the 
 et-Tih  range,  descending  the  upper  course  of  the 
 Wady  el-Jera/eli,  until  the  southeastern  angle 
 of  the  higher  plateau  confronted  them  at  the  JcOcl 
 el-Mukhrah.  Hence,  after  dispatching  the  spies, 
 they  moved  perhaps  into  the  'Arabah,  or  along  its 
 western  overhanging  hills,  to  meet  theii'  return. 
 Then  followed  the  disastrous  attempt  at  or  near 
 es-SuJ'a  (Zephath),  and  the  penal  wandering  in  tlie 
 wilderness  of  Kadesh,  with  a  track  wholly  unde- 
 termined, save  in  tlie  last  half  dozen  stations  to 
 Ezion-geber  inclusively,  as  shown  just  above.  They 
 then  marched  on  Kadesh  the  city,  probably  up  the 
 'Arabah  by  these  same  stations,  took  it,  and  sent 
 from  there  the  message  to  Edoni.  The  refusal 
 with  which  it  was  met  forced  them  to  retrace  the 
 'Arabah  once  more,  and  meanwhile  Aaron  died. 
 Thus  the  same  stations  (Deut.  x.  6,  7)  were  passed 
 again,  with  the  slight  variation  just  noticed,  proba- 
 bly caused  by  the  command  to  resort  to  Mount 
 Hor  which  that  death  occasioned."  Thence,  after 
 reaching  'Akabah,  and  turning  northeastward,  they 
 passed  by  a  nearly  straight  line  towards  the  eastern 
 border  of  Moab. 
 
 Of  the  stations  in  the  list  from  Rithmah  to 
 Mithcah,  both  inclusive,  nothing  is  known.  The 
 latter,  with  the  few  preceding  it,  probably  belong 
 to  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh ;  but  no  line  can  be 
 assigned  to  the  route  beyond  the  indications  of 
 the  situation  of  that  wilderness  given  above.  In 
 the  sequel  to  the  burial  of  Aaron,  and  the  refusal 
 of  Edom  to  permit  Israel  to  "  pass  through  his 
 border"  ''  (which  refusal  may  perhaps  have  been 
 'received  at  Mount  Hor  (Moserah),  though  the 
 message  which  it  answered  was  sent  from'  the  city 
 Kadesh),  occurred  the  necessity,  consequent  upon 
 this  refusal,  of  the  people's  "  compassing  the  land 
 of  Iwlom  "  (Num.  xxi.  4),  when  they  were  much 
 "  discouraged  because  of  the  way,"  "^  and  where  tlie 
 consequent  murmuring  was  lebuked  by  the  visita- 
 tion of  the  "fiery  serpents"  (v.  5,  6).  There  is 
 near  Elath  a  promontory  known  as  the  Ras  Um 
 Haye,  "  the  mother  of  serpents,"   which  seem  to 
 
 connects  this  rame  with  312,  "good,''  from  the 
 goodness  of  the  water  supply.     This  is  not  unlikely  ; 
 
 but  his  view  of  the  name    n^tS"*.   as  from  the  same 
 T  :  t' 
 
 root  as  the  Arabic  y  . .  V  -  ^Adhbeh,  is  very  doubt- 
 ful, the  £,  (Heb.  ^)  being  probably  radical.  How- 
 ever, if  el-^Adkbth  be,  as  he  avers,  a  region  of  abundant 
 water,  the  place  may  correspond  with  Jotbath,  though 
 the  name  do  not.  His  map  places  it  about  17  miles 
 N.  W.  of  the  modern  exti-euiity  of  the  Gulf  of  'Aka- 
 bah —  i.  e.  on  the  western  side  of  the  "Arabah.  His 
 general  view  of  the  route  to  and  from  Kadesh,  and 
 especially  of  the  site  of  Sinai  and  Mount  Hor,  is  inad- 
 missible. See  further  towards  the  end  of  this  article. 
 Burckhardt's  map  gives  another  watery  spot  with 
 palm-trees  in  the  'Arabah  itself,  not  far  from  its 
 southern  cud,  which  might  also  suit  for  Jotbath 
 
 a  Hengstenberg  (Aiilhent icily  of  l/ie  Pent.  ii.  356) 
 has  another  explanation  of  tlie  deranged  order  of  the 
 stations  enumerated  just  above,  ba?ed  on  the  supjin- 
 sitiou  that  in  the  two  passages  (Num.  xxxiii.  30-35, 
 Deut.  X.  6,  7)  the  mai'ch  proceeded  in  two  opposite 
 directions  ;  but  this  would  obviously  rectuire  a  reverse 
 
 abound  in  the  region  adjacent;  and,  if  we  may 
 suppose  this  the  scene  of  that  judgment,  the  event 
 would  be  thus  connected  with  the  line  of  march, 
 rounding  the  .southern  border  of  Mount  Seir,  laid 
 down  in  Deut.  ii.  8,  as  being  "through  the  way 
 of  the  plain  (i.  e.  the  'Arabah)  from  Elath  and 
 from  Ezion-geber,"  whence  "turning  northward," 
 having  "  compassed  that  mountain  (Mount  Seir) 
 long  enough,"  they  "  passed  by  the  way  of  the 
 wilderness  of  Moab"  (v.  3,  8). 
 
 Some  permanent  encampment,  perhaps  repre- 
 .sented  by  Zalmonah  in  Num.  xxxiii.  41,  42,  seems 
 here  to  have  taken  place,  to  judge  from  the  urgent 
 expression  of  Moses  to  the  people  in  Deut.  ii.  13 : 
 "  Now  rise  up,  said  I,  and  get  you  over  the  brook 
 Zered,"  which  lay  further  N.  a  little  E.,  being 
 probably  the  IVacly  el-Ahsy  (Robinson,  ii.  157). 
 [Zeked.]  The  delay  caused  by  the  plague  of  ser- 
 pents' may  be  the  probable  account  of  this  apparent 
 urgency,  which  would  on  this  view  have  taken 
 place  at  Zalmonah ;  and  as  we  have  connected  the 
 scene  of  that  plague  with  the  neighborhood  of 
 lilath,  so,  if  we  suppose  Zalmonah  f'  to  have  lain 
 in  the  Wady  Ithin.,  which  has  its  junction  with  the 
 'Arabah  close  to  'Akabah,  the  modern  site  of  Elath, 
 this  will  harmonize  the  various  indications,  and 
 form  a  suitable  point  of  departure  for  the  last  stage 
 of  the  wandering,  which  ends  at  the  brook  Zered 
 (v.  14).  Dr.  Stanley,  who  passed  through  'Akabah, 
 thus  describes  the  spot  in  question  {S.  cf  P.  pp.  84, 
 85 ) :  "  '  Akabah  is  a  wretched  village  shrouded  in  a 
 palm-grove  at  the  north  end  of  the  gulf,  gathered 
 round  a  fortress  built    for    the  protection  of   the 
 
 Mecca  pilgrimage This  is  the  whole  object 
 
 of  the  present  existence  of  'Akabah,  which  stands 
 on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Elath,  —  '  the  Palm- 
 Trees,'  so  called  from  the  grove.  Its  situation, 
 however,  is  very  striking,  looking  down  the  beauti- 
 ful gulf,  with  its  jagged  ranges  on  each  side.  On 
 the  west  is  the  great  black  pass,  down  which  the 
 pilgrimage  descends,  and  from  which  'Akabah 
 ('  the  Pass  ')  derives  its  name;  on  the  north  opens 
 the  wide  plain,  or  1  )esert  Valley,  wholly  diff(?rent  in 
 cliaracter  from  an)  thing  we  have  seen,  still  called, 
 as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Moses,  '  the  'Arabah.' 
 Down  this  came  the  Lsraelites  on  their  return  from 
 Kadesh,  and  through  a  gap  up  the  eastern  hills 
 tliey  finally  turned  off  to  Moab This  is  the 
 
 order  of  nil  the  stations,  and  not  the  derangement  of 
 two  merely.  Von  Raumer  thought  that  the  line  of 
 march  threaded  the  'Arabah  thrice  through,  and, 
 making  allowance  for  the  mistake  of  giving  it  each 
 time  a  nearly  rectilinear  direction,  he  is  not  far 
 wrong. 
 
 b  Dr.  Robinson  thinks  that  by  the  "  King's  High- 
 way "  the  Wcicly  G/niweir,  opening  a  thorouglifare 
 into  the  heart  of  the  Edomitish  territory  was  meant 
 (ii,  157).  Though  the  passage  through  Edom  was 
 refused,  the  burial  of  the  most  sacred  person  of  a  kin- 
 dred people  may  have  been  allowed,  especially  if 
 Mount  Hor  was  already,  as  Dr.  Stanley  suggests,  a 
 local  sanctuary  of  the  region  {S.  ^-  P.  pp.  97,  98). 
 
 c  Tlie  way  up  the  'Arabah  was  toilsome,  and  is  so 
 at  this  day.  Dr.  Robinson  calls  it  "a  still  more 
 frightful  desert  "  than  the  Sinaitic  (ii.  184).  The  pass 
 at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  towards  et-Ti/i  "  is 
 famous  for  its  difficulty,  and  for  the  destruction  which 
 it  causes  to  animals  of  burden  "  (i.  175).  Only  two 
 travellers,  Laborde  and  Bertou,  have  accomplished  (or 
 recorded  their  accomplishment  of)  the  entire  length 
 of  the  "Arabah. 
 
 ''  Von  Raumer  identifies  it  with  Moan,  a  few  min- 
 utes to  the  E.  of  Petra. 
 
WILDERNESS  OP  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3533 
 
 Wady  Ithm,  which  turns  the  eastern  range  of  the 
 
 'Aral>ali It  is  still  one  of  the  regular  roads 
 
 to  Petra,  and  in  ancient  times  seems  to  have  been 
 
 the  main  approach  from  Elath  or  'Akabali 
 
 The  only  pulilished  account  of  it  is  that  of  Laborde. 
 These  mountains  appear  to  be  granite,  till,  as  we 
 advance  nortliward,  we  reach  the  entrance  of  tlie 
 
 Wmly  Tuhal^  where,  for  the  first  time,  red  sand- 
 stone appears  in  the   mountains,  rising,  as  in  the 
 
 WiK-ly  (.PAin,  architecture-wise,  above  gray  gran- 
 ite." 
 
 Three  stations,  Punoii,"  Oboth,  and  Ije-Abarim, 
 were  passed  between  this  locality  and  the  bro(jk  or 
 valley  of  Zered  (Num.  xxi.  10-12,  comp  xxxiii. 
 43,  44),  which  last  name  doe.s  not  occur  in  the 
 itinerary,  as  neither  do  those  of  "  the  brooks  of 
 Arnon,"  Beer,  Slattanah,  Nahaliel,  and  Bauiotb, 
 all  named  hi  Num.  xxi.  14-20;  liut  the  interval 
 between  ]je-.\barini  and  Nelio,  wliich  last  cor- 
 responds probably  (see  Dent,  xxxiv.  1 )  with  tiie 
 Pisgah  '^  of  xxi.  20,  is  filled  l)y  two  stations  merely, 
 named  Dilion-gad  and  Almon-diblathaira,  from 
 whence  we  may  infer  that  in  these  two  only  were 
 permanent  halts  made.  [Dibon-gad;  AL>Io^'- 
 DiBLATHAiM.]  In  tliis  Stage  of  their  progress 
 occurred  the  "digging''  of  the  "well"  by  "the 
 princes,"  the  successive  victories  over  Sihou  and 
 Og,  and,  lastly,  the  famous  episodes  of  Balaam  and 
 Phinehas,  and  the  final  numbering  of  the  people, 
 followed  by  the  chastisement  of  the  Midianites 
 (Num.  xxi.  17,  xxii.-xxvi.,  xxxi.  1-12;  comp. 
 Deut.  ii.  24-37,  iii.  1-17). 
 
 One  passage  remains  in  which,  although  the 
 event  recorded  belongs  to  the  close  of  Jloses'  life, 
 relating  to  his  last  words  in  the  plain  of  Moab, 
 and  as  such  lies  beyond  the  scope  of  this  article, 
 several  names  of  places  yet  occur  which  are  iden- 
 tical with  some  herein  considered,  and  it  remains 
 to  be  seen  in  what  sense  those  places  ai'e  connected 
 with  the  scene  of  that  event.  The  passage  in 
 question  is  Deut.  i.  1,  where  Moses  is  said  to  have 
 spoken  "on  this  side  Jordan  in  the  wilderness,  in 
 the  plain  over  against  the  Red  Sea,  between  Paran 
 and  Tophel,  and  Laban  and  Hazeroth  and  Diza- 
 hab." '■     The  words  "on  this  side"  might  here 
 
 a  Punon  is  spoken  of  by  Jerome  (Reland,  p.  592)  as 
 "  Quondam  civitas  pi-incipum  Edom  nunc  viculus  in 
 deserto,  ubi  a?rum  nietalla  damnatorum  suppliciis 
 etfodiuntur  inter  civitatem  Petram  et  Zoaram." 
 Athanas.  Epist.  ad  Solit.  Vitarn  Asenles,  speaks  of  the 
 condemnation  of  a  person  to  the  mines  of  Phasno, 
 where  he  would  only  live  a  few  days.  Winer  .says. 
 Seetzeu  took  Kalaiit  Pkenan  for  Punon,  referring  to 
 Monatl.  Corrfsp.  xvii.  137.  Laborde  {Comment,  on 
 Num.  xxxiii,  42)  thinks  that  the  place  named  by 
 Jerome  and  Athanasius  cannot  be  Punon,  which  he 
 says  lay  S.  E.  of  Petra.  He  adds  that  Burekhardt 
 and  Von  Raumer  took  Tafxlek  for  Punon.  He  places 
 Oboth  "dans  les  decombres  de  Butaieh  {Bulaliy,  Rob- 
 inson), laissaut  ainsi  Ma,an  a  droite." 
 
 b  Dr.  Stewart  (T.  S^  K.  p  386)  says,  "The  river  Ar- 
 non empties  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea,  and  between  them 
 rises  the  lofty  Gibel  Ainrniis,  which  is  believed  to  be 
 the  Nebo  or  Pisgah  of  Scripture."  He  justifies  this 
 from  its  being  the  highest  mountain  on  the  Moabifish 
 border,  and  from  the  hot  spring  Callirhot;  being  sit- 
 uated at  its  base,  which  seems  to  correspond  with  the 
 Ashdoth  ("  springs  "  or  "  streams  ")  of  Pisgah  of  Deut. 
 iv.  49.  He  adds  that  "  Moses  could  have  seen  the 
 land  of  Isr;iel  from  that  mountain."  The  Arnon  i.s, 
 witliout  doubt,  the  Wiu/y  el-Mojeb.  Ar  of  Moab  is 
 Ireopolis,  Rabbath-Moab,  now  liabba.  [Ab-Moab  and 
 4bkon.] 
 
 mislead,  meaning,  as  shown  by  the  LXX.  render- 
 ing, iripaVi  "across"  or  "beyond,"  i.  e.  on  the 
 E.  side.  This  is  a  passage  in  which  it  is  of  little 
 use  to  examine  the  question  by  the  aid  of  maps, 
 since  the  more  accurate  they  are,  the  more  probably 
 will  they  tend  to  confuse  our  view  of  it.  The 
 words  seem  to  forget  that  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  pre- 
 sents its  end  to  the  end  of  the  'Arabah  ("  plain  "), 
 and  to  assume  that  it  presents  the  hni/ih  of  its 
 coast,  on  which  Dizahab  (D.iJui/j)  lies.  This  length 
 of  coast  is  regarded,  then,  as  opposite  to  the  'Ara- 
 bah ;  and  thus  the  'Arabah,  in  which  Moses  spoke, 
 is  defined  by  "  Paran  and  Tophel,"  lying  on  oppo- 
 site edges  of  the  Dead  Sea,  or  rather  of  the  whole 
 depression  in  which  it  lies,  which  is  in  fact  the 
 '.\rabali  continued  northward.  Paran  here  is  per- 
 liaps  the  El  Paran  to  which  Chedorlaomer  came  in 
 tien.  xiv.  0  [Paran],  and  probably  To|)hel  is  the 
 well-known  TafUeli  to  the  N.  N.  E.  of  Petra;  and 
 similarly  tiie  lied  Sea,  "  over  against  "  which  it  is 
 spoken  of  as  lying,  is  defined  by  Dizahab  on  its 
 coast,  and  Hazeroth  near  the  same.  The  intro- 
 duction of  "  Laban "  is  less  clear,  but  probably 
 means,  from  its  etymology,  "  the  white,"  I.  e.  the 
 chalk  and  limestone  region,  which  in  the  mountain- 
 range  of  Till,  comes  into  view  from  the  Edomitish 
 mountains  (Stanley,  S.  <f  P.  p.  87),  and  was 
 probably  named,  from  that  point  of  view,  by  the 
 paler  contrast  which  it  there  offered  to  the  rich 
 and  varied  hues  of  the  sandstones  and  granites  of 
 Mount  Seir,  which  formed  their  own  immediate 
 foreground. 
 
 A  writer  in  the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.,  April, 
 1860,  on  Sinai,  Kadesh,  and  Mount  IIov,  pro- 
 pounds an  entirely  original  view  of  these  sites,  in 
 conflict  with  every  known  tradition  and  hitherto 
 accepted  theory. f'  For  instance,  Josephus  identi- 
 fies Mount  Hor  with  Petra  and  Kerek;  Jerome 
 and  Kosmas  point  to  Serbal  in  the  granitic  moun- 
 tain region  as  Sinai;  but  this  writer  sets  aside 
 .Josephus'  testimony  as  a  wholly  corrupt  tradition, 
 invented  by  the  Rabbis  in  their  prejudice  against 
 the  Iduniffians,  in  whose  territory  between  Eleu- 
 theropolis,  Petra,  and  Elath  (see  Jerome  on  Obad.), 
 he   asserts    they  all   lay.     [Edojiites.]     Kadesh 
 
 T  T  -;  T         T   :  •  -      '  ••   : —         -.•••: 
 
 2nT  '^^^  are  the  words  of  the  Ileb.  text,  from  which 
 the  LXX.  offers  some  divergencies,  being  as  follows : 
 TTepav  ToO  'lopScii'ov  iv  Trj  eprjixco  Trpb;  SvcriJ-al^  7rA.r/<rioi' 
 T7)5  epi'9pa5  0aA.dcr<rr|Safa|U.e'<roi'>l'apai'Toc^dA,  Kol  Ao^oi' 
 
 Koi  A.v\u}v  Kol  Karaxpva-ea.  The  phrase  ^^^^'Q^,  if 
 «RedSea,"be,astheLXX.conarms,the  true  meaning, 
 is  here  abridged  into  V\'^'0.    The  word  n2"^  VS  was 
 
 possibly  differently  read  by  the  LX.V.  (query,  Il"iy2, 
 as  if  "the  evening"  were  ^"  the  west,"  Sva-fiaC), 
 whilst  <PapaLV  To(f)oA  looks  as  though  it  were  meant  for 
 one  compound  name  ;  and  the  two  last  names  are  trans- 
 lated, Hazeroth  being  =  "  inclosures,"  and  Di-zahab  = 
 "  the  golden."  N.  B.  Hazeroth  elsewhere  is  repre- 
 sented by  'A(rqpui0  (Num.  xi.  35,  xii.  16). 
 
 <J  Some  incidental  errors  of  this  writer,  though  un- 
 important, may  assist  in  forming  an  estimate  of  his 
 work.  Thus  he  identifies  Petra  with  Bozrah,  the  for- 
 mer being  the  capital  of  the  later  Nabatlueiins,  the  lat- 
 ter that  of  the  Edom  of  the  prophetic  period  and  lo- 
 cally distinct.  Again  he  says,  "  Of  all  the  people  in 
 the  universe,  the  race  most  detested  by  the  Jews  were 
 
3531 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 the  city,  and  perhaps  Kadesh  Barnea,  did  so  lie, 
 and  possibly  Klusa,  now  el-K/idlesali,  may  retain 
 a  trace  of  "  Kadesh."  several  types  of  which  no- 
 menclature arc  to  be  found  in  the  region  lying 
 thence  southward  [Kadesh]  ;  but  el-Kltcdesah  lies 
 too  far  N.  and  W.  to  be  the  Kadesh  Barnea  to 
 which  Israel  came  "  by  the  way  of  the  spies,"  and 
 which  is  clearly  in  far  closer  connection  with  Ze- 
 phath  (es-SiiJ'n)  than  el-Klialesali  could  be.  On 
 the  contrary,  there  seems  great  reason  for  thinking 
 that,  liad  so  well-known  and  historical  a  place  as 
 Klusa  been  the  spot  of  any  great  event  in  the  his- 
 tory of  the  l'"xodus,  the  tradition  would  probably 
 have  been  traceable  in  some  form  or  other,  whereas 
 there  is  not  a  trace  of  any.  Kadesh,  again,  lay 
 "  in  the  uttfirmost  of  the  border  "  of  Edom.  Now, 
 although  that  border  may  not  have  lain  solely  Iv 
 of  tlie  'Arabah,  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
 known  facts  to  extend  it  to  Klusa;  for  then  the  en- 
 emies encountered  in  Mornjah  would  have  been 
 Edoniites,  whereas  they  were  Amalekites,  Caiiaan- 
 ites,  and  Amorites;  and  Israel,  in  forcing  the  pass, 
 would  have  been  doing  what  we  know  they  entirely 
 abstained  from  —  attempting  violence  to  the  terri- 
 tory of  Kdom.  The  "designs  "  which  this  writer 
 attributes  to  the  "  Rabbis,"  as  regards  the  period 
 up  to  Josephus'  time,  are  gratuitous  imputations; 
 nor  does  he  cite  any  authorities  for  this  or  any 
 other  statement.  Nor  was  there  any  such  feeling 
 against  the  Iduma?ans  as  he  supposes."  They  an- 
 nexed part  ol'  tlie  territory  of  .ludah  and  Simeon 
 during  the  ('aptivity,  and  were  subsequently,  by 
 the  warlike  Maccabees,  annexed  themselves,  received 
 circumcision  and  tlie  Law,  by  which  an  I'Ldomite 
 might,  "  in  the  third  generation,"  enter  the  con- 
 gregation of  Israel  (Deut.  xxiii.  8),  so  that  by  tlie 
 New  Testament  period  they  must  have  been  fully 
 recognized.  The  .lews  proper,  indeed,  still  speak 
 ()/■  them  as  "foreigners,"  but  to  them  as  having 
 the  place  of  kinsmen,  a  common  share  in  Jerusa- 
 lem, and  care  of  its  sanctity  as  their  "njetropolis;" 
 and  Josephus  expressly  testifies  that  they  kept  the 
 Jewish  feasts  there  {Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  2;  comp.  B. 
 J.  iv.  4,  §§  4,  5).  The  zealots  and  the  party  of 
 order  both  appealed  to  their  patriotism,  somewhat 
 as  in  our  Kebellion  both  parties  appealed  to  the  Scots. 
 It  remains  to  notice  the  natural  history  of  the 
 wilderness  which  we  have  been  considering.  A 
 number  of  the  animals  of  the  Sinaitic  region  have 
 
 the    Idumseans."     That    race    has    generally     been 
 thought,  on  good  authority,  to  be  the  Samaritans. 
 
 a  Some  feeling  of  rivalry  there  no  doubt  was  ;  but 
 this  writer  vastly  exaggerates  it,  in  supposing  that  the 
 Jewish  Rabbis  purposely  obliterated  genuine  tradi- 
 tions, which  referred  these  sites  to  Idumsean  territory 
 —  that  of  a  circumcised  and  vanquished  race  who  had 
 accepted  the  place  of  "  proselytes  of  the  covenant  "  — 
 in  order  to  transfer  them  to  what  was  then  the  terri- 
 tory of  the  purely  Gentile  and  often  hostile  NabathaB- 
 ans.  Surely  a  transfer  the  other  way  would  have  been 
 far  more  likely.  Above  all,  what  reason  is  there  for 
 thinking  that  the  Rabbis  of  the  period  busied  them- 
 selves with  such  points  at  all  ?  Zeal  for  sites  is  the 
 growth  of  a  later  age.  There  is  no  proof  that  they 
 ever  cared  enough  for  Mount  Hqr  to  falsify  for  the 
 sake  of  it.  As  regards  Jehel  Odjme  being  Sinai,  the 
 writer  seems  to  have  formed  a  false  conception  of 
 Oiijmf,  which  he  draws  as  a  prominent  mountain 
 boss  in  the  range  of  T/A,  taking  that  range  for  Horeb, 
 and  the  prominent  mountain  for  Sinai.  The  best 
 maps  show  that  it  had  no  such  predominance.  They 
 give  it  (e.  g.  Kiepert's)  as  a  distinct  but  less  clearly 
 
 been  mentioned.  [Sinai.]  The  domestic  cattle 
 of  the  liedouins  will  of  course  be  found,  but  camels 
 more  numerously  in  the  drier  tracts  of  et-Tih. 
 Schubert  (Reisen,  ii.  354)  speaks  of  Sinai  as  not 
 I)eing  fiequented  by  any  of  the  larger  beasts  of 
 prey,  nor  even  by  jackals.  The  lion  has  become 
 very  I'are,  but  is  not  absolutely  unknown  in  tiic  re- 
 gion {Ne<jeb,  pp.  46,  47).  Foxes  and  hyenas,  Kitter 
 (xiv.  'i'i'.i)  says,  are  rare,  but  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  men- 
 tions hyenas  as  common  in  the  Wtuhj  Muyharn  ; 
 and  Kitter  {iliicl.},  on  the  authority  of  Burckhardt, 
 ascribes  to  the  region  a  creature  which  appears  to 
 be  a  cross  between  a  leopard  and  a  wolf,  both  of 
 which  are  rare  in  the  Peninsula,  but  by  which 
 probably  a  hyena  is  to  be  understood.  A  leopard- 
 skin  was  obtained  by  Burckhardt  on  Sinai,  and  a 
 fine  leopard  is  stated  by  Wr.  Tyrwhitt  to  have  been 
 seen  by  some  of  his  party  in  their  ascent  of  t/ni 
 S/iiiuiiier  in  1862.  Schubert  continues  his  list  in 
 the  hyrax  Syriiicns,  the  ibex,^  seen  at  Tufikli  in 
 flocks  of  forty  or  fifty  together,  and  a  pair  of  whose 
 horns,  seen  liy  Burcldiardt  {Asab.  pp.  405,  40G)  at 
 Kerek,  measured  3  J  feet  in  length,  the  webr,'-'  the 
 shrew-mouse,  and  a  creature  which  he  calls  the 
 "  spring-maus  "  <J  {Mus  jacnlus  or  jerljoa?),  also  a 
 canis  fumelicus,  or  desert-fox,  and  a  lizard  known 
 as  the  Ayiima  Sinaittca,  which  may  possibly  be 
 identical  with  one  of  those  described  below.  Hares 
 and  jerboas  are  found  in  Wacly  Feiic'm.  Schubert 
 quotes  (ibid,  note)  Kiippell  as  having  found  speci- 
 mens of  lielix  and  of  corcinella  in  this  wilderness; 
 for  the  former  conij).  Forskal,  Jcones  linrnm  Na- 
 tur.  Tab.  xvi.  Schubert  saw  a  fine  eagle  in  the 
 same  region,  besides  catching  specimens  of  thrush, 
 with  stonechat  and  other  song-birds,  and  speaks  of 
 the  warbling  of  the  birds  as  being  audible  from  the 
 vdniiisn  bush.  Clouds  of  birds  of  passage  were 
 visible  in  the  Wady  Murrah.  Near  the  same 
 tract  of  wilderness  Dr.  Stanley  saw  "  the  sky  dark- 
 ened by  the  flights  of  imuimerable  birds,  which 
 proved  to  be  large  red-legged  cranes,  3  feet  in 
 height,  with  black  and  white  wings,  measuring  7 
 feet  from  tip  to  tip"  {S.  cf  P.  p.  82).  At  Tu- 
 filek  crows  abound.  On  Serbdl  Dr.  Stewart  saw 
 the  red-legged  partridge  {Tent  and  K/ian,  p.  117; 
 comp.  Burckhardt,  Syrin,  p.  534);  and  the  bird 
 "  katta,"  in  some  parts  of  the  Peninsula,  comes 
 in  such  numbers  that  boys  sometimes  knock  over 
 three  or  four  at  a  single  throw  of  a  stick.*'      Has- 
 
 defined  and  apparently  lower  range,  falling  back  into 
 the  northern  plateau  in  a  N.  W.  direction  from  about 
 the  most  southerly  point  of  tbe  T./j ;  which,  from  all 
 the  statements  regarding  it,  is  a  low,  horizontal  range 
 of  limestone,  with  no  such  prominent  central  point 
 whatever.  Russegger  describes  particularly  the  mount- 
 ing by  the  wall-like  partition  of  "Edjme"  to  the  pla- 
 teau of  Edjme  itself.  "The  height,''  he  says,  "which 
 we  had  here  to  mount  is  in  no  wise  considerable," 
 and  adds,  "  we  had  now  arrived  at  the  plateau  "'  {Kei- 
 seil,  iii.  60,  61). 
 
 b  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  commends  the  flesh  of  the  ibex  as 
 superior  to  any  of  the  deer  tribe  that  he  had  ever 
 eaten. 
 
 c  Or    Uabr, 
 
 7"^ 
 
 "  feli  similis  sine   cauda   her- 
 
 biphagus  monficola  caro  Incolis  edulis  •'  (ForskU,  De- 
 acrip:.  Anhn.  v.). 
 
 ''  Seetzen  (iii.  41)  saw  holes  in  the  earth,  made,  he 
 thouglit,  by  mice,  in  going  from  Hebron  to  Madara. 
 
 e  Probably  the.se  birds  have  furnished  a  story  to 
 Pliny,  of  their  settling  by  night  on  the  yards  of  ships 
 in  such  vast  ntmibers  as  to  sink  them  {H.  N.  x  ). 
 
WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 3535 
 
 selquist,  who  saw  it  here  and  in  Egypt,  calls  it  a 
 partridi^e,  smaller  than  ours,  and  of  a  grayish 
 color  (p.  20-1).  Hitter  (xiv.  333)  adds  linnets  (V), 
 ducks,  piairie-birds,  heath-cocks,  larks,  a  specimen 
 of  finch,  lesides  another  small  bird,  probably  red- 
 breast or  chaffinch,  the  varieties  of  falcon  known  as 
 the  brachydactylus  arid  the  nif/er,  and,  of  course, 
 on  the  coast,  sea-swallows,  and  mews.  Flocks  of 
 blue  rock  pigeons  were  repeatedly  seen  by  Mr. 
 Tyrwhitt. 
 
 Seetzen,  going  fiom  Hebron  to  Madara,  makes 
 mention  of  the  following  animals,  whose  names 
 were  mentioned  by  bis  guides,  though  he  does  not 
 say  that  any  of  them  were  seen  by  himself:  wolf, 
 porcupine,  wild-cat,  ounce,  mole,  wild  ass,  and  three 
 not  easily  to  be  identified,  the  Set/ek,  dog-shaped," 
 the  Ah((scIi,  which  devours  the  gazelle,  and  the 
 Ikkajib^  said  to  be  small  and  in  shape  like  a  hedge- 
 hog. Seetzen's  list  in  this  locality  also  includes 
 certain  reptiles,  of  which  such  as  can  be  identified 
 are  explained  in  the  notes:  e!-MtUedsh<i,  Umm 
 el-Szltiiium,  el-Lidscha  or  Lej'it,^  el-HnrrcIxi  or 
 Hiiba,'^  Dsc/iei'rdr  or  JiiiTdreh,'^  el-Dab,  other- 
 wise Divle,^  el-[Ianne  or  Uawui^f  d-Liffed  ;  and 
 among  birds  the  partridge,  duck,  stork,  eagle,'^ 
 vulture  (er-Riikhaiii.),  crow  {el-Grdb),  kite  (///- 
 ddyeh),^  and  an  unknown  bird  called  by  him  Uiii- 
 Salei.  His  guides  told  him  of  ostriches  as  seen 
 near  Bleldka  on  the  way  from  Hebron  to  Sinai, 
 and  he  saw  a  nightingale,  but  it  seems  at  no  great 
 distance  to  the  south  of  Heljron.  The  same  writer 
 also  mentions  the  edible  lizard,  el-Dsob,  as  fre- 
 quently found  in  most  parts  of  the  wilderness,  and 
 his  third  volume  has  an  appendix  on  zoiilogy,  par- 
 ticularly describing,  and  often  with  illustrations, 
 many  reptiles  and  serpents  of  Kgypt  and  Araltia, 
 without,  however,  pointing  out  such  as  are  peculiar 
 to  the  wilderness.  Among  these  are  thirteen  vari- 
 eties of  lizard,  twenty-one  of  serpent,  and  seven  of 
 frog,  besides  fiiteen  of  Nile-fish.  Laborde  speaks 
 of  serpents,  scorpions,  and  black-scaled  lizards, 
 which  perforate  the  sand,  as  found  on  the  eastern 
 border  of  Edom  near  Tufileh  ( Comm.  on  Num. 
 xxxiii.  42).  The  MS.  of  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  speaks  of 
 starting  "a  large  sand-colored  lizard,  about  3  feet 
 long,  exactly  like  a  crocodile,  with  the  same  bandy 
 look  about  his  fore-legs,  the  elbows  turning  out 
 enormously."     He  is  d^cribed  as  covered  not  only 
 
 «  With  this  compare  the  mention  by  Burckhardt 
 {ap.  Ritter,  xiv.  333)  of  a  great  wild-dog  spoken  of  by 
 the  Bedouins,  and  thought  by  Ritter  to  be  perhaps  the 
 same  as  the  Derban  of  the  Uedjaz  desert. 
 
 b  LsxJ,  rana  (Freytag). 
 
 c   Ljy^.,  chamcEleon  (St.).     Mr.  Tyrwhitt  speaks 
 
 of  one  of  these  as  seen  by  him  at  the  entrance  of 
 Wa'ly  es-Slieykk  on  the  route  from  Suez  to  Sinai  by 
 Siirdbit  el-Khadim,  which  appeared  green  in  shade 
 and  yellow  in  sunshine. 
 
 in  scales,  but  in  a  regular  armor,  which  rattled 
 quite  loudly  as  he  ran."  He  "  got  up  before  the 
 dromedary,  and  vanished  into  a  hole  among  some 
 retein."  This  occurred  at  the  head  of  the  Wady 
 .Mokatleb.  Hasselquist  (p.  220)  gives  a  [yicerta 
 Sciiiciis,  "  the  Seine,"  as  found  in  Arabia  Petrtea, 
 near  the  Red  Sea,  as  well  as  in  Upper  Egypt, 
 which  he  says  is  much  used  by  the  inliabitauts  of 
 the  I'-ast  as  an  aphrodisiac,  the  flesh  of  the  animal 
 being  given  in  powder,  and  broth  made  of  the  re- 
 cent flesh.  He  also  mentions  the  edible  locust, 
 GryUas  Arribicnx,  which  appears  to  lie  common  in 
 the  wilderness,  as  in  other  parts  of  Arabia,  giving 
 an  account  of  the  preparation  of  it  in  food  (pp.  230- 
 233).  Hurckhardt  names  a  cape  not  far  from 
 'Akabah,  Bds  Urn  flfiye,  from  the  number  of  ser- 
 pents which  abound  there,  and  accordingly  applied 
 to  this  region  the  description  of  the  •■  fiery  ser- 
 pents "  *  in  Num.  xxi.  4-9.  Schubert  (ii.  362) 
 remarked  the  first  serpents  in  going  from  Suez  and 
 Sinai  t<j  Petra,  near  el-IIiidlierdh  ;  he  describes 
 them  as  speckled.  Burckhardt  {Syria,  pp.  499, 
 502)  saw  tracks  of  serpents,  two  inches  thick,  in  the 
 sand.  According  to  Kiippell,  serpents  elsewhere  in 
 the  Peninsula  are  rare.  He  names  two  poisonous 
 kinds,  Cei-risles  and  Scylnlis  (Ritter,  xiv.  329).  The 
 scorpion  has  given  his  name  to  the  "  Ascent  of 
 Scorpions,"  which  was  part  of  the  boundary  of  Ju- 
 dah  on  the  side  of  the  southern  desert.  Wudy  es- 
 Zuweirri/i  in  that  region  swarmed  with  them;  and 
 i)e  Saulcy  says,  "  you  cannot  turn  over  a  single 
 pelible  in  the  Nedjd  (a  branch  wady)  without  find- 
 ing one  under  it "  (De  Saulcy,  i.  529,  quoted  in 
 Nei/eh,  p.  51). 
 
 The  reader  who  is  curious  about  the  fish,  mol- 
 lusca,^'  etc.,  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  should  consult 
 Schubert  (ii.  2(J3,  note,  298,  note,  and  for  the  plants 
 of  the  same  coast,  294,  note).  For  a  description  of 
 the  coral-banks  of  the  Red  Sea,  see  Ritter  (xiv.  476 
 f. ),  who  remarks  that  these  formations  rise  from 
 the  coast-edge  always  in  longitudinal  extension 
 parallel  to  its  line,  bespeaking  a  fundamental  con- 
 nection with  the  upheaval  of  the  whole  stretch  of 
 shore  from  S.  10.  to  N.  W.  A  fish  which  Seetzen 
 calls  the  Alum  may  be  mentioned  as  furnishing  to 
 the  Bedouins  the  fish-skin  sandals  of  which  they 
 are  fond.  Ritter  (xiv.  327)  thinks  that  fish  may 
 have  contributed  materially  to  the  sustenance  of  the 
 
 femina  (Fr.). 
 
 scorpionum   parvonim   species,    scorpio 
 
 e  v,^A^,  Lacerta  .Mgypti  (Fr.) ;  and    t>«t^,   "a 
 worm  I  "  but  this  difference  of  signification  seems  to 
 
 show  that  they  cannot  represent  one  and  the  same 
 animal,  as  Seetzen's  text  would  seem  to  intend. 
 
 "^  r  ir.' 
 
 ■f  ,.WA^^,  scarabcBus.  a   i.    i l^..q J ,  aquila. 
 
 ^    Sa]  i\^,  milvius. 
 
 i  Mr.  Wilton  (Negeb,  p.  51)  interprets  "  flying,"  ap- 
 plied (Is.  XXX.  6)  to  the  serpent  of  the  South,  as 
 '■  making  great  springs  ;  "  and  "  fiery  "  as  either  de- 
 noting a  sensation  caused  by  the  bite,  or  else  "  red- 
 colored  ;  "  since  such  are  said  to  have  been  found  by 
 several  travellers  whom  he  cites  in  the  region  between 
 the  Dead  and  Red  Seas. 
 
 ^  A  number  of  these  are  delineated  in  ForskM's 
 Icones  Rerum  Nat.  among  the  later  plates :  see  also 
 his  Vermes,  iv.,  Corallla  Maris  Ruhri  (ibid.).  Also  in 
 Russegger's  atlas  some  specimens  of  the  same  classes 
 are  engraved.  Schubert  (ii  370)  remarks  that  most 
 of  the  fish  found  in  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  belong  to  the 
 tribes  known  as  Acanthiirus  and  C/irrlnrloii  (Hassel- 
 quist, p.  223.)  He  saw  a  large  turtle  asleep  and  bask- 
 ing on  the  shore  near  the  castle  of  -Akabah,  which  he 
 ineffectually  tried  to  capture. 
 
353(3 
 
 WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 
 
 Israelites  in  the  desert  (Num.  xi.  22),  as  they  are 
 now  dried  ajid  salted  for  sale  in  (^airo  or  at  the 
 Convent  of  St.  Catlierine.  In  a  brook  near  the  foot 
 of  Serbal,  Schubert  saw  some  varieties  of  eluphfus, 
 dylicus,  colymbetes,  (jyrlnus,  and  other  water  insects 
 {Rnse,  ii.  302,  note). 
 
 As  regards  the  vegetation  of  the  desert,  the  most 
 frequently  found  trees  are  the  date-palm  {Pluenix 
 dactylif\r(i),  the  desert  acacia,  and  the  tamarisk. 
 The  palms  are  almost  always  dwarf,  as  described  in 
 S.  (f  P.  p.  20,  but  sometimes  the  "  dom  "  palm  is 
 seen,  as  on  the  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  (Schu- 
 bert, ii.  370;  comp.  Kobinson,  i.  161).  Hassel- 
 quist,  speaking  of  the  date-palm's  powers  of  suste- 
 nance, says  that  some  of  the  poorer  families  in  Upper 
 Egy])t  live  on  nothing  else,  the  very  stones  being 
 ground  into  a  provender  for  the  dromedary.  This 
 tree  is  often  found  in  tufts  of  a  dozen  or  more  to- 
 gether, the  dead  and  living  Itoughs  interlacing  over- 
 head, the  dead  and  living  roots  intertwining  below, 
 and  thus  forming  a  canopy  in  the  de.sert.  The 
 date-palms  in  [Vm/y  Tuv  are  said  to  be  all  num- 
 bered and  registered.  The  acacia  is  the  Mimosn 
 Nilotica,  and  this  forms  the  most  common  vegeta- 
 tion of  the  wilderness.       Its  Arabic  name  is  es- 
 
 Seydl  ((JLaa«),  and  it  is  generally  supposed  to 
 have  furnished  the  '•  Shittim  wood  "  foi'  the  Taber- 
 nacle (Forskal,  Disci:  Phint.  (.'ent.  vi.  No.  90; 
 Celsii  Hierub.  i.  498  f.  ;  Eitter,  xiv.  335  f.). 
 [Shitt.vh-thek.]  It  is  armed  with  fearful  thorns, 
 which  sometimes  tear  the  packages  on  the  camels" 
 backs,  and  of  course  woidd  severely  lacerate  man  or 
 beast.  I'he  gum  arable  is  gathered  from  this  tree, 
 on  which  account  it  is  also  called  the  Acacia  yum- 
 mifuru.  Other  tamarisks,  beside  the  mannijera. 
 mentioned  above,  are  found  in  the  desert.  Grass 
 is  comparatively  rare,  but  its  quantity  varies  with 
 the  season.  Robinson,  on  finding  some  in  Wady 
 Sumf/hy^  N.  E.  from  Sinai,  near  the  Gulf  of  'Aka- 
 bah, remarks  that  it  was  the  first  his  jiarty  had 
 seen  since  leaving  the  Nile.  The  terebinth  {Pis- 
 tiichiit  tercbint/ius,  Arab.  Buim)  «  is  well  known  in 
 the  wadies  about  Beer-sheba,  but  in  the  actual  wil- 
 derness it  hardly  occurs.  For  a  full  description  of 
 it  see  Robinson,  ii.  222,223,  and  notes.,  also  i.  208; 
 and  comp.  Cels.  Hierobot.  i.  34.  The  "  broom," 
 of  the  variety  known  as  relem  (Heb.  and  Arali.), 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  "juniper,"  is  a  genuine 
 desert  plant;  it  is  described  (Robinson,  i.  203,  and 
 note)  as  the  largest  and  most  conspicuous  shrub 
 therein,  having  very  bitter  roots,  and  yielding  a 
 quantity  of  excellent  charcoal,  which  is  the  staple, 
 if  one  may  so  say,  of  the  desert.  The  following 
 are  mentioned  by  Schubert  (ii.  352,  354)  *  as  found 
 
 a  Seetzen  met  with  it  (iii.  47)  at  about  1  hour  to  the 
 W.  of  Wnrli/  el-' A  in,  between  Hebron  and  Sinai  ;  but 
 the  mention  of  small  cornfields  in  the  .same  neighbor- 
 hood sliows  that  the  spot  has  the  character  of  an  oasis. 
 
 b  Schubert's  floral  catalogue  is  unusually  rich.  He 
 travelled  with  an  especial  view  to  the  natural  history 
 of  the  regions  visited.  His  tracks  extend  from  Cairo 
 through  Suez,  Ayun  Miisa,  and  Tor.  by  way  of  Serbal, 
 to  Sinai,  thence  to  Jlount  Hor  and  Pctra  ;  thence  by 
 Madara  and  Hebron  to  Jerusalem  ;  as  well  as  in  the 
 northern  region  of  Palestine  and  Syria.  His  book 
 should  be  consulted  by  all  students  of  this  branch  of 
 the  .subject. 
 
 ''  Both  these  are  found  in  cultivated  grounds  only. 
 
 d  Shown  in  Forskal's  Icones  Rer.  Natiir.  tjib.  xi., 
 where  several  kinds  of  zygopliyUum  are  delineated. 
 
 e  Probably  the  same  as  the  retem  mentioned  above. 
 
 within  the  limits  of  the  wilderness  ;  Mespilus  Aar- 
 onia,  Colutea  haleppica,  Atraphaxis  spinosa.  Ephe- 
 dra alaba,  Cytisus  uniflorus,  and  a  Cynoniorium,  a 
 highly  interesting  variety,  compared  by  Schubert 
 to  a  well  known  Maltese  one.  To  these  he  adds 
 in  a  note  {ibid.)  ;  Dactylis  menjphitica,  Gagea 
 reticulata,  Rumex  vesicarius,  Artemisia  Judaica, 
 I-eyssera  discoidea,  Santolina  fragrantissima,  Seri- 
 ola,  Lindenbergia  Sinaica,  Laniium  amplexicaule,'' 
 Stachys  affinis,  Sisymbrium  iris,  Anchusa  Milleri, 
 Asperugo  procumbens,  Omphalodes  intermedia, 
 Usemia  cordata,  Reseda  canescens,  and  pruinosa, 
 Reaumuria  verniiculata,  Fumaria  parviflora,  Hype- 
 coum  pendulum,  Cleome  trinervis,  .^Erua  tonien- 
 tosa,  Malva  Honbezey,  Fagonia,'^  Zygophyllum 
 coccineum,''  Astragalus  Fresenii,  Genista  mono- 
 speruia.«  Schubert  (ii.  357)  also  mentions,  as  found 
 near  Abu  Stiireir,  N.  E.  of  Sinai,  a  kind  of  sage, 
 and  of  what  is  probalily  goat's-rue,  also  (note,  ibid.) 
 a  fine  variety  of  Astragalus,  together  with  Linaria, 
 Lotus,  Gynosurus  echinatus,  Bronius  tectorum,  and 
 (p.  365)  two  varieties  of  Pergularia,  the  proeera 
 and  the  tomentosa. 
 
 In  the  S.  W.  region  of  the  Dead  Sea  grows  the 
 singular  tree  of  the  apples  of  Sodom,  the  Asclepias 
 i/if/dideii  f  of  botanists.  Dr.  Robinson,  who  gives 
 a  full  description  of  it  (i.  522,  523),  says  it  might  be 
 taken  for  a  gigantic  species  of  the  milk-weed  or 
 silkweed  found  in  the  northern  regions  of  the  U.  S. 
 He  condemns  the  notion  of  Hasselquist  (pp.  285, 
 287,  288)  as  an  error,  that  the  fruit  of  the  Svlamtin 
 melon(jtl(i  when  jjunctured  by  a  tenthredo,  resulted 
 in  the  Sodom  apple,  retaining  the  skin  uninjured, 
 but  wholly  changed  to  dust  witliin  {ibid.  p.  524). 
 it  is  the  '  Oslier  of  the  Arabs.  Robinson  also  men- 
 tions willows,  hollyhocks,  and  hawthorns  in  the  Si- 
 naitic  region,  from  the  first  of  wiiich  the  Pas  Siif- 
 saf'eh,  "willow-head,"  takes  its  name  (i.  106,  109; 
 Stanley,  S.  tf  P.  p.  17).  He  saw  hyssop  (jddeh) 
 in  abundance,  and  thyme  (za'ter),  and  in  the 
 Wacly  Feirdii  the  colocynth,  the  kinlliy  or  kir- 
 dee,'i  a  green  thorny  plant  with  a  yellow  flower; 
 and  in  or  near  the  'Arabah,  the  juniper  {Uirar), 
 the  oleander  (dijleli),  and  another  shrub  like  it,  the 
 zutndm,  as  also  the  plant  el- CI  Inula  li,  resembling 
 thereiein,  but  larger  (i.  83,  110;  ii.  119,  and  7Wte, 
 124, 126).  He  also  describes  the  Ghiirkliud,  which 
 has  been  suggested  as  possibly  the  "  tree  "  cast  by 
 Moses  into  the  waters  of  Marah  (Ex.  xv.  25).  It 
 grows  in  saline  regions  of  intense  heat,  bearing  a 
 small  red  berry,  very  juicy,  and  slightly  acidulous. 
 Being  constantly  found  amongst  brackish  pools,  the 
 "bane  and  antidote"  would  thus,  on  the  above 
 supposition,  be  side  by  side,  but  as  the  fruit  ripens 
 in  June,  it  could  not  have  been  ready  for  its  sup- 
 
 /  Many  varieties  of  ^«c/^p/a.«,  especially  the  Cordata. 
 are  given  by  ForsUai  {Descr.  Plant.  Cent.  ii.  49-51).  A 
 writer  in  the  English  Cijclopo'jl.  of  Nat.  Hist,  supports 
 the  view  of  Hasselquist.  which  Dr.  Robinson  condemns, 
 calling  this  tree  a  Solanum,  and  ascribing  to  a  ten- 
 thredo the  phenomenon  which  occurs  in  its  fruit.  [See 
 Vine  of  Sodom.] 
 
 centis  cujus  flores  flaviores  sunt  quam  plantje 
 I  kwvk      (wars,    memecylon    tindorivni)    appellatse " 
 
 (Freytag).  For  this  and  most  of  the  notes  on  the 
 Arabic  names  of  plants  and  animals,  the  present 
 writer  is  indebted  to  Mr.  E.  S.  Poole. 
 
WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 
 
 posed  use  in  the  early  clays  of  the  Exodus  (Robin- 
 son, i.  GG-69).  He  adds  in  a  note  that  Forskal 
 gives  it  {Flor.  ^'Ey.  Arab.  p.  Ixvi.),  as  the  Pe</(i- 
 num  retustim,  but  that  it  is  more  correctly  the  Nt- 
 traria  trideninta  of  Desfoiitaines  {Flurd  Atlanl.  i. 
 372).  The  mountain  t/^»«  iS7(((M/«e;' takes  its  name 
 from  the  fennel  found  upon  it,  as  perhaps  may  ^'er- 
 bdl  from  the  sei\  myrrh,  which  "  creeps  over  its 
 ledges  up  to  the  very  summit,"  — a  plant  noticed 
 by  Ur.  Stanley  as  "thickly  covering"  with  its 
 "  shrubs  "  the  "  natural  basin"  which  surmounts 
 ed-Dcir,  and  as  seen  in  the  Wacly  Seijdl,  N.  E. 
 from  Sinai  (S.  cj-  P.  pp.  17,  78-80).  Dr.  Stanley 
 also  notices  the  wild  thorn,  from  which  the  Waihj 
 Sidri  takes  its  name,  the  fig-tree  which  entitles 
 another  wady  the  "  Father  of  Fig-trees "  {Abu 
 Hamad).!  3,nd  in  the  Wndij  Seydl,  "a  yellow  flow- 
 ering shrub  called  abeithiran^  and  a  Ijlue  thorny 
 plant  called  sUleli."  Again,  northeastwards  in 
 Wady  el-'Aiii  were  seen  "  rushes,  the  large-leaved 
 plant  called  eslter,^'  and  further  down  the  "  las(ij\ 
 or  caper  plant,  springing  from  the  clefts."  Seet- 
 zen's  mi'sembrijiint/ieijiuin,  described  above,  page 
 3521,  note  b,  is  noticed  by  Forskal,  who  adds  that 
 no  herb  is  more  connnon  in  sandy  desert  localities 
 than  the  second,  the  nodiflorum,  called  in   Arabic 
 
 the  ij/ia.-iul  ( Jfc*uLc).     Hasselquist  speaks  of  a 
 
 jiitsfinb,  which  he  calls  the  "fig-marigold,"  as 
 found  in  the  ruins  of  Alexandria;  its  agreeable 
 saltish-aromatic  flavor,  and  its  use  by  the  I'^gyp- 
 tians  in  salads,  accord  closely  with  Seetzen's  de- 
 scription. Seetzen  gives  also  Arabic  names  of  two 
 plants,  one  called  ic/cedum  by  the  guides,  described 
 as  of  the  size  of  heath  with  blue  flowers:  the  other 
 named  Subbh-el-dicli,  found  to  the  north  of  Wad;/ 
 ePAin,  which  had  a  club-shaped  sappy  root,  ranged 
 a  foot  high  above  the  eartli,  having  scales  instead 
 of  leaves,  and  covered,  when  he  saw  it,  with  large, 
 golden  flowers  clinging  close  together,  till  it  seemed 
 like  a  little  ninepin  (Kegel).  Somewhat  to  the 
 south  of  this  he  oliserved  the  "  rose  of  Jericho  " 
 growing  in  the  dreariest  and  most  desolate  solitude, 
 and  which  appears  always  to  be  dead  {Jieiscn,  iii. 
 46,  54).  In  the  region  about  Madara  he  also 
 found  what  he  calls  "Christ's-thorn,"  Arab,  el- 
 Aussitc/i,  and  an  anonymous  plant  with  leaves 
 broader  than  a  tulip,  perhaps  the  esher  mentioned 
 above.  The  following  list  of  plants  between  Heljron 
 and  Madara  is  also  given  by  Seetzen,  having  prob- 
 ably been  written  down  by  him  from  hearing  them 
 pronounced  by  his  Bedouin  guides,  and  some  ac- 
 cordingly it  has  not  been  possible  to  identify  with 
 any  known  names,  —  el-Kh'drrdij,  mentioned  in 
 the  previous  column,  note  e  ;  el-Bureid,  a  hyacinth, 
 whose  small  pear-shaped  bulb  is  eaten  raw  by  the 
 Bedouins,  el-Art(i,(^  el-BscJierrn,  el-Splidra  (or 
 Zafral)}'  el-Erbidn,  el-Gdime,  Schtlcera,  (or 
 Sluikooreeyeh),"  el-3fetndn,  described  as   a  small 
 
 "^;'. 
 
 nomeu  arboria  crescentis  in  arenis. 
 
 flora  saligiieo,  fructu  zizipliino  amaro,  radicibus  ram- 
 ulisque  rubris,  cujus  recentiore  fructu  vescuntur  ca- 
 meli,  nortiee  autem  coria  concinnantur  "  (Freyt.).  It 
 grows  to  a  man's  height,  with  a  flower  like  the  Salix 
 ^Egyptiaca,  but  smaller,  with  a  fruit  like  the  jujube, 
 and  the  root  red. 
 
 6   p-'»j(3,  rula  syktstris  (Freyt.). 
 
 853T 
 
 shrub,  el-IImim,  el-Schlllueh,  possibly  the  same  as 
 that  called  silkh,  as  above,  by  Dr.  Stanley,  el- 
 Klidla  (or  Khal),'^  el-/fan(k'(/u/c  (or  Handakook),^ 
 el-Lidfh'Vima,  el-Hadddd,  Kali,  Addan  el-HamnuA 
 (or  'Adda  el-FIimdr).f  Some  more  rare  plants, 
 precious  on  account  of  their  products,  are  the  fol- 
 lowing: Balsamum  Aaronis,  or  nux  bckeii,  called 
 by  the  Arabs  Festuck  d-Ban,  from  which  an  oil  is 
 extracted  having  no  perfume  of  its  own,  but  scented 
 at  pleasure  with  jessamine  or  other  odoriferous  leaf, 
 etc.,  to  make  a  choice  unguent.  It  is  found  in 
 Mount  Sinai  and  Upper  Egypt:  Cucurbita  J^dye- 
 nnv'tti,  Arab.  Cbarrcdi,  found  in  Egypt  and  the 
 deserts  of  Arabia,  wherever  the  mountains  are  cov- 
 ered with  rich  soil.  The  tree  producing  the  famous 
 balsam  called  "  of  Mecca,"  is  found  many  days' 
 journey  from  that  place  in  Arabia  Petraja.  Lin- 
 naeus, after  some  hesitation,  decided  that  it  was  a 
 species  of  Amyru.  The  ulihaimm  frankincense  is 
 mentioned  by  Hasselquist  as  a  product  of  the  des- 
 ert; but  the  producing  tree  appears  to  be  the  same 
 as  that  which  yields  the  gum  arable,  namely,  the 
 Mimosa  niloiica,  mentioned  above.  The  same 
 writer  mentions  the  Scliten  mlkus  officinalis,  "  cam- 
 el's hay,"  as  growing  plentifully  in  the  deserts  of 
 both  the  Arabias,  and  regards  it  as  imdoubtedly 
 one  of  the  precious,  aromatic,  and  sweet  plants, 
 which  the  Queen  of  Sheba  gave  to  Solomon  (Has- 
 selquist, pp.  255,  288,  29G,  297;  comp.  pp.  250,  251, 
 300).  Fuller  details  on  the  facts  of  natural  history 
 of  the  region  will  be  found  in  tiie  writers  referred 
 to,  and  some  additional  authorities  may  be  found 
 iu  Sprengel,  Histovin  Rn  Herb.  vol.  ii. 
 
 Besides  these,  the  cultivation  of  the  ground  by 
 the  Sinaitic  monks  has  enriched  their  domain  with 
 the  choicest  fruit-trees,  and  with  a  variety  of  other 
 trees.  The  produce  of  the  former  is  filmed  in  the 
 markets  of  Cairo.  The  cypresses  of  the  Convent 
 are  visible  far  away  among  the  mountains,  and 
 there  is  a  single  conspicuous  one  near  the  "  cave  of 
 Elias "  on  Jebel  Musa.  Besides,  they  have  the 
 siher  and  the  common  poplar,  with  other  trees,  for 
 timber  or  ornament.  The  aiiricot,  apple,  pear, 
 quince,  almond,  walnut,  pomegranate,  olive,  vine, 
 citron,  orange,  cornelian  cherry,  and  two  fruits 
 named  in  the  Arabic  schelluk  and  baryuk,  have 
 been  successfully  naturalized  there  (Robinson,  i. 
 94;  Seetzen,  iii.  70,  &c.;  Hasselquist,  p.  425;  iS.  (f 
 P.  p.  52).  Dr.  Stanley  views  these  as  mostly  intro- 
 duced from  Europe;  Hasselquist  on  the  contrary 
 views  them  as  being  the  originals  whence  the  finest 
 varieties  we  have  in  Europe  were  first  brought. 
 Certainly  nearly  all  the  above  trees  are  common 
 enough  in  the  gardens  of  Palestine  and  Damascus. 
 
 [The  present  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  the 
 kindness  of  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Tyrwhitt  of  Oxford,  in 
 allowing  him  a  sight  of  a  valuable  MS.  read  by 
 that  traveller  before  the  Alpine  Club.  It  is  ex- 
 pected to  be  published  in  the  Journal  of  that  body, 
 
 "  &)\bJCw  cichorium  ;  inttjhus  (Forskal,  Flor 
 jE-^ypt.  ap.  Freyt.).  Succory  or  endive.  CoudriUa 
 (MS.  notes). 
 
 '^  (jl."'«-j  nomen  plantas  regionis  Nedjid  peculiarig 
 cui  est  flos  ;    caulis  exiguus  ;  Laser  ;  Ruta  (Freyt.). 
 
 <jy 
 
 jJA^^^,     Lotus-plaut  (Freyt.).      Distinct, 
 
 it  should  seem,  from  the  lote-tree,  or  tiiibk  (a  specie! 
 of  the  bird"s-foot  trefoil  ?).     Melilot  (MS.  notes). 
 /  Conifrey  (MS.  notes). 
 
3538 
 
 WILL 
 
 but  was  not  in  print  wlien  tliis  paper  went  to  press. 
 Tlie  references  to  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  in  the  preceding 
 article,  either  rehite  to  that  MS.,  or  to  his  own  re- 
 marks upon  the  article  itself,  which  he  inspected 
 whilst  in  the  proof  sheet.]  H.  H. 
 
 *  The  desert  of  et-'IVi,  which  is  so  thoroughly 
 treated  in  this  article,  is  being  traversed  at  the 
 present  time  (1870),  under  the  ausjiices  of  the  Pal- 
 estine Exploration  Fund,  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Palmer, 
 who  has  had  large  experience  as  an  eastern  traveller, 
 and  is  familiar  with  the  Arabic  language;  aided  by 
 Mr.  C.  F.  Tyrwhitt  Drake,  of  the  IJn'iversity  of 
 Cambridge,  who  is  making  observations  as  a  natu- 
 ralist. Two  letters  ha\e  been  published  from  Mr. 
 Palmer  (Qwirl.  Slutement  of  tlte  P<d.  Expl.  Fund, 
 No.  v.  pp.  254-259),  dated  at  NatcliJ,  the  point  from 
 which  his  exploration  of  the  interior  region  of  the 
 Till  conniiences.  His  investigations,  if  completed, 
 promise  to  throw  light  on  difficult,  obscure,  and  un- 
 known points,  relating  to  this  deeply  interesting 
 tract.    Compare  addition  to  Sinai,  Amer.  ed. 
 
 S.  W. 
 
 *  An  addition  to  the  present  article,  giving  the 
 important  results  of  the  exploration  referred  to,  has 
 been  expected  from  the  Rev.  V.  W.  Holland,  mem- 
 ber of  the  Koyal  Geog.  Society.  Should  it  be  re- 
 ceived in  season,  it  will  appear  at  the  end  of  this 
 volume.  A. 
 
 *  WILL  is  often  used  in  the  A.'  V.  of  the  N. 
 T.  in  such  a  way  that  the  force  of  the  original  is 
 lost  or  obscured  to  the  common  reader,  who  takes 
 it  as  merely  the  sign  of  the  future  tense,  though  it 
 really  represents  Q4koi  or  ^ouAofiat,  "  to  desire," 
 "  to  will,"  "  to  purpose."  Thus  "  Herod  a;!!!  kill 
 thee"  (Luke  xiii.  31)  means  "Herod  desi/cs  (or 
 designs)  to  kill  thee"  (eeAet  (re  aTroKTelvai)- 
 "The  lusts  of  your  father  ye  icill  do"  {de\fTe 
 TToUiu,  John  viii.  44)  —  better  "  ye  love  to  do  "  (Al- 
 ford),  or  "  ye  are  rendy  to  do  "  (Noyes).  "  I  ivHl 
 put  you  in  remembranc.e"  (.hide  5,  ^ov\o/j,ai,  etc.), 
 
 •should  be  "I  wish  to  remind  you"  (Noyes).  For 
 other  examples,  see  Matt.  v.  40,  xi.  14,  27,  xvi.  24, 
 25,  XX.  26,  27;  Mark  viii.  34,  35,  x.  43,  44;  Luke 
 ix.  23,  24,  X.  22;  John  v.  40,  vii.  17,  ix.  27;  Rom. 
 xiii.  3 ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  35 ;  1  Tim.  v.  11 ;  2  Tim.  iii. 
 12;  Rev.  xi.  5.  A. 
 
 WILLOWS   {O'^'y^V,   'ardbim,  only  in  pi. : 
 
 It  fa;  (with  ^nj)  ayfov  KAaSovs  eK  x^'f-^Ppo", 
 KAwves  iiyvov'-  salices),  undoubtedly  the  correct 
 rendering  of  the  above  Hebrew  term,  as  is  proved 
 by  the  old  versions  and  the  kindred  Arabic  yharab 
 
 (i^_>wi.).    Willows  are  mentioned  in  Lev.  xxiii.  40, 
 
 among  the  trees  whose  branches  were  to  be  used  in 
 the  construction  of  booths  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles; in  Job  xl.  22,  as  a  tree  which  gave  shade  to 
 Behemoth  ("the  hippopotamus");  in  Is.  xliv.  4, 
 where  it  is  said  that  Israel's  offspring  should  spring 
 up  "as  willows  by  the  water-courses;  "  in  the  psalm 
 (cxxxvii.  2)  which  so  beautifully  represents  [sr.ael's 
 sorrow  during  the  time  of  the  Captivity  in  Babylon, 
 —  "  we  hanged  our  harps  upon  the  willows  in  the 
 midst  thereof."  With  respect  to  the  tree  upon 
 which  the  captive  Israelites  hung  their  harps,  there 
 can  be  no  doubt  that  the  weeping-willow  {Salix 
 Bnhylonica)  is  intended.  This  tree  grows  abun- 
 dantly on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  in  other  parts 
 of  Asia  as  in  Palestine  (Strand's  Floi-a  Palast.  No. 
 556),  and  also  in  North  Africa.  Bochart  has  en- 
 deavored to  show  (Phaleg,  i.  cap.  viii.)  that  country 
 
 WILLOWS,  BROOK  OF  THE 
 
 is  spoken  of,  in  Is.  xv.  7,  as  "  the  Valley  of  Wil- 
 lows." This,  however,  is  very  doubtful.  Sprengel 
 {/list,  lid  Herb.  i.  18,  270)  seems  to  restrict  the 
 Wrdb  to  the  Salix  Bnbyhnica;  but  there  can 
 scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  the  term  is  generic,  and  in- 
 cludes other  species  of  the  large  family  of  Salices, 
 which  is  probably  well  represented  in  Palestine  and 
 the  Bible  lands,  such  as  the  Sfdix  albn,  S.  liminalis 
 (osier),  S.  ^'Eyyptiaca,  which  latter  plant  Sprengel 
 
 identifies  with  the  safsctf  (oL«<ai.o)  of  Abul'- 
 fadli,  cited  by  Celsius  {Hiemb.  ii.  108),  which 
 word  is    probably  the  same  as   the  J'scjjlitsdplinli 
 
 (nCyS^i)  of  Ezekiel  (xvii.  5),  a  name  in  Arabic 
 for    a    "willow."      Burckhardt    (Syria,    p.    644) 
 
 mentions   a  fountain  called  'Ain  Snfsaf  (^^AJt 
 
 oL-d^AD),  "  the  Willow  Fountain  "  (Catafago, 
 Arabic  Dictionary,  p.  1051).  Rauwolf  (quoted  in 
 Bibl.  Hot.  p.  274)  thus  speaks  of  the  safodf: 
 "These  trees  are  of  various  sizes;  the  stems, 
 branches,  and  twigs  are  long,  thin,  soft,  and  of  a 
 pale  yellow,  and  have  some  resemblance  to  those  of 
 the  birch ;  the  leaves  are  like  those  of  the  common 
 willow;  on  the  boughs  grow  here  and  there  shoots 
 of  a  span  long,  as  on  tlie  wild  fig-trees  of  Cyprus, 
 and  these  put  forth  in  spring  tender  downy  blos- 
 soms like  those  of  the  poplar;  the  blossoms  are 
 pale  colored,  and  of  a  delicious  fragrance;  the  na- 
 tives pull  them  in  great  quantities,  and  distill  from 
 them  a  cordial  which  is  much  esteemed."  Hassel- 
 quist  ( Trai:  p.  449),  under  the  name  of  cahif,  ap- 
 parently speaks  of  the  same  tree;  and  F'orskal  {De- 
 script.  Plant,  p.  Ixxvi.)  identifies  it  with  the  Salix 
 JE<jypti,aca,  while  he  considers  the  safsaf  to  be  the 
 S.  Babylonica.  From  these  discrepancies  it  seems 
 that  the  Arabic  words  are  used  indefinitely  for  wil- 
 lows of  different  kinds. 
 
 "  The  children  of  Israel,"  says  Lady  Callcott 
 (Scripture  Herbal,  p.  533),  "still  present  willows 
 amuially  in  their  synagogues,  boiMid  up  with  palm 
 and  myrtle,  and  accompanied  with  a  citron."  In 
 this  country,  as  is  well  known,  sprigs  of  willow- 
 blossoms,  under  the  name  of  "palms,"  are  often 
 carried  in  the  hand,  or  borne  on  some  part  of  the 
 dress,  by  men  and  boys  on  Palm  Sunday. 
 
 Before  the  Babyloni.sh  Captivity  the  willow  was 
 always  associated  with  feelings  of  joyful  prosperity. 
 "It  is  remarkable,"  as  Mr.  Johns  (The  Forest 
 Trees  of  Britain,  ii.  240)  truly  says,  "for  having 
 been  in  different  ages  emblematical  of  two  directly 
 opposite  feelings,  at  one  time  being  associated  with 
 the  palm,  at  another  with  the  cypress."  After  the 
 Captivity,  however,  this  tree  became  the  emblem  ot 
 sorrow,  and  is  frequently  thus  alluded  to  in  the 
 poetry  of  our  own  country ;  and  "  there  can  be  no 
 doubt,"  as  Mr.  Johns  continues,  "  that  the  dedica- 
 tion of  the  tree  to  sorrow  is  to  be  traced  to  the 
 pathetic  passage  in  the  Psalms." 
 
 Various  uses  were  no  doubt  made  of  willows  by 
 the  ancient  Hebrews,  although  there  does  not  ap- 
 pear to  be  any  definite  allusion  to  them.  The 
 Egyptians  used  "  flat  baskets  of  wickerwork,  similar 
 to  those  made  in  Cairo  at  the  present  day  "  (Wil- 
 kinson, Anc.  Fyypt.  i.  43).  Herodotus  (i.  194) 
 speaks  of  boats  at  15abylon  whose  framework  was  of 
 willow;  such  coracle-shaped  boats  are  represented 
 in  the  Nineveh  sculptures  (see  Rawlinson's  Herod- 
 otus, vol.  i.  p.  268).  W.  H. 
 
 WILLOWS,   THE    BROOK   OF   THE 
 
WILLOWS,  BROOK  OF  T^pE 
 
 (Q"^n"ll?n  ^n2:  ^  (pdpay^  "Apa&as-  im-rens 
 salicum)'.  A  wady  mentioned  by  Isaiah  (xv.  7)  in 
 his  dirge  over  Moab.  His  language  implies  that 
 it  was  one  of  the  boundaries  of  the  country  —  prob- 
 ably, as  Gesenius  {Jesnln,  i.  532)  observes,  the 
 southern  one.  It  is  possibly  identical  vi'ith  a  vi-ady 
 mentioned  by  Amos  (vi.  14)  as  the  then  recognized 
 southern  limit  of  the  northern  kingdom  «  (Fiirst, 
 Handicb.;  Ev/ald,  Fropheten).  This  latter  appears 
 in    the    A.    V.  as  "  the  river  of  the  wilderness  " 
 
 (n3~lVn  D:  0  x6'M°pA'"  ''''^''  Sutr/xoJi':  tm-rens 
 deseiii)'  Widely  as  they  differ  in  the  A.  V.,  it 
 will  be  observed  that  the  names  are  all  but  identi- 
 cal in  the  original,  the  only  difference  being  that  it 
 is  plural  in  Isaiah  and  singular  in  Amos.  In  the 
 latter  it  is  ha-Arabah,  the  same  name  which  is  else- 
 where almost  exclusively  used  for  the  Valley  of  the 
 Jordan,  the  G/ior  of  modern  Arabs.  If  the  two 
 are  regarded  as  identical,  and  the  latter  as  the  ac- 
 curate form  of  the  name,  then  it  is  probable  that 
 the  IViuly  el-Ahsy  is  intended,  which  breaks  down 
 through  the  southern  part  of  the  mountains  of 
 Moab  into  the  so-callecl  Gltor  es-SaJieh,  at  the 
 lower  end  of  the  lake,  and  appears  (though  our  in- 
 formation as  to  that  locality  is  very  scanty)  to  form 
 a  natural  barrier  between  the  districts  of  Kenik 
 and  Jebal  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  Aug.  7).  This  is 
 not  improbably  also  the  brook  Zlred  {nadiul- 
 Zertd)  of  the  earlier  history. 
 
 Should,  however,  the  Nachal  hn-Arnbim  be  ren- 
 dered "the  Willow-torrent,"  —  which  has  the  sup- 
 port of  Gesenius  (Jtsaid)  and  Pusey  {Comm.  on 
 Amos,  vi.  14),  —  then  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
 the  name  Wady  Siifsaf,  "  Willow  Wady,"  is  still 
 attached  to  a  part  of  the  main  branch  of  the  ravine 
 which  descends  from  Kerak  to  the  north  end  of  the 
 peninsula  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Irby,  May  9).  Either 
 of  these  positions  would  agree  with  the  require- 
 ments of  either  passage. 
 
 The  Targuni  Pseudojonathan  translates  the  name 
 Zered  by  "osiers,"  or  "  baskets." 
 
 The  Rev.  Mr.  Wilton,  in  his  work  on  The 
 Negeb,  or  South  Country  of  Scripture,  endeavors 
 to  identify  the  Nachal  hn-Arabah  of  Amos  with 
 the  Wady  el-Jeib,  which  forms  the  main  drain  by 
 which  the  waters  of  the  present  Wady  Arabah  (the 
 great  tract  between  Jebel  Sherah  and  the  moun- 
 tains of  et-Tih)  are  discharged  into  the  Ghor  es- 
 Sajieh  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  (This 
 important  wady  was  first  described  by  Dr.  Robin- 
 son, and  an  account  of  it  will  be  found  in  this  work 
 under  the  head  of  Akabaii,  vol.  i.  p.  135  b.)  This 
 is  certainly  ingenious,  but  cannot  be  accepted  as 
 more  than  a  mere  conjecture,  witiiout  a  single  con- 
 sideration in  its  fiivor  beyond  the  magnitude  of  the 
 Wady  tl-Jeib,  and  the  consequent  probability  that 
 it  would  be  mentioned  by  the  Prophet.* 
 
 WINDOW    ♦         3539 
 
 Over  this  name  Jerome  takes  a  singular  flight 
 in  his  Commentary  on  Is.  xv.  7,  connecting  it  with 
 the  Orebiin  (A.  V.  "ravens  ")  who  fed  Elijah  dur- 
 ing his  seclusion :  "  Pro  salieibus  in  Hebroeo  leg- 
 imus  Arabim  quod  potest  et  Arabes  intelligi  et  legi 
 Orbim ;  id  est  villa  in  finibus  eorum  sita  cujus  a 
 plerisque  accolse  in  Monte  Oreli  Eli*  proebuisse  ali- 
 
 nienta  dicuntur "     The  whole  passage  is  a 
 
 curious    mixture   of  topographical    confusion   and 
 what  would  now  be  denounced  as  rationalism. 
 
 G. 
 
 WILLS.  The  subject  of  testamentary  disposi- 
 tion is  of  course  intimately  connected  with  that  of 
 inheritance,  and  little  need  be  added  here  to  what 
 will  lie  found  above.  [Heir,  vol.  ii.  p.  1034  f.] 
 Under  a  system  of  close  inheritance  like  that  of  the 
 Jews,  the  scope  for  bequest  in  respect  of  land  was 
 limited  by  the  right  of  redemption  and  general  re- 
 entry in  the  Jubilee  year.  [Jubilee;  Vows.] 
 But  the  Law  does  not  forbid  bequests  by  will  of 
 such  limited  interest  in  land  as  was  consistent  with 
 those  rights.  The  case  of  houses  in  walled  towns 
 was  different,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
 must,  in  fact,  have  frequently  been  bequeathed  by 
 will  (Lev.  XXV.  30).  Two  instances  are  recorded  in 
 the  O.  T.  under  the  Law,  of  testamentary  disposi- 
 tion: (1)  efft?cted  in  the  ca.se  of  Ahithophel  (2  Sam. 
 xvii.  23);  (2)  recommended  in  the  case  of  Hezekiah 
 (2  K.  XX.  1 ;  Is.  xxxviii.  1) ;  and  it  may  be  remarked 
 in  both,  that  the  word  "  set "  in  order,"  marg. 
 "  give  charge  concerning,"  agrees  with  the  Arabic 
 word  "command,"  which  also  means  "make  a 
 will  "  (Michaelis,  Lnio  of  Moses,  art.  80,  vol.  i.  p. 
 430,  ed.  Smith).  Various  directions  concerning 
 wills  will  be  found  in  the  Mishna,  which  imply  dis- 
 position of  land  {Babd  Bathr.  viii.  G,  7). 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 WIMPLE  [r\r\^'^'^).  An  old  Enghsh  word 
 for  hood  or  veil,  representing  the  Hebrew  mitpn- 
 chiilh  in  Is.  iii.  22.  The  same  Hebrew  word  is 
 translated  "veil  "  in  Ruth  iii.  15,  but  it  signifies 
 rather  a  kind  of  shawl  or  mantle  (Schroeder,  Ve 
 Vestitu  Mulier.  Ilebr.  c.  16).      [Dkess,  i.  622  a.] 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 WINDOW  ("I'lvTl;  Chal.  "13:  Ovpis)-  The 
 window  of  an  oriental  house  consists  generally  of 
 an  aperture  (as  the  word  challon  implies)  closed  in 
 with  lattice-work,  named  in  Hebrew  by  the  terms 
 drubbdh ''  {Keel  xii.  o,  A.  V.  "window;"  Hos. 
 xiii.  3,  A.  V.  "chimney  "),  chdrnkklme  (Cant.  ii. 
 9),  and  es/;?zd6  /  (Judg.  v.  28;  Prov.  vii.  6,  A.  V. 
 "  casement"),  the  two  former  signifying  the  inter- 
 laced work  of  the  lattice,  and  the  third  the  coolness 
 produced  by  the  free  current  of  air  through  it. 
 Glass  has  been  introduced  into  Egypt  in  modern 
 times  as  a  protection  against  the  cold  of  winter, 
 but  lattice-work   is  still  the   usual,  and  with  thj 
 
 a  Amos  Is  speaking  of  the  northern  kingdom  only, 
 not  of  the  whole  nation,  which  excludes  tlie  interpre- 
 tation of  the  IjXX.,  i.  e.,  probably  the  IVa/Jij  el-Aris/i, 
 and  also  (if  it  were  not  precluded  by  other  reasons) 
 that  of  Gesenius,  the  Kidron. 
 
 b  It  is  surely  incautious  (to  say  the  least)  to  speak 
 of  a  mere  conjecture,  such  as  this,  in  terms  as  positive 
 and  unhesitating  as  if  it  were  a  certiiin  and  indispu- 
 table identification  —  "  Amos  is  the  only  sacred  writer 
 who  mentions  the  WarJy  el-Jtib  ;  which  he  defines  as 
 the  southern  limit  of  Palestine  ....  The  minute  ac- 
 curacy of  the  Prophet  in  speaking  of  it  as  the  '  nachal 
 of  the  Arabah  '■  "  {Negtb,  etc.,  pp.  34,  36).     It  has  not 
 
 even  the  support  that  it  was  in  the  Prophet's  native 
 district.  Amos  was  no  "  prophet  of  the  Negeb."  He 
 belonged  to  the  pasture-grounds  of  Tekoa,  not  ten 
 miles  "from  Jerusalem,  and  all  his  work  seems  to  have 
 lain  in  Bethel  and  the  northern  kingdom  There  ia 
 not  one  tittle  of  evidence  that  he  ever  set  foot  in  the 
 Negeb,  or  knew  anything  of  it.  Such  statements  as 
 these  are  calculated  only  to  damage  and  retard  the 
 too-faltering  progress  of  Scripture  topography. 
 
 e  n^!?  :    ei/TeAAofxai  :   dispono.  nH^!i  in  Rabb.,  a 
 will  (Ges!  p.  1155). 
 
 '^  n2"-is\ 
 
 D-'Snn. 
 
 f^ 
 
 23iyH. 
 
3540 
 
 WINDS 
 
 poor  the  only  contrivance  for  closing  the  window 
 (Lane's  Mod.  Eg.  \.  29).  Wlien  the  lattice-work 
 was  open,  there  appears  to  have  been  nothing  in 
 early  times  to  prevent  a  person  from  falling  through 
 the  aperture  (Acts  xx.  9).  The  windows  generally 
 look  into  the  inner  court  of  the  house,  but  in  every 
 house  one  or  nwre  look  into  the  street,  and  hence 
 it  is  possible  for  a  person  to  oliserve  the  ai>proach 
 of  another  without  being  himself  observed  (Judg. 
 V.  28;  2  Sam.  vi.  l(i;  I'rov.  vii.  C;  Cant.  ii.  9).  In 
 Egypt  these  outer  windows  generally  project  over 
 the  doorway  (Lane,  i.  27;  Game's  Letlerg,  i.  94). 
 When  houses  aljut  on  the  town  wall  it  is  not  un- 
 usual for  them  to  have  projecting  windows  sur- 
 mounting the  wall  and  looking  into  the  country  as 
 represented  in  Conybeare  and  Howson's  <b7.  Paul. 
 i.  124r.  Through  such  a  window  the  spies  escaped 
 from  Jericho  (.Josh.  ii.  15)  and  St.  Paul  from 
 Damascus  «  (2  Cor.  xi.  3-3).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 WINDS  (n^"l).  That  the  Hebrews  recognized 
 the  existence  of  four  prevailing  winds  as  issuing, 
 broadly  speaking,  from  the  four  cardinal  points, 
 north,  south,  east,  and  west,  may  be  inferred  from 
 their  custom  of  using  the  expression  "four  winds  " 
 as  equivalent  to  the  "  four  quarters  "  of  the  hemi- 
 sphere (Kz.  xxxvii.  9;  Dan.  viii.  8;  Zech.  ii.  6; 
 Matt.  xxiv.  31).  The  correspondence  of  the  two 
 ideas  is  expressly  stated  in  Jer.  xlix.  36.  The 
 north  wind,  or,  as  it  was  usually  called  "  the 
 north,"  *  was  naturally  the  coldest  of  the  four 
 (Ecclus.  xliii.  20),  and  its  presence  is  hence  invoked 
 as  favorable  to  vegetation  in  Cant.  iv.  16.  It  is 
 further  described  in  Prov.  xxv.  23,  as  bringing  (A. 
 V.  "driveth  away  "  in  text;  "  bringeth  forth  "  in 
 niarg. )  rain :  in  this  case  we  must  understand  the 
 northwest  wind,  which  may  bring  rain,  but  was 
 certainly  not  regarded  as  decidedly  rainy.  The 
 difficulty  connected  with  this  passage  has  led  to  tlie 
 proposal  of  a  wholly  diflerent  sense  for  the  term 
 tzdi)li6ii,  namely  hidden  plSce.  The  northwest 
 wind  prevails  i'rom  the  autunmal  equinox  to  the 
 beginning  of  November,  and  the  north  wind  from 
 June  to  the  equinox  (vide  Raumer's  Paldst.  p.  79). 
 The  east  wind  '^  crosses  the  sandy  wastes  of  Arabia 
 Deserta  before  reaching  Palestine,  and  was  hence 
 termed  "the  wind  of  the  wilderness"  (Job  i.  19; 
 Jer.  xiii.  24).  It  is  remarkably  dry  and  penetrat- 
 ing, and  has  all  the  effects  of  the  sirocco  on  vegeta- 
 tion (Ez.  xvii.  10,  xix.  12;  IIos.  xiii.  1.5;  Jon.  iv. 
 8).  It  also  blows  with  violence,  and  is  hence  sup- 
 posed to  be  used  generally  for  any  violent  wind  (Job 
 xxvii.  21,  xxxviii.  2-1;  Ps.  xlviii.  7;  Is.  xxvii.  8; 
 Ez.  xxvii.  26).  It  is  probably  in  this  sense  that  it 
 is  used  in  Ex.  xiv.  21,  though  the  east,  or  at  all 
 events  the  northeast  wind  would  be  the  one  adapted 
 to  effect  the  phenomenon  described,  namely,  the 
 partition  of  the  waters  towards  tlie  north  and  south, 
 so  that  they  stood  as  a  wall  on  the  right  hand  and 
 on  the  left  (Kobinson,  Ribl.  Res.  i.  57).  In  this  as  in 
 many  other  passages,  the  LXX.  gives  the  "  south" 
 wind    {v6ros),    as    the   equivalent   for   the  Greek 
 
 •  WINDS 
 
 kadlm.  Nor  is  this  wholly  incorrect,  for  in  Egypt, 
 where  the  LXX.  was  composed,  the  south  wind  has 
 the  same  characteristics  that  the  east  has  in  Pales- 
 tine. The  Greek  translators  appear  to  ha\e  felt  the 
 difficulty  of  rendering  kdd'uii  in  Gen.  xli.  6,  23,  27, 
 because  the  purc/iiiHj  effects  of  the  east  wind,  with 
 which  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  are  familiar,  are 
 not  attributable  to  tliat  wind  in  Egypt,  but  either 
 to  the  south  wind,  called  in  that  country  the  klia- 
 mdseen,  or  to  that  known  as  the  siniwom,  which 
 comes  from  the  southeast  or  south-southeast 
 (Lane's  Mod.  F.y.  i.  22,  23).  It  is  certainly  pos- 
 sible that  in  Lower  Lgypt  the  east  wind  may  be 
 more  parching  than  elsewhere  in  that  country,  but 
 there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  assi<;ning  to  tlie  term 
 kddiiii  the  secondary  sense  of  parcliin;/.  in  this  i)as- 
 sage,  than  that  of  violent  in  the  others  before  quoted. 
 As  such  at  all  events  the  LXX.  treated  the  term 
 both  here  and  in  several  other  passages,  where  it  is 
 rendered  kuuson  {Kavacov,  lit.  the  burner).  In 
 James  i.  11,  the  A.  V.  erroneously  understands  this 
 expression  of  the  burning  heat  of  the  sun.  In  Pal- 
 estine the  east  wind  prevails  from  February  to 
 June  {vide  liaunier,  p.  79).  The  south  wind,''  which 
 traverses  the  Arabian  peninsula  before  reaching 
 Palestine,  must  necessarily  be  extremely  hot  (Job 
 xxxvii.  17;  Luke  xii.  55);  but  the  rarity  of  the 
 notices  leads  to  the  inference  that  it  seldom  blew 
 from  that  quarter  (Ps.  Lxxviii.  26;  Cant.  iv.  16; 
 Ecclus.  xliii.  16):  and  even  when  it  does  blow,  it 
 does  not  carry  the  samoom  into  Palestine  it.self,« 
 although  Robinson  experienced  the  efl'ects  of  this 
 scourge  not  far  south  of  Beer-sheba  (Res.  i.  196). 
 In  Egypt  the  south  wind  {khiimdseen)  prevails  in 
 the  spring,  a  portion  of  which  in  the  months  of 
 April  and  JNIay  is  termed  el-kliamdseen  from  that 
 circumstance  (Lane,  i.  22).  The  west  and  south- 
 west winds  reach  I'alestine  loaded  with  moisture 
 gathered  from  the  Mediterranean  (Robinson,  i.  429), 
 "  and  are  hence  expressively  termed  by  the  Arabs 
 fathers  of  the  rain  "  {vide  Raumer,  p.  79).  The 
 little  cloud  "like  a  man's  hand"  that  rose  out  of 
 the  west,  w'as  recognized  by  Elijah  as  a  presage  of 
 the  coming  downfiiU  (1  K.  xviii.  44),  and  the 
 same  token  is  adduced  by  our  Lord  as  one  of  the 
 ordinary  signs  of  the  weather  (Luke  xii.  54). 
 Westerly  winds  prevail  in  Palestine  from  November 
 to  February. 
 
 In  addition  to  the  four  regukir. winds,  we  have 
 notice  in  the  Bible  of  the  local  squalls  (AoiAa;!/; 
 Mark  iv.  37;  Luke  viii.  23)  to  which  the  Sea  of 
 Gennesareth  was  liable  in  consequence  of  its  prox- 
 imity to  high  ground,  and  which  were  sufficiently 
 violent  to  endanger  boats  (Matt.  viii.  24;  John  vi. 
 18).  I'he  gales  which  occasionally  visit  Palestine 
 are  noticed  under  the  head  of  Whiulwind.  In 
 the  narrative  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  we  meet  with  the 
 Greek  term  lips  (Aiv|/)  to  describe  the  southwest 
 wind;  the  Latin  Corns  or  Courtis  {■)(_Sipos),  the 
 northwest  wind  (Acts  xxvii.  12);  and  fvpoKKvSwt 
 (a  term  of  uncertain  origin,  perhaps  a  corrup- 
 tion of  ivpaKvKwv,  which  appears   in  some  MSS. 
 
 a  *  A  few  steps  to  the  left  of  Bab-es-Shurkeh,  one  of 
 the  eastern  gates  of  Dama,scus,  are  two  or  three  win- 
 dows in  the  external  face  of  the  wall,  said  to  open  iuto 
 houses  on  the  iuside  of  the  city.  If  Saul  was  let  dowo 
 through  such  a  window  (which  belongs  equally  to  the 
 house  and  the  wall)  the  interchange  of  the  two  ex- 
 pressions becomes  still  more  natural.  The  ,\postle 
 escaped  "  through  the  wall  '•  (as  stated  in  Acts),  and 
 (ae  stated  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians)  he  escaped 
 
 at  the  same   time  "  through  a  window  through  the 
 wall."  H. 
 
 VlD^. 
 
 D^r 
 
 D'-n^;  ]i2^n. 
 
 e  The  term  zUaplmk  (nDl^/T)  in  Ps.  xi.  6  (A  V. 
 "  horrible  ")  has  been  occasiouall'y  understood  as  refer- 
 ring to  the  samoom  (Olshausen,  in  toe. ;  Gesen.  Thes. 
 p.  418)  ;  but  it  may  equally  well  be  rendered  "wrath- 
 ful "  or  "  avenging  '"  (Hengstenberg,  (u  toe). 
 
WINE 
 
 [namelj',  Vat.  Sin.  and  Alex.] ),  a  wind  of  a  very  vio- 
 lent character  {tu^oovikos)  comini,'  from  l\.  N.  E. 
 (Acts  xxvii.  14;  (Jonyb.  and  Hows.  St.  Paul,  ii. 
 
 402).        [KUKOCLYDON.] 
 
 The  nietaphoiieal  allusions  to  the  winds  are  very 
 numerous;  the  east  wind,  in  particular,  was  re- 
 garded as  the  symbol  of  nothingness  (Job  xv.  2; 
 Hos.  xii.  1),  and  of  the  wasting  destruction  of  war 
 (Jer.  xviii.  17),  and,  still  more,  of  the  effects  of 
 Divine  vengeance  (Is.  xxvii.  8),  in  which  sense, 
 however,  general  references  to  violent  wind  are  also 
 employed  (Ps.  ciii.  16;  Is.  Ixiv.  0;  -ler.  iv.  11). 
 \Miul  is  further  used  as  an  image  of  speed  (Fs.  civ. 
 4,  "He  maketU  his  angels  winds;"  Ueb.  i.  7), 
 and  of  transitoriness  (lob  vii.  7;  I's.  Ixxviii.  39). 
 Lastly,  the  wind  is  frequently  adduced  as  a  witness 
 of  the  Creator's  power  (.lub  xxviii.  2-5;  Ps.  cxxxv. 
 7;  Eccl.  xi.  5;  Jer.  x.  13;  Prov.  xxx.  4;  Am:  iv. 
 13),  and  as  representing  the  operations  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit  (John  iii.  8;  Acts  ii.  2),  whose  name 
 [irvevjjLa)  represents  a  gentle  wind.         VV.  L.  B. 
 
 WINE.  The  manufacture  of  wine  is  carried 
 back  in  the  Bible  to  the  age  of  Noah  (Gen.  is.  20, 
 21),  to  whom  the  discovery  of  the  process  is  appar- 
 e:itly,  though  not  exphcitly,  attributed.  The 
 natural  history  and  culture  of  the  vine  is  described 
 under  a  separate  head.  [Vine.]  The  only  other 
 plant  whose  fruit  is  noticed  as  having  been  con- 
 verted into  wine  was  the  pomegranate  (Cant.  viii. 
 2).  In  Palestine  the  vintage  takes  place  in  Sep- 
 tember, and  is  celebrated  with  great  rejoicings  (l!ob- 
 inson,  Bibl.  Ees.  i.  431,  ii.  81).  The  ripe  fruit  was 
 gathered  in  baskets  (.ler.  vi.  9),  as  represented  in 
 Egyptian  paintings  (Wilkinson,  i.  41-45),  and  was 
 carried  to  the  whie-press.  It  was  then  placed  in 
 the  upper  one  of  the  two  vats  or  receptacles  of 
 which  the  wine-press  was  formed  [WiXK-iMiicss], 
 and  was  sulijeoted  to  the  process  of  "  treading,"' 
 which  has  prevailed  in  all  ages  in  Oriental  and 
 South-European  countries  (Neh.  xiii.  15;  Job  xxiv. 
 11;  Is.  xvi.  10;  Jer.  xxv.  30,  xlviii.  3'J;  Am.  ix. 
 13;  Kev.  xix.  15).  A  certain  amount  of  juice 
 exuded  from  the  ripe  fruit  from  its  own  pressUre 
 before  the  treading  commenced,  'i'his  appears  to 
 have  been  kept  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  juice, 
 and  to  have  formed  the  ffleukas  or  '•  sweet  wine  " 
 noticed  in  Acts  ii.  13.  The  first  drops  of  juice 
 that  reached  the  lower  vat  were  termed  the  dtimi, 
 or  "tear,"  and  formed  the  lirst-lruits  of  the  vintage 
 {atrapx"-^  Atji/oi),  LXX.)  which  were  to  He  pre- 
 sented to  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxii.  29).  The  "treading" 
 was  effected  by  one  or  more  men,  according  to  the 
 size  of  the  vat,  and,  if  the  Jews  adopted  the  same 
 arrangements  as  the  Egyptians,  the  treaders  were 
 assisted  in  the  operation  by  ropes  fixed  to  the  roof 
 of  the  wine-press,  as  represented  in  Wilkinson's 
 Anc.  Eg.  i.  46.  They  encouraged  one  another  by 
 shouts  and  cries  (Is.  xvi.  9,  10;  Jer.  xxv.  30,  xlviii. 
 33).  Their  legs  and  garments  were  dyed  red  with 
 the  juice  (Gen.  xlix.  11;  Is.  Ixiii.  2,  3).  The  ex- 
 pres-e  1  juice  escaped  by  an  aperture  into  the  lower 
 vat,  or  was  at  once  collected  in  vessels.  A  hand- 
 press  was  occasionally  used  in  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  i. 
 45),  liut  we  have  no  notice  of  such  an  instrument 
 in  the  Bible.  As  to  the  subsequent  treatment  of 
 the  wine,  we  have  but  little  information.  Some- 
 times it  was  preserved  in  its  unfermented  state,  and 
 
 WINE 
 
 35n 
 
 drunk  as  must,  but  more  generally  it  was  bottled 
 off  after  fermentation,  and,  if  it  were  design bd  to  I  e 
 kept  for  some  time,  a  certain  amount  of  lees  was 
 added  to  give  it  body  (Is.  xxv.  6).  The  wine  con- 
 sequently required  to  be  "refined"  or  strained  pre- 
 viously to  being  brought  to  table  (Is.  xxv.  6). 
 
 AN\\\\\\\\N\\\\\\  iiiiinniiiiiiniiiiiiii/ 
 
 Egyptian  Wine-press,  from  Wilkinson. 
 I 
 
 !      The  produce  of  the  wine-press  was  described  in 
 I  the  Hebrew  language  by  a  variety  of  terms,  indic- 
 |ative  either  of    the  quality  or  of   the  use  of  the 
 I  liquid.     These  terms  have  of  late  years  been  sub- 
 j  jected  to  a  rigorous  examination  with    a  view  to 
 show  that  Scrii)ture  disapproves,  or,  at  all  events, 
 does   not  speak  with  approval,  of  the  use  of  fer- 
 mented  liquor.     In  order  to  establish  this  position 
 I  it  has  been  found  necessary,  in  all  cases  where  the 
 Isulistance  is  coupled  with  terms  of  commendation, 
 I  to  explain  them    as    meaning   either  unfermented 
 1  wine  or  fruit,  and  to  restrict  the   notices    of  fer- 
 mented wine  to  passages  of  a  condemnatory  char- 
 acter.    We  question  whether  the  critics  who  have 
 adopted  these  views  have  not   driven  their   argu- 
 j  ments  beyond  their  fair  conclusions.     It  may  at 
 once  be  conceded  that  the  Hebrew  terms  translated 
 "  wine "    refer    occasionally    to    an    unfermented 
 liquor;  but  inasmuch    as  there  are  frequent  allu- 
 sions to  intoxication  in  the   Bible,  it  is  clear  that 
 fermented  liquors  were  also    in  common  u.se.     It 
 may  also  be  conceded  that  the  Bible  occasionally 
 speaks    in  terms   of  strong  condemnation  of   the 
 ettects  of  wine;  but  it  is  an  open  question  whether 
 in  these  cases  the  condemnation  is  not  ratjier  di- 
 rected against  intoxication  and  excess,  than  against 
 the  substance  which  is  the  occasion  of  the  excess. 
 The  term   of  chief  importance  in  connection  with 
 this  subject  is  tirosh,  which  is  undoubtedly  spoken 
 of  with    approval,  inasmuch    as    it    is    frequently 
 classed    with   ilch/an  and    s/ienwii,   in    the    triplet 
 "  corn,  wine,  and  oil,"  as  the  special  gifts  of  Prov- 
 idence «     This   has  been   made   the   subject  of  a 
 special  discussion  in  a  pamphlet  entitled   Tirosh  lo 
 Yni/in  by  Dr.  Lees,  the  object  being  to  prove  that 
 it  means  not  wine  but  fruit.     An  examination  of 
 the  Hebrew  terms  is  therefore  unavoidable,  but  we 
 desire  to  carry  it  out  simply  as  a  matter  of  Biblical 
 criticism,  and  withnut  reference  to  the  topic  which 
 has  called  forth  the  discussion. 
 
 a  *  The  word  translated  "  oil  "  when  "  wine  and 
 oil  "  or  "  corn,  wine,  and  oil  "  are  spoken  of  in  con- 
 junction is  not  skemeii  (]Ptt7),  but  yilshar  ("IH^^), 
 
 which,  according  to  Gesenius,  "  seems  to  JifTer  from 
 shemen  as  tirOs/i  from  ijayin.^'  S/iemen  is  never  asso- 
 ciated with  t'lrOsh.  A. 
 
3542 
 
 WINE 
 
 The  most  general  term  for  wine  is  yayin,"  which 
 is  undoubtedly  connected  with  the  Greek  oIpos,  the 
 Latin  viiium,  and  our  "  wine."  It  lias  hitherto 
 been  the  current  opinion  that  the  Indo-European 
 languages  borrowed  the  term  from  the  Hebrews. 
 The  reverse,  however,  appears  to  be  the  case  (Re- 
 nan,  Limy.  Sem.  i.  207):  the  word  belongs  to  the 
 Indo-ICuropean  languages,  and  may  be  referred 
 either  to  the  root  we,  "to  weave,"  whence  come 
 viere,  vimen,  rills,  vitta  (Pott,  Ktyni.  Furscli.  i. 
 120,  2-30),  or  to  the  root  tnan,  "to  love"  (Kuhn, 
 ZeiUchr.  f.  rertjl.  Sprnclif.  i.  191,  192).  The 
 word  being  a  borrowed  one,  no  conclusion  can  be 
 drawn  from  etymological  considerations  as  to  its 
 use  in  the  Hebrew  language.  Tirosh  *>  is  referred 
 to  the  root  yarash,  •'  to  get  possession  of,"  and  is 
 applied,  according  to  Gesenius  {Tlies.  p.  633),  to 
 wine  on  account  of  its  inebriating  qualities,  whereby 
 it  gits  posstssion  of  the  brain ;  but,  according  to 
 Bythner,  as  quoted  by  Lees  (Tirosli,  p.  52),  to  the 
 vine  as  being  a  possession  (kut  i^oxv")  i"  the 
 eyes  of  tiie  Hebrews.  Neither  of  these  explana- 
 tions is  wholly  satisfactory,  but  the  second  is  less 
 so  than  the  first,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  difficult 
 to  prove  that  the  Hebrews  attached  such  pre- 
 eminent value  to  the  vine  as  to  place  it  on  a  par 
 with  landed  property,  vi'hich  is  designated  by  the 
 cognate  terms  yeruslishdh  and  mords/idh.  Nor  do 
 we  see  that  any  valuable  conclusion  could  be  drawn 
 from  this  latter  deri\  ation :  for,  assuming  its  cor- 
 rectness, the  question  would  still  arise  whether  it 
 was  on  account  of  the  natural  or  the  manufactured 
 product  that  such  store  was  set  on  the  vine. 
 'Asis<:  is  derived  from  a  word  signifying  "to 
 tread,"  and  therefore  refers  to  the  method  i)y 
 which  the  juice  was  expressed  from  the  fruit.  It 
 would  very  properly  refer  to  new  wine  as  being 
 recently  trodden  out,  but  not  necessarily  to  unfer- 
 mented  wine.  It  occurs  but  five  times  in  the 
 Bible  (Cant.  viii.  2;  Is.  xlix.  26;  Joel  i.  5,  iii.  18; 
 Am.  ix.  13).  Sobe'^  is  derived  from  a  root  signi- 
 fying to  "  soak  "  or  "drink  to  excess."  The  cog- 
 nate verb  and  participle  are  constantly  used  in  the 
 latter  sense  (l.'eut.  xxi.  20;  Prov.  xxiii.  20,  21; 
 Is.  Ivi.  12;  Nah.  i.  10).  The  connection  between 
 sobe  and  the  Latin  sctpri,  applied  to  a  decoction  of 
 must  (Kitto's  Cyd.  a.  v.  Wine),  appears  doubtful: 
 the  latter  was  regarded  as  a  true  Latin  word  by 
 Pliny  (xiv.  11).  Sube  occurs  but  thrice  (Is.  i.  22; 
 Hos.  iv.  18;  Nah.  i.  10).  Cltemer^  (Dent,  xxxii. 
 14r),  in  the  Chaldee  chamar  (Ezr.  vi.  9,  vii.  22) 
 and  chamid  (Dan.  v.  1  fF.),  conveys  the  notion  of 
 foaming  or  ebullilion,  and  may  equally  well  apply 
 to  the  process  of  fermentation  or  to  the  frotliing 
 of  liquid  freshly  poured  out,  in  which  latter  case  it 
 might  be  used  of  an  unfermented  liquid.'  Mesecf 
 (Ps.  Ixxv.  8),  mezeg  ff  (Cant.  vii.  2),  and  mimsdc'' 
 (Prov.  xxiii.  30;  Is.  Ixv.  11),  are  coimected  ety- 
 mologically  with  misceo  and  "  mix,"  and  imply  a 
 mixture  of  wine  with  some  other  substance:  no 
 conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  word  itself  as  to 
 the  quality  of  the  wine,  whether  fermented  or 
 unfermented,  or  as  to  the  nature  of  the  substance 
 introduced,  whether  spices  or  water.  We  may 
 further  notice  shecdj;^  a  generic  term  applied  to  all 
 fermented  liquors  except  wine  [Disink,  Strong]  ; 
 
 a   p"'. 
 
 b  ri'S-i-n. 
 
 c    D^D37. 
 
 d  ii^D. 
 
 e  -iT^n. 
 
 ^  "npp- 
 
 0  ^\^. 
 
 h  TjDnp. 
 
 T  •■ 
 
 WINE  ■ 
 
 chomelz,^  a  weak  sour  wine,  ordinarily  termed 
 vhiegar  [Vinkgar]  ;  dsliislidh,l  rendered  "  flagon 
 of  wine  "  in  the  A.  V.  (2  Sam.  xvi.  1 ;  1  Chr.  xvi. 
 3;  L'ant.  ii.  5;  Hos.  iii.  1),  but  really  meaning 
 a  cake  of  pressed  raisins;  and  s/iemdrim,"^  prop- 
 erly meaning  the  "  lees  "  or  dregs  of  wine,  but  in 
 Is.  XXV.  6  transferred  to  wine  that  had  been  kept 
 on  tlie  lees  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  its  body. 
 In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  the  following 
 terms :  oinos,"  answering  to  yrryin  as  the  general 
 designation  of  wine;  glezc/cos,"  properly  sioeel  wine 
 (Acts  ii.  13);  sikera,P  a  Grecized  form  of  the 
 Hebrew  slo'car  ;  and  oxos,<i  vinegar.  In  Rev.  xiv. 
 10  we  meet  with  a  singular  expression,'"  literally 
 meaning  mixed  unmixed,  evidently  referring  to  the 
 custom  of  mingling  wine:  the  two  terms  cannot 
 be  used  together  in  their  literal  sense,  and  hence 
 the  former  has  been  explained  as  meaning  "  poured 
 out"  (De  Wette  in  I.  c). 
 
 From  the  terms  themselves  we  pass  on  to  an 
 examination  of  such  passages  as  seem  to  elucidate 
 their  meaning.  Both  yayin  and  tirosh  are  occa- 
 sionally connected  with  expressions  that  would 
 apply  properly  to  a  fruit;  the  former,  for  instance, 
 with  verlis  significant  oi  gnthering  (.Jer.  xl.  10,  12), 
 and  growing  (Ps.  civ.  14, 15);  the  latter  with  gath- 
 ering (Is.  Ixii.  9,  A.  V.  "brought  it  together"), 
 treading  (Mic.  vi.  15),  and  withering  (Is.  xxiv.  7; 
 .Joel  i  10).  So  again  the  former  is  used  in  Num. 
 vi.  4  to  define  the  jjarticular  kind  of  tree  whose 
 products  were  forbidden  to  the  Nazarite,  namely, 
 the  "  pendulous  shoot  of  the  vine;  "  and  the  latter 
 in  Judg.  ix.  13,  to  denote  the  product  of  the  vine. 
 It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  in  most,  if  not 
 all,  the  passages  where  these  and  similar  expressions 
 occur,  there  is  something  to  denote  that  the  fruit  is 
 regarded  not  simply  as  fruit,  but  as  the  raw  mate- 
 rial out  of  which  wine  is  manufactured.  Thus, 
 for  instance,  in  Ps.  civ.  15  and  Judg.  ix.  13  the 
 cheering  eftects  of  the  product  are  noticed,  and  that 
 these  are  more  suitable  to  the  idea  of  wine  than  of 
 fruit  seems  self-evident:  in  one  passage  indeed  the 
 A.  V.  connects  the  expression  "make  cheerful" 
 with  bread  (Zech.  ix.  17),  but  this  is  a  mere  mis- 
 translation, the  true  sense  of  the  expression  there 
 used  being  to  nourish  or  make  to  grow.  So,  again, 
 the  treading  of  the  grape  in  Mic.  vi.  15  is  in  itself 
 conclusive  as  to  the  pregnant  sense  in  which  the 
 term  tirosh  is  used,  even  if  it  were  not  subsequently 
 implied  tliat  the  effect  of  the  treading  was  in  the 
 ordinary  course  of  things  to  produce  the  yayin 
 which  was  to  be  drunk.  In  Is.  Ixii.  9  the  object 
 of  the  gathering  is  clearly  conveyed  by  the  notice 
 of  drinking.  In  Is.  xxiv.  7  the  tirosh,  which 
 withers,  is  paralleled  with  yayin  in  the  two  follow- 
 ing verses.  And  lastly,  in  Is.  Ixv.  8  the  nature  of 
 the  tirosh,  which  is  said  to  be  found  in  the  cluster 
 of  the  grapes,  is  not  obscurely  indicated  by  the  sub- 
 sequent eulogium,  "  a  blessing  is  in  it."  That  the 
 terms  "vine"  and  "wine"  should  be  thus  inter- 
 changed in  poetical  language  calls  for  no  explana- 
 tion. We  can  no  more  infer  from  such  instances 
 that  the  Hebrew  terms  mean  grapes  as  fruit, 
 than  we  could  infer  the  same  of  the  Latin  vinvm 
 because  in  some  two  or  three  passages  (Plant.  Trin. 
 ii.  4,  125;  Varr.   de  L.   L.   iv.   17;  Cato,  R.  R. 
 
 n  Oti/os. 
 1  "Ofos. 
 
 I  ntt7''tt'S. 
 
 :''-)X2tt\ 
 
friNE 
 
 u.  l47)  the  term  is  transferred  to  the  grape  out  of 
 which  wine  is  made. 
 
 'i'he  question  vviiether  either  of  the  above  terms 
 ordinarily  signified  a  sqlid  substance  would  be  at 
 once  settled  by  a  reference  to  the  manner  in  which 
 they  were  consumed.  With  regard  to  ynyin  we 
 are  not  aware  of  a  single  passage  which  couples  it 
 with  the  act  of  eating."'  AVith  regard  to  tinkh 
 the  case  is  somewhat  diflerent,  inasmuch  as  that 
 term  generally  follows  "  corn,"  in  the  triplet  '•  corn, 
 wine,  and  oil,"  and  hence  the  terra  applied  to  the 
 consumption  of  corn  is  carried  on,  in  accordance 
 with  tile  granmiatical  figure  zeu'iinn,  to  the  other 
 members  of  the  clause,  as  in  Deut.  xii.  17.  In  the 
 only  passage  where  the  act  of  consuming  iirush 
 alone  is  noticed  (Is.  Ixii.  8,  9),  the  verb  is  sl/('itJid!i,'> 
 which  constantly  indicates  the  act  of  rf/•^»^■/H//  (e.  g. 
 Gen.  ix.  21,  xxiv.  22;  Ex.  vii.  21;  Ruth  ii.  9),  and 
 is  the  general  term  combined -with  dca^  in  the  joint 
 act  of  "  eathig  and  drinking  "  (e.  g.  1  Sam.  xxx. 
 16;  Job  i.  4;  Eccl.  ii.  24).  We  can  find  no  con- 
 firmation for  the  sense  of  sucking  assigned  to  the 
 term  by  Dr.  Lees  ( Tiros/i.,  p.  61 ) :  the  passage 
 quoted  in  support  of  that  sense  (Ps.Jxxv.  8)  implies 
 at  all  events  a  kind  of  sucking  allied  to  drinl<ing 
 rather  than  to  eating,  if  indeed  the  sense  of  drink- 
 ing be  not  the  more  correct  rendering  of  the  term. 
 An  argument  has  been  drawn  against  the  usual 
 sense  assigned  to  iirosli,  from  the  circumstance  that 
 it  is  generally  connected  with  "  corn,"  and  therefore 
 implies  an  edible  rather  than  a  drinkable  substance. 
 The  very  opposite  conclusion  may,  however,  be 
 drawn  from  this  circumstance;  for  it  may  be  rea- 
 sonably urged  that  in  any  enumeration  of  the  mate- 
 rials needed  for  man's  support,  "  meat  and  drink  " 
 would  be  specified,  rather  than  several  kinds  of  the 
 former  and  none  of  the  latter. 
 
 There  are,  moreover,  passages  which  seem  to 
 imply  the  actual  manufacture  of  lirosh  by  the  same 
 process  by  which  wine  was  ordinarily  made.  For, 
 not  to  insist  on  the  probability  that  the  "  bringing 
 together,"  noticed  in  Is.  Ixii.  9,  would  not  appro- 
 priately apply  to  the  collecting  of  the  fruit  in  the 
 wine-vat,  we  have  notice  of  the  "  treading  "  in  con- 
 nection with  tirosh  iu  Mic.  vi.  15,  and  again  of  the 
 "  overflowing  "  and  the  "  bursting  out  "  of  the 
 tirosh  in  the  vessels  or  lower  vat  (yt'keb;  vKoXri- 
 viov),  which  received  the  must  from  the  proper 
 press  (Prov.  iii.  10;  Joel  ii.  24). 
 
 Lastly,  we  have  intimations  of  the  effect  pro- 
 duced by  an  excessive  use  of  yaijin  and  iirosli.  To 
 the  former  are  attributed  the  "darkly  flasliing  eye  " 
 (Gen.  xlix.  12;  A.  V.  "  red,"  but  see  Gesen.  T/ies. 
 Append,  p.  89),  the  unbridled  tongue  (Prov.  xx.  1; 
 Is.  xxviii.  7);  the  excitement  of  the  spirit  (Prov. 
 xxxi.  6;  Is.  v.  11;  Zech.  ix.  15,  x.  7),  the  enchained 
 afttictions  of  its  votai'ies  (Hos.  iv.  11),  the  perverted 
 jiidgment  (I'rov.  xxxi.  5;  Is.  xxviii.  7),  the  indecent 
 exposure  (Hab.  ii.  15, 16),  and  the  sickness  resulting 
 from  the  heal  {cheindh,  A.  V.  "  bottles  ")  of  wine 
 (Hos.  vii.  5).  The  allusions  to  the  effects  of  tirosh 
 are  confitied  to  a  sinijle  passage,  but  this  a  most 
 decisive  one,  namely,  Hos.  iv.  11,  "  Whoredom  and 
 wine  (yayiii),  and  new  v4-ine  (lirosh)  take  away  the 
 heart,"  where  tirosh  appears  as  the  climax  of  en- 
 grossing influence,  in  immediate  coiniection  with 
 ijayin. 
 
 WINE 
 
 5543 
 
 a  An  apparent  instance  occurs  in  Is.  Iv.  1,  where 
 the  "  buy  and  eat  "  has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
 >' buy  wine  and  milk"  which  follows  {Tirosh,  p.  94). 
 But  the   term  rendered   "  buy  "  properly  means  "  to 
 
 The  impression  produced  on  the  mind  by  a  gen- 
 eral review  of  the  aliove  notices  is,  that  both  ynyin 
 and  tiivsh  in  their  ordinary  and  popular  acceptation 
 referred  to  fermented,  intoxicating  wine.  In  the 
 condemnatory  passages  no  exception  is  made  in 
 favor  of  any  other  kind  of  liquid  passing  under 
 the  same  name  but  not  invested  with  the  same 
 dangerous  qualities.  Nor  again  in  these  passages 
 is  there  any  decisive  condemnation  of  the  substance 
 itself,  which  would  enforce  the  conclusion  that  else- 
 where an  unfermented  liquid  must  be  understood. 
 The  condenuiation  must  be  understood  of  excessive 
 use  in  any  case:  for  even  where  this  is  not  expressed, 
 it  is  implied :  and  therefore  the  instances  of  wine 
 being  drunk  without  any  reproof  of  the  act,  may 
 with  as  great  a  probability  imply  the  moderate  use 
 of  an  intoxicating  beverage,  as  the  use  of  an  unin- 
 toxicating  one. 
 
 The  notices  of  fermentation  are  not  very  decisive. 
 A  certain  amount  of  fermentation  is  implied  in  the 
 distension  of  the  leather  bottles  when  new  wine  was 
 placed  in  them,  and  which  was  liable  to  burst  old 
 bottles.  [15(j'rTLK.]  It  has  been  suggested  that 
 the  object  of  placing  the  wine  in  bottles  was  to  pre- 
 vent fermentation,  but  that  in  "  the  case  of  old 
 bottles  fermentation  might  ensue  from  their  being 
 impregnated  with  the  fermenting  substance"  {Ti- 
 rosh, p.  65).  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
 statement  in  Matt.  ix.  17,  but  it  detracts  from  the 
 spirit  of  the  comparison  which  implies  the  presence 
 of  a  strong,  expansive,  penetrating  principle.  It  is, 
 however,  inconsistent  with  Job  xxxii.  19,  where  the 
 distension  is  descril)ed  as  occurring  even  in  new 
 bottles.  It  is  very  likely  that  new  wine  was  pre- 
 served in  the  state  of  must  by  placing  it  in  jars  or 
 bottles,  and  then  burying  it  in  the  earth.  But  we 
 should  be  inclined  to  understand  the  passages  above 
 quoted  as  referring  to  wine  drawn  off  before  the 
 fermentation  was  complete,  either  for  immediate 
 use,  or  for  the  purpose  of  forming  it  into  sweet  wine 
 after  the  manner  described  by  the  Geoponic  writers 
 (vii.  19)  [Diet,  of  Ant.  "Vinum"].  'i'he  pres- 
 ence of  the  gas-l)ubble,  or  as  the  Hebrews  termed 
 it,  "  the  eye  "  that  sparkled  in  the  cup  (Prov.  xxiii. 
 31),  was  one  of  the  tokens  of  fermentation  having 
 taken  place,  and  the  same  etTect  was  very  possibly 
 implied  in  the  name  khemer. 
 
 The  remaining  terms  call  for  but  few  remarks. 
 There  can  be  no  question  that  asis  means  wine,  and 
 in  this  case  it  is  observable  that  it  forms  part  of  a 
 Divine  promise  (Joel  iii.  18;  Am.  ix.  13)  very  much 
 as  t'lrosh  occurs  elsewhere,  though  other  notices 
 imply  that  it  was  the  occasion  of  excess  (Is.  xlix. 
 26 ;  Joel  i.  5).  Two  out  of  the  three  passages  in 
 which  sobe  occurs  (Is.  i.  22;  Nah.  i.  10)  imply  a 
 liquor  that  would  be  spoiled  or  loounded  (the 
 expression  in  Is.  i.  22,  mahul,  A.  V.  "  mixed,"  is 
 sup[)osed  to  convey  the  same  idea  as  the  Latin 
 ciistrnre  applied  to  wine  in  Plin.  xix.  19)  by  tiie 
 application  of  water;  we  think  the  passages  quoted 
 favor  the  idea  of  strength  rather  than  sweetness 
 being  the  characteristic  of  sobe.  The  term  occurs 
 in  Hos.  iv.  18,  in  the  sense  of  a  debauch,  and  tlie 
 verb  accompanying  it  has  no  coiniection  with  the 
 notion  of  acidity,  but  would  more  jiroperly  be  ren- 
 dered "  is  past."  The  mingling  implied  in  the 
 term   mesek  may   have  been   designed    either    to 
 
 buy  grain,"  and  hence  expresses  in  itself  the  sub- 
 stance to  be  eaten. 
 
 b  r\rw. 
 
 T    T 
 
3544  WINE 
 
 increase,  or  to  diminish  the  strength  of  the  wine, 
 according  as  spices  or  water  formed  the  ingredient 
 that  was  added.  The  notices  chiefly  favor  the 
 former  view ;  for  mingled  hqiior  was  prepared  for 
 high  festivals  (Prov.  ix.  2,  5),  and  occasions  of 
 excess  (Prov.  xxiii.  30;  Is.  v.  22).  A  cnp  "full 
 mixed."  was  enililematic  of  severe  punishment  (Ps. 
 Ixxv.  8).  At  the  same  time  strength  was  not  the 
 sole  object  sought  :  the  wine  "  mingled  with 
 niyri-h  "  given  to  Jesus,  was  designed  to  deaden 
 pain  (Hark  xv.  23),  and  the  spi(;ed  pomegranate 
 wine  prepared  bj'  the  bride  (Cant.  viii.  2)  may  well 
 have  been  of  a  mild  character.  Both  the  Greeks 
 and  Romans  were  in  the  habit  of  flavoring  their 
 wines  with  spices,  and  such  preparations  were 
 described  by  the  former  as  wine  6|  apoofidrwi' 
 KaTaaKeva(6/xevoi  (Athen.  i.  p.  31  e),  and  by  the 
 latter  as  aroiiiatiles  (Plin.  xiv.  19,  §  5).  The 
 authority  of  the  Mishna  may  lie  cited  in  favor  both 
 of  water  and  of  spices,  the  former  being  noticed  in 
 Bernch.  7,  §  5 ;  Pes-tch.  7,  §  13,  and  the  latter  in 
 Schen.  2,  §  1.  In  the  New  Testament  the  char- 
 acter of  the  "  sweet  wine,"  noticed  in  Acts  ii.  13, 
 calls  for  some  little  remark.  It  could  not  be  7iew 
 wine  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  inasmuch  as 
 about  eight  months  must  have  elapsed  between  the 
 vintage  and  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  It  might  have 
 been  applied,  just  as  mustiun  was  by  the  Romans, 
 to  wine  that  had  been  preserved  for  about  a  year  in 
 an  unfermented  state  (Cato,  R.  R.  c.  120).  But 
 the  explanations  of  the  ancient  lexicographers 
 rather  lead  us  to  infer  that  its  luscious  qualities 
 were  due,  not  to  its  being  recently  made,  but  to  its 
 being  produced  from  the  very  purest  juice  of  the 
 grape;  for  both  in  Hesychius  and  the  Etymologi- 
 cum  Magnum  the  term  ykivKos  is  explained  to  be 
 the  juice  that  flowed  spontaneously  from  the  grape 
 before  the  treading  commenced.  The  name  itself, 
 therefore,  is  not  conclusive  as  to  its  being  an  unfer- 
 mented liquor,  while  the  context  implies  the  re- 
 verse: for  St.  Peter  would  hardly  have  offered  a 
 serious  defense  to  an  accusation  that  was  not  seri- 
 ously made;  and  yet  if  the  sweet  wine  in  question 
 were  not  intoxicating,  the  accusation  could  only 
 have  been  ironical. 
 
 As  considerable  stress  is  laid  upon  the  quality 
 of  sweetness,  as  distinguished  from  strength,  sup- 
 posed to  be  implied  in  the  Hebrew  terms  mesek 
 and  sobe,  we  may  observe  that  the  usual  term  for 
 the  inspissated  juice  of  the  grape,  which  was  char- 
 acterized more  especially  by  sweetness,  was  debash," 
 rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  honey  "  (Gen.  xliii.  11; 
 Ez.  xxvii.  17).  This  was  prepared  by  boiling  it 
 down  either  to  a  third  of  its  original  bulk,  in  which 
 case  it  was  termed  srrpa  by  the  Latins,  and  'e\pr]fj.a 
 or  (TipaLov  by  the  Greeks,  or  else  to  half  its  bulk, 
 in  which  case  it  was  termed  dcfruhim  (Plin.  xiv. 
 11).  Both  the  substance  and  the  name,  under  the 
 form  of  dlbs^  are  in  coujmon  use  in  Syria  at  the 
 present  day.  We  may  further  notice  a  less  artifi- 
 cial mode  of  producing  a  sweet  liquor  from  the 
 grape,  namely,  by  pressing  the  juice  directly  into 
 the  cup,  as  described  in  Gen.  xl.  11.  And,  lastly, 
 there  appears  to  have  been  a  beverage,  also  of  a 
 sweet  character,  produced  by  macerating  grapes, 
 and  hence  termed  the  "  liquor "  *>  of  grapes 
 (Num.  vi.  3).  These  latter  preparations  are  al- 
 lowed in  the  Koran  (xvi  69 )  as  substitutes  for  wine. 
 
 There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  wines  of  Pal- 
 
 «  tt'3'7. 
 
 ft  niy:^. 
 
 WINE* 
 
 estine  varied  in  quality,  and  were  named  after  the 
 localities  in  which  they  were  made.  We  have  no 
 notices,  however,  to  this  eflfect.  The  only  wines  oi 
 which  we  have  special  notiee,  belonged  to  Syria: 
 these  were  the  wine  of  Helljon,  a  valley  near  Da- 
 mascus, which  in  ancient  times  was  prized  at  Tyre 
 (Ez.  xxvii.  18)  and  by  the  Persian  monarchs 
 (Strab.  XV.  p.  73.5),  as  it  still  is  by  the  residents 
 of  Damascus  (Porter,  Damascus,  i.  333);  and 
 the  wine  of  Lebanon,  famed  for  its  aroma  (Hos. 
 xiv.  7). 
 
 With  regard  to  the  uses  of  wine  in  private  life 
 there  is  little  to  remark.  It  was  produced  on  oc- 
 casions of  ordinary  hospitality  (Gen.  xiv.  18),  atid 
 at  festivals,  such  as  marriages  (John  ii.  3).  The 
 monuments  of  ancient  Egypt  furnish  abundant  evi- 
 dence that  the  people  of  that  country,  both  male 
 and  female,  indulged  liberally  in  the  use  of  wine 
 (Wilkinson,  i.  52,  53).  It  has  been  inferred  from 
 a  passage  in  Plutarch  {de  hid.  6)  that  no  wine  was 
 drunk  in  Egypt  before  the  reign  of  Psammetichus, 
 and  this  passage  has  been  quoted  in  illustration  of 
 Gen.  xl.  11.  The  meaning  of  the  author  seems 
 ]-ather  to  be  thali  the  kings  subsequently  to  Psam- 
 metichus did  not  restrict  themselves  to  the  quan- 
 tity of  wine  prescribed  to  them  by  reason  of  their 
 sacerdotal  office  (Diod.  i.  70).  The  cultivation  of 
 the  vine  was  incompatible  with  the  conditions  of  a 
 nomad  life,  and  it  v\as  probably  on  this  account 
 that  Jonadab,  wishing  to  perpetuate  th.it  kind  of 
 life  among  his  posterity,  prohilnted  the  use  of 
 wine  to  them  (Jer.  xxxv.  6).  The  case  is  exactly 
 parallel  to  that  of  the  Nabathseans,  who  abstained 
 from  wine  on  purely  political  grounds  (Diod.  xix. 
 94). 
 
 Under  the  Mosaic  Law  wine  formed  the  usual 
 drink-offering  that  accompanied  the  daily  sacrifice 
 (Ex.  xxix.  40),  the  presentation  of  the  first-fruits 
 (Lev.  xxiii.  13),  and  other  offerings  (Num.  xv.  5). 
 It  appears  from  Num.  xxviii.  7  that  strong  di'ink 
 might  be  substituted  for  it  on  these  occasions. 
 Tithe  was  to  be  paid  of  wine  (liivsli )  as  of  other 
 products,  and  this  was  to  be  consumed  "  before  the 
 Lord,"  meaning  within  tbe  precincts  of  the  Temple, 
 or  perhaps,  as  may  be  inferred  from  Lev.  vii.  16,  at 
 the  place  where  the  Temple  was  situated  (Deut.  xii. 
 17,  18).  The  priest  was  also  to  receive  first-fruits 
 of  wine  (I'u-osli),  as  of  other  articles  (Deut.  xviii. 
 4;  comp.  Ex.  xxii.  29):  and  a  promise  of  plenty 
 was  attached  to  the  faithful  payment  of  these  dues 
 (Prov.  iii.  9,  10).  The  priests  were  prohibited 
 from  the  use  of  wine  and  strong  drink  before  per- 
 forming the  services  of  the  Temple  (Lev.  x.  9),  and 
 the  place  which  this  prohibition  holds  in  the  nar- 
 rative favors  the  presumption  that  the  oftense  of 
 Nadal)  and  Abihu  was  committed  under  the  influ- 
 ence of  liquor.  Ezekiel  repeats  the  prohibition  as 
 far  as  wine  is  concerned  (Ez.  xliv.  21).  The  Naz- 
 arite  was  prohibited  from  the  use  of  wine,  or  strong 
 drink,  or  even  the  juice  of  grapes  during  the  con- 
 tinuance of  his  vow  (Num.  vi.  3);  but  the  adoption 
 of  that  vow  was  a  voluntary  act.  The  use  of  wine 
 at  the  paschal  feast  was  not  enjoined  by  the  I-aw; 
 but  had  become  an  established  custom,  at  all  events 
 in  the  post-Babylonian  period.  The  cup  was  handed 
 round  four  times  according  to  the  ritual  prescribed 
 in  the  Mishna  (Pesach.  10,  §  1),  the  third  cup 
 being  designated  the  "  cup  of  blessing  '  (1  Cot. 
 x.  16),  because  grace  was  then  said  {Pesitcl:  10, 
 §  7).  [Passovek.]  The  contents  of  the  cup  are 
 specifically  described  by  our  Lord  as  "  the  fruit  " 
 {y€vvn/jLa)  of  the  vine  (Matt.  xxvi.  29 ;  Mark  xiv. 
 
WINE-FAT 
 
 25;  Luke  xxii.  18),  and  in  the  Mishna  simply  as 
 wine.  The  wine  was  mixed  with  warm  water  on 
 these  occasions,  as  implied  in  the  notice  of  the 
 warniin'4  kettle  (Pesuch.  7,  §  13).  Hence  in  the 
 early  Christian  Church  it  was  usual  to  mix  the  sac- 
 ramental wine  with  water,  a  custom  as  old,  ;it  all 
 events,  as  .Justin  Martyr's  time  {A/jol.  i.  65).  The 
 Pastoral  Epistles  contain  directions  as  to  the  mod- 
 erate use  of  wine  on  the  part  of  all  holding  office  in 
 theOiiurch;  as  that  they  should  not  \e  Trdpotvoi 
 (1  Tim.  iii.  3;  A.  V.  "given  to  wine"),  meaning 
 insolent  and  violent  under  the  intliience  of  wine; 
 "not  given  to  much  wine"  (1  Tim.  iii.  8);  "not 
 enslaved  to  much  wine"  (Tit.  ii.  .3).  The  term 
 vr}(pd\eos  in  1  Tim.  iii.  2  {\.  V.  "sober"), 
 expresses  general  vigilance  and  circumspection 
 (Schleusner,  Lex.  s.  v.;  Alf'ord,  in  foe).  St.  Paul 
 advises  Timothy  himself  to  be  no  longer  a  habitual 
 water-drinker,  but  to  take  a  little  wine  for  his 
 health's  sake  (1  Tim.  v.  23).  No  very  satisfactory 
 reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  place  which  this  in- 
 junction holds  in  the  epistle,  unless  it  were  intended 
 to  correct  any  possilile  misapprehension  as  to  the 
 preceding  words,  "  Keep  thyself  pure."  The  pre- 
 cepts aliove  quoted,  as  well  as  others  to  the  same 
 effect  addressed  to  the  disciples  generally  (Rom.  xiii. 
 13;  Gal.  v.  21;  1  Pet.  iv.  3),  show  the  extent  to 
 which  intemperance  prevailed  in  ancient  times,  and 
 the  extreme  danger  to  which  the  Church  was  sub- 
 jected from  this  quarter.  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  On  the  I'lible  names  of  wine  and  its  use  in  the 
 East,  see  articles  by  W.  G.  ScliaufHer  in  the  Bibl. 
 Hepos.  for  Oct.  1830;  L.  Mayer,  Aiiier.  B'M.  Re- 
 pos.  for  Oct.  1839;  and  T.  Laurie,  Btbl.  Sacra  for 
 Jan.  18G9.  The  view  of  Dr.  F.  R.  Lees,  referred 
 to  above,  is  set  forth  in  his  articles  Wine,  Fruits. 
 and  Drink,  Siron//,  in  the  first  edition  (184.5)  of 
 Kitto's  Cycl.  of'  Bilil.  Lit,  also  in  his  L's.iays,  Hist, 
 and  Crit.  on  the  Temperance  Question,  Lond.  1853 
 (including  Tirosh  lo  Yayin),  and  very  fully  in  the 
 Temperance  Bible- Commentary  by  Dr.  P.  K.  Lees 
 and  the  Rev.  Dawson  Burns,  Lond.  1868,  Anier. 
 ed.,  with  Preface  by  Dr.  Tayler  Lewis,  N.  Y.  1870. 
 They  are  adopted  in  the  main  by  Professor  G.  C. 
 M.  Douglas,  art.  Wine  \n  Fairbairn's  J  nip.  Bible 
 Diet.,  but  are  warmly  controverted  by  Isaac  Jen- 
 nings, art.  Wine  in  the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's  Cycl.  of 
 Bilk.  Lit.   (1806).  A. 
 
 *  WINE-FAT.     [Wine-Pekss.] 
 
 WINE-PRE.SS  (na;  217.':.;  nn-13).    From 
 
 the  scanty  notices  contained  in  the  Bible  we  gather 
 that  the  wine-presses  of  the  Jews  consisted  of  two 
 receptacles  or  vats  placed  at  different  elevations,  in 
 the  upper  one  of  which  the  grapes  were  trodden, 
 while  the  lower  one  received  the  expressed  juice. 
 The  two  vats  are  mentioned  together  only  in  Joel 
 iii.  13:  "The  press  (ynth)  is  full:  the  fats  (yeke- 
 bim)  overflow  "  —  the  upper  vat  being  full  of  fruit, 
 the  lower  one  overflowing  with  the  nuist.  Yekeb 
 is  similarly  applied  in  Joel  ii.  24,  and  probably  in 
 Prov.  iii.  10,  where  the  verb  rendered  "  l)urst  out " 
 in  the  A.  V.  may  bear  the  more  general  sense  of 
 outbound"  (Gesen.  Tlies.  p.  1130).  Cath  is  also 
 strictly  applied  to  the  upper  vat  in  Neh.  xiii.  15, 
 Lam.  i.  15,  and  Is.  Ixiii.  2,  with  purdh  in  a  paral- 
 lel sense  in  the  following  verse.  Elsewhere  yekeb 
 is  not  strictly  applied ;  for  in  Job  xxiv.  11,  and  Jer. 
 xlviii.  33,  it  refers  to  the  upper  vat,  just  as  in 
 Malt.  xxi.  33,  biroKwMV  (properly  the  vat  imder 
 the  press)  is  substituted  for  K-r]v6s,  as  given  in 
 Mark  xji.  1.  It  woidd,  moreover,  ap{)ear  natural 
 223 
 
 WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON     3545 
 
 to  describe  the  whole  arrangement  by  the  term 
 (;'itli,a,s  denoting  the  most  important  portion  of  it; 
 but,  with  the  exception  of  proper  names  in  which 
 tiie  word  appears,  such  as  Gath,  Gath-rimmon, 
 (iath-hepher,  and  Gittaim,  the  term  yekeb  is  ap- 
 plied to  it  (Judg.  vii.  25;  Zech.  xiv.  10).  The 
 same  term  is  also  applied  to  the  produce  of  the 
 wine-press  (Num.  sviii.  27,  30;  Deut.  xv.  14;  2  K. 
 vi.  27;  Hos.  ix.  2).  The  term  pi'irah,  as  used  in 
 Hag.  ii.  16,  probably  refers  to  the  contents  of  a 
 wine-vat,"  rather  than  to  the  press  or  vat  itself. 
 The  two  vats  were  usually  dug  or  hewn  out  of  the 
 solid  rock  (Ls.  v.  2,  margin;  Matt.  xxi.  33).  An- 
 cient wine-presses,  so  constructed,  are  still  to  be 
 seen  in  Palestine,  one  of  which  is  thus  described  by 
 Robinson:  "Advantage  had  been  taken  of  a  ledge 
 of  rock;  on  the  upper  side  a  shallow  vat  had  been 
 dug  out,  eigiit  feet  square,  and  fifteen  inches  deep. 
 Two  feet  lower  down  another  smaller  vat  was  ex- 
 cavated, four  feet  square  by  three  feet  deep.  The 
 grapes  were  trodden  in  the  shallow  upper  vat,  and 
 the  juice  drawn  oft'  by  a  hole  at  the  bottom  (still 
 remaining)  into  the  lower  vat"  (Bihl.  Jies.  iii.  137 
 603).  The  wine-presses  were  thus  permanent,  and 
 were  sufficiently  well  known  to  serve  as  indications 
 of  certain  localities  (Judg.  vii.  25;  Zech.  xiv.  10). 
 The  upper  receptacle  {gath)  was  large  enough  to 
 admit  of  threshing  being  carried  on  in  (not  "  by," 
 as  in  A.  V.)  it,  as  was  done  by  Gideon  for  the 
 sake  of  concealment  (Judg.  vi.  11).     [F.vt.] 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 WINNOWING.     [Agkiculture.] 
 *  WINTER.     [Palestine,  iii.  2317  fF. ;  Ag- 
 
 RICULTUKE.] 
 
 WISDOM    OF   JESUS,   SON    OF   SI 
 
 RACH.       [KCCLESI.VSTICDS.] 
 
 WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON.     2o 
 
 (pia  2,aAwfj.u>v;  2o(pLa  'S.o\o)xSivtos\  later,  ^  2o 
 <bia'.  Liber  Siqjienliai ;  Sapientia  Salomonis ; 
 Sop/da  Salomonis.  The  title  2o(/)ia  was  also  ap- 
 plied to  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  as  by  Melito  ap.  Eu- 
 seb.  //.  L\  iv.  26  {Tlapoipiai  ^  /cal  t]  'Zopla;  see 
 Vales,  or  Routh  ad  loc),  and  also  to  Ecclesiasticus, 
 as  Epiphanius  {culv.  liar.  Ixxvi.  p  941,  eV  rais  2o- 
 (piai?,  ^oKofj-Sivros  re  (prifxi  Kal  vlou  '2,ipdx)i  fi'om 
 which  considerable  confusion  has  arisen. 
 
 1.  Text.  — The  Book  of  Wisdom  is  preserved  in 
 Greek  and  Latin  texts,  and  in  subsidiary  transla- 
 tions into  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Armenian.  Of  these 
 latter,  the  Armenian  is  said  to  be  the  most  impor- 
 tant; the  Syriac  and  Arabic  Versions  being  para- 
 phrastic and  inaccurate  (Grimm,  L'inl.  §  10).  The 
 Greek  text,  which,  as  will  appear  afterwards,  is  un- 
 doubtedly the  original,  offers  no  remarkable  fea- 
 tures. The  variations  in  the  AISS.  are  confined 
 within  narrow  limits,  and  .are  not  such  as  to  sug- 
 gest the  idea  of  distinct  early  recensions;  nor  is 
 there  any  appearance  of  serious  corruptions  anterior 
 to  existing  Greek  authorities.  The  Old  Latin 
 Version,  which  was  left  untouched  by  Jeronip 
 [Prmf.  in  Liber  Sal.,  In  eo  libro  qui  a  plerisquo 
 Sapientia  Salomonis  inscribitur  ....  calamo 
 temperavi;  tantummodo  c.anonicas  Scripturas 
 emendare  desiderans,  et  studium  meum  certis  ma- 
 gis  quam  dubiis  connnendare),  is  in  the  main  a 
 close  and  faithful  renderitjg  of  the  Greek,  though 
 it  contains  some  .additions  to  the  original  text,  such 
 as  are  characteristic  of  the  old  version  generally. 
 
 a  The  LXX.  renders  the  term  by  |iicTpr)T^s,  th# 
 Greek  measure  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  bath. 
 
S546 
 
 WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 
 
 Examples  of  these  additions  are  found  —  i.  15,  In- 
 jiislitia.  (ivteiii  mortis  est  acqtilsllio  ;  ii.  8,  Nullum 
 pralum  sit  quod  mm  pertnniscdt  luxuriti  nostra  ; 
 ii.  17,  et  sciemus  quce  erunt  nurissima  illius ;  vi.  1, 
 Melior  est  sapienlia  giiam  vires,  et  vir  prtuhtis 
 quam  foriis.  And  the  construction  of  the  paral- 
 lelism in  the  two  first  cases  suggests  tlie  belief  that 
 there,  at,  least,  the  Latin  reading  may  lie  correct. 
 But  other  additions  point  to  a  dift'erent  conclusion : 
 vi.  23,  ililiqite  lumen  sctpienticB  omnes  qui  prceestis 
 populis;  viii.  11,  ef  fades  principum  mirabuntur 
 me ;  ix.  19,  quicunque  plucuerunt  iihi  domine  a 
 principio  ;  xi.  5,  n  defectione  polus  sui,  et  in  eis 
 cum  nlnindarent  Jilii  Israel  Icetnti  sunt. 
 
 The  chief  Greek  MSS.  in  which  the  book  is  con- 
 tained are  the  Codex  Sinailicus  (S),  the  Cod. 
 Akxandrinus  (A),  the  Cod.  Vaticanus  (B),  and 
 the  Cod.  Kplrraemi  rescr.  (C).  The  entire  text 
 is  preser\ ed  in  tlie  three  former ;  in  the  latter,  only 
 considerable  fragments:  viii.  5-xi.  10;  xiv.  19-xvii. 
 18;  xviii.  21-xix.  22. 
 
 Sabatier  used  four  Latin  IMSS.  of  the  higher 
 class  for  his  edition :  "  Corbeienses  duos,  unum  San- 
 germanensem,  et  aliuni  S.  Theodorici  ad  Kenios," 
 of  which  he  professes  to  give  almost  a  complete 
 (but  certainly  not  a  literal)  collation.  The  varia- 
 tions are  not  generally  important;  but  patristic 
 quotations  show  that  in  early  times  very  considera- 
 ble diflerences  of  text  existed.  An  important  MS. 
 of  the  l)ook  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  Ec/erton,  1046,  Srec. 
 viii.  has  not  yet  been  examined. 
 
 2.  Contents.  —  The  book  has  been  variously 
 divided ;  but  it  seems  to  fall  most  naturally  into 
 two  great  divisions:  (1)  i.-ix.;  (2)  x.-xix.  The 
 first  contains  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  its  moral 
 and  intellectual  aspects;  the  second,  the  doctrine 
 of  Wisdom  as  shown  in  history.  Each  of  these 
 parts  is  again  capable  of  subdivision.  The  first 
 part  contains  the  praise  of  Wisdom  as  the  source 
 of  innnortality  in  contrast  with  the  teaching  of 
 sensualists  (i.-v.);  and  next  the  praise  of  \Visdom 
 as  the  guide  of  practical  and  intellectual  life,  the 
 stay  of  princes,  and  the  interpreter  of  the  universe 
 (vi.-ix.).  The  second  part,  again,  follows  the 
 action  of  Wisdom  summarily,  as  preserving  God's 
 servants  from  Adam  to  Moses  (x.  1-xi.  4),  and 
 more  particularly  in  the  punishment  of  the  Egyp- 
 tians and  Canaanites  (xi.  5-16,  xi.  17-xii.).  This 
 punishment  is  traced  to  its  origin  in  idolatry, 
 which,  in  its  rise  and  progress,  presents  the  false 
 substitute  for  Revelation  (xiii.,  xiv. ).  And  in  the 
 last  section  (xv.-xix.)  the  history  of  the  Exodus  is 
 used  to  illustrate  in  detail  tlie  contrasted  fortunes 
 of  the  people  of  God  and  idolaters.  The  whole 
 argument  may  be  presented  in  a  tabular  form  in 
 the  following  shape :  — 
 
 I.  —  Ch.  i.-ix.      The  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  its 
 spiritual,  intellectual,  ami  moral  aspects. 
 
 (o.)  i.-v.  Wisdom  the  giver  of  happiness  and 
 immortality. 
 The  conditions  of  wisdom  (i.  1-11). 
 Uprightness  of  thought  (1-5). 
 Uprightness  of  word  (6-11). 
 The  origin  of  death  (i.  12-ii.  24). 
 
 Sin  (in  fact)  by  man's  free  will  (i.  12-16). 
 
 The  reasoning  of  the  sensualist  (ii.  1-20). 
 
 Sin  (in  source)  by  the  envy  of  the  devil 
 
 (21-24). 
 
 The  godly  and  wicked  in  life  (as  mortal),  (iii. 
 
 1-iv.). 
 
 In  chastisements  (iii.  1-10).  ^ 
 
 ■In  the  results  of  life  (iii.  11-iv.  6). 
 
 In  length  of  life  (7-20). 
 The  godly  and  wicked  after  death  (v.). 
 
 The  jwlgment  of  conscience  (1-14). 
 
 The  judgment  of  God  — 
 On  the  godly  (15,  16). 
 On  the  wicked  (17-23). 
 (p.)  vi.-ix.  Wisdom  the  guide  of  life. 
 Wisdom  the  guide  of  princes  (vi.  1-21). 
 
 The  responsibility  of  power  (1-11). 
 
 Wisdom  soon  found  (12-16). 
 
 Wisdom  the  source  of  true  sovereignty 
 (17-21). 
 The  character  and  realm  of  wisdom. 
 
 Open  to  all  (vi.  22-vii.  7). 
 
 Pervadhig  all  ci'eation  (vii.  8-viii.  1). 
 
 Swaying  all  life  (viii.  2-17). 
 Wisdom  the  gift  of  God  (viii.  17-ix.). 
 
 Prayer  for  wisdom  (ix.). 
 
 II. — Ch.  x.-xix.      The  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  its 
 historical  aspects. 
 (o.)   Wisdom  a  power  to  save  and  chastise. 
 Wisdom  seen  in  the  guidance  of  God's  people 
 
 from  Adam  to  Moses  (x.-xi.  4). 
 Wisdom  seen  in  tlie  punishment  of  God's  ene- 
 mies (xi.  5-xii.). 
 
 The  Egyptians  (xi.  5-xii.  1). 
 The  Canaanites  (xii.  2-18). 
 The  lesson  of  mercy  and  judgment  (19- 
 27). 
 ()3.)    The   growth   of  idolatry  the  opposite  to 
 wisdom. 
 The  worship  of  nature  (xiii.  1-9). 
 The  worship  of  images  (xiii.  10-xiv.  13). 
 The  worship  of  deified  men  (xiv.  14-21). 
 The  moral  effects  of  idolatry  (xiv.  22-31). 
 (y.)  The  contrast  between  true  worshippers  and 
 idolaters  (xv.-xix.). 
 The  general  contrast  (xv.  1-17). 
 The  special  contrast  at  the  Exodus  — 
 
 The  action  of  beasts  (xv.  18-xvi.  13). 
 The  action   of  the  forces  of  nature  — 
 
 water,  fire  (xvi.  14-29). 
 
 The  symbolic  darkness  (xvii.-xviii.  4). 
 
 The  action  of  death  (xviii.  5-25). 
 
 The  powers  of  nature  changed  in  their 
 
 working  to  save  and  destroy  (xix.  1- 
 
 21). 
 
 Conclusion  (xix.  21). 
 
 The  subdivisions  are  liy  no  means  sharply  defined, 
 
 though  it  is  not  difhcult  to  trace  the  main  current 
 
 of  thought.     Each  section  contains  the  preparation 
 
 for  that  which  follows,  just  as  in  the  classic  trilogy 
 
 the  close  of  one  play  shadowed  forth  the  subject 
 
 of  the  next.     Thus  in  ii.  24  6,  iv.  20,  ix.  18,  etc., 
 
 the  fresh  idea  is  enunciated,  which  is  subsequently 
 
 developed  at  length.     In  this  way  the  whole  book 
 
 is  intimately  bound  together,  and  the  clauses  which 
 
 appear  at  first  sight  to  be  idle  repetitions  of  thought 
 
 really  spring  from  the  elaborateness  of  its  structure. 
 
 3.    Unity  and  Inter/rity.  —  It  follows  from  what 
 
 has  been  said  that  the  book  forms  a  complete  and 
 
 harmonious  whole.     But  the  distinct  treatment  of 
 
 the  subject,  tlieoretically  and  historically,  in  two 
 
 parts,  has   given  occasion  from  time  to  time  for 
 
 maintaining  that  it  is  the  work  of  two  or  more 
 
 authors.     C.  F.  Houliigant  {Pi-okijg.   ad  Sap.  et 
 
 Eccles.  1777)  supposed  that  the  first  nine  chapters 
 
 were  the  work  of  Solomon,  and  that  the  translator 
 
 of  the  Hebrew  original  (probably)  added  the  later 
 
WISDOM,  THE,   OF   SOLOMON 
 
 3547 
 
 chanters.  Eichhorn  {Einl.  in  d.  Apoc.  1795), 
 riglnly  feeling  that  some  historical  illustrations  of 
 the  action  of  wisdom  were  required  by  the  close  of 
 eh.  ix.,  fixed  the  end  of  the  original  book  at  ch.  xi. 
 1.  Nachtigall  {Dns  Buck  IVeis/i.  1799)  devised  a 
 far  more  artificial  theory,  and  imagined  that  he 
 could  trace  in  the  book  the  records  of  (so  to  speak) 
 an  antiphonic  "Praise  of  Wisdom,"  delivered  in 
 three  sittings  of  the  sacred  schools  by  two  com- 
 panies of  doctors.  Bretschneider  (1804-5),  fol- 
 lowing out  the  simpler  hypothesis,  found  three 
 difterent  writings  in  the  book,  of  which  he  attrib- 
 uted the  first  part  (i.  1-vi.  8)  to  a  Palestinian  Jew 
 of  the  time  of  Antiochus  Kpiph.,  the  second  (vi. 
 9-x.)  to  a  philosophic  Alexandrine  Jew  of  the 
 time  of  our  Lord,  and  the  third  (xii.-xix.)  to 
 a  contemporary,  but  uneducated  Jew,  who  wrote 
 under  the  influence  of  the  rudest  national  preju- 
 dices. The  eleventh  chapter  was,  as  he  supposed, 
 added  by  the  compiler  who  brought  the  three  chief 
 parts  together.  Bertholdt  {EinkiUmg,  1815)  fell 
 back  upon  a  modification  of  the  earliest  division. 
 He  uicluded.  cc.  i.-xii.  in  the  original  book, 
 which  he  regarded  as  essentially  philosophical, 
 while  the  later  addition  (xiii.-xix.)  is,  in  his  judg- 
 ment, predominantly  theological.  It  is  needless  to 
 enter  in  detail  into  the  arguments  by  which  these 
 various  opinions  were  maintained,  but  when  taken 
 together,  they  furnish  an  instructive  example  of  the 
 course  of  subjecti\  e  criticisii .  The  true  refutation 
 of  tl>e  one  hypothesis  wiiich  they  have  in  common 
 —  the  divided  authorship  of  the  book  —  is  found  in 
 the  substantial  harmony  and  connection  of  its 
 parts,  in  the  presence  of  the  same  general  tone  and 
 manner  of  thought  throughout  it,  and  yet  more  in 
 the  essential  uniformity  of  style  and  language  which 
 it  presents,  though  both  are  necessarily  modified  in 
 some  degree  by  tbe  subject-matter  of  the  ditti;rent  sec- 
 tions. (For  a  detailed  examination  of  the  arguments 
 of  the  "  Separatists,"  see  Grimm,  Exey.  Ihnulb. 
 §  4 ;  and  Bauermeister,  Comiii.  in  lib.  Sap.  3  ff. ) 
 
 Some,  however,  admitting  the  unity  of  the  book, 
 have  questioned  its  integrity.  Eichiiorn  imagined 
 that  it  was  left  imperfect  by  its  author  {Einl.  p. 
 148);  Grotius,  apparently,  that  it  was  mutilated 
 by  some  accident  of  time  (V'idetur  hie  liber  esse 
 kSKovoos)  ;  and  others  have  been  found,  in  later 
 times,  to  support  each  opinion.  Yet  it  is  obvious 
 that  the  scope  of  tbe  argument  is  fully  satisfied  by 
 the  investigation  of  the  providential  history  of  the 
 Jews  up  to  the  time  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan, 
 and  the  last  verse  fimiishes  a  complete  epilogue  to 
 the  treatise,  which  Grimm  compares,  not  inaptly, 
 with  the  last  words  of  3  Mace. 
 
 The  idea  that  the  book  has  been  interpolated  by 
 a  Christian  hand  (Grotius,  Griitz)  is  as  little  vvortiiy 
 of  consideration  as  the  idea  that  it  is  incomplete. 
 The  passages  which  have  been  brought  forward  in 
 support  of  this  opinion  (ii.  12-20,  24,  iii.  13,  14, 
 xiv.  7;  comp.  Homilies,  p.  174,  ed.  1850)  lose  all 
 their  force,  if  fairly  interpreted. 
 
 4.  Style  find  /y(n//n'iije.  —  The  literary  charac- 
 ter of  the  book  is  most  remarkable  and'interesting. 
 In  the  richness  and  freedom  of  its  vocabulary  it 
 most  closely  resembles  the  fourth  book  of  Macca- 
 bees, but  it  is  superior  to  that  fine  declamation, 
 both  in  power  and  variety  of  diction.  No  existing 
 work  represents  [terhaps  more  completely  the  style 
 of  composition  which  would  be  produced  by  the 
 sophistic  schools  of  rhetoric;  and  in  the  artificial 
 balancing  of  words,  and  the  frequent  niceties  of 
 arranifement  and  rhythm,  it  is  impossible  not  to  be 
 
 reminded  of  the  exquisite  story  of  Prodicus  (Xen. 
 Memorah.  ii.  J,  21),  and  of  the  subtle  refinement* 
 of  Protagoras  in  the  dialogue  which  bears  his  name. 
 It  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence  that  the  effect 
 of  different  parts  of  the  book  is  very  unequal.  The 
 florid  redundancy  and  restless  straining  after  effect, 
 which  may  be  not  unsuited  to  vivid  intellectual 
 pictures,  is  wholly  alien  from  the  philosophic  con- 
 templation of  history.  Thus  the  forced  contrasts 
 and  fantastic  exaggerations  in  the  description  of  the 
 Egyptian  plagues  cannot  but  displease;  while  it  is 
 equally  impossible  not  to  admire  the  lyrical  force 
 of  the  language  of  the  sensualist  (ii.  1  ft'.),  and  of 
 the  picture  of  future  judgment  (v.  15  ff.).  The 
 magnificent  description  of  Wisdom  (vii.  22-viii.  1) 
 must  rank  among  the  noblest  passages  of  human 
 eloquence,  and  it  would  be  perhaps  impossible  to 
 point  out  any  piece  of  equal  length  in  tlie  remains 
 of  classical  antiquity  more  preifuant  with  noble 
 thought,  or  more  rich  in  expressive  phraseology. 
 It  may  be  placed  beside  the  Hymn  of  (Jleanthes  or 
 the  visions  of  Plato,  and  it  will  not  lose  its  power 
 to  charm  and  move.  Examples  of  strange  or  new 
 words  may  l)e  found  almost  on  every  page.  Such 
 are  auairo^LCTfxos,  TrpoiTowAaaTos,  tld^xBeia,  a-yg- 
 pojx'^a,  iral^fiu,  aK7)\i5(iiTos,  pfufiaaixos,  lez/i- 
 Tfia;  others  belong  characteristically  to  later  Greek, 
 as  SialiovKiov,  avTavaKKaaBai,  aSidnTCDTOs,  eSpd- 
 ^etv,  e^aWos,  awepiawaaTos,  etc.;  others,  again, 
 to  the  language  of  philosopliy,  dixoLowaOri^,  ^cotl- 
 K6i,  vpovcpeffTdvai,  etc. ;  and  others  to  the  LXX., 
 Xepo-Jo),  oAo/cai'/Ttojua,  etc.  No  class  of  writings 
 and  no  mode  of  combination  appear  to  be  unfa- 
 miliar to  the  writer.  Some  of  the  phrases  which 
 he  adopts  are  singularly  happy,  as  Kardxp^os 
 a/xaprias  (i.  4),  aAa(,o;/eue(r0ai  Trarepa  6(:6v  (ii- 
 ItJ),  eA-Trls  adavacria?  iTKr)pr]s  (iii-  4),  etc.;  and 
 not  less  so  some  of  tbe  short  and  weighty  sen- 
 tences in  which  he  gathers  up  the  truth  on  which 
 hfe  is  dwelling:  vi.  19,  a(b6apaia  iyyvs  fhai 
 woiel  6eov;  xi.  20,  (peiSri.de  TzdvTwv  on  ah  eVrt 
 S  4  air  or  a  <p  i\  6ip  vx^-  ^^^^  numerous  arti- 
 ficial resources  with  which  the  book  abounds  are 
 a  less  pleasing  mark  of  labor  bestowed  upon  its 
 composition.  Thus,  in  i.  1,  we  have  a.yaTrriaaTe 
 .  .  .  .  <ppovr\aoi.Te  .  .  .  .  iv  ayadorriTi  Kal  iv 
 a,ir\6Tr]Ti,  ....  ^riT-f)aaT€  ;  v.  22,  irora/uLol 
 .  .  .  .  ttTTOTOjUCos;  xiii.  11,  Trepif^vaev  ev/JLadiii 
 •  ■  .  •  Kal  T€Xvriffdiji,evo^  einrpeiroDS  ',  xix.  21, 
 rrjKThv  evTrjKTOV-  Ihe  arrangement  of  the  words 
 is  equally  artificial,  but  generally  more  effective, 
 and  often  very  subtle  and  forcible;  vii.  29,  eari 
 yap  aiirrj  {rj  aocpia)  einrpiireaTfpa  7]\iou  Kal 
 inrhp  iraaav  &arp(iiv  dtatv.  (pwrl  avyKpivo/xevr] 
 eupiaKerai  nporepa.  tovto  /xe^'  yap  SiaSe^^''''" 
 vv^,  aocpias  5e'  ovk  avTiaxvei  KaKia- 
 
 The  language  of  the  Old  Latin  translation  is  also 
 itself  full  of  interest.  It  presents,  in  great  pro- 
 fusion, the  characteristic  provincialisms  which  else- 
 where mark  the  earliest  African  version  of  the 
 Scriptures.  [Comp.  Vulgate,  §  43.]  Such  are 
 the  substantives  extenninium,  refriyerium ;  pnecla- 
 rilds,  medlttns,  niniietus,  natiritas,  supervacuitas  ; 
 suhitalio  ;  (tssislrix,  doclrix,  eleclrix  ;  immemoraiio 
 {a/xvriaia) ;  incolatus  ;  the  adjectives  contemptibilis, 
 ineffiir/ibilis,  odlbilis  ;  incoinquinalas,  inauxiliatics, 
 indisciplinalus,  insensulus,  insiniulatus  {auvTrS- 
 KptTos);  fumi(j<djumlus;  the  verbs  amju^tiare, 
 mansuetnre,  iinpropcnire  ;  and  the  phrases  iinpos- 
 nibilis  immiUere,p((rlibas  {=pariini),  innuinerabilii 
 honest  IS,  providenliie  (pi.). 
 
 5.  Original  LamjiuKje.  —  The  characteristics  of 
 
8548 
 
 WISDOM,  THE,  OP  SOLOMON 
 
 the  language,  which  have  been  just  noticed,  are  so 
 marked  tliat  no  doubt  could  ever  have  been  raised 
 as  to  tlie  originality  of  the  Greek  text,  if  it  had  not 
 been  that  the  book  was  once  siijumsed  to  be  the 
 work  of  Solomon.  It  was  assumed  (so  far  rightly) 
 that  if  the  traditional  title  were  correct,  the  book 
 must  have  been  written  in  Heln-ew;  and  tlie  belief 
 which  was  thus  based  upon  a  false  opinion  as  to 
 the  authorship,  suivived,  at  least  partiallv,  for 
 some  time  after  that  ojjinion  was  aljaudoned.  Yet 
 as  it  must  be  obvious,  even  on  a  superficial  exam- 
 ination, that  the  style  and  language  of  the  book 
 show  conclusively  that  it  could  not  have  been  the 
 work  of  Solomon,  so  it  appears  with  equal  cer- 
 tainty that  the  freedom  of  the  Greek  diction  was 
 checked  by  no  Aramaic  text.  This  was  well  stated 
 by  Jerome,  who  says,  "  Fertur  et  iravapeTOs  Jesu 
 tilii  Sirach  liber,  et  alius  x^/evSemypacpoi  qui  Sa- 
 pientia  Salomon  is  inscribitur  .  .  .  .  Secundus  apud 
 Hebrjeos  nusquam  est,  quia  et  ipse  stylus  Grsecam 
 eloquentiam  redolet "  {Pnef.  in  Libr.  Sntoin.); 
 and  it  seems  superfluous  to  add  any  further  argu- 
 ment to  those  which  must  spring  from  the  reading 
 of  any  one  chapter.  It  is,  however,  interesting  on 
 other  grounds  to  observe  that  the  book  contains 
 unequivocal  traces  of  the  use  of  the  LXX.  where 
 it  differs  from  the  Hebrew:  ii.  12,  ii/eSpivawixev 
 T  h  V  S  I  K  a  I  ov  0  r  I  SiycrxprjrrTOS  t]  fxl  v 
 iffri  (Is.  iii.  10);  xv.  10,  criroShi-  i)  KapSia 
 avToiv  (Is.  xliv.  20);  and  this  not  in  direct  quota- 
 tions, where  it  is  conceivable  that  a  Greek  trans- 
 lator might  have  felt  justified  in  adopting  the  ren- 
 dering of  the  version  with  which  he  was  familiar, 
 but  where  the  words  of  the  LXX.  are  inwrought 
 into  the  text  itself.  But  while  the  original  lan- 
 guage of  the  book  may  be  regarded  as  certainly 
 determined  by  internal  evidence,  great  doubt  hangs 
 over  the  date  and  place  of  its  composition;  and  it 
 will  be  necessary  to  examine  some  of  the  doctrinal 
 peculiarities  which  it  presents  before  any  attempt 
 is  made  to  determine  these  points  with  approximate 
 accuracy. 
 
 6.  Doclrinnl  Cliaracter.  — The  theological  teach- 
 ing of  the  book  offers,  in  many  respects,  the  nearest 
 approach  to  the  language  and  doctrines  of  Greek 
 philosophy  which  is  found  in  any  Jewish  writing 
 up  to  the  time  of  Philo.  There  is  much  in  the 
 views  which  it  gives  of  the  world,  of  njan,  and  of 
 the  Divine  Nature,  which  springs  rather  from  the 
 combination  or  conflict  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
 thought  than  from  the  independent  development  of 
 Hebrew  thought  alone.  Thus,  in  speaking  of  the 
 almighty  power  of  God,  the  writer  describes  Him  as 
 "having  created  the  universe  out  of  matter  with- 
 out form  "  (Kricraaa  rhv  K6afiov  i  ^  a  /u.  6  p  (f>  o  v 
 S\t)s,  xi.  17),  adopting  the  very  plirase  of  the 
 Platonists,  which  is  found  also  in  Philo  {De  Vict. 
 Offer.  §  13),  to  describe  the  preexisting  matter  out 
 of  which  the  world  was  made,  and  (like  Philo,  J)e 
 JIund.  Op.  §  5)  evidently  implying  that  this  inde- 
 
 a  The  famous  passage,  ii.  12-20,  has  been  very  fre- 
 quently regarded,  both  in  early  and  motlern  times,  as 
 a  prophecy  of  the  Passion  of  Christ,  "  the  child  of 
 God."  It  is  quoted  in  this  sense  by  Tertullian  (adv. 
 Marc.  iii.  22),  Cyprian  {Testim.  ii.  14),  Hippolytus 
 {Dem.  adv.  Jiid.  9),  Origeu  {Horn.  y\.  in  Ex.  1.),  and 
 many  later  Fathers,  and  Komish  interpreters  have 
 generally  followed  their  opinion.  It  seems  obvious, 
 however,  that  the  passage  contains  no  individual  ref- 
 erence ;  and  the  coincidences  which  exist  between  the 
 language  and  detiiils  in  the  Gospels  are  due  partly  to 
 
 terminate  matter  was  itself  uncreated.  Whatevei 
 attempts  may  be  made  to  bring  this  statenienvinto 
 harmony  with  the  dcjctrine  of  an  absolute  primal 
 creation,  it  is  evident  that  it  derives  its  form  from 
 Greece.  Scarcely  less  distinctly  heathen  is  the  con- 
 ception whicii  is  presented  of  the  body  as  a  mere 
 weiglit  and  clog  to  the  soul  (ix.  15 ;  contrast  2  Cor. 
 v.  1-4);  and  we  must  refer  to  .some  extra  Judaic 
 source  for  the  remarkable  doctrine  of  the  preexist- 
 ence  of  souls,  which  finds  unmistakalile  expression 
 in  viii.  20.  The  form,  indeed,  in  which  this  doc- 
 trine is  enunciated  diffirs  alike  from  that  given  by 
 Plato  and  by  Pliilo,  but  it  is  no  less  foreign  to  the 
 pure  Ileltrew  mode  of  thought.  It  is  more  in  ac- 
 cordance with  the  language  of  the  0.  T.  that  the 
 writer  represents  the  Spirit  of  God  as  filling  (i.  7) 
 and  inspiring  all  things  (xii.  1),  but  even  here  the 
 idea  of  "a  soul  of  the  world  "  seems  to  influence 
 his  thoughts;  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Divine  Providence  {Trp6voia,  xiv.  3, 
 xvii.  2;  comp.  Grimm,  ad  loc),  and  of  the  four 
 cardinal  virtues  (viii.  7,  aoocppocTwrj.,  (ppovriais,  Si- 
 Kaioavvy],  avSpeia),  which,  in  form  at  least,  show 
 the  efiect  of  Stoic  teaching.  There  is,  on  the  other 
 hand,  no  trace  of  the  characteristic  Christian  doc- 
 trine of  a  resurrection  of  the  body;  and  tlie  future 
 triumph  of  the  good  is  entirely  unconnected  with 
 any  revelation  of  a  personal  JNlessiah  "  (iii.  7,  8,  v. 
 16;  comp.  Grimm  on  i.  12,  iii.  7,  for  a  good  view 
 of  the  eschatology  of  the  book).  The  identification 
 of  the  tempter  (Gen.  iii.),  directly  or  indirectly, 
 with  the  devil,  as  the  liringer  "  of  death  into  the 
 world  '"  (ii.  2-3,  24),^is  the  most  remarkalile  develop- 
 ment of  Bil)lical  doctrine  which  the  book  contains; 
 and  this  pregnant  passage,  when  combined  with  the 
 earlier  declaration  as  to  the  action  of  man's  free 
 win  in  the  taking  of  evil  to  himself  (i.  12-16  (,  is  a 
 noble  example  of  the  living  power  of  the  I)ivine 
 teaching  of  the  0.  T.  in  the  face  of  other  influences. 
 It  is  also  in  this  point  that  the  Pseudo-Solomon 
 differs  most  widely  from  Philo,  who  recognizes  no 
 such  evil  power  in  the  world,  though  the  doctrine 
 must  have  been  well  known  at  Alexandria  (comp. 
 Gfriirer,  Pliilo,  etc.  ii.  2-38).''  The  subsequent  de- 
 liverance of  Adam  from  his  transgression  (cIciAaro 
 ainhv  4k  TrapavTWfjLaTos  ISiou)  is  attributed  to 
 \Visdoni ;  and  it  appears  that  we  must  understand 
 liy  this,  not  the  scheme  of  I'ivine  Providence,  but 
 that  wisdom,  given  by  God  to  man,  which  is  im- 
 mortality (viii.  17).  Generally,  too,  it  may  be  ob- 
 served that,  as  in  the  cognate  books,  Pro\erbs  and 
 I'xclesiastes,  there  are  few  traces  of  the  recognition 
 of  the  sinfulness  even  of  the  wise  man  in  his 
 wisdom,  which  forms,  in  the  Psalms  and  the 
 Prophets,  the  basis  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
 atonement  (yet  comp.  xv.  2).  \\'ith  regard  to  the 
 interpretation  of  the  O.  T.,  it  is  worthy  of  notice 
 that  a  typical  significance  is  assumed  to  underlie 
 the  historic  details  (xvi.  1,  xviii.  4,  5,  etc.);  and 
 in  one  most  remarkable  passage  (xviii.  24)  the  high- 
 
 the  0.  T.  passages  on  which  it  is  based,  and  partly  to 
 the  concurrence  of  each  typical  form  of  reproach  and 
 suffering  in  the  Lord's  Passion. 
 
 b  There  is  also  considerable  difference  between  the 
 sketch  of  the  rise  of  idolatry  in  Philo,  De  Monarch. 
 §  1-.3,  are  that  given  in  Wisd.  xiii.,xiv.  Other  differ- 
 ences are  pointed  out  by  Eichhorn,  Einl.  172  tf.  A 
 trace  of  the  cabbalistic  use  of  numbers  is  pointed  out 
 by  Ewald  in  the  twenty-one  attributes  of  Wisdom  (vii. 
 22,  IS). 
 
WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 
 
 354i 
 
 priestly  dress  is  expressly  descrilied  as  presenting  an 
 iniacre  of  tlie  Divine  glory  in  creation  and  in  the 
 patriarchal  covenant  —  an  explanation  which  is 
 found,  in  the  main,  hoth  in  I^iiilo  (Z>e  Vita  Mas. 
 ,§  12)  and  .losephus  {AnL  iii.  7,  §  7),  as  well  as  in 
 later  writers  (comp.  also  xvi.  G,  §  7).  In  connec- 
 tion with  the  O.  T.  Scriptures,  the  book,  as  a 
 whole,  may  l)e  regarded  as  carrying  on  one  step 
 further  tlie  great  pioblem  of  life  contained  in  Ec- 
 clesiastes  and  ,lob;  while  it  differs  from  both  Jbr- 
 vvdly  hy  tlie  admixture  of  Greek  elements,  and  doc- 
 tviiiiilUj  l)y  the  supreme  prominence  given  to  the 
 idea  of  immortality  as  the  vindication  of  Divine 
 justice  (comp.  below,  §  !)). 
 
 7.  Tlie  Doctrine  «/  Wisdom  —  It  would  be  im- 
 possible to  trace  here  in  detail  the  progressive  de- 
 velopment of  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom,  as  a  Divnie 
 Power  standing  in  some  sense  between  the  Creator 
 and  cre.ition,  yet  without  some  idea  of  tliis  history 
 no  correct  opinion  can  be  formed  on  the  position 
 whicii  the  booiv  of  the  Pseudo-Solomon  occupies  in 
 Jewish  literature.  The  foundation  of  the  doctrine 
 is  to  be  found  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  where  (viii.) 
 Wisdom  (K/iokiiiitli)  is  represented  as  present  with 
 God  Ijefore  (viii.  22)  and  during  the  creation  of  the 
 world.  So  far  it  appears  only  as  a  principle  regu- 
 lating the  action  of  tlie  Creator,  though  even  in  this 
 way  it  establislies  a  close  connection  between  the 
 world,  as  tlie  outward  expression  of  Wisilom,  and 
 God.  Moreover,  by  the  personification  of  Wisdom, 
 and  the  relation  of  Wisdom  to  men  (viii.  31),  a 
 preparation  is  made  for  the  extension  of  tlie  doc- 
 trine. This  a])pears,  after  a  long  interval,  in  Kc- 
 clesiasticus.  In  the  great  description  of  Wisdom 
 given  in  tiiat  book  (xxiv. ),  Wisdom  is  represented 
 as  a  creation  of  God  (xxiv.  9),  penetrating  the 
 whole  universe  (■!-(>),  and  taking  up  her  siiecial 
 abode  witli  the  chosen  people  (8-12).  Her  personal 
 existence  and  providential  function  are  thus  dis- 
 tinctly brought  out.  In  the  l5ook  of  Wisdom  the 
 conception  gains  yet  further  coiii[ileteness.  In  this, 
 Wisdom  is  ideiitifii'd  with  the  Spirit  of  God  (ix. 
 17) — an  identification  half  implied  in  Ecclus.  xxiv. 
 3  —  which  brooded  over  the  elements  of  the  un- 
 formed world  (ix.  9),  and  inspired  the  prophets 
 (vii.  7,  27).  She  is  tlie  power  which  unites  (i.  7) 
 and  directs  all  things  (viii.  1).  By  her,  in  especial, 
 men  have  fellowship  with  God  (xii.  1);  and  her 
 action  is  not  confined  to  any  period,  for  "  in  all 
 ages  entering  into  holy  souls,  she  maketh  them 
 friends  of  Gud  and  propliets  "  (vii.  27).  So  also 
 her  working,  in  tlie  providential  history  of  God's 
 people,  is  traced  at  length  (x.);  and  her  power  is 
 declared  to  reacii  beyond  the  world  of  man  into 
 that  of  spirits  (vii.  2o). 
 
 The  conception  of  Wisdom,  however  boldly  per- 
 sonified, yet  leaves  a  wide  chasm  between  tlie  world 
 and  tlie  Creator.  Wisdom  answers  to  tlie  idea  of 
 a  spirit  vivifying  and  uniting  all  things  in  all  time, 
 as  distinguished  from  any  special  outward  revela- 
 tion of  tlie  Divine  i'erson.  Thus  at  the  same  time 
 that  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  was  gradually  con- 
 structed, the  correlative  doctrine  of  the  D-ivine 
 Word  was  also  reduced  to  a  definite  shape.  The 
 Word  {Meiiiri),  the  Divine  expression,  as  it  was 
 understood  in  I'al-stine,  furnished  the  exact  com- 
 plement to  Wisdom,  the  Divine  thought;  but  the 
 aml)iiruity  of  the  (ireek  Lo/jnx  (.s-ez-mo,  ra/Zo)  intro- 
 duced coiisideralile  confusion  into  the  later  treat- 
 ment of  the  two  ideas.  Broadly,  however,  it  may 
 be  said  that  the  IVord  properly  represented  the 
 niediative  element  in  the  action  of  God,  ]Vis'loia 
 
 the  mediative  element  of  his  omnipresence.  Thus, 
 according  to  the  later  distinction  of  Philo,  Wisdom 
 corresponds  to  the  immnnent  Word  {\6yos  ivbiar 
 06To$),  while  the  Word,  strictly  speaking,  was  de- 
 fined as  enuitcialive  (Aoyos  ■Tpo<popiK6s)-  Both 
 ideas  are  included  in  the  language  of  the  prophets, 
 and  both  found  a  natural  development  in  Palestine 
 and  Egypt.  The  one  prepared  men  for  the  revela- 
 tion of  the  Son  of  God,  the  other  for  the  revelation 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
 The  book  of  the  Pseudo-Solomon,  which  gives 
 the  most  complete  view  of  Divhie  Wisdom,  contains 
 only  two  [lassages  in  which  the  Word  is  invested 
 with  the  attributes  of  personal  action  (xvi.  12,  xviii. 
 15;  ix.  1  is  of  different  character).  These,  however, 
 are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  the  two  powers  were 
 distinguished  by  the  writer;  and  it  has  been  com- 
 monly argued  that  the  superior  ])romiiieiice  given 
 in  the  book  to  the  conception  of  Wisdom  is  an  in- 
 dication of  a  date  anterior  to  Philo.  Nor  is  this 
 conclusion  unreasonable,  if  it  is  probably  established 
 on  independent  grounds  that  the  book  is  of  Alex- 
 andrine origin.  But  it  is  no  less  important  to  ob- 
 serve that  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  itself  is  no 
 proof  of  this.  There  is  nothing  in  the  direct  teach- 
 ing on  this  suliject  which  might  not  have  arisen  in 
 Palestine,  and  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  recur 
 to  the  more  special  traits  of  Alexandrine  thought 
 in  the  liook  which  have  been  noticed  before  (§  6) 
 for  the  primary  evidence  of  its  Alexandrine  origin; 
 and  starting  from  this  there  appeal's  to  be,  as  fivr  as 
 can  be  judged  from  the  imperfect  materials  at  our 
 command,  a  greater  affinity  in  the  J'orin  of  the  doc- 
 trine on  wisdom  to  the  teaching  of  Alexandria  than 
 to  that  of  Palestine  (comp.  Ewald,  G'esch.  iv.  548 
 ff. ;  Welte,  /Hid.  KJl  fF,,  has  some  good  criticisms 
 on  many  supposed  traces  of  .Alexandrine  doctrine  in 
 the  book,  but  errs  in  denying  all). 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Wisdom  passes  by  a 
 transition,  often  imperceptible,  to  that  of  human 
 wisdom,  which  is  derived  from  it.  This  embraces 
 not  only  the  whole  range  of  moral  and  spiritual 
 virtues,  but  also  the  various  branches  of  physical 
 knowledge.  [Comp.  Philosophy.]  In  this  aspect 
 the  enumeration  of  the  great  forms  of  natural 
 sdiience  in  vii.  17-20  (viii.  8),  offers  a  most  in- 
 structive subject  of  comparison  with  the  correspond- 
 ing passages  in  1  K.  iv.  32-3-t.  In  addition  to  the 
 subjects  on  which  Solomon  wrote  (Songs,  Proverbs: 
 Plants,  Beasts.  Fowls,  Creeping  Things,  Fishes), 
 (_;osinology.  Meteorology,  Astronomy,  Psychology, 
 and  even  the  elements  of  the  philosophy  of  history 
 (viii.  8),  are  included  among  the  siifts  of  Wisdom. 
 So  far  then  the  thoughtful  .lew  had  already  at  the 
 Christian  era  penetrated  into  the  domain  of  specu- 
 lation and  inquiry,  into  each  province,  it  would 
 seem,  which  was  then  recognized,  without  aliandon- 
 ing  the  simple  faith  of  his  nation.  The  fiict  itself 
 is  most  significant;  and  the  whole  book  may  be 
 quoted  as  furnishing  an  iniportaiit  corrective  to  the 
 later  Roman  descriptions  of  the  .lews,  which  were 
 drawn  from  the  people  when  they  had  been  almost 
 uncivilized  by  the  excitement  of  the  last  desperate 
 struggle  for  national  existence.  (For  detailed  refer- 
 ences to  the  chief  authorities  on  the  history  of  the 
 Jewish  doctrine  of  Wisdom,  see  Philosophy; 
 adding  Bruch,  Die  Weislitilslehre  dev  Hcbrder, 
 1851.) 
 
 8.  Place  mid  Bute  of  Writing.  —  Without  claim- 
 ing for  the  internal  indications  of  the  origin  of  the 
 book  a  decisive  force,  it  seems  most  reasonable  to 
 believe  on   these  grounds  that  it  was  composed  at 
 
3550 
 
 WISDOM,  THE.  OF  SOLOMON 
 
 Alexandria  some  time  before  the  time  of  Philo  (cir. 
 120-80  B.  c.)-  This  opinion  in  the  main,  thougli 
 the  conjectural  date  varies  from  150-50  b.  c.  or 
 even  beyond  these  limits,  is  held  by  Heydenreich, 
 Gfri'irer,  Bauernieister,  Ewald,  Bruch,  and  Grimm ; 
 and  other  features  in  the  book  go  far  to  confirm  it. 
 ^^■itllout  entering  into  the  question  of  the  extent  of 
 the  Hellenistic  element  at  Jerusalem  in  the  last 
 century  b.  c,  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  there 
 is  not  the  slightest  evidence  for  the  existence  there 
 of  so  wide  an  acquaintance  with  Greek  modes  of 
 thought,  and  so  complete  a  command  of  the  re- 
 sources of  the  Greek  language,  as  is  shown  in  the 
 book  of  Wisdom.  Alexandria  was  the  only  place 
 where  .ludaisni  and  Philosophy,  both  of  the  east 
 and  west,  came  into  natural  and  close  connection. 
 It  appears  further  that  the  mode  in  which  Egyptian 
 idolatry  is  spoken  of,  must  be  due  in  some  degree 
 to  the  influence  of  present  and  living  antagonism, 
 and  not  to  the  contemplation  of  past  history.  This 
 is  particularly  evident  in  the  great  force  laid  upon 
 the  details  of  the  ]"]gyptian  animal  worship  (xv.  18, 
 etc  ) ;  and  the  description  of  the  condition  of  the 
 Jewish  settlers  in  Egypt  (xix.  14-16)  applies  lietter 
 to  colonists  fixed  at  Alexandria  on  the  conditions 
 of  equality  by  the  first  Ptolemies,  than  to  the  im- 
 mediate descendants  of  Jacob.  It  may,  indeed,  lie 
 said  justly,  that  the  local  coloring  of  the  latter  part 
 of  the  book  is  conclusive  as  to  the  place  of  its  com- 
 position. But  all  the  guesses  which  have  been 
 made  as  to  its  authorship  are  absolutely  valueless. 
 The  earliest  was  that  mentioned  by  Jerome,  which 
 assigned  it  to  Philo  (Prwf.  in  Lib.  Snl.  "  Nonnulli 
 scriptorum  vetennu  huncesse  Judjei  Philonisaffirni- 
 ant  ").  There  can  be  no  doulit  that  the  later  and 
 famous  Philo  was  intended  by  this  designation, 
 though  Jerome  in  his  account  of  him  makes  no  ref- 
 erence to  the  belief  (De  vir.  {Ihisir.  xi.).  Many 
 later  writers,  including  Luther  and  Gerhard, 
 adopted  this  view;  but  the  variations  in  teaching, 
 which  have  been  already  noticed,  effectually  prove 
 that  it  is  unfounded.  Otiiers,  therefore,  have  im- 
 agined that  the  name  was  correct,  but  that  the 
 elder  Philo  was  intended  by  it  (G.  Wernsdorft',  and 
 in  a  modified  form  Huet  and  Bellarniin).  But  of 
 this  elder  Jewish  Philo  it  is  simply  known  that  he 
 wrote  a  poem  on  Jerusalem."  Lutterbeck  suggested 
 Aristobulus.  [Akistobulus.]  Eichhorn,  Zeller, 
 Jost,  and  several  others  supposed  that  the  author 
 was  one  of  the  TherapeutiE,  but  here  the  positive 
 evidence  against  the  conjecture  is  stronger,  for  the 
 book  contains  no  trace  of  the  ascetic  discipline 
 which  was  of  the  essence  of  the  Therapeutic  teach- 
 ing. The  oi)inion  of  some  later  critics  that  tlie 
 book  is  of  Christian  origin  (Kirschbauni,  C.  K. 
 Weisse),  or  even  definitely  the  work  of  Apollos 
 (Noack),  is  still  more  perverse;  for  not  only  does  it 
 not  contain  the  slightest  trace  of  the  tliree  cardinal 
 truths  of  Christianity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Atone- 
 ment, the  Kesurrection  of  tlie  body,  but  it  even 
 leaves  no  room  for  them  by  the  general  tenor  of  its 
 teaching.'' 
 
 a  The  conjecture  of  J.  Faber,  that  the  book  was 
 written  by  Zerubbabel,  who  rightly  assumed  the  char- 
 acter of  a  secoud  Solomon,  is  only  worth  mentionin: 
 as  a  specimen  of  misplaced  ingenuity  (comp.  Welti 
 Einl.  p.  191  ft'.).  Augustine  himself  corrected  the  mis- 
 take by  which  he  attributed  it  to  Jesus  the  .son  of 
 Sirach. 
 
 b  Vt.  Tregelles  has  given  a  new  turn  to  tliis  opinion 
 by  8Uppo.sirig  that  the  book  may  have  been  written  by 
 
 9.  TlisUn-y.  —  The  history  of  the  book  is  ex- 
 tremely obscure.  There  is  no  trace  of  tlie  use  of  it 
 before  the  Christian  era,  but  this  could  not  he 
 otherwise  if  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  its 
 date  be  correct.  It  is  perhaps  more  surprising  that 
 Philo  does  not  (as  it  seems)  show  any  knowledge 
 of  it,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  if  his  writings  are 
 carefully  examined  with  this  object,  some  allusions 
 to  it  may  be  found  which  have  hitherto  escaped  ob- 
 servation. On  the  other  hand,  it  can  scarcely  be 
 doubted  that  St.  Paul,  if  not  other  of  the  Apostolic 
 writers,  was  familiar  with  its  language,  though  he 
 makes  no  definite  quotation  from  it  (the  supposed 
 reference  in  Luke  xi.  49  to  Wisd.  ii.  12-14,  is 
 wholly  unlbunded).  Thus  we  have  strildng  paral- 
 lels in  Rom.  ix.  21  to  Wi.sd.  xv.  7;  in  Itom.  ix.  22 
 to  Wisd.  xii.  20;  in  Eph.  vi.  13-17  to  Wisd.  v. 
 17-19  (the  heavenly  armor),  etc.  The  coincidences 
 in  thought  or  language  which  occur  in  other  books 
 of  the  N.  T.,  if  they  stood  alone,  would  be  insuffi- 
 cient to  establish  a  direct  connection  between  them 
 and  the  Book  of  Wisdom ;  and  even  in  the  case  of 
 St.  Paul,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  his  ac- 
 quaintance witii  the  book  may  not  have  been  gained 
 rather  orally  than  by  direct  study.  The  same  re- 
 mark applies  to  a  coincidence  of  language  in  the 
 epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  pointed  out 
 by  (irimm  [Ad  Cor.  i.  27;  Wisd.  xi.  22,  xii.  12); 
 so  that  the  first  clear  references  to  the  book  occur 
 not  earlier  than  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
 According  to  Eusebius  (//.  F.  v.  2G),  Irena'us 
 made  use  of  it  (and  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Helirews)  in 
 a  lost  work,  and  in  a  passage  of  his  great  work 
 (ndv.  Hmr.  iv.  38,  3),  Irena?us  silently  adopts  a 
 characteristic  clause  from  it  (Wisd.  vi.  19,  a<pQap- 
 ffia  Se  iyyvs  dvai  woifT  deot')-  From  the  time  of 
 (•lenient  of  Alexandria  the  book  is  constantly  quoted 
 as  an  inspired  work  of  Solomon,  or  as  "  Scripture," 
 even  by  those  Fathers  who  denied  its  assumed  au- 
 thorship, and  it  gained  a  place  in  the  Canon  (to- 
 gether with  the  other  Apocryphal  books)  at  the 
 Council  of  Carthage,  cir.  397  A.  D.  (for  detailed 
 references  see  C.\non,  vol.  i.  pp.  364,  366).  From 
 this  time  its  history  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
 other  Apocryphal  books  up  to  the  period  of  the 
 lieformation.  In  the  controversies  wiiich  arose 
 then  its  intrinsic  excellence  commanded  the  admi- 
 ration of  those  who  refused  it  a  place  among  the 
 canonical  books  (so  Luther  np.  Grimm,  §  2).  Pel- 
 lican  directly  affirmed  its  inspiration  ((iriunn,  /.  c); 
 and  it  is  quoted  as  Scripture  in  both  the  books  of 
 Homilies  (pp.  98-99  :  174,  ed.  1850).  In  later 
 times  the  various  estimates  w-hieh  have  been  formed 
 of  the  book  have  been  intiueneed  l)y  controversial 
 prejudices.  In  England,  like  the  rest  of  the  Apoc- 
 rypha, it  has  been  most  strangely  neglected,  though 
 it  furnishes  several  lessons  for  Church  I'estivals. 
 It  seems,  indeed,  impossible  to  study  the  book  dis- 
 passionately, au<l  not  feel  that  it  forms  one  of  the 
 last  links  in  the  chain  of  providential  connection 
 between  the  Old  and  New  Covenants.  How  far  it 
 falls  short  of  Christian  truth,  or  rather  how  com- 
 
 a  Christian  (otherwise  unknown)  named  Philo  In 
 support  of  this  he  suggests  an  ingenious  conjectural 
 emendation  of  a  corrupt  passage  of  the  Aluratoriau 
 Canon.  Where  the  Latin  text  reads  el  Sapientia  ab 
 ainicis  Salomonis  in  honorem  ipsiiis  .''crip/a,  he  imagines 
 the  original  Greek  may  have  read,  koI  17  2oc/>ia  2oAo- 
 HMorTos  uTTO  ^I'Auro;  (for  urrb  tpiXiav)  ....  Or  again, 
 that  Jerome  so  misread  the  passage  (Journal  of  Pliilol. 
 1855,  p  37  ff.). 
 
WISE  MEN 
 
 pletely  silent  it  is  on  tiie  essential  doctrines  of 
 Christianity,  has  been  already  seen  ;  and  yet  Chris- 
 tianity offers  the  only  complete  solution  to  the 
 problems  which  it  raises  in  its  teaching  on  the  im- 
 mortality of  man,  on  future  judnment,  on  the  cath- 
 olicity of  the  divine  Church,  and  the  speciality  of 
 Revelation.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  find  elsewhere 
 any  pre-Christian  view  of  religion  equally  wide, 
 sustained,  and  definite.  The  writer  seems  to  have 
 looked  to  the  east  and  west,  to  the  philosophy  of 
 Persia  and  Greece,  and  to  have  gathered  from  both 
 what  they  contained  of  Divine  truth,  and  yet  to 
 have  clung  with  no  less  zeal  tliau  liis  lathers  to  that 
 central  revelation  which  God  made  first  to  jMoses, 
 and  then  carried  on  by  the  O.  T.  prophets.  Thus 
 in  some  sense  the  book  becomes  a  landmark  by 
 which  we  may  partially  fix  the  natural  limits  of  the 
 development  of  Jewish  doctrine  when  brought  into 
 contact  with  heathen  doctrine,  and  measure  the 
 aspirations  which  were  thus  raised  before  their 
 great  fulfilhnent.  The  teaching  of  the  book  upon 
 immortality  has  left  inefRiceable  traces  npon  the 
 language  of  Christendom.  Tlie  noble  phrase  which 
 speaks  of  a  "  hope  full  of  immortality  "  (Wisd.  iii. 
 4).  can  never  be  lost;  and  in  mediasval  art  few 
 symljols  are  more  striking  than  that  which  repre- 
 sents in  outward  form  that  "  the  souls  of  the  right- 
 eous are  in  the  hand  of  God  "  (Wisd.  iii.  1). 
 Other  passages  less  familiar  are  scarcely  less  beau- 
 tiful when  seen  in  the  light  of  Ciiristianity,  as  xv. 
 3,  "To  know  Thee  (O  God)  is  perfect  righteous- 
 ness; yea,  to  know  Thy  power  is  the  root  of  im- 
 mortality "  (comp.  viii.  13,  17;  St.  John  :rt'ii.  3), 
 or  xi.  26,  "Thou  sparest  all:  for  they  are  thine, 
 0  Lord,  thou  lover  of  souls  "  (comp.  xii.  16);  and 
 many  detached  expressions  anticipate  the  langnage 
 of  the  Apostles  (iii.  9,  x"P'J  k"-^  eAeos;  iii.  U, 
 TTJs  TTtffTfoos  X"P'^  iKKiKTTi ',  xi.  23,  Trapopas  a/xap- 
 ri]jj.aTa  avOpdnroiv  ill  n^rdvoiaVi  xvi.  7,  5ta  ere 
 rhv  iravTwv  aaiTripa)- 
 
 10.  Coinmeniaries.  —  The  earliest  commentary 
 which  remains  is  that  of  Rabanus  Maurus  (t  85G), 
 who  undertook  the  work,  as  he  says  in  his  preface, 
 because  he  was  not  acquainted  with  any  complete 
 exposition  of  the  book.  It  is  nncertain  from  his 
 language  whether  the  homilies  of  Augustine  and 
 Ambrose  existed  in  his  time:  at  least  they  have 
 now  been  long  lost.  Of  the  Roman  Catholic  com- 
 mentaries the  most  important  are  those  of  Lorinus 
 (t  1031),  Corn,  a  Lapide  (f  1037),  Maklonatus 
 (t  1583),  Calmet  (f  1757),  J.  A.  Schmid  (1858). 
 Of  otlier  commentaries,  the  chief  are  those  by  Gro- 
 tius  (t  1615),  Heydenreich,  Bauermeister  (1828), 
 and  Grimm  (1837).  The  last-mentioned  scholar 
 has  also  published  a  new  and  admirable  commentary 
 in  tlie  Kurzr/ef.  Exe;/.  Ilaiidb.  zii  d.  Apok.  1800, 
 which  contains  ample  references  to  earlier  writers, 
 and  only  errs  by  excess  of  fullness.  Tlie  English 
 coLnmentary  of  K.  Arnald  (t  1750)  is  extremely  dif- 
 fuse, but  includes  much  illustrative  matter,  and 
 shows  a  regard  for  the  variations  of  MSS.  and 
 versions  which  was  most  unusual  at  the  time.  A 
 good  luiglish  edition,  however,  is  still  to  be  de- 
 sired. B.  F.  W. 
 
 *  WISE  MEN,  Matt.  ii.  1.  [Magi;  Star 
 OP  THE  Wise  Men.] 
 
 *  WIST— "knew"  (Ex.  xvi.  15;    Mark  ix. 
 
 6).  It  is  from  the  A.-S.  witan,  in  Germ,  toissen. 
 See  Wit,  Wot.  II. 
 
 *  WIT,  from  the  A.-S.  ivilan  =  " to  know" 
 
 WITNESS  3551 
 
 (Gen.  xxiv.  21;  Ex.  ii.  4).     Hence,  "  to  do  to  iv'U" 
 (2  Cor.  viii.  1)  is  "  to  cause  to  know."  H. 
 
 WITCH,  WITCHCRAFTS.     [Magic] 
 *  WITHERED  HAND.     [Mkdicijje,  vol. 
 iii.  p.  1800.] 
 
 WITNESS-"  Among  people  with  whom  writ- 
 ing is  not  common,  the  evidence  of  a  transaction  is 
 given  by  some  tangible  memorial  or  significant  cere- 
 mony. Abraham  gave  seven  ewe-lambs  to  Abime- 
 lech  as  an  evidence  of  his  property  in  the  well  of 
 Beer-sheba.  Jacob  raised  a  heap  of  stones,  "  the 
 heap  of  witness,"  as  a  boundarj'-mark  between  him- 
 self and  Laban  (Gen.  xxi.  30,  xxxi.  47,  52).  The 
 tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad  raised  an  "  altar,"  de- 
 signed expre-^sly  not  for  sacrifice,  but  as  a  witness 
 to  the  covenant  between  themselves  and  the  rest  of 
 the  nation ;  Joshua  set  up  a  stone  as  an  evidence 
 of  the  allegiance  promised  by  Isr.ael  to  God;  "  for," 
 he  said,  "  it  hath  heard  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  " 
 (Josh.  xxii.  10,  20,  34,  xxiv.  20,  27).  So  also  a 
 pillnr  is  mentioned  by  Isaiah  as  "  a  witness  to  the 
 Lord  of  Hosts  in  the  land  of  Egypt  "  (Is.  xix.  19, 
 20).  Thus  also  the  sacred  ark  and  its  contents  are 
 called  "  the  Testimony  "  (Ex.  xVi.  33,  34,  xxv.  16, 
 xxxviii.  21;  Num.  i.  50,  53,  ix.  15,  x.  11,  xvii.  7, 
 8,  xviii.  2;  Heb.  ix.  4). 
 
 Thus  also  s}Tnbolical  usages,  in  ratification  of 
 contracts  or  completed  arrangements,  as  the  cere- 
 mony of  shoe-loosing  (Ueut.  xxv.  9,  10;  Ruth  iv. 
 7,  8),  the  ordeal  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  sus- 
 pected wife,  with  which  may  be  compared  the 
 ordeal  of  the  Styx  (Num.  v.  17-31;  Cliss.  Mvs. 
 vi.  380).  The  Bedouin  Arabs  practice  a  fiery 
 ordeal  in  certain  cases  by  way  of  compurgation 
 (Burckhardt,  iVojes,  i.  121  ;  Layard,  Niii.  and 
 B(i/j.  p.  305).  The  ceremony  also  appointed  at 
 the  oblation  of  first-fruits  may  be  mentioned  as 
 partaking  of  the  same  character  (Dent.  xxvi.  4). 
 [Fikst-Fkuits.] 
 
 But  written  evidence  was  by  no  means  unkno\vn 
 to  the  Jews.  Divorce  was  to  be  proved  by  a  writ- 
 ten document  (Dent.  xxiv.  1,  3),  whereas  among 
 Bedouins  and  Mussulmans  in  general  a  spoken  sen- 
 tence is  sufficient  (Burckhardt,  Notes,  i.  110;  Sale, 
 Koran,  c.  33,  p.  348;  Lane,  Mod.  E;j.  i.  136,  236). 
 In  civil  contracts,  at  least  in  later  times,  docu- 
 mentary evidence  was  required  and  carefully  pre- 
 served (Is.  viii.  10;  Jer.  xxxii.  10-10). 
 
 On  the  whole  the  Law  was  very  careful  to  pro- 
 vide and  enforce  evidence  for  all  its  infractions  and 
 all  transactions  bearing  on  them :  e.  y.  the  memo- 
 rial stones  of  Jordan  and  of  Ebal  (Dent,  xxvii.  2- 
 4;  Josh.  iv.  9,  viii.  30);  the  fringes  on  garments 
 (Num.  XV.  39,  40);  the  boundary-stones  of  prop- 
 erty (Dent.  xix.  14,  xxvii.  17;  Prov.  xxii.  28);  the 
 "  broad  plates  "  made  from  the  censers  of  the  Ko- 
 rahites  (Num.  xvi.  38);  above  all,  the  Ark  of  Tes- 
 timony itself:  all  these  are  instances  of  the  care 
 taken  by  the  Legislator  to  perpetuate  evidence  oi 
 the  facts  on  which  the  legislation  was  founded,  and 
 by  which  it  was  supported  (Deut.  vi.  20-25). 
 Appeal  to  the  same  principle  is  also  repeatedly 
 made  in  the  case  of  prophecies  as  a  test  of  their 
 authenticity  (Dent,  xviii.  22;  Jer.  xxviii.  9,16,  17; 
 John  iii.  11,  v.  30,  x.  38,  xiv.  11;  Luke  xxiv.  48; 
 Acts  i.  3,  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  &c.). 
 
 Among  special  piovisiuns  of  the  Law  with  re- 
 spect to  evidence  are  the  following:  — 
 
 a   "737,    mp  f.  :    fidpTVi :    testis  :  used  both  of 
 persons  and  things. 
 
3552 
 
 WIZARD 
 
 1.  Two  witnesses  at  least  are  required  to  estab- 
 lish any  charge  (Num.  xxxv.  30;  Deut.  xvii.  G, 
 xix.  15;  1  K.  xxi.  13;  John  viii.  17;  2  Cor.  xiii. 
 1;  Heb.  x.  28);  and  a  like  principle  is  laid  down 
 by  St.  Paul  as  a  rule  of  procedure  in  certain  cases 
 in  the  Christian  Cluircli  (1   Tim.  v.  19). 
 
 2.  In  the  case  of  the  suspected  wife,  evidence 
 besides  the  husband's  was  desired,  though  not  de- 
 manded (Num.  V.  13). 
 
 3.  The  witness  who  withheld  the  truth  was  cen- 
 sured (Lev.  V.  1). 
 
 4.  False  witness  was  punished  with  the  punish- 
 ment due  to  the  offense  which  it  sought  to  estab- 
 lish.    [Oaths.] 
 
 5.  Slanderous  reports  and  officious  witness  are 
 discouraged  (Ex.  xx.  10,  xxiii.  1;  Lev.  xix.  16,  18; 
 Deut.  xix.  16-21;  Prov.  xxiv.  28). 
 
 6.  The  witnesses  were  the  first  executioners 
 (Deut.  xiii.  9,  xvii.  7;  Acts  vii.  58). 
 
 7.  In  case  of  an  animal  left  in  charge  and  torn 
 by  wild  beasts,  the  keeper  was  to  bring  the  carcase 
 in  proof  of  the  fact  and  disproof  of  his  own  crimi- 
 nality (Ex.  xxii.  13). 
 
 8.  According  to  Josephus,  women  and  slaves 
 were  not  admitted  to  bear  testimony  (Ant.  iv.  8, 
 §  15).  To  these  exceptions  the  Mishna  adds  idiots, 
 deaf,  blind,  and  dumb  persons,  persons  of  infamous 
 character,  and  some  others,  ten  in  all  (Selden,  (If 
 Syjiedr.  ii.  13,  11;  Otho,  Lex.  Rabb.  p.  653). 
 The  high-priest  was  not  bound  to  give  evidence  in 
 any  case  except  one  affecting  the  king  (ibid.).  Va- 
 rious refinements  on  the  quality  of  evidence  and 
 the  manner  of  taking  it  are  given  in  the  Mishna 
 (Sanhedr.  iv.  5,  v.  2,  3;  Maccoth,  i.  1,  9;.  Slieh. 
 iii.  10,  iv.  1,  V.  1).  In  criminal  cases  evidence 
 was  required  to  be  oral;  in  pecuniary,  written  evi- 
 dence was  allowed  (Otho,  Lex.  Rabb.  p.  653). 
 
 In  the  N.  T.  the  original  notion  of  a  witness  is 
 exhibited  in  the  special  form  of  one  who  attests  his 
 belief  in  the  Gospel  by  personal  suffering.  So  St. 
 Stephen  is  styled  by  St.  Paul  (Acts  xxii.  20),  and 
 the  "  faithful  Antipas  "  (Rev.  ii.  13).  St.  John 
 also  speaks  of  himself  and  of  others  as  witnesses  in 
 this  sense  (Kev.  i.  9,  vi.  9,  xi.  3,  xx.  4).  See  also 
 Heb.  xi.  and  xii.  1,  in  which  passage  a  number  of 
 persons  are  mentioned,  belonging  both  to  O.  T.  and 
 N.  T.  who  bore  witness  to  the  truth  by  personal 
 endurance;  and  to  this  passage  may  be  added,  as 
 bearing  on  the  same  view  of  the  term  "witness," 
 Dan.  iii.  21,  vi.  16 :  1  Mace.  i.  60,  63 ;  2  Mace, 
 vi.  18,  19.  Hence  it  is  that  the  use  of  the  eccle- 
 siastical term  "  IMartyr  "  has  arisen,  of  which  co- 
 pious illustration  may  be  seen  in  Suicer,  T/ies.  vol. 
 ii.  p.  310,  &c.     [Mautyu,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 H.  W.  P. 
 
 WIZARD.     [Magic] 
 
 *  WOE  WORTH  (Ez.  xxx.  2)  is  equivalent 
 to  "  woe  be,"  /.  e.  to  the  day  of  which  the  propiiet 
 speaks.  Wai-ih,  from  the  Anglo-Saxon,  means 
 "  to  be  "  or  "  become,"  like  loerden  in  German. 
 
 H. 
 
 WOLF  (^WT,  zeeb:  \vkos'  lupus).  There 
 can  be  little  doubt  that  the  wolf  of  Palestine  is  the 
 common  Cunis  lupus,  and  that  this  is  the  animal 
 so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  though  it  is 
 true  that  we  lack  precise  information  with  regard  to 
 the  Canidm  of  Palestine.  Hemprich  and  I'lhrenberg 
 have  described  a  few  species,  as,  for  instance,  the 
 Canis  Syriacus  and  the  C.  (  V^ulpes)  Nilo/icws  (see 
 figures  in  art.  Fox,  i.  840  f.);  and  Col.  Hamilton 
 Smith   mentions,  under  the  name  of  derbuwi,  a 
 
 WOMEN 
 
 species  of  l)lack  wolf,  as  occurring  in  Arabia  and 
 Southern  Syria;  but  nothing  definite  seems  to  be 
 known  of  tliis  animal.  Wolves  were  doubtless  far 
 more  common  in  Biblical  times  than  they  are  now, 
 tliougli  they  are  occasionally  seen  by  modern  trav 
 ellers  (see  Kitto's  P/njsical  History  of  Pide.i/ine, 
 p.  304,  and  Hussell's  Nat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo,  ii.  184): 
 "  the  wolf  seldom  ventures  so  near  the  city  as  the 
 fox,  but  is  sometimes  seen  at  a  distance  by  the 
 sportsmen  among  the  hilly  grounds  in  the  neigh- 
 borhood ;  and  the  villages,  as  well  as  the  herds, 
 often  suffer  from  them.  It  is  called  deeb  in  Arabic, 
 and  is  common  all  over  Syria." 
 
 The  following  are  the  Scriptural  allusions  to  the 
 wolf:  Its  ferocity  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xlix.  27 ; 
 Ez.  xxii.  27;  Ilab.  i.  8;  Matt.  vii.  15:  its  noc- 
 turnal habits,  in  Jer.  v.  6;  Zeph.  iii.  3;  Hab.  i.  8: 
 its  attacking  siieep  and  lambs,  John  x.  12;  Matt, 
 x.  10;  Luke  x.  3.  Isaiah  (xi.  6,  Ixv.  25)  foretells 
 the  peaceful  reign  of  the  Messiah  under  tiie  meta- 
 phor of  a  wolf  dwelling  with  a  lamb;  cruel  perse- 
 cutors are  compared  with  wolves  (Matt.  x.  16 ;  Acts 
 XX.  29). 
 
 Wolves,  lilce  many  other  animals,  are  subject  to 
 variation  in  color ;  the  common  color  is  gray  with 
 a  tinting  of  fawn  and  long  black  hairs;  the  variety 
 most  frequent  in  Southern  Europe  and  the  Pyrenees 
 is  black;  the  wolf  of  Asia  Minor  is  more  tawny 
 than  those  of  the  common  color. 
 
 The  people  of  Nubia  and  Fgypt  apply  the  term 
 dieb  to  the  Cains  antlnis,  Fr.  Cuv.  (see  lUippell's 
 Atlas  zu  der  Reise  im  Nordlichen  Africa,  p.  46); 
 this,  however,  is  a  jackal,  and  seems  to  be  the 
 Lupus  Syriacus,  which  Hemp,  and  Ehrenb.  noticed 
 in  Syria,  and  identical  with  the  "  Egyptian  wolf" 
 figured  by  Ham.  Smith  in  Kitto's  Cycl. 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 WOMEN.  The  position  of  women  in  the 
 Hebrew  commonwealth  contrasts  favorably  with 
 that  which  in  the  present  day  is  assigned  to  them 
 generally  in  eastern  countries.  The  social  equality 
 of  the  two  sexes  is  most  fully  implied  in  the  history 
 of  the  original  creation  of  the  woman,  as  well  as  in 
 the  name  assigned  to  her  by  the  man,  which  dif- 
 fered from  his  own  only  in  its  feminine  termination 
 (Gen.  ii.  18-23).  This  narrative  is  hence  effect- 
 ively appealed  to  as'  supplying  an  argument  for 
 enforcing  the  duties  of  the  husband  towards  the 
 wife  (Eph.  v.  28-31).  Many  usages  of  early  times 
 interfered  with  the  preservation  of  this  theoretical 
 equality:  we  may  instance  the  existence  of  polyg- 
 amy, the  autocratic  powers  vested  in  the  head  of  the 
 family  under  tiie  patriarchal  system,  and  the  treat- 
 ment of  captives.  Nevertheless  a  high  tone  was 
 maintained  generally  on  this  subject  by  the  Mosaic 
 Law,  and,  as  tVir  as  we  have  the  means  of  judging, 
 by  the  force  of  public  opinion. 
 
 The  most  salient  point  of  contrast  in  the  usages 
 of  ancient  as  compared  with  modern  oriental  society 
 was  the  large  amount  of  liberty  enjoyed  by  women. 
 Instead  of  l)eing  immured  in  a  harem,  or  appear- 
 ing in  pulilic  with  the  face  covered,  the  wives  and 
 maidens  of  ancient  times  mingled  freely  and  openly 
 with  the  other  sex  in  the  duties  and  amenities  of 
 ordinary  life.  Kebekah  travelled  on  a  camel  with 
 her  face  unveiled,  until  she  came  into  the  presence 
 of  her  affianced  (Gen.  xxiv.  64,  65).  Jacob  saluted 
 Kachel  with  a  kiss  in  the  presence  of  the  shepherds 
 (Gen.  xxix.  II).  Each  of  these  maidens  was  en- 
 gaged in  active  employment,  the  former  in  fetcliing 
 water  from  the  well,  the  latter  in  tending  her  flock. 
 Sarah  wore  no  veil  in  Egypt,  and  yet  tliis  formed 
 
WOMEN 
 
 no  ground  for  supposint;  her  to  be  married  (Gen. 
 xii.  1-1-19).  An  oiitran;e  on  a  maiden  in  the  open 
 field  was  visitwl  with  the  severest  punislinient 
 (Deut.  xxii.  25-27),  provins;  tliat  it  was  not  deemed 
 improper  for  her  to  go  about  unpi'otected.  Furtlier 
 tlian  this,  women  played  no  inconsiderable  part  in 
 pulilic  celebrations:  Miriam  headed  a  band  of 
 women  who  commemorated  witii  song  and  dance 
 the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians  (Kx.  xv.  20,  21); 
 Jephthah's  daugliter  gave  her  fatlier  a  triumphal 
 reception  (.ludg.  xi.  34);  tlse  maidens  of  Shiloh 
 danced  publicly  in  the  vineyards  at  the  yearly  feast 
 (Jndg.  xxi.  21);  and  the  women  feted  Saul  and 
 David,  on  their  return  from  the  defeat  of  the  Phi- 
 listines, with  singing  and  dancing  (1  Sam.  xviii.  G, 
 7).  Tbe  odes  of  Deljorah  (-ludg.  v.)  and  of  Han- 
 nah (1  Sam.  ii.  1,  etc.)  exhil)it  a  degree  of  intel- 
 lectual cultivation  which  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  the 
 position  of  the  sex  in  that  period.  Women  also 
 occasionally  held  pulilic  offices,  particularly  that  of 
 prophetess  or  inspired  teacher,  as  instanced  in 
 Miriam  (Ex.  xv.  20).  Tluldah  (2  K.  xxii.  14), 
 Noadiah  (Neh,  vi.  14),  Anna  (Luke  ii.  30),  and 
 above  all  Deborah,  who  ap])lied  her  prophetical  gift 
 to  the  administration  of  public  atfliirs,  and  was  so 
 entitled  to  be  styled  a  "judge"  (.ludsr.  iv.  4). 
 The  active  part  taken  by  .lezeliel  in  the  government 
 of  Israel  (1  K.  xviii.  13,  xxi.  2.5),  and  the  usurpa- 
 tion of  tbe  throne  of  .hidah  by  Athsiliah  (2  K  xi. 
 3),  further  attest  the  latitude  allowed  to  women  in 
 public  life. 
 
 The  manactement  of  household  affairs  devolved  j 
 mainly  on  the  women.  They  bronrtht  the  water 
 from  the  well  ((len.  xxiv.  15;  1  Sam.  ix.  11), 
 attended  to  the  flocks  ((ien.  xxix.  6,  etc.;  Ex.  ii. 
 16),  prepared  the  meals  (Gen.  xviii.  6;  2  Sam.  xiii. 
 8),  and  occupied  their  leisure  hours  in  spinning 
 (Ex.  XXXV.  26;  Prov.  xxxi.  19)  and  making  clothes, 
 either  for  the  u,se  of  the  family  (1  Sam.  ii.  19; 
 Prov.  xxxi.  21),  for  sale  (Prov.  xxxi.  14,  24),  or 
 for  charity  (.\cts  ix.  39).  The  value  of  a  virtuous 
 and  active  housewife  forms  a  frequent  topic  in  the 
 book  of  Proverlis  (xi.  16,  xii.  4,  xiv.  1,  xxxi.  10, 
 etc.).  Her  influence  was  of  course  proportionably 
 great;  and.  where  there  was  no  second  wife,  slie 
 controlled  the  arrangements  of  the  house,  to  the 
 extent  of  inviting  or  receiving  guests  on  her  own 
 motion  (Indg.  iv.  18;  1  Sam.  xxv.  18,  etc.;  2  K. 
 iv.  8,  etc.).  The  effect  of  polygamy  was  to  transfer 
 female  influence  from  the  wives  to  the  mother,  as 
 is  incideiit.ally  shown  in  the  application  of  the  term 
 gebireh  (liter.ally  meaning  powerful)  to  the  queen 
 mother  (1  K.  ii.  19.  xv.  13;  2  K.  x.  13,  xxiv.  12; 
 Jer.  xiii.  18,  xxix.  2).  Polygamy  also  necessitated 
 a  separate  estalilishment  for  the  wives  collectively, 
 or  for  each  individually.  Thus  in  the  palace  of 
 the  Persian  monarch  there  was  a  "  house  of  the 
 women "  (Esth.  ii.  9)  which  was  guarded  by 
 eunuchs  (ii.  3):  in  Solomon's  palace  the  harem 
 was  connected  with,  but  separate  from,  the  rest  of 
 the  i)uilding  (1  K.  vii.  8);  and  on  journeys  each 
 wife  had  her  separate  tent  ((ien.  xxxi.  33).  In 
 such  cases  it  is  probable  that  the  females  took  their 
 meals  apart  from  the  males  (Esth.  i.  9);  but  we 
 have  no  reason  to  conclude  tliat  tlie  separate  system 
 prevailed  <;enerallv  among  tlie  .lews.  The  women 
 were  present  at  festivals,  either  as  attendants  on 
 the  guests  (.lohn  xii.  2),  or  as  themselves  guests 
 (.Job  i.  4:  .John  ii.  3);  and  hence  there  is  good 
 ground  for  concluding  that  on  ordinary  occasions 
 also  they  joined  the  males  at  meals,  though  there  is 
 no  positive  testimony  to  that  effect. 
 
 WOOLEN  3553 
 
 Further  information  on  the  suliject  of  this  arti 
 cle  is  given  under  tbe  heads  Dkaconess,  Dkks^ 
 H.viH,  M.vuRi.VGE,  Slave,  Veil,  and  Widow. 
 
 W.  L.  B. 
 
 WOOD.     [Forest.] 
 
 *  WOOF.     [Weaving.] 
 
 WOOL  CP^;  T3).  AVool  was  an  article 
 of  the  iiighest  value  among  the  .Jews,  as  the  staple 
 material  for  the  manufacture  of  clothing  (Lev.  xiii. 
 47;  Deut.  xxii.  11;  .Job  xxxi.  20;  Prov.  xxxi.  13; 
 Ez.  xxxiv.  3;  Hos.  ii.  5).  Both  tbe  Hebrew  terms, 
 isemer  and  (]^,z,  imply  the  act  of  shearing,  tbe  dis- 
 tinction between  them  being  that  the  latter  refers 
 to  tbe  "  fleece  "  (Deut.  xviii.  4;  Job  xxxi.  20),  as 
 proved  by  the  use  of  the  cognate  yhzah,  in  .Judg. 
 vi.  37-40,  in  conjunction  with  tseiney,  in  the  sense 
 of  "  a  fleece  of  wool."  The  importance  of  wool  is 
 incidentally  shown  by  the  notice  that  Mesha's 
 tribute  was  paid  in  a  certain  numlier  of  rams  "with 
 the  wool  "  (2  K.  iii.  4),  as  well  as  by  its  being 
 specified  among  tbe  first-fruits  to  be  offered  to  the 
 priests  (Deut.  xviii.  4).  The  wool  of  Damascus 
 was  highly  prized  in  the  mart  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii. 
 18);  and  is  compared  in  tbe  I^XX.  to  tbe  wool  of 
 Miletus  (ipta  e»c  MiAriTov),  the  fame  of  which  was 
 widely  spread  in  the  ancient  world  (Plin.  viii.  73; 
 Virsr.  deoi-f/.  iii.  306,  iv.  334).  Wool  is  occasion 
 ally  cited  as  an  imasje  of  purity  and  brilliancy  (Is. 
 i.  18;  Dan.  vii.  9;  Rev.  i.  14),  and  the  flakes  of 
 snow  are  appropriately  likened  to  it  (Ps.  cxlvii.  16). 
 The  art  of  dyeing  it  was  understood  by  the  Jews 
 (Mishna,  Slinh.  1,  §  6).  W.  L.  B. 
 
 WOOLEN  (LINEN  and).    Among  the  laws 
 against    unnatural  mixtures  is  found  one  to  this 
 
 effect  :  "  A  garment  of  mixtures  [T]]^^K7, 
 shiiittnez]  shall  not  come  upon  thee "  (Lev.  xix. 
 19);  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Deut.  xxii.  11,  "thou 
 shalt  not  wear  shnatm-z,  wool  and  flax  together." 
 Our  version,  by  the  help  of  the  latter  passage,  has 
 rendered  the  strange  word  shantiiilz  in  tlie  former, 
 "of  linen  and  woolen;  "  while  in  Deut.  it  is  trans- 
 lated "  a  garment  of  divers  sorts."  In  the  Vulgate 
 the  difficulty  is  avoided;  and  Ki'iSSrjAos,  "spuri- 
 ous "  or  "counterfeit,"  the  rendering  of  the  LXX., 
 is  wanting  in  precision.  In  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 
 tbe  same  word  remains  with  a  slight  modification 
 to  adapt  it  to  the  Chaldee;  but  in  the  Peshito- 
 Syriac  of  Lev.  it  is  rendered  by  an  adjective, 
 "  motley,"  and  in  Deut.  a  "  motley  garment,"  cor- 
 responding iti  some  degree  to  the  Samaritan  ver- 
 sion, which  has  "spotted  like  a  leopard."  Two 
 things  only  apijear  to  l)e  certain  about  s/iaatnez  — 
 that  it  is  a  foreign  word,  and  that  its  origin  has 
 not  at  present  been  traced.  Its  .signification  is 
 sufficiently  defined  in  Deut.  xxii.  11.  The  deriva- 
 tion given  in  the  Mishna  (Cilnim,  ix.  8),  which 
 makes  it  a  compound  of  three  words,  signifying 
 "carded,  spun,  and  twisted,"  is  in  keeping  with 
 Kabbinical  etymologies  generally.  Other  etymolo- 
 gies are  proposed  by  Bociiart  {Ilieroz.  pt.  i.  b.  2, 
 c.  45),  Simonis  (Li-x.  JJeb.),  and  Pfeiffer  (Dub. 
 \'e.c.  cent.  2,  loc.  xi.).  The  last-mentioned  writer 
 defended  the  Egyptian  origin  of  the  word,  but  his 
 knowledge  of  Coptic,  according  to  Jablonski,  ex- 
 tended not  much  beyond  the  letters,  and  little 
 value,  therefore,  is  to  be  attached  to  the  solution 
 which  he  proposed  for  the  difficulty.  Jablonski 
 himself  favors  the  suggestion  of  I'orster,  that  a 
 garment  of  linen  and  woolen  was  called  by  the 
 Egyptians  shuiUues,  and  that  this  word  was  bor- 
 
3554 
 
 WORD,  THE 
 
 rowed  by  the  Hebrews,  and  written  by  them  in  the 
 form  shaalniz  {Opusc.  i.  294). 
 
 The  reason  given  by  Josephus  (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  11) 
 for  the  law  which  prohiUiteil  the  wearing  a  garment 
 woven  of  liiion  and  woolen  is,  that  such  were  worn 
 by  the  priests  alone  (see  Mishna,  CUdini,  ix.  1 ). 
 Of  tliis  kind  were  the  s^irdle  (of  which  Josephus 
 says  the  war[)  was  entirely  linen,  A7ii.  iii.  7,  §  2), 
 ephod,  and  breast[)late  (Braunius,  de  Vest.  Sue. 
 Ihbr.  pp.  110,  111)  of  the  high-priest,  and  the 
 girdle  of  the  common  priests  (Maimonides,  CcL; 
 Jlimiiiiikdns/i,  cviii.).  Spencer  conjectured  that 
 the  use  of  woolen  and  linen  inwoven  in  the  same 
 garment  prevailed  amongst  the  ancient  Zabii,  and 
 was  associated  with  their  idolatrous  ceremonies 
 {De  kg.  Hth.  ii.  3-3,  §  3);  but  that  it  was  per- 
 mitted to  the  Hebrew  priests,  because  with  them  it 
 could  give  rise  to  no  suspicion  of  idolatry.  Mai- 
 monides found  in  the  books  of  the  Zabii  that 
 "  the  priests  of  the  idolaters  clothed  themselves 
 with  robes  of  linen  and  woolen  mixed  together" 
 (Townley,  Reasons  of  the  Laics  of  AJoses,  p.  207). 
 By  "wool"  the  Talmndists  understood  the  wool 
 of  sheep  (Mishna,  CUaiiii,  ix.  1).  It  is  evident 
 from  Zeph.  i.  8,  that  the  adoption  of  a  particular 
 dress  was  an  indication  of  idolatrous  tendencies, 
 and  there  may  be  theretbre  some  truth  in  the 
 explanation  of  Maimonides.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  WORD,  THE  (6  A6yos:  verbHm),.Jo\m  i.  1, 
 14.  This  term  is  employed  by  St.  John  in  a  maimer 
 peculiar  to  himself  among  the  sacred  writers,  but 
 in  such  a  manner  as  suggests  that  among  those  for 
 whom  he  immediately  wrote,  it  was  already  asso- 
 ciated with  a  meaning  oi-  meanings  somewhat  anal- 
 ogous to  that  which  he  designed  to  convey  by  it. 
 Tliat  this  was  in  general  the  case,  there  is  abun- 
 dant evidence;  but  to  determine  precisely  the  vari- 
 ous shades  of  meaning  attached  to  it  in  different 
 quarters  by  those  who  lived  at  tiie  time  of  the 
 Evangelist  or  not  long  before,  and.  to  show  pre- 
 cisely in  what  relation  his  own  employment  of  it 
 stood  to  existing  usage,  are  among  the  most  ditti- 
 cult  problems  in  the  history  of  religious  thought. 
 
 The  idea  of  a  distinction  between  the  hidden  and 
 the  manifested  Deity,  between  God  as  He  is  in  him- 
 self and  as  He  makes  himself  known  in  creation 
 and  revelation,  seems  to  have  been  early  entertained 
 among  the  Jews,  and  was  naturally  suggested  by 
 many  of  the  representations  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 such,  e.  ff.  as  that  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  Kx. 
 sxiii.  20,  21,  and  elsewhere,  the  divine  manifesta- 
 tion to  Jloses,  Ex.  xxxiii.  20-23,  and  the  passage 
 in  whicii  Wisdom  is  introduced  as  speaking,  Prov. 
 viii.,  particularly  vv.  2-3-31. 
 
 In  the  apocryphal  boolis  of  Ecclesiasticus  (xxiv. 
 3,  4,  8,  9)  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (vii.  22- 
 27,  ix.  4,  9),  both  works  of  Alexandrine  origin,  the 
 conception  presented  in  the  passage  last  referred  to 
 is  developed  in  such  a  way  as  strongly  to  favor  the 
 supposition  of  a  design  to  indicate  a  personal  being 
 as  the  medium  of  the  divine  communication  with 
 the  world,  and  in  a  special  manner  (Ecclus.)  with 
 Israel.  [WisnoJr  oi--  Solomon,  §  7.]  But  the 
 most  prominent  form  among  those  in  which  the 
 idea  of  the  self-revealing  God  was  wont  to  be  ex- 
 pressed among  the  Jews  subsequently  to  the  Cap- 
 
 a  *  Interchanged  occasionally  with  other  expres- 
 sions, such  as  *'''T  SID'',  Y^i-am  da-  Yiija,  nnSDtl? 
 t:  -       T  t:'  t  :  •  : 
 
 ''''"T     Shcchintah  da-Yeya,  "the  majesty  or  glory  of 
 
 WORD,  THE 
 
 tivity,  seems  to  have  originated  in  what  was  the 
 standing  representation  of  the  divine  agency  em- 
 ployed in  the  0.  '1'.  The  earliest  statement  in  re- 
 lation to  this  subject  is  "  God  snid^  Let  there  be 
 light,  and  there  was  light,"  Gen.  i.  3.  In  a  simi- 
 lar manner  not  only  is  the  whole  work  of  original 
 creation  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  word  of  God-(Ps. 
 xxxiii.  6,  9),  but  it  is  his  word  that  maintains  the 
 course  of  nature  and  accomplishes  the  purposes  of 
 Providence  (Ps.  cvii.  20,  cxlvii.  15,  18;  Is.  Iv.  11). 
 Nowhere  however  in  the  O.  T.  does  the  use  of  the 
 term  exceed  the  limits  of  bold  personification.  Pre- 
 cisely at  what  period  it  began  to  be  employed  in 
 Jewish  theology  as  designating  a  distinct  personal- 
 ity it  is  impossible  to  ascertain.  The  earliest  in- 
 stance of  what  is  even  apparently  such  a  use  occurs 
 in  Wisd.  Sol.  xviii.  15,  16.  Speaking  of  the  de- 
 struction of  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  tlie  writer  says, 
 "  Thine  almighty  word  (o  iravrodvvaixos  aov 
 K6yos)  leaped  down  from  heaven,  out  of  thy  royal 
 throne,  as  a  fierce  man  of  war  into  the  midst  of  a 
 land  of  destruction,  bearing  thine  unfeigned  com- 
 mandment {ry]V  avvTv6KpiTov  4-iTnayi\v  aov  cpe- 
 pwv)  as  a  sharp  sword."  Here,  whatever  interpre- 
 tation we  may  put  upon  the  passage,  the  distinc- 
 tion manifestly  made  between  "  thine  almighty 
 word  "  and  the  •'unfeigned  commandment"  inter- 
 poses a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  explana- 
 tion resorted  to  by  Grimm  {L'xec/.  Handb.  in  loc  ), 
 that  the  whole  is  to  be  resolved  into  a  "  rhetorico- 
 poetical  |)ersonification  of  the  divine  will  and  agency 
 in  the  infliction  of  punishment."  This  representa- 
 tion, however,  it  .should  be  added,  is  wholly  with- 
 out a  parallel,  either  in  the  same  or  in  any  nearly 
 contemporary  work.  The  passages  Wisd.  Sol.  ix. 
 1,  xvi.  12,  26;  Kcclus.  .xliii.  26,  xlviii.  3,  5  — 
 conip.  2  Pet.  iii,  5,  7 ;  Heb.  xi.  3  —  exhibit  noth- 
 ing essentially  different  from  the  usage  of  the  0. 
 T.,  and  the  same  is  true  of  those  passages  in  the 
 book  of  Enoch  where  "  the  word"  is  spoken  of 
 (e.  g.  xiv.  24,  xci.  1,  cii.  1 ;  see  Hilgenfeld,  Die 
 jiid.  Apokcdyptik,  p.  105,  note  2).  The  passage  in 
 luioch  xc.  38,  is  probably  corrupt;  see  DiUmann 
 in  loc. 
 
 Among  the  Jews  of  Palestine  the  fact  of  the 
 early  prevalence  of  some  conception  of  the  AVord 
 as  a  distinct  hypostasis  has  been  by  many  very 
 confidently  inferred  from  the  Targums  or  Chaldee 
 paraphrases  of  portions  of  the  0.  T.  These  writ- 
 ings, although  their  claims  to  antiquity  have  been 
 of  late  years  considerably  reduced  [Vei!sioxs,  An- 
 cient (Targum)],  doubtless  represent  long-stand- 
 ing .lewish  tradition,  and  it  is  among  their  most  re- 
 markable characteristic  features  that  whenever  God 
 is  spoken  of  in  the  Heb.  especially  as  interposing 
 
 in  the  affairs  of  men,  the  expression  "^^T  S~lD'*J2, 
 
 Memra  da-  Yeija  (sometimes  M"1^Iil"^,  Dibburd), 
 '•  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  is  very  commonly  substi- 
 tuted for  the  proper  divine  name."  But  there  are 
 no  data  from  which  we  may  gather  the  exact  form 
 of  thought  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  usage, 
 and  the  employment  of  it  was  plainly  determined 
 by  no  settled  rule.  Most,  if  not  all  the  passages  in 
 which  the  expressions  above  cited  occur  may  be  ex- 
 plained by  a  reference  to  the  principle  suggested  on 
 
 Jehovah."     The  statement  sometimes  made  that  the 
 
 "•^"T   S~l^'*tt,   "  word  of  Jehovah,"  is   in   t)ie  Tar- 
 t:  -        T  :      •• 
 
 sums  expre.ssly  identified  with  the  Alessif  Ji  can  hardly 
 be  sustained.  D.  S.  T. 
 
WORD,  THE 
 
 p.  3404  b  of  this  work  (comp.  pp.  3406  b,  3418  n>„ 
 uainely,  the  repugnance  of  the  writers  to  bring  the 
 Divine  Being  into  too  close  contact,  as  it  were,  with 
 man.     Comp.  Shechinaii. 
 
 'J"he  writini^s  of  Philo,  the  -Tew  of  Alexandria, 
 who  flourished  in  the  former  half  of  the  first  cen- 
 tury, present  the  earliest  approximation  to  a  defi- 
 nite doctrine  of  the  Word.  His  system,  if  system 
 it  may  he  called,  is  a  singular  comhination  of  Pyth- 
 agoreanism,  Platonism,  Stoicism,  and  the  iMiiana- 
 tionism  of  the  East  with  the  doctrines  of  the  O. 
 T.  Scriptures.  Of  this  system  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Logos  "  has  been  styled  the  central  point,  and  it  is 
 often  presented  here  in  terms  which  l)ear  a  striking 
 resemlilance  to  the  representations  of  St.  John,  al- 
 thotii^h  quite  commonly  a  careful  examination  shows 
 that  the  resemblance  lies  in  the  expression  rather 
 than  in  the  tliouLjht.*  That  the  Logos-doctrine  of 
 St.  .Tohn  is  in  some  way  connected  with  that  of 
 Philo,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt.  But  the 
 manifold  incongruities,'"  not  to  say  self-contradic- 
 tions, to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  latter,  the 
 extraordinary  latitude  which  he  manifestly  allows 
 himself  in  liis  representations,  and  above  all,  the 
 wide  contrast  presented  by  his  whole  style  of  think- 
 ing to  that  exhibited  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,''  forbid 
 us  to  believe  that  the  author  of  that  Gospel  can 
 have  been  indebted  to  the  Alexandrian  philosopher 
 for  any  fundamental  element  of  doctrine. 
 
 Wliatever  may  have  been  the  connection  between 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  as  found  in  the  writings  of 
 St.  John,  and  the  use  that  had  been  already  made  of 
 the  term  in  various  quarters,  it  is  very  evident  that 
 in  its  essential  features  tliat  doctrine  was  something 
 wholly  new  to  the  woi-ld.  It  involved  the  revela- 
 tion of  a  fact  for  which  language  furnished  no  en- 
 tirely adequate  expression.  In  such  a  case  there 
 are  two  courses  open  to  the  writer.  He  must  eitlier 
 invent  a  new  term  to  designate  the  new  thought  to 
 be  conveyed,  or  he  must  appropi-iate  a  term  already 
 employed  in  a  sense  somewhat  related  to  that  he 
 
 WORD,  THE 
 
 3555 
 
 a  *  The  selection  of  this  term  by  Philo  was  doubt- 
 less determined  by  a  reference  to  the  pecuUar  use  of 
 it  in  the  O.  T.  above  alluded  to.  In  accordance  with 
 the  usage  of  Plato,  from  whom  his  conception  of  the 
 Logos  in  its  main  features  was  derived,  i/ous  was  the 
 expression  which,  but  for  this  consideration,  he  would 
 naturally  have  employed.  D.  S.  T. 
 
 *  *  Thus  the  Logos  is  represented  as  the  Son  of 
 God  [Dh  Prof.  c.  20,  Opp.  i.  502  ed  Mang  ),  the  eldest 
 Son,  the  first-begotten,  n-pco-^uTaro?  vios,  irpiaToyovo'; 
 (Be  Cnnf.  Lino.  ce.  14.  28,  i.  414,  427  ;  De  A^ric.  c. 
 12,  i.  308  ;  De  Somn.  lib.  i.  c.  37,  i.  653) ;  the  image 
 of  God,  etKwi'  fleoO  (De  Opif.  MunUi,  c.  8,  i.  6 ;  De 
 Cnnf.  Lins;.  c.  20,  i.  419 ;  De  Sown.  lib.  i.  o.  41,  i. 
 656,  and  often  elsewhere;  his  "eternal  image,"  De 
 Cuiif.  Lin^.  c.  28,  i.  427) ;  the  instrument  by  which 
 the  world  was  made,  opyavov  Si.'  ov  o  K6(TiJiO';  KarecrKeu- 
 ao-fli)  (De  Cherub,  c.  35,  i.  162^  where  note  Philo's  dis- 
 tiactioa  between  to  vf/)'  ou,  to  e^ou,  to  6t'  ou,  and  to  5t' 
 o,  as  denoting  respectively  the  primary  or  efficient 
 cause,  the  material,  the  instrument  or  intermediate 
 agent,  and  the  end  or  final  cause  ;  comp.  Lei;g.  A(- 
 le<;.  lib.  iii.  c.  31,  i  106,  trxia  0coO  6  Adyos  avrov  eariv. 
 St  KaBairep  opyarw  Trpoaxprjo'aii.ifi'o?  exoafiOTroUi.,  also 
 be  Mi^'r.  Abr.  c.  1,  i.  437  ;  De  Monarrli^  lib.  ii.  c.  5, 
 ii.  225) ;  God's  vicegerent,  iJirapxo?,  upon  whom  all 
 things  depend  (De  Ai^ric.  c.  12,  i.  308  ;  De  Somn.  lib. 
 i.  c.  41,  1.  656) ;  the  interpreter  of  God,  epfj.rii>ev^  or 
 un-o-fi^Trj;  9cov  (Le»<r.  AUeg.  lib.  iii.  c.  74,  i.  128; 
 qiw'l  Dens  sit  immnt.  c.  29,  i.  293;  De  Norn.  Mitt. 
 c.  3.  i.  581) :  the  light,  (^w?  (De  Snmn.  lib.  i.  c.  13,  i. 
 632)  ;   the    fountain    of    wisdom,    ao4>iai;   mj-y)),    from 
 
 wishes  to  express,  and  he  must  indicate  in  soma 
 way  tlie  limitations  or  enlargements  of  significance 
 that  are  necessary  to  make  it  an  adequate  exponent 
 of  his  meaning.  The  latter  course  is  adopted  by 
 St.  John,  in  accord.ance  with  the  common  practice 
 of  the  sacred  writers.  In  the  term  Logos  and  its 
 Chaklee  ei:iuivalents,  as  employed  by  the  Jews  of 
 Palestine  and  Egypt,  he  finds  the  nearest  approx- 
 imation to  such  an  expression  as  he  needs  in  order 
 to  set  forth  his  own  conception  of  the  being  tliat 
 has  become  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  the 
 term  is  employed  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  at 
 best  indefinitely,  and  when  most  definitely,  alwiiys 
 in  a  sense  more  or  less  diverse  from  that  which  it 
 is  his  object  to  convey.  The  necessity  is  thus  laid 
 upon  him,  in  .appropriating  this  term  to  his  ovm 
 piu'pose,  to  guard  carefully  against  being  misunder- 
 stood, and  to  make  explicit  statements  in  respect  to 
 those  points  where  the  term,  as  commonly  employed, 
 is  likely  either  to  fall  short  of  fully  conveying  his 
 own  idea,  or  to  suggest  some  erroneous  conception 
 of  it.  AccordiuLtly,  in  announcing,  by  way  of  in- 
 troduction to  his  Gospel,  the  doctrine  of  the  Word, 
 as  that  apparently  which  lies  at  the  foimdation  of 
 the  whole  history  he  is  about  to  give,  he  first  of  all 
 declares,  with  manifest  reference  to  Gen.  i.  1,  "  In 
 the  beginning  ions  ('Ec  a.pxv  i)v)  the  Word." 
 Here,  as  in  the  opening  of  his  first  epistle,  is  dis- 
 tinctly brought  to  \\e%\  the  great  fact  of  the  uncre- 
 ated, and  therefore  the  eternal,  existence  of  tlie 
 Logos.  Next  follows  a  statement  of  the  intimate 
 relation  which  the  Logos  sustains  to  God  {koI  6 
 \6yos  -fju  irphi  rhv  @e6v),  and  notwithsianding 
 the  distinction  thus  implied,  it  is  immediately 
 added,  "  the  Word  was  God."  Then  as  if  to  guard 
 against  the  misapprehension  being  entertained  that 
 the  distinction  indicated  as  existing  in  the  divine 
 nature  had  originated  in  time,  tliere  is  subjoined 
 the  atfirmation  "  The  same  was  in  the  becjinnlng 
 with  God."  To  pursue  further  the  account  given 
 of  the  Word  in  the  sublime  prologue  of  the  Evan- 
 
 which  those  who  draw  obtain  everlasting  life,  ^<aT]v 
 aiSiov  (De  Prof.  c.  18,  i.  560) ;  the  intercessor  for  m.an, 
 iKe'TrjT  Tou  6in!]Tov,  and  mediator  between  God  and  the 
 world,  separating  and  yet  connecting  both  (Qiiis  Rt- 
 riim  Div.  Hieres,  c.  42,  i.  501  f.)  ;  high-priest,  apxie- 
 peuy,  free  from  all  sin  (De  Prof  co.  20,  21,  i.  562  f.  ; 
 De  Somn.  lib.  i.  c.  37.  i.  653),  and  pei-haps  advocate 
 or  paraclete,  TrapdKArjTos  (De  Moxe,  lib.  iii.  c.  14,  ii. 
 155),  but  in  this  passage  some  understand  the  term 
 to  be  applied  to  the  world  as  "  the  son  of  God  ;  "  comp. 
 Mangey's  note.  The  Logos  is  also  called  by  Philo  fled?, 
 "God,"  or  rather,  "a  divine  being."  the  term  being 
 used  by  him  in  a  lower  sen.se  (De  Somn.  lib  i.  c.  38, 
 i.  655,  comp.  Leg^.  Alleg.  lib.  iii.  c.  73,  i.  128  ;  heine- 
 pos  0eds,  "a  second  God,"  Fragm.  ap.  Eu.-eb.  Pra:p. 
 Eu.  vii.  12,  Opp.  ii.  625).  '  D.  S.  T. 
 
 c  *  A  single  illustration  of  these  incongruities  may 
 suffice.  U'hile  Philo  expressly  identifies  the  Logos 
 with  the  Wi.<!dom  of  God  (Legg.  Alleg.  lib.  i.  c.  19, 
 Opp.  i.  56,  and  elsewhere),  he  also  represents  Wisdom 
 as  the  spouse  of  God  (De  Ebrietate,  c.  8,  i.  361)  and  the 
 mother  of  the  Logos  (JOe  Prof  c.  20,  i.  562).     D  S.  T. 
 
 il  *  In  illustration  of  the  radical  difference  between 
 the  religious  system  of  Philo  and  that  of  St.  .John,  it 
 needs  only  to  be  stated  that  the  idea  of  a  personal 
 Messiah  finds  no  pl.ice  in  his  writings,  and  his  idea  ol 
 the  creation  precludes  the  necessity  of  such  a  Messiah 
 Conti-ast  too  liis  conception  of  God  as  a  being  devoid 
 of  all  qualities  (Quod  Deux  sit  immut.  c.  11,  O/ip.  i. 
 281)  with  such  passages  as  John  iii.  16,  xvi  27  ;  1 
 John  iv.  8.  D-  S.  T. 
 
3556 
 
 WORD,  THE 
 
 gelist,  would  make  it  necessary  to  trench  too  much 
 uooii  the  province  of  the  commentator.  The  main 
 pur|;ose  of  this  article  is  to  point  out  in  general  the 
 probahle  relation  of  St.  John's  doctrine  upon  tliis 
 suliject  to  the  previous  history  of  the  employment 
 of  the  term,  and  to  show  in  what  maimer  it  may  be 
 supposed  that  his  own  representations  have  been 
 aftected  by  existing  tendencies  of  thought.  While 
 in  the  view  above  presented  of  the  way  in  which 
 his  own  special  usage  of  the  term  was  probably  de- 
 termined, notliing  has  been  said  of  its  fitness  in  its 
 more  ordinary  acceptations  for  tiie  purpose  to  which 
 he  apjilies  it,  we  are  under  no  necessity  of  suppos- 
 ing tliat  in  his  selection  of  it.  he  had  no  regard  to 
 its  more  common  significance,  wliether  in  tlie  lan- 
 guage of  philosophy  or  in  tliat  of  every-day  life,  as 
 contributing  to  make  it  suitable  for  his  jHirpose. 
 It  is,  in  particular,  far  from  improbable  that  the 
 import  of  \6yos  as  being  preeminently  the  revela- 
 tion of  thought  may  have  been  distinctly  in  his 
 mind,  as  most  highly  fit  to  be  associated  with  Him 
 who  is  The  Truth  revealed." 
 
 The  explanation  of  6  \6yos  as  =-  d  \ey03v,  and 
 likewise  that  adopted  by  Be?a,  Tittmann,  and 
 others,  as  =  o  \iy6ixivos,  or  6  iirayyeXdeis,  >l<f 
 promised  one,  are  wholly  unsustained  by  usage. 
 Nor  is  there  anj'  valid  foundation  for  supposing,  as 
 many  do,  that  the  term  was  adopted  by  St.  John 
 on  the  ground  of  its  being  specially  suited,  in  cer- 
 tain of  its  acceptations,  to  express  the  idea  of  the 
 Divine  Reason.  It  should  be  added,  however,  that 
 not  only  was  the  Evangelist  furnished  through  the 
 already  prevailing  conceptions  of  the  Word,  with 
 the  most  suitable  expression  of  his  great  idea,  but 
 he  was  thus  enabled  to  avail  himself  of  whatever 
 there  was  of  truth  connected  with  past  speculations 
 upon  tlie  suliject,  and  to  show  how  his  own  doctrine 
 effectually  met  the  difficulties  which  had  been  felt 
 so  long,  and  which  attempts  had  been  so  variously 
 made  to  meet.  It  was  as  if  he  had  said  to  those 
 of  his  readers  whom  he  more  innnediately  had  in 
 view.  What  you  have  vainly  sought  to  find,  and 
 what  you  may  think  that  in  your  conception  of 
 the  Word,  you  have  found,  I  make  known  to  you 
 in  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Indeed,  it  is  not  in  his  presentation  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Word  alone,  that  we  find  the  indica- 
 tions of  such  a  design.  In  all  his  writings  we  are 
 met  by  the  recurrence  of  peculiar  phrases  and  rep- 
 resentations (many  of  them  often  repeated),  which 
 stand  connected  in  such  a  manner  with  systems  of 
 error  that  came  to  their  full  development  only  in  a 
 subsequent  age,  that  we  are  enabled  lioth  to  discern 
 the  germs  of  those  systems  as  alreadv  in  being  in 
 his  own  time,  and  to  trace  their  origin  in  preceding 
 thought,  at  the  same  time  that  we  are  called  to 
 .note  the  admirable  skill  with  which  the  inspired 
 writer,  without  resorting  to  the  form  of  polemics, 
 effectually  guards  the  truth  against  assault,  and 
 turns  the  dangers  which  threaten  it  into  a  source 
 of  strength.  I).  S.  T. 
 
 *  JMany  works  relating  to  the  suliject  of  this  ar- 
 ticle are  referred  to  under  .John,  Go.si'kl  of,  vol. 
 ii.  p.  1439.  Among  the  writers  there  named, 
 Liicke  and  Dorner,  Niedner  and  Bucher,  Stuart 
 and  Norton,  are  particularly  worthy  of  consultation. 
 Of  the  conunentators  on  the  Gospel  of  .lohn,  be- 
 
 a  *  The  supposition  entertained  by  many,  that,  in 
 the  tlesignatiou  The  Word,  as  understood  witli  some 
 reference  to  its  common  acceptation,  it  is  intended  to 
 set  forth  an  inward  relation  of  the  Divine  Being  to 
 
 WORD,  THE 
 
 sides  Liicke,  the  following  are  perhaps  the  most  in- 
 structive in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos: 
 Grotius,  Le  Clerc  (on  John  i.  1-18  in  his  Latin 
 translation  of  Hammond,  i.  391  ft",  2d  ed.;  comp. 
 his  Kpial.  Crit.  vii.-ix.),  Whitby,  Wetstein,  Pau- 
 lus,  Kuinoel  (who  gives  a  detailed  view  of  the  ear- 
 lier literature),  Tholuck,  l)e  Wette,  Meyer,  and 
 Baumgarten-Crusius.  Out  of  the  host  of  other 
 writers  who  have  treated  of  this  subject,  the  follow- 
 ing may  be  selected  as  worthy  of  notice:  C.  San- 
 dius,  l)iss.  (le  \6y<ii,  appended  to  his  Interp.  P<ir- 
 (idoxie  ill  Quut.  Eoaiuj.,  ('osmop.  [Amst],  ItiTO, 
 pp.  259-303.  Joh.  Sauliert,  Diss,  tie  I'oce  \6yoi 
 ad  Joh.  i.  1,  Altorf.,  1G87,  reprinted  in  Menthen's 
 T/iesaurus  (supplementary  to  the  Crilici  Sricri),  ii. 
 347-362.  (P.  Allix,)  Judyment  of  the  AHcieiit.leic- 
 ish  Church  against  the  Uiiitiii-i.nns,  Loud.  1699,  2d 
 ed.  1821  (untrustworthy).  (Souverain,)  Le  P/nton- 
 isme  devoile,  Cologne,  1700;  Eng.  trans.,  Plutindsm 
 Unveiled.,  n.  p.  1700;  German  translation  by  .1.  ¥. 
 C.  LiifHer,  Versuch  iib.  d.  Plutonisnms  d.  Kirchen- 
 rcVer,  2"  Aufi.,  1792,  with  an  Appendix  by  the 
 translator.  Paulus,  Die  (Jo/thei.t  <tls  Lehrer  i/urch 
 W'erke  u.  Worfe,  Joh.  i.  1-18,  in  his  .UemornbiL 
 viii.  94-198  (1796);  see  also  his  Commentnr  (1812). 
 Iveil,  />e.  Ady&j,  in  his  Opusc.  Acad.  (1821),  pp. 
 483-531.  ¥.  G.  Siiskind,  Etvxts  lib.  d.  neiieren 
 Ansichten  der  Stelle  .Joh.  i.  1-14,  hi  his  .Maff.  f. 
 chrisd.  Dogni.  u.  Moral,  x.  1-91  (1803).  'Ber- 
 tholdt,  Chrislologia  Jtuheoruni,  etc.  Erl.  1811,  pp. 
 104-134  (uncritical).  C.  W.  Upham,  Letters  on 
 the  Logos,  Bost.  1828.  Biiumlein,  Vei-siich  die 
 Bedeulung  des  johan.  Logos  oiis  den  Beligionssys- 
 tenien  des  Orients  zii  enlwickeln,  Tiib.  1828. 
 (liiiunilein  now  confesses,  Omi.  iib.  d.  Ev.  d.  Joh., 
 \).  23,  that  his  representations  in  this  work  were 
 <lrawn  from  unreliable  sources  —  the  Oupntk'hat 
 and  Kleuker's  Zemlnvvsta.)  \Z.  Burton,  Inquiry 
 into  the  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic,  Aye  (Bampton 
 Lectures),  Leet.  vii.  Oxf.  1829.  J.  Pye  Smith, 
 Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  5th  ed.  Edin. 
 1859,  i.  341-350  (Chaldee  Targums),  363-386 
 (Philo),  and  elsewhere;  comp.  W.  Hincks's  Reriew 
 of  this  work  in  the  .Monthly  liepos.  for  1831,  re- 
 printed separately.  Loud.  1832.  .1.  F.  Denham, 
 On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Logos,  in  Kitto's  Journ. 
 of  Sac.  Lit.  for  Jan.  1849;  iii.  107-135  (su- 
 perficial and  inaccurate).  James  Strong,  two  arts, 
 in  the  Meth.  Quar.  Jtev.  for  July  and  Oct.  1851. 
 (j.  F.  Simmons,  Six  Sern^ms,  Bost.  1856,  pp.  SI- 
 GO.  M.  Nicolas,  Des  Doctrines  religieuses  des 
 Juifs,  etc..  Par.  1860,  pp.  14-3-215;  comp.  nrt.  in 
 Christ.  Exam,  for  Jan.  1863,  on  The  Palestinian 
 Word,  founded  on  Nicolas,  and  erroneously  iden- 
 tifying the  Logos  of  Philo  with  the  .}fenrrn  of  the 
 Targums.  A.  Lanison,  ('hurch  of  the  Fii'sl  Three 
 Centuries,  2d  ed.  Bost.  1865,  p.  58  ft'.  H.  L.  JMan- 
 sel,  art.  Philosophy  (Greek),  in  Kitto's  Cycl.  of 
 Bihl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  iii.  520-531.  Liddon,  The  Di- 
 riiiily  of  our  Lord  (Bampton  Lect.  1866),  2d  ed. 
 1868,  p!  59  ff.,  226  ft'.  Jos.  Langen  (Cath.),  Das 
 Jude/ilhum  in  Paldstina  zur  Zeit  Christi  (1866), 
 pp.  248-281.  L.  T.  Schnlze,  Vom  Menscitensolin 
 u.  roni  Logos,  Gotha,  1867  (ilogmatic). 
 
 On  the  use  of  aopia,  \6yos,  nnd  Trvev/na  ayiov 
 in  the  Apocrypha,  see  Bretschneider,  System.  JJar- 
 steUung  d.  Dogm.  u.  s.  w.  d.   apocr.  Schriften  d. 
 
 Himself,  "  the  principle,''  as  Tholuck  expresses  it, 
 "  through  which  God  is  revealed  to  Himself,''  would,  if 
 admitted,  make  the  declaration  nugatory,  "  The  Word 
 was  ivitli,  God."  1).  S.  T. 
 
WOllD,  THE 
 
 A.  T.,  Leipz.  1805,  pp.  191-275,  where  there  are 
 full  references  to  the  older  literature;  see  also  the 
 works  referred  to  under  Afockypha,  i.  125  f., 
 adding  L5i;uch's  Wnslttits-LKlire  der  Htbidur 
 (1851),  p.  283  ff.,  311  ff.,  and  the  works  of  Gfrorer 
 mid  Diihiie  to  be  mentioned  below. 
 
 On  Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  one  may  far- 
 ther consult  the  following  essays:  Cudworth's  /«- 
 ielk'ctu'd  System  of  the  Universe,  ch.  iv.  §  36, 
 with  the  elaborate  note  of  Mosheim  in  his  Latin 
 translation  of  the  work,  2d  ed.,  i.  828  ff.  (vol.  ii. 
 p.  320  ft',  of  Harrison's  ed.  of  Cudworth).  J.  B. 
 Carpzov,  De  \6ycf  Phdnnis  nun  JoArt«?jeo^Helnist. 
 1749,  in  opposition  to  ALuigey  (Fref.  to  Philo),  re- 
 printed as  lib.  vii.  of  the  Pliiloidana  preti.\ed  to 
 his  Sitcne  Exerc.  in  Kp.  ad  Hebr.  (1750),  pp. 
 cvii.-clxiiii.  E.  H.  Stahl,  Enlwurf  des  Pliiiu- 
 iiischeii  Lf/ii-bei/'rijf's,  in  luchhorti's  Al/yem.  Bib- 
 iwtli.  iv.  785-8U0  (1792).  Caesar  Morgan,  Jna-sti- 
 gntioii  of  the  Trinity  of  Plato  and  Philo  Jurheus 
 (1795),  reprinted  Cambr.  (Eng.),  1853.  J.  Bry- 
 ant, Sentiineids  of  Philo  Judeus  [sic]  concernini^ 
 the  Aoyos,  or  Wo)-d  of  (j'od,  Cambr.  (Eng.),  1797. 
 Grossujaini,  Qiueslionum  Philonearum  Partic.  I., 
 TL,  Lips.  1829,  Ito.  (Valuable;  purports  to  give 
 all  tiie  passages  in  which  the  word  Xoyos  occurs  in 
 Philo.)  tifriirer,  Philo  u.  die  jiid.-altx.  Theoso- 
 phie,  2  Abth.  Stuttg.  1831,  also  1835  (Theil  L  of  his 
 Krit.  Gesch.  d.  Urchristentlmms).  Jjticke  praises 
 the  anonymous  reviews  of  Grossmann  and  Glrorer 
 in  the  Leipzig  Lilt.-Zeitmg  for  1831,  Nr.  124-126, 
 and  1832,  Nr.  253-256.  J.  G.  Miiller  character- 
 izes Gfrijrer  as  "  oft  obei-fliichlich  und  breit."  Nor- 
 ton, Stuteinent  of  Reasons,  etc.  (1833),  2d  ed. 
 Bost.  1856,  pp.  314-349.  Diihne,  Gesch.  Dur- 
 stetluiif/  d.  jiid.-akx.  ReUijions- Philos.,  2  Abth. 
 Halle,  1834.  (One  of  the  most  thorough  works  on 
 the  subject;  com  p.  Baur's  review  in  the  Juhrb.  f 
 wiss.  Krilik,  Nov.  1835,  pp.  737-792.)  Kitter, 
 Gesch.  d.  Philos.  iv.  418  ^.  (1834),  or  iv.  407  if. 
 Eng.  trans.  Semisch,  .Justin  der  Mdrtyrer,  ii. 
 267  ff.  (1842),  or  ii.  165-207,  Kyland's  trans.  A. 
 Franck,  La  Kabbale,  Par.  1843,  pp.  293-338. 
 Keferstein,  Philo's  Lehre  von  den  yoltlichen'^Mit- 
 telioesen,  Leipz.  1846.  ("  Eine  griindliche  und 
 eingehende  Arbeit"  —  J.  G.  Miiller.)  Steinhart, 
 art.  Philo  in  Pauly's  Real-Kncycl.  v.  1499-1516 
 (1848).  M.  Wolff  (Kabbin),  LUe  philonische  Phi- 
 losophic, 2<=  Ausg.,  Gothenb.  1858.  Hagenbach, 
 /Jist.  of  Doctrines,  First  Per.,  §  40,  Eng.  trans, 
 from  4th  Germ,  ed.,  N.  Y.  1861.  Dollinger, 
 ileidenthum  u.  Judenlhum  (1857),  pp.  838-848,  or 
 ii.  398  ff.,  Eng.  trans.  J.  G.  Miiller,  art.  Philo  hi 
 Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  xi.  578-603  (1859).  B. 
 Jowett,  St.  Paid  and  Philo,  in  his  Epistles  of  St. 
 Paul,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  1859,  i.  448-514.  Zeller's 
 Philos.  d.  Griechen,  iii.  601-631  (1852).  (Excel- 
 lent: I  have  not  the  2d  ed.  (1868)  at  hand.) 
 Hoelemann,  De  Evany.  Joannei  Introitn  (1855), 
 pp.  33-52.  Graetz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  303  ff. 
 (2e  Aufi.  1863).  I':wald,  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel, 
 3e  Ausg.  vi.  282  ff.  (1868).  See  also  the  arts. 
 Alexandria  and  Philosophy  in  this  Dic- 
 tionary. 
 
 The  passages  relied  on  in  proof  that  the  Targura- 
 
 a  *  The  student  should  be  on  his  guiird  against 
 the  mistranslations  which  he  will  find,  in  various 
 writers,  of  the  Targunis  on  I's.  ex.  1,  Is.  xlii.  1,  Gen. 
 iii.  22,    xxviii.   20,    xlix.   18,    and    Is.   xvi.  1.      The 
 
 phrase  la^a    or   ^^   D^lJ.  "I^?   S'JP'^P,  "  a  "  or 
 
 woKM  8557 
 
 ists  regarded  the  Memra  da-  Yeyd,  "  Word  of  Je- 
 hovah," as  a  being  or  suljsistence  distinct  from 
 God,  the  medium  of  his  revelations  to  man,  will  be 
 found  in  the  works  of  Allix,  Bertholdt, ,).  P.  Smith, 
 and  Langen,  as  referred  to  al)ove,  also  in  Gl'rorer's 
 Jahrhnndert  des  Jleils  (1838),  i.  307-318,  and  tlit» 
 Introductions  to  Etheridge's  Trans,  of  the  T<ir- 
 yums  on  the  Pentateuch,  2  vols.  Ix)nd.  1862-65. 
 In  opposition  to  this  view,  which  appears  to  be 
 wholly  untenable,  see  the  valuable  Diss,  of  Saubert, 
 «'/<■  supra,  p.  351  ff". ;  Lightfoot,  Nor.  Hebr.  on 
 .John  i.  1;  J.  G.  Carpzov,  Vrit.  Sac.  V.  T.  (1748), 
 p.  479  ff. ;  Siiskind,  ubi  supr.  p.  16  ff. ;  Paulus, 
 Vomm.  iib.  d.  Ev.  d.  ./oh.  (1812),  pp.  8-18,  cor- 
 recting his  earlier  representations  in  the  Meniorab. 
 viii.  141  ff.;  E.  T.  (=  ti.)  Bengel,  Opusc.  Acad. 
 (1834),  p.  398  ff.;  Burton,  Bampt.  Led.  (1829), 
 p.  221  ;  Noyes  in  the  Christ.  Exam,  for  May, 
 1836,  p.  233  f. ;  Stuart  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  ,Jan 
 1850,  p.  20ff.;  and  Bucher  (Cath.),  Des  Apost. 
 Johannes  Lehre  vom  Loyos  (1856),  pp.  108-132, 
 who  discusses  the  matter  pretty  thoroughly.  See  also 
 Levy's  Chald.  Worterb.  iib.  d.  7'((/-y.  ii.  32  (1868). 
 Some  of  the  writers  referred  to  al>ove  find  tiie 
 Memra  hypostasined  in  the  l(Uer  Targunis,  though 
 not  the  earlier;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  good 
 ground  for  the  distinction.  The  prize-essay  of 
 S.  Maybaum,  Die  Anthropomorphien  u.  Anlhro- 
 popathien  bei  Onkelos  u.  d.  .yjuterii  Tarywnim 
 mil  besond.  Beriicksicht.  der  Ausdrilcke  Slemra, 
 Jekara  u.  Schechintha,  Bresl.  1870,  I  have  not  yet 
 seen.  The  older  literature  of  the  subject  is  given 
 in  Wolf's  Bibl.  Hebr.  ii.  1185  ff'.  That  the 
 Memra  is  identified  by  the  lai-guniists  with  the 
 Messiah  has  been  maintained  by  some,  not  only 
 without  any  plausible  reason,  but  in  opposition  to 
 the  clearest  passages;  see  the  .Jerusalem  Targ.  on 
 Ex.  xii.  42;  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  Deut.  xxx.  4; 
 and  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  on  Is.  xlii.  1." 
 
 On  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Test,  see 
 the  references  under  Angels,  vol.  i.  p.  98.  Both 
 on  this  subject,  and  on  the  use  of  the  terms  She- 
 chiniih  and  Metalron  in  the  later  Jewish  writings, 
 the  reader  is  particularly  recommended  to  consult 
 Ur.  Noyes's  review  of  Hengstenberg  in  the  Christ. 
 Examiner  for  May  and  July,  1836.  On  the  later 
 Jewish  notions  generally,  see  the  literature  under 
 the  art.  Messiah.  A. 
 
 WORM,  the  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of  the 
 Hebrew  words  Sds,  Rimmdh,  and  ToWdh,  Tola, 
 or   Tuldath,  occurs  in  numerous   passages  in  the 
 
 Bil)le.  The  lirst-named  term,  Sds  (DD :  o"'^j: 
 tinea)  occurs  only  in  Is.  Ii.  8,  "For  the  \ish 
 (Ct'17)  shall  eat  them  up  like  a  garment,  and  the 
 sds  shall  eat  them  like  wool."  The  word  proliably 
 denotes  some  particular  species  of  moth,  whose 
 larva  is  injurious  to  wool,  while  perhaps  the  former 
 name  is  the  more  general  one  for  any  of  the 
 destructive  tinece  or  "  clothes  moths."  For  fur- 
 ther information  on  the  subject  the  reader  is 
 referred  to  Moth. 
 
 2.  Rimmdh  (HS"^  :  aKuKr]^,  a-f)i|/is,  crawpia: 
 vermis,  ptUredo,  tinea).      The  manna  that  the  dis- 
 
 "  the  word  from  before  the  Lord  "  (Gen.  xx.  3,  Num. 
 xxiii.  4,  comp.  Etheridge,  i.  17,  ii.  16)  may  also  mislead  , 
 
 but  note  the  similar  use  with  CSiHS,  pilhgam,  Jer.  i. 
 2,  Ez.  i.  3,  etc.,  and  see,  for  other  illustrations  of  the 
 idiom,  Targ.  on  Is.  lix.  1,  and  Gen.  i.  27  (Jerus.).     A. 
 
3558 
 
 WORM 
 
 obedient  Israelites  kept  till  the  morning  of  a  week- 
 day "  bred  worms  "  (Cl^V^n),  and  stank  (Ex. 
 xvi.  20);  while  of  that  kept  over  the  Sabbath  and 
 gathered  the  night  before,  it  is  said  that  "  it  did 
 
 not  stink,  neither  was  there  any  worm  (n^^) 
 therein."'  The  Hebrew  word  is  connected  with  the 
 root  DS~1  "  to  be  putrid  "  (see  Gesenius,  Thes. 
 s.  v.),  and  points  evidently  to  various  kinds  of 
 niaiinots,  and  the  larvre  of  insects  wiiich  feed  on 
 putrefying  animal  matter  rather  tlian  to  earth- 
 worms; tlie  words  in  the  original  are  clearly  used 
 indiscriminately  to  denote  either  true  annelida,  or 
 the  larval  condition  of  various  insects.  Thus,  as 
 may  be  seen  above,  rhnmali  and  lolr'tdi  are  both 
 Used  to  express  the  maggot  or  caterpillar,  whatever 
 it  niii;ht  have  been  that  consumed  the  bad  manna 
 in  tlie  wilderness  of  Sin.  ,Iob,  under  his  heavy 
 affliction,  exclaims,  "My  flesh  is  clothed  with 
 rimiiidh'"  (vii.  5;  .see  also  xvii.  14);  there  is  no 
 reason  to  doubt  that  the  expression  is  to  lie  under- 
 stood Uterally;  a  person  in  Job's  condition  would 
 very  probably  suffer  from  eniuzoa  of  some  kind. 
 In  Job  xxi.  20,  xxiv.  20,  there  is  an  allusion  to 
 worms  (insect  larvae)  feeding  on  the  dead  bodies 
 of  the  buried;  our  translators  in  the  well-known 
 passage  (xix.  2G) — "And  though  after  my  skin 
 worms  destroy  this  body  "  —  have  rather  over- 
 interjireted  the  words  of  the  original,  "  My  skin 
 shall  have  been  consumed."" 
 
 The    patriarch    uses    both  rinimah   and  ioleWt 
 
 (ni?  vW),  in  oh.  XXV.  6,  where  he  compares  the 
 estate  of  man  to  a  rimmd/i,  and  the  son  of  man  to 
 a  tMe'dh.  This  latter  word,  in  one  or  other  of  its 
 forms  (see  above),  is  applied  in  Deut.  xxviii.  39 
 to  some  kinds  of  larvae  destructive  to  the  vines: 
 "  Thou  shalt  plant  vineyards  ....  but  shalt  not 
 gather  the  grapes,  for  the  tdldntli,  shall  eat  them." 
 Various  kinds  of  insects  attack  the  vine,  amongst 
 which  one  of  the  most  destructive  is  the  ToHrix 
 vidsawi,  the  little  caterpillar  of  which  eats  off  the 
 inner  parts  of  the  blossoms,  the  clusters  of  which  it 
 binds  together  by  spinning  a  web  around  them. 
 The  "  worm  "  \\hich  is  said  to  have  destroyed 
 Jonah's  gourd  was  a  toldaili  (Jonah  iv.  7).  Mi- 
 chaelis  {Stippl.  p.  2189)  quotes  Kumphius  as  assert- 
 ing that  there  is  a  kind  of  black  caterpillar,  which, 
 during  sultry  rainy  weather,  does  actually  strip  the 
 plant  of  its  leaves  in  a  single  night.  In  Is.  Ixvi.  24 
 allusion  is  made  to  maggots  feeding  on  the  dead 
 bodies  of  the  slain  in  battle.  The  words  of  the 
 prophet  are  applied  by  our  Lord  (IMark  ix.  44,  40, 
 48)  metaphorically  to  the  stings  of  a  guilty  con- 
 science in  the  world  of  departed  spirits. 
 
 The  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  was  caused  by 
 worms  (ffK(v\riK6^pciiTos,  Acts  xii.  2-3);  according 
 to  Josephus  {Ant.  xix.  8),  his  death  took  place  five 
 days  alter  his  departure  from  the  theatre.  It  is 
 curious  that  the  Jewish  historian  makes  no  mention 
 of  worms  in  the  case  of  Agrippa,  though  he  ex- 
 pressly notes  it  in  that  of  Herod  the  Great  {Aiif. 
 xvii.  G,  §  5).  A  similar  death  was  that  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  (2  Mace.  ix.  9;  see  also  Eu.sebius,  J^ccl. 
 Hist.  viii.  10;  and  Lucian  Psaulotiiaiit.  i.  p.  904; 
 compare  Wetstein  on  Acts  xii.  23).  Whetlier  the 
 worms  were  the  cause  or  the  result  of  the  disease 
 is  an  immaterial  question.     The    "  Angel  of   the 
 
 WORSHIPPER 
 
 Lord  struck  Herod  "  with  some  disease,  the  issue 
 of  which  was  fatal,  and  the  loathsome  spectacle  of 
 which  could  not  fail  to  have  had  a  marked  humiliat- 
 ing effect  on  his  proud  heart.  W.  H. 
 
 WORMWOOD  (n32?b,  Mndfr.  ninpia 
 XoAVj,  odvvT],  and  avayKTi-  iiiiinritudo  rib.iijnt/iium). 
 I'lie  correct  translation  of  the  Heb.  word  occurs 
 frequently  in  the  Bible,  and  generally  in  a  nieta- 
 piiorical  sense,  as  in  Deut.  xxix.  18.  where  of  the 
 idolatrous  Israelites  it  is  said,  "  Lest  there  be  among 
 you  a  root  that  beareth  wormwood  "  (see  also  Prov. 
 v.  4).  In  Jer.  ix.  15,  xxiii.  15;  Lam.  iii.  15,  19, 
 wormwood  is  symbolical  of  bitter  calamity  and  sor- 
 row; unrighteous  judges  are  said  to  "turn  judg- 
 ment to  wormwood"  (Am.  v.  7).  The  Orientals 
 typified  sorrows,  cruelties,  and  calamities  of  any 
 kind  by  plants  of  a  poisonous  or  bitter  nature. 
 [G.\LL,  i.  861.]  The  name  of  the  star  which  at 
 the  sound  of  the  third  angel's  trumpet  fell  upon 
 the  rivers,  was  called  Wormword  ("Axpivdos',  Itev. 
 viii.  11).  Kitto  (Pliys.  JJist.  of  PnU-stine,  p.  215) 
 enumerates  four  kinds  of  wormwood  as  found  in 
 Palestine  —  Artemisia  nilotica,  A.  .luduica,  A. 
 J'ruticusn,  and  ^4.  cinerea.  Eauwolf  speaks  of 
 some  kind  of  wormwood  under  the  name  of  Absin- 
 thium siintonicum  Judnicum,  and  says  it  is  very 
 common  in  Palestine;  this  is  perhaps  the  Artemisia 
 .ludaicii.  The  Hebrew  Launah  is  doubtless  generic, 
 and  denotes  several  species  of  Artemisia  (Celsius, 
 Hierub.  i.  p.  480;  Kosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Bot.  p.  110). 
 
 W.  H. 
 
 *  WORSHIP  (derived  from  worth,  and  the 
 termination  ship)  originally  =  ;«)?'^////?fSf,  became 
 used  to  denote  the  honor  or  reverence  of  which  one 
 was  resjarded  as  worthy,  and,  as  a  verb,  signified  to 
 pay  such  honor  or  reverence;  the  word  not  being 
 originally  restricted,  as  now,  to  religious  worship. 
 Thus  Wyclifte  translates  Matt.  xix.  19,  "  Worschip 
 thi  fadir  and  tin  modir,"  and  in  the  marriage  service 
 of  the  Church  of  England  the  bridegroom  says  to  the 
 bride  "with  my  body  I  thee  uvrshij)."  The  noun 
 "  worship  "  is  so  used  in  the  A.  V.  Josh.  v.  14;  Luke 
 xiv.*10;  and  the  verb  occurs  in  Matt,  xviii.  20  and 
 often  elsewhere  as  the  rendering  of  TrpoaKwew  when 
 it  denotes  the  civil  reverence  or  homage  expressed 
 liy  the  oriental  custom  of  prostration.  [Auoda- 
 Tws;  Alt.vk;  Pk.vyeu;  Piuest;  Sackifice, 
 etc.]  A. 
 
 WORSHIPPER.  A  translation  of  the  Greek 
 word  vewKopos-i  used  once  only.  Acts  xix.  35;  in 
 the  margin  "  Temple-keeiier."  The  neocoros  was 
 originally  an  attendant  in  a  temple,  probably  en- 
 trusted with  its  charge  (Eurip.  Jvn,  115,  121,  ed. 
 Dind. ;  Plato,  Ley.  vi.  7,  liekk. ;  Theodoret,  JJist. 
 Jiccl.  iii.  14,  10;  Pollux,  i.  14;  Philo, />e  P;-oi'. 
 (Sac.  0,  ii.  237;  Hesychius  explains  it  by  6  rhv 
 vaov  Koa/jLUV,  Kopuv  yap  rh  aaipnv,  Suidas, 
 KoapiSiv  Ka\  ivrpeiri^wv,  dAA'  ovx  o  ffapciiv,  ed. 
 Gaisf.  p.  2579).  The  divine  honors  paid  in  later 
 Greek  times  to  eminent  persons  even  in  their  life- 
 time, were  imitated  and  exaggerated  by  the  Itomans 
 under  the  empire,  especially  in  Asia  (Pint.  /,?/«. 
 2.i;  Appian,  Mithr.  70;  l>ion  Cass.  xxxi.  0).  The 
 term  neocoros  became  tlius  applied  to  cities  or  com- 
 munities which  undertook  the  worship  of  particular 
 emperors  even  in  their  lifetime;  but  there  is  no 
 trace  of  the  special  title  being  applied  to  any  city 
 
 The    Hebrew   is,     nST"^5|vl3   ''"1137   "IHS"], 
 ,  "  And  after  that  they  shall  have  consumed  this 
 
 my  skin,"  or,  as  Davidson  renders  it,  "  Yea,  after  my 
 skin,  when  this  (body)  is  destroyed"  {Introd.  O.  T.  ii 
 
WOT   AND   WOTTETH 
 
 before  tlie  time  of  AuL;ustus.  The  first  occurrence 
 of  the  term  in  connection  witli  Kpliesus  is  on  coins 
 of  tlie  aije  of  Nei'o  (a.  d.  54-08 ),  a  time  wliicli 
 would  sutticiently  agree  with  its  use  in  the  account 
 of  the  riot  tliere,  probal)ly  in  5-5  or  5G.  In  later 
 times  the  title  appears  with  the  numerical  adjuncts 
 Si's,  rpis,  and  even  reTpa/ciy.  A  coin  of  Nero's  time 
 bears  on  one  side  'Ecpecriccv  vfwKopaiv,  and  on  the 
 reverse  a  figure  of  tlie  temple  of  Artemis  (Mionnet, 
 Inset:  iii.  iJ3;  Kckhel,  Docir.  Vet.  Num.  ii.  520) 
 The  ancient  veneration  of  Artemis  and  her  temple 
 on  the  part  of  the  city  of  Ephesus,  which  procured 
 for  it  the  title  of  veoiitSpos  ttjs  'Apre^iSos,  is  too 
 well  known  to  need  illustration :  but  in  later  times 
 it  seems  probaljle  that  with  the  term  vtooicSpos  the 
 practice  of  Neocorisni  became  reserved  almost  ex- 
 clusively for  the  veneration  paid  to  Roman  emperors, 
 towards  whom  many  other  cities  also  of  Asia 
 Minor  are  mentioned  as  Neocorists,  e.  </.  Niconie- 
 dia,  Perinthus,  ISardis,  Smyrna,  Magnesia  (Herod. 
 i.  26;  Stralio,  xiv.  640;  Aristid.  Or.  xlii.  775,  ed. 
 Dind.;  Mionnet,  hiscr.  iii.  <J7,  Nos.  281,  285; 
 Eckhel,  Be  Num.  ii.  520,  521;  Boeckh,  Jiiscr. 
 2617,2618,  2622,  2954,2957,  2990,  2992,  2993; 
 Krause,  De  Civ.  Neocoris  ;  Hofmann,  Lex.  '  Neo- 
 coros').  H.W.  P. 
 
 *  WOT  and  WOTTETH  occur  repeatedly  in 
 the  A.  V.  (Gen.  xxi.  20,  xxxix.  8,  xliv.  15;  Exod. 
 xxxii.  1,  etc.)  as  forms  of  the  indicative  present  of 
 the  old  verb  to  wit^  to  "  know."     [Wist;  Wit.] 
 
 A. 
 
 WRESTLING.     [Games.] 
 
 WRITING.  It  is  proposed  in  the  present 
 article  to  treat,  not  of  writing  in  general,  its  origin, 
 the  people  liy  whom  and  the  manner  in  which  it 
 was  discovered,  liut  simply  with  reference  to  the 
 Hebrew  race  to  give  such  indications  of  their  ac 
 quaintance  with  the  art  as  are  to  be  derived  from 
 their  books,  to  discuss  the  origin  and  Ibrmation  of 
 their  alphabet,  and  the  subsequent  development  of 
 the  present  square  character,  and  to  combine  with 
 this  discussion  an  account,  so  far  as  can  be  ascer- 
 tained, of  the  material  ap|iliances  which  they  made 
 use  of  in  writing,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  prac- 
 tice prevailed  among  the  people. 
 
 It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  although,  with  re- 
 spect to  other  arts,  as  for  instance  those  of  music 
 and  metal  working,  the  Hebrews  have  assigned  the 
 honor  of  their  discovery  to  the  heroes  of  a  remote 
 antiquity,  there  is  no  trace  or  tradition  whatever  of 
 the  origin  of  letters,  a  discovery  many  times  more 
 remarkable  and  important  than  either  of  these. 
 Throughout  the  book  of  Genesis  there  is  not  a 
 single  allusion,  direct  or  indirect,  either  to  the 
 practice  or  to  the  existence  of  writing.     The  word 
 
 '^r\'3,  cdthab,  "to  write,"  does  not  once  occur; 
 
 none  of  its  derivatives  are  used ;  and  "120,  sepher, 
 "  a  book,"  is  found  only  in  a  single  passage  (Gen. 
 v.  1),  and  there  not  in  a  connection  which  involves 
 the  supposition  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known 
 at  the  time  to  which  it  refers.  The  signet  of  Judah 
 (Gen.  xxxviii.  18,  25)  which  had  probably  some  de- 
 vice engraven  \i\wn  it,  and  Pharaoh's  ring  (Gen. 
 xli.  42)  with  which  Joseph  was  invested,  have  been 
 appealed  to  as  indicating  a  knowledge  quite  con- 
 sistent with  the  existence  of  writing.  But  as  there 
 is  nothing  to  show  that  the  devices  upon  these 
 rings,  supposing  them  to  e.xist,  were  written  char- 
 acters, or  in  fict  anything  more  than  emblemat- 
 ical figures,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  throwing 
 
 WRITING 
 
 5559 
 
 much  light  upon  the  question.  That  the  Egyp- 
 tians in  the  time  of  Joseph  were  acquainted  with 
 writing  of  a  certain  kind  there  is  otiier  evidence  to 
 prove,  but  there  is  nothing  to  show  tliat  up  to  this 
 period  the  knowledge  extended  to  the  Hebrew 
 family.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no  evidence 
 against  it.  i'he  instance  brought  forward  liy  Heng- 
 stenberg  to  prove  that  "  signets  commonly  bore  al- 
 phabetic writings,"  is  by  no  means  so  decisive  as 
 lie  would  have  it  appear.  Ft  is  Ex.  xxxix.  30: 
 "  And  they  made  the  jilate  of  the  holy  crown  of 
 pure  gold,  and  wrote  u[ioii  it  a  writing  of  the  en- 
 i;ravings  of  a  signet,  '  Holiness  to  the  Lord.'  '' 
 That  is,  this  inscription  w.ns  engraved  upon  the 
 plate  as  the  device  is  engraved  upon  a  signet,  in  in- 
 taglio; and  the  expression  has  reference  to  the 
 manner  of  engraving,  and  not  to  the  figures  en- 
 graved, and  therefore  cannot  be  appealed  to  as  prov- 
 ing the  existence  of  alphalietic  characters  upon 
 Judah's  signet  or  Pharaoh's  ring.  Writing  is  first 
 distinctly  mentioned  in  Ex.  xvii.  14,  and  the  con- 
 nection clearly  implies  that  it  was  not  then  em- 
 ployed tor  the  first  time,  but  was  so  familiar  as  to 
 be  used  for  historic  records.  JMoses  is  commanded 
 to  preserve  the  memory  of  Amalek's  onslaught  in 
 the  desert  by  committing  it  to  writing.  "  And  Je- 
 hovah said  unto  Closes,  Write,  tliis  for  a  memorial 
 in  the  book  (not  '  a  book,'  as  in  the  A.  V.),  and 
 rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua."  It  is  clear  that 
 some  special  Ijook  is  here  referred  to,  perhaps,  as 
 .'Vben  Ezra  suggests,  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Je- 
 hovah, or  the  book  of  Jasliar,  or  one  of  the  many 
 documents  of  the  ancient  Helirews  which  have  long 
 since  perished.  Or  it  may  have  been  the  book  in 
 which  Moses  wrote  the  words  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxiv. 
 4),  that  is  the  laws  contained  in  chapters  xx.-xxiii. 
 The  tables  of  the  testimony  are  said  to  be  "  written 
 by  the  finger  of  God  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  18)  on  both  sides, 
 and  "  the  writing  was  the  writing  of  God,  graven 
 upon  the  tables  "  (Ex.  xxxii.  16).  It  is  not  clear 
 whether  the  passage  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  28  implies  that 
 the  second  tables  were  written  liy  Jloses  or  b'y  God 
 himself.  The  engraving  of  the  gems  of  the  high- 
 priest's  lireastplate  with  the  names  of  the  children 
 of  Israel  (Ex.  xxviii.  11),  and  the  inscription  upon 
 the  mitre  (Ex.  xxxix.  30)  have  to  do  more  with  the 
 art  of  the  engraver  than  of  the  writer,  but  both 
 imply  the  existence  of  alphabetic  characters.  The 
 next  allusion  is  not  so  clear.  The  Israelites  were 
 forliidden,  in  imitation  of  the  idolatrous  nations,  to 
 put  any  "  brand  "  (lit.  "  writing  of  burning  ")  upon 
 themselves.  The  figures  thus  branded  upon  the 
 skin  might  have  been  alphabetical  characters,  but 
 they  were  more  probalily  emblematical  devices, 
 symbolizing  some  object  of  worship,  for  the   root 
 
 3n3,  calhah  (to  write),  is  applied  to  picture-draw- 
 ing (Judg.  viii.  14),  to  mapping  out  a  country 
 (Josh,  xviii.  8),  and  to  plan-drawing  (1  Chr.  xxviii. 
 19 ).  The  curses  against  the  adulteress  were  written 
 by  the  priest  "in  the  book,"  as  before;  and  lilotted 
 out  with  water  (Num.  v.  23).  This  proceeding, 
 though  principally  distinguished  by  its  symbolical 
 character,  involves  the  use  of  some  kind  of  ink,  and 
 of  a  material  on  which  the  curses  were  written 
 which  would  not  be  destroyed  by  water.  The  writ- 
 ing on  door-posts  and  gates,  alluded  to  in  Dent, 
 vi.  9,  xi.  20,  though  perhaps  to  be  taken  figura- 
 tively rather  than  literally,  implies  certainly  an 
 acquaintance  with  the  art  and  the  use  of  alphabetic 
 characters.  Hitherto,  however,  nothing  has  been 
 said  of  the  application  of  writing  to  the  purposes 
 
8560 
 
 WRITING 
 
 of  ordinary  life,  or  of  tiie  knowledsje  of  the  art 
 atnoiit;  tlie  common  people.  Up  to  this  point  such 
 knowledge  is  only  attributed  to  !Moses  and  the 
 priests.  From  Deut.  xxiv.  1,  3,  however,  it  would 
 appear  that  it  was  extended  to  otliers.  A  niaii  who 
 wished  to  be  separated  from  his  wife  for  her  infidel- 
 ity, could  relieve  himself  by  a  summary   process. 
 
 "  Let  him  write  her  a  bill  ("IpD,  sepher,  "  a  book  ") 
 
 of  divorcement,  and  give  it  in  her  hand,  and  send 
 her  out  of  his  house."  It  is  not  alisolutely  neces- 
 sary to  infer  from  this  that  the  art  of  writinii;  was 
 an  accomplisiiment  possessed  by  every  Hebrew  citi- 
 zen, though  there  is  no  mention  of  a  third  party; 
 and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  these  "  bills  of 
 divorcement,"  though  apparently  so  informal,  were 
 the  work  of  professional  scribes.  It  was  enjoined 
 as  one  of  the  duties  of  the  king  (Deut.  xvii.  18), 
 that  he  should  transcribe  the  book  of  the  Law  for 
 his  own  private  study,  and  we  shall  find  hereafter 
 in  the  history  tliat  distinct  allusions  to  writing 
 occur  in  the  case  of  several  kings.  The  remaining 
 instances  in  tiie  Pentateuch  are  the  writing  of  laws 
 upon  stone  covered  with  plaster,  upon  which  while 
 soft  the  inscription  was  cut  (Deut.  xxvii.  3,  8),  tiie 
 writing  of  the  song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxi.  24),  and 
 of  the  Law  in  a  book  which  was  placed  in  the  side 
 of  the  ark  (Deut.  xxxi.  26).  One  of  the  first  acts 
 of  Joshua  on  entering  the  Promised  Land  was  to 
 inscribe  a  copy  of  the  Law  on  the  stones  of  tiie 
 Altar  on  Mount  Ebal  (Josh.  viii.  32).  The  survey 
 of  the  country  was  drawn  out  in  a  book  (Josh,  xviii. 
 8).     In  the  time  of  the  Judges  we  first  meet  with 
 
 the  professional  scribe  ("^pD,  sopker),  in  his  im- 
 portant capacity  as  marshal  of  the  host  of  warriors 
 (Judg.  V.  14),  with  his  staff  (A.  V.  "pen")  of 
 office.     Ewald  {Pu(-t.  B'dch.  i.  129)  regards  soplier 
 
 in  this  passage  as  equivalent  to  1^  9^17,  shoplict, 
 '"judge,"  and  certainly  the  context  implies  the  high 
 rank  which  the  art  of  writing  conferred  upon  its 
 possessor.  Later  on  in  the  history  we  read  of 
 Samuel  writing  in  "the  book  "  the  manner  of  the 
 kingdom  (1  Sam.  x.  25);  but  it  is  not  till  the  reign 
 of  David  that  we  hear  for  the  first  time  of  writing 
 being  used  for  the  purposes  of  ordinary  communi- 
 cation. The  letter  (lit.  "  book  ")  which  contained 
 Uriah's  death-warrant  was  written  by  David,  and 
 must  have  been  intended  for  the  eye  of  Joab  alone; 
 who  was  therefore  able  to  read  writing,  and  prob- 
 ably to  write  himself,  though  his  message  to  the 
 king,  conveying  the  intelligence  of  Uriah's  death, 
 was  a  verbal  one  (2  Sam.  xi.  14,  15).  If  we  ex- 
 amine the  instances  in  which  writing  is  mentioned 
 in  connection  with  individuals,  we  shall  find  that 
 in  all  cases  the  writers  were  men  of  superior  position. 
 In  the  Pentateuch  the  knowledge  of  the  art  is  atti-ib- 
 uted  to  Moses,  Joshua,  and  the  priest  alone.  Sam- 
 uel, who  was  educated  by  the  high-priest,  is  men- 
 tioned as  one  of  the  earliest  historians  (1  Chr.  xxix. 
 29),  as  well  as  Natlian  the  prophet  (2  Chr.  ix.  29), 
 Shemaiah  the  prophet,  Iddo  the  seer  (2  Chr.  xii. 
 15,  xiii.  22),  and  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  (2  Chr. 
 XX.  34).  Letters  were  written  by  Jezebel  in  the 
 name  of  Ahab  and  sealed  with  his  seal  (1  K.  xxi. 
 8,9,  11);  by  Jehu  (2  K.  x.  6);  by  Hezekiah  (2 
 Chr.  XXX.  1 ) ;  by  Kabshakeh  the  Assyrian  general 
 (2  Chr.  xxxii.  17);  by  tiie  Persian  satraps  (ICzr.  iv. 
 6,  7,  8);  by  Sanballat  (Neh.  vi.  5),  Tol)iah  (Neb. 
 vi.  19),  Harnan  (Esth.  viii.  5),  Mordecai  and  Es- 
 ther (Esth.  ix.  29).  The  prophet  Elijah  wrote  to 
 Ahab  (2  Chr.  xxi.  12);  Isaiah  wrote  some  of  the 
 
 "WRITING 
 
 history  of  his  time  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  22);  Jeremiah 
 committed  his  prophecies  to  writing  (Jer.  11.  60), 
 sometimes  by  the  help  of  Barucli  the  scribe  (.Tei-. 
 xxxvi.  4,  32);  and  the  false  prophet,  Shemaiali  the 
 Nehelamite,  endeavored  to  undermine  Jeremiaii's 
 influence  by  the  letters  which  he  wrote  to  the  high- 
 priest  (.ler.  xxix.  25).  In  Is.  xxix.  11,  12,  there  is 
 clearly  a  distinction  drawn  between  the  man  who 
 was  able  to  read,  and  the  man  who  was  not,  and  it 
 seems  a  natural  inference  from  what  has  been  said 
 that  the  accomplishments  of  reading  and  writing 
 were  not  widely  spread  among  the  people,  when 
 we  find  that  they  are  universally  attributed  to  those 
 of  high  rank  or  education,  kings,  priests,  prophets, 
 and  professional  scribes. 
 
 In  addition  to  these  instances  in  which  writing 
 is  directly  mentioned,  an  indirect  allusion  to  its 
 early  existence  is  supposed  to  be  found  in  the 
 name  of  certain  officers  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt, 
 
 D'^^l^tt?,  shoieiim,  LXX.  ypa/xfiareTs  (Ex.  v.  6, 
 A.  V.  "officers").  The  root  of  this  word  has  been 
 sought  in  the  Arabic  y^Mu,  satara,  "  to  write," 
 
 and  its  original  meaning  is  believed  to  be  "  writers," 
 or  "scribes;  "  an  explanation  adopted  by  Gesenius 
 in  his  Lexiain  fleOraicuiii  and  T/iesauriis,  though 
 he  rejected  it  in  his  Gescliichie  der  Ihbraischen 
 Spraclie  und  Sc/iriJ't.  In  the  name  Kirjath-Se- 
 pher  (Booktown,  Josh.  xv.  15)  the  indication  of  a 
 knowledge  of  writing  among  the  Plia?nicians  is 
 more  distinct.  Hitzig  conjectures  that  the  town 
 may  lia\e  derived  its  name  from  the  discovery  of 
 the  art,  for  the  Hittites,  a  Canaanitish  race,  inhab- 
 ited that  region,  and  the  term  Ilittite  may  possi- 
 bly have  its  root  in  the  Arabic  JC^,  chatta,  "  to 
 write." 
 
 The  Hebrews,  then,  a  branch  of  the  great  She- 
 niitic  family,  being  in  possession  of  the  art  of  writ- 
 ing, according  to  their  own  historical  records,  at  a 
 very  early  period,  the  further  questions  arise,  what 
 character  they  made  use  of,  and  whence  they  ob- 
 tained it.  It  is  scarcely  possible  in  the  present 
 day  to  believe  that,  two  centuries  since,  learned 
 men  of  sober  judgment  seriously  maintained,  al- 
 most as  an  article  of  faith,  that  the  square  charac- 
 ter, as  it  is  known  to  us,  with  the  vowel  points  and 
 accents,  was  a  direct  revelation  from  heaven,  and 
 that  the  commandments  were  written  by  the  finger 
 of  God  upon  the  tables  of  stone  in  that  character. 
 Such,  however,  was  really  the  case.  But  recent 
 investigations  have  shown  that,  so  far  from  the 
 square  character  having  any  claim  to  such  a  remote 
 antiquity  and  such  an  august  parentage,  it  is  of 
 comparatively  modern  date,  and  has  been  formed 
 from  a  more  ancient  type  by  a  gradual  process  of 
 development,  the  steps  of  which  will  lie  indicated 
 hereafter,  so  far  as  they  can  be  safely  ascertained. 
 What  then  was  this  ancient  type?  Most  prol)ably 
 the  Phoenician.  To  the  Phoenicians,  the  daring 
 seamen,  and  adventurous  colonizers  of  the  ancient 
 world,  tradition  assigned  the  honor  of  the  invention 
 of  letters  (Plin.  v.  12).  This  tradition  may  be  of 
 no  value  as  direct  evidence,  but  as  it  probably  orig- 
 inated with  the  Greeks,  it  shows  that,  to  them  at 
 least,  the  Phoenicians  were  the  in\entors  of  letters, 
 and  that  these  were  introduced  into  Europe  by 
 means  of  that  intercourse  with  Phoenicia  which  is 
 implied  in  the  legend  of  Cadmus,  the  man  of  the 
 East.      The   Phoenician  companions  of  this  hero, 
 
WRITING 
 
 according  to  Herodotus  (v.  58),  taught  the  Greeks 
 many  accomplishments,  and  among  others  the  use 
 of  letters,  which  hitherto  they  had  not  possessed. 
 So  Lucan,  Fhars.  iii.  220 :  — 
 
 "  Phoenices  primi,  famee  si  credimus,  ausi 
 Mausuram  rudibus  voceni  signare  figuris."' 
 
 Pliny  (vii.  56)  was  of  opinion  that  letters  were 
 of  Assyrian  origin,  but  he  mentions  as  a  belief  held 
 by  others  that  they  were  discovered  among  the 
 Egyptians  by  Mercury,  or  that  the  Syrians  had  tlie 
 honor  of  the  invention.  The  last-mentioned  theory 
 is  that  given  by  Diodorus  Siculus  (v.  74),  who  says 
 that  the  Syrians  invented  letters,  and  from  them 
 the  Phoenicians,  having  learned  them,  transferred 
 them  to  the  Greeks.  On  the  other  hand,  accord- 
 ing to  Tacitus  (Ann.  xi.  14),  Egypt  was  believed 
 to  be  the  source  whence  the  Phoenicians  derived 
 their  knowledge.  IJe  this  as  it  may,  the  voice  of 
 tradition  represents  the  Phoenicians  as  the  dissem- 
 inators, if  not  the  inventors  of  the  alphabet. 
 Whether  it  came  to  them  from  an  Aramaean  or 
 Egyptian  source  can  at  best  be  but  the  subject  of 
 conjecture.  It  may,  however,  be  reasonably  in- 
 ferred that  the  ancient  Hebrews  derived  from,  oi- 
 shared  with,  the  Phoenicians  the  knowledge  of  writ- 
 ing and  the  use  of  letters.  The  two  nations  spoke 
 languages  of  the  same  Sliemitic  family ;  they  were 
 brought  into  close  contact  by  geographical  position : 
 all  circumstances  combine  to  render  it  probable 
 that  the  ancient  Hebrew  alphabet  was  the  conunon 
 possession  both  of  Hebrews  and  Phoenicians,  and 
 this  probability  is  strengthened  by  Ihe  results  of 
 modern  investigation  into  the  Phoenician  inscrip- 
 tions which  have  of  late  years  been  bi'ought  to 
 light.  The  names  of  the  Hebrew  letters  indicate 
 that  they  must  have  been  the  invention  of  a  Shem- 
 itic  people,  and  that  they  were  moreover  a  pas- 
 toral people  may  be  inferred  from  the  same  evidence. 
 Such  names  as  Aleph  (an  ox),  Gimel  (a  camel), 
 Lamed  (an  ox- goad),  are  most  naturally  explained 
 by  this  hypothesis,  which  necessarily  excludes  the 
 seal'aring  Phoenicians  from  any  claim  to  their  in- 
 vention. If,  as  has  been  conjectured,  they  took 
 the  first  idea  of  writing  from  the  Egyptians,  they 
 would  at  least  have  given  to  the  signs  which  they 
 invented  the  names  of  objects  with  which  they 
 themselves  were  familiar.  So  far  from  this  being 
 the  case,  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  contain 
 no  trace  whatever  of  ships  or  seafaring  matters :  on 
 the  contrary,  they  point  distinctly  to  an  inland  and 
 pastoral  people.  The  Shemitic  and  Egyptian  al- 
 phabets have  this  principle  in  common,  that  the 
 object  whose  name  is  given  to  a  letter  was  taken 
 originally  to  indicate  the  letter  which  begins  the 
 name;  but  this  fact  alone  is  insufficient  to  show 
 that  the  Shemitic  races  borrowed  their  alphaliet 
 from  Egypt,  or  that  the  principle  thus  held  in 
 common  may  not  have  been  the  possession  of  other 
 nations  of  a  still  earlier  date  than  the  Egyptians. 
 "  The  phonetic  use  of  hieroglyphics,"  says  ]\Ir. 
 Kenrick,  "  would  naturally  suggest  to  a  practical 
 peo]>le,  such  as  the  Phoenicians  were,  a  simplifica- 
 tion of  the  cumbrous  system  of  the  Egyptians,  by 
 dispensing  altogether  with  the  pictorial  and  sym- 
 bolical use,  and  assigning  one  character  to  each 
 Eound,  instead  of  the  multitude  of  homophones 
 which  made  the  reading  of  the  hieroglyphics  so  dif- 
 ficult; the  residence  of  the  'Phoenician  shepherds,' 
 the  Hyksos,  in  Egypt  might  afford  an  o))portunity 
 for  this  adaptation,  or  it  might  l)e  brought  about 
 by  commercial  intercourse.  We  cannot,  however, 
 224 
 
 WRITING  3561 
 
 trace  such  a  resemblance  between  the  earliest  Phoe- 
 nician alphabet  known  to  us,  and  the  plioneti(! 
 characters  of  Egypt,  as  to  give  any  certainty  to 
 this  conclusion"  {Phoenicia,  pp.  164,  165). 
 
 Perhaps  all  that  can  be  inferred  from  the  tradi- 
 tion that  letters  came  to  the  Greeks  from  the  Phoe- 
 nicians, but  that  they  were  the  invention  of  the 
 Egyptians,  is  that  the  Egyptians  possessed  an  al- 
 phabet before  the  Phoenicians.  Wahl,  De  Wette, 
 and  Kopp  are  inclined  to  a  Babylonian  origin,  un- 
 derstanding the  '2,vpoi  of  Diodorus  and  the  Syri  of 
 Pliny  of  the  Babylonians.  But  Gesenius  has  shown 
 this  to  be  untenable,  because  (1)  Pliny  distinctly 
 mentions  both  Syri  and  Assyrii,  and  by  no  means 
 confounds  tlieni;  and  (2)  because  the  inscription 
 on  the  seal-stone,  on  which  Kopp  based  his  theory, 
 is  nothing  more  than  Phoenician,  and  that  not  of 
 the  oldest  form,  but  inclining  to  the  somewhat  later 
 Aramaic  character.  This  seal-stone  or  brick  con- 
 tained, besides  a  cuneiform  inscription,  some 
 Shemitic  characters  whicli  were  deciphered  by 
 Kopp,  and  were  placed  by  him  at  the  head  of  his 
 most  ancient  alphabets  {Bilder  und  ScliriJ'ten,  ii. 
 154).  Gesenius,  however,  read  them  with  a  very 
 dittiirent  result.  He  himself  argues  for  a  Phoeni- 
 cian origin  of  the  alphabet,  in  opposition  to  a 
 Babylonian  or  Aram£ean,on  the  following  grounds: 
 1.  That  the  names  of  tlie  letters  are  Phoenician, 
 and  not  Syrian.  Several  of  the  names  are  found 
 alike  in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  dialects:  as  for 
 instance,  beth,  gimel,  z(mi,  nun,  (tin,  resh,  shin, 
 but  others  are  not  found  in  Syriac  at  all,  at  least 
 not  in  the  same  sense.  Aleph,  in  Syriac  signifies 
 "a  thousand,"  not  "an  ox;"  dalelh  is  not  -'a 
 door,"  and  for  this,  as  well  as  for  vnw,  yod,  mem, 
 pe,  koph,  and  tciu,  different  words  are  used.  The 
 Greek  forms  of  the  names  of  the  letters  are  some- 
 what in  favor  of  an  Aramaic  origin,  but  there  is  no 
 proof  that  they  came  in  this  shape  from  the  Ea.st, 
 and  that  they  were  not  so  modified  by  the  Greeks 
 themselves.  2.  It  is  not  probaljle  that  the  Aramaic 
 dialect  was  the  language  of  the  inventors ;  for  the 
 
 letters  '^  T  27  H,  which  to  them  were  certainly  con- 
 sonants, had  become  so  weak  in  the  Aramaic  that 
 they  could  scarcely  any  longer  appear  as  such,  and 
 could  not  have  been  expressed  by  signs  by  an  in- 
 ventor who  spoke  a  dialect  of  this  kind.  3.  If 
 the  Phoenician  letters  are  pictorial,  as  there  seems 
 reason  to  believe,  tliere  is  no  model,  among  the  old 
 Babylonian  discoverers  of  writing,  after  wiiich  they 
 could  have  been  formed ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
 it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  Plioenicians,  from 
 their  extended  commerce,  especially  with  Egypt, 
 adopted  an  imitation  of  the  l<Lgyptian  phonetic 
 hieroglyphics,  though  they  took  neitlier  tlie  figures 
 nor  the  names  from  this  source.  The  names  of 
 some  of  the  letters  lead  us  to  a  nomad  pastoral 
 people,  rich  in  herds :  nleph  (an  ox),  f/i)nel  (a 
 camel),  inmed  (im  ox-goad),  beth  (a  tent),  daleth 
 (a  tent-door),  vnu  (a  tent-peg),  che/h  (a  hurdle  or 
 pen).  It  is  a  little  remarkable  tiiat  Gesenius  did 
 not  see  that  this  very  fact  militates  strongly  against 
 the  Phoenician  origin  of  the  letters,  and  points,  as 
 has  been  observed  nbuve,  rather  to  a  pastoral  than 
 a  seafaring  people  as  tiieir  inventors.  But  whether 
 or  not  the  Phoenicians  were  the  inventors  of  the 
 Shemitic  alphabet,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  their 
 just  claim  to  being  its  chief  disseniinatoi-s;  and 
 with  this  understanding  we  may  accept  tiie  geneal- 
 ogy of  alphaliets  as  given  by  Gesenius,  and  exhib- 
 ited in  the  accompanying  table. 
 
3562 
 
 WRITING 
 
 WRITING 
 
 Anc.  Persian.       Numidian.     Anc.  Hebrew.         Anc.  Aramaean. 
 
 A. 
 
 Etruscan.  Eoman. 
 Umbrian  I 
 
 Oscan.  Runic  ? 
 Samnite. 
 
 Celti- 
 berian. 
 
 Coptic.     Gothic.       Slavonian. 
 
 Samaritan.     Palmyrene. 
 
 Heb.  square 
 character. 
 
 Sassanid-writing.       Estrangelo      Sabian. 
 I  and  Nestorian. 
 
 Zend. 
 
 I  Pehlvi. 
 
 Armenian  ? 
 
 Whatever  minor  differences  may  exist  between 
 Vhe  ancient  and  more  modern  Slien)itic  alpliabets, 
 they  have  two  chief  characteristics  in  common: 
 (1.)    That  they  contain   only  consonants  and  the 
 
 three  principal  long  vowels,  W,  T,  ^  [which  must 
 have  been  consonants  originally.  —  W.  H.  W.]  ; 
 the  other  vowels  Ijeing  represented  by  signs  above, 
 below,  or  in  the  middle  of  letters,  or  being  omitted 
 altogether.  (2.)  That  they  are  written  from  right 
 to  left.  The  Ethiopic,  being  perhaps  a  non-Shem- 
 itic  alphabet,  is  an  exception  to  this  rule,  as  is 
 the  cuneiform  character  in  which  some  Shemitic 
 inscriptions  are  found.  The  same  peculiarity  of 
 Egyptian  writing  was  remarked  by  Herodotu.s.  No 
 instance  of  what  is  called  buuslraphcdoii  writing  — 
 that  is  in  a  direction  from  right  to  left,  and  from 
 left  to  right  in  alternate  lines  —  is  found  in  Shem- 
 itic monuments. 
 
 The  old  Shemitic  alphabets  may  be  divided  into 
 two  principal  classes:  (1.)  The  Phoenician,  as  it 
 exists  (")  in  the  inscriptions  in  Cyprus,  Malta, 
 Carpentras,  and  the  coins  of  Phoenicia  and  her 
 colonies.  It  is  distinguished  by  an  absence  of 
 vowels,  and  by  sometimes  having  the  words  divided 
 and  sometimes  not.  (6.)  In  the  in-scriptions  on 
 .lewish  coins.  (c.)  In  the  Phoeniclo-Egyptian 
 writing,  with  three  vowel  signs,  deciphered  by 
 Caylus  on  the  munnny  bandages.  From  («)  are 
 derived  (rf),  the  Samaritan  ch.aracter,  and  (e),  the 
 Greek.  (2.)  The  Hebrew-Chaldee  character;  to 
 which  belong  («),  the  Hebrew  square  character; 
 (i),  the  Palmyrene,  which  has  some  traces  of  a 
 cursive  hand;  (c),  the  Estrangelo,  or  ancient  Syr- 
 iac;  and  (f/),  the  ancient  Arabic  or  Cufic.  The 
 oldest  Arabic  writing  (the  Plimyaritlc)  was  per- 
 haps the  same  as  the  ancient  Hebrew  or  Phce- 
 nlclan.« 
 
 It  remains  now  to  consider  which  of  all  these 
 was  the  alphabet  originally  used  by  the  ancient 
 Hebrews.  In  considering  this  question  it  will  on 
 m^ny  accounts  be  more  convenient  to  begin  with 
 the  common  square  character,  which  Is   more  fa- 
 
 a  *  Schroder  (Phonizische  Sprache,  pp.  77,  78)  di- 
 vides the  Plioenician  remains  into  four  palaeographical 
 classes.  The  first,  which  he  makes  provisionally,  as 
 he  had  no  monument  to  put  in  it,  is  the  original 
 Archaic  Phcenician  used  with  little  alteration  up  to 
 the  seventh  century  before  Christ,  To  this  class,  we 
 may  say,  belongs  the  Moabite  monument  of  King 
 Mesha,  first  given  to  the  public  by  M,  Ganneau  in 
 January,  1870.  The  second  class  is  the  Eastern  Phoe- 
 nician, extending  from  the  seventh  or  sixth  century 
 
 afic. 
 
 Peshito.     Uiguric,  or 
 Old  Turkish. 
 
 Nischi. 
 
 miliar,  and  which  from  this  familiarity  is  more 
 constantly  associated  with  the  Hebrew  language 
 and  writing.     In  the  Talmud  {Sank.  fol.  21,  22) 
 
 this  character  is  called    27271^  ^*!P?)    "  square 
 
 writing,"  or  n'^"[l^ti?S  ^H?,  "  Assyrian  writ- 
 ing;" the  latter  appellation  being  given  because, 
 according  to  the  tradition,  it  came  up  with  the 
 Israelites  from  Assyria.  Under  the  term  Assyria 
 are  Included  Chaldsea  and  Babylonia  In  the  wider 
 sense;  for  it  is  cle.ar  that  in  ancient  writers  the 
 names  Assi/ridii  and  C/uikkean  are  applied  Indif- 
 ferently to  the  same  characters.  The  letters  of  the 
 inscription  on  the  tomb  of  Sardanapalus  are  called 
 Chaldasan  (Athen.  xil.  529)  and  Assyrian  (Athen. 
 xii.  469 ;  Arrian,  Exp.  Alex.  ii.  5,  §  4).  Again, 
 the  Assyrian  writing  on  the  pillars  erected  by 
 Darius  at  the  Bosporos  (Iler.  iv.  87),  Is  called  by 
 Strabo    Persian    (xv.   502).     Another   derivation 
 
 for  the  epithet  J~l"'"l^t£'W,  ashshurith,  as  applied 
 to  this  writing,  has  been  suggested  by  Rabbi  Judah 
 the  Holy,  who  derives  it  from  ^"^^^;5^,  meush- 
 sherelh,  "blessed;"  the  term  being  applied  to  it 
 because    it  was   employed    in  writing  the   sacred 
 
 l)Ooks.  Another  etymology  (from  "Itt'^S,  dshar, 
 to  be  straight),  given  by  the  Hebrew  granmiarian 
 Abraham  de  Balinis,  describes  it  as  the  straight, 
 perpendicular  writing,  so  making  the  epithet  equiv- 
 alent to  that  which  we  apply  to  it  In  calling  It  the 
 square  character.  Hupfeld,  starting  from  the  same 
 root,  explains  the  Talmudic  designation  as  merely 
 a  technical  term  used  to  denote  the  more  modern 
 
 writing,  and  as  opposed  to  V^"^)  ''«"'«)  "  broken," 
 by  which  the  ancient  character  Is  described.''  Ac- 
 cording to  him  it  signifies  that  which  is  firm, 
 strong,  protected  and  supported  as  with  forts  and 
 walls,  referring  perhaps  to  the  horizontal  strokes 
 on  which  the  letters  rest  as  on  a  foundation. 
 In   this  view   he  compares  it  with  the  Ethiopic 
 
 character,   which   Is   called    in   Arabic    i^XjiMjC, 
 
 B.  c.  until  the  time  of  Christ,  and  called  by  M.  de 
 Voglit5  the  "  Sidonian."  The  third  class  is  the  Car- 
 thaginian, and  the  fourth  the  New  Punic  of  the  time 
 of  the  Roman  domination  of  North  Africa  and  Spain. 
 
 AV,  II.  W. 
 
 b  *  Probably  the  Talmud  of  Venice  is  right  in 
 printing  this  word  '^^"T  instead  of  '^'2~\  from  a 
 root   y^l,  "  to  cut,  engrave."  W.  H   W 
 
WRITING 
 
 "supported."  It  must  be  confessed  that  none  of 
 these  explanations  are  so  satisfoctory  as  to  be  un- 
 hesitatingly accepted.     The  only  fact  to  be  derived 
 
 from  the  word  rT^^^li^S  is  that  it  is  the  source 
 of  the  whole  Talmudic  tradition  of  tlie  Babylonian 
 origin  of  the  square  character.  Tliis  tradition  is 
 embodied  in  the  following  passages  from  the  .leru- 
 saleiu  and  Babylonian  Talmuds:  "It  is  a  tradi- 
 tion :  R.  Jose  says  Ezra  was  fit  to  have  tlie  Law 
 given  by  his  hand,  but  that  the  age  of  Moses  pre- 
 vented it;  yet  though  it  was  not  given  by  his 
 hand,  the  writing  and  the  language  were;  the 
 writing  was  written  in  the  Syriac  tongue,  and  in- 
 terpreted in  the  Syriac  tongue  (Ezr.  iv.  7),  and 
 they  could  not  read  the  writing  (Dan.  v.  8);  from 
 lience  it  is  learned  that  it  was  given  on  the  same 
 day.    R.  Nathan  says  the  Law  was  given  in  broken 
 
 characters  (\^27"1,  mats),  and  agrees  with  R.  Jose; 
 but  Rab  (J.  e.  R.  Judah  tlie  Holy)  says  that  the 
 Law  vfus  given  in  the  Assyrian  {L  e.  the  square) 
 character,  a)id  when  they  sinned  it  was  turned  into 
 the  broken  character,  and  when  they  were  worthy, 
 in  the  days  of  Ezra,  it  was  turned  to  them  again 
 in  the  Assyrian  character,  according  to  Zech.  ix. 
 12.  It  is  a  tradition :  R.  Simeon  ben  Eleazar  says, 
 on  the  account  of  R.  Eleazar  ben  Parta,  who  also 
 says,  on  the  account  of  Eliezer  Hammodai,  the  Law 
 was  written  in  the  Assyrian  character"  (Talm. 
 Jerus.  Meyillah,  fol.  71,  72,  73).  But  the  story,  as 
 best  known,  is  told  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud: 
 ''  Mar  Zutra,  or  as  others  Mar  Ukba,  says,  at  first 
 
 the  Law  was  given  to  Israel  in  the  Hebrew  (''"Q^, 
 i.  e.  the  Samaritan)  writing  and  the  holy  tongue; 
 and  again  it  was  given  to  them,  in  the  days  of 
 Ezra,  in  the  Assyrian  writing  and  the  Syrian 
 tongue.  They  chose  for  the  Israelites  the  Assyrian 
 writing  and  the  holy  tongue,  and  left  to  the  Iiiiotce 
 the  Hebrew  writing  and  the  Syrian  tongue.  Who 
 are  the  IiUoUb  '?  R.  Chasda  says,  the  Cutheans 
 (or  Samaritans).  What  is  the  Hebrew  writing? 
 R.  (Jhasda  says,  the  Libonaah  writing  "  (Saiilied. 
 fol.  21,  2;  22,  1).  The  Libonaah  writing  is  ex- 
 plained by  R.  Solomon  to  mean  the  large  charac- 
 ters in  which  the  Jews  wrote  their  amulets  and 
 mezuzoth.  The  broken  character  mentioned  above 
 can  only  apply  to  the  Samaritan  alphabet,  or  one 
 very  similar  to  it.  In  this  character  are  written, 
 not  only  manuscripts  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
 varying  in  age  from  the  13th  to  the  16th  century, 
 but  also  other  works  in  Samaritan  and  Arabic. 
 The  Samaritans  themselves  call  it  Hebrew  loriting, 
 in  contradistinction  to  the  square  character,  which 
 they  call  the  writing  of  Ezra.  It  has  no  vowel 
 points,  but  a  diacritical  mark  called  Marlielvno  is 
 employed,  and  words  and  sentences  are  divided. 
 A  form  of  character  more  ancient  than  the  Samari- 
 tan, though  closely  resembling  it,  is  found  on  the 
 coins  struck  under  Simon  Maccabajus,  cir.  b.  c. 
 142.  Of  this  writing  Gesenius  remarks  (art.  Pa- 
 Idoyraphie  in  Ersch  and  (iruber's  /uici/clnputlle) 
 that  it  was  most  probably  employed,  even  in  manu- 
 scripts, during  the  whole  lifetime  of  the  Hebrew 
 language,  and  was  gradually  displaced  l)y  the  square 
 character  about  the  birth  of  Christ.  An  examina- 
 tion of  the  characters  on  the  Maccal)a'an  coins 
 shows  that  they  bear  an  extremely  close  resem 
 blance  to  those  of  the  Phoenician  inscriptions,  and 
 in  many   cases  are  all  but  identical  with  them 
 
 The  figures  of  three  characters  (T,  tD,  D)  do  not 
 
 occur,  and  that  of  3  is  doubtful. 
 
 WRITING 
 
 3568 
 
 In  order  to  explain  the  Talmudic  story  above 
 given,  and  the  relation  between  the  square  char- 
 acter and  that  of  the  coins,  different  theories  have 
 been  constructed.  Some  held  that  the  square  char- 
 acter was  sacred,  and  used  by  the  priests,  while 
 the  character  on  the  coins  was  for  the  purposes  of 
 ordinary  life.  Tiie  younger  Buxtorf  ( De  Lit.  Hebr. 
 Gen.  Ant.)  maintained  that  the  square  alphabet 
 was  the  oldest  and  the  original  alphabet  of  the 
 Hebrews,  and  that  before  the  Captivity  the  Sa- 
 maritan character  had  existed  side  by  side  with  it; 
 that  during  the  Captivity  the  priests  and  more 
 learned  part  of  the  people  cultivated  the  square  or 
 sacred  character,  while  those  who  were  left  iu 
 Palestine  adhered  to  the  counnon  writing.  Ezra 
 brought  the  former  back  with  him,  and  it  was 
 hence  called  Assyrian  or  Chaldiean.  The  other 
 was  used  principally  by  the  Samaritans,  though 
 occasionally  by  the  Jews  themselves,  as  is  shown 
 by  the  characters  on  the  Maccaliaean  coins.  This 
 opinion  found  many  supporters,  and  a  singular 
 turn  was  given  to  it  by  Morinus  (De  Lingua  Pri- 
 mceua,  p.  271)  and  Loescher  (De  Causis  Ling. 
 Hebr.  pp.  207,  2U8),  who  maintained  that  the  char- 
 acters on  the  coins  were  a  kind  of  tachygraphic 
 writing  formed  from  the  square  character.  Hart- 
 mann  {Ling.  Einl.  p.  28,  &c.)  also  upheld  the 
 existence  of  a  twofold  character,  the  sacred  and 
 profane.  The  favorers  of  this  hypothesis  of  a 
 double  alphabet  had  some  analogies  to  which  they 
 could  appeal  lor  support.  The  Egyptians  had  a 
 twofold,  or  even  a  threefold  character.  The  cunei- 
 form writing  of  the  ancient  Persians  and  Medes 
 was  perhaps  a  sacred  character  for  monuments,  the 
 Zend  being  used  for  ordinary  life.  The  Arabs, 
 Persians,  and  Turks,  employ  different  characters 
 according  as  they  require  them  for  letters,  poems, 
 or  historical  writings.  But  analogy  is  not  proof, 
 and  therefore  the  passage  in  Is.  viii.  1  has  been 
 appealed  to  as  containing  a  direct  allusion  to  the 
 ordinary  writing  as  opposed  to  the  sacred  charac- 
 ter. But  it  is  evident,  upon  examination,  that  the 
 writing  there  referred  to  is  that  of  a  perfectly 
 legible  character,  such  as  an  ordinary  tmskilled 
 man  might  read.  Irenseus  (.I'/c.  iheres.  ii.  24), 
 indeed,  speaks  of  sacerdotal  letters,  but  his  infor- 
 mation is  not  to  be  relied  on.  In  fact  the  sole 
 ground  for  the  hypothesis  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
 only  specimens  of  the  Hebrew  writing  of  connnon 
 life  are  not  in  the  usual  character  of  the  manu- 
 scripts. If  this  supposition  of  the  coexistence  of 
 a  twofold  alphaliet  be  abandoned  as  untenable,  we 
 must  either  substitute  for  it  a  second  hypothesis, 
 that  the  square  character  was  the  exclusive  posses- 
 sion of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  that  the  Sa- 
 maritan was  used  in  the  northern  kingdom,  or  that 
 the  two  alphabets  were  successive  and  not  con- 
 temporary. Against  the  former  hypothesis  stands 
 the  fact  that  the  coins  on  which  the  so-called 
 Samaritan  character  occurs  were  struck  at  Jeru- 
 salem, and  the  names  Hebrew  and  Assyrian,  as 
 applied  to  the  two  alphal)ets,  would  still  be  unac- 
 counted for.  There  remains  then  the  hypothesis 
 that  the  square  character  and  the  writing  of  the 
 coins  succeeded  each  other  in  point  of  time,  and 
 that  the  one  gradually  took  the  place  of  the  other, 
 just  as  in  Arabic  the  Nischi  writing  has  displaced 
 the  older  Cufic  character,  and  in  Syriac  the  Es- 
 trangelo  has  given  place  to  that  at  present  in  use. 
 But  did  the  square  character  precede  the  charactei 
 on  the  coins,  or  was  the  reverse  the  case?  Accord- 
 ing to  some  of  the  doctors  of  tlie  Talmud  {Sank. 
 
3564  WRITING 
 
 fol.  21,  2;  22,  1),  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  the 
 Law  was  given  to  the  Israelites  in  the  Hebrew  char- 
 acter and  the  holy  tongue.  It  was  given  again 
 in  tlie  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Assyrian  character  and 
 the  Arani£ean  tongue.  By  the  "Hebrew"  char- 
 acter is  to  be  understood  wliat  is  elsewhere  called 
 the  "broken"  writing,  which  is  what  is  commonly 
 called  Samaritan ;  and  by  the  Assyrian  writing  is 
 to  be  understood  the  square  character.  But  Kabbi 
 Judah  the  Holy,  who  adopted  a  different  etymology 
 
 for  the  word  JT'Tllt^S  (Assyrian),  says  that  the 
 Law  was  first  given  in  this  square  character,  but 
 that  afterwards,  when  the  people  sinned,  it  was 
 changed  into  the  broken  writing,  which  again,  upon 
 their  repentance  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  was  converted 
 into  the  square  character.  In  both  these  cases  it 
 is  evident  that  the  tradition  is  entirely  built  upon 
 the  etymology  of  tiie  word  aslisliurith,  and  varies 
 according  to  the  different  conceptions  formed  of  its 
 meaning:  consequently  it  is  of  but  slight  value  as 
 direct  testimony.  The  varying  character  of  the 
 tradition  shows  moreover  that  it  was  framed  after 
 the  true  meaning  of  the  name  had  become  lost. 
 Origen  (on  liz.  ix.  4)  says  that  in  the  ancient 
 alphabet  the  tiiu  had  the  form  of  a  cross,  and 
 {Hexapla,  i.  86,  Montfaucon)  that  in  some  jNISS. 
 
 of  the  LXX.  the  word  miT^  was  written  in  an- 
 cient Hebrew  characters,  not  with  those  in  use  in 
 his  day,  "  for  they  say  that  Ezra  used  other  [let- 
 ters] after  the  Captivity."  Jerome,  following 
 Origen,  gives  out  as  certain  what  his  predecessor 
 only  mentioned  as  a  report,  and  the  tradition  in 
 his  hands  assumes  a  different  aspect.  "  It  is  cer- 
 tain," he  says,  "that  Ezra  the  scribe  and  doctor 
 of  the  law,  after  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
 restoration  of  the  Temple  under  Zerubbabel,  dis- 
 covered other  letters  which  we  now  use:  whereas 
 up  to  that  time  the  characters  of  the  Samaritans 
 
 and  Hebrews  were  the  same And  the  tetra- 
 
 grammaton  name  of  the  Lord  we  find  in  the  present 
 day  written  in  ancient  letters  in  certain  Greek 
 rolls"  {Prol.  Gal.  in  Libr.  Rey.).  The  testimony 
 of  Origen  with  regard  to  the  form  of  tau  under- 
 goes a  similar  modification.  "  In  the  ancient  He- 
 brew letters,  which  the  Samaritans  use  to  this  day, 
 the  last  letter,  luu,  has  the  form  of  a  cross." 
 Again,  in  another  passage  {Ep.  lid  ad  MarcelL 
 ii.  704,  Ep.  14,   ed.  Martianay)  Jerome  remarks 
 
 that  the  ineffable  name  mn^,  being  misunder- 
 stood by  the  Greeks  when  they  met  with  it  in 
 their  books,  was  read  by  them  jnpi.,  i.  e.  nini- 
 It  has  been  inferred  from  this  that  the  ancient 
 characters,  to  which  both  Jerome  and  Origen  I'efer 
 in  the  first-quoted  passages,  were  the  square  char- 
 acters, because  in  them  alone,  and  not  in  the  Sa- 
 maritan, does  any  resemblance  between  mn''  and 
 mm  exist.  There  is  nothing,  however,  to  show 
 that  .Jerome  contemplated  the  same  caae  in  the  two 
 passages.  In  the  one  he  expressly  mentions  the 
 "ancient  characters,"  and  evidently  as  an  excep- 
 tional instance,  for  they  were  only  found  in  "  cer- 
 tain rolls;  "  in  the  other  he  appears  to  speak  of  an 
 occurrence  by  no  means  uncommon.  Again,  it  is 
 Jerome,  and  not  Origen,  who  is  responsible  for  the 
 assertion  that  in  the  Samaritan  alphabet  the  Tau 
 
 o  *  These  remarks  need  modification  if  we  take  as 
 our  standard  of  comparison  some  lately  discovered 
 and  quite   old   Samaritan   inscriptions,   such  as   the 
 
 WRITING 
 
 has  the  form  of  a  cross.  Origen  merely  says  this 
 is  the  case  in  the  ancient  or  original  {apxaioi's) 
 Hebrew  characters,  and  his  assertion  is  true  of  the 
 writing  on  the  Maccabiean  coins,  and  of  the  an- 
 cient and  even  the  more  modem  Phoenician,  but 
 not  of  the  alphabet  known  to  us  as  the  Samari- 
 tan. It  seems  clear,  therefore,  that  Jerome's  lan- 
 guage on  this  point  cannot  be  regarded  as  strictly 
 accurate. 
 
 'i'here  are  many  arguments  which  go  to  show 
 that  the  Samaritan  character  is  older  than  the 
 square  Hebrew.  One  of  these  is  derived  from  the 
 existence  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which,  ac- 
 cording to  some  writers,  must  date  at  least  from 
 the  time  of  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
 the  northern  kingdom  retaining  the  ancient  writing 
 which  was  once  common  to  both.  But  there  is  no 
 evidence  for  the  existence  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
 teucli  l)efore  the  Captivity,  and  the  opinion  which 
 now  most  commonly  prevails  is  that  tlie  .Samaritans 
 received  it  first  in  the  Maccabsean  period,  and  with 
 it  the  Jewish  writing  (Hiivernick,  Einl.  i.  290). 
 The  question  is  still  far  from  being  decided,  and 
 while  it  remains  in  this  condition  the  arguments 
 derived  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  cannot  be 
 allowed  to  have  much  weight.  Hupfeld  {Stud,  iind 
 Kril.  18-'30,  ii.  279,  &c.)  contends  that  the  conmion 
 theory,  that  the  Samaritans  received  their  writing 
 from  the  ancient  Israelifish  times,  but  maintained 
 it  more  faithfully  than  the  Jews,  is  improbable, 
 because  the  Samaritans  were  a  mixed  race,  entirely 
 different  from  the  ancient  Israelites,  and  had,  Uke 
 their  language,  a  ])reponderating  Aramaic  element: 
 consequently,  if  they  had  had  a  character  peculiar 
 to  themselves,  independently  of  their  sacred  book, 
 it  would  rather  have  been  Aramaic.  He  argues 
 that  the  Samaritans  received  their  present  writing 
 with  their  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews,  because  the 
 Samaritan  character  differs  in  sever.al  important 
 particulars  from  that  on  the  Phcenician  monu- 
 ments, but  coincides  in  all  characteristic  deviations 
 with  the  ancient  Hebrew  on  the  Maccabtean  coins. 
 These  deviations  are —  (1)  the  horizontal  strokes  in 
 belli,  mem,  and  nun,  which  have  no  parallel  on 
 the  Phoenician  monuments:  (2)  the  angular  heads 
 of  beih,  ddletli,  and  especially  'ain,  which  last 
 never  occurs  in  an  angular  form  in  Phoenician : 
 (3)  the  entirely  different  forms  of  tsade  and  vnu, 
 as  well  as  of  zain  and  sumecli,  which  are  not 
 found  on  the  iMaccabfean  coins.  In  the  Samaritan 
 letters  (depli,  cheth,  lamed,  s/iin,  there  is  a  closer 
 relationship  with  tlie  forms  of  the  old  Hebrew:  the 
 only  marked  deviation  is  in  the  form  of  tan.<^  To 
 these  considerations  Hupfeld  adds  the  traditions  of 
 Origen  and  Jerome  and  the  Talmud  already  given, 
 and  the  fact  that  the  Samaritans  have  preserved 
 their  letters  unchanged,  a  circumstance  which  is 
 intelligible  on  the  supposition  that  these  letters 
 were  regarded  by  them  with  superstitious  reverence 
 as  a  sacred  character  which  had  come  to  them  from 
 without,  and  which,  in  the  absence  of  any  earlier 
 indigenous  tradition  of  writing,  necessarily  became 
 a  lifeless  permanent  type. 
 
 The  names  of  the  letters,  and  the  correspondence 
 of  their  forms  to  their  names  in  the  Phoenician 
 and  Phoeiiicio-Samaritan  alphabets,  supply  another 
 argument  for  the  superior  antiquity  of  this  to  the 
 Hebrew   square   character:    e.   g.   ^ Ain   (an   eye), 
 
 Mohammedan  mosque,  of  which  Rosen  gives  a  figure 
 (Zeitsdi.  il.  Deutsr.h.  Morg.  Ges.  xiii.  278).  Here,  con- 
 trary   to   Hupfeld,  the  tau  is  a  simple   cross,  being 
 
 firagment  of  a  copy  of  the  Decalogue  built  into  a    precisely  the  old  Phcenician  form. 
 
 W  H.  W. 
 
WRITING 
 
 which  on  the  coins  and  Phoenician  monuments  has 
 the  form  o ;  Jiesh  (a  head ),  q."  On  the  other  hand, 
 the  names  Vau  (a  nail  or  peg),  Zidii  (a  weapon), 
 Caph  (tlie  hollow  hand),  correspond  to  their  forms 
 better  in  the  square  character:  this,  however,  at 
 most,  would  only  prove  that  both  are  derived  from 
 the  same  original  alphabet  in  which  the  corre- 
 spondence between  the  shape  and  name  of  each  let- 
 ter was  more  complete.  Again,  we  trace  the  Phce- 
 nician  alphabet  much  further  back  than  the  square 
 character.  The  famous  inscription  on  the  sarcoph- 
 agus of  Eshmuiiazar,  found  at  Sidon  in  1855,  is 
 referred  by  the  Due  de  Luynes  to  the  sixth  century 
 B.  c.  The  date  of  the  inscription  at  Marseilles  is 
 more  uncertain.  Some  would  place  it  before  the 
 foundation  of  the  Greek  colony  there,  b.  c.  600. 
 There  is  reason  to  believe,  however,  that  it  is  much 
 more  recent.  Besides  these  we  have  the  inscrip- 
 tions at  Sigeeum  and  Amycloe  in  the  ancient  tireek 
 character,  which  is  akin  to  the  Phoenician.  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  Hebrieo-Chaldee  character  is  not 
 found  on  historic  monuments  before  the  birth  of 
 Christ.  A  consideration  of  the  various  readings 
 which  have  arisen  from  the  interchange  of-  similar 
 characters  in  the  present  text  leads,  as  might  natu- 
 rally be  expected,  to  results  which  are  rather  favor- 
 able to  the  square  character,  tor  in  this  alone  are 
 the  manuscripts  written  which  have  come  down  to 
 us.  The  following  examples  are  given,  with  one 
 exception,  by  Gesenius:  — 
 
 ((I.)  In  the  square  alphabet  are  confounded  — 
 
 2  and  r>.     n''32U:7,  Neh.  xii.  U  =  TT^iD^?, 
 
 Neh.  xii.  3;  """l^T,  1  Chr.    is. 
 15  =  "'"TUT,  Neh.  xi.  17. 
 
 T  and  ''.      IpVX  Gen.   xlvi.   27  =  'jp37\  1 
 
 Chr.  i.  42. 
 r  and  D.     riTT^^,  l  K.  vii.   40  =  m"l"^D, 
 
 2  Chr.  iv.  11. 
 
 D  and  "1.    HDir'n,  Ps.  xviii.  12 =n"-it»n, 
 
 2  Sam.  xxii.  12. 
 
 T  and  ).     nX'a,  Ps.  xxxi.  3  =  "|im,    Ps. 
 
 ixxi.  3.- 
 (I).)  In  both  alphabets  are  confounded  — 
 1  and  n.     nD''"r,  1  Chr.  i.  6  =  HD*''),  Gen. 
 
 X.   3 ;     D"'211,  1  Chr.   i.   7  = 
 
 D''31~l,  Gen.  x.  4;  nW"r,  Lev. 
 
 xi.   14=nS"l,  Deut.    xiv.  13; 
 
 ST1,    Ps.    xviii.   11  ^sn"'"!, 
 2  Sam.  xxii.  11. 
 (c.)  In  the  Phoenician  alone  — 
 
 3  and  1.  '  ^bn,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  29  =  ibn, 
 
 1  Chr.  xi.  30. 
 
 "^  and  W,  whence  probably  ^^57,  Josh.  xxi.  16 
 =  y^V,  1  Chr.  vi.  44. 
 
 3  and  D.     "^"1^3,    1   Chr.   xi.   37  =  '^"1272, 
 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.  35. 
 (rf.)  In  neither  — 
 
 WRITING 
 
 5565 
 
 a  *  No  sort  of  dependence  can  be  put  on  this  argu- 
 ment. The  oldest  Resh  has  a  triangular,  and  not  a 
 round  head,  and  the  gradual  development  of  the 
 Hebrew  square   characters  is   evident  enough   from 
 
 3  and  ~l.      ain3,  Neh.  vii.  7  =  Dim,  Ezr. 
 ii.  2. 
 
 I  and  n.   ^nn,  Num.  xxvi.  35 =nnn, 
 
 1  Chr.  vii.  20.     'J1?2n,  1   Chr. 
 
 vi.  76  [61]  =  m!2n,  Josh,  xxi 
 32. 
 The  third  class  of  these  readings  seems  to  point 
 to  a  period  when  the  Hebrews  used  the  Phoenicia*: 
 character,  and  a  comparison  of  the  Phoenician 
 alphabet  and  the  Hebrew  coin-writing  shows  that 
 the  examples  of  which  Gesenius  makes  a  fourth 
 class,  might  really  be  included  under  the  third:  for 
 
 in  these  some  forms  of  3  and    "^j  as  well  as  of  3 
 
 and  n,  are  by  no  means  unlike.  This  circum- 
 stance takes  away  some  of  the  importance  which 
 the  above  results  otherwise  give  to  the  square  char- 
 acter. Indeed,  after  writing  his  Hebrdisclie  Sprache 
 utid  Sell  rift,  Gesenius  himself  appears  to  have 
 modified  some  of  the  conclusions  at  which  he  ar-  ■ 
 rived  in  that  work,  and  instead  of  maintaining  that 
 the  square  character,  or  one  essentially  similar  to 
 it,  was  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  LXX.,  and  that 
 the  Maccabees  retained  the  old  character  for  their 
 coins,  as  the  Arabs  retained  the  Cufic  some  centu- 
 ries after  the  introduction  of  the  Nischi,  he  con- 
 cludes as  most  probable,  in  his  article  PaldograjMe 
 (in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  EncycL),  that  the  ancient 
 Hebrew  was  first  changed  for  the  square  character 
 about  the  l)irth  of  Christ.  A  comparison  of  the 
 Phoenician  with  the  square  alphabet  shows  that  the 
 latter  could  not  be  the  inmiediate  development  of 
 the  former,  and  that  it  could  not  have  been  formed 
 gradually  from  it  at  some  period  subsequent  to  the 
 tin>e  of  the  Maccabees.  The  essential  difierence 
 of  some  characters,  and  the  similarity  of  others, 
 render  it  probable  that  the  two  alphabets  are  both 
 descended  from  one  more  ancient  than  either,  of 
 which  each  has  retained  some  peculiarities.  This 
 more  ancient  form,  Hupfeld  {Hehraische  Gram- 
 maUk,  §  7)  maintains,  is  the  original  alphabet 
 invented  by  the  Babylonians,  and  extended  by  the 
 Phoenicians.  From  this  the  square  character  was 
 developed  by  three  stages. 
 
 1.  In  its  oldest  form  it  appears  on  Phoenician 
 monuments,  stones,  and  coins.  The  number  of  the 
 inscriptions  containing  Phoenician  writing  was  77, 
 greater  and  smaller,  in  the  time  of  (Jesenius,  but  it 
 has  since  been  increased  by  the  discovery  of  the 
 famous  sarcophagus  of  Eshmuiiazar  king  of  Sidon, 
 and  the  excavations  which  have  still  more  recently 
 been  made  in  the  neighborhood  of  Carthage  have 
 brought  to  light  many  others  which  are  now  in  the 
 British  Museum.  Those  described  by  Gesenius 
 were  found  at  Athens  (three  .bilingual),  at  Malta 
 (four,  one  of  which  is  bilingual),  in  Cyprus,  among 
 the  ruins  of  Kitium  (thirty-three),  in  Sicily,  in  the 
 ruins  of  Carthage  (twelve),  and  in  the  regions  of 
 Carthage  and  Numidia.  They  belong  for  the  most 
 part  to  the  period  between  Alexander  and  the  age 
 of  Augustus.  A  Punic  inscriytion  on  the  arch  of 
 Septimius  Severus  brings  down  the  Phoenician 
 character  as  late  as  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
 tury after  Christ.  Besides  these  inscriptions  on 
 stone,  there  are  a  number  of  coins  bearing  Phoeni- 
 
 palseographical  data,  without  considering  the  resem- 
 blance they  may  be  imagined  to  bear  to  the  meaning 
 of  their  names.  W.  H.  W. 
 
3566 
 
 WRITING 
 
 cian  characters,  of  which  those  found  in  Cilicia  are 
 the  most  ancient,  and  belonc;  to  the  times  of  the 
 Persian  domination.  Tlie  character  on  all  these  is 
 essentially  the  same.  In  its  liest  form  it  is  found 
 on  the  Sicilian,  Maltese,  C3'pnan,  and  Carthafjinian 
 inscriptions.  On  the  Cicilian  coins  it  is  perhaps  most 
 original,  degenerating  on  the  later  coins  of  Phoenicia, 
 Spain,  and  the  neighboring  islands,  and  becoming 
 almost  a  cursive  character  in  the  monuments  of  Nu- 
 niidia  and  the  African  provinces.  There  are  no 
 final  lettei's,  and  no  divisions  of  words.  The  char- 
 acteristics of  the  Phcenician  alphabet  as  it  is  thus 
 discovered  are,  that  it  is  purely  consonantal;  that 
 it  consists  of  twenty-two  letters  written  from  right 
 to  left,  and  is  distinguished  by  strong  perpendicu- 
 lar strokes,  and  the  closed  heads  of  the  letters ;  that 
 the  names  and  order  of  the  letters  were  the  same 
 as  in  the  Hebrew  alphaljet,  as  may  be  inferred 
 from  the  names  of  the  Greek  letters  which  came 
 immediately  from  Phoenicia;  and  that  originally 
 the  alphabet  was  pictorial,  the  letters  representing 
 figures.  This  last  position  has  been  strongly  op- 
 posed by  Wuttke  {Zeitsc/i.  d.  D.  J/.  G.  xi.  75, 
 etc.),  who  maintains  that  the  ancient  Phoenician 
 alphabet  contains  no  traces  of  a  pictorial  character, 
 and  that  the  letters  are  simply  combinations  of 
 strokes.  It  is  impossible  here  to  give  his  argu- 
 ments, and  the  reader  is  referred  for  further  infor- 
 mation to  his  article.  This  ancient  Phoenician 
 character  in  its  earliest  form  was  probably,  says 
 Hupfeld,  adopted  by  the  Hebrews  from  the  Canaan- 
 ites,  and  used  by  them  during  the  wdiole  period  of 
 the  living  language  till  shortly  before  the  birth  of 
 Christ.  Closely  allied  with  it  are  the  characters  on 
 the  llaccabsean  coins,  and  the  Samaritan  alphabet. 
 
 2.  While  the  old  writing  remained  so  almost 
 unchanged  among  the  Phoenicians  and  Samaritans, 
 it  was  undergoing  a  gradual  transformation  among 
 its  original  inventors,  the  Aramaeans,  especially 
 those  of  the  West.  This  transformation  was  effected 
 by  opening  the  heads  of  the  letters,  and  by  bending 
 the  perpendicular  stroke  into  a  horizontal  one, 
 which  in  the  cursive  character  served  for  a  connect- 
 ing stroke,  and  in  the  inscriptions  on  stone  for  a 
 basis  or  foundation  for  the  letters.  The  character 
 in  this  form  is  found  in  the  earliest  stage  on  the 
 
 stone  of  Carpentras,  where  the  letters  37,  !3,  1,  "1, 
 have  open  heads ;  and  later  in  the  inscriptions  on 
 the  ruins  of  Palmyra,  where  the  characters  are  dis- 
 tinguished by  the  open  heads  degenerating  some- 
 times to  a  point,  and  by  horizontal  connecting 
 strokes.  Besides  the  stone  of  Carpentras,  the  older 
 form  of  the  modified  Aramisan  character  is  found 
 on  some  fragments  of  papyrus  found  in  Egypt,  and 
 preserved  in  the  Library  at  Turin,  and  in  the  Mu- 
 seum of  the  Duke  of  Blacas.  Plates  of  these  are 
 given  in  Gesenius'  Jfonumeyiln  Phceniclu  (tab. 
 28-33).  They  belong  to  the  time  of  the  later 
 Ptolemies,  and  are  written  in  an  Aramaic  dialect. 
 The  inscription  on  the  Carpentras  stone  was  the 
 Work  of  heathen  scribes,  probably,  as  Dr.  Levy 
 suggests  {Zeilsch.  d.  D.  M.  G.  xi.  67),  the  Baby- 
 lonian colonists  of  Egypt ;  the  writing  of  the  papyri 
 he  attributes  to  Jews.  The  inscription  on  the  vase 
 of  the  Serapeum  at  Memphis  is  placed  by  the  Due 
 de  LujTies  and  M.  ^lariette  in  the  ith  century 
 B.  c.     In  the  Blacas  fragments  the  heads  of  the 
 
 letters  D,  1,  '~),  have  fallen  away  altogether.     In 
 
 the  forms  of  71,  H,  D,  we  see  the  origin  of  the 
 figures  of  the  square  character.     The  final  forms 
 
 WRITING 
 
 of  Caph  and  Nun  occur  for  the  first  time.  The 
 Palrayrene  writing  represents  a  later  stage,  and 
 belongs  principally  to  the  second  and  third  centu- 
 ries after  Christ,  the  time  of  the  greatest  prosperity 
 of  Pahuyra.  The  oldest  inscription  belongs  to  the 
 year  396  of  the  Greeks  (a.  d.  8-t),  and  the  latest 
 to  the  year  569  (A.  D.  257 ).  The  writing  was  not 
 confined  to  Palmyra,  for  an  inscription  in  the  same 
 character  was  found  at  Abilene.  The  Palmyrene 
 inscriptions  are  fifteen  m  number:  ten  bilingual,  in 
 S3riac  and  Greek,  and  Syriac  and  Latin.  Two  are 
 preserved  at  Home,  four  at  Oxford.  Those  at  Rome 
 differ  from  the  rest,  in  having  lost  the  heads  of  the 
 
 letters  3,  "T,  "1,  2,  while  the  forms  of  the  "',  D,  H, 
 are  like  the  Phcenician.  Of  the  cursive  Assyrian 
 writing,  which  appears  to  be  allied  to  the  Aranirean, 
 Mr.  Layard  remarks,  "  On  monuments  and  remains 
 pmely  Syrian,  or  such  as  caimot  be  traced  to  a 
 foi'eign  people,  only  one  form  of  character  has  been 
 discovered,  and  it  so  closely  resembles  the  cursive 
 of  Assyria,  that  there  can  be  little  doul)t  as  to  ths 
 identity  of  the  origin  of  the  two.  If,  therefore,  the 
 inhabitants  of  Syria,  whether  Phoenicians  or  others, 
 were  the  inventors  of  letters,  and  those  letters  were 
 such  as  exist  upon  the  earliest  moimmeiits  of  that 
 country,  the  cursive  character  of  the  Assyrians  may 
 have  been  as  ancient  as  the  cuneiform.  However 
 that  may  be,  this  hieratic  character  has  not  yet 
 Ijeen  found  in  Assyria  on  remains  of  a  very  early 
 epoch,  and  it  would  seem  probable  that  simple  per- 
 pendicular and  horizontal  lines  preceded  rounded 
 foruis,  being  better  suited  to  letters  carved  on  stone 
 tablets  or  rocks.  At  Nimroud  the  cursive  writing 
 was  found  on  part  of  an  alabaster  vase,  and  on 
 fragments  of  pottery,  taken  out  of  the  rubbish 
 covering  the  ruins.  On  the  alabaster  vase  it  ac- 
 companied an  inscription  in  the  cuneiform  ciiarac- 
 ter,  containing  the  name  of  the  Khorsabad  king,  to 
 whose  reign  it  is  evident,  from  several  circum- 
 stances, the  vase  must  be  attributed.  It  has  also 
 been  found  on  Babylonian  bricks  of  the  time  of 
 Nel)uchadnezzar "  (Nin.  ii.  pp.  165,  166).  M. 
 Fresnel  discovered  at  Kasr  some  fifty  fragments  of 
 pottery  covered  with  this  cursive  character  in  ink. 
 These,  too,  are  said  to  be  of  the  age  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (Journ.  Asidl.  .July  1853,  p.  77).  Dr.  Levy 
 (Zeilacli.  d.  D.  M.  G.  ix.  465)  maintains,  in 
 accordance  with  the  Talmudic  tradition,  that  the 
 .Jews  acquired  this  cursive  writing  in  Babylon,  and 
 brought  it  back  with  them  after  the  Captivity 
 together  with  the  Chaldee  language,  atid  that  it 
 gradually  displaced  the  older  alphabet,  of  which 
 fragments  remain  in  the  forms  of  the  final  letters. 
 
 3.  While  this  modification  was  taking  place  in 
 the  Aramaic  letters,  a  similar  process  of  change 
 was  going  on  in  the  old  character  among  the  .Jews. 
 We  already  find  indications  of  this  in  the  Macca- 
 ba?an  coins,  where  the  straight  strokes  of  some  let- 
 ters are  broken.  The  Aramaic  character,  too,  had 
 apparently  an  influence  upon  the  Hebrew,  propor- 
 tioned to  the  influence  exercised  by  the  Aramaic 
 dialect  upon  the  Hebrew  language.  The  heads  of 
 the  letters  still  left  in  the  Palmyrene  character  are 
 removed,  the  position  and  length  of  several  oblique 
 
 strokes  are  altered  (as  in  H,  71,  3,  3).  It  lost  the 
 character  of  a  cursive  hand  by  the  separation  of 
 the  several  letters,  and  the  stiff  ornaments  which 
 they  received  at  the  hands  of  calligraphers,  and  tints 
 became  an  angular,  uniform,  broken  character,  from 
 
 which  it  receives  its  name  square  (yinnp  SHS), 
 
WRITING 
 
 In  the  letters  S,  3,  2,  J,  72,  3,  D,  V,  D,  D,  the 
 ^gypto-Arainaic  appears  the  older,  and  the  Pal- 
 rayreue  most  resembles  the  square   character.     In 
 
 others,  on  the  contrary,  as  H,  12,  p,  "1,  the  square 
 character  is  closely  allied  to  the  forms  in  the  Blacas 
 
 fragments;  and  in  some,  as  "T,  H,  1,  T,  ^,  W,  both 
 the  older  alphabets  agree  with  the  square  character. 
 So  far  as  regards  the  development  of  the  square 
 character  from  the  Araniajan,  as  it  appears  on  the 
 stone  of  Carpeiitras  and  the  ruins  of  Talmyra,  Hup- 
 feld  and  (Jesenius  are  substantially  agreed,  but  they 
 differ  widely  on  another  and  very  important  point. 
 Gesenius  is  disposed  to  allow  some  weight  to  the 
 tradition  as  preserved  in  the  Talmud,  Origen,  and 
 Jerome,  that  the  Hebrews  at  some  period  adopted 
 a  character  difFerent  from  their  own.  The  Chaldee 
 square  alphabet  he  considers  as  originally  of  Ara- 
 maic origin,  but  transferred  to  the  Hebrew  lan- 
 guage. To  this  CDuclusion  he  appears  to  be  drawn 
 by  the  name  Assi/rinn  applied  in  the  Talmud  to 
 the  square  character,  which  he  infers  was  probably 
 the  ancient  character  of  Assyria.  If  this  were  the 
 case,  it  is  remarkable  that  no  trace  of  it  should  be 
 found  on  the  Assyrian  monuments;  and,  in  the  ab- 
 sence of  other  evidence,,  it  is  unsafe  to  build  a 
 theory  upon  a  name,  the  interpretation  of  which 
 is  uncertain.  The  change  of  alphabet  from  the 
 Phoenician  to  the  Araniiean,  and  the  development 
 of  the  Syriac  from  the  Aramaean,  Gesenius  regards 
 as  two  distinct  circumstances,  which  took  place  at 
 different  times,  and  were  separated  by  a  consider- 
 able interval.  The  formation  of  the  square  charac- 
 ter he  maintains  cannot  be  put  earlier  than  the 
 second  century  after  Christ.  Hupfeld,  on  the  other 
 hand,  with  more  sliovv  of  rea.son,  rejects  altogetlier 
 the  theory  of  an  abrupt  change  of  character,  because 
 he  doubts  whether  any  instance  can  be  shown  of  a 
 simple  exchange  of  alphabets  in  the  case  of  a  people 
 who  have  already  a  tradition  of  writing.  The  an- 
 cient letters  were  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
 bees, and  from  that  period  writing  did  not  cease, 
 but  was  rather  more  practiced  in  the  transcrip- 
 tion of  the  sacred  books.  Besides,  on  comparing 
 the  I'almyrene  with  the  square  character,  it  is  clear 
 that  the  former  has  been  altered  and  developed, 
 a  result  which  would  have  been  impossible  in  the 
 case  of  a  connnunication  from  without  which  over- 
 whelmed all  tradition  and  spontaneity.  The  case 
 of  the  Samaritans,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  of  a 
 people  who  received  an  alphabet  entire,  which  they 
 regarded  as  sacred  in  consequence  of  its  associa- 
 tion with  their  sacred  book,  and  which  they  there- 
 fore retained  unaltered  with  superstitious  fidelity. 
 Moreover,  in  the  old  Hebrew  writing  on  the  coins 
 we  see  already  a  tendency  to  several  important  al- 
 terations, as,  for  example,  in  the  open  heads  of  2 
 and  1,  and  the  base  lines  of  3,  D,  tt,  2 ;  and 
 many  letters,  as  H,  are  derived  rather  from  the 
 ooin-character  than  from  the  Palmyrene,  while   t3 
 
 and  P  are  entirely  Phcenician.  Finally,  Hupfeld 
 adds,  "  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  —  nay, 
 almost  inconceival)le  —  that  the  Jews,  in  the  fervor 
 of  their  then  enthusiasm  for  their  sacred    books. 
 
 «  Another  link  between  the  Palmyrene  and  the 
 square  character  is  supplied  by  the  writing  on  some 
 of  the   Babylouian  bowls,    described    by  Mr.  Layard 
 
 WRITING  3567 
 
 should,  consciously  and  without  apparent  reason, 
 have  adopted  a  foreign  character,  and  abandoned  the 
 ancient  writing  of  their  fathers." 
 
 Assuming,  then,  as  approximately  true,  that  the 
 square  character  of  the  Hebrews  was  tiie  natural 
 result  of  a  grailual  process  cf  development,  and 
 that  it  was  not  adopted  in  its  present  shai)e  from 
 without,  but  became  what  it  is  by  an  internal  or- 
 ganic change,  we  have  further  to  consider  at  what 
 time  it  acquired  its  present  form.  Kopp  {Bikler 
 and  SclniJ'ten,  ii.  177)  places  it  as  late  as  the  4th 
 century  after  Christ;  but  he  ap[)ears  to  be  guided 
 to  his  conclusion  chieHy  by  the  fiict  that  the  Pal- 
 myrene character,  to  which  it  is  most  nearly  allied, 
 extended  into  the  3d  century.  It  is  evident,  how- 
 ever, from  several  considerations,  that  in  the  -ith 
 century  the  square  character  was  substantially  the 
 same  as  it  is  to  this  day,  and  had  for  some  time 
 been  so.  The  descriptions  of  tlie  forms  of  the  let- 
 ters in  the  Talmud  and  Jeronie  coincide  most  ex- 
 actly with  the  present;  for  both  are  acquainted 
 with  finid  letters,  and  describe  as  similar  those  let- 
 ters which  resemble  each  other  in  the  modern  al- 
 phabet, as,  for  instance,  ^  and   3,  1  and  "^,    PF 
 
 and  n,  T  and  "",  T  and  "],  C  and  D.  The  calli- 
 graphic ornaments  which  were  employed  in  the 
 writing  of  the  synagogue  rolls,  as  the  tayyin  on 
 
 the  letters  V"  2  T  3  T2  2?  127,  the  point  in  the 
 
 broken  headline  of  H  (  "H"  ),  and  many  other  pre- 
 scriptions for  the  orthography  of  the  Torah  are 
 found  in  the  Talmud,  and  show  that  Hebrew  cal- 
 ligraphy, under  the  powerful  protection  of  minute 
 laws  observed  with  superstitious  reverence,  had  long 
 received  its  full  development,  and  was  become  a 
 fixed  unalterable  t}pe,  as  it  has  remained  ever  since. 
 The  change  of  character,  moreover,  not  only  in  the 
 time  uf  Jerome  and  the  Talmud,  but  even  as  early 
 as  Origen,  was  an  event  already  long  passed,  and 
 so  old  and  involved  in  the  darkness  of  fal)le  as  to  be 
 attributed  in  the  common  legend  to  Ezra,  or  by 
 most  of  the  Tahnudists  to  God  Himself.  The  very 
 oltscurity  which  surrounds  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
 
 y2~y  and  n^~nti7S  as  applied  to  the  old  and  new 
 writing  respectively,  is  another  proof  that  in  the 
 time  of  the  Taimudists  the  square  character  had 
 liecome  permanent,  and  that  the  history  of  the 
 changes  through  which  it  had  passed  had  been  lost. 
 In  the  Mishna  {S/iafjb.  xii.  5)  the  case  is  mentioned 
 
 of  two  Zains  (T'')  being  written  for  Clieth  (H), 
 which  coidd  only  be  true  of  the  square  character. 
 The  often-quoted  passage.  Matt.  v.  18,  which  is 
 generally  brought  forward  as  a  jiroof  that  the  square 
 character  must  have  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of 
 Christ,  who  mentions  tcora,  or  i/od,  as  the  smallest 
 letter  of  the  alphabet,  proves  at  least  that  the  old 
 Hebrew  or  Phoenician  character  was  no  longer  iu 
 use,  but  that  the  Palmyrene  character,  or  one  very 
 much  like  it,  had  been  introduced.  From  these 
 circumstances  we  may  infer,  with  Hupfeld  (Stud, 
 uiid  Krit.  1830,  ii.  288),  that  Whiston's  conjecture 
 is  approximately  true;  namely,  that  about  the  first 
 or  second  cetitury  after  (Jhrist  the  square  character 
 assumed  i£s  present  form ;  though  in  a  question  in- 
 volved in  so  much  uncertainty,  it  is  impossible  to 
 pronounce  with  great  positiveness." 
 
 (Afi'n.  and  Bab.  p.  509),  which  Dr.  Levy  (Zpitxrk.  d.  D. 
 M.  G.)  assigns  to  the  7th  century  A.  D.  [See  the  plate 
 in  Schrader's  ed.  of  Do  Wette's  Einl.  (1869).  — A.] 
 
3568 
 
 WRITING 
 
 Next  to  the  scattered  hints  as  to  the  shape  of  the 
 Hebrew  letters  which  we  find  in  tlie  writings  of 
 Jerome,  the  most  direct  evidence  on  this  point  is 
 supplied  hy  the  so-called  AlpliKhelum  J esuUarum, 
 which  is  found  in  a  MS.  (Codex  JMai-chalianus,  now 
 lost)  of  the  LXX.  of  Lam.  ii.  It  is  the  work  of  a 
 Greek  scribe,  imperfectly  acquainted  with,  or  more 
 probably  entirely  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  who  copied 
 slavishly  the   letters  which  were   before  him.     In 
 
 this  alphabet  H  is  written  n ;  ^  and  1  are  of  nearly 
 equal  length,  the  latter  being  distinguished  by  two 
 
 dots;  p  is  made  like  p,  and  H  like  H.  The  let- 
 ters on  the  two  Abraxas  gems  in  his  possession  were 
 thought  by  Montfaucon  {Prcelim.  ad  Bex.  Orig. 
 i.  22,  23)  to  have  been  Hebrew;  but  as  they  have 
 not  been  fairly  deciphered,  nothing  can  be  inferred 
 from  them.  Other  instances  of  the  occurrence  of 
 the  Hebrew  alphabet  written  by  ignorant  scribes 
 are  fountl  in  a  Codex  of  the  New  Testament,  of 
 which  an  account  is  given  by  Treschow  ( Tent, 
 descr.  Cod.  Vet.  (dlquot  Gr.  N.  T.),  and  three 
 have  been  edited  from  Greek  and  Latin  ISISS.  in 
 the  Nouveau  Traile  Diplomatique  published  by  the 
 Benedictines.  To  these,  as  to  the  Alphubetum 
 Jesuilanim,  Kennicott  justly  attributes  no  value 
 (Dissert.  Gen.  p.  09  note).  The  same  may  be  said 
 of  the  Hebrew  writing  of  a  monk,  taken  from  the 
 work  of  Kabaiuis  jMaurus,  De  inventione  linguarum. 
 The  Jews  themselves  recognize  a  double  character 
 in  the  writing  of  their  synagogue  rolls.     The  earlier 
 
 of  these  is  called  the  Tam  writing  (2n3  t2n)  as 
 some  suppose,  from  Tam,  the  grandson  of  Eashi, 
 who  flourished  in  the  12th  century,  and  is  thought 
 to  be  the  inventor;  or,  according  to  others,  from 
 the  perfect  form  of  the  letters,  the  epithet  Tam 
 being  then  taken  as  a  significant  epithet  of  the 
 square   character,  in  which    sense    the  expression 
 
 nSn  nS'^nS,  cethiOak  tltammah,  occurs  in  the 
 
 Talmud  (Sliabbath,  fol.  103  b).  Phylacteries  writ- 
 ten in  this  character  were  hence  called  Tam  tephil- 
 Un.  The  letters  have  fine- pointed  corners  and  per- 
 pendicular tagyin  iX^ITS),  or  little  strokes  attached 
 
 to  the  seven  letters  VDT3!2^ti7.  The  Tam  writ- 
 ing is  chiefly  found  in  German  synagogue  rolls,  and 
 probably  also  in  those   of  the  I'olish  Jews.     The 
 
 Welsh  writing  (2n3  tE'bll),  to  which  the  Jews 
 assign  a  later  date  than  to  the  other,  usually  occurs 
 in  the  synagogue  rolls  and  other  manuscripts  of  the 
 Spanish  and  eastern  Jews.  The  figures  of  the  let- 
 ters are  rounder  than  in  the  T(uii  writing,  and  the 
 tagyin,  or  crown-like  ornaments,  terminate  in  a 
 thick  point.  But  besides  these  two  forms  of  writ- 
 ing, which  are  not  essentially  distinct,  tliere  are 
 minor  differences  observable  in  the  manuscripts  of 
 different  countries.  The  Spanish  character  is  the 
 most  regular  and  simple,  and  is  for  the  most  part 
 large  and  bold,  forming  a  true  square  character. 
 The  German  is  more  sloping  and  compressed,  with 
 pointed  corners;  but  finer  than  the  Spanish.  Be- 
 tween these  the  French  and  Italian  character  is  in- 
 termediate, and  is  hence  called  by  Kennicott  {Diss. 
 Gen.  p.  71)  cliaracter  intermedins.  It'is  for  the 
 most  part  rather  smaller  than  the  others,  and  the 
 
 a  *  Dr.  Donaldson's  conjectures  are  at  best  rather 
 fanciful.  His  second  class  does  not  consist  of  "  three 
 mutes."     Even  if  H  can  be  called  such,  T  is  no  mute 
 
 WRITING 
 
 forms  of  the  letters  are  rounder  (Eichhorn,  £in!  u 
 37-41;  Tychseii,  Tentamen  de  var.  ccd.  Ile&i:  V. 
 T.  MSS.  yeneribus,  p.  264 ;  Bellerm;,nn,  De  ust 
 palceog.  Ilebr.  p.  43). 
 
 The  Alphabet.  — The  oldest  evidence  on  the  sub- 
 ject of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  is  derived  from  the  al- 
 phabetical psalms  and  poems;  Pss.  xxv.,  xxxiv., 
 xxxvii.,  cxi.,  cxii.,  cxix.,  cxlv. ;  Prov.  xxxi.  10-31; 
 Lam.  i.-iv.  ]*'rom  these  we  ascertain  that  the  num- 
 ber of  the  letters  was  twenty- two,  as  at  present. 
 The  Arabic  alphabet  originally  consisted  of  the 
 same  number.  Irenseus  {Adv.  J/ier.  ii.  24)  says 
 that  the  ancient  sacred  letters  were  ten  in  number. 
 It  has  been  argued  by  many  that  the  alphabet  of 
 the  Phoenicians  at  first  consisted  only  of  sixteen  let- 
 ters, or  according  to  Hug  of  fifteen,  T,  12,  3,  D 
 
 S,  2  being  omitted.  The  legend  as  told  by  Pliny 
 (vii.  .50)  is  as  follows.  Cadnuis  brought  with  him 
 into  Greece  sixteen  letters;  at  the  time  of  the  Tro- 
 jan war  Palamedes  added  four  others,  0,  S,  4>,  X, 
 and  Simonides  of  Melos  four  more,  Z,  H,  "V,  H. 
 Aristotle  recognized  eighteen  letters  of  the  original 
 alphabet,  ABrAEZIKAMNOnP2TT*, 
 to  which  0  and  X  were  added  by  Epicharnius 
 (comp.  Tac.  Anti.  xi.  14).  By  Isidore  of  Seville 
 (  Orig.  i.  3 )  it  is  said  there  were  se\  enteen.  But 
 in  the  oldest  story  of  Cadmus,  as  told  by  Herodotus 
 (v.  58)  and  Diodorus  (v.  24),  nothing  is  said  of 
 the  number  of  the  letters.  Kecent  investigations, 
 however,  have  rendered  it  probable  that  at  first  the 
 Shemitic  alphabet  consisted  of  but  sixteen  letters. 
 It  is  true  that  no  extant  monuments  illustrate  the 
 period  when  the  alpbaliet  was  thus  curtailed,  but 
 as  the  theory  is  based  upon  an  organic  arrangement 
 first  proposed  by  Lepsius,  it  may  be  briefly  noticed. 
 Dr.  Donaldson  {Neto  Cralylus,  p.  171,  3d  ed.)  says, 
 "  Besides  the  mutes  and   breathings,  the  Hebrew 
 
 alphabet,  as  it  now  stands,  has  four  sibilants,  T,  D, 
 
 2,  W.  Now  it  is  quite  clear  that  all  these  four 
 sibilants  could  not  have  existed  in  the  oldest  state 
 of  the  alphabet.     Indeed  we  have  positive  evidence 
 
 that  the  Ephraimites  could  not  pronounce  W,  but 
 
 substituted  for  it  the  simpler  articulation  D 
 (Judges  xii.  6).  We  consider  it  quite  certain,  that 
 at  the  first  there  was  only  one  sibilant,  namely  this 
 
 D,  or  s<tmech.  Finally,  to  reduce  the  Shemitic  al- 
 phabet to  its  oldest  form,  we  must  omit  caph,  which 
 is  only  a  softened  form  of  koph,  the  liquid  resh,  and 
 the  semivowel  jod,  which  are  of  more  recent  intro- 
 duction. .   .  .   The  remaining  10  letters  appear  in 
 
 the  following  order:  S,  2,  3,  ^,  H,  "1,  H,  !0,  V, 
 
 12,  D,  D,  27,  D,  p,  n.  If  we  examine  this  order 
 more  minutely,  we  shall  see  that  it  is  not  arbitrary 
 or  accidental,  but  strictly  organic  according  to  the 
 Shemitic  articulation.  We  have  four  classes,  each 
 consisting  of  4  letters:  the  first  and  second  classes 
 consist  each  of  3  mutes  preceded  by  a  breathing, 
 the  third  of  the  3  liquids  and  the  sibilant,  which  per- 
 haps closed  the  oldest  alphabet  of  all,  and  the  fourth 
 contains  the  three  supernumerary  mutes  preceded 
 by  a  breathing."'  «  The  original  16  letters  of  the 
 Greek    alphabet,    corresponding   to   those   of    the 
 
 and  never  was,  so  far  as  we  know.  ^Vhy  four  sibi 
 lants  "  could  not  have  existed  in  the  oldest  state  of  the 
 alphabet"  it  would  be  difficult  to  show.  If  (he  lan- 
 guage was  developed  sufficiently,  at  the  time  the  al- 
 
WRITING 
 
 Slieniitic,  are  thus  given  by  Ur.  Donaldson  {ibid. 
 p.  175). 
 
 ABrA'EF  H  0AMN 
 
 D    37  3  p  n 
 2    o|n  9  T 
 
 "  In  the  Greek  alphabet,  as  it  is  now  given  in 
 the  grammars,  F  and  Q  are  omitted,  and  ten  other 
 cliaracters  added  to  these."      The  Shemitic  Tsade 
 
 {".')  hecame  zeta  (Q,  Caph  (3)  became  kappa  (k), 
 
 and  Foc^(^)  became  iota  (().  Jieah  (~1)  was  adopted 
 and  called  rlio  (p),  and  ^dv^  which  was  used  by 
 the  Dorians  for  2'iyfj.a  (Her.  i.  139),  is  only  an- 
 other form  of  Ziin  (T).  Skin  {W)  or  Sin  (JD) 
 is  the  original  of  ^7,  which  from  some  cause  or 
 other  has  changed  places  with  a'iyfia,  the  Shemitic 
 Sitinech,  just  as  ^jjra  has  been  transferred  from  its 
 position.  In  like  manner  Mem  became  juC,  and 
 Nun  became  yd.  With  the  remaining  Greek  let- 
 ters we  have  nothing  to  do,  as  they  do  not  appear 
 to  have  been  Shemitic  in  origin,  and  will  therefore 
 proceed  to  consider  tlie  Hebrew  alphabet  as  known 
 10  us. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  arrangement  of  the  letters, 
 our  chief  sources  of  information  are  as  before  the 
 alphabetical  acrostics  in  the  Psalms  and  I.,anienta- 
 tions.  In  these  poems  some  irregularities  in  the 
 arrangement  of  the  alphabet  are  observable.     For 
 
 instance,  in  Lam.  ii.,  iii.,  iv.,  Q  stands  before  37  : 
 in  Ps.  xxxvii.  '"  stands  before  -,  and  V  is  want- 
 ing: in  Pss.  XXV.,  xxxiv.  T  is  omitted,  and  in  both 
 there  is  a  final  verse  after  H  beginning  with  D. 
 Hence  D  has  been  compared  with  the  Greek  (p, 
 
 and  the  transposition  of  37  and  !J  has  been  ex- 
 plained from  the  interchange  of  these  letters  in 
 Aramaic.  But  as  there  are  other  irregularities  in 
 the  alphabetical  psalms,  no  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
 these  points.     We  find,  for  example,  in   I's.  xxv. 
 
 two  verses  beginning  with  S,  while  3  is  omitted ; 
 
 in  Ps.  xxxiv.  two  begin  with  "T,  and  so  on. 
 
 Tiie  names  of  the  letters  are  given  in  the  LXX. 
 of  the  Lamentations  as  found  in  the  Vatican  MS. 
 as  printed  by  Mai,  and  in  the  Codex  Friderico-Au- 
 gustanus,  published  by  Tischendorf.  Both  these 
 ancient  witnesses  prove,  if  proof  were  wanting, 
 that  in  the  4th  century  after  Christ  the  Hebrew 
 letters  were  known  by  the  same  names  as  at  the 
 present  day.  These  names  all  denote  sensible  ob- 
 jects which  had  a  resemblance  to  the  original  form 
 of  the  letters,  preserved  partly  in  the  square  alpha- 
 bet, partly  in  the  Phcenician,  and  partly  perhaps  in 
 the  alphabet  from  which  both  were  derived. 
 
 The  following  are  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  al- 
 phabet in  their  present  shape,  with  their  names 
 and  the  meanings  of  these  names,  so  far  as  they 
 can  be  ascertained  with  any  degree  of  probability. 
 
 K,  Aleph.  n^^^^^!?^'  ^"  0''  (comp.  Pint. 
 Sijinp.  Qucest.  ix.  2,  §  3).  In  the  old 
 Phoeniciau  forms  of  this  letter  can  still  be 
 
 phabet  was  adopted,  to  distinguish  the  sounds,  the 
 alphabet  must  have  represented  the  current  pronun- 
 ciation. The  language,  and  even  its  literature,  prob- 
 ably, had  reached  considerable  development  before 
 alphabetic  characters  were  derived  from  older  hiero- 
 glyphic or  syllabic  forms.    The  oldest  inscriptions  show 
 
 WRITING  356£ 
 
 traced   some   resemblance   to   an  ox-head, 
 
 "2,  Beth.  ri"*S=n'\3,  a  house.  The  figure 
 in  the  square  character  corresponds  more  to 
 its  name,  while  the  lithiopic  f\  has  greater 
 resemblance  to  a  tent.     Gr.  j3?jTa  (B). 
 
 2,  Gimel.  7^^2=  7^3,  a  camel.  The  an- 
 cient form  is  supposed  to  represent  the  head 
 and  neck  of  this  animal.  In  Phcenician  it 
 is  ~],  and  in  Ethiopic  ^,  wjjich  when 
 turned  round  became  the  Greek  ydfA/ia 
 (=:  ydfiAa),  T.  Gesenius  holds  that  the 
 earliest  form -^  represented  the  camel's 
 hump. 
 
 1,  Daletli.  nl7"!T=n^'^,  a  door.  The  sig- 
 nificance of  the  name  is  seen  in  the  older 
 form  2J,  whence  the  Greek  SeAra,  A,  a 
 tent-door.  [The  simple  triangle  of  the 
 Greek  A  is  a  yet  older  form  found  in  the 
 Moabite  Inscription,  and  still  more  resem- 
 bles a  tent-door.  —  W.  H.  W.]  • 
 
 n,  He.  Mn,  without  any  probable  derivation; 
 perhaps  corrupted,  or  merely  a  technical 
 term.     Kwald  says   it  is  the  same  as  the 
 
 Arabic  S«j6,a  hole,  fissure.  Hupfeld  con- 
 nects it  with  the  interjection  SH,  "lo!" 
 The  corresponding  Greek  letter  is  E,  which 
 is  the  Phoenician  ^  turned  from  left  to 
 right. 
 
 1,  Vau.  Ij,  a  hook  or  tent-peg;  the  same  as 
 the  old  Greek  Qav  (  f),  the  form  of  which 
 resembles  the  Phoerrtcian  ^.  [But  the 
 old  Phoenician  1  is  Y  and  not  ^,  and 
 corresponds  in  shape  with  the  Greek  T,  with 
 which  it  also  corresponds  in  sound.  The 
 Greek  Y  has  been  supposed  to  be  a  late  ad- 
 dition to  the  Greek  alphabet,  but  it  is  found 
 in  the  oldest  inscriptions,"  and  its  shape 
 shows  it  to  have  been  borrowed,  with  the 
 other  Phoenician  characters,  from  the  East. 
 —  W.  H.  W.] 
 
 T,  Zain.  \l\,  probably  =  M-*/,  zaino,  a 
 weapon,  sword  (Ps.  xliv.  7):  omitting  the 
 final  letter,  it  was  also  called  "^t,  zai  (Mish. 
 Shabb.  xii.  5).  It  appears  to  be  the  same 
 as  the  ancient  Greek  ^du.  [The  same  in 
 name,  perhaps;  but  the  oldest  form  ol 
 Cora,  as  found  in  the  inscriptions  from 
 Halicariiassus  and  Teos,  is  ^,  the  same 
 as  the  most  antique  Zidn.  —  W.  H.  W.] 
 n,  Chelli.      i^TT,  a  fence,   inclosure   (=  Arab. 
 
 ,^jLa».,  from  ^Lsfc,  Syr.  -q'^'^^,  to 
 surround).  Comp.  the  Phcen.  ^.  Chetli 
 is  the  Greek  ^ra  (H)- 
 
 all  the  letters  (t2  happens  to  be  missing  in  the  great 
 SInabite  Inscription),  and  they  are  all  present  in  the 
 alphabet  received  by  the  Greeks.  \V.  H.  W. 
 
 «  *  KirchhoS^a  Sliiilien  zurGesch.  r/.  i;rie(/i.  Alpha- 
 bets, in  the  Abhandl.  of  the  Berlin  Acad.,  1863,  p.  265 
 
 W.  H.  W. 
 
3570 
 
 WRITING 
 
 13,  Tet.  l;*'t^,  a  snake,  or  H^'p,  a  basket. 
 The  Greek  Qrira. 
 
 %  Yod.  ~rV=T,  ahand.  The  form  of  the 
 letter  was  perhaps  originally  longer,  as  in 
 the  Greek  l  {Iuto)-  The  Phoenician  (  nj  ) 
 and  Samaritan  ( /Jf  )  figures  have  a  kind  of 
 distant  resemblance  to  three  fingers.  In 
 Ethiopic  the  name  of  the  letter  is  yanuin, 
 the  right  hand.  [But  these  are  neither 
 the  oldest  Phoenician  nor  Samaritan  forms. 
 The  archaic  Yod,  2^,  had  but  two  "fin- 
 gers." —  W.  H.  W.] 
 
 3,  Caph.  ^3,  the  hollow  of  the  hand.  The 
 Greek  Kawna  (k)  is  the  old  Phoenician  form 
 (ji)  reversed. 
 
 V,  Lamed.  ^^^j  a  cudgel  or  ox-goad  (comp. 
 Judg.  iii.  31).  The  Greek  Ad/x^Sa  (A); 
 Phoenician,  Ly.  ^.  [In  the  Moabite  stone 
 and  other  very  old  inscriptions,  the  lower 
 part  of  the  Lamed  is  curved.  —  A.] 
 
 X3,  Mem.  U^12>=^  U^l^,  water,  as  it  is  com- 
 monly explained,  with  reference  to  the  Sa- 
 maritan ^.  In  the  old  alphabets  it  is  ^, 
 in  which  Gesenius  sees  the  figure  of  a  tri- 
 dent, and  so  possibly  the  symbol  of  the  sea. 
 The  Greek  fj.v  conesponds  to  the  old  word 
 
 'M2i,  "  water,"  Job  ix.  30.  [The  oldest 
 form  of  Mem,  as  M.  de  Vogiie  shows,  is 
 not  *J  but  "y ;  and  resembles  waves  more 
 than  a  trident.  —  W.  H.  W.] 
 
 3,  Nun.  "j13,  a  fish,  in  Chaldee,  Arabic,  and 
 Syriac.  In  almost  all  Phoenician  alphabets 
 the  figure  is  '7.  On  the  Maltese  inscrip- 
 tions it  is  nearly  straight,  and  corresponds 
 to  its  name.  The  Greek  vv  is  derived 
 from  it. 
 
 D,  Samech.  Tf^D,  a  prop,  from  TfipD,  to 
 support;  perhaps,  says  Gesenius,  the  same 
 as  the  Syriac  \  OVIPO,  s'moco,  a  triclin- 
 ium. But  this  interpretation  is  solely 
 founded  on  the  rounded  form  of  the  letter 
 in  the  square  alphabet;  and  he  has  in  an- 
 other place  (Mun.  Pliam.ip.  83)  shown  how 
 this  has  come  from  the  old  Phoenician, 
 which  has  no  likemss  to  a  triclinium,  or  to 
 anything  else  save  a  flash  of  lightning  strik- 
 ing a  church  spire.  The  Greek  a7yfj.a  is 
 undoubtedly  derived  from  Samech,  as  its 
 form  is  from  the  Phoenician  character,  al- 
 though its  place  in  the  Greek  alphabet  is 
 occupied  by  |r.  [The  name  of  a'lyfxa 
 seems  to  be  derived  from  Samel'h,  but  its 
 shape  from  that  of  Sliin.  Samekk  agrees 
 in  its  earliest  form  with  that  of  |r,  which 
 occupies  its  place  in  the  alphabet.  The 
 oldest  form  of  the  Greek  =  which  has  been 
 preserved  is  J,  which  conies  very  near  to 
 the  Samekh,  ^P,  which  in  this  antique 
 form  is  presented  to  us  for  the  first  time  in 
 the  Moabite  Inscription.  — W.  H.  W.] 
 
 V,  'Aiu.      7^P,  an  eye;  in  the  Phoenician  and 
 
 WRITING 
 
 Greek  alphabets  O.  Originally  it  had  two 
 powers,  as  in  Arabic,  and  was  represented 
 in  the  LXX.  by  r,  or  a  simple  breathing. 
 
 r  ,  Fe.       SS=  n^,  a  mouth.    The  Greek  ■n-?  is 
 
 from  "'Q,  the  construct  form  of  HQ. 
 
 i*,  Tsade.  ^"!1^  or  "'^^j  a  fish-hook  or  prong, 
 for  spearing  the  larger  fish.  Others  explain 
 it  as  a  nose,  or  an  owl.  One  of  the  Phoe- 
 nician forms  is  \^.  From  Tsade  is  derived 
 the  Greek  ^rjTa. 
 
 p,  Koph.  ^^P)  perhaps  the  same  as  the  Ar- 
 abic '_4'*''  the  back  of  the  head.  Gese- 
 nius origmally  expkiined  it  as  equivalent  to 
 
 the  Chaldee  '^^p,  the  eye  of  a  needle,  or 
 the  hole  for  the  handle  of  an  axe.  Hitzig 
 rendered  it  "  ear,"  and  others  "  a  pole." 
 The  old  Hebrew  form  (P),  inverted  ^,  be- 
 came the  Greek  KSirira  (  S  );  and  the 
 form  (  9  ))  which  occurs  on  the  ancient 
 Syracusan  coins  [and  in  the  Moabite  In- 
 scription —  W.  H.  W.],  suggests  the  origin 
 of  the  Roman  Q. 
 
 "I,  Resk.      ti^'^'H,  a  head   (comp.   Aram.   Wi^H 
 
 =  tt7S~l).  The  Phoenician  ^  when  turned 
 round  became  the  Greek  p,  the  name  of 
 which,  pcj,  is  corrupted  from  Resh. 
 
 W  Shin  ']'*W  I  Compare  'Jtt'',  a  tooth,  sometimes 
 &      &  S-      used  for  a  jagged  promontory. 
 
 W  Sin.    I^ip  J  The  letters  W  and  W  were  prob- 
 ably at  first  one  letter,  and  afterwards  be- 
 came distinguished  by  the  diacritic  point, 
 which  was  known  to  Jerome,  and  called  by 
 him  accentus  (  Qiusst.  Jlebr.  in  Gen.  ii.  23 ; 
 Am.  viii..  12).     In  Ps.  cxix.  161-168,  and 
 Lam.   iii.  61-63,  they  are  used  promiscu- 
 ously, and  in  Lam.  iv.  21  W  is  put  for  W. 
 The  narrative  in  Judg.  xii.  6  points  to  a 
 difference  of  dialect,  marked  by  the  differ- 
 ence in  sound   of   these  two  letters.     The 
 (ireek  |r  is  derived  from  Shin,  as  vv  from 
 Nun.      [The  name  of  the  Greek  ^2  may  be 
 corrupted  from  that  of  Shin  ;  but  its  shape, 
 as  we  have  seen,  is  from   that  of  Samech, 
 whose  place  it  occupies.     So  (r7y/xa,  with 
 the  name  of  Samech,  has   the    place  and 
 form  of  Shin,  both   being  represented  by 
 W  in  the  earliest  alphabets.  —  W.  H.  W.] 
 n,  Tau.       W,  a  mark  or  sign  (Ez.  ix.  4);  prob- 
 ably a  sign  in  the  shape  of  a  cross,  such  as 
 cattle  were  marked   with.     This  significa- 
 tion corresponcts  to  the   shapes  of  the  old 
 Hebrew  letter  on   coins  -|-,    X ,  from   the 
 former  of  which  conies  the  Greek  rav  (T)- 
 In  the  mystical  interpretation  of  the  alphabet 
 given   by  Euseljius   {Pra;p.  Evanrj.  x.  5)  it  is  evi- 
 dent that  Tsade  was  called  Tsedek,  and  Koph  was 
 called  Kvl.     The  I'olish  Jews  still  call  the  former 
 Tsadek. 
 
 Divisions  of  Words.  —  Hebrew  was  originally 
 written,  like  most  ancient  languages,  without  any 
 divisions  between  the  words."     In  most  Greek  in- 
 
 o  *  At  first  sight  it  appears  strange  that  the  words    in  ancient  manuscripts  should  be  thus  run  together  as  a 
 
WRITING 
 
 scriptions  there  are  no  such  divisions,  thou£;h  in 
 several  of  the  oldest,  as  the  Eugubine  Tables  and 
 the  Sigsean  inscription,  there  are  one  or  two,  while 
 others  have  as  many  as  three  points  which  serve 
 this  purpose.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Phoe- 
 nician inscriptions.  Most  have  no  divisions  of 
 words  at  all,  but  others  have  a  point,  except  where 
 the  words  are  closely  connected."  The  cuneiform 
 character  has  the  same  point,  as  well  as  the  Samar- 
 itan, and  in  Cufic  the  words  are  separated  by 
 spaces,  as  in  the  Aramseo-Ejiyptian  writing.  The 
 various  readings  in  the  LXX.  show  that,  at  the 
 time  this  version  was  made,  in  the  Hebrew  AISS. 
 which  tlie  translators  used  the  words  were  written 
 in  a  continuous  series.''  The  modern  synagogue 
 rolls  and  the  MSS.  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
 have  no  vowel-points,  but  the  wonls  are  divided, 
 and  the  Samaritan  in  this  respect  differs  but  little 
 from  the  Hebrew. 
 
 Fiwil  Letters,  etc.  —  In  addition  to  the  letters 
 above  described,  we  find  in  all  Hebrew  JMSS.  and 
 
 printed  books  the  forms  ^7)  ^)  1)  ^j  V)  which  are 
 
 the  shapes  assumed  by  the  letters  D,  'O,  3,  Q,  ^, 
 when  they  occur  at  the  end  of  words.  Their  in- 
 >tntion  was  clearly  due  to  an  endeavor  to  render 
 reading  more  easy  by  distinguishing  one  word  from 
 another,  but  they  are  of  comparatively  modern  date. 
 The  various  readings  of  the  LXX.  show,  as  has 
 been  already  said,  that  that  version  was  made  at  a 
 time  when  the  divisions  of  words  were  not  marked, 
 and  consequently  at  this  time  there  could  Ije  no 
 final  letters.  Gesenius  at  first  maintained  tliat  on 
 the  Palmyrene  inscriptions  there  were  neither  final 
 letters  nor  divisions  of  words,  l.)ut  he  afterwards  ad- 
 mitted, though  with  a  little  exhibition  of  temper, 
 that  the  final  N'uji  was  found  there,  after  his  error 
 had  been  pointed  out  by  Kopp  (Bild.  u.  Scin:  ii. 
 132;  Ges.  Afon.  Plmn.  p.  82).  In  the  Aramaso- 
 Egyptian  w'riting  both  final  Caph,  and  final  Nun 
 occur,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Blacas  fragments  given 
 by  Gesenius.  The  five  final  letters  "  are  mentioned 
 in  Bereshith  Eabba  (parash.  i.  fol.  1,  4),  and  in 
 both  Talnuids;  in  the  one  (T.  Hab.  Sabbat,  fol. 
 104,  1)  they  are  said  to  be  used  by  the  seers  or 
 prophets,  and  in  the  other  (T.  Hieros.  MetjiUnli, 
 fol.  71,  4)  to  be  an  Halnculi  or  tradition  of  Moses 
 from  Sinai;  yea,  by  an  ancient  writer  (Pirke  Kli- 
 ezer,  c.  48)  they  are  said  to  be  known  by  Abra- 
 ham "  (GiU,  Dissertation  concerning  the  Antiquity 
 
 WRITING 
 
 3571 
 
 of  the  Heb.  LanyucKje,  etc.,  p.  69).     The  final  Mem 
 
 in  the  middle  of  the  word  n3"lD7  (Is.  ix.  6)  is 
 mentioned  in  both  Talmuds  (Talm.  Bab.  Sanhe- 
 drin,  fol.  04,  1;  Talm.  Jer.  Sanh.  fol.  27,  4),  and 
 by  Jerome  {in  luc).  In  another  passage  Jerome 
 {Prol.  (id  Libr.  lieg.)  speaks  of  the  final  letters  as 
 if  of  equal  antiquity  with  the  rest  of  the  alphaViet. 
 
 The  similarity  of  shape  between  final  Mem  (2)  and 
 
 Samech  (D)  is  indicated  by  the  dictum  of  Rab 
 Chasda,  as  given  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Me- 
 giUah,  c.  1;  Shnbbath,  fol.  104,  1),  that  ^^  iMem 
 and  Saviech,  whicli  were  on  the  Tables  (of  the  Law) 
 stood  by  a  miracle."  It  was  a  tradition  among 
 the  Jews  that  the  letters  on  the  tables  of  stone  given 
 to  Moses  were  cut  through  the  stone,  so  as  to  be 
 legible  on  both  sides;  hence  the  miracle  by  which 
 Mem  and  Samech  kept  their  place.  The  final  letters 
 were  also  known  to  Epiphanius  {Be  Mens,  et  Pon- 
 deribus,  §  4).  In  our  present  copies  of  the  Hebrew 
 Bible  there  are  instances  in  which  final  letters  occur 
 in  the  middle  of  words  (see  Is.  ix.  G,  as  above), 
 and,  on  the  contrary,  at  the  end  of  words  the  ordi- 
 nary forms  of  the  letters  are  employed  (Neh.  ii.  13; 
 Job  xxxviii.  1);  but  these  are  oidy  to  be  regarded 
 as  clei'ical  errors,  which  in  some  MSS.  are  corrected. 
 On  the  ancient  Phoenician  inscriptions,  just  as  in 
 tlie  Greek  uncial  MSS.  the  letters  of  a  word  were 
 divided  at  the  end  of  a  line  without  any  indication 
 being  given  of  such  division,  but  in  Hebrew  MSS. 
 a  twofold  course  has  been  adopted  in  this  case.  If 
 at  the  end  of  a  line  the  scribe  found  that  he  had 
 not  space  for  the  compfete  word,  he  either  wrote 
 as  many  letters  as  he  could  of  this  word,  but  left 
 them  unpointed,  and  put  the  complete  word  in  the 
 next  line,  or  he  made  use  of  what  are  called  ex- 
 tended letters,  Utene  dilalabiles  (as  f^,  i"!,  and 
 the  like),  in  order  to  fill  up  the  superabundant 
 space.  In  the  former  case,  in  order  to  indicate  that 
 the  word  at  the  end  of  the  line  was  incomplete,  the 
 last  of  the  unpointed  letters  waS  left  unfinished,  or 
 a  sign  was  placed  after  them,  resembling  sometimes 
 
 an  inverted  3,  and  sometimes  like  i~l,  37,  or  t3.  If 
 the  space  left  at  the  end  of  the  line  is  inconsiderable 
 it  is  either  filled  up  by  the  first  letter  of  the  next 
 word,  or  by  any  letter  whatever,  or  by  an  arbitrary 
 mark.  In  some  cases,  where  the  space  is  too  small 
 for  one  or   two  consonants,  the    scribe  wrote  the 
 
 succession  of  continuous  lines.  Yet  in  fact  our  nioJe 
 of  separating  the  words  is  the  artificial  oue,  and  tlie 
 other  is  the  natural  one,  in  reducing  oral  discourse  to 
 ■written.  Spoken  speech  is  an  unbroken  current.  It 
 is  not  the  ear  at  all,  except  as  slightly  aided  by  some 
 intonation  of  the  voice,  but  the  mind  which  separates 
 the  speech  into  words,  and  thus  apprehends  the  mean- 
 ing of  what  is  uttered.  The  speaker  runs  together 
 different  words  in  the  same  manner  as  he  runs  to- 
 gether dilferent  syllables  of  the  same  word.  The  old 
 method  therefore  simply  adjusted  the  eye  to  the  ear, 
 and  so  made  the  discourse  appear  on  parchment  or 
 stone  very  much  as  it  sounded  from  the  tongue  of 
 the  speaker.  H. 
 
 ri  *  The  words  are  separated  by  points  in  some  of 
 the  most  ancient  Phoenician  inscriptions,  as  in  the 
 second  from  Citium,  that  from  Tueca,  the  bilingual  of 
 Sardinia,  and  notably  so  in  tJie  oldest  of  all,  the  Mo- 
 abite  Inscription,  which  also  separates  sentences  by  a 
 perpendicular  line.  \V.  H.  \V. 
 
 h  *  And  yet  these  cases  are  so  rai-e,  that,  after 
 careful  comparison,  I  find  but  six  or  eight  ih  the  five 
 books  of  Moses,  and  even   these  generally  require  a 
 
 slight  variation  in  the  letters,  so  that  not  much  can 
 be  deduced  on  the  subject.     These  cases  are  Gen.  vii. 
 
 11,   C'-ltE'i?  for     Ci''   nW'S  ;  Gen.  xx.  16,   i bS 
 
 nnp:  for  rn^b)  Vs ;  Gen.  xi.  17.  nbsa 
 
 b^'W  for  bSSQ  bba ;  Num.  xxiii.  10,  ''72^ 
 -I^D  for  "iSpTp^;  Num.  xxiv.  22,  ],'7  "13?nb 
 riDIl?  for  Tl'a-nV   rp  "ll^^b  ;  Dent.  xxvi.  5, 
 
 T     :  T  T  -        '•  'AT        ••  T     :  ' 
 
 13S":  D^S  for  "T^'S  '^)2':'S;  Beut.  xxxiii.  2, 
 apparently  Wlp  ilh?"!  DHriN"}  for  TIH^') 
 ttJip   nh5~l.3  ;   and  perhaps  Deut.  xxxii.  8,   •'_321 
 
 ^■?  -ittJs  or  bs  -la?'^  "^Da  for  bs-jiz?^  "'aa ; 
 
 cf.  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  where   n"1tt?W    seems  to  have 
 
 been  read  for  j*T^  ^^.  These  are  also  specimens 
 of  the  scores  of  cases  where  the  vowels  were  differ- 
 ently read.  W.  II.  W. 
 
3572 
 
 WRITING 
 
 excluded  letters  in  a  smaller  form  on  the  mai^in 
 above  the  line  (Eichhorn,  Einl.  ii.  57-59).  That 
 ft/)/jreviaikms  were  employed  in  the  ancient  Hebrew 
 writing  is  shown  by  tlie  inscriptions  on  tlie  Macca- 
 biean  coins.  In  MSS.  the  frequently  recurring 
 words  are  represented  by  writing  some  of  their  let- 
 ters only,  as  '"^W^  or  'Slli?*'  for  bS"IJ£''>,  and  a 
 frequently  recurring  phrase  by  the  first  letters  of  its 
 words  with  the  mark  of  abbreviation;  as   H   V  D 
 
 for  non  Qb^vb  ^d,  ^^^  or  "^"^  for  n^r\\ 
 
 which  is  also  written    '^    or  ^  "^.     The  greater  and 
 
 smaller  letters  which  occur  in  the  middle  of  words 
 (comp.  Ps.  Ixxx.  16;  Gen.  ii.  4),  the  suspended  let- 
 ters (.Judg.  xviii.  .30;  Ps.  Ixxx.  14),  and  the  in- 
 verted letters  (Num.  x.  35),  are  transferred  from 
 the  MSS.  of  the  Masoretes,  and  have  all  received 
 at  the  Jiands  of  the  Jews  an  allegorical  explanation. 
 In  Judg.  xviii.  30  the  suspended  Nun  in  the  word 
 "Manasseh,"  without  which  the  name  is  "Moses," 
 is  said  to  be  inserted  in  order  to  conceal  the  dis- 
 grace which  the  idolatry  of  his  grandson  conferred 
 
 upon  the  great  lawgiver.     Similarly  the  small  J 
 
 in  the  word  rTHS^ /,  "  to  weep  for  her  "  (Gen. 
 Kxiii.  2),  is  exjilained  by  Baal  Hatturim  as  indicat- 
 ing that  Abraham  wept  little,  because  Sarah  was 
 an  old  woman. 
 
 Numbers  were  indicated  either  by  letters  or 
 figures.  The  latter  are  found  on  Phoenician  coins, 
 on  the  sarcopliagus  of  Eshmuiiazar,  on  the  Pal- 
 niyrene  inscriptions,  and  pro'ialily  also  in  the  Ara- 
 ma'O-Egyptian  writing.  On  the  other  hand,  letters 
 are  found,  used  as  numerals  on  the  Maccabsean 
 coins,  and  among  the  Arabs,  and  their  early  adop- 
 tion for  the  same  purpose  among  the  Greeks  may 
 have  been  due  to  the  Phcenicians.  It  is  not  too 
 much  to  conjecture  from  these  analogies  that  figures 
 and  letters  representing  inunbers  may  have  been 
 employed  by  the  ancient  Hebrews.  It  is  even  pos- 
 sible that  many  discrepancies  in  numbers  may  be 
 ex[)laiHed  in  this  way.  For  instance,  in  1  Sam.  vi. 
 19,  for  50,070  the  Syriac  has  5,070;  in  1  K.  iv.  26 
 [v.  6]  Solouion  had  40,000  horses,  while  in  the 
 parallel  passage  of  2  Chr.  ix.  25  he  has  only  4,000 ; 
 according  to  2  Sam.  x.  18,  David  destroyed  700 
 chariots  of  the  Syrians,  while  in  1  Chr.  xix.  18, 
 the  number  is  increased  to  7,000.  If  figures  were 
 in  use  such  discrepancies  are  easily  intelligible.  On 
 the  otiier  hand,  the  sft'ew  years  of  famine  in  2  Sam. 
 xxiv.  13,  may  be  reconciled  with  the  three  of  1  Chr. 
 xxi.  12  and  the  LXX.  by  supposing  that  a  scribe, 
 
 writing  the  square  character,  mistook  3  (=  3)  for 
 
 1  (  =  7).  Again,  in  2  Chr.  xxi.  20,  Jehoram  dies 
 at  the  age  of  40,  leaving  a  son,  Ahaziah,  who  was 
 42  (2  Chr.   xxii.   2).     In   the  parallel  passage  of 
 
 2  K.  viii.  26  Ahaziah  is  only  22,  so  that  the  .scribe 
 
 probably  read  2D  instead  of  22.  On  the  whole, 
 Gesenius  concludes,  the  preponderance  would  be  in 
 favor  of  the  letters,  but  he  deprecates  any  attempt 
 to  explain  by  this  means  the  enormous  numbers  we 
 meet  with  in  the  descriptions  of  armies  and  wealth, 
 and  the  variations  of  the  Samaritan  and  LXX.  from 
 the  Hebrew  text  in  Gen.  v. 
 
 Voioel-points  and  Diacritical  Jfarks.  —  It  is  im- 
 possible here  to  discuss  fully  the  origin  and  antiq- 
 uity of  the  vowel-points  and  other  marks  which  are 
 found  in  the  writing  of  Hebrew  MSS.     The  most 
 
 WRITING 
 
 that  can  be  done  will   be  to  giv  t  a  summary  of 
 results,  and  to  refer  the  reader  tc    the  sources  of 
 fuller   information.     Almost   all  the  learned  Jews 
 of  the  Middle  Ages  maintained  the  equal  antiquity 
 of  the  vowels  and  consonants,  or  at  least  the  intro- 
 duction of  the  former  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the 
 Great  Synagogue.     The  only  exceptions  to  this  unt- 
 formity  of  opinion  are  some  few  hints  of  Aben  Ezra, 
 and  a  douljtful  passiige  of  the  book   Cozri.     The 
 same   view  was  adopted  by  the  Christian  writers 
 Kaymund   Martini    (cir.  1278),  Perez  de  Valentin 
 (cir.  1430),  and  Nicholas  de   Lyra,    and  these  are 
 followed  by   Luther,  Calvin,  and  Pellicanus.     The 
 modern  date  of  the  vowel-points  was   first  argued 
 by   Elias   Levita,  followed    on    the    same  side  by 
 Cappellus,  who  was  opposed  by  the  younger  Bux- 
 torf.     Later  defenders  of  their  antiquity  have  been 
 Gill,  James  Robertson,  and  Tychsen.     Others,  like 
 Hottinger,   Prideaux,  Schultens,  J.  I).  Michaelis, 
 and  Eichhorn,  have  adopted  an  intermediate  view, 
 that  the  Hebrews  had  some  few  ancient  vowel-points, 
 which  they  attaciied  to  ambiguous  words.     "  The 
 dispute  about  the  antiquity  and  origin  of  the  He- 
 brew vowels  commenced  at  a  very  early  date;  for 
 while  Mar-Nartronai  II.,  Gaon  in  Sura  (859-869), 
 prohibited  to  provide  the   copies  of  the   Law  with 
 vowels,  because  these  signs  had  not  been  conununi- 
 cated  on  Mount  Sinai,  but  had  only  been  introduced 
 bv  the  sages   to  assist  the  reader:    the  Karaites 
 allowed  no  scroll  of  the  Pentateuch  to   be  used  in 
 the  synagogue,  unless  it  was  furnished  with  vowels 
 and    accents,   because  they  considered   them  as  a 
 divine  revelation,  which,  like  the  language  and  the 
 letter,  was  already  given  to  Adam,  or  certainly  to 
 Moses  "  (Dr.  Kalisch,  Ileb.  Gr.  ii.  65).     No  vowel- 
 points  are  to  be  found  on  any  of  the  Jewish  coins, 
 or  in  the  Palmyrene  inscriptions,  and  they  are  want- 
 ing in  all  the  relics  of  Phoenician  writing.     Some 
 of  the  Maltese  inscriptions  were  once  thought  by 
 Gesenius  to  have  marks  of  this  kind  ( Gesch.  der 
 Ilehr.  Spr.  p.    184),   but  subsequent  examination 
 led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Phoenician  mon- 
 uments have  not  a  vestige  of  vowel-points.     The 
 same  was  the  case    originally  in    the    Estrangelo 
 and  C'ufic  alphabets.     A  single  example  of  a  dia- 
 critical mark  occurs  for  the  first  time  on  one  of  the 
 Carthaginian  inscriptions  (Gesen.  Mo7i.  Phcen.  pp. 
 56,  179).     It  appears  to  correspond  to  the  diacrit- 
 ical mark  which  we  meet  with  in  Syriac  writing, 
 and  which  is  no  doubt  first  alluded  to  by  Ephraem 
 Syrus  (on  Gen.  xxxvi.  24,  Upp.  i.  184).     The  age 
 of  this  mark  in  Syriac  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  most 
 nearly  comiected  with  the  mnr/ietonoof  the  Samar- 
 itans, which  is   used  to  distinguish  words  which 
 have  the  same  consonants,  but  a  different  pronun- 
 ciation and  meaning.     The  first  certain  indication 
 of  vowel-points  in  a  Shemitic  language  is  in  the 
 Arabic.     Three  were  introduced  by  Ali,  son  of  Abu- 
 Thalleb,  who  died  A.  h.  40.     The  Sabian  writing 
 also  has  three  vowel  points,  but  its  age  is  uncertain. 
 Five  vowel-points  and  several  reading  marks  were 
 introduced  into  the  Syriac  writing  l)y  Theophilus 
 and  Jacob  of  Edessa.     The  present  Arabic  systei.i 
 of  punctuation  originated  with  the  introduction  of 
 the  Nischi  character  by  Ebn  Mokla,  who  died  A.  D. 
 939.     On  the  whole,  taking  into  consideration  the 
 nature  and  analogies  of  the  kindred  Shemitic  lan- 
 guages, and  the  Jewish  tradition  that  the  vowels 
 were  only  transmitted  orally  by  Moses,  and  were 
 afterwards  reduced  to  signs  and  fixed  by  Ezra  and 
 the  Great  Synagogue,  the  preponderance  of  evidence 
 goes  to  show  that    Hebrew  was  written   witLout 
 
WRITING 
 
 vowels  or  diacritical  marks  all  the  time  that  it  was 
 a  living  language.  Tiie  fact  that  the  synagogue 
 rolls  are  written  without  points,  and  that  a  strong 
 traditional  prescription  against  their  being  pointed 
 exists,  is  in  favor  of  the  later  origin  of  the  vowel 
 marks.  The  following  passages  from  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, quoted  by  Gesenius,  tend  to  the  same  con- 
 clusion.    In  Gen.  xix.  37,  the  name  Moab  (2S1^), 
 
 is  explained  as  if  it  were  2^^,  "from  a  father," 
 in  which  case  all  trace  not  only  of  vocalization,  but 
 of  the  quiescent  letter  has  disappeared.     In  Gen. 
 
 xxxi.  47,  ^2?7^    Gllead  is  made  to  take  its  name 
 '       T  :  • 
 
 from  "T2772,  "heap  of  witness,"  and  Gen.  1.  H, 
 
 n>-n^P  S?S!  =  an?!?  ^?^?.     So  also  in  2  K. 
 
 xxii.  9,  "IpDn  IpW  Sh*^,  appears  in  the  parallel 
 
 narrative  of  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  IG  as  HS  ]'DW  ^3*1 
 
 "IpSri,  which  could  not  have  happened  if  the 
 chronicler  had  had  a  pointed  text  liefore  him.  Upon 
 examining  the  version  of  the  LXX.  it  is  equally 
 clear  that  the  translators  must  have  written  from 
 an  unpointed  text.  It  is  objected  to  this  that 
 tlie  ana^  KeyS/ieva  are  correctly  explained,  and 
 that  they  also  distinguish  betneen  words  which 
 have  the  same  consonants  but  ditierent  vowel-points, 
 and  even  between  those  whicli  are  written  and  pro- 
 nounced alike.  On  the  other  hand  they  frequently 
 confuse  words  which  have  the  same  consonants 
 but  ditierent  vowels.  The  passanes  which  Gesenius 
 quotes  {Gesch.  (I.  ffeb.  Spr.  §  50)  would  necessarily 
 be  explained  from  the  context,  and  we  must  besides 
 this  take  into  consideration  that  in  the  ambiguous 
 cases  there  were  in  all  prolxibility  traditional  in- 
 terpretations. The  proper  names  afford  a  more 
 accurate  test.  On  examining  these,  we  find  that 
 they  sometimes  have  entirely  diffei'ent  vowels,  and 
 sometimes  are  pointed  according  to  an  entirely  dif- 
 ferent system,  analogous  to  the  Arabic  and  Syriac, 
 but  varying  from  the  Masoretic.     Examples  of  an 
 
 entirely  different  vocalization  are,  "'ip^S,  A/j.a6i, 
 
 1^17^1  Uktuv,  H7-»   lopSarTjs,  "n^'^j  Moffox, 
 
 ^^"^PP,     yiapSoxaios,       r[y?72'^,,      Po^e\ias, 
 
 n^52^,  2o(povias,  ''P??,  2o,8oxai,  etc.  That 
 the  punctuation  followed  by  the  LXX.  was  essen- 
 tially distinct  from  that  of  the  Masoretes  is  evident 
 from  the  following  examples.  Moving  s/ieva  at  the 
 beginning  of  words  is  generally  represented  by  a; 
 as  in  2a/iourjA,  2a$a(ii6,  ZajSovAccV.  seldom  by  e, 
 
 as  in  BeAioA,  Xepovfiifj.;  before  1  or  "*  by  o  or  v, 
 as  'S.oSofj.a,  2i0\ofj.a)v,  Vofxoppa,  ZopojSa^eX,  (pvAt- 
 arieifx,  etc.  Pidhiicli  is  represented  by  e;  as  MeA- 
 XicreSfXi  N6(|j0aA6i/i,  EXtffa^ed.  I'lUhach  fur- 
 tirii.iii  =  e;  e.  <j.  narjf,  FeK^ovf,  QeKooe,  Zavooe. 
 Otlier  examples  might  1)6  multiplied.  We  find  in- 
 stances to  the  same  effect  in  the  fragments  of  the 
 otlier  Greek  versions,  and  in  .losephus.  The  agree- 
 ment of  the  Targums  with  the  present  punctuation 
 might  be  supposed  to  supply  an  argument  in  favor 
 of  the  antiquity  of  the  latter,  but  it  might  equally 
 be  appealed  to  to  show  that  the  translation  of  the 
 Targums  embodied  the  traditional  pronunciation 
 which  was  fixed  in  writing  by  the  punctuators.  The 
 Talmud  has  likewise  been  appealed  to  in  support  of 
 the  antiquity  of  the  modern  points;  but  its  utter- 
 ances on   this  subject  are  extremely  dark  and  ditti- 
 
 WRITING  3573 
 
 cult  to  understand.  They  have  respect  on  the  one 
 hand  to  those  passages  in  which  the  sense  of  a  text 
 is  disputed,  in  so  far  as  it  depends  upon  a  different 
 pronunciation ;  for  instance,  whether  in  Cant.   i.  2, 
 
 we  should  read  t^'IT^  or  '^l^^'l^  i  in  Ex.  xxi.  8, 
 
 ■"1122  or    '*n:?2;    in    Lev.    x.    25,    W'VD.W  or 
 
 wv-nwi  hi  Is.  liv.  1.3,  njaa  or  ni^a.   a 
 
 Rabbinic  legend  makes  Joab  kill  his  teacher,  be- 
 cause in  Ex.  xvii.  1-1  he  had   taught  him  to  read 
 
 "13^  for  "ipif.  The  last  passage  shows  at  least, 
 that  the  Talmudists  thought  the  text  in  David's 
 time  was  unpointed,  and  the  others  prove  that  the 
 punctuation  could  not  have  been  fixed  as  it  must 
 have  been  if  the  vowel-points  had  been  written. 
 But  in  addition  to  these  instances,  which  are  suj)- 
 posed  to  involve  the  existence  of  vowel-points,  there 
 are  certain  terms  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  which 
 are  interpreted  as  referring  directly  to  the  vowel 
 signs  and  accents  themselves.     Thus  in  the  treatise 
 
 Benicholh  (fol.  62,  3)  we  find  the  phrase  '^72VS^ 
 
 TT'i'^r^,  UCdine  tlwrdh,  which  is  thought  to  denote 
 not  only  the  distinctive  accents  and  those  which 
 mark  the  tone,  but  also  the  vowel-points.  Hupfeld, 
 however,  has  shown  that  in  all  probability  the  term 
 
 □171D,  ta'aiu,  denotes  nothing  .more  than  a  logical 
 
 sentence,  and  that  consequently  2^Q2?l2  p^lD^D, 
 jtisulc  ie'  din'wi  {Nedarlm,  fol.  37,  1),  is  simply  a 
 division  of  a  sentence,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to 
 do  either  with  the  tone  or  the  vowels  {Stud.  u.  Krit. 
 
 1830,  ii.  5t)7).  The  word  "J^'^D,  simd.n  (Gr.  o-jj- 
 fxilov)  which  occurs  in  the  Talmud  {Neaariin,  fol. 
 53),  and  which  is  explained  by  Kashi  to  signify  the 
 
 same  as  "np3j  nikkud,  "  a  point,"  has  been  also 
 appealed  to  as  an  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the 
 vowel-points  at  the  time  the  Talmud  was  com- 
 posed, but  its  true  meaning  is  rather  that  of  a  mne- 
 monic sign  made  use  of  to  retain  the  memory  of 
 what  was  handed  down  by  oral  tradition.  The 
 oldest  Biblical  critics,  the  collectors  of  the  Keri  and 
 Cethib,  have  left  no  trace  of  vowel-points :  all  their 
 notes  liave  reference  to  the  consonants.  It  is  now 
 admitted  that  .Jerome  knew  nothing  of  the  present 
 vowel-points  and  their  names.  He  expressly  says 
 that  the  Hebrews  very  rarely  had  vowels,  by  which 
 
 he  means  the  letters  j7,  "^^  \  PI,  W,  in  the  middle 
 of  words;  and  tliat  the  consonants  were  pronounced 
 differently  according  to  tiie  pleasure  of  the  reader 
 and  the  province  in  which  he  lived  {/'-^j)i.sL  ad 
 Ev:i<jr.  125).  The  term  accenlus,  which  he  there 
 uses,  appears  to  denote  as  well  the  pronunciation  of 
 the  vowels  as  the  nice  distinctions  of  certain  con- 
 sonantal sounds,  and  has  no  connection  whatever 
 with  accents  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word.  The 
 remarks  which  Jerome  makes  as  to  the  possibility 
 of  reading  the  same  Hebrew  consonants  difterently, 
 according  to  the  dittijrent  vowels  which  were  affixed 
 to  them,  is  an  additional  proof  that  in  his  day  the 
 vowel-points  were  not  written  (see  his  Voiiim.  in 
 I/os.  xiii.  3;  Had.  iii.  5).  Hupfeld  concludes  that 
 the  present  system  of  prommciation  had  not  com- 
 menced in  the  Gth  century,  that  it  belonged  to  a 
 new  epoch  in  .Jewish  literature,  the  Masoretic  in 
 opposition  to  the  Talmudic,  and  that,  taking  into 
 consideration  that  the  Syrians  and  Arabs,  among 
 whom  the  Jews  lived,  had  already  made  a  begin- 
 
8574  WRITING 
 
 ning  in  punctuation,  there  is  the  highest  probabil- 
 ity that  the  Hebrew  system  of  points  is  not  indig- 
 enous, but  transmitted  or  suggested  from  without 
 (Stud.  u.  Krit.  1830,  ii.  589).  On  such  a  question 
 it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  with  absolute  certainty, 
 but  the  above  conclusion  has  been  arrived  at  by  one 
 of  the  fii-st  Hebrew  scholars  of  luu-ope,  who  has 
 devoted  especial  attention  to  the  subject,  and  to 
 whose  opinion  all  deference  is  due. 
 
 "  According  to  a  statement  on  a  scroll  of  the 
 Law,  which  may  have  been  in  Susa  from  the  eighth 
 century,  JMoses  the  Punctator  (Hannakdan)  was 
 the  first  who,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  reading  of 
 the  Scriptures  for  his  pu[)ils,  added  vowels  to  the 
 consonants,  a  practice  in  which  he  was  followed  ijy 
 his  son  Judali,  the  Corrector  or  lievi.ser  (Hamma- 
 giah).  These  were  the  beginnii'igs  of  a  full  system 
 of  Hebrew  points,  the  completion  of  which  has,  by 
 tradition,  been  associated  with  the  name  of  the 
 Karaite  Acha  of  Irak,  living  in  the  first  half  of  the 
 sixth  century,  and  which  comprised  the  vowels  and 
 accents,  dagesh  and  rapheh,  keri  and  kethiv.  It 
 was,  from  its  loeal  origin,  called  the  Babylonian  oi' 
 Assyrian  system.  Almost  simultaneously  with 
 these  endeavors,  the  scholars  of  Palestine,  especially 
 of  Tiberias,  worked  in  the  same  direction,  and  here 
 liabbi  Mocha,  a  disciple  of  Anan  the  Karaite,  and 
 his  son  Moses,  fixed  another  system  of  vocalization 
 (about  570),  distinguished  as  that  of  Tiberias, 
 which  marks  still  more  minutely  and  accurately  the 
 various  shades  and  niceties  of  tone  and  pronuncia- 
 tiot),  and  which  was  ultimately  adopted  by  all  the 
 Jews.  For  though  the  Karaites,  with  their  char- 
 acteristic tenacity,  and  their  antagonism  to  the 
 Eabbanites,  clung  for  .some  time  to  the  older  signs, 
 because  they  had  used  them  before  their  secession 
 from  the  Tahnudical  sects,  they  were,  at  last,  in 
 957,  induced  to  abandon  them  in  favor  of  those 
 adopted  in  Palestine.  Now  tiie  Babylonian  signs, 
 besides  dittering  from  those  of  Tiberias  in  shape, 
 are  chiefly  remarkable  by  being  almost  uniformly 
 placed  above  the  letters.  There  still  exist  some 
 manuscripts  which  exhibit  them,  and  many  more 
 would  probably  have  been  preserved  had  not,  in 
 later  times,  the  habit  prevailed  of  substituting  in 
 old  codices  the  signs  of  Tiberias  for  those  of  Baby- 
 lonia "  (Dr.  Kalisch,  Hehr.  Gram.  ii.  63,  64)." 
 From  the  sixth  century  downwards  the  traces  of 
 punctuation  become  more  and  more  distinct.  The 
 INIasorah  mentions  by  name  two  vowels,  knmefs 
 and  p<itluicli  (Kalisch,  p.  66).  The  collation  of 
 the  Palestinian  and  Babylonian  readings  (8th  cent.) 
 refers  at  least  in  two  passages  to  the  mnppik  in  He 
 (Eiciihorn,  Eiiil.  i.  274);  but  the  collation  set  on 
 foot  by  Ben  .\sher  and  Ben  Naphtali  (cir.  A.  d. 
 1034)  has  to  do  exclusively  with  vowels  and  read- 
 ing-marks, and  their  existence  is  presupposed  in 
 the  Arabic  of  Saadias  and  the  Veneto-Greek  ver- 
 sion, and  by  all  the  Jewish  grammarians  from  the 
 11th  century  onwards. 
 
 It  now  remains  to  say  a  few  words  on  the 
 accents.  Their  especial  properties  and  the  laws 
 by  which  they  are  regulated  properly  belong  to  the 
 department  of  Hebrew  grammar,  and  full  informa- 
 tion on  these  points  will  be  found  in  the  works  of 
 Gesenius,  Hupfeld,  luvald,  and  Kalisch.  The  object 
 
 WRITING 
 
 of  the  accents  is  twofold.  1.  They  serve  to  mark 
 the  tone  syllable,  and  at  the  same  time  to  show  the 
 relation  of  each  word  to  the  sentence:  hence  they 
 
 are  called  D^ti^tG,  as  markinsr  the  sense.  2. 
 They  indicate  the  modulation  of  the  tone  accord- 
 ing to  which  the  Old   Testament  was  recited  in 
 
 the  synagogues,  and  were  hence  called  ini3"^2l3. 
 "  The  marmer  of  recitation  was  different  for  the 
 Pentateuch,  the  prophets,  and  the  metrical  books 
 (Job,  the  Proverbs,  and  the  Psalms):  old  modes 
 of  cantillation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  prophets 
 (in  the  Haphtaroth)  have  Ijeen  preserved  in  the 
 German  and  Portuguese  synagogues;  both  difler, 
 indeed,  considerably,  yet  manifestly  show  a  com- 
 mon character,  and  are  almost  like  the  same  com- 
 position sung  in  two  different  keys;  while  the 
 chanting  of  the  metrical  books,  not  being  employed 
 in  the  public  worship,  has  long  been  lost  "  (Kalisch, 
 p.  84).  Several  modern  investigators  have  decided 
 that  the  use  of  the  accents  for  guiding  the  public 
 recitations  is  anterior  to  their  use  as  marking  the 
 tone  of  words  and  syntactical  construction  of  sen- 
 tences. The  great  number  of  the  accents  is  in 
 favor  of  this  hypothesis,  since  one  sign  alone  would 
 have  been  sufhcient  to  mark  the  tone,  and  the  log- 
 ical relation  of  the  different  parts  of  a  sentence 
 could  have  been  indicated  by  a  nnich  smaller  num- 
 ber. Gesenius,  on  the  other  hand,  is  inclined  to 
 think  that  the  accents  at  first  served  to  mark  the 
 tone  and  the  sense  (Gesch.  p.  221).  The  whole 
 question  is  one  of  mere  conjecture.  The  advocates 
 for  the  antiquity  of  the  accents  would  carry  them 
 back  as  far  as  the  time  of  the  ancient  Temple  ser- 
 vice. The  Gemara  (IVeclarim,  (ol.  37,  2;  Meyilla/i, 
 c.  i.  fol.  3)  makes  the  Levites  recite  according  to 
 the  accents  even  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah. 
 
 Wriliiif/  Materials,  etc.  —  The  oldest  docu- 
 ments which  contain  the  writing  of  a  Shemitic  race 
 are  probably  the  bricks  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon 
 on  which  are  impressed  the  cuneiform  Assyrian 
 inscriptions.  Inscribed  bricks  ai'e  mentioned  by 
 I'liny  (vii.  56)  as  u.sed  for  astronomical  observa- 
 tions by  the  Babylonians.  There  is,  however,  no 
 evidence  that  they  were  ever  employed  by  the  He- 
 brews,'' who  certainly  at  a  very  early  period  prac- 
 ticed the  more  difficult  but  not  more  durable 
 method  of  writing  on  stoiie  (Ex.  xxiv.  12,  xxxi.  18, 
 xxxii.  15,  xxxiv.  1,  28;  Deut.  x.  1,  xxvii.  1;  Josh, 
 viii.  32),  on  which  inscriptions  were  cut  with  an 
 iron  graver  (Job  xix.  24;  Jer.  xvii.  1).  They 
 were  moreover  acquainted  with  the  art  of  engraving 
 upon  metal  (Ex.  xxviii.  36)  and  gems  (Ex.  xxviii. 
 1)).  Wood  was  used  upon  some  occasions  (Num. 
 xvii.  3;  comp.  Horn.  Jl.  vii.  175),  and  writing  tab- 
 lets of  box-wood  are  mentioned  in  2  Esdr.  xiv.  24. 
 The  '•  lead,"  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  Job  xix. 
 24,  is  supposed  to  have  been  poured  when  melted 
 into  the  cavities  of  the  stone  made  by  the  letters 
 of  an  inscription,  in  order  to  render  it  durable,'^' 
 and  does  not  appear  ever  to  have  been  used  by  the 
 Hebrews  as  a  writing  material,  like  the  ^(^dprai 
 Ho\vl3Sti'oi  at  Thebes,  on  which  were  written 
 Ilesiod's  Works  and  Days  (Pans.  ix.  31,  §  4^ 
 comp.  Plin.  xiii.  21).  Inscriptions  and  documents 
 which  were  intended  to  be  permanent  were  written 
 
 «  For  further  information  on  the  Babylonian  sys- 
 tem of  punctuation,  see  Pinslier's  Einhitung  in  die 
 Babylonisck-  Heljraische  Fiinklalionssystem,  just  pub- 
 lished at  Vienna  (1863). 
 
 b  The  case  of  Ezekiel  (iv.  1)  is  evidently  an  excep- 
 tion. 
 
 c  Copper  was  used  for  the  same  purpose.  M.  Botta 
 found  traces  of  it  in  letters  on  the  pavement  slabs  of 
 Khorsabad  (Layard,  Nin.  iii.  188J. 
 
WRITING 
 
 on  tablets  of  brass  (1  Mace.  viii.  22,  xiv.  27),  but 
 from  the  maimer  in  which  tliey  are  mentioned  it  is 
 clear  that  their  use  was  exceptional.  It  is  most 
 probable  that  the  most  ancient  as  well  as  the  most 
 common  material  which  the  Hebrews  used  for 
 writing  was  dressed  skin  in  some  form  or  other. 
 We  know  that  the  dressing  of  skins  was  practiced 
 by  the  Hebrews  (Ex.  xxv.  5;  Lev.  xiii.  48),  and 
 they  may  have  acquired  the  knowledge  of  the  art 
 from  the  Egyptians,  among  whom  it  had  attained 
 great  perfection,  the  leather-cutters  constituting 
 one  of  the  principal  subdivisions  of  the  third  caste. 
 The  fineness  of  the  leather,  says  Sir  G.  Wilkinson, 
 "  employed  for  making  the  straps  placed  across  the 
 todies  of  mummies,  discovered  at  Thebes,  and  the 
 beauty  of  the  figures  stamped  upon  them,  satisfac- 
 torily prove  the  skill  of  '  the  leather-cutters,'  and 
 the  antiquity  of  embossing:  some  of  these  bearing 
 the  names  of  kings  who  ruled  Egypt  about  the 
 period  of  the  Exodus,  or  3,300  years  ago  "  {Anc. 
 Ky.  iii.  155).  Perhaps  the  Hebrews  may  have 
 borrowed,  among  their  other  acquirements,  the  use 
 of  papyrus  from  the  Egyptians,  but  of  this  we  have 
 no  positive  evidence.  Papyri  are  found  of  the  most 
 remote  Pharaonic  age  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Etj.  iii. 
 1-48),  so  that  Pliny  is  undoul)tedly  in  error  when 
 he  says  that  the  papyrus  was  not  used  as  a  writing 
 niaterial  before  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great 
 (xiii.  21).  He  probably  intended  to  indicate  that 
 this  was  the  date  of  its  introduction  to  Europe. 
 
 WHITING 
 
 3575 
 
 ti^i^y 
 
 Ancient  Writing  Materials. 
 
 In  the  Bible  the  only  allusions  to  the  use  of  papyrus 
 are  in  2  John  12,  where  ^dprris  occurs,  which 
 refers  especially  to  papyrus  paper,  and  3  Mace.  iv. 
 20,  where  ■)(apTr\pia  is  found  in  the  same  sense. 
 In  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  11,  §  0)  the  trial  of  adultery 
 is  made  by  writing  the  name  of  God  on  a  skin,  and 
 the  70  men  who  were  sent  to  Ptolemy  from  Jeru- 
 salem by  the  high-priest  Eleazar,  to  translate  the 
 Law  into  Greek,  took  with  them  the  skins  on  which 
 the  Law  was  written  in  golden  characters  {Ant.  xii. 
 2,  §  10).  'J'he  oldest  Persian  annals  were  written 
 on  skins  (Diod.  Sic.  ii.  32),  and  these  appear  to 
 have  been  most  frequently  used  by  the  Shemitic 
 races  if  not  peculiar  to  them."  Of  the  byssus 
 which  was  used  in  India  l)efore  the  tiine  of  Alex- 
 ander (Strabo  XV.  p.  717),  and  the  palm-leaves 
 mentioned  by  Pliny  (vii.  23),  there  is  no  trace 
 among  the  Hebrews,  although  we  know  that  the 
 Arabs  wrote  their  earliest  copies  of  the  Koran  upon 
 
 a  The  word  for  "  book,"   "IDD,   sSp/ier,  is  from  a 
 
 root,  "1DD,  sapfiar,  "  to  scrape,  shave,"  and  indi- 
 rectly points  to  the  use  of  skin  as  a  writing  mate- 
 nal. 
 
 the  roughest  materials,  as  stones,  the  shoulder- 
 liones  of  sheep,  and  palm-leaves  (De  Sacy,  Mem. 
 (k  I'Acrul.  des  Inscript.  1.  p.  307).  Herodotus, 
 after  telling  us  that  the  loniaiis  learnt  the  art  of 
 writing  from  the  Phoenicians,  adds  that  they  called 
 their  books  skins  (tos  ^i^Kovs  Stcpdepas),  because 
 they  made  use  of  sheep-skins  and  goat-skins  when 
 short  of  paper  (ySi'/SAos).  Among  the  Cyprians,  a 
 writing-master  was  called  St(pdepd\ot<pos-  Parch- 
 ment was  used  for  the  MS8.  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
 the  time  of  Josephus,  and  the  ixe/x^pdvai  of  2  Tim. 
 iv.  13  were  skins  of  parchment.  It  was  one  of  the 
 provisions  in  the  Tahnud  that  the  Law  should  be 
 written  on  the  skins  of  clean  animals,  tame  or  wild, 
 or  even  of  clean  birds.  There  are  three  kinds  of 
 skins  distinguished,  on  which  the  roll  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch may  be  written :  1.  ^(.V.,  kelejih  {Meg. 
 ii.  2;   Shabb.vm.-d)\  2.   D1l2D'lDDTT  =  Sixa(r- 
 
 t6s  OY  Si'leo-Tos;  and  3.  v'^l^j  'jevil  The  last 
 is  made  of  the  undivided  skin,  after  the  hair  is 
 removed  and  it  has  been  properly  dressed.  For 
 the  other  two  the  skin  was  split.  The  part  with 
 the  hairy  side  was  called  kelejih,  anci  was  used  for 
 the  iepliilliii  or  phylacteries;  and  upon  the  other 
 
 (  DD^^)  the  mtzuzotli  were  written  (Maimonides, 
 Hilc.  Tepliil.).  The  skins  when  written  upon  were 
 formed  into  rolls  (HI bSD,  mefjiUoth ;  Ps.  xl.  7 
 (8);  comp  Is.  xxxiv.  4;  Jer.  xxxvi.  14;  Ez.  ii.  9; 
 Zech.  v.  1).  They  were  rolled  upon  one  or  two 
 sticks  and  fastened  with  a  thread,  the  ends  of  which 
 were  sealed   (Is.  xxix.  11;  Dan.  xii.  4;  Rev.  v.  1, 
 
 etc.).     Hence  the  words   VV3,  ydlal  {elKLo-ireiy), 
 
 to  roll  up  (Is.  xxxiv.  4;  Rev.  vi.  14),  and  ti^'T'^j 
 paras  {ayairrvcrcreiv),  to  unroll  (2  K.  xix.  14; 
 Luke  iv.  17),  are  used  of  the  closing  and  opening 
 of  a  book.  The  rolls  were  generally  written  on  one 
 side  only,  except   in  Ez.  ii.  10 ;  Rev.  v.  1.     They 
 
 were  divided  into  columns  (i'mn7'7,  deldtholh, 
 lit.  "doors,"  A.  V.  "leaves,"  Jer.  xxxvi.  23);  the 
 upper  margin  was  to  be  not  less  than  three  fingers 
 broad,  the  lower  not  less  than  four;  and  a  space 
 of  two  fingers'  breadth  was  to  be  left  between  every 
 two  columns  (Waehner,  AnI.  Ebrceoi-.  vol.  i.  sect. ' 
 1,  cap.  xlv.  §  337).  In  the  Herculaneum  rolls  the 
 columns  are  two  fingers  broad,  and  in  the  JISS.  in 
 the  library  at  Stuttgart  there  are  three  columns  on 
 each  side,  each  three  inches  broad,  with  an  inch 
 space  between  the  columns,  and  margins  of  three 
 inches  wide  (Lejrer  in  Herzog's  Encijkl.  "  Schrift- 
 zeichen  ").     The  case  in  which  the  rolls  were  kept 
 
 was  called  reDxos  or  Oi)Krj,  Tabnudic  Ty^S,  cerec, 
 
 or  S3")l3,  cared.  But  besides  skins,  which  were 
 used  for  the  more  permanent  kinds  of  writing, 
 tablets  of  wood  covered  with  wax  (Luke  i.  63, 
 irivaKihia)  served  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life. 
 Several  of  these  were  fastened  together  and  formed 
 
 volumes    (mX3^tD,  =  tomos).    They  were  written 
 
 upon  with  a  pointed  style  (^37,  'e?.  Job  xix.  24), 
 sometimes  of  iron  (Ps.  xlv.  1  (2);  Jer.  viii.  8,  xvii. 
 1).  For  harder  materials  a  graver  (tO~iri,  cheret, 
 Ex.  xxxii.  4;  Is.  viii.  1)  was  employed:  the  hard 
 point  was  called  ITi^-f)  tsipporen  (Jer.  xvii.  1). 
 For  parchment  or  skins  a  reed  was  used  (3  John 
 13;  3  Mace.  iv.  20)    and  according   to  some  the 
 
3576  WRITING 
 
 Law  was  to  be  written  with  nothing  else  (Waehner, 
 §  334).  The  inii,  V"^,  deyo  (Jer.  xxxvi.  18),  lit- 
 erally "  black,"  like  the  Greek  fxtXav  (2  Cor.  iii. 
 3;  2  Juliii  12;  3  John  13),  was  to  be  of  lamp- 
 black dissolved  in  gall  juice,  though  sometimes  a 
 mixture  of  gal!  juice  and  vitriol  was  allowable 
 (Waehner,  §  335).     It  was  carried  in  an  inkstand 
 
 (IpDn  inpp,  Iceselh  hassopher),  which  was 
 suspended  at  the  girdle  (Ez.  ix.  2,  3),  as  is  done  at 
 the  present  day  in  the  East.  The  modern  scribes 
 "  have  an  apparatus  consisting  of  a  metal  or  ebony 
 tube  for  their  reed  pens,  with  a  cup  or  bulb  of  the 
 same  material,  attached  to  the  upper  end,  for  the 
 ink.  This  they  thrust  through  the  girdle,  and 
 carry  with  them  at  all  times  "  (Thomson,  The 
 Land  and  the  Book,  p.  131).  Such  a  case  for 
 holding  pens,  ink,  and  other  materials  for  writing 
 
 is  called  in  the  Mishna  ]^"7^7f2>  kalmar'm,  or 
 ^^"^^712'  kalinaryon  {calamarium ;  Mishn. 
 Celim,  ii.  7;  Mikv.x.  1)  while  pri31"1PI,  terontek 
 (Mish.  Celim,  xvi.  8),  is  a  case  for  carrying  pens, 
 penknife,  style,  and  other  implements  of  the  writer's 
 art.  To  professional  scribes  there  are  allusions  in 
 Ps.  xlv.  1  [2] ;  Ezr.  vii.  6 ;  2  Esdr.  xiv.  24.  In 
 the    language    of   the  Talmud    these    are    called 
 
 '}"^"^^;2  V,  Idbldrin,  which  is  a  modification  of  the 
 IjiCliheilml  (Talm.  SItnbb.  fol.  16,  1 ). 
 
 For  the  literature  of  this  suliject,  see  especially 
 Gesenius,  Gesc/iiclile  dev  hebrdhchen  Spraclie  und 
 Schrift,  1815;  Leltrijebaude  der  hebr.  Spraclie, 
 1817;  Moniimenta  Phw.nicia,  1837;  Art.  Pald- 
 ographie  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Allij.  Encycl. : 
 Hupfeld,  AusfUlirllche  Iiebrdische  Grammatik, 
 1841,  and  his  articles  in  the  Studien  und  Kriliken, 
 1830,  Band  2 :  A.  T.  [G.]  Hoffmapn,  Grammaiica 
 Syriaca,  1827:  A.  G.  Hoffmann,  Art.  Hebrdische 
 Schrift  in  Ersch  and  Grnber:  Fiirst,  Lehryebdwle 
 der  aramdischen  Id'wme,  1835:  Ewald,  Ausfiihr- 
 liches  Leiirbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache  :  Saalschiitz, 
 Forschungen  im  Gebiete  der  hebrdisch-dgypt- 
 ischen  Archdologle,  1838;  besides  other  works, 
 which  have  been  referred  to  in  the  course  of  this 
 article.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 *  This  may  be  a  suitable  place  to  speak  of  the 
 writing  on  the  Moaliite  stone  recently  discovered 
 on  the  east  of  tiie  Dead  Sea.  In  August,  1868, 
 the  Kev.  F.  Klein,  connected  with  the  Church 
 Missionary  Society  in  .Jerusalem,  met  with  this 
 monumental  stone  at  Dhibdn,  the  ancient  Dibon 
 
 (]3'^'l)  on  a  journey  from  £s-SnU  to  Kerak,  a 
 region  seldom  visited  by  Europeans  and  still  com- 
 paratively unknown.  He  copied  a  small  part  of 
 the  inscription  and  took  measurements,  which  show 
 the  stone  to  have  been  about  3  I'eet  U  inches  long, 
 2  feet  4  inches  in  breadth,  and  1  foot  2  inches 
 thick.  It  was  in  almost  perfect  preservation,  lying 
 with  the  inscription  upjoerniost,  and  was  a  basaltic 
 stone,  exceedinL''ly  heavy.  No  inscription  was  on 
 the  bottom  of  tlie  side,  which  was  perfectly  smooth, 
 and  without  marks.  Hut  imfortunately,  before  the 
 stone  could  be  properly  examined,  owing  to  the 
 unwillingness  of  the  Arabs  to  give  it  up,  it  was 
 broken  into  fragments  by  cold  water  having  been 
 thrown  upon  it  after  it  had  been  heated  l>y  fire. 
 We  are  indelited  mainly  to  the  eflbrts  of  ('apt. 
 Warren,  and  the  French  vice-consul  at  .Jerusalem, 
 M.  Ganneau,  for  impressions  or  squeezes  taken  of 
 'he  main  block  and  some  of  the  recovered  parts. 
 
 WRITING 
 
 from  which  we  learn  the  character  and  importance 
 of  this  interesting  monument.  The  investigations 
 are  not  yet  coniplete,  but  are  supposed  to  establish 
 the  following  results.  (1.)  The  stone  is  undoubt- 
 edly the  oldest  Shemitic  monument  yet  found.  (2.) 
 It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Ueutsch,  of  the  British  Mu- 
 seum, tliat  the  characters  appear  older  "  than  many 
 of  the  Assyrian  bi-lingual  cylinders  in  the  British 
 Museum,  the  date  of  which  is,  at  the  very  least, 
 as  old  as  the  ninth  century,  B.  c."  (3.)  The  stone 
 chronicles  the  achievements  of  one  Mesha,  king 
 of  the  Moaliites.  Now  it  was  about  this  time 
 (namely,  900  b.  c),  that  Mesha  lived,  against 
 whom  Jelioram  and  Jehoshaphat  fought  (2  K.  iii. 
 4  ff.).  [Mk.siia.]  (4.)  The  inscription  is  full  of 
 well-known  Biblical  names,  such  as  Beth-Bamoth, 
 Beth-Baal-Meon,  Horonaim,  and  Dibon.  (5.)  Men- 
 tion is  frequently  made  of  Israel,  a  rival  power, 
 and  of  Chemosh,  the  national  God  of  Moab.  (6.) 
 It  is  invaluable  to  the  student  of  alphabets.  Nearly 
 the  whole  of  the  Greek  alphabet  is  found  here,  not 
 merely  similar  to  the  Phoenician  shape,  but  as 
 identical  with  it  as  can  well  be. 
 
 Some  of  the  words,  and  even  lines,  it  should  be 
 added,  are  too  illegil]le  to  be  clearly  deciphered; 
 some  parts  of  the  stone  remain  (if  still  existing) 
 to  be  examined,  and  interpreters  difi'er  somewhat 
 in  the  reading  of  portions  of  the  text  in  their 
 possession.  One  value  of  the  discovery  is  its  con- 
 firming the  Scripture  intimations  (1  Sam.  vii.  12 
 and  XV.  12),  that  tlie  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  like 
 those  of  Egypt  and  Assyria,  had  monumental 
 records,  and  it  encourages  the  hope  that  by  per- 
 severance still  others  may  be  found.  (For  fuller 
 details  see  Quint.  Statement  of  the  Pal.  Explor. 
 Fund,  Nos.  iv.  and  v.) 
 
 Among  the  best  accounts  of  this  stone  is  un- 
 questionably that  of  Prof.  Schlottniaiin,  Die  Sieges- 
 sdiile  Mesa's  Konlgs  der  Moabiter ;  ein  Beit  rag 
 zur  hebrdisclien  Alterthumskundc  (Halle,  1870), 
 supplemented  by  an  art.  in  the  Zeitschr.  d.  D.  M. 
 Gesellschaft,  1870,  p.  253  fiF.  He  gives  at  length 
 the  details  of  its  discovery,  and  shows  the  impos- 
 sibility of  any  collusion  or  fraud  on  the  part  of 
 the  Arabs.  He  presents  a  (jernian  translation  of 
 the  epigraph,  supplying  in  brackets  the  missing  or 
 illegilile  words,  on  conjectural  grounds  of  course, 
 and  gives  the  same  in  Hebrew,  for  the  sake  of  com- 
 paring the  cognate  dialects.  It  is  remarkable  that 
 no  word  occurs  in  the  Moabite  fragment  of  which 
 the  root  does  not  exist  in  the  Hebrew  Biblical  text. 
 It  reads  in  this  respect,  as  M.  de  Vogiie  remarks, 
 almost  like  a  page  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
 Prof.  Schlottmann  points  out  various  important 
 connections  between  this  document  and  the  Biblical 
 history.  Prof.  G.  Kawlinson,  on  -'the  Moabite 
 Stone"  {Contemp.  Rev.  Aug.  1870,  pp.  97-112), 
 dwells  particularly  on  "  the  palseographical  value 
 of  the  discovery."  He  argues,  among  other  points, 
 that  the  more  primitive  forms  of  the  letters  on 
 "the  stone"  resemble  the  objects  from  which  they 
 are  named  much  more  strikingly  than  the  later 
 forms,  and  tlierefore  confirm  the  theory  of  the 
 pictorial  origin  of  alphabetic  writing.  He  finds 
 evidence,  also,  in  the  closer  resemblance  between 
 these  more  primitive  figures  and  the  earliest  Greek 
 letters,  that  tiie  (ireeks  borrowed  the  art  of  writing 
 from  the  Phoenicians  at  a  much  earlier  date  than 
 many  have  assigned  to  tiiat  event.  Letters,  ac- 
 cording to  this  view,  were  not  necessarily  unknown 
 to  tiie  Greeks  in  the  time  of  Homer  and  Hesiod. 
 The  Pentateuch  and  other  oldest  parts  of  the  He- 
 
WRITING 
 
 brew  Scriptures  were  not  improbably  written  at  first 
 in  cliaracters  \\k:  t'lose  represented  on  the  Moabite 
 stone. 
 
 Essays  on  the  Moabite  stone,  with  translations 
 of  the  inscription,  have  also  been  published  by 
 MM.  Ganneau,  de  Vo::;ii^,  Sachs,  Uereribouri;, 
 Nuldeke,  Neul)auer,  llau^,  Geiger,  and  others, 
 and  in  this  country  by  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Ward 
 {Proceedbujs  of  tlie  Amer.  Oriental  Socich/  for 
 May,  1870),  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the 
 paloeoj^raphical  supplements  to  the  present  article. 
 Mr.  \VarJ's  essay  is  to  appear,  enlarged,  in  the 
 Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1870.  H. 
 
 *  The  last  few  years  have  seen  the  study  of  the 
 history  of  writing  advanced  considerably  by  the 
 labors  of  Osiander,  Geiger,  Levy,  Lauth,  Brugsch, 
 Kirchhoff,  Lenormant,  de  Vogii<5,  and  others. 
 Scores  of  new  and  important  inscriptions  in  vari- 
 ous languages,  of  which  the  most  important  is 
 that  of  King  Mesba  of  Moab,  found  the  present 
 year  in  the  ancient  Dibon,  have  been  discovered 
 and  seized  upon  by  eager  students. 
 
 The  general  result  of  these  investigations  has 
 been  to  magnify  the  importance  and  to  extend  the 
 sway  of  the  old  Canaimite  or  Phoenician  alphabet, 
 and  to  indicate  more  clearly  to  us  its  original 
 characters.  It  is  not  improbable  that  every  style 
 of  script  now  in  use,  with  the  e.tception  of  the 
 Chinese  and  Japanese,  is  the  lineal  descendant 
 of  the  letters  of  Cadmus. 
 
 Whetlier  the  three  systems  of  picture-writing, 
 the  Egyptian,  the  Central  American,  and  the 
 Chinese;  the  two  alphabetic  systems  of  the  an- 
 cient Persians  and  the  Phoenicians,  and  the  mixed 
 system  of  Assyria  had  all  a  common  origin,  as 
 Geiger  maintains,  in  the  valley  of  the  ICuphrates, 
 it  is  as  yet  impossible  to  decide.  In  order  to  ex- 
 press thought  to  the  eye.  pictures  would  first  be 
 employed.  These  pictures  would  next  stand  for 
 the  first  syllable  of  the  words  which  they  had 
 represented,  and  finally  for  the  first  vocal  elements 
 of  those  syllables.  Such,  no  doubt,  was  the  his- 
 tory of  the  Shemitic  alphabet.  The  names  of  the 
 letters  seem  to  point  to  a  hieroglyphic  period,  as 
 they  all  signify  objects  of  whicli  pictures  coidd  be 
 drawn.  Then  the  fact  that  the  Shemitic  alphabet 
 has  no  vowels  points  to  a  period  when  tlie  vowel 
 system  of  the  language  was  less  developed,  and 
 when  each  written  consonant  carried  its  own  vowel 
 with  it,  as  in  the  syllabic  system  of  ancient  As- 
 syria. We  know  of  two  modern  cases,  one  of  the 
 Cherokee  Indian  Sequoya  or  Guest,  and  the  other 
 of  Doalu  iJukere  in  Africa,  in  whicli  savages,  hav- 
 ing gained  some  inkling  of  the  civilized  method 
 of  representing  fractions  of  words  by  arbitrary 
 signs,  have  themselves  invented  an  alphabet.  It 
 is  a  suggestive  fact  that  in  both  of  these  cases  the 
 system  which  they  hit  upon  was  syllabic.  Sequoya 
 in  1823  had  devised  an  alphabet  composed  of  two 
 hundred  syllables,  which  he  afterwards  reduced  to 
 eighty  five.  Such  was  probal)ly  the  original  syl- 
 labic character  of  the  Shemitic  alphabet,  consisting 
 of  consonants  followed  by  the  primitive  vowel  fi 
 Had  the  alphabet  originally  been  formed  by  making 
 an  ultimate  analysis  of  sounds  it  would  be  difficult 
 to  explain  the  fact  that  the  vowels,  the  most  prom- 
 inent elements  in  such  an  analysis,  are  all  absent 
 
 It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  Phoenician 
 or  Shemitic  alphabet  was  derived  from  the  Egyp- 
 tian hieratic  characters  (Brugsch,  Zetlschr.  f. 
 Stenoiirnpliiii,  18l!4,  p.  70  tt'.,  and  in  his  Bildunr/ 
 u.  Kntic.  d.  Scliri/'/,  Rerl.  18j8.  F.  Lenormant, 
 •.>23 
 
 WRITING 
 
 3577 
 
 Sur  la  prop,  de  Valph.  pkeii.,  Par.  1866.  Lauth, 
 Weber  d.  ciffypt.  Ursprung  uns.  Buchstnben  u.  Zif- 
 ftrn,!  in  the  Sitzungsb.  d.  bair.  Akad.  d.  Wiss., 
 1867,  ii.*4-124.  G.  Ebers,  Agyplen  u.  d.  Backer 
 .Mose's,  Leipz.  1868,  pp.  147-151.  Schroder,  Die 
 plioniz.  Spraclie,  Halle,  1869,  p.  76.  E.  Schrader, 
 in  De  Wette's  f^iid.  in  d.  Biiclier  d.  A.  T.,8- 
 .\utl.,  1861),  p.  189).  Taking  as  our  basis  for  com- 
 parison on  the  one  hand  the  most  archaic  Phoeni- 
 cian forms  as  given  on  gems  and  seals  and  on  the 
 Moabite  Inscription,  and  on  the  other  the  most 
 ancient  hieratic  characters  as  found  on  the  papyrus 
 Prisse,  a  manuscript  of  the  twelfth  dynasty,  and  so 
 older  than  tiie  Hyksos,  we  find  that  in  at  least 
 half  of  the  Phoenician  letters  there  is  an  evident 
 resemblance  to  the  corresponding  hieratic.  In  the 
 Phoenician,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  Dideth  and  Resh  are 
 almost  identical.  The  same  is  true  in  the  hieratic 
 viriting.  In  these  two  letters,  and  in  Lamed,  Nun, 
 and  S/;i/i,^he  resemblance  is  quite  striking.  Prob- 
 ably the  adaptation  of  the  Egyptian  characters  to 
 the  use  of  the  Phoenician  or  Canaanite  language, 
 was  due  to  the  large  Shemitic  colony  which  occu- 
 pied the  Delta  of  the  Nile  even  before  the  Hyksos 
 invasion;  although  some  have  given  the  credit  to 
 the  Hyksos  conquerors,  and  others  even  to  the 
 Israelites,  although  tlieir  condition  in  Egypt  was 
 certainly  not  favorable  to  literary  pursuits. 
 
 The  names  of  the  letters  are  pure  Shemitic  and 
 not  Egyptian.  This  shows  that  although  hieratic 
 characters  were  borrowed,  the  Egyptian  names 
 were  not  taken  with  them.  In  selecting  these 
 names  it  is  probable  that  the  simplest  and  most 
 familiar  objects  were  chosen  which  happened  tc 
 have  names  beginning  with  the  desired  letter 
 In  most  cases  it  is  useless  to  try  to  find  in  the 
 characters  any  resemblance  to  the  objects  whose 
 names  they  bear.  Thus  in  the  Egyptian  hiero- 
 glyphic Lamed  is  a  lion.  This  in  the  hieratic  is 
 reduced  to  a  conventional  form  which  was  adopted 
 almost  exactly  into  the  Phoenician  alphabet,   but 
 
 with   a  change  of  name  from  "lion"  to  ^^7, 
 
 .         .  V  t' 
 
 '■  an  ox-goad,"  which  it  does  not  resemble  at  all  in 
 shape.  The  most  we  can  say  is  that  the  selection 
 of  common  visible  olijects  for  names  of  the  letters 
 is  in  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  picture-writing,  and 
 in  a   few  cases  it  may  have  been   possible,  as  in 
 
 n^^,  a  door,  and  3^^>  water,  to  find  words 
 beginning  with  the  requisite  letter  which  agreed  in 
 sense  with  the  shape  of  the  letters. 
 
 We  can  be  approximately  certain  of  the  original 
 form  of  the  Phoenician  letters.  By  far  the  most 
 important  monument  for  this  purpose  is  the  Moab- 
 ite column  of  Mesha,  belonging  to  the  first  half  of 
 the  ninth  century  before  Christ.  Next  in  impor- 
 tance to  this  are  the  inscriptions  on  some  weights 
 found  in  Assyria  by  Layard,  and  which  are  nearly 
 as  old.  Beside  these  are  quite  a  number  of  seals 
 and  gems  of  extreme  antiquity.  The  later  Phoeni- 
 cian monuments  are  counted  l)y  hundreds,  and  one 
 of  them,  the  great  Sidonian  inscription,  is  of  con- 
 siderable palieographical  value.  De  Vogije  con- 
 cludes as  the  result  of  his  study  of  these  remains 
 that  the  alphabet  in  its  archaic  form  was  charac- 
 terized by  the  prevalence  of  sharp  angles  {Journal 
 Asiatique,  1867,  p.  171).  The  zigzag  shape  of  Afetn 
 and  jSAm  is  a  certain  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
 monument  that  contains  them.  A  few  letters,  nota- 
 bly Znyinund  T.<ade,  retained  their  sharp  angles  to  a 
 late  period.    Of  this  original  form  we  do  net  possess 
 
3578 
 
 WRITING 
 
 a  single  [)in'e  example,  unless  it  be  a  single  scara- 
 bseus,  bearing  the  legend  D7ti77,  "  belonging  to 
 Shallum,"  which  may  be  as  old  as  the  time  of  Da- 
 vid. In  the  Moabite  Inscription  these  sharp  angles 
 are  generally  preserved,  although  Lamed  has  lost  its 
 angle  to  the  right,  and  Belli,  Kaph,  Mem,  Nun, 
 aird  Pe,  curve  their  first  stroke  somewhat  to  the  left. 
 Ayin,  which  means  "an  eye,"  may  have  been 
 originally  circular,  as  we  here  find  it,  and  the  same 
 may  have  been  the  case  with  Vau  and  Koph,  both 
 of  which  have  rounded  heads  on  the  Moabite  stone. 
 We  here  first  find  Duleth  the  simple  Greek  Delta,  a, 
 and  quite  distinguishable  from  Resh  ;  and  Samekli 
 identical  with  the  earliest  Greek  |r  as  found  in  the 
 Corcyra  inscriptions  of  the  forty-fifth  Olympiad. 
 From  this  archaic  Phoenician,  of  which  Lenormant 
 gives  the  characters  so  far  as  they  were  then  known 
 {Revue  Archcoloaique,  1867),  were  derived  the 
 Greek  letters  of  which  we  have  specimens  as  old  as 
 the  ninth  century  before  Christ,  written  so  exactly 
 in  the  Phcenician  character,  and  still  turned  to  the 
 left,  that  I'rof.  F.  Hitzig  (Zeitsclir.  d.  D.  M.  G. 
 1858,  p.  273)  has  tried  to  translate,  as  if  Phceni- 
 cian, the  inscription  from  Shera,  cut  under  the 
 picture  of  a  fish,  "  \Ti\ixoov  iypa(pi  ^e." 
 
 The  first  stage  in  the  modiiication  of  the  original 
 Phcenician  character  was  the  substitution  of  trans- 
 verse bars  for  the  original  zigzags,  first  in  Mem 
 and  afterwards  in  Shin.  At  the  same  time  the 
 letters  show  more  curves,  and  in  the  xVramfean 
 dialects  all  the  zigzags  disappear;  and  the  heads 
 of  Beth,  JJdleih,  and  Resh,  which  were  at  first  closed 
 and  triangular,  are  opened  at  the  top.  From  the 
 Aramaean  character  by  gradual  changes  was  derived 
 the  Palmyrene  and  the  modern  square  Hebrew. 
 
 This  is  hardly  the  place  to  give  the  genealogy  of 
 any  other  than  the  square  Hebrew  of  all  the  alpha- 
 bets that  are  descendants  of  the  old  Shemitic.  For 
 the  Greek,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  elaborate 
 alphabets  of  Greece,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  Ionian 
 Islands  given  by  KirchhofF  {Stud,  zur  Gesch.  d. 
 griech.  Alphabets,  in  the  Abh.  d.  Akad.  d.  Whs. 
 zu  Berlin,  186;3).  For  the  Latin  aiommseii  has 
 done  a  similar  service.  Weber,  following  Prinsep, 
 makes  it  not  improbable  {Zeitschr.  d.  D.  j)f.  G.  x. 
 389  tf.)  that  the  Sanskrit  had  a  similar  origin,  car- 
 rying with  it  all  the  alphabets  of  India,  liurmaii, 
 Java,  and  Thibet.  His  argument,  however,  is  by 
 no  means  universally  accepted  as  conclusive.  The 
 Zend  and  Pehlevi  alphabets  are  of  Shemitic  origin, 
 as  Spiegel  shows  in  his  Gram,  der  fliizwaresch- 
 sprache,  pp.  20,  34  ft'.  Klaproth  has  remarked 
 that  the  Mongolian,  Tungusian,  and  Manchu  alpha- 
 bets are  from  the  Syrian;  though  modified,  it  is 
 true,  by  the  perpendicular  columnar  arrangement 
 of  the  Chinese.  Add  to  these  the  Samaritan, 
 Ethiopic,  and  Syriac ;  the  Arabic,  with  its  chai-ac- 
 ters  modified  or  unmodified  as  accejited  by  Turks, 
 Persians,  Malays,  Hindostanees,  Berbers,  and  Tou- 
 areks;  still  further  remember  that  the  Cyrillian 
 and  Glagolitic  alphabets  of  Bulgaria  and  Russia, 
 and  the  Gothic  of  Ulphilas,  were  of  Shemitic  origin 
 through  the  (ireek,  and  those  of  the  rest  of  the 
 civilized  world  through  the  Latin;  and  we  have 
 the  Chinese  left  as  the  only  living  written  language 
 whose  alphabet  is  not  lineally  descended  from  that 
 of  Cadmus.  To  the  literature  referred  to  abo\e, 
 add  M.  A.  Levy,  Phonizische  Sludien,  4  Ilefte,  Bresl. 
 185C-70;  Siegelu.  Genimen,  ibid.  I860;  Die jml- 
 myren.  Inschriften,  in  Zeitschr.  d.  D.  M.  G.,  1864, 
 p.  65  ff.  W.  H.  W. 
 
 YEAR 
 
 X. 
 
 XAN'THICUS.     [Month,  iii.  2007.] 
 
 Y. 
 
 YARN(n'}i7n;  S'1|7»).  The  notice  of  yarn 
 is  contained  in  an  extremely  obscure  passage  in 
 1  K.  X.  28  (2  Chr.  i.  10):  "Solomon  had  horses 
 brought  out  of  Kgypt,  and  linen  yarn ;  the  king's 
 merchants  received  the  linen  yarn  at  a  price."  The 
 LXX.  gives  e/c  QeKove,  implying  an  original  read- 
 ing of  27^pri^ ;  the  Vulg.  has  de  Coa,  which  is 
 merely  a  Latinized  form  of  the  original.  The  He- 
 brew Received  Text  is  questionable,  from  the  cir- 
 cumstance that  the  second  mikveh  has  its  final 
 vowel  lengthened  as  though  it  were  in  the  status 
 const i*uciiis.  The  probability  is  that  the  term  does 
 refer  to  some  entrepot  of  Egyptian  commerce, 
 but  whether  Tekoah,  as  in  the  LXX.,  or  Coa,  as  in 
 the  Vulg.,  is  doubtful,  (ilesenius  {Thes.  p.  1202) 
 gives  the  sense  of  "  number  "  as  applying  equally 
 to  the  merchants  and  the  horses:  "A  band  of 
 the  king's  merchants  bought  a  dj-ove  (of  horses)  at 
 a  price;  "  but  the  verbal  arrangement  in  2  Chr.  is 
 opposed  to  this  rendei'ing.  Thenius  {Kxeij.  lldb. 
 on  1  K.  X.  28)  combines  this  sense  with  the  former, 
 giving  to  the  first  mikreh  the  sense  "  from  Tekoah," 
 to  the  second  the  sense  of  "  drove."  Bertheau 
 {Exeg.  Ildb.  on  2  Chr.  i.  16)  and  Fiirst  {Lex.  s.  v.) 
 side  with  the  Vulgate,  and  suppose  the  place  called 
 C'ort  to  have  been  on  the  Egyptian  frontier :  "The 
 king's  Merchants  from  Coa  (i.  e.  stationed  at  Coa) 
 took  the  horses  from  Coa  at  a  price."  The  sense 
 adopted  in  the  A.  V.  is  derived  from  .Jewish  in- 
 terpreters. W.  L.  B. 
 
 YEAR  (n3UlI' :  iros'  annus),  the  highest  or- 
 dinary division  of  time.  The  Hebrew  name  is 
 identical  with  the  root  nSHI?^  "  he  or  it  repeated, 
 did  the  second  time;"  with  which  are  cognate  the 
 ordinal  numeral  ^3ti7  "second,"  and  the  cardi- 
 nal, C^itt?,  "two."  The  meaning  is  therefore 
 thought  to  be  "an  iteration,"  by  Gesenius,  who 
 compares  the  Latin  annus,  properly  a  circle.     Ge- 
 
 senius  also  compares  the  Arabic  (J^s*,  which  he 
 
 says  signifies  "a  circle,  year."  It  signifies  "a 
 year,"    but   not    "a    circle,"   though    sometimes 
 
 meaning  "around:"  its  root  is  (jL^     "it  be- 
 
 came  altered  or  changed,  it  shifted,  passed,  revolved 
 and  passed,  or  became  complete"  (on  Mr.  Lane's 
 authority).  The  ancient  Egyptian  RENP,  "  a 
 year,''  seems  to  resemble  annus  ;  for  in  Coptic  one 
 
 of  the  forms  of  its  equivalent,     pOJULIlJj     the 
 
 Bashmuric   D^JW-TUj    A^JUtlUj  is  identical 
 
 with  the  Sahidic    O^JW-TlJj    "a  handle,  ring,'- 
 
 P<J-AJ.I16Ij  "rmgs."  The  sense  of  the  He- 
 brew might  either  be  a  recurring  period,  or  a  cir- 
 cle of  seasons,  or  else  a  period  circling  through  the 
 seasons.  The  first  sense  is  agreeable  with  any 
 period   of  time  ;  the  second,   with  the  Egyptian 
 
YEAR 
 
 "primitive  year,"  which,  by  the  use  of  tropical 
 seasons  as  divisions  of  the  "  Vague  Year,"  is  sliown 
 to  have  been  tropical  in  reaUty  or  intention  ;  the 
 third  agrees  with  all  "  wandering  years."' 
 
 I.    Years,  properly  so  called. 
 
 Two  years  were  known  to,  and  apparently  used 
 by,  the  Hebrews. 
 
 1.  A  year  of  300  days,  containing  twelve  months 
 of  thirty  days  eacli,  is  indicated  by  certain  passages 
 in  the  prophetical  Scriptures.  The  time,  times, 
 and  a  half,  of  Daniel  (vii.  25,  xii.  7 ),  where  "  time  " 
 
 '  (Ch.  "J"^^,  Heb.  "T^^tt)  means  "year,"  evi- 
 dently represent  the  same  period  as  the  42  months 
 (Rev.  xi.  2)  and  1,260  days  of  the  Kevelation  (xi.  3, 
 xii.  6),  for  300  X  3.5  =  1,260,  and  30  X  42  =  1,260. 
 This  year  perfectly  corresponds  to  tlie  l^gyptian 
 vague  year,  without  the  five  intercalary  days.  It 
 appears  to  have  been  in  use  in  Noah's  tinje,  or  at 
 least  in  the  time  of  the  writer  of  the  narrative  of  the 
 Hood,  for  in  that  narrative  the  interval  fr^jm  the 
 17th  day  of  the  2d  month  to  the  17th  day  of  the 
 7th  of  the  same  year  appears  to  be  stated  to  be  a 
 period  of  150  days  (Gen.  vii.  11,  24,  viii.  3,  4,  comp. 
 13),  and,  as  the  1st,  2d,  7th,  and  10th  months  of 
 one  year  are  mentioned  (viii.  13,  14,  vii.  11,  viii.  4, 
 5),  the  1st  day  of  the  lOtii  mouth  of  this  year  being 
 separated  from  the  1st  day  of  the  1st  month  of  the 
 next  year  by  an  interval  of  at  least  54  days  (viii. 
 5,  6,  10,  12,  13),  we  can  only  infer  a  year  of  12 
 months.  Ideler  disputes  the  former  inference, 
 arguing  that  as  the  water  first  began  to  sinlc  after 
 150  days  (and  then  had  been  15  cubits  above  all 
 high  mountains),  it  must  have  sunk  for  some  days 
 «re  the  Ark  could  have  rested  on  Ararat,  so  that 
 the  second  date  must  have  been  more  than  150 
 days  later  than  the  first  (FLmdbudi,  i.  09,  70,  478, 
 479).  This  argument  depends  upon  tlie  meaning 
 of  the  expression  "  high  mountains,"  and  upon  the 
 height  of  "  the  mountains  of  Ararat,"  upon  which 
 the  Ark  rested  (Gen.  viii.  4),  and  we  are  certainly 
 justified  by  Sheniitic  usage,  if  we  do  not  consider 
 the  usual  inference  of  the  great  height  attained  by 
 the  Flood  to  be  a  necessary  one  (Genesis  of'  tlie 
 Earth  and  of  Man,  2d  ed.  pp.  97,  98).  The  ex- 
 act correspondence  of  the  interval  mentioned  to  5 
 months  of  30  days  each,  and  the  use  of  a  year  of 
 300  days,  or  12  such  months,  by  the  prophets,  the 
 latter  fact  overlooked  by  Ideler,  favor  the  idea  tliat 
 such  a  year  is  here  meant,  unless  indeed  one  iden- 
 tical with  the  Egyptian  vague  year,  of  12  months 
 of  30  days  and  5  intercalary  days.  The  settle- 
 ment of  this  question  depends  upon  the  nature  and 
 histv^ry  of  these  years,  and  our  information  on  the 
 latter  subject  is  not  sufficiently  certain  to  enable  us 
 to  do  more  than  hazard  a  conjecture. 
 
 A  year  of  360  days  is  the  rudest  known.  It  is 
 formed  of  12  spurious  lunar  months,  and  was 
 probably  the  parent  of  the  lunar  year  of  354  days, 
 aiid  the  vague  year  of  365.  That  it  should  have 
 continued  any  time  in  use  would  be  surprising 
 were  it  not  for  the  convenient  length  of  the  months. 
 The  Hebrew  year,  from  the  time  of  the  ILxodus,  as 
 we  shall  see,  was  evidently  lunar,  though  in  some 
 manner  rendered  virtually  solar,  and  we  may  there- 
 fore infer  that  the  lunar  year  is  as  old  as  the  date 
 of  the  Exodus.  As  the  Hebrew  year  was  not  an 
 Egyptian  year,  and  as  nothing  is  said  of  its  being 
 new,  save  in  its  time  of  commencement,  it  was  per- 
 haps earlier  in  use  among  the  Israelites,  and  either 
 brought  into  Egypt  by  them  or  borrowed  from 
 Shemite  settlers. 
 
 YEAR  3579 
 
 The  vague  year  was  certainly  in  use  in  Egypt  in 
 as  remote  an  age  as  the  earlier  part  of  the  Xllth 
 dynasty  (B.  C.  cir.  2000),  and  tliere  can  be  no  rea 
 sonable  doubt  that  it  was  there  used  at  the  time 
 of  the  building  of  the  Great  Pyramid  (b.  c.  cir. 
 2350).  The  intercalary  days  seem  to  be  of  Egyp- 
 tian institution,  for  each  of  them  was  dedicated  to 
 one  of  tlie  great  gods,  as  though  tlie  innovation  had 
 been  thus  made  permanent  l)y  the  priests,  and  per- 
 haps rendered  popular  as  a  series  of  days  of  feast- 
 ing and  rejoicing.  The  addition  would,  however, 
 date  from  a  very  early  period,  that  of  the  final 
 settlement  of  the  Egyptian  religion. 
 
 As  the  lunar  year  and  the  vague  year  run  up 
 parallel  to  so  early  a  period  as  that  of  the  Exodus, 
 and  the  former  seems  to  have  been  then  Shemite, 
 the  latter  then,  and  for  several  centuries  earlier, 
 Egyptian,  and  probably  of  Egyptian  origin,  we 
 may  reasonably  conjecture  that  the  former  origi- 
 nated from  a  year  of  360  days  in  Asia,  the  latter 
 from  the  same  year  in  Africa,  this  primitive  year 
 having  been  used  by  the  Noachians  before  their 
 dispersion. 
 
 2.  The  year  used  by  the  Hebrews  from  the  time 
 of  the  Exodus  may  be  said  to  have  been  then  insti- 
 tuted, since  a  current  month,  Abib,  on  the  14th 
 day  of  which  the  first  Passover  was  kept,  was  then 
 made  the  first  month  of  the  year.  The  essential 
 characteristics  of  this  year  can  be  clearly  deter- 
 mined, though  we  cannot  fix  those  of  any  single 
 year.  It  was  essentially  solar,  for  the  offerings  of 
 productions  of  tiie  earth,  first-fruits,  harvest-prod- 
 uce, and  ingathered  fruits,  were  fixed  to  certain 
 days  of  tlie  year,  two  of  which  were  in  the  periods 
 of  great  feasts,  the  third  itself  a  feast  reckoned  from 
 one  of  the  former  days.  It  seems  evident  that  the 
 year  was  m.ade  to  depend  upon  these  times,  and  it 
 
 ay  be  observed  that  such  a  calendar  would  tend 
 to  cause  thankfulness  for  God's  good  gifts,  and 
 would  put  ill  the  background  the  great  luminaries 
 which  the  heathen  worshipped  in  Egypt  and  in 
 Canaan.  Though  the  year  was  thus  essentially 
 solar,  it  is  certain  that  the  months  were  lunar,  each 
 commencing  with  a  new  moon.  There  must  .there- 
 fore have  been  some  method  of  adjustment.  The 
 first  point  to  be  decided  is  how  the  commencement 
 of  each  year  was  fixed.  On  the  lOtli  day  of  Abib 
 ripe  ears  of  corn  were  to  be  ofii^red  as  first-fruits 
 of  the  harvest  (Lev.  ii.  14,  xxiii.  10,  11):  this  wa« 
 the  day  on  which  the  sickle  was  begun  to  be  put 
 to  the  corn  (Ueut.  xvi.  9),  and  no  doubt  Josephus 
 is  right  in  stating  that  until  the  offering  of  first- 
 fruits  had  been  made  no  harvest-work  was  to  be 
 begun  (Ant.  iii.  10,  §  5).  He  also  states  that  ears 
 of  barley  were  offiired  (ibid.).  That  this  was  the 
 case,  and  that  the  ears  were  the  earliest  ripe,  is 
 evident  from  the  following  circumstances.  The 
 reajjing  of  barley  coraiuenced  the  harvest  (2  Sam. 
 xxi.  9),  that  of  wheat  following,  apparently  with- 
 out any  considerable  interval  (Kuth  ii.  23).  On 
 the  day  of  Pentecost  thanksgiving  was  offered  for 
 the  harvest,  and  it  was  tlierefore  called  the  "  Feast 
 of  Harvest."  It  was  reckoned  iroin  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  harvest,  on  the  16th  day  of  the 
 1st  month.  The  50  days  must  include  the  whole 
 time  of  the  harvest  of  botli  wheat  and  barley 
 throughout  Palestine.  According  to  the  observa- 
 tions of  modern  travellers,  barley  is  ripe,  in  the 
 wannest  parts  of  I'alestine,  in  tlie  first  days  of 
 April.  The  barley-harvest  tlierefore  begins  about 
 half  a  month  or  less  after  tlie  vernal  equinox. 
 Each  year,  if  solar,  would  tlnis  begin  at  about  that 
 
3580  YEAR 
 
 equinox,  when  the  earliest  ears  of  barley  must  be 
 ripe.  As,  however,  tlie  months  were  lunar,  the 
 commencement  of  tlie  year  must  have  been  fixed 
 by  a  new  moon  near  this  point  of  time.  Tlie  new 
 moon  must  have  been  that  which  fell  about  or  next 
 after  the  equinox,  not  more  than  a  few  days  before, 
 on  account  of  the  offering  of  first-fruits.  Ideler, 
 whose  observations  on  this  matter  vye  have  thus  far 
 followed,  supposes  that  the  new  inoOn  was  chosen 
 by  observation  of  the  forwardness  of  the  barley- 
 crops  in  the  warmer  jiarts  of  the  country  {Hanil- 
 biicli,  i.  490).  But  such  a  method  would  have 
 caused  confusion  on  account  of  the  different  times 
 of  the  harvest  in  different  parts  of  Palestine;  and 
 in  the  period  of  the  Judges  there  would  often  have 
 been  two  separate  conmiencemenls  of  the  year  in 
 regions  divided  by  hostile  tribes,  and  in  each  of 
 which  the  Israelite  population  led  an  existence 
 almost  independent  of  any  other  branch.  It  is 
 more  likely  that  the  Hebrews  would  have  deter- 
 mined their  new  year's  day  by  the  observation  of 
 heliacal  or  other  star-risings  or  settings  known  to 
 mark  the  right  time  of  the  solar  year.  By  such  a 
 method  the  beginning  of  any  year  could  have  been 
 fixed  a  year  before,  either  to  one  day,  or,  suppos- 
 ing the  month -commencements  were  fixed  by 
 actual  observation,  vi'ithin  a  day  or  two.  And  we 
 need  not  doubt  that  the  Israelites  were  well  ac- 
 quainted with  such  means  of  marking  the  periods 
 of  a  solar  year.  In  the  ancient  Song  of  Deborah 
 we  read  how  "  They  fought  from  heaven ;  the  stars 
 in  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera.  The  river 
 of  Kishon  swept  them  away,  that  ancient  river,  the 
 river  Kishon  "  (Judg.  v.  20,  21).  The  stars  that 
 marked  the  times  of  rain  are  thus  connected  with 
 the  swelling  of  the  river  in  which  the  fugitive 
 Canaanites  perished.  So  too  we  read  how  the  Lord 
 demanded  of  Job,  "  Canst  thou  bind  the  sweet  in- 
 fluences of  Cimah,  or  loose  the  bands  of  Cesil?  " 
 (Job  xxxviii.  31).  "  The  best  and  most  fertilizing 
 of  the  rains,"  in  Palestine  and  the  neighboring 
 lands,  save  Egypt,  '-fall  when  the  Pleiades  set  at 
 dawn  (not  exactly  heliacally),  at  the  end  of  au- 
 tumn; rain  scarcely  ever  lalling  at  the  opposite 
 season,  when  Scorpio  sets  at  dawn."  That  Cimah 
 signifies  the  Pleiades  does  not  admit  of  reasonable 
 doubt,  and  Cesil,  as  opposite  to  it,  would  be  Scor- 
 pio, being  identified  with  Cor  Scorpionis  by  Aben 
 Ezra.  These  explanations  we  take  from  the  arti- 
 cle Famine  [vol.  i.  p.  810  b,  and  note].  There- 
 fore it  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  Israelites, 
 even  during  the  troubled  time  of  the  Judges,  were 
 well  acquainted  with  the  method  of  determining 
 the  seasons  of  the  solar  year  by  observing  the  stars. 
 Not  alone  was  this  the  prnctice  of  the  civilized 
 Egyptians,  but,  at  all  times  of  which  we  know  their 
 history,  of  the  Arabs,  and  also  of  the  Greeks  iti  the 
 time  of  Hesiod,  while  yet  their  material  civilization 
 and  science  were  rudimentary.  It  has  always  been 
 the  custom  of  pastoral  and  scattered  jieoples,  rather 
 tiian  of  the  dwellers  in  cities;  and  if  the  Egyptians 
 be  thought  to  form  an  exception,  it  must  be  recol- 
 lected that  they  used  it  at  a  period  not  remote 
 from  that  at  which  their  civilization  came  from  tlie 
 plain  of  Shinar. 
 
 It  follows,  from  the  determination  of  the  proper 
 new  moon  of  the  first  month,  whether  by  observa- 
 tion of  a  stellar  phenomenon,  or  of  tlie  forwardness 
 of  the  crops,  that  the  method  of  intercalation  can 
 only  have  been  that  in  use  after  the  Captivity,  the 
 addition  of  a  thirteenth  month  whenever  the  twelfth 
 ended  too  long  before  the  equinox  for  the  offering 
 
 YEAR 
 
 of  the  first-fruits  to  be  made  at  the  time  fixed. 
 This  method  is  in  accordance  with  the  permission 
 granted  to  postpone  the  celebration  of  the  Passover 
 for  one  month  in  the  case  of  any  one  who  was 
 legally  unclean,  or  journeying  at  a  distance  (Num. 
 ix.  9-13);  and  there  is  a  historical  instance  in  the 
 case  of  Hezekiah  of  such  a  postponement,  for  both 
 reasons,  of  the  national  celebration  (2  Chr.  xxx. 
 1-3,  15).  Such  a  practice  as  that  of  an  intercala- 
 tion varying  in  occurrence  is  contrary  to  western 
 usage ;  but  the  like  prevails  in  all  JIuslim  countries 
 in  a  far  more  inconvenient  form  in  the  case  of  the 
 commencement  of  every  month.  The  day  is  deter- 
 mined by  actual  observation  of  the  new  moon,  and 
 thus  a  day  is  frequently  unexpectedly  added  to  or 
 deducted  from  a  month  at  one  place,  and  months 
 commence  on  different  days  at  different  towns  in 
 the  same  country.  The  Hebrew  intercalation,  if 
 determined  by  stellar  phenomena,  would  not  be  lia- 
 ble to  a  like  imcertainty,  though  such  may  have 
 been  the  case  with  the  actual  day  of  the  new  moon. 
 The  later  Jews  had  two  commencements  of  the 
 year,  whence  it  is  commonly  but  inaccurately  said 
 that  they  had  two  years,  the  sacred  year  and  the 
 civil,  ^^'e  prefer  to  speak  of  the  sacred  and  civil 
 reckonings.  Ideler  admits  that  these  reckonings 
 obtained  at  the  time  of  the  Second  Temple.  The 
 sacred  reckoning  was  that  instituted  at  the  lilxodus, 
 according  to  which  the  first  month  was  Abib:  by 
 the  civil  reckoning  the  first  month  was  the  seventh, 
 riie  interval  between  the  two  commencements  was 
 thus  exactly  half  a  year.  It  has  been  supposed 
 that  the  institution  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  was  a 
 change  of  commencement,  not  the  introduction  of  ^ 
 new  year,  and  that  thenceforward  the  year  had  two 
 beginnings,  respectively  at  about  the  vernal  and  the 
 autumnal  equinoxes.  The  former  supposition  is  a 
 hypothesis,  the  latter  may  almost  be  proved.  The 
 strongest  point  of  evidence  as  to  two  beginnings  of 
 the  year  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  strangely 
 unnoticed  in  this  relation  by  Ideler,  is  the  circum- 
 stance that  the  sabbatical  and  jubilee  years  com- 
 menced in  the  7th  month,  and  no  doubt  on  the 
 10th  day  of  the  7th  month,  the  Day  of  Atonement 
 (Lev.  XXV.  9,  10),  and  as  this  year  immediately  fol- 
 lowed a  sabbatical  year,  the  latter  must  ha\e  begun 
 in  the  same  manner.  Both  were  full  years,  and 
 therefore  must  have  commenced  on  the  first  day. 
 The  jubilee  year  was  proclaimed  on  the  first  day  of 
 the  month,  the  Day  of  Atonement  standing  in  the 
 same  relation  to  its  beginning,  and  perhaps  to  the 
 civil  beginning  of  the  year,  as  did  the  Passover  to 
 the  sacred  beginning.  This  would  be  the  most 
 convenient,  if  not  the  necessary  commencement  of 
 a  year  of  total  cessation  from  the  labors  of  agricul- 
 ture,  as  a  year  so  commencing  would  comprise  the 
 whole  round  of  such  occupations  in  regular  sequence 
 from  seed-time  to  harvest,  and  from  harvest  to  vint- 
 age and  gathering  of  fruit.  The  command  as  to 
 both  years,  apart  from  the  mention  of  the  Day  of 
 Atonement,  clearly  shows  this,  unless  we  sujipose, 
 but  this  is  surely  unwarrantable,  that  the  injunction 
 in  the  two  places  in  whicli  it  occurs  follows  the  reg- 
 ular order  of  the  seasons  of  agriculture  (Ex.  xxiii. 
 10,  11;  Lev.  xxv.  3,  4,  11),  but  that  this  was  not 
 intended  to  apply  in  the  case  of  the  observance. 
 Two  expressions,  used  with  reference  to  the  time 
 of  the  Feast  of  Ingathering  on  the  15th  day  of  the 
 7th  month,  must  be  here    noticed.     This  feast  is 
 
 spoken  of  as  n3'-57n  nW!J3,  "  in  the  going  out " 
 or  "end  of  the   year"    (I'^x.    xxiii.    1G),    and    as 
 
YEAR 
 
 nm^n  nS-ipri,  "  [at]  the  change  of  the  year  " 
 (xxxiv.  22),  the  latter  a  vague  expression,  as  far  as 
 we  can  understand  it,  Ijut  quite  consistent  with  the 
 uther,  whether  indicating  tiie  turning-point  of  a 
 natural  year,  or  the  half  of  the  year  by  the  sacred 
 
 reckoning.  The  Rabbins  use  the  term  HS^piH 
 to  designate  the  coniniencenient  of  each  of  the  four 
 seasons  into  which  they  divide  the  year  (Handbach, 
 i.  550,  551).  Our  view  is  confirmed  by  the  simi- 
 larity of  the  1st  and  7th  months  as  to  tlieir  observ- 
 ances, the  one  containing  the  Feast  of  Unleavened 
 Bread  from  the  15th  to  the  21st  inclusive;  the 
 other,  that  of  Tabernacles,  from  the  15th  to  tlie 
 22d.  Evidence  in  the  same  direction  is  found  in 
 the  special  sanctification  of  the  1st  day  of  the  7th 
 month,  which  in  the  blowinn;  of  trumpets  resembles 
 tlie  proclamation  of  the  jubilee  year  on  the  Day  of 
 Atonement.  We  therefore  hold  that  from  the  time 
 of  tlie  Exodus  there  were  two  beginnings  of  the  year, 
 witli  the  1st  of  tlie  1st  and  the  1st  of  the  7tli 
 month,  the  former  being  the  sacred  reckoning,  the 
 latter,  used  for  the  operations  of  agriculture,  the 
 civil  reckoning.  In  Egypt,  in  the  present  day,  the 
 Jluslinis  use  the  lunar  year  for  their  religious  ob- 
 servances, and  for  ordinary  affairs,  except  those  of 
 agriculture,  which  they  regulate  by  the  Coptic 
 Julian  year. 
 
 We  must  here  notice  the  theories  of  the  deriva- 
 tion of  the  Hebrew  year  from  the  Egyptian  vague 
 year,  as  they  are  connected  with  the  tropical  point 
 or  points,  and  agricultural  phenomena,  by  which 
 the  former  was  regulated.  The  vague  year  was 
 commonly  used  by  the  Egyptians;  and  from  it  only, 
 .if  from  an  Egyptian  year,  is  the  Hebrew  likely  to 
 have  been  derived.  Two  theories  have  been  formed 
 connecting  the  two  years  at  the  Exodus. 
 
 (1.)  Some  hold  that  Abib,  the  first  month  of  the 
 Hebrew  year  by  the  sacred  reckoning,  was  the  Egyp- 
 tian Epiphi,  called  in  Coptic  dlHIUj  and  in  Ara- 
 
 bic,  by  the  modern  Egyptians,   ,^_>.aj',  Abeeb,  or 
 
 Ebeeb,  the  11th  month  of  the  vague  year.  The 
 similarity  of  sound  is  remarkable,  but  it  must  lie 
 rememliered  that  the  Egyptian  name  is  derived 
 from  that  of  the  goddess  of  the  month,  PEP-T  or 
 AV AP-T  ( ? )  "  whereas  the  Hebrew  name  has  the 
 seose  of  "an  ear  of  corn,  a  green  ear,"  and  is  derived 
 
 from  the  unused  root  ^?S,  traceable  in  3W,  "  ver- 
 
 dure,"  3S,  Chaldee,  "  fruit,"'  i^_j',  "  green  fodder." 
 Moreover,  the  Egyptian  P  is  rarely,  if  ever,  repre- 
 sented by  the  Hebrew  2,  and  the  converse  is  not 
 common.  Still  stronger  evidence  is  afforded  by  the 
 fact  that  we  find  in  Egyptian  the  root  AB,  "  a  nose- 
 gay," which  is  evidently  related  to  Aliil-.  and  its  cog- 
 nates.   Supposing,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  calen- 
 
 YEAR 
 
 3581 
 
 a  The  names  of  the  E;;.vptiaii  months,  derived  from 
 their  divinities,  are  alone  known  to  us  in  Greek  and 
 Coptic  forms.  These  forms  are  shown  by  the  names 
 of  the  divinities  given  in  the  sculptures  of  the  ceiling 
 of  the  Ilameseum  of  El-Kurneh  to  be  corrupt;  but 
 in  several  cases    they  are    traceable.     The   following 
 
 are  certain  :  1.   &M,    OtMOTT.   divinity    TEET 
 
 (Thoth),  as  well  as  a  goddess.  2.  Haux^t,  rii^tWIUj 
 PTEH,  t.  e.  PAPTEH,  belonging  to  Ptah.  a.  'A9vp, 
 ^eCUp,     HATHAE.     9.   JIax<^y,  n^J-^^CUIt, 
 
 dar  was  formed  by  fixing  the  Egyptian  Epiphi  as  the 
 first  month,  what  would  be  the  chronological  result? 
 The  latest  date  to  which  the  Exodus  is  assigned  i? 
 about  1!.  o.  1320.  In  the  Julian  year  b.  c.  132C 
 the  month  Epiphi  of  the  Egyptian  vague  year  com 
 menced  May  10,  44  days  alter  the  day  of  the  vernal 
 equinox,  April  2,  very  near  which  the  Hebrew  year 
 must  have  begun.  Thus  at  the  latest  date  of  the 
 Exodus,  there  is  an  interval  of  a  month  and  a  half 
 between  the  beginning  of  the  Hebrew  year  and 
 Epiphi  1.  This  interval  represents  abont  180  years, 
 through  which  the  vague  year  would  retrograde  in 
 the  Julian  until  the  cominencement  of  Epiphi  cor- 
 responded to  the  vernal  equinox,  and  no  method  can 
 reduce  it  below  100.  It  is  possible  to  effect  thus 
 much  by  conjecturing  that  the  month  Abib  began 
 somewhat  after  this  tropical  point,  though  the  pre- 
 cise details  of  the  state  of  the  crops  at  the  time  of 
 the  plagues,  as  compared  with  the  phenomena  of 
 agriculture  in  Lower  Egypt  at  the  present  day, 
 make  half  a  month  an  extreme  extension.  At  the 
 time  of  the  plague  of  liail,  the  barley  was  in  the  ear 
 and  was  smitten  with  the  flax,  but  the  wheat  was 
 not  sufficiently  forward  to  be  destroyed  (Ex.  ix.  31, 
 32).  In  Lower  Egypt,  at  the  present  day,  this 
 would  be  the  case  about  the  end  of  February  and 
 beginning  of  March.  The  Exodus  cannot  have 
 taken  place  many  days  after  the  plague  of  hail,  so 
 that  it  must  have  occurred  about  or  a  little  after 
 the  time  of  the  vernal  equinox,  and  thus  Abib  can- 
 not possibly  have  begun  much  after  that  tropical 
 point:  half  a  month  is  therefore  excessive.  We 
 have  thus  carefully  examined  the  evidence  as  to  the 
 supposed  derivation  of  Al)ib  from  Epiphi,  becairse 
 it  has  been  carelessly  taken  for  granted,  and  more 
 carelessly  alleged  in  support  of  the  latest  date  of 
 the  Exodus. 
 
 (2. )  We  have  founded  an  argument  for  the  date 
 of  the  Exodus  upon  another  comparison  of  the  He- 
 brew year  and  the  vague  year.  We  have  seen 
 that  the  sacred  coniniencenient  of  the  Heljrew  year 
 was  at  the  new  moon  about  or  next  after,  but  not 
 mucli  before,  the  vernal  equinox:  the  civil  coni- 
 niencenient must  usually  have  been  at  the  new  moon 
 nearest  the  autumnal  equinox.  At  the  earliest  dare 
 of  the  Exodus  computed  by  modern  chronologers, 
 about  the  middle  of  the  17tli  century  p..  c,  the 
 Egyptian  vague  year  commenced  at  or  about  the 
 latter  time.  The  Hebrew  year,  reckoned  from  the 
 civil  commencement,  and  the  vague  year,  therefore, 
 then  nearly  or  exactly  coincided.  We  have  already 
 seen  that  the  Hebrews  in  I'^gypt,  if  they  used  a 
 foreign  year,  must  be  supposed  to  have  used  the 
 vague  year.  It  is  worth  while  to  inquire  whether  a 
 vague  year  of  this  time  would  further  suit  the  char- 
 acteristics of  the  tirst  Hebrew  year.  It  would  be 
 necessary  that  the  14th  day  of  Abib,  on  which  fell 
 the  full  moon  of  the  Passover  of  the  Exodus,  should 
 correspond  to  the  14tli  of  Phamenoth,  in  a  vague 
 year  commencing  about  the  autumnal  equinox.     A 
 
 KHUNS,  i.  0.  PAKHUNS.  11.  •ETricf.i,  eiTHnj, 
 PEP-T.  or  APAP-T.  The  names  of  months  are  there- 
 fore, in  their  corrupt  forms,  either  derived  from  the 
 names  of  divinities,  or  the  same  as  those  names.  The 
 name  of  the  goddess  of  Epiphi  is  written  PT  TEE,  or 
 PT,  "  twice."  As  T  is  the  feminine  termination,  the 
 root  appears  to  be  P,  "  twice,"  thus  PEP-T  or  APAP-T, 
 the  latter  being  Lepsius's  reading.  (See  Lepsius, 
 DenkmcUer,  abth.  iii.  bl.  170,  171,  Chro7i.  d.  JEg.  i. 
 141,  and  Poole,  Horai  JEs;yptiacce,  pp.  7-9,  14,  16, 
 18.) 
 
3582 
 
 YEAR 
 
 full  moon  fell  on  the  14th  of  Phamenoth,  or  Thurs- 
 day, April  21,  B.  c.  1052,  of  a  vajjue  year  comnieiic- 
 ijisf  on  the  clay  of  the  autumnal  equinox,  Oct.  10, 
 n.  c.  1653.  A  full  moon  would  not  fall  on  the  same 
 day  of  the  vague  year  within  a  shorter  interval  than 
 twenty-five  years,  and  the  tri])le  near  coincidence  of 
 new  moon,  va^ue  jear.  and  autumnal  equinox,  would 
 not  recur  in  less  than  1,500  vague  years  {£iic. 
 Brit.  8th  ed.  J^'ffypl,  p.  458).  'I'his  date  of  the 
 Exodus,  B.  c.  1052,  is  only  four  years  earlier  than 
 Hales's,  b.  c.  1648.  In  confirmation  of  this  early 
 date,  it  must  be  added  that  in  a  list  of  confederates 
 defeated  hy  'Ihothmes  III.  at  JMegiddo  in  the  23d 
 year  of  his  reign,  are  certain  names  that  we  believe 
 can  only  refer  to  Israelite  tribes.  The  date  of  this 
 king's  accession  cannot  be  later  than  about  n.  c. 
 1460,  and  his  23d  year  cannot  therefore  l)e  later 
 than  about  B.  c.  1440. «  Were  the  Israelites  then 
 settled  in  Palestine,  no  date  of  the  Exodus  but  the 
 longest  would  be  tenable.      [Chroxology.] 
 
 II.  Divisions  of  the  Year.  —  1.   Sensoiis.     Two 
 
 seasons  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  V^fi)  "  sum- 
 mer," and  ^^.n,  "  winter."  The  former  properly 
 means  the  time  of  cutting  fruits,  the  latter,  that  of 
 gathering  fruits;  they  are  therefore  originally  rather 
 sunnner  and  autuujii  than  smnmer  and  winter. 
 But  that  they  signity  ordinarily  the  two  grand  di- 
 visions of  the  year,  tlie  warm  and  cold  seasons,  is 
 evident  from  their  use  for  the  whole  year  in  the  ex- 
 pression ^Tl'~'"^  y^'ili  "sunnner  and  winter"  (Ps. 
 Ixxiv.  17;  Zecli.  xiv.  8,  perhaps  Gen.  viii.  22),  and 
 from  the  mention  of  "  the  winter  house  "  (Jer.  xxxvi. 
 22)  and   "the  summer  house"  (Am.  iii.  15,  where 
 
 both  are  mentioned  together).  Probably  nT)'^) 
 when  used  without  reference  to  the  year  (as  in  Job 
 xxix.  4),  retains  its  original  signification.  In  the 
 promise  to  Noah,  after  the  Flood,  the  following  re- 
 markable passage  occurs:  "  ^Vhile  the  earth  re- 
 maineth,  seed  time  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat, 
 and  summer  and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall 
 not    cease"    (Gen.  viii.  22).     Here  "seed-time," 
 
 Vy^_,  and  "  harvest,"  "T^^P'  ^^^  evidently  the 
 agricultural  seasons.  It  seems  unreasonable  to 
 suppose  that  they  mean  winter  and  summer,  as  the 
 beginnings  of  the  periods  of  sowing  and  of  harvest 
 are  not  separated  by  six  months,  and  they  do  not 
 last  for  six  months  each,  or  nearly  so  long  a  time. 
 
 The  phrase  "  cold  and  heat,"  SPT  ~1p,  probably 
 indicates  the  great  alternations  of  temperature. 
 The  whole  passage  indeed  speaks  of  the  alternations 
 of  nature,  whether  of  productions,  temperature,  the 
 seasons,  or  light  and  darkness.  As  we  have  seen, 
 the  year  was  probably  then  a  wandering  one,  and 
 therefore  the  passage  is  not  likely  to  refer  to  it,  but 
 to  natural  phenomena  alone.      [SKASo>iS;  CiiKO- 
 
 NOLOGY.] 
 
 2.  Months.  —  The  Hebrew  months,  from  the 
 time  of  the  Exodus,  were  lunar.  The  year  appears 
 ordinarily  to  have  contained  twelve,  but,  when  in- 
 tercalation was  necessary,  a  thirteenth.  The  older 
 year  contained  twelve  months  of  thirty  days  each 
 [Month;  Chronology.] 
 
 3.  Weeks.  —  The  Hebrews,  from  the  time  of  the 
 institution  of  the  Sabbath,  whether  at  or  before  the 
 Exodus,  reckoned  by  weeks,  but,  as  no  lunar  year 
 
 YOKE 
 
 « 
 could  have  contained  a  number  of  weeks  witliout  a 
 fractional  excess,  this  reckoning  was  virtually  inde- 
 pendent of  the  year  as  with  the  jNIuslims.   [Wkkk; 
 Sabbath;  Chronology'.] 
 
 4.  Festivals,  Holy  Days,  and  Fasts.  —  The 
 Feast  of  the  Passover  was  held  on  the  14th  day  of 
 the  1st  month.  The  Feast  of  Unleavenetl  Bread 
 lasted  7  days;  from  the  15th  to  the  21st,  inclusive, 
 of  the  same  month.  Its  first  and  last  days  yvere 
 kept  as  sabbaths.  The  Feast  of  \\'eeks,  or  Pen- 
 tecost, was  celebrated  on  the  day  which  ended  seven 
 weeks  counted  from  the  16th  of  the  1st  month, 
 that  day  being  excluded.  It  was  called  the  •'  Feast 
 of  Harvest,"  and  "  Day  of  First-fruits."  The  Feast 
 of  Trumpets  (lit.  "•  of  the  sound  of  tlie  trumpet  ") 
 was  kept  as  a  sabbath  on  the  1st  day  of  the  7th 
 month.  The  Day  of  Atonement  (lit.  "of  Atone- 
 ments ")  was  a  fast,  held  the  10th  day  of  the  7tli 
 month.  The  "  Feast  of  Tabernacles,"  or  "  Feast 
 of  Gathering,"  yvas  celebrated  from  the  15th  to  the 
 22d  day,  inclusive,  of  the  7th  month.  Additions 
 made  long  after  the  giving  of  the  Law,  and  not 
 knoyvn  to  be  of  higher  than  priestly  authority,  are 
 the  Feast  of  Purim,  commemorating  tlie  defeat  of 
 Haman's  plot;  the  Feast  of  the  Uedication,  re- 
 cording the  cleansing  and  re-dedication  of  the 
 Temple  liy  Judas  Slaccabseus :  and  four  fasts. 
 
 III.   Sacred    Years.  —  1.  The  Sabbatical    year, 
 
 ntS^ti^n  nitt',  "  the  fallow  year,"  or,  possibly, 
 
 "year  of  remission,"  or  mSCB?  alone,  kept  every 
 seventh  year,  tvas  commanded  to  be  observed  as  a 
 year  of  rest  from  the  labors  of  agriculture,  and  of 
 remission  of  debts.  Two  Sal)batical  years  are  re- 
 corded, commenchig  and  current,  b.  c.  104-3  and 
 136-5.     [Sabbatical  Year;  Chronology.] 
 
 2.  The  Jubilee  year,  bn""l*n  Pi^W,  "  the  year 
 
 of  the  trumpet,"  or  ^5"^'^  alone,  a  like  year, 
 which  immediately  folloyved  every  seventh  Sabbat- 
 ical year.  It  has  been  disputed  yvhether  the  Julii- 
 lee  jear  was  every  49th  or  50th :  the  former  is 
 more  probalile.     [Jubilee;  Chronology.] 
 
 R.  S.  P. 
 
 *  YELLOW.     [Colors.] 
 
 *  YER  =  ere,  in  the  A.  Y.  ed.  1011.  Num. 
 xi.  33,  xiv.  11.  H. 
 
 YOKE.  1.  A  well-known  implement  of  hus- 
 bandry, described  in  the  Hebrew  language  by  the 
 terms  mot,''  wotdh,'^  and  V)^,'' the  two  former  specif- 
 ically applying  to  the  bows  of  yvood  out  of  which 
 it  was  constructed,  and  the  last  to  the  application 
 {himUnti)  of  the  article  to  the  neck  of  the  ox.  The 
 expressions  are  combined  in  Lev.  xxvi.  13  and  Ez. 
 xxxiv.  27,  yvith  the  meaning,  "  bands  of  the  yoke." 
 The  term  "yoke"  is  frequently  used  metaphor- 
 ically for  subjection  (e.  tj.  1  K.  xii.  4,  9-11;  Is.  ix. 
 4;  Jer.  V.  5):  hence  an  "iron  yoke"  represents  an 
 unusually  galling  bondage  (Dent,  xxviii.  48;  Jer. 
 xxviii.  13).  2.  A  pair  of  oxen,  so  termed  as  being 
 yoked  together  (1  Sam.  xi.  7;  1  K.  xix.  19,  21). 
 The  Hebreyv  term,  izemed,^  is  also  applied  to  asses 
 (Judg.  xix.  10)  and  mules  (2  K.  v.  17),  and  even 
 to  a  couple  of  riders  (Is.  xxi.  7).  3.  The  term 
 tzemed  is  also  applied  to  a  certain  amount  of  land, 
 equivalent  to  that  which  a  couple  of  oxen  could 
 plough  in  a  day  (Is.  v.  10;  A.  V.  "acre"),  cor- 
 
 «  The  writer's  paper  on  this  subject  not  having  yet 
 been  published,  he  must  refer  to  tlie  abstract  in  the 
 Athenaiim,  No.  1847,  Mar.  21, 1863. 
 
 b  t2^72.     c  nroia. 
 
 b37. 
 
 lKi'2. 
 
YOKE-FELLOW 
 
 responding  to  the  Latin  jugum  (Varro,  R.  R.  i. 
 10).  The  term  stands  in  this  sense  in  1  Sam. 
 xiv.  14  (A.  V.  "yoke");  hut  tlie  text  is  doubtful, 
 and  tlie  rendering  of  tlie  I.XX.  suggests  that  the 
 true  reading  would  refer  to  the  instruments  (eV 
 /c(jYAa^i)  wherewith  the  slaughter  was  effected. 
 [OXKN.]  ^  W.  L.  B. 
 
 *  YOKE-FELLOW.  The  interest  of  this 
 word  lies  in  the  question  whether  the  (ireek  word 
 {cTv^vyi  or  avv^uyi)  is  correctly  so  rendered,  Phil, 
 iv.  3,  or  should  be  taken  as  a  proper  name,  Sijzyyus 
 or  Synzy(/iis.  If  as  in  the  A.  V.  it  has  the  appel- 
 lative force,  it  must  be  a  man  who  is  meant  and 
 not  a  woman;  for  the  accompanying  adjective 
 (7J'^a-i€)  has  properly  three  terminations,  and  is 
 here  masculine,  and  hence  though  the  noun  may  be 
 masculine  or  feminine,  the  Apostle's  wife  is  not  to  be 
 thought  of,  as  some  strangely  imagine,  in  opposition 
 also  to  the  manifest  inference  from  1  Cor.  vii.  8 
 that  Paul  was  never  married  (aya/xos)-  Some 
 suppose  Luke  to  be  intended,  who  from  the  omis- 
 sion of  his  name  in  Phil.  i.  1  appears  not  to  have 
 been  at  Home  when  Paul  wrote  the  letter;  and 
 others  that  it  was  Epaphroditus,  who  was  at  the 
 Apostle's  side  at  the  moment,  and  was  thus  abruptly 
 addressed  (ipwrcu  Kai  ere)-  These  and  similar  ex- 
 planations presup[)0se  a  knowledge  of  personal  rela- 
 tions on  the  part  of.  the  readers  rendering  the  allu- 
 sion obvious  to  them  though  utterly  obscure  to  us. 
 
 We  think  the  best  view  after  all  to  be  that  of 
 Meyer  (Br.  an  die  PhUipper,  in  loc),  Laurent 
 (jVeulest.  Sliidien,  pp.  lo4-137),  and  others,  that 
 Syzygus  or  Synzygus  is  a  proper  name,  bor]ie  by 
 one  who  had  been  associated  with  Paul  in  Chris- 
 tian labors,  who  was  at  Philippi  when  tlie  Apostle 
 wrote  the  letter,  and  was  well  known  there  as 
 deserving  the  encomium  which  this  appeal  to  him 
 implies.  Paul  nowhere  else  uses  this  word  icrv^vyos) 
 of  any  one  of  his  ofticial  associates,  not  using  it  in 
 fact  in  any  other  passage.  It  is  found  here  in  the 
 midst  of  other  proper  names  (vv.  2,  3);  and  the 
 attributive  "  genuine  "  (yvrjcrie)  corresponds  finely 
 and  significantly  to  the  appellative  sense  of  such  a 
 name.  That  such  an  alliteration  is  not  foreign  to 
 Paul's  manner,  see  Philem.,  vv.  10,  11.  'i'he  name, 
 it  is  true,  does  not  appear  anywhere  else;  but  many 
 other  names  also  are  found  only  in  single  instances, 
 and  certainly  many  names  must  have  l)een  in  use 
 among  the  ancients  which  have  not  been  trans- 
 mitted at  all.  Paul  himself  repeatedly  mentions 
 persons  in  his  epistles  who  are  named  only  once, 
 and  a  catalogue  of  names  might  be  made  out  from 
 the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  those  whose  whole  his- 
 tory for  us  lies  in  a  single  passage.  H. 
 
 ZAANA'IM,  THE    PLAIN    OF    C|"l^W 
 
 C^S^^iiH  :  Spvs  irXioveKTOvvTiav;  Alex.  S.  ava- 
 iravo/j.eva>v'-  Vullis  quce  vacatur  Senniin);  or, 
 more  accurately,  "  the  oak  by  Zaannaim,"  such 
 being  probably  the  meaning  of  the  word  ek'm. 
 [Plain,  iii.  2517  6.]  A  tree  —  probably  a  sacred 
 tree  —  mentioned  as  marking  the  spot  near  which 
 Heber  the  Kenite  was  encamped  when  Sisera  took 
 refuge  in  his  tent  (-'udg.  iv.  11).  Its  situation  is 
 defined  as  "  near  Kedesh,"  i.  e.  Kedesh-Naphtali, 
 the  name  of  which  still  lingers  on  the  high  ground, 
 north  of  Sn/ed,  and  west  of  the  Lake  of  d-Hultli, 
 
 ZAAVAN  358?- 
 
 usually  identified  with  the  Waters  of  Merom.  The 
 Targum  gives  as  the  equivalent  of  the  name,  mishor 
 ag(/anuja.  "the  plain  of  the  swamp,"  and  in  the 
 well-known  passage  of  the  Talmud  {MegiUnh  Je- 
 riisli.  I.)  which  contains  a  list  of  several  of  the 
 towns  of  Galilee  with  their  then  identifications,  the 
 equivalent  for  "  Elon  (or  Aijalon)  be-Zaannaim"  is 
 Agniya  huk-kodesh.  Ague  appears  to  signify  a 
 swamp,  and  can  hardly  refer  to  anything  but  the 
 marsh  which  borders  the  lake  of  IJtd(;h  on  the  north 
 side,  and  whicli  was  probably  more  extensive  in  the 
 time  of  Deborah  than  it  now  is  [AIkhom].  On  the 
 other  hand.  Professor  Stanley  has  pointed  out  (Jew- 
 ish C'Inirch,  p.  321;  Loctdili.es,  p.  197)  how  appro- 
 priate a  situation  for  this  memorable  tree  is  afforded 
 by  "  a  green  plain  ....  studded  with  massive 
 terebinths,"  which  adjoins  on  tlie  soutli  the  plain 
 containing  the  remains  of  Kedesh.  The  whole  of 
 this  upland  country  is  more  or  less  rich  in  tere- 
 liinths.  One  such,  larger  than  usual,  and  bearing 
 the  name  of  Sejnr  em-Messiah,  is  marked  on  the 
 map  of  Van  de  Velde  as  6  miles  X.  W.  of  Kedes. 
 These  two  suggestions  —  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and 
 the  modern  Christian  student — maybe  left  side 
 l)y  side  to  await  the  result  of  future  investigation. 
 In  favor  of  the  former  is  the  slight  argument  to  be 
 drawn  from  the  early  date  of  the  interpretation, 
 and  the  fact  that  the  basin  of  the  Htdeh  is  still  the 
 favorite  camping-ground  of  Bedouins.  In  favor 
 of  the  latter  is  the  instinct  of  the  observer  and  the 
 abundance  of  trees  in  the  neighborhood. 
 
 No  name  answering  to  either  Zaannaim  or  Agne 
 has  yet  been  encountered. 
 
 The  Keri,  or  correction,  of  .Judg.  iv.  11,  substi- 
 tutes Zaanannim  for  Zaanaim,  and  the  same  form 
 is  found  in  ,Iosh.  xix.  33.  This  correction  the  lex- 
 icographers adopt  as  the  more  accurate  form  of  the 
 name.  It  appears  to  be  derived  (if  a  Hebrew  word) 
 from  a  root  signifying  to  load  beasts  as  nomads  do 
 when  they  change  their  places  of  residence  (Gesen. 
 Thes.  p.  1177).  Such  a  meaning  agrees  well  with 
 the  habits  of  the  Kenites.  But  nothing  can  be 
 more  uncertain  than  such  explanations  of  topo- 
 graphical names  —  most  to  be  distrusted  when 
 most  plausible.  G. 
 
 ZA'ANAlSr  (13^*?  [rich  in  herds:]  :^evvadp; 
 [Comp.  'Satvdf-]  ''«  exilu).  A  place  named  by 
 JNIicah  (i.  11)  in  his  address  to  the  towns  of  the 
 Sliefelnh.  This  sentence,  like  others  of  the  same 
 passage,  contains  a  play  of  words  founded  on  the 
 meaning  (or  on  a  possible  meaning)  of  the  name 
 Zaanan,  as  derived  from  yatsah,  to  go  forth :  — 
 
 "  The  inhabi tress  of  Tsaanan  came  not  forth." 
 
 The  division  of  the  passage  shown  in  the  LXX. 
 and  A.  V.,  by  which  Zaanan  is  connected  with 
 Beth-ezel,  is  now  generally  recognized  as  inac- 
 curate. It  is  thus  gi\en  by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his 
 Commentary:  "The  inhabitant  of  Zaanan  came 
 not  forth.  The  mourning  of  Beth-ezel  shall  take 
 from  you  its  standing."  So  also  Ewald,  De  Wette, 
 and  Zunz. 
 
 Zaanan  is  doubtless  identical  with  Zenan. 
 
 G. 
 
 *  ZAANAN'NIM     (□''23^^2  :    Beare^uv  ; 
 
 Vat.  -eiv  ;  Alex.   Jifffevavi/i;    Comp.    ^.eevavifx,' 
 Sttananim),  Josh.  xix.  33.     [Zaanaim.]       A. 
 
 ZA'AVAN  (1)V!  Idisquieted]  :  ZovKoifj.; 
 Alex.  lujuKaix,  IcouKav-  Zavan).  A  Horite  chief, 
 son  of  Ezer  the  son  of  Seir  (Gen.  xxxvi.  27 ;  1  Cbr. 
 
3584 
 
 ZABAD 
 
 i.  42).     The  LXX.   appear  to   have   read  Tp"l  . 
 Ill  1  Chr.  the  A.  V.  has  Zavan. 
 
 ZA'BAD  ("fST  [gifl,2Jreseiit]:Za&^S.Za04T; 
 Alex.  Za/3aT  in  1  Chr.  xi. :  Zabad :  sliort  for 
 n"^"T5?  •  see  Zebadiah,  Zabdi,  Zabdiel,  Zebedee, 
 "  God  hath  given  him  "). 
 
 1.  Son  of  Nathan,  son  of  Attai,  son  of  Ahlai, 
 Sheshan's  daughter  (1  Chr.  ii.  31-37),  and  hence 
 called  son  of  Ahlai  (1  Chr.  xi.  41).  He  was  one 
 of  David's  mighty  men,  but  none  of  his  deeds  have 
 been  recorded.  The  chief  interest  connected  with 
 him  is  his  genealogy,  which  is  of  considerable  im- 
 portance in  a  chronological  point  of  view,  and  as 
 throwing  incidental  light  upon  the  structure  of  the 
 bocfk  of  (.'hronicles,  and  the  historical  value  of  the 
 genealogies  in  it.  Thus  in  1  Chr.  ii.  26-41,  we 
 have  the  following  pedigree,  the  generations  pre- 
 ceding Jeralmieel  being  prefixed :  — 
 
 (1-) 
 (2.) 
 (3.) 
 (4) 
 (5.) 
 (6.) 
 (7.) 
 (8.) 
 (9.) 
 (10.) 
 (11.) 
 
 (12.) 
 
 Judah. 
 Pharez. 
 llezron. 
 Jerahmeel. 
 Onam. 
 Shammai. 
 Nadab. 
 Appaiiu. 
 Ishi. 
 Slieshaii. 
 Ahlai,  his  i 
 daughter  j 
 Attai. 
 
 ^  Jarha  the 
 Egyptian. 
 
 (1.3.)  Nathan. 
 
 (14.)    Z.^BAD. 
 
 (1.5.)  Ephlal. 
 (16.)  ,Obed. 
 (17.)  Jehu. 
 
 (18.)    AZARIAH. 
 
 (19.)  Helez. 
 
 (20.)  Eleasah. 
 
 (21.)  Sisamai. 
 
 (22.)  Shallum. 
 
 (23.)  Jekamiah. 
 
 (24.)  Elishama. 
 
 Here,  then,  is  a  genealogy  of  twenty-four  gen- 
 erations, commencing  with  the  patriarch,  and  ter- 
 minating we  know  not,  at  first  sight,  where;  but  as 
 we  happen  to  know,  from  the  history,  where  Zabad 
 the  son  of  Ahlai  lived,  we  are  at  least  sure  of  this 
 fact,  that  the  fourietntit  generation  brings  us  to 
 the  time  of  David ;  and  that  this  is  about  the  cor- 
 rect number  we  are  also  sure,  because  out  of  seven 
 other  perfect  genealogies,  covering  the  same  inter- 
 val of  time,  four  have  the  same  number  (four- 
 teen), two  ho-xe.  fifteen,  and  David's  own  has  eleven. 
 [(jtjjNEAL.  OF  Jesus  Chuist,  i.  886.] 
 
 But  it  also  happens  that  another  person  in  the 
 line  is  an  historical  personage,  whom  we  know 
 to  have  lived  during  the  usurpation  of  Athaliab, 
 namely,  Azariah  the  son  (/.  e.  grandson)  of  Obed 
 (2Chr.  xxiii.  1).  [Azakiah,  13.]  Yi^  \\&%  fourth 
 after  Zabad,  while  Jehoram,  Athaliab 's  husband, 
 was  sixth  after  David  —  a  perfectly  satisfactory  cor- 
 respondence when  we  take  into  account  that  Zabad  « 
 may  probably  have  been  considerably  younger  than 
 David,  and  that  the  early  marriages  of  the  kings 
 have  a  constant  tendency  to  increase  the  number 
 of  generations  in  the  royal  line.  Again,  the  last 
 name  in  the  line  is  the  sixth  after  Azariah ;  but 
 Hezekiah  was  the  sixth  king  after  Athaliab,  and  we 
 know  that  many  of  the  genealogies  were  written 
 out  by  "  the  men  of  Hezekiah,"  and  therefore  of 
 course  came  down  to  his  time  [Bechkk,  i.  259] 
 (see  1  Chr.  iv.  41;  Prov.  xxv.  1).  So  that  we 
 may  conclude,  with  great  probability,  both  that 
 this  genealogy  ends  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  and 
 that  all  its  links  are  perfect. 
 
 One  other  point  of  importance  remains  to  be 
 noticed,  namely,  that  Zabad   is   called,  after  his 
 
 «  He  does  not  appear  in  the  list  in  2  Sam.  xxiv., 
 and  may  therefore  be  presumed  to  have  been  added 
 in  the  latter  part  of  David's  reign. 
 
 ZABADEANS 
 
 great-grandmother,  the  founder  of  his  house,  son 
 of  Ahlai.  For  that  Ahlai  was  the  name  of  She- 
 shan's daughter  is  certain  from  1  Chr.  ii.  31 ;  and 
 it  is  also  certain,  from  vv.  35,  36,  that  from  her 
 marriage  with  Jarha  descended,  in  the  third  gen- 
 eration, Zabad.  It  is  therefore  as  certain  as  such 
 matters  can  be,  that  Zabad  the  son  of  Ahlai,  Da- 
 vid's mighty  man,  was  so  called  from  Ahlai  his 
 female  ancestor.  The  case  is  analogous  to  that 
 of  Joab,  and  Abishai,  and  Asahel,  who  are  always 
 called  sons  of  Zeruiah,  Zeruiah,  like  Ahlai,  having 
 married  a  foreigner.  Or  if  any  one  thinks  there  is 
 a  diti'erence  between  a  man  being  called  the  son  of 
 his  mother,  and  the  son  of  his  great-grandmother, 
 a  more  exact  parallel  may  be  found  in  Gen.  xxv. 
 4,  xxxvi.  ]2,  13,  16,  17,  where  the  descendants  of 
 Keturah,  and  of  the  wives  of  Ksau,  in  the  third 
 and  fourth  generation,  are  called  "the  sons  of  Ke- 
 turah," "  the  sons  of  Adah  "  and  "  of  Bashemath  " 
 respectively. 
 
 2.  (ZajSaS;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Za/SeS.)  An  Ephraira- 
 ite,  if  the  text  of  1  Chr.  vii.  21  is  correct.  [See 
 Shutiiiclah.] 
 
 3.  (Za/3«5;  [Vat.  Zn/SeA;]  Alex.  Za^eO.)  Son 
 of  Shimeath,  an  Ammonitess,  an  assassin  who, 
 with  Jebozabad,  slew  king  Joash,  according  to  2 
 Chr.  xxiv.  26;  but  in  2  K.  xii.  21,  his  name  is 
 written,  probal)ly  more  correctly,  Jozachar  [.lozA- 
 ciiak].  He  was  one  of  the  domestic  servants  of 
 the  palace,  and  apparently  the  agent  of  a  powerful 
 conspiracy  (2  Chr.  xxv.  3;  2  K.  xiv.  5).  Joash 
 had  become  unpopular  from  bis  idolatries  (2  Chr. 
 xxiv.  18),  bis  oppression  {iOid.  22),  and,  above  all, 
 his  calamities  (il/id.  23-25).  The  explanation 
 given  in  the  article  Jozachak  is  doubtless  the 
 true  one,  that  the  chronicler  represents  this  violent 
 death  of  the  king,  as  well  as  the  previous  invasion 
 of  the  Syrians,  as  a  Divine  judgment  against  him 
 for  the  innocent  blood  of  Zechariah  shed  by  him : 
 not  that  the  assassins  themselves  were  actuated  by 
 the  desire  to  avenge  the  death  of  Zechariah.  They 
 were  both  put  to  death  by  Amaziah,  but  their 
 children  were  spared  in  obedience  to  the  law  of 
 Moses  (Deut.  xxiv.  16).  The  coincidence  between 
 the  names  Zechariah  and  Jozachar  is  remarka- 
 ble. A.  C.  H. 
 
 4.  (ZaySaS  [Vat.  Za^adaP].)  A  layman  of 
 Israel,  of  the  sons  of  Zattu,  who  put  away  his  for- 
 eign wife  at  Ezra's  command  (Ezr.  x.  27).  He  is 
 called  Saisatus  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  28. 
 
 5.  ([Horn.]  ZaSalS'-  [Vat.  FA.,  with  prec.  word, 
 A0a(a06\;  Alex.]  Za/iaS-)  One  of  the  descend- 
 ants of  Hashum,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife 
 after  the  Captivity  (Ez.  x.  33):  calletl  Bannai.\  in 
 1  Esdr.  ix.  33. 
 
 6.  (Za)3d5;  [Vat.  FA.  :S.eSepL;]  Alex,  om.) 
 One  of  the  sons  of  Nebo,  whose  name  is  mentioned 
 under  the  same  circumstances  as  the  two  preceding 
 (Ezr.  X.  43).  It  is  represented  by  Zabadaias  in 
 1  Esdr.  ix.  35.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZABADA'IAS  [4  syl.]  (Za/3a5ai'as:  Sab- 
 adus).     Zabad  6  (1    Esdr.  ix.  35;  comp.  Ez.  x. 
 
 43). 
 
 ZABADE'ANS  [properly  Zabad.k'ans] 
 {ZafiiSaioi;  [Sin.  Za^aSaiof,]  Alex.  Za/3a5e'oj: 
 Zubadcei).  An  Arab  tribe  who  were  attacked  and 
 spoiled  by  Jonathan,  on  his  way  back  to  Damascus 
 from  his  fruitless  pursuit  of  the  army  of  Demetrius 
 (1  Mace.  xii.  31).  Josephus  calls  them  Nabatteaiia 
 (Ant.  xiii.  5,  §  10),  but  he  is  evidently  in  error. 
 Nothing  certain  is  known  of  them.     Ewald  (Gesch. 
 
ZABBAI 
 
 iv.  382  finds  a  trace  of  their  name  in  that  of  the 
 place  Zahda  given  by  Robinson  in  his  lists;  but 
 this  is  too  far  south,  between  the  Yarmuk  and  the 
 Zurkn.  Michaelis  suggests  the  Arab  tribe  Zu- 
 beideh  ;  but  they  do  not  appear  In  the  necessary 
 locality.  Jonathan  had  pursued  the  enemy's  army 
 as  far  as  the  river  Eleutherus  (Nalir  el-Ktblr),  and 
 was  on  his  march  back  to  Damascus  when  he  at- 
 tacked and  plundered  the  Zabadeans.  We  must 
 look  for  them,  therefore,  somewhere  to  the  north- 
 west of  Damascus.  Accordingly,  on  the  road  from 
 Damascus  to  Baalbek,  at  a  distance  of  about  83 
 hours  (26  miles)  from  the  former  place,  is  the  vil- 
 lage ZtMany,  standing  at  the  upper  end  of  a  plain 
 of  the  same  name,  which  is  the  very  centre  of  An- 
 ti-Libanus.  The  name  Zebddny  is  possibly  a  relic 
 of  the  ancient  tribe  of  the  Zabadeans.  According 
 to  Burckliardt  {Syria,  p.  3),  the  plain  "is  about 
 three  quarters  of  an  hour  in  breadth,  and  three 
 hours  in  length ;  it  is  called  Ard  Zebdeni,  or  the 
 district  of  Zelxleni;  it  is  watered  by  the  Barrada, 
 one  of  whose  sources  is  in  the  midst  of  it ;  and  liy 
 the  rivulet  called  Muiet  Zebdeni,  whose  source  is  in 
 the  mountain  behind  the  village  of  the  same  name." 
 The  plain  is  "  limited  on  one  side  by  the  eastern 
 part  of  the  Anti-Libanus,  called  here  Djtbel  Zeb- 
 deni.'"  The  village  is  of  considerable  size,  contain- 
 ing nearly  3,000  inhabitants,  who  breed  cattle,  and 
 the  silkworm,  and  have  some  dyeing-houses  (ibid.). 
 Kot  far  from  Zebddny,  on  the  western  slopes  of  An- 
 ti-Libanus, is  another  village  called  Kefr  Ztbitd, 
 which  again  seems  to  point  to  this  as  the  district 
 formerly  occupied  liy  the  Zabadeans.      VV.  A.  W. 
 
 ZAB'BAI  [2  syl.]  (■'21  [perh.  pure,  innocent']  : 
 Za^ov-  Ztibba'i).  1.  One  of  the  descendants  of 
 Bebai,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  in  the  days 
 of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  28).  He  is  called  Josabad  in  1 
 Esdr.  ix.  29. 
 
 2.  (ZajSoO;  FA.  Za^pov-  Zachni.)  Father  of 
 Baruch,  who  assisted  Neheraiah  in  rebuilding  the 
 city  w.all  (Neh.  iii.  20). 
 
 ZAB'BUD    (1^2T    [given,  bestowed],  Keri, 
 
 "1^3t  :  ZoySoOS;  [Vat.  omits:]  Zachur).  One  of 
 the  sons  of  Higvai,  who  returned  in  the  second  car- 
 avan with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  14).  hi  1  Esdr.  viii.  40 
 his  name  is  corrupted  into  Istalcukus. 
 
 ZABDE'US  [properly  ZABD.EUS]  {Za^lalos- 
 Vulg.  om.).  Zebadiah  of  the  sons  of  Immer  (1 
 Esdr.  ix.  21;  comp.  Ez.  x.  20). 
 
 ZAB'DI  ("'■7?1  [Jehovah  gave]:  Za^.Spi 
 [Vat.  -$pei] ;  Alex.  Za^pi  in  Josh.  vii.  1 :  Zabdi). 
 1.  Son  of  Zerah,  the  son  of  Judah,  and  ancestor  of 
 Achan  (Josh.  vii.  1,  17,  18). 
 
 2.  (Zaj85i;  [Vat.  Za^Sei.])  A  Benjamite,  of 
 the  sons  of  Shimhi  (1  Chr.  viii.  19). 
 
 3.  ([Vat.  Zaxpf'O  Zabdiits.)  David's  officer 
 over  the  produce  of  the  vineyards  for  the  wine-eel 
 lars  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  27).  He  is  called  "the  Shiph 
 mite,"  that  is,  in  all  probability,  native  of  She- 
 pham,"  but  his  native  place  has  not  been  traced. 
 
 4.  ([liom.]  Vat.  and  Alex.  om. ;  FA.  third  hand, 
 ZexP'"  Zebediils.)  Son  of  Asaph  the  minstrel 
 (Neh.  xi.  17);  called  elsewhere  Zaccuh  (Neh.  xii. 
 35)  and  Zichki  (1  Chr.  ix.  15). 
 
 ZACCH^US 
 
 358^ 
 
 a  *  They  plant  this  tree  in  the  East  by  the  wayside, 
 and  it  is  easily  ascended  because  the  branches  start 
 out  comparatively  near  the  ground.     [Sycamore,  note 
 
 ZAB'DIEL  (bS*'^?T  [gift  of  God]:  Za0- 
 SivJA  [Vat.  -Set-]  :  Zabdiel).  1.  Father  of  Jasho- 
 beam,  the  chief  of  David's   guard  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  2) 
 
 2.  (BaSiTJA;  Alex.  ZoxpirjA;  [FA.i  /3aCi»?A.]! 
 A  priest,  son  of  the  great  men,  or,  as  the  margin 
 gives  it,  "  Haggedolim  "  (Neh.  xi.  14).  He  had 
 the  oversight  of  128  of  his  brethren  alter  the  return 
 from  Babylon. 
 
 3.  (Za)35ii7A;  Joseph.  ZaySTjAos:  /^"W'f'-;  An 
 Arabian  chiettain  who  put  Alexander  Iklas  to 
 death  (1  Mace.  xi.  17;  Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  8). 
 According  to  Diodorus,  Alexander  Balas  was  mur- 
 dered by  two  of  the  officers  who  accompanied  him 
 (Mtiller,  Fragm.  Hist.  ii.  16). 
 
 ZA'BUD  (1^2|  [given]:  Za&ovd;  Alex.  Za/S- 
 jSouS;  [Comp.  ZakovS:]  Zabud).  The  son  of 
 Nathan  (1  K.  iv.  5).  He  is  described  as  a  priest 
 A.  V.  "principal  officer;  "  Pkiest,  iii.  2576),  and 
 as  holding  at  the  court  of  Solomon  the  confidential 
 post  of  "king's  friend,"  which  had  been  occupied 
 by  Hushai  the  Archite  during  the  reign  of  David 
 (2  Sam.  XV.  37,  xvi.  16;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  33).  This 
 position,  if  it  were  an  official  one,  was  eviilently  dis- 
 tinct from  that  of  counsellor,  occupied  by  Ahitho- 
 phel  under  David,  and  had  more  of  the  character 
 of  private  friendship  about  it,  for  Absalom  con- 
 versely calls  David  the  "friend"  of  Hushai  (2 
 Sam.  xvi.  17).  In  the  Vat.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  the 
 word  "  priest ''  is  omitted,  and  in  the  Arabic  of  the 
 London  Polyglot  it  is  referred  to  Nathan.  The 
 Peshito-Syriac  and  several  Hebrew  MSS.  for  "  Za- 
 bud "  read  "  Zaccur."  The  same  occurs  in  the 
 case  of  Zabbud. 
 
 ZAB'ULON  {Za&ovKwv:  Znbidon).  The 
 Greek  form  of  the  name  Zebulun  (Matt.  iv.  13, 
 15,  Rev.  vii.  8). 
 
 ZAC'CAI  [2  syl.J  (''SI  [pnre,  innocent]: 
 Za/fxov;  [Vat.  FA.  Zadov  in  Neh.];  Alex.  Zare- 
 ■yai  in  Ezra:  Zachai).  The  sons  of  Zaccai,  to  the 
 number  of  760,  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii. 
 9;  Neh.  vii.  14).  The  name  is  the  same  which 
 appears  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  familiar  form  of  Zac- 
 
 CH.iiUS. 
 
 ZACCH.^'US  [A.  V.  Zacciif/us]  (Za/c- 
 ■Yoios:  Zacchaus).  The  name  of  a  tax-collector 
 near  Jericho,  who  being  short  in  stature  climbed  up 
 into  a  sycamore-tree,"  in  order  to  obtain  a  sight  of 
 Jesus  as  He  passed  through  that  place.''  Luke 
 only  has  related  the  incident  (xix.  1-10).  Zacchse- 
 us  was  a  Jew,  as  may  be  inferred  from  his  name, 
 and  from  the  fact  that  the  Saviour  speaks  of  him 
 expressly  as  "a  son  of  Abraham  "  (vlhs  'Alipadfi)- 
 So  the  latter  expression  should  be  understood,  and 
 not  in  a  spiritual  sense;  for  it  was  evidently  meant 
 to  assert  that  he  was  one  of  the  chosen  race,  not- 
 withstanding the  prejudice  of  some  of  his  country- 
 men that  his  office  under  the  Konian  government 
 made  him  an  alien  and  outcast  from  the  privileges 
 of  the  Israelite.  The  term  which  designates  this 
 office  (dpx'TeAciji/Tjs)  is  umisual,  but  describes  him 
 no  doubt  as  the  superintendent  of  customs  or  trib- 
 ute in  the  district  of  Jericho,  where  he  lived,  as 
 one  having  a  commission  from  his  Roman  principal 
 {manceps,  jnMicanus)  to  collect  the  imposts  levied 
 
 b  *  The  A.  V.  (Luke  xix.  1)  has :  "  And  [Jesus]  en- 
 tered and  passed  through  .Tericho,"  as  if  the  incident 
 took  place  after  our  Lord  had  left  the  city.  But  the 
 verb  is  Siripx^ro,  wa.i  passing  tlirougk,  which  places 
 the  occurrence  in  Jericho.  H- 
 
3586 
 
 ZACCHJEUS 
 
 on  the  Jews  by  the  Romans,  and  wlio  in  the  exe- 
 cution of  that  trust  eniplojed  subalterns  (the  or- 
 dinary T6AaJ;'ai)i  who  were  accountable  to  him,  as 
 he  in  turn  was  accountable  to  his  superior, 
 whether  he  resided  at  Home,  as  was  more  com- 
 monly the  case,  or  in  the  province  itself  (see  Winer, 
 Realm,  ii.  711,  and  Did.  of  Ant  p.  806).  The 
 office  must  have  been  a  lucrative  one  in  such  a 
 region,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  Zacchieus  is  men- 
 tioned by  the  Evangelist  as  a  rich  man  {ouros  ■^r 
 iT\ov(jios)-  Josephus  states  (^1?;/.  xv.  4,  §  2)  that 
 the  palm-groves  of  Jericho  and  its  gardens  of  balsam 
 were  given  as  a  source  of  revenue  by  Antony  to 
 Cleopatra,  and,  on  account  of  their  value,  were  af- 
 terwards redeemed  by  Herod  the  Great  for  his  own 
 benefit.  The  sycamore-tree  is  no  longer  found  in 
 that  neighborhood  (Kobinson,  Bibl.  lies.  i.  559); 
 but  no  one  should  be  surprised  at  this,  since  "  even 
 the  solitary  relic  of  the  palm-forest,  seen  as  late  as 
 1838  "  —  which  existed  near  Jericho,  has  now  dis- 
 appeared (Stanley,  S.  cf-  P.  p.  307).«  The  eager- 
 ness of  Zaechieus  to  behold  Jesus  indicates  a  deeper 
 interest  than  that  of  mere  curiosity.  He  must 
 have  had  some  knowledge,  by  report  at  least,  of  the 
 teachings  of  (Jlirist,  as  well  as  of  his  wonder-\\'ork- 
 ing  power,  and  could  thus  have  been  awakened  to 
 some  just  religious  feeling,  which  would  make  him 
 the  more  anxious  to  see  the  announcer  of  the  good 
 tidings,  so  important  to  men  as  sinners.  The 
 readiness  of  Christ  to  take  up  his  abode  with  him, 
 and  his  declaration  that  "  salvation  "  had  that  day 
 come  to  the  house  of  his  entertainer,  prove  suffi- 
 ciently that  "He  who  knows  what  is  in  man" 
 perceived  in  him  a  religious  susceptibility  which 
 fitted  him  to  be  the  recipient  of  spiritual  blessings. 
 John  the  Uaptist  must  often  have  preached  near 
 Jericho,  and  Zacchfeus  may  on  some  occasion  ha\e 
 been  a  hearer.  Reflection  upon  his  conduct  on  the 
 part  of  Zacchfeus  himself  appears  to  have  revealed 
 to  him  deficiencies  which  disturbed  his  conscience, 
 and  he  was  ready,  on  being  instructed  more  fully 
 in  regard  to  the  way  of  life,  to  engage  to  "  restore 
 fourfold "  for  the  illegal  exactions  of  which  he 
 would  not  venture  to  deny  {^t  tiv6s  ri  eavKocpdv- 
 rrjaa)  that  he  might  have  been  guilty.  At  all 
 e\ents  he  had  not  lived  in  such  a  manner  as  to  over- 
 come the  prejudice  which  the  Jews  entertained 
 agahist  individuals  of  his  class,  and  their  censure 
 fell  on  him  as  well  as  on  Christ  when  they  declared 
 that  the  latter  had  not  scorned  to  avail  Himself  of 
 the  hospitality  of  "•  a  man  that  was  a  sinner."  The 
 Saviour  spent  tlie  night  probably  i/xihai-,  ver.  5, 
 and  /foToACcrat,  ver.  7,''  are  the  terms  used)  in  the 
 house  of  Zacchseus,  and  the  next  day  pursued  his 
 journey  to  Jerusalem.  He  was  in  the  caravan  from 
 Galilee,  which  was  going  up  thither  to  keep  the 
 Passover.  The  entire  scene  is  well  illustrated  by 
 Oosterzee  (Lange's  Bibelwer/c,  iii.  285). 
 
 We  read  in  the  Rabbinic  writings  also  of  a  Zac- 
 chaaus  who  lived  at  Jericho  at  this  same  period, 
 well  known  on  his  own  account,  and  especially  as 
 the  father  of  the  celebrated  Rabbi  Jochanan  ben 
 Zachai  (see  Sepp's  Leben  Jesii,  iii.  166).  This  per- 
 son may  have  been  related  to  the  Zacchoeus  named 
 in  the  sacred  narrative.  The  family  of  the  Zacch»i 
 was   an    ancient   one,  as   well  as  very  numerous. 
 
 «  *  Both  these  statements  now  require  correction. 
 The  sycamore  and  the  palm-tree  cannot  be  said  to 
 flourish  there,  but  it  is  found  tliat  they  are  not  yet 
 extinct.  See  Palm-Tree,  vol.  iii.  p.  2326,  note  6,  and 
 Sycamore,  vol.  iv.  p.  3131,  note  b.  H. 
 
 ZACHARIAH 
 
 They  are  mentioned  in  the  books  of  Ezra  (ii.  9 
 and  Nehemiah  (vii.  14)  as  among  those  who  re- 
 turned from  the  B.ab)  Ionian  Captivity  under  Zerub- 
 babel,  when  their  number  amounted  to  seven  hun- 
 dred and  sixty.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the 
 name  is  given  as  Zaccai  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
 sion of  the  Old  Testament.  (See  Bishop  Hall's 
 discourse  on  Zacchseus  in  his  Cunfemp/.aUims  vn  the 
 N.  T.  bk.  iv.  3,  and  Archbishop  Trench,  on  Zac- 
 chaeus,  in  his  Studies  in  the  Gospels.)     H.  B.  H. 
 
 ZACCHE'US  [properly  Zacch.«'us]  (Zok- 
 Xa'ios-  Z(ichcmis).  An  officer  of  Judas  Macca- 
 bfeus  (2  Mace.  x.  19).  Grotius,  from  a  mistaken 
 reference  to  1  JMacc.  v.  56,  wishes  to  read  Kal  rbv 
 Tov  Zaxapiov-  B.  ¥.  W. 
 
 ZAC'CHUR  ("1^31  [mindful]:  ZaKxovp; 
 [Vat.  omits:]  Zacliur).  A  Simeonite,  of  the 
 family  of  Mishma  (1  Chr.  iv.  26).  His  descend- 
 ants, through  his  son  Shimei,  became  one  of  the 
 most  numerous  branches  of  the  tribe. 
 
 ZAC'CUR  (1-121  [mindful]:  Zaxovp;  [Vat. 
 ZaKxovp;]  Alex.  Zaxpov'  Zeclnir).  1.  A  Reu- 
 benite,  father  of  Shammua,  the  spy  selected  from 
 his  tribe  (Num.  xiii.  4). 
 
 2.  ('2,aKxovp\  [Vat.]  Alex.  laKXovp'  Zachur.) 
 A  Merarite  Levite,  son  of  Jaaziah  (1  Chr.  xxiv. 
 27). 
 
 3.  {'S.aKxovp,  ZaKxovp\  [Vat.  'S.aKxovs,  Zax' 
 Xoufl;]  Alex.  ZaKxovp'-  Zachur,  [Zechitr.])  Son 
 of  Asaph,  the  singer,  and  chief  of  the  third  division 
 of  the  Temple  choir  as  arranged  by  David  (1  Chr. 
 XXV.  2,  10;  Neh.  xii.  35). 
 
 4.  {ZaKxovp\  [Vat.  ZaRaovp(\  FA.  SaxX^'i'P' 
 Zacliur.)  The  son  of  Imri,  who  assisted  Nehemiah 
 in  rebuilding  the  city  wall  (Neh.  iii.  2). 
 
 5.  {ZaKx^p-)  A  Levite,  or  family  of  Levites, 
 who  signed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x. 
 12). 
 
 6.  iZaKxovp.)  A  Levite,  whose  son  or  descend- 
 ant Ilaiian  was  one  of  the  treasurers  over  the 
 treasuries  appointed  by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xiii.  13). 
 
 ZACHARI'AH,  or  properly  Zechaiu'ah 
 (n''"15T5  "remembered  by  Jehovah:  "  Za^opioj; 
 [Vat.  A^apias  in  2  K.  xiv.  29;  Alex.  A^apias  in  2 
 K.  xiv.  29,  xv.  8,  11 :]  Zacharias),  was  son  of 
 Jeroboam  IL,  14th  king  of  Israel,  and  the  last  of 
 the  house  of  Jehu.  There  is  a  difficulty  about 
 the  date  of  his  reign.  We  are  told  that  Amaziah 
 ascended  the  throne  of  Judah  in  the  second  year  of 
 Joash  king  of  Israel,  and  reigned  29  years  (2  K. 
 xiv.  1,  2).  He  was  succeeded  by  Uzziah  or  Aza- 
 riah,  in  the  27th  year  of  Jeroboam  IL,  the  successor 
 of  Joash  (2  K.  xv.  1),  and  Uzziah  reigned  52  years. 
 On  the  other  hand,  Joash  king  of  Israel  reigned  16 
 years  (2  K.  xiii.  10),  was  succeeded  by  Jeroboam, 
 who  reigned  41  (2  K.  xiv.  23),  and  he  by  Zach- 
 ariah,  who  came  to  the  throne  in  the  38th  year 
 of  Uzziah  king  of  Judah  (2  K.  xv.  8).  'I^uis  we 
 have  (1)  from  the  accession  of  Amaziah  to  the  38th 
 of  Uzziah,  29-^38  =  67  years:  but  (2)  from  the 
 second  year  of  Joash  to  the  accession  of  Zachariah 
 (or  at  least  to  the  death  of  Jeroboam)  we  have  15-|- 
 41  =  56  years.  Further,  the  accession  of  Uzziah, 
 placed  in  the  27th  year  of  Jeroboam,  according  to 
 
 b  *  Luke  uses  KaraKva-ai  elsewhere  only  in  ix.  12_ 
 and  evidently  of  a  lodging  for  the  night.  The  term  of 
 itself  may  denote  a  shorter  "  breaking  up,'-  or  halt, 
 but  "  for  the  night  "  is  more  probable  here.  H. 
 
ZACHARIAS 
 
 the  above  reckoning  occurred  in  the  15th.  And 
 this  latter  synchronism  is  confirmed,  and  that  with 
 tlie  27tii  year  of  Jeroljoani  contradicted,  liy  2  K. 
 xiv.  17,  wliich  tells  us  that  Aniaziali  l<ing  of  Judah 
 survived  doash  king  of  Israel  by  15  years.  Most 
 chronologers  assume  an  interregnum  of  11  years 
 between  Jeroboam's  death  and  Zachariah's  acces- 
 sion, during  which  the  kingdom  was  suffering  from 
 the  anarchy  of  a  disputed  succession,  but  this  seems 
 unlikely  after  the  reign  of  a  resolute  ruler  like  Jero- 
 boam, and  does  not  solve  the  difference  between  2 
 K.  xiv.  17  and  xv.  1.  We  are  reduced  to  suppose 
 that  our  present  MSS.  have  here  incorrect  muubers, 
 to  substitute  15  for  27  in  2  K.  xv.  1,  and  to  believe 
 that  Jeroboam  II.  reigned  52  or  53  years.  Jose- 
 phus  (ix.  10,  §  3)  places  Uzziah's  accession  in  the 
 14th  year  of  Jerol)oaai,  a  variation  of  a  year  in 
 the^e  synchronisms  being  unavoidable,  since  the 
 Hebrew  annalists  in  giving  their  dates  do  not  reckon 
 fractions  of  years.  [Iskael,  Kingdoji  of,  vol.  ii. 
 1178  (■(.]  But  whether  we  assume  an  interregnum,  or 
 an  error  in  the  MSS.,  we  must  place  Zachariah's 
 accession  b.  c.  771-772.  His  reign  lasted  only  six 
 months.  He  was  killed  in  a  conspiracy,  of  which 
 Shallum  was  the  head,  and  by  which  the  prophecy 
 in  2  K.  X.  30  was  accomplished.  Vie  are  told  that 
 during  his  brief  term  of  power  he  did  evil,  and 
 kept  up  the  calf-worship  iidierited  from  tlie  first 
 Jeroboam,  which  his  father  had  maintained  in 
 regal  splendor  at  Bethel  {Am.  vii.  13).  [Shal- 
 lum.] G.  E.  L.  C. 
 
 2.  (Alex.  Zaxx«'«J-)  The  father  of  Abi,  or 
 Abijah,  Hezekiahs  mother  (2  K.  xviii.  2).  In  2 
 Chr.  xxix.  1  he  is  called  Zechariah. 
 
 ZACHARI'AS  (irememhered  by  Jehovahy. 
 Zaxapias-  Vulg.  om.).  1.  Zechariah  the  priest 
 in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (1  Esdr.  i.  8). 
 
 2.  In  1  Esdr.  i.  15  Zacharias  occupies  the  place 
 of  Heman  in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  15. 
 
 3.  {Zapaias  ;  Alex.  Zapeas  ;  [Aid.  Zaxa- 
 pi'osO  Areores.)  =  Sehaiah  G,  and  AzAiuAir 
 20  (1  Esdr.  V.  8;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  2;  Neh.  vii.  7).  It 
 is  not  clear  from  whence  this  rendering  of  the  name 
 is  derived.  Our  translators  follow  the  Geneva 
 Version  [and  the  Bishops'  Bible.  Tiiis  form  of 
 the  name  comes  from  the  Aldine  edition.  —  A.]. 
 
 4.  (Zaxapi'as^  y^achfirias.)  The  prophet  Zech- 
 ariah (1  Esdr.  vi.  1,  vii.  3). 
 
 5.  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Pharosh  (1  Esdr. 
 viii.  30;   comp.  Ezr.  viii.  3). 
 
 6.  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Bebai  (1  Esdr. 
 viii.  37;  [comp.]  Ezr.  viii.  11). 
 
 7.  Zechariah,  one  of  "  the  principal  men  and 
 learned,"  with  whom  Ezra  consulted  (1  Esdr.  viii. 
 4-1;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  16). 
 
 8.  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Elani  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
 27;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  20). 
 
 9.  Father  of  Joseph,  a  leader  in  the  first  cam- 
 paign of  the  Maccabaean  war  (1  i\Iacc.  v.  18,  56- 
 62). 
 
 10.  Father  of  John  the  Baptist  (Luke  i.  5,  etc  ). 
 [John  the  Baptist.] 
 
 11.  Son  of  Barachias,  who,  our  Ijord  says,  was 
 slain  by  the  Jews  between  the  altar  and  the  Temple 
 (Matt,  xxiii.  35;  Luke  xi.  51).  There  lias  been 
 much  dispute  who  this  Zacharias  was.  From  the 
 time  of  Origen,  who  relates  that  the  father  of 
 John  the  Baptist  was  killed  in  the  Temple,  many 
 of  the  (ireek  Fathers  have  maintained  that  this  is 
 the  person  to  whom  our  Lord  alludes;  but  there 
 can  be  little  or  no  doubt  that  the  allusion  is  to 
 
 ZADOK  3587 
 
 Zacharias,  the  son  of  Jehoiada  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  20, 
 21).  As  the  book  of  Chronicles  —  in  which  the 
 murder  of  Zacharias,  the  son  of  .Jehoiada,  occurs 
 —  closes  the  Hebrew  canon,  this  assassination  was 
 the  last  of  the  murders  of  righteous  men  recorded 
 in  the  Bible,  just  as  that  of  Abel  was  the  first. 
 (Comp.  Kenan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  353.)  The  name 
 of  the  father  of  Zacharias  is  not  mentioned  by  St. 
 Luke;  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  name  of  Bara- 
 chias crept  into  the  text  of  St.  Matthew  from  a 
 marginal  gloss,  a  confusion  having  been  made 
 between  Zacharias,  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  Zach- 
 arias, the  son  of  Barachias  (Berechiah),  the 
 prophet.     [Comp.  Zechariah,  6.] 
 
 ZACH'AKY  (Zacharias).  The  prophet  Zech- 
 ariah (2  Esdr.  i.  40). 
 
 ZA'CHER  ("IpT,  in  pause  ~l?|  [niemorM]  : 
 ZaKxovp;  [Vat.  Zaxoup']  Richer).  One  of  the 
 sons  of  Jehiel,  the  father  or  founder  of  Gibeon,  by 
 his  wife  Maachah  (1  Chr.  viii.  31).  In  1  Chr.  ix. 
 37  he  is  called  Zechariah. 
 
 ZA'DOK  ir>'^'\'^  [jus/,  upright]  :  ZaSciK; 
 [Vat.  Alex,  also  :S,aSSovK.  2,aSSaiK,  and  other 
 forms:]  Sadoc  :  "righteous").  1.  Son  of  Ahitub, 
 and  one  of  the  two  chief  priests  in  the  time  of  Da- 
 vid, Abiathar  being  the  other.  [Abiathar.] 
 Zadok  was  of  the  house  of  lileazar,  the  son  of  Aaron 
 (1  Chr.  xxiv.  3),  and  eleventh  in  descent  from 
 Aaron.  The  first  mention  of  him  is  in  1  Chr.  xii. 
 28,  where  we  are  told  that  he  joined  David  at  He- 
 bron after  Saul's  death  with  22  captains  of  his 
 father's  house,  and,  apparently,  with  000  men 
 (4600-3700,  vv.  20,  27 ).  Up  to  this  time,  it  may 
 be  concluded,  he  had  adhered  to  the  house  of  Saul. 
 But  henceforth  his  fidelity  to  David  was  inviolable. 
 When  Absalom  revolted,  and  David  fled  from 
 Jerusalem,  Zadok  and  all  the  Levites  bearing  the 
 Ark  accompanied  him,  and  it  was  only  at-  the 
 king's  express  conniiand  that  they  returned  to  Jeru- 
 salem, and  became  the  medium  of  communication 
 between  the  king  and  Hushai  the  Archite  (2  Sum. 
 XV.,  xvii.).  When  Absalom  was  dead,  Zadok  and 
 Abiathar  were  the  persons  who  persuaded  the  elders 
 of  Judah  to  invite  David  to  return  (2  Sam.  xix. 
 11).  When  Adonijah,  in  David's  old  age,  set  up 
 for  king,  and  had  persuaded  Joab,  and  Abiathar 
 the  priest,  to  join  his  party,  Zadok  was  uimioved, 
 and  was  employed  by  David  to  anoint  Solomon  to 
 be  king  in  his  room  (1  K.  i.).  And  for  this  fidel- 
 ity he  was  rewarded  by  Solomon,  who  "  thrust  out 
 Abiathar  from  being  priest  unto  the  Lord,"  and 
 "put  in  Zadok  the  priest"  in  his  room  (1  K.  ii. 
 27,  35).  From  this  time,  however,  we  hear  little 
 of  him.  It  is  said  in  general  terms  in  the  enumera- 
 tion of  Solomon's  officers  of  state  that  Zadok  was 
 the  priest  (1  K.  iv.  4;  1  Chr.  xxix.  22),  but  no 
 single  act  of  his  is  mentioned.  Even  in  the  detailed 
 account  of  the  building  and  dedication  of  Solomon's 
 Temple,  his  name  does  not  occur,  so  that  though 
 .losephus  says  that  "  Sadoc  the  high-priest  was  the 
 first  high-priest  of  tlie  Temple  which  Solomon 
 built''  (Ant.  X.  8,  §  0),  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
 he  lived  till  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
 and  it  seems  far  more  likely  that  Azariah,  his  son 
 or  grandson,  was  high-priest  at  the  dedication 
 (comp.  1  K.  iv.  2,  and  1  Chr.  vi.  ](),  and  see 
 Azariah  2).  Had  Zadok  been  pn^sent,  it  is 
 scai-cely  possible  that  he  should  not  have  been 
 named  in  so  detailed  an  account  as  that  in  1  K. 
 viii.  [High-priest,  ii.  1071.] 
 
3588  ZADOK 
 
 Several  interesting  questions  arise  in  connection 
 with  Zadok  in  regard  to  the  high-priesthood.  And 
 first,  as  to  the  causes  which  led  to  tlie  descendants 
 of  Ithaniar  occupying  the  high-priesthood  to  the 
 prejudice  of  the  house  of  Eleazar.  There  is,  how- 
 ever, nothing  to  guide  us  to  any  certain  conclusion. 
 We  oidy  know  that  Thiiiehas  the  son  of  Eleazar 
 was  high-priest  after  his  father,  and  that  at  a  sub- 
 sequent period  Eli  of  the  house  of  Ithamar  was 
 high-priest,  and  that  tiie  office  continued  in  his 
 house  till  the  time  of  Zadok,  who  was  first  Abia- 
 thar's  colleague,  and  afterwards  superseded  him. 
 Zadok's  descendants  continued  to  be  hereditary 
 high-priests  till  the  time  of  Antiochus  Eupator, 
 and  perhaps  till  the  extinction  of  the  office.  [IIigh- 
 PEIKST,  ii.  1073.]  But  possibly  some  light  may 
 be  thrown  on  this  question  by  the  next  which 
 arises,  namely,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  double 
 priesthood  of  Zadok  and  Abiathar  (2  Sam.  xv.  29 ; 
 
 1  Chr.  xxiv.  6,  31).  In  later  times  we  usually  find 
 two  priests,  the  high-priest,  and  the  second  priest 
 (2  K.  x.xv.  18)(  and  there  does  not  seem  to  have 
 been  any  great  difference  in  their  dignity.  So  too 
 Luke  iii.  2.  The  expression  "  the  chief  priest  of 
 the  house  of  Zadok  "  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  10),  seems  also 
 to  indicate  that  there  were  two  priests  of  nearly 
 equal  dignity.  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were  of  nearly 
 equal  dignity  (2  Sam.  xv.  35,  36,  xix.  11).  Hophni 
 and  Fhiiiehas  again,  and  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  are 
 coupled  together,  and  seem  to  have  been  holders 
 of  the  office  as  it  were  in  commission.  The  duties 
 of  the  office  too  were  in  the  case  of  Zadok  and 
 Abiathar  divided.  Zadok  ministered  before  the 
 Taliernacle  at  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  xvi.  39),  Abiathar 
 had  the  care  of  the  Ark  at  Jerusalem.  Not,  how- 
 ever, exclusively,  as  appears  from  1  Chr.  xv.  11; 
 
 2  Sam.  XV.  24,  25,  29.  Hence,  perhaps,  it  may  be 
 concluded  that'  from  the  first  there  was  a  tendency 
 to  consider  tiie  office  of  tlie  priesthood  as  somewhat 
 of  the  nature  of  a  corporate  office,  although  some 
 of  its  functions  were  necessarily  confined  to  the 
 chief  member  of  that  corporation ;  and  if  so,  it  is 
 very  easy  to  perceive  how  superior  abilities  on  the 
 one  hand,  and  infancy  or  incapacity  on  the  other, 
 might  operate  to  raise  or  depress  the  members  of 
 this  corporation  respectively.  Just  as  in  the  Saxon 
 royal  fiimilies,  considerable  latitude  was  allowed  as 
 to  the  particular  member  who  succeeded  to  the 
 throne.  When  hereditary  monarchy  was  estab- 
 lished in  Judoea,  then  the  succession  to  the  high- 
 priesthood  may  have  become  more  regular,  .\nother 
 circumstance  which  strengthens  the  conclusion  that 
 the  origin  of  the  double  priesthood  was  anterior  to 
 Zadok,  is  that  in  1  Chr.  ix.  11;  Neh.  xi.  11, 
 Ahitub  the  father  of  Zadok  seems  to  be  described 
 as  "  ruler  of  the  House  of  God,"  an  office  usually 
 held  by  the  chief  priest,  though  sometimes  by  the 
 second  priest.  [High-im:iest,  ii.  1069  a.]  And 
 if  this  is  so,  it  implies  that  the  house  of  Eleazar 
 had  maintained  its  footing  side  by  side  with  the 
 house  of  Ithamar,  although  for  a  time  the  chief 
 dignity  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Eli.  What  was 
 Zadok's  exact  position  when  he  first  joined  David, 
 is  impossible  to  determine.  He  there  appears 
 inferior  to  Jehoiada  "  the  leader  of  the  Aaron- 
 ites." 
 
 2.  [SaS&JK:  Saduc]  According  to  the  gene- 
 alogy of  the  high-priests  in  1  Chr.  vi.  12,  there 
 was  a  second  Zadok,  son  of  a  second  Ahitub,  son 
 of  Amariah;  about  the  time  of  King  Ahaziah. 
 But  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  same  sequence, 
 Amariah,  Ahitub,  Zadok,  should  occur  twice  over; 
 
 ZADOK 
 
 and  no  trace  whatever  remains  in  history  of  thi.« 
 second  Ahitub,  and  second  Zadok.  It  is  probable, 
 therefore,  that  no  such  person  as  this  second  Zadok 
 ever  existed ;  but  that  the  insertion  of  the  two 
 names  is  a  copyist's  error.  Moreover,  these  two 
 names  are  quite  insufficient  to  fill  up  the  gap 
 between  Amariah  in  Jehoshaphat's  reign,  and 
 Shallum  in  Amon's,  an  interval  of  much  above  200 
 years. 
 
 3.  [Vat.  in  2  Chr.  xxvii.  1,  SoSojp.]  Father 
 of  Jerushah,  the  wife  of  King  Uzziah,  and  mother 
 of  King  Jotham  [2  K.  xv.  33;  2  Chr.  xxvii.  1]. 
 He  was  probably  of  a  priestly  family. 
 
 4.  [SaScoK,  XaSovK;  in  Neh.  x.  21,  Vat.  FA. 
 'SaSSouK:  iii.  4,  FA.  'SaSovK,  Alex,  omits.]  Son 
 of  Baana,  who  repaired  a  portion  of  the  wall  in  the 
 time  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  iii.  4).  He  is  probably 
 the  same  as  is  in  the  list  of  those  that  sealed  the 
 covenant  in  Neh.  x.  21,  as  in  both  cases  his  name 
 follows  that  of  Meshezabeel.  But  if  so,  we  know 
 that  he  was  not  a  priest,  as  his  name  would  at  first 
 sight  lead  one  to  suppose,  but  one  of  "  the  chief  of 
 the  people,"  or  laity.  With  this  agrees  his  patro- 
 nymic liaana,  which  indicates  that  he  was  of  the 
 tribe  of  Judah;  for  Baanah,one  of  David's  mighty 
 men,  was  a  Netophathite  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  29),  i.  e. 
 of  Netophah,  a  city  of  Judah.  The  men  of  Tekoah, 
 another  city  of  Judah,  worked  next  to  Zadok. 
 Meshullam  of  the  house  of  JSIeshezabeel,  who  pre- 
 ceded him  in  both  lists  (Neh.  iii.  4,  and  x.  20,  21 ), 
 was  also  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Neh.  xi.  24).  In- 
 termarriages of  the  priestly  house  with  the  tribe 
 of  Judah  were  more  frequent  than  with  any  other 
 tribe.  Hence  probably  the  name  of  Sadoc  (Matt, 
 i.  14). 
 
 5.  [2a5Soi;(c;  FA.  ^ahovx-]  Son  of  Immer, 
 a  priest  who  repaired  a  portion  of  the  wall  over 
 against  his  own  house  (Neh.  iii.  29).  He  belonged 
 to  the  loth  course  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  14),  which  was 
 one  of  those  which  returned  from  Babylon  (Ezr. 
 ii.  37). 
 
 6.  [SaSoJK,  2a55ow;  Alex,  in  Ezr.  2oa5oi/K; 
 FA.  in  Neh.  ^aSovK-  Sadocli,  Sadoc]  In  Neh. 
 xi.  11,  and  1  Chr.  ix.  11,  mention  is  made  in  a 
 genealogy  of  Zadok,  the  son  of  Jleraioth,  the  son 
 of  Ahitub.  But  as  such  a  sequence  occurs  nowhere 
 else,  Meraioth  being  always  the  grandfather  of 
 Ahitub  (or  great-grandfather,  as  in  Ezr.  vii.  2,  3)," 
 it  can  hardly  be  doubtful  that  Meraioth  is  inserted 
 by  the  error  of  a  copyist,  and  that  Zadok  the  sou 
 of  Ahitub  is  meant. 
 
 It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  N.  T.  name  Justus 
 (Acts  i.  23,  xviii.  7;  Col.  iv.  11)  is  the  literal 
 translation  of  Zadok.  Zedekiah,  Jehozadak,  may 
 be  compared. 
 
 The  name  appears  occasionally  in  the  post-bibli- 
 cal history.  The  associate  of  Judah  the  (jlaulonite, 
 the  well-known  leader  of  the  agitation  against  the 
 census  of  Quirinus,  was  a  certain  Pharisee  named 
 Zadok  (.Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  1),  and  the  sect  of 
 the  Sadducees  is  reputed  to  have  derived  both  its 
 
 «  Compare  the  following  pedigrees  :  — 
 
 1  Chr.  vi.  0-14.  76.  52,  53.    Ezr.  vii.  1-3.   Neh.  xi.  11,  and  1 
 Chr.  ix.  11. 
 Meraioth.     Meraioth.     Meraioth.      Ahitub. 
 
 Azariah. 
 Amariah.     Amariah.      Amariah.      Meraioth. 
 Ahitub.        Ahitub.  Ahitub. 
 
 Ziulok.         Zadok.  Zadok.  Zadok. 
 
 Shallum.  Shallum.       Meshullam. 
 
 Hilkiah.  Hilkiah.        Hilkiah. 
 
 Azariah.  Azariah. 
 
 Seraiah.  Seraiah.        Seraiah.         Azaiiah. 
 
ZAHAM 
 
 name  and  origin  from  a  person  of  the  same  name, 
 a  disciple  of  Antigonus  of  Socho.  (See  the  cita- 
 tions of  I^iglitfoot,  llebr.  oivl  Tnlm.  Extrc.  on 
 Matt.  iii.  8.)  The  personality  of  the  last  men- 
 tioned Sadok  has  been  strongly  impugned  in  the 
 article  Sadducees  (p.  2778  f);  but  see,  on  the 
 other  hand,  the  remark  of  jM.  Renan  (  Vie  de  Jesus, 
 p.  216).  A.  C.  H. 
 
 *  7.  CZaSciK;  Vat.  FA.  2a55oyK:  Sadoc.)  A 
 scribe  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  one  of  the  "  treas- 
 urers "  (Neh.  xiii.  13).  A. 
 
 ZA'HAM  (DHT  [loathinfj]:  Zadfj.  ;  [Vat. 
 PooWa/j.;]  Alex.  ZaAafj.'-  Zoom).  Son  of  Reho- 
 boam  by  Abihail,  the  daughter  of  Eliab  (2  Chr.  xi. 
 19 ).  As  Eliab  was  the  eldest  of  David's  brothers, 
 it  is  more  probable  that  Abihail  was  his  grand- 
 daughter. 
 
 ZA'IR  (1'^^^  [smrdl,  few]:  [Rom.  2iccp; 
 Vat.]  Seicop;  Alex,  omits:  Seira).  A  place  named 
 in  2  K.  viii.  21  only,  in  the  account  of  Joram's 
 expedition  against  the  Edoinites.  He  went  over  to 
 Zair  with  all  his  chariots;  there  he  and  his  force 
 appear  to  have  been  surrounded,"  and  only  to  have 
 escaped  by  cutting  their  way  through  in  the  night. 
 The  parallel  account  in  Chronicles  (2  (.'hr.  xxi.  9) 
 agrees  with  this,  except  that  the  words  "  to  Zair  " 
 are  omitted,  and  the  words  "  with  his  princes  " 
 inserted.  This  is  followed  by  Josephus  (Ant.  ix.  5, 
 §  1).  The  omitted  and  inserted  words  have  a  cer- 
 tain similarity  both  in  sound  and  in  their  compo- 
 nent letters,  H'l'^V^  and  I"*ni27-D^  ;  and  on 
 this  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  latter  were 
 substituted  for  the  former,  either  by  the  error  of  a 
 copyist,  or  intentionally,  because  the  name  Zair  was 
 not  elsewhere  known  (see  Keil,  Coiiim.  on  2  K. 
 viii.  21 ).  Oth.ers  again,  as  Movers  (  C/iroui./c,  p.  2 1 8 ) 
 and  Ewald  {Uesch.  iii.  524),  suggest  that  Zair  is 
 
 identical  with  Zoar  ("12?^  or  "1371!?).  Certainly 
 in  the  Middle  Ages  the  roaJ  by  which  an  army 
 passed  from  Judaea  to  tlie  country  formerly  occu- 
 pied by  Edom  lay  through  the  place  which  was  then 
 believed  to  be  Zoar,  below  Ktrafc,  at  the  S.  E. 
 quarter  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Fulclier,  Gesia  Dei,  p. 
 405),  and  so  far  this  is  in  favor  of  the  identification ; 
 but  there  is  no  other  support  to  it  in  the  ISIS,  read- 
 ings either  of  the  original  or  the  Versions. 
 
 The  Zoar  of  Genesis  (as  will  be  seen  under  that 
 head)  was  probably  near  the  N.E.  end  of  the  lake, 
 and  the  chief  interest  that  exists  in  the  identifica- 
 tion of  Zair  and  Zoar,  resides  in  the  fact  that  if 
 it  could  be  established  it  would  show  that  Ijy  the 
 time  2  K.  viii.  21  was  written,  Zoar  had  been  shifted 
 from  its  original  place,  and  had  come  to  be  located 
 where  it  was  in  the  days  of  Joseph,  Jerome,  and 
 the  Crusades.  Possibly  the  previous  existence  there 
 of  a  place  called  Zair,  assisted  the  transfer.* 
 
 A  third  conjecture  grounded  on  the  readings  of 
 the  Vulgate  (Seira)  and  the  Arabic  version  (Sa'ir, 
 
 yA^Liww)  is,  that  Zair  is  an  alteration  for  Seir 
 C^'^VW),  the  country  itself  of  the  Edomites  (The- 
 
 ZALMUNNA 
 
 3589 
 
 a  This  is  not,  however,  the  interpretttion  of  the 
 
 Jewish  commentators,  who  take  the  word  Zl"'Zl©'^ 
 to  refer  to  the  neighboring  parts  of  the  country  of 
 Edom.     See  Rashi  on  2  Chr.  xxi.  9. 
 
 b  *  Under  the  heads  SoDOM  and  Zoiii  (Amer.  ed.), 
 
 nius,  Kurzg.  Ex.  Handb.).  The  objection  to  this 
 is,  that  the  name  of  Seir  appears  not  to  have  beer 
 known  to  the  author  of  the  Book   of  Kings. '^ 
 
 G. 
 
 ZA'LAPH  (^v!iJ  [bruise,  wound]  :  'S.eXiip; 
 [Vat.  26\€;  FA.]  EA6(|):  Selep/i).  Father  of 
 Hanun,  who  assisted  in  rebuilding  the  city  wall 
 (Neh.  iii.  30). 
 
 ZAL'MON  (]'l»^^  [shady]:  'E\Ad>y;  Alex. 
 SeAAui/u;  [Comp.  ^eA/xuii/:]  Selmon).  An  Ahohite, 
 one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  28).  In  1 
 Chr.  xi.  29  he  is  called  Ilai,  which  Kennicott 
 (Diss   p.  187)  decides  to  be  the  true  reading. 
 
 ZAL'MON,  MOUNT.  (Vl?2b^— tn  [shady 
 mount] :  [tjpus  ^fAfxiiv  ;  Vat.  Alex.]  opos  Ep- 
 juLOji-:  mons  Selmon).  A  wooded  eminence  in  the 
 immediate  neighborhood  of  Shechem,  from  which 
 Abimelech  and  his  people  cut  down  the  boughs  with 
 which  he  suftocated  and  burnt  the  Shechemites  who 
 had  taken  refuge  in  the  citadel  (Judg.  ix.  48).  It 
 is  evident  from  the  narrative  that  it  was  close  to 
 the  city.  But  beyond  this  there  does  not  appear  to 
 be  the  smallest  indication  either  in  or  out  of  the 
 Bible  of  its  position.  The  Rabbis  mention  a  place 
 of  the  same  name,  but  evidently  far  from  the  neces- 
 sary position  (Schwarz,  p.  137).  The  name  Su^emi;'- 
 jeh  is  attached  to  the  S.  E.  portion  of  Mount  P^bal 
 (see  the  map  of  Dr.  Rosen,  Zeifsch.  der  D.  M.  G. 
 xiv.  634) ;  but  without  further  evidence,  it  is  hazard- 
 ous even  to  conjecture  that  there  is  any  connection 
 between  this  name  and  Tsalmon. 
 
 The  reading  of  the  LXX.  is  remarkable  both  in 
 itself,  and  in  the  fact  that  the  two  great  MSS.  agree 
 in  a  reading  so  much  removed  from  the  Hebrew; 
 but  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Ilermon  (at  any 
 rate  the  well-known  mountain  of  that  name),  is  re- 
 ferred to  in  the  narrative  of  Abimelech. 
 
 The  possibility  of  a  connection  between  this 
 moimt  and  the  place  of  the  same  name  in  Ps.  Ixviii. 
 14  (.\.  V.  Salmon),  is  discussed  under  the  head  of 
 Salmon,  p.  2791  f. 
 
 The  name  of  Dalmanutha  has  been  supposed  to 
 be  a  corruption  of  that  of  Tsalmon  (Otho,  Lex. 
 i?<iti6.  "  Dalmanutha  " ).  G. 
 
 ZALMO'NAH  (n3bb!i  [shady]: ZeXij.oiva: 
 Sahnona).  The  name  of  a  desert-station  of  the  Is- 
 raelites, which  they  reached  between  leaving  Blount 
 Hor  and  camping  at  Punon,  although  they  nuist 
 have  turned  the  southern  point  of  Edomitish  terri- 
 tory by  the  way  (Num.  xxxiii.  41).  It  lies  on  the 
 east  side  of  Edom;  but  whether  or  not  identical 
 with  Mann,  a  few  miles  E.  of  Petra,  as  Raumer 
 thinks,  is  doubtful.  More  probably  Zalmonah 
 may  be  in  the  Wady  Jthm,  which  runs  into  the 
 Arabah  close  to  where  Elath  anciently  stood. 
 
 H.  H. 
 
 ZALMUN'NA  (3?3pb^  [perh.  shelter  de- 
 nied to  one]:  [Vat.]  SeA^aj/a,  [exc.  once,  2aA-; 
 Rom.]  Alex.  SaA/iavo,  and  so  also  Josephus :  Sal- 
 mnna).  One  of  the  two  "  kings  "  of  Midian  whose 
 capture  and  death  by  the  hands  of  Gideon  him.self 
 
 the  reader  will  find  reasons  for  the  belief  that  the  lat- 
 ter has  not  been  "  shifted  from  its  original  place." 
 
 S.  W. 
 c  The  variations  of  the  MSS.  Of  the  LXX.  (Holmef 
 and  Parsons)  are  very  singular  —  ck  2iioi/,  ««  Xr)uiv,  en 
 Op.     But  they  do  not  point  to  any  difference  i  i  thi 
 Hebrew  te.xt  from  that  now  existing. 
 
3590 
 
 ZAMBIS 
 
 formed  the  last  act  of  his  great  conflict  with  Mid- 
 iaii  (Judg.  viii.  5-21;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11).  No  satis- 
 factory explanation  of  the  name  of  Zalmuinia 
 has  been  given.  That  of  Gesenins  and  Flirst 
 ("shelter  is  denied  him")"  can  hardly  be  enter- 
 tained. 
 
 The  distinction  between  the  "  kings  "  (''S  V^) 
 
 and  the  "  princes  "  C^I^Ci?)  of  the  Midianites  on 
 this  occasion  is  carefuil}'  maintained  throughout  the 
 narrative''  (viii.  5,  1'2,  '20).  "Kings"  of  Midian 
 are  also  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxi.  8.  But  when  the 
 same  transaction  is   referred  to  in  Josh.  xiii. -21, 
 
 they  are  designated  by  the  title  Nesv'.  C'S'^tt?!]), 
 A.  V.  "princes."  Elsewhere  (Num.  xxii.  4,  7)  the 
 term  zekmim  is  used,  answering  in  signification,  if 
 not  in  etymology,  to  the  Arabic  sheikh.  It  is  dif- 
 ficult, perhaps  impossible,  to  tell  how  far  these  dis- 
 tinctions are  accurate,  and  how  far  they  represent 
 the  imperfect  acquaintance  which  the  Hebrews  must 
 liave  had  with  the  orijanization  of  a  people  with 
 whom,  except  during  the  orgies  of  Shittim,  they 
 appear  to  ha\e  been  always  more  or  less  at  strife 
 and  warfare  (1  Chr.  v.  10,  19-22). 
 
 The  vast  horde  which  Gideon  repelled  must  have 
 included  many  tribes  under  the  general  designation 
 of  "  Midianites,  Anialekites,  children  of  the  East;  " 
 and  nothing  would  be  easier  or  more  natural  than 
 for  the  Hebrew  scribes  who  chronicled  the  events  to 
 confuse  one  tribe  with  another  in  so  miiuite  a  point 
 as  the  title  of  a  chief. 
 
 In  the  great  Bedouin  tribes  of  the  present  day, 
 who  occupy  the  place  of  Midian  and  Amalek,  there 
 is  no  distinctive  appellation  answering  to  the  vidi'c 
 and  s(ir  of  the  Hebrew  narrative.  Difierences  in 
 rank  and  power  there  are,  as  between  the  great 
 chief,  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  parent  tribe, 
 and  the  lesser  chiefs  who  lead  the  sub-tribes  into 
 which  it  is  divided,  and  who  are  to  a  great  extent 
 independent  of  him.  But  the  one  word  sheikh  is 
 employed  lor  all.  The  great  chief  is  the  Sheikh 
 el-keb'ii\  the  others  are  mln  el-masheikh,  "  of  the 
 sheikhs,"  ('.  e.  of  sheikh  rank.  The  writer  begs  to 
 express  his  acknowledgments  to  J\Ir.  Layard  and 
 Mr.  Cyril  Graham  for  information  on  this  point. 
 
 G. 
 
 ZAM'BIS  {Zafj.l3pi  [Vat.  -0pei} ;  Alex.  Za/j.- 
 jSpis;  [Aid.  Za^/3i?:]  Zamhris).  The  same  as 
 Am.\EI.\h  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  42). 
 
 ZAM'BRI(Za^/3pi;  [Sin.  Za/x;Spei:]  Zamri). 
 ZiMRi  the  Simeonite  slain  by  Phinehas  (1  Mace, 
 ii.  20). 
 
 ZA'MOTH  iZafxiie;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Za/xod: 
 Zaihoi>ii)=  Zattu  (1  Esdr.  ix.  28;  comp.  Ezr.  x. 
 27). 
 
 ZAMZUM'MIMS  (Q^^jT^l  [see  below]: 
 [Pvom.]  ZoxofJ.fJ.iv  [Vat.  -fxnv] ;  Alex.  [Zoix^ofJ.' 
 u,e(j/:]  Zoiiizommim).  The  Ammonite  name  for 
 the  people,  who  by  others  (though  who  they  were 
 does  not  appear)  were  called  Rephaim  (Ueut.  ii. 
 20  oidy).  They  are  described  as  having  originally 
 been  a  powerful  and  numerous  nation  of  giants,  — 
 "great,  many,  and  tall," — inhabiting  the  district 
 
 ZANOAH 
 
 which  at  the  time  of  the  Hebrew  conquest  was  it 
 the  [wssession  of  the  Ammonites,  by  whom  the 
 Zamzummim  had  a  long  time  previously  lieen  de- 
 stroyed. AMiere  this  district  was,  it  is  not  per- 
 haps possible  ex.actly  to  define;  but  it  probalily  lay 
 in  the  neighborhood  of  Rabbath-Anmion  {Amman)., 
 the  oidy  city  of  the  Ammonites  of  which  the  name 
 or  situation  is  preserved  to  us,  and  therefore  east- 
 ward of  that  rich  undulating  country  from  which 
 Moali  had  been  forced  by  the  .-Vmorites  (the  mod- 
 ern Belk(i),  and  of  the  numerous  towns  of  that 
 country,  whose  ruins  and  names  are  still  encoun- 
 tered. 
 
 From  a  slight  similarity  between  the  two  names, 
 and  from  the  mention  of  the  Eniim  in  connection 
 with  each,  it  is  usually  assumed  that  the  Zamzum- 
 mim are  identical  with  the  Zuzni  (Gesenius,  Thes. 
 p.  410  a;  Ewald,  6Vsc//.  i.  308,  n<ite ;  Knobel  on 
 Gen.  xiv.  5).  Ewald  further  supports  this  by  iden- 
 tifying Ham,  the  capital  city  of  the  Zuzini  (Gen. 
 xiv.  5)  with  Amnion.  But  at  best  the  identifica- 
 tion is  very  conjectural. 
 
 Various  attempts  have  lieen  made  to  explain  the 
 
 nanje:  as  by  comparison  with  the  Arabic  j»'«.X\, 
 
 lonir-necked; 
 
 •'  strontj  and  bii; 
 
 (Simonis,  Onom.  135);  or  as  "obstinate,"  from 
 C5pT  (Luther),  or  as  "noisy,"  from  D^P^  (Gese- 
 nius, Tlies.  p.  419),  or  as  onomatopoetic,<-'  intended 
 to  imitate  the  unintelligible  jaliber  of  foreigners. 
 Micluielis  {SuppL  No.  G2!))  playfully  recalls  the 
 likeness  of  the  name  to  that  of  the  well  Zem-zem 
 at  Mecca,  and  susrgests  thereupon  that  the  tribe 
 may  have  originally  come  from  Southern  Arabia. 
 Notwithstanding  this  banter,  however,  he  ends  his 
 article  with  the  following  discreet  words,  "  Nihil 
 historiffi,  nihil  originis  populi  novimus:  fas  sit  ety- 
 mologiam  iseque  ignorare."  G. 
 
 ZANO'AH  (n'"13T  [perh.  mdvsh,  hoy]  :  Zafxdiv 
 in  both  MSS.;  [Aid.  Zavu>;  Comp.  Zai'oe:]  Z(i 
 noii).  In  the  genealogical  lists  of  the  tril>e  of  Judah 
 in  1  Ch.,  Jekuthiel  is  said  to  have  been  the  father 
 of  Zanoah  (iv.  18);  and,  as  far  as  the  passage  can 
 be  made  out,  some  coimection  appears  to  be  intended 
 with  "  Bithiah,  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh."  Zanoah 
 is  the  name  of  a  town  of  Judah  [Zanoah  2J,  and 
 this  mention  of  Bithiah  probably  points  to  some 
 colonization  of  the  place  l)y  Egyptians  or  by  Israel- 
 ites directly  from  Egypt.  In  Seetzen's  account  of 
 Sanute  (or  more  accurately  Zn'nutah),  which  is 
 possibly  identical  with  Zanoah,  there  is  a  curious 
 token  of  the  influence  which  events  in  Egypt  still 
 exercised  on  the  place  (Jieisen,  iii.  29). 
 
 The  Jewish  interpreters  considered  the  whole  of 
 this  passage  of  1  Chr.  iv.  to  refer  to  Moses,  and  in- 
 terpret each  of  the  names  which  it  contains  as  titles 
 of  him.  "  He  was  chief  of  Zanoach,"  says  the 
 Targum,  "  because   for    his    sake  God  jnit    away 
 
 (riDT)   the   sins  of  Israel."  G. 
 
 ZANO'AH  (n'"12T   [marsh    or   bofj]).      The 
 name  of  two  towns  in  the  territory  of  Judah. 
 1.   (Tavci,  Zavti;  Alex.  Zavca;   [in  Neh.  xi.  30, 
 
 a  The  unintelligibility  of  the  names  is  in  favor  of 
 their  being  correctly  retained  rattier  than  the  reverse. 
 And  It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  they  are  not, 
 like  Oreb  and  Zeeb,  attached  ,ilso  to  localities,  which  al- 
 ways throws  a  doubt  on  the  name  when  attributed  to 
 d  person  as  well. 
 
 b  Josephus  inverts  the  distinction.  lie  styles  Oreb 
 and  Zeeb  /Sao-iAei?,  and  ZebaU  and  Zalmunna  rjyefiovei 
 {Ant.  V.  7,  §  5). 
 
 c  In  this  sense  the  name  was  applied  by  controver- 
 sialists of  the  17th  century  as  a  nickname  fjr  fanatics 
 who  pretended  to  speak  with  tongues. 
 
ZAPHN  ATH-P  A  ANEAH 
 
 Rom.  Vat.  FA.'  Alex,  omit,  V\.^  Zafwe'-]  Zanoe, 
 l_Zanofi.])  In  the  Slitftlak  (.Josh.  xv.  3i),  named 
 in  tlie  same  ^roup  with  Zoreah  and  Jarmuth.  It 
 is  possibly  identical  with  ZdmCa<^  a  site  which  was 
 pointed  out  to  Dr.  Robinson  from  Btil  Nalt'if 
 {Hihl.  Jii'g.  ii.  IG),  and  which  in  the  maps  of  V^an 
 de  Velde  and  of  Tobler  (3//e  Waiu/enm;/)  is  located 
 on  the  N.  side  of  the  IVitdy  /sinail,  2  miles  E.  of  Zn- 
 I'eidi,  and  4  miles  N.  of  I'armuk.  This  position  is 
 sufficiently  in  accordance  with  the  statement  of  .le- 
 rome  {Oiioinast.  "  Zannohua"),  that  it  was  in  the 
 district  of  Eleutheropolis,  on  the  road  to  .Jerusalem, 
 and  called  Zanua. 
 
 The  name  recurs  in  its  old  coiniection  in  the  lists 
 of  Neheniiah,  both  of  the  towns  which  were  re- 
 inliabited  by  the  people  of  Judah  after  the  Captiv- 
 ity (xi.  30  ''),  and  of  those  which  assisted  in  repairing 
 the  wall  of  .Jerusalem  (iii.  13).  It  is  an  entirely 
 distinct  place  from 
 
 2.  (ZaKavaifj.  [Vat.  -€iu]  ;  .\lex.  ZavoiaK^ijx' '^ 
 Znnoel.)  A  town  in  tlie  highland  district,  the 
 mountain  proper  (.Tosh.  xv.  56).  It  is  named  in 
 the  same  group  with  Maon,  Carmel,  Ziph,  and  other 
 places  known  to  lie  south  of  Hebron.  It  is  (as  Van 
 de  Velde  suggests,  Memoir,  p.  354)  not  improlialjly 
 identical  with  Sandte,  which  is  mentioned  by  Seet- 
 zen  {Reiseii,  iii.  29)  as  below  Senida,  and  appears 
 to  be  about  10  miles  S.  of  Hebron.  At  the  time 
 of  his  visit  it  was  the  last  inhabited  place  to  the 
 south.     Robinson   {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  204,  9iole.)   gives 
 
 the  name  differently,   K20  ^X,£.\.,  Za'nutah;  and 
 
 it  will  be  observed  that,  like  Zanu'ah  just  men- 
 tioned, it  contains  the  'Ain,  which  the  Hebrew 
 name  does  not.  and  which  rather  shakes  the  identi- 
 fication. 
 
 According  to  the  statement  of  the  genealogical 
 lists  of  1  C"hr.,  Zanoah  vvas  founded  or  colonized  by 
 a  person  named  .Tekuthiel  (iv.  18).  Here  it  is  also 
 mentioned  with  Socho  and  Eshtemoa,  lioth  of  which 
 places  are  recognizable  in  the  neighborhood  of 
 Zd'nutah.  (J. 
 
 ZAPH'NATH-PAANE'AH  (HDD^ 
 
 HDl^Q  [see  below] :  ^ovdo/xtpavrjx  '■  Salviitor 
 mundi),  a  name  given  by  Pharaoh  to  .loseph  ((ien. 
 xli.  45).  Various  forms  of  this  name,  all  traceable 
 to  the  Heb.  or  LXX.  original,  occur  in  the  works  of 
 the  early  Jewish  and  Christian  writers,  chiefly  -Jo- 
 sephus,  from  different  MS.S.  and  editions  of  whose 
 Ant.  (ii.  G,  §  1)  no  less  than  eleven  forms  have  been 
 collected,  following  both  originals,  some  variations 
 being  very  corrupt;  but  from  the  translation  given 
 by  Josephns  it  is  probable  that  he  transcribed 
 the  Hebrew.  Philo  (De  Nondnum  Mut.  p.  819, 
 c,  ed.  Col.  613)  and  Theodoret  (i.  p.  106,  ed. 
 Schulz)  follow  the  LXX.,  and  Jerome,  the  Hebrew. 
 The  Coptic  version  nearly  transcribes  the  LXX., 
 
 In  the  Hebrew  text  the  name  is  divided  into  two 
 parts.  I'-very  such  division  of  Egyptian  words  be- 
 ing in  accordance  with  the  Egyptian  orthography, 
 as  No-Ammon,  I'i-beseth,  Poti-pherah,  we  cannot, 
 if  the  name  be  Egyptian,  reasonably  propose  any 
 change  in  this  case;  if  the  name  be  Hebrew,  the 
 same  is  certain.  There  is  no  prima  facie  reason 
 for  any  change  in  the  consonants. 
 
 a  This  name,  howevtr  (c  •JVOi  f'^liibits  the  'ain, 
 which  is  not  present  in  ;he  Hebrew  name. 
 
 ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH     359] 
 
 The  LXX.  form  seems  to  indicate  the  same  divis- 
 ion, as  the  latter  part,  (pavijXi  is  identical  with 
 the  second  part  of  the  Hebrew,  while  what  pre- 
 cedes is  different.  There  is  again  no  prima  facie 
 reason  for  any  change  from  tlie  ordinary  reading 
 of  the  name.  The  cause  of  the  difference  from 
 tlie  Hebrew  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  name  must 
 be  discussed  when  we  come  to  examine  its  mean- 
 ing. 
 
 This  name  has  been  explained  as  Hebrew  or 
 Egyptian,  and  always  as  a  proper  name  It  has 
 not  been  supposed  to  be  an  official  title,  but  this 
 possibility  has  to  be  considered. 
 
 1.  The  Rabbins  interpreted  Zaphnath-paaneah 
 as  Hebrew,  in  the  sense  "revealer  of  a  secret." 
 This  explanation  is  as  old  as  Josephus  {Kpvirrwv 
 eopeT7]v,  Ant.  ii.  0,  §  1) ;  and  Theodoret  also  follows 
 it  (rciv  airoppyiTOiiu  ep/xTjf  euTTj^i  '•  P-  JOO,  Schulz). 
 Philo  offers  an  explanation,  which,  though  seem- 
 ingly different,  may  1)6  the  same  (iv  anoKpicrei 
 (Tr6jj.a  KpivoV,  but  Mangey  conjectures  the  true 
 reading  to  be  iv  airoKpiiypei  cTTOfxa  a-woKpLVOfxevoVi 
 L  c).  It  nuLst  be  rememljered  that  .losephus  i)er- 
 haps,  and  Theodoret  and  Philo  certainly',  follow  the 
 LXX.  form  of  the  name. 
 
 2.  Isidore,  though  mentioning  the  Hebrew  inter- 
 pretation, remarks  that  the  name  should  be  I'^gyp- 
 tian,  and  offers  an  Egyptian  etymology:  "Joseph 
 .  .  .  .  hunc  Pharao  Zaphanath  Phaaneca  appel- 
 lavit,  quod  Hebraice  absconditorum  repertoretn 
 sonat  ....  tamen  quia  hoc  nomeii  ab  iEgy[)tio 
 ponitur,  ipsius  linguaj  debet  habere  rationem. 
 Interpretatur  ergo  Zaphanath  Phaaneca  jEgyptio 
 sermone  salvator  mundi "  ( Orig.  vii.  c.  7,  t.  iii. 
 p.  327,  Arev. ).  Jerome  adopts  the  same  render- 
 ing. 
 
 3.  IModern  scholars  have  looked  to  Coptic  for 
 an  explanation  of  this  name,  Jablonski  and  others 
 proposing  as  tlie  Coptic  of  the  Egyptian  original 
 
 nccuT  JUL  c^ejte^,  or  nccw^t"?  etc.. 
 
 "  the  preservation  "  or  "  preserver  of  the  age." 
 This  is  evidently  the  etymology  intended  by  Isidore 
 and  Jerome. 
 
 We  dismiss  the  Hebrew  interpretation,  as  un- 
 sound in  itself,  and  demanding  the  improl)able 
 concession  that  Pharaoh  gave  Joseph  a  Hebrew 
 name. 
 
 It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  result 
 without  first  inquiring  when  this  name  was  given, 
 and  what  are  the  characteristics  of  I'^gyptian  titles 
 and  names.  These  points  having  been  discussed, 
 we  can  show  what  ancient  Egyptian  sounds  corre- 
 spond to  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.  forms  of  this  name, 
 and  a  comparison  with  ancient  Egyptian  will  then 
 be  possible. 
 
 After  the  account  of  .Joseph's  appointment  to  be 
 governor,  of  his  receiving  the  insignia  of  authority, 
 and  Pharaoh's  telling  him  that  he  held  the  second 
 place  in  the  kingdom,  follow  these  words:  "And 
 Pliaraoh  called  Joseph's  name  Zaphnath-paaneah; 
 and  he  gave  him  to  wife  .\seiiath  the  daughter  cf 
 Poti-pherah  priest  of  On."  It  is  next  stated,  "  And 
 ■loseph  went  out  over  [all]  tlie  land  of  Egypt" 
 (Gen.  xli.  45).  As  Joseph's  two  sons  were  born 
 "before  the  years  of  famine  came"  (ver.  50),  it 
 seems  evident  that  the  order  is  here  strictly  chro- 
 nological, at  least  that  the  events  spoken  of  are  of 
 
 6  Here  the  name  is  contracted  to  MST. 
 
 -       T 
 
 0  These   curious  words   are  produced    by  joining 
 2^noah  to  the  name  following  it,  Cain,  or  hac-Caiii. 
 
3592     ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 
 
 the  time  before  the  famine.  It  is  scarcely  to  be 
 supposed  tliat  Pharaoli  would  have  named  Joseph 
 "the  preserver  of  the  ai^e,"  or  the  like,  when  the 
 calamity,  from  the  worst  effects  of  wliich  his  ad- 
 ministration preserved  Kgypt,  had  not  come.  The 
 name,  at  first  sight,  seems  to  be  a  proper  name, 
 but,  as  occurring  after  the  account  of  Joseph's  ap- 
 pointment and  honors,  may  be  a  title. 
 
 Ancient  Egyptian  titles  of  dignity  are  generally 
 comiected  with  the  king  or  the  gods,  as  SUTEN- 
 SA,  king's  son,  applied  not  only  to  royal  princes, 
 but  to  tlie  governors  of  KEESH,  or  Gush.  Titles 
 of  place  are  generally  simply  descriptive,  as  MEli- 
 KETU,  "superintendent  of  buildings  "  ("  puljlic 
 works  "  ?).  Some  few  are  tropical.  Ancient  Egyp- 
 tian names  are  either  simple  or  compound.  Sim- 
 ple names  are  descriptive  of  occupation,  as  MA, 
 "  the  shepherd,"  an  early  king's  name,  or  are  the 
 names  of  natural  olijects,  as  PE-JMAY(?),  ''the 
 cat,"  etc.;  more  rarely  they  indicate  qualities  of 
 character,  as  S-NUFRE,  "  doer  of  good."  Com- 
 pound names  usually  express  devotion  to  the  gods, 
 as  PET-A MEN-APT,  "Belonging  to  Amen  of 
 Thebes;  "  some  are  composed  with  the  name  of  the 
 reigning  king,  as  Sn.\FKA-SHA,  •'  Shafra  rules;  " 
 SESKllTESEN-ANKH,  "  Sesertesen  lives."  Oth- 
 ers occur  which  are  more  difficult  of  explanation,  as 
 AJIEN-EM-HA,  "  Amen  in  the  front,"  a  war- 
 cry  '?  Double  names,  not  merely  of  kings,  but  of 
 private  persons,  are  found,  but  are  very  rare,  as 
 SNUEKK.  ANKHEE,  "  Doer  of  good,  livhig  one." 
 These  double  names  are  usually  of  the  period  before 
 the  XVlIItli  dynasty. 
 
 Before  comparing  Zaphnath-paaneah  and  Pson- 
 thomphanech  with  Egyptian  names  we  must  ascer- 
 tain the  probable  Egyptian  equivalents  of  the  letters 
 of  these  tbrms.  The  Egyptian  words  occurring  in 
 Hebrew  are  few,  and  the  forms  of  some  of  them 
 evidently  Shemiticized,  or  at  least  changed  by  their 
 use  by  foreigners:  a  complete  and  systematic  alpha- 
 bet of  Hebrew  equivalents  of  Egyptian  letters  there- 
 fore camiot  be  drawn  up.  There  are,  on  the  other 
 hand,  numerous  Shemitic  words,  either  Hebrew  or 
 of  a  dialect  very  near  it,  the  geographical  names  of 
 places  and  tribes  of  Palestine,  given,  according  to  a 
 system,  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  and  papyri, 
 from  which  we  can  draw  up,  as  M.  de  Kouge  has 
 done  {Revue  Archeologique,  N.  S.  iii.  351-354),  a 
 complete  alphabet,  certain  in  nearly  all  its  details, 
 and  approximatively  true  in  the  few  that  are  not 
 determined,  of  the  Egyptian  equivalents  of  the  He- 
 brew alphabet.  The  two  comparative  aljjlialiets  do 
 not  greatly  differ,  but  we  cannot  be  sure  that  in  the 
 endeavor  to  ascertain  what  Egyptian  sounds  are 
 intended  by  Hebrew  letters,  or  their  Greek  equiv- 
 alents, we  are  quite  accurate  in  employing  the 
 latter.     For  instance,  diflijrent  Egyptian  signs  are 
 
 used  to  represent  the  Hebrew  "1  and  V,  but  it  is 
 by  no  means  certain  that  these  signs  in  Egjptian 
 represented  any  sound  but  K,  except  in  the  vulgar 
 dialect. 
 
 It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  Egyptians  had 
 
 a  hard  "  t,"  the  parent  of  the  Coptic  25.  and  0  , 
 which  we  represent  by  an  Italic  T ;  that  they  had 
 an  "  a  "  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  V,  which 
 we  represent  by  an  Italic  A  ;  and  that  the  Hebrew 
 D  may  be  represented  by  the  Egyptian  P,  also 
 pronounced  P'h,  and  by  the  F.  The  probable 
 originals  of  the  Egyptian  name  of  Joseph  may  be 
 thus  stated :  — 
 
 ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 
 
 T*     D     3     n        Q     2?     3     n 
 r    P     N     T  P     .4     N    KH 
 
 F 
 
 "V  o  V    0  o  (ji  (pa      y  V    X 
 
 PS   N   T     M  P  N     KH 
 
 F 
 
 The  second  part  of  the  !iame  in  the  Hebrew  is 
 the  same  as  in  the  LXX.,  although  in  the  latter  it 
 is  not  separate:  we  therefore  examine  it  first.  It 
 is  identical  with  the  ancient  Egyptian  proper  name 
 P-ANKHEE,  "the  living,"  borne  by  a  king  who 
 was  an  Ethiopian  ruling  after  Tirhakah,  and  prob- 
 ably contemporary  with  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign 
 of  Psammetichus  I.  The  only  doubtful  point  in 
 the  identification  is  that  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
 "a"  in  P-ANKHEE  is  that  which  represents  the 
 
 Hebrew  37.  It  is  a  symbolic  sign  of  the  kind 
 wliich  serves  as  an  initial,  and  at  the  same  time 
 determines  the  signification  of  the  word  it  partly 
 expresses  and  sometimes  singly  represents,  and  it 
 is  only  used  in  the  single  sense  "life,"  "  to  live." 
 It  may,  however,  be  conjectured  from  its  Coptic 
 equivalents  to  have   begun  with  either  a  long  or  a 
 
 guttural  "a"     (  <^J1^^     B,  S,     ^Jt^     B, 
 
 ojiig,  ong  s,  oji^,  cMJi^  M, 
 ojjtij,^  B,  tujin^  s). 
 
 The  second  part  of  the  name,  thus  explained, 
 affords  no  clew  to  the  meaning  of  the  first  part, 
 being  a  separate  name,  as  in  the  case  of  a  double 
 name  already  cited  SNUFRE  ANKHEE.  The 
 LXX.  form  of  the  first  part  is  at  once  recognized 
 in  the  ancient  Egyptian  words  P-SENT-N,  "  the 
 
 defender  "  or  "  preserver  of  "  the  Coptic  H  CtU'J 
 
 iX:  "the  preserver  of."  It  is  to  be  remarked 
 that  the  ancient  Egyptian  form  of  the  principal 
 word  is  that  found  in  the  LXX.,  but  that  the 
 preposition  N  in  hieroglyphics,  however  pronounced, 
 
 is  always  written  N,  whereas  in  Coptic  Jt  becomes 
 
 -W.  before  n.  The  word  SENT  does  not  appear 
 to  be  used  except  as  a  divine,  and,  under  the  Ptol- 
 emies, regal  title,  in  the  latter  case  for  Soter.  The 
 Hebrew  form  seems  to  represent  a  compound  name 
 commencing  with  TETEF,  or  Z'EF,  "he  says,"  a 
 not  infrequent  element  in   compound   names  (the 
 
 root  being  found  in  the  Coptic  25.0^    25^0T  '.   S 
 
 25.00,  2S.0T),  or  rEF,  "incense,  delight"? 
 the  name  of  the  sacred  incense,  also  known  to  us 
 in  the  Greek  form  Kvcpi  (Plutarch,  de  Jsid.  et  Osii: 
 c.  80,  p.  383;  Diosc  .1/.  m.  I.  24,  Spr.).  But,  if 
 the  name  commence  with  either  of  these  words,  the 
 rest  seems  inexplicable.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
 last  two  consonants  are  the  same  as  in  Asenath, 
 the  name  of  Joseph's  wife.  It  has  been  supposed 
 that  in  both  cases  this  element  is  the  name  of  the 
 goddess  Neith,  Asenath  having  been  conjectured  to 
 be  AS-NEET;  and  Zaphnath,  by  Mr.  Osburn,  we 
 believe,  TEF-NEET,  "the  delight(?)of  Neith." 
 Neith,  the  goddess  of  Sais,  is  not  likely  to  have  been 
 reverenced  at  Heliopolis,  the  city  of  Asenath.  It 
 is  also  improbable  that  Pharaoh  would  have  given 
 Joseph  a  name  connected  with  idolatry;  for  Joseph's 
 position,  unlike  Daniel's,  when  he  was  first  called 
 Belteshazzar,  would  have  enabled  him  efl^ctually  to 
 protest  against  receiving  such  a  name.  The  lattei 
 part  of  the  name  might  suggest  the  possibility  of 
 
ZAPHON 
 
 the  letters  "  aneah  "'  corresponding  to  ANKH,  and 
 the  whole  preceding  portion,  Zaphnath  and  the 
 initial  of  this  part,  forming  the  name  of  Joseph's 
 Pharaoh;  tlie  form  being  that  of  SKSERTESICN- 
 ANKH,  "  Sesertesen  lives,"  already  mentioned; 
 but  the  occurrence  of  the  letter  P  shows  that  the 
 form  is  P-ANKHEE,  and  were  this  not  sufficient 
 proof,  no  name  of  a  Pharaoli,  or  other  proper  name 
 is  known  that  can  be  compared  with  the  su|)posed 
 first  portion.  We  have  little  doubt  that  the  mon- 
 uments will  unexpectedly  sujjply  us  with  the  infor- 
 mation we  need,  giving  us  the  original  I'^gyptian 
 name,  though  probably  not  applied  to  Josepli,  of 
 whose  period  there  are,  we  believe,  but  few  Egyp- 
 tian records.  1!.  S.  P. 
 
 ZA'PHON  O'lO^  [nortlnvard]  :  2a<p<ip  ; 
 Alex.  2acptAiv'-  Saphon).  The  name  of  a  place 
 mentioned  in  the  enumeration  of  the  allotment  of 
 the  tribe  of  Gad  (Josh.  xiii.  27).  It  is  one  of  the 
 places  in  "  the  valley  "  which  appear  to  have  con- 
 stituted the  "  remainder  "  (10.1)  of  the  kingdom 
 of  Sihon  "  —  apparently  referring  to  the  portion  of 
 the  same  kingdom  previously  allotted  to  Keuben 
 (vv.  17-21).  The  enumeration  appears  to  proceed 
 from  south  to  north,  and  from  the  mention  of  the 
 Sea  of  Chinneroth  it  is  natural  to  infer  thatZaphon 
 was  near  that  lake.  No  name  resembling  it  has 
 yet  been  encountered. 
 
 In  Judg.  xii.  1,  the  word  rendered  "  northward  '' 
 {(saphondli)  may  with  equal  accuracy  be  rendered 
 "  to  Zaphon."  This  rendering  is  supported  by  the 
 Alex.  LXX.  {Kipeiva)  and  a  host  of  other  MSS., 
 and  it  has  consistency  on  its  side.  G. 
 
 *  Of  the  later  critics,  Ewald,  Bunsen,  Keil,  and 
 Cassel  malie  Zaphon  a  proper  name.  It  is  evident 
 from  vv.  1  and  5  that  the  12phraimites  crossed  the 
 Jordan,  and  tlie  main  direction  of  the  march  would 
 be  from  west  to  east.  If  they  went  northward  it 
 would  be  for  strategic  reasons  which  are  not  appar- 
 ent. The  known  existence  of  a  place  of  this  name 
 (Josh.  xiii.  27)  fully  justifies  this  conclusion  (see 
 especially  Cassel,  Richter  u.  Ruth,  in  loc).  Ber- 
 tlieau  {Richiev,  p.  166),  De  Wette  {Uebersetz- 
 un<j)  and  Perret-Gentil  {ve.rdon),  preier  "north- 
 ward." H. 
 
 ZA'RA  {Zapa-  Zara).  Zauah  [or  Zkuah] 
 the  son  of  Judah  (Matt.  i.  3). 
 
 ZAR'ACES  (Zapa/CTjs;  [Vat.  Zapaws-I  Zar- 
 aceles).  Brother  of  Joacim,  or  Jehoiakim,  king 
 of  Judah  (1  Esdr.  i.  38).  His  name  is  apparently 
 a  corruption  of  Zedekiah. 
 
 ZA'RAH  (n^l  [rismg  of  light]  :  Zapd: 
 Zuru).  Properly  Zekah,  the  son  of  Judah  by 
 Tamar  (Gen.  xxxviii.  30,  xlvi.  12). 
 
 ZARA'IAS  [3  syl.]  [Kom.]  (Vat.  omit;  Alex. 
 Zapaias-  Vulg.  omits).  1.  Zkrahiaii,  one  of  the 
 ancestors  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  2);  called  Akna  in 
 2  Esdr.  i.  2. 
 
 2.  [Zapaias'  Zimeus.)  Zerahiaii,  the  father 
 of  Elilioynai  (1  Esdr.  viii.  31). 
 
 3.  (Zapaias;  [Alex,  omits:]  Zirias.)  Zkba- 
 DiAii,  tlie  son  of  Michael  (1  Esdr.  viii.  34). 
 
 ZA'REAH  (n^"?^   [perh.  place  of  hornets]  : 
 
 ZARETAN 
 
 3593 
 
 a  In  1  K.  xvii.  9,  the  Alex.  MS.  has  Ze(l>9a,  but  in 
 the  other  two  passages  agrees  with  the  Vat. 
 
 b  The  name  is  given  as  Sarpkanil  by  Ibn  Edris  ; 
 Sar///ien  by  Maundeville ;  and  Sarplian  by  Mauu- 
 irell. 
 
 Vat.  [Rom.  Alex.  FA.i]  omit;  Alex,  [rather 
 FA.3]  -2,apaa-  Suraa).  The  form  in  which  our 
 translators  have  once  (Neh.  xi.  29)  repre.sented  the 
 name,  whicli  they  elsewhere  present  (less  accu- 
 rately) as  ZortAii  and  Zokeah.  G. 
 
 ZA'REATHITES,       THE       (\"l"y"l^rT 
 
 •  T  ;  T  - 
 [patr.]  :  ol  2apadaTof-  Siraitce).  The  inhab- 
 itants of  Zareah  or  ZoKAH.  The  word  occurs 
 in  this  form  only  in  1  Chr.  ii.  53.  Elsewhere  the 
 same  Hebrew  word  appears  in  the  A.  V.  as   the 
 
 ZOKATHITES.  G. 
 
 ZA'RED,  THE  VALLEY  OF  {1^\  bn2 
 \;valley  of  thick  foihtye]:  [Kom.]  tpapayl  Zap4S; 
 [Vat.  (p-ZapeT;]  Alex.  (f).  Zaps'-  torrens  Zared). 
 The  name  is  accurately  Zereu;  the  change  in  the 
 first  syllable  being  due  to  its  occurring  at  a  pause. 
 It  is  found  in  the  A.  V.  in  this  form  only  in  Num. 
 xxi.  12 ;  though  in  the  Ilebr.  it  occurs  also  Dent, 
 ii.  13.  G. 
 
 ZAR'EPHATH  (nD"1^,  z.  e.  Tsarfah  [sme^^ 
 in;/  house,  Ges.] :  ZapewTd;"  in  Obad.  plural: 
 Siirephiha,  \_Sarepia].).  A  town  which  derives 
 its  claim  to  notice  from  having  been  the  resi- 
 dence of  the  prophet  Elijah  during  the  latter  part 
 of  the  drought  (1  K.  xvii.  9,  10).  Beyond  stat- 
 ing  that  it  was   near  to,  or  dependent  on,  Zidon 
 
 (l^T'^^',  the  Bilde  gives  no  clew  to  its  position. 
 It  is  mentioned  by  Obadiah  (ver.  20),  but  merely 
 as  a  Canaanite  (that  is  Phoenician)  city.  Josephus 
 [Ant.  viii.  V'>,  §  2),  however,  states  that  it  was 
 "  not  far  from  Sitlon  and  Tyre,  for  it  lies  be- 
 tween them."  And  to  this  -Jerome  atlds  {Oiioin. 
 "  Sarefta  ")  that  it  "  lay  on  the  public  road,"  that 
 is  the  coast-road.  Both  these  conditions  are  im- 
 plied in  the  mention  of  it  in  the  Itinerary  of  Paula 
 by  Jerome  {Epil.  Paidm,  §  8),  and  both  are  ful- 
 filled m  the  situation  of  the  modern  village  of  Sara- 
 
 fend  t>  [ly^Xi y^a  ,  a   nanje  which,   except  in  its 
 
 termination,  is  almost  identical  with  the  ancient 
 Phoenician.  SiiruJ'eml  has  been  visited  and  de- 
 scribed by  Dr.  Robinson  (B.  R.  ii.  475)  and  Dr. 
 Thomson  (Land  and  Book,  eh.  xii.).  It  appears 
 to  have  changed  its  place,  at  least  since  the  11th 
 century,  for  it  is  now  more  than  a  mile  from  the 
 coast,  high  upon  the  slope  of  a  hill  (Rob.  p.  474), 
 wliereas,  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  it  was  on  the 
 shore.  Of  the  old  town,  considerable  indications 
 remain.  One  group  of  foundations  is  on  a  head- 
 land called  Ain  el-Kentarah  :  but  the  chief  remains 
 are  south  of  this,  and  extend  for  a  mile  or  more, 
 with  many  fragments  of  columns,  slabs,  and  other 
 architectural  features.  The  Roman  road  is  said  to 
 be  unusually  perfect  there  (Beamont,  Diary,  etc., 
 ii.  186).  The  site  of  the  chapel  erected  by  the 
 Crusaders  on  the  spot  then  reputed  to  be  the  site 
 of  the  widow's  house,  is  probably  still  preserved."^ 
 (See  the  citations  of  Robinson.)  It  is  near  the 
 water's  edge,  and  is  now  marketl  liy  a  wely  and 
 small  khan  dedicated  to  tl-Khudr,  the  well-known 
 jjersonage  who  imites,  in  the  popular  Moslem  faith, 
 Elijah  and  St.  George. 
 
 In  the  N.  T.  Zarephath  appears  under  tlie  Greek 
 fonn  of  Sauepta.  G. 
 
 ZAR'ETAN  (in~!'^%  «"•   «•   Tsarthan    \cooU 
 
 <^  A  grotto  (as  usual)  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on  which 
 the  modern  village  stands  is  now  shown  as  the  resi- 
 dence of  Elijah  (Van  de  Velde,  S.  ^  P.  i.  102). 
 
3594  ZARETH-SHAHAR 
 
 ing] :  LXX.  omits  in  both  MSS. :  Sarthan).  An 
 inaccurate  representation  of  the  name  elsewhere 
 more  correctly  given  as  Zaktiian.  It  occurs  only 
 in  Josh.  iii.  10,  in  defining  the  position  of  Adam, 
 the  city  by  which  the  upper  waters  of  the  Jordan 
 remained  during  the  passage  of  the  Israelites: 
 *'  The  waters  rushing  down  from  above  stood  and 
 rose  up  upon  one  heap  very  far  off —  by  Adam,  the 
 city  that  is  by  the  side  of  Zarthan."  No  trace  of 
 these  names  has  been  found,  nor  is  anything  known 
 of  the  situation  of  Zartban. 
 
 It  is  remarkable  that  the  LXX.  should  exhibit 
 no  «  trace  of  the  name.  G. 
 
 ZA'RETH-SHA'HAR  (inti'rT  H"!^, 
 i.  e.  Zereth  has-shachar  \brir/litiu-ss  of  dtiirn] : 
 2epa5a  Kal  2iwf  [^'at.  'Zeiaiv];  Alex.  2ap9  kul 
 'Siiciip-  IScrctli  Assahar).  A  place  mentioned  only 
 in  Josh.  xiii.  liJ,  in  the  catalogue  of  the  towns  al- 
 lotted to  Keuben.  It  is  named  between  SmsiAii 
 and  Beth-pkok,  and  is  particularly  specified  as 
 "in  Mount  ha-Emek  "  (A.  V.  "in  the  Mount  of 
 the  Valley  ").  From  this,  however,  no  clew  can  be 
 gained  to  its  position.  Seetzen  {Heisen,  ii.  300) 
 proposes,  though  with  hesitation  (see  his  note),  to 
 identify  it  with  a  spot  called  Sard  at  the  mouth  of 
 the  WaJy  Ztr/ci  Main,  about  a  mile  from  the 
 edge  of  the  Dead  Sea.  A  place  Shakur  is  marked 
 on  Van  de  Velde's  map,  about  six  miles  south  of 
 es-Sall,  at  the  bead  of  the  valley  of  the  Wadij 
 Seir.  But  nothing  can  be  said  of  either  of  these 
 in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge.  G. 
 
 ZAR'HITES,  THE  (""ni.-Tn  [patr.]  :  6 
 Sopai;  [Vat.]  Alex,  o  Zapaei,  [exc.  Vat.  Zapia  in 
 1  Ohr.  xxvii.  11,  Alex.]  Zaptet  in  Josh. :  Zardlte, 
 Zare,  stirps  Zaralii  and  Zurdi).  A  branch  of  the 
 tribe  of  J  udah :  descended  from  Zerah  the  son  of 
 Judah  (Num.  xxvi.  13,  20;  Josh.  vii.  17;  1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  11,  13).  Achan  was  of  this  family,  and  it 
 was  represented  in  David's  time  by  two  distin- 
 guished warriors,  Sibbechai  the  Hushathite  and 
 Maharai  the  Netophathite. 
 
 ZART'ANAH  (nDH"!*^  [coolimj-]  :  :S.eaa- 
 QaV,  Alex.  'EffKiavQaV,  [Comp.  Aid.  Sapflai/:] 
 S(irtliauit).  A  place  named  in  1  K.  iv.  12,  to  de- 
 fine the  position  of  Bktjj-.sue.vn.  It  is  possibly 
 identical  with  Zautiian,  but  nothing  positive  can 
 be  said  on  the  point,  and  the  name  has  not  been 
 discovered  in  post-biblical  times.  (J. 
 
 ZAR'THAN  dpIV*  [<^oolm>/]:-Ziipd;  Alex. 
 'S.iapajx-   Snrthnn). 
 
 1.  A  place  in  the  ciccar  or  circle  of  Jordan, 
 mentioned  in  connection  with  Succoth  (1  K.  vii. 
 46). 
 
 2.  It  is  also  named,  in  the  account  of  the  pas- 
 sage of  the  Jordan  by  the  Israelites  (Josh.  iii.  10), 
 as  defining  the  position  of  the  city  Adam,  which 
 
 was  beside  ("T-^p)  it.  The  difference  which  the 
 translators  of  the  A.  V.  have  introduced  into  the 
 name  in  this  passage  (Zaketan)  has  no  existence 
 in  the  original. 
 
 3.  A  place  with  the  similar  name  of  Z.\ktan.\ii 
 (which  in  the  Hebrew  differs  from  the  two  forms 
 already  named  only  in  its  termination)  is  men- 
 tioned in  the  list  of  Solomon's  commissariat  dis- 
 tricts.    It  is  there  specified  as  "  close  to  "   (7l?S) 
 
 a  This  is  not  only  the  case  in  the  two  principal 
 MSS.  ;  th?  edition  of  Holmes  and  Parsons  shows  it  in 
 ine  only,  ».nd  that  a  cursive  MS.  of  the  13th  cent 
 
 ZEBADIAH 
 
 Beth-shear.,  that  is,  in  the  upper  part  of  the  Jor- 
 dan Valley. 
 
 4.  Further,  in  Chronicles,  Zeredathah  is  sub- 
 stituted for  Zarthan,  and  this  again  is  not  impos- 
 silily  identical  with  the  Zererah,  Zererath,  or  Zere- 
 rathah,  of  the  story  of  Gideon.  All  these  spots 
 agree  hi  proximity  to  the  Jordan,  l)Ut  beyond  this 
 we  are  absolutely  at  fault  as  to  their  [losition. 
 Ada jr  is  unknown ;  Succoth  is,  to  say  the  least, 
 uncertain ;  and  no  name  approaching  Zarthan 
 has  yet  been  encountered,  except  it  be  Surtabeh 
 
 i&MDyta},  the  name  of  a  lofty  and  isolated  hill 
 
 which  projects  from  the  main  highlands  into  the 
 Jordan  Valley,  about  17  miles  north  of  Jericho 
 (Van  de  A'elde,  J/emo/r,  p.  354).  But  HurUibeh, 
 if  connected  with  any  ancient  name,  would  seem 
 rather  to  repi-esent  some  compound  of  the  ancient 
 Hebrew  or  Phoenician  Tsor,  which  in  Arabic  is 
 
 represented  by  Sur  (\k.o),  as  in  the  name  of  the 
 modern  Tyre.  G. 
 
 ZATH'OE  {Zae67i:  Znchuts).  This  name 
 occurs  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  32,  for  Zattu,  which  ap- 
 pears to  have  been  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  text  of 
 Ezr.  viii.  5,  which  should  read,  "  Of  the  sons  of 
 Zattu,  Shechaniah  the  son  of  Jahaziel." 
 
 ZATHU'I  {ZaQovi--,  [Vat.  Zaroy:]  Demu). 
 Zattu  (1  Esdr.  v.  12;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  8). 
 
 ZAT'THU  (SWT  {lovely,  jyleascmt,  Fiirst]  : 
 ZaOovia;  Alex.  ZadOovia'-  Zel/iu).  Elsewhere 
 Zattu  (Neh.  x.  14). 
 
 ZAT'TU  (SWT  {lovely,  pleasant]:  ZaTBova, 
 Zadova,  ZaBovia;  Alex.  Zaddova:  FA.  ZaQovia, 
 Zadoveia'  Zetkua).  The  sons  of  Zattu  were  a 
 family  of  laymen  of  Israel  who  returned  with  Ze- 
 rubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  8;  Xeh.  vii.  13).  A  second  di- 
 vision accompanied  Ezra,  though  in  the  Hebrew 
 text  of  Ezr.  viii.  5  the  name  has  been  omitted. 
 [Zathoe.]  Several  members  of  this  family  had 
 married  foreign  wives  (Ezr.  x.  27). 
 
 ZA'VAN  =  Zaavan  (1  Chr.  i.  42). 
 
 ZA'ZA  (ST^  {projection,  Fiirst]:  'O^aix;  Alex 
 OC«C«!  [-^'''-  Za^a;  Comp.  Zi^a:]  Ziza).  On* 
 of  the  sons  of  Jonathan,  a  descendant  of  Jcrahmeft. 
 (1  Chr.  ii.  33). 
 
 ZEBADI'AH  (n;jl?^  {,jifl  of  Jehovah, 
 Ges.]:  Zaj8a5ta;  [Vat.  A(,ai3ay8ia;  Alex.  A(a;8o- 
 Sia:]  Zabadi(i).  1.  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of 
 Beriah  (1  Chr.  viii.  15). 
 
 2.  [Za/3o5ia.]  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of  El- 
 paal  (1  Chr.  viii.  17). 
 
 3.  [Vat.  M.  Zaj8i5ia.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Je- 
 roham  of  Gedor,  a  Benjamite  who  joined  tiie  for- 
 tunes of  David  in  his  retreat  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii. 
 7). 
 
 4.  (Za/SaS/aj;  [Vat.  A^Seias:]  Ale.x.  Za/SSio?: 
 Zahadias.)  Son  of  Asabel  the  brother  of  Joab  (J 
 Chr.  xxvii.  7). 
 
 5.  ([Koni.  Alex,  as  in  4;  Vat.  Za^deia-]  Zebe- 
 dia.)  Son  of  Michael  of  the  sons  of  Shephatiah 
 (Ezr.  viii.  8).  He  returned  with  80  of  his  clan  in 
 the  second  caravan  with  Ezra.  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  34 
 he  is  called  Zaraia.s. 
 
 6.  (Za^Sia;   [Vat.]    FA.  ZafiSeia.)     A  priest 
 
 [This  MS.,  however,  No.  58,  is  described  by  Holmes 
 as  ■'  quantivis  pretii."  Comp.  art.  SEPinAGlNT,  p 
 2914.     The  Comp.  Polyglott  also  reads  ^apedv.  —  A.j 
 
ZEBAH 
 
 of  the  sons  of  Inimer  who  had  married  a  foreiLi;ii 
 wife  after  the  return  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  20). 
 (Jailed  Zabdeus  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  21. 
 
 7.  (Jin^l??  :  Za/3a5ia;  [Vat.  Zaxapias:]  Alex. 
 ZafiaSias-  ZabadUts.)  Third  son  of  Mesheleraiah 
 the  Korhite  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  2). 
 
 8.  (Za/88iaj;  [Vat.  Za^Seias.])  A  Levite  in 
 the  reign  of  Jelmshaphat  wlio  was  sent  to  teach 
 the  Law  in  the  cities  of  Jiidali  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 
 
 9.  [As  iu  8.]  The  son  of  Ishmael  and  prince 
 of  the  house  of  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat 
 (2  Chr.  xix.  11).  In  conjunction  with  Amariah 
 the  chief  priest,  he  was  appointed  to  the  superin- 
 tendence of  the  Levites,  priests  and  chief  men  who 
 had  to  decide  all  causes,  civil  and  ecclesiastical, 
 which  were  brought  before  them.  The}-  possibly 
 may  have  formed  a  kind  of  court  of  appeal,  Zebe- 
 diah  acting  for  the  interests  of  the  king,  and  Ama- 
 riah being  the  supreme  authority  in  ecclesiastical 
 matters. 
 
 ZE'BAH  (nZlT  {sacrljice]:  Ze/See':  Zebee). 
 One  of  the  two  "  kings"  of  Midian  who  appear  to 
 have  conunanded  the  great  invasion  of  Palestine, 
 and  who  finally  fell  by  the  hand  of  Gideon  him- 
 self. He  is  always  coupled  with  Zalmunna,  and  is 
 mentioned  in  Judg.  viii.  5-21;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11. 
 
 It  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  unconscious 
 artlessness  of  the  narrative  contained  in  Judg.  vi. 
 3.3-viii.  28,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  any  of  the 
 chiefs  of  the  Midianites  during  the  early  part  of  the 
 story,  or  indeed  until  Gideon  actually  comes  uito 
 contact  with  them.  We  then  discover  (viii.  18) 
 tliat  while  the  Bedouins  were  ravaging  the  crops 
 iu  the  valley  of  Jezreel,  before  Gideon's  attack, 
 three  «  or  more  of  his  brothers  had  been  captured 
 by  the  Arabs,  and  put  to  death  by  the  hands  of 
 Zebah  and  Zalmunna  themselves.  But  this  mate- 
 rial fact  is  only  incidentally  mentioned,  and  is  of  a 
 piece  with  the  later  references  by  prophets  and 
 psalmists  to  other  events  in  the  same  struggle,  the 
 interest  and  value  of  which  have  been  alluded  to 
 under  Okeb. 
 
 Ps.  Ixxxiii.  12  purports  to  have  preserved  the 
 very  words  of  the  cry  with  wliich  Zeba  and  Zal- 
 munna rushed  up  at  the  head  of  their  hordes  from 
 the  Jordan  into  the  luxuriant  growth  of  the  great 
 plain,  "  Seize  these  goodly*  pastures!  " 
 
 While  Oreb  and  Zeeb,  two  of  the  inferior  lead- 
 ers of  the  incursion,  had  been  slain,  with  a  vast 
 number  of  their  ])eople,  by  the  Ephraimites,  at  the 
 central  fords  of  the  Jordan  (not  improbably  those 
 near  .lisr  Damieli),  the  two  kings  had  succeeded 
 in  making  their  escape  by  a  passage  further  to  the 
 north  (probably  the  ford  near  Beth-shean),  and 
 thence  by  the  Wady  Yabis,  through  Gilead,  to 
 Karkor,  a  place  which  is  not  fixed,  but  which  lay 
 doubtless  high  up  on  the  Hauran.  Here  they 
 were  re[)osing  with  1-5,000  men,  a  mere  renuiantof 
 their  huge  horde,  wlien  Gideon  overtook  them. 
 Had  they  resisted  there  is  little  doubt  that  they 
 might  have  easily  overcome  the  little  band  of 
 "  fainting  "  heroes  who  had  toiled  after  them  up 
 the  tremendous  passes  of  the  mountains;  but  the 
 name  of  Gideon  was   still  full  of  terror,  and  the 
 
 ZEBEDEB  3595 
 
 Bedouins  were  entirely  unprepared  for  his  attack 
 —  they  fled  in  dismay,  and  the  two  kings  wen, 
 taken. 
 
 Such  was  the  Third  Act  of  tlie  great  Tragedy. 
 Two  more  remain.  First,  the  return  down  the 
 long  defiles  leading  to  the  Jorilan.  We  see  the 
 cavalcade  of  camels,  jingling  the  golden  chains,  and 
 tiie  crescent-shaped  collars  or  trappings  hung  round 
 their  necks.  High  aloft  rode  the  captive  chiefs 
 clad  in  their  Ijrilliant  /ccjiyehs  and  embroidered  "b- 
 bayths,  and  with  their  "collars"  or  ''jewels"  in 
 nose  and  ear,  on  neck  and  arm.  Gideon  probalily 
 strode  on  foot  by  the  side  of  his  captives.  They 
 passed  Penuel,  where  Jacob  had  seen  the  vision  of 
 the  flice  of  God ;  they  passed  Succoth ;  they 
 crossed  the  rapid  stream  of  the  Jordan ;  they  as- 
 cended the  highlands  west  of  the  river,  and  at 
 length  reached  Ophrah,  the  native  village  of  their 
 captor  (Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  7,  §  5).  Tlien  at  last  the 
 question  which  must  have  been  on  Gideon's  tongue 
 during  the  whole  of  the  return  found  ii  vent.  There 
 is  no  appearance  of  its  having  been  alluded  to  be- 
 fore, iiut  it  gives,  PS  nothing  else  could,  the  key  to 
 the  whole  pursuit.  It  was  the  death  of  his  broth- 
 ers, "the  children  of  his  mother,"  that  had  sup- 
 plied the  personal  motive  for  that  steady  persever- 
 ance, and  had  led  Gideon  on  to  his  goal  against 
 huriger,  faintness,  and  obstacles  of  all  kinds. 
 "  What  manner  of  men  were  they  which  ye  slew 
 at  Tabor  V"  Up  to  this  time  the  sheikhs  may 
 have  lielieved  that  they  were  reserved  for  ransom ; 
 but  these  words  once  spoken  there  can  have  been 
 no  doubt  what  their  fate  was  to  be.  'I'hey  met  it 
 like  noble  children  of  the  Desert,  without  fear  or 
 weakness.  One  request  alone  they  make  —  that 
 they  may  die  by  the  sure  blow  of  the  hero  himself 
 —  "and  Gideon  arose  and  slew  them;  "  and  not 
 till  he  had  revenged  his  brothers  did  any  thought 
 of  plunder  enter  his  heart  —  then,  and  not  till  then, 
 did  he  lay  hands  on  the  treasures  wliich  ornamented 
 their  camels.  G. 
 
 ZEBA'IM  (□I'nvJn,  in  Xeh.  W^)'^-$T}  [gn- 
 zdks\:  [Vat.]  vwl  Affe^cceiv;  [Rom.]  Alex. 
 'Aae^coei/j.\  in  Neh.  vl.  '^a^a'i/j.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA. 
 -eiju] :  Asebniin,  Sabaiiii).  The  sons  of  Pochereth 
 of  hat-Tsebaim  are  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of 
 the  families  of  "  Solomon's  slaves,"  who  returned 
 from  the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezra  ii.  57; 
 Neh.  vii.  59).  The  name  is  in  the  original  all  but 
 identical  with  that  of  ZEBOijr,c  the  fellow-city  of 
 Sodom;  and  as  many  of  "  Solomon's  slaves  "  ap- 
 pear to  have  been  of  Canaanite  <'  stock,  it  is  possible 
 tliat  the  family  of  Pochereth  were  descended  from 
 one  of  the  people  who  escaped  from  Zeboim  in  the 
 day  of  the  great  catastrophe  in  the  Valley  of  the 
 Jordan.  This,  however,  can  only  be  accepted  as 
 conjecture,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  two  names 
 Pochereth  hat-Tsebaim  are  considered  by  some  to 
 have  no  reference  to  place,  but  to  signify  the 
 "snarer  or  hunter  of  roes  "  (Gesenius,  Tfies.  p- 
 1102  b;  Bertheau,  JSxeg.  Hand).  Ezr.  ii.  57). 
 
 G. 
 
 ZEB'EDEE  (^7?!  or  rT^75t  [-lehovah's 
 ijifl]  ■  Z€y8e5aroj).  A  fisherman  of  Galilee,  the 
 father  of  the  Apostles  James  the  Great  and  John 
 
 a  It  is  perliaps  allowable  to  infer  this  from  the  use 
 of  the  plural  (not  the  dual)  to  the  word  brethren 
 (vcr.  lit). 
 
 ''  Such  is  the  meaning  of  "  pastures  of  God  "'  in 
 the  early  idiom. 
 
 c  Even  to  the  double  yorl.  This  name,  on  the 
 other  hand,  is  distinct  from  the  Zeuoim  of  Benjamin. 
 
 f'  See  this  noticed  more  at  length  under  MEnoNlM, 
 SiSERA,  etc. 
 
3596 
 
 ZEBINA 
 
 (Matt.  iv.  21),  and  the  husband  of  Salome  (Matt, 
 xxvii.  56 ;  Murk  xv.  40).  He  probably  lived  either 
 lit  bethsaida  or  in  its  immediate  neighborhood. 
 It  has  been  inferred  from  the  mention  of  his  "hired 
 servants  "  (Mark  i.  20),  and  from  the  acquaint- 
 ance between  the  Apostle  John  and  Amias  the 
 high-priest  (.John  xviii.  15),  that  the  family  of 
 Zebedee  were  in  easy  circumstances  (comp.  John 
 xix.  27),  although  not  above  manual  labor  (Matt. 
 iv.  21).  Although  the  name  of  Zebedee  frequently 
 occurs  as  a  patronymic,  for  the  sake  of  distinguish- 
 ing his  two  sons  from  others  who  bore  the  same, 
 names,  he  appears  oidy  once  in  the  Gospel  narrative, 
 namely  in  iMatt.  iv.  21,  22,  Mark  i.  19,  20,  where 
 he  is  seen  in  his  boat  with  his  two  sons  mending 
 their  nets.  On  this  occasion  he  allows  his  sons  to 
 leave  him  at  the  bidding  of  the  Saviour,  without 
 raising  any  objection ;  although  it  does  not  appear 
 that  he  was  himself  ever  of  the  number  of  Christ's 
 disciples.  His  wife,  indeed,  appears  in  the  cata- 
 logue of  the  pious  women  who  were  in  constant 
 attendance  on  the  Saviour  towards  the  close  of  his 
 ministry,  who  watched  Him  on  the  cross,  and 
 ministered  to  Him  even  in  the  grave  (Matt.  xx\ii. 
 55,  5G ;  Mark  xv.  40,  xvi.  1 ;  comp.  Matt.  xx.  20, 
 and  Luke  viii.  3).  It  is  reasonable  to  infer  that 
 Zebedee  was  dead  before  this  time.  It  is  worthy 
 of  notice,  and  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  a 
 minute  confirmation  of  the  evangelical  narrative, 
 that  the  name  of  Zebedee  is  almost  identical  in 
 signification  with  that  of  John,  since  it  is  likely 
 that  a  father  would  desire  that  his  own  name 
 should  be,  as  it  were,  continued,  although  in  an 
 altered  form.  [John  thk  Apostle.]   W.  B.  J. 
 
 ZEBI'NA  (W2'^?T  [bought  or  sold]  :  Ze^ev- 
 vdsl  [Vat.  Zav^iv;  I'A.  (with  next  word)  Za/x- 
 /Seij/aSia  ;]  Alex,  omits:  Znbimi).  One  of  the 
 sons  of  Nelio,  who  had  taken  foreign  wives  alter 
 the  return  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  43). 
 
 ZEBO'IM  [or  ZEBOI'IM].  This  word 
 represents  in  the  A.  V.  two  names  which  in  the 
 original  are  quite  distinct. 
 
 1.   (Dp^^,     D^>h2,    C^Wn!^,     and,    in    the 
 
 Kevi,  D"''Q!J:  [Rom.  ^e^oifx,']  "  :^f$aif'iij., 
 ['Sf^oeifi;  Vat.  2el3aietfj.  ;]  Alex.  26)3coi^,  Se- 
 ^w€i/j.,  [SeySoieir  :]  IScboim  )  One  of  the  five 
 cities  of  the  "plain"  or  circle  of  Jordan.  It  is 
 mentioned  in  (ien.  x.  19,  xiv.  2,  8;  Deut.  xxix.  23; 
 and  Hos.  xi.  8,  in  each  of  which  passages  it  is 
 eitiier  coupled  with  Adm.ah,  or  placed  next  it  in 
 the  lists.  The  name  of  its  king,  Shemeber,  is 
 preserved  (Gen.  xiv.  2);  and  it  perhaps  appears 
 again,  as  Zebaim,  in  the  lists  of  the  menials  of 
 the  Temple. 
 
 No  attempt  appears  to  have  been  made  to  dis- 
 cover the  site  of  Zeboim,  till  M.  de  Saulcy  sug- 
 gested the  Talaa  Sebnan,  a  name  which  he,  and 
 he  alone,  reports  as  attached  to  extensive  ruins  on 
 the  high  ground  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  Kcrak 
 ( loya^e,  Jan.  22;  Miip,  %\\t.  1).  Before  however 
 this  can  be  accepted,  M.  de  Saulcy  nuist  explain 
 how  a  place  which  stood  in  the  plain  or  circle  of 
 
 «  In  Gen.  x.  19  only,  this  appears  in  Vat.  (Mai), 
 ZfjStoctei'u..  [I'he  Vat.  MS.  does  not  contain  this  [xirt 
 of  Qenesi.«.  —  A.] 
 
 *  *  The  conjecture  of  M.  de  Saulcy  has  no  appar- 
 ent basis  ;  but  the  present  distance  of  the  site  from 
 the  river  is  not  a  fatal  objection  to  it.  The  explana- 
 tion asked  for  above,  the  reader  will  find  from  Mr. 
 arove's  own  pen  in  the  article  Lot  (ii.  1686).    S.  Vt. 
 
 ZEBUL 
 
 (he  Jordan,  can  have  been  situated  on  the  high 
 lands  at  least  50  miles  from  that  river.  [Se€ 
 Sodom  and  Zoak.] 
 
 In  Gen.  xiv.  2,  8,  the  name  is  given  in  the  A.  V. 
 Zehoiim,  a  more  accurate  representative  of  the 
 form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  original  both  there 
 and  in  Deut.  xxix.  23.'' 
 
 2.  The  Valley  of  Zeboim  (D"'^h-^n  "«2: 
 [Vat.]  Tai  rr\v  lafxeiv  ;  [Rom.  Aid.  Sa^iV; 
 Comp.  Sa/SaiV;]  the  passage  is  lost  in  Alex. :  I'allis 
 Seboim).  The  name  differs  from  the  preceding, 
 not  only  in  having  the  definite  article  attached  to 
 it,  but  also  in  containing  the  characteristic  and 
 stubborn  letter  Aiii,  which  imparts  a  definite  ciiar 
 acter  to  the  word  in  prommciation.  It  was  a 
 ravine  or  gorge,  apparently  east  of  JNIichmash,  men- 
 tioned only  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  18.  It  is  there  de- 
 scribed with  a  curious  minuteness,  which  is  un- 
 fortunately no  longer  intelligible.  The  road  run- 
 ning from  Michmash  to  the  east,  is  specified  as 
 "  the  road  of  the  border  that  looketh  to  the  ravine 
 of  Zeboim  towards  the  wilderness."  The  wilder- 
 ness (midbfir)  is  no  doubt  the  district  of  uncultivated 
 mountain  tops  and  sides  which  lies  between  the 
 central  district  of  Benjamin  and  the  Jordan  Val- 
 ley ;  and  here  apparently  the  ravine  of  Zeboim 
 shoidd  be  sought.  In  that  ^•ery  district  there  is 
 a  wild  gorge,  bearing  the  name  of  Shitk  ed-Dubba' 
 
 \iuuiaj\    i^*u),c  "ravine  of  the  hyena,"  the 
 
 exact  equivalent  of  Ge  hat-tsebo'im.  Up  this 
 gorge  runs  the  path  by  which  the  writer  was  con- 
 ducted from  Jericho  to  Mukhinas,  in  1858.  It  does 
 not  appear  that  the  name  has  been  noticed  by 
 other  travellers,  but  it  is  worth  investigation.  G. 
 
 *  The  name  Zeboim  (with  the  Atn)  also  occurs 
 in  Neh.  xi.  34  (Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit;  FA.3 
 2e/3o6i/i,  Comp.  •S.efiaielij.),  perhaps  designating  a 
 town  near  the  ravine  of  the  same  name.  It  is 
 mentioned  in  connection  with  Hadid,  Neballat, 
 Lod  and  Ono.  A. 
 
 ZEBU'DAH  (rr^'^aT:  Keri  H'^^nT  [given, 
 bestowed] :  'ieASd(p  ;  [Vat.  UWa  ;]  Alex.  EieA.- 
 5a4>:  [Comp.  Za^ovSd  ■]  Ze.bida).  Daughter  of 
 Pedaiah  of  Kumah,  wife  of  Josiah  and  mother  of 
 king  Jehoiakim  (2  K.  xxiii.  36).  The  Peshito- 
 Syriac  and  Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglot  read 
 m^'inT  !  the  Targura  has  rni^T. 
 
 ZE'BUL    (vST    [habitation,  chamber]:   Ze- 
 
 ^ov\:  Zebul).  Chief  man  CISC',  A.  V.  "ruler") 
 of  the  city  of  Shechem  at  the  time  of  the  contest 
 between  Abimelech  and  the  native  Canaaanites. 
 His  name  occurs  Judg.  ix.  28,  30,  36,  38,  41.  He 
 governed  the  town  as  the  "officer  "  (T^pD  :  eV/o-- 
 KQTTos)  of  Abimelech  while  the  latter  was  absent, 
 and  he  took  part  against  the  Canaanites  by  shut- 
 ting them  out  of  the  citj'  when  Abimelech  was 
 encamped  outside  it.  His  conversation  with  Gaal 
 the  Canaanite  leader,  as  they  stood  in  the  gate  of 
 Shechem  watching  the  approach  of  the  armed 
 bands,  gives  Zebul  a  certain  individuality  amongs*. 
 the  many  characters  of  that  time  of  confusion. 
 
 G. 
 
 c  The  writer  was  accompanied  by  Mr.  Consul  E-  T 
 Rogers,  well  known  as  one  of  the  best  living  scholars 
 in  the  couimnn  Arabic,  who  wrote  down  the  name  for 
 him  at  the  moment.  [Dr.  Van  D\  ck  writes  the  last 
 word  without  doubling  the  b.  —  A.J 
 
ZEBULONITE 
 
 ZEBTJLONITE  Obb^n-TH,  with  the  def. 
 article  [patr.] :  o  Za^ovXwv'n-qs  [Vat.  -j/et-]  ;  Alex, 
 ill  both  verses,  o  Za^ovviT7}s-  Znbulonites),  i.  e. 
 nieniber  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun.  Applied  only  to 
 Elon,  the  one  judge  produced  by  the  tribe  (Judg. 
 xii.  11,  12).  The  article  being  found  in  the  origi- 
 nal, the  sentence  should  read,  "  Elon  the  Zebuloii- 
 ite."  G. 
 
 ZEB'ULUN  (l^bnT,  "jb^aT,  and  "l^b^^T 
 
 [abode,  chcellini/]  :  Za^ovXwv  ■  Zabulon).  The 
 tenth  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  according  to  the  order 
 in  which  their  births  are  enumerated;  the  sixth 
 and  last  of  Leah  (Gen.  xxx.  20,  xxxv.  23,  xlvi.  li; 
 1  Chr.  ii.  1).  His  birth  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xxx. 
 19,  20,  where  the  origin  of  the  name  is  as  usual 
 ascribed  to  an  exclamation  of  his  niotlier's,  "  '  Now 
 will  my  husband  *  dwell-with-nie  (izbeleid),  fori 
 have  borne  him  six  sons !  '  and  she  called  his  name 
 Zebulun." 
 
 Of  the  individual  Zebulun  nothing  is  recorded. 
 The  list  of  Gen.  xlvi.  ascribes  to  him  three  sons, 
 founders  of  the  chief  families  of  the  tribe  (conip. 
 Num.  xxvi.  26)  at  the  time  of  the  migration  to 
 Egypt.  In  the  Jewish  traditions  he  is  named  as 
 the  first  of  tlie  five  who  were  presented  by  Joseph 
 to  Pharaoh  —  l)an,  Naphtali,  Gad,  and  Asher  be- 
 ing the  others  (  Taivj.  Pseudojon.  on  Gen.  xlvii.  2). 
 
 During  the  journey  from  Egypt  to  Palestine  the 
 tribe  of  Zebulun  formed  one  of  the  first  camp, 
 with  Judah  and  Issachar  (also  sons  of  Leah), 
 marching  under  the  standard  of  Judah.  Its  num- 
 bers, at  the  census  of  Sinai,  were  57,000,  surpassed 
 only  by  Simeon,  Dan,  and  Judah.  At  that  of 
 Shittim  they  were  60,500,  not  h.aving  diminished, 
 but  not  having  increased  nearly  so  much  as  might 
 naturally  be  expected.  The  head  of  the  tribe  at 
 Sinai  was  Eliab  son  of  Helon  (Num.  vii.  24);  at 
 Shiloh,  Elizaphan  son  of  Parnach  {ib.  xxxiv.  25). 
 Its  representative  amongst  the  spies  was  Gaddiel 
 son  of  Sodi  (xiii.  10).  Besides  what  may  le  im- 
 plied in  its  appearances  in  these  lists,  the  tribe  is 
 not  recorded  to  have  taken  part,  for  evil  or  good,  in 
 any  of  the  events  of  the  wandering  or  the  conquest. 
 Its  allotment  was  the  third  of  the  second  distribu- 
 tion (Josh.  xix.  10).  Judah,  Joseph,  Benjamin, 
 had  acquired  the  south  and  the  centre  of  the 
 country.  To  Zebulun  fell  one  of  the  fairest  of  tlie 
 remaining  portions.  It  is  perhaps  impossible,  in 
 the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  exactly  to  de- 
 fine its  limits: '•^  but  tlie  statement  of  Josephus 
 {Ant.  V.  1,  §  22)  is  probably  in  the  main  correct, 
 that  it  reached  on  the  one  side  to  the  lake  of  Gen- 
 nesaret,  and  on  the  other  to  Carniel  and  the  Med- 
 iterranean. On  the  south  it  was  bounded  by 
 Issachar,  who  lay  in  the  great  plain  or  \alley  of 
 the  Kishon;    on   the  north  it  had   Naphtali  and 
 
 a  Of  these  three  forms  the  first  is  employed  in 
 Genesis,  Isaiah,  Psalms,  and  Chronicles,  except  Gen. 
 xlix.  13,  audi  Chr.  x.xvii.  19;  also  occasioually  iu 
 Judges  ;  the  second  is  found  in  the  rest  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch, in  Joshua,  .ludges,  Ezekiel,  and  the  above  pUice 
 in  Chronicles.  The  third  and  more  extended  form  is 
 found  in  Judg.  i.  30  only.  The  first  and  second  are 
 used  indiscriminately  :  e.  gr.  Judg.  iv.  6  and  v.  18 
 "xhibit  the  firet ;  Judg.  iv.  10  and  v.  14  the  second 
 <brm. 
 
 ''  This  play  is  not  preserved  in  the  original  of  the 
 Blessing  of  Jacob,"'  though  the  language  of  the  A. 
 '.  implies  it.     The  word  rendered  "  dwell  "  in  Gen. 
 
 jlix.  13  is  y~)ti?'^    with  no  relation  to  the  name  Zeb- 
 
 ZEBULUN 
 
 3597 
 
 Asher.  In  this  district  the  tribe  possessed  th 
 outlet  (the  "going-out,"  Deut.  xxxiii.  18)  of  tht 
 plain  of  Akka;  the  fisheries  of  the  lake  of  Galilee; 
 the  splendid  agricultural  capabilities  of  the  great 
 plain  of  the  Biit/du/ {e({ual  in  fertility,  and  ahnost 
 equal  in  extent,  to  that  of  Jezreel,  and  with  the 
 immense  advantage  of  not  being,  as  that  was,  the 
 high  road  of  the  Pedouins) ;  and,  last  not  least,  it 
 included  sites  so  strongly  fortified  by  nature,  that 
 in  the  later  struggles  of  the  nation  they  proved 
 more  impregnable  than  any  in  the  whole  country.'' 
 The  sacred  mountain  of  Taboh,  Zebulun  appears 
 to  have  shared  with  Issachar  (Dtut.  xxxiii.  19), 
 and  it  and  Kimnion  were  allotted  to  the  Merarite 
 Levites  (1  Chr.  vi.  77).  But  these  ancient  sanc- 
 tuaries of  the  tribe  were  eclipsed  by  those  which 
 arose  within  it  afterwards,  when  the  name  of  Zeb- 
 ulun was  superseded  by  that  of  Galilee.  Nazareth, 
 ( 'ana,  Tiberias,  and  probably  the  land  of  Gennesa- 
 ret  itself,  were  all  situated  within  its  limits. 
 
 The  fact  recognized  by  Josephus  that  Zebulun 
 extended  to  tiie  Jlediterranean,  though  not  men- 
 tioned or  implied,  as  far  as  we  can  discern,  in  the 
 lists  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  is  alluded  to  in  the 
 Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.  13):  — 
 
 "  Zebulun  dwells  at  the  shore  of  the  seas, 
 
 Even  he  at  the  shore  of  ships  : 
 
 And  his  thighs  are  upon  Zidon  '•  — 
 
 a  passage  which  seems  to  show  that  at  the 
 date  at  which  it  was  written,  the  tribe  was  taking 
 a  part  in  Phoenician  ''  commerce.  The  "  way  of 
 the  sea  "  (Is.  ix.  1),  the  great  road  from  Damascus 
 to  the  Mediterranean,  traversed  a  good  portion  of 
 the  territory  of  Zebulun,  and  must  have  brought 
 its  people  into  contact  with  the  merchants  and  the 
 commodities  of  Syria,  Phoenicia.,  and  Egypt. 
 
 Situated  so  far  from  the  centre  of  government, 
 Zebulun  remains  throughout  the  history,  with  one 
 exception,  in  the  obscurity  which  envelops  the 
 whole  of  the  northern  tribes.  That  exception, 
 however,  is  a  remarkable  one.  The  conduct  of  the 
 tribe  during  the  struggle  with  Sisera,  when  they 
 fought  witli  desperate  valor  side  by  side  with  their 
 brethren  of  Naphtali,  was  such  as  to  draw  down 
 the  especial  (iraise  of  Deborali,  who  singles  them 
 out  from  all  the  other  tribes  (Judg.  v.  18):  — 
 
 "Zebulun  is  a  people  that  threw  away  its  life  even 
 unto  death: 
 And  Naphtali,  on  the  high  places  of  the  field." 
 
 The  same  poem  contains  an  expression  which  seems 
 to  imply  that,  apart  from  the  distinction  gained  by 
 their  conduct  in  this  contest,  Zebulun  was  already 
 in  a  prominent  position  among  the  tribes:  — 
 
 "  Out  of  Jlachir  came  down  governors  ; 
 And  out  of  Zebulun  those  that  handle  the  pen  (oi 
 the  wand)  of  the  scribe  ;  " 
 
 ulun.  The  LXX.  put  a  different  point  on  the  ex 
 clamatiou  of  Leah  :  "  My  husband  will  choose  me  " 
 (aJpeTieJ  ne).  This,  however,  hardly  implies  any 
 ditference  in  the  original  text.  Josephus  (Ant.  i.  19, 
 §  8)  gives  only  a  general  explanation  :  "  a  pledge  o) 
 goodwill  towards  her.'' 
 
 «  Few  of  the  towns  in  the  catalogue  of  Josh.  xix. 
 10-16  have  been  identified.  The  tribe  is  omitted  in 
 the  lists  of  1  Chronicles. 
 
 (I  Sepphoris,  Jotapata,  &c. 
 
 e  In  the  "  Testament  of  Zabulon "  (Kabricius, 
 Pseuf/epifcr.  V.  T.  i.  630^5)  great  stress  is  laid  on  his 
 skill  in  fishing,  and  he  is  commemorated  as  the  first 
 to  navigate  a  skiff  on  the  sea. 
 
3598 
 
 ZEBULUNITES 
 
 refen-ing  probably  to  tlie  officers,  who  registered 
 and  marshalled  the  warriors  of  the  host  (conip. 
 Josh.  i.  10).  One  of  the.se  "scribes"  may  have 
 been  Elo:n,  the  single  judge  produced  by  the  tribe, 
 who  is  recorded  as  having  held  office  for  ten  years 
 (.Judcr.  xii.  11,  12). 
 
 A  similar  reputation  is  alluded  to  in  the  men- 
 tion of  the  tribe  among  those  who  attended  the 
 inauguration  of  David's  reign  at  Heliron.  The 
 expressions  are  again  peculiar:  "Of  Zebulun  such 
 as  went  forth  to  war,  rangers  of  battle,  with  all 
 tools  of  war,  50,000;  who  could  set  the  battle  in 
 array;  they  were  not  of  double  heart"  (1  Chr.  xii. 
 33).  The  same  passage,  however,  shows  that 
 while  proficient  in  the  arts  of  war  they  did  not 
 neglect  those  of  ])eace,  but  that  on  the  wooded 
 hills  and  fertile  plains  of  their  district  they  pro- 
 duced bread,  meal,  figs,  grajies,  wine,  oil,  oxen,  and 
 sheep  in  abundance  (ver.  40).  The  head  of  the 
 tribe  at  this  time  was  Ishniaiah  ben-Obadiah  (1 
 Chr.  xxvii.  I'J). 
 
 We  are  nowhere  directly  tokl  that  the  people  of 
 Zebulun  were  carried  off  to  Assyria.  Tiglath- 
 pileser  swept  away  the  whole  of  Naphtali  (2  K.  xv. 
 29;  Tob.  i.  2),  and  Shalmaneser  in  the  same  way 
 took  -'Samaria"  (xvii.  6);  but  though  the  de- 
 portation of  Zebulun  and  Issachar  is  not  in  so 
 many  words  asserted,  there  is  the  statement  (xvii. 
 18)  that  the  whole  of  the  northern  tribes  were 
 removed;  and  there  is  also  the  well-known  allusion 
 of  Isaiah  to  the  afHiction  of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali 
 (ix.  1),  which  can  hardly  point  to  anything  but 
 the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser.  It  is  satisfactory 
 to  reflect  that  the  very  latest  mention  of  the  Zebu- 
 lunites  is  the  account  of  the  visit  of  a  large  num- 
 ber of  them  to  Jei-usalem  to  the  Passover  of  Hez- 
 ekiah,  when,  liy  the  enlightened  liberality  of  the 
 king,  they  were  enabled  to  eat  the  feast,  even 
 though,  through  long  neglect  of  the  provisions 
 of  the  Law,  they  were  not  cleansed  in  the  manner 
 prescribed  by  the  ceremonial  law.  In  the  visions 
 of  Ezekiel  (xlviii.  20-33)  and  of  St.  John  (Rev. 
 vii.  8)  this  tribe  finds  its  due  mention.  *         G. 
 
 ZEB'ULUNITES,  THE  C^bb^nfrT,  i.  e. 
 "the  Zebulonite"  [patr.] :  Za^ovXuv'  Znbulon). 
 The  members  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Num.  xxvi. 
 27  only).  It  would  be  more  literally  accurate  if 
 spelt  Zebulonites.  G. 
 
 ZECHARI'AH  (Hlj'lpt  [Jehovah  remem- 
 bers']: Zaxcpias-  ZucJim-ias).  1.  The  eleventh 
 in  order  of  the  twelve  minor  prophets.  Of  his 
 personal  history  we  know  but  little.  He  is  called 
 in  his  prophecy  tiie  son  of  Berechiah,  and  the 
 grandson  of  Iddo,  whereas  in  the  book  of  Ezra  (v. 
 1,  vi.  14)  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  son  of  Iddo. 
 Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  reconcile  this 
 discrepancy.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (Pri-f.  Com- 
 ment, ad  Zech.)  supposes  that  Berechiah  was  the 
 father  of  Zechariah,  according  to  the  flesh,  and 
 that  Iddo  was  his  instructor,  .and  might  he  re- 
 garded as  his  s])iritual  father.  Jerome  too,  accord- 
 ing to  some  MSS.,  has  in  Zech.  i.  1,  "filium 
 Barachife,  filium  xVddo,"  as  if  he  supposed  that 
 Berechiah  and  Iddo  were  different  names  of  the 
 same  person :  and  the  same  mistake  occurs  in  the 
 LXX. :  T-hv  Tov  Bapax'tov,  vlhv  'ASSd.  Gesenius 
 {Lex.  s.  V.  ^S)  and  Kosenmiiller  {On  Zech.  i.  1) 
 
 a  As  Hezekiah  (Is.  i.  1,  IIos.  i.  1)  and  Jehezekiah 
 ;2  K.  xviii.  1,  9,  10),  Coniah  (Jer.  xxii.  24.  xxxvii.  1) 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 take  *^2  in  the  passages  in  Ezra  to  mean  "  grand 
 son,"  as  in  Gen.  xxix.  5  Labau  is  termed  "  the 
 son,"  i.  e.  "grand.son,"  of  Nahor.  Others,  again, 
 have  suggested  that  in  the  text  of  Ezra  no  men- 
 tion is  made  of  Berechiah,  because  he  was  already 
 dead,  or  because  Iddo  was  the  more  distinguished 
 person,  and  the  generally  recognized  head  of  the 
 family.  Knobel  thinks  that  the  name  of  Berechiah 
 has  crept  into  the  present  text  of  Zechariah  from 
 Isaiah  viii.  2,  where  mention  is  made  of  a  Zecha- 
 riah "  the  son  of  .feberechinh,"  which  is  virtually 
 the  same  name  (LXX.  Bapax'ou)  as  Berechiah." 
 His  theory  is  that  chapters  ix.-xi.  of  our  present 
 book  of  Zechariah  are  really  the  work  of  the  older 
 Zechariah  (Is.  viii.  2);  that  a  later  scribe  finding 
 the  two  books,  one  bearing  the  name  of  Zechariah 
 the  son  of  Iddo,  and  the  other  that  of  Zechariah  the 
 son  of  Berechiah,  united  them  into  one,  and  at  the 
 same  time  combinetl  the  titles  of  the  two,  and  that 
 hence  arose  the  confusion  which  at  present  exists. 
 This,  however,  is  hardly  a  probable  hypothesis. 
 It  is  surely  more  natural  to  suppose,  as  the  prophet 
 himself  mentions  his  father's  name,  whereas  the 
 historical  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  mention 
 only  Iddo,  that  Berechiah  had  died  early,  and  that 
 there  was  now  no  intervening  link  between  the 
 grandfather  and  the  grandson.  The  son,  in  giving 
 his  pedigree,  does  not  omit  his  father's  name:  the 
 historian  passes  it  over,  as  of  one  who  was  but 
 little  known,  or  already  forgotten.  This  view  is 
 confirmed  if  we  suppose  the  Iddo  here  mentioiied 
 to  have  lieen  the  Iddo  the  priest  who,  in  Neh.  xii. 
 4,  is  said  to  have  returned  from  Babylon  in  com- 
 pany with  Zeruljliabel  and  Joshua.  He  is  there 
 said  to  have  had  a  son  Zechariah  (ver.  10),  who 
 was  contemporary  with  Joiakim  the  son  of  Joshua; 
 and  this  falls  in  with  the  hypothesis  that,  owing 
 to  some  unexplained  cause  —  perhaps  the  death  of 
 his  father  —  Zechariah  became  the  next  repre- 
 sentative of  the  family  after  his  grandfather  Iddo. 
 Zechariah,  according  to  this  view,  like  Jeremiah 
 and  Ezekiel  before  hini,  was  priest  as  well  as 
 prophet.    He  seems  to  have  entered  upon  his  office 
 
 while  yet  young  ("'P^,  Zech.  ii.  4;  comp.  Jer.  i. 
 6),  and  must  have  been  born  in  Babylon,  whence 
 he  returned  with  the  first  caravan  of  exiles  under 
 Zerubbabel  and  Joshua. 
 
 It  was  in  the  eighth  month,  in  the  second  year 
 of  Darius,  that  he  first  publicly  discharged  his 
 office.  In  this  he  acted  in  concert  with  Haggai, 
 who  must  have  been  considerably  his  senior,  if,  as 
 seems  not  improbable,  Haggai  had  been  carried 
 into  captivity,  and  hence  had  himself  been  one  of 
 those  who  had  seen  "the  house"  of  Jehovaii  "in 
 her  first  glory  "  (Hag.  ii.  3).  Both  prophets  had 
 the  same  great  object  before  them ;  both  directed 
 all  their  energies  to  the  building  of  the  Second 
 Temple.  Haggai  seems  to  have  led  the  way  in  this 
 work,  and  then  to  have  left  it  chiefly  in  the  hands 
 of  his  younger  contemporary.  The  foundations  of 
 the  new  building  had  already  been  laid  in  the  time 
 of  Cyrus;  but  during  the  reigns  of  Cambyses  and 
 the  pseudo-Smerdis  the  work  had  been  broken  off 
 through  the  jealousies  of  the  Samaritans.  When, 
 however,  Darius  Hystaspis  ascended  the  throne 
 (.521),  things  took  a  more  favorable  turn.  He 
 seems  to  have  been  a  large-hearted  and  gracious 
 prince,  and  to  have  been  well-disposed  towards  the 
 
 and  Jeconiah  (Jer.  xxiv.  1,  xxvii.  20),  Aziel  (1  Chr.  x^ 
 20)  and  Ja^mel  (1  Chr.  xv.  18). 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 Jews.  Encoura2;ed  by  the  hopes  which  his  ac- 
 cession held  out,  the  prophets  exerted  themselves 
 to  the  utmost  to  secure  the  completion  of  the 
 Temple. 
 
 It  is  impossible  not  to  see  of  how  great  moment, 
 under  such  circumstances,  and  for  the  discharge  of 
 the  special  duty  with  which  he  was  entrusted, 
 would  be  the  priestly  origin  of  Zechariah. 
 
 Too  often  the  prophet  had  had  to  stand  forth  in 
 direct  antagonism  to  the  priest.  In  an  age  when 
 the  service  of  God  had  stiffened  into  formalism, 
 and  the  priests'  lips  no  longer  kept  kuowledije,  the 
 prophet  was  the  witness  for  the  truth  which  lay 
 beneath  the  outward  ceremonial,  and  without  which 
 the  outward  ceremonial  was  worthless.  But  the 
 thing  to  be  di-eaded  now  was  not  superstitious 
 formalism,  but  cold  neglect.  There  was  no  fear 
 now  lest  in  a  gorgeous  temple,  amidst  the  splen- 
 dors of  an  imposing  ritual  and  the  smoke  of 
 sacrifices  ever  ascending  to  heaven,  the  heart  and 
 life  of  religion  should  be  lost.  The  fear  was  all  the 
 other  way,  lest  even  the  body,  the  outward  form 
 and  service,  should  be  suifered  to  decay. 
 
 The  foundations  of  the  Temple  had  indeed  been 
 laid,  but  that  was  all  (Ezr.  v.  16).  Discouraged 
 by  the  opposition  which  they  had  encoimtered  at 
 first,  the  Jewish  colony  had  begun  to  build,  and 
 were  not  able  to  finish ;  and  even  when  the  letter 
 came  from  Darius  sanctioning  the  work,  and  prom- 
 ising his  protection,  they  showed  no  hearty  dis- 
 position to  engage  in  it.  At  such  a  time,  no  more 
 fitting  instrument  could  be  found  to  rouse  the 
 people,  whose  heart  had  grown  cold,  than  one  who 
 united  to  the  authority  of  the  prophet  the  zeal  and 
 the  traditions  of  a  sacerdotal  family. 
 
 Accordingly,  to  Zechariah's  influence  we  find 
 the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  in  a  great  measure 
 ascribed.  "  And  the  elders  of  the  .lews  buikled," 
 it  is  said,  "  and  they  prospered  throui^h  the  proph- 
 esying of  Haggai  the  prophet,  and  Zechariah  tiie 
 son  of  Iddo  "  (Ezr.  vi.  14).  It  is  rem.arkable  that 
 in  this  juxtaposition  of  the  two  names  both  are  not 
 styled  prophets:  not  "Haggai  and  Zechariah  the 
 prophets,"  but  "  H.arjgai  the  prophet,  and  Zecha- 
 riah the  son  of  /ddo."  Is  it  an  improliable  con- 
 jecture that  Zechariah  is  designated  by  his  father's 
 (or  grandfather's)  name,  rather  than  by  his  office, 
 in  order  to  remind  us  of  his  priestly  character? 
 Be  this  as  it  may,  we  find  other  indications  of  the 
 close  union  which  now  subsisted  between  the  priests 
 and  the  prophets.  Various  events  connected  with 
 the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Captivity  in  Baby- 
 lon had  led  to  the  institution  of  solenm  fast-days; 
 and  we  find  that  when  a  question  arose  as  to  tlie 
 propriety  of  observing  these  fast-days,  now  that  the 
 city  and  the  Temple  were  relniilt,  the  question  was 
 referred  to  "  the  priests  which  were  in  the  house  of 
 Jehovah,  and  to  the  prophets," — a  recognition,  not 
 only  of  the  joint  authority,  but  of  the  harmony 
 subsisting  between  the  two  bodies,  without  parallel 
 in  Jewisli  history.  The  manner,  too,  in  which 
 Joshua  the  high-priest  is  spoken  of  in  this  proph- 
 
 a  Hence  Pseud-Epiphanius,  speaking  of  Haggai ,  say s 
 Kai  auTO?  €i//aA.Aei/  ckcl  TrpwTO?  aXATjAouta  (in  allusion 
 to  tlie  Uallelujah  with  which  some  of  these  Psalms 
 begin)  Stb  \4yofi.iV  aWrjKoma  '6  (<ttli/  u/j.i'O?  'Ayyat'ou 
 "Cat  Zaxapiow. 
 
 6  Tr.  Megilla,  fol.  17,  2.  18,  1 ;  Rashi  ad  Baha 
 Bathra,  fol.  15,  1. 
 
 c  Pseud -Ei)iph.rfe  Proph.  cap.  21,  oJto;  ?ik0ev  airo 
 frj^  HaKiaCuji'  rjSr)  Trpo^ejSrjKws  Kal  txei  we  iroAAa  t<3 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 5599 
 
 ecy  shows  how  lively  a  sympathy  Zechariah  fe. 
 towards  him. 
 
 Later  traditions  assume,  what  is  indeed  very 
 probable,  that  Zechariah  took  personally  an  active 
 part  in  providing  for  the  liturgical  service  of  the 
 Temple.  lie  and  Haggai  are  both  said  to  have 
 composed  psalms  with  this  view.  According  to 
 the  LXX.,  Pss.  cxxxvii.,  cxlv.-cxlviii. ;  according 
 to  the  I'eshito,  Pss.  cxxv.,  cxxvi. ;  according  to 
 the  ^'nlg.,  Ps.  exi. ;  are  psahns  of  Hairgai  and 
 Zechariah.^'  The  triumphant  •'  Hallelujah,''  with 
 which  many  of  them  open,  was  supposed  to  be 
 characteristic  of  those  psalms  which  were  first 
 chanted  in  the  Second  Temple,  and  came  with  an 
 emphasis  of  meaning  from  the  lips  of  those  who 
 had  been  restored  to  their  native  land.  The  allu- 
 sions, moreover,  with  wiiich  these  psalms  aboimd, 
 as  well  as  their  i)lace  in  the  psalter,  leave  us  in  no 
 doul)t  as  to  the  time  when  they  were  composed, 
 and  lend  confirmation  to  the  tradition  respecting 
 their  authorship. 
 
 If  the  later  Jewish  accounts'^  may  be  trusted, 
 Zechariah,  as  ^vell  as  Haggai,  was  a  member  of 
 the  Great  .Synagogue  The  patristic  notices  of  the 
 prophet  are  worth  nothing.  According  to  these, 
 he  e.xercised  his  prophetic  otfice  in  Chaldtea,  and 
 wrought  many  miracles  there;  returned  to  .Jeru- 
 salem at  an  advanced  age,  where  he  discharged  the 
 duties  of  the  priesthood,  and  where  he  died  and 
 was  buried  by  the  side  of  Haggai. <•' 
 
 The  genuine  writings  of  Zechariah  help  iv*  b^t 
 little  in  our  estimation  of  his  character.  Some 
 faint  traces,  however,  we  may  observe  in  them  of 
 his  education  in  Babylon.  Less  free  and  inde- 
 pendent than  he  would  have  been,  had  his  feet  trod 
 from  childhood  the  soil,  — 
 
 '■  \Vhere  each  old  poetic  mouutaia 
 Inspiration  breathed  around," 
 
 he  leans  avowedly  on  the  authority  of  the  older 
 prophets,  and  copies  their  exjjressions.  Jeremiah 
 especially  seems  to  have  been  his  favorite;  and 
 hence  the  Jewish  saying,  that  "  the  spirit  of  Jere- 
 miah dwelt  in  Zechariah."  But  in  what  may  be 
 called  the  peculiarities  of  his  prophecy,  he  ap- 
 proaches more  nearly  to  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  Like 
 them  he  delights  in  visions;  like  them  he  uses 
 symbols  and  allegories,  r.ather  than  the  bold  figures 
 and  metaphors  which  lend  so  much  force  and 
 beauty  to  the  writings  of  the  earlier  prophets; 
 like  them  he  beholds  angels  ministering  before 
 .lehovah,  and  fulfilling  his  behests  on  the  earth. 
 He  is  the  only  one  of  the  prophets  who  speaks  of 
 Satan.  That  some  of  these  peculiarities  are  owing 
 to  his  Chaldifi.an  education  can  hardly  be  doubted. 
 It  is  at  least  remarkable  that  both  Ezekiel  and 
 Daniel,  who  must  have  been  influenced  by  the 
 same  associations,  shoidd  in  some  of  these  respects 
 so  closely  resemble  Zechariah,  widely  as  they  differ 
 from  him  in  others. 
 
 Even  in  the  form  of  the  visions  a  careful  crit- 
 icism might  perhaps  discover  some  traces  of  the 
 
 Aaiu  Trpoe<j>riTeva-ev,  ktK.  Dorotheas,  p.  144  :  "  Ilic  Zach. 
 aria.s  e  Chaldsea  veiiit  cum  ietate  j:iiii  esset  provecta 
 atque  ibi  populo  multa  vaticinatus  est  prodigiaque 
 probandi  gratia  edidit,  et  sacerdotio  llierosolymis  func- 
 tus est,"  etc.  Tsidorus,  cap.  51.  "  Zacharias  de  regions 
 Clialda>orum  valde  senex  in  terrain  suam  reversus  est, 
 in  qua  et  mortuus  est  ac  sepultus  juxta  Aggjeum  qui- 
 escit  iu  pace." 
 
3600 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 prophet's  early  training.  Possibly  the  "  valley  of 
 myrtles"  in  the  first  vision  may  have  been  sii<^- 
 gested  by  Chalclsea  rather  than  by  Palestine.  At 
 any  rate  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  myrtles  are  never 
 mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  before  the 
 exile.  They  are  found,  besides  this  passage  of 
 Zechariah,  in  the  Ueutero-lsaiah  xli,.  I'J,  Iv.  13, 
 and  in  Neh.  viii.  15."  The  forms  of  trial  in  the 
 third  vision,  where  Joshua  the  high-priest  is  ar- 
 raigned, seem  Ijon-owed  from  the  practice  of  Per- 
 sian rather  than  Jewisii  courts  of  law.  The  filthy 
 garments  in  which  Joshua  appears  are  those  which 
 the  accused  must  assume  when  brought  to  trial; 
 the  \vhite  robe  put  upon  him  is  the  caftan  or  I'obe 
 of  honor  which  to  this  day  in  the  East  is  put  upon 
 the  minister  of  state  who  has  been  acquitted  of  the 
 charges  laid  against  him. 
 
 The  vision  of  the  w<^nian  in  the  Ephah  is  also 
 oriental  in  its  character.  Ewald  refers  to  a  very 
 similar  vision  in  Tod's  Rnjasthan,  t.  ii.  p.  688. 
 
 Finally,  the  chariots  issuing  from  between  two 
 mountains  of  brass  must  have  been  suggested,  there 
 can  scarcely  be  any  doubt,  by  some  Persian  sym- 
 bolism. 
 
 Other  peculiarities  of  style  must  be  noticed, 
 when  we  couie  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  In- 
 tegrity of  the  Hook.  Generally  speaking,  Zecha- 
 riah's  style  is  pure,  and  remarkably  free  from 
 Chaldaisms.  As  is  common  with  writers  in  the 
 decline  of  a  language,  he  seems  to  have  striven  to 
 imitate  the  purity  of  the  earlier  models;  but  in 
 orthography,  and  in  the  use  of  some  words  and 
 phrases,    he  betrays  the  influence  of  a   later  age. 
 
 He  writes  HM,  and  T^l"^,  and  employs  HHS 
 (v.  7)  in  its  later  u.se  as  the  indefinite  article,  and 
 n")"iri5?    with  the  fem.  termination  (iv.  12).    A 
 
 full  collection  of  these  peculiarities  will  be  found  in 
 KiJster,  Mcldemata  in  Zech.^  etc. 
 
 Contents  of  the  Prophecy.  — The  book  of  Zech- 
 ariah, in  its  existing  form,  consists  of  three  prin- 
 cipal parts,  chaps,  i.-viii.,  chaps,  ix.-xi.,  chaps, 
 xii.-xiv. 
 
 I.  The  first  of  these  divisions  is  allowed  by  all 
 critics  to  be  the  genuine  work  of  Zechariah  the  son 
 of  Iddo.  It  consists,  first,  of  a  short  introduction 
 or  preface,  in  which  the  prophet  announces  his 
 commission  ;  then  of  a  series  of  visions,  descriptive 
 of  all  those  hopes  and  anticipations  of  which  the 
 building  of  the  Temple  was  the  pledge  and  sure 
 foundation ;  and  finally  of  a  discourse,  delivered  two 
 years  later,  in  reply  to  questions  respecting  the  ob- 
 servance of  certain  established  fasts. 
 
 1.  The  short  introductory  oracle  (chap.  i.  1-6) 
 is  a  warning  voice  from  the  past.  The  prophet 
 solemnly  reminds  the  people,  by  an  appeal  to  the 
 experience  of  their  fiithers,  that  no  word  of  God 
 had  ever  fallen  to  the  ground,  and  that  therefore, 
 if   with  sluggish  indifference  they  refused  to  co- 
 
 n  In  the  last  passage  the  people  are  told  to  "  fetch 
 olive-branches  and  cypress-branches,  and  myrtle- 
 branches  and  palui-branches  ....  to  make  booths  '" 
 for  the  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  It  is 
 interesting  to  compare  this  with  the  original  direction, 
 as  given  in  the  wilderness,  when  the  only  trees  men- 
 tioned are  '■  palms  and  willows  of  the  brook.'  Pales- 
 tine was  rich  in  tlie  olive  and  cypress.  Is  it  very  im- 
 probable that  the  myrtle  may  have  been  an  importa- 
 tion from  Babylon  ?  Esther  was  also  called  Iladassah 
 <the  myrtle),  perhaps  her  Persian  designation  (Ksth.  ii. 
 /) ;  and  the  myrtle  is  said  to  be  a  native  of  Persia. 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 operate  in  the  building  oi  the  Temple,  they  musi 
 expect  the  judgments  of  God.  This  warning 
 manifestly  rests  upon  the  former  warnings  of  Hag- 
 gai. 
 
 2.  In  a  dream  of  the  night  there  passed  before 
 the  eyes  of  the  prophet  a  series  of  visions  (chap, 
 i.  7-vi.  15)  descriptive  in  their  difliirent  aspects  of 
 events,  some  of  them  shortly  to  come  to  pass,  and 
 others  losing  themselves  in  the  mist  of  the  futin-e. 
 These  visions  are  obscure,  and  accordingly  the 
 prophet  asks  their  meaning.  The  interpretation  is 
 given,  not  as  to  Amos  by  Jehovah  Himself,  but  by 
 an  angel  wlio  knows  the  mind  and  will  of  Jehovah, 
 wiio  intercedes  with  Him  for  others,  and  by  whom 
 Jehovah  speaks  and  issues  his  commands :  at  one 
 time  he  is  called  "  the  angel  who  spake  with  me  " 
 [or  "by  me  "J  (i.  9);  at  another,  "the  angel  of 
 Jehovah  "  (i.  11,  12,  iii.  1-6). 
 
 (1.)  In  the  first  vision  (chap.  i.  7-15)  the  prophet 
 sees,  in  a  valley  of  myrtles,''  a  rider  upon  a  roan 
 horse,  accompanied  by  others  who,  having  been  sent 
 forth  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  had  returned 
 with  the  tidings  that  the  whole  earth  was  at  rest 
 (with  reference  to  Hag.  ii.  20).  Hereupon  the 
 angel  asks  how  long  this  state  of  things  shall  last, 
 and  is  assured  that  the  indifiijrence  of  the  heathen 
 shall  cease,  and  that  the  Temple  shall  be  built  in 
 Jerusalem.  This  vision  seems  to  have  been  partly 
 borrowed  from  Job  i.  7,  etc. 
 
 (2.)  The  second  vision  (chap.  ii.  1-17,  A.  V.  i. 
 18-ii.  I'-l)  explains  how  the  promise  of  the  first  is 
 to  be  fulfilled.  The  foiu-  horns  are  the  symbols  of 
 the  diflerent  heathen  kingdoms  in  the  four  quarters 
 of  the  world,  which  have  hitherto  combined  against 
 Jerusalem.  The  four  carpenters  or  smiths  sym- 
 bolize their  destruction.  What  follows,  ii.  5-9 
 (A.  v.  ii.  1-5),  betokens  the  va.stly  extended  area 
 of  Jerusalem,  owing  to  the  rapid  increase  of  the 
 new  population.  The  old  prophets,  in  foretelling 
 the  happiness  and  glory  of  the  times  which  should 
 succeed  the  Captivity  in  Babylon,  had  made  a  great 
 part  of  that  happiness  and  glory  to  con.sist  in  the 
 gathering  together  again  of  the  whole  dispersed 
 nation  in  the  land  given  to  their  fathers.  This 
 vision  was  designed  to  teach  that  the  expectation 
 thus  raised  —  the  return  of  the  dispersed  of  Israel 
 —  should  be  fulfilled ;  that  Jerusalem  should  be  too 
 large  to  be  compassed  about  by  a  wall,  but  that 
 Jehovah  Himself  would  be  to  her  a  wall  of  fire  — • 
 a  light  and  defense  to  the  holy  city,  and  destruc- 
 tion to  her  adversaries.  A  song  of  joy,  in  prospect 
 of  so  bright  a  future,  closes  the  scene. 
 
 (3.)  The  next  two  visions  (iii.  iv.)  are  occupied 
 with  the  Temple,  and  with  the  two  principal  per- 
 sons on  whom  the  hopes  of  the  returned  exiles 
 rested.  The  permission  granted  for  the  rebuilding 
 of  the  Temple  had  no  doubt  stirred  afresh  the 
 malice  and  the  animosity  of  the  enemies  of  the 
 Jews.  Joshua  the  high-priest  had  been  singled 
 out,  it  would  seem,  as  the  especial  object  of  attack, 
 
 b  Ewald  understands  by  Hv^tt   not  "a  valley" 
 
 or  "bottom,"  as  the  A.  V.  renders,  but  the  heavenly 
 tent  or  tabernacle  (the  expression  being  chosen  with 
 I'eference  to  the  Mosaic  tabernacle),  which  is  the 
 dwelling-place  of  Jehovali.     Instead  of  "  myrtles  "  he 
 
 understands  by   D"^DTn   (with  the  LXX.  ava  iiitrov 
 
 Twv  opeuv  Toiv  (CttTao-Ki'ioi')  "  mountains,"  and  supposes 
 these  to  be  the  '■  two  mountains  "  mentioned  vi.  1, 
 and  which  are  there  called  "  mountains  of  brass." 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 (ind  pei'liaps  formal  accusations  had  already  been 
 laid  against  him  before  the  Persian  court."  The 
 propliet,  in  vision,  sees  him  sunnnoned  before  a 
 higher  tribunal,  and  solemnly  acquitted,  despite  the 
 cliarges  of  the  Satan  or  ^Vdversary.  This  is  done 
 with  the  forms  still  usual  in  an  eastern  court. 
 Tlie  filthy  garments  in  which  tlie  accused  is  expected 
 to  stand  are  talven  away,  and  the  caftan  or  robe  of 
 honor  is  put  upon  hira  in  token  that  his  innocence 
 has  been  established.  Acquitted  at  tliat  Ijar,  he 
 need  not  fear,  it  is  implied,  any  earthly  accuser. 
 He  sliall  be  protected,  lie  shall  carry  on  the  build- 
 ing of  the  Temple,  he  shall  so  prepare  tlie  way  for 
 the  coming  of  tlie  Messiah,  and  upon  the  foun- 
 dation-stone laid  before  him  shall  the  seven  eyes 
 of  God,  the  token  of  his  ever-watchful  Providence, 
 rest. 
 
 (4.)  The  last  vision  (iv.)  supposes  that  all  oppo- 
 sition to  the  building  of  the  Temple  shall  be  re 
 moved.  This  sees  the  completion  of  the  work.  It 
 has  evidently  a  peculiarly  impressive  character;  for 
 the  prophet,  though  his  di'eam  still  continues, 
 seems  to  himself  to  be  awakened  out  of  it  by  the 
 angel  who  speaks  to  him.  The  candlestick  (or 
 more  properly  chandelier)  with  seven  lights  (bor- 
 rowed from  the  candlestick  of  the  ^Mosaic  Taber- 
 nacle, Ex.  XXV.  31  ff.)  supposes  that  the  Temple  is 
 already  finished.  The  seven  pipes  which  supply 
 each  lamp  answer  to  the  seven  eyes  of  .lehovah  in 
 the  preceding  vision  (iii.  9),  and  this  sevenfold 
 supply  of  oil  denotes  the  presence  and  operation  of 
 the  Divine  Spirit,  through  whose  aid  Zerubbabel 
 will  overcome  all  obstacles,  so  that,  as  his  hands 
 had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  house,  his  hands 
 should  also  finish  it  (iv.  9).  The  two  olive-branches 
 of  the  vision,  belonging  to  the  oUve-tree  standing 
 by  the  candlestick,  are  Zerubbabel  himself  and 
 Joshua. 
 
 The  two  next  visions  (v.  1-11)  signify  that  the 
 land,  in  which  the  sanctuary  has  just  been  erected, 
 shall-  be  purged  of  all  its  pollutions. 
 
 (5.)  First,  the  curse  is  recorded  against  wicked- 
 ness in  Ihe  w/iole  Imul  (not  in  the  luhoh  earth,  as 
 A.  v.),  V.  3;  that  due  solemnity  may  be  given  to 
 it,  it  is  inscribed  upon  a  roll,  and  the  roll  is  repre- 
 sented as  flying,  in  order  to  denote  the  speed  with 
 which  the  curse  will  execute  itself 
 
 ((1.)  Next,  tlie  unclean  thing,  whether  in  the 
 form  of  idolatry  or  any  other  abomination,  shall  Ije 
 utterly  removed.  Caught  and  shut  up  as  it  were 
 in  a  cage,  like  some  savage  beast,  and  pressed  down 
 witli  a  weight  as  of  lead  upon  it  so  that  it  cannot 
 escape,  it  shall  be  carried  into  that  land  where  all 
 evil  things  have  long  made  their  dwelling  (Is.  xxxiv. 
 13),  the  laud  of  Baliylon  (Shinar,  v.  11),  from 
 which  Israel  had  been  redeemed. 
 
 (7. )  And  now  the  night  is  waning  fist,  and  the 
 morning  is  about  to  dawn.  Chariots  and  horses 
 appear,  issuing  from  between  two  brazen  moun- 
 tains, tlie  horses  like  those  in  tiie  first  vision ;  and 
 tiiese  receive  tiieir  several  commands  and  are  sent 
 forth  to  execute  the  will  of  Jehovah  in  the  four 
 quarters  of  the  earth.  The  four  chariots  are  images 
 of  the  four  winds,  which,  according  to  Ps.  civ.  3, 
 as  servants  of  God,  fulfill  his  behests;  and  of  the 
 one  that  goes  to  the  north  it  is  particularly  said 
 that  it  shall  let  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  rest  there  — 
 is  it  a  spirit  of  anger  against  the  nations,  Assyria, 
 Babylon,  Persia,  or  is  it  a  spirit  of  hope  and  desire 
 pf  return  in  the  hearts  of  those  of  the  exiles  who 
 
 1  So  EwalU,  Die  Prop/teten,  ii.  528. 
 
 ZECHARIAH  3604 
 
 still  lingered  in  the  land  of  their  captivity  ?  Stiihe- 
 liii,  JNIaurer,  and  others  adopt  the  former  view, 
 which  seems  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  preceding 
 vision:  ICwald  gives  the  latter  interpretation,  and 
 thinks  it  is  supported  by  what  follows. 
 
 Thus,  then,  the  cycle  of  visions  is  completed. 
 Scene  after  scene  is  unrolled  till  the  whole  glowing 
 picture  is  presented  to  the  eye.  All  enemies 
 crushed;  the  land  repeopled  and  Jerusalem  girt  as 
 with  a  wall  of  fire;  the  Temple  relji^,  more  truly 
 splendid  than  of  old,  because  more  abundantly  filled 
 with  a  Divine  Presence;  the  leaders  of  the  people 
 assured  in  the  most  signal  manner  of  the  Divine 
 protection ;  all  wickedness  solemnly  sentenced,  and 
 the  land  forever  purged  of  it:  such  is  the  mag- 
 nificent panorama  of  hope  which  the  prophet  dis- 
 plays to  his  countrymen. 
 
 And  very  consolatory  must  such  a  prospect  have 
 seemed  to  the  weak  and  disheartened  colony  in  Je- 
 rusalem. For  the  times  were  dark  and  troublous. 
 According  to  recent  interpretations  of  newly-dis- 
 covered inscriptions,  it  would  appear  that  Darius  I. 
 found  it  no  easy  task  to  hold  his  vast  dominions. 
 Province  after  province  had  revolted  both  in  the 
 east  and  in  the  north,  whither,  according  to  the 
 prophet  (vi.  8),  the  winds  had  carried  the  wrath 
 of  God;  and  if  the  reading  Aludraja,  i.  e.  Egypt,  is 
 correct  (Lassen  gives  Kurdistan),  Egypt  must  have 
 revolted  before  the  outbreak  mentioned  in  Herod, 
 vii.  1,  and  have  again  been  reduced  to  subjection. 
 To  such  revolt  there  may  possibly  be  an  allusion 
 in  the  reference  to  "the  land  of  the  south"  (vi. 
 6). 
 
 It  would  seem  that  Zechariah  anticipated,  as  a 
 consequence  of  these  perpetual  insurrections,  the 
 weakening  and  overthrow  of  the  Persian  mon- 
 archy and  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 for  which  Judali  in  faith  and  obedience  was  to 
 wait.* 
 
 Immediately  on  these  visions  there  follows  a 
 symbolical  act.  Three  Israelites  had  just  returned 
 from  Babylon,  bringing  with  them  rich  gifts  to 
 Jerusalem,  apparently  as  contributions  to  the  Tem- 
 ple, and  half  been  received  in  the  house  of  Josiah 
 the  son  of  Zephaniah.  Thither  the  prophet  is 
 commanded  to  go,  —  whether  still  in  a  dream  or 
 not,  is  not  very  clear,  — and  to  employ  the  silver 
 and  the  gold  of  their  offerings  for  the  service  of 
 Jehovah.  He  is  to  make  of  them  two  crowns,  and 
 to  place  these  on  the  head  of  Joshua  the  high- 
 priest,  —  a  sign  that  in  the  Messiah  who  should 
 build  the  Temple,  the  kingly  and  priestly  offices 
 should  be  united.  This,  however,  is  expressed 
 somewhat  enigmatically,  as  if  king  and  priest 
 should  be  perfectly  at  one,  rather  than  that  the 
 same  person  should  be  both  king  and  priest.  These 
 crowns  moreover,  were  to  be  a  memorial  in  honor 
 of  those  by  whose  liberality  they  had  been  made, 
 and  should  serve  at  the  same  time  to  excite  other 
 rich  Jews  still  living  in  Babylon  to  the  like  lib- 
 erality. Hence  their  symbolical  purpose  having 
 been  accomplished,  they  were  to  be  laid  up  in  the 
 Temple. 
 
 3.  F'rom  this  time,  for  a  space  of  nearly  two 
 years,  the  prophet's  voice  was  silent,  or  his  words 
 have  not  been  recorded.  But  in  the  fourth  year 
 of  King  Darius,  in  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth 
 month,  there  came  a  deputation  of  Jews  to  the 
 Temple,  anxious  to  know  whether  th^  fast-days 
 which    had    been    instituted    during    the   seventj 
 
 b  StiiUelin,  Einleit.  in  di(  Kan.  Biidi.  p.  318. 
 
3602 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 years'  captivity  were  still  to  be  observed.  On  the 
 one  hand,  now  that  the  Captivity  was  at  an  end, 
 and  Jerusalem  was  rising  from  her  ashes,  such  set 
 times  of  mourning  seemed  quite  out  of  place.  On 
 the  other  hand,  there  was  still  much  ground  for 
 serious  uneasiness;  for  some  time  after  their  return 
 they  had  suffered  severely  from  drought  and  famine 
 (Hag.  i.  6-11),  and  who  could  tell  that  they  would 
 not  so  suffer  again  V  the  hostility  of  their  neigh- 
 bors had  not^ased ;  they  were  still  regarded  with 
 no  common  jealousy;  and  large  numliers  of  their 
 brethren  had  not  yet  returned  i'rom  Babylon.  It 
 was  a  question  therefore,  that  seemed  to  admit  of 
 much  debate. 
 
 It  is  remarkable,  as  has  been  already  noticed, 
 that  this  question  should  have  been  addressed  to 
 priests  and  prophets  conjointly  in  the  Temple. 
 This  close  alliance  between  two  classes  hitherto  so 
 separate,  and  often  so  antagonistic,  was  one  of  the 
 most  hopeful  circumstances  of  the  times.  Still 
 Zechariah,  as  chief  of  the  prophets,  has  the  decision 
 of  this  question.  Some  of  the  priests,  it  is  evident 
 (vii.  7),  were  inclined  to  the  more  gloomy  view; 
 but  not  so  the  prophet.  In  language  worthy  of 
 his  position  and  his  office,  language  which  reminds 
 us  of  one  of  the  most  striking  passages  of  his  gi'eat 
 predecessor  (Is.  Iviii.  5-7),  he  lays  down  the  same 
 principle  that  God  loves  mercy  ratiier  than  fasting, 
 and  truth  and  lighteousness  rather  than  sackcloth 
 and  a  sad  countenance.  If  they  had  perislied,  he 
 reminds  them  it  was  because  their  hearts  were 
 hard  while  tliey  fasted ;  if  they  would  dwell  safely, 
 they  must  abstain  from  fraud  and  violence  and  not 
 from  food  (vii.  4-14). 
 
 Again  he  foretells,  but  now  in  vision,  the  glori- 
 ous times  that  are  near  at  hand  when  Jehovah 
 shall  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  Jerusalem  be 
 called  a  city  of  truth.  He  sees  her  streets  thronged 
 by  old  and  young,  her  exiles  returning,  her  Temple 
 standing  in  all  its  beauty,  her  land  rich  in  fruitfnl- 
 ness,  her  peojile  a  praise  and  a  blessing  in  the  earth 
 (viii.  1-15).  Again,  he  declares  that  "  truth  and 
 peace"  (vv.  16,  19)  are  the  bulwarks  of  national 
 prosperity.  And  once  more  reverting  to  the  ques- 
 tion which  had  been  raised  concerning  the  observ- 
 ance of  the  fasts,  he  announces,  in  obedience  to  the 
 command  of  Jeho\ah,  not  oidy  that  the  fasts  are 
 abolished,  but  that  the  days  of  mourning  shall 
 henceforth  be  days  of  joy,  the  fasts  Ije  counted  for 
 festivals.  His  pro])hecy  concludes  with  a  prediction 
 that  Jerusalem  shall  l)e  the  centre  of  religious  wor- 
 ship to  all  nations  of  the  earth  (viii.  16-23). 
 
 II.  The  remainder  of  the  book  consists  of  two 
 sections  of  aljout  equal  length,  ix.-xi.  and  xii.-xiv., 
 each  of  which  has  an  inscription.  They  have  the 
 general  prophetic  tone  and  character,  and  in  subject 
 they  so  far  harmonize  with  i.-viii.,  that  the  prophet 
 seeks  to  comfort  Judah  in  a  season  of  depression 
 vith  the  hope  of  a  brighter  future. 
 
 1.  In  the  first  section  he  threatens  Damascus 
 and  the  sea-coast  of  Palestine  with  misfortune;  but 
 declares  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  protected,  for  Je- 
 hovah himself  shall  encamp  about  her  (where  ix.  8 
 reminds  us  of  ii.  5);  her  king  shall  come  to  her, 
 he  shall  speak  peace  to  the  heathen,  so  that  all 
 weapons  of  war  shall  perish,  and  his  dominion  shall 
 be  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  Jews  who  are 
 still  m  captivity  shall  return  to  their  land ;  they 
 shall  be  mightier  than  Javan  (or  Greece);  and 
 Ephraim  and  Judah  once  more  united  shall  van- 
 quish all  enemies.  The  land  too  shall  be  fruitful 
 as  of  old  (comp.  viii.  12).     The  Teraphim  and  the 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 false  prophets  may  indeed  have  spoken  lies,  but 
 upon  tliese  will  the  Lord  execute  judgment,  and 
 then  He  will  look  with  fiivor  upon  his  people  and 
 bring  l)ack  both  Judah  and  Ephraim  from  their 
 captivity.  The  possession  of  Gilead  and  Lebanon 
 is  again  promised,  as  the  special  portion  of  Ephraim; 
 and  both  Egypt  and  Assyria  shall  be  broken  and 
 humbled. 
 
 The  prophecy  now  takes  a  sudden  turn.  An 
 enemy  is  seen  approaching  from  the  north,  who, 
 having  forced  the  narrow  passes  of  Lebanon,  the 
 great  l)ulwark  of  the  northern  frontier,  carries  des- 
 olation into  the  country  beyond.  Hereupon  the 
 prophet  receives  a  commission  from  God  to  feed  his 
 flock,  which  (iod  himself  will  no  more  feed  because 
 of  their  divisions.  The  prophet  undertakes  the 
 office,  and  makes  to  himself  two  staves  (naming  the 
 one  Beauty,  and  the  other  Union),  in  order  to  tend 
 the  flock,  and  cuts  off  several  evil  shepherds  whom 
 his  soul  abhors ;  but  observes  at  the  same  time  that 
 the  flock  will  not  be  obedient.  Hence  he  throws 
 up  his  office;  he  breaks  asunder  the  one  crook  in 
 token  that  the  co\enant  of  God  with  Israel  was  dis- 
 solvetl.  A  few,  the  poor  of  the  flock,  acknowledge 
 God's  hand  herein ;  and  the  prophet  demanding 
 the  wages  of  his  service,  receives  thirty  pieces  of 
 silver,  and  casts  it  into  the  house  of  Jehovah.  At 
 the  same  time  he  sees  that  there  is  no  hope  of  union 
 between  Judah  and  Israel  whom  he  had  trusted  to 
 feed  as  one  flock,  and  therefore  cuts  in  pieces  the 
 other  crook,  in  token  that  the  brotherhood  between 
 them  is  dissolved. 
 
 2.  The  second  section,  xii.-xiv.,  is  entitled, 
 "  'I'he  burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah  for  Israel." 
 But  Israel  is  here  used  of  the  nation  at  large,  not 
 of  Israel  as  distinct  from  Judah.  Indeed,  the 
 prophecy  which  follows,  concerns  Judah  and  Jeru- 
 salem. In  this  the  prophet  beholds  the  near  ap- 
 pi'oach  of  troublous  times,  when  Jerusalem  should 
 be  hard  pressed  by  enemies.  But  in  that  day  Je- 
 hovah shall  come  to  save  them:  "the  house  of 
 David  be  as  God,  as  the  angel  of  .lehovah  "  (xii.  8), 
 and  all  the  nations  which  gather  themselves  against 
 Jerusalem  shall  be  de.stroyed.  At  the  same  time 
 the  deliverance  shall  not  be  from  outward  enemies 
 alone.  God  will  pour  out  upon  them  a  spirit  of 
 grace  and  supplications,  so  that  they  shall  bewail 
 their  sinfulness  with  a  mourning  greater  than  that 
 with  which  they  bewailed  the  beloved  Josiah  in  the 
 valley  of  Megiddon.  So  deep  and  so  true  shall  be 
 this  repentance,  so  lively  the  aversion  to  .all  evil, 
 that  neither  idol  nor  false  prophet  shall  again  be 
 seen  in  the  land.  If  a  man  shall  pretend  to  proph- 
 esy, "  his  father  and  his'  mother  that  begat  him 
 shall  thrust  him  through  when  he  prophesieth," 
 tired  by  the  same  righteous  indignation  as  Phinehas 
 was  when  he  slew  those  who  wrought  folly  in  Israel 
 (xii.  1-xiii.  C). 
 
 Then  follows  a  short  apostrophe  to  the  sword  of 
 the  enemy  to  turn  against  the  shepherds  of  the 
 people;  and  a  further  amiouncement  of  searching 
 and  purifying  judgments;  which,  however,  it  nmst 
 be  acknowledged,  is  somewhat  abrupt.  Ewald'a 
 suggestion  that  the  passage  xiii.  7-9,  is  here  out  of 
 place,  and  should  be  transposed  to  the  end  of  chap, 
 xi.  is  certainly  ingenious,  and  does  not  seem  im- 
 probable. 
 
 The  prophecy  closes  with  a  grand  and  stirring 
 picture.  All  nations  are  gathered  together  against 
 Jerusalem ;  and  seem  already  sure  of  their  prey. 
 Half  of  their  cruel  woi-k  has  been  accomplished; 
 when   Jehovah  himself  appears  on   behalf  of  hia 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 people.  At  his  coming  all  nature  is  moved :  the 
 Mount  of  Olives  on  which  liis  feet  rest  cleaves 
 asunder;  a  mighty  earthquake  heaves  tlie  ground, 
 and  even  the  natural  succession  of  day  and  night  is 
 brolien.  He  goes  forth  to  war  against  tlie  adver- 
 saries (if  his  people,  lie  establishes  his  kingdom 
 over  all  the  earth.  Jerusalem  is  safely  inhabited, 
 and  rich  with  the  spoih  of  the  nations.  All  nations 
 that  are  still  left  shall  come  up  to  .lerusalem,  as 
 the  great  centre  of  religious  worship,  there  to  wor- 
 ship •'  the  King,  Jehovali  of  hosts,"  and  the  city 
 from  that  day  forw.\rd  sliall  be  a  holy  city. 
 
 Suoli  is,  briefly,  an  outline  of  the  second  portion 
 of  tliat  book  which  is  commonly  known  as  the 
 Prophecy  of  Zeeiiariah.  It  is  impossible,  even  on 
 a  cursory  view  of  tlie  two  portions  of  tlie  prophecy, 
 not  to  feel  how  ditlerent  the  section  xi.-xiv.  is  from 
 the  section  i.-viii.  The  next  point,  then,  for  our 
 consideration  is  this,  —  Is  the  book  in  its  present 
 form  the  work  of  one  and  tlie  same  prophet,  Zeeiia- 
 riah the  son  of  Iddo,  who  lived  alter  the  Baljylonish 
 exile  ? 
 
 Integrity.  —  Mede  was  the  first  to  call  this  in 
 question.  The  probability  that  the  later  chapters 
 from  the  ixth  to  the  xivth  were  by  some  other 
 prophet,  seems  first  to  have  been  suggested  to  him 
 by  the  citation  in  St.  Matthew,  lie  says  (I'^pist. 
 xxxi.),  "  It  may  seem  the  Evangelist  would  inform 
 us  that  those  latter  chapters  ascribed  to  Zachary 
 (namely,  ixth,  xth,  xith,  etc.),  are  indeed  the  proph- 
 ecies of  Jeremy;  and  that  the  Jews  had  not  rightly 
 attributed  them."  Starting  from  this  point,  he 
 goes  on  to  give  reasons  for  supposing  a  different 
 author.  "  Certainly,  if  a  man  weighs  the  contents 
 of  some  of  them,  they  should  in  likeliiiood  be  of  an 
 elder  date  than  the  time  of  Zachary;  namely,  before 
 the  Captivity :  for  the  subjects  of  some  of  them 
 were  scarce  in  being  after  that  time.  And  the 
 chapter  out  of  which  St.  Matthew  quotes  may  seem 
 to  have  somewhat  much  unsuitable  with  Zachary's 
 time;  as,  a  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  the 
 Temple,  then  when  he  was  to  encourage  them  to 
 build  it.  And  how  doth  the  sixth  verse  of  that 
 chapter  suit  with  his  time?  There  is  no  scripture 
 saith  they  are  Zachary's;  but  tliere  is  scripture 
 saith  they  are  Jeremy's,  as  this  of  the  Evangelist." 
 He  then  observes  that  the  mere  fact  of  these  being 
 found  in  the  same  book  as  the  prophecies  of  Zeeiia- 
 riah does  not  prove  that  they  were  his;  difference 
 of  authorship  being  allowalde  in  the  same  waj'  as 
 in  the  collection  of  Agur's  Proverbs  under  one  title 
 with  those  of  Solomon,  and  of  Psalms  by  other 
 authors  with  those  of  Da\id.  Even  the  absence  of 
 a  fresh  title  is,  he  argues,  no  evidence  against  a 
 change  of  author.  "  The  Jews  wrote  in  rolls  or 
 volumes,  and  the  title  was  but  once.  If  aught 
 ■were  added  to  the  roll,  ub  simililudiiifm  artjnmenti, 
 or  for  some  other  reason,  it  had  a  new  title,  as  that 
 of  Agur;  or  perhaps  none,  but  was  avcvvu/xov." 
 The  utter  disregard  of  anything  like  chronological 
 order  in  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  where  "  some- 
 times all  is  ended  with  Zedekiah ;  then  we  are 
 brought  back  to  Jehoiakim,  then  to  Zedekiah 
 again  "  —  makes  it  probalile,  he  thinks,  that  they 
 were  only  hastily  and  loosely  put  together  in  those 
 distracted  times.  Consequently  some  of  them 
 might  not  have  been  discovered  till  after  the  return 
 from  the  Captivity,  when  they  were  approved  by 
 Zechariah,  and  so  came  to  be  incorporated  with  his 
 prophecies.  MeJe  evidently  rests  his  opinion,  partly 
 on  the  authority  of  St.  Matthew,  and  partly  on  the 
 contents  of  the,  later  chapters,  which  he  considers 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 3603 
 
 require  a  date  earlier  than  the  exile.  He  sajt 
 again  (Epist.  Ixi.):  "  That  which  moveth  me  more 
 than  the  rest  is  in  chap,  xii.,  which  contains  a 
 prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  .lerusalem,  and  a  de- 
 scription of  the  wickedness  of  the  iiihaliitaiits.  for 
 which  God  would  give  them  to  the  sword,  and  have 
 no  more  pity  on  them.  It  is  expounded  of  the  de- 
 struction by  Titus;  liut  methinks  such  a  prophecy 
 was  nothing  seasonalde  for  Zachary's  time  (when 
 the  city  yet,  for  a  great  part,  lay  in  her  ruins,  and 
 the  Temple  had  not  yet  recovered  hers),  nor  agree- 
 able to  the  scope  of  Zachary's  commission,  who, 
 together  with  his  colleague  Haggai,  was  sent  to  en- 
 courage the  peoi)le  lately  returned  from  captivity  to 
 build  their  temple,  and  to  instaurate  their  common- 
 wealth. Was  this  a  fit  time  to  foretell  the  destruc- 
 tion of  both,  while  they  were  but  yet  a  building? 
 and  by  Zachary,  too,  who  was  to  encourage  them  ? 
 would  not  this  better  befit  the  desolation  by  Neb- 
 uchadnezzar? " 
 
 Archbishop  Nevvcome  went  further.  He  insisted 
 on  the  great  dissimilarity  of  style  as  well  as  subject 
 between  the  earlier  and  later  chapters.  And  he  was 
 the  first  who  advocated  the  theory  which  Bunsen 
 calls  one  of  the  triumphs  of  modern  criticism,  that 
 the  last  six  chapters  of  Zechariah  are  the  work  of 
 two  distinct  prophets.  His  words  are :  "  The  eight 
 first  chapters  appear  by  the  introductory  parts  to 
 be  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  stand  in  connection 
 with  each  other,  are  pertinent  to  the  time  when 
 they  were  delivered,  are  uniform  in  style  and  man- 
 ner, and  constitute  a  regular  whole.  But  the  six 
 last  chapters  are  not  expressly  assigned  to  Zecha- 
 riah; are  unconnected  with  those  which  precede: 
 the  three  first  of  them  are  unsuitable  in  many  parts 
 to  the  time  wheiii  Zechariah  lived ;  all  of  them 
 have  a  more  adorned  and  poetical  turn  of  composi- 
 tion than  the  eight  first  chapters;  and  they  mani- 
 festly break  the  unity  of  the  prophetical  book." 
 
 "  I  conclude,''  he  continues,  "  from  internal 
 marks  in  chaps,  ix.,  x.,  xi.,  that  these  three  chapters 
 were  written  much  earlier  than  the  time  of  Jere- 
 miah and  before  the  captivity  of  the  tribes.  Israel 
 is  mentioned  chaps,  ix.  1,  xi.  1-4.  (But  that  this 
 argument  is  inconclusive,  see  Mai.  ii.  11.)  Ephraim, 
 chaps,  ix.  10,  1-3,  x.  7;  and  Assyria,   chap.   x.  10, 
 
 11 They  seem  to   suit    Hosea's  age   and 
 
 manner The  xiith,  xiiith,  and  xivth  chap- 
 ters form  a  distinct  pro|)liecy,  and  were  written 
 after  the  death  of  Josiah;  but  whether  tiefore  or 
 after  the  Captivity,  and  by  what  prophets,  is  uncer- 
 tain. Though  I  incline  to  think  that  the  author 
 lived  before  the  destruction  of  .lerusalem  by  the 
 Babylonians."  In  proof  of  this  he  refers  to  xiii.  2, 
 on  which  he  observes  that  the  "  prediction  that 
 idols  and  false  prophets  should  cease  at  the  final 
 restoration  of  the  Jews  seems  to  have  been  uttered 
 when  idolatry  and  groundless  pretensions  to  the 
 spirit  of  prophecy  were  common  among  the  Jews, 
 and  therefore  before  the  Babylonish  Captivity." 
 
 A  large  number  of  critics  have  followed  Mede 
 and  Archbishop  Nevvcome  in  denying  the  later  date 
 of  the  last  six  chajiters  of  the  book.  In  Engl.and, 
 Bishop  Kidder,  Wliiston,  Hammond,  and  more 
 recently  Pye  Smith,  and  Davidson;  in  Germany, 
 Fliigge,  Eichhorn,  Bauer,  Bertholdt,  Augusti, 
 Forberg,  Roseiim idler,  Gramberg,  Credner,  Ewald, 
 Maurer,  Knobel,  Ilitzig,  and  Bleek,  are  agreed  in 
 maintaining  that  these  later  chapters  are  not  the 
 work  of  Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  later  date  of  these  chap- 
 ters has  been  maintained  among  ourselves  by  Blay- 
 
3604  ZECHARIAH 
 
 ney  and  Henderson,  and  on  the  continent  by 
 Carpzov,  Beckhaus,  Jahn,  Ktjster,  IIen<;stenber(r, 
 Iliivernick.  Keil,  De  Wette  (in  later  editions  of  his 
 EinltiluiKj  ;  in  the  first  three  he  adopted  a  differ- 
 ent view),  and  Stiibeiin. 
 
 Those  who  impugn  the  later  date  of  these  chap- 
 ters of  Zeehariah  rest  their  arguments  on  the 
 change  in  style  and  subject  after  the  viiith  chapter, 
 but  differ  much  in  the  application  of  their  criticism. 
 Roseinniiller,  for  instance  (Scliul.  in  Proph.  M'ui. 
 vol.  iv.  p.  257),  argues  that  chaps,  ix.-xiv.  are  so 
 alike  in  style,  that  they  must  have  been  written  l>y 
 one  author.  Me  alleges  in  proof  his  fondness  for 
 images  taken  from  pastoral  life  (ix.  IG,  x.  2,  3,  xi. 
 3,  4,  5,  7,  8,  9,  11,  15,  17,  xiii.  7,  8).  From  the 
 allusion  to  the  earthquake  (xiv.  5,  comp.  Am.  i.  1) 
 he  thinks  the  author  nnist  have  lived  in  the  reign 
 of  Uzziah. 
 
 Davidson  (in  Home's  Introd.  ii.  982)  in  like 
 maimer  declares  for  one  author,  but  supposes  him 
 to  have  been  the  Zeciiariah  mentioned  Is.  viii.  2, 
 who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz. 
 
 Eichhorn,  on  the  other  hand,  whilst  also  assign- 
 ing (in  his  EinUilunc/,  iv.  444-)  the  whole  of  chaps. 
 ix.-xiv.  to  one  writer,  is  of  opinion  that  they  are 
 the  work  of  a  later  prophet  who  flourished  in  the 
 time  of  Alexander. 
 
 Others  again,  as  Bertholdt,  Gesenius,  Knobel, 
 Maurer,  Bunsen,  and  Ewald,  thiidi  that  chaps. 
 ix.-xi.  (to  which  Ewald  adds  xiii.  7-9)  are  a  dis- 
 tinct prophecy  from  chaps,  xii.-xiv.,  and  separated 
 from  them  by  a  consideralile  interval  of  time.  These 
 critics  conclude  from  internal  evidence,  that  the 
 former  portion  was  written  by  a  prophet  who  lived 
 in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (Knobel  gives  ix.,  x.  to  the 
 reign  of  .Jotliam,  and  xi.  to  that  of  Ahaz),  and 
 most  of  them  conjecture  that  he  was  the  Zechariaii 
 the  son  of  Jeberechiah  (or  Berechiah),  mentioned 
 Is.  viii.  2. 
 
 Ewald,  without  attempting  to  identify  the  prophet 
 with  any  particidar  person,  contents  himself  with 
 remarking  that  he  was  a  subject  of  the  Southern 
 kingdom  (as  may  be  inferred  from  expressions  such 
 as  that  in  ix.  7,  and  from  the  Messianic  hopes 
 which  he  utters,  and  in  which  he  resembles  his 
 countryman  and  contemporary  Isaiah);  and  that 
 like  Amos  and  Hosea  before  him,  though  a  na- 
 tive of  Judah,  he  directs  his  prophecies  against 
 Ephraim. 
 
 There  is  the  same  general  agreement  among  the 
 last-named  critics  as  to  the  date  of  the  section 
 xii.-xiv. 
 
 They  all  assign  it  to  a  period  immediately  pre- 
 vious to  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  hence  the 
 author  must  have  been  contemporary  with  the 
 prophet  .Jeremiah.  Bunsen  identifies  him  with 
 Urijah  the  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kirjath-jearim  (.ler. 
 xxvi.  20-23),  who  prophesied  "  in  the  name  of  Je- 
 hovah "  against  .ludah  and  .Jerusalem. 
 
 According  to  this  hypothesis  we  have  the  works 
 of  three  different  prophets  collected  into  one  book, 
 and  passing  under  one  name:  — 
 
 1.  Chapters  ix.-xi.,  the  book  of  Zeehariah  I., 
 a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  under  Ahaz,  about  736. 
 
 2.  Chapters  xii.-xiv.,  author  unknown  (or  per- 
 haps Urijah,  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah),  about 
 607  or  000. 
 
 3.  Chapters  i.-viii.,  the  work  of  the  son  (or 
 grandson)  of  Iddo,  Haggai's  contemporary,  about 
 520-518. 
 
 We  have  then  two  distinct  theories  before  us. 
 The  one  merely  affirms  that  the  six  last  chapters 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 of  our  present  book  are  not  from  the  same  authu. 
 as  the  first  eight.  The  other  carries  the  dismem- 
 berment of  the  book  still  further,  and  maintains 
 that  the  six  last  chapters  are  the  work  of  two  dis- 
 tinct authors  who  lived  at  two  distinct  periods  of 
 Jewish  history.  The  arguments  advanced  by  the 
 supporters  of  each  theory  rest  on  the  same  grounds. 
 They  are  drawn  partly  from  the  difference  in  style, 
 and  partly  from  the  difference  in  the  nature  of  the 
 contents,  the  historical  references,  etc.,  in  the  dif- 
 ferent sections  of  the  liook;  but  the  one  sees  this 
 difference  only  in  ix.-xiv.,  as  compared  with 
 i.-viii.;  the  other  sees  it  also  in  xii.-xiv.,  as  com- 
 pared with  ix.-xi.  We  must  accordingly  con- 
 sider, — 
 
 1.  The  difference  generally  in  the  style  and  con- 
 tents of  chapters  ix.-xiv.,  as  compared  with  chap- 
 ters i.-viii. 
 
 2.  The  differences  between  xii.-xiv.,  as  compared 
 with  ix.-xi. 
 
 1.  The  difference  in  point  of  style  between  the 
 latter  and  former  portions  of  the  prophecy  is  ad- 
 mitted by  all  critics.  Rosenmiiller  characterizes 
 that  of  the  first  eight  chapters  as  "  prosaic,  feeljle, 
 poor,"  and  that  of  the  remaining  six  as  "  poetic, 
 weighty,  concise,  glowing."  But  without  admitting 
 so  sweeping  a  criticism,  and  one  which  the  verdict 
 of  abler  critics  on  the  former  portion  has  contra- 
 dicted, there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  general  tone 
 and  character  of  the  one  section  is  in  decided  con- 
 trast witli  that  of  the  other.  "  .\s  he  passes  from 
 the  first  half  of  the  prophet  to  the  second,"  says 
 Eichhorn,  "  no  reader  can  fail  to  perceive  how 
 strikingly  different  are  the  impressions  which  are 
 made  upon  him  by  the  two.  The  manner  of  writ- 
 ing in  the  second  portion  is  far  loftier  and  moiv 
 mysterious;  the  images  employed  grander  and 
 more  magnificent;  the  point  of  view  and  the  hori- 
 zon are  changed.  Once  the  Temple  and  the  ordi- 
 nances of  religion  formed  the  central  point  from 
 which  the  prophet's  words  radiated,  and  to  which 
 they  ever  returned;  now  these  have  vanished.  The 
 favorite  modes  of  expression,  hitherto  so  often  re- 
 peated, are  now  as  it  were  forgotten.  The  chrono- 
 logical notices  which  before  marked  the  day  on 
 wliich  each  several  prophecy  was  uttered,  now  fail 
 us  altogether.  Could  a  writer  all  at  once  have 
 forgotten  so  entirely  his  habits  of  thought?  Could 
 he  so  completely  disguise  his  innermost  feelings? 
 Could  the  world  about  him,  the  mode  of  expression, 
 the  images  employed,  be  so  totally  different  in  the 
 case  of  one  and  the  same  writer?  "  (Jiiiil.  iv.  443, 
 §G05). 
 
 I.  Chapters  i.-viii.  are  marked  by  certain  pecul- 
 iarities of  idiom  and  phraseology  which  do  not 
 occur  afterwards.  Favorite  expressions  are  —  "  The 
 word  of  Jehovah  came  unto,"  etc.  (i.  7,  iv.  8,  vi. 
 9,  vii.  ],  4,  8,  viii.  1,  18);  "Thus  saith  Jehovah 
 (God)  of  hosts"  (i.  4,  10,  17,  ii.  1],  viii.  2,  4,  0, 
 7,  9,  14,  18,  20,  23);  "  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes 
 and  saw"  (i.  18,  ii.  J,  v.  1,  vi.  1):  none  of  these 
 modes  of  expression  are  to  be  met  with  in  chapters 
 ix.-xiv.  On  the  other  haiul,  the  phrase  •'  In  that 
 day  "  is  entirely  confined  to  tlie  later  chapters,  in 
 which  it  occurs  frequently.  The  form  of  the  in- 
 scriptions is  different.  Introductions  to  the  sep- 
 arate oracles,  such  as  those  in  ix.  1,  xii.  1,  do  not 
 present  themselves  in  the  earlier  portion.  Zechar- 
 riah,  in  several  instances,  states  the  time  at  which 
 a  particular  prophecy  was  uttered  by  him  (i.  1,  7 
 vii.  1).  He  mentions  his  own  name  in  these  pas- 
 sages, and  alfj  in  vii.  8,  and  the  names  of  contem 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 poraries  in  iii.  1,  iv.  6,  vi.  10,  vii.  2:  the  writer 
 (or  writers)  of  the  second  portion  of  tlie  book  never 
 does  this.  It  has  also  been  observed  that  after  tlie 
 first  eight  chapters  we  liear  nothing  of  "  Satan," 
 or  of  "  the  seven  eyes  of  Jehovah;  "  that  there  are 
 no  more  visions;  that  chap.  xi.  contains  an  alle- 
 gory, not  a  symbolic  action;  that  here  are  no  rid- 
 dles which  need  to  be  solved,  no  anijdus  interpres 
 to  solve  them. 
 
 II.  Chapters  ix.-xi.  These  chapters,  it  is  al- 
 leged, have  also  their  characteristic  peculiari- 
 ties :  — 
 
 (1.)  In  point  of  style,  the  author  resembles 
 Hosea  more  than  any  other  prophet:  such  is  the 
 ^■erdict  both  of  Knobel  and  Ewald.  He  delights 
 to  picture  Jehovah  as  the  Great  Captain  of  his 
 people.  Jeliovah  comes  to  Zion,  and  pitches  his 
 can)p  there  to  protect  her  (ix.  8,  9).  He  blows  the 
 trumpet,  marches  against  his  enemies,  makes  his 
 people  his  bow,  and  shoots  his  arrows  (ix.  13,  14); 
 or  He  rides  on  Judah  as  his  war-horse,  and  goes 
 forth  thereon  to  victory  (x.  3,  5).  Again,  he  speaks 
 of  the  people  as  a  Hock,  and  the  leaders  of  the  peo- 
 ple as  their  shepherds  (ix.  IG,  x.  2,  3,  xi.  4  ff.). 
 He  describes  himself  also,  in  his  character  of 
 prophet,  as  a  shepherd  in  the  last  passages,  and 
 assumes  to  himself,  in  a  .symbolic  action,  which 
 however  may  have  been  one  only  of  the  imagina- 
 tion, all  the  guise  and  the  gear  of  a  shepherd.  In 
 general  he  delights  in  images  (ix.  3,  4,  13-17,  x.  3, 
 5,  7,  ifec),  some  of  which  are  striking  and  I'orcible. 
 
 (2.)  The  notes  of  time  are  also  peculiar:  — 
 
 1.  It  was  a  time  when  the  pride  of  Assyria  was 
 yet  at  its  height  (x.,  xi.),  and  when  the  Jews  had 
 already  suffered  from  it.  This  first  took  place  in 
 the  time  of  Menahem  (b.  c.  77"2-7(il). 
 
 2.  'I'he  Traiis-jordanic  territory  had  already  been 
 swept  by  the  armies  of  the  invader  (x.  10),  but  a 
 still  further  desolation  threatened  it  (xi.  1-3). 
 The  first  may  liave  been  the  invasion  of  Pul  (1 
 Chr.  V.  26),  the  second  that  of  Tiglath-l'ileser." 
 
 3.  The  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  are 
 both  standing  (ix.  10,  13,  x.  G),  but  many  Israel- 
 ites are  nevertheless  exiles  in  Egypt  and  Assyria 
 (ix.  11,  X.  G,  8,  10,  &c.). 
 
 4.  The  struggle  between  Judah  and  Israel  is 
 supposed  to  be  already  begun  (xi.  14).  At  the 
 same  time  Damascus  is  threatened  (ix.  1 ).  If  so, 
 the  reference  nnist  be  to  the  alliance  formed  be- 
 tween I'ekah  king  of  Israel  and  Kezin  of  Damas- 
 cus, the  consequence  of  which  was  the  loss  of  Elath 
 (739). 
 
 5.  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  boilt  formidable  powers 
 (x.  !),  10,  11).  The  only  other  prophets  to  whom 
 these  two  nations  appear  as  formidable,  at  the  same 
 time,  are  Hosea  (vii.  11,  xii.  1,  xiv.  3)  and  his  con- 
 temporary Isaiah  (vii.  17,  &q.)\  and  that  in  proph- 
 ecies which  must  have  lieen  uttered  lietween  743 
 and  740.  The  expectation  seems  to  have  been  that 
 the  Assyrians,  in  order  to  attack  Egypt,  would 
 march  by  way  of  >Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Philistia, 
 along  the  coast  (Zech.  ix.  1-9),  as  they  did  after- 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 5005 
 
 «  So  Knobel  supposes.  Ewald  also  refers,  xi.  1-3, 
 to  the  deportation  of  Tiglath-Pileser,  and  thinks  that 
 X.  10  refers  to  some  earlier  deportation,  the  As.syrians 
 having  invaded  this  portioa  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
 in  the  former  half  of  Pekah's  reign  of  twenty  years. 
 To  this  Bunsen  {Gott  in  der  Gesch.  i.  450)  objects 
 that  wo  have  no  record  of  any  earlier  removal  of  the 
 Inhabit-int?!  from  the  laud  than  that  of  Tiglath-Pileser, 
 which   occurred  at   the  close  of  Pekah's  reign,  and 
 
 wards  (Is.  xx.  1),  and  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
 would  suffer  chiefly  in  consequence  (Zech.  ix.  9- 
 12),  and  Judah  in  a  smaller  degree  (ix.  8,  9). 
 
 6.  The  kingdom  of  Israel  is  described  as  "  a 
 flock  for  the  slaughter "  in  chap,  xi.,  over  which 
 three  shepherds  have  been  set  in  one  month.  This 
 corresponds  with  the  season  of  anarchy  and  confu- 
 sion which  followed  immediately  on  the  murder  of 
 Zechariah  the  son  of  JeroI)oani  II.  (7G0).  This  son 
 reigned  only  six  months,  his  murderer  Shallum  but 
 one  (2  K.  xv.  8-15),  being  put  to  death  in  his 
 turn  by  Menahem.  Meanwhile  another  rival  king 
 may  have  arisen,  Bunsen  thinks,  in  some  other  part 
 of  the  country,  who  may  have  fallen  as  the  mur- 
 derer did,  before  Menahem. 
 
 The  symbolical  action  of  the  breaking  of  the  two 
 shepherds'  staves  —  Favor  and  Union  —  points  the 
 same  way.  The  breaking  of  the  first  showed  that 
 God's  favor  had  departed  from  Israel,  that  of  the 
 second  that  all  hope  of  union  between  Judah  and 
 Ephraim  was  at  an  end. 
 
 All  these  notes  of  time  point  in  the  same  direc- 
 tion, and  make  it  probable  that  the  author  of  chaps. 
 ix.-xi.  was  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  and  prophe- 
 sied during  the  reign  of  Ahaz.*" 
 
 2.  Chaps,  xii. -xiv.  —  By  the  majority  of  those 
 critics  who  assign  these  chapters  to  a  third  author, 
 that  author  is  supposed  to  have  lived  shortly  before 
 the  Babylonish  Captivity.  The  grounds  for  sepa- 
 rating these  three  chapters  from  chapters  ix.-xi. 
 are  as  follows :  — 
 
 1.  This  section  opens  with  its  own  introductory 
 formula,  as  the  preceding  one  (ix.  1)  does.  This, 
 however,  only  shows  that  the  sections  are  distinct, 
 not  that  they  were  written  at  difterent  times. 
 
 2.  The  object  of  the  two  sections  is  altogether 
 different.  The  author  of  the  former  (ix.-xi.)  has 
 both  Israel  and  Judah  before  him;  he  often  speaks 
 of  them  together  (ix.  13,  x.  6,  xi.  14,  comp.  x.  7); 
 he  directs  his  prophecy  to  the  Trans-jordanic  terri- 
 tory', and  announces  the  discharge  of  his  office  in 
 Israel  (xi.  4  ff.).  I'he  author  of  the  second  sec- 
 tion, on  the  other  hand,  has  only  to  do  with  Judah 
 and  Jerusalem:  he  nowhere  mentions  Israel. 
 
 3.  The  political  horizon  of  the  two  prophets  is 
 different.  By  the  former,  mention  is  made  of 
 the  Syrians,  Phoenicians,  Philistines  (ix.  1-7),  and 
 Greeks  (ix.  13),  as  well  as  of  the  Assyrians  and 
 I'jgyptians,  the  two  last  being  described  as  at  that 
 time  the  most  powerful.  It  therefore  belongs  to 
 the  earlier  time  when  these  two  nations  were  be- 
 ginning to  struggle  for  supremacy  in  Western  Asia. 
 By  the  latter,  the  Egyptians  only  are  mentioned  as 
 a  hostile  nation :  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  Assyr- 
 ians. The  author  consequently  must  have  lived 
 at  a  time  when  Egypt  was  the  chief  enemy  of 
 Judah. 
 
 4.  The  anticipations  of  the  two  prophets  are 
 ditterent.  The  first  tremliles  only  for  Ephraim. 
 lie  predicts  the  desolation  of  the  Tran.s-jordain'o 
 territory,  the  carrying  away  captive  of  the  Israc. 
 ites,  but  also  the  return  from  Assyria  and  Egypt 
 
 which   in  x.   10   Is   supposed    to   have   taken    place 
 already. 
 
 b  According  to  Knobel,  ix.  and  x.  were  probably 
 delivered  in  Jotliam's  reign,  and  xi.  in  that  of  Ahaz 
 who  summoned  Tigl-ith-Pileser  to  his  aid.  Maurer 
 thinks  that  ix.  and  x.  were  written  between  the  first 
 (2  K.  XV.  29)  and  second  (2  K.  xvii.  4-6)  As.syrian 
 inviisions,  chap.  x.  during  the  seven  years'  interreg- 
 num which  followed  the  death  of  Pekah,  and  xi.  la 
 the  reign  of  Hoshea. 
 
3606 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 (k.  7,  10).  But  for  Judah  he  has  no  cause  of  fear. 
 Jehovah  will  protect  her  (ix.  8),  and  bring  back 
 those  of  her  sons  who  in  earlier  times  had  gone 
 into  captivity  (ix.  11).  The  .second  prophet,  on 
 the  other  hand,  making  no  mention  whatever  of  the 
 northern  kingdom,  is  full  of  alarm  lor  Judah.  He 
 sees  hostile  nations'  gathering  together  against  her, 
 and  two  thirds  of  her  inhabitants  destroyed  (xiii. 
 6);  he  sees  the  enemy  laying  siege  to  Jerusalem, 
 taking  and  plundering  it,  and  carrying  half  of  her 
 people  captive  (xii.  3,  xiv.  2,  5).  Of  any  return  of 
 the  captives  nothing  is  here  said. 
 
 5.  The  style  of  the  two  prophets  is  different. 
 The  autlior  of  this  last  section  is  fond  of  the  pro- 
 phetic formulse:  •^^'^l'  "And  it  shall  come  to 
 pass"  (xii.  9,  xiii.  2,  3,  4,  8,  xiv.  6,  8,  13,  IG); 
 S^inrT  Q'^'^S,  "in  that  day"  (.xii.  3,  4,  C,  8, 
 9,  11,  xiii.  1,  2,  4,  xiv.  8,  9,  13,  20,  21); 
 Tiyn)  DMD,  "saith  Jehovah"  (xii.  1,  4,  xiii.  2, 
 7,  8).  In  the  section  ix.-xi.  the  first  does  not 
 occur  at  all,  the  second  but  once  (ix.  16),  the  third 
 only  twice  (x.  12,  xi.  6).  We  have  moreover  in 
 this  section  certain  favorite  expressions  :  "  all 
 peoples,"  "all  people  of  the  earth,"  "all  nations 
 round  about,"  "  all  nations  that  come  up  against 
 Jerusalem,"  "  the  inhabitants  of  .lerusalem,"  "  the 
 house  of  David,"  "family"  for  nation,  "the 
 families  of  the  earth,"  "the  family  of  Egypt," 
 etc. 
 
 6.  There  are  apparently  few  notes  of  time  in  this 
 section.  One  is  the  allusion  to  the  death  of  Josiah 
 in  "  the  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley 
 of  JMegiddon ;  "  another  to  the  earthquake  in  the 
 days  of  Uzziah  kinr/  of  Judith.  This  addition  to 
 the  name  of  the  king  shows,  Knobel  suggests,  that 
 he  had  been  long  dead:  but  the  argument,  if  it  is 
 worth  anything,  would  make  even  more  for  those 
 who  hold  a  post-exile  date.  It  is  certainly  remark- 
 able occurring  thus  in  the-  l)»dy  of  the  prophecy, 
 and  not  in  the  inscription  as  in  Isaiah  i.  1. 
 
 In  reply  to  all  these  arguments,  it  has  been  urged 
 by  Keil,  Stahelin,  and  others,  that  the  diflerenee 
 of  style  between  the  two  principal  divisions  of  the 
 prophecy  is  not  greater  than  may  reasonably  be 
 accounted  for  by  the  change  of  suliject.  The  lan- 
 guage in  which  visions  are  narrated  would,  from 
 the  nature  of  the  case,  be  quieter  and  less  animated 
 than  that  in  which  prophetic  anticipations  of  future 
 glory  are  described.  They  differ  as  the  style  of 
 the  narrator  differs  from  that  of  the  orator.  Thus, 
 for  instance,  how  different  is  the  style  of  Ilosea, 
 chaps,  i.-iii.,  from  the  style  of  the  same  prophet  in 
 chaps,  iv.-xiv. ;  or  again,  that  of  Kzekiel  vi.,  vii. 
 from  l'>zekiel  iv. 
 
 But  besides  this,  even  in  what  may  be  termed 
 the  more  oratorical  portions  of  the  first  eight  chnp- 
 ters,  the  prophet  is  to  a  great  extent  occupied  with 
 warnings  and  exhortations  of  a  [tractical  kind  (see 
 i.  4-f),  vii.  4-14,  viii.  9-23 ) ;  vyhereas  in  the  subse- 
 quent chapters  he  is  rapt  into  a  far  distant  and 
 glorious  future.  In  the  one  case,  therefore,  the 
 language  would  naturally  sink  down  to  the  le\'el  of 
 prose;  in  the  other,  it  would  rise  to  an  elevation 
 worthy  of  its  exalted  subject. 
 
 «  Maurer's  reply  to  this,  namely,  that  the  like 
 phrase,  JQ!1t271  ^"l^^;"'""^''^  i°  ^^'  xxxii.  27,  and 
 2ti?1  *1^^  in  Ez.  XXXV.  7,  it  must  be   confessed   is 
 
 T    T  •• 
 
 Df  little  force,  because  those  who  argue  for  one  author 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 In  like  manner  the  notes  of  time  in  the  former 
 part  (i.  1,  7,  vii.  1),  and  the  constant  reference  to  th» 
 Temple,  may  be  explained  on  the  grou]id  that  the 
 prophet  here  busies  himself  with  the  events  of  his 
 own  time,  whereas  afterwards  his  eye  is  fixed  on  a 
 far  distant  future. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  where  predictions  do  occur  in 
 the  first  section,  there  is  a  general  similarity  be- 
 tween them  and  the  predictions  of  the  second.  The 
 scene,  so  to  speak,  is  the  same;  the  same  visions 
 float  before  the  eyes  of  the  seer.  The  times  of  the 
 Messiah  are  the  theme  of  the  predictions  in  chaps. 
 i  -iv.,  in  ix.,  x.,  and  in  xii.-xiii.  6,  whilst  the  events 
 which  are  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  time,  and 
 especially  the  sifting  of  the  nation,  are  dwelt  upon 
 in  chap,  v.,  in  xi.,  and  in  xiii.  7-xiv.  2. 
 
 (3. )  The  same  peculiar  forms  of  expression  occur 
 in  the  two  divisions  of  the  prophecy.     Thus,  for 
 
 instance,  we  find  I3ti?!2-1  ~1I2^1?Z2   not  only  in  vii. 
 
 14,  but  also  in  ix."  8 ;  "l^ISlJ.n,  in  the  sense  of 
 "to  remove,"  in  iii.  4,  and  in  xiii.  2  —  elsewhere 
 it  occurs  in  this  unusual  sense  only  in  later  writ- 
 ings (2  K.  xvi.  3;  2  Chr.  xv.  8)  —  "the  eye  of 
 God,"  as  betokening  the  Divine  Providence,  in  iii. 
 9,  iv.  10,  and  in  ix.  1,  8. 
 
 In  both  sections  the  return  of  the  whole  nation 
 after  the  exile  is  the  prevailing  image  of  happiness, 
 and  in  both  it  is  similarly  portrayed.  As  in  ii.  10, 
 the  exiles  are  summoned  to  return  to  their  native 
 land,  because  now,  according  to  the  principles  of 
 righteous  recompense,  they  shall  rule  over  their 
 enemies,  so  also  a  similar  strain  occurs  in  ix.  12,  &c. 
 Both  in  ii.  10  and  in  ix.  9  the  renewed  protection 
 wherewith  God  will  favor  Zion  is  represented  as  an 
 entrance  into  his  holy  dwelling;  in  both  his  peo- 
 ple are  called  on  to  rejoice,  and  in  both  tiiere  is  a 
 remarkable   agreement    in  the  words.     In  ii.  14, 
 
 wn  "^::2n  "'D  ^V!r  m  ''nati^T  ^3-1,  and  in 
 ix.  9,  m  ■"^'^in  ^vi^  i-Q  i«n  >b^2 
 
 Again,  similar  forms  of  expression  occur  in  ii.  9, 
 11,  and  xi.  11;  the  description  of  the  increase  in  Je- 
 rusalem, xiv.  10,  may  be  compared  with  ii.  4;  and 
 the  prediction  in  viii.  20-23  with  that  in  xiv.  16. 
 The  resemblance  which  has  been  found  in  some 
 other  passages  is  too  slight  to  strengthen  the  ar- 
 gument; and  the  occurrence  of  Chaldaisms,  such  as 
 
 S3^  (ix.  8),  n?^b:?"i  (xiv.  10),  bnn  (which 
 
 occurs  besides  only  in  I'rov.  xx.  21),  and  the  phrase 
 nt^P.  «ba  (ix.  13),  instead  of  r\VC^_  TJ-l":?, 
 really  prove  nothing  as  to  the  age  of  the  later  chap- 
 ters of  Zechariah.  Indeed,  generally,  as  regards 
 these  minute  comparisons  of  different  passages  to 
 prove  an  identity  of  authorship,  Maurer's  remark 
 holds  true :"  Sed  quae  potest  vis  esse  disjectoruni 
 quorundam  locorum,  ubi  res  judicanda  est  ex 
 toto?" 
 
 Of  far  more  weight,  however,  than  the  argu- 
 ments already  advanced  is  the  fact  that  the  writer 
 of  these  last  chapters  (ix.-xiv.)  shows  an  acquaint- 
 ance with  the  later  prophets  of  the  time  of  the 
 exile.     That  there  are  numerous  allusions  in  it  to 
 
 build  not  only  on  the  fact  that  the  same  forms  of  ex- 
 pression are  to  be  found  in  both  sections  of  the 
 prophecy,  but  that  the  second  section,  like  ttie  first, 
 evinces  a  familiarity  with  other  writings,  and  especially 
 with  later  prophets  like  Ezekiel.     See  below. 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 sarlier  prophets,  such  as  Joel,  Amos,  Micah,  has 
 been  shown  by  Ilitzig  {Comment,  p.  354,  2d  ed.), 
 but  there  are  also,  it  is  alleged,  allusions  to  Zeph- 
 aniah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  later  Isaiah 
 (cc.  xl.-lxvi).  If  this  can  be  established,  it  is  evi- 
 dence that  this  portion  of  the  book,  if  not  written 
 by  Zechariah  himself,  was  at  least  written  after  tlie 
 exile.  We  find,  then,  in  Zech.  ix.  •!  au  allusion  to 
 Ez.  xxviii.  3;  in  ix.  3  to  1  K.  x.  27;  in  ix.  5  to 
 Zeph.  ii.  4;  in  is.  11  to  Is.  li.  l-l;  in  ix.  12  to  Is. 
 xlix.  9  and  Is.  Ixi.  7 ;  in  x.  3  to  Ez.  xxxiv.  17.  Zech. 
 xi.  is  derived  from  Ez.  xxxiv.  (conip.  esp.  xi.  4 
 with  xxxiv.  4),  and  Zech.  xi.  3  from  Jer.  xii.  5. 
 Zech.  xii.  1  alludes  to  Is.  li.  13 ;  xiii.  8,  9,  to  Ez. 
 V.  12;  xiv.  8  to  Kz.  xlvii.  1-12;  xiv.  10,  11,  to  Jer. 
 xxxi.  38-40;  xiv.  lG-19  to  Is.  Ixvi.  23  and  Ix.  12; 
 xiv.  20,  21,  to  Ez.  xliii.  12  and  xliv.  9. 
 
 This  manifest  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  the 
 writer  of  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  vvith  so  many  of  the  later 
 prophets  seemed  so  convincing  to  Ue  Wette  that, 
 after  having  in  the  first  three  editions  of  his  liilro- 
 duclloii  declared  for  two  authors,  he  found  himself 
 compelled  to  change  his  mind,  and  to  admit  that 
 the  later  chapters  must  belong  to  the  age  of  Zecha- 
 riah, and  might  have  been  written  by  Zechariah 
 himself. 
 
 BleeU,  on  the  other  hand,  has  done  his  best  to 
 weaken  the  force  of  this  argument,  first  by  main- 
 taining that  in  most  instances  the  alleged  agree- 
 ment is  only  apparent,  and  next,  that  where  there 
 is  a  real  agreement  (as  in  Zech.  ix.  12,  xi.  3.  xii.  1, 
 xiv.  16)  with  the  passages  above  cited,  Zechariah 
 may  be  the  original  from  whom  Isaiah  and  Jere- 
 miah borrowed.  It  must  be  confessed,  howerer, 
 that  it  is  more  probahie  that  one  writer  should 
 have  allusions  to  many  others,  than  that  many 
 others  should  borrow  from  one;  and  this  prob- 
 ability approaches  certainty  in  proportion  as  we 
 multiply  the  number  of  quotations  or  allusions.  If 
 there  are  passages  in  Zechariah  which  are  mani- 
 festly similar  to  other  passages  in  Zephaniah,  in 
 Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  which 
 is  the  more  probable,  that  they  all  borrowed  from 
 him,  or  he  from  theniV  In  ix.  12  especially,  as 
 Stiihelin  argues,  the  expression  is  decidedly  one  to 
 be  looked  for  after  the  exile  ratlier  than  before  it, 
 and  the  passage  rests  upon  .ler.  xvi.  18,  and  has 
 an  almost  verbal  accordance  with  Is.  Ixi.  7. 
 
 Again,  the  same  critics  argue  that  the  historical 
 references  in  the  later  chapters  are  perfectly  con- 
 sistent with  a  post-exile  date.  This  liatl  lieen 
 already  maintained  by  Eichhorn,  although  he  sup- 
 poses these  chapters  to  have  been  written  by  a 
 later  prophet  than  Zechariah.  Stiihelin  puts  the 
 case  as  follows:  Even  under  the  Persian  rule  the 
 political  relations  of  the  Jews  continued  very  nearly 
 the  same  as  they  were  in  earlier  times.  They  still 
 were  placed  between  a  huge  eastern  power  on  the 
 one  side  and  Egypt  on  the  other,  the  only  difference 
 now  being  that  Kgypt  a*  well  as  Judaia  was  subject 
 to  tlie  Persians.  But  Egyiit  was  an  unwilling  vas- 
 sal, and  as  in  earlier  times  when  threatened  by 
 As-syria  she  had  sought  for  alliances  among  her 
 neighbors  or  had  endeavored  to  turn  them  to  ac- 
 count as  a  kind  of  outwork  in  her  own  defenses,  so 
 now  she  would  adopt  the  same  policy  in  her  at- 
 tempts to  cast  off  the  Persian  }oke.  It  would 
 follow  as  a  matter  of  course  that  I'ersia  would  lie 
 on  the  watch  to   check  such   efforts,  and  would 
 
 a  Although  the  Persians  had  succeeded  to  the  As- 
 ijrians,  the  land  might  still  be  called  by  its  ancient 
 
 ZECHARIAH  3607 
 
 wreak  her  vengeance  on  those  among  her  own 
 tributary  or  dependent  provinces  which  should 
 venture  to  form  an  alliance  with  Egypt.  Such  of 
 these  provinces  as  lay  on  the  sea-coast  must  indeed 
 suffer  in  any  case,  even  if  they  remained  true  in 
 their  allegiance  to  the  Persians.  The  armies  which 
 were  destined  for  the  invasion  of  Egypt  would  col- 
 lect in  Syria  and  Pho3nicia,  and  would  march  by 
 way  of  the  coast;  and,  whether  they  came  as  friends 
 or  as  foes,  they  would  proliably  cause  sufficient  dev- 
 astation to  justify  the  prophecy  in  Zech.  ix.  1,  &c., 
 delivered  against  Damascus,  Phoenicia,  and  Philis- 
 tia.  JMeanwhile  the  prophet  seeks  to  calm  the  minds 
 of  his  own  people  by  assuring  them  of  God's  pro- 
 tection, and  of  the  coming  of  the  JMessiah,  who  at 
 the  appointed  time  shall  again  unite  the  two  king- 
 doms of  Judah  and  I^phraim.  [t  is  observable 
 moreover  that  the  jirophet,  throughout  his  dis- 
 courses, is  anxious  not  only  to  tranquillize  the 
 minds  of  his  countrymen,  but  to  prevent  their  en- 
 gaging in  any  insurrection  against  their  Persian 
 masters,  or  forming  any  alliance  with  their  ene- 
 mies. In  this  respect  he  follows  the  example  of 
 Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and,  like  these  two  prophets, 
 he  foretells  the  return  of  Ephraini,  the  union  of 
 Ephraim  and  Judah,  and  the  final  overthrow  both 
 of  Assyria  (x.  11),  that  is,  Persia,"  and  of  Egypt, 
 the  two  countries  which  had,  more  than  all  others, 
 vexed  and  devastated  Israel.  That  a  large  portion 
 of  the  nation  was  still  supposed  to  be  in  exile  is 
 clear  from  ix.  11,  12,  and  hence  verse  10  can  only 
 lie  regarded  as  a  reminiscence  of  Mic.  v.  10;  and 
 even  if  x.  9  must  be  explained  of  the  past  (with 
 De  Wette,  Eiiil.  §  250,  6,  note  a),  still  it  appears 
 from  Josephus  {Ant.  xii.  2,  §  5)  that  the  Persians 
 carried  away  Jews  into  Egypt,  and  from  Syncellus 
 (p.  480,  Niebuhr's  ed.),  that  Ochus  transplanted 
 large  numbers  of  Jews  from  Palestine  to  the  east 
 and  north;  the  earlier  custom  of  thus  forcibly  re- 
 moving to  a  distance  those  conquered  nations  who 
 from  disaffection  or  a  turbulent  spirit  were  liliely  to 
 give  occasion  for  alarm,  having  not  only  continued 
 among  the  Persians,  but  having  become  even  more 
 common  than  ever  (Heeren,  Jdeen,  i.  254,  2d  ed.). 
 This  well-known  policy  on  the  jjart  of  tlieir  con- 
 querors would  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  as- 
 surance which  the  prophet  gives  in  x.  9.  Even  the 
 tiu'eats  uttered  against  the  false  prophets  and  the 
 shepherds  of  the  people  are  not  inconsistent  with 
 the  times  after  the  exile.  In  Neh.  v.  and  vi.  we 
 Hud  the  nobles  and  rulers  of  the  people  oppressing 
 their  brethren,  and  false  prophets  active  in  their 
 opposition    to    Nehemiah.     In   like  manner  "  the 
 
 idols  "  (CS^S?)  i'l  xiii.  1-5  may  be  the  same  as 
 the  "  Teraphim  "  of  x.  2,  where  they  are  mentioned 
 in  connection  with  "the  diviners  "  (Q^DDlpn)" 
 Alalachi  (iii.  5)  speaks  of  "  sorcerers  "  (Q^Dt£^2X3), 
 and  that  such  superstition  long  held  its  ground 
 among  the  Jews  is  evident  fiom  .Joseph.  Ant.  viii. 
 2,  §  5.  Nor  does  xiv.  21  of  necessity  imply  either 
 idol-worship  or  heathen  pollution  in  tlie  Temple. 
 Chapter  xi.  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  later  than 
 ix.  and  x.  In  ver.  14  he  declares  the  impossibility 
 of  any  reunion  between  .ludah  and  Ephraim,  either 
 because  the  northern  territory  had  already  been 
 laid  waste,  or  because  the  inhabitants  of  it  had 
 shown  a  disposition  to  league  with  Phoenicia  in  a 
 
 name  of  Assyria, 
 iv.  120. 
 
 See  Ezr.  vi.  22  and  Kwald,  Gescfi. 
 
3608  ZECHARIAH 
 
 vain  effort  to  tlirow  off  the  Persian  yoke,  which 
 would  only  involve  them  in  certain  destruction. 
 This  difficult  passage  Stiihelin  admits  he  cannot 
 solve  to  his  satisfaction,  but  contends  that  it  may 
 have  been  designed  to  teach  the  new  colony  that  it 
 was  not  a  part  of  God's  purpose  to  reunite  the 
 severed  tribes;  and  in  this  he  sees  an  argument  for 
 the  post-exile  date  of  the  prophecy,  inasmuch  as 
 the  union  of  the  ten  tribes  with  tlie  two  was  ever 
 one  of  the  brightest  hopes  of  the  prophets  who 
 lived  before  the  Captivity. 
 
 Having  thus  shown  that  there  is  no  reason  why 
 the  sections  ix.-xi.  sliould  not  belong  to  a  time  sub- 
 sequent to  the  return  from  Babylon,  Stiihelin  pro- 
 ceeds to  argue  that  the  prophecy  directed  against 
 the  nations  (ix.  1-7)  is  really  more  applicalile  to  the 
 Persian  era  tiian  to  any  other.  It  is  only  the  coast- 
 line which  is  here  threatened ;  whereas  the  earlier 
 prophets,  whenever  they  threaten  the  maritime 
 tribes,  unite  with  them  Moab  and  Amnion,  or 
 i'^dom.  Moreover  the  nations  here  mentioned  are 
 not  spoken  of  as  enemies  of  Judah;  for  being  Per- 
 sian subjects  they  would  not  venture  to  attack  the 
 Jewish  colony  wlien  under  the  special  protection  of 
 that  power.     Of  Ashdod  it  is  said  that  a  foreigner 
 
 (n'fp?2,  A.  V.  "bastard  ")  shall  dwell  in  it.  This, 
 too,  might  naturally  have  happened  in  the  time  of 
 Zechariah.  During  the  exile,  Arabs  had  estab- 
 lished themselves  in  Southern  Palestine,  and  the 
 prophet  foi-esees  that  they  would  occupy  Ashdod  ; 
 and  accordingly  we  learn  from  Neh.  xiii.  24  that 
 the  dialect  of  Ashdod  was  unintelligible  to  the 
 Jews,  and  in  Neh.  iv.  7  the  people  of  Ashdod  ap- 
 pear as  a  distinct  tribe  united  with  other  Araliians 
 against  Judah.  The  king  of  Gaza  (mentioned 
 Zech,  ix.  5)  may  have  been  a  Persian  vassal,  as  the 
 kings  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  were,  according  to  He- 
 rod, viii.  67.  A  king  in  Gaza  would  only  be  in 
 conformity  with  the  Persian  custom  (see  Herod,  iii. 
 1.5),  although  this  was  no  longer  the  case  in  the 
 time  of  Alexander.  The  mention  of  the  "  sons  of 
 Javan  "  (ix.  13;  A.  V.  "Greece")  is  suitable  to 
 the  Persian  period  (which  is  also  the  view  of  Kich- 
 horn),  as  it  was  then  that  the  Jews  were  first 
 broiight  into  any  close  contact  with  the  Greeks. 
 It  was  in  fact  the  fierce  struggle  between  Greece 
 and  Persia  which  gave  a  peculiar  meaning  to  his 
 words  when  the  propliet  promised  his  own  people 
 victory  over  the  Greeks,  and  so  reversed  the  earlier 
 prediction  of  Joel  iv.  6,  7  (A.  V.  iii.  G,  7).  If, 
 however,  we  are  to  understand  by  .lavan  Arabia, 
 as  some  maintain,  this  again  equally  suits  the 
 period  supposed,  and  the  prophecy  will  refer  to  the 
 Arabians,  of  whom  we  have  already  spoken. 
 
 We  come  now  to  the  section  xii.-xiv.  The  main 
 proposition  here  is,  that  however  hard  Judah  and 
 .lerusalem  may  be  pressed"  by  enemies  (of  Israel 
 there  is  no  further  mention),  still  with  God's  help 
 they  shall  be  victorious;  and  the  result  shall  be 
 that  Jehovah  shall  be  more  truly  worshipjied  both 
 by  Jews  and  Gentiles.  That  this  anticipation  of 
 the  gathering  of  hostile  armies  against  Jerusalem 
 was  not  unnatural  in  the  Persian  times  may  be  in- 
 ferred from  what  has  been  said  above.  Persian 
 hosts  were  often  seen  in  Judaea.  We  find  an  in- 
 stance of  this  in  Josephus  (Ant.  xi.  7,  §  1),  and 
 Sidon  was  laid  in  ashes  in  consequence  of  an  insur- 
 rection against  Persia  (Diod.  xvi.  45).  On  the 
 other  hand,  how  could  a  prophet  in  the  time  im- 
 mediately preceding  the  exile  —  the  time  to  which, 
 on  account  of  xii.  12,  most  critics  refer  this  section 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 —  have  uttered  predictions  such  as  these?  Si;!ce 
 the  time  of  Zephaniah  all  the  prophets  looked  upon 
 the  fate  of  Jerusalem  as  sealed,  whereas  here,  in 
 direct  contradiction  to  such  views,  the  preservation 
 of  the  city  is  announced  even  in  the  extremest 
 calamities.  Any  analogy  to  the  general  strain  of 
 thought  in  this  section  is  oidy  to  be  found  in  Is. 
 xxix.-xxxiii.  Besides,  no  king  is  here  mentioned, 
 but  only  "  the  house  of  David,"  which,  according 
 to  Jewish  tradition  (Herzfeld,  Gescli.  cks  \'olkes 
 Jisrael,  p.  378  ff.),  held  a  higli  position  after  the 
 exile,  and  accordingly  is  mentioned  (xii.  12',  13)  in 
 its  different  branches  (comp.  Movers,  Das  Plioniz. 
 Alltrtli.  i.  531),  together  with  the  trilie  of  Devi; 
 the  prophet,  like  the  writer  of  Ps.  Ixxxix.,  looking 
 to  it  with  a  kind  of  yearning,  which  before  the 
 exile,  whilst  there  was  still  a  king,  would  have  been 
 inconceivable.  Again,  the  manner  in  which  Egypt 
 is  alluded  to  (xiv.  19)  almost  of  necessity  leads  us  to 
 the  Persian  times;  for  then  Dgypt,  in  consequence  of 
 her  perpetual  efforts  to  throw  off  the  Persian  yoke, 
 was  naturally  brought  into  hostility  with  the  Jews, 
 who  were  under  the  protection  of  Persia.  Before 
 the  exile  this  was  only  the  case  during  the  interval 
 between  the  death  of  Josiah  and  the  battle  of  Car- 
 cliemish. 
 
 It  would  seem  then  tliat  there  is  nothing  to 
 compel  us  to  place  this  section  xii.-xiv.  in  the  times 
 before  the  exile;  much,  on  the  contrary,  which  can 
 only  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  on  the  supposi- 
 tion that  it  was  written  during  the  period  of  the 
 Persian  dominion.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that 
 we  have  here  that  fuller  development  of  the  Jlessi- 
 anic  idea  which  at  such  a  time  might  be  expected, 
 and  one  which  in  fact  rests  upon  all  the  prophets 
 w  ho  flourished  before  the  exile. 
 
 Such  are  the  grounds,  critical  and  historical,  on 
 which  Stiihelin  rests  his  defense  of  the  later  date  of 
 the  second  portion  of  the  prophet  Zechariah.  We 
 have  given  his  arguments  at  length  as  the  ablest 
 and  most  complete,  as  well  as  the  most  recent,  on 
 his  side  of  the  controversy.  Some  of  them,  it  must 
 be  admitted,  are  full  of  weight.  And  when  critics 
 like  Eichhorn  maintain  that  of  the  whole  section 
 ix.  1-x.  17,  no  explanation  is  possible,  unless  we 
 derive  it  from  tiie  history  of  Alexander  the  Great; 
 and  when  1  )e  Wette,  after  having  adopted  the 
 theory  of  different  authors,  felt  himself  obliged  to 
 abandon  it  for  reasons  already  mentioned,  and  to 
 vindicate  the  integrity  of  the  book,  the  grounds  for 
 a  post-exile  date  must  be  very  strong.  Indeed,  it  is 
 not  easy  to  say  which  way  tlie  weight  of  evidence 
 preponderates. 
 
 W'lih  regard  to  the  quotation  in  St.  Matthew, 
 there  seems  no  good  reason  for  settina:  aside  the  re- 
 ceived reading.  Jerome  observes,  "  This  passage  is 
 not  found  in  Jeremiah.  But  in  Zechariah,  who  is 
 nearly  the  last  of  the  twelve  prophets,  something 
 like  it  occurs;  and  though  there  is  no  great  differ- 
 ence in  the  meaning,  yet  both  the  order  and  the 
 words  are  different.  I  read  a  short  time  since,  in 
 a  Hebrew  volume,  which  a  Hebrew  of  the  sect  of 
 the  Nazarenes  presented  to  me,  an  apocryphal  book 
 of  Jeremiah,  in  which  I  found  the  passage  word 
 for  word.  But  still  I  am  rather  inclined  to  think 
 that  the  quotation  is  made  from  Zechariah,  in  the 
 usual  manner  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  who, 
 neglecting  the  order  of  the  words,  only  give  the 
 general  sense  of  what  they  cite  from  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment." " 
 
 «   Comment,  in  Evang.  Mattli.  cap.  xxyii.  9,  10. 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 Eusebius  {Evanf/el.  Demomtr.  lib.  x  )  is  of  opin- 
 ion that  the  passage  thus  quoted  stood  originaily 
 ill  the  prophecy  of  Jereniiali,  but  was  either  era-ed 
 sulisequently  by  the  malice  of  the  Jews  [a  very  iiii- 
 proliable  supposition  it  need  hardly  be  saidj ;  or 
 that  the  name  of  Zechariali  was  sidistituted  for  that 
 of  Jeremiah  through  the  carelessness  of  copyists. 
 Augustine  (de  Cons.  Evniujtl.  iii.  .30)  testifies  that 
 the  most  ancient  tJreek  copies  had  Jeremiali,  and 
 thinks  that  the  mistake  was  originally  St.  Mat- 
 thew's, but  that  this  was  divinely  ordered,  and  that 
 the  luangelist  would  not  correct  the  error  even 
 when  pohited  out,  in  order  that  we  might  thus  infer 
 that  all  the  prophets  spake  by  one  Spirit,  and  that 
 what  was  the  w(jrk  of  one  was  the  work  of  all  (et 
 singula  esse  onniium,  et  omnia  singidorum). " 
 Some  later  writers  accounted  for  the  non-appear- 
 ance of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah  by  the  confusion 
 in  the  Greek  iMSS.  of  his  prophecies  —  a  confusion, 
 however,  it  may  be  remarked,  which  is  not  confined 
 to  the  Greek,  but  which  is  found  no  less  in  our 
 present  Hebrew  text.  Others  again  suggest  that 
 in  the  Greek  autograph  of  Matthew,  ZPIOT  may 
 have  been  written,  and  that  copyists  may  have 
 taken  this  for  IPIOT.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
 that  abbreviations  of  this  kind  were  in  use  so  early. 
 Kpiphanius  and  some  of  the  Greek  Fathers  seem 
 to  have  read  tV  roh  iTpo(pi]Tais.  And  the  most 
 ancient  copy  of  the  Latin  Vtr^ion  of  the  Gospels 
 omits  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  and  has  merely  dic- 
 tum tst  per  Pvoplittiim.  It  has  been  conjectured 
 that  this  represents  the  original  GrLek  realing  rh 
 pr]diu  Sia  Tov  irpo(p-t]Tov,  and  that  some  early  an- 
 notatiir  wTote  'lepe/xiou  on  the  margin,  wlience  it 
 crept  into  the  text.  The  choice  hes  between  this, 
 and  a  slip  of  memory  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist 
 if  we  admit  the  integrity  of  our  present  book  of 
 Zechariah,  unless,  indeed,  we  suppose,  with  Eich- 
 horn,  who  follows  Jerome,  that  an  apocryplial 
 book  of  Jeremiah  is  quoted.  Theophylact  proposes 
 to  insert  a  Kai,  and  would  read  Sia  'lepe/xiou  Kal 
 TOV  rrpotfiiiTov  fjyovv  Zaxuplov.  He  argues  that 
 the  quotation  is  really  a  fusion  of  two  passages; 
 that  concerning  the  price  paid  occurring  in  Zecha- 
 riah, chap,  xi.;  and  that  concerning  the  field  in 
 Jeremiah,  ch:ij).  xix.  But  what  N.  T.  writer  would 
 have  used  such  a  ibrm  of  expression  "  by  Jeremy 
 ami  the  prophet"  ?  Such  a  mode  of  quotation  is 
 without  parallel.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
 borne  in  mind  that  the  pa.ssage  as  given  in  St.  Mat- 
 thew does  not  represent  exactly  eitiier  the  Hebrew 
 text  of  Zechariah,  or  the  version  of  the  LXX.  The 
 other  passages  of  the  prophet  quoted  in  the  N.  T. 
 are  ix.  9  (in  Matt.  xxi.  5;  John  xiii.  1.5);  xii.  10 
 (in  John.  xix.  37;  Kev.  i.  7);  xiii.  7  (in  Matt. 
 xxvi.  31;  Mark  xiv.  27);  but  in  no  instance  is  the 
 prophet  quoted  by  name.* 
 
 Lilerattire.  —  1.  Patristic  Commentaries.  —  Je- 
 rome, Comment,  in  xii.  Minores  Pi-ophetas.    0pp. 
 
 a  This  extraordinary  method  of  solving  the  difficulty 
 has  been  adopted  by  Dr.  Wordsworth  in  ills  note  on 
 the  passage  in  St.  Mattliew.  IIo  says  :  "  On  the  whole 
 thei-e  is  reason  to  believe  ....  that  the  in-ophecy 
 which  we  read  in  Zech.  (xi.  12,  13)  had,  in  thr  /ir.sl  in- 
 stance, been  delivered  by  Jeremiah  ;  and  that  by  refer- 
 ring here  not  to  Zech.  where  ire  read  it,  but  to  Jer. 
 where  we  do  7iot  read  it,  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  us  not 
 to  regard  the  prophets  as  the  aiilltors  of  their  proph- 
 ecies," etc.  And  again:  "He  intend."  to  teach,  that 
 all  prophecies  proceed  from  One  Spirit,  and  tliat  those 
 by  whom  they  were  uttered  are  not  souixes,  but  only 
 tkannels  of  the  same  Divine  truth."  But  if  so,  why,  it 
 227 
 
 ZECHARIAH  3609 
 
 ed.  Yallars.  (Veron.  1734),  tom.  vi.  Theodoret, 
 In/a-pre/'ilio  in  xii.  Pi  oph.  Min.  Opp  ed.  Schulze 
 (Hal.  1769-74),  vol.  ii.  pars  2. 
 
 2.  Later  Exegetical  Works.  —  Der  Prophet 
 Z'icli(iri:s  ntis;jete(jt  durch  I).  Mart.  Luthern.  Vit- 
 eniberg,  1528.  (Also  in  the  collected  works  of 
 Luther  in  German  and  Latin.)  Phil.  Melanothonis 
 Comm.  in  Prop/i.  ZkcIi.,  Ibbi  (Opp.  ii.  531).  J. 
 J.  Grynnei  Comm.  in  Zach.,  Genev.  1581.  Caspar 
 Sanctii  Comm.  in  Zach.,  Lugd.  IGIG.  C.  Vi- 
 tringa.  Comment,  ad  lib.  Proph.  Zich.,  1734.  F. 
 Venema,  Sermones,  Acad,  in  lib.  Pnph.  Zach., 
 1789. 
 
 3.  Writers  who  have  discussed  the  question  of 
 the  Integrity  of  Zechariah.  Metie,  IVurks,  Lond. 
 1G()4,  pp.  78G,  884.  Bisliop  Kidder,  Demonstra- 
 tion of  the  Messins,  Loud.  1700,  vol.  ii.  p.  199. 
 Archlip.  Newcome,  Minor  Pro/ihit.t,  Lond.  1785. 
 Blayney,  New  Translation  of  Zech.,  Oxf.  1797. 
 Carpzov,   Vindic.  Crit.,  Lips.   1724.     Fiiiirge,  Die 
 
 Weis.^'tf/ungen,  irelclie  bey  den  Schriften  des 
 Pnph.  Zach.  bey(jet)0(jen  sind,  u.  s.  w.,  Hamb. 
 1784.  Bertholdt,  Histor.  krit.  Kinl.  in  die  Biicher 
 des  A.  u.  N.  Test.,iv.  17G2  fF.,  1712  if.  Eichhorn, 
 /fibr.  Propbeten,  iii.  327-3G0,  380-92,  415-28, 
 515-18;  P:inl.  iv.  427  flf.  ^4th  edit.  1824).  Bauer, 
 Kinl.,  p.  510  fF.  Beckhaus,  die  Jnt.ef/ritdl  der 
 Proph.  Schrift.  des  A.  B.,  p.  337  fF.  jahn,  Einl. 
 ii.  G75  fF.  Kiister,  Meletemnta  Crit.  et  Exeget.  in 
 Zach.  Propli.jmrt.  post  Gutting.  1818.  Forberg, 
 Comm.  Crit.  et  Exerjet.  in  Zach.  Vaticc.  part. 
 pout.  Cob.  1824.  Gramberg,  Kvit.  Gesch.  der 
 Jielii/iimsideen,  ii.  520  fF  IJosenmiiller,  Sc/iolin, 
 vii.  4,  254  fF.  Credner,  der  Pi'iphet  Joel,  p.  G7  ff. 
 Hengstenbertr,  Beilruije,  i.  3G1  fF.,  and  Christo- 
 loc/ie,  iii.  De  Wette,  Kinl.  (Edit.  1-3,  against  the 
 Integrity,  later  editions  in  favor  of  it).  Keil,  Einl. 
 Hiivernick,  Einl.  Maurer,  Comment,  in  Vtt.  Test. 
 ii.  G21  fF  Kwald,  die  Propheten,  and  Gesch.  iv. 
 Bleek,  Eitd.  Stiiiielin,  Kinl.  in  die  hniun.  Biicher 
 des  A.  7'.,  18G2,  p.  315  fF  Hitzig,  in  Sluil.  und 
 Krit.  1830,  p.  25  ff'.,  and  in  Prophet.  Henderson 
 on  the  Minor  Prophets.  1830.  Davidson,  in 
 Second  Vol.  of  Home's  Jnfrod.,  10th  edit.  1856, 
 and  more  recently  in  his  Introduction  to  the  0.  T. 
 [vol.  iii.  1863].  Bunsen,  Bibelwerh,  2ter  Band, 
 Ite  Abtheil.  2ter  Theil;  [and  Bd.  vi.  272  fF.,  498 
 fF.  (1870);]    Gott  in  der  Geschichte,  L  449. 
 
 J.  J.  S.  P. 
 *  Additional.  —  R.  David  Kimchi,  Comm.  on  the 
 Proph.  of  Zech.,  trans,  from  the  Hebrew  by  A. 
 MCmd,  \.oi\A.  1837.  J.  Stonard,  Comm.  on  the 
 Vision  of  Zech.,  Lond.  1824.  J.  D.  F.  BUrger, 
 Eludes  exeff.  et  crit.  sur  le  proph.  Zach.,  Strasb. 
 1841,  4to.  F.  Bleek,  Ueber  d.  Zeilidter  von  Sach. 
 Kap.  9-14,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1852,  pp 
 247-332.  M.  Baumgarten,  Die  Nachlgesichte 
 Sacharia's,  2  Theile,  Braunschw.  1854-55.  H.  L. 
 Sandrock,  Prioris  el  post.   Part.   Vaticin.  ab  uno 
 
 may  be  asked,  do  the  writers  of  the  Sacred  Books  ever 
 give  their  names  at  all  ?  Why  trouble  ourselves  with 
 the  question  whether  St.  Luke  wrote  the  Acts,  or 
 whether  St.  Paul  wrote  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  or  the 
 Pastoral  Epistles  ?  What  becomes  of  the  argument, 
 usually  deemed  so  strong,  derived  from  the  testimony 
 of  the  Four  Evangelists,  if,  after  all,  the  four  are  but 
 one '! 
 
 It  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  such  a  theory 
 is  as  pernicious  as  that  against  which  it  is  directed. 
 
 6  *  On  this  qUL'Stion  of  the  apparent  citation  frnn? 
 Zechariah,  instead  of  .Jeremiah,  see  Acei.dam\.  vol. 
 i.  p.  10  ;  and  Judas,  vol.  ii.  p.  1503,  Amer.  cd.     H. 
 
5610 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 eodemqiie  Antm-e  profeda,  Vratisl.  J 856.  E.  F. 
 J.  von  Ortenberg,  i)ie  Beslandtlink  d.  Buclies 
 Sacharj(i,Gotha,\859.  W.  Neuiiiaiin,  Die  Weis- 
 sayungen  d.  Sakharj(di,  Stuttg.  1800.  A.  Kiililer, 
 Die  narhexil.  Propli.  erk-ldrt,  Abth.  ii.,  iii.,  Erl- 
 18G1-63,  and  art.  Zacharias  in  Herzog's  Real- 
 Encyk.  xviii.  353-360  (1864).  Th.  Kliefoth,  Der 
 Propli.  Sfichm-jdh,  iihers.  u.  (nisi/clei/l,  Schwerin, 
 1862.  C.  F.  Keil,  Bib.  Comm.  ilh.  d.  12  klclnen 
 Froph.,  pp.  517-662,  Leipz.  1860,  Kng.  trans.  1868 
 (Clark's  For.  Theol.  Libr.).  E.  Schrader,  in  De 
 Wette's  Kird.  in  d.  Biicher  d.  A.  T.,  8«  Ausg.,  Berl. 
 1869.  T.  V.  Moore,  Prophets  of  the  Reslorotion, 
 N.  Y.  1856.  G.  R.  Noyes,  Neiv  Trans,  of  the 
 Beb.  Prophets,  3d  ed.,  Bo'st,  1806.  H.  Cowles,  The 
 Minor  Prophets,  with  Notes,  N.  Y.  1866.  Pusey, 
 Minor  Prophets,  Part  iv.  (1870).  It  sbonld  also 
 be  Tioted  tbat  the  valuable  Introductions  of  Keil  and 
 Bleek  are  now  (1870)  translated  into  English.    A. 
 
 2.  (Zaxapi'as;  P"  1  Chr.  xvi.  2,  Vat.  Zaxap'OfO 
 Zachnrids.)  Son  of  Mesheleuiiah,  or  Sbeleniiab,  a 
 Korhite,  and  keeper  of  the  north  gate  of  the  taber- 
 nacle of  the  congregation  (1  Chr.  ix.  21)  in  the  ar- 
 rangement of  the  porters  in  the  reign  of  David.  In 
 1  Chr.  xxvi.  2,  14,  his  name  appears  in  the  length- 
 ened form  ^n'^'npT,  and  in  the  last  quoted  verse 
 he  is  described  iis  "  one  counselling  with  under- 
 standing." 
 
 3.  (ZaKxovf)-,  [Vat.  Sin.  Zaxapio.;]  Alex. 
 ZaxX""p-^  One  of  the  sons  of  Jehiel,  the  father  or 
 founder  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  ix.  37).  In  1  Chr.  viii. 
 31  he  is  called  Zacher. 
 
 4.  (Zaxapias-)  A  Levite  in  the  Temple  band 
 as  arranged  by  David,  ap^K>inted  to  play  "  with 
 psalteries  on  Alamoth  "  (1  Chr.  xv.  20).  He  was 
 of  the  second  order  of  Levites  (ver.  18),  a  porter  or 
 gatekeeper,  and  may  possibly  be  the  same  as  Zech- 
 ariah  the  son  of  Mesheleraiah.     In  1  Chr.  xv.  18  his 
 
 name  is  written  in  the  longer  form,  ^n^~l?T. 
 
 5.  One  of  the  princes  of  .Tudah  in  the  reign  of 
 Jehoshapliat  who  were  sent  with  priests  and  Levites 
 to  teach  the  people  the  law  of  Jehovah  (2  Chr.  xvii. 
 7). 
 
 6.  ('A(aplas.)  Son  of  the  high-priest  Jehoiada, 
 in  the  reign  of  Joash  king  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xxiv. 
 20),  and  therefore  the  king's  cousin.  After  the 
 death  of  Jehoiada  Zechariah  probably  succeeded  to 
 his  office,  and  in  attempting  to  check  the  reaction 
 in  favor  of  idolatry  which  immediately  followed,  he 
 fell  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy  formed  against  him  by 
 the  king,  and  was  stoned  with  stones  in  the  court 
 of  the  'I'emple.  The  memory  of  this  unrighteous 
 deed  lasted  long  in  Jewish  tradition.  In  tiie  Jeru- 
 salem Talmud  {Taaniih,  fol.  69,  quoted  by  Light- 
 foot,  Temple  Service,  c.  xxxvi.)  there  is  a  legend 
 told  of  eighty  thousand  young  priests  who  were 
 slain  by  Nebnzaradan  for  the  blood  of  Zechariah, 
 and  the  evident  hold  which  the  story  had  taken 
 upon  the  minds  of  the  people  renders  it  probal)le 
 that  "Zacharias  son  of  Barachias,"  who  was  slain 
 between  the  Temple  and  the  altar  (Matt,  xxiii.  35), 
 is  the  same  with  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada, 
 and  that  the  name  of  Barachias  as  his  father  crept 
 into  the  text  from  a  marginal  gloss,  the  writer  con- 
 fusing this  Zechariah  either  with  Zechariah  the 
 prophet,  who  was  the  son  of  Berechiah,  or  with 
 another  Zechariah  the  sou  of  Jeberechiah  (Is.  viii. 
 2). 
 
 7.  (Zaxapias.)     A    Kohathite    Levite    in    the 
 
 reign  of  Josiah,  who  was  one  of  the  overseers  of  the 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 workmen  engaged  in  the  restoration  of  the  Temple 
 (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  12). 
 
 8.  The  leader  of  the  sons  of  Pharosh  who  re- 
 turned with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  3). 
 
 9.  [Vat.  A(apia.]  Son  of  Bebai,  who  came  up 
 from  Babylon  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  11). 
 
 10.  {Zachnrin  in  Neh.)  One  of  the  chiefs  of 
 the  people  whom  Ezra  summoned  in  council  at  the 
 river  Ahava,  before  the  second  caravan  returned 
 from  Babylon  (Ezr.  viii.  16).  He  stood  at  Ezra's 
 left  hand  when  he  expounded  the  Law  to  the  people 
 (Neh.  viii.  4). 
 
 11.  (Zaxapia:  Zacharias.)  One  of  the  family 
 of  Elam,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  after  the 
 Captivity  (Ezr.  x.  20). 
 
 12.  Ancestor  of  Athaiah,  or  Uthai  (Neh.  xi.  4). 
 
 13.  (Zaxapi'ay;  [Vat.  @nCfta;  FA.  ©rjSeia.]) 
 A  Shilonite,  descendant  of  Perez  (Neh.  xi.  5). 
 
 14.  iZaxapia.)  A  priest,  son  of  Pashur  (Neh. 
 xi.  12). 
 
 15.  (Zacharia.)  The  representative  of  the 
 priestly  family  of  Iddo  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the 
 son  of  Jesbua  (Neh.  xii.  10).  I'ossibly  the  same 
 as  Zechariah  the  prophet  the  son  of  Iddo. 
 
 16.  {[Zaxapias;  ver.  41,  Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.l 
 omit:]  Zacharias,  Zacharia.)  One  of  the  priests, 
 son  of  Jonathan,  who  blew  with  the  trumpets  at 
 the  dedication  of  the  city  wall  by  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
 niiah  (Neh.  xii.  35,  41). 
 
 17.  (^n^"???  :  Zaxapia.)  A  chief  of  the  Reu- 
 benites  at  the  time  of  the  captivity  by  Tiglath-Pi- 
 leser  (1  Chr.  v.  7). 
 
 18.  [Alex.  Zaxapias.]  One  of  the  priests  who 
 blew  with  the  trumpets  in  the  procession  which  ac- 
 companied the  ark  from  the  house  of  Obed-edoni 
 (1  Chr.  XV.  24). 
 
 19.  [Zaxap'a.]  Son  of  Isshiah,  or  Jesiah,  a 
 Kohathite  Levite  descended  fromlJzziel  (1  Chr. 
 xxiv.  25). 
 
 20.  (Zaxapias.)  Fourth  son  of  Hosah  of  the 
 children  of  Slerari  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 
 
 21.  (ZaSai'as;  [Vat.  Zo/SSeias;]  Alex.  Za/3- 
 Sias.)  A  Manassite,  whose  son  Iddo  was  chief  of 
 his  tribe  in  Gilead  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr. 
 xxvii.  21). 
 
 22.  (Zaxapi'os.)  The  father  of  Jahaziel,  a  Ger- 
 shonite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr. 
 XX.  14). 
 
 23.  One  of  the  sons  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xxi. 
 
 24.  A  prophet  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  who  ap- 
 pears to  have  acted  as  the  king's  counsellor,  but  of 
 whom  nothing  is  known  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  5).  The 
 chronicler  in  describing  him  makes  use  of  a  most 
 remarkable  and  unique  expression,  '•  Zechariah, 
 who  understood  the  seeing  of  God,"  or,  as  our  A. 
 V.  has  it,  "  who  had  nnderstanding  in  the  visions 
 of  God  "  (comp.  Dan.  i.  17).  As  no  such  term  is 
 ever  employed  elsewhere  in  the  description  of  any 
 prophet,  it  has  been  questioned  whether  the  read- 
 ing of  the  received  text  is  the  true  one.  The 
 LXX.,  Targum,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Rashi,  and  Kim- 
 
 chi,  with  many  of  Kennicott's  MSS.,  read  i^.S'T'S, 
 
 "  in  the  fear  of,"  for  niH"13,  and  their  reading 
 is  most  probably  the  correct  one. 
 
 25.  [Vat.  Zaxapia  (gen-)-]  The  father  of  Abi- 
 jah  or  Abi,  Hezekiah's  mother  (2  Chr.  xxix.  1 ) ; 
 called  also  Zachauiah  in  the  A.  V. 
 
 26.  [Vat.  A^apms.]  One  of  the  family  of 
 Asaph  the  minstrel,  who  in  the  reign  of  HezekiaU 
 
ZED  AD 
 
 took  part  with  other  Levites  in  the  purification  of 
 the  Temple  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13). 
 
 27.  One  of  the  rulers  of  the  Temple  in  the  reign 
 of  .losiah  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  8).  He  was  probaMy,  as 
 Bertheau  conjectures,  "  the  second  priest  "  (comp. 
 2  K.  XXV.  18). 
 
 28.  'I'he  son  of  Jeberechiah,  who  was  taken  by 
 the  prophet  Isaiah  as  one  of  the  "  faithful  witnesses 
 to  record,''  when  he  wrote  concerning  Maher-sha- 
 lal-hash-baz  (Is.  viii.  2).  He  was  not  the  same  as 
 Zechariah  the  jirophet,  who  lived  in  the  time  of 
 Uzziah  and  died  before  that  king,  but  he  may  have 
 been  the  Levite  of  that  name,  who  in  the  reign  of 
 Ilezekiah  assisted  in  the  purification  of  the  Temple 
 (2  Chr.  xxix.  IS).  As  Zechariah  the  prophet  is 
 called  the  son  of  Berechiah,  with  whieli  Jeberechiah 
 is  all  but  identical,  Bertholdt  {Einl.  iv.  1722, 
 1727)  conjectured  that  some  of  the  prophecies  at- 
 tributed to  hint,  at  any  rate  cc.  ix.-xi.,  were 
 really  the  jiroduction  of  Zechariah,  the  contempo- 
 rary of  Isaiah,  and  were  appended  to  the  volume  of 
 the  later  prophet  of  the  same  name  (Gesen.  Der 
 Proph.  Jtsnia,  i.  327).  Another  conjecture  is  that 
 Zecliariah  the  son  of  Jelierechiah  is  the  same  as 
 Zechariali  the  father  of  Abijah,  the  queen  of  Ahaz 
 (Poll,  Synopsis,  \n  loc):  the  witnesses  summoned 
 by  Isaiah  being  thus  men  of  the  highest  ecclesias- 
 tical and  civil  rank.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZE'DAD  ("n?  [niountnin  -  side,  or  steep 
 place']:  2,apa5aK,  'Hfiaa-eXSa/x;  Alex.  ^aSaSuK, 
 EXSufj,;  [Comp.  Aid.  2aSa5a,  2riSaSd.:]  Se'lada). 
 One  of  the  landmarks  on  the  north  border  of  the 
 land  of  Israel,  as  promised  b}'  Moses  (Num.  xxxiv. 
 8)  and  as  restored  by  Ezekiel  (xlvii.  15),  who  prob- 
 ably passed  through  it  on  his  road  to  Assyria  as  a 
 captive.  In  the  former  case  it  occurs  between  "  the 
 entrance  of  Hamath  "  and  Ziphron,  and  in  the 
 latter  between  the  "road  to  Hethlon  "  and  Ha- 
 math. A  place  named  Siidud  exists  to  the  east  of 
 the  northern  extremity  of  the  chain  of  Anti-Libanus, 
 about  50  miles  E.  N.  E.  of  Baalbec,  and  35  S.  S.  E. 
 of  Hums.  It  is  possible  that  tliis  may  ultimately 
 turn  out  to  be  identical  with  Zedad;  but  at  present 
 the  passages  in  which  the  latter  is  mentioned  are  so 
 imperfectly  understood,  and  this  part  of  the  coun- 
 try has  been  so  little  explored  with  the  view  of  ar- 
 riving at  topographical  conclusions,  that  nothing 
 can  be  done  beyond  directing  attention  to  the  co- 
 incidence in  the  names  (see  Forter,  Five  Years, 
 etc.,  ii.  354-35G).  G. 
 
 ZEDECHFAS  (SeSe/ci'as:  Sedecias).  Zed- 
 EKIAH  king  of  Judah  (1  Esdr.  i.  4G). 
 
 ZEDEKI'AH.     1.  (^n^i^l^,  Tsidkiyyahu, 
 
 and  thrice  n*|7*T^,  Tsidkiyyah  [justice  of  Je- 
 Iwvah]  :  2e5e/cia,*  ^tSeKias-  Sedecias.)  The 
 last  king  of  Judah  and   Jerusalem.     He  was  the 
 
 ZEDEKIAH 
 
 3611 
 
 «  Jer.  xxvii.  12,  xxyiii.  1,  xxix.  3.  In  this  form  it 
 is  identical  with  the  name  which  appears  in  the  A.  V. 
 (in  connection  with  a  different  person)  as  Zidkijau.  A 
 similar  inconsistency  of  our  tran.slators  is  shown  in  the 
 cases  of  Hezekiah,  Uiiskijah.  and  Uizkiah  ;  Ezekiel  and 
 Jehezekel. 
 
 b  The  peculiarities  of  the  name,  as  it  appears  in  the 
 Vatican  LXX.  (Mai),  may  be  noted  :  — 
 
 (a.)  It  is  2t5eKta  in  2  K.  xxiv.  17 ;  1  Chr.  iii.  15  ; 
 Jer.  xxxiv.  4  only. 
 
 (i.)  The  Reuftive  is  SeSexiou  in  2  K.  xxv.  2  ;  Jer.  li. 
 59,  Iii.  1,  10,  11  ;  but  2e«eKia  in  Jer.  i.  3,  xxviii.  1, 
 zxxix.  1 ;  and  SeSfxcia  in  xxxix.  2  only. 
 
 son  of  Josiah  by  his  wife  Hamutal,  and  therefore 
 own  brother  to  Jehoahaz  (2  K.  xxiv.  18;  comp. 
 xxiii.  31).  His  original  name  had  been  Matta- 
 Ni.VH,  which  was  changed  to  Zedekiah  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, when  he  carried  off  his  nephew  Jelioi- 
 achim  to  Baliylon,  and  left  him  on  the  throne  of 
 Jerusalem.  Zedekiah  was  but  twenty-one  years 
 old  when  he  was  thus  placed  in  cliarge  of  an  im- 
 poverished kingdom,  and  a  city  which,  though  still 
 strong  in  its  natural  and  art^cial  impregnability, 
 was  bereft  of  well-nigh  all  its  defenders.  But  Je- 
 rusalem might  have  remained  the  head  of  the  Bab- 
 ylonian province  of  Judah,  and  the  Temple  of 
 Jehovali  continued  standing,  had  Zedekiah  pos- 
 sessed wisdom  and  firmness  enough  to  remain  true 
 to  his  allegiance  to  Babylon,  'i'his,  however,  be 
 could  not  do  (Jer.  xxxviii.  5).  His  history  is  con- 
 tained in  the  short  sketcli  of  the  events  of  his  reign 
 given  in  2  K.  xxiv.  17-xxv.  7,  and,  with  some 
 trifling  variations,  in  Jer.  xxxi.x.  1-7,  Iii.  1-1  ij  to- 
 gether with  the  still  shorter  summary  in  2  Chr. 
 xxxvi.  10,  &c. ;  and  also  in  Jer.  xxi.,  xxiv.,  xxvii., 
 xxviii.,  xxix.,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.,  xxxiv.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii. 
 (being  the  chapters  containing  the  prophecies  de- 
 livered by  this  prophet  during  this  reign  and  his 
 relation  of  various  events  more  or  less  atTecting 
 Zedekiah),  and  Ez.  xvii.  11-21.  To  tliese  it  is  in- 
 dispensalJe  to  add  the  narrative  of  Josephus  (Ant. 
 X.  7,  1-8,  §  2),  which  is  partly  constructed  by 
 comparison  of  the  documents  enumerated  above, 
 but  also  contains  information  derived  from  other 
 and  independent  sources.  From  these  it  is  evident 
 that  Zedekiah  was  a  man  not  so  much  bad  at  heart 
 as  weak  in  will.  He  was  one  of  those  unfortunate 
 characters,  frequent  in  history,  like  our  own 
 Charles  I.  and  Louis  XVI.  of  France,  who  find 
 themselves  at  the  head  of  affairs  during  a  great 
 crisis,  without  having  the  strength  of  character  to 
 enable  tliem  to  do  wliat  tiiey  know  to  be  right,  and 
 whose  infirmity  becomes  moral  guilt.  The  princes 
 of  his  court,  as  he  himself  pathetically  admits  in 
 his  interview  with  Jeremiah,  described  in  chap, 
 xxxviii.,  had  him  completely  under  their  influence. 
 "  Against  them,"'  he  complains.  •'  it  is  not  the  king 
 that  can  do  anything."  He  was  thus  driven  to 
 disregard  the  counsels  of  the  prophet,  which,  as  the 
 event  proved,  were  perfectly  sound;  and  he  who 
 might  have  kept  the  fragments  of  the  kingdom  of 
 Judah  together,  and  maintained  for  some  genera- 
 tions longer  the  worship  of  Jeliovah,  brouglit  its 
 final  ruin  on  his  country,  destruction  on  the  Tem- 
 ple, death  to  his  family,  and  a  cruel  torment  and 
 miseraljle  captivity  on  himself. 
 
 It  is  evident  from  Jer.  xxvii. c  and  xxviii.  (ap- 
 parently the  earliest  prophecies  delivered  during 
 this  reign),  that  the  earlier  jwrtion  of  Zedekiah's 
 reign  was  marked  by  an  agitation  throughout  the 
 whole  of  Syria  against  the  Babylonian  yoke.    Jeru- 
 
 (c.)  The  name  is  occasionally  omitted  where  it  is 
 present  in  the  Hebrew  text,  e.  g.  Jer.  xxxviii.,  Iii.  5, 
 8  ;  but  on  the  other  hand  is  inserted  in  xlvi.  1,  where 
 also  Elam  is  put  for  "  gentiles." 
 
 N.  B.  The  references  4ibove  given  to  Jeremiah  are 
 according  to  the  Hebrew  capitulation. 
 
 c  There  can  be  uo  doubt  that  ver.  1  of  xxvii.,  as  it 
 at  present  stands,  contains  an  error,  and  that  for  Je- 
 hoiakini  we  should  read  Zctdekiah.  The  mention  o( 
 Zedekiah  in  vv.  3  and  12,  and  in  xxviii.  1,  as  well  as 
 of  the  captivity  of  Jeconiah  in  ver.  20,  no  less  than 
 the  whole  argument  of  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter, 
 renders  this  evident. 
 
£612 
 
 ZEDEKIAH 
 
 iialem  seems  to  liave  taken  the  lead,  since  in  tlie 
 fourth  year  of  Zedekiah's  reign  we  find  ambassa- 
 dors from  all  the  neiijhboriiig  kingdoms  —  Tyre,  Si- 
 don,  Edom,  and  Moab  —  at  his  court,  to  consult  as 
 to  the  steps  to  be  taken.  This  happened  either 
 during  the  king's  absence  or  innnediately  after  his 
 return  from  Babylon,  wliither  lie  went  on  some  er- 
 rand, the  nature  of  which  is  not  named,  but  which 
 may  have  been  an  attempt  to  blind  the  eyes  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  to  his  contemplated  revolt  (Jer.  li. 
 59).  The  project  \vas  attacked  by  Jeremiah  wiih 
 the  stronttest  statement  of  the  folly  of  sucli  a  course 
 —  a  statement  corroborated  by  the  very  material 
 fact  that  a  man  of  Jerusalem  named  Hananiab, 
 who  had  opposed  him  with  a  declaration  in  the 
 name  of  Jehovah,  that  the  spoils  of  the  Temple 
 should  be  restored  within  two  years,  had  died,  in 
 accordance  with  Jeremiah's  prediction,  within  two 
 months  of  its  delivery.  This,  and  perhaps  also  the 
 impossibility  of  any*l-eal  alliance  between  Judah  and 
 the  surrounding  nations,  seems  to  have  put  a  stop, 
 for  the  time,  to  the  anti-Babylonian  movement. 
 On  a  man  of  Zedekiah's  temperament  the  sudden 
 death  of  Hananiab  must  have  produced  a  strong 
 impression ;  and  we  may  without  improbability  ac- 
 cept this  as  the  time  at  which  he  procured  to  be 
 made  in  silver  a  set  of  the  vessels  of  the  Temple,  to 
 replace  tiie  golden  plate  carried  oft"  with  his  prede- 
 cessor by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Bar.  i.  8). 
 
 The  first  act  of  overt  rebellion  of  which  any  rec- 
 ord survives  was  the  formation  of  an  alliance  with 
 Egypt,  of  itself  equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  en- 
 mity with  Babylon.  In  ftict,  according  to  the 
 statement  of  Chronicles  and  Ezekiel  (xvii.  13), 
 with  the  expansion  of  Josephus,  it  was  in  direct 
 contravention  of  the  oath  of  allegiance  in  the  name 
 of  Elohim,  by  which  Zedekiah  was  bound  by  Neb- 
 uchadnezzar, namely,  that  he  would  keep  the  king- 
 dom for  Nebuchadnezzar,  make  no  innovation,  and 
 enter  into  no  league  with  Egjpt  (Ez.  xvii.  13 ;  2 
 Chr.  xxxvi.  13;  Jos.  Ant.  x.  7,  §  1).  As  a  natu- 
 ral consequence  it  brought  on  Jerusalem  an  imme- 
 diate invasion  of  the  Chaldaians.  The  mention  of 
 this  event  in  the  Bible,  though  sure,  is  extremely 
 slight,  and  occurs  only  in  Jer.  xxxvii.  5-11,  xxxiv. 
 21,  and  Ez.  xvii.  15-20;  but  Josephus  (x.  7,  §  3) 
 relates  it  more  fully,  and  gives  the  date  of  its  oc- 
 currence, namely  the  eighth  year  of  Zedekiah. 
 Probably  also  the  denunciations  of  an  Egyptian 
 alliance,  contained  in  Jer.  ii.  18,  3G,  have  reference 
 to  the  same  time.  It  appears  that  Nebuchadnez- 
 zar, being  made  aware  of  Zedekiah's  defection, 
 either  by  the  non-payment  of  the  tribute  or  by 
 other  means,  at  once  sent  an  army  to  ravage  Ju- 
 daea. This  was  done,  and  the  whole  country  re- 
 duced, except  Jerusalem  and  two  strong  places  in 
 the  western  plain,  Lachish  and  Azekah,  which  still 
 held  out  (Jer.  xxxiv.  7).  In  tlie  panic  which  fol- 
 lowed the  appearance  of  the  Chakia-ans,  Zedekiah 
 succeeded  in  inducing  the  princes  and  other  inhab- 
 itants of  Jerusalem  to  abolish  the  odious  custom 
 which  prevailed  of  enslaving  their  countrymen.  A 
 solenm  rite  (ver.  18),  recalling  in  its  form  that  in 
 which  tlie  original  covenant  of  the  nation  had  been 
 made  with  Abram  (Gen.  xv.  9,  &c.),  was  per- 
 formed in  the  Temple  (ver.  15),  and  a  crowd  of  Is- 
 raelites of  both  sexes  found  themselves  released 
 from  slavery. 
 
 In  the  mean  time  Pharaoh  had  moved  to  tlie 
 assistance  of  his  ally.  On  hearing  of  his  approach 
 the  Chaldees  at  once  raised  the  siege  and  ad\  aiiced 
 M  meet  hiui.     The  nobles  seized  the  moment  uf 
 
 ZEDEKIAH 
 
 respite  to  reassert  their  power  over  the  king,  and 
 their  defiance  of  Jehovah,  by  reenslaving  those 
 whom  they  had  so  recently  manumitted ;  and  the 
 prophet  thereupon  utters  a  doom  on  those  miscre- 
 ants which,  in  the  fierceness  of  its  tone  and  in  some 
 of  its  expressions,  recalls  those  of  IClijah  on  Ahab 
 (ver.  20).  This  encounter  w,as  quickly  followed  by 
 Jeremiah's  capture  and  imprisonment,  which  liut 
 for  the  interference  of  the  king  (xxxvii.  17,  21) 
 would  have  rapidly  put  an  end  to  his  life  (ver.  20). 
 Mow  long  the  Babylonians  were  absent  from  Jeru- 
 salem we  are  not  told.  It  must  have  required  at 
 least  several  months  to  move  a  large  army  and 
 baggage  through  the  difficult  and  tortuous  country 
 which  separates  Jerusalem  from  the  IMiilistiiie 
 Plain,  and  to  effect  the  complete  repulse  of  the 
 Egyptian  army  from  Syria,  which  Jose[)lius  affirms 
 was  eftected.  All  we  certainly  know  is  that  on  the 
 tenth  day  of  the  tenth  month  of  ZedekiaJi's  ninth 
 year  the  Chaldseans  were  again  before  the  walls 
 (Jer.  Hi.  4).  From  this  time  forward  the  siege 
 progressed  slowly  but  surely  to  its  consummation, 
 with  the  accompaniment  of  both  famine  and  pesti- 
 lence (Joseph.).  Zedekiah  again  interfered  to  pre- 
 serve the  life  of  Jeremiah  from  the  vengeance  of  the 
 princes  (xxxviii.  7-13),  and  then  occurred  the  in- 
 terview between  the  king  and  the  prophet  of  which 
 mention  has  already  been  made,  and  which  attbrds 
 so  good  a  clew  to  the  condition  of  abject  depend- 
 ence into  which  a  long  course  of  opposition  had 
 brought  the  weak-minded  monarch.  It  would  seem 
 from  this  conversation  that  a  considerable  desertion 
 had  ah'eady  taken  place  to  the  besiegers,  proving 
 that  the  prophet's  view  of  the  condition  of  things 
 was  shared  by  many  of  his  countrymen.  But  the 
 unhappy  Zedekiah  throws  away  the  chance  of  pres- 
 ervation for  himself  and  the  city  which  the  prophet 
 set  before  him,  in  his  fear  that  he  would  be  mocked 
 by  tiiose  very  Jews  who  had  already  taken  the  step 
 Jeremiah  was  urging  him  to  take  (xxxviii.  19). 
 At  the  same  time  his  fear  of  the  princes  who  re- 
 mained in  the  city  is  not  diminished,  and  he  even 
 condescends  to  impose  on  the  prophet  a  subterfuge, 
 with  tlie  view  of  concealing  the  real  purport  of  his 
 conversation  from  these  tyrants  of  his  spirit  (vv. 
 21-27). 
 
 But  while  the  king  was  hesitating  the  end  was 
 rapidly  coming  nearer.  The  city  was  indeed  re- 
 duced to  the  last  extremity.  The  fire  of  the  be- 
 siegers had  throughout  been  very  destructive  (Jo- 
 seph.), but  it  was  now  aided  by  a  sevaie  famine. 
 The  bread  had  for  long  been  consumed  (Jer. 
 xxxviii.  9),  and  all  the  terrible  expedients  had  been 
 tried  to  which  the  wretched  inhabitants  of  a  be- 
 sieged town  are  forced  to  resort  in  such  cases. 
 Jlothers  had  boiled  and  eaten  the  flesh  of  their  own 
 infants  (Bar.  ii.  3;  Lam.  iv.  10).  Persons  of  the 
 greatest  wealth  and  station  were  to  be  seen  search- 
 ing tlie  dung-heaps  for  a  morsel  of  food.  The 
 effeminate  nobles,  whose  fair  complexions  had  been 
 their  pride,  wandered  in  the  open  streets  like  black- 
 ened but  living  skeletons  (Lam.  iv.  5,  8).  Still 
 the  king  was  seen  in  pubhc,  sitting  in  the  gate 
 where  justice  was  administered,  that  his  people 
 might  approach  him,  though  indeed  he  had  no  help 
 to  give  them  (xxxviii.  7). 
 
 At  last,  after  sixteen  dreadful  months  had 
 dragged  on,  the  catastrophe  arrived.  It  was  on 
 the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month,  about  the  mid- 
 dle of  July,  at  midnight,  as  Josephus  with  careful 
 minuteness  informs  us,  that  the  breach  in  tliosc 
 stout  and  venerable  walls  was  effected.     TI.c  undii. 
 
ZEDEKIAH 
 
 nine  days  old,  had  gone  down  below  the  hills  which 
 form  the  western  edge  of  the  basin  of  Jernsaleni,  or 
 was,  at  any  rate,  too  low  to  illuminate  the  utter 
 darkness  which  reigns  in  the  narrow  lanes  of  an 
 eastern  town,  where  tlie  inhabitants  retire  early  to 
 rest,  and  where  tliere  are  but  few  windows  to  emit 
 light  from  witliin  the  houses.  Tlie  wretclied  rem- 
 nants of  the  arm\',  starved  and  exhausted,  had  left 
 the  walls,  and  there  was  nothing  to  oppose  the 
 entrance  of  the  Chaldjeaus.  Passing  in  tlirougli 
 the  breach,  they  made  their  way,  as  their  custom 
 was,  to  the  centre  of  tlie  city,  and  for  tlie  first  time 
 the  Femple  was  entered  by  a  hostile  force,  and  all 
 the  princes  of  the  court  of  the  great  king  took  their 
 seats  in  state  in  the  middle  gate  of  tlie  hitherto 
 virgin  house  of  Jehovah.  The  alarm  quickly 
 spread  through  the  sleeping  city,  and  Zedekiah, 
 collecting  his  wives  and  children  (Joseph.)  and 
 surrounding  himself  with  the  few  soliliers  who  had 
 survived  the  accidents  of  the  siege,  made  his  way 
 out  of  the  city  at  tlie  opposite  end  to  that  at  which 
 the  Assyrians  had  entered,  by  a  street  which,  like 
 the  Btia  es-Surein  at  Damascus,  ran  lietween  two 
 walls  (proliably  those  on  the  east  and  west  sides  of 
 the  so-culled  Tyropoeon  valley),  and  issueil  at  a 
 gate  above  the  royal  gardens  and  the  Fountain  of 
 Sibam.  Thence  he  took  the  road  towards  the 
 Jordan,  perhaps  hoping  to  find  refuge,  as  David 
 had,  at  some  fortified  place  in  the  mountains  on  its 
 eastern  side.  On  tlie  road  they  were  met  and 
 recognized  by  some  of  the  Jews  who  had  formerly 
 deserted  to  the  Chaldoeans.  By  them  the  intelli- 
 gence was  communicated,  with  the  eager  treachery 
 of  deserters,  to  the  generals  in  the  city  (.loseph.), 
 and,  as  soon  as  the  dawn  of  day  permitted  it,  swift 
 pursuit  was  made.  The  king's  party  must  have 
 had  some  hours'  start,  and  ought  to  have  had  no 
 difficulty  in  reacliiiig  the  Jordan ;  but,  either  from 
 their  being  on  foot,  weak  and  infirm,  while  the 
 pursuers  were  mounted,  or  perhaps  owing  to  the 
 incumbrance  of  the  women  and  baggage,  they  were 
 overtaken  near  Jericho,  when  just  within  sight 
 of  the  river.  A  few  of  the  people  only  remained 
 round  the  person  of  the  king.  I'lie  rest  lied  in  all 
 directions,  so  that  he  was  easily  taken. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar  was  then  at  Kiblah,  at  the 
 upper  end  of  the  valley  of  Lebanon,  some  3.5  miles 
 beyond  Baalbec,  and  therefore  about  ten  days' 
 journey  from  Jerusalem,  i'hither  Zedekiah  and 
 his  soi.s  were  dispatched ;  his  daughters  were  kept 
 at  Jerusalem,  and  shortly  after  fell  into  the  hands 
 of  the  notorious  Ishmael  at  JMizpah.  When  he 
 was  brought  before  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  great 
 king  reproacheil  him  in  the  severest  terms,  first  for 
 breaking  his  oath  of  allegiance,  and  next  for  ingrat- 
 itude (Joseph.),  lie  then,  with  a  refiiieiiieiit  of 
 cruelty  characteristic  of  those  cruel  times,  ordered 
 his  sons  to  be  killed  before  him,  and  la-itly  his  own 
 eyes  to  be  thrust  out.  lie  was  then  loaded  with 
 brazen  fetters,  and  at  a  later  period  taken  to  Baby- 
 lon, where  he  died.  We  are  not  told  whether  he 
 was  allowed  to  coinriiuuicate  with  his  I'rotlier  Je- 
 hoiachin,  who  at  that  time  was  also  in  captivity 
 there;  nor  do  we  know  the  time  of  his  death;  but 
 from  the  omission  of  his  name  in  the  statement  of 
 Jehoiakiin's  release  l)y  Kvil-Merodach.  20  years 
 after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  natural  to  infer 
 that  by  that  time  Zedekiah's  siifliiriiins  had  ended. 
 
 The  fact  of  liis  interview  with  Xebiicliadiiezzar 
 at  liiblah,  and  his  lieing  carried  l)liiid  to  Babylon, 
 'econeiles  two  predictions  of  Jeremiah  and  I'.zekiel, 
 Ivhich   at    the    time  of  their  delivery   must  have 
 
 ZEDEKIAH 
 
 3613 
 
 appeared  conflicting,  and  which  Josephus  indeed 
 |)articularly  states  Zedekiah  alleged  as  his  reason 
 fur  not  givingniore  heed  to  Jeremiah.  The  former 
 of  these  (Jer.  xxxii.  4)  states  that  Zedekiah  shall 
 "  speak  witli  the  king  of  Babylon  mouth  to  mouth, 
 and  his  eyes  shall  behold  his  eyes;  "  the  latter  (Ez. 
 xii.  1-3),  that  "  he  shall  be  brought  to  Babylon,  yet 
 shall  he  not  see  it,  though  he  die  there."  The 
 whole  of  this  prediction  of  I'^zekiel,  whose  prophe- 
 cies aiipear  to  have  been  delivered  at  Babylon  (Ez. 
 i.  ]--j,  xl.  1),  is  truly  remarkable  as  describing 
 almost  exactly  the  circumstances  of  Zedekiah's 
 flight. 
 
 2.  (^n*P_"T^  and  n^^l^i  a  :  SeSe/c/as;  [Vat. 
 in  1  K.  xxii.  24,  2s5fKtui/:J  Stdtdns.)  Son  of 
 Chenaanah,  a  prophet  at  the  court  of  Ahab,  head, 
 or,  if  not  head,  virtual  leader  of  the  college.  He 
 appears  but  once,  namely,  as  spokesman  when  the 
 prophets  are  consulted  by  Ahab  on  the  result  of  his 
 propo.sed  expedition  to  llamoth-Gilead  (1  K.  xxii.; 
 2  Chr.  xviii.). 
 
 Zedekiah  had  prepared  himself  for  the  interview 
 with  a  pair  of  iron  horns  after  the  symbolic  custom 
 of  the  prophets  (comp.  Jer.  xiii.,  xix.),  the  horns 
 of  the  reeiii,  or  liufiiilo,  which  was  the  recognized 
 eml>leiii  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Dent,  xxxiii.  17). 
 With  these,  in  the  interval  of  Micaiah's  arrival,  he 
 illustrated  the  manner  in  which  Ahab  should  drive 
 the  Syrians  before  him.  When  Micaiah  appeared 
 and  had  delivered  his  prophecy,  Zedekiah  sprang 
 forward  and  struck  him  a  blow  on  the  face,  accom- 
 panying it  by  a  taunting  sneer.  For  this  he  is 
 threatened  by  ilicaiah  in  terms  which  are  hardly 
 intelligible  to  us,  but  which  evidently  allude  to 
 some  personal  danger  to  Zedekiah. 
 
 The  narrative  of  the  Bible  does  not  imply  that 
 the  blow  struck  by  Zedekiah  was  prompted  by 
 more  than  sudden  anger,  or  a  wish  to  insult  and 
 liumiliate  the  prophet  of  Jehovah.  But  Josephus 
 takes  a  very  different  view,  which  he  develops  at 
 some  length  {Ant.  viii.  15,  §  S)  He  relates  that 
 alter  JMicaiah  had  spoken,  Zedekiah  again  came 
 forward,  and  denounced  him  as  false  on  the  ground 
 that  his  prophecy  contradicted  the  prediction  of 
 Elijah,  that  Ahab's  blood  should  be  licked  up  by 
 dogs  in  the  field  of  Naboth  of  Jezreel;  and  as  a 
 further  proof  that  he  was  an  impostor,  he  struck 
 hiin,  daring  him  to  do  what  Iddo,  in  somewhat 
 similar  circumstances,  had  done  to  Jeroboam 
 namely,  wither  his  hand. 
 
 This  addition  is  remarkable,  but  it  is  related 
 by  Josephus  with  great  circumstantiality,  and  was 
 doubtle.ss  drawn  liy  him  fnini  that  source,  unhap- 
 pily now  lost,  from  which  he  has  added  so  many 
 admirable  touches  to  the  outlines  of  the  sacred 
 narrative. 
 
 As  to  the  question  of  what  Zedekiah  and  his 
 followers  were,  whether  prophet's  of  .lehovah  or  of 
 .some  false  deity,  it  seems  hardly  jiossible  to  enter- 
 tain any  doubt.  True,  they  use  the  name  of 
 .lehovah,  but  that  was  a  habit  of  false  prophets 
 (Jer.  xxviii.  2,  comp.  xxix.  21.  31),  and  there  is  a 
 vast  diflference  between  the  casual  manner  in  which 
 they  mention  the  awful  Name,  and  the  full,  ami  as 
 it  were,  formal  style  in  which  Micaiah  pmclaims 
 and  reiterates  it.  Seeing  also  that  Ahab  and  his 
 queen  were  professedly  worshijipers  of  Baal  and 
 .Vshtaroth,  and  tiiat  a  few  years  only  before  this 
 event  they  had  an  establishment  consisting  of  two 
 
 «  Ouce  only,  namel}',  1  K.  xxii.  11. 
 
3614  ZEEB 
 
 bodies  —  one  of  450,  the  other  of  400  —  prophets 
 of  this  fulse  worship,  it  is  ditticult  to  suppose  that 
 tliere  could  have  been  also  400  prophets  of  Jehovah 
 at  his  court.  But  the  inquiry  of  the  king  of  Judah 
 seems  to  decide  the  point.  After  hearing  tlie  pre- 
 diction of  Zedekiah  and  his  fellows,  he  asks  at  once 
 for  a  prophet  of  Jehovah:  "  Is  there  not  here  be- 
 sides (T127)  a  prophet  of  Jehovah  that  we  may 
 inquire  oi  hiinV  The  natural  inference  seems 
 to  be  that  the  others  were  not  prophets  of  Jehovah, 
 but  were  the  400  prophets  of  Aslitaroth  (A.  V. 
 "the  groves")  who  escaped  the  sword  of  Elijah 
 (comp.  1  K.  xviii.  19  with  22,  40).  They  had 
 spoken  in  His  name,  but  there  was  something 
 about  them  —  some  trait  of  manner,  costume,  or 
 gesture  —  which  aroused  the  suspicions  of  Jehosh- 
 aphat,  and,  to  the  practiced  eye  of  one  who  lived  at 
 the  centre  of  Jehovah-worship  and  was  well  versed 
 in  the  marks  of  the  genuine  prophet,  proclaimed 
 them  counteri'eits.  AVith  these  few  words  Zede- 
 kiah  may  be  left  to  the  oblivion  in  which,  except 
 on  this  one  occasion,  he  remains.  G. 
 
 3.  (^n*i71^.)     The  son  of  Maaseiah,  a  false 
 
 prophet  in  Babylon  among  the  captives  who  were 
 taken  with  Jeconiah  (Jer.  xxix.  21,  22).  He  was 
 denounced  in  the  letter  of  Jeremiah  for  having, 
 with  Ahab  the  son  of  Kolaiah,  buoyed  up  the  peo- 
 ple with  false  hopes,  and  for  profane  and  flagitious 
 conduct.  Their  names  were  to  become  a  by-word, 
 and  their  terrible  fate  a  warning.  Of  this  fate  we 
 have  no  direct  intimation,  or  of  the  manner  in 
 which  they  incurred  it:  the  prophet  simply  pro- 
 nounces that  they  should  f;ill  into  the  hands  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  and  be  burnt  to  death.  In  the 
 Targum  of  K.  Joseph  on  2  Chr.  xxviii.  3,  the  story 
 is  told  that  Joshua  the  son  of  Jozadak  the  high- 
 priest  was  cast  into  the  furnace  of  fire  with  Ahab 
 and  Zedekiah,  but  that,  while  they  were  consumed, 
 he  was  saved  for  his  righteousness'  sake. 
 
 4.  The  son  of  Hananiah,  one  of  the  princes  of 
 Judah  who  were  assembled  in  tiie  scriljes'  chamber 
 of  the  king's  palace,  when  Micaiah  announced  that 
 Baruch  had  read  the  words  of  Jeremiah  in  the  ears 
 of  the  people  from  the  chamber  of  Gemariah  the 
 scribe  (Jer.  xxxvi.  12).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZE'EB   pST   [see  below]:  dZ-fi^-.Zeb).  One 
 
 of  the  two  "princes"  (^^T*^)  of  Midian  in  the 
 great  invasion  of  Israel  —  inferior  to  the  "  kings  " 
 Zebah  and  Zalmunna.  He  is  always  named  with 
 Oreb  (Judg.  vii.  2.5,  viii.  -3;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11).  The 
 name  signifies  in  Hebrew  "  wolf,"  just  as  Oreb 
 does  "ufow,"  [or  "  raven "]  and  the  two  are 
 appropriate  enough  to  the  customs  of  predatory 
 warriors,  who  delight  in  conferring  such  names  on 
 their  chiefs. 
 
 Zeeb  and  Oreb  w'ere  not  slain  at  the  first  rout 
 of  the  Arabs  below  the  spring  of  Harnd,  but  at  a 
 later  stage  of  the  struggle,  probably  in  crossing 
 the  Jordan  at  a  ford  further  down  the  river,  near 
 the  passes  which  descend  from  Mount  ICphraim. 
 An  enormous  mass  of  their  followers  perished  with 
 them.  [Okkb.]  Zeeb,  the  wolf,  was  brought  to 
 bay  in  a  wine-press  which  in  later  times  bore  his 
 
 a  The  meaning  is  sligtitly  altered  by  the  change  in 
 ttie  vowel-poiuts.  In  the  former  case  it  signifies  an 
 '  addition  "  (ab/iam;),  in  the  latter  a  "  rib  "  (Fiir.st, 
 Hwb.  ii.  275  a).  Compare  the  equivalents  of  the 
 LXX.  and  Vulg.  in  Samuel,  as  given  above. 
 
 ZELOPHEHAD 
 
 name  —  the  "  wine-press  of  Zeeb  "     (3ST     ^p."). 
 'laKecp^V'p'^  Alex.  laKe(p^T]0'-    Torcular  Ztb). 
 
 G. 
 
 ZETiAH  (l?b!J  and  '2h't^,a  i.  e.  Tsela  [rib, 
 
 siih'\ :  in  Josh.  [Kom.]  Vat.  omit  [or  read  SeAtj- 
 Kav\;  Alex.  27jAa[A€<^;  [Sarrav.  2eAa;]  in  Sam. 
 eV  T^  TrAeupct  in  both :  Stla,  in  latere).  One  of 
 the  cities  in  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii. 
 28).  Its  place  in  the  list  is  between  Taralali  and 
 ha-Eleph.  None  of  the.se  places  have,  however, 
 been  yet  discovered.  The  interest  of  Zelah  resides 
 in  the  fact  that  it  contained  the  family  tomb  of 
 Kish  the  father  of  Saul  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14),  in  which 
 the  bones  of  Saul  and  Jonathan,  and  also  appar- 
 ently of  the  two  sons  and  five  grandsons  of  Saul, 
 sacrificed  to  Jeliovah  on  the  hill  of  Gibeah,  at  last 
 found  their  resting-place  (comp.  ver.  13).  As 
 containing  their  sepulchre,  Zelah  was  in  all  proba- 
 bility the  native  place  *  of  the  family  of  Kish,  and 
 therefore  his  home,  and  the  home  of  Said  before 
 his  selection  as  king  had  brought  him  into  promi- 
 nence. This  appears  to  have  been  generally  over- 
 looked, but  it  is  important,  because  it  gives  a  dif- 
 ferent starting-point  to  that  usually  assumed  for 
 the  journey  of  Saul  in  quest  of  his  father's  asses?, 
 as  well  as  a  ditli;rent  goal  for  his  return  after  the 
 anointing;  and  although  the  position  of  Zelah  is 
 not  and  may  never  be  known,  still  it  is  one  step 
 nearer  the  solution  of  the  complicated  difficulties 
 of  that  route  to  know  that  Gibeah  —  Saul's  royal 
 residence  after  he  became  king  —  was  not  neces- 
 sarily the  point  either  of  his  departure  or  his 
 return. 
 
 The  absence  of  any  connection  between  the  names 
 of  Zelah  and  Zelzah  (too  frequently  assumed)  is  no- 
 ticed under  the  latter  head.  G. 
 
 ZE'LEK  (P2>*  [deft]:  'e\l4  [Vat.  EAete], 
 SeAi);  Alex.  2/3A671,  2eAAr//c:  Zelec).  An  Am- 
 monite, one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  37 ; 
 1  Chr.  xi.  39). 
 
 ZELOPH'EHAD  (^^Dbl*  [perh.>s<-ioj-n, 
 
 Ges.]  :  SaAiraaS,  [exc.  Josh.  xvii.  3,  Alex.  2aA- 
 (paaix  1  Chr.  vii.  15,  Rom.  Vat.  2air(^oa5:]  Hal- 
 phaact).  Son  of  Hepher,  son  of  Gilead,  son  of 
 .Machir,  son  of  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  3).  lie  was 
 apparently  the  second  son  of  his  father  Hepher  (1 
 Chr.  vii.  15),  though  Simonis  and  others,  following 
 the  interpretation  of  the  Kabbis,  and  under  the 
 impression  that  the  etymology  of  his  name  indi- 
 cates a  first-born,  explains  the  term  '^DtS^H  as 
 meaning  that  his  lot  came  up  .second.  Zelophehad 
 came  out  of  Egypt  with  Moses:  and  all  tiiat  we 
 know  of  him  is  that  he  took  no  part  in  Korah's 
 rebellion,  but  that  he  died  in  the  wilderness,  as  did 
 the  whole  of  that  generation  (Num.  xiv.  35,  xxvii, 
 3).  On  his  death  without  male  heirs,  his  live 
 daughters,  just  after  the  second  numbering  in  the 
 wilderness,  came  before  Moses  and  I'^leazar  to  claim 
 the  inheritance  of  their  father  in  the  tribe  of 
 Matiasseh.  The  claim  was  admitted  by  Divine 
 direction,  and  a  law  was  promulgated,  to  be  of 
 general  application,  that  if  a  man  died  without 
 sons  his  inheritance  should  pass  to  his  daughters 
 (Num.  xxvi.  33,  xxvii.  1-11),  which  led  to  a  further 
 enactment  (Num.  xxxvi.),  that  such  heiresses  should 
 
 b  In  like  manner  the  sepulclire  of  the  family  of 
 Jesse  was  at  Bethlehem  (2  Sam.  ii.  32). 
 
ZELOTES 
 
 not  marry  out  of  their  ovrn  tribe  —  a  rej^ulation 
 wliich  the  five  <:laui;-hters  of  Zelophehad  coiiipUecl 
 with,  being  all  married  to  sons  of  Manasseh,  so 
 that  Zelopliehad's  inheritance  continued  in  the  tribe 
 of  Manasseh.  The  law  of  succession,  as  exempli- 
 fied in  the  case  of  Zelophehad,  is  treated  at  length 
 by  SelJen  {De  Success,  capp.  xxii.,  xxiii.). 
 
 The  interest  of  the  case,  in  a  legal  jioint  of  view, 
 has  led  to  the  careful  preservation  of  Zelopliehad's 
 genealogy.  Beginning  with  .Toseph,  it  will  be  seen 
 that  the  daughters  of  Zelopheliad  are  the  seventh 
 generation.  So  are  Salmon,  Bezaleel,  and  Zophai 
 (apparently  the  first  settler  of  his  family),  from 
 their  patriarchal  ancestors;  while  Caleb,  Achan, 
 and  Phinehas  are  the  sixth ;  .Joshua  seems  to  have 
 been  the  eighth.  [Shutiielaii.]  The  average, 
 therefore,  seems  to  be  between  G  and -7  genera- 
 tions, which,  at  40  years  to  a  generation  (as  suited 
 to  the  length  of  life  at  that  time),  gives  between 
 240  and  280  years,  which  agrees  very  well  with  the 
 reckoning  of  21.5  years  for  the  sojourning  of  the 
 Israelites  in  Egypt  -)-  40  years  in  the  wilderness 
 :=  2.55  (Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  7,  §  5;  Selden,  De  Suc- 
 cess, xxii.,  xxiii.).  A.  C.  H. 
 
 ZELO'TES  (Zj]\cct-{is:  Zeloies).  The  epithet 
 given  to  the  Apostle  Simon  to  distinguish  him  from 
 Simon  Peter  (Luke  vi.  15).  In  Matt.  x.  4,  he  is 
 called  "  Simon  the  Canaanite,"  the  last  word  being 
 a  corruption  of  the  Aramaic  term,  of  which  "  Ze- 
 lotes  "  is  the  Greek  equivalent.  [Canaanite  ; 
 Simon  5.] 
 
 ZEL'ZAH  (n^b^:  i.  e.  Tseltsach  [shadow, 
 Ges. ;  or,  double  shadow,  Fiirst] :  aWofxevovs " 
 fj.^yd\a,  in  both  MSS. :  in  meru/ie).  A  place 
 named  once  only  (1  Sam.  x.  2),  as  on  the  boundary 
 
 of  Benjamin,  close  to  (n27)  Eachel's  sepulchre. 
 It  was  the  first  point  in  the  homeward  journey  of 
 Saul  after  his  anointing  by  Samuel.  Rachel's 
 sepulchre  is  still  .shown  a  short  distance  to  the 
 north  of  Bethlehem,  but  no  acceptable  identifica- 
 tion of  Zelzach  has  been  proposed.  It  is  usually 
 considered  as  identical  with  Zelah,  the  home  of 
 Kish  and  Saul,  and  that  again  with  Beit-Jala.. 
 But  this  is  not  tenable;  at  any  rate  there  is  noth- 
 ing to  support  it.  The  names  Zelah  and  Zelzach 
 are  not  only  not  identical,  but  they  have  hardly 
 
 anything  in  common,  still  less  have  HSvU  and 
 
 y'-  ~-^  •  nor  is  Beit-jala  close  enough  to  the  Kub- 
 bel  R'lliil  to  answer  to  the  expression  of  Samuel. 
 [Ramaii.]  G. 
 
 ZEMARA'IM  (D^"ntt!J  [doMe  forest-mount, 
 Fiirst]:  2apa:  Alex.  'Seixpifj.-  Semaraim).  One 
 of  the  towns  of  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (.T()sh. 
 xviii.  22).  It  is  named  between  Beth  ha-Arabah 
 and  Bethel,  and  therefore  on  the  assumption  that 
 Arabah  in  the  former  name  denotes  as  usu.al  the 
 Jordan  Valley,  we  should  expect  to  find  Zemaraim 
 either  in  the  valley  or  in  some  position  on  its 
 western  edge,  between  it  and  Bethel.  In  the 
 former  case  a  trace  of  the  name  may  remain  in 
 
 ZEMAUITE,  THE 
 
 3615 
 
 Chilrhet  eUSzomra,  which  is  marked  in  Seetzen's 
 map  (Beiscn,  vol.  iv.  map  2)  as  about  4  miles 
 north  of  Jericho,  and  appears  as  es-Sumrah ''  in 
 those  of  Robinson  and  ^'an  de  Velde.'^  (.See  also 
 Rob.  Bilil.  Jies.  i.  5G'J.)  In  the  latter  case  Zema- 
 raim may  be  connected,  or  identical,  with  Mount 
 Zkmaraim,  which  nmst  have  been  in  the  highland 
 district.' 
 
 In  either  event  Zemaraim  may  have  derived  its 
 name  from  the  ancient  tribe  of  the  Zeinarim  or 
 Zemarites,  wlio  were  related  to  the  Hittites  and 
 Amurites;  who,  like  them,  are  represented  in  the 
 Biblical  account  as  descendants  of  Canaan,  but, 
 from  some  cause  or  other  unexplained,  have  left 
 but  very  scanty  traces  of  their  existence.  The 
 list  of  the  towns  of  Benjamin  are  remarkable  for 
 tlie  number  of  tribes  which  they  commemorate. 
 The  .\vites,  the  Ammonites,  the  Ophnites,  the 
 Jebusites,  are  all  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of 
 Josh,  xviii.  22-28,  and  it  is  at  least  possible  that 
 the  Zemarites  may  add  another  to  the  list.      G. 
 
 ZEMARA'IM,  MOUNT  (0"!"^^^  "IH 
 [see  above]:  rh  opos  '2,o^6puiv:  mons  Seiiieron). 
 An  eminence  mentioned  in  2  Chr.  xiii.  4  only.  It 
 was  "  in  Mount  Ephraim,"  that  is  to  say  within 
 the  general  district  of  the  highlands  of  that  great 
 tribe.  It  appears  to  have  been  close  to  the  scene 
 of  the  engagetnent  mentioned  in  the  narrative, 
 which  again  may  be  inferred  to  have  been  south 
 of  Bethel  and  Ephraim  (ver.  19).  It  may  be  said 
 in  passing,  that  a  position  so  far  south  is  no  con- 
 tradiction to  its  being  in  JNIount  Ephraim.  It  has 
 been  already  shown  under  Ramaii  [iii.  2670  b] 
 that  the  name  of  Mount  Ephraim  probably  ex- 
 tended as  far  as  er-Ram,  4  miles  south  of  Beitin, 
 and  8  of  Taiyibeh,  the  possible  representative  of 
 Ephraim.  Whether  JNIount  Zemaraim  is  identical 
 with,  or  related  to  the  place  of  the  same  name 
 mentioned  in  the  preceding  article,  cannot  be  ascer- 
 tained. If  they  prove  to  be  distinct  places  they 
 will  furnish  a  double  testimony  to  the  presence  of 
 the  ancient  tribe  of  Zemarites  in  this  part  of  the 
 country.  No  name  answering  to  Zemaraim  has 
 been  yet  discovered  in  the  maps  or  information  of 
 travellers  on  the  highland. 
 
 It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  LXX.  and  Vul- 
 gate, this  name  is  rendered  by  the  same  word 
 wliich  in  the  former  represents  Samaria.  But  this, 
 though  repeated  (with  a  difference)  in  the  case  of 
 Zemarite,  can  hardly  be  more  than  an  accidental 
 error,  since  the  names  have  little  or  no  resemblance 
 in  Helirew.  In  the  present  case  Samaria  is  be- 
 sides inadmissible  on  topographical  grounds. 
 
 G. 
 
 ZEM'ARITE,  THE  Ol'P^n  [patr.]:  b 
 "Zaiiapaios ;  [in  1  Chr.  Rom.  Vat.  omit:]  Sama- 
 riEus).  Una  of  the  Hamite  tribes  who  in  the 
 genealogical  table  of  Gen.  x.  (ver.  18),  and  1  Chr. 
 i.  (ver.  IG),  are  represented  as  "sons  of  Canaan." 
 It  is  named  between  the  Arvadite,  or  people  of 
 Ruad,  and  the  Hamathite,  or  people  of  Hamah. 
 Nothing  is  certainly  known  of  this  ancient  tribe. 
 
 a  Apparently  reading  v27  — .  The  Talmud  has 
 numerous  expliinations,  the  favorite  one  being  that 
 Zelzah  was  Jerusalem  —  "  the  shadow  (  v2)  of  God."' 
 Something  of  this  kind  is  at  the  root  of  the  7neridie 
 of  the  Vulg. 
 
 b  Tlie  name  Sumrah  occurs  more  than  once  else- 
 
 where in  the  .Jordan  Valley.  It  is  found  close  to  the 
 "  Uound  B'ountaiu  "  in  the  Plain  of  Gennesareth  ;  also 
 at  the  S.  E.  end  of  the  Lake  of  Tiberias. 
 
 c  In  the  2d  ed.  of  Kobin.son  (i.  .569)  the  name  is 
 given  as  es-Sfi7)nn;  but  this  is  probably  a  misprint. 
 See  the  Arabic  Index  to  ed.  i.,  the  text,  ii.  305,  and 
 the  maps  to  both  editions. 
 
8616 
 
 ZEMIRA 
 
 ZEPHANIAH 
 
 rhe  old  interpreters  (Jerusalem  Targum,  Arabic  |  jurisconsult  or  a  Jewish  doctor.     Grotius  accepts 
 
 Version,  etc.)  place  them  at  Emessa,  the  modern 
 Hums.  Michaelis  (!!<picile(/ium,  ii.  51),  revolting; 
 at  the  want  of  similarity  between  the  two  names 
 (which  is  perhaps  the  strongest  argument  in  favor 
 of  the  old  identification),  proposes  to  locate  them  at 
 Sumra'  (the  Simyra  of  the  classical  geographers), 
 which  name  is  mentioned  by  Shaw  as  attached  to 
 a  site  of  ruins  near  Arka,  on  the  west  coast  of 
 Syria,  10  or  11  miles  above  Tripoli. 
 
 On  the  new  French  map  of  the  Lebanon  ( Curie 
 clu  Libnn,  etc.,  1802)  it  appears  as  Kohbet  oum 
 Slioumra,  and  lies  between  Arku  and  the  Mediter- 
 ranean, 2  kilometres  from  the  latter,  and  5^  from 
 the  former.  Beyond,  however,  the  resemblance  in 
 the  names,  and  the  proximity  of  Jiund  and  Arkn^ 
 the  prolialile  seats  of  the  Arvadites  and  Arkites, 
 and  the  consequent  inference  that  the  original  seat 
 of  the  Zemarites  must  have  been  somewhere  in  this 
 direction,  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  Suiurn  or 
 Shoumra  have  any  connection  with  the  Tsemarites 
 of  the  ancient  records. 
 
 Traces  of  their  having  wandered  to  the  south  are 
 possibly  afforded  by  the  name  Zemaraim,  formerly 
 attached  to  two  places  in  the  topographical  lists  of 
 Central  Palestine  —  a  district  which  appears  to  have 
 been  very  attractive  to  the  aboriginal  wandering 
 tribes  from  every  quarter.  [Zemaraim  ;  see  also 
 AviM,  Ophni,  etc.] 
 
 The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  would  connect  the  Zem- 
 arites with  Samaria.  In  this  they  have  lieen  fol- 
 lowed by  some  commentators.  But  the  idea  is  a 
 delusion,  grounded  on  the  inability  of  the  Greek 
 alphabet  to  express  the  Hebrew  letters  of  both 
 names.  G. 
 
 ZEMFRA  (nn"^n^    [so)iff,  Ges.]:  Zefj-ipd; 
 
 [Vat.  Aixapia?:]  Alex.  Za/xiptas-  Zinnira).  One 
 of  the  sons  of  Becher  the  son  of  Benjamin  (1  Chr. 
 vii.  8). 
 
 ZE'NAN  ("}31^  Iplace  of  flocks]:  •Zsvvd;  Alex. 
 'S.ivuafj.'-  Siinrtn).  One  of  the  towns  in  the  allot- 
 ment of  Judah,  situated  in  the  district  of  the 
 Shefehili  (Josh.  xv.  37).  It  occurs  in  tlie  second 
 group  of  the  enumeration,  which  contains  amongst 
 others  Migdal-gad  and  Lachish.  It  is  probably 
 identical  with  Z.\.\nan,  a  place  mentioned  by  the 
 prophet  JNIicah  in  the  same  connection. 
 
 Schwarz  (p.  103)  proposes  to  identify  it  with 
 "the  village  Zan-alira,  situated  2^  English  miles 
 southeast  of  Mareshah."  By  this  he  doubtless  in- 
 tends the  place  which  in  the  lists  of  Robinson 
 {Bibl.  Res.  1st  ed.,  vol.  iii.,  App.  117)  is  called  es- 
 
 Sendbirah,   SoLLwwJ';  and  in  Tobler's   Dritte 
 
 Wanderung  (p.  149),  es-Sennabereh.  The  latter 
 traveller  in  his  map  places  it  about  2^  miles  due 
 east  of  M (trash  (.Uareshn).  But  this  identifica- 
 tion is  more  than  doubtful.  G. 
 
 ZE'NAS  (Z-qvas,  a  contraction  from  ZTjftJ- 
 Soipus,  as  'ApT€;uas  from  'Apre/xiSuipos,  'Nvfj.cpas 
 from  Nu^<po5a)poy,  and,  probably,  'Ep/xas  from 
 ''Ep/jt.oSwpos),  a  believer,  and,  as  may  be  inferred 
 from  the  context,  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  who  is 
 mentioned  in  Tit.  iii.  13  in  connection  with  Apol- 
 los,  and,  together  with  him,  is  there  couunended 
 by  St.  Paul  to  the  care  and  hospitality  of  Titus 
 and  the  Cretan  brethren.  He  is  further  described 
 as  "  the  lawyer  "  (rbi/  vo/llikov).  It  is  impossilJe 
 to  determine  with  certainty  whether  we  are  to  infer 
 
 the  former  alternative,  and  thinks  that  he  was  a 
 Greek  who  had  studied  Itoman  Law.  The  N.  T. 
 usage  of  i/ofiiKos  leads  rather  to  the  other  infer- 
 ence. Tradition  has  been  somewhat  busy  with  the 
 name  of  Zenas.  The  Syn<ij/.fis  de  I'U'i  el  Mortc, 
 Pmplielarum  Aposloloruni  tl  Disdpnbu-um  Domini, 
 ascribed  to  Dorotheus  of  Tyre,  makes  him  to  have 
 been  one  of  the  "seventy-two"'  disciples,  and  sub- 
 sequently bishop  of  Diospolis  in  Palestine  {Bibl. 
 Piitr.  iii.  150).  The  "seventy-two"  disciples  of 
 Dorotheus  are,  however,  a  mere  string  of  names 
 picked  out  of  salutations  and  other  incidental  no- 
 tices in  the  N.  T.  The  Greek  Menologies  on  the 
 festival  of  SS.  Bartholomew  and  Titus  (Aug.  25) 
 refer  to  a  certain  Life  of  Titus,  ascribed  to  Zenas, 
 which  is  also  quoted  for  the  supi)osed  conversion 
 of  the  younger  Pliny  (compare  Eabricius,  Codex 
 Apocr.  N.  T.  ii.  831  f. ).  The  association  of  Zenas 
 with  Titus,  in  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  latter,  suffi- 
 ciently accounts  for  the  forgery.  W.  B.  J. 
 
 ZEPHANFAH  (n^3?^ :    'Zo<povias  :    So- 
 
 phonia.     These  forms  refer  to  another  punctuation, 
 
 rr^SiTV,  a  participial  form).     Jerome  derives  the 
 
 name  from  HC^,  and  supposes  it  to  mean  specii- 
 InUir  Zkimiin,  "  watcher  of  the  Lord,"  an  ajipro- 
 priate  appellation  for  a  prophet.  The  pedigree  of 
 Zephaniaii.  ch.  i.  1,  is  traced  to  his  fourth  ancestor, 
 Hezekiah :  supposed  by  Aben  I'lzra  to  be  the  cele- 
 brated king  of  that  name.  This  is  not  in  itself 
 improbable,  and  the  fact  that  the  pedigree  termi- 
 nates with  that  name,  points  to  a  personage  of  rank 
 and  importance.  Late  critics  and  conmientators 
 generally  acquiesce  in  the  hypotliesis,  namely, 
 Eichhorn,  Hitzig,  F.  Ad.  Strauss  (  Vaticinia  Zcpli- 
 anice,  Berlin,  18-13),  Hiivernick,  Keil,  and  Bleek 
 {Einkituny  in  das  Alle  Testament}. 
 
 Awdijsis.  Chap.  i.  The  utter  desolation  of 
 Judsa  is  predicted  as  a  judgment  for  idolatry,  and 
 neglect  of  the  Lord,  the  luxury  of  the  princes,  and 
 the  violence  and  deceit  of  their  dependents  (3-9). 
 The  prosperity,  security,  and  insolence  of  the  i)eo- 
 ple  is  contrasted  with  the  horrors  of  the  day  of 
 wrath ;  the  assaults  upon  the  fenced  cities  and  high 
 towers,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  people  (10-18). 
 Ch.  ii.,  a  call  to  repentance  (1-3 1,  with  prediction 
 of  the  ruin  of  the  cities  of  the  Philistines  and  the 
 restoration  of  the  house  of  Judah  after  the  visita- 
 tion (4-7).  Other  enemies  of  Judah,  —  INIoab,  Am- 
 nion, —  are  threatetied  with  perpetual  destruction, 
 Ethiopia  with  a  great  slaughter,  and  Nineveh,  the 
 capital  of  Assyria,  with  desolation  (8-15).  Ch.  iii. 
 The  prophet  addresses  Jerusalem,  which  he  reproves 
 shaiTply  for  vice  and  disobedience,  the  cruelty  of  the 
 princes  and  the  treachery  of  the  priests,  and  for 
 their  general  disregard  of  warnings  and  visitations 
 (1-7).  He  then  concludes  with  a  series  of  prom- 
 ises, the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  (iod's  people, 
 the  restoration  of  exiles,  the  extirpation  of  the 
 proud  and  violent,  and  the  permanent  peace  and 
 blessedness  of  the  poor  and  afHicted  remnant  who 
 shall  trust  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  These  exhorta^ 
 tions  to  rejoicing  and  exertion  are  mingled  with  in- 
 timations of  a  complete  manifestation  of  God's 
 righteousness  and  love  in  the  restoration  of  hia 
 people  (8-20). 
 
 'ilie  chief  characteristics  of  this  book  are  the 
 unity  and  harmony  of  the  composition,  the  grace. 
 eneriry,  and  dignity  of  its  style,  and  the  rapid  and 
 
 from   this  designation   that  Zenas  was  a  Roman  I  effective  alternations  of  threats  and  promise.'?.     Ps 
 
ZEPHANIAH 
 
 prophetical  import  is  chiefly  shown  in  the  accurate 
 predictions  of  the  desolation  wliich  has  fallen  upon 
 each  of  the  nations  denounced  for  their  crimes; 
 Ethiopia,  which  is  menaced  with  a  terrihle  invasion, 
 beiuif  alone  exempted  from  the  doom  of  perpetual 
 ruin.  The  general  tone  of  the  last  portion  is  Mes- 
 sianic, but  without  any  specific  reference  to  the 
 Person  of  our  Lord. 
 
 The  date  of  the  book  is  given  in  the  inscription  : 
 namely,  the  reign  of  Josiah,  from  G42  to  Gil  u.  C. 
 This  date  accords  fully  with  internal  indications. 
 Nineveh  is  represented  as  in  a  state  of  peace  and 
 prosperity,  wliile  the  notices  of  Jerusalem  touch 
 upon  th(j  same  tendencies  to  idolatry  and  crime 
 which  are  condemned  by  the  contemporary  Jeremiah. 
 
 It  is  most  prolable,  moreover,  that  the  prophecy 
 was  delivered  licfore  the  18th  year  of  Josiah,  when 
 the  reformation,  for  which  it  prepares  the  way,  was 
 carried  into  effect,  and  about  the  time  when  the 
 Scythians  overran  the  empires  of  western  Asia,  ex- 
 tending their  devastations  to  Palestine.  The  no- 
 tices which  are  supposed  by  some  critics  to  indi- 
 cate a  somewhat  later  date  are  satisfactorily 
 explained.  The  king's  children,  who  are  spoken 
 of,  in  ch.  i.  8,  as  addicted  to  foreign  habits,  could 
 not  have  been  sons  of  Josiah,  who  was  but  eight 
 years  old  at  his  accession,  but  were  probalily  his 
 brothers  or  near  relatives.  The  remnant  of  Uaal 
 (ch.  i.  4)  implies  that  some  partial  reformation  had 
 previously  taken  place,  while  the  notices  of  open 
 idolatry  are  incompatible  with  the  state  of  Judah 
 after  the  discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law. 
 
 F.  C.  C. 
 
 *  Liierature.  —  Among  the  special  writers  on 
 Zephaniah  are  J.  H.  Gebhardi,  Jirkldrtmr/  t/ts 
 Prupli.  Zvphidijah  (1728);  U.  U.  C  von  CLlln, 
 Spw'dty.  Obstrvatt.  exeg.-cril.  ud  Zcplutiike 
 Vuticinin  (1818);  P.  Kwald,  Z'er  Prophtl  Ztpli- 
 rtHi'a  (1827);  Pr.  A.  Strauss,  ViUicinia  Zipltnukv 
 Coiiim.  iUustr.  (1843);  and  L.  Keiidie, />«(•  Proph. 
 Zifpiiunja  (18U8).  On  particular  topics,  J.  A.  Nol- 
 ten.  Diss.  extc/.  in  Prophetluni  Ziphniiue  (1719); 
 C.  F.  Cramer,  tScytliisrlie  Dcnkiiidltr  in  Pai- 
 astina,  with  a  Connnentary  (1777),  and  C  Th. 
 Anton,  Per.-i/o  c.  iii.  P/(y-'/(.  Zc/j//.  etc.  (1811).  The 
 later  writers  on  Zephaniah  are  Uosenmidler,  llitzig, 
 Theiner,  Maurer,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Keil  (ISUti), 
 Kleinert  (18li6,  hi  Lange's  BlhtUcerk),  Henderson, 
 Noyes,  Cowles,  and  Pusey  (1870),  in  their  well 
 kuBwn  connnentaries  on  the  minor  proiihets.  Por 
 works  relating  to  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh,  so  dis- 
 tinctly foretold  by  Zephaniah,  see  the  additions  to 
 Nahum  and  Ni^EYiiH.  See  also  the  art.  Zcphniija 
 by  Delitzsch  in  Herzog's  Real- Kitcyk.  xviii.  4'JtJ- 
 501  (18IJ4).  H. 
 
 2.  C2,a(pav'ia\  Alex.  'Xacpavi.as-  Siiphvnids.) 
 A  Kohathite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Samuel  and  lie- 
 man  (1  Chr.  vi.  m  [2!]). 
 
 3.  (2o4>orias.)  The  son  of  Maaseiah  ( Jer.  xxi. 
 1),  and  S'Kjaii  or  second  priest  in  the  reign  of 
 Zedekiah.  He  succeeded  Jehoiada  (Jer.  xxix.  2."), 
 20),  and  was  probably  a  ruler  of  the  Temple,  whose 
 ofhce  it  was  among  others  to  punish  jtretenders  to 
 the  gift  of  prophecy.  In  this  capacity  he  was  ap- 
 pealed to  by  Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite,  in  a  letter 
 from  Baliylon,  to  punish  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxix.  2LI). 
 Twice  was  he  sent  from  Zedekiah  to  inquire  of 
 Jeremiah  the  issue  of  the  siege  of  the  city  by  the 
 Chaldwans  (Jer.  xxi.  1),  and  to  implore  him  to  in- 
 tercede for  the  people  (-ler.  xxxvii.  '■}).  On  the 
 l^pture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nelnizaradan  he  was 
 taken  witli  Seraiali  tlie  high-priest  and  others,  and 
 
 zephathah,  valley  of  3617 
 
 slain  at  Riblah  (Jer.  lii.  24,  27;  2  K.  xxv.  18,  21). 
 In  2  K.  xxv.  18,  Jer.  xxxvii.  3,  his  name  is  writ- 
 ten in  the  longer  form  ^171^32^. 
 
 4.  Father  of  Josiah  2  (Zec'h.  vi.  10),  and  of 
 Hen,  according  to  the  reading  of  the  received  text 
 of  Zech.  vi.  14,  as  given  in  the  A.  V. 
 
 W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZE'PHATH  (HD!^  [watch-tower']:  [Ptoni. 
 Se^e'fl;  Vat.]  '2,e(piK\  Alex.  2e(|^ep:  Seplnialh). 
 The  earlier  name  (according  to  the  single  notice  of 
 Judg.  i.  17)  of  a  L'anaanite  town,  which  after  its 
 capture  and  destruction  was  called  by  the  Israelites 
 lloKMAH.  Two  identifications  have  been  pro- 
 posed for  Zephath:     that  of   Dr.    Robhison  with 
 
 the  well-known  pass  es-SuJa  fsLo-oJDj  by 
 which  the  ascent  is  made  from  the  borders  of  the 
 Anibiih  to  the  higher  level  of  the  "  South  country  " 
 {/Jibl.  Jiea.  ii.  181),  and  that  of  Mr.  Kowlands 
 (Williams's  H«li/  Ci/t/,  i.  404)  with  iSebdtn,  2^ 
 hours  beyond  Khnlasn,  on  the  road  to  Suez,  and 
 i  of  an  hour  north  of  liuhcbeli  or  liuheibeh. 
 
 The  former  of  these,  Mr.  Wilton  ( TZ/e  Neyeb, 
 etc.,  pp.  I'JI),  200)  has  challenged,  on  account  of  the 
 impractical lility  of  the  pass  for  tlie  approach  of  the 
 Israelites,  and  the  inappropriateness  of  so  rugged 
 and  desolate  a  spot  for  the  position  of  a  city  of  any 
 importance.  Tlie  question  really  forms  part  of  a 
 nmch  larger  one,  which  this  is  not  the  place  to  dis- 
 cuss—  namely,  the  route  by  wliich  the  Israelites 
 approached  the  Holy  Land.  Hut  in  the  mean 
 time  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  attempt 
 in  question  was  an  unsuccessful  one,  which  is  so  far 
 in  la\or  of  the  steepness  of  the  pass.  The  argu- 
 ment from  the  nature  of  the  site  is  one  which 
 might  be  brought  with  equal  force  against  the  ex- 
 istence of  many  others  of  the  towns  in  this  region. 
 On  the  identitication  of  Mr.  Rowlands  some  doubt 
 is  tlirown  by  the  want  of  certainty  as  to  the  name, 
 as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  no  later  traveller  has 
 succeeded  in  finding  the  name  Sebdta,  or  the  spot. 
 Dr.  Stewart  (Tent  and  Klian,  p.  205)  heard  of  the 
 name,  but  east  of  Khalasu  instead  of  south,  and 
 this  was  in  answer  to  a  leading  question  —  always 
 a  dangerous  experiment  with  Arabs. 
 
 It  is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  some  means  may 
 shortly  be  found,  to  attempt  at  least  the  examina- 
 tion and  reconcilement  of  these  and  the  like  contra- 
 dictory statements  and  inferences.  G. 
 
 ZEPH'ATHAH,  THE  VALLEY  OF 
 (nn2^  S'^S  [ivatch-tower'] :  ■{]  cpdpay^  Kara 
 ^oppav,"  in  both  MSS. ;  Joseph,  (p.  Xa(p6d'-  Vidlis 
 Hi-plmt  ().  The  sjiot  in  wliicli  Asa  joined  battle 
 with  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  (2  Chr.  xiv.  10  only).  It 
 was    "  at  "  or  rather  "  belonging  to  "  Mareshah 
 
 (ntf'n^V  •  Joseph.  ovK  &i!-uidev)-  This  would 
 seem  to  exclude  tlie  possibility  of  its  being,  as  sug- 
 gested by  Dr.  Robinson  (ii.  31),  at  I'tll  es-lSaJieii, 
 which  is  not  less  than  8  miles  from  Murasli.  the 
 modern  representative  of  Mareshah.  It  is  not  im- 
 probable that  an  examination  of  the  neighborhood 
 iniglit  reveal  both  spot  and  name.  Considering 
 the  enormous  number  of  the  combatants,  the  valley 
 must  be  an  extensive  one.  G. 
 
 *  Mareshah  has  not  been  identified  by  name,  but 
 
 «  Probably  reading  713122.  It  will  be  observed 
 that  Josephus  here  forsakes  the  LXX.  for  the  He- 
 brew text. 
 
3618  ZEPHi 
 
 is  probably  marked  by  "  the  fouiiflations  on  the 
 southeasteni  part  of  tlie  remarkable  TtU"  south 
 of  Bi^il  .libi-in  (Kobiiisoii).  There  is  a  deep  valley 
 ■which  runs  past  the  Tdl  down  to  Bi^ii  Jihiin  and 
 .  thenoe  into  the  plain  of  Philistia.  Mr.  Porter  sus,'- 
 gests  (if  7'e//  es-,S(ijieli  be  too  far  from  the  sup- 
 posed site  of  Mareshah)  that  this  valley  may  be 
 Zephathah  (Kitto,  Ci/d.  of  BIM.   Lit.,  iii.  115G). 
 
 H. 
 
 ZE'PHI  C^p!?  [wnlch-loioer']  :  -Xcocpdp :  Scj)hi), 
 1  Chr.  i.  m.     [ZiipHO.] 
 
 ZE'PHO  (12!J  [watch-tower]:  ^aicpap: 
 Stp/iu).  A  son  of  Eliphaz  son  of  Esau  (Gen. 
 xxxvi.  11),  and  one  of  the  "  dukes,"  or  phylarchs, 
 of  the  Kdomites  (ver.  15).  In  1  Chr.  i.  3G  he  is 
 called  Ziii>iii.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 ZE'PHON   ("|""12^   [alookinij  oiif]:    tacpdiV, 
 Alex,  omits:  Seplion).     Ziphiox  the  son   of  Gad 
 (Num.  xxvi.  15),  and  ancestor  of  the  fiiniily  of  the 
 ^    Zei'honites. 
 
 ZETHONITES,  THE  ("^flD^H  [patr.]: 
 6  Sacpoovi  [Vat.  -j/ei]  :  Scphonitm).  A  branch  of 
 the  tribe  of  Gad,  descended  from  Zephon  or  Ziphiou 
 (Num.  xxvi.  16). 
 
 ZER  (~l!i  [flint']:  Tvpos-  Ser).  One  of  the 
 fortified  towns  of  the  allotment  of  Naphtali  (.Josh. 
 six.  35  only).  From  the  names  which  succeed  it 
 in  the  list  it  may  be  inferred  that  it  was  in  the 
 neii,'hborhood  of  the  S.  \V.  side  of  the  Lake  of 
 Gennesareth.  The  versions  of  the  LXX.  and  of 
 the  Peshito,  both  of  this  name  and  that  which 
 precedes  it,  are  grounded  on  an  obvious  mistake. 
 Neither  of  them  has  anything  to  do  with  Tyre  or 
 Zidiin. 
 
 Ziddim  may  possibly  be  identified  with  llatt'in; 
 but  no  name  resembling  Tser  appears  to  have  been 
 yet  discovered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tiberias. 
 
 G. 
 
 ZE'RAH  (rr^T  [risiiif/,  ori(/in]  :  Zape,  [Zapa.:] 
 Zara,  [Zare] ).  A  son  of  Reuel  son  of  Esau  (Gen. 
 xxxvi.  1.3;  1  Chr.  i.  37),  and  one  of  the  "dukes," 
 or  phylarchs,  of  the  Edomites  (Gen.  xxxvi.  17). 
 Jobab  of  Bozrah,  one  of  the  early  kings  of  Edoni, 
 perhaps  belonged  to  his  family  (xxxvi.  33 ;  1  Chr. 
 i.  44).  E.  S.  P. 
 
 ZE'RAH,  less  properly,  Za'eah  (PI  j.^,    with 
 
 the  pause  accent,  n"1^  [risin(j]:  Zapd;  [in  1 
 Chr.  ix.  6,  Vat.  Zapae:]  Zara).  Twin  son  with 
 his  elder  brother  Pharez  of  .Judah  and  Tamar 
 (Gen.  x.-cxviii.  30;  1  Chr.  ii.  G;  Matt.  i.  3).  His 
 descendants  were  called  Zarhites,  Ezrahites,  and 
 Izrahites  (Num.  xxvi.  20:  1  K.  iv.  31;  1  Chr.  xxvii. 
 8,  IL),  and  continued  at  least  down  to  the  time  of 
 Zerubbabel  (1  Chr.  ix.  7;  Neh.  xi.  24).  Nothing 
 is  related  of  Zerali  individually,  beyond  the  pecul- 
 iar circumstances  of  his  birth  (Gen.  xxxviii.  27- 
 30),  coTicerning  which  see  Heidegg.  IJi&t.  Potri- 
 arcli.  xviii.  28.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 2.  (Zape's;  Alex.  Zapae:  Zarn.)  Son  of  Simeon 
 (1  Chr.  iv.  24),  called  ZoiiAR  in  Gen.  xlvi.  10. 
 
 3.  (Zapa  [Vat.  laapa],  Zaapai':  Alex.  Zopa, 
 A^apias.)  A  Gershonite  Levite,  son  of  Iddo  or 
 'idaiah  (1  Chr.  vi.  21,  41  [Heb.  vi.  2G] ). 
 
 4-   (n"}*  :  Zaps':   Zerah.)     Tlie   Ethiopian   or 
 
 Cushite,  "'ti'^Sn,  an  invader  of  Judah,  defeated 
 by  Asa  [2  Chr.  xiv.  9]. 
 
 ZERAH 
 
 1.  In  its  form  the  name  is  identical  with  the 
 Hebrew  proper  name  above.  It  has  been  supposed 
 to  represent  the  Egyptian  USARKl^^N,  possibly 
 pronounced  US.VRCUKN,  a  name  almost  certainly 
 of  Shemitic  origin  [Siushak,  ii.  1281)].  The 
 difference  is  great,  but  may  be  partly  accounted 
 for,  if  we  suppose  that  the  Egyptian  deviates  from 
 the  original  Shemitic  form,  and  that  the  Hebrew 
 represents  that  form,  or  that  a  further  deviation 
 than  would  have  been  made  was  the  result  of  the 
 similarity  of  the  Hebrew  proper  name  Zerah.     So, 
 
 SID,  even  if  pronounced  SEWA,  or  SEVA,  is 
 more  remote  from  SHEHEKor  SHEBETEIv  than 
 Zerah  from  USAKKEN.  It  may  be  conjectured 
 that  these  forms  resemble  those  of  Memphis,  Moph, 
 Nopli,  which  evidently  represent  current  pronun- 
 ciation, probably  of  Shemites. 
 
 2.  The  war  between  Asa  and  Zerah  a])pears  to 
 have  taken  place  soon  after  the  10th,  and  shortly 
 before  the  15th  year  of  Asa,  probably  late  in  the 
 14th,  as  we  shall  .see  in  examining  the  narrative. 
 It  therefore  occurred  in  about  the  same  year  of 
 Usarken  II.,  fourth  king  of  the  XXIId  dynasty, 
 who  began  to  reign  about  the  same  time  as  the 
 king  of  .Judah.  Asa's  reign,  as  far  as  the  14th 
 year  inclusive,  was  is.  C.  cir.  953-940,  or,  if  Jla- 
 nasseh's  reign  be  reckoned  ot  35  years,  933-920. 
 [Shisiiak,  pp.  3010  ff.] 
 
 3.  The  first  ten  years  of  Asa's  reign  were  un- 
 disturbed by  war.  Then  Asa  took  counsel  with  his 
 subjects,  and  walled  and  fortified  the  cities  of  Ju- 
 dah. He  also  maintained  an  army  of  580,000  men, 
 300,000  spearmen  of  Judah,  and  280,000  archers 
 of  Benjamin.  This  great  force  was  probalily  the 
 whole  number  of  men  able  to  bear  arms  (2  Chr. 
 xiv.  1-8).  At  length,  probably  in  the  14th  year 
 of  Asa,  the  anticipated  danger  came.  Zerah,  the 
 Ethiopian,  with  a  mighty  army  of  a  million, 
 Cushim  and  Lubim,  with  three  hundred  chariots, 
 invaded  the  kingdom,  and  advanced  unopposed  in 
 the  field  as  far  as  Mareshah.  As  the  invadei-s  af- 
 terwards retreated  by  way  of  Gerar,  and  Mareshah 
 lay  on  the  west  of  the  hill-country  of  Judah,  where 
 it  ri.ses  out  of  the  Philistine  plain,  in  the  line  of 
 march  from  Egypt  to  Jerusalem,  it  cannot  be 
 doubted  that  they  came  out  of  Egypt.  Between 
 the  border  on  the  side  of  Gerar  and  Mareshah,  lay 
 no  important  city  but  Gath.  Gath  and  INiareshah 
 were  both  fortified  by  Rehoboam  before  the  invafion 
 of  Shishak  (xi.  8),  and  were  no  doubt  captured  and 
 probably  dismantled  by  that  king  (comp.  xii.  4), 
 whose  list  of  conquered  towns,  etc.,  shows  that  he  not 
 only  took  some  strong  towns,  but  that  he  subdued 
 the  country  in  detail.  A  delay  in  the  capture  of 
 Gath,  where  the  warlike  I'hilistines  may  have  'op- 
 posed a  stubliorn  resistance,  woidd  have  removed 
 the  only  obstacle  on  the  way  to  Mareshah,  thus  se- 
 curing the  retreat  th.at  was  afterwards  made  by 
 this  route.  From  Mareshah,  or  its  immediate 
 neighliorhood,  was  a  route  to  Jer\isalem,  presenting 
 no  difficulties  but  those  of  a  hilly  country;  for  not 
 one  ini])ortant  town  is  known  to  have  lain  between 
 the  capital  and  this  outpost  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
 The  invading  army  had  swarmed  across  the  border 
 and  devoured  the  Philistine  fields  before  Asa  could 
 march  to  meet  it.  The  distance  from  Gerar  or  the 
 southwestern  border  of  Palestine,  to  Mareshah,  was 
 not  much  greater  than  from  Mareshah  to  Jerusa- 
 lem, and  considering  the  nature  of  the  tracts, 
 would  have  taken  about  the  same  time  to  traverse; 
 and  only  such  delay  as  would  have  been  caused  by 
 
ZERAH 
 
 the  sieves  of  Gath  and  Mareshah  could  liave  en- 
 abled Asa  hastily  to  collect  a  levy  and  march  to 
 relieve  the  lieleaguered  town,  or  hold  the  passes. 
 "  In  the  Valley  of  Zephathah  at  Blareshah,"  the 
 two  armies  met.  We  cannot  perfectly  determine 
 the  site  of  the  battle.  iNlareshah,  accordiiit;  to  the 
 Onomnsticon,  lay  within  two  miles  of  Kleutherop- 
 olis,  and  Dr.  Kobinsoii  has  reasonably  conjectured 
 its  position  to  be  marked  by  a  remarkable  "  tell," 
 or  artilicial  mound,  a  mile  and  a  half  south  of  the 
 site  of  the  latter  town.  Its  signification,  "  that 
 which  is  at  the  head,"  would  scarcely  suit  a  posi- 
 tion at  the  opening  of  a  valley,  liut  it  seems  that 
 a  narrow  valley  terminates,  and  a  broad  one  com- 
 nieuces  at  the  supposed  site.  The  Valley  of 
 Zejjhathah,  "  the  watch-tower,"  is  supposed  by  Dr. 
 Robinson  to  be  the  latter,  a  broad  wady,  descend- 
 ing from  Eleutheropolis  in  a  northwesterly  direc- 
 tion towards  Tell  es-Sqfich,  in  which  last  name  he 
 is  disposed  to  trace  the  old  appellation  {UiliL  A'e*-. 
 ii.  31).  The  two  have  no  connection  whatever,  and 
 Robinson's  conjecture  is  extremely  hazardous.  If 
 this  identification  be  correct,  we  must  suppose  that 
 Zerah  retired  from  bef<jre  Mareshah  towards  the 
 plain,  that  he  might  use  his  "  chariots  and  horse- 
 n)en  "  with  effect,  instead  of  entangling  them  in 
 the  narrow  valleys  leading  towards  Jerusalem. 
 From  the  prayer  of  Asa  we  may  judge  that,  when 
 he  came  upon  the  invading  army,  he  saw  its  huge- 
 ness, and  so  that,  as  he  descended  through  a  valley, 
 it  lay  spread  out  beneath  him.  The  I'Igxptian 
 monuments  enable  us  to  picture  the  general  dispo- 
 sition of  Zerah"s  army.  The  chariots  formed  the 
 first  corps  in  a  single  or  double  line;  behind  them, 
 massed  in  phalanxes,  were  heavy  armed  troops; 
 probably  on  the  flanks  stood  archers  and  horsemen 
 in  lighter  formations.  Asa,  marching  down  a 
 valley,  must  have  attacked  in  a  heavy  colunni;  for 
 none  but  the  most  highly  disciplined  troops  can 
 form  line  from  column  in  the  face  of  an  enemy. 
 His  spearmen  of  Judah  would  have  composed  this 
 column:  each  bank  of  the  valley  would  have  iieen 
 occupied  by  the  Benjaraite  archers,  like  those  who 
 came  to  David,  "  helpers  of  the  war,  armed  with 
 bows,  and  [who]  could  use  both  the  right  hand 
 and  the  left  in  [hurling]  stones  and  [shooting] 
 arrows  out  of  a  bow  ''  (1  Chr.  xii.  1,  2).  No  doubt 
 the  Ethiopian,  confident  in  his  numbers,  disdained 
 to  attack  the  Hebrews  or  clear  the  heights,  but 
 waited  in  the  broad  valley,  or  the  plain.  Asa's 
 prayer  before  the  battle  is  full  of  the  nolile  f\iith  of 
 the  age  of  the  Judges:  "  Lord  [it  is]  alike  to 
 Thee  to  help,  whether  the  strong  or  the  weak :  help 
 us,  0  Lord  our  God;  for  we  rest  on  Thee,  and  in 
 Thy  name  we  go  against  the  nmltitude.  0  Lord, 
 Thou  [art]  our  God ;  let  not  man  prevail  against 
 Thee."  From  the  account  of  Abijab's  defeat  of 
 Jeroboam,  we  may  suppose  that  the  priests  sounded 
 their  trumpets,  and  the  men  of  Judah  descended 
 with  a  shout  (2  Chr.  xiii.  14,  15).  The  hills  and 
 mountains  were  the  favorite  camping-places  of  the 
 llelirews,  who  usually  rushed  down  upon  their 
 more  immerous  or  better-disciplined  enemies  in  the 
 plains  and  valleys.  If  the  battle  were  delil)erately 
 set  in  array,  it  would  have  begun  early  in  the 
 morning,  according  to  the  usual  practice  of  these 
 times,  when  there  was  not  a  night  surpi'ise,  as 
 when  Goliath  challenged  the  Israelites  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
 20-23),  and  when  Thothmes  IH.  fought  the  Cana- 
 anites  at  Megiddo,  and  as  we  may  judge  from  the 
 long  pursuits  at  this  period,  the  sun  would  have 
 been  in   the   eyes  of  the  army  of  Zerah,  and   its 
 
 ZERAH 
 
 5619 
 
 archers  would  have  been  thus  useless.  The  chariots, 
 broken  by  the  charge  and  with  horses  made  un- 
 manageable by  flights  of  arrows,  nmst  have  been 
 forced  back  upon  tlie  cumbrous  host  behind.  '■  So 
 the  Lord  smote  the  Ethiopians  before  Asa,  and 
 before  Judah;  and  the  Ethiopians  Hed.  And  Asa 
 and  the  people  that  [were]  v/itli  him  ])ursued  them 
 unto  Gerar:  and  [or  "for"]  the  Ethiopians  were 
 overtln-own,  that  they  could  not  recover  themselves." 
 This  last  clause  seems  to  relate  to  an  irremediable 
 overtlnow  at  the  first;  and,  indeed,  had  it  not  been 
 so,  the  pursuit  would  not  have  been  carried,  and, 
 as  it  seems  at  once,  beyond  the  frontier.  So  com- 
 plete was  the  overthrow,  that  the  Hebrews  coulil 
 capture  and  spoil  the  cities  around  Gerar,  which 
 nmst  have  been  in  alliance  with  Zerah.  From  these 
 cities  they  took  very  much  spoil,  and  they  also 
 smote  "  the  tents  of  cattle,  and  carried  away  sheep 
 and  camels  in  abundance"  (2  Chr.  xiv.  9-1.5). 
 JMore  seems  to  have  been  captured  from  the  Arabs 
 than  from  the  army  of  Zerah :  probal)ly  the  army 
 consisted  of  a  nucleus  of  regular  troops,  and  a 
 great  body  of  tributaries,  who  woidd  have  scattered 
 in  all  directions,  leaving  their  country  open  to  re- 
 prisals. On  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  Asa  was  met 
 by  Azariah,  who  exhorted  him  and  the  people  to  be 
 faithful  to  God.  Accordingly  Asa  made  a  second 
 reformation,  and  collected' his  subjects  at  Jerusalem 
 in  the  3d  month  of  the  16th  year,  and  made  a  cov- 
 enant, and  offered  of  the  spoil  "  seven  hundred 
 oxen  and  seven  thousand  sheep"  (xv.  1-15). 
 From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  battle  was 
 fought  in  the  preceding  winter.  The  success  of 
 Asa,  and  the  manifest  blessing  that  attended  him, 
 drew  to  him  Epbraimites,  Manassites,  and  Sim- 
 eonites.  His  father  had  already  captured  cities  in 
 the  Israehte  territory  (xiii.  19),  and  he  held  cities 
 in  Mount  Ephraim  (xv.  8),  and  then  was  at  peace 
 with  Israel.  Simeon,  always  at  the  mercy  of  a 
 powerful  king  of  Judah,  would  have  naturally 
 turned  to  him.  Never  vtfas  the  house  of  David 
 stronger  after  the  defection  of  the  ten  tribes;  but 
 soon  the  king  fell  into  the  wicked  error,  so  con- 
 stantly to  be  repeated,  of  calling  the  heathen  to 
 aid  him  against  the  kindred  Israelites,  and  hired 
 Benhadad,  king  of  Syria-Damascus,  to  lay  their 
 cities  waste,  when  Hanani  the  prophet  recalled 
 to  him  the  great  victory  he  had  achieved  when 
 he  trusted  in  God  (xvi.  1-9).  The  after  years  of 
 Asa  were  troubled  with  wars  (ver.  9);  but  they 
 were  with  Baasha  (1  K.  xv.  IG,  32).  Zerah  and 
 his  people  had  been  too  signally  crushed  to  Eittack 
 him  again. 
 
 4.  The  identification  of  Zerah  has  occasioned 
 some  difference  of  opinion.  He  has  been  thought 
 to  have  been  a  Cushite  of  Aral)ia,  or  a  Cushite  of 
 Ethiopia  a!>ove  Egypt.  But  lately  it  has  been  sup- 
 posed that  Zerah  is  the  Hebrew  name  of  Usarken 
 L,  second  king  of  the  Egyptian  XXIId  dynasty; 
 or  perhaps  more  probably  Usarken  IL,  his  second 
 sticcessor.  This  question  is  a  wider  one  than  seems 
 at  first  sight.  We  have  to  inquire  whether  the 
 army  of  Zerah  was  that  of  an  F2gyptian  king,  and, 
 if  the  reply  be  affirmative,  whether  it  was  led  by 
 either  Usarken  I.  or  II. 
 
 The  war  of  Shishak  had  reduced  the  angle  of 
 Arabia  that  divided  Egypt  from  Palestine.  Proba- 
 bly Shishak  was  unable  to  attaick  the  Assyrians, 
 and  endeavored,  by  securing  this  tract,  to  guard 
 the  apjiroach  to  I'-gypt.  If  tlie  army  of  Zerah  were 
 Egyi>tian,  this  would  account  for  its  comiection 
 with  the  people  of  Gerar  and  the  pastoral  tribes  of 
 
8620 
 
 ZERAH 
 
 the  neigliborbood.  The  sudden  decline  of  the 
 power  of  Egypt  after  the  reign  of  Shishak  would 
 be  explained  by  the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptian 
 aruiy  about  thirty  years  later. 
 
 The  coujposition  of  the  army  of  Zerah,  of  Cushini 
 and  Lubini  (2  Chr.  xvi.  8),  closely  resembles  that 
 of  Shishak,  of  Lubini,  Sukkiim,  and  Cushim  (xii. 
 3):  both  armies  also  had  chariots  and  horsemen 
 (xvi.  8,  xii.  3).  The  Cushim  might  have  been  of 
 an  Asiatic  Cush,  but  the  Lubini  can  only  have  been 
 Africans.  The  army,  therefore,  must  have  been 
 of  a  king  of  Egypt,  or  Ethiopia  aliove  Egyjit.  'I'lie 
 uncertainty  is  removed  by  our  finding  that  the 
 kings  of  tlie  XXIId  dynasty  employed  inerceiiaries 
 of  the  MASllUWASHA,  a  Libyan  trilie,  which 
 apparently  .supplied  the  most  important  part  of 
 tlieir  liired  force.  The  army,  moreo\er,  as  con- 
 sisting partly,  if  not  wholly,  of  a  mercenary  force, 
 and  with  chariots  and  hor.semen,  is,  save  in  the 
 hor.semen,  exactly  what  the  Egyptian  army  of  tiie 
 empire  would  have  been,  with  the  one  cliange  of 
 the  increased  importance  given  to  the  mercena- 
 ries, that  we  know  to  have  marked  it  under  the 
 XXIId  dynasty.  [Shishak,  p.  3012.]  That  the 
 army  was  of  an  Egyptian  king  therefore  cannot  be 
 doubted. 
 
 As  to  the  identification  of  Zerah  with  an  Usar- 
 ken,  we  speak  dithdently.  That  he  is  called  a 
 Cushite  must  be  compared  with  the  occiu'rence  of 
 the  name  NAMDUET,  Nimrod,  in  the  line  of  tlie 
 Usarkens,  but  that  line  Seems  rather  to  have  been 
 )f  eastern  than  of  western  Ethiopians  (see,  how- 
 ver,  Shishak,  p.  3012).  The  name  Usarken 
 has  been  thought  to  be  Sargon  [Siii.siiAK,  I.  c], 
 in  whicli  case  it  is  unlikely,  but  not  inipossilile, 
 that  another  Hebrew  or  Shemitic  name  should 
 have  been  adopted  to  represent  the  Euyptian  form. 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  kings  of  the  XXIId  dynasty 
 were  of  a  warlike  family,  and  their  sons  constantly 
 held  military  commands.  It  is  unlikely  tliat  an 
 important  army  would  have  been  intrusted  to  any 
 but  a  king  or  prince.  Usarken  is  less  remote  from 
 Zerah  than  seems  at  first  sight,  and,  according  to 
 our  computation,  Zerah  miglit  have  been  Usarken 
 XL,  but  according  to  Ur.  Hincks's,  Usarken  I. 
 
 5.  The  defeat  of  the  Egyptian  army  by  Asa  is 
 without  p.aiallel  in  the  history  of  the  Jews.  On 
 no  other  occasion  did  an  Israelite  army  meet  an 
 army  of  one  of  tlie  great  powers  on  either  side  and 
 defeat  it.  Shishak  was  unopposed,  Sennacherib 
 w^as  not  met  in  the  field,  Neclio  was  so  met  and 
 overtlirew  Josiah's  army,  Nebuchadnezzar,  like 
 Siiishak,  was  only  delayed  by  fortifications.  The 
 defeat  of  Zerah  thus  is  a  solitary  instance,  more 
 of  the  power  of  faith  than  of  the  bravery  of  the 
 Helirews,  a  single  witness  that  the  (jod  of  Israel 
 was  still  tlie  same  who  had  led  his  people  throuLih 
 the  lied  Sea,  and  would  give  them  the  same  aid  if 
 they  trusted  in  Him.  We  have,  indeed,  no  dis- 
 tinct statement  that  the  defeat  of  Zerah  was  a 
 miracle,  but  we  have  proof  enough  that  God  provi- 
 dentially enabled  the  Hebrews  to  vaiMiuish  a  force 
 greater  in  number,  stronger  in  the  apiiliances  of 
 war,  with  horsemen  and  chariots,  more  accurate  in 
 discipline,  no  raw  levies  hastily  equipped  fnnn  the 
 king's  armory,  but  a  seasoned  standing  militia, 
 strengthened  and  more  terrible  by  the  addition  of 
 swarms  of  hungry  Arabs,  bred  to  war,  and  whose 
 whole  life  was  a  time  of  pillage.  This  great  deliv- 
 erance is  one  of  the  many  proofs  that  (iod  is  to 
 his  people  ever  the  same,  whether  He  bids  them 
 stand  still  and  behold  his  salvation,  or  nerves  them 
 
 ZEREDA 
 
 with  that  courage  that  has  wrought  great  things 
 in  his  name  in  our  later  age;  thus  it  iiridges  over 
 a  chasm  between  two  periods  outwardly  unlike, 
 and  bids  us  see  in  history  the  hnmutability  of  the 
 Divine  actions.  K.  S.  P. 
 
 ZERAHI'AH  (n;^nnT  [Jehovah  caused  to 
 uprin;/  forth]:  Zapata,  Xapa'ia,  Zapai'ai  Alex. 
 Zapaia^,  Zaptas,  Zapa'ia'-  Znntvis.  Znrahia).  A 
 priest,  son  of  Uzzi,  and  ancestor  of  Ezra  the  scribe 
 (1  Chr.  vi.  6,  51  [Heb.  v.  32,  vi.  36] ;  Ezr.  vii.  4 
 [where  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611  reads  Zeuaiah]). 
 
 2.  (Sapaia;  [V'at.  Zapeia:]  Alex.  Zapata- 
 Zdvelie.)  Father  of  Elihoeiiai  of  the  sons  of' 
 I'ahath  JMoab  (Ezr.  viii.  i):  called  Zakaias  in  1 
 Esdr.  viii.  31. 
 
 *  ZERA'IAH  (3  syl.),  Ezr.  vii.  4  (A.  V.  ed. 
 1011).     [Zeraiiiah  1.] 
 
 ZE'RED  (T^T  [dense foresf]:  [Worn.']  ZapeS, 
 [Vat]  Zaper,  [Alex.  Zape,  Zaper-]  Zured).  The 
 name  of  a  brook  or  valley  running  into  the  Dead 
 Sea  near  its  S,  E.  corner,  which  Dr.  Kobinson 
 {BM.  Ees.  ii.  157)  with  some  probability  sungests 
 as  identical  with  the  Wudy  el-Ahsy.  It  lay  be- 
 tween JNIoab  and  Edom,  and  is  the  limit  of  the 
 proper  term  of  the  Israelites'  wandering  (Deut.  ii. 
 14).  Laborde,  arguing  from  the  distance,  thinks 
 that  the  source  of  the  Wady  (Jhuriindel  in  the 
 Arabah  is  the  site;  as  from  Mount  Hor  to  el-Ahsi, 
 is  by  way  of  Ezioii-geber  05  leagues,  in  which  only 
 four  stages  occur :  a  rate  of  progress  quite  beyond 
 their  power.  This  argument,  however,  is  feeble, 
 since  it  is  clear  that  the  march-stations  mentioned 
 indicate  not  daily  stages,  but  more  permanent 
 encampments.  He  also  thinks  the  pahn-trees  of 
 Wady  G.  would  have  attract^!  notice,  and  that 
 IVady  Jelhum  (el-Jthm)  could  not  have  been  the 
 way  consistently  with  the  precept  of  Deut.  ii.  3. 
 The  camping  station  in  the  cataloiiue  of  Num. 
 xxiii.,  which  corresponds  to  the  "  pitching  in  the 
 valley  of  Zared  "  of  xxi.  12,  is  probably  DibonGad, 
 as  it  stands  next  to  Ije-.Vbarim;  compare  Num. 
 xxxiii.  44,  45  with  xxi.  12.  The  Wady  el-Ahsy 
 forms  the  boundary  between  the  districts  of  Jeljal 
 and  Kerek.  The  stream  runs  in  a  very  deep 
 ravine  and  contains  a  hot  sjiring  which  the  Arabs 
 call  the  "  Bath  of  Solomon,  son  of  David  "  (Irby, 
 May  29).     [Zaked.] 
 
 The  Jewish  interpreters  translate  the  name  in 
 the  first  case  "  osiers,"  and  in  the  second  "  bas- 
 kets "  (Targum  I'seudojonathan),  which  recalls  the 
 •'lirook  of  the  willows"  of  Isaiah  (xv.  7).  The 
 name  SufsaJ'  (willow)  is  attached  to  the  valley 
 which  runs  down  from  Kerak  to  the  Dead  Sea; 
 liut  this  appears  to  be  too  far  north  lor  the  Zered. 
 [Willows,  bkook  of  the.]  H.  H. 
 
 ZER'EDA  (nin-^^n,  i.  e.  the  Tseredah, 
 with  the  def.  article  [cohUihi']  :  -^  'Sap'ipa  [Vat. 
 -pet-]'  -^lex.  7)  2apt5a:  Sareda).  The  native 
 nlace,  according  to  the  present  Hebrew  text,  of 
 ■leroboani,  the  leader  of  the  revolt  of  the  northeni 
 tribes,  and  the  first  king  of  the  "  Kinndum  of 
 Israel."  It  occurs  in  1  K.  xi.  20  only.  The 
 LXX.  (in  the  Vatican  Codex)  for  Zereda  substitute 
 Sareira,  as  will  be  seen  above.  This  is  not  in  itself 
 remarkable,  since  it  is  but  an  instance  of  the  ex- 
 change of  r  and  d,  which  is  so  often  observed  both 
 in  the  LXX.  and  Syriac  Versions,  and  which  has 
 not  impossibly  taken  place  in  the  Hebrew  text 
 itself  of  Judg.  vii.  22,  where  the  name  Zererah 
 appears  attached  to  a  place  which  is  perhaps  else- 
 
ZEREUATHAH 
 
 where  called  Zeredathah.  But  it  is  more  remark- 
 able that  in  the  long'  addition  to  the  history  of 
 Jeroboam  which  these  translators  insert  between 
 1  K.  xii.  24  and  25  of  the  Hebrew  text,  Sarlra  is 
 frequently  mentioned.  In  strong  contrast  to  the 
 merely  casual  mention  of  it  in  the  Hel)rew  narrative 
 as  ileroboam's  native  place,  it  is  elevated  in  the 
 narrative  of  the  LXX.  into  great  prominence,  and 
 becomes  in  fact  the  most  important  and,  it  may 
 naturally  be  presumed,  the  most  impregnable  for- 
 tress of  I'Lphraim.  It  there  appears  as  the  town 
 which  .Ierol)oam  fortified  for  Solomon  in  Mount 
 Ephraim ;  thither  he  repairs  on  his  return  from 
 Egypt;  there  he-assenililes  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 
 and  there  he  builds  a  fortress.  Of  its  position 
 nothing  is  said  except  that  it  was  "  in  Mount 
 Ephraim,"  but  from  tiie  nature  of  the  case  it  must 
 have  been  central.  The  LXX.  further  make  it 
 the  residence  of  Jeroboam  at  the  time  of  the  death 
 of  his  child,  and  they  substitute  it  for  Tirzah  (not 
 only  on  the  single  occasion  on  which  the  latter 
 name  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  of  this  narrative,  but) 
 three  times  over.     No  explanation  has  been  given 
 
 of  tiiis  change  of  H^iri  into  Hl^^.  It  is 
 hardly  one  which  would  naturally  occur  from  the 
 corruptions  either  of  copyists  or  of  pronunciation. 
 The  question  of  the  source  and  value  of  these  sin- 
 gular additions  of  the  LXX.  has  never  yet  been 
 fully  examined;  but  in  the  words  of  Dean  Milman 
 (fiist.  of  the  Jews,  3d  ed.  i.  332),  "there  is  a 
 circumstantialness  about  the  incidents  which  gives 
 them  an  air  of  authenticity,  or  rather  antiquity," 
 and  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  will  prompt  some 
 scholar  to  a  thorough  investigation. 
 
 Zeredah  has  been  supposed  to  be  identical  with 
 Zerkuatuah  (2  Chr.  iv.  17)  and  Zauthan  or 
 Zaktanah.  But  even  if  the  two  last  of  these 
 names  were  more  similar  to  it  than  they  are,  there 
 would  remain  the  serious  topographical  ditficulty 
 to  such  an  identification,  that  they  were  in  the 
 valley  of  the  Jordan,  while  Zeredah  was,  according 
 to  the  repeated  statement  of  the  LXX.,  on  Mount 
 Ephraim.  If,  however,  the  restricted  statement  of 
 the  Hebrew  Bible  be  accepted,  which  names  Zeredah 
 merely  as  the  native  place  of  Jeroboam,  and  as  not 
 concerned  in  the  events  of  his  mature  life,  then 
 there  is  no  obstacle  to  its  situation  in  that  part  of 
 the  tribe  of  Ephraim  which  lay  in  the  Jordan  Val- 
 ley. G. 
 
 ZEREDA'THAH  (nnf^*^'  {cooUn^y. 
 
 [Vat.]  2ipSa0ot;  [Horn.  2apr)5aea;]  Alex.  SaSaSa: 
 Unredntka).  Named  (in  2  Chr.  iv.  17  only)  in 
 specifying  the  situation  of  the  foundries  for  the 
 brass-work  of  Solomon's  Temple.  In  the  parallel 
 passage  in  1  K.  vii,  46,  Zaktiian  occupies  the 
 place  of  Zeredathah,  the  rest  of  the  sentence  being 
 literally  the  same;  but  whether  the  one  name  is 
 merely  an  accidental  variation  of  the  other,  or 
 whether,  as  there  is  some  ground  for  believing, 
 there  is  a  connection  between  Zeredah,  Zeredathah, 
 
 ZERUBBABEL 
 
 SG21 
 
 a  The  ih.  terminating  the  name  in  the  A.  V.  is  the 
 Hebrew  mode  of  connecting  it  with  the  particle  of 
 motion  ;  ZereratUah,  i.  e.  to  Zererah. 
 
 ''  The  Ta  at  the  conimencement  of  this  barbarous 
 word  no  doubt  belongs  to  the  preceding  name,  J3eth- 
 ghittah  ;  and  they  should  l)e  divided  as  toMows,  Bi)9- 
 o-eeSra  Yapa.ya.8a.  The  Vatican  Codex  appears  to  be 
 the  only  MS.  which  retains  any  trace  of  the  name. 
 The  others  quoted  by  Holrae.s  and  Parsons  either  sub- 
 ftitute  ew?  KttAous  for  it,  or  exhibit  some  variation  of 
 
 Zererah,  and  Zarthan.  we  have  now  no  neans  of 
 determining.  It  should  be  observed  that  ieredah 
 has  in  the  original  the  definite  article  prefixed  to  it, 
 which  is  not  the  case  with  either  Zeredathah  or 
 Zerera.  G. 
 
 ZER'BRATH  (n~l"1>%"  i.  e.  Tsererah :  Ta- 
 yapayaQd;''  Alex.  Kai  (rvvrjyfj.evri'-  Vulg.  omits). 
 A  i)lace  named  only  in  Judg.  vii.  22,  in  describing 
 the  liight  of  the  JMidianite  host  before  Gideon. 
 The  A.  V.  has  somewhat  unnecessarily  added  to 
 the  original  obscurity  of  the  passage,  which  runs 
 as  follows :  "  And  the  host  fled  into  Beth  l;as- 
 shittah  to  Zererah,'^  unto  the  brink  of  Abel-me- 
 holah  upon  Tabbath  "  — appai'ently  describing  th.e 
 two  lines  of  flight  taken  by  the  two  portions  of  the 
 horde. 
 
 It  is  natural  to  presume  that  Zererah  is  the  same 
 name  as  Zeredathah. f'  I'hey  both  appear  to  have 
 been  in  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  as  to  the  ditierence 
 in  the  names,  the  termination  is  insignificant,  and 
 
 the  exchange  of  1  and  "1  is  of  constant  occurrence. 
 Zeredathah,  again,  appears  to  be  equivalent  to  Zar- 
 than. 
 
 It  is  also  difficult  not  to  suppose  that  Zererah  is 
 the  same  place  with  the  Sarira  which  the  LXX. 
 present  as  the  equivalent  of  Zereda  and  of  Tirzah. 
 hut  in  the  way  of  this  there  is  the  ditficulty  which 
 has  been  pointed  out  under  Zereda,  that  the  two 
 last-named  places  appear  to  have  been  in  the  high- 
 lauds  of  Ephraim,  while  Zererah  and  Zeredathah 
 were  in  the  Jordan  Valley.  G. 
 
 ZE'RESH  (tt^nr  [Pers.  <jol<q:  Zcoadpa; 
 [Alex  ]  :S,co(rapa~  Joseph.  Zapata'-  Znres).  The 
 wife  of  Haman  the  Agagite  (Esth.  v.  10,  1-t,  vi. 
 13),  who  counselled  him  to  prepare  the  gallows  for 
 Jlordecai,  but  predicted  her  husband's  ruin  as  soon 
 as  she  knew  that  ^Nlordecai  was  a  Jew. 
 
 A.  C.  H. 
 
 ZE'RETH  (n~l^  [perh.  sple7idor]:  S.epie; 
 [Vat.  Ape0;]  Alex.  Sape^:  Senlli).  Son  of  Ashur 
 the  founder  of  Tekoa,  by  his  wife  Helah  (1  Chr.  iv. 
 7). 
 
 ZE'RI  ("^"1^  [patr.,  Jezku]  :  :S.ovpi  [Vat.  -pei]  : 
 Siiri).  One  of  the  sons  of  Jeduthun  in  the  reign 
 of  David  (1  Chr.  xxv.  3).  In  ver.  11  he  is  called 
 Izni. 
 
 ZE'ROR  ("l'l"l^  [pe/Me]:  'lape'S;  Ales. 
 Ape5;  [Comp.  2apdp'-]  Seror).  A  Benjamite, 
 ancestor  of  Kish  the  father  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  ix.  1). 
 
 ZERU'AH  (n^^~l!J  [leprous] :  [Rom.]  Vat. 
 omit;  Alex.  2,apova'-  Sarua).  The  mother  of 
 Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  (1  K.  xi.  2tj).  In  the 
 additional  narrative  of  the  LXX.  inserted  after  1 
 K.  xii.  24,  she  is  called  Sarira  (a  corruption  of 
 Zereda),  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  harlot. 
 
 ZERUB'BABEL     (b^a^T,    dispersed,   or 
 
 the  words  quoted  above  from  the  Alex.  MS.    The  Vul- 
 gate entirely  omits  the  name. 
 
 c  Or  possibly  the  two   first   of   these   four    names 
 should  be  joined,  Beth-has-shittah-Zcrcrathah. 
 
 J  Zererah    appears   in   Judg.    vii.  22,     nnT^I?, 
 
 T  T  ■•  :  ' 
 
 with  the  particle  of  motion  attached,  which  is  all  but 
 
 identical  with   nni~l-?.  Zeredathah. 
 T  T  •■  : 
 
3622 
 
 ZERUBBABEL 
 
 ber/otti'ii,  in  Babylon:  Zopo^d.BeX'-  Sei-ubabel). 
 The  head  of  the  tribe  of  ,Iudah  at  the  thiie 
 of  the  return  from  the  Babylonish '  Captivity  in 
 the  first  year  of  Cyrus.  His  exact  parentage  is  a 
 little  obscure,  from  his  being  always  called  the  son 
 of  Shealtiel  (Ezr.  iii.  2,  8,  v.  2,  <tc.;  Hag.  i.  1,  12, 
 14,  &c.),  and  appearing  as  such  in  the  genealogies 
 (Matt.  i.  12;  Luke  iii.  27),  whereas  in  1  Chr.  iii.  I'J, 
 he  is  represented  as  the  sun  of  Pedaiah,  Shealtiel  or 
 Salathiel's  brother,  and  consequently  as  Salatliiel's 
 nephew.  Probably  the  genealogy  in  1  Chr.  exhibits 
 his  true  parentage,  and  he  succeeded  his  uncle  as 
 head  of  the  house  of  Judah  —  a  supposition  which 
 \allies  with  the  facts  that  Salatliiel  apiiears  as  the 
 first-born,  and  that  no  children  are  assigned  to  him. 
 
 There  are  two  histories  of  Zerubbaljel:  the  one, 
 Uiat  contained  in  the  canonical  Scriptures:  the 
 other,  that  in   the  apocryphal  books  and  Josephus. 
 
 The  history  of  Zerubbabel  m  the  Scriptures  is  as 
 follows:  In  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  he  was  living  at 
 
 Babylon,  and  was  the  recognized  prince  (S'^tpD) 
 of  Judah  in  the  Captivity,  what  in  later  times  was 
 called    nn^ban   mn     or    r^W^-irj  (Rhesa), 
 
 "the  Prince  of  the  Captivity,"  or  "the  Prince." 
 On  the  issuing  of  Cyrus's  decree  he  immediately 
 availed  himself  of  it,  and  placed  himself  at  the  head 
 of  those  of  his  countrymen  "  whose  spirit  God  had 
 raised  to  go  up  to  build  the  House  of  the  Lord 
 which  is  in  Jerusalem."  It  is  probable  that  he 
 was  in  the  king  of  Babylon's  service,  both  from  his 
 having,  like  Daniel  and  the  three  children,  received 
 a  Chaldee  name   [Sheshbazzak],  and  from  his 
 
 receiving  from  Cyrus  the  office  of  governor  (nPS) 
 of  Judaea.  The  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels, 
 which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  brought  from  the  Tem- 
 ple, having  been  effected,  and  copious  presents  of 
 silver  and  gold,  and  goods,  and  beasts,  having  been 
 bestowed  upon  the  captives,  Zerulibabel  went  forth 
 at  the  head  of  the  returning  colony,  accompanied 
 by  Jeshua  the  high-priest,  and  [lerhaps  by  the 
 prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  and  a  considerable 
 number  of  priests,  Levites,  and  heads  of  houses  of 
 Judah  and  Benjamin  witli  their  followers.  On  ar- 
 riving at  Jerusalem,  Zerulibabel's  first  care  was  to 
 build  the  altar  on  its  old  site,  and  to  restore  the 
 daily  sacrifice.  [Jesiiua.]  Perhaps  also  they 
 kept  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  as  it  is  said  they  did 
 in  Ezr.  iii.  4 :  but  there  is  some  reason  to  suspect 
 that  vv.  4,  5,  and  the  first  half  of  ver.  6,  are  in- 
 terpolated, and  are  merely  an  epitome  of  Neh.  viii., 
 which  belongs  to  very  different  times.  [Ezra, 
 Book  of;  Nehe:miah,  Book  of.]  But  his  great 
 work,  which  he  set  about  immediately,  was  the  re- 
 building of  the  Temple.  Being  armed  with  a  grant 
 from  Cyrus  of  timlter  and  stone  for  the  building, 
 and  of  money  for  the  expenses  of  the  builders  (Ezr. 
 vi.  4),  he  had  collected  the  materials,  including 
 cedar-trees  brought  from  Lebanon  to  ,Ioppa,  ac- 
 cording to  the  precedent  in  the  time  of  Solomon  (2 
 Chr.  ii.  16),  and  got  together  masons  and  carpen- 
 ters to  do  the  work,  by  the  opening  of  the  second 
 year  of  their  return  to  Jerusalem.  And  accordingly, 
 in  the  second  month  of  the  second  year  of  their  re- 
 turn, the  foundation  of  the  Temple  was  laid  with 
 all  the  pomp  which  they  could  conmiand:  the 
 priests  in  their  vestments  with  trumpets,  and  the 
 sons  of  Asaph  with  cymbals,  singing  tlie  very  same 
 psalm  of  praise  for  God"s  unfailing  mercy  to  Israel 
 which  was  sung  when  Solomon  dedicated  his  Tem- 
 ple (2  Chr.  v.  11-14) ;  while  the  people  responded 
 
 ZERUBBABEL 
 
 with  a  great  shout  of  joy,  "  because  the  foundation 
 of  the  house  of  the  Lord  was  laid."  How  strange 
 must  have  been  the  emotions  of  Zerubl)abel  at  this 
 moment!  As  he  stood  upon  Mount  Zion,  and  be- 
 held from  its  summit  the  desoLitions  of  Jerusalem, 
 the  site  of  the  Temple  blank,  David's  palace  a  heap 
 of  ashes,  his  fathers"  sepulchres  defiled  and  overlaid 
 with  rubbish,  and  the  silence  of  desertion  and 
 eujptiness  hanging  oppressively  over  the  streets  and 
 waste  places  of  what  was  once  the  "joyous  city; 
 and  th.en  remembered  how  his  great  ancestor  David 
 had  brought  up  the  ark  in  triumph  to  the  very 
 S|)ot  where  he  was  then  standing,  how  Solomon  had 
 reigned  there  in  all  his  magnificence  and  power, 
 and  how  the  petty  kings  and  potentates  of  the 
 neighboring  nations  had  been  his  vassals  and  tribu- 
 taries, how  must  his  heart  alternately  have  swelled 
 with  pride,  and  throbbed  with  anguish,  and  sunk 
 in  humiliation !  In  the  midst  of  these  niiuhty 
 memories  he  was  but  the  officer  of  a  foreign  heathen 
 despot,  the  head  of  a  feeble  remnant  of  half  emanci- 
 pated slaves,  the  ca[)tain  of  a  band  hardly  able  to 
 hold  up  their  heads  in  the  presence  of  their  hostile 
 and  jealous  neighbors;  and  yet  there  he  was,  the 
 son  of  David,  the  heir  of  great  and  mysterious 
 promises,  returned  by  a  wonderful  Providence  to 
 the  home  of  his  ancestors.  At  his  bidding  the 
 daily  sacrifice  had  been  restored  after  a  cessation  of 
 half  a  century,  and  now  the  foundations  of  the 
 Temple  were  actually  laid,  amidst  the  songs  of  the 
 Levites  singing  according  to  David's  ordinance, 
 and  the  shouts  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  It  was  a 
 heart-stirring  situation;  and,  despite  all  the  dis- 
 couragements attending  it,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
 Zerubbabel's  faith  and  hope  were  kindled  by  it  into 
 fresh  life. 
 
 But  there  were  many  hindrances  and  delays  to 
 be  encountered  before  the  work  was  finished.  The 
 Samaritans  or  Cutheans  put  in  a  claim  to  join  with 
 the  Jews  in  rebuilding  the  Temple;  and  when 
 Zerubbabel  and  his  companions  refused  to  admit 
 them  into  partnership,  they  tried  to  hinder  them 
 from  building,  and  hired  counsellors  to  frustrate 
 their  purpose.  They  probably  contrived,  in  the 
 first  instance,  to  intercept  the  supplies  of  timber 
 and  stone,  and  the  wages  of  the  workmen,  which 
 were  paid  out  of  the  king's  revenue,  and  then  by 
 misrepresentation  to  calumniate  them  at  the  court 
 of  Persia.  Thus  they  were  successful  in  putting  a 
 stop  to  the  work  during  the  seven  remaining  years 
 of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  and  through  the  eight  years 
 of  Cambyses  and  Smerdis.  Nor  does  Zerubbabel 
 ap]iear  quite  blameless  for  this  long  delay.  The 
 difficulties  in  the  way  of  building  the  Temple  were 
 not  such  as  need  have  stopped  the  work:  and  dur- 
 ing this  long  suspension  of  sixteen  years  Zerub- 
 babel and  the  rest  of  the  people  had  been  busy  in 
 building  costly  houses  for  themselves,  and  one  might 
 even  suspect  that  the  cedar-wood  which  had  been 
 brought  for  the  Temple  had  been  used  to  decorate 
 
 private  dwellings  (comp.  the  use  of  ]  DD  in    Hag. 
 
 i.  4,  and  1  K.  vii.  3,  7).  They  had,  in  fact,  ceased 
 to  care  for  the  desolation  of  the  Temple  (Hag.  i. 
 2-4),  and  had  not  noticed  that  God  was  rebuking 
 their  lukewarmness  by  withholding  his  blessing 
 from  their  labors  (Hag.  i.  5-11).  But  in  the 
 second  year  of  Darius  light  dawned  upon  the  dark- 
 ness of  the  colony  from  Babylon.  In  that  year  — 
 it  was  the  most  memorable  event  in  Zerubbabel's 
 life  —  the  spirit  of  prophecy  suddenly  blazed  up 
 with  a  most  brilliant  light  amongst  the  returned 
 
ZERUBBABEL 
 
 3aptives ;  and  the  long  silence  which  was  to  ensue 
 till  the  ministry  of  Jolin  the  Baptist  was  preceded 
 by  the  stirrins;  utterances  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 
 Their  words  fell  like  sparks  upon  tinder.  In  a  mo- 
 ment Zerubliabel,  roused  from  his  apathy,  threw 
 his  whole  strength  into  the  work,  zealously  seconded 
 by  Jeshua  and  all  the  people.  [Jesiiua.]  Unde- 
 terred by  a  fresh  attempt  of  their  enemies  to  hhider 
 the  progress  of  the  building,  they  went  on  with 
 the  work  even  while  a  reference  was  being  made  to 
 Darius;  and  when,  after  the  original  decree  of 
 Cyrus  had  been  found  at  Ecbatana,  a  most  gracious 
 and  favorable  decree  was  issued  by  Darius,  enjoin- 
 ing Tatnai  and  Shetharboznai  to  assist  the  .lews 
 with  whatsoever  they  had  need  of  at  the  king's  ex- 
 pense, the  work  advanced  so  rapidly  that  on  the 
 third  day  of  the  montli  Adar,  in  the  sixth  year  of 
 Darius,  the  Temple  was  finished,  and  was  forthwith 
 dedicated  with  much  pomp  and  rejoicing.  It  is 
 difficult  to  calculate  how  great  was  the  eflect  of  the 
 prophecies  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  in  sustaining 
 the  courage  and  energy  of  Zerublsabel  in  carrying 
 his  work  to  completion.  Addressed,  as  many  of 
 them  were,  directly  to  Zerubbabel  by  name,  speak- 
 ing, as  they  did,  most  glorious  things  of  the  Temple 
 which  he  was  building,  conveying  to  Zerubbabel 
 himself  extraordinary  assurances  of  Divine  favor, 
 and  coupling  with  them  magnificent  and  consola- 
 tory predictions  of  the  future  glory  of  Jerusalem 
 and  Judah,  and  of  tlie  conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 
 they  necessarily  exercised  an  immense  influence 
 upon  his  mind  (Hag.  i.  13, 14,  ii.  4-9,  21-23;  Zech. 
 iv.  6-10,  viii.  3-8,  9,  18-23).  It  is  not  too  much 
 to  say  that  these  prophecies  upon  Zerubbabel  were 
 the  Immediate  instrument  by  which  tlie  church  and 
 commonwealth  of  Judah  were  preserved  from  de- 
 struction, and  received  a  life  which  endured  till  the 
 coming  of  Christ. 
 
 The  only  other  works  of  Zerubbabel  which  we 
 learn  from  the  Scripture  history  are  the  restoration 
 of  the  courses  of  priests  and  Levites,  and  of  the 
 provision  for  their  maintenance,  according  to  the 
 institution  of  David  (Ezr.  vi.  18;  Neh.  xii.  47); 
 the  registering  the  returned  captives  according  to 
 their  genealogies  (Neh.  vii.  5);  and  the  kee[)ing  of 
 a  Passover  in  the  seventh  year  of  Darius,  with 
 which  last  event  ends  all  that  we  know  of  the  life 
 of  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Shealtiel :  a  man  inferior 
 to  few  of  the  great  characters  of  Scripture,  whether 
 we  consider  the  perilous  undertaking  to  which  he 
 devoted  himself,  tlie  iuiportance,  in  the  economy 
 of  the  Divine  government,  of  his  work,  his  coura- 
 geous faith,  or  the  singular  distinction  of  being  the 
 object  of  so  many  and  such  remarkable  prophetic 
 utterances. 
 
 The  apocryphal  history  of  Zerubbabel,  which, 
 as  usual,  Josephus  follows,  may  be  sunnned  up  in  a 
 few  words.  The  story  told  in  1  Esdr.  iii.-vii.  is, 
 that  on  the  occasion  of  a  great  feast  made  by 
 Darius  on  his  accession,  three  young  men  of  his 
 body-guard  had  a  contest  who  should  \n-ite  the 
 wisest  sentence.  That  one  of  the  three  (Zerubba- 
 bel) wTiting  '•  Women  are  strongest,  but  above  all 
 things  Truth  beareth  away  the  victory ;  "  and  after- 
 wards defending  his  sentence  with  nuich  eloquence, 
 was  declared  by  acclamation «  to  be  the  wisest, 
 and  claimed  for  his  reward,  at  the  king's  hand, 
 that  the  king  should  perform  his  vow  which  he 
 
 ZERUBBABEL 
 
 3623 
 
 had  vowed  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple 
 Upon  which  the  king  gave  him  letters  to  all  his 
 treasurers  and  governors  on  the  other  side  the  river, 
 with  grants  of  money  and  exemption  from  taxes, 
 and  sent  him  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple, 
 accouipanied  by  the  families  of  which  the  list'  is 
 given  in  Ezr.  ii.,  Neh.  vii. ;  and  then  follows,  in 
 utter  confusion,  the  history  of  Zerubbabel  as  given 
 in  Scripture.  Apparently,  too,  the  conijiiler  did 
 not  perceive  that  Sanabas;u-''  (Slieslibazzar)  was 
 the  same  person  as  Zerubbabel.  Josephus,  indeed, 
 seems  to  identity  Slieslibazzar  with  Zerubliabel, 
 and  tries  to  reconcile  the  story  in  1  I'^sdr.  by  say- 
 ing, "  Now  it  so  fell  out  that  about  this  time 
 Zorobabel,  who  had  been  made  governor  of  the 
 Jews  that  had  been  in  captivity,  came  to  Darius 
 from  Jerusalem,  for  there  had  been  an  old  friend- 
 ship between  him  and  the  king,"  etc.  (.4/;^  xi.  3). 
 But  it  is  obvious  on  the  face  of  it  that  this  is  sim- 
 ply Josephus's  invention  to  reconcile  1  Esdr.  with 
 the  canonical  Ezra.  [E.sokas,  Einsr  Book  of.] 
 Josephus  has  also  another  stoiy  (Ant.  xi.  4,  §  9) 
 which  is  not  found  in  1  Esdr.,  of  Zorobabel  going 
 on  an  embassy  to  Darius  to  accuse  the  Samaritan 
 governors  and  hipparchs  of  withiiolding  from  the 
 Jews  the  grants  made  by  Darius  out  of  the  royal 
 treasury,  for  the  offering  of  sacrifices  and  other 
 Temple  expenses,  and  of  his  obtaining  a  decree 
 from  the  king  commanding  his  officers  in  Samaria 
 to  supply  tlie  high-priest  with  all  that  he  required. 
 But  that  this  is  not  authentic  history  seems  pretty 
 certain  from  the  names  of  the  governors,  Sambnbas 
 being  an  imitation  or  corruption  of  Sanballat, 
 Tanycuies  of  Tittnni  (or  Thauthanai,  as  in  LXX.), 
 Siidi-act's  of  Sathrabouzanes,  confused  with  Slia- 
 drach,  Bobelo  of  Zoro-babel;  and  the  names  of  the 
 ambassadors,  which  are  manifestly  copied  from  the 
 list  in  1  Esdr.  v.  8,  where  Zorobabel,  Enenius,  and 
 Jlariiochajus,  correspond  to  Zoroliabel,  Ananias, 
 and  Mardochaius  of  Josephus.  IMoreovtr  the  letter 
 or  decree  of  Darius,  as  given  lay  .losephus,  is  as 
 maiiilisstly  copied  from  tlie  decree  of  Darius  in  E/.r. 
 vi.  G-IO.  In  all  probability,  therefore,  the  docu- 
 ment used  by  Josephus  was  one  of  tliose  numerous 
 apocryjihal  religious  romances  which  the  Hellenis- 
 tic Jews  were  so  fond  of  about  the  4th  and  3d  cen- 
 tury before  Christ,  and  was  written  partly  to 
 explain  Zorobabel's  presence  at  the  court  of  Darius, 
 as  spoken  of  in  1  Esdr.,  partly  to  explain  that  of 
 Mordeeai  at  the  court  of  Ahasuerus,  though  he  was 
 in  the  list  of  those  who  were  Zoroliabel's  compan- 
 ions (as  it  seemed),  and  partly  to  give  an  opportu- 
 nity for  reviling  and  humiliating  the  Samaritans. 
 It  also  gratified  the  favorite  taste  for  embellishing, 
 and  corroborating,  and  giving,  as  was  thought, 
 additional  probability  to  the  Scripture  narrative, 
 and  dwelling  upon  bygone  times  of  Jewish  tri- 
 umphs.    [KsTHER,  Book  oi<\] 
 
 It  only  remains  to  notice  Zerubbabel's  place  in 
 the  genealogy  of  Christ.  It  has  already  been  ob- 
 served that  in  the  genealogies  Matt  i.  12,  and  Luke 
 iii.  27,  he  is  represented  as  son  of  Salathiel,  though 
 the  book  of  Chronicles  tells  us  he  was  the  son  of 
 Pedaiah,  and  nephew  of  Salathiel.  It  is  of  more 
 moment  to  remark  that,  while  St.  Matthew  deduces 
 his  line  from  Jechonias  and  Solomon,  St.  Luke 
 deduces  it  through  Neri  and  Nathan.  Here  then 
 we  have  the  head  of   the   nation,  the  Prince  of 
 
 n  With  the  shout,  "  Magna  est  Veritas,  et  prseva- 
 lebit '. " 
 
 6  2ai<a/3a(rap  is  merely  a  corruption  of  2aj-aj3a<rop. 
 
3624 
 
 ZERUIAH 
 
 Judah,  the  foremost  man  of  his  country,  with  a 
 double  genealos;}'.  one  representing  him  as  tlescend- 
 iii^  from  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  other  as  the 
 descendant  indeed  of  David,  but  tin-ough  a  long 
 line  of  private  and  unknown  persons.  We  find 
 him,  too,  filling  the  position  of  Prince  of  Judah  at 
 a  time  when,  as  far  as  the  history  informs  us,  the 
 royal  family  was  utterly  extinct.  And  though,  if 
 descended  from  the  last  king,  he  would  have  been 
 his  grandson,  neither  the  history,  nor  the  contem- 
 porary prophets,  nor  Josephus,  nor  the  apocryphal 
 books,  give  the  least  hint  of  his  being  a  near  rela- 
 tive of  Jeconiah,  while  at  the  same  time  the  natural 
 interpretation  of  Jer.  xxii.  -30  shows  Jeconiah  to 
 have  been  childless.  The  inference  from  all  this  is 
 obvious.  Zernbbahel  was  the  legal  successor  and 
 heir  of  Jeconiah's  royal  estate,  the  grandson  of  Neri, 
 and  the  lineal  descendant  of  Xathan  the  son  of 
 David.  [Salathikl;  Genealogy  of  Chkist. 
 For  ZcTubbabel's  descendants  see  H.vxaniah  8.] 
 
 In  the  N.  T.  the  name  appears  in  the  Greek 
 form  of  ZoROBABEL.  A.  C.  H. 
 
 ZERUFAH  (n"*^n!J,  and  once  «  n»-l!J  : 
 Sopouia;  [Alex.  1  Sam.  xxvi.  6,  ^apoueia-]  ^'n- 
 vin).  A  woman  who,  as  long  as  the  Jewish  records 
 are  read,  will  be  known  as  the  mother  of  the  three 
 leading  heroes  of  David's  army  —  Abishai,  Joab, 
 and  Asahel  —  the  "sons  of  Zeruiah."  .She  antl 
 Abigail  are  specified  in  the  genealogy  of  David's 
 family  in  1  Ciir.  ii.  ]3-17  as  -'sisters  of  the  sons 
 of  Jesse  "  (ver.  16;  comp.  Joseph.  A7it.  vii.  10,  § 
 1).  The  expression  is  in  itself  enough  to  rai^e  a 
 suspicion  that  she  was  not  a  daughter  of  Jesse,  a 
 suspicion  wliich  is  corroborated  by  the  statement 
 of  2  Sam.  xvii.  25,  that  Abigail  was  the  daughter 
 of  Nabash.  Abigail  being  apparently  the  younger 
 of  the  two  women,  it  is  a  probable  inference  that 
 they  were  both  the  daughters  of  Nahash,  but 
 whether  this  Nahasii  be — as  Professor  Stanley  has 
 ingeniously  conjectured  —  the  king  of  the  Anmion- 
 ites,  and  the  former  husband  of  Jesse's  wife,  or 
 some  other  person  unknown,  must  forever  remain 
 a  mere  conjecture.  [Davio,  vol.  i.  p.  552.]  Other 
 explanations  are  given  under  Nahash,  vol.  iii. 
 p.  2053  f.  Her  relation  to  Jesse  (in  the  original 
 Ishai)  is  expressed  in  the  name  of  her  son  Ab- 
 ishai. 
 
 Of  Zeruiah's  husband  there  is  no  mention  in  the 
 Bible.  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  1,  §  3)  explicitly  states 
 his  name  to  have  been  Souri  (2oupi)i  but  no  cor- 
 roboration of  the  statement  ajjpears  to  have  been 
 discovered  in  the  Jewish  traditions,  nor  does  Jose- 
 phus himself  refer  to  it  again.  The  mother  of  such 
 remarkable  sons  must  herself  have  been  a  remark- 
 able woman,  and  this  may  account  for  the  fact, 
 unusual  if  not  unique,  that  the  family  is  always 
 called  after  her,  and  that  her  husband's  name  has 
 not  lieen  considered  worthy  of  preservation  in  the 
 sacred  records.  G. 
 
 ZE'THAM  (□n'f  [perh.  oUve-tree] :  Z-qQiu 
 [Vat.  ZeSo/i],  Zid6jji\  Alex.  Zaidoij..  ZoQojjl-  Ze- 
 (han,  Z'ltlian).  The  son  of  Laadan,  a  Gerslionite 
 Levite  (1  Gbr.  xxiii.  8).  In  1  Chr.  xxvi.  22  he 
 appears  as  the  son  of  Jebiel,  or  Jehieli,  and  so  the 
 grandson  of  Laadan. 
 
 ZE'THAN  ("jnn  :  ZaMv,  Alex.  HQaV.  Ze- 
 ihrin).  A  Benjaniite  of  the  sons  of  Billian  (1  Chr. 
 vii.  10). 
 
 «  2  Sam.  xiv.  1. 
 
 ZIBEON 
 
 ZE'THAR  Oni  [perh.  star]:  'A^SaraCas: 
 Zelkar).  One  of  the  seven  eunuchs  of  Ahasuerus 
 who  attended  upon  the  king,  and  were  commaiideil 
 to  bring  Vashti  into  his  presence  (Ksth.  i.  10). 
 
 ZI'A  C^"^]  :  Zou4;  [Comp.  Zid:]  Zie).  One 
 of  the  Gadites  who  dwelt  in  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v 
 13). 
 
 ZI'BA  (Kn*'!J,  once  W^^i  " :  [Rom.  :S,i0d; 
 Vat.]  2ei3a;  Alex.  2i/3a,  and  in  ch.  xvi.  [1,]  2 
 [h,  3,  4,]  2,/3;6a;  Joseph.  2i/Sas:  ^if>n).  A 
 person  wiio  plays  a  prominent  part,  though  with 
 no  credit  to  himself,  in  one  of  the  episodes  of 
 David's  history  (2  Sam.  ix.  2-12,  xvi.   l-i,  xix. 
 
 17,  23).  He  had  been  a  slave  (12^)  of  the  house 
 of  Saul  before  the  overthrow  of  his  kingdom,  and 
 (proljably  at  the  time  of  the  great  I^hilistiiie  incur- 
 sion which  proved  so  fatal  to  his  master's  family) 
 had  been  set  free  (Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  5,  §  5).  The 
 opportunities  thus  afforded  him  he  had  so  far  im- 
 proved, that  when  first  encountered  in  the  history 
 he  is  head  of  an  establishment  of  fifteen  .sons  and 
 twenty  slaves.  David's  receptitm  of  JIe[)hiboshetli 
 had  the  effect  of  throwing  Ziba  with  his  whole 
 establishment  back  into  the  state  of  bondage  from 
 which  be  had  so  long  been  free.  It  reduced  him 
 from  being  an  independent  landholder  to  the  posi- 
 tion of  a  mere  dependent.  The  knowleilge  of  this 
 fact  gives  the  key  to  the  whole  of  his  conduct 
 towards  David  and  towards  JMephibosheth.  Be- 
 yond this  the  writer  has  nothing  to  add  to  his 
 remarks  on  Ziba  under  the  head  of  Mephiuo- 
 «UETH.  G. 
 
 *  The  adverse  judgment  here  expressed,  though 
 it  may  rest  on  a  probability,  strikes  us  as  more 
 decisive  than  the  record  warrants.  InZiba's  "con- 
 duct towards  David  "  we  fail  to  discover  evidence 
 of  anything  l)ut  kindness  in  feeling  and  act.  If  aa 
 explanation  of  his  course  is  necessary,  we  do  not 
 find  "  the  key  "  to  his  supposed  treachery  in  any 
 derogatory  service  to  which  the  king  had  sub- 
 jected him.  His  relation  to  the  survivor  of  the 
 royal  family  that  he  had  served,  in  which  he  re- 
 tained his  own  servants,  was  a  token  of  David's 
 confidence  in  him;  and  we  think  that  an  Oriental 
 of  his  standing,  at  that  day  or  this,  would  regard 
 it  in  the  light  of  a  responsilile,  honorable,  remuner- 
 ative trust.     [Mephibosheth,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 S.  W. 
 
 ZIB'EON  (VlS'5'2  [fhjeil]:  T,eP€yd!>p:  Seb- 
 eon).  Father  of  Anah,  whose  daughter  Aholiba- 
 mah  was  Esau's  wife  (Gen.  xxxvi.  2).  Although 
 called  a  Hivite,  he  is  probably  the  .same  as  Zil)eon 
 the  son  of  Seir  the  Horite  (vv.  20,  24,  2'J ;  1  Chr. 
 i.  38,  40),  the  latter  signifying  "cave-dweller,"  and 
 the  former  being  the  name  of  his  tribe,  for  we  know 
 nothing  of  the  race  of  the  Troglodytes;  or  more 
 
 probably  "^^Hn  (the  Hivite),  is  a  mistranscription 
 for    "^"P'rirT    (the  Horite). 
 
 Another  difficulty  connected  with  this  Zibeon  is, 
 that  Anah  in  ver.  2  is  called  his  daughter,  and  in 
 ver.  24  his  son ;  but  this  difficulty  appears  to  be 
 
 easily  explained  by  supposing  that  H^  refers  to 
 Aholibamah,  and  not  to  the  rmme  next  preceding 
 it:  the  Samaritan,  it  should  be  observed,  has   "J3. 
 
 b  2  Sam.  xvi.  4. 
 
ZIBIA. 
 
 An  allusion  is  made  to  some  unrecorded  fact  in  the 
 history  of  the  Horites  in  tlie  passa,i;e.  "  this  [was 
 that]  Anah  that  found  the  mules  in  the  wilderness, 
 as  he  fed  the  asses  of  Zilieon  liis  father  "  ((jen. 
 xxxvi.  -2-1).     Tiie  word  rendered   "  mules  "  in  the 
 
 A.  V.  is  the  Heb.  C^^.l,  perliaps  the  Emiuis    or 
 
 giants,  as  in  the  reading  of  the  Sam.  D"'^  Srj,  and 
 so  also  Onkelos  and  Pseudojoiiathan.  Gesenius  pre- 
 fers "hot-springs,"  following  the  Vuli;.  rendering. 
 Zibeon  was  also  one  of  the  dul<es,  or  phvhirchs,  of 
 the  Horites  (ver.  23).  For  the  identitication  ^^ith 
 Beeri,  fatlier  of  Judith  the  Hittite  (Gen.  xxvi.  34), 
 see  Beeri,  and  see  also  An.\ii.  E.  S.  P. 
 
 .ZIB'IA  (Sp!J  [roe]:  2€)3ia;  [Vat.  le/Sia:] 
 Sebia).  A  Benjamite,  apparently,  as  the  text  now 
 stands,  the  son  of  Siiaharaim  by  his  wife  Hodesh 
 (1  Chr.  viii.  9). 
 
 ZIB'IAH  (n;;?^  [roe]  :  2a/3ia  ;  [Vat.] 
 Alex.  A/3ia:  Sebin).  A  native  of  Beer-sheba, 
 and  mother  of  Iving  Joash  (-2  K.  xii.  1;  2  Chr. 
 xxiv.  1). 
 
 ZICH'RI  (^1?t  [remembered,  fnmous] : 
 Zexpe^'  Zechri).  1.  Son  of  Izliar  the  son  of 
 Kohath  (Ex.  vi.  21).  His  name  is  incorrectly 
 given  in  modern  editions  of  the  A.  V.  "  Zithri," 
 though  it  is  printed  ZiCHiti  in  the  ed.  of  1611. 
 
 2.  (Zaxpi  [Vat.  -pei] ;  Alex.  Zexpi'O  A  Ben- 
 jamite of  the  sons  of  Shimhi  (1  Chr.  viii.  19). 
 
 3.  (Zexp'  [^"'^t-  -pet];  Alex.  ZuxP'-'  -"^  J^^"- 
 jamite  of  the  sons  of  Shashak  (1  Chr.  viii.  23). 
 
 4.  (Zexpi;  [Vat.  ZaxP^'-])  A  Benjamite  of  the 
 sons  of  .leroham  (1  Chr.  viii.  27). 
 
 5.  [ZexP'i  Vat.  Zaxpei.]  •  Son  of  Asaph,  else- 
 where called  Zabdi  and  Z.vccuR  (1  Chr.  ix.  1.5). 
 
 6.  [Zexpi;  Vat.  Zexpf'-l  ^  descendant  of 
 Eliezer  the  son  of  Moses  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  2.3). 
 
 7.  The  father  of  Eliezer,  the  chief  of  the  Keu- 
 benites  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 
 
 8.  (Zapi;  [Vat.  Zapei;]  Alex.  Zaxp'.)  Of  the 
 tribe  of  .ludah.  His  son  Aniasiah  commanded 
 200,000  men  in  .Jehoshaphat'.s  array  (2  Chr.  xvii. 
 16). 
 
 9.  (Zaxapias  ;  [Comp.  ZexP'O)  i'-ither  of 
 Elishapliat,  one  of  the  conspiraturs  with  Jelioiada 
 (2  Cla-.  xxiii.  1). 
 
 10.  (ZsxP'';  [^"'^t;  ECeXpe'O.  Alex.  EC^XP'-) 
 An  Ephrainiite  hero  in  the  invading  army  of  Pekah 
 the  son  of  Kemaliah  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  7).  In  the 
 battle  which  was  so  disastrous  to  the  kingdom  of 
 Judah,  Maaseiah  the  king's  son,  Azrikam,  tlie 
 prefect  of  tlie  palace,  and  Elkanah,  who  was  next 
 to  the  king,  fell  by  the  hand  of  Zichri. 
 
 11.  (Zexpi!  [^^at.  FA.  Zexpei.])  Father  or 
 ancestor  of  Joel  14  (Neh.  xi.  9).  He  was  prob- 
 ably a  Benjamite. 
 
 12.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit.]  A  priest  of  the 
 fa^nily  of  Ahijah,  in  the  days  of  Joiakiin  the  son 
 of  Jeshua  (Neh.  xii.  17).  W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZID'DIM    (D"^"^;2n,    witli    the   def.    article 
 
 [rfedtnV/es,  Dietr.] :  T&ji' Tipicoj':  Assediin).  One 
 of  the  fortified  tow'ns  of  the  allotment  of  N.aphtali, 
 according  to  the  present  condition  of  the  Ilebrew 
 text  (.losh.  xix.  'ih).  The  translators  of  the  Vat. 
 LXX.  appe.ar  to  have  read  the  word  in  the  original, 
 
 □''"l^n,  "  the  Tyrians,"  while  tho.se  of  the 
 Peshito-Syriac,    on    the   other   hand,    read    it    as 
 
 ]"n^,  Zidon.     These  readings  were  probably  both 
 228 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 3625 
 
 influenced  by  the  belief  that  the  name  next  fol- 
 lowing that  in  question,  namely,  Zkr,  was  that  of 
 Tyre.  But  this  is  more  than  doubtful,  and  indeed 
 Tyre  and  Zidon  were  included  in  the  allotment, 
 not  of  Naphtali,  but  of  Asher  (xix.  28,  29).  The 
 •lerusalem  Tahnud  (Meffilln/i,  i.)  is  probalily  nearer 
 the  mark  in  identifying  hat-Tsiddim  with  Kefr 
 C/iitUd,  which  Schwarz  (p.  182)  with  much  prob- 
 aliility  takes  to  be  the  present  //atiin,  at  the  north- 
 ern foot  of  the  well-known  h'lirn  I/iitliii,  or  "  Horns 
 of  Hattin,"  a  few  miles  west  of  Tiberias.  This 
 identification  falls  in  with  the  fact  that  the  three 
 next  names  in  the  list  are  all  known  to  have  been 
 connected  with  the  lake.  G. 
 
 ZIDKI'JAH  (n»|:"T!S  [Justice  of  Jehovah:]: 
 SeSe/ciay:  Sedeci'is).  A  priest,  or  family  of  priests, 
 who  signed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x. 
 1).  The  name  is  identical  with  that  elsewhere  in 
 the  A.  V.  rendered  ZEDEici.vir. 
 
 ZFDON  or  SI'DON  (I'lT^  and  "Jl"^?  = 
 SiSoij/;  [Vat.  generally  SeiSaij/;  Judg.  xviii.  28, 
 2i5iivtot,  Vat.  ^uSaivioi',  Ezr.  iii.  7,  oi  SiScoj/ioi, 
 Vat.  2r]Safj.eiv\  1  K.  xvii.  9,  fj  2,iSd)via,  Vat.  2ei- 
 ddjvia:  Is.  xxiii.  2,  4>oici'«;ij ;  Is.  xxiii.  12,  Alex. 
 SioicO  l^idvn).  Gen.  x.  15,  19;  Josh.  xi.  8,  xix. 
 28;  Judg.  i.  31,  xviii.  28;  Joel  iii.  4  (iv.  4);  Is. 
 xxiii.  2,  4,  12;  Jer.  xxv.  22,  xxvii.  3;>Ez.  xxviii. 
 21,  22;  Zech.  ix.  2;  Matt.  xi.  21,  22,  xv.  21;  Luke 
 vi.  17,  X.  13,  14;  Mark  iii.  8,  vii.  24,  31.  An  an- 
 cient and  wealthy  city  of  Phoenicia,  on  the  eastern 
 coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  latitude  33° 
 34'  05"  N.,  less  than  twenty  English  miles  to  the 
 north  of  Tyre.  Its  Hebrew  name,  TsidOn,  signi- 
 fies "  Fishing,"  or  "  Fishery"  (see  Gesenius,  s.  v.). 
 Its  modern  name  is  Salda.  It  is  situated  in  the 
 narrow  plain  between  the  Lebanon  and  the  sea, 
 to  which  it  once  gave  its  own  name  (Joseph.  Ant. 
 V.  3,  §  1,  rb  fieya  TreSiov  SiScoroy  TTf^Aecor)  at  a 
 point  where  the  mountains  recede  to  a  distance  of 
 two  miles  (Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  19).  Adjoin- 
 ing the  city  there  are  luxuriant  gardens  and  or- 
 chards, in  which  there  is  a  profusion  of  the  finest 
 fruit  trees  suited  to  the  climate.  "  The  plain  is 
 flat  and  low,"  says  IMr.  Porter,  author  of  the 
 Handbook  fur  Syria  and  Palestine,  "  but  near 
 the  coast  line  rises  a  little  hill,  a  spur  from  which 
 shoots  out  a  few  hundred  yards  into  the  sea  in  a 
 southwestern  direction.  On  tlie  northern  slope 
 of  the  promontory  thus  formed  stands  the  old 
 city  of  Zidon.  The  hill  beliind  on  the  south  is 
 covered  by  the  citadel"  {Js!nc.  Brilannica,  8th 
 edition,  s.  v.). 
 
 From  a  Biblical  point  of  view,  this  city  is  infe- 
 rior in  interest  to  it.s  neighlior  Tyre,  witli  which 
 its  name  is  so  often  associated.  Indeed,  in  all  the 
 passages  above  referred  to  in  which  the  two  cities 
 are  mentioned  together.  Tyre  is  named  first  —  a 
 circumstance  which  might  at  once  be  deemed  acci- 
 dental, or  the  mere  result  of  Tyre's  being  the 
 nearest  of  the  two  cities  to  Palestine,  were  it  not 
 that  some  doubt  on  this  point  is  raised  by  the 
 order  being  reversed  in  tw^o  works  which  were 
 written  at  a  period  after  Zidon  had  enjoyed  a  long 
 temporary  superiority  (I'zr.  iii.  7;  1  Chr.  xxii.  4). 
 However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that,  of  the  two. 
 Tyre  is  of  the  greater  importance  in  reference  to 
 the  writings  of  the  most  celebrated  Hebrew  proph- 
 ets; and  the  sjilendid  prophecies  directed  against 
 Tyre,  as  a  single  colossal  power  (Ez.  xxvi.,  xxvii., 
 xxviii.  1-19;   Is.   xxiii.),   have   no  parallel   in   the 
 
3626 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 shorter  and  vaguer  utterances  asjaiiist  Zidoii  (Ez. 
 xxviii.  21-23).  And  the  predominant  Hiblical  in- 
 terest of  Tyre  arises  from  the  prophecies  relating 
 to  its  destiny. 
 
 If  we  could  believe  Justin  (xviii.  3),  there  would 
 be  uo  doubt  that  Zidon  was  of  greater  antiquity 
 than  'lyre,  as  he  says  that  the  inhabitants  of 
 Zidon,  wlien  their  city  had  been  reduced  by  the 
 king  of  Asealon,  founded  Tyre  the  year  before  the 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 capture  of  Troy.  Justin^  however,  is  such  a  weak 
 autliority  for  any  disputed  historical  fact,  and  his 
 account  of  tlie  early  history  of  tlie  Jews,  wherein 
 we  have  some  means  of  testing  his  accuracy,  seems 
 to  be  so  mucli  in  the  nature  of  a  romance  (xxxvi. 
 2)  that,  without  laying  stress  on  the  unreasonable- 
 ness of  any  one's  assuming  to  know  the  precise 
 time  wlien  Troy  was  taken,  he  cannot  be  accepted 
 as  an  authority  for  the  early  history  of  the  Phoe- 
 
 Modern  Snida  —  Zidoii  or  Sidon  (Kitto). 
 
 nicians.  In  contradiction  of  this  statement,  it  has 
 been  further  insisted  on,  that  tlie  relatidii  between 
 a  colony  and  the  niotiier-city  anioui;  tlie  I'hoeni- 
 cians  was  sacred,  and  that  as  the  Tvrians  never 
 acknowledged  this  relation  towards  Zidon,  the  sup- 
 posed connection  between  Tyre  and  Zidoii  is  morally 
 impossible.  This  is  a  very  strong  point;  but,  per- 
 haps, not  absolutely  conclusive,  as  no  one  can  prove 
 that  this  was  the  custom  of  the  Phcenicians  at  the 
 very  distant  period  when  alone  the  Zidonians  would 
 have  built  Tyre,  if  they  founded  it  at  all;  or  that 
 it  would  have  applied  not  only  to  the  conscious 
 and  deliberate  founding  of  a  colony,  but  likewise 
 
 to  such  an  almost  accidental  founding  of  a  citv, 
 as  is  implied  in  the  account  of  Justin.  Certainly, 
 there  is  otherwise  nothing  improbable  in  Zidonians 
 having  founded  Tyre,  as  the  Tyrians  are  called 
 Zidonians,  but  the  Zidonians  are  never  called  Tyr- 
 ians. And  at  any  rate  this  circumstance  tends 
 to  show  that  in  early  times  Zidon  was  the  most 
 influential  of  the  two  cities.  This  is  shadowed 
 forth  in  the  book  of  Genesis  by  the  statement  that 
 Zidon  was  the  first-born  of  Canaan  (Gen.  x.  1.5), 
 and  is  implied  in  the  name  of  "  (Jreat  Zidon,"  or 
 "  the  Metropolis  Zidon,"  which  is  twice  given  to  it 
 in  Joshua  (xi.  8,  xix.  28).     It  is  confirmed,  like- 
 
ZIDON 
 
 ■wise,  by  Sidonians  being  used  as  the  generic  name 
 of  the  Phoenicians  or  Canaanites  (Josh.  xiii.  G; 
 Judg.  xviii.  7);  and  by  the  reason  assigned  for 
 there  being  no  deliverer  to  Laish  wlien  its  peace- 
 able inhabitants  were  massacred,  that  "  it  was  fw 
 from  Zidoii;  "  whereas,  if  Tyre  had  been  of  equal 
 importance,  it  would  have  been  more  natural  to 
 mention  Tyre,  which  prolessed  substantially  the 
 same  religion,  and  was  almost  twenty  miles  nearer 
 (Judg.  xviii.  28).  It  is  in  accordance  with  the 
 inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  circumstances 
 that  in  the  Homeric  poems  Tyre  is  not  named, 
 while  there  is  mention  both  of  Sidon  and  the 
 Sidonians  {01.  xv.  425;  II.  xxiii.  74-i);  and  the 
 land  of  the  Sidonians  is  called  "  Sidonia "  {Od. 
 xiii.  285).  One  point,  however,  in  the  Homeric 
 poems  deserves  to  be  specially  noted  concerning 
 the  Sidonians,  that  they  are  never  here  mentioned 
 as  traders,  or  praised  for  their  nautical  skill,  for 
 which  they  were  afterwards  so  celebrated  (Herod, 
 vii.  4-t,  96).  The  traders  are  invariably  known  liy 
 the  general  name  of  Phoenicians,  which  would, 
 indeed,  include  the  Sidonians;  but  still  the  special 
 praise  of  Sidonians  was  as  skilled  workmen.  ^Vllen 
 Achilles  distributed  prizes  at  the  games  in  honor 
 of  Patroclus,  he  gave  as  the  prize  of  the  swiftest 
 runner,  a  large  silver  bowl  for  mixing  wine  with 
 water,  which  had  been  cunningly  made  by  the  skill- 
 ful Sidonians,  but  which  Phcenicians  had  brought 
 over  the  sea  [11.  xxiii.  743,  74-1:).  And  when 
 Menelaus  wished  to  give  to  Telemachus  what  was 
 most  beautiful  and  most  valuable,  he  presented 
 him  with  a  similar  mixing-bowl  of  silver,  with 
 golden  rim,  a  divine  work,  the  work  of  Ilephajstus, 
 which  had  been  a  gift  to  Menelaus  himself  from 
 Phtedimus,  king  of  the  Sidonians  (  Od.  iv.  614-018, 
 and  Od.  XV.  I.  c).  And  again,  all  the  beautifully 
 embroidered  robes  of  Andromache,  from  which  she 
 selected  one  as  an  oft'ering  to  Athene,  were  the  pro- 
 ductions of  Sidoniaii  women,  which  Paris,  when 
 coming  to  Troy  with  Helen,  had  brought  from 
 Sidonia  {II.  vi.  289-295).  But  in  no  case  is  any- 
 thing mentioned  as  having  been  brought  from 
 Sidon  in  Sidoniaii  vessels  or  by  Sidonian  sailors. 
 Perhaps  at  this  time  the  Phoenician  vessels  were 
 principally  fitted  out  at  sea-ports  of  Phoenicia  to 
 the  north  of  Sidon. 
 
 From  the  time  of  Solomon  to  the  invasion  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  Zidon  is  not  often  directly  men- 
 tioned in  the  Bible,  and  it  appears  to  have  been 
 subordinate  to  Tyre.  When  the  people  called 
 "  Zidonians "  is  mentioned,  it  sometimes  seems 
 that  the  Phoenicians  of  the  plain  of  Zidon  are 
 meant,  as,  for  example,  when  Solomon  said  to 
 Hiram  that  there  was  none  among  the  Jews  that 
 could  skill  to  hew  timber  like  the  Zidonians  (1  K. 
 V.  6 ) ;  and  possibly,  when  Ethbaal,  the  father  of 
 Jezebel,  is  called  their  king  (1  K.  xvi.  31),  who, 
 according  to  Menander  in  Josephus  {Anl.  viii.  13, 
 §  2),  was  king  of  the  Tyrians.  This  may  likewise 
 be  the  meaning  when  Ashtoreth  is  called  the  God- 
 dess, or  Abomination,  of  the  Zidonians  (1  K.  xi. 
 5,  33;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  or  when  women  of  the 
 Zidonians  are  mentioned  in  reference  to  Solomon 
 (1  K.  xi.  1).  And  this  seems  to  be  equally  true 
 of  the  phrases,  "  daughter  of  Zidon,"  and  "mer- 
 chants of  Zidon,''  and  even  once  of  "  Zidon  "  it- 
 lelf  (Is.  xxiii.  2,  4,  12)  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah 
 against  Tyre.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that 
 Zidon  itself,  the  city  properly  so  called,  was  threat- 
 ened by  Joel  (iii.  4)  and  .Jeremiah  (xxvii.  3). 
 Still,  all  that  is  known  respecting  it  during  this 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 3627 
 
 epoch  is  very  scanty,  amounting  to  scarcely  more 
 than  that  one  of  its  sources  of  gain  was  trade  in 
 slaves,  in  which  the  inhabitants  did  not  shrink 
 from  selling  inhabitants  of  Palestine  [Ph<eni- 
 CiANS,  iii.  2518  b]  ;  that  the  city  was  governed  by 
 kings  ( Jer.  xxvii.  3  and  xxv.  22 ) ;  that,  previous 
 to  the  invasion  of  Nebucliadnezzar,  it  had  fur- 
 nished mariners  to  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii.  8);  that,  atone 
 period,  it  was  suliject,  in  some  sense  or  other,  to 
 Tyre;  and  that,  when  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria 
 invaded  Phoenicia,  Zidon  seized  the  opportunity  to 
 revolt.  It  seems  strange  to  hear  of  the  sulijection 
 of  one  great  city  to  another  great  city  only  twenty 
 miles  off,  inhabited  by  men  of  the  same  race,  lan- 
 guage, and  religion ;  but  the  fact  is  rendered  con- 
 ceivable by  the  relation  of  Athens  to  its  allies  after 
 the  Persian  war,  and  by  the  history  of  the  Italian 
 republics  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  not  improb- 
 ble  that  its  rivalry  with  Tyre  may  have  been  in- 
 fluential in  inducing  Zidon,  more  than  a  century 
 later,  to  submit  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  apparently 
 without  offering  any  serious  resistance. 
 
 During  the  Persian  domination,  Zidon  seems  to 
 have  attained  its  highest  point  of  prosperity;  and 
 it  is  recorded  that,  towards  the  close  of  that  period, 
 it  far  excelled  all  other  Pluenician  cities  in  wealth 
 and  importance  (Diod.  xvi.  44;  Mela,  i.  12).  It 
 is  very  probable  that  the  long  siege  of  Tyre  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar  had  tended  not  only  to  weaken 
 and  impoverish  Tyre,  but  likewise  to  enrich  Zidon 
 at  the  expense  of  Tyre ;  as  it  was  an  obvious  ex- 
 pedient for  any  Tjrian  merchants,  artisans,  and 
 sailors,  who  deemed  resistance  useless  or  unwise,  to 
 transfer  their  residence  to  Zidon.  However  this 
 may  be,  in  the  expedition  of  Xerxes  against  Greece, 
 the  Sidonians  were  highly  favored,  and  were  a 
 preiiminently  important  element  of  his  naval  power.. 
 When,  from  a  hill  near  Abydos,  Xerxes  witnessed 
 a  boat-race  in  his  fleet,  the  prize  was  gained  by 
 the  Sidonians  (Herod,  vii.  44).  When  he  reviewed 
 his  fleet,  he  sat  beneath  a  golden  canopy  in  a 
 Sidonian  galley  (vii.  100);  when  he  wished  to 
 examine  the  mouths  of  the  river  Peneus,  he  in- 
 trusted himself  to  a  Sidonian  galley,  as  was  his 
 wont  on  similar  occasions  (vii.  128);  and  when 
 the  tyrants  and  general  officers  of  his  great  expedi- 
 tion sat  in  order  of  honor,  the  king  of  the  Sidonians 
 sat  first  (viii.  67).  Again,  Herodotus  states  that 
 the  Phcenicians  supplied  the  best  vessels  of  the 
 whole  fleet;  and  of  the  Phoenicians,  the  Sidonians 
 (vii.  96).  And  lastly,  as  Homer  gives  a  vivid  idea 
 of  the  beauty  of  Achilles  by  saying  that  Nireus 
 (thrice-named)  was  the  most  beautiful  of  all  the 
 Greeks  who  went  to  Troy,  afia-  the  son  of  Peleus, 
 so  Herodotus  completes  the  triumph  of  the  Sido- 
 nians, when  he  praises  the  vessels  of  Artemisia 
 (probably  for  the  daring  of  their  crews),  by  saying 
 that  they  were  the  most  renowned  of  the  whole 
 fleet,  ^^  aj'ter  the  Sidonians  "  (vi.  9). 
 
 The  prosperity  of  Sidon  was  suddenly  cut  short 
 by  an  unsuccessful  revolt  against  Persia,  which  led 
 to  one  of  the  most  disastrous  catastrophes  recorded 
 in  history.  Unlike  the  siege  and  capture  of  Tyre 
 by  Alexander  the  Great,  which  is  narrated  by  sev- 
 eral writers,  and  which  is  of  commanding  interest 
 through  its  relation  to  such  a  renowned  conqueror, 
 the  fate  of  Sidon  is  only  known  through  the  his- 
 tory of  Diodorus  (xvi.  42-45),  and  is  mainly  con- 
 nected with  .Irtaxerxes  Ochus  (n.  C.  359-338),  a 
 monarch  who  is  justly  regarded  with  mingled  aver- 
 sion and  contempt.  Hence  tlie  calamitous  over- 
 throw of  Sidon  has  not,  perhaps,  attracted  so  much 
 
3628 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 attention  as  it  deserves.  The  principal  circum- 
 stances were  these.  While  the  Persians  were  mak- 
 ing preparations  in  Phcenicia  to  j>ut  down  the  revolt 
 in  I'^irvpt,  some  Persian  satraps  and  generals  be- 
 haved ii[)pressively  and  insolently  to  Sidonians  in 
 the  Sidonian  division  of  the  city  of  Tripolis." 
 On  this,  the  Sidonian  people  projected  a  revolt; 
 and  having  first  concerted  arrangements  with  other 
 Phcenician  cities,  and  made  a  treaty  with  Nectane- 
 bus,  they  put  their  designs  into  execution.  They 
 conmienced  hy  conmiitting  outrages  in  a  residence 
 and  park  {irapdofiffos)  of  the  Persian  king;  they 
 burnt  a  large  store  of  fodder  which  had  lieen  col- 
 lected fur  tlie  Persian  cavalry;  and  they  seized  and 
 put  to  deatii  the  Persians  who  had  lieen  guilty  of 
 insults  towards  the  Sidonians.  Afterwards,  under 
 their  King  Tennes,  with  the  assistance  from  Egypt 
 of  4,000  (ireek  mercenaries  under  Mentor,  they 
 expelled  the  Persian  satraps  from  Phcenicia;  tiiey 
 strengthened  the  defenses  of  their  city,  they 
 equipped  a  fleet  of  100  triremes,  and  prepared  for 
 a  desperate  resistance.  But  their  King  Tennes 
 proved  a  traitor  to  their  cause  —  and  in  peribrni- 
 ance  of  a  compact  with  Ochus,  he  betrayed  into 
 the  king's  power  one  hundred  of  the  most  dis- 
 tinguished citizens  of  Sidon,  who  were  all  shot  to 
 death  with  javelins.  Five  hundred  other  citizens, 
 who  went  ont  to  tiie  king  with  ensigns  of  supplica-: 
 tion,  shared  the  same  fete;  and  by  concert  between 
 Tennes  and  jlentor,  the  Persian  troops  were  ad- 
 mitted within  the  gates,  and  occupied  the  city 
 walls.  The  Sidonians,  before  the  arrival  of  Ochus, 
 had  bunit  their  \essels  to  prevent  any  one"s  leav- 
 ing the  town;  and  when  they  saw  themselves  sur- 
 rounded by  the  Persian  troops,  they  adopted  the 
 desperate  resolution  of  shutting  tlieniselves  up  with 
 their  families,  and  setting  fire  each  man  to  his 
 own  house  (b.  c.  351).  Forty  thousand  persons 
 are  said  to  have  perished  in  the  flames.  TeuTies 
 himself  did  not  save  his  own  life,  as  Ochus,  not- 
 withstanding his  promise  to  the  contrary,  put  him 
 to  death.  The  privilege  of  searching  the  ruins 
 was  sold  for  money. 
 
 After  this  dismal  tragedy,  Sidon  gradually  re- 
 covered from  the  blow;  fresh  immigrants  from 
 other  cities  must  have  settled  in  it;  and  probalily 
 many  Sidonian  sailors  survived,  who  had  Iieen  ply- 
 ing their  trade  elsewhere  in  merchant  vessels  at  the 
 time  of  the  capture  of  the  city.  The  battle  of  Is- 
 sus  was  fought  about  eighteen  years  afterwards  (u. 
 C.  3.j3),  and  then  the  inhabitants  of  the  restored 
 city  opened  their  gates  to  Alexander  of  their  own 
 accord,  from  hatred,  as  is  expressly  statetl,  of  Da- 
 rius and  the  Persians  (Arrian,  Anab.  Al.  ii.  15). 
 The  impolicy,  as  well  as  the  cruelty  of  Ochus  in 
 his  mode  of  dealing  with  the  revolt  of  Sidon  now 
 became  apparent;  for  the  Sidonian  fleet  in  joining 
 Alexander  was  an  essential  element  of  his  success 
 against  Tyre.  After  aiding  to  bring  upon  Tyre  as 
 great  a  calamity  as   had  afflicted  their  own  city. 
 
 ZIDON 
 
 they  were  so  far  merciful  that  they  saved  the  lives 
 of  many  Tyrians  by  concealing  them  in  their  slups, 
 and  then  transporting  them  to  Sidon  (Q.  Cm-tius, 
 iv.  4,  15).  From  this  time  Sidon,  being  dependent 
 on  the  fortunes  of  war  in  the  contests  lietween  the 
 successors  of  Alexander,  ceases  to  play  any  impor- 
 tant political  part  in  history.  It  became,  however, 
 again  a  flourisiiing  town — and  Polyl)ius  (v.  70) 
 incidentally  mentions  that  Antiochus  in  his  war 
 with  Ptolemy  Philopator  encamped  over  against 
 Sidon  (b.  c.  218),  but  did  not  venture  to  attack  it 
 from  tiie  abundance  of  its  resources,  and  the  great 
 number  of  its  inhabitants,  either  natives  or  refu- 
 gees. Subsequently,  according  to  Josephus  (Anl. 
 xiv.  10,  §  2),  Julius  Caesar  wiote  a  letter  respecting 
 Hyrcanus,  which  he  addressed  to  the  "  Matjis- 
 irates,  Council,  and  Demos  of 'Sidon.''''  This  shows 
 that  up  to  that  time  the  Sidonians  enjoyed  the 
 forms  of  liberty,  though  Dion  Oassius  says  (Ixiv. 
 7)  that  Augustus,  on  his  arrival  in  tlie  luist,  de- 
 prived them  of  it  for  seditious  conduct.  Not  long 
 after,  Strabo,  in  his  account  of  Phcenicia,  says  of 
 Tyre  and  Sidon,  "  Both  were  illustrious  and  S(ilen- 
 did  formerly,  (ind  now ;  but  which  should  be  called 
 the  capital  of  Phoenicia,  is  a  matter  of  dispute  be- 
 tween the  inhabitants  "  (xvi.  p  750).  He  adds  that 
 it  is  situated  on  the  main-land,  on  a  fine  naturally- 
 formed  harbor.  He  speaks  of  the  inhabitants  as 
 cultivating  the  sciences  of  arithmetic  and  astron- 
 omy; and  says  that  the  best  opportunities  were  af- 
 forded in  Sidon  for  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  these 
 and  of  all  other  branches  of  philosophy.  He  adds, 
 that  in  his  time  there  were  distinguislied  philoso- 
 phers, natives  of  Sidon,  as  Boethus,  with  wliom  he 
 studied  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  and  his  lirother 
 Diodotus.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  both  these 
 names  were  Greek;  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  that 
 in  Strabo's  time,  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
 educated  classes  at  least,  both  in  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
 This  is  nearly  all  that  is  known  of  the  state  of  Si- 
 don when  it  was  visited  by  Christ.  It  is  about 
 fifty  miles  distant  from  Nazareth,  and  is  the  most 
 northern  city  which  is  mentioned  in  connection 
 with  his  journeys.  Pliny  notes  the  manufacture  of 
 glass  at  Sidon  [Hist.  Nat.  v.  17,  I'J);''  and  during 
 tlie  Roman  period  we  may  conceive  Tyre  and  Si- 
 don as  two  thriving  cities,  each  having  an  exten- 
 sive trade,  and  each  having  its  staple  manufacture; 
 the  latter  of  glass,  and  Tyre  of  purple  dyes  from 
 shell-fish. 
 
 There  is  no  Biblical  reason  for  following  mi- 
 nutely the  rest  of  the  history  of  Sidon.  It  shared 
 generally  the  fortunes  of  Tyre,  with  the  exception 
 that  it  was  several  times  taken  and  retaken  during 
 the  wars  of  the  Crusades,  and  suffered  accordingly 
 more  than  Tyre  previous  to  the  fatal  year  121)1  A. 
 D.  Since  that  time  it  never  seems  to  have  fellen 
 quite  so  low  as  Tyre.  Through  Fakhr  ed-Din, 
 emir  of  the  Druses  between  1504  and  1634,  and 
 the  settlement   at    Sayda  of  French    commercial 
 
 a  In  an  excellent  account  of  this  revolt,  Bp.  Thirl- 
 •wall  seems  to  have  regarded  Diodorus  as  meaning 
 Sidon  itself  by  the  words  iv  rri  'ZiSiovioiv,  xvi.  41  (His- 
 tory of  lirecce,  vi.  179) ;  and  Miot,  iu  his  French  trans- 
 lation of  Diodorus  (Bibliotlicque.  Historique  cle  Dioc/ore 
 de  Sidle,  Paris.  1837,  torn.  v.  73).  actually  translates 
 the  words  by  ''  Sidou.''  The  real  meaning,  however, 
 seems  to  be  as  stated  in  the  text.  Indeed,  otherwise 
 there  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  mentioning  Tripolis 
 as  specially  connected  with  the  causes  of  the  war. 
 b  Pliny  elsewhere.  {Hist.  Nat,  xxxvi.  65  [26])  gives 
 
 an  account  of  the  supposed  ■  accidental  invention  of 
 glass  in  Phoenicia.  The  story  is  that  some  merchants 
 on  the  fea-shore  made  use  of  some  lumps  of  natron  to 
 support  their  cauldrons  ;  and  that,  when  the  natron 
 was  subjected  to  the  action  of  fire  in  conjunction  with 
 the  sea  sand,  a  translucent  vitreous  stream  was  seen 
 to  flow  along  the  ground.  This  story,  however,  is 
 now  discredited  ;  as  it  requires  intense  furnace  heat 
 to  produce  the  fusion.  .See  article  "  Glass  "  in  the 
 Eiicyr.lopmdia  Britannica,  8th  edition. 
 
ZIDON 
 
 houses,  it  had  a  revival  of  trade  in  the  17th  and 
 part  of  the  18th  century,  and  became  the  principal 
 city  on  the  Syrian  coast  for  commerce  between  the 
 east  and  the  west  (see  Memuires  du  Clitvulier 
 d'Aivieux,  Paris,  1735,  torn.  i.  p.  294-370).  This 
 was  put  an  end  to  at  tlie  close  of  last  century  by 
 violence  and  oppression  (Ritter"s  KnUcuutte.  sieb- 
 zehnter  Theil,  erste  Alitheilung,  drittes  Buch,  pp. 
 405,  4()G),  closing  a  period  of  prosperity  in  which 
 the  population  of  the  city  was  at  one  time  esti-  j 
 mated  at  20,0(10  inhabitants.  The  population,  if 
 it  ever  appioaehed  sucii  a  high  point,  has  since  ; 
 materially  decreased,  and  apparently  does  not  now  | 
 exceed  5,000 ;  but  the  town  still  shows  signs  of ' 
 former  wealth,  and  the  houses  are  better  con- 
 structed and  more  solid  than  those  at  Tyre,  being 
 many  of  them  liuilt  of  stone.  Its  chief  exports  are 
 silk,  cotton,  and  nutsralls  (IJobinson's  Biblical  Ru- 
 seai-dits,  iii.  418,  419).  As  a  protection  against 
 the  Turks,  its  ancient  harbor  was  filled  up  with 
 stones  and  earth  l)y  the  orders  of  Fakhr  ed-Uin,  so 
 that  only  small  boats  can  now  enter  it ;  and  larger 
 vessels  anchor  to  the  northward,  where  they  are 
 only  protected  from  the  south  and  east  winds 
 (Porter's  Handbook  fo}-  Sijriii  (i}id  Pulcsline,  1858, 
 p.  398).  Tlie  trade  between  Syria  and  ICurope 
 now  mainly  passes  through  Beyrout,  as  its  most 
 important  commercial  centre;  and  the  natural  ad- 
 vantages of  Beyrout  in  this  respect,  for  the  pur- 
 poses of  modern  navigation,  are  so  decided  that  it 
 is  certain  to  maintain  its  present  superiority  over 
 Sidon  and  Tyre. 
 
 In  conclusion  it  may  be  observed,  that  wliile  in 
 our  own  times  no  important  remains  of  antiquity 
 have  been  discovered  at  or  near  Tyre,  the  case  is 
 different  with  Sidon.  At  the  base  of  the  moun- 
 tains to  the  east  of  the  town  there  are  numerous 
 sepulchres  in  the  rock,  and  there  are  likewise  se- 
 pulchral caves  in  the  adjoining  plain  (see  Porter, 
 Encijclop.  Brltiinri.  1.  c).  "  In  January,  1855," 
 says  Mr.  Porter,  "  one  of  the  sepulchral  caves  was 
 accidentally  o|jened  at  a  spot  about  a  mile  S.  E.  of 
 the  city,  and  in  it  was  discovered  one  of  the  most 
 beautiful  and  interesting  Phoenician  monuments  iu 
 existence.  It  is  a  sarcophagus  .  .  .  .the  lid  of 
 which  was  hewn  in  the  form  of  a  mummy  with  tlie 
 face  bare.  Upon  the  upper  part  of  the  lid  is  a  per- 
 fect Phoenician  inscription  in  twenty-two  lines,  and 
 on  tlie  head  of  the  sarcophagus  itself  is  another  al- 
 most as  long."  Tins  sarcophagus  is  now  in  the 
 Nineveh  division  of  tlie  Sculptures  in  the  Louvre. 
 At  first  s'ght,  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed 
 may  1  e  e:isily  mistaken  ;  and  it  has  been  supposed 
 to  be  lilack  marl  le.  On  the  authority,  however, 
 of  Jl.  Snchard  of  Paris,  who  has  e.Kamined  it  very 
 closely,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  sarcophagus  is  of 
 black  syenite,  whicli,  as  far  as  is  known,  is  more 
 abundant  in  Egypt  than  elsewhere.  It  may  be 
 addeii  that  the  features  of  the  countenance  on  the 
 lid  are  decidedly  of  the  Egyptian  type,  and  the 
 head-dress  is  Eg\ptian,  with  the  head  of  a  bird 
 sculptured  on  what  might  seem  the  place  of  the 
 right  and  lelt  shoulder.  There  can  therefore  be 
 little  reason  to  doulit  that  this  sarcophagus  was 
 either  made  in  Eii,\i)t  and  sent  thence  to  Sidon,  or 
 that  it  was  made  in  I'hoenicia  in  imitation  of  simi- 
 lar works  o(  art  in  ICtrypt.  The  inscriptions  theui- 
 selves  are  the  longest  I'hcenician  inscriptions  which 
 
 ziDONiANS  3629 
 
 have  come  down  to  our  times.  A  translation  of 
 them  was  published  by  Professor  Dietrich  at  Mar- 
 burg iu  1855,  and  by  Professor  Ewakl  at  Giittingen 
 in  1856."  The  predominant  idea  of  them  seems  to 
 he  to  warn  all  men,  under  penalty  of  the  monarch's 
 curse,  against  opening  his  sarcophagus  or  disturliing 
 his  repose  for  any  purpose  whatever,  especially  in 
 order  to  search  for  treasures,  of  wiiicli  he  solemnly 
 declares  there  are  none  in  his  tomb.  Tlie  king's 
 title  is  "  Kins  of  the  Sidonians  ";  and,  as  is  the 
 case  with  Ethbaal,  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Kings 
 (1  K.  xvi.  31),  there  must  remain  a  certain  doubt 
 whether  this  was  a  title  ordinarily  assumed  by 
 kings  of  Sidon,  or  whether  it  had  a  wider  signifi- 
 cation. AV^e  learn  from  the  inscription  that  the 
 king's  mother  was  a  priestess  of  Ashtoreth.  With 
 regard  to  the  precise  date  of  the  king's  reign,  there 
 does  not  seem  to  be  any  conclusive  indication. 
 Ewald  conjectures  that  he  reigned  not  long  before 
 the  11th  century  u.  C.  E.  T. 
 
 a  *  The  translation  of  this  epitaph  by  Mr.  Deutsch 
 of  the  Uiitisli  Museum,  on  the  basis  of  that  of  Muuk 
 
 Coin  of  Zidon. 
 
 *  Ziuox  or  Sidon  has  points  of  contact  also 
 with  the  N.  Testament.  The  Saviour  himself  in 
 all  probability  visited  that  city  (certainly  if  we  read 
 5ia  SiScit'o?,  Mark  vii.  31,  according  to  the  best 
 oiiinion).  and  at  all  events  passed  near  it  in  his  ex- 
 cursion across  the  soutliern  spur  of  Lebanon  and 
 back  tlience  into  Uecapolis  (Matt.  xv.  21  ff. ;  Mark 
 vii.  24  If).  The  Apostle  Paul  touched  at  this  port 
 on  his  voyage  to  Home,  and  found  Christians  there 
 whom  the  courtesy  of  .Julius  permitted  him  to  visit 
 (.\cts  xxvii.  3).  Very  possibly  a  church  had  ex- 
 isteil  there  from  the  time  of  the  dispersion  of  the 
 disciples  from  Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  Stephen, 
 some  of  whom  went  into  Phoenicia  (Acts  xi.  19). 
 
 Among  the  antiquities  of  Zidon  may  Ije  men- 
 tioned "  the  immense  stones  which  form  the  north- 
 west angle  of  the  inner  harbor,  each  one  some  ten. 
 feet  square  ....  and  columns,  sarcophagi,  broken 
 statuary,  and  other  evidences  of  a  great  city  found 
 everywhere  in  the  gardens,  with  the  oldest  trees 
 growing  in  a  fertile  soil  many  feet  thick  above 
 them  "  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  i.  154  f.). 
 Greek  and  Roman  coins  are  not  uncommon,  having 
 on  them  the  commercial  emblem  of  a  ship.  Zidon 
 has  become  in  our  own  day  the  seat  of  a  flourishing 
 mission  from  this  country,  with  outposts  at  various 
 points  in  that  part  of  Syria.  H. 
 
 ZIDO'NIANS  C"?'"^?,  Ez.  xxxii.  30,  D'^3'T^^, 
 
 r:^p''n''!J,    D^Sll*,     and    once    (1    K.    xi.    33) 
 
 ^''p'!^'" :  SiSwvioi,  [Vat.  SeiSoJciot,]  exc.  Ez. 
 xxxii.  30,  (TTi)aT-i)'yo\  'Aaffovp-  Sldoiiii,  exc.  Ez. 
 xxxii.  30,  veniil(tres).  The  inhabitants  of  Zidon. 
 They  were  among  the  nations  of  Canaan  left  to 
 practice  the  Israelites  in  the  art  of  war  (Judg.  iii.  3)^ 
 
 and  Levy  (inserted   in   Kitto's    Bibl.  Cijcloprp.dia,  ii: 
 1161),  is  uo  doubt  as  trustworthy  as  any  other.     U. 
 
3630 
 
 ZIF 
 
 and  colonies  of  tlieiii  appear  to  have  spread  up  into 
 the  hill  country  from  Lebanon  to  Misrephoth-niaim 
 (Josh.  xiii.  4,  6),  whence  in  later  times  they  hewed 
 cedar-trees  for  David  and  Solomon  (1  t'hr.  xxii.  4). 
 They  oppressed  the  Israelites  on  their  first  entrance 
 into  the  country  (.ludg.  x.  12),  and  appear  to  have 
 lived  a  luxurious,  reckless  life  (Judg.  xviii.  7);  they 
 were  skillful  in  hewing  timber  (1  K.  v.  6),  and  were 
 employed  for  this  purpose  by  Solomon.  They  were 
 idolaters,  and  worshipped  Ashtoreth  as  their  tute- 
 lary goddess  (1  K.  xi.  5,  33;  2-K.  xxiii.  13),  as 
 well  as  the  sun-god  Baal,  from  whom  their  king  was 
 named  (1  K.  xvi.  31).  The  term  Zidonians  among 
 the  Hebrews  appears  to  have  been  extended  in 
 meaning  as  that  of  Phoenicians  among  the  Greeks. 
 
 In  Ez.  xxxii.  30,  the  Vulgate  read  D'^^^l*',   the 
 
 LXX.    probably  "ItS^S    '^nW,  for  "ItTH   '^2^*2. 
 
 Zidonian  women  (n"1*3"7r?  •  '2vpai-  Sidu?itce)  were 
 in  Solomon's  harem  (1  K.  xi.  1). 
 
 ZIF«  ("IT  [bloom]:  [Rom.  Ziov;  Vat.]  veiaai; 
 Alex.  Zeiov.  Xio),  1  K.  vi.  37.     [Month.] 
 
 ZI'HA  (Sn*'^  [dry,  thirsty]:  IXovdla,  :S,7]d; 
 Alex.  Souaa,  5ioa:  SUia,  Sohn).  1.  The  chil- 
 dren of  Ziha  were  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  re- 
 turned with  Zerubliabel  (Ezr.  ii.  43;  Neh.  vii.  40). 
 
 2.  (Vat.  [Kom.  Alex.  FA.i]  omit;  [FA.-*]  2iaa: 
 Soali((.)  Chief  of  the  Nethinim  in  Ophel  (Neh. 
 xi.  21).  The  name  is  probably  that  of  a  family, 
 and  so  identical  witii  the  preceding. 
 
 ZIK'LAG  (3b|72  and  twiceObp^^J  [nwind- 
 inr/,  brndinr/,  Fiirst]  :  Se/ceAaw,  once  SireeAaK;  in 
 Chr.  [Vat.]  Soj/cAa,  20)7X0^;  Alex.  XiKeAay,  Init 
 also  2(KfA.€-y,  [SiK-eAa,]  Se/ceAa;  Joseph.  Se/feAa: 
 Sicelci/).  A  place  which  possesses  a  special  inter- 
 est from  its  having  been  the  residence  and  the  pri- 
 vate jiroperty  of  David.  It  is  first  mentioned  in 
 the  catalogue  of  the  towns  of  Judah  in  .Josh,  xv., 
 where  it  is.  enumerated  (ver.  31)  amongst  tliose  of 
 the  extreme  south,  between  Hormah  (or  Zephath ) 
 and  Madmannah  (possibly  Beth-niarcaboth ).  It 
 next  occurs,  in  the  same  cotmection,  amongst  the 
 places  which  were  allotted  out  of  the  teri-itory  of 
 Judah  to  Simeon  (xix.  5).  We  next  encounter  it 
 in  the  possession  of  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  xxvii. 
 6),  when  it  was,  at  David's  request,  bestowed  upon 
 him  by  Achish  king  of  Gath.  He  resided  there 
 for  a  year  c  and  four  months  (xxvii.  7,  xxx.  14,  2G ; 
 1  Chr.  xii.  1,  20).  It  was  there  he  received  the 
 news  of  Saul's  death  (2  Sara.  i.  1,  iv.  10).  He 
 then  relinquished  it  for  Hebron  (ii.  1 ).  Ziklag  is 
 finally  mentioned,  in  company  with  Beer-shelia,  Ha- 
 zar-shual,  and  other  towns  of  the  .south,  as  being 
 reinhabited  by  the  people  of  Judah  after  their  re- 
 turn from  the  Caj)tivity  (Neh.  xi.  28). 
 
 The  situation  of  the  town  is  ditticult  to  deter- 
 mine, notwithstanding  so  many  notices.  On  the 
 cue  hand,  that  it  w.as  in  "the  south''  {negeb) 
 seems  certain,  both  from  the  towns  named  with  it, 
 and  iilso  from  its  mention  with  "  the  south  of  the 
 Cherethites  "  and  "the  south  of  Caleb,"  some  of 
 whose  descendants  we  know  were  at  Ziph  and  Maon, 
 perhaps  even  at  Paran  (1  Sam.  xxv.  1).  On  the 
 other  hand,  this  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  its 
 connection  with  the  Philistines,  and  with  the  fact 
 
 n  The  only  instance  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  use  of  F  in 
 
 •  proper  name. 
 
 6*  1  Chr.  xii.  1  and  20. 
 
 ZILLAH 
 
 —  which  follows  from  the  narrative  of  1  Sam.  xxx 
 (see  9,  10,  21)  —  that  it  was  north  of  the  brook 
 Besor.  The  word  employed  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  5,  7, 
 11,  to  denote  the  region  in  which  it  stood,  is  pecul- 
 iar. It  is  not  li(is-Slu'J'd(th,  as  it  must  have  been 
 had  Ziklag  stood  in  the  ordinary  lowland  of  Philis- 
 tia,  hut  h(is-Sdde/i,  which  Professor  Stanley  {S.  <f 
 P.  App.  §  15)  renders  "  the  field."  On  the  whole, 
 though  the  temptation  is  strong  to  suppose  (as 
 some  have  suggested)  that  there  were  two  places  of 
 the  same  name,  the  only  conclusion  seems  to  be 
 that  Ziklag  was  in  the  south  or  Negeb  country, 
 with  a  portion  of  which  the  Philistines  had  a  con- 
 nection which  may  have  lasted  from  the  time  of 
 their  residence  there  in  the  days  of  Al)raham  and 
 Isaac.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  word  sadth  is 
 used  in  Gen.  xiv.  7,  lor  the  country  occupied  by 
 the  Amalekites,  which  seems  to  have  been  situated 
 far  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  or  near  Kadesh.  The 
 name  of  Paran  also  occurs  in  the  same  passage. 
 But  further  investigation  is  necessary  before  we  can 
 remove  the  residence  of  Nabal  so  far  south.  His 
 Maon  would  in  that  case  become,  not  the  J\[<nn 
 which  lies  near  Z//'and  KiiriinU,  but  that  which 
 was  the  headquarters  of  the  Alaonites,  or  Me- 
 hunim. 
 
 Ziklag  does  not  appear  to  have  been  known  to 
 Eusebius  and  Jerome,  or  to  any  of  tiie  older  trav- 
 ellers. JMr.  Rowlands,  however,  in  his  journey  from 
 Gaza  to  Suez  in  1842  (in  Williams's  //"///  C'dij,  i. 
 4G3-4G8)  was  told  of  "an  ancient  site  called  Asloudg, 
 or  Kasloodij,  with  some  ancient  walls,"  three  hours 
 east  of  Stbata,  which  again  was  two  hours  and  a 
 half  south  of  Klialnsii.  This  he  considers  as  iden- 
 tical with  Ziklag.  Dr.  Robinson  had  jireviously 
 (in  1838)  heard  of  ^ Aduj  as  lying  southwest  of 
 Milk,  on  the  way  to  Abddi  (Bibl.  Res.  ii.  201),  a 
 position  not  discordant  with  that  of  Mr.  Row- 
 lands. The  identification  is  supported  by  Mr. 
 Wilton  {jVegeb,  p.  209);  but  it  is  impossible  at 
 present,  and  until  further  investigation  into  the 
 district  in  question  has  been  made,  to  do  more  than 
 name  it.  If  Dr.  Robinson's  form  of  the  name  is 
 correct  —  and  since  it  is  repeated  in   the   Lists  of 
 
 Dr.  Eli  Smith   (_,,«,JLA«i£,  App.  to  vol.  iii.  of  1st 
 
 ed.  p.  115  rt)  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  this  —  the 
 similarity  which  prompted  Mr.  Rowlands's  con- 
 jecture almost  entirely  disappears  'i'his  will  be 
 evident  if  the  two  names  are  written  in    Hebrew, 
 
 2bp!J,  2bwv.  G. 
 
 ZIL'LAH  (nb!f  [shndow]:  2€K\d:  Sella). 
 One  of  the  two  wives  of  Lamech  the  Cainite,  to 
 whom  he  addressed  his  .song  (Gen.  iv.  19,  22,  23). 
 She  was  the  mother  of  Tubal-Cain  and  Naamah.  Dr. 
 Kalisch  (Comm.  on  Gen.)  regards  the  names  of  La- 
 mech's  wives  and  of  his  daughter  as  significant  of  the 
 transition  into  the  period  of  art  which  took  place  in 
 his  time,  and  the  corresponding  chainre  in  tlie  position 
 of  the  woman.  ''  Naamah  signifies  the  lovely,  beauti- 
 ful woman  ;  whilst  the  wife  of  the  first  man  was  sim- 
 ply Eve,  the  lifegiving.  .  .  .  The  women  were, 
 in  the  age  of  Lamech,  no  more  regarded  merely  as 
 the  propagators  of  the  human  family;  beauty  and 
 gracefulness  began  to  command  homage. 
 Even  the  wives  of  Lamech  manifest  the  transition 
 
 c  Josephus  (Ant.   vi.  13,  §  19)  gives   this  as  one 
 month  and  twenty  days. 
 
ZILPAH 
 
 into  this  epoch  of  beauty;  for  whilst  one  wife, 
 Zillali,  renjinds  still  of  assistance  and  protection 
 
 (H/^,  'shadow'),  the  other,  Adah,  bears  a 
 name  almost  synonymous  with  Naaniah,  and  like- 
 wise signifyins;  ornament  and  loveliness." 
 
 In  the  apocryphal  book  of  Jashar,  Adah  and 
 Zdlah  are  both  daughters  of  Cainan.  Adali  bare 
 cliildren,  but  Zillah  was  barren  till  her  old  age,  in 
 consequence  of  some  noxious  draught  which  her 
 luisliaud  gave  her  to  preserve  her  beauty  and  to 
 prevent  her  from  bearing.  W.  A.  VV. 
 
 ZIL'PAH  (nS^T  \<lrop?]:  [Zi\<p6.v.'\  ZeA- 
 <pi-  Zi'lji/ia).  A  Syrian  given  by  Laban  to  his 
 daughter  J>eah  as  an  attendant  (Gen.  xxix.  24), 
 and  by  Leah  to  Jacob  as  a  concubine.  She  was 
 the  mother  of  Gad  and  Asher  (Gen.  xxx.  9-13, 
 XXXV.  26,  xxxvii.  2,  xlvi.  18). 
 
 ZIL'THAI  [2syl.]  OO b^  [s/wr/?/] :  SoAafli ; 
 [Vat.  2aA06t;]  Alex.  SaAei:  tidethai).  1.  A 
 IJenjamite,  of  the  sons  of  Shindii  (1  Chr.  viii. 
 20). 
 
 2.  (2a/ia9i;  [Vat]  FA.  Se^afiei;  [Comp.  Aid. 
 '2,a\adi'-\  Hiiliitlii.)  One  of  the  captains  of  thou- 
 sands of  Alanasseh  who  deserted  to  Uavid  at  Zik- 
 lag  (1  Chr.  xii.  20). 
 
 ZIM'MAH  (nST  [pldii,  purpos(;'\:  Zafi/xdO; 
 [Vat.  Zefi/xa;]  Alex.  Za/i/ua  :  Z-uiwui).  1.  A 
 Gershoiute  Ltvite,  sonof  Jahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  20). 
 
 2.  (Za/xfidfj.;  [Alex.  Za/xfj.a;  Comp.  Aid.  Zefj.- 
 jxa-])  Anotlier  Gershonite,  son  of  Shiniei  (1 
 Chr.  vi.  42);  possibly  the  same  as  the  preceding. 
 
 3.  {Zefj.iJ.dd;  [Comp.  Aid.  Ze^/xa  :J  Ztmina.) 
 Father  or  ancestor  of  Joah,  a  Gershonite  in  the 
 reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  12).  At  a  much 
 earlier  period  we  find  the  same  collocation  of  names, 
 Zimmaii  and  .loah  as  father  and  son  (1  Chr.  vi.  20). 
 Compare  "  .Mahath  the  son  of  Aniasai "  in  2  Chr. 
 xxix.  12  with  the  same  in  1  Chr.  vi.  liS;  "Joel  the 
 son  of  Azariah  "  in  2  Chr.  xxix.  12  and  1  Chr.  vi. 
 iJU;  and  "  Kish  the  son  of  Abdi  "  2  Chr.  xxix.  12 
 with  "  Ivishi  the  son  of  Abdi  "in  1  Chr.  vi.  44. 
 Unless  these  names  are  the  names  of  families  and 
 not  of  individuals,  their  recurrence  is  a  little  re- 
 markable. 
 
 ZIM'RAN  iX^P*  [suDfj,  celebrated] :  Zofj.- 
 Ppau,  Zifx^pan  [Vat.  -pav]  ;  Alex.  *  "Zi^pav, 
 **  Ze/x^pay,  Ze/xpav'-  Ztmran,  \_7,(imr<tm']).  'I'lie 
 eldest  son  of  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  1  Chr.  i.  32). 
 His  descendants  are  not  mentioned,  nor  is  any  hint 
 given  tliat  he  was  the  founder  of  a  tribe:  the  con- 
 trary would  rather  appear  to  be  the  case.  Some 
 would  identify  Zimran  with  the  Zimri  of  Jer.  xxv. 
 25,  but  these  lay  too  far  to  the  north.  The  Greek 
 form  of  the  name,  as  found  in  the  LXX.,  has  sug- 
 gested a  comparison  with  Za^pd/j.,  the  chief  city  of 
 the  Cinaedocolpitas,  who  dwelt  on  the  Red  Sea, 
 west  of  Mecca.  But  this  is  extremely  doubtful,  for 
 this  tribe,  proliably  the  same  with  the  ancient 
 Keiidn,  was  a  branch  of  the  Joktanite  Arabs,  who 
 in  the  most  ancient  times  occupied  Yemen,  and 
 may  only  have  come  into  possession  of  Zabram  at 
 a  later  period  (Knobel,  Genesis).  Hitzig  and 
 Lengerke  propose  to  connect  the  name  Zimran  with 
 Zimiris,  a  district  of  Ethiopia  mentioned  by  Pliny 
 (xxxvi.  25);  but  Grotius,  with   more  plausibility, 
 
 ZIMRI 
 
 3631 
 
 a  The  word  is    ^IQ'lSl,   which  Ewald  (after  J.  D. 
 Michaelis),  both  here  and  in  2  K.  xv.  25,  insists  on 
 
 finds  a  trace  of  it  in  the  Zamereni,  a  trilie  of  the 
 interior  of  Arabia.  I'he  identification  of  Zimran 
 with  the  modern  Beni  Omran,  and  the  Bani  Zo- 
 maneis  of  Dic'lorus,  proposed  by  Mr.  Forster 
 (Ueni/r.  of . Arabia,  i.  431),  cannot  be  seriously 
 maintained.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 ZIM'RI  OT^^T  [*«"^)  '^'e/rte  of  sony]:  ZojU- 
 ^pi  [\'at.  -^pfi]  :  Znmbri).  1.  The  son  of  Salu, 
 a  Simeonite  cliieftain,  slain  by  Phinehas  with  the 
 Midianitish  princess  Cozbi  (Num.  xxv.  14).  When 
 the  Israelites  at  Shittim  were  snutten  with  plagues 
 for  their  impure  worshi|)  of  Baal-[)eor,  and  were 
 weeping  before  the  Tabernacle,  Zimri,  with  a  shame- 
 less disregard  to  his  own  higli  position  and  the 
 sufferings  of  his  tribe,  brought  into  their  presence 
 the  Midianitess  in  the  sight  of  Moses  and  in  the 
 sight  of  the  whole  congregation.  The  fierce  anger 
 of  Phinehas  was  aroused,  and  in  the  switl  ven- 
 geance with  which  he  pursued  the  offiinders,  lie 
 gave  the  first  indication  of  that  uncompromising 
 spirit  which  characterized  him  in  later  life.  The 
 wiiole  circumstance  is  much  softened  in  tiie  nar- 
 rative of  Josephus  {Ant.  iv.  6,  §§  U)-12),  and  in  the  , 
 hands  of  the  apologist  is  divested  of  all  its  vigor 
 and  point.  In  the  Targum  of  [I'seudo-]  Jonathan 
 ben  Uzziel  several  traditional  details  are  added. 
 Zimri  retorts  upon  Moses  tliat  he  himself  had 
 taken  to  wife  a  Midianitess,  and  twelve  miraculous 
 signs  attend  the  vengeance  of  I'hinehas. 
 
 In  describing  the  .scene  of  this  tragedy  an  un- 
 usual word  is  employed,  the  force  of  wliich  is  lost 
 in  the  rendering  "  tent "  of  the  A.  V.  of  Num. 
 xxv.  8.     It  was  not   the  ohel,  or  ordinary  tent  of 
 
 the  encampment,  but  the  HSp,  kubbali  (whence 
 Span,  alcuva,  and  out  alcove),  or  dome-shaped  tent, 
 to  which  Phinehas  pursued  his  victims.  Whether 
 this  was  the  tent  which  Zimri  occupied  as  chief  of 
 his  tribe,  and  which  was  in  consequence  more 
 elalwrate  and  highly  ornamented  than  the  rest,  or 
 whether  it  was,  as  Gesenius  suggests,  one  of  the 
 tents  which  the  Midianitess  used  for  the  worship  of 
 Peor,  is  not  to  be  determined,  though  the  latter  is 
 lavored  by  the  rendering  of  the  Vulg.  lupanar. 
 The  word  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  Hebrew.  In 
 the  Syriac  it  is  rendered  a  cell,  or  inner  apartment 
 of  the  tent.  W.  A.  W. 
 
 2.  C^I^^T  :  Zafx^pl  [Vat.  -$pei]  ;  Joseph.  Ant. 
 viii.  12,  §  5,  Za/j.dpr]s'.  Zambri.)  Fifth  sovereign 
 of  the  separate  kingdom  of  Israel,  of  which  he  oc- 
 cupied the  throne  for  the  brief  period  of  seven  days 
 in  the  year  b.  c.  930  or  929.  Originally  in  com- 
 mand of  half  the  chariots  in  the  royal  army,  he 
 gained  the  crown  by  the  murder  of  king  Klah  son 
 of  Baasha.  who,  after  reigning  for  sometiiing  more 
 than  a  year  (compare  1  K.  xvi.  8  and  10),  was  in- 
 dulging in  a  drunken  revel  in  the  house  of  his 
 steward  Arza  at  Tirzah,  then  the  capital.  In  the 
 midst  of  this  festivity  Zimri  killed  him,  and  im- 
 mediately afterwards  all  the  rest  of  Baasha's  family. 
 But  the  army  which  at  that  time  was  besieging  the 
 Philistine  town  of  Gibbethon,  when  they  heard  of 
 I'.lah's  murder,  jiroclaimed  their  general  Omri 
 king.  He  immediately  marched  against  Tirzah, 
 and  took  the  city.  Zimri  retreated  into  the  inner- 
 most part  of  the  late  king's  palace,"  set  it  on  fire 
 and    perished   in    the   ruins    (1     K.    xvj.    9-20). 
 
 translating  "  harem,"  with  which  word  he  thinks  that 
 it  is  etyniologically  connected,  and  hence  seeks  con- 
 tirmation   of   his  view   that  Zimri  was  a  voluptuous 
 
3632 
 
 ZIN 
 
 Ewald's  inference  from  Jezebers  speecli  to  Jehu  (2 
 K.  ix.  31),  that  on  Klah's  death  the  queen-mother 
 welcomed  his  murderer  with  smiles  and  blandisli- 
 ments,  seems  riitlier  arbitrary  and  far-fetched. 
 [Jkzkbel.]  G.  K.  L.  C. 
 
 3.  {Z'l/iiri.)  One  of  the  five  sons  of  Zerah  tlie 
 son  of  Judah  (1  (_'lir.  ii.  G). 
 
 4.  [Alex,  twice,  1  Chr.  viii.  36,  Za/^pt-']  Son 
 of  Jehoadah  and  descendant  of  Saul  (1  Chr.  viii. 
 30,  ix.  42). 
 
 5.  (Om.  in  LXX. :  Zamhri.)  An  obscure  name, 
 mentioned  (Jer.  xxv.  25)   iu  probable  connection 
 
 with  Dedan,  Tenia,  Buz,  Arabia  (3"^^),  the  min- 
 gled people  "  'ereb  ''  (3'^.^n),  all  of  which  im- 
 mediately precede  it,  besides  other  peoples;  and 
 followed  by  Elam,  the  Medes,  and  others.  The 
 passage  is  of  wide  compreliension,  but  the  reference, 
 as  indicated  above,  seems  to  be  a  tribe  of  the  sons 
 of  the  East,  the  lieni-Ivedem.  Nothing  further  is 
 known  respecting  Zimri,  but  it  may  possibly  be  the 
 same  as,  or  derived  from  Zimhan,  which  see. 
 
 E.  S.  P. 
 
 ZIN  Cl''^  \low  i)alm-tre€,  Ges.]:2iV;  [Vat. 
 Sell/;  Num.  xxvii.  14 a,  Alex.  '%iva\  Josh.  xv.  1,  Alex. 
 2i/j.;  Josli.  XV.  3,  Uom.  Alex.  2e)/a,  Vat.i  Ei'j/a/c,  2. 
 m.  QevvaK'  St".])  The  naiire  given  to  a  portion 
 of  the  desert  tract  between  the  iJead  Sea,  GbCr,  and 
 Arabah  (possibly  including  the  two  latter,  or  portions 
 of  them)  on  the  E.,  and  the  general  plateau  of  the 
 Till  which  stretches  westward.  The  country  in  ques- 
 tion consists  of  two  or  three  successive  terraces 
 of  mountain  converging  to  an  acute  angle  (like 
 stairs  where  there  is  a  turn  in  the  flight)  at  the 
 iJead  Sea's  southern  verge,  towards  which  also  they 
 slope.  Here  the  drainage  finds  its  chief  vent  by 
 the  W(uly  tl-Fikrth  into  the  Gliur,  the  reuiaining 
 waters  running  by  smaller  channels  into  the  Ara- 
 bah, and  ultimately  by  the  Wady  cl-Jeib  also  to 
 the  Ghor.  Judging  from  natural  features,  in  the 
 vagueness  of  authority,  it  is  likely  that  the  portion 
 between,  and  drained  by  these  wadies,  is  the  region 
 ill  question ;  but  where  it  ended  westward,  whether 
 at  any  of  the  above  named  terraces,  or  blending 
 imperceptibly  with  that  of  I'aran,  is  quite  uncer- 
 tain. Kadesh  lay  in  it,  or  on  this  imknown 
 boundary,  and  here  also  Idum*a  was  conterminous 
 with  Judah;  since  Kadesh  was  a  city  in  the  border 
 of  Edom  (see  Kauesii;  Num.  xiii.  21,  xx.  1,  xxvii. 
 14,  xxxiii.  30,  xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xv.  1).  The  re- 
 searches of  AVillianis  and  Rowlands  on  this  sub- 
 ject, although  not  conclusive  in  favor  of  tlie  site 
 el-Kuileis  for  the  city,  yet  may  indicate  that  the 
 "wilderness  of  Kades,"  which  is  indistinguishable 
 from  that  of  Zin,  follows  the  coarse  of  the  Wady 
 Murreh  westward.  The  whole  region  requires 
 further  research ;  but  its  difficulties  are  of  a  very 
 formidable  character.  Josephus  iAnt.  iv.  4,  §  6) 
 speaks  of  a  -'hill  called  Sin  "  (2iV),  where  Miriam, 
 who  died  in  Kadesh,  when  the  peo[)le  had  "  come 
 to  the  desert  of  Zin,"  was  buried.  This  "  Sin  " 
 of  Josephus  may  recall  the  name  Zin,  and,  being 
 apphed  to  a  hill,  may  perhaps  indicate  the  most 
 singular  and  wholly  isolated  conical  acclivity  named 
 Modtrah  {Madura,  or  Madara),  standini,'  a  little 
 S.  of  the  Wady  Fikreli,  near  its   outlet  into  the 
 
 ZION 
 
 Ghor.  This  would  precisely  agree  with  the  tract 
 of  country  above  indicated  (Num.  xx.  1,  Seetzen, 
 A'e/s(-w,  iii.  Hebron  to  Madara  ;  ^Viiton,  Ncijeb, 
 pp.  127,  134).  H.  H. 
 
 ZI'NA  (S3''t  [prob,  abundancel :  Zj^a:  Ziza). 
 ZiZAH  the  second  son  of  Shimei  (1  t'hr.  xxiii.  10, 
 comp.  11)    the   Gershonite.      One   of  Kennicott's 
 
 MSS.  reads  N^"'',  Ziza,  like  the  LXX.  and  Vulg 
 
 *  ZI'ON  (I'l"*?,  sunny,  from  Hn^  :  :s.i^p- 
 Vat.  2610)1',  exc.  Am.  i.  2,  and  21  jilaces  in  Psalms; 
 Sin.  or  EA.  2t(a>i'  in  Ps.  ii.  0.  xlviii.  2.  Ixix.  35, 
 Ixxxiv.  7,  Ixxxvii.  2,  5,  xcix.  2,  exlvii.  12,  cxlix  2;  Is. 
 i.  8,  iii.  16, 17,  viii.  18,  x.  32,  xii.  0,  xviii.  7,xxviii.  16, 
 xxxi.  4,  9,  xxxvii.  22,  xl.  9,  xli.  27,  Ii.  3,  11,  lix.  20, 
 Ixi.  3,  Ixiv.  10;  Jer.  xxvi.  18  (so  Alex.);  Joel  iii.  21; 
 Obad.  17;  Zech.  ii.  10,  ix.  13;  elsewhere  Zitof ;  in 
 Cant.  iii.  11  Vat.  and  Sin.  omit:  tiivn).  In  the 
 Apoc.  and  N.  T.  the  A.  V.,  following  the  Greek, 
 uses  Sion  as  a  variation  of  Zion  [Sign,  j\Iount, 
 2J ;  but  the  latter  is  an  essentially  difiereiit  name 
 from  theiib'/('«  of  Deut.  iv.  48  [Siox,  Mou^'t,  1]. 
 
 INIount  Zion  is  the  southern  terminus  and  west- 
 ern tongue  of  the  high  taljle-land,  or  doulJe  prom- 
 ontory, on  which  Jerusalem  was  built,  and  is  the 
 highest  of  its  iiills.  Elevated,  and  surrounded  by 
 deep,  trench-like  ravines  on  the  west,  south,  and 
 east,  with  a  deep  depression,  or  vallev,  in  the  r;dt;e 
 on  the  north,  it  was  a  position  of  great  natural 
 strength.  It  first  appears  in  sacred  history  as  a 
 stroni,'hold  of  the  Jebusites  who  hud  fortified  it, 
 and  who  held  possession  of  it  long  after  the  Israel- 
 ites had  gained  the  rest  of  the  territory  (Josh.  xv. 
 03).  It  was  assaulted  at  length,  and  captured  by 
 king  David  (1  Chr.  xi.  4-7),  who  built  both  a 
 palace  and  a  citadel  upon  it,  and  subsequently 
 brought  to  it  the  ark  of  the  Lord. 
 
 As  the  seat  not  only  of  reiral  dominion,  but  of 
 sacred  worship  until  the  Temple  was  built,  this  emi- 
 nence came  to  be  designated  as  the  ■'  holy  hill  of 
 Zion  "  (Ps.  ii.  0)  and  as  the  "  chosen  habitation  " 
 of  Jehovah  (Ps.  cxxii.  13),  and  this  naturally  led 
 to  its  employment  by  the  N.  T.  writers  as  a  type 
 of  heaven  (Ileb.  xii.  22;  liev.  xiv.  1).  It  being 
 the  royal  residence,  it  was  called  llie  City  of  Dovid 
 (2  Sam.  vi.  12);  and  its  prominence  in  the  city 
 led  to  the  frequent  use  of  its  name  as  the  synonym 
 of  Jerusalem  (Is.  x.  24);  as,  also,  to  the  designa- 
 tion of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  collectively,  as 
 Zion,  or  thedauyhter  oj'  Zion  (Is.  xlix.  14;  Ps.  ix. 
 14;  Zech.  ii.  10). 
 
 The  summit  of  the  ridiie  presented  a  broad  level 
 tract,  the  southern  portion  of  which  lies  outside 
 of  the  modern  walls.  This  is  now  occupied,  in 
 part,  by  the  cemeteries  of  different  Christian  sects, 
 including  the  Protestants,  and  nniong  them  is  the 
 stone  building,  once  a  Christian  church,  which 
 covers  the  traditional  site  of  the  sepulchre  of  king 
 David.  Sluslim  jealousy  has,  hitherto,  prevent-ed 
 a  thorouijh  exploration  of  the  locality.  A  part  of 
 this  i;round  has  been  cultivated  —  literally  iulfiU- 
 ing  the  remarkable  prediction  that  Zion  should  lie 
 "ploughed  like  a  field"  (Is.  xxvi.  18;  Jlic.  iii. 
 12).  Zion  was  a  natural  rocky  terrace,  and  hence 
 the  force  of  the  Scriptural  comparisons  which  asso- 
 ciate with  its  strong  foundations  the  safety  of  be- 
 
 slave  of  women.  But  its  root  seems  to  be  C~1S,  "  to  |  rather  than  "  a  harem."'  Ewald,  in  his  sketch  of 
 be  high  "  (Gesenius)  ;  and  in  other  passages,  e^i/ecially  Z""",  i^  P^-l^aP^  somewhat  led  astray  by  the  desire 
 Proy    xviii.    19,  the   meaning    is^'a    lofty   fortress,"  l^f  tiudiug  a  historical  paralUl  with  !,ardauapalus. 
 
ZION 
 
 lievers  and  the  stability  of  Christ's  Itiiigdom  (Is. 
 xxviii.  16). 
 
 Until  a  late  period,  the  site  of  Zion  was  un- 
 questioned. A  glance  at  the  ground  of  the  city, 
 or  at  a  plan  of  it,  shows  that  the  southwest  hill 
 was  tiie  kiri;est  and  most  important  of  the  hills  on 
 which  it  was  built.  The  position  of  this  hill  accords 
 so  fully  with  almost  all  the  traditional  and  histor- 
 ical notices  which  have  reached  us,  that  it  has  been 
 accepted  without  dissent  as  the  Zion  of  David.  A 
 few  years  since,  Mr.  Fei^usson  started  the  theory 
 that  Zion  was  identical  with  the  southeast  hill,  or 
 Moriah.  The  present  writer  in  a  precedina;  article 
 has  stated  the  grounds  of  dissent  from  this  view 
 (Jerus-VLKM,  ii.  Vo-jO-lo'-i'l ;  see  also  IJlbL  Sucra, 
 xxiv.  116-140). 
 
 Quite  lately,  still  another  theory,  as  novel,  has 
 been  started,   atiirming  the  identity  of  Zion  with 
 
 ZION 
 
 5633 
 
 Akra,  the  hill  on  the  north ;  and  this  we  will  briefly 
 examine  here.  (See  also  B'M.  Sacra,  xxvii.  565- 
 5fl'J.)  This  originated  with  Captain  Warren,  the 
 British  engineer  who  has  made  such  important  and 
 interesting  suljterranean  explorations  in  Jerusalem, 
 and  who  appears  to  have  enlivened  his  labors  below 
 liround  witii  historical  researches  above,  which  are 
 quite  independent  of  his  professional  work.  It  is 
 propounded  by  him  in  Quarta-lij  Slaleiiieiil,  No. 
 III.,  of  the  Palestine  Exploraliuii  Fum!,  under  the 
 title:  "  The  Comparative  Holiness  of  Jlounts  Zion 
 and  Moriah  "  (pp.  76-88).  It  is  expanded  and  de- 
 fended l)y  liev.  .John  Forbes,  LL.  1).,  Edinburgh,  in 
 the  Bi'A.  Sacra  (xxvii.  191-196).  Both  writers 
 concede  the  baselessness  of  Jlr.  Fergusson's  theory, 
 which  will  not,  probably,  be  put  forward  again; 
 and  the  new  theory,  we  apprehend,  will  be  is 
 transient. 
 
 PLAN"  01^ 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 (Palestine  Exploration  Fund.) 
 
 A  decisive  test  which  does  not  appear  to  have 
 occurred  to  these  writers,  is  the  ascertained  course 
 of  the  ancient  walls,  respecting  which  Josephus  has 
 given  us  the  desired  information.  He  says:  "  The 
 city  was  fortified  by  three  walls  wherever  it  was 
 not  encircled  by  impassable  valleys;  for  in  that 
 quarter  there  was  but  one  wall  "  (B.  J.  v.  I,  §  1). 
 He  then  describes  the  confiicuration  of  the  city,  — 
 its  hills  and  valleys, — and  in  the  next  section 
 traces  the  courses  of  these  walls,  respecting  the  first 
 and  oldest  of  which  there  is  no  dispute.  Beginning 
 at  Ilippicus,  on  the  north,  it  ran  southward,  and 
 then  eastward,  alonir  the  western  and  southern  l)i'ow 
 of  the  southwest  hill,  .and  thence  across  to  Ophel 
 and  the  eastern  side  of  the  Temple  on  Moriah.  The 
 latter  part  of  its  course  is  not  definitely  known ; 
 but  all  are  agreed  that  from  Hippiois  it  followed 
 the  brow  of  the  southwest  hill,  formins;.  with  the 
 deep  valleys  below,  ample  protection  in  this  quarter. 
 From  Ilip|iicns  eastward  this  wall  raTi  alon^;  the 
 northern  lirow  of  the  southwest  hill  to  the  Xystus, 
 an  open  place  on  the  eastern  crest  of  this  hill  op- 
 posite the  Temple,  and  thence  across    the  valley  to 
 
 the  \\'estern  side  of  the  Temple-area.  This  is  un- 
 disputed. And  this  part  of  the  first  and  oldest 
 wall,  from  Ilippicus  eastward,  was  the  stroncjest 
 wall  in  .Jerusalem,  and  the  last  which  was  taken  in 
 every  siege.  Josephus  descrilies  it  as  difficult  to  be 
 taken,  and  assigns  two  reasons.  The  first  is  its 
 natural  position,  built  on  the  l)row  of  a  hill;  and 
 recent  excavations  have  strikingly  confirmed  his 
 statement,  and  vindicated  Uoliinson's  theory  of  the 
 course  of  the  Tyropoeon  Valley,  disclosini;,  l)elow 
 the  present  surface,  depths  at  ditTerent  points  of 
 from  thirty  to  nearly  eighty  feet  aloni;  the  ancient 
 cliti"  (.hcuus.\LEM,  ii.  1221).  His  second  reason 
 is  the  extraordinary  strength  of  the  wall  itself, 
 throu'^h  the  zeal  which  David  and  Solomon  and 
 the  kings  who  succeeded  them  took  in  the  work 
 {H.  ./.  V.  4,  §  2).  All  are  ai;reed  that  this  oldest 
 and  strongest  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  protected 
 the  southwest  hill,  and  was  constructed  for  this 
 special  purpose.  This  part  of  the  city,  havins;  the 
 highest  area  and  the  most  precipitous  sides,  offered 
 the  strouijest  natural  advantages  for  defense;  and 
 king  David  and  his  successors  took  advantaue  of 
 
3634 
 
 ZION 
 
 its  natural  ijositidii.  and  threw  arnuiul    it  a   wall 
 wliicli  made  it  well  nigh  impreirnable. 
 
 Now,  the  advocates  of  the  new  theory  must  give 
 some  consistent  explanation  of  the  royal  zeal,  shown 
 through  successive  reigns,  in  fortifying  this  hroad 
 and  goodly  summit  'J'hey  take  painS  to  explain 
 that  Zion  was  not  an  isolated  fortress,  hut  included 
 aconsideralile  [)art  of  the  city  —  the  palace  of  the 
 king  and  the  dwellings  of  the  people;  and  the  u|)- 
 per  city  was,  confessedly,  larger  than  the  lower. 
 Tiie  most  commanding  spot  in  the  ca[)ital,  by  na- 
 ture and  art  Combined  made  the  most  secure,  and  of 
 anjple  extent,  withal,  — the  royal  palaces  (accord- 
 ing to  their  theory)  were  not  here;  the  royal  treas- 
 ures were  not  here;  the  royal  sepulchres  were  not 
 here;  the  citadel  was  not  here;  the  Tabernacle  and 
 the  ark  of  the  covenant,  before  the  building  of  the 
 Temple,  were  not  here;  and  the  wise  monarchs  of 
 Israel  fortified  this  elevated  quarter  of  their  capital, 
 until  it  could  iiid  defiance  to  almost  any  assault, 
 and  then  built  their  own  residence  outside  of  it, 
 looking  up  with  admiration  to  its  strong  bulwarks, 
 congratulating  the  inhabitants  who  dwelt  within 
 its  fastnesses,  but  depriving  themselves,  their  fami- 
 lies, and  their  possessions,  secular  and  sacred,  of 
 the  benefit  of  their  own  defenses! 
 
 There  succeede<l  a  period  of  prolonged  peace,  in 
 wiiich  the  monarch  could  have  his  summer  resi- 
 dence in  the  country,  and  build  a  palace  for  his 
 queen  in  the  unwalled  suburbs.  But  from  the  first 
 conquest  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  point  of  as 
 alisolute  security  as  possible;  and  what  conceiv.abie 
 j^oint  would  naturally  be  guarded  with  more  jealous 
 care  than  the  principal  seat  of  the  royal  family  • — 
 the  seat  of  empire?  For  a  considerable  period 
 (we  know  not  how  long)  the  wall  around  the  south- 
 west hill  was  the  onlij  wall  of  the  city.  Josephus 
 repeatedly  refers  to  it  as,  by  way  of  distinction, 
 "  the  old  wall."  And  the  interval  in  which  it 
 served  as  the  sole  protection  of  the  capital  was  not 
 a  season  of  peace,  but  a  period  of  incessant  war 
 with  the  trilies  and  nations  on  every  side  of  Israel. 
 And  when  new  walls  were  afterwards  erected,  new 
 defenses  were  added  to  this. 
 
 Capt.  Warren  says:  "  If  we  place  three  round 
 shot  close  together  we  have  a  rough  model  of  Jeru- 
 salem in  tlie  time  of  Solomon  —  the  shot  to  the 
 north  lieing  Mount  Zion;  that  to  the  southeast, 
 Monah  ;  and  that  to  the  southwest,  the  remainder 
 of  Jerusalem  "  (p.  81).  Accepting  this  "  model," 
 we  call  the  north  shot  Akra;  the  southeast,  Moriali; 
 and  the  southwest  (which  to  Warren  is  nameless), 
 Zion.  The  north  hill  was  subsequently  protected 
 on  its  exposed  side  by  a  strong  wall  —  the  second 
 wall  of  Josephus;  and  at  a  still  later  day,  in  the 
 reign  of  king  tlerod  Agrippa,  a  fourth  hill,  on  the 
 northeast  (liezetha),  was  protected  on  its  exposed 
 side  by  the  third  wall  of  Josephus.  Jerusalem  was 
 never  attacked  from  the  south.  The  point  of 
 menace  and  peril,  in  every  siege,  was  in  the  high- 
 lands on  the  north.  These  three  walls  on  the  north 
 were  successive  breastworks  against  a  foreign  Ibe. 
 Wlien  the  hill  represented  by  Warren's  north  shot 
 was  protected  by  one  wall,  the  southwest  hill  was 
 protected  by  two  walls;  when  the  former  was 
 protected  by  two,  the  latter  was  jirotected  by  three. 
 And  the  security  enjoyed  by  the  upper  city,  on  the 
 southwest  hill,  above  that  of  the  lower  city,  con- 
 sisted, besides  its  natural  defenses  on  the  south,  in 
 the  strength  of  the  old  wall  on  the  north,  in  the 
 constrnction  of  which  successive  kings  had  taken 
 an  enthusiastic  interest.     Consequently,  ^s  we  have 
 
 ZION 
 
 said,  this  part  of  Jerusalem  held  out  the  kngest  in 
 every  siege.  "  No  attack  or  api)n)ach  is  ever  de- 
 scribed as  made  against  the  iipjH  r  city  of  Zion  until 
 iiiter  the  besiegers  had  broken  through  the  second 
 wall,  and  had  thus  got  possession  of  the  luicer  city  " 
 (liob.  BibL  Uks.  18-52,  p.  214).  When  the  city 
 was  invested  by  Titus  after  he  had  stormed  and 
 carried  every  part  but  the  southwest  hill,  the  course 
 of  the  siege  is  thus  stated  by  Air.  Grove:  "The 
 upper  city,  higher  than  Aloriah,  inclosed  by  the 
 original  wall  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  on  all 
 ides  precipitous,  except  on  the  north,  where  it 
 was  defended  by  the  wall  and  towers  of  Herod,  was 
 
 till  to  be  taken It  took  eighteen  days 
 
 to  erect  the  necessary  works  for  the  siege.  The 
 four  legions  were  once  more  stationed  on  the  west 
 or  northwest  corner,  where  Herod's  palace  abut- 
 ted on  the  wall,  and  where  the  three  magnificent 
 and  impregnable  towers  of  Hippicus,  Phasaiilus,  and 
 Mariannie  rose  conspicuous.  This  was  the  main 
 attack"  (JiiuusALKM,  ii.  1307).  The  wall  thus 
 strengthened  by  Herod  for  the  protection  of  that 
 l)art  of  the  city  which  embraced  his  own  palace  was 
 the  old  wall,  which  ran  from  Hippicus  eastward  to 
 the  Xystus.  "The  interior  and  most  ancient  of 
 the  three  walls  on  the  north  was,  no  doubt,  the 
 same  wall  which  ran  along  the  northern  brow  of 
 Zion,"'  or  the  southwest  hill.  (Kob.  BibL  liis.  i. 
 413.)  For  whose  protection,  as  more  important 
 than  their  own,  was  this  wall  built  and  strength- 
 ened by  David  and  Solomon  and  their  immediate 
 successors  ? 
 
 The  reasons  ofli'ered  by  these  writers  for  their 
 hypothesis  are  not  based  on  recent  discoveries,  nor 
 are  they  new.  These  speculations  have  not  the 
 remotest  connection  with  Capt.  Warren's  explora- 
 tions in  Jerusalem.  The  argument  rests  mainly 
 on  two  or  three  passages  in  Josephus  and  the  first 
 book  of  Maccabees,  relating  to  the  Akra  or  castle 
 which  Antiochus  Kpiphanes  built  on  the  hill  sus- 
 taining the  lower  city,  and  which  are  familiar  to  all 
 who  have  studied  the  topography  of  the  city.  'I'hese 
 parallel  narratives  involve  a  perplexity  which  I'rof. 
 Kobinson  fully  examined,  and,  we  think,  satisfac- 
 torily exjilained,  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago 
 (BibL  Sacra,  iii.  629-G34).  His  suggestion  is, 
 that  in  process  of  time  "  the  City  of  David,"  at 
 first  restricted  to  the  Hill  of  Zion,  came  to  be  used 
 by  synecdoche  for  the  whole  city,  so  as  to  he  synony- 
 mous with  Jerusalem ;  and  he  cites  evident  traces 
 of  such  usage  from  Isaiah,  the  Maccabees,  and 
 Josephus.  This  is  a  much  sinqiler  solution  of  the 
 diflSculty  than  the  transfer  of  site  by  these  writers. 
 
 The  immemorial  conviction,  which  has  not 
 merely  survi\ed  centuries  of  observation,  but  been 
 confirmed  by  the  investigations  of  keen-eyed 
 witnesses,  will,  we  are  confident,  aliide.  The 
 southwest  hill,  fortified  beyond  the  rest,  and .  its 
 dwellings  more  carefidly  protected ;  the  most  im- 
 portant strategic  point  in  the  city,  and  the  last 
 rallying-point  in  memorable  sieges;  the  hill  for 
 which  the  propounders  of  the  new  theory  have  no 
 name  —  Forbes  contenting  himself  with  apiilying 
 the  epithet  " pseudo  "  to  the  cmreiit  appellation, 
 and  Warren  designating  it  as  "  the  remainder  of 
 Jerusalem,"  —  this  historic  hill  has  borne,  and  will 
 continue  to  bear  the  sacred  and  classic  name  of 
 Zion. 
 
 Every  Christian  reader  has  felt — what  every 
 Christian  visitor  to  the  holy  city  who  has  stood  on 
 its  southwest  hill  has  felt  more  —  the  force  and 
 beauty  of  such  passages  as  these,  in  the  Psalms  o( 
 
ZIOR 
 
 David :  "  Beautiful  for  situation,  tiie  joy  of  the 
 whole  earth,  is  Jlount  Zion,  on  the  sides  of  the 
 north,  the  city  of  the  great  King"  (Ps.  xlviii.  2); 
 "  They  that  trust  in  the  Lord  shall  be  as  Mount 
 Zion,  which  cannot  be  removed,  but  abideth  for- 
 ever "  (Ps.  cxxv.  1).  From  strains  like  these  the 
 transition  is  abrupt  and  startling  to  such  sentences 
 as  the  following:  "The  site  where  Zion  once  was, 
 and  is  not"  (Warren,  p.  85);  "  Mount  Zion,  once 
 so  holy,  was  at  length  razed  to  the  ground  and  oi)- 
 literated  "  (Forbes,  p.  195).  We  take  comfort  in 
 the  undoubting  conviction  that  the  grand  similes 
 of  the  sacred  writers  have  not  been  thus  emptied 
 of  their  significance.  The  Zion  of  the  psalmist  and 
 the  prophet  still  stands,  with  its  rocky,  precipitous 
 sides,  and  the  deep  valleys  sweep  around  its  base, 
 as  of  old.  Its  "  palaces  "  have  disappeared;  and 
 in  its  desolation,  literal  and  moral,  it  is  no  longer 
 "  the  joy  "  which  it  once  was.  But  ''  beautiful  for 
 situation  "  it  still  is;  and,  to  the  eye  of  the  t?-aveller 
 who  approaches  it  from  the  south,  it  still  lifts  itself 
 in  strength,  though  not  in  the  ancient  grandeur, 
 "on  the  sides  of  the  nortii."  [Guttkr;  Jeijus; 
 Jehusalem;  Tykopceox]  S.  \V. 
 
 ZI'OU  ("li?"*^  [sniallness]:  2(>ipal6;  Alex. 
 ^laip:  Sioi').  A  town  in  the  mountain  district  of 
 Judah  (.Josh.  xv.  54,  only).  It  belongs  to  the 
 same  group  with  Hebron,  next  to  whicli  it  occurs 
 in  tiie  list.  By  Eusebius  and  .Jerome  (Onom.  2iwp) 
 it  is  spoken  of  as  a  village  between  j-Elia  (.Jerusa- 
 lem) and  Eleutheropolis  {Beit  jibrin),  in  the  tribe 
 
 of  Judah.     A  small  village  named  Sa'ir  \^xx*m) 
 
 lies  on  the  road  between  Tekua  and  Hebron,  aliout 
 six  miles  northeast  of  the  latter  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res. 
 1.  488),  which  may  proliably  be  that  alluded  to  in 
 the  Onoiiuisticoii ;  and  l)Ut  for  its  distance  from 
 Heliron,  might  be  adopted  as  identical  with  Zior. 
 So  little,  however,  is  known  of  the  principle  on 
 which  the  groups  of  towns  are  collected  in  these 
 lists,  that  it  is  impossible  to  speak  positively  on  the 
 point,  either  one  way  or  the  other.  G. 
 
 ZIPH  (^""T  [battlement,  pinnacle,  Ges.  ed. 
 18G3;  melliny-jAace,  Fiirst]).  The  name  borne 
 by  two  towns  in  tlie  territory  of  Judah. 
 
 1.  (Mai^'a^;  Alex.  18va](i(ft:  Ziplt.)  In  the 
 south  (nef/eb);  named  between  Ithnan  and  Telem 
 (Josh.  XV.  24).  It  does  not  appear  again  in  the 
 history  — for  the  Ziph  of  Dayid's  adventures  is  an 
 entirely  distinct  spot  —  nor  has  any  trace  of  it  been 
 met  with.  From  this,  from  the  apparent  omission 
 of  tlie  name  in  the  Vatican  LXX.,  and  from  the 
 absence  of  the  "  and  "  before  it,  Mr.  Wilton  has 
 been  led    to  suggest    that    it   is  an  interpolation 
 
 ZIPH 
 
 3635 
 
 {Negeb,  85);  but  his  grounds  for  this  are  hardly 
 conclusive.  Many  names  in  this  list  have  not  yet 
 been  encountered  on  the  ground ;  before  several 
 others  the  "and"  is  omitted;  and  though  not 
 now  recognizable  in  the  Vat.  LXX.,  the  name  is 
 found  in  the  Alex,  and  in  the  Peshito  (Zih).  In 
 our  present  ignorance  of  the  region  of  the  Negeb  it 
 is  safer  to  postpone  any  positive  judgment  on  the 
 point. 
 
 2.  ([Rom.  'O^i'^,  Zi(?>;  Vat.]  OCfijS,  Zei^,  rj 
 ZeijS;  Alex.  Zicp,  Zei(p-  Ziph.)  In  the  highland 
 district;  named  between  Carniel  and  Juttah  (.losh. 
 XV.  55).  The  place  is  immortalized  by  its  connec- 
 tion with  David,  some  of  whose  greatest  perils  and 
 liappiest  escapes  took  place  in  its  neighborhood 
 (1  Sam.  xxiii.  14,  15,  24,  xxvi.  2).  These  pas- 
 sages show,  that  at  that  time  it  had  near  it  a  wil- 
 derness {iniiibai;  i.  e.  a  waste  pasture  ground)  and 
 a  wood.  The  latter  has  disappeared,  but  the  for- 
 mer remains.  The  name  of  Zlf  is  found  about 
 tliree  miles  S-  of  Hebron,  attaclied  to  a  rounded  hill 
 of  some  100  feet  in  height,  which  is  called  Tell 
 Zif.  About  the  same  distance  still  further  S.  is 
 Kunnul  (Carmel),  and  between  them  a  short  dis- 
 tance to  the  W.  of  the  road  is  YiUta  (Juttah). 
 About  half  a  mile  E.  of  the  tell  are  some  consid- 
 erable ruins,  standing  at  the  head  of  two  small 
 wadies,  which,  commencing  here,  run  off  towards 
 the  Dead  Sea.  These  ruins  are  pronounced  by  Dr. 
 Robinson  {Bibl,  Res.  i.  41J2)  to  be  those  of  the 
 ancient  Ziph,  but  hardly  on  sufficient  grounds. 
 They  are  too  far  from  the  tell  for  it  to  have  l)een 
 the  citadel  to  them.  It  seems  more  probalde  that 
 the  tell  itself  is  a  remnant  of  the  ancient  place 
 which  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chr.  xi.  8)." 
 
 "  Zib  "  is  mentioned  in  the  Oiuminstiam  as  8 
 miles  east  of  Hebron ;  "  the  village,"  adds  Jerome, 
 "  in  which  David  hid  is  still  shown."  This  can 
 hardly  be  the  spot  above  referred  to,  unless  the 
 distance  and  direction  have  been  stated  at  random, 
 or  the  passage  is  corrupt  both  in  luisebius  and 
 Jerome.  At  7  Roman  miles  east  of  Heliron  a  ruin 
 is  marked  on  Van  de  Velde's  map,  l)ut  it  does  not 
 appear  to  have  been  investigated.  Elsewhere 
 (under  "  Zeib  "  and  "Ziph")  they  place  it  near 
 Carmel,  and  connect  it  with  Ziph  the  descendant 
 of  Caleb. 
 
 From  Eusebius  to  Dr.  Robinson  no  one  appears 
 to  have  mentioned  Zif.  Yet  many  travellers  must 
 have  passed  the  tell,  and  the  name  is  often  in  the 
 moutlis  of  the  Arab  guides  (Stanley,  S.  tf  P.  p. 
 101''). 
 
 There  are  some  curious  differences  between  the 
 text  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Hebrew  of  these  pas- 
 sages which  may  be  recorded  here. 
 
 Hebrew. 
 
 1  Sam.  xxiii.  14.   .  .  remained 
 
 in  the  uiouutain  in  the  wilderness 
 of  Zipli. 
 
 15 in  the  wilderness  of 
 
 Ziph  in  the  wood. 
 
 19.  And  Ziphites  came  to  Saul. 
 
 Vatican  LXX.  (Mai). 
 ZeiiJ),  iv  Trj  yrj  rf;  dv^t'-iuSsL. 
 
 ep    Tcp    opet    TO)    av\ixiiiB€t    ev    tt) 
 Kaivfi     Zei<l),      yri      Kaivfi     [(CaivTj  = 
 
 Win  read  for  rtnhl. 
 
 T    T  V        -" 
 
 Koi    avi^-qcrav   oi    Zetf/jatoi  ix  Trjs 
 
 Ales.  LXX. 
 
 .     .     .      .     ev  TW  ope6  ev  it)  eprffim 
 Zet'^    ets  opo?    TO    avxjxto&^s    gv   yr) 
 
 Zet(^  ei^  T7)  Kaiprj. 
 
 «  *  In  his  Index  to  Clark's  Bib!e  Alias,  p.  Ill,  Mr. 
 Orove  withdraws  this  objection  and  speaks  of  Ziph  as 
 "now  Z;/,  3  miles  south  of  Uubron,"'  U. 
 
 ^  See  a  remark  curiously  parallel  to  this  by  Mar- 
 mont  in  his  Voyage  between  Naplouse  and  Jerusa- 
 lem. 
 
3636 
 
 ZIPH 
 
 ZIZ,  THE  CLIFF  OF 
 
 1  Sam.  xxiii.  24.     And  they  arose 
 and  weut  to  Ziph  before  Saul. 
 
 xxvi.  1.  Aud   the   Ziphitcs  came 
 unto  Saul. 
 
 Vatic.uj  LXX.  (Mai). 
 
 Kal    a.vi(T'n\<Tav     ot     Zeti^alot   Ka\ 
 eTTOpeuflr/crai'  iii.irpoa0ev  S. 
 
 K.     epxovTai.    01    Zei(/>aroi    e/c   ttJs 
 
 eTTopeu^Tjaai'  ot  Zi0aioi 
 
 The  recurrence  of  the  word  aux^"'5,  "dried  up,''  "  parched,"  would  almost  suggest  that  the  LXX.  under- 
 stood the  Ziph  of  the  ne^'eft  to  be  intended.  Q. 
 
 ZIPH  {fT\  :  Zl0\  [Vat.  omits;]  Ales.  Zi<pKi-- 
 Sijjh).     Son  of  Jelialeleel  (1  Chr.  iv.  IG). 
 
 ZFPHAH  (n2"''r:  Zecpd ;  [Vat.  Za^a ;] 
 Alex.  Zaupa'-  Zipli(i).  One  of  the  sons  of  .Jelia- 
 leleel, whose  family  is  enumerated  in  an  oliscure 
 genealogy  of  the  tribe  of  .Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  IG). 
 
 ZIPH'IMS,  THE  (a'^p'^-tn:  toIs  Zei<pai- 
 ovs-  Ziplivei).  The  inhabitants  of  Ziph  (see  the 
 foregoing  article,  No.  2).  In  this  form  the  nan)e  is 
 found  in  the  A.  V.  only  in  the  title  of  Fs.  liv.  In 
 the  narrative  it  occurs  in  the  more  usual «  form  of 
 
 ZIPH'ITES,  THE  Op'^-'TU :  ol  ZifatoL 
 [Vat.  Zei^-]  :  Ziphcei),  1  Sam.  xxiii.  I'J,'' 
 xxvi.  1.  G. 
 
 ZIPH'ION  ("|Vp^*  :  :S,a(pciv:  S.phion).  Son 
 of  Gad  (Gen.  xlvi.  IG);  elsewhere  called  Zephox. 
 
 ZIPH'RON  ("I'lpT  [frai/mnce]  :  Aecppwpd;" 
 Alex.  Zicppctiva'-  Zephruna).  A  point  in  the  north 
 boundary  of  the  promised  land  as  specified  by 
 JMoses  (Num.  xxxiv.  9).  .It  occurs  between  Zedad 
 and  Hatsar-lMian.  If  Zedad  is  Suilud,  and  Hatsar- 
 Enan  Ktirieftiii,  as  is  not  impossible,  tiien  Zijihron 
 must  be  looked  for  somewhere  between  the  two. 
 At  present  no  name  at  all  suitable  has  been  discov- 
 ered in  this  direction.  But  the  whole  of  this 
 topo;;Taphy  is  in  a  most  unsatisfactory  state  as 
 regards  both  compreliension  of  the  original  record 
 and  knowledge  of  the  ground;  and  in  the  absence 
 of  more  information  we  must  be  content  to  abstain 
 from  conjectures. 
 
 In  the  parallel  passage  of  Ezekiel  (xlvii.  10,  17) 
 the  words  "  llazar-hatticon,  which  is  by  the  border 
 of  Hauran,"  appear  to  be  substituted  for  Ziphron. 
 The  Hauran  here  named  may  be  the  modern  village 
 Jliiuicdiin,  which  lies  between  Siklud  and  Kurk- 
 tein,  and  not  the  district  of  the  same  name  many 
 miles  further  south.  G. 
 
 ZIP'POR  ("112!;,  and  twice  ''  ~121*  [spar- 
 roic]:  J,eiT(p(i>p'-  Seplioi-).  Father  of  Balak  king 
 of  iMoab.  His  name  occurs  oidy  in  the  expression 
 "  son  ^  of  Zippor  "  (Num.  xxii.  2,  4,  10,  IG,  xxiii. 
 18;  Josh.  xxiv.  9;  Judg.  xi.  25).  Whether  he 
 was  the  •' former  king  of  Moab  "  alluded  to  in 
 Num.  xxi.  2G,  we  are  not  told,  nor  do  we  know 
 that  he  himself  ever  reigned.  The  .Jewish  tradi- 
 tion already  noticed  [MoAU,  iii.  1981 J  is,  that 
 Moab  and  Midian  were  united  into  one  kingdom, 
 and  rided  by  a  king  chosen  alternately  from  each. 
 In  this  connection  the  similarity  l)etwee:i  the  names 
 Zippor  and  Zipporah,  the  latter  of  which  we  know 
 to  liave  been  tiie  name  of  a  Midianitess,  jiur  smuj, 
 is  worthy  of  notice,  as  it  suggests  that  Balak  may 
 have  been  of  Midianite  parentage.  G. 
 
 a  Examples  of  the  .oame  inconsistency  in  tlie  A.  V 
 are  found  in  Avlm,  Avites  ;  Uorlm,  IIorites  ;  Pmus- 
 TKi,  Philistines. 
 
 6  In  this  pa.ssage  tliere  is  no  article  to  tlie  name  in 
 the  Uebfew. 
 
 ZIPPO'RAH  (n~2^*  [fem.  sparroid] :  SeTr- 
 (piopa;  Joseph.  2air<^cupa:  Seplwra).  Daughter 
 of  iieuel  or  Jethro,  tlie  priest  of  JNIidian,  wife  of 
 Moses,  and  mother  of  his  two  sons  Gershom  and 
 Eliezer  (Ex.  ii.  21,  iv.  2-3,  xviii.  2,  comp.  G).  The 
 only  incident  recorded  in  her  lile  is  that  of  the  cir- 
 cumcision of  Gershom  (iv.  24-26),  the  account  of 
 which  has  been  examined  under  the  head  of  Moses 
 (iii.  2019.  See  also  Stanley's  Jtwisli  C'lnirch, 
 p.  114). 
 
 It  has  been  suggested  that  Zipporah  was  the 
 Cushite  (A.  V.  "  Ethinpian  '")  wife  who  furnished 
 JNIiriam  and  Aaron  with  the  pretext  for  their  attack 
 on  Moses  (Num.  xii.  1,  &c.).  The  chief  ground 
 for  this  appears  to  be  that  in  a  passage  of  Habakkuk 
 (iii.  7)  the  names  of  Cushan  and  Midian  are  men- 
 tioned together.  But  in  the  immense  interval 
 which  had  elapsed  Ijetween  the  Exodus  and  the 
 period  of  Habakkuk  (at  least  seven  centuries),  the 
 relations  of  Cush  and  ]\Iidian  may  well  have  altered 
 too  materially  to  admit  of  any  argument  being 
 founded  on  the  later  passage,  even  if  it  were  certain 
 that  their  lieing  mentioned  in  juxtaposition  implied 
 any  connection  between  them,  further  than  that 
 both  were  dwellers  in  tents  and  enemies  of  Israel; 
 and  unless  the  events  of  Num.  xii.  should  be  proved 
 to  be  quite  out  of  their  proper  place  in  the  narra- 
 tive, it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  charge  could 
 have  been  made  against  Moses  on  the  ground  of  his 
 marriage,  after  so  long  a  period,  and  when  the 
 children  of  his  wife  must  have  been  several  years 
 old.  The  most  feasible  suggestion  appears  to  be 
 that  of  Ewald  (Gcsdiiclile,  ii.  229,  note),  namely, 
 that  the  Cushite  was  a  second  wife,  or  a  concubine, 
 taken  by  Moses  during  the  march  through  the 
 wilderness  —  whether  after  the  death  of  Zipporah 
 (which  is  not  mentioned)  or  from  other  circum- 
 stances must  be  uncertain.  Thia  —  with  the  utmost 
 respect  to  the  eminent  scholar  who  has  supported 
 tlie  other  alternative  —  the  writer  ventures  to  offer 
 as  that  which  connneflds  itself  to  him. 
 
 The  similarity  between  the  names  of  Zippor  and 
 Zipporah,  and  the  possilile  inference  from  that  sim- 
 ilarity, have  been  mentioned  under  tlie  former  head. 
 [ZiPPOK.]  G. 
 
 ZITH'RI  ("^"irip  [Je/wvnlrs  protection]: 
 2f7p6t;  [Vat.  Sep-yei;]  Alex.  Se^pei:  Sclhii). 
 I^roperly  "  Sithri;  "  one  of  the  sons  of  Uzziel.  the 
 son  of  Kohatli  {Ex.  vi.  22).  In  Ex.  vi.  21,  "Zithri" 
 should  be  "  Zichri,"  as  in  A.  V.  of  1611. 
 
 ZIZ,  THE  CLIFF  OF  (V^V  H  nbl^tt 
 [fisctiit  of  the]  :  ri  ava^affts  'AiTa4  [Kom.  'Affaels] 
 in  both  jNISS.  :  clirits  nomine  Sis).  The  pass 
 (such  is  more  accurately  the  meaning  of  the  word 
 iiindU'h ;  comp.  Adummim;  Gur,  etc.)  by  wdiich 
 
 ■-■  The  final  a   in  LXX.  and  Vulgate  is  due  to  the 
 Hebrew  particle  of  motion  —  >'  to  Ziphron." 
 il  Num.  xxii.  10,  xxiii.  18. 
 e  lu  LXX.  vibs  2.)  except  in  Josh.  xxiv.  9,  6  tou  2 
 
ZIZA 
 
 tie  horde  of  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and  I\Iehunim, 
 made  their  way  up  from  tiie  sliores  of  the  Dead 
 Sea  to  tlie  wilderness  of  Judah  near  Tekoa  (2  Chr. 
 XX.  Itj  only;  conip.  20).  There  can  be  very  little 
 doubt  that  it  was  the  pass  of  'Ain  Jidij  —  "  the 
 very  same  route,"  as  Dr.  Robinson  remarks, 
 "  which  is  taken  by  the  Arabs  in  their  marauding 
 expeditions  at  the  present  day;  along  the  shore  as 
 far  as  to  \Aiii  Jidy,  and  then  up  the  pass,  and  so 
 northwards  below  Tekivi  "•  {Bi'd.  jRcs.  i.  508,  530). 
 The  very  name  (which  since  it  has  the  article  pre- 
 fixed is  mure  accurately  haz-Ziz  than  Ziz)  may 
 perhaps  be  still  tracealile  in  el-fliisas'ih,  which  is 
 attaclied  to  a  large  tract  of  table-land  lying  innne- 
 diatel}'  above  tlie  pass  of  Ain  Jid//,  between  it  and 
 Ttkila,  and  bounded  on  the  north  by  a  wady  of  the 
 lame  name  (liilil.  Jies.  i.  527).  May  not  both 
 haz-Ziz  and  llusfisah  be  descended  from  Hazezon- 
 tamar,  the  early  name  of  En-gedi?  G. 
 
 ZI'ZA-  (^'^'^'f  [fiiU  breast,  abundance]  :  Zov^d; 
 [Vat.  corrupt:]  Zlz'i).  1.  Son  of  Shiplii  a  chief 
 of  the  Sinieonites,  who  in  the  reign  of  llezekiah 
 made  a  raid  upon  the  peaceable  Hamite  shepherds 
 of  Gedor,  and  smote  them,  "  because  there  was 
 pasture  there  for  their  flocks  "  (1  Chr.  iv.  37). 
 
 2.  (ZTj^a;  [Vat.  Zei^a;  Alex.  Zifa.])  Son  of 
 Kehoboam  by  JMaachah  the  granddaughter  of  Absa- 
 lom (2  Chr.xi   20). 
 
 ZI'ZAH  (nrt  [full  hreast]:  Zi^d:  Zlza). 
 A  Gersliunite  Levite,  second  son  of  Shimei  (1  Chr. 
 xxiii.  11);  called  Zina  in  ver.  10. 
 
 ZO'AN  {'Jl?'^:  Tavii-  Tunis,  [Ez.  xxs.  14, 
 in  Tap/mis]),  an  ancient  city  of  Lower  Egypt.  It 
 is  mentioned  by  a  Shemitic  and  by  an  Egyptian 
 name,  both  of  the  same  signification.  Zoan,  pre- 
 served in  the  Coptic     25:^nH,  25:^115,     S. 
 
 25:«J.<5.Jie,  X^^JIJ,  the  Arabic  ^L^ 
 (a  village  on  the  site),  and  the  classical  Tcti^is,  Tanis, 
 whence  the  Coptic  transcription  T^ll6W.5Cj 
 comes  from  the  root  "}371J,   "  he  moved  tents  "  (Is. 
 
 xxxiii.  20),  cognate  with  ^??^»  ''  he  loaded  a  beast 
 of  burden;"  and  thus  signifies  "a  place  of  de- 
 parture," like  D"*3317^,    Zaanannim   (.Josh.  xix. 
 
 33),  or  Q121?5,  Zaanaim"  (.Tudg.  iv.  11),  "  re- 
 movings  "  ((iesen.),  a  place  ih  nortliernmost  Pales- 
 tine, on  the  border  of  Naphtali  near  Kedesh.  The 
 place  just  mentioned  is  close  to  the  natural  and 
 constant  northern  border  of  Palestine,  whether 
 under  tlie  spurs  of  Lebanon  or  of  Hermon.  Zoan 
 lay  near  the  eastern  border  of  Lower  Egypt.  The 
 sense  of  departure  or  removing,  therefore,  would 
 seem  not  to  indicate  a  mere  resting-place  of  cara- 
 vans, Init  a  place  of  departure  from  a  country. 
 The  Egyptian  name  H.\-A\VAll,  or  PA-AWAR, 
 Avaris,  Aouapis,  means  "  the  abode"  or  "  hou.se  " 
 of  "going  out"  or  "  dei)arture."  Its  more  pre- 
 cise .sense  fi.Kes  that  of  tlie  Shemitic  equivalent.'' 
 
 Tanis  is  situate  in  N.  lat.  31°,  E.  long.  31°  55', 
 on  the  east  bank  of  the  canal  which  was  formerly 
 the  Tanitic  branch.  Anciently  a  ricli  plain  extended 
 due  east  as  far  as  Pelusitnn,  about  thirty  miles  dis- 
 tant, gradually  narrowing  towards  the  east,  so  that 
 in  a  soutiieasterly  direction  from  Tanis  it  was  not 
 
 ZOAN  3637 
 
 more  than  half  this  breadth.  The  whole  of  this 
 plain,  aljout  as  far  south  and  west  as  Tanis,  was 
 anciently  known  as  "the  Fields"    or   "Plains," 
 
 JlJJULetyCyOJT,        "  the  JIarshes,"  rh  "EAtj, 
 
 'EKeapx'cc,  or  "  the  pasture-lands,"  BovKoAia. 
 Through  tlie  subsidence  of  the  Mediterranean  coast, 
 it  is  now  almost  covered  by  the  great  Lake  Meiizeleh. 
 Of  old  it  was  a  rich  marsh-land,  watered  by  four  of 
 tiie  seven  branches  of  the  Nile,  the  Pathuiitic, 
 Mendesian,  Tanitic,  and  Pehisiac,  and  swept  by  the 
 cool  breezes  of  the  Mediterranean.  Tanis,  while 
 l^gypt  was  ruled  by  native  kings,  was  the  chief  town 
 of  tliis  territory,  and  an  important  jjost  towards  the 
 eastern  frontier. 
 
 At  a  remote  period,  between  the  age  when  the 
 pyramids  were  built  and  that  of  the  empire,  seem- 
 ingly about  B.  c.  2080,  Egypt  was  invaded,  over- 
 run, and  subdued,  by  the  strangers  known  as  the 
 Shepherds,  who,  or  at  least  their  first  race,  appear 
 to  have  been  Arabs  cognate  with  the  Phoenicians. 
 How  they  entered  Egypt  does  not  appear.  After  a 
 time  they  made  one  of  themselves  king,  a  certain 
 Salatis,  who  reigned  at  Memphis,  exacting  tribute 
 of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  and  garrisoning  the 
 fittest  places,  with  especial  regard  to  tlie  safety  of 
 the  eastern  provinces,  which  he  foresaw  the  Assyr- 
 ians would  desire  to  invade.  With  this  view,  find- 
 ing in  the  Saite  (better  elsewhere  Sethroite)  nome, 
 on  the  east  of  the  Bubastite  branch,  a  very  fit  city 
 called  Avaris,  he  rebuilt,  and  very  strongly  walled  it, 
 garrisoning  it  with  240,000  men.  He  came  hither 
 in  harvest-time  (about  the  vernal  equinox),  to  give 
 corn  and  pay  to  the  troops,  and  exercise  them  so  as 
 to  terrify  foreigners.  This  is  Manetho's  account  of 
 the  foundation  of  Avaris,  the  great  stronghold  of 
 the  Shepherds.  Several  points  are  raised  by  it. 
 We  see  at  a  glance  that  Manetho  did  not  know 
 that  Avaris  was  Tanis.  By  his  time  the  city  had. 
 fallen  into  obscurity,  and  he  could  not  connect  the 
 HA- A  WAR  of  his  native  records  with  the  Tanis  of 
 the  Greeks.  His  account  of  its  early  history  must 
 therefore  be  received  with  caution.  Throughout, 
 we  trace  the  influence  of  the  pride  that  made  the 
 Egyptians  hate,  and  affect  to  despise  the  Shepherds 
 above  all  their  conquerors,  except  the  Persians. 
 The  motive  of  Salatis  is  not  to  overawe  Egypt  but 
 to  keep  out  the  Assyrians ;  not  to  terrify  the  natives 
 liut  tliese  foreigners,  who,  if  other  history  be  cor- 
 rect, did  not  then  form  an  important  state.  The 
 position  of  Tanis  explains  the  case.  Like  the  other 
 principal  cities  of  this  tract,  Pelusium,  Ikibastis, 
 and  lleliopolis,  it  lay  on  the  east  bank  of  the  river, 
 towards  Syria.  It  was  thus  outside  a  great  line  of 
 defense,  and  afforded  a  protection  to  the  cultivated 
 lands  to  the  east,  and  an  obstacle  to  an  invader, 
 while  to  retreat  from  it  was  always  possible,  so  long 
 as  the  ICgyptians  held  the  river.  But  Tanis,  though 
 doubtless  fortified  partly  with  the  object  of  rejiell- 
 ing  an  invader,  was  too  far  inland  to  be  the  frontier 
 fortress.  It  was  near  enough  to  be  the  place  of  de- 
 parture for  caravans,  perhaps  was  the  last  town  in 
 the  Shepherd-period,  but  not  near  enough  to  com- 
 mand the  entrance  of  Egypt.  Pelusium  lay  upon 
 the  great  road  to  Palestine,  —  it  has  been  until 
 lately  placed  too  far  north  [Sin],  —  and  the  plain 
 was  here  narrow,  from  north  to  south,  so  that  no 
 invader  could  safely  pass  the  fortress;  but  it  .soon 
 became  broader,  and,  by  turning  in  a  southwesterly 
 direction,  an  advancing  enemy  would  leave  Tanis 
 
 <*  Keri,  as  in  Joshua. 
 
 b  Tlie  identification  of  Zoan  witli  Avaris  is  due  to 
 M.  de  llousH. 
 
36^ 
 
 ZOAN 
 
 far  to  tlie  northward,  and  a  bold  general  would  de- 
 tach a  force  to  keep  its  garrison  in  ciieck  and  march 
 upon  Heliopolis  and  Menipliis.  An  enormous 
 standing  militia,  settled  in  the  Bucolia,  as  the 
 Egyptian  militia  afterwards  was  in  neighboring 
 tracts  of  the  Delta,  and  with  its  headquarters  at 
 Tanis,  would  have  overawed  Kgypt,  and  secured  a 
 retreat  in  case  of  disaster,  besides  maintaining  hold 
 of  some  of  the  most  productive  land  in  the  country, 
 and  mainly  for  the  former  two  objects  we  belie\e 
 Avaris  to  have  been  fortified. 
 
 Manetho  explicitly  states  Avaris  to  have  been 
 older  than  the  time  of  the  Sheitheids;  but  there  are 
 reasons  lor  questioning  his  accuracy  in  this  matter. 
 The  name  is  more  likely  to  be  of  foreign  than  of 
 Egyptian  origin,  for  Zoan  distinctly  indicates  the 
 place  of  departure  of  a  migratory  people,  whereas 
 Avaris  has  the  simple  signification  "  abode  of  de- 
 parture." 
 
 A  remarkable  passage  in  the  book  of  Numbers, 
 not  hitherto  explained,  "  Now  Hebron  was  built 
 seven  years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt"  (xiii.  22),  seenjs 
 to  determine  the  question.  Hebron  was  anciently 
 the  city  of  Arba,  Kirjatli-Arba,  and  was  under  the 
 rule  of  the  Anakim.  These  Anakim  weie  of  the 
 old  warlike  Palestinian  race  that  long  dominated 
 over  the  southern  Canaanites.  Here,  therefore,  the 
 Anakim  and  Zoan  are  connected.  The  Shepherds 
 who  built  Avaris  were  apparently  of  the  Phoenician 
 stock  which  would  be  referred  to  this  race  as,  like 
 them,  witliout  a  pedigree  in  the  Noachian  geo- 
 graphical list.  Hebron  was  already  built  in  Abra- 
 ham's time,  and  the  Shepherd-invasion  may  be 
 dated  about  the  same  period.  Whether  some  older 
 \illage  or  city  were  succeeded  by  Avaris  matters 
 little :  its  history  begins  in  the  reign  of  Salatis. 
 
 \Vhat  the  Egyptian  records  tell  us  of  this  city 
 may  be  briefly  stated-  Apepee,  probably  Apophis 
 of  the  XVth  dynasty,  a  She[iherd-king  who  reigned 
 shortly  before  the  XVlIIth  dynasty,  built  a  temple 
 here  to  Set,  the  Egyptian  liaal,  and  worshipped  no 
 other  god.  According  to  Manetho,  the  Shepherds, 
 after  511  years  of  rule,  were  expelled  from  all  I'^gypt 
 and  shut  up  in  Avaris,  whence  they  were  allowed 
 to  depart  by  capitulation,  by  either  Amosis  or 
 Thummosis  (Aahmes  or  Thotlnnes  IV'.),  the  first 
 and  seventh  kings  of  the  XV'lIIth  dynasty.  The 
 nionunients  show  that  the  honor  of  riddhig  Egypt 
 of  tlie  Shepherds  belongs  to  Aahnjes,  and  that  this 
 event  occurred  about  b.  c.  1500.  Kameses  II.  em- 
 bellished the  great  temple  of  Tanis,  and  was  fol- 
 lowed by  his  son  Memptah. 
 
 It  is  witliin  the  period  from  the  Shepherd-inva- 
 sion to  the  reign  of  Memptah,  that  the  sojourn  and 
 Exodus  of  the  Israelites  are  placed,  ^\'e  believe 
 tliat  tlie  Pharaoh  of  Joseph  as  well  as  the  oppressors 
 were  Shepherds,  the  former  ruling  at  Memphis  and 
 Zoan,  the  latter  probably  at  Zoan  only;  though  in 
 the  case  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  the  time 
 would  suit  the  annual  visit  Manetho  states  to  have 
 been  paid  by  Salatis.  Zoan  is  mentioned  in  con- 
 nection with  the  Plagues  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
 leave  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  city  spoken  of  in  tlie 
 narrative  in  Exodus  as  that  where  Pharaoh  dwelt. 
 The  wonders  were  wrought  "  in  the  field  of  Zoan  " 
 
 (Ps.    Ix.xviii.    12,    4.3),  "JV"^"'^"!!^',  which    may 
 
 either  denote  the  territory  immediately  around  the 
 city,  or  its  nonie,  or  even  a  kingdom  (Gesen.  Lix. 
 
 s.  V.   ^^ti7),     This  would  accord  best  with  the 
 
 Shepherd  period;  but  it    cannot   be  doubted  that 
 
 ZOAN 
 
 Rameses  II.  paid  great  attention  to  Zoan,  and  may 
 have  made  it  a  royal  residence. 
 
 Alter  the  (all  of  the  empire,  the  first  dynasty  is 
 the  XXIst,  called  by  Manetho  that  of  Tanites.  Its 
 history  is  obscure,  and  it  fell  before  the  stronger 
 line  of  Bubastites,  the  XXIId  dynasty,  founded  by 
 Shishak.  The  expulsion  of  Set  from  the  Pantheon, 
 under  the  XXIId  dynasty,  must  have  been  a  blow 
 to  Tanis ;  and  perhaps  a  religious  war  occasioned 
 the  rise  of  the  XXHId.  The  XX Hid  dynasty  is 
 called  Tanite,  and  its  last  king  is  probably  Sethos, 
 the  contemporary  of  Tirhakah,  mentioned  by  He- 
 rodotus. At  this  time  Tanis  once  more  appears  in 
 sacred  history,  as  a  place  to  which  came  ambassa- 
 dors, either  of  Hoshea,  or  Aliaz,  or  else,  jjossibly, 
 llezekiah:  "For  his  princes  were  at  Zoan,  and  his 
 messengers  came  to  Haiies "  (Is.  xxx.  4).  As 
 mentioned  with  the  frontier  town  Tahpanhes,  Tanis 
 is  not  necessarily  the  capital.  But  the  same 
 [irophet  perhaps  more  distinctly  points  to  a  Tanite 
 line  where  saying,  in  "the  burden  of  Egypt,"  "the 
 princes  of  Zoan  are  become  fools;  the  princes  of 
 Noph  are  deceived  "  (xix.  1-3).  The  doom  of  Zoan 
 is  foretold  by  Ezekiel:  "  I  will  set  fire  in  Zoan  " 
 (xxx.  14),  where  it  occurs  among  the  cities  to  be 
 taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 "  The  plain  of  San  is  very  extensive,  but  thinly 
 inhabited  :  no  village  exists  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
 ity of  the  ancient  Tanis;  and,  when  looking  from 
 the  mounds  of  this  once  splendid  city  towards  the 
 distant  palms  of  indistinct  villages,  we  perceive  the 
 desolation  spread  around  it.  The  '  field  '  of  Zoan, 
 is  now  a  barren  waste:  a  canal  passes  through  it 
 without  being  able  to  fertilize  the  soil;  'fire'  has 
 been  set  in  'Zoan; '  and  one  of  the  principal  capi- 
 tals or  royal  abodes  of  the  Pharaohs  is  now  the 
 habitation  of  fishermen,  the  resort  of  wild  beasts, 
 and  infested  with  reptiles  and  malignant  fevers." 
 It  is  "  remarkable  for  the  height  and  extent  of  its 
 mounds,  which  are  upwards  of  a  mile  from  N.  to 
 S.,  and  nearly  |  of  a  mile  i'rom  E.  to  \V.  The 
 area  in  which  the  sacred  inclosure  of  the  temple 
 stood  is  about  1,500  ft.  by  1,250,  surrounded  by 
 mounds  of  fallen  houses.  The  temple  was  adorned 
 by  Kameses  II.  with  numerous  obelisks  and  most 
 of  its  sculptures.  It  is  very  ruinous,  but  its  re- 
 mains ])rove  its  former  grandeur.  The  number  of 
 its  obelisks,  ten  or  twelve,  all  now  fallen,  is  un- 
 equaled,  and  the  labor  of  transporting  them  from 
 Syeiie  shows  the  lavish  magnificence  of  the  I'gyptian 
 kings.  The  oldest  name  tbund  here  is  that  of  Se- 
 sertesen  HI.  of  the  Xllth  dynasty,  the  latest  that  of 
 Tirhakah  (Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson's  Il(mdbooK\  pp. 
 221,  222).  Recently,  M.  Mariette  has  made  ex- 
 cavations on  this  site  and  discovered  remains  of  the 
 Shepherd-period,  showing  a  markedly-characteristic 
 style,  especially  in  the  representation  of  face  and 
 figure,  but  of  Egyptian  art,  and  therefore  after- 
 w'ards  appropriated  l>y  the  Egyptian  kings. 
 
 R.  S.  P. 
 
 *  The  past  ten  years  have  been  rich  in  discoveries 
 of  historical  value  at  San.  the  site  of  the  ancient 
 Av<trh^  Tunis,  or  Zunn.  M.  Mariette's  excavations 
 have  brought  to  light  a  colossal  statue  of  Amen- 
 emhe  I.  founder  of  the  Xllth  dynasty;  a  colossal 
 statue  of  Osirtasen  I.  represented  as  Osiris;  a  third 
 of  Sevekhotej)  HI.  of  the  Xlllth  dynasty;  a  fourth 
 of  another  Sevekhotep,  not  fully  identified,  but  hav- 
 ing the  prefix  of  Osirtasen  II.;  and  a  fifth  colossus 
 of  a  sovereign  whose  name  is  not  yet  known  I'rom 
 any  list  of  kings. 
 
 In  addition  to  these,  a  number  of  sphinxes  of 
 
ZOAR 
 
 fine  workmanship  have  been  unveiled.  From  a 
 personal  inspection  of  these  monuments,  Count  de 
 lJoui;e  states  tliat  the  art  has  all  the  vigor,  the 
 nicety,  the  perfection  of  the  time  of  the  old  em- 
 pire, but  the  type  cannot  be  confounded  with  any 
 I'^sryp^'''"  type;  so  characteristic  is  its  impress  tliat 
 the  difference  of  races  at  once  strikes  the  eye  of  the 
 observer.  The  god  Soutekh  or  Set  is  also  promi- 
 nent upon  these  monuments.  Here  then  are  indu- 
 bitable traces  of  the  Hyksos  or  "  Shepherds,"  who 
 do  not  appear  to  have  been  such  ruthless  iconoclasts 
 as  Egyptian  historians  have  represented  them. 
 
 The  papyrus  "  Sallier  I."  establishes  the  fact 
 that  a  Shepherd-king  built  to  Set  a  substantial 
 temple  at  .Vvaris,  and  established  in  his  honor  festi- 
 vals and  sacrificial  days;  and  a  religious  feud  aris- 
 ing from  the  attempt  to  force  this  hostile  divinity 
 apon  the  Egyptians  seems  to  have  prompted  the 
 expulsion  of  the  Shepherds. 
 
 There  are  serious  objections  to  the  theory  that 
 the  Hebrews  were  in  Egypt  under  the  Hyksos.  If 
 the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph's  time  was  a  Hyksos,  how 
 could  the  name  "  Shepherd  "  have  been  an  "  abom- 
 irfition  "  to  him,  and  how  could  Joseph  have  se- 
 cured the  isolation  of  his  brethren  l)y  introducing 
 them  as  shepherds  V  What  motive  could  have  led 
 these  foreign  invaders,  if  then  in  power  in  Egypt. 
 to  suppress  a  kindred  people,  strangers  and  shep- 
 herds like  themselves,  and  who  would  have  been 
 their  natural  allies  against  Egypt,  in  a  civil  war? 
 The  narrative  of  tiie  l<Lxodus  forbids  the  supposition 
 that  the  Hebrews  were  driven  out  with  the  Hyksos, 
 and  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  that  they  were  suf- 
 fered to  remain,  if  they  were  in  the  country  at  the 
 Hyksos  period. 
 
 ]<"or  a  full  discussion  of  this  question,  see  Ebers, 
 ^gypteii  und  die  Biicher  Mast's ;  Chabas,  Les 
 Pasleurs  eiiEi/yjHe,  and  the  BiOl.  Sacra,  vol.  xxvi. 
 p.  581. 
 
 Tanis  has  recently  furnished  a  valuable  help  to 
 Egyptian  philology  in  a  stone  containing  an  in- 
 scription of  Ptolemy  HI.  Euergetes  I.  in  thirty- 
 seven  lines  of  hieroglyphics,  followed  by  seventy-six 
 of  Greek.  The  complete  disinterment  of  the  stone 
 has  also  very  recently  lirou^ht  to  light  a  third,  or 
 demotic  text  of  the  inscription,  also  comijletely 
 preserved.  (See  Proceedings  of' the  Amer.  Urien- 
 td  Sociely,  May,  1870,  p.  viii.)  This  Tablet  of 
 Canopus  remarkalily  confirms  the  general  system  of 
 ChampoUion.  See  Bks  bilin_(/ue  Dekret  vun  Kiino- 
 pus,  von  li.  Lepsius  ([3erl.  1867)  ;  Die  zwei- 
 spradiiije  InsrhriJ't  von  Tanis,  von  Eeinisch  und 
 l\oe>k'r  (Wien,  1807);  also  Bibl.  Sacra,  vol.  xxiv. 
 p.  771.  J.  P.  T. 
 
 ZO'AR  C^P'^,  and  twice «  "l^"l!S  [smallness]  : 
 
 Saniar.  throughout  ~127!J :  ziyopa,  ^riydop,  Zo- 
 y6f>;  Joseph.  Zowp,  to.  Z6apa.,  or  Zwapa'  Set/or). 
 One  of  tiie  most  ancient  cities  of  tlie  land  of  Canaan 
 [Moali. — S.  W.].  Its  original  name  was  Bki,a, 
 and  it  was  still  so  called  at  the  time  of  Abram's 
 first  residence  in  Canaan  (Gen.  xiv.  2,  8).  It  was 
 then  in  intimate  connection  with  the  cities  of  the 
 "plain  of  Jordan  "  —  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah, 
 and  Zeboiim  (see  also  xiii.  10;  l)ut  not  x.  19)  — 
 and  its  king  took  part  with  the  kings  of  tliose 
 towns  in  the  liattle  with  the  Assyrian  host  which 
 ended  in  their  defeat  and  the   capture  of  Lot.     In 
 
 ZOAR 
 
 3639 
 
 a  Gen.  xix.  22.  30. 
 
 b  In  the  Tar^uui   Pseudojonathan,  to   vv.  22,    23, 
 
 the  general  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain, 
 Zoar  was  spared  to  aff.ird  shelter  to  Lot,  and  it  was 
 on  that  occasion,  according  to  tlie  quaint  statement 
 of  the  ancient  narrative,  that  the  change  in  its 
 name  took  place  (xix.  22,  23,  30). ''  It  is  men- 
 tioned in  the  account  of  the  death  of  Moses  as  one 
 of  the  landmarks  which  bounded  his  view  from 
 Pisgah  (Deut.  xxxiv.  3),  and  it  appears  to  liave  been 
 known  in  the  time  both  of  Isaiah  (xv.  5)  and  Jere- 
 miah (xlviii.  34).  These  are  all  the  notices  of  Zoar 
 contained  in  the  Bible. 
 
 1.  It  was  situated  in  the  same  district  with  the 
 four  cities  already  mentioned,  namely,  in  tiie  Cicidr, 
 the  "  plain  "  or  "  circle  '"  "  of  the  Jordan,"  and  the 
 narrative  of  Gen.  xix.  evidently  implies  that  it  was 
 very  near  to  Sodom  —  sufficiently  near  for  Lot  and 
 his  family  to  traverse  the  distance  in  the  time  be- 
 tween the  first  appearance  of  the  morning  and  the 
 actual  rising  of  the  sun  (vv.  15,  23,  27).  The 
 definite  position  of  Sodom  is,  and  pro'oably  will  al- 
 ways be  a  mystery,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt 
 tliat  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  was  at  tlie  north  of  the 
 Dead  Sea,  and  that  the  cities  of  the  plain  nuist 
 therefore  have  been  situated  there  instead  of  at  the 
 southern  end  of  the  lake,  as  it  is  generally  taken 
 for  granted  they  were.  The  grounds  for  this  con- 
 clusion have  lieen  already  indicated  under  Sodom 
 (p.  3008),  but  it  will  be  well  to  state  them  here 
 more  at  length.     They  are  as  follows :  — 
 
 («.)  The  northern  and  larger  portion  of  the  lake 
 has  undouljtedly  existed  in,  or  verj'  nearly  in  its 
 present  form  since  a  date  long  anterior  to  the  age 
 of  Abraham.  (The  conviction  of  the  writer  is  that 
 this  is  true  of  the  whole  lake,  but  every  one  will 
 agree  as  to  the  northern  portion,  and  that  is  all 
 yiat  is  necessary  to  the  present  argument.)  The 
 .lordan  therefore  at  that  date  discharged  itself  into 
 the  lake  pretty  nearly  where  it  does  now,  and  thus 
 the  "  plain  of  the  Jordan,"  unless  unconnected 
 with  the  river,  must  have  lain  on  the  north  of  the 
 Dead  Sea. 
 
 (/;.)  The  plain  was  within  view  of  the  spot  from 
 which  Abram  and  Lot  took  their  survey  of  the 
 country  (Gen.  xiii.  1-13),  and  which,  if  there  is 
 any  connection  in  the  narrative,  was  "  the  mountain 
 east  of  Bethel,"  "  between  Bethel  and  Ai,  '  with 
 "  Bethel  on  the  west  and  Ai  on  the  east  "  (xii.  8, 
 xiii.  3).  Now  the  lower  part  of  the  course  of  the 
 Jordan  is  plainly  visible  from  the  hills  east  of 
 Beitin  —  the  whole  of  that  rich  and  singular  valley 
 spread  out  before  the  spectator.  On  the  other 
 hand,  the  southern  half  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  not  only 
 too  far  off  to  be  discerned,  but  is  actually  shut  out 
 from  view  by  intervening  heights. 
 
 (c.)  In  the  account  of  the  view  of  Moses  from 
 Pisgah  the  Ciccdr  is  more  strictly  defined  as  "the 
 Ciccdr  of  the  plain  of  Jericho  "  (A.  V.  "  plain  of 
 the  valley  of  Jericho"),  and  Zoar  is  mentioned  in 
 immediate  connection  with  it.  Now  no  person  who 
 knows  the  spot  from  actual  acquaintance,  or  from 
 study  of  the  topography,  can  believe  that  the  "  plain 
 of  .lericho  "  can  have  been  extended  to  the  southern 
 end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  The  Jerusalem  Targum  (not 
 a  very  ancient  authority  in  itself,  but  still  valuable 
 as  a  storehouse  of  many  ancient  traditions  and  ex- 
 planations), in  paraphrasing  this  passage,  actually 
 identifies  Zoar  with  Jericho  —  "  the   plain   of  the 
 
 the  name  of  Zoar  is  given  "1171Y'  and  the  play  on  *he 
 '■  smallness  "  of  the  town  is  suppress^.' 
 
3640  zoAR 
 
 valley  of   Jericho,    the   city   which   produces   the 
 
 pahiis,  that  is  Zeer  "  ("T^jy^i)." 
 
 These  considerations  appear  to  the  writer  to 
 render  it  higlily  probable  that  the  Zoar  of  the 
 Pentateuch  was  to  the  north  of  the  Dead  Sea,  not 
 far  from  its  northern  end,  in  the  general  parallel 
 of  Jericho.  That  it  was  on  the  east  side  of  the 
 valley  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  fact  that  tiie  de- 
 scendants of  Lot,  the  Moal)ites  and  Ammonites,  are 
 in  possession  of  that  country  as  their  original  seat 
 when  they  first  appear  in  the  sacred  history.  It 
 seems  to  follow  that  the  "  mountain  "  in  which  Lot 
 and  his  daughters  dwelt  when  Moab  and  Ben- 
 Ammi  were  born,  was  the  "  mountain  "  to  which 
 he  was  advised  to  flee  by  the  angel,  and  between 
 which  and  Sodom  stood  Zoar  (six.  30,  com])n,re  17, 
 19).  It  is  also  in  i'avor  of  its  position  north  of 
 the  Dead  Sea,  that  the  earliest  information  as  to 
 the  Woabites  makes  their  original  seat  in  the  plains 
 of  Heshbon,  N.  E.  of  the  lake,  not,  as  afterwards, 
 in  the  mountains  on  the  S.  E.,  to  which  they 
 were  driven  by  the  Amorites  (Num.  xxi.  20). 
 
 2.  'Ihe  passages  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  in  which 
 Zoar  is  mentioned  give  no  clew  to  its  situation. 
 True  they  abound  with  the  names  of  places,  ap- 
 parently in  cormection  with  it,  but  they  are  places 
 (with  only  an  exception  or  two)  not  identified. 
 Still  it  is  remarkaljle  that  one  of  these  is  Klealeh, 
 which,  if  the  modern  el-Aitl,  is  in  the  parallel  of 
 the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  that  another 
 is  the  Waters  of  Nimrim,  which  may  turn  out  to 
 be  identical  with  Wmly  Nimrin,  opposite  Jericho. 
 Wudy  Beir,  a  short  distance  south  of  JVlDiriii,  is 
 suggestive  of  Zoar,  but  we  are  too  ill-informed  of 
 the  situations  and  the  orthography  of  the  places 
 east  of  Jordan  to  be  able  to  judge  of  this.  « 
 
 3.  So  much  for  the  Zoar  of  the  Bible.  When 
 however  we  examine  the  notices  of  the  place  in  the 
 post-Biblical  sources,  we  find  a  considerable  differ- 
 ence. In  these  its  position  is  indicated  with  more 
 or  less  precision,  as  at  the  S.  E.  end  of  the  Dead 
 Sea.  Thus  Josepluis  says  that  it  retained  its 
 name  (Zocap)  to  his  day  (Ant.  i.  11,  §  4),  that  it 
 was  at  the  further  end  of  the  Asphaltic  Lake,  in 
 Arabia  —  by  which  he  means  the  country  lying 
 S.  E  of  the  lake,  whose  capital  was  Fetra  {B.  J. 
 iv.  8,  §  4;  A7it.  xiv.  1,  §  4).  The  notices  of  Euse- 
 bius  are  to  the  same  tenor:  the  Dead  Sea  extended 
 from  Jericho  to  Zoar  {ZoopSiv;  Onom.  @a\a<Tffa  77 
 aXvKt))-  Phisno  lay  between  Petra  and  Zoar  {lb. 
 ^tvutv)-  It  still  retained  its  name  (Zioapd),  lay 
 close  to  {irapaKeifxeurj)  the  Dead  Sea,  was  crowded 
 with  inhabitants,  and  contained  a  garrison  of  Ro- 
 man soldiers;  the  palm  and  the  l)alsam  still  flour- 
 ished, and  testified  to  its  ancient  fertility  {lb. 
 BaA.o). 
 
 To  these  notices  of  Eusebius  St.  Jerome  adds 
 little  or  nothing.  Paula  in  her  journey  beholds 
 Segor  (which  Jerome  gives  on  several  occasions  as 
 the  Hebrew  form  of  the  name  in  opposition  to 
 Zoora  or  Zoara,  the  Syrian  form)  from  Caphar 
 Borucha  (possibly  Bvni  Nairn,  near  Hebron),  at 
 the  same  time  with  Engaddi,  and  the  land  where 
 once  stood  the  four  cities ;  '^  but  the  terms  cjf  the 
 
 ZOAR 
 
 statement  are  too  vague  to  allow  of  any  inference 
 as  to  its  position  {Epist.  cviii.  §  11).  In  his  com- 
 mentary on  Is.  XV.  5,  he  says  that  it  was  "  in  the 
 boundary  of  the  Moabites,  dividing  them  from  the 
 land  of  the  Philistines,"  and  thus  justifies  his  use 
 
 of  the  word  vectis  to  translate  nrT'l^  (A.  V. 
 "his  fugitives,"  marg.  "  borders;  "  Gesen.  _//uc/(/- 
 lirif/e).  The  term  J'lnllsthiim,  unless  the  words 
 are  corrupt,  can  only  mean  the  land  of  Palestine  <-' 
 —  i.  e.  (according  to  the  inaccurate  usage  of  later 
 times)   of  Israel  —  as  opposed   to   jMoal).     In   his 
 
 tlmiintlunes  JJebraicce  on  Gen.  xix.  30  (comp.  xiv. 
 3)  Jerome  goes  so  far  as  to  affirm  the  accuracy  of 
 the  Jewish  conjecture,  that  the  later  name  of  Zoar 
 was  Shalisha:  "Bale  primum  et  postea  Salisa  ap- 
 pellata "  (comp.  also  his  comment  on  Is.  xv.  5). 
 But  this  is  probably  grounded  merely  on  an  inter- 
 pretation of  shdlislnyeh  in  Is.  xv.  5,  as  connected 
 with  belri,  and  as  denoting  the  "third  "  destruction 
 of  the  town  by  "earthquakes."'' 
 
 In  more  modern  times  Zoar  is  mentioned  by  the 
 Crusading  historians.  Euleher  {Gestri  Del,  p.  40.5, 
 quoted  by  von  Kaumer,  p.  239)  states  tliat  "  liaving 
 encircled  {yirato)  the  southern  part  of  the  lake  on 
 the  road  from  Hebron  to  Petra,  we  found  there  a 
 large  village  which  was  said  to  l>e  Segor,  in  a 
 charming  situation,  and  alioundintj  with  dates. 
 Here  we  began  to  enter  the  mountains  of  Arabia." 
 The  palms  are  mentioned  also  by  William  of  Tyre 
 (xxii.  30)  as  being  so  abundant  as  to  cause  the 
 place  to  be  called  Villa  Palinnrum,  and  Palmer 
 {i.  e.  probably  Pauinier).  Abulfeda  (cir.  A.  D. 
 1320)  does  not  specify  its  position  more  nearly  than 
 that  it  was  adjacent  to  the  lake  and  the  (Hair,  but 
 he  testifies  to  its  then  importance  liy  calling  the 
 lake  after  it — Bahretzeghor  (see,  too,  Ibn  Idris,  in 
 Keland,  p.  272).  The  natural  inference  from  the 
 description  of  Fulcher  is,  that  Sesjor   lay   in   the 
 
 W'lulij  Kerak,  the  ordinary  road,  then  and  now, 
 from  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  eastern 
 highlands.  The  conjecture  of  Irliy  and  Mangles 
 (.lune  1,  and  see  May  9),  that  the  extensive  ruins 
 which  they  found  in  the  lower  part  of  this  wady 
 were  those  of  Zoar,  is  therefore  pi'obably  accurate. 
 
 The  name  Dra^a  or  Dera\ih  (&£\(i),  which  they, 
 
 Poole  {Geogr.  J  own.  xxvi.  03),  and  Burckhardt 
 (July  15),  give  to  the  valley,  may  even  without 
 violence  be  accepted  as  a  corruption  of  Zoar. 
 
 Zoar  was  included  in  the  province  of  Palestina 
 Tertia,  which  contained  also  Ker.ik  and  Arcopolis. 
 It  was  an  episcopal  see,  in  the  patiiarchate  of  Jeru- 
 salem and  archbishopric  of  Petra;  at  the  Council 
 of  Chalcedon  (A.  D.  4-51)  it  was  represented  by  its 
 bishop  Musonius,  and  at  the  Synod  of  Constanti- 
 nople (a.  d.  536)  by  John  (Le  Quien,  Oriens 
 Christ,  iii.  743-740). 
 
 4.  To  the  statements  of  the  medireval  travellers 
 just  quoted  there  are  at  least  two  remarkable  ex- 
 ceptions. (1.)  Brocardus  (cir.  A.  D.  ]2i)0),  the 
 author  of  the  Descrlplio  Terrce  Sajic/ce,  the  stand- 
 ard "  Handbook  to  Palestine"  of  the  Middle  .Ages, 
 the  work  of  an  able  and  intelligent  resident  in  the 
 country,    states    (cap.    vii.)    tiiat    "five    leagues' 
 
 t  The  Samaritan  Text  and  Version  afford  no  lii^ht 
 on  ttiis  passage,  as  they,  for  rea.>*ons  not  difficult  to 
 divine,  have  tlirown  the  whole  into  confusion. 
 
 I>  None  of  these  places,  however,  can  be  seen  from 
 Belli  Nairn  (Rob.  i.  491). 
 
 c  Similarly,  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  places  Zoar 
 ei'  IlaAaio-Ti'i'T)  (quoted  by  Rcland,  p.  1065). 
 
 ''  See  Rahmer,  Die  Hebr.  Traclit.  in  Hieronymvs 
 (Breslau,  1861),  p.  29. 
 
 e  The  distance  from  Jericho  to  En-gedi  is  under 
 stated  here.     It  is  really  about  24  Euglish  miles. 
 
ZOAR 
 
 (leucse)  to  the  south  of  Jericho  is  the  city  Segov, 
 situated  beneath  the  mountain  of  I'",iii;addi,  between 
 which  niountiiin  and  tlie  Dead  ,Sea  is  the  statue  of 
 Bait."  «  True  he  confesses  that  all  his  eftbrts  to 
 visit  the  spot  had  been  i'rustrated  by  the  Saracens; 
 but  the  passage  bears  marks  of  the  greatest  desire 
 to  obtain  correct  informatioti,  and  he  must  have 
 nearly  approached  the  place,  because  he  saw  with 
 his  own  eyes  the  "  pyramids  "  which  covered  the 
 "wells  of  bitumen,"  which  he  supposes  to  have 
 been  those  of  the  vale  of  Siddim.  This  is  in  curi- 
 ous agreement  with  the  connection  between  En-gedi 
 and  Zoar  implied  in  .lemme's  Itinerary  of  Paula. 
 (2.)  The  statement  of  Thietmar  (a.  d.  1217)  is 
 even  more  singular.  It  is  contained  in  the  11th 
 and  12th  chapters  of  his  Pei-ei/iinado  (ed.  Laurent, 
 Hamburgi,  1857).  After  visiting  Jericho  and  Gil- 
 gal  he  arrives  at  the  "fords  of  Jordan"  (xi.  20}, 
 where  Israel  crossed  and  where  Christ  was  baptized, 
 and  where  then,  as  now,  the  pilgrims  bathed  (22). 
 Crossing  this  ford  (33)  he  arrives  at  "the  field 
 and  the  spot  where  the  Lord  overthrew  Sodom  and 
 Gomorra."  After  a  description  of  the  lake  come 
 the  following  words:  "On  the  shore  of  this  lake, 
 aliout  a  mile  {ad  millare)  from  the  spot  at  which 
 the  Lord  was  baptized,  is  the  statue  of  salt  into 
 which  Lot's  wife  was  turned"  (47).  "Hence  I 
 came  from  the  lake  of  Sodom  atid  (iomorra,  and 
 arrived  at  Segor,  where  Lot  took  refuge  after  the 
 overthrow  of  Sodom :  which  is  now  called  in  the 
 Syrian  tongue  Zorn,  but  in  Latin  the  city  of  palms. 
 In  the  mountain  hard  by  this  Lot  sinned  with  his 
 daughters  (xii.  1-3).  After  this  I  passed  the  vine- 
 yard   of   Benjamin   (t)  and   of    Engaddi 
 
 Next  I  came  into  the  land  of  Moab  and  to  the 
 mountain  in  which  was  the  cave  where  David  hid 
 ....  leaving  on  my  left  hand  Sethim  (Shittim), 
 
 where  the  children  of    Israel   tarried At 
 
 last  I  came  to  the  plains  of  Moab,  which  abound 
 in  cattle  and  grain A  plain  country,  de- 
 lightfully covered  with  herbage,  but  without  either 
 woods  or  single  trees;  hardly  even  a  twig  or  shiul:) 
 (4-l.D).  .  .  .  After  this  I  came  to  the  torrent 
 Jabbok"  (xiv.  1). 
 
 Making  allowance  for  the  confusion  into  which 
 this  traveller  seems  to  have  fallen  as  to  luigaddi 
 and  the  cavern  of  David,  it  seems  almost  certain 
 from  his  description  that,  having  once  crossed  the 
 Jordan,  he  did  not  recross  it,''  and  that  the  site  of 
 Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  pillar  of  salt,  and  Zoar, 
 were  all  seen  by  him  on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea 
 —  the  two  tirst  at  its  northeast  end.  Taken  liy 
 itself  this  woulrl  not  perhaps  be  of  nuich  weight, 
 but  when  combined  with  the  evidence  which  the 
 writer  has  attempted  to  bring  forward  that  the 
 "cities  of  the  plain "  lay  to  the  north  of  the 
 lake,  it  seems  to  him  to  assume  a  certain  signif- 
 icance. 
 
 5.  But  putting  aside  tlie  accounts  of  Brocardus 
 and  Thietmar,  as  exceptions  to  the  ordinary  nie- 
 
 ZOAR 
 
 3641 
 
 a  In  the  map  to  the  Tkcatriim  Terrrp,  Snnctir.  of 
 Adrichomius,  Sodom  is  placed  within  the  lake,  at  its 
 N.  W.  end ;  Segor  near  it  on  the  shore ;  and  tlie 
 Statua  Salis  close  to  the  mouth  of  the  torrent  (ap- 
 parently Kidron). 
 
 >i  Thietmar  did  not  return  to  the  west  of  the  Jor- 
 dan. From  the  torrent  Jabbok  he  ascended  the  moun- 
 tains of  Abarim.  lie  then  recrossed  the  plain  of 
 Heshbon  to  the  river  Arnon  ;  and  passing  the  ruins 
 of  Robda  (Rahba),  and  Crach  (Kerak),  and  again  cross- 
 ing the  Arnon  (probably  the  Wady  el-Ahsy),  reached 
 the  top  of  a  vcrv  hi;;h  mountain,  where  he  was  half 
 220 
 
 dia3val  belief  which  placed  Zoar  at  the  Wadij  ef/~ 
 Drii'ii,  how  can  that  belief  he  reconciled  with  the 
 inference  drawn  above  from  the  statements  of  the 
 Pentateuch  ?  It  agrees  with  those  statements  in 
 one  particular  only,  the  position  of  the  place  on 
 the  eastern  side  of  the  lake.  In  everything  else  it 
 disagrees  not  only  with  the  Pentateuch,  but  with 
 the  locality  ordinarily*^  assigned  to  Sodom.  For 
 if  Usdut/i  be  Soilom,  at  the  S.  W.  corner  of  the 
 lake,  its  distance  from  the  Wady  ed-Bra'a  (at 
 least  15  miles)  is  too  great  to  agree  with  the  re- 
 quirements of  Gen.  xix. 
 
 This  has  led  INI.  de  Saulcy  to  place  Zoar  in  the 
 Wady  Zuweirali,  the  pass  leading  from  Hebron  to 
 the  Dead  Sea.  But  the  names  Zuweirali  and  Zoar 
 are  not  nearly  so  similar  in  the  originals  as  they 
 are  in  their  western  forms,  and  there  is  the  fatal 
 obstacle  to  the  proposal  that  it  places  Zoar  on  the 
 west  of  the  lake,  away  from  what  appears  to  have 
 been  the  original  cradle  of  Moab  and  Amnion.'' 
 If  we  are  to  look  for  Zoar  in  this  neighborhood,  it 
 would  surely  be  better  to  place  it  at  the  Tvll  itin- 
 
 Zo(jhale  the  latter  part  of  which  name  (^^£«\) 
 
 is  almost  literally  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  Zoar. 
 The  proximity  of  this  name  and  that  of  Usdum, 
 so  like  Sodom,  and  the  presence  of  the  salt  moun- 
 tain —  to  this  day  splitting  off  in  pillars  which 
 show  a  rude  resemblance  to  the  human  form  —  are 
 certainly  remarkable  facts;  but  they  oidy  add  to 
 the  general  mystery  in  which  the  whole  of  the 
 question  of  the  position  and  destruction  of  the 
 cities  is  involved,  and,  to  which  the  writer  sees  at 
 present  no  hope  of  a  solution. 
 
 In  the  A.  V.  of  Itill  the  name  Zoar  [2aop: 
 haar,  or  tt  S(thar,  ed.  1.590]  is  found  in  1  Chr. 
 iv.    7,  following   (though    inaccurately)   the   Keri 
 
 ("^n^l).  The  present  received  text  of  the  A.  V. 
 follows  (with  the  insertion  of  "and")  the  CethiO 
 
 ("inii"').  In  either  case  the  name  has  no  con- 
 nection with  Zoar  proper,  and  is  more  accurately 
 represented  in  Lnglish  as  Zoliar  (Tsochar)  or 
 Jezohar.      [Jezoar.]  G. 
 
 *  The  theory  offered  above,  "  that  the  Zoar  of 
 the  Pentateuch  was  to  the  north  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
 not  far  from  its  northern  end,  in  the  general  par- 
 allel of  Jericlio,"  is,  we  believe,  original  with  its 
 author;  and  we  present  some  reasons  for  discarding 
 it,  and  in  favor  of  the  received  opinion  that  it  lay 
 southeast  of  the  sea. 
 
 Zoar  was  a  frontier  town  of  Moab.  The  "  bur- 
 den "  or  wail  of  IMoab  which  appears  in  the  proph- 
 ecy of  Isaiah  (xv.)  and  is  repeated  in  that  of  .Jere- 
 miah (xlviii.)  both  possilily  derived  from  a  more 
 ancient  common  source,  associates  the  town  with 
 the  territory,  and  Mr.  Grove  includes  it  in  his  list 
 of  the  towns  of  Moab.  The  borders  of  Israel  and 
 Moab  touched,  as  we  know  (Num.  xxiv.  3),  near 
 the  southeast  corner  of  the  Salt  Sea.     Zoar,  then, 
 
 killed  by  the  cold.  Thence  he  journeyed  to  Petra 
 and  Mount  Hor,  and  at  length  reached  the  Red  Sea 
 His  itinerary  is  full  of  interest  and  intelligence. 
 
 c  Though  incorrectly,  if  the  writer's  argument  for 
 the  position  of  the  plain  of  Jordan  is  tenable. 
 
 ''  Dr.  Robinson's  arguments  against  this  proposal 
 of  De  Sauloy  {Bibl.  Hes.  ii.  107,  517).  though  they 
 mii;ht  be  more  pleasant  in  tone,  are  unanswerable  in 
 substance. 
 
 c  The  Re'ljmn  d-Mezorrhel  of  De  Saulcy.  The  gk 
 and  rrk  each  strive  to  represent  the  Arabic  ghain, 
 which  is  pronounced  like  a  guttural  rolling  r. 
 
8642  zoAR 
 
 was  east  of  the  boundary,  and  Sodom  west  of  it, 
 and  both  were  near  it. 
 
 'I'iie  first  allusion  to  the  spot  (Gen.  xiii.  10)  ac- 
 cords entirely  with  the  position  wliicli  we  advocate, 
 and  does  not  readily  admit  of  any  other  construc- 
 tion. The  sacred  writer  refers  to  the  extent  of  the 
 watered  and  fruitful  plain  of  .lordan,  before  the 
 Lord  destroyed  the  cities,  "  as  thou  comest  unto 
 Zoar."'  Like  a  later  description,  in  which  Zoar  is 
 a  terminus,  the  reader  naturally  understands  a  ref- 
 erence to  the  southern  extremity  of  the  plain.  If 
 Zoar  had  been  east  of  the  Jordan,  on  a  line  with 
 Jericho,  the  description  would  be  unnatural.  It 
 might  still  be  claimed  to  be  »u  allusion  to  the  breadth 
 of  the  valley  divided  l)y  the  Jordan,  but  it  would 
 exclude  the  more  pertinent  and  manifest  allusion  to 
 its  length.  So  far  is  this  "  narrative  in  Genesis  " 
 from  seeming  to  "state  positively'"  that  the  site 
 "lay  at  the  northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,"  that 
 it  becomes  unintelligible  to  us  on  any  other  hypoth- 
 esis than  that  it  lay  at  the  southern  end.  And  the 
 description  is  perfectly  natural,  thougli  the  terminus 
 was  not  actually  visible. 
 
 The  above  interpretation,  whicl:  Mr.  Grove  sets 
 aside  as  impossible,  he  has  himself  put  forward  as 
 unquestioned  and  unencumbered,  and  in  previous 
 articles  it  stands  as  his  own.  His  exposition  (see 
 Lot,  vol.  ii.  p.  168.5  a)  reads  thus:  — 
 
 "The  two  Ilelirews  looked  over  the  comparatively 
 empty  land  in  the  direction  of  Sodom,  Gomorrah, 
 and  Zoar  (xiii.  10).  And  Lot  lifted  up  liis  eyes 
 toward  the  left,  and  beheld  all  the  precinct  of  the 
 Jordan  that  it  was  well-watered  everywhere ;  like  a 
 garden  of  Jehovah,  like  that  unutterably  green  and 
 fertile  land  of  Esrypt  he  had  only  lately  quitted. 
 Even  from  that  distance  through  the  clear  air  of 
 Palestine,  can  be  distinctly  discovered  the  long  and 
 thick  masses  of  venetation  which  fringe  the  numer- 
 ous streams  that  descend  from  the  hills  on  either 
 side,  to  meet  the  central  stream  in  its  tropical 
 depths.  And  what  it  now  is  immediately  opposite 
 Bethel,  such  it  seems  then  to  have  been  '  even  to 
 Zoar,'  to  the  furthest  extremity  of  the  sea  which 
 !)0W  .covers  the  '  valley  of  the  fields  '  ('  V.alley  of 
 Siddim,'  Siddim  fields),  the  fields  of  Sodom  and 
 Gomorrah.  So  Lot  '  chose  all  the  precinct  of  the 
 Jordan,  and  journeyed  east,'  down  the  ravines 
 wliich  give  access  to  the  Jordan  Valley;  and  then 
 when  he  reached  it,  turned  again  southward  and 
 advanced  as  far  as  Sodom  (11,  12)."  See  also 
 Bktiiel,  vol.  i.  p.  289. 
 
 Besides  the  passages  in  Genesis  and  the  two  in 
 the  prophecies  which  have  been  referred  to,  Zoar  is 
 named  in  but  one  other  place  in  the  Bible  (Deut. 
 xxxiv.  3),  and  that  is  decisive  against  Mr.  Grove's 
 theory.  Moses  had  ascended  "  the  mountain  of 
 Nebo,  to  the  top  of  I'isgah,  that  is  over  against 
 Jericlio,"  to  take  his  view  of  the  Promised  Land. 
 The  Lord  showed  him  its  different  sections,  and 
 among  others  "  the  plain  of  the  valley  of  Jericho, 
 the  city  of  palm-trees  unto  Zoar."  Mount  Nebo 
 has  lieen  identified,  if  we  accept  Mr.  Tristram's  se- 
 lection, and  if  we  do  not,  !Mr.  Grove  has  stated  pre- 
 cisely where,  on  the  testimony  of  the  Bible,  and  also 
 of  Josephus  (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  48)  and  the  Fathers,  it 
 must  be,  ''•  facing  Jericho  on  the  east  of  Jordan."  If, 
 now,  >'  the  Zoar  of  the  I'entateuch  was  to  the  north 
 of  the  Dead  Sea,  not  far  from  its  northern  end,  in 
 the  general  parallel  of  .lericho,"  "on  the  east  side  of 
 the  valley,"  it  must  have  lain  between  Jericho  and 
 Nebo,  near  the  base  of  the  latter,  a  supposition 
 which  renders  unintelligible  the  descriptive  sketch 
 
 ZOAR 
 
 just  quoted,  as  also  Mr.  Grove's  own  declaration, 
 that  the  site  which,  on  this  theory,  thus  lay  directly 
 below  the  prophet-leader,  was  "  one  of  the  landmarks 
 which  bounded  his  view  from  Pisgah." 
 
 The  two  definite  references  in  the  Pentateuch  to 
 the  extent  of  the  plain  obviously  mean  the  same. 
 They  both  describe  it  as  seen  lengthwise  from 
 northern  sunnnits,  the  one  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
 other  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley.  The  incred- 
 ible feature  of  ]\Ir.  Grove's  theory  is,  that  it  makes 
 Lot  and  JNIoses  look  across  the  plain  of  the  Jordan 
 eastward  and  westward  on  the  same  parallel,  ex- 
 tending in  both  cases  "unto  Zoar,"  though  one 
 viewed  it  from  the  western  hills,  and  the  other  from 
 the  eastern. 
 
 Has  Mr.  Grove  considered,  withal,  the  relation 
 of  the  river  Jordan  to  this  theory  V  Lot  was  ad- 
 monislied  not  to  tarry  in  the  plain,  but  escape  with 
 all  haste  to  the  mountain  —  flee,  that  is,  from  the 
 plain  west  of  the  river  in  the  territory  of  Canaan, 
 where  Jlr.  Grove  places  Sodom,  to  the  mountain  on 
 the  further  border  of  the  plain  east  of  the  ri\er  in 
 the  territoiy  of  Moab,  near  which  he  places  Zoar, 
 crossing  with  his  family,  without  any  apparent 
 facilities,  the  deep  and  I'apid  river. 
 
 Lot  subsequently  ascended  the  mountain  and 
 dwelt  in  a  cave  with  his  daughters ;  and  thence 
 sprung  the  mountain-tribes  of  Moab  and  Anmion. 
 The  heights  southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea  have  been  the 
 traditional  seat  and  radiating  "  centre,"'  as  stated 
 by  Mr.  Grove,  of  these  "brother  tribes."  They 
 pushed  northward  and  eastward  and  spread  over  a 
 large  territory,  keeping  distinct,  and  the  former 
 were  afterwards  dispossessed  of  theirs  as  far  south 
 as  the  line  of  the  Arnon  by  the  Amorites,  but  re- 
 tained their  original  fastnesses  (Num.  xxi.  26). 
 This  natural  interpretation  of  the  sacred  record  is 
 sustained  by  Ritter,  who  has  sketched  with  great 
 clearness  the  territories  and  courses  of  conquest  of 
 the  "  tribes  outside  of  Canaan  "  {Geog.  of  Pales- 
 tine, ii.  149,151). 
 
 The  argument  adduced  above,  "  that  the  earliest 
 information  as  to  the  Moal>ites  makes  their  original 
 seat  in  the  plains  of  Heshbon,  northeast  of  the  lake, 
 not  as  afterwards  in  the  mountains  on  the  south- 
 east, to  which  they  were  driven  by  the  Amorites 
 (Num.  xxi.  26)"  has  been  refuted  by  Mr.  Grove 
 himself  in  a  preceding  article  (Moab,  vol.  iii.  p. 
 1980  i*):  "The  warlike  Amorites,  either  forced 
 from  their  original  seats  on  the  west,  or  perhaps 
 lured  o\er  by  the  increasing  prosperity  of  the  young 
 nation,  crossed  the  Jordan,  and  o\erran  the  richer 
 portion  of  the  territory  on  the  north,  driving  Moab 
 back  to  his  original  position  behind  the  natural 
 bulwark  of  the  Arnon." 
 
 In  the  former  of  these  passages,  the  "  original 
 seat  "  of  the  Moabites  is  represented  to  have  been 
 northeast  of  the  sea.  In  the  latter  their  '■  original 
 position  "  is  represented  to  have  been  southeast  of 
 the  sea,  and  again,  in  the  same  article,  "the  south- 
 eastern border  of  the  Dead  Sea"  is  spoken  of  as 
 "  their  original  seat."  In  the  former  they  are  said 
 to  have  been  driven  by  the  Amorites  out  of  their 
 original  seat;  and  in  the  latter  they  are  said  to  have 
 been  driven  Ijy  the  same  into  their  original  position. 
 
 \^'e  accept  the  second  interpretation  as  that 
 which  lies  on  the  face  of  the  sacred  narrative,  and 
 has  been  received  by  all  Biblical  students  until  now. 
 And  in  the  highlands  above  what  we  claim  to  have 
 been  the  site  of  Zoar.  are  identified,  at  this  day,  the 
 ruins  of  the  strongholds,  Kir  of  Moab  and  Ar  of 
 Moab.     To  remove  the  cradle  of  these  tribes  north- 
 
ZOAR 
 
 ward  is  to  disturb  and  dislocate  the  associations 
 and  allusions  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  universally 
 understood  by  their  readers. 
 
 Mr.  Grove  suggests  that  "  if  Usrluin  be  Sodom, 
 its  distance  from  the  Wmh/  cil-Dr<i'a  (at  least  15 
 miles)  is  too  great  to  agree  with  the  requirements 
 of  Gen.  xix."  — assuming  the  i.ecessity  of  the  pres- 
 ent circuitous  route.  While  we  recognize  in  the 
 name  of  this  singular  mountain  a  memorial  of  an- 
 cient Sodom,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  it 
 designates  the  e.xact  site  of  the  city,  nor  is  it  cer- 
 tain that  Zoar  lay  at  the  mouth  of  Wady  Kerak. 
 We  only  claim  that  liotli  places  lay  not  very  far 
 from  a  point  southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  this 
 we  think  demonstrable.  We  would  suggest  that  a 
 fugitive  family  might  even  reach  Wady  cd-Dra'a 
 from  near  the  site  of  Khasliin  Usduiu  with  less 
 difficulty  and  in  less  time  (especially  in  the  direct 
 line  which  may  then  have  been  practicable)  tlian 
 they  could  cross  the  .lordan  and  reach  the  l)ase  of 
 the  eastern  mountains  on  the  parallel  of  Jericho. 
 
 The  allusions  to  this  site  by  Josephus  are  explicit. 
 He  says:  "It  is  to  this  day  called  Zoar  "  {Ant.  i. 
 11,  §  4).  In  describing  the  lake  Asphaltites,  he 
 says:  "  It  extended  as  far  as  Zoar  in  Arabia  "  {B. 
 ./.  iv.  8,  §  4)  by  which  he  plainly  designates  its 
 southern  point;  conformal]|y  with  his  own  3efini- 
 tion.  "  Arabia  is  a  country  that  borders  upon 
 Judsea  "  (Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  4).  Ritter,  vvitii  his  usual 
 thoroughness,  collates  the  early  post-Biblical  testi- 
 mony, and  says:  "  Zoar  can  only  be  looked  for  at 
 the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea."  Of  the 
 two  '•  meJiiBval  travellers  "'  quoted  above  as  apparent 
 exceptions  to  this  general  current  of  testimony  and 
 belief,  only  one  wrote  from  personal  observation, 
 and  both  are  nearly  unintelligible.  Their  confused 
 testimony,  on  which  no  stress  is  laid,  is  not  w'ortli 
 sifting;  and  that  it  has  no  weight  with  the  writer 
 is  evident  from  his  Sdmission  in  another  place: 
 '•  that  the  Zoar  of  Josephus,  Jerome,  and  the  Cru- 
 saders probalily  lay  where  Dr.  liobinson  places  it " 
 (Sodom,  p.  30G'.)  a).  The  cautious  Professor,  who 
 devoted  a  special  paper  to  the  site  of  Zoar  {IMl. 
 lies.  ii.  G48-6.51 ),  speaks  of  it  without  references  in 
 his  latest  work  as  an  ascertained  site:  "Zoar,  as 
 we  know,  was  in  the  mouth  of  Wady  Kcriik,  as  it 
 opens  upon  the  neck  of  tlie  peninsula "  {Phys. 
 (je,(>(j.  p.  '23-3).  While  this  may  have  been  the  ex- 
 act site  of  Zoar,  we  have  no  data  which  gives  us 
 absolute  knowledge,  and  probably  never  shall  have. 
 His  earlier  conclusion  was  impregnable:  "  All  these 
 circumstances  seem  to  be  decisive  as  to  the  position 
 of  Zoar  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  the 
 foot  of  the  mountains  near  its  southern  end  "  {Bihl. 
 Res.  ii.  649).  This  is  not  more  positive  than  Mr. 
 Grove's  original  statement:  "There  is  no  doubt 
 that  it  [Zoar]  was  situated  on  the  southeastern 
 border  of  the  Dead  Sea."  (Moah,  vol.  ii.  p.  391 
 b,  1st  Eng.  ed.;  comp.  iii.  1980  «,  Auier.  ed.,  for 
 a  later  alteration.) 
 
 Mr.  Tristram  offer%  a  still  stranger  theoi-y  re- 
 specting the  site  of  Zoar.  He  proposes  to  place  it 
 on  the  west  side  of  the  \'alley,  south  of  Jericho. 
 He  suggests  this  location  without  any  trace  of  name 
 or  ruin,  or  any  hint  of  history  or  tradition,  as  cor- 
 responding witli  the  view  granted  to  Moses  from 
 the  top  of  Pisgah.  "  If  we  place  Zoar,  as  it  nat- 
 urally would  be  placed  according  to  the  narrative 
 of  Lot's  escape,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill,  between 
 Wady  Bnbdr  and  Ras  Feshkhah,  we  see  that  here 
 was  just  the  limit  of  Moses's  view,  in  accordance 
 with  the  record."    {Land  of  Israel.,  p.  36G,  2d  ed.) 
 
 ZOBA  364S 
 
 No  one  can  have  imagined  that  the  southeast  bor- 
 der of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  walls  of  Zoar  at  that 
 point  were  visible  to  the  prophet  from  the  top  of 
 Pisgah,  unless,  as  suggested  liy  Mr.  Melvill  in  his 
 sermon  on  the  "  Death  of  Moses,"  his  vision  was 
 aided  by  God  who  was  with  his  servant  on  that 
 lonely  summit.  The  suggestion  of  Dean  Stanley 
 on  tills  point  commends  itself  to  us.  He  says: 
 "  It  was  a  view,  doubtless,  which  in  its  full  extent 
 was  to  be  imagined,  rather  than  actually  seen. 
 The  foreground  of  the  picture  alone  was  cleai-ly  dis- 
 cernil)le;  its  dim  distances  were  to  be  supplied  liy 
 what  was  beyond,  tliough  suggested  by  wliat  was 
 within  the  range  of  the  actual  prospect  of  the  seer  " 
 (.S.  cJ-P.  p.  295). 
 
 Mr.  Tristram's  own  description  is  as  full  a  con 
 firmation  of  the  sacred  record  as  we  could  have  an- 
 ticipated from  a  visitor  who  should  identify  tlie  lo- 
 cality and  describe  the  scene.  In  selecting  this 
 site,  without  any  indication,  local  or  traditional,  he 
 sets  aside,  without  answering  it,  the  array  of  evi- 
 dence convincing  to  ^Ir.  (irove,  us  to  the  writers  of 
 note  who  preceded  him,  which  makes  the  Zoar  of 
 the  Pentateuch  a  town  of  Moab  on  the  east  side  of 
 the  valley.  And  by  no  possible  interpretation  can 
 the  plaintive  cry  and  panic  flight,  recorded  in  "  the 
 burden  of  Moab,"  be  associated  with  a  city  off  on 
 the  northwestern  shore  of  the  sea:  "  My  heart  shall 
 cry  out  for  Moab;  his  fugitives  shall  flee  unto  Zoar, 
 an  heifer  of  three  years  old;  for  by  the  mounting 
 up  of  Luhith  with  weeping  shall  they  go  it- up;  for 
 in  the  way  of  Horonaim,  they  shall  raise  up  a  cry 
 of  destruction  "  (Is.  xv.  5).  "  From  the  cry  of 
 Heshl)on  even  unto  l^lealah,  and  even  unto  Jahaz, 
 have  they  uttered  their  voice,  from  Zoar  even  unto 
 Horonaim,  as  an  heifer  of  three  years  old ;  for  the 
 waters  also  of  Nimrim  shall  be  desolate "  (Jer. 
 xlviii.  34). 
 
 A  fuller  examination  of  Mr.  Tristram's  positions 
 may  be  found  in  Bibl.  Sac.  (1868),  xxv.  136-143. 
 In  a  private  letter  since  written,  Mr.  T.  intimates 
 his  relinquishment  of  his  published  theory.  For 
 lurther  argument  against  the  theory  that  the  Pen- 
 tapolis  lay  north  of  the  sea,  as  applied  to  the  other 
 cities,  see  under  Soddji  (Amer.  ed.).  S   \V. 
 
 ZO'BA  or  ZO'BAH  (Wni!J,  n3TJ:  [statue, 
 
 public  ;;face]:  Sou/Sci;  [2  Sam.  viii.  12;  •>  Chr. 
 viii.  3,  Alex.  2co;3o;  1  Chr.  xix.  G,  Rom.  Vat. 
 2a)/8aA,  FA.  SwiSa;  2  Chr.  viii.  3,  Rom.  Vat. 
 Bai]aQi^a;  Ps.  Ix.,  title,  So^aA,  Sin.  2co,8aA;  2 
 Sam.  xxiii.  36,  TloAvSwdixea}!,  Alex.  ttoAAus  Svva- 
 ^60)?:]  Soba,  [once]  Su/ja,  [once  Sobal])  is  the 
 name  of  a  portion  of  Syria,  which  formed  a  sepa- 
 rate kingdom  in  the  time  of  the  Jewish  monarchs, 
 Saul,  David,  and  Solomon.  It  is  difficult  to  fix 
 its  exact  position  and  limits;  but  there  seem  to  be 
 grounds  for  regarding  it  as  lying  chiefly  eastward 
 of  Coele-Syria,  and  extending  thence  northeast 
 and  east,  towards,  if  not  even  to  the  Euplu-ate.s. 
 [Syiua.]  It  would  thus  have  included  the  east- 
 ern flank  of  the  mountain-chain  which  shuts  in 
 Coele-Syria  on  that  side,  the  high  land  about 
 Aleppo,  and  the  more  northern  portion  of  the 
 Syrian  desert. 
 
 Among  the  cities  of  Zobah  were  a  Hamath  (2 
 Chr.  viii.  3),  which  must  not  be  confounded  with 
 "  Hamath  the  Great  "  (Hamath-Zobaii);  a  place 
 calletl  'libhath  or  Betah  (2  Sam.  viii.  8 ;  1  Chr. 
 xviii.  8),  which  is  perhaps  Taibe/i,  between  Pal- 
 myra and  Aleppo;  and  another  called  Berothai, 
 which   has   been   supposed    to    be   Beyrut.     (See 
 
3644 
 
 ZOBA 
 
 Winer,  Realicortei-biich,  vol.  i.  p.  155.)  This  last 
 Biippositioii  is  higlily  improbable,  for  the  liingdom 
 of  Haniath  must  have  intervened  between  Zobah 
 and  the  coast.      [Bkhothah.] 
 
 We  first  hear  of  Zobah  in  the  time  of  Saul,  when 
 we  find  it  mentioned  as  a  separate  country,  gov- 
 erned apparently  by  a  number  of  kings  who  own 
 no  common  head  or  chief  (1  Sam.  xiv.  47).  Saul 
 engaged  in  war  with  these  kings,  and  "  vexed 
 them,"  as  he  did  his  other  neighbors.  Some  forty 
 years  later  than  this,  we  find  Zobah  under  a  single 
 ruler,  Hadadezer,  son  of  liehob,  who  seems  to  have 
 been  a  powerful  sovereign.  He  had  wars  with  Toi, 
 king  of  Hamath  (2  Sam.  viii.  10),  while  he  lived  in 
 close  relations  of  amity  with  the  kings  of  Damas- 
 cus, Beth-Rehob,  Ish-tob,  etc.,  and  held  various 
 petty  Syrian  princes  as  vassals  under  his  yoke  (2 
 Sam.  X.  19).  He  had  even  a  considerable  influ- 
 ence in  Mesopotamia,  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and 
 was  able  on  one  occasion  to  olitain  an  important 
 au.Kiliary  force  from  that  quarter  (ibid.  10 ;  com- 
 pare title  to  I's.  Ix.).  David,  having  resolved  to 
 take  full  possession  of  the  tract  of  territory  orig- 
 inally promised  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham  (2 
 Sam.  viii.  3;  compare  Gen.  xv.  18),  attacked  Ha- 
 dadezer  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign,  defeated  his 
 army,  and  took  from  him  a  thousand  chariots, 
 seven  hundred  (seven  thousand,  1  Chr.  xviii.  4) 
 horsemen,  and  20,000  footmen.  Hadadezer's  allies, 
 the  Syrians  of  Damascus,  having  marched  to  his 
 assistance,  David  defeated  them  in  a  great  battle, 
 in  which  they  lost  22,000  men.  The  wealth  of 
 Zobah  is  very  apparent  in  the  narrative  of  this 
 can)paign.  Several  of  the  officers  of  Hadadezer's 
 army  carried  "shields  of  gold"  (2  Sam.  viii.  7), 
 by  which  we  are  probably  to  understand  iron  or 
 wooden  frames  overlaid  with  plates  of  the  precious 
 metal.  The  cities,  moreo\-er,  which  David  took, 
 Betah  (or  Tibhath)  and  Berothai,  jielded  him 
 "exceeding  much  brass"  (ver.  8).  It  is  not 
 clear  whether  the  Syrians  of  Zobah  submitted  and 
 became  tributary  on  this  occasion,  or  whether, 
 although  defeated,  they  were  able  to  maintain  their 
 independence.  At  any  rate  a  few  years  later,  tliey 
 were  again  in  arms  against  David.  This  time  the 
 Jewish  king  acted  on  the  defensive.  The  war  was 
 provoked  by  the  .Vnnnonites,  who  hired  the  ser- 
 vices of  the  Syrians  of  Zobah,  among  others,  to 
 help  them  against  the  people  of  Israel,  and  obtained 
 in  this  way  auxiliaries  to  the  amount  of  -3;}, 000 
 men.  The  allies  were  defeated  in  a  great  battle  liy 
 Joab,  who  engaged  the  Syrians  in  person  with  the 
 flower  of  his  troops  (2  Sam.  x.  9).  Hadadezer, 
 upon  this,  made  a  last  efFort.  He  sent  across  the 
 Euphrates  into  Mesopotamia,  and  "  drew  forth  the 
 Syrians  that  were  beyond  the  river"  (1  Chr.  xix. 
 10),  who  had  hitherto  taken  no  part  in  the  war. 
 With  these  allies  and  his  own  troops  he  once  more 
 renewed  the  struggle  with  the  Israelites,  who  were 
 now  conunanded  by  David  himself,  the  crisis  being 
 such  as  seemed  to  demand  the  presence  of  the  king. 
 A  battle  was  fought  near  Helam  —  a  place,  the 
 situation  of  which  is  uncertain  (Helaji)  —  where 
 the  Syrians  of  Zobah  and  their  new  allies  were 
 defeated  with  great  slaughter,  losing  between  40,000 
 and  50,000  men.  .A.fter  this  we  hear  of  no  more 
 hostilities.  The  petty  princes  hitherto  tributary 
 to  Hadadezer  transferred  their  allegiance  to  the 
 king  of  Israel,  and  it  is  probable  that  he  himself 
 became  a  vassal  to  Da\id. 
 
 Zobah,  however,  though  subdued,  continued  to 
 cause  trouble  to  the  Jewish  kings.    A  man  of  Zobah, 
 
 ZOHELETH,  THE  STONE 
 
 one  of  the  subjects  of  Hadadezer — Rezon,  son  of 
 Eliadah  —  having  escaped  from  the  battle  of  Helam, 
 and  "  gathered  a  band  "  (i.  e.  a  body  of  irregular 
 marauders),  marched  southward,  and  contrived 
 to  make  himself  master  of  Damascus,  where  he 
 reigned  (apparently)  for  some  fifty  years,  proving 
 a  fierce  adversary  to  Isi-ael  all  through  the  reign 
 of  Solomon  (1  K.  xi.  23-25).  Solomon  also  was 
 (it  would  seem  )  engaged  in  a  war  with  Zobah  itself. 
 The  Hamath-Zobah,  against  which  he  "  went  up  '' 
 (2  Chr.  viii.  3),  was  probably  a  town  in  that 
 country  which  resisted  his  authority,  and  which 
 he  accordingly  attacked  and  subdued.  This  is  the 
 last  that  we  hear  of  Zobah  in  Scripture.  The 
 name,  however,  is  found  at  a  later  date  in  the 
 Inscriptions  of  Assyria,  where  the  kingdom  of 
 Zobah  seems  to  intervene  between  Hamath  and 
 Damascus,  falling  thus  into  the  regular  line  of 
 march  of  the  Assyrian  armies.  Several  Assyrian 
 monarchs  relate  that  they  took  tribute  from  Zobah, 
 while  others  speak  of  having  traversed  it  on  their 
 way  to  or  from  Palestine.  G.  It. 
 
 ZOBE'BAH  (n32!J  [.Jow-moviiif/]:  2a- 
 0a£d;  Alex.  2a)/Srjj8a:  Soboba).  vSon  of  Coz,  in 
 an  obscure  genealogy  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr 
 iv.  8)< 
 
 ZO'HAR  O'H''^  [ichitcness]  :  Snap:  Seoy).  1. 
 Father  of  Ephron  the  Hittite  (Gen  xxiii.  8,  xxv.  9)- 
 
 2.  {Solidi;  Soar.)  One  of  the  sons  of  Simeon 
 (Gen.  xlvi.  10;  Ex.  vi.  15);  called  ZiiitAH  in  1 
 Chr.  iv.  24. 
 
 *  3.  Incorrectly  printed  Zoar  (A.  V.  ed.  1611, 
 latei-  eds.  Jezoar),  1  Chr.  iv.  7.    ■  [Zoah,  p.  3041  b.] 
 
 A. 
 
 ZOHELETH,     THE     STONE       ("?5^ 
 
 nbn-tn  [see  below]  :  AlBri  tov  7.cxie\eei  [Vat. 
 -Oei] ;  Alex,  tov  MQov  tov  ZooeXed:  I'lp's  Zvhe- 
 Ictli).  This  was  "  by  En-Iiogel "  (1  K.  i.  9);  and 
 therefore,  if  En-l!ogel  be  the  modern  Um-ed-Derfij, 
 tliis  stone,  '•  where  Adonijah  slew  sheep  and  oxen," 
 was  in  all  likelihood  not  far  from  the  Well  of  the 
 Virgin.  [En-Kogi;l.]  The  Targumists  translate 
 it  '-the  rolling  stone;  "  and  Jarchi  affirms  that  it 
 was  a  large  stone  on  which  the  young  men  tried 
 their  !>trength  in  attempting  to  roll  it.  Others 
 make  it  "  the  serpent  stone  "  (Gesen.),  as  if  from 
 
 the  root  VH^,  "  to  creep."  Jerome  simply  says, 
 "  Zoelet  tractum  sive  protractum."  Others  con- 
 nect it  with  ruiming  water:  but  there  is  nothing 
 strained  in  making  it  "  the  stone  of  the  conduit  " 
 
 (n7^nt^,  J\f(izclielalt),  from  its  proximity  to 
 the  great  rock-conduit  or  conduits  that  poured  into 
 Siloam.  Bochart's  idea  is  that  the  Hebrew  word 
 zuhel  denotes  "  a  slow  motion  "  (Hieroz.  part  i.  l)k. 
 1,  c.  9):  "the  fullers  here  pressing  out  the  water 
 which  dropped  from  the  clothes  that  they  had 
 washed  in  the  well  called  Bogel."  If  this  be  the 
 case,  then  we  have  some  reHcs  of  this  ancient  cus- 
 tom at  the  massive  breastwork  below  the  present 
 Birhet  el-ffamrn,  where  the  donkeys  wait  for  their 
 load  of  .skins  from  the  well,  and  where  the  Arab 
 washerwomen  may  be  seen  to  this  day  beating  their 
 clothes." 
 
 a  We  give  the  following  Rabbinical  note  on  Zohe- 
 leth,  from  the  Arabic  commentary  of  Tanchum  of 
 Jerusalem,  translated  by  Uaarbrucker :  — 
 
 "  Ver.  9.   nbriTn  Verbum  vHT  significationem 
 
ZOHELETH,  THE  STONE 
 
 The  practice  of  placing  stones,  and  uamiiig  theiu 
 from  a  person  or  an  event,  is  very  common.  Jacob 
 did  so  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  22,  xxxv.  14;  see 
 Uochart's  CaiiKan,  pp.  785,  786);  and  he  did  it 
 again  when  parting  from  Laban  (Gen.  xxxi.  45). 
 Joshua  set  up  stones  in  Jordan  and  Gilgal,  at  the 
 command  of  God  (Josh.  iv.  9-20);  and  again  in 
 Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  2G).  Near  lieth-shemesh 
 ihere  was  the  Ebeii-cjedoldh  ("  great  stone,"  1  Sam. 
 vi.  14),  called  also  AOel-f/cdultik  ("  the  great  weep- 
 ing," 1  Sam.  vi.  18).  There  was  the  Ebi:n-Boliaii^ 
 south  of  Jericho,  in  the  plains  of  Jordan  (Josh. 
 XV.  fi,  xviii.  17),  "the  stone  of  Bohan  the  son 
 of  Reuben,"  the  Ehrenbreitstein  of  the  Clccui;  or 
 "  plain  "  of  Jordan,  a  memorial  of  the  son  or 
 grandson  of  Jacob's  eldest  born,  for  which  the 
 writer  once  looked  in  vain,  but  which  Felix  Fabri 
 in  the  15tli  century  {/■Jvaf/nt.  ii.  82)  professes  to 
 havo  seen.  The  Kabbis  preserve  the  memory  of 
 diis  stone  in  a  book  called  Eben-Bo/um,  or  the 
 touchstone  {Cliron  of  Rubbi  Josep/i,  transl  by 
 Bialloblotzky,  i.  192).  There  was  the  stone  set  up 
 by  Sanmel  between  JNlizpeh  and  Shen,  Ebeii-Kzer, 
 "  the  stone  of  help  "  (1  Sam.  vii.  11,  12).  There 
 was  the  Great  Stone  on  which  Samuel  slew  the 
 sacrifices,  after  the  great  battle  of  Saul  with  the 
 Philistines  (1  Sam.  xiv.  33).  There  was  the  /ibm- 
 Ezel  ("  lapis  discessus  vel  abitus,  a  discessu  Jona- 
 thanis  et  Davidis,"  Simonis,  Oiwiii.  p.  150),  where 
 David  hid  himself,  and  which  some  Talmudists 
 identify  with  Zoheleth.  Large  stones  have  always 
 obtained  for  themselves  peculiar  names,  from  their 
 shape,  their  position,  their  connection  with  a  person 
 or  an  event.  In  the  Sinaitic  Desert  the  writer 
 found  the  lltijar  el-Re/cab  ("  stone  of  the  rider  "), 
 Hdjar  el-Fid  ("  stone  of  the  bean  "),  Hnjnr  Musa 
 ("  stone  of  Moses  ").  The  suliject  of  stones  is  by 
 no  means  uninteresting,  and  has  not  in  any  respect 
 been  exhausted.  (See  the  Notes  of  De  Sola  and 
 Lindenthal  in  their  edition  of  Genesis^  pp.  175, 
 220 ;  Bochart's  Cunaan^  p.  785 ;  Vossius  de  Idul- 
 (ilr.  vi.  38;  Scaliger  on  Euseblitg,  p.  198;  Heral- 
 dus  on  Arnobius.  bk.  vii.,  and  Elmenhorstius  on 
 Arnobius  ;  also  a  long  note  of  Ouzelius  in  his  edi- 
 tion of  Minucius  Felix,  p.  15;  Calmet's  Fray- 
 ments,  Nos.  1G6,  735,  736  ;  Kitto's  Ptdesline. 
 See,  besides,  the  works  of  antiquaries  on  stones  and 
 stone  circles;  and  an  interesting  account  of  the 
 curious  Phoenician  llajar  Cliem  in  Malta,  in  Tal- 
 lack's   recent  volume  on  that  island,  pp.  115-127) 
 
 H.  B. 
 
 *  It  should  be  added  that  M.  Clermont-Gan- 
 neau,  connected  with  the  French  consulate  at  Jeru- 
 
 trepldationis  habet  et  reptationis  et  cunctationis  in 
 incessu.  Inde  Saturuum  (\;>\  iippeUaveruut 
 propter  multos  ejus  regressus  iucessusque  retrogrades. 
 Eaque  sententia  est  in  verbis  ST^MT  ''n7nT  (Hi- 
 32,  6)  /'.  f.  cunctabar  vobis  responijere  con.siliumque 
 meum  vobiscutii  couimunicare,  propterea  quia  vos 
 verebar  et  gravitatem  aetatis  vestras  adinirabar.     Ser- 
 
 pi-ntes  123?  '^  vmT  appellantur,  quia  la  terra  ser- 
 punt,  et  ob  incessumsuum  quasi  trepidantem  cunctan- 
 
 tenique.    Inde  porro  dicunt :  (iSa66.  fol  65,  6.)   M^ti? 
 
 I^Vmtn  bv  7"^Dtoi3n  im*'  (vid.  m/«/»,. 
 
 Mikvaotli,   cap.   5),     )''S!i''1   "j^bnT3  D'^ttm 
 
 i'.  e.  aqua  leniter  iluens  iu  terra.  Fortasse  igitur 
 nvnTrrr   ^2M  similiterexpncandumest,  mmirum 
 
 ZOPHIM,  THE  FIELD  OF     3645 
 
 salem,  reports  the  supposed  recovery  of  Zoheleth  it 
 the  present  Ez-Zehwele,  the  name  of  a  rocky 
 plateau  nearly  in  the  centre  of  the  line  along  which 
 stretches  the  village  of  .Sit.o.vji  (which  see):  the 
 western  face,  cut  perpendicularly,  slightly  over- 
 hangs the  valley.     He  assumes  this  to  be  the  stone 
 
 of  Zoheleth,  near  (^r.' S)  En-I!ogel  (1  K.  i.  9), 
 though  the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic  names  difTer, 
 as  Zohelel  and  Zihoelei.  He  proposes  also  to  iden- 
 tify En-Ro(jel  with  the  Virgin's  Fountain,  and  not 
 with  B'lr  Eytib :  the  former  being  only  GO  metres 
 from  Zehwele,  while  the  latter  is  700  metres  and 
 the  Pool  of  Suoam  400.  He  suggests  further,  that 
 on  this  supposition  we  can  more  easily  trace  the 
 line  which  separated  the  territories  of  Benjamin 
 and  Judah  as  stated  in  Josh.  xv.  7,  xviii.  16.  He 
 maintains  that  the  fell(dun  divide  the  valley  of  the 
 Kedron  into  three  sections,  the  second  of  which, 
 extending  from  the  southeast  angle  of  the  Haram 
 to  the  confluence  at  the  north  of  Bir  Eyub,  they 
 call  IVady  Fer\mn,  Pharaoh's  Valley,  i.  c,  as 
 the  name  imports  in  that  application,  "  Valley  of 
 the  King;  "  and  the  front  of  the  valley  so  desig- 
 nated is  precisely  that  which  the  Kinfs  Gardens 
 (G.VKDEN,  i.  870)  used  to  occupy  ( Quarterly 
 Statement  of  the  P.  E.  Fund,  No.  v.,  pp.  251- 
 253).  H. 
 
 ZO'HETH  (nn'lT  [co7-puk'nt,  strong,  Fiirst]  : 
 Zeoav;  .41ex.  Zcoxa"'  Zohelh).  Son  of  Ishi  of  the 
 tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 
 
 ZO'PHAH  (nD'l!i'  [a  cruse]:  Zoo<pd;  [Vat. 
 in  ver.  35,  Zaixad;]  Alex,  [in  ver.  35]  Zcocpap' 
 Siipha).  Son  of  Helem,  or  Hotham,  the  son  of 
 Ileber,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  35,  36). 
 
 ZO'PHAI  [2  syl.]  OS"l!J  [patr.] :  Zov<j>i; 
 [Vat.  Zou(p€r-]  Soj)hai).  A  Kohathite  Levite, 
 son  of  Elkanah  and  ancestor  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi. 
 26  [11]).     In  ver.  35  he  is  called  Zupii. 
 
 ZO'PHAR  ("15^^  [perh.  sparrow]:  Zcccpdp: 
 Sophar).  One  of  the  three  friends  of  Job  (Job  ii. 
 11,  xi.  1,  XX.  1,  xlii.  9).  He  is  called  in  the  He- 
 brew "  the  Naamathite,"  and  in  the  LXX.  "  the 
 Mhiffian,"  and  "the  king  of  the  Minseans." 
 
 ZOPHIM,  THE  FIELD  OF  (a'^p'!i  nitZ? 
 [prob.  feld  of  droppings,  i.  e.  fertile]  :  aypov 
 ffKOTnav'  locus  subUmis).  A  spot  on  or  near  the 
 top  of  Pisgah,  from  which  Balaam  had  his  second 
 view  of  the  encampment  of  Israel  (Num.  xxiii.  14). 
 
 lapis  volutatus  et  hie  illic  tractus,  quem  saspe  quasi 
 ludentes  volvebant ;  aut  sensus  est  eum  per  se  fuisse 
 teretem  (volubilem)  acclivitatis  instar,  cujus  latus 
 alterum  elatius,  alteram  depressius  esset  in  modum 
 pontis  exstructi,  in  quo  ad  locum  altiorem  sine  gradi- 
 
 bus  ascendatur  ;  quem  ti73D  vocaverunt  qualemque 
 ad  altare  struxerunt,  ut  eo  ascenderent,  quum  ad 
 altars  per  gradus  ascendere  non  liceret  (Ex.  xx.  23). 
 Nee  absurdum  mihi  videtur  eundem  luisse  hunc  lapi- 
 dem  atque  exmi,  qui  iu  Davidis  Jonathanique  historia 
 
 VTSn    T3S   vocatus  est,  quem  interpretantur  lapi- 
 
 dem  viatorum,  ad  quem  videlicet  viatores  devertebant. 
 
 Targum  h.  1.  Mi"Tl3D  T3S   transtulit,    i.  e.   altus  . 
 
 fortasse  enim  lapis  altus  fuifc  et  elatus,  quem  viatore* 
 e  longinquo  conspicerent." 
 
•3646  zoRAH 
 
 If  the  word  sndeh  (rendered  "  field  ")  may  be  taken 
 in  its  usual  sense,  then  the  "  field  of  Zophim  "  was 
 a  cultivated  spot «  high  up  on  the  top  of  the  range 
 of  Pisgah.  But  that  word  is  the  almost  invariable 
 term  ibr  a  portion  of  the  upper  district  of  Moab, 
 and  therefore  njay  have  had  some  local  sense  which 
 has  hitherto  escaped  notice,  and  in  which  it  is 
 employed  in  reference  to  the  spot  in  question.  The 
 position  of  the  field  of  Zophim  is  not  defined,  it  is 
 only  said  that  it  commanded  merely  a  portion  of 
 the  encampment  of  Israel.  Neither  do  the  ancient 
 versions  aHbrd  any  clew.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos, 
 the  LXX.,  and  the  Peshito-Syriac  take  Zophim  in 
 the  sense  of  "watchers"  or  "lookers-out,"'  and 
 translate  it  accordingly.  But  it  is  probably  a  He- 
 brew version  of  an  aboriginal  name,  related  to  that 
 which  in  other  places  of  the  present  records  appears 
 as  Blizpeh  or  Mizpah.'-*  May  it  not  be  the  same 
 place  which  later  in  the  history  is  mentioned  (once 
 only)  as  Mi/,1'Aii-]\[o.\ij? 
 
 Mr.  Porter,  who  identifies  A/tarus  with  Pisgah  '^ 
 mentions  {flnndl/ook,  p.  300  n)  that  the  ruins  of 
 Main,  at  the  foot  of  that  mountain,  are  surrounded 
 by  a  fertile  and  cultivated  plain,  which  he  regards 
 as  the  field  of  Zophim.  G. 
 
 *  'I'he  gently  sloping  and  turf-clad  brow,  a  mile 
 and  a  half  west  of  Main,  and  eight  miles  north  of 
 ''Attarus,  which  Tristram  proposes  as  the  site  of 
 Nebo,  he  also  suggests  as  the  probable  "  field 
 of  Zophim."  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  540,  2d  ed.) 
 [NiiBo,  Amer.  ed.]  S.  W. 
 
 ZO'RAH  (n^1!J  [perh.  sinkinff  duwii,  loiv 
 fjround] :  'S.apaQ,  ^apaa  [Vat.  Josh.  xiii.  2, 
 'SapaA] ;  Alex.  Sapaa,  2apo,  Kpao.  \  Joseph. 
 Sap'afTo:  Savan).  One  of  the  towns  in  the  allot- 
 ment of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  41).  It  is 
 previously  mentioned  (xv.  33)  in  the  catalogue  of 
 Judah,  among  the  places  in  the  district  of  the  Slie- 
 felah  (A.  V.  Zorkaii  ).  In  both  lists  it  is  in  innne- 
 diate  proximity  to  Eshtaol,  and  the  two  are  else- 
 where named  together  almost  without  an  exception 
 (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xvi.,  31,  xviii.  2,  8,  11;  and  see  1 
 Chr.  ii.  53).  Zorah  was  the  residence  of  Manoah 
 and  the  native  place  of  Samson.  The  place  both 
 of  his  birth  and  his  burial  is  specified  with  a  curi- 
 ous minuteness  as  "  between  Zorah  and  ICshtaol;  " 
 "in  Mahaneh-Dan  "  (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xvi.  31).  In 
 the  genealogical  records  of  1  Chr.  (ii.  53,  iv.  2), 
 the  "  Zareathites  and  I'^shtaulites  "  are  given  as 
 descended  from  {i.  e.  colonized  by)  Kirjath-jearim. 
 
 Zorah  is  mentioned  amongst  the  places  ibrtified 
 by  liehoboam  (2  Chr.  xi.  10),  and  it  was  re-inhab- 
 ited by  the  men  of  Judah  after  the  return  from  the 
 Captivity  (Neh.  xi.  29,  A.  V.  Zakicah). 
 
 In  the  Oiianiiisticim  (2apSa  and  "  Saara")  it  is 
 mentioned  as  lying  some  10  miles  north  of  Eleu- 
 theropolis  on  the  road  to  Nicopolis.  By  the  Jew- 
 ish traveller  hap-Parchi  (Zunz's  Benjamin  of  Ttid. 
 ii.  441),  it  is  specified  as  three  hours  S.  E.  of  Lydd. 
 These  notices  agree  in  direction  —  thougli  in  neither 
 is  the  distance  nearly  sufficient  —  with  the  modern 
 
 village  of  Siir'ah  (xCwO),  which  has  been  visited 
 
 by  Dr.  Eobinson  {Blbl.   Ees.  iii.   153)  and  Tobler 
 (3te  Wa7id.  181-183).  It  lies  just  below  the  brow  of 
 
 ZUPH,  THE   LAND  OF 
 
 a  sharp-pointed,  conical  hill,  at  the  shoulder  of  the 
 ranges  which  there  meet  and  form  the  north  side  of 
 the  W'ady  O'hurab,  the  northernmost  of  the  two 
 branches  wjiich  unite  just  lielow  Sur''ali,  and  form 
 the  great  Wadi/  Surar.  Near  it  are  to  be  seen 
 the  remains  of  Zanoah,  Beth-shemesh,  Tinmath, 
 and  other  places  more  or  less  frequently  mentioned 
 with  it  in  tiie  narrative.  Eshtaol,  however,  has  not 
 yet  been  identified.  The  position  of  <S«r'('/i  at  the 
 entrance  of  the  valley,  which  forms  one  of  the  in- 
 lets from  the  great  lowland,  explains  its  fortifica- 
 tion Ijy  Kehoboam.  The  spring  is  a  short  distance 
 below  the  village.  "  a  noble  fountain  "  —  this  was 
 at  the  end  of  April  —  "  walled  up  square  with 
 large  hewn  stones,  and  gushing  over  with  fine  water. 
 As  we  passed  on,"  continues  Dr.  Robinson,  with  a 
 more  poetical  tone  than  is  his  wont.  "  we  overtook 
 no  less  than  twelve  women  toiling  upwards  to  the 
 village,  each  with  her  jar  of  water  on  her  head.  ■ 
 The  village,  the  fountain,  the  fields,  the  mountain, 
 the  females  bearing  water,  all  transported  us  back  to 
 ancient  times,  when  in  all  probability  the  mother  of 
 Samson  often  in  like  manner  visited  the  fountain 
 and  toiled  homewai-d  with  her  jar  of  water." 
 
 In  the  A.  V.  the  name  appears  also  as  Zareah 
 and  ZoREAH.  The  first  of  these  is  perhaps  most 
 nearly  accurate.     The  Hebrew  is  the  same  in  all. 
 
 G. 
 
 ZO'RATHITES,  THE  On.^"1'4'3=  rod 
 'ApaHl  [Vat.-0ej];  Alex.  t.  :S.apaei--  tiandlii),  i.  e. 
 the  jjeople  of  Zorah,  are  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  iv. 
 2  as  descended  from  Shobal.  one  of  the  sons  of  Ju- 
 dah, who  in  1  Chr.  ii.  52  is  stated  to  have  founded 
 Kirjath-jearin),  from  which  again  "  the  Zareathites 
 and  the  Eshtaulites  "  were  colonized.  G. 
 
 ZO'REAH  (n^T^  :  'Pcia;  Alex,  ^apaa-  Sa- 
 reii).  Another  (and  slightly  more  accurate)  form 
 of  the  name  usually  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Zorah, 
 but  once  as  Zareah.  The  Hebrew  is  the  same  in 
 all  cases.  Zoreah  occurs  only  in  Josh.  xv.  33, 
 among  the  towns  of  Judah.  The  place  appears, 
 however,  to  have  come  later  into  the  possession  of 
 Dan.     [Zorah.]  G. 
 
 ZO'RITES,  THE  02?~!?|n  [patr.] :  'Uaapl 
 [Vat.  -pet] ;  Alex.  Haapaei;  [Comp.  6  :S,apa'i-] 
 Sarai),  are  named  in  the  genealogies  of  Judah  (1 
 Chr.  ii.  54),  apparently  (though  the  passage  is 
 probably  in  great  confusion)  amongst  the  descend- 
 ants of  Salnia  and  near  connections  of  Joab.  The 
 Targum  regards  the  word  as  being  a  contraction 
 for  "  the  Zorathites ;  "  but  this  does  not  seem  likely, 
 since  the  Zareathites  are  mentioned  in  ver.  52  of 
 the  same  genealogy  in  another  connection. 
 
 ZOROB'ABEL  (Zopo^a/SeA.:  Zorobiibel),  1 
 Esdr.  iv.  13,  v.  5-70,  vi.  2-29;  Ecclus.  xhx.  11; 
 Matt.  i.  12, 13;  Luke  iii.  27.     [Zerubbarel.] 
 
 ZU'AR  ("1^^^  {smalhiess]:  2ooydp-  Sunr). 
 Eather  of  Nethaneel  the  chief  of  the  tribe  of  Issa- 
 char  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Num.  i.  8,  ii.  5, 
 vii.  18,  23,  X.  15). 
 
 ZUPH,  THE  LAND  OF  (?lVi  VT?^ 
 [honey-comb]:   et's  t^v  [2i<;),  Vat]  ^eitp;^  Alex. 
 
 a  See  Stanley,  S.  ^  P.,  Appendix,  §  15. 
 
 5  The  Targum  treats  tlie  names  Mizpeh  and  Zophim 
 
 lis  identical,  translating  them  both  by  Sil-l^D. 
 
 c  *  Mr.  Porter  disavows   this   inference    from    the 
 language  {Hnndb.  p.  300  a)  as  well  as  the  opinion  itself 
 
 that  AUartis  is  Pisgah.     (See  Kitto's   Bibl.    Cycl.  vol. 
 iii.  p.  life.)  U- 
 
 rf  As  if  reading   P|^!^  (Tsiph),   which    the  original 
 text  [Cethib]  of  1  Chr.  vi.  35  still  exhibits  for  Zuph 
 
ZUPH,  THE  LAND  OF 
 
 e(s   jriv  :S,€icp;    Syr.    I'eshito,  ?o..      Tsur :  Yu\g. 
 
 terra  Stiph).  A  district  at  which  Saul  and  his 
 servant  arrived  after  passing  through  those  of  Shai- 
 isha,  of  Shalim,  and  of  the  Benjamites "  (1  Sam. 
 ix.  5  only).  It  evidently  contained  the  city  in 
 which  they  encountered  Samuel  (ver.  G),  and  that 
 again,  if  the  conditions  of  the  narrative  are  to  be 
 accepted,  was  certainly  not  far  from  the  "  tomb  of 
 Kacliel,"  probably  the  spot  to  which  that  name  is 
 still  attached,  a  short  distance  nortli  of  Betlilehem. 
 The  name  Zuph  is  connected  in  a  singular  manner 
 with  Samuel.  One  of  liis  ancestors  was  named 
 Zuph  (1  Sam.  i.  1 ;  1  Chr.  vi.  -3.5)  or  Zophai  (ibid. 
 26);  and  his  native  place  was  called  llamathaini- 
 zophim  (1  Sam.  i.  1). 
 
 Bat  it  would  be  unsafe  to  conclude  that  the 
 "land  of  Zuph"  had  any  coimection  with  either 
 of  these.  If  Ramathaim-zophim  was  the  present 
 Neby  Samwil,  —  and  there  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  I 
 strong  probability  that  it  was,  —  then  it  is  difKcult 
 to  imagine  that  Ramathaim-zophim  can  have  been 
 in  the  land  of  Zuph,  when  the  latter  was  near 
 Rachel's  sepulchre,  at  least  seven  miles  distant 
 from  the  former.  Ncbij  Suiuwil,  too,  if  anywhere, 
 is  in  the  very  heart  of  the  territory  of  Benjamin, 
 whereas  we  have  seen  that  the  land  of  Zuph  was 
 outside  of  it. 
 
 The  name,  too,  in  its  various  forms  of  Zophim, 
 Mizpeh,  Mizpah,  Zephathah,  was  too  common  in  the 
 Holy  Land,  on  botli  sides  of  the  Jordan,  to  permit 
 of  nmch  stress  being  laid  on  its  occurrence  here. 
 
 The  only  possible  trace  of  the  name  of  Zuph  in 
 modern  Palestine,  in  any  suitable  locality,  is  to  be 
 found  in  Suba,  a  well-known  place  about  seven 
 miles  due  west  of  Jerusalem,  and  five  miles  south- 
 west of  Neby  Siimwil.  This  Ur.  Robinson  {Bibl. 
 lies.  ii.  8,9)  once  proposed  as  the  representative  of 
 Ramathaim  Zophim  ;  and  although  on  topograph- 
 ical grounds  he  virtually  renounces  the  idea  (see  the 
 foot-note  to  tiie  same  pages),  yet  those  grounds 
 need  not  similarly  aflfect  its  identity  with  Zuph, 
 provided  other  considerations  do  not  interfere,  if 
 Shalim  and  Shalisha  were  to  the  N.  E.  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, near  Taiyibeli,  then  Saul's  route  to  the  land 
 of  Benjamin  would  be  S.  or  S.  W.,  and  pursuing 
 the  same  direction  he  would  arrive  at  the  neighbor- 
 hood of  Sobn.  But  this  is  at  the  best  no  more 
 than  conjecture,  and  unless  the  land  of  Zuph  ex- 
 tended a  good  distance  east  of  (So.V/,  the  city  hi 
 which  the  meeting  with  Samuel  took  place  could 
 hardly  be  sufficiently  near  to  Rachel's  sepulchre. 
 
 The  signification  of  the  nauie  of  Zuph  is  quite 
 doubtful.  Gesenius  explains  it  to  mean  "honey;  " 
 while  Fiirst  understands  it  as  "  abounding  with 
 water."  It  will  not  be  overlooked  that  when  the 
 LXX.  version  was  made,  the  name  probably  stood 
 in  the  Hebrew  Bible  as  Ziph  (Tsiph).  Zophim  is 
 usually  considered  to  signify  watchmen  or  lookers- 
 out;  hence,  prophets;  in  which  sense  the  author 
 of  the  Targum   has  actually  rendered  1  Sam.   ix. 
 
 ZUZIMS,  THE 
 
 3647 
 
 5,  —  "they  came  into  the  land  in  which  was  a 
 prophet  of  Jehovah."  G. 
 
 ZUPH  (?1-Ti  :  [in  1  Sam.,  Alex.  Soutt,  Comp. 
 Scot/;;  Rom.  Vat.  corrupt;]  :S,ov(ph\  1  Chr.:  Stipli). 
 A  Kohathite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Klkanah  and  Sam- 
 uel (1  Sam.  i.  1;  1  Chr.  vi.  35  [20]).  In  1  Chr, 
 vi.  2f)  he  is  called  Zophai. 
 
 ZUR  C^^J  [_vock\:  -Zovp:  Sur).  1.  One  of  the 
 five  princes  of  Alidian  who  were  slain  by  the  Israelites 
 when  Balaam  fell  (Num.  xxxi.  8).  His  daughter 
 Cozbi  was  killed  by  Fhinehas,  together  with  her 
 paramour  Zimri,  the  Simeonite  chieftain  (Num. 
 XXV.  15).  He  appears  to  have  l)een  in  some  way- 
 subject  to  Sihon'king  of  the  Amorites  (Josh.  xiii. 
 21). 
 
 2.  [In  1  Chr.  viii.  30,  Alex.  laovp:  in  ix.  36, 
 Vat.  Sin.  Alex,  laeip.]  Son  of  J  ehiel  the  founder 
 of  Gibeon  by  his  wife  Maachah  (1  Chr.  viii.  30, 
 ix.  36). 
 
 ZU'RIEL  (V«"'"!  .!5    [my  rock  is  God]  :  Zov- 
 
 pL-}]\-  Suriel).  Son  of  Abihail,  and  chief  of  the 
 Alerarite  Levites  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Num. 
 iii.  35). 
 
 ZURISHAD'DAI    [4    syl.]      ("'■^ty'^Tl-ltJ 
 
 [my  rock  is  the  Almiyhty] :  SoupicaSai  [Vat.  in 
 Num.  i.  6,  -per] :  ISurisaddai).  Father  of  Slielumiel 
 the  chief  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  at  the  time  of  the 
 Exodus  (Num.  i.  6,  ii.  12,  vii.  36,  41,  x.  I'J).  It  is 
 remarkable  that  this  and  Annnishadtlai,  the  only 
 names  in  the  Biljle  of  which  Shaddai  forms  a  part, 
 should  occur  in  the  same  list.  In  Judith  (vii.  1) 
 Zurishaddai  appears  as  Salasauai. 
 
 ZU'ZIMS,  THE  (an^TH  :  ^evr,  laxvpd  in 
 both  MSS. :  Zuzim ;  but  Jerome  in  (lu.i-sl.  I/vbr., 
 rjentes  fortes).  The  name  of  an  ancient  people 
 who,  lying  in  the  path  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his  al- 
 lies, were  attacked  and  overthrown  by  them  ((ien. 
 xiv.  5  only).  Of  the  etymology  or  signification  of 
 the  name  nothing  is  known.  The  LXX.,  Targum 
 of  Onkelos,  and  Sam.  Version  (with  an  eye  to  souie 
 root  not  now  recognizable  *)  render  it  "  strong 
 people."  Tlie  Arab.  Version  of  Saadiah  (in  Wal- 
 ton's Poly<jlntt)  gives  ed-Dakiikin,  by  which  it  is 
 uncertain  whether  a  proper  name  or  appellative  is 
 intended.  Others  understand  by  it  "  the  wander- 
 ers "  (Le  Clerc,  from  T^T),  or  "  dwarfs  "  (Mi- 
 cha,eW%,  Supj)l.  No.  606)."  Hardly  more  ascertain- 
 able is  the  situation  which  the  Zuzim  occupied. 
 The  progress  of  the  invaders  was  from  north  to 
 south.  They  first  encountered  the  Rephaim  in 
 Ashteroth  Karnaim  (near  tlie  Leja  in  the  north 
 of  the  Ilauran)-.  next  the  Zuzim  in  Ham;  and 
 next  the  Emim  in  Shaveh  Kiriathaim.  The  last 
 named  place  has  not  been  identified,  but  was 
 probably  not  far  north  of  the  Arnon.  There 
 is   therefore  some   plausibility    in    the  suggestion 
 
 (see  margin  of  A.  V.).  This  is  a  totally  distinct  name 
 from  Ziph   (P|'^T). 
 
 n  If  indeed  the  "  land  of  Yemini  "  be  the  territory 
 of  Benjamin. 
 
 b  "  Sensum  magis  quam  verbum  ex  verbo  trans- 
 ferentes"  (Jerome,  Quasi.  Hebr.in  Gen.).    Schumann 
 
 ( Genesis.,  p.  237)  suggests  that  for  C'^T^-tH  they  read 
 D^t^T3?.     The  change  in   the  initial  letter  is   the 
 
 same  which  Ewald  proposes  in  identifying  Ham  (Gen. 
 xiv.  5)  with  Ammou. 
 
 (which  however  Gesenius,  Tties.  p.  510  a,  resists  land  al- 
 tering the  points  of  CHS  to  nniH,  as  it  is  plaip 
 the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  read  them,  Michaelis  ingeniously 
 obtains  the  following  reading :  "  Thoy  smote  the 
 giants  in  Ashteroth  Karnaim,  and  the  people  of 
 smaller  (('.  e.  ordinary)  stature,  who  were  with  them.'' 
 
3648  ZUZIMS,  THE 
 
 of  Ewald  {Gescli.  i.  308,  noie),  provided  it  is 
 etymologically  correct,  that  Ham  DH,  is  UU, 
 Am,  i.  e.  Ammoii ;  and  thus  that  the  Zuzim  inhab- 
 ited the  country  of  the  Ammonites,  and  were  iden- 
 tical with  tlie  Zamzummim,  who  are  known  to 
 have  Ijeen  exterminated  and  succeeded  in  their 
 land  by  tlie  Ammonites.     This  suggestion  has  been 
 
 ZUZIMS,  THE 
 
 already  mentioned  under  Zasizummim,  but  at  the 
 best  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  conjecture,  in 
 respect  to  which  the  writer  desires  to  say  with  Re- 
 land —  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  fitter 
 sentence  with  which  to  conclude  a  Dictionary  of ' 
 the  Bible  —  "  conjecturee,  quibus  non  delectamur."' 
 
 G. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTES   ON   T^E  ART.    "WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING." 
 
 DY    THE    REV.    F.    W.    HOLLAND,    FELLOW   OF    THE    ROYAL    GEOGRAPHICAL    SOCIETY    OF    LONDON. 
 
 [The  following  notes  were  received  too  late  for 
 insertion  in  their  proper  place,  but  are  too  valuable 
 to  be  omitted.  Mr.  Holland  here  gives  the  results 
 of  personal  observation,  having  four  times  visited 
 the  Siuaitic  Peninsula  and  spent  many  months  in 
 wandering  over  it  on  foot.  —  A.] 
 
 Page  3513  ff,  line  35,  "  the  wilderness  of  Etham." 
 
 —  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  wilderness 
 of  Ethani  extended  on  both  shores  of  the  gulf. 
 "  The  eclfje  of  the  lollderness '"  probably  refers  not 
 to  the  limits  of  vegetation,  but  to  the  boundary  of 
 the  desert  east  of  the  gulf,  marked  by  the  higher 
 ground  which  divides  the  Bitter  Lakes  from  the  sea. 
 This  would  forni,  then  as  now,  the  natural  road  from 
 Egypt  to  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  thither  Moses 
 would  lead  the  Israelites.  A  deviation  from  the 
 natural  road  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  command 
 to  turn  and  encamp  before  Pihahiroth. 
 
 Page  3513  b,  1.  17,  "  The  wilderness  hath  shut 
 them  in."  —  Pharaoh  seeing  that  the  Israelites  had 
 missed  the  road  leading  round  the  head  of  the  gulf, 
 would  naturally  exclaim  "  The  wilderness  hath  shut 
 them  in."  The  sea  was  on  their  left,  the  high  range 
 of  Jehel  Altdkah  on  their  right,  and  beyond  them 
 a  narrow  road  along  the  shore  leading  only  to  a  yet 
 more  barren  desert.  Escape  was  impossible  unless 
 God  had  opened  a  way  for  them  through  the  sea. 
 
 Page  3513  h,  1.  2  from  bottom,  ''  Wady  Ahthi." 
 
 —  The  proper  name  is  Wai/y  el-AIu/hd  {}iiXs>-\\ 
 derived  from  hcu/liwuh,  impression  of  a  horse's  foot. 
 
 Page  3513,  note  c.  —  The  excavations  of  the  Pal- 
 estine Exploration  Fund  at  -Jerusalem  have  proved 
 that  the  language  of  Josephus  concerning  the  height 
 of  the  buildings  of  the  Temple  was  not  extravagant. 
 
 Page  351-1,  note  a.  — •  The  warm  spring  mentioned 
 by  Mr.  Hamilton  is  situated  near  Tor,  and  has  no 
 reference  to  the  Ai/iln  jMusa  near  Suez;  it  is  that 
 referred  to  in  the  following  note.  The  springs  of 
 Huimndm  Pkavaun  have  a  temperature  of  160°,  and 
 emit  a  f  U'ong  sulphurous  smell.  I  have  never  seen 
 any  warm  spring  among  those  at  Ayiin  Mi'isk,  al- 
 though [  have  several  times  examined  them.  Water 
 is  found  there  by  digging,  and  the  water-holes  are 
 increased  at  the  pleasure  of  the  gardener. 
 
 Page  3514  (f,  1.  37,  "  Shur  '  before  Egypt,'  "  etc. 
 
 —  The  name  Slim-  means  "  a  wall,"  and  was  perha[)s 
 given  to  the  wilderness  of  Etham,  which  lay  on  the 
 east  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  and  of  the  head  of  the 
 gulf,  from  the  wall-like  range  of  mountains,  Jehel  er- 
 Jiiiliali,  by  which  it  is  bounded.    When  seen  from  a 
 
 listance  this  Kange  presents  the  appearance  of  a  long 
 line  of  white  cliffs,  with  a  remarkable  tabular  outline. 
 
 The  Arabs  know  many  places  in  the  Peninsula  by 
 
 two  names,  —  one  being  the  proper  name,  the  other 
 a  name  derived  from  some  characteristic  feature. 
 
 Page  3514  6,  1.20,  ''Debbet  er-Ramleh." —  This 
 tract  of  sand  does  not  run  uninterruptedly  across 
 the  Peninsula.  It  is  divided  by  the  rocky  plateau  at 
 the  head  of  Wady  el-Akhdar  a,i\d  Wady  ei-Osh. 
 The  name  appears  to  be  applied  more  particularly 
 to  the  belt  of  sand  near  Wady  Nusb  and  Serdbit 
 el-Kliddlm. 
 
 Page  3514  b,  1.  36.  —  Kl-Kda  cannot  be  Sin, 
 which  lay  north  of  Wady  Feirdn,  the  most  south- 
 erly road  that  the  Israelites  can  have  taken  to 
 Mount  Sinai.  The  name  el-Kda  is  only  applied  to 
 the  i)lain  south  of  Wady  Feirdn.  The  plain  to  the 
 north  is  called  el-Murkhah,  and  that  probably  cor- 
 responded with  the  Wilderness  of  Sin.  The  Wndy 
 Hibrdn  south  of  Jehel  Serbdl  was  pronounced  by 
 the  Sinai  Survey  Expedition  to  be  an  impossible 
 route  for  the  Israelites  to  have  taken. 
 
 Page  3515  a,  1.  10.  —  Uni  Shaitmer  is  not  the 
 highest  mountain.  Mount  Catherine  is  consider- 
 ably higher,  and  forms  the  true  Omphalos  of  the 
 Peninsula.  Jebel  Zebir  is  the  highest  peak  of 
 Mount  Catherine,  and  therefore  the  highest  point 
 in  Sinai. 
 
 Page  3515  6,  1.  6  from  bottom,  "Three  passes 
 through  the  et-Tih  range,"  etc.  —  Besides  the 
 three  passes  mentioned  by  Robinson,  there  is  a  road 
 leading  over  Jehel  Odjmeli  from  the  head  of  Wady 
 es-Sik,  a  pass  to  the  east  of  Jebel  D/ielel,  and  an- 
 other further  eastward  at  the  head  of  Wady  el-Ain. 
 
 Page  3510  6,  note/'. — The  sound  produced  by 
 the  sand  at  Jebel  Nakus  is  not  caused  by  its  pour- 
 ing over  the  cliffs,  but  by  the  friction  of  its  grains 
 when  set  in  motion.  The  sand  is  drifted  up  into  a 
 steep  bank  in  a  recess  in  the  mountain  side,  and 
 when  set  in  motion,  either  artificially,  or  by  the 
 wind,  rolls  down  like  a  cascade,  and  then  the  sound 
 is  produced.  It  resembles  the  noise  made  by  rub- 
 bing the  finger  round  a  glass,  but  is  so  loud  as  to 
 be  heard  sometimes  at  a  distance  of  several  hundred 
 yards.  It  causes  a  great  vibration,  which  often  sets 
 in  motion  the  surrounding  sand.  The  Arabs  sup- 
 pose that  the  sound  is  caused  by  the  nakus  (wooden 
 boards  used  for  bells)  of  a  monastery,  which  was 
 swallowed  up  by  the  earth  in  consequence  of  the 
 wickedness  of  the  monks.  See  Proceedings  of  the 
 Royal  Geog.  Soc.  vol.  xiii.  p.  215  f. 
 
 Page  3517  b,  1.  11.  —  The  Jifecca  pilgrims  are 
 previously  provided  for,  stores  of  corn  being  sent  on 
 to  the  various  stations  on  the  Hadj  road,  and  tanks 
 prepared  for  water.  Their  case,  therefore,  is  quite 
 different  from  that  of  the  Israelites. 
 
3650 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Page  3517  b,  note  c.  —  I  have  measured  acacia 
 trees  upwards  of  nine  feet  in  circumference.  Tlie 
 trees  wrow  to  a  large  size,  when  tliey  are  not  stunted 
 by  having  tlieir  shoots  annually  cut  off  to  feed  the 
 goats  of  the  Arabs. 
 
 Page  3518, 1.  2,  "  the  IVady  er-Rohth."  —  I  have 
 myself  seen  the  Wmhj  tr-Rohak  "  a  vast  yrftn 
 plain,"  so  that  looking  up  its  slope  it  appeared  com- 
 pletely covei'ed  by  herbage.  '  It  is  never  entirely 
 bare,  being  thickly  studded  with  low  plants,  which 
 after  a  few  showers  of  rain  in  spring  quickly  be- 
 come green.  ■  I  have  even  seen  blades  of  grass 
 springing  up  in  every  direction  upon  it.  But  I 
 have  also  seen  the  vr-Rahah  after  a  long  dry  season 
 to  all  appearance  from  a  little  distance  a  barren 
 plain. 
 
 Page  3518  b,  1.  1.  —  Quicksands  in  JDebbet  er- 
 Ramlth  are  merely  caused  by  the  sand  drifting  into 
 the  hollows,  which  catch  the  rain-water.  They  are 
 not  real  quicksands. 
 
 Pages  .'5517-3521.  —  Supply  of'  Water  and  Pas- 
 turage. —  Large  tracts  of  the  northern  portion  of 
 the  plateau  of  the  Tih,  which  are  now  desert,  were 
 evidently  formerly  under  cultivation.  The  Gulf  of 
 Suez  (probably  by  means  of  an  artificial  canal  con- 
 necting it  with  the  Bitter  Lakes)  once  extended 
 nearly  fifty  miles  further  north  than  it  does  at  pres- 
 ent, and  the  mountains  of  Palestine  were  well  clothed 
 with  trees.  Thus  there  formerly  existed  a  rain- 
 making  area  of  considerable  extent,  which  must 
 have  added  largely  to  the  dews  and  rains  of  Sinai. 
 Probably,  also,  the  Peninsula  itself  was  ibrmerly 
 much  more  thickly  wooded. 
 
 The  amount  of  vegetation  and  herbage  in  the 
 Peninsula,  even  at  the  present  time,  has  been  very 
 much  underrated ;  and  a  slight  increase  ui  the 
 present  rain-fall  would  produce  an  enormous  addi- 
 tion to  the  amount  of  pasturage.  I  have  several 
 times  seen  the  whole  face  of  the  country,  especially 
 the  wadies,  marvelously  changed  in  appearance  by 
 a  single  shower. 
 
 It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  con- 
 vent gardens  at  the  foot  of  Jebel  Musa^  and  those 
 in  Wady  Feiran,  and  at  Tur^  mark  the  only  three 
 spots  where  any  considerable  amount  of  cultiv;ition 
 could  exist  in  the  Peninsula.  Hundreds  of  old 
 monastic  gardens,  with  copious  wells  and  springs, 
 are  scattered  over  the  mountains  throughout  the 
 granitic  districts;  and  I  could  mention  at  least 
 twenty  streams  which  are  perennial,  excepting  per- 
 haps ill  unusually  dry  seasons. 
 
 It  has  been  said  that  the  present  physical  con- 
 ditions of  the  country  are  such  as  to  render  it  ut- 
 terly impossilile  that  the  events  recorded  in  the 
 book  of  Exodus  can  ever  have  occurred  there.  It 
 is  wonderful,  however,  how  apparent  difficulties 
 melt  away  as  one's  acquaintance  with  the  country 
 increases.  I  see  no  ditficulty  myself  in  the  provis- 
 ion of  sufficient  pasturage  for  the  flocks  and  herds, 
 if,  as  I  have  shown,  there  are  good  reasons  for  sup- 
 posing the  rain-fall  was  in  former  days  larger  than 
 it  is  at  present;  and  with  regard  to  the  cattle,  I 
 will  point  out  one  important  fact,  which  appears  to 
 me  to  have  been  overlooked,  namely,  that  they  were 
 probably  used  as  beasts  of  burden,  and,  in  addition 
 
 to  other  thipgs,  carried  their  own  water,  sufKcient 
 for  several  days,  slung  in  water-skins  by  their  side, 
 just  as  Sir  Samuel  Baker  found  them  doing  at  tlie 
 present  day  in  Abyssinia. —  See  paper  On  Rect-nt 
 Exphiralion  in  tlie  Peniusuld  of  Sinai,  read  [by 
 Mr.  Holland]  at  the  Liverpool  Church  Congress, 
 Oct.  ISGiJ.   [See  also  art.  Sinai,  p.  3054,  Amer.  ed.] 
 
 Page  3521  «,  1.  34.  —  ''  \lin  el-IIawdra."  —  The 
 water  varies  much  in  l.'itterness.  I  have  found  it  at 
 one  time  so  bitter  tliat  I  could  not  even  hold  it  in 
 my  mouth,  at  another  more  pleasant  to  drink  than 
 the  water  I  had  brought  in  water-skins  from  Suez. 
 The  size  of  the  spring  is  very  small,  but  the  mass 
 of  calcareous  deposit  which  surrounds  it  seems  to 
 prove  that  the  water-supply  from  it  was  formerly 
 larirer  than  at  the  pre.sent  time. 
 
 There  appears  to  be  a  strange  confusion  of  places 
 here  l>y  the  writer  of  the  article.  JMy  own  obser- 
 vations, made  at  several  diflerent  times,  and  con- 
 firmed by  those  of  the  Sinai  Survey  Expedition  in 
 18C8,  have  led  me  to  the  following  conclusions. 
 ^Aln  llitwara  is  not  a  brook,  but  a  spring  standing 
 on  an  elevated  plateau  at  the  head  of  Wady 
 Amara,  which  does  not  contain  any  other  water, 
 although  a  little  to  the  north  of  its  mouth  are  the 
 Ayun  Abu  Szomceirali,  two  water-holes  aliout  8 
 feet  deep,  sup[)lied,  I  think,  by  the  drainage  from 
 Wady  Wardan.  A  few  stunted  palms  grow  near 
 them.  The  water-holes  might  be  increased  by 
 digging.  The  water  is  slightly  brackish  but  drink- 
 able. Wady  Ti'tl"  lies  to  the  south  of  Wady 
 Ghui'undel,  running  into  the  gulf  a  few  miles  to 
 the  north  of  Wady  Tayibe/i.  The  Arabs  obtain 
 rock-salt  from  it.  At  Jebel  Bis/ier,  commonly, 
 but  wrongly,  known  as  Taset  es-Siidr,  there  is  a 
 good  supply  of  water.  This  mountain  lies  much 
 nearer  to  Suez.  It  is  known  in  the  charts  as 
 "  Barn  Hill,"  and  forms  a  pronnnent  landmark. 
 
 Page  3521  b,  1.  2  from  bottom.  —  By  "  water- 
 courses^'' Stanley  evidently  does  not  intend  to 
 imply  the  presence  of  water;  he  especially  mentions 
 their  being  dry.  Wady  Useil  does  not  connect 
 Ghunindel  with  Tayibeh ;  it  is  entirely  separate 
 from  both,  but  drains  the  plateau  that  lies  between 
 them.  The  hot  springs  near  it,  visited  by  Nie- 
 buhr,  are  those  of  the  I/unimdm  Pharai'ui.  Wady 
 Useit  drains  an  elevated  plateau  at  the  back  of 
 Jebel  Iluinmam.  Wady  Tayibeh  runs  from  the 
 south  of  the  same  plateau.  Wady  Giiurandel,  as 
 it  approaches  the  sea,  is  certainly  one  of  the  best 
 watered  and  wooded  valleys  in  the  whole  Penin- 
 sula. 
 
 Page  3522  a,  4th  par.  "  Ti'ir.'^  —  The  advantages 
 of  this  spot  for  an  encampment  have  l)een  nmch 
 exaggerated.  The  water  is  brackish  and  imwhole- 
 some,  and  it  is  the  most  unhealthy  spot  in  the 
 Peninsula.  It  is  true  that  there  are  large  groves 
 of  palms  and  thickets  of  tamarisk,  but  the  ground 
 is  impregnated  with  salt,  and  is  not  otherwise  par- 
 ticularly fertile.  At  the  mouth  of  Wady  Tayibeh 
 is  the  plain  of  Ras  Abu  Zdhneh,  which  probably 
 was  the  spot  where  the  Israelites  encamped ;  it  is 
 divided  from  el-Murkhah  by  a  narrow  strip  of 
 desert,  and  might  almost  be  considered  as  a  por- 
 tion of  the  Wilderness  of  Sin.'' 
 
 o  IK  Elhcil  is  its  real  name,  so  called  from  EUiel, 
 a  species  of  tamarisk. 
 
 6  *  It  is  important  to  notice  here  that  Mr.  Hollaml 
 has  altered  tlie  opinion  respecting  the  route  of  the 
 Israelites  which  he  had  presented  in  a  paper  read  bo- 
 fore  the  Hoy.  Geog.  Society  in  1868,  already  referred 
 to  in  this  Dictionary  under  the  arts.  Sra,  Wilderness 
 
 OF,  p.  3049,  note  a,  and  SiN.u,  p.  3054.  He  now  re- 
 gards el-Miirkhah,  and  not  the  plain  of  es-Se;//t,  as  the 
 '■  Wilderness  of  Sin,"  and  suppcses  the  Israelites  from 
 this  point  to  have  journeyed  up  the  Wa/lij  Feiran. 
 See  his  paper  On  Recent  Explorations  in  tlie.  Peninsula 
 cif  Sinai,  read  at  the  Liverpool  Church  Congress,  Oct. 
 1809.  A. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 3651 
 
 Page  3522  b,  1.  12.—  El-Kda.  —  This  name  is 
 tonfiiied  to  the  plain  south  of  IVarly  Feirctn.  The 
 wliole  of  the  northern  plain  is,  I  believe,  known  by 
 the  general  name  of  e(-Murk/Ht/i. 
 
 Page  3522  6,  2cl  par.  —  Maiimi.  —  I  have  now 
 (1870)  some  pots  of  manna  that  I  brought  from 
 Sinai  in  1801.  It  remains  perfectly  good,  but  be- 
 comes liquid  like  honey  in  hot  weather.  When  I 
 first  obtained  it,  it  still  remained,  as  when  collected 
 from  the  trees,  in  the  shape  of  hardened  drops. 
 It  is  sold  in  Egypt  for  medicinal  purposes,  or  to  pil- 
 grims as  a  relic  from  the  desert. 
 
 Page  3523  <(,  near  end  of  1st  par.  —  The  height 
 of  the  Sinaitic  inscriptions  has  Ijcen  much  exagger- 
 ated. I  have  not  seen  one  that  I  have  failed  to 
 reach  without  difficulty,  e.\cept  in  a  few  cases, 
 where  there  were  evident  traces  of  a  lower  ledge 
 of  rock  having  fallen  down.  See  Proceediiif/s  Ji. 
 G.  Svc,  vol.  xiii.  p.  213  f. 
 
 Page  3523  a.  —  Replndim.  —  On  the  site  of 
 Rephidim,  where  the  battle  with  the  Amalekites 
 was  fought,  my  opinion  differs  from  that  of  Captain 
 Wilson  and  Jlr.  Palmer.  They  believe  the  battle 
 to  have  been  fought  in  the  Wtu/y  Feiidii,  near  the 
 site  of  the  ancient  city  of  Paran,  and  that  Jebtl 
 Tahunah  (not  the  hill  on  which  the  old  church 
 stands,  which  the  Dean  of  Westminster  advocates, 
 but  one  opposite  it  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley) 
 was  the  hill  on  which  Closes  sat,  with  Aaron  and 
 Hur  supporting  his  arms. 
 
 The  road  up  this  hill,  and  the  churches  and 
 chapels  on  its  summit  and  sides,  certainly  njark 
 this  hill  as  a  \ery  sacred  spot  in  the  eyes  of  the 
 old  inhabitants  of  Paran.  I  have  little  doubt  that 
 they  believed  it  to  be  the  site  of  llephidim,  when 
 Serbdl,  as  was  once  certainly  tlie  case,  was  held  to 
 be  the  traditional  Mount  Sinai.  But  I  have  no 
 faith  in  monastic  traditions,  either  ancient  or  mod- 
 ern, as  far  as  the  monks  of  the  convent  of  St. 
 Catherine  are  concerned. 
 
 Besides,  it  appears  to  me  that  Rephidim  is  clearly 
 spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  within  a  day's  journey 
 of  Mount  Sinai;  and  this  s])ot  is  two  days'  jour- 
 ney from  Jtbtl  Miisii,  even  by  the  short  cut  of  the 
 Niikb  Iliwy. 
 
 1  am  strongly  of  opinion  that  the  Israehtes 
 marched  up  the  Wadij  es-Sheikh,  and  that  the 
 narrow  defile  of  el-Wnth/eh,  about  twelve  miles 
 from  Jebcl  Miisn,  marks  the  site  of  the  battle  of 
 Hephidim. 
 
 Prom  the  head  of  Wady  IJibrdn  there  stretches 
 across  the  western  side  of  the  Peninsula  a  remark- 
 able line  of  precipitous  granite  mountains,"  through 
 which  are  found  only  three  passes,  leading  to  the 
 high  and  well-watered  central  group  of  mountains, 
 which  includes  Jebel  Musa.  The  two  western 
 passes  of  Wady  Tldh  and  Nukb  Udn-y  are  too 
 narrow  and  rugged  to  have  aftbrded  a  road  for  tlie 
 mass  of  the  Israelites. 
 
 They  are  altogether  out  of  the  question,  if  the 
 Israelites  had  wagons  with  them  at  this  time. 
 We  know  that  the  princes  presented  six  wagons 
 for  the  use  of  the  Tabernacle  at  Mount  Sinai,  and 
 we  can  hardly  suppose  them  to  have  been  built 
 there. 
 
 The  remaining  pass  of  el-  Wntiyeh  is  a  narrow 
 detile,  with  peri)endicidar  rocks  on  either  side,  and 
 
 «  This  formeil,  prob'ibly,  the  northern  limit  of 
 the  Wilderness  of  Sinai,  the  high  central  clu.ster  of 
 niountains  to  the  south  bearing  the  district  name 
 of  Iloreb.  F.  W.  H. 
 
 the  holding  of  this  defile  by  the  Amalekites  would 
 render  them  secure. 
 
 All  the  requirements  of  the  account  of  the  bat- 
 tle are  found  at  this  spot.  There  is  a  large  plain, 
 destitute  of  water,  for  the  encampment  of  the  Israel- 
 ites; a  conspicuous  hill  on  the  north  side  of  the 
 defile,  commanding  the  battle-ground,  and  present- 
 ing a  bare  clift",  such  as  we  may  suppose  tlie  rock 
 to  have  been  which  Jloses  struck.'' 
 
 There  is  anotiier  plain  on  the  south  of  the  pass 
 for  the  encampment  of  the  Amalekites,  with  abun- 
 dance of  water  within  easy  reach ;  and,  curiously 
 enough,  at  this  very  spot,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on 
 which  Moses  sat,  if  this  be  Kephidini,  the  Arabs 
 point  out  a  rock,  which  they  call  '•  the  seat  of  the 
 prophet  Moses." —  See  paper  read  liefure  the  Liver- 
 pool Church  Congress,  pp.  7,  8 ;  also  paper  read 
 before  K.  G.  S.,  May  11th,  1868,  p.  17. 
 
 Page  3523  (i,  2d  par.  —  Iloreb.  —  A  name  given 
 prol)al)ly  to  the  central  granite  niountains  (includ- 
 ing Jebel  Musi,  St.  Cutheriiie,  Fureiali,  etc.), 
 which  lie  to  the  south  of  the  remarkable  line  of 
 clifis  stretching  eastward  from  the  head  of  Wddy 
 Ilebrdii.  The  country  between  this  line  and  Wady 
 es-Slielkh,  including  the  low  mountains  of  Jebel 
 el^0rj\  is  comparatively  open,  and  contains  .several 
 plains  or  broad  wadies  of  considerable  size.  No 
 trace  of  the  name  Horeb  now  remains,  unless  Jehel 
 ^Aribeb,  the  central  portion  of  Jebel  ed-Deir,  he  a 
 corruption  of  it.  The  Arabs,  however,  say  that  this 
 mountain  is  so  called  from  a  plant  that  grows  there. 
 
 Page  3524  b,  end  of  1st  par. —  Jebel  Feirdii.  — 
 The  Araiis  often  call  the  mountains  by  the  names 
 of  the  adjoining  wadies. 
 
 Page  3521  b,  2d  par.  —  Summit  of  Serbdl.  — 
 Dr.  Stewart's  "  circle  of  loose  stones,"  and  Dr.  Stan- 
 ley's "ruins  of  a  liuilding,  granite  fragments  ce- 
 mented witii  lime  and  mortar,"  refer  to  the  same 
 ruins.  The  latter  description  is  the  true  one.  There 
 are  a  considerable  number  of  inscriptions  on  the 
 summit,  some  painted  under  an  overhanging  rock 
 covered  with  whitewash,  which  seems  to  connect 
 them  with  this  building,  similar  wliitewash  being 
 found  upon  its  stones.  For  a  description  of  Jebel 
 Serbdl,  see  Proceedings  R.  G.  Soc,  vol.  xiii.  p.  212. 
 
 Page    3525   a,  2d   par. Tebel    Musa.  —  For 
 
 description  see  Proceedings  Ji.  G.  Soc,  vol.  xiii.  p. 
 21(1.  The  apprciach  from  the  W.  by  Nukb  lldwy  is 
 not  so  difficult  as  represented.  I  have  several  times 
 ascended  the  pass  with  lightly-laden  camels. 
 
 IF.  Solum  should  be  written  Sold/.  The  Eds 
 Sufsdfeh  is  not  a  mountain  interposed  between  the 
 slope  oi  Jebel  Musa  and  the  plain,"  but  the  north- 
 ern portion  of  Jebel  Musa  itself. 
 
 Page  3525  b,  1.  10.  —  Jebel  Fureid.  —  There  is 
 properly  speaking  no  mountain  of  that  name.  The 
 name  el-Fureiali  is  applied  to  the  high  and  fertile 
 mountain  plateau  that  lies  between  Wady  er- 
 Italiali  and  the  upper  part  of  Wady  es-Sheikh 
 I'he  surrounding  peaks  each  have  a  separate  name. 
 
 Page  3525  b,  note  c.  —  It  is  a  mistake  to  think 
 that  the  dendrites  have  become  scarce —  at  the  top 
 of  Abbas  Pasha's  road  they  especially  abound. 
 
 Page  3527  a,  1.  38.  —  The  "  offt^rings  of  the 
 princes"  included  wagons  (Num.  vii.  3),  a  proof 
 that  the  route  followed  by  the  Israelites  did  not 
 lead  over  any  very  difficult  passes,  and  therefore 
 a  help  in  tracing  out  their  course. 
 
 Page  3527  f(,  1.  4  from  bottom.  "  Over  its  south- 
 
 b  This  would  be  "  ( Ji  Horeb  "  if  the  suggestion  in 
 the  preceding  note  is  correct.  F.  W.  H. 
 
3652 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 aril  face."  etc.  —  There  are  several  passes  over  the 
 southern  face  of  the  Tih  range;  if  the  Israehtes 
 did  not  march  down  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  thej 
 probably  crossed  by  one  or  more  of  these,  if  not  too 
 steep  for  their  wagons.  Tlie  direct  road  from 
 Jibd  Mnsa  nortliward  to  the  Tih  range  presents 
 no  difficulty,  a  rising  expanse  of  hard  desert  lead- 
 ing gradually  up  to  the  plateau  of  Teranik,  wliere 
 there  is  plenty  of  vegetation,  and  good  water  at 
 Ain  el-Akhdhar.  The  wadies  leading  down  to 
 the  Gulf  of  Alsaba  are  somewhat  narrow  and  rocliy ; 
 a  stream  of  good  water  is  found  at  the  lower  Wady 
 el^Ain.  There  is  an  upper  el-Ain  at  tlie  bottom 
 of  W(i<hj  Zdlegei  fiu'ther  to  the  northwest.  The 
 two,  I  believe,  are  connected. 
 
 Page  3527  6,  1.  29.  —  Dahnb  appears  to  me  too 
 far  to  the  south  to  be  identified  with  Dizahab;  it 
 is  also  inclosed  by  mountains  on  the  north.  The 
 road  to  it  lies  down  Wadi/  Nusb,  which  rises  south 
 of  Jebel  Catherine.  There  is  another  road  across 
 the  plain  of  Senned  which  joins   Wady  Nusb. 
 
 Page  3527  6,  1.  ZQ.—  Kl-Iiudhera.  —  'This  copi- 
 ous spring  is  situated  at  the  head  of  the  wady  of  the 
 same  name,  which  forms  a  cal-de-sac  surrounded 
 by  high  cliffs.  Two  narrow  paths,  so  steep  that  a 
 laden  camel  cannot  well  descend  them,  lead  down  to 
 it.  It  is  difficult  to  identify  this  with  Hazeroth, 
 wljere  the  whole  host  of  the  Israelites  encamped 
 for  seven  days.  If  they  marched  straight  north  from 
 Mount  Sinai  we  miirht  place  Hazeroth  in  the  open 
 plateau  near  el^Akhdluir.  Here  numerous  very  an- 
 cient inclosures  and  ruins  of  nnmus  are  found. 
 The  namus,  or  in  the  plural  nudinig,  "  mosquitos," 
 are  the  dwellings  or  storehouses  of  the  ancient  in- 
 habitants of  the  Peninsula.  Their  style  of  architect- 
 ure is  the  oldest  that  is  known,  resembling  the 
 "Beehive  Houses  "  in  Scotland.  They  were  perhaps 
 built  by  the  Amalekites.  (See  Proceedings  R.  G. 
 Sue.  vol.  xiii.  p.  211 ;  paper  read  before  R.  G.  S.,  May 
 11,  1868;  and  paper  read  at  Liverpool  Church 
 Congress,  Oct.   18G9.) 
 
 Page  3527,  note  a.  —  The  edible  locusts  invade 
 the  Peninsula  in  great  numbers  about  every  third 
 year.  I  have  seen  the  ground  covered  with  them. 
 The  Arabs  in  Sinai  do  not  eat  them.  Partridges 
 of  two  kinds  are  very  common.  Quails  are  met 
 with  occasionally.  Vast  flocks  of  storks  annually 
 cross  northwards  from  Egypt.  I  have  counted 
 them  by  hundreds  on  several  occasions. 
 
 Page  .3532  o,  1.  4.  —  El-'' Ain.  —  When  tracing 
 up  Wady  el-Ain,  my  Arabs  pointed  out  a  route 
 leading  northwards  to  Pidestine.  They  said  the 
 road  was  good,  and  the  pass  over  the  Till  range 
 not  difficult. 
 
 P.  3534  b.  —  Zoology.  —  There  are  no  lions,  I 
 believe,  in  Sinai.  Hyenas  are  common ;  so  also 
 are  foxes,  of  which  there  are  two  kinds.  Leopards 
 are  found  on  the  higher  mountains;  wolves  in  Wady 
 Feirdn,  and  other  places.  The  ibex  is  very  com- 
 mon. I  have  sometimes  seen  as  many  as  40  or  50 
 in  a  day;  and  have  occasionally  found  30  or  40  in 
 one  herd.  The  flesh  is  excellent,  and  when  sta- 
 tionary for  a  few  days  the  traveller  can  generally 
 employ  an  Arab  to  shoot  him  some.  They  are 
 quite  contented  with  five  or  six  shillings  for  each 
 ibex.  The  young  are  killed  in  considerable  num- 
 bers for  the  sake  of  their  skins,  which  are  used  for 
 sewing  dates  in.  The  ibexes  are  commonly  known 
 by  the  name  of  bedru,  but  other  names  are  given 
 llieni  according  to  their  age  and  the  length  of  their 
 horns.  Hares  are  common.  Amongst  other  .Tiii- 
 mals  which  are  often  seen  may  be  mentioned  the 
 
 gazelle,  coney  {Tlyriix  Syrincus),  called  by  the 
 Arabs  ivebr,  jerboas,  mice  of  several  kinds,  lizards, 
 and  snakes,  of  which  I  have  caught  five  or  six 
 different  kinds.  Amongst  the  birds,  vultures  of 
 two  kinds,  kites,  hawks,  storks,  wild  ducks,  teal, 
 snipe,  herons,  partridges,  sand-grouse,  quail,  pig- 
 eons, turtle-doves,  Drymcecis,  stonechats,  plovers, 
 ravens,  crows,  owls,  bats,  red-starts,  larks,  swallows, 
 sea-gulls,  etc.,  etc.  Porcupines  and  hedgehogs  are 
 found,  but  they  are  rai-e.  Small  fish  are  found 
 in  the  warm  springs  near  Tur.  One  cannot,  of 
 course,  compare  the  amount  of  life  found  in  a 
 desert  with  that  in  other  countries,  which  supply  a 
 larger  amount  of  food,  but  1  have  frequently  seen, 
 and  have  shot  or  caught  most  of  the  animals  and 
 birds  which  1  have  mentioned,  besides  others  the 
 names  of  which  I  cannot  now  remember. 
 
 Page  3536  a.  —  Vegetation.  —  The  statement 
 that  "the  palms  are  almost  always  dwarf,"  is  not 
 correct.  The  dwarf  trees  are  tlie  exception,  not  the 
 rule.  Many  of  the  trees  at  Tur  and  Wady  Feirdn 
 are  particularly  fine. 
 
 Roses  of  Jericho  are  found  at  the  mouth  of 
 Wndy  Gliurundel,  Wady  Mokatleb,  and  many 
 other  places. 
 
 The  LnsoJ\  or  caper  plant,  is  found  in  Tayibeh, 
 and  is  very  common  in  the  wadies  south  of  Jebel 
 Miisa.  The  fruit,  which  is  of  the  size  and  shape 
 of  a  moderate  sized  pear,  is  eaten  by  the  Arabs. 
 It  has  a  pungent  and  very  pleasant  taste. 
 
 The  Ban-tree  {Balsanmm  Aaronis)  abounds  in 
 some  of  the  wadies  near  Serbdl. 
 
 The  Usher  I  have  found  in  Wady  Nusb,  S.  E. 
 of  Jebel  Milsn  and  also  near  Wady  el-Ain.  A 
 large  blue  kind  of  locust  feeds  upon  it. 
 
 The  Butm  (Pislachia  terehinthiisf)  occurs  on 
 the  v^est  oi  J ebel  Serbdl  on  the  higlier  slopes;  it 
 does  not  appear  to  grow  on  the  east  of  the  moun- 
 tain. 
 
 Page  3537.  —  The  name  Serbdl  is    not  derived 
 
 from  Ser  ;  the  word  serbal  (tjL}«.juw)   signifies  a 
 
 "  shirt  "  or  "coat  of  mail,"  and  the  name  has 
 reference  to  the  manner  in  which  a  storm  clothes 
 the  smooth  summit  of  the  mountain,  and  perhaps 
 to  the  sheet  of  ice  with  which  it  is  sometimes  cov- 
 ered, when  it  shines  in  the  sun  like  a  coat  of 
 mail.  "  V.  W.  H. 
 
 *  We  ought  perhaps  to  mention  here,  as  at 
 least  a  curiosity,  a  new  theory  of  the  route  of  the 
 Israelites,  set  ibrth  with  no  little  learning  and 
 ingenuity  by  a  writer  in  Lawson  and  Wilson's 
 Cyclopaedia  (if'  Bibl.  Geography,  etc.,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
 59-liJ9  (Edin.  1866),  under  the  title  Exode,  Alter- 
 native View  of  the.  We  can  only  indicate  his 
 chief  results,  without  discussing  the  arguments 
 by  which  they  are  supported.  This  writer  main- 
 tains that  the  Gulf  of  .\kaba  is  tlie  "  Red  Sea  " 
 of  our  version,  and  was  of  nnich  larger  dimen- 
 sions in  the  days  of  JSIoses  and  Herodotus,  extend- 
 ing across  modern  Arabia  to  the  Persian  Gulf; 
 that  iMizraim  is  improperly  rendered  "Egypt  "  in 
 our  version,  being  really  applied  to  a  part  of  Ara- 
 bia near  Egypt;  that  the  water  in  which  Moses, 
 as  an  infant,  was  laid,  was  not  the  Nile,  but  a 
 sweet  water  channel  connecting,  in  early  times,  the 
 isthmus  of  Suez  with  the  Mediterranean  Sea;  that 
 Goshen  was  the  high  region  known  to  the  ancients 
 as  Mount  Casion;  that  the  Horeb  of  Scripture  was 
 the  ridge  of  the  Tih,  and  Mount  Sinai  Jebel  el- 
 Ajmah  (or  OJmeh).  A. 
 
INDEX 
 
 PRINCIPAL   PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE   ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Note  —  Passages  which  woulj  be  readily  found  without  the  etid  of  this  Index  are  for  the  most  part  omitted 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 I.  1 i.  631b 
 
 i.  2 iv.  3i06b 
 
 i.  5 i.567  b 
 
 i.  7 i.  631b 
 
 i.  14 iv.  3405  a 
 
 i.2l i.82Sa 
 
 ii.  2  Iv.  2922  a 
 
 ii.  4.  ...i.  888  b,  891   a,  ». 
 
 ii.  5 i.  891  b,  n. 
 
 ii.  6 i.  825  a,»i. 
 
 ji.  7 i.  25  b,  ii.  1411a, 
 
 iv.  3406  a 
 
 ii.  14 i.  636  b 
 
 ii.  18 iii.  1793  b 
 
 ii.  24 iv.  3407  a 
 
 iii.  l....iv.  2928  b,  2931a 
 
 iii.  1-14 i.  421b 
 
 iii.  5 iv.  3406  a 
 
 iii.  7 i.  624  b 
 
 iii.  8 iv.  3406  b 
 
 Iii.  12 i.  26  b,  n. 
 
 iii.  14 iv.  2928  b 
 
 iii.  14,  15 iv.  2929  b 
 
 iii.  15 iii.  1906  a,  iv. 
 
 3426  a,  n. 
 
 iii.  17-24 iv.  3il8a  f. 
 
 iii.  19  ..i.  .323  a,  ii.  1411a 
 iii.  24.. i  420  a,  423a,  iv. 
 
 2961a 
 
 iv.3 iv.  3490  a 
 
 iv.  7 i.  5a,   341  a,  b 
 
 iv.  8.  . . .  iv.  2809  a,  2923  a 
 
 iv.  15 i.  341  a 
 
 iv.  20 iv.  2989  b 
 
 iv.  21 ii.  1485  a 
 
 iv.  22.  ...i.  490  a,  ii.  992  a 
 
 iv.  23,24 ii.  1583  a 
 
 iv.  24 iii.  2640  b 
 
 V.  1 i.  888  a 
 
 y.  1,2 .i.  26  a 
 
 v.22-24..i.  737  b,iv.  2708a 
 
 vi.  1-4....  ii.  910  a,  iii.  2175 
 
 b,  2360  b,  iv.  3317  a 
 
 vi.  2 ii.  1.508  b 
 
 vi.  3 iii.  2177  a 
 
 vi.  9. ..   i.  888  a 
 
 vi.  14, 16 ii.  992  a 
 
 vi.  15 i'i.  2178  a 
 
 vi.  16 iii.  2177  b 
 
 vi.  17 ii.l485a 
 
 vii.  2 iii.  2179  a 
 
 vii.  2,  8,  9...  iii.  2179  b,»z. 
 
 vii. 11 i.  631b 
 
 vii.  22 ii.  1411a 
 
 viii.  4 iii.  2181a,  «. 
 
 viii.  6 iii.  2178  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  7 iii.  2678  a 
 
 viii.  10 iv.  3490  a 
 
 viii.  14 iii.  2004  b 
 
 viii.  17 iii.  2181b 
 
 viii.  20 iv.  3346  b 
 
 viii.  21 iv.  34U5  a, 
 
 3416  b 
 
 .X.3 iv.3347a 
 
 ix.  6 iv.  3408  a 
 
 Jx.9 iv.  3213  b 
 
 ix.l3.... iii. 2188 a.  2667b 
 
 ix.  20,  21 iv.  8445  b 
 
 ix.  25,  27 iii.  2188  b 
 
 ix.  26 iv.  2968  b 
 
 ix.  27 iv.  3406  b 
 
 X.  2 ii.  966  a,  iii.  2677  b 
 
 X.  5 i.  383  a 
 
 X.  11,  12 ii.  984  b 
 
 X.  14 iii.  2496  .a,  n., 
 
 2496  b 
 
 X.  17 ii.  1083  a 
 
 X.  18.  19 i.  3.53  b 
 
 X.  19 iv.3067a   n. 
 
 X.  21-29.  ...  iii   2516  a,  n. 
 
 X.  30 i.  140  a,  275  a 
 
 .xi.  2 i.  146  b 
 
 xi.3 i.  221  b 
 
 xi.  4 i.  222  b 
 
 xi.  5 iv.  3405  a 
 
 xi.  26 i.442a 
 
 xi.29 i.  13  b,  n. 
 
 xii.  1 iv.  3113  b 
 
 xii.  6.  ...ii.   968  a,   985  a, 
 
 iii.  1888  a,  2012  b,  2416 
 
 b,  2547  b 
 
 xii.  7 iii.  2011  a 
 
 xii.  9 iv.  3211  b 
 
 xii.  14 iv.  3370  a 
 
 xii.  16.. i.  743  b,  iii.  2462a 
 
 xiii.  7 ii-  985  a 
 
 xiii.  10 i.  6.36  a 
 
 xiii.  10,  11,  12.. iv.  2697  a 
 
 xiii.  11 i.  146  b 
 
 xiii.  18.  .i.  15a,K,,ii.  988a, 
 
 iii.  2417  b,  2547  b 
 
 xiv..i.79a,  iii.  1987  b,  w. 
 
 xiv.  1 ii.898b 
 
 xiv.  5 iii.  2654  a 
 
 xiv.  6 iii.  2200  a 
 
 xiv.  7 i.  79  a 
 
 xiv.  13 iii.  2547  b 
 
 xiv.  14 i.  535  b,  536  a, 
 
 iii.  2417  b 
 
 xiv.  16 i.  329  a 
 
 XV.  1 iii.  2598  b 
 
 XV.  2,  3 i.  701a 
 
 XV.  9 ii.  1044  b 
 
 XV.  10 i.  68  b 
 
 XV.  12.  ...iii.  2592  b,  n.iv. 
 
 3318  b 
 
 XV.  13,  14 i.442b 
 
 XV.  15 iv.  2708  b 
 
 XV.  17 ii.  15*^9  a 
 
 XV.  19 ii.  1388  a 
 
 xvi.  7 iv.  3508  a,  n. 
 
 xvi.  12 i.  183  a 
 
 xvii.  1 iv.  29.38  b 
 
 xvii   22 iv.  3406  b 
 
 xviii.  1.  . .    .i.  15  a,  n.,  iii. 
 
 2547  b 
 
 xviii.  2 i.  873  a 
 
 xviii.  3 ii.  1675  b 
 
 xviii  6 i.  323h 
 
 xviii.  8 i.  336  b,  833  b 
 
 xviii.  16 i.  328  b 
 
 xviii.  18 ii.  1018  b 
 
 xviii.  23-33.  ..ii.  1686a,  «. 
 
 xviii.  25 iv.  3405  a 
 
 xix.  38 i.  274  b 
 
 XX.  3 iv.  3406  b 
 
 XX.  7 iii.  2592  b 
 
 XX.  12 ii.  1415  b 
 
 XX.  16 i.  504  b,  505  a, 
 
 iii.  1994  b 
 
 xxi.  14 iii.  2536  b 
 
 xxi.  20 iv.  3406  b 
 
 xxi.  26 iv.  3559  a 
 
 xxi.  31 ii.  1224  b,ri. 
 
 xxi.  33 ii.968a 
 
 xxii.  1 iv.  3207  a 
 
 xxii.  2 iv.  3406  a 
 
 xxii.  2£f ii.  901  b 
 
 xxii.  11,  12 i.  95  b 
 
 xxii.  13 iv.  3408  a 
 
 xxii.  14 iii.  2012  a 
 
 xxii.  21 i.  145  b,  iii. 
 
 2668  b 
 
 xxiii.  2 iv.  3572  a 
 
 xxiii.  2-4 i.  3.35  a 
 
 xxiii.  3-18 i.  7.58  b 
 
 xxiii.  4 iv.  3121b 
 
 xxiii.  6 i.  332  a 
 
 xxiv.  10 i.  145  a  6.36  a 
 
 xxiv.  21 iv.  3551  b 
 
 xxiv.  22 i.  8.37  b 
 
 xxiv.  22,  53.. iii.  2267  a,  n. 
 
 xxiv.  25 ii.  1045  b 
 
 xxiv.  53 iv.  3041  b 
 
 xxiv.  64 iv.  2795  b 
 
 xxiv.65. ...  i.  619  a,  622  b, 
 iii.  1805  a,  iv.  3-370  a 
 
 xxiv.  67 iv.  3211  a 
 
 XXV.  16 ii.  1169  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  17,18.  ..ii.  1170  a,  n. 
 XXV.  18.. iv.  3514  a,  3649  a 
 
 XXV.  19 i.  888  a 
 
 XXV.  27 i.  518  a 
 
 XXV.  28 ii.  1146  a 
 
 xxvi.  19. ii.  1062  b 
 
 xxvi.  20-22 i.  769  a,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  34 i.  53  b,  91a 
 
 xxvii.  3 iii.  2652  b 
 
 xxvii.  9 ii.  1533  b 
 
 xxvii.  19,37 ii.  10.35  b 
 
 xxvii.  23 Iv.  2795  a 
 
 xxviii.  14 i.  634  a 
 
 xxviii.  18 i.  68  b,  n. 
 
 xxviii.  19 i.  288  a 
 
 xxix.  14 iii.  2004  b 
 
 xxix.  27 iv.  3490  b 
 
 XXX.  11 i.84Sb 
 
 XXX.  13 i.  172  a 
 
 XXX.  20 i.  7.35  a 
 
 XXX.  27 ii.  1122  b 
 
 XXX  37 i.  478  a 
 
 XXX.  37,  38 iii.  2.532  b 
 
 xxxi.  1-3,17-23.  .ii.  1000  a 
 
 xxxi.  10 i.  478  b 
 
 xxxi.  13 i.  101  a 
 
 xxxi.  19,  30,32-35  ff.  ...ii. 
 
 1743  a 
 
 xxxi.  33 iv.  3211a 
 
 xxxi.  34 i.  846  b 
 
 xxxi.  46 i.  503  a 
 
 xxxi.  47 i.  142  a 
 
 xxxi.  48,  49 ii.  1225  a 
 
 xxxi.  52 i.  68,  n. 
 
 xxxi.  55 ii.  1497  b,  n. 
 
 xxxii.  2 ii.  1627  a 
 
 xxxii.  15 i.  347  a,  n. 
 
 xxxiii.  12 iv.  3211  b 
 
 xxxiii.  17.  . .  .ii.  1509  b,  n. 
 x.xxiii.  18.  . .  .iii.  1877  b.iv. 
 
 3123  b 
 
 xxxiii.  19 i.  229  a 
 
 xxxiv.  2  ii.  1082  b 
 
 .XXXV.  2 iii.   2606  b 
 
 XXXV.  4.  .i.  89  b,  630  b,  ii. 
 
 1476  a 
 XXXV.  8  ...  i   69  a,  n.,  iv. 
 
 .3166  b 
 
 XXXV.  9 i.  576  a 
 
 XXXV.  13-15 i.  288  a 
 
 XXXV.  19,  20.  ...iii.  2660b 
 
 XXXV.  21 iv.  3211b 
 
 XXXV.  27 ii.  15J5a 
 
 xxxvi.  2 iv.  3624  b 
 
 xxxvi.  2,  3 i.  252  a 
 
 xxxvi.  2,  14,  20.  . .  i.  90  b 
 
 xxxvi.  15 i.663b 
 
 xxxvi.  15,  40 i.  626  b 
 
 xxxvi.  20-25.  ...ii.  1388b 
 
 xxxvi.  24.. i.  91  a,  iii.  2035 
 
 b,  iv.  3624  b,  3625  a 
 
 xxxvi.  31 iii.  2417  a 
 
 xxxvi.  33 ii.  1407  b 
 
 xxxvi.  37 iv.  2947  a 
 
 xxxvi.  40-43 i.  53  b 
 
 xxxvii.  3,  23 i.  619  a 
 
 xxxvii.  22 i.  466  a 
 
 xxxvii.  25 iii.  2045  b 
 
 xxxvii.  28,  26.  .iii.  1847  b 
 
 x.Kxvii.  35 iv.  2708  b 
 
 xxxvii.  36  ...  i.  790  b,  iii. 
 
 2567  a 
 
 xxxviii.l4,  19.  ...i.  619  a, 
 
 622  b 
 
 xxxviii.  14,  21.  ...  i.  732a 
 
 xxxviii.  18.  .ii.  1661  b,  iii. 
 
 2267  b,  n. 
 
 xxxviii.   18,  25. .  i.   322  b, 
 
 ii.  1578  b 
 
 xxxviii.  21,  22.  .iv.  3074  a 
 
 xxxix.  1 i.  385  b,  iii. 
 
 2567  a 
 
 xxxix.  8 iv.  3559  a 
 
 xl.  3,  4 i.  385  b 
 
 xl.  16 i.  2.53  a,  324  b 
 
 xii.  2,  18.  .ii.  1465  b,  n., 
 
 iii.  1841  b 
 
 xii.  14... i.  230a,    258  a, 
 
 466  a 
 
 xii.  42.  ...i.  143  b,  625  a, 
 
 iii.  2267b,  n.,iv.  3489  a 
 
 xii.  44 iv.   3407  b 
 
 xliii.  11... i.  40  b,  834b, 
 ii.  1085  b,  iii.  2045  b,iv. 
 
 3544  a 
 
 xliii.  16 iii.  1842  b 
 
 xliii.  21 ii.  936  b 
 
 xliii.  23 ii.936a 
 
 xliii.  33 i.  678  a 
 
 xliii.  34 iii.  1845  a 
 
 xliv.5 i.  320  b,  608  a 
 
 ii.  1745  a 
 
3654 
 
 xliv.  5,  15 iv.  3362  a 
 
 xliv.  15 iv.  3S59  a 
 
 xlv.  6 i.629  b 
 
 xlv.  8 ii.  1109  a,  n. 
 
 xlv.  12 iv.  3405  b 
 
 xlv.  26 iii.  1865  b 
 
 xlvi.  1 iv.  3211b 
 
 xlvi.  21... i.  151a,  276  b, 
 ii.  1223  a 
 
 xlvi.  30 iv.  3106  b 
 
 xlvii.  3 ii.  1102  b 
 
 xlvii.  7,10 iv.  2795  a 
 
 xlvii.  9 iv.  3211b 
 
 xlvii.  11 ii.  940  a 
 
 xlviii.22 iv.  3404  b 
 
 xlix.  5-7 ii.  1638  a 
 
 xlix.  6 ii.  1636  a,  iv. 
 
 3430  a 
 xlix.  10 iii.  1906  a, 
 
 3430  a 
 xlix  11.. iv. 3095b,  3370  a 
 
 xlix.  12 iv.  3543  a 
 
 xlix.  13 iv.  3597  b 
 
 xlix.  17. i.  30  a 
 
 xlix.  19 iii.  1984  a.  n. 
 
 xlix.  21 ii.  1077  b 
 
 xlix.  22 iv.  2958  a 
 
 xlix.  26 iii.  2074  b,  n. 
 
 I.  1 ii.  1185  b 
 
 1.  3 i.  335  a,  M. 
 
 1.  11 i.   353  a 
 
 1.23 ii.  1467  a,  n. 
 
 1.  26 i.  424  a,  475  b 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 1.  11 ii.  941  b 
 
 i.  15, 18, 19 iii.  2636  a 
 
 i.  16. ...   iii.  1870  a,  1929  a 
 
 i.  19 iii.  1929  a,  n. 
 
 i.  20,21 iii.  1929  a 
 
 ii.  1 i.  450  b 
 
 ii.  3 i.  673  a 
 
 ii.  3,  5.  .1.830  b,  iii.  2682  b 
 
 ii,  4 iv.  3551  b 
 
 ii.  14. . . .  i.  1508  b,  1509  b 
 
 ii.  16, 18 iii.  2662  b 
 
 ii.  18 ii.  1388  a 
 
 iii.  l..ii.  1388  a,  iii.  2662  a, 
 
 iv.  3406  b 
 
 iii.  5.  .ii.  1104  a,  iv.  2837b 
 
 iii.  6 iv,  2707  b 
 
 iii.  13,  14 iii.  2415a 
 
 iii.  14.  .ii.  1240  b,  ii  1244b 
 
 iii.  21,  22 iii.  25.39  b 
 
 iii.  22 iii.  2268  a.  n. 
 
 iv.  16 iv.  2922  a 
 
 iv.  22 i.  310  a 
 
 iv.  22,23 iv.  3087  a 
 
 iv.  22,  23,24.  ...iii. 2019  b 
 
 iv.  24-26 ii  1388  a 
 
 iv.  26 iii.  2019  a,  n. 
 
 v.  2 iv.  34'>6b 
 
 V.  9 iv.  3S60b 
 
 V.  12 i.  406-b 
 
 V.2,  3 iii.  1415  a 
 
 vi.  3.  . .  .ii.  1244  a,  b,  1245 
 a,n.,  iii.  2415  b 
 
 vi.  12,  30 i.  465  a 
 
 vi.  20 i.  450  b 
 
 vi.  24 i.  6  a 
 
 vii.  10-12 iii.  2539  b 
 
 vii.  19 iii.  2693  a 
 
 vii.  24 iii.  2.540  a 
 
 viii.  1-15 iii.  2540  b 
 
 viii.  16-19 iii.  2540  b 
 
 viii.  16-31 i.  674  b 
 
 viii  20-32 iii.  2541  a 
 
 ix.  1-7 iii.  2541  6 
 
 ix.  8-12 iii.  2,542  a 
 
 ix.  10 iii.  1865  b 
 
 ix.  13-35 iii.  2542  b 
 
 ix.  15 iii.  2465  a 
 
 IX.  -35 ii.  Iii75  a 
 
 X.  1-20 iii.  2542  b 
 
 X.  15 ii.  1045  a,  n. 
 
 X.  21 iii.  2543  b 
 
 xi.  4-10 iii.  2,544  b 
 
 xi.  5 iii.  1935  b 
 
 Xii.  6.  .iii.  2341  b,  «.,  2342 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 xii.  13 iv.  .3405  a 
 
 xii.  19 iii.26('3  a,  iv. 
 
 3121  b,  H. 
 
 xii.  27 iii.  2340  b,  n. 
 
 xii.  29,30 iii.  2544  b 
 
 xii.  34 i  323  b,  624  a 
 
 xii.  38,44 iii.  23.56  a 
 
 xii.  40 i.  450  a 
 
 xii.  40,41 i.  442  b 
 
 xii.  46 ii.  1379  b 
 
 xiii.  2-4 iii.  2355  a 
 
 xiii.  17,  18 i.  795  a 
 
 xiii. 20... iv. 3211b, 3513  a, 
 3514  a,  3649  a 
 
 xiv.  3 IV.  3513  b, 
 
 3649  a 
 
 xiv.  11 iii.  2152  a 
 
 xiv.  19 iv.  2961a 
 
 xiv.  21 iii.  2691a,  iv. 
 
 3513  b,  3540  a 
 XV.  11..  ii.  1708  b,  iv.  3106  a 
 XV.  15.  .i.  626  b,ii.  1453  b 
 XV.  20.  .i.  539  a,  iii.  1968  b 
 
 XV.  20,  21 iii.  20.37  a 
 
 XV.  25 iv.3.>3d  b 
 
 XV.  27.  ..i.  58a,  iv.  3522a 
 
 xvi.  15 iv.  3551  a 
 
 xvi.  33-36  ....  iii.   2416  b 
 
 xvii.  2,  7 iv.   3'i07  a 
 
 xvii.  9 i.  la 
 
 xvii.  14.  . .  .iii.  2412  a,  «,, 
 
 iv,  3559  b 
 
 xvii.  14,  16.  . . ,  -ii.  2197  b 
 
 xvii.  16 iii.  2023  a 
 
 xviii.  2 ii.   1388  a 
 
 xviii.  14-24.  . . .  ii.  1508  a 
 
 xviii.  15 ii.  1609  a 
 
 xix.  4 i.  629  a 
 
 xix.   9,16, 18.. iv.  2960  a 
 
 xix.  10 iii.   2606  b 
 
 xix.   13 ii.   1484  b 
 
 XX.  5 iv.  3407  a 
 
 XX,  11 iv.3207  a,  n. 
 
 XX.  24 i.  74  b 
 
 XX.  26 iii.  2579  a 
 
 xxi.  9 ii.  1509  a 
 
 xxi.  22 iii.  1865  b 
 
 xxi.  24 ii.  1356  a 
 
 xxi.  28 iii.  2277  b 
 
 xxi.  32 
 
 .ii.l464a,  «., 
 
 1503  b 
 
 xxii.  8 
 
 ..i.  589  b,  n. 
 
 xxii.  15, 16. 
 
 .iii.  1803a.  ». 
 
 xxii.  16.  . .  . 
 
 i.  735  a 
 
 xxii.  17.  . . . 
 
 .iii.  1803  a,  ?i. 
 
 xxii.  26 
 
 i.624a 
 
 xxii.  27.... 
 
 i.  ti24a 
 
 xxii.  28.  .  . . 
 
 i.  315  b 
 
 »ii.  7 
 
 xii.  8,  39. 
 
 .  ii.  1102  b 
 .  iii.  2354  b 
 
 xxii   29 iv.  3541  a. 
 
 xxii.  31 iv.  3099  b 
 
 xxiii.  17 ii.  1675  b 
 
 xxiii.17,18,19.  ...iii.  2343 
 
 h 
 xxiii.  19. .  .i.  489  b,  835  a, 
 ii.   1129  a,  1533   b,   iii 
 1934  b,  2474  b,  K 
 
 xxiii.  25 iii.  2474  a 
 
 xxiii.  28 ii.l091a 
 
 xxiv.  4. .  .ii.  1077  a,  1364  a 
 
 x.xiv.  5 ii.  1638  b,  iii. 
 
 2577  b 
 
 xxiv.  9 ii.  1510  a,  n. 
 
 xxiv,  10 i.  824  b 
 
 xxiv.  16 iv.  2960  a 
 
 XXV.  5..  i.  480  a,  iii  2676  b 
 
 XXV.  8 iv.  2959  a 
 
 .XXV.  25 i.  512b 
 
 .XXV.  31-37..  i.  354  b,  3.55  a 
 356  a 
 
 XXV.  38 i.  75  a,  824  a 
 
 xxvi.20 i.  633b 
 
 xxvi,  28 iv.  3196  b 
 
 xxvi.31 ii.  929  b 
 
 xxvii,  2 i.  74  b 
 
 xxvii.  9 i.  034  a 
 
 xxvii.  12 ii.  1047  a 
 
 xxvii.  13 i.  637  a 
 
 xxviii.  4,39 i.  729  b 
 
 xxviii  8 ii.  929  b,  iii. 
 
 1969  a 
 xxviii.  14,22,24  ..i.  492a 
 xxviii.  18 ii.l218a 
 
 •xxviii.  19 ii.  1192  a 
 
 xxviii.  21 ii.  1364  a 
 
 xxviii.  28,  37.  ...ii.  1578  b 
 xxviii.  3'J.  . .  .ii.  1067  a  iv. 
 
 3357  a 
 
 xxviii.  33 i.  272  b 
 
 xxviii.  36 iv.  3117  b 
 
 xxviii.  39 i.  396  a,  ii. 
 
 929  b 
 xxviii.  42 iii.  2,578  b, 
 
 2579  a 
 
 xxix.  9 ii.  1017  a,  iii. 
 
 2578  a,  n. 
 
 xxix.  23 i.  .324  a 
 
 xxix.  45,  46 iv.  2959  b 
 
 .XXX.  13 ii.  1510  a 
 
 XXX.  19,21....    iv.  3486a 
 
 XXX.  26-28 i.  101a 
 
 XXX.  34 ii.  11.36  a 
 
 XXX.  35 i.  488  a,  iv. 
 
 2793  b 
 
 xxxi.  18 iv.  3362  b,  ?i. 
 
 xxxii.  1 iv.  3559  a 
 
 xxxii.  4 i.344  b 
 
 xxxii.  18 iii.  2023  a 
 
 xxxii.  20 iii.  1940  a 
 
 xxxii.  35 iv.  3405  b 
 
 xx.\iii.  6  .  .  .  .iv.  3524  a,  »i. 
 
 xxxiii.  7-11 iv.  2960  b  I 
 
 xxxiii.  11 iii.  2063  a 
 
 xxxiii.  20 ii.  1775  b 
 
 xxxiii.  22,23.  ...iv.  3406  a 
 
 xxxiv.  21 i.  629  b 
 
 xxxiv.  22 iv.  ,3581  a 
 
 xxxiv.  23 ii   1675  b 
 
 xxxiv.  26 i.  835  a,  ii. 
 
 1129a,  1533b,  iii.  1934  b, 
 2474  b,  71. 
 
 xxxiv.  28 iii.  2023  a 
 
 xxxiv.  29, 30, 35..  ii.  1090  a 
 
 xxxiv.  33 iii.  2022  b 
 
 xxxiv  34,35.  .iii.  2923a,  »i. 
 
 XXXV.  12 ii.  998  a 
 
 XXXV.  22.  ...i.   322  b,  iii. 
 1804  a,  2268  a,  n. 
 
 xx.xv.  29 ii    1075  a 
 
 XXXV.  35 i.  736  b,  iv. 
 
 .3489  b 
 
 xxxvii.  17-24 i.  354  b, 
 
 3i5  a 
 
 xxxvii.  23 i.  824  a 
 
 xxxviii.  8.  . .  .iii.  2268  a,«. 
 
 xxxviii.  23 i.  736  b 
 
 xxxviii.  24 iii.  2208  a 
 
 xxxix.  3 ii   1578  b 
 
 xxxix.  15,  17 i  492  a 
 
 xx.xix.  21,31.  ...ii.  1578  b 
 
 xxxix.  28 ii.  1017  a 
 
 xxxix.  29  ii.929b 
 
 xxxix.  30 i.  143  a,  iv. 
 
 3559  b 
 
 xxxix.  34 ii.  998  a 
 
 xl.  20 i.  155  b 
 
 xl.21 ii.  998  a 
 
 xl.  34,35 iv.  2960  a 
 
 LEVITICU.S. 
 
 ii.  1-15 iii.  1846  a 
 
 ii.  7 i.  325  b 
 
 ii.  13 iv.  2793  b 
 
 ii.  14 i.  478  a 
 
 iv.  3 i.  100  b 
 
 vi   12,13 i.  76  a 
 
 viii.  13 ii.  1017  a 
 
 ix.6,  23 iv.  2980  b 
 
 ix.  24 i.  76  a 
 
 X.  1 i.  824  a 
 
 X.  1,2...  i.  823  b,  iii.  2051b 
 
 X.  6 ii.  981  a,  1069  a 
 
 X.  9,  I'l i.  2  a 
 
 xi.  14...ii.  932b, iv.. 3343a 
 
 xi.  16 iii.  2148  b 
 
 xi.  17 ii.  922  a 
 
 xi.  18 ii.  922  a 
 
 xi.  18,30 iii.  1990  b 
 
 xi.  21 iv.  3343  b 
 
 xi.  21,22 ii.  1669  b,  n. 
 
 xi.  22 ii.  1671a 
 
 xii.  30 iii.  1990  b 
 
 xi.35.  ...i.325a,  ii.l017b 
 
 xiii.  10 ii.  1631  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  18-23...  iii.  1865  b,  n. 
 
 xiii.  45 ii.  lOltj  b 
 
 xiii.  55 i.  842  b 
 
 xiv.  6 i.  400  a 
 
 xiv.  6,7 i.  198  b,  n. 
 
 xiv.llJ-32 i.2a,n. 
 
 XV.  2,  3 iii.  1863  b 
 
 XV.  19 iii.  1864  a 
 
 xvi.  3-10 i.  195  a 
 
 xvi.  10 i.  196  b,  f. 
 
 xvi.  12 i.  403  b,  824a 
 
 xvi.  14 i.  195  a,  71. 
 
 xvi.  18,  20.  ..  i.  195  b.  n, 
 
 xvi.  26 i.!97b 
 
 .xvii.  3,4 ii.  1064  a 
 
 Xiii.  7 iii.  1807  b 
 
 xvii.  11 ii.  1650  b 
 
 xviii.  6 iii.  1797  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  6-18.  .  .  iii.  1797  b,  f. 
 
 xviii.  9 iii.  1798  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  11 iii.  1798  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  18. . .  ii.  1650  a,  »i., 
 iii.  1798  a.  n. 
 
 xviii.  28 iii.  2417  b 
 
 xix.  12 ii.  1356  a 
 
 xix.  19 iv.  3.553  b 
 
 xix.  23 i.  465  a 
 
 xix.  28 ii.  1129a 
 
 xix  29 iv.  3450  b 
 
 xix.  31 iv.  2708  a 
 
 XX.  6 iv  2708  a 
 
 XX.  12 iii.  1798  h.n. 
 
 XX.  17 iii.  1798  b,  n. 
 
 XX,  21 iii.  1798  b,n. 
 
 XX.  23-26 ii  1129  a 
 
 xxi.  9 ii.  1003  a 
 
 xxi.  10 iii.  ll'65  b 
 
 xxi.  12 iii.  2074  b 
 
 xxi.  20 iii.  1863  b 
 
 xxii.  4  (marg.).  .iii.  1863  b 
 
 xxii.  8 iv.  3099  b 
 
 xxii.  22 iii.  1863  b 
 
 xxii.  24 iii.  2277  a 
 
 xxiii.  6 iii.  2342  a,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  5,  6....  iii.  2.352  b,  re. 
 xxiii.  11,  15,16,32 iii. 
 
 24.32  II,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  14 i.  478  a 
 
 xxiii.  15 i.  435  a,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  32 i.  434  a 
 
 xxiii.  36 iii.  2343  a,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  40 i.  130  b 
 
 xxiii.  43 iv.  ,3162  b,  n. 
 
 xxiv.  6 iv.  2992  b 
 
 xxiv.  9  i.7a 
 
 xxiv.  11 i.  600  a 
 
 xxiv.  16 i.  315  b 
 
 XXV.  5 iii.  2077  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  9 ii.  1483  b,  « 
 
 XXV.  15,16. ..ii.  1484a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  23 iv.  3121b 
 
 XXV.  49 ii.  1537  b,  iii 
 
 1797  b, n 
 
 xxvi.  1 ii.  1120  b,  iv. 
 
 31Uib 
 
 xxvi.  19 i.  323  a,  iii 
 
 2667  a 
 
 x.xvi.  30 ii.  1127  a 
 
 xxvi.  41 i.  465,  a 
 
 xxvii.  5 ii.  1464  a,  n 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 iii.  4 i.823b 
 
 iii.  47 iii.  1510  a 
 
 iv.  5 ii.  998  a 
 
 iv.  7. . . .  iv.  2992  b,  2993  b 
 
 iv.  9 i.  824a 
 
 V.  11-29 i.  36  a 
 
 V.  15 i.  247  a,  323  a 
 
 V.  18 ii.  1016  b 
 
 V.  23 iv.  .3559  b 
 
 vi.  3 iv.  ,3544  a 
 
 vi,  22 iv.  3136  b 
 
 vii.  3 iv.  3651b 
 
 vii.  89 iv.  3960  b 
 
 ix.  3,  5 iii.  2.342  a,  «. 
 
 ix.  15, 16 iv.  2960  a 
 
 X.  1-10 iii.  2037  b 
 
 x.  11,12 iv.  a528b 
 
 X.  11-13,  3-33. .  .iv.  3527  b 
 
 X.  12 iv.  3527  b 
 
 X.  29 ii.  1388  a,  iii. 
 
 2662  a 
 
IFDEX. 
 
 si  20,21 iii.  2004  b 
 
 xii.  1 ii.l388  a,  iii. 
 
 1804  b,  «.,  iv.  3636  b 
 
 xii.  1,2 iii.  1968  b, 
 
 2196  b 
 
 xii.  3 iii.  2024  a 
 
 xii.  6-8 iii.  2597  b 
 
 xii.  8 iii.  2599  a 
 
 xii.  12 iii.  2641b 
 
 xiii.  8 ii.  1098  b 
 
 xii.  17,22 iv.  .3528  b 
 
 xiii.  22 iii.  1978  a,  iv. 
 
 3638  a 
 
 xiii.  23,24 iv.  ^446  a 
 
 xiv.  10 iv.  2960  b 
 
 xiv.  43-45 i.  134  b 
 
 xiv.  45.  .iii.  2195  b,  2418  a 
 
 XV.  20,  21 i.  324  a 
 
 XV.  38 ii.  1578  b 
 
 xvi.  6ff i.  824  a 
 
 xvi.  13 ii.  1508  b 
 
 xvi.  17 i.  403  a,  n. 
 
 xvi   30.  33 iii.  2535  b 
 
 xvi.  46! i.  403  b 
 
 xviii.  19 i.  68  b,  503  a, 
 
 iv.  2793  b 
 
 xix.  6 i  480  b 
 
 XX.  6 iv.  2960  b 
 
 XX.  15 iv.  3445  a 
 
 xxi.  1 iii.  2195  b 
 
 xxi.  1.  xxxiii.  40.  .i.  144  b 
 
 xxi.  2,  3 iv.  3530  a,  jt. 
 
 xxi.  4 i.  135  a 
 
 xxi.  6,8 iv.  2929  b 
 
 xxi.  9 ii.  1057  b 
 
 xxi.  11 iii.  1981  a 
 
 xxi.  14 iii.  1831b 
 
 xxi.  14.15 iii.  2197  b 
 
 xxi.  16-18 i^  264  a,  n. 
 
 xxi.  17,  18 iii.  2197  b 
 
 xxi.  22 iv.  3508  a 
 
 xxi.  27 ii.  1585  b 
 
 xxi.  27-30 iii.  2198  a, 
 
 _2551  b 
 
 xxii.-xxiv ii.  1748  b  f. , 
 
 iii.  1987  b,  2197  a 
 
 xxii.  4 ii.  1045  a,  n. 
 
 xxii.  5 ii.  1737  b 
 
 xxii.  24 iv.  3484  a 
 
 xxii.  41 i.  231b 
 
 xxiii.  3 i.  231  a,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  7 ii.  1737  b 
 
 xxiii.  9 iv.  3508  a,  ti. 
 
 xxiii.  10 ii.  1345  a 
 
 xxiii.  21 ii.  1067  a 
 
 xxiv.  1 i.  734  b 
 
 xxiv.  2 ii.  1015  a 
 
 xxiv.  4,  16 i.  227  b 
 
 xxiv.  6 i.  72  b 
 
 xxiv.  10 iii.  1938  a 
 
 xxiv.  17 ii.  1738  b,  iii. 
 
 1981a,  ii.,iv.  2991  b 
 
 xxiv.  17-19 iii.  1906  b 
 
 xxiv.  25 ii   1497  b,  7i. 
 
 XXV.  4 iii.  1889  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  7,8 ii.  1364  b 
 
 XXV.  8 ...iv.  3631  b 
 
 XXV.  14 ii.  1508  a,,n. 
 
 XXV.  15 iii.  1926  a 
 
 XXV.  17.  19 iv.  3508  a 
 
 xxvi.  3,63 i.  762  b,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  38 ii.  1223  a 
 
 xxvi.  59 i.  450  b 
 
 xxvi.  61 1.  823  b 
 
 xxvii.  11 ii.  Ir37  b 
 
 xxvii.  21 iv.  3-357  a 
 
 xxxi.  6 iii   2654  b,  »., 
 
 iv.  3358  a,  n. 
 
 xxxi.  23 iii.  1909  b 
 
 xxxi.  30,  47.. iii.  1875  a.  n 
 
 xxxi.  60 i.  99  a 
 
 xxxi.  50,52.  .iii.  2268  a,  n. 
 xxxiii... iii.  2935  b,  3.528  b 
 
 xxxiii.  1 iii.  2ll23  a 
 
 xxxiii.  9 iii.  2323  b 
 
 xxxiii  38,  .39 iv.  3530 
 
 b,  n. 
 
 xxxiii.  40 i.  144  b 
 
 xxxiii.  48 i.  752  b,  m. 
 
 xxxiii.  52 ii.  1120  b 
 
 Sxxiv.  4 ii.  1056  b 
 
 xxxiv.  8 ii.  1622  a 
 
 xxxiv.  11. i.  56  a,  ii.  1458  b 
 
 XXXV.  4 i.  4  j9  a 
 
 xxxv.  24 li.  1510  b,  n. 
 
 x-^xv.  25 ii.  1065  b 
 
 xxxvi.  4.  . . .  ii.  1483  b,  n., 
 
 1486  b,  n. 
 
 xxxvi.  11 iv.  3057  a 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 i.  1 iv.  3533  a 
 
 i.  2 i.  570  a 
 
 i.  6-18 i.  593a 
 
 i.  7,  19,20 iii.  20-.:9a 
 
 i.  19 iv.  3.529  b 
 
 i.2i i.593a 
 
 i.44.  ...i.  134  b,  262  a,  v^., 
 
 593  b 
 
 i.  46 iv.  .3520  b,  3530  a 
 
 ii.  2-8 i.  SOSb 
 
 ii.  23 i.  383  b,  n. 
 
 ii.  36 i.  165  a 
 
 ii.  49 i.  172  a 
 
 iii.  9 i.  87  b,  161  b,  ii. 
 
 1046  b 
 iii.  11..  ..iii.  2210  a,  2654  a 
 
 iii.  14 li.  Iclo  b 
 
 iii.  17 1.  172  a 
 
 iii.  19 ii.  1045  1) 
 
 iv.  13 iv.  3213  b 
 
 iv.  18 1.  828  a 
 
 iv.  34 iv.  32U7  b 
 
 iv.  41,43.  ...iv.  3530b,  n. 
 iv.  48...i.  161  b,  11.  1047a 
 
 V.  15 iv.  3207  a,  n. 
 
 vi.  4 iv.  3088  a 
 
 vi.  4,  9 iii.  2474  b 
 
 vi.  8 1.90  a 
 
 vi.  16 ii.  1.351a 
 
 vi.  18 11.  1215  a 
 
 vii.  19 iv.  3207  b 
 
 viii.  3 ii.  1350  b 
 
 viii   7 i.  56  b 
 
 viii   15 iv.  2929  b 
 
 x.  6.  7.  .i.  593  b,  iv.  3530  b 
 
 xi.  10  .1.  33  a,  40  b,  836  b, 
 
 868  b,  iv.  3090  b 
 
 xi.  10,  11 i.  671a 
 
 xi.  3) iii.  2547  b 
 
 xi.  30,  31 1.  639  a 
 
 xii.  2...  .1.  477  b,  11.  1047  b 
 
 xii.  11-14 li.  1064  a 
 
 xii.  15,  22 iv.  3163  a 
 
 xiii.  1-5 ii.  1447  b 
 
 xiii.  1-11 iv.  3U90a 
 
 xiv.  1 ii.  980  a 
 
 xiv.  5 ii.  934  a 
 
 xiv.  15 iii.  2148  b 
 
 xiv.  16 iii.  1990  b 
 
 xiv.  17 11.  922  a 
 
 xiv.  21.. 1.  >-35a,  ii.  1129  a, 
 iii.  1533  b,  19.34  6,2474 
 
 b,  n. 
 
 xiv.  24 ..iv.  ,3266  a 
 
 xvi.  2 iv.  2924  a 
 
 xvi.  3 ill.  2354  b 
 
 xvi.  6 1.  434  b 
 
 xvi.  H iii.  2343  a,  n 
 
 xvi.  12 ill.  2433  b 
 
 xvi.  'il 11.  1064  a 
 
 xvii.  3 ii   1126  b 
 
 xvii.  7 iii.  2643  -i 
 
 xvii.  8 ii.  1511  b 
 
 xvii.  8,  9 1.  129  a 
 
 xvii.  8-11. . .  iii.  2473  a,  n. 
 
 xvii.  12 ii.  lilO  a 
 
 xvi5.  14-20 li   1541a 
 
 ,xvii.  15 ii.  1033  b,  ?!. 
 
 xvii.  18, 19..  11.  1510  b,  iii. 
 2112  b,n. 
 
 xviii.  9-11 iv.  2708  a 
 
 xviii.  9-14 11.  1748  a 
 
 xviii.  11 1.  734  b 
 
 xviii.  18 ii.  1417  a,  iii. 
 
 1906  b 
 
 XX.  5 1.  162  b 
 
 xxi.  4 i.629b 
 
 xxi.  6-8 iv.  33t8a 
 
 xxi.  10-14 iii.  1797  a 
 
 xxi.  12.  .1.350  b,  iii.  2058  a 
 
 xxi.  18-21 Ii.l602  b 
 
 xxi.  23 ii.  1379b 
 
 xxii.  10 i.  182  a 
 
 xxii,  11 iv,  3553  b 
 
 xxii.  19,  20 Iii.  2526  a 
 
 x.\li.  30 i.  603  a 
 
 xxiii.  2 iii.  1797  b 
 
 xxiii.  13 iii.  2279  a 
 
 xxiv.  6 li.  1506  b 
 
 xxiv.  12,  13 1.  624  a 
 
 XXV.  9 iv.  2838  a 
 
 xxvi.  0-10.  .  .Iii.  2355  a,  n. 
 
 xxvii.  2,  4 ill.  2548  a 
 
 xxvii.  3,  8 iv.  3560  a 
 
 xxviil.  5,17.  .i.253a,  323  b 
 
 xxviii.  13 iv.  3405  b 
 
 xxviil.  23 iii.  1969  b 
 
 x.xviii.  23,24 iii.  2667  a 
 
 xxviii.  26 i.  842  b 
 
 xxviii.  27 i.  730  a,  iii. 
 
 1863  b 
 xxviii.  27,35.  ...iii.  1864b 
 
 xxviii.  35 iii.  1864  a 
 
 xxviii.  65 ill.  1865  b 
 
 xxviii.  68 11. 1775  a 
 
 xxix.  3 iv.  3207  b 
 
 XXX.  6 1.  465  a 
 
 xxxi.  9-12,  24. .  ill.  2412  b 
 
 xxxi.  15 iv.  2960  b 
 
 xx,xl.  26 1.  155  b 
 
 xx.xli.  10.  i.  131  b,  ii.  1343  b 
 
 xxxii.  11 i.  629  a 
 
 xxxil.l2 iii.  2107  b 
 
 xxxii.  13 1.  262  b 
 
 xxxii.  14 iv.  3511  a 
 
 xxxii.  32 iii.  2561  b 
 
 xxxiii iii  2074  b,  n. 
 
 xxxiii.  2 iv.  2'Jol  a 
 
 xxxiii.  7 ii.  1215  a 
 
 xxxiii.  8 11.  1067  b,  iv. 
 
 3357  a 
 
 xxxiii.  9 iv.  3405  b 
 
 xxxiii.  12 1.  279  a,  iv. 
 
 3406  a 
 
 xxxiii  14 ill.  2008  a 
 
 xxxiii.  17. . .  ii.  1769  b,  n., 
 iv. 3351  a 
 
 xxxiii.  18,  19 1.  860  b 
 
 xxxiii.  19 11.  932  a,  iv. 
 
 3165  a 
 
 xxxiii  22 11.  1459  a 
 
 xxxiii.  24 i.  172  b,  iv. 
 
 3406  a 
 
 xxxiii.  25 i.  322  b 
 
 xxxiv.  1 11.  1343  b 
 
 xxxiv.  1,2,  3.iii.2J83a,«. 
 
 xxxiv.  1-3 iv.  3420  a 
 
 x.Kxiv.  6 iii.  2083  a 
 
 josiiu.v 
 
 ii.  15 iv   3540  a 
 
 iii.  4 lv.2767  a 
 
 iii.  16 1.  27  a,  iv.  3594  a 
 
 iv.  3 ii.  1364a 
 
 V.  2 ii.  1573  b 
 
 V.  2,  3 i.l59b 
 
 V.  5,  9 1.  464  a 
 
 V.  11 iii.  2432  a,™. 
 
 V.  14 iv.  3558  b 
 
 V.  15..1i.ll04a,  iv.  2837  b 
 
 vi.  4 ii.  1483  b,  n.,  iv. 
 
 2961  b 
 
 vi.  4,  5 ii.  1090  a 
 
 vi.  25 ill.  2663  b 
 
 vii.  14,18 ii.  1687  b 
 
 vii.  21.... i.  618  b,  iii.  1909 
 
 b,  iv.  3003  b 
 
 vii.  25.  ..i.  20  b,  ill.  2642  a 
 
 viii.  9 11.  1047  a 
 
 viii.  15 ii.  1759  b 
 
 viii.  18 1.  424  b 
 
 viii.  22 iii.  2273  a 
 
 viii.  32.  .Iii.  2413  a,  2.548  a 
 
 Ix.  5 i  472  b 
 
 ix.  5, 12 1.325  b 
 
 ix.  27 iii.  2109  a 
 
 xi.  2 ii.  897  a 
 
 xi.  8 i.245b 
 
 xi.  16,21 iii.  2029  a 
 
 xii.  23 11.  898  b 
 
 xiii.  2,3 1.  200  b 
 
 xiii.  3 1.  172  a 
 
 xiii.  4 iii.  1845  b 
 
 xiii.  6 ill.  1972  a 
 
 xiii.  9,  16 i.  165  a 
 
 3655 
 
 xiii.  17 1.  287  a 
 
 xiii.  21.  ...1.626  b,  iii.  1926 
 a,  n. 
 
 XV.  9 ii.  1077  a 
 
 XV.  10 1.423  b 
 
 XV.  18 ii*.  1805  b,?i. 
 
 XV.  19 ii.  1035  b 
 
 XV.  25. .  .11.  1016  a,  1364  b, 
 1495  b,  iv.  3189  b 
 
 XV.  33,  43 iv.  .3017  a 
 
 XV.  36 iv.  3028  a 
 
 XV.  45-47.  . .  .iii.  2498  a,  n. 
 
 XV.  46 Ii.ll90a,?i. 
 
 xvii.  18 1.  413  b 
 
 xviii.  8 iv  3559  b 
 
 xviii.  12 i.  286  b 
 
 xviii.  13 ii.  1699  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  16 1.  149  b,  n. 
 
 xviii.  18 1.  133  a 
 
 xviii.  23 i.  201a 
 
 xviii.  23,28.  ...1.  277  a,  n. 
 
 xix.  1 ii.  1492  a 
 
 xix.  7 iv.  3191  a 
 
 xix.  11 ii.  1569  b 
 
 xix.  27 ii.  1.394  b 
 
 xix.  33 i.  68  b 
 
 xix.34..ii.  1488a,  1491a, re. 
 
 xix.  41,  42 ii   1492  a 
 
 XX.  7 iii.  2029  a 
 
 xxi.  36 i.302a 
 
 xxii.  34 i.  654  a 
 
 xxiv.  3 iv.  3296  b 
 
 xxiv.  26 iii.  1888  a 
 
 xxiv.  27 iii.  2532  a 
 
 xxiv.  30 ii.  1,573  b 
 
 xxiv.  30,  33 ii.  1070  b 
 
 xxiv.  32.  ..i.  229  a,  11. 1476 
 
 a,  iv.  29.58  b 
 
 xxiv.  11 ii.  1487  b 
 
 .TUDGES. 
 
 i.  1 iv.  ,3484  a 
 
 1.  14 iii.  1805  b,n. 
 
 i.  16 ii.  1015  a,  1265  a, 
 
 1388  a,  1488  b,  iii.  2603  b 
 
 i.  18 iii.  2499  a,  ra. 
 
 1.19....i.413b,ii.l092a, 
 iii.  2679  b 
 
 1.23 1.  590  a 
 
 1.  31 i.53a 
 
 1.34,35 i..54  b,  n, 
 
 iii,  3 ii,  1047  b 
 
 ill,  9,  15 iv.  2,858  a 
 
 iii.  10 ii.  12.50  b 
 
 iii.  13 ii.  1265  a 
 
 iii.  16...  i.  622  a,  i  v.  3.501  b 
 
 iii.  19,26.  ...11. 1121a,  iii, 
 
 2651  a 
 
 iii.  20 i.  667  b 
 
 111,20,23 ii.  1105  b 
 
 iii.  31 11.  933  a 
 
 iv.  5 1.69a 
 
 iv.  11..  i.  68  b,  69  a,  11.  968 
 a,  1194  b,  1530  a,  ?i.,  iii. 
 
 2547  b,  2662  a 
 
 iv.  13 ii.  1570  b 
 
 iv.  19 1.  347  a,  n..  ill. 
 
 19.34  a 
 
 V.  1-10 iv.  3414  a,  f. 
 
 V.  3,  15 11.  1508  b,  n. 
 
 V.  4 iv.  35.30  b 
 
 V.  7,16 i.  ■327  b 
 
 V.  10 1.  182  a,  478  b 
 
 V.  11 ill.  2637  b 
 
 V.  14.  .iv,  2863  b,  2866  a, 
 
 8560  a,  3597  b 
 
 v.  16 ii.  1180  a,  n, 
 
 V.  17 1.5.34  b 
 
 v.  18.. iii.  2066  a,  iv.  3597  b 
 
 V.19 1.  245a 
 
 V.  20,  21 1.  141  b,iv. 
 
 .3,58 )  a 
 V.  21..ii.  1569  a,  n.,  1570  b 
 
 V.  23 1.  787  b 
 
 V.  25.  ..1.  833  b,  iii.  1934  a' 
 
 V.  28 iv.  3539  b 
 
 V.  30 i.  619  b 
 
 vi.  11 iv.  3546  b 
 
 vi.  15. . . .  ii.  982  b,  11. 1769 
 b,  n. 
 
 vi.  19 ii.  1538  b 
 
 vi.25 ii.  1044  b 
 
3656 
 
 Ti.  25,  26 ii.l064 
 
 Ti.  32 ii.  1271a 
 
 vi.  33-Tiii.  28. .  .iv.  3595  a 
 
 vi.  34 ii.  1250  b 
 
 vii.  1.  .  . .  iii.  2011  a,n.,  iv. 
 3508  a,  n. 
 
 vii.  1,3 ii.  1893  a 
 
 vii.  9-15 i.  142  a 
 
 vii.  12 iii.  1926  b.ra. 
 
 vii.  13 i.  247  a,  323  a 
 
 vii.  16,  20 ii.  1589  a 
 
 vii.  18 ii.920  b,  n. 
 
 vii.  20 ii.  1243  b 
 
 vii.  22 iv.  3621  b 
 
 vii.  25 iii.  1927  a,  n 
 
 viii.  10 i.  274  b,  275  a 
 
 viii.  14 ii.  1509  b,  iv. 
 
 3559  b 
 
 viii.  21,  26 i.347b 
 
 viii.  24 i.  89  b 
 
 viii.  25 i.624a 
 
 Tiii.  26.  ..i.  630  b,  iii.  1910 
 a,  2268  a,  w. 
 
 viii.  35 ii.  1167  b 
 
 ix.  6 iii.  1888  a 
 
 ix.  6 iv.  2955  a 
 
 ix.  6,  37...ii.  968  a,  2548  a 
 
 ix.  7  ff iv.  2955  b,  7i. 
 
 ix.  31 i.l67a 
 
 Ix.  37.  .  .i.  607  a,  633  b,  iii. 
 
 1888  a 
 ix.  53.  .i.  10,  n.,  iii.  1935  a 
 
 X.  7 iii.  2500  a,  n. 
 
 xi.  20 i.474a 
 
 xi.  29 ii.  1250  b 
 
 xi.  31,40 ii.  1251a 
 
 xi.  34 ii.  1250  b 
 
 xi.  39 iv.  3415  a 
 
 xii.  1 iv.  3593  a 
 
 xii.  4 ii.  927  a 
 
 xii.  5 i.  852b,M. 
 
 xii.  14 iv.  3057  a 
 
 xiii.  15 ii.  1533  b 
 
 xiii.  25 iii.  1914  a 
 
 xiv.  3 iii.  1797  a 
 
 xiv.  6 ii.  1250  b 
 
 xiv.  8 i.  263  a 
 
 xiv.  11  iii.  1805  a 
 
 xiv.  12,  13.  ...i.  621  b,  iv. 
 
 2964  a 
 
 xiv.  18 ii.  Ii34b 
 
 XV.  1 ii.ll05a 
 
 XV.  4 i.  840  b 
 
 XV.  11 ii.  1250  b 
 
 XV.  19 ii.l627b,ji. 
 
 xvi.  7 i.  491  b 
 
 xvi.  7,  8 i.  478  a 
 
 xvi.  9 li.  1578  b 
 
 xvi.  11 iii.  2208  a 
 
 xvi.  14 iv.  3489  b 
 
 xvi.  21..  i.  407  b,  iii.  1935  b 
 xvii.  7,9....  ii.  1491  b,  n. 
 
 xvii.  13 iii.  1913  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  1.  .  .  .i.  534  a,  n.,  iii. 
 
 1914  a,  «. 
 
 xviii.  3 ii.  1759  b,  iii. 
 
 1913  b 
 xviii.  12.  .ii.  1306  a,  ?i.,  iii. 
 
 11)14  a 
 
 xviii.  14 iii.  1913  a,  re. 
 
 xviii.  21 i.  392  a 
 
 xviii.  30..  i.  534  b,  rt.,535 
 b,  re.,  iv.  3572  a 
 
 xviii.  31 iv.  3000  a 
 
 xjx.  1 ii.  1491  b,  n. 
 
 XX.  4^7 ii.  1510  b,  n. 
 
 XX.  10 i.  877  a 
 
 XX.  18, 26.-.ii.  916a,  1106  b 
 
 XX.  18,26,31 i.  288  b 
 
 XX.  26 iv.  3215  a 
 
 XX.  27,28...  ii.  1070  b,  iv. 
 
 3484  a 
 
 XX.  29 iii.  1842  a 
 
 XX.  33.  ..i.  820  b,  877  a,  ii. 
 914  a,  re.,  iii.  1841  b 
 
 XX.  43 iii.  1887  b 
 
 xxi.2 i.  288  b 
 
 xxi.2....ii.  1106  b,  1070  b 
 
 itUTII. 
 
 i.  17 i.  332  a 
 
 i.  20 iii.  2062  b 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 i.  22 IT.  2756  a 
 
 ii.  3.  ...i.  820  b,  iv.  2766  a 
 ii.  14... i.  833  b,  iv.  2756  b 
 
 ii.  17 iv.  2(56  b 
 
 iii.  3. .  .iii.  1805  a,  iv.  3347 
 
 iii.  3,  6 iv.  2756  a 
 
 iii.  9 i.  624  a 
 
 iii.  12 iv.  3460  a 
 
 iii.  15 i.  62ia,624a,ii. 
 
 997  a,  iv.  275e  b,  3539  b 
 
 iv.  1 iv.  3450  a 
 
 iv.  2 ii.  1511b 
 
 iv.  3f ii.  1486  a,  n. 
 
 iv.  3,4 ii.  1484  a,  n. 
 
 iv.  7,  if.i.  143  b,  iv.  2838  a 
 
 iv.  10 iii.  1803  b 
 
 iv.  12 iv.  3171  a 
 
 1  SAMUEL. 
 
 i.  3,9,  24 ..ii.  1070  b 
 
 i.  9.  ..iv.  3000  a, re.,. 3240  a 
 
 i.  12 iv.3370a 
 
 i.  22 iii. 2592b, re. 
 
 ii.,  iii ii.  1071  a 
 
 ii.  1-4 iv.  3415  a 
 
 ii.  8 i    627  b 
 
 ii.  1-10 ii.937b 
 
 ii.  11,18 ii.  2592  b,  re. 
 
 ii.  16 iii.  257^  a 
 
 ii.  19 iv.  3489  a 
 
 ii.  30 i.  2  b 
 
 ii.  36 i.  324  a 
 
 iii.  3 i.  356  b. 
 
 iv.  3,4 ii.  1070  b 
 
 iv.  13.  ... iii.  1976  a,  n. 
 
 iv.  18 ii.  1510  a.  re. 
 
 V.  6 i   474  0, 
 
 V.  9 iii.  1862  a,  n. 
 
 vi.  5 iii.20b3a 
 
 vi.  5,  11,  18.  .iii.  1862  a,  re. 
 vi.  18  ....i.  5  a,  ii.  1060a 
 vi.  19..ii.  1642b,iv.,3572a 
 
 vii.  4 ii.  1044  b 
 
 vii.  5,  17.  ...iii.  2£92  b,  re. 
 
 vii.  9 iv.  3484  b 
 
 vii.  10 ii.  1064  a 
 
 vii   12 iv.  3'tl7  a 
 
 vii.  17 iii.  2670  b 
 
 viii.  5,20 ii.l5l0« 
 
 viii.  12 i.  629  b 
 
 viii.  15,17 iv.  3266  a 
 
 ix.  1 ii.  1-^25  b 
 
 ix.  4 iv.  3021  a 
 
 ix.  5 iv.  3239  a,  3647  b 
 
 ix.  5,  12 iii.  2671  a 
 
 ix.  7 i.  225  b 
 
 ix.  9 iii.  2591  a,  re.,  iv. 
 
 3363  a 
 
 ix.  11 ii.  1077  b 
 
 ix.  22 ii.  1510  a,  re. 
 
 x   l.i.  320  b,  iii.  2592  b,  re. 
 
 x.  2,  3,  5 iii.  2671  b 
 
 x.  3....i.  69  a,  ii.  968  a,  iii. 
 
 2548  a 
 X. 5. ii. 1064a, iii. 2499  a,re. 
 
 X.  10 iii.  1866  a,  re. 
 
 X.  27.. ii.  922  b,  iv.  3183  b 
 
 xi.  5 i.  277  a,  re. 
 
 xi.  7 ii.  1044  b 
 
 xi.  8 iv.  3190  a,  re. 
 
 xii.  3 ii.  1511  b 
 
 xii.  11 i.  4  a,  ii.  1513  a 
 
 xii.  17 i.  42  a 
 
 .xiii.  3.  .iii.  1922  a,  re.,  2499 
 
 a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  5.  .i.  286  b,  iii.  2500  b, 
 
 n. 
 
 .xiii.  9.ii.  1064  a,  iv.  3484  b 
 
 xiii.  11 iii.  2592  b,  re. 
 
 xiii.  16 i.  877  a 
 
 .xiv.  3 ii.  1070  b 
 
 xiv.  14.. i.  160  b,iv.  .3582b 
 -xiv.  18.i.  49b,ii,  915  a,  re. 
 
 xiv.  19 iv.  3362  a,  re. 
 
 xiv.  24-27 iii    1865  b 
 
 xiv.  3i  ii.  Ki64  a 
 
 xiv.  36 1.49  b 
 
 xiv   .37 iv.  3J84  a 
 
 XV.  6 ii.  1.388  a 
 
 XV.  12.. i.  391  b,  iii.  2131  b 
 XV.  'iS.  .  .  .ii.  113l)  a,  ".,  iv. 
 
 3358  a 
 
 XV.  27 i.  621  a 
 
 XV.  29 iv.  2855  b 
 
 xvi.  5 ii.  1064  a 
 
 xvi.  12 i.  553  a,  ji. 
 
 xvi.  14-23.  .i.  553  b,  565  a 
 
 xvi   16 i.  518  a 
 
 xvii.  2,  19 i.  690  a 
 
 xvii.  5 ii.  973  a 
 
 xvii.  6,38 i.  161a 
 
 xvii.  6 i.  161  b 
 
 xvii.  6,45 i.  160  a 
 
 .xvii.  7.. i.  161  b,  ii.  1187  b 
 
 xvii.  8 iv.  3415  b,  f. 
 
 xvii.  20 i.  392  a,  733  a 
 
 xvii.  22..i.392a,553a,  re. 
 
 xvii.  25 iv.  3183  b 
 
 xviii.  4 i.  621  a  625  a 
 
 xviii.  6 iii.  2040  b 
 
 xviii.  10 iii.  1943  b 
 
 xviii.  10,  11 i.  160  a 
 
 xviii.  23 iii.  1804  a 
 
 xviii.  25 iii.  1920  b,  re. 
 
 xix.  9,  10 i.  160  a 
 
 .xix.  13..i.261a.567a,608 
 
 a,  624  a,  ii.  1745  a,  re., 
 
 iii.  ]9:il  .\,  re.,  2532  b 
 
 xix.  13,  16 i.  318  b 
 
 xix.  21-24 ii.  1733  b 
 
 xix.  24. i.  t20  b,  iv.  .3318  b 
 
 XX.  2,  12 ii.  981  a 
 
 XX.  6-24 iii.  2111b 
 
 XX.  19.. i.  8:2  a,  iii.  2531  b 
 
 XX.  29 ii.  16U3  a,  n. 
 
 XX.  33 i.  160  a 
 
 XX.  40 i.  167  a 
 
 XX.  41 i.  802  a 
 
 xxi.  4-6 iv.  2992  b 
 
 xxi.  9 i.  624  a 
 
 xxi.  13 ii.  968  a 
 
 xxi.  13-15 ii.  1733  b 
 
 xxii.  1 i.  35  b 
 
 xxil.  5 ii    1002  a 
 
 xxii.  6 ii.  968  a 
 
 xxii.  8 ii.  981a 
 
 xxii.  14 ii.  969  a 
 
 xxiii.  2 iv.  3484  a 
 
 x.xiii.  6,9 iv.  3303  a 
 
 xxiv.  4 i.  621a 
 
 XXV.  20 iii.  2(i30a 
 
 .XXV.  22 i.  624  b 
 
 XXV.  23 iv.  2795  b 
 
 XXV.  25 iii.  2(162  b 
 
 XXV.  41 iv.  3059  b,  re. 
 
 xxvi.  5,  7 i.  733  a 
 
 xxvi.  20 ii.  1011  b,  iv. 
 
 31  99  a 
 
 xxvii.  3 ii.  1183  b 
 
 xxvii.  5 i.  820  a 
 
 xxvii.  6  ii.  1492  a 
 
 xxvii.  10 iv.  2738  b 
 
 xxviii iv.  2708  a 
 
 xxviii   3-25. .  .ii.  1749  a,  f. 
 
 xxviii.  6 iv.  33i7  a 
 
 xxviii.  14 i.  621  a 
 
 xxix.  l....i.  120  b,298b, 
 ii.  1.393  a 
 
 xxix.  4-11 ii.  1453  b 
 
 xxx.S.ii.  1399b,iv.3484a 
 
 2  SAMUEL. 
 
 i.  21 ii.  1048  b 
 
 i.  23 iv.  3484  b 
 
 ii.  10,11 i.l2a 
 
 ii.  14 i.  864  a 
 
 ii.  18 iv.  3163  a,  3484  b 
 
 ii.  25 ii.  1394  b,  re. 
 
 iii.  7 i.  486  b 
 
 iii.  8 iv.  3002  a 
 
 iii.  12 ..iv.  3191a 
 
 iii.  14 iii. 1803a,  re. 
 
 iii.  22 iii.  1984  b,  re. 
 
 iii.  .30-37 ii.  1541a 
 
 iii.  33 iii.  20..0  b 
 
 iii.  K3,  34 i.  12  b 
 
 iv.  6 i.498a 
 
 iv.  7 ii.  1168  a 
 
 V.  6-8 ii.  970  a,  f. 
 
 v  6-9 ii.l220  b 
 
 V.  8 ii   1282  b,  n. 
 
 V.  y iii.  19.37  a 
 
 V.  17-25 iii.  2.i00  b.  ti. 
 
 V.  23 i.  485  b,834a 
 
 vi.  2 ii  1566  b 
 
 vi.  5-22 i.  538  a 
 
 vi.  8 iii.  2436  a 
 
 vi.  14 i.  568  a,  b,  re. 
 
 vi.  19 i.  831  a,  836  a 
 
 vi.20.i.  620  b,  iii  1921b,  n. 
 
 vii.  2 i.  519  a 
 
 viii.  1 iii.  2501a 
 
 viii.  6,14 i.  870  b 
 
 viii.  12 ii.  1705  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  13 iv.  3485  b 
 
 viii.  17 i.  6  b 
 
 viii.  18.  J.  661  b,  iii.  2576  b 
 
 X  4 i.  624  b 
 
 X.  18 iv.  3572  a 
 
 xi.  ii iv.  3484  a 
 
 xi.  14 iv.  3500  a 
 
 xi.  21 iii.   1936  a 
 
 xii.  17 i.  693  b 
 
 xii.  24,  25 iv.  3075  a 
 
 xii.  25 i.561  a,  re. 
 
 xii.  30. .  .iii.  1910  a,  1991  b 
 
 xii.  30,  31  ii.  1762  b 
 
 xii.  31 iii.  1993  b 
 
 xiii.  6,8,  10 i.  324  b 
 
 xiii.  9 i.  325  a 
 
 xiii.  18 ii.  1463  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  21 i.  16  b 
 
 xiv.  2 iii.  1988  a 
 
 xiv.  7 i.  473  a 
 
 XV.  1-4 ii.  1510  b 
 
 XV.  3 ii.  1510  b,  re. 
 
 XV.  7 i.  17a 
 
 XV.  30.iii.  2242  b,  iv.  2838a 
 
 XV.  32 i.  563  a,  7i.,  iii. 
 
 2243  a,  re. 
 xvi.  l..i.  834  a,  iv.  3542  b 
 
 xvi.  5 i.  260  b 
 
 xvi.  9 iv.  3002  a 
 
 xvii.  19 i.  498  a 
 
 xvii.  23 iv.  .35.39  b 
 
 xvii.  25.  ..i.  8  a,  ii.  1183  a, 
 
 1387  a 
 
 xvii.  28 i.  8.34  a 
 
 xvii.  29.  ...i.  833  b,  ii.  1044 
 b,  n. 
 
 xvii.  18 i.  391b 
 
 xviii.  23 iv.  2697  b 
 
 xix.  18 ii.  1458  a,  re. 
 
 xix.  24 iii.  1890  a,  re., 
 
 1988  a 
 
 xix.  37,  38 ii.  1138  b 
 
 xix.  41-43 ii  1491  b 
 
 XX.  8 i.  622  a 
 
 XX.  14..  i.  4  b,  ».,  i.  282  a 
 
 XX.  15 iv.  3484  b 
 
 XX.  23 iii.  249i  a,  re. 
 
 XX.  26.. i.  561  b,u.  1140  b 
 
 xxi i.  35  a 
 
 xxi.  6 ii.  915  b,  n 
 
 xxi.  8 iii.  1892  b 
 
 xxi  9 iv. 2738a 
 
 xxi.  9,  13 iii.  1889  b 
 
 xxi.  15-22 Iii.  25' 1  a 
 
 .xxi.  19.  .i.  554  a.  re.   690  b 
 
 xxii.  6 ...iv.  30K4  b 
 
 xxii.  6,  19 iii.  2.575  a 
 
 xxii.  8 i.  631  b 
 
 xxii.  9,  13 i.  472  b 
 
 xxii.  16 i.  6t  3  a 
 
 .xxii.  30 iii.  1984  a,  n. 
 
 xxii.  35 iii.  1909  a  iv. 
 
 3110  a 
 
 xxiii.  1 1.  54  b,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  8 ii.  1217  a 
 
 xxiii.  11.  . .  .ii.  1628  a,  iv. 
 
 30  2  a 
 
 xxiii.  15 i.  295  b 
 
 xxiii.  20 i.  154  a 
 
 xxiii.  36 ii.  9S0a 
 
 xxiv  9. ii. 1.544b, iii. 1910b 
 
 xxiv.  11 iii.  2591  a 
 
 xxiv  13 iv.  3572  a 
 
 xxiv.  23.  ...i.  148  a,  664a 
 
 xxiv.  24 iii    1910  a 
 
 xxiv.  25 iv.  3215  a 
 
 1  KINGS. 
 
 i.  1 i.   624  a 
 
 i    23 iii.   2068  a 
 
 i.  31 iv.  2795  b 
 
 i.  ,33 iv.  2997  a,  n. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 iii.  2418  b 
 
 i.  5 iv.  2837  a,  n. 
 
 1.19 ii.  1540  b 
 
 i.  19  ff iii.  2651b 
 
 i.  21-24 i.  486  b 
 
 ii.   1 iii.  2466  b 
 
 H.  2 iv.  30011  a 
 
 iii.  7 ii.  1254  a 
 
 v.  7 ii.  1364  a 
 
 V.  12 i.  299  a 
 
 V.  16 i.  73  a 
 
 V.  19 iii.  1922  a,  n. 
 
 V.  21 iii.  25ul  a,  n. 
 
 V.  23 i.  839  b 
 
 V.  25... ir.  3446  b, 3447  b 
 
 V.  26 iv.  3572  a 
 
 V.  28 i.   626  a 
 
 V.  18 iii.  2515  a 
 
 Ti.  13 iv.  2959  b 
 
 vi.  21,22 i.  77  a 
 
 vi.  23.  .iii.  2213  a,  «.,  2241 
 b,  n. 
 
 vii.  2,6 iii.  2531b 
 
 vii.  8 ii.   1105  a 
 
 vii.  25 ...ii.  1364a 
 
 vii  26  iv.  2992  b 
 
 vii.  29 i  421  a,  »i. 
 
 vii.  33 i.  415  a,  n. 
 
 vii.  39 ii.  1191  b 
 
 viii.  9 i.  155  b 
 
 viii.  10,11 iv,  2960  a 
 
 viii.  12,13 iv.  2959  b 
 
 viii.  66 iv.  2795  a 
 
 ix.  16 iii.  ".^467  a 
 
 ix.  18 iv.3167a 
 
 ix.  22 i.  163  a 
 
 X  2 i.  14'ia 
 
 X.  15 iii.  1941  b 
 
 X.  16 iii.  2525  b 
 
 X.  19 iv.  3240  a 
 
 X.  22...  1.119  a,  iii.  2402  b 
 
 X.  27 ii.  1619a 
 
 X.  28.... ii.  1492  b,  1663 a, 
 iv.  3578  b 
 
 X.28,  29 i.  67  b 
 
 xi.  5-8 ii.  1044  b 
 
 xi.  7.. U.  1064  b, iii. 2243b, 
 iv.  3039  a,  3u4.>b 
 
 xi.  19 iii.  2651b 
 
 xi.  24,  25.  ...iii.  1984  a,  ii. 
 
 xii iv.  3012  b 
 
 xii.  11,14 iv.  2865  a 
 
 xii.  16 iii.  2620  a 
 
 xii.  21-24 ii.  1540  a 
 
 xiii.  4-6 iii.  1866  a 
 
 xiii.  6 iii.  1859  a 
 
 xili.  31 i.  332  a 
 
 xiv.  3 i.  325  b,  505  b 
 
 xiv.  10 i.  624  b 
 
 xiv.  12 iii.  1859  a 
 
 xiv.  27,  28 i.  837  a 
 
 xiv.  31 i.  8  b 
 
 XV.  8 ii.  154(1  b 
 
 XV.  13 i.  168  a 
 
 XV.  16,32.  ...iv.3il0b,n. 
 
 XV.  23 iii   18j6a 
 
 xvi.18 iv.  36.31  a,  n. 
 
 xvi.  24 iii.  2029  a,  n. 
 
 xvi.  31 ii.  1044  b 
 
 xvii.  1 iv.  3263  b,  f. 
 
 xvii.  3,  5.  ..i.  418  b,  419  a 
 
 xvii.  4,  6 iii.  2678  a 
 
 xvii.  6 i.  'i04  a 
 
 xvii.  12 i.  704  b,  n. 
 
 xvii.  12, 14, 16.  ...i.  248a 
 
 xvii.  17 iii.  1809  a 
 
 xvii.  19 ii.  1105  b 
 
 xvii.  21-24 iv.  2708  a 
 
 xviii.  7, 9 i  705  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  19 i.  45  b 
 
 xviii.  26 iv.  2705  a 
 
 xviii.  26,28 ii.  1733  b 
 
 xviii.  28 i.  160  a 
 
 xviii.  30 ii.  1064  a 
 
 xxiii.  83 i.  248  a 
 
 xviii.  42 i.  703  b,  n. 
 
 xviii.  46 iv.3362b,  «. 
 
 xix.  3 ii.  1492  a 
 
 xix.  4  £f i.  571  a 
 
 xix.  6 i.  325  a,  473  a 
 
 xix.  9 i.  706  a,  n.,  ii. 
 
 1675  a 
 230 
 
 xix.  11-13 iv.  3416  a 
 
 xix.  13 iv.  2926  b 
 
 xix.  19.  .i.  706  a,  n.,  b,  n., 
 
 714  a,  n. 
 
 xx.,xxi 45  b 
 
 XX.  10 i.  840  a,  b 
 
 XX.  14 iii.  2587  a 
 
 XX.  14,  15,  19.  ..iii.  2617  a 
 
 XX.  23 ii.  1064  a 
 
 XX.  23,  25 ii.  935  b 
 
 XX.  30 ii.  1105  a 
 
 XX.  31 i.  492a 
 
 XX.  34 iv.  3123  a 
 
 xxi.  1 ii.  1483  b,  n. 
 
 xxi.  8-14 ii.  1511b 
 
 xxi.  9 iii.  2051  a,  n. 
 
 xxi.  19 i.  46  a 
 
 xxi.  21 i.  624b 
 
 xxii.  0 iv.  3484  a 
 
 xxii.  11 ii.  1090  b 
 
 XX  i.  25 ii.  1105  a 
 
 xxii.  27 i.  324  a 
 
 xxii.  28 iii.  2595  b 
 
 xxii.  35 ii.  1688  a 
 
 xxii.  38 ii.  lOoy  b,  iv. 
 
 3074  a,  n. 
 
 xxii.  39 i.  298  b,  «. 
 
 xxii.  48 iii.  2687  b 
 
 2  KINGS. 
 
 i.  2 ii.  1105  b 
 
 i.  4 iii. 1859a 
 
 i.  8 i.  347  a,  618  a, 
 
 703  a,  n. 
 i.  9.  .i.  707  a,  >i.,  ii.  1077  a 
 
 i.  9-15 i.  390  b 
 
 ii.  1 ii.  927  b 
 
 ii.  2 i.   709  a,  n. 
 
 ii.  5 i.  709  a,  n. 
 
 ii.  8 i.  703  b,  n., 
 
 709  a,  n. 
 ii.9 i.  310  a,  709  a,  n. 
 
 715  a,  n. 
 
 ii.ll i.  709  a,n. 
 
 ii.  12 1.  709  b,  ».,  iii. 
 
 2679  b 
 
 ii.  18 i.  714  b 
 
 ii.  19 i.  716  b 
 
 ii.  21.  .ii.  1784  a,  iii.  1859  a 
 
 ii.  23 i.716b,«. 
 
 iii.  1 i.  708b._H. 
 
 iii.  6 i.  717  a 
 
 iii.  9 i.485  b 
 
 iii.  15 iii.  1943  a,  n. 
 
 204O  a,  iv.  3362  b 
 
 iii.  21 iii.  1983  a,  n. 
 
 iii.  25 i.  161a 
 
 iv.  10.  .ii.  1105  a,  n. ,  iii. 
 1843  a,  n.,lv.  3240  a 
 
 iv.  10,11 ii.  1105  b 
 
 iv.  16 ii.  971a 
 
 iv.  19 iii.   1866  a 
 
 iv.23 iii.  2.593  a 
 
 iv.  24 ii.  932  b 
 
 iv.  27... i.  390  b,  717  a,  «. 
 ii.  1077  a 
 
 iv.  29 iv.  2795  b 
 
 iv.  32-36 iii.  1869  a 
 
 iv.  39 i.  622  a,  717  b 
 
 ii.  961  b 
 
 iv.. 39-41 iii.  1859  a 
 
 iv.  42.  . .  .i.  718  a,  >i.,b,  n. 
 
 V.  1 iii.  2048  a 
 
 V.  2.  .i.  718  b,  K.,  iii.  1984 
 b,  ro 
 
 V.  3 i.  718  b,  n 
 
 V.  4 i.  718  b,  n.,  iii 
 
 2048  a,  n 
 V.  5 i.  718b,  n.,iii 
 
 2525  b 
 
 V.  14 iii.  1859  a 
 
 V.  17.  ...i.  631  a,  iii.  2048  b 
 
 V.  21 iv.  2795  b 
 
 V.  23 i.  344  b,  ii.  982  b 
 
 V.24 iii. 2258a 
 
 vi.  6 i.  719  a,  n. 
 
 vi.  9 i.  719  b,  n. 
 
 vi.  22 i.  719  b,n. 
 
 vi.  25 i.  182  b,  614  b 
 
 vii.  6 ii.  1082  a 
 
 vii.  10 i.  733  b 
 
 viii.  1 ii.  1234  a,  M. 
 
 viii.  3 i.  720  a,  »i. 
 
 viii.  13 i.  721a,  n.,  ii. 
 
 1012  b 
 
 viii.  15 i.  275  b,  721 
 
 a,  «.,  iii.  1859  b 
 
 viii.  26 iv.  3572  a 
 
 ix.  1,  3 i.  320  b 
 
 ix.  8 i.  624  b 
 
 ix.  11 ii.  1733  b 
 
 Lx.  22 ii.  1390  b,  iii. 
 
 1807  b,  n. 
 
 ix.  26 iii.  2051  b,M. 
 
 ix.  27.  ...i.  49  a,  735  b,  ii. 
 
 1558  b 
 
 ix.  30 ii.  982  a,  1391 
 
 a,  «.,iii.  2280  a 
 
 ix.  36 ii.  1391  b,  n. 
 
 X.  14 iii.  2679  a,  n. 
 
 X.  22 ii.ir28a 
 
 X.  26 iv.  3117  a 
 
 X.  27 i.  627  b 
 
 xi.  1 ii.  961  a 
 
 xi.  1,3 ii.  1540  b 
 
 xi.4 i.837a 
 
 xi.  6 i.  193  b 
 
 xi.  12 iii.  2418  b 
 
 xi.  18 ii.  1044  b 
 
 xii.  9 i.  384  b 
 
 xiii.  14 iii.  2679  b 
 
 xiii.  20. . . .  i.  721  b,ri.,  iii. 
 1983  b,  n. 
 
 xiii.  21 i.  721  b,w. 
 
 xiv.  5 iii.  2639  a,  n. 
 
 xiv.  7 ii.  1523  b 
 
 xiv.  13 '. i.  SOb 
 
 xiv.  2.3 ii.  1178  b 
 
 xiv.  26  ff ii.  1094  b 
 
 XV.  1 ii.  1178  a,  b 
 
 XV.  7 ii.  1279  b 
 
 XV.  10 iii.  1885  a,  n. 
 
 XV.  16 iii.  2639  b 
 
 XV.  19 iii.  2639  b 
 
 XV.  25 i.  153b 
 
 XV.  27 ii.  1178  b 
 
 xvi.  2 i.  47  b 
 
 xvi.  6 i.  48  a,  145  b, 
 
 662  b 
 
 xvi.  10-15 ii.  1124  b,»!. 
 
 xvi.  10-10 i.  190  b 
 
 xvii.  6 iv.  2942  a,  m. 
 
 xvii.  9 ii.  1064  b 
 
 xvii.  10,11 ii.  1047  b 
 
 xviii.  8 iii.  2501  b 
 
 xviii.  9,  10.  .iv.  2845  a,  n  , 
 2942  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  13 ii.  1058  b 
 
 xviii.  17  ff ii.    1060  a 
 
 xviii.  17 iv.  3430  a 
 
 xviii.  21..  i.  669  a,  il.  997  b 
 
 xviii.  24 iv.  3312  b 
 
 xviii.  26, 28 ii.  985  b 
 
 xix.  1,2 ii.  1072  a 
 
 xix.  9 i.  636  a 
 
 xix.  14 iv.  3575  b 
 
 xix.  23 i.  820  a 
 
 xix.  28 ii.  1092  b 
 
 xix.  .32 iv.  3484  b 
 
 xix.  37 i.  636  a 
 
 XX.  1 iv.  3539  b 
 
 XX.  2,  3 ..ii.  1771b 
 
 XX.  4 ii.  1013  b,  n. 
 
 XX.  7 iii.  1859  a, 
 
 1863  b 
 
 XX.  11 ii.  1477  a 
 
 xxvi.  14 i.   161a 
 
 XX.  13 iii.  1897  b,  iv. 
 
 3102  b 
 
 xxi.  3 iii.  2008  b 
 
 xxi.  7 i.  45  b,  173  b 
 
 xxi.  13 i.  58  a,  492  a 
 
 xxii.  1 i.  25  a 
 
 xxii.  8,10 ii.  1076  b 
 
 xxii.  12-14 ii.  1072  a 
 
 xxii.  14 i.  476  a,  b 
 
 xxiii.  6 i.  45  b,  173  b, 
 
 332  a,  ii.  967  b 
 
 xxiii.  7..ii.  998  a,  1004  b, 
 
 iv. 3451  a 
 
 xxiii.  8 i.  74  a 
 
 xxiii.  12 i.  48  a 
 
 xxiii.  13 iv.  3039  a, 
 
 3040  b 
 
 3657 
 
 xxiii.  24 iv.  3358  a 
 
 xxiv.  12 ii.  1708  a 
 
 xxiv.  12,  15 ii.  1540  b 
 
 xxiv.  14 iv.  3062  a,  n. 
 
 xsiv.  15 ii.  1105  a 
 
 XXV.  1 iv.  3484  b 
 
 XXV.  3 ii.  1156  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  8 iii.  2089  b 
 
 XXV.  19 i.  162  b 
 
 XXV.  25 ii.  991b 
 
 XXV.  27.  . .  .i.  446  b,  n.,  iii. 
 2005  a,  n. 
 
 1  CHRONICLES. 
 i.  41.  ...i.  89  a,  ii.  1043  a 
 
 i.  51 i.  78  b 
 
 ii.  7 i.  21a 
 
 ii.  18 iii.  1794  b,  n. 
 
 ii.23..ii.  1197  b,  1529  b,  n. 
 ii.  24.  ...i.  177  b,  344  a,  b 
 
 ii.  54,55 iii.  2681a 
 
 ii.  55.. ii.  1190  a,  iii.  2679  b 
 
 iii.  1 i.  8  a 
 
 iii.  5 i.52b 
 
 iii.  17 i.  184  b 
 
 iii.  24 ii.  1487  b 
 
 iv.  1 i.  391b 
 
 iv.  2 ii.  1190  a 
 
 iv.  7 iv.  3641  b 
 
 iv.  13,  14 iii.  1888  b 
 
 iv.  17-19 ii.  1249  a 
 
 iv.  18 iii.  1969  a 
 
 iv.  21 iv.  3489  a 
 
 iv.  22 ii.  1399  b 
 
 iv.  32 i.  .56  a 
 
 iv.  38 ii.  1508  b,n. 
 
 iv.  40^2 iii.  1874  b 
 
 V.  20 i.  743  b 
 
 V.  23.  .i.  208b,ii.  1047a,b 
 
 vi.  11,  12 i.  53  a 
 
 vi.  22 i.  83  b 
 
 vi.  28 iii.  2592  b,  n. 
 
 vi.  44 i.  3  b 
 
 vi.  37 i.  6  a 
 
 vii.  12 i.  49  a 
 
 vii.  14 i.  181  b,ii. 
 
 1467  a,  n. 
 
 vii.  20-23 i.  281a 
 
 viii.  1 ii.  1223  a 
 
 viii.  6,  7 iii.  2049  a 
 
 ix.  2-34 iii.  2099  b 
 
 ix.  11 iv.  3045  a 
 
 ix.  27 ii.  1675  a 
 
 ix.  30 iv.  3368  a 
 
 xi.  Il..ii.l217a,iv.3166b 
 
 xi.  22 i.  154  a 
 
 xi.  42 i.  31b 
 
 xii.  2 i.  160  b,  698  b 
 
 xii.  2,  3 ii.  1271a 
 
 xii.  3.  .i.  205  a,  ii.  1399  b 
 
 xii.  8 iv.  3484  b 
 
 xii.  21 ii.  1399  b 
 
 xii.  23 ii.  1180  b,  w. 
 
 xii.  27 ii.  1069  a 
 
 xii.  33 iv.  3598  a 
 
 xiii.  1 iii.  1932  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  3 i.  155  b 
 
 xiii.  8 iii.  2038  b 
 
 xiv.  8 i.  558  a,  n. 
 
 xiv.  14 i.  834  a 
 
 XV.  2 ii.  1642  b 
 
 XV.  10-12 i.  83  b 
 
 XV.  18 iii.  2043  b 
 
 XV.  19 iii.  2038a 
 
 XV.  22 ii.  1154  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  1-7,  37 ii.  1070  b 
 
 xvi.  3..i  831a,  iv.  3542  b 
 xvi.  7-36.  . .  .ii.  1713  a,  n. 
 
 xvi.  22 ii.  1347  b 
 
 xvii.  1 i.  519  a 
 
 xviii.  8 i.  283  b 
 
 xviii.  12 i.  11  a 
 
 xviii.  13 i.  870  b 
 
 xviii.  17 i.  561  b,  iii. 
 
 2575  b 
 
 xix.  18 iv.  3572  a 
 
 XX.  2 ii.  1183  b 
 
 XX.  3 i.  201b 
 
 XX.  5 ii.  1187  b,  iii. 
 
 1910  b 
 
 xxi.  12 iv.  3572  a 
 
 xxi.  25 iii.  1910  a 
 
3658 
 
 xxi.  26 ii.  1064  a 
 
 xxii.  U iii.  1910  a 
 
 xxiii.  21,  22 i.  695  a 
 
 xxiv.  7 ii.l3S3b 
 
 xxiv.  12 ii.  1073  a 
 
 XXV.  2,3 ii.  1642  a 
 
 XXV.  3 iii.  2592  a 
 
 xxvi.  15,  17.  ...iv.  3239  b 
 
 xxvi.  16,  18 i.  396  b 
 
 xxvi.  80 ii.  1032  a,  ji. 
 
 xxvii.  28 ii.  1399  b 
 
 xxvii.  32 ii.  1452  a 
 
 xxvii.  33 iv.2697  a 
 
 xxviii.  18 i.  420  a 
 
 xxviii.  19 iv.  3559  b 
 
 xxix.  2 iii.  2280  b 
 
 xxix.  2-4 iii.  1910  a 
 
 xxix.  29 ii.  1552  b,  iii. 
 
 2590  b 
 
 2  CHRONICLES. 
 
 i.5 ii.  918b 
 
 i.  16 ii.  1663  a,  iv. 
 
 3578  b 
 
 iii.  2 ii.  1545  a 
 
 ix.  21 iii.  2402  b 
 
 ix.  25 iv.  3572  a 
 
 X.  11,14 iv.  2S65a 
 
 xi.  7 i.  300  b 
 
 xi.  10 i.  34  a,  ».,  ii. 
 
 1492  a 
 
 xi.  18 i.  698  b 
 
 xii.  10,11 i.  837  a 
 
 xiii.  2 i.  9  a 
 
 xiii.  5 i.  68  b,  f  03  a, 
 
 iv.  2793  b 
 
 xiii.  9 iii.  2578  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  11 iv.  2992  b 
 
 xiii.  19 ii.  1492  a 
 
 xiv.  8 i    168  a 
 
 xiv.  10 iv.  3617  b 
 
 XV ii.  1072  a 
 
 XV.  8.  ...i.  75b,  ii.  1492a 
 
 XV.  16 iv.  3433  b 
 
 XV.  19 iv.  3010  a 
 
 xvi.  I..i.l68  b,  iv.  3010  a 
 
 xvi.  7 ii.  1493  a 
 
 xvi.  10 iv.  3115  b 
 
 xvi.  12.  .iii.  1859  b,  1866  a 
 xvii.  2.  ...i.  168  b,  870  b, 
 
 ii.  1492  a 
 
 xviii ii.   1072  a 
 
 xviii.  5 iv.  3484  a 
 
 xviii.  33 i.  161  b 
 
 XX.  1 i.  85.  a  n. 
 
 XX.  1,10,  22.  ...iii.  1874  b 
 
 XX.  2 ii.  1520  a 
 
 XX.  14,15 ii.  1072  a 
 
 xxi.  3.  4 ii.  1540  b 
 
 xxi.  16 i.  875  a 
 
 xxi.  20 i.  591  a,  ii. 
 
 1279  b,  iv.  3572  a 
 xxii.  2..  i.  48  b,  iv.  3.572  a 
 
 xxii.  5 i.l45  b 
 
 ^ii.  6 i.  48  b,  203  a 
 
 xxii.  7-9 ii.  1558  b 
 
 xxiii.  13 i.  743  b 
 
 xxiii.  20 ii.963a 
 
 xxiv.  25 ii.  1279  b, 
 
 iv.  3035  a,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  5 iv.  3610  b 
 
 xxvi.  6 i.  875  a 
 
 xxvi.  8 i.  85  a,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  11,13.  .iii.  1984  b,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  14 i.  161  a 
 
 xxvi.  15 i.  736  b 
 
 xxviii.  7.  . .  .ii.  963  a,  1172 
 a,  n.,lo99b 
 
 xxviii.  15 ii.  1530  a 
 
 xxviii.  18 i.  875  a 
 
 xxix.  13 iii.  2619  b 
 
 XXX.  21 i.  558  a,  b,  n. 
 
 xxxii.  4 ii.  1534  b 
 
 xxxii.  9ff. ii.   1060  a 
 
 xxxii.  22 iii.  2273  a 
 
 xxxii.  28 i.498b, 
 
 iii.  2675  a 
 xxxii.  30 ii.  1287  a, 
 
 iv.  3039  b 
 
 xxxii.  31 i    598  a 
 
 xxxii.  32 ii.  1158  b,« 
 
 xxxiii.  3,  5 iv.3327  a 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 xxxiii.  11.  .  . 
 
 ....ii.l086a 
 
 xxxiii.  18..  . 
 
 ...iii.  2.591a 
 
 ii.  1076  b 
 
 xxxiv.  4.  .  . . 
 
 . . .  ii.  1120  a 
 
 xxxiv.  14.  . . 
 
 ....ii.  1075  a 
 
 xxxiv.  14-19 
 
 30 iii. 
 
 2421  a 
 
 xxxiv.  22.  .  . 
 
 i.  476  b 
 
 XXXV.  3 
 
 i.  156  a 
 
 xxxv.  6 
 
 ii.  1075  a 
 
 XXXV.  13.  . . . 
 
 ...ii.  1531b 
 
 xxxv.  15.  . .  . 
 
 . . .  iii.  2619  b 
 
 xxxv.  25.  . . . 
 
 . . .  ii.  1588  a 
 
 xxxvi.  21.  . . 
 
 i.  437  b 
 
 EZRA. 
 
 i.  1-4 ii.  1736  a 
 
 ii.  5 iii.  2097  a 
 
 ii.  6 ii.   1397  a 
 
 ii.  26 iii.  2670  a 
 
 ii.  34 iii.  2663  b 
 
 ii.53 ii. 1004b 
 
 ii.  63 iii.  2101  b,  iv. 
 
 3357  a 
 
 ii.  64 i.404b 
 
 iii.  4,5,  6 iv.  3622  a 
 
 iii.  9.  ...ii.  1344  b,  1416  a 
 
 iv.  7-23 iii.  2095  b 
 
 iv.  14 ii.  963  b 
 
 iv.  17-24 ii.  17.36  a 
 
 V.  1,2 ii.  1736  a 
 
 V.  6 iv.  2701  a 
 
 vi.  2 i.642a 
 
 vi.  7,  8 ii.  1736  a 
 
 vi.  9 iv.  3542a 
 
 vi.  11 i.   627  b 
 
 vi.  14 iv.  3699  a 
 
 vii.  1-5 i.433b 
 
 vii.  22 iv.  3542  a 
 
 viii.  15 ii.  1185  a 
 
 viii.  18,19,24,30 iii. 
 
 1894  a 
 viii.  27.  .1.490  b.iv.  3110  a 
 
 viii.  32 iii.  2091  b,  n. 
 
 ix.5 i.812b 
 
 X.  8 ii.  1509  b 
 
 X.  9 iv.  3122  b 
 
 X.  16 ii.  991  b 
 
 X.  23,  31 ii.  1450  a 
 
 X.  25 i.  179  a 
 
 X.  31 ii.  1456  a 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 ii.  10 ii.906a 
 
 ii.  11 iii.  2091b,  71 
 
 ii.  13 iii.  2505  b.  iv. 
 
 3508  a,  n. 
 
 iii.  2 iii.  2663  b 
 
 iii.  8.  ...i.  129a.  ii.  1066a 
 
 iii.  11 i.  323  b,  846  a 
 
 iii.  14 iii.  2681  a,  iv. 
 
 3447  b 
 
 iii.  26 iv.  3041a 
 
 iv.  2 ii.  1289  a 
 
 V.  1-13 ii.  1668  a 
 
 V.  5 iv.  311.59  b 
 
 vii.  2,  3 ii.  992  a 
 
 vii.  5,  6 iii.  2098  b 
 
 vii.  7 iii.  2094  b 
 
 vii.  11 ii.  1397  a 
 
 vii.  30 iii.  2670  a 
 
 vii.  36 iii.  2663  b 
 
 vii.  46-59 iii.  2604  a 
 
 vii.  65,70 iii.  2101  b 
 
 viii.  9 iii.  2101b 
 
 viii.  15 iii.  2212  b,  iv. 
 
 3600  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  17 ii.  1290  a,  n. 
 
 ix.  2 iv.  3122  a 
 
 ix.  27 iv.  2858  a 
 
 X.  1 iii.  2101b 
 
 X.  29 ii.  1075  a 
 
 X.  37 i.  324  a 
 
 xi.  9 i.  476  b 
 
 xi.  10 ii.  1222  b 
 
 xi.  25 ii.  1565  a 
 
 xi.  26 i.  56  a 
 
 xi  33 iii. 2670a 
 
 xii.  10,26 ii.  1397  a 
 
 xii.  15 iii.  1896  a 
 
 xii.  24 ii.  1344  b 
 
 xii.25..i.  191b,  iv.  3289  b 
 
 xii.  28 iii.  2681a 
 
 xii.  38 i.  323  b,  846  a, 
 
 ii.  vm  b 
 
 xiii.  1 iii.  2095  a 
 
 xiii.  3 iv.  3122  a 
 
 xiii.  6 ii.  1762  a 
 
 xiii.  23,24 ii.  1490  b 
 
 xiii.  24 ii.  985  b 
 
 xiii.  28 ii.  1291  a,  «. 
 
 ESTHER. 
 
 i.  5,6 iv.  3027  a 
 
 i.  6 i.  261b,  478  a, 
 
 501  a,  n. 
 
 i.9 iv.  3026  b 
 
 i.  10 i.  308  b 
 
 i.lO,  14 iv.  2934  b 
 
 i.  11 i.  597  a 
 
 i.  14 iii.  1896  a 
 
 ii.  9.  11 iv.  3026  b 
 
 ii.  17 i.  597  a 
 
 ii.21.    .i.  308  b,  iv.  3026  b 
 
 iii.  7 ii.  1687  b 
 
 iii.  10 iii.  2267  b,  n. 
 
 iv.  6.. iv.  3122  b,  iii.  2645  b 
 
 V.  1 iv.  3026  b 
 
 vi.2 i.  308  b 
 
 vi.  8,  9,  12 ii.  1067  a 
 
 viii.  2 iii.  2267  h,n. 
 
 viii.  10 i.  626  a 
 
 viii.  10,  14.  .iii.  2035  h,n. 
 
 viii.  15 i.  624  a,  625  a 
 
 ix.  24-32 ii.  1687  b 
 
 JOB. 
 
 i.  1,8 i.  762  b 
 
 i.  6 ii.910b 
 
 i.  15 iv.  .3354b 
 
 i.  17 i.  636  a,  ii.  1156 
 
 a,  n. 
 
 i.  19 iv.3540a 
 
 i.20 i.  t^21a 
 
 ii.l ii.  910  b 
 
 ii.  3 i.  762  b 
 
 ii.  12 i.  621a 
 
 iii.  8..i.674a,n.,ii  1636  b 
 
 iii.  11-19 iv.  2708  b 
 
 iii.  12 iii.  2575  a 
 
 iv.  1.5-21 iv.  3465 
 
 iv.  19 iii.  2028  a 
 
 iv.  21 i.  491  b 
 
 vi.4....i.  161a,  iii.  2561a 
 
 vi.  5 ii.  1045  b 
 
 vi.  6 i.  834  b 
 
 vi   12 i.323a 
 
 vi.  15  ff i.  577  a 
 
 vi.  16 ii.  1533  b,  n. 
 
 vi.  19 iv.3192a 
 
 vii.  7 iv.  3541  a 
 
 viii    11.  .  .ii.  1466  a,  n.,  iii. 
 1841b 
 
 viii.  12 ii.  1045  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  16 i.  478  a 
 
 ix.  19 ii.  1511b 
 
 ix.25,  26 i.  570  a 
 
 ix.  30 iv.  3066  b 
 
 XV.  2 iv.  3541  a 
 
 XV.  27 i.  476  b 
 
 XV.  33 iii.  2242  a 
 
 xvi.  14 i.  837  a 
 
 .xvi.  15 ii.  1091  a 
 
 xvi.  21 ii.  1512  a 
 
 xvii.  16 iii.  2535  b 
 
 xviii.  9 ii.  1108  a 
 
 xviii.  10 ii.  1108  a 
 
 xviii.  10,  11 iii.  2152  a 
 
 xviii.  15 i.  32S  a 
 
 xviii.  17 iv.  3123  a 
 
 xviii   19 iv.  3057  b 
 
 xix.  19 ii.  1140  a 
 
 xix.  23-27 iv.  2709  a 
 
 xix.  24 ii.  1619  a,  b, 
 
 iv.  3574  b 
 
 xix.  26 iv.  3558  a 
 
 XX.  17 i.  S36b 
 
 XX.  24..i.  490  a,  iii.  1909  a, 
 iv.  3110  a 
 
 xxi.  18 i.406b 
 
 xxi.  24 iii.  1934  a,  71. 
 
 xxii.  6 i.  624  a 
 
 xxii.  14 i.  631b 
 
 xxii.  24,  25.  .iii.  19.39  a,  n. 
 
 xxiii.  8,  9 i.  637  a 
 
 xxiv.  7 i.  624  a 
 
 xxiv.  24 iii.  2273  a 
 
 xxvi.  5. .  .i.  575  a,  ii  912  b 
 
 xxvi.  5,  6 ii.  912  a 
 
 xxvi.  7 i.  633  a 
 
 xxvi.  11 i.  631  b 
 
 xxvi.  12 iii  2665  a 
 
 xxvi.  32 ii.  1090  a,  n. 
 
 xxvii.  16 i.  625  a 
 
 xxvii.  18 iii.  2028  a 
 
 xxvii.  21 iv.  3540  a 
 
 xxviii.  1-11 iii.  1938  a 
 
 xxviii.  17 i.  517  a 
 
 xxviii.  17,18 ii.  931a 
 
 xxviii.  18 i.  491  a 
 
 xxix  6 i.  336  b 
 
 xxix.  7-9 ii.  1509  b 
 
 xxix.  12,13 ii.  1512  a 
 
 XXX.  l...iv.  2961b,  3099  b 
 XXX.  4...i.  834  a,  ii.  1518  b 
 XXX.  6,  7.  ...ii.  1089  b,  iv. 
 
 3364  b 
 
 XXX.  7 iii.  2111  a 
 
 XXX.  11 i  491b 
 
 XXX.  18 i.  476  a 
 
 XXX.  27.. iii.  1865  a,  2576  a 
 XXX.  29.. i.  329a,  iii.  2271b 
 
 xxxi.  22 i.  412  a 
 
 xxxi.  26-28 i.l41b 
 
 xxxiii.  18,24,28,  30.... iii. 
 
 2536  a 
 
 xxxiii.  21 iii   1865  a 
 
 xxxvi.  19. . .  .iii.  1939  a,  n. 
 
 xxxvii.  3, 11, 16 ii. 
 
 1090  a.  n. 
 
 xxxvii.  9 iv.  3511,  a 
 
 xxxvii.  17 iv.  3540  b 
 
 xxxvii.  18 i.  824  a,  iii. 
 
 1969  a,  b 
 
 xxxvii.  22 i.  634  a,  ii. 
 
 936  a 
 
 xxxviii.  7 ii.  910  b,  iii. 
 
 2176  a,  iv.  3482  a,  b 
 
 xxxviii.  14 i.  478  b 
 
 xxxviii.  24 iv.  3540  a 
 
 xxxviii.  31.  . .  .i.  141  b,  iii. 
 2548  b,  iv.  3580  a 
 
 xxxix.  1 ii.  1007  a 
 
 xxxix.  13...  .iii.  2272  a,  iv. 
 
 3118  b 
 
 xxxix.  14 ii.l658  b 
 
 xxxix.  19 iv.  3240  b 
 
 xxxix.  23 i.  160  a 
 
 xxxix.  26 ii.  1010  b 
 
 xl.  15 ii.  1045  a,  n. 
 
 xl  15-24 i.  268  a,  b, 
 
 269  a  b,  ii.  1079  b 
 
 xl.24 ii.  1086  a, 
 
 xii i.  674  a 
 
 xii.  2....i.  829  a,  ii.  1086  a 
 iii.  2693  b 
 
 xii.  7 i.  829  a 
 
 xii.  10 i.  674  a,  n. 
 
 xii.  11 iii.  2575  b 
 
 xii.  15 i.  695  b 
 
 xii.  20 ii.  1531b 
 
 xii.  31 iii.  2150  b 
 
 xiii. 11 i.229a 
 
 xiii.  15 ii.  1035  a 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 ii  2 ii.  1539  b 
 
 ii.  7 iv.  3087a 
 
 iii.  4 ii.  1077  a 
 
 iv.  2 ii.  1620  b 
 
 V.  6 ii.lH20b 
 
 vii.  14 iii.  1866  b 
 
 viii ■.  ..ii.  1384  a 
 
 viii.  4-6 iv.  3462 
 
 ix.5,  15,  17 ii.  1019  a 
 
 ix.  16 ii.  1063  b 
 
 X.  16 ii.  1019  b 
 
 xii.  6 i.  846  a,  iii.  2696 
 
 xvi.  5 iv.  .3357  b 
 
 xvi.  6 i.  416  a,  492  a 
 
 xvi.  8-11 iv.  3462 
 
 xvi.  10 iv.  2923a 
 
 xviii.  2 ii.  1090  b,  n. 
 
 xviii.  6 iy.  3064  b 
 
INDEX. 
 
 sviii.  5,18 iii.  2575  b 
 
 xviii.  7-14 i.  562  a,  n. 
 
 xviii.  12 ii.  1020  a 
 
 xviii.  34 i.  490  :i,  iii. 
 
 1909  a 
 
 xviii.  34,  35 iv.  3110  a 
 
 six.  4 ii-  1661  a 
 
 xix.  5. ..  i.  837  a,  iv.  3462 
 xxi.  3. .  .i.  56.^  a,  iii.  2  j7d  a 
 
 xxii.,  title i.  55  a 
 
 xxii ii  1453  b 
 
 xxii.  13 iii.  2277  b 
 
 xxii.  17 iv.  2923  a 
 
 xxii.  20 i.  550  b 
 
 xxiii.  4 i-  224  a 
 
 xxiii.  5 i.  100  b 
 
 xxiv i.  558  b,>i. 
 
 xxiv.  3 ii-  1077  a 
 
 xxviii.  1 iii.  2536  a 
 
 xxviii  2 iv.  3135  a,  n. 
 
 xxix i.  558  b,  n. 
 
 xxix.  3-9 iv.3208a 
 
 xxix.  9 i.  603  a 
 
 xsx ii.  1290  b,  ji. 
 
 xxxi.  21 ii.  1528  b,n. 
 
 xxxiii.  2 iii.  2629  b 
 
 xxxiii.  14 ii.  1275  a 
 
 xx3:iv.,  title i.  21  b,  51  b 
 
 xxxiv.  12-16 iv.  3462 
 
 xxxiv.  20 ii.  1379  b 
 
 XXXV.  7 iii.  2535  b 
 
 XXXV.  17 i.550  b 
 
 xxxvii.  35 1.  256  a 
 
 xxxix ii   1224  a 
 
 xxxix.  1-4 iv.  3462 
 
 xl.6 iv.  3058  b 
 
 xl.  6-8 iv.  3482 
 
 xl.  7 iv.  3575  b 
 
 xli.  9 i.  62  b 
 
 xlii.  l..-ii.  1006b,  1011  b, 
 1077  b 
 
 xlii.  4 i.  538  a,  b 
 
 xlii.  7(6) ii.l047  a 
 
 xiiii.  3 iv.  3362  a,  n. 
 
 xlv.  1 i.  377  a 
 
 xlv.  6,  7 iv.  3087  b 
 
 xlv.  7 i.  101  a 
 
 xlv.  8 i.  72  b,  iii.  2040  b 
 
 xlv.  13 iv.  3490  a 
 
 xlviii.  7 iv.  3540  a 
 
 xlix.  14,  15,  19.  .  .ii.  912  b 
 
 Ii.  18,  19 i.  562  b,  ?i. 
 
 Iv.  21 i  3.35  b 
 
 Iviii.  4,  5. -.-i.  179  b,  180  a 
 
 Iviii.  6 iv.2933a 
 
 Iviii.  9 iv.  3064  b 
 
 lix.5 ii.  lnlyb 
 
 lix.  10 iii-  2575  a 
 
 Ix.  3 i-  8i32a 
 
 Ix.  8 iv.  2838  a 
 
 Ixii ii.  1224  a 
 
 Ixiii.lO i.  840  a 
 
 Ixviii i.  558  b,562a, 
 
 ii.  1290  b,M. 
 
 Ixviii.  1,24 iv.  3484  a 
 
 Ixviii.  7 ii.  1343  b 
 
 Ixviii.  13  ....i.  478  b,  614 
 a,  >i. 
 
 Ixviii.  14 iv  3065  a 
 
 ixviii.  15 ii.  1077  a 
 
 Ixviii.  20 iv  2857  b 
 
 Ixviii.  25 iii.  1921  b,  re. 
 
 Ixviii.  29 ii.  922  b 
 
 Ixviii.  30 iii.  2526  a 
 
 Ixviii.  31 i.  &'M  b 
 
 Ixxii.  10,  15 ii.  17o8  a 
 
 Ixxii.  20 iii.  2619  b 
 
 Ixxiv.  2 iv.  2959  b 
 
 Ixxiv.  4 i.  713  a 
 
 Ixxiv.  8 li-  1064  b 
 
 Ixxiv.  9 iii-  2620  b 
 
 Ixxiv.  13, 14 i.674a 
 
 Ixxiv.  14 ii.  1637  a 
 
 Ixxiv.  17 i.  436  b 
 
 Ixxiv.  20 iv.  3213  b 
 
 Ixxv.  8 ii.  1627  a,  iv. 
 
 3542  a,  3543  a,  3544  i 
 
 Ixxvi.  1,  2.  .  -ii.  1271  b,  n., 
 
 iii.  19S4  b,  n. 
 
 Ixxvi.  10 iii.  22  6  b 
 
 Ixxvi.  11 ii.  922  b 
 
 Ixxvii ii.  1224  a 
 
 Ixxvii.  15-20.  . .  iii.  2692  a 
 
 Ixxvii-  16 iv.  2960  a 
 
 Ixxvii.  18 iv.  3511  a 
 
 Ixxvii.  20 iv.  2961  b 
 
 Ixxviii ii.  1351  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  9 i.  752  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  18,  41,56 iv. 
 
 3207  a 
 
 Ixxviii.  23 i.  631  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  27 iii.  2649  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  39 iv.  3541a 
 
 Ixxviii.  40 ii.  1343  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  60 ii.  1070  b 
 
 Ixxviii.  63.  ...  iii.  1805  b,  re. 
 
 Ixxix.  6 iii.  2620  b 
 
 Ixxix.  8 iii-  2575  a 
 
 Ixxix.  12 i.622a 
 
 Ixxx i.  67  a,  386  b 
 
 Ixxx.  8,  10 iv.  3446  b 
 
 Ixxxi.  9 ii.  1130  b,  n. 
 
 Ixxxi.  16 i.  262  b 
 
 Ixxxii.  1,  6 15  l9  a 
 
 Ixxxii.  6 iv.  3087  a 
 
 Ixxxiii.  12 iv.  3595  a 
 
 lxxxiii,13 iv.  3122  b 
 
 Ixxxiv.  3 i.  840  a,  iv. 
 
 3097  b 
 
 Ixxxiv.  6 iii.  2035  a 
 
 Ixxxvii.  4 iii.  2664  b 
 
 Ixxxvii.  5.  . .  .iii.  2606  a,  re. 
 
 Ixxxvii.  7 iii.  2038  b 
 
 Ixxxviii.  10 i.  575  a 
 
 Ixxxviii.  11 i.  127a 
 
 Ixxxviii.  13 iii-  2575  a 
 
 Ixxxix.  8 ii.  1196  a 
 
 Ixxxix.  12 ii.  1047  a 
 
 Ixxxix.  27 i.  310  a,  ii. 
 
 1275  a 
 
 xc.  2 iii.  2264  b 
 
 xc.  10 iii.  2023  b 
 
 xcii.  3-.  iii.  2U40  b,  2629  b, 
 iv.  2993  a 
 
 xcii.  4 ii.  1063  b 
 
 xcii.  10 i.  100  b 
 
 xcix.  1 iii.  1895  a 
 
 cii.  6 iii.  2275  b 
 
 cii.  7 iv.  3098  a 
 
 cii-  17 ii.  1018  a,  n. 
 
 cii.  26 i.  624  b 
 
 ciii.  5 i.  629  b 
 
 ciii.  16 iv.  3541  a 
 
 civ.  2 i.519a 
 
 civ.  3 i.824  b 
 
 civ.  4 iv.  3541  a 
 
 civ.  12 iv.  3098  b 
 
 civ.  17 iii.  2107  b,  iv. 
 
 3120  a 
 civ.  26...ii.  1633a,  1637  b 
 
 cv i.  156  a 
 
 cv.  15.ii.  1347  b,  iii.  2592  b 
 
 cvi.  14 ii.  1343  b 
 
 cvi.  20 i.  345  b 
 
 cvi.  28 ii.  1127  b 
 
 evil.  4-., ii.  1343  b 
 
 cvii.  38 iv.  3520  b 
 
 cviii.  9 iv.  2838  a 
 
 ex.  1 iv.  3090a,n. 
 
 ex.  4 iii.  1877  a 
 
 cxi.  1 ii.  1345  a 
 
 cxi.  5,  10 iii.  1846  b 
 
 cxiii.-cxviii i.  67  a 
 
 cxiii.-cxiv ii.  1376  a 
 
 cxiii ii.  998  a 
 
 cxiii.  7 i.  627  b 
 
 cxv.-cxviii ii.  1376  a 
 
 cxviii.  22 i.  499  b 
 
 cxviii.  25 ii  1093  b 
 
 cxix.  83 i.  319  b 
 
 cxix.  147, 148.  .  .iii.  2575  a 
 
 cxix.  165 iii-  2209  a 
 
 cxx.  4 i.  161  a,  473  a 
 
 cxxi.  6 iii-  200Sa 
 
 cxxiv.  7 iv.  3099  a 
 
 cxxvi.  6 iv.  3093  a 
 
 cxxvii.  1 iv.  3486  b 
 
 cxxviii.  3. . .  .ii.  1104  b,  iv. 
 
 .3446  b 
 
 cxxix.  6,7 ii.  1 106  a 
 
 cxxxii.  6 ii.  1566  b 
 
 cxxxiii.  2 ii.  1066  a 
 
 cxxxiii.  3.ii.  1047  a,  1048  b 
 cxxxiv ii.  1644  b,  n 
 
 cxxxvi.  15 iii.  2465  a 
 
 cxxxvii.  2 iv.  3.538  a 
 
 cxxxix.  24 iv.  3488  b 
 
 cxi.  3 i.  29  a 
 
 cxli.  6 ii.  1391  b,  re. 
 
 cxliii.  7 iii-  2536  a 
 
 cxliv.  9 iii.  2629  b 
 
 cxlviii.  4  i.  631  b 
 
 cxiix.,  heading.  . .  .  iv.  3437 
 a,  n. 
 
 PROVERBS. 
 
 i.  9 iii.  2269  a 
 
 i.  17 iii,  2108  a,  re. 
 
 ii.  16.  ...iv.  3074  a,  3121  a 
 
 ii.  17 iii.  1804  b,  re 
 
 ii.  18 i.  575  a 
 
 iii.  10 iv.  3545  a 
 
 iv.  9 iii.  2269  a 
 
 V.  16 iv.  3123  a 
 
 V.  19 ii.  1195  b 
 
 vi.  5 iv.  3163  a 
 
 vi.30,  31 iv.  2739  a 
 
 vii.  6 iv.  3539  b 
 
 vii.  12 iv.  3123  a 
 
 vii.  22 iv.  3115  b 
 
 viii  ,  ix ii.  1409  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  2 ii.  113S  b 
 
 viii.  23 iii.  2264  b 
 
 ix.  1-3 iv.  3081  b,n. 
 
 ix.  2,  5 iv.  3544  a 
 
 ix.  14 iv.  3240  a 
 
 ix.  18 i.  575  a 
 
 xi.  22 iii.  2269  a 
 
 xii.  12 iii.  2107  b 
 
 XV.  17.ii.  1045  b,  iii.  1842  b 
 
 XV.  24  ii.  1038  a 
 
 xvi.  11.. i.  229b,ii.  1619a 
 
 xvi.  15 i.  471  b 
 
 xvi.  33 ii.  1687  b 
 
 xvii.  3  iii.  1940  a 
 
 xvii.  18 ii.  1668  a 
 
 xvli.  23 i.  622  a 
 
 xviii.  19 iv.  3632  a,  re.. 
 
 xix.  13 ii.  1106  a 
 
 xix.  24.  .i.  490  a,  516  b,  iii. 
 1844  b 
 
 XX.  15 iii-  2269  a 
 
 x.xi.  1 i.  868  b 
 
 .xxi.  14 i.  622  a 
 
 x.\i.  16 ii.912a   b 
 
 xxii.  13 iv.  3123  a 
 
 xxii.  23 ii.  1512  a 
 
 xxii.  26 ii  1668  a 
 
 xxii.  29  iii.  1845  b 
 
 xxiii.  11 ii.  1512  a 
 
 xxiii.  .3')..  iv.  3542  a.  3544  a 
 xxiii  34,  35.  .iii. 2616  a,  n. 
 
 xxiv.  31 ii.  1034  a 
 
 XXV.  11 iii.  2525  b 
 
 XXV.  12 iii   2269  a 
 
 XXV.  13 iv.  3065  a 
 
 XXV.  18 ii.988b 
 
 XXV.  20 iii.  2174  b 
 
 XXV.  22 i.  473  a 
 
 XXV.  23 iv.  3540  a 
 
 xxvi.  3 ii.  1092  b 
 
 xxvi.  8 iv.  3062  b 
 
 xxvi.  10 iv.  2731  b 
 
 xxvi.  15.i.  516  b, iii.  1844  b 
 
 xxvi.  21 i.  473  a 
 
 xxvii.  15.i.  626a,ii.ll06a 
 
 xxvii.  21 iii.  1940  a 
 
 xxvii.  22 iii.  2015  b 
 
 XXX.  l...iii.  1829b,  2614b 
 
 XXX.  4 i.  624  a 
 
 XXX.  8 i.  489  a 
 
 XX.X.  25 i-  102  b 
 
 XXX.  31 ii.  1093  a 
 
 XXX.  33 i.  336  b 
 
 xxxi i.  255  b 
 
 xxxi.  1 iv.  3075  a,  «. 
 
 xxxi.  6 i.862a 
 
 xxxi.  9 ii-  1512  a 
 
 xxxi.  13,  19,  24.. iv.  3489  a 
 
 xxxi.  21 iv.  3065  a 
 
 xxxi.  22 ii.  1662  a,  iv. 
 
 3035  a,  re. 
 xxxi.  24 iv.  2964  a 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 ii.  7 ii.  1018  b 
 
 3659 
 
 ii.  8.' iii.  2040  b 
 
 xi.  1 i.  246  b,  247  a 
 
 xii iii.  1867  a 
 
 xii.  3 iv.  3539  b 
 
 xii.  4.  .i-  551  a,  iii   1935  a, 
 iv.  3098  b 
 
 xii.  5 ii.  981  b,  1525  b 
 
 xii.  6 i.  320  b,  491  b 
 
 xii.  11 iii.  1830  a 
 
 CANTICLES. 
 
 i.  5 i.  519  a,  iv.  3210  a 
 
 i.  9 ii.  1092  a 
 
 i.  10 i.  407  a 
 
 i.  10, 11 iii.  2268  b 
 
 i.  13 iii.  2436  b 
 
 i.  14 i.  350  a,  iii.  2280  b 
 
 1.17 1.862  1 
 
 ii.  1 i.  478  b 
 
 ii.  3 1.131  a 
 
 ii.  5.  ...i.  831a,  iv.  3542  b 
 
 ii.  7 ii.  1077  b 
 
 ii.  9 iv.  3.5.39  b 
 
 ii.  11-13 Iii.  2667  a 
 
 ii.  13 i.478a 
 
 iii.  5 ii.  1077  b 
 
 iii.  6 iii.  2436  b 
 
 iv.  l,3.ii.981  b,iv.3370a 
 
 iv.  4,  5 ii.  1.532  b,  n. 
 
 iv.  4,  9 iii. 2268b, n. 
 
 iv.  8-  ...i.  79  b,  ii.  1046  b, 
 1088  b,  1624  a 
 
 iv.  9 ii.  982a 
 
 iv.  13 i.  350  a 
 
 iv.  16 iv.  3540  a 
 
 V.  7 i.  622  b 
 
 V.  11 ii.981b 
 
 V.  12,  14 iii.  2268  b,  re. 
 
 V.  14 i.  283  a,  322  b 
 
 vi.  4 iv.  2796a 
 
 vi.  7.  ..ii  981  b,iv.  3370  a 
 vi.  10. iii.  2007a,  v;., 2008  a 
 vi.  12.  ..i.  83  b,  iii.  2264  b 
 
 vi.  13 i.  538  b 
 
 vii.  1 iii.  2268  b,  n. 
 
 vii.  2.  ..i.  498  a,  ii.  1666  b, 
 iv.  .3542  a 
 vii.  4....i.828b,  ii.  1056  b 
 vii.  5.-.i.  479  b,  862  b,  ii. 
 981  b,  982  a.  b 
 viii  6.  .i.  158  a,  iii.  2268  b 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 i.  1 ii.  1149  a 
 
 i.  8 i  261  b,  518  a 
 
 i.  17 ii-  1512  a 
 
 1.18 i.  480  b 
 
 i.  22 iv.  3543  b 
 
 i.  25.iii.2696b,iv.  3066  b, 
 3260  b 
 
 ii.  2-4 ii.  11-51  b 
 
 ii.6 i.  607  a 
 
 ii.  9 iii.  1845  b 
 
 li.  10,19,21 i.  397  b 
 
 ii.  12 ii.  1243  b 
 
 ii.  20 iii.  1991a 
 
 iii.  6,  7 i.  625  a 
 
 iii.  16 iii.  2280  b 
 
 iii.  16,  18,  20,  23.  ..i.  407a 
 iii.  18... 1.347  b,  re.,  896  a 
 
 iii.  18,  22 ii.  982  b 
 
 iii.  18-23.  ...iii.  2269  a,  n. 
 
 iii.  19. .  i.  630  b,  iv.  3.370  a 
 
 iii.  20.  ...i.  99a,  630  b,  ii. 
 
 929  a,  982  b,  iii.  2436  a 
 
 iii.  21.... i  89  b,  iii.  1804  a 
 
 iii.  22..i.  225b,508a,  622 
 
 a,  b,  625  a,  iv.  3539  b 
 
 iii.  23.  .i.622b,  ii.  1016  b, 
 
 iii.  1971a,  iv.  2964  a 
 
 iii.  24.  ..i  622  b.  ii.  929  a, 
 
 982  a,  iii.  2437  a,  iv. 
 
 3116  a 
 
 iv.  1 iii.  1802  b 
 
 iv.  5 iv.2960a 
 
 V.  2 iv.  3030  a,  3095  b 
 
 V.  5 ii.  1034  a 
 
 V.  10 iv.  3582  b 
 
 V.  15 iii.  1845  b 
 
 V.  22 iv.  3-544  a 
 
 V.  24.... i.  40o  b,  ii.  1012a 
 vi.  1 «  . .  .ii.  1775  b 
 
3660 
 
 vi.  2 i.624b 
 
 Ti.  6 i  473  a 
 
 Ti.  13 iii.  2200  b 
 
 vii.  15-22 i.  336  b 
 
 vii.  18 i.  263  a,  669  a 
 
 vii.  20  ..i.  258  b.  ii.  982  b 
 
 Tii.  22 iii.  1934  a 
 
 viii.  1 iii.  1971  a,  iv. 
 
 2740  a 
 
 viii.  14 iii.  2209  a 
 
 viii.  19 iii.  2404  a,  iv. 
 
 2708  a,  3310  a 
 
 viii.  21.. i.  283  a,  ii.  1762  b 
 
 ix.  l....iv.2799a,  S246a, 
 
 «.,  3445a,  3597  b 
 
 ix.  1,2 iv.  3464 
 
 ix.  3.  .iii.  2227  a,  iv.  2924  b 
 
 ix.  6 ii.  1532  b 
 
 ix.  9-19 ii.  1546  a 
 
 ix.  14 i.  831b 
 
 X.  5 ii.  1059  a 
 
 X.  14... iii.  2404a,  iv.  3310 
 a,  71. 
 
 X.  17 i.  327  b 
 
 X.  18 i.  743  a,  820  a 
 
 X.  28 i.  392  a 
 
 X.  28-32. .  .i.  877  a,  ii.  916 
 a,  iii.  2669  b 
 
 X.  29 ii.  1675  a 
 
 X.  39  1.  285  a,  «.,  ii. 
 
 1581  b 
 
 xi ii.l059  a 
 
 xi.  4 i.lllb 
 
 xi.  7 ii.  1045  b 
 
 xi.  15 iii.  2153  a,  2685 
 
 a,  iv.  28.37  n,  n. 
 
 xii.2 ii.  1195  b 
 
 xiii  4 i.  634  a 
 
 xiii.  14 iii.  1941  b,  n. 
 
 xiii.  21 i.l20a 
 
 xiv.  1 iv.  3121  b,  n. 
 
 xiv.  4 i.  271  a,  n.,  iii. 
 
 2608  a 
 
 xiv.  5 ii.  1512  a 
 
 xiv.  9 ii.  933  a,  b,  iv. 
 
 2708  b 
 
 xiv.  22 iv.  3057  b 
 
 xiv.  29 iv.  2929  b 
 
 XV.  2 i.  231b, 283  b 
 
 XV.  3 ii.  1106  a 
 
 XV.  5...i.270b,ii.  1034  b, 
 1044  b,iv.  3640  b 
 
 XV.  7 iv.  3538  b 
 
 xvi.l ii.  1523  b 
 
 xvi.  5 iii.  1984  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  6 iii.  1985  a,  ti. 
 
 xvi.  8 i.  820  a 
 
 xvi.  9,  10 iv.  3541  a 
 
 xvi.  10...i.  820  a,  iii.  1S85 
 a.  «. 
 
 xvi.  11 ii.  1005  b 
 
 xvii.  2 i.  165  b 
 
 xvii.8 ii.  1120  b 
 
 xvii.  9 i.  837  b 
 
 xviii.  l..i.  780  a, iii.  2150a 
 
 xviii.  2 i  81  a,  673  a, 
 
 780  a,  iii.  2150  b,  2532  b 
 
 xviii.  7 ii.922b 
 
 xix.  5.  ..iii.  2150  b,  2153  a, 
 
 2682  b,n.,  2685  a 
 
 xix.  7.  .i.  673  a,  ii.  1465  b, 
 
 n.,  iii.  2153  a,  2327  b, 
 
 2695  a 
 
 xix.  8 iii.  2108  a 
 
 xix.  8,  10 iii.  2153  b 
 
 xix.  9 iv.  3U35  a.  ?i., 
 
 3489  a 
 
 xix.  10.  ..i.  829  b,  iii.  2562 
 
 b,  iv.  3062  b 
 
 xix.  15 i.  331  b 
 
 xix.  18... ii.  985  b,  1390  a, 
 iii.  2252  a,  2.502  a,   iv. 
 
 2975  a 
 
 xix.  18,19 iii  2634  b 
 
 xix.  22 i.  743  b 
 
 XX.  2.  ..i.  620  b,  iv.  2838  a 
 
 xxi.  5 i.  101  a 
 
 xxi.  7 i.  347  a 
 
 xxi.  11,  12 iv.  2922  a 
 
 xxi.  13 i.  636  b 
 
 xxi.  14 iii.  2,575  a 
 
 xxii.  1,  5.  ..... .  .ii.  1078  a 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 xxii.  1-7 ii.  1059  b 
 
 xxii.  2 ii.  1156  a,  n. 
 
 xxii.  8....     i.  158  b,  603a 
 
 xxii.  12-14 ii.  1059  b 
 
 xxii.  15 i.  699  a,  b,  iv 
 
 3081a 
 
 xxii.  15-25 ii.  1540  b 
 
 xxii   16,18 ii.  1058  a 
 
 xxii.  18 i.393  b 
 
 xxii.  i!l...i.  625  a,  ii.  929  b 
 
 xxii.  24 iii.  2629  b 
 
 xxiii.  4 iii.  1840  b 
 
 xxiii.  8 i.  3'1  b 
 
 xxiii.  11 i.  351  b 
 
 xxiii.  17 iii.  1807  a,  n. 
 
 xxiv.  18 i.  631b 
 
 xxiv.  20.  ...i.  261  b,  501  b 
 
 xxiv.  23 iii.  2007  a,  »i. 
 
 XXV.  2 iii.  1985  b 
 
 XXV.  10 ii.  1733  a 
 
 XXV.  12 iii.  1971  a 
 
 xxvi.  4 ii.  1195  b 
 
 xxvi.14, 19.  ...ii.  912a,  b 
 
 xxvi.  18 iii.  1866  b 
 
 xxvii.  1.  . .  .i.  674  a,  n.,  ii. 
 
 1637  b 
 
 xxvii.  1,  13 ii.  1156  a 
 
 xxvii.  3 ii.  1411  a 
 
 xxvii.  4 i.  327  b 
 
 xxvii.  8..  iv.  8540  a,  3541a 
 
 xxvii.  9 iii.  2548  a,  n. 
 
 xxvii.  13. ...  ii.  1485  a,  n. 
 
 xxviii.  14 ii.  1057  b 
 
 xxviii.  16 iv.  3465 
 
 xxviii.  17 i.  492  a 
 
 xxviii.  21.. i.  209  a,  558  a, 
 «.,  iii.  2435  b 
 
 xxviii.  25 i.  498  a,  iv. 
 
 3096  b,  3511  a 
 
 xxix.  1 iii.  1984  b,  »i. 
 
 xxix.  1,2,  7.. ii.  1271b  n. 
 
 xxix.  4 iv.  3310  a 
 
 xxix.  11. iv.  3575  b 
 
 xxix.  17 i.  820  a 
 
 XXX.  6.  ...iv.  2929b,  3535 
 b,  »!. 
 
 XXX.  7 iii.  2665  a 
 
 XXX.  9 ii.  1158  a,  n. 
 
 XXX.  20 i.  324  a 
 
 XXX.  24. . .  .i.  182  b,  629  b, 
 ii.  1045  b 
 
 XXX.  26 iii.  2007  a,  «. 
 
 XXX.  33 i.  328  a,  iii. 
 
 1991b 
 
 xxxi.  1 ii.  1775  a 
 
 xxxi.  8 iii.  1845  h 
 
 xxxii.  14 iii  2257  b 
 
 xxxii.  15,16 i.820a 
 
 xxxii.  20.  ...i.  42  a,  246  b, 
 
 247  a, iv.  3096  b.  3511  a 
 
 xxxiii.  11 i   406  b,  ii. 
 
 1012  a 
 xxxiii.  12.  .  .  .ii.  1661  a,  iv. 
 
 3238  b 
 
 xxxiii.  22 iv.  3416  a 
 
 xxxiv.  5 i.  636  b 
 
 xxxiv.  8 ii.  1243  b 
 
 xxxiv.  11 i.  492  a.  iii. 
 
 2406  b 
 
 xxxiv.  13 ii.  1626  a,  »!., 
 
 iii.  2271  b 
 xxxiv.  14.  .  .  iii.  2149  a,  iv. 
 
 3430  a 
 xxxiv.  15. .  .iii.  2276  a,  iv. 
 
 3482  b 
 
 xxxvi ii.  1060  a 
 
 xxxvi.  2 iii.  2659  a 
 
 xxxvi.  6 i.669a,  ii.  997 
 
 b,  iii.  2467  b 
 
 xxxvi.  9 iv.  3312  b 
 
 xxxvi  11 iv. 3430a 
 
 xxxvi.  11,  13.  ...ii.  985b, 
 
 iv.  2975  a 
 
 xxxvi.  15,16.ii.  1153  b,  n. 
 
 xxxvii.  22-36.  ...ii.  1640  a 
 
 xxxvii.  24 i    820  a 
 
 xxxvii.  25 i.  .327  a 
 
 xxxvii.  27 i.  820  a,ii. 
 
 1045  a,  n.,  1106  a 
 
 xxxvii.  29 ii.  1092  b 
 
 xxxvii.  30.  . .  .ii.  1485  1>,  n. 
 xxxvii.  33  iv.  3484  b 
 
 xxxviii.  1 iv.  3539  b 
 
 xxxviii.  8.  ...i.  598  a,  ii. 
 
 1101  b 
 xxxviii.  12... ii.  1013b,  iv. 
 
 3211b 
 
 xxxviii.  14.  . .  .i.  505  b,  iv. 
 
 3310  b,  )i. 
 
 xxxviii.  21 iii.  1859  a 
 
 x.xxix.  2 iv.  3102  b 
 
 xl.3 iv.  3167  b 
 
 xl.  12 i.  229  b,  840  b 
 
 xl.  15 i.  229  a 
 
 xl.  22 i.  631b,  633  b 
 
 xli.  2 ii.  1737  b,  iv. 
 
 3122  b 
 
 xli.   14 ii.  1767  a 
 
 xli.  19 iii.  2213  b 
 
 xliii.  1 iii.  2063  a 
 
 xliii.  20 iii.  2271  b 
 
 xliv.  5 i.  522  a 
 
 xliv.  12 i.473a 
 
 xliv.  13. ii.  1661a 
 
 xliv.  14 i.  523  a 
 
 xliv.  26,  28 iv.  33.38  a 
 
 xlip.  28 ii.  1736  a 
 
 xiv.  1 i.  101a 
 
 xiv.  13 iv.  333Sa 
 
 xlvi.  1 i.392a 
 
 xlvi.  6 i.  229  b,  iii. 
 
 1995  b 
 
 xlvi.  11.... i.  629b.  637a. 
 
 ii.  1737  b 
 
 xlvii.  2 i.  622  b,  624  b, 
 
 ii.  981  b,  iv.  3370  a 
 
 xlvii.  5,  6 iv.  33.38  a 
 
 xlvii.  12,13 ii.  1751b 
 
 xlix.  22 i.425a 
 
 Ii.  3, 11, 17-23... iv.  3338  a 
 
 Ii.  8 iv.  35.57  b 
 
 Iii.  2,9 iv.  8338  a 
 
 liii iii.  2235  a 
 
 liii.  4 iii.  2464  b.  iv. 
 
 8464 
 
 liii.  9 ii.  1474  b 
 
 liii.  10 i.  112  b 
 
 liv.  2 i.  519  a 
 
 liv.  11. iii. 2280b 
 
 liv.  11,  12,  14,17 ii. 
 
 11167  b 
 
 liv.  12 i.  387  b 
 
 liv.  13 ii.  1067  a 
 
 liv.  16 i.  473  a 
 
 Iv.  1 iv.  3543  a,  rt. 
 
 Iv.  3 iii.262iia 
 
 Iv.  12 iii.  1887  b 
 
 Iv.  13 i.327b 
 
 Ivi.  7 ii.l360a 
 
 Ivi.  10 iv.  3099  b 
 
 Ivii.  6 iv.  .3116  b 
 
 Ivii.  7 ii.  1129  a 
 
 Ivii.  9 iii.  1991  b 
 
 lix.  11 i.  258  a 
 
 iix.  17 ii.  973  a 
 
 lix.  19 i.  743  a 
 
 Ix.  1 ii.  1067  a 
 
 Ix.  6.  ...i.  348a,  ii.  1738  a 
 
 Ix.  7 iv.  8017  a 
 
 Ix.  8 i.  614  b 
 
 Ix.  13 iii.  2213  b 
 
 Ix  16 iii.  19.34  a 
 
 Ix.  22 ii.962b 
 
 Ixi.  1 ii.  1362a 
 
 Ixi.  1,2 iv.  3465 
 
 Ixi.  3 ii.  1016b 
 
 Ixi.  10 ii.  1016  b,  iii. 
 
 1804  b 
 Ixii.  1,  2. . .  .ii.  1067  a,  iii. 
 
 2063  a 
 lxii.3....ii.  1016  b,  1067  a 
 
 Ixii.  4,  5 ii.  1772  a 
 
 Ixii.  11 iv.  2857  b 
 
 Ixiii.  1 i.480b 
 
 Ixiii.  9 iv.  2993  b 
 
 Ixiv.  6 iv.  3.541  a 
 
 Ixiv.  10, 11 iv.  83.38  a 
 
 Ixv.  3 i.  77  a 
 
 Ixv.  4 i.  606  b 
 
 Ixv.  6,  7 i.  622  a 
 
 Ixv.  11.... i.  141  b,  850b, 
 iii.  1886  b.  iv.  3542  a 
 
 Ixv.  15 iii.  2063  a 
 
 Ixv.  16 i.  82  a 
 
 Ixv.  17-22.  ..iii.  2478  a,  n. 
 
 Ixv.  25 ii.  1045  b 
 
 Ixvi.  12 i.  425  a 
 
 Ixvi.  17 iii.  2033  a,  b 
 
 Ixvi.  20 i.  348  b 
 
 Ixvi.  24 iv.  3558  a 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 i.  11,12 i.70a 
 
 ii.  2 iv.  3,518  b,  n. 
 
 ii.  14-16 ii.  1775  a 
 
 ii.  21 iv.  3095  b 
 
 ii.  23.  ...i.  348  a,  ii.  1078  a 
 ii.32.  ..ii.  929a,iii  1805  a 
 
 iii.  6 ii.  1064  a 
 
 iii.  16 i.  155  b 
 
 iii.  24 ii.  1167  b 
 
 iv.  4 i.  465  a 
 
 iv.  11 iv. "8.541  a 
 
 iv.  20 i.  519  a 
 
 iv.26 i.  .820  a 
 
 iv.  30 iii.  2280  a 
 
 V.  1 iv.  3123  a 
 
 V.  27.  ...i  340  b, 8,39b, iv. 
 3098  b 
 
 vi.  1 iv.  3447  b 
 
 vi.  6 i.  736  b 
 
 vi.  10 i.  465  a 
 
 vi.  20 iii.  2695  b 
 
 vi  28 i.  323  a 
 
 vi.  29 iii.  2696  b 
 
 vi.  30 iv.  3042  a 
 
 vii.  11 ii.  1360  a 
 
 vii.  18 iii.  2008  b 
 
 vii.  31 ii.  1064  b 
 
 ,  vii.  32 ii.  1279  b 
 
 vii.  33 i.  842  b 
 
 vii.  34 iii.  1805  b,  n. 
 
 viii.  7 i-  505  b 
 
 viii.  14 i.  862  a 
 
 vui.  16 ii.  1581b 
 
 viii.  19 iv.  3121  a 
 
 ix.  21 iv.  3123  a 
 
 ix.  24 i   464  b 
 
 ix.26 ii.  1128  b 
 
 ix.  9 iii.  2258  b 
 
 X.  11 iv.  8416  a 
 
 X.  20 i.  519  a 
 
 xi.  13 ii.  1167  b 
 
 xi.  23 ii.  1486  a 
 
 xii.  9 ii.  1111a 
 
 xiii.  18 iii.  2587  b 
 
 xiii.  £2 i.  622  b 
 
 xiii.  22,26 i.  624  b 
 
 xiii.  24 iv.  3540  a 
 
 XV.  9 i.  654  a 
 
 XV.  12 iii.  1909  a 
 
 1  XV.  18 i.  577  b 
 
 Ixvi.  7... i. 325  b, ii.  1681b, 
 1682  a,  n. 
 
 I  xvi.  9 ii.  972  a 
 
 I  xvii.  1 i.  27  b 
 
 I  xvii.   11 iii.  2.3.39  a 
 
 I  xvii.  21 ii.  1363  a 
 
 xviii.  3 iii.  1870  a,  n. 
 
 !  xviii.  14 iv.  3065  a 
 
 j  xviii.  17 iv.  .3541  a 
 
 !xx.  1 ii.  1069  a 
 
 !  xxi.  1,2 ii.  1072  a 
 
 I  xxii.  20 i.3a 
 
 xxiii'.  8 iv.  3167  b 
 
 xxiii.  10 iii  2203  b 
 
 xxiii.  33  ff i.  3.31b 
 
 xxiv.  2 ii.  1.531b 
 
 XXV.  1 i.  539  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.23.  ...ii.981a,  n28b 
 
 XXV.  ,30 iv.  3541  a 
 
 XXV.  38 i.  614  b 
 
 xxvi.  23 ii.  1534  a 
 
 xxvii.  1.  . .  .iii.  1986  a,  n., 
 iv.  3611  b,  »i. 
 
 xxix.  2 ii.  1708a 
 
 xxix.  26 ii.  1733  b,  iv. 
 
 3318  b 
 
 XXX.  6 i.  478  a 
 
 XXX.  9 iii.  2620  a 
 
 XXX.  13 ii.  1512  a 
 
 xxxi.  15 iii.  2659  b,  «., 
 
 2670  a,  iv.  .3464 
 
 xxxi.  27 ii.  1393  b 
 
 xxxi.  31-34 ii.  1681b 
 
 xxxi.  38 iv.  3213  b 
 
INDEX. 
 
 xxxi.  40.  ...i  17ia,S20a, 
 ii.  lUi'S  a,  1534  a 
 
 xxxii.  4 iv.  3til3  h 
 
 xxxii.  6-12 ii    UStf  a 
 
 xxxii.  10  ff i.  786  b 
 
 xxxii.  14 i.  471a 
 
 xxxii.  18 i.  622  a 
 
 xxxii.  24 i.  736  b,  ii. 
 
 12-iS  b 
 
 xxxiii.  4 ii.  1288  b 
 
 xxxiv.  5 ii-  14S1  a 
 
 xxxiT.  8-16...  ii.  1303  b,  Ji. 
 
 xxxiv.  12-17 ii.  160J  b 
 
 xxxiv.  14 iv.  3)58  b 
 
 XXXV.  3,4,  19..  .iii.  268)  b 
 
 XXXV.  6 V.  3544  b 
 
 XXXV.  19.  . .  .iii.  2594  a,  h., 
 
 26-ilb 
 
 xxxvi.  14,  21.  . .  .ii.  1516  a 
 
 xxxvi.  18 iv.  3376  a 
 
 xxxvi.  23.  . .  .iv.  2740  b,  n., 
 3575  b 
 
 xxxvii.  15 iii.  2oSJ  a 
 
 xxxvii.  21.  ...1.323  b,.324 
 
 a,  ii.  1792  b 
 
 xxxviii.  4,   2,  14-27.  ...ii. 
 
 1540  a 
 
 xxxviii.  6 i.  466  a 
 
 xl.  4 i.  489  a 
 
 xl.  7, 18 ii.  1172  a,  m. 
 
 xli.  5.... ii.  1289  b,  iv.  29.55 
 
 b,  3000  a 
 
 xli.  7.  ..ii.  1013  b,  M.,1172 
 
 b,  >i. 
 
 xli.  17.. i.  294  a,  426  a,  )i., 
 
 ii.  1138  b 
 
 xliii.  6,  7 iii.  2635  a 
 
 xliii.  10 iii.  2402  b 
 
 xliii.  12 1.  624  b 
 
 xliii.  13 ii.  1141a, 
 
 iii.  2252  a 
 
 xliv.  17 iii.  2008  b 
 
 xliv.  18,19 iii.  26.52  a 
 
 xlvi.  1 iv.  3611  b,  n. 
 
 xlvi.  2. i.  639  b,  n. 
 
 xlvi.  15 i.  345  b 
 
 xlvi.  20 ii.  1034  b 
 
 xlvi.  25 i.  86  a 
 
 xlvii.  1,2.  ...iii. 21,52b, n. 
 
 xlvii.  4 iii.  2497  a,  n. 
 
 xlviii.  11 ii.  1627  a 
 
 xlviii.  29.  . .  .iii.  1985  a,  n. 
 
 xlviii.  33 i.  820  a,  iii. 
 
 1935  a,  n.,  iv.  3541  a 
 
 xlviii.  31 i.  270  b,  ii. 
 
 1034  b,  1044  b,  iv.  2940  b 
 
 xlviii.  37 iii.  1988  a 
 
 xlviii.  45.  ...iii.  1981  a,  rt., 
 iv.  2934  a 
 
 xlix.  1,3 ii.  1762  b 
 
 xlix.28 i.275a 
 
 xlix.  29 i.  519a 
 
 xlix.  32 ii.  9Sla 
 
 1.  1 ii.  1075  a 
 
 1.  11 ii.  965  a 
 
 1.  23 ii.  989  a 
 
 1.  34 ii.  1512  a 
 
 1.  3i i.  219  b 
 
 Ii.  20..ii.  9S8b,iii.  1840  a 
 Ii.  32.  .i.  785  a,  iii.  2693  b 
 
 Ii.  36 ii.  1512  a 
 
 Ii.  58 ii.  972  a 
 
 Iii.  4 iv.  .3484  b 
 
 Iii.  18 i.  253  a 
 
 Iii.  21 iv.   2992  b,  n. 
 
 Iii.  29 i    446  a,  n. 
 
 Iii.  31 i.  446  b.  n. 
 
 iii.  2005  a,  n. 
 
 LAMENTATIONS. 
 
 i.  6 ii.  1006  b 
 
 ii.  3 ii.  1091a 
 
 ii.  4 ii.  1289  a 
 
 ii.  6 iii.  1984  b,  n. 
 
 ii.  8 i.  492  a 
 
 ii.  13 i.  759  a 
 
 ii.  19 1.  434  b,  n. 
 
 iii.  62 ii.  1063  b 
 
 iv.  1 ii.  936  a 
 
 iv.  4 ii.  1682  a,  n. 
 
 iv.  5 i.  627  b 
 
 iv.  7.  . .  .i.  478  b,  iv.  3J65  a 
 
 ir.  7,  S: 
 iv.  8.. 
 
 20. 
 
 13.. 
 
 ..iii.  2076a 
 .  .  ..i.  473  a 
 ...ii  1539  b 
 .  .iii.   1935  b 
 
 EZEIvIEL 
 
 i.  3 iv.  3362   b,  n. 
 
 i.4,  27 'ii.  1909  a 
 
 i.  5   ff iv.  2927  a 
 
 i.  22.  ...i.  517.1,  ii.  931  a 
 
 ii.  6 i.  327  b 
 
 iii.  9 i.  27  b 
 
 iii.  14 iv.  33J2b,". 
 
 iii.  15 iv.  .3318  b 
 
 iv.  2 iii.  26;9a,  iv. 
 
 3484  b 
 
 iv  12,  15 '.  325  a 
 
 V.  2 iv.  3212  a 
 
 vii.  21 ii.   1019  a 
 
 viii.  2 iii.  1909  a 
 
 viii.  3..ii.  9.82  a,  iv.  3318  b 
 
 viii.  7-12 ii.  1762  a 
 
 viii.  12.  .ii.  1120  b,   1133  a 
 
 viii.  16   iii.  2665  b 
 
 viii.  17 ii.  U29  b 
 
 ix.  2 ii.  929  b 
 
 ix.  2,  3 iv.  8576  a 
 
 ix.  3 iv.  32.39  b 
 
 ix.  4 i.  522  a 
 
 ix.  4,  0,  6 i.  837  a 
 
 X.  4,18 iv.  32.39  b 
 
 X.   12 iv.  2927  a 
 
 X.  13 iv.  3511a 
 
 X.  14 i.  421a 
 
 xi.  15,  16.  ..iv.  3134  b,)i. 
 
 sii.  13 iv.  .3613b 
 
 xii.  25 ii.  9i2  a 
 
 xiii.   10 iii.  2016  a 
 
 xiii.11,13 iii.   2403  a 
 
 xiii.  17  ff ii.  1752  a 
 
 xiii.  18 ii.  l()17a 
 
 xiii.  18,  2  I iii.  2532  b 
 
 xiii.  18,21 iv.  3.370  a 
 
 xiii.  19 i.  247  a,  840  b 
 
 xvi.3,  45 ii.l(i81b 
 
 xvi.  8 i.  624  a 
 
 xvi.  10 ii.  1017  a,  iv. 
 
 2837  a 
 
 xvi.  12 i.  837  b 
 
 xvi.  16 ii.  1064  b 
 
 xvi.  31 ii.  1064  b 
 
 xvi.  38.  ...i.  323a,   490  b, 
 
 iii.  1995  b 
 
 xvii.  5  i.  820  a 
 
 xvii.  17 iv.  3484  b 
 
 xvii.  19 ii.  1144  a 
 
 xviii-  6 ii.  1064  a 
 
 xix.  4 ii.  1086  a 
 
 xix.  11,12 iv.  3447  a 
 
 XX.  29 i.  231a 
 
 xxi.  2 iii.  2590  b 
 
 xxi.  19-22 ii.  1745  a 
 
 xxi.  21.  .i.  607  b,  ii.  1687  b, 
 1752  a 
 
 xxi.  22 iv.  8484  b 
 
 xxi.  27 iv.  2998  b 
 
 xxii.  28 ii.  1752  a 
 
 xxiii.  12.  ...i.  480a,  619  b 
 
 xxiii.  14 ii.  11.33  b 
 
 xxiii.  15 i.  597  b,  619  b 
 
 xxiii.  40 iii.  1805  a 
 
 xxiii.  41 ii.  1129  a 
 
 xxiv.  17 i.  844  b,  ii. 
 
 981  a,  1681  b 
 xxiv.  17,23 ii.  1016  b, 
 
 iv.  28.38  a 
 xxiv.  23,  24.  ...iii.  2620  a 
 
 XXV.  4 iii.  1984  a,  iv. 
 
 2989  b 
 
 XXV.  4, 10 i.  275  a 
 
 XXVI.  8 i.  736  b,  iv. 
 
 3484  b 
 
 xxvi.  9 i.  736  a 
 
 xxTi.  11 i.  870  b 
 
 xxvii.  5 i.  400  a, 
 
 ii.  1<I46  b 
 xxvii.  6 i.321  b,  427  a, 
 
 iv.  .3019  a 
 
 xxvii.  9 i.   693  b,  iii. 
 
 22(18  a 
 
 xxvii.  12 i.  809  b 
 
 xxvii.  13 ii.  1417  a 
 
 xxvii.  14 i.  157  b 
 
 xxvii   16 i.  491  a,  729 
 
 a,  h,  iii.  2208  a 
 
 xxvii.  17 i.  834   b,  ii. 
 
 10>55  b,  iii.  2519  a,  n., 
 iv.  .3544  a 
 
 xxvii.  19 i.  334  b,  ii. 
 
 1143  a.  iv.  3-365  a 
 xxvii.  19,  21,  22. iii.  2208  a 
 
 xxvii.  22,23 iv.  2951a 
 
 xxvii.  23 i.  426  a 
 
 xxvii.  26 iv.  3540  a 
 
 xxvii.  27 iii.  2208  a 
 
 .xxviii.  4,  39....iv.  3489  b 
 xxviii.  13.  . .  .iv.  3250  a,  b 
 xxviii.  14,  16.  .1.  421  b,  n. 
 
 xxix.  3,  4,  5 i.  674  a 
 
 xxix.  3,  9 iii.  2684  a 
 
 x.\ix.  6 i.  669  a 
 
 xxix.  18 iii.  25.32  b 
 
 XXX.  2 iv.   3552  a 
 
 XXX.  14,16 iv.  3216  a 
 
 XXX.  21 iii.  1870  a 
 
 xxxi.  3 i.  83rb 
 
 xxxi.  14,  16.  .  ..iii.  2536  a 
 xxxi.  14-18. ii   1164  a,  m. 
 
 .xxxii.  18,24 iii.  2536  a 
 
 xxxii.  18-32.. ii.  1164a,  n. 
 xxxvi.  9,  10.  ...ii.  1393b 
 
 xxxviii.   5 ii.  1691b 
 
 xxxviii.  11 ii.  1016  a 
 
 xxxviii.  12 i.  638  b 
 
 xxxviii.  22 iii.  24'i3  a 
 
 xl.  3 ii.  1578  b 
 
 xl.  24 i.  6.33  b 
 
 xli.  11 iii.  2226  b 
 
 .xli.  15 i.  862  b 
 
 xli.  22 i.  76  b 
 
 xiii.  3,5,6 i.  862  b 
 
 xiii.  10 ii.  10.34  a 
 
 xliii.  7,  9 iv.  2959  b 
 
 xliii.  7-9 iv.  8204  a 
 
 xliv.  16 i.  74  b 
 
 xliv.  80 i.  324  a 
 
 xlv.  12 ii.  1510  a 
 
 xlvi.  23 ii.  1106  b 
 
 xlvii.  19.  . .  .iv.  3172  a,  n. 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 i.  1 i.  446  a, ?i. 
 
 i.  4 i.410a 
 
 i.  10 ii.  16.58  b 
 
 i.  11,  16 iii.  1881a 
 
 i.  17 iii.  2.598  a 
 
 ii.  5  i.  627  b 
 
 ii.31 i.  787  a 
 
 iii.  2 ii   1658  a 
 
 iii.  6,  15 i.  4.34  a 
 
 iii.  19 iv.  3173  a 
 
 iii.  21... i.  597  a,  623  b,  ii. 
 
 1017  b 
 iii.  25.. iii.  2176  a,  iv.  3087  b 
 
 iii.  29 i.  627  b 
 
 iv.  16 iii.  2088  b,  n. 
 
 iv.  .33.. iii.  1866 a, 2087  b, n. 
 
 V.  1  ff iv.  3542  a 
 
 V.  2 i.  273  b 
 
 V.  5 iii.  2548  a 
 
 V.  7,  16,  29 i.  479  b 
 
 V.  16 i.  608  b 
 
 V.  27 i-  229  b 
 
 V.  31 i.  219  a 
 
 vi.  l..ii.  1658  a,  iii.  2587  b 
 
 vi.  3,  10,26 ii.  17.36  a 
 
 vi.  18 iii   2040  b 
 
 vi.  24 iii.  2264  b 
 
 vii.  1 iii.  2598  b 
 
 vii.  9 ii.981b 
 
 vii.  13.  .ii.  1384  a,  iv.  3092  a 
 vii.  25..i.  435  b,  iv.  2935  b 
 
 viii.  3 ii.  1091a 
 
 viii.  5-7 i.  51  b 
 
 viii.  7 i.  116  a 
 
 viii.  14.  .1.4-34  a,  6.32  b,  iv. 
 
 2935  b 
 viii.  21... i.  61  b,  636  a,  ii. 
 
 1219  a 
 
 ix.  4-8 iv.  3454 
 
 ix  11,  13 iii.  2419  a 
 
 ix.  26.  ...ii.  1065  b,  1.539  b 
 
 ix.  27 iv.  2935  b 
 
 X.  5 iii.  2258  b 
 
 3661 
 
 X.  13,20,  21....  iii.  2587  b 
 
 X.  20 ii.  1219  » 
 
 xi.  2 li  1219  a 
 
 xi.  5 iii.  2631  a,  a  » 
 
 xi.  6 iii.  1805  b,  n. 
 
 xi.  6-19,  21.  ...i.  115  a,  b, 
 116  a 
 
 xi.  8 iii.  26.32  a 
 
 xi.  14 iii.  2633  a 
 
 xi.  24 i.ll6a 
 
 xi.  26, 34. 37,40,41.  .i.  116  b 
 
 xi.  29-35 ii.  1714  a 
 
 xi.  .30 iv.3008a,  n. 
 
 xi.  31  ff ii.  1516  t 
 
 xi.  37 i.  117  a,  b 
 
 xii.  1 iii.  2587  b 
 
 xii.  2,3 iv.  2709  a 
 
 xii.  4 iv  3575  b 
 
 xii.  5,6 iii.  2684  a 
 
 xii.  7...i.  435  b,  iv.  2935  b 
 xii.  11,  12 iv.  2935  b 
 
 H0.8EA. 
 
 i.  7 iv.  33B7b 
 
 i.  10 iv.  3465 
 
 ii.  13 i.  89  b 
 
 ii.  15 i.  21b 
 
 ii.  16.  ..i.  207  b,  210  a,  ii. 
 1180  a 
 
 ii.  22 ii.  1393  b 
 
 ii.  24 iv.  3465 
 
 iii.  l...i.  831a,  iv.  3.542b 
 iii.  2.  ..i.  247  a,  iii.  1803  b 
 
 iu.  3 iv.  3367  b 
 
 iii.  5 iii.  2620  a 
 
 iv.  2 iii.  2203  b 
 
 iv.  11 iv.  3.543  a 
 
 iv.  13... iu.  2i00  b,  2201a 
 
 iv.  14 iv.  3074  a 
 
 iv.l5..i.8b, 286b, ii.  927b 
 
 iv.  16 ii.  1034  b 
 
 iv.  18  iv.  3543  b 
 
 V.  1 iv.  8165  a 
 
 V  12 iii.  2028  a 
 
 vi.  2 ii.  1447  a 
 
 vi.  6 ii.  1863  b 
 
 vii.  4 i.  324  a 
 
 vii.  5 iv.  3543  a 
 
 vii.  8 i.  325  a 
 
 ix.  4 ii.  1681  b 
 
 ix.  7 iv.8310  b 
 
 ix.  10.  ..i.  7i;9b,  ii.  1167  b 
 
 ix.  15 ii.  927  b 
 
 X.  3,  7 ii.  1546  a 
 
 X.  11 ii.965a 
 
 xi.  1 iii.  2600  a,  n. 
 
 xi.  4 i.  491b 
 
 xii.  1 iv.  .3,541  a 
 
 xii.  4,  5 i.288a 
 
 xii.  7 i.  ,351  b 
 
 xii.  11 ii.  927  b 
 
 xiii.  3 iv.  35.39  b 
 
 xiii.  14 iv.  3465 
 
 xiv.  2 1.  331  b,  346  a 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 i.  18 iv.  3.513  a,  »i. 
 
 i.  20 ii.  1418  a 
 
 ii.  2 ii.  1418  a 
 
 ii.  7 i.  837  a 
 
 ii.  10,31 i.  654  a 
 
 ii.  11,  25 ii.  1416  b 
 
 ii.  15 i.  500  b,  501  a 
 
 ii.  17 iii.  2565  b 
 
 ii.  23.  ...i.  41a,  iii.  2667  a 
 
 ii.  28-32 ii.  1418  a 
 
 ii.  28 iii.  2.598  a 
 
 ii.  32 ii.l237a 
 
 iii.  1,6, 16,17, 18.. ii.  1237  a 
 
 iii.  2,  12 i.  156  b 
 
 iii.  4 iii.  2518  b 
 
 iii,  6 iii.  2518  b,  n. 
 
 iii.  15 i.  654  a 
 
 iii.  18 iv.  3019  a,  Ji. 
 
 vii.  18 iu.  1988  b 
 
 AMOS. 
 
 i.  1 iii.  1901  a 
 
 i.  5,8 ii.  1512  a 
 
 i.  9,  10 iii.  2518  b 
 
 ii.  7 i.  628  t 
 
 u.  8 i.  624  a,  ii.  1129 
 
3662 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 u.  16 i.620b 
 
 iii.  5 ii.  11U8  a 
 
 iii.  6 ii.  1219  .-i,  ^^ 
 
 iii.  12.  .i.  532  b,  ii.  UOiia, 
 M.,iii.  1843a,  i v.  3035  b 
 
 iv.  1 ii.  1034  b 
 
 iv.  4 ii.  927  b 
 
 iv.  7 iii.  2667  a 
 
 iv.  10,  11 iii.  2539  a 
 
 iv.  13 ii.  1412  b 
 
 V.  5 u.927b 
 
 V.  8. .  .u.  1412  b,  iii,  2548  b 
 
 V.  11 i.  499  a 
 
 T.  16 iv.  3123  a 
 
 V.  26.  ..ii,  1064  b,  1762  b, 
 
 iu.  1841  a,  1991  b,  1992  b, 
 
 iv.  2703  b 
 
 vi.l0..i.332b,iv.2832b,K. 
 
 Tl.  13 ii.  1U90  h,n. 
 
 vi.  14.  ..iii.  1984  b,M.,  iv. 
 
 3539  a 
 
 vii.  l..ii.  1012  a,  iii,  2034  a 
 
 vii.  7 i.  492  a,  ii.  1661  a 
 
 vu.  7,  8 ii.  1619  a 
 
 vii.  9,  16 ii.  1148  b 
 
 vii.  13.  ..i.  412  a,  508  a,  iii. 
 1991b 
 
 vii.  14 iii.  2593  b 
 
 vii.  16 iii  2590  b 
 
 viu.6 i.  499  a 
 
 viii.  9 i.  654  a 
 
 viu.  14..i.  535  b,iv.  3488  b 
 
 ix.  1 ii.  1573  b 
 
 ix.  6 ii.  1412  b 
 
 ix.  7 i.384a 
 
 ix.  10 iii.  2575  b 
 
 ix.  13 iv.  3096  a 
 
 0B.4DrAH. 
 1,2, 8, 19, 20,21.. iii.  2206a 
 11 ii.  1687  b 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 i.  3 ii.  1454  b 
 
 i.  6 iv.  3007  a 
 
 ii.  1 i.  828  a 
 
 ii.  5 i.  830b,ii.  1017  a 
 
 iii.  6 i.618b 
 
 iv.  7 iv.  3558a 
 
 iv.  11 iii.  2158  b 
 
 MICAH. 
 
 i.  6 i.  603a 
 
 i.  8 iii.  2272  a 
 
 i.  10 i  121a 
 
 i.  11... .i  291  b,iv.  3583  b 
 i.  13.  ...i.  626  a,  ii.  1092  a 
 
 i.  14 i.  22  a 
 
 i.  16.  ...i.  628  b,  iv.  348Z  b 
 
 ii.  5 i.  492  a 
 
 ii.  6,11 iu.  2590  b 
 
 ii.  12 i.  322a 
 
 iii.  6 i.  654  a 
 
 iv.  1-3 ii.  1151  b 
 
 iv.  13 iv.  34.51a 
 
 V.  2 ii.  962  b,  iv.  3464 
 
 vl.  4 iv.  3416  b 
 
 vi.  5 i.  227  b 
 
 vi.  5-8 ii.  1748  a 
 
 vii.  4 ii.  li'34  a 
 
 NAHUM. 
 
 ii.  3 iii.  1909  a 
 
 ii.  3[4] iv.  3110  a 
 
 ii.  4 iv.  3123  a 
 
 ii.  5 iii.  2167  a 
 
 ii.  6.    ..i.  327  a,  iii  2167  b 
 
 ii.  7 iv.  3151b 
 
 iii.  4 iii.  1807  b,  »i. 
 
 iii.  5 i.624  b 
 
 iii.  8...  i.  383  a,  iii.  215C  b, 
 
 2682  b 
 
 iii.  19 i.  189  b,  331  b 
 
 HABAKKUK. 
 
 1.2-4 ii.  971b 
 
 ii.  6.  ...i.624  a,  iii.  2608  b 
 
 iii.  1 iv.  2995  b 
 
 iii.  4 ii.  I(i9  la 
 
 iii.  5 i.  473  a 
 
 iii.  7 i.  519  a 
 
 iii.  17 i.  820  a 
 
 ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 i.  7 ii  972  a 
 
 i.  8.  ..ii.  1128  a,  iv.  3554  a 
 i.  10.  .i.  476a,b,  ii.  1288  a, 
 
 i   11.. i.  351  b,ii.  1534a',n! 
 
 i.  12 ii.  1627  a 
 
 ii.  4-7 iii.  2502  a 
 
 ii.  6 iv.  2989  b 
 
 ii.  14,.  ii.  1574  a,  iii.  2406  b 
 
 HAGGAI. 
 
 i.  4.  9 ii.  129i)a 
 
 i.  8 iv.  2959  b 
 
 ii.  12 i.  622  a 
 
 ii.  16 iv.  3545  b 
 
 ZEUUARIAH. 
 i.  8..i.  479a.  iv.360Ub,H. 
 
 i.  18 ii.  1091  a 
 
 i.  21 i.  842  b 
 
 ii.  10 iv.  2959  b 
 
 iii.  1  ff ii.  1067  a 
 
 iii.  1,2 iii.  1919  b,  n. 
 
 iii.  4 i.  625  a 
 
 iii.  5 ii.  1016  b 
 
 V.  1,  2  iv.  2740  a 
 
 V.  3 iv.  3601  a 
 
 vi.  1 i.  323  a 
 
 vi.  2,3 i.479a 
 
 vi.  3,  6 i.  478  b 
 
 vi.  9,  14 ii.  1481  b 
 
 vii.  12 i.  27  b 
 
 viii.  3 iv.  2959  b 
 
 ix.  1,2 ii.  976b,n. 
 
 ix.  5-7 iii.  2501  b,  n. 
 
 ix.  6..iii.l797b,iv.  3608a 
 
 ix.  9 iv.  3465 
 
 i.x.  13..ii.  1219a.iv.3608a 
 
 ix.  15 iv.3062  b 
 
 X.  2..ii.  1752  b,  iv.  3212  b 
 
 x.  3 ii.  933  a 
 
 X.  9 ii.  1393  b 
 
 xi.  8 iii.  1885  a,  «.,  iv. 
 
 2941  a 
 
 xi.  12,13 ii.  1503  b 
 
 xi.  15,  16 i.  225  b 
 
 xii.  2 iii.  1866  b 
 
 xii.  3 iv.  3117  a 
 
 xii.  6 iii.  2327  a, «. 
 
 xii.  10 iv.  3423  a 
 
 xii.  11 ii. 1481a 
 
 xii.  11-14 iii.  1872  b 
 
 xiii.  1-4 ii.  1752  b 
 
 xiii.  4.  .i.  618  a,  703  b,  »., 
 ii.  1783  a 
 
 xiii.  6 i.  522  a 
 
 xiv.  4 i.636  b 
 
 xiv.  6 i.  654  a 
 
 xiv.  15 i.  733  b 
 
 xiv.  20.. i.  272  b,  623  a,  ii. 
 1091b 
 MALACHI. 
 
 i.  1 ii.  1762  a 
 
 i.  7,  12 i.  74  b 
 
 ii.  3 i.  627  b 
 
 ii.  12 iii.  1830  a 
 
 iii.  1 iv.  3213  b 
 
 iii.  3 ii.  In45  a 
 
 iii.  4 ii.  1427  a 
 
 iv.  2 ii.  1045  b 
 
 iv.  5 i.  709  b 
 
 APOCRYrHA. 
 
 1  ESDRAS. 
 
 i.  28 ii.  14S1  b 
 
 viii.  32 ii.  1196  b 
 
 viii.  36 ii.  1481  b 
 
 viii.  43,44 iii.  1829  a 
 
 2  ESDRAS. 
 
 ii.  9 iv.  3068  b 
 
 vii. 28 i.  123a 
 
 xvi.  42 iu.  2208  a 
 
 TOBIT. 
 
 i.  2.  ...i.  702b,M.,iv.  3235 
 
 i.  7,  8 iv.  3265  b 
 
 iv.  15 iv.  2870  b,  «. 
 
 iv.  17.  . 
 vi.  2  ff. 
 vi.  12.  . 
 vii.  13. 
 xiii.  17. 
 
 ....u.  1681b 
 
 1.828  a 
 
 ii.  1(35  a 
 
 ....ii.  1035  a 
 ,  ...iv.3r23a 
 
 JUDITH. 
 
 ii.  24 i.  16  a,  148  b 
 
 iii  9 i.  6  3b 
 
 V.  14,  marg.  .iv.  3U51  a,  n. 
 
 vii.  3 i.  522  a 
 
 ix.  7 iv.  3'  62  a 
 
 X.  3 ii.  1)82  a 
 
 xiii.  9 i.  376  a 
 
 xiii.  16-23 ii.  1064  a 
 
 xvi.  8 ii.  1(116  b 
 
 xvi.  13,19 ii.982a 
 
 ESTHER, 
 xvi i.  124  b 
 
 W1SD0.M. 
 
 ii.  12-20 iv.  3548  a, »(. 
 
 V.  22 iv.  3116  b 
 
 vi.  13 iii.  2575  a 
 
 ix.  8 iv.  3197  b,  n. 
 
 X.  4 iv.  3321  b 
 
 X.  7 iv.  3068  b 
 
 xi.22 i.  229  a 
 
 xvi.  28 iii.  2575  a 
 
 xvi.-xix .  .  .i  124  a 
 
 xviii.  15,16 iv.  3554  b 
 
 xviii.  25 i.l79a 
 
 ECCLESIASTICUS. 
 
 iv.  17 ii.  1538  b,  n. 
 
 xi.30.  ..i.  2.53  b,  340  b,ii. 
 
 1108  a,  iii.  2339  a,  iv. 
 
 3098  b,  3099  a 
 
 xii.  5 i.  70  a,  b 
 
 xxiii.  20 iii.  2264  b 
 
 xxiv.  27 iii.  2149  a,  n. 
 
 xxviii.  24 ii.  1034  b 
 
 xxviii.  25 ii.  932  b 
 
 .xxxviii.  28 iv.  8062  b 
 
 xxxviii.  30 ii.  1619  b 
 
 xl.  16 ii.  1466  a,  71. 
 
 xiv.  10 iv.  3357  a,  3357 
 
 b,  n. 
 
 xlvi.  19 ii.  1347  b 
 
 xlvii.  18 iv.  8260  a 
 
 xlix.  10 i.  543  b 
 
 xlix.  12 ii,  1344  b 
 
 1.  1  ff ii.  1292  a 
 
 1.  26.  .iii.  2011  a,   n.,  iv. 
 2955  b 
 BARUCH. 
 
 ii.  12 ii,  1538  b,»i. 
 
 iv.  13 ii.l538b,  n. 
 
 V.  2 ii.  1016  b 
 
 vi.  22 i.  .395  b 
 
 vi.  43 ; iv.  3450  b 
 
 1  MACCABEES. 
 
 i  43,53 ii.  1389  a 
 
 iii.  38 iii.  2630  a 
 
 iii  41 ii.  1417  a 
 
 iv.  23 i.  479  b 
 
 V.  3 i.  57  b 
 
 V.  15 iv.  2799  a 
 
 V.  43 iii.  2676  a 
 
 vi,  7.  26 ii.  1294  b,  n. 
 
 vi.  15 iii.  2267  b,  n. 
 
 vi.  18 ii.  1294  b 
 
 vi.  51...  iv.  3062  a,  3116  b 
 
 vii.  16,  17 iii.  V620  b 
 
 vii  81 iv,  8445  b 
 
 viii.  8  ..i.  781b,  ii.  1140  a 
 
 X.  11 iv  3062  a 
 
 ix.  73 iii.  2635  a 
 
 xi.  10 iii.  2634  a 
 
 xi.  32 ii.  1109  a,  n. 
 
 xii.  20,  21 i.  124  b 
 
 xii.  36 iii.  2029  a 
 
 xiii.  27-30. .  .iii.  1989  b,  n. 
 
 xiii.  43 iv.  3484  b 
 
 xiii.  51 ii.  1094  a 
 
 2  MACCABEES. 
 
 i i.  124  b 
 
 i.lO iii  2635b 
 
 i.  24 ii.  1347  b 
 
 i.  3? iii.  2066 
 
 i.  34 iii.  2066b 
 
 ii.  14 i.  358  a,  ?i. 
 
 iii.  4 iv.  3045  b 
 
 iii.  32 iv.  2857  b 
 
 iv.  2 iv.  3210  a 
 
 iv.  12 ii.  1017  b 
 
 iv.  27 iii.  2587  b 
 
 iv.  38 i.625a 
 
 V.  9,  10,  13 ii.  1019  a 
 
 vi.2 ii.  1518  b 
 
 viii.  8,  9 iii.  2630  a 
 
 viii.  10,11  iv.  S059b 
 
 viii.  22 ii.  1419  b 
 
 viii.  23 i.  695  a 
 
 ix.  5-10 iii.  1865  a 
 
 ix.,  xi i    124  b 
 
 X.  6,7 ii.  1094  a 
 
 xi.  2 ii.  1019  a 
 
 xii.  9 ii.  1275  a 
 
 xii.  35 i.  624  a 
 
 XV.  36 iii.  2646,  a,  n. 
 
 8  MACCABEES, 
 iv.  20 iv.  8575  a,  b 
 
 NEW  TESTAMENT. 
 
 MATTHE\V. 
 
 i.3 iv.  3171a 
 
 i.  5.. iii.  2663  b,  2664a,  n. 
 
 i.  7,  8 i.  169  a 
 
 i.  8 i.  433  b 
 
 i.  17 i.888a 
 
 i  19 i.  86  a 
 
 i.  21 iv.  2857  b 
 
 i.  22,  23 iii.  2595  a 
 
 i.  25 i  .330  b 
 
 ii.  Iff i.275a 
 
 ii.ll iv.  21.32  a 
 
 ii.  15 iii.  2600  a,  n. 
 
 ii.  16 ii.  1381b 
 
 ii.  16-18 ii.  1051a 
 
 ii.  22 i.  149  a 
 
 ii.  28 iii.  2070  a 
 
 iii.  2 i.234a 
 
 iii.  4...ii.929a,  h. ,1678b 
 
 iii.  5 iv.  2697  b 
 
 iii.  6 iv.  8427  a 
 
 iii.  7 i,  8S8a 
 
 iii.  9 ii.  1.360  b 
 
 iii.  11.. i.  239  b.  iv.  2838a 
 
 iii.  12 i.  44  a 
 
 iii.  14,  15 i.  235  a 
 
 iv.  1-11 ii.  1384  b 
 
 iv.3 i.  824  a 
 
 iv.  5 ii.  1271  b,  ?i.,  iii, 
 
 2533  a 
 
 iv.  18  ff i.94a 
 
 V iv.  3459  b 
 
 V.  13 iv.  2798  a 
 
 V.  17 ii.  1856  a 
 
 V.  18.  ...iv.  2985  a,  3266a 
 
 V.  21 iv.  3138  b,  n. 
 
 V.22 iv.  3427  a 
 
 V.  26 ii.  1668  b 
 
 v.  29,30 iii.  2209  a 
 
 V.  81,32 i.  610  a 
 
 V.  32.. iii.  1796a,  n., 1802a 
 
 V.  39-41 iii.  25' 9  b 
 
 V.  40.  ..i.  624  a,  iv.  3538  a 
 
 V.  41 i.  95  a 
 
 V.  42..  ii.  1658  a.  iii.  2570  a 
 
 vi.  1 i.  71  a 
 
 vi.  2 i.  71  b 
 
 vi.  7.  .ii.  1019  a,  iv.  2705  a 
 
 vi.  11 i.  324  b,  569  a 
 
 vi.  13 iii.  2127  b 
 
 vi.l9 i  625  a 
 
 vi.  19,  20.  ...iii.  2028  a,  iv. 
 
 2754  b 
 vi.  26,  27,  28,  31,34.  ...iv. 
 
 8239  a 
 
 vi.  30 i.  825  a 
 
 vi.33 ii.  1080  b 
 
 vii.  3-5 iii.  2028  a 
 
 vii.  9 i,  321a 
 
 vii.  10 i.  829  b 
 
 viii.  2.  ..    iv.  3350  b 
 
 viii.  6 iii.  1866  b 
 
INDEX. 
 
 viii  11 .iii.  1844  a,  n. 
 
 Tiii.  16 i.  568  b 
 
 \Vi\.  20 iii.  2107  a 
 
 viii.  23-27 iv.  3008  a 
 
 Till.  28 ii.  900  a 
 
 vili.  30 i.  853  a,  n. 
 
 ix.  2,  xxvi.  64.  .1  108  a,  n. 
 
 ix.  6 iv.  3163  b 
 
 ix.  15 iii.  1805  a 
 
 IX.  17..  i.  319  b,  iy,  3543  b 
 X  3.  .ii  1504  a,  iv.  3214  a 
 
 X.  4 i.  352  a,  b 
 
 X.  9 iu.  2003  a,  2647  b 
 
 X.  9,  !0 ii.  1496  a 
 
 X.  10   iv.2873a 
 
 X.  14 i.  62Sa 
 
 X.  18 iv.  2928  a 
 
 X.  17 iv.  3138  b 
 
 X.  19 iv.  8ihda. 
 
 X.  27.  ...iv.  2871b,  3398  a 
 
 xi.2  ff ii.  1728  b 
 
 xi.  5 iii.  2574  b 
 
 xi.  7-11 ii.  13a5  a 
 
 xi.  14,27 iv   3538  a 
 
 xi.  25 ii.  1436  b 
 
 xi  27.. ii.  1435b, iii. 2114 a 
 
 xii.  1 i.  44  b 
 
 xii.  1-8 ii.  1363  a 
 
 xii.  10-13 ui.  1866  a 
 
 xii.  24-26 iv.  2849  b 
 
 xii.  27 i.  796  b 
 
 xii.  28 ii.  1542  b 
 
 xii.  31 iv.  3104  b 
 
 xii.  32 i.  315  b 
 
 xii.  40 ii.  1454  b 
 
 xii.  45 iii.  1813  a 
 
 xiii.  2 ii.  1393  b 
 
 xiii.  4 i.  820  b 
 
 xiii.  8 iv.  3511  a 
 
 xiii.  10-18 ii    1355  a 
 
 xiii.  11 iii.  2047  a 
 
 xiii.  13 iii  2329  a 
 
 xiii.  21 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xiii.  32 iii.  2042  b 
 
 xiii.  55 ii.  1475  a 
 
 xiv.  2 ii.  1398  a 
 
 xiv.  6 i.  309  b 
 
 xiv.  8,  11 i.  413  a 
 
 xiv.  36 ii.  1042  a 
 
 XV  2....iv.  3349  a,  3485  b 
 
 XV  5 i.  491b 
 
 XV  5,6 ii.  1336  a 
 
 XV.  15 ii.  1788  a 
 
 XV.  22 iv.  8445  a 
 
 XV.  28 i.  612  b 
 
 xvi.  1  iv.  3207  b 
 
 xvi  6 ii.  1366  b 
 
 xvi.  14 i.  124  a 
 
 xvi.  17-19 ii.  1788  a 
 
 xvi.  18.  ..i.  128b,ii.  1039 
 
 b,  iii.  24.59  b,  iv.  3092  b 
 
 xvi.  23 ii.  1496  b,  n., 
 
 iii.  2209  a,  iv.  2863  a 
 
 xvi.  24,25 iv.  3538  a 
 
 xvii.  1,2 iv    3166  a 
 
 xvii.  1-13.  ...iv.3319a,  ff. 
 
 xvii.  10 i.  234  a 
 
 xvii.  24.  .i.  588  b,  iv.  3183 
 b,3322-..,f. 
 
 xvii.  24-27 iii.  2003  a 
 
 xvii.  25 iii  2575  a 
 
 xvii.  27  ....iii.  1998b.  iv. 
 3109  b 
 
 xvii.  51 iii.  2586 a.  n. 
 
 xviii.  6.  ..i.  1^2  a,  iii.  19.35 
 a,  b 
 
 xviu.  6-9 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xviii.  10 i.  97  b 
 
 xviii.  26 iv,  3')58  b 
 
 xviii,  34 ii    1688  b 
 
 xix.  1 ii.   1488  a 
 
 xix.  3,9 i.  609  a 
 
 xix.  7,  8 ii.  16D2b 
 
 xix.  9 iii.  18!i2  a 
 
 xix.  12 i    783  a 
 
 xix.  19 iv  3558  b 
 
 xix.  20 ii   1042  a 
 
 xix.  24 i  349  a 
 
 xix.  28 ii.  1788  a 
 
 XX.  2 iv.  3483  a 
 
 XX.  22 i.  237  a 
 
 XX.  20,27 iv.  3538  a 
 
 XX.  29-34 i.  248  b,  f. 
 
 xxi.  1-17 ii.  1373  a 
 
 xxi.  2 iv.  3445  b 
 
 xxi.  7 i.  624 
 
 xxi.  9,   15 iv.  2858  a 
 
 xxi.  33 iv.  3447  b 
 
 xxi.  35 i   88  b,»s. 
 
 xxii.  4 iii.   1805  b,  n. 
 
 xxii.  6 i.  743  b 
 
 xxii.  11 u.  922  b 
 
 xxii.  15-21 iii.  2003  a 
 
 xxii.  10 iv.  2870  a,  n 
 
 xxii.  23-30 iii.  1800  a 
 
 xxii.  31,32 ii.  1608  b, 
 
 iv.  2707  b,  2781  b 
 
 xxii.  35 iv.  8207  b 
 
 xxii.  41  ff ii.   1486  b 
 
 xxiii.  5 i.  848  b,  844  a 
 
 xxiu.  6 iii.  1848  b, 
 
 1844  b,  «.,iv.  2751b 
 
 xxiii.  9 iv.  2872  b 
 
 xxiii.  14 iv.  2872  b 
 
 xxiii.  23 i.  98  b 
 
 xxiii.  24 iv.  2120  b, 
 
 3120  b 
 
 xxiii.  Hi. 
 
 ...i.  3.32b 
 
 xxiii.  29 i    3.38  a 
 
 xxiii.  35... ii.  1220  b,  1229 
 a,  1898  b,  iv.  3587  a, 
 
 8610  a 
 xxiv. . .  .1. 103  a,  ii.  1417  a 
 
 xxiv  10 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xxiv.  17 ii.   1116  a 
 
 xxiv.  18 i   624  b 
 
 xxiv.  20 iv.  2767  a 
 
 xxiv.  24 iv.  3089  a 
 
 xxiv.  28 i.  629  b 
 
 xxiv.  41 iii.  19.34  b 
 
 XXV.  1 ii.  1589  a 
 
 XXV.  7 iii.   1805  a,  n. 
 
 x.xv.  25 i.  589  a,  ;;. 
 
 XXV  27 iii.  2  04  b 
 
 x.xvi.  6 ii.  1613  a 
 
 xxvi.  7 ii.  1617  a,  iii. 
 
 1814  a 
 
 xxvi.  15 iii  2526  a 
 
 xxvi.  23 i.  6113  a 
 
 xxvi  30.  ..i.  67  b,  ii.  1376 
 
 a  n.,  iii  2.345  b 
 
 xxvi.  31,33.  ...iii.  22j9  a 
 
 xxvi.  53 ii.  16i7  a, 
 
 iii.  2f.75  a 
 
 xxvi.  63 iv.  3)89  b 
 
 x.xvi.  63,  64.  ...iv.  8092  b 
 
 xxvi.  64 iv.  2961  a 
 
 x.xvi.  69.  .1.  503  a,  ii.  983  b 
 xxvi.  71 ii.  984  a,  iii. 
 
 2565  a 
 xxvii.  2 ii.  964  a,  iii. 
 
 2527  a 
 xxvii.  3,  5,  6,^.. iii.  2526a 
 
 xxvii.  4 ii.  1384  b 
 
 xxvii.  6 i.  491  b,  iii. 
 
 i527  b.  n. 
 
 xxvii.  6,  7 ii.  1.502  a, 
 
 xxvii.  7 i.  332  b 
 
 xxvii.  8 i.  19  b 
 
 xxvii.  9.  .i.  20  a,  iii.  22  9  b 
 
 xxvii.  9,  10 ii.  1503  a 
 
 iii.  2567  b,  iv.  3608  b 
 
 xxvii.  15 iii.  2.347  a 
 
 xxvii.  17 i.  245  a,  iii. 
 
 2115  a 
 
 xxvii.  19 iii    2';17  b 
 
 xxvii.  19,  24-54.  .ii.  1384  b 
 xxvii.  26 i.  513  b,  iii. 
 
 2570  b 
 
 xxvii,  28 i.  624  a 
 
 xxvii.  34 i.  862  a,  iv. 
 
 3449  a 
 
 xxvii.  38 i.  511  a,  n. 
 
 xxvii.  45 i.550  a 
 
 xxvii.  51 iii.  2.338  b 
 
 xxvii.  52,53.  ...iv.  2185  b 
 xxvii.  63.  .  .  .ii.   1271  b.  n. 
 
 xxvii.  56 ii.  1475  a 
 
 xxvii.  65.  ..!iii.  2529b,  n. 
 xxvii.  66 i.  471  a 
 
 MARK 
 
 i.  7 iv.  2838  a 
 
 i.  10 i.  241a,n. 
 
 i.  29 i  94a,  n. 
 
 i.  32 i.  568  a,  n. 
 
 ii.  1 i.  381a 
 
 ii.  14 i.  73b,ii.l504a 
 
 ii.  22 iv,  2139  b 
 
 ii.  26 i.6b,f. 
 
 ii.  27 i.  568  b,  n. 
 
 iii.  16  ff i.  94  a 
 
 iii.  17 ii.  1421  b 
 
 iii.  18 i.  352  a,  b,  ii. 
 
 1504  a,  iv.  3214  a 
 iii.  20,  21,81.... ii.  1205  b 
 
 iii.  21 iii.  1812  b,  1820 
 
 a,.)i. 
 
 iii.  28 i.  315  b 
 
 iv.  17 iii.  2209  a 
 
 iv.  35-41 iv  30>8a 
 
 iv.  8-; iv.3008a,  ra. 
 
 iv.  38...i.  261a,  iii.  2532  b 
 
 V.  8,  4 i.  407  b 
 
 v.  9....ii.  1627  a,  iii.  1818  a 
 
 V.  14 i.  820  b 
 
 V.  23 ii.l599a 
 
 V.  34 iv.  2795  a,  M. 
 
 V.  43 ii.  1616  b 
 
 vi.  3.  ...ii.  1475  a,  1487  b, 
 
 iii.  2215  a 
 
 vi.  8. .iii.  2647  b,  iv.  2873  a 
 
 vi.  11 i.  628  a 
 
 vi.  15 iii.  21.30  a,  )i. 
 
 vi.  21,  22 ii.l427a 
 
 vi.  25  i.  887  b 
 
 vi.  25,  28 i.413a 
 
 vi.  27 i.  790  b 
 
 vi.36,  56 1.820  b 
 
 vii.  3. . .  .iii.  2645  a,  «.,  iv. 
 
 8485  b 
 
 vii.  4....  i.  287  b,  n.,  255  a, 
 
 iv.  3163  a 
 
 vii.  11. .i.  491  b,iii.  2527  b, 
 
 n.,  iv.  3209  a 
 
 vii.  27 i.612b 
 
 vii.  81. ...iii.  2515  b,  n.,  iv. 
 
 3629  b 
 
 viii.  15 ii.  1866  b 
 
 viii.  22 i.  298  a 
 
 viii.  23 i.  316  a 
 
 viii.  27 iv.8445  b 
 
 viii.  34,  .35 iv.  3538  a 
 
 ix.  6 iv.  3551a 
 
 ix.  17,18 iii.  1865  b 
 
 ix.  17-26 ii.  1699  b 
 
 ix.  42 iii.  1935  b 
 
 ix.  42,  43,  45,  47 iii. 
 
 2209  a 
 
 ix.  44,46 iv.  3558  a 
 
 ix.  44-49 iv.  3456 
 
 X.  1 ii.  1488  a 
 
 X.  3 ii.  1.504  a 
 
 X.  13 iv.  3135  b,  n. 
 
 X.  17,18 iii.  1830  », 
 
 X  39 i.  237  a,  ii.  1424 
 
 X.  43,44 iv.  3538  a 
 
 X.  50 i.  624  b 
 
 xi.  1-11 ii  1.378  a 
 
 xi.  13 i.  821a 
 
 xii.  26 i.  306  a,  3.36  b 
 
 xii.  35  ff ii.  14.36  b 
 
 xii.  39 iv.  2751  b 
 
 xii.  41.. ..i.  71  a,  iv.  .3.321a 
 
 xiii.  1 iv.  3116  a 
 
 xiii.  3 ii.  1312  a 
 
 xiii.  9 iv.  31.38  b 
 
 xiii.  21 i.  g37b 
 
 xiii.  35. .i.  435  a,  iv.  8486  b 
 
 xiv.  3.  . . .  i.  58  b,  59  a,  ii. 
 
 1613  a,  1617  a,  iii.  1814  a 
 
 xiv.  12  iii.  2347  b 
 
 xiv.  15 iii.  1843  b 
 
 xiv.  20 i.603a 
 
 xiv.  26 ii.  1876  a,  n. 
 
 xiv.  27,  29 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xiv.  36... i.  3  b,ii,  159^  a 
 
 xiv.  51 iv.  2964  a 
 
 xiv.  51,  52.  ...ii.  1422  a,  n. 
 
 xiv.  61,62 iv.  3092  b 
 
 xiv.  66 503  a,  ii. 988  b 
 
 xiv.  68 ii.  983  b,  iii. 
 
 2565  b 
 
 XV.  15 ii.  1.599  a 
 
 XV.  16 i  508  a 
 
 3663 
 
 XV.  21... i.  95a,  iv.  2746a 
 
 XV.  23., i.  862  a,  ii.  2045  a, 
 
 iv.  3449  a,  3544  a 
 
 XV.  40 iii.  1813  a 
 
 xvi,  9 iii,  1813  a 
 
 xvi,  9-20,  ...iii.  2128a,  b, 
 
 iv.  3305  b 
 
 xvi.  16 i.  533  a 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 i.  8 i.  787  a 
 
 i.  5.,,ii,  1383  b,  iii,  2585b 
 
 i.  26 ii.  1883  b 
 
 i.  28 iii.  1818  a,  b, 
 
 iv,  3430  a 
 
 i.  39 ii.  1.519  b 
 
 i.  39,  65 ii,  1077  b 
 
 i.  48 iii,  1818  b 
 
 i,  63 iv.  3163  a,  3575  b 
 
 i.  69 ii.  1090  b,  n. 
 
 ii.  2.  ,..i.  525  a,  f.,ii.  1348 
 b,  iii.  2617  b 
 
 ii.  7 i.  295  a,  507  b 
 
 ii.  8 i.  295  b,  n 
 
 ii.  9 iv.  2960  b 
 
 ii.  29-32 iv.  8044  b 
 
 ii.  35.  ...iii.  1819  a,  1826  b 
 
 ii.  43-45 i.  266  a 
 
 ii.  48,  49 iii.  1819  b 
 
 iii.  1 iii.  2689  b 
 
 iii.  2 ii.  1069  a 
 
 iii.  3 iv,  2697  b 
 
 iii.  11 i.  621b 
 
 iii.  14 iii  2670  a 
 
 iii.  28-28 iv.  3094a 
 
 iii  27 iii.  2107  a 
 
 iii.  33 i.  145  b 
 
 iv.  17.  ..i.  .306  a,  iv.  8576  b 
 
 iv.  19 ii.  1487  a 
 
 iv.  20 i.  571b,  iii. 
 
 1942  b 
 
 iv.  25 iv.  2935  b 
 
 V.  18 iii.  1860  a,  n. 
 
 V.  19.... iv. 3249b 
 
 V.  27 ii.  1504  a 
 
 vi.  1 iii,  2433  a,  M. 
 
 vi.  1  ff i.  820  b 
 
 vi,  15 i,  73b 
 
 vi.  17 ii. 1365b 
 
 vi.  19 iii.  1860  a 
 
 vi.  22 i.  93  a,  788  a 
 
 vi.  33 i.  622  a 
 
 vi.  41,42 iii  2028  a 
 
 vii.  4 ii,  11.39  b 
 
 vii.  11-15 iii,  2059  a 
 
 vii.  14 i.  475  b 
 
 vii.  18,20 ii.  1728  b 
 
 vii.  24-28 ii,  1866  a 
 
 vii  36 iii.  1844  ii  n. 
 
 vii.  37-50 iii.  1814  a 
 
 vii.  88 ii.  1104  a,  iv. 
 
 2837  b 
 
 vii.  38,  44 iv.  8486  a 
 
 vii.  42 i.  842  b 
 
 vii.  45 i.  232  b 
 
 vii.  46 i.  100  b 
 
 vii.  60 iv.  2795  a,  ?i. 
 
 viii.  1 iv.  3445  b 
 
 viii.  10 ii.  13.55  a 
 
 viii  22-25 iv.  3008  t 
 
 viii.  31 i.  579  ■■>■,  ii. 
 
 1038  b 
 
 viii.  43  ff iv.  3350  b 
 
 viii.  44 ii.  1042  a,  iii. 
 
 1860  a 
 
 viii,  61 ii.  1420  »,«. 
 
 viii.  54 ii,  1.591  a 
 
 viii.  55 iii    1860  a 
 
 ix.  5 i.  628  a 
 
 ix.  7 ii.  1398  a 
 
 ix.  10 i.  298  a 
 
 ix.l2 iv.  3586  b,  n. 
 
 ix.  23,24 iv.3538a 
 
 ix.  28,37 ii. 10771) 
 
 ix.  31 iii.  2025  a 
 
 ix.  32 •.  ..iv.  3-319  b 
 
 ix.  85 iii.  2025  b 
 
 ix  37 ii.  1048  a 
 
 ix.  61-56 i.  707  b 
 
 ix.  52  ff ii.  1099  a,  n. 
 
 ix.  68 iii.  2107  a 
 
 ix.  62 iv.  3096  b,  n. 
 
3664 
 
 X.4:       ..  Mi.  2647  b,  iv. 
 2795  b 
 
 X.  11 i.  628  a 
 
 X.  18 iv.  2848  b 
 
 X.  22 iv.  3538  a 
 
 X.  29,  30 i.  329  a 
 
 X.  31 iii.  3585  b 
 
 X.  36 iv.  3122  a 
 
 X.  38 iv.  3445  b 
 
 xi.3 i.  323  b 
 
 xi.  5 i.  324  a 
 
 xi.  11 i.  829  b 
 
 xi.  16 ii.  1351  b 
 
 xi.  28 iii.  1820  a 
 
 xi.38 iv.  348ob 
 
 xi.  44-46 ii.  1612  b 
 
 xi.  49 iv.  3550  b 
 
 XI.  52 iv.  2872  a 
 
 xii.l3 ii.  1035  b 
 
 xii.  17 iv.  2751  a,  ji. 
 
 xii.  33 iii.  2647  b,  iv. 
 
 2873  a 
 
 xii.  50 i.  237  a 
 
 xii.  55 iv.  3540  b 
 
 xiii.  8 i.  627  b 
 
 xiii.  11 iii., 1866b 
 
 xiii.  15 i.  507  b 
 
 xiii.  16 iv.  2850  a 
 
 xiii.  19 iii.  2041b 
 
 xiii.  31 ii.  1398  a,  iv. 
 
 3538  a 
 
 xiii.  33 ii.  1359  a 
 
 xiv.  7,8 iv.  2751b 
 
 xiv.  10 iv.  3558  b 
 
 xiv.  12 iii.  1842  b 
 
 xiv.  15-24 iii.  1843  a 
 
 XV.  8,9 iii.  2526  a 
 
 XV.  11-32 i.  67  a 
 
 XV.  16 ii.  1110  a 
 
 XV.  22 i.  625  a 
 
 xvi.8 i.  8S8a 
 
 xvi.  12 i.589a 
 
 xvii.  1 iii.  2209  a 
 
 XTii.2.  .'.i.l82a,iii.l935b 
 
 xvii.  6 .  . . .  i.  834  a 
 
 xvii.  7 i.  337  b 
 
 xvii.  21 ii.  1542  b 
 
 xvii.  37 i.  629  b 
 
 xviii.  18,19 iii.  1830  a 
 
 xviii.  35-43.  ...i.  248  b,  f. 
 
 xviii.  38 i.249a 
 
 xix.  1 iv.  3.585  b.  n. 
 
 xix.  2 iii.  26.37  b 
 
 xix.  4 i.  834  a 
 
 xix.  5.  7 iv.  3586  a 
 
 xix.  12-27 iii.  2569  a 
 
 xix.  13 iii.  2208  a 
 
 xix.  17,  19 i.468a 
 
 xix.  20 iii.  2067  b 
 
 xix.  29-44 ii.  1.373  a 
 
 XX.  11 i.  743  b 
 
 XX.  19-25 iii.  2003  a 
 
 XX.  36 i.  96  a 
 
 XX.  41ff ii.  1436  b 
 
 XX.  46 iv.  2751  b 
 
 xxi.l iv.  3321a 
 
 xxi.  5 i.  150  b 
 
 xxi.  9 i.  337  b 
 
 xxii.  4 i.  384  b 
 
 xxii.  19,  20 ii.  1357  b, 
 
 1696  b 
 
 xxii.  25 i.  781  a 
 
 xxii.  28.  ...ii.  1384  b,  iv. 
 
 3207  b 
 
 xxii.  35,  36 iii.  2647  b 
 
 xxii.  51 ii.  1764  a 
 
 xxii.  52  ....  ii.  1645  b,  «., 
 iii.  2570  a,  iv.  3233  b 
 
 xxiii.  5 ii.  1488  b 
 
 xxiii.  22-47 ii.  1334  b 
 
 xxiii.  23 ii.  1139  b 
 
 xxiii.  32 iii.  2273  a 
 
 xxiii.  33 i.  346  b 
 
 xxiv.  13 i.  730  b 
 
 xxiv.  18 i.  73  b,  ii. 
 
 1786  b 
 xxiv.  27-32, 45. .  .ii.  1447 b 
 xxiv.  50 ii.  907  a 
 
 JOUN. 
 
 i.  13 iii.  2114  a 
 
 i.l4 iv.  2960b 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 i.l7.. iii.  2415  b,iv.3428b. 
 
 i.  18 i.  16  a,  iii.  1844 
 
 a,  n.,iv.2135b,»^. 
 
 i.  25 iii.  2607  a 
 
 i.  27 iv.  28.38  a 
 
 i.  28 i.  284  a 
 
 i.29 iv.2860a 
 
 i.  37-40 ii.  1421a 
 
 i.  40(39) ii.  1102  a 
 
 i.43 iii.  2486  b 
 
 i.  44 iv.  3445  b 
 
 i.  47 ii.  1389  a 
 
 i.  51 i.  96  a 
 
 ii.l i.  284  b 
 
 ii.  4 iii.  1819  b 
 
 ii.  8 iii.  1845  a 
 
 ii.  9 ii.964a 
 
 ii.  15.  ..i.  492  a,  iii.  20('4  b 
 
 ii.  19 ii.l43)b 
 
 ii.20. ii.  1(1.51  b 
 
 ii.23 ii.  1351b 
 
 iii.l iii.  2145  b 
 
 iii.  3-5...  ii.  1433  b,  and  «. 
 
 iii.  5 i.  2.39  b 
 
 iii.  8 iv.  3.541  a 
 
 iii.  10 ii.  1360  b,  iii. 
 
 18.30  a,  2607  a 
 
 iii.  14,15 iv.  2859  a. 
 
 2931a 
 
 iii.  23 i.  37  a 
 
 iii.  33 i.  143  b 
 
 iv.  5.  ...i.  8  b,  ii.  1470  b, 
 
 iv.  2956  a 
 
 iv.  6, 12 iv.  29.57  b 
 
 iv.  6,52 ii.ll02a 
 
 iv.  20 ii.  1064  a,  iv. 
 
 2958  a,  II. 
 
 iv.  35 iii.  2646  b,»i. 
 
 iv.  46,  47 iii.  2191  b 
 
 V.  1 iii.  2646  b 
 
 v.  1-6 iv.  .3456 
 
 V.  2 i.  2.33  a 
 
 V.  3,  4 .ii.  14-30  a,  n. 
 
 y.  4 iv.  3039  b 
 
 V.  17 i.  893  a,  n. 
 
 V.18 iv.2760a 
 
 V.  40 iv.  3538  a 
 
 v.  46.  ...iii.  1906  b,  2025  a 
 
 vi iv.  .3460  b 
 
 vi.4  iii.  2647  a 
 
 vi.  16-25 iv..3Ui)8a 
 
 vi.  32-58 ii.  1681  b 
 
 vi.51,53 iv.2859b 
 
 vi.  66 ii.  13.55  a 
 
 vi.  71 ii.  1495  b 
 
 vii.  5ff i.  329  b 
 
 vii.  17 iii.  2597  a,  n., 
 
 iv.  .3538  a 
 
 vii.  19 iv.  3160  b,  ti. 
 
 vii.  .31 ii.  1.351b 
 
 vii.  35. .  .i.  387  a,  ii.  1019  a 
 
 vii.  37,  38 iv.  ,3161  a 
 
 vii.  39 iii.  2415  b 
 
 vii.  49 li.  1610  b 
 
 vii.  50 ii.  1.360  b 
 
 vii.63-viii.  12..  ..  ii.  1430 
 a,  n.,  iii.  2128  a  b 
 
 viii.  1-11 iv.  3.317  a 
 
 viii.  1-12  iv.  3161  a 
 
 viii.  12 i.  3.56  a,  b 
 
 viii.  20 iv.  3321a 
 
 viii.  39 ii.  1425  b 
 
 viii.  41 iii.  1797  a,  «. 
 
 viii.  44 iv.  2848  b, 
 
 3538  a 
 
 viii.  46 ii.  1384  b 
 
 viii.  56 i.  15  b,  iii. 
 
 1900  a 
 
 ix.  2 iii.  2477  a,  n. 
 
 ix.  22 i.93a 
 
 ix.  22.  23,  34,  35.  .i.  787  b 
 
 ix.  27 iv.  3.538  a 
 
 X.  1-16 iv.  2961b 
 
 X.  3 iii  2565  b 
 
 X.  3,4 iv.  2990  a 
 
 X.  4 iv.  2961  b 
 
 X.  16 iv.  2963  a 
 
 X.  22.  ...ii.  1294  b,  >i.,  iv. 
 2960  a 
 
 X.  33 i  108  a,  )i. 
 
 X.  40 i    284  b 
 
 xi.  2 iii.  1814  b 
 
 xi.  18 ii.  1436  b 
 
 xi.  ,39 iv.  3277  b 
 
 xi.  44 iii.  2067  b 
 
 xi.  51 ii.  1066  b 
 
 xi.  .55.  .i.  2.33  a,  Ui.  2645  a 
 
 xii   3.  .iii.  1814  b,  24.36  a, 
 
 iv.  .3486  a 
 
 xii.  6... i.  225  b,  iii.  2647  b 
 
 -xii.  7 i.  333  b 
 
 xii.  12-19 u.  1.373  a 
 
 xii.  13 iii.  2324  b 
 
 xii.  22 i.  94  a 
 
 xii.  22,28 iii.  2487  a 
 
 xii.  24,  26 ii.  14,36  b 
 
 xii.  29 iv.  3208  a 
 
 xii.  31 iv.  28.50  a 
 
 xii.  32 ii.  1436  b 
 
 xiii.  1,2,  29.  .iii.  2.348  a,  £f. 
 
 xiii.  1-16 ii.  1683  a 
 
 xiii.  4 i.  624  b 
 
 xiii.  6 i.  2.53  a 
 
 xiii.  5,  6 iv.  2837  b 
 
 xiii.  10.  .i.  255  a,  iv.  3486  a 
 
 xiii.  16,20 ii.  1436  b 
 
 xiii.  23 i.  16  a 
 
 xiii.  2.3-26. .  .iii.  1844  b,  /I. 
 
 xiii.  26 iii.  1844  b 
 
 xiii.  29 iii.  2647  b 
 
 xiv.  26 ii.  1355  b 
 
 xiv.  27 iv.  2795  a 
 
 xiv.  31 ii.  1436  b 
 
 XV.  1-8 i.  67  a 
 
 XV.  4-10 ii.  1.347  b 
 
 -xvi.  1 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xvii.  17-19 iv.  2859  b 
 
 .xviii.  28-xix.  16. .  .iii.  2529 
 
 xviii.  l...i.  401  b,  ii.  908  b 
 
 xviii.  3 ii.  1589  a 
 
 -xviii.  12 iii.  2449  a,  7i. 
 
 xviii.  15.  .i.  503  a,  ii.  983  b 
 
 -xviii.  18 i.  473  b 
 
 xviii.  28.  .ii.  983  b,  iii.  2348 
 
 a,  ff.,  iv.  2924  a 
 
 xviii.  31  .  .iii.  2617  b,  iv. 
 
 2839  a 
 
 xviii  33,34 iii.  2528  a 
 
 xix.  14 ii.  1102  b 
 
 xix.  14,  31...  iii.  2348  a,  ff. 
 
 xix.  17,20 i.  733  a 
 
 xix.  19 iii.  2571  a 
 
 xix.  23 i.620a 
 
 xix.  25.  .i.  73  b,  329  b,  471 
 b.  iii.  1813  a,  iv.  2792  b 
 
 xLx.  26 i.  330  b 
 
 xix.  27  .ii.  1617  a,  iii.  1820  b 
 
 XX.  1 iv.  3278  a 
 
 XX.  7 iii.  2067  b 
 
 XX.  14  15 iii   1813  b 
 
 XX.  16 iii.  2657  a 
 
 XX.  17 iii.  1813b 
 
 xxi.  1-8 iv  3008  a 
 
 xxi.7.  ...i.  620b, 621a, ii. 
 898  a 
 
 x.xi.  9 i.  473  b 
 
 x-x).  12 iii.  1842b 
 
 xxi.  18-22... iii.  2450  a,  n. 
 
 ACT.S. 
 
 i.  4-25 iv.  3460  b 
 
 i.  12 ii.  9u7a 
 
 i.  13.  ..i.  73b,  ii.  1420a,  «. 
 
 i.  16-20 ii.  1503  b 
 
 i.  18 ii.  1502a 
 
 i.  19 i.  19b 
 
 i.  21-23 iv.  293 -ib 
 
 ii ii.  1417a 
 
 ii.  1 iii. 2433b 
 
 ii.  2 iv.  3541a 
 
 ji.  5 iii.  2605  b 
 
 ii.  7 ii.  1495  b 
 
 ii.  10 iv.  2751  b,  3122 
 
 a,  ?!.,  b,  ?i. 
 
 ii.  13.  ...ii.  1733  b,iv.  3541 
 
 a,  3544  a 
 
 ii.  23 ii.  1610b 
 
 ii.  31 ii.  10.38a 
 
 ii.  36 iv.  3090  a 
 
 ii.38 i.  241  a,  b 
 
 ii.  42,  46,  47 ii.  1682  b 
 
 ii.  47 iv.  34-36  b,  ». 
 
 iii.  14.  ...ii.  1378a,  1384b 
 
 Iii.  17 iv.  305(1  h 
 
 iv   1,  6 iii.  2586  a 
 
 iv.  1,26 ii.  1645  b,  n. 
 
 iv.  13 iii.  -AiQn 
 
 iv.  10 ii.  1516  a 
 
 iv.  36 i.  523b 
 
 V.  15.  ...i.  468  a,  iv.  3163b 
 
 V.  17 iii.  2586  a 
 
 V.  30 i.l9b,iv.  3321a 
 
 vi.2 iv.3163a 
 
 vi.  7.  ..ii.l'<45b,iii.2586a 
 
 vi.  8 iv.  3110  b 
 
 vi.  9ff ii.  1,339  a 
 
 vi.  11 iv.  3110  b 
 
 vii. .iv.3111a,f., 3113b.  f. 
 
 vii   2 iii.  26(  5  b 
 
 vii.  2-53....  iv.Sllla,  ff. 
 
 vii.  3 i.  7  o 
 
 vii.  4 i.  13b,». 
 
 vii.  13 ii.  1516  a 
 
 vii.  16 i.  7  b,  iv.  2956a 
 
 vii.  19 i.743b 
 
 vii.  22,  23,30.  ...ii.  1506  b 
 vii.  38.  .i.  489  a,  iii.  2264  b 
 vii.43.)ii.l992b,iv.  2703b 
 
 vii.  46 iv.  3152  a.  n. 
 
 vii.  58.  .i   624b,iv.  3449  b 
 
 viii.  3 iii.  2364  a,  n. 
 
 viii.  5 ii.  1362  a 
 
 viii.  9 ii.  1737  b 
 
 viii.  16 i.  241  a,  b 
 
 viii.  26 300  b,  301a 
 
 viii.  27 i.  78'i  b,  n. 
 
 viii.37.iii.2r28a,2488a,n. 
 
 viii.  39 i.  241  b,  n. 
 
 ix. ,  xxii. ,  xxvi . .  .iii.  2364  b 
 
 ix.  Iff ii.  1494a 
 
 ix.  1,14 ii.  1073b 
 
 ix.  2..  i.  267  a,  n.,iv.  3488  b 
 
 ix.  3-19 iii.  2-364  b 
 
 ix.  5 ii.  932b 
 
 ix.  9 i.  316  a 
 
 ix.  11 iv.  3r.;3a 
 
 ix.  17 iii.  2365a 
 
 ix.  23 iii  2366a 
 
 X.  1 i.  164a 
 
 X.  2-5 i.  S4b 
 
 X.47 i.237b 
 
 X.  48 i.241a,  b 
 
 xi.  19,  20 ii.  1690  b 
 
 xi.20 ii. 1039b 
 
 xi.  5!8 i.  37  b 
 
 xii.  l...ii.  1201a,  iv. 3445 a 
 xii.  4.  ...i.  637 b,iv.  3486b 
 xii.  6.  ...i.  164a,  iii.  2651b 
 
 xii.  6,  7 i.  407  b 
 
 xii.  8 i.  624b 
 
 xii.  13 iii.  2565  b 
 
 xii.  20 i.  410  a,  783  a 
 
 xii.  21 ii.  1053  b 
 
 Xii.  21-23 iv.  3215  b 
 
 xiii.l ii.  1398  a 
 
 xiii.  5 iii.  1942  b 
 
 xiii.  6,  8 ii.  1737  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  7 iii.  2617  b 
 
 xiii.  9 iv.  2857  a 
 
 xiii.  20...  ii.  1514  a,  1545  a 
 
 xiii.  21 ii.  1538  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  25  .i.  866  a,  iv.  2838  a 
 
 xiii.  42 iii.  2605  b 
 
 xiii.  43,50 iii.  2007  b 
 
 xiii.  50 iii.  2370  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  51 i.  628  a 
 
 xiv.  11 ii.  1700  a,  «., 
 
 iii.  1895  a 
 
 xiv.  12,  13 ii.  1518  b 
 
 xiv.  13 i.  870  b 
 
 xiv.  16 iv.  3369  a 
 
 XV.  3 i.  328  b 
 
 XV.  3ff iii.   2635  a,  ji. 
 
 XV.  7  i.498b 
 
 XV.  10 ii.  1608  H 
 
 XV.  20 i.  8a3a 
 
 XV.  23 iv.  2795  b 
 
 XV.  23-29 i.  759  a,  n. 
 
 XV.  2.3,41 i.  462b,M. 
 
 XV.  29 ii.  1003  b 
 
 XV.  36 i.  247  b 
 
 XV.  41 i.  463  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  2,3,4.    .iv.  3253  a,  b 
 
 xvi.  6 i.  178  a 
 
 xvi.  7 ji.  2373  b,  n 
 
INDEX. 
 
 xvi.  11,12 iv.  8006  b 
 
 xvi.  12 iii.  2490  b,  «., 
 
 2493  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  13 iii.  2490  a,  n. 
 
 xvi.  13, 14 ii.  1727  b 
 
 xvi.  13-37 iii.  2490  a 
 
 xvi.  16-18 ii.  1748  b 
 
 xvi.  19,20 i.  477  a 
 
 .xvi.  19-22 iv.  3-321  b 
 
 xvi.  22 iii.  2017  b 
 
 xvi.  25 ii.  1376  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  85 iv.  2927  a 
 
 xvi.  36 iv.  2795  a,  n. 
 
 xvii.  4 iii    '.i370  a,  n 
 
 xvii.  5.  ..ii.  1653  b,  1792  a 
 
 xvii.  7 iv.  3224  b 
 
 xvii.  9 ii.  1599  a 
 
 xvii.  11 ii.  1727  b 
 
 xvii.  15,  16..  ...iii.  2376  b 
 
 xvii.  16-34 iv.  3460  b 
 
 xvii.  17 i.  152  a 
 
 xvii.  19-31...  iii.  1808  a,  b 
 
 xvii.  21 i.  194  b 
 
 xvii.  22 i.  194  b.  iii. 
 
 2376  a 
 xvii.  23 i.  77  b,  596  b, 
 
 iii.  2376  a 
 
 xvii  26 ii.  1019  a 
 
 xvii.  24fif ii.  1705  b 
 
 xvii.  26 iv.  3285  b 
 
 xviii.  2 i.  131b,  132  a 
 
 xviii.  5...iv.  3223  a,  3253 
 b,  II. 
 
 xviii.  6 i.  628  a 
 
 xviii.  12.  . .  .i.  20  b,  833  b, 
 iii.  2589  b,  2617  b 
 
 xviii.  12-17 iv.  3321b 
 
 xviii.  18 ii.  981  a,  iii. 
 
 2076  a,  n  ,  :;378  a,  «., 
 
 iv.  34yl  a 
 
 xviii.  24-28 i.  65  a 
 
 xix.  1-6 i.  2.34  b 
 
 xix  3,  4 ii.  1426  a 
 
 xix.  4 ii  1350  a 
 
 xix.  5 i.  241  a,  b 
 
 xix.  9,23 iv.3488  b 
 
 xix.  12 u.  1017  a 
 
 xix.  16 ir.  2864  a 
 
 xix.  19 i.  90  a 
 
 xix.  24 i.  582  a 
 
 xix.  24,  25 i.  749  a 
 
 xix.  28,39 iv.  2705  a 
 
 xix.  35 ii.  1519  n,  n., 
 
 iv.  3558  b 
 
 xix.  87 i.  462  a 
 
 xix.  38  .i.  749  b,  ui.  2617 
 b,iv.  .3322  a 
 
 XX.  2 iii.  2.380  a 
 
 XX.  8-6 iv.  3254  a 
 
 XX.  6 ii.  1454  b,  n. 
 
 XX.  7 ii.  1677  a 
 
 XX.  S ii.  1589  a 
 
 XX.  9 iv.  3540  a 
 
 XX.  11 ii.  1684  a 
 
 XX.  13,  14 i.  185  a 
 
 XX.  17-35 iv.  3254  a 
 
 XX.  18-35 iii.  2.385  n,n. 
 
 XX.  24 i.  866  a 
 
 XX.  28 iv.  3487  a,  n. 
 
 XX.  35.  .i.  .311  b,iv.  3317  a 
 
 xxi.  15 i.892a 
 
 xxi.  24 i.  413  a,  iii. 
 
 2075  a,  iv.  3451  a 
 
 xxi.  24,26 iii.  2645  a 
 
 xxi.  27  ff ii.  1591b 
 
 x-xi.  27-8t iii.  2338  b 
 
 xxi.  31 i.  164  a 
 
 xxi.  .33 i.  407  b 
 
 xxi.  34 i.  870  b 
 
 xxi.  39 iii.  1845  b 
 
 xxii.  4 iv.  3488  b 
 
 xxii  14 iii.  2.365  a 
 
 xxii.  15,20 iii.  1811a 
 
 xxii.  16 i.  288  b 
 
 xxii.  22 iii.  2387  a,  n. 
 
 xxii.  23 i.  628  a 
 
 xxiii.2 ii.  1069  a,  iii. 
 
 2643  b 
 
 xxiii  3-6 iii.  2387  b 
 
 xxiii.  6.  iii.  2388  a,  2478  a 
 
 xxiii.  6-11 iii.  2.388  a 
 
 xxiii.  8 iv.  2782  b 
 
 xxiii.  15 iii.  2264  b 
 
 xxiii.  23 i.  164  a 
 
 xxiii.  26 i.  787  a 
 
 xxiv.  5 iv.  2734  a 
 
 xxiv.  10 iii.  2590  a 
 
 xxiv.  14 iv.  2901a 
 
 xxiv.  14,  22.  . . .  iv.  3488  b 
 
 xxiv.  17 iii.  2386  a, »?. 
 
 xxiv.  24 iii.  2617  b 
 
 xxiv.  25 iii.  2389  a,  n. 
 
 XXV.  9 i.  129  a 
 
 XXV.  11 i.  129  a,  469  b 
 
 x.xv.  12 iii.  2617  b 
 
 XXV.  23 iii.  2590  b,  n. 
 
 x.xv.  26 i.  818  b,  iii. 
 
 2617  b 
 xxvi.  4,  5. .  .iii.  2363  b,  n. 
 
 xxvi.  7 ii   1139  b 
 
 xxvi.  9 ii.  1494  a 
 
 xxvi.  10 iv.  3449  b 
 
 xxvi.  14.  .ii.  93i  b,  1591b 
 xxvi.  28,29.  ...ni.  2.390b 
 xxvii.  {passi7n)  iv.  3004 ff. 
 
 xxvii.  1 i.  164  a 
 
 xxvii.  3 i.  743  b 
 
 xxvii.  9 i.  813  b 
 
 xxvii.  11 iii.  1830  a 
 
 xxvii.  13 i.  185  b 
 
 x.xvii.  13,  14 i.  507  a 
 
 xxvii.  14.  . .  .iii.  2.391  a,  n., 
 iv.  3541  a 
 
 xxvii.  16 i.484a 
 
 xxvii.  17 i.  35  a,  iii. 
 
 2391b,  2652  b 
 
 xxvii.  27 i.  3^  a 
 
 xxvii.  27-29.  ...iii.  1878a 
 
 x.xvii.  35 ii.  1684  a 
 
 xxvii.  38.  ...'ii.  2391  a,  ■«. 
 
 xxvii.  39 iii.  1878  a 
 
 xxvii.  41 iv.  2876  a 
 
 xxviii.1,2,  10.  .iii.  1879  a 
 
 xxviii.  2 i.  246  a 
 
 xxviii.2,8 iii.  1878  b 
 
 xxviii.  3 iv.  29.30  b 
 
 xxviii.  4 i.  246  a 
 
 xxviii.  7 iii.  2638  a 
 
 xxviii.  8 i.316b 
 
 xxviii.  11 i.  395a 
 
 xxviii.  13 i.  485  b 
 
 xxviii.  15 i.  130  a 
 
 -xxviii.  16 i.  164  a,  388 
 
 a,  384  b,  385  a,  iii.  2392 
 a,  M. 
 
 xxviii.  16,20 i.  407  b 
 
 xxviii.  22 iv.  2901a 
 
 xxxii.39 iii.  1878  b 
 
 xxxiii.  2ff ii.  1049  a 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 i.  13-15 iv.  8460  b 
 
 i.  14 i.  245  b 
 
 i.  16 ii.  1389  a 
 
 i.  19  ff ii.  1705  b 
 
 i.  28 i.  489  a 
 
 i.31 iv.  .3325  b 
 
 ii.9,  10 ii.  1389  a 
 
 ii.  16 ii.  1096  b 
 
 ii.  29.  ...ii.  1476  b,  1494  a 
 
 iii.  25,  26 iv.  ^1861  b 
 
 iv.  18 ii.  1501b 
 
 V.  1 ii.  1209  a 
 
 V.  6-8 IV.  2861b 
 
 V.  8 ii.  1380  b 
 
 V.  12ff ii  1.384  a 
 
 V.  15-20 iv.  3094  a 
 
 vi.  4 i.240a,b 
 
 vii.  6 iv.  21.32  b 
 
 vii.  14-24 iv.  28.51b 
 
 viii.  5 iv.  2863  a 
 
 viii.  13 iii  2016  b 
 
 viii.  15 i.  33  b 
 
 viii.  23 iii.  2.3.56  a 
 
 viii.  29 i.  310  a 
 
 viii.  82 ii.  1380  b 
 
 ix.  3 i.  789  b 
 
 ix.4 iv.  2960  b 
 
 X.  7 i.  679a 
 
 x.12,13 ii.  1417  a 
 
 X.  14 iii.  2.574  b 
 
 X.  15 iii.  2574  b 
 
 X.  18  ii.   1661a 
 
 xi.  2 i.  7'  0  a 
 
 xi.  16 iii.  2356  a 
 
 xi.  16-25 iii.  2240  b 
 
 xi.  26 iv.  8090  a 
 
 xii.  3,16 iv.  2863a 
 
 xii.  12 ii.  1139  b 
 
 xii.  20 i.  473  a,  b 
 
 xiii.  1-3 iii.  2569  b 
 
 xiii.  2 i.  533  a 
 
 xiii.  3 iv.  3538  a 
 
 xiii.  9 iv.  8209  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  18 ii.  1085  a 
 
 xiv.  20 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xiv.  21 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xiv.  23 i.  5.33a 
 
 XV.  8 ii.  1476  b 
 
 XV.  19 ii.  1727  b 
 
 XV.  24 i.  .328  b 
 
 XV.  28 iii.  2395  a 
 
 xvi.  1,2 iii.  2514  a 
 
 xvi.  5 i.  20  b 
 
 xvi.  10 i.  1.55  a 
 
 xvi.  13 iv.  3046  a 
 
 -xvi.  21 iv.  3231b 
 
 xvi.  28.  .i.  783  a,  iii.  2651  a 
 
 xvi.  25,27 ii.  1606  b 
 
 xvi.  26 iv.  2874  a 
 
 1   CORINTHIANS. 
 
 i.  14 iv.  32.53  b 
 
 i.  22 iii.  2381  a 
 
 ii.  9..i.  711  a, ii.  1684b, n. 
 
 iv.  8 i.  569  a 
 
 iv.  4 i.  337  a 
 
 iv.  9.  ..i.  865  a,  iv.  3215  b 
 V.  1.  ...... .  .iii.  1796  a,  n. 
 
 V.  1,9,  11 ii.  1008b 
 
 V.  3-5 ii.  1112  a 
 
 V.  6-8 iii.  2854  b 
 
 vi.ll i.  238  b 
 
 vii.  8 iv.  3449  b 
 
 vii.  10-16 i.  610  a 
 
 vii.  12 iii.  1797  b 
 
 vii.  18  i.464b 
 
 viii.4ff iv.  3369  a 
 
 ix.  5.  .ii.  1504b,iii.  1813a 
 
 ix.  21 ii.  1610  b 
 
 ix  24.  .i.  865  b,  iii.  2575  b 
 
 ix.  25 ii.  1186  a 
 
 ix.  25,  27 i.  865  a 
 
 ix.  26 i.  57  a 
 
 ix.  27.  .i.  866  b,  iv.  2707  a 
 X.  1,  2..  i.  236  b,  2.37  .T,  n. 
 
 X.  2 iii.  2692  a 
 
 X.  4.  ...i.  124  b,  264  b,  iv. 
 3317  a 
 
 X.  4-29 iv.  3461  a 
 
 X.  12 ii.  1377  a 
 
 X.  16 iii.  2345  a,  iv. 
 
 3544  b 
 
 X.  16,21 ii.  1683  a 
 
 X.  26 iv.  2942  b 
 
 X.  32 ii.  1019  a 
 
 xi.  2 iv.  3316  b 
 
 xi.  5-15 iv.  3370  b 
 
 xi.  10 iii.  1805  a 
 
 xi.  18,  19 iv.  2901b 
 
 xi.  20 ii.  1680  a,  n. 
 
 xi.  2.3-25 ii.  1696  b 
 
 xi.  25 ii.  1681  b 
 
 xi.  29 i.  533  a 
 
 xi.  30,  83,  34.  ...ii.  1683  b 
 
 xi.  34 ii.  1684  a 
 
 xii i.  786  a 
 
 xii.  5 ii.  1041b 
 
 xii.  8-11 iii.  2592  a 
 
 xii.  13 i.  240  a 
 
 .xii.  28 i.311b 
 
 xiii.  1 iv.  8309  a 
 
 xiii.  2 iii.  2047  a 
 
 xiii.  12 iii.  1971  a 
 
 xiii.  13 i.  243  b 
 
 xiv.  2 iii.  2047  a 
 
 xiv.  9 i.  57  a 
 
 xiv.  11 i.  246  a 
 
 xiv.  16.  .i.  82  a,  iv.  3138  a 
 
 xiv.  21 Iv.  3310  a 
 
 xiv.  26 ii.  1113  a 
 
 .xiv.  85 iv.  3538  a 
 
 XV.  8 iii.  2.365  a 
 
 XV.  18 ii.  1347  b 
 
 XV.  27 ii.  18S4a 
 
 XV.  29 i.  241b 
 
 3665 
 
 XV.  32.  .i.  864  b,  iii.  2380  b 
 XV.  55.  ...ii.  1038  a,  10.39  b 
 
 xvi.  1,2 ii.  1677  a 
 
 xvi.  2 ii.l683b,iv 
 
 8135  b,  n. 
 
 xvi.  6 i.  328  b 
 
 xvi.  10,  11 iv.  8254  a 
 
 xvi.  22 i.789a 
 
 2  CORINTHIANS. 
 
 i.  9 i.  865  a 
 
 i.  19 iv.  ,3223  a 
 
 i.  21 i.  244  a,  b 
 
 i.  22...  i.  630  a,  iii.  2549  b 
 
 ii.  1 iii.  2380  a 
 
 iii,  3 iv.  3.576  a 
 
 iii.  7 ii.  1612  a 
 
 iii.  11-18 iv.  8461  a 
 
 iii.  13,  14 iii.  2023  a 
 
 iii.  14 iv.  3213  b 
 
 iv.  4 iv.  2850a 
 
 V.  1 iv,  3211b 
 
 v.5....i.  630  a,  iii.  2549  b 
 
 V.  14-21 iv.  2861  b 
 
 V.  18 ii.  1380  b 
 
 V.21 ii.  1.384  b 
 
 vi.  12 i.  .320  a 
 
 vi.  14,  17 iii.  1797  b 
 
 vi.  15 ii.  1138  a 
 
 .viii.  1.  .i.  614  a,  iv.  3551  b 
 
 viii.  16-24  iv.  3325  a 
 
 viii.  18 ii.  1693  b 
 
 ix.  11 iv.  3253  b,  ?i 
 
 X.  16 ii.  1661b 
 
 xi.  9 iv.  3225  b 
 
 xi.22.  ...ii.  1022  b,  1889  a 
 
 xi.  23-28 iii.  2383  a 
 
 xi.  25..i.  4.34  a,  iv.  3007  b 
 
 xi.  2r iii.  2079  b 
 
 xi.  29 iii.  2209  a 
 
 xi.  32.  ...i.  144  b,  871a, 
 
 ii  964  a,  1728  b,  iii 
 
 2366  b 
 
 xi.  33.  .i.  253  b,  iv.  .3540  a 
 
 xii.  1-4 iv.  8.319  a 
 
 xii.  2 ii.  1020  a,  1347  b 
 
 xii.  4 iii.  2338  a,  n. 
 
 xii.  7.  .iii.  2383  a,  iv.  2850 a 
 
 xii.  9 iv.  2960  b 
 
 xii.  21 ii.  1003  b,  iii. 
 
 2380  a 
 
 xiii.  2 iii.  2.380  a 
 
 xiii.  6,  7 iv.  2707  a 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 i.  8 i.  789  b 
 
 i.  14 iv.  .3316  b 
 
 i.  17  f ii.  978  b 
 
 i.  19 ii.  1422  b 
 
 j.  21..  i.  462  b,  M.,  iii.  2366 
 b,  n. 
 
 ii i.  24  b 
 
 ii.  1-15 iii.  2452  b 
 
 ii.  2.  .i.  593b, iii.  2371  a,?!. 
 
 ii.  3 iv.  .32o3b 
 
 ii.  11-14.  ...iii.  2372  b,  iv. 
 3339  b 
 
 ii.  13 i.  247  a,  n. 
 
 iii  H iii.  2574b 
 
 iii.  18 iv.  2860b 
 
 iii.  14.  .  ii.  1019  a 
 
 iii.  14-25 iv.8461a 
 
 iii.  16 ii.  1018  b 
 
 iii.  19... i.  la,  7b,ii.  1075 
 a,  1506  b 
 
 iii.  23-28 i.  2.39  b 
 
 iv.  2.  ..ii.  964  a,  ii.  1085  a, 
 «.,  iv.  3330  a 
 
 iv.  3,9 i.695b 
 
 iv.  4 iv.  2743  a 
 
 iv.  10 iii.  2111  b,  71. 
 
 iv.  18 iii.  2373a 
 
 iv.  15  iii.  2878  b,n. 
 
 iv.  22  ff ii.  978  a 
 
 iv.  24 i.  67  a 
 
 iv.  25 iii.  2366  a,  n. 
 
 iv.  25  ff ii.  1170  b,  n. 
 
 iv.  29 ii.  1145  a 
 
 V.  6 iii.  2026  H 
 
 V.  19-21 iv.  2901b 
 
 V.  20.  ,iii.  2561b,  iv.2901a 
 vi.  11 i.  758  b 
 
S666 
 
 vi.  17 i.  522a 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 i.  10 ii.  1380  b 
 
 i.  13 i.  244b 
 
 i.l4....i.  630  a,  iii.  2519  b 
 
 i.  21 iii.  2588  a 
 
 ii.  2 i.  56  b,  iii.  2669  a, 
 
 iv.  2850  b.  n. 
 
 ii.  14 iii.  2338  b 
 
 ii.  i?2 i.  4.54  b 
 
 iii.  10 iii.  2588  a 
 
 iv.  8 iv.  31i'5a 
 
 iv,  11 iv.  8136  a 
 
 iv.  18  iv.  3(i50b 
 
 iv.  30 i.  244  b 
 
 V   4 i.  489a 
 
 V.  14     ..i.  711  a.  ii.  937  a, 
 1684  b,  n. 
 
 V.  23 iv.  2S67  b 
 
 V.  26 i.  237  b,f, 
 
 V.  26,  27 iii.  1805  a 
 
 vi.  6 i.  796  b 
 
 vi.  12.  ...i.  57  a,  iii.  2587  b 
 vi.  20 i.  407  b 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 i  1 iii.  1943a 
 
 i.  13.  ,..i.  338  a,  iv.  2750  b 
 
 i.  25 iii.  2394  a.  £f. 
 
 ii  1 i.  320  a 
 
 ii.  2-30 iv.  3461  a 
 
 ii  3 iii.  2273  a 
 
 ii.  17.  ...iii.  1942b,  2491  b 
 
 ii  24 iii.  2394  a.  ff. 
 
 ii.  26 iii.  2491b 
 
 ii.  30 iii.  2491b 
 
 iii. 2 i.  485  b 
 
 iii.  2,3 i.  46)  a,  iii. 
 
 2491  b 
 
 iii.  8 i.  628  a 
 
 iii.  12, 13 i.l31b 
 
 iii.  12-14 i.  866  a,  b 
 
 iii.  14 iii. 2.575b 
 
 iii.  19 iv.  2863  a 
 
 iii.  20 i.  489  a 
 
 iii.  20,  21 iv.  28.57  b 
 
 iv.  2,3 ii  1727  b 
 
 iv.  3 i.  783  a,  ii.  1703 
 
 a,  iii.  2278  a,  2492  a,  n., 
 2493  a,  «.,iv.  3583  a 
 
 iv.  14-16 iv.  3225  b 
 
 iv.  15 iv.  3253  b 
 
 iv.  22. .  .i.  338  b,  iv.  3116  a 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 i.  16 iii.  2688  a 
 
 i.  20 ii.  18>*0b 
 
 i.  27 i.  239  a 
 
 ii.  1 i.  481b 
 
 ii.  2.  ...i.  239  a,  iii.  2047  a 
 
 ii.  !< iii.  2511  b 
 
 ii.  8,20 i.  695  b 
 
 ii   10 iii.  2588  a 
 
 ii.  11 i.  237  a 
 
 ii.  12 i.240a.  b 
 
 ii.  14,15 iii.  2587  b 
 
 ii   16 ii  1679  a 
 
 ii.l8 i.  481b 
 
 iii.  2 iv.  2863  a 
 
 iii.  6 iii.201'ib 
 
 iii.  11 ii.  1389  a 
 
 iii.  15 1.865  a 
 
 iii.  22 i.  796  b 
 
 iv,  7,  9 iii.  2483  b 
 
 iv.  10.. i.  l&4b,iv.  3057a 
 
 iv.  14 iii.  2493  a 
 
 iv.  16 ii.  1^95  a 
 
 iv.l7  .ii.l596a,iii.  24S3a 
 
 1  THES3AL0NIANS. 
 
 i.ii.  2 i.  280  a 
 
 IT  3 ii   1003  b 
 
 iv.  12 ii.l085a 
 
 iv.  15 iii.  2675  a 
 
 2  XHESSALONIANS. 
 
 ii   1-12 iv.  3228  b,f. 
 
 ii.  5 i    1113  b 
 
 ii.  6 i.UOa 
 
 ii.  16 iv.  3316  b 
 
 iii.  17 i.  758  b 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 1  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i.  4 i.  808  b.  iv.  3257  b 
 
 i.  8 , '.iv.  3257  b 
 
 i.  In ii.  1008  b 
 
 i.  12 i.  732  a 
 
 i.  13 ii.  1494  a 
 
 i.  19,20 i.  788  b 
 
 i  20 ii.  1111a 
 
 ii.  7 ii.  1044  a,  1347  b 
 
 ii  9.  ...i.  328  b,  ii.  982,  a, 
 iv.  5:942  b 
 
 iii.  1-12 iv.  3461a 
 
 iii.  1-13 iv.  3257  a,  b 
 
 iii.  2.  ...i.  el0b,iv.  3.546a 
 
 ill.  2,  12 iii.  1802  a 
 
 iii.  3 iv.  3545  a 
 
 iii.  4 ii.  1085  a 
 
 iii.  6 iv.  2848 
 
 iii.  8-18 iii.  1943  a 
 
 iii.  13 i  579  b 
 
 iii.  16 i.  239  a 
 
 iii.  18 iii.  2126  b 
 
 iv.  1-7.  .i.  808  b, iii.  2511  b 
 
 iv.  8 i.  866  b 
 
 iv.  14 i.  311a 
 
 iv.  15 ii.  1516a 
 
 V.  3-1 1 i.  573  b 
 
 V.  4 iii.  2526  b.iv. 
 
 3057  b 
 
 V.  8 ii.  1138  a 
 
 V.  9 1.  578  b,  iii.  1802a 
 
 V.  10 iv.  3486a 
 
 V.  11 iv.  3538  a 
 
 V.  17 iv.  3136  a 
 
 V.22 i.311  a 
 
 V.  23 iii.  2210  b..  iv. 
 
 3545  a 
 
 vi.  12 i.  241a,  865  a 
 
 vi.  20 iii.  2511  b,  iv. 
 
 2864  a,  3257  b 
 
 2  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i.ll ...ii.  1044a 
 
 i.l3 i.241a 
 
 i.  16 i.  311a,  407  b 
 
 i.  16-18 iv.  3258  b 
 
 i.  18 iii.  2253  b 
 
 ii.  5...    .i.  865  a,  iii.  1830b 
 
 ii.  8 ii.  1696  b 
 
 ii.  11 iii.  2561  a 
 
 ii.  16-18 iii.  2511  b 
 
 ii.  17,18 ii.  1111  a 
 
 ii.l8 iv.3257b 
 
 iii. 3 iv.  3325b 
 
 iii.  8 i.  124  b,ii.  1506b 
 
 iii.  8,9 ii.  1746  b 
 
 iii.  10,  11 ii.  1705  a 
 
 iii.  11 ii.  1701a 
 
 iii.  12 iv.  3538  a 
 
 iii.  16 iv.  2873  b 
 
 iv.  7,  8 i.  865a.,  i.  867a 
 
 iv.  10 i.  854  b.iv. 
 
 3258  b 
 iv.  13 i.  624  a,  iii. 
 
 2394  a,  n.,iv.  32.59  a 
 
 iv.  14 i.  490  b 
 
 iv.  14,15 iv.  8259  a 
 
 iv.  16 ii.  1693  b 
 
 iv.  17 i.  865  a 
 
 iv.  18 ii.  1541b 
 
 iv.  20 iii.  193  ib,  iv. 
 
 3259  a 
 iv.  21 i.  470  a 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 i.  6 i.610b 
 
 ii.  3 iv.  3546  a 
 
 ii.  7 ii.  1086  a 
 
 ii.  14 iv.  2862  a 
 
 iii.  5 i.  238  a 
 
 iii.  9 i.  441  a 
 
 iii.  12 i.  167  a 
 
 PHILEMON. 
 
 1 iii.  2483  b 
 
 1,2 ii. 1696b 
 
 2..-. i.  129  b,  149  b 
 
 7,12,  20 i.  320  a 
 
 8 i.489a 
 
 9 i.  39  b 
 
 11,13 i.  759  a 
 
 14,21 iii.  2484  b 
 
 19 i.  759  a,  iii.  2483  a 
 
 22 i.  481b 
 
 24 iii.  2493  a 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 i.  2-8 ii.  1384  a 
 
 i.6 i.  310  a 
 
 i.  7 iv.  3541  a 
 
 i.  9 i.  Idla 
 
 ii.  2 ii.l5C6b 
 
 ii.  10 i.  384  b 
 
 ii.  12 ii.  1376  b,n. 
 
 iv.  2 iii.  2674  b 
 
 iv.  8 ii.  1476  b,  1477  a 
 
 iv.  8-10 iv.  2766  a 
 
 iv.  9 ii.  1680  a 
 
 iv.  15 ii.  1384  b 
 
 vi.  1,2 i.  243  a 
 
 vi.  2 i.   311  a 
 
 vi.  4 i.   238  b 
 
 vi.9 ii.  1102  b 
 
 vi.  16 i.   589  a 
 
 vi.  19 iv    3005  b 
 
 vii.l9 ii.   1609  b 
 
 vii.  26 ii.  1384  b 
 
 ix.  4.  .1.  77  b,  155  b.  403  b 
 
 ix.  5 i.  420  b 
 
 ix.  7 iv.  3050  b 
 
 ix.  11 i.  65a 
 
 ix  16,17 i.  508  b,  iv. 
 
 8213  b 
 
 ix.  23 iii.  2362  a 
 
 X.19j29 ii.  1379  a 
 
 X.  22 ii.   1683  a 
 
 X.  23 iii.  2127  b,n. 
 
 X.  26 ii.  1677  a 
 
 X.  26 iv.  3050  b 
 
 X.  28 iii.  2641  b 
 
 X.  32 i.238  b 
 
 X.  83 i.  865  a 
 
 X.  38 iv.  3436  b,  n. 
 
 xi.  24 ii.  1606  b 
 
 xi.  24-26 iii.  2464  a 
 
 xi.28 iii.  2354  a 
 
 xi.33,  34 iv    29.39  a 
 
 xi.  36 i.  88  b,  n. 
 
 xi.87 ii.  1258  b.  iv. 
 
 3317  a 
 xii.  l..i.865a,  iv.  3216  a 
 
 xii.1,2 i.866a 
 
 xii.  28 iv.  3185  a,  n. 
 
 xiii.  12 ii.   1686  a 
 
 xiii.  7 ii.  1207  b,  iv. 
 
 31.36  a 
 
 xiii.  12 i    733  a 
 
 xiii.  18 ii.  1085  a 
 
 xiii.  23 iv.  3254  b 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 i.l. 
 
 i.ll iv.3540b 
 
 ii.  2 iv.  2734  a 
 
 ii.  14-26 ii.  1209  a 
 
 iii.  4...ii.  964  b,  iv.  3007  a 
 
 iii.  7 iv   2932  b 
 
 iv.  6-10 ii    1151b 
 
 iv.  13 ii.  1792  b 
 
 V.  2 i.  625  a 
 
 V.  3 iv.  2754  b 
 
 V.  14,  15 ii.  1209  b 
 
 V.  17 ii.  1506  b 
 
 1  PETER, 
 i.  1.  ...i.  387  a,  ii.  1442  a 
 
 i.  10-12 iii.  2599  b 
 
 i.  14 iv.8050  b 
 
 i,  17 i.  787  a 
 
 i.  18,19 iv.  2861b,  ii. 
 
 1384  b 
 
 ii.  2 iii.  2484  a,  ji. 
 
 ii.  6 ii    1666  b 
 
 ii.  16 ii.  1684  b,  «. 
 
 ii.22 ii.  1384  b 
 
 ii.  24 iv.  2860  b,  2861 
 
 a,  3321  b 
 
 iii.  3 ii.  982  a 
 
 iii.  5 iv.  2785  b 
 
 iii.  11 i.  743  b,  762  b 
 
 iii.  18 ii.  1384  b 
 
 iii.  19 ii.  1088  b,  iii. 
 
 2674  b 
 iii.  20 iii.  2126  b 
 
 iii.  21 i.  236  b,  241a 
 
 iv.  17 ii.  1416  b 
 
 V.  1 ii.   1442  a 
 
 V.  5-9 ii.  1151  b 
 
 T.  13 iv.  2761  a 
 
 2  PETER. 
 
 i.  1 ii.  1442  a,  iv. 
 
 .3044  b 
 
 i.  1-11 iii.  24.58a,  n. 
 
 i.  14 ii.  1427  b 
 
 i.  15 iii.  2u25  a 
 
 1.  16 i.  808  b 
 
 i.  20 iv.2874a 
 
 ii.  1 iv.  29ul  » 
 
 ii.3 i.  533  a 
 
 ii.  4 iv  2848  b 
 
 ii.  5 ii.  1044  a 
 
 ii.  6-9 ii.  1686  a 
 
 ii   13 ii.  1682  a,  n. 
 
 ii.  16 i.  223,  226  b,  iii. 
 
 2146  b,  n. 
 
 iii. 2 i.303a 
 
 iii.  16 ii.  1023  a 
 
 iii.  16 i.  803  a 
 
 iii.  18 iii.  2458  a,  n. 
 
 1  .lOIIN. 
 
 ii.l6 ii.  1350  b 
 
 ii.  18 i.  108  b 
 
 ii.  20 i.244a,  b 
 
 ii.  28 ii.  1440  a,  b 
 
 ii.  29 ii.  1384  b 
 
 iii.  5,  7 ii.  1384  b 
 
 iii.  9-12 iv.  2848  b 
 
 iv.  2,  8 iv.  3311b 
 
 iv.3 i.l03b 
 
 iv.  9 ii.  1880  b 
 
 V.  6 i.  235  b 
 
 V,  7,  8 ii.  1440  a,  b, 
 
 iii.  2129  b,  2130  b,  2134 
 b,  n. 
 
 V.  8 i.  235  b 
 
 V.  16 i.  815  b 
 
 2  JOHN. 
 
 12 iv.  3675  a,  3576  a 
 
 8  JOHN. 
 
 10 i.  789a 
 
 13 iv.  3676  b,  3576  a 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 5 iv.  3538  a 
 
 K iv.  2848  b 
 
 9 i.  124  b,  iii.  2026  a 
 
 12.  ...i  471b,ii.l682a,  n 
 23 ii.  1684  a 
 
 REVELATION. 
 
 i.  2 ii.  1428  b 
 
 i.  8 i.  73b 
 
 i.  10 ii.  1676  a,  f. 
 
 i.  13 ii.  1069  b 
 
 i.  14 ii.  981b 
 
 i.  15.  ...i.  323  a,  490  b,  iii. 
 1909  b 
 
 i.  20 iv.  3136  b 
 
 ii.l iv.  3136  b 
 
 ii.  1-7 iv.  3255  a 
 
 ii.  9 iv.  8064  a 
 
 ii.  14 i.  227  b 
 
 ii.  17 ii.  1100  b,  iii. 
 
 2068  a, iv.  3117  a 
 
 ii.  18... ii.  1703  a,  iii.  1909 
 
 b,iv.  8242  a 
 
 ii.  20 ii.  1390  b 
 
 ii.  20,21 iv.  3242  a 
 
 iii.  7 ii.  1582  b 
 
 iii.  8 iii.  2482  b 
 
 iii.  12 iii.  2063  a 
 
 iii.  14 i.82a 
 
 iii.  18 !.  101a 
 
 iv.  3 i.  478  a 
 
 iv.  7 ii.  1424  b 
 
 iv.  7,  8 iv.  2961a 
 
 iv.8 iv.  2927  a 
 
 V.  1 iv.  3675  b 
 
 V.  8 i.  518  b 
 
 V.  9 iv.  8445  a 
 
 Vi.  1,8,5,  7 i.  423  a 
 
 vi.2.  ...i.  179  a,  ii.  1093  a 
 
INDEX. 
 
 vi.  4 i.  479  a 
 
 Ti.  8 i-  478  a 
 
 yii.  3 i.  522  a,  837  a 
 
 vii.  9 iii.  2325  b 
 
 viii.  1 ii.  llSrtb 
 
 viii.  3,  4, i.  403  b 
 
 viii.  13 iv.  2934  b 
 
 ix.  1,  2 iii-  2536  a 
 
 ix.  1,2,11 1.  579a,b 
 
 ix.  4 i-  837  a 
 
 ix.  7 1.  597  b 
 
 ix.8 ii.y82b 
 
 ix.  11     i.  127  a 
 
 xi.  5 iv.  3538  a 
 
 xii.  1 iii.  2008  b 
 
 xii.  3 i.  479  a,  597  b 
 
 xii.  7,  9 iv.  2848  b 
 
 xiii.  1 i-  597  b 
 
 xiii.5  iv.  2935  b 
 
 xiii.  11 i.  109  a 
 
 xiii.  1(5 i.  522  a 
 
 xiii.  16,  17 i.  837  a 
 
 xiii.  18 iv.  3081  a.  h. 
 
 xiv.  1 i.  837  a 
 
 xiv.  4 iii.  2356  a 
 
 xiv.  9 i.  837  « 
 
 xiv.  10. . 
 XV.  2,  3. . 
 XV.  7 
 
 xvi.  2.  . . 
 xvi.  14.  . , 
 xvii.  5.  .  . 
 xvii.  6.  . . 
 xviii.  2  .  . 
 .xviii.  12. 
 xviii.  13. 
 
 xix 
 
 xix.  1-6. 
 
 iv.  3542  b 
 
 iii.  2023  a 
 
 ...i.  518  b,iv. 
 3445  a 
 
 i.  518b 
 
 ii.  1243  b 
 
 .i.  522  a,  837  a 
 
 iii.  1811a 
 
 i.  340  b 
 
 iv.  3035  b 
 
 i.  85  b 
 
 ii.  1417  a 
 
 i.  67  b 
 
 3667 
 
 xix.  8,  14 ii.  1662  b 
 
 xix.  11,14 ii.  1093  a 
 
 xix.  12 i.  597  b 
 
 xix.  20 i.  109  a,  522  a 
 
 XX.  4 i.  837  a 
 
 XX.  13 ii.  lOS'^  a 
 
 xxi.  3 iv.-298l  a 
 
 xxi.  11,  19-21... ii.  1067  a 
 
 xxi.  21 iv.  3123  a 
 
 xxii.  2 iv.  2993  a 
 
 xxii.  3,  4 ii.  1246  a 
 
 xxii.  4 i.  837  a 
 
 xxii.  13 i.  73» 
 
^€M^- 
 
 >:."  ,3*   n 
 
 ^^m, 
 
 'i:^m 
 
 ^.:'^^M 
 
 ^';-^:v^.ft.U,